advance and we have studied them and some cases visited the site members should announce that sites are visited during discussion please understand we do not bring these cases we are 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 each case and that recommendation is input only and may not necessarily be the opinion of this board if you are planning to speak for or against any application you must be sworn in prior to testifying if you have not been sworn in please do so now with the clerk at the front right table this is how we will proceed when your case is called by staff the applicant should come to the podium and give us your name and address the applicant will then present their case including comments from any supporters in attendance comments by supporters should be new information not just an expression of support the applicant may display the volume of support by a show of hands speakers will have three minutes opponents will then be given an opportunity to state their objection if there are numerous opponents it is preferable for them to select one or two spokespersons again speakers will have three minutes any subsequent objectors should add new information not just rehash prior stated objections opponents also may display the volume of objectors by show of hands this will be the only opportunity for opponents to state their side the applicant will then return to the podium solely to rebut the comments of any opponents and may not bring any new information or testimony at that time finally we will close the public hearing and the board will discuss make a motion and vote our attorney will now provide additional information on our procedures good morning assistant county attorney kirby krider matters heard by the board of adjustment and appeals are quasi-judicial in nature please note that only competent substantial fact-based testimony or evidence may be considered by the board in deciding the matters before it pure speculation or opinion not based on competent fact-based evidence cannot be considered by the board lay testimony with fact-based support including but not limited to meeting minutes surveys engineering reports etc may be considered competent substantial evidence thank you all right with that we'll move to our first case i don't think we have the uh the script for that here but um that's going to be uh var 26 18 14 14 14 good morning michael schroederbach selling manager it would be great to have the uh uh uh you don't put your package okay i don't know why that's not here but okay here we go so morning our first case is got it var 26 14. this is a request for a variance to allow for a two-story detached accessory dwelling unit with a height of 19 feet to remain where a detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the height of the primary dwelling as the existing home is one story and 11 feet tall property is owned r2 it's located at 602 sparrow avenue in palm harbor staff recommends conditional approval subject property is approximately 0.44 acres it's developed with a single family home a two-story detached accessory dwelling unit with attached carport the two-story detached garage and accessory dwelling unit on the property was legally constructed in 1988 but was later converted into accessory dwelling unit without variance approval or permitting the current property owner would like to renovate this structure for use as a short-term rental upon further review the owner determined that the two-story accessory dwelling unit had never been formally approved as the unpitted unpermitted conversion was completed by a prior owner and the structure along with the improvements which had already existed at the time of purchase to address this conversion of the two-story structure into an accessory dwelling unit all minimum code requirements for accessory dwelling units shall be met as part of that requires the code requires that a detached accessory dwelling unit must not exceed the height of the primary residence thus the need for the the variance since this existing structure is 19 feet tall and the primary residence is 11 feet tall additionally the applicant will be applying separately for an administrative adjustment to the adu size our code allows a thousand square feet and the square footage of this is 1086 which doesn't warrant a variance then but we can do it administratively just adjusted by staff and that would occur after the variance request if approved so staff's opinion that the request will not be detrimental to adjoining properties or the surrounding as no exterior modifications are proposed and all other accessory dwelling unit requirements associated with this request will be met additionally all required parking will be accommodated on site so staff recommends conditional approval with the conditions of permits and fees a certificate of use for the short-term rental uh right-of-way utilization permit to restore right away in front of the the property and then meeting the other requirements of the the it or the applicant shall submit an administrative adjustment to the accessory dwelling units size i'll answer any questions the board has any questions before the applicant comes up no okay do we have the applicant come forward everybody's sworn in all right uh justin church 602 sparrow avenue palm harbor florida three four six eight three well you can you can tell us about your your project here oh yeah so we want to uh renovate before you go to do we have any objectors in the audience at all no we do not okay um go ahead and quickly tell us a little bit about it and then we will go ahead and see if we have any questions and if not go ahead so we have a prehistoric or prehistoric sorry um pre-existing um two-story garage that was done um we want to renovate that to make it a two-story adu but uh was it the restriction of the house being or the adu being taller than our house is what's keeping us up from doing this right as well as the uh later the board of adjustments total square footage um but yeah we want to turn this into adu to house tourism for the florida area um tampa bay yeah that's uh so far we already have a contracting company available or construction company available when these go through so all right does anybody have any questions motion all right motion um i move for the staff recommendation of conditional approval in accordance with the findings of fact as outlined in the staff report and i know and you know the conditions that you have to meet i believe yep okay any second thank you okay we have a motion and a second uh all in favor aye aye opposed so the uh recommendation or the you're approved sorry i do have one question okay sorry about that um it's the right-of-way utilization permit and the property line is forward of it so i guess uh how would we go about that or is it even our responsibility to because if we're apparently out of um out of like the existing the house itself when we bought it over 20 years ago we've not changed anything in the front of the house and apparently there's like an area that's asphalt that's not ours i never even knew that until we came to the thing across the street and now we're being told that it's our responsibility to put it to sod so it sounds like there's it there's an easement or some kind of other issue there um it and that's the easement itself that's not really something i don't believe we can address so it sounds like maybe with staff yeah that would be in in in the building development review services office there on the third floor uh you'd speak with our right-of-way and engineering but it was on the paperwork on the requirements that are needed for that too uh okay what needs to be restored in that in that area number three at the drc meeting it was public work staff identified that the area in the front of the property had been uh asphalted over in the right-of-way to make like a the driveway is exceeds size requirements so that would need to be restored back to uh the proper driveway sizes which this property has has to as a parking area for the main house on the front and then another driveway on on the east side that leads back to the adu and that area in between that's all paved would need to be taken care of and what needs to be done that would have to be discussed with our public works staff what their requirements okay so that doesn't affect the adu itself for approval or anything because if that's what was confusing it's one of the conditions it's one of the conditions so it'll have to be addressed as as part of this as part of the process when you go through permitting okay um yeah so for permitting and then um yeah that's pretty much it okay as you go for permitting requirements for the adu for any work to be done on it you would also be looking at this right-of-way utilization permit at the at the same time okay with that so through that process of the next steps of permitting sounds good thank you okay all right thank you guys thank you all right next we'll bring up var 2615. var 2615 this is a variance to allow for the construction of a carport and covered patio addition having an 8.67 foot side setback from the southern property line where 15 feet is required for an ra zone property located at 1155 lake avenue southeast in unincorporated largo staff recommends conditional approval the subject property is approximately 0.5 acre lot which contains an existing single family home with a roof structure over an existing patio site is bordered by large large residential lots to the south and east a lake to the west and a golf course to the north the access is provided via lake avenue southeast which is a private roadway the owner proposes constructing a new roof structure over the existing patio and extending that area along the southern side of the property for use as a carport to allow for this expansion the applicant is requesting a reduced side setback of 8.67 feet where 15 feet is required variance request is driven by the presence of an existing driveway and patio that is currently cited in this area the owner would like to utilize those existing site features to support the proposed carport and covered patio addition it's staff's opinion that the variance request can be supported as all other minimum setback requirements will be met architectural drawings and renderings have been included to demonstrate the appearance of the proposed carport and the compatibility with the existing single-family home no additional encroachment or extension of the existing concrete area would be required to accommodate staff recommends the conditional approval with all permits and fees required and also with the condition that the carport and patio addition shall not be enclosed all right and would the applicant like to come forward do we have any opposition here in the audience today we do not good morning mr chair board members brian onks 625 court street here on behalf of dream hall a property owner of 1155 lake avenue southeast largo i have a powerpoint i won't go into it unless uh you have questions or need me to uh very straightforward this is an existing driveway and we're simply putting a rooftop over it we're extending the rooftop that exists over the existing patio out over the driveway the encroachment already exists as a driveway so we're not increasing and we're not decreasing any existing setback it's simply putting a roof over the encroaching driveway and the property owner directly adjacent received the exact same variance from the board a few years ago and they have a five and a half foot setback so they're even closer to our property and they don't have any objection they have a covered carport uh so frankly for the aesthetic it'll be very similar to the neighbor's carport being covered so unless you have any questions we have no opposition fully aligned with the staff and appreciate all your work and all the work the staff has done on this for us so all right any questions or a motion i'll make a motion thank you um i move for the staff recommendation of conditional approval in accordance with the findings of fact as outlined in the staff report and i know you know the two conditions all right and we have a second a second second all right and all in favor aye aye opposed okay and with that we will bring back the next case uh var 2617 var 2617 is a variance request to allow for an after-the-fact bedroom conversion to remain having a three-foot side setback from the northern property line where six feet is required for an r3 zone property located at 12001 84th avenue in unincorporated seminal staff recommends conditional approval the subject property is a corner lot which contains an existing single-family home that is currently operating as a short-term rental the subject property received a variance in 2012 allowing an after-the-fact enclosed porch sunroom to remain with a three-foot side setback where six feet is required this set associated setback request originated from a code enforcement violation however that porch had existed for roughly 30 years prior to the variance request be based on neighbor's testimony their requested variance was ultimately approved and associated building permit was issued to legally recognize the enclosed porch this current variance request stems from a building violation from april 2026 after it was discovered that the enclosed porch had been illegally converted into a bedroom this conversion occurred prior to the current owner's purchase of the property in 2021 as all existing structures and improvements were already in place at the time of sale the owner is now seeking a variance to address this after the fact bedroom conversion as the request has since been modified into a conditioned space although the use of the space has been intensified staff finds that the conversion maintains the same dimensions and continues to observe the previously approved reduced setback of three feet does not create additional impacts to neighboring properties as no structural modifications are proposed and the building footprint will remain unchanged from the prior 2012 variance approval and staff recommends conditional improvement approval all with all permits and fees the application shall obtain a revised certificate of use for the short-term rental and shall meet all minimum floodplain requirements of chapter 158 of the land development code and we also normally don't see after the fact variances and we have criteria and and this met our criteria for after the fact variances as since it was done by a previous owner and not the current owner all right and is the applicant here today all right they are is there any opposition yes there's one opposed so you'll come up next after they finish and present and questions i just have a question for um for staff what the difference between a sunroom and a bedroom is what air conditioning is that condition space okay so it was the variance was approved for unconditioned space so when it's converted to condition space then that does is no longer meets the requirements of the of the variance that's all i just wanted to get that cleared thank you for asking that question my name is megan mcguire i'm the architect representing my client who is the owner william chat um as you mentioned william bought the property in the current condition it was advertised as a four-bedroom property not a three-bedroom which it is listed in with the government and that is why he chose to rent it as a four-bedroom property he went through all of the proper proper channels got all of the proper um certifications and licenses in order to be able to rent it as a short-term rental for a four-bedroom and until he received that notification back in where was it he actually didn't know anything about any of these things neither the private prior variance nor any of that much less the fact that it had been converted illegally into that fourth bedroom which it has been used in for over a decade approximately um but that obviously as you could you've heard that existing building that existing additional structure has existed for decades um the enclosure as i understand it has had air conditioning installed prior to their ability to get the property that is actually shown in the photos from you know the zillows and the red skin and all of these other real estate pages so it does actually already have that installed as well and so it's really just a question of how is it being used on the interior of the home where no one else should be anyways so it really shouldn't be impacting anyone else's use of their properties um and so we request your approval for this update uh to the basically the previous variance that the two it was actually two owners prior had gone through that variance process questions yeah does um the difference between a a non-conditioned room and the condition room so does is there a difference in insulation um distance between electrical outlets window egress are those all still the same yeah florida building code uh you know and it's used as a bedroom bedroom have requirements by florida building code for ingress egress uh in there so yes there it means it will have to be it will i mean have to be addressed if it meets it but it'll still be required to do after the fact permitting to make sure that oh all right meets florida building okay yes it will have to meet the building energy code uh which has already been discussed as part of the planned permitting for for the application okay anybody else okay we'll go ahead and have uh the the opposition come up okay i'd just like to address the fact that i'm stating that uh and then where do you uh how are you uh i live directly next door to the property um which is actually less than three feet with your name and my name is jc kelly okay i live is that good enough no no address part of the procedure 8442 120th street directly next to the property um and this property that the structure that they are proposing a three-foot setback is actually less than three feet i've i've got measurements here uh it's actually 31 and a half inches from my property from the property line um i can show you the pictures here that i have um uh here's so you want to put it right in see where the little arrows are right there there you go okay so i don't okay so here's the uh property line here here's my home your head's in the way here's their home here's my property here's the property uh requesting the variance here is the distance in between uh to the property line from my home is actually 6.05 feet which would be six feet and a half an inch and so we've got that so what i would be using is the six feet and a half an inch from my property to the property line so what i did was i measured from my house to my fence which to my fence which is i have 67 inches to this post okay so you got that 67 inches from the post the inside of the post of my fence which is right up actually my fence is a half an inch inside the property line so you have 67 inches there post the width of the post is five inches you add that that's 72 inches that's exactly six feet that would still leave me a half an inch inside the property line this is their property this is the outside of the post to the proposed uh the structure that they're proposing the variance and as you can see i got i got 32 inches plus minus a half an inch because actually i still have a half an inch from that post so 36 inches is three feet this is 31 and a half inches so based on that the variance wouldn't even wouldn't even justify the structure that they're requesting so i think you're aware like the structure is already there right this is after the fact right so they're not adding anything additional no but the current variance doesn't even meet the proposal that that that's there um i have some i have father i'd like to read here yeah um i'm i'm requesting that you deny this after the fact request for the variance uh for the bedroom addition with uh actually less than three foot side setback uh under the pennells county land development code chapter 138-230 a variance may only be granted if the applicant demonstrates an unnecessary undue hardship rooted entirely in the unique physical characteristics of the land the applicant's request fails to meet these legal standards for the following reasons number one the hardship is entirely self-created the bedroom addition construction without the proper prior zoning approvals and building permits seeking retroactive approval after bypassing the county's regulatory framework constitutes a self-created hardship florida courts and pinellas county code explicitly state that self-created conditions do not justify a variance number two financial and personal hardships do not qualify the applicant's need for a variance is driven solely by personal preference for extra square footage to justify having an additional bedroom to gain more occupants for their short-term rental and the financial burden of having to modify or removing an unpermitted structure this is an economic hardship which is legally insufficient to justify a variance three lack of unique top of unique property conditions there are no unique physical constraints topographical anomaly anomalies or irregular lot shapes inherent to the specific piece of land that prevent it from being used in full compliance with county setback and zoning laws neighboring properties consistently adhere to these standards four material detriment to adjacent properties granting this retroactive variance would codify an encroachment that negatively negatively impacts the surrounding neighborhood this addition to this short-term rental property would greatly add to the noise levels compromising my and other neighbor neighboring residential properties peace and privacy it severely encroaches on the already small amount of space between properties blocks natural airflow and creates a dense wall of structure that alters the character of our neighborhood furthermore the increased footprint may negatively impact local stormwater drainage by exceeding the allowable allowed impervious ratios allowing this structure to remain the and after the fact variance creates a problematic precedent that rewards unpermitted construction at the expense of law-abiding neighbors and established community standards for these reasons i respectfully urge the board to uphold the the integrity of the pinellas county land development land development code and this application thank you for your time consideration and dedication to protecting our community all right thank you and then we'll have them uh the other applicant come up for rebuttal and then just really oh sorry there's another app we have someone who's uh okay okay that's fine do you do we want to i guess we did that kind of out of order um yeah it's fine but we didn't realize there was another person in favor yeah so come on come on up and then really while you come up uh a quick you know just confirmation here so without the air conditioning unit this was already approved right correct back in 2012 2012 right so the only thing we're really here to the issue the on point issue here today is the the air conditioning not the structure itself well wait okay so they're right now it's not your comment period i'd encourage this board to move forward with the proceedings yep okay so go ahead go and come up good morning my name is tracy smith i reside at 12033 84th avenue in seminole florida 33772 i am a property owner on the western side adjacent to the struck the variance in question i i was here in 2012 when there was a request for the original variance due to the the six foot easement being down to three feet and you voted in favor of that variance and you were you gave me the opportunity to address you and now i am back again with uh the exterior of the property has remained unchanged since i moved in 22 years ago i have seen it be rented out as it is currently right now i have seen families i have seen couples i have seen green bay packers smoking den in that room and at no time does anything that goes on in that room influence my ability to enjoy my property i have no problem with it being a fourth bedroom and i thank you for your time all right thank you any questions no all right and with that now the applicant can come back up for rebuttal and then we'll have any questions and then move from there very much well i lament our neighbor mr cugliari's uh distaste for the existing structure unfortunately he purchased his property far after the existing structure which has already been granted a variance uh was built and so unfortunately this is not a question of any change as you mentioned to the existing footprint of the building the only difference that's happening as he mentioned is the habitability and that doesn't mean that you can't use it or that you can't be in it it it's literally a code related term as far as architecture goes with can you sleep in it or is it just for recreational purposes in either case it would be habitable in the in the vocabulary terms of you could be in it you could be there you could use it recreationally so it's a question of are people using it recreationally or are they sleeping in it uh and to your point as as long as the interior meets the energy code and that really is related to the window design to make sure that it's it's keeping in air conditioning and keeping out heat uh that it has the required electrical which it already does that's already in existence um and that it has a thermostat control within the space that a user could control their comfort level within the space there is no other difference between the original sunroom in fact in the original variants it actually has a list of different uses and how you can use sunrooms and sunrooms themselves can be considered habitable so long as they meet those other requirements it wasn't included as habitable in the original variants because at the time to a little bit of background at the time um the owner who had done that had passed away and his children were trying to sell the property and this came up as part of the sale of the property and so they were really just trying to get the sale to go through without any additional uh questions or concerns going into it and so at this point in time we are simply asking to be able to allow that to be a habitable space and in addition to that when something turns habitable within a property it is then taxable square footage within the home and so this actually not only financially the impact side which he discussed on the client's perspective but also for the city and the county it's going to generate additional taxes because it's going to be additional square footage that is now counted towards the property taxes so it will generate additional funds for the city to allow it to be habitable officially okay uh questions yep oh all right you guys can go ahead and sit down all right thank you all right discussion discussion motion well i just i think that it's already permitted that's the pro that's the problem i mean it's we i don't know who was here in 2012 but we didn't you know it's already been permitted so i i guess we have to go forward with it regardless and i think if if anything if it's if it was if it's a short-term rental and it was used as a recreational space if it's being converted to sleeping space better more than likely it's going to be quieter in that section of the house because you're not going to be partying out on this recreational room right right right so true so true all right um i moved to move for the staff recommendation of conditional approval in accordance with the findings of fact as outlined in the staff report and i know there's several uh conditions for them to meet and do we have a second i second that second all right all in favor all right opposed seeing none the it we pass and we will go on to the final agenda item uh var 26 18 var 26-18 is a variance to allow a total of 218.88 square feet of wall signage on a us 19 highway 19 frontage where 150 square feet of wall signage is the maximum allowed for the property located at 34106 us highway 19 north in palm harbor staff recommends conditional approval the subject property the subject property contains a standalone emergency room facility advent health palm harbor er located at the intersection of us highway 19 north and highlands boulevard the applicant is requesting additional wall signage along the us highway 19 frontage to add the words emergency and er currently only the freestanding sign located on us highway 19 has the words emergency along this main frontage both the proposed 34.6 square foot emergency sign and the 45.7 square foot er sign are to be located on the high points of the frontage providing clearer way finding identification for motorists traveling the us highway 19 corridor staff finds a requested increase in wall signage to be warranted as it would further improve identification and overall efficiency for visitors trying to locate this emergency room facility again we recommended conditional approval with the condition of all permits and fees all right do we have the applicant here yes we do do we have any opposition doesn't look like we have everybody else here so um go ahead and move forward i do have a powerpoint presentation but we can pull that up if there's any specific questions um pretty straightforward we're asking for 68.88 square feet of wall signage on the east elevation which runs us 19 to be approved for the advent health freestanding er um specifically we are requesting a 45.7 square foot er identification sign and then a 34.6 emergency channel letter signed both on the east elevation um although the facility front's us 19 the actual main entrance is on highland boulevard and with emergency being the only sign on the freestanding location uh they're hearing that patients are having a hard time locating um the sign and so we respectfully request approval for really an intent that is for wayfinding um and identifying for emergency purposes not necessarily commercial um you know identification or advertising all right i know we've had a couple of these before um any conversation on this questions i want to say something um the board of county commissions at one point you know made a huge change in the sign ordinance and often we we go again you know we go with that but i think in this in this situation and staff agrees that it's it's it's it's needed if you're if your patients and especially on 19 when everybody's going 80 miles an hour so i think that that's a a reason to to approve this definitely do we have a motion i move with a staff recommendation of conditional approval in accordance with the findings of fact as outlined in the staff report and a second second i think got a second and all right all in favor uh and a second i mean sorry sorry sorry well who is anybody opposed seeing no opposition it passes um thank you very much all right and now we'll just go to the approval of minutes for the october 7th uh meeting we have a motion to approve the minutes from october 7th so moved so moved and second i wasn't here so going right second all right and we have a second all right so those meeting minutes are approved and then we have to vote sorry it's just it's not working today um okay all right all in favor aye all right all opposed all right seeing none we are approved anything else no we will uh see everybody next month hopefully we'll have a meeting next month we should have some items on the agenda i'm i'm still working i know that i said previous last last meeting that we in tablets so no longer paper packets tablets are in there with the i.t department getting put together so hopefully christmas surprise we have tablets instead of paper uh but yeah it should be within the next couple months awesome okay we're looking forward to that for sure okay and with that we will adjourn all right