I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I now call this meeting of the Brevard County Board of Zoning Adjustments for Wednesday, September 17, 2025, to order. Will Mr. Bodie, please, from the Planning and Development Office, please describe the function and operation of the Board of Zoning Adjustments to our applicants and the audience. Yes, Ms. Chairman. The Board of Adjustments is a quasi-judicial body established by the Board of County Commissioners under Chapter 62, Article 2, Division 4 of Brevard County Code. The Board of Adjustments is empowered to hear requests for variances to the zoning regulations and the signed regulations in Chapter 62, Article 6, and Article 9. Pursuant to Florida rules of appellate procedure, any person or persons jointly or severally agreed by the decision of the Board of Adjustments may, within 30 days after the date the order is signed, apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief. Ms. Chairman, you have eight items on your agenda today. Thank you. Dr. Bass, would you please explain to the applicants and audience the statutory definition of hardship, please? Yes, Ms. Chairman, that special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other properties, that the special conditions and circumstances— She gave me the wrong one. Okay. I'll start over. A variance may be granted when it is not contrary to the public interest and where, owning to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in unnecessary and undue hardship. The term undue hardship has a specific legal definition in this context and essentially means that without the requested variance, the applicant will have no reasonable use of the subject property under existing development regulations. Personal, personal, medical reasons shall not be considered as grounds for establishing undue hardship, sufficient to qualify an applicant for a variance. Economic reasons may be considered only in instances where the landowner cannot yield a reasonable use and or a reasonable return under the existing land development regulations. The applicant must answer a variance hardship worksheet with six questions. The Board of Adjustments will discuss these questions today with each applicant who has requested a variance. Thank you. I will now address our board members, the applicants, and our audience regarding the board procedures for today's hearing. The Board of Zoning Adjustments, as a quasi-judical board with members appointed by the Brevard County Board of Commissioners, will utilize Robert Rules of Order to conduct its proceedings. The Chair is asking all board members not to ask questions while the applicants are making their presentations. Once the applicants have completed their presentation, we will begin board questioning with the board members who represent the applicant's district. When concluded, questioning is open to the full board. The Chair will recognize each board member in turn. Once all board members have completed their questioning, we will then open the floor to the audience who may be here to speak concerning the applicant's application. Anyone from the audience wishing to speak will be given the opportunity to address the board only once. At the conclusion of public comment, the applicant will be given additional time for rebuttal, as well to present their final comments. Once completed, no further comment will be heard from the applicant or the public. The action then moves to the board for discussion and action. We will not use a timer for this meeting. Instead, we are asking each speaker to be concise in what they have to say. It's important that you stay on the subject and avoid information that's not relevant. All persons speaking must provide their name and address for the public record. Those wishing not to verbally state their address may ask the clerk at the podium for a dress card. Please fill it out and return to the clerk. Are there any questions regarding these procedures from the board members? Seeing none, are there any questions regarding the procedures from the applicants? From the audience? Seeing none, we will move to our next order of business. We'll go to the meeting minutes. Any changes and motions to approve the meeting minutes? Motion to approve. We have a motion to approve. I'll second that. We have a motion to approve by Ms. Clemens and a second by Dr. Bass. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Mr. Bodie, can we have our first applicant, please? Yes. Item H1, Stacey L. Den, revocable truss, request three variants of Chapter 62, Article 6, Bavard County Code for a carport, a shed, and separation distance for a carport in an RU-1-9 zoning classification. Application is 25V-00032, located at tax count number 2501487 in District 2. Will the applicant come to the podium, please? Good afternoon. Hi. Can I swear you in, please? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Can you have your first name and last name? Stacey Dean, D-E-H-N. Okay. Thank you. Um, okay, so we were requesting a variance for the carport and the shed, both of which were there when I purchased the home in 2021. We also applied for a permit to do a re-roof job that included the carport. The county approved that, so that was done as well. Um, we, uh, my contractor filled out all the paperwork and had sent everything in that was requested of us, and everything was done in a timely manner. And that's really all I have, unless you have questions. Okay. Well, this is coming from District 2, um, District 2, I'm sorry. Ms. Clements? Um, the question is, what is your future plan? I'm assuming you're going, you're legitimizing these variances because you're planning on doing something else, or is it just the roof that initiated this? No, no, the roofing never caused any issue with the variance to come up. Um, everything went through the county and was approved. We're doing, um, a two-story addition and removing the existing screened-in porch that's along the back side of the house, so it doesn't affect the shed, it doesn't affect the carport. Okay. Okay. I don't have any questions. I'm super familiar with the area. Okay. Okay. Any other questions? Yep. Is that the best? No questions? No. Okay. Did you read the variance first, or do I need to make a motion? I forgot. You make a motion. I make a motion to approve the variance, um, as depicted on the survey provided by the applicant, 6-24-2025. I'll be reading the variance hardship worksheet. Madam Chairman. Yes. Uh, are there any, uh, people in the audience want to speak for? We're sorry. Are there anyone in, is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak against this variance? Or for it? Seeing none. It's Clements. You approved it? Yes. I'll read the six hardships. Thank you. Yes. Is that okay? I have a motion to second the variance. We need a second. Yeah. Okay. Can we have a second? I'll, I'll second the motion. You'll second the motion? Okay. We have, uh, approval by Ms. Clements, a second by Mr. Hoffman. Discussion? I have no questions. No, no questions. Seeing none. I would now read the hardships. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land structures or builders in the applicable zoning classification. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in the identical zoning classification. That literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the identical zoning classifications under the provisions of this chapter and would constitute unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that would make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. And that the granting of the variance would be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter and that such use variance would not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. We have approval by Ms. Clemens. We have a second by Mr. Hoffman. And all in favor of the variance being passed, say aye. Aye. I see that everyone passed the variance and this variance has been passed. Thank you. Mr. Bodie, can we have our next applicant, please? Yes, item H2, Joseph E. Kent, Dixie L. Kent, request two variances as Chapter 62, Article 6, Bavar County Code for a proposed accessory structure and an existing accessory structure in an RR-1 zoning classification. Variance application is 25V00040, located at tax count number 2004964 in District 1. I see the applicants are at the podium. I'll swear you both in. And we'll do one at a time. Swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth? Yes. May I have your name, please, first and last? Of Dixie Lynn Testiquette. Okay. And do they need to spell it for everybody? Okay. And may I swear you in, sir? Swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth? Yes. And your first and last name, please? Joseph Kent. I'm sorry, just speaking to the... Joseph Kent, sorry. Okay. Thank you so much. You can present your case. Okay. The structure in question is a pole barn that was constructed in 1992-93. It was originally like a horse barn with stalls, from what we've learned, with power and water. It was later used as like a general purpose pole barn for storage. It's listed in our closing documents as a covered carport. And we recently adapted the interior space to house four of our dogs. The changes that have been made did not change the footprint. They're inside the same footprint that's on the closing documents. And the majority of the structure is, it doesn't need a variance. It's 18 feet from the sides and most of the back. But there is one corner that encroaches. It's only at 11 feet. So, it's short by four feet. So, we're requesting a variance to allow the continued use of the structure just for that four feet. Okay. Well, I see this is in District 1. And District 1 is my district. Okay. I did go past your property. So, I don't really have any questions. I do know, I understand it's a barn. Now, it's serving as a carport, correct? No, we've already changed it. You changed it. Now, it's just a slab? No, it's actually, we've actually made it into a doghouse. A doghouse? Yes. Is that what you're saying? For four dogs. For four dogs. They had also applied for a proposed accessory structure that was on a concrete slab. Correct. But I think you were saying that you wanted to withdraw that one? I didn't want to withdraw it. I wanted to change it. And I wanted to change it to, because we don't have a fence, or we have like a small fence in the back. And I know for a six-foot fence, you don't need a variance. But I wanted to see about getting an eight-foot fence, which I know you do need a variance. No, we can't do that, because it hasn't been advertised for an eight-foot fence. You'd have to come back for another variance to do that. Okay. We did take in two different variances for it. One was for the existing dog port, or whatever y'all made it into. And the other one was for maybe a proposed accessory structure on the concrete slab that runs up to the property line. Do you guys have what that looks like? Do you have? Yeah, we have pictures, we do. So, it's just this, and that's, okay. So, that slab that's on the side, we were thinking about adding a carport there, like, to minimize, to get more privacy, and to, like, minimize any sounds coming from the dogs. Some soundproofing. Some soundproofing. Okay, so let me make sure I'm clear. Okay. Because there was two variants on this, and I want to make sure I'm clear. The first request was the 100% deviation to what the code allows, correct? And that's this, correct? Yes. Okay. And this is what it looks like presently? Yes. Correct? Okay. You guys see that? You guys see the pictures? Yes. Okay. Now, the second request was a 27% deviation to what the code allows, but that's still pertaining to this picture right here, correct? Yes, the second one, the second variance is for the existing structure. Yes. And the first variance is for a proposed that is not built, but it is going to be on the concrete slab that's there. So, the second one is for this? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Okay. All right. I have no other questions. Do you have any questions, Ms. Clements? Not currently. Okay. Dr. Bass, any questions? No. Mr. Hoffman? Not at this time. Okay. Not at this time. Just move to the side. Is there anyone here? I'll take a seat. Oh, you can have a seat. Is there anyone here to speak against or for? Against. Okay. You may come up to the podium, please. Let me just swear you in. My name is Glenn Feilner. One moment, sir. I swear to tell the truth. I swear to tell the truth. The whole truth and nothing but the truth. The whole truth and nothing but the truth. And your first and last name, please. My name is Glenn with two Ns. Last name is Feilner. F as in Frank, E-I-L-N-E-R. And I live at 3458 Carter Road, which is a flag lot. We are directly behind the Kents. Okay. The Kents threw their dogs in after they built their kennel, unknowing to us that they were going to build a kennel. It's a six-dog kennel, by the way. Our quality of life has been diminished. Our value has been diminished. We have two neighbors on either side of us that also have flag lots. We face those dogs. It's not a dog house, as they describe. It's a kennel. They built a six-dog kennel. They never stay inside. They are always outside. My wife and I put up with this for over a year. And then this past January 11th, we were woken up early in the morning, one day, two days. And on Monday, I called it in to animal control. They came out and investigated. Eleven days later, we get a message, my wife from Joseph Kent, saying, well, we had some vets in. We had more dogs than we were allowed. There's some testimony by the Kents that even states that. And from that, we have both neighbors on either side have offered comments. There was never a horse barn there. There was never ever horse stalls there. They fabricated this story. Jackie Kite, who's been there for 32 years on my left side, has been there and knew the piles from day one. It was always a carport, and she has testimony in there referring to that. I think they made a leap saying that if we say it was a horse barn before, then maybe the board allows us to let dogs in there. February 6th of this year, there was a commotion out there. I wrote about it and put a retraction. Staff told me that they would put the retraction portion in to your all's materials for this morning. For some reason, they chose not to put the video in that the Kents supplied, showing five dogs in that pen on February 6th. So now we only have four dogs. I'm sad that the dog died. Apparently, he had a heart attack or a stroke. They said two different things. But after that dog died, we thought, well, they're down to four dogs. Everything's going to be somewhat better, even though four dogs is better than five, but they're still pretty darn noisy. Lo and behold, Joe Kins, he specified, he goes hunting, usually South Carolina, in the month of March or thereabouts. Comes back. Lo and behold, they've added a fifth dog. I call him the alpha male. I provided pictures of that fifth dog with Dixie Kent holding it, with the dog kettle inside their screen porch. Then, later on, I've showed pictures of Joe Kent coming out and putting his alpha dog back into the house, and that makes five dogs. Then, I talked to the enforcement officer, and he says, we come out there, we all can see what we can see. Well, he encouraged me to get the photos. I got photos, and you can see five dogs, one of them coming running out there, and this was just two weeks ago, okay? We put up, this was five months since the October incident. We called it into the planning board because the animal control, I think, had already been out there. So, there are two other witnesses, well, not witnesses, that have provided details that I haven't seen from the staff, but it came from the next door neighbor to the right, which would be Sandra, Joseph, and then the person that owns the undeveloped lot, all 360 feet adjacent to their west, also supposedly has put something in, but staff has not shared that. I hope you all got that. I really do. I've written everything in testimony. There's no use in me going, hashing it over, but we shouldn't have to be woke up in the morning when Joe decides to go hunting at four or five o'clock in the morning. I don't think any of you would like to have a neighbor next door 15, 20, 30 times out of the year to be woken up four or five in the morning, barking dogs, not just in the morning at four or five. It's feeding time. It's afternoon feeding time. It's when anybody sees them. When these dogs lived in a kennel, Joe even says that they lived in a kennel for the last 20 years when they lived in Coco. These are kennel dogs. They're hunting hog dogs. Anybody that keeps dogs in a kennel like they do, anytime they see anybody, they start barking and they bark and they bark. I'm going to close and I'm not here to try to, but this was taken September 11th. I walked out of my front door, which is about 110 feet away from this. This is what we got. Oops. Technology. I hope, I'm going to try this off. It's only 59 seconds. My phone won't send anything over 59. But I do ask that you get to see the video that the Kent supplied February 6th when the dog went down. You can see the five. I didn't create that video. She did. Staff chose, for some reason, not to give it, because I challenged them last night. The application is for variances to setbacks. It's not for the dogs. The dogs are a different type of code complaint. You'll have to go back to code enforcement about the dogs. This is particularly, this meeting is for the setbacks, for the structures. We ask that the setbacks be enforced and that building be removed. And if staff has given you the other neighbors' responses, which I hope they did, they'll be selling you the same thing. That's four of us out here. I've lived there 14 years. The other two have lived there over 30. That's all I have to say. Are there any questions of me? I would definitely follow up with code enforcement on the dogs. They're only allowed for four dogs to be over six months old. And if they have more than that, follow up with code enforcement with the dogs and the complaints about the bargain. Well, Dixie and one of her replies stated they had five dogs. But what they didn't tell you, one died. They did tell you that. But they didn't tell you they got the fifth dog. And we've been living with that since April. Well, this is for setbacks to the structures. Yes, we asked about you set a precedent that that's rural residential. You set a precedent. The next person is going to build a doghouse next to somebody else's property. It's going to go on and on and on. These codes are there for a reason. Let's enforce them. That's what we ask. Thank you. Thank you so much. Is there anyone else here that would like to speak on this particular variance for or against? Okay, the applicants can come back, please. I asked, do you have any rebuttal to say to the comments? Yes. Okay. Go ahead. We did have five dogs when we first moved in. We didn't know that there was a rule about four dogs. And I want to say, I mean, we didn't look it up. But how could we know? Everybody on the street has seven, eight, nine dogs. It's donkeys, cows, chickens, goats up and down the street. We had no idea. When we found out, we're like, I don't know what we're going to do. And then one of our dogs had a heart attack. So in the video he's talking about, yes, there's five dogs. One of them, unfortunately, passed away. The dog he's talking about that's been at my house recently is my sister's dog that I dog sit. I cannot do that. I mean, that's not an issue. But I didn't think it was against the law to dog sit. And like you said, this isn't relevant to any of this. We've got a 30-year-old structure that's been there. And we converted it, you know, that was a barn into a dog kennel, dog house, whatever you want to do it. But that's all that we did. And these are family pets. It's been there for 30 years. These are family pets. They're not like some vicious hunting dogs. I would say maybe everyone should take a field trip to our house and meet the dog. And my dogs are going to live, whether you make us tear this, I don't know, I spend tens of thousands of dollars tearing this thing down and remove it. My dogs are going to live right there. They're still going to live in the backyard. They're just going to be exposed to the elements, you know what I mean? It's not going to do anything for them. We want to work with them. We want to build a high fence for them, build them some privacy with the carport. That's what we're trying to do. But my dogs are going to stay right there. They're going to live right there. So I want him to know that, all the other neighbors to know that. My dogs aren't moving, you know? We just need a variance for a building that's been there for 30 years. And we're trying to be good neighbors, good neighbors to everybody. So that's it for us. Thank you. You're welcome. So now, anybody would like to make a motion? Mr. Hoffman, would you like to make a motion? Once again, this is for two different variances. Correct. Okay. So we need two. We need two. We need two motions. Oh, yeah, we need to get in. We'll put an S on end for variance. Okay. Mr. Hoffman, please. Um, yeah, I make a, uh, motion, uh, that we, um, deny this variance, uh, due to the fact that it, um, seems to be caught, it's not in, uh, uh, the best interest of the neighborhood. Oh, we do have. Uh, you're done. I'm sorry. Uh, actually, you can have a seat. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that you had the letters from the people that. We do. We do. Thank you. I'll second that. Okay. So we have one denial by Mr. Hoffman. We have a second by Dr. Bass. Can we take a vote, please, on this? Uh, discussion. Discussion? Yeah. My discussion is that, uh, until this, uh, noise and animal control complaint is resolved, um, I don't, uh, I'm not in favor of, uh, granting the variance until the neighborhood is satisfied with the, uh, circumstantial, uh, situation. So let me just ask, I just want to be clear. You're denying it. Why? Because of. Because, uh, one of the six criteria is it's, uh, it's not incompatible. Uh, fine exact wording. Exactly. You had that piece of paper going. I gave it back to her. Okay. So is it number six that you, um, is it number six? Yeah, number six. That the granting of the, uh, variance will be, will, that the granting of this variance will not be in harmony with the general intent and purpose and injurious to the neighborhood. That's my rationale for the negative. Dr. Bass? Yes. Uh, I'm looking at quite a bit of conflicting information here. There's a, another letter that was sent to us by Dixie Testa. And she starts out, and again, as Mr. Brody suggested, it's not the number, but it says also during the weekend, it was five dogs and two extra seven dogs. Not that it matters since four is the limit, but this is a particular neighborhood exaggerating everything. So it looks like there's some conflict that's being caused by this. I'm against. Okay. Ms. Clemens? I have a question for Mr. Brody. Okay. Does it make a difference that just because the structure was 33 years old, it's not, it's not the same use as what it was 33 years ago. So does it make a difference that it was turned into a kennel? Uh, it has been turned into a different type of, uh, use for it. So it's up to you guys to, whether it is. Is that buried in the variance, meaning the request? So like if we give this request, then it's current use? Well, it appears that it might've been a carport at one time. I don't know if it was ever used as a stall or not, but stalls and barns have bigger setbacks than this. They have to require 50 feet. So I don't know if it was ever built off the rear property line to be a barn or a stall. Um, you heard testimony that it was a carport. It has been changed into a kennel right now and they are limited on the dogs. As I previously stated, they're allowed to have four dogs, adult dogs over six months old and that's it. Okay. I'm in agreement with, um, denying currently at the time. I think that there's resolution to be had about the future carport as well as the complaints. Okay. Madam chair, just as another comment, there is not currently a building permit associated with the outfitting of this structure. So staff can't actually determine what all has and has not been done to it. As far as we're concerned, it was just an open air carport. We don't know anything other than that. But by granting the variance, it would legitimize the setbacks. I don't necessarily know if it would legitimize the use of it. Gotcha. Okay. But it's my understanding that we're just here for the setbacks, not the use of it. Is that correct? Yes. So I would say I'm for it only because we're here for the setbacks, not the use of it. I don't think that's our place, whether they have 10 dogs or four dogs, that's not our place to, um, decide. Our place right now is the request to equate a hundred percent deviation to what the code allows. So I see this vote is three to one. So now I'll read, I'll read the, um, any more discussion? Okay. So now I'll read the six variants. Okay. Number one, that special conditions and circumstances exist, which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or builders in the applicable zoning classification. Two, that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Three, that granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in the identical zoning classification. Four, that literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classification under the provisions of this chapter and would constitute unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. I believe he just wants to keep the dogs out the elements. And number five, that the variance granted is the minimum variance that would make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. And six, that the granting of the variance would be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter, and that such variance would not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. And at this time, it's been denied because of the three to one vote. Okay, so let's make sure we're clear on that. Please vote on the record. The vote on the record is that it is... I'm sorry? Mr. Hoffman votes no. Or votes in favor of denial. Okay. I guess that's a yes. Dr. Bass votes in favor of denial. Okay. Jennifer Clements votes in favor of denial. And Sonia Millard votes in favor of the applicant. This variance has been denied. Okay. Mr. Bodie, our next applicant, please. The item H3, thing V, and hang in, tran, request variance of Chapter 62, Article 6 of our county code for an existing and new heater AC unit in an RU-1-9 zoning classification. The application is 25V-00041, located at tax count number 2611578 in District 4. Okay. Hi. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth? Yes. Your first and last name, please. First name is Tang, T-H-A-N-G, last name Tran, T-R-A-N. Okay. How can we help you today? Yeah, today I come in to approve the second location of the AC, the rebuilder house, and we have the original AC approved with the previous variance, but we found out the one AC doesn't meet enough for the house, and we add the second AC, and we put the second AC in line with location on the first AC, and we come in to make sure that we're okay to appear to the second AC location, yeah. Okay. Now, this is in District 4, and this will be Dr. Bass. Dr. Bass. Good afternoon. I visited this property, and just as a little background for this, this property is pie-shaped. It's wide on the river end, and it narrows on both sides of the house, going down and further narrows to the street. So it is a pie-shape, and the sides of the house are narrow in property width. The house has now two matching air conditioner units on the west side of the house. Each one has a matching four-foot square concrete pad, and they both abut on the house. One AC unit is an existing unit now operating to cool the house. The second request, the second part of this request is for the second unit, which will reside right next to the first one. For information, both of these AC units are located on the west side of the house, where Florida Power has affixed its surface-mounted home meter directly to the side wall of the house. These air conditioner units are close within range underneath this meter. Literal enforcement will prevent the homeowner from using the current connection to the existing floor-to-power home meter. The adjoining house side yards to the west, the adjoining house side yard is without an access door or a walkway portion to the adjoining property in any way. The neighbor's side yard is wide by comparison, and it is composed of the general Florida turf and crabgrass. There are no flower beds that are going to be disturbed, or there are gardens that are going to be disturbed in this case. But literal enforcement would require Florida Power to relocate the meter back down to the back of the house, because it gets more narrow, right, back to the back of the house on the street side. And then the homeowner would be required to move both AC units to the back portion near the garage entryway. That's the summary of what we have here and what I observed when I walked this property. Is there any other questions or anything? Yeah, I have. This is a second unit right next to the first one? Correct. And there is a fence between your house and the... No, right now, no, we don't have it. There isn't? Because the survey talks something about a wooden fence, but it ends before it gets back to that? No, there's no fence. The wood fence is before that. Toward the front of the house? Correct. Okay, and then it ends? Correct. All right. Had any complaints from the neighbors? No, nothing I know of. This is a modern AC unit that has the quiet bearings and all of those things? I did hear that. Yes, I can confirm that. Okay. That's all my questions. Okay, Ms. Clements? No questions? No questions with me. Dr. Bass? No, I'm complete. Okay. Just move to the side. Is there anyone here? Oh, someone would like to come speak? Okay, sir, you can move to the side and have them come speak. Thank you. Okay, I'll swear you in. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth or nothing but the truth? I do. Can you state your first and last name, please, for the record? Esther Tomsikoski. Okay, thank you. So, I'm at 4605. Just a quick clarification, the west side of the house is the front, so I'm, the units are on the north side of the house. Your house or their house? My house. His units. Right. Yeah. All right. Yeah. So, I was thinking of the river being on the east side. Yeah. It curves. So, the river's east, front of the house is west. All right, it curves. Yeah. Okay. So, yeah. And just, you know, I don't have any flower beds there. I just have a bedroom window and my back patio. So, but Tran was very nice. He moved the unit a little bit further down, so at least it's double the noise, like, right next to my back deck. So, I do appreciate everything that they're doing. They are using my property to build it and things like that. I would like to see them be able to put up the wall because having, the units have never been on yet because the power's not hooked up yet. So, but they are a nice unit, so I'm assuming that they're going to be pretty quiet. But I do want them to be able to be able to put the wall up eventually, and I know that will probably be like another hearing. So, yeah. And it's the pot. The lot's not pie shape anymore because one of the other neighbors bought a portion of it, so it's a straight lot back. Okay. It's very deceiving when you want the property. Yeah, but the fence that's on the other side, on Brad's side, that's a full wood fence going down there. Yeah. So, I know he's trying to get it all done, build. I'm letting him come on my property to build and things like that. So, it's been chaos, but typical of construction. So, I just want to make sure that he'll be able to eventually put that wall up as well, too. And then it won't be anything that will be on my property, that it'll stay within his property lines. So, I don't always quite understand like the 3.5 foot from whatnot because it's, there's not that much room. This is what our code requires. Yeah. It allows for you to have an AC or a generator four feet into a required setback. So, the required setback for the house is seven and a half feet. So, they're going four feet into it. So, they're requiring three and a half feet. Yeah. So, that's what the request is for. Okay. Yeah. And then I have just seven and a half feet. So, if I go to do anything, I don't want to have to worry about having to do any variances and stuff like that as well, too. So, but hopefully, y'all will allow them eventually next time to be able to put the wall up as well, too. So, to sum this all up, you're in favor, correct? Yeah. I mean, I'm okay. Okay. Yeah. It's, if he puts them on the other side, they're going to be right under their bedroom window without a wall. If he puts the wall up, then they'll be on the side where my daughter's bedroom and window is and patio. But then, at least if the wall's there, we're not going to hear them. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. You're welcome. Anyone else? Okay. You can come back up, sir. Dr. Bass? I'm ready to make a motion. Yes. I make a motion that we approve the variance as depicted on the survey with a signed date of 7-09-2025. Okay. Do we have a second? Sorry. Okay. Ms. Clements second. Can we have a vote? Aye. Aye. Yeah, aye. Aye. Okay. Let me read the six points. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land, structures, or buildings in the appropriate applicable zoning classification. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands, buildings, structures, and identical zoning classifications. That literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in an identical zoning classification under the provisions of this chapter and would constitute unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. And that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. And that the grain of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter. And that such use variance would not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public wealth. Well, we just had approval by Dr. Bass. Yes. A second by Ms. Clements. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. This variance have passed. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Bodie, can you bring our next applicant up, please? Yes. Item H-4, Susan M. and Peter Barrett-Durling request variants of Chapter 62, Article 6, Bavard County Code for a primary structure in a TRC-1 zoning classification. Application is 25V-00043. It's located at tax count numbers 3004348 and District 3. Okay. I swear you in, please. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. And your first and last name, please, for the record. Durnley. D-E-A-R-N-L-E-Y. Thank you. How can we help you today? Okay, well, last year we lost our carport in a hurricane, and after some dithering with insurance, I hired a contractor. As part of that process, he had a survey done and applied for a building permit. That's when everything went south. Apparently, in 1988, when we live in Barefoot Bay, that's where the structure is. In 1988, when the units were installed, they were installed crooked on the property, such that at its worst point, there's a two-and-a-half-foot encroachment in the setback requirement, and the building permit was denied for that reason, and I've been filling out forms and writing checks ever since. So I'd like some relief from the situation. The most interesting thing I can point out to you is that I personally measured the closest spot in the encroaching area to my neighbors and found that it was over 15 feet. So what that means to me is that I've encroached on the setback, and he has a much juicier setback than he needs. I fear about the other side of his. I don't know if you understand Barefoot Bay, but they installed these things. Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang. And I'm pretty sure that not everything was done perfectly. The surveyor showed up with a big thing on a pole that goes up into space. It didn't exist in 1988. So here I am. Can you help me? Okay. I see this is in District 3, Mr. Humber. He's not here today. Right. You are. So I'm just going to go over it again. The hurricane damaged your carport. Removed it. Removed it completely. Put it in the neighbor's yard. And put it in the neighbor's yard. Okay. So we're here today because you're requesting the encroachment for the 7.5-foot setback by 2.5 feet. This requests 33% deviation. So looking at the pictures on here, I see your home. What does the neighbor on the left side of you say? Do they have any? My left as I look out. Well, he's in favor of getting it done. As a matter of fact, I had to clear the easement, P-U, the utility thing. Okay. And when I did that in this room months ago, I had to present his signed approval. Okay. Okay. And, you know, he just wants it done. He just wants it done. Yeah. It looks ugly. Right. And the neighbor on the right of you is no problem either, right? No. Because it doesn't affect. Because it doesn't affect. There is a clock. My lot is, I'm on a curve. Okay. So the back part is wider than the front part, and, you know, there's no problems at all there. Okay. Any questions, Ms. Clemmons? No questions? Well, actually, I do have a question. You're going to be putting up the same identical structure. Yes. That was currently. My intention is just now and in the future. It's fully developed the way it is. You know, my plans for the future are things like new windows in the same place. Gotcha. It's siding, it's vinyl, and it's on the same wall. You know, it's fully developed. We're happy with what it looks like. We just want to replace what the storm took away in the location it was in. I was offered an opportunity to the carport in so that the post goes up two and a half, well, no, it's not quite a half a foot at that end, into the paved driveway. But it would look silly. It would, you know, eventually one of us is going to get old enough to hit the thing with the car. So we'd just like to put it back the way it was. Okay. I understand. Mr. Hoffman, any questions? You said the neighbor that's closest to your. Yes, sir. You've spoken with them. No, they actually gave you a letter when you cleared the PUD. Yeah, there's a part, I should have brought all that with me. No, that's okay. You sort of tell the truth, and I'll believe what you say. It's there. Yes, sir. Okay. He signed it very willingly. So he's okay with it. Yes, sir. That's fine. Dr. Bass? I have no questions. Okay. I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to make a motion to approve the variance as depicted on the survey signed March 18, 2025. I'll second that. Okay. We have a motion by Ms. Clemmings, and we have a second by Dr. Bass. Okay. I'll just ask you to step to the side. Anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this or against this? Seeing none, you can come back, sir. I'm going to read the six variants. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land structures or buildings in the applicable zoning classification. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. That granting the variance request would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by provisions of this chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in an identical zoning classification. And that literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the identical zoning classification under the provisions of this chapter and would constitute unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. And that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter. And that such use variance would not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. We have now had approving of the variance by Ms. Clemmings, second by Dr. Bass. We'll take an individual vote. Mr. Hoffman, how do you vote? Aye. I'm sorry? I vote yes. Okay. Dr. Bass? Yes. Yes. And yes, your variance have passed. Thank you. Mr. Bode, our next applicant, please. Application H-5, Barry A. Rowe, request variance to Chapter 62, Article 6, Brevard County Code for a primary structure in a TR-1 zoning classification. Application is 25B-00044, located at tax count number 271-8006 in District 4. How are you this afternoon? Oh, great. Great. Great. Let me swear you in, please. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth? Yes. Your first and last name for the record, please. Barry Rowe. Okay. How can we help you this afternoon? Well, I'd like to read a couple of paragraphs that I wrote down. Is that okay? Okay. It won't take too long. I need a variance because I'm extremely poor and cannot afford to have my mobile home moved six to 14 inches from the property line. The fence would be built on the north side of the property, where my home is 15 feet from the property line. The adjacent property at 1540 Alpha Drive is not only a major eyesore, but a health and safety issue as well. Hurricane winds will send large amounts of junk onto neighbors' properties, including mine. The stench of discarded food and clothing on the front yard is nauseating. The smell is disgusting to endure while I'm mowing or pruning. At least five of the transients living there have trespassed onto my property. Yelling, cursing, threatening each other is almost a daily occurrence. I'm probably living my last decade. If granted the variance, my fence would provide at least some measure of increased safety and physical and mental comfort. Please help me live out my last few years in happiness. Oh, my. This is in District 4. District 4. Dr. Bass? Yes. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I visited this property. I have seen this type of request to legitimize older properties because zoning laws change over time. Things change over time. This request, as it stands, does not impact any adjoining properties. The neighbor's property on the north side has their driveway, and you see it in the figure on page 61, has a driveway between this property and their house, as shown on page 61 of the packet. Their driveway is further separated from this particular property on the south by their property-length chain-length fence, which runs from the street to the back of the property, between their driveway and the adjoining property. So this request does not have any impact on any of the neighboring properties. It is to legitimize what is existing as it is now. Okay. Any other questions? Mr. Hoffman? Yeah, I'm looking at this. Yeah, I'm just looking at this picture in curiosity. I mean, it looks like there's a dump on the other side of that drive. Or is this just the neighbor's property? It's the neighbor's next door at 1540. And that's their fence and driveway. It's a well-known drug house with about 20 transients living there. It's separate from our proceedings here, but have you contacted the authorities about this? Oh, code enforcement, I'm in contact with them. Police? Periodically, V.C.S.O., county commissioner, Rob Feltner, the county commission, the sheriff's department, code enforcement. What, I'm here today. Who else do I need to talk to? No, as I say, it's separate from our decision and discussion here today. It just astounds me that I can see what's going on in this photograph. No, I have no questions other than that. Ms. Clemons? Questions? Do you all have the photos? Yes. Yes, we do. And this came about the variants? Okay, okay. I'm sorry? This variants came about because of him applying for a fence to try to keep the neighbor, all his junk and everything, CNN and everything. And then it was noted that his mobile home didn't meet the setback, and that's the reason he's here, is to try to get his fence permit and get the variants to legitimize what's there. May I add that 20 years ago I got a permit to build a fence in the backyard but was never stopped. Maybe the requirements have changed. We're just discussing this. Oh, I apologize. All right, I'll make a motion. I make a motion to approve the variants as depicted in the survey provided by the applicant dated 12-21-2005. And before we do that, let me go back. I just need to make sure there's no one in the audience that's opposing this variants or for it. Okay, did you want to speak? No, I got to tell him this one. That's what it was about. Hey, sir. Okay. I don't remember. Where do you live? Oh, yes. Of course. Okay, I'm sorry. Dr. Bass? I made the motion. You made the motion to approve. Do we have a second? I second to approve. And Ms. Clements, second? Okay. I will now read the six. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land, structures, or buildings in the applicable zoning classification. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. That granting the variants requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in the identical zoning classification. That literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classification under the provisions of this chapter and will constitute unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. And that the variants granted is the minimum variants that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. And that the granting of the variants will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter. And that such variants would not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise deprimental to the public welfare. We have approval by Dr. Bass. We have a second by Ms. Clemmings. We'll do an individual vote. Mr. Hoffman? I vote in favor. Dr. Bass? In favor. Ms. Clemmings? In favor. Myself, Sonia Lard? In favor. This variants have passed. Thank you. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Mr. Bode, our next applicant, please. Yes. Item 8-6. Carl W. Loggins, Jr. Request variants of Chapter 62, Article 6, Bevard County Code for an Accessory Structure in an RR-1 Zoning Classification. The application is 25V00045, located at Tax Account Number 2404078 in District 1. Okay. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth? I do. Can you state your first and last name for the record, please? Carl Loggins, Jr. Okay. How can we help you today? Well, I need to get a variance. My dad, before he died, he had a building built on the property that he didn't get a permit for. Well, somebody called code enforcement, told them to build a building without a permit. Don't know how they knew that. But when it came down to try to get a permit for the building, found out that the building was oversized for what was allowed to build on the property. And now I need a permit, I mean, a variance for 200 and some square feet, too big of a building. Okay. I see this is in District 1, and that's my district. Okay. And I didn't get a chance to visit your property, so I apologize for that. So we're going to walk through this, if you don't mind. No problem. Okay. So as you said, the accessory was built by your father without a permit, correct? That is correct. Prior to his ownership. Okay. Yes. So you need a variance, 21% deviation with the code allowed, oversized. Now, what is the structure exactly on the property? What is it? Yeah. It's an accessory building. It's an accessory building. What does it hold? It's full of stuff. We sold a commercial property that we've run for 27 years, and we were in the process of moving, and he fell off a ladder. And at any rate, that doesn't have anything to do with it. But right now, it's absolutely full, other than one path from one door to another door to get in and out. So it's an accumulation of his stuff for 27 years. Okay. So what I just heard you say is accumulation of stuff from another, where you had a store or something? Well, we had a business on Clear Lake Road in Cocoa. Okay. And we sold the property. Okay. He bought this house so we could live in the same place so I could take care of him. So 27 years worth of stuff inside this thing. So it's nobody living in there? No, no, no. It's just a storage place? Yeah, yeah. It's full. Half? Okay. Nobody could live there if they wanted to. Okay. And as I look at this aerial visual picture, I don't see, well, anyone to your left or your right, you really have a lot of land there. So your neighbor's not really close to you, correct? No, no. The closest neighbor is to the east of me, and there's a ditch right away, and then her property is on the other side of the ditch. So I'm like 40 feet from the property line on that side, right in that ballpark. Okay. Okay. I have no other questions. Do you have any questions, Ms. Clemons? I'm assuming it's a metal building that- Yes, ma'am. Does there power to it? No, ma'am. Okay. No other questions? I just, I want to make an observation like you did. Okay. Apparently from the aerial photo, you're not encroaching on any setbacks. No. You're not encroaching on any setbacks. No, sir. And this only is triggered because the code has restrictions on the percentage or the size of an accessory building versus your primary residence. Right, it's, I guess it's a bit larger than what is a lot. Yeah, I've got a heck of an education in the past few months. The accessory structures can't be bigger than 50% of the living area of the primary structure. Right. So if you had a 4,000 square foot house, the biggest they could build would be 2,000 square feet. Okay. And this one is existing as 1,487 square feet is 261 square feet over the 50%. Okay. Frankly, I consider that a somewhat minor deviation. However, since you are isolated pretty much from most of the neighbors, I don't see that this really does any harm. I just want to get in compliance. And everybody has been real good. They've explained things to me and helped me along. I just want to get it cleared up and make everybody happy. Okay. Dr. Bass? I agree with Mr. Huffman's comments, so I have no further questions. Okay. Would anybody like to make a motion? I make a motion to approve the variance request as depicted on the survey provided by the applicant dated 5-7-2025. I'll second that. Okay. Ms. Clements had made a motion to approve. Dr. Bass has second. I'm going to ask you just to aside for a moment. Anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this, yay or nay? Seeing none, you can come back. And now I'm going to read our variance hardship worksheet. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land, structures, or buildings in the applicable zoning classification. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. That granting the variance request would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in the identical zoning classification. That literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in an identical zoning classification under the provisions of this chapter and will constitute unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. And that the variance granted is the minimum variance that would make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. And that the granting of the variance would be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter and that such variance would not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. We have had a motion to approve by Ms. Clemmings, a second by Dr. Bass, and we're going to do a private vote just on the record. Mr. Hoffman. Vote in favor. Dr. Bass. In favor. Ms. Clemmings. In favor. Sonia Millard. In favor. This variance have passed. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it. Okay. Mr. Bodie, our next one, please. Item H7. Christopher M. Gonzalez and Stephanie Stanford request two variances of Chapter 62, Article 6, Bavaria County Code, for an accessory structure and a GU zoning classification. Application is 25B-00046. Located tax count number 2401139 in District 1. Okay. The applicant is here. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, ma'am. May I have your first and last name for the record, please? Yes. My name is Christopher Gonzalez. I live at 3785 Canton Street, Cocoa, Florida, there in Canavergroves. I'm District 1, so I'm under you, Sonia. All I'm here today is to ask for two variances. I initially didn't realize I needed two, only one. I wanted to build an enclosed garage in my backyard to store my offshore boat and my flats boat as well as a car hauler and two trailers. Right now, they're kind of all scattered amongst the yard, and I wanted to kind of clean it up and also keep it safe from theft as well as the elements. As you know, it's pretty humid out here and everything rusts pretty quickly. In the process of applying for that variance, I found that the carport that is preexisting when I bought the house in August of 23 is actually infringing on the offsets, I should say, or the setbacks. It's actually only a few feet off the property line. It was there when I bought the residence, and I didn't quite realize how close to the property line it was. Since I'm applying for this other variance, I wanted to go ahead and clean up the legalities of that, also make that kosher. So today I'm asking for those two requests. And, yeah, I have any questions from you guys. Okay. Well, you're in District 1. That's my district. And, again, I apologize. I wasn't able to come by your property. However, I see I just want to go over this again real slowly. I'm sorry? Just want to say something? No, I said of course. Oh, okay. Sorry about that. So the first request is for a 65% deviation to what the code allows, and that second request is 83% deviation. And, actually, what you're proposing is that you want to store and secure your boats and your trailers and vehicle from the weather, the elements, and from death. Correct? Correct. Okay. And you also state that the existing carport was built by the previous owner, correct? That is correct. It was in the same location. Okay. So that would be the second one when they purchased the property. Okay. I had a few surveys done at that time back in August of 23 that showed that property with that location. So as I take a look at your property from the aerial picture, because I didn't, again, I apologize, I didn't get a chance to come out to your property, but I do see from the aerial picture, okay, so you have a lot of property. So you're not really right close up to your neighbors on the left or the right, which is good, so you don't have any problems there. I tried to add a couple feet to the setbacks, too, just to kind of give me even more breathing room from the neighbors, you know. I know it's kind of a large area, so. All right. Now, where exactly will you be building this structure at? So I have a survey, which I've given to you guys. I have an additional one here that shows the proposed structure and location. Oh, okay. So here's the proposed structure and location. Mm-hmm. This is a one-acre lot. My house is pretty much dead center. In the back corner over here, basically, what I was trying to avoid is building. We have that. Okay, perfect. So that's the location I was intending. Okay. So the back corner? Yes, ma'am. Okay. And, again, that's not near anyone or anything, and we don't have to worry about the easement. Okay. And the area's already cleared and leveled, so I figured it would be an ideal location. Gotcha. Thank you so much. I don't have any more questions. Ms. Clemmings? Is there any reason 900 feet is not enough? Yes, absolutely. So I try to be as conservative as possible when basically settling on this size. My boat is actually 35 feet long, and it's basically edge to edge on the street. So I can get a portion of the boat and one trailer in there, but then three trailers would be outside. So I would have to build an additional structure versus doubling the cost of everything, concrete, more permits and stuff. I was ideally trying to blanket it all into one location. And this will be on a slab? Yes, ma'am. Yes. And power? No, I don't need any power. I just need to basically just something to store it safe. Okay. So no other questions. Great. Thank you. Mr. Hoffman? No question. Dr. Bass? No, I think my comment or my observation with this is yours. The three adjoining properties have nothing in their corners that would be affected or impeded by anything that's being built to these requirements. Correct. So I have no questions. Great. Would anybody like to make a motion, please? I make a motion to approve the variance request as depicted on the survey dated 724. 2025. Sorry, 724-2025. Okay. Do we have a second? Oh, sure. Ms. Clements made a motion to approve. Mr. Hoffman second. Let me just check with the audience. Is there anyone here in favor of yay or nay for this variance? Would you look at that? I'm not saying none. I want to read the six hardships. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land, structures, or builders in the applicable zoning classification. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicants. That granting the variance request that would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in the identical zoning classification. That literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the identical zoning classification. Under the provisions of this chapter will constitute unnecessary and undue hardship of the applicant. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that would make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. And that the granting the variance would be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter. And that such use variance would not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. We have a motion to approve by Ms. Clements. We have a second by Mr. Hoffman. And again, we'll do our individualized voting. Mr. Hoffman? Vote in favor. In favor. Ms. Clements. In favor, sorry. And Sonia Millard, in favor. This variance has passed. Thank you so much. Thank you, guys. Have a great afternoon. Okay, Mr. Bode, our last variance of the day. Yes, item H-8, KL, Romilly, LLC, request variance to Chapter 62, Article 6, Brevard County Code, for Pensionable Structure and a U-1 Zoning Classification. Application is 25V-00049, located at Tax Account Number 2427072 in District 2. And this also was located in the MIRA District. The MIRA has reviewed this and approved it unanimously at the location it's at on the survey. Okay, thank you so much. Hello, how are you? I'm good. I'd like to swear you in. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, ma'am. Thank you, ma'am. Have your first and last name for the record, please. Regina Dempsey. I'm sorry, I can't hear you. Regina Dempsey. Okay, and how can we help you today? I'm just here to request the variance from 25 feet to 15 feet so we can proceed with the development of the lot. Okay, I see this is in District 2, Ms. Clemmings. Okay, so corner of Parnell and... Hibiscus. Hibiscus. Single-family residence. No commercial use. No. I don't think I have any other questions. I'm good. I don't have any other questions. I just have a question. I know a Hibiscus Avenue in downtown Melbourne. Is this the same Hibiscus Avenue? Because I'm looking at Merritt Island redevelopment. Merritt Island. So the Hibiscus of Merritt Island. There must be two. Not the one of Merritt. Okay. That confused me. No, it's fine. Thank you. Dr. Baz? No. So my only question would be, I just want to make sure I'm clear. So your intent is a two-story single-family home, correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay. If it's not granted, we'll be able to proceed. Yeah. If it's not granted, it would really take, I mean, the setback is over 50% of the lot. So with the setback, and it was just caught at the last minute, like it was already approved, and then we realized it was an issue. Okay. Ms. Clemmings? Anything else? If you guys, I can make a motion. Let me see. Is there anyone here in favor or not? I see none. So now we will come to a vote. Ms. Clemmings, how do you vote? I make a motion to approve the variants requested as depicted on the survey, 7-22-2025. Okay. We have a motion on the floor to approve by Ms. Clemmings. Do we have a second? I'll second it. Dr. Baz, second it. Okay. I'll read the six variants. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are not applicable to other land, structures, or buildings in an applicable zoning classification. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. And that granting the variants requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in an identical zoning classification. Number four. That literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in an identical zoning classification under the provisions of this chapter. And will constitute unnecessary undue hardship on the applicant. And that the variants granted is the minimum variants that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. And that the granting the variants would be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter. And that such use variants would be, will not be interest to the area involved or otherwise depumental to the public welfare. But we have a motion on the floor for approval by Ms. Clemmings. We have a second by Dr. Bass. Individual votes. Mr. Hoffman. Vote in favor. Dr. Bass. In favor. Ms. Clemmings. In favor. Sonia Millard. In favor. These variants have passed. Thank you. Have a good day. Bye. I now call this meeting adjourned. The opinions expressed by any member of the public during any period of public comment do not necessarily...