All right, we're going to call to order the Board of Adjustment regular meeting on Thursday, September 3rd. Ms. Welter, could you please do a roll call? Jesse Slasher is absent. Suzanne Donahue? Present. Mark Ronald? Present. Benjamin Arsali? Present. Ora Ramirez? Present. Brenda Cullinan is absent. John DeLacio? Present. Thank you. The first item for tonight's meeting will be the election of officers. We'll start with the chairperson. You're welcome to have a board discussion first, or if anybody would like to make a nomination with a second, you feel free to do so, however you'd like to proceed. Happy to continue, unless anyone would like to step in. Yeah, that's fine. I'll nominate John to continue. Is there a second? A second. And you can do it all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Great. Mr. DeLacio, you have successfully been nominated and elected as chairperson. Would you like to take over the nominations at this point, or would you like me to finish the elections? You can finish the elections. All right. We'll start with the next position as a vice chairperson. Again, board discussion or any nominations, welcome to this time. Any interest? I'm the new guy, but I'm happy to do it, so just y'all let me know. You're happy to do it, Mark? Yep. Okay. I'll nominate Mark. Mark Ronald as vice chair. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Congratulations, Mr. Ronald. And the last position will be second vice chair. Again, in case we're both out, is anyone any interest? Once again, I'm fine with it, but. All right. I'll nominate Ben, what's your last name? Orsali. Orsali is second vice chair. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Great. Congratulations, Mr. Orsali, as well. This time, chair, we're on item number four, which will be approval of the agenda. Thank you. Are there any comments or changes to tonight's agenda? No. Is there a motion to approve? I have a comment. Sure. Evidently, one of the gentlemen asked us to delay the hearing. I'm sorry. I just got the letter a moment ago, but evidently, what's his name? I'm sorry. One of the neighbors says that they didn't get a notice, and they asked us to delay the meeting. I'm not necessarily in favor of that, but it just seems to me at least it should warrant some discussion. So typically, once an item's on the agenda, once it's published, the item will still go forward. And even if, say, the applicant in this scenario was asking for a postponement, if the item remains on the agenda, we typically call the item, and then the applicant can ask. It sounds in this instance this is actually not the applicant asking for a postponement. So I would still proceed with this on the agenda. And then when we get to the item, that individual, if they're here, will have the opportunity to speak at public comment and can raise concerns, and the board could address it at that time. Is there a motion on the agenda? I'll move. Second? I'll second. We call a vote. Jesse Sloster's absent. Suzanne Donahue? Approved. Mark Ronald? Approved. Benjamin Arsali? Approved. Or Ramirez? Approved. Brenda Cullinan is absent. John DeLacio? Yes. All right, next we'll move on to approval of minutes. Do we have any comments to the May 7th minutes? Is there a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Second. Can I leave in a roll call, or does that need to come? You need to do it. All in favor. All in favor? Yes. All right. I get opposed? Okay. We'll next move into swearing in of the public. If anyone would like to speak on any agenda items or non-agenda items, could you please stand and be sworn in? My authority has asked me, as the numerator of the state of Florida, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Very well. Next, we will take any public comments, and these are for any public comments on non-agenda items. So if you would like to make a general comment on something not on tonight's agenda, now would be the time. Seeing none, we will move into the public hearing portion of the meeting. Before we begin, I will read the quasi-judicial hearing rules, and then we will proceed. This hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Delray Beach quasi-judicial rules. The applicant in the city may be permitted to present their case. The public shall be allowed to speak for three minutes each, or a maximum of six minutes if the person represents an organization or group of people who are present but agree not to speak. The board and the applicant may be allowed to cross-examine a witness. The city or the applicant will be allowed to offer rebuttal testimony. The decision to approve or deny an application or appeal may not legally be made upon personal views as to whether a project is a good project or not, nor may a decision be based on the number of citizens who support or oppose a particular project. The law requires that all decisions must be made on the basis of whether the project meets the requirements of law, the comprehensive plan, and the land development regulations. So with that, we'll move into the first public hearing item, if staff would read that into the record. Yes, good evening. My name is Roland Bogage, and I'm a planner. I would like to enter into the record file number PZ669-2026. This is for 755 Southeast 7th Avenue, and this is a variance request from the Land Development Regulations Section 469-C2A Off-Street Parking Regulations to reduce the minimum required off-street parking for a detached single-family dwelling from two spaces to zero associated with the conversion of an existing attached two-car garage to habitable floor area. Thank you. Has there been any ex parte communication on this matter from board members? We'll just go down the road. No. No. No. I drove by the property and viewed it on the Property Craigslist website. All right. Very well. Do we have to mention this email, this email ex parte? William? Yeah. If you read it outside of the hearing, then yes, it would be an ex parte communication. So that's an email that was left on the dais for each board member. Is that correct? Yeah, I believe so. Okay. And can we just confirm with staff that that email was provided to the applicant as well? So this was received, this was not forwarded to the applicant. Okay. We can provide them with a copy now, please. Okay. Thank you. So at this point, we'll move to the applicant presentation, although if we want to give the applicant a moment to read the letter prior to presenting, is there a precedent for that, William? No, it's up to the board if you want to give him an opportunity to read it briefly or if he's ready to proceed. Yeah, please. If you can go ahead and introduce yourself and then speak into the microphone. I don't think that this email is regarding this. Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Andres Torres. I'm a contractor here in the area. I don't believe that this email is regarding this property. They're saying that there is a circular driveway. Yes. Is this for this applicant? I'm not sure. I don't have a copy. It says here, subject, Andres Torres zoning request. That's me. But it says that there is a circular driveway, which there is not. And there's also not a carport. So, I don't know what this is regarding. This is regarding a garage conversion. So, I don't know. I think we just wanted to give you a fair chance to read the same materials that we've been provided. I appreciate it, but I don't think this is related to this property. Very well. And you can proceed with your presentation if you're ready. Okay. Yeah. So, the owner is interested in, they were interested in doing an addition. But, of course, the house is sitting below the base flood elevation. So, while applying to the building department and working with the architect, it was noted to us that we would need to raise the property to the current base flood elevation. At the zoning and planning meeting, which was done via Zoom with me and, of course, the zoning department, it was explained to me as well that were the customer or were the owner to proceed with basically any kind of permit on the property over a certain value, they would essentially need to tear the property down and comply with the new base flood regulations, base flood elevation regulations. So, they, obviously, we found a way to apply for our variants to see if this is something that they could even do. All they're interested in doing is now, at this point, just removing one of the garage parking spots. We still applied for two because that was the original plan. They were just going to convert this into a bedroom and a bathroom with a laundry room for aging parents. They've shrunk it. They would like to now keep one of the garages and just do a, still a bedroom and a bathroom, but a smaller bedroom and a smaller bathroom without the laundry room to keep the laundry where it's at currently. That way, they could still keep one of the garage spaces and would, therefore, only need to remove one of them. But we had already applied for the two before they made this change a couple of weeks ago. Other than that, I don't know if, you know, we should go through the presentation here because that's basically all it is, is a garage conversion to add some interior space, add a bedroom, and add a bathroom for aging parents when they come down and visit. Okay. Yeah, I mean, the 15 minutes is yours. So there's six different criteria that we have to find to find the variance. Okay. Typically, if you want to address those six criteria, then present, put into evidence the justification we would use to grant the variance you're asking for. Okay. But the time is yours, so you don't have to. I guess I would ask what exactly. I was not aware that I needed to comply with certain regulations, so to speak. I thought this was basically an application to apply to basically remove the parking spots which need to be in the setback. Right. William, feel free to jump in here. Yeah. So because of their role as, in essence, a judge, they really can't advocate or give you advice on what you should or shouldn't present, that's up to you. Okay. So at this point, the item's been called, you're in your presentation. If there's any information you'd like to present, the floor is yours. Okay. I mean, this is, like I said, we had applied for the two spots. The customer has now decided to keep one of them so that we're not necessarily removing both spots. It would be a partial, I guess, removal of one of the spots. Because outside of the setback, they still have plenty of parking on the driveway. They have some side parking, which, you know, obviously would also not comply, but we could move forward with the presentation because the property itself is staying. So we're not changing any of the, you know, the face. We're just going to try to remove one garage door, essentially, is all we're doing. Do we move on to the next slide? Oh, is it this? Oh, I'm so sorry. I apologize, this is my very first public hearing. Okay, so this one here. So we're, you know, obviously trying to remove one of those parking spots, which is supposed to be within the setback in the garage. So that's the application. We were trying to reduce it from two spaces to zero. That's since changed in the last week. The owner was in town here. They decided, you know, if this is going to be an issue, can we try and do one? Again, that I don't know because they told me this a couple weeks ago. Basically, we're trying to convert the interior garage there. It's two parking spots. It's not a very large square footage. We're just trying to add a bathroom and a bedroom, again, for aging parents when they come down to visit. They would like to keep that garage and laundry where it's at. This is what the property looks like currently. So we do, you see your two garages that we have there. It's currently a three-bedroom, three-bathroom. We do have plenty of parking there in the driveway, but of course, they would like to remove one of these. So this is our site plan showing, of course, that we would be outside of the setback were we to remove one of these parking spots. So that's just something that was requested from you guys here to submit. I think we do have plenty of parking, like I said, on the driveway. And, you know, I don't know if there are any other ways to go through the building department to add some side parking. I don't know if that would or would not be allowed. But regarding the variance here, we're basically trying to remove one of those parking spots now. So this is one of the proposed options, which is the original, which, of course, meant removing two of the parking spots for a larger bedroom for aging parents and a larger bathroom for them. It gave them a little bit of storage in the laundry, which is why they wanted to do, you know, the bigger bedroom for the parents and get a little bit of storage from the property as well. It's my understanding since they've decided to go with the next option. So this one is a little bit irrelevant here. That's what it would look like, of course, had that been approved, which they are no longer requesting this. They're only requesting one. So this is the second option, which we came up with a couple of days ago as well, to just remove one of the parking spots instead of the two. That way we are not removing both of them. And that would be the proposed, you know, I guess, street view of the property were we to move forward with it. Again, just removing the garage door. And that would be the bedroom right there where that window is to the right of that wood front door. But it doesn't really change much of the footprint of the house other than the interior square footage or habitable area. I apologize for such a short presentation, but that's basically all I've got for you guys right now. All right. Very well. Thank you. Okay. I appreciate it. Chair, I think before we move to potentially city staff, probably needs to be a discussion about the actual application and what's before you. So the application that was filed is for the full conversion of the entire garage space. So that is what has been noticed and that is what is before you. Staff is not, and let's correct me if I'm wrong, Madison, but staff was unaware that they were modifying their application and has not reviewed the modified request. So if the applicant wants to proceed with the full conversion application, I think we can proceed with the hearing and we can do every part of it. If the applicant is saying that they have amended their application verbally today, but they have not amended the actual application and staff has not had a chance to review it, I don't think it'd be proper for this board to proceed with an analysis, review, or vote on what would be this modified request that's been presented today. Is there a precedent for voting on a reduced variance? Because if they're asking for two, do we consider approval for one? Because it's a lesser variance than what's being. I think sometimes there's a difference when it's a numerical figure, talking about they're asking for seven and then they've figured out six should be sufficient. Something like that is a little easier to conceptualize. You know, what impacts this may have on the street, streetscape, the parking in the driveway, the way the request has been made. And I would defer some to Madison as well because it's their review process that's being shortchanged here because they have not had the opportunity to review the modified request as well. Right. So, I mean, is it appropriate to pause now? Is there a point of no return where if we move into consideration that we have to put a yes, no, continue vote? Or do we go through the presentation and then continue? So, the item has been called and the application is pending. So, if you wanted to proceed with the original application, I think the board has the right to finalize action on that application. It's not uncommon for the board to grant a continuance if the applicant wants to modify what they had originally submitted and come back before the board, whether that's because their needs have changed or the board is showing, you know, signs of not being receptive to the original request. So, you could proceed with the entire application or if the applicant wants to indicate now that they have no intention of proceeding with the two-car reduction and just the single, then we have publicly called it. So, at that point, we could not proceed with the city staff presentation from a time perspective. We would still need to open it for public comment because the item has been called. If somebody, just for the public, if somebody were to speak tonight on the public item, they may not be able to speak when the item is called back. So, if the applicant intends to return with a modified application, just understand if you're the public, if you comment tonight, you may not be able to comment when the applicant comes back with the modified request. Okay. I mean, at least personally, I think it would be helpful maybe on how the rest of the board feels to give some feedback on the application rather than, you know, wait another month and then end up in the same spot, just from at least my personal considerations. But equally, if it's more productive to just pause now, we can. I guess, I don't know, fellow board members, any perspective on? I don't see any reason for pausing because I think it's a black and white issue from my standpoint. Two spaces are required. There's a reason two spaces are required. Parking is tough. Street parking is tough around here. Just because the evidence isn't fully closed yet, I'd probably avoid discussing the merits of the application. It's just probably a matter right now is if the applicant does seek to postpone, to amend, is that something the board would entertain or does the board want to proceed with the application? I think let's proceed, and then when we get into an initial cross-examination, we can decide if we're willing to entertain a continuance or a variance or if we're going to move to vote. But I think we proceed. So if I may chime in as well that the whole reason that the owner has changed their mind was the fact that it was very difficult to file this variance application. So they were thinking, of course, that if this was the case, I would obviously have to discuss this with the owner if they would be willing to basically continue that just because they figured, well, if we applied for two and we make it one, does that make it more likely? So which is why we added that as a second option as well. That would ultimately be up to the owner of the property. I cannot make that decision for them. I think it would be beneficial to the owner to hear some of our feedback. Of course. So I think let's move forward so we can discuss. Yeah, perfect. I believe they're watching as well. Yeah, whether we go towards a continuous for reapplication or we vote, we'll come back to that. Sure. Okay. So back to the staff presentation. This is my first slide. I would like to pick up where we left off. This is the Rio del Rey Shores neighborhood. It has a land use map designation of low density and it's zoned single-family residential R1AA. To the right here, you can see the parcel highlighted in teal. It does have access to the water there, as you can see. And the adjacent zoning districts are R1AA to the north and south, R1AAB to the east, as well as the Central Business District South Pairs Neighborhood Subdistrict to the west. Additional background here. So on the pictogram that this is a waterfront parcel. It does have access to a dock and also it was constructed in 1990 as a one-story single-family residence. It's approximately 1,676 square feet of habitable floor area and also has an attached two-car garage measuring approximately 21 feet by 20 feet. The garage is accessed from southeast 7th Avenue by an existing paved driveway. And here's just a picture of the property. Again, I know that the applicant has already showed this, but that's the front facade as viewed from southeast 7th Avenue. And then you have the garage area highlighted in teal there as well on the site plan. So just some additional background for you. The submitted record does not identify a prior structural alteration that created a parking deficiency. So currently it is meeting the parking. They're presently provided within the garage. The parcel has an irregular waterfront configuration and a variable depth. That condition predates the application, but it has not been shown to prevent the existing garage from continuing to provide the required parking. Now we're looking at the development standards. Currently, the property adheres to a majority of the required development standards for the R1AA zoning district with the exception of the standard lot depth pursuant to 434K development standard matrix for residential zoning districts. You have summarized the requirements and everything is meeting in its current state except for the varying lot depth. As I mentioned, it's a 110 required, but you can see that due to the nature of the lot configuration, it is the only requirement that's not being met. But there is no change with this proposal. As you can see, the following table references LDR section 469C2A off-street parking regulations, which states that the requirement is two off-street parking spaces. For existing, you can see that there's two spaces in the garage highlighted in red because if you know this goes away, then we have proposed zero spaces at that point. Moving on to the following slide, here we have the request again. So again, this is a variance request from LDR section 469C2A for the off-street parking regulation to reduce the minimum required off-street parking for the detached single-family dwelling from two spaces to zero associated with the conversion of the existing attached two-car garage to habitable floor area. And these slides here show the existing facade of the garage, highlighted in red there. And then you can see the proposed adding the doorways, removing the overhead garage doors, etc. So the garage doors are going to be removed with the proposal, and then the garage space will be converted into a bedroom, bathroom, closet, or storage area, and the circulation will be connected to the principal residence. The proposed conversion would effectively increase the habitable floor area from 1,676 square feet to approximately 2,096 square feet of habitable interior space. And the building footprint, exterior wall line, roof form, and structural setbacks would remain unchanged. So as we mentioned, the two current spaces are provided with the garage. The driveway remains available for vehicle use, but it is located within the front setback and is not identified in the application as a code-compliant replacement for the parking requirement. The application does not request relief to allow for two parking spaces within the setback. It requests a reduction in the required parking count from two spaces to zero. The requested relief is therefore broader than a parking location variant. Here, because of that slide, I also included a slide of previous parking-related variance requests. So you can see in 2020, there was a variance request for 209 Lake Terrace, where they were requesting to allow for two parking spaces within the required front setback area. So both of these applications are requesting those reliefs. One for 209 Lake Terrace, which was approved in December 2020. Then the second example is 2138 Southwest 12th Court, which was denied in April 2022. So those are the two similar requests. But again, this request is actually requesting relief altogether from that parking requirement. So it is a bit broader. Here we have a main reason for why this garage conversion would be taking place. And it's because of the FEMA flood zone regulations. As you can see, based on the flood map here, the firm zone is identified as AE and has a base flood elevation of eight feet. And the record does not include an elevation certificate or a written technical determination establishing that a detached alternative cannot be constructed or that the existing garage floor may be converted to habitable space for the record. And then moving on to this slide here. This is LDR section 2411 A5, A through F, variance findings. These are the six findings that are required to be spoken. So that special conditions and circumstances exist, which are peculiar to the land structure or building involved, which are not generally applicable to other land structures or buildings subject to the same zoning. Economic hardship shall not constitute a basis for the granting of a variance. That literal interpretation of the regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties subject to the same zoning. C, that special conditions and circumstances have not resulted from the actions of the applicant. That granting the variance will not confer on to the applicant any special privilege that is denied to other land structures and buildings under the same zoning. Neither the permitted nor nonconforming use of neighborhood land structures or buildings under the same zoning shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. E, that the reason established in the variance petition justifies the granting of the variance and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land building or structure. F, that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the existing regulations and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. And here we have my final slide, which is the options for board actions. We have A, B, and C. A move to approve, B move to deny, and C move to continue with direction. Thank you very much. That concludes the staff presentation. Thank you. We'll now move on to the public comments. Anyone in the public may like to speak on this application. Yeah, please. Have you been sworn in? I did not stand up. No. I'm so sorry. Sorry. Yeah, state your name and address. Sandra Amani. I'm the 707 Southeast 7th Avenue. The property to the left of this, or that would be to the north. We, I just wanted to point out that there is plenty of parking within a block of our block. And we're the only two houses between 7th and 8th with driveways here. So there would be no inconvenience at all if they're parked in front of their garage. And if they needed additional parking, Federal has endless amount of empty spots. I don't know if that, you know, makes you feel better or worse. But I'm in, everybody in neighborhoods in full support. Hopefully they get their application submitted correctly if it's not or whatever. But we would love to see this approved. That's all I have to say. Thanks. Thank you. Any rebuttal or cross from staff? No, sir. All right. So we'll move. Just to clear it to the applicant, you have the opportunity to rebut or cross examine? Okay. And the applicant said no. So we'll move into the board discussion. So I guess this goes back to can we consider a reduced variance? Or I guess when we take general comment first, we'll come back to direction. So, Suzanne, would you like to ask questions or rebuttal? Yeah. A couple questions. Can you go back to, it was before 8A. I did not get to absorb it. Keep going back. It might have been 8 or it might have been, okay. So the applicant does not request relief to allow within the setback. I don't know if I can ask. I guess I can ask it. I don't know if it will get answered. A variance, if they wanted to change this, they could ask to have this parking within the setback. If they wanted. I notice it says 30 feet in the front. We all can see there is plenty of room in the front. Would that be another option for the applicant to keep the one in the garage and use the front driveway as the second space that's required? So, currently the reason that this driveway was not, during our review process, taken into account for parking is due to the fact that essentially the driveway is within the property setback, the front setback. So the regulation states that it needs to be located outside of that front setback. So I know we see people parking on those spaces even just north of the property. I saw an example. The regulation technically prohibits that from taking place. The front setback is to remain clear. And that's why a lot of these other applications have requested the relief to be able to park in that front setback versus removing the parking requirement altogether. Yeah. I mean, I guess building on that question, yeah, I find it very difficult based on the evidence presented to say, like Mr. Ronald was saying, that we should be setting a precedent for no parking spaces. But I think your staff report was guiding that where an alternative that would be easier to consider, and that's not what's before us today, is how much relief would they need to have, how much relief of the front setback would they need to put their car in the driveway? Because if it's only two feet, that's very different than saying, I'm not going to have the parking spots at all for vehicles, which in Delray feels like a very challenged finding to make. And actually, I think the witness actually did a better job of presenting evidence and considerations of why this is a unique circumstance. But I agree, at least personally, it's very hard to make any of the findings based on the evidence that's been put forward. I guess my point here is, regardless if it's down to one car or no cars, I don't think I would have a different finding. That's why I was inclined to not continue to modify down to one, because I don't think the evidence supports one either, based on what I've seen. But I don't know. Suzanne, if you have other questions? So the one that was, you mentioned there was another one denied. That was denied for reduction in the setback? Correct. Yes. One was approved in 2020, and then it looks like one was denied in April 2022. But the request was consistent with allowing the required parking to be located within that front setback area. I guess what I need help with is understanding that the driveways in the setback, they're going to park there. I'm having a hard time understanding what the issue is other than technically it's within the setback, but everybody knows they're parking there. Yes. I don't know. I'm not grasping this. I'm sorry. I think it would be a code violation if someone continues to park their vehicle in the front setback. Neighbors could call in and complain and say they're- If it's on their driveway. It's on their- Because it's within 30 feet. Right. Like I think LDR requires that the parking spaces need to be fully on the property outside of the setback. It doesn't have to, at least staff should correct me, it doesn't need to be a covered garage, but you have to have allocated space on your property to park a car. That is correct. No. The required parking has to be outside of the front setback area per the LDR, hence the garage providing that parking space. By removing the garage, they are removing their allowable parking area and they did not seek relief to the other stipulation of the code that your required front parking cannot be within the front setback area. Okay. Thank you. I guess if we were to move deny the parking spot, could they come back immediately on the setback? Or does- because it's a different variance they're requesting? Or would that- because I know there's a prohibition on rehearing, but- Yeah. I do believe they could file a new application without any type of delay because it would be relief from a different LDR section. Even though it's the same property and it's still related to a parking issue. I think they could. The other thing the board could do, if the applicant takes in everything that they're hearing and wants to seek a postponement, you know, they can modify the existing application. Would they be able to modify even the land development regulation relief? I believe so. Okay. So, that would at least achieve, you know, the applicant having to pay the filing fee twice. Right. But- Now, remind me, how much of the front setback would they be taking if they have to park? So, what they would be doing is they would be seeking a variance to the requirement that your required parking spaces are not within the front setback area. So, and based off discussions earlier, it sounds like they're amending the size of their request because they are not enclosing the entire garage space as it is. They are only enclosing a half of the two-car garage. So, therefore, they would be seeking relief to the parking requirement for one space because they're enclosing only half of the space. That's correct. But it still will be taking some of the setback on that one car garage. Well, I think that gets to the point also of making sure the application actually states what's being sought because staff, I think, I won't speak for them, but it's probably difficult to answer that question when that is not a measurement or calculation that you've reviewed or taken into consideration because it hasn't been part of the application. I think we're on a really slippery slope and it's just remarkable to me that we are. And let me try to explain. We may or may not like the LDR, but the LDR is the LDR and that's the standard. However, we can take exceptions to the LDR under special circumstances. The words are clear. The special circumstances don't exist in this case that I've heard. In other words, wanting to use the driveway to park is not a special circumstance. There are going to be a lot of people coming in here who want to expand into their garage. And what's for us to say? I mean, we should go to the commission maybe and recommend that they change the LDR and allow parking in driveways. It's different, by the way, for different zoning. But in this zoning, it's the most strict that exists in the town with regard to parking. You need two spaces and they can't. And that's why the house was built that way probably. So I think to me, one or two spaces is a red herring. I would agree. If it's two feet, that's the kind of thing that we should be considering. If it's three feet, I'm not trying to pick a number. But if there is a reason that's unique to this property or unique to this situation, we certainly should consider it. But I haven't heard it yet. Yeah. I mean, I completely agree. And I'm grasping at straws about meeting the threshold here. And, you know, to me, I heard, oh, it's a neighborhood of two. So if I'm hearing from the only other house that it's not really a neighborhood and, oh, and it's only a block off federal highway and there's empty parking, those are special circumstances that would prevent. I think there were two on this street, but not in the neighborhood as well. Well, I guess they haven't made that point. But I guess my point is that the special circumstances that would allow us to prevent the run that you're considering are clearly have not been established. Right. And so, I mean, that's guiding how I would vote if I had the vote now. And we ought to listen to it if it comes. Right. For sure. And, yeah, I mean, even if the applicant were to modify to a reduction in the setback, I don't know that that, at least personally in my mind, would change. But clearly the evidence is not here tonight. I don't know if it's worth voting no and letting them come back and ask anyway or if the applicant wants to continue to make that case. But I guess, well, any other, before we go on, any other board comments on the matter? I didn't understand, I don't know if it's relevant or not, the fact that they're effectively in a floodplain. Would that preclude them from building up? So the subject property is, I'm sorry, the subject property is a pre-firm structure, meaning it is not built to the latest and greatest flood requirements. So any improvements would be subject to the FEMA 50% rule, including any vertical or horizontal additions. And this was the applicant's best idea to provide extra square footage to the home without going up or out and being subject to the FEMA regulations because they would have to, any lateral additions would have to meet the base flood elevation because it's living space. But they could do that. They certainly could. Yeah. Just so if I understood that discussion properly, the applicant has the option, it might be very expensive and prohibitively, but the applicant has the application on that property with that house to build something that would be compliant with FEMA that would give them more space. Okay. I have one other question. The language of the LDR section, I thought it said detached. This isn't detached. Or did I misunderstand what I was reading? Ms. Donahue, which code section were you reading? It was 4.6.9 C29. So that caught my eye. It says it requires two parking spaces for a single-family detached residence. Is that the verbiage? Right. So this is a single-family detached residence with an attached garage, and they're seeking to enclose the attached garage. Oh, I was thinking of the garage. It's not detached, but it's because it's all one. Correct. Okay. Thank you. And one other question, and then I'm done. There was somewhere, one of the slides says you cannot approve something and then disallow it. I thought it said before that. Was it this one? No. I think it was before this. Well, it kind of indicated that if it came up in the past and it was denied, then you can't. I think it was more previously. Even if the neighbor was one granted, or those are just the reasons that you stated. Unless a question gets asked on that subject. I'm just talking about for future, whatever the guidance is, but obviously it's the legal department and not mine to make that judgment. So I think where this at least leaves us, or at least me as I see it, is I'm not presupposing how anyone would vote, but there's clearly a path where I think the applicant would consider a continuance to modify the application to either down to one or to the front setback requirement. However, I think we should only, in my personal opinion, give the continuance if there's a world based on the evidence that is or may be presented, we would actually grant it. So I don't want to lead the applicant on that coming back with a very slightly different one is going to lead to a different outcome. But I think if, and I guess it opened up, I don't know if I can ask this before voting, but if you think you would consider a yes based on a modified application, then let's consider a continuance. But based on the evidence presented today, I don't see a modification that's going to change a potential vote. I probably would advise against having that level of a detailed conversation because that conversation is going to be based upon an application that is evidence that is not before the board tonight. So there are some instances where the peculiarity of the land and the structure that is located on it is not going to change. So I do think there's maybe an element or two that no matter even the application changes, you may discuss that you don't think this could be met. But I don't think the board should have a discussion about if it was reduced or if it's modified to be the front setback that you would or would not approve it because you've not heard the evidence on that application. Okay. I guess any final comments? I mean, I think, and I guess if we, should we ask you guys, it's possible that, um, consider to continue review the changes they wanted to do. And maybe they don't even need. So an option, as I have shown on the screen, an option for board action is to move to continue with direction. And I will let William, uh, provide a better answer to that question because I'm not entirely sure. If I understood the question correctly, I'll repeat it in my own words. You're asking if the applicant has the opportunity to make some type of modification that would not require relief. And I think again, that would require met. We know, or otherwise they pursue option. But I don't think staff can answer that question because they haven't had the opportunity to review that type of request, which again, unfortunately we have a singular application that was seeking a complete reduction. And that's what has been reviewed and presented in staff report to you. And if we're looking at alternate options, you know, the applicant wants to come back with those that will then give staff the opportunity to properly evaluate whether there are land development regulations that they need relief from or not. Okay. I mean, I guess I would ask maybe the applicant to give their perspective. Um, I was unaware that there was a variance that we could apply to park in the setback because we're not supposed to park in the setback. The parking spots are supposed to be outside of the setback. So again, like I stated, when I originally spoke to you guys for the first time, uh, this is my first variance application. So given everything I've heard, I think I should confer with the owner of the property. I would move to, you know, modify the application if that would be okay with, uh, staff confer with the customer or with the owner, make sure that, you know, they do want to stick to that one space so that we can modify that and go ahead and, uh, request relief to add one of those spots be in the driveway considering, you know, I know everybody was, uh, mentioning how many feet it is. It's like three and a half feet of parking space that they do have within the setback on the driveway. So we could in, in theory, you know, go ahead and, and make a more specific application in order to allow for some parking in that setback while still keeping one of the parking spaces in the garage so that it would be not just reduced, but it would be modified. And, um, now that I have a little bit more, you know, experience talking to you guys here, I could make a better argument for that as well. So that would, that would be okay with me. I'd like to confer with the owner and we could, you know, I could move to postpone so that we can modify that application. Okay. Um, I guess is there, what is the pleasure of the board at this point? Is there a motion to approve, deny, or continue? So with a postponement, the board has two options. Um, tip generally, they can just make a general motion to continue the item and then it will be on the applicant to modify as they see fit. They'll have to submit that staff would then review that modified application. And then it would need to be renoticed and it would come back before the board when it's prepared. Uh, the second option is to continue to a date certain. Um, the only advantage to that is really for the applicant. There's not an additional notice requirement. Um, in this instance, it sounds like the modification is not going to be, um, but the modification appears might be significant. And so, um, to not put pressure on the applicant to have documents in by a certain time and for staff to have the review completed by a certain time. I think it would probably be more appropriate just to have a general motion to continue with direction rather than set it for a date certain. And, and again, the only disadvantage would be for the applicant. They'd have to do the placard on the property again and then have the mailer sent. But, um, that would be the, the only real administrative difference. Okay. But, but the, if I understand it correctly, they're going to come back with a totally different application because they're talking about a different LDR. Potentially. I mean, it's up to the applicant. They may decide they want to just do the one car, one garage and proceed with the same LDR amendment. They may choose to do the front setback. I mean, that's, that's going to be something that the applicant or at least their agent has indicated that will be a discussion they'll have after, after the postponement if it's granted. And in terms of giving direction, do we do that after we vote to continue or is that the? So I usually advise the board to make it a simple motion to continue with direction. I think the board has, um, expressed their opinions regarding the evidence in the land development regulations. Uh, the video is available on YouTube. So the applicant has the opportunity to go back and watch the video, see the concerns and discussion that the board had. Um, I tend to also shy away from specific direction because. By the time the applicant comes back, a board member may have resigned. There may be a new board member. There may be a different group of five up here. And the two members that are not here and the two members that are here may see some evidence differently. So, um, try not to be that specific so that the applicant has the opportunity to address whatever shortcomings were discussed and modify the application as they'd like to present it. Okay. Okay. Well, there was, uh, I think a motion and a second. So shall we take a vote? What? I heard discussion. I wasn't sure if that was a formal motion, but if. Okay. Well, is there, I guess is there a motion to continue? Yes. Motion to continue. In a second. Can you please call the roll? Jesse Slasher is absent. Suzanne Donahue? Approved. Mark Ronald? Approved. Benjamin Arsali? Approved. Ora Ramirez? Approved. Brenda Cullinan is absent. John Delacio? Yes. All right. So I think that, that will close out. Can I just ask one question of staff? What is the setback for this property? What is the front setback requirement? Do you know offhand? It's on here. It's 30. It's 30? It says on here. It says required in existence. Thank you. Front 30 and 30. All right. Very well. Well, I guess we'll move on to public hearing item B, if staff could read into the record. He has to be sworn in because he was getting a drink. I was sworn in. I was sworn in. Okay. Starting. We're going to read into the record first. Okay. Thank you. You have a couple of minutes. Good evening. My name is Andrew Pandolfo, planner with the City of Delray Beach Development Services Department. This agenda item 8B is for 101 Northeast 11th Street, file number PZ-000748-2026. Yes. The request is for one variance from LDR section 434K development standards matrix to reduce the required west side interior setback from 10 feet to 7 feet 8.4 inches for a proposed second story addition. Thank you. Thank you. And I guess, William, are we, is ex parte, is that, do we do it once for all agenda items or is it per agenda item? No. Do it per agenda item, yes. Are there any ex parte communications on this matter? Yes. I did receive a notice from the owner that was the official Delray notice. I guess I'm within the zone. I'm on 13th Street and I've also walked by the property. Mr. Ronald, any ex parte? No. No. I drove by and I checked on the property appraisers. I checked on the property appraisers website. I also believe I received an email as well that's on our desk regarding this from a neighbor. All right. Very well. I think we can begin with the applicant presentation. All right. Thank you very much. My name is Jason Mankoff. I'm actually, in my past life, I was a Delray Beach land use attorney. That was a while ago. I now work as an attorney in Miami doing ad valorem tax appeals. So I'm not a zoning attorney. I haven't been here in about 15 years, but nothing's really changed other than a couple of new mayor pictures. But I'm actually here tonight, not in my lawyer capacity. I'm here on behalf of the Rapaceses. I grew up with Vincent in Westchester, New York. We've been friends since 1975 or whatever, when kindergarten started. Their main home is in New York right now. I went to the University of Florida. I've been down in Florida for a long time. We've been in touch this whole time. He came to visit. You know, his parents live in Boynton. And about a year or so ago, they bought this home that obviously we're talking about today, 101 Northeast 11th Street. And, you know, their plan is to hopefully sooner as opposed to later move down here permanently, make it their homestead, sell the house, you know, that they live in the town where we grew up. So he basically has bought the home. I believe he rented it out for the season. He's still been up in New York while he was renting it out. You know, we have Tyler here who is his contractor. And they've made plans to, you can see the top of the picture there is what exists. And on the bottom is the, you know, the proposed plans to what they need to do. I came into this very late. You know, I just happened to be talking to Vinny and he had told me that, you know, he was doing this and that they had submitted the plans and that he needed a variance. And I'm like, oh. He goes, yeah, I didn't know. You know, obviously the city told us. Yada, yada, yada. I said, well, you know, let me know what's going on. You know, I've been done a lot of variance hearings in my life. I sat on the BOCA Board of Adjustment for five years. I was the chairman. So I'm very familiar with the seat that you guys sit in. And I understand it's a very difficult job, especially with a variance. You know, I understand the difficulties of a variance, as I'm sure you do sitting on this board, that it's, you know, and I always say it's one of the most difficult standards in land use law is to, you know, show support for a variance. And one of the intricacies that I always found interesting about it and one of the reasons I actually enjoyed being on the board, you know, you know, wasn't a recommendation board like the planning and zoning board where you make a recommendation. And, you know, obviously that stuff's important, but really it's just a recommendation. And it would go to the commission and the commission would have their final approval on this board. And I'm pretty sure it's here as it was in BOCA. It was a final decision. And, you know, obviously the property owner did have some recourse, but that wouldn't be to the commission. That would be to the courts. And, you know, for most of these property owners, going to the courts is not really an option. So, you know, I understand that you have a big burden here today on all the cases you hear. And we certainly appreciate your time. I had told Vinny to try to come down here because I always think it's very important. You know, I sat on the board and I was like, listen, if they're really interested, they're going to be here. You know, it's really important to them. And he really wanted to come. Unfortunately, he has two kids in college and some of them play some athletics. And they had plans that had been scheduled long ago. Obviously, they didn't know when this hearing was going to be scheduled. This was Labor Day weekend. And they had a double trip, one's in Maine and one's somewhere else, that they had plans to see them. And then, unfortunately, two days ago, Vincent's wife's mother passed away, and that all got shot. So what happened, and the only reason I tell you this is because he had prepared the PowerPoint. As I said, you know, I'm a tax attorney and we're in the crazy deadline period right now. You might have gotten your trim notices. The appeals are due in about two weeks. So this is really my busy time. I didn't have any time to prepare a PowerPoint. He had prepared it, sent it to me. I had made some changes, sent it to him. And then the next thing I noticed, he would send it to Madison at around noon on the day it was due. We were supposed to have a call and go over it and make the changes and submit it. That didn't happen because, unfortunately, they had to rush to the hospital. So you're going to go through this PowerPoint, but I'm going to kind of talk over it because I made lots of changes that I had made. You can kind of see, but they never got made. These were all my edits that I had sent to him to please update. So we're going to show you what we have, but that's it. Certainly appreciate your time. I did want to go to the property because I hadn't been there, so I came here a little earlier. I went to the property today. I did see it. I did see, thank you, Madison, at about, you know, while we were sitting out here, Madison did forward me the letter from the neighbor. I'll get to that as well. I'll try to address, you know, that concern as well as any other concerns you might have. So I guess this would be my thing. So you can see what we're talking about, requesting variance approval to build the second floor on the existing footprint. And that's very important. It is on the existing footprint. We're not, you know, extending what the, you know, the small encroachment is right now, and we'll get to that, what it is. So the next page. So this is up there, but I'm kind of not really following it. Yes, 1951 was the year constructed. It says here, and, you know, Madison, if I make any mistakes, please correct me because, you know, you know more about all those existing, since I came into this a little bit late. It says 7.5. They've always talked in generalizations, Vinnie has to me, but when I was reading all the documents, it looks like the existing wet setback is actually at 7 feet, 8.4 inches, not 7.5. So it's a little bit less of a variance than we're, than I guess the 2.5. It's more like 2 feet, 2 feet and .16 inches, I believe. Then he says that the 10 feet under the required under the new law, well, it's really pursuant to 4.3.4 K of the LDRs is a requirement for 10 foot setback. And then it says that 2.5 foot gap on an undersized lot. Well, once again, it's only that 2.16. But really important, at least I think it is, and we have a better picture, and there's a better one, actually, there's a better picture in your staff report. I was going to have this updated, just one of the things that didn't get changed. But it is on a very small lot. It's one of the smaller, if not the smallest lot in the area. A lot of these lots are double lots that are surrounded by. Some of the lots are also one-and-a-half size lots, meaning it basically was three lots. And now they've created, instead of those three lots, there's two lots on those lots. So I think that is important. That's one of the main reasons why they've been forced to request this variance. And you can kind of see, you know, he indicates as he drafted this, our lot, that's why it says our lot does not share the dimensions of those around us. So they're constrained. And we think we're really asking for the most minimal setback variance that there is. It's on the existing footprint. And it's, you know, very small. It's less than 25% of the requirement. So if I go to the next page, and I added this a lot. Basically, what we're asking here is a minimum variance. And, you know, he indicates three points there. And I changed that to three major factors to support the variance. And I'll go through each of the elements. But pursuant to LDR Section 2.4, I think 11A5. Number one, it's not a new encroachment. It's an existing encroachment. It's just the second floor is going to go directly on the current footprint, which is the west setback. The setback is not changing. It's already existing. Number two, consistency with the street. You know, we're kind of fitting to the neighborhood. When I was a zoning attorney here starting, I guess, in about 1999 in Delray, that was when things were really starting to heat up here. It was a very interesting time. I wasn't here before that. But people would always tell me, you know, you could roll a bowling ball down Atlantic Avenue and not hit anyone on a Friday night. Things have definitely gotten better. It's a great town. But at the same time, with all these improvements, these bigger homes are coming. But you also want to be able to keep, you know, keep some of the charm and the smaller homes and the smaller lots that are already existing. This street is, you know, a very nice street. It has all these streets off of Swinton are. And many homes on the 11th Street and the adjacent streets already have second floors. Many of them do, including the neighbors to the west, east, and directly across the street. And number three, it was designed, and, you know, Tyler can talk more about it if you want to, for minimal disruption to everyone. But not really during the construction. I mean, obviously, everyone's going to always make their best efforts not to impede for construction. But that's always going to be, you know, a six- to eight-month period. The most important thing, obviously, on all these things is the, you know, is the 40, 50 years, 30 years, whatever it might be, of the home. So, you know, it's a two-foot, 1.6-inch setback request variance. That's what we're here for. We believe it's the minimum variance necessary to maintain the existing footprint, which is true. And it is, in fact, less than 25% reduction of the setback requirement. So, it is a home that fits the street. You know, hopefully, I appreciate some of you guys. I always like to go out there as well. I'm a visual person when I was on the board. I think if you go out there and you see all the street and you saw it, it would fit in, you know, it would fit in with the street. You know, he's excited. He indicates, you know, if they do want an updated, more modern home, they plan on living here. They plan on making it their homestead. They're trying to keep the same Delray charm that Delray is very known for. And they believe it's going to fit in nicely, you know, on this street. There's plans that are here. I'm not going to go through those. I just want to show you that we have them. Any questions come up, Tyler can talk about them. That's really what's in the, you know, PowerPoint that we presented. I did want to go through a couple of things in the staff report that hopefully you have that in front of you. Obviously the agenda's here. And then on page one of the staff report, I think that's a better picture if you have that showing the, all the lots. You know, obviously this is from the property appraisers website and you can see the yellow lines indicate the lots. Obviously the subject is that blue lot. You can see it's, I guess, one of, it equals the smaller, the smallest lots. But right to the west of us, right to the east of us, those are, to the east, I guess, is a double lot. To the west are those two one-and-a-half lots I talked about. If you go to the northeast, there's another, looks like a one-and-a-half lot directly northeast. And then next to it, a double lot. And then to the south, if you veer out, there's two double lots there and another one-and-a-half size lot. So we're on a small lot. You know, we're right in the middle of that. And I think that that's important that, you know, if we had the bigger lot, we probably wouldn't be needing a variance for the setback. Page two, just some of the things I highlight. The staff, as always, does a very good job explaining it. I always, you know, used to always love the staff report. I think that those are very important to just explain what's going on. We are proposing a two-story addition with the same setback as the existing structure to maintain the existing lot configuration. And then on the bottom, the request is for the side interior west setback from the minimum required of 10 feet to 7 feet 8.4 inches, which is that existing setback line. You can see that on page three, there's another picture of the existing home, some of the elevations. While we're on here, I just want you to take note on page three. You can see there's the west and the east elevation. There's one window there on the west elevation on the top. That's going to be the master bedroom. I guess that's, you know, I'll get to that when I get to the letter. That would be the area that, you know, the neighbor, I guess, would be complaining. You know, it's a master bedroom. I don't think anyone sits inside their window of their master bedroom and stares outside of it. It's not like it's a family room area. There's only one window in that area that kind of overlooks the pool. But I'll get to more of that in a second. Page four. Basically, the staff is laying out for you and we have a copy of our justification statement in here as well that they put in. Appreciate that. But they're laying out for you the findings that are necessary to approve the variance. And obviously, I sat here for the first hearing and I, you know, you guys do a very good job of understanding the requirements. So I'm not going to necessarily explain to you. But obviously, the summary is it will not be contrary to the public interest and where only to the existing conditions peculiar property not result of the actions of the landowner. A little enforcement of regulations will result in unnecessary and undue hardship. So section A is there and I'm just highlighting, you know, they say as shown below in figure five, several homes on the street are developed on double lots. We also talked about that some of those have one and a half lots. So the special circumstances I would say here are because we're on equal to the smallest lot in the neighborhood, which creates this need for the variance. B, the literal interpretation. Obviously, if we literally, you know, required the setback, it kind of doesn't really make that much sense to me in this regard. We already have the variant. We already have the setback on this line. We're just asking to go further up, which we are entitled to by right to go to the second story. You know, Tyler can talk more about height that comes up. I'll talk about that briefly. But I think the requirement and I'm not 100 percent sure if it's still the same. It was 35 feet for these type of properties. We're only going, I believe, to 25 feet to the crown and 20 to the ceiling. So, you know, there's no windows or no nothing above 20 feet. We could really go to 30 feet. And, you know, I think his letter is misinterpreted of really what's going on, because I think he would be in a much worse predicament and situation if we, you know, canter levered in slightly to build the second floor of the land and went up to 35 feet. Then he's going to have much more problems. What he thinks is going to be problems of the views and the shade and all that from us going 10 further feet. So a lot of times, you know, it's difficult. And obviously, he's probably an educated gentleman. It looks like he's a lawyer. But I don't think he really understands from what I read in the letter that, you know, if we don't get the variance, things could actually be much worse from him, not better, potentially. Special circumstances have not resulted from the actions of the applicant. And that's always the one I struggled with, you know, when I'm on the board, when I was on the board. Because you have one minute left. Thank you. For the most part, those circumstances were, are always creative in a sense. But we're not creating that setback that's already existing. Several houses. It's 2.16. I just wanted to spend my last minute, I guess, on page five, showing you those pictures, the updated houses. There's lots. And then I just got a chance to look at the letter. So I didn't have that much time. But I just wanted to point out a couple things. I'm pulling it up. Number one is he says he didn't receive it. I went to the property appraisers website. His mailing address is the Delray address next to the property. He probably doesn't have his mail forward or whatever. That's not our responsibility. I talked about the other things in here. The things that he's asking for are really misguided. We are not requesting a variance for a second story addition. We're entitled to that by right. We're just requesting a variance to stay on the existing footprint. I hope I got it in time. Thank you. Thank you. Staff, I'm going to move to your presentation. As I said before, this is a variance for LDR section 434K, the development standards matrix to reduce the required west side interior setback from 10 feet to 7 feet, 8.4 inches for a proposed second story addition. The subject property is located within Del Park. The land use designation is low density and the zoning district is single family residential R1AA. The surrounding zoning to the north, south and west are also R1AA while the properties east of Northeast 2nd Avenue are zoned R1A. The residence was constructed in 1958 and the original plat was recorded in 1922. The property has retained its original lot configuration. Previous improvements included a hardscape improvement in 2015 and a swimming pool in 2024, neither of which required variance relief. So this map is providing some context regarding the surrounding neighborhood, including several two-story residences of varying ages. However, each variance request must be evaluated independently based on the required variance findings. The applicant proposes a second story addition above the existing one-story residence. The proposed addition would maintain the existing legal non-conforming west side interior setback of 7 feet, 8.4 inches, where 10 feet is required. There is just some of the elevations shown. As shown on the survey, the property contains several existing non-conformities, as you can see in the table, including lot size, lot width, and the west side interior setback. The R1AA district requires a minimum side interior setback of 10 feet. However, the existing residence is located 7 feet 8.4 inches from the west property line. The proposed second story would maintain this setback rather than create any additional encroachment. The board must consider the six findings listed in LDR section 2.4.11 . These findings address special conditions, deprivation of rights, whether the condition was self-created, special privilege, minimum variance, and neighborhood impact. And here are the findings. Approval, denial, or continue the item with direction. Any motion should reference the required findings in LDR section 2.4.11 . That's all. Thank you. We'll move. Are there any public comments on this matter? Please approach and just state your name and address in three minutes. It's Robert Wallace. I'm at 106 Northeast 11th Street. Thank you. Okay. My question right now, or really my problem, is really the timing of this renovation. Right now on Northeast 11th Street, you know, there's several lots that have been, basically the houses have been demolished, which aren't being taken care of. There's another one on the corner that's scheduled to be demolished. There's two other houses that are being under construction. One of them, which was sold probably several months ago, had an addition, quite a lot of renovations and no permits. Also, basically it's been very difficult to get around the neighborhood. If you want to walk or you have a dog and you try to go east around the corner, you duck under trees and climb over, you know, stuff that is growing over the sidewalks. So, you know, I have no problem with, you know, what this individual wants to do at this time, but it's just going to add to a lot of problems that the street has at this time, you know, and a lot of the neighbors are just, you know, very disturbed by it. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. I appreciate that. Hi. My name's Graham Hutchison. I'm 1228 Lang Street, long-time resident of Delray Beach, going on 28 years. My mother lives in a very close vicinity to this particular property. I just want to point out a couple of things. I know you said you had gotten the notice. He has not gotten the notice. My mom has not gotten the notice, and several people on the street have not gotten the notice. Now, I don't know whether the male person went missing in action, but they haven't gotten it. So, I just want to point something out to you. I don't have a problem with what they're trying to do. I don't. But it is, what they're looking at adding is a wall that is effectively 55 feet long that's not compliant with the current setback regulations. Okay. And number two, I would just like to actually point something out. On the PowerPoint presentation, just in case you guys are looking at this rendering and thinking, oh, my God, that house is gorgeous. That's not the house they're about to build. Take a look at the rendering at the beginning, and take a look at the black and white pictures that have created. They're not the same house. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment? Okay. I guess we'll allow the applicant a brief rebuttal. So, if I could bring Tyler up. All I can, I just want to, and I appreciate the neighbors coming out and having their comments. Obviously, Vinny wants to be a very good neighbor. They don't want to be moving here and have neighbors, you know, disliking them. They're looking to be part of the neighborhood. So, we certainly appreciate any feedback. Regarding the notice, I can't comment on that. I'll have Tyler comment on that. He handled all the notices. So, that's number one. And then on the second part, regarding the renderings, that's the only rendering I saw and was aware of. So, once again, I came into this a little bit late. As far as I know, the rendering that was up on the PowerPoint was the rendering that was going to be built. But I'll let Tyler address that as well. Thank you. It is just a rendering. Sorry, could you state your name and address? I'm Tyler Huber. I live at 2674 Northeast 23rd Cranbrook Drive, Boynton Beach, Florida. Thank you. But the black and white picture is the elevation drawing, which is not, it doesn't really have the aesthetics that we're going to do on just an elevation. It's just showing you the elevation, where the window openings and stuff are. The rendering is something that we are trying to do, right? So, if you want to take that, that is exactly what I'm going to build. So, when I put a bunch of fancy stuff on the front of it, it may look like the rendering, and that's what we're trying to do. This is just a rendering. That's why it's called a rendering. Let me just add to that. Obviously, there's no landscaping that's there. There's already plenty of existing landscaping on that west side. But, you know, if you look at an elevation, that's just blank. This is going to be a beautiful home. They're going to have nice landscaping. If you look at that, you know, I was there today. It's kind of a rundown home. There's pebbles that are kind of like in front of the front door. It doesn't really make much sense. It's going to be a much nicer aesthetic to the neighborhood. That's to be sure. And then, regarding the other thing, you know, I forgot to mention, you know, obviously, Vinny's not here year-round. He's not aware of the issues that are going on with the, you know, on the street. Obviously, you know, the property owner doesn't, shouldn't be penalized for what other people necessarily do. But I can, you know, state on the record. I, you know, unfortunately, I told him to be here. And these are why these things come up at these hearings. And you want to be able to talk to and address. It's just unfortunate. But I can tell you that he'll certainly work with the neighborhood and, you know, try to do the timing that would not, you know, alleviate, would not increase whatever issues might be. You know, I can't speak to specific guidelines and timelines. But that's really not relevant necessarily to the, you know, the points in here other than it shouldn't be a detriment to the neighborhood. And I can say on the record, Vinny will do whatever he can to, you know, alleviate any of those type of concerns. Thank you. A quick question for the developer, for Tyler. I mean, can you say under oath that that rendering is substantially similar and derived from the plans that have been submitted? Yes. So, Chair, I might actually jump in there as well. So, the board is not approving the site plan, the architectural elevations, elevations, any of that is before the board. So, even if, just to say hypothetically the variance is granted, the applicant would have the right to modify the architecture, the flourishes or other elements that might be on the site plan and the architectural elevations. We do have something in the order that says that it's only approved for the purposes presented. But that would be more like if the applicant came in and said, I have a variance, I want to go to a third story with my variance. Well, that wasn't presented. But the actual architecture, the elevation, those types of things, they're just, they're not before the board. And I would just caution. Yeah, I think my question is if we're making a finding about intent with the neighborhood and the resident has raised concern that the rendering is not an accurate representation of what's before us. I just, if we're making a finding on that, I just want to establish whether that's a good faith rendering and making a finding of evidence. But I don't think that what's before the board is does the architecture fit with the neighborhood? It's does having this side setback reduced to 7 feet, 8.4 inches instead of 10, is that result in something consistent with the neighborhood? Not necessarily what the end product of the home will look like, whether aesthetically or potentially, you know, site plan other than it being a second scale. I only asked because it was presented as evidence, that rendering. Understood. Okay. I think we can open it up to board cross-examination. I have a question. This is presented as if you're going to add a second story to the existing structure. But back to the rendering, it doesn't look at all like you're going to add a second story to the existing structure. Sure it does. I guess, is your question for the applicant or for the staff? For the applicant, are you adding, are you going to retain, not the setback, the existing structure? Yes. Okay, so. It's staying in the same footprint of the existing structure. No, I wasn't asking about the footprint. I was asking about the structure itself. Are you going to tear down the structure? No. You're going to exist, so those walls that currently exist are going to remain? Yes. Yes. And you're going to build on top of the wall. Yes. Because the front of this house looks very different than the rendering. I do hold it up. So, it steps back at the front door and goes flat, just like the drawing show. That's on ours. You got it? Sorry. And again, the rendering, we're not here for the way that it obviously looks. No, but you're going to go for a setback on a second floor. The whole point is we're not demolishing because that's, if we were demolishing, we would go through this exercise. We would build a new house and, you know, not for the two feet, we would not. Right. And in that case, you'd need a variance for the first floor as well. No, not if we, if we demolished, you know, most likely we wouldn't come for a setback. We wouldn't use that. We wouldn't come for a variance. We would just build it on the tent. No. Correct. And it would be higher, most likely. Exactly. Yeah. And per the drawings and per your question, the garage is in the front and it is, and then it steps back at the door just like that's showing. Now, that has like a little eave in the front. But again, that's… That's fine. Okay. I wasn't concerned about the looks. I was just concerned about, are we just approving the second story or the first and second? Second is just a point of note for those who may not be familiar. There's at least two significant communities in this town where they have different setback for the second story. Lake Ida and the island both pass changes to the LDR that affect those two communities. And the second stories are pushed in for just the reasons stated in this letter that too many neighbors complained about sightlines. Well, I think his letter is really misapplied because really it's called the cake kind of factor if you go in. If we go in, then we're going higher. And at that point, we have the right to go up to 35 feet. We're only going up to 25 feet. You know, so… No, you raise a very good point there in your favor. Yeah, I'm just saying that like people just don't realize like, you know, it's… I just wanted to be clear that, you know, we're trying to, you know… I think they had talked about going higher, but they're like, let's just keep it at 25. We're going to get, you know, keep the setback, but we don't want to go up to 30 or 30. Let's not push it. You haven't made that a condition of your application. If you had put in your application that you're willing to accept the height as shown, it certainly enhances at least my view of approval because you're not going… you're not creating a monster. You're going to go higher than 25 feet. Well, no, we're not. And if you can see in the top picture to the left, you can see what he's complaining about he's already doing. He's looking right down… You can see his window actually right there. And they're looking into our pool. I mean, it's like nobody wants… I mean, William, do you want to comment on conditional approval and conditional variance requests if that's possible? Yeah, so I had mentioned it, I guess, more casually earlier, but the board order contains language that specifically states that the variance is granted solely for the purposes as presented at the meeting. So this is a request to go to only a second story for this variance of a reduction from 10 feet to 7 feet, 8.4 inches. So if this variance was granted and whether it was this property owner or a future property owner wanted to add a third story or go higher than what was approved through this variance, they would have to come back to this board and obtain a variance for that increased vertical… Why is that? Because if they can go to 35, they don't need a variance to go to 35. No, but the… So we consider, even though this is an existing footprint, correct? Yeah. So as today, there's already physically a setback of 7 feet, 8.4 inches. They're extending that nonconformity by going up. So this board would be approving the variance request up to this second story. So even though they have the right for a third story, if they wanted that third story to also be at 7 feet, 8.4 inches, that would require an additional variance because they'd be increasing the nonconformity beyond the variance that was granted by this board. And I just want to say on the record, whatever the condition is, we're not going to the third story. So we're requesting for the second story. And, you know, whether or not you can make it a condition, I just want to just give comfort. And, you know, we're not here to pull any wool under anyone's eyes. We're just here for someone who's looking to move here and become part of the community and to make the house more, you know, accommodating to them for, you know, they have three kids and other things. Have you thought about window placement as well? We did, and that's why I was saying if we went to the – there's only that one window that overlooks the setback, and that's the master bedroom. You're obviously not going to have no windows there, but they only have the one window. And as I was saying, you know, it would be a lot, in my opinion at least, you know, more problematic. It's a family room where everyone's hanging out watching TV all day. No one's sitting in their, you know, master bedroom window and just sitting there and just staring out all day. It's just – you know, but you might be in your family room hanging out and people walking around and, you know, but that's just how it is. He's doing it right now. Yeah, I mean, I don't know what room they have, but that's just – I mean – He might not be encroaching into the setback, so – Right, but we wouldn't either is my point. We couldn't – we could do it, but that's why he doesn't understand it. I'm just – we're not requesting a variance to go high. No matter what we do, we're going to be encroaching – he's going to have – we're going to have views into his thing. And if we didn't get the setback – it's not a threat because I don't want it to sound like that. I'm just saying there's the potential that it's much worse for him because he's going to have – we're going to be higher, and that's going to block more of his shade a lot earlier and more of it, and we're going to have a deeper view into it. So sometimes when people are requesting things, they don't really understand the ramifications. We're not – we don't want to do that. We're just looking to build a house, and, you know, that's just how life works on some of these properties. You have old homes. You have old communities. Things happen. You know, my look – my worldly view is people have to get along better. They're going to be neighbors. I mean, hopefully you don't have a peeping Tom. No one wants to sit there and look at the other person's pool. They just want to have their home, enjoy it, make it their house. Have their children, and make it the best home. I mean, obviously, to everyone, the most important thing to them is generally their house. You know, some people might be into cars, but, you know, it's your home. You're going to be there if you're going to be living there, and obviously you want to make it as good as you can and as perfect as you can. And it's not doing it ever to spite a neighbor. You're just doing it to make it the best situation within the kind of requirements, and hopefully it, you know, works out. And I would be pretty confident to say when the neighborhood meets these people, they'll be thrilled to have them here. If I remember reading the notes, it says that the reason why they were asking for the setbacks on the second floor, it was easier to keep plumbing. No? That was one thing listed, yeah. Plumbing structure. That it was just the plumbing. If they don't use those setbacks, they will have to move a lot of things. Yes. So there's, I mean, they still have the option to build without using the setbacks. It's not a… Well, we always have the option to demolish the home and then… Yeah, of course. It's like, you know, but that's what we don't want to do. So, yes, another helpful thing that this… Were you asking a question? Sorry. Did you have a question? No, no, no. I think I was just mentioning that it was… The reason why they were, like, requesting the setbacks too is because it was making it easier and more comfortable building the second floor. Yeah. I mean, personally, I look at the facts. It's a lot that's 30% smaller than the minimum, a lot that's 30% smaller than required. You know, this allows them to preserve the existing structural, existing utilities. It seems, personally, that there's enough special circumstances here, personally, to consider this. But, I guess, Ben, do you have any questions, comments? I mean, I guess one thing I'm concerned, and I guess it's not really with the designs, more like… You've heard multiple input from the public tonight about the notice requirements that they haven't received that, and I guess that would be a question for you. Is it something under oath they can say that they have sent out the notices? I thought the applicant did, but, yeah, absolutely, the applicant can put on the record that they took unnecessary steps to mail. I have a picture of all the envelopes stacked together, and they all went out in the mail. Just for the record. So, basically, can you explain the process you went through to go… Yeah, I have the list, which I submitted. Just stay closer to the microphone. Yeah, sorry. I submitted the list of people, and I printed out all of the labels on the list, put them together. Where did you get the list from, the labels? When you go on a pop-up, you get to do a 500-foot radius. And it submits it out for you? Yes. And then I had to submit that to staff, and they had to approve all that. And all those letters went out. I have a picture of everything stamped and everything that went out. And then you did an affidavit. Yeah. Is that part of the application? Yes, of course. And they do have the notice. The sign, yeah. The sign in front of that. Yeah. I mean, I can only talk about the neighbor, because that's the only one I looked at. And their mailing address is not to Chicago where they are. So, I don't know if their mail is forwarded or what, but it would have gotten mailed to this local address. And I do apologize for that. And if... No, no, no. You didn't do anything wrong. That's the requirement. Jason, I would like to make a clarification to the record. Their mailing address on Papa is in Illinois. No, I just looked. We did just look. When I... Can I have it right here? When I looked at it yesterday, the mailing address is in Illinois. Mailing address right here. For 21 North 11th Street? Yes. And that's... And it would have pulled their other one up. I looked at it. And I pulled it. I can show it to you. I mean, I think for purposes of the proceedings here, I mean, there's been facts established by both parties. If I... Unless, William, you advised us otherwise, I'd suggest we continue. And if there's a problematic finding, that can be taken up with the courts. No, I agree. I think the applicants indicated their process, that they pulled the addresses from Papa, which is the procedure, and that they've executed an affidavit confirming that they did all those steps. Yeah. I think it's considered, and I think we should move forward, unless advised otherwise. Chair, I have a question. Amy Alvarez, Assistant Development Services Director, and I did swear in. Just going back to the points of talking about stories and height, I guess the height, just in case that's part of the consideration, it sounds like it can be. The height that was presented was, I don't recall the number, but it was around 20-something feet. 25. 25 feet. But then there was talk about two or three stories. Two stories. So, you know, I just want to make sure, so if a permit comes in and it's over 25 feet, then that's exceeding what was presented tonight, and they would have to seek relief again. I just want to make that clear, because again, we were talking height and number of stories, so that we have that clarification. Yeah. And that is the way the board order reads. It doesn't have that level of specificity, but it says the variance is approved solely for the purposes that were presented at the meeting. Okay. And so... And on the record, we agree with that. Yep. Okay. So the applicant knows, and the public, and the board. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I'm sorry. No, that's what I was... Thank you. Okay. Well, then I... So... Can I speak to that? Just so I don't think I'm lying up here. I take... So, the letter that you have has, and I just, you know, got it on my phone. He said, I own the property at 21 North 11th Street, Delray Beach. That's what I read. That's what I put into the property appraiser's website. So, when I looked at that, that was the mailing address. So, apparently, that's not, I guess, what did he say? It's Northeast? So, I haven't looked at that one. So, I can't speak about, you know... That's probably right. Okay. I think... But, I think that we've already addressed that. Yeah. You know, I mean... I think we're okay. Thank you. But, I just want from my personal... I just... Thank you for correcting me, because, you know, I take my oath seriously, and obviously, I looked at the address that was on the letter. Thank you. Okay. Are we ready to make findings? I have more questions. So, the only reason why they're having to do this variance is because they were kind of grandfathered in with the current house. Things have changed over the years, and that's why they have to ask for a variance now. Is that my understanding? Yes, ma'am. That is correct. When the house was constructed, it met the development standards at the time. They came in, actually, for a building permit, which is where we reviewed the application. You cannot expand a nonconformity without seeking relief to what makes it a nonconformity. Thank you. Okay. I think we can move to reading the findings. Okay. So, just a reminder, I'll be reading the Board of Adjustments final board order. There are six different elements that need to be found. Pursuant to the land development regulations, you need at least five positive votes in order to grant the variance. After each one of the six elements, I'll stop and Ms. Welter will do a roll call. And they are written in a way that if you're finding that it was positive and that the variance could be granted, the answer to each of the elements will be yes. So, this is the Board of Adjustments final board order for file number PZ-748-2026 for the hearing on September 3rd, 2026 for the address of 101 Northeast 11th Street. This is a variance request from the Land Development Regulation Section 4.3.4K to reduce the required west side interior setback from the minimum requirement of 10 feet to 7 feet 8.4 inches to allow the construction of a second story that expands the legal nonconformity on existing single-family structure. Pursuant to Land Development Regulation Section 2.4.11 . Following in consideration all the evidence and testimony, the Board of Adjustments for the City of Delaware Beach finds as follows. One, that special conditions and circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved, and which are not generally applicable to other land structures or buildings subject to the same zoning. An economic hardship shall not constitute a basis for the granting of this variance. Ms. Welter? Suzanne Donahue? Approved. Mark Arnold? Yes. Benjamin Arsali? Yes. Yes. John DeLasio? Yes. Two, that literal interpretation of the regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties subject to the same zoning. Suzanne Donahue? Yes. Mark Ronald? Yes. Benjamin Arsali? Yes. Ora Ramirez? Yes. John DeLasio? Yes. Three, that the special conditions and circumstances have not resulted from the actions of the applicant. Suzanne Donahue? Yes. Mark Ronald? Yes. Benjamin Arsali? Yes. Ora Ramirez? Yes. Four, that granting the variance will not confer unto the applicant any special privilege that is denied to other land structures and buildings under the same zoning. Neither permitted nor nonconforming use of neighboring land structures or buildings under the same zoning shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. Ms. Welter? Suzanne Donahue? Yes. Mark Ronald? Yes. Yes. Ora Ramirez? Yes. John DeLasio? Yes. Five, that the reasons established in the variance petition justify the granting of the variance and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. Suzanne Donahue? Yes. Mark Ronald? Yes. Benjamin Arsali? Yes. Ora Ramirez? Yes. And six, that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of existing regulations will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Suzanne Donahue? Yes. Mark Ronald? Yes. Benjamin Arsali? Yes. Ora Ramirez? Yes. John DeLasio? Yes. As a board, you have made positive findings for all six elements to the granting of the variance. We do need a motion, and they've put the motions up on the board if someone would like to read their motion for approval or denial. But just a reminder, the board did make positive findings that all six elements were met. Would someone like to make a motion? Motion for approval. Don't read it up. If you can. Motion for approval. The variance request for 101 Northeast 11th Street, PZ000748-2026 from LDR Section 4.3.4k, development standards matrix to reduce the rear west setback to 7 feet 8.4 inches, whereas a minimum of 10 feet is required associated with the construction of a second story addition by finding that the request is consistent with the findings set forth in LDR Section 2.411A5A-F. Is there a second? Second. Ms. Welter? Suzanne Donahue? Yes. Mark Ronald? Yes. Benjamin Arsali? Yes. Ora Ramirez? Yes. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.17F, all decisions of the Board of Adjustment are final and based on the entire record before it. The Board of Adjustment approves the variance solely for the purposes as presented at the meeting. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. William, if we need to use the restroom, should we take a recess? You'll have to because a quorum for this Board is 5, so you'll need to take a break. All right. We'll take a recess until 6.55. All right. We'll call the meeting back to order. And we are on Public Hearing Item C. If staff could read the agenda item into the order. Good evening, Board. My name is Darwin Laguerre, Planner in Training. For the record, I'd like to enter file number PZ-000734-2026. And it is for the address at 1109 Miramar Drive. At this time, I'd like to invite the applicant. Thank you. One moment. Before we begin, any ex parte communication on this matter? Drove in front of the property and also viewed it on the property prices website. Thank you. All right. We'll begin the applicant presentation. If you could state your name and address. Sure. Luke Fisher with Big Bear Developers. I'm here in reference to the McCann residence at 1109 Miramar Drive. Mr. McCann is sitting over there. We are here to request the dimensional variance, the rear setback reduction from 10 feet to 6 foot an inch under the LDR 4.615 G1A. So, the reason I put this code up here is, even though that's not what we're here for, is because when we designed the home and started construction the home, this actually would allow a 5 foot setback because there's a 50 foot open space behind the property, which happens to be a church parking lot. So, the way we interpreted that ordinance and the way that a city official in the zoning interpreted it was, it was 50 foot and he verbally granted us. I don't know if he was able to do that or not, but I included an email from one of my project managers last year having the discussion with a city official that basically stated, because it's an open parking lot back there, you can go up to the 5 foot Eutote easement. So, with the home design, the construction, now the home's just about done. I'm trying to get Mr. McCann in before season this year. And then unfortunately, when we went to put the permit in for the pool, I guess LDR got involved and they had brought up this. So, for us, it was kind of, we didn't realize this was going to happen, obviously. And we found out at the last minute that we had to come up and propose this variance, I guess. So, the ordinance that you see there, like I said, the church having that 50 foot open space for the church would allow for it. We actually, when we found out about this, we went to the church and asked them because they could record it indeed and state that we'll record a 50 foot open space back there. And they actually had a meeting about it and they denied that request. So, we attempted to go that route first. So, that's kind of why we're here for the variance. So, I want to point out that most of the plans, well, all the plans that were reviewed and released for permit, anything that had the property on it and the pool were reviewed by the city department. I only included three here just to show you that this was all went through, you know, planning and zoning and it got approved and was all released for permit. So, there was like five or six documents that actually had the pool location on those documents. So, there's no reason for us to believe that the pool couldn't be built where it was, where we're planning on building it. So, the hardship is if we do, the hardship is basically it's a non-conforming lot that has limited depth and the non-residential rear adjacency or pre-existing conditions and that's the church. And again, the proposed pool location was consistently disclosed with the city reviewed plans and for the construction of the home. The 10-foot setback that you'll see with this red arrow basically cuts it down so much where by the time you put the structure in, you really don't even have anything, you can't really put a pool in. It's not even a pool. The pool is modest at size. It's 8 by 24. It's not very big. But you can see that we really can't put anything in there. So, the constraints of the lot depth and the setbacks that we have now for an ocean block home is kind of reduced. So, you know, we have what we have to work with and this is basically what we submitted and they approved and now we're trying to figure out a way around this. The previous home structures that is stated in the staff report did have a prior have a pool on it, but it also had a detached garage that was over the property line and also touching the 5-foot utility easement. So, that's probably the only reason that the pool was actually able to fit on there was because that if you take that garage and move around to the front of the home, that'll push everything back and then they'll be in the same situation we're in. So, maybe they granted that the first time. I don't know. But one thing I want to make a note is every surrounding property on Miramar Drive basically has a substantial pool in it. So, this would be the only pool that, the only home that would not have a pool if we don't get the variance. Here's the house here with the open lot in the back as you can see. And again, you can see every home around it. The home is similar size and stature as all the rest on the ocean block. So, there's 50 feet of paved parking directly behind it. We see there's no residential yard. There's no window, no privacy interest affected. The pool remains fully at grade and entirely on the property. So, no relief sought for any accessories like screen enclosures or any other structure. The drainage and landscaping is all fully code compliant and we actually had a few of the neighbors. I didn't include them but there's several neighbors that actually signed off and didn't have a problem with what we're trying to achieve here. So, the good faith and reliance on the city documented, city reviewed plans. The relevant physical condition of the lot itself, 65 by 103, is non-conforming and the church parking area along the rear boundary predates current ownership. The owner and the contractor additionally relied on the good faith and the documents that the city provided in the plans showing the proposed pool location. So, with zoning guidance, the staff advised early project that the parking area would qualify as open space. They weren't permitting up to five foot for the pool setback. That reinforced our interpretation of how we read that ordinance. The plans approved. All the architectural site civil and plans show the configuration and the location of the pool. We actually had several meetings with the utilities departments because we ended up moving. Not only the water main had to get capped at either side of the property because they were able to tie in the water to the remaining two homes on the line. So, that was something that we had to do. And we took the pole and moved it north to the church's easement side because it's easier accessible. And we went through the expense to do that to make sure we conformed with all of the regulations that the utilities department wanted us to for putting the pool where we were going to put it. So, the fact that the permit, reverse that permit, basically the pool permit application was submitted, but the setback issue was identified during the review. So, the permit wasn't released. So, we're here trying to get this corrected as it stands now. And I'm hoping, let's see, we have that. So, the actual request in closing here. The special conditions. The special condition exists because it's a non-conforming lot with utilities running along the rear of the property. We relied on city zoning treatment of the church parking as a 50-foot of open space directly behind the lot. As seen on the staff report, the prior property may not have had to conform to today's setback standards. Because I know they point that out probably two or three different times that there was an existing pool on the property. So, the rights commonly enjoyed by others. The strict enforcement of this will deprive the owner from rights commonly enjoyed by the surrounding properties and with the established development pattern of the neighborhood. Again, it's the ocean block and every home on that block basically has a pool. The previous property may have been compliant, but the home's garage being over the property line may have been required in order to make that pool compliant. So, the applicant did not create this. The lot dimensions, existing utility infrastructure, easements, and site conditions predate the ownership. Home plans were designed and built on city approvals and guidance that the five-foot exception would be granted by zoning. And again, nothing was created by the applicant. There's no special privileges. So, granting a variance will not confer any special privileges, but only allow reasonable use and enjoyment of the property. We are only asking for relief needed to make the reasonable use of a constrained lot, which is that we seek the reduction from 10-foot to 6-foot-1 or the reduction of 3-foot-11 inches, which is the proposed setback is at least a departure that makes a functional pool possible and the pool remains entirely at grade and on the property. And harmony and no injury is we have worked with multiple utilities department to minimize the impact on neighboring properties and requested the minimal variance compatible to the surrounding development in consistence with the established character of Miramar Drive. If you haven't been by, I would suggest you go by. If you haven't been by, I would suggest you go by. It's a very pretty house. I'm proud of being a part of it, and we respectfully seek a setback reduction from 10-feet to 6-foot-1 to allow this pool to go. Thank you. I'll move to the staff presentation. Good evening again, Board. This variance is a request from the Land Out of Man Regulation Section 4615 G1A for a swimming pool yard enclutchments. Reduce the rear setback to 6 feet 1 inches associated with the construction of a swimming pool, whereas the minimum setback is 10 feet. This is, once again, located at 1109 Miramar Drive in the Williamson Debo Subneighborhood. The lot is sitting at 0.15 acres. It is in the lineage map designation of MD, medium density, zoning R1A, single family. The adjacent zonings to the north are RM and CF, and to the southeast and west are also R1A. Some background information on the property. It was previously developed for a one-story, single-family residence, detached garage, and a swimming pool that was previously compliant with the setback requirement. In March 6, 2024, it was bought by the McCann Family Trust. Later that year, they applied for a demolition, and in July 2025, they applied. A permit was issued for a new single-family residence. In February 2026, a swimming pool permit was submitted. And later that year, in August, a stop work order was issued for installation of a swimming pool without a permit. Once again, this request is to reduce the real estate back from 10 feet, highlighted in red, where it would have been at 10 feet to 6 feet 1 inches, highlighted in orange, for a new swimming pool. Some additional information. So, the proposed pool would be at 8 feet by 24 feet. It is a non-conforming lot, as the required lot for R1A would be at 7,500 square feet, and they are at 6,712.6 square feet. Also, there is a utility easement line located at the rear of the property along the property line. Here are some adjacent property, and as shown above, most of the property on that corner have had approved pool permits. Here are the findings. A finding must be made prior to approval of a variance. There are six findings, and I have one in depth about the findings in my staff report. So, here are the rest of the findings, and here are the options for the board. If you have any questions, I'm here. Thank you. Thank you. We'll first take any public comments on this item. Murchison again, 1228 Lang. I never speak at meetings, and I can't believe I'm speaking at two of them. My wife and I actually own the house to the east of this, which is hard to believe. And my mother lived across the street from the other house. What's the odds on that? We should play the lottery this weekend, eh? I'm also a builder in town, and I feel for these guys. I really do. You know, I get it. They submitted plans. It's clearly not something that should have gone as far as it went, as far down the road as it's gone. And, you know, my wife and I submitted a variance for our swimming pool back in 2017, and I'm getting ready to develop the house next to you. So, and my pool's in the front yard for that variance. There's a couple of homes on the street that actually have pools in the front yard, actually. So, anyway, I don't have a problem with this. It is what it is. The house has been built. You guys submitted your plans in good faith. As I say, it should have been caught a long, long time before it did. And what are you going to do? You've got to turn around and say to them, you can't have a swimming pool now? I mean, at the end of the day, if you had a neighbour behind them, yeah, the neighbour behind might say something, but you don't. You have a parking lot, and the chances of that parking lot disappearing are zero chances. So, you know, I hope you, you know, roll in the favour. Thank you. Any other public comments? Any rebuttal to the staff presentation or the public comment from the applicant? Okay. We will move into board discussion. Any questions for staff or the applicant? I have a question for a developer. What's over the covered patio? There's a roof over there. Yeah, if you could speak into the mic first. Just the roof, no. I'm sorry. There's a roof. It's a patio. It's a covered patio, yeah. Is it a flat roof? No. No, there's a, if you can, is there any way to go back? No. You can just say it. No, it's, the back has a patio on the first floor and an actual patio on the second floor. So where the covered patio is, that's ground floor and then above that it's the step back with the patio, kind of looking down over. So it's balcony, really? Yes. Correct. Thank you. So I have a question for you guys. It shows that when he submitted the plans, it was approval or you guys didn't catch it, that the pool was encroaching into the setbacks when he submitted the plans. How does it work? So the plans that he's referring to were submitted for the single family home. Staff only reviews the subject of the permit, which was for a single family home. We do not review the pool. We do not review any accessory structures. As under Florida Building Code, those are required to be submitted under a separate permit. The pool was not taken into consideration. It was not even reviewed at the time of permitting for the single family home. And so he just submitted the permits, what, in February? February 17th, the swimming pool was routed to staff for review. And it was denied the same day staff reviewed it back in February for not meeting setbacks. Is the pool currently constructed? It is. Well, it's halfway there. So the day they submitted, they actually, the very next day they came in and they moved very quickly. They started digging out. They put the infrastructure in. They came back after a week or so and said that they're in the process of getting all the other information. I guess there was some additional information that had to get bounced to the LDR or it went there to get reviewed. So they came back and asked, you know, we're having some issues after about two or three weeks. I got some more information and found out that, you know, we had spoken to somebody about setback. And I'm like, well, why are they giving you issues about the setback? I thought we already worked that out. We spent a bunch of time with the utilities department and everybody else and come to find out, I guess, you know, LDR doesn't really look at anything until it goes through that process, which as a builder, that's a little, you know, it's hard for me to understand why that isn't reviewed on the front end. Because things would have been a lot different on the front end. It was a year ago that we talked to the zoning and they said, yeah, you're fine, but it's a whole different department. So that's something maybe we can improve down the road or however we're going to do it. I don't know, but normally it's 60, 90 days for a pool and we're on an expedited schedule. So these guys came in very quickly. They did what they needed to do and we emailed them. I gave them the information that I showed you with the email saying, no, you're fine. Keep going because I thought it was already worked out. I was just, they just need this letter, this email. And so they kept going and we got to the point where it's the shell is basically in the ground and the plumbing. And we have an independent inspector on the home. So it helps speed things up on our end. So when we called in for him to do the inspection, he goes, well, wait a minute, the permit hasn't even been issued. And I didn't even realize that, to be honest with you. So when I was back and forth with the pool company, we found out that they're still having problems with it. And then we made a little more and more calls. And then we found out from Madison that we have to go through this whole process. And we're not trying to circumvent anything. We're trying to do what we were, you know, the best direction to move forward at this point, which was the variance request. And that's why we're here requesting the variance is because this is the next logical step. We've just about exhausted every other effort other than the variance. So the other possible was talking to the church and giving you those declarations. Yeah, we actually, I spoke with Nancy Fine a long time ago about it, several months ago, and wrote him a letter. Anyway, so we went through that and she actually presented that letter to the board and they went through and they actually voted it down. They voted against it. Can you be a little more specific? What exactly did you ask them to do? So I might be able to answer some of that, too, or if staff would prefer. But what he's referring to is an automatic reduction in the setback. You need 50 feet of common open area on the property line, and that's defined in our code that has to consist of common open space that's owned or leased by the owners of a residential units within a subdivision, or it's dedicated to the public, or it's restricted to open space by a covenant declaration easement or deed restriction. So this is a private parking lot. It's a church, but it's a private parking lot. So they would need a deed restriction easement or covenant that would dedicate that space as an open space. Right. Because even though it's a parking lot today without that type of dedication or covenant, you know, it could become multifamily, single family, commercial, you know. I will add that the Presbyterian Church has had its 100-year anniversary, too, so it's been around a bit. Other questions? Yeah, I mean, I guess I look at it as whether this application was piecemealed when we talk about actions of the applicant and whether there was an attempt to circumvent actions caused. And it seems like from the presentation, I guess through ignorance that you wouldn't realize that the pool would not be considered as part of the original submission. I guess for staff, can a pool permit be submitted simultaneously with the building permit they submitted? Yes, it happens frequently. So I guess for the applicant, is there a reason why was the pool application permit not submitted the same time? Well, to be honest with you, there was designers, they were still working some things out with the landscaping and that. And then we did have, on the record, there's a different pool that we actually, or a different pool company that we actually submitted that was going to do the pool. And something happened where they backed out and they're like, no, we can't do it anymore. So I had to scramble and find another pool company after the fact. Got it. And then can you speak to who at the city you spoke, who was the person who granted the verbal? I believe his name was Michael Vinci. I know we're going to dangerous territory, but I kind of want to know whether the applicant should have reasonably known this person was able to grant this or not. So there's a couple of things there. Even though this is a quasi-judicial hearing, it's not as formal as a courtroom, you're still required to look at what we call competent evidence. And so one word you've probably heard often in TV shows or on the news is the word hearsay. And so that is defined as an out-of-court or out-of-hearing statement that's being presented for the truth. And generally speaking, that's not considered competent evidence unless there's an exception that can be met. And just an easy example is if the individual who said it is deceased, they obviously can't come before the tribunal or court and say whatever they said or provide that testimony. So there's no exceptions that have been invoked through the evidence that's presented. And our code also, if it was a LDR interpretation, I mean, the code states that the Director of Development Services has that authority. If it's a reduction of a regulation, you know, there's different boards, but obviously that authority lies with the Board of Adjustments. So there's also getting slightly off topic, but there's also case law as well that even if hypothetically this employee had, it was proven that he had approved, not just said something, but approved it. If he didn't have the authority to, it's unfortunately the permit can't even be issued, even if the property owner relied upon it. So a lot of that, I appreciate that the applicant's trying to set forth the timeline and why maybe certain actions were taken. But whether that individual said it or not, there was no authority to do that. And it's also really a hearsay statement that I don't think the Board can rely upon as competent evidence to impact any of the six elements that you have to decide on tonight. It's an interesting court case if that employee happened to be the mayor, even though he didn't have the authority. So if I can, just because we are speaking of hearsay, but, you know, the dates on the screen talk about the new single family residence is issued on July 7th. But we have an email that the Big Bear developer team ended up including city staff on dated May 16th of 2025, a few months before the new single family residence permit was issued. And it states, I noticed the pool distance on the plans for McCann being within the 10-foot setback, but outside the 5-foot utility easement. I reached out to Michael Vinci, who is one of the zoning planners for Delray Beach. He informed me that all pools are to be located a minimum of 10 feet from the sides and rear. The only way they allowed the 5-foot rule is if there's water behind the property. So they knew it. This was in May. This isn't hearsay. This is a discussion between them. I think all of that generally I don't think plays a part in the six elements. And again, you know, we really try to stick to what the land development regulations say are the six things that you are tasked with making a decision on. And even, again, that email that, again, Ms. Alvarez is presenting, I think, for a complete picture of timeline, that email itself is hearsay as well. So, you know, kind of that whole conversation and what was said or maybe not said, you know, a lot of it isn't going to be probably considered competent evidence that you should rely upon. And then I would also point out to look at the six elements and do those emails even tie into any of the six that are there? I mean, to me, it's does this result from actions of the applicant? Were they piecemealing the permit? I mean, that's what I'm trying to determine. Well, one thing, one concern I have is so professionally I'm a home builder as well. And the reason to bring it up. I always know that you have to do a pool permit separate. I don't want to be difficult on the applicant. And I understand the situation's end, but also setting the precedent of asking for forgiveness after something's been done. I just think that's a slippery slope. So, of course, we're going to look at literal interpretation, how we're going to apply to LDR. But I just want to point that out. Yes, I agree. That's a separate issue. And I'm willing to take the medicine with the building department and how I handle that. You know, I agree. So, with that part of it, but it's different. I'll say that construction before a permit, again, it's not really an authority of this board. That would be a code enforcement issue, which I don't know if they've been referred to yet or not. But generally, it's compliance first. That's what they're here for today, to try to achieve compliance. And, you know, it depends on the board's action on how they proceed forward from there. To my understanding, the house is almost done, right? Yes, correct. And you're just finishing the code. Yeah, I mean, I guess I go back to, was there a good faith effort to communicate plans to the city that included the pool and should have been reasonably known that the pool was in violation? It sounds like, at least as I see it, the actions met that intent and the intent to work with the church. And the 50 feet, even though it's not deeded, you know, that is a consideration here about whether to grant the five feet. Now, you're right. The evidence is mixed on some of the elements, but I agree with the intent, at least personally. Any other discussion or questions? Hearing none, we can read the findings. This is the Board of Adjustment Final Board Order for file number PZ7342026 from the September 3rd, 2026 hearing. For the address of 1109 Miramar Drive, it's a request for a variance from land development regulation section 4.6.15 G1A to reduce the rear setback to six feet, one inch, whereas a minimum of 10 feet is required associated with the construction of a swimming pool. Pursuant to land development regulation section 2.4.11 A.5, following consideration of all evidence and testimony, the Board of Adjustment for the City of Delray Beach finds as follows, that special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land structure or building involved and which are not generally applicable to other land structures or buildings subject to the same zoning. Economic hardship shall not constitute a basis for the granting of a variance. Suzanne Donahue? Approved. Mark Ronald? Approved. Benjamin Orsali? Approved. John D'Alessio? Yes. 2.2. That little interpretation of the regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other property subject to the same zoning. Suzanne Donahue? Mark Ronald? Yes. Benjamin Orsali? Yes. Ora Ramirez? Yes. John D'Alessio? Yes. 3. That the special conditions and circumstances have not resulted from actions of the applicant. Suzanne Donahue? Mark Ronald? Yes. Benjamin Orsali? Yes. Ora Ramirez? Yes. John D'Alessio? Yes. 4. That granting the variance will not confer unto the applicant any special privilege that is denied to other land structures and buildings under the same zoning. Neither the permitted nor non-conforming use of neighborhood land structures or buildings under the same zoning shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. Suzanne Donahue? Yes. Mark Ronald? Yes. Benjamin Orsali? Yes. Ora Ramirez? Yes. John D'Alessio? Yes. 5. That the reasons established in the variance petition justify the granting of the variance, and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land building or structure. Suzanne Donahue? Yes. Mark Ronald? Yes. Yes. Ora Ramirez? Yes. John D'Alessio? Yes. 6. That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the existing regulations, will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Suzanne Donahue? Yes. Benjamin Orsali? Yes. Ora Ramirez? Yes. John D'Alessio? Yes. Okay. As a board, you've determined that the six elements were met for the granting of the variance, but we do need a formal motion if somebody could please make one of the motions and they're up on the slide. Move to approve. Move to approve. Approval of the variance request for 1109 Miramar Drive PZ-000734-2026-VAR-BOA from LDR Section 4.6.15 G1A to reduce the rear required setback to 6 feet 1 inch, whereas a minimum of 10 feet is required associated with the construction of a new swimming pool by finding that the request is consistent with the findings set forth in LDR Section 2.4.11 A5A-F. Is there a second? Second. Suzanne Donahue? Yes. Mark Ronald? Yes. Benjamin Orsali? Yes. Ora Ramirez? Yes. John D'Alessio? Yes. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.17F, all decisions of the Board of Adjustment are final and based on the entire record before it, the Board of Adjustment approves the variance solely for the purposes as presented at the meeting. All right. Thank you. That concludes the public agenda item, so we'll move on to reports and comments from staff. Thank you. Just a reminder that the scheduled upcoming Board meetings are October 1, 2026 and November 5, 2026. Staff has no other comments. Thank you. Any from the Board Attorney? No, just a pleasure to be here tonight with you guys. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any from the Board members? It's a pleasure to be on the Board. I think the only comment I'd make is one of the public speakers made reference to construction that goes on in this neighborhood without a permit. It may be worth mentioning to some of the staff if there's any validity to that claim. That was the application off Seacrest. And after, I'm sorry, a resident has the right to contact neighborhood and community services to investigate possible work without a permit. Okay. And that's when code enforcement will come out and investigate the work and assign a stop work order or a violation for work without permits. Okay. But without a specific address or anything, there's not really- Nothing to do. We can do. All right. Very well. Well, good luck to Coco tonight, as Mr. Ronald pointed out. With that, we'll adjourn. Now that we've adjourned, I want to know if that builder went into that church and prayed. Pray. Laughter .