Built from the City's minutes records — no AI-written textBriefing final
The City's record
What the City's record shows
Built only from the City's minutes (1621_BA_Reg_Minutes_01_17_2024.pdf). Page numbers are the minutes' own. Discussion is in the minutes' text; it is not summarised here.
Attendance (the roll call)
Listed present when the roll was taken: Pam Shaia, Patricia Weeks, Dan Quattrocchi
Arrived after the roll: Kaitlyn Aliano (the minutes note: “arrived at 6:1 1pm”)
(Checked against the ballots and the printed roll lines; no independent membership list of this board is available to confirm that the roll is complete.)
Absences: the minutes print an “ABSENT” heading with no names under it.
Also listed as present (staff and other roles): Luci Ribeiro (Planner), Abigail Morgan (Public Works Director), Kristin Eick (Assistant City Attorney), Monica Arsenault (Recording Secretary)
Adopted actions (4)
to approve the January 17, 2024 Agenda as written (moved by Weeks, seconded by Quattrocchi); CARRIED 3-0 — the City's minutes, p. 1
to approve the November 8, 2023 minutes as written (moved by Weeks, seconded by Quattrocchi); CARRIED 3-0 — the City's minutes, p. 2
to approve the waiver request from Appendix A, Zoning, Article XIII, Section 19(1) of the City of Cocoa Code to waive the requirement to provide stormwater retention facilities to retain the runoff of water resulting from a ten-year storm experience to include the conditions recommended by staff (moved by Weeks, seconded by Quattrocchi); CARRIED 4-0 — the City's minutes, p. 2
to approve a variance request from Appendix A, Zoning, Article XIII, Section 6 of the City of Cocoa Code to reduce the required 5-foot accessory structure setback in the rear yard by approximately 2.5 feet and the required 8-foot side yard setback by approximately 5 feet for an approximate 16-foot by … (moved by Weeks, seconded by Aliano); CARRIED 3-0 — the City's minutes, p. 4
Agenda (the City's wording)
The City's agenda for this meeting is on file (BA_Reg_Agenda_01_17_2024), but its item list has not been read reliably by machine yet, so no outline is shown.
Transcript Partial transcript
Machine transcription of the meeting recording. The words are the recognizer's, except where a passage is marked as corrected or machine re-recognized; most have
not been checked against the audio, so words, numbers and names can be misheard.
It describes what was said. It cannot establish who voted how, an amount or an outcome — the City's
minutes do that (above).
A time links to its passage, and “Copy link” copies that link. No recording can be started from here.
137 suspect passage(s) marked in place; inspection incomplete: language review; 1 stretch(es) where a voice was detected and no words were recognized.
How this transcript was made. New machine transcription of the whole recording, with 13 voices separated from the audio.
24 short machine repair(s) (31 word(s)) are labelled in place, with the original words beside them: an ordinary word was replaced only where two further machine readings agreed on a different one.
Checks run on this transcript: the recognizer's own warning signs and whether a voice was detected where the words are. Not completed: language review.
A second, independent machine reading was compared with it word by word: the same words for 88.9% of 5,612 content words.
Dotted words (120 places) are ordinary wording differences: hover or tap to see the other reading.
137 passages (24% of the words) are marked suspect: their words are not shown ("unclear audio") and support no statement: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ; the language review questioned them; or no voice was detected there.
Agreement between two machine readings is not verification.
Inspection is incomplete: language review.
Voice detected, no words recognized (1 stretch). Something may have been said here that the transcript does not have:
00:29:03 (7 s) — neither reading has words
Speakers were separated by voice. A plain name rests on evidence tied to that voice; “provisional” is a name from an earlier text-only pass and is not verified; “Speaker N” is an unidentified voice.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:00:09–00:00:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:00:28–00:00:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So the next thing we need to do is approve the agenda in the minutes. Our agenda is attached. It's the regular meeting tonight. Any questions on the agenda?
Wonderful. All right. We don't have any old business. We'll move on to the new business. Item number A under new business was withdrawn. We don't need to do anything with that. Correct? Thank you. Okay. We'll move on to item number B. Okay. That's
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:01:40–00:01:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:02:14–00:02:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:02:21–00:02:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:02:32–00:02:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:02:39–00:02:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:02:44–00:02:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:02:50–00:02:50 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:02:54–00:02:54 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:03:00–00:03:01 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:03:08–00:03:09 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
to allow bright line to use a portion of the property in question. 2705 North Coco Boulevard in exchange. They would provide construction services that included setting old
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:03:20–00:03:21 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Coco code of ordinance for performing construction without a permit and for the new grading that require a site plan amendment. During the review process for a site plan amendment application public works in accordance with the city of cocoa. Code requested that the applicant provided storm water retention. Proportional to the square footage of the imperial impervious area on site in addition to the storm water runoff resulting from a 10 year storm event.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:04:38–00:04:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:04:38–00:04:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:04:44–00:04:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the stormwater retention facility would need to retain the stormwater runoff from impervious areas resulting from a 10-year storm experience, experience within the limits of the property. The precipitation frequency estimated for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event is 7.47 inches or 0.6225 feet.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:05:12–00:05:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
The stormwater runoff is typically retained in a stormwater pond. If the pond were two feet deep, which is typically for a dry retention area, the area of the pond would be approximately 5,000 square feet. This would leave little to no room to maneuver on site safely. There are no major safety concerns associated with the request. The changes on site created a minor drainage disturbance to the property to the south, which the property owner will address as a condition for approval. The site grading and blocks installed created a minor water flow to the south property and with further evaluation, the property owner began to install a curb cut to redirect the flow
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:06:20–00:06:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:06:39–00:06:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
avoid ‸ erosion, create a curb cut, grade designated area to assist flow direction towards curb cut, indirect stormwater runoff from the driveway to the
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:06:57–00:06:57 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:07:12–00:07:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
section 19 one stormwater retention facilities regulations with the following conditions. The waiver should not be effective until after the applicant has secured all the permits and approvals necessary for any development related to the waiver, including applicable site plan amendments and building permits.
The applicant should coordinate with the city engineer and obtain approval of the agree upon site improvements as follows. To create a four-inch to six-inch berm soda to avoid erosion, to create a curb cut, grade designated area to assist flow direction towards curb cut,
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:07:59–00:08:00 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
stormwater runoff from the driveway to the stormwater inlet, locating within the public right away. If you have any questions, we do have the applicant here, Mr. Tomasco and also we have our city engineer, Abigail Morgan for any questions you may have.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:08:18–00:08:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 00:08:39–00:08:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:08:48–00:08:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:09:18–00:09:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
you very much. It passed. All right. We'll move on to the next item, which, let's see. C on the agenda was withdrawn. Okay. We'll move on to item D. And it
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:09:37–00:09:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:09:45–00:09:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:09:46–00:09:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:10:09–00:10:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:10:33–00:10:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
rear yard by approximately 2.5 feet, and the required eight-foot side yard setback by approximately five feet, for an approximately 16 foot by eight foot.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:10:53–00:11:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:11:01–00:11:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:11:11–00:11:12 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Fairmont Drive. The applicant's original home was built in 1959, and lies on a substandard legally non-conforming lot. The applicant is seeking a variance to accommodate a shed on the property's northwest side corner.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:11:43–00:11:43 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
located on the northwest side corner of the property, which was erected without a building permit. ‸ So the waiver analysis. Due to the drain field and shed location, it appears that the request bears no significant special ‸ circumstances that imposes a hardship on the applicant. The location of
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:12:05–00:12:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
shed, does not ‸ prevent the shed from moving the required five feet to the south side to comply with the code. The location of the septic drain field does not prohibit the shed from being moved 2.5 feet east to comply with the code. Despite being a non-conforming law, the applicant has enough acreage to meet yard and accessory structure setbacks.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:12:37–00:12:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:12:53–00:13:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:13:12–00:13:12 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
with Ordinance 08-2023, granting that a shed may be installed five feet from the rear property line and eight feet from the interior property line. As of October 2023, the City of Cocoa Building Department decided to set the minimum size requirement for property owners to request a permit to install a shed to be 120 square feet. Based on the most common permit applications received by the department, there are sheds,
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:13:57–00:13:57 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:13:58–00:14:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:14:08–00:14:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
changing the rear setback from 15 to 5 feet to accommodate most property ‸ owners. And I should highlight for corner lots. Based on the review of the application, according to the stringent evaluation criteria contained within the City Code, Staff recommends denial of
variance request from Appendix A zoning, Article 13, Section 6 of the City of Cocoa Code, to reduce the required five-foot accessory structure setback in the rear yard by approximately ‸ 2.5 feet, and they require
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:14:50–00:14:51 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:14:55–00:14:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
The, I think at one point in the PowerPoint, it said it was a waiver. Just want to clarify, make sure for the record that it is a variance that you're being asked to approve or deny as the board deems fit. And also, just wanted to clarify for the record as well, that the ordinance 08-2023 that was adopted by the City Council, it reduces the setback only for purposes of accessory structures.
example, sheds. But that, the ordinance didn't change the setback, the rear setback generally for all structures. So I just want to clarify that for the, for the board. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:16:19–00:16:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:16:24–00:16:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:16:37–00:16:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:16:40–00:16:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:16:48–00:16:49 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:16:57–00:16:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:17:11–00:17:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
first of all, this, this is our home when we bought it. As you can see, there's no, uh, carport or garage. That's a screen in ‸ porch chair. Uh, when the house was built in 1959, there was always a shed there. I, I imagine from old records we've seen, there was always a shed and, um, we replaced that shed.
When we first bought the house, as you can see how close it is to the house. And it was on the property line, uh, which the neighbors here today, uh, with that property line there. ‸ So in 2020 we had it replaced and, um, basically
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:17:58–00:17:58 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:17:59–00:17:59 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
have it's in the backyard. Okay. And, uh, but what we're concerned about, ‸ I heard what they said about the drain field. Um, but it takes equipment to move this thing. And
I have a question. Yeah. It sounds like the concern was not only the setback, but also the size of the shed and the fact that there was no permit for it.
That's correct. Uh, we were under the impression that we didn't need a, uh, permit at the time when we bought from the, uh, superior sheds. They said no problem. Like I said, this was 2020 when this thing was built. So, um, okay.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:19:24–00:19:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:19:31–00:19:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
you don't need, um, a permit. So I said, well, that's the state of Florida. And I know that's what you told us when you sold us the shed. We did not know. We didn't knowingly like break the law of, of going over the shed that with the permit, because we were trusting this guy knew what he was doing. ‸ This is his business. They don't pull shed permits for anything.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:20:00–00:20:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So, meanwhile, I'm not the mathematician all the time. So I realized that we're about 28 feet over the 100, but that's like water under the bridge. And also then realizing, had we known, we didn't realize, we just kind of trusted and were thrilled to get a shed in there. But Carlos
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:20:26–00:20:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:20:33–00:20:33 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
that space that we would have to move it four or five feet to the right and then, um, about 20 inches forward is what would be in complete completion and come in compliance to your, ‸ to your setbacks.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:21:23–00:21:23 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
go back to, go back to that one. This one, see the shed is tucked into the right, top, top right, which is actually the width wise. We don't have a lot of width. It's wider in the front with the curve, curvature of the, of the corner lot.
asked them, unknowing of the permit, like, like, mind you, really oblivious, not knowing anything of, we moved here in 2017. So maybe three years prior to that, we've not had anything, you know, knowing about what, what exactly all the rules are.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:22:20–00:22:20 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:22:59–00:23:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:23:14–00:23:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:23:17–00:23:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:23:22–00:23:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:23:25–00:23:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:23:44–00:23:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
understood you correctly, when you had them come out and give you the quote and build the shed, they were unaware that there was an ordinance at the time in place to say where the shed could be placed and that you had to go in before the city and get a permit.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:24:05–00:24:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:24:15–00:24:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So with that, that's why I was trying to reiterate that Carlos Santos is the one that said that we're the first case that we, as of our, as our has ever come up to say that the city of Cocoa is now pointing out a certain, we're the first ones. So anyway, he is willing to get on the phone just to verify that as something to just
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:24:41–00:24:41 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Um, I believe the, the applicant here, we see the call violation and then just solve the code violation. They submitted for a building permit at the time when they submit a building permit was around March, 2023. And the application was incomplete. It was missing a survey. And so we never seen the location of the shed at a time, but because there was a lot of issues going on throughout the city for corner lots because of the 15 feet setback requirement for accessory structure, we decided to, so it was a city initiated change of code to accommodate most of the residents that had a shed in corner law.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:25:56–00:25:57 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
My question about code enforcement is when they were first hit with the violation, how did the code enforcement officer know when it was built? How close? Like to my knowledge, code enforcement officers don't walk through property, right? So this is visible from the street. Was the code enforcement officer able to get all the information they needed to know that
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:26:46–00:26:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I don't know if how there is their procedure, but I know it was a complaint. So they went to the property because someone complained about it. Gotcha. ‸ Okay. Thank you.
Can I just reiterate the oddities of all the lot sizes? They're all different. Ours is technically 53 right there. And that one doesn't do it really justice because that gets narrower in the back. of the corner.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:27:28–00:27:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:27:30–00:27:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:28:02–00:28:02 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:28:20–00:28:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:28:25–00:28:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:28:34–00:28:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:28:45–00:28:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:29:10–00:30:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Less well for the yard, but if, you know what I mean, I know right now it's the most ideal for what everything is, but because we have some trees that we would have to possibly, we have two oak trees, one fell ‸ over
year ago in March, and the windstorm knocked it down. So we have ‸ a few, that one tree is in the way of it really, probably having been moved or else it's on the drain field also. And then there's another ‸ foliage of some sort, I don't know what kind of tree it is.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:30:43–00:30:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
just need to swear ‸ in before you speak, please. If you could raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, the corner lot is very small and it's problematic with the way the lots have been drawn all through that whole ‸ area. And because the tree is located where it is, it's very, I don't think it's possible for a machine to come in and scoop underneath and move it.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:31:47–00:31:47 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
a horrible shed. I would suggest that if they make an exception to the code or whatever, that it be well maintained. If it's not well maintained, then it would be an understanding that it would come down. Lot number 10, when we first moved here, put a fence in front of their yard. And it caused a big uproar. And so the city at the time, that was years ago, decided that as long as the fence was well maintained, they would let them have a fence in the front yard, which they have done. And if you look at lot number 10, if you can imagine the house on it, there was not a backyard for them to utilize for their pet. And that was a number of years ago, because I'm old, and that was right around when we first built the house. When they bought the house, this is just my thought.
it look bad within the neighborhood? Like I said, if you could make an exception like we did with the fence, it's well maintained with the understanding that if it's not well maintained, they would have to take it down. Now, the picture, I think, shows that it's a very well maintained built sturdy shed. It's not like one you buy at Home Depot and that type of thing. I think it would be a financial burden on them to have to pay to disassemble it and haul it all away. Okay? Thank you for my time.
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:34:01–00:34:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I don't take oaths. Jesus' Sermon on the Mount said don't take oaths. It says let your yes be yes and your no, no. Anything else is from the evil one. It's repeated again in the Gospels. So I will tell the truth. I affirm it. If that's sufficient for you. It's a temporary structure. You've got a lot of people here in the
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:34:43–00:34:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:35:03–00:35:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Thank you very much. Any more comments from the floor? All right. The chair will close the audience and I'll move on to the board. Any discussion from our board members? No.
Caitlin, do you have anything? For staff, can you just clarify ‸ if we're approving or denying the variance versus, I think you mentioned the other word, waiver or something? Right. So this isn't a waiver. This is a
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:35:50–00:35:50 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Okay. So I have a question. Let's see if I can get this out right. So staff is recommending denial of this request. Correct? Correct? Correct. Yes. Yes. Because per codes, there are
so if you make a motion to deny the variance request, which is consistent with the staff's recommendation and the report, um, you know, you can do that. If you are going to make a motion to approve the variance, then we would need to establish what the reasoning would be for doing so and how, you know, you believe it meets the criteria essentially.
were told incorrectly when they bought the shed and they did go based on that because you like to think somebody who's in the business would tell them correctly. And it is a very nice shed. Um, and it's, I can see where it would be difficult to have it moved simply because it was built in place and not dropped in. When you look at the lot and everything, it would be very difficult to move it. The neighbors obviously don't really mind that it's there. So to me, it would be, um, I understand what staff is saying per code, but in this particular instance, I would vote in favor of giving them the variance.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:39:14–00:39:14 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:39:35–00:39:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:39:45–00:39:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording