September 2nd, this is the Pinellas County Board of Adjustment and Appeals hearing. We received your cases in advance, we've studied them, and we may have visited the site. Members, if you did visit a site, please let us know that during the discussion of that case. Please understand, we do not bring these cases. We're citizens tasked with weighing the evidence submitted in order to make the most informed decision possible. We have no personal interest or stake in these cases except for the overall good of the community. Staff has made a recommendation on each case, and that recommendation is input only and may not necessarily be the opinion of this board. If you're planning to speak for or against any application, you must be sworn in prior to 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 by staff, the applicant should come to this podium in front of us and give us your name and address, then present your case, including any comments from any supporters in attendance. Opponents will then be given an opportunity to state their objection. If there are numerous objections, it's preferable to select one or two spokespersons. I don't think we have numerous objectors today because we have a small audience. Speakers will have three minutes. Any subsequent objectors should add new information, not just rehash prior stated objections. The applicant will then return to the podium solely to rebut the comments of any opponents and may not bring any new information at that time. Finally, we'll close the public hearing. The board will discuss the case, make a motion, and vote. Our attorney will now provide additional information. Good morning, Assistant County Attorney Kirby Kreider. Please note 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. Peer speculation or opinion not based on competent fact cannot be considered by the board. Lay testimony with fact-based support, including but not limited to meeting minutes, surveys, engineering reports, etc., may be considered competent and substantial evidence. Thank you. Mr. Shervick. Hi, good morning. Our first case is VAR-26-10. This is a variance request to allow for the after-the-fact placement of a 6-foot-high non-decorative fence, having a 3.1-foot front setback where 20 feet is required for the property located at 44 Citrus Drive in Palm Harbor. Staff's recommendation is conditional approval. The subject property contains a single-family residence with a vegetable garden located in the front yard along Citrus Drive, while the rear yard abuts a canal. And the property owner received a zoning violation for installing the fence that is above the 3-foot height limit in the front setback. So, a 6-foot-high fence must meet the required front setback, which is 20 feet in this zoning district. This existing 6-foot-high fence, it's a reed fence, surrounds the vegetable garden and is located approximately 3.1 feet from the property line, which is the requirement for a variance. The staff's opinion is that the 6-foot-high fence enclosure functions as an accessory use, supporting a vegetable garden. Gardens are permitted on single-family residential lots. The enclosure is also positioned roughly 17 feet from the right-of-way curb, so from the pavement, preserving adequate site visibility for both pedestrian and vehicles, which we had public works did go out and verify in the field to make sure that site visibility requirements were met. The applicant has also submitted a neighborhood petition with signatures from 26 residents in support of the request. Again, staff recommends conditional approval and required to get all permits and pay fees and comply with Code Section 158.332, which is fence in the floodplain, if there's any requirements needed for that. Again, since this is an after-the-fact request, we do look at the conditions for if it qualifies for an after-the-fact, and which it did during our review, so that's in your staff report as well. Okay. Would you please give us your name and address? My name is Kimmy H. Love. I'm at 44 Citrus Drive. And tell us exactly what's going on at your house. I am permanently disabled, and I also have silicone poisoning, so I'm required, my doctor suggested, for me to grow my own vegetables and eat organically, which I've been following and doing, which brings me joy as well. And I'm trying to do the best I can and shield my garden from the predators, which are the, in Pinellas County, we have fruit tree rats, live on Lake Tarpon, and we have the, I can't remember the name of the big-looking grasshoppers, that, you know, loopers, that will eat your entire vegetation. So I've just done what I thought was right to protect it. Can I ask you, why didn't you do this in your backyard, where people normally would have vegetable gardens? Correct. There is no space in my backyard, nor is there any sun. It's shaded in my back, excuse me, and there's, it's very little space. You back up to the canal? I do. Yeah, most of my backyard's decking. Did anybody on this panel visit the site? I did. I did? Yeah, please make it known in case it comes up if you did not. Is there anybody here in objection to this case? I don't see anybody. We did have a letter from a neighbor who was complaining about bird waste on his car that he thought was garden-attracted birds. Otherwise, I think, we had the petition of support, and then I did note that the support petition was all people living on Citrus Drive. Correct. And there, I think it was another letter of support. I would like to hear comments from the board of those who visited the site. Michael, I just had a question on, I guess what we're doing is because it's the reed fencing, that that's part of what, that would be part of the permitting, or the, whatever. Variance. Thank you. The variance. Yes. Thank you. We look at, we have a definition in our code standards for decorative fence. And reed, a reed fence is not a decorative fence, so it requires our non-decorative fence, which is that setback. So that's why the median of 20-foot setbacks, that's why the variance request is for that. And we want to note the, you know, the fence type, that it's reed, it's a non-decorative. And a couple neighbors mentioned that they would rather, that they thought it should be three foot rather than six foot. Yeah, the, the request as it came in is, is the, the size of the, the plants and stuff where, are, are taller than a three foot. If it were three foot, it wouldn't be here in this case, correct? Is that, is that right? Yeah. We're only here because the fence is six foot. It's six foot. Okay. Got it. Yeah, and it, it, it always has to be a reed fence, is that correct? It, well, they, they're looking for, they needed a fence that has some type of protection to keep the, the pests out. So, so like a chain link fence wouldn't work. Solid vinyl fence. Yeah, we wouldn't. That would be, you know, just as. Well, yeah, it'd need to be some kind of opaque fence. And that this is just the, yeah, the fence that they chose for that. And the applicant can answer the reason why a reed fence versus a different type of fence. Why a reed fence versus a, like you said, that it would be PVC white fence would, to me, it would just look terrible. But the other fence is the water flows through perfectly. I was thinking about that too, like, because our street does flood. So the water comes through perfectly through that. And it's, you know, delicate enough for to, it's strong enough to keep the animals out, but delicate enough to let the water flow through. So I was trying to come up with, and that was the best idea through my research. I got it. Is there any other information you want to share with us? Any, any other comments from board members? I'll entertain a motion. I make a motion for approval based on staff's findings and conditions outlined here. And additionally, seeing that there's no one to, no one in opposition for it, I make a motion to approve. We have a motion. Is there a second? I second. We have a motion and a second for conditional approval in accordance with the findings of fact as outlined in the staff recommendation. Any further discussion? I just, I do want to say one thing. I, you know, I did drive through your neighborhood. It's a lovely neighborhood. And I just, I'm just not comfortable. I don't, I don't really like, I understand your situation and I respect that, but I just don't really like the whole look because there's some, there's some beautiful homes in there and a lot of stuff going on. And I just think that just doesn't, doesn't fit in with what's going, what's in the neighborhood. And I understand you can't do it in the backyard. But I did get the, that's why I did survey the neighbors. Right. I understand that. On the street. I understand that. Because there are some beautiful homes and everybody seemed to like it. Okay. I just wanted to say that. We have a motion and a second. I'll call for the vote. All in favor signify aye. Aye. Aye. I'm going to say no. We have two no's and one, two, three, four ayes. And motion passes 42. You have your variance. Thank you. Our next case is VAR-2611. This is a variance to allow for the construction of an attached one-story accessory dwelling unit. Approximately 250 square feet in area, having a 4.78-foot side street setback to the eastern property line along the 16th Street right-of-way where 10 feet is required. For the property located at 1548 Illinois Avenue in Palm Harbor, staff recommends conditional approval. The subject property is a corner lot developed with a one-story single-family home and accessory in-ground pool and deck. The property fronts Illinois Avenue where the existing access is located with the 16th Street serving as the side street. The property is outside both a designated floodplain and coastal storm area. The applicant proposes to construct a one-story, approximately 250-square-foot accessory dwelling unit containing full kitchen, one bedroom, one bathroom. The submitted floor plan and architectural elevation demonstrates that the proposed unit meets all minimum code requirements for accessory dwelling units. The applicant would like to construct the accessory dwelling unit along the eastern property portion of the lot adjacent to the 16th Street right-of-way. So this variance request is solely for the reduced side street setback. It has nothing to do with the use. It's just a setback variant. So no additional variances are included. Staff's opinion that the variance represents a reasonable deviation that supports the efficient use of an already developed residential lot. The side street setback along that eastern property line, it abuts public right-of-way, so it does not directly impact any adjacent property owners. Conditions are that the applicant to obtain all permits and fees, also that the applicant to obtain a zoning clearance to relocate the existing fence out of the right-of-way, based on the survey that was provided, fence encroaches into that right-of-way. And then also comply with all the requirements for accessory dwelling unit under section 138-3210. Is the applicant here for this case? Moran. Your name and address, please. Sure. Edward Moran, 1548 Illinois Ave, Palm Harbor. Just a note to the board, there is a letter of support at your place this morning from, I believe, the adjacent neighbor at 1548. Oh, no, I'm sorry. The case is 1548. 1542. Lisa Phillips is the neighbor next door? Correct. Is she the one impacted directly by this, or is she on the other side? So, one of the suggestions was to put the EDU in the back, so it would affect her. So, that's why I was like, yeah. That was, yeah. So, the short answer is yes. Is there anyone here in objection to this case? No, I see no objectors. Tell us briefly what you're doing here. You're adding an accessory dwelling unit, which will have a kitchen and bathroom, which makes it an accessory dwelling unit. And it's attached to your house on the east side, I think? East side, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, short story is, bought this house about a year ago or so. And, unfortunately, it was a three-bedroom, two-path, and we have folks coming in from all parts of the country, my family. And I also work from home. So, we had decided to see options about either building on top, because it looks like that's, so I'm fairly new to the area and to the state. But we had asked about what that would look like to build up. And, unfortunately, economically, it didn't make any sense. Also, my thought process was if we spent all this money, the ROI, if we were to sell it, we wouldn't get it back. So, the ADU was an option. I had called several contractors. And then, Ben and I had a suggestion of, well, why don't we just attach it to the house? So, the main use of the ADU is two-fold. One is really to have an extra bedroom, office space. And the reason why we have a bathroom is for guests. Okay. So, the placement of this ADU is roughly five feet from the side setback. Ten feet is required. So, we're looking for roughly approximately five feet of relief. Correct. Any comments from the board members? No objections. Anybody care to make a motion? I'll make a motion. I move for the staff recommendation of conditional approval in accordance with the findings of fact as outlined in the staff report. The motion is here, second. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor signify aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. You have your variance. Appreciate it. Thank you. Our next case is VAR-26-12. Two variances are being requested for the R2 zone property located at 8381 Monarch Circle North and Unincorporated Seminole. A variance to allow for the replacement of an in-ground pool having a 12-foot front setback from Water's Edge to the eastern property line along the 122nd Street North right away where 20 feet is required. And a variance to allow for the construction of a pool screen enclosure having an 11-foot front setback to the eastern property line along the 122nd Street North right away where 20 feet is required. Staff recommends conditional approval of both variances. The subject property is a double-fronted lot developed with a one-single-family home, covered patio, in-ground pool, and decking. The lot fronts on Monarch Circle to the west where the access is provided, front doors where it faces. But there's also 122nd Street North is on the east, which functions as the rear of the property. The site is not located in any designated floodplain or coastal storm area. In 2007, the board granted a variance allowing for the existing in-ground pool to be set back approximately 12 1⁄2 feet from the eastern property line where 15-foot setback was previously required. So the applicant proposes to construct a new rectangular in-ground pool with accompanying deck to replace the existing damaged pool. In addition, they're also seeking the variance for the pool screen enclosure to be installed over the proposed decking. So the new pool would be set back approximately 12 feet from the eastern property line where the old one was 12 1⁄2 feet. And the pool screen enclosure would ask for a setback to 11 feet from that same property frontage. So by our code, just as you know, that a front setback applies to any secondary frontage that's opposite the primary frontage, which could potentially have access to the property, both the local roads. So there's always the potential that access could come from either one, which is the reason why it's two-frontage property. So staff's opinion that the proposed replacement in-ground pool, in addition of the screen enclosure, to be reasonable as improvements generally fall within a similar footprint to what was previously approved by the board. And we have the following conditions that we're requesting, that the applicant shall obtain all permits and fees. The applicant will also obtain a building permit and a right-of-way utilization permit to remove portions of the covered porch located within the designated 10-foot utility equipment, which they've discussed at DRC, that they're willing to remove any encroachments into that rear easement. And then all other setbacks shall be met. Would the applicant please come forward? Question of staff. This pool, the existing pool, was previously approved by this board at the same setback, roughly. Why wouldn't that variance still be in place? Because they're looking to now, and our setbacks have changed, and they're looking to put in a different design of a pool so it's not the exact same. So that's the reason why it's come back here. Plus they're asking for a screen enclosure as well, which the last time was... You had the screen enclosure part. It was just the setback part seemed like it was already an existing variance to that setback. Molly, when you take over, we should change that. Second. All right. Give us your name and address, please. Hello. I'm Bob Grosso, Abetter Pools. We're talking about 8381 Monarch Drive, Monarch Circle in Seminole. Veronica Latour, also talking about 8381 Monarch Circle in Seminole. Is there anyone here in objection to this case? It's just us and the security officers. I guess you're a kid in that regard. All right. I think, is there anything you need to add to what Mr. Schroederbeck told us about what you're doing? No, he pretty much said that we're evacuating what was in the utility easement, so we're taking everything out of there. There was a little concern about how close we were, so we pulled the pool back another foot. So we're actually one foot out of the easement. We were going to try to put it right on the easement line, but we even pulled back another foot for it. Comments from the board? Any questions? Just a staff question. If it was a side yard, which it could be the side yard, I mean, what's the side yard setback? Thank you. Gosh, I'm like, I'm struggling today for some reason. Six feet to the water sedge, and it'd be five feet for pool screen enclosure. Okay. Anybody care to make a motion? I make a motion to approve, based on the fact and findings of the staff recommendation. For both variances? Variance one and variance two. Second. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve variance one and two, in accordance with the findings of fact as outlined in the staff recommendation. Any further discussion? All in favor, signify aye. Aye. Opposed? The motion carries. You have your variances. Thank you. Thank you. We have minutes from the previous meeting, whenever that was. I think we have minutes. I remember seeing them. August 5th. Anybody read them? Anyone make a motion? Make a motion to approve minutes from August 5th, 2026. Second. I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of the August meeting. All in favor, signify aye. Aye. Aye. Those minutes are approved. Any other business before this board? I received, as I discussed before, we're looking to transition to tablets for the board. No more paper agendas, so I did receive approval, going through the approval process of getting the tablets. They may be here in time for next month, but we will let you know. That way, if you don't see a paper agenda, we'll let you know either way, whether it's coming or not. And if not, you'll have tablets up here to use. Passwords and login instructions. Yeah. Yeah. If they are, we can always take some time and run through it quick. Got it. How will parking passes be? Still mail those to you. Oh, okay. Yeah, those, yeah. Okay. We'll still get those to you. Okay. It saves them sugar. You can leave your tablet in the dashboard of your car. Yeah. I can't really. Green side down. Right. All right. No further business. We are adjourned. Good job.