the hammer a little light on the hammer welcome to the pinellas county board of adjustment and appeals today is october 7th we've received we only have one case today we received your case in advance studied it in some cases may have visited the site board members if you did visit the site please let us know during that when that case comes up please understand we do not bring these cases we're citizens tasked with weighing the evidence submitted in order to make the most informed decision possible we have no personal interest or stake in these cases except for the overall good of the community staff has made a recommendation on the on each case and that recommendation is input only and may not necessarily be the opinion of this board if you're planning to speak for or against any application you must be sworn in prior to testimony testifying if you've not been sworn in you can do so now with the clerk at the front of the room we will proceed as follows when your case is called the applicant should come up to this podium and give us your name and address then present your case including any comments from supporters if there are opponents the opponents may be given an opportunity to state their objection and any subsequent objectors should add new information not just rehash prior stated objections the applicant will then return to the podium solely to rebut the comments of the opponents and at that time may not bring any new information or testimony it is just to rebut the opponent's um objections finally we'll close the public hearing the board will discuss the case and vote on it our attorney will now provide additional information good morning assistant county attorney kirby krider please note the matters heard by the board of adjustment and appeals are quasi-judicial in nature only competent substantial fact-based testimony or evidence may be considered by the board in deciding the matters before it peer speculation or opinion not based on competent fact cannot be considered by the board lay testimony with fact-based support including but not limited to meeting minutes surveys engineering reports may be considered competent and substantial evidence thank you we are a six-person board this morning although there are seven appointees we're missing one person but you will still need four votes to prevail on the case on a decision all right michael our first case is var-26-13 this is a variance request to allow for the construction of a 3123 square foot detached accessory dwelling unit where 1 000 square feet is the maximum size allowed for the property located at 11225 131st street north and unincorporated largo staff recommends denial of the variance the the subject property uh consists the parcel consists of four uh lots of record totaling approximately 3.74 acres and developed with the detached single-family residence and accessory structures so the applicant is seeking to construct a new one-story 3123 square foot detached accessory dwelling unit which would consist of two bedrooms two and a half bathrooms covered lanine entry and three car garage again our land development code limits accessory dwelling units to 1 000 square feet so they're asking this because this is a 2123 square foot above the maximum so staff has noted that the variance does not request does not demonstrate a site-specific hardship uh at discussion discussion at the development review committee meeting we discussed other options such as subdividing the property allowing this to be built as a single-family resident on a on a vacant lot there is existing ingress egress easement for access there's utilities on the property uh the property has the the density to to be subdivided um we also discussed about uh attaching this to the home make it an addition we do allow for instances of having uh unattached uh adu uh that would you know so you have a second kitchen in the house provided that there is only one considered one primary entrance to the house one address etc uh so staff believes there are these alternative development options available to the applicant which would allow them to build this adequate living space to meet their needs as for review of the criteria that we review for variances special conditions uh particular to the property is again the property it consists of four plotted lots of therefore lots of record has a sufficient density and area to accommodate construction of a new single family home if the property were to be split therefore not needing a variance uh unnecessary hardship staff found that no evidence of any site-related hardship for this variance request as again the lot could be subdivided and it satisfy all minimum lot area requirements there's already an established ingress egress easement to serve this property and you know lot split would enable a property owner to build new single-family resident meeting all building setbacks and pervious surface limits mean at minimum code deviation necessary so this is they're requesting 3123 square feet this does not meet the definition of accessory and instead functions as a principal residence based on its size and is three times the size allowable for 1 000 square foot maximum adu we don't feel it meets the minimum code deviation necessary consistency with the land development code we you know encourage accessory dwelling units i encourage smaller residential units as sport aging family members and expand affordable housing options within the community uh covert variance we feel does not align with these provisions or the overall spirit of the code uh consideration of a rezoning uh rezoning is is not appropriate it's in an established uh residential rural area uh consistency with the comp plan uh comp plan supports accessory dwelling units uh that respect the character of the neighborhood detriment to public welfare there we've there is no detriment to public welfare on this and circumventing board approval uh this property's never had a variance so there was no uh conditions uh are being circumvented based on any previous action because there has none that's the staff report the staff review again staff recommending denial of this request uh mr shortback one before the applicant uh presents the case one question um the 1 000 square foot limitation on an accessory dwelling unit is consistent regardless of the size of the property this is a three acre property if it was a one acre property would be the same correct so we're 10 acre property it would be the same correct okay yeah 1 000 is is the max 750 if it's in a coastal high hazard area or flood area there there is flood on this property but not in the area of the back behind the house where they're looking at it's all more towards the front i just had a question too about just the adu what what makes that an ad adu versus a house or whatever the go ahead i'll let you well well we have you know accessory dwelling units we are there intended to provide additional housing that is incidental to primary use ensuring that the intended district character is protected they're intended to provide guest housing security rest residences and or affordable housing options so they they are accessory which our code defines as accessory is it has to be smaller than the primary uh it serves the primary uh use on it um again accessory dwelling units we look for more affordable options that can be provided uh to to people um again this we we see um no evidence of of a need they haven't demonstrated a hardship or reasoning why based on this size um accessory dwelling units don't count towards density on a property um i believe also you know taxes you're not taxed because it's not a single family resident so uh there's differences there there is nothing physical that makes a uh adu that classifies a building as an adu this this building if the lot were subdivided would be a house right right right because it's not subdivided it's an adu okay because it's plain and simple same same building same house same outcome okay that was my kind of my question i didn't understand right it's that's the only reason it's an adu is because it's on the same lot would the applicant come forward please the applicant here give us your name and address please and then you can go ahead and tell us what you want to do i'll go first thank you my name is george sin my address is one one two two five hundred and thirty first street largo florida three three seven seven four i'm the owner and the applicant of the property with my wife rita and you are mark acero 78 um 78 90 134 street north in seminal florida you're the contractor i am okay so tell us go ahead and tell us what it is exactly you're trying to do i think we know but i want to hear from you okay thank you um our existing property and it keeps being referred to as four lots but i did have it recombined into one property when we bought it we put the existing house in the middle of it it's a two-story house the property is 3.74 acres it's bordered by a concrete perimeter wall six foot high um both my wife and i are getting up in age i have a autoimmune disease that's going to affect me eventually to where i'm a little bit less mobile um what we wanted to do our daughter and her two daughters my granddaughters one is a type one diabetic that um needs constant attention she plans on moving into our existing 69 square thousand 6900 square foot house we would move into the accessory dwelling unit she could take care of us if we needed it i don't want to leave the property i want it to be a multi-generational estate her daughter the diabetic could move to the house when we're gone and stay there um we have some information that we submitted additionally and i'd like to go over my understanding the intent of an adu is for multi-generational facilities or families we meet that we want to do that i don't want to subdivide the property the existing house is in the middle of it there's 162 000 square feet of property there it's going to be in the grass behind the existing pool deck no trees would be removed utilities exist from the previous old house that was on the corner that we lived in before we built this house um aging in place needs i just went over that my wife had a knee replacement it's going to have to have another one and we don't want to go the two-story house is a hardship and our daughter would move into that with her family disability accommodations i just went over live-in caretakers that would be what would end up being with this and i hope i have 10 more years i'm 80 next week so 54 years in business retired last year and extended family housing would meet that requirement as well the properties surrounding us are all exceptionally large lots however our lot is the biggest of the bunch the house to the north is 2.5 acres has an 8 000 square foot house and a 21 car garage with living accommodations above it and a horse stable beside that the properties to the south are two acres and they have chicken coops and horse stables and nobody's going to be within 100 150 feet of the proposed location we can't i don't want to subdivide the property i want to keep it as an estate and pass it on as multi-generational housing and the flood zone they said it's in the front of it may be in a flood plain we're 46 feet elevation for finished floor elevation on the property uh never have floods never have a problem it's on that seminal ridge that goes down through the middle of the county ends up down at seminal high school to the south of us um there's just no reason to divide it we've got all the room all the neighbors have no objections nobody will even see it from the street it's behind the existing house and it certainly is going to fulfill all the intents in my opinion of what an accessory dwelling unit would would be needed i think one of the things we we clearly understand is the purpose of the thousand square foot limitation if you have a quarter acre parcel it just would the density would be too much it makes sense but on a parcel that's 3.74 acres we felt like that was very unreasonable the idea of going from a thousand square feet basically to two thousand square feet was to accommodate exactly what mr sin is is stating and we have seen in the past very similar situations i was involved with dr martinez project where he only had 1.4 acres it had a limitation of 750 square feet because it was in a flood zone but we ended up getting a variance for i think almost 2700 square feet there and there's other cases as well but i think that's the biggest thing is the fact that he's got 3.74 acres and you know he's wanting to do this within reason i think the impact of this particular um adu is only like um less than two percent of the impact on the overall overall parcel so those are some of the highlights and just thinking about it doesn't affect the characteristics of the neighborhood they're all big parcels all have other accessory structures if you will not necessarily dwellings um and i we feel like this in our approach is uh satisfying the intent of the code understanding that on a small smaller parcel it makes sense but the thousand square foot on 3.74 doesn't so that's the way i'd like the approach can i say something else sure um if i'm correct i believe the zoning on the property is 2.5 houses per acre yes or the the land use the density would allow 2.5 houses per acre correct which is almost 10 houses if i wanted to subdivide it and turn it into a subdivision which i don't i want to keep it in the family and i want to make it something that i can pass down and be proud of is there anybody here an objection to this case no objectors my my observation on this is that if you went through the um rigmarole and whatever hassle there is of doing a subdivision to allow this to comply with the county codes as exist you would have the same outcome as you have by getting a variance so one way or another the outcome really is the same um so it should the to in my mind the question is is it really necessary to subdivide the property in order to do this or is it acceptable to give the variance to allow this to happen so this is on edit my own editorial alan and um as i did visit the property i drove past it um and i i grew up in that area and i'm familiar with kind of you know the multiple you know state properties that are in that area um is there any other precedent like that's outside of this area like for estate properties in pinealas county like i know in like saint pete i can call a couple of them in my recollection but we we had one earlier this year uh request came in uh it the property was was larger than this uh that uh approved for a 2372 square foot accessory dwelling unit that was earlier this year it was um in clearwater area off of uh lake chautauqua sure yeah i agree with you in the sense of like you know the outcome would be the same as whereas you know you can you can subdivide it out and you can you can make a family subdivision for you for your family but at the same time you know i think because of the the size of the parcels and um you know i couldn't even see from the road where you know where it would have been yeah there's there's no equitable uh balance between the allowable uh adu size and the property size so that that's just a quirk of the code yeah yeah if i may i would just remind the board that the approval or denial has to be based on the code criteria as laid out in the staff report we're very inventive with that sometimes other comments no comments i agree i pretty much agree with what you said yeah anybody care to make a motion our attorney advises that there needs to be a hardship developed in your motion essentially can it be that the hardship is that they have so much land i think that's an interpretation of hardship yeah yeah it's the the keep in mind that the language of the code um regarding hardship includes the verbiage practically difficult so if it is practically difficult um that is a hardship it doesn't have to be the dimensions of the lot or the topography of the lot so to speak so you know the practical difficulty can simply be the the process of having to go through the subdivision or or the quirk of the code makes it practically difficult i'd make a motion and you have to guide me on this one alan um your experience here but i'd make a motion for conditional approval um allowing the variance uh with the impractical heart um hardship of the the codes not not accurately we're not contemplating the size of the property and also the ability to rezone or to subdivide sorry and um split the parcel up into into multiple parcels to achieve the same feat okay so um essentially your motion is saying uh is a motion to approve um with findings of fact that the uh practical difficulty of having to subdivide the property and the uh inconvenience of the uh excessive necessary excessive burden of the code um justifies the uh action i do okay second can i offer up some conditions yeah sure sure sure permits and and fees um meeting the standards of the of section 138 3210 which is the accessory dwelling unit uh criteria uh except for size and architecturally compatible with the primary residence is the motion maker satisfied with those conditions added to the motion so those conditions will be added to um andrew's motion and we have a second from deborah is there any further discussion we have a motion to approve all in favor signify aye aye aye opposed you have your variance on the unanimous thank you thank you so much this was really good too that was really good well done well done thank you thank you okay that's what retirement will get you time to time to time to read you may be back in no time thank you mr hunsaker for visiting the property thank you uh that's the first time we decided that the code itself was the hardship so whatever whatever it takes um we have minutes from the uh uh september meeting do we have them yes we do i hope somewhere yeah is there a motion to approve motion the second approve the minutes of the september meeting all in favor signify aye aye aye motion passes um we were advised by mr bellow that this may be his last board meeting or it may not but we we you were advised that i was unclear um so and you wanted to get a photo yeah i'd love to uh well i'd love to say a couple of words first of all i've been here since uh 2019 um spent a lot of time with this group uh seen a lot of folks over in that chair summer coming back for a visit and uh just appreciate everyone's uh support not only in walking me through uh when i was vice chair and chair but also uh expediting some of the conversations and focusing on the task it's been a great learning experience we lost some great members along the way which is sad but uh really enjoyed the time renee always taking care of us appreciate it um you guys have been great so yeah that's uh you know my understanding is that there'll be a new member in the seat um we will know that in november so you may see me back but it'll totally be a guest appearance as i understand it you know how these things go races are uh happening things are going on out on the street but uh i would always extend my availability to you if you need something board work is very near and dear to my heart you know i can only give my time talent treasure and testimony so i think i've done that here so very much yeah thanks i wasn't gonna cry but you know so we've uh you know as many as we can get gather around and you know get a shot for posterity and you want to do it in front of the uh whatever whatever you guys think is best i'll that's great let's do it and then you can all go home in the gavel out out to the rain i'll even hold the gavel as a as a prop there you go ceremonial prop thank you allen's velvet hammer