►
From YouTube: Variance Review Board 08132019 part 2
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
C
The
request
is
as
follows:
for
section
27
156,
the
applicant
is
seeking
to
reduce
the
South
yard
setback
from
7
feet
to
2.7
feet,
the
South
front
yard,
setback
from
20
feet
to
3.4
feet
and
the
front
and
the
north
front
yard
setback
from
20
feet
to
17.5
feet
to
allow
for
the
creation
of
a
new
lot.
The
property
is
owned,
RS
50
and
was
purchased
in
2012.
The
existing
single-family
residence
was
constructed
in
1946.
C
C
C
E
E
The
reason
I'm
here
today
is
to
request
permission
to
split
the
lots
with
the
purpose
of
building
a
single
family
home
I
have
obtained
the
surveys
to
displayed
a
lot
of
dimensions,
as
you
can
see
that
the
existing
house
was
built
in
1946,
which
is
obvious
that
the
setbacks
do
not
make
the
kind
standards
that
the
city
requires.
That
is
me.
That
is
why
I
come
to
you
to
request
display.
B
A
A
F
The
yes,
so
I
have
a
question
for
the
applicant
first
question
is
the
as
a
consequence
of
this,
this
house
existing
on
the
split
lot.
It's
going
to
be
a
little
closer
to
the
other
lot
than
would
typically
be
permissible.
When
you
build
on
the
other
lar
you
gonna
be
building
a
house
on
the
on
the
other
lot.
Yes
and
you're,
gonna
be
taking
into
account
that
you
have
an
existing
house
on
this
Lots,
so
you're
gonna
be
keeping
a
good
separation
from
that.
Is
that
accurate?
Yes,
okay?
E
E
E
I'm,
just
asking
for
permission:
if
I
can
build
cos,
I
mean
if
I
was
to
build.
In
fact,
if
I
was
to
get
the
permission
from
you
guys,
so
the
new
house
is
gonna
from
this.
Neighbor
right
here
is:
gonna
is
a
mister
seven
feet
and
the
new
the
new
house
is
gonna,
be
seven
feet
away
from
the
from
the
it's
just
at
the
816
house
is
to
close.
So
that's
why
I'm
asking
you
guys
to
allow
me.
B
B
B
A
B
E
E
B
E
B
B
E
B
E
B
Okay,
any
other.
The
question
was
one
of
the
hardships.
You
know
that
typically
means
what's
unique
about
the
property.
What
makes
the
property
different
than
other
properties
that
causes
you
to
need,
the
variance.
So
that's
the
simplest
way
to
think
about
it.
You've
stated
it's
an
existing
home.
Yes,
we're
not
proposing
the
house
get
tore,
tenant
moved,
but
you
know:
are
there
other
conditions,
physical
aspects
of
the
property
that
make
it
difficult
for
you
to
change
other
than
the
cost
of
things.
E
B
F
A
G
F
C
B
C
F
F
F
F
B
B
D
All
right
so
I'd
like
to
move
that
the
variance
request
for
case
vr
be
1981
for
property
located
at
55
10
aldana
Drive
in
Tampa,
presented
at
the
public
hearing
the
secretly
from
section
27
156
to
reduce
the
south
side,
yard
setback
from
7
feet
to
2.7
feet
and
the
South
front
yard,
from
20
feet
to
3.4
feet
in
the
front
yard,
from
20
feet
to
17.5
feet
to
the
allow,
the
creation
of
a
need
lot
and
I
guess
we're
going
to
put
in
the
condition
that
the
existing
carport
remain.
Unenclosed.
D
That
said,
the
Baron
says
conditionally
granted
upon
the
applicant
presenting
competent,
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
and
at
this
public
hearing
of
an
unnecessary
hardship
of
practical
difficulty
when
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
Section
27
80
of
the
city
code,
specifically
in
this
case
that
the
alleged
hardships
or
practical
difficulties
are
somewhat
unique
and
singular.
With
respect
to
this
property.
D
It
does
have
two
front
yards,
neither
of
which
current
codes,
primarily
because
the
house
was
built
in
1946
and
it
was
also
constructed
on
a
double
lot
before
there
was
any
plan
or
they
were
thought
to
split
the
Lots
without
the
side
yard
variants.
The
second
lot,
in
my
opinion,
would
be
rendered
useless.
B
C
Application
BRB
1982,
the
property
is
located
at
52,
17
was
Cleveland
Street.
The
applicant
name
is
his
ring.
Henry
moseley
request
summary
for
section
27
to
90.
The
applicant
is
seeking
to
reduce
the
west
side
yard
setback
from
15
feet
to
7.5
feet
to
construct
a
to
play,
720
square
foot
accessory
dwelling,
the
property
is
owned,
RS
75
and
was
purchased
in
2018.
The
existing
single-family
residence
was
constructed
in
2013.
An
active
building
permit
was
submitted
in
April
of
2019
for
an
in-ground
pool
and
deck.
I
I
My
clients
are
not
really
getting
the
complete
access
to
the
side
or
use
of
that
side
setback
because
it's
been
closed
and
we
you
know
had
wished.
The
city
had
vacated
it
because
in
our
side,
setback
would
have
been
actually
3
feet
for
the
accessory
structure
that
were
that
we're
trying
to
build,
and
so
we
think
that
you
know
our
hardship
is
simply
that
we're
just
not
getting
the
complete
access
to
the
side
property
that
we
would
normally
pad
in
and
of
course,
the
setback
is
now
15
feet
instead
of
instead
of
3.
I
Excuse
me
so
just
want
to
run
through
my
hardships,
real
quick
weeks.
One
of
them
I
think
may
have
been
absent
from
your
packet,
which
was
the
fifth
one,
and
so
we
just
want
to
make
sure
it
was
clear
again,
as
I
said,
that
we
think
that
the
setback
should
have
been
at
least
the
three
feet,
but
we're
maintained.
We
think
it's
a
pretty
reasonable
expectation
for
us
to
go.
I
So
again,
the
the
part
of
our
hardship
is
in
the
the
height
we're
gonna
you're,
not
showing
it
there,
but
you
can
see
the
steps
that
come
off
to
front
porch.
They
get
right
down
on
top
of
the
deck
I'm,
not
sure
if
we
actually
have
the
correct
number
of
steps
there
that
we're
gonna
need,
as
it
turns
out,
so
just
to
make
sure
that
it's
clear
that
the
O'brien
Street
is
a
sixty
foot
wide
closed
driveway
with
a
15-foot
landscape
buffer
in
the
barricades.
I
It's
got
lots
of
room,
you
know
and
I,
don't
think
that
there's
any
hardship
in
us
pushing
this
over.
It's
probably
it's
the
only
egress
through
there
right
now
is
for
foot
traffic.
You
mentioned
fire
trucks.
It's
it's
completely
barricaded!
Even
emergency
vehicles
can't
get
through
there.
So
we
don't
think
that
we're
encroaching
on
any
of
the
neighbors
or
you
know,
increasing
any
kind
of
hardship.
You
know
in
the
neighborhood,
the
the
real
property
is
commercial
that
faces.
Kennedy
is
long
as
well
as
the
I
guess.
It's.
The
northwest
parcel
is
also
commercial.
I
This
multi-family
and
there's
only
one
single
family
property
and
that's
directly
across
O'brien
and
then,
of
course,
across
the
street,
but
don't
think
that
we've
got
any
kind
of
issues
with
the
neighbors
thinner
to
the
south
of
us.
The
other
thing
I
want
to
mention
is:
is
that
this
accessory
dwelling
units
being
built
specifically
for
the
owners
mother
says
she
can
be
close
and
help
raise
the
families
children,
one
of
the
the
children
has
autism
and
they're
really
in
in
need
of
having
you
know
the
the
mother
on-site
to
help.
I
Take
care
of
you
know
this
child
not
just
now,
but
in
the
future.
So
I
think
that
that
pretty
much
concludes
my
my
my
brief
I
think
that
the
owner
may
want
to
speak
to
something
you
know
her
daughter
and
if
the
board
wants
to
you
know
give
us
give
her
an
opportunity
to
come
up.
We
would
appreciate
that.
B
J
J
At
that
time
we
were
living
in
Odessa.
However,
due
to
my
daughter's
special
needs
through
a
collaboration
with
a
special
needs
attorney,
we've
decided
to
move
to
South
Tampa
so
that
my
daughter
could
attend
Grady
elementary
school
we've
done
that.
As
a
result,
my
mother
now
lives
an
hour
away
from
us.
She
helps
three
three
days
a
week,
if
not
more
to
care
for
my
other
two
children,
while
I
hustle,
my
daughter
to
and
from
therapies
every
day.
J
I
am
an
engineer
until
my
daughter
was
born
and
I
have
put
my
career
on
hold,
to
spend
all
my
time
and
and
to
making
her
as
high
functioning
as
possible
to
give
her
the
absolute
best
opportunity
to
become
an
independent,
functioning
adult.
However,
if
that
doesn't
happen,
this
accessory
dwelling
unit
will
also
serve
as
a
potential
home
for
her
so
that
she
may
maintain
some
level
of
anything
we're
talking
20
years
plus
in
the
future
she's
currently
five
years
old.
Thank
you.
I
I
think
that
we
have
a
you
know.
The
the
accessory
dwelling
units
that
we
build
this
structure
is
is
meets
the
code
in
every
other
way,
shape
or
form
it's
it's
a
fairly
standard
building
and
typically
in
the
city
of
Tampa.
These
setbacks
are
three
feet
and
three
feet:
the
rs.75
and
on
a
corner
lot.
They
push
them
into
the
parcel,
and
this
one
in
particular.
I
We
would
you
know
and
ask
the
board
to
give
us
the
additional
seven
and
a
half
feet
so
that
you
know
we
have
the
room
for
the
stairs
because
of
the
flood
zone
that
we're
in
and
and
again.
We
don't
think
that
we've
got
impacted
any
of
the
neighbors
or
create
any
kind
of
hardship
for
anybody
else.
You
know
in
this
requester
is
really
nobody
else.
On
that
side
parcel.
If
I
showed
you
it's
it's
a
anyway
I,
don't
really
think
I've
got
anything
else
to
say.
I
Well,
they
were
not
they
just
it.
Just
I
think
the
realization
that
the
mom
could
be
on
site
and
could
you
know
help
with
the
children,
their
children?
You
know
raising
you
know
the
assisting
in
every
way
she
could
just
sort
of
came
on
to
him.
Accessory
dwelling
units
are
not
the
kind
of
thing
that
most
people
think
of
it's
it's
once
once
you
know
about
them.
A
light
bulb
goes
off
in
your
head
and
you
go
WOW.
Why
did
why
didn't
I?
Think
of
that
before
and
especially
have
a
mom
on
the
premises.
I
J
The
pool
is
already
being
construction
and
it
constructed
north-south
rather
than
east-west,
which
is
typical
of
a
pool
in
a
backyard
that
was
done
intentionally
to
create
additional
space
in
the
backyard.
It
was
also
intentional.
You
can
see
where
our
back
door
is.
The
pool
contractor
did
not
recommend
shifting
the
pool
any
closer
to
the
wet
the
east,
because
we
have
neighbors
on
that
side
and
we're
already.
Our
pro
deck
is
already
inching
closer.
H
That's
not
a
hardship,
that's
that's
an
argument
that
you're
making
is
a
benefit
to
you
to
be
able
to
do
this,
but
that's
not
a
hardship,
that's
being
burdened
on
to
the
property.
So
anyway,
my
point
was
that
was
the
pool
had
the
pool
not
been
under
construction,
you
could
shift
it
and
meet
all
applicable
setbacks
and
fit
all
of
this
and
not
have
it.
So
that's
why
I
was
asking
about
the
sequencing.
I
The
shell
wasn't
I,
get
it
yeah
I.
Do
we
understand
your
point
perfectly
as
well
too?
I
think
that
if
we,
if
the
idea,
if
we
had
known,
we
were
gonna,
think
about
doing
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
prior
to
the
shell
going
in,
we
had
plenty
of
room.
It's
just
that
the
circumstances
came
to
us
and
O'brien
Street,
you
know
is,
is
just
a
closed.
Road,
it's
not
being
punked,
it's
not
being
used,
City
is
is,
is
not
gonna
vacate
it.
I
We
think,
and
so
we're
not
ever
gonna
get
the
additional
reduction
that
we
were
hoping
for,
but
we
just
think
that
the
seven
and
a
half
feet
would
have
been
a
normal
side
setback.
You
know
under
under
most
circumstances
under
our
75
zoning.
If
it
had
been
an
interior
parcel,
this
structure
would
have
been
3
feet
from
the
property
line.
So
we
understand
your
position
and
hoping
a
little
understanding
as
far
as
our
hearts.
B
B
I
And
some
other
stuff
there
there's
bamboo.
So
you
know
well
landscaped
area
between
the
two,
but
it
is
that
their
utility
you
spend
for
or
for
their
trash,
pickup
and
stuff
like
that.
So,
okay,
so
we
don't.
You
know
we
don't
have
any
issues
with
trees.
We've
got
nice
landscaping
down
O'brien.
We
have
the
the
trees
that
we're
showing
on
our
plan
and
so
we're
not
impacting
any
kind
of
landscaping.
And
you
know
the
the
buffer
is
large.
That's
a
12-foot
sidewalk
in
green
space
to
the
to
the
west
of
us,
so
we're.
I
It's
an
18-10,
so
yeah
it
will
be
four
and
a
half
five
feet
above
grade
is
that
in
current
FEMA
or
the
new
field.
Well,
you
know
it
will
have
to
work
that
out,
but
we
are
it's.
It's
may
be
the
new
one.
You
know
we'll
have
the
freeboard
and
we'll
have
to
meet
the
new
new
code.
So
we
don't
it's
not
it's
not
a
lateral
addition.
I
It's
it's
a
new
structure,
so
whatever
the
new
FEMA
code
is
we'll
have
to
know
what
the
changes
I
my
surveyors
would
have
to
but
I
I'm
on
the
flood
board
for
Hillsborough
County.
So
it's
you
know,
I,
don't
want
to
guess
at
what
it's
gonna
be,
but
we're
the
the
existing
house.
If
you
look
at
it,
it's
it's
five
feet
or
six
feet
above
grade
and
so
staircase
is
getting
out
of
the
building
and
making
them
flow.
I
J
B
F
F
I
get
that
we
could
read
that
into
it,
but
I
think
that,
even
if
that
were
the
case,
I
think
it's
mitigated
by
by
this
road
issue
in
the
fact
that
the
cutting
into
this
setback
with
which
perhaps
is
an
unnecessary
setback
to
begin
with,
it
doesn't
seem
like
it's.
A
tremendous
problem
and
I
do
see
that
the
existence
of
this
road,
the
vacated
Road
in
itself,
creating
this
15
15
foot
setback,
does
seem
like
object.
So
I
can't.
B
I'll
just
say
that
that
I
can
support
this
too.
For
those
same
reasons,
the
only
caveat
that
I
would
have
a
reservation
I
should
say
is
that
there
is
some
room
in
this
site
plan
between
the
pool
deck
proposed
because
I
don't
think
it's
finished
yet
so
it's
I
guess
it's
proposed
and
the
actual
proposed
accessory
structure,
but
they
do
have
the
egress
issue
of
the
floodplain.
It's
gonna
require
eight
or
nine
steps.
B
That
sounds
like
so
I,
don't
know
if
they
have
enough
room
to
do
it
they're,
showing,
depending
on
the
elevation
of
the
pool
deck
that
could
be
a
foot
out
of
the
ground
and
the
code
does
allow
allow
you
to
come
a
foot
up
their
shells
in
the
ground,
so
we
don't
know
what
they
do.
But
anyway,
because
of
the
vacated
wrote
wrote
primarily
in
the
use
of
the
multifamily
behind
it.
Trash
can
use.
A
H
Want
to
say,
you're
right,
we
can't
consider
intent
or
things
of
that
nature
and
I'm
not
doing
that.
H
F
Zero
rolls
I
move
that
the
variance
request
for
case
VRB
1982
for
property,
located
at
fifty
to
one
seven
West
Cleveland,
be
granted
as
depicted
on
site
plan
presented
at
the
public
hearing
to
reduce
the
west
side
yard
setback
from
fifteen
feet
to
seven
and
a
half
feet
with
the
encroachment
beams
and
gutters
based
upon
the
applicant,
presenting
competent
and
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
and
at
this
public
hearing
have
an
unnecessary
hardship
or
practical
difficulty.
When
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
Section
27.
F
Eighty
at
the
city
code,
specifically
that
the
close
seat
Street
on
the
west
side,
the
Brian
Street
has
been
closed
but
not
vacated
by
the
city
is
barricaded
off
in
his
old
but
vacated,
and
the
homeowner
is
not
getting
complete
access
to
that
side
because
of
that
street
not
being
vacated,
and
that
requires
a
15
foot
setback.
Instead
of
what
would
be
a
standard.
Three
foot
setback
were
the
road
vacated
and
not
just
close,
and
that
the
rear
property
is
commercial
or
multifamily,
and
there
are
no
impacted
neighbors.
As
a
consequence
of
this
parents.
A
B
C
C
The
summary
request
is
as
follows:
for
section
27,
156
and
27
to
90,
the
applicant
is
seeking
to
reduce
the
front
yard
setback
from
60
feet
to
30
feet
the
building
separation
from
five
feet
to
0
feet
and
reduced
a
front
yard
setback
from
25
feet
to
16.7
feet
to
best
existing
shed
and
single-family
residence.
The
property
is
owned,
RS
50
and
was
purchased
in
2004.
The
existing
single-family
residence
was
constructed
in
1910.
The
property
is
currently
under
violation
for
the
accessory
structure.
F
L
Evening,
Michael
Lauder
2707
west,
for
my,
have
been
sworn
I'm
agent
for
the
applicant
Jeanne
GAD
reg.
My
wife
like
to
thank
the
board
for
allowing
us
to
speak
this
evening,
and
especially
thank
my
wife
for
allowing
me
to
speak
for
her,
which
doesn't
happen
every
day.
As
you
can
see.
As
mrs.
Anthony
pointed
out,
our
request
is
to
reduce
the
front
yard
setback
to
the
existing
structure,
to
sixteen
point
seven
feet
and
to
reduce
the
setback
for
the
shed
to
30
feet
and
to
zero
feet
as
an
accessory
structure.
Next
to
the
primary.
L
Our
hardship
on
the
property
is
that
this
property
was
originally
plaited
under
the
80%
rule.
So
do
you
think
of
creating
a
fairly
small
lot
75
feet
deep?
This
house
was
actually
relocated
from
Port
Tampa
best.
We
can
tell
sometime
in
the
20s.
The
property
owners
remained
owning
a
good
bit
of
land
in
that
area
and
sold
off
different
parcels
until
the
80
until
87
when
they
sold
this
particular
one
changed
hands
a
couple
times
till
we
bought
it
in
2004
best.
We
can
tell
to
answer
the
the
board's
question.
L
L
You
saw
the
the
pictures
that
the
shed
actually
sits
behind
a
six-foot
fence
and
has
been
painted
to
mirror
the
colours
of
the
house
so
that
it
blends
in
there's
also
landscaping
as
a
further
buffer
and
on
the
plan
here,
I've
shown
our
landscape
plan.
You
can
note
that
we
have
two
trees,
one
within
our
property
boundary
and
one
outside
in
the
northeast
corner.
L
We
have
a
grandfather
oak,
the
perimeter
of
which
you
can
excuse
me,
a
grand
oak,
the
perimeter
of
which
you
can
see
depicted
on
the
drawing
almost
a
third
of
our
lot
and
then
another.
That
is
not
correctly
cited
in
my
drawing
I
apologize
for
that
it's
actually
much
closer
to
the
property
boundary
and
has
a
similar
circumference
and
overlooking
our
property
in
terms
of
the
ability
to
relocate,
which
is
what
code
enforcement
suggested
we're
running
into
the
20
foot
buffer
for
those
oak
trees
in
both
sides
of
a
lot.
L
The
attached
deck
that
sits
at
the
back
of
the
property
goes
to
within
3
feet
of
the
fence.
So
it
is
the
proper
setback.
The
stairs
have
now
been
renovated
by
us.
From
this
2004
survey,
the
stairs
actually
run
the
entire
width
of
the
porch
and
so
effectively.
We
have
nowhere
else
in
the
yard
to
relocate
this
particular
show
so
we're
requesting
the
variance
to
allow
it
to
remain,
as
is
in
the
current
location
and
we're
hoping
the
board
finds
in
our
favor
I
have
pictures
that
I
can
show.
If
you
have
any
questions.
L
Sure,
if
you
care
to
you've,
seen
the
depiction
from
the
front
to
give
a
sense
of
scale
for
the
oak
tree
in
the
back.
That's
looking
from
this
view
from
the
front
of
the
property
back
toward
the
tree.
You
can
see.
We've
got
landscape
and
hard
scape
throughout
this
area.
This
will
give
you
a
sense
of
the
scope
at
the
base
of
the
trunk
and
another
view
looking
eastward
toward
the
neighbor.
L
This
gives
a
look
westward
toward
the
deck,
so
you
can
see
that
we've
got
a
bit
of
a
problem
here
into
a
challenge.
I
should
say
that's
the
property
pathway
in
the
setback
from
the
fence.
You
can
see
that
that
goes
the
whole
way.
This
is
the
Northwest
oak
sitting
just
past
the
corner
of
the
property
and
it
kind
of
incurs
on
this
entire
thing,
and
then
this
is
the
back
of
the
shed
in
its
current
location,
the
distance
between
the
current
shed
and
the
back
fence.
B
M
My
name
is
Stephen
Schumacher
I
live
at
2711
was
Thornton,
Avenue
and
I
have
been
sworn
in,
and
I
would
fully
endorse
this
variance
that
they've
requested
I
live
in
a
similar
sized
property
and
home.
My
house
was
built
in
89
and
90
I
have
the
benefit
of
having
a
single
family
or
a
single
car
garage
they
do
not,
and
so
certainly
they
need
a
place
to
put
their
stuff.
M
I
couldn't
imagine
having
living
that
without
having
a
facility
for
it
and
truly
we
appreciate
the
canopy
in
our
neighborhood
and
wanted
to
see
those
trees
protected.
The
shed
is
not
at
all
considered
an
eyesore.
The
neighbors
don't
complain
about
it,
nor
do
I,
and
certainly
with
all
of
the
growth
that
is
taking
place
on
our
street
in
our
neighborhood.
So
I
certainly
would
ask
the
board
to
approve
this.
A
B
A
L
B
L
So
the
vertical
line
is
depicted
on
the
survey
is
the
the
structural
wall.
That's
the
3
foot
distance
depicted
on
the
survey
here
that
distance
there
is
that
distance
and
it's
the
roof
overhang.
That
is
incurring
I.
Think
the
current
regs
are
a
5
foot
setback
from
the
principal
structure,
so
we're
seeking
zero
because,
as
you
can
tell
from
this
picture,
the
roof
overhang
that
Eve
and
that
roof,
although
there's
a
great
distance
between
top
and
bottom
from
the
vertical
a
strict
vertical
line,
it's
basically
a
zero.
L
L
Best
weak
Ella
I've
never
been
under
there
to
be
candid:
we've
owned
the
property
for
a
long
time.
I've
never
really
looked
at
it.
We
believe
it's
anchored,
I,
don't
know
if
it's
anchored
to
footers
or
if
it's
anchored
into
porch
piers,
if
you
will
I've
never
had
occasion
to
really
get
under.
There
is
the
floor.
Concrete.
B
B
L
L
G
L
Is
three
reasons
in
between
the
shed
and
that
location
is
an
existing
olive
tree,
that
is
a
structural
landscape
or
it's
a
landscape
element
that
would
have
to
be
completely
removed.
The
problem
that
we
have
when
you
get
to
the
steps,
the
dimension
from
existing
house
to
property
line,
is
fourteen
point.
Nine
feet
is
depicted
here
that
dimension
is
carried
back
there.
The
steps
are
three
feet
that
makes
this
about
eleven
point:
nine,
from
the
edge
of
the
step
to
the
fence.
We
need
three
feet
from
the
fence.
That
gives
us
eight
point.
Nine.
L
The
shed
is
eight
by
eight.
That
gives
me
9
inches
to
open
the
door
step
off
the
steps
or
try
to
navigate
around
that
structure,
so
that
becomes
a
bit
of
a
hardship
for
us
there
and
in
that
particular
corner
we're
going
to
be
running
into
the
oak
tree
roots
for
the
neighbors
grant,
and
you
know
that's
obviously
something
that
mr.
Knox
came
out
and
visited
and
so
forth.
Thank
you.
Yes,
sir.
L
B
You
heard
what
you
heard
so
I
think
that
again
we
have
to
make
a
decision
based
on
hardship
and
that
falls
back
on
the
uniqueness
of
the
property
short
of
things
that
are
on
the
property.
You
did
a
good
job,
I
thought
it
with
your
photographs,
so
showing
us
what's
in
the
backyard
sure
so
I
think
there's
a
physical
understanding
of
that.
L
Okay,
the
neighborhood
itself
is,
you
know,
ballast
point.
As
many
of
these
same
features,
it
has
all
their
homes
of
how
smaller
Lots
it
has
Grand
Oaks.
Not
all
of
them
have
all
of
those
things
in
the
particular
property.
We
do
this
particular
shed,
although
it
may
be
constructed
as
it
is
now,
we
really
have
no
way
to
move
it
absent
getting
rid
of
the
fence
and
pulling
it
out.
L
We
have
to
either
take
out
an
olive
tree
to
relocate
it.
We
would
want
to
probably,
if
we're
going
to
have
it
in
a
more
exposed
location
in
the
yard.
We
may
seek
to
anchor
that
thing
into
an
area
that
would
compromise
the
oak
tree
roots.
We
don't
want
to
cause
any
damage
to
a
neighbor's
tree
that
would
also
impinge
on
us.
Given
a
small
lot,
these
trees
basically
are
looming
over
our
home,
so
the
hardship
to
us
is
an
existing
structure.
That's
been
there
for
the
entirety
of
our
ownership.
L
A
With
encroachment
moving
an
encroachment
for
eaves
and
gutters,
they
spawned
the
applicant
presuming
competence.
Substantial
evidence
in
the
record
met
this
public
hearing
of
an
unnecessary
hardship,
we're
practically
difficulty
when
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
the
section
27
80
of
the
city
code,
specifically
that
the
lot
is
small,
the
shed
and
the
main
property.
With
long
before
the
current
owner
took
purchased
it.
D
F
I
support
the
emotion,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
accurately
that
we're
doing
what
we're
supposed
to
be
doing,
because
there's
we're
reducing
the
front
yard
from
60
to
30
and
we're
also
reducing
the
front
garden
from
25
into
sixteen
point.
Seven.
So
without
opening
the
public
hearing.
If
I
can
look
to
legal
for
that
legal
needs
us
my
understanding
that.
A
B
C
It's
one
dancing
land
development.
This
is
applications
vrb
1984.
The
property
address
is
1516
West,
North,
B
Street,
the
applicant,
it's
Kelly
Lona
for
section
27
156.
The
applicant
is
seeking
to
reduce
the
side
yard
setback
from
7
feet
to
3
feet
to
constructing
new
single-family
residence.
The
property
is
owned,
RS
50
and
was
purchased
in
2019.
The
existing
single-family
residence
was
constructed
in
1914.
C
C
And
here's
a
view
of
the
property
and
you
can
see
that
to
the
east.
There
is
an
existing
new
development.
Single-Family
was
an
exterior
and
then
this
is
mixed-use
development.
Here,
here's
a
site
plan
of
the
request
and
you
can
see
that
the
applicant
is
requesting
to
reduce
the
side
yard
setbacks
to
3
feet.
F
F
F
C
N
My
name
is
Kelly
onna
and
I
currently
live
at
1:07
0
9
Lake,
Carol
Way,
Tampa
Florida.
This
is
my
I
do
own
this
lot,
but
it
is
currently
uninhabitable.
I'm,
so
I
don't
live
at
this
lot
currently,
but
if
you
thought
the
other
Lots
were
small,
I
promise
you
mine
is
smallest,
so
I'm
here
today
and
I
do
actually
have
my
site
plan,
and
this
one
does
include
the
location
of
some
trees
that
are
on
the
lot.
The
reason
I'm
here
today
is
to
reduce
the
side,
packs
side
setbacks
from
7
to
3
feet.
N
The
current
structure
that
sits
on
the
lot,
which
you
can
see
is
here
it
would
be,
would
start
here
is
about
20
feet.
My
request
is
just
to
build
a
new
structure
that
would
be
almost
the
same
width,
which
actually
would
be
one
foot
less,
which
would
be
19
feet.
My
hardship,
I,
is
pretty
clear
if
I
do
not
get
this
variance.
N
Don't
know
if
you
know
that
my
neighbors
would
be
happy
with
a
you
know:
a
hallway,
sighs
home
next
door
to
them.
Now.
I
there
is
a
there
are
some
protected
trees
within
well
there's
one
in
my
backyard,
which
is
and
within
10
feet
of
my
law,
I
did
have
a
tree
report
done
and
I
was
given
permission
that
I
could
remove
that
tree
and
I
will
be
removing
that,
because,
in
order
to
comply
with
current
the
20-foot
step
back
in
the
front,
I
would
need
to
move
that
current
structure.
N
N
The
current
structure
sits
right
here
and
the
limbs
go
over
my
house,
but
since
I'm
moving
the
home
back
18
feet,
I
should
be
able
to
just
trim
the
those
limbs
and
it
wouldn't
it
shouldn't
affect
the
health
of
the
tree,
but
as
a
precaution,
I
did
speak
with
the
city
and
they
did
require
that
I
obtain
permission
from
my
neighbor
that
he
would
give
me
permission
to
remove
the
tree
if
necessary,
and
that
is
included
in
your
packet.
He
did
provide
me
that
affidavit.
That
gives
me
permission
to
remove
that
tree.
N
If,
if
it's
needed
as
well
as
I,
you
know
I,
don't
know
if
I'm
allowed
to
to
say,
but
I
did
speak
with
me.
My
neighbor
well
my
neighbor
on
the
thing
on
the
right,
the
commercial.
He
has
no
issues
with
this
variance
and
also
my
neighbor
on
the
left-hand
side.
I've
spoken
with
him
personally,
he
wish
me
luck
tonight.
He
has
no
issues
with
the
granting
of
this
variance.
As
you
can
see,
the
picture
of
the
home,
the
home
is
probably
one
of
the
most
derelict
structures
on
the
street.
N
It's
kind
of
actually
falling
to
the
sites
falling
apart.
If
you,
if
you
went
out
to
the
site,
it's
completely
falling
apart,
you
know
there
there's
basically
no
way
for
me
to
really
rehabilitate
this
home
without
completely
tearing
it
down
with
what
the
current
structure
is
like.
So
that's
the
basis
for
my
request
again.
I
believe
that
I
have
a
very
unique
hardship
in
this
case.
Most
of
the
Lots
on
my
street
and
on
the
neighboring
street
are
double
the
size.
N
They
don't
have
this
hardship
and
it
also
seems
and
I
can't
I,
don't
know
this
for
sure,
but
it
seems
that
a
lot
of
the
new
developments
they
obtain
variances
I,
don't
know
if
they're
similar
to
the
one
that
I'm
requesting,
but
it
just
from
the
width
and
the
distance
from
their
boundary
line.
It
seems
that
they
are,
you
know
they
may
have
obtained
variances
and
again.
I
think
it
would
not
only
make
it
easier
for
me
to
build
and
construct.
N
It
would
benefit
all
the
neighbors
in
the
area
to
improve
their
lot
value,
just
because
it'll
be
a
brand
new
home
instead
of
this
structure,
next
door
to
it
and
also
just
for
practical
purposes.
The
current
home
is
not
level
so
when
it
rains,
it
creates
a
moat
around
my
property,
which
then
causes
the
rainfall
to
run
onto
my
neighbor's
property
and
that's
something
that
they
really
want.
Fix
and
they're
excited
about.
Having
fixed
when
I
am
hopefully
able
to
build
a
new
home.
B
H
N
B
B
B
C
B
H
Lazily
move
that
variance
request.
Sir
case
vfe
1984
for
the
property
located
at
1516
West
North
B
Street,
be
granted
as
depicted
on
the
site
plan,
presented
the
public
hearing
for
a
reduction
in
side
yard
setbacks
from
7
feet
to
three
feet
with
the
coachman
of
heaps
and
gutters,
based
upon
the
applicant
presenting
competent,
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
and
this
public
hearing
of
an
unnecessary
hardship
or
practical
difficulty.
H
B
N
C
Tawanda
anthing
land
development-
this
is
application,
number
VRB
1985.
The
property
is
located
at
26,
23
West,
Jetton
Avenue.
The
applicant
is
David
clay
and
Katherine
Witherspoon.
The
summary
is
as
follows:
for
section
27
to
90,
the
applicant
is
seeking
to
reduce
the
front
yard
setback
from
60
feet
to
50
feet
and
the
side
yard
setback
from
3
feet
to
one
foot
to
allow
for
an
82
square
foot
accessory
structure.
The
property
is
owned,
RS
60
and
was
purchased
in
2009.
The
existing
single-family
residence
was
constructed
in
1939.
C
O
O
O
Excuse
me
82
square
feet.
The
code
requires
a
60
foot,
sat
back
from
the
front
they're
asking
for
a
variance,
250
feet
and
also
from
the
side
lot
line
instead
of
3
feet.
One
foot
and
Towanda
showed
you
the
site
plan.
It's
just
this
section
right
here,
and
this
will
illustrate
it
a
little
bit
better.
You
can
see
it's
just
in
this
area
right
here.
Here's
the
one
foot
and
instead
of
pushing
it
back
60
feet.
O
We
thought
to
be
better
and
more
conducive
with
the
neighborhood
to
line
it
up
with
this
wall,
which
would
require
the
10-foot
setback.
That's
why
we're
hearing
this
more
this
evening,
the
neighbor
meeting
to
the
east,
mr.
Anton,
has
signed
a
letter
to
support
the
application
he's
the
most
affected
he's
immediately
to
there's
his
letter
neighbor
through
the
West,
is
also
in
support
unable
to
cross
the
street
to
neighbors
across
the
street.
Also
in
support
I've
received,
no
telephone
calls
and
objection,
see
the
application
also
mention
to
you
of
the
1939.
O
And
then
the
zoning
code
came
into
effect.
We're
asking
for
relief
from
the
current
code
to
build
accessory
structure.
I
think
the
most
significant
part
is.
It
will
it'll
to
line
up
with
the
current
elevation
right
here.
I
have
nothing
further
to
add.
I
respectfully
request
your
approval
this
evening,
I
submit
that
we
showing
uniqueness
or
with
the
property
and
at
least
the
hardship
criteria.
B
O
F
K
O
B
K
B
B
F
When
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
section
27
aids,
because,
specifically
that
the
home
was
built
in
1939,
that
the
placement
of
the
existing
structures
leaves
no
place
for
any
kind
of
outdoor
storage
and
that
this
the
structure
will
provide
storage
and
our
parking
and
it
lines
its
placement
lines
up
with
the
existing
wall.
The
existing
structure
and
that
neighbors
all
support
the
construction.
F
B
C
On
Dan
Feldman,
this
is
Casey
RV
1986
property
is
located
at
60,
117
West
Neptune
away.
The
applicant
is
Richard
in
an
account.
The
summary
is
as
follows:
for
section
27
to
eighty
four
point,
two
point
five
D
applicant
is
seeking
the
removal
of
a
42-inch
live
oak.
The
applicant
is
seeking
to
remove
the
grand
tree
to
construct
a
single-family
residence.
The
property
is
owned,
rs.75
and
was
purchased
in
2015.
The
existing
single-family
residence
was
constructed
in
1949.
C
P
Some
parts
of
it
is
it's
very
low
somewhere
between
8
to
12
feet,
and
some
of
the
limbs
are
very
long
as
well,
so
it
encompasses
a
good
bit
of
property.
So
once
I
I
did
a
field
visit
and
when
I
did
the
fill
visit,
I
met
with
the
arborist
of
record
ricky
Federica,
and
when
we
were
on
site.
He
informed
me
that
the
plans
that
were
intended
to
be
built
look
more
like
this,
and
so
this
is
one
of
the
iterations
of
the
proposed
building
layout.
P
So
that
kind
of
puts
this
tree
in
even
more
dire
straits
than
it
is
with
the
two-story
development
and
so
to
keep
the
tree
to
applicant
would
have
to
essentially
develop
an
a
a
one-story
single-family
residence
and
even
under
that
I
had
some
challenges
trying
to
navigate
that
in
terms
of
building
layout.
So
the
applicant
will
probably
provide
more
information
on
what
they're
proposing
to
build
and
also
can
it
be
a
further
canopy
analysis
of
the
tree.
If
the
board
approves
this
variance,
the
replacements
will
be
based
on
the
canopy
spread.
P
P
Some
of
the
limbs-
this
is
one
of
the
lower
hanging
limbs
on
the
on
the
live
oak.
This
one
is
pretty
low
and
this
is
one
that
would
even
under
a
single
family
residence
it
would
have
to
be
removed,
it's
possible,
but
it's
in
terms
of
canopy
percentage
of
removal,
we're
not
sure
of
what
that
would
be
for
this
one,
but
limbs
like
this
other
limbs
would
have
to
be
removed.
We
were
looking
at
this
thing.
I
think
it
was.
P
Q
Q
Rico,
who
is
our
arborist
real
quickly
and
I'll?
Let
Ricky
go
through
the
analysis
of
both
our
our
cycling
options
and
the
impact
on
the
Grand
tree
and
any
potential
to
reconfigure,
which
we
really
don't
believe
there
is
in
the
circumstance,
but
under
tab,
1
I
think
there's
some
confusion
as
well
tip
2
this
drawing
which
Brian
discussed
this
was
part
of
the
initials.
Q
The
middle
we're
I
think
we're
all
trying
to
catch
up
with
the
new
criteria
and
the
code,
and
so
there
was
a
response
and
you'll
see
under
tab
1
discussing
the
reasonable
reconfiguration
criteria.
That's
now
in
the
code
and
this
drawing
was
attached
to
show
really
what
the
buildable
area
would
be
if
you
respected
all
the
setbacks
in
the
20-foot
radius
around
the
tree,
and
you
have
an
rs.75
zone
piece
of
property
with
about
an
80
foot,
wide,
locked
and
you're
talking
about
perhaps
trying
to
fit.
Q
If
you
can
and
again
there's
some
question
whether
you
can,
even
if
it's
one
story,
the
house
that
would
be
about
33
or
34
feet
in
width
maximum,
which
is
not
reasonable
for
a
property
that
is
owned.
This
rs.75,
with
this
width
and
in
this
neighborhood-
and
it
doesn't
it's,
not
functional
and
would
not
it
would
not
allow
for
up.
Q
You
know
reasonable
internal
flow
so,
and
you
can
also
see
in
the
narrative
request
that
was
clear,
that
we
were
proposing
a
two-story
home,
so
the
site,
clean
alternatives
that
were
by
miss
Anthony
and
Brian,
are
the
site
playin
alternatives
under
tab.
2
is
the
survey
that
shows
the
general
location
of
the
tree.
It's
about
20
feet
south
of
the
north
property
line,
but
it's
really
mid
locked
and
so,
with
its
limb
structure,
it
really
impacts
really
the
entire
lot
again.
Q
Brian's
gonna
go
through
Brian
Ricky's
gonna
go
through
his
analysis,
showing
it's
intact
on
the
tree,
our
proposed
site
plan,
how
that
will
impact
the
tree
and
whether
there's
any
potential
to
reasonably
reconfigure.
But
again,
we
don't
believe
there
is
I
didn't
want
to
point
out
under
tab.
5
is
Imperial,
and
this
is
similar
to
the
arrow
that
Honda
showed
you
all
of
the
property.
The
kingpin
Julie,
the
general
development
in
the
area.
I'll
put
this
up
here
too,
and
I
have
behind
it.
Q
Some
photographs
of
houses
on
the
block
and
the
adjacent
block
you
can
see
virtually
this
won't
do
area
is
also
at
Rs
75
and
the
homes
are
large
executive
homes
and
virtually
all
are
relatively
new
construction.
Two
stories.
That
is
the
development
pattern
in
this
neighborhood.
You
can
contrast
that,
with
the
information
I
provided
under
tab
6,
which
again
shows
the
house
that
was
built
in
1949
one-story
very
low,
we
cannot
build
that
today.
Q
G
G
This
is
the
tree
and
on
the
exhibit
I
had
before.
Let
me
quickly
go
back
I'm,
showing
some
of
the
limbs
that
are
the
lower
scaffold
limbs
and
providing
dimensions
on
where
they
are
so
eight
feet
for
this
limb,
where
it
connects
to
the
trunk
twelve
feet
for
this
limb,
where
it
connects
to
the
trunk
and
that
you
can
start
seeing
here.
So
this
is
the
limb
that
goes
to
the
east.
G
This
is
one
of
the
the
long
limb
that
goes
to
the
south,
so
it
has.
These
two
limbs
already
start
to
are
already
overhanging
or
just
near
overhanging.
The
existing
single
storage
structure.
If
you
look
at
the
survey
provided
in
the
packet
you'll
see
that
the
existing
grade
six,
the
fema
flood
elevation-
is
currently
nine,
which
puts
the
finished
floor
of
any
proposed
structure
at
ten
and
it's
going
to
eleven.
So
that's
a
consideration
and
all
these
in
these
diagrams
that
what
was
provided
in
this
case.
This
is
the
initial
assessment.
G
The
tree
is
in
the
house,
that's
that
which
virtually
impacts
the
tree
when
I,
just
the
position
of
the
house
to
the
allowable
design,
exception,
setbacks.
One
of
the
criteria
the
house
remains-
or
the
true
remains
in
the
house
when
I
was
provided
a
reduced
footprint
and
shifted
it
to
the
does
design
exception
criteria.
We
avoid
the
trunk,
but
now
the
two-story
section
is
still
impacting
those
limbs.
G
A
second
example
of
this
is
if
we
started
to
less
out
some
of
these
areas
in
order
to
provide
for
the
structure
of
the
limbs,
bedrooms
are
lost
and
closets
are
gone
and
access
to
other
bedrooms
are
lost
and
that
it
adversely
or
it
it.
It
appears
unreasonable
in
the
reconfiguration
of
the
floor
plan
to
accommodate
this
otherwise
sprawling
and
good
tree
and
finally,
just
to
to
support
natural
resource.
G
This
is
a
flow
of
the
mitigation
that
would
be
required
based
on
the
the
canopy
spread
of
the
tree,
so
using
the
calculations
from
the
field
measurements
and
following
at
the
same
condition,
rating
and
species
rating
which
is
defined
at
the
state
level
by
an
organization
we
follow
through
so
there'll,
be
thirty.
Two
and
a
half
inch
trees
required
with
the
proposed
removal
for
any
questions.
B
G
Some
probably
some
some
washing
out-
that's
not
that's
influencing
that.
It
is
a
nice
tree,
and
this
is
a
nice
space.
It's
definitely
creating
a
interesting
environment,
so
I'm
I
wouldn't
diminish
it
by
the
canopy
compared
to
some
other
trees.
I
regularly
see
I
think
that's
just
more
of
something
light.
G
G
B
F
F
F
A
F
Probably
located
at
five
one
one,
seven
West
Neptune
way
be
granted
as
to
picks
it
on-site
playing
presented
at
the
public
hearing
removal.
The
grant
treaty
based
upon
the
petitioner
meeting.
The
burden
of
proof
that
the
tree
should
be
read
would
be
rendered
hazardous
by
the
proposed
construction
and
cannot
be
reasonably
reconfigured.