►
From YouTube: Variance Review Board 12082020
Description
Variance Review Board 12082020
B
E
C
A
F
A
Also
in
attendance
this
evening
are
from
legal,
miss
kamaria,
pettis
mackel
from
development
coordination,
mr
brett
burks
from
natural
resources,
mr
owen
williamson,
and
from
transportation,
jonathan
scott,
oh
and
from
development.
Mr
joel
souza,
there
are
some
procedural
rules
you
need
to
follow.
Deute
19
pandemic,
please
adhere
to
safe
social
distancing
is
set
within
the
room.
Please
maintain
wearing
facial
mask
at
all
times
when
your
case
number
and
petitioner's
name
is
called.
A
A
All
of
the
persons
or
participants
wishing
to
speak
will
have
three
minutes,
and
then
the
petitioner
have
an
additional
three
minutes
of
rebuttal
if
needed.
The
time
periods,
as
stated,
will
be
kept
by
the
board.
Any
information,
such
as
pictures
or
plans
that
have
not
been
previously
submitted
as
part
of
your
petition
and
you
intend
to
present
at
this
hearing
for
consideration
in
support
of
your
petition,
must
be
individually
presented
and
accepted
by
the
board.
A
The
variance
granted
by
the
board
will
only
be
for
what
is
shown
on
the
site
plan
and
will
be
in
compliance
with
any
terms
and
conditions
stated
in
the
approval
by
the
board.
All
of
the
city
codes
will
need
to
be
met
if
the
case
is
approved,
your
variance
will
expire
in
two
years
from
the
date
of
decision.
If
the
case
is
continued,
it
will
be
continued
to
either
next
month's
board
agenda
or
the
next
available
position,
which
is
currently
march.
A
If
the
case
is
denied,
you
may
wish
to
have
the
variance
review,
board's
decision
reviewed
or
appealed
by
city
council.
You
must
file
a
petition
for
review
of
the
board's
decision
within
10
business
days
of
the
written
decision.
You
will
not
be
able
to
pull
any
permits
until
after
the
10
days
has
passed.
A
A
I
A
B
J
A
J
Subject:
property
is
owned:
rm16
as
residential
multi-family
property
owners,
connor
and
carolyn
haskins
they're,
requesting
to
reduce
the
rear
yard
setback
from
five
foot
to
three
point:
five
feet
and
eave
separation
from
five
feet
to
zero
feet.
The
purpose
of
the
requested
variants
is
to
replace
an
existing
pool
enclosure
and
to
vest
existing
conditions
on
the
site.
J
J
J
J
K
K
K
The
pool
itself
is
within
the
five
feet
from
the
boundary
line,
so
essentially
our
our
options,
if
the
variants
were
not
to
be
granted,
would
be
apparently
to
not
have
a
bool
cage
or
to
keep
the
dilapidated
half
in
place
structure.
That's
there
right
now,
which
would
be
a
pretty
unfavorable
outcome
in
my
opinion.
K
So
that's
that's.
What
we're
looking
to
do
we're
looking
to
replace
or
excuse
me
replace
the
existing
structure
in
the
same
footprint
that
it's
already
in
that
was
shown
on
the
site
plan
that
mr
souza
displayed
there
on
screen
instead
of
five
feet,
it
would
be
three
feet:
six
inches
to
the
rear
boundary
in
this
process.
In
discussions
with
a
now
retired
member
of
she
wasn't
on
the
board,
but
she's
a
staff
member
helping
me
through
this
process,
roberta
mead.
B
A
K
G
J
Development
coordination-
it
probably
won't
get
reviewed
by
the
building
department.
This
this
is
for
the
pool
and
accessory
structure.
It
could
be
picked
up
secondhand,
but
generally,
the
building
department
is
not
going
to
review
this
existing
situation
for
just
the
pool
if
they
were
to
do
work
to
the
to
the
house
itself.
Yes,
you're,
correct.
G
Okay,
all
right,
thank
you,
I'm
sure
all
right
so
for
the
petitioner.
The
issue
I
see
is
that
you've
got
an
old
and
granted
it's
not
your.
You
didn't
create
this
issue.
It
was
there
before
you,
you've
got
an
old
wood
shed
that
you
said
is
rotting
in
some
places,
with
zero
eve
to
eve
separation
between
that
and
the
existing
structure,
and
the
reason
generally
that
we
look
for
that.
The
eve
to
eve
separation
exists
is
for
fire
code
issues.
G
K
Strictly
for
the
pool
cage
and
in
my
initial
variance
application,
I
didn't
include
anything
about
the
shed
because
I
didn't
know
it
was
an
issue.
Okay,
it
only
got
raised
probably
a
month
or
so
after
I
submitted
the
application
by
mrs
roberta
mead,
who
said:
hey.
I've
noticed
this
shed.
You
might
just
want
to
throw
it
in
there
in
your
amended
variance
application
to
go
ahead
and
invest
that
okay,
that's
the
only
reason
it
became
an
issue.
G
L
J
K
D
M
D
K
A
A
G
G
E
Lynn
hertac,
I
I
tend
to
agree
with
you
when
looking
at
the
site
plan,
it
also
looks
like
in
the
future.
They
could
get
a
variance
to
move
it
closer
to
the
edge
of
the
property.
Just
I
I
can't
totally
tell,
but
it
doesn't
look
like
it's
on
the
property
line.
So
if
they
needed
a
shed
of
the
same
size,
they
could
come
and
get
it
moved
over
a
little
bit.
I
think
I'd
be
more
comfortable
with
that
as
well.
So
I'm
I
tend
to
agree
with
you.
C
There's
some
sort
of
incentive
to
replace
them,
and
you
know
if
this
gentleman
has
to
come
before
us
again
and
get
another
variance
that
either
is
less
likely
to
be
granted.
You
know
because
we've
raised
concerns
here
yeah.
I
just
I'm
concerned
about
the
maybe
public
policy
implications
of
that.
Like
mr
feldman
said
you
know,
any
new
shed
would
have
to
go
through
building
permitting-
which
I
presume
has
you
know
the
shed
will
have
to
be
built
with
fire
retardant
structure
or
fire
retardant
materials
and
to
miss
hertex
point.
C
You
know,
even
if
the
shed
were
able
to
be
moved
over
to
the
east,
you
know
there's
a
concern
that
it
would
then
pose
a
fire
hazard
to
the
neighboring
property.
So
I'm
interested
in
what
the
rest
of
the
board
has
to
say
about
that.
I
mean
I'm
on
the
fence,
but
I
just
wanted
to
throw
this
sort
of
contrary
thoughts
out
there.
A
For
me,
it's
not
an
issue
for
today.
He
doesn't
need
to
do
anything
to
it
right
now,
I'm
not
inclined
to
permanently
grant
encroachment
into
the
side
setback
for
the
future
of
the
use
of
that
land
for
a
shed
that
he's
not
intending
to
work
on
now
in
the
future.
If
he
wants
to
work
on
it,
he
can
decide
to
come
back
for
a
variance
and.
A
A
B
That's
how
I'm
afraid
that's
how
I
would
lean.
I
think,
you're
you're
much
farther
ahead
to
to
take
the
pool
cage
and
just
not,
I
don't
think,
that's
an
issue
for
us
to
handle
right
now.
Not
quite
I
understand
why
this
meat
kind
of
put
it
on
the
table,
but
I
think
all
things
considered
it's
probably
better
for
you
to
fight
that
a
different.
B
I
You
could
just
say
in
your
promotion
if
this
is
what
we
desire
to
do,
I
moved
to
grant
the
variance
for
the
to
reduce
the
rear
guard
step
back
from
5
feet,
to
3.5,
etc
regarding
the
pool
enclosure
and
deny
the
reduction
the
request
to
reduce
the
edu
separation
for
the
accessory
structure,
you
could
you
could
tailor
your
motion
to
address
both
concerns.
If
that's,
what
the
board
would
like
to
do.
B
C
I
move
that
the
variance
request
for
case
brb
20-55
for
the
property
located
at
3509
west
impedrato
streets
be
granted
as
depicted
on
the
site
plan
presented
at
the
public
hearing
for
a
reduction
in
the
rear
yard
setback
from
five
feet
to
three
feet:
six
inches
to
reduce
evd
separation
along
the
north
side
of
the
existing
accessory
structure.
To
the
sorry
is
that
part
of
the
pool
enclosure?
C
Oh
sorry,
I
thought
I
said
three
feet.
600
3.5
feet
based
with
an
encroachment
for
eaves
and
gutters,
based
on
the
applicant,
presenting
competent
and
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
and
at
this
public
hearing
of
an
unnecessary
hardship
or
practical
difficulty.
When
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
section
2780
of
the
city
code,
specifically
that
this
hardship
or
practical
difficulty
does
not
result
in
the
action
from
the
actions
of
the
applicant.
C
A
A
C
I
A
B
A
Okay,
so
that
motion
was
denied
fortitude
and
you
have
a
right
to
appeal
10
days,
city
council,
if
you
wish
you
understood,
thank
you
we'll
try
and
make
the
remaining
cases
a
little
more
smooth.
That
was
the
first
one
of
the
night,
a
little
rocky
now
we'll
try
brb
2056
located
at
714
west
indiana
avenue.
Are
you
present
yes
or
no?
J
J
The
variant's
request
is
to
reduce
side
yard,
set
both
side
yard
setbacks
from
seven
feet
to
five
feet
and
reduce
the
rear
yard
setback
from
20
feet
to
five
feet
for
two
accessory
structures:
greater
than
900
square
feet,
because
it's
in
the
rs-60
zoning
district.
If
you
exceed
900
square
feet,
you're
required
to
beat
main
structure
setbacks.
J
J
L
P
A
P
P
It
is
two-story,
it's
a
hip
roof
all
the
way
around,
with
the
tower
two-story
tower
in
the
middle,
where
the
hips
the
angles
come
together.
So
I
don't
have
any
storage.
I
don't
have
any
attic
space
in
the
house
at
all,
and
very
limited
storage
got
married
a
year
and
a
half
ago
my
wife
has
a
similar,
almost
identical
small
house
in
tampa
heights
that
we're
trying
to
combine
and
have
some
space.
P
P
P
So
that's
the
request
is
for
two
two-story
garages,
we'll
meet
all
the
setbacks.
I
would
like
to
point
out
that
the
lot
is
much
bigger
than
six
thousand
square
feet.
The
zoning
district
is
rs
60,
minimum
6
000
square
foot.
The
lot
is
actually
80
feet
wide
130
feet
deep
for
a
total
square
footage
of
ten
thousand
four
hundred
square
feet.
P
So
in
keeping
with
the
fifteen
percent
for
accessory
that
comes
out
to
fifteen
hundred
and
sixty
square
feet
and
including
a
screened
porch,
I'm
asking
I'll
be
requesting
to
build
1620
square
feet,
so
I'm
basically
asking
for
an
extra
60
square
feet.
Most
of
that's
in
a
screened,
porch
off
the
side.
P
P
P
So
it
limits
you
know
just
where
I
can
build
without
severing
or
cutting
roots
or
disturbing
the
tree.
So
if
you
notice
that
both
buildings
are
just
outside
the
the
critical
root
zone
for
the
tree
and
that's
why
we're
proposing
them
in
the
back
this
report,
members
have
any
questions
happy
to
answer.
A
C
J
G
F
C
Yeah,
so
I
have
a
question
for
the
applicant.
The
parcel
information,
like
the
application
that
we
received,
does
request
the
two
variances
and
variants
to
increase
the
height
restriction
and
then
a
variance
to
increase
the
square
footage.
It
seems
like
the
application
has
changed
since
you
initially
submitted
it.
That.
P
J
J
F
F
P
P
F
G
Mr
pastor
or
I
would
make
a
motion
sure
rep
feldman.
I
move
for
that
variance.
Request
for
case
vrb
20-56,
located
at
714
west
indiana
avenue
be
granted
as
depicted
on
the
site
plan
presented
at
the
public
hearing
to
reduce
the
side
yard
setback
from
seven
feet
to
five
feet
and
a
reduction
in
the
rear
yard.
Setback
from
20
feet
to
five
feet
for
accessory
structures.
P
A
A
J
J
J
J
J
And
so
they're
asking
for
this
elevated
pool
to
go
to
the
5
to
25,
because
it's
because
it's
elevated,
because
it's
greater
than
12
inches
from
grade
it's
required
to
meet
main
structure
setbacks.
So
that's
why
they're
before
you
tonight
to
get
the
rear
yard
set
back
for
the
elevated
pool
the
enclosure
that
goes
with.
It
is
a
little
bit
higher
than
allowed
by
code,
so
they're
requesting
the
main
structure.
Setback
for
the
screen
enclosure
also
to
match
the
pool.
J
Q
Q
Perfect,
we
have
a
slideshow
I've
promised
to
stay
within
the
ten
minutes.
Okay,
mr
souza,
I
just
had
to
comment,
has
been
extremely
helpful
and
and
working
with
us
through
this
entire
process
of
seeking
experience
and
he's
exactly
right
of
what
we're
asking
for
this
evening,
which
is
to
reduce
the
rear
yard
setbacks
from
20
feet
to
5
feet
to
allow
for
an
above
ground
pool
and
really
what
we're
looking
at
here
is
not
an
elevated
surface.
Q
Q
Q
This
is
an
updated
site
plan
that
we
drafted,
especially
for
this
evening.
It
matches
the
site
plan
that
was
provided
to
the
board
members.
It
just
has
some
colors
and
it
has
some
some
further
indicators
for
clarity
purposes
if
we're
looking
at
the
purple
structure
at
the
bottom
page
of
your
screen,
that
is
the
existing
lanai.
That
is
part
of
the
current
property
structure,
is
approximately
10
feet
above
sea
level,
which
is
required
underneath
the
fema
standards
for
the
davis
island.
Q
M
Q
I
know
this
is
a
little
light.
I
apologize.
This
is
the
existing
graphic
that
was
shown
by
mr
susa.
This
is
the
side
angle
from
the
home
that
shows
the
the
birdcage
height,
which
would
go
to
our
second
request
for
the
variance
when
looking
at
what
statutory
sections
of
the
municipal
code
would
be
addressing.
Q
It
would
be
27-290,
decimal,
3
and
27-29
decimal
5
290
decimal
3,
addressing,
of
course,
the
setback
requirement
for
elevated
pool
surfaces
and
again
the
reason
that
that
this
is
going
above,
the
the
required
12
inches
but
would
usually
be
within
side.
The
normal
allowances
for
a
pool
to
go
in
is
for
the
sole
purpose
that
the
pool
and
the
elevated
deck
structure
would
align
with
the
existing
lanai
structure
and
then
the
two
nine
zero
decimal
five
pointing
to
the
statutory
section
with
regard
to
the
bird
cage.
J
Q
Instance,
if
we
look
at
again
the
female
flood
zone
requirement
for
buildings,
this
building
this
home
was
constructed
around
the
2009
time
frame,
so
it
needed
to
comply
with
the
theme
of
flood
zone
requirements.
It
is
currently
at
those
requirements
and
meet
those
requirements
at
above
10
feet,
including
the
illini
structure.
Again,
the
proposed
decking
and
the
proposed
cavity
pool
structure
would
be
in
align
with
that
at
only
3.5
feet
above
the
ground,
and
it
should
be
noted
and
I'll
pull
it
up.
Q
As
the
last
slide,
when
I
get
to
the
end
of
the
presentation,
but
the
blue
structure
that
surrounds
the
pool
would
be
decking,
but
it's
only
about
a
foot
wide.
The
additional
decking
that
we're
proposing
to
build
around
the
pool
cavity
does
not
allow
for
greater
seating
around
the
pool
it
just
merely
allows
for
access
into
it
and
then
for
structural
requirements
to
be
able
to
build
the
birdcage
over
that
the
the
next
one
I
have
a
star
next
to,
because
I
think
this
is
really
important.
I
want
to
spend
about
a
minute
on.
Q
This
is
literally
only
extending
out
a
minor
portion
of
decking
at
the
exact
same
height
as
the
existing
lanai.
So
there's
not
going
to
be
an
existing
seating
area
and
the
pool
structure
itself.
The
cavity
will
sink
into
the
ground,
so
you're
not
going
to
have
people
running
around
the
outside
of
the
pool,
there's
not
going
to
be
any
existing
seating
around
the
outside
of
the
pool.
Q
This
is
merely
allowing
for
ease
of
access
into
the
pool
from
the
existing
lanai
structure,
and
that
goes
to
my
last
point,
which
is
the
reason
that
they're
looking
for
the
existing
structure
to
marry
with
the
new
structure
is
because
of
the
owner's
children
and
and
the
parents,
the
owners.
Children
are
young
children.
They
want
to
be
able
to
maintain
line
of
view
from
inside
the
house,
while
the
children
are
in
the
pool
and
then
they
are
also
expecting
that
their
parents
are
going
to
be
moving
in
with
them.
Q
They
are
elderly,
they
have
trouble
going
up
and
down
the
stairs
and
they
need
to
be
able
to
use
the
proposed
pool
structure
for
physical
therapy,
but
again,
even
without
the
safety
and
health
concerns.
We
do
believe
that
criteria,
one
is
met,
criteria
two.
What
is
the
hardship
or
practical
difficulty
again
not
to
not
to
go
too
much
into,
and
you
know,
go
over
the
same
thing
over
again,
we
look
at
the
flame
of
flood
zone
requirement.
We
look
at
the
front
yard
setback
for
this
structure.
Q
Q
If
I
haven't
already
stated
so,
it
was
a
very
deliberate
design
by
the
homeowners,
meaning
that
they
designed
this
to
have
minimal
impact
on
not
only
the
additional
seating
area
around
there,
but
to
make
sure
that
it
aligned
with
what
the
privacy
concerns
were
for
the
neighborhood
and
for
their
neighbors,
and
that
leads
to
the
third
or
excuse
me.
The
fourth
bullet
point,
which
is
they
have
reached
out
since
the
beginning
of
planning
this,
which
was
earlier
this
year
with
their
neighbors.
They
have
spoken
with
their
neighbors.
Q
They
have
asked
for
feedback
from
their
neighbors
and
they've
received.
Only
one.
I'd
only
want
to
call
it
a
negative
comment.
The
only
comment
they've
had
is
with
regard
to
the
height
of
the
proposed
bird
cage
structure
and
underneath
our
conditional
approvals
on
the
end
of
our
slideshow,
we'll
address
those
concerns
and
say
what
we
would
be
willing
to
do
to
be
able
to
meet
the
board's
approval
for
variants
and
then
the
last
one
was
the
statement
of
hardship.
Q
We
we
alleged
that
we
are
more
than
willing
to
build
a
privacy
fence
around
the
structure
to
alleviate
any
concerns
with
health
and
safety
criteria.
Number
four,
the
variances
I'm
harming
with
we
have
listed
out
here.
I
don't
want
to
go
through
all
of
them.
I
believe
there's
approximately
five
previously
granted
variances
that
not
only
are
in
the
same
vicinity
as
the
current
structure,
but
also
point
to
very,
very
similar
grantings,
especially
1513,
which
was
a
granting
of
a
pullback
set
back
to
five
feet
and
increase
the
offense
height.
Q
So,
therefore,
we
feel
that
we've
met
criteria,
four
and
then
lastly,
criteria,
five
substantial
justice
being
done
again.
We've
touched
on
what
covid19
has
done
and
why
that
points
to
what
we've
touched
on
the
health
and
safety
of
the
owners,
children
and
parents,
and
we've
also
touched
on
the
surrounding
of
this
property
by
other
residential
pools.
Q
So
to
end,
we
would
like
to
discuss.
You
know
the
petitional.
Excuse
me
the
potential
conditions
of
approval,
the
one
that
we've
identified
in
our
statement
of
hardship,
would
be
to
address
mr
souza's
comments
seeking
a
release
of
easement.
I
know
this
has
been
an
issue
in
the
past
with
other
variance
approvals.
The
clients
are
more
than
willing
to
seek
the
release
of
this
easement.
Q
A
Q
F
R
R
Good
evening,
members
of
the
brb
I'm
gary
brown
and
I
have
resided
at
491
sovereign
avenue
on
davis,
island
since
2003
and,
yes,
I
have
been
sworn
all
right.
You
got
three
minutes.
My
wife
debbie
is
here
tonight
and
we
we
request
that
I
be
given
her
time
with
mine
for
rebuttal
of
the
applicant's
hardship
criteria.
R
Okay
regarding
criteria
number
one-
is
the
property
unique
and
singular
all
of
davis.
Islands
is
in
the
fema
flood
zone
with
over
2
500
single-family
properties.
Therefore,
this
property
is
neither
unique
or
singular,
but
rather
uncommon,
with
all
of
the
single
family
properties
in
the
neighborhood
all
new
homes
built
on
davis
island.
Since
the
1980s
have
had
to
meet
the
fema
minimum
floor
level
requirement,
the
home
was
constructed
to
meet
zoning
yard
setbacks.
In
fact,
the
home
footprint
maximizes
the
buildable
envelope,
including
all
minimum
yard,
setbacks,
front
right
and
left
side
and
rear
yard
criteria.
R
Number
two
are
the
hardship
or
practical
difficulties,
a
result
of
actions
by
the
applicant,
the
applicant,
a
professional
engineer,
controlled
the
design
and
construction
of
his
own
home.
The
applicant
purchased
the
property
in
2003
and
lived
in
the
home
until
he
tore
down
to
build
a
new
home
in
2009.
R
The
applicant
had
the
opportunity
to
design
for
the
construction
of
a
raised
pool
within
the
primary
building
setbacks,
but
instead
chose
to
maximize
the
footprint
of
the
new
home
on
all
four
yard:
setbacks:
the
pool
height
maximum
of
one
foot
above
grade
and
accessory
structure.
Zoning
height
requirements
existed
in
2009.
R
The
two-story
home
was
designed
and
built
in
a
manner
that
allows
for
proper
attachment
of
a
15
foot
high
screen
enclosure
to
the
rear,
rear
facade.
Even
if
the
pool
deck
pool
and
deck
are
one
foot
above
grade
criteria,
number
three
is
the
substantial
interference
with
others
whose
property
would
be
affected
by
allowance
of
this
variance.
R
This
application
does
affect
the
welfare
of
other
property
owners.
The
approval
of
this
application
would
cause
privacy
concerns
of
the
neighboring
properties,
allowing
for
a
raised
deck
or
pool
edge
four
feet
above
grade
and
five
feet
from
the
rear
property
line
would
diminish
the
effectiveness
of
allowed
six
foot
high
privacy,
boundary
fences.
R
The
existing
rear
porch
meets
the
20-foot
rear
setback.
The
normal
noise
level
of
family
gatherings
on
the
on
this
porch
are
very
different
than
the
noise
level
of
family
gatherings
of
all
ages
in
and
around
swimming
pools.
The
city
of
tampa
does
not
allow
for
taller
than
six
foot
high
fencing
without
a
variance.
R
Therefore,
it
is
not
reasonable
to
expect
all
neighboring
property
owners
to
have
the
expense
of
new
fencing
and
applying
for
and
probably
not
getting,
the
approval
of
a
variance
of
a
ten
foot
tall
fence
criteria.
Four,
what
is
the
general
intent
and
purpose
of
this
code?
Why
does
this
code
exist?
What
is
the
intended
purpose?
R
F
R
The
intended
code
change
was
to
protect
and
preserve
the
privacy
of
existing
neighbors
side
and
rear
yards
when
new
homes
constructed
the
fema
regulations
wanted
a
swimming
pool.
Fema
does
not
have
rules
regarding
the
minimum
height
of
construction
of
swimming
pools
and
flood
zones.
Therefore,
the
city
of
tampa
found
the
rural
change
to
be
necessary
and
compliant
with
tampa's
comprehensive
plan
and
the
rights
of
existing
neighbors
privacy
concerns.
R
So
in
summary,
we
constructed
our
new
home
in
2003
to
fema
standards
and
did
not
desire
to
install
a
pool
at
the
time.
However,
we
did
design
the
rear
of
our
home
such
that
we
could
install
the
pool
in
the
future
without
having
to
request
a
variance
that
would
adversely
affect
our
neighbors
as
rear
yard.
Neighbor.
R
I
F
E
L
L
The
home
is
built
as
described
10
feet
above
sea
level
as
far
back
as
is
allowed
as
wide
as
is
allowed,
and
it's
it's
it's
quite
high
from
my
viewpoint
being
in
an
older
home
on
the
ground.
As
it
stands
a
raised
pool
deck
as
previously
mentioned.
I
will
not
be
able
to
put
anything
more
than
a
six
foot
fence,
which
would
be
only
three
feet
of
of
protection
from
any
noise
or
disturbance
associated
with
the
proposal.
F
Well,
I
won't
take
three
minutes,
I
don't
know
the
codes
and
what
have
you?
But
you
know
our
concern
is
setting
a
precedent.
With
these
larger
homes
we
we
have
a
fairly
new
home
on
davis
island.
It
was
built
in
2012,
it's
elevated
because
of
the
flood
zone
requirements,
and
you
know
we
have
two
homes
directly
behind
us,
one
next
to
the
petitioner
and
the
other
one.
F
Next
to
that,
that
are
older
homes
and
a
lot
of
homes
on
davis,
island
are
being
sold
and
torn
down
in
larger
homes
are
being
built
that
have
got
to
be
raised
up
to
the
floodplain,
and
our
concern
is
that
this
may
set
a
precedent
to
push
the
setbacks
back
and
now
have
these
raised
pools-
and
you
know
quite
frankly
staring
at
people
swimming
in
the
swimming
pool
and
and
we
lose
our
privacy.
That's
that's
all.
I
have
to
say:
okay.
Q
G
N
G
G
G
Q
It
wasn't
originally
looked
at
as
something
that
was
going
to
be
at
the
need
of
the
property,
but
as
the
homeowner
has
had
children
and
as
the
elderly
parents
had
to
be
forced
to
looking
to
move
into
the
house
with
them.
This
was
the
only
natural
thing
and
then,
of
course,
building
in
everything
that
we're
dealing
with
with
kobit
19
and
having
to
move
all
of
our
recreational
structures
indoors.
Yeah.
G
And
sadly,
we're
all
dealing
with
code
19,
so
covert.
19
is
not
something
that
is
unique
and
singular
to
this
property.
It's
something
that
everyone
has
to
deal
with
it.
It
is
true,
though,
that
if
you
wanted
to
build,
pool
you'd
go
ahead
and
build
a
pool,
you
wouldn't
need
a
variance
approval
if
you
built
it
at
you,
weren't
over
three
and
a
half
feet
above
grade.
Is
that
accurate.
Q
That
is
accurate,
mr
feldman,
but-
and
that
goes
back
to
a
board
member
in
mr
souza's
earlier
comments
that
if
we
wanted
to
do
it
below
that
12
inch
line,
we
would
not
need
to
seek
a
variance.
But
again
what
we're
looking
at
is
only
extending
out
the
already
existing
plane
and
that's
the
reason
we
designed
it.
The
way
we
did
was
so
that
it
didn't
encroach
so
yeah
and.
C
Q
No-
and
this
is
probably
me
going
through
it
too
quickly,
but
it's
going
to
be
at
10
feet,
which
is
above
sea
level,
which
is
the
current
grade
of
the
existing
lanai.
So
the
lanai
is
just
going
to
go
straight
out
onto
the
the
existing
thing.
That
would
be
three
and
a
half
feet
above
grade
or
above
the
ground.
So
the
elevated
pool
deck
will
be
at
10
feet
above
sea
level,
but
only
three
and
a
half
feet
above
the
ground
and
even
with
the
existing
one
eye.
Q
Q
And
I'll
just
address
a
a
few
very
important
points.
I
know
there's
three
speakers
who
came
up
this
again
points
to
board
north
feldman's
questions
with
regard
to
you
know
what
is
the
exact
structure
that
we're
looking
here
and
it
has
to
go
back
to
the
area.
That's
around
the
pool.
I
heard
multiple
people
say
this
evening:
they're
worried
about
the
privacy
of
increased
people
looking
over
into
their
property.
Well,
that's
the
deliberate
design,
but
you
know
for
this
pool
cavity
structure.
I
don't
want
to
deem
this
an
elevated
pool.
Q
I
don't
want
to
deem
this
an
above
ground
pool
structure.
This
is
merely
three
and
a
half
feet,
which
is
the
same
exact
level
as
the
current
lanai
and
the
way
it's
designed
does
not
allow
for
increased
seedage.
It
does
not
allow
for
people
to
be
able
to
run
around
the
pool
deck
and
be
able
to
see
into
other
people's
properties.
The
second
point
I
want
to
make
is
with
regard
to
the
comments
that
we
just
discussed,
that
the
there
was
a
previous
member
who
came
up-
and
I
appreciate
everybody's
comments.
Q
Of
course,
that
came
up
and
said:
they're
encroaching
towards
their
lot
line,
they're
encroaching
getting
closer
to
their
lot
line
with
the
building
of
the
pool,
but,
as
we
just
stated,
if
we
were
to
build
below
12
inches,
then
we
would
be
allowed
to
build
this
pool.
What
we're
merely
asking
for
is
three
and
a
half
feet
so
that
we
can
extend
this
out
to
make
it
safe
and
healthy.
Q
Excuse
me,
so
we
can
address
safety
and
health
concerns
and
when
people
are
in
the
pool,
they're
not
going
to
be
able
to
see
above
a
six
foot
fence-
and
the
last
thing
I'll
address
is-
is
the
overall
concerns
with
regard
to
the
screen
and
closure
height?
That's
the
reason
we
included
in
our
statement
of
hardship,
the
ability
for
the
board
to
make
a
conditional
approval
for
this
variant.
Q
D
F
A
F
A
Opposed
to
the
concept
of
what
they're
asking
for,
but
I
I
always
think
that
the
most
relevant
voice
is
the
voice
of
the
neighbor
that
abuts
the
setback
in
question
and,
in
this
case
that's
the
rear,
and
we
have
two
rear
neighbors
in
this
case,
which
is
unusual
and
and
both
are
very
much
opposed
to
it
for
very
practical
reasons,
which
is
height
over
a
fence
and
the
limit
of
a
fence.
So
you
know
from
my
perspective,
they
can
still
build
a
pool.
A
G
G
G
E
G
G
For
the
look
all
right
for
the
to
reduce
the
rear
yard
setback
from
20
feet
to
5
feet
and
reduce
the
rear
yard
setback
from
13
feet
to
5
feet
for
a
pool
enclosure
be
denied
due
to
the
failure
of
the
petitioner
to
meet
its
burden
of
proof
to
provide
competent
and
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
and
at
this
public
hearing
of
an
unnecessary
hardship
or
practical
difficulty.
When
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria,
as
set
forth
in
section
27-80
of
the
city
code,
specifically
that
the
hardship
criteria
were
not
met.
G
A
A
J
J
J
J
J
Natural
resources
found
inconsistent
stating
the
applicant
has
not
met
the
minimum
standards
required
for
requesting
the
review
of
a
non-hazardous
grain
tree
removal.
The
proposed
site
plan
submitted
by
the
applicant
shows
the
tree
is
being
retained
through
construction
not
eliminated.
The
site
plans
have
been
submitted
into
the
record
at
this
time.
P
P
S
A
S
S
Thank
you,
so
at
issue
of
our
request
is
to
remove
a
grand
oak
tree.
That's
considered
33
inches,
which
is
located
pretty
much
to
the
center
of
our
backyard,
which
is
slightly
to
the
west,
but
quite
centered
to
our
backyard,
and
the
ultimate
reason
for
the
removal
is
to
be
able
to
build
a
functional
swimming
pool,
and
there
are
three
major
reasons.
We
think
this
request
should
be
granted.
S
So
within
the
first
category
about
hardships,
the
first
reason
is
the
size
of
the
pool.
So
in
the
application
that
we
presented
a
couple
months
ago,
you
will
see
that
there
is
a
drawing
that
shows
with
the
tree
in
place.
The
pool
will
be
pretty
much
18
feet
long
and
that
join
actually
already
assumes
that,
instead
of
20
feet
set
back
of
the
grand
tree,
we
will
be
able
to
reduce
that
to
15
feet.
So
if
we
were
not
able
to
get
a
20
feet
of
reduction
to
15,
then
the
pool
will
be
even
smaller.
S
In
addition
to
that,
we
consulted
with
a
couple
of
other
contractors.
Some
of
them
even
walked
away
from
the
project
because
they
think
the
pool
is
not
big
enough
worth
their
time
and
in
comparison,
if
we
were
able
to
remove
the
tree,
then
we
can
build
the
pool
to
a
functional
size.
Our
desired
size
is
either
30
feet
or
32
feet.
So,
with
your
permission,
I'd
like
to
now
present
to
you
a
site
plan
that
draws
shows
with
the
tree
removal
what
the
pool
will
look
like.
D
E
S
So,
as
you
can
see
on
this,
you
will
still
see
the
tree
in
place,
but
the
contractor
has
basically
drew
and
said
that
this
presumes
somebody
will
remove
the
tree
with
that
tree
removed.
Now
the
pool
is
able
to
go
to
30
feet,
and
while
I
was
listening
to
your
prior
hearing
sessions,
I
was
kind
of
just
did
an
approximate
location
of
what
18
feet
is
versus
30
feet.
So
you
will
see
that
a
very
sizable
difference
between
the
two
sizes.
S
And
the
second
hardship
related
to
that
is
because
we
not
in
our
neighborhood,
it's
so
fortunate
that
we
have
some
very
beautiful
trees.
Some
of
them
involve.
You
know
our
neighbor's
trees
have
kind
of
canopies
come
over.
So
with
that
in
place.
Even
if
we
were
to
remove
this
tree,
we
would
still
consider
the
impact
of
the
leaves
falling
down
from
neighbors
trees.
S
S
And
then
another
reason:
I
know
that
the
the
gentleman
before
me
presented
about
the
covet-
and
I
understand
that
covey
is
really
has
impacted
everybody's
life.
In
our
family's
case,
we
do
have
three
very
young
children
very
active.
We
have
a
12
year
old
daughter
and
the
two
boys
who
are
twins
who
are
seven,
all
of
them,
love
love
to
swim
and
then,
during
this
period
of
time
with
you
know,
remote
learning
and
on
top
of
other,
you
know
social
restrictions.
S
They
have
really
thought
about
different
angles.
How
you
can
put
the
poi
in
within
the
confines
of
the
trees,
and
we
were
really
not
able
to
come
up
with
a
way
to
go
around
the
existence
of
that
tree,
which
is
pretty
much
located
in
the
center
of
the
backyard.
So
and
then.
The
last
reason
is
that,
by
putting
in
a
pool
of
this
size,
we
will
not
have
any
negative
impact
on
our
neighbors.
S
Quite
a
number
of
our
neighbors
already
have
in-ground
pools,
we
consulted
with
them,
and
you
know
sometimes
my
boys
throw
walls
into
the
backyard
neighbor's
backyard.
So
we
walk
over
talk
to
them
and
I
even
mentioned
to
her
that
we
will
be
starting.
Hopefully
the
pool
construction
process
and
her
comment
is
all
complimentary
and
very,
very
nice,
encouraging
and
said
that.
S
So
I
think,
while
I
was
sitting
there,
one
of
the
questions
you
all
addressed
to
or
asked
the
the
prior
presenter
was
that
when
you
built
the
house,
why
did
you
consider
this
and
then
to
us?
The
answer
was
that
we
specifically
considered
this.
We
asked
our
builder
that
the
lot
you
sell
to
us.
We
want
to
make
sure
it's
large
enough
to
accommodate
a
pool,
because
we
know
our
kids
are
very
active
and
they
promised
me
yes
and,
as
a
matter
of
fact,
they
did
a
tree
study.
S
The
only
reason
we
didn't
pull
the
trigger
at
the
time
was,
you
know,
was
the
expense
because
to
build
a
new
house
plus
a
pool
would
cost
additional
money
and
we
didn't
feel
like
that.
We
needed
to
do
it.
Then
we
could,
you
know,
save
some
money
and
then
hopefully
do
it
in
the
future
and
that
future,
I
think,
is
now
where
we
feel
like
we're
ready.
S
So
with
all
of
that
reasons,
I
think
we
have
addressed
the
staff
concern
in
that
we
presented
now
a
new
site
plan
that
shows
and
delineates
with
the
tree
removal.
What
the
pool
will
look
like,
so
we
address
that
concern.
We
also
covered
the
statutory
requirements
or
code
requirements
as
to
the
hardships
this
will
bring
as
well.
As
you
know,
the
impact
of
the
neighbors.
F
L
L
L
O
L
F
E
S
P
Owen
williamson
natural
resources,
so
the
original
objection
was
based
on
the
the
second
site
plan
that
you
saw
today.
Hadn't
been
submitted
at
the
time
of
review,
so
the
site
plan
that
I
had
to
review
showed
the
tree
as
being
retained
so
based
on
what
I
was
reviewing,
I
couldn't
you
know
approve
it
to
come
out
if
it
didn't
need
to
based
on
that
pipeline.
B
P
I
B
G
S
L
S
So,
first
of
all,
I
wanted
to
thank
every
board
member
for
your
time
and
consideration.
I
think
these
are
important
issues
and
you
know,
concerns
individual
requests,
but
also
have
impact
on
the
larger
neighborhood.
I
also
wanted
to
thank
all
the
staff
members
I
work
with.
I
wanted
to
say
that
I'm
very,
very
proud
to
be
a
city
in
the
city
of
tampa,
because
all
the
staff
members
I
worked
with
have
been
so
responsive
and
also
helpful
and
informative
on
what
I
need
to
do
next
step.
S
When
we
bought
the
house,
I
told
my
husband
that
we
wanted
to
make
sure
there
is
a
tree,
and
luckily
we
have
not
just
want
to
have
multiple
trees
and
even
with
this
removal,
we
still
have
a
very
large
oak
tree
on
our
front
yard
as
well,
which
we
have
been
thinking
about,
putting
on
the
swing,
but
have
not
been
able
to
do
that.
So
so
I
think
that
what
I
wanted
to
do
in
this
process
is
really
honor
the
integrity
of
this
process.
S
A
B
Motion
go
for
it.
Okay
motion
to
approve
all
right
here
we
go
all
right.
I
move
that
the
variance
request
for
case
vrb,
20-67
3412
west
dorchester
street
be
granted
is
depicted
on
which
site
plan
we're
going
to
go
the
site
plan,
with
the
elongated
pool
presented
at
the
public
hearing
to
remove
a
33-inch
grand
oak
based
upon
the
applicant,
presenting
competent
and
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
and
at
this
public
hearing
of
an
unnecessary
hardship
or
practical
difficulty.
I
B
Number
five
number.
Five!
I'm
sorry
excuse
me
all
right.
That's
all
right!
So
excuse
me,
as
set
forth
in
section
27284.25
of
the
city
codes
for
grand
tree
removal,
specifically
that
the
evidence
provided
in
the
record
at
this
public
hearing
showed
that
it
was
a
laurel
oak
in
a
declining
condition
and
was
just
on
the
verge
of
being
eligible
for
being
taken
without
a
variance
request.
A
J
J
C
F
N
N
N
N
N
This
is
the
existing
sorry,
not
this.
This
is
the
existing
site
plan
showing
the
existing
house
that
the
bruce
is
currently
living.
The
the
tree
in
question
is
this
tree
here
in
the
rear
yard,
it's
located
directly
on
the
rear
yard
setback.
This
is
an
existing
garage
structure
and
on
the
adjacent
properties
and
the
front
of
the
lot.
There
are
two
grand
trees
that
influence
the
lot.
N
N
This
is
a
floor
plan,
or
this
is
the
footprint
that
the
bruises
are
proposing
to
construct.
It's
in
conflict
with
the
with
the
six
foot
no
cut
zone
of
the
tree.
This
isn't
something
specifically
noted
in
the
code,
but
just
generally,
that
is
where
roots
turn
down
and
you
don't
really
want
to
make
any
impact,
and
it
obviously
is
encroaching
within
the
20
foot
and
the
15
foot
critical
root
zone.
This
area
here
is
the
existing
canopy,
which
encroaches
across
the
front
of
the
structure
or
across
the
back
of
the
structure.
N
This
is
an
alternative
site
plan
following
the
the
design
exception
criteria,
because
it's
such
a
small
lot,
the
design
exception
allowances
don't
make
much
of
a
difference.
So
the
building
only
shifted
slightly
two
feet
into
this
quadrant
closer
into
this
protective
root
area
of
the
of
an
off-site
grant.
N
C
N
N
C
C
A
F
N
A
A
L
J
L
L
L
L
This
tree
also
adds
significant
value
to
neighborhood
properties.
Studies
show
that
trees,
reduce
crime
and
have
positive
effect
on
mental
health.
Okay.
So
I
had
a
look
at
this
tree
from
not
on
the
property,
but
from
afar
and
my
professional
point
of
view,
I
I
believe
a
home
still
can
be
built
here.
F
A
L
A
E
N
L
L
E
N
G
I'd
be
curious
to
hear
from
natural
resources
as
to
their
position.
You
know
I
we
have
a
qualified,
arborist
who's.
Given
a
report
we
have
another
arborist
who's
hasn't
examined
the
train
the
same
manner
but,
as
has
a
contrary
viewpoint,
I'd
like
to
hear
what
natural
resources
evaluation
of
this
tree
is.
P
So
can
you
answer
me
so
that
I've
put
on
overhead
my
tree
evaluation?
I
had
a
similar
rating
to
ricky
ricky's
evaluation,
where
you
know,
judging
by
the
thinning
canopy,
it's
clear
that
there's
either
something
stretching
the
tree
or
it's
just
generally.
You
know
going
into
its
age
of
decline.
Perhaps
it
doesn't
present
any
total
like
any
immediate
risks,
which
is
why
it
was
not
rated
c9
as
a
hazardous
tree.
G
C
N
If
it
was
splitting
the
structure,
three
ways
or
four
ways,
so
any
puncture
in
that
zone
would
likely
adversely
impact
the
tree
from
the
ground
level
and
above
the
condition
of
the
tree,
was
a
sea.
A
fair
tree
dude
due
to
the
crown
thinning
and
crack
leaf
density,
and
no
special
design
criteria
or
special
design
technique
would
improve
the
health
of
the
tree.
It
would
only
put
a
structure
further
into
it,
increasing
the
risk
of
the
tree,
damaging
the
structure,
not
that
it
would
force
that,
but
it
just
allows
more
structure
to
be
damaged.
N
N
I'd
just
like
to
quickly
speak
to
the
the
member
who
spoke,
I
as
a
green
industry
professional.
I
agree
completely
with
all
the
values
that
trees
bring
to
the
built
environment.
So
this
isn't
the
debate
on
that.
This
is
just
an
exercise
in
a
going
through
the
criteria
that
the
city's
provided
and
and
ensuring
that
we
cannot
design
a
structure
that
meets
the
report,
the
programmatic
requirements
of
the
bruce's
family
and
preserve
the
tree.
So
that's.
That's
all
I'd
like
to
add
and
I'd
like
to
ask
the
bruises
to
provide
any
other
insight.
C
We
are
we're
hoping
to
grow
in
this
neighborhood
and
we
totally
agree
that
trees
are
fantastic
and
have
a
lot
of
great
aspects
to
them.
We
currently
in
our
house
can't
grow
our
family.
It's
a
two
bedroom
one
bath
and
750
square
feet.
Yes,
and
so
we
would
like
to
grow
our
family
stay
in
the
neighborhood,
I'm
a
teacher
right
down
the
street
and
we
just
really
want
to
stay
in
this
neighborhood
and
grow
our
family
here,
and
we
can't
do
that
in
the
current
living
situation.
We
have.
N
B
I'd
like
to
just
address
one
thing
about
the
construction:
if
anybody's
thinking
about
emotion
as
the
builder
on
the
board
is
a
practical,
there
is
no
financially
reasonable
for
them
to
be
required
to
build
an
elevated
slab
for
that
portion
of
the
tree
to
get
it
to
where
it
was
going
to
fit
to
leave.
Those
roots
would
drive
the
cost
of
the
house
beyond
what
is
economically
practical
for
these
people,
and
I
speak
to
that
from
experience
so
that
drives
the
price
of
the
house
right
off
of
the
market.
B
B
B
B
B
I
move
that
the
variance
request
for
vrb
case
vrb
20-68,
located
at
3420
west
san
pedro
street,
be
granted
as
depicted
on
the
site
plan
at
the
public
hearing
for
removal
of
a
grand
tree
based
upon
the
petitioners
meeting
the
burden
of
proof
that
the
tree
would
be
rendered
hazardous
by
proposed
construction.
That
cannot
reasonably
be
reconfigured
when
considering
the
factors
set
forth
in
section
27.
F
B
A
A
A
F
F
Frosty
the
snowman
was
a
jolly
happy
soul,
with
a
corn,
cob
pipe
and
a
button
nose
and
two
eyes
made
out
of
cold
frosty.
The
snowman
made
the
children
laugh
and
play.
Were
they
surprised
before
their
eyes?
He
came
to
life
that
day
there
must
have
been
some
magic
in
that
old,
silk
hat
they
found
for
when
they
placed
it
on
his
head.
He
began
to
dance
around
old
frosty.
The
snowman
was
alive
as
he
could
be,
and
the
children
say
he
could
laugh
and
play
just
the
same
as
you
and
me.
F
F
Frosty
the
snowman
knew
the
sun
was
hot
that
day,
so
he
said,
let's
run
we'll
have
some
fun
before
I
melt
away
so
down
to
the
village,
with
a
broomstick
in
his
hand,
running
here
and
there
all
around
the
square
saying
catch
me.
If
you
can,
he
led
them
down
the
streets
of
town
right
to
the
traffic
cop
and
he
only
paused
the
marmot
when
he
heard
him
holler
stop
for
frosty.
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
A
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
O
O
You
can
see
on
the
site
plan
that
the
because
of
the
rs75
zoning,
it's
a
12
foot
regard.
Setback
15
is
on
the
side
25
in
the
front,
the
existing
structure
doesn't
meet
the
front
or
side
by
inches,
but
that
is
what
it
is.
The
garage
is
considered
part
of
the
main
structure
because
of
the
attachment,
there's
a
walk,
a
covered
walkway
here
that
that
connects
the
two
structures.
That's
why
it's
not
considered
an
accessory
structure.
O
O
F
O
O
O
O
O
G
Questions,
mr
kitsmiller,
could
you
could
you
state
the
hardship
for
us,
please
that
we
understand
the
reasoning
for
moving
forward
on
the
garage
not
so
concerned
about
about
the
covered
porch
since
you're
respecting
the
existing
footprint?
But
can
you
can
you
explain
for
us
clearly
the
hardship
so
that
we
understand
that.
O
O
C
Okay,
so,
following
up
to
mr
feldman's
point,
one
of
the
things
that
we
have
to
five
of
the
things
that
we
have
to
look
at
are
these
hardship
criteria
that
are
set
out
in
the
city
code.
So,
for
example,
you
know
something
that
makes
the
property
unique,
and
you
know
this
variance
is
required
because
the
prop
the
property
is
unique
in
xyz,
you
know
circumstances
or
it
didn't
result
from
the
actions
of
the
applicant.
Can
you
maybe
speak
to
any
of
those
hardships?
O
O
O
O
The
variants
will
not
interfere
with
health,
self-safety
or
welfare
of
others.
We
can
see
how
the
adjacent
property
is
the
ditch,
so
there's
no
neighbor
on
that
side,
that's
affected
it
being
on
a
corner.
Is
there
there
are
really
no
neighbors.
That
would
see
the
difference
in
this
garage
because
it's
literally
coming
out
to
where
this
existing
planter
bed
is,
and
so
there's
really
given
the
additional
28
feet
to
the
to
the
edge
of
the
road.
I
suspect
most
people
wouldn't
even
notice
it,
except
when
it's
under
construction.
O
G
O
A
A
G
O
O
J
G
G
A
A
J
J
J
J
J
And
in
your
packet,
these
are
the
proposed
trees.
The
ones
in
red
are
the
ones
that
were
designated
for
removal,
but
I
do
believe
that
natural
resources
has
spoken
with
the
applicant
and
they've
made
an
arrangement
to
switch
to
the
two
of
the
trees,
one
to
remain,
and
one
not
too,
but
I
guess
natural
resources
and
viviana
will
tell
you
about
that.
A
M
M
First
of
all,
I
want
to
say
that
thank
you
for
letting
me
be
in
here.
It
has
been
a
year
going
with
this
project.
I
have
work
and
I
know
every
three
and
a
lot
with
that
being
said,
the
request
is
for
27
units,
multi-family,
19
18,
two
bedrooms,
two
bath,
nine
one
bedroom
one
bath,
the
one
by
the
one
body
is
850
square
feet.
Two
bedrooms:
two
baths
are
one
thousand
five
hundred
one
thousand
one
hundred
and
five
eight
five,
five
five
five.
M
The
practical
difficulties
are
unique
to
this
property
with
respect
to
the
site
and
the
location
of
the
specimens
ground
of
trees
in
their
in
their
impact.
The
permitting
and
buildable
of
our
area
of
the
subject
lodge
number
two.
The
hardship
and
practical
difficulties
did
not
result
from
the
actions
of
the
applicant
or
self-created
hardship
for
practical
difficulties
shall
not
justify
a
variance.
M
M
The
off-site
grant
freeze,
canopies,
expressway
glutes
and
the
three-story
multi-family
building,
and
we
have
the
following
reasons:
number
one
decided
properly
is
considered
wooden
by
davey
o'reilly
in
contain
15
grand
space,
the
grand
trees,
canopies
spread
prelude,
the
trees
toward
the
three-story
multi-family
food
print
site,
the
three-story.
There
is
three
of
the
of
the
six
grand
trees.
There
are
radius
d9,
d6
c6
by
debut
rally.
M
Number
three:
the
variance
is
if
this
variant
is
granted,
will
not
substantially
interfere
with
or
injure
the
health
safety
of
the
welfare
of
others.
Who's
properly
will
being
affected
by
allowance.
The
variance
something
this
variant
will
not
substantially
interfere
with
the
injury,
the
health
or
safety
or
welfare
holders
whose
property
will
be
affected
by
alloying
allowance.
The
parents,
in
fact,
upon
designing
the
property,
avoiding
future
3
health
decline
in
filling
branches
and
limbs
with
the
concentrated
areas
to
create
a
safer
community.
M
The
removal
of
the
trees
development
footprint
will
provide
safety
in
addition
to
the
property
owner,
will
maintain,
improve
and
preserve
the
health
of
the
trees
on
site
number.
Four.
The
variance
is
in
harmony
with
insert
the
general
intent
and
purpose
of
this
chapter
adopted
by
the
tampa
conference
comprehensive
plant
granting
these
variants
in
harmony
with
this
insert
with
the
general
intent
and
purpose
of
the
chapter
adopted
by
the
comprehensive
plan
by
20,
section
27,
2841,
section
20,
284,
27,
280
431
for
the
present
preservations
of
grand
trees.
M
We
have
we
have.
We
have
worked
really
hard
this
year
complete
year,
moving
from
one
side
to
the
other
side,
we
hired
the
best
esconia
architect,
company
and
hamilton
company
to
work
with
us
to
to
make
the
best
of
the
land
we
have
24
units
here
and
probably
we
couldn't
do
this,
but
seminole
heights
required
that
the
building
be
in
front
of
the
is
a
street,
so
that
didn't
work.
M
M
He
was
so
then
we
compromised
again
and
we
came
over
with
this
plant.
We
we
have
two
bedrooms,
two
baths
initially
all
together,
because
we
in
front
of
it
we
have
a
school.
We
want
to
serve
our
community,
so
we
went
one
bedrooms
on
the
corners
to
try
to
preserve
more
trees
and
right
now
we
have
with
the
natural
resources
tree
number.
M
Six
is
d6,
which
is
a
hazardous
tree,
so
he
talked
to
me
today
and
told
me:
number
19
has
to
be
removed,
so
we
have
one
two,
three,
four:
five:
six
trees.
We
went
around
these
100
times
with
the
architects
and
with
engineers,
and
how
can
we
do
this
better?
How
can
we
work
better
and
by
moving
the
building
this
way
and
trying
to
preserve?
Now
I
want
to
talk
about
number
14.
I
think
I
love
that
tree
it.
M
I
want
to
preserve
it
because
it's
the
biggest
tree
on
the
side
expressed
almost
to
the
building.
When
you
go
to
decide
if
you
ever
go,
you
were
going
to
say
I
called
I
called
my
abolish
today
he
was
there
shaking
some
trees
and
he
says.
Well
I
told
him:
what
are
we
going
to
do
for
the
architect
or
like
landscape,
and
he
says
well,
this
is
a
jungle.
M
I
I
Okay,
we
wanted
to
come
and
speak
today.
My
aunt
is
not
able
to
speak
for
herself.
She
owns
the
property
at
6910,
north
19th
street
and
she's
had
a
stroke,
and
she
has
aphasia
so
she's
not
able
to
speak,
but
we
wanted
to
speak
on
this
because
we
already
have
a
traffic
issue
in
this
area
due
to
the
existence
of
the
school
there's
a
tico
location
very
nearby.
I
We
don't
have
a
lot
of
apartments
in
this
neighborhood
people
bought
in
this
neighborhood
because
it's
single
family
homes-
and
we
very
much
would
like
to
preserve
that
feel
of
it
be
honest
with
you.
There
were
four
homes
built
on
a
single
lot
in
our
neighborhood
that
if
we
understood
at
the
time
that
they
planned
to
build
houses
behind
houses
with
limited
access
to
them,
we
would
have
objected
at
that
time.
For
that
brilliance
hearing,
we
thought
they
were
splitting
a
large
lot
into
two
or
three
normal
side-by-side
homes.
I
I
I
We
can
literally
come
out
when
it's
raining
hard
and
I
know
there's
drainage
on
the
street,
but
unfortunately
across
the
street
on
the
east
side
of
the
street.
There
are
no
curbs,
there's
nothing
to
slow
the
water
down,
so
it
runs
all
the
way
down
the
hill
across
the
street
jumps
the
curb
runs
down
our
property.
I
But
mostly
our
traffic
issue
is
a
consideration
on
that
side
of
the
street.
This
neighborhood
does
not
have
a
lot
of
sidewalks.
There
are
sidewalks
on
the
opposite
side
of
sly
adjacent
to
the
school.
There
are
not
on
our
side
and
there
with
the
bus
stops
and
what
not
that
you
would
have
people
crossing
the
street
in
the
middle
of
the
block
exacerbating
existing
traffic
issues.
I
We
have
also
had
issues
with
the
sewer
system
in
this
neighborhood
since
then,
there's
an
apartment
building
that
was
built
on
I'm
not
sure
which
street
it's
actually
listed
on,
but
it's
off
of
22nd
street
and
between
that
and
the
school
and
the
businesses
there.
We
have
had
grease
blockages
and
had
backups
into
the
properties
on
our
street,
and
we
would
very
much
like
to
avoid
further
problems
like
this,
and
I
don't
understand
how
you
can
put
a
27
unit
structure
on
the
same
sewer
line
and
not
have
more
problems
and.
A
H
J
H
So
I
understand
what
she's
saying
I
I'm
the
closest
I'm
even
closer
to
you,
but
I
can't
you
know
any
as
long
as
things
are
put
in
place
to
to
stop
what
you're
saying
is
fine
with
me,
but
you
know
I'm
okay
with
the
development.
I
just
need
to
know
if
those
streets
are
going
to
be
removed,
because
for
years
I
I
couldn't
find
the
owners
there
they're
destroying
my
house,
they
fall
on
my
roof
all
the
time
the
trees
are
dying.
H
H
M
M
M
I
spoke
to
david
o'reilly,
he
says,
doesn't
know
grand
tree.
We
might
be
able
to
cut
it.
I
mean
I
already
brought
some
people
there
and
he
says
that
we
can't
cut
that
tree
if
they
allow
us
to
develop
islam
and
even
if
they
don't.
I
think
it's
good
idea
just
to
cut
it
because
it
leans
into
this
one.
It
looks
hazardous
to
me
it
just
and
not
only.
N
H
M
And
this
is
what,
where
we
go,
every
time
we
go
there
as
trees
pieces
of
trees
on
the
floor.
The
limbs
the
limbs
are
here
together,
they're
broken
up.
This
is
something
that
we
need
to
to
to
get
taken.
Care
of.
This
is
the
most
beautiful
thing,
one
of
the
most
beautiful
trees
we
have,
but
there
is
an
issue
between.
If
you
read
the
tree
report,
the
trees
are
attaching
together.
A
J
What's
going
on
is
the
joel
souza
development
coordination
what's
going
on?
Is
there
they
have
to
go
because
it's
zone
commercial?
They
have
to
go
through
a
special
use,
one
in
order
to
put
any
residential
use
on
it.
So
they're
going
concurrently
with
special
use
to
build
the
residential
com,
the
multi-family
complex,
but
as
part
of
that
application
they
need
six
grand
trees
removed
in
order
to
do
this
right,
okay,
so
they
have.
They
need
to
get
this
removal
done
in
order
to
facilitate
the
completion
of
the
special
use.
One
application.
F
A
G
G
M
F
C
I
N
Ricky
pedrica
dark
moss.
I
I'd
like
to
assist
in
clarification
there.
The
original
request
was
for
the
removal
of
tree
number
six.
It
was
determined
to
be
a
hazardous
tree
upon
follow-up,
so
it's
not
subject
to
the
vrb
review
and
when
natural
resources
looked
at
number
19
in
more
detail,
they
felt
that
the
building
encroachment
on
that
tree
did
merit
removal
or
warrant
removal.
So
the
the
request
switched
from
6
to
19,
so
so
6
is
being
handled
outside
of
this.
A
M
I
want
to
say
that
we
want
to
serve
our
community,
we're
here
to
serve
a
little
bit
about
me.
I
do
provide
affordable
housing.
I
grew
up
here.
I
went
to
usf
and
when
I
came
here,
I
have
nothing
I
live
in,
like
with
people,
and
I
have.
I
was
compelled
to
to
be
part
of
the
community
and
give
a
service
to
people
that
really
need
it,
and
I
think
this
neighborhood
this
site
is
a
beautiful
site
to
serve
our
people.
The
school
needs
it.
M
I
mean
this
school
is
a
medical
and,
and
it
needs
more
people
to
come
here
and
closer
to
them
and
and
we're
talking
about
good
neighborhood.
We
want
that
in
that
school,
and
one
more
thing
for
for
the
sewer
for
for
everything
is
going
to
be
on
place.
We're
going
to
bring
the
water
which
is
not
here.
The
water
is
just
on
the
corner:
we're
going
to
address
issues
that
are
going
to
help
our
community
that
we're
going
to
put
to
bring
the
pump
here.
B
B
284.2.51
of
the
city
code
for
grand
tree
removal,
specifically
that
the
evidence
provided
in
the
record
at
this
public
hearing
that
the
petitioner
has
exhaustively
gone
to
all
efforts
to
try
and
reconfigure
the
building
to
accommodate
as
many
size
as
many
trees
on
the
site
as
possible,
and
I
think
it
effectively
limited
the
number
of
amount
removed
and
they
said
they
meet
the
comp
plan
by
the.
What
was
the
percentage
that
you,
the
comp
plan
required.
Something-
and
it
was
you
were
in
excess
of
that-
is
an
overall
coverage.
M
E
B
F
J
N
N
N
N
N
This
is
the
same
graphic
with
a
little
x-ray
styling
to
help
bring
out.
What's
going
on.
This
tree
is
currently
or
this
pipe
is
currently
proposed
at
the
edge
of
the
drip
line.
This
pipe
60
inch
pipe
is
currently
planned
for
directly
underneath
the
tree
in
blue
are
the
existing
pipes
and
clear
well
infrastructure.
This
is
a
clear
chlorine
injector.
N
N
So,
while
it
looks
relatively
benign-
as
as
I
hope
you
you
saw
in
the
previous
exhibits-
that
there's
a
lot
going
on
in
this
area-
and
this
species
is
not
tolerant
of
construction,
reasonable
reconfiguration
of
any
of
these
engineered,
optimized
mainline
water
main
pipes
that
serve
the
entire
city
would
be
on
the
order
of
millions
of
taxpayer
dollars.
So
that
is
the.
I
think
that
the
substantial
justice
to
the
citizens
of
tampa
is
met
by
the
by
this
request.
So
I
respectfully
request
your
approval
for
consideration.
A
F
E
E
A
A
L
A
B
A
J
J
J
Again,
this
is
the
lot
here.
This
is
the
the
lot
line
that
runs
along
the
back,
and
this
is
a
private
drainage,
easement
they're,
going
back
up
against
so
when
they're
going
going
to
zero
they're,
not
technically
on
their
lot
they're
going
to
zero,
but
there's
also
another
area
of
property
behind
their
property.
That's
part
of
the
overall
ownership
of
the
subdivision.
J
J
J
H
H
There
is
a
masonry
wall
that
backs
up
to
another
h08
property
behind
them.
This
is
the
drainage
easement.
They
are
fenced
off,
like
joel
had
mentioned
proper.
The
hoas
property
is
this
segment
here
for
drainage.
Easement
homeowner
is
required
at
time
of
purchase
and
everything
to
maintain
this
property
and
and
have
that.
So
this
is
usable
space
for
them,
but
in
this
particular
sense
we're
looking
at
a
little
bit
of
a
postage
stamp
here
when
it
comes
to
the
overall
size
of
the
backyard
that
they
actually
have
legally
to
build
within.
H
So
what
we're
requesting
is
to
be
able
to
push
the
pool
to
the
zero
line.
So
what
we're
looking
at
right
here
would
be
pool
beam
and
then
push
our
pool
over,
so
we
can
have
a
little
bit
of
a
walkway
between
the
garage
and
the
pool
to
where
we're
at
three
foot
eight
off
the
property
line
to
the
west.
H
So
in
in
this
particular
situation,
yes,
we
can
make
the
pool
whatever
size.
We
want
the
space
that
we
have
is
substantially
small,
so
they're
they're,
requesting
to
have
a
little
bit
of
a
walkway
on
both
sides
of
the
pool
young
kids
want
to
run
around
the
pool.
Yes,
we
could
build
the
pool
smack
up
against
the
garage,
but
this
is
just
a
little
bit
more
usable
space
for
the
youngsters
at
this
particular.
F
F
D
J
D
F
F
F
A
J
J
J
J
F
T
T
As
again
as
mr
souza,
just
to
recap
what
he
said:
there's
a
freestanding
sign
on
site
and
there's
a
building
sign
on
the
east,
fowler
frontage,
so
facing
north
of
the
building.
It's
a
single
occupancy,
parcel
or-
and
it
has
corner-like
frontage
in
that
it's
got
drives
on
either
side
of
the
building
and
there's
a
very
large
flea
market
parking
lot
behind
the
building.
So
it's
kind
of
it's
an
odd
configuration
and
it's
also
got
a
csx
rail
line
bordering
it
on
the
east
as
well.
T
So
there's
an
alleyway
that
kind
of
leads
to
the
flea
market
and
there's
the
csx
railroad
and
then
there's
the
actual
access
point
for
the
property
on
the
west
side,
where
the
parking
lot
also
is
so
it's
a
confusing
layout.
I
went
there
myself
to
post
the
sign
and
I
drove
past
it
just
as
I
expected.
I
would
because
that
is
the
reason
why
we're
requesting
this
variance.
T
So
it's
definitely
a
safety
issue,
because
anybody
who's
been
on
east
fowler.
Coming
from
the
interstate
knows,
it's
extremely
congested,
extremely
developed,
very
commercialized,
and
so
it's
important
to
have
clear,
building
signage
and
to
avoid
dangerous,
maneuvers,
there's
also
a
bicycle
lane
there.
So
for
pedestrians
and
bicycles
as
well.
T
It's
an
issue,
so
our
request
specifically
is
to
construct
an
additional
building
site
on
the
west,
facing
side
of
the
building,
which
is
not
on
a
frontage
but
is
facing
oncoming
traffic,
so
that
people
traveling
down
east
valler
from
the
west
will
see
it
and
know
exactly
where
they
need
to
turn
in,
and
I
will
show
you
some
pictures
to
better
describe
what
I'm
saying.
Oh
well,
I
basically
already
said
all
of
this,
so
here
this
is
kind
of
reiterating
what
joel
showed
you
here.
It
is
here's
the
alley
I
was
talking
about.
T
As
you
can
see,
this
is
the
flea
market
parking
lot
and
there's
a
structure
here,
I'm
not
sure
to
which
parcel
it
belongs.
But
if
you
go
down
this
way,
it's
not
very
well
developed
and
then
here's
the
csx
rail
line,
here's
the
actual
parking
for
the
subject
property-
and
that
is
also,
of
course,
where
you
would
turn
in.
If
you
knew
where
you
were
going
here
is
traveling
down
east
power
from
the
west,
here's
the
parking
lot
here
and
the
access,
as
you
can
see,
the
building.
T
So
it's
kind
of
clear
that,
having
a
sign
here,
which
is
what
we're
proposing,
would
alleviate
this
issue,
because
you
would
know
where
you
were
in
a
turn
well
before
you
were,
there
freestanding
signs
while
helpful,
don't
really
narrow
down
where
you're
supposed
to
turn
much
like
a
billboard.
It
doesn't
really,
you
know
it's.
The
distance
is
kind
of
difficult
to
tell
exactly
where
it
is
and
it's
planted
a
little
farther
behind
the
access.
Anyway.
T
Here's
that
other
access
drive.
I
was
referring
to
it
gets
confusing
here
because
of
this
and
the
csx
railroad
as
somebody
who
drove
in
this
area.
It
was
confusing
and
I
passed
this
as
well.
This
is
not
very
helpful.
It
adds
to
the
confusion
and
here's
when
you've
already
passed
the
building
and,
of
course
the
sign
on
this
side
wouldn't
be
much
help.
Would
it.
T
Although,
of
course,
just
because
other
properties
have
unique
situations
doesn't
mean
that
you
know
that's
a
reason
to
grant
a
variance,
but
this
is
clearly
an
issue
all
over
fowler
we've
got.
You
know,
corner
some
corner
lots
who
have
three
signs
rather
than
the
two
allowed
by
code,
because
it's
a
safety
issue
and
our
our
property
is
unique
in
that
it
has
the
effect
of
a
corner
lot
without
actually
being
one.
So
the
corner
lot
properties
you
know
they're
able
to
have
at
least
have
a
side
on
the
other
frontage.
T
Well,
we
don't
have
that
ability,
but
we
need
one
because
of
the
access
issues
that
I've
described
so
I'll.
Show
you
some
examples
of
how
other
properties
have
been
able
to
alleviate
these
problems
and
have
clear
access
and
have
plenty
of
signage,
but
they
have
the
benefit
of
actually
being
a
corner
lot,
although
they
do
have
an
additional
sign
as
permitted
by
code.
So
the
stake
in
shake
is
across
the
street.
T
You've
got
a
sign
on
the
frontage,
a
sign
facing
oncoming
traffic
and
a
sign
facing
the
other
side,
which
is
not
on
frontage
waffle
house.
I
think
it's
directly
across
the
street
again.
You've
got
a
sign
on
fowler,
a
sign
facing
oncoming
traffic,
which
is
not
on
the
front
edge,
which
is
similar
to
what
we're
proposing
and
a
sign
on
the
other
frontage,
and
then
you've
got
quality
value
automotive,
which
is
also
across
the
street.
T
You've
got
a
sign
on
the
frontage
sign
on
the
corner
and
it's
a
little
hard
to
see
with
the
trees
but
signage
on
the
side
facing
oncoming
traffic,
which
is
not
a
frontage
and
just
to
show
you
where
these
are
located.
This
is
steak
and
shake.
This
is
the
subject:
property,
waffle,
house
and
quality
value
automotive.
T
The
parcels
location
is
unique
in
comparison
to
the
surrounding
area
because
of
the
way
it's
configured
on
the
surrounding
uses
and
external
factors
like
the
railway.
The
way
the
building
is
situated
close
to
the
frontage
and
surrounding
properties
don't
suffer
from
this
hardship
because
they've
either
got
clear
access
points
or,
as
you've
seen,
they
have
additional
building
signs.
T
The
hardship
does
not
result
from
the
applicant's
actions.
As
I
said
earlier,
phantom
fireworks
is
a
tenant
of
the
space
they
didn't
configure
or
develop
the
property
and
the
external
factors
of
the
congested
nature
of
fowler.
The
fact
that
it's
a
highly
developed
area,
csx
railway
and
just
the
surrounding
area
create
the
hardship.
T
The
variances,
in
harmony
with
the
code
and
the
comprehensive
plan,
it's
the
intent
of
both
the
zoning
district
and
the
future
land
use
category
to
promote
commercial
uses
and
to
promote
health,
safety
and
welfare
of
people
and
businesses
in
the
area.
An
additional
building
sign
promotes
all
these
goals.
It
creates
safety
through
access,
point
visibility
and
improves
commercial
viability
on
site.
T
Finally,
granting
this
variance
will
result
in
substantial
justice
being
done.
If
you
consider
that
a
strict
application
of
code
here
will
leave
the
parcel
at
a
disadvantage
and
will
maintain
an
unsafe
and
confusing
access
condition
and
the
public
benefit
of
clear
signage
in
an
area
that
is
congested,
I
think,
is
clear
and
ways
in
favor
of
granting
the
variance
I'd
like
to
just
show
you
the
sign.
So
it's
a
total
of
90
square
feet.
T
Now,
of
course,
we
already
have
a
building
sign,
but
if
this
were
the
only
building
sign,
it's
within
the
permitted
square
footage
allowed
for
such
a
sign.
So
we're
not
asking
for
a
gigantic
distasteful
sign,
and
then
I
think
this
was
already
shown
in
staff's
report,
but
here's
a
rendering
of
the
way
the
sign
will
look,
it's
very
clear.
T
F
G
T
I
don't
know,
but
I
didn't
think
that
was
necessarily
relative
just
irrelevant
just
because
they're
either
doing
it
and
not
allowed
to
do
it,
they're
still
doing
it
or
they
got
variances
because
of
the
same.
You
know
that
they
had
some
reason
why
they
needed
it.
Just
like
we
do,
but
again
they're
corner
parcels,
so
they
have
at
least
the
advantage
of
having
two
frontages
and
they're
allowed
to
at
least
have
two
signs
and
we're
only
allowed
to
have
one
under
code.
T
But
yeah,
but
the
buildings
I
mean
it's
we're
looking
at
what's
allowed
in
code,
we're
allowed
to
have
a
freestanding
sign.
We're
allowed
to
have
a
building
sign.
I
think
building
signs
are
more
helpful
when
you're
on
the
ground,
for
pedestrians
and
for
cars,
so
I
mean
we,
the
applicants
even
tried
billboards
which
are
ridiculously
expensive
and
it
didn't
help.
So
the
high
up
signs
just
not
doing
it.
T
B
A
D
D
D
A
N
B
He
granted
is
depicted
on
the
site
plan
presented
at
the
public
hearing
for
a
to
allow
a
90
foot,
90
square
foot,
building
sign
on
the
building
facade
that
does
not
have
public
street
frontage
on
the
east
side
of
that
building,
based
upon
the
applicant
presenting
competent
and
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
of
the
public
hearing
of
an
unnecessary
hardship
or
practical
difficulty.
When
considering
the
five.