Good morning. Welcome to the August 5th Pinellas County Board of Adjustment and Appeals. We've received your cases in advance. We've studied the case and in some cases visited the site. Members, if you have visited the site, please advise us of that during the discussion. 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 the case except for the overall good of the community. Staff has made a recommendation on this case and that recommendation is input only, 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. Here's how we'll proceed. When your case is called, please come to the podium. Give us your name and address. The applicant will then present their case, including comments from any supporters in attendance. Opponents will then be given an opportunity to state their objection. If there are numerous opponents, I don't think there are numerous, but if there were, you may select one to be the spokesperson. Speakers will have three minutes. 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 may not bring any new information or testimony at that time. Then we will close the public hearing. The board will discuss the case, make a motion and vote. Our attorney will now provide more information. Good morning. Assistant County Attorney Kirby Kreider. The 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. Peer speculation or opinion not based on competent fact cannot be considered by the Board. They 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. Schoedback, you want to call the first case, the only case? Yes. Good morning. The first case is TY2-26-04. This is a Type 2 use request to allow for the construction of five single-family detached homes on individual lots in an RM residential multifamily zoning district for the property located at 186 Hidden Brook Drive in Palm Harbor. Staff recommends conditional approval. The subject property is a little over an acre in size. It's currently, it's vacant. It's located on the north side of Tampa Road to the east of Alt-19. The vacant property is connected to an existing 43-unit condominium community that was built in the 1980s and represents the undeveloped remainder of a planned phase of that project. So although this parcel was part of the original development plan, it was never constructed upon nor formally platted with the rest of the condominium property. The applicant is seeking to construct five detached single-family homes on the property. It would be platted individual lots. This use requires a Type 2 use in the residential multifamily zoning district. The proposed lot configuration on the concept plan that was submitted shows that the meet-all applicable setback and open space requirements and each lot substantially exceeds the residential multifamily district's minimum lot area standard of 3,000 square feet and the site also will meet, you know, the density on the property. Along with the concept plan, there's also elevations and floor plans for each single-family home. We look at this case for one as adjacent uses, screening, buffering. We find, you know, this, the road, Hidden Brook, it's a private road. There is easements over it for access for utilities, which are all in place that were put in when the condominiums went in. So this would maintain part of that. Stormwater mitigation is planned at the rear of the site, which will provide a substantial separation from the proposed homes that are adjacent to the east. In addition, the applicant plans to install a six-foot high white PVC fence along those boundaries as well to enhance the screening. The primary access comes from Tampa Road. That is the main public access across this private road, Hidden Brook. And the applicant is proposing to design a stormwater management system along the rear of the site to manage and capture stormwater runoff. There's stormwater management with the condominiums that was built, but they're in an early assistance meeting that doesn't have the capacity, so they will be required to install additional stormwater management on the property. So again, staff recommends conditional approval with the requirements of a site plan, platting per Florida statutes, and all permits and fees. So this case is before us because the property is zoned RM, which is multifamily, and this is a proposal to do five single-family units, and that is permitted under the code with a type 2 use approval from this board? That's correct. And under the multifamily zoning, what is the maximum density that could be put on this property, one-acre property? So the property, the land use is residential low, which allows five units an acre. Okay. So if the property is a little over an acre, five is the maximum density. And if it were developed as multifamily, it would still be five? Same thing, same density, yeah. Okay. All right. Is the applicant here? Would you please come up to the podium? Good morning. Good morning. Give us your name and address, please. Andrew Strong, 1727, Aberdeen Court, Palm Harbor, representing the new ownership group, which is Yokesi LLC, which took ownership on June 25th from Jeffrey Brown. Okay. We are here today requesting a type 2 use approval under the president and existing RM zoning and residential low land use designation of five units per acre. We concur with staff's recommendation. We are requesting this type 2 use to go from single-family attached to single-family detached lots, homes, in an effort to bring to market a more favorable product of small 1,300-square-foot, three-bedroom, two-bath, one-car, two-car garage, single-family detached affordable homes in the upper 300s to mid 400 range, depending on customer finishes. Our proposed, or actually, we meet the minimum lot size requirements of 3,000 square feet. Our proposed lot sizes are shown on our proposed site plan, and I can put that on, can I put that on the screen, or? Yeah. Place it where the seal, the shield, the seal is. Let me just stop you for one second. There are, is there opponents here for this case? Anybody here in objection to this case? None? Okay. Can you see that on there? Yeah. Yeah, we hit it up on there. We did receive a couple of letters in the packet of opposition, but I'll let you continue for a few more minutes. Can you see that okay? Mm-hmm. Yes. Yep. So there's the five single-family detached lots on the screen there. In the top left corner, you can see that our lot sizes, our proposed lot sizes are shown on our proposed site plan in the table at the top left, the proposed site plan, and far exceed that minimum 3,000 square foot threshold. As you can see, the five lots are over double the minimum lot size requirement. We also meet the minimum setback requirements of 10 foot in the front, 5 foot side yards, and 10 foot in the rear. Basically, the hardship that we would have would be, given the current market conditions, we feel that the single-family attached homes with common walls, common roof, and HOA with covenants and restrictions are much less attractive to the typical homebuyer versus single-family detached homes. Single-family detached homes being much more desirable for home ownership, which has single ownership of all exterior walls, roof, and property. Exterior shingles, paint, stucco repairs, landscape, and sod maintenance don't have to be borne by multiple owners, and an HOA with monthly fees that can go up over time, as no HOA is needed for these five proposed single-family detached lots, homes. Single-family detached homeowner insurances and financing are a lot easier to process without having to deal with common walls, common roof, home repairs to the common elements, such as shingles, stucco, and paint, and lawn care maintenance, and HOA monthly fees, as there are no HOA covenants and restrictions that you would typically find with attached dwellings when you go to the single-family detached five lots. As a builder, single-family detached homes are a lot easier to finance the construction of one home at a time instead of having to finance five homes at the same time. It is a lot easier to pre-sell one house versus multiple homes prior to starting construction as well. As a single detached home, we can also build one model home and pre-sell off of that model. Single-family detached homes are a lot less of a risk financially than having to finance and build all five houses at the same time if they were attached. It is for these reasons that we are seeking a Type 2 use, as outlined in the existing zoning and land use designations, and ask that you support and approve our Type 2 use application to go from single-family attached housing to single-family detached affordable housing. Thank you. Thank you. One question. The private road that you're putting in to service these, access to these houses, who will maintain that road? We would. We being? The new five owners of the property, when we do sell the individual lots, would have to have a maintenance agreement that we would put in place to take care of that. The road is existing. The road is existing. Yeah. The road is existing. Everybody uses it that's already in there. There's 43 homeowners in there already that have been using it since 1980. Okay. So those 43 homeowners are all part of the condominium part, right? They're part of their Hidden Brook Homeowners Association. Correct. We would not be, our people, our five lots would not be part of their HOA. But you're using the road. It's, well, we own that road, that part of that road to get in as access. But there is an easement over that property that we own as part of the approved and recorded plat of the whole subdivision. So everybody uses it now, you know, and, you know, it'll have to be, we might have to have some sort of understanding with the HOA maybe. I don't know. But that would have to be left in the approval process, I believe. Currently, the condominium association takes care of that road though. Is that correct? My understanding, yes. Okay. But. And that'll continue and they'll probably try to include these guys with their. Yeah. Well, and that's, that's actually it. That's my only thought about this, this whole thing, is that who's going to pay for the road because the road has to get repaved in 10 years from now. They're going to expect these five houses and if they're not part of an HOA or if they're not part of that same association. Right. And it's a private road. Well, we would rather have some sort of agreement that we would make do, you know, pay, each person would pay, pay their pro rata amount towards the HOA but not being part of their HOA because they have a lot of covenants and restrictions that are old and outdated that, you know, don't apply or we don't want them to have a restriction for the people that buy the five houses off of us. But with, with, with, if, if it's not a, if it's not a deeded restriction on these five lots, I don't understand how, you know, an understanding is not necessarily illegal. So, you know, we would have to have an agreement with their HOA to, as I said, to pro rata, you know, maintain that, that stretch of road which we own but we have an easement that's been put in place prior to that's part of the recorded plaque. So, you know, we can, we can certainly put something together to, you know, to show that we're going to pay our share of maintenance of the road. My, in. Because we, don't forget we have to do a new plat anyway. So, we've got to do a plat, we can put that on as, you know, that, that road will show as an easement and then we're going to have to, we could put something in there that, uh, the five owners of this property will pay their pro rata and pay their pro rata, uh, amount towards the maintenance of the road. MR. Yeah, well. MR. Without the kind of guidance. MR. It doesn't really affect our action here but I, I think from a practical standpoint, um, what, uh, what Mr. Hunsaker is suggesting is that at closing your, your deed documents need to reflect that there is some, uh, cross-easement access and, uh, and responsibility to maintain that. So, uh, but it doesn't really affect what we're going, what our action is here. Okay. So, there's no objectors in the audience? All right. Hearing no objectors, you heard the case. Does anybody care to take any action here? MR. I have a question, uh, for Michael, I guess. The, the six foot fence, is that a code requirement? MR. No, it's not a code requirement. Uh, it's, they're allowed to do it. Um, they say they're, they're going to do it for, for privacy, but it's not a requirement. Okay. Because I was saying, if not a code requirement, perhaps it should be a condition of approval, um, for consideration. Uh, because I think that the neighbors are counting on some sort of fence. Yeah, we have no problem with that. We have, uh, uh, indicated to staff, uh, that we were going to put a six foot high white PVC fence around the property. Yeah. I mean, it's part of the application, so it's in writing here, the six foot fence. So I think if you're approving the application, that gets included. Yeah, as long as it's part of the record, I, I would say. Before this board takes other action, um, Mr. Chair, could we make sure there's no one online? We don't have online participation for the board. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Okay. Um, I'll make a motion to accept, uh, the application according to the findings of facts and recommendations as detailed in the staff report. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor signify aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. You have your Type 2 approval. Great. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay. Uh, you may or may not have received minutes at a prior meeting. Do we have minutes? Yes, you have minutes. You have minutes. Okay. We received seconds. Thanks. Right. At the very worst, you got an electronic version of them. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? I have a motion to approve the minutes from last month's meeting. I second. The motion is second to approve the minutes. All in favor signify aye. Aye. Motion is approved. The minutes are approved. And we are adjourned. Great meeting. Hey, look. Maybe I can get out there before I get a parking ticket. Okay.