All right. All right. Can you hear me? Is this working? All right. The time is now 5.01 p.m. on Thursday, November 5th. We'll call to order the City of Delray Beach, Board of Adjustment. Brittany, could you call the roll? Benjamin Arcelli. Present. Oliver Ramirez is absent. Suzanne Donahue. Mark Ronald. Present. Jesse Slasher. Here. Brenda Cullinan. Here. John Delicio. Here. Next is approval of the agenda. Staff, are there any adjustments to the agenda? Adjustments. All right. Very well. Then we will move on to minutes. Yeah. We will now vote. Any motion on the agenda? Motion to approve. Second. All right. All in favor? Aye. Against? Now we will move on to the minutes. So we have the September 3rd, 2026 minutes. Are there any changes or comments to the minutes? Then is there a motion to approve the prior minutes? Motion to approve. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Against? Very well. Next, we will swear in the public. So if anyone is planning to speak on any agenda or non-agenda items, if you could please stand to be sworn in. Are you vested in me as a notary of the State of Florida? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing? All right. Next is public comments. So these are any public comments for non-agenda items? Nope. Seeing none, we will move into the public hearing items. So before we begin, I will read the quasi-judicial hearing 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 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 the 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, staff, will you read the first item into the minutes? Yes, good evening. My name is Roland Bogich Planner. For the record, I would like to enter file number PZ669-2026 into the record. This is for 755 Southeast 7th Avenue, and this is a variance request from the Land Development Regulations Section 469C2A, Off-Street Parking Regulations, to allow for one of the two required off-street parking spaces for a detached single-family dwelling to be located within the front setback associated with the conversion of half of the existing two-car garage to habitable floor area. Thank you. Has there been, to the fellow board members, any ex parte communications? No. Drove by the property. None here? No. No. No. All right. With that, we will go to the applicant presentation. Thank you. Just so I make sure I don't go over, how much time am I allowed? Fifteen minutes. Perfect. If you could just say your name and... My name is Anthony Cimino. I'm one of the owners of 755, myself, my wife Liz. We're the two people. So as we, and I want to thank this group for coming back. We know we had an application before, and we've revised it based on some feedback we heard the last time we came forth. So this application is different. We've asked to limit from, instead of removing our complete garage, like last time, we've now narrowed it down in focus, we think, to the most minimum variance that we need to satisfy what we're trying to accomplish. So that's what we're asking you. As you guys know, if you've seen the property, it is a property that has a very large driveway. It can probably hold four cars on it, but because the garage, the driveway is partially in a setback, it's not counted as a legal space as it relates to the code that Delray has. So we're looking for you guys to allow us to go down to one space using a one-car garage as one, let's say, recognized space, knowing that we have a large driveway that can hold four cars. One thing we want to make sure that we totally agree with, and we think the reason this whole statute was created is to really keep the beauty of Delray alive and make sure there's no on-street parking, both for the look of the neighborhood and also for safety reasons. We agree 100% with that. We have no desire or have any need for any kind of on-street parking, and in fact, with our one-car, the one-car garage will work well. So this is just explaining what we're trying to do on the first slide, which I just explained to you. If you haven't seen it, this is what the property looks like from the forward view. So you see this two-car garage. Sometimes it has a large driveway, and again, we have no need to want or desire any kind of on-street parking whatsoever. And this is the original floor plan also, just so you know that this property does have water access, and so we have both two setbacks, both on both sides of the street, because this is a corner lot, and then we have some restrictions because there is water access on the original footprint that we have. So if you look at this slide, in general, we don't have a lot of options with this property because of the setback. So we don't want to change the size or scale of the footprint. We just want to take what the existing footprint and use part of the garage to build out an additional space for a bedroom, a bathroom, and any laundry room. In addition to the two setbacks we have, we also have a problem with the FEMA threshold because if we wanted to build, we only have to build up, and up is a problem for two reasons for us. One, it's economically, unfortunately, not feasible for where we are currently in our current financial position. And secondly, part of the reason that we're trying to build out this garage is we have parents who have fell in love with Delray as much as we have, and they spend an awful lot of time down here with us. And so adding that space will be helpful, and for them, just having one floor plan or one floor really works out well. So that's kind of the reason we want to keep it as it is. Secondarily, it works well with the look and feel of that particular block and neighborhood having just kind of one-story buildings right next to each other. For us, we only have one car, and so if you allow us to have and go to a one-car garage, we have no need even to leave our car on our driveway. We don't plan to. So it keeps with what our family currently is with having one car. If you look around the neighborhood, there are a lot of our neighbors have one-car garages. It's very common. Some even if they go down through Delray, they have no-car garages. But because they don't have a driveway that has its parts and its setback, they can use their driveway as counted spaces. Unfortunately, we can't. So that's one of the things we're hoping that. I know this group has to weigh a lot of things. You've got to weigh the needs of the parking needs of Delray versus our needs as a resident of how we're going to use our property. And so I know it's a decision you have to make. We're hoping that you can do that in relation to what exists in our neighborhood already. So we realized asking this is what triggered the, so, you know, when it says no self-created hardship, what I'm saying there is we know if we weren't doing this build-out, we would never have triggered this problem. We did that ourselves. But know that we have not changed the footprint. We bought it as is. It's the same-sized lot. We're not looking to expand it at all. We're just adding on the existing footprint. And so that's the one thing we'd say is that when we bought this lot, it has constrictions. It's just, it ends up being, because of the setbacks, quite a narrow lot as part of the problem. So this is a proposed drawing that you'll see. And you'll see the garage, which is towards the bottom of the screen. It's cut in half. And so the garage space will allow us to put one of our cars, our only car, in there. And then we have the small bedroom, which we need, again, as our, as, and we bought the house, three bedrooms were perfect. And then, again, it beats our, our family and our, our, our parents love it so much that we had to, we rethink that completely. So we don't, we don't believe we're asking for special privileges when you walk around and look at our neighborhood. There is, you know, within one block of our house, there are four one-car garages. And so they have the privilege because they don't, their driveways don't sit in a setback. And so they, they can do that. In fact, most of the driveways are smaller than ours. And so I guess they park there if they need to, but they're all one-car garages. And so we don't believe we're asking for any special privilege. We're just looking to say, hey, can we keep it consistent, knowing that there is a law that precludes us to a degree that we need this group to really think through and, and hopefully give us that variance. And again, we're not looking for any zoning that doesn't keep it residential. Again, this is as small as we can get the, the, the variance to be. We really made sure that we figured out a way to do everything we needed to do in half the garage space we thought we needed to. So I appreciate Andreas working with us to get that done. And again, for us with, with the way our parents are and the amount of time they spend down here, having a ranch style home really works well for us. And again, just to point out for the next few slides, there are quite a few houses. These are within, on the block that we have, that all have one-car garages. And so some of the driveways, like some are smaller than ours, some are a little bit larger. But you get the sense that it's not a neighborhood where this wouldn't be common. And so I don't think anybody would look at our house and think it looks any different from any other house because it would have the one-car garage. You see it all exists there. So a few things. We did buy the house. We increased the curb appeal. I think we had a neighbor here the last time we fixed up the front of the house. It was a BRBO before we bought it. So I know our neighbors like us being there because we're, we have really done a lot to the front of the house to put in a lot of greenery. So we want to preserve the curb appeal. So we have no desire ever to want or desire any kind of on-road or on-street parking at all. So we can handle the one-car with a one-car garage. And if anybody comes to visit and we have a large enough driveway to handle anybody who comes over, admittedly in Delray, as you guys probably know, the Uber system here is wonderful. So most people just Ubered our house anyway. So we don't really have that practical problem as it exists. And so as you get an idea, this is the proposed elevation, which isn't going to change to what it currently is. It'll be the same front look and feel. If you saw the place, it won't change at all. I'll show you at the end what it'll look like with the one-car, the schematics of that. You can see this is how it looked from a top-end view. So, again, a small build-out to accommodate what our needs are today. For you, it wouldn't be precedent. So in 2020, at 125 Northeast 17th Avenue, there was a variance given to a house that looks very similar, different color than ours. They had the same issue where they had a large driveway, but they needed to do, wanted to build on a house. They couldn't because the house was constricted. And you guys, this group, whoever it was at the time, thought it fair enough to grant that variance, which you did. This is kind of following the same. The fact pattern is almost identical to what they had to do. So you see how that looks. This is just some pictures of our neighborhood. So that's really it for us. So in conclusion, I hope that you guys can look at what we have going on. Recognize that we have a large driveway. We don't need to worry about any on-street parking. That's not the intent whatsoever. However, we only have one car that would fit right in our garage. We put it away every night. And so we think this variance is, we would love it for what we want to do for our house and think it's reasonable in relation to what we want to accomplish with our house. And yet, I think still fits with what you need to do and make sure that Delray's parking practices and needs are maintained. Thank you. Thank you. Let me turn to the staff presentation. Feel free to sit down if you want. We can call you back up for rebuttal. Thanks. Okay. So again, this is Agenda Item 8A, 755 Southeast 7th Avenue. This is a variance request from Land Development Regulations Section 469C2A Off-Street Parking Regulations to allow for one of the two required off-street parking spaces for a detached single family dwelling to be located within the front setback associated with the conversion of half of the existing attached two-guard garage to habitable floor area. Here we have some preliminary site information. So this is in the Rio Delray Shores neighborhood. The zoning is single-family residential R1AA, and the land use is low-density LD. You can see here some of the adjacent zoning districts are R1AA to the north and south, R1AAB to the east, and then to the west, you have the central business district, the south Pairs neighborhood sub-district. So additional background, I know we talked about a few of these points, but this is a waterfront parcel. It was constructed in 1990 as a one-story single-family residence. It has approximately 1,676 square feet of habitable floor area. There is currently an attached two-car garage measuring approximately 21 feet by 20 feet, roughly 420 square feet. And the garage is accessed from Southeast 7th Avenue by the existing paved driveway. So additionally, for the background, the submitted record does not identify a prior structural alteration that created the parking deficiency. In this case, we're not really looking at a deficiency. Simply put, we're looking for the conversion and relocation of one of these spaces to the driveway here. So that's the intent of the variance. And the two required parking spaces are presently provided within this garage. The parcel has an irregular waterfront configuration and a variable depth. This condition predates the application, but it has not been shown to prevent the existing garage from continuing to provide the required parking. So currently, the property adheres to a majority of the required development standards and structural setbacks for the R-1 AA zoning district. The only exception is the standard lot depth, which we mentioned. And here you have, pursuant to LDR section 434K, the development standard matrix for residential zoning districts. This table summarizes the standards that are relevant to properties within the R-1 AA zoning district. No change is being proposed to the actual structure or lot dimension, so here you have no change documented in every column for proposed. And then we have an additional table here at the bottom that is more relevant to the parking regulation. So LDR section 469C2A, off-street parking regulations, requirements for residential uses. And here we have, on the left side of the table, the requirement is two off-street parking spaces outside of the front setback. In this case, the front setback is 30 feet for R-1 AA. Currently existing two spaces in the attached garage, outside of the front setback, 30 feet. And being proposed, one space in an attached garage, and then one space within the front setback, 30 feet. Here we have some of the elevations, which I know the owner was kind enough to go over those with us. It's just documenting half of the garage conversion, doing away with one of the overhead doors, providing a window and a side door there as well. Again, here we have in teal highlighted the section that is to be converted over from garage area to habitable interior space. And this would increase the habitable floor area from approximately 1,676 square feet to about 1,886 square feet. No change to the building footprint, exterior wall line, roof form, or structural setbacks. LDR section 469 C2A requires two parking spaces for a single-family detached residence. Tandem parking is permitted in single-family residential districts. Required spaces may not be located in the front or the side street setback area. Accept that one space may be located in a setback on a lot less than 60 feet wide without alley access, so it does not apply here, and that's noted. Therefore, the limited exemption does not apply. The existing garage currently provides the two spaces as mentioned, and the driveway remains available for vehicle use, but it's located within that front setback, which is not identified as a code-compliant replacement for the parking. Therefore, we have this relief request, and this diagram here shows the remaining space to serve as space number one, and then the driveway to be utilized for the second space. I also want to mention that this is the second hearing for this item. We had a continuance of direction the first meeting, so I want to mention that the request has been specified a little bit more closely to the intent here. So I have a section stating that the requested relief is therefore specific to a parking location variance. It's not asking for relief of an actual parking space as it was previously. And then here we have the FEMA flood map. So the property is located in firm zone AE and displays a base flood elevation of 8 feet. 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. So simply put, we don't have that review information. Here we have the formal findings for the variance, A through F. So A, I'll go ahead and read these, 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. Finding B, 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. D, 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 nonconforming use of neighborhood lands, structures, or buildings under the same zoning shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variant. E, 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. And finally, F, that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of existing regulations, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. And final slide here, we have the options for the board actions. I'm going to leave us with this slide here. Motion A is to approve the variance request for 755 Southeast 7th Avenue from LDR Section 469 C2A to allow for one of the minimum required off-street parking spaces for a detached single-family dwelling to be located within the front setback associated with the conversion of half of the existing attached two-car garage to habitable floor area by finding that the request is consistent with the findings set forth in LDR Section 2.4.11 A-5, A-F. Option B, move to deny the variance request. And then C, move to continue with direction. Very well, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll then move on to a public comment. Are there any members from the public who would like to speak on this agenda item? All right. Seeing none, any rebuttal testimony from the applicant to staff's presentation? All right. We'll then move on to board discussion. I just want to make sure the city doesn't have anything to add, really. We do not. We'll start down here today. Any comments, questions for applicant or staff? No, not at the moment. We don't have any. Troubled by this letter. Do we have any other information or is this stand on its own? Stands on its own. Correct. Yes. Stands on its own. And I believe it was sent a second time reaffirming that the issue is still at hand. So there's two e-mails there technically. Terms exist and then the original e-mail. October 1st and October 21st from the same individual. Any other comments, questions? Well, it seems to me if there's a balance between two neighbors who have a different view on an LDR variance, to me the time would go where the variance, the way the LDR is written. I don't think the comments itself don't necessarily, the number of comments don't really matter per se, unless the comment raises a material fact that we should consider. I wouldn't overemphasize the number of comments one way or the other. Well, to me it's one comment. Yeah, it speaks part to seven. I guess when I just read this just now, is this changing, being able to park within the setback considered on street parking? Yes, that's my question to the city. Can you repeat that for me, please? Reading this e-mail is allowing the parking space in their setback considered on street parking. No, sir, that's parking within the front setback on their driveway. Okay, two different things. Correct. It's still off street parking. Is permanently parking a vehicle within the front setback a violation of city code? Do you need this variance to park the second car, otherwise you'd be in violation of code? There are several properties that exist within the city of Delray Beach that have their parking within the front setback area. This is required at the time of permitting, at the time of new development, but this is not an action that code enforcement would issue a citation for, because you are not parked in the sidewalk, you are not parked in the street, you are still parked off the street. Do you think the parking space requires you to actually park in your garage? No. There are several homes where their required parking is within the garage. I just ask. I've never parked in my garage. Right. I mean, my garage is full of stuff. I park within my front setback. You know, there's several properties within Delray Beach that have their required parking within the garage, but they fill their garages and then they park on the driveway, which is within the front setback. But is it consistent with the LDR to use the driveway for one of the parking spaces? Whether or not you do it, it doesn't strike me as particularly relevant. What does the LDR say? So LDR section 469C2A requires two parking spaces for a single family detached residence, and it also states that required spaces may not be located in the front or side street setback areas, except for a scenario that is not applicable here. So technically, the way that the LDR is written, there's language in there that would, you know, prohibit it to be located within the setback, which is the reason for the variance here. I don't understand the word technically. It's just crystal clear. We may want to grant a variance, if that's what the word decides. But we ought to understand what the LDR says and not kind of mush it up, so to speak, with lack of clear language. If I can, Amy Alvarez, Assistant Development Services Director, for the record, I did swear in. The LDR is anticipating that you have, for single family residences, two parking spaces accommodated outside of your front setback. So when you have a two-car garage, you've complied with the LDR. Whether or not you park there, it's not necessarily enforced. Even if you have a lot of stuff in your garage. I, too, have never parked in my garage. I don't live in the city of Del Rey, just for the record, and neither does Madison, since she noted that. But if you have a lot of stuff in your garage, that stuff is there temporarily, presumably. It's not permanent, habitable space. So even though you have things in your garage and you're not parking in your garage, you're still compliant, technically, because, again, it's not permanent. Once you convert it into habitable space, then it's permanent. It's no longer parking. So now this request is saying, well, we're going to convert half of it, so we'll have one space outside of the front setback, and we'll be parking in our driveway like we may have been anyways. That's a design requirement more so than a violation of code to not comply in practice. Because if you have three cars as part of your family, you're not in violation of the code because you have an extra car, somebody living at your house, or if you have guests over. So you are allowed to park in your front setback. It's just the provision of the two spaces outside of the front setback. And just parking in the street against code permanently? Well, we're not. Unless it's a designed on-street parking space, it doesn't count as a parking spot what would be required. But you're getting into code of ordinances, which I don't want to get into because that's a whole different – that's not my – I'm trying to get into character of the neighborhood about whether when people park in their setback. Is that a violation of code? If they park in their setback. Or parking in a swale. Or in a swale. Well, yeah, that's just a whole different thing. Okay. If we're reviewing something that we're allowing somebody to have a parking spot in their swale, then that's a different type of review. But if they're just temporarily parking there, whether or not they're allowed is a different regulation. Okay. How long would the temporary be for? Like, you know, like temporarily parking like you were just talking. Could they temporarily park? Yeah, I'm not sure. I'd have to go through code of ordinances. That's a different type of review and not pertinent to this request. Okay. I guess moving on to a slightly different line of questioning. So the – several mentions to the one-car garages in the neighborhood. Are those existing nonconformities or are there two parking spots within the setback just outside of a single family garage or single garage? If this was brought up by the applicant and you may not be able to address it. I'm not aware of the nature of these properties or their addresses. I would not be able to answer the question as to whether they are an existing nonconformity without researching the properties themselves. Okay. Ben, any questions? You all answered the questions. You all asked the questions I was going to ask, so. Suzanne? Yeah, I've got a couple questions. What is the setback currently up to the garage? I'm just curious. That would be 30 feet. It is exactly 30 feet. Exactly 30 feet. And did I hear that that 30-foot setback only came into an ordinance or an LDR the year that that house was built? Before that, it was not a 30-foot setback requirement? Did I understand that? Or did I – that something was the same year that the house – was it the year before or right now? So, if I remember correctly, the staff report outlines that the code was adopted in 1990 and the house was established in 1990. So, do we know what it was before that 1990? We do not. I'm just curious. Because I know, like, my house, it's a 10-foot setback. I can't imagine a 30-foot setback seems pretty extreme. But we're not here to argue what it is. I just was curious. Do we know why it's 30 feet as opposed to other neighborhoods that are 10-foot setbacks? That's tricky to answer. Maybe it has to do with the lot dimensions since there's different lot dimensional requirements. There's modified setbacks per the different zoning districts. So, there's, I don't know, a handful or more of single-family residential zoning districts. And depending on the desired character of the neighborhood where the different zoning districts are applied, you've got varying front setbacks from – some of them are 20 feet if you've got two-story down up to 30, 35 feet. So, it all varies even either whether it's on the front setback, the rear setback, the side setback. They all vary depending on the desired character of the neighborhood. Okay, thank you. And then if the one was mentioned that was approved, I believe something was approved on a similar circumstance. Number one, was that in the same zone? And how long ago was that approved? Sorry, if you're going to – was that question directed to the applicant or just in general? Whoever can answer it, I'm not sure. Okay. If you would want to answer the question, just make sure to go to the microphone. I know the applicant didn't mention it. But I also want to point out that, you know, we are considering every application on its own. So, you know, feel free to ask the question, but just a reminder that we review each application individually. It was 2020. The address was 125 Northeast 17th Avenue. So, it is in a different part of Delray. Thank you. That's all I have. I mean, just general thoughts. I mean, just speaking to the other board members, I think I'm sympathetic to single car use, you know, especially, you know, special circumstances close to the business district. And whether this particular zoning regime is appropriate for the neighborhood, you know, that's not what we're here to determine. I just look at the lot sizes, bigger than the required. I don't personally know that there's enough special circumstances with what's been presented today to say that there's a hardship. But I'm open to any discussion if I'm missing evidence. Yeah, I mean, if I could just bring up one thing, just given this is a corner lot, and this, I guess, would be a question for staff. When they did do the 30-foot, you know, when they have to set back in front, was any of it have to do with safety for, like, vision? We have a side street, and I know that street, Southeast 7th Ave, does get a good amount of traffic. Having cars parked in that setback, would that create an issue? And was that maybe the intention for those few houses on that street to set it back? I'm not sure if that question could be answered, but... I'm not entirely sure what the intention of the R1AA designation in that neighborhood was at the time of establishment. Safety is always taken into consideration, which is why you are required to have your parking out of your front setback area, so that you can ensure that there is safety. However, you know, you know, for example, a typical parking stall is 9 by 18. You know, so think of how many parking spaces, you know, fit in an area of 30 feet. You know, a car would be close to the street, but if it's pulled closer to the garage, then it is further away from the street. Thank you. Sorry, I just have something to add. We're going to have to get the squeaks out of this door. But so just talking about safety, the land development regulations also require site visibility triangle compliance. And so given that this property is on a corner of two local roads, they would require to maintain compliance, and it looks like they are already compliant with a site visibility triangle of 25 feet. So that would be where you measure along the property line, 25 feet along 7th Avenue and then 25 feet along 8th Street. And then you make a triangle within that 25 foot site visibility triangle. You can't have anything between 3 feet and 6 feet so that you've got the visibility for safety purposes. And it looks like they've already got that regardless of the request at hand because the structure is out of the way. So just that's part of our safety review. So to follow up with that, you said the structure is out of the way, but with that vehicle, which would be, you know, 3 to 6 feet tall, would that be in the way? Right. Well, we have cars that park in site visibility triangles all the time and cars aren't permanent. And that's just throughout the city, whether it's on street parking or on your private property, it does happen. And it could happen regardless of this request, parking in the driveway. Understood. And then just for my, you know, just to bring up that question. Let's say it does end up, is there anyone from the staff that would review that for the safety issue? Let's say it's been approved. Hypothetically speaking, it's been approved and it does become a safety issue. Is that something that, you know, they review it? I mean, how does that? So site visibility triangle compliance is reviewed with all building permits that come into the city. But then out in the field, code enforcement, if they notice that your hedges are too tall within the site visibility triangle, they'll site you and say, hey, you need to trim your hedges. We need compliance with this. So that's, those are the two ways that we try to ensure compliance. So thank you. Mm-hmm. Just to clarify though, that has no bearing on a vehicle. No, no, it's just permanent, permanent improvements. That's more landscaping or a structure of some sort. Landscaping, trees of a certain size, structures. Yeah. Any other comments, questions, discussion? All right. Are we ready to read the findings? All right. As a reminder, the board needs to make all six positive findings and that will require at least five yeses on each element. So this is the Board of Adjustment final board order for file number PZ 669-2026. The address is 755 SE 7th Avenue. This is for a variance request from the Land Development Regulations Section 469C2A Off-Street Parking Regulations to allow for one of the two required off-street parking spaces for a detached single family dwelling to be located within the front setback. Associated with the conversion of half of the existing two-car garage to habitable floor area. Pursuant to the LDR, Section 2411A5, following consideration of all the evidence and testimony, the Board of Adjustment for the City of Delray Beach finds as follows. Number one, 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. Benjamin Arsali? Yes. Aura Ramirez? Oh, she's absent. Sorry. Suzanne Donahue? Yes. Mark Ronald? Yes. Jesse Slosher? Yes. Brenda Cullinan? Yes. John Delacio? Yes. Number two, that literal interpretation of the regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties subject to the same zoning. Benjamin Arsali? Yes. Aura Ramirez is absent. Suzanne Donahue? Yes. Aura Ramirez? Yes. Aura Ramirez? Yes. Aura Ramirez? Yes. Aura Ramirez? Yes. Aura Ramirez? Aura Ramirez? Aura Ramirez? Aura Ramirez? Aura Ramirez? Aura Ramirez? Aura Ramirez? Aura Ramirez? Aura Ramirez? Aura Ramirez? Aura Ramirez? Aura Ramirez? Aura Ramirez? Aura Ramirez? Aura Ramirez? Aura Ramirez? Aura Ramirez? Aura Ramirez? Aura Ramirez? Aura Ramirez? lands, structures, and buildings under the same zoning. Neither the permitted nor non-conforming use of neighborhood lands, structures, or buildings under the same zoning shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. Benjamin Arcelle? Yes. Oror Ramirez is absent. Suzanne Donahue? Yes. Mark Ronald? Yes. Jesse Slosher? Yes. Brenda Cullinan? Yes. John Delicio? No. Number 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. Benjamin Arcelle? No. Oror Ramirez is absent. Suzanne Donahue? Yes. Mark Ronald? No. Jesse Slosher? Yes. Brenda Cullinan? No. John Delicio? No. Number six, 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. Benjamin Arcelle? No. Oror Ramirez is absent. Suzanne Donahue? Yes. Mark Ronald? Jesse Slosher? Yes. Brenda Cullinan? No. John Delicio? Yes. Okay. Since we did not make a positive finding on all six elements, um, I will request a motion, uh, yeah, if we could pull up the, I'll request that the board make a motion to deny the variance. To deny? If we can read it that way, the address. Read, read the whole thing? Yeah. Uh, move to deny the variance request for 755 Southeast 7th Ave from LDR section 469C2A to allow for one of the minimum required off-street parking spaces for a detached single-family dwelling to be located within the front setback associated with the conversion of half of the existing attached two-car garage to a pivotal floors area by finding that the request is not consistent with the findings set forth in LDR section 2, 4, 11, A, 5, A through F. Is there a second? Second. Benjamin Arcelle? Yes. Yes. Oror Ramirez is absent. Suzanne Donahue? No. Mark Ronald? Yes. Jesse Slosher? Yes. Brenda Cullinan? Yes. John Delacio? Yes. Pursuant to the LDR section 2.1.7F, all decisions of the board of adjustment are final. Based on the entire record before it, the board of adjustment denies the variance solely for the purposes as presented at the meeting. All right. Very well. That concludes the public hearing items. Uh, we'll move on to reports and comments from staff. Staff comments? You can ask the question. Yes, ma'am. Um, the item was removed from the agenda as the notice material was incorrect. It has, it has been rescheduled for a later date. You will receive a fresh notice, uh, within 10 days of the next meeting for the item. I assume that was, sorry, any staff report and comments? Um, no. The, uh, 2027 board of adjustment meeting schedule has been placed on the dais for your records. Our next meeting is scheduled for December 3rd, 2026, and then our first meeting in January is slated for January 7th of 2027. Nothing? Uh, there, there is a meeting in December. December, right? Yes. If it, we'll find out if there's something that's coming forward. Yeah. Yeah. Good. Uh, all right. Very well. From the attorney? Nothing. And from any fellow board members? I will not be able to attend the December 3rd if there is a meeting because I'm out of the country. Okay. So noted. When is it? I think it's on the 3rd. Yeah. Yeah. The first Thursday. Yeah. Yeah. I'll be good. All right. Uh, hearing no other comments, then we will adjourn. I'll call you out. Oh, okay.