[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM] [00:00:09] >> OCTOBER 21, 2020 THE PANDEMIC ADDITION IS NOW IN SESSION AT 5:03:00. PLEASE CALL THE ROLE. >> MEMBER GLEASON. >> HERE. >> CHAIR MILLER. >> HERE. >> WE WILL DISPENSE WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. THANK YOU, TAYLOR. WE DON'T HAVE ANY ALTERNATES TWO-SEAT. MS. SPOCK, WE GO TO THE MEETING PROCEDURES AND IF YOU DON'T MIND, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS WILL BE THE LAST VIRTUAL MEETING. >> YES. >> WE MAYBE SHOULD BRING THAT UP AND PREPARE FOR THE NEXT ONE IF EVERYBODY MIGHT BE LISTENING AND MIGHT BE PREPARED FOR IT. >> SURE. ARE YOU READY? I WILL START WITH VIRTUAL MEETINGS. AS OF THE END OF OCTOBER, OCTOBER 31, THE GOVERNOR'S ORDER ALLOWING FOR MEMBERS OF BOARDS TRUE. VIRTUALLY NOT HERE PHYSICALLY, IS GOING TO EXPIRE. I DO NOT EXPECT THAT GOVERNOR DESANTIS WILL EXPAND THE ORDER WHICH MEANS ALL BOARD MEMBERS NEED TO BE HERE IN PERSON ATTENDING THE MEETINGS. WE DO HAVE -- YOU CANNOT SEE THE CHAMBERS. I KNOW SOME OF YOU WHO HAVE BEEN APPEARING VIRTUALLY BUT IN THE CHAMBERS, THE CHAIRS ARE SPACED AT LEAST SIX FEET APART AND THERE ARE ONLY ABOUT 10 PEOPLE THAT ARE ABLE TO FIT INTO THE ENTIRE ROOM. THE BOARD, IF WE HAVE A FULL BOARD OF ALTERNATES AND BOARD MEMBERS, WE COULD NOT FIT ANY MORE THAN US. THE FIRT TO STEP DOWN AND SIT AT THE STABLES LIKE WE DO WITH THE CITY COMMISSION. THE CITY COMMISSION HAS BEEN HAVING FULL IN PERSON CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS FOR A COUPLE MONTHS AND SO THE CITY MANAGER AND I SIT AT THE TABLE ALONG THE WALL UNDER THE SCREEN AND THAT IS WHERE STAFF AND I WOULD SIT. AND ANOTHER TWO BOARD MEMBERS COULD FIT UP HERE WITH YOU. IF WE HAVE SEVEN INCLUDING ALTERNATES, THEN WE WILL SET UP A TABLE IN FRONT OF THE DAIS AND HAVE THE MEMBERS SPACED APART AND FACED AWAY FROM THE REST OF THE BOARD. EVERYBODY WOULD BE SAFELY DISTANCED APART AND EVERYBODY IS REQUIRED TO WEAR A MASK AND I EXPECT ON NOVEMBER 4 THAT THE CITY COMMISSION WILL EXTEND FOR ANOTHER MONTH OF MANDATORY MASS QUARTER SO WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO WEAR A MASK BUT YOU DO HAVE TO ATTEND IN PERSON. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE TO ATTEND IN PERSON. WE DO NOT ALLOW ANYBODY TO STAND IN THE ROOM SO YOU HAVE TO BE SEATED. IF WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH CHAIRS, WE PROVIDE SPACE IN THE LOBBY FOR UP TO FOUR PEOPLE AND OTHER THAN THAT IN THE WAY IN THE CARWE HAVE TO LISTEN OUT TO THE OUTDOOR SPEAKERS UNTIL YOUR CASE IS CALLED IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS.RE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. >> OF A QUESTION. >> YES. >> CAN HEAR ME. >> GO AHEAD. >> IS ANY POSSIBILITY, DO WE HAVE ANY KIND OF LEGAL AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE TO APPEAR VIRTUALLY OR IS IT REQUIRED TO HAVE THE GOVERNOR'S AUTHORIZATION.>> I MEAN, SCHOOLS ARE DOING IT. >> I WILL EXPLAIN AND ANSWER THE QUESTION. >> I WOULD MUCH PREFER. >> I UNDERSTAND. >> I'M SORRY GO AHEAD. >> THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND THE GOVERNOR ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE THE AUTHORITY AS TO WHETHER THE LAW IN FLORIDA IS THAT YOU HAVE TO AT LEAST HAVE A QUORUM OF YOUR BOARD PRESIDENT. AND A QUORUM IS A MAJORITY OF YOUR BOARD. A QUORUM IS FOR MEMBERS. THAT IS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE LAW AND THAT IS WHAT GOVERNOR DESANTIS IS REQUIRING. AND I HAVE NOT HAD THIS VOTED ON YET BY THE CITY COMMISSION BUT I HAVE TALKED WITH MOST OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION INDIVIDUALLY AND I SAID THIS WOULD EXPIRE AT THE END OF THE MONTH AND WHAT DID THEY EXPECT IN TERMS OF PUBLIC COMMENT AND BOARD MEMBERS APPEARING. [00:05:07] I COULD LEGALLY JUSTIFY AND WILL BE FINE IF AT A QUORUM PRESENT AND THEN OTHER MEMBERS ATTEND VIRTUALLY AND PUBLIC COMMENT VIRTUALLY AND WE COULD LEGALLY DO THAT. THE ISSUE COULD BE WITH SOME BOARDS, WHO HAS TO APPEAR IN PERSON AND WHO GETS TO APPEAR VIRTUALLY. WHAT IF EVERYBODY WANTS TO APPEAR VIRTUALLY AND NOBODY CAN DECIDE. I THINK THE COMMISSIONERS AND CITY MANAGER AND I RECOGNIZE THAT COULD BE AN ISSUE WITH SOME BOARDS AND SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE THINKING THE COMMISSION IS ALL COMING IN PERSON AND THE PUBLIC IS COMING IN PERSON TO MAKE THEIR COMMENTS AND SO ARE BOARD MEMBERS SHOULD. BUT THAT COULD CHANGE. OBVIOUSLY -- ACTIVITY WITH THE STATE OF LAW IS. MINIMAL REQUIREMENT IS THE PHYSICAL FORM OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE TO BE PRESENT AT THE REST OF THE LOCAL POLICY THAT I WILL ON NOVEMBER 4 MAKE SURE THE CITY COMMISSION DISCUSSES DURING THE COVID DISCUSSION IN A FEW WEEKS. THAT IS WHAT I KNOW. >> OKAY. >> THANK YOU. I WOULD QUESTION VIRTUALLY IF THERE'S ANY WAY POSSIBLE. WE EVEN NEED THE GOVERNOR'S APPROVAL TO DO THAT. WE ARE A LOCAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. CAN WE LOCALLY AUTHORIZE VIRTUAL APPEARANCE. >> ONLY IF WE ARE MEETING THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUNSHINE LAW WHICH IS THAT A PHYSICAL FORM BE PRESENT IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS. SO WE CAN ON THE LOCAL LEVEL SAY WHEN THE PANDEMIC IS STILL WITH US THAT WE CAN HAVE PUBLIC BOARD MEMBERS OVER AND ABOVE A QUORUM VIRTUALLY. THE CITY COULD DO THAT. THAT IS NOT MY CALL. I THINK THE BEST THING TO DO IS LET THEM KNOW WHAT YOU'RE THINKING. >> AND WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. >> IS THE SUNSHINE LAW SPECIFIC. DOES IT SAY IN PERSON QUORUM, DO YOU KNOW. >> YEAH. THE SUNSHINE LAW DOES SAY IN PERSON AND THEN THERE ARE MANY INTERPRETATIONS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE THAT SAYS THE SAME. THAT IS WELL UNDERSTOOD AMONG LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAWYERS IN FLORIDA THAT A PHYSICAL FORM IS REQUIRED TO MEET THE SUNSHINE LAW REQUIREMENTS. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> SURE. TONIGHT WE HAVE ONE CASE ON THE AGENDA AND WE WILL BE CONDUCTED AS A QUASI- JUDICIAL HEARING WHAT THAT MEANS, FIRST, MS. FOREHAND WITH CITY STAFF WILL MAKE A PRESENTATION AND INTRODUCE EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD AND SHE MAY CALL WITNESSES. I DON'T THINK SHE HAS ANY FOR THIS CASE BUT SHE CAN IF SHE WISHES CALL WITNESSES. THEN THE APPLICANT, THEIR ANCIENT AND EXPERIENCED COMES UP TO THE PODIUM AND YOU'RE NOT LIMITED IN THE AMOUNT OF TIME YOU GET TO SPEAK IN YOUR PRESENTING EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY ON THE RECORD AND YOU WILL TAKE AN OATH AS WILL MS. FOREHAND IN A FEW MINUTES IN YOUR TESTIMONY UNDER OATH. YOU ARE ALLOWED TO CALL WITNESSES BUT BASICALLY WE ARE CREATING A RECORD OF EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY AND YOU CAN CROSS-EXAMINE MS. FOREHAND AS THE APPLICANT AND SHE MAY CROSS-EXAMINE YOU OR ASK QUESTIONS AND AFFECTED PARTIES WHICH MEANS HE WAS IN THE CITY LIMITS AND YOU MAY COME UP AND PROVIDE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE, PLEASE TAKE THE OATH AND YOU WOULD NOT BE LIMITED IN THE AMOUNT OF TIME YOU GET TO TESTIFY. IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL ANY OF THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, YOU WOULD FILE THAT WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THIS BOARDS WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT. THE CHAIR USUALLY SIGNS THIS WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WITHIN A FEW DAYS. ABOUT 33 TO 35 DAYS FROM NOW WOULD BE THE LIMIT FOR FILING ANY APPEAL. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> AND X PARTAKE COMMUNICATION DISCLOSURE. >> AVENUE FOR MEMBERS HAD ANY COMMUNICATION ON THIS MATTER. [00:10:04] >> MS. TAYLOR WOULD INDICATE EVERYBODY SAID NO AND THAT. >> IS HER. THERE IS ONLY FOR REVIEW HERE AND THERE SOMETHING WRONG WITH GETTING SWORN IN AND DECIDING YOU DON'T WANT TO SPEAK IS JUST EASIER IF WE GET EVERYBODY'S ONE AND ALL AT ONE TIME. IF YOU DO NOT GET SWORN IN AND YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND AND DECIDE YOU WANT TO SPEAK THAT IS NO PROBLEM. RAISE YOUR HAND AND TAYLOR WERE GET YOU SWORN IN ON THAT. TAYLOR IF YOU GET EVERYBODY'S ONE AND THAT WOULD BE GREAT. >> PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. HE SWEAR FROM THE ORAL OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.> YES. >> YES. >> THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. BEFORE WE GET INTO THIS CASE, [3.1 Approval of Minutes for the September 16, 2020 Regular Meeting.] LET'S GET THE MINUTES OF LAST MONTH APPROVED. WERE THERE ANY NOTES ON THAT OR ANYTHING WE NEED TO LOOK AT OUR CRACKED OR AMEND ON THAT. >> THE ATTENDANCE OF MARK GLEASON. HE WAS THERE AT THE MEETING IN THE NOTES SAY HE WAS ABSENT. >> TAYLOR, AND WE MAKE THAT NOTE. HE DID COME IN LATE. DID YOU COME IN LATE. >> I SIGNED ON VIRTUALLY. >> THANK YOU. [4.1 BOA 2020-0004 - STEFAN ERDMANN, AGENT FOR JUTTA GOODBREAD, 837 TARPON AVENUE Variance from LDC 1.03.05(A) to restore lots 13 & 14 of the unrecorded Sorensens Ocean Terrace (Quasi-Judicial)] DAPHNE IF YOU'RE READY LET'S HAVE A STAFF REPORT AND GET YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS MATTER. >> DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES OR BECAUSE OF AN AMENDED WOULD NOT VOTE ON THEM. >> LET'S AMEND THOSE AND KEEP THOSE BACK TO THE NEXT MEETING. THAT WAY WILL YOU VOTE IN THEM WE WILL HAVE ALL THE CORRECTIONS ON THAT IF THAT IS OKAY. >> ,ONE MOMENT. >> GOOD EVENING. TONIGHT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS CASE 2020Ä04 FOR MS. JANET GOOD BREAD REPRESENTED BY MR. STEPHAN IRVIN. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 837 TARPON AVENUE AND CURRENTLY ZONED R2 WITH MEDIAN DESIGNATED LAND USE. THE REQUEST TONIGHT 1.03058 COMBINED PODS.A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE WITH AN INDOOR POOL ON THE SITE. FOR THE RECORD ALL APPLICATION MATERIALS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND ALL FEES HAVE BEEN PAID IN ALL REQUIRED NOTICES HAVE BEEN MADE. AN APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE SECTION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO RESTORE TO UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD AND RETAIN THE CURRENT HOME OF THE TWO LAWS. IT STATES THAT WE HAVE STRUCTURES INCLUDING SWIMMING POOLS SO CONSTITUTE ONE BUILDING SITE IN THE CHANGE FOR THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS OR SEPARATION OF BUILDING SITES SHALL REQUIRE APPROVAL FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS WHICH ALL PERSONS SHOULD BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE CURRENT LAW CONFIGURATION OF 120 BY 200 IS LARGER THAN ANY OTHER LOT IN THE GENERAL VICINITY. DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES CURRENTLY EXIST AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THIS REQUEST AND AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THIS IS THE EXISTING BUILDING SITE. AS IT STANDS, IT HAS THE ABILITY TO ACCOMMODATE FOR TOWNHOMES.IT DOES NOT REQUIRE VARIANCE. AND WE HAVE A COMPOSED CONFIGURATION THROUGH BUILDING SITES. IT WOULD ALLOW FOR DEMOLISHING AND FILLING IN THE INDOOR POOL TO ALLEVIATE COVERAGE ON LOTS 13 AND 14 WHICH ARE HERE IN RED AND BLUE. THIS ACTION WOULD MAKE LOTS 13 AND 14 INDIVIDUALLY BUILDABLE. WHEN SINGLE-FAMILY HOME TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON EACH LOT OF RECORD IN KEEPING WITH THE HARMONY OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. IN SPECIAL. [00:15:09] IT IS NOT GRANT TO SPECIAL APPLICANT. ALTHOUGH THE SECTION OF CODE APPLIES ALL LOTS OF RECORD, IT WILL RESTORED TO UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD WHICH ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE MINIMUM STANDARDS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND CONFERENCE A PLAN. LITERAL INTERPRETATION. YES LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WOULD DEPRIVE THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE TWO UNDERLYING LOTS RECORD. MINIMUM VARIANCE. YES VARIANCE REQUESTED IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NEEDED TO MAKE POSSIBLE THE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND AND IT WILL ALLOW FOR THE LOTS TO BE RESTORED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. ODC SECTION 103.105 A IS THE ONLY VARIANCE REQUESTED. GENERAL HARMONY. YES GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. IT ALLOWS FOR TWO SMALL LOTS WHICH WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MINIMUM STANDARDS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE HAVING SUFFICIENT LAND AREA TO SUPPORT SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS. PUBLIC INTEREST. GRANTED THE VARIANCE IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES WILL NOT CAUSE INJURY OR BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC, HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE ENVIRONMENT. AND THE APPLICANT APPEARS TO MEET CRITERIA ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX BEFORE GRANTING VARIANCE AND STAFF MUST RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF DOA 2020Ã 0004 AND I'M OPEN TO QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. YOU DID A GREAT JOB. >> JUST FOR THE RECORD BECAUSE I WAS LISTENING TO WHAT SHE WAS READING. SHE READ CASE NUMBER 2020Ä04 AND IS ACTUALLY 2020Ä004. ; IS THAT RIGHT?> YES. >> JUST TO MAKE SURE. >> ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU FOR CATCHING THAT. DO ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF? >> NONE HERE. >> NO. >> OKAY. SO THEN WE CAN HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, MR. ARDEN. >>. [BLEEP] JUST FOR THE RECORD SEARCH NAME AND ADDRESS. >> MY NAME IS STEFAN IRVIN. WE BASICALLY REMOVED THE POOL AND FREE THE BACK TO LOTS OF. >> THE HOUSE IS SAYING. >> IT IS. THE POOL HAS NOT BEEN IN USE IN 10 YEARS AND WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE DUMPING TRASH AND BASICALLY THAT REMOVES THE PROBLEM ALTOGETHER. >> WOULD DO NOTHING TO THE HOUSE. >> NOTHING TO THE HOUSE. >> ALL RIGHT. WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SAY. >> THAT IS PRIMITIVE. IT SEEMS FAIRLY SIMPLE. DO ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR HIM BEFORE HE SITS DOWN. >> NO. >> NO SIR. THANK YOU. WE MAY COME BACK TO YOU AS NEEDED. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I SEE A COUPLE OF OTHER PEOPLE HERE AND WE WILL OPEN THAT UP TO YOUR THOUGHTS IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST EITHER ONE OF THOSE. >> I JUST REMEMBERED. DID WE DO THOSE. >> YES WE DID. IT'S HARD TO KEEP UP WITH AND I SWEAR I DON'T THINK AS WELL SO USED TO WITH THE MASK ON. IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY WOULD LOVE TO HEAR. >> I TALK LOUD. >> STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> DEBORAH HARPER, 835 ALLEN STREET. UNLIKE A STREET MAP OUT. MY QUESTION IS, WE ARE TOLD WHEN IT WENT ON THE MARKET THAT IT WAS EVENTUALLY GOING TO BE FOR LOTS. MY QUESTION IS, THAT IS WHAT WE THOUGHT ORIGINALLY. OF THE FOUR HOUSES. IN THE RECENTLY IN ALL NEIGHBORHOOD, PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE FAMILIES GOING INTO THE SLOT 1 OF THE 3536 AND WAS GOING TO BE INDIVIDUAL MOST TOWNHOUSES WITH PARKING AND WHATEVER. [00:20:01] SO JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN BECAUSE IT'S A FAMILY EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE THE ONE TOWNHOUSE THE END OF TARPON AND THEN WE HAVE THE OTHER ONE DRIVING IN FROM OF THOSE APARTMENTS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WERE NOT PUTTING IN APARTMENT BUILDING THERE. THERE IS ONE ONE OR TWO DOWN FROM IT. THE ONE THAT IS UPSTAIRS. >> YES. >> THAT IS WHAT I WAS ASSUMING IS GOING TO GO IN THERE BUT IT THREE LEVEL. >> THAT IS NOT THE INTENT. >> 100 PERCENT SURE IT'S GOING TO BE ONE HOUSE IN THE FRONT AND TWO HOUSES IN THE BACK. >> THAT IS WHAT IT COULD BE. WITH WHAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY REQUESTING. >> THEN THE ASPIRIN OF THE VARIANCE. THE TWO TOWNHOUSES IN THE BACK, THEY WILL GO IN AND OUT. >> ONLY REQUESTED VARIANCE TONIGHT IS SEPARATE THE BACK TO LOTS AND THERE IS NO INTENT ON TAKING ON THE HOUSE THEY CURRENTLY SITS ON THE FRONT LOTS. THAT FACED TARPON AVENUE. AS IT STANDS, WITH THIS CONFIGURATION, THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR JUST TWO SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND THEIR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO BE ON THOSE LOTS. IF YOU LOOK ON THE SCREEN BEHIND YOU, THAT WILL GIVE INDIVIDUAL OF WHAT THEY ARE REQUESTING. >> HOW TALL ARE THOSE BUILDINGS CAN BE. WHERE THEY HAVE AN ENTRANCE OF THE GATE UPSTAIRS.HEN YOU ARE ALL GONE AND EVENTUALLY THERE WILL BE HIRES WILL BLOCK ANYBODY FROM THE OTHER SIDE. >> LET ME. >> GO AHEAD. >> AND IF THIS IS YOU. BUT I'M THINKING AHEAD. >> AND YOU BROUGHT UP SOME GREAT QUESTIONS. WERE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR 10 TO 20 YEARS ON THE ROAD WILL LEAD PTO THE NEXT GENERATION. YOU'RE ASKING ALL THE RIGHT QUESTIONS AND IT'S NOT THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD TO HANDLE ANY OF THIS QUESTIONS. SO THEN WE COULD DO IS DIVIDE THE LOTS AND THAT WOULD BE KICKED DOWN THE BUILDING AND PLANNING AND ZONING. HOWEVER ANYBODY CAN APPLY FOR VARIANCE TO DO ANYTHING. AND WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THAT WHERE THAT WOULD GO. OUR LOOKING AT IS A GOOD FIT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AS STEPHANIE BROUGHT UP, WE COULD HAVE TOWNHOMES THERE. SO WE ARE LOOKING AT SOMETHING THAT IS MUCH LESS THAN THAT. >> THAT WOULD BE MY CONCERN. IT WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC WITH THE TURTLES. WE DO HAVE THAT ISSUE. THE MORE PEOPLE THAT EVERYTHING BEING SO CLOSE. AT THE END OF THE ROAD. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WERE PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT AND PROTECTING THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE AND THE TRAFFIC. IT IS REALLY THE TRAFFIC. >> ABSOLUTELY AND YOU'RE ASKING ALL OF THE RIGHT QUESTIONS. AND THE BOARD IS IN TUNE TO ALL OF THOSE ISSUES AND THE PEOPLE THAT WENT BEFORE US GIVES A GREAT CITY AND THEY ARE ALL GONE AND WE DON'T KNOW THE NAMES AND THEY DID A GOOD JOB. IN THIS BOARD WANTS TO MAKE SURE WE DO THE SAME IN OREGON. THOSE ARE ALL THE RIGHT QUESTIONS TO ASK. I'M NOT SURE THIS BOARD HAS THE AUTHORITY ON THAT IS FOR SURE. >> BUT YOU ARE OPENING THE DOOR FOR THE NEXT VARIANCE AND BUILDER TO COME IN AND PRESENT THEIR PLANS AND THEY WOULD BE WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS TO APPLY. >> WE COULD GET INTO IT IN OUR DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT COULD BE OR MIGHT BE BUT ANYBODY COULD REPLY TO ADVANCE ANYTHING. >> ARE YOU THE ONLY BOARD THAT [00:25:05] THAT'S A VARIANCE FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WITH THE BUILDING. >> YES. IN THIS AREA OF TOWN. HISTORIC DISTRICT IS DIFFERENT BUT OVER HERE THIS WOULD BE THE PLACE WHERE ALL VARIANCES ARE REQUESTED. >> ANOTHER QUESTION MAYBE YOU GUYS WOULD KNOW WILL APPEAR AND SORRY FOR MY NEIGHBOR OF DOING THIS. I COME HERE MIGHT AS WELL ASK THE QUESTION. IS IT ZONED TO BE ABLE TO BE. >> THERE IS NO ALLOWABLE SHORT-TERM RENTALS AS FAR AS AIR BNE OR VR PO IS CONCERNED. THIS IS ZONED R2 SO IT WOULD RESTRICT THAT.> I KNOW SOME PEOPLE, I THINK IT WAS THE TOWNHOUSES. THEY WANTED TO DO A WEEKLY AT THE END OF TARPON AND IT WAS TURNED DOWN. >> IF IT IS ZONED R2 IT IS NOT ALLOWABLE.>> OKAY. THOSE ARE MY MAJOR CONCERNS. >> SURE. THIS ARE ALL VERY VALID POINTS. SO WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT YOU'RE NOT AGAINST SUBDIVIDING THE SLOTS. >> I WAS TOLD IT WAS GOING TO BE FOUR. I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE OKAY TO UPGRADE THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO PUT FOUR INDIVIDUAL HOUSES THERE. I WANT TO SEE SOMETHING THAT IS 35 FEET UP IN THE AIR BLOCKING ANYBODY THAT THE OLDER HOMES. >> I HAVE ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS. I KNOW ORIGINALLY THE INTENT WAS TO DO FOR THEM AT FOUR; IS THAT CORRECT? [INAUDIBLE] >> FOR THE RECORD, THE PROPERTY OWNER SAID YES THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT WAS TO DO FOR INDIVIDUAL DWELLING UNITS. >> THAT IS UP TO THEIR DISCRETION IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO FOUR. >> THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF POSSIBILITIES.THE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD, MA'AM, HERE IF YOU CAN SEE, THE FRONT WHERE THE HOUSES, THE REASON LOOKS LIKE ONE IS BECAUSE THE STRUCTURE IS THERE AND IT GOES OVER THE LOT LINE. IF THAT STRUCTURE WAS DEMOLISHED, THE WAY THAT THE CITY CODE CURRENTLY READS, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, IF THAT WAS DEMOLISHED, THEY CAN APPLY TO RESTORE THE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD AND HAVE A TOTAL OF FOUR.UT THAT IS NOT CHANGE THAT IS IT ZONED R2 WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW FOR CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSES AND SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ARE TREATED PRETTY MUCH THE SAME WAY WITH REGARD TO ZONING. BUT THAT WOULD BE THE MOST. YOU WILL NOT SEE 10 UNITS ON THEIR. >> ANOTHER QUESTION. THE REASON WE CAME AS WE HAD HEARD AN ASTRONOMICAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE IS BEING PROJECTED TO BUILD ON THE SLOTS. JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW. HE RAN UP A GOOD POINT. TARPON IS A MESS WHEN WE HAVE ANY KIND OF RAIN. SO WHERE'S THE WATER LINE ABE I WANT TO SUBDIVIDE THIS INTO THREE UNITS. IT WILL BE A MESS WITH THE MAIN WATER LINE AND EVERYTHING ELSE. >> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE APPLICANT, WE'RE TOTALLY OFF THE RAILS IN TERMS. WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND AND WE ARE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU IS TO CALL THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND YOU CAN MAKE AN APPOINTMENT WITH DAPHNE OR ONE OF THE OTHER PLANNERS AND SIT DOWN WITH THIS VERY PICTURE AND ASK ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS. >> BUT THAT OVER TO THE NEXT STEP OF WHATEVER BUILDERS OR WHATEVER TO BE DOING. BECAUSE INFRASTRUCTURE. >> WHAT SHE IS SAYING IS IT IS WAY BEYOND OUR PICTURE ON THAT BUT THERE ARE SO MANY LEVELS WITHIN THE CITY AND WERE GETTING BETTER ALL THE TIME. SOMETIMES A SOMETHING HERE BUT ALL THE CITY DEPARTMENTS ARE ON THE SAME PAGE NOW. WHENEVER SOMETHING IS IN THE PERMITTING. ALL THAT STUFF. >> WILL MORE THINGS. WHAT IS THE TIMEFRAME FOR THE VARIANCE. >> THE VERY FASTEST IT WOULD [00:30:01] HAPPEN IN TERMS OF TWO OTHER UNITS IN THE BACK I MEAN SIX MONTHS. BEFORE YOU WOULD SEE ANY WORK STARTED. >> OKAY. >> THAT IS THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS DECIDED TO DO THAT AND GET BUILDING PERMITS. >> AS IN SOLVING THE ORIGINAL OWNER HAS IT. THAT IS PART OF THE ISSUE TO THEM SURE. >> IT TAKES A LONG TIME. >> SO YOU'RE SAYING EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED NOW WITH THE GHOST OR ONE-STEP THAN OTHER WORDS. HOW MANY BOARDS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT IN ORDER TO DO THIS. I'VE BEEN HERE WITH THE OTHER PEOPLE WITH THE BUILDING HEIGHT. >> IT IS JUST THIS BOARD. THIS WILL BE THE LAST PUBLIC MEETING. THE REST WILL BE THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THAT IS WHY I ENCOURAGE YOU TO ASK ALL THE QUESTIONS YOU NEED AT THE PLANNING STAFF THEN YOU WILL FEEL RUSHED OR YOUR ON CAMERA AND YOU BEEN RECORDED. >> I DON'T CARE. >> BUT THIS BOARD IS CREATING A RECORD AND WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL BECAUSE EVERYTHING ON THE RECORD HAS TO BE RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION FOR THE BOARD. >> I WANT ASKED MY NEXT QUESTION. >> ASK EVERYTHING YOU WANT ASKED. >> I WAS GOING TO ASK IN THE RELATIVE TO THE ACTUAL BUILDING OF THE ACTUAL UNITS TO SEE IF ANYBODY HAS COME FORWARD TO PURCHASE IT. >> REMEMBER THE AUTHORITY GIVEN TO THIS BOARD BY THE CITY COMMISSION. IF IT DOES NOT PERTAIN TO DIVIDING THOSE TWO LOTS, WE SHOULD NOT BE TALKING ABOUT IT. >> OKAY. BUT THERE ARE PLACES WITH MS. CITY READING IT ALL THAT INFORMATION IN OUR LIMITED AUTHORITY AND I THINK WERE WAY BEYOND THAT. I KNOW THAT DOESN'T ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. >> THAT'S OKAY. WHAT YOU MAKE DECISIONS WHICH ARE OBVIOUSLY ALREADY HAVE. >> A LET ME STOP YOU RIGHT THERE. THE BOARD IS NOT LEANING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. >> BUT IF IT COMES TO THE POINT AND LET'S SAY YOU DO APPROVE THIS AND LET'S SAY IT DOESN'T SELL, TO THE PEOPLE I COME BACK AND ASKED FOR ANOTHER VARIANCE TO PUT ANOTHER CONFIGURATION. > THEY CAN APPLY FOR A VARIANCE WITH ANYTHING THEY WANT. WHETHER IT'S A SETBACK OR FENCES OR SWIMMING POOL.>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS ORIGINALLY IT WAS AN OUTDOOR POOL WITH SO MUCH SAND WAS BLOWING THAT EVENTUALLY THE ORIGINAL OWNER THAT'S ON THE ENCLOSED LIKE THAT. JUST LET ME KNOW. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN. >> WAS THERE SOMETHING ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SAY. >> SHE COVERED EVERYTHING ALL RIGHT. AND IN THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTION OR COMMENT ON THAT. >> I DO. LET'S GO AHEAD. >> ALL WE ARE DOING A HERE IS TO CREATE A VARIANCE TO SPLIT THE TWO WESTWARD LOTS.HEN I SANG ANYTHING ABOUT THE TWO FACING TARPON. ALL HE COULD DO IS TAKE THE POOL DOWN AND FILLED IN THE BACK TO LOTS ANYTHING HE DOES IN THE FIRST TWO IF YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT HOUSE DOWN, BUT IF YOU DID HAVE A PLAN THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE CITY. >> YES. >> IN ORDER TO MAKE IT INTO TWO LOTS DIFFERENT. >> TO DO ANYTHING OR YOU MIGHT MAKE A BIG LOT. >> THAT HAS TO BE. >> OR JUST PULL SPLITTING THE BACK TO LOTS. >> THAT IT'S CRACKED BANKS IF YOU LOOK AT IT FROM THIS PICTURE THAT DAPHNE HAS PUT ON THERE, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A GOOD FIT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT IS RARE THAT CITY STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THAT IS VERY RARE AS WELL. BUT WE COULD HAVE BEFORE TOWNHOUSES SO. AND I AM ALWAYS LEERY OF DIVIDING THESE PROPERTIES BECAUSE I'M AFRAID OF WHERE IT WILL GO. I'M AFRAID THAT THERE'S ALWAYS SO MUCH PRESSURE ON THE CITY TO DEVELOP ON THESE VERY LOTS. >> WILL WITH THE 50 BY 100 FOOT LOT. THERE ARE SETBACKS. IF THEY WENT 35 FEET, >> SO MUCH OUT OF MY HEAD. >> THEY HAVE TO COME IN. >> BASED OFF OF THE LIGHT LIFT, HER SETBACKS WOULD HAVE TO BE MINIMAL OF FIVE FEET FOR EACH SIDE AND THEN 20 FEET IN THE REAR AND 25 FOR THE FRONT. [00:35:02] >> THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. >> WERE GOING TO CLOSE OUT THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THIS. IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE YOU CAN AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO. IF YOU HAVE A THOUGHT, IT WILL BE GLAD TO HEAR IT. IF NOT WILL CLOSE THAT OUT. ANY MORE BOARD DISCUSSIONS MARKER STEPHEN. >> NOW. >> NONE HERE. >> WHICH WE WERE LEANING. WHICH WAY YOU THINK AND. >> I KIND OF LIKE IT DID TELL YOU THE TRUTH. >> I THINK THAT'S A MUCH BETTER FIT THAN THE FOUR TOWNHOMES. >> IS NOT GOING TO BE ASTRONOMICALLY SIZED PLAYS WELL WITH THE FOUR TOWNHOUSES, THAT'S A LOT. WHAT DO YOU THINK. >> IT IS A GREAT IDEA. I WENT OUT THERE AND LOOKED AT IT AND FOR SOME IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I CAN EMPHASIZE THAT PEOPLE PUTTING TRASH IN THE BACK BECAUSE AS FAR AWAY FROM THE HOUSE. QUICK STEPHEN, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY. >> I HAVE MARKED. >> WAS JUST GOING TO SAY NOTHING REALLY BAD. LOOKS GOOD TO ME AND I KNOW THERE ARE TOWNHOUSES OPEN THAT AREA OF NORTH BEACH. THIS WOULD BE VERY GOOD. >> OKAY THANKS QUICK STEPHEN WHAT HE GOT. >> EXPRESS THE SAME THING. IT'S LIMITED IN WHAT IT CAN DO IT HAS CONTROL THAT WE WANT TO SEE IN THE NORTH SIDE AND MAKING A LOT SMALLER. I THINK IT'S A SMART CHOICE AND IT'S A WIN. >> I THINK SO TOO. I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. BOCK. >> YES. >> HE WAS SAYING HE DID NOT WANT TO DIVIDE THE FACT TO LOTS IN THAT HOUSE IS SITTING ACROSS THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE FRONT TWO LOTS. SO THE BOARD WANTED TO, COULD WE MAKE A CONDITION ON SPLITTING THE BACK TO THAT EFFECT TO STAY TOGETHER. >> YOU CANNOT DO THAT. >> THAT'S A MOOT POINT. >> YES. >> AND WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AND THAT HAVE AT LEAST THREE CASES IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS DOING THIS AND AS YOU RIGHTFULLY POINT OUT, THE CITY IS GETTING MORE MORE PRESSURE TO DEVELOP AND TAKE OUR EXISTING CODE THE WHOLE. WE PROVIDE THE CODE THAT UNDERLYING LOTS AND WE ALLOW THIS TO BE DONE. THE PLACE TO LEGISLATE AND STOP ALLOWING THAT IS NOT HERE. AND I'VE HEARD IT SEVERAL MEETINGS NOW FOR MEMBERS SAY TALK ABOUT THE SAME THING THAT I SAY THAT PEOPLE TESTIFYING IS RELEVANT THIS MORNING AND IT WILL CAUSE MORE TRAFFIC. I'VE LIVED HERE 50 YEARS AGO AND IT WASN'T LIKE THIS. THEY ARE NOT RELEVANT TO YOUR DECISION.E TALKED ABOUT WHEN I SAY THAT NOT RELEVANT IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU TELL PEOPLE TO SIT DOWN AND BE QUIET. YOU MINUTES BOARD MEMBERS YOU WILL AND WILL TELL YOU ABOUT THAT SOMETIMES NOT RELEVANT CC CAN MAKE THOSE COMMENTS AND CHAT AS MUCH AS YOU WANT BUT THEN WHEN YOU'RE MAKING YOUR DECISION, THE EVIDENCE YOU ACTUALLY WAY TO MAKE A DECISION AGAINST THE VARIANCE HAS TO BE RELEVANT IN THE LEGAL STANDARD THAT WE KNOW IS LEGAL EVIDENCE. WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT WHAT WE VISITED HERE WHAT WE KNOW IS HAPPENING IN LAST 5 TO 10 YEARS ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE DECISION. THE CODE PROVIDES FOR UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD TO BE RESTORED. IF WE AS A COMMUNITY WANT THAT TO STOP, WE NEED TO CHANGE THE CODE. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL FOR US TO SAY IF YOU HAVE TWO LOTS OF RECORD YOU WILL DELIVER, THAT IS NOT A LOT. FOREVER AND EVER AMEN.OU CAN DO THAT. OR THE CITY COMMISSION CAN DO THAT. THAT IS HOW WE NEED TO ADDRESSES. IF IT IS BECOMING A PROBLEM. WE SEE CASES FOR ADVANCES OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND THAT USUALLY MEANS THERE IS AN ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE CODE. [00:40:04] OTHERWISE YOU WOULDN'T. FINANCES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SPECIAL HARDSHIP CASES AND NOT THINGS TO RESTORE ALL PLAQUES UNDERLYING. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CITY COMMISSION ADDRESS THIS POLICY ISSUE AT SOME POINT. >> THAT WAS VERY WELL SAID. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY OTHER FOR DISCUSSION BEFORE WE GET A MOTION. DID WE LOSE MARK. >> HE STILL HERE. >> I'M STILL HERE. >> WE JUST CAN'T SEE YOU. THERE YOU ARE. YOUR BACK. IS THERE ANYBODY ON THE LINE, CITIZENS OR ANYBODY ELSE. >> ARE TWO APPLICANTS AND THAT IS IT. >> I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. > GO AHEAD. >> THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO TEAR DOWN THAT INDOOR POOL STRUCTURE. WHO GROUP COULD BUY THOSE LIGHTS. >> THEY ARE ASKING FOR THE POOL. THAT IS THE REASON FOR THIS VARIANCE REQUEST IS BECAUSE THE POOL IS OVERLAPPING ON THOSE LOTS 13 AND 14. FOR ANYONE TO PURCHASE IT IT WOULD BE EASIER THE POOL IS NOT THERE. THAT IS THE REASON FOR THIS REQUEST. >> MR. GLEASON, ALSO IN ORDER FOR THE VARIANCE TO BE AS PART OF THE APPLICATION, YOU HAVE TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURES THAT ARE COVERING BOTH LOTS. AS A CONDITION OF THE VARIANCE, THE POOL IS STILL THERE. AS A CONDITION OF THE VARIANCE, IT IS UNDERSTOOD THROUGH THE APPLICATION AND ITS VARIANCE IS GRANTED, THE STRICT CONDITION WILL BE THAT THAT POOL COMES OUT. >> IF THEY LEFT IT THERE APPLICATION TO RESTORE THE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD WOULD NOT BE RIPE. >> THE WHOLE THING HAS COME DOWN.HEY COULD NOT TEAR DOWN THOSE LOTS. >> TO SUPPLY WATER AND. >> IF IT HAS WATER THEY HAD TO TAKE OUT THE WHOLE THING. >> WHAT IF WE JUST MADE THAT CONDITION. >> THAT CLEANS UP THINGS ON OUR END AND LET EVERYBODY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WERE DOING AND WERE COMPLETELY TAKEN THE PULLOUT AND THEN DOING THE BACK. ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT. >> I'M FINE WITH THAT. >> ARE YOU GOOD WITH THAT STEPHEN. >> ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD. >> MOVED TO APPROVE CASE NUMBER 2020Ã004 OR IS IT 0004. >> 0004. >> WHEN THEY MAKE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF ALL PART OF THE RECORD AND THAT WILL A CASE WHATEVER IT IS IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN. STRADDLES THE TWO LOTS TO GET REMOVED. BEFORE THE LOTS ARE DISPOSED OF. >> THE POOL ON THE DECK. >>. [INAUDIBLE] ANYTHING ON THOSE TWO PROPERTIES. >> PROBABLY GO WITH THAT VERBIAGE.> THAT IS FINE. [00:45:01] >> MOTION ON THE FLOOR. >> SECOND. >> TAYLOR, CALLED THE VOTE ON THAT. >> YES. >> YES. >> YES. >> YES. >> YES. >> SO YOUR MOTION IS PASSED. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN. IT WILL TAKE US THROUGH FOUR DAYS AND DEFINITELY WILL HAVE ALL OF YOUR PAPERWORK READY AND YOU WILL BE GOOD TO GO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. BACK TO WHAT STEPHEN WAS SUMMARILY ABOUT VOTING ON THE MINUTES. I WAS THINKING KNOW ABOUT THAT BUT IN THE PAST WE HAVE JUST AMENDED THE MINUTES AND VOTED ON THEM.S THERE A REASON WE CAN'T DO THAT RIGHT NOW. >> NO. >> SO STEPHEN YOU ARE THE ONE THAT BROUGHT IT UP SO WANT TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THAT. >> A COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM LAST MONTH'S MEETING FROM SEPTEMBER. >> WITH THE AMENDMENT ON IT AND WE NOTED EARLIER. NEED A SECOND. >> SECOND. >> AND I HAVE A FIRST AND THE SECOND. TAYLOR WILL YOU PLEASE COLLUDE. >> YES. >> YES. >> YES. >> YES. >> YES. >> AND WE WILL ASK IF THERE'S ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC PHONE LINE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING TO THE BOARD AND IS ANYBODY DAPHNE. WILL MAKE A NOTE ON THE MINUTES THAT NO ONE SPOKE WAS THERE ANYTHING THEY WANTED TO SAY. SO WE HAVE THREE APPLICANTS ON [6. BOARD BUSINESS] HERE. AND WE HAVE STRUGGLED TO FILL THE BOARD KNOW THAT THE CITY COMMISSION HAS BEEN WORKING REALLY HARD TO GET HIS PEOPLE. AND WE HAVE ONE MORE APPLICANT. I THINK THERE ARE TWO THAT ARE LISTED ON THE AGENDA AND WE HAVE ONE MORE THAN MET THE DEADLINE BUT DIDN'T GET PUT IN THE PACKET. AND THAT NAME IS MR. JEFFREY GRANT. AND I'M NOT SPOKEN TO HIM BUT I DID HAVE AN EMAIL WITH HIM AND I SAID THE INFORMATION AND I'VE NOT. DEPENDING ON WHAT THE BOARD WANTS TO DO AND I'M HAPPY TO DO WHATEVER THEY WOULD RECOMMEND, IT TYPICALLY TRY TO REMAIN A POLITICAL WE DO NOT DO ANYTHING WITH APPLICANTS. WE KICK IT UP TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND THEY ARE DOING THE WILL OF THE VOTERS IS DURING THE BOARD TO DO THAT IT IS THAT WITH THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO DO. >> WHAT THEY SELECT ALL THREE. >> THEY ARE GOING TO SELECT TWO.THEY KNOW THEY CAN ONLY PUT ONE NAME IN EACH SLIDE.>> THIS IS FOR EVERYBODY. THERE IS AN APPLICATION THAT CAME IN AND SO NOW I HAVE THREE APPLICANTS FOR TWO SEATS. >> ISN'T THERE AN ALTERNATE. >> THAT INCLUDES ALTERNATES. >> I WAS WRONG ON THAT. I THOUGHT WE HAD 7+ THE TWO. >> WE HAVE FIVE FULL TIMES. >> WHEN THE CITY CONSIDERS THE THREE LET'S MAKE SURE THEY HAVE THE THIRD BECAUSE I SAW THE RESUME. THEY WILL HAVE ALL OF THEM. ABSOLUTELY THAT STILL WITH THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO DO. WE CAN DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT JUST BECAUSE IT'S WHAT WE'VE ALWAYS DONE DOESN'T MEAN THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD DO. I JUST THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THE BOARD REMAINS POLITICALLY DISTANT FROM WHATEVER IS GOING ON IN THE CITY THAT WE JUST HANDLE EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE AND OUR APPOINTMENT IS HANDLED BY THE CITY COMMISSION AND THAT SEEMS LIKE A GOOD WAY TO DO IT. SO WE WILL JUST KICK THIS UP AND WOULD LET THEM DECIDE. WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE HAD TO TALK ABOUT. I WOULD SAY ONE OTHER THING BACK TO MARK'S COMMENT ABOUT THE VIRTUAL MEETINGS. AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS SOME MORE AS IT BECOMES CLOSER TO TIME. I KNOW THERE MIGHT BE SOME [00:50:02] HIGH-RISK HEALTH ISSUES OR OTHER ISSUES THAT SOME OF US MAY OR MAY NOT BE WRESTLING WITH. YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN GREAT ON THE BOARD AND I DON'T WANT TO LOSE YOU. BUT I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND IF THERE IS HEALTH ISSUES OR CONCERNS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THERE IS A WAY PERHAPS WE CAN NAVIGATE THROUGH THIS AS A KIND OF WORKS OUT. WOULD THAT BE FAIR TO SAY. >> THE CITY COMMISSIONERS AND POLICYMAKERS, WE ALL WORK FOR THEM AND SO TALK TO THEM. TALK TO THEM AND SEE HOW THEY ARE THINKING AND FEELING ABOUT. THEY HAVE BEEN COMING OUT. AGE WISE, BUT THEY ARE ALL HIGH-RISK. I'M SORRY BUT IT'S TRUE. AND THEN SOME PEOPLE OBVIOUSLY. AND THEY MAY NOT WANT TO DISCLOSE HIGH-RISK AND WE HAVE LOST ONE BOARD MEMBER FROM THE HISTORIC DISTRICT FOR WE BELIEVE FOR THIS REASON. IT IS WITH THIS. WE ARE IN STRANGE TIMES. >> FOR DISCUSSION BECAUSE I HATE THE LEASE EITHER ONE OF THEM. COULD THEY ROLLBACK TO AN ALTERNATE AND STILL BE ON THE BOARD. >> IT IS AN OPTION YES. >> I DO RECOGNIZE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING AND I RESPECT YOUR VIEW ON THAT AND WE DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS NOT SMART. QUICK, SO SET OUT IN SOME FORM OR FASHION. WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE AND DOES ANYTHING TO SAY. STEVEN AND MARK, ANYTHING YOU WANT TO BRING UP. >> HIM GOOD. THANK YOU. >> ANYBODY. >> NO THANK YOU. THAT SOUNDS GOOD. COMMISSIONER ROSS HE WANTS ANYTHING. >> THERE IS A 35 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AND THERE IS NO VARIANCE TO IT. YOU CAN'T GO OVER 35 FOOT. >> IS THAT INCLUDES ELEVATOR SHAFTS. >> YES. >> THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW. >> WILL YOU CANNOT GO ABOVE 35 FEET THAT THE ELEVATOR SHAFT, THIS IS RESIDENTIAL. >> YOU WILL NOT SEE THREE-STORY HOMES WITH ROOFTOP DECKS. >> THAT IS AWESOME. I DIDN'T KNOW * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.