All right. Welcome, everybody. I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board for the City of Plantation. Today's day is January 13th, 2026. Happy New Year. As soon as the clerk is in position and ready, if you would call the roll, please. Mr. Spear. Here. Mr. Goldstein. Joseph Goldstein. Here. Mr. Quorman. Here. And Mr. McIntosh. Here. Thank you. We have a quorum. All right. The first item of business was going to be election of officers. However, since we do not have a full dais, I'd like to table that until our next meeting, if I could. So next item there is the approval of meeting minutes for December 9th, 2025. Does anybody have any corrections or comments to the meeting? Seeing none, I will say one for the record, which I already told the clerk about. Motion number one has some wonky grammar in it that needs to be replaced. Approval deny number one. Other than that, everything is good with me. So if there is a motion, or rather, I guess I'll make the motion to approve subject to the corrections that I just listed. I'll second that motion. Motion a second. Please call the roll. Mr. Spear. Yes. Mr. Goldstein. Yes. Mr. Korman. Yes. And Mr. McIntosh. Yes. Thank you. All right. Mr. Attorney, if you would, quasi-judicial. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good evening, everyone. For the members of the public, the members of the City of Plantation Planning and Zoning Board are public volunteers. They're true public servants. They do a wonderful job for the city. And they're your neighbors. They're here to decide the applications presented by the city staff. And they're not authorized to change any of the city's code. Only the city commission is authorized to do that. And there is a meeting of the city council tomorrow where those decisions are made. But tonight, these hearings, there are three hearings tonight which are quasi-judicial. So at the conclusion of these remarks, I'll ask you all to please stand and be sworn in. You'll raise your right hand and you'll swear under oath that the testimony you'll give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And decisions from this board require a minimum of four votes before the item is deemed passed. Short of that four votes, the item will be deemed denied. Like I said, I will swear you all in. The city will present the item for the board. Then you'll have every opportunity to present any information or testimony you have. And you'll also be able to call any witnesses you have to prove the case that you have before the board tonight in order to receive the variances that you're requesting. With that being said, if you're planning on speaking today, please stand and raise your right hand and be sworn in. Even if you may speak, sir, you don't have to speak, but you may speak. The testimony you'll give, please, you swear from the testimony you'll give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. All right, you may be seated. Mr. Chairman. All right, and once again, just because there are four of us up here, if at any point prior to coming up here and the case being presented, you wish to push it to a later date, please let us know that you're committed to the outcome once it's presented. Is that correct? All right. So first item up today is PM25-0061, consideration of a request to approve a practical difficulty waiver for the Regine residence. The property is located at 2000 Southwest 59th Avenue. It is owned RS3F, residential single family. Staff, if you would. Good evening, everyone. How are you? Happy New Year to everybody. Welcome to our new board member. I will be presenting the first item tonight. My name is Shamika Butts. I am a Planner 1 with the City of Plantation. Let me get my remote here. It is as follows for the Regine residence, PM25-0061. Here's a location map of the property. As stated, the address is 2000 Southwest 59th Avenue. The property information, it's owned by Mr. Regine Parry. The location is 2000 Southwest 59th Avenue. The lot size is approximately 820 square feet or 0.36 in acres. It is zoned RS3F, residential single family. The land use is low three. The subject site is developed with a 2,995-square-foot, one-story single-family residence with a two-car garage and a swimming pool. There's a zoning map on here that shows the subject property outlined in the blue hashtag. The property is surrounded on the north by a canal. On the south, I have Southwest 20th Street, then residential single-family properties, zoned RS3F. On the east by residential single-family properties, zoned RS3F. And on the west by Southwest 59th Avenue, then residential single-family properties, also zoned RS3F. There's an area map, and anything within the purple circle on the map was noticed. There's a 300-foot radius, and there were 40 notices sent out for this project. The applicant's request is from Section 27310C1A, and this is about prohibited locations. To sum it up, the code states that accessory buildings or rural accessory buildings shall not be permitted for it of the principal residence. This is about the location. They're asking to construct a new 480-square-foot detached accessory structure within the Corner Street side yard. Here's a Broward County property appraisal area map from 2025 of the property. The boundary survey of the property, and here's a site plan that identifies the location of that proposed structure. As you can see, it's outlined there in red and highlighted in yellow on the screen. It's also included the foundation plan, the plumbing, electrical, and mechanical plans, the elevations on the southeast and southwest, the elevations on the northwest and the northeast. These are typical wall sections of the proposed structure. I'd like to note that the construction material, finishes, and paint will match the principal residence, and as it relates to the structure height, it will match or will not exceed the height of the principal residence. As to the current conditions and unique circumstances of the lot, as you can see from this aerial, the lot configuration is very unique. The property was developed with most of the structure over to one side, only leaving one optimum location for any type of accessory structure or anything else that they would like to do, and also with the canal to the rear limits where they can place this. Other pertinent information is at this time, I have not received any objection, neither support, of this request by email, letter, or phone call. The project analysis criteria and findings from the Practical Difficulty Waiver of Section 2752-G2 are as follows. The request shall not be substantial. Meets. The request will be compatible with development patterns. Meets. The essential character of the neighborhood would be preserved. Partially meets. The request can be approved without causing substantial detriment to adjoining properties. Meets. And the request is due to unique circumstances of the property. Meets. In conclusion, staff recommends approval of the requested Practical Difficulty Waiver. And in the event, the Planning and Zoning Board finds that the applicant has proven entitlement to the Practical Difficulty Variance or Waiver and recommends approval of the request, staff recommends that the approval be subject to the conditions included in Section 5B of the staff report. That concludes my presentation at this time. Well, I'm sorry, not quite. I'd like to make one comment before we go into questions for the homeowner, applicant, and also staff. For those of you who were here, as you recall, at the last meeting, this item was deferred due to the applicant not being present. I'd like to state on their behalf, after that meeting the next morning, I called the applicant because they had been in constant contact with me. So, as I noted at the meeting, it was kind of strange for them not to be here. At that time, I was made aware that they were provided with information stating that their project had already been approved and all they had to do was make a wire transfer to complete the process. I then asked for copies of that information, and I was provided with some of the documentation from that from the applicant. The moment I was told that, I did ask the applicant to immediately hang up the phone and contact his banking institution immediately. I had not asked for any type of money, especially a wire transfer. It's not something that we would ever ask for or do. I'd like to happily let you guys know we contacted them just in time, and we were able to stop that transfer from going through. So, I'd like to just state that for the record and let you know that we were able to stop it, but we've put other measures in place, letting the applicants know. And even though we did explain to them at the time of their application, you only have one fee. It's coming directly from us. You can pay it online or come in and pay it in office. I think due to the communication, they really did believe that everything was good and they didn't have to attend. So, if you'd like to see some of the documentation that I have, I can give you that as well. The applicant and the homeowner are here who can give you a little bit more detail on that if you'd like. No, but thank you. And, Michael, I'm sorry. I totally forgot. It was written right there. To that point, just to clarify, from a process standpoint, because clearly scammers have figured out this is something we can do, I assume moving forward all applications or all responses from you will have that kind of like in big red letters, hey, when in doubt, let us know before. Yes. I've already included that in my email and I've also asked our director and spoke to our team letting them know that I would even like that information online because the things that I see here are just, they're awesome, but for a bad reason because you really wouldn't believe this. You've got to admire the creativity of the criminal element. So, I suppose maybe for tomorrow I'll bring it up, maybe at the workshop, but for other departments that might be forward-facing like this where there might be similar communication lags, that might be another common comment for the city to backstop. So, thank you for doing that. Applicant, well, we'll take questions all together. Applicant, if you would like to make your presentation, just name and address for the record, please. Okay, my name is Jean-François Tremblay. Okay, I'm a representative for Mr. Regent Paré. My address is 1940, southwest 126 Avenue, Miramar. Any comments or additions you'd like to add to what staff just presented? I'm sorry? Do you have any comments or any additions to what staff just presented? No, she did. She impressed me very well. She do an excellent job. And by the way, I need a special thank you very much to her because she helped us a lot in the process. And at the end, she explained the little litige. If we don't have her, we was in a little bit trouble. And when we received that, it was so real, and us, that gentleman here, he paid very well his things. He said, oh, we need to send that either way. It's 12 hours. And he did the job. And if I don't have her, I was in trouble. Perfect. Well, I'm very glad that that worked the way it did. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. So are there any questions from anybody who's on the dais right now? Do me a favor. Button on your mic just so that it can be picked up. Chair, Joe Goldstein, I actually did have a question. And it's actually, I'm new to the board, but in preparing, I'd read this for last month. And the question that I saw in the notes was the same question in my mind. The structure looks like, with the full bathroom, it looks like down the road there might be some future plans to rent it out. And I just wanted to give you a chance to tell us about that. I will explain very, very well that gentleman is a businessman in Canada. He likes his house. If you pass in front of his house, he takes care of his trees, his grass. He likes everything perfect. The storage he has over there is ugly compared to the house. He likes to have something very nice matching to the house. And the answer for the bathroom, because he has a boat. I always guess from Canada, come over, do it with boat, going on the beach. He's for the shower for the boat and the pool. Also, you say only shower, but down the summer, he put all his garden, patio, caution for the boat inside. And that's why he likes to have something perfect, hurricane, because he leaves sometimes six months, come back. That is the reason. He don't need rent nothing. He don't need that. He came here on vacation. And, by the way, it's the second time he buys a house and plantation. In fact, he loves plantation. He likes his neighborhood, and he likes the building clean, perfect. That is the reason. To that end, just because we have a new code statute that allows for accessory dwelling units. Yes, sir. And really, the only difference between an ADU and what you have, somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, is a kitchen. And so if you were to plumb a kitchen into that, it would be considered an ADU, which, at some point, if you seek to resell it, might be of an advantage. No. So if that's not a concern? If really we want to have something like that, we connect the house and we do the house bigger, it's not the point. Okay. You don't need to have a guest and rent something for, believe me. When he came on vacation, he had 3,500 employees, that guy. When he came on vacation and plantation, he's relaxed on his water. Got it. Okay. That was really the question I had, what the motivation behind not pursuing an ADU was. So it's nothing like that, sir. Great. In that case, then, any other questions or comments from the dais? Any questions or comments from the audience? Comments are closed. Do I have a motion? A motion to approve subject to staff comments. Do I have a second? Second. I move it. We have a motion and a second. Please call the roll. Okay. I'd like to make note that Mr. Freeman is now here. Yes. Thank you. Okay. So, Mr. Spear? Yes. Mr. Goldstein? Yes. Mr. Corman? Yes. Mr. Freeman? Yes. Mr. McIntosh? Yes. Thank you. Congratulations. Thank you very much. I will approve. I pin you here, everybody. Thank you very much. Hey, yeah. I will go direct. Thank you. That's – I'm still kind of amazed by that one. Next item on the agenda, PM25-0112, consideration of a request to approve a practical difficulty waiver for the Rivera residents. The property is located at 103 Southwest 128th Avenue and is on PRD 3Q Plan Residential Development. Staff, if you would. Thank you. Just for the record, Shamika Butts, Planner 1, City of Plantation. Good evening, Mr. Freeman. All right. So, let's get started. The next project that I will be presenting, it's for the Rivera residents. It is, as stated, project number PM25-0112. Here's the location map of the property. It is located at 103 Southwest 128th Avenue. The owners are Michael and Myrna Rivera. Lot size is approximately 10,001 square feet. Or 0.23 in acres. It is zoned PRD 3Q, Planned Residential Development. The land use is low three. The subject site is developed with a 3,448 square foot, one-story, single-family residence with a two-car garage and a swimming pool. The zoning map on the right indicates the location of the property in the blue hashtag. The property is surrounded on the north, south, and east by Planned Residential Development, also zone PRD 3Q of Lago Plantation South, and on the west, Planned Residential Development, known as Riverwalk at Plantation. The area map on the right indicates the notice. 70 properties were noticed in a 300-foot radius. The applicant's request is from Section 2772C3 of the Dimensional Standards on Table 72-2. This allows the maximum lot coverage of 35% in a PRD 3Q zoning district with RS-3K zoning district standards. They have those standards because when the project was approved by City Council on December 5th of 2001, it was approved as a master site plan and with the waiver to allow them to use the RS-3K zoning district standards. The request is to increase the allowable maximum lot coverage from 35% to 40%. Here's an area of the map, BCPA area map from 2025. Here's a street view of the property. And here's a survey of the property. And there in the red rectangle in the rear is where the structure is existing. Here's an up-close plan of the structure. It is existing. It's about 480 square feet, and it is attached to the home. It's a wood trellis. Here's the elevations of the property. The rear elevations would be the west, and the right elevations would be the north. Here's a typical wall section of the property. Here it indicates the column, and right there in the red circle is where the trellis is attached and how it's attached. Here are photos of the property from my site visit, which shows the columns and also the trellis. The current conditions and circumstances of the property at this time is there is a code violation open on the property from the Building Safety Code Enforcement Division. The case was initiated on August 16th of 2024. The violation was confirmed August 21st of 2024, and this violation is for the construction and installation of the wood trellis without the required permit. There was a final order issued to comply by November 13, 2025, and at this time, the property is still in noncompliance because we're waiting to obtain the permit for it. The next hearing is scheduled to confirm the fine on February 18, 2026. Other pertinent information is that this time, I have not received any written, verbal, no type of notification on objecting to this application. The project analysis criteria and findings are as follows from Section 2752G2. The request shall not be substantial, meets. The request will be compatible with development patterns, meets. The essential character of the neighborhood would be preserved, meets. It can be approved without causing substantial detriment to adjoining properties, meets. And the request is due to unique circumstances, does not meet. Based on this finding, staff is in conclusion requesting approval of the practical difficulty waiver. And in the event, the Planning and Zoning Board finds that the applicant has proven entitlement to the practical difficulty variance or waiver, and recommends approval of the request, staff recommends that the approval be subject to the conditions included in Section 5B of the staff report. And that will conclude my presentation at this time. The homeowner and applicant is here to speak with you, and also staff, if you have any additional questions. All right. Thank you. Again, we'll take the questions combined for both staff and applicant. Applicant, if you would like to make a presentation or add to what has been said, once again, name and address. Yes. How are you doing? Good afternoon, everybody. Michael Rivera. Address 103 Southwest 128th Plantation, Florida 33028. Thank you, Shamika, for making that presentation. This property and the pool, as well as trellis and a fence around it, has been permitted for the last three years. We've went through outdoors kitchens and pooled for construction. All permits, as far as I know, with Robert Coggins, he had indicated that he pulled permits. With discovery with our attorneys, he wasn't present today. He's out of the country right now. Basically, it was discovered that he didn't pull certain permits that needed to be done. So we had to backtrack. We discontinued that construction company. I was here in the last meeting and presented that. They understood that we had a different construction to complete the pool, complete the rest of the trellis, and get the permits necessary. The variance that we're just requesting here is, I think it's 3% from 37, 35% to 39.5%. The structure is pretty stable. The trellis modification setback and architectural design is sound. There's no real, basically, unnecessary burden to remove the structure because of the soundness of the structure. The architecture approved all the permitting, also, as far as the architectural design. He did modify that. And it was approved by the HOA as well. That's Lago South Estates HOA. That was approved. It was reviewed by the president and the board, and that was approved as well. That's all I have. Yeah, you're welcome. Any questions from the dais? Josh? Just so I can make sure I understand, a trellis is part of the lot, is the same as any other type of structure in terms of lot coverage? So, wait, he said it's attached, but that's not relevant to what the lot coverage percentage, is it? I knew he didn't know what he was talking about. Okay. Okay, thank you. That's all. Two things. First, for my clarification, because I had the same question. So, the trellis is attached, so there is or is not an increase in coverage on this lot based upon? Increase wasn't there before. So, adding to it. So, the original trellis is what we're talking about, like the smaller version, not the bigger one? No, they added on to the home. So, this trellis is new, that wasn't on the home. So, that would automatically increase the lot coverage. Even though it covers the footprint of a patio, which… Yes, because it's roofed. Got it. And that's when you're dealing with lot coverage. Is it, though? But, okay, I get it. All right, so the other question I have, and I guess this is for both staff and for applicant. You claim the permits are there, yet your contractor didn't pull all the relevant permits, so you fired that guy, got a new one, correct? That's correct, yes. All right, so in getting that new contractor, did that new contractor pull all of the required permits that the city needs? He just needed to finish the pull, and that permit was pulled, and he completed the pull. Yes. Is that a true statement? Because my understanding is we're still waiting on permits. You're still waiting on the permit for the trellis, the pull. They did pull a lot of things separate, the fence, the pull, the trellis. So they pulled all of that separate, but when the contractor, as he explained to me, kind of left. So is there… Pulling the permit and receiving the permit is different. Right, so I guess my question is, was the permit pulled and we're just waiting on February? Applied for and receiving, I think, is where… So was the permit for the trellis applied for? Yes. Yes. Okay, so we're waiting for that February meeting to determine whether… We're waiting for this meeting. We're waiting for this meeting. We're waiting for this meeting. Because that's probably a condition of the permit. Okay, now everybody's on the same page. See how that works? All right, so all permits are in position waiting this meeting, basically. For the trellis, yes. Just for the trellis. Got it. Any other questions? Any comments from the audience? Okay, public commentary is closed. Do I have a motion? I'll move approval subject to staff comments. Second. I have an approval and a second. There are a motion in a second, I should say. Please call the roll. Mr. Speer? Yes. Mr. Goldstein? Yes. Mr. Corman? Yes. Mr. Freeman? Yes. Mr. McIntosh? Yes. Thank you. All right, congratulations. Thank you very much. Happy New Year, everybody. Thank you. Last item today, PM25-0106, consideration of a request to approve a practical difficulty waiver for the Morhaime residents. The property is located at 11201 Northwest 7th Street. It's owned RS1EP residential single family. Hi. Good evening. My name is Amy Denter. I'm Planner 2, and I'm here. It's actually my first evening with you guys, so nice to meet you all. Welcome. Thank you. And we are going to be discussing the Morhaime residents, the practical difficulty waiver, PM25-0106. I'm sorry, and the property is located at 11201 Northwest 7th Street in Plantation Acres. The property information, again, the address, 11201 Northwest 7th Street, and the owners are Michael and Beatrice Morhaime. The size of the lot is 35,000 square feet, just under about 75, I'm sorry, 0.80 acres, and it is zoned RS-1EP. It is a residential family home with 4,480 square feet. It is one story, and it has a three-car garage and a swimming pool. The zoning map to the right shows the location of the property. The surrounding properties, the north, south, and west, are also single-family properties zoned for the RS-1EP, which is the residential single-family estate. To the east of the subject property is Old Hiatus Road, and then you have the north, new River Canal, and Westport, which is another single-family residential community, and that is zoned RS-5K. There was a 300-foot radius, and 19 properties were notified. The applicant is requesting a side yard setback reduction, and according to Section 27-296-T1, which requires any pool deck or patio in this zoning district of RS-1EP, shall meet the side setback of 25 feet. They're asking to allow a pool deck that has already been built at a 60.4 reduction to that side setback of 15 feet and 10 inches. I don't think that math is right, but that's fine. It's not relevant. That's what it shows on the site plan. Okay, so here you can see—oops, sorry. Sorry. I lost my spot. Sorry, guys. I was going the wrong direction. That way? Sorry about that. Okay, so I was trying to find that nifty tool. Here it is. Is that it? Aha! So here's the house, and up in this region is where the pool is, and here's a closer look at the scope of work in the site plan. So again, you can see here, this is our setback that we are interested in, and this is the plan of the constructed pool deck. So you do have—it is raised up probably about 42 inches from the ground, and it is concrete, and there's also a railing around the edge of it. So we were able to find the original pool deck permit from 2004 when the homeowner built the original pool, and you can see in this area in the red outline, you can see that this right here—I'm sorry, it is a little difficult to see on here, but there is, or there was, excuse me, a 25-foot setback originally when he first built the pool and the pool deck. This is the street view of the property, and the criterion findings, pursuant to 27-296-T1, the property owner of record is requesting the variance, is required to provide written response to the criteria, demonstrating. So the request is substantial at 60.4% in relation to what is required by the code, so it does not meet. It does not meet the compatible development patterns because other properties in his neighborhood also have pools that are within the setbacks. The essential character of the neighborhood would be preserved, so it does meet that. The request can be approved without causing substantial detriment to adjoining properties, so it does meet that criteria. The request is not due to a unique circumstance of the property. There was room, and the original pool deck did have the 25-foot setbacks, so it does not meet that criteria. So in conclusion, staff does recommend denial for this particular request. I guess there's a question for me. I just want to clarify it. Is the pool already constructed, or is it in the process of getting approved? It's already constructed. Okay. Is – well, we'll do it the way we did the last two, which is allow the residents to present. So do you all have anything to add to staff comments? As the others, name and address, please, for the record. Good evening, everyone. My name is Salome Uribe. I reside in 3134 Northwest, 109 Terrace in Sunrise, and I represent Mr. Morhaime. I'm pulling all his permits to become compliant. Just on behalf of Mr. Morhaime, so he's doing everything he can, and we're doing everything he can to become compliant. He's been part of the plantation community since 2003. He's also part of the plantation acres, so we've had to go and get approvals for plantation acres, which they have approved the pool deck at what it is now. One of the reasons to increase the pool – so Mr. Morhaime recently, I guess one year ago or so, he had a granddaughter being born. So he's like, oh, I need more space in there to be able to have enough space around the pool deck comfortably and safely for the grandchild as well. One of the things that Mr. Morhaime went and did speak to his neighbor on the adjacent property to make sure that everything is okay, and that he would be in agreement with the setback reduction that we're asking to, instead of having it at 25 feet, have the pool deck at 15 feet. And he brought a letter signed by his neighbor to agree that it would be okay with him as well, just to make sure that there's no objection from them. But aside from that, we have a permit pending this hearing, so the permit is just pending for the variance to be approved, so that way we can get that approval and everything else in his property is compliant. Any questions for the applicant or staff? For staff, I just wanted to know the purpose for the setback for the patio, the 25 feet. Could you just kind of explain that to any folks who are listening? Yeah, so from my understanding in the acres, they're very particular about the character of their community. They want to keep it with that kind of rural sense, so most of these lots are at least an acre, and they want to keep a certain amount of area on the lot open and also for drainage. Okay, I have a question for the applicant. So the pool deck is currently built, is that correct? Yes. So it was built without permission, and it's now coming to us to do that. So is there a reason why the pool deck was built the way it was when the applicant knew that there was a 25-foot setback that had to be honored? In other words, why not come to us before rather than after? That's a really good question. I have to ask Mr. Morhaime because I don't know. Yep. See, it's a good thing Quentin told you to stand up. Hold on. If you just name and address for the record, please. Michael Morhaime, 1121, North Way 7th Street, Plantation, Florida. The reason is there was a fence right there where the deck is now. The soil used to run, so I used to lose all the deck all the time. So in order to provide from doing it, I went to the fence line and built the wall and kept the deck. That's the only thing I did because I was approved for a fence. So there was a fence where the deck ends up now, the 15 feet, there used to be a fence there. Yep. But all the soil and everything used to run down, you know, with the rain and everything. So it went under the pool already. So in order to avoid it, because I'm only one foot away from the pool itself. Right. There's not even room even to walk around it. So we went with another, whatever, it was 10 feet. Totally get it. It's the only reason we did it. We didn't, you know, because we remodeled the pool. That's why we did the deck again. So we just went. Right. But you did the deck again and then expanded it more than you should have. Honestly, I didn't know I even need a permit. Honestly, I didn't even know. Because I thought I just, like you take a tile off and you put one in. Well, yeah, but you kind of put many more tiles in place. I know. You're 100% right. I'm there. I'm there with you. Okay. I'm just trying to figure that one out. I'm there with you. I know I was wrong, but I'm trying to correct it now. So in the way I can, whenever we can. Okay. So for staff, there were a couple of do not meets. Is the denial because of the do not meets? Yes. And the substantial reduction to the setback, which you are correct. It was actually closer to, what was it, 37%? 30% reduction. I think he probably just used the opposite side of the reductive math. Add something to that just to reiterate. So one of the main purposes of the setbacks in the acres is what she mentioned is keeping, obviously, the rural aspect or that the property has enough drainage. So there is enough lots, like impervious areas are minimal in that because he has a lot of green area. And we also went through plantation acres, and they have approved. So we have their approval, which is obviously something that we work really hard to get because, you know, they take some time to review it. And so I just want to kind of reiterate that we do have that approval. Just to verify, that approval is from paid or it's from the Plantation Acres Homeowners Association? From paid. Paid. Okay. Rob. Yeah, go ahead. Sorry. So, obviously, I have less sympathy for these situations where people are asking for grants after the fact, but I want to kind of be consistent in the way we analyze things. So just when staff is asked – when staff corrects that number, would that have changed your does meet, does not meet substantial criteria requirement? So a 37% is still enough – substantial enough that you would say does not meet. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the days? More of a comment from me, but, I mean, it seems – I mean, if the denial is based off the kind of community character, but the community seems to be okay with it, yeah, at least from my point of view, I wouldn't see the issue of approving it despite the recommendation for the denial, unless there was anyone in the public that had an objection. But that was it from my side. I'm going to just make it official. Any comments from the audience? See, get that? Because it's funny because nobody's here. Any other questions from up here? Any last comments from the applicant, from staff? No. Commentary is closed. Do I have a motion? Motion to approve subject to the staff comments. Seeing none, I'm guessing the motion dies. Well – Is there a second? Is there a second? It's the politically correct way to say it. Okay. Good to know. We do not have a second on that one, so the motion does not go ahead for a vote. My encouragement to you is to talk to staff to see if there's anything else that needs to be done to come a little bit more into compliance to change their opinion on that. Because as of right now, it's not a yes, it's not a no. We're not hearing it. We have a hearing for compliance coming up this month. I've been working with Mr. Morhaime in getting his property on compliance, and he's been compliant. We've done everything that we can to become compliant, and this is the last step. I mean, this is the last thing that we need to do. So at this point, I mean, I don't know what else we can do. You know, we've done plans. We hired engineers. We went to pay. I mean, we've done everything, new surveys, talked to neighbors. I mean, I've bugged Shamika so many times. And so it's just a matter of, you know, how do we give Mr. Morhaime another chance, right? Again, he's trying to make everything right, and that's what we're doing. He had to remove several things from his property, which he already did, and he's trying to become compliant. So I guess to that end, is there anything that can be done? So just to kind of reiterate what she just said. So, yes, they did remove a number of structures that were on the property that he had installed without a permit. So he has gone through. He has removed them. He had a pergola. He had two large structures on the side of the house facing the north old, I'm sorry, old hiatus road. And he also had on the other side. When you say two large structures, what do you mean? Storage sheds, what? One of them was like a very large garage. It was very large. I think he said he housed cars in it. He should, yeah. Yeah, and then on the side, on the west side of the property, there was a small wooden shed in the setback that he also removed that. So he has been working towards coming into compliance with his property. I can attest to that. So is this the only thing that's out of compliance on the property now? Yes. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. I'm not sure I heard an answer to what you're trying to say. Is there anything, is there any reason for further discussion with the applicant and staff that could create a little more alleviation of the setback issue? If there is none, there is none. And then the board will make a decision one way or another. But he's trying to give the applicant and the staff some time if that is something that would be useful. He doesn't want to waste time, I assume. Yeah, no, that's true. I'm just wondering if, in fact, there were other structures on here, and this is the only thing that's holding it back, and this is overall an acceptable property. Frankly, my biggest concern was whether or not paid was okay with it. And if paid is okay with it, so be it. I still don't see why. Now it just becomes an issue of whether or not they're building into the setback. So if the setback is truly the only thing that's in there, and we're talking about character of the acres, I get that they want it 50 feet between structures minimum in that part of the acres. It's not really a living structure. It's a patio. As I recall the overhead, there is landscaping along that side relative to the neighbor. Is that correct? I have a question. So it's not clear to me exactly what was built. This is a deck, right? So was there a patio? Was the patio extended as well, or just that there's a deck there? So it's just – it's a wood deck. No, it's a concrete – Could you come up here just because – So I'm just – I don't understand how movable or not it is because I didn't see pictures, so I just – I'm just going by the description. In order to remove, it's going to have to be bulldozered and everything. It's a concrete with a retaining wall. I also – I'd just like to respond to what the chair said. I don't agree with his comments that just because paid is okay with it that we should be okay with it. Oh, no, no. I was more concerned because – No, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm just saying that I don't like the idea that we're going to say that something's okay because they approved it. Right. I agree with you. It's just in this particular one, because of the flooding issues and everything that everybody has, at least they checked that box. Sure. So I'm glad that they did that. It was, I guess, a better way of saying it. Yeah, I had to regrade the whole property again. You went through – I went through regrading and everything. So it's all down to 6-0 now. Mr. Chair, the only comment I wanted to make is I don't – perhaps I'm going through the file wrong. I don't see the approval from the association, and I don't see the letters from the neighbors. It was discussed, but I don't know if you've submitted to staff. I have a letter here for you guys, and paid – the paid approval was submitted to Plantation as part of the permit for the pool deck. Okay. Because if there is a permit that's pending, it's on hold now pending the variance. I don't know if I saw the letter in the record, but it did reference that paid – did approve it in the record. I was just wondering, is there some compromise from staff, right? 30 percent, we said, you know, the last one was – we had a similar, you know, previous item. I think it was 5 or 6 percent, and that one – kind of a different issue, right, with the trellis. Is there any compromise that you'd be comfortable with? Okay. If I may, Michael Alper, assistant director. So the main reasons staff recommended denial were the fact that it was done without a permit, and also it is substantial. And, yes, unfortunately, we did the math wrong, reductively, so 37 percent. To answer the criteria A, substantial to us is generally 10 percent or less would not be substantial generally, depending on the case. So, obviously, that was more than substantial. So that was a criterion that we felt did not meet the criteria. They could reduce the deck a little bit under 10 feet and not need a waiver, and the pool itself, the water edge, is about 30 feet away. So they could either reduce it where they would still need a little bit of a waiver or reduce it to the required setback on the side and not need a waiver. Staff really doesn't have a strong feeling either way. It's just a matter of, you know, you didn't get a permit, and it is a substantial thing. And so, generally, we'd recommend denial in cases like that. And for me personally, the part that I'm having a hard time sort of deciding on is just that if they had decided to pull a permit previously, could they have accomplished adding to their deck without needing a waiver because they could have moved it to a different place on the property? And because, I guess, because they didn't go through that permit process ahead of time, right, then they built it to be noncompliant in a way that's very difficult. So that's the one thing that I don't really understand. And, again, I don't see pictures of it, so I can't really understand that aspect. But just generally, when you come after the fact, like I said, I have less sympathy for the circumstances. I just – just to let – Lisa Zilk, Planner 3, just to – if they had come in with a permit and if they come in with these set of plans, the comment would have been, hey, you're not meeting your side setback, reduce it. So there's the answer to – I mean, I hope that kind of answered it a little bit. Right, but my point is, is like perhaps maybe if he wanted to increase the deck, he could have increased it on the other edge of the property where they weren't going to hit the side setback. I don't know if that's possible. I'm just saying those are the kind of things that staff normally works with when you come in with a permit that doesn't meet the setbacks. Right, right. Okay, so to add, so there was a permit pulled for the pool before, you know, back in 2004, and where the location of the pool was already there. So when Mr. Morhaime is trying to expand it, there is no other place that he could expand the deck to have a little bit more walking because if you would see the old plans, there was very limited space between the actual pool and the edge of the pool deck. And so it's just, okay, expanding it to create a little bit more safety, again, you know, for roaming kids, if you will, to have a little bit more safety, more ample space instead of having it, you know, maybe moving the pool elsewhere in the property where the pool's already been built with a permit. So if you look at the right side of the property, everything is green space, and, you know, the kind of – the home is kind of shifted to the left, and that's where the pool is built. And that's, I think, you know, the reason why the pool deck is extended to one of the sides. Well, barring – I guess would the first motion have to be pulled and another motion made, or – Well, the first motion just died. Yeah, so – So – Barring another motion, we are – are we required to take action on this? Yes. Yes. So there we go. So the first motion – The action could be – So the first motion – So the first motion – I'll make a motion, and it's – with reluctance to do it, but I think based on what we've heard, I'll make a motion to deny the waiver request consistent with staff's recommendation. Okay. There's a motion to deny. Do I have a second? Second. A motion and a second. Please call the roll. Okay. Mr. Spear. Yes. Mr. Goldstein. Yes. Mr. Korman. Yes. Mr. Freeman. Yes. Mr. McIntosh. No. All right. So the motion is denied. Passed. Well, motion passed. Sorry. I apologize for that one. The motion passed. The motion was to deny the petition. So at that point, you're back to talking to staff as to how to remediate the problem. You – and I'll ask Michael to come up and make sure he doesn't see a problem from the staff standpoint. Some of the discussion about remediation – and I know there's provisions in the code that prevents reapplying for variances within a certain period of time when one is denied. If there is a lesser variance that's requested, I think the board can make that a part of, you know, the decision tonight so that they can come back if they choose to do that, so that they're not barred for – I think it's 18 months or 12 months. I can't remember. It's one year. It's one year? Okay. So that may be something you want to consider so to give them the chance to reconfigure if they choose to do that. Otherwise, their current plans are – To keep it as it is. Does that have to be made with a formal motion or – I think you should just so that if somebody comes in and sees that there's a denied variance, that you've given them the opportunity to also come back and apply for another variance that's lesser than what they've done and give them an opportunity if they choose to take advantage of that. Thank you for that, Clerk. I'll make that motion, Mr. Chair. A motion to waive the portion of the provision. There you go. Waive the portion of the code that would require them to normally wait 18 months. 12 months, I think. As long as the waiver request is a different request of – less substantial. Second. I have a motion and a second. I guess we – I'm sorry. Who was the second? Dale. Okay. If you could call roll on that. Alrighty. Mr. Spear. Yes. Mr. Goldstein. Yes. Mr. Korman. Yes. Mr. Freeman. Yes. Mr. McIntosh. Yes. Thank you. And I just want to say for the record, if the – to the applicant, even if you do decide to do something different, that doesn't guarantee you any approval here before this board, just so you know that. It's just an opportunity to present something that may be different, but there's no guarantees and outcome just because they agreed to allow you to do that. All right. Sorry, but hopefully we'll see you here soon. Any other business before the board? I just wanted to kind of let you guys know about the – we do have an administrative waiver process that Dan can actually approve. And I believe, William, you can correct me if I'm wrong, for setbacks, it's up to 15% reduction. So that's kind of what we base our substantial versus unsubstantial kind of thing on it. So when they're coming to you, it's usually pretty substantial. But for us, a 37% reduction is pretty substantial. Okay. Thank you. Any other – Maybe we should inform them of that? Who? The applicant. They'll hear it from staff. Hopefully. Multiple points, I assume. I don't know how you do that short of, like you said, getting a bulldozer out and destroying part of the existing structure. But, yep. So nothing else happening. We do have five on the dais. Can we go back to the – If you want, yeah. You have the ability to do that. All right. Let's knock that one out. Take it off the table. Yeah. So rather than doing that one – Josh, thank you, by the way, for showing up for this one. I appreciate it. He didn't mean it in any kind of way. No, no. Actually, I totally did. It's just that – I nominate Max to be chair. Okay. Are there any other nominations? That was a joke. Oh. Okay, well – Will. Are you serious or not? Now I'm just confused. No, no, no. Okay. You didn't say what the item was, but I assume – Well, yeah. We're going back to the chair and vice chair, and we didn't want to do just a couple up here on the dais with a quorum. We have one over quorum, so knocking that one out. Do we have any nominations for chair? We don't technically even have a list in front of us who are the active members, but – I'm sorry. Would you like to continue to serve? I would be honored to, yes. I will nominate you. Oh, I'll second the nomination. All right. We got a second. We got a motion and a second. Could we please call the roll? Okay. Mr. Speer? Yes. Mr. Goldstein? Yes. Mr. Corman? Yes. Yes. Mr. Freeman? Yes. And Mr. McIntosh? Yes. Thank you. And I'm sorry, the official nomination came from – okay. Freeman. And second was – okay. Now for vice chair. I'd like to nominate Max Goldstein for vice chair. Second. We have a nomination in a second. Please call the roll. Any other? Any other? Oh, damn it. I always forget that. Are there any other nominations for vice chair? Seeing none. Seeing none. Please call the roll. All right. Mr. Speer? Yes. Mr. Goldstein? Yes. Mr. Corman? Yes. Mr. Freeman? Yes. Mr. McIntosh? Yes. Thank you. All right. No other business meeting is adjourned at 723.