►
From YouTube: Variance Review Board 10082019
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
Also
in
attendance
this
evening
are
Jared
Simpson
assistant
city
attorney,
Towanda,
Anthony
and
Eileen
Rosario
Ducksworth
of
land,
development
coordination
and
Bryan
Knox
is
here
of
natural
resources,
and
no
one
from
transportation.
I'll
take
just
a
few
minutes
to
review
tonight's
procedures.
Cases
will
be
called
in
the
order
that
they
appear
on
the
agenda
when
your
case
number
and
the
applicants
name
are
called,
please
stand
in
either
aisle
to
the
side
of
the
room.
To
acknowledge
that
you
are
here,
staff
will
then
give
a
brief
introduction
to
the
board
of
each
application.
A
When
you're
approached
the
podium,
please
speak
into
the
microphone
to
state
your
name
address
and
if
you
have
been
sworn
in,
the
applicant
and/or,
their
agent
will
have
ten
minutes
to
give
testimony
present
witnesses
and
documentation
as
a
part
of
their
presentation.
This
is
your
time
to
present
all
of
your
evidence.
Anyone
in
the
audience
wishing
to
speak
in
support
of
or
an
opposition
to
the
application
will
then
have
three
minutes
each
after
that.
The
worthy
may
have
an
opportunity
to
ask
questions
regarding
the
application.
A
Finally,
the
applicant
will
have
an
additional
five
minutes
for
a
rebuttal.
If
needed,
the
time
periods
as
stated
will
be
kept
by
the
chair.
Any
information
such
as
pictures
of
plans
that
have
not
been
previously
submitted
as
a
part
of
your
petition,
and
you
intend
to
present
at
this
hearing
for
consideration
in
support
of
your
petition,
must
be
individually
presented
and
accepted
by
the
board.
After
acceptance
by
the
board,
you
must
submit
the
item
to
staff
for
it
to
be
entered
and
made
a
part
of
the
permanent
record.
A
The
board
bases
its
decision
on
competent
and
substantial
evidence
which
has
presented
this
evening
and
will
end
which
meets
the
criteria
required
by
the
city's
Code
of
Ordinances.
The
variance
granted
by
the
board
will
be
only
for
what
is
shown
on
the
site
plan
and
will
be
compliant
with
any
terms
and
conditions
stated
in
the
approval
by
the
board.
You
must
have
for
votes
for
the
variance
to
be
approved
if
an
insufficient
vote
is
obtained.
The
case
shall
be
automatically
carried
over
for
consideration
at
the
board's
next
meeting.
A
If
approved,
your
variance
will
expire
two
years
from
today's
date.
All
other
city
codes
will
need
to
be
met.
However,
if
there
are
only
five
board
members
present,
as
is
the
case
tonight,
then
only
three
votes
are
needed
to
deny
an
application,
so
your
application
needs
four
votes
tonight
to
be
approved,
but
it
can
be
denied
with
only
three
negative
votes.
A
A
Okay,
all
right,
if
you
wish
to
appeal
the
variance
review,
Board's
decision
to
City
Council,
you
must
file
a
petition
for
review
of
a
board
decision
within
10
business
days
of
the
decision.
If
your
variance
is
granted,
you
will
not
be
able
to
pull
any
permits
until
after
the
10-day
appeal
period
it
has
passed.
Your
cooperation
will
ensure
that
this
meeting
runs
smoothly
and
it
will
be
greatly
appreciated
before
we
begin
the
first
case.
Is
there
any
business
regarding
the
agenda
that
staff
would
like
to
address.
E
Mr.
chair,
if
I
may
at
this
time,
I'd
like
to
ask
the
members
of
the
board,
if
they've
had
any
ex
parte
communications
regarding
any
of
the
matters
that
are
coming
before
the
board
this
evening,
and
that
would
include
verbal
or
written
conversations
regarding
any
of
the
cases
seeing
and
hearing
none
I
would
add.
Are
there
any
conflicts
of
interests
or
potential
conflicts
of
interest
for
any
of
the
cases
coming
before
the
board?
This
evening,
seeing
and
hearing
none
mr.
E
chairman,
if
I
also
may
add
to
that
I
was
informed
by
CT
TV
that
we
are
closed-captioning.
These
meetings
tonight
and
I
was
requested
to
announce
to
everyone
to
please
make
sure
that
you
speak
into
the
microphone
so
that
they
can
accurately
get
a
closed
caption
of
the
meeting
tonight,
and
that
goes
for
the
participants
out
there,
as
well
as
the
board.
Mr.
chairman,
okay.
A
I
guess,
and
also
I'd
like
to
bring
up
the
opportunity
for
next
month
to
have
a
workshop
prior
to
the
board.
If
the
board
members
are
okay,
with
that
I'm
suggesting
coming
at
6:00
and
we'd
hold
about
a
20
minute
workshop
on
legalese
and
procedural
matters.
Is
that
something
we
need
to
make
a
motion
on
it.
E
D
A
F
A
G
A
D
D
A
C
H
Good
evening
board
swanned
anthony
land
development.
Our
first
case
tonight
is
application.
Number
of
BRB
1918.
The
property
address
is
30
101
West,
Prospect
Road,
the
applicant
is
Paul
Quinn.
The
summer
is
as
follows:
the
applicant
is
seeking
to
reduce
the
west
side
yard
setback
from
5
feet
to
3
feet
for
a
pool
enclosure.
H
I
I
I
H
I
Oh,
that's
really,
it
I
mean
that's
I'm,
just
asking
to.
A
I
A
I
So
the
reason
I
want
to
do
it
is,
if
you
see,
there's,
there's
and
on
both
sides,
it
has
the
same
incumbent.
So
there's
no
room
to
put
anything.
It's
it's
just
a
narrow
walkway.
So
if
it
gives
me
a
little
bit
more
room
one
to
walk,
you
know
for
safety
issues
if
somebody's
older
and
to
just
to
have
a
little
bit
more
room.
There.
B
I
D
Did
you
the
the
application
that
we
have
contains,
and
maybe
this
is
a
question
for
staff,
but
the
application
that
we
have
contains
a
hardship
statement
that
is
connected
to
a
reduction
in
setback
from
20
feet
to
8
feet?
Is
there
another
hardship
statement
that
you're
aware
of
that
was
submitted
regarding
the
change
from
on
the
side
from
$5
mil
aware.
I
D
H
H
I
D
If
I'm
understanding
you,
then
what
you're
saying
is
that
the
the
pre-existing
configuration
of
the
pool
leaves
limited
space
around
the
side
of
the
pool,
and
you
you
need
this.
It's
a
practical
difficulty
for
you
to
walk
around
that
pool
in
the
current
configuration
of
the
pool
and
the
screen
enclosure.
So.
I
A
A
D
So
it
is
a
minor
request.
The
applicant
did
not
did
not
create
this
situation.
The
pool
was
existing
at
the
time
was
purchased.
There
are
numerous
letters
that
say
that
they
don't
have
from
neighbors
saying
they
don't
have
an
issue
with
this,
and
it
seems
that
there
is
a
practical
difficulty
that
has
been
asserted.
So
with
that
in
mind,
I'm
inclined
to
support
it
and
will
make
a
motion.
If
there
are
no
other
comments.
C
A
Well,
I
think,
based
on
the
photograph
that
was
shown
it,
there
appeared
to
be
approximately
two
to
three
feet
of
current
space
he's
requesting
to
move
it
two
more
feet
from
five
to
three,
so
that
would
be
somewhere
between
four
and
five
feet.
By
my
estimation-
and
you
know,
wheelchair
access
only
requires
about
32
to
36
inches
through
doorways.
You
know
so,
like
my
assumption
would
be.
That
would
be
more
than
adequate
for
something
like
a
wheelchair
to
get
by
I
I.
D
There
are
no
other
comments.
I'll
make
a
motion,
we'll
see
how
it
goes.
Okay,
see
we're
closed
from
there
I
move
that
the
variance
request
for
case
BRB,
19
18
for
property
located
at
3101,
West,
Prospect
Road
and
a
half
be
granted
as
depicted
on
the
site
plan
presented
at
the
public
hearing
for
a
reduction
in
the
side
yard
setback
from
five
feet
to
three
feet,
with
an
encroachment
of
eaves
and
gutters,
based
upon
the
applicant
presenting
competent
and
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
and
at
this
public
hearing
of
an
unnecessary
hardship
of
practical
difficulty.
D
When
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
section
27
80
of
the
city
code
and
I
will
note
that
that
is,
for
an
unenclosed
screen
enclosure,
meaning
that
it
can't
be
hard
walled
conditioned
upon
that.
Yes,
the
specifically
that
there
is
practical
T
based
upon
the
existing
pool
and
screen
enclosure
as
they
are
situated
and
that
it
was
not
the
applicant
who
who
created
this
and
that
there
does
appear
to
be
potential
ad.
A
request
involved
in
this
okay.
A
H
Tawanda
Anthony
land
development,
this
application
number,
the
Rd
1996,
the
property
addresses
215
with
Emily
Street.
The
applicant
is
Myron
sales
and
the
agent
is
Willie
McMillan.
The
request
is
as
follows:
per
section
27
to
eighty
four
point:
two
point:
five:
the
applicant
is
seeking
to
remove
a
grand
tree
on
the
west
side
yard
in
order
to
build
a
single-family
residence
on
a
lock
that
is
40
by
a
hundred
the
applicant
is
own,
are
as
fifty
excuse
me.
The
property
is
owned,
RS
50
and
was
purchased
in
2019.
The
single-family
residence
was
demolished
in
2011.
J
Brian
Knox
natural
resources.
So,
as
stated
earlier,
it's
a
grand
tree,
that's
proposed
for
removal.
The
grand
tree
is
shown
as
72
inches,
but
it's
actually
40
inches.
When
we
did
the
measurements,
these
measurements
may
have
been
done
in
circumference,
and
so
that
may
be
the
difference.
But
when
we
went
out
to
do
the
measurements
ourselves
ourselves
with
Natural
Resources,
it
was
40
inches.
The
tree
is
rated
b8,
which
means
it's
a
minor
conditions
and
fairly
moderate
truth
that
would
be
worthy
of
preservation.
J
So
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
build
a
one-story
residence
on
a
40
foot
lie,
that's
owned:
RS
50
and
the
proposed
single-family
residence
is
26
feet
wide
natural
resources
went
out
and
took
some
measurements
based
on
those
specs,
and
it
was
determined
that
it
would
be
pretty
improbable
for
them
to
build
a
single-family
residence.
Even
if
it
was
one
story
and
try
to
preserve
the
tree.
J
The
the
tree
is
as
it
stands
is
currently
one
foot
within
the
building
footprint
and
it's
about
one
to
two
feet
from
the
setback
as
well.
The
light
meets
the
criteria
for
the
tree
removal
zone
process.
However,
given
that
the
grand
tree
was
not
in
the
true
removal
zone,
the
variance
review
board
was
the
option
if
the
board
approves
this
variance.
Replacements
based
on
canopy
spread
is
required
for
the
removal
of
the
40
inch
grande
tree
with
the
mitigation
of
18
two
and
a
half
inch
caliper
trees.
J
A
A
At
this
time,
okay,
so
they
don't
have
a
permit
yeah,
that's
correct.
Okay,
all
right
and
they've
already
gone
through
the
process
with
staff
looking
at
whether
they
could
move
the
house
or
not.
You
know
and
or
reconfigure
they've
already
been
through
that
process,
as
you
said,
right,
that's
correct
and
so
you're
at
a
point
where,
where
you're
advising
them
or
telling
them
that
their
only
other
option
is
to
come
to
the
board,
that's
correct.
Okay,.
D
J
We
did
we
went
out
to
the
site
to
discuss
possibly
reducing
the
setbacks
on
the
east
side
to
shift
the
house
over
some.
It's
just
given
the
root
system.
It
wouldn't
be
enough
if
you
combine
the
suspended
flooring,
plus
the
height
of
the
canopy
as
well,
and
so
if
the
applicant
chose
to
go
up
two
stories
that
would
essentially
eliminate
everything
on
that
side
of
that
side
of
the
the
house.
Oh-
and
that
includes
the
limbs
for
the
trees
and
that
that
includes
a
couple
of
other
trees
as
well.
A
J
A
J
E
A
G
A
H
C
C
L
A
A
C
I'm
I'm
curious
why
there
wasn't
a
consideration
for
like
say
a
cutout
area
to
preserve
the
tree
just
a
little,
because
we
were
talking
about
the
possibility
of
a
raised
foundation.
So
if
it
were
I'm
sorry,
a
floating
foundation,
I'm,
not
positive
on
the
terminology,
and
there
could
be
a
little
cut
out
for
the
trunk
of
the
tree.
I'm,
just
not
seeing
how
it
has
to
be
a
rectangle.
Mr.
E
Chairman
can
I
address
that
sure,
so,
under
the
new
code,
there
and
I've
I
provided
all
the
board
members
with
a
with
the
factors
that
are
listed
for
tree
removal
considerations
by
the
board
and
one
of
the
factors
and
I
believe
this
is
the
one
that
you're
referring
to.
Commissioner.
Her
tech
is
factor
B,
which
talks
about
whether
a
structure
can
be
reasonably
reconfigured
in
order
to
preserve
the
grand
tree
on
another.
E
Reasonable
reconfiguration
is
a
term
that
is
defined
in
the
code
and
I,
provided
that
for
you
on
a
separate
sheet,
and
if
you
see
you
can
see
there
that
when
council
passed
this
reasonable
reconfiguration,
they
limited
when
that
would
apply
so
as
not
to
allow
the
city
to
force
people
to
redesign.
There
are
certain
manners
that
are
considered
reasonable,
reconfiguration
by
the
city
and
just
want
to
draw
your
attention
to
its
five
sub
3,
where
it
says
the
internal
flow
or
function
of
the
structure
is
not
adversely
altered
by
the
reconfiguration.
E
So
if
it's
the,
if
it's
the
board's
position
that
they
that
they
should
consider
that,
then
then
the
applicant
should
should
be
allowed
to
present
on
whether
or
not
having
a
cutout
or
some
type
of
unusual
accommodation
for
the
tree
would
affect
the
internal
flow
or
function
of
the
structure.
Or
would
it
change
the
number
of
stories
or
would
it
adjust
more
than
allowed
by
a
design
exception,
as
it's
stated
there?
So
those
are
the
factors
for
reasonable
reconfiguration,
so
I
just
want
to
draw
those
to
your
attention.
Thank.
C
A
A
A
So
mr.
McMillan,
the
question
is,
we
were
wanting
to
understand,
what's
on
the
site
plan
and
how
it
relates
to
the
floor
plan
right.
The
three
on
the
site
plan
is
behind
the
carport,
but
we
can't
tell
how
many
feet
behind
the
carport.
We
did
hear
testimony
from
mr.
Knox
that
the
trunk
per
this
site
plan
is
a
foot
into
the
building
envelope
already
correct.
Okay,
so
can
you
tell
us
maybe
how
far
will
find
the
carport?
The
tree
is
approximately.
A
C
A
C
C
A
J
J
So
yeah
it's
a
minimum
required
protective
radius
of
20
feet.
That's
the
that's
the
standard!
We
do
relax
that
on
occasions
when
we
know
that
the
roots
are
2
inches
or
less
in
diameter,
and
we
know
that
we
can
sever
the
roots
at
that
time
and
they
could
regenerate,
and
so
if
there
was
an
opportunity
to
explore
that
option.
J
That
would
be
something
to
consider,
however,
in
this
case,
looking
at
the
proximity
of
the
tree
in
relation
to
where
the
house
is
being
built,
we're
looking
at
we're
looking
at
roughly
about
the
entire
structure
of
the
house
in
terms
of
trying
to
exercise
that
so
we
felt
that
was
unreasonable
and
we
didn't
want
the
applicant
to
go
through
the
unneeded
expense.
Okay,.
A
B
It's
been
made
quite
clear
that
it's
rather
impractical
to
expect
to
build
a
home
on
this
promise,
considering
the
fact
that,
according
to
Natural
Resources
we're
looking
at
a
20
foot
radius
around
this
tree,
which
is
practically
almost
in
the
buildable
footprint
of
a
house
in
any
which
way
you
try
to
figure
it
out
so
I
would
be.
I
would
be
certainly
inclined
to
believe
that
this
is
an
adequate
situation
for.
A
Anybody
else
I
would
I
would
concur
with
that.
I
think
that
this
is
a
situation
where,
where
the
the
home
site
is
even
though
it's
ours
50,
as
we
heard
it's
only
40
feet
wide,
they
are
respecting
the
side,
yard,
setbacks
and
and
they've
really
designed.
Someone
has
designed
a
very
nice
home
that
looks
like
it
would
flow
well
and
function
well,
and
maybe
a
asset
to
the
neighborhood,
so
I
would
be
inclined
to
approve
it.
So
somebody
would
like
to
make
a
motion
all.
B
The
impact
of
the
proposed
building
and
structure
on
the
building
buildable
area-
you
know
it's
quite
significant,
particularly
in
light
of
the
fact
that
we're
looking
at
a
40
foot
wide
lot,
so
it's
smaller
than
most
of
the
Lots
I'm
sure
in
the
city
that
are
Rs
50
and
in
the
case
of
our
standards
of
review,
also
in
Section
B,
whether
the
proposed
structure
can
be
reasonably
configured
as
defined
by
the
table.
Two.
B
Eighty
four
point:
two
point:
five:
to
preserve
the
tree:
according
to
Natural
Resources,
the
agency
and
the
applicant
have
discussed
a
number
of
plans,
a
number
of
configurations
and
given
the
the
narrowness
of
this
lot,
given
the
fact
that
we
have
a
26-foot
house,
the
tree
is
nearly
in
the
center
as
far
as
the
depth
of
a
lot
that
it's,
it's
very
impractical
to
expect
a
home
to
be
built.
There.
C
C
H
Anthony
land
developments-
this
is
application
number
BRB
1997.
The
property
address
is
34
11
West,
Bay
Avenue,
the
applicant
is
Marine
Patrick
and
baled
Medford.
The
agent
is
Marine
Patrick.
The
summary
is
as
follows:
for
section
27
to
90,
the
applicant
is
seeking
to
increase
the
maximum
height
for
an
accessory
structure
for
15
feet
to
18
feet.
The
applicant
is
seeking
to
construct
a
new
200
square
foot
accessory
structure.
The
property
is
owned,
RS
60
and
was
purchased
in
2013.
The
existing
single-family
residence
was
built
in
1925.
K
I'm
for
you
today
to
ask
for
a
variance
for
our
special
circumstance
on
this
project.
We
have
a
200
square
foot
structure
that
we'd
like
to
build
and
due
to
the
history
of
this
property
and
the
slope
that
it
has
we're
under
a
little
bit
of
stress
on
how
to
get
this.
This
structure
to
fit
on
there
with
the
height
requirement
that
the
county
has
are
the
city
has
so
we're
proposing
to
add
an
extra
three
feet
that
would
put
the
finished
floor
height
at
the
city's
recommended
height.
A
K
Particular
hardship
in
this
case
is
that
due
to
the
AIDS
of
the
house
and
how
old
is
the
actual
property
slopes
to
the
alleyway
in
the
back
and
most
construction
around
the
area?
Actually,
the
water
rain
runs
off
to
the
street,
so
this
house,
the
actual
property,
is
almost
two
feet
lower
in
the
back
than
it
is
from
the
street
and
there
is
a
regulated
finished
floor
height
for
new
construction
in
this
area.
K
So
to
get
to
that
finish
floor
height,
we
would
have
to
put
basically
a
floating
footer
above
the
grade
to
get
to
the
height
that
that's
required,
and
it's
approximately
three
feet.
That's
why
we're
asking
for
that?
Basically,
an
extra
three
feet
to
get
where
we
need
to
be
because
we
can't
bring
in
fill
I.
Guess
that's
not
allowed
anymore,
so
we're
gonna
keep
the
grade.
The
same
just
build
the
house
up.
K
K
K
F
K
K
And
if
I
could
add,
there
are
I
put
this
map
up
here.
There
are
several
other
properties
in
the
area
within
300
feet
that
have
structures
that
are
above
the
15
foot
threshold
I
defy
out
sure
if
they
have
variances
are
not
for
theirs,
but
there
were
quite
a
few
in
the
area.
This
is
that
same
map
provided
in
each
one
of
these
arrows
represents
additional
structures
on
a
property
that
are
about
15
feet.
A
B
K
It's
an
unimproved
alley,
so
it's
just
grass
now
there's
not
it's
not
really
meant
to
retain
water,
but
it's
unimproved,
so
it
just
that's
just
where
the
water
goes
and
it
happens
to
most.
The
water
goes
through
her
property
to
get
to
it,
because
most
of
the
other
houses
are
fairly
male.
Okay,
all
right.
A
K
Just
for
architectural
reasons,
she
had
her
mind
set
on
a
certain
design
and
it's
consistent
with
the
neighboring
properties
that
have
that
same
design
on
their
Lots.
She
could
have
went
with
a
flat
roof,
whether
it
would
have
it
would
have
altered
the
look
of
the
neighboring
properties
because
most
the
ones
around
it
have
that
exact
same.
Look
that
she's
going
with.
A
K
A
K
K
A
D
Then
I
will
move
that
the
variance
request
for
case
VRB
19-97
for
property,
located
at
three
four
one.
One
West
Bay
Avenue,
be
granted
as
depicted
on
the
site
plan,
present
public
hearing
to
increase
the
allowable
high
of
an
accessory
dwelling
from
15
feet
to
18
feet
with
an
encroachment
of
Ethernet
gutters
based
upon
the
applicant
present
incompetent,
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
at
this
public
hearing
of
an
unnecessary
hardship
or
practical
difficulty.
D
When
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
section
27
80
of
the
city
code,
specifically
that
the
existing
home
was
built
in
1925,
the
slope
of
the
property
drains
toward
the
back
city
code
requires
that
the
finished
floor
height
be
18,
inches
above
the
front
grade
and
with
the
slope.
That
means
that
the
structure,
which
is
only
200
feet
and
could
be
built
up
to
900
feet,
but
the
applicant
is
choosing
to
build.
D
B
A
H
Towanda
Anthony
land
development-
this
is
application,
number
VR
be
1998.
The
property
address
is
198
Blanca
Avenue,
the
applicants
are
Carolyn
Kaman,
Cooper
Johnson
of
Smith,
architects,
and
the
agent
here
tonight
is
Stephen
Allison
course
section
27
90.
The
request
is
as
follows:
the
applicant
is
seeking
to
reduce
the
building
separation
from
10
feet,
to
6
inches
between
the
principal
structure
and
the
accessory
structure.
The
applicant
is
seeking
to
construct
a
new
aluminum
pergola
in
the
rear
yard.
The
property
has
owned,
RS
75
and
was
purchased
in
2016.
H
H
C
M
M
This
is
not
a
case
of
a
prominent
person
attempting
to
exploit
or
undermine
rules.
Rather,
this
is
simply
a
matter
of
exercising
his
legitimate
property
rights
to
anse
the
livability
of
his
residence,
as
will
be
demonstrated
approval
of
the
variances
of
the
most
sensitive
and
appropriate
manner
to
realize
his
totally
reasonable
development
objectives.
I
have
submitted
into
the
record
responses
to
the
five
criteria
contained
in
the
zoning
code
not
going
to
read
through
those
here,
but
I
will
offer
some
supplemental.
M
With
that
narrow
and
cone-shaped
lot,
we
had
basically
dictated
that
to
achieve
to
construct
a
home
commensurate
with
development
trends.
In
that
neighborhood,
there
was
going
to
be
a
considerable
amount
of
lot
coverage
that
precluded
the
provision
of
a
large
rear
yard
that
might
accommodate
accessory
structures.
I.
M
Think
there's
another
aspect
of
this
case
that
makes
the
request
unique
and
singular
and
I
will
get
to
that.
Basically,
in
my
summary
comments,
the
second
criteria
has
to
do
with
practical
difficulty
resulting
from
actions
of
the
applicant.
Essentially,
that's
a
question
about.
Is
this
a
self-imposed
hardship
and
it
is
not?
He
is
seeking
to
go
through
normal
channels
to
have
a
variance
approved.
This
is
not
an
after-the-fact
situation,
he's
going
through
all
proper
channels,
and
I
would
note
that
an
effective
zoning
ordinance
cannot
be
fully
rigid.
M
The
variance
have
granted
will
not
appear
with
the
interfere
with
the
end
or
injured
the
health,
safety
or
welfare
of
others
whose
property
would
be
affected.
There's
zero
impact
on
health
safety
and
welfare
I
acknowledge
that
I
understand,
there's
concern
by
at
least
one
neighborhood,
but
how
this
might
affect
their
views.
M
Again,
that's
not
a
terribly
obtrusive
type
of
thing
certainly
doesn't
in
any
way
limit
access
to
light
and
air
for
adjoining
properties
and
does
very
little
to
limit
views
of
Tampa
Bay
for
surrounding
properties.
I
would
note
that
fully
within
the
legal
rights
of
the
applicant,
if
this
variance
were
denied
the
guy
wants
to
have
some
shade
in
his
backyard.
You
know
again
not
a
terribly
unusual
thing.
M
M
M
M
Its
placement
adjacent
to
the
home
is
not
simply
a
matter
of
not
meeting
the
required
building
separation.
This
is
a
patio
with
a
cover
you
you
put
patios
or
the
cover
adjacent
to
your
house.
You
don't
separate
it
and
have
to
walk
through
the
Sun
to
get
to
your
covered
patio.
This
is
where
it
would
normally
go.
I
actually.
B
M
That
those
own
in
code
errors
and
not
distinguishing
accessory
structures
from
accessory
buildings,
I
think
of
an
accessory
building
in
a
rear
yard,
I
think
of
a
shed
shed
contains
things
like
a
lawn
mowers
and
yard
equipment
and
gasoline.
We
had
a
discussion
or
a
city
staff
early
on.
We
asked
them
what
the
purpose
of
this
building
separation
was.
I
said
it
was
fire
safety,
don't
want
something
starting
there.
They
could
then
spread
to
adjacent
structures.
Then.
M
A
A
N
My
name
is
Pamela
Jo
Hadley,
one
for
507
North,
18th,
Street,
Tampa,
Florida
I
represent
Jeffrey
and
Terri
Willis
who
live,
who
owned
the
property
next
door
to
this
property
at
196,
Lanka,
I,
believe
staff
indicated
this
property.
This
house
was
built
in
1989,
that's
actually
not
correct.
The
house
was
built
this.
This
applicant
purchased
the
property
in
2016
and
the
house
has
been
built
since
then.
N
I'd
like
to
first
touch
on
some
Florida
law
under
Florida
Supreme
Court
case
the
enforcement
of
a
wreck
of
a
legitimate
zoning
ordinances
in
the
public
interest
being
a
necessity
in
order
to
get
an
ordinance
and
I'm
sorry.
In
order
to
get
a
variance,
an
applicant
must
show
that
hardship
exists
and
the
hardship
can
cannot
be
shown
unless
it
is
found
that
there
is
no
reasonable
use
that
can
be
made
of
the
property
without
variants.
A
self-created
hardship
cannot
constitute
a
basis
for
a
variance.
A
N
Is
the
the
applicants
building
permit
that
was
submitted
to
the
city
in
2016
this?
This
is
a
footprint
of
the
structure
that
existed
before
this
residence
was
constructed.
This
is
the
footprint
of
the
existing
residents.
The
applicant
has
designed
and
constructed
a
residence
of
over
77,000
square
feet
in
his
original
design.
He
did
not
leave
space
to
put
this
pergola,
and
now
he
wants
to
go
back
and
add
it.
That
does
not
constitute
a
hardship.
N
What
the
applicant
has
demonstrated
here
is
that
reasonable
use
of
this
property
has
been
can
be
made
because
he
has
constructed
a
house
there
that
it's
perfectly
usable
the
way
it
is
now.
The
applicant
talked
about
physical
characteristics
of
the
site
under
variance
criterion
number
one.
This
is
the
plant
where
this
property
is
located.
This
is
the
property.
These
circles
indicate
areas
where
there
are
similar
pie,
shaped
parcels
very
similar
to
this
applicants,
park,
property
and
I'd
like
to
address
the
hardship
criteria.
N
N
Three
minutes:
okay:
the
applicant
has
not
demonstrated
a
hardship.
The
applicant
has
built
constructed
a
proper
parcel,
a
house
on
a
person
that
is
too
big
to
add
this
pergola
and
now
wants
to
go
back
and
do
it.
So
that
is
not
a
hardship.
It
is
a
self-imposed
hardship
and
that
under
Florida
cannot
support
a
variance
so
I'm
gonna
submit
into
the
record
the
court
cases
that
I
cited
this
plat
and
some
photographs.
Okay,.
N
F
We
live
that
core
to
Franklin
and
Jackie,
and
of
course
we
wanted
them
to.
You
know
have
enjoyment
of
their
home,
but
they
have
pushed
the
envelope
pretty
much
on
every
Avenue
and
it's
7,200
square
foot
home
that
has
literally
been
shoot.
Ward
in
there
is
no
room
for
anything
else,
they're
now
claiming
a
hardship
that
they
have
created,
and
we
would
ask
that
this
is
indicative
of
somebody
trying
to
get
something
that
they've
created
a
problem
for
he
had
created
the
problem.
F
He
would
be
here
asking
you
folks
for
a
pergola
I'm
sure
that
he's
spent
several
time
and
money
to
build
his
home
design
his
home.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
the
CEO
was
issued
just
a
few
months
ago
and
they
were
living
on
the
property
prior
to
that,
and
so,
if
there
were
questions
of
things
that
needed
to
be
done
like
a
pergola
or
an
outdoor
shower
or
whatever
he
wanted
that
could
have
been
addressed
at
that
time.
It
was
not
that's
now
he's
coming
before
you
saying:
I
have
a
hardship.
F
I
want
to
be
able
to
sit
on
my
pool
deck
and
be
able
to
control
the
Sun,
and
we're
saying
enough
is
enough.
You
know,
I
mean
he's
got
a
the
plan.
If
you
look
at
it
calls
for
a
200
square
foot
per
gallon.
It
also
has
some
mechanical
device
to
control
the
see
it
the
roof
or
covering
which
will
seal
it.
In
the
past,
we've
noticed
that
he
has
hung
I,
guess
she
caught
screens
and
these
screens
are
being
used
for
the
upper
portion
of
the
house
and
they
completely
block
any
sunlight
or
wind.
F
F
The
new
group
is
that's
on
the
RV,
but
we
would
ask
that
at
this
point
with
all
the
things
that
have
been
going
on
with
us
7,000
to
our
square-foot
home,
that
we
say
no,
that
we
say
there
is
no
real
hardship
other
than
the
one
you've
created
and
that
we
want
you
to
enjoy
your
home
and
we
look
forward
to
you
know
a
long
time
for
you
to
do
that.
Thank
you.
L
Good
evening,
members
of
the
board,
my
name,
is
Andrew.
Super
Cola
I
have
been
sworn
I
live
at
192,
Blanka
Avenue,
which
is
two
doors
over
I
live
next
to
the
Willises
I'm.
Here,
on
behalf
of
myself,
my
wife,
my
three
children,
in
addition,
I'm
also
here
on
behalf
of
my
two
elderly
parents,
who
live
at
176
Baltic,
which
is
approximately
five
houses
down
on
the
same
street
and
on
the
same
canal
and
I
like
to
reiterate
some
of
the
things
that
mr.
L
Willis
said,
but
I
know
that
my
time
is
limited,
so
I
won't
do
so
a
couple
of
things
that
I
want
to
point
out.
There
are
two
cases
that
are
gonna
be
submitted
into
the
record,
the
firts
of
which
is
Thompson
versus
the
Planning
Commission
of
Jacksonville,
which
is
a
first
District
Court
of
Appeals
case.
The
second
is
Bernard
versus
Palm,
Beach
County,
which
is
a
fourth
DCA
case,
and
those
stands
for
the
proposition
that
you
must
demonstrate
that
there
is
no
reasonable
use
of
the
property
without
the
variance
clearly
has
been
demonstrated
by
mr.
L
L
In
fact,
the
city's
own
building
code
specifically
states
that
you
cannot
create
a
hardship
and
then
come
back
and
ask
for
variance
with
regards
in
that
harsh,
and
that
is
exactly
what
has
occurred
in
this
case
and
I'd
like
to
cite
one
other
case.
It's
Auerbach
versus
the
city
of
Miami
and
basically,
what
that
case
says
is
the
law
cannot
and
will
not
approve
any
government
action
adversely
affecting
the
rights
of
others.
L
That
is
based
on
no
more
than
the
fact
that
those
who
support
it
have
the
power
and
the
will
to
work
their
will
and
that's
exactly
what's
going
on
here.
I
know.
My
colleague
suggested
that
there
wasn't
gonna
be
anything
that
was
going
to
affect
the
neighbors,
but
I
would
disagree.
It's
certainly
gonna
affect
our
view.
It's
gonna
affect
our
air
movement
or
wind,
probably
creating
additional
heat.
L
It
very
well
could
create
a
danger
and
the
circumstance
when
we
have
a
hurricane
that
comes
through
and
it's
in
a
structure,
that's
unattached
to
the
main
building
that
certainly
could
fly
off
and
land
up
in
either
my
yard
or
mr.
willis's
yard.
These
are
all
things
that
he
is
asking
for
that
he
has
created
for
no
more
reason
than
just
his
own
convenience.
He
would
like
to
have
shade
now.
I
I,
understand
that,
but
that's
certainly
something
that
should
have
been
designed
into
the
original
design
of
his
home
before
it
was
built.
Thank
you.
O
O
O
O
Bathrooms
it's
a
screen
that
comes
down
I'm,
very
concerned
that
if
they
put
up
a
pergola,
they
will
do
the
same
thing
and
block
that
area.
They
will
drop
them
down
and
there
won't
be
any
air
movement
through
there.
So
I'm
concerned
about
that,
and
since
I
have
experienced
other
issues
with
that,
I
want
you
to
know
that.
That's
something
that
you
need
to
consider.
The
last
thing
is
is
several
times
during
the
conversation
over
the
statements
from
this
gentleman
here
he
said
something
about.
O
O
That
fence
goes
up
over
our
heads.
We,
if
you
can
see,
we
actually
had
to
beg
them
not
to
do
it
even
higher
than
that,
where
it's
here
that
would
go
even
higher
and
on
the
other
side
of
that,
when
they
put
in
the
pergola
it
would
actually
go
up
another
two
feet
above
that,
so
you
can
imagine
the
height
in
the
the
weight
of
that
on
that
side
of
the
house.
It
creates
almost
my
grandson
asked
me
if
we
lived
in
jail
so
I
want
you
to
be
able.
A
D
E
H
Wanda
Anthony
Land
Development
and
they
were
to
put-
and
you
are
allowed
to
put
tables
and
with
the
umbrellas
on
then
those
would
be
allowed,
but
in
terms
of
putting
up
something
on
a
permanent
basis,
it
would
require
a
permit.
So
if
it's
temporary,
it
doesn't
require
perimeter
they're
putting
up
something,
that's
permanent,
then
it
would
require
a
permit.
H
A
A
N
O
A
A
C
A
That's
getting
us
close
to
the
20
feet,
okay,
so
if
they
were
to
do
a
and
I'm
not
suggesting
they
do
this,
because
they
have
their
reasons
for
designing
what
they
designed,
but
they
could
do
this
pergola
shove.
It
all
the
way
out
to
the
seawall
three
feet
from
the
seawall
and
come
back
to
within
10
feet
of
the
prior,
very
structure
legally
and
not
come
here
and
ask
for
permission
is
that
it
is
that
correct,
tawanda.
A
The
neighbor,
the
Willises
neighbors,
showed
us
a
photograph
of
what
appears
to
be
a
retaining
wall
with
a
fence
that
was
built
along
along
that
property
line
and
it
looked
like
the
retaining
wall
was
about
three
feet
high,
so
the
grade
my
question
is:
the
grade
was
legally
raised
in
the
rear
yard,
about
three
feet
or
more
and
and
they're
allowed
to
do
that
correct
and
that
wasn't
because
I
know
a
lot
of
times.
People
are
concerned
about
pools
being
built
in
backyards
in
floodplain
neighborhoods,
and
everybody
would
like
to
have
the
pool
up.
A
You
know
to
the
elevation,
that's
close
to
the
finished
floor
of
the
home,
but
the
city
came
up
with
a
code
that
says
you
can't.
You
can't
have
a
pool
more
than
about
12
inches
of
so
out
of
the
ground.
So
this
was
a
legal
remedy
for
this
property
owner
to
raze
the
backyard
of
and
kind
of
circumvent
the
concern
of
of
neighbors.
You
know
adjoining
neighbors
and
have
very
yards
down
at
existing
grades.
H
H
A
Okay
but
I
mean
we're
hearing
some
of
the
concerns
of
the
neighbors,
and
that
was
one
of
the
one
of
the
ones
that
was
mentioned.
I
just
wanted
to
verify
with
you
that
there's
no
code
violation
and
and
what
they
did
there,
okay,
and
if
they
were
to
attach
a
shade
awning
a
canvas
type
shade
awning
on
the
rear
of
the
home,
the
primary
structure.
A
H
H
D
C
M
C
M
It
also
on
that
awning
question
of
hey.
This
is
my
understanding
trying
to
correct
me.
If
this
is
not
consistently
here,
we
can
have
three-foot
awnings
on
the
house
attached.
The
total
required
a
permit.
If
we
were
to
extend
that
because
they
would
then
be
permanently
affixed
with
the
house
and
extend
more
than
three
feet,
a
permanent
would
be
required
for
that.
M
C
It
that
currently
it's
travertine
and
when
this
structure,
if
it
were
to
go
in
it,
would
be
designed
by
an
engineer,
slab
and
large
slab
footers,
it's
miami-dade
approved
its
stronger
than
the
FPC
requirement.
It
would
not
go
anywhere
in
a
hurricane,
it's
all
approved
it's
not
just
a
dinky
little
melting
place
and
you
know
flying
away.
It
would
be
firmly
attached
into
the
ground
secured
like
any
other
structure.
So
it's
not
replacing
grass
was
basically
we.
C
F
A
D
D
Do
y'all
understand
what
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
spokesperson
for
for
your
neighborhood
group,
but
do
y'all
understand
that
the
the
point
that
mr.
Brown
was
making
about
how
this
structure
could
could
actually
be
moved
closer
to
the
edge
of
the
property.
It
could
go
up
to
3
feet
legally
without
us
doing
anything.
We
could
deny
it
tonight.
They
could
move
this
out
if
they
could
get
a
10-foot
separation
between
those
between
those
pieces.
D
They
could
actually
move
this
out
to
the
edge
and
build
it
which
I
would
assume
would
be
more
intrusive
into
your
views,
more
intrusive
into
the,
and
so
my
question
is
simply
if
we
were
denied
to
deny
this
and
they
were
to
do
something
like
that.
Is
that
what
you
would
want
to
do,
or
is
there
some
compromise
that
you
would
be
willing
to
answer.
N
To
that
question,
I
would
say
this
board
cannot
grant
a
variance
unless
a
hardship
has
been
demonstrated
by
the
applicant
and
if
that
structure
can
be
set
away
from
the
house,
10
feet
like
the
code
requires,
and
there
is
space
to
put
it
there.
Then
that
demonstrates
there
is
no
hardship
to
move
it
up
nine
and
a
half
feet
and
make
it
six
feet
away
from
the
house.
This
board
needs
to
remember
the
authority
that
was
granted
to.
N
It
is
only
to
grant
a
variance
if
those
five
criteria
show
a
hardship,
and
if
that
is
the
case,
then
that
demonstrates
there
is
no
hardship
because
the
structure
can
be
put
where
it's
supposed
to
be
under
the
code,
and
so
yes,
an
answer
to
the
questions.
Certainly
like
the
Florida,
Supreme
Court,
said
legitimate.
Zoning
ordinances
are
in
the
public
interest,
and
enforcement
of
them
is
in
the
public
interest,
and
certainly
we
would
prefer
that.
Thank
you.
L
Again,
Andrew
super
:
I'm,
two
houses
over
I.
Think
to
your
point,
mr.
chairman,
the
original
design
of
I
don't
have
the
drawing
in
front
me,
but
I
think
it
was
12
feet.
Four
inches
was
the
width
of
the
Pearl,
and
then
there
was
a
seven
foot,
six
inch
setback
to
the
property
line.
So
under
the
code
they
can
move
it
to
three
feet
from
the
rear
property
line,
and
then
they
would
still
have
to
meet
the
ten
feet.
L
H
A
Okay,
I
mean
I,
think
it's
a
important
consideration
going
back
to
what
the
testimony
was
for
one
of
the
hardships
of
what
they
were
trying
to
fix.
So
it's
important
for
us
I
think
to
understand
if
that's
a
legal
remedy
or
not
and
I
just
don't
want
to
have
conflicting
testimony.
So
you
think
you
might
be
right
all.
A
A
A
A
M
C
E
Mr.
chairman,
can
I
chime
in
on
a
few
points?
There
were
some
legal
issues
rates,
so
I
feel
obligated
to
join
under
the
the
the
Thompson
V
Planning
Commission
of
City
of
Jacksonville
case
that
was
referred
to
earlier.
It
was
held
in
that
case
when
the
owners
were
aware
of
the
shape
and
size
of
the
property
that
they
purchased
and
they
still
designed
a
building
that
was
too
large
for
the
lot
and
left
insufficient
room
for
the
code
required
parking.
E
E
Now,
to
what
degree
that
slightly
lesser
again
as
I
stated,
there's
not
a
case
on
point
in
Florida,
but
according
to
McQuillan
and
the
city
code,
the
practical
difficulty
is
arguably
a
slightly
lesser
standard,
so
I,
just
I
didn't
want
to
put
those
two
points
on
to
the
record.
Hopefully
that
clears
up
a
few
things.
C
They
say
one
thing
about
actually
the
screens
that
they
were
referring
to.
They
are
clear
insects,
birds,
they're
shown
solid
black.
They
picked
the
right
on
the
day
to
show
it
that
way,
but
they
are
not
like
that:
their
screens
that
roll
down
and
roll
out
motorized-
and
that
was
approved
on
our
plans,
permitted
and
everything
it
was
never
enough
to,
though-
and
that
would
not
be
the
case
if
this
is
per
lower-
to
be
approved.
That
would
never
be
part
of
the
plan.
We
would
take
a
condition
that
it
would
never
be
covered.
C
C
C
F
Designed
the
house
we
had
that
three-foot
overhang
got
permitted
and
my
wife
and
I
decided:
let's
live
there
for
a
while
and
see
what
it
was
gonna
be
like
and
that
three-foot
all
overhang
was
not
going
to
do
anything
for
the
son
or
for
the
drainage
or
for
the
rainwater
coming
down.
And
that's
when
we
said
this
is
a
gonna
be
worth
it.
L
F
C
F
C
C
A
M
It's
been
indicated
that
enforcement
of
the
zoning
code
is
in
the
public
interest,
I
agree,
but
we
don't
get
to
pick
and
choose
what
parts
of
the
zoning
ordinance
or
to
take
our
supportive
of
our
particular
view
on
one
particular
situation:
variances
design
exceptions,
things
of
that
nature
are
as
much
a
part
of
the
zoning
code
as
our
setback
requirements
or
building
separation
requirements.
So
if
you
find
that
we
satisfy
the
criteria,
that's
fully
consistent
with
the
zoning
code.
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
That's
basically
it
you
know
again,
I
think
that
the
solution
proposed
here
is
as
much
in
the
is.
Perhaps
the
best
solution
for
everyone
involved.
I
think
it's
a
better
solution
than
things
that
would
be
available
by
code
in
terms
of
the
umbrella
and
things
of
that
nature.
As
you
have
further
questions
on
place,.
B
Mr.
B
well
at
least
we're
discussion
purposes
to
start.
You
know.
We've
we've
heard
tonight
that
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
difference
between
you
know.
We
have
hardships
and
we
have
practical
difficulties
and
unfortunately,
I've
really
heard
none
or
no
evidence
to
support
either
one
of
those
situations.
I,
don't
think
that
it's
a
unique
situation,
I
think
the
home
was
constructed
in
its
configuration
by
choice.
B
Omitting
room
for
this
as
at
least
proposed
and
I.
Also
just
I
can
see
three
outdoor
areas
that
were
already
designed
into
the
home
to
accommodate
the
wish
to
have
an
outdoor
space.
We
have
given
the
criteria
that
we
have
to
work
with
and
given
the
discussion
that
we've
had
I
would
find
it
difficult
to
vote
YES
for
this.
B
C
P
C
D
D
D
That
would
work
to
both
parties
benefit.
That's
why
I
asked
a
question
that
I
did.
It
seems
that
in
this
instance,
the
neighbors
would
prefer
to
sort
of
deal
with
that
when
it
happens
and
if
it
happens-
and
you
know
we
don't
have
real
clear
guidance
as
to
what
is
legally
permissible
in
that
respect.
So
my
thought
is
given
that
I
agree
that
we
don't.
We
didn't
see
much
in
the
way
of
hardship,
particularly
because
of
the
other,
multiple
outdoor
spaces
that
provide
the
same
or
similar.
E
It
met
mr.
chair
I'd
like
to
chime
in
on
that
too,
because
simply
because
what
is
allowed
by
code
may
be
less
desirable
is
not
really
a
consideration
for
the
board
other
than,
as
you
stated
in,
determining
whether
or
not
it's
going
to
affect
the
the
nearby
properties
in
in
that
consideration
that
the
applicant
still
has
a
burden
of
showing
a
hard
hardship
and
C
counsel.
It
determines
what's
desirable
through
the
codes.
So
if
the
board
thinks
that
the
code
is
what's
allowed
by,
code
is
less
desirable.
E
It's
really
outside
of
the
board's
determination
for
that.
The
City
Council
has
made
the
code
and
that's
what
applies
to
everyone.
The
variance
is
there
when
the
unique
circumstances
of
the
property
do
not
fit
that
particular
property,
and
so
that
the
hardship
meet
still
needs
to
be
proven
and
whether
or
not
the
code,
what
the
code
allows
is
less
desirable
is
a
consideration
for
whether
or
not
it
affects
the
neighborhood.
But
it
doesn't
relieve
that
that
burden
of
proving
the
hardship.
A
Yeah
I
don't
disagree
with
any
of
what
you
just
said.
Sometimes
there
are
unintended
consequences
of
Pursey
perception
from
one
neighbor
to
another,
perhaps
so
a
lot
of
times
for
me
personally
I'd
like
to
ask
the
questions
of
what
is
legal
versus
what
they're
asking
for
which
obviously
they're
asking
for
very
hints
that
isn't
legal
unless
they
come
here
to
get
it
or
go
to
City
Council.
A
A
That's
all
I'm
gonna
say
about
that.
What
I
would
like
to
say
that
nobody
has
said
yet
I'm.
Looking
at
the
overall
areal
in
the
package
and
after
hearing
the
testimony
it
wasn't,
it
didn't
die
on
me
initially,
but
the
rear
portion
of
the
house
are
trying
to
shade
faces
due
north.
It
doesn't
get
a
lot
of
direct
sunlight
unless
it's
late
late
in
the
summer
summer
months
is
about
the
only
time
it
would
get.
Direct
sunlight
and
to
the
West.
A
Is
the
two
story
struck
the
two
story,
part
of
the
house,
that
shades
that
angle
so
I'm
not
even
clear
and
I'm
we're
not
gonna
open
up
the
public
hearing,
but
to
me
there's.
There
are
very
few
hours
of
very
few
days
that
this
rear
glass
wall
would
have
direct
sunlight
and
it
would
be
low-level
light,
which
probably
is
why
the
architect
didn't
want
to
consider
the
three-foot
overhang
above
the
doors,
because
it
wouldn't
shade
low
level
sunlight
and
with
all
that
in
mind,
if
they
were
maxing
out
the
footprint.
A
Why
didn't
they
take
that
into
consideration
because
they
could
have
fixed
that
problem
in
the
design
before
they
built
it?
But
you
know
it's
got
a
two-story
structure
immediately
adjacent
to
the
west,
where
most
of
that
low-level
light
is
coming
from
most
of
the
year
and
should
be
shading
the
glass,
so
I
would
agree
with
the
other
comments
that
I've
heard
tonight
about
self-impose
are
and
would
be
open
to
emotion,.
B
E
A
H
H
Eighty
four
point:
two
point:
five,
the
request
is
as
follows:
the
applicant
is
seeking
to
remove
a
grand
tree
in
the
front
yard.
The
applicant
is
seeking
to
construct
a
new
single-family
residence.
The
property
is
owned,
RS
75
that
was
purchased
in
2019.
The
existing
single-family
residence
was
constructed
in
1984.
H
J
J
The
live
oak
was
rated
b
8
and
is
considered
a
grand
tree
after
meeting
with
the
applicant.
Given
that
the
applicant
would
like
to
build
a
two-story
home
with
traditional
setbacks
of
25
in
the
front
the
tree
was
in
the
building
envelope.
A
two-story
home
without
adjustments
would
require
the
removal
of
several
large
limbs.
The
large
cuts
would
lead
to
effective
removal
of
the
tree
and
to
keep
the
tree.
That
applicant
would
have
to
construct
a
one-story
residence
to
preserve
the
grand
tree.
J
J
The
applicant
is
requesting
for
removal.
It's
a
second
photo,
and
here
are
some
more
detailed
photos
of
the
limbs
that
overhanging
the
one-story
home.
The
first
limb
that's
shown
here-
was
measured
at
approximately
14
feet
in
height,
and
there
are
several
other
limbs
that
overhang
the
one-story
home
bed
range
from
14
inches
to
18
I
mean
14
feet
to
18
feet.
J
A
G
G
Okay,
so
we're
gonna
prove
that
the
alleged
hardships
are
practical.
Difficulties
are
unique
and
sailor
with
respect
to
the
property
or
with
respect
to
a
structure
or
building
they're
on
and
are
not
those
suffered
in
common
with
other
property
structures
or
building
similar
located.
Our
practical
difficulties
is
building
a
two-story
home.
The
grand
okay
tada,
our
property
presents
a
practical
hardship
to
building
a
two-story
home.
The
canopy
of
the
tree
hangs
over
the
buildable
space
by
22
feet.
The
treat
is
only
six
feet
from
the
setback
and
is
located
in
a
central
location.
G
So
you
know
even
like
a
one-story
home
with
once
you
have
to
go
up
to
11
feet
with
the
new
codes
coming
into
play.
Actually
they're
going
from
9
to
10,
but
our
architect
and
builder
says
that
you
should
go
12
inches
above
that,
just
because
FEMA
changes
things
for
future
down
the
line.
So
it
would
be
built
11
feet
above,
and
it
would
make
it
hard
even
with
a
one-story
house,
because
the
limbs
that
would
have
to
get
cut
off.
They
said
that
the
tree
would
be
deemed.
P
The
house
is
at
around
or
the
lot
is
at
around
7
feet,
give
or
take
where
you
are
on
the
lot
above
sea
level,
so
to
get
to
the
11
feet
that
is
suggested.
It
would
be
an
additional
4
feet
and
then
a
one-story
structure.
You
know
with
new
code,
reasonable
structure
it
would,
we
have
been
told
by
our
contractor,
is
14
feet,
so
that
would
put
a
one-story
structure
at
18
feet.
P
G
G
The
licensed
arborist
that
we
use
from
natural
resources
were
Mike.
Lucia
Cathy
Beck
have
informed
us
that
there
are
multiple
low-hanging
large
limbs
that
would
need
to
be
removed
in
order
to
build
a
two-story
structure.
Their
assessment
is
that
large
cuts
would
lead
to
removal
of
the
whole
tree
because
of
safety
and
damage
of
the
tree.
The
tree
would
be
unstable
and
would
no
longer
be
healthy
and
within
need
to
be
removed,
because
it
would
pose
a
danger,
reasonable
configurations.
G
P
G
So
different
sight,
your
reasonable
reconfigurations,
the
cutout
and
the
reconfiguration
would
affect
the
internal
flow
that
we
are
trying
to
achieve.
That
is
keeping
with
the
current
development
trends
in
this
area.
There's
two
story:
structures
every
house
being
built
in
this
area
or
two-story
structures
on.
G
It's
important
to
build
something
that
is
keeping
with
the
current
size
style
parameters
of
other
new
homes
in
the
area
to
carve
out
space
for
the
limbs
of
the
tree,
and
his
trunks
would
not
be
possible
to
conform
to
the
normal
development
pattern
of
this
Belmarsh
wars
in
the
greater
South
Tampa
area.
Failure
to
do
so
would
result
in
the
reduction
in
the
use
and
value
of
the
proposed
building.
G
He
touched
on
the
Brian
touched
on
the
filter.
You
know
basically
ruining
the
tree
based
on
these
practical
hardships.
We're
asking
to
preemptively
be
allowed
to
remove
the
tree
and
its
root
system
prior
to
starting,
unique
and
sealer.
The
grande
oak
on
our
property
is
six
feet
from
the
front
setback
and
the
canopy
is
22.
It
is
also
centrally
located
on
the
lot.
G
P
Well
and
I
wanted
I
wanted
to
add
on
as
far
as
being
unique
in
singular
the
location
of
the
tree
on
our
lot.
I
believe
is
unique
and
singular
compared
to
several
other
properties
in
Belmar
Shores
that
have
been
recently
built
that
were
able
to
preserve
the
tree.
The
trees
are
much
farther
from
the
setback,
so
the
canopy
doesn't
overhang
as
much.
P
G
P
P
L
P
P
P
We
would
like
to
put
our
like
it
if,
with
the
approval
is
granted,
we
want
to
put
trees
in
more
functional
positions,
but
we
do
want,
to,
you
know,
add
trees.
Welcome
to
the
neighborhood,
because
we
love,
you
know.
We
thought
the
neighborhood
and
we
think
it.
We
love
the
trees.
We
love
the
canopy,
it's
beautiful,
so.
A
J
E
A
Okay,
I
was
just
wondering
if
it
was
about
35
years
old,
okay
and
this
particular
hang
on
there
one
more
this
particular
tree,
based
on
its
condition.
It's
it's
be
a
rating
minimum
setback.
If,
if
a
new
structure
is
built,
if
they
kept
the
tree,
what's
what
are
you
gonna
be
looking
for
for
a
minimum
setback?
Well,.
J
We
could
start
with
the
existing
setbacks
so
like
if,
if
they
built
the
house
where
the
existing
foundation
is
located,
we
would
accept
that,
given
that
there's
an
understanding
that
the
roots
are
likely
deflected,
Oh,
God
and
so
there's
a
deflection
that
we
would
allow
that
to
happen.
We've
done
other
properties
and
I
think
we
had
a
case
here
recently
where
we
accepted
that
as
a
part
of
the
variance
and.
J
J
There
will
be
some
issues
with
the
roof.
You
would
probably
have
to
take
off
three
or
four
of
those
limbs
that
we
were
looking
at
in
the
photos.
You
would
have
some
upper
canopy
left,
but
for
what
they're
proposing
as
a
two-story
option,
it
becomes
extremely
limited
on
the
options
of
trying
to
preserve
the
truth.
It.
A
G
A
G
G
Before
I
bought
this
place,
you
know
I
went
to
Kathy
back
and
I
said
Kathy.
You
know
I'm
I'm,
not
some
big
got
money.
Guy
I'm
like
if,
if
I
can't
you
know,
we
can't
build
a
tutorial
sure
here,
then
I
don't
want
to
buy
this
this
place
and
she
you
know
she
showed
me
the
limits.
That's
low
she's,
like
once
you
cut
that
the
trees
go
on.
You
have
to
remove
it.
She's
like
cutting.
J
She
was
referencing
the
25-foot
setback,
okay,
and
with
that
you
would
have
to
make
ahead
and
cut.
That
would
be
pretty
significant,
so
you
wouldn't
be
reducing
back
to
a
lateral
say
you
would
just.
You
would
just
make
a
blunt
cut
at
that
point.
Hope
for
sprouting
and
at
that
point
you're
doing
this
problem
management,
which.
J
Forever
yeah
you'd
be
cutting
it
back
forever
are
trying
to
elevate.
Then
it
would
be
a
process
that
would
go
on
for
years
and
combine
that
on
top
of
the
additional
field
that
would
put
it.
You
have
put
it
in
the
tree
and
you
would
essentially
have
a
tree
well
at
that
point,
and
so
with
that
you
would
have
to
provide
drainage
for
that,
which
typically
has
been
ineffective
over
the
years,
because
it
requires
a
lot
of
maintenance
as
well.
Well,.
A
C
What
about
acts
changing
the
back
setback,
so
it
looks
like
you
have
a
pool
in
every
design.
Is
there
a
way
she'd
get
rid
of
the
pool
move
the
house
back?
Maybe
have
it
not,
as
big
I
mean
we
do
have
we.
G
F
C
P
C
P
P
There
is
a
there
is
a
criteria
that
you
guys
use
that
says
something
to
the
effect
of
it
like
if
the
value
is
affected
of
the
structure
that
that
you
know,
you
can't
encroach
upon
the
value
of
this
structure
and
be
in
keeping
with
the
structures
that
are,
you
know
to
be
built,
and
that
would
greatly
affect
the
value
of
the
structure
and
the
overall
keeping
with
the
look
and
feel
and
size
of
the
homes
that
are
being
built
in
Belmar
Shores
and,
in
sake
of
us.
So
I,
don't
think
it's
a
practical.
A
C
A
A
L
G
P
Standards
that
you
guys
use
for
your
criteria
is
that
you
know
you
can't
infringe
upon.
Basically,
the
you
know
decreasing.
Reducing
the
value
of
the
home
and
I
can
pretty
much
guarantee
I'm,
not
an
expert
I'm,
not
a
real
estate
expert,
but
I
know
that
I
would
not
purchase
a
home.
I
would
value
a
home
less
that
had
a
pool
in
the
front
in
a
front
yard
in
the
front
like
like
a
fenced-in
front
yard
in
the
front
versus
what
is
in
keeping
with
the
you
know,
homes
that
are
being
built
today.
Okay,.
E
E
As
I
indicated
earlier
tonight,
there
is
a
definition
to
reasonable
reconfiguration
and
because
it
was
trying
to
say
earlier,
City
Council
has
limited
how
we
can
reasonably
reconfigure
or
what
we
can
tell
applicants
is
reasonable
and
reconfiguring,
and
if
you
look
at
the
second
criteria
there
it
it
says
there
is
no
change
in
the
number
of
storeys
proposed.
The
height
of
the
structures
increase
no
more
than
allowed,
so
reasonable
reconfiguration
doesn't
include
changing
the
amount
of
stories.
A
C
G
G
E
A
G
A
D
I
have
taken
different
trees,
but
when
they
are
legally
required
to
be
taken
down
by
the
criteria,
that's
passed
by
the
city,
I
am
obligated
to
follow
those
procedures,
and
in
this
case
it
seems
that
this
is
one
of
those
instances
appreciate
that
yeah
kids
said
that
they're
not
opposed
to
trees.
I
thought
that
was
funny.
D
It's
look,
I
get
it
I
understand
what
y'all
were
saying
and
and
frankly
trees.
They
provide
a
great
value
to
two
homes
and
I'm
sure
it's
gonna
be
to
your
advantage
to
plant
more
trees,
just
further
away
from
where
you're
gonna
build.
So
look
at
I.
Don't
see
any
way
that
we
can
given
the
way
this
tree
spreads
and
given
its
positioning
and
given
the
criteria
that's
before
us,
I,
don't
see
any
way
to
avoid
saying
this
has
to
be
approved.
C
C
I,
just
I
just
think
that
there's
definitely
alternate
methods
that
they
could
use
to
even
have
a
one
and
a
two
story
house,
like
the
two-story
in
the
back
I
mean
there's
definite,
there's
other
things
that
you
could
do
on
this
lot
and
I'd
be
happy
if
they
were
here
to
ask
for
a
setback
to
go
even
further
back
I
would
totally
be
okay
with
that,
but
I,
don't
just
looking
at
this
I,
don't
see
that
they've
exhausted
every
possibility
and
that's
what
I'm
not
liking
about
that.
So
that's.
A
D
D
We
are,
as
I
interpret
this
code
and
as
I
read
it
and
given
the
facts
before
us,
I
am
challenged
to
and
and
I
didn't
want
to
ask
this
now
from
legal
I
figured
I'd
wait
until
later.
Certainly
when
you
say
things
like
there's
no
change
in
the
number
of
stories,
there
have
to
be
limits
to
that
right,
I
mean
if
someone's
coming
before
us
and
saying
well,
I
can
fit.
You
know
a
three-story
house
on
here
and
a
tree
would
survive
with
a
two-story
house.
D
I
D
Think
that
the
tree
probably
needs
to
go
and
that
some
new
trees
can
come
in
I
think
that
the
the
bill
aspect
of
this
has
has
to
be
considered
as
well,
because
if
they're
gonna
have
to
put
a
few
feet
of
dirt
on
there,
you
know.
Natural
Resources
has
told
us
about
that.
Well,
issue
and
I,
don't
know
quite
how
that
works,
but
it
doesn't
sound
like
it
works
well.
M
C
C
E
E
E
E
Sorry
so
the
you
know,
if
the
first
one
is
the
impact
of
the
structure
on
the
tree.
The
second
one
is
whether
or
not
the
structure
can
be
reasonably
reconfigured,
which
we've
talked
about
a
little
bit
and
there's
a
separate
definition
that
I've,
given
you
for
that
kind
of
puts
some
contours
to
what
reasonable
reconfiguration
is.
The
third
one
is
whether
or
not
setbacks
can
be
adjusted.
Then
the
next
one
is
alternative
construction
methods
that
might
be
able
to
preserve
the
tree.
E
The
next
is
a
is
a
cost
consideration
and
that's
both
the
cost
of
the
alternative
constructions
and
what,
whether
or
not
that
might
reduce
the
use
or
the
value
of
the
structure
compared
to
the
condition
of
the
tree
and
then
the
last
one
is
applicable
only
to
accessory
buildings
in
it.
It
talks
about
considering
the
pattern
of
the
neighborhood
and
what
kind
of
accessory
buildings
are
in
that
neighborhood.
So.
A
Mr.
Simpson,
the
last
part
of
paragraph
B
under
factors
can
you
is,
am
I,
am
I
to
interpret
that
if
staff
says
something
to
the
effect
that
we're
okay
with
this
Street
coming
in
because
of
the
issues
that
they've
looked
at?
Is
that
saying
that
that
we
should
consider
the
recommendation
by
Natural
Resources
coordinator
are.
L
E
I
think
it's
always
it's
always
okay
for
the
board
to
consider
the
recommendations
of
staff.
My
interpretation
of
that
of
that
phrase
is:
is
that
that
staff
could
come
forward
with
suggestions
of
saving
what
possible
reasonable
reconfigurations
do
exist
and
that
this
board
could
consider
that.
So,
if
staff
came
forward
and
said
well,
they
could
flip
the
house
around
and
accommodate
the
tree.
The
board
could
consider
that,
as
part
of
its
analysis
of
whether
or
not
reasonable
reconfiguration
was
possible.
B
B
C
D
A
Well,
I'll
sum
up
as
quickly
as
I
can
my
thoughts
here
again
because
of
the
floodplain
issue,
because
of
the
height
of
the
existing
major
limbs
that
are
growing
on
the
building
side
of
the
lot
and
the
proximity
of
the
tree
being
more
or
less
centered.
Yes,
I
could
see
a
potential
for
alternative
design,
especially
after
hearing
the
testimony
from
mr.
Knox
that
they
might
have
been
willing
to
go
up
to
six
or
seven
feet
away
from
the
tree
and
then
considering
you
know
again,
design
isn't
just
horizontal
its
vertical
that.
A
Could
you
then
design
a
two-story,
1/2
story,
structure
that
preserve
the
tree
and
we
didn't
see
enough
alternative
design
that
went
hard
to
that
question.
I
agree
with
that
and
no
you're
not
entitled
to
have
a
pool,
but
you
know,
given
the
aspects
of
the
floodplain
specifically
for
me.
I
just
think
that
trees,
trees,
grow
fast,
I
mean
35
years
is
a
long
time.
I
don't
want
to
minimize
that
it's
not
a
hundred
years.
It's
not
50
years.
A
Mr.
Knox
said
that
this
is
probably
older
than
35
years.
It
might
be
40.
Who
knows,
but
the
point
is
that,
if,
if
homeowners,
plant,
trees,
30
or
40
years
from
now,
there'll
be
two
of
these,
not
just
one,
you
know
with
whatever
the
alternative
design
was
so
again,
mainly
because
of
the
floodplain
I
could
approve
this
under
the
new
guidelines.
C
Make
a
motion:
yes:
I,
move
that
various
requests
for
case
BRB
19
100
for
property
located
at
3603,
south
omar
avenue
be
granted
as
depicted
on
the
site
plan
presented
at
the
public
hearing
for
removal
of
a
grand
tree
based
on
based
upon
the
petitioner
meeting
the
burden
of
proof.
With
regard
to
the
six
factors
for
determining
tree
removal.
A
set
forth
in
section
27,
284,
0.5,
0.2
0.5.