All right. Good afternoon. It's 5-0-2, and I'd like to call the order of the City of Delray Beach, October 16, 2025, Board of Adjustment Meeting. Diane, could you call the roll, please? Suzanne Donahue? Here. Jesse Schlosser? Here. Aurora Ramirez? Here. Brenda Cullinan? Here. Mark Ronald? His absent. Michelle Wilson? Here. John DeLacio? Here. Next up is approval of the agenda. Are there any changes or modifications to the agenda? If not, is there a motion to approve? I'll make a motion to approve. Second. Diane, could you call? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. Hearing none, the agenda is approved. There are no minutes to approve, so we'll move on to swearing in of the public. So if anyone, if any members of the public are planning to speak on agenda or non-agenda items, if you could please stand and be sworn in. Please raise your right hand by the authority of estimate of the notary of the State of Florida. Do you swear from the testimony about to give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Great. Next up are public comments. Are there any public comments for any non-agenda items? Hearing none, we will move into the public hearing items, so I will read the quasi-judicial rules. This hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Delray Beach quasi-judicial rules. The applicant in the City shall 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 a group of people who are present but agree not to speak. The City Commission, or this board, and the applicant may be allowed to cross-examine the witness. The City or the applicant be allowed to offer rebuttal testimony. The decision to approve or deny an application or appeal may not be legally 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. With that, we will start with 960 Gardena Drive. Could you read the file into the record, please? Hi, Jen Buse, and the file number is PZ142-2025. Thank you. To my fellow board members, have there been any ex parte communications? No. I emailed City staff a few questions about the project, but other than that. All right. With that, we will have the applicant present. Hi. Good afternoon. I'm presenting on behalf of Mrs. David Greenhofer, who is the owner of the property. I'm sorry. Could you please state your name? I'm sorry. My name is Jasmine Garcia. As you can see, this is the location of the property. We are the company that is assisting her with the project. Could you just state your company address as well, please? Oh, the company address? Or personal address is fine, too. Or personal. The company address is 16190 Southwest 198 Avenue, Miami, Florida 33032. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. The project is a new insulated aluminum roof by the yard party of the property. And it's 20 feet by 13 feet. It's in the terrace area in the back of the house. And the project was designed and approved by a licensed engineer. And it has all the requirements of the code of Florida. And there is an already existing structure on the property, which consists in a traditional awning. But it's not hurricane proof. So the owner of the property wants a more secure structure in her backyard. So how we tried to do the permit application and all that. And we were rejected because of the setback distance of the property in the backyard patio. So the already existing structure covers the yellow part of the property right now. And the setback distance is the yellow line on the left. And it's 25 feet. We were told that we were told that the structure encroaches the setback area. So we were trying to make an exception. But we were told that we had to do the variance procedure. So 25 feet is the requirement of the code. And the amount of relief we're requesting is 16.9 feet of that space, which is already occupied by the existing structure. There is no increase in encroachment. That structure has always been there. So we just want to change it to a more secure structure. So the property has already existing pool patio area that was constructed prior to the proposed improvements. And there's not enough room to build a smaller or a bigger structure. So we're trying to do the restriction. So we're trying to request the exception for the setback distance requirement, given that there are several other properties with the same structure that have been done by us as company, who already have very similar structures. So we understand that the code faces a limitation. But we're trying to make an exception because we want to, but because we want a more secure structure for the property. We don't want any risk. We don't want any risk, not for the property, nor for the neighbors of the same area. So the proposed variance is consistent with the neighborhood development patterns. And it will not alter any essential characters of the area. So we think that there's no, there's no, no adverse impact on the, on the area. So that I think basically will be it. The variance system is the minimum needed to rebuild the awning with a more secure structure in the outer space. It ensures the architectural continuity, the cut compliance, and the materials and security, and improves the function of the already existing structure. That way. That's why we, that's why we respectfully request the BOA approval. So right now that will be it. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. So this is item 7A. It's 960 Gardenia Drive. And the variance request is from Land Development Regulation Section 434H4. It's building elements or site improvements allowed in set setbacks as identified in the table of 434A. And this is to allow for the installation of a permanent awning in the rear setback. This is in the Tropic Isle neighborhood. It's single family. It is R1AAB. And all of the adjacent north, east, and west is single family. It's also R1AAB. And then they, their rear is the Intracoastal Waterway Canal. So the request is to install the 20 by 14 permanent awning structure to provide shade over an existing summer kitchen. It will be cantilevered three feet, four inches on the northwest side of the property and extend north towards the Intracoastal Waterway Canal. And it's secured with two concrete footings. R1AAB has a rear setback of 25 feet. This is just a portion of the table. Here you can see where the maximum encroachments into the setback are in the awnings and covered entries. If there were no columns, then they would be allowed to encroach into the setback on all four setbacks, three feet. But because there are permanent columns, they are not permitted in the setback. I kind of just went over this. This again just shows the table and the permanent columns is the reason. So LDR 434H setbacks are defined as the minimal distance within which a structure may come to said lot line. The setbacks are established for front, interior, street side, and rear lot lines. LDR section 434K, which is our development standards, establishes the perimeters of the lot size, the width, the depth, the open space, minimum height, and setbacks for single family residentials. Typically, the R1AAB zoning districts are composed of larger lots with more stringent setback requirements to help reduce the massing of the homes onto the neighbor. These are the existing conditions. And I just wanted to point out, we have what we call common open area. And this, the definition of that is any exterior open area clear from the ground upwards, such as canals, lakes, golf courses, parks, sidewalks, streets, parking areas, and bicycle paths. While this is only, reduced setbacks is only for screen enclosures and pools, I just wanted to point out that they do have 110 feet of open space in the rear. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. I guess we'll move on to, or if there's any rebuttal from the applicant? Is there, is there any public comment, I guess? Yeah, go ahead. Is there any public comment? Yeah, I'll stay right here. Is there any public comment? You can speak during the rebuttal and cross-examination. You're, you're the owner, correct? I'm correct, so. Okay. And you were just moving into that anyway. Yeah, yeah. If you want to speak as a part of the rebuttal, yeah. Just state your name and address. Yeah. Deva Grundhofer, 960 Gardenia Drive. Moved here from Chicago in 2014 and purchased this house. Love the house, love the area. Promote Delray Beach so much everywhere I go. All of my neighbors are completely fine with this. Honestly, Gardenia Drive and Fern Drive were like my family. We all love each other. And all I wanted was to get a generator, which I got. Yay. You'll see my permit. And so that came in in March. And same time in March, I hired this company who did three of my neighbors, excuse me, three of my neighbors, same kind of structure in their backyards. And so my goal was to be fully safe and feel safe in my house when hurricanes came because I am from up north. I'm very scared of them. So my generator's there. I just want the structure to be safe because it has fallen in the past and I don't feel comfortable with that. So I want a secure structure. I know it encroaches on the area. The options that the city has at the moment would be those on and going out, which I have in the back, but it's not going to go far. If it goes far enough over my outside kitchen, it won't hold the strength also. So this structure, I'm really hoping I need approval just because, honestly, for me, it's more about safety and secure hurricane proof. And like I said, this company, three of my neighbors have used on my neighboring streets. That's all I really have. If you have any questions for me, though, I'm happy to answer. Thank you. Thank you. We may call you back up. Okay. All right. So with that, we'll move to board discussion. So I guess we'll start from this end. Any questions? I don't have any questions. I don't seem to too much have a problem with it. No. Okay. I'll go down the line. So I guess, Staff, I know I emailed you a couple questions. If you could just speak to the one that was denied, was it a similar structure? I guess we'll start with that. The report references that something was denied, was that? Those are the, I don't really, I'm sorry. Do you remember? I'm sorry. I need to look in the report because I'm not sure what was denied. Hmm. Or was it just a reference to this particular, for this particular structure? You had made a reference to the summer kitchen and whether or not it was an existing nonconformity. Yeah, that is one, that is a question. And this kitchen is not being, this kitchen is not a part of this variance request, nor is it being worked on. So it being there does not impede any sort of LDRs or have any bearing on the variance. I think the, so the fact pattern I was trying to establish is the table in question was recently adopted by council last year and then amended earlier this year. So prior to the change, would this structure have been permitted? No. No. No. The change in 2025, I believe they left out pergolas. And so they redid it to include the pergolas with that. Or I guess pre 2024, because the whole, this whole table is new, the 2024. Correct. It was not, the reason why the table went in is it, it, it gives more of a definitive setback. And at the time, the, this is new. Right. So, yes. Because I think the, I guess the line of reasoning I was going down with the grill and the existing features, if that, if this is a structure that would have been permitted pre ordinance change, you have a grill structure that's put there that was allowed at the time is now maybe not permitted. So this is just an accommodation to take an event, to accommodate an existing feature that the code didn't, the code now prohibits. They just made it clear the columns still probably would not been allowed in the setback because you don't allow permanent structures and setbacks. Just to jump in real quick. So what is the existing structure considered? Right now? Yeah. It's considered. Is it temporary? It's temporary. It just, it's, it looks like a pop-up tent. Okay. But it has, oh, all right. Sorry. Is that, and it has not been permitted. Is that, is that legal? Are you, are people allowed to put that type of structure in their backyard? They're allowed to install a temporary tent in their backyard. Obviously they'll take it down if there's inclement weather, but it's where it's pop, it's probably a pop-up tent that they just purchased to put over. The summer kitchen area in the meantime. Got it. And I guess last on the ordinance change, because the applicant references that there's other similar structures that were installed pre-ordinance change. But I guess you're saying this type of structure was not permitted even pre-ordinance change. So did all of them require a similar variance? It's, so it depends on the size of the lot. This house was built prior to the existing zoning regulations that require the 25 foot rear setback. So it's hard to say what was installed and where. Was it a, you know, even if it was when the other question too, is if it was permitted or not, because structures like this in the rear yard may or may not be permitted in neighborhood, in a neighborhood. Because people sometimes don't know they need a permit for something like this. But the house itself, the rear of the house is already at the 25 foot setback line. Okay. Okay. That answers it. And the summer kitchen was built at the time of the house as well. Right. I think, again, the line of reasoning I was going down was effectively, is the recently adopted ordinance something that council was, this is a structure council was specifically trying to prohibit. It was previously allowed. It's now no longer. But I guess, based on this, that's not the case that this is, there's no recent change, the crackdown on this type of structure. No, the change was a staff initiated LDR amendment to provide clarity for structures that were allowed in the setback. So they touched on awnings, trellises, eaves, and those types of structures. I think it was much more like to clear up the ordinance than it was actually to like change the requirements. I think some of the language, like the words were, were being interpreted a little bit different than the expectation, I guess. And then also putting the, the chart on there was something to clear it up more than it was. Cause I think the way it was written was like, it was allowed, it was encroachment was allowed into the setback, but it didn't have the specific amount that it was allowed into it. And I think that everybody had changed that. I'm speaking from just like kind of my, from my memory, not, you know, looking at it, but that was, that was my recollection of it. That it was more to clear up from staff's perspective that they were having some things coming in that they weren't able to necessarily define. So, but not, not that it completely changed it. Okay. Yeah. Cause I guess I'm inclined, I guess extrapolating from staff report about the common area, that this is an example where, there's an existing out existing outdoor feature. There's the accommodation of this, the waterway that increases the setback. So the encroachment into the setback isn't creating an undue adverse impact on the area. That's not something that as a code, you would typically prescribe an awning being having this exception. Cause the subsection five that addresses this allowance for encroachment when you have this common area really only addresses screen porches. But I think it's reasonable to believe council wasn't, I guess, identifying this use as being prohibitive. So, okay. Yeah. I mean, I, I guess I see where that clears it up. So thank you. I guess. I know you asked questions that I was going to ask. So that's why you're the chairman. Yeah. Any other questions? Uh, for the city. So is it Delray beach? The city considers awnings more intensifying structures than screen enclosures? Um, that, that would be correct because screen enclosures have an open air and this has got a solid roof. Okay. So the screen doesn't really factor into it or the framing that goes across. Or what about the construction of the screen enclosure? Cause in my experience, that's a way more intense of a footer required for a screen enclosure than just for these two posts. Again, I think it's because it's all open air to the, to the pool or to what they're trying to screen. Thank you. Just made a few more questions on that. So the structure, if the variance is granted, the structure that's then allowed to be permitted, what safety standards or what's the review that ensure that it is hurricane proof and that it's not creating a new risk to the community? So this variance actually came to us because it started as a building permit. Um, and all building permits will receive a floodplain review, planning and zoning review, and a structural review. A project like this, I do not believe involves any trades. So there will be no electrical or mechanical review. Um, and as the, uh, applicant noted in her presentation, um, this structure is required to meet the wind loads as per the Florida building code. Um, that are prescribed, um, the residential building code, as well as a ASCE 2414 and 2405. So that's the wind loads and it's engineered to meet the wind load requirements. So in the case of 160 mile an hour winds, it doesn't blow off the structure. Got it. And I think lastly, just in terms of visual impact on the adjacent properties, it sounds like, I mean, I see no one, you haven't received any other feedback or. We have not received any communication. And if you look, um, at the aerial view of the subject property, you can see that there is some landscape screening separating the lots as well. So there will be no impeding on others' visuals. Yeah. The side is meeting the side interior setback. Right. Okay. Any other comments or questions or discussion? Yeah. Would anyone like to make a motion? I'll move to approve the variance. Seconding. No, she needs to read. I'm going to read. Okay. Move on to this. Sorry. Yeah. Okay. File number PZ-142-2025. Date October 16th, 2025. Agent Berta Vega, Construction X LLC. Address is 960 Gardenia Drive. And the request is a consideration of a variance request from Land Development Regulation Section 4.3.4H for building elements or site improvements allowed in setbacks. As identified in Table 4.3.4A to allow for the installation of a permanent awning in the rear setback. Pursuant to Land Development Regulation Section 2.4.11A.5, following consideration of all the evidence and testimony, the Board of Adjustment for the City of Delray Beach finds as follows. 1. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not generally applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings subject to the same zoning. Economic hardship shall not constitute a basis for the granting of a variance. Diane going to call the roll? Yes. Could you call the roll, please? Suzanne Donahue? Do I say yes? Yes would be, that meets the conditions for the... Yes. Jesse Slatso? Yes. Laura Ramirez? Yes. Brenda Cullinan? Yes. Mark Ronalds is absent. Michelle Wilson? Yes. John DeLazio? Yes. Suzanne, for your purposes, I know this is your first meeting here, or your second, I guess. But we have to go through each one and get a yes for each finding for it to be granted. Okay. Thank you. 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. Jesse Slatso? Yes. Laura Ramirez? Yes. Brenda Cullinan? Yes. Mark Ronalds absent. Michelle Wilson? Yes. John DeLazio? Yes. That the special conditions and circumstances have not resulted from actions of the applicant. Suzanne Donahue? Yes. Jesse Slatso? Yes. Laura Ramirez? Yes. Brenda Cullinan? Yes. Mark Ronalds is absent. Michelle Wilson? Yes. John DeLazio? Yes. That granting the variance will not confer onto the applicant any special privilege that is denied to other lands, structures, and buildings under the same zoning. Neither the permitted nor conforming, nor non-conforming use of neighborhood lands, structures, or buildings under the same zoning shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. Suzanne Donahue? Yes. Jesse Slatso? Yes. Laura Ramirez? Yes. Brenda Cullinan? Yes. Mark Ronalds absent. Michelle Wilson? Yes. John DeLazio? Yes. Yes. 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. That the granting of the variants 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. Jesse Slossom. Yes. Laura Ramirez. Yes. Renna Cullinan. Yes. Mark Ronald Zapson. Michelle Wilson. Yes. John DeLacio. Yes. All right, so each one through six finding has been, you guys have determined a 6-0 vote of yes, so the motion should be in the affirmative to grant the variant, so if somebody could make that recommendation. Motion to approve. I'll second it. Just for purposes of the record, if you wouldn't mind just reading it. I think he had to read that, yeah. I would love that. I said he had to read something. This whole thing? Yes, please. Pursuant to LDR section 2.1.7F, all decisions of the board of adjustment are final. No, I'm so sorry. Our staff, do you have the... I'm so sorry. Can you read the wrong thing? As written. As written on the report. On the report. Motion to approve as written on the report. Excellent. Perfect. Do we have a second? I second. Motion to second. Diane, could you call the motion? Suzanne Downeyou. Yes. Jesse Schlesser. Yes. Aurora Ramirez. Yes. Brenda Cullinan. Yes. Mark Rinald is absent. Michelle Wilson. Yes. John DeLacio. Yes. All right, great. Now I will read that portion that I almost made you read. Well, I did make you read it and you just read part of it. Pursuant to land development regulation section 2.1.7F, all decisions of the board of adjustment are final based on the entire record before the board of adjustment approves six to zero the variance solely for the purposes as presented at the meeting. The board of adjustment adopts this order this 16th day of October, 2025. Thank you. So that concludes that item and that concludes the public hearing items. So with that, we will move on to reports and comments. Staff? We do not have any reports and comments at this time. I was working on uploading the slide. The next slated BOA meetings are Thursday, November 4th and Thursday, December 5th. At this time, there are no items to come before the board, but that is subject to change. Thank you. Well, if there's no November, then it'll be the first Thursday in December. Do you know off the top of your head... December 6th. December 6th. Do you know off the top of your head? December 4th, Michelle, you were correct. I'm sorry, John. The January one, because that's the New Year's date. We, Diane and I, are actively working on that schedule. We are waiting on our director's blessing on the proposed meeting dates prior to publishing the calendar. Okay. Thank you. As soon as we have it, you guys will have it. Sounds good. Kelly? I don't have anything. Thank you. Anything from the group? I was curious, did the wording on the items get updated? I thought it sounded a little new on one of the six. On the boarder? Hmm? Not since your last meeting. Okay. Maybe I just heard it differently. Which one did you? Something about previous existing non-conforming. Oh, from the beginning part. I don't think we've changed our variance findings at all, so. Forget I asked. Okay. All right. Anything else? All right. With that, we'll adjourn. Thank you.