►
From YouTube: Variance Review Board 09102019 part 2
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
C
Tawanda
anthing
land
development-
this
is
case
vrb
1992.
The
property
address
is
2608
West
Morrison
Avenue.
The
request
is
as
follows:
the
applicant
is
seeking
to
reduce
the
west
side
yard
setback
from
7
feet
to
0
feet,
the
accessory
structure,
setback
from
3
feet
to
0
feet
and
the
building
separation
from
5
feet
to
one
feet:
to
vest
the
existing
conditions.
The
property
is
owned,
RS
60
and
was
purchased
in
2018.
The
existing
single-family
residence
was
constructed
in
1926.
C
C
This
was
a
site
plan.
You
can
see
the
structure
in
the
rear.
This
is
the
accessory
structure
and
you're
asking
to
reduce
the
setback
from
three
feet
to
zero
feet:
here's
the
side,
yard,
reduction
from
seven
feet
to
zero
feet
and
they're,
also
asking
for
the
building
separation
between
the
primary
structure
and
the
accessory
structure.
B
D
Why
talk
or
protect
4745
Patagonia
place,
Land,
O'lakes
and
I
have
been
sworn
I
think
to
wander
for
anything
topic
very
well:
I'm
assisting
the
owners.
Mr.
mrs.
Jack
Leo,
who
are
currently
out
of
town,
completing
their
medical
training,
I'd
like
to
emphasize
that
what
we
are
requesting
does
not
represent
a
change
in
any
kind
to
the
footprint
of
either
the
accessory
building
the
main
building
or
the
carport
they're,
simply
seeking
to
vest
existing
conditions
so
that
we
can
make
some
repairs
that
we
would
like
to
make
specifically.
D
D
So
we'd
like
to
take
those
and
move
them
aside
to
enable
wider
gates
and,
at
the
same
time
strengthen
the
existing
structure
without
changing
its
configuration.
If
it's,
if
the
storm
that
we
just
escaped
run
through
Tampa,
it
could
well
have
removed
a
piece
of
this
roof
and
caused
damage
to
either
property
or
persons.
We'd
like
to
reinforce
that
and
hold
it
down
properly.
D
So
the
only
other
those
two
are
chips,
basically,
one
of
use
and
one
of
safety.
What
we're
concerned
about
to
date,
we
have
permitted
and
executed
the
reinforcement
of
some
of
these
subfloor
posts
under
the
main
structure,
and
we
would
like
to
submit
a
permit
application
to
move
these
two
columns
and
to
modify
these
gates
so
again,
we're
not
seeking
to
an
environment
or
change
the
foot.
In
any
way.
We
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have.
B
E
E
Works
there
you,
okay
thanks
so
like
I,
said
I'm
right
into
the
pose
the
variance
requested
for
2608
West
Morrison
Avenue,
stating
the
application
number
you
rb1
9/9
to
which
is
scheduled
to
go
before
the
board
tonight.
E
The
current
corporate
roof
has
an
extension,
as
you
see
that
rests
on
the
fence
dividing
the
property,
as
well
as
the
gutter
downspout
that
drops
into
our
yard
and
trains
on
our
property.
Once
appearance
is
given,
then
the
new
remodel
rebuild
will
be
at
the
zero
lot
line.
This
is
not
the
president
that
is
needed
or
desired
in
the
South
Tampa
neighborhood.
We
may
choose
to
live
close
to
each
other,
but
we
don't
want
to
live
on
top
of
each
other.
E
E
One
solution
that
was
proposed
as
many
was
from
a
civil
engineer,
support
the
carport
roof
with
the
steel
beams
that
are
supported
by
posts
which
can
be
moved
to
the
edge
of
the
carport,
thus
giving
our
neighbors
more
room
to
open
the
car
doors,
also,
maybe
extending
the
roofline
north
or
south
to
give
them
more
room.
So
they'd
stay
out
of
the
out
of
the
elements.
If
the
roofline
is
extended
to
the
property
line.
E
A
solution:
okay,
when
we
tune
the
original
replies
better
than
the
solution,
as
it
will
move
the
cost
effective
for
the
property
owners
and
less
structural
encourage
one
of
us.
We're
also
concerned
with
the
encroachment
of
the
accessory
building
in
the
southwest
portion
of
their
property.
The
roofline
is
already
less
than
two
feet
from
the
existing
fence
line
on
our
property,
which
is
considerably
outside
the
existing
building
codes.
E
We're
extremely
worried
that
allowing
for
zero
lot
line,
variance
for
this
structure
will
lead
to
a
large
and
taller
the
task
structure
that
equips
us
into
our
backyard
on
privacy.
So
what
we're
doing
is
via
help
us
come
to
a
conclusion
that
it's
good
for
both
parties,
while
abiding
about
your
current
building
codes.
Thank
you.
B
F
F
Okay,
so
this
is
from
our
backyard
and,
as
you
can
see,
what
they're
talking
about
are
these
two
posts
right
here
and
here
this
is
an
existing
like
shed.
That
was
I,
don't
know
when
it
was
erected,
and
this
is
an
eight-foot
fence
that
is
an
8-foot
fence,
supporting
this
shed
structure
and
these
posts
that
are
back
here
if
I
understand
it
correctly.
I
did
try
and
reach
out
to
the
to
the
people
who
put
the
variance
in
no
one
responded.
F
So
I
have
not
had
contact
with
them
to
to
have
this
discussion,
especially
since
the
owners
really
aren't
here.
I
haven't
had
the
opportunity
to
be
in
contact
with
them,
so
so
the
question
is:
is
to
move
these
posts
out
and
what
we
were
trying
to
do
as
neighbors
is.
How
can
we
help
them?
Accomplish
that,
because
we
understand
I
mean
I,
would
love
to
have
a
carport
I,
don't
have
this?
I
live
next
door
and
I
have
a
singular
way
and
I
when
I
bring
in
groceries
and
my
children
we
get
wet.
F
That's
just
the
way
it
is
so
I
am
slightly
jealous
of
this
I
understand
what
they
want
to
do
and
what
you
can
see
is
these
posts
are
next
to
this
door
was
not
originally
there,
evidently
back
in
the
20s
when
they
built
the
house.
This
was
built
at
some
other
time,
so
they're
trying
to
fix
that
by
moving
these
posts,
which
I
can
understand,
but
actually
they're
really
not
fixing
it.
F
So
the
hardship
of
use
actually
does
not
work
out
the
way
that
they've
described
it
because
by
moving
these
posts
right
they're
getting
closer
to
the
fence
line,
they're
still
going
to
have
this
thing,
but
now
you
have
this
car
door.
They
still
got
to
go
here
and
the
door
opens
the
other
way.
Wouldn't
it
make
more
sense
if
we're
talking
about
use
instead
of
coming
towards
my
house,
why
don't
they
just
go
further
out
in
their
own
area?
F
That
way
they
can
move
the
car
up
and
not
be
in
this
stairway
area
that
way
they're
getting
out
of
their
car
door
and
walking
up
the
stairs
into
a
doorway.
That's
going
to
be
open.
This
actually
is
not
ease
of
use.
What
they're
proposing
just
continues
the
lack
of
use
you
it's
hard
to
do
all
of
that
anyway.
So
there's
that
the
other
thing
is
the
existing
structure.
F
As
you
can
see
here
at
some
point
in
time,
the
existing
structure
became
an
8
foot
fence.
Then
they
put
this
this
on
it,
the
former
owners
two
owners
ago.
They
did
have
like
grill
equipment
and
things
like
that
right
there
so
I
think
that's
what
they
used
before.
I
do,
yes,
sir,
so
anyway,
this
actually
the
way
it's
done
right
now.
This
is
my
yard.
This
is
our
side
yard
and
the
water
now
comes
to
our
side
yard
once
they
move
this
on
once
they
move
this
out
or
where
does
that
water
go?
F
G
A
G
G
So
I,
don't
so
I
think
earlier
tonight
you
have,
we
talked
about
a
non
non-conforming
uses.
This
is
apparently
a
non-conforming
use.
I,
don't
think
the
neighbors
mind
it
being
continuing
to
be
a
non-conforming
use,
but
if
and
when
that
lot
is
ever
redeveloped,
it
would
make
sense
to
go
back
to
the
original
legal
setbacks.
G
And,
having
said
that,
oh
and
my
second
question,
which
I
forgot
is,
was
the
question
about
the
roof
line
over
the
carport
I?
Don't
think
it
was,
it
was
clear
and
I,
don't
think
I
understand
if
the
intention
is
to
extend
that
existing
roof
line
further
towards
the
property
line
or
if
it
was
to
maintain
that
shed
style
roof
over
in
that
area
and
I,
something
that
could
be
clarified.
H
Good
evening,
Steve
michaleen
I
have
been
sworn
I
am
not
affiliated
with
this
project
in
any
way,
and
I
have
no
connection
with
it.
I
I
did
respond
to
some
neighbors
emails
regarding
their
interest
and
understanding
what
was
being
proposed,
I
reached
out
to
mr.
Gottschalk
and
I,
asked
him
exactly
what
they
were
trying
to
do.
I
met
out
on
the
site
with
some
of
the
neighbors,
some
that
spoke
already,
and
one
of
the
things
that
is
unique
about
new
suburb
utiful
is
that
most
of
the
properties
do
not
meet
the
current
code.
H
They
they
were
built
in
the
20s
and
the
setbacks
that
they
currently
have
are
3
feet,
and
they
also
allowed
for
encroachments
beyond
that
for
cortico
shares,
which
is
what
this
house
has,
and
what
they're
proposing
to
do
is
to
realign
the
Porticus
share,
move
the
column
so
that
a
car
will
fit
underneath
that
shed
area
remodel
that
and
remove
the
any
encroachment
that
goes
beyond
the
property
line
and,
like
I
said
I
met
out.
There
were
several
the
folks
I
explained
that
to
them,
and
also
explained
that
you
know
the
hardships
related
to
this.
H
The
fact
that
in
the
20s,
the
setbacks
were
entirely
different,
you
know
mr.
Oliver
knows
he's
been
with
the
city.
Just
like
I
was
with
a
city
years
ago
that
you
know
once
you
grant
a
variance
it's
granted.
I,
don't
know
that
you
can
condition
that
on
no
redevelopment,
but
I
did
ask
them
that
no
second
floor
be
added
to
the
portico
share,
and
they
were
agreeable
to
that.
So
you
might
consider
that
in
your
deliberations
and
then
it
not
being
closed
and
that
we
remained
open
as
a
single-story
portico
share.
H
I
was
in
and
supporting
them
only
because
I
know
that
the
other
properties
throughout
this
area
can't
meet
the
code,
never
will
meet
the
code
and
if
anybody
redevelops,
as
we
all,
are
redeveloping
for
our
families-
and
you
know
adding
rooms,
and
things
like
that-
you
will
see
more
and
more
coming
through
from
new
summer
beautiful
that
simply
have
a
hardship
because
of
I
think
reasonable
restrictions
on
them,
for
the
redevelopment
of
this
are
practical
and
should
be
considered
by
the
board,
but
but
I
am
here
supporting
a
reasonable
redevelopment
of
that
property.
Thank
you.
B
I
D
H
D
Share
their
concern
about
the
permanence
of
that
we
want
to
make
it
permanent
and
safe.
We
also
share
their
concern
about
the
drainage.
We
intend
to
wrote
route
that
drainage
to
a
new
strip
trade.
That's
currently
there
improve
it
and
run
it
so
that
it
doesn't
spill
over
into
the
neighboring
property
and
by
the
way
I
I'm
the
applicant.
My
phone
number
is
available.
Nobody
has
called
me.
That's
objected
tonight,
I'd
be
happy
to
discuss
it
with.
I
D
D
J
D
D
J
D
The
cult
where
the
columns
currently
are
the
gates
can't
be
made
anyway,
there's
no
point
making
the
gates
water,
because
you
can't
get
past
the
column.
If
the
column
is
moved,
then
we
can
make
the
gates
wider
to
match
the
width.
From
from
these
steps
to
the
new
columns,
those
gates
would
enable
the
car
to
easily
move
in
and
out
and
open
doors
and
walk
around
okay.
K
Explain
to
me
you're
the
architect
for
the
project.
Explain
to
me.
If
you
would
please
the
process
of,
what's
going
to
need
to
happen
to
move
these
columns,
the
columns
are
gonna,
be
torn
down.
What's
gonna
happen
with
the
rest
of
this
structure,
while
you're
doing
that
how's
that
going
to
work
well.
D
D
K
K
D
K
We
understand
that,
but
if
you're
going
to
make
modifications,
if
you're
gonna
change
this
structure,
you're
gonna
change,
how
it's
supported,
where
it's
supported,
is
that
an
option
to
take
the
burden
off
the
neighbors
instead
of
going
closer
to
their
property
with
these
posts?
What
about
the
idea
of
an
of
an
alternative
support
system.
D
I
I
D
I
Inherited
you
said
you
don't
see
how
it
affects
the
neighbor.
What
I'm
saying
is
the
way
it
affects
them
is
right.
Now
it
exists
on
until
modified
once
modified
you're
asking
to
vest
it.
That
means
that
it
can
be
rebuilt
right
now.
If
it
blew
away
in
a
storm.
You
can't
do
that,
so
it
affects
them
with
the
permanence
and
and.
K
To
to
sort
of
piggyback
on
what
mr.
Paz
Georgia
said,
we've
acknowledged
that
this
structure
is
old,
that
it's
getting
to
the
point
where
it's
reaching
it's
useful
life,
so
you're
suggesting
to
revitalize
that
bring
it
up,
spruce
it
up,
but
keep
that
existing
structure
where
it's
at
a
zero
lot
line,
and
the
neighbors
are
clearly
saying
that
it's
burdening
too
that
they're.
H
E
D
B
B
B
B
So
if
now,
if
it's
two
feet
away,
yeah
one
of
the
one
of
the
residents
or
neighbors
I
mean
showed
us
a
very
nice
photograph
of
what
appears
to
be
a
gable
roof.
Pitching
front-to-back.
Is
that
correct?
Yes,
and
then
this
additional
shed
that
was
added
and
it's
your
intention
to
keep
some
form
of
that
shed.
Is
that
correct.
D
B
B
So
it
appears
that
if
the
column
is
another
foot
away
from
the
existing
overhang
is
that
correct
about?
Yes,
is
there
any
reason
why
the
overhang
couldn't
be
extended
out,
another
foot
or
a
foot
and
a
half
to
bare,
as
you
said
bare,
on
the
new
the
proposed
column
locations
and
you
would
then
be
two
feet
on
your
side
yard
instead
of
zero?
B
B
A
B
D
B
C
D
I
I'm
gonna
ask
this
now
for
efficiency,
because
I'm
gonna
get
here
eventually
anyway,
the
I
think
intent
of
vesting
existing
is
when
you
have
non-conforming
historical
structures,
etc.
I
think
it's
very
clear
that
the
Shedd
aluminum
roof
is
not
part
of
that
historical
structure.
It
very
likely
was
not
permitted
when
it
was
built
and
was
not
compliant
when
it
was
added.
So
my
question
is.
B
I
Said
very
likely,
so
my
question
is:
if
we
go
down
a
road
where
it
looks
like
the
board
is
not
willing
to
approve
the
zero
foot
setback
and
an
alternative
is
offered
where
you
vest
the
existing
historical
structure
and
not
the
shut
roof,
it
would
allow
you
to
move
the
columns
to
the
very
edge
of
the
gable
roof
that
exists
today.
That's
very
clearly
historical,
but
not
past
the
edge
of
that
gable.
Roof
I'm,
not
saying
that
that
would
pass
either.
D
I
All
right,
but
you
understand
what
I'm
saying,
if
you
remove
the
shed
roof
entirely
and
you
move
the
columns
out
to
the
very
edge
of
the
gable
roof,
it
gives
you
what
appears
to
be
another
two
feet
or
so
with
you're,
retaining
the
historical
structure
and
historical
setback.
Without
this
likely
unpermitted
aluminum
roof
addition,
which
is
more
I,
think
the
intent
of
vesting.
A
I
do
have
a
question,
that's
kind
of
away
from
that
side
of
the
house
so
believe
the
carport
is
on
the
west
side,
so
I'm,
just
looking
at
the
summary
of
the
requests
and
we're
looking
for
both
side
yard
setbacks
to
go
from
7
feet
to
0
feet
and
I'm.
Looking
at
on
the
on
the
diagram,
the
east
side,
there
doesn't
appear
to
be
any
surge.
D
M
A
B
A
I
I'll
just
say,
I
would
support
vesting
all
the
structures
on
the
property,
with
the
condition
that
the
aluminum
shed
roof
be
removed
or
not
vested.
However,
you
want
to
handle
that
it
already
asks
the
petitioner.
They
are
not
either
open
to
accepting
that
or
able
to
accept
that
so
I
don't
know
that
that's
emotion
worth
making,
although
we
could
approve
it
and
they
could
go
back
and
move
the
columns
legally
as
long
as
they
get
rid
of
that
roof
and
if
they
decide
not
to,
then
they
could
apply
again
or
whatever
I.
I
A
A
B
Yeah
I
didn't
hear
good
hardship,
testimony
on
the
seven
to
zero
reduction.
I
think
that
there's
there
was
maybe
some
room
for
something
less
than
covering
more
than
zero,
two
or
three
feet.
It's
not
detailed
or
dimensioned.
Well
enough
on
this
site
plan
to
know
exactly
what
that
dimension
would
be
so
yeah
I'm,
not
in
favor
of
supporting
the
west
side
reduction,
I'm.
K
Gonna,
throw
in
my
two
cents
here:
I,
don't
think
this
is
a
very
well
thought-out
plan
overall
and
I.
Don't
understand
how
the
support
is
intended
to
really
improve
this.
As
a
consequence,
I
don't
see
the
need
for
the
variance
at
all
if
there,
if
the
concern
is
well
I,
don't
like
the
modifications
that
they're
making
I
don't
see
a
need
to
approve
any
of
this.
The
building
is
situated
as
it
is.
It
exists
as
it
is,
and
and
I'm
not
in
support
of
any
changes
at
this
point.
I
K
We
get
that
same
result,
there's
a
third
option,
and
that
is
that
we
open
the
the
gentleman
who's
here
is
a
representative.
He
doesn't
have
authority
to
make
the
changes
that
have
been
discussed.
So
the
third
option
is
we
open
it
up?
We
asked
him
if
they're
willing
to
continue
this
to
whenever
the
next
available
hearing
date
is
such
that
he'll
have
the
opportunity.
K
The
owners
can
actually
be
here
and
they
will
have
the
opportunity
to
talk
to
these
neighbors,
who
haven't
had
a
chance
to
chat
with,
because
they've
tried
to
reach
out,
and
he
says
he
hasn't
been.
He
hasn't
heard
from
anybody
we're
all
here
tonight.
They'll
have
that
opportunity
to
talk
so
the
third
option
is
we
push
it
down
the
road?
Let
them
try
and
make
those
changes
in
a
way
that
makes
sense
and-
and
they
can
come
back
another
time
instead
of
starting
the
process
over
after
a
potential
tonight.
I
D
B
I
L
Chair
can
get
a
point
of
clarification
on
it
motion.
You
had
stated
that
that
the
carport
remain.
Is
that?
Is
it
your
motion
that,
if
that
carport
were
to
be
removed,
that
the
current
setback
would
be
enforced
or
that
the
new
setback
as
created
by
the
roofline
would
then
be
the
setback?
And
if
so,
do
we
have
a
dimension
for
that
one
on
the
site
plan,
my.
L
So
if
your,
if
the
intent
of
your
motion
is
that
once
that
carport
is
destroyed,
they
have
to
come
to
current
code.
That's
already
allowed
if
it
is
a
non-conforming
structure
and
they
would
be
allowed
to
modify
that
non-conforming
structure
so
long
as
those
modifications
decrease
the
degree
of
the
nonconformity
that's
already
allowed
for
something
that
is
grandfathered
in
and
non-conforming.
I
If
you
look
at
the
actual
structure
that
we're
trying
to
vest
the
original
structure
and
you
wanted
to
move
the
columns
two
feet
closer
to
the
side
set
back,
the
roofline
doesn't
change,
but
the
actual
columns
would
move
closer.
Now,
that's
better
than
the
aluminum
roof.
That's
there
today,
but
it
is
worse
than
the
existing
condition
of
when
that
was
built.
So
does
that
say
that
you're
making
it
worse
or
that
you're
improving
it?
It
depends
on
how
you
look
at
it.
So
I
don't
know
that.
B
G
B
B
Also,
the
question
is:
would
you
would
you
be
willing
to
come
back
next
month
answer
a
lot
of
the
questions
that
came
up,
provide
more
detailed
information
on
the
exact
location
of
the
current
columns
and
where
the
proposed
future
columns
are
going
to
be
located?
None
of
that's
on
this
site
plan
is
that
something
you'd
be
willing
to
do.
No
excuse
me
November,
I'm,
being
told
November,
it's
not
October
November
meeting.
I
B
H
C
The
application
number
of
VRB
1993
the
property
address
was
32
10,
West
San
Nicolas
streets.
The
request
is
as
follows:
the
applicant
is
seeking
to
reduce
the
front
yard
setback
from
25
feet
and
it
should
read
from
25
feet
to
15
point
11
feet
reduce
the
west
side,
yard
setback
from
7
feet
to
4.2
feet
the
rear
yard
setback
from
7
feet
to
6.9
and
reduce
the
rear
yard
setback
from
20
feet
to
4.1
feet.
The
applicant
is
seeking
to
construct
a
new
front
porch
and
a
new
rear
porch.
C
B
Just
a
quick
question:
it
goes
back
to
the
definition
of
footprint
the
front
porch
and
will
hear
testimony
as
to
what
its
gonna
look
like,
but
isn't
the
dimension
to
the
vertical
structure
that
would
support
the
porch
roof
they're,
showing
it
to
what
looks
like
a
step
or
something
or
a
curb
or
or
maybe
it's
a
beam.
I
I,
don't
know
it
might
be
a
beam,
but
if
it's
not
wouldn't
the
setback
be
measured
to
the
closest
vertical
structure
to
a
column
for
us,
I'm.
M
How
do
you
move
to
focus
here?
A
little
bit
out
anyway,
I
have
colored
the
site
plan
to
show
the
existing
house
in
yellow
and
then
the
pro
proposed
port
additions
in
green
to
try
to
clarify
hugeness
what
what
it,
what
is
existing
and
what
we're
asking
for
I
am
NOT
the
architect
and
so
I.
Can't
I
can't
explain
to
you
exactly
where
the
vertical
columns
are
in
the
distances
we
were
are
requesting
15
feet,
11
inches,
based
on
what
we
could
interpret
based
on
the
architects.
M
I
claim
we
don't
have
the
architect
here
with
us
tonight.
I,
you
know.
Obviously
we
are
requesting
an
open
inquiry
porch
to
provide
some
cover
for
folks
entering
their
home
for
safety
reasons,
some
from
inclement
weather.
The
only
reason
we
would
need
before
you
relative
to
the
horse
edition
really
is
because
there's
going
to
be
a
roof
on
top
of
it.
M
M
The
house
is
right
here:
okay,
it's
not
part
of
this
plat,
but
st.
Nicholas
was
created
by
the
plat
to
the
north.
It's
70
feet
wide.
Most
of
the
other
streets
in
this
area
are
35
feet
from
benda
low
50
feet
for
Oakmont
50
feet
for
Brookline,
so
you
have
an
unusually
wide
residential
street
in
this
area.
M
M
There
so
you're
not
encroaching
into
a
huge
you're,
not
we're,
not
creating
a
front
porch
that
that
creates
the
improvement
into
a
large
front
yard,
where
we're
certainly
respecting
frankly,
the
setback
given
the
size
of
San
Nicolas
in
that
location,
then
relative
to
the
porch
on
the
rear.
As
miss
Anthony
pointed
out,
this
is
an
unusually
shaped
lot.
It
is
an
l-shaped
in
the
back
14
feet
of
this
planet.
Lot
is
owned
by
the
property
owner
to
the
south,
which
creates
a
situation
where
this
portion
of
the
porch
is
meets.
M
The
required
20
foot,
rear
yard
setback,
but
this
portion
of
the
porch
comes
within
about
four
feet
and
one
inch
of
the
other
rear
property
line.
Just
this
portion
right
here,
and
so
that's
the
reason
for
the
setback
request
on
the
rear.
Here
and
again,
both
these
areas
are
existing.
We're
not
changing
really
the
use
of
these
areas.
This
is
an
outdoor
paid
entryway,
already
we're
just
asking
that
an
open
porch
with
the
cover
truth
be
at
it
to
the
front
and
the
rear.
This
is
a
paved
area
with
decking
its
outdoor
recreational
space.
M
It
will
remain
that
he
will
not
be
enclosed,
we're
not
increasing
the
air
conditions
of
size
of
the
the
house
and
going
through
this
whole
site
plan
exercise.
We
also
realize
this
house
was
built
in
1989.
It
was
permitted
a
and
C
owed
by
the
city
of
Tampa,
but
there
are
some
minor
encroachments
into
the
requires,
only
setback
area
on
the
rear,
the
side
and
the
front,
and
so
we
were
asking
that
you
vest
the
existing
structure.
M
We
are
not
asking
for
a
general
variance
that
would
allow
us
to
build
any
additional
space
in
the
side
yard,
either
side
yard
and
other
than
the
porches
and
the
rear
in
the
front
to
add
a
space,
we're
asking
that
invest.
What's
in
the
what's
best,
it
is
constructed
now
and
I'll
go
through
the
site
plan
a
little
bit
here
to
show
you
where
we
have
some
encroachments
into
the
required
zoning
setbacks
as
they
now
exist.
You
have
a
bay
window
here.
That
is
sixteen
feet.
Nine
inches
right
on
the
rear
property
line.
M
You
have
a
screened
porch,
that's
ten
feet,
eight
inches
from
the
rear
property
line.
Then,
on
the
side.
Here
you
have
a
fireplace
that's
four
feet:
two
inches
in
the
quarter
from
the
west
property
line.
The
house
itself
appears
to
be
not
quite
seven
feet
from
the
West
property
line
at
the
the
northwest
corner.
It
reads:
six
feet
two
inches
in
a
quarter
and
on
the
south
to
the
north
south
west
corner.
M
Excuse
me
it's
six
feet,
seven
inches
from
the
West
property
line,
then,
on
the
east
side,
you
have
six
feet:
nine
inch,
nine
and
a
half
inches
and
6
feet
10
inches.
Here
it
varies
a
little
bit
and
then
on
the
front,
it's
close
to
25
feet,
but
it's
about
twenty
four
and
a
half
feet
at
different
locations.
So
we're
asking
that
these
minor
encroachments
into
the
zoning
setbacks
that
probably
occurred
when
the
house
was
constructed
in
89
and
was
permitted
and
CI
by
the
city
of
Tampa
B
be
vested
for
the
record.
M
We
do
think
that
again
that
we
do
meet
the
variance
criteria.
You
we're
asking
again
for
an
open-air
porch
covered
porch
area
in
the
front
for
safety
reasons
and
to
provide
some
coverage
from
the
elements.
That's
really
the
sole
reason
for
that:
the
rear
porch
again
we're
not
changing
the
use
and
the
only
reason
we
really
need.
The
variance
is
because
of
the
unusual
shape
of
the
lot
in
the
rear
because
of
the
L
shape
in
the
rear.
M
We're
asking
for
the
variance
to
be
granted
to
best
the
existing
structure
is
it
was
constructed
in
1989.
It's
not
self
imposed
the
house,
the
castings
purchased
the
house
in
10
2014.
We
do
not
believe
this
will
interfere
or
injure
the
health
and
safety
and
welfare
of
others.
We
have
three
letters
of
support
that
I'll
go
ahead
and
plus
the
existing
infringement
said
existed
for
again
for
more
than
25
years,
without
any
complaints
or
problems
that
we're
aware
of.
M
We
believe
this
is
in
harmony
with
the
code
and
comprehensive
plan,
as
it
allows
an
adaptive
reuse
of
an
existing
house,
and
we
believe
that
when
you
weigh
everything,
substantial
judge,
justice
will
be
done
by
grading
the
variance
it
would
best
the
existing
home
as
it
was
constructed.
It
was
not
we're
now
regionally
constructed
by
my
client
and
the
only
new
items
are
covered
porches
and,
if
we're
not
adding
to
the
air-conditioned
area
where
this
will
allow
us
to
more,
better,
better,
better
utilize,
the
outdoor
air
really
of
the
home.
B
N
Name
is
Brenda
corn,
32,
12,
San,
Nicolas
and
yes,
I
now
have
been
sworn
in.
We
are
neighbors
on
the
west
side,
my
husband
and
I
and
watch
this
home
go
up
in
1989
and
obviously
this
city
missed
a
few
things
like
the
fireplace
being
four
and
a
half
feet
from
our
property
line.
We
have
no
problem
and
totally
support
what
the
Cassidy's
want
to
do.
I
think
it
will
add
a
lot
to
the
entrance,
especially
because
we
have
that
extra
front
footage
on
our
property.
Our
big
concern
is
grandfathering,
the
property
investing.
N
What's
there
is
great,
but
giving
it
a
setback
on
the
side
of
four
and
a
half
feet
that
could
go
into
perpetuity
is
something
we
don't
want
to
see.
So
that's
our
only
concern
if
somebody
came
in
and
wanted
to
build
a
porch
within
four
and
a
half
feet
down
the
road
of
our
property
that
we
would
be
opposed
to
what
they're
doing
now
is
great.
It's
going
to
add
a
lot
to
the
home,
so
we
support
that.
Just.
N
B
A
I
M
And
again
for
the
record
in
response
to
the
neighbors
concerned,
we
are
asking
only
that
the
existing
home,
as
it
encroaches,
be
vested
we're
not
asking
for
any
ability
to
add
anything
else
on
the
side
of
the
house
and
the
only
additions.
Are
we
asking
for
our
for
the
open,
porch
on
the
front
and
the
rear
as
depicted
on
the
site
plan
as
we
submit
it.
C
C
B
C
B
Hence
the
reason
for
my
question
about
where
setbacks
measure
to
so
unfortunately,
mr.
Massey's
already
testified
that
he's
not
an
architect
and
he
doesn't.
There
doesn't
have
the
ability
to
speak
to
the
structural
location
of
the
columns
that
are
shown
on
the
site
plan.
Is
that
correct?
Mr.
Massey?
That's.
M
B
So
it's
similar
in
terms
of
noticing
neighbors
and
what
okay?
Is
that
correct?
Okay,
all
right
and
I
guess
miss
long!
Didn't
ask
the
question:
if,
if
the
board
were
to
approve
the
rear,
porch
setback
and
put
a
condition
that
it
never
being
closed?
Is
that
something
that
the
applicant
would
be?
Okay
with?
Yes,
sir,
we're
fine
with
that?
Okay,
any
other
questions
for
anybody
for
rebuttal.
Mr.
Massey
I'm.
A
I
Just
want
to
make
one
comment
for
the
neighbors
benefit
that
if
we
were
to
vas
that
I
think
it's
a
chimney
or
whatever
it
is,
is
there
it
only
best
sit
for
the
footprint
of
the
literal
chimney
which
could
be
rebuilt
in
that
exact
footprint.
So
it
doesn't,
it
does
not
extend
it
along
the
whole
property
line.
J
That
the
front
and
rear
porch
will
never
be
enclosed,
said
variance
as
conditions
be
granted
based
upon
the
applicant
presenting
confident
and
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
and
at
this
public
hearing
of
an
unnecessary
hardship
or
practical
difficulty.
When
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
section
24
80
of
the
city
code,
specifically
that
there
is
an
irregular
lot
and
the
house
was
built
before
current
code.