Music I'm going to make a little bit of a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. music Thank you. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same. I'm going to do a little bit of the same. I'm going to do a little bit of the same. I'm going to do a little bit of the same. I'm going to do ada County Board's zoning appeals. If I could talk, everyone is standing up for the pleasure of the agents. you. Maybe seated. Miss Sergeant, can I talk to you in a roll call? Steve Erick. Here. Phillips, Mahward. Here. Nicole Baer. Here. Blair McFaddy. Here. Andrew Filio. Here. Okay, we'll set. If anybody wants to speak today, please stand up, raise right hand. Face Miss Argin, she'll swear you in place. If you think you want to speak, please stand up. Do you solemnly swear the testimony about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Please say I do. I thank you. Maybe seated. Could I talk some way and give me a motion to prove the minutes from January 8th, 2025? Mr. Chairman, so moved to approve the minutes. I have a motion. Second. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. From the zoning department, we have our zoning officials. Cohen. Thank you. Good morning, everybody. Today, we have three variances. 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, and those cases where strict application of the requirements will create a practical difficulty or undue hardship as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, prohibiting 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 may be necessary to allow the positive finding to be made on any of the foregoing factors or to minimize the injurious effect of the variance. Thank you. And from our legal department, we have Ms. Walker. Good morning. The Board of board of zoning appeals is a quasi-judicial body. This means that all interested persons have a right to be heard and present evidence. This board has no authority to change the 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 expert opinions if offered and accepted may be properly considered by the board. All documentation presented to the board of our county staff will be retained as part of the official record of the proceedings. Decisions of this board must be by a majority vote. Ty 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. All judicial appeals must be made to the circuit court within 30 days of written decision by the board of zoning appeals. 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 representative, so then make the presentation, present evidence, answer any questions or members may have. Institution persons for or against the petition will then be invited to testify answering questions or members may have. All persons should have the right of reasonable cross-examination of the witness. The applicant or the applicant's representatives shall 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 the applicant or the applicant's representatives may have present additional rebuttal evidence relevant to county staffs closing evidence and statements. When you come up to the podium, please sign in on the tablet, state your name, and tell us you've been sworn in. We're going to start out with petition variance 25 desu, zero one and miss a little note check from the county will do the presentation. 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 in accordance with county code through mailings, postings, and publication. This is petitioned VAR-25-001. Mr. James Pollock, a precision general contractor LLC representative for Peter Enclat, is requesting a variance to reduce the required 30 foot rear yard setback by 12.9 feet to allow a 17.1 foot rear yard setback to allow an existing detached garage to remain as is in its current location on subject property in the residential single family 3.5 zoning district. The property is located at 305 Cassale G Street in Punagorda. On your screen now is the 1000 foot male notification map for mailers that were sent out for this petition. And this is the location map for subject property. On your screen now is the zoning map showing 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 area image on your screen now shows the location of subject property on the west side of Cassale G Street to the west of Deep Creek Boulevard in the Deep Creek neighborhood of Punaguarda. On your screen now is the site image which is the 2024 aerial photograph showing a close-up view of subject property and the adjacent parcels. This is the Eagle View image from 2024 and the flood zones in case you're interested. Section 3-9-33 of the County Code establishes the regulations for the RSF 3.5 zoning designation including the requirement for a 10-foot rear yard setback for accessory structures when andutting a green belt. Section 3-9-33C1 provides additional regulations for detached accessory structures including the requirement that any increase in wall or leg height greater than 12 feet may be allowed with an increase of required setbacks on all four sides of five feet for every one foot of height increase. As the detached garage has wall heights of 16 feet, an additional 20 feet of setbacks are required along all four property lines. The applicant has provided the attached narrative in your packet which provides an overview of the situation. The applicant applied for and was granted a permit to construct a 32 foot by 12, sorry, 1,280 square feet, detached garage in May of 2024. The permit was initially rejected by the zoning department for not meeting the increased setbacks required because of the 16 foot tall walls. A revised site plan was submitted and approved, which is shown here on your screen, since the approved site plan for the permit. The detached garage was approved with a front yard setback of 45 feet, south side yard setback of 39 feet, and a rear yard setback of 34.7 feet. The applicant has stated that he misunderstood the situation and believed he needed to move the garage further back than shown on the approved plans to meet the increased front yard setback requirement. As shown here on the survey, this is the detach garage. Just so you can identify it. As shown on the survey, the detach garage has a front yard setback of 61.7 feet, south side yard setback of 41.9 feet, and a rear yard setback of 17.1 feet. Construction of the detached garage has been completed and the issue was discovered by county staff during final inspections of the structure. The applicant is requesting this variance to allow the detached garage to remain as is in its current location. As shown here on the survey, the property is approximately 19,200 square feet in area and consists of two consolidated lots, which are identified as lots 10 and 11 on the survey. The property has been developed with a 3,130 square foot single-family residence, an in-ground pool with a screen enclosure and paper driveway, all of which are located only on lot 10. The detached garage is located on lot 11. Subject property was originally platted in 1971, shown here on the plat map for section 20 of the Pena Gorta Isle subdivision. The plat map shows the green belt at the rear of the property. The community development department's environmental specialist has performed a cursory environmental review and their comments are in the attached memorandum, dated February 24th, 2025. Now for our findings. The five standards for approval of a variance according to section 3-9-6.3i of the Charlotte County zone in code are as follows. Number one, unique or peculiar conditions or circumstances exist relating to the location, size, or characteristics of the land 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 double lot as shown on the survey and is of standard size and shape. The existing single-family residence was constructed in 2016 and lies completely within lot 10. Lot 11 has no other structures or natural features that would restrict the placement of the detached garage and compliance with all required setbacks and other zoning regulations. The applicant was granted the permit for the approved site plan on your screen now, showing the garage to be constructed and conformed with the required setbacks. The applicant did not follow the approved plan and constructed the garage an additional 16.7 feet towards the west, which is the rear property line, causing an encroachment of 12.9 feet into the required 30 foot rear yard setback. 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. Our finding is that the strict and literal enforcement of the required 30 foot rear yard setback should not be considered undue hardship as distinguished roomier inconvenience for several reasons. As previously discussed, the property is of sufficient size and shape to allow the construction of a detached garage up to 1,920 square feet, which is the maximum square footage of accessory structures allowed based on the size of the property, with the 16-foot walls and meet all required zoning regulations. The approved site plan shows the garage with a rear yard setback of 34.7 feet, which is 4.7 feet more than the required 30-foot rear yard setback, and has a front yard setback of 45 feet, which meets the requirement for the zone district. The applicant states and their narrative that they were concerned with providing a substantial front yard setback and therefore decided to move the footprint of the garage back an additional 16.7 feet beyond what the approved site plan showed. If the requested variance is denied, the applicant would need to demolish and rebuild the structure in conformance with the approved site plan and zoning regulations. While this would be that significant cost to the applicant would need to demolish and rebuild the structure, in conformance with the approved site plan and zoning regulations. While this would be at significant cost to the applicant, the applicant is a licensed general contractor who is responsible for following all building and zoning regulations for the jurisdictions in which they operate their business, and they are liable to correct any errors to ensure compliance with said regulations. As previously discussed, the intent of the variance process is to provide limited relief in situations where there are unique or extraordinary factors relating to the features of the lander structure or when the zoning regulations render the land difficult to use. Staff's professional opinion is that the requested variance does not meet the intent of the code as there are no unique factors to the lander structure involved and the garage could easily be constructed on the property in conformance with all applicable regulations. For these reasons, it is staff's professional opinion that the denial of the requested variance would not be considered an undue hardship. 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 detached garages, including those with taller wall heights to accommodate recreational vehicles, can be considered customary accessory structures in residential-owned areas and are unlikely to be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood when developed in accordance with all applicable zoning regulations. The garage in question is the only detached garage in the area based on an aerial review of the subdivision. The applicant has provided photographs of the garage, which we'll go through here. The garage was designed to match the materials and colors of the existing single-family residents as required by code. There's another photo. And the garage plans, as shown on your screen, show the construction details of the structure. The applicant has provided several letters of support as part of their narrative from several adjacent property owners in the Deep Creek Homeowners Association. The rear of subject property abuts a green belt and the area of encroachment is at the rear of the property. Staff is unaware of any evidence that the garage in its current location would be injurious to or detrimental to the public welfare. Number four, the condition giving rise to the requested variants 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 solely by the applicant. The applicant is a licensed general contractor and has been in business since 2017 per the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulations Database. The applicant was granted a permit to construct the garage and simply did not follow the approved plans. While staff understands that mistakes can happen during the construction process, as we see here frequently, the applicant should have known to follow the approved plans in order to comply with the zoning regulations. The applicant state they were concerned with providing a substantial front yard setback. And if the applicant felt that the required 45 foot front yard setback was insufficient, they could have moved the garage in additional 4.7 feet to the rear and still met the required 30 foot rear yard setback while providing a nearly 50 foot front yard setback. The conditions can be reasonably corrected by reconstructing the garage in conformance with the approved plans and 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 at issue that will afford relief. Our finding is that the requested variance is the minimum modification of the regulation at issue that will afford relief and allow the detached garage to remain as is in its current location. However, the garage could easily be accommodated on subject property and meet all zoning regulations, including the increased setbacks for taller wall heights, had it been constructed in conformance with the approved plan. That's a summary of our staff report, Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, just have very many questions. Would the applicant please come up at this time? Good morning. If you could sign in and tell us you've been sworn in. Please. Yes, sir. I'm James A. Pollock, the contractor in good faith. I made an honest mistake of his focus more on the front setback than I guess I should have paid more attention to the back. But as you can see in the pictures, aesthetically it's visually, it's more appealing. It doesn't, you can't see the building when you drive on the street right off it. It still looks residential street and not industrial with the size of the building. And I have passed all my inspections except for this one. So I mean I made the honest mistake. And by any questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir. At this time, I open for public comment. If you'd like to come up and speak this year's attorney, just come up and speak, please. Sign in. Tell us you've been sworn. Good morning. Sandra Gonzalez, I have the property that is behind and if you're at the pull area, it's to the right of the building. I'm a little upset about the variance. I don't think a general contractor makes a 13 foot mistake. And I believe that this is an eye sore. You see pictures from the front. It looks different from the back. I see a plane building there. And at times in the summer when that little back door is rolled up, there has been grinding and welding going on in there. I don't think it belongs in a residential area. Man, the garage can be there, just not in his location. If it's moved where it was supposed to be, he's took and do whatever he wants to do. So aesthetically, it doesn't have to be appealing. Man, we're only here for the location. Okay. Not for what he does in the garage. I think it diminishes my property value because I didn't move into a residential area to look at the back of a warehouse. And I think all things being equal, if other properties are for sale with the same size, condition and price, I think my to be competitive, I think I'm gonna have to lower the price of my house. Nobody wants to see that. I'm looking at that from my pool, it's terrible. I just, and I don't think a 13 foot mistake is unintentional. Okay, thank you, ma'am. Anybody having questions? Please, go ahead. Thank you ma'am. Public hearings still open. Good morning. My name is Mark Lassal. I am in sworn in. I own the property directly behind this structure. 25833. Hason. I have a couple questions and some concerns. Who actually made the decision? Was it the owner or the builder? Sir, you can't ask questions. You can state your questions, but you can't actually turn it over. OK, who made the decision to move the building where it is? OK, now going. And he also mentioned his narrative. He decided that he believed he wasn't sure about the setbacks for the front. Why didn't he call somebody at the county to get clarification on that? And also why was it not caught early on in the construction process that it was in the wrong location? Do not have inspections to address that? Well, the way inspection process, each inspection, certain thing plumbing, electrical, whatever, and when he got the zoning inspection, he failed. But on the building inspections, they're not serviced. So there's no way to capture that kind of information prior to the final. That seems kind of silly. That's the way it works. And I agree with my other neighbor that it's right behind my house. If I was to put a pool back there someday, I mean, it's just an industrial-looking building. At the very least, you should have some windows back there to give it a little bit more appeal. I don't like it. And I don't think it's fair that people can do something like this and just get away with it. There's got to be consequences. There's got to be something for that. I say he can have that building. He just can't have it that far back. I agree. I mean, I built a house last year. My pool cage had to be shorter because of the restrictions for the setbacks. I didn't make a choice to move it anyways. I did by the fall of the rules. I was brought up by the rules and I think everybody should be in the rules. So I don't think this should be allowed to go forward. And we were living in a deed restricted area to keep our valuation up and keep the taste and able to look nice. And I think this is detrimental to the area as a look. It looks like industrial building. Again, from the front, maybe not so bad, but from the back. Terrible. We're now here about the looks. I understand that, but you've got to consider that and your decision-making process. I'm sorry. It's not fair. Thank you very much. Thank you. This time the public hearing is still open. Seeing no one wants to come up, I'd like to close the public hearing. Motion to close the public hearing. Sorry. Oh, in favor. Hi. The applicant has a right to come up if he wants to. Right now, if he doesn't, you don't have to. If you want to come back up and you work until you don't need to. Okay? Thank you. Miss, no check. Oh. Sir, I close the public hearing. Oh, you did? Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. Are you the property owner? Yeah. Oh, you're the prop owner? Yeah. Come on up. I'm sorry, I didn't know you're prop owner. Yeah, I looked around other deep creek. Sir, could you state your name for the record? My name is Peter Encliffe on Property Owners 305, Casille G Street. Before building it, when I purchased the property, it was meant to build a garage. That was my ideal thing thing because we have no basements in Florida. And so I have a fifth wheel and I saw other properties that have the same grudges and everything and they look great, you know. I've, you know, made sure that it was aesthetically, you know, good looking and everything. And my contractor made a mistake. I don't really see that there's an issue with words at. I don't grind. I don't make any noise in the building, maybe music. I work on my cars. That's what I do. And that's it. You know, I mean, I've nothing else. And we have any questions? Thank you, sir. Mr. Nocheck, you're on deck. 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 variance does not meet the five criteria for granting a variance. Staff notes 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 uses and 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 30 foot rear yard setback by 12.9 feet to allow a 17.1 foot rear yard setback to allow an existing detached garage to remain as is in its current location on subject property. Number two, the variance shall apply only to the existing detached garage as shown in the document submitted with this application. And number three, if the detached garage is removed or replaced, the variant shall expire and all future development must be constructed in accordance with all applicable codes in existence at that time unless a new variance is granted specific to the development proposed at that time. That's it, Mr. Chair. Thank you. We do have a letter here from the Keep Creek Homos Association in support of the garage in your packet. Go ahead, sir. I have one question. Variants would have been asked for, before building was never started, would it have been granted? We don't know that because we're going to be all-road. We can't see that. The answer is that you cannot apply for a variance prior to construction. A variance is a corrective measure. You can apply, but it would be, it would be, it would be, it would not meet the criteria. Right, we have always, with new construction, had a hard know for recommendations when it is a new construction for variances, because something can be designed, code compliant, may not be exactly what people want, but it can be- What will we do if it has some free polls and such? Correct. I'm actually looking for a motion now. I moved that variance 25-001. Actually before I say this, can I mention this? Obviously as the contractor, we all know you should have followed the rules. If this was any of our properties, we would make sure our contractor followed the rules. the rules. It's part of the responsibility. The idea of ripping this thing down is pretty difficult for me. So I move that variance 2, 5-0-01 be approved based on the Community Development Department Staff Report, dating March 5, 2025, the evidence presented in the hearing and the finding that the applicant has met the required criteria to current the variance. We have a motion. Do you have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All against? No. We have three, four and two against. Motion carries. You have your garage. Next we're going to petition variants 25.002 and I'm handing the gavel to Mr. temporary chair. Further record again. 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 VAR-25-002. Mr. James Benson, Benham Construction, representative for David and Beth Greenig, is requesting a variance to reduce the required 15 foot rear yard setback by 4.6 feet to allow a 10.4 foot rear yard setback to allow an existing swimming pool pool deck and pool cage to remain as is in their current locations on subject property in the RS or sorry residential single family 3.5 zoning district. The property is located at 10162 Alhead Circle in Port Charlotte. On your screen now is the 1000-foot mailed notification area map for maillors that were sent out for this petition and this is the location map for subject property. On your screen now is the zoning map showing the zoning of subject property which is RSF 3.5 and the zoning of the surrounding area. Subject property has a low density residential future land use map designation. The attached area image on your screen now shows the location of subject property on the west side of Alhead Circle to the west of St. Paul Drive in the South Gulf, South Gulf Cove neighborhood of Port Charlotte. 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 Eagle View image of the property. Here are some flood zones. Section 3-9-33 of the County Code establishes the regulations for the RSF 3.5 zoning designation including the requirement for a 20-foot setback for all structures when abutting water. Section 3-9-86 of the county code provides specific regulations for swimming pools and residential districts. This section of code states that the minimum setback from a waterway for a pool or screen enclosure shall be 15 feet. As subject property abuts a canal on the rear, the required rear yard setback for a swimming pool is 15 feet. The applicants have provided the attached narrative, providing an overview of their situation and addressing the five approval criteria for variances. The applicant's contractors applied for and were granted permits in 2020 and 2021 to construct a new single-family residence, Seawall, Swimming Pool, Deck, and Pool Cage. As stated in the narrative, the applicant's permits were all approved based on a survey and site plans that showed all proposed structures meeting the required setbacks. The seawall was installed on the property first and allegedly unbeknownst to the contractors building the single-family residence in swimming pool, the final seawall was installed several feet landward than shown on the approved seawall permit plans. The contractors then proceeded with construction on the single-family residence and swimming pool, both of which have been completed and a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the residents. The issue was not discovered until county staff conducted the zoning final inspection. For the swimming pool, at which time it was found that the swimming pool is now located 10.6 feet from the outside face of the sea wall, which is an encroachment of 4.6 feet into the required 15 foot rear yard setback. The applicants are requesting this variance to allow the swimming pool deck and cage to remain as is in their current locations on subject property. Also during review of the application it was discovered that the single family residence was shown with a rear yard setback of 18.9 feet, sorry, I got that flipped. 19.8 feet at the southwest corner, the residents has a required 20 foot rear yard setback. It is unclear based on this survey if the measurement was taken from the inside or the outside face of the seawall. The board should request clarification from the applicant regarding the measurement. If it is determined that the measurement was taken from the outside face of the sea wall, staff would respectfully request that the board consider granting a variance of 0.2 feet to allow the single family residents to remain as is in its current location on subject property. The applicants have provided the attached survey, which is on your screen, showing the current conditions of subject property. The property is a single lot, measuring approximately 10,000 square feet in area, and has been developed with a 3000 and 30 square foot single-family home, as well as a wood dock, a vinyl seawall, paper driveway, and an in-ground swimming pool, deck, and cage. All of the structures on subject property were constructed between 2021 and 2023. Subject property was originally platted in 1960 as part of section 81 of the Port Charlotte subdivision shown here on your screen with the Platemap. The Community Development Department's Environmental Specialist has performed a cursory environmental review and their comments are in the attached memorandum dated February 24th, 2025. So 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, and characteristics of the land involved are found to exist. Like many other properties in South Gulf Cove that have but water, the rear yard of subject property extends several feet into the adjacent canal. It appears there has been significant erosion over the rear of subject property into the adjacent canal over the years, leading to a loss of more than 10 feet of land into the adjacent canal. On your screen is the House Permit Site Plan, which shows the original development plan for subject property. The proposed location of the sea wall was shown on this plan and all structures would have been incomplicated with all applicable zoning regulations, had the property been developed in accordance with this plan. The applicant state and their narrative that they believe the sea wall contractor, which is Charlotte County sea walls, deviated from their approved plans as shown on the attached sea wall permit, which is Charlotte County Seawalls, deviated from their approved plans as shown on the attached Seawall permit, which is on your screen now, due to conflicts with mean high water lines. The applicant state that the contractor's responsible for the single family residents and swimming pool were apparently unaware of the issue until the final property survey was conducted, which was after a construction of all the aforementioned structures and the swimming pool failed the zoning final inspection. Number two, the stricter 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. Our finding is that the stricter and literal enforcement of the required 15 foot rear your Gback could create an undue hardship as distinguished from mere inconvenience. As without the requested variance, the swimming pool deck and cage would need to be demolished and because of the limited space in the rear yard due to the placement of the seawall, reconstruction of the swimming pool would be very restricted if possible at all. The attached swimming pool permit site plan shows the approved plans for the swimming pool, which is approximately 14 feet in width and 28 feet in length, with a pavarduck and enclosed screencage. The applicant stated in their narrative that if they were required to remove and rebuild the pool, it would have a maximum width of 7 feet, which they state would render it nearly useless. Subject property has a reduced buildable area due to over 10 feet of the property being submerged in the adjacent canal, which is further compounded by the placement of the seawalt several feet landward than was shown on the various building permits for the site. Because of the physical constraints of the property and complications during the overall development process, it is staff's professional opinion that the denial of the requested variance would constitute an undue hardship as distinguished from a 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 swimming pools with decks and cages are customary accessory structures in residentially-zoned areas and would not be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood as many of the surrounding developed properties in Southgolfcove have swimming pools with cages. The swimming pool is not oversized for the property and does not encroach towards the adjacent single-family properties Any future development in the surrounding area is likely to be low-density residential in nature given the existing zoning and future land use map designations There is no encroachment onto adjacent properties as the area of encroachment is the rear yard which abuts a canal And the applicants have provided several photographs which we'll go through now showing the pool and rear yard, which abuts a canal. And the applicants have provided several photographs, which we'll go through now, showing the pool and rear yard of their property. You can see they are quite close to the rear and set back. Steph 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 partially due to a loss of buildable area on subject property due to erosion of the land into the adjacent canal and partially during the overall development process of the site starting with construction of the seawall. The applicant's contractors obtained all of the required permits for the various improvements of the site, sorry, obtained all of the required permits for the various improvements and the permits were issued correctly based on the surveys and site plans submitted. The sea wall contractor should have notified the contractors responsible for the construction of the single family residents and swimming pool that their plans would require alterations because of the revised placement of the seawall. Had this been relayed to the contractors during the development process, the residents and pool contractors could have altered their plans to meet the required setbacks, or applied for a variance at the time prior to construction of the swimming pool. While property owners are ultimately responsible for the conditions of their property, the applicant relied on licensed experience professionals to construct their property improvements as permitted and were unaware of the issue until the pool failed the final zoning inspection. All of the contractors involved with the development of subject property failed to communicate with each other and failed to verify site conditions and update their site plans accordingly. Staff finds the 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 the requested variance is the minimum modification of the regulation issue that will afford relief and allow the swimming pool pool deck and pool cage to remain as is in their current locations on subject property. The summary of our staff report Mr. Chair, we have any answer any questions? Yeah I do have one question. Is any part of the boat lift or the docking contention here? I asked the question because we're talking about ten feet of uplands was has eroded over time. So I can't actually tell from my photograph whether the boat dock or the boat lift isn't in Jeopardy here as well. No, those are water dependent structures that are on the water They were properly reviewed they meet the requirements for With of the canal and all of those things. Yeah, the dock and lift they appears. Yeah, they they're seven and a half feet off the side property line. It appears they meet all the requirements. And could you explain to me the miscalculation on the high water? If you recall, this has been a long storied history with South Gulf Cove. I've been here. I'm in my 13th year here now and South Gulf Co has been under the purview of the Army Corps of Engineers, DEP and SwiftMod at various times throughout those 13 years. Prior to me getting here in my first few years it was I believe DEP and they required a retaining wall I believe it was three feet in from mean high water line then another agency took over and they were letting people go out into the water and reclaim some land not quite all of it but some of it then Army Corps stepped in and they were going back to moving it back. I'll be honest, I don't even know who is reviewing at the state or federal level at this point that they just, every two to three years, they, you know, they tossed the potato to somebody else. So my understanding or what I would presume is that the Seawall contractor was proposing what they felt that they could get. And we had their provisions in statute that state we cannot hold up our approvals waiting for other state or federal agency approvals. Now with that once they got it put in, the other, as Miss Nochek stated, the other entities should have been notified to amend their plans. That didn't happen. We are starting to see this more, not just with this contractor, because of that situation. Because we can't wait to see where those state agencies or federal agency is going to require them to put the sea wall. then we have to, you know, good faith. This is where they're proposing. They're the experts in that field, and we base all of our items on that. It's a chicken and egg type of situation, and we've looked at this a number of years, probably about 10 years. We've been trying to figure out a good way to deal with this because this because you know it makes sense when somebody is building every bit at once because work from back forward and you don't have other big pieces like houses in the way as you're trying to do your pool or as you're trying to do your sea wall. You're trying to stabilize. Right so but it is starting to lead to some of these now. We're finding more and I don't know if it's due to a change in agency review or agency policy, but we are starting to see these a bit more. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? The staff? Okay. I'll open up public comment, please. Anybody wishing to speak? Oh, to applicant first if yeah applicant I'd like to come up Good morning my name is Jim Benson and I have been duly sworn in thank you to the board members for your time and opportunity Good morning. My name is Jim Benson and I have been Dolly Swornin. Thank you to the board members for your time and Opportunity this morning. I think Miss Nocheck laid it out perfectly. You know, this is a, as I heard in the previous applicant an unintended consequence of, you know, building on this particular lot. We did as a contractor, we did everything possible to make sure that we were following all the rules, following zoning requirements, following building code requirements, etc. And I think that we did that. You know, we didn't build a large home on the property. It's only 1790-ish square feet under air. 32 with a three-car garage and a typical pool for what you would see in this area. The only thing that really went sideways was just there was not a typical time for us to or when we would typically do surveys are at the foundation plan and then at the final. And there was really nothing required in the middle so nobody really does any surveys that are required in the middle. there was just a lack of our knowledge as the contractor that the seawall had moved in a few feet and that's what's put us in the situation. Excuse me. It's a question about we need to clarify a dimension am I correct? It is to the outside of the seawall. It was something else out of the seawall. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Okay. We will open up a public comment if anybody has anything that they would like to present to the board regarding this matter. Please step forward, state your name, date you as sworn and sign in. Okay, I'm seeing nobody rise. Could I have a motion to close the public comment please? So moved. Okay. Second, all in favor? Aye. Okay, public comment is closed. Miss Noah, check your out. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for a recommendation. After review of the site and the application requesting the variances, 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 the decision 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 15-foot rear yard setback by 4.6 feet to allow a 10.4-foot rear yardback to allow an existing swimming pool deck and cage to remain as is in their current locations on subject property and B to reduce the required 20 foot rear yard setback by 0.2 feet and to allow a 19.8 foot rear yard setback to allow an existing-family residence to remain as is in its current location on subject property. Number two, the variances shall apply only to the existing swimming pool deck, cage, and single-family residence as applicable as shown in the documents submitted with this application. And number three, if the swimming pool, deck, or cage, or single-family residents is removed or replaced, the applicable variant shall expire and all future development must be constructed in accordance with all applicable codes in existence at that time unless the new variants 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 swimming pool, DAC, cage, or single-family residence. That's it, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairman, I have that motion. I would move that VAR-25-002 be approved based on the community development department staff report dated March 5, 2025. That the evidence presented at this hearing and the finding that the applicant has met the required criteria for the granting of the variance. Included as conditions are the three noted as part of staff's recommendation. Hi. Mr. Chair, can you make sure your mic has been off almost for a while? So just ahead, please make sure that your mics are on when you're speaking. We're ready to move on to petition. There is 25.003 and Miss Snowcheck will do the presentation. Thank you. Sorry, I was corrected by our wonderful staff on TV side. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. So for the record, Elizabeth Nocheck, 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 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 VAR-25-003. Like to say to the landrys, I really appreciate your yard art. I think it's wonderful. So John and Alicia Landry are requesting two variances. A, to reduce the required 15 foot rear yard setback by 0.8 feet to allow a 14.2 foot rear yard setback to allow an existing swimming pool deck and cage to remain as is in their current locations on subject property. and B, to reduce the required 20 foot rear yard setback by 4.1 feet to allow a 15.9 foot rear yard setback to allow an existing single-family residence to remain as is in its current location on subject property in the residential single-family 3.5 zoning district. Subject property is located at 18398 Van Noise Circle in Port Charlotte. On your screen is the 1000 foot male notification area map for maillors that were sent out for this petition. On your screen now is the location map for subject property. The attached zoning map on your screen 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 shows the location of subject property on the south side of Van Noy Circle to the south of O'Hara Drive in central port Charlotte. The attached site image is a close up view, or sorry, a 2024 aerial photograph showing the closeup view of subject property and the adjacent parcels. This is the 2024 Eagle view image. And here's some flood zones. Section 3-9-33 of the County Code establishes the regulations for the RSF 3.5 zoning designation, including the requirement for a 20-foot setback for all structures when abutting water. Section 3-9-86 of the code provides specific regulations for swimming pools and residential districts. This code, a section of code, states that the minimum setback from a waterway for a pooler screen enclosure shall be 15 feet. Subject property abuts a canal to the rear, so the required rear yard setback for single-family residents is 20 feet, and for the swimming pool is 15 feet. The applicants have provided the attached narrative, which provides an overview of the situation, and addresses the five approval criteria for variances. The applicants purchased subject property in November of 2021, and their contractor applied for Emma's Granted Appearment for a new single-family residence in 2022. In 2023, the applicant's contractors applied for M. were granted permits for a new seawall and an in-ground swimming pool. After the construction of the single-family home was complete, the applicants were informed by their pool contractors that they would need to install a seawall in order to meet the required setbacks for a pool. The applicants then hired a seawall contractor who received all the required permits and the pool contractor then used the plans submitted by the seawall contractor for the permitting of the swimming pool. After all of the improvements were completed, county staff failed the final zoning inspection for the swimming pool due to the pool being 0.8 feet into the required 15 foot rear yard setback. The applicants had an AS-built survey performed for the property, and at that time it was discovered that the single family home was now encroaching 4.1 feet into the required 20 foot rear yard setback. The applicants are requesting these variances to allow the existing structures to remain on the property as is in their current locations. The applicants have provided the attached survey on your screen showing the current conditions of the property. Subject property is a single lot measuring approximately 10,000 square feet in area and has been developed with a 2,029 square foot single-family home, an in-ground pool with paper, deck, and screen enclosure, a sea wall, and a paper driveway. All of the existing structures on subject property were completed in 2024 per the county's property appraiser records. Subject property was platted in 1960 as part of section 79 of the Port Charlotte subdivision, which is shown on your screen on the plat map. Community Development Department's Environmental Specialist has performed a cursory environmental review and their comments are in the attached memorandum dated February 24th, 2025. For our findings, the five standards for approval of a variance according to section 3-9-6.3 i of the Charlotte County Zone and Code are as follows. Number one, unique or peculiar conditions or circumstances exist relating to the location size or characteristics of the lander structure involved and are not generally applicable to other lander structures. Our finding is that unique or peculiar conditions or circumstances do exist, like many other properties in Port Charlotte that about water the rear yard of subject property extends into the adjacent canal. The survey on your screen now shows the rear property line extending more than 16 feet into the adjacent canal, which is significantly more than most other properties, which typically extend maybe a few feet at most into the adjacent water body. The significant loss of uplands is likely due to erosion over the years caused by natural manmade factors such as over-dredging and sea level rise. The attached house permit site plan on your screen shows the proposed layout of the now existing single-family residents. The single-family residence was permitted based on measurements taken from the mean high water line as the property did not have a seawall at the time of permitting for the residents. You attach seawall permits, site plans, show the proposed layout of the now existing seawall. This plan was approved showing the seawall at the property line. shown on the survey, the seawall was not built at the property line. It was constructed at an angle approximately 16.3 feet on the southwest corner and 13.8 feet on the southeast corner from the property line. It is unclear as to why the seawall was installed at an angle rather than straight across the rear property line, which is typical for a seawall construction. A letter from the applicant seawall contractor, MGR Marine, is included in the narrative. This letter states that they installed the seawall behind the mean high water line, but does not explain why the seawall contractor applied for the permit showing the se sea wall to be installed at the property line and did not submit a plans change when it became known to them that the sea wall was not able to be built as shown on their plans. It is also unclear why it was built at a diagonal angle. The attached pool permit site plan on your screen shows the proposed layout of the now existing swimming pool and deck, the applicant stayed in their narrative that their pool contractor based their site plan off the permitted sea wall site plan. Staff finds these factors to constitute unique or peculiar circumstances or conditions. 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. Our finding is that the stricter and literal enforcement of the required 15 foot rear yard setback for the swimming pool, tech and cage, and the required 20 foot rear yard setback for the single family residents could be considered an undue hardship as distinguished from a mere inconvenience for several reasons. Without the requested variance the single family home would now be considered a non-conforming structure and in violation of the zoning regulations. In order to correct the encroachment without a variance the sea wall would need to be removed and replaced to provide a 20-foot rear yard setback or portions of the residents would need to be removed. Future sales of the property could be complicated by the encroachment due to its status as a noncaforming structure. The swimming pool deck and cage would also be considered noncaforming structures without the requested variance and would require demolition and reconstruction of part of the decking and footer as well as as alterations to the existing pool cage to meet the required 15 foot rear yard setback. The applicants currently have open permits for the swimming pool and pool cage which cannot be closed out until all required inspections, including the zoning final, have been completed. The zoning final inspection cannot be approved until either the requested variances are granted, or the structures are altered to meet the required setbacks. For these reasons, it is asked professional opinion that the denial of the requested variances would constitute an undue hardship as distinguished from their 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 single-family residents, swimming pool, deck and cage are all customary structures in residentally-zoned areas and most of the surrounding properties have been developed, I'm going to get that picture, have been developed with single-family residences and swimming pools, most of which do have pool cages. Any future development in the surrounding area is likely to be low-density residential and nature given the existing zoning and future land use map designations. There is no encroachment onto adjacent properties as both encroachments are towards the rear yard setback, which abuts a canal. 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 Reasonally corrected or avoided by the applicant Our finding is that the conditions giving rise to the requested Variants were created partially due to Erosion of the property into the adjacent canal And partially during the site development process of the property As shown on the survey back to that. And as previously discussed, the rear property line extends over 16 feet into the adjacent canal. Arojan of the land into the adjacent canal reduced the buildable area of the property. The survey also shows the sea wall was constructed at an angle rather than straight across the property, causing a difference of 2.5 feet in depth of the property from the southwest corner to the southeast corner. You can also see that angle pretty clearly on the Eagle View image here. Neither of the adjacent properties have seawalls along their rear property lines. It's one of the adjacent properties had an existing seawall, the applicant seawall could have been constructed in line with that adjacent seawall. The development process of subject property also created the conditions giving rise to the requested variances. As noted in their narrative, the single family residence was permitted and constructed first. The applicant seawall contractor was then granted their permit. The seawall contract did not submit revised plans to show the change in location. The applicant's pool contractor based their plans off the approved permit and plans of the seawall contractor and were apparently unaware of this issue when they began construction of this swimming pool. The seawall contractor should have informed the other contractors of this change and the pool contractor should have verified all measurements before starting construction. All of the contractors involved with the development of subject property failed to communicate with each other, failed to verify site conditions and update their plans accordingly. While property owners are ultimately responsible for the conditions of their property, the applicants relied on licensed, experienced professionals to construct the improvements as permitted, and were unaware of any issues until county staff failed the zoning final inspection for the pool for the encroachment into the rear yard setback. The 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 regulation at issue and allow these existing structures to remain as legally non-caforming structures. That is the summary of our staff report, Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Just a maimling questions, Mr. Nolchak. Just FY that whole neighborhood from Kanswood, Ohio, to Midway. All those lots are very low and all those lots are undersized because the way children are on the Doug Doug canal. I mean, it's pretty much every lot in that neighborhood. Just FYI. Same thing with South Gulf Coast. They didn't have enough dirt. Northways poor Charlotte, they had too much dirt. Would the applicant like to come up at this time? My name is John Landry and I was my wife Lee, so are you on the property. I was sworn in. I don't know what went wrong or where. To see while people tell me that they put it at an angle like that because it was an old existing wood dock I think I included a picture of that but Didn't make it to here I guess But I'm the that's the dock across from me and it was the exact same type of thing See while guys put it into the dock and then they stepped on it and was rotten so they pulled it out. That's what they tell me so that's why it's on an angle. Looks like we hired the same pool guy as the previous parents. Looks like there's a problem there. I don't know. I just were looking for a couple of herringes and and make the consideration. Thank you. I have a question. Is there a gentleman? Sorry. Thank you, sir At this time we open for public comment don't all come up at once At this time I like to close the public comment Saxon it on favor. I Miss no check. Thank you. Chair, for a recommendation. After review of the site and the application requesting the variances, it is staff's professional opinion that the proposed variances do meet the five criteria for increasing a variance. Staff notes 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 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 15-foot rear yard setback by 0.8 feet to allow a 14.2 foot rear yard setback to allow an existing swimming pool deck and cage to remain as is in their current location subject property. And B, to reduce the required 20 foot rear yard set back by 4.1 feet to allow a 15.9 foot rear yard setback to allow an existing single-family residence to remain as is in its current location in subject property. Sorry. Number two, the variance shall- sorry, we start over. The variance shall apply to the existing single-family residence, swimming pool, deck, and cage as applicable as shown in the documents submitted with this application. And number three, if the existing swimming pool, pool deck, or pool cage, or single-family residents is removed or replaced, the applicable variants shall expire and all future development must be constructed in accordance with all applicable codes in existence at that time, unless the new variants 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 swimming pool, pool deck, pool cage, or single-family residence. That's it, Mr. Chair. Thank you. This time we're looking for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I have that motion for you. Thank you. I would move the VAR-25-003 be approved based on the community development department staff report dated March 5, 2025. The evidence presented at this hearing and finding that the applicant has met the required criteria for the granting of the variances and conditions of approval be the three recommended by county staff. Thank you very much. Second any discussion? All in favor. Aye. Aye. Motion carries. You have your and variants have a good day. Thank you. I want to skip public comments and go to staff comments. Nothing for me. Thank you. We will have five petitions for you next month. We have three special exceptions and two variances. We will return to our regularly scheduled programming of outdoor storage for part of it. So you have that to look forward to next month. I'll see you in April. We miss that. Member comments? Mr. Chairman, I need to go on record to advise you and also county staff that I will not be in attendance at our next meeting. I have a training conference in Miami that I have to be at for that entire week. All right, thanks for letting us know. So what? I won't either. You won't be here either. Have a surgery. It's embellish here because we need a quorum. We need the rest of us to be here. As far as I know, I'll be here. I don't know. Okay. God willing, the creek don't rise. Next meeting is April 9th. Me and Ens is shown and we have a good one. Thank you.