►
From YouTube: Variance Review Board 11122019
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,
our
k12,
the
assistant
city
attorney
right,
okay,
ravit
excuse
me,
Roberta,
Mead,
curry
and
Eric,
cotton
of
land,
development
coordination,
Brian
Knox
of
natural
resources
and
no
one
from
transportation.
Okay,
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
in
the
applicants
name
are
called.
Please
stand
an
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
approach
the
podium,
please
speak
in
a
microphone
and
state
your
name
address
and
if
you've
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.
A
Anyone
in
the
audience
wishing
to
speak
in
support
of
or
in
opposition
to
the
application
will
then
have
three
minutes
each
after
that.
The
board
may
have
an
opportunity
to
ask
questions
regarding
the
applications.
Finally,
the
applicant
will
have
an
additional
five
minutes
for
rebuttal
if
needed.
The
time
periods
of
State
will
be
kept
by
me.
A
The
chair,
any
information
such
as
pictures
of
plans,
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
the
acceptance
by
the
board,
you
must
submit
the
item
to
staff
for
it
to
be
entered
and
made
a
part
of
the
permanent
record.
The
board
bases
its
decision
on
competent
and
substantial
evidence
which
is
presented
this
evening
and
which
meets
the
criteria
required
by
the
city's
Code
of
Ordinances.
A
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
four
votes
for
the
variance
to
be
approved
if
an
insufficient
vote
is
obtained,
the
case
will
be
automatically
carried
over
for
consideration
of
the
board's
next
meeting.
If
approved,
your
variance
will
expire
two
years
from
today's
date.
All
other
city
codes
will
need
to
be
met.
A
A
If
your
case
is
continued
will
be
continued
to
either
the
December
10th
or
January
14th
public
hearing
days.
I
do
want
to
point
out
that
we
have
five
board
members
here
tonight
and
it
it
only
takes
three
votes
to
deny
and
an
application
according
to
our
bylaws.
So
you
need
four
votes
to
get
approved.
You
only
need
three
votes
to
be
denied.
A
If
you
wish
to
appeal
the
variance
review,
Board's
decision
to
City
Council,
you
must
file
a
petition
for
a
review
of
the
board
decision
within
10
business
days
of
that
decision.
If
your
variance
is
granted,
you
will
not
be
able
to
pull
any
permits
until
after
the
10-day
appeal
period
has
passed.
Your
cooperation
will
help
ensure
that
this
meeting
runs
smoothly
and
will
be
greatly
appreciated
before
we
begin
the
first
case,
is
there
any
business
regarding
the
agenda
that
staff
would
like
to
address.
B
Yes,
good
evening,
Roberta
meet
curry
planning,
design
and
development
coordination.
Did
you
have
a
request
of
the
board
to
amend
the
agenda
for
this
evening
case
number
vrv
19
112
was
not
scheduled
for
hearing
todays
did
possibly
affect
notice,
so
we're
asking
that
that
case
be
added
to
the
agenda
but
continued
to
the
December
hearing.
A
B
C
A
D
E
You,
mr.
chairman,
at
this
time,
I'd
like
to
ask
the
members
of
the
board,
if
they've
had
any
ex
parte
communications
regarding
any
matters
coming
before
the
board
this
evening,
if
you've
had
any
verbal
communications,
please
disclose
the
sum
and
substance
of
the
communications
when
and
where
the
communications
occurred
and
with
whom
it
occurred.
If
you've
had
any,
if
you've
received
any
written
communications,
please
disclose
the
nature,
the
communications
and
file
a
copy
of
those
communications
in
the
record,
so
no
ex
parte
communications.
Thank
you.
A
B
A
B
B
The
property
is
requesting
to
reduce
the
rear
yard
setback
from
twenty
feet
to
one
foot
and
reduce
the
side,
yard
east
side
yard
setback
from
seven
feet
to
one
point
to
five
feet
to
vest.
An
existing
garage
applicant
is
also
seeking
to
add
on
to
the
existing
one
car
garage
structure
and
building
a
new
open
carport
along
the
east
property.
B
B
B
A
G
Good
evening
my
name
is
Dallin
Dobbs
with
Florida
the
design
studio
I
had
been
sworn.
My
addresses,
5502
north
to
Cherokee,
Avenue,
Rebecca
or
Becky
is
my
client
she's
here
tonight.
She
first
contacted
me
about
wanting
to
replace
her
garage
because
the
garage
is
only
11.4
by
15.4,
which
is
really
not
enough
room
to
put
a
car
end,
even
though
even
a
modest
compact
car.
So
so
we
I
told
her
well.
G
The
only
way
to
do
that
is
it
won't
fit
to
do
another
garage
because
of
where
the
existing
house
is
and
also
if
you
want
to
stay
in
the
same
footprint.
You're
gonna
have
to
get
a
variance
for
that.
So
we
proceeded
to
work
out
a
design
and
then
apply
for
a
variance,
and
then
with
that,
then
we
realized
we
needed
to
get
a
release
of
easement,
so
that
kind
of
delayed
the
project
for
a
while.
Nobody
had
a
problem
with
it
except
Tico
and
we
went
around
and
around
the
Tico
on
it.
G
Tico
has
replaced
multiple
poles
on
that
block,
but
even
with
that,
they
said
they
would
not
release
the
easement.
So
so
we
were
kind
of
stuck
at
that
point.
So
I
told
my
client
really.
The
only
option
is
to
repair
the
building,
and
so,
but
with
that,
we
can't
still
can't
put
a
car
in
it.
So
I
said
well,
you
know.
Maybe
one
option
is
we
just
add
to
the
front
of
it.
G
So
so
we
discussed
that
a
rear
porch
as
they
would
also
serve
as
a
connector,
would
be
a
really
good
feature
to
have
in
the
back,
considering
there's
very
little
shade
in
the
back.
So
so
those
were
the
two
main
things
is
to
accommodate
one
car,
possibly
and
then
also
to
add
a
cover,
connector
or
or
rear.
Porch
I
have
some
pictures
that
I'll
show
this
shows
the
house
I
guess
this
microphone
works.
G
So
everybody
can
hear
me
okay,
so
this
shows
the
existing
house
and
the
existing
garage,
and
this
telephone
call
is
very
new,
but
regardless
our
only
option
was
to
come
forward.
One
of
the
interesting
things
about
looking
at
the
development
patterns
when
we
were
going
through
with
dqo
was
this
is
the
property
here.
This
is
a
Sanborn
map
from
1951.
G
G
When
my
client
purchased
the
property
in
2015,
she
did
do
a
modest
addition.
This
actually
dresses
one
of
the
hardship
criteria
that
it's
not
a
self-imposed
hardship.
This
is
the
survey
which
she
bought
the
house.
You
know
that
and
then
she
did
an
addition
right
here,
but
nothing
in
this
area.
This
is
the
existing
garage
and
then.
G
So
that's
why
we're
at
this
one
so
anyway,
so
just
to
show
some
more
detail
on
exactly
what
we're
doing.
This
is
what
roberta
had
shown
earlier.
That
grapevine,
this
is
is
where
the
original
property
line
was,
which
is
where
the
easement
is
right
now,
so
you
can
see
that
this
is
the
existing
garage,
which
is
we
aren't
going
to
do
anything
to
it
except
add
on
to
it
and
then
there's
an
existing
opening
here.
G
So
so
now
it
will
be
long
enough
for
a
car
it'll
still
be
fairly
narrow
up
at
least
they'll
be
long
enough
to
fit
a
car
in,
and
then
this
is
where
the
porch
is
or
bumping
the
porkchop
just
enough
to
line
up
line
up
with
this
part.
That
is
out
so
that
we
can
have
a
continuous
wall
along
here,
because
this
house
has
a
masonry
parent
that
wall
and
the
garage
does
as
well
and
you'll,
see
that
in
elevations
and
then
the
other
part
of
this
is
a
carport.
G
So
we
just
took
the
line
of
this
structure
right
here
and
just
extended
it
forward.
The
the
you
know,
the
building
code
should
not
be
a
problem,
because
this
has
been
B
on
Main
Street
disruption
that
we're
doing
so
so
it
won't
be
drawn
allowed
to
have
combustible
materials
that
close
to
the
property
line
and.
G
G
These
the
part
of
the
carport
and
I
know
it's
not
part
of
the
hardship
criteria,
but
it
it
does
provide
a
transition
between
the
garage
and
the
house
and
it's
also
architectural
II
help
sort
of
transition.
So
here
you
see
the
garage-
and
this
is
actually
the
opening
for
the
carport
right
here,
so
you
can
see
in
the
garage
door
beyond
and
then
this
is
a
section
through
the
rear,
porch
again.
H
G
Can
see
beyond
this
is
part
in
addition,
and
then
this
is
going
to
be
open
to
the
carport
beyond.
This
shows
it
on
the
side
existing
garage,
and
then
this
is
where
we're
having
on
to
the
garage
and
then
the
carport
from
there
on
and
it's
it's
open
here.
A
lot
of
these
houses
had
this
vintage
in
the
mid
20s
did
have
corporate
shares
or
carport,
so
it
is
sort
of
a
typical
development
pattern.
G
One
of
the
things
that
I
did
amend
was
this
is
the
application.
This
was
a
comment
that
I
got
from
Roberta
last
week
that
on
the
original
application,
we
needed
to
revise
this
text
too,
to
match
what
was
on
the
public
notice.
So
that's
been
done.
This
document
is
in
asila,
so
it's
in
the
public
record
now.
G
The
next
thing
is
the
the
hardship,
I'm
just
kind
of
summarizing
the
hardship.
The
first
one
is
that
these
hardships
are
practical.
Difficulties,
are
unique
and
similar
with
respect
to
the
property
or
with
respect
to
the
structure
or
buildings
they're
on
and
are
not
those
suffered
in
common
with
other
property
structures
in
buildings
is
something
really
located
most.
How
most
I'll
read
my
response
due
to
the
size
of
the
lot
and
location
of
the
undersized
existing
garage
structure
built
approximately
1926,
there's
no
way
to
replace
or
modify
the
existing
garage
without
a
variance.
G
In
addition,
there's
no
way
to
provide
covered
access
like
a
breezeway
from
the
garage
to
the
house
that
in
meet
the
requirements
of
chapter
27
for
a
cover
connector,
the
new
cover
connector,
will
double
as
a
new
rear
porch
and
provide
desperately
needed
shade
on
the
south
side
of
existing
residence.
The
next
hardship
relates
to
the
practical
difficulty
is
not
the
result
of
the
applicant.
This
property
was
purchased
in
2015.
My
client
did
do
an
addition,
but,
beyond
that,
nothing
that
she
has
done
has
has
any
bearing
on
on
this
petition.
G
And
I'm
done,
allowing
the
Barents
will
result
to
substantial
justice
being
done
the
my
response.
This
is
revised
from
what
y'all
have,
because
the
last
sentence,
I
changed
and
I'll
go
ahead
and
read
that
response.
This
variance
will
allow
the
distant
lapid
data
and
render
sizes
to
garage
to
be
modified
to
accommodate
a
modest
sized
garage
for
one
vehicle.
Additionally,
the
open
carport
will
provide
additional
covered
parking
and
provide
a
transition
between
the
garage
and
the
main
house,
so
this
has
not
been
uploaded
to
asila.
G
A
I
G
H
I
G
G
F
Yes,
you
mentioned
when
you
showed
the
picture
of
the
older
of
the
different
plots
for
the
houses
and
the
garages.
You
note
it.
You
noted
that
there
were
a
lot
of
other
older
garages.
Have
any
of
those
been
retrofit
to
your
knowledge.
G
H
G
Shown-
and
they
have
to
do
that
because
there's
a
lot
of
these
a
lot
of
things
in
those
two
properties
that
are
non-compliant
and
that's
how
they
address
that.
But
you
can
see
all
these
accessory
structures.
These
might
have
been
removed
at
one
time,
but
like
this
one,
you
know
they
have
a
porkfish
here,
and
so
they
have
covered
parking.
So
in
one
of
those
houses
have
been
removed,
demolished
and
then
rebuilt.
A
C
A
C
So
the
structure
to
the
west
of
me
actually
is
a
little
newer
and
it's
a
larger
garage
and
actually
encroaches
on
my
property
line,
which
I
did
not
know
when
I
bought
the
property
because
it
didn't
show
up
on
the
survey
and
down
the
street.
There
are,
as
Allen
said,
newer
structures
that
were
torn
down
and
rebuilt,
probably
in
the
last
ten
years
that
I'll
have
back
structures,
garages,
etc.
A
Again,
we
we
have
the
task
of
listening
to
the
to
the
hardships
and
what
makes
this
property
you
need.
Concealer
and
different
than
others,
properties
and
similar
properties
and
yes,
you're
right.
A
lot
of
them
do
appear
to
have
accessory
structures,
but
how
many
of
those
accessory
structures
now
are
enjoying
to
the
primary
structure
in
the
neighborhood
like
you're
asking
tonight,
how
many
of
them,
or
how
many
of
the
accessory
structures
are
now
have
been
connected
to
the
primary
structure
and
therefore
they're
all
primary
structure.
C
A
C
E
A
C
G
A
B
Roberta
meet
Kareem
I'm,
a
planning,
design
and
development
coordination.
There
is
an
allowance
to
require
a
breezeway
that
would
be
another
option
to
connect.
There
is
some
criteria
that
can
never
be
enclosed
has
to
be
open
at
both
ends,
so
there
is
an
option
there
and
they
almost
kind
of
addressed
it
in
that
fashion,
almost
like
a
breezeway
just
has
it
open
on
two
sides?
I
do
have
one
more
thing
to
add
to
the
record
to
do
that
now.
I
can
sure
go
ahead.
B
And
again
the
alley,
the
previous
alley,
that
is
now
part
of
the
property,
and
it
has
to
do
with
the
easement-
that's
back
here
or
the
existing
garages.
So
we
had
suggested
that
maybe
there
would
be
a
condition
placed
on
how
you
decide
tonight.
Their
approval
is
contingent
on
their
people
of
that
release
of
easement.
G
A
A
Okay
and
if,
in
this
case
and
this
design,
if
that
breezeway
was
in
front
of
the
garage
edition
and
connected
to
the
proposed
porch
addition,
would
that
meet?
Would
that
meet
the
code
as
long
as
they
maintain
the
5-foot
separation
or
because
it
might
be
it's
architectural
II
attached
that
way,
it
wouldn't
meet
it.
Okay,.
A
Well,
they're
they're
asking
for
this
variance,
which
causes
the
accessory
to
become
primary
because
of
the
desire
to
have
the
rear,
porch
roof
the
rear,
porch
roof.
The
proposed
rear,
porch
roof
could
be
built
five
feet
away
from
all
of
this
and
still
maintain
separation,
but
then
they
could
still
connect
to
that
correct
with
a
breezeway
which
I
seem,
which
would
seem
to
be
a
little
difficult
in
terms
of
how
that
would
look
and
I
understand
and
appreciate
the
architectural
solution
here.
I
I.
G
Respectfully,
disagree
with
you
and
demonstrate
why
so
so
this
is
where
you
enter
the
house
on
the
rear.
This
is
all
a
master
bathroom
here,
master
bedroom,
so
there's
no
option
to
enter
the
house
here
and
even
if
you
could
enter
the
house
over
here,
you
couldn't
do
a
breezeway,
because
it's
it's
encroaching
into
the
driveway
here.
Likewise,
you
know
you
could
do
a
breezeway
that,
like
comes
across
here
and
then
connects
to
the
house
like
this
like
this,
and
that
could
be
remained
as
five
feet,
but
that's
not
a
very
good
design.
G
That's
not
very
functional
design
and
by
time
you
do
this.
What's
the
difference
between
having
a
roof
here
and
go
ahead
and
having
this
whole
area
roped
here
so
that
was
that
was
one
of
the
design
challenges
that
I
had
and
really
struggled
with
was
I
could
not
figure
out
how
to
get
a
breezeway
that
could
be
open
on
both
sides
that
it
allows
you
to
get
from
the
garage
to
the
store.
A
Other
issue
that
I'm
that
I'm
questioning
is
also
the
need
for
the
extended
carport,
because,
if
you're
fixing
the
garage
design
by
adding
to
the
front
and
you're
fixing
the
connection
of
that
covered
access
to
a
new
covered
porch,
what's
the
need
for
the
additional
carport
and
again
we're
looking
at
the
total
size
of
the
lot?
What
makes
this
different
and
unique
there
are
lots
of
lots
around
the
neighborhood
that
are
50
by
100
or
105
that
have
a
similar
setup.
G
What
makes
this
one
different
is
if
any
developer
was
gonna
buy
this
house
you'd
simply
tear
the
house
down.
You
know
we're
trying
to
preserve
the
existing
some
of
the
desisting
architecture
of
Tampa,
with
this
house
being
it
be
contributing
structure
if
it
was
in
the
historic
district,
any
other
house,
you
can
easily
have
two
cars
under
cover
and
we
thought
that
by
having
an
open
carport
as
an
extension
of
this
garage
would
not
interfere
with
the
neighbor
any
more
than
the
existing
garage.
Yes,
certainly
longer,
but
it's
open
and
it's
not
it's
not
high.
G
It's
just
a
single,
the
single-story
and
and
that's
how
we're
unique
and
singular
because
every
other
property
they
could
easily
do
a
two-car
garage.
They
would
just
tear
the
house
down
and
rebuild
it.
We're
trying
to
preserve
this.
Is
this
ting
structure
and
work
within
the
existing
conditions,
which
is
really
what
is
creating
the
hardship
for
us?
Okay,.
A
A
G
G
Yeah
I
wanted
to
address
that
yeah,
the
the
that
was
the
issue
that
we
had
was
we
applied
for
the
release
of
easement.
It
could
not
be
granted
because
Tico
would
review
they
refused
to
release
the
easement.
All
the
City
Tampa
departments
really
would
release
that
no
problem,
because
the
city
doesn't
have
any
utilities
or
anything
back
there.
It
was
only
Tico
and
because
of
teeth.
Oh
that's
why
we
said
well,
the
existing
structure
just
has
to
remain.
Our
only
option
is
to
add
to
one
side
of
it,
so
the
existing
stood.
G
Even
though-
and
this
was
the
logic
that
didn't
make
any
sense
and
what
was
so
frustrating
for
my
client
is
even
if
we
built
the
building
back
in
the
exact
footprint
height
than
everything
they
still
said.
No,
they
wouldn't
do
it
so
so
the
only
option
is
to
leave
that
portion
of
the
building
there
and
simply
you
know
repair
it
the
best
we
can
so
that
remains
so
so
yeah
we
are
not
doing
any
work
in
the
easement
other
than
repair
and
replace
I
know.
There's
a
question
about
the
gutters.
G
You
know
I
understand
the
question
about
that,
but
we
just
kind
of
put
that
in
as
a
just,
so
that
the
gutters
would
not
be
a
problem,
because
you
know
the
city
stormwater
has
a
problem,
you
know
with
water
draining.
You
know
that
close
to
the
property.
So
by
having
the
gutter
and
downspout,
it
will
direct
the
water
to
the
back
of
the
property
where
it
won't
go
on
the
neighbor's
property.
E
I
think
we
need
to
hear
from
staff
on
whether
or
not
that's
an
issue.
You
know
we've
heard
from
the
applicant
saying
it's
not
an
issue.
I,
don't
know
if,
when
the
release
of
easement
was
applied
for
if
the
design
was
different
and
if
they
were
proposing
additional
work
within
the
easement
area,
which
I'm
not
even
sure
where
it
is
because
the
site
plan
that
I
have
and
evidently
there's
a
new
survey
but
I,
don't
know
that
we
saw
the
survey
the
fact
that
it's
been
downloaded
to
excel.
A
E
Think
my
recommendation
would
be
that
if
the,
if
the
board
is
inclined
to
approve
the
variance,
because
you
feel
that
the
applicant
has
met
the
hardship
criteria,
that
you
include
the
release
of
easement
as
a
condition
of
approval,
if
staff
determines
that
the
release
is
necessary,
that
will
allow
staff
additional
time
to
address
the
easement
and
possibly
address
it
with
tico,
but
to
determine
if
it's
necessary,
because
I
don't
know.
If
staff
is
prepared
to
address
that
this
evening.
E
A
A
G
H
E
G
Yes,
even
though
the
overhead
power
line
is
more
than
35
feet
above
the
ground-
and
you
know
we
went
through
all
this
with
detail,
but
but
yeah
so
Tico
would
not
release
the
easement.
So
this
design,
the
way
it's
done
is
designed
so
that
we
are
not
doing
anything
within
these.
But
that's
why
we're
leaving
the
existing
structure
as
it
is
so
the
east
so
so
yeah
we
did
we
applied
for
reads
Lisa,
easement,
but
because
Tico
wouldn't
grant
it
it
was.
It
was
denied.
So
that's
why
we
have
the
that's.
B
J
D
J
E
F
A
G
You
know
I
would
I
mean,
because
if
it's
contingent
on
the
release
but
like
I,
said
I'm
testifying
here
tonight,
it
was
denied
because
Tico
would
not
approve
it.
So
that's
why
this
design
evolved
the
way
it
did
so
that
we
wouldn't
we're
not
doing
work
within
the
easement
other
than
repair
which
is
allowed
within
the
visa
you're
just
not
allowed
to
modify
or
improve
anything
within
the
easement,
but
you're
allowed
to
repair
it
and
maintain
it.
So.
E
My
recommendation
was,
if
deemed
necessary
by
staff
that
they
obtained
a
release
of
easement.
In
that
way,
you
know.
Ultimately,
the
release
of
easement
is
processed
by
the
city,
not
Tico,
although
Tico
may
need
to
consent
to
it,
but
this
that
would
allow
this
to
move
forward
this
evening
and
allow
staff
to
address
the
easement
to
the
extent
that
it
remains
applicable.
G
A
I
I
That's
not
acceptable
and
I
realized
the
discussion
concerning
the
breezeway
and
the
porch,
and
everything
was
concerning
whether
or
not
this
is
going
to
create
that
as
a
as
part
of
the
permanent
structure
versus
versus
the
the
separate
structure
is
the
garage
but
I
mean
I.
Think
it's
been
presented
that
it.
You
know
it's
a
reasonable
thing
to
do.
I
You
know
this
house
and
garage
we're
built
in
1926.
They're
gonna
conform,
this
new
addition
to
the
garage
keeping
with
the
aesthetics
of
properties
from
that
era,
which
I
think
is
a
good
thing.
We
all
see
that
these
kind
of
houses
get
torn
down,
so
I
think
they're
doing
a
great
job
modifying
this
house
to
make
it
more
functional,
so
I
would
be
in
support.
A
F
You
had
talked
about
the
idea
that
once
this,
the
garage
was
attached
to
the
structure
that
it
would
all
be
considered.
One
structure,
yes,.
J
F
Yeah,
but
you
don't
have
to
keep
it
a
garage
once
you're
under
one
roof
and
I,
just
I,
don't
see
how
it's
unique
and
singular
with
the
neighborhood.
With
these
circa
1996
homes,
I
mean
extending
the
garage
I
think
it's
very
reasonable,
but
adding
on
a
carport
isn't
necessarily
necessary
if
you're
extending
the
garage
too
hard,
then
making
it
usable.
F
C
That
there's
been
hardship
here
and
more
particularly
I,
think
that
the
applicant
has
demonstrated
that
this
moment
interfere
or
injure
the
health
safety
and
welfare
I
mean
we
focused
a
lot
on
the
hardship,
practical
difficulties.
But
you
know
there
are
four
other
criteria
that
were
to
look
at
and
taken
as
a
whole.
You
know
I
think
that
the
applicant
has
demonstrated.
A
All
right
for
me,
it's
the
only
difficult
act
that
I
have
with
this
proposal
is,
and
certainly
in
light
of
the
testimony
regarding
the
easement.
It
just
seems
like
the
reasonable
thing
to
have
done.
We've
been
to
have
torn
down
the
existing
garage
and
moved
it
back.
So
you
solve
the
easement
problem
by
doing
that,
and
you
could
have
almost
the
exact
same
design,
but
that's
that
wasn't
presenting
so
I,
don't
know
if
the
tico
easement
becomes
a
hindrance
for
them
or
not,
and
that's
really
not
our
view
tonight.
A
The
the
testimony
that
Holmes
of
this
age
have
Porticus
shares
that's
correct.
Typically,
the
Porticus
shares
have
not
shoved
all
the
way
back
up
against
another
accessory
structure.
So
that's
the
point
that
I
was
trying
to
make
is
that
they
could
probably
get
most
of
what
they
were
trying
to
do
here
by
not
even
doing
the
extended
carport
I
understand
in
today's
lifestyle.
People
want
want
the
ability
to
have
two
cars,
and/or
car
and
storage
and
most
likely
something
like
that
becomes
storage,
as
opposed
to
say
living
space.
A
You
know,
is
it
and
is
it
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan
yeah?
It
probably
is
so
I'm
kind
of
in
the
middle
on
this
one
I
didn't
really
hear
any
testimony
about
the
lot
being
other
issues
with
the
light
that
caused
this
solution,
other
than
I
want
to
have
a
connection,
protection
etc.
Well,
I
can
guarantee
you
almost
every
owner
of
a
of
a
detached
carport
in
this
kind
of
a
neighborhood.
Would
love
to
have
that
connection
and
not
be
here
tonight
and
there's
a
reason
why
this
the
code
is
written.
A
The
way
it
is
yeah
this
is
this
is
what
I
call
creep
it's
taking
an
older
primary
structure,
preserving
it
and
nobody
is
proposing
tonight,
they'd
be
torn
down,
but
resolving
a
desire
and,
in
essence,
causing
the
primary
structure
to
become
much
greater
and
larger
in
its
footprint
which
down
the
road.
The
uses
that
were
proposed
tonight
may
not
be
the
uses
later
on,
but
so
you
know
is
it?
Is
it
egregious?
Probably
not
we
didn't
hear
from
the
next-door
neighbor
or
neighbors.
A
I
I
All
right
see
if
I
can
squeeze
a
lot
of
the
stuff
in
here
all
right.
I'd
like
to
move
the
variance
request
for
BRB
case
19-22
for
property,
located
at
three
zero
zero
for
West
Bay
Vista
Avenue
in
Tampa,
presented
at
the
public
hearing
for
for
relief
from
section
27
156.
In
order
to
reduce
the
rear
yard
setback
from
20
feet
to
one
foot
and
to
reduce
the
Eastside
yard,
setback
from
7
feet
to
one
and
a
quarter
feet
under
the
following
conditions.
And
that
is
that.
I
The
structure
of
the
garage
is,
it's
basically
outdated.
It's
won't
accommodate
modern
vehicles,
and
thus
that
would
be
certainly
a
practical
difficulty,
and
so
it
doesn't
result
from
the
actions
of
applicant.
There
is
a
small
a
lot
here.
We
do
have
a
Tico
easement
that
comes
into
play
on
the
rear,
so
I
think
that
the
solution
that's
come
up
with
they
have
come
up
with,
was
also
in
keeping
harmony
with
the
adjacent
neighborhood
structures,
the
neighborhood
and
and
that
sort
of
thing
I.
J
A
A
B
B
The
code
section
in
question
is
27
156.
The
applicant
is
seeking
to
reduce
the
west
side
yard
setback
from
7
feet
to
0
feet.
The
next
section
of
the
code
is
27
290
regarding
the
accessory
structure,
setbacks
to
be
reduced
from
3
feet
to
0
feet
and
the
building
separation
from
5
feet,
1
feet
the
reason
being
to
best
existing
conditions.
B
D
B
B
D
D
D
The
website
neighbors
felt
that
the
zero
setback
was
sort
of
putting
us
right
on
top
of
them,
and
there
were
some
drainage
problems
which
we
knew
about.
Also,
the
subject
came
up
that
perhaps
it
would
be
easier
to
the
best,
the
original
carport
roof
and
without
the
little
lean-to,
which
you
saw
in
the
pictures
that
she
was
shown.
D
D
D
D
So
this
again
in
this
orientation
there's
and
this
car
is
the
exact
car
that
the
owner
has
modern
cars.
With
their
side
view
mirrors
tend
to
be
almost
7
and
a
half
feet.
We
need
to
wait
at
this
point.
The
distance
from
the
existing
column
to
the
stairway
is
not
much
more
than
8
feet,
so
squeezing
it
in
there
a
little
air
racing.
This
is
a
picture
of
the
condition
we
have
now,
so
you
drive
in
can't
really
open
this
door
and
get
out.
D
Can
you
squeeze
this
thing
back
in
here
like
this
yeah,
but
then
backing
out
of
a
space?
That's
barely
wide
enough
for
your
car,
it's
a
little
hair-raising
with
it
with
the
wheel,
cracked,
so
the
owner
the
owners
point
of
view.
This
is
this
is
not
a
viable
solution.
It's
too
difficult,
that's
the
hardship.
So
we
are
not
adding
anything
in
our
proposal.
We
propose
to
remove
a
slight
somewhat
unsightly
afterthought
lean-to
and
move
the
columns
to
make
it
possible
part
more
comfortable
into
space.
D
D
Of
course,
we
can't
apply
for
a
permit
at
this
point
because
there's
a
non
compliant
existing
condition,
so
the
variance
is
not
approved,
nothing
will
happen
but
shed
won't
be
removed
and
the
training
conditions
will
exist.
It
would
be
regrettable.
I
think
what
we're
proposing
to
do
improves
the
look
of
the
property.
It's
a
nice
house
for
for.
A
B
B
B
A
C
Derby
Steadman
2016,
West,
Morrison,
Avenue
and
I
have
been
sworn
in,
so
we
are
the
neighbors
that
are
to
the
west
and
I.
Guess
one
of
the
questions
that
we
have
I,
don't
really
understand
the
process
and
we
don't
have
anyone
guiding
us.
So
I
look
to
the
board
for
a
little
direction
when
you
get
this
variance.
What
happens
next
like?
Can
they
enclose
this
and
make
this
a
screened-in
porch,
so
they
can
have
dogs
running
around
in
their
children
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff.
C
The
next
question
would
be:
can
then
be
enclosed
again
to
make
to
be
a
playroom
and
then
can
they
add
a
second
story
on
to
it
like
I,
don't
understand
how
this
goes.
Does
it
is
it
in
perpetuity
where
it
once
it's
on
the
property,
it's
always
on
the
property
as
long
as
they're
the
owners
or
how
does
that
work?
I'm,
just
not
I'm,
not
familiar
with
this
process.
Okay,.
A
K
C
G
A
That's
a
big
question:
okay,
we'll
be
sure
to
answer
that:
okay!
Is
there
anyone
else
in
the
audience
that
would
like
to
speak,
yeah,
okay,
seeing
none
now
it's
the
time
for
questions
and
answers
staff.
Does
somebody
want
to
address
those
questions?
I
mean
we
can
we
can
do
it
to
a
certain
extent,
but
Roberto
do
you
want
to
okay?
C
C
Cotton
planning
and
development,
the
first
question:
what's
Justin,
generally,
generally
speaking,
once
the
variance
is
granted
assuming
that
was
the
for
any
case,
this
case
or
any
other
case.
It
does
run
in
perpetuity
with
the
property.
It's
it's
a
land
right
in
a
sense
with
that
property
property
gets
sold
that
that
variant
remains
with
the
property,
not
with
the
property
owner.
The
way
it
is
shown
on
the
site
plan.
C
Property,
if
they
wanted
to
come
in
and
make
it
into
a
garage,
they
don't
have
to
come
back
before
the
board.
They
wanted
to
make
it
into
a
room.
They
have
to
come
back
before
the
board.
They
wanted
a
second
story.
They
had
to
come
back
before
the
board.
It
is
specifically
to
what's
shown
on
that
site
plan
period.
That's
what
they
get.
That's
what
the
board
chooses
to
approve.
I'm,
not
sure
the
other
question
was
now
there.
C
C
As
a
carport,
it
is
to
remain
as
a
carport.
The
board
can't
put
that
condition
on
this
branch
and
other
variants
to
clarify
to
make
sure
that
it
cannot
be
done
in
the
future
they
can
go.
If
that
was
the
intent
of
the
board
to
approve
it,
you
could
put
in
a
condition
on
there
never
to
be
a
never
to
be
screened
or
enclosed.
It's
up
to
the
board,
then.
F
C
C
A
E
E
A
D
J
A
J
An
EFT
of
separation
from
five
feet
to
one
feet
for
the
vesting
of
existing
conditions
on
accessory
structures,
with
the
condition
that
those
structures
as
depicted
on
the
site
plan
at
tonight's
public
hearing
as
unenclosed
never
be
screened
or
enclosed
in
that
sun
set.
That
said,
variance
as
condition
be
granted
based
upon
the
applicant
presenting
competent
and
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
and
at
this
public
hearing
of
an
unnecessary
hardship
or
practical
difficulty.
J
F
A
C
B
Okay,
the
RB
1980
located
at
15
West
Spanish
Main,
the
code
sections
in
question
is
27
284
and
Natural.
Resources
is
here.
If
you
have
any
questions
of
them,
the
applicant
is
seeking
to
reduce
the
rear
yard
wetland
setback
from
25
feet
to
0
feet.
The
applicant
is
seeking
to
construct
an
open-air,
Cabana
and
pool
deck
extension
in
the
rear
of
the
property.
The
property
is
owned,
RS
75,
the
house
was
purchased
in
2010
and
the
existing
family
residence
was
constructed
in
2012.
B
B
B
A
K
K
We
looked
at
what
it
would
look
like
if
they
moved
the
structure
a
little
further
out
of
the
wetland
setback
area
and
it
would
cause
some
difficulties
with
the
structure
separation.
They
would
leave
an
additional
waiver,
so
we
felt
like
keeping
it
in
the
wetland.
Setback
area
would
be
appropriate
in
this
month.
K
In
this
occasion,
if
they're
willing
to
mitigate
and
so
natural
resources
work
with
the
applicant
to
mitigate
the
encroachment
with
the
following
condition,
as
indicated
on
the
plan
to
five
hundred
square
foot
of
existing
grass
area
to
the
northwest
will
remain
as
a
green
space
buffer
and
will
be
planted
with
mangroves
to
provide
additional
runoff
filtration.
In
addition,
a
roof
runoff
from
a
new
structure
will
be
directed
to
drain
pipes
to
the
discharge
area,
to
the
front
of
the
line
and.
A
L
Mike
Loomis
landscape,
fusion,
36:13,
west
palm
IRA,
AB
and
I
have
been
sworn
in,
so
they
pretty
much
sold
it
pretty
well.
I
can
show
some
more
of
the
existing
backyard
as
it
sits
today.
As
you
clearly
asked,
the
pool
was
there
so
when
the
house
was
originally
built
from
what
I
understand
was
that
the
the
pool,
the
deck
you
see
and
the
dock
that
all
fall
within
the
wetland
and
wetlands
set
back
were
all
approved
for
the
original
home,
EPC
did
come
out
to
delineate
the
line
for
us.
L
We
had
to
go
through
EPC
and
we
do
have
an
approval
letter
from
EPC
saying
they
had
no
issues
with
what
we
were
asking
to
build.
So
that's
one
direction
looking
to
the
east,
and
then
here
is
the
secondary.
Just
beyond
that.
Looking
to
the
east
from
there
they
Ryan
showed
a
couple
good
pictures
of
the
backyard,
but,
as
you
can
see,
the
existing
deck
is
being
as
built
over
the
riprap
seawall.
They
do
not
have
a
seawall.
Epc
doesn't
allow
the
seawall
there,
so
they
have
a
riprap
seawall.
L
The
area
here,
just
beyond
the
railing
that
riprap
that
Brian
again
showed.
That
would
be
the
area
that
we're
proposing
to
plant
red
to
help
just
preserve
and
mitigate
back
using
the
wetland
area.
Their
their
property
line
is
not
at
the
edge.
Their
property
line
is
actually
all
the
way
out
in
the
middle
of
the
water,
which
is
why
the
setback
is
so
good
plant.
L
Let's
see
this,
this
color
copy
here
for
the
situation,
but,
as
you
can
see,
property
line
is
is
coming
down
here,
but
the
exact
property
line
is
way
out
past,
be
even
existing
dock
right
here.
This
area
is
the
end
of
the
canal.
If
you
want
to
call
it
that
the
only
little
bit
of
wetland
is
only
hitting
this
lot
and
the
adjacent
lot
to
the
neighbor
to
the
east,
here,
there's
a
little
bit
in
there
that
was
cleared
a
couple
years
ago
for
the
building
of
the
new
home.
L
Egress
would
be
on
the
right-hand
side.
There
are
the
only
tree
that
even
comes
into
question
is
a
pine
tree
off
the
front
right-hand
corner
of
the
house
and
we'd
be
taking
proper
precautions
for
protecting
that
tree
through
the
construction
and
access
and
then,
like
Brian
ed,
mentioned
again
running
all
our
roof
gutter
drainage
out
to
the
street
to
percolate
back
around
the
corner
from
there.
If
you
guys
want
to
see
the
finished
product
that
so
from
Ariel
down
view
as
you
can
see
existing
pool,
but
this
is
our
structure
over
on
the
right-hand
side.
L
What
we
are
proposing
to
build
is
just
a
little
bit
more
useable
space
in
their
backyard,
open
up
their
back
porch
and
then
come
down
to
where
they
can
have
a
seating
area
cabana
and
looking
back
from
overall
standpoint,
just
looking
at
it
from
the
other
direction.
Just
to
give
you
guys
an
indication
of
height
size,
aesthetics,
matching
the
house
just
trying
to.
A
J
C
J
It
seems
as
if
the
applicant
has
worked
hard
to
address
concerns
with
natural
resources,
given
the
10
foot,
building
separation
that
is
required
or
for
this
location,
the
zoning
and
the
extensive
wetland
setback.
Because
of
the
way
this
property
is
laid
out,
its
property
line
named
in
the
middle
of
the
waterway.
It
seems
that
this
would
would
meet
variance
criteria,
including
the
hardships
and
practical
difficulties,
so.
J
Thank
you
gauging
that
everyone
doesn't
have
any
other
comments
on
that.
I
move
that
the
variance
request
for
case
vr
be
19
80
located
at
15
West
Spanish
Main
B,
as
depicted
on
the
site
plan
presented
at
the
public
hearing
to
reduce
the
rear
yard
wetland
setback
from
25
feet
to
zero
feet
and
reduce
the
building
separation
from
10
feet
to
5.
J
Feet
be
be
granted
with
the
following
conditions
that
the
pool
house
as
depicted
on
the
site
plan,
never
be
enclosed,
and
that
said
variance
as
condition
be
granted
based
upon
the
applicant
presenting
competent
as
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
and
at
this
public
hearing
and
of
an
unnecessary
hardship
or
practical
difficulty.
When
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
section
27
ad
of
the
city
code,
specifically
that
they
are
trying
to
meet
building
separation
and
address
this
unusual
unusually
large
wetlands
setback.
A
J
B
Alone,
Roberta,
curry,
planning
and
development
next
case,
PRV
1987
addresses
34-14
west
barcelona
street
code
sections
in
question.
Under
consideration
is
27
156.
The
applicant
is
seeking
to
increase
the
height
of
the
existing
detached
garage
from
15
8
to
24
feet
and
to
reduce
the
side
yard
setback
from
7
feet
to
4
feet
and
also
to
reduce
the
rear
yard
setback
from
20
feet
to
5
feet
applicant
is
seeking
a
variance
to
construct
new
garage
with
laundry
room
and
second
level
bedroom
about
the
property
is
zoned
RS
50
and
was
purchased
in
2011.
B
B
K
C
K
K
We
asked
them
if
they
could
show
the
tree
and
also
if
they
can
give
us
some
additional
heights
in
relation
to
what
they're
proposing
to
build
and
we
didn't
receive
that
and
so
because
of
that
Natural
Resources
could
not
find
this
case
consistent,
and
for
that
reason
we
feel
that
the
the
actual
tree
that's
off
site
would
be
effectively
removed
if
they
were
allowed
to
go
to
a
height
of
24
feet,
to
build
a
two-story
structure.
I
I
think
that's
the
gist
of
my
comments,
but
natural
resources
are
available.
If
there's
questions.
A
K
So
this
is
the
general
location
of
the
tree
in
relation
to
the
structure.
The
tree
is
roughly
about
12
to
14
inches
in
DBH.
We
couldn't
get
an
accurate
measurement
on
it,
because
we,
it
was
an
off-site
tree,
just
a
little
more
detail
of
the
limb
structure.
This
is
a
live
oak.
This
is
a
part
of
the
structure
that
would
be
impacted
by
the
two-story
development,
so.
K
A
A
H
H
Essentially
these
as
seen
on
the
pictures
already,
the
existing
structure
is
non-conforming
as
it
sits.
Now
it
is
over
the
750
square
foot
allowance.
If
you
will
for
an
RS,
50
strong
ancillary
structure
in
the
back
of
the
property,
it's
been
there
for
some
time
it
looks
to
date
from
the
50s,
if
not
earlier,
so
it
has
been
an
existing
condition
for
a
number
of
decades.
H
What
they're
proposing
to
do
is
to
add
a
second
story
to
the
structure
and
I
guess
the
the
biggest
addressed
issues
that
we
were
considering
Brian
from
national
resources
addressed
was
the
structure
on
the
west
side
on
the
east
side
of
the
property.
The
actual
structure
is
in
general
will
be
actually
smaller
and
footprint
on
the
actual
existing
lot
than
it
is
currently
it'll,
be
3
feet
narrower
all
the
space
coming
off
of
the
east
side
of
the
structure,
which
would
remove
it
further
away
from
the
existing
tree.
H
The
last
seven
feet
on
the
east
side
of
the
structure
would
remain
at
the
current
height
that
it
is
so
that
we
would
be
11
feet
to
that
point
there
before
the
structure
would
actually
go
vertical,
and
at
that
point
there
on
the
corner
would
only
be
15
feet,
so
the
24
foot
peak
of
the
roof
line
would
be
well
beyond
the
canopy
of
the
tree
and
I
have
a
few
photos
from
the
side
to
that
as
well.
Looking
at
it.
H
H
This
will
actually
all
be
shifted
three
feet
to
the
west.
If
you
will,
before
the
incline
comes
up
beyond
the
canopy
of
the
tree,
so
I
went
out
and
did
feel
mentions
myself
and
didn't
it
didn't
appear
that
we'd
actually
infringe
at
all
on
the
canopy
of
the
tree.
From
there
we
can
Rivera
fry
that
with
natural
resources
in
the
field
with
it
with
the
enact
an
actual
high
scope.
H
I
did
it
out
in
the
field
myself
with
the
laser
measurement,
and
it
seems
like
we'll
be
five
to
seven
feet
beyond
these
and
can't
be
not
impacting
any
substantial
limbs
or
branches
on
upon
the
tree
is,
is
what
we
what
it
appears
on
the
field
again,
without
actually
doing
an
exact
measurement
with
from
the
top
of
the
roofline.
It
would
be
impossible
to
know
that
exactly,
unfortunately,
I
I
didn't
have
a
chance
to
get
out
there
and
do
the
actual
top
roof
measurement
on
the
middle.
But
the
structure
should
be
far
enough.
H
The
existing
structure,
which
was
noted,
was
built
in
1925,
is
mainly
intact,
as
the
structure
was
built
in
the
Tonys,
it
hasn't
been
added
to
it's
a
two-bedroom
two-bath
home
with
the
driveway
coming
down
the
east
side,
the
property
off
site
to
the
right
there's.
Approximately
almost
a
four
foot
in
diameter
live
book
out
there.
H
So
if
they
were
to
add
to
the
primary
structure
which
they
have
enough
space
between
the
side
of
the
building
and
the
property
line,
if
they
had
to
reconstruct
the
garage
further
forward
and
then
put
a
room
above
it
coming
forward,
they
would
be
severely
impacting
the
large
oak
on
the
side
of
the
property
there,
as
well
as
the
root
structure.
That
would
be
underneath
that
existing
driveway.
H
H
Sorry,
absolutely
so
the
trees
you
know
when
I
measure
it's
right
at
the
corner
of
that
building,
it's
about
12
inches
from
the
from
the
fence
line
and
right
now.
Currently,
the
building
is
about
15
inches
from
the
fence
line
as
well.
So
it
is
relatively
close
as
Brian
noted
from
natural
resource
it
is,
it
is
close
to
the
trees.
It
is
it's
right
now,
it's
very
very
close,
as
seen
in
the
pictures
that
he
supplied
as
well
as
myself.
H
It
would
actually
start
further
back
and
beyond
the
canopy,
and
that
was
kind
of
our
intention
when
we
did
the
design
such
that
we
wouldn't
try
and
build
the
entire
structure
like
a
box
24
feet
up
is
a
vertical
structure
overall,
so
we
have
some
clearance
and
also
some
ability
to
stay
away
from
the
campus.
Who
would
impact
it.
H
Beyond
that,
the
other
issues
that
are
kind
of
unique
to
the
structure
like
I
said
to
the
building
is
that
the
lot
also
is
substantially
larger
than
a
typical
RS
50.
The
lot
is
actually
a
75
foot
wide
lock,
as
opposed
to
a
55
2
foot
wide
lighter
than
Rs
50
zoning.
So
these
kinds
of
structures
are
not
uncommon
in
Palma
Ceia
and
if
the
zoning
has
you
know,
if
the
this
was
on
a
harvest
75
zone
lot,
this
would
be
actually
in
compliance
except
for
the
height
of
the
overall
structures
for
our
square
footage.
H
So
it
gives
us
a
little
bit
more
leeway
than
it
was
not
going
to
overpower
the
property
with
the
size
of
the
structure,
also
not
going
to
overpower
the
roadway
with
the
structure,
and
it's
also
going
to
be
a
little
less
impactful
on
the
actual
footprint
on
the
ground.
So
we'll
have
a
little
bit
more
green
space
to
the
side,
but
next
to
the
tree,
trying
to
give
us
a
little
bit
separation.
So
we
don't
impact
the
tree
as
much
as
possible.
A
M
M
There
there's
limited
sunlight,
that's
coming
in
anyway,
and
once
you
add
a
tooth
Torrey
structure
right
there
in
essence,
in
her
backyard,
she's,
certainly
concerned
of
the
impact
of
that
I
noticed
that
it
also
stated
that
it
was
which
I
guess
I
don't
understand.
I
thought
it
was
going
in
from
7:00
to
4:00,
but
it
sounded
as
though
they're
saying
that
it's
actually
getting
further
away
from
the
east
side
line.
M
It
sounded
initially
that
it
was
going
to
be
closer
and
going
straight
out.
So
obviously
there
was
a
lot
of
concern
on
behalf
of
my
mother.
As
far
as
the
you
know,
the
impact
on
her
property
and
you
know
still
getting
sunlight
back
there.
There
is
a
large
oak
tree
further
up
yes
and
then
these
these
two
Oaks
are
back
there
at
the
end.
So
yes,
we,
we
are
definitely
concerned
with
the
impact
that
would
have
on
her
enjoyment
of
her
property
next
door,
particularly
with
the
going
up
by
the
lot
line
portion
of
it.
M
A
J
Actually,
I
think
this
question
is
probably
for
mr.
Nobbs
first
and
then
perhaps
for
the
afternoon.
Second,
mr.
Knox,
do
you
know
how
how
the
foundation
for
the
new
structure
will
differ
from
the
foundation
for
the
old
structure
and
how
will
that
impact,
if
at
all,
the
tree
root
system,
because
my
thought
is
that
a
two-story
structure
is
gonna
require
a
different
foundation
than
what's
currently,
there,
obviously
you're
moving
further
away
from
the
from
the
tree
and
presumably
there's
some
sort
of
foundation
there
now.
K
That's
a
that's
unknown
at
this
time,
and
usually
what
happens
is
under
a
building
permit
or
under
possibly
a
tree
consultation?
We
would
have
the
opportunity
to
look
at
the
root
system
in
a
situation
like
this,
given
that
there
is
concrete-
and
this
tree
is
relatively
young-
it's
likely
that
the
tree
roots
have
grown
away
from
the
concrete
areas
and
may
be
abutting
the
concrete
edge,
and
so
that
is
a
possibility
of
something
that
is
happening
now
on
this
site.
K
G
J
H
The
plans
have
not
been
engineered
at
this
point,
so
I
can't
say
for
certain
what
the
foundation
would
be.
The
way
that
structure
is
designed
that
piece.
That's
to
the
east
side,
that's
gonna
be
closest
abutting.
The
tree
is
only
going
to
be
single-story
for
that
section.
In
that
case,
and
since
the
garage
obviously
is
a
grade
level,
the
foundation
or
the
slab,
if
you
will
is
at
grade
level,
it
would
be
typical.
H
Give
or
take
could
you'd
be
about
two
or
three
inches
above
grade
for
the
for
the
reveal
for
the
concrete,
as
it
sits
today
and
just
as
an
as
a
side
note.
So
the
comic
from
the
gentleman
of
the
audience,
the
current
building
is
one
foot
from
the
size
of
yard
of
the
property
line,
so,
instead
of
it
being
one
foot
as
it
sits
today
would
end
up
being
to
an
existing
of
four
feet.
H
The
request
to
the
board
had
to
be
according
to
code,
so
yes,
so
the
building
actually
is
shifting
to
the
west
three
feet
from
where
it
is
currently,
which
would
be
four
feet
from
the
property
line
instead
of
one.
What
it's
today
but
and
then
I'm
sorry
was
another
question
about
the
foundation
yeah
so
would
be.
We
would
actually
you
know
and
again
trying
to
alleviate
the
impact
on
the
tree
and
the
root
system,
which
you
know
the
homeowner.
My
homeowner
is
sensitive
sensitive
to
as
well,
because
they
don't
want
to
lose
the
tree
either.
H
C
H
L
H
H
H
H
We're
gonna,
try
and
reuse
what
we
can
and
maybe
just
reap
or
the
foundation
along
the
edges.
We
need
to
it
it's
easier
construction,
wise
to
leave
the
foundation
if
we
can
in
the
slab
that's
there,
but
we
would
have
to
do
some
reinforcement
of
the
foundation
along
the
edge
of
the
building
to
support
the
new
structure.
The
foundation.
That's
there
currently
on
the
building
does
not
mean
any
kind
of
the
kind
of
clothes.
That's
been
looked
out
that
we
know
for
certain.
A
K
D
K
Right
there
than
all
the
hairs,
so
typically
it's
a
minimum
20
feet.
We
do
allow
15
feet
with
pervious
material
for
the
driveway
right.
However,
the
foundation
would
we
start
at
a
minimum?
We
don't
we
don't
get
that
so
much
these
days.
So
what
we
do
is
we
ask
to
take
a
look
at
the
root
system
and
based
on
that,
if
we
find
some
roots,
we'll
ask
them
to
push
it
further
back
to
the
minimum
required
setback.
K
H
H
Designed
that
way
originally
because
we
were
the
designer
in
the
architect,
he
drew
the
prince
and
myself
are
aware
of
the
tree
issues
and
we
were
trying
to
keep
the
the
east
side
of
the
building
as
low
as
possible,
not
to
impact
the
canopy
on
that
side
of
the
building
and
then
also
to
give
us
a
little
bit
of
separation.
So
the
existing
tree
wouldn't
a
cause
problems
with
the
building
and
vice
versa.
The
building
would
cause
issues
with
the
tree.
A
H
24
feet
with
the
peak
of
the
roof
to
allow
the
runoff
to
keep
them
from
the
bring
off
the
back
of
the
building,
which
makes
it
very
difficult
to
control
the
shed
of
water.
We
tried
to
adjust
the
roofs
that
we
could
capture
on
the
left
and
right
side.
The
building
and
bring
it
forward
to
keep
it
from
causing
a
runoff
problem
with
an
8
or
9
foot
ceiling
upstairs
in
an
eight-foot
ceiling
downstairs
so
I'll
add
the
floor.
H
Trusses
your
we
had,
you
know
19
to
20
feet
to
the
ceiling
height
of
the
building,
regardless
without
a
roof
system
on
top
of
it.
So
the
four
feet
gives
us
enough
that
we
can
put
a
pitch
on
earth
and
shed
it
off
a
flat.
Roof
structure
would
be
not
typical
of
what
you
would
see
in
that
neighborhood.
For
that
period
of
a
house
to
keep
the
height
that
low,
you
could
potentially
get
it
down
to
21
22
feet
with
almost
a
flat
roof.
H
Now
it's
just
it
just
runs
off
right
now
it
just
it's
rolling
off
the
front
and
the
back
of
the
building,
and
it's
just
the
front
piece
obvious.
It's
the
concrete
and
rolls
forward,
but
the
old
roof
system
is.
There
doesn't
have
a
software,
a
fascia
piece
that
you
can
actually
attach
gutters
to
it.
It's
an
open
conventionally
frame
roof
with
just
a
old
metal
roof
screwed
to
the
old
2x4.
So
there's
no
face
or
any
kind
of
substantial
structure.
You
could
attach
a
cutter
to
I.
I
A
I
What
mr.
Muir
well
I
would
I
would
say
this
is
like
the
case
we
heard
earlier
where
someone
is
is
trying
to
protect
the
integrity
of
a
historic
home
by
improving
the
the
property
adding
to
the
size
and
so
forth.
You
know,
without
altering
the
house,
I
mean.
Obviously
there
could
be
a
second
story
put
on
the
house,
but
the
historic
aspect
of
that
property
to
pieces.
So
I
can
understand
why
this
would
be
a
reasonable
request,
so
I'd
be
in
favor
of
it.
I.
C
For
staff,
you
can't
every
staff,
okay,
I'm,
sorry!
So
what
is
like
the
procedure
if
the
tree
needs
to
come
down,
but
it's
located
on
a
neighbor's
yard.
K
Right
now
extension
resources.
So
if,
if
it
is
an
off-site
tree,
you
would
have
to,
you
would
have
to
apply
for
a
tree
removal
permit
on
a
neighboring
property.
You
would
have
to
ask
the
neighbor
permission
to
remove
that
tree,
and
so
that
would
that
would
be
the
process
for
the
removal
of
the
tree
in
this
situation,
and
with
that
comes
mitigation,
it's
a
twelve
inch
tree.
Typically,
that
falls
into
a
three
to
four
two
and
a
half
inch
replacement.
I
When
considering
the
five
parts.
You've
cracked
criteria
set
forth
in
section
27
80
of
the
Tampa
city
code,
specifically
that
this
is
an
rs.50
lot.
It's
a
small
lot.
We
do
have
some
issues
with
a
neighboring
tree,
and
this
is
a
tree
at
the
side
of
the
primary
structure
which
does
limit
the
certain
area
of
space
on
that
side
of
the
house,
which
I
guess
that's
the
east
side.
A
Have
a
second
by
Miss
Walker.
Is
there
any
board
discussion
I'd
like
to
just
make
one
comment
that
the
applicant,
in
my
opinion,
did
demonstrate
some
concern
for
the
neighbor
next
door
by
the
design
that
was
proposed
with
the
one-story
and
pushing
for
bringing
the
proposed
structure
further
away
from
the
property
line
and
the
tree
in
the
process?
That
was
my
biggest
concern.
A
B
B
B
B
B
M
Good
evening
board,
my
name
is
Matt
Newton
I'm,
an
attorney
at
shoemaker
loop
in
Kendrick,
1:01,
East
kind
of
II
Boulevard
here
in
Tampa
and
I
have
been
sworn
in.
I
will
try
to
be
as
efficient
as
possible.
This
is
a
request
to
vested
existing
gazebo
accessory
structure
along
the
western
side
of
this
property.
Just
to
orient
everybody
real,
quick.
M
We,
as
Stefan
mentioned
we
round
the
corner
of
Bay
Court
in
Bartlett
Street,
it's
a
corner,
a
lot.
This
is
Euclid
here
on
the
north,
MacDill
Bayshore,
of
course
Dover.
Naturally,
over
there,
this
is
a
property,
that's
owned
rs.60.
This
is
the
comprehensive
plan.
Here
could
see
it's
in
the
South
Tampa
planning
districts.
I
M
Of
one
of
the
older
subdivisions
in
the
city
of
Tampa,
Bay
City,
which
was
planted
at
1906
here,
you
can
see
again
the
property
located
on
the
corner
lot
here.
What
was
once
named?
Second
Avenue
in
Pine
Street,
the
staff
had
mentioned
this-
is
a
an
old
structure
originally
constructed
in
1911,
according
to
the
property
appraiser
records
and
from
what
the
owners
told
me,
the
original
frame
was
brought
in
from
a
by
train.
It
ordered
in
a
Sears,
Roebuck,
catalog
I,
don't
know
if
that's
true
or
not,
but
I
thought
it
was
interesting.
M
The
property
owner
purchases,
property
of
a
London
family
in
2015.
Here
is
a
survey
dated
the
day
of
acquisition,
July
8
2015
depicting
the
accessory
structure
as
existing
on
the
property
when
it
was
originally
acquired.
There
was
recently
code
enforcement
action
initiated,
and
so
we
looked
at
ways
to
handle
this
as
much
as
I
love
and
appearing
before
the
variance
Review
Board
I
knew
that
variances
should
be
a
last
case
remedy.
So
the
first
thing
I
wanted
to
look
at
was
when
was
this
accessory
structure
built?
M
M
Here's
the
house
here
existing
it
looks
kind
of
like
a
q-tip,
can't
tell
if
there's
an
accessory
structure
on
there
and
as
you
get
sooner,
these
are
from
the
federal
Florida
Department
of
Transportation
by
the
way,
here's
one
from
1995.
Of
course,
now
the
canopy
that
we're
so
proud
of
in
the
city
of
Tampa
the
tree
canopy,
he
starts
to
obscure
whether
it
exists
or
not.
The
most
recent
we're
guessing
the
oldest
aerial
I
could
find
was
from
their
property
appraiser
back
in
2006,
where
you
can
see
in
pre-existing,
then
so
it
looked
like.
M
The
only
remedy
we
would
have
would
be
to
seek
variances
from
this
board
in
order
to
retain
this
structure.
There's
specifically
three
variances
that
we're
looking
at
a
0
foot
side
setback
where
3
feet
is
required
along
the
West
10
inch
encroachment
into
the
5
foot,
Eastern
setback
between
the
principal
and
accessory
structure
and
then
the
the
biggest
variance
that
we're
requesting
is
a
10
foot.
8
inch
encroachment
into
the
front
yard
setback,
because
in
an
rs.60
district
there
is
a
60-foot
setback
to
accessory
structures.
M
As
you
can
see
again,
it
is
a
corner
lot,
so
you
kind
of
have
almost
two
front
yards,
although
that's
not
treat
it
that
way
for
zoning
purposes
and
then,
of
course,
an
existing
two-story
frame
garage
and
the
rear,
practically
speaking.
The
off-site
impacts
for
this
appearance
are
very
small.
You
see
this
35
inch
oak
here
in
the
front
yard.
It
really
obscures
the
view
of
the
accessory
structure
from
the
right
of
way.
Of
course,
if
you
get
in
front
of
the
neighbor's
property,
you
can
see
it
peeking
over
the
top.
M
However,
as
you
can
see
here,
we
did
get
letters
of
support
from
the
neighbors
most
affected.
In
my
opinion,
here
on
the
west
Luis
Diaz
of
3003
West
Bay
Court
Avenue
submitted
a
statement
of
support
across
the
street
here,
3000t
West,
Bay,
Court
Avenue,
the
like
Fussel
family,
has
submitted
a
statement
of
support
and,
as
my
client
pointed
out,
it
made
a
mistake
here.
This
is
actually
a
vacant
lot.
M
In
conclusion,
this
isn't
a
applicant
acquired
in
1911
built
home,
with
the
condition
on
site
when
acquired,
but
date
the
condition
was
created
is
unknown.
Leaving
us
with
the
only
remedy
of
variance
the
conditions
naturally
screen
and
the
folks
most
directly
impacted
by
the
off
site
impacts,
which
would
be
more
visual
in
nature,
voiced
their
support.
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
I
B
Roberta,
curry,
fine
and
development
I
need
to
correct
the
record.
I
believe
the
hydro
site
stated
on
the
record
was
three
thousand
four
West
Bay
Court
Avenue.
The
address
is
actually
three
thousand
one
West
Bay
Court
Avenue.
Also
the
variance
request
was
amended
and
they
did
we
notice
for
their
change,
so
the
variance
request
still
is
affecting
an
in
under
consideration
for
Code
section
27
290.
A
F
A
A
L
There
was
not
a
permanent
pulled
at
the
time,
the
the
original
deck.
The
way
that
was
laid
out
was
attached
to
both
the
garage
and
the
house.
The
deck
itself
was
attached
when
we
purchased
the
property,
is
infested
with
termites
and
to
be
able
to
tent
the
house
and
the
garage
get
rid
of
the
termites.
L
We
had
to
take
the
deck
off
of
the
house
and
well
not
I,
hired
the
contractor
to
come
out
and
take
the
original
deck
at
pergola
and
build
it
back
exactly
the
same
direction
that
it
was
unbeknownst
to
me
but
folded.
My
responsibility
there
was
not
a
permit
and
pulled
by
that
contractor
when
he
did
thusly
I
believe
somebody
called
in
to
ask
whether
or
not
it
had
been
and
that's
when
it
was
red-tagged
and
we
stopped
and
haven't
touched
it
sense
and
going
through
this
process.
Okay,.
L
Outdoor
living
I
mean,
quite
frankly
when
we
purchased
the
house.
That
was
my
favorite
part
of
the
house,
was
the
outside
side
area
with
the
pergola
and
the
deck
and
whatnot
and
I
didn't
want
to
have
to
tear
it
up,
but
obviously
there's
only
one
way
to
do
that
and
when
we
built
it
back,
we
built
it
back
in
a
manner
that
if
we
have
to
tent
again,
we
could
pull
part
of
the
deck
on
both
sides
to
drop
it
all
the
way
to
the
ground
to
be
able
to
do
it.
L
A
A
F
A
Me
ask
Council
this:
we
had
this
kind
of
this
same
conversation
with
a
previous
assistant
city
attorney
when
a
site
plan
clearly
shows,
and
testament
clearly
shows
that
it's
not
enclosed,
it's
it's
being
approved
as
an
open
structure,
but
without
the
condition
that
could
change
correct
without
them.
Coming
back
to
the
board.
Well,.
F
F
I
moved
at
the
variance
request
for
case
V
R
B
1988
for
property,
located
at
three
zero
zero
one
West
Bay
Court
Avenue
B,
granted
as
depicted
on
the
site
plan
presented
at
the
public
hearing
for
a
reduction
in
side
yard
setback
from
three
feet
to
zero
feet.
The
front.
It's
set
back
from
60
feet
to
49
feet,
five
inches
for
an
arbor
accessory
structure
and
reduced
the
Eve
Eve
separation
from
five
feet
to
four
feet:
2
inches
for
an
accessory
structure.
F
With
the
addition,
or
with
the
condition
that
it
never
be
screened
or
enclosed
in
any
way,
based
upon
the
applicant
presenting
competent
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,
27
80
of
the
city
code,
specifically
that
there
is
not
much
backyard
space
and
that
there's
a
side
yard
in
a
front
yard
that
makes
it
and
an
accessory
existing
accessory
structure
that
basically
leaves
status
there.
Only
backyard
space.
A
C
A
B
What
I
need
to
need
planning,
design
and
development
coordination?
Vrv
case
number
19
94
the
address
is
one
zero.
Five
zero
one
North
21st
Street
the
code
section
in
question
is
an
under
consideration
is
27
156.
The
applicant
is
seeking
to
reduce
the
side
yard
setback
from
7
feet
to
1
feet,
but
to
maintain
and
keep
a
side
yard
covered
and
screened
patio.
B
B
B
B
C
C
Yeah,
it's
on
me,
I
had
a
that
small
patio
down
and
that's
what
I
want
to
do
is
scream
fighting
and
I.
C
A
E
C
C
J
We
can
try
and
proceed
if
you'd
like
we
can
work
through
and
try
and
work
through
to
identify
your
hardships
this
evening
or
if
you
want,
we
can
push
this
back
to
the
next
available
hearing,
which
would
be
I
think
next
month,
yeah
I
think
we
have
an
opening
okay
and
you
would
have
an
interpreter
there
who
might
be
able
to
assist
you
and
we
would
speak
Spanish
and
might
be
able
to
assist
in
translating
some
of
the
issues.
Would
you
prefer
to
do
that
or
would
you
prefer
to
try
and
proceed
today.
C
J
Well,
if
that's
the
case,
then
you
need
to
explain
to
us
if
you
have
any
pictures
of
the
screen
enclosure.
Okay,
you
need
to
explain
to
us
why
you
need
to
build
this,
why
it
needed
to
be
built
if
it
was
permitted
those
kinds
of
things
so
that
we
can
understand
what
your
hardship
is
and
whether
we
can
consider
to
approve
or
disapprove.
J
A
A
B
B
C
B
A
C
F
D
A
F
E
Thankfully,
this
doesn't
happen
very
often
if
there
was
a
member
of
the
audience
that
felt
comfortable
interpreting
and
if
the
applicant
was
willing
to
do
that.
Given
that
we've
got
members
of
the
public
here
that
want
to
speak
to
it,
I'm
you
know
would
I
prefer
that
we
have
a
certified
interpreter
absolutely.
E
F
A
J
It's
worth
noting
for
anyone
who
wants
to
make
comments
that
written
comments
become
part
of
the
record
and
can
be
placed
in
the
record
part
of
the
application
process.
So
if
anyone
wants
to
some
rather
than
appear
next
month,
submit
written
responses
written
comments,
we
would
certainly
take
those
into
consideration
when
considering
this
application
right.
That's
correct.