►
From YouTube: Variance Review Board 04092019
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
Kristin
Moore
assistant
city
attorney,
Wanda,
Anthony
and
Aileen
Resort
of
ducks
worth
of
land
development
coordination,
Brian
Knox
of
Natural,
Resources
and
Jonathan
Scott
is
here.
Yeah
of
Transportation
I
will
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
applicants
name
were
called.
Please
stand
and
on
either
side
of
the
room
to
acknowledge
that
you're
here
staff
will
then
give
a
brief
brief
introduction
to
the
board
of
each
application.
A
When
you
approach
the
podium,
please
speak
into
the
microphone
and
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
is
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
in
opposition
to
the
application
will
then
have
three
minutes
each
after
that.
The
board
may
have
an
opportunity
to
ask
questions
regarding
the
application.
A
Finally,
the
applicant
will
have
an
additional
five
minutes
of
rebuttal
if
needed.
The
time
periods,
as
stated,
will
be
kept
by
the
chair.
Any
information
such
as
pictures
or
plans
that
have
not
been
previously
submitted
as
a
part
of
your
petition,
and
you
intend
to
present
at
this
hearing
for
consideration
and
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
variance
granted
by
the
board
will
be
will
only
be
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.
Listen
carefully.
You
must
have
four
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.
If
approved,
your
variance
will
expire.
Two
years
from
today's
date,
all
other
city
codes
will
need
to
be
met.
A
A
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
paradis
past.
Your
cooperation
will
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.
D
E
D
F
A
Okay,
so
before
we
move
on,
I
want
to
go
back
to
the
fact
that
we
currently
have
five
board
members.
We
are
expecting
a
sixth
to
show
up,
but
we
don't
know
when
so
when
your
case
is
called,
you
will
have
the
opportunity
to
ask
for
it
to
be
continued.
If
you
don't
want
to
have
five
or
six
of
us
here
it
okay,
should
we
move
that
up
to
asking
now
to
give
people
a
chance
to
leave?
Sooner
than
later,
you.
G
A
G
This
time,
I
would
ask
if
any
of
the
members
of
board
haven't
had
any
excess,
any
ex
parte
communications
regarding
any
of
the
items
that
are
coming
before
you
this
evening.
If
you've
had
any
verbal
communications,
please
slow
the
sum
and
substance
communication
when
it
where
it
occurred
and
with
whom
it
occurred.
If
you've
had
any
written
communications,
please
disclose
the
nature
of
that
communication
and
file
it
in
the
record.
I
see
none.
A
D
Anthem
in
development-
this
is
item
B,
RB
1920.
The
property
is
located
at
220
North,
Howard
Avenue.
The
applicant
is
seeking
to
reduce
the
required
parking
spaces
from
19
to
8
spaces,
to
allow
for
a
change
of
use
to
the
existing
two-story
building
from
professional
office
to
medical
office.
The
property
is
zoned
CG
and
was
purchased
in
2018.
The
3,000
square-foot
commercial
building
was
built
in
1934.
B
C
D
C
J
J
And
to
address
mr.
Seto,
your
point
that
you
just
raised
is
that
the
site
plan
in
your
back
up
shows
9
spaces.
In
the
ninth
space.
It's
number
nine.
There
was
transportation,
objected
to
that
because
if
it
didn't
meet
its
technical
standards,
that's
one
of
the
issues
that
came
up
a
couple
months
ago
at
this
hearing
when
we
continued
it.
So
it's
from
its
from
19
to
8.
J
We
left
off
the
last
hearing
with
Transportation
Department
expressing
concerns
over
parking
configurations,
some
other
technicalities
that
we
really
weren't
equipped
to
deal
with
in
this
form
here.
So
we
went
back
and
met
with
transportation
and
Jonathan
and
we've
reconciled
everything,
but
for
their
up
standing
objection
as
to
a
reduction
of
parking.
So
these
issues
up
backing
out
in
the
alley
and
condition
of
the
alley
they've
kind
of
gone
by
the
wayside.
So
that's
straight
up.
What
we're
dealing
with
here
is
going
from
19
to
8.
J
So
since,
since
we're
here
last
time,
what
we
had
done
is
we
had
a
explore
the
possibility
of
procuring
sanctioned
parking
that
meets
the
city's
code
for
fulfilling
required
parking
off-site
and
in
that
area
there's
really
nothing
available.
The
city
has
some
pretty
rigorous
standards
in
terms
of
County
parking
off-site
towards
your
required
parking
on
site
and
have
to
have
essentially
the
same
zone.
Er
allow
the
same
uses
on
the
principal
location.
You'd
have
to
be
within
a
thousand
feet.
It'd
have
to
be
a
five-year
lease.
Ok,
that's
recorded.
J
The
lease
is
approved
this
office
of
the
city
attorney
things
like
that.
So
there's
nothing
available.
We
did
find
a
couple
parking
locations,
for
example
a
funeral
home
on
the
east
side
powered,
but
their
parking
was
grandfathered
in
as
presidential,
so
we
couldn't
do
that
either
and
then
the
capitana
family
was
gracious
enough
to
allow
some
parking
down
near
their
gas
station
at
the
northeast
corner
of
Howard,
Avenue
and
Kennedy,
and
that
wouldn't
work
either.
So
we
explored
that
and
then
the
other
another
issue
we
explored
was
purchasing
the
property.
J
That's
located
directly
south
of
them
contiguous
to
the
subject.
Property,
it's
about
a
five
thousand
square
foot
lot,
so
at
that
price,
about
$600,000
and
based
on
compliance
with
the
city's
code
in
terms
of
landscaping
retention,
things
like
that
we
only
achieved
about
was
six
to
seven
spaces,
so
it
was
about
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
of
space,
so
that
didn't
make
any
economic
sense
either.
So
I
just
want
to
let
the
board
know.
We
made
a
good-faith
effort
to
do
that.
J
Here's
a
photo
of
the
south
side
of
the
property,
so
we've
been
impermanent
since
last
July
and
when
we
came
in
there
was
some
debate
on
the
part
of
the
city,
whether
or
not
we
were
really
qualified
as
medical
officer
professional,
because
the
type
of
use
here
kind
of
fits
in
a
gray
area.
It's
more
alternative
medicine.
He
said
a
traditional
medicine,
so
what
the
client
intends
to
do
is
go
in
and
just
totally
renovate
this
property.
J
So
the
last
piece
of
the
puzzle-
I
guess
you
could
say,
is
what
worked
what's
before
you
tonight.
If
we
can
get
the
parking
resolved,
then
everything's
approved,
and
we
can
go
forward
with
the
redevelopment
plan
as
a
result
of
code.
Compliance
27%
of
the
entire
property
has
been
dedicated
to
buffer
areas
on
the
perimeter
and
that's
as
a
result
of
this
properties.
It's
very
unique
not
only
that
was
built
in
34
and
has
all
these
non-conforming
characteristics
of
use
and
setbacks,
and
things
like
that.
J
But
it's
also
not
just
subject
to
the
general
code:
that's
it's
local!
It's
situated
in
the
West
Tampa
overlay,
which
has
some
more
rigorous
buffering
requirements.
So,
here
again,
that's
27
percent
of
the
entire
property
has
to
be
dedicated
to
that.
The
non-conforming
parking
configuration
currently
at
the
location
provides
13
grandfathered
spaces.
As
long
as
it's
used
for
professional
office
and.
J
So
the
original
plan
we
submitted
to
the
city
is
this
and
what
I've
done
is
highlighted
space
1
and
13,
and
that's
how
you
would
lay
out
the
parking
right
now
now.
If
we
want
to
go
in
and
do
just
professional
office,
we
don't
need
any
site
development
permits.
We
just
need
renovation
permits
for
electrical
dealing
with
the
fire
marshal
and
things
like
that.
J
So
after
nine
months
of
permitting,
we
have
approvals
from
urban
design,
they
approved
the
parking
reduction,
Natural
Resources
there's
a
memo,
it's
not
in
your
backup
for
mr.
Knox
and
it
essentially
says
we
approve
the
parking
reduction
because
of
our
commitment
to
comply
with
tree
preservation
and
also
provide
the
buffers
and,
although
transportations,
objecting
I,
don't
think
they're
overly
concerned
about
the
situation,
especially
with
the
property
adjacent
to
mass
transit,
ride-sharing
and
ability
to
provide
bike.
J
Racks,
there's,
apparently
a
pretty
recent
code
change
that
if
you
provide
two
bike
racks,
that's
the
equivalent
of
one
parking
space.
So
hopefully
this
is
we
get
approved
now
would
suggest
a
condition
to
the
board,
and
this
is
under
the
code
and
I'll
show
you
that
in
a
second
is
that
we
provide
a
bike
rack
for
you.
You
can
only
provide
up
to
20
percent
of
repart
parking,
so
that
would
be
for
eight
bikes
that
would
equate
to
four
parking
spaces.
So
the
variance
would
really,
if
you
look
at
it,
be
from
19
to
12.
J
So
the
city's
parking
regulations
are
admittedly
pretty
dated
in
certain
parts
and
haven't
been
reviewed
and
modified
in
probably
about
twenty
years
from
a
global
perspective.
They
require
six
bases
per
thousand
for
our
use,
which
we
believe
to
be
excessive.
Based
on
the
applicants
other
five
locations,
these
parking
standards
also
do
not
contemplate
the
advent
of
ride-sharing
bus
stops
and
Howard
layouts
in
front
of
the
property
or
the
bike
racks.
J
As
I
told
you
about,
the
city's
parking
code
allows
a
reduction
of
up
to
50%
or
15
spaces,
whichever
is
greater
to
be
granted
administratively,
except
for
for
uses
that
would
be
bars,
restaurants,
the
vehicle
repair
and
medical
office.
So
why
are
these
four
picked
out?
I
can
see
with
the
restaurant.
The
parking
requirements
pretty
high
under
the
city
code
is
0.25
per
occupant.
J
It
would
put
staff
in
a
situation
if
there
was
a
restaurant,
for
example,
that
required
200
spaces
and
they
wanted
a
50%
reduction.
Then
they'd
have
to
waive
that
wouldn't
have
to
you,
but
they'd
have
to
consider
waiving
the
hundred
so
they've
kind
of
punted
that
over
to
the
board
and
then
the
medical
office
is
illogical,
is
there's
another
use
that
requires
8
spaces
per
thousand,
which
is
personal
service
like
a
hairstylist
versus
the
six
per
thousand.
J
So
it
doesn't
seem
too
well-thought-out,
too
logical,
but
in
any
event,
that's
what
the
code
says
and
that's
where
we
stand
so
to
reconcile
or
get
relief
if
you're
a
medical
office,
you
have
to
come
before
this
board.
There's
several
comp
plan
policies
and
I
have
this
stuff
here,
but
I
know
I'm
only
have
ten
minutes.
So,
if
you
all
want
to
ask
me
any
questions
or
anything,
I
tell
you.
If
you
question
I'll,
give
you
copies
of
it.
J
There's
several
comp
plan
policies
that
support
this
variance
request,
and
you
know
your
your
policies
are
the
guidelines
that
you
must
follow
pursuant
to
chapter
163
policy.
Nineteen
point
four
point:
one
states
it
to
continue
to
permit
variances
for
non
safety,
related
setback
requirements
and
site
planner
requirements
in
order
to
accommodate
historic,
stir,
lectures
on
sight
within
a
proposed
development,
and
that
policy
is
just
dead
on
what
we're
dealing
with
here.
J
5.2.1
allow
reduce
parking
requirements
for
selected
areas
which
are
served
by
primary
transit
corridors.
We've
researched
that
we
have
the
Maps
Howard
Avenue
is
considered
a
primary
transit
corridor.
Five
point
two
point:
seven
create
an
exchange
ratio
of
bicycle
spaces
to
parking
spaces,
that's
the
policy
and
that
policies
been
implemented
through
the
code.
I
have
a
copy
of
the
code
here.
J
J
Then
policy,
fifteen
point
three
point
six
says:
promote
parking
designs
that
reduce
the
presence
of
vehicles
on
site
in
fifteen
point
three
point:
six
provide
a
parking
credit
for
the
preservation
of
trees
in
the
parking
area.
So
what
they're
saying
is
they
don't
define
credit?
It's
just
give
some
consideration
to
a
developer
who's
actually
trying
to
preserve
trees
instead
of
providing
for
parking
on
site.
J
If
the
city
is
not
going
to
allow
some
flexibility
for
these
situations
and
I
think
this
whole
goal
and
aspiration
in
terms
of
redevelopment
of
historic
structures
is
to
be
very
difficult
to
achieve.
Urban
design
supports
the
parking
reduction.
Natural
resources
supports
the
parking
reduction.
There's
mass
transit
routes
front
about
the
door
terms
of
hardline
ride-sharing
will
mitigate
the
parking
reproduction.
We
also
install
a
bike
rack
to
substitute
for
four
spaces
per
code,
so
the
actual
variance
would
be
from
19
to
12.
The
applicant
has
done
everything
reasonably
possible.
J
We
believe
to
comply
with
all
codes
and
this
clearly
there
clearly
exists
a
unique
hardship-
that's
not
imposed
on
the
applicant,
so
we
have
these
competing
interests
where
the
client
wants
to
preserve
and
sink
a
lot
of
money
into
preserving
this
historic
building
built
in
1934,
which
is
about
85
years
old,
I,
guess
more
or
less
at
this
point
in
time.
However,
it's
trying
to
serve
these
other
masters
here
and
it's
subject
to
two
layers
of
regulation.
So,
okay,
I.
J
A
C
K
C
J
C
J
C
K
K
A
G
Typically,
you
would
want
to
make
sure
that
mr.
Dean
Felder
I
had
all
the
necessary
testimony,
so
mr.
Dean
Felder
I'll
leave
it
to
you.
If
you
feel
like
you
are
sufficiently
informed
on
the
issues
to
vote.
If
you
vote
in
this
case,
I'll
assume
that
you
have
heard
enough
testimony
to
have
appropriately
formulated
a
position
on
it.
I.
I
With
all
due
respect
to
mr.
Bentley
I'm,
probably
pretty
up
to
speed
even
without
hearing
his
narrative,
but
my
question
to
mr.
Bentley:
can
you
pull
back
on
that
map
or
I?
Don't
know
how
far
back
it
goes?
It's
just
you
know
the
whole.
The
whole
issue
seems
to
be
in
regard
to
impact
on
a
surrounding
residential
development,
so
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out
what
is
the,
how
much
surrounding
residential
development
is.
Is
there?
Is
there
any
limitation
on?
You
know
one
side
of
street
parking
or
the
other?
Maybe
that's
a
question
for
transportation.
I
J
I
had
some
really
good
pictures
looking
at
east-west
on
North
Beach,
because
my
first
impression
when
I
went
out
there,
it's
extremely
wide
I
was
always
wondering
why
it's
north
via
four-lane
Street,
essentially,
and
so
when
you
see
a
car
parked
on
the
on
the
right
away,
the
nuts
not
like
another
car
go
in.
That
direction
has
to
appear
around
it.
It's
just
like
a
four-lane
Street,
and
so
what
you
have
on
the
northwest
corner.
You
have
a
daycare
or
long-standing
daycare.
J
You
might
see
a
couple
of
cars
there,
but
then
just
sporadically
you'll
see
cars
up
and
down
North
Beach
and
there's
no
no
parking
signs.
So
you
know
in
my
mind,
I
know
you
couldn't
utilize
it
as
required
parking
to
fulfill
that,
but
you
know
we're
in
an
urban
setting.
So
if
someone
parked
in
the
street
occasionally
it
seems
like
there's
a
street
designed
to
accommodate
them
and.
I
What
at
least
four
or
five
blocks
I
think
from
from
the
JCC
from
the
armory,
so
the
armory
overflows,
not
necessarily
an
issue.
Correct
I,
know
that
you
know
that
when
the
armor
gets,
when
JCCC
gets
busy,
they
get
some
overflow
out
into
those
neighborhoods,
but
I.
Don't
if
you're
at
North,
B
I
think
how
many
blocks
but
for
Bob
blocks
like.
J
J
A
J
F
Mr.
Bentley
hat
I
feel
fairly
good
about
the
issues
that
you've
presented
in
terms
of
how
you're
using
the
building
and
what
you
intend
to
do
and
how
the
parking
spaces
will
fit
into
what
you're
doing
the
only
issue
I
have
is,
if
six
months
from
now
you're
your
owner
decides
that
this
isn't
working
and
sells
it
to
somebody
else,
and
now
the
parking
is
under
a
different
use
and
is
impacted.
Can
you
help
us
sure
you
passed
that.
J
Well,
I
would
think
this
number
one.
This
is
a
professional
business
and
the
markets
kind
of
kind
of
dictate,
whether
you're,
successful
or
not.
So
if
you're,
if
you
don't
have
sufficient
parking,
I
think
it's
gonna
damage
your
business
secondarily,
regardless
of
medical
office,
any
use
that
goes
in
there
because
it'd
be
a
change
of
use.
Okay
would
be
before
you
try
and
get
a
variance,
there's
just
not
enough
parking
on
this
site
for
whether
personal
services
or
what-have-you
okay.
J
So
it's
the
same
old
old
thing
is
that
you
know
the
city
really
can't
have
it
both
ways.
They
want
us
to
redevelop
this
historic
building
and
we're
a
little
short
on
parking
and
that's
just
kind
of
the
way
of
the
world
in
an
urban
environment.
Okay,
so
I,
you
know
here
again,
we
think
the
code
is
excessive.
19
I
mean
it's
I
challenge.
J
Don't
want
to
hang
my
hat
on
it,
but
those
are
public
streets
around
there
and
if
someone
needed
to
park
there
for
a
short
duration,
then
it's
an
urban
environment
I
mean
think
of
Atlanta
Boston,
Detroit
Chicago
and
that's
just
the
way
things
things
work
and
there's:
there's
no
prohibition
about
parking
in
the
right
away.
So.
I
J
I
J
The
9
to
6
range
and
I
think
maybe
Thursday
night.
They
said
it,
so
they
would
close,
maybe
at
7
o'clock,
then
the
weekends
they're
dead,
dead,
closed
and
then
I,
don't
know.
If
you
heard
what
I
was
saying
is
I
kind
of
newly
discovered
today
that
you
could
replace
required
parking
with
some
bike
racks
so,
but
you
can
only
do
up
to
20%,
so
we
could
20%
is
4
spaces
more
or
less
so
we
would
commit.
E
A
L
A
J
Okay,
here's
the
neighbor
to
the
west,
it's
a
conventional
single-family
home,
there's
absolutely
no
buffering
between
their
property
in
ours.
It's,
but
for
an
old
wooden
fence,
so
we're
required
by
code
to
provide
landscape
buffering
trees
there
we're
preserved.
What
are
the
issues
when
you're
trying
to
preserve
all
these
trees,
plus
with
the
with
the?
Where
do
you
fall
that
radii?
Don't.
A
A
J
A
A
J
Well,
I've
only
been
out
to
the
site
honestly
three
times
so
their
drop-off
and
all
that
is
not
on
North
B.
It
must
be
either
on
the
next
street
or
they
come
in
off
Howard,
Avenue,
I'm,
not
sure
exactly.
You
can
kind
of
see
some
driveways
going
in
this
direction.
Maybe
that
support
to
share
right
there,
I'm,
not
sure
I'm,
really
not
qualified,
to
testify.
A
G
Board
members,
just
a
couple
of
clarifications,
I,
want
to
make
sure
that
our
record
is
clear
about
the
status
of
all
these
things.
Mr.
Bentley
reference
day,
a
new
ordinance
that
was
passed
this
year
that
changes
the
parking
requirements.
What
he's
noting,
as
far
as
his
ability
to
waive
parking,
is
actually
only
pertain
in
the
code
to
temporary
special
events,
which
is
why
he
would
not
be
using
it
in
this
instance.
G
It's
not
applicable
in
our
code
specifically
for
this
instance
just
wanted
it
to
be
clear
that
about
that
note,
and
then
I
also
wanted
to
be
clear
that
generally
parking
within
the
city
right-of-way
is
prohibited.
So
you
should
not
be
making
assumptions
that
people
can
be
parking
in
the
in
the
city
right
away.
I
just
wanted
that
those
things
to
be
clear.
Well,.
J
My
response,
with
all
due
respect
person
is
I.
Don't
read
that
code
section
about
the
bike
racks
that
way
and
I'm
just
paraphrasing
it's
this
subject
to
another
section,
which
is
special
event,
are
temporary
special
events.
You
can
have
a
bike
rack,
so
many
bike
seat
pull
space
and
then,
when
you
go
to
the
other
section,
it
talks
about
what
bike
racks,
how
you
deal
with
them
for
a
temporary
event.
Okay,
so.
A
I
I
G
And,
and
to
be
completely
clear
as
to
my
comment,
I'm,
not
saying
that
the
board
could
not
use
that
as
a
condition,
the
board
certainly
could
use
that
as
a
condition.
If
you
felt
that
ameliorated,
the
the
variance
I'm
just
making
it
clear
that
the
code
as
it
sits
would
not
pertain
to
that
situation.
All.
J
A
All
right
is
there
a
motion
to
close
the
public
hearing
in
all
right.
Second,
all
in
favor
aye
all
right.
You
weren't
here
earlier
mr.
dink
Felder,
but
we
would
like
to
continue
with
your
suggestion
of
moving
into
a
motion
and
then
board
discussion.
So
is
there?
Would
anybody
like
to
make
a
motion
to
approve
or
deny.
F
When
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
Section
27
80
of
the
city
code,
specifically
that
the
applicant
has
unique
buffering
requirements,
including
more
than
a
quarter
of
the
property
being
dedicated
to
buffering
that
the
applicant
is
attempting
to
preserve
a
historic
structure
that
there
are
mass
transit,
an
alternative
transit
options
available
nearby
that
the
market
is
changing.
For
buildings
of
this
nature.
In
that
the
code
with
our
variants
must
adjust
to
those
mark.
Changing
market
conditions,
sex.
A
Well,
I'd
like
to
make
a
couple
of
comments.
This
is
kind
of
a
tweener
for
me.
I've
I
have
seen
and
heard
a
lot
of
issues
where
specifically
medical
uses.
It's
been
in
the
news,
a
lot
that
you
know
we
can
get
into
some
uses
that
are
very
parking
intensive
compared
to
this
and
I
enjoy
the
fact
that
you've
brought
to
light
that
this
particular
use
is
different
than
most,
along
with
all
of
the
other
physical
restraints
of
the
site
and
it's
specific
location
in
the
urban
setting.
A
A
A
A
E
D
Towanda
Anthony
lien
development.
Again
this
is
item
the
early
1925
located
at
18
Grove
Park
Avenue.
The
applicant
is
seeking
to
reduce
the
rear
yard
from
20
feet
to
4.7
feet
the
front
yard
from
25
feet
to
11
feet.
They
did
amend
the
request
to
meet
the
primary
structure
setback.
So
initially
it
was
60
feet
to
11
feet,
but
they
did
them
in
the
request
to
25
feet
from
25
feet
to
11
feet
and
the
wetland
setback
from
25
feet
to
1.5
feet
to
allow
for
residential
additions,
as
well
as
to
best
the
existing
conditions.
D
D
C
K
D
A
G
M
Massey
101
he's
Kennedy
Boulevard
Street
3700,
Tampa,
Florida,
33
602
on
behalf
of
the
owners,
Fred
Michelle
Adams
also
I
have
been
sworn
off
so
I'm
here
tonight.
Our
environmental
consultant
Roseann
Clemente,
who
has
also
been
sworn
and
she'll,
make
a
brief
presentation.
If
we
have
hope
we
have
time
here
but
quickly.
M
It
is
narrower
than
most
lots
frankly
in
this
part
of
Beach
Park,
and
it
actually
narrows
down
really
off
into
a
triangle
on
the
northeast
side,
and
this
is
a
point
to
the
north.
The
pink
is
the
boundary
lines
of
the
property.
The
blue
line
is
the
top
of
the
banks
of
the
ditch
the
Green
Line
is
a
wetland
setback
and
the
yellow
are
the
building
or
zoning
setback
lines.
We're
also
dealing
with
a
1951
classic
mid
modern
ranch
home.
M
That
is
there,
which
our
client
would
like
to
preserve,
but
would
like
to
convert
and
make
some
additions
to,
so
it
can
serve
a
21st
century
family.
Essentially,
so
the
house
is
over
70
years
old
or
dozen
17
years
old.
The
the
noted
request
regarding
the
variances
really
relate
to
the
exact
extreme
variances
that
we're
asking
for
in
certain
instances
on
the
front
yard,
you
have
an
existing
garage,
that's
11.11
feet
exactly.
M
Excuse
me
from
the
front
the
property
line,
so
we're
seeking
a
variance
from
25
feet
to
11
feet
there,
the
on
the
wetland
setback
side.
The
proposed
addition
to
the
garage
here
would
be
1.5
feet
that
is
closest
point
to
the
top
of
the
bank,
but
in
several
locations
and
corners
that
we
notice
them
as
well.
We've
noticed
everywhere
that
the
structure
comes
as
close
to
the
wetland
setback
line,
we're
also
seeking
a
variance
from
the
rear
set
that
climate,
which
is
20
feet,
the
the
most
extreme
is
4.7.
M
And
again
we
have
a
very
odd
shaped
piece
of
property
triangular
in
shape
very
narrow
at
the
northeast
end,
where
you
have
the
existing
garage
structure,
part
of
the
1951
building
and
it
was
built
before
zoning
or
wetland
regulations
were
in
effect.
So
in
all
of
this
is
grandfathered,
but
we
are
seeking
to
invest
the
existing
structure
and
also
allow
certain
additions
to
allow
this
home
to
serve
a
21st
century
family.
M
The
hardships
are
not
self-imposed
again,
you
know
you
were
dealing
with
any
existing
situation
with
the
1951
home
with
a
property.
That's
very
oddly
shaped
you
have
a
ditch
in
the
rear.
Miss
Clemente
is
going
to
testify
regarding
the
wetlands
and
the
impact
of
the
encroachment
on
the
wetlands,
but
the
variance
of
granite
will
not
substantially
interfere
in
an
injured
third
parties.
I
do
want
to
put
here
quickly
some
pictures
I
took
of
the
rear
of
a
lot
that
I
think
are
a
Lister
tip
because
I
think
most
of
the
variances
are
at
the
rear.
M
Here
is
a
picture
viewing
from
the
north
toward
the
south,
showing
the
rear
of
the
house.
You
can
see
the
top
of
the
bank,
and
then
you
can
see
this
heavily
treed
area
and
again
this
is
it
on
the
east
side
of
the
bank.
This
house
is
not.
You
cannot
see
this
house
from
the
homes
that
are
on
West
Shore
on
the
other
side
of
the
ditch
and
it's
separate
by
the
ditch
in
this
heavily
vegetated
area.
Miss
Clemente
is
going
to
go
into
what
we're
proposing
Mitigation,
we're
also
proposing
to
plant
red
cedars.
M
All
along
the
top
of
the
bank
as
well,
so
there
will
be
it'll,
be
totally
screened
along
that
end
on
the
front
side,
really
the
the
extreme
setback
that
we're
seeking
is
it
in
existence.
It's
been
there
for
70
years,
I
have
letters
of
support
from
property
owners
across
the
street
and
I'll
go
ahead
and
give
those
to
miss
Anthony
to
submit
into
the
record.
M
Relative
to
this
request,
being
in
harmony
with
the
Tampa
conference
in
Fant
playing
the
land
development
code,
first
of
all,
miss
Clemente
is
going
to
make
testify
that
it's
not
going
to
degrade
the
wetland
system.
This
is
already
to
degrade
it
wetland
there's.
No,
it
will
not
have
a
detrimental
effect
on
any
hydrology
or
violent
biological
impacts
on
the
wetland
system
itself.
M
But
I
think
one
of
the
key
factors
here
is
we're
seeking
to
preserve
a
1951,
mid,
modern
ranch
house.
As
most
of
you
know,
South
Tampa
is
going
through
a
huge
amount
of
redevelopment
where
virtually
all
of
these
old
ranch
homes
have
been
demolished
virtually
every
all.
These
Lots
have
been
redeveloped
with
large
two-story
houses
that
fit
exactly
within
the
setbacks
and
then
take
up
as
much
space
as
they
possibly
can.
If
they
can
get
Lots
foots,
they
get
lots
foots.
M
We
have
a
client
here
who
wants
to
preserve
this
older
1950s
ranch-style
home
wants
to
make
a
few
changes
so
that
it
they
can
accommodate
their
needs
it's
70
years
old.
It
does
need
some
changes,
interior
and
externally,
but
you
have
several
policies
in
your
comp
plan.
While
this
is
not
a
landmark
structure
but
speak
to
historic
preservation
of
architectural,
a
distinctive
buildings
and
structures,
I
think
this
would
qualify
as
one.
M
Perhaps
two
homes
being
put
if
they
can
fit
it
there
or
a
bigger
home
that
will
go
exactly
within
the
setback
areas.
I
think
you
are
preserving
it.
The
existing
pattern
result
in
the
neighborhood
in
a
manner
that's
very
harmonious,
with
Beach,
Park
and
I.
Think
that's
one
of
the
reasons
we've
had
letters
and
support
from
the
property
owners
across
the
street
and
really
that
the
fifth
factor
is
granting
experience
will
result
in
substantial
justice
being
done
again.
M
The
grant
of
this
variance
will
allow
the
redevelopment
and
reuse
of
a
classic
1950s
mid
mod
ranch-style
home
instead
of
its
demolition
and
the
construction
of
one
or
more
homes
in
the
site,
and
really
these
variances
are
driven
to
a
large
degree
by
the
irregular
shape
of
a
lot.
It's
narrow
triangular
shape
and
we
have
the
degraded
wetland.
Ditch
that's
in
the
rear
of
the
property,
all
of
which
creates
issues
here.
M
N
N
I've
been
an
environmental
consultant
and
I've
been
doing
the
varmint
permitting
for
40
years,
as
it
turns
out
at
the
end
of
the
process
of
dealing
with
this
stitch,
epc
designated
it
as
a
surface
water.
Another
wetland
there
is
a
there's,
a
unique
and
a
significant
significance
to
that,
because
in
most
cases
in
most
counties
and
the
state
Florida
doesn't
usually
put
a
25
step
back
on
a
surface
water.
This
surface
water
has
not
been
honored
anywhere
along
its
alignment.
N
It
was
an
upland
cut,
ditch
it
connects
to
a
tidal
canal
so
that
the
south
end
of
it
has
more
idle
species.
But
this
ditch
only
is
very,
very
low
base
low.
It
is
tightly
influenced
in
the
sense
that
when
the
tide
is
high,
it
backs
water
up
in
it,
there's
nothing
and
on
this
lot
or
any
of
the
other
Lots
that
have
done
anything
to
preserve
any
kind
of
habitat
or
significant
habitat.
For
this
ditch,
the
backyard
of
this
home
has
always
used
it
as
their
backyard.
N
It's
been
grads,
it's
been
moved,
lots
and
lots
of
exotic
species
have
been
growing
on
the
top.
A
bank
of
this
water
body,
so
the
the
25
foot
setback,
was
designed
by
the
state
to
as
a
presumptive
rule.
So
if
I
maintain
25
feet
away
from
the
water
body,
I'm
presumed
not
to
have
secondary
impacts,
it
has
nothing
to
do
with
habitat.
It
has
nothing
to
do
with
anything
other
than
preserving
the
water
quality
in
the
receiving
water
body.
A
I
Sure
miss
Clemente,
so
part
of
the
petition,
and
this
could
be
for
mr.
Massey's
well.
Part
of
the
petition
speaks
to
relieving
the
setback
requirement
to
the
to
the
wetland
setback
line.
But
you're
saying
it's
not
a
wetland.
No.
N
N
M
Mean
I
wouldn't
last
the
city
to
respond
to
that,
but
I
in
an
abundance
of
caution,
because
the
everything
that
has
been
submitted
shows
the
wetland
setback
line
and
shows
the
top
of
bank
I
would
ask
that
you
all
approve
that.
So
there's
no
there's
no
issue
with
it.
Obviously
these
will
encourage
in
the
rear
setback
as
well,
but
I
would
prefer
that
we
be
safe
rather
than
sorry
I'm.
To
be
honest
with
you
and.
I
M
I
N
A
wetland
in
the
surface
water
we
wouldn't
have
those
two
designations,
stickers,
footers,
are
usually
up
and
cut
ditches
or
small.
Man-Made
ponds
less
than
an
acre,
so
they're
recognized
is
not
being
significant
habitat
not
being
a
significant,
not
being
significant
enough
to
be
called
a
wetland,
and
you
can't
compare
this
dish
to
the
bay
I
mean
the
bay
is
a
wetland.
But
when
you
come
up
this
ditch
at
a
certain
point,
it
becomes
a
surface
work.
I
N
G
It
if
you
would
like
me
to
sort
of
provide
a
little
bit
of
a
thought
on
this,
my
understanding
and
and
mr.
Knox
can
tell
me
if
I'm
off
base,
but
my
understanding
is
the
line
between
a
surf
squad
or
in
a
wetland,
especially
in
this
type
of
situation,
can
be
a
fine
one,
and
if
you
have
a
few
more
hydric
species,
the
next
time
that
they
go
out
there
in
six
months,
it
could
be
a
wetland.
So
I
would
suggest
that
I
think
would
be
appropriate
to
grant
the
variance.
G
Also,
our
definition
of
wetland
in
the
city
code,
as
it
sits
today,
is
I
think
a
little
bit
broader
than
maybe
the
EPC
would
define
it.
So
it
may
still
fall
within
a
wetland
under
the
city's
code.
So
I
would
suggest
that
I
think
it
would
be
appropriate
for
the
board
to
go
ahead
and
if
they
deem
it
to
be
approvable,
to
go
ahead
and
approve
that,
regardless
of
what
this
particular
delineation
may
have
revealed
it
to
be.
I
M
It
is,
and
the
existing
house
obviously
and
that's
to
make
a
bigger
point
of
this.
The
existing
house
in
several
places
encroaches
into
the
building
setback
and
the
wetland
setback
it
our
if
we
have
an
existing
condition
where
this
was
built
in
1951
before
zoning
existed
before
wetland
protection
or
any
protection
of
that
sort
existed.
So
you
know
if
here's
the,
if
you
had
a
wetland
setback
line,
it
would
lie
here's
the
and
here's
the
building
setback
line,
and
so
you
obviously
obviously
the
existing
building,
already
encroaches
in
several
locations.
K
N
C
N
C
M
M
Think
there
are
portions
of
it
that
may
be
under
construction.
There
are
portions
of
it
that
are
not
do
not
create
issues
from
a
setback
that
they
don't
need.
A
variance
presidents
are
adding
a
new
bedroom
wing
that
fits
totally
within
the
footprint,
so
I
think
they
have
started
on
that,
but
the
areas
that
require
your
also
approval
for
the
variance
we
have
not
started.
A
N
N
N
N
N
A
A
A
N
A
N
N
E
N
N
E
M
A
M
A
M
We
don't
I,
don't
I
can't
tell
you
that
I
don't
know
whether
the
city
has
maintained
it,
but
what
I'm
saying
is
that
granting
this
graining?
This
variance
is
not
going
to
make
it
any
more
difficult
for
the
city
to
maintain
it
than
it
already
will
be,
based
on
the
existing
circumstances
of
that
neighborhood
because
of
the
existing
encroachments
that
are
already
in
within
25
feet
of
that
ditch.
Okay,.
M
B
M
Pool
cabana
is
the
the
pool
and
pool
cabana
is
one.
There
is
a
garage
extension
correct
on
the
northeast
side.
The
pool
pool,
get
pool,
cabana
is
on
the
southeast
side
and
then
they're
squaring
off
the
house,
so
they
can
create
a
dining
room.
Basically,
and
that's
really
the
other
encroachment
that's
being
created
on
the
rear.
B
B
And
I
understand
you
know
the
necessity
for
growing
family
to
stay
in
the
house
and
maybe
a
dining
room,
expansion,
or
something
like
that
makes
sense,
but
pool
cabana
is
not
necessarily
a
necessary
function
for
a
house
and
in
an
extra
garage
attached
to
an
existing
garage
same
type
of
thing.
So
it's
no
doubt
it's
an
incredibly
uniquely
shaped
lot
and
they've
got
very
difficult
setbacks.
No
doubt
the
question
is
how
much
area
is
considered
reasonable
use
on
a
property
this
size
with
these
setbacks
and
the
of
wetland
service,
water,
yeah.
A
I
Normally
I
might
agree
with
with
that
comment,
but
I
think
just
trying
to
be
reasonable
as
related
to
the
hardship
and
the
hardship.
I
think
definitely
is
the
shape
of
the
law
and
the
layout
of
the
existing
house,
but
I
think
I.
Think
it's
really
critical
that
we
look
at
it.
You
know
what
direction
they're
going
and
and
what
impact
that
would
have
they're
going
toward
the
back
yard,
they're
going
toward
a
heavily
treed,
ditch
with
no
apparent
neighbor
anywhere.
I
I
C
Chair
piggybacking
on
mr.
ding
Felder's
comments,
especially
the
ones
that
there
is
no
neighbors
in
the
backyard
across
the
backyard.
They
could
actually
see
this
and
the
vegetation
is
so
tall.
My
main
concern
was
the,
and
even
though
it
may
not
be
a
big
concern
to
others
and
the
removal
of
the
rainwater
off
the
property
or
excuse
me
off
the
house
on
to
the
property
which
is
going
to
be
then
put
back
out
to
the
front
of
property.
That
was
my
main
concern.
So
I
have
no
problem.
Granting
the
experience
requests.
A
My
only
concern
really
is
access
and
yes
I
understand
the
testimony
that
apparently
there's
there
are
no
easement
agreements,
but
if
I'm
a
neighbor
across
the
street
or
upstream
from
this,
and
if
a
neighbor
downstream
impacted
the
ability
of
the
water
to
get
out
in
its
normal
historical
fashion.
That
would
cause
me
great
concern.
I,
don't
want
to
get
into
a
commentary
about
rising
tides
and
whatnot,
but
we
all
know
this
is
a
very
low
part
of
the
peninsula.
A
I
didn't
hear
any
testimony
good
testimony
on
the
exact
elevation
differences,
but
it
sounds
like
it's
very
slight.
The
photographs
looked
like
there
were
only
a
couple
of
feet:
maybe
three
feet
from
top
a
bank
to
to
whatever
standing
water.
That
was,
it
didn't,
look
like
a
lot
of
water.
So
my
assumption
is
it
wasn't
high
tide,
the
issue
about
actual
rear
yard
setback
reduction,
I
think
I
could
be
swayed
because
of
the
physical
condition
of
there
being
a
ditch,
heavily
overgrown
on
both
sides
that
I
I
would
be
okay
to
support
that
anyway.
A
I
Just
wanted
to
make
a
clarification,
mr.
chairman,
in
regard
to
the
downspouts
and
on
page
15
of
the
report
under
compensation,
it
says
addition:
the
downspouts
from
the
roof
will
drain
into
corrugated
exfiltration
pipes
and
be
buried
near
the
house
or
be
directed
to
the
front
of
the
house.
So
it
looks
like
I
guess
some
of
the
roofs
are
gonna,
go
toward
the
rear,
but
they're
gonna
drop
them
into
the
ground
and
that
sort
of
thing.
A
G
F
Did
we
did
we
discuss
any
conditions
on
this?
There's
no
condition
that
I
move
that
the
variance
for
requests
for
case
the
RV
1925
for
property
located
at
8,
1
0,
Grove
Park
Avenue,
be
granted
as
depicted
on
the
site
plan
presented
to
public
hearing
to
reduce
the
rear
yard
from
20
feet
to
4.7
and
the
wetland
setback
from
25
feet
to
1.5
beat.
F
With
encroachment
for
eaves
and
gutters,
based
upon
the
applicant
present,
incompetent
and
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
and
at
this
public
hearing
of
a
necessary
hardship,
no
practical
difficulty
when
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
section
27
80.
The
city
code,
specifically
that
this
is
a
uniquely
shaped
lot
with
an
existing
home
that
was
built
in
1951.
The
for
wetlands
restrictions
with
existing
encroachments
into
the
setback
and
wetlands,
and
that
the
applicant
is
providing
mitigation
by
planting
trees
and
preventing
secondary
impacts
to
the
ditch.
A
D
D
E
D
N
O
A
N
I'm,
sorry,
that's
my
my
carport
like
been
there
like
when,
before
I
bought
my
house,
so
I
just
wanna
show
you
a
picture
of
that.
So
that's
why
I
parked
my
car
from
the
rain
and
Sun
I
don't
have
a
garage
where
I
can
park
my
car-
and
this
is
another
picture
here
of
this
structure.
That's
my
living
out
the
area
where
I
I,
cook
and
them
eating.
You
know
I
love
the
outdoors.
N
N
And
I'm
just
requesting
that
that
I
can
keep
all
my
structures.
A
N
N
A
O
Mean
that's
really.
It
is
that
the
carport
was
a
pre-existing
structure
and
that's
where
we
parked
the
car
to
protect
from
rain
and
shine
to
get
into
the
house
and
out
of
the
house.
The
carport
in
the
back
also
does
the
same
exact
I
guess
has
the
same
purpose
of
outside
areas
and
as
well
as
the
shed.
That
was
also
pre-existing
structure
that
we
have
work
done
to
it
to
revitalize
it.
A
I
Thank
You,
mr.
chairman,
you
showed
a
picture.
I
think
might
have
been
an
aerial
picture
of
the
old
structure.
I
N
N
I
I
I
F
F
N
B
So
the
reason
that
mr.
Brown
was
asking
about
hardship
is
because,
on
the
application,
you
filled
out
there's
five
hardship
criteria
that
we're
obligated
to
to
measure
this
case
against
and
the
hardships
are
related
to
either
the
structure
of
the
buildings
or
the
conditions
of
the
site,
not
what
you
use
them
for
the
region
need
them.
But
what
about
the
building
and/or
the
site
is
unique
and
requires
that
the
work
you
did
be
done
in
the
place
that
it
was
done.
B
O
The
structure
was
dilapidated,
it
was
falling
apart,
and
so
that
was
no
longer
able
CC
that
was
no
longer
able
to
be
used,
and
so
in
theory,
we
needed
to
rebuild
the
structure
to
make
it
usable
again,
because
the
roof
was
falling
in
the
walls
were
falling
in.
It
was
a
very
old
structure,
and
so
that
is
our
hardship
is
that
that
is
a
place
that
we
store,
everything
that
we
need
to
store
and
to
make
it
usable
again
we
had
to
repair
it.
E
B
I'm
gonna
guess
here
and
you
tell
me
if
I'm
right,
it
looks
like
the
the
notice
is
for
the
separation
distance
and
not
for
the
setbacks
and
the
rear.
Is
that
because
the
shed
would
would
normally
be
accessory
and
have
its
own
three-foot
setback
requirements?
But
since
that
middle
shed
is
there
it's
making
it
kind
of
like
a
primary
structured
type
of
situation?
Tawanda.
D
B
D
B
D
D
E
I
H
I
I
D
D
I
A
Miss
Anthony,
so
I
mean
it.
It
still
needed.
It
still
needs
permitting.
Building
permit
the
square
structure
in
question.
It's
not
really
I
mean
you
can't
call
it
permanent
yet
because
it's
not
a
permanent
structure
correct
in
an
order
for
it
to
be
permitted,
they
have
to
obviously
they
have
to
get
setback
relief,
so
I
get
that
I
have
one
other
question
relative
to
where
this
conversations
headed.
There's
another
structure
that
says
covered
area
that
I
haven't
heard
any
testimony
about
on
a
site
plan.
Does
it
exist?
N
N
A
So
let
me
let
me
jump
ahead
in
my
logic
here.
So
if
the
separation,
if
we
bifurcated
this
tonight-
and
we
didn't-
approve
the
five-foot
separation
but
say
we
might
approve
the
front,
they
would
then
have
to
modify
this
middle
structure
somehow
and
if
they
chose
to
take
it
down
and
build
something
more
permanent
connected
to
the
existing
home.
I
can't
tell
in
this
survey
what
the
distance
is.
There
are
no
dimensions
that
are
telling
me.
The
exact
of
the
existing
metal
structure
is
relative
to
the
rear
yard
property
line.
A
B
Can
comment
on
that?
Okay
go
ahead.
Let's
say
that
they
did
a
five
foot
separation
between
the
metal
structure.
In
the
shed
only
to
get
a
primary
structure
separation.
Then
you
have
a
20
foot
setback
requirement.
You
have
a
12-foot
wide
shed
per
the
site
plan.
You'd
have
a
5-foot
gap,
that's
17
feet
and
they
said
that
it
complies
with
current
setbacks.
B
D
A
N
Well,
I
was
just
I
know
what
I,
what
you
guys
saying,
but
I
would
like
to
keep
my
structure
the
way
it
is
because
you
know
when
I
come
out
my
door,
you
know
for
the
rain,
you
know
so
I
entered
you,
know
my
little
comfort
zone
out
there
and
so
and
my
cat
live
all
day.
So
I
don't
know
you
know
if
I
have
to
remove
it
to
you
know,
make
it
small
I,
don't
know
that
will
work
so.
N
A
N
O
There's
also
a
pre-existing
patio
area
underneath
the
metal
structure,
and
so
that
also
provides
the
I
guess
what
you
call
it:
protection
from
the
rain
and
shine
and
that
area
as
well.
So
that
needs
to
be
in
that
certain
area,
as
well
as
connecting
to
the
shed
and
to
the
house
of
providing
the
protection
from
the
rain
and
also
the
carport,
is
in
line
with
the
driveway.
And
it
doesn't
make
sense
a
place
that
anywhere
else,
then
where
it
is,
and
also
it's
a
pre-existing
structure.
O
B
A
B
What
we
were
discussing
is,
if
you
moved
your
metal
structure
in
the
backyard
all
the
way
up
to
towards
touching
your
house.
Okay,
then
the
concern
for
us
would
be
the
distance
between
the
back
of
that
structure
and
your
shed
so
I,
don't
know
how
much
it
just
now
looks
like
maybe
a
couple
feet
from
the
pictures.
What
we're
saying
is,
if
you
could
make
the
distance?
O
O
E
N
B
A
Appears
you
have
something
close
to
it,
but
not
with
the
overhang
okay
and
just
to
maybe
clarify
you're
correct
what
I
just
heard.
If
you
choose
not,
if,
because
you're
here
tonight
and
you're
not
attached
to
the
house,
we
have
to
make
that
decision
tonight.
Also
we
can't
make
it
on
the
promise
that
you
might
change
it
right.
So
you
have
both
ends
of
this
and
play
with
the
5-foot
rule.
A
Okay,
and
that
you
know
the
board
can
consider
what
we
call
bifurcating,
the
the
two
setback
requests
and
vote
on
one
separate
from
the
other,
so
the
board
has
that
ability
to
do
that
and
we
might
choose
to
do
that
tonight.
So
anyway,
with
all
this
understood,
you
have
anything
else.
You
want
to
say
Oh
John,
go
ahead,
real,
quick,
the.
N
A
list
of
signatures,
and
only
one
person
had
called
because
they
don't
understand
what
the
poster
was
a
lot
of
them.
He
said
he,
okay
with
whatever
so.
I
N
A
C
D
B
If
you
were
to
have
a
fire
in
the
house,
it
could
spread
to
the
shed,
which
gets
spread
to
the
shed,
which
is
three
feet
from
your
neighbor's
property,
and
so
I
just
want
to
explain
the
reason,
its
roof
edge
to
roof
edge
and
the
reason
that
these
little
gaps
matter
it's
about
the
spread
of
fire
so
justly
have
a
reason
behind
it.
Okay,.
A
I
Just
in
regard
to
discussion-
and
you
bring
up
a
good
point-
that's
what
we
have
architects
on
board
to
tell
us
why
these
things
are
in
our
code.
However,
the
fact
that
this
is
a
metal,
a
metal
structure
I
mean
I,
know
that
the
flame
could
get
sucked
through
and
that
sort
of
thing,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
the
metal
is
not
like
wood
or
other
materials.
They're
gonna
readily
burn
transfer.
I
I
B
I
think
we
found
a
relatively
workable
solution
to
a
situation
where
there
appears
to
be
very
little
hardship
of
the
property
under
structure.
So
in
my
opinion,
we
should
probably
proceed
down
that
route
paint
is
flammable
by
the
way
the
roofs
painted
and
not
that
I
think
it's
really
like
a
huge
hazard,
this
structure,
but
either
way
we
have
a
way
to
make
it
compliant
without
too
much
detriment
to
the
applicant,
and
we
haven't
heard
really
any
hardship
on
the
property.
B
C
Keep
going
back
to
would
this
be
allowed
if
it
was
brand-new
construction
I
I
would
like
to
buy
from
you.
I
personally
would
like
to
bifurcate
just
leaving
the
the
front
carport
as
is,
and
then
granting
enough
time.
Excuse
me,
then,
allowing
the
petitioner
enough
time
to
reconsider
what
they
want
to
do
with
this
very,
very
large
carport
that
was
put
back
there.
A
Council
have
a
question:
if,
if
we
get
approved,
the
rear
yard
structure
were
approving
the
site
plan.
So
if
that
structure
was
deemed
unpermitted
and
it
had
to
come
down
and
they
wanted
to
then
erect
something
more
substantial,
could
they
not
fall
back
on
the
approved
site
plan,
or
would
that
cause
a
new
site
plan?
No.
G
A
Okay,
all
right,
so
that's
my
comment
to
the
board
is
that
the
contractor
up
here,
I,
don't
know
if
they're
gonna
be
able
to
get
a
permit
on
this
existing
structure.
The
way
it's
built
they,
maybe
they
can
didn't,
hear
any
testimony
about
the
foundation
aspects
and
whatnot,
but
I
would
be
concerned
that
if,
if
just
on
the
technicality
that
it
didn't
or
couldn't
meet
code,
they
had
tear
it
down
and
rebuild
it,
then.
A
Obviously
that
falls
back
to
your
situation,
where,
if
they
came
in
ahead
of
time
and
ask
for
forgiveness
versus
whatever
we'd
say
why's,
it
got
to
be
so
big.
What's
the
hardship,
why
can't
you
maintain
the
five
feet
of
separation?
Why
can't
you
attach
it
to
the
house?
These
are
all
the
things
that
most
people
quit
to
on
this
kind
of
property,
so
I'm
inclined
not
to
support
the
rear
yard
at
all,
but
I
can
deal
with
the
verification,
I
think
on
the
front.
B
G
F
B
A
G
It
would
be
starting
all
over
in
that
they
would
not
need
to
pay
any
a
filing
fee.
They
would
have
an
existing
application,
but
they
would
need
to
reno
tiss
when
they
were
ready
to
come
back.
At
that
juncture,
you
could
convene
them
to
a
date
certain,
but
that
would
put
some
pressure
on
for
them
to
figure
it
out
as
well.
So.
B
I
Just
it's
my
understanding,
I
just
wanted
to
tell
the
folks
that's
before
they
left
that
it
doesn't
sound
like
the
board's
going
to
approve
this,
the
brown
structure
as
related
to
the
closeness
to
the
to
the
to
the
little
SH
new
shed.
So,
as
mentioned
the
opossum
possibly
could
slide
it.
Okay
pick
up
pick
it
up
and
slide
it
toward
the
house,
so
it's
five
feet
away,
Eve
de
or
like
I,
said
earlier,
maybe
cut
it
and
have
it
crimped
and
with
new
posts.
D
F
H
A
G
G
You
would
have
to
attach
that
structure
to
your
main
structure.
You
could
also
build
something
attached
to
your
home
as
long
as
it
was
five
feet,
so
you
could
do
something
attached
to
your
home.
That
would
provide
you
the
shade
in
the
back
there,
as
long
as
it
provides
five
feet
between
that
and
the
shed.
N
G
N
N
N
N
G
G
A
D
1
anthony
land
development-
this
is
item
driv
1936.
The
property
is
located
at
2601,
west
Powhatan
Avenue.
The
applicant
is
seeking
to
reduce
the
side
yard
setback
from
7
feet
to
5
feet
and
reduce
the
rear
yard
setback
from
3
feet
to
1
point
9
feet
to
construct
a
single-family
residence.
The
lot
is
own
Rs
50
and
the
house
was
constructed
in
1927.
The
applicant
purchased
a
property
in
19
in
2017.
A
lot
split
reconfiguration
was
also
approved
in
2017.
D
I
I
I
D
A
D
H
A
A
A
D
A
C
D
A
A
H
H
Okay,
basically,
we
purchased
this
house
and
we
tried
we
try
and
we
got
split
the
lot,
because
our
future
is
to
fill
a
resident
house
in
that
empty
lot.
And
after
that
we
built
a
new
resident
house
in
that
Auntie
lot,
then
that
Kerina
structure
could
be
demolished
and
built
another
new
wrestling
house,
but
for
now
we
want
to
start
from
house
one,
of
course,
for
the
money.
And
then,
after
this
the
house,
the
colonel
house
is
already
rented
and
of
poor.
H
We
are
paying
you
know
or
dispenses
for
for
insurance,
for
taxes
for
net,
for
everything
and
in
the
future.
Like
I
said,
we
want
to
demolish
the
house
that
is
really
old
and
build
a
new
house
and
the
future
would
be
to
single
house
and
that
those
platelets
and
the
proportion
for
the
back
side
setback
the
from
3
to
1.9
is
basically
because
we
have
it's
like
a
storage
doesn't
have
electricity,
nothing
and,
of
course,
with
one
of
the
mall
chapter
that
we
finish
almost
Finnick.
H
For
the
dosa
and
that
of
poor
will
be
demolished
before
you
approve
the
right
to
to
live
in
the
property
in
the
new
problem,
I
mean
the
final,
and
that
would
be
totally
clean
and
we
spoke
with
the
closest
neighbor,
the
back
from
the
north
side
and
the
front
from
the
corner
of
Henry
Oh,
some
peat
and
Powhatan.
We
talked
with
them
and
they
signed
some
letters
that
I
have
here.
I
can't
pass
on
I
have
clean
neighbors
by
explaining
what
we
are
thinking
to
do,
and
they
don't
have
any
problem
opposite.
H
Think
it's
not
a
big
issue
just
because
it's
couple
feet
that
we
are
asking
to
decide
to
demolish
the
whole
house
and
let
those
people
who
live
in
right
there,
our
rental
of
the
thing,
a
pregnant
woman,
a
couple
where
later
baby
do,
you
know
ask
them
to
just
get
out
of
the
house,
because
we
need
to
build
a
new
construction
on
it.
I,
don't
know
what
else
to
expect
you
like
I
kind
of
clear
up
things.
A
H
B
B
B
B
B
A
H
A
H
A
A
D
A
H
A
H
H
H
A
I
I
C
H
H
H
D
E
K
Thank
for
legal
and
it's
just
a
clarification,
I
thought
I
originally
heard
you
say
that
if
we
approve
the
rear
yard
setback
it'd
be
for
the
existing
structure,
the
footprint
of
the
existing
structure
and
then
I
thought
a
few
minutes
later.
You
said
it
would
be
for
the
width
of
the
property,
the
50
foot,
so
is
it
the
existing
structure,
footprint
for
the
50
foot
width?
If.
G
K
P
A
A
G
A
A
N
G
Be
for
the
record
Kristen
more
on
legal
departments.
The
way
that
it
is
interpreted
is
all
the
area
that
encroaches.
Let's
say
this
is
a
three
foot
setback
line,
we're
just
going
to
say
this
area.
All
the
area
where
approachment
is
shown
can
be
rebuilt.
They
are
not
tied
to
this
footprint.
They
could
rebuild
the
entire
structure.
I
mean
it'd
have
to
be
an
accessory
structure.
So
obviously
it's
gonna
have
to
meet
the
maximum
structure
requirements.
It
will
need
more
variances,
but
they
can
build
a
larger
structure.
G
They
just
can't
encroach
any
more
than
what
is
shown
here,
the
same
with
the
house.
This
entire
area
that
encroaches
they
will
be
allowed
to
build
back.
They
could
then
build
the
house
everywhere
else
within
the
area,
so
they're
not
tied
to
this
footprint,
the
only
place
they're
tying
a
footprint
is
where
they
are
encroaching
within
the
setback
area.
Is
that
clear?
Yes,.
A
H
Yes,
I,
then
what
is
the
the
coin
and
the
future
because
of
course,
as
long
is
related
to
the
future?
What
will
happen
after
and
like
I
said
you
can
put
I,
don't
know
how
the
works
tell
you
guys
work
on
the
papers,
but
you
can
put
like
an
and
them
them
or
something.
That
said,
we
can
approve
of
this.
If
that
won't
be
demolish
or
this
structure
could
be
up,
temporary
or
probably
I,
don't
know,
I
don't
have
any
idea.
I,
don't
know
how
the
the
low
work
on
it.
H
N
H
I'm,
like
like
I
speak
I
mean
that
the
the
worst
part
is
our
neighbor,
because
it
could
be
a
really
bad
issue
that
someone
could
be
working
on.
The
sheds
with
you
know
getting
material
in
out
and
like
I
said,
and
we
say
I
mean
this
is
what
happen.
We've
been
so
clear
with
him
and
he
say:
I
don't
have
any
problem
with
that.
I'm
fine.
You
know.
H
E
A
H
A
I
You
know
sort
of
a
low-income
family
and
the
documentation
and
and
that
sort
of
thing
and
they're
gonna
allow
them
to
live
there,
probably
at
least
for
another
year
or
two
until
they
finish
house
number
woman,
so
I
think
that's
nice
and
not
that
that's
nice
as
a
factor
but
but
anyway,
I
think
that's
nice
and
and
plus,
like
I,
say
that
encroachment
is
on
to
their
own
property.
I
have
a
little
bit
more
concern
about
the
other
one.
It
is
larger,
as
mr.
I
Popham
pointed
out,
I
can't
remember
exactly
how
many
feet
across,
but
it's
a
good
stretch
and
come
you
know
right
now
that
neighbors,
you
know
says,
is
okay
with
it,
but
I
don't
know
the
other
part
of
that
it
was
the
hardship,
didn't
really
jump
out
at
me
and
now
I
sound
like
mr.
chairman,
but
you
know
seriously:
I
mean
okay,
it's
a
it's.
I
Been
used
for
storage,
you
know,
that's
what
I
think
they
say:
it's
gonna
be
temporary,
but
who
knows
you
know
stuff
happens
and
next
week
it
could
be
sold
and
we've
got
a
whole
different
situation
there.
So
just
for
that
reason,
I
I
would
like
to
see
this
thing.
I,
actually
bifurcated
and
just
approve
the
the
house
and
not
necessary
the
garage.
So.
B
A
C
I
A
D
Towanda
Anthony
later
development-
this
is
item
B,
RB
1941.
The
property
address
is
1914
west
wagon
streets.
The
applicant
is
seeking
to
reduce
the
front
yard
setback
from
25
feet
to
18
feet
to
construct
an
open
porch
on
an
existing
concrete
slab.
The
lot
is
owned.
Ours,
100
and
the
house
was
constructed
in
1970.
The
applicant
purchased
a
property
in
2016.
D
D
D
A
E
It
won't
take
me
that
long,
okay,
my
name,
is
Terry
toaster,
along
with
my
wife,
who
could
not
be
here
tonight.
We
reside
at
1914,
Southwick
eagle.
We
did
buy
this
property
in
2016
and
then
renovated
it.
We
gutted
into
two
by
four
in
2017,
and
now
my
wife
wants
to
do
a
little
bit
more.
There
is
not
a
covered
porch
on
the
front
of
the
house
and
we're
open
to
the
elements,
and
she
just
wants
to
have
some
type
of
protection
when
she
exits
and
enemies
of
the
home.
E
E
A
E
F
A
A
E
A
D
A
D
F
F
To
reduce
the
front
yard
from
25
feet
to
18
feet,
to
construct
that
unenclosed
front
porch,
with
the
encroachment
of
eaves
and
gutters
based
upon
the
applicant
presenting
confident,
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
and
this
public
hearing
of
an
unnecessary
hardship
or
practical
difficulty.
When
considering
our
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
section
27
Katie.
The
city
code,
specifically
that
similar
front
porch
would
be
available
to
this
applicant.
If
he
were
simply
in
a
different
zoning
district,
that
there
are
other
similar
unenclosed
front,
porches
in
the
neighborhood
and
in
fact,
immediately
next
door.
A
D
Warm
damp
England
development.
This
is
item
vrv
1942.
The
property
is
located
at
43
16,
West,
Coolidge
Avenue.
The
applicant
is
seeking
to
reduce
the
side,
yard
setback
from
7
feet
to
5.2
feet
and
the
rear
yard
setback
from
20
feet
to
4.3
feet
best
existing
accessory
structures.
The
lot
is
owned
rs.60
and
the
house
was
constructed
in
1953.
The
applicant
purchased
a
property
in
1995.
The
property
was
cited
for
zoning
violations
regarding
excessive
accessory
structures.
A
D
E
D
E
P
P
So
we're
here,
of
course,
to.
P
To
want
to
keep
our
existing
structures,
we
bought
the
house
24
years
ago
and
it
was
a
fixer-upper
we
fixed
it
up.
We've
made
it
very
very
nice
and
we're
getting
it
ready
for
our
retirement
and
stuff.
So
when
we
first
bought
the
house
went
on
the
blueprint,
you
see
that
20
by
30
garage,
which
you
also
saw
on
the
front.
P
This
is
just
a
front
picture
of
the
garage
as
best
I
could
take,
and
that
was
already
there
and
my
husband
that
fixed
it
up
and
made
it
all
really
nice-
and
this
is
a
side
picture
of
that
garage
and
it's
detached
from
the
house.
So
then,
as
life
grew,
we
decided
to
make
part
of
that
his
mancave,
so
we
needed
the
room
for
the
storage.
He's
got
all
his
tools
and
everything
in
it
he's
a
handyman
and
stuff.
So
we
added
this.
This
is
the
one
where
you
asked
was
it
attached?
P
P
The
other
thing
that
they
said
would
probably
be
a
good
idea
was
like,
like
other
neighbors,
have
like
sheds
and
other
things,
so
I
just
took
an
aerial
view
from
the
GIS
website
and
just
kind
of
like
circled,
all
the
other,
like
sheds
and
stuff
that
people
have
in
the
backyard.
If
that
is
revelant
that
you
know
a
lot
of
us
have,
because
we
have
small
houses,
we
have
this
that
we
well.
P
P
The
one
with
the
first
red
dot
with
the
pool
and
the
other
one
I
did
a
red
dot,
because
this
was
going
to
be
airs
and
piercing
grandma's,
but
then
she's
the
one
that
could
be
seen
today
because
of
something
on
the
neighborhood
thing
that
went
so
I
was
using
this
for
her
too,
we
were
helping
her
with
herself.
So
that's
why
there's
two
red
dots,
but
ours
is
the
one
with
the
pool
and
you
can't
see
hit
the
big
big
beautiful
tree.
That's
there.
You
can't
see
the
garage.
P
E
A
P
P
P
I
P
That
was
one
of
the
main
reasons
we
bought
the
house
and
I
do
have
a
survey.
They
show
that
for
me
back
then,
because
it
was
like
okay,
it's
a
small
house,
but
hey
he's
got
this
girl
20
by
30
garage
in
the
backyard.
So
that's
awesome
and
that
made
it
liveable
for
us
for
him
to
have
that
back.
There.
E
P
Continue
we
just
request
to
keep
it
I
mean
I,
wouldn't
want
to
I
mean
if
we
tore
it
down.
I
wouldn't
know
what
to
do
with
all
this
stuff.
I
mean
I'd
have
to
give
it
away
so
I
mean
they're
quite
full,
and
you
know
we
won't
build
anything
else.
Leave
this.
We
don't
need
anything
else
and,
like
I
said,
we've
got
everything
set
the
way
we
want
for
a
retirement
and
four
more
years.
A
E
Hi
I'm
Brittany
Vogel
I'm,
a
resident
at
431,
5,
south
Huber,
Avenue
and
I'm
just
here
on
behalf
of
the
homeowner
Sean
hargadon.
He
couldn't
be
here
today
because
of
an
assignment
in
the
military
and
I
just
want
to
drop
off.
Basically
his
his
opinion.
I,
don't
know
if
you
want
me
to
post
it
up
here,
just
yeah.
A
E
Okay
sure
I'll
read
it.
This
letter
is
in
response
to
the
variance
public
hearing
called
for
the
VR
B's
19
42
in
19
43.
The
proposed
variance
is
at
both
four
three
one:
six
and
four
three
one:
eight
South
Coolidge
Avenue
Tampa
Florida,
three,
three
six
one
one
north
and
south
adjacent
properties
appear
to
have
already
been
accomplished,
and
this
hearing
is
not
directly
aimed
at
permission
to
accomplish
these
variances.
The
effects
of
the
already
completed
variances
are
quite
pronounced.
E
A
significant
portion
of
the
watershed
from
the
above
two
properties
now
flows
into
the
adjacent
properties
to
the
east,
including
431,
five
South,
Hubert,
Avenue,
Tampa
Florida
and
the
two
north
and
south
adjacent
properties
adjacent
properties.
This
results
in
significant
yard
flooding
during
light
rain
and
water
ingress
into
the
residents
at
four
three
one:
five,
meaning
we
sometimes
it
floods
into
our
back
inside
of
our
back
porch
and
into
our
back
covered
room.
E
Six,
the
only
remedies
available
to
me
are
to
raise
my
own
property
at
significant
X
met,
significant
expense,
which
would
only
channel
the
water
into
the
north
and
south
adjacent
properties
or
install
some
sort
of
sophisticated
underground
drainage
system,
also
at
significant
expense,
and
then
it
just
says
Brittany
Vogel,
which
is
myself
a
current
resident,
is
attending
the
hearing
and
can
attest
and
provide
testimony
of
the
extent
and
effects
of
the
flooding
that
occurs
in
the
yard,
due
to
drainage
from
four
three
one:
six
and
four
three
one:
eight
South
Coolidge
properties.
If.
E
My
name
is
Corey
Park
I'm,
a
resident
of
for
three
one.
Three
South
Hubert
Avenue
I've
been
sworn
in
I
just
I'm
here
today
to
speak
to
the
concerns
of
the
property
owners
at
four
three
one:
three
they're,
my
parents,
I've
lived
on
there,
basically
my
whole
life
and
about
you
know.
A
few
years
ago
we
started
noticing
a
lot
of
flooding
in
our
backyard,
including
the
yard
next
door's,
which
is
where
Brittany
Vogel
lives.
Right
now
it
comes
up.
E
E
Don't
want
to
discourage
my
neighbors
on
coolidge
Avenue
from
enjoying
their
property
to
the
best
of
their
ability,
but
I
don't
think
that
they've
taken
adequate
measures
to
reduce
the
amount
of
runoff
into
surrounding
properties
and
I'm
wondering
what
can
be
done
about
that.
I
mean
I
know
that
this
is
about
exists,
about
structures
that
have
been
built,
but.
G
E
Increases
the
amount
of
permeable
impermeable
surface
in
their
backyard,
and
this
compounds
the
effective
runoff
from
other
neighbors
that
have
built
up
their
backyards
on
Coolidge
Avenue
I
know.
My
the
adjoining
property
to
ours
have
also
built
up
a
lot
and
I'm
not
trying
to
talk
about
that.
But
there
is
a
trend
in
like
three
properties
that
are
joining
that
have
caused
a
lot
of
flooding
and
we.
E
P
I
I
Parents,
I
guess
yes
and.
I
P
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
P
E
P
I
P
I
P
P
P
N
C
D
C
P
A
D
E
E
E
P
I
E
B
E
I'm
not
I'm,
concerned
that
there
are
so
many
structures
in
their
backyard,
not
because
I'm
a
guy
still
enjoying
their
yard
per
se,
but
because
there
is
a
trend
between
the
amongst
the
neighbors
of
building
up
and
I'm
afraid
that
you
know
if
this
variance
is
made.
They'll
continue
that
trend
I
understand
that
they
said
that
they
don't
plan
on
making
more
additions.
E
P
A
B
E
B
Thinking
you
know,
you
said
you
had
pumps
that
were
pushing
water
out
to
the
front
yard.
If
you
had
a
gutter
that
went
into
an
underground
pipe
that
was
pumped,
you
wouldn't
have
a
leaf
issue.
You
know
screen
on
your
gutters
things
like
that.
There
are
ways
it
could
be
done.
I'm
just
saying
if
you
were
conditioned
to
consider
the
water
impact
and
being
the
main,
the
main
issue,
would
you
consider
it?
B
You
said
you
you
would
the
other
comment
you
made
about
everybody
else
having
sheds
the
issue
here
is
the
square
footage
and
number
of
sheds.
So
you
know,
sir,
you
showed
that
a
lot
of
your
neighbors
have
sheds,
but
but
very
few
have
so
many,
and
so
the
question
here
is
the
square
feet,
the
total
square
footage
of
those
sheds
and
how
many
there
are
and
where
they're
located
so
we'll
be
discussing
that
I
just
wanted
to
clarify.
That's
the.
P
The
location
as
far
as
the
number
I
mean
I've,
explained
how,
through
life,
that
that
happened
and
then
the
other
one
just
being
attached
to
the
back,
was
just
out
of
convenience
and
then
my
she
shed.
It
was
like
look
doubt
and
it
was
like
okay.
Well,
we'll
just
put
it
right
there
and
you
know
it
son,
slab
and
all
that
stuff.
So
not.
E
E
P
D
I
P
I
E
I
E
G
Ma'am
I,
just
I
just
want
to
be
very
clear,
and
the
board
knows
this,
but
I
say
this:
for
your
edification.
The
financial
hardship
of
moving
a
structure
is
not
a
legal
hardship
for
a
variance,
so
you
need
to
address
what
physically
about
the
property
is
unique
and
why
these
structures
must
be
in
that
location,
I,.
I
O
E
I
E
F
E
P
K
K
D
D
B
D
A
E
A
F
Our
directive
is
to
look
at
this
as
if
it
were
a
request
and
whether
it's
something
that
if
someone
came
to
us
and
said
we'd
like
to
build
this
today
or
tomorrow,
if
you
would
get
your
approval,
will
you
allow
us
to
do
that
and
we
can't
really
consider
what's
already
been
done,
what's
already
existing
other
than
what
existed
at
the
time
you
acquire
to?
Probably
so
we
can
look
at
the
the
existing
footprint
of
the
home.
F
We
can
look
at
the
existing
footprint
of
the
garage,
but
then
we
have
to
look
at
all
of
these
additional
accessory
structures
and
ask
ourselves
whether
we
would
grant
approval
to
build
all
of
them
in
those
locations
tomorrow,
I'm
having
difficulty
with
that,
because
there's
there's
not
much.
There
hasn't
been
much
discussion
about
why
those
things
needed
to
be
in
those
locations
and
why
there
needed
to
be
so
many
of
them
other
than
you're
like
and
I.
F
Want
you
to
have
what
what's
great
for
your
property
and
what's
good
for
you,
but
there's
a
challenge
because
it's
a
neighborhood
and
we
have
to
make
sure
that
it's
all
consistent,
so
I
can
all
I
can
say
without
I'm.
Not
making
a
motion
is
I'm
having
a
lot
of
difficulty
here
with
what's
out
there
and
where
it
is.
B
Mister
Bashford
I
agree
with
those
sentiments.
I
think
the
big
question
would
be
where
all
these
structures
permitted.
We
didn't
hear
that
they
war,
but
if
they
were
there'd,
be
a
good
argument
that
the
city
approved
this
and
now
it's
not
compliant.
We
did
not
hear
that
argument
kind
of
asked
about
it,
didn't
really
validate
it,
so
so
the
you
know
the
position
that
it's
not
self
created
I
still
disagree,
that
it
is
because
the
existing
garage
certainly
was
existing,
but
it
was
compliant
and
would
be
compliant.
B
Today,
it's
the
square
footage
of
the
extra
200
feet
that
makes
it
not
compliant,
and
that
is
self-created
as
we
heard.
So
if
this
total,
the
totality
of
these
square
footages
were
200
approximately
square
feet
less,
we
wouldn't
have
an
issue,
but
we
do
so
so
there
are
two
issues:
I
think
the
water
containment
seems
to
be
a
big
one,
and
then
the
number
and
location
size
of
buildings
is
the
primary
issue.
A
Based
on
the
testimony
of
the
of
how
things
happened
over
time-
and
you
know
it
almost
sounded
very
genuinely-
you
know
we
weren't
trying
to
break
any
rules
or
anything.
We
I
think
the
board
got
that
just
doing
the
math,
because
I
keep
coming
back
to
staff's
testimony
that
they
have
a
thousand
and
forty
six
square
feet
and
reading
their
site
plan,
which
I'm
not
a
hundred
percent
exact.
But
I've
got
about
six
hundred
square
feet
on
the
existing
garage
120
feet
on
the
sheet.
A
She
shed
two
hundred
four
on
the
he
shed
and
150
two
on
the
screened
porch.
If
you
took
the
hundred
and
fifty
two
off
the
screen
porch
off,
they
would
be
at
or
below
the
nine
hundred
square
feet.
Okay,
but
it's
I
don't
want
to
suggest
that
it
come
down
just
to
do
that.
To
make
us
then
approve
everything
else,
because
it's
actually
compliant.
It
appears
with
the
20-foot
river
yard
setback.
A
The
problem
is
because
of
the
attachment,
if
you
said
this
already,
the
attachment
of
the
he
shed.
So
it's
not
that
you
couldn't
get
some
combination
here
to
make
you
happy
it's
just
how
it
evolved.
That's
the
problem,
that's
your
stated.
Hardship,
I!
Think
that
as
it
was
evolving,
you
didn't
think
you
were
creating
any
issues
or
Hobbes.
E
A
Can
do
this
so
and
you've
heard
us
say
on
other
cases
that
if
you
came
in
with
a
clean
slate,
you
hadn't
done
anything
yet,
and
you
wanted
to
build
this,
we
would
say:
oh
stop
right,
don't
do
it
this
way.
Do
it
this
way
and
everything
would
have
been
fine
and
unfortunately,
that
leads
us
down
the
path
of
money.
It's
not
a
hardship
just
because
you
did
do
it.
A
A
A
B
B
Its
primary
structure
and
the
square
footage
is
not
a
factor,
then
the
setback
is
the
issue
and
then
you'd
have
to
move
everything
right.
So
so,
if
we
look
at
this
from
the
logical
perspective,
if
they
were
to
remove
the
screen
porch,
which
is
in
the
center
of
this
conglomeration,
they
technically
would
be
compliant
with
all
codes
right,
I
think
so,
but
the
effective
perimeter
and
roof
area
that's
affecting
the
neighbors
would
be
unchanged
so
so
the
the
issue
that
is
most
concerning
to
the
neighbors
is
the
water
which
we
could
address
with
the
condition.
B
They
also
mention
the
the
spread
of
sheds
and
things
like
that,
which
is
a
valid
concern.
But
in
this
case,
if
you
remove
this
free
porch,
you
could
legally
have
the
three
sheds
that
exist,
so
they
could
still
do
that
and
still
create
the
water
issues
that
they're
creating
with
the
sheds
that
exist
just
by
removing
the
one
small
interior
structure,
I,
don't.
F
A
That's
from
neighbors,
so
well,
I,
don't
think
we
can
a
sit
well.
I
can't
make
the
assumption
that
they've
created
a
water
problem
for
their
neighbors.
It
may
have
already
been
the
other
way.
The
fact
that
he's
been
willing
to
deal
with
installing
pumps
yeah
speaks
to
I
think
his
frustration
and,
if
he's
in
fact,
pumping
water,
that's
mutually
owned,
he's
helping
the
neighbors
out
yeah,
maybe
but
I'm
thinking.
We
can't
really
don't
know.
We
don't
really
speak
on.
B
B
So
in
that
light
the
fact
that
reduction
in
square
footage
in
the
least
of
truce
of
area
of
all
places
could
make
it
legally
compliant
without
dealing
with
the
water.
We
could,
alternatively,
approve
it
with
water
management
and
probably
come
out
better
than
the
alternative.
Moving
the
screen.
Porch.
C
I
E
I
Us
say:
tear
down
the
you
know,
lovely
little
screen,
porch
that
looks
out
at
the
nice
little
pool
and
they've
done
a
nice
job
on
the
whole
backyard
and
everything
else
just
say,
tear
that
down,
because
there's
this
arbitrary
issue
of
192
square
feet,
it's
just
seems
it
seems
silly
and
doesn't
accomplish
anything
for
these
young.
Ladies
who
are
complaining,
I
think
that
the
testimony
in
regard
to
the
flooding
issue
in
the
neighborhood,
that's
what
I
think
sounds
like
everybody
can
be
arguing
from
forever
on
this.
I
But
unless
there's
hydraulic
engineers
out
there
or
whatever
that's
you
know,
that's
not
going
to
be
resolved
and
I.
Don't
think.
We've
heard
anything
close
to
resolving
it
here
tonight.
So
I
like
your
idea,
mr.
pastor
I
mean
if
we
can
approve
it
with
some
gutters
and
and
make
sure
that
that
water
comes
off
those
roofs
and
goes
down
to
the
his
Street.
Then
I
think
it's
great
somebody.
F
A
A
G
E
D
Tawanda
Anthony
land
development-
this
is
item
zrd
1946.
The
property
is
located
at
2903,
West,
San
Carlos
streets.
The
applicant
is
seeking
to
reduce
the
rear
yard
setback
from
20
feet
to
7.3
feet
to
construct
a
cover
patio.
The
lot
is
own
Rs
50
and
the
house
was
constructed
in
2007.
The
applicant
purchased
the
property
in
2018.
D
I
I
D
D
B
D
Q
Q
Thank
you
for
having
us.
We
believe
this
is,
you
know,
meeting
the
criteria
for
the
five
points
of
hardship.
This
is
a
covered
structure
in
the
backyard
they
currently
do
not
have
one.
This
is
for
family
gatherings
from
inclement
weather.
There
is
no
covering
outside
of
the
front
doorway
for
them
to
to
to
convene
and
have
family
members
over
at
the
house.
They
have.
They
have
small
children
and
family
members.
Q
It's
unique
in
the
fact
that
it,
it
does
not
currently
have
a
covered
structure
in
the
backyard
and
many
of
the
neighbors
in
the
in
the
vicinity
do
and
the
the
the
homeowner
definitely
purchased
this
in
2018.
This
was
an
existing
construction
from
2007
from
there
all
I'll
turn
turn
back
my
time
unless
you
have
anything
further
to
add.
A
L
Yeah,
absolutely
so
can
currently
there's
pavers
in
the
backyard
and
there's
a
large
tree
covering
so
to
gather
out
there
any
type
of
wing
any
type
of
rain.
There's,
certainly
elements
that
would
come
upon
us.
The
size
we
picked
out
was,
for
you
know
not
not
a
large
gathering,
but
to
have
a
table.
I
have
my
wife
and
a
daughter.
I
do
have
friends
and
family
not
being
made
at
the
Tampa
that
will
come
down
to
visit
so
to
have
six
seven
people
at
a
table
and
then
a
little
area
for
my
grill.
L
So
again
that
could
be
under
the
cover.
So
thinking
about
a
nice
area
to
kind
of
eat
and
together
also
a
nice
area
to
kind
of
prepare
to
enjoy
the
weather.
You
know,
reading
up
about
this
time
of
year
is
why
we
chose
that
again
kind
of
keeping
the
same
footprint
out
towards
the
back
property
line
or
the
pavers
that
are
there
and
just
extending
it
a
little
bit
to
the
west
to
develop
a
little
bit
more
gathering
space.
L
L
Yeah
so
again
you
know
looking
for
put
together
and
just
understanding
kind
of
the
nature
of
our
backyard.
You
know
looking
to
protect
ourselves
a
little
bit
from
the
overhang
that
we
have,
whether
it's
acorns
with
the
terrain
weather.
You
know
a
branch
may
fall
down
kind
of
being
back
there
for
safety.
You
know,
there's
something
that
that
were
looking
to
add
to
improve
the
quality
of
life
of
our
property.
A
I
Questions
I
can't
see
the
drawings
that's
on
our
computer,
so
I
can't
either
can.
I
Could
you
clarify
that's
miss
Anthony's,
putting
that
up.
Can
you
clarify
what
you
said
if
there's
an
existing
overhang?
How
big
is
that,
and
and
what
is
the
ultimate
dimension
of
your
porch,
the
new
porch,
and
what
are
the
materials
that
we're
talking
about
and
is
it
gonna
be
to
story,
or
is
it
gonna
be
one
story
or
way
that
the
current.
L
I
Q
We
go.
Thank
you
very
much.
So
essentially,
it's
a
14
by
23
structure,
we're
taking
a
consideration
an
existing
tree,
that's
on
the
property
line,
and
we've
already
got
documentation
from
the
city
that
we
could
test
diggings
that
we're
not
disturbing
any
routes
and
we've
got
enough
got
enough.
Go
ahead
on
that.
Q
We
believe
it's
a
you
know,
aesthetically
meeting,
you
know
the
needs
of
the
of
the
of
the
existing
home.
The
height
is
driven
between
the,
as
you
can
see
the
window
and
the
in
the
doorway.
We
we've
designed
it
to
meet
the
pitch
on
on
the
you
know,
the
existing
elements
there
and
it's
a
it's
pretty
straightforward,
there's
really
I
feel
you
know:
we've
taken
extra
consideration
to
make
sure
we're
not
disturbing
any
of
those
roots,
and
you
know
I
think
we
leave
work
with
the
city
very
well
on.
Are
you
screaming
then?
No!
I
B
E
D
A
B
G
O
B
Okay,
so
then
would
that
answer?
Thank
you.
We
could
achieve
the
same
intent
of
outdoor
covered
space
that
you
can
get
to
and
and
all
that,
with
a
conforming
detached
structure
without
any
variants,
and
essentially
the
brick
paver
patio.
That's
out.
There
now
already
has
a
little
five-foot
attached
breezeway,
as
we
saw
on
the
site
plan
and
of
course
they
could
make
the
covered
area
much
larger
than
the
patio
they
have
there
up
to
750
square
feet.
B
B
A
So
well
let
me
let
me
ask
question
by
a
potential
breezeway,
the
back
patio
doors,
it's
a
double
door.
You
know
how
wide
the
double
door
is.
Six
four,
but
approximately
I
would
imagine
a
so.
It
might
be
reasonable
that
the
city
would
allow
a
breezeway
to
cover
the
width
of
the
doors,
so
maybe
for
the
board.
It
might
be
practical
to
think
about
it.
That
way,
maybe
not,
but
I,
think
they
probably
would
allow
something
like
that.
I
would
hope,
seems
reasonable,
but
there
is
a
tree
yeah.
E
L
A
L
A
L
So
I
think
I'm
one
of
my
kin
as
I
believe
it's
a
live
oak.
He
did
say
we're
a
commission
above
a
thief
to
trim
some
of
the
dead
wood
off,
so
I
think
that'll
help
I
guess.
One
of
our
concerns
is
about
the
depth
and
kind
of
putting
it
back
to
the
seven
feet.
Was
you
know,
I
I
appreciate
you
know
being
able
to
look
for
alternative
ways,
but
just
making
sure
that
kind
of
the
depth
in
the
backyard
not
wanting
to
intrude
too
much
on
that
that
tree.
I
E
B
E
I
L
I
You
I
heard
earlier
some
mention
about
children.
You
you
don't
want
to
been
playing
in
the
front
yard,
you
don't
have
much
front
yard
yeah,
but
does
a
driveway
so
they're
playing
in
the
backyard
correct.
So
if
you
slide
this
back
further
you're
gonna
take
up
any
yard
that
you
have
that
they're
assumedly
playing
yeah.
L
I
I
L
I
didn't
notice.
I
specifically
talked
to
the
for
joining
so
to
read.
Who's
in
the
vacant
house,
which
you
had
mentioned
might
be
in
the
next
variant
evening.
The
neighbors
overlooking
our
house,
the
left.
They
were
supportive
as
well
as
kitty-corner
I
spoke
at
both
of
those
the
house
behind
already
actually
has
a
covered
patio
as
we're
proposing
as
well.
First
thing:
there's
renters
there
I
guess
the
owner
is
a
little
hard
to
get
in
touch
with
him.
Assuming
the
letter
had
found
their
way
to
him.
L
Q
F
C
Ahead,
mrs.
or
we,
we
are
always
looking
for
ways
to
help
applicants
with
the
the
leased
path
of
least
resistance,
but
you're
here
on
your
variance
request,
and
if
you
don't
want
to
change
it.
That's
up
to
you.
However,
me
personally
I
want
to
hear
more
hardship.
If
you
want
to
keep
it
the
way
you
want
and
I
understand
that
you
want
to
have
family
outings,
you
want
to
have
a
nice
covered
place,
but
just
give
me
just
a
little
bit
more
variance
on
this.
Give
me
a
little
bit
more
hardship
on
this
variance.
L
Yeah
so
I
again,
you
know
I
appreciate
you
know
the
recommendation
and
you
know
certainly
we're
looking
to
make
that
kind
of
backyard
come
alive.
You
know
and
again
the
hardship
as
this
we
were
looking
to
kind
of
maximize
what
we
thought
was
within
reason,
obviously
coming
here
today
with
the
variance
but
kind
of
maximize
the
ability
to
kind
of
use
as
much
of
our
backyard
as
we
can
again,
you
know
respecting
other
thoughts,
but
to
have
something
that
we
could
all
congregate.
L
You
know,
underneath
we
we
kind
of
mapped
out
the
size
we
stepped
it
out.
We
kind
of
visualize
everything
that
we
could
could
get
to
kind
of.
Do
that
with
what
we're
looking
for
is
something
that
led
us
to
this
proposal
right
here.
You
know
again,
I
appreciate
other
options
and
certainly
we're
looking
to
have
something
in
our
backyard.
So
we
would
be.
You
know
grateful
to
have
that,
but
I
think
this
was
would
satisfy
maximizing
the
space
we
have
in
our
backyard
understanding.
C
L
For
a
little
more
detail,
we
are
gonna,
look
for
some
mosquito
repellant
options
on
the
outside,
or
they
have
too
little
tiki
torches
girl.
So
gonna
have
two
fans.
I
know
some
family
members
that
are
very
sensitive
to
that
coming
down
here,
so
we're
gonna
do
everything
we
can
outside
of
screening
it
in,
but
I
think
I
understand
anything
it'll
bad
at
some
time.
Mr.
A
A
Q
Well,
I'd,
like
to
you
know,
ask
for
your
consideration
on
this
project.
It's
I
think
it's
a
it's
a
it's
a
feasible
project,
yeah,
there's
many
solutions
to
a
to
solve
things,
but
I
think
this
really
is
sensitive
to
the
adjacent.
Neighbors
is
sensitive
to
the
the
natural
resources
of
the
tree.
It
allows
allows
them
to
enjoy
their
property
justly
and
I.
Don't
think
it
does
anything,
it
provides
no
harm
or
a
little
will
to
to
any
anyone
on
the
adjacent
spaces.
So
I'd
ask
you
to
to
consider
that
upon
voting.
Thank
you
very
much.
Q
I
I
This
always
comes.
This
always
comes
back
to
me,
okay,
because
for
some
reason
this
board
and
I
hope
to
be
leaving
y'all
soon.
This
board
has
inside
joke
yeah
this
board,
as
always,
has
been
leaning
and
shifting
toward
a
much
harder
and
stricter
approach
toward
toward
this
and
saying
arch,
hardship,
hardship
and
yes,
there
should
be.
You
know
there
there.
You
know,
hopefully
is
hardships
and
that
kind
of
thing
and
because
that's
what
mizmor
is
gonna
guide
us
to,
but
I
just
read
your
language
that
says
practical
difficulties
or
unnecessary,
urges
I.
B
I
The
I
think
the
practical
difficulties
have
been
spoken
to
I
think
the
fact
that
they
want
to
build.
They
want
to
build
up
a
small
court
to
reasonably
sized
porch
in
their
backyard
and
it's
reasonable
to
attach
it
to
get
out
of
the
rain
they
wanted.
After
discussion
about
the
children
and
that
sort
of
thing
they
want
to
stay
away
from
the
tree
and
leave
a
little
bit
of
space
in
the
back.
I
They
have
a
small
backyard,
because
once
these
big
houses
are
built
on
there,
there's
not
a
whole
lot
of
backyard
left
and
to
me
it's
it
seems
reasonable
and
based
upon
those
issues.
Those
are
practical
difficulties.
You
know
in
regard
to
building
and
anywhere
else,
can't
build
it
in
the
front
yard.
They
can't
build
on
the
side,
yard
I.
Think
it's
reasonable
in
Florida
that
people
want
to
have
a
little
covered
porch
to
have
a
picnic
that
actually.
A
A
So,
yes,
it
does
come
down
to
our
personal
opinion
of
what
reasonable
is.
There's
really
no
hardship
about
the
lot.
It's
a
standard
size
rs.50
lie
the
person
who
built
the
house
at
every
right
to
maximize
the
depth
to
the
20-foot
rear
yard.
There
are
21
plus,
and
so
again
is
the
issue
that
maybe
we
say
this
isn't
the
size
of
this
isn't
reasonable.
A
Otherwise
you
know
otherwise.
Every
50
foot
by
20
foot,
rear
yard
in
the
city
would
come
into
play
with
extending
the
primary
structure
for
the
use
of
of
a
covered
area,
and
that's
not
what
the
code
wants.
So
you
know
that's
something
that
gets
back
to
the
interpretation
of
the
lifestyle.
The
use
I,
don't
know
how
cost
comes
in
when
the
when
council
or
zoning
staffers
trying
to
write
the
rules.
But
there
is
a
solution
with
an
attached
breezeway.
The
5-foot
separation
is
there
for
fire
and
egress.
It
also
does
afford
natural
light.
A
A
We
didn't
hear
any
testimony
about
the
10-foot
oak
on
the
10
inch
oak
on
the
on
the
left
side
of
the
home
or
the
Magnolia
on
the
right
side
of
the
home
that
might
prevent
some
stretching
from
side
to
side,
but
I'm
I'm
of
the
opinion
that
that
the
code
does
allow
them
to
do
something
like
the
brick
paver
shape
it
could
be
bigger
and
still
meet
all
of
the
parameters.
So
I
would
be
inclined
not
to
approve,
as
as
presented.
F
Yeah
they
coming
so
I
was
actually
leaning
towards
what
you're
saying
about
having
challenges
with
the
hardship.
Until
mr.
pastor
made
the
comment
that
he
made
and
suggested
they
can
do
exactly
what
they
want
to
do.
They
just
have
to
go
closer
to
the
setbacks.
They
just
have
to
go.
They
just
have
to
go
closer
to
the
tree.
F
I
F
Are
we
accomplishing
just
just
as
we
as
we
had
a
similar
discussion
earlier?
Why
would
we
force
someone
to
do
something
that
has
almost
no
beneficial
impact
upon
the
neighbors?
Just
so
we
we
force
compliance
and
say
well,
you
can
do
that
so
I
was
I,
was
leaning
towards
saying
I,
don't
see
any
hardship
here,
and
then
you
made
your
comment
and
you
convinced
me
that
we
should
allow
it
exactly
this.
I
N
A
A
They
wanted
that
accessory
structure
to
be
a
standalone
thing,
even
though
you
could
push
it
three
feet
from
to
the
rear
and
and
and
three
feet
to
the
sides
they
weren't
worried
about
that
they
they
set
the
max
square
footage
the
square
footage
of
this
as
well,
within
the
accessory
structure
guidelines
if
it
weren't
for
the
tree
I,
don't
even
think
they'd
be
here
tonight.
So
I've
always
asked
a
question:
when
does
the
tree
become
a
hardship?
A
And
nobody
can
give
me
a
legal
definition
of
that,
so
I'm
not
proposing
the
trees
get
cut
down
for
the
sake
of
of
the
built
environment,
but
in
this
case,
even
though
it's
a
small
lot,
there's
a
lot
of
room
in
that
backyard,
to
build
something
very
substantial
for
the
use
that
the
applicant
said
they
were
going
to
use
it,
for
it
doesn't
have
to
be
322
square
feet
for
the
use.
It
just
said
they
would
like
to
have
it
bigger
I
get
that
everybody
would
like
to
have
it
bigger.
A
K
Just
want
us
to
just
because
we
seem
to
be
and
all
over
the
place
I
tend
to
be
in
favor
of
approving
this.
Also
from
the
standpoint
of
obvious
the
oak
tree,
it's
a
shared
oak
tree,
so
we
can't
reasonably
expect
them
to
do
anything
with
it.
They
are
well
within
the
square
footage
and
it
seems
to
be
placed
in
an
area
that's
in
the
best
interest
of
everybody
versus
pushing
it
off
towards
the
property.
So
I
just
want
to
like
just
kind
of
my
stance.
C
F
Don't
if
we
deny
it
no
okay,
let's
say:
hypothetically:
they
don't
have
the
votes.
The
all
they
need
to
do
is
do
exactly
what
mr.
past
or
mr.
Brown
suggested
and
that's
put
a
breezeway
in
and
go
bigger
and
go
closer
and
do
whatever
they
want
to
do
as
long
as
they
put
a
5-foot
separation.
So
why
would
we
go
to
a
continuance
for
me?
They
don't
want
to
do
that.
B
Out
there
I
would
like
to
clarify
my
intent
that
Bret's
trying
to
decipher
I
don't
want
them
to
do
that.
What
I
was
saying
is
I,
don't
want
to
encroach
thirteen
feet
further
towards
this
tree.
We
always
hear
the
tree
is
a
reason
to
move
away
from
the
tree
and
push
a
property
in
a
certain
direction
and
say
the
reason
we
need
to
reduce
the
front
yard
is
we're
moving
away
from
the
tree
in
the
back.
What
I'm
hearing
tonight
is
well,
let's
get
on
close
to
that
tree,
but
not
too
close.
B
So
what
I'm
saying
my
position
is:
I,
don't
want
to
approve
13-foot
encroachment
into
the
rear
yard
at
all,
but
I
offered
them
an
option
that
is
available
to
them.
I,
don't
prefer
that
option
either,
but
I
still
have
no
intention
of
approving
an
average
50
by
100
lot.
That's
going
70
feet
from
the
back
and
real
close
to
the
front
of
you.
Look
at
the
driveway
to
build
7.3
feet
or
less
from
this
tree.
B
That
we're
saying
is
okay
because
they
could
get
closer
I'm,
giving
them
that
you
can
get
closer
because
they
have
that
right.
But
I
still
have
no
intention
proving
that
I
say
yeah.
You
can
get
seven
feet
from
this
tree
that
we're
allegedly
trying
to
protect
by
doing
this
I,
don't
think.
That's
right.
The
setbacks,
20
feet
for
a
reason
and
accessory
structures
are
different
because
they're
smaller
and
maybe
they
have
less
burden
or
maybe
have
less
structure
the
fire
separation,
all
those
things.
So
that's
the
code
and
they
have
that
right.
A
I
would've,
just
cautioned
the
board
I
mean
the
tree.
Setbacks
and
building
setbacks
have
never
really
been
in
sync
in
the
same
part
of
Harry.
They
were
written
at
different
times
for
different
reasons
and
unfortunately
they
do
come
in
into
conflict.
A
lot
in
this
particular
case,
they're,
reacting
to
what
someone
and
Natural
Resources
advised
them
that
they
could
do
so.
Of
course,
that's
what
they're
gonna
propose
I
get
it
I
may
not
agree
or
disagree.
I'm,
not
gonna,
say,
but
you
know
the
point
is
they're.
A
Following
with
someone
in
natural
resources
said
they
could
do,
and
so
my
assumption
as
a
board
member
voting
would
be
well.
If
it
were
a
five
foot.
Separated
breezeway
accessory
building
natural
resource
is
still
going
to
weigh
in
and
say,
don't
get
closer
than
that
seven
feet,
so
they
would
push
it
back
to
that.
Probably,
and
maybe
they
would
stretch
it
I
don't
know,
but
that
option
does
legally
exist.
They
wouldn't
even
be
here
tonight.
A
I
Okay,
I'll
move
that
the
variance
request
for
case
BRB,
19
46,
located
at
2903,
was
saying.
Carlos
Street
is
depicted
on
the
site
language.
Then
the
public
hearing
for
of
variants
to
reduce
the
rear
and
setback
from
20
feet
to
7.3
feet
pursuant
to
section
27
and
156
purpose,
to
construct
a
covered
patio.
I
I
Oh,
it
doesn't
matter
to
me
in
regard
to
this
motion
that
said,
variance
has
conditioned
be
granted
based
upon
the
applicant
presenting
competence,
substantial
evidence
in
the
record,
at
the
public
hearing
of
an
unnecessary
hardship
or
or
practical
difficulty,
when
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
and
section
27
80
of
the
city
code
and
specifically
I'm
not
going
to
regurgitate
everything.
That's
been
said
tonight,
I'll,
just
based
upon
the
record
that
has
been
made.
A
G
G
E
A
L
A
A
To
light
all
other
setbacks,
ie
side
yard,
rear
yard
for
accessory,
not
a
primary
side,
yard,
rear
yard
and
then,
whatever
natural
resources
once
on
the
tree,
they
might
say
you
can
build
even
closer
to
the
tree.
If
you
you're
the
contractor
architect
or
arktech,
okay,
parent
little,
you
know
you
may
have
to
do
a
raised
edge,
so
the
root
systems
can
grow.
Underneath
the
slab
I
mean
natural
resources
may
have
a
solution
that
they're
willing
to
allow
you
to
get
even
closer.
Okay,
okay,
we
don't
know
that's
not
up
to
us.