Good evening. Today is May 1st, 2025 at 6 p.m. This is the Planning and Zoning Board meeting of the City of Boca Raton. Will everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance? Thank you. Jamie, would you please call the roll? Chair Svall. Here. Mr. Sillan. Here. Mr. Richie. Ms. McDermott. Mr. Mitchell. Present. Mr. Morgan. Here. And Mr. Born-Lazer. Here. You have a clue. Thank you. We don't have any amendments to the agenda this evening, and there are no minutes. We do have to quaze up to additional related matters. I would ask the city attorney to explain that procedure to everyone in the room. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Chris Fernandez, Assistant City Attorney. The rules of the city council provide that each applicant requesting approval relief for other action from the Planning and Zoning Board this evening shall disclose at the commencement or continuance of the public hearing any consideration or payment provided or committed directly or on its behalf for an agreement to support or withhold objection to the requested relief or action. A copy of the Quasad judicial rules governing tonight's public hearing are attached to the agenda and are available from the City Clerk. Thank you. Will everyone who is going to speak on any item please rise and be sworn in. Do you swear or any firm may testimony give this public hearing will be truthful and accurate? Thank you. Okay. The first item on the agenda tonight is the 450-468 residential at 450 East Royal Palm Road. Jamie, would you read those? There are four items involved and they will be discussed contemporaneously but voted on separately. Jamie, would you please read them into the record? 4.50, 468, I'm sorry, 450 East Royal Palm Road. The first is an ordinance of the City of Boca Tone considering for an approximately 0.51 acre property, generally located at 450 and 468 East Royal Palm Road, a universal conditional amendment to the future land use map of the comprehensive plan. Pursuant to Article 6, Chapter 23, Code of Ordinances, from residential low RL to residential medium high, RMH, subject to conditions providing four revisions to the future land use map, providing for repealer, providing an effective date. Number two is an ordinance of the City of Boca-Tone, considering for an approximately 0.51 acre property, generally located at 450 and 468 East Royal Pom Road, a universal conditional rezoning from single-family residential R1D to multi-family residential R4 pursuant to Article 6, Chapter 23 code of ordinances, subject to conditions, providing for the appropriate revision of the zoning district map, providing for repeal or providing an effective date. Number three is a resolution of the city broke or tone considering for an approximately 0.51 acre property generally located at 450 and 468 East Royal Palm Road. A slight plan submitted pursuant to a universal conditional amendment to the future land use map of the comprehensive plan and rezoning as provided for an Article 6, Chapter 23, Code of Ordinances. To authorize construction of two, three story, town home style residential buildings with seven units totaling approximately 22,227 square feet. Together with one technical deviation from section 23-192, Code of ordinances to reduce the required driveway with two driveways from 24 feet to 20 feet providing for repeal or providing an effective date and Number four is a resolution of the city broker tone considering for the approximately 0.51 acre property Generally located at 450 and 468 Eastwell Palm Road three variance variance requests, submitted pursuant to Universal Conditional Amendment to the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan, and rezoning as provided for an article six, chapter 23 code of ordinances as follows. One, a variance mssection 28-601 code of ordinances, to allow a plot area of 222,232 square feet and lieu of the required minimum plot area of 25,000 square feet to a variance from section 28-64, one code of ordinances to allow a 25 foot front yard set back and lieu of the minimum 30 foot front yard set back and three of our answer section 28-6041 code of ordinances to allow a 25 foot rear yard set back and move the minimum 30 foot rear and set back for the construction of two three story town home style residential buildings with seven units totaling approximately 2227 square feet in the multi-family residential zoning district, providing for repealer, providing an effective date. Thank you. Anderson, the petitioner's attorney has something they want to bring up. Good evening, Ellie Zacharitas, 14 Southeast, four sheep of a town. We respectfully request a post-bonement until the May 15th, planning a zoning board hearing. If possible, please. Okay. Do we need a voice vote on that or a roll call vote? I'd either be sufficient. I think roll call votes probably are normal practice. The thing is if if the board intends to postpone that The board's yeah, and the board stated policy provides that we need to open the public hearing for anyone who wants to be heard this evening Okay, I was planning on doing that Okay, so let's need a motion under second on a postponement Till the next. So motion to move to the May 15th meeting. Second. Jamie, please call the roll. Mr. Salaam. Yes. Mr. Morgan. Yes. Mr. Doran Blazer. Yes. Mr. Mitchell. Yes. And Chircival. Yes. Passified. I will open the public hearing for the purpose of anyone that came out here tonight to make comments Okay, did you fill out a card? Okay, okay, okay, Jamie. Do you have the cards? Yeah, you want to call the name for someone to have a Joe Peterson? Oh Sorry And by the way you will have an opportunity to speak at the at the next meeting as well Is that for this? Yes. OK. Could you all more shundani? Yes. Regarding the post-pone minute, I'm sorry. First, good evening. My name is Kudal Merchandani. I'm an attorney representing Alisa Datashav. She's neighboring to the west of this property. I'm not sure whether the reason for the post-pone minute is that there's a confusion as to why it would be postponed, but we'll, I'd like to address some of the key issues here. First off, you know, we're here, we were here today because the applicant is seeking a sweeping set of approvals, rezoning, land use changes, multiple variances, all to squeeze seven town homes onto a half acre lot that was never designed or intended to serve that purpose. This is not a minor adjustment. It's a fundamental change to the character of the neighborhood. Approving a three-story multi-family building creates a sharp contrast and a rough shift in the scale and density of the private residences that are there. This is against what I believe the transitioning policy of this city has been, and which has successfully implemented over the years, on a gradual transition. Now while other areas that are west or north may support a higher density, this parcel sits within a pocket of established low density single family housing and approving this would isolate my client and her neighbors. So my client built her home on a clear understanding of the zoning laws as they would apply to her neighbors. She relied on that and she invested in this community accordingly. Now, they're being asked to approve a 35 foot high townhomes that are going to be looming over her backyard. None of this fits within the pattern of the adjacent lots. So the applicant says that this is a transitional parcel. And they want you to believe that this parcel, this project, will blend in because there are condos and townhomes further out west and also across to the street to the north. But immediately west of this parcel, neighboring this parcel is a single family home. Immediately east of this parcel, neighboring this parcel, is another single family home. And what they're asking here to do, they're asking for us to do today, or I'm sorry, May 15th, would be to isolate my client and her neighbors. This townhome is going to be like dropping a barrier between her neighbors. In fact, the applicant can't even fit seven townhomes into this parcel. They also need a reduction in the front and rear setbacks. So these 30-foot, 5-foot townhomes aren't going to be only looming over the neighbors. They're also going to be looming over the street. But even this is still not enough to fit these seven town homes into these parcels. They also need permission to reduce the size of a driveway. Now I understand that the staff is as indicated this is not going to negatively impact the traffic conditions. Please wrap it up in the next minute. Sure. But what it is going to do is cause constriction in the roadway and issues with maneuvering vehicles in an unlit area with no sidewalks, no pedestrian, I'm sorry, no bike lanes, limited infrastructure. Now zoning is supposed to promote organized community, protect property values, promote safety and rezoning this lot encourages the piecemeal dens of to promote organized community, protect property values, promote safety, and rezoning this lot encourages the piecemeal densification of this neighborhood. Against what I believe the community wants, and if we look at the community, what has been done in terms of outreach, there was a small gathering of the community about in October of 2022 Seven people attended. From those seven people, they got eight letters of dissatisfaction. I don't think that that justifies. Times up. Okay. Thank you. I'll leave it at that then. Thank you, sir. Before we go to the next item, Chris, do we need to discuss X Part A communications at this point or the next meeting? You could do it at this point or at the next meeting. The public area is going to continue, so. Yeah, why don't we do that? Any X part A communications? Mr. Salon? Yes, I had two conversations with the applicant at the Attorney LA's decoratis. Mr. Dornblaser? I had a brief conversation with Ellie Zechoritus. Mr. Morgan? I had a brief conversation with Ellie Zechoritus. Mr. Mitchell. I also had a conversation and text messages with Ellie. Okay, and I had a conversation, two conversations with Ellie Zechoritus, and I walked the site as well. Okay, that covers it. Then who's next? Jason Gravebart? Good evening, honorable chair and members of the PNC, Joe Braubart, 120 5th Avenue. I emailed you today. I hope you all received my email where I am against your approving this project for many reasons. I won't repeat because the attorney already stated all of them. types of requests to not only increase the density, but it also increases the intensity of use. And that street can't take it for one thing. Plus it puts P and Z board members in my humble opinion, respectfully, in a bad position to approve a bad project. And I hope that you will vote no on their request. Lastly, I'd like to find out more about any hardship that they inherited or they didn't know about, I don't see a hardship for them requesting such a wide variance or whatever you might call it. Thank you. Appreciate your consideration. Thank you, sir. Next. Next is Fred McNabball. So please state your name and address for the record. You have three minutes. Thank you. Oh, we're down from five. In any event, I'll try to keep this brief. The attorney did state many of the parameters that are very questionable. And also I want to confirm that there was a former attempt to build something similar to this building process using several different dimensions. I just don't think it fits. I mean, it's almost a common sense item here. And you're drawing here, if you bring it up again, does not show a home adjacent to what this product, there are two homes immediately adjacent to this proposed project. And it's not fair to those homeowners. Or us, we live across the street and slightly west, northwest. And I think that there has to be some common sense used here for why this is being done. It can certainly be used effectively for a single family home of most dimensions. But to put in a small housing project, you might as well go, you know, some other type of housing project that we're gonna go along with this, you know, we probably need that too. But I think in all fairness, you have to look at this in a reasonable sense that it doesn't fit the general appearance of the neighborhood. We've got multi-storing buildings at the corner, which are workable, they're great, they fit, people work, living near fit. But this here seems like out of the question for anybody is doing a reasonable look at what this neighborhood should evolve into. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. Dolores, Pnebel. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.. About 10 years ago, it was purchased by Batsmanian. And the sign went up with his son's names on it. We will build your house. We will build a, in a state house for you. And that lasted about four years, those signs. And they decided for whatever reasons, not to do anything with the lots. So they waited for someone else to build a big house. Our neighbors that built the new house, put a lot of time and effort and money into this neighborhood. We require quiet. It doesn't happen to be a quiet neighborhood because of where we're located. But I appeal to you to not allow this to happen. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Carolyn Gluck. Hi. So I'll live directly next door to these two plots. Just be on the east side. Can you state your address please? 484 East Royal Pom Road. Okay, and your name? Carolyn Gluck. Thank you. So we bought our property back in 2017 as a residential single family home property. we move to this neighborhood for that exact reason, not to be imposed by commercial property or multi-family properties. So after the condos were built on the directly across the street from our home, I can't even pull out of our driveway because of the overcrowded cars, the traffic going into the Boca Resort, the traffic going into the park where the boat ramp is. And now with this project, there's supposed to be seven units, so with their families or their spouses, and the driveways are going to be directly next to our bedroom window. So we're just bombarded with traffic everywhere. We have traffic from the Amazon trucks, from UPS. I can't even pull out of our driveway. I've got directly across the street from our house is the valley for the condo that I'm looking at that cars are pulling in and out constantly. Then I noticed a sign today that there's public parking in the garage now directly across the street because there also is a synagogue next to the condo across the street. So there's no more room for any more traffic, any more cars. And it's just, it's a bad idea. I just opposed it. So thank you for listening. Thank you. Richard Glock? I'm Richard Glock, 4840's role upon role. It's Carol's my wife. And so just to add a little bit to what she had mentioned. I was, we were trying to buy those, we actually had an agreement to buy those lots about eight, nine years ago. And we were, it was an under-and-and-move and we kind of lost those lots when we had an agreement with the owners at the time. I didn't want to get into that, but that's a whole lot of the story with the president owner of those two lots. I also want to mention, I think everyone here sitting here understands who the owner is of those lots presently and what they're trying to do. They've done this before. They have a reputation of doing so. We're the neighbors. We know a lot what's going on over there, what's happening with the condos that were built across the street. It's kind of a mess. I know that they got that approved. I know the group. And also the synagogue that's there actually go to the synagogue. And I tend that synagogue I like the rabbi there and the people there. But with that being said, this lot next door is really an issue here because if you're going to build seven townhomes, OK? And you have driveways, I just took a look at the plans here for the first time. I mean the driveways going on both sides, all these, I guess, this three major variances that have been included, but the rezoning of a residential lot to a multi-family, like the other gentleman mentioned, there's no hardship over here. This is something where the gentleman's looking to make somewhere between $13 and $15 million net on the project. So of course, he's going to try to get this approved and he probably has good relationships with the city. A lot of people sitting here. So we understand that. So it does put you guys in a very difficult position. I understand that completely. But this is not right. And we bought this lot. We built this house, took us a long time, we've dealt with all of the necessary restrictions and we've been very close with the city in doing so. We abide by all those laws. This is a bit different clearly next door with all these restrictions, the changing of the zoning, so on and so forth. I just feel that this is a wrong, this is something that should not be accepted. I think it's not right. I think the city should have an obligation to be able to do what's right here. Not change this, you know, this zoning from residential to multifamily. And everyone that lives around this particular lot, not just ourselves or the new neighbors on the other side of the lot, but all the condo owners and the town home owners across the street, this is a very, very congested area as it stands because of these condos. And it's just very difficult. I mean, you can't even, there's no sidewalks, even hard to walk with all the cars going back and forth. So I would just say in closing that we, I'd certainly hope and I would support any move to be able to decline this particular project and open to discuss one-on-one with any of you as well in what some of the other factors that I'm very familiar with about the owner of this project and what's been going on there for the last 10 years. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next is Reginald Kurgler. Good evening. My name is Reginald Kurgler. I live at 484 East Royal Palm Road. These are my parents. I recently moved back from Deerfield Beach from a condo or an apartment that I lived in. And it was nice to move back in for the time being in a neighborhood since now that it's, this variance next door to us has changed kind of, I don't know, it seems kind of abruptly or all of you know, having been so many years as a residential, single family residential zoning, I find it odd that all of the sudden that this is being considered, and a lot of good points have been mentioned. The congestion is out of control. And for the variances to be changed in order to encroach upon the roads is just doesn't make much sense to me because it's so overbearing. It's a very odd setup to have two families, single family homes, with this large condominium in between us, with the roads so close to us. As you've heard, I'm just here to say that I oppose it. The congestion is just horrible and it would be an eye sore because it's so out of place. We've already had the condos across the street built. The construction was terrible. They damaged a lot of our property. And it's, we're being inundated with more and more people who don't feel the same as homeowners do. And we don't want to, you know, encourage that anymore. We want to create a community and it seems that it's kind of going the opposite. They're not really taking into consideration, if any one of you had decided to build in this location, it's a beautiful location. And to have something like this come up out of nowhere where they want to all of the sudden change something for over a decade, I think it's been residential, is just kind of concerning. There seems to be a lot more going on than just hey can we do this? But yeah I strongly oppose it and thank you for your time. Thank you. Brian Bullock? Oh okay so no more I have no more questions. So public hearings, anybody else want to speak on this matter tonight? Okay. Thank you all for coming and you're welcome to come to the next meeting and speak again. Thank you. Just wait a brief minute while everybody leaves the room. Okay. Okay. Okay. The next item on the agenda is a variance hearing for the Sullivan residents at 400 Paloma Avenue. Jamie, would you read that item into the record please? Southern residents, 400 Paloma Avenue,olution of the Planning and Zoning Board in the city of Boca Raton, considering for the approximately .32 acre property generally located at 400 Paloma Avenue. Evariance from section 28-1356A2, one, co-deboardences, to allow portions of fencing with a height of six feet in the front yard and move the maximum loud height of four feet providing for repeal or providing an effective date Thank you Mr. Cavalli you should sit down because staff needs to go before you. Okay. Yeah be comfortable Okay Anyone had any expartee communications on this mr. Morgan none. Mitchell. Just driving by it like a thousand times in my life. OK. Mr. Dornelly sir. None. Mr. Salon, I visited the site also. I drove by the site. I attempt to walk it, but the dog scared me away. And I had a conversation with Mr. Covelli. OK, Tori, would you like to present this please? Thank you. Thank you, good evening. For the record, Tori Boone's zoning manager, I'll be presenting the Pentsite Variants for the Soul of Inherestance. The property is located at 400 Paloma Ave in the single family residential R1D zoning district and is within the historic neighborhood of Old Floresta. The property is currently developed with the single-family home built in 1978. Prior owners renovated the home and property including an addition of three bedrooms, a pool, a driveway, a walkway, and fences. In 1995, the building permit was issued to install a four-foot high vinyl fence and a four high wood picket fence in the front yard. The historic preservation board approved the appearance and material of the fence. The property was surrounded by dense brush that screened the property with only portions of the fence located in the front yard set back visible from the street. Over time, the brush surrounding the property grew sparse and was ultimately removed by February of 2021, making the home and fence visible from the street. A code case was initiated in January of 2024, which prompted staff to research the property due to work without permit. It was discovered that several projects were completed without approval by the Historic Preservation Board, including repainting of the home, window shutters, and front door, the addition of a chain link fence within the city's right of way, the addition and removal of landscaping in the front yard, the replacement of a door on the north side of the home facing the front yard, removal of decorative elements on the dormers in front porch, installation of a new garage door, and the new construction of the six-foot tall white fence in the front yard setback referenced in this variance request. The applicant is requesting a variance from section 28-1356A1i, code of ordinances to allow portions of fencing with a height of six feet in lieu of the maximum four feet in height allowed in the front yard for a single family residential property. The applicant is requesting an additional two feet in fence height. If approved at this height, the fence will require re-approval by the historic preservation board. The applicant has agreed to remove the section of the illegal fencing located in the city right of way on the west side of the property as seen in red and is requesting to keep the remaining fences as seen in blue with a height of six feet where a maximum of four feet is allowed. Although the applicant purchased the home with these existing conditions, there are no unique circumstances that differentiate this property from other properties in the neighborhood or single family district that would justify additional height for the front yard fencing. A strict interpretation of the city code as it applies to the applicant would not deprive them of rights commonly enjoyed by other property owners in the community as it is applicable to all single-family residential properties. The applicant has stated that there are no objections from adjacent property owners regarding the fencing site. However, the application fails to meet the criteria for various. Therefore, staff recommends denial and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Questions for staff, Mr. Sala? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So this is on a corner property. The designated front yard is on Paloma. That is correct. And so the side yard, which is on another street, as aelia Avenue, they can have a six foot fence until they're 25 feet away from Paloma. The side street is allowed to have a six foot height and fence as long as it's five feet set back from the property line. OK. All right. Thank you very much. No questions? Is it on the blazer? No questions. Just a more again? Just a quick question. The, when it comes to that permitted fence, they say they pull that up permit. What was the inspections out there? Is there any records on that? We do not have any records of the inspection. We only have the record of the approval which is on your screen for a four-foot high fence. Thank you. No more questions? Mr. Mitchell? No questions. Okay. No question. I don't know where I heard this, but I heard that there was somebody tried to permit the six foot fence at some point in time. That there's an open permit for that? I do not recall an open permit for a fence. No. Next question. If you had a hedge in front of your house, how tall could it be? That's a complicated answer. It does follow the fence height regulations. However, it can change due to neighboring properties when it comes to front yards and side yards. Just to make a point, a large portion of that neighborhood has hedges and completely across the front of the houses. You can't even see the houses. Right. Yeah. It has a lot to do with agreements between neighbors. Okay. Okay. Okay, With that I'll open up to the petitioner. Good evening, Michael Belly. I'm building design 1209 South Swinton Avenue. Wait for a, there we go. You've We've already seen the location at Isalian and Paloma. Oops, I got to go back one. Tonight where the request is for the variance, as staff has said, this arose from a complaint filed by the neighbor to the east as a code enforcement item. So in terms of the property, you know, things were cleared and then you could see the fence, it was four years before the code violation happened after the fence was cleared. So this is a result of a code enforcement issue and that's why we're here. This is the fence that is in the front of the house and then you see there's also a fence going down the side and there's an arbor that is part of the entry into the house. Staff has said we have not, don't have any special or unique conditions on this. I disagree. As stated, there was a permit issued in 1995, and these are the documents out of the permit file. And it does say for four foot, green fence, and four foot wood fence, but it also says 347 total feet. The second page of the permit has another detail and it also says six foot and four feet. The permit also says it has to go to historic board. It went to the historic board, this is the agenda, and these are the details that were in the historic board. There was a chain link fence detail that shows either 6 feet or 4 feet. And there was a wooden fence detail that shows 6 feet, nothing that shows 4 feet. There was also a detail of the pineapple that is in the fence, as you can see, a picture of the existing fence on the right where the pineapple is very close to that image that was taken from a Key West fence. This is a survey that was a part of that plan. And I say survey, it is not a plan that showed where fences were going to be built. And I'll show you why First of all this this was a survey done three months prior to the building permit and Then you see these dimensions these dimensions are offsets from existing fences So this plan shows existing fences that are on the site in 1978 a pool was built, and usually when you build a pool, you fence it. This is the information that's in the pool permit. There's an application, a plan that basically shows the pool. I don't know how they built it from just this set of plans. And the only other piece of paper that's in the file for this permit is a stem wall survey. And there is a little tiny indication that there's some kind of fence that could have been a construction fence or something like that. But ironically, that fence ends up in the same place as the fences that were on the survey. And if you add this, length of this fence up, it is less than 347 feet. So the point is, is that you can't say that the fences were permitted or not permitted because the records are terrible. There's no inspection reports, there's nothing that really substantiates what this is. Again, 347 feet is the long distance. This is a survey that was done in 2005. If you look, it's changed in terms of there is a wooden fence, six foot wooden fence here. This is a chain link fence in green. Under the previous survey, this was a chain link fence, and now there's also a wooden six foot wooden fence here. There's a chain link fence here that was the same on the survey, and then this section of fence is the pineapple fence. So if somebody went and it's the only place the pineapple fence was built. So if somebody went to all the trouble to go to the historic board, get a pineapple detail approved, and it's the only place they built it, you would have to assume that there was some permission to do that. The records are terrible, you can't substantiate it. So for that reason, I say, we do meet the standards, and we do have any such situation that we have standing for this variance to be heard. The second item in a variance is that there's special or unique conditions not attributed by actions of the applicant. He didn't own the house when this was done and so therefore there there is no action by this owner. The literal interpretation would deprive this owner from rights of other property owners. I show you the next slides with caution because I hate to see code enforcement go all through the historic district and an issue. This is images from the website. What this shows you is that this is a front yard that has a 25-foot setback, but you can build a four-foot fence out towards the front of the lot. When you get to the side lot on a side street, you can build a six foot fence on this side. But the problem you have is when you have the next lot down, they can build a four foot fence out to the street again. So you have this kind of a weird situation in terms of of how fences are so Here's the way the fences on on this property. It's set back almost 20 feet from the street From the right of way line almost 30 feet from the edge of the pavement Why are there four foot fences only permitted in the front yard? Visibility issues. This fence is back away from the street on a corner. It doesn't create any visibility issues for traffic or pedestrians at that corner. The fence was really done as an integral part of the redo of the house as a Key West house back in 95. The driving around the neighborhood, this is a side fence, I agreed, but it's very close to the right-oil line. Here's one with a hedge gun wild. This appears to be in a front yard with a hedge and a fence. And then you get into hedges that are right out on the thing way over the four feet. And so, you know, I say that this person to have the fence is sharing the same rights as other people in the neighborhood. All of those elements are part of the fabric of a historic district. So as the district evolved, those items were put in and built. And it actually creates the character and the draw of this neighborhood. So the next thing is that this is the minimum variance. We're asking for a little over five feet for the front fence and granted on the fence down the side the driveway as you Start at the house and you go towards the street You the the encroachment does increase but only in that line along the driveway is not the other way The next thing that it would not be detrimental to the public welfare or or injurious to property or improvements in the zoning district. This has been here for 30 years. There's been no issue with it. It has become an iconic landmark in this part of the neighborhood. And obviously, I hope you've read the letters from the neighbors that we provided. They had a lot to say about it. The next item is that it's not contrary to the objectives or comprehensive plan of the city. This provides a historical sense of place. It's been there for 30 years. People identify with it. It becomes a landmark for wayfinding people's head. Go up to the fence and make a left or something like that. It's become part of the fabric of the neighborhood and the historic district. And it does meet objectives of the comp plan as a factor in stabilizing the neighborhood. So this does meet the standards in terms of having the standing for a variance. This is the, again, the fence that we're talking about. The entry was designed as an integral part of the redo of the house. It opens into a courtyard, an entry courtyard from the front yard to have to take this fence out would not only be ashamed to lose this 30 year old historical fence, but it also would change the way the entire house operates as well. This is sections of the fence that were put in by the owner as extending it. And you see in yellow, those are the areas that the property owner actually did and extended. We're not moving forward, why not? We're stuck. Oh, there we go. Those sections of fence will be removed and behind the Cluesia heads, there is a chain link fence that will also be removed. So anything within the right of way is agreed that it will be removed. And then there's, this is a summary of all the things the neighbor said. And if you all have read the letters, I would just skip this part of it and let you read those letters. But the neighbors were very positive and very supportive of this. The original owner, in 1995, said he was stunned that this was being an issue at this point. So I feel that we've demonstrated that we meet the standards and we would appreciate a positive recommendation on this. Thank you. I'm here to answer any questions. I'll go away. Mr. Morgan, any questions? No questions. Mr. Mitchell. No questions. Mr. Dorn Blazer. Yes the areas that have to be removed have they already been removed or are they still no no they will be though. Okay. Mr. Salon. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cavelli that was a great presentation. Thank you. Very well documented and researched. Thank you. We really appreciate that. Thank you. And put. On the right away areas where you're going to remove the fence, are you going to put a fence back? No. That's just to be removed. And no. We'll just remove the fence. We'll probably plant some hedges or some more of the clucia there that's about it. OK. more of the Cluesia there that's about it. Okay, so it's just gonna be wide open without... Yes. You know the reason we don't have six foot high fences in the front yard is it's really off putting to the public. You understand what I'm going with that? Normally it is. Yeah, and I think it is in this case too. If you can't see the front of the house, you can't see the front door or the porch or that patio area with a six foot fence or with a four foot fence, it's much more inviting and it's a standard I would like to maintain in our city. Okay, thank you. Okay. So just to reiterate, how far back from the pavement is the fence? It's fun. way line, it's just under 20 feet. The variance is 5.07 feet. So it's just under 20 feet. And there's about another 10 feet or so from the right of way line to the edge of the pavement. Thank you. Any other questions from Mr. Kavali? Okay. Thank you. Okay. So you do it. A question. Okay. Should this hypothetically be granted, would your kind agree to replace it should ever be replaced with light kind? I'm sorry. Would you agree if we were to approve it hypothetically, that your client would agree to ensure that should have be replaced? Because it's a wood fence they eventually wrought with something that's identical. Yeah. Absolutely. It's the whole essence of the design on the house. So yeah, for sure. Thank you. That may be a historical preservation board issue. It may be said, yeah. Yeah, okay. Thank you. Which by the way, we are going to historic board next after this. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else from the public wishing to speak on this? I have Justin Sullivan. Okay. Okay. Okay. It's okay. No, it's okay. Joe, they. If you've been scored. I have. Please say, should I name an address for this? My name is Joe. I was out at 740 in the value street. I just want to say thank you, Honorable Chairman and Council Members. I just want to say I've been living in the community for over 20 years and I live at the end of the street so I go by the house every day, probably two or three times a day. And the aesthetics of that fence is really in keeping with the essence of the architecture of the house itself but also the community I would say that Ulthalrus is unique and that it is a historic community. It also has, with the hedges, unlike some other areas, there it's like Palm Beach. In the sense that the high hedges are something that define the neighborhood. So most of them are well above six feet. So it is a little bit different, but it is very common in that community to have very high hedges in the front of the yard. So it's something that's more common use. I do want to say too that when you're going by on the corner there there's no obstruction as far as use or concern so they said probably 20 30 feet back so as far as the the when you're in a car as far as getting out into the right away of that would be Paloma you don't have any obstruction or ways of not seeing what's coming on either side. So I think in that case, if it was something that was doing that it'd be problematic, but it certainly isn't. So I just wanted to ask if you have any questions. I am also on the preservation board. And most of the neighbors here are in favor of it. In fact, every neighbor on the street is in favor of the fence. The only one that's not, and as you mentioned, it's one person. It's one person that has brought this all up. It's a vendetta. I don't know why they have this, but this is a very small community, very small net, you know, very net close net. And we love each other. We have a wonderful, uh, common decency and respect for each other. But unfortunately, these people moved in. They built this huge monster home that is not in keeping with the community as far as architecture. And they are the ones the audacity to bring this about. You've got to be kidding me. The house is huge. Overpowers all the other houses. So I mean, you're talking about one thing, something small and you're talking about the southern architecture that's been overwhelming like the presentation that was before, same situation. So I'm just saying this is in keeping with the integrity of the community, all the neighbors in joy, it's just one neighbor. So we're going to change everything because one neighbor, this was done before they even owned the house. It's not even their response, but painting the fence that they bought it that way. They thought that they were invariants. They didn't know. So for them to take that down and do that, you are, it is going to affect the value of the house. So I just ask for your judgment and careful consideration in this that the community is in favor of it. It's just one person that's not. The height of it, a lot of the hedges are well above what's there right now. So I thank you for your consideration. And if you've any questions, please let me know. Or I'll solve. Thank you. Sit down. Thank you. OK, thank you. Have Richard Murdock. Good evening. It's unfortunate we're here because there's Jerry stated one person, I hate the Eam Goldman neighbor, has initiated this process. I unfortunately have to live, I lived on his daily history, on my Richard Murdoch 7774's daily history. I lived directly across from what I call the offending house, a diagonal from the former Tedesco House from 95, which is out of the Sullivan House, and in between there's four five owners who maintained it beautifully. But we have one person who initiated this and it's God knows how much money to spend on planners, attorneys, and everything else, and you're all this time to do this. There is a letter in your letter in your file from Roy Tadesco, lawyer at former lawyer in town, the 1995 excellent lawyer and a better woodworker. He's one that built that fence. He loved our neighborhood and still loves I talked to him a couple weeks ago, I actually months ago now, been waiting for this to come forward. And I beg of you to put this thing away, I mean, it's embarrassing for the city to have, and follow up on this process and prosecute it when it's almost laughable. So I'm begging you to, you know, if you want a problem house, look at the Monster House Jerry referred to, the only thing it's missing is the holiday inside because it's lit 24-7. It shines in my bedroom. I'm not going to file a complaint or I don't even want to be attributed to this because this guy and these people are mean and vengeful as you've seen what they've done to the solvency or so. I beg of you to please be reasonable here. And this is our neighborhood. We love it. We've maintained it. You drive through our neighborhood as some of you have in looking at this. It's one of the best neighborhoods in town. I just got I'm a real estate lawyer. And I just got a contract in today. People are overpaying the asking price. Like I got a house contract command over the ask. I mean, which is even in this economy times, it's unusual, but anyway, we got a great neighborhood. Thank you for helping us preserve it. And let's just put this thing away and move forward. Thank you. Thank you. Is that it? Okay. Public hearing, last call. Anybody else? Seeing none. ask the public hearing last call. I will see none. I will see none. I will see none. I will see none. I will see none. I will see none. I will see none. I will see none. I will see none. I will see none. I will see none. I think it looks great. Yeah. But I always have a hard time setting a precedent going against where we're already, we have something on the books and I have a hard time setting a precedent for future not knowing how somebody else is going to use that precedent. Well, then are we going to ask everyone in that neighborhood to cut their hedges down to four feet? Yeah. And which would. OK. I look great. Yeah. I think I hear it. I walked around that house. And the fence is a perfect match to the house. And I find it enhancing the property, not detracting from it. I don't disagree with you. And the whole neighborhood is unique. So I tend to support this. Mr. Chairman, I like the design. I love this. Mr. Chairman, you know, I like the design. I love the design of the fence, but it's the front in the front yard and it needs to be four feet. You can tell from the elevations the reasons why we require four foot fences in the front yard. I mean, it's obvious to me how the whole property would be enhanced if you could see the front door, not behind some man-made barrier. And the hedges, this is a separate thing. We're not talking about that tonight. I think we have to consider it, because it's a fact. OK. anybody else have any comments? Okay, Jamie call the roll. Mr. Morgan? Yes. Mr. Durham Blazer? Yes. Mr. Mitchell? Yes. Chair Sivou? Yes. And Mr. Solan? No. Past 4-1. Okay, Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay This is the public request section. Is there anyone here that wants to make a statement about anything at all? Seeing none public request is closed. Okay. Do we have any directors report this evening? No report. Okay, Chair has no report. Any board members have a report? Seeing none, at 654, we're adjourned.