Jun 10, 2026 Board of Adjustment

ONE. GOOD MORNING. WELCOME TO THE JUNE 10TH MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

[00:00:07]

SO WELCOME. OKAY. SO I GUESS THE FIRST THING WE HAVE TO DO IS TAKE ATTENDANCE.

[ATTENDANCE]

CHAIR MIRMELLLI IS ABSENT. SO MISS SILVERMAN IS PRESENT.

HERE. AND SHE'LL BE ACTING AS THE VICE CHAIR TODAY.

SHE'S THE VICE CHAIR, SO SHE'LL BE ACTING AS THE CHAIR OF THE MEETING TODAY. MR. CINNAMON. PRESENT. MR. FELLIG. HERE. MR. KREINIK.

HERE. MR. NAGLER. PRESENT. MR. SILVERS. HERE.

WE HAVE 6 OF 7 MEMBERS PRESENT. WE DO HAVE A QUORUM.

AND FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE TODAY, WE DO NEED 5 AFFIRMATIVE VOTES FOR ANY VARIANCES TODAY? YEAH. AND WITH THAT IN MIND, I WANT TO MAKE ONE ADMINISTRATIVE POINT.

SO ONE OF OUR MEMBERS IS GOING TO HAVE TO STEP OUT FOR A BUSINESS URGENT BUSINESS MATTER THAT CAN'T BE DELAYED.

AND SO BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY 6 TODAY AND WE WOULD NEED 5 WHICH WOULD THEN BE 100% OF THE PANEL TO APPROVE ANYTHING.

WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ABOUT A 10 OR 15 MINUTE RECESS WHILE HE STEPS OUT AND THEN CONTINUE THE MEETING AFTER THAT.

SO THAT'S JUST FOR EVERYBODY'S INFORMATION. OKAY.

SO NEXT, ANY CITY UPDATES THAT WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT?

[CITY ATTORNEY UPDATES]

INDIVIDUALS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM MUST CLICK THE RAISE HAND ICON IF USING ZOOM OR DIAL STAR NINE.

IF PARTICIPATING BY PHONE BEFORE I SWEAR ON THOSE WHO ARE TESTIFYING, I'M GOING TO READ INTO THE RECORD THE CITY'S NOTICE REGARDING LOBBYIST REGISTRATION.

IF YOU ARE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF A BUSINESS, A CORPORATION, OR ANOTHER PERSON, INCLUDING AS AN ATTORNEY OR REPRESENTATIVE OF AN APPLICANT OR AN OBJECTOR, YOU NEED TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE SPEAKING TO THE BOARD.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO REGISTER IF YOU ARE SPEAKING ONLY ON BEHALF OF YOURSELF AND NOT ANY OTHER PARTY.

YOU ARE TESTIFYING AS AN EXPERT WITNESS, PROVIDING ONLY SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL OR OTHER SPECIALIZED INFORMATION, OR YOU ARE APPEARING AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHOUT COMPENSATION TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR OR OPPOSITION TO ANY ITEM.

EXPERT WITNESSES AND REPRESENTATIVES OF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS SHALL, PRIOR TO APPEARING, DISCLOSE IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK THEIR NAME, ADDRESS AND THE PRINCIPAL ON WHOSE BEHALF THEY ARE COMMUNICATING.

THESE RULES APPLY. WHETHER YOU ARE APPEARING IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST AN ITEM, OR ENCOURAGING OR ARGUING AGAINST ITS PASSAGE, DEFEAT, MODIFICATION OR CONTINUANCE. I WILL NOW SWEAR ON EVERYONE WHO IS PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS AND INTENDS TO TESTIFY.

[SWEARING IN OF PUBLIC]

IF YOU WILL BE GIVING TESTIMONY, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL BE GIVING IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO, THANK YOU. OKAY.

SO OUR COLLEAGUE DID STEP OUT, BUT WE'LL CONTINUE WITH SOME ADMINISTRATIVE THINGS AND THE REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE.

AND THEN IF HE'S STILL NOT AVAILABLE, THEN WE'LL WE'LL STOP FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

SO THE FIRST ITEM IS JUST TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING.

[1. AFTER ACTION REPORT – APRIL 10, 2026 ]

OKAY. SO WE TAKE A VOTE. MOTION BY. THAT WAS A MOTION BY MR. KREINIK, SECOND BY MR. FELLIG. OH, I APOLOGIZE, MR. SILVERS. OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. OKAY. SO I GUESS THE NEXT THING WE HAVE TO DO IS THERE'S A REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE.

[2. ZBA22-0143, 125-153 COLLINS AVENUE]

THIS IS ZBA 22-0143. IT'S FOR 125 THROUGH 153 COLLINS AVENUE.

IT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL. BOTH INTERESTED PARTIES WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE.

THEY ARE STILL ACTIVELY NEGOTIATING A SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE 2 PARTIES.

THEY THINK THAT CAN BE ACHIEVED. SO THEY HAVE ACTUALLY REQUESTED THAT THE ITEM BE CONTINUED TO THE NOVEMBER 6TH MEETING. AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE UPDATE ON THAT ITEM. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING TO ASK OR KNOW ABOUT THIS IF THEY DON'T ALREADY KNOW.

THAT WAS A BIG THING. OKAY. OKAY. SO DO I HAVE A IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? MOTION TO CONTINUE. I'M SORRY. DO I HAVE TO ASK THE PUBLIC? YES. GO AHEAD. IF PUBLIC HEARING. IF ANYBODY'S ONLINE OR IN PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK, IF I IF I COULD BE ADDED

[00:05:04]

SO NO PUBLIC. NO. NO ONE FROM THE PUBLIC IS HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS.

NO ONE IN THE ROOM? NO. ANYBODY ON THE DAIS? OKAY.

SO THEN DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONTINUANCE.

THANK YOU. SECOND. OKAY. MOTION BY MR. KREINIK AND SECOND BY MR. SIMON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES.

OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM THAT WE HAVE ON THE AGENDA IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL.

[3. ZBA24-0161, 605 LINCOLN ROAD UNIT 800RF]

GOOD MORNING. FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS CARTER MCDOWELL.

I'M SORRY. ONE SECOND PLEASE. DO WE WANT TO PAUSE AND WAIT FOR DAN TO COME BACK, OR.

I'M GOING TO REQUEST THAT THIS MATTER BE CONTINUED.

SO. OKAY. I THINK YOU CAN PROBABLY DO IT WITH WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU.

OKAY. THANK YOU. MEMBERS HERE. MY NAME IS CARTER MCDOWELL.

I'M WITH BILLS AND SUNDBERG. WE OUR FIRM HAS WITHDRAWN.

I FORGOT TO READ THE CASE NUMBER. LET ME READ THAT FIRST AND THEN. I'LL SO THIS IS ZBA 24-0161 AT 605 LINCOLN ROAD, UNIT 800 RF. THIS IS AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED APPEALING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR IN CONNECTION WITH ZONING INTERPRETATION LETTER ZONE 1-210 23-1191. REGARDING A DETERMINATION THAT ENTERTAINMENT IS NOT AN APPROVED USE FOR THE ROOF DECK PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 605 LINCOLN ROAD.

THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 292 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.

SO WITH THAT AGAIN, MY NAME IS CARTER MCDOWELL WITH BILLS AND SUNDBERG.

WE FILED THE APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF UPPER UPPER DECK LLC, THE APPLICANT.

BUT WE HAVE WITHDRAWN FROM THIS MATTER RECENTLY AND THEREFORE WE ARE HERE TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE.

YOU'RE GOING TO, I THINK, HAVE A SHORT BOARD ANYWAY, BUT WE WOULD REQUEST THAT THIS MATTER BE CONTINUED, NOT TILL THE NEXT MEETING, BUT ONE MEETING AFTER TO ALLOW OUR CLIENT OR FORMER CLIENT TO TIME TO HIRE NEW COUNSEL AND TO GET UP TO SPEED.

THE AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS CARRIED ON FOR A WHILE BECAUSE THERE'S LITIGATION BETWEEN ONE OF THE OTHER CONDO OWNERS.

WELL, THE ASSOCIATION AND ONE OF THE OTHER CONDO OWNERS WITHIN THE BUILDING.

AND IT'S REALLY A COMPLICATED RECORD FOR SOMEONE TO COME INTO AND GET UP TO SPEED ON.

AND THEREFORE, THAT'S OUR REQUEST. WE'RE NOT PREPARED TO GO FORWARD.

WE'RE NOT HERE FOR THE HEARING ITSELF SIMPLY TO REQUEST THE CONTINUANCE.

SO YOU'RE STILL TECHNICALLY REPRESENT THE CLIENT.

ONLY FOR THE MATTER ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE.

WE DO NOT OTHERWISE REPRESENT THE CLIENT. ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS? HELLO. GOOD MORNING. I'M THE APPLICANT. MY NAME IS GERALD BUENO.

I CAME IN PERSON TO TELL YOU THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS CONTINUANCE.

THE REASON WHY IS AS EXPLAINED BY MY FORMER ATTORNEY CURRENT FOR THIS MORNING IT'S A COMPLICATED MATTER.

AS YOU MAY KNOW, THE ASSOCIATION AND HIS LAWYER ARE HERE TODAY AND THE MATTER IS, THE REASON WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY IS BECAUSE OF THEM.

THEY HAVE INITIATED THE REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR.

AND FROM THAT ASPECT, WE HAD TO DISCONTINUE OUR OPERATION AND THEREFORE ASK FOR A FULL INTERPRETATION AND MOVING FORWARD. BEING HERE. THE REASON WHY IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO.

END OUR LITIGATION BEFORE A DECISION IS MADE BY THIS BOARD IS BECAUSE WHATEVER IS GOING TO BE DECIDED TODAY COULD BE USED EVENTUALLY AGAINST US. SO IT'S EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR US THAT LITIGATION FIRST ENDS.

AND THEN WE ARE IN A POSITION THAT TO CONTINUE PRESENTING YOU THE REASON WHY WE BELIEVE THE INTERPRETATION MADE BY THE ZONING DIRECTOR IS INCORRECT, BUT WE WOULD RATHER DO THAT OBVIOUSLY, WHEN OUR LITIGATION IS OVER.

YES. WHAT GIVES YOU THE IMPRESSION THAT WITHIN 2 MONTHS YOUR LITIGATION IS GOING TO END.

WE HAVE A CURRENT SETTLEMENT IN PLACE AND THERE IS A MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT.

WE HAVE A 1 POINT THAT WE DISAGREE WITH THE ASSOCIATION.

[00:10:03]

AND THEREFORE WE ARE GOING TO GO IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS POINT IS RIGHTLY ADDRESSED.

AND WE HAVE A STILL A STRONG SENSE OF SETTLEMENT BECAUSE EVERYTHING ELSE IS AGREED UPON.

REGARDING THE, THE OTHER CLAIMS WITH THE OTHER CONDO OWNERS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS WITH THIS SUBJECT TODAY, BUT I CANNOT GUARANTEE YOU THAT IN 2 MONTHS IT WILL BE RESOLVED.

BUT I CAN GUARANTEE YOU IN TWO MONTHS I WILL HAVE PROPER REPRESENTATION.

AND IF WE NEED TO PRESENT OUR ARGUMENT WILL BE MOST PROBABLY PREPARED FOR DOING SO.

AND SO THAT'S TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. THAT'S WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

WE INTEND TO END THIS LITIGATION. WE HAVE BEEN LASTING FOR 3 YEARS.

OUR GOAL IS NOT TO CONTINUE IT FOREVER BECAUSE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT DURING THAT TIME, I CANNOT USE MY PROPERTY, I CANNOT DO ANYTHING WITH IT. AND AND OBVIOUSLY IT'S VERY YOU KNOW, NOT A FUN PROCESS TO BE IN THE MIDDLE OF LITIGATION.

SO THAT'S THE SITUATION. AND, AND OBVIOUSLY, SO IN FULL DISCLOSURE, THE SETTLEMENT INCLUDE THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY.

SO IT WILL ALSO CREATE A NICE ABOUT THIS THIS APPEAL.

BUT UNTIL THIS IS DONE, WE DON'T KNOW. OKAY. THANK YOU.

CAN I ASK THE COURT IS THERE A MEETING IN AUGUST? WE DO NOT HAVE A MEETING IN AUGUST. IF THEY DO NOT CONTINUE TO JULY, THE NEXT MEETING WOULD BE IN SEPTEMBER.

AND JUST INFORMATION. WHEN'S THE JULY MEETING? I BELIEVE JULY, JULY 10TH, I THINK. SO IT'S NOT EVEN A FULL MONTH.

YOU GOT THE HOLIDAY. YOU'VE GOT THE HOLIDAY BEFORE THAT MEETING THAT I, YOU KNOW, ANY ANY NEW COUNCIL REALLY IS GOING TO NEED TIME TO GET UP TO SPEED, I PROMISE. THIS GOES BACK TO WHEN RICHARD LORBER WAS THE PLANNING DIRECTOR BEFORE TOM.

SO IT'S A COMPLICATED RECORD. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO, NO. ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO SPEAK FROM THE PUBLIC? YEAH. YEAH. CARTER, IF YOU NEED THIS. YEAH. GOOD MORNING, MICKEY MARRERO.

BURKE. HOWARD L FERNANDEZ. LARKIN AND HAPPINESS, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD. I'M THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE ASSOCIATION WITH [INAUDIBLE] J. CHAVEZ, THE PROPERTY MANAGER. I VERY MUCH RESPECT MR. MCDOWELL. NORMALLY, FOR A CONTINUANCE WHEN IT'S SOMETHING ADMINISTRATIVE, LIKE CHANGE OF COUNSEL, I NORMALLY IT'S OFTEN IN HIS SHOES. I NORMALLY WOULD NOT OBJECT TO THIS TYPE OF CONTINUANCE. THIS IS REALLY A UNIQUE CASE.

THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR OVER TWO YEARS AT THIS POINT. AND REQUESTING A 2 MONTH CONTINUANCE IS REALLY 90 DAYS, AS YOU POINTED OUT, BECAUSE THERE'S NO AUGUST MEETING THE ASSOCIATION WHILE THERE IS LITIGATION, WE YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO TERMS OF IT, BUT SOME OF IT WAS MENTIONED BEFORE.

WE DID NOT OBJECT TO THE CONTINUANCE LAST MONTH.

WE OBJECTED TO THE 2 PRIOR BECAUSE, AGAIN, THE ASSOCIATION JUST WANTS THIS RESOLVED, AND WE WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT A SETTLEMENT WAS ON THE VERGE OF BEING ENTERED INTO IN JUNE. I'M SORRY. IN MAY. NOW WE'RE BACK HERE.

SOME OF THAT HAS, YOU KNOW, HAS FALLEN APART A LITTLE BIT.

HOPEFULLY IT DOES GET SETTLED. BUT THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.

AND IF ANY, IF THEY HAVE ANY RELATION, WE SEE IT AS THIS IS A PREDICATE TO THAT.

SO WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS HAS TO WAIT FOR THE LITIGATION TO RESOLVE ITSELF IF IT RESOLVES ITSELF.

AT THIS POINT, THERE IS NO SETTLEMENT BASED ON, YOU KNOW, THE CURRENT SITUATION.

AND THIS MAY BE GOING TO TRIAL, BUT THIS IS A SEPARATE THING.

THIS IS ESSENTIALLY AND THE THE ASSERTION BY BY THE APPLICANT THAT WE INITIATED THIS IS JUST INCORRECT.

THIS WAS INITIATED BY A REQUEST FROM THEM TO GET AN INTERPRETATION FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR THAT ENTERTAINMENT IS.

JW ENTERTAINMENT IS PERMITTED AS OF RIGHT ON THAT ROOFTOP.

YOU KNOW, NOT TO GET INTO THE TERMS, BUT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WE CAN GET INTO THAT IF WE IF WE GO FORWARD.

BUT THAT'S. AND THEN THERE THEM GETTING THE RESPONSE THEY DIDN'T WANT ON THAT REQUEST RESULTED IN THEIR APPEALING.

MR. MOONEY'S DECISION. THAT'S THAT WE'RE RESPONDING TO THAT.

WE DID NOT INITIATE THAT. YOU KNOW, WE BELIEVE IT'S WELL SETTLED THAT THAT IT'S NOT PERMITTED, BUT THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE. SO THE ASSOCIATION HAS BEEN SORT OF HELD HOSTAGE WAITING MONTH AFTER MONTH FOR THIS THING TO GET RESOLVED.

WE BELIEVE THAT THE DECISION HERE WILL IMPACT THE USE OF THAT BUILDING.

IT'S A HISTORIC BUILDING, YOU KNOW, 100 YEARS OLD.

AND AND WE REALLY, YOU KNOW, WANT IT RESOLVED.

SO NORMALLY, I WOULDN'T OBJECT TO A CONTINUANCE HERE.

I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS CONTINUANCE. THIS WOULD NOT BE THE THIRD COUNSEL ON THIS MATTER FOR THIS CASE OR IN OVER TWO YEARS WE'VE BEEN MONITORING THIS MONTH AFTER MONTH IN TOUCH WITH

[00:15:07]

THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION. IF IT'S THE APPLICANT OR YOUR LAWYER, IF YOU DIDN'T GET THE CONTINUANCE TODAY, JUST FOR EXAMPLE, YOU'RE NOT A LAWYER OF RECORD ON OTHER MATTERS OTHER THAN ASKING FOR THE CONTINUANCE. SO THERE WOULD BE NOBODY HERE TO POTENTIALLY ARGUE FOR THE.

AND I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU NOT DO THAT.

THANK YOU. AND ONE OTHER QUESTION. IS THERE THE DISPUTE IS OVER WHETHER OR NOT MUSIC CAN BE PLAYED ON THE ROOF.

RIGHT. I KNOW WE'RE NOT GETTING INTO THAT, BUT. OR ENTERTAINMENT MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT.

LET ME JUST ASK THIS IS THAT IS NOT GOING ON RIGHT NOW.

IT IS NOT GOING ON. OKAY. THERE IS ZERO ACTIVITY FOR THE LAST 2 YEARS.

THE THE SPACE THAT THE CLIENT OWNS HAS BEEN VACANT OR UNUSED FOR THE WHOLE TIME OF THIS PROCEEDING.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SO SO THE URGENCY IS THAT THE ATTORNEY IS REFERRING IS NON-EXISTENT.

AND AND THE AND REGARDING THE INITIATION WITHOUT GOING INTO DETAILS, THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE INITIATED WITH REGARDING ONE SPECIFIC EVENT, IT'S IN EMAIL. IT'S PUBLIC RECORD.

SO THERE IS NO CONTEST WITH THAT. OKAY. DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING VERY QUICKLY? I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THERE IS A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASE THAT WE'VE BEEN CONTINUING.

IT'S RELATED TO A KILL SWITCH FOR THE MUSIC. WHETHER OR NOT HOW THIS IS RESOLVED WOULD DICTATE WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED THAT ITEM.

AND IT'S A VIOLATION AGAINST THE ASSOCIATION.

WE'VE CONTINUED IT BASED ON THE RESOLUTION OF THIS MATTER.

AT THE LAST SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING, AFTER 2 YEARS OF CONTINUING IT, THEY TOLD US NO MORE CONTINUANCES.

SO WE'RE I THINK IT'S LIKE IN OCTOBER, IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT RESOLVED, THEY'RE GOING TO BE.

THERE'S GOING TO BE A FINE AGAINST THE ASSOCIATION. SO AGAIN, IT'S. I UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT BEING USED TODAY, BUT THERE IS SOME URGENCY.

YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION THEY'RE IN, BUT IT'S BEEN 2 YEARS.

AND YOU NEED TO FOR THIS TO BE RESOLVED BEFORE THAT COULD BE RESOLVED.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? THE REASON, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD NEED THIS RESOLVED IS BECAUSE THE VIOLATIONS, IF THERE IS THAT ENTERTAINMENT AND THAT MUSIC ON THE ROOF, THERE'S A KILL SWITCH REQUIRED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES.

IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT ACTIVITY ON THE ROOF, WE DON'T NEED THE SAME TYPE OF KILL SWITCH. SO AND IT'S AN EXPENSIVE EXPENSIVE IMPROVEMENT.

SO WE'VE BEEN CONTINUING IT BASED ON THE RESOLUTION OF THIS. SO THAT'S IN OCTOBER.

SO IF THIS WAS IN FACT HEARD IN SEPTEMBER, IT WOULD MEET THAT TIMELINE.

WELL JUST JUST GIVE US ENOUGH TIME TO GET IT PERMITTED AND CONSTRUCTED. BUT I SUPPOSE WE COULD ASK FOR ANOTHER CONTINUANCE FROM THE MAGISTRATE. THEY'VE TOLD US NO MORE CONTINUANCES. BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE IS. WE JUST CAN'T GO ON FOREVER.

AND IT'S BEEN KIND OF FEELS LIKE FOREVER AT THIS POINT. OKAY.

IF I MAY, I KNOW VERY MUCH ABOUT THIS SITUATION.

SO WE HAD THE SAME VIOLATION AT THE SAME TIME, AND IT'S BEEN RESOLVED ON OUR SIDE WITHOUT HAVING ANY INVOLVEMENT FROM YOUR SIDE.

SO I MAY ALSO CONTEST WHAT THE OTHER ATTORNEY IS SAYING.

IT'S SIMPLY CO-MINGLED THINGS THAT DOESN'T AFFECT IT'S A MATTER OF A PERMIT TO RESOLVE SOME VIOLATION.

WE WILL RESOLVE THEM. THEY DIDN'T. OKAY. AND THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO.

OKAY. YOU'RE NOT HELPING YOURSELF. IS THERE ANY HANDS RAISED ON ONLINE? ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ONLINE. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

NOPE. NO HANDS RAISED. DO WE WANT TO CONSIDER DOES ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE.

DOES THE OR DOES ANYBODY ON THE BOARD HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

DOES THE CITY HAVE ANY VIEW ON THIS? THE CITY IS READY TO PROCEED.

HOWEVER WE ARE WE DO NOT OBJECT TO A CONTINUANCE.

WE'RE OKAY IF THE BOARD WISHES TO CONTINUE TO A LATER DATE. AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT I'VE BEEN PRESENT IN MY 2 AND A HALF YEARS FOR A POTENTIAL APPEAL.

I MEAN, I MEAN, WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION IN OUR PACKAGE, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDING WHAT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR DECIDED.

I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WOULD BE AN OBVIOUS RECOMMENDATION, BUT OKAY.

I'LL LEAVE IT OPEN IF ANYONE ELSE HAS QUESTIONS. ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY. SO DOES ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE OR TO NOT? I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE TO JULY 10TH AND LET THEM GIVE US AN UPDATE THEN, AND WE COULD FURTHER DECIDE IF.

OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION. TO CONTINUE TO JULY 10TH MEETING.

I HAVE A MOTION TO JULY 10TH. SECOND. OKAY. I HAVE A SECOND.

[00:20:01]

IT DOES NOT. THANK YOU. SO SORRY. DO WE WANT TO TAKE A BRIEF RECESS? I'LL STEP OUT AND SEE WHERE DAN IS IN HIS CALL, AND WE'LL RESUME IN A FEW MINUTES.

THAT WORKS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OKAY. HI. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO TAKE A BRIEF BREAK. SO DO WE WANT TO TEE UP THE NEXT, NEXT ITEM? YES. THE NEXT ITEM IS. THE NEXT ITEM IS ZBA 25-0177.

[4. ZBA25-0177, 3010 ALTON ROAD]

THE. THIS APPLICATION WAS PREVIOUSLY BEFORE THE BOARD, BUT IT'S BEEN CONTINUED.

IT WAS ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 6TH, 2026.

THAT MEETING WAS CANCELED. SO THE ITEM WAS CONTINUED TO APRIL. AND THEN THE ITEM WAS CONTINUED AGAIN IN MAY.

AND THEN IN MAY IT WAS DISCUSSED AND CONTINUED TO TO THIS MEETING.

THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED PLANS DESIGNED BY JOSE POLANCO DATED DECEMBER 2ND, 2025.

AND THEN THEY, THEY HAVE UPLOADED REVISED PLANS THAT THEY'LL BE PASSING OUT DATED MAY 30TH, 2026. SO THOSE WERE DONE JUST A FEW LAST WEEK.

SO THEY DID NOT GET A CHANCE TO MAKE THOSE INTO YOUR PACKET.

HOWEVER THEY'LL PASS OUT COPIES. THE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING 5 VARIANCES.

THE VARIANCES ARE A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF 30% TO ALLOW FOR A LOT COVERAGE OF 35.4%.

FOR THAT'S, THAT'S 2590FT² AND LEGALIZE TO LEGALIZE ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING HOUSE, A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM UNIT SIZE OF 50% TO ALLOW A UNIT SIZE OF 58.3%. AGAIN, TO LEGALIZE AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOUSE, A VARIANCE OF THE REQUIRED SIDE.

INTERIOR YARD SETBACK OF 7N FEET 6 INCHES TO LEGALIZE AN EXISTING ONE STORY DETACHED GUEST ROOM.

AND AND AND THE ADDITION TO THE MAIN HOUSE WITH A SIDE INTERIOR SETBACK OF 5 FEET 2 INCHES.

A VARIANCE OF THE REAR YARD. SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR TO ALLOW FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING.

WITH A SETBACK OF 7 FEET, 6 INCHES. AND THEN TO ALLOW FOR A CONDENSER UNIT WITH A SETBACK OF 3 FEET FROM THE REAR YARD.

EXCUSE ME. AND THEN A VARIANCE OF THE FRONT AND REAR YARD.

SODDED LANDSCAPED PERVIOUS OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW FOR ARTIFICIAL GRASS INSTALLATIONS TO BE LEGALIZED WHERE ARTIFICIAL GRASS IS NOT ALLOWED.

THE ARTIFICIAL GRASS HAS BEEN INSTALLED THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY.

HOWEVER, I'LL GET INTO A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ON THAT ONE. SO THE VARIANCES 1 THROUGH 4 ARE RELATED TO THE LEGALIZING OF ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS MADE TO THE HOUSE, INCLUDING A NEW BEDROOM ON THE WEST SIDE OF, ON THE WEST SIDE, AN ENCLOSURE OF AN OPEN PATIO ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE HOUSE, BOTH OF WHICH WERE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT PERMITS.

THE HOME. GIVEN THAT THE HOME WAS BUILT IN 1923, IT OFFERED LIMITED OPPORTUNITIES FOR EXPANSION.

THE COURTYARD AND SECOND LEVEL REPRESENTED PRACTICAL LOCATIONS FOR THOSE ADDITIONS.

ADDITIONALLY, STAFF REVIEWED HISTORICAL AERIALS AND NOTED THAT THE ACCESSORY GUEST HOUSE HAD BEEN IN EXISTENCE SINCE AT LEAST 1952.

THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED REVISED PLANS, INCLUDING UPDATED PHOTOS AND EXHIBITS AND PROVIDED CLARIFICATION REGARDING SOME INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN SOME OF THE EXHIBITS THAT WERE PRESENTED LAST TIME AND THIS TIME AND CLARIFIED SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE SAW PREVIOUSLY.

SO PREVIOUSLY IT LOOKED LIKE THAT ACCESSORY GUEST HOUSE HAD BEEN CONNECTED TO THE MAIN HOME.

IT APPEARS THAT THAT WAS ACTUALLY CONNECTED TO THE MAIN HOME.

HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT HAS SINCE REMOVED THAT CONNECTION AND THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE HAS BEEN RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

THE ADDITIONS, HAD THEY COME IN FOR A LEGAL PERMIT, STAFF LIKELY WOULD HAVE BEEN IN SUPPORT OF THEM BECAUSE THEY FOLLOWED EXISTING BUILDING LINES OF THE HOME. THAT IS OFTEN A CONSIDERATION WHEN STAFF, WHEN THE, WHEN THE BOARD HAS GRANTED VARIANCES TO EXISTING HOMES THAT ARE LOOKING TO BUILD ADDITIONS, WE LOOK AT IS THE ADDITION A PRACTICAL ADDITION TO THE HOME USING EXISTING WALLS, EXISTING STRUCTURE? AND DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO FOLLOW THOSE WALLS? AND SO STAFF DOES FEEL THAT, THAT WE WOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF SEVERAL OF THESE VARIANCES, MAYBE NOT TO THE EXTENT THAT WAS GRANTED. BUT, BUT WE LIKELY WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED SOME OF THE VARIANCES THAT WERE GRANTED.

[00:25:01]

THE APPLICANT HAS SINCE PROVIDED PLANS THAT THEY WILL BE REMOVING SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF TURF.

THEY HAD THE TURF DUE TO MEDICAL CONCERNS THEY PROVIDED DOCUMENTATION SHOWING MEDICAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE LANDSCAPING.

THE APPLICANT HAS SINCE INDICATED THAT THEY WILL BE REMOVING A LOT OF THE TURF AND RESTORING THE THE NATURAL LANDSCAPING.

WHAT THEY WOULD BE DOING IS WHERE WALKWAYS ARE ALLOWED, THOSE WALKWAYS WOULD BE REMAIN AS ARTIFICIAL TURF.

AND THEN WHERE THERE'S CONCRETE WALKWAYS, THEY WILL BE HAVING A, BASICALLY A STRIP OF ARTIFICIAL TURF ADJACENT TO THOSE IN ORDER TO CREATE A BUFFER BETWEEN THE AREAS WHERE PEOPLE WILL BE WALKING AND GATHERING, AND THEN THE AREAS WHERE THE NATURAL LANDSCAPING WILL TAKE PLACE.

SO, SO IT SORT OF HAS CREATED A COMPROMISE THAT STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF.

SO THAT ACTUALLY MINIMIZES THE VARIANCE IN THE REAR YARD.

THEY COMPLY WITH THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS.

IN THE FRONT YARD, THERE IS A VARIANCE OF ABOUT 4% OF THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT.

SO THEY HAVE COME UP WITH A SOLUTION THAT ALLOWS FOR PERVIOUS AREA FOR FOR WATER TO DRAIN, WHICH SHOULD ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY WHEN IT WAS ENTIRELY SOD POTENTIALLY CREATING ISSUES WITH RUNOFF ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. THIS SHOULD ADDRESS THAT IF THEY PROCEED WITH THIS PLAN.

SO THE IDEA WOULD BE IF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVES THE VARIANCE IN THIS FASHION, THE APPLICANT WOULD THEN HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME TO GO IN AND REMOVE ALL OF THE ARTIFICIAL TURF IN THE AREAS WHERE IT'S CURRENTLY LOCATED AND RESTORE NATURAL SODDED LANDSCAPING.

SO WITH THAT STAFF IS NOT OPPOSED TO THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCES.

AND STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN THE ATTACHED DRAFT ORDER. SO THE, THE FRONT YARD REQUIRES 50% AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE AT 46%.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. CORRECT. AND THEY'RE GOING TO ADD SOME ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE AS WELL AS THAT.

WELL IT'LL BY REMOVING THE TURF AND RESTORING THE LANDSCAPING THE THAT WILL BE THE DRAINAGE.

YEAH. YES. AND SO WE CAN TURN IT OVER TO THE TO THE APPLICANT.

THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING AGAIN. MICKEY EARNING YOUR MONEY TODAY? YEAH, RIGHT. WELL, I GET TO SPLIT BETWEEN THE CLIENTS, SO FOR ME, IT'S THE SAME, BUT MICKEY MARRERO, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD. BURKE. HOWARD L. FERNANDEZ. LARKIN. AND HAPPINESS. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, MISS OZZY [INAUDIBLE] TRUST. AND I AND I'LL SAY WE WERE HERE.

WE WERE JUST RETAINED A FEW DAYS BEFORE THE LAST MEETING, SO WE WERE THE ONES REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE.

MY COLLEAGUE CARLOS MARKOVICH, BECAUSE WE WERE A NEW COUNCIL. SO SOMETIMES THAT'S REASONABLE. BUT BUT WE ARE READY NOW AND AS AS ROGELIO SAID, THIS IS REALLY AND BY THE WAY, CAN WE GET OUR PRESENTATION ON THE SCREEN IF THAT'S.

THANK YOU. SO AGAIN, THIS IS 3010 ALTON ROAD.

IT'S A UNIQUE SITUATION. VERY RARELY ARE WE BEFORE YOU ON A CASE FOR AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE IS NOT IDEAL.

BUT BUT I WILL EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED. AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO BRING THIS HOME AND TRY AND GET THIS RESOLVED. OUR CLIENT'S HER DAD IS A BUILDER.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, DURING THE PANDEMIC, WHEN IT WAS MORE DIFFICULT TO GET CITY SERVICES AND PERMITTING, THEY WENT AHEAD AND MADE THESE IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT A PERMIT.

SHE WAS HERE LAST TIME. AND SHE'S, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTANDS THAT WHAT WAS DONE WRONG.

AND WE'RE JUST AT THIS POINT, WE ARE WHERE WE ARE AND WE'RE TRYING TO LEGALIZE IT. SINCE WE WERE RETAINED, WE'VE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS AND MEETINGS WITH ROGELIO AND HIS STAFF TO TRY AND FIND SOME COMMON GROUND AND MAKE THIS WORK.

AGAIN, HERE'S, HERE'S THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY. IT'S ON ALTON ROAD, JUST ACROSS FROM THE GOLF COURSE.

IF WE COULD HAVE THE NEXT SLIDE. SO THE EXISTING CONDITION, AS ROGELIO POINTED OUT, IS BECAUSE THE LOT IS VERY SMALL AND VERY NARROW.

AND IT DOES HAVE A HOME THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED ALMOST, YOU KNOW, ALMOST 100 YEARS AGO.

THIS, THIS IS A UNIQUE SITUATION AND DOES PROVIDE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.

WHERE HAD THEY COME IN AND THEY SHOULD HAVE COME IN PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, STAFF WOULD HAVE STILL RECOMMENDED IN FAVOR EXCEPT FOR THE TURF.

AND WE'LL GET TO THAT IN A SECOND, BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE GOTTEN TO A POINT WHERE WE'RE WHERE WE'RE IN COMMON GROUND WITH THE CITY ON THAT.

NEXT. SO AGAIN, WE'RE HERE TRYING TO LEGALIZE THE ADDITIONS THAT WERE DONE.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN DONE WITHOUT PERMITS, BUT, BUT WE ARE WHERE WE ARE. AND THANKFULLY THE IMPROVEMENTS WERE THINGS THAT STAFF COULD SUPPORT. SO WE HOPE THAT YOU ALL CAN CAN GIVE US THE, THE APPROVAL AS WELL MOVING FORWARD.

THE THERE'S 5 REQUESTS. WE'LL GO INTO THEM 1 BY 1.

THE FIRST ONE IS LOT COVERAGE. AND THIS ALSO RELATES TO THE PERVIOUS AREA.

AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S A VERY NARROW LOT. SO ANY IMPROVEMENT, ANY ADDITIONS WHATSOEVER WOULD TRIGGER A LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE WHICH WE'VE TRIED TO MINIMIZE IT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. THE ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE IS ONLY JUST OVER 2000FT² BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A SMALL LOT.

THIS EXCEEDS IT BY, YOU KNOW, LESS THAN 400FT, BUT IT STILL TRIGGERS THAT PERCENTAGE.

[00:30:05]

AND THE MODEST ADDITION THAT THEY MADE, IT DID TRIGGER A UNIT SIZE VARIANCE.

NEXT. MR. MAURER. YES. THE LAST SLIDE, THE GUEST, THE ONE STORY DETACHED GUEST ROOM TO BE ADDED.

IS THERE A FPL EASEMENT BACK THERE? LOOKS LIKE THE PATIO OR SOMETHING IN THE BACK OF THE GUEST ROOM MAY ENCROACH INTO A FPL EASEMENT. TO OUR UNDERSTANDING DESIGN ENCROACHING 20 EASEMENT.

AND IF IF THERE WAS AN EASEMENT THAT WOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT AT PERMITTING. BUT WE DON'T BELIEVE IT ENCROACHES INTO AN EASEMENT. THERE IS A SURVEY THAT WE PROVIDED. RIGHT.

BUT. NEXT SLIDE. NOW. YEAH. SO THE INTERIOR SETBACK ON THE.

IT'S ACTUALLY ON THE NORTH SIDE. THAT WHERE 7 FOOT 8 IS REQUIRED.

THAT'S THE MINIMUM. WE HAVE A SLIGHT REQUEST FOR A REDUCTION FOR 5 AND A HALF, 5 FEET, 9 INCHES.

IT'S ABOUT A FOOT AND A HALF CLOSER THAN, THAN IS ALLOWED BY, BY CODE.

BUT AGAIN, IT FOLLOWS THE EXISTING THE EXISTING BUILDING LINE OF A STRUCTURE THAT'S ALREADY BEEN THERE FOR OVER 50 YEARS, ALMOST 70 YEARS. THE ACCESSORY BUILDING, THE ACCESSORY SETBACK TO LEGALIZE THE, THE CONDENSER IT'S MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT THAT, THAT THEY NEED FOR, FOR THE HOME. IT'S A MODEST REQUEST.

AND IF IT WAS ON THE SIDE, THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS THAT ALLOW THESE THINGS TO BE ON THE SIDES, BUT THERE'S NO ROOM ON THE SIDE BECAUSE A LOT IS SO NARROW.

SO I THINK STAFF AGREES WITH US THAT THIS IS THE BEST AND MOST APPROPRIATE LOCATION TO PLACE IT.

AND, AND THIS IS THE ONE THAT WE'LL SPEAK. VARIANCE 5 IS THE ONE THAT WE'LL SPEAK TO AT MOST LENGTH.

AND SPEAKING WITH ROGELIO. SO I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE SPECIFIC MEDICAL REASONS, BUT WE'VE WELL ESTABLISHED IT WITH STAFF AND DOCUMENTED IT, MY CLIENT AND VARIOUS MEMBERS OF HER FAMILY DO HAVE A MEDICAL CONDITION THAT REQUIRES THEM NOT TO HAVE NATURAL GRASS.

IT IMPACTS WHERE THEIR KIDS CAN PLAY AT SCHOOL.

IT IMPACTS A LOT OF THEIR LIFE. THEY CANNOT BE EXPOSED TO CONSTANT GRASS.

SO THAT IS. AND FRANKLY, WHILE THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT SHE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN SHE NEEDED PERMITS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, SHE FRANKLY WAS NOT AWARE THAT THE TURF WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED A VARIANCE.

SHE THOUGHT SHE WAS JUST DOING SOMETHING THAT WAS VERY EXPENSIVE ENDEAVOR, DOING SOMETHING TO ADDRESS FAMILY HEALTH ISSUES. BUT WE UNDERSTAND STAFF'S CONCERNS ABOUT POTENTIAL FLOODING IMPACTS AND NOT HAVING THAT MUCH TURF IN THE AREA.

SO WHILE, YOU KNOW, IT'S STILL THEORETICALLY THERE, SHE'S ACTUALLY REMOVED IT.

AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE CAN, WE CAN SAY FOR SURE THAT IT'S BEEN REMOVED WHAT WE WOULD LIKE AND IF IT'S OKAY WITH IT, AS WE DISCUSSED, IF THEY, THEY'RE GOING TO TRY TO SELL THIS HOME AT SOME POINT BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN SOME OTHER ISSUES THERE THAT IT'S MAYBE JUST EASIER FOR HER TO MOVE ON.

BUT IF THEY REMAIN THERE, IT STILL CANNOT BE GRASS.

SO WHAT WE WOULD LIKE IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO AT LEAST HAVE GRAVEL BECAUSE WITH GRAVEL, IT DOES ALLOW THE PERMEABILITY THAT STAFF IS LOOKING FOR THAT TURF DOES NOT ALLOW.

BUT IF IT'S THEM LIVING THERE, IT ALSO CAN'T BE NATURAL GRASS BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO GO OUTSIDE THEIR OWN HOME.

BUT IF THEY DO, IF THEY ARE ABLE TO SELL IT, THEY'LL INSTALL GRASS.

SHE'S ALREADY, YOU KNOW, RETAINED LANDSCAPERS TO DO IT.

THE TURF HAS BEEN PULLED OUT FROM MOST OF THE PROPERTY.

SO IT'S ALREADY KIND OF IN FLUX BECAUSE SHE, WHEN I ADVISE HER THAT WE WOULD BE REMOVING THE REQUEST FOR FULL TURF, SHE WENT AHEAD AND HAD THE INITIATIVE. SHE WAS VERY QUICKLY SOMETIMES TO REMOVE THE TURF. IT'S ALREADY BEEN REMOVED, BUT IT WON'T BE.

IT WON'T BE PLACED BACK. WE'RE EITHER HOPING FOR IF THEY DON'T LIVE IN THE HOME, IT WILL BE GRASS.

SHE CURRENTLY HAS TENANTS LIVING THERE AND THE TENANTS PREFER GRASS OVER GRAVEL.

IF ULTIMATELY HER AND HER FAMILY HAVE TO MOVE BACK IN BECAUSE IT'S NOT SOLD, SHE WOULD PREFER GRAVEL.

SO THAT'S THE ONLY MODIFICATION. OTHERWISE, WE FULLY AGREE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEIR CONDITIONS AND REALLY COMMEND STAFF.

IT'S BEEN A CHALLENGING APPLICATION SINCE WE'VE BEEN INVOLVED OVER THE LAST 5 OR 6 WEEKS.

IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE TO WORK WITH THEM AND TRYING TO FIND COMMON GROUND HERE. NEXT SLIDE.

OKAY. SO YEAH, THESE ARE THIS IS IN OUR LETTER OF INTENT ALSO IN STAFF'S REPORT.

WE JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT SOME OF THE HARDSHIP CRITERIA AND HOW WE BELIEVE WE ADDRESS IT.

THE HOME IS, THE PROPERTY IS VERY NARROW. IT IS CONSTRUCTION THAT WAS THERE SOME OF IT FOR ALMOST OVER ALMOST 100 YEARS.

THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WE KNOW AT LEAST WAS THERE SINCE 1952.

SO THESE CONDITIONS EXISTED AND THEY'RE UNIQUE.

THE PRIMARY REASON THAT THIS CONSTRUCTION WAS DONE WITHOUT PERMITS.

WELL, IT'S NOT AN EXCUSE. IT WAS DURING THE PANDEMIC ERA WHERE IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO GET PERMITTING AND, AND CITY SERVICES. THAT'S NOT THE CASE TODAY.

SO WE ARE MOVING TO LEGALIZE IT. THERE ARE MANY SIMILAR HOMES THROUGHOUT THE AREA THAT HAVE THE SAME TYPE OF DISTANCES FOR, ESPECIALLY FOR LOTS THAT'S NARROW. WE'RE TRYING TO SEEK THE MINIMUM VARIANCES.

THE TURF REPLACEMENT WAS THE ONE THAT WE COULD AT LEAST MAKE.

[00:35:03]

AND WE FEEL THAT STAFF'S BEEN VERY, VERY REASONABLE WORKING WITH US ON THAT. AND AGAIN, IN GENERAL WORKING WITH THE CITY, THERE'S THE MAJORITY OF APPLICATIONS THAT WE HAVE, WHETHER IT'S YOU, ALL THE DRB OR HPV, THEY'RE SEEKING NEW CONSTRUCTION, NEW HOMES TO REPLACE THESE EXISTING ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT HOMES HERE.

WE'RE NOT TRYING TO SEEK A BRAND NEW HOME. WE'RE TRYING TO RETAIN THE EXISTING HOME AND KEEP IT THERE.

BUT BY KEEPING IT THERE, IT REQUIRES US TO, TO SEEK THESE VARIANCES.

AND HAD SHE DONE THIS PRIOR TO SEEKING CONSTRUCTION, WE WOULD HAVE SOUGHT THE SAME VARIANCES.

WE WOULD JUST BE BEFORE YOU UNDER A DIFFERENT POSTURE.

SO SO WITH THAT, WE WOULD LIKE, YOU KNOW, TO YOUR SUPPORT FOR THIS.

IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU'D LIKE TO SEE CHANGED. WE'RE OPEN TO COMING BACK, BUT WE BELIEVE THAT THAT THIS DOES MEET THE HARDSHIP CRITERIA, PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY CRITERIA IN THE CODE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO GRANT VARIANCES.

ALTERNATIVELY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO UNDO ALL THIS CONSTRUCTION AND CREATE MORE, MORE HAVOC.

SO WHILE WE RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS NOT THE BEST POSITION TO BE IN, SHE SHOULD HAVE DONE THIS PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION.

WE ARE WHERE WE ARE, AND WE'RE HOPEFUL WE CAN MOVE THIS FORWARD WITH WITH MINIMAL IMPACTS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND WE'RE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM LAST YEAR.

WHO IS THE TIME PROFESSIONAL WORKING WITH WITH MY CLIENT AND MY COLLEAGUE CARLOS MARKOVICH.

THANK YOU.

DOES ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO SPEAK BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC? ARE THERE ANY DISCLOSURES ON THIS APPLICATION? EX PARTE DISCLOSURES. OKAY. WE HAVEN'T SEEN WHATEVER THEY JUST GAVE TO YOU.

WE'RE READY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. WE'RE HERE AGAIN.

THEY'RE REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR LOT COVERAGE AND SQUARE FOOTAGE LIMITS.

THE APPLICANT'S ARGUMENTS FOR THIS ARE THAT IT'S NEEDED TO KEEP WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.

THEY SAY IT WAS PANDEMIC ERA CONSTRUCTION. THEY JUST STARTED SAYING THAT.

BUT THE HOUSE WAS PURCHASED IN MAY OF 22. I MEAN, THE PANDEMIC PANDEMIC WAS IN MARCH OF 2020.

THIS WAS STARTED. THEY BOUGHT IN MAY OF 22 AND DID THE CONSTRUCTION AFTER THAT.

SO I DON'T SEE HOW THAT'S PANDEMIC AREA PROBLEMS. WE ARE WHERE WE ARE IS NO ARGUMENT FOR I MEAN THEIR ONLY ARGUMENT IS TO KEEP IT WHERE IT'S ALREADY BEEN BUILT.

BUT THIS IS NOT SOMEONE WHO BOUGHT A HOUSE AND IT HAD ISSUES AND NOW NEEDS TO COME AND SAY, SORRY, WE HAVE THESE ISSUES WE NEED ALLOWED. THIS IS SOMEONE WHO BOUGHT A CONFORMING HOUSE BUILT WITHOUT ANY PERMITS, WITHOUT TRYING TO GET A PERMIT, WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING, WHATEVER THEY WANTED, WITHOUT ANY REGARD FOR ZONING RULES OR NEIGHBORS OR THE CITY OR ANY REGARD FOR SIZE LIMITS. NOW THEY'RE ASKING FOR LARGE VARIANCES.

THEY SAY IT'S ONLY 30 TO 38%, BUT THAT'S A 20% INCREASE.

THEY SAY IT'S ONLY OR THAT'S A YEAH. AND THEY SAY THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS ONLY A SMALL INCREASE, BUT IT'S A 17% INCREASE TO A 4200 PLUS WAY OVER 4200 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE ON A LOT.

AND A LOT THAT THEY'VE ADMITTED MANY, MANY TIMES IS A SMALL LOT.

THE WHOLE POINT OF THE ZONING LAWS IS ON A SMALL LOT.

YOU CAN ONLY HAVE SO LARGE OF A HOUSE. IF THEY WANTED THAT LARGE OF A HOUSE OR NEEDED THAT LARGE OF A HOUSE, THERE WAS A SIMPLE SOLUTION BY A LOT BIG ENOUGH SO YOU'RE NOT OUT OF CHARACTER IN THEIR OWN REAL ESTATE ADS.

IT'S A 7 BEDROOM,6 BATHROOM HOUSE. LOOK, IN THIS ZONING, IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT, HOW MANY 7 BEDROOM, 6 BATHROOM, 4200 SQUARE FOOT HOUSES ARE THERE ON A LOT THAT SIZE? I'LL BET YOU CAN'T FIND ANY. AND VERY FEW IF YOU DO, THIS IS TOTALLY OUT OF CHARACTER.

CAN I HAVE 2 MORE MINUTES, PLEASE? IT'S TOTALLY OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND IF YOU GO THROUGH, MY WIFE WILL TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE EXACT FACTS, BUT AND THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO RUBBER STAMP WHAT THEY'VE ALREADY DONE WITH THESE LARGE VARIANCES. AND IF THEY, IF YOU DO, YOU'RE INVITING EVERY PROPERTY OWNER AND EVERY BUILDER IN THE CITY AND DEVELOPER TO JUST BUILD WHATEVER THEY WANT WITHOUT COMING TO THE CITY. AND THEN IF THEY HAPPEN TO GET CAUGHT, AND THAT'S THE ONLY REASON THEY'RE HERE IS BECAUSE THEY GOT CAUGHT, BECAUSE SOMEBODY, NOT US, SOMEONE ELSE REPORTED THEM AND THE ZONING HAD ISSUES.

SO NOW THEY WANT YOU TO RUBBER STAMP IT AND SAY, SO YOU'RE GOING TO TELL EVERY DEVELOPER, JUST BUILD WHATEVER YOU WANT AND COME AFTERWARDS AND ASK US FOR VARIANCES AND WE'LL GIVE THEM TO YOU.

WE SUBMITTED A LONG OBJECTION WITH FACTS AGAINST THE VARIANCES AND OUR FACTS THAT FOR ALL THE FACTORS AND THE VARIANCES THEY HAVE NOT SUBMITTED, THEY'VE SUBMITTED VERY FEW FACTS AND VERY FEW ARGUMENTS AS WE'VE ALREADY MENTIONED, BUT ALSO THEY HAVEN'T LAID OUT VARIANCE BY VARIANCE, HOW EACH VARIANCE MEETS EACH FACTOR TO THERE WAS A RECENT COURT CASE.

[00:40:02]

THERE'S JUST A DRAFT ORDER. THE DRAFT ORDER ONLY SHOWS CONCLUSORY THAT IT MEETS ALL 8 THINGS, AND THE ONLY ARGUMENTS PRESENTED HERE, OR ANALYSIS PRESENTED BY THE STAFF IS THAT IT SEEMS REASONABLE, SEEMS REASONABLE WAY TO ADD ADDITIONS, BUT THE WHOLE POINT OF THE ZONING IS THEY'RE NOT ENTITLED TO A HOUSE THAT LARGE.

THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO COVER THAT MUCH OF THE LAND, AND COVERING AN EXTRA 20% OF THE LAND CREATES FLOODING ISSUES TO. THAT'S LAND THAT'S IMPERVIOUS BY DEFINITION. THEY'RE NOT ENTITLED TO A HOUSE THAT LARGE ON A LOT THAT SMALL.

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. FOR THE RECORD, COULD YOU PLEASE TELL US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS? 3000 ALTON ROAD, NEXT DOOR. NEIGHBOR. NEXT DOOR.

RIGHT NEXT DOOR. NEIGHBOR ON THE SOUTH. THANK YOU.

I'LL BE WRAPPING UP VERY SHORTLY, IF I CAN HAVE 2 MORE MINUTES.

AND HERE AND AFTER THE APPLICANT BUILT WHATEVER THEY WANTED ARE COMING TO YOU FOR A RUBBER STAMP.

THEY'RE DOING IT WITHOUT OFFERING ANY BENEFIT TO THE CITY, WITHOUT ANY BENEFIT TO THE NEIGHBORS.

THE ONLY BENEFIT IS GOING TO GO TO THE APPLICANT WITH NO COST TO THE APPLICANT.

IF A DEVELOPER COMES AND BUILDS. IF A DEVELOPER WANTS TO GO ABOVE THE FAR LIMITS, THEY HAVE TO COME TO THE CITY, COME TO THE COUNCIL, SAY, OH, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE GIVE US A 20% INCREASE IN FAR AND AND TO DO THAT, THEY HAVE TO BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE. THEY HAVE TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE ROADS.

THEY HAVE TO BUILD PARKS. STUFF'S ASKED. NOTHING'S BEEN ASKED.

THEY JUST WANT TO COME HERE AND SAY, LET US HAVE THIS LARGE 7 BEDROOM, 8 BATHROOM HOUSE, 4200FT² ON A THING THEY'VE ADMITTED MANY TIMES IS A SMALL LOT AND NO BENEFIT TO ANYONE AT THE LEAST. IF YOU'RE GOING TO ALLOW THIS LOT COVERAGE AND SQUARE FOOTAGE VARIANCES, THEY SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PUT A DRAIN, A FRENCH DRAIN, OR SOME KIND OF DRAIN AROUND THE PROPERTY, AROUND THE WHOLE PROPERTY THAT KEEPS THE EXTRA WATER ON THEIR PROPERTY.

I REALLY DON'T SEE HOW THEY CAN MEET THE CRITERIA TO GET THOSE 2 VARIANCES.

BUT IF IF SOMEHOW YOU BELIEVE THEY DO AND YOU THINK THAT, THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE TO DO SOMETHING TO HELP THE CITY.

I MEAN, THAT WATER GOES OUT TO THE STREET OR THAT WATER GOES ON OUR PROPERTY OR THE OTHER NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.

WE'VE HAD TERRIBLE FLOODING THE LAST FEW DAYS.

AND THEY'VE BEEN ASKED TO DO NOTHING TO ALLEVIATE THE FLOODING CONCERNS.

THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS ILEANA BONGINI AND I'M STEVE'S WIFE AND I. WE LIVE NEXT DOOR. WE HAVE LIVED NEXT DOOR FOR 25 YEARS.

THEY'RE GOING. THEY'RE COMING TO YOU BOARD, TO RUBBER STAMP WHAT THEY'VE DONE.

HERE THEY ARE. WE ALREADY HAVE. WE HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME WRITING A LEGAL OBJECTION TO HELP YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON.

WE WANT YOU TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION. THE THE LAW SAYS THEY HAVE TO MEET SATISFY EACH OF THE EIGHT FACTORS FOR THE VARIANCES.

THEY HAVE NOT MET THE FACTORS FROM. BASED ON THE FACTS THAT WE'VE SEEN AND WE EXPLAINED IT IN OUR.

WE GAVE YOU ACTUAL FACTS THAT WE'VE SEEN AND WE WROTE TO YOU.

AND IN THE ANALYSIS PROVIDED BY THE DRAFT ORDER, WHICH IS WHERE WE WOULD HAVE EXPECTED TO SEE OUR FACTS ANALYZED.

THEY. NO ONE HAS ADDRESSED THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE THAT THAT WE HAVE GIVEN TO YOU GUYS.

SO THAT'S NOT GOING THAT'S NOT GOING TO HELP YOU GUYS BE INFORMED.

SO I WOULD, I WOULD, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT OUR OBJECTION.

WE WROTE IT VERY CAREFULLY. THERE'S NOTHING PERSONAL IN THERE AT ALL. IT'S ALL LEGAL. AND TO HELP YOU GUYS MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION HERE.

OUR PROPERTY IS FLOODED LIKE LIKE CRAZY. IT RAINED.

EVERYBODY KNOWS US RECENTLY. THERE IS ONE INCH OF DIRT THAT JUST STAYS ON MY DRIVEWAY THAT I JUST HAD PAVED.

COST $5,000 TO PAVE IT. NOW, THERE'S AN INCH OR A HALF AN INCH OF DIRT THAT JUST SITS ON THE ON THE PROPERTY, ON THE, ON THE DRIVEWAY AFTER IT RAINS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T DRAIN ANYMORE SINCE THEY BUILT ALL THIS STUFF.

PLEASE DENY THIS VARIANCE. IT IS NOT FAIR. THEY HAVE NOT MET THE.

THEY HAVE NOT MET THE REQUIRED FACTORS. AND CERTAINLY, AS MY HUSBAND SAID, THEY BOUGHT THIS HOUSE IN 2022, NOT NOT MARCH OF 2020 WHEN COVID BEGAN. I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'RE THEY'RE USING THAT AS AN EXCUSE AT THIS MOMENT.

[00:45:10]

ONE MOMENT PLEASE. OKAY. SO UNDER THE SELF-CREATED CONDITIONS, THIS IS CRITERION NUMBER 2.

WHEN YOU GUYS GO AND LOOK AND DO YOUR OWN DILIGENCE ON THIS, IT'S CRITERION NUMBER TWO.

AND IT SAYS THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT RESULT FROM THE ACTION OF THE APPLICANT.

BUT BUILDING A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE WITHOUT PERMITS AND THEN SEEKING AN AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE, AS ADMITTED BY THE BY THE APPLICANT, IS THE CLEAREST POSSIBLE EXAMPLE OF SELF-CREATED CONDITIONS AND SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP.

THE APPLICANT BEARS FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR EVERY ASPECT OF THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP AND EXCESS LOT COVERAGE THE OVERSIZE SQUARE FOOTAGE, THE ENCROACHING SETBACK, THE COMPLETE AND ENTIRE YARD WITH ARTIFICIAL TURF.

AND THOSE ARE ALL DELIBERATE CHOICES BY THE APPLICANT TO DO SO WITHOUT WITHOUT PERMITS.

AND THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME YOU KNOW THAT ADDRESS.

2058 ALTON IS ALSO THIS PERSON'S PROPERTY. DID THE SAME THING, BUILT A HOUSE WITH NO PERMITS.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS KNEW THAT, BUT WE ASK THAT YOU DENY THIS VARIANCE.

THANK YOU. MAY I ASK YOU A QUESTION? YES. I'M SORRY.

SO I UNDERSTAND THE FLOODING ISSUE ONTO YOUR PROPERTY.

SO I JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY. YEAH. IS YOUR MAIN OBJECTION WHAT THEY DID WITH THE ARTIFICIAL TURF OR IS YOUR.

I MEAN, I KNOW YOU OBJECT TO IT ALL. CORRECT.

BUT IF IF THAT HAPPENS AND EVERYTHING ELSE STAYED THE WAY IT WAS, WOULD THAT SOLVE MOST OF YOUR ISSUE? I'M JUST ASKING THAT. UNFORTUNATELY, I DO NOT BELIEVE SO BECAUSE THE LOT COVERAGE IS SO IS SO EXCESSIVE THAT AS A RESULT, THERE'S NOTHING TO ABSORB ALL THE WATER. IT JUST GOES RIGHT ONTO OUR PROPERTY. SO IT'S NOT JUST THE TURF.

FLOODING ISN'T THE ONLY ISSUE. THE OTHER I MEAN, IT'S ALSO IT'S OUT OF I MEAN, LOOK AT THE CRITERIA.

IT'S TOTALLY OUT OF CHARACTER. DO A SEARCH FOR A 7 BEDROOM, 6 BATHROOM HOUSE ON A LOT THAT SIZE.

IF YOU FIND A REAL ESTATE, ASK A REAL ESTATE AGENT. I MEAN, IT'S JUST NOT IN CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT'S NOT IN CHARACTER WITH THE ZONING RULES. THERE'S A SIMPLE SOLUTION. IF YOU WANT OR NEED A HOUSE THAT BIG BY A LOT BIG ENOUGH TO BUILD A HOUSE THAT BIG, THERE'S TONS OF HOUSES THAT BIG ON NORTH BAY ROAD.

THEY HAVE LARGER LOTS. THEY DON'T BUY THE SMALLEST LOT AND JUST BUILD WHATEVER THEY WANT WITHOUT ASKING.

I FIND IT, AND THE AND THE STAFF ADMITTED THAT, NO, WE WOULDN'T HAVE ALLOWED ALL THESE VARIANCES.

AS THEY SAID, WE MIGHT HAVE ALLOWED SOME OF THE VARIANCES OR MAYBE A MORE LIMITED VARIANCE.

THAT'S AN ADMISSION THAT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE ALLOWED THESE VARIANCES OF THIS LARGE.

THE STAFF ADMITTED THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED VARIANCES THIS LARGE. IF THEY WOULD HAVE CAME BEFOREHAND. AND THEN I'LL LEAVE YOU WITH THE THE ONLY REASON THAT WE'VE READ FOR THEM TO DO THIS NOW IS, WELL, THE STRUCTURE IS ALREADY THERE.

WE ALREADY BUILT IT. SO, YOU KNOW, KIND OF I MEAN, THAT'S NOT A GOOD REASON TO TO I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, WE WE'VE JUST BEEN HERE 25 YEARS.

WE WOULD HAVE SHOCKING. PLEASE DENY THE VARIANCE.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WANTS TO SPEAK.

ANYBODY ONLINE? IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. NO.

HANDS RAISED. OKAY, SO LET'S GO WITH QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC.

PUBLIC COMMENT. AND THEN, MA'AM, ARE YOU HERE FOR A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASE? IT'S DOWN ON THE FIRST FLOOR. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION. GO AHEAD. YOU HAVE SEVERAL DIFFERENT OBJECTIONS.

YES. LET'S DEAL ONE ONE OBJECTION AT A TIME. NUMBER 1 IS THE FLOODING THAT YOU SAY IS CAUSED BY YOUR YOUR NEIGHBOR. OKAY.

SO IN ORDER FOR THAT ISSUE TO GET RESOLVED, IF THEY WERE TO PUT, SAY, A WELL, A DRAINAGE WELL IN THE FRONT OF THEIR PROPERTY OR AS A DRY, SOME SORT OF DRAINAGE PIT, WOULD THAT SATISFY THE THE DRAINAGE ISSUE IF THEY BUILT A FRENCH DRAIN AROUND THE WHOLE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR PLANS SHOW AND WHO KNOWS WHAT THE PLANS ARE.

BUT RIGHT NOW ON THE SOUTH SIDE SIDE LOT, THE LOT BETWEEN OUR HOUSE AND THEIR HOUSE, THEY HAVE A SOLID CEMENT PATIO THAT GOES FROM THEIR HOUSE TO WITHIN APPROXIMATELY A FOOT OF THE PROPERTY LINE, A SOLID CEMENT PATIO THAT'S COVERED WITH ARTIFICIAL TURF, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY CALL ARTIFICIAL TURF.

AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT THEY DID BEFORE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PRESENT PLANS ARE. THEY WERE JUST SPRUNG ON US. BUT THE THAT ALL THAT WATER AND THEY HAVE DRAINS OFF THE ROOF.

COME ON TO THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE. SO ALL THE WATER, WATER OFF THE ROOF IS COMING OFF, HITTING THAT AND GOING STRAIGHT ONTO OUR PROPERTY.

EVERY DROP OF WATER FROM THE LARGE FLAT, FROM THIS LARGE HOUSE.

NOW IT'S A LARGE, FLAT ROOF. THAT WATER COMES OVER THERE, THE WATER HITS THE THING AND THE WATER COMES RIGHT ON OUR PROPERTY. SO THEY'D HAVE TO

[00:50:02]

OKAY. SO IF THEY DID THAT, WOULD THAT SOLVE. THAT WOULD SOLVE ONE ISSUE, ONE ISSUE.

ONE ISSUE AT A TIME. THAT'S SEPARATE. THAT'S A CONDITION IF YOU'RE GOING TO ALLOW IT. BUT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THAT SOLVES AN ISSUE, THEY HAVE TO MEET THE HARDSHIP CRITERIA FOR EACH AND EVERY VARIANCE. AND THERE HAS TO BE FINDINGS OF FACTS SUPPORTING THAT, OR IT'S JUST GOING TO OR THE COURT'S JUST GOING TO QUASH IT AND REMAND IT AND SAY, YOU GUYS GOT TO DO IT OVER AGAIN. SO IF THEY HAD A DRAINAGE PLAN BY.

CERTIFIED REGISTERED ENGINEER, SALES ENGINEER.

THAT COULD SOLVE THAT PROBLEM, CORRECT? POTENTIALLY.

YEAH. OKAY. I'M LOOKING FOR SOLUTIONS. I UNDERSTAND, I APPRECIATE THAT.

YEAH, THAT'S YEAH. THAT'S POTENTIAL. AND ALL THESE ADDITIONS WITHOUT PERMITS WERE DONE WITHOUT WERE DONE SINCE 2022. YES. AFTER SHE BOUGHT THE HOUSE. OKAY. SO WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IF THEY GET DENIED.

YOU'RE ASKING THE CITY TO DEMAND THEM DEMOLISH THE THE BUILDINGS, CORRECT? WELL, THEY TOOK A SHED AND TURNED IT INTO A HOUSE.

TO THAT THEY ADVERTISED. I MEAN, AND YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THIS PLACE AND LOOK AT THE FACTS WE SAID WE SET OUT IN THE BEGINNING OF OUR OBJECTION.

I MEAN, THEY'VE BEEN UNDER A STOP WORK ORDER FOR YEARS, BUT THEY NEVER STOPPED WORK.

THEY OPENED THEY MADE BRAND NEW OPENINGS AND DOORWAYS.

THEY BUILT DRIVEWAYS. AFTER THE STOP WORK ORDER, THEY AND THE PICTURES THEY'RE SHOWING YOU NOW OF THE BACKYARD IN THAT CONNECTION ARE NOT.

THOSE PICTURES ARE YEARS OLD BECAUSE THEY'VE BUILT A POOL, WHAT THEY CALL A POOL, JACUZZI, IN-GROUND POOL, JACUZZI WITH UNDERGROUND PLUMBING, AND A HEATING CONDENSER UNIT IN THE BACKYARD, AGAIN WITH NO PERMITS. AND IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC? THEY HAD SOMEBODY THERE YESTERDAY PUTTING UP ADDING GUTTERS AND STUFF JUST YESTERDAY.

IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC, THEY HAVE NO REGARD FOR THE RULES.

AND IF YOU RUBBER STAMP IT, THIS IS JUST TELLING EVERYBODY THE ZONING LAWS DO NOT MATTER.

OKAY. WHAT IS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMEND IN ORDER FOR THEM TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMEND THAT THEY GET AFTER THE FACT BUILDING PERMITS? YES, THEY WILL NEED AFTER THE FACT BUILDING PERMITS TO PROVE THAT EVERYTHING WAS DONE ACCORDING TO THE BUILDING CODE. ACCORDING TO ANY ANY OTHER PENDING ISSUES THAT ARE NOT COVERED BY THE VARIANCES. AND THAT'S GOING TO INCLUDE ENGINEERING SITE YOU KNOW, SITE FLOODING AND DRAINAGE AND ALL THAT.

SO I THINK THAT THEY NEED TO SUBMIT TO THIS BOARD.

AND WE ASKED FOR A CONTINUANCE AND ASKED FOR THEM TO PROVIDE NEW PLANS, ENGINEERED PLANS FOR THE DRAINAGE AND A ACCEPTABLE USE OF THE NON-CONFORMING BUILDING.

THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY TO, TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND ALSO TO THE NEIGHBOR.

I MEAN, I, I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM.

BUT WE'RE AT A REALITY IS WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A SOLUTION ON A STEP BY STEP BASIS.

ONE OTHER QUESTION WE HAVE IN THE PLANS, EVERYTHING WE'VE SEEN FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING HAS SAID THAT BACK STRUCTURE IS ILLEGAL UNLESS IT'S CONNECTED TO THE HOUSE AND IT'S NOT CONNECTED. AND IF IT'S GOING TO BE CONNECTED, DOESN'T THAT ADD MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND MORE LOT COVERAGE? SO I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THESE VARIANCES ARE ENOUGH BECAUSE IS PLANNING GOING TO REQUIRE IT TO BE CONNECTED, OR IS THAT GOING TO NEED A VARIANCE TO HAVE A NON-CONNECTED OR, OR ARE THEY GOING TO CONNECT IT? AND THAT'S GOING TO ADD MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND MORE LOT COVERAGE, EVEN MORE THAN WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR NOW? NO, IT NEEDS TO BE NOT CONNECTED TO BE AN ACCESSORY BUILDING. THE THEY HAD INITIALLY SHOWED PICTURES WHERE IT WAS CONNECTED.

OKAY. AND THAT'S BEEN REMOVED IT SEEMS. SO IT'S NO LONGER CONNECTED.

OKAY. WHEN YOU SAY CONNECTED, DOES A ROOF WITH NO SIDEWALLS MEAN CONNECTED.

IT SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY ROOF STRUCTURE CONNECTING IT.

THEN THE PICTURE THEY SUBMIT TO SHOW. I THOUGHT THE PICTURE I SAW THIS MORNING LOOKS LIKE THERE WAS A ROOF THERE, BUT OKAY. I JUST TO TO ADDRESS THAT POINT AGAIN.

MICKEY MARRERO FOR THE APPLICANT. SO YEAH, SPEAKING WITH YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE SETBACKS ARE DIFFERENT IF IT'S AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OR THE MAIN HOUSE.

SO WE ARE AGREEING THAT IT'S GOING TO BE DISCONNECTED.

WE I WANTED TO ASK HER NOT TO DO IT UNTIL WE GET THE RESOLUTION HERE.

SO WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE THAT WAS IN CONTRADICTION TO WHAT WAS HAPPENING. BUT SHE'S AGREED TO DISCONNECT IT SO IT WOULD APPLY THE ACCESSORY REAR YARD SETBACKS LOOKS LIKE.

AND TO MR. SILVA'S POINT, YOU KNOW, HEARING. SO THE BIGGEST ISSUE AND SPEAKING TO STAFF, I UNDERSTAND THE OBJECTION.

THE BIGGEST ISSUE. AND I KNOW THERE ARE OTHERS, BUT THE BIGGEST ISSUE IS THE FLOODING CONCERNS WITH THE TURF.

[00:55:03]

I ADVISED HER THAT THAT WAS REALLY SOMETHING THAT SHE NEEDED TO CONSIDER REMOVING, AND WE DID REMOVE IT.

IN FACT, SHE WENT AHEAD AND REMOVED IT ALREADY.

SO THAT'S GONE. BUT I UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE POTENTIAL DRAINAGE SOLUTION.

I DON'T KNOW IF A FRENCH DRAIN IS DOABLE BY CODE.

IF IT IS, WE CAN EXPLORE THAT. I WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED TO WORKING WITH STAFF TO TRY AND FIND AN ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE SOLUTION AS WELL.

SOMETHING I DON'T HAVE THAT FOR YOU TODAY, BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO CONTINUE TO TRY AND ADDRESS IT.

YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THEIR CONCERNS. WE THOUGHT THAT WITH THE TURF AND WE ACTUALLY HAD SHE HAD PRIOR TO MY INVOLVEMENT, SHE HAD AN ENGINEER LOOK AT THE FLOODING. AND HE CONCLUDED THAT THE TURF WASN'T HAVING A MATERIAL IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD FLOODING.

THAT BEING SAID, WE STILL FELT THAT IT WAS A POTENTIAL CONCERN.

AND IN SPEAKING TO STAFF, WE RECOMMEND THAT IT BE REMOVED AND IT HAS BEEN REMOVED OR, YOU KNOW, WILL BE WILL BE COMPLIANT TO THAT TO THAT EFFECT.

BUT AN ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE SOLUTION. WE'RE OPEN TO THAT, AND I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK TO MY CLIENT AND TRY AND FIND SOMETHING THAT THAT CAN WORK WITH STAFF. I, I HEAR YOU, WE WANT TO GET TO SOME COMMON GROUND HERE.

I UNDERSTAND THE SCENARIO IS NOT IDEAL. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET THIS TO A PLACE WHERE EVERYBODY CAN CAN MOVE ON.

BUT I'D BE MORE THAN OPEN TO TO EXPLORING A DRAINAGE SOLUTION WITH STAFF.

I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. SORRY. NO. GO AHEAD. OKAY.

SO YOU SAID THERE'S A TENANT IN THERE NOW AND THEN YOU MADE SOME COMMENT THAT THE OWNER MAY SELL THE HOUSE, RIGHT? AND THEN ALSO YOU SAID THAT IF THEY STAY IN THE HOUSE, THEY'RE GOING TO PUT GRAVEL WHERE THE TURF IS.

AND IF THEY DON'T STAY IN THE HOUSE, THEY'RE GOING TO PUT GRASS WHERE THE TURF IS.

SO SINCE THERE'S A TENANT IN THERE NOW, WHAT IS THE PLAN RIGHT NOW? ARE THEY RIGHT NOW GRASS IN IT WOULD BE GRASS.

OKAY. IT WOULD BE GRASS. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN ALSO, I DON'T KNOW IF MAYBE THE STAFF COULD HELP US A LITTLE BIT WITH THIS, BUT CAN YOU AT LEAST FOR ME HAVE ME UNDERSTAND THE EXACT HARDSHIP CRITERIA OF POINTS THAT NEED TO BE MET AND HOW THEY ARE. CAN YOU STEP THROUGH, STEP THROUGH THEM 1 BY 1 FOR THE ADDITION SPECIFICALLY, I'M ASKING AND HOW YOUR YOU BELIEVE THEY HAVE BEEN MET.

YES. SO THE, THE CRITERIA LET'S GO ONE BY ONE.

SO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE, SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND STRUCTURE OR BUILDING INVOLVED, AND WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. THE PECULIAR CONDITIONS ARE RELATED TO THE STRUCTURE.

THIS IS A STRUCTURE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT, I BELIEVE, IN THE 1930S SORRY, 1923.

AND SO THE FACT THAT THAT STRUCTURE EXISTS AND THEIR DESIRE TO MAINTAIN THAT STRUCTURE PROVIDES SOME CONDITIONS THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND.

AND SO THAT STRUCTURE HAD COURTYARD THAT WAS A LOGICAL PLACE TO FILL IN FOR AN ADDITION.

AND THEN A SECOND STORY. I BELIEVE THERE WAS A SECOND STORY ABOVE THAT.

AND SO THE, THE EXISTING BUILDING WAS WHAT WAS PECULIAR TO THE LAND THAT, THAT THAT MEETS THAT CRITERIA.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT RESULT FROM THE ACTION OF THE APPLICANT.

SO YES, THE, AFTER THE FACT CONSTRUCTION IS A CONDITION THAT RESULTS FROM THE APPLICANT'S ACTIONS.

HOWEVER, THE EXISTING BUILDING AND THE LOGICAL LOCATION OF THOSE ADDITIONS IS NOT A CONDITION THAT RESULTS FROM THE APPLICANT, GIVEN THAT THE HOME WAS BUILT IN 1923. GRANTING THE VARIANCE REQUESTED WILL NOT CONFER ON THE APPLICANT ANY SPECIAL PRIVILEGES THAT IS DENIED BY THESE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO OTHER LANDS, BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING D2ISTRICT. SO THIS VARIANCE IS FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

RESIDENTS CAN HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. PEOPLE HAVE REQUESTED UNIT SIZE VARIANCES OFTEN FROM THIS BOARD.

AND THEY'VE BEEN GRANTED, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE DOING AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME. SO THAT'S NOT A, THAT'S NOT A SPECIAL, RIGHT? IT'S GOING TO BE MAINTAINED AS A HOME.

THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THESE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. UNDER THE TERMS OF THESE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND WOULD WORK UNNECESSARY AND UNDUE HARDSHIP ON THE APPLICANT.

SO THE, THE THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS DO, DID PREVENT THEM FROM HAVING THE TURF IN A WAY THAT THEY FELT WAS NECESSARY FROM A MEDICAL PERSPECTIVE. AND THEN IT ALSO PREVENTED THEM FROM DOING A REASONABLE ADDITION TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE.

AND SO IT WAS ESSENTIALLY DENYING THEM THE ABILITY TO, TO HAVE A RIGHT THAT OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS CAN ENJOY THEIR PROPERTY IN A CERTAIN WAY. THE VARIANCES GRANTED IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE THAT WILL MAKE THE POSSIBLE, THAT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE THE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. IN TERMS OF THE, THE LANDSCAPING WE HAVE, WE BELIEVE WE HAVE REDUCED IT TO A LEVEL THAT THAT MAKES REASONABLE USE OF THE BUILDING LAND.

THAT MAKES THE, THE USE REASONABLE IN TERMS OF THE MINIMUM VARIANCE FOR THE STRUCTURE, THE STRUCTURE IS THERE SO THAT THEY'VE REQUESTED THE MINIMUM NECESSARY FOR THE

[01:00:09]

WE FEEL THAT WITH THE CHANGES TO THE TURF, THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE PUBLIC WELFARE, THEY WILL STILL NEED TO DO OTHER THINGS RELATED TO THE BUILDING PERMIT AND CIVIL ENGINEERING AND DRAINAGE AND OTHER THINGS TO ENSURE THAT THAT'S THE CASE. THE STRUCTURE REMAINS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME FROM THE FRONT. IT HAS THE SAME SCALE THAT IT PREVIOUSLY HAD.

SO FROM A VISUAL PERSPECTIVE TO THE STREET, IT'S NOT CREATING ANY, ANY ADDITIONAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS IN THAT REGARD.

AND THEN NEXT, THE GRANTING OF THIS REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DOES NOT REDUCE THE LEVELS OF SERVICE SET FORTH IN THE, IN THE PLAN.

SO THE, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THIS IS DESIGNATED AS A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT REMAINS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

SO THERE'S NO, NO INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS FAR AS LEVELS OF SERVICE THE LEVELS OF SERVICE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATED TO PARKS, IT'S NOT AFFECTED BECAUSE IT REMAINS THE USE REMAINS THE SAME.

RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION, WE'RE A CONCURRENCY EXEMPTION AREA.

THEY MAY HAVE TO PAY A MOBILITY FEE. I'M NOT CERTAIN.

BUT AS THEY GO IN FURTHER AFTER THE FACT BUILDING THE BUILDING PERMIT THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED.

AND SO THE LEVELS OF SERVICE WILL BE MET. THEY WILL ALSO IN TERMS OF THERE'S LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR DRAINAGE AND POTABLE WATER FOR POTABLE WATER, THE USE IS NOT CHANGING. SO THE LEVEL OF SERVICE SHOULD BE MET. AND ACTUALLY THE TURF REDUCES THEIR CONSUMPTION OF WATER OF POTABLE WATER.

THE SANITARY SEWER SHOULD BE, SHOULD NOT BE IMPACTED.

IT SHOULD BE ABOUT THE SAME GIVEN THAT IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. AND THE OTHER LEVEL OF SERVICE IS RELATED TO GARBAGE PICKUP WHICH SHOULD NOT BE IMPACTED. AND I'M MISSING ONE PARKS, TRANSPORTATION, POTABLE WATER OH, DRAINAGE.

THEY'LL HAVE TO DO THEIR CIVIL ENGINEERING PLAN TO ENSURE THAT THE DRAINAGE WORKS PROPERLY. AND THEN THE GRANTING AND VARIANCE WILL RESULT IN A STRUCTURE IN SITE THAT COMPLIES WITH THE SEA LEVEL RISE AND RESILIENCY REVIEW CRITERIA IN CHAPTER 7, ARTICLE 1.

AND SO MOST OF THESE ISSUES IN THE SEA LEVEL RISE AND RESILIENCY REVIEW CRITERIA WERE SATISFIED.

THERE ARE A FEW THAT BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS WE HAD REGARDING THE ARTIFICIAL TURF PRIMARILY THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.

AND WE BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE SO THAT CRITERIA IS NOW SATISFIED.

THANK YOU. SO THEN I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE TIMELINE.

WHEN WAS THIS ADDITION? WHEN WAS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS DONE.

SHORTLY AFTER THEY MOVED IN, I MEAN, WHICH WAS ONE 2022 BEGINNING OF 2022.

OKAY. IT HAD TO BE SOONER OR LATER. I MEAN, THEY BOUGHT IT IN MAY, THEY BOUGHT IT IN AND IT WASN'T DONE THE DAY THEY BOUGHT IT.

I MEAN, YOU'RE JUST SAYING SOMETHING EARLY IS NOT ACCURATE.

HOW MANY ROOMS ARE BEING RENTED OUT IN THIS HOUSE? IT'S A 6. IT'S JUST IT'S UP TO ONE FAMILY. IT'S A LONG TERM LEASE.

IT'S A 6 BEDROOM HOME. AND THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE.

SO I'M SORRY, DID THE OWNER ACTUALLY EVER LIVE IN THIS HOME? YES. AND SO WHEN DID THEY START RENTING IT? IT'S BEEN ON AND OFF, BUT THEY'VE HAD TWO LONG TERM LEASES THERE.

AND ONE OF THE, I DON'T REALLY WANT TO GET INTO THE SITUATIONS.

ONE OF THE FOLKS HAD TO MOVE OUT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE. SO IT'S 2026 NOW, RIGHT? THEY BOUGHT IT IN 2022. IT PROBABLY TOOK SEVERAL MONTHS TO DO THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE.

RIGHT. SO LET'S JUST SAY NOW WE'RE INTO 2023 ISH, RIGHT? SO AND YOU'VE HAD 2 LONG TERM LEASES, RIGHT? SO IF THE OWNER LIVED THERE AT ANY TIME, IT WAS MAYBE FOR A MONTH.

THE LONG TERM LEASE IS ONE OF THEM. HAD TO GET BROKEN EARLY BECAUSE THEY.

SO AFTER LEASING IT, WHEN THE LEASE GOT BROKEN, THEN THEY MOVED IN AND THEN THEY MOVED OUT AGAIN AND RENTED.

YES. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND I GUESS MY, THE REASON I'M ASKING THESE QUESTIONS IS BECAUSE, I MEAN, I THINK IT'S ONE THING TO BE ASKED SOMETHING FOR A HARDSHIP, SAYING THAT YOU HAVE A FAMILY THAT'S TOO BIG FOR THE HOME THAT YOU ARE IN, AND YOU NEED TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE HOME AND ALL OF THAT.

BUT IF YOU BUY A HOME THAT HAS CERTAIN ZONING, AND THEN YOU INCREASE THE HOME JUST TO GET MORE RENT OR GET MORE MONEY WHEN YOU GO TO SELL THE HOME, I THINK IT'S A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT CRITERIA, AT LEAST IN MY VIEW.

IT IS. SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, IF THEY EVER REALLY LIVED THERE OR IF THEY EVER INTEND TO LIVE THERE.

SO THE INTENTION WAS TO LIVE THERE AND THAT WAS WHY THEY PURCHASED IT.

THAT'S WHY THEY BOUGHT IT. IT, IT'S BEEN AN UNCOMFORTABLE SITUATION WITH THEM, WITH YOU SAID THEY INTENDED TO LIVE THERE, BUT THEY BOUGHT IT. THEY DID CONSTRUCTION, THEY RENTED IT.

SOMEBODY BROKE THE LEASE. THEN THEY MOVED IN FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME UNTIL THEY WERE ABLE TO LEASE IT. INITIALLY, THEY WERE LIVING IN THE HOME. INITIALLY THEY WAS IT WAS GOING TO BE THEIR HOME. THEY SHE HAS ANOTHER ANOTHER PROPERTY.

SO SHE READ BETWEEN CLOSING AND FINISHING THE WORK THAT THEY DID AFTER THE LEGALLY, THEY DECIDED THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO LIVE THERE ANYMORE.

[01:05:10]

YEAH, THERE WAS A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE THEY RENTED IT. THEY MOVED BACK IN, AND THEN THE HEALTH ISSUES WERE RELATED TO IT.

SO IT'S BEEN IT'S BEEN CHAOTIC AND DIFFICULT FOR ME TO FULLY UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY.

BUT THEY HAVE LIVED THERE FOR A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME. THEIR HOPE WAS WHEN YOU.

DEFINE A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME, WHAT'S THAT? CAN YOU DEFINE A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME? YOU KNOW, AT MOST A YEAR AT A TIME? SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT DURING THIS, WHATEVER, 4 YEARS IT'S BEEN SINCE THEY'VE OWNED IT, THEY'VE LIVED THERE FOR AT LEAST 12 MONTHS? YES. I DON'T THINK THAT THE HARDSHIP IS RELATED TO WHETHER THE PERSON LIVES THERE OR NOT.

WELL, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THE CITY STILL IS REQUIRING THEM TO GO THROUGH A LOT OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AS WELL TO APPROVE THIS. THIS ISN'T WE'RE NOT SAYING, OKAY, YOU'RE DONE.

HAVE A GOOD DAY. THEY HAVE. THIS IS NOT AN EASY PROCESS FOR THEM AS WELL.

I LIKE WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE DRAINAGE. I THINK WE SHOULD.

THE CITY SHOULD MAYBE. LOOK. I KNOW THAT CORNER, THAT CORNER FLOODS.

REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOUR HOUSE HAS GRASS OR NOT.

LIKE THAT'S A BAD AREA ON THAT TURN THERE WHERE WHEN IT RAINS A LOT, YOU DO GET PRETTY BAD FLOODING.

SO THAT'S NOT A HOUSE PROBLEM. IT'S A CITY PROBLEM.

BUT I THINK LIKE THEY'VE THEY'VE DONE A GOOD JOB IN TRYING TO WORK AND COME UP WITH A SOLUTION AND REMOVE THE GRASS AND TRY TO PERMIT IT AND REMOVE WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. IT WASN'T DONE CORRECTLY, 100%.

BUT IT'S ALSO LIKE, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO MAKE THEM DO NOW? TEAR IT DOWN. IF I THINK THE CITY DID A GOOD JOB IN WORKING THROUGH THIS, AND I DO LIKE THEIR RECOMMENDATION OVERALL, I UNDERSTAND THERE'S CERTAIN CONCERNS AND MAYBE WE DO HAVE TO PUSH TO THE NEXT MEETING, BUT JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT. AND I JUST WANT TO POINT SOMETHING OUT.

THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, AT NO POINT AM I SAYING THIS IS A GREAT SITUATION TO BE IN.

WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN A SITUATION THERE MIGHT EVEN HAVE BEEN HAD THEY DONE THINGS PROACTIVELY IN THE BEGINNING, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS ADMINISTRATIVELY BECAUSE THE CITY, BECAUSE OF THE AGE OF THE HOME, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT.

AND THEN YOU CAN GET 10% INCREASES IN LOT COVERAGE AND UNIT SIZE.

ADMINISTRATIVELY, THEY DIDN'T DO THAT. THAT OPPORTUNITY IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE BECAUSE IT WAS DONE AFTER THE FACT.

BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN THERE COULD HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVE PATH HERE.

THAT SAID 2 OTHER POINTS I WANTED TO ADDRESS THERE.

THEY'RE NOT GETTING OFF SCOT FREE IF THAT'S THE CONCERN.

WHENEVER THEY DO, IF THIS GETS APPROVED AND THEY HAVE TO GET PERMITS, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY DOUBLE PERMIT FEES ON EVERYTHING THEY DO BECAUSE IT WAS DONE AFTER THE FACT. THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT COST THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO TAKE ON.

THAT'S THE PENALTY THE CITY PROVIDES FOR DOING WORK AFTER THE FACT, AND THAT REMAINS IN THIS CASE.

ALSO, THE BOARD IS ALLOWED TO CONSIDER VARIANCES NOT ONLY UNDER THE HARDSHIP CRITERIA, BUT AS STAFF LAYS OUT IN THEIR REPORT UNDER PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.

AND WE FEEL THAT CERTAINLY THEIR THINGS ARE MORE MET.

BUT AGAIN, I HEAR MR. FELLIG ALSO ECHOING MR. SILVER'S COMMENT. WHILE WE YOU KNOW, WE'RE HAPPY TO CONTINUE DISCUSSING HERE IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY AND YOU ALL WOULD LIKE US TO SEE A FURTHER EXPLORATION OF DRAINAGE ISSUES, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT AND WORK WITH STAFF AND COME BACK WITH WITH THOSE PLANS.

CAN YOU ARRANGE A APPOINTMENT TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE HOUSE TO TAKE A LOOK OF WHAT THE EXISTING CONDITION IS? BECAUSE WHAT ARE OUR PLANS ARE NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THE EXISTING CONDITION IS.

YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. SAME WITH YOURSELF WITH STAFF. BUT YES, WE'D BE HAPPY TO DO THAT.

YEAH. BUT I DON'T I DON'T THINK IT'S PRACTICAL FOR US TO GO AS A BOARD. I DON'T EVEN THINK THAT IS PROTOCOL ALTHOUGH YOU'D HAVE TO GO TO INDIVIDUALS. YEAH.

I THINK AGAIN THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO SUBMIT ON THEIR PLANS IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY.

SO IF SOMETHING IS NOT THERE, LIKE IF THERE IS A COVERING BETWEEN THE ACCESSORY UNIT, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE DEMOLISHED.

SO I TRUST THE CITY PROCESS. I THINK THE DRAINING THING IS A QUESTION.

I ALSO THINK PUTTING FRENCH DRAINS AROUND THE ENTIRE PROPERTY IS NOT SO PRACTICAL AND EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE AS WELL.

SO I WOULD DEFER TO THE CITY TO DECIDE IF THAT IS NEEDED.

BUT I THINK WE DO NEED TO CONTINUE THIS MATTER.

I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. SO QUESTION FOR THE CITY.

I MEAN OUR SHORT TERM RENTALS ALLOWED IN THIS AREA. NO NO NO.

IT'S PROHIBITED IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE BY CODE.

AND IF THEY IF THEY REMOVE THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WOULD WOULD THEY THEN BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH.

IF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WAS REMOVED, THEY MAY THEY THAT MAY ACCOMPLISH THEM COMPLYING WITH THE UNIT SIZE AND LOT COVERAGE STANDARDS.

I'D HAVE TO DO THE MATH, BUT THAT THAT MAY GET THEM THERE. MOST LIKELY THEY'D BE CLOSER IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOUR.

THEY WOULDN'T NEED THE 4 OTHER VARIANCES. CORRECT.

OKAY. AND DO WE KNOW WHO THE CONTRACTOR IS THAT DID THE WORK ON THIS? I MEAN IS THAT DO YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION? I'M FAIRLY CERTAIN IT'S HER DAD WHO'S A BUILDER.

OKAY. BOARD MEMBER SILVERMAN HAD A QUESTION ABOUT WHO LIVING THERE.

[01:10:07]

IT WILL BE HEARD, I BELIEVE, NEXT WEEK. YEAH.

AND I JUST ON THAT POINT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT BACKUP THAT THAT THAT DID NOT OCCUR AND THEY DID NOT PUT THAT OUT.

AND THEY'VE ACTUALLY CONTACTED AIRBNB AT NO POINT.

AND I SPOKE TO MY CLIENT AT LENGTH ABOUT THIS. DID SHE EVER ADVERTISE IT FOR RENTAL. IN FACT, SHE HAD CONFRONTED THE TENANT THAT WAS THERE AT THE TIME AND THREATENED TO, YOU KNOW, REMOVE THEM BECAUSE OF THAT.

AND THEY CONTENDED THAT IT WASN'T THEM EITHER. SO IT'S UNCLEAR WHAT HAPPENED. BUT WE CONTEND THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN SHORT TERM RENT, AND THAT ADVERTISEMENT WAS NOT PLACED ON MY CLIENT. A FEW THINGS. ONE IS THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? HAVE THEM TEAR IT DOWN. I THINK THAT IS AN OPTION.

LAST I CHECKED, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE I'M WRONG.

SO I KNOW I'M NOT SUGGESTING THEY TEAR IT DOWN, BUT YEAH, I THINK THAT ACTUALLY IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER WHEN WE EVALUATE THIS. AND TO BOARD MEMBERS POINT ABOUT REMOVING THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WHICH SOUNDS LIKE A TEAR DOWN THAT COULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

AGAIN, I'M NOT, I'M JUST THINKING OUT LOUD HERE.

I'M NOT SUGGESTING THIS. I'M NOT VOTING ON THIS.

WHAT I'M SAYING, I'M JUST POINTING THESE, THIS OUT.

I FULLY SUPPORT THE DRAINAGE THING. BY THE WAY, THERE'S A COMMENT LIKE THIS CORNER HAS A FLOODING ISSUE.

THIS CITY HAS A FLOODING ISSUE. FOR SURE THE CORNER, I DON'T KNOW THE CORNER.

BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO FAR TO FIND IT IN THE CITY.

SO SO WHILE PROBABLY, AND I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THIS, PROBABLY ADDING A STRUCTURE HERE OR THERE DOESN'T CHANGE THE WORLD WHEN YOU ALREADY HAVE A PROBLEM, TAKING AWAY DRAINAGE OPPORTUNITIES PROBABLY DOESN'T HELP.

SO I FULLY SUPPORT THE COMMENTS ABOUT AND EVEN THE APPLICANTS OFFER, I BELIEVE, TO FIGURE OUT A SOLUTION ON TRYING TO IMPROVE DRAINAGE.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A SUMP PUMP OR I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS. I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THIS STUFF, BUT THE PEOPLE WHO DO TO FIGURE IT OUT TO TRY TO HELP MITIGATE THAT ISSUE. 2 OTHER THINGS. I THINK WHEN YOU WENT THROUGH STEP BY STEP, ONE OF THE THINGS YOU SAID WAS WHEN YOU WENT THROUGH LIKE THE ELEMENTS OR THE, THE STRUCTURE IS THERE ILLEGALLY, RIGHT? I THINK YOU SAID THE STRUCTURE IS THERE.

THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO KEEP IT THERE.

YES. SO I MEAN, I AS OPPOSED TO ADDING MORE, I'M DOING LIKE MENTAL GYMNASTICS ON THAT CONCEPT.

THE BUILDING IS THERE ILLEGALLY AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE MINIMUM NECESSARY, WHICH WOULD BE TO KEEP IT.

THAT DOESN'T SEEM THAT DOESN'T MOVE MY NEEDLE MUCH LIKE THAT.

THAT SOUNDS LIKE. A PROBLEM TO FIX A PROBLEM.

I DON'T I DON'T REALLY GET THAT. LAST THING TIMELINE TO IS THERE LIKE FOR ALL OF THESE AND THERE WAS A COMMENT WHICH I APPRECIATE THAT THIS IS WE'RE NOT JUST GIVING THIS AWAY.

THIS IS GOING TO COST THEM A LOT OF MONEY. IT'S GOING TO THE WE TRUST THE CITY.

AND I AGREE WITH THAT, THAT THEY'RE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION.

I TRUST THEM AND I'M ON BOARD GENERALLY WITH WHAT THEY RECOMMEND.

THIS IS NOT JUST A GIVEAWAY. THERE'S A LOT THEY HAVE TO DO TO THAT EXTENT.

IS THERE SOME SORT OF TIMELINE ON THEM DOING THE THINGS THAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO AND MAKING SURE THAT IT GETS DONE? BECAUSE BY SAYING, YEAH, IT'S NOT A GIVEAWAY, THEY HAVE TO DO THESE THINGS.

BUT THEN, YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORS OR WHOEVER ELSE HAS TO LIVE WITH THIS ONGOING, ONGOING, ONGOING WITH THE INSPECTIONS AND THIS AND THAT, OR THEY DON'T EVEN CALL IN THE INSPECTIONS OR WHATNOT.

HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THIS GETS DONE? WELL, TO THAT POINT.

THERE ARE 2 OPEN SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASES, ONE FOR THE INTERIOR RENOVATIONS AS WELL AS THE EXTENSION.

IT'S A BUILDING VIOLATION THAT HAS A COMPLIANCE DATE ALREADY OF JULY SET 6.

SO BY JULY 6TH, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A FULL BUILDING PERMIT AND FINAL INSPECTIONS.

OTHERWISE THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO FINES. THERE'S ALSO A COMPANION CASE FOR THE DRIVEWAY AND THE SIDEWALK THAT WERE REPAIRED OR INSTALLED WITHOUT A PERMIT. SO THERE ARE 2 OPEN BUILDING CASES WITH COMPLIANCE DATES OF JULY 6TH.

AND DOES THAT GO TO THE VARIANCES THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING? WELL, ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THEY GOT A CONTINUANCE THAT MR. MARRERO SOUGHT A CONTINUANCE IN FRONT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE WAS THAT THIS HEARING WAS CONTINUED.

SO THE COMPLIANCE DATE GOT CONTINUED OUT, DEPENDING UPON WHAT THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD WAS AS FAR AS GRANTING VARIANCES.

AND SO THAT THEY CAN GO FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT.

IT WILL NOT BE COMPLETED, OBVIOUSLY, BY JULY 6TH.

AND THERE WILL BE, I'M SURE, BASED UPON WHAT HAPPENS TODAY, A REQUEST BY MR.

[01:15:01]

AND THEN WE MAKE THEM ACTUALLY DO IT WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD. OTHERWISE, I THINK IT'S WITHOUT TEETH.

WELL, TIME FRAMES ARE NOT BEFORE THE BOARD. I MEAN, YOU'RE EITHER GOING TO APPROVE OR DENY THE VARIANCES.

THE ACTUAL BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS WILL TAKE PLACE.

AND JUST TO ADDRESS 1 COMMENT THAT MR. MARRERO MADE, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT NEVER CLOSED DURING COVID.

AND THEN THERE'S DISPUTED FACTS HERE, WHICH SEEM TO BE THAT THIS WASN'T AN APPLICATION OR A BUILDING THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN APRIL OF 2020, BUT UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF A PRIOR BUILDING OFFICIAL.

BUILDING DEPARTMENT NEVER SHUT DOWN DURING COVID.

SO ALL THROUGH 2020 AND 2021, IT WAS OPEN. WE STARTED ONLINE PORTALS FOR SUBMITTING THINGS AND DOCUMENTS, PERMITS WERE APPROVED, PERMITS WERE ISSUED AND WORK WAS DONE IN THE WAR FINAL INSPECTIONS.

NOW, IN SOME OF THE HIGH RISES, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT DURING THAT PERIOD, LOOKING BACK, A LOT OF BUILDINGS DID NOT WANT WORK DONE IN THE UNITS.

BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE HERE. AND THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, FOR THE RECORD, NEVER SHUT DOWN DURING COVID.

UNDERSTOOD YOUR QUESTION. YEAH. UNDER THE 3RD DISTRICT CASE OF MACHADO BUICK VERSUS [INAUDIBLE] 30 10TH MAY NEED TO PUT UP A WALL. THE COURTS HELD THAT YOU CANNOT DRAIN PROPERTY WATER ONTO YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.

YOU HAVE TO CONTAIN IT IN YOUR OWN PROPERTY. MY UNDERSTANDING WE'RE HERE FOR A PUBLIC SERVICE.

IT WOULD NOT BENEFIT ANYBODY HERE FOR THIS BOARD TO MAKE A RULING.

AND FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS TO REVERSE US.

THE 3RD DISTRICT IS VERY CONSISTENTLY. AND I'LL READ IT TO YOU.

WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY HELD SUCH SELF-IMPOSED ACTS TO BE INSUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A LEGAL HEARTS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE. AND IT CITES TO THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH VERSUS GREATER MIAMI HEBREW ACADEMY'S CASE.

A HARDSHIP CANNOT BE SELF-CREATED. THESE HARDSHIPS, ALL 5 OF THEM ARE SELF-CREATED, ESPECIALLY THE SETBACK IS A REQUIRED SETBACK OF 7.5FT, AND YOU'RE ASKING FOR A 5.5FT SETBACK, WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED IN THIS CITY. WE'RE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW. AND FOR THE RECORD HERE TO BE DEFINED, SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT COMPLIANCE AND EVIDENCE FOR ANY OF THESE HARDSHIPS. SO FAR I'VE NOT SEEN ANY HARDSHIPS PRESENTED THAT ARE NOT SELF-CREATED. MISS MOREIRA, YOU SHOWED UP ON THE SCREEN THAT TRYING TO CALL THE SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC.

THE PANDEMIC DID NOT CAUSE THESE HARDSHIPS. WHOMEVER BUILT THESE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING APPROVAL.

CREATED THE HARDSHIPS WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED FOR A VARIANCE.

THAT'S ALL. IF I COULD JUST RESPOND, MAKE A MOTION.

I'M SORRY. OKAY. SO WE COULD DO 2 THINGS HERE AS FAR AS I CAN.

WE CAN VOTE ON THE VARIANCE BY VARIANCE OR AT LEAST GROUP THEM, BECAUSE I THINK THERE ARE 2 AND 2 THAT ARE RELATED AND ONE THAT'S SEPARATE.

OR WE CAN JUST RUN ON THE WHOLE THING. I'LL TAKE IT UNDER ADVISEMENT AS TO WHAT PEOPLE WOULD PREFER TO DO.

THE RECORD SHOULD BE EACH INDIVIDUAL ONE SO THAT OKAY.

AND IF YOU WANT TO DO EACH INDIVIDUAL ONE, I WOULD PREFER FOR THE RECORD THAT IT BE EACH INDIVIDUAL ONE, BECAUSE I THINK THERE ARE CERTAIN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FOR EACH ONE AS OPPOSED TO A GROUP, BUT CERTAINLY WHATEVER MOTION IS MADE, I KNOW THERE'S SOME INDICATION SOME BOARD MEMBERS MAY WANT TO SEEK ASSISTANCE.

DO YOU WANT TO SAY ONE MORE THING? YES, VERY BRIEFLY. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT WHILE HARDSHIP IS A VERY, VERY HIGH STANDARD AND WE UNDERSTAND IT, THE BOARD ALLOWS THE CITY, ALLOWS VARIANCES TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AS WELL, WHICH I THINK IS WHAT STAFF RELIED ON A LOT OF THE RECOMMENDATION. I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION. THE QUESTION WAS MADE ABOUT,

[01:20:01]

ALL OF THE ALL OF THE PROPOSED WORK WILL HAVE TO REQUIRE PERIODIC INSPECTIONS FROM THE CITY'S BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

THESE PERMITS CANNOT BE CLOSED UNTIL IT'S REPEATED INSPECTIONS FROM THE CITY.

SO THERE WILL BE CITY PERSONNEL, BUILDING DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL, ZONING PERSONNEL ON SITE MAKING SURE THAT AT THIS POINT, GOING FORWARD, WHATEVER IS DONE COMPLIES WITH CODE, COMPLIES WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS. AND JUST TO CLOSE, I THINK 3 BOARD MEMBERS MENTIONED SUPPORT FOR TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, TO GET SOME COMMON GROUND HERE.

WE'RE MORE THAN OPEN, AND I KNOW WE'RE NOT IN THE BEST SITUATION, BUT WE'RE MORE THAN OPEN TO WORK WITH STAFF AND TRY AND COME BACK WITH A MORE SOLIDIFIED DRAINAGE SOLUTION. THAT SEEMS TO BE THE BIGGEST CONCERN. WE DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE THAT, ASIDE FROM THE TURF, THAT ANY RAINWATER IS NOT IT'S NOT COMING ON OUR PROPERTY, BUT WE CAN FURTHER ADDRESS IT.

I THINK MR. FELLIG WAS WAS STARTING THAT DISCUSSION ABOUT POTENTIALLY COMING BACK AND MR. SILVER, SO WE WOULD BE OPEN TO THAT. WE WANT TO SOLVE THIS.

IT'S A SIGNIFICANT, YOU KNOW, EFFORT TO GET THIS DONE.

RIGHT. AND WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO WORK WITH STAFF AND WITH OUR ENGINEER.

UNFORTUNATELY, OUR ENGINEER FOR THIS MEETING COULD COULD NOT BE HERE. SHE HAD A PREPLANNED VACATION. BUT SHE IS ENGAGED AND WE'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO HAVE HER PROPOSE A SOLUTION TO FURTHER ENHANCE THE DRAINAGE. AND WE'D BE FINE TO COME BACK WITH THAT.

YES. I THINK MAYBE WE WANT TO JUST DO A STRAW POLL, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THERE'S SUPPORT FOR.

MAY I RESPOND? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY.

I GAVE HIM ANOTHER MINUTE. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY. OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT HARDSHIP CRITERIA ARE THE ONLY WAY TO TO GET A VARIANCE THESE DAYS.

I THINK THE MIAMI BEACH DIDN'T THE CITY DIDN'T THEY REMOVE FROM THE CITY CODE? THE OTHER THING THAT HE'S SUGGESTING WAS A WAY TO A VARIANCE.

THEY REMOVED THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. DIFFICULTY, THE LANGUAGE, PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES AND UNDUE HARDSHIPS IS STILL IN THE CODE.

BUT BUT THE THE SHOWING OF VARIANCE, THE VARIANCE CRITERIA ARE THE SAME.

I DON'T THINK, I DON'T THINK THE CASE LAW TREATS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DIFFERENTLY THAN, THAN ISN'T IT MANDATORY THAT THEY MEET THOSE EIGHT CRITERIA, WHATEVER YOU CALL IT, THERE'S NOT SOME OTHER STANDARD THAT YOU CAN SAY, LET'S FORGET THOSE EIGHT CRITERIA.

WE CAN WE HAVE THIS OTHER THING AND LET'S CALL IT THAT.

THAT'S NOT ALLOWED. CORRECT? RIGHT. SO WHAT ARE YOU SUGGESTING? I DON'T THINK THERE'S WE MAY JUST WANT TO DO A STRAW POLL TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY SUPPORT. AND THEN I THINK THEY'RE VERY INTERCONNECTED.

I READ THROUGH ALL FOUR OF THEM. LIKE, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN VOTE ON ONE. LIKE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO APPROVE ONE. OKAY. SO DO WE WANT TO TAKE A STRAW POLL CONTINUANCE? YEAH, I'M VOTING FOR THEM AT THIS POINT. YEAH.

ME EITHER. CONTINUANCE. OKAY. I THINK IT'S A MATTER OF CONTINUING.

OKAY. BUT, I MEAN, I GUESS THE CONTINUANCE WOULD BE FOR THE CITY AND THE APPLICANT TO WORK TOGETHER TO FIND A MORE AMENABLE SOLUTION.

I KNOW YOU'VE WORKED ON THE DRAINAGE PART. OBVIOUSLY, THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES AS WELL AS YOU'VE HEARD TODAY.

SO MAYBE THERE'S SOME OTHER SOLUTION. IS A CONTINUANCE TO WHAT'S OUR NEXT MEETING?

[FUTURE MEETING DATE REMINDER: July 10, 2026]

MY CONCERN IS JULY 10TH. AND HEATHER CAN SPEAK TO THIS REQUIRES US TO PRODUCE PLANS, LIKE IN 2 WEEKS TO GET BACK TO HIM FOR REVIEW.

I DON'T, AND MY ENGINEERS ARE IN TOWN. SO THE ONLY THE ONLY THING I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS LIKE, THERE'S NO AUGUST MEETING. SO THAT WOULD BE SEPTEMBER, RIGHT? AND IS THAT SUFFICIENT TIME I GUESS IS YES, SEPTEMBER WOULD BE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT. I MEAN, AUGUST MIGHT BE, BUT THERE'S NO MEETING SO IT DOESN'T MATTER? BUT YES, SEPTEMBER. SHE'LL BE BACK IN A WEEK OR SO. OUR ENGINEER. WE WILL WORK WITH HER IMMEDIATELY.

I'LL BE. I'M IN TOWN ALL SUMMER, EXCEPT FOR ONE WEEK, SO I'M.

I'M COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH STAFF AND OUR ENGINEER AND I'LL PROPOSE WHATEVER WE COME UP WITH.

I WILL SHARE WITH THE BANK PERSONALLY, YOU KNOW, AND TRY AND GET THEM SOME RESOLUTION.

I MEAN, I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING HERE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF SOMEONE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IS THAT IT'S NOT JUST THE DRAINAGE. NO, NO, THERE, THERE HAVE TO BE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.

SO IS, IS 2ND SEPTEMBER SUFFICIENT TIME, DO YOU THINK? YES. FOR YOU TO GET THAT PLAN TO WORK WITH THE CITY, TO TRY TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT'S MORE AMENABLE? I DO BELIEVE SEPTEMBER IS ENOUGH. YES. OKAY. AND TO YOU, I'M SORRY THAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME, BUT I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE COMPROMISE. THANK YOU. DO WE WANT TO DOES SOMEBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THAT MOTION.

MOTION TO CONTINUE TO SEPTEMBER. MEETING. SECOND.

SECOND. LET ME JUST GET THE EXACT DATE. IT'S SEPTEMBER SEPTEMBER 18TH.

18. MOTION TO CONTINUE. SEPTEMBER 18TH MEETING.

SECOND MOTION BY SECOND. SECOND BY MR. KOENIG. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. JUST ONE REQUEST.

CAN THEY PROVIDE THOSE INSTEAD OF THROWING THEM THE NIGHT BEFORE OR SHORTLY BEFORE? IF THERE'S NEW PLANS, CAN THEY BE SENT TO THE OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED? WE HAVE STANDING AS NEIGHBORS WELL BEFORE. SO WE CAN REVIEW THEM AND AND HAVE A AND GET READY FOR THE MEETING TOO.

[01:25:05]

WE CAN WE CAN CERTAINLY ASK THE APPLICANT. I'D APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU. YES. THANK YOU EVERYONE. IS THERE ANY DO WE HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? YES, I MAKE A MOTION. OTHERWISE, WE'RE STUCK HERE.

OKAY. MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. YES.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.