►
From YouTube: Variance Review Board 02122019 part 2
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
Anthony
land
development,
application
number
vrv,
1926,
the
property
addresses
177
Cypress
Avenue
first
section
27
90.5.
The
applicant
is
seeking
to
reduce
the
rear
yard
setback
from
5
feet
to
1
foot
to
allow
for
a
full
screen
enclosure.
The
property
is
owned,
are
75
and
was
purchased
in
2017.
The
single
family
residents
include,
an
existing
pool
was
built
in
2018.
C
C
So
the
original
application
is
you'll,
see
here:
general
setback,
variance
of
1
foot,
8
inches
on
eastern
perimeter,
rear
property
line
facing
Blanca
Avenue,
plus
the
1
foot,
setback,
variance
on
the
northern
perimeter,
and
so
we're
actually
not
asking
to
go
from
5
foot.
One
foot
5
feet:
1
foot!
Actually
you
see
here
here's
the
pool,
water's
edge
right
here,
which
is
5
feet
from
the
property
line.
Then
here's
the
deck,
which
is
about
foot
and
a
half
two
feet.
It
varies
based
on
the
the
property
line
back
here,
because
it's
not
a
straight
line.
C
So
here
we
actually
want
to
go
from
5
feet.
The
4
feet
here
from
5
feet
to
three
feet:
4
inches,
so
it's
it's
less
than
the
5
to
1
and
I
want
to
I
would
like
to
show
a
picture
that
I
do
not
believe
is
in
the
record
that
justice
isn't
giving
an
idea
of
where
this
is
going
to
go
and
I
have
an
extra
copy.
C
Okay,
so
the
proposed
screen
enclosure
is
actually
going
to
be
right
here
on
the
edge
of
the
deck
right
here.
This
is
where
the
variance
is
requested
and
will
actually
come
all
the
way
along
here
and
then
come
out
this
way
the
home
was
originally
purchased,
as
you
can
see,
there's
obviously
no
pool
screen
on
there
now.
C
The
pool
was
playing
Saturday
and
the
pool
filter
Sunday
morning
looks
like
this,
and
these
are
the
leaves
from
mainly
to
trees
on
the
rear,
neighbor's
property.
One
is
an
oak:
one
is
a
magnolia
tree
and
there's
there's
nothing
else
that
can
be
done
with
those
trees
spoken
of
mr.
Knox.
They
can't
be
cut
down,
obviously
they're,
not
on
my
clients,
property
that
can't
really
be
trimmed
anymore.
C
C
C
And
you
can
see,
you
can
barely
see
the
pool
it's
right
here
and
all
of
these
trees
right
here
on
the
neighbor's
property.
The
neighbor's
house
is
right
here.
Then
there
is
one
tree
that's
over
here
that
is
actually
jointly
owned
by
the
two
neighbors
my
clients
I,
think
75%
of
it
they
own
twenty-five,
and
that's
why
the
fence
comes
around
it.
That
way.
That
trees
also
been
somewhat
of
an
issue
that
cannot
be
cut
out
either
talk
to
mr.
Knox
about
that.
C
So
they're
left
with
this
is
kind
of
their
last
resort,
and
it's
it
really
is
affecting
the
useful
enjoyment
of
the
pool
they
didn't
intend
to
have
a
pool
cage
like
I,
said
the
house
right
next
to
them
very
similar
home,
very
similar
pool.
They
don't
have
a
pool
cage,
but
they
don't
have
neighbors
trees
with
debris
and
leaves
falling
into
the
pool.
So
we
would
respectfully
request
that
the
board
grant
this
variance,
which
again,
like
I
said,
is
less
than
the
five
to
one.
C
D
E
D
D
D
F
Mr.
Ryan
and
then
was
kind
of
shocked
a
little
bit
by
the
original
house
and,
as
you
can
see,
the
windows
at
the
top
look
right
down
into
their
backyard
that
that
very
tight
shot.
You
saw
some
counsel
of
their
pool
and
the
and
the
and
the
side
of
the
pool,
and
then
you
saw
the
palm
trees.
Those
are
the
same
palm
trees.
Okay.
So
this
pool
is
right
up
to
the
this
palm
tree.
F
This
is
self-created
and
when
we
went
through
the
five
criteria
that
y'all
consider,
we
went
the
first
one.
Alleged,
hardships
or
practical
difficulties
are
unique
and
singular
with
respect
to
this
property.
This
property
is
typical.
This
it's
not
different
and
it's
the
coder
a
lot
and
it's
not
unique
and
the
five
foot
is,
is
not
required
for
this
number,
two,
the
hardship
does
not
result
from
actions
of
the
applicant.
This
was
a
self-created
hardship.
F
F
Number
three.
The
variance
of
granite
will
not
substantially
interfere
or
injure
health
safety,
welfare
or
others
whose
property
could
be
affected
by
the
allowance.
The
rot,
the
riders
are
immediately
behind
it
and
they
get
the
full
impact
of
the
home
and
now
they're
going
to
get
it
of
this
screen,
and
we
still
don't
know
how
tall
the
screen.
The
screening
is.
If
it's
over
15
feet
for
every
foot
taller
than
15
feet,
they
have
to
be
back
another
foot,
that's
the
way,
I
read
it
anyway!
It's
that
correct!
F
Okay,
so
we
haven't
heard
how
how
tall
it's
going
to
be
and
the
variance
is
in
harmony
and
surge.
The
general
purpose,
no,
it's
not
in
harmony,
because
it's
it's
a
self-created
once
again
and
will
negatively
impact
the
bag
of
their
property
and
allowing
the
variance
result
and
substantial
justice
being
done
know.
The
public
benefit
is
maintaining
the
five-foot
setback,
so
you
can
significantly
outweighs
the
absence
of
any
hardship
to
the
applicant,
so
you've
got
about
20
seconds
right.
Well,
I
will
yield
my
time
to
our
third
speaker.
B
Hello,
my
name
is
Deborah
King
I
reside
at
40507,
Bayshore,
Boulevard,
Tampa,
Florida,
336,
1-1
and
I
have
been
sworn
in.
This
is
a
single-family
one-story
home
the
lovely
backyard.
It's
hard
to
tell
in
this
picture,
because
there's
no
foliage,
but
it's
got
a
paved
patio
with
a
three-tiered
fountain,
a
wrought
iron
gate
with
a
lovely
rose
garden.
So
it's
a
beautiful
setting.
B
B
G
G
C
G
C
G
C
G
H
C
A
C
A
C
C
A
C
F
A
A
C
D
G
In
I'm
gonna
ask
mr.
king,
please
I
have
a
question
for
you
and
that
will
give
you
an
opportunity.
Okay,
you
heard
the
applicant
talk
about
the
change
from
1
foot
2
to
3
feet,
4
inches
of
the
closest
point
4
feet
further
and
that
there
are
no
hebes
and
gutters
so
they're,
not
going
any
closer
than
that.
You
heard
that,
and
you
also
heard
some
information
about
the
proposed
height
and
saw
a
general
drawing
of
that.
I
just
want
to
know
if
that
impacts
in
any
way.
F
F
Clarification
before
I
talk
to
Joe,
okay,
and
when
you,
when
you
have
have
him,
draw
up
the
Council,
draw
the
line
or
like:
where
do
you
think
it's
gonna
be
and
I'll
tell
you
think
those
palms
are
gonna,
be
I
mean
that's
my
hobby
I
know
those
palms.
That's
it
that's
about
it.
They're
gonna
get
a
little
bit
higher
and
that's
another
thing.
They
start
falling
over.
Okay,
the
the
line
here
I
mean
is
we're.
Gonna.
F
Have
this
huge
thing
in
his
backyard
and
he
says
it's
going
to
be
15
feet
with
the
gables
as
I'mma
challenged
with
the
gables?
Yes,
so
that
would
be
the
maximum
height
okay
can
can
we
come
up
here
with
it
to
scale
line
or
where
that's
gonna
be
and
I?
Think
if
you
see
that
you're
gonna
go
like
gosh
said,
that
is
really
impacted.
Those
five
things
because
of
those
five
aspects,
those
five
criteria
they
didn't,
they
didn't
reach
any
of
them.
I
mean
what
a
life
there
was
like
two
or
three
years.
F
A
A
The
testimony
is
the
edge
of
the
deck.
The
existing
deck
is
three
point
four
feet
away
from
the
property
line.
That's
the
testimony.
Okay,
he's
saying
he
doesn't
need
to
go
one
foot
away.
That
would
put
the
palms
on
the
inside
of
the
screen
Roger
if
he
didn't
remove.
So
what
he's
said
is
that
he's
gonna
go
on
the
other
side
of
the
palms?
The
palms
would
I,
don't
know
if
they'll
stay
or
not,
but
they
could
stay.
Okay,
so
we're
trying
to
understand
you
know
the
physical
aspects.
Have
everybody
agree
that
yeah
okay?
A
G
C
C
C
Be
just
a
minute:
yes,
it
is
getting
late.
I
want
to
address
a
couple
things
that
all
three
who
spoke
in
opposition
spoke
about.
One
is
the
value
of
the
property
being
affected
by
putting
this
pool
screen
and
there's
no
evidence
that
the
value
of
the
property
is
gonna,
be
adversely
effective.
In
fact,
it's
the
opposite:
I've
got
the
property
tax
records.
Since
this
house
was
built,
the
value
of
their
properties,
increased
I,
went
on
Zillow,
which
I
know
is
property
records.
C
But
from
the
time
the
house
was
completed
to
today,
the
house
is
increased
in
value
over
$100,000,
so
I
don't
think.
There's
gonna
be
a
negative
impact
of
putting
a
screen
to
further
increase
the
value
of
the
homeowners
house.
The
applicants
house
and
it's
something
I
think
that's
important-
is
the
the
hardship
was
not
created
by
the
homeowner.
By
putting
the
pool
in
the
hardship
was
created
by
these
trees,
there
was
never
an
intent
to
put
a
screen
on
that.
Wasn't
it
I
mean
you
can
see.
C
C
There
was
some
issues
that
the
pool
has
already
had
five
feet:
that's
the
requirement!
That's
where
it's
supposed
to
be
yeah!
That's
the
setback!
It's
at
five
feet
the
front
property
line
of
the
house.
It's
25
feet
from
the
sidewalk,
so
this
really
isn't
a
matter
of
necessarily
constructing
things
differently
or
being
in
the
homeowner
being
the
creator
of
this
issue.
It
truly
was
supposed
to
be
an
open-air
pool
and
the
trees
just
caused
the
issue
which
corner
mr.
Knox.
The
trees
can't
come
out.
Anyways,
there's
a
lot
to
Oaks
and
one
Magnolia
Beulah.
C
A
H
Think
it's
pretty
clear.
This
is
a
self-created
hardship,
since
the
house
is
less
than
a
year
old
and
the
people
that
built
the
house
or
the
people
requesting
the
variance
I
do
wish.
The
city
could
reconcile
the
code
between
the
pools
and
screen
enclosures
because
we
do
get
one
or
two
of
these
months
and
we
just
didn't
allow
pools
to
go
so
far.
We
wouldn't
have
this
issue
I
think
my
dad
has
long
been
that
wins.
H
The
variance
is
a
request
on
the
rear
yard
that
the
most
important
person
in
that
case
is
the
rear
neighbor,
whereas
front
yards
are
for
the
neighborhood
and
side
yards
or
have
multiple
parties
involved.
Sometimes
the
rear
yard
is
really
between
the
rear
neighbor.
In
this
case,
we
have
opposition,
it
is
self-created.
A
G
G
H
Believe
there
are
other
mechanisms
they
could.
They
could
help
the
pool
the
leave
issue.
They
have
automated
screens
that
pull
right
over
the
water
top
that
you
can
retract
and
you
want
to
use
it
that
doesn't
affect
the
neighbor
I
understand
the
hardship
of
the
trees
and
in
that
they
didn't
intend
to
leave.
It
thought
the
same
thing,
but
that
doesn't
change
the
hardship
on
the
rear
neighbor
who
had
no
involvement
in
any
of
this
issue.
The
trees
were
already
there.
G
A
The
only
I'm
going
to
say
lightly
different
is
we
didn't
really
hear
any
testimony
on
why
the
pool
was
built
where
it
was.
We
heard
testimony
that
they
didn't
didn't
want
a
screen.
Closure
we've
had
a
lot
of
cases
in
the
past.
Where
that's
been
the
hardship,
we
changed
our
mind.
Welcome
to
Florida.
We
usually
hear
the
argument
about
mosquitos
didn't
hear
that
one
tonight,
but
I
agree
with
mr.
pastor
that
I'm
a
little
bit
surprised
that
our
code
doesn't
address
enclosures
somewhat
differently.
A
A
You
know
as
the
as
as
the
rear
I
don't
think
in
this
particular
case
that,
because
they
are
now
reducing
it
to
three
point
four
feet
and
four
feet:
we're
talking
a
foot
to
18
inches,
it's
not
from
the
perception
of
what
the
rear
yard
neighbor
will
see
in
from
his
back
or
their
back
yard.
I.
Don't
think
you
could
tell
if
somebody
went
out
there
moved
the
enclosure
that
twelve
or
so
inches,
you
know
and
did
it
at
night,
and
you
came
out
the
next
morning.
A
I,
don't
think
you
tell,
especially
if
there
was
vegetation
that
maintained
itself
or
was
allowed
to
be
maintained.
Separating
you
know
the
screen
enclosure
from
the
fence.
This
is
what
I
fence,
which
already
is
you
know
a
decent
amount
of
the
structure.
You
know
we
did
here
the
rear
yard,
neighbor
objecting
to
the
large
house
being
built
behind
them.
Well,
the
property
owner
has
a
right
to
build
that
house
and
unfortunately,
and
neighborhoods
like
Davis
Island,
where
there
are
floodplains
and
FEMA
rules.
A
So
the
people
living
in
one-story
houses
are
gonna
continue
to
feel
like
they're
being
like
their
life,
is
being
changed
without
their
their
ability
to
control
it
and
that's
correct
if
you're
not
willing
to
buy
the
property
and
xu2
control
it
and
I'm
not
suggesting
that
people
have
to
do
that.
But
the
applicant
had
the
right
to
build
what
they
built
and
I
I.
Think
I
would
have
I.
G
Brown
me
one
of
the
two
points
that
I
was
gonna,
make
him
in
response,
which
is
they
can
buy
right,
build
a
this
exactly
the
same
pool
enclosure
at
the
five
foot
line
and
there's
nobody
that
can
say
I'm
worried
about
it,
correct
and
and
the
height
of
the
house,
and
all
these
other
things
there's
really
nothing
to
be
said
about
it.
It's
just
it
is
what
it
is.
G
We
want
to
always
be
sensitive
to
these
things
and
we
want
to
always
look
to
minimal
impact
and
how
we
can
how
we
can
address
those
impacts
and
that's
why,
as
mr.
brown
pointed
out
and
as
I
agree,
the
one
foot
to
me
probably
would
have
been
unacceptable.
The
three-four
is
is
a
lot
more
in
line
and
the
four
feet
at
the
other
end
we're
talking
about
one
foot
and
they
couldn't.
They
couldn't
make
hay
about
anything
if
it
was
at
five
feet.
G
H
It's
self-created
I
disagree
that
one
foot
doesn't
make
a
difference
because
yeah
difference
between
five
feet
and
four
feet
is
one
thing,
but
what
we're
talking
about?
It's
the
difference
between
a
wide-open
space
that
these
palm
trees
can
hang
into
and
a
vertical
next
to
a
six-foot
fence
that
are
four
feet
apart,
that
nobody
can
maintain
those
trees,
so
those
trees
are
providing
the
privacy
right
now.
Do
we
reasonably
think
that
in
a
four-foot
get
a
three-foot
four
gap
between
a
screen
and
a
fence
that
that
trees
can
be
maintained?
H
No,
they
can,
at
the
very
least,
the
whole
canopy
on
that
side
is
going
to
be
pressed
up
against
the
screen.
They're
gonna
either
die
or
they
have
to
be
removed
or
they're
going
to
become
unwieldy.
So
it's
not
just
the
lateral
distance
on
the
ground.
It's
the
vertical
implications
of
that
distance,
and
is
it
functional
and
I
say
no.
It's
not.
A
H
D
I
D
You
know
one
foot
to
four
foot:
I
was
more
inclined
to
support
it,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
I'm
still
having
a
hard
time.
Understanding
the
hardship
beyond
just
leaves
that
when
we
built
the
house
when
we
built
the
pool
the
trees
existed
and
I'm
presuming
we're
probably
overhanging
the
property
even
further
when
when
it
was
constructed.
D
A
A
H
A
The
correct
and
it
got
built
the
way
it
got
built.
Somebody
if
somebody
had
said
are
you
gonna
screen
this?
Yes,
we're
definitely
gonna
screen
it.
Oh
the
code
is
5
feet.
We
need
to
plan
accordingly.
Do
we
have
room
to
do
that
when
we
build
the
house?
We
don't
know
the
answer
to
that,
because
that
wasn't
testified
yeah
and.
D
I
think
I've
stated
previously,
but
since
I've
been
on
this
board
that
you
seemed
to
come
up
a
lot
where
the
pools
are
built
first
and
then
they
come
back
later
and
ask
for
a
screen
and
I
know
that
yeah
and
I
know
they
say
that
that
wasn't
the
intent
in
this
case.
But
it
seems
to
be
pretty
confident.
H
A
H
H
Our
practical
difficulty,
when
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria,
the
set
forth
and
section
27a
t
of
the
city
code,
specifically
that
this
hardship
was
self
created
by
the
construction
of
a
pool
with
the
existing
trees
that
we
have
opposition
from
the
rear.
Neighbor,
who
this
affects
most
directly
in
that
construction
of
the
screen
at
the
location
proposed,
would
prevent
adequate
maintenance
of
the
landscaping
that
exists,
which
provides
screening
for
that
rear.
Neighbor.
A
A
C
B
Wanda
Anthony
land
development,
business
application,
number
vrb,
1927,
the
property
address
is
32
15
west
barcelona
street
for
section
27
156.
The
applicant
is
seeking
to
reduce
the
side
yard
setback
from
7
feet
to
3
feet
to
construct
a
bedroom
addition.
The
property
is
owned,
RS
50
and
was
purchased
in
2008
the
existing
single-family
residence
before
than
1939.
B
I
Keynesian
my
name
is
Alan
Dobbs,
with
Florida
science
studio.
Our
address
is
5502
North,
Cherokee
Avenue
in
Tampa,
three,
three
six,
oh
four,
my
client,
Daniel
or
dan
and
Leila.
As
was
mentioned,
you
know,
bought
the
house
in
2008.
They
have
since
had
two
children,
so
the
family
has
grown.
Their
house
is
a
relatively
small
house
compared
to
a
lot
of
the
surrounding
houses
and
also
I.
Don't
know
if
you
saw
in
the
zoning
map,
there's
quite
a
bit
of
RM
zoning
around
the
property
as
well.
I
The
existing
house
is
only
night
946
condition
square
feet
and
has
an
open
front
porch
and
an
unconditioned
and
closed
rear
porch.
So
the
gross
area
under
roof
is
1246
square
feet.
The
house
does
have
a
carport
in
the
back,
and
that
was
appears
to
be
original
to
the
property,
and
then
the
house
was
built
in
1939.
It's
kind
of
interesting.
I
It
looks
like
it
might
have
been
built
a
little
bit
sooner,
but
according
to
the
park,
appraisers
website
is
built
in
1939
I'm,
going
to
start
by
showing
the
sort
of
a
site
plan,
but
has
a
floor
plan
that
the
yellow
you
can
see
it's
kind
of
lightly
screened.
But
the
house
is
a
two-bedroom
house.
Currently
you
have
the
two
bedrooms
over
here,
a
bathroom.
I
It
does
have
pictures
in
it
just
didn't
draw,
because
we
aren't
going
work
in
that
area
and
then
there's
a
little
den
over
here,
dine-in
kitchen
and
you
can
see
the
kitchen
is-
is
fairly
modest.
The
utility
porch
is
unconditioned
space.
So
when
we
started
looking
at
you
know
because
they're
children
getting
older
their
daughter
is
eight
years
old.
Now,
so
you
know
they
want
to
have
an
extra
bedroom.
So
there
each
of
our
kids
have
their
own
room.
So
the
options
for
adding
on
to
bedroom
is
to
go
up.
I
Well,
that's
not
really
feasible
just
for
one
bedroom
because
they
got
to
build
a
stair
and
also
they
wanted
to
a
bathroom
at
second
bathroom
so
that
that
just
does
not
make
it
feasible.
Given
the
existing
conditions,
the
next
option
is
on
this
side
of
the
house:
there's
really
no
option
because
the
driveway
comes
down
here
and
goes
over
here
into
the
carport,
so
we
can't
add
to
the
side.
We
really
can't
add
back
in
this
area
because
it
would
impede
your
flow
into
the
carport.
I
I
You
know
my
clients,
you
know,
purchase
this
house.
They
basically
have
done
nothing
better
than
redo
the
kitchen
and
maintain
the
house,
so
the
most
sensible
place
for
the
addition
was
to
take
the
existing
dent
and
create
an
where
we
could
have
a
bathroom,
a
small
vestibule.
That
also
has
the
closet,
because
the
area
that
we
have
for
the
bedroom,
roughly
10
by
10,
it
does
meet
the
minimum
size
requirements
for
a
bedroom
and
it
has
egress,
but
also
it
has
a
closet.
I
I
The
first
one
is
that
the
ledge
hardship,
so
practical
difficulties
are
unique
and
sing
or
with
respect
to
the
property
and
structure.
Well,
it
is
unique
that
this
is
one
of
the
few
original
houses
in
this
neighborhood
and
they
wish
to
maintain
it.
It's
smaller
than
most
of
the
properties
in
the
area.
Most
of
the
people
buying
properties
is
area,
will
tear
the
house
down
and
rebuild
it.
I
The
second,
the
hardships
and
practical
difficulty
does
not
result
from
the
actions
of
the
applicant
that
self
created,
hardships
or
practical
difficulties
shall
not
justify
America
variance
kind
of
funny.
My
client
asked
me:
does
having
kids
create
a
self,
a
self-imposed
hardship
and
I
said
no,
it
does
stuff,
so
the
third
well
well
so
to
address
that
particular
one.
I
The
existing
house
was
built
in
1939
in
this
I
mentioned
before
the
current
owners
have
made
those
significant
alterations
to
the
property,
the
third
one
of
the
variance
if
agreement
will
not
substantially
interfere
or
injure
the
health,
safety
and
welfare
of
others
whose
property
would
be
affected
well
that
neighbor
directly
to
the
West.
Is
it's
not
opposing
this?
The
existing
dad
already
sort
of
approaches
on
that
setback
and
the
area
that
we're
doing
is
very
minimal,
and
we
so
we
feel
like
we're
not
imposing
on
them
the
fourth
one.
I
Is
it
some
harmony
with
and
sort
of
the
general
intent
and
purpose
of
this
chapter,
I'm,
just
gonna
read
what
I
have
the
requested
variance
is
consistent
with
the
general
intent
and
purpose
of
this
chapter
and
the
adopted
Tampa
comprehensive
plan,
the
fifth,
the
fifth
and
last
one
the
land
of
merits
will
result
in
substantial
justice
being
done,
considering
both
the
practical
republic
benefits
and
intended
to
be
secured
by
this
chapter,
an
individual
hardships
or
practical
difficulties
that
will
be
suffered
due
to
the
failure
of
the
board
transparency
up.
I'll
read
my
response.
I
The
variance
will
allow
the
addition
of
a
modest
sized
bedroom
and
bathroom
to
a
smaller
home
in
a
neighborhood
where
most
of
the
homes
are
larger.
And/Or
could
accommodate
this
type
of
addition,
without
a
variance,
the
variance
would
provide
relief,
substantial
justice
and
allow
for
the
hardships
and
practical
difficulties
to
be
addressed.
So
with
that
I
conclude
my
presentation.
I
A
I
E
E
If
you
have
any
questions
for
me,
I'm
glad
be
happy
to
answer
them.
Let.
A
G
Two
real
quick
questions,
I
think
I,
know
the
answer
to
this
question,
but
why
is
it
that
you
cannot
build
the
bedroom
in
the
location
that
you're
proposing
but
maintain
the
existing
line
of
where
you
encroach
already
so,
in
other
words,
you
don't
need
a.
Why
do
you
need
to
encroach
further?
Why
can't
you
just
build
further
to
the
north
and
make
it
on
elongated
route?
Well,.
I
Sure
bedrooms
have
certain
minimum
dimensions
and
right
now
we're
at
10
feet
and
if
we
moved
into
the
setback
line
would
be
less
than
8
feet,
and
that
is
not
that
doesn't
meet
code
and
also
really
anything
less
than
10
by
10
bedroom
is
really
not
marketable,
so
they
would
have
a
very
difficult
time,
I
believe
the
building
code
bedrooms
can
be
as
small
as
I
think
96
square
feet,
or
something
like
that.
So
that's
that's
why
we
owe
the
other
thing
to
that.
I
wanted
to
point
out
about
going
this
way
further.
G
I
I
Yes,
you
could
convert
a
condition
to
condition
space,
but
you
couldn't
convert
it
into
a
bedroom,
because
then
you
wouldn't
have
enough
room
for
the
utility
things
like
the
washer
and
dryer,
and
things
like
that,
and
also
that's
the
rear
entrance
to
the
house
as
well.
So
it
creates
a
very
awkward
condition.
You
know
when
you're
entering
next
a
bedroom
like
that,
usually
you
have
at
least
some
sort
of
transition
space
like
a
hallway
or
something
thank.
D
I
Don't
thing
I
would
just
say:
is
you
know
we?
This
was
a
struggle,
you
know
how
I
found
the
world
can
get
bedroom
in
there,
and
even
even
with
the
design
that
we
came
up
with,
we
had
to
be
a
little
creative
with
our
space
planning,
but
you
know
creating
a
3-2
bedroom
out
of
a
2-1
without
adding
a
whole
lot
of
square
footage
is
helping
this
family
meet
their
needs,
and
if
this
was
tonight
it
would,
it
would
deny
them
reasonable
use
of
their
property.
A
H
A
H
Move
the
variance
request
for
case
VRB
1927
for
the
property
located
at
32
15
west
barcelona
be
granted
as
depicted
on
the
site
plan,
presented
public
hearing
for
a
reduction
in
the
side
yard
from
seven
feet
to
three
feet
and
I
suppose
vesting
the
existing
structure,
with
an
encouragement
of
ease
and
gutters
based
upon
the
applicant
presenting
competent,
substantial
evidence.
The
record
knows
public
hearing
of
it
unnecessary
hardship
or
practical
difficulty
when
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
section
27a
T
of
the
city
code,
specifically
that
this
is
an
existing
1930s
home.
A
I
A
A
B
Towanda
Anthony
land
development,
application,
number
VRB,
1928
property
addresses
3605,
West,
Platte
Street
per
Section,
27,
156
and
27
to
90.
The
applicant
is
seeking
to
reduce
the
west
side
yard
from
7
feet
to
1
foot
and
the
west
side
yard
from
3
feet
to
one
foot
to
allow
an
existing,
detached
garage
and
awning
to
remain
the
property
is
zoned
rs.60
and
was
purchased
in
1993.
The
single-family
residence
was
built
in
1941.
B
J
J
J
J
J
These
hardships
would
be
that
if
I
ever
had
to
rebuild
the
garage,
the
required
setbacks
back
when
it
was
built.
The
setbacks
were
not
the
same
as
today.
If
I
ever
had
to
rebuild
the
garage,
I
would
be
required
to
move
it.
There
is
a
grand
oak
which
resources
did
come
by
and
take
pictures
of
that
is
directly
adjacent.
J
Right
here
is
an
oak
tree
and
it
would
have
to
be
cut
down,
so
if
I
ever
had
to
rebuild
it,
it
all
has
to
move
the
awning
again
being
installed
in
2001
was
installed
by
a
reputable
company,
creighton
brothers
awning,
who
I
understand
they
have
recently
retired
and
closed
their
business.
But
it
has
been
there
that
complete
time,
so
the
awning
also
adds
to
the
aesthetics
of
the
home.
J
J
K
I
have
devar
id9
live
at
3,
605,
West,
Platte,
609
and
I
have
been
sworn
the
the
other
issue
that
I
would
say
as
far
as
the
awning
is
that's
hardship,
wise
is
that
it
covers
the
part
of
the
driveway.
That's
right
next
to
the
house,
so
we
can't
it's
covering
the
driveway,
so
we
can't
move
it
like
somewhere
else
like
that,
other
lady
with
the
daycare,
you
know
it's
not
not
something
we
can
put
in
the
back
yard
because
it's
there
to
cover
the
driveway.
A
L
My
name
is
Elizabeth
Simon
I
live
at
3607,
West
PLAs,
Street
I'm,
the
adjacent
neighbor
that
is
very
highly
affected.
By
what's
going
on
with
his
property,
they've
stated
a
few
facts
that
have
left
out
others.
They
do
have
gutters
that
are
on
their
roof
to
stop
the
water
from
running
down
the
roof,
but
they
don't
have
anything
protecting
the
water
that
runs
down
the
awning,
which
has
caused
for
me
to
have
to
replace
my
sod
three
occasions
in
the
last
12
years.
L
I've
lived
there
because
the
massive
amount
of
water
that
falls
onto
my
property
has
killed
my
grass,
especially
because
they
have
allowed
overgrowth
of
their
trees,
that,
because
of
the
lack
of
space
between
their
awning
and
their
back,
shed,
causes
the
trees
to
go
out
over
onto
my
property.
They
don't
upkeep
it
because
they
don't
have
access
to
my
property,
and
those
trees
eventually
grow
to
the
point
where
they're
at
floor
level
and
I've
had
problems
with
them.
L
You
know,
problems
with
me,
reselling
my
property.
If
I
chose
to
and
between
the
shed
and
my
property
line,
we
have
transformers
back
there
and
we
have
the
electrical
cords
that
are
very
low
and
we
have
a
palm
tree
and
a
pine
tree
that
I
had
requested
to
get
removed,
but
it
was
denied
because
I
guess
they
were
protected
and
every
time
those
branches,
especially
from
that
palm
tree,
fall.
They
end
up
falling
on
her
roof
and
because
there
is
no
space
between
her
roof
of
her
back
shed
and
my
property
line.
L
And
as
far
as
the
gentleman's
comment
on
the
Ani,
if
you
go
past
the
front,
the
the
front
section
where
the
awning
is
and
move
the
awning
you
when
you
going
past
that
section
it
actually
goes
in
I.
Don't
know!
Maybe
another
15
feet
to
the
east,
where
they
could
put
that
awning
and
they
have
all
that
parking
pad
to
use
with
an
awning
so
that
honey
doesn't
necessarily
have
to
be
a
buddy
to
my
property
line,
and
that's
all
I
have
to
say
for
right.
L
L
D
A
J
I
would
like
to
clarify
a
little
bit
about
why
her
new
PV
sent
PVC
fence
was
moved
in
it's
because
she
has
a
chain-link
fence
that
she
did
not
remove.
So,
therefore,
the
white
PVC
PVC
fence
had
to
be
placed
on
the
opposite
side
of
the
chain-link
and
as
I
showed
in
the
pictures.
There
is
no
shrubbery
here
along
the
driveway
and
you
can
see
where
my
existing
fence
was
and
where
her
PVC
is
through
the
fence
there.
J
And
also
when
they
put
in
the
PVC
fence,
it's
hard
to
see
here,
but
when
they
dug
for
the
supports
the
dirt
is
all
lined
up
there.
So
they're,
really
the
water
cannot
go
there
and
I
must
also
say
as
far
as
her
grass
dying.
She
has
no
gutters
on
her
house.
So
therefore,
all
the
water
runs
directly
off
her
house
into
her
yard.
J
K
K
If
you
don't,
if
you
don't
do
anything,
I
would
also
submit
that
this
is
really
kind
of
a
retaliatory
thing,
because
about
six
seven
years
ago
we
brought
a
town,
my
stepdaughter
called
said:
she's
cutting
down
the
tree,
so
she
took
pictures
of
these
people.
It
Elizabeth
had
cut
down
the
tree
and
there
was
two
problems
with
that.
It
was
a
grand,
oh
that
she
did
not
have
a
permit
to
cut
down,
and
about
80
percent
of
the
tree
was
not
even
on
her
property.
It
was
on
the
other
neighbor's
property.
K
He
was
an
older
lady
that
had
to
go
to
Georgia,
so
her
daughter
could
take
care
of
her.
So
there
was
nobody
to
stop
her.
The
city
went
after
her
and
she
was
found
guilty
of
the
whatever
you
want
to
call
it,
and
she
was
fine,
several
thousand
dollars
so
since
that
time,
because
they
use
the
pictures
that
my
stepdaughter
to
she's
had
a
grudge
against
us
and
so
I
think
that
that
that
is
more.
What
this
is
apparently.
J
A
A
H
H
That
doesn't
mean
that
same
situation
isn't
happening
with
the
garage,
but
the
garage
was
there
when
the
property
was
built,
which
presumes
that
it
was
allowed
at
the
time
and
I,
don't
see
a
reason
why
we
would
change
that,
but
I
can't
see
a
reason
why
I
would
support
keeping
that
awning
structure.
It
wasn't
permitted
and
doesn't
meet
code
and
have
any
hardship
that
requires
it.
K
Well,
particularly
since
the
awning
was
installed
by
the
applicant,
unlike
the
garage,
but.
G
D
G
H
D
D
G
A
G
H
G
A
But
the
testimony
that
we
heard
weighing
both
sides
is
that
you
know
both
properties
have
their
own
water
to
deal
with
and
maybe
they're
not
neither
one
of
them
maybe
are
dealing
with
the
water
the
best
as
they
could
in
terms
of
helping
each
other,
which
really
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
variance
that's
just
being
neighborly.
You
know
doing
the
right
thing:
the
trimming
of
trees
etc.
That's
a
totally
different
issue,
and
that's
we're
not
here
to
hear
that
so,
but.
H
If
we
looked
at
this
at
new
yeah,
like
you
mentioned
earlier,
we
didn't
hear
a
hardship
of
why
this
needs
to
be
here.
What's
causing
this,
we
didn't
even
hear
practical
difficulty
regarding
it,
and
this
is
just
I'll
just
ask
myself,
would
I
ever
consider
in
this
exact
case,
approving
this
awning
to
go
in
this
location,
1
foot
from
the
property
line,
absolutely
not
yeah,
not
not
with
the
testimony
that
we've
heard
not
on
this
site.
With
this
case,
we're
not
does
so
18
years,
doesn't
matter
that.
G
H
There,
when
they
bought
it,
maybe
that
would
be
a
different
story.
We'd
have
to
hear
that
story,
but
in
this
case
that's
not
the
case,
because
if,
if
the
property
sold
tomorrow
and
the
new
neighbor
moves
in-
and
they
decide
they
don't
like
it,
they've
only
lived
with
it
for
a
week.
They
still
have
the
right
to
turn
that
into
code
enforcement,
but
but.
H
D
A
A
Again,
my
biggest
hang-up,
you
know
I
kind
of
agree
with
the
fact
that
it's
been
there
for
a
long
time,
and
maybe
it
only
recently
became
an
issue
for
some
other
reason.
Maybe
it
was
just
a
bunch
of
heavy
rain
that
we
had
had
in
a
while,
but
I'm
still
looking
at
the
site
plan,
and
we
didn't
hear
any
testimony
as
to
why
it
couldn't
be
out
front.
A
D
I
think
this
would
be
an
appropriate
case
for
for
bifurcation,
so
you
would
bifurcate
the
garage
as
depicted
on
the
site
plan
from
the
Ani
and
as
depicted
on
the
site
plan,
and
so.
A
A
A
H
I'd
like
to
make
a
motion
to
move
the
variance
request
for
case
BRB
1928,
the
property
located
at
30
605,
West,
Platte
Street
for
a
reduction
in
the
side
yard
setback
from
7
feet
to
1.1
feet
with
encroachment
of
eaves
and
gutters
for
the
best
thing
of
an
existing
awning,
be
denied
due
to
failure
the
petitioner
to
meet
his
burden
of
proof
to
provide
confidence.
Substantial
evidence
in
the
record
and
of
this
public
hearing
of
a
necessary
hardship
or
practical
difficulty.
A
A
A
Otherwise
you
have
to
substantially
change
your
your
petition
in
order
to
come
back
I
think
they
have
to
look
wait
a
year
Council
you
would
have
to
wait
a
year,
but
if
you're
in
a
code
violation
they're
gonna
have
to
deal
with
that
regardless.
So
that's
not
us.
That's
code,
like
that's
the
code
enforcement
people
may.
J
J
A
You'd
have
to
go
figure
that
out
okay
and
if,
if
you
wanted
to
come
back
with
that
request,
that's
a
totally
different
request
and
what
you
had
tonight,
so
you
could
come
back
sooner
than
later
was
a
different
site
plan
for
the
awning
okay.
So
you
have
that
right.
Okay
and
you
can
get
clarification
from.