And welcome to the April 1st Pinellas County Board of Adjustment and Appeals hearing. We received your cases in advance. We studied them, and in some cases we visited the site. I encourage members who visited sites to please disclose that during the discussions. Please understand, we do not bring these cases. We are citizens, and we are charged with the task of 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. That recommendation is input only and not necessarily the opinion of this board. If you're planning to speak for or against any application, you must be sworn in prior to testifying. If you've not been sworn in, please do so now with the clerk at the front of the room. We will proceed as follows. When your case is called, please come to the podium in front of us and give us your name and address, and then you will present your case, including comments from any supporters. And if there are opponents to a case, they will then be given the opportunity to state their objection, and any subsequent objector 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 may not bring any new information or testimony at that time. We will then close the hearing and take a vote, make a motion and take a vote on each case. Our attorney will provide some additional information on our procedures. Maria.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Maria White, Assistant County Attorney. The matters heard by the Board of Adjustments 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. Here's 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, etc., may be considered competent and substantial evidence. Thank you.
Mr. Schoederback, you want to call the first case?
Yes, the first two cases on the agenda, APL-2601 and APL-2602, you have a letter in front of you that was provided by the applicant last week that they have decided to withdraw both of these applications, so they won't be heard today.
Is there anyone here who is here to speak to or object to the either APL-2601 or 2602? Okay. We don't need to take any action on that since the applicant withdrew the case. Correct. Okay. Cases. Go right ahead.
Okay. Next real case. Next case is TY2-26-01. This is a modification of a previously approved type 2 use to allow the addition of a 28-20 square foot modular building to an existing place of worship in an RPDW zone for the property located at 475 East Lake Road and East Lake Tarpon. Staff recommends conditional approval. The subject property, it's approximately 36.13 acres located on the east side of East Lake Road. It's developed with a place of worship called Lakeview Church. The subject property is tied also to an existing master plan development community known as Crescent Oaks. The church is asking to build a new one-story modular facility dedicated to its children's ministry. The ministry would take place during Sunday worship services at 9.30 and 11 a.m., currently serving an average of 15 to 20 children per service, total weekly attendance of about 40 children. The applicant has stated that the building will not be utilized as a daycare, preschool, private school, or administrative offices. As a result, no additional parking is necessary for this expansion, and this expansion would have minimal impact on vehicular traffic. Separately, the modification does not conflict with the existing development master plan. Again, staff recommends conditional approval with appropriate site plan review, all permits and fees, and then the operating hours and use of the building to be limited to those as specified in the applicant's narrative.
Thank you. Will the applicant come forward? Just as a reminder to the board, all church properties that are approved in residential areas require a type 2 use. This one has previously obtained a type 2 use, but any time there's a modification, it also requires a type 2 approval.
Good morning, Mr. Chair. Brian Unks, 625 Court Street, here on behalf of the applicant. I'm joined by Brian Barker, our civil engineer, and Howard Parker, who's the church's representative. This case board is very straightforward, a very straightforward modification. I do not have a PowerPoint. I do not have a huge packet of documents for you. Thank you. This is an existing house of worship that's existed for many years, and we're simply adding a small accessory structure that will be used for Sunday services, and that's it. No weekly school or anything like that. I don't believe we have any public opposition or comments.
Is there anyone here who wants to speak in opposition to this case? I see no one. Is there any questions for the board or motion?
Motion. Seeing no objections, I move for the staff recommendation of conditional approval in accordance with the findings of fact as outlined in the staff report. Second.
We have a motion and a second for conditional approval. Any further discussion? All in favor, signify aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. You have your type 2 use.
Our next case is VAR-26-01. This is a variance request for the construction of a 1,000-square-foot detached accessory dwelling unit. 750 square feet is the maximum size allowed within the coastal storm area or flood hazard area for the property located at 3820 McKay Creek Drive in unincorporated Largo. Staff's recommendation is denial of the case. The subject property consists of two platted lots, lots 43 and 44, of the Harbor Hills First Edition Subdivision and is developed with a detached single-family home located entirely on lot 44. The property is in the coastal storm area, the McKay Creek floodplain, and Hurricane Evacuation Zone A. The applicant plans to construct a new 1,000-square-foot detached accessory dwelling unit on lot 43 adjacent to the current residence. Staff recommends, again, denial of the crest as FILA does not meet the criteria for granting variances. During the DRC meeting discussion, the following staff concerns were raised, the additional residential development in the floodplain, the lots could be split and a new house could be built upon the vacant lot, and no site-related hardships were presented. I can go over any more of the criteria if the board would like.
Is the applicant here for the case? Would you please come forward to ODM? State your name and address, please.
Kelsey Brummett, 3820 McKay Creek Drive.
Ricky Brummett, 3820 McKay Creek Drive.
So, a clarification of staff. The 750-square-foot regulation is put in by code purely because to reduce the potential loss in a flood hazard. Is that the rationale? That's correct. So, but if it were, if the lots were built separately, you could build any size house on that lot. Is that correct, or is there a limitation also on a primary house?
If the lots were split, you could build a new house that you would need to meet the zoning regulations, setbacks, height, you know, as long as you fit in that envelope and met, you know, floodplain requirements as well, you know, elevation.
Okay, so the limitation only applies to an accessory dwelling, not to a primary dwelling. That's correct. Okay.
Michael, it could be built, so if it was in a regular lot, it could be built at the 1,000 foot? I mean, without the floodplain, I mean, like in a...
Yeah, if it was not in a coastal storm area or in a floodplain, the size limitation is 1,000 square feet.
Or if the two lots were separated, it could be built. You could build a 1,000 square foot house. Right. Okay. Go ahead and tell us what you're trying to do. I think we understand it, but tell us.
Okay. We're requesting a variance to allow an increase in the accessory dwelling unit from 750 to 1,000 square feet in order to create a safe and functional living space for elderly family members. The primary challenge with the current 750 square foot limitation is that it does not allow us to properly design for aging in place while still meeting the requirements for an ADU. Under Pinellas County guidelines, the unit must function as a complete and independent living space, including a full kitchen, a separate entrance, designated sleeping quarters, and support additional parking. When those required elements are combined with accessibility needs, such as wheelchair clearance, five-foot turning radiuses, wider doorways, an accessible bathroom, and living space for live-in assistance, the layout becomes constrained and impractical at that size. The additional square footage is not intended to expand the footprint necessarily, but to allow for safe and functional design that meets these requirements. The request aligns with Pinellas County's intent to support homeowners who are housing elderly family members and encouraging multi-generational living. Our goal is to provide a space that allows our family members to maintain independence in a functional manner while close to home. The property presents a combination of unique physical characteristics that directly limit how it can be developed. While the parcel spans two flood zones, AE and X, only a small portion at the southern edge falls within flood zone AE. The majority of the property is elevated and located in flood zone X, which is where both the existing home and the proposed ADU are situated. Due to the natural slope of the lot, the usable buildable areas is already concentrated within this higher flood risk adverse portion of the site. A thousand square foot ADU is permitted for properties outside of coastal storm areas. Without the small portion of flood zone AE along the southern edge of the property, this would otherwise be permitted. One of the most significant and defining features of this property is the presence of two protected grand oak trees. Each tree is a canopy that spans over a quarter acre, with root systems that extend significantly beyond that. These trees are protected, an important resource in Pinellas County, and their preservation has been a central factor in our planning. Because of their size and protected status, they create a substantial limitation on how the property can be developed and require careful design to avoid impact to their critical root zones. When considered as a whole, this property is not comparable to others in the immediate area. This is the only parcel in the vicinity that combines this size, water frontage, multiple flood zones, significant slope, and multiple protected grand oak trees. It is the combination that makes this property unique and limits how it can be developed. We consulted with an arborist during the design process, and the guidance confirmed the importance of avoiding disturbance within these trees' critical root zones. When the tree protection areas and the slope of the property are taken into account, the actual buildable portion of the parcel is more limited than it may appear. The proposed layout was not based on preference. It was designed specifically around these constraints to place the structure in the most appropriate and least impactful location. We evaluated subdividing the parcel into two lots and constructing a separate single-family residence, but that option would require the development within the critical root zones of the oak trees and working against the natural slope of the site. Based on our engineer's evaluation, that level of disturbance would compromise the tree's long-term health, and they would most likely need to be removed during construction. It would also result in a more intensive development than what is being proposed. A nearby property on our street was approved in 2024 to construct a three-story ADU with a footprint exceeding 750 square feet, and that ADU is closer in proximity to the water than what we are proposing. This demonstrates that an ADU greater than 750 square feet can be supported within the coastal storm area and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. It also highlights that a strict interpretation of the code would create a practical difficulty for our property by preventing us from achieving a level of use that is commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district. Without this variance, we would not be able to use and enjoy our property comparably. The requested increase is modest and represents the minimum necessary to achieve a functional outcome while preserving important natural features and maintaining consistency with the surrounding neighborhood. We have made every effort to work within the constraints of the property and Penelis County ADU requirements to propose a solution that is reasonably and minimally impactful. For these reasons, we believe this request meets the variance criteria and we respectfully ask for your approval.
Mr. Schoederbeck, are you familiar with the other ADU that she's referenced in her comments?
No, we have had other properties come in before for this same kind of request for additional square footage above the 750. I'm not aware of any in this vicinity. The last one I remembered was out in Crystal Beach, I believe, Arizona area, which was approved by the board.
I know I'm looking at the survey and everything. Like you were saying, and I remember reading that too, the McKay Creek was just like on one end, I mean one side, one little piece of your property, right? I mean, then it must go around or do something?
We're on the intercoastal.
On the intercoastal.
Not actually McKay Creek. Okay. But it's part of the McKay Creek Waterway.
Okay.
But only one of our lots touches the water, but there is a small portion along the southern edge of both lots that's considered flood zone AE, even though a majority of our property is flood zone X. So because we have that small portion of AE, it's considered a coastal storm area.
And where you would build the ADU is obviously higher, what you were saying is higher.
The furthest point from flood zone AE and the furthest point from the actual water.
Any other comments from board members?
My understanding is maybe seeking some guidance here, but if when you're building a property, whatever the building is, whether if the whatever flood line touches the building is the one part that's applicable to that structure itself, not necessarily the property alone.
That's correct. And this is, while it may be mostly in flood zone X, the county also has its vulnerability assessment. And this, the majority of the property is in the coastal 100-year vulnerability assessment floodplain with, I can read it on here, is the flood elevation is 11.4 feet.
The majority of the property relies in X, looking at the survey.
Our engineer was saying this was more for, because he had the same thought, that this was more for clarification because we would be developing in flood zone X. But when we approached the building department to get clarification, they said that because it's a coastal storm area that the most restricted flood zone applies. Whether that's correct or not, I'm not exactly sure. I haven't been able to get a clear answer, but we decided to pursue the variance anyway.
That is correct, is the most. So that 11.4, if that is the more restrictive height level or the minimum flood elevation, that's what would apply. That's at the water's edge. No, that's what your minimum flood you'd have to build to. Right.
Right. So in their water's edge, they're at 373 or something like that. But then as it goes higher, they're at 9 where the proposed structure is. Can't see a finished floor elevation, but I see multiple digits, 11, 13.
11.34.
So it would just determine if they would have to, they'd have to at least meet that above that one foot above that. Above the 11. Right. So if the location of a structure is going to already be above that, they're out of that 11.4. They just, that's the minimum level to build at.
So it's out of that. Say again, sir? I said it's out of the 11.34.
I mean, the reality here is you can see there's two lots. There's lot 43 and lot 44. The house is on 44. The accessory building is on 43. If the owner chose to treat 43 as a separate lot, which I guess would require just going to the tax appraiser's office and...
It's a lot split. Since it's a platted lot of record, it's already recognized as a buildable lot if it's split.
So if they, if they, if that lot were treated by itself as a separate lot, this would be allowable. It's not, am I correct?
You could build a single family home.
Yeah. Or an accessory, well, or the accessory house they want to put on.
Well, no, you can't have the accessory without a primary. Right.
But for the floor plan that they're seeking, they would be without issue.
A thousand square foot house, call it whatever you wish. No garage, yeah.
If we did, just to reiterate, if we did split the parcel into the two lots, we would have to take out the grand oak trees. Right. And those are significant to the property, and they're also significant to Pinellas County. So this allows us to...
You could build the same house.
Right, but we're taking out the grand oak trees because then you have to move the driveway, and that's going to impact the front oak. You also would probably build something larger because the square footage in our neighborhood is anywhere from 1,500 to 2,800 square feet. Those are the average size homes in our neighborhood. So if we are building a... This says 1,000 square feet, but that's the floor print of the ADU. It's not the actual conditioned living space. So now we're talking about less than 1,000 square foot home we're putting in to a neighborhood with larger homes. So does it match? Not exactly. And then on top of that, every home in the neighborhood has a garage. So now we're going to build a garage so it matches everything else in the neighborhood. We don't necessarily need a garage. We need an ADU, you know. So if we built it as a single-family residence, one, it's not going to match the intent of what we're trying to do. It's going to be larger than what we're trying to do. And two, it's not going to match the rest of the neighborhood in terms of size.
And if subdivided, that creates another tax entity, doesn't it?
Yes. Yes, it does. And then it'd lose a homestead if it was applied.
Because you're using some of the one lot to take care of the ADU, right? I mean, so to speak, a little bit. Yes. That's why you're saving the trees.
Yes. We put it at the exact point that has no impact to the critical root zone, so the oak trees are preserved. It allows us to make it ADA accessible for elderly family members, and it still maintains integrity of our home and the way the lot looks.
Where's the driveway entrance to your house?
It's directly in front of our garage, and then the proposed additional drive parking space is off our current driveway. So if we split the parcel and built another single family, we would have to do a different driveway setup, and that's what would impact the oak trees.
If you look on this, the last page proposed on the survey, it shows the driveway coming off the McKay Creek Drive. Okay. Let's see.
Michael, if a house were built, if a 1,000-square-foot house were built on Lot 43, would it have to have its own drive entrance to McKay Creek Drive, or could it not share the driveway of Lot 44?
I don't think it could share.
You don't think so?
They would have their own driveway. I'm not sure. I know sometimes you can share, but then you're getting into cross-access easements and the requirements to be able to use. The driveway was built, a larger one, right in the middle where they split off, but again, then you're getting into other easements and agreements.
Yeah. I guess my point is that the structure, the allowable 750 feet, I don't want to say it's arbitrary, but it's just a number that the county chose to adopt. The reality is this house could be built on this lot, if it were its own lot. Pleasure of the board. Anybody care today?
I'd like to make a motion to approve, based on the abilities that the lot was separated, that it could be developed into a larger residence, and also in the other considerations of the Grand Oaks and preservation of those, and also in consideration that the proposed structure is in a ex-flood zone. Although that the property line is adjacent to McKay Creek, as long as you're building outside the base flood elevation, I think that mitigates any of the risks that that code is trying to minimize.
If I may, that was a pretty long motion. I would encourage board members for this item making a motion on pages two and three of the staff report. You'll see all of the criteria listed, whereby the board is able to grant or deny an application for a variance. I would encourage board members to tie your motion to approve or deny to the criteria that are listed in the staff report. Thanks.
So I'd like to make a motion to approve that the property does consist of two plotted lots, and that the proposed ADA is, requires larger space for ADA accessibility, and that the oak trees are not impacted.
Better, Maria? That was better. Can I move to amend that the oak trees qualify under sub B as an unnecessary hardship, just to be specific to the requirements and the criteria?
In contravention of the staff report, just to be clear.
Correct. Correct.
Good luck with that on the minutes. Sorry. Is there a second to that? Second that. All right. We have a motion and a second for approval.
Can I ask the board if any conditions of approval to be added on, I'd say, all permits and fees that they meet the rest of the standards of Section 138-3210C, which is the standards for or an accessory dwelling unit, and I don't know if you want to add any about preserving the tree.
It sounded like the original motion maybe had some conditions.
I don't know if the requirements is yours. I'm looking for something to give me some guidance on there. Okay.
So would you like to amend your motion to include permits and fees, compliance with 138.32, and preservation of the Grand Oak Trees. Grand Oak Trees. Okay. Those conditions, are there any other conditions you recommend? No. That's it. Okay. Good. We have a motion. Is the second still on this? Yes. Okay. Second that. All in favor, signify aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. You have your variance. Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Have a great day.
Thank you.
All right. Our next case is VAR-2602. We have two variance requests for an R4 zone property located at 1823 Sylvan Drive in unincorporated Clearwater. A variance to allow for the construction of a 1,242-square-foot detached two-story garage having a four-foot front setback from the western property line where 20 feet is required, and a four-foot side setback from the northern property line where six feet is required. And a variance to allow for the construction of this garage, which is approximately 1,242 square feet, which is 426 square feet larger than the existing 816-square-foot primary residence. So reduced setbacks and for an accessory structure being larger than the primary. Staff recommended conditional approval. The subject property is approximately 0.18 acres, developed with an 816-square-foot single-family home that was constructed in 1956. The site is also developed with an in-ground pool, pool screen, enclosure, and shed. The applicant would like to construct this new two-story garage closer to the front setback. The garage is intended to provide vehicle storage on the first floor with hobby room, storage space, and bathroom on the second. These variances are driven by certain site constraints. The existing single-family home is set back significantly from the front property line, and the presence of a septic tank and drain field at the rear of the lot really limits the options for locating a garage or any structures in the backyard that would meet setbacks. Additionally, mature vegetation that the applicant wishes to preserve further restricts placement of the proposed detached garage to a specific area on the property. The applicant has provided conceptual architectural elevations of the proposed side-loaded garage, which is designed to complement the front elevation of the existing single-family home and maintain the architectural aesthetic of the primary home's front facade. Additionally, the current driveway would be removed and a new driveway would be built designed to fit a side-loaded garage to avoid any possible queuing in the public right-of-way. The staff has recommended conditional approval. I would like to add that after the staff report was complete and the packet was ready to go out, we did receive some last-minute information. It is in your packet labeled as additional information received on 3-24-26, which includes an arborist report that recommends that the tree that they were proposing to preserve needs to be removed. He recommends that the tree be removed. So just wanted to point that out because a number of our conditions revolve around preservation of this tree and the siting of it. So some additional information that came in after the staff report was written, including one of our conditions of approval, which would state to demonstrate preservation of the tree. But now we have an arborist report saying that the tree should be removed.
Is the applicant here for case VAR 2602? Please come forward. State your name and address, please.
Jennifer Whitaker, 980 Main Street. I'm the representative for the owners of the property. Hi.
My name is Joanne Champagne for 1823 Sylvan Drive.
Thank you. I'm Pierre Martriskie, address of 1823 Sylvan Drive. Good work.
Just a question before you begin. Given the arborist report about the tree, is it your anticipation to remove the tree? Can we move that tree now?
Not necessarily.
No. In fact, we asked for that arborist because of the first meeting we have. We had concern about the roots and also the size of the tree. So that's why we are the arborist because we want to know if the tree will survive if we have to put the garage at this place. Basically, he told us that you'll see in the report that the tree is at the end of his life and that the roots won't heal if we have to cut those roots. So it will die like premature. I don't know if it's all you say it, but yeah.
I think the arborist report said the tree had a 5 to 7 year lifespan left.
50 to 70, but it's coming to its end.
Yeah. Removal of that tree after the garage is built is going to be more difficult for you and more expensive, but that's your call to make. I will disclose that I did visit this site. This is an unusual neighborhood. It's an older neighborhood in Clearwater. The road is a very narrow road. Almost two cars can barely get by on Sylvan Drive. There is a relatively large right-of-way between the edge of the road and the lot line, as you can see. It's a 30-foot right-of-way, so the structures on the lot, because of the nature of the roadway, the lot looks like it's significantly further back than it would be. It's 30 feet from the road, which makes, I guess, part of the argument why the four-foot setback is more tolerable than you would normally see. It's rare for staff to do an approval on something that close to the lot line or a front lot.
Correct. And also, since it's a side-load garage, which would limit cars from queuing in the right-of-way, that was another consideration.
Yeah. The thought was that if the tree were removed, then potentially the garage could be moved back a little bit further and get closer to compliance with the zoning code. But if you're going to keep the tree, I understand. Did you want to go ahead and... Sure.
Basically, they would follow the recommendations of, you know, the city or the arborist as far as, you know, because they're not experts with a tree. Their, you know, intention was to try to preserve it and keep it, but if they're told that it's not going to survive, then you wouldn't want to build a structure next to something that they're going to have to take down once they build the structure. So you're right about that. It is a very unusual street because it is very narrow, and I have been on that street a lot myself, and parking is definitely difficult. So with them having the side garage where it is, it is far away from the road, and it's not like a typical house where the garage would be right up to the sidewalk, or there isn't even room for sidewalks on this road. Basically, this is a very narrow road, and there's water ditches on either side. So their lot starts past the water ditches on the other side. So it would give them the space to get off of the road and then turn into the garage so they'd be able to keep their vehicles out of the way for... I tried to go down the road once with a garbage truck, and it was really difficult. So, you know, you don't want to have that, you know, interrupting the regular, you know...
Were you in the garbage truck, or were you in the...
They were in a big hurry, and I was trying to get out of the way. And I have a smaller vehicle, but it was difficult to say the least. So I think... And with their septic in the back, you know, their house is smaller, but it's older, you know, and they're not changing that. But they're going to definitely make the garage look like it's part of the original structure so that it doesn't look any different like an eyesore. It's not going to look like some ultra-modern thing that stands out and is up against the road. They would be willing to follow the recommendations about the tree. If we need to remove the tree and then move the garage back a little bit further, then so be it.
So... I mean, that's the owner's prerogative unless this board wants to direct otherwise. I mean, if I got that arborist report and I were building a garage, I'd take the tree off. Right. That's me. Right. Comments from the board members?
So one of the... In the criteria, did we say something? I missed the beginning of it. We said something about the tree that part of the reason for granting it was the preservation or...
Yes. So, you know, some of... One of the special conditions on the property is the addition of existing mature vegetation, which would restrict the available area for the proposed detached garage placement on the front portion. So we looked at that under special conditions, unnecessary hardship, and minimum code deviation. So those three criteria we looked at. And as you're preserving, by preserving the tree, you're very limited in the placement of the garage, especially with vehicle turning movements. You know, you have to count that into the impact as well as, you know, trying to shoehorn it in. If you can't get the vehicle turning movements, then it doesn't work as well.
I guess now it's more of a, even if you took it out, there's the hardship of... I think what you were trying to say earlier was the roots, because you'd have to take out the roots too, which is the big problem, not just trim it or cut it down. So I think it's still... In my opinion, I think it still meets the same spirit of what the staff was trying to say, even if they did take the tree down, so... Right.
I would add in also, there is, by the way, there is correspondence from a neighbor who is objecting to the variance. But I would say that when I did visit the site, there are other homes on this street that similarly are placed very close to the front lot line. There's one, two doors to the south that appears to be right, also right up to the lot line. I suspect a good number of the homes predated the zoning code in Pinellas County being built in the 50s. So...
Yeah, there's a mix of setbacks out there, some that are close, which were probably prior to setback requirement. Yeah.
Yeah. So it's an odd street in that regard, in that it's got older houses kind of staggered around there. Is there... I'm sorry. Is there anyone here to speak against this application? Raise your hand so I can see it. No? Okay. So we did have the one letter of objection. Pleasure of the board?
All due. Seeing no objections, I move for staff recommendation of conditional approval in accordance with the finding of faxes outlined in the staff report.
I'll second. All the way.
Okay, so that, just to clarify, your motion does not require any change to the tree or removal of the tree?
No, I think that's up to them.
Okay. We have a motion and a second for the staff's report of conditional approval. Is there any further discussion?
One question on the staff report. It says the applicant shall obtain a tree permit and submit a plan that demonstrates preservation of existing trees.
Yeah, and then it says also outlines mitigation measures for any proposed tree removal to address, you know, potential impacts. Okay. So now they have the arborist report when, if they go forward, it's the, you know, the tree permit. We're, if they can preserve the tree, we'd like to see it preserved. But if they have arborist report that demonstrates it needs to be removal, that meets that requirement. Okay.
We have a motion and a second. If there's no further discussion, all in favor signify aye. Aye.
Aye.
Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. You have your variance. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Next case is VAR-26-03. This is a variance request to allow for the construction of an 8-foot tall masonry wall with columns having a 10-foot front setback where 25 feet is required for the property located at 3465 Keystone Road in East Lake Tarpon. Staff recommends conditional approval. Subject property is approximately 7.58 acres, zoned residential agriculture, wellhead protection overlay, developmental family home, and residential accessory structures. The property has direct frontage and takes access off of Keystone Road, which is a county arterial road. Additionally, Keystone Road is designated as a scenic non-commercial corridor. The applicant would like to build its 8-foot tall masonry wall along the entire frontage of the residential lot, which spans approximately 401 linear feet. So the nearest section of the proposed wall would be situated 10 feet from the front property line. According to the applicant, placing the wall near the roadway is intended to address challenges presented by this heavily trafficked roadway, enhance security, preserving clean, cohesive design, while ensuring no adverse impacts to the neighboring properties. In addition, you can see on the survey there's a wetland area that sits hatched in yellow on the survey. If this wall was built to the 25-foot setback, it would impact the wetland area on the east side of the property. So this pushes the wall then forward, which is outside of the wetland area. So again, staff recommends conditional approval. We do have conditions on there, one of them being meeting the scenic non-commercial corridor landscape buffering, which will require trees and hedge along the outside of the wall to break up the expanse of a large blank wall.
Is the applicant here for case VAR 2603, Keystone Road?
My name is Drew Donegan, Donegan Design, representative for the applicant, address 3320 8th Avenue North. The applicant purchased this property to help to build a new home on this property. Some of the neighboring properties also have very large masonry walls that are close to the property line. So the owner was under the assumption that he would be able to do the same. We do have documents or I guess the county has documents of other variances being approved on the road with even higher walls being approved. The owner basically just wants security for his family. Having a road that has 17,000 cars daily on it is quite a bit and wants to provide some sort of privacy for his yard while also staying out of that wetland area. Is there anyone here in opposition to this case?
I see none. Okay, so this is not unusual in this neighborhood to have these walls, am I correct? That's correct.
There's a number of variances that have been approved. Walls, subdivision, further a little bit to the west and a single family home. Then there's some other subdivisions that have walls on the front as well.
If this is approved, can you just tell us what the finish would be on the wall? Well, the staff recommendation requires that a finished appearance be placed on it.
Is that going to be stucco, brick, or some other? Likely stucco finish on the outside. Stucco painted and the owner has to maintain both sides of that wall?
Correct, yes.
And also the landscape requirements, we're planning on doing all that on the outside as well. Pleasure of the board.
I'm seeing no objection based on staff recommendation of conditional approval. I'll move.
Second. In accordance with the findings of fact that the staff outlined?
Those words. We have a motion and a second.
Is there any further discussion? All in favor signify aye? Aye. Opposed? The motion carries unanimously. You have your variance. Thank you.
Next case is VAR-26-04. The following four variances are being requested for R3 zone property located at 844 Brookwood Drive South and unincorporated St. Petersburg. Number one is a variance to allow for the construction of a single family home having a 12 foot 6 inch front setback from the western property line along Brookwood Drive South where 20 feet is required and a 10 foot front setback from the eastern property line along Brookwood Court South where 20 feet is required. Number two is a variance to allow for the construction of a front porch as part of the new single family home having a 6 foot 3 inch front setback from the western property line along Brookwood Drive South right away where 20 feet is required. Number three is a variance to allow for the construction of an in-ground pool having a 14 foot 8 inch front setback from the south right away where 20 feet is required and an 11 foot front setback from the water's edge to the eastern property line along the Brookwood Court South right away where 20 feet is required. Number four is a variance to allow for the construction of a detached two-story accessory dwelling unit which is approximately 576 square feet in area having a 10 foot 4 inch front setback from the western property line along the Brookwood Drive South right away where 20 feet is required and a 10 foot front setback from the eastern property line along the Brookwood Court South right away where 20 feet is required. And that's a lot and that's a lot and I can repeat everything and and any time you need it and because there's a lot of record and staff's recommendation is conditional approval for the construction of the single family home and front porch that's request one and two and then denial of the pool and the accessory dwelling unit which is request three and four. So this subject property is point one acre it's a triangular platted lot of record record Brookwood subdivision lot 97 property has two frontages Brookwood Drive South and Brookwood Court South the site is currently approved with a single family home built 1952 along with a carport and an above ground pool. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing home and accessory structures to construct new two-story residence and in ground pool and accessory dwelling unit there's no pool screening closure included in this plan. The staff has no objection to the conditional approval of the request to construct a single family home and front porch as it appears to satisfy the criteria for granting variances. However, staff cannot support the addition of the addition of the pool and accessory dwelling unit request as it does not meet the criteria for granting variances found in section 138.231. The placement of the accessory dwelling unit and in ground pool appears to over maximize utilization of the lot. Although the lot configuration does present certain design challenges, these accessory improvements can be reconfigured to meet the required minimum building setbacks. Land development code setback requirements are intended to ensure that residential accessory structures meet minimum criteria and all other applicable standards of the underlying zone district. For staff does not support the setback related requests for the in-ground pool and accessory dwelling unit. So the lot is, if you look at the size of the lot, it's 0.111 acres, 4,792 square feet. When you take into account of all the setback requirements, they have a buildable area, which is approximately 665 square feet, where they would be able to meet all setbacks. So this is the reason why, based on the shape of the property, the size that staff has recommended, conditional approval for a single-family home with reduced setbacks, but denial of the pool and accessory dwelling unit.
Is the applicant here for this case? Please come forward. So I would advise the board, this is about an eighth of an acre, pretty tiny piece. But it does have the unique aspect that there are frontages on two sides of the property, and the property only has three sides.
Before the applicant speaks, I'd like to ask Officer Jewett to weigh in with some additional information on the property possibly being used as a short-term rental.
Currently, the property is being advertised and used as a short-term rental. They do not have the required certificate of use that is required by 22-319 for operating a short-term rental currently. So I just wanted to make sure that it was advised.
And for clarification, to have an accessory dwelling unit on a site, the primary dwelling unit has to be the residence of the property owner, or can it be a rental?
The owner has to live in either the primary residence or the accessory dwelling unit. The owner of the property has to have their primary residence.
So if you're using the primary residence as a rental, if it did have the required permit, which it doesn't, you would not be allowed to do an accessory dwelling unit?
You could. You would have to live in one of them, either the primary or the accessory. Accessory, okay.
All right, go ahead. State your name and address, please.
Hi, Tony Tang, 844 Buckwood Drive South, St. Petersburg, 33707.
Okay. You want to add to what staff had to say about what you're trying to do here?
I'm planning to move into the house once the house is built. I'm also planning to move my mom down from Canada. I just need a bigger house. It's a very small house. But I ask for the conditional approval to be approved by the board of the construction of the primary dwelling unit in accordance to the board's approval, conditional approval.
Okay. You're currently renting this house out? Yes. Okay. That does require a permit that you don't have. So just advice to you in that regard. Many years ago, there was a member of this board who used to use the expression, you're trying to put 10 pounds of potatoes in a 5-pound sack. This is a lot going on here. Board questions? Anybody?
Well, I would just, maybe on the scope, but just caution you, it is a criminal offense to homestead exemption and not live there. So there's a process to remove that. It may be a smart idea to remove it and reapply when you actually live in the house.
No problem. Thank you.
Any other board member comments? Anybody care to make a motion?
Objectors? I don't think there's another one.
I'm sorry. Are there any objectors in the audience? I don't see any objectors.
So I have a question for legal. Moving forward with this, don't we de facto bless the offense, or does that, how do we separate that baby, split that baby?
I can really only opine on procedure as it pertains to this board. That would be a decision for the board whether or not to grant the variance, but that is perhaps a concern.
I just, if I were making this motion, I would make that a condition of the motion that he would have to obtain the appropriate funding for the rental property and or do away with his homestead exemption. That should just be a condition, I think.
And then, is it my understanding that with a reconfigured pool, potentially it could meet the requirements?
Well, I think here the recommendation is conditional approval for the construction of the single-family home. It's the house. But it's the denial of the pool and accessory dwelling.
Because I... It doesn't matter how small you make it, you're not going to fit it in there.
Yeah, so, and I... That's what I'm hearing. And I understand because the condition of the lot on the last survey page, it shows, you know, the buildable area of 665 square feet, which is almost nil. And then keeping the side setback, which is realistically the more, you know, the property line to the adjacent property at six feet, and that's still six feet on the proposed, that would be, you know, you're not impacting the neighbors negatively. And then you're only just, you're encroaching on two streets. All right. So, and I think that's where it becomes acceptable for single-family residents, but not the ADU or the pool. That would meet the criteria, I believe, of the undue hardship based on the physical property size.
Okay, so let me take a crack at it. Feel free to jump in. Based on the county's findings and conditional approval, along with the denial of the other pieces. Pool and the accessory dwelling. Pool and the accessory dwelling. I make a motion to conditionally approve, as long as we have the new condition of correcting the record on the permitting or application or legal matter that's currently alive and at hand.
So, if I understand what you're saying, is you're basically endorsing and making a motion in accordance with the staff recommendation.
That's an excellent summary. That's exactly what I'm saying, but I'm adding the condition that we correct. Homestead. Homestead and the rental.
The homestead and the rental. And the rental. And the rental. And the permit situation. So, that would not allow for either the pool or the accessory dwelling in it. Correct. Those are denied. Okay. Is there a second to that motion?
Second.
We have a motion and a second for basically what is the staff recommendation. And with the findings of fact as outlined in the staff report, adding the condition that the permit for the property to be used as rental property be obtained and or the homestead exemption status be corrected. Any further discussion? All in favor, signify aye. Aye. Opposed? The motion carries unanimously. You have what the staff has recommended. Thank you.
Thank you.
Have a nice day. And then a quick note. The property appraiser's office is actually in this building, so you can go there and get the form right now and do it. Scort you down on the way out. Where is that? It will be on the map out there, but it will be on the map out there, but the different floors of the property appraiser's here, so you can take care of it.
I appreciate it. Thank you so much.
Thank you so much for showing up.
And to my knowledge, that's the first time we have four variances on one application. That was a four variances request. A lot.
All breaking the law.
It's a lot. We have minutes. Minutes.
Minutes. We have minutes. Make a recommendation or a proposal to approve minutes in March.
We have a motion to approve the March minutes. Second. And a second. All in favor, signify aye. Aye. Motion carries. The minutes are approved. Next meeting is on May something. Fourth. Correct? I think the fourth. I may or may not be here. Quasera de Mayo. We're adjourned. Thank you.