►
From YouTube: Variance Review Board 07092019
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
A
Joel
Souza
from
zoning
is
here
and
Eileen
Rosario
Ducksworth
of
land
development
coordination
and
mr.
Knox
is
hiding
Brian
Knox
of
Natural
Resources,
no
one
from
transportation,
I
see
no
one
I'll
take
just
a
few
minutes
to
review
tonight's
procedures.
Cases
will
be
called
in
the
order
that
they
appear
on
the
agenda
when
your
case
number
and
the
applicants
name
are
called.
Please
stand
in
either
aisle
to
the
side
of
the
room.
To
acknowledge
that
you
are
here,
staff
will
then
give
a
brief
introduction
to
the
board
of
each
application.
A
When
you
approach
the
podium,
please
speak
into
the
microphone
and
state
your
name
and
address,
and
if
you
have
been
sworn
in,
the
applicant
and/or,
their
agent
will
have
ten
minutes
to
give
testimony
present
witnesses
and
documentation
as
a
part
of
their
presentation.
This
is
your
time
to
present
all
of
your
evidence.
Anyone
in
the
audience
wishing
to
speak
in
support
of
or
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
for
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
presented
this
hearing
for
consideration
in
support
of
your
petition,
must
be
individually
presented
and
accepted
by
the
board.
After
the
acceptance
by
the
board,
you
must
submit
the
item
to
staff
for
it
to
be
entered
and
made
a
part
of
the
permanent
record.
A
The
board
bases
its
decision
on
competent
and
substantial
evidence
which
is
presented
this
evening
and
which
meets
the
criteria
required
by
the
city's
Code
of
Ordinances.
The
variance
granted
by
the
board
will
be
for
only
what
is
shown
on
the
site
plan
and
will
be
compliant
with
any
terms
and
conditions
stated
in
the
approval
by
the
board.
You
must
have
four
votes
for
the
variance
to
be
approved.
Please
note
there's
only
five
of
us
right
now.
There
might
be
a
six.
A
We
don't
know
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
If
there
are
five
board
members
present,
there
only
needs
to
be
three
votes
to
deny
the
application.
So
there's
a
difference.
You
need
four
votes
for
approval,
but
only
three
for
denial
in
York.
If
your
case
is
continued,
it
will
be
continued
either.
The
August,
13th
or
September
10th
public
hearing
dates.
A
If
you
wish
to
appeal
the
variance
review
boards,
the
decision
of
the
City
Council,
you
must
file
a
petition
for
a
review
of
a
board
decision
within
10
business
days
of
the
decision.
If
your
variance
is
granted,
you
will
not
be
able
to
pull
any
permits
until
after
the
10-day
appeal
period
has
passed.
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.
A
E
D
C
C
G
H
D
Just
get
the
lead
here:
okay,
first
case
BRB
1945
property
address
is
23
11
Minnehaha
Street,
the
applicant
name
is
Kevin
Lee.
The
applicant
is
seeking
to
reduce
the
front
yard
setback
from
20
feet
to
15
feet
in
the
rear
yard,
setback
from
20
feet
to
9
feet,
to
vest
a
single
family
residence
due
to
a
lot
split,
I
found
of
the
aia,
formal
decision
1919,
and
the
lot
is
zoned
rs.50
and
the
house
was
constructed
in
1944.
The
applicant
purchased
the
property
in
2018
there's,
currently,
an
active
remodel
permit
for
the
existing
structure.
D
D
D
The
formal
decision
split
the
lot
line
here,
creating
this
lot
for
redevelopment
wishing
to
keep
the
lot
in
its
configuration
here,
but
because
a
lot
split,
they
now
need
a
front
yard
setback
and
a
rear
yard
setback.
Do
the
lawn
split
to
keep
this
to
keep
this
situation?
Knowing
you
have
not
near
see
founds,
it
finds
it
consistent.
We
have
received
objects
instead,.
I
I
A
I
Ahead
and
we'll
okay,
yeah
and
and
I
at
some
point,
I
need
to
put
him
here
to
go
along
with
my
comments
as
well,
but
I'll
go
ahead
and
get
started,
and
two
or
three
of
those
are
items
that
he,
the
Joel
just
showed
as
well.
I
do
want
to
thank
you
for
your
time
this
evening
and
for
serving
on
this
committee,
I've
been
known
to
be
wordy
so
I
prepared
my
remarks
tonight
to
be
sure,
I
covered
everything.
I
Within
the
allotted
time,
we
build
new
homes
and
Rehab
homes
that
were
previously
unusable
and
our
goal
is
to
make
the
community
better
improve
property
values,
increased
tax
dollars,
in
fact,
every
home
we've
owned
in
the
last
five
and
a
half
years
that
we've
been
doing.
This
has
resulted
in
a
higher
tax
bill,
so
we're
interested
in
improving
the
community,
but
also
more
than
a
dozen
times
we
have
rehabbed
or
built
on
a
property
that
is
adjacent
to
an
existing
property
reality
owned.
I
So
not
only
are
we
working
around
the
community,
we
do
a
lot
in
concentrated
neighborhood,
so
it's
important
to
us.
So
we
keep
the
neighborhoods
and
good
condition.
We
appreciate
the
rules
and
guidelines
that
are
there
for
that,
and
in
fact
we
recently
removed
a
carport.
For
this
very
reason
it
was
too
close
to
the
rear
of
property
line.
It
was
easier
for
us
to
remove
it
than
to
go
through
the
process
to
come
here
and
ask
for
an
exception
to
leave
that
car
for
where
it
was.
I
I
One
of
the
seats
you
have
before
years,
the
Hillsborough
County
fact
he
just
to
show
this
house
was
built
in
1944
I've
only
lived
in
Florida
since
92
and
I've
only
lived
since
61.
So
I'll
have
to
take
that
as
a
fact
that
this
house
was
built
in
44
and
for
all
the
pictures
I
could
find
out
on
Google,
Earth
and
others.
It
looks
to
have
been
in
this
position.
The
whole
time
I,
don't
believe.
It's
been
any
additions
to
the
house
during
that
time,
since
it
was
built,
the.
I
He
showed
the
survey
I've
survey
in
that
group
tube
initiative
that
the
same
things
highlight
that
he
did.
That
is
fifteen
point
seven
feet
from
the
Minnehaha
property
line,
and
it
is
nine
points
something
just
under
10
feet
from
the
rear
property
line.
We've
asked
for
a
formal
decision,
so
we
can
split
this
lot
and
build
a
new
bungalow
on
the
east
side
of
that
lot.
I
So,
even
without
the
lot
split
that
we're
doing,
this
house
was
already
existed
less
than
20
feet
from
its
legal
rear
property,
the
line
we
we
do
our
best
to
work
around
items,
even
in
the
one
next
to
it,
I
believe
it
was
Brian
that
was
out
the
property,
but
we
had
a
tree
that
we
were
working
around.
One
of
those
illustration
shows
that
that
we've
modified
the
home
that
we're
gonna
build
next
to
it
a
little
bit
to
save
that
tree
and
then
Tico
came
along
and
destroyed
that
tree.
I
Now,
it's
a
half
a
tree
and
we're
still
trying
to
save
it.
We
want
to
have
a
tree
for
shade,
but
at
this
point
was
fear
that
that
tree
would
fall
on
the
existing
home
or
the
new
home.
So
we're
working
to
save
that,
if
we
can,
the
formal
decision
did
state
that
we,
the
proposed
lot
creation,
is
conditionally
approved,
provided
you
seek
and
receive
variance
for
the
existing
structure
on
parcel
a
the
survey
that
was
shown
for
the
front
yard
setback
of
the
structure
made
to
comply
with
the
20-foot
setback.
I
We're
here
tonight
to
resolve
that
and
on
that,
in
the
on
the
back
of
the
property,
there
was
a
fence
row
that
was
all
underbrush
overgrown,
a
chain-link
fence,
and
while
we
did
a
lot
to
improve
this
property,
we
didn't
do
anything
to
that
back
fence
row,
but
it
is
now
cleared
out
and
gone
as
those
pictures
that
you're
passing
along
there
show
the
neighbors
behind
us
cleared
that
fence
row
out.
So
they
had
an
obstructed
view
of
this
structure.
That's
too
close
to
him,
but
they
chose
to
create
an
unobstructed
view.
I
So
there's
even
room
people
could
park
in
front
of
the
house
that
they
needed
to
there's
no
need
to,
because
it's
a
side
driveway
that
nobody
parks
on
the
street
in
that
area.
But
there
is
plenty
of
room
for
that.
If
we
needed
to
and
I
know
the
front
property,
the
20
feet
of
the
street
is
not
as
important
as
the
you
know.
That's
not
the
rule.
It's
20
feet
to
the
property
line,
but
we
deal
with
some
of
these
things
from
time
to
time,
because
we
fix
houses
for
a
living.
I
We
have,
on
more
than
one
occasion
come
across
the
house
that
has
had
work
done
without
a
permit.
Imagine
that
found
a
home
to
be
in
compliance
either
through
ignorance
or
or
maybe
is
the
the
person
that
built
it
or
rebuilt
it,
or
did
something
with
it
out
of
compliance
even
knew
that,
but
did
it
without
going
through
the
permitting
process,
because
we
always
pull
permits
on
the
stuff,
we're
rehabbing.
Of
course,
anything
like
this
always
comes
to
light.
I
We
want
to
live
within
those
requirements
when
we
can,
but
it's
not
practical
to
deal
with
this
one
because
of
where
the
house
already
sets
and
again
we're
not
asking
to
change
this
house
and
the
work
we're
doing
on
this
house.
As
Joel
mentioned,
there
is
an
open
permit
and
we
are
rehabbing
this
house
and
the
work
that
we're
doing
does
not
change
the
footprint
at
all.
I
We're
not
asking
to
add
any
space
to
the
house
just
asking
that
it
bests
the
existing
infringement
that
exists
when
the
lot
changes
and
we
get
to
split
and
again
the
back
is
an
infringement.
Rather,
the
lot
changes,
or
not
it's
closer
than
ten
foot
to
its
current
legal
back
and
it
would
be
closer
than
ten
foot
to
its
new
legal
back.
If
the
locks
are
changed
and
oriented.
This
house
has
always
faced
Minnehaha,
but
the
lot
layout
faces
24th
as
it's
legally
plotted
right
now,
I
believe.
That's
all
I
have
okay.
A
F
I
A
D
F
A
D
I
That
the
house
is
fifteen
feet
from
the
property
at
15
points
fifty
feet,
seven
inches
from
the
property
line,
though
the
front
wall
of
the
house
and
I've
dealt
with
this
in
other
places
in
the
Seminole
Heights
overlay
district
and
the
setback
I
could
have
prepared,
otherwise
that
the
setback
is
always
driven
by
the
living
wall
of
the
house.
I
suppose.
A
D
D
A
If
we
vote
tonight
and
it's
if
it's
favorable
he's
still
gonna
have
to
come
back
or
do
we
have
another
option
for
it.
G
I
We
can't
tell
you
to
take
the
I
understand
that
and
and
and
I
and
if
taking
the
porch
down,
would
have
kept
us
from
going
through
this
at
all.
We
would
have
taken
the
porch
down,
you
know,
but
the
house
itself
was
closer
than
the
20
feet,
so
that
wasn't
an
issue,
but
I
is
the
porch
addition.
Now
the
porch
could
come
down,
it's
I
mean
we've
rebuilt
it.
We
we
put
new
columns
on
it.
I
I
D
D
I
D
I
J
Can
move
forward
with
this
variance
tonight
and
figure
out
what
you
want
to
do
on
the
porch
separately?
You
can
continue
this
tonight
and
well.
It
wouldn't
technically
be
continuous.
We
just
need
to
Reno
TISS
for
both
variances
and
have
them
heard
the
same
time
or
you
can
move
forward
with
this
tonight
and
then
apply
for
another
variance
for
the
porch.
So
your.
I
I
I
No,
but
we're
almost
done
with
the
construction
work
and
our
ability
to
sell
the
house.
Well,
yes,
the
new
build
is
being
held
up
because
the
permanent
we're
almost
done
rehabbing
this
house,
and
we
would
have
been
done
if
the
crew
hadn't
gone
AWOL
on
me
and
I
had
to
bring
true
yeah
right.
Absolutely
so
that's
that's
normal.
That's
almost
wouldn't
think
to
mention
that,
because
it's
just
standard
but
the
yes
I
I,
have
the
plans
already
drawn
up
with
the
Arctic.
I
I
A
F
K
I
B
B
B
I
Write
and
and
worst
case,
that's
I
would
do
that.
You
know
we
have
two
issues
at
hand.
The
porch
which
were
talking
about,
but
also
the
back
of
the
house,
and
the
back
is
next
to
impossible
to
resolve.
The
porch
is
an
easier
thing.
You
know,
while
I
don't
want
that,
if
I
was
going
to
tell
the
porch
down,
I
would
have
done
that
if
I
knew
that
was
gonna
happen.
I
A
G
Brb
19
45
for
property,
located
at
two
three
one:
one
East
Minnehaha
Avenue
granted
as
depicted
on
the
side
plan
presented
at
the
public
hearing
to
reduce
the
front
yard
setback
in
20
feet
to
15
feet
and
to
reduce
the
side
yard,
set.
The
rear
yard
setback.
Pardon
me
from
20
feet
to
9
feet
with
the
encroachment
of
four
eaves
and
gutters
based
upon
the
applicant,
presenting
competent
and
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
and
at
this
public
hearing
of
an
unnecessary
hardship
or
practical
difficulty.
A
C
A
D
Vrb
19:54
property
address
is
3701.
North
dartmouth
avenue
applicant
aim
is
justin
willis
for
section
27
156.
The
applicant
is
seeking
to
reduce
the
side
yard
setback
for
seven
feet
to
three
feet:
to
construct
a
covered,
porch
addition
with
the
option
to
a
close
and
vest
exists.
The
existing
structure,
the
applicant
is
repairing
existing
roof
damage
from
a
storm
as
replacing
with
a
gable
over
a
covered,
porch
gabled
roof
I'm
guessing
over
covered
porch.
The
property
is
zoned
RS
50
residential
single-family
was
purchased
by
the
applicant
in
2015.
D
D
D
D
J
L
At
the
Arlington
Heights
subdivision,
which
this
property's
located,
it
was
plaited
in
1905
the
site
is
5,500
square
foot
corner
lot
lot:
seven
o'clock,
seven
and
the
existing
house
is
1,050
square
foot,
bungalow
constructed
in
1926,
and
at
that
time
it
was
constructed
with
the
existing
four
foot
setback
from
1956
to
87.
It
was
zoned
r1
and
in
87
it
was
rezone
rs.50
and
with
the
familiar
7
foot
setback
we
have
today
and
applicant
purchased
this
in
April
2015.
L
In
2018
a
tree
fell
this
tree.
You
can
see
in
the
picture
and
damage
the
northeast
portion
kind
of
of
the
eave
right
here,
we're
above
this
window
after
that
sick.
That
section
of
the
house
is
a
small
bonus
room
and
the
other
side
is
a
utility
room
and
there's
a
hip
roof
section
over
it.
Now
something
to
see
after
an
insurance
claim
was
processed
and
pay.
The
applicant
felt
the
damage
merited
or
was
an
opportunity
to
improve
that
roof
condition
and
to
extend
poor
tradition,
rather
than
just
simply
restoring
that
at
that
small
section.
L
The
main
horizontal
gem
through
the
house
stays
the
same
on
the
sidewalls
same
roof
Ridgeline
and
the
same
projection
of
the
north
and
south
properties.
In
October
construction
plan,
2018
construction
plans
prepared
by
local
architect
were
acquired
in
December
2018.
A
contractor
was
hired
and
work
began
shortly
after
groundbreaking.
It
became
clear
to
the
applicant
that
the
contractor
was
not
qualified
to
do
this
work
and
was
quickly
fired,
believing
that
we'd
be
able
that
he
would
be
able
to
resume
work
as
an
owner
builder.
The
applicant
continued
construction
on
his
own.
L
At
this
point
in
construction,
all
work
stops:
BLD
1904,
six,
four,
three
four
five
was
submitted
and
during
permit
review,
staff
identified
the
assisting
building
encroached
in
the
seven-foot
side,
setback
and
state
of
the
parents
would
be
required.
So
here
we
are,
while
the
dimensions
of
the
lot
aren't
unique,
this
condition
of
a
reduced
setback
is,
and
it
creates
a
practical
difficulty
when
even
considering
a
small
addition
like
this
of
just
the
ports
of
a
ports,
extension.
L
This
is
a
ninety-year-old
structure
with
a
non-conforming
setback
that
was
purchased,
as
is
the
lot
had
not
been
modified
since
this,
since
the
original
planning
in
1905
and
the
applicant
did
not
own
the
lot
to
the
north
and
do
a
lot
split
that
created
this
condition.
So
it's
not
a
hardship
that
he
had
made
as
agent
I
received
two
phone
calls
after
the
notice
asking
about
the
application,
once
I
explained
to
the
people
that
this
was
not
for
their
house
and
what
the
what
the
request
actually
was.
L
Looking
back
at
this
sketch,
which
I'll
just
kind
of
go
over
real
quickly,
the
blue
is
the
existing
house,
the
the
heated
area
of
the
existing
house,
the
dark
blue
is
the
section
that
encroach
to
the
setback.
The
green
and
orange
are
the
porch
extension
and
the
orange
is
the
specific
part
that
is
triggering
this
variance:
request,
26
square
feet,
8%
of
the
lot
depth
and
half
a
percent
of
a
lot
area.
L
L
F
A
A
A
H
F
A
L
B
A
C
G
When
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
Section
27,
you
need
the
city
code
specifically
that
the
house
already
sits
at
the
fore
set
for
foot
encroaching
on
the
existing
setback.
It
is
an
existing
non-conforming
structure
that
the
addition
will
align
with
the
original
structure,
which
was
built
in
the
early
1900s,
and
that
there
is
a
practical
difficulty
due
to
the
existing
non-conforming
setback
of
the
existing
structure.
A
D
Sir
property
address
is
30
19
Chapin
Avenue
applicant
is
John
Lum
and
with
the
agent
Steve
Nicolini,
the
applicant
is
seeking
to
remove
a
grand
tree
to
construct
the
single-family
residence
for
section
13
45,
a
grand
or
protected
tree
shall
be
permitted
to
be
removed
if
the
grand
or
protected
tree
denies
or
precludes
reasonable
use
of
the
parcel
of
property.
Reasonable
use
would
also
include
showing
of
alternative
designs
that
were
not
feasible
to
pursue.
The
property
is
zoned
RS,
50
residential
single-family
and
was
purchased
in
2012.
The
house
was
constructed
in
1953.
D
The
property
received
a
tree
consultation
in
January
2019
Natural
Resources
has
reviewed
the
above
reference
variance
review
with
respect
to
landscaping,
tree
removal
and
cycling
regulations.
That
resource
offers
the
following
comments.
A
tree
consultation
was
done
in
January
to
discuss
the
possibility
of
constructing
a
single-family
residence
around
a
46-inch
Grand
Live
Oak,
the
like
oak
tree
was
rated
B
8
and
is
considered
a
grand
tree.
D
The
previous
home
that
was
built
around
the
grand
jury
and
a
new
single-family
residence
at
a
minimum
of
set
foot
setback
would
require
suspended
flooring
with
a
minimum
10-foot
from
the
trunk
and
one-story
portion.
The
mounting
around
the
tree
presents
additional
difficulties
in
development,
and
the
north
facing
side
of
the
trunk
appears
to
have
a
heavy
inclusion.
D
The
multi
trunk
grant
tree
located
in
the
southeast
corner
of
the
lot
must
be
perceived
preserved,
rather
with
a
minimum
required.
15
foots
protected
radius
from
the
edge
of
the
northernmost
trunk
to
prevent
large
limb
removal.
If
the
board
approves
the
variance
in
French,
replacement
is
required
for
the
removal
of
a
46-inch
branch.
Read
me
show
you
where
this
goes.
D
D
H
Not
too
much,
but
we
did
ask
the
applicant
to
make
sure
they
provide
enough
of
a
protective
radius
around
the
tree
in
the
southeast
corner,
so
the
pruning
could
be
minor.
There's
a
large
lead
that
heads
north
that
would
be
considered
for
removal
if
it
was
in
a
10-foot
range.
So
we
asked
him
for
15.
They
gave
us
16
and
they
provided
us
a
plan
that
shows
it
right
here.
H
So
this
is
the
distance
we
have
it
at
16
and
protected
radius
is
20
just
for
reference.
Once
again,
this
is
the
46
inch
oak
over
here
on
the
west
side.
This
one
eyes:
this
is
the
proposed
two-story
residence.
As
you
can
see,
the
50
inch
live
oak
or
a
46
inch
level
better.
Yet
is
right
next
to
the
proposed
residence
just
for
reference.
I
have
some
pictures.
H
H
H
A
H
K
G
F
A
G
K
Good
evening,
members
of
the
board-
Steve
mcleaney
I'm
here
representing
the
petitioner
on
this
in
this
application,
have
you
been
sworn
I
have
been
sworn
your
address
to
4:07
Sunset
Drive.
Thank
you.
As
Brian
pointed
out,
we've
had
at
least
two
field
visits
by
the
city
staff
regarding
this
petition
and
we've
altered
the
site
plan
so
that
we
are
providing
the
protective
radius
for
the
trees
along
the
east
property
line,
in
particular
to
save
the
Grand
Oak
at
the
southeast
corner.
K
K
This
is
the
tree
in
question
that
we're
requesting
permission
to
be
removed,
and
that
is
approximately
five
feet
from
the
property
line.
It
is
in
the
mid
portion
of
the
property,
and
it
extends
approximately
that
the
the
limb
spread
is
about
a
little
more
than
25
feet,
end
of
the
property,
showing
a
radius
thereof
about
where
the
the
limb
spread
is
going
to
the
east,
the
property
owner
to
the
west.
K
The
limbs
actually
go
out
over
their
house
and
I
have
an
affidavit
from
them
certifying
that
they
have
concerns
about
that.
The
city
staff
had
indicated
that
we
could
trim
some
of
the
limbs
on
the
east
side,
but
then
that
would
transfer
the
weight
to
the
west
side
and
they
already
have
issues
regarding
their
what
they're,
considering
to
be
a
safe
ability
to
remain
in
their
home.
K
This
is
the
property
owners
affidavit
before
me.
The
undersigned
appeared
I'm
not
going
to
go
through
all
of
them.
You
can
read
this
when
I
give
it
to
you,
but
a
test
that
we
are
the
owners
of
record
and
that
we're
aware
of
the
neighboring
property
owners
request
to
remove
a
grand
tree
that
borders
our
shared
property
line
mm
the
affiant
attests
that
who
received
a
copy
of
the
grand
tree
evaluation,
they've,
read
it
they
understand
it
and
that
they
support
the
approval
of
the
removal
of
the
tree.
K
Due
to
the
angle
with
the
Western
angle
of
the
codominant
trunk
at
liens
and
the
weight
it
bears
on
to
our
onto
our
side,
apheon
would
prefer,
for
our
insurance
purposes
and
our
property
preservation
of
their
property
located
at
3021
Chapin
that
the
grand
tree
in
question
be
removed
as
soon
as
possible.
They've
already
had
some
previous
damage
because
of
dropping
limbs
and
they're
concerned
about
their
ability
to
maintain
insurance
going
forward.
K
Let
me
show
you
on
the
southern
map
here:
we're
providing
a
16
foot
protective
radius
for
the
trees
here
on
the
southeast
corner,
including
the
grand
tree
which
is
closest
to
the
corner.
The
proposed
new
layout
I
believe
that
we
have
met
the
intention
of
the
code
in
terms
of
being
able
to
reasonably
use
the
property.
We
did
not
create
this.
K
This
condition
we
are
working
with
them
and
we
also
work
with
the
staff
to
try
to
evaluate
optionals
options
for
development
of
the
property
and
in
consideration
of
the
number
of
trees,
we're
saving
on
the
east
side
and
the
fact
that
the
west
side
tree
creates
a
hazard
for
both
this
property.
That
is
the
petitioner,
as
well
as
the
existing
property
to
the
west,
that
we
believe
that
we
have
met
the
intention
of
the
code
and
with
respect
to
saving
saving
that
tree
I'll
refresh
your
your
recollection.
This
is
the
east
southeast
side
tree.
K
It
is
significant,
and
this
is
this-
is
one
of
the
three
other
trees
that
exist
on
that
southeast
corner,
that
we'll
be
cleaning
up
and
preserving
all
of
us
split
leaf.
Philodendron
that
you
see
growing
up
into
the
tree
will
be
cleaned
out
and
so
that
that
will
be
the
dead,
wood
and
the
etc
be
all
cleaned
out,
so
that
the
tree
will
have
a
better
opportunity
to
to
survive.
And
additionally,
we
have
a
co
dominant
tree
on
the
west
side
where
there
is,
there
is
some
danger
there.
K
K
K
K
They
were
saving,
so
we
believe
that
we've
met
the
code
and
attention
to
code
with
respect
to
preserving
and
though
the
best
of
those
trees
and
removing
a
hazard
for
the
future
I'll
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
But
I
believe
that
we
have
met
the
intention
and
the
spirit
of
the
code,
and
we
respectfully
request
your
approval.
Thank.
E
A
L
A
E
A
J
F
D
They
all
choose
a
land
development
property
address
is
29
26,
North,
21st
Street
applicant
name
is
Kevin
Robles.
The
applicant
is
seeking
to
remove
a
green
tree
located
within
a
seven
foot
side
yard
setback
to
construct
a
single-family
residence
for
section,
13
45,
the
green
tree
or
protected
tree
shall
be
permitted
to
be
removed
at
the
grand
or
protected
tree
denies
or
precludes
reasonable
use
of
a
parcel
or
property.
Reasonable
use
would
also
include
the
showing
of
alternative
designs
that
were
not
feasible
to
pursue.
D
Pilat
is
currently
zoned
RM
16,
residential
multifamily
16
units
breaker
and
developed
in
1923
for
two
single-family
homes.
The
applicant
purchased
the
property
2018.
A
tree
consultation
was
conducted
by
staff
in
December
of
2018
natural
resources,
reviewed
the
above
reference
variance
review
and
with
respect
to
landscaping,
tree
removal
and
sigh
Clarins
and
offers
the
following
comments.
A
tree
consultation
was
done
in
March
of
2019
to
discuss
the
possibility
of
constructing
two
single-family
residence,
a
two-story
I'm
guessing
single-family
residence
around
a
37
inch
brand
tree
Live
Oak.
D
The
live
oak
tree
was
rated
B
8
and
is
considered
a
grand
tree.
A
two-story
home
built
without
adjustments
would
require
the
removal
of
several
large
limbs
a
large.
The
large
cuts
would
lead
to
effective
removal
of
the
trees.
The
applicant
would
have
to
develop
within
the
same
building
footprint
as
an
existing
home.
If
the
board
approves
the
variance
variance
in
Sprint's
replacement
is
required
for
the
removal
of
the
thirty
six
six.
Thirty
seven
inch
strand
tree
show
you
what
it
says.
D
H
Max
Natural
Resources
I
stated
earlier.
The
tree
consultation
was
done
on
March
of
2019
I
think
there
was
two
true
consultations
done,
one
in
December
and
the
other
one
in
2019
they
discussed
the
possibility
of
moving
that
they're.
Removing
a
37-inch
grande
oak
37-inch
grande
tree
is
located
in
the
back
of
the
property.
There's
a
picture
of
the
branch
relocated
right
here.
H
F
H
Okay,
all
right,
so
this
is
a
this
is
the
canopy
extending
into
the
adjacent
parcel
vested
from
here.
Only
to
here
is
the
estimated
distance
of
true
tree
canopy
removal
for
this
tree.
If
something
is
built
here,
so
initially
we
weren't
able
to
get
any
measurements
for
this
lot,
just
because
there
was
a
lot
of
debris
on
a
lot,
but
once
we
got
the
measurements
and
took
the
canopy
measurements
and
the
height
measurements,
it
was
determined
as
grande
natural
resources
avail.
If
there
are
questions.
N
Evening,
my
name
is
Kevin
Robles
on
your
resided,
21:07
chestnut
forest
drive
and
I
have
been
sworn
in.
It's
a
fairly
comprehensive
explanation
of
the
situation
with
this
tree.
That
was
a
couple
items
that
I
did
want
to
mention
the
the
lot
size,
the
under
the
back
up.
The
this
property
is
in
the
East
Tampa
overlay.
So
this
is
a
lot
of
record
under
the
under
the
requirements
of
the
East
Tampa
overlay.
This
lot
is.
N
N
This
lot
is
38v
wide
by
79
feet.
Deep,
additionally,
do
the
transportation
requirements
under
transportation
that
has
to
maintain
an
18
foot
front
setback
for
traffic.
This
is
under
the
this
is
an
affordable
housing
product
under
a
program
in
the
city
of
Tampa,
with
portable
housing
and
then
additionally,
there
was
one
comment
made
in
the
in
the
report
staff
report.
N
Where
indicated
that
you
would
lose
the
canopy
on
a
two-story
house,
this
is
the
single,
the
existing
single-story
house
and
you
have
the
same
interaction
between
the
subject:
grando
slated
for
removal
and
what
it
does
in
a
single-story
application
as
well.
There
are
no
alternative
plan
designs
that
can
be
used
under
the
affordable
housing
program
in
the
city
of
Tampa.
This
is
the
only
plan
that
fits
on
the
lock
and
then
additionally,
there's
a
15
foot,
rear
setback.
The
product
of
current
setback
is
at
17.
You
need
to
use
the
15
feet.
N
N
A
G
G
N
G
N
A
N
A
N
Speaks
to
the
requirements
under
state
state
statute
and
federal
guidelines
as
far
as
any
affordable
housing,
that's
used
by
eligible
beneficiaries,
as
identified
under
a
under
the
particular
program
that
the
city
is
doing
ship
being
one
of
them
which
services
anything
from
forty
five,
forty
five
percent
average
median
income
up
to
one
hundred
and
forty
percent
average
median
income.
Okay,.
C
With
regard
to
the
ten
factors
for
determining
reasonably
use
of
set
forth
in
section
13,
45
G
of
the
city
code
for
granting
treatment
levels,
specifically
that
the
evidence
provided
on
the
record
and
in
this
public
hearing
showed
that,
because
this
is
fordable
housing,
the
setbacks
required
cannot
be
met
unless
the
tree
is
removed.
The
tree
is
in
the
rear
of
the
house,
and
the
property
is
only
35
feet
wide
and
76
feet
deep.
So
it
is
extremely
small
relative
to
the
average.
A
A
F
D
Barbie
address
is
one
thousand
North
Ashley
Drive
Africa
name
is
kami
Corbett.
The
applicant
is
seeking
to
remove
a
grand
tree
to
construct
a
mixed-use
residential
retail
development
per
Section.
Thirteen
forty
five
grand
tree
protected
or
protected
trees
shall
be
permitted
to
be
removed
if
the
grant
or
protected
tree
denies
the
preclude
or
precludes
reasonably
use
of
the
property
or
parcel
subject.
Reasonable
use
would
also
include
showing
of
alternative
designs
or
not
feasible,
to
pursue
sue.
D
Sorry,
a
lot
he's
located
in
downtown
business
district
CBD,
one
the
property
was
purchased
by
the
applicant
in
2006
urban
design.
Comments
from
DRC.
The
applicant
has
done
everything
the
urban
design
and
Natural
Resources
as
requested
to
them
to
preserve
and
relocate
this
grant
tree.
There's
no
good
option
to
relocate
the
tree
due
to
the
scope
and
magnitude
of
the
project.
The
most
obvious
option
was
to
relook
relocate
to
the
tree
to
the
north
side
of
the
existing
building.
However,
substantially
existing
oak
trees
would
need
to
be
removed.
D
Another
option
with
a
real
quote,
relocate
the
tree
to
an
area
adjacent
to
the
River
Walk.
This
site,
however,
would
not
accommodate
the
tree.
Do
the
new
bridge
utility
conflicts
that
would
occur
in
the
revoke
a
tion
based
on
the
effort
of
the
applicant
and
and
no
viable
option
for
relocation?
Urban
design
finds
the
applicant
to
remove
the
ranch,
be
consistent,
then
I'm
going
to
have
mr.
Callahan's
hand
step
up
for
you.
M
Good
evening
board
members,
Mike
Callahan
I'm,
the
Planning
supervisor
and
an
urban
design
council
be
gentle.
This
is
my
first
forever
into
the
VRB.
So
it's
also
my
first
time.
I've
ever
testified
on
behalf
of
an
applicant,
but
I
have
to
say
that
in
this
particular
case
we've
been
working
with
this
applicant
for
I
would
say
Aaron
two
years
perhaps,
and
we
think
it's
a
great
project.
They
have
done
everything
that
we
have
asked.
M
First
of
all,
we
tried
to
move
the
tree
to
the
north
slide
it
over
on
the
south
side
of
the
building
of
the
adjacent
Tampa
Bay
Times
building
quite
didn't
fit.
So
then
our
next
option
was
on
the
north
side.
There
was
too
much
of
the
loss
of
existing
canopy
there.
So
then
we
even
tried
to
move
it
over
to
the
Riverwalk.
There
was
some
space,
but
there
was
way
too
many
obstructions
with
electrical
and
other.
So
at
this
point
we
felt
like
I,
don't
know
what
else
they
could
do
and
we
feel
comfortable.
M
M
H
Counting
things
mr.
Callahan
is
extremely
important,
so
these
comments
come
from
Cathy
Beck.
She
put
these
comments
together
and
I'm.
Just
gonna
read
them
line
for
line
so
Natural
Resources
has
reviewed
the
subject:
VRB
request
to
remove
a
47
inch,
Live
Oak
209
points
rated
b7,
currently
located
in
a
parking
lot
of
the
subject
site.
H
Natural
Resources
has
been
working
with
the
developer
of
the
central
business
district
site
for
over
two
years
in
an
attempt
to
preserve
the
tree
by
transplanting
the
tree
on
to
the
proposed
development
site.
The
applicant
has
proposed
a
zero
setback:
development
consisting
of
a
mixed-use
residential
and
parking
garage
development,
Natural
Resources
submits
the
following
comments
in
regards
to
this
request.
The
original
plan
for
this
site
called
for
the
transplanting
of
the
tree
to
the
southeast
courtyard
of
the
new
site
plan
between
the
existing
time
structure
and
a
proposed
structure.
H
Review
of
the
specifications
and
preparation
for
the
transplanting
were
approved
through
a
design
district
district
design,
review,
careful
evaluation
of
the
space
provided
for
the
tree,
reflected
that
the
canopy
would
not
fit
between
the
existing
high-rise
and
the
proposed
new
structure.
The
applicant
then
submitted
another
proposal
to
relocate
the
tree
to
the
northeast
side
of
the
existing
x
building,
with
a
new
specification
for
transplanting
utilizing
a
nutrient
landscape
code
and
off-site
relocation
was
also
investigated.
H
Due
to
these
new
locations
and
transplanting
specifications,
Natural
Resources
staff
requested
a
level
3
evaluation
and
inspection
of
the
canopy
of
the
tree.
The
inspection
report
from
independent
Tree
Service
found
that,
through
an
aerial
inspection,
they
discovered
a
large
cavity
on
the
north
structural
branch
of
the
tree.
H
Additional
small
cavities
were
discovered
on
the
main
branches
of
the
tree.
The
report
states
mitigating
for
these
concerns
would
suggest
weight
reduction
of
the
branches
or
supplementary
support
systems.
These
recommendations
have
taken
the
tree
out
out
of
the
transplanting
option.
Hence
the
request
before
this
board
for
removal
and
replacement
in
accordance
to
chapter
27
to
84
and
summary
Natural
Resources
fill
the
applicant
has
gone
to
extensive
measures
to
try
to
protect
this
tree
on
a
site
that
is
located
in
the
central
business
district.
H
D
O
O
This
is
the
site
plan.
You
have
an
11
by
17
copy
of
this
site
plan
in
your
packet
that
I
just
handed
to
you,
so
you
can
hopefully
see
it
a
little
bit
better.
This
red
circle
here
is
the
tree
canopy,
and
so
you
can
see
just
based
on
the
site
plan
it.
There
would
be
no
way
to
accommodate
a
parking
structure
on
this
lot
without
somehow
impacting
the
tree
and
Mill
Creek
realized
that
very
early
on
they
actually
put
this
property
under
contract.
I'm.
O
Sorry
I
forgot
to
mention
I'm,
representing
Mill,
Creek
property,
residential
of
trust.
They
put
this
property
under
contract
in
January
of
2017.
They
are
not
the
current
owner,
they
have
an
under
contract
and
at
that
time
they
had
approached
me
and
said.
We
think
we
need
to
remove
this
tree
because
we
don't
think
we
can
find
reasonable
use
of
this
this
property
with
this
tree
there
and
they
said,
but
don't
file.
Yet
we
want
to
go
meet
with
Natural
Resources.
O
We
want
to
talk
to
Kathy
back
and
get
her
input
on
what
we
should
do
here
and
at
that
Kathie's
expressed
a
strong
preference
for
relocation,
and
so
notwithstanding
the
fact
that
it
was
a
six-figure
impact
to
their
pro
forma
and
their
development
budget
to
relocate
the
tree.
They
were
willing
to
agree
and
work
with
the
city
to
try
to
relocate
the
tree.
They
hired
Joe
sanic,
you
all
familiar
with
he's
a
certified,
arborist,
well-respected
professional
in
the
area.
O
We
had
hoped
to
have
him
here
tonight,
but
unfortunately
he's
ill
and
isn't
able
to
attend,
but
you
do
have
his
reports
and
recommendations
in
the
both
in
the
record
and
in
the
packet
that
I
provided
to
you,
and
ask
that
you
will
of
rely
upon
those
expert
opinions
this
evening,
just
to
show
you
where
those
relocation
proposed
relocation
areas
fit
on
the
site.
Quinn.
O
This
northern
area
required
a
lot
more
heavy
equipment
and
was
going
to
stress
the
tree
more
than
the
relocations
at
the
southeast
corner,
and
so
she
thought
it
was
important
because
of
that,
and
because
of
the
fact
that
the
tree
canopy
would
be
overhanging
the
public
right-of-way
that
she
really
needed
to
have
a
better
idea
of
what
the
structural
issues
were
going
to
be
with
the
tree,
and
here
are
some
photos
from
that
assessment.
This
is
also
in
your
packet,
showing
the
damage
that
Brian
spoke
of.
This
is
the
second
set
of
pictures
again.
O
His
conclusion
was
assessing
this.
At
a
year
beyond
the
risk
for
hazard
was
high,
as
Kristin
stated
to
you,
we
did
meet
with
natural
resources
in
the
City
Attorney's
Office
to
discuss,
under
which
scenario,
what
ordinance
this
project
would
be
reviewed
as
part
of
the
overall
tree
removal
and
mitigation
for
the
site.
We
decided
that
it
was
better
for
everyone
that
this
whole
site
be
reviewed,
the
Nutri
code.
So
that's
how
we
proceeded
this
evening.
Mr.
O
Sam
Nick
men
updated
his
arborist
report
to
reflect
his
opinion
that
in
under
the
new
ordinance
it
meets
the
standard
for
for
removal.
You
have
his
old
report
in
your
record
under
reasonable
use.
So
under
both
scenarios,
mr.
Sam
Nick
believes
that
tree
removal
is
appropriate,
as
Kristen
has
informed
you,
the
factors
to
be
considered
are
in
your
land
development
code.
Basically,
it
directs
you
to
look
at
things
such
as.
What
is
the
proposed
structure?
Are
there
other
alternatives
that
you
can
look
at?
O
Look
at
another,
reasonable
reconfiguration
of
the
property,
whether
they're
setbacks
that
can
be
reduced,
whether
alternative
construction
methods
can
be
used
and
I?
Think
in
this
instance,
both
mrs.
Beck
and
mr.
sanic
had
the
head
certified
as
the
arborist
that
that
is
not
possible
under
this.
In
this
case,
so,
regardless
of
which
standard
you
you
reviewed,
the
three
factors
remain
that
relocation
was
the
only
possible
way
to
save
the
tree
and
that
three
locations,
relocation
locations
were
evaluated
and
none
are
feasible
and
all
present
a
greater
risk
of
Hazard.
O
A
H
A
F
F
F
O
A
A
B
G
And
and
before
I
do
that
I
would
ask
legal
I
understand
that
we
are
looking
for
written
findings,
but
we
have
a
certified
arborist
report
that
has
been
placed
in
the
record.
Is
it
sufficient
to
reference
the
findings
as
set
forth
in
the
certified
arborist
report,
that
is
in
the
record,
or
must
we
read
those
two
I?
Don't.
J
G
19
69
for
property
located
at
1,000
north
ashley
drive,
be
granted
as
depicted
in
the
site
plan,
presented
the
public
hearing
for
removal
of
grant
tree
based
upon
the
petitioner
meeting
the
burden
of
proof
that
the
tree
would
would
be
rendered
hazardous
by
proposed
construction.
That
cannot
be
reasonably
reconfigured
when
considering
the
factors
set
forth
in
section
27.
G
284
point
two
point:
five
out
of
the
city
code
for
grand
tree
removals,
specifically
that
the
evidence
provided
in
the
record
and
at
this
public
hearing
it
showed
that
the
tree
was
proposed
to
be
transplanted
but
cannot
be
transplanted
due
to
structural
deficiencies
and
space
limitations.
That
city
staff
agree
that
the
tree
removal
is
necessary
because
transplant
a
not
work
and
that
a
certified
arborist
report
in
the
record
sets
forth
compliance
with
with
the
new
tree
code
and
establishes
that
the
tree
must
be
removed.
G
F
A
A
C
F
D
A
D
A
D
Property
address
is
3107
west
Dewey
Street
applicant
name
is
Carmen
Fernandez
for
section
27,
156
and
290.
The
applicant
is
seeking
to
reduce
the
front
yard
setback
from
20-foot
to
17
feet,
a
side,
yard
setback
from
7
feet
to
1.4
feet
and
a
rear
yard
setback
from
3
feet
to
0
feet
for
residential
dition
and
best
existing
conditions.
Property
is
zoned,
rs.50
residential
single-family
was
purchased
by
the
applicant
in
2005.
The
existing
house
was
constructed
in
1952.
D
D
D
They're
going
for
our
front
yard
setback
some
feet,
17
feet
from
here
to
here.
Evidently
there's
a
covered
concrete
right
here
that
they're
addressing
they're
also
going
for
this
little
structure
here
attached
to
the
house.
If
you
read
the
the
packet
and
the
hardship
criteria,
the
owner
explains
that
they
need
an
access
entry
point
further
along.
D
A
A
P
Really
don't
know
what
to
say
that
that's
been
there
for
over
50
years,
I've
got
the
house
for
money.
My
stepdad,
so
I
mean
there's
been
no
complaints
in
the
neighborhood
and.
A
Okay,
you
need
to
you
need
to
give
us
as
much
information
as
you
can,
because
we're
basing
our
decision
on
what
we're
hearing
tonight
and
yes,
we
did
hear
from
staff.
So
if
you
can
maybe
add
to
what
staff
said
talk
about
the
hardships,
you
know
that
if
you
were
made
to
change
things,
you
know
different
than
the
way
they
are
now
would
that
create
a
hardship.
What
kind
of
a
hardship
well.
P
Yes,
if
I
would
have
to
knock
it
down,
that
I
mean
the
house
is
very
little
and
that
was
put
there
for
them
the
older
they
got.
We
used
to
roll
them
out
there.
Now
the
back
that
they're
talking
about
the
little
house
on
the
back,
that's
close
to
there
I
mean
that
would
have
to
be
I,
would
have
to
I
guess
knocked
that
part
down,
but
a
couple
of
houses
down
they've
got
their
alley.
F
A
P
A
P
A
C
C
C
C
F
P
G
P
E
Have
one
one
question,
or
maybe
it's
a
clarification,
mr.
Fernandez,
the
the
request
calls
for
the
setback
for
a
residential
addition
and
to
best
existing
conditions.
So
I'm
wondering
is:
is
there
a
new
thing
happening
here
on
new
construction
being
done
as
perhaps
the
car
port
on
the
front
being
added
at
this
point?
And
that's
maybe
what
triggered
this?
No.
G
G
G
You
you
can't
make
any
changes
once
we've
approved
this
site
plan
as
it
is,
you'd
have
to
go,
get
a
building
permit
and
make
request
to
make
it
larger.
If
you
were
to
do
that,
if
you
move
outside
of
the
site
plan,
you're
gonna
have
to
get
building
permits
and
may
need
additional
variance
approvals
to
do
that,
but
myrick
what
my
question
is
just
simply
as
it
exists
now,
you've
got
this
screen
room.
G
A
F
D
A
D
A
F
A
D
D
P
J
Is
put
in
the
package
and
apply
for
is
relevant.
I
would
note
that
if
the
variance
Review
Board
is
inclined
to
approve
this,
the
latest
site
plan
would
is
probably
the
one
that
you
would
want
to
use.
So
I
think
you
would
probably
ask
the
applicant
to
submit
at
the
hearing
tonight
this
new
plan,
and
then
you
would
approve
it
based
on
the
new
plan
received
tonight
and
not
on
this
old
plan
that
shows
a
metal
shed.
That
evidently
is
not
there,
but.
A
F
D
D
P
A
F
G
D
G
P
J
I
was
gonna
say
as
well,
or
did
she
know
your
rules
of
procedure
call
for
site
plans
three
weeks
prior
to
the
public
hearing,
so
if
that
was
submitted
at
that
time-
and
it
may
not
have
made
it
into
the
packet
for
whatever
reason,
but
it
would
have
been
submitted.
I
would
also
note
that
there
is
a
proposed
expansion
to
the
screen
room
on
this.
One.
G
P
P
G
P
G
P
G
P
P
G
P
P
Okay
and
she
told
me
you
could
only
have
750
and
that
the
other
shed
that
was
replacing
it
with
the
new
one.
So
I
took
that
down.
They
said
you
need
a
new
survey
without
the
metal
shed.
So
that's
where
I
went
and
I
got
this.
The
guy
came
out
and
measured
everything
again,
because
I
think
the
clock
Court
was
not
measured
in
my
first
survey,
either.
A
L
F
A
P
P
P
A
P
A
E
A
P
A
A
B
That
sub-variants
has
condition
be
granted
based
upon
the
applicant
presenting
confident,
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
and
at
this
public
hearing
of
a
necessary
hardship
of
practical
difficulty.
When
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
section
27
80
of
the
city
code,
specifically
that
the
structures
requested
are
being
vested
are
we're
existing
when
the
homeowner
purchased,
the
home
have
not
been
modified
other
than
to
further
comply
with
the
current
code
and.