So, once again, to make it official, calling the planning and zoning meeting for the City of Plantation, March 4th, 2285, to order. To make it official, please call the roll. Ms. Gelfand. Mr. Stahl. Here. Ms. Demby-Berger. Mr. Corman. Here. Mr. Freeman. Here. Mr. Goldstein. Here. Mr. Della Grange. Here. Assistant City Attorney Quentin Morgan. Present. Thank you. Thank you. All right, first order of business is approval of the meeting minutes, February 4th, 2025. Does anybody have any additions, corrections, or comments about those minutes? Hearing none, do I have a motion? Motion to approve. Second. We have a motion and a second. Please call the roll. Ms. Gelfand. Mr. Stahl. Here. Yes. Ms. Demby-Berger. Yes. Mr. Corman. Yes. Mr. Freeman. Yes. Mr. Goldstein. Yes. Mr. Della Grange. Yes. Thank you. All right. All three of the items tonight are quasi-judicial, so I will start with the city attorney giving the quasi-judicial proceeding rules and swearing people in. Thank you, sir. For the public, the members of the Plantation Planning and Zoning Board are volunteers. That means they're not paid to be here tonight. They are true public servants here serving the public good, and they're here to hit and decide applications that are presented by the city. The board is not authorized to change the city's code. Only the city council is authorized to do that. The decisions of the board require a minimum of four votes for an item to be passed. Short of those four votes, the item will be deemed denied. The hearings tonight are considered quasi-judicial, so that means prior to any testimony or evidence being presented, I will be swearing everyone in. At the close of my remarks, excuse me. The order of business tonight will be the city will make a presentation, then the applicant will have the opportunity to make any presentation that they have and cross-examine any witnesses that the city may have. Do we have any special parties tonight, sign up for any other cases, as far as the city clerk is aware? So we have no special parties. So with that, I also want to just remind the board, because we rarely have quasi-judicial items, so I want to remind you all of your requirement to disclose any ex-parte communication under the Jennings rule. If you have any disclosures to make, you need to disclose it on each case, if it involves each case, the subject of that communication and the identity of the person to whom which you are having that discussion, and that the nature of the discussion will not prejudice your vote, and you will decide your, the case is based on the testimony and evidence presented here tonight. Mr. Chairman. All right. Thank you. Before I do that, I want everyone in the audience to stand in if you plan on speaking or have a case here tonight. Even if you are a witness, raise your right hand. Sir, do you plan on speaking tonight? Sir, do you plan on speaking? Okay. All right. Thank you. Raise your right hand. Please, sir, I find that testimony you go. It would be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. All right. You may be seated. Mr. Chairman. All right. First item on the agenda, PM24-0127, consideration of a request for a practical difficulty waiver for the Garnet residence. This property is located at 11401 Southwest 3rd Street and zoned RS1EP, residential single family. And per the advice of City Council, I'm going to make a generous disclosure that I did speak with the applicant on this to answer questions relative to process at this hearing, and none of what I discussed will influence my vote on this agenda item. So, whenever staff is ready, you may proceed. Are there any other disclosures? Just in site visits and things of that nature also are included in that, if you made any special site visits to any other property. So, just keep that in mind. Okay. Good evening, everyone. Is the microphone light on? Mm-hmm. Okay. Can you hear me? Okay. My name is Shamika Butts. I'm a planner, one with the City of Plantation Planning and Zoning Department. Can you hear me? And tonight, I will be presenting for the Garnet residence. This is a location map of the subject property. The red star indicates the approximate location. The property is located at 11401 Southwest 3rd Street. The owner is Mr. Andrew Garnet, and the lot size is approximately 56,203 square feet. The property is zoned RS-1EP. The use is single-family residential. The subject site is developed with a two-story, 5,287 square feet, approximate, single-family residence with a garage and swimming pool. The zoning map depicted just to the right outlines the property in blue. The area is characterized by single-family residents to the north, east, and west, also zoned RS-1EP, then single-family residents to the south, zoned RS-2K. The area map depicts the approximate location of the property and also shows the outline area of the notices in the purple. Twenty-eight properties were noticed. That is a 300 square foot radius. Tonight, the applicant is requesting four waivers. The first waiver is from Section 2729602A, and it limits the wall or fenced height to four feet in a front street setback. The applicant is requesting to increase that wall and fenced height from four feet to six feet. He's also requesting to increase the column height from four feet to six feet. The column height, and I want to make clarification here, will be a total of eight and a half square feet. The column itself will be six feet, then there's a one-foot decorative cap, and then a one-and-a-half foot lighting fixture on top. All of this will be within the front street setback. The second request is from Section 2729602D, and it requires a solid fence or wall to have a five-foot setback from the property line and have decorative live greenery. The applicant is requesting to reduce the required setback from five feet to zero feet along Southwest Third Street, and not to have the decorative live greenery. The third request is from Section 2729602F. This requires that in the RS-1EP zoning district, any wall or fence erected within two-thirds of the building setback line adjacent to the outer boundaries may not have more than 40% of its surface area visibly obstructed. The rest can be unobstructed. The applicant is requesting that the wall or fence to have more than 40% of its surface area visibly obstructed, the remainder to be unobstructed. And something happened there. Can you help me out here? The last and final request is a landscaping, and that is from Section 27254A28. It includes A and B, and it requires that mulch landscaping planted as a hedge along the outboard side of the fence or wall, and the applicant is requesting not to have mulch landscaping planted as a hedge along the front property line. Here is a visual of the survey. I've added a typical column detail to show you the detail of the highest point of that column. I try to make it as clear as possible. But the applicant is asking for 10 8.5 feet columns, and that includes the lighting and also the cap. He's also requesting a 6-foot-high aluminum fence and masonry wall and two 8.5-foot-high ornamental aluminum mechanical gates, all within the front street setback. The yellow line here shows the location of where he currently has these items. Here is the street view of the property. The first two pictures depict the wall at 4 feet high, which it was built at originally. However, it was not built in the correct location, which would be 5 feet back from the property line. The bottom two pictures depict the gate at its peak, 8.5-foot-high. The picture to the right of that depicts the 4-foot wall with the fence on top, and then the column with the cap and the light fixture. Staff has not received any written citizen comments or phone calls objecting to the proposed application, but we did receive a letter of support from Ms. McCormick, the Vice President of Plantation Acres HOA. That letter was received on March 3rd, 2025. The applicant has also provided some photos of neighboring properties for comparison to his request. These are the four addresses that I was provided with in the application process, and during a site visit, I was able to take some photos, and these are the photos of each property. Upon that site visit, I also did some additional research, and I just want to note that each property did obtain the necessary permits, and the columns, fence, and gates were built to code, per the permit. This is the current condition of the property. As you can see from the pictures, the wall is in disrepair. This property was cited by the building department on August 2nd for a wall in disrepair. Here, the owner and applicant is concerned about the security of the property as a result of the disrepair of the wall, which was caused by a car accident, a vehicle accident in 2023. The site also has a pond. So if you see that middle area picture there, the pond is actually the patch in the middle. That is an open pond area. And the owner is also concerned about the pond being unsecured, and people can walk in and walk out. He doesn't want anyone to get hurt. The project analysis criteria and findings. These are the findings. It is a substantial request, so it does not meet. For compatibility, it is compatible, but the development patterns are not the same, so it does not meet that. The essential character of the neighborhood would be preserved, that meets. The request can be approved without causing detriment to adjoining properties, that also meets. And the request is due to unique circumstances of the property, that does not meet. In conclusion, staff recommends the now of the requested practical difficulty waivers. In the event, the Planning and Zoning Board does approve this, we ask that it is approved based on the conditions listed in the staff report under Section 5B. And that is the conclusion of my presentation. The property owner is here and would like to answer any questions that you may have. Staff is also available. All right. Since the applicant is here, could we hear from the applicant first, and then we will ask all questions of both sides. And name and address, for the record, when you present. Thank you. Hello. Andrew Garnett from 11401 Southwest 3rd Street Plantation. And your presentation, whatever you would like to tell us, show us, clarify. Sure. So I purchased the house, had the wall, and on November the 7th of 23, at 3 o'clock in the morning, the police knocked on the door, asked me to come outside. There was an incident, and a young lady had crashed into the existing wall. And from that date, I was trying to get things repaired. The young lady, unfortunately, is underinsured, so everything that I've been doing is out of pocket myself. I'm just trying to get the wall back to what it was before. And we tried to file for permits in July and didn't know that they had been canceled. And then a gentleman from the code enforcement came, and that's when I became aware that the permits we had applied for were not in effect. And, again, I'm just trying to get it back to how it was before. I mean, this wall existed since 1987. There was some embellishment on top of the original wall with the light fixtures and the aluminum gate that's on there. Frankly, it makes it look better. I feel that it also enhances the neighborhood. It matches other homes in the neighborhood and the area. So I'm not really asking to do anything other than just be able to fix the wall the way that it was before. That's what I have. All right. Do we have any questions from the dais? Vicki? You bought the house. The house was built in 87, and the wall was there. And you purchased the house in, what, 23? No, I purchased the house in 13. In 15? No, no, 13. Okay, 13. So the question I have is, at that time, the fencing was still supposed to be five feet off the road, and it was zero. And it's supposed to be four feet high according to code, and it's six, and you want to bring it up to eight. I'm not a contractor, but, I mean, that's the figures that I looked at. Is that correct? Well, to clarify, the wall already has the columns and the lights and the gating material was already there. It's still already there, except for that one spot where the woman crashed into it. So I'm not asking to bring it up. I'm just asking to be allowed to fix that one chunk, that one section where she crashed into the wall. The rest of it is still intact. The height that was described, the gating material that was described. I have, I had submitted some pictures of the accident as well. I'd be happy I brought some with me. If you'd like to see pictures when the police were there, to see the actual, the wall is the wall. I'm not asking to do anything other than to fix that one section where she crashed into the wall. I'll bring it back to exactly how it was at 2 a.m., November 7th, 2023. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Probably a question for staff. So am I correct in saying that the applicant's not only seeking a variance on the portion of the wall that needs to be repaired, but also relief from the code on the wall that's already been constructed that's there now? The wall that's existing, which is 4 feet in height, that was there since 1987. So that's fine. What the relief is for is adding the extension on the wall for the ornamental fence, making it 6 feet in the front setback. Code only allows 4. And then there was the upgrade for the columns, which, again, you can have columns in the front, but they have to be 4 feet. We will allow a 1-foot cap on the column, but it has to be 4 feet. These particular columns are 6 feet, and that's without the cap or the lighting fixture. Okay. And you've already cited the applicant for work that was done in 2016 and 23? The building department has an open code violation for the wall and disrepair, which I believe includes also work without a permit. Okay. So whatever decision this is would either allow him to have what is there, which is a portion of it unpermitted, or it will have to be brought back to its original state. For clarification, hi. Nice to meet you in person, Ms. Butts. For clarification, when he purchased the home, the way that the fence is and all the irregularities were there when he purchased the home? Not that I can find. So the first picture on here at the top left is 2015 dated. So as of 2015 dated, December 14, and I'd say probably between 2013 and 2015, the wall was as you see there, which is at its 4-foot height, along with a fence that's a little over 4 feet, but it might have a little embellishment over it. So that would meet code with the exception of the location. It was supposed to be placed 5 feet from the property line, and at the time of construction, it was not. And this is to the owner, so you were aware of this when you built the wall after you purchased the home? No, I pulled permits for everything. I had a general contractor that unfortunately turned out not to be a general contractor, so I went through a big mess, and then I hired another general contractor who took over the permits. So any work that was done on that house, I did with permits. So including trying to pull permits to fix this, some of my neighbors said to me, well, why did you bother? You just need to fix the wall. So I'm like, well, it's a cinder block wall, you're supposed to pull permits. Everything I've done, I do it the kosher way, but for whatever reason, they can't find any of the paperwork on that. Again, I had a bad person who was a contractor who borrowed the license from somebody else, and then the other person took over and completed. So I don't know what happened in the interim with that. So you've had the wall as it was until this accident from 2013 to 2023? The wall there in that picture that says 2015. Okay. So because of the problems with the original contractor, I actually didn't get into the home until four years after I purchased it. So I got in in 2017. So 2015, I was the owner of the house, but it was, you can see, it was under construction. And everything was closed with the permits, I believe, in 17, and I've been living there since. And then on November the 7th, 23, is when the wall was crashed into. So from 17 to 2023, for six years, you had no idea that there was any issues with your fence, your walls, your gates, any of that? Correct. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? I have a question for staff real quickly, because I'm looking at the staff comments from Section 5B. And one of them, number three, its columns are not allowed to be constructed within any easement. So if we approve it subject to staff comments, what happens to the columns? We verify that there's no easements where they are. But that is a general statement that we have to put in case we don't see something there. So when he goes in for permitting, if there was a different survey or something that was submitted, we make that note letting them know we don't see any easement. However, if you show us a survey and there's now an easement located there, you cannot have a column there. So he would be forced to move the columns back out of the easement? Yes. But he does not have any easement. We did research that before. And the entity that commands that easement, I'm assuming it's Plantation Acres Improvement District paid, they typically go for 10-foot easements. I don't know if it's normal to go from the front of the property line to get a 10-foot easement, but that's more restrictive than the zoning code of 5 feet. Sometimes it starts, especially for the acres, it starts in the center of the road, so they end up being okay. And this is actually a case where that happened, and that's why he's not falling into any within that front setback area. Okay. Thank you. Because he measured from the – okay? Okay, so I'm sorry, May – I was – we filed for the permits, and we had an approval from the building department. So as far as I know, the building department was fine, but because of the – at first they could not find the original permit for the wall. So, like I was saying, that things were kind of dragging out. So we filed for the permits in July of 24, and then they said that they couldn't find any permits. So the day that I went for the magistrate hearing, Carmen from the city was able to find the permit with the county. So – and from my discussion with her about the easement, as per what Shamika was saying, from the center of the road to where the wall is, it met what it was looking for at that time, as far as I understand it. And, again, it's an existing wall. Jeff, you have a question? So just so I understand, there's no setbacks for the wall anywhere along the property as it currently exists. And so the reason why they're asking for the landscape waiver requirement is because there's nowhere to put the landscaping? Yes. Okay. So it's not because he's refusing to do so after asked. It's because he literally doesn't own the area in which it would sit. That's correct. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood. And can you explain to me where this sits in posture with the special magistrate and what our action would have effect on that hearing? So, like, if we approve this and that hearing, whatever, that just goes away and it's resolved, right, if we were to allow this practical difficulty waiver? I'm going to be honest. I don't know the full detail of the scope of his building violation, but I have been advised, it is my understanding, that if this is approved and he proceeds to obtain the necessary permits, then that will resolve the issue that he has with the wall being in disrepair, because in conclusion, that wall is going to be prepared. Right. Also, is there any, was there any, I don't, he just raised the point that he had pulled other permits to do construction on his house when he originally purchased it. Do we know if that's true at all? So, I searched the records myself for this case. I was able to easily find the 1987 survey that showed the original four-foot wall. There were no other permits for the columns and for the extension of the fence on top of the wall. But in 2017, there were permits for a fence in the side and in the rear of the property, which I concluded in the staff report. So, I was able to find those, but nothing for the extension of the column height and the extension on top of the masonry wall, nor the mechanical aluminum gates. Okay. But, I mean, like, for the rest of the house, because he said he did a bunch of work and pulled permits. So, were there other permits pulled on the property in the time frame he's talking about? I saw the one from 2017. That I can vouch for. But as far as renovations on the property, that would include what was taken, what was done in the front of the property, as far as the columns and fence, I did not find that. Does he have any other cold cases for, with building the apartment? Not that I'm aware of, just the one. Okay. And, just so I can wrap my head around this, I didn't understand. So, there was a permit pulled for which part of the fence? The rear property, there was chain link and wood fence for the rear and the sides of the property. And those don't meet setbacks, but were permitted? They will meet setbacks, because they're the side and the rear. And, per code, you can have that. As long as it's not in the front setback, you can have it at six feet. Okay. Yeah, because they are permitted, that was done according to the permit. That was a pain for it. It's just the upgrade to the front, because it's in the front setback. Were there any citations prior to the car hitting in 2023? So, he was living his life, a car hits him, he's at no fault, and now the city is citing him for past due issues. That is my understanding. So, the accident was in 2023, and from what I could see, based on Mr. Garnett's pictures that he provided to me, the wall was still there. It just naturally was locked down, and I'll try to get to that photo for you. But, at some point between 20 and 23, because the wall was there, it's just leaning from where you can see on the bottom there, they started to repair the wall, and that's when they got cited. Well, that was my understanding, but he could probably give you more. Okay. Okay, can I, I'm going to jump in for a second. I want to go back to before you owned the house, 1985. In 1987, there was an existing wall, is that correct? Yeah. And it met code, four feet high, no columns, no gate, no nothing. Now, we have a picture up there. That picture from the top left, from what I can see here, what is that, 2016? So, there was a 2015 photo that you showed us with no column on the driveway. So, there was a column that was put in between 2015 and 2016. Is there a permit for that? Okay. Now, when we go to the one that's next to it, from what I can see, that's 2023. Now, we have decorative gates above the wall. That wall, in the top right-hand photo, is four feet tall, correct? Yes. And the decorative ironwork is two. Two. For a total of six. So, the columns are six feet at that point without a one-foot cap on them, correct? Correct. There is a light fixture on top. I'll go ahead and give it a foot and a half, because I'm assuming that's probably going to sit there. So, the aluminum fence on top of that four-foot wall, no permit for that was one required? Yes. Okay. So, in the time that you've owned the house, columns, ironwork, and some lighting was done without permits. Is that a correct statement? To my knowledge, that is not a correct statement. So, to answer his question regarding permits that were pulled, we did permits for the pool, electrical, plumbing, drywall, went through all of the... Would the electrical have included those electric lights? Yes. All right. So, there might be something for the lights lying in there. What about the structural aluminum on top of the fence? I had the one contractor who took over everything, and he did the work. So, I, as far as I know, because there were so many permits involved, and because of the problem with the contractor that turned out not to be a contractor, permits were canceled, and then I had to renew them by transferring them to a new contractor. So, like I said, everything I did in the house, I did with permits. Yes, and of that part, I believe that you intended to. I don't know if, in fact, it happened. This one would be for staff in this particular case. And looking at conditions of approval. Practical difficulty waiver is limited to the plans and documents electronically submitted under the project, except as modified as conditions of approval on order of the board. And the building permit will be required for the entire scope of work. So, when these documents are filed, will that, in essence, wipe all of the questions that I just brought up about how these things got set? In other words, we're just establishing that as the wall exists now, and as it's going to be built in these plans, it now meets code. And moving forward, any modifications would have to be there. In other words, the issues that I brought up will be solved by this hearing? That is correct. Okay. Just to clarify where the wall actually is, it is on the property line, or is it, like, so it's on the property line, so the intention was to have a five-foot setback from the property line. Correct. Is that correct? All right. Can you give me a definition of what visibly obstructed means? It was in bullet number three, the more than 40% of the surface area is visually obstructed, with the remainder of the surface area to be open and unobstructed. Sure. So, when it comes to the wall, you can't see through the wall. Correct. And it's on the front street setback area. But when it comes to the fence, you can't see a portion of that. So, if you calculate the entire wall with the columns, that exceeds the 40%, which, if it was an open fence, then the landscape wouldn't be required. But because it's a closed fence. Because it's a solid fence or wall, in this case, because it's solid, that triggers the live greenery landscape that's required. Who owns the land that's in front of the property line? It is no longer Mr. Garnett. I'm not sure of when that changed, but that is now, I believe. Does it belong to the city, or does it belong to Paid? It's not the city. I believe it's Paid. So, if Paid was okay with him landscaping in their land, he could do it? I don't think he can, because there's a right-of-way. And any time there's a right-of-way, you can't landscape in that, regardless of who owns it. Okay. Josh. So, the question I didn't get answered completely before, and you sort of alluded to the fact, I was trying to understand exactly where the fence is in the front property line. And you said that it was built in 1987, according to permit. So, was the SEP Act not required at that time? It was. It wasn't built in the correct location. Right. Okay. So, a permit was pulled, but it was not built according to the permit? Yes. In the original 1987? Yes. Okay. Just wanted to make sure I understood. Thank you. And you mentioned Paid. So, my question is, I guess, and obviously, Plantation and Acres is a very vocal community. Um, we gave notice, were there anyone that opposed you, uh, the changes to the fence in accordance with you fixing it to put it back the way it was? No. No, there weren't any objections to it. And, uh, I did take the paperwork to Paid, and in her presentation, there's a red stamp that Paid approved it. Yeah, Donna's letter pretty much respects that. Thank you. Um, one other question, and this, is anybody from utilities here? No? So, maybe you know what's going on there. Um, there's a bullet as far as utilities under, again, the conditions of approval. Um, there's no, no objections, but any future permit will shall include work for the perimeter wall, shall include rerouting of the wall near the southwest corner of the property as to allow proper separation for the operation of the existing fire hydrant. Does that mean moving forward after this, or does he have to do anything with that now with respect to that fire hydrant? Moving forward. So, if he does any type of upgrades or any type of embellishment, they're going to require that now. They're honoring it because it is existing. Can I make a point to that? Yeah, please. So, in the existing wall where the fire hydrant is, there's actually an indentation that's designed into the wall, the existing original wall. So, they test the fire hydrant whenever they do testing. There's, there's no impediment. It's, the wall apparently was designed accordingly when it was first built. Yeah, at that time. Yes. Okay. Are there any other questions or comments from the dais? Yeah, go ahead. Just a quick question. Daniel. In the staff recommendations, you also said that if we were to approve, the height of the columns in the front setback would be no taller than four feet, and that would include a decorative cap of two and a half feet. Does that include the light fixtures as well, or it does? Yes. Okay. Yes. Where were you looking at just now? Number three? Yeah, so that, that's sort of, and sort of to rephrase his question, so if we were to approve this, but with staff comments, what changes would you have to make to the existing wall besides repairing it? So, what would it have, would there be additional changes that would be required besides bringing it back to what it looked like prior to the accident? Can you clarify that so that I understand? Because here's what I'm hearing you ask me. He is doing a repair on the wall, but everything else is just to legalize what is already there at this point. Is that what you're asking me? Yes. So, I'm saying, but the staff comments, so it says, for instance, the height of the columns cannot exceed four feet in the front setback, but they do exceed four feet. So, in that event, we will amend the conditions in the board order. So, our comments here, our general comments, just letting you know this is what the code says, this is how we proceed because we are going with the code. But, the board order is what you signed. So, if you agree to the extension of the max of eight and a half feet, that will be revised in the board order. Yes. So, I'm saying, if I was to make a motion that said, I would approve this practical difficulty waiver subject to staff comments, would that mean he would be allowed to repair the wall and keep everything as it stands? Or, do staff comments require modifications to the wall besides the repair? No. No. He can keep exactly, if you agree, subject to staff comments because it will be revised and amended in the board order as to what you are allowing him to have. And that is what he would have. No, that's not. So, does the four feet front setback, six side, rear setback, two and a half decorative cap, is that what he currently has? No. Okay. So, he has something different. He has six in the front and then with the two and a half cap. Okay. Because the cap is one foot, the lighting fixture is two and a half. So, we would have to amend this in the, we would have to amend this to agree with what he is. So, if the board wanted to go with staff's comment in the report right now, he'd have to drop the wall some. Correct. Okay. Okay. But if they wanted to say, legalize what he has right now, just he can repair it as is and that's legalized, they need to say that? Yes. Okay. So that I can put that revision in the order. Okay. Is there somebody from, I don't know who created these codes, but I just want, I would like to understand what the legislative intent was when writing these codes. Like, why, so, if I'm going to ask him to remove the tops of the fence and just go back to the four feet in the front, I would like to understand why, why, what justification there is for me doing that to create that hardship for him. Even though I think that he didn't follow the rules in the first place, I'm trying to be somewhat lean here. So, I'm just trying to understand if I'm creating a problem that I am unaware of, right, that's staff, that's a reason for the creation of the height restriction to begin with. I'm sure there is, but I was not privy to that when it was created. Some of it is line of sight, for sure. Some of it is right away. Some of it is easement, depending on how far back it goes. I don't know what the original intent was, but I do understand the circumstances that are facing us tonight as I see that you are trying to make a decision on which way to go with that. Here comes Lisa. Thank you. Hi, Lisa Silk, City of Plantation Planning and Zoning Department. I think the original intent was the code changed in 1985 to allow for four-foot high fences, solid, setback four feet. With the live greenery, if it's not solid, it still has to be four feet in height. We did allow for the columns to be decorative, to allow a little bit of decorative top on the columns only, typically. And it was just kind of to not have a visual obstruction, but also provide some safety for the homes at the same time. Does that kind of answer your question? Yeah, no, I really appreciate that answer. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. When I'm looking at this, and I'm seeing there's, it's like you're building your house, you want to build a wall right onto the street with no landscaping on one side that you're talking about. Am I correct? Because it says there's a... No, no, that isn't correct. Okay. The wall is existing, and I'm just trying to repair a section of the wall that is now missing because a young lady crashed into it. Correct. How far is that from the street? Ten feet? Five feet? I think it's five feet from... From the road? Right. And is there land, is there, and you're asking for no landscaping in front of that? And they said the code says that there should be landscaped material? I don't think he has a room to put landscaping in front, sorry. Okay. He doesn't own the land between the street and his fence. It's not his land, but it's not his, the fence does not abut the street. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair? Yeah. Just one more quick question. And I guess I just want to hear from Mr. Garnett, if you find that to be reasonable or if it's unnecessarily burdensome to drop the height of the columns, what would be your thoughts on that? To me, that would be unnecessarily burdensome because that's a lot of work. Right now, it's going to be enough work to repair that one section, but to go and adjust the entire rest of the wall, that would be a lot. He wouldn't have to do that because it would allow 10 six-foot-high columns if we approve. Okay. So, yeah, but right there, type of approval slot. So, where are you looking at the four feet? Oh, in the center. I think I was going to make sure four. That was, that's, that's in the comment of the, yeah. That's, that's, that's the description. But if we were to approve what's being sought, then the order would be modified to allow the existing columns to be there. Right. So, if we approve subject to staff comments, including what already exists based upon the applicant, then they would change that in order to allow what currently exists. So, the only thing we're doing is codifying what, all the best that, that, that this was previously into an exact, into an existing order that says you're allowed to do this and we're okay with how it looks and everything else. Is that about right? All right. Any, does that answer? Any other questions from the days or comments? I have comments, but no questions. Well, right. I was going to open it up after we were all done. So, you want to get your comments in now or before we? Yeah, sure. Whatever, however you want to do it. Right now. So, I was just going to say, I came into this thinking that I was going to vote to deny it just because I don't like the zero setback. I don't like the lack of landscaping. And I think that when it was done without permits, you know, I generally don't have a lot of leniency for people who do those things. But the fact that he says he pulled multiple permits at different times and the fact that he pulled a permit to do this work when, if he didn't really need to, he could have just tried to repair the wall without a permit, makes me believe that story more so than I had when I just read the record. So, I really don't like it, but I am more sympathetic than I was going into this. So, I'm still undecided as of the moment, but I just wanted to sort of put my thoughts out there to the group. Understood. In that case, then, y'all think on what we're going to do. I'm going to open it up to comments from the public. So, if anybody in the public would like to speak on this, please come forward. Were you swearing in earlier? Okay. So, Quentin, you'll have to swear in. Please come forward. Quentin is going to swear you in and just give your name and address. Hello. Once you get up there. It's okay. Hello. How are you? Good. You swear on the testimony you gave would be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing about the truth. Yes, I did. All right. Thank you. Name and address, please. Anita Manning, 11551 Southwest 3rd Street, Plantation, Florida, 33325. I'm his neighbor, a couple of houses down. I just want to let you know that he has really been a great guy. The wall was up waiting for him. I've been out there more than 20 years. It's basically in line with some of the other walls that are there, adjoining neighbors. They're about the same height. They just have different types of, I guess, structure. It does, I feel, create a heartache. I've been in a little bit of the construction business if he has to take it down. And we have coyote issues out there. I'm in the process of trying to figure out if I should come for a variance for mine because it needs to be higher. But his wall would be much more attractive if you were able to allow him to rebuild it the way it is. It wasn't his fault he got knocked down. That's my thought. Thank you. Any other comments, if you would? And you were sworn in, yes? Yes. All right. Name and address, please. Leonard Donovan, Assistant City Engineer, City Applantation. I just have a quick comment for the record. If there's a court case for work done without a permit and the applicant will need to come for a permit in regards to the gate itself, if the gate was not permitted and it is, from my understanding, it's only five feet away from the roadway, that in itself will kind of prevent, like, you know, create an issue for engineering because we need at least one car length to the gate, you know, for the gate to be installed. So it cannot be five feet from the roadway. So I just wanted to make a permit. If he comes for a permit, then that permit will be denied from an engineering standpoint. So even if we do, let's say we agree to the variance, you're saying he physically cannot do the fence part of it? If there's a court case for work done without a permit, that means you'll need to come to get a permit from the building department. And at that time, it will be sent to engineering for review. And if we have to review the actual, I don't know if it's a water gate you have, if we have to review the gate at that location, we'll deny it because it's too close to the roadway. It needs to be at least 14.7 feet away from the edge of the pavement. Edge of the pavement of the street? Yes. Okay. So does this, so this variance doesn't include the gate? I'm sorry, may I interject? Absolutely. Okay, so the wall was permitted through Broward County when it was first built. And when I purchased the property, it had a rolling gate on there in existence already. And I don't, I don't think this gentleman understands that the wall was existing. So the reason I came here for the variance was because I was told that the wall is higher than the code allows with the embellishment of the gate material and the light posts. So I'm not trying to build a brand new wall. I'm just trying to replace that one section. And again, I, I, everything that I've done in the house, I pull permits for. Mr. Chairman, just from a fundamental standpoint, what you all are doing is approving a zoning variant. So zoning and construction and building aren't the same. So if he needs further variance or further consideration, if, if the permit he applies for based on what you all approve or don't approve is not sufficient, then he'll have to go through that process. But you can't fix a problem that you don't know exists right now. And that's not before you. So it's not really on the table before you. I think it's great information, but it's not really relevant for your decision tonight because you can only approve what he's, he's requested. Right. And to that point, staff was correct that it's basically the height that we're looking at, and that's it. So anything after that, we, we might see you back here again, but I just wanted clarification on that. Yikes. Any other comments from chamber, please? I, I just kind of wanted to say, reiterate what Quentin was saying about the height of the fence. I mean, the gate, the gate, no matter where it's located, is still too tall because it can't be taller than technically four feet in that front setback area. So when they'll just have to work out the actual location, if that's an issue. So it sort of does, but we're, but we're, there's a variance for the setback and a variance of the wall and a variance for the height. So does, is approving the variance for the setback actually affect the gate setback as well? I think in this case, it's only if, if engineering, and again, I, we can't review the plans and, and predict what's going to happen at the permit level. But if at the permit level that it has to be moved back, that's not going to really adversely affect if you decide to approve the setback issue. It's going to get better, not worse. So if you guys approve a zero foot setback from the property line, that's okay. If he puts it back five to 10 more feet for the gate, does that? Yeah, that makes sense. But as I read the setback issue, the setback issue relates to the landscaping and not to heights. I mean, so is it, I don't, I don't think the gate gets caught up in that as I look at it. The setback issue also is for solid versus open. And so if it was an open fence that met our, you know, openness in our code, he could put it on the, on the property line. So it's the fact that he's got the four foot high wall that's solid, which requires a five foot setback. I'm hoping I'm making it clear. I just think. Clear and not more, more confusing. I just think sometimes we, we have people come here and then they have to come back again. And it's almost like, I don't, I know you're not allowed to advise them, but instead of just trying to deal with all issues at once. So technically, no matter what, we cannot fix that other issue tonight. Right. Yeah. Just for the record on, on the report, there were no engineering comments too. So it's hard for you all to, from your standpoint, you can't really address what was provided. So I think you need to make a decision on the application before you want to legalize what is existing and allow him to fix the, the, the wall. And if he has other issues, he'll have to deal with that, with the city at that time. But we don't know what those may be or may not be, but he does have a clear issue right now, which is why he's here. The four variances that he's, he's applied for. Agreed. Um, are there any more comments from the audience? Um, this is for the attorney. Are we voting on each request separately? Okay. Thank you. Um, just to, just to, just to, hold on, just to verify any comments from anybody on mine? Okay. Uh, yes, sir. I won't be making motion, but I would ask that whoever does, if someone was to, that we would make sure that this is written as narrowly as possible to permit the existing and nothing beyond that. Okay. Um, and just to clarify from Vicki's comment, based off of what you said, we're not voting on one, two, three, four separately. We're voting on the entirety. Separately. Request number one, vote. Request number two, vote. Request number three, vote. Request number four, vote. Okay. That's why I asked for the clarification, Vicki. That's what I need. Um, all right. In that case, then, uh, any other questions from the days before I close comments? So, may, may I? Yes. Just to reiterate, I just want to make sure that it's clear for everyone that the wall itself, where it was built, has been there since 1987. The structure of the height, which I pull permits for everything, as far as, uh, what Shamika is saying, she can't find any permits for this portion. Um, but that was when the, uh, embellishment was done. It was made higher with the light posts, but the wall itself was in the same spot. It was never moved, and what I'm trying to do is just fix that one little section there. So, I'm not requesting to build a wall someplace that would not normally be okay if I was building a brand new wall. I'm just trying to repair something that's been sitting there since 1987. Um, sorry. We, we did close public comments. So, can I reopen comments? All right. Go ahead. He also wasn't sworn. Um, you have to be sworn in, because... And he, he said he wasn't going to say anything. Yeah, well... What's that? You said you weren't going to say anything. That one... I didn't realize he was sitting there. That's all. I was here. Well, before you say that, you say you're a contractor, but you're also an alternate on this... Yes. So, in what capacity are you going to be speaking? As his contractor, or as an alternate on this board? I can tell you my experience. I just wanted to be, just wanted to be clear on that. Just, yeah. Does he, does he, you okay with that? All right, stand by. Quentin has to sign you up, or swear you in. You swear I found in the testimony, it would be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. All right. It was very interesting. We're going to, there's going to be work done on the inside of the house because of the bad work that was done previously. I have spent extensive hours going through all... Before you go further, can you just state your name? Oh, William Stecker. And address? 5581 Southwest 7th Street Plantation. Thank you. We did extensive research in the city with the microfiche and everything else. We cannot find one permit for the house. We found permits for the additions that were done. And it befuddled me that we could never find permits for the actual original house before the additions were done. And that's when we found out, or Andrew found out, that the original house and that wall were permitted under Broward County. And I don't know if he made that point strong enough to realize that all this work was permitted under Broward County. I mean, that makes sense. The acres wasn't part of Plantation back in the, until the 90s, so... That's all I have to say. Oh, okay. And I, yes, we did try to pull a permit for the repair. Okay. Thank you. Sorry to get involved. Quentin, I just want to verify one other thing then. If we're going to be voting separate, do I need four separate orders, or I'm just denoting it on this order? It would just be denoted on that order. Got it. Because there is a possibility that you could approve some and not approve others. Okay. In that case, public comment is closed. If we're going to do this four separate ways, and we're talking about relief from, the first one is relief from Section 27-29602 Alpha, which requires that all residential districts maximum height of the wall or fence in the front of the street setback shall be four feet to allow ten six-foot high columns with one-foot decorative cap and one-and-a-half-foot tall light fixture, six-foot-high aluminum fence and masonry wall, and two eight-and-a-half-foot ornamental aluminum mechanical gates within the front street setback area. Do I have a motion on that? Motion to approve request number one. Motion to second request number one. Just to verify subject to... No subject. ...for each one of those? Or just, are we... There are other staff comments besides the zoning one, which you can make them subject to if that's what you choose to do. Well, I'm just clarifying the intent of the motion. Do you want to subject that to staff comments or not? Yeah. I'll amend my motion to approve request number one subject to staff comments from Section 5B of the agenda backup. With the exception of the height, comment B3. Okay, that was my question earlier, and I was told that we didn't have to change that. Yes, so subject to staff comments from Section 5B, scratching point number three under planning and zoning. I second exactly how we said it. All right, so we have a motion and a second on the first relief. Can you please call the roll? Ms. Gelfand? Mr. Stahl? Yes. Ms. Demby-Berger? Yes. Mr. Corman? Yes. Mr. Freeman? No. Mr. Goldstein? Yes. Mr. Jelligrange? Yes. Thank you. All right, motion passes. Motion passes there. So, next item, Section 27-296-02D, which requires that solid fences or walls must be set back a distance of five feet or more from the street property line and planted with decorative live granary between the fence and the property line to allow a four-foot-high masonry wall with a two-foot-high aluminum picket fence on top within the front property line and not provide decorative live greenery between the fence and the property line. Do I have a motion on that? Motion to approve request number two, subject to staff comments from Section 5B. In the agenda backup, scratching point number three under planning and zoning. Do I have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. Please call the roll. Ms. Gelfand? No. Mr. Stahl? Yes. Ms. Demby-Burger? Yes. Mr. Corman? Yes. Mr. Freeman? Yes. Mr. Goldstein? Yes. Mr. Jelligrange? Yes. Thank you. All right. Next item, Section 27-296-02F, which requires that in RS1EP districts, any wall or fence erected within two-thirds of the building setback line adjacent to the outer boundaries of said parcel may not have more than 40% of its surface area visibly obstructed with the remainder of said surface area to be open and unobstructed to allow a wall or fence to have more than 40% of its surface area visually obstructed with the remainder of said surface area to be open and unobstructed. Do I have a motion? Motion to approve request number three, subject to staff comments from Section 5B of the agenda backup, scratching point number three under planning and zoning. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and a second? Please call the roll. Ms. Gelfand? Mr. Stahl? Yes. Ms. Demby-Burger? Yes. Mr. Corman? Yes. Mr. Freeman? Yes. Mr. Goldstein? Yes. Mr. Della Grange? Yes. All right. And the last one's number four, Section 27-24-Alpha-28, which requires mulched landscaping planted as a hedge along the outboard side of the fencer wall to allow a wall and fence to not have the required mulched landscaping planted as a hedge along the front property line in the RS-1EP zoning district for the property located at 11401 Southwest 3rd Street, Plantation, Florida, 33317. Do I have a motion? Motion to approve request number four, subject to staff comments from Section 5B of the agenda backup, scratching point number three under planning and zoning. Second. That was an aggressive second. So, please call the roll. Ms. Gelfand? No. Mr. Stahl? Yes. Ms. Demby-Burger? Yes. Mr. Corman? Yes. Mr. Freeman? Yes. Mr. Goldstein? Yes. Mr. Della Grange? Yes. Thank you. All right. Congratulations. And any information that you need relative to this, please work your staff on it. So, going to item number two, PN24-0100, consideration of a request for a practical difficulty waiver for the Cisneros residents. The property is located at 1341 Southwest 55th Avenue and zoned RS4J residential single family. Staff, if you will. Okay, great. Thank you so much. Good evening, Planning and Zoning Board Chair, Vice Chair, Assistant City Clerk, Assistant City Attorney, Members of the Public, Theline Rainford, Planner with the City of Plantations, Planning, Zoning, and Economic Development Department. Presenting tonight, Cisneros residents, an application for a practical difficulty waiver, record number PN24-0100. The zoning map shows that the property zoned RS4J, which is single family residential. The uses of single family residents and the approximate size of the property is 7,797 square feet. The property is owned by Jonathan and Amanda Cisneros and located at 1341 Southwest 55th Avenue. The property is developed with a single-story, 1,697 square foot single family residence with a one-car garage, porch, and a swimming pool. The area map shows that the property is located on the west side of Southwest 55th Avenue, which is approximately 180 feet south of Southwest 13th Street. The area map also shows a public notification boundary in purple. Notices were sent to the properties within 300 feet of the subject property. 35 notices were sent by the Planning and Zoning and Economic Development Department, and to date we have not received any phone calls or written objections to the request. The area is characterized by single family residents in the north and south, to the east by Southwest 55th Avenue, and to the west we have the waterway. So the applicant's request tonight is a practical difficulty waiver from Section 27-296T2, which requires a 5-foot rear setback to patches to single-family lots in the RS4J Zoning District. And he's requesting to reduce the required rear setback from 5 feet to 2 feet. So the survey shows the existing single-family home, which is built to the dimensional standards setbacks for the RS4J Zoning District. It also shows the existing brick paver patio, the existing pool, a covered terrace, a gazebo, a wood deck, and a seawall. The property is subject to code enforcement action for installing the brick pavers without the required permits. A permit was applied for, however, the permit was denied as the setback was shown at 2 feet from the rear property line. A 5-foot rear setback is required. The property is also subject to a code enforcement action from the Engineering Department for not meeting the impervious area. The areas that we see here highlighted in purple shows that the property owner will be reducing the paver area to meet the code enforcement action started by the Engineering Department. So in 1978, the Building Department issued a building permit, and this is the original configuration of the Chattahoochee pool deck and also the kidney pool. Arrows obtained from the Broad County property appraiser shows that between 1998 and 2016, the pool and the configuration of the pool deck was in compliance with the 1978 permit. Additional areas obtained from Broad County property appraiser shows that between 2017 to 2019, that the deck was extended to the north. Additional areas show that in 2020, there was further expansion of this pool deck to the north, the west, and the south. And this is what the deck looks like at this time. The property owner purchased the property in 2022. The property owner also provided some side photos. Here we have the existing seawall, and we have the raised paver pool deck. Additional photos shows that access to and from that deck is accessed by these steps. Again, we see the raised pool deck, and this is a side photo of the existing kidney pool. So some pertinent information here. Staff has not received any written citizen comments or phone calls objecting to the proposed application. The applicant has communicated and received support from neighbors to the north and the south, and the notarized letters of support are included in the application backup. Pursuant to section 27-52G2, the property owner of record requesting the variance is required to provide written responses to the criteria. Those criteria were in the staff report along with staff's evaluation. And based on staff's evaluation, four of the standards have been met, which is B, C, D, and E, and the criteria that has not been met is A. In conclusion, staff recommends approval of the requested practical difficulty waiver. In the event the Planning and Zoning Board finds that the applicant has proven entitlement to the practical difficulty waiver and recommends approval of the request, staff recommends the approval be subject to the conditions outlined in section VB of the staff report. The applicant wishes to props you and is here for questions along with staff. All right. Would the applicant like to speak on this? Jonathan Cisneros, 1341 Southwest 55th Avenue, Plant Station, Florida. I purchased the property in 22, as is closed by Ms. Thalene. When I went to apply for a permit for the pavers, that's when everything came and was told to me that there was a variance needed for the retaining wall that was done by the previous owner. I know there are comments regarding the gazebo. The gazebo was removed two weeks ago. I know I haven't told you that. So at least I'm taking the steps forward to, you know, be within the standings of what you guys are requiring of me. I also have my general contractor with me for any questions that he may be able to answer for you all. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions from the days? Your backyard, is that 100% grass and plant-free? No. Is it all covered with pavers? No, it's not all covered with pavers. There's grass on the south side and the north side where there's a white patch on the left and a white patch on the right. There is the plan showing where there's the purple area is what's going to remove the pavers and be more grass. Are you putting in real grass? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. I have a quick question. How many trees are on the property right now? Right now there's one, two, three, four. The fourth tree is one tree that has like about five, I don't know what kind of palm tree it is, but it has all separate stems. So that consists of about five separate palms. Okay, because my question for staff is that, you know, in the landscaping portion of staff comments, I don't know if there's someone from landscaping here, but a property of this type, it says it requires minimum three trees. And then it has another comment that they need to plant more trees to meet the shade trees requirement. Are we requiring him, if we approve with staff comments, are we requiring him to plant more trees or does he already meet that condition if he has four shade trees on the property? There is no one here from the landscape division to respond to this comment. Looking at the comment here, based on what the landscape division has made, he will be required to plant more trees. But we don't know how many at this moment. We do not know that. Okay. Is there anything else while we have you up here? Is there anything else on here that can be removed from the comments? Like the gazebo part, we can remove that just so we know. Because he said he already removed the gazebo, so number four would be removed. Is there anything else in the staff comments, one through five, and then the landscaping one through three? Is it we just removing number four? If it pertains to the gazebo, four will be the only comment that should be removed. Okay. But he's also saying that he's now pulling up some of the pavers and putting grass. So is that? That is a part of the permit. He was required to remove the pavers to come into compliance with the impervious area calculation from the engineering department. Okay. So number five still applies. That is correct, yes. Okay. And there's no longer the Chattahoochee on the – that's been all replaced with pavers? What a Chattahoochee is. Oh, you don't know. If you ever run on it barefoot by a pool, you'll remember. No, there are these little – it used to be the style we used to have around all the pools. It was last century. Don't worry about it. It was before you were born. Gosh, yeah. Getting new pavers, I can't. Okay, so those are new. Michael Oppen, I just want to clarify the landscape comment. The code requires for a property of this size to have a minimum of four shade trees. You're required to have at least one in the front. So to give some flexibility, it could be three in the back or two in the back, that type of thing. So obviously we want to make sure it works with what he ends up having here. So he'd only be required to plant one tree in the front? He has to have four total. Which he says he has. Yes, right. So he'd just have to plant one in the front. One in the front and then make sure he's got four total on the property. Right, that are already there. Yes, if I may have three in the front and one in the back. If he already has three in the back and one in the front, what are we – Three in the front and one in the back. Oh, okay. So he needs more in the back is what you're saying? We just want to be – No. Okay. I'm saying that's what the code is, and he's going to be compliant with that. So we can take that out as number two? No. What – I think what the issue is, the landscape comment is just what the code requires, and the city staff is trying to make sure that he understands he still has to comply with the tree requirements of the city code. Correct. And it's not suggesting he doesn't already, but if he doesn't, he will need to. Thank you. Any other questions? I just have one question. When it – with your backyard being in, is when we have one of these torrential rainstorms, does it drain quickly? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Any comments? Yeah. Sorry, go ahead. I think staff alluded to it earlier. So in terms of the lot coverage, the pavers are considered pervious? That's not counting towards lot coverage. That's an engineering requirement, which is an impervious area calculation that requires 65% impervious and 35% pervious. Okay. And engineering department representative is here if you have any further questions on that. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Yeah, Josh. I'll just make a quick comment that I think that he did everything in the right way, and I appreciate you being willing to work with the department in order to rectify the issues, and I appreciate that. All right. Any questions from the chamber? None being seen. Public comments are closed. Oh, well, that's what I asked. Do you have comments? Please come up. Give me your name and address. My name is Tony Aguila. I'm the one on charge for this project. I'm the contractor for this project. You might open the one that shows the steps into the pool, because this is a concern that we're having about requesting that to keep it as it is. It's already a two-feet setback, and originally it's required to be a five-feet, but this is the whole concern. If we push the wall five feet back, the steps, it will meet up right into the pool. And if you look at the location of the wood dock, even if we relocate the steps, I still want to be meeting right into the pool coping, and it will be too close to the pool wall to be just a single step. So that's the main reason for us to be requesting to keep it, but if you guys can approve it as it is for the location, it will be too close to the pool wall to be social or small opening. That's all it is. All right. Thank you. Any more comments? I'll make a motion to approve with staff comments. Second. We have a motion and a second. Please call the roll. I'm sorry. The second was nice. Okay. Thank you. And Ms. Gelfand? Yes. Mr. Stahl? Yes. Ms. Demby-Burger? Yes. Mr. Corman? Yes. Mr. Freeman? Yes. Mr. Goldstein? Yes. Mr. Della Grange? Yes. Thank you. All right. Congratulations. All right. And the last item for the evening, PM25-0001, consideration of a request for a practical difficulty waiver. From the Laguna Residence, properties located at 501 Northwest 1003rd Avenue and zoned, RS5KS, residential single family. Good night, Planning and Zoning Board Chair, Vice Chair, Planning and Zoning Board members, Assistant City Clerk, Assistant City Attorney, members of the public, the Lean Rainford Planner with the City of Plantation's Planning, Zoning, and Economic Development Department. Presenting tonight, the Laguna Residence, which is a practical difficulty waiver application, record number PM25-0001. The zoning map shows that the property is zoned RS5KS, single family residential. The use is a single family residence, and the property is 8,255 square feet in area. The ownership is Harold Laguna, and it's located at 501 Northwest 103rd Avenue, and the subject site is developed with a 2,700 square foot single story residence with a two-car garage and a swimming pool. The area map shows that the property is located on the northwest corner of Northwest 103rd Avenue and Northwest 5th Street. The area map also shows a public notification boundary, and notices were sent to the properties 300 feet from the subject property. 51 notices were sent by the Planning, Zoning, and Economic Development Department, and to date, we have not received any notices or any written notices or any phone calls regarding objections to this request. The area was characterized by single family residences to the north. We have Northwest 103rd Avenue to the east. To the south, we have Northwest 5th Street. And to the west, we have a waterway. So the applicant's request tonight is from Section 27-296-02D, which requires a solid fence, in this case a PVC fence, to have a five-foot setback from a property line with decorative live greenery in the RS5KS zoning district. He's requesting to reduce the required setback for a solid fence from 5 feet to 3.25 feet along Northwest 5th Street. So the applicant submitted an owner-builder permit for a fence. During the permit review, the permit was denied as the setback was not provided from the proposed location of the fence to the property line that abuts the existing four-foot sidewalk. The permit was revised and resubmitted, and a note was added that showed that the fence would be five feet from the sidewalk. The fence permit was approved and issued in May 2024. Upon conducting a field inspection, the planning and zoning inspector found that the fence was not installed per the permit. The fence was actually installed 39 inches from the sidewalk. The previous property owner in 2019 applied for a building permit, which was issued. The building permit showed a fence along the interior side property line, along the rear property line, and along the corner street side property line. This fence was shown at 33 linear feet, 6 feet high, and setback 5 feet from the sidewalk. A survey with a field date of August 2021 shows that the existing fence with the 2019 permit was shown at 3.6 feet to its closest point to the property line that abuts the four-foot sidewalk. Photos taken from the Google Street shows the original fence location. We see that the fence is 6 feet high. It's a white PVC fence. It's parallel to the sidewalk. It's set back from the sidewalk, based on the survey, 3.6 feet, and returns to the rear corner of the home. The view that we're looking at at the bottom photo, you're standing on Northwest 5th Street looking towards the home, and we see the fence in this location. Upon conducting a site visit, we have several views here. This is a view for standing on Northwest 3rd Avenue looking west. Another view from Northwest 1 or 3rd Avenue. We can see the gates along with the newly installed fence with hedge material on the outboard side between the fence and the sidewalk. Another view from Northwest 5th Street looking north. We see the newly installed fence, which is in alignment with the existing fence that was installed with the 2019 building permit. And the last site visit photo we have here shows the fence with the landscaping. So to date, staff has not received any written citizen comments or phone calls objecting to the proposed application. The applicant has communicated and received support from the neighbors to the north and to the south. And the notarized letters of support are included in the application backup. And pursuant to Section 27-52G2, the property owner of record requesting the variance is required to provide written responses to the criteria. Those responses were provided. Staff finds that four of the standards have been met, B, C, D, and E, and A does not meet. In conclusion, staff recommends approval of the requested practical difficulty waiver. In the event of planning and zoning board finds that the applicant has proven entitlement to the practical difficulty variance and recommends approval of the request, staff recommends their approval be subject to the conditions included in Section VB of the staff report. Staff is available for questions. And the property owner, Mr. Harold Laguna, is here. Thank you. I guess to keep it consistent, would the owner like to speak at all, or did you just want to be here to answer any questions that may pop up? Okay. In case any questions pop up. So, do I have any questions or comments from the Davis? Joshua. So, just so I understand this correctly, so in 2019, there's a permit for a fence. It was at five feet. It got built at three and a half feet setback. Yes. Then he applied for another fence permit and reinstalled the new fence in 2024 and applied for another permit, didn't notate the setback. You said it was denied. They said it needed to be five feet, so they added five feet onto it, and then he put it at three and a quarter feet. That's correct. So, he moved it three inches closer to the property line than it was before? Yes. Okay. But it was basically, it was within inches of where the original fence was, despite the fact that the original fence wasn't built according to the permit. That is correct. And this property owner is not the same property owner that installed the fence permit in 2019. Got it. Any other questions? I do. Vicki. So, in 2019, the previous property owner put in a permit to install a fence five feet from the sidewalk. Is that correct? That is correct. That was noted on the survey. And was it, did nobody inspect it at that time? Did they notice it was only three feet, three inches from the sidewalk? The zoning department is just recently going out on fence permits that are on properties on a corner lot, because we have realized that once the fences are installed, they're not being installed per the permit. So, this has started probably within the last year and a half to two years. So, basically, it's not the homeowner's fault. He was just going along with what was there. So, the onus on this goes to the planning and zoning, building department permits and stuff like that, because the previous owner got away with it, and they put in another permit just to add on to what was already approved, but now the city is going after them because they just continued on what was there. Is there a legal opinion on whether or not, like, a previous owner not meeting a permit would exempt a future owner? Okay, that's what I thought. Does that come up when they title search and do everything when they purchase a home? Does it come up if there's any unpermanent issues or permits that we're not complied with? Well, it comes up in situations like this, where he's pulling another permit, and they go in and look, and it's seen it's not built according to the plan, which is why we're here. So, just to point out, we've had three people this evening that have purchased homes that had unpermanent things attached to the homes when they purchased them. That happens all over the county and all over the state. It's a recurring problem. I see it everywhere, so this is not unique. That's why we're here. Right. Exactly. And it doesn't come up in inspections either, like a home inspection wouldn't come up. Like when you're purchasing? No. Is there any mechanism to cite or find the previous owner when that's found? I mean, there's title insurance for issues of title, but it'd be hard-pressed to assert those claims. But the city is limited in its resources, so there's things that go years without getting caught because it just goes under the radar. And when somebody comes in for a permit or a code inspector happens to see something funny, it happens. So, and you probably see a lot more of it. Yeah, unfortunately, that's penalizing the current owner for what the previous owner did. That's why you're here. All right. Wrangling it back in, I got a question for the homeowner. Because I'm looking at you, you have a nice podocarpus hedge in front of there. They're like four feet tall. A couple of them are dying. I don't know if you've got the warranty on those, and they can replace those. If there are plans to replace those, what's your thought process? My plan was to have a working sprinkler system, and I went through like four different problems in the span of a month. And so, yeah, that was just trial and error. At that time, well, for about a year or two, my original year or two at that residence, I was, like, the sprinklers weren't working. Like, I had to invest in, like, finding someone and finding out what the problems were. I thought I found out all the problems. It turns out there's four more problems, you know, every corner I got to. And, yeah, that was just not sure about where this variance would lead me to if I had to rip everything out. Well, it's not so much a rip everything out as much as it is replace the stuff that's dead with the stuff that's living. No, no, no. I'm just asking. Relative to what's here. Because you're asking for the variance on the fence. So if we grant it, part of it is making sure that the landscaping comes into compliance, the mulch comes into compliance. So my question is, are you willing and able to do all that? Absolutely. Okay. I was kind of confused on the variance outcome, whether or not I was going to be told to rip out everything. Like, you know, like, so I didn't know where I was going to get to as a terminal end with this, with the outcome today. Can you state your name just for the record, too? Harold Laguna. And you are the property owner? Yes. Okay. Yeah, well, the approval being sought is relief from the code to allow you to keep the fence where it is. And if you do that, there are attachments that say you've got to keep the landscaping looking nice, and it has to be mulched. Yeah. And you are willing and able to do that. Absolutely. Okay. I also wanted to add, a part of this was a complete, like, miscommunication from the beginning. I wasn't, my timing at the office, where you guys work, I didn't get to meet these kind of ladies. I got to meet someone else or two other people that led me astray, and I was not sure. What the explanation I got was a variance was, like, something you haphazardly do. I didn't know there was, I think it wasn't given documentation on it, a full explanation on it, or any kind of, like, possible conclusion or, like, real guidance. So, and that's what the explanation was. Hapazardly do whatever you got to do, and then come back for a variance. So, that's what I, I didn't, I forced Gump my way here, and this is where I'm at. So, this was not by, not by what I wanted to do. This is not my, what I, what I intended. And, you live in Nophell Estates, right? Yes. We don't have a homeowners association. That's part of it, too. Like, there literally is no homeowners, so it is true. I mean, I'm not complaining because you don't have to pay more money, but it is true that it's, um, there, there is not, like, a homeowner that comes around and says, unless you're in co-violation, no one really tells you what to do, and it's kind of like, you're kind of figuring it out on your own, so I understand. Yeah. And welcome to the neighborhood. Thank you. Josh, did you have something else? So, you installed this fence yourself? Yes. And you just basically put it where the other fence was? Yes. Thank you. All right. Any more questions or comments from the Dave's? I'm just going to make a quick comment. And thank you for your public service. Thank you very much. Right there on this. Never mind. Anyhow, any comments from the chamber? Michael? Michael Albert. I do want to clarify. Typically, the only inspection that happens on a fence is a structural inspection. In most cases, we recently started, as Ms. Rainford had said, doing that, doing the zoning inspection. We don't have the resources to do it for all the fences that we have, so we depend on the structural. If this fence had been blatantly off of the setback, like five feet away or ten feet away, the structural inspector is not expected to measure. This is roughly a little bit over a foot, so unless they come with a measuring stick, they're not going to know offhand that it, I mean, it looks pretty close, is my point. So if a structural inspector looks at something like this in the field, they're looking for how it's built, where, you know, that type of thing. The setback is a zoning issue. Normally, unless they see something that looks really strange, they're not going to note it, and that's probably what happened in this case for the previous fence. Yes, and this issue is very common in every city, as Mr. Morgan had mentioned. All right. In that case, I will close comments. Do I have a motion on this? Motion to approve, subject to staff comments from Section 5B of the report. Second. All right. Motion is second. Either one of them. Yeah. We'll give it to Daniel. Please call the roll. All right. Ms. Gelfand? Mr. Stahl? Yes. Ms. Demby-Berger? Yes. Mr. Corman? Yes. Mr. Freeman? No. Mr. Goldstein? Yes. Mr. Della Grange? Yes. All right. Thank you. All right. Congratulations. Any other visions that we have? Just very quickly. Normally, it's the first Tuesday, but April's meeting is scheduled for the second Tuesday, which is April 8th. April 8th? Yes. Good to know. All right. In that case, then, 741 meeting is adjourned.