Welcome, everyone. Jashala County Board is on my pills. April 9, 2025. I call this meeting to order. If I could talk to everyone standing up, please take off your hats for the pleasure of the agents. I pledge to click to the floor and then I be able to state some of the matter. To give you a vote over for which it is necessary to make sure you're not denied the visible as the third meeting of justice going to go to the office. I'm going to go to the office. I'm going to go to the office. I'm going to go to the office. I'm going to go to the office. I'm going to go to the office. You may be seated. Will call, please. Steve Eira. Here. Philip Smallwood. absent. Okay, you may continue. We do have a quorum Anybody today that wants to speak or think you might want to speak please stand up raise right hand face Miss Argent and so swear you in Please stand up Okay. Do you want me to test my about the game with the table? I'll see if I can put it here. We'll see you in the next video. Thank you. I... I need approval minutes from March 12th, 2025. I move approval. Okay. All in favor? Aye. From our zoning department, we're zoning officials, Sean Coleman. Thank you. Good morning, gentlemen. Today we have two variances and three special exceptions. The Board of Zoning Appeals is empowered to grant special exceptions and variances to the zoning code, and here appeals from decisions of the zoning official upon showing that all required criteria have been satisfied. Generally the variance process is intended to provide limited relief from the requirements of the zoning regulations, in those cases where strict application of the requirements will create a practical difficulty or undue hardship as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, perhibiting the use of land in a manner otherwise allowed under the zoning regulations. Variance is intended to provide relief in limited circumstances where the requirements of the zoning regulations render the land difficult to use because of some unique exceptional or extraordinary physical attribute of the property itself or some other extraordinary factor for which the variance is requested. A variant shall be granted only if all five of the approval criteria are found to exist. In granting a variance, the board of zoning appeals may impose such conditions and restrictions upon the premises benefited by the variance as maybe necessary to allow the positive finding to be made on any of the foregoing factors, or to minimize the injurious effect of the variance. especially a special exception is permission for a use that would not be permissible generally or without restriction throughout a zoning district, but which if controlled as to area, location, relation to the neighborhood and other such restrictions as maybe deemed appropriate any... generally or without restriction throughout a zoning district, but which if controlled as to area, location, relation to the neighborhood, and other such restrictions as maybe deemed appropriate in each case would be compatible with surrounding land uses and found to be consistent with the comprehensive plan for Charlotte County. A special exception shall be granted only if all three of the approval criteria are found to exist. Thank you. Thank you. From our legal department, we have Mr. Thomas David. Good morning. The board's zoning appeals as a quasi-judicial body. This means that all interested persons have a right to be heard and present evidence. The board has no authority to change zoning regulations nor may it rezone property. All decisions of this board must be based on the evidence presented to it, only competent, substantial, sworn factual evidence, and and expert opinions if offered and accepted, may be properly considered by the board. All documentation presented to the board or county staff will be retained as part of the official record of the proceedings. Decisions of this board must be made by majority vote. The tie votes do not carry the motion made. If an application is approved, there may still be other approvals or permits required before any development activity may commence. Please consult county staff in this regard. Deed restrictions are private agreements. This board does not have the authority to consider, modify or rescind them. Judicial appeals must be made to the circuit court within 30 days of written decision by the board's zoning appeals. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Next I'll go over the order of proceedings. The county staff will make the initial presentation for each request. The applicant or the applicant's representant shall then make their presentation, present evidence, and answer any questions or members may have. Insurers, persons for against the petition will then be invited to testify and answer any questions or members may have. All persons should have the right of reasonable cross-examination of the witness. The applicant or the applicant's representative should have the right to present any rebuttal evidence and make closing statements. The county staff shall have the opportunity to present rebuttal evidence and closing statements after which time the public hearing will be closed except that the applicant or the applicant's revs that may present additional rebuttal evidence. We'll want to county staffs closing evidence and statements. When you come up to the podium, please sign in state your name and tell us that you've been sworn in. Miss Elizabeth Elizabeth Nocheck does the presentations from the county, and she's starting with Petition SE-25-001. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, everyone. For the record, Elizabeth Nocheck, AICP, Senior Planner for the Community Development Department. I'm the project planner for this application, and I have been sworn. At this time, I request I be accepted as an expert in planning based upon the summary of my qualifications, which are set forth in exhibit one to the staff report. Notice of this public hearing was given an accordance with county code through mailings, postings and publication. This is petition SE-25-001. Ms. Mary Sprague, P.E. Representative for Marchelli Enterprise Incorporated, is requesting a special exception to allow a Building Trade's Contractor's Office with Outdoor Storage in the commercial general zoning district. The proposed use is to be located at 4017 South Access Road in Englewood. On your screen is the 1000-foot mailed notification area for maillars that were sent out for this petition. And this is the location map for subject property. The attached zoning map on your screen shows the zoning of subject property, which is commercial general and the zoning of the surrounding properties. Subject property has a future land use map designation of commercial. The attached area image on your screen shows the location of subject property on the south side of South Access Road between Sunnybrook Boulevard and First Street. The site image on your screen is the 2024 aerial photograph showing a close-up view of subject property and the adjacent parcels. Section 3-9-42 of the County Code establishes the regulations for the commercial general zoning district. The applicant is requesting to use subject property for a building trade contractors office without storage for a granite and marble slab business. Section 3-9-42 F-5 allows building trade contractors office with storage yard on premises or with more than 10 service vehicles and with Sorry with heavy equipment if approved as a special exception by the Board of Zoning Appeals Outer storage is an industrial type of use which is why this requires approval of a special exception by the Board of Zoning Appeals when proposed in a commercial general zoning district in May of 2003 Charlotte County adopted the commercial design standards for all new development and commercial buildings constructed in the CG zoning district. Section three, dish five, dish five, zero, two, establishes the intent of this code, which reads the appearance of commercial establishments directly affects the visual image and attractiveness of Charlotte County. Generic developments and developments of poor quality detract from the county's image and character. The intent of this article is to supplement existing development criteria for commercial development in order to improve the quality of life in the county. This enhancement will in turn attract new businesses and residents. This article further provides reflexability of design in order to avoid a homogeneity that could also have a negative impact on individual commercial developments and the county. This intent statement shows that Charlotte County is very concerned with the visual appearance and image of commercial areas and is the reason why staff has concerns regarding the aesthetics and views of this type of outdoor storage. Staff recommends that these outdoor storage areas be hidden from public view as much as practical and screened by buildings or other, or screened by other buildings whenever possible, particularly when this use is located adjacent to residential areas, or public streets or parks. the app. Sorry, we're going to forget an image. So this is the 2024 Eagle View image of the property. And if you're interested, here are the flood zones. The applicant has provided the attach narrative, providing an overview of their proposal and addressing three approval criteria for special exceptions. The applicant is requesting to use the property for a building trade contractors office without or storage, primarily for outdoor storage of marble and granite slabs, and states they intend to construct a 4,000 square foot commercial building to be used as an office. Staff notes that the applicant has been operating the business on subject property since approximately 2021 and there is an active code enforcement case involved. The applicant has no permits or approvals authorizing the current use of the property. On your screen now is the survey provided by the applicant showing the current conditions of the property. property consists of six consolidated lots and is approximately 1.303 acres in size. The survey shows concrete pads on lots 15, 16 and 17, which are covered with marble and granite slabs on racks. A temporary aluminum frame tent, approximately 2,120 square feet in size has been constructed on lot 16 over a concrete pad. The site currently has no permitted access points and is being accessed from an existing driveway on lots 13 and 14, which is owned by a different entity. The attached concept plan on your screen now, which was provided by the applicant, shows their proposed development plan for the site. The applicant is proposing minimal changes on lots 15 through 19 and tends to increase the amount of stone slab stored in this area. The existing tent shown on the concept plan is intended to be replaced with a wood portico structure. The applicant provided this is an example of what that portico structure may look like. The Community Development Department's Environmental Specialist has performed a cursory environmental review and their comments are in the attached memorandum. For our findings, the three standards for approval of a special exception according to section 3,9-6.2i of the Charlotte County zoning code are as follows. Number one, the proposed special exception is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Our finding is that subject property is located in the urban service area and the proposed use of the building trades contractors office with outdoor storage is a use that falls under the general range of uses for commercial designated properties Found in the land use guide which is in appendix one of the future land use element of the Charlotte 2050 comprehensive plan As noted outdoor storage of any kind is only allowed as a special exception in the CG zoning district And this proposed use could potentially be considered consistent with the general range of uses for commercial properties in the Charlotte 2050 comprehensive plan if it is appropriately screened from residential uses and public areas. Number two, the proposed special exception is compatible with existing and permitted uses surrounding the land on which the proposed special exception would exist. is that subject property is located on the south side of South Access Road to the south of South McCall Road to the west of Sunnybrook and to the east of First Street in Englewood. The surrounding land uses consist of a mix of residential and commercial uses with commercial businesses and vacant commercial land to the east and west and duplexes and single-family residences to the south. Outdoor storage, as noted, is an industrial commercial use that requires a special exception and this is required because this type of use is not necessarily compatible with other types of commercial uses or when adjacent to property zone for residential use. Subject property has frontage on South McCall Road. I'm gonna pull the aerial back up for you. Subject property has frontage on South Access Road and full visibility from South McCall Road, which is one of the busiest commercial corridors in Charlotte County. Allowing the limited commercial areas along this and other major roadways to be occupied with outdoor storage uses, which are better suited for industrial zone areas, is not in accordance with the intent of the county's commercial design standards, or general best practices for land use planning. Outdoor storage, even when screened with opaque fencing and landscaping, can be unsightly and have a detrimental impact on adjacent properties. Sorry, the applicant states in their narrative that the stone slabs stored on subject property are approximately six to seven feet tall and are held on racks or platforms to elevate them off the ground. These slabs would likely be partially visible over the six foot tall fence. In addition, in addition to fronting a major roadway along the South property line, subject property abuts RMF 10 zone properties to the South, which have existing homes on most of the properties. The existing aluminum frame tent does not meet any of the county's commercial design standards, and staff is unable to verify if the structure meets any Florida building code requirements, as the structure was erected without permits. The applicant has stated this structure will be removed in replace with the wood portico structure, and staff notes that all structures in CG zoning must meet commercial design standards, as well as all other zoning and building code requirements. Staff's professional opinion is that the proposed use of outdoor storage of stone slabs on subject property is not compatible with existing and permitted uses surrounding the land on which the proposed special exception would exist. Outdoor storage uses should be limited to industrial areas or commercial areas without frontage on major roadways and not abutting residential exoned areas. If the board finds that the application meets all three approval criteria, staff is recommending conditions of approval, including the requirement for a six foot tall opaque fencer wall as part of the required typed-y buffer around the perimeter of the property. All right, the establishment maintenance or operation of the proposed use shall not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety or general welfare. Staff are findings, is that staff has provided the attached historical aerials which show the conditions of subject property from 2020 to 2025 This is the 2020 aerial photograph showing the entirety of subject property which is lots 15 through 20 as vacant and undeveloped and wooded This is the 2021 aerial photograph showing the applicant placed stone slabs on the adjacent property identified as lot 13 and 14 and address as 4,000 and nine South Access Road. This is owned by another entity but leased to the applicant. Lots 13 and 14 have been developed with an office building and concrete pads. The 2022 aerials this is immediately following Hurricane Ian. The 2022 aerials showed that the applicant cleared and expanded the stone slab storage area onto lots 15 and 16. The 2023 aerials show that the applicant cleared lot 17, 18, 19 and 20 and it began storing various vehicles and items on this portion of subject property. These conditions have continued as shown in the 2024 aerial on your screen and the 2025 aerial. A search of the county's permitting database for 4017 and 4009 South Access Road show code enforcement complaints dating back to 2020. COD-20-02813 was submitted in November of 2020 regarding outdoor storage and display of the stone slabs, but was closed because at the time the storage or display area was allegedly within the 300 square foot threshold permitted in CG zoning. COD-22-02481 was submitted in December of 2022 regarding illegal clearing of the property. This case was closed as insufficient because the complainant used a PO box as their address, which did not meet statutory requirements for submittal of a code enforcement complaint. However, the violation occurred and the applicant cleared the property without any permits or environmental inspections. There is no evidence that the applicant conducted the required protected species survey prior to clearing the property. Staff is also unable to determine if any heritage trees were removed during the illegal clearing of the site. In April of 2023, cases COD-23-00972 and COD-23-00973 were opened. These cases have subsequently been closed, these air quotes, due to changes in property ownership and the violation currently exists under one consolidated case, which is COD-24, there's 01280. The violations include a non-permitted use, junk like conditions, work done without permits, which includes the illegal clearing of the property and erection of the tent structure, and operation of a business without the required business tax receipt. The applicant is also damaged county rights of way by accessing the property from the north and south, which is shown on the aerial photographs. Notice of these violations and the requirement to obtain all applicable permits since 2021 are all in the case record, but the owner has not come into compliance. In fact, the applicant has expanded the use of the property after being served with the notice of violation. The case was first heard before the county's code enforcement special magistrate on August 7, 2024. The magistrate found the property and violation in order the applicant to come into compliance with all county regulations within 60 days. The required pre-application meeting for the special exception petition was held on January 9, 2025. The application was submitted on January 29, 2025. A second affididavit of noncompliance was issued on March 3rd, 2025, and is currently scheduled to go before the code enforcement magistrate, again on May 7th of 2025. Staff has significant concerns regarding the applicant's ability or willingness to comply with any of the recommended conditions of approval should the board approve the requested special exception based on the demonstrable ongoing failure to come into compliance. The concept plan on your screen now shows three proposed access points to from South Access Road along the North property line and one from the unnamed alley to the south of the property. Staff notes the final number and location of any access points would be determined during the site plan review process. Should the requested special exception be approved. Offense is shown around a portion of the property where outdoor storage of the slab- sorry, stone slabs would be located. The concept plan also shows a new parking lot for customers and employees, a stormwater area and a 4,000 square foot commercial building. The existing tent is intended to be replaced with the wood portico structure in the same location. The surface of the outdoor storage area must be stabilized and meet all county and state stormwater requirements and the dry vials must be paved. A noticeable increase in traffic from the proposed use is unlikely as the business has already been operating for several years. The applicant states they are not proposing any lighting for the storage area. However, if they were to install perimeter lighting, it must be directed towards the interior of the site. As condition, it is staff's professional opinion that the proposed use of a building trades contractor's office with outdoor storage is not necessarily likely to be detrimental to the public health or safety, but because it is incompatible with adjacent and surrounding uses, it is likely to be detrimental to the general welfare of the community. Even if developed in compliance with all county codes, including but not limited to paving, screening, stormwater management, and landscaping. Staff remains very concerned with the applicant's lack of compliance to current requirements, foreshadows the same response to the recommended conditions of approval. At the summary of our staff report, Mr. Chair, we happy to answer any questions.. Thank you. Does anybody have questions for the Brisbane? Yeah, I do. Could you tell me again the code hearing that was held in 2024? What's the the result of that? And is that now going to be re-heard this year? So the code enforcement special magistrate found the property and violation. So they upheld all of the complaints submitted before him gave them 60 days to come into compliance. They did not. They've been issued. I think this is, they're on their second affidavit of noncompliance and it goes back before code magistrate in May. Okay, so why are we here? To make they want to make the use a legal use and the only way to do that is by the special exception. And does does filing here today somehow negate the findings of the special magistrate? Does this wipe any of that out? Is there, does it defer any judgment by the special magistrate? I'm gonna let Sean answer since he's with the magistrate. Yes, I'm pulling up the signed order from the, from the magistrate. All right. So no, it wouldn't. So they were given 60 days from the day of the order to bring the property and compliance, which as she stated was August 7th, 2024 is when it was signed. They did not meet that. That's why we took them for the first affidavit. We're preparing the second affidavit. They are currently being fined $500 per day. This would not negate it. If you approve it, we will continue the case. The case will be ongoing until they take the next steps. If they don't do it, we will continue the affidavits and the leaning process. But we will, if this is approved today, then their next steps going to be site plan review. If they get site plan review, we'll probably push off the affidavit of noncompliance. Then once they get that approval, if they pull their building permit, excuse me, then we will close it and they could apply for the lien releases and reduction. So if we approve this today, if I understand you right, it stops the fine until it gives them time to get the permitting. Correct, I believe Elizabeth, correct me if I'm wrong. I know we haven't gotten to our recommendations yet, but I believe similar to some other of these items, we put in specific time frames into your recommendations for they have to get site plan approval within X number of days, they have to pull building permits within X number of days, complete those types of things. Second, they don't hit one of those triggers, we're taking them right back to the magistrate. I believe we also put in in the recommendations that if they don't meet some of the triggers, the your approval will be null and void. So we're tight on this because this has just gotten way out of control and we share. We do have those concerns that they are not going to follow through. We have had a number of similar situations with code cases where they get the approvals and they don't move forward and we're right back here either with one that is expired or right back before the code magistrate. So this is something that, again, this is in terms of construction. This is pretty egregious. They were visited by co-enforcement and at that time, they had stated to those officers that, we're just running business here. So we put in very strict conditions and we respect whatever decision you folks make. Mr. Vier, if I may just point out that the condition number seven, number seven, which Elizabeth will describe to you, make. Mr. Vier if I may just point out that the condition number seven which Elizabeth will describe to you requires essentially that they discontinue this use until they get permits. I don't know that that's got nothing to do with us. No it does not but it's a condition that I would like to highlight to the board because the idea here is that we don't you don't grant special exceptions and it is important to the board because it is part of your conditions that you're going to impose it where excuse me, recommended conditions that were suggesting should be imposed and that they should remove the come into compliance and then go through the permitting process. That's one of the conditions that we're recommending on this special exception. Anybody else have any questions? At this time with the applicant, please come up. Thank you. And would you tell me you're okay with Miss Nochek as expert witness and you've been sworn? Yes, my name is Mary Sprig. I'm a professional engineer and I have been sworn in. I'm here of course to present a special exception. I understand there's been violations. I don't have a lot of knowledge of the process. I do know that this is one of the requirements that they have to go through to develop it and that was their intent to develop it. So having said that, we are requesting a special exception for the purpose of outdoor storage, which is, to me, it's kind of a term. It's not really storage, it's a display. Unfortunately, with granite, you've got to look at the slab itself to purchase it. I understand that the county does see that granite as a storage yard, and of course that's why we're here. But unlike carpeting and wood flooring, which you choose from a sample, granite is sold by the slab. No samples to look at. The buyer must actually look at the granite in order to choose both the color and the pattern of the slab that they want for their home. And I understand Elizabeth says that it should be in an industrial park. Unfortunately, the industrial parks are a little further out. A little the accessibility to the public is not as easy as in the CG zone along along the highway here. The Marchell is Marchellis currently rent the adjacent offices and access their granite is displayed the access to access I'm sorry to access their area of granite displayed on on their site is through a driveway from their rental property. The Marchellis are proposing to develop the adjacent property as you can see on the six lots that they own. And have retained me already to do this work, which of course, once I found out a special exception was needed, I said we need to get this first before I get get into the actual design and construction permitting for the site itself. The storage or the display of the granite is allowable use in CG with a special exception approval. If it is approved, the owners are required to construct a six foot high fence or wall with a landscape buffer along the entire perimeter of that storage area. The granite height varies, but is approximately six to seven foot in height. There is a small like stand that it sits on, it sits at an angle. So with the angle, the six foot wall will pretty much cover the site of the granite. You might see a few inches or depending on how it's leaning, you know, up six, eight inches of the granite above the wall. The board can also impose additional conditions which Elizabeth has recommended in a report. And should the board see to it to approve this special exception, I would ask that item number seven, as the attorney pointed out, that the owners be allowed to permit and construct the fence first with the landscaping, as it would be quite costly and difficult to remove all the granted from the site. And that of course would go along with the requirement if they've got to get it up or the grant it has to be removed. But if they could be allowed to put the wall and the landscaping up while we're going through site development approval that would be advantageous. I would also ask that a provision, some sort of a provision be added to recommendation number eight. I believe Sean is at six months, that's in that recommendation. I believe it says six months. This final site plan approval review approval shall be obtained within six months. And all the permitting inspections must be completed within one year. As doing a tremendous amount of site development in southwest Florida, it is next to impossible to get through full site development approval final in six months. I can do the best I can, but for example, there's 30 days for preliminary review. After those 30 days, I can then upload those revisions, so then there's another 30 days that the county has to respond to those comments. Not saying they always use the 30 days on the response, but they do have the 30 days. Then you submit again, you have 30 days for the final review. Then there's comments and changes. I submit those and then they have another 30 days to review for that. And there's also other items that need to be done through site development, protected species report, landscape plan, traffic, survey, septic. So these people are, I don't do these items. So other consultants need to do them and sometimes trying to get them done before preliminary is next to impossible in today's times. So for my sake I think I'm asking for like a possible extension that as long as we're making a concerted effort to get it done as quick as possible that there is a provision in there for some sort of an extension on my behalf not not the owners but my behalf that I would be able to get the permitting done in the six months. And of course, like I said, that is if you do, would possibly consider the special exception. And in conclusion, I do respectfully request approval of the special exception based on the other requirements, which will be imposed on this site development and that it does meet the intent of the code. Thank you. Thank you. Do you have any questions? You're allowed to come up after she's. Yes. I'm done. Thank you. Are you the owner, sir? I am not. I'm just to answer your question. Wait, first state you've been sworn in and who you are in sign. I have been sworn in. Thank you. So the main thing I wanted to address is just state your name and Brian party certified general contractor have been hired by the Mercheli group to handle this and I've been working hand in hand with Miss Bregg. So the reason I wanted to come up just to kind of offset some of the things that were said, because I see in the beginning before she or I were even involved, it seems like they were just kicking the can down the road and not really responding to the code enforcement and what Sean and his team were wanting to accomplish before having to get to this point. But once they realized, hey, we're getting $500 a day, you know, that kind of wakes people up, excuse me, wakes people up, right? So to show how serious they are, they have put me on my cell phone retainer, they've hired Mary, and we're just from the August meeting that you asked why we are here. From that point, this is how long it's taken just to get everything for the special exception and beyond the calendar to even have this meeting. So since the August 2nd, we've been working to get to this day. So we are, I know the owners are very serious about coming into compliance. And if you were to give us the special exception, I can tell you for myself and my reputation in Miss Mary Sprague, we're going to do everything possible to make sure that we maintain that reputation by getting them in line and helping them get this out and through the finish line. Thank you, sir. Thank you. I appreciate your time. At this time, I'll go ahead, Mary. I'm sorry. Just to add to what he said, during the process, site development, once we get all the permits, and they do what they're supposed to do, I have to certify once it's done. And so, they do have to have both approval of the site construction once it's done as well as the certificate of occupancy for the building itself. Thank you. This time I open the public hearing and we'd like to come up and speak. This time to come up. Mr. Chair, I did receive one email or actually a written correspondence from an adjacent property owner. Mr. Anthony Ray, I'll go ahead and pass this out and for the record we will label this as exhibit K. Do you know where it's for against? It is against. Thank you. If I don't see anybody stand up, I'd like to close the public comment. Move the close public comment. Mr. Chair, if I may, I'd like to correct a few items. The site plan review process. One second. I got a motion to close the public comment. Gang is second. On in favor, I, Sean, John, deck. Thank you, I apologize. With the site plan review process, that is a three week process, not 30 days. Staff reviews within the first two weeks and then the applicant has a week to respond. Or more, we always grant extensions to that. The number of times they have to submit and resummit, resummit is always, of course, based on what is submitted and whether or not it meets code. We've had people get through, you know, first round, admittedly very rare. We've had people that's taken 10, 12 rounds to go through to finally meet, come up with a code compliant plan. So essentially it's all based on the documents that are given to us, but physically in our hands, our process is two weeks. Similar with building permits, we are roughly at about to us but physically in our hands our process is two weeks. Similar with building permits we are roughly at about a two week, two to three week review time for building permits and again those review times and number of resumables are solely based on the items that are submitted and reviewed whether they are code compliant or not. So I just wanted to put that out there that no, it's not multiple 30 day periods. Our review times are very, and that is under the code that is a three week process. I just know from experience, sometimes it takes a lot longer than you think it does. Again, that is based on what is submitted to us for review. Go ahead, Mary. Quite candidly, Sean. Can I call you to this afternoon with a few projects that I have going through site development? Sure, can. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Don't check your back on. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You got to exhibit. You said for this? Yes, that's exhibit K. Thank you. Also, excuse me, Elizabeth. Yes. Could you show me where this address is? I spent just street and correlation to the site that we're talking about. Is there an area that you can bring that in? Ah. Where Spence Street is? I'm not sure if I have one that. We're 17 South Access Road. I just wish if people think they're probably going to be the value they get an expert witness. So the address that the person listed is their mailing address up north. So it won't show on here. They did not put their local address, it has to be it's within the thousand foot radius. Okay. All right thank you. Welcome. So just to address something else before I give the recommendation this type of outdoor storage would not receive a recommendation of approval from staff even if it had come in before they had done the work due to the aesthetic and image concerns and compatibility with this type of outdoor storage on a main commercial corridor. So for our findings, after review of the site and the application requesting the special exception, it is staff's professional opinion that the proposed special exception use, consisting of a building trade's contractor's office without door storage, does not meet the three approval criteria for granting a special exception. Staff notes each special exception request is reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals does not create a precedent. If the Board of Zoning Appeals decides to approve the requested special exception, staff recommends the following conditions be adopted as conditions of approval to ensure that the use is in compliance with the purpose and intent of the zoning code. The recommended conditions are as follows. Number one, the special exception as approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals is to allow a building trades contractor's office without storage and extends only to the lands included in site plans and legal descriptions submitted with this application. Number two, the concept plan submitted by the applicant as part of the petition is for illustrative purposes only. All applicable regulations of county code shall apply to this development. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals as applicable to this development, including but not limited to site plan review, right of way access, vegetation removal, fencing, stormwater management, and landscape plan approval. Number three, the storage of debris, heavy machinery, semi trucks, or hazardous materials is prohibited. Number four, a type D landscape buffer with a six foot tall site obscuring, opaque, fence, or wall, shall be constructed and planted around the entire perimeter of the site. The use of chain link fencing as part of the required buffer is prohibited. Number five, any perimeter outdoor lighting shall be directed towards the interior of the property. Number six, any future building or buildings shall meet or exceed all applicable commercial design standards set forth in chapter three-dash five, article 24 as may be amended. Number seven, the outdoor storage use may not be used until all required improvements are completed including the required buffers and a certificate of occupancy or final inspections have been issued. No development permits may be issued until the existing outdoor storage is removed from the property. The commercial building shown on the concept plan must be constructed prior to use of the property for outdoor storage. All existing outdoor storage must be removed from subject property until a certificate of occupancy or final inspections have been issued. Number eight, this special exception is granted for a term of three months from the date of approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals. However, the special exception shall not expire if the owner commences the proposed development on or before the special exceptions term expires. The applicant must obtain, at a minimum, preliminary site plan review approval and after the fact environmental and right of way permits within three months of the date of approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Final site plan review approval shall be obtained within six months and all of their permitting and inspections must be completed within one year of the date of approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals. And number nine, any major changes or additions to the special exception shall require a modification of the special exception, including a change in type of outdoor storage. Minor changes or additions such as accessory uses or structures may be approved by the zoning official. That's it. Can I ask you why you're doing a six foot fence and an eight foot fence? The type of buffer that's required under special exceptions for outdoor storage limits the height of the fence is six feet. I'm just curious if we've done eight before. Yeah, that's been an internal discussion and the code provision prevails. Thank you. I'm always getting educated. The, can I ask a question on the landscape offer at six feet, six foot opaque fence? Is that include, is that to be placed on top of the berm? Is that how we're going to interpret that? No, sir, that is not a requirement. It's not a requirement. The landscaping to be placed on the outside of the fence, the intent of the various items that you can see at the bottom is to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be and we're just here to pass or not pass. Just that's why Mr. Chair, that is a common provision in almost every special exception that I've seen since you've started working here on this board. You may not have noticed it as much, but it's there. And one of the, it's obviously within the board's purview to decide whether you want to adopt it or not. The purpose of the code enforcement process, which is not We're subject here, but this is the reason they're here is because they were in a code enforcement case is to comply with the code. And failure to remove the storage that is in violation of the code and to bring the property into compliance with the code means that that code case must continue. Those in positions of the fines must continue because they will not be in compliance. The fact that they get an approval here today is not compliance with the code. So it's obviously up to you to decide what you want to do with those permits, with that provision, but I can tell you from the attorney's office, they're not going to be in compliance just by getting this approval here today, should you grant it? Thank you. Is the zone of share today? I'm representing the owner as well as Miss Mary. Yeah, I know that, but are they here? They're not. They're actually were shorthanded because of staff issues. Okay, ask that. Mr. Chair, I believe they actually have the hearing and clothes, Mr. Chair. We've already closed the hearing. Okay. Am I able to rebut? But, but, but, but all that you could say. Okay. Just real quick, because I understand if this was a bunch of trash stored, I'm completely in agreement with what this gentleman's saying. However, what you're suggesting is you're taking the showroom and having to move all that that you see to some other location which I'm sure you'd be glad to open another code case because they put that somewhere it's not supposed to be. Now it's illegal store somewhere else. But what you're doing is you're cutting off the cash flow that's gonna be able to allow them to get this case into compliance by putting, because it's over a million and a half dollars to put this fence and to instruct the building and everything that we're talking about doing. So it's very difficult to cut the cash flow and expect all this to happen. Mr. Chair, with respect to the witness, I don't know if this is additional testimony. I don't know what we're doing here, but just as far as the point is that under the code, under the county code, all that's illegal. None of it was put there illegally. So the fact that it causes a cash flow issue to the applicant is regrettable, but the county did not create the issue. This was done completely in violation of the code with multiple years of notices. This is not like this is popped up yesterday. This goes back to 2020. We've been talking about this case with the property owner for before the hurricanes, you know, the whole process, probably before COVID. So this is not new. And everybody's unaware of what's going on here. They were aware what's going on here. They basically told our code, our code enforcement people that they were not gonna comply. Regardless, that is not up to you. I'm just letting this gentleman know that this is nothing new and the fact that you're violating the county, though there are storage units all over the state, all over this county that are available to put stuff in. We have been approving them at this board. Like. the county, though there are storage units all over this county that are available to put stuff in. We have been approving them at this board like crazy. So the idea that there's no place to put this stuff in the interim is not to me, Tom's opinion, not the county attorney's opinion, Tom's opinion is that's a species argument. Have you told them a card dealership that they should go? I think they're cards in that store too. Look for motion. Well, I want to continue the discussion actually. Okay, please. I'm sitting here and I'm listening to this and the applicant has intentionally just completely disregarded our codes and violated them and thumbed as known as the county. And now the applicant and with respect to his representatives coming in here, I understand what your job is and what you're trying to do on their behalf. But the point of the matter is that they've just decided that they're not going to comply. Until they got to this point, and now that they're back as against the wall, they've decided that, OK, we'll fall in line now. But I don't know if we're lining ourselves up for additional hearings, meaning that site plan asks for extensions and those sorts of things in the future. I think it's a gain and I don't have a problem not supporting this application whatsoever at this hearing. That's my opinion. I just wish the applicant itself was here. I do too. I think it's a major thing. Nothing against you being the representative, but I'd like to hear from them. And can I say something? Go ahead, Mayor. And I appreciate that. Yeah, we're here, of course, to do our job. And the owners last fall had signed a contract with me. So they are serious about getting this taken care of. Unfortunately, at that time, I didn't realize there was a violation on site. So I said, let's stop the site development until the special exception is approved, because if it is not approved, then it's not going to do any good to go through site development. If necessary for the time frame, it's, you know, again, I asked not on the owner's behalf because I'm sure he'd love to have this done in six months, but on my behalf only because of the time schedule. And I appreciate what Sean is saying. And I am mistaken. It's not 30 days. It's 21. But on occasion, it does go beyond that. And it's 21 for their review. I have not seen anything like that. And again, I'll confirm it and look on line, but there's times I am waiting longer. But that's kind of irrelevant. I'm just asking if you approve it. However, I feel that this hearing here has not nothing to do with the violation. It could be on, you know, obviously, or it's there. And I can't address it because I'm not involved in any of the violations. But should they be approved for the special exception, they would then proceed, they have to, to comply with what's being done. If they don't comply, they'll be shut down. And, you know, obviously more and more penalties. So they don't really have a choice and I would just ask the board to keep the violation separate from the special exception. As Elizabeth stated, if they didn't have a violation, we would still come in front of you, unfortunately, we're working with the violation. Thank you. You're in discussion. If I may, sir, this... Thank you, sir. Just since she brought that up, if you recall, across the street, roughly, we would still be recommending, not recommending approval of this petition, similar to the one across the street where they were looking to do outdoor storage based on compatibility issues and locational issues. So we looked at it as well without the code case being involved and we would still not be recommending approval of this type of use. And that's where I like to be, it's just without the code case, because it's too much emotion. What? It's too much emotion involved in this. Well, it's not our job. I agree. And I'm sorry. And the fact that staff would not recommend it on its own merit is. And I'm fine with that. And I'm fine with going either way with this. I just don't want to be involved in a code case. Yes. I don't feel as my job. Yes. The reason we talk, I think this testimony is done. Please, let's let the board deliberate. But I do need appropriate motion. So the appropriate motions at this point are a motion to approve or a motion to deny. I move that SE2501 be denied based on the Community Development Department staff report dated April 2nd, 2025. The evidence presented at the hearing and findings that the applicant has not met the list criteria. We cried criteria for the granting of the special exception. We have a motion to order a second. Second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion? Aye. Aye. Sorry you have no storage. Next, Miss Nochak Again, good morning, everyone. Further record? Elizabeth Nurchick, AICP, senior planner for the community development department. I'm a project planner for this application and I have been sworn. At this time, I request I be accepted as an expert in planning based upon the summary of my qualifications which are set forth in exhibit one to the staff report. Notice of this public hearing was given in accordance with county code through mailings, postings and publication. This is petition SE-25-002. Mr. Sean Emory is requesting a special exception to exceed the total maximum square footage of 3,000 square feet of accessory structures for property greater than 1,500 in size to construct a 4,800 square foot detached garage for a total allowance of 8,840 square feet of accessory structures and the RSF single family 5 RSF 5 zoning district. The proposed use is to be located at 4313 Pepperwood Lane in Englewood. On your screen now is the 1000 foot mailed notification area map for mailers that were sent out for this petition. And this is the location map of subject property. The attached zoning map on your screen shows the zoning of subject property, which is RSS 5 and the zoning of the surrounding area. Subject property has a future land use map designation of low density residential. The attached area image on your screen shows the location of subject property on the east side of Pepperwood Lane to the east of Gasparilla Pines Boulevard. The attached site image on your screen is the 2024 aerial photograph showing a close-up view of subject property and the adjacent parcels. This is the 2024 Ego View image of the property and these are the flood zones. and 3-9-33 of the land development regulations establishes the regulations for the RSF-5 zoning district including these standards for accessory structures based on parcel size. If a parcel is greater than one-half acre in size, the subsection of code establishes the maximum total footprint of the all detached accessory structures not to exceed 3,000 square feet. This subsection also provides that the property owner may apply for a special exception to exceed the total maximum accessory structure square footage limitations in this section. Section three dash nine dash 33 also establishes the minimum lot size for RSF-5-Zoned properties with 7,500 square feet. Subject property exceeds this with 218,671.2 square feet or 5.02 acres. The applicant has provided the attached narrative, providing an overview of their proposal. the applicant is proposing to construct a 60 foot by 80 foot or 4,800 square feet, detached garage on subject property. The applicant has provided the attached survey on your screen now, showing the, sorry, the property has been developed with a 3564 square foot single family residents built in 2004. A 1500 square foot shed, which was built in 2023. The property is accessed via a long circular paved driveway. The applicant has provided a concept plan showing the location of the proposed two-story garage, which is this structure here to the south, as well as several recently constructed accessory structures, including an in-ground swimming pool with a screen enclosure and a 40-foot by 60-foot or 2004 square foot screened pole barn, which covers the applicant's personal pickleball court. The applicant is proposing to construct the 4,800 square foot detached garage to the west of the existing residence approximately 30 feet from the south, which is the side property line, and 40 feet from the east, which is the rear property line. The applicant intends to use the proposed garage for a personal storage on the first floor and has guest quarters on the second floor. The applicant also states that the first floor of the proposed garage will have a hurricane safe room. The applicant has provided several photographs showing their existing home and some of the items to be stored in the garage. The applicant is also proposing to construct a 14 foot by 10 foot or 140 square feet whole home generator shed on subject property in the future. This is not shown on the concept plan, but is included in the total square footage of accessory structures requested as part of this special exception. The applicant's proposed detach garage is intended to have wall heights of 18 feet. The subsection 3-9-33c1b requires that any increase in wall or leg height greater than 12 feet may be allowed with an increase of required setbacks on all sides of 5 feet for every 1 foot of height increase. The applicants' proposal requires an additional 30 feet be added to each of the front, rear, and side yard setbacks, which can easily be accommodated due to the size of the applicant's property. Staff notes that the concept plan will require some adjustments to meet the required setbacks, but they have plenty of space. If the requested special exception is approved by the board, the total area of accessory structures, which would be 8,840 square feet, would account for approximately 4.04% of the total land area of the 5.02 acre parcel. The total square footage of all structures would be 12,404 square feet, with a total lock coverage of 5.7%, which is well below the maximum allowed in RSF 5 zoning district of 40%. The applicant has also provided the attached concept plans on your screen garage plans showing the construction plans of the proposed attached garage. So these are the elevations of the structure which will match the existing home and appearance of materials. And these are the floor plans on the left is the first floor and right is second floor. The proposed garage will be constructed using concrete block and stucco to match the appearance of the existing single family residents and will have a metal roof. The community development department's environmental specialist has performed a cursory environmental review and their comments are in the attached memorandum. For our findings, the three standards for approval of a special exception according to section 3-9-6.2i of the Charlotte County zoning code are as follows. Number one, the proposed special exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Our finding is that subject property is located in the urban service area and the proposed detach garage is an accessory structure, which falls under the general range of uses for properties with a flume designation of load-ensity residential. The principal use is and will continue to be a single family residence, and the proposed 4,800 square foot detach garage may be permitted with a special exception. The proposed guest quarters with cooking facilities on the second floor of the garage are also permitted under the land development regulations because of the size of the property. The proposed special exception can be considered consistent with the comprehensive plan. Number two, the proposed special exception is compatible with existing and permitted uses surrounding the land on which the proposed special exception would exist. Our finding is that subject property is located on, oops, I'm trying to get the right map here. Subject property is located on the east side of Pepperwood Lane to the east of Guestboro of Pine's Boulevard to the west of Boundary Boulevard in Englewood. The surrounding land uses consist of a mixture of residential and preservation lands. To the immediate north and south of subject property are large lot single-family residences, and to the immediate west are single-family residences with the Gasparilla Pines' multi-family development and preserve land on by the Lemon Bay Conservancy further to the west. To the east is preserved land owned by the state of Florida. The future development of the surrounding area is likely to be low density residential in nature given the existing zoning and future land use map designations. As shown on the survey and on aerial photographs, the west and south of the property is heavily vegetated and that vegetation is intended to remain which will provide a natural buffer between the adjacent property to the south which is the residential property closest to the proposed detached garage. This county's land development regulations require the special exception to allow the total area of all accessory structures to exceed 3,000 square feet in size. Subject property currently contains 3,900 square feet of detached accessory structures. The pole barn to the north of subject property was properly permitted and constructed in 2024 as shown on the attached pole barn permit plan. However, staff notes that the applicant should have been required to apply for a special exception at the time of permitting for this pole barn. As this structure caused the property to exceed 3,000 square feet of accessory structures. Staff believes this oversight was caused by the applicant's contractor for the pole barn as the existing 1500 square foot shed near the center of the property was omitted from the site plan used for this permit. The total square footage of all structures for the proposed for subject property would be 12,040 square feet with a total lot coverage of 5.7% for all structures which is well below the maximum of 40%. The as previously stated, the proposed whole home generator shed is not shown on the plan, but the 140 square feet that the applicant is proposing is included in the total square footage requested. Should the applicant decide to construct any other accessory structure on the property, they would need to modify the special exception should the board approve it. Accessory structures like the proposed detach garage are customarily accessory and clearly incidental to the primary permitted uses and structures. There will be no parking or storage of any commercial vehicles, heavy machinery, hazardous materials or construction materials on subject property. The whole home generator shed would allow the applicant to make his property more resilient during future storms. The proposed garage is to be consistent with all other code requirements, including matching the primary structure and appearance of materials. And therefore, the proposed 4,800 square foot detached garage and the whole home generator shed can be considered compatible with existing and permitted uses. Number three, the establishment maintenance or operation of the proposed use shall not be detrimental to or endanger the public health safety or general welfare. Our staff is unaware of any evidence that the establishment maintenance or operation of the proposed detatch garage would be detrimental to or endanger the public health safety or general welfare. That's the summary of our staff report, Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. And by every questions, it was prompt. Yeah, just one. For this structure, will the septic system be required for this? Is there public sewer there or will it be a septic? I'm gonna let the applicant address that. If that's okay. Come up, sir. Would that building have to be moved different from what the right back there right there? Because the height would have more set back than the 30 foot and a 40 foot. Yes sir. So I have to move it further into the property just a little bit. Okay go ahead sir. My name Sean Emory I was sworn in. I'm on a city sewer so what I have is a left station that pumps to the city. So there is no septic. And the height of the building was originally 18. We reduced it to 16 to fall within the limits of the 5 feet addition. So she said 18. It's really 16. And then you don't have adjusted., I just want to get some older cars to store them. I'm not going to work there. I own a business. I don't work at my business. I have my mechanics work on my own stuff. I certainly have a pernots of hours I've produced over the past two years. And it's pretty low. I don't work at work. I don't want to work at home. I just want to store my ATVs, my side by side. We go to River Ranch. I want to park my truck in there with my trailer attached, load it up so we could just open a door, pull out, go away for the weekend. I mean, no one can see my property is the picture of the front gate. Echanian C back there, there's no one around me. My one neighbor, Jimmy Dixon is fine with everything. I mean, I fall under the same restrictions as people with a quarter acre, I believe, which is crazy. You know, I have to get a special exemption. I have five acres. I got plenty of room. Nice piece of property, sir. And we have any questions, Mr. Chairman? Thank you, sir. This time I open for public comment and they like to come up. Seeing nobody, I'd like to close the public comment. Mr. Chair, before you close, I'm sorry, I apologize. We did receive two emails regarding this petition. They're both from the same person. One sent on April 7th, hit objections. The one sent on April 8th said that their concerns have now been satisfied. I just want to make sure that we're being fully transparent. So I'm going to distribute these, and we're going to label the April 7th as exhibit I and the email from April 8th as exhibit J. So just so everyone's aware. Okay. I'd like to get a motion and close the public comment. I'll move the close public comment. Second. Second. On favor. Miss, no check your back up again, you know. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for a recommendation. After review of the site and the application requesting the special exception, it is staff's professional opinion that the proposed special exception to exceed the maximum square footage of accessory structures of 3,000 square feet for a property greater than one half acre in size to allow a 4,800 square foot detached garage and future 140 square foot whole home generator shed for a total allowance of 8,840 square feet of accessory structures does meet the three criteria for granting a special exception. Staff notes that each special exception request is reviewed on a case-by-case basis and the decision of the board of zoning appeals does not create a precedent. If the board decides to approve the requested special exception, staff recommends the following conditions be adopted as conditions of approval to ensure that the use is in compliance with the purpose and intent of the zoning code. The recommended conditions are as follows. Number one, the special exception as approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals is to maximum of 3,000 square feet of accessory structures on a property greater than 1-half acre in size to allow a 4,800 square foot detached garage and a 140 square foot whole home generator shed for a total allowance of 8,840 square feet of accessory structures and extends only to the lands included in the site plans and legal descriptions submitted with this application. Number two, the concept plans submitted by the applicant as part of the petition is for illustrative purposes only, all applicable regulations of county coach will apply to the development. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals as applicable to the development including but not limited to environmental and building permits. Number three, storage of heavy machinery, debris or hazardous materials is prohibited. Number four, the construction of any additional accessory structures will require a modification of the special exception. Number five, the detached garage shall be for personal use of the property owner and shall not operate as a commercial storage business. Storage spaces inside the garage may not be leased or sold to other individuals or businesses. Number six, this special exception is granted for a term of three years from the date of approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals. However, the special exception shall not expire if the owner commences the proposed development on or before the special exception's term expires. And number seven, any major changes or additions to the special exception shall require a modification of the special exception. Minor changes or additions such as accessory uses may be approved by the zoning official. That's it, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I have a question. We're including the future generator for the home under recommendation number four, the construction of any additional structure will require a modification. If we're approving that square footage now, are we going to have to, is he still going to have to apply for a modification of the special exception? No, the whole home generator shed is included with this request. So anything after that, if they want to construct an additional shed or another garage, that would require modification for that. Okay, it's just a site plan or a permit requirement at that point. Right, because a lot of it's going to be based on where it has to hook option two and they may not know where it's going to go with this. Okay. I'm going to move that special I'd like to make a motion please. I'll move that special exception 25-002 be approved based on a community development department staff report dated April 2nd 2025. The evidence presented at the hearing and finding that the applicant has met the required criteria for granting the special exception. All seven recommendations are included in this motion. We have a motion. We have a second. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Motion carries. You have your garage, sir. Have a good day. Elizabeth, you OK to go on? Are you? I am. Okay, then I'm good to go. Okay. Petition SC-25-003. All right thank you Mr. Chair again for the record. Good morning. It is still morning. Elizabeth Nocheck, AICP senior planner for the community development department. I'm the project planner for this application and I have been sworn. At this time, I request I be accepted as an expert in planning based upon the summer of my qualifications, which are set forth in Exhibit 1 to the staff report. Notice of this public hearing was given in accordance with county code through mailings, postings, and publication. This is petition SE-25-003. Wailer Engineering Corporation, representative for Iliot. I'm really sorry, I'm going to mispronounce your name. Suspities is requesting a special exception to allow the outdoor storage of vehicles, including commercial vehicles, boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles or RVs in the commercial general zoning district. The proposed use is to be located at 1-5-700 Tamiami Trail in PanaGuarda. On your screen is the 1,000-foot mailed notification area map for maillars that were sent out for this petition. And this is the location map for subject property. The attached zoning map on your screen shows the zoning of subject property, which is commercial general and the zoning of surrounding area. Subject property has a future land use map designation of commercial. The attached area image on your screen shows the location of subject property on the east side of Tammy and me trail to the northeast of Zemel Road in South Punagorta. The attached site image is the 2024 aerial photograph showing a close-up view of subject property and the adjacent parcels. This is the 2024 Eagle View image, and here are the flood zones. Section 3-9-42 of the County Code establishes the regulations for the CG zoning district. The applicant would like to use subject property for outer storage of vehicles, including commercial vehicles, boats, RVs, and trailers. This is allowed as a special exception under Section 3-9-42F-16 of the county code. The applicant has provided the attached narrative, which provides a detailed overview of their proposal and addresses the three approval criteria for special exceptions. As noted, the applicant is proposing to develop subject property as an outdoor storage facility for commercial vehicles, boats, trailers, and RVs. The commercial vehicles proposed for storage on subject property could include construction equipment such as dump trucks and skid steers, but subject property is not intended to be used as a contractor storage yard without or storage of materials or construction debris. The applicant has provided the attached survey, which is on your screen, showing the current conditions of subject property, property consists of two consolidated lots, approximately 2.3 acres in size, and is currently vacant and undeveloped. The applicant has also provided the attached concept plan on your screen, showing the proposed development plan for the site. The applicant is proposing to construct approximately 74 open air storage spaces of various sizes to accommodate the various vehicles intended to be stored on the property. The storage areas would be stabilized with shell or gravel and the driveways paved to meet county requirements. The concept plan also shows stormwater areas a 10 foot wide type D buffer with a 6 foot tall opaque fence surrounding the property and a hose bib to provide basic and emergency water. Sorry, for the site. There are no dump or wash stations proposed for the storage facility. The proposed storage facility is intended to be a self service facility with no on-site employees and no buildings are proposed for the site. The community development department's environmental specialist has performed a cursory environmental review and their comments are in the attached memorandum. The applicant has also provided a comprehensive environmental report detailing the current conditions of subject property. For our findings, the three standards for approval of a special exception, according to section 3-9-6.2, I of the Charlotte County zoning code are as follows. Number one, the proposed special exception is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Our finding is that subject property is located in the rural service area and the proposed use of outdoor storage of vehicles is a use that falls under the general range of uses for commercial properties in the land use guide which is found in a Pendex one of the future land use element of the Charlotte of the city. The property is currently in the area of the city. The property is currently in the area of the city. The property is currently in the area of the city. The property is currently in the area of the city. The property is currently in the area of the city. The property is currently in the area of the city. The property is currently in the area of the city. The property is vacant agricultural land, and to the west is Tammy Amy Trail and the flatwoods environmental park. Further to the southwest are two solid waste landfills, which you can see here on the screen. The nearest single-family residence is located approximately 0.32 miles to the southeast of subject property down here. This portion of TMAME trail is heavily traveled with commercial and industrial types of vehicles, including garbage trucks, semi trucks and construction vehicles. Outdoor storage, as previously noted, is an industrial commercial type of use only allowed as a special exception in CG zoning. If the board finds that this application meets all three approval criteria, staff is recommending conditions of approval, including the requirement for a six-foot tall opaque fencer wall as part of the required type-D buffer surrounding the perimeter of the site. The type-D buffer with a six-foot tall opaque fencer wall will help provide screening and lessen visual impacts on the adjacent properties and along TAMME trail. As conditioned, it is staff's professional opinion that the proposed outdoor storage use may be considered compatible with existing and permitted uses surrounding the land. And number three, excuse me, the establishment maintenance or operation of the proposed use shall not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety or general welfare. Our finding is that the applicant has provided a detailed overview of their proposed business operations in the attached narrative. Their proposed self-storage facility is intended to have approximately 74 storage spaces of various sizes, which you can see on their concept plan. The storage spaces are to be stabilized with gravel or shell and will not be covered with any type of roof structure. The site is to be gated and accessed with the keypad system requiring the customer to use a unique code to enter and exit the site. This system is intended to prevent situations where someone may try to live in an RV that is stored on the property. The site will be surveilled with a CCTV system by the applicant who is the property owner. There are no proposed amenities for the facility, such as restrooms or dump or wash stations. An onsite well with a hose bib is proposed to provide basic and emergency water access for the facility. And the applicant is not proposing a septic system as there will be no buildings on the property. The applicant is proposing to allow the storage of limited commercial vehicles on the property, including dump trucks and trailer skid steers. The applicant states in their narrative that they are not proposing to allow the storage of semi trucks, heavy machinery, dumpsters, or any material or debris. While contractors may rent a storage space for their vehicle, they would not be permitted to store any materials or use the site as a workspace. Access to the property is proposed with a paved driveway off a Tammy Amie trail and staff notes that the final location and quantity of access points would be determined during the site plan review process. A noticeable increase in traffic from the proposed use is unlikely as outdoor storage of vehicles is a use that does not generate significant vehicular traffic and this portion of TMA is already heavily traveled with commercial and passenger vehicles. For these reasons, and as conditioned, it is staff's professional opinion that the proposed use of an outdoor storage yard for commercial vehicles, boats, trailers, and RVs could be deemed compatible if developed and compliance with all county codes, including but not limited to paving, screening, stormwater management, and landscaping. So it has not to be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, or welfare. That's a summary of our staff report, Mr. Chair. We have any answer any questions? Any other questions? Yeah, we're proposing a type D landscape barrier around the entire perimeter. Yes, sir. How's that going to be irrigated? I think that's for the applicants representative. But the code does not require a specific type of irrigation system. It just requires that the plants be kept alive. So they could go out with their watering cans and, you know, water the plants every day. They could set up an irrigation system, but I know that miss Palmer is here from Wiler to address any of that. Okay. Would the applicant come up at this time, please? Good morning. Rob and Palmer, I'm with Wiler Engineering, I'm a professional engineer there and I am the agent for the land owner and I have been sworn. Ms. Elizabeth did a wonderful introduction on this project, so I'll just give you a quick overview. As far as answering the question about irrigation, they are planning on putting in a well that will have water. And as Elizabeth said, they aren't necessarily required to put an irrigation, but they are required to ensure that the landscaping survives. So whether they do that by hand or some other method or some of the bags around the trees by code they are required to make sure that the landscaping does survive and then if it doesn't they have to replace it. So to be determined as we work with our landscape architect through that process but essentially what we're trying to do is build a nice outdoor storage yard. We're looking at approximately 74 outdoor spaces depends on the size of the vehicle. We will have a paved driveway. We will have that six foot opaque, whether it be wood or PVC fencing surrounding it with the landscaping on the outside. So it is a little more visually appealing. As Elizabeth mentioned, there's no neighbors in the vicinity. It is on US 41 down by the landfill, so there are a lot of big chucks, garbage chucks, and simmites that do use the area. And this use in general does generate minimal trips, so we don't expect any issues with traffic in this area. No buildings are proposed at this point in time and as she mentioned, each tenant will have a single use or their individual code to be able to punch in and punch out that way. They'll get a rapport every day if there's any unusual activity to be able to address that. And I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. Very many questions. Yeah. Thank you. All right, thank you. At this time I open for public comment. Seeing none like to close the public comment. Mr. Chair, I apologize. I did receive one email from an adjacent property owner, voicing their opposition to the petition, which I'll distribute. And we will label this a case. Commercial property owner. From Gulf Atlantic Investments LLC. Is there so? The police are probably coming. Second, thank you. We, label this as exhibit J For reference they own the property lot 16 to the north I'm sorry They own the property immediately adjacent to the north that lot 16. So it another commercial property? Yes. Is it only, can I ask, is it only lot 16 that they own or is it all for them? There's that one. I'm just clicking on it to the ownership. So it looks like it's just that one. And midly I haven't gone all the way up and down the corridor, but immediately adjacent. That's just like a fidget Jason. Yeah. All the board is reading. All right. While the board is reading that email from the adjacent property owner, I would just like to note a staff. As you can see in the picture taken for the signs, there has been some storage started on the property already. There's not currently a code case, but that needs to be removed, or there will be a code enforcement case. I drove by this weekend and I thought, oh no. So just making sure that the applicant is aware this has to be removed from the property. Thank you. You're back on. We're doing conditions. I'm sorry. I'll recommend the recommendation. Okay, sorry. All right, so for our recommendation, after review of the site and the application requesting the special exception, it is staff's professional opinion that the proposed special exception use consisting of outdoor storage of commercial vehicles, boats, trailers and recreational vehicles does meet the three criteria for granting a special exception. Staff notes each special exception request is reviewed on a case-by-case basis and the decision of of Zoning Appeals does not create a precedent. If the Board of Zoning Appeals decides to approve the requested special exception, staff recommends the following conditions be adopted as conditions of approval to ensure that the use is in compliance with the purpose and intent of the zoning code. The recommended conditions are as follows. Number one, the special exception is approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals is to allow the outer storage of commercial vehicles, boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles, and extends only to the lands included in the site plans and legal description submitted with this application. Number two, the concept plan submitted by the applicant as part of the petition is for illustrative purposes only. All applicable regulations of county code shall apply to this development. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals as applicable to the development, including but not limited to site plan review, right-of-way access, vegetation removal, fencing, stormwater management, and landscape plan approval. Number three, the storage of construction materials, debris, heavy machinery, semi trucks, dumpsters, portable restrooms, or hazardous materials is prohibited. Subject property shall not be used as a contractor storage yard. Number four, a type D landscape buffer with a 6-foot tall site obscuring fully opaque fencer wall shall be constructed and planted around the perimeter of the site. The use of chainlink fencing as part of the required buffer is prohibited. Number five any perimeter outdoor lighting shall be directed towards the interior of the property. Number six any future buildings shall meet or exceed all applicable commercial design standards set forth in chapter three dash five article 24 as maybe amended. Number seven, the outdoor storage use may not be used until all required improvements are completed including the required buffers and a certificate of occupancy or final inspections have been issued or completed. Number eight, wash and or dump stations shall not be permitted as part of the storage facility. Number nine, the special exception is granted for a term of three years from the date of approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals. However, the special exception shall not expire if the owner commences the proposed development honor before the special exception's term expires. And number ten, any major changes or additions to the special exception shall require a modification of the special exception, including a change in type of outdoor storage. Minor changes or additions such as accessory uses or structures may be approved by the zoning official. That's it Mr. Chair. Thank you. Has the app kind of agreed to all 10 items? She's shaken her head, yes. She's not. Okay. I'll make a motion Mr. Chairman. I move that SE25-003 be approved based on a community development department staff report dated April 2nd, 2025. The evidence presented at the hearing and finding that the applicant has met the required criteria for granting a special exception and all 10 recommendations by staff are included in this motion. Second motion in a second. Any discussion? On favor. Hi. You have outside storage. Petition variance 25-0404. All right. Sorry for that my mic with off. So good morning again for the record. Elizabeth Nocheck, AICP, senior planner for the community development department. I'm the project planner for this application and I have been sworn. At this time I request I be accepted as an expert in planning based upon the summary of my qualifications which are set forth in Exhibit 1 to the staff report. Notice of this public hearing was given in accordance with county code through mailings, postings and publication. This is petition BAR, as 25-004. Ms. Diana Gillis of Gillis Construction is represented for Steve and Jacoana, and I really apologize if I pronounce that wrong. Jackawana Minton is requesting a variance to reduce the required 7.5 foot east side yard setback by 4.5 feet to allow a 3 foot east side yard setback for a garage expansion in the residential single family 3.5 zoning district. Subject property is located at 2284 Hayworth Road in Port Charlotte. On your screen is the 1000 foot mailed notification area map for mailers that were sent out for this petition. And this is the location map for subject property. The attached zoning map shows the zoning of subject property, which is RSF 3.5 and the zoning of the surrounding area. Subject property. The attached zoning map shows the zoning of subject property, which is RSF 3.5 and the zoning of the surrounding area. Subject property has a future land use map designation of low density residential. The attached area image on your screen shows the location of subject property on the south side of Hayworth Road to the east of Conway Boulevard in the Parkside neighborhood of Port Charlotte. The attached site image is the 2024 aerial photograph showing a close-up view of subject property and the adjacent parcels. This is the 2024 Eagle View image of the property and flood zones. Ego View Image of the Property and Plants Units. Section 3-9-33 of the County Code establishes the regulations for the RSF 3.5 zoning designation, including the requirement for a 7.5 foot side yard setback for all structures. The applicants have provided the attached narrative, which provides an overview of the situation and addresses the five approval criteria for variances. The applicants recently purchased subject property and are proposing to expand the existing attached garage. The applicants have provided the attached survey, which is currently on your screen, showing the current conditions of subject property. Property is a single lot, measuring approximately 9,375 square feet in area, and has been developed with a 1,993 square foot single family residence, which was built in 1967, a concrete driveway, paper patio, and an in-ground swimming pool with a screen enclosure. Subject property was originally platted in 1958 as part of section 33 of the Port Charlotte subdivision shown on the attached platform. The attached concept plans on your screen now show the proposed addition to the existing attached garage. The applicants are proposing to extend the eastern wall of the garage by five feet to widen the garage from 12 feet to 17 feet in width. The community development department's environmental specialist has performed a cursory environmental review and their comments are in the attached memorandum. For our findings, the five standards for approval of a variance according to section 3-9-6.3i of the Charlotte County Zoning Code are as follows. Number one, unique or peculiar conditions or circumstances exist, which relate to the location, size, and characteristics of the land or structure involved and are not generally applicable to other lands or structures. Our finding is that unique or peculiar conditions or circumstances relating to the location, size or characteristics of the land or structure involved are not found to exist. Subject property is a single lot and is of standard size and shape. While the property is below the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet with 9,375 square feet, it is a legally non-caforming lot of record and is comparable in size and shape to the majority of the surrounding properties as shown on the attached plat map. The existing single-family residence was constructed in 1967 around the same time as many of the adjacent properties were developed and the residence is of similar size and shape as many of the surrounding single-family residences. Staff finds these conditions to be generally applicable to other lands or structures. Number two, the strict and literal enforcement of the zoning section of the land development regulations would create an undue hardship as distinguished from a mere inconvenience on the property owners. Physical handicaps or disability of the applicant and other considerations may be considered when relevant to the request. Our finding is that the strict and literal enforcement of the required 7.5 foot east side yard setback could potentially be considered an undue hardship as distinguished from a mere inconvenience as without the requested variance, the applicants would not be able to widen their garage as proposed. However, the applicants could expand the garage by up to three feet towards the east property line without requiring a variance. This is discussed in more detail under criteria number five. The applicant state in their narrative that the garage expansion is needed to accommodate Mr. Minton's vehicle. The existing garage is 12 feet in width. And the applicant state they are unable to open both car doors once inside the garage. The applicant state that their vehicle, which is a Jeep Wrangler, has a body width of approximately 6.5 feet and the car doors each extend approximately three feet when opened. The applicant state they need to be able to fully open both doors at the same time inside the garage. The applicants have provided information in their narrative relating to Mr. Menton's health issues, which they state will progress over time and lead to mobility and accessibility issues, and being able to park inside the garage and fully open both corridors at the same time is necessary to accommodate the progressive nature of his condition. The applicant has also provided several photographs. We're going to go through these. They're all included in the staff report. I did not include all of them, but the majority are in the PowerPoint. So this shows the side of the existing garage. This is the side facing the neighbor to the east. This is an image provided by the applicant showing the applicant's car in relation to their garage. Some additional photos. For Criterion number three, the granting of a variance would not be injurious to or incompatible with contiguous uses, the surrounding neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Our finding is that the requested variance is to reduce the required 7.5 foot east side yard setback by 4.5 feet to allow a three foot side yard setback for this garage expansion. The attached garage was converted from a car port structure in 2003 by a previous property owner, which is shown here on your screen with the car port enclosure permit. Photographs provided by the applicant and their narrative show the condition of the property and the residents as well as the vehicle used by the applicants. The applicants have also provided a letter from the adjacent property owner to the east, in their narrative which states that the adjacent property owner does not object to the requested variance or proposed garage expansion. As shown in the attached photographs, the area to the east of the residence and garage has a concrete sidewalk where the applicants, garbage cans, are kept. The applicant states that they do not intend to rebuild the sidewalk if the requested variance is approved. All utility fixtures and meters are located on the west side of the home so they would not be affected by the proposed expansion. There are also no existing easements on the east side of the property where this proposed expansion would be located. The applicants also state that the existing sidewalk and yard are slanted towards the home, causing ponding of water inside and outside the garage, which is causing damage to the structure. Staff believes this particular issue could be rectified by regrading a portion of the property or fixing the sidewalk to reduce or eliminate the slope that is directing water towards the garage rather than expanding their garage. Staff does have some concerns regarding the extent of this proposal as a three-foot side yard setback is a significant reduction from the required 7.5 feet of required setback. The proposed garage expansion does encroach towards the adjacent developed property, which could be injurious to the adjacent property owner. The property is and will continue to be used as a single family residence, and the proposed extension will match the existing structure in appearance. Staff does not believe the proposed expansion would be detrimental to the public welfare, but Does he have some concerns about the case of the proposed extension of the proposed extension of the proposed extension of the proposed extension of the proposed extension of the proposed extension of the proposed extension of the proposed extension of the proposed extension of the proposed extension of the proposed extension of the proposed extension of the proposed extension of the proposed extension of the proposed extension of the proposed extension of the proposed extension of the proposed extension of the proposed extension of the proposed extension of the proposed The condition giving rise to the requested variance has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property and the conditions cannot be reasonably corrected or avoided by the applicant. Our finding is that the conditions giving rise to the requested variance have been created by the applicants. The applicants purchased subject property in February of 2024. The applicant stayed in their narrative that they knew at the time of purchasing the property that the garage was too small and would not meet their needs. The applicant states that they were told by their realtor that they would only need a permit to expand the garage. The applicants should have verified this information with the county prior to purchase, as they would have been informed correctly that the proposed expansion would not be permitted due to the significant encroachment proposed into the side yard setback. The applicants were aware of their need to have a garage wide enough to open both corridors to accommodate any mobility or accessibility needs when they purchased the property. and the issue could have been avoided by the applicants if they had purchased a property that met their needs or one that would have allowed the expansion of a garage and still complex. purchase the property and the issue could have been avoided by the applicants if they had purchased a property that met their needs or one that would have allowed the expansion of a garage and still complied with setbacks and other zoning regulations. And number five, the requested variance is the minimum modification of the regulation at issue that will afford relief. Our finding is that the requested variance is the minimum modification of the regulation regulation issue that will afford relief and allow the applicants to construct their garage expansion as proposed. However, the applicants could construct an addition up to three feet in width without needing a variance. Section 3-9-9 of the county code provides regulations for non-conforming lots of record, which would include subject property as it is below the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and is less than 80 feet and width and was platted prior to October 22nd of 1990. This section of code allows for a reduction of side yard setbacks of 10% of the width of the lot, but not less than five feet for properties that are non-conforming because of the width of the property. Subject property is 75 feet in width, which is below the minimum of 80 feet. The applicants could construct a three foot extension of the 12 foot wide garage to make the garage 15 feet wide without needing a variance. Based on the dimensions provided by the applicant and their narrative, a 15 foot wide garage would allow their car to be parked inside with both car doors open at the same time. That is the summary of our staff report, Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Hey, we have any questions? No. The app can come up at this time. It looks like that was a car port they closed in to garage because it's wood on that one wall. I believe Elizabeth said that we found the enclosure permit. Go ahead, man. Good morning. My name is Diana Gillis. I'm here to represent the mittens and I have been sworn. The mittens reach out to us to ask us for a garage addition and when they told us what size they wanted, we knew that it was not going to be in compliance. And we told them that the only way that they could get it, that large was to apply for this variance. He is a disabled veteran. He does have a condition where he is going to progress with his illness. And so they ask for the extra space in the garage just so they can walk around the vehicle also with the doors open. It's just very simply their request to make it larger. The neighbor doesn't have any problem with it. We told them we would be able to complete the project, but we would need the variance in order to apply for the permits. That's it. Any questions? Elizabeth, could you put exhibit C13 up on the screen please? Yeah, there we go. The photograph on the right is the extension going to come out to the edge of that existing sidewalk. Is that whether it is that was a project terminates or does it go into the grass area? No, it should be almost equal to where that concrete is already. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. This time we're open for public comment. Seeing none, I'd public comment Lift the close public comment Public comments close. Thank you. Miss. No check. Thank you, Mr. Chair for a recommendation After a review of the site and the application requesting the variance it is staff's professional opinion that the proposed variance does not meet The five criteria for granting a variance. Staff notes that each variance request is reviewed on a case by case basis and the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals does not create a precedent. If the Board of Zoning Appeals decides to approve the requested variance, staff recommends the following conditions be adopted as conditions of approval to ensure that the use is in compliance with the purpose and intent of the zoning code. The recommended conditions are as follows. Number one, the variance as approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals is to reduce the required 7.5 foot east side yard setback by 4.5 feet to allow a 3 foot east side yard setback for a garage expansion. Number two, the variance shall apply to the existing attached garage, as shown in the document submitted with this application. Number three, if the attached garage is removed or replaced, the variance shall expire, and all future development must be constructed in accordance with all applicable codes and existence at that time unless a new variance is granted specific to the development proposed at that time. This condition shall not apply to the removal or replacement of the attached garage caused by a natural disaster or in voluntary destruction of the attached garage. That's it Mr. Chair. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion. I'd like to move that VAR-25-004 be approved based on the community development department staff report date April 2nd 2025. The evidence presented at the hearing of finding that the applicant has met the required criteria for the granting of the variance and all three staff recommendations are included in the motion. We have a motion, we have a second. Second. Any discussion? One favor? Aye. Aye, you have your garage addition. This one we're looking for, let's know, Chuck. I'm sorry. This one we're looking for, petition no check. I'm sorry. This one we're looking for, petition variance 25.005. Yes. It's the last one. Yes, I agree. Today. It's the one we're looking for. Yeah, I'm just getting my papers. Not for any reason, but it's the last one. Okay. Uming my disagree. Okay. Good morning again for the record. Elizabeth Nochecks, the SCP Senior Planner for the Community Development Department. I'm a project planner for this application and I have been sworn. At this time, I request I be accepted as an expert in planning based upon the summary of my qualifications, which are set forth in Exhibit One to the staff report. Notice of this public hearing was given in accordance with county code through mailings, postings and publication. This is petition VAR-25-005. Mr. Michael Friedman is requesting three variances. A, to reduce the required 7.5 foot east side yard setback by one foot, to allow a 6.5 foot east side yard setback, and B, to reduce the required 20 foot rear yard setback by 0.5 feet to allow a 19.5 foot rear yard setback to allow an existing single-family residence to remain as is in its current location on subject property and C to reduce the required 10 foot rear yard setback by 5 feet to allow a 5 foot rear yard setback for a new swimming pool in the residential single-family 5 zoning district. is located at 7 current lane in Placita. On your screen is the 1000 foot male notification area map for mailers that were sent out for this petition. And this is the location map for subject property. The attached zoning map on your screen shows the zoning of subject property, which is RSF 5 and the zoning of the surrounding area. Subject property has a future land use map designation of low density residential. The attached area image on your screen shows the location of subject property on the south side of current lane to the west of Guestboro, La Road, and Placita. Site image on your screen is the 2024 aerial photograph showing the close-up view of subject property and the adjacent parcels. This is the 2024 Eagle View Image and flood zones. Section 3-9-33 of the County Code establishes the regulations for the RSF-5 zoning designation, including requirements for a 7.5 foot side yard setback for all structures, a 20 foot rear yard setback for primary structures, and a 10 foot rear yard setback for accessory structures. The applicant has provided the attached narrative, which provides an overview of their situation and addresses the five approval criteria for variances. The applicant purchased subject property in 2022 and is now proposing to construct a swimming pool in the rear yard. During the required pre-application meeting with the applicant, it was discovered that the existing single family residents was encroaching slightly into the rear and east side yard setbacks, which is why the applicant is also requesting these two variances to allow the residents to remain as is on subject property in its current location. The applicant has provided the attached survey on your screen showing the current conditions of subject property. It is a single lot, approximately 7,505 square feet in area and has been developed with a 1,640 square foot single-family residents and a concrete driveway. Subject property was first platted in 1970 as part of return to sand subdivision and then later replatted in 1976 as part of the North Replet of Unit 1, which is shown on the attached plat map. The applicant has provided the attached concept plan on your screen as well as this, I'm sorry, as well as the attached pool plan showing the proposed development plan for subject property. The applicant is proposing to construct an in-ground swimming pool at the rear of the property behind the existing single family residents. The community development department's Specialist has performed a cursory environmental review and their comments are in the attached memorandum. For our findings, the five standards for approval of a variance according to Section 3, the S9-6.3i of the Charlotte County Zoning Code are as follows. Number one, unique or peculiar conditions or circumstances exist, which relate to the location, size and characteristics of the land or structure involved that are not generally applicable to other lands or structures. Our finding is that unique or peculiar conditions or circumstances relating to the location, size and characteristics of the land and structure involved are found to exist. While subject property is of similar shape and size as many of the surrounding properties and meets the minimum size requirement of 7500 square feet for properties owned RSF-5, the configuration of the existing single-family residence creates unique conditions that are not generally applicable to other lands or structures. The applicant purchased subject property in 2022, which was developed as a spec home by Snyder construction and was completed, the construction was completed in 2022. The builder designed the home with an attached lini in the center of the rear of the residence, which significantly restricts the area of the rear yard for placement of any accessory structures, including a swimming pool. If the builder had offset the lini to either the left or the right, the applicant would likely be able to construct a swimming pool without needing a variance. As previously mentioned during the required pre-application meeting with the applicant, it was discovered that the existing single-family residents is encroaching slightly into this east side yard andar Yard setbacks. As shown on this attached AS-Build Survey, this AS-Build Survey was submitted for the building permit for the single-family residence in order to pass final inspections and receive the certificate of occupancy. This AS-Build Survey shows the structure with the exact setbacks required by zoning regulations in Section 3-9-33 and a 6-foot drainage and utility easement at the rear of the property. The applicant began the process to apply for permits for a swimming pool and applied for a real lease of easement, which was granted. During the process to obtain the release of easement, the applicant had another survey performed, which showed the actual setbacks of the existing residents, which are different than those shown on the AS-built survey. Additionally, the drainage and utility easement shown at the rear of the property is actually 10 feet wide rather than 6 feet wide as shown on this AS-built survey. Staff believes this AS-built survey misrepresented the circumstances on the ground, which then allowed the property to pass inspections as the builder would have been required to obtain variances to correct and proper placement of the residents on subject property had the as-built survey accurately reflected the conditions on the ground. Staff finds that these factors constitute unique or peculiar circumstances or conditions. Number two, the strict and literal enforcement of the zoning section of the land development regulation would create an undue hardship as distinguished from a mere inconvenience on the property owners. Physical handicaps or disability of the applicant and other considerations may be considered when relevant to the request. Our finding is that the strict and literal enforcement of the required 7.5 foot east side yard and 20 foot rear yard setbacks for the existing single family residents would be an undue hardship. As without the requested variances, the structure would be considered non-conforming and would likely lead to complications during future sales of the property. The applicant was unaware of the encroachments when purchasing the property. As all inspections unaware of the encroachments when purchasing the property, as all inspections had been passed, and the Asbuilt Survey showed the residents complying with all regulations for the RSF-Zoned property. The strict and literal enforcement of the required 10-foot rear yard setback could also be considered an undue hardship. As without the requested variance, the applicant would not be able to construct a swimming pool on subject property. The applicant was under the impression that the property had a six foot wide drainage and utility easement and rear yard setback based on the ASBILT survey that they were provided by the builder. Based on this survey, the applicant believed they would be able to construct a swimming pool after purchasing the property without issue. The applicant has stated in their narrative that they would like to construct a swimming pool for health and recreational purposes. The applicant has a young child and wants to ensure that the child has a safe environment to learn how to swim at their home. And the swimming pool would also provide opportunities for play and to burn off some energy. The applicant states that they have a physically demanding job in the building trades industry and a swimming pool would allow him the opportunity to relax and recuperate after working outdoors. The swimming pool would also provide opportunities for physical therapy exercises and low impact workouts, both of which would benefit the applicant and allow him to manage the physical strain of his profession. For these reasons, staff's professional opinion is that the denial of the requested variances could be considered an undue hardship as distinguished from mere inconvenience. Number three, the granting of a variance would not be injurious to or incompatible with contiguous uses, the surrounding neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Our finding is that the primary use of the property is and will continue to be a single-family residence. The residence has existed without issue or complaint in its current location since it was constructed in 2022. Swimming pools are customary accessory structures and residentially-zoned areas and would not be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant is not proposing to construct a pool cage at this time, but if the requested variances granted, a pool cage could be constructed in accordance with the setbacks established by the zoning regulations and the variants. The proposed swimming pool is not oversized and has been designed to limit encroachment into the rear yard setback as much as possible. While reducing the required 10 foot rear yard setback by 5 feet would allow the swimming pool to encroach towards the adjacent property to the rear, the applicant is proposing to install a fence and landscaping at the rear of the property to provide privacy and security. Once the landscaping and fence are installed and constructed, the pool would not be visible to the adjacent property owner and would not appear to be encroaching towards the adjacent property. Staff notes, as you can see on the maps, staff notes that subject property is currently the only property with an existing single family residents on the street and one of the only developed properties in the entire area. The applicant has provided a photograph of the rear yard of subject property showing the proposed placement of the swimming pool. Staff is unaware of any evidence that the granting of the requested variances would be injurious to or incompatible with contiguous uses, the surrounding neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Number four, the condition giving rise to the requested variance has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property, and the conditions cannot be reasonably corrected or avoided by the applicant. Our finding is that the conditions giving rise to the requested variants were created by the builder who developed subject property. As discussed above, the builder of the single family residents provided an incorrect as-built survey to the building department for the single family residents. The residents encourages slightly into the rear and east side yard setbacks which cannot be corrected or avoided by the applicant. While a property owner is ultimately responsible for the conditions of their property, the applicant relied on licensed, experienced professionals and could not have known at the time of purchasing the property that they were being provided in Asbuilt Survey that did not accurately reflect the conditions on the ground. By designing the single-family home with the attached lani at the center of the residence, the builder also created conditions that significantly restrict if not fully prevent the placement of accessory structures in the rear yard of subject property. If the builder had offset the lani to the left, or to the right or left, the applicant would likely have enough space in the rear yard to construct a pool without needing a variance. To construct the pool without a variance, the existing lini would need to be removed, which staff believes to be unreasonable and may not be possible due to the design of the trust system of the roof. Staff finds these conditions cannot be reasonably corrected or avoided by the applicant. And number five, the requested variance is the minimum modification of the regulation at issue that will afford relief. Our finding is that the requested variances are the minimum modifications of the regulations that issue that will afford relief and allow the existing single-family residents to remain as is in its current location on subject property and to allow the construction of the in-ground swimming pool as proposed. As a summary of our staff report, Mr. Chair, we have the answer any questions? Thank you. No questions. No questions. And we can pass just the house and not the pool. Just FYI. Would that come up? Michael Freeman, over the house, and I've been sworn in. If you wanna add anything, you're welcome to. No, I mean, she explained it pretty well. I surprised to find that I had to do the additional variances. You know, the builder's been around for a long time. There's a lot of houses in the area, so I'll just point to hear that. But as far as the pool goes, like she said, the main thing is I have a one and a half year old. We'd like to get him swimming as soon as possible for a lot of reasons. I would like to, you know, like to put a pool and that's at least a decent size. In the fact that I ever want to sell the house, it's a desirable backyard right now. It's more or less useless to me and anybody in the future wants to buy it. The you know as you can see the shape the L shape of the pool is really to work around that line that existing there. To offset the pool the one side of the other of the house as is, it doesn't seem logical to me to spend that kind of money on a pool to put such a small pool. I really don't think it adds any value to the home. It definitely doesn't add any value to me having to pool that small. So yeah, honey honey, that's really fair any questions. Thank you, and by having questions. No. Thank you, sir. You may be seated. Thank you. At this time, I'd like to open and close public comments. Can you get a motion for that? Motion to close public comment. Is that it? Thank you. Miss Elizabeth. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for a recommendation. After review of the site and the application requesting the variance, it is staff's professional opinion that the proposed variances do meet the five criteria for granting a variance. Staff notes that each variance request is reviewed on a case-by-case basis and of the Board of Zoning Appeals does not create a precedent. If the Board of Zoning Appeals decides to approve the requested variances, staff recommends the following conditions be adopted as conditions of approval to ensure that the use is in compliance with the purpose and intent of the zoning code. The recommended conditions are as follows. Number one, the variances as approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals are A, to reduce the required 7.5 foot east side yard setback by one foot, to allow a 6.5 foot east side yard setback and B, to reduce the required 20 foot rear yard setback by 0.5 feet, to allow a 19.5 foot east side yard setback, to allow an existing single family residence to remain as is in its current location on subject property and see to reduce the required 10 foot rear yard setback by five feet to allow a five foot rear yard setback for a new swimming pool. Number two, the variances shall apply only to the existing single family residence and the proposed swimming pool and pool deck as shown in the documents submitted with this application. Number three, the applicable variant shall apply to a screen enclosure or a pool cage if constructed in the future. And number four, if the single-family residence or swimming pool or pool deck is removed or replaced, the applicable variant shall expire, and all future development must be constructed in accordance with all applicable codes and existence at that time unless a new variance is granted specific to the development proposed at that time. This condition shall not apply to the removal or replacement caused by a natural disaster or involuntary destruction of the single family residents swimming pool, pool deck or future pool or future pool cage. And that's it, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Looking for motion? I move that VAR 25005 be approved based on the community development department staff report dated April 2nd, 2025. The evidence presented at the hearing and finding that the applicant has met the required criteria for the granting of the variances. The motion of every second. Second. In discussion. All in favor. Aye. You have your poll and your house is now legal. Staff comments? You, Mr. Chair, we have one petition for next month. It's a signage variance. So something a little bit different, but just the one petition for next month. You're welcome. Member comments, are you here next month? Yes, ma'am. Would you be chair? I will not be here. Sure. Thank you. Give me an easy one. Yeah. I'm sorry to work you so hard. Okay. Next meeting May 14th. Meeting adjourned. Thank you everybody.