►
From YouTube: VRB 11-9-21
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
B
B
A
Attendees
and
participants,
and
welcome
to
the
november
9th
2021
meeting
of
the
city
of
tampa
variance
review
board
from
my
left.
The
members
of
the
board
are.
A
A
A
Please
approach
the
podium
when
you
approach
the
podium,
please
state
your
name
address
and
if
you
have
been
sworn
the
petitioner
and
or
their
agent
will
have
10
minutes
to
make
a
presentation
and
all
other
persons
or
participants
wishing
to
speak
will
have
three
minutes,
and
then
the
petitioner
will
have
an
additional
three
minutes
for
rebuttal
if
needed.
The
time
periods,
as
stated,
will
be
kept
by
the
board.
A
Any
information
such
as
pictures
or
plans
that
have
not
previously
been
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.
After
acceptance
by
the
board,
you
must
submit
the
item
to
staff
for
it
to
be
entered
and
made
part
of
the
permanent
record.
A
The
board
bases
decision
on
competent
and
substantial
evidence
which
is
presented
and
which
meets
the
criteria
required
by
the
city's
code
of
ordinances,
please
be
sure
to
clearly
state
your
hardship
criteria.
During
your
presentation,
a
majority
of
the
board
is
needed
to
approve
your
variants.
A
variance
granted
by
the
board
will
be
only
for
what
is
shown
on
the
site
plan
and
will
be
in
compliance
with
any
other
terms
and
conditions
stated
in
the
approval
by
the
board.
A
A
If
the
case
is
denied,
you
may
wish
to
have
your
variance
the
variance
review
board's
decision
reviewed
by
the
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.
Review
period
has
passed.
A
Your
cooperation
in
ensuring
that
this
meeting
is
run
smoothly
is
greatly
appreciated.
Can
I
have
a
motion
from
one
of
the
board
members
to
approve
last
month's
meeting
minutes.
A
Do
we
have
second?
Second,
all
right:
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
all,
those
in
favor
of
approval,
say
aye
aye
any
pose
all
right.
The
meeting
meeting
minutes
have
been
approved
at
this
time.
I
will
ask
legal
staff
to
please
confirm
whether
there
are
any
ex
parte
communications
or
conflicts
among
the
board.
Members.
F
A
F
A
Well,
do
you
want
to
do
you
want
to
bet
this
issue?
I
mean,
as
as
I
understand
it,
mr
murphy,
you
assisted
in
some
some
work
on
the
property
correct,
I'm
the
surveyor
that
reconfigured
all
the
lots
for
that
entire
subdivision.
F
A
Okay,
are
there
any
other?
Did
we
complete
this
process?
Are
we
done
with
that
all
right?
Thank
you.
Are
there
any
changes
to
the
agenda
that
staff
wishes
to
address
this
evening.
A
Okay
and
have
those
been
placed
in
the
record.
G
Oh
and
additionally,
sorry
vrb,
21
129
to
135
has
a
revised
site
plan
so
that
will
be
distributed
at
the
time.
The
case
is
presented.
A
Okay,
did
we
want
to
address
the
the
changing
of
the
hearing
time
as
well.
A
Okay,
so,
as
I
understand
it,
the
issue
is
whether
the
board
would
prefer
to
meet
at
an
earlier
start
time
than
the
current
6
30
for
future
meetings.
Does
anyone
have
any
thoughts
about
moving
the
start
time
up?
Is
that
preferable
to
everyone
seems
like
moving
it
up
sounds
like
a
preferable
thing
to
from
what
I
understand,
but
tell
me
what
you
think.
A
B
A
Okay,
yeah
I
mean
I
I
can
do
either
5
30
or
6,
but
you
know,
and
apparently
it
shouldn't
be,
that
big
of
a
hassle
for
any
members
of
the
public.
A
B
A
H
A
G
I
have
received
from
some
notices
for
december,
so
yeah
some
people
have
done
noticing
it
might
be
best
to
push
this
to.
F
January,
okay,
in
the
abundance
of
caution,
you
don't
want
to
act
outside
of
what
other
people
have
already
noticed
for
so
the
recommendation
would
be
to
set
it
out
further.
The
new
start
time
out
far
enough,
so
that
those
who
are
going
to
become
applicants
are
aware
of
the
time
that
the
board
now
me
would.
A
You
recommend,
if
we,
if
we
vote
and
approve
a
new
start
time,
would
staff
and
legal
recommend,
starting
in
january
or
starting
sometime
subsequent
to
that
for.
F
G
Right
now-
and
I
would
say
january
would
be
a
good
time
to
start
okay,
because
we
none
of
the
applicants
for
january
have
sent
out
notice,
and
so
that's
something
that
they
can
accommodate
all.
A
Right,
I
know
we're
missing
two
board
members
this
evening,
so
why
don't
we
do
this?
Why
don't
we
vote
that
on
on
a
5
30
start
time
for
january,
and
we
can
always
revisit
this
discussion
at
our
december
meeting
and
reconsider
it
if,
if
our
two
missing
board
members
decide
that
they
would
like
to
chime
in
on
this
issue,
dave
and
dustin.
A
So,
okay
does
somebody
want
to
make
a
motion
then
to
move
our
start
time
up
to
5
30
for
the
january
meeting
to
be
reevaluated
in
december?
If
need
be,.
E
A
Okay,
all
those
in
favor
of
moving
the
start
time
for
the
january
vrb
meeting
up
to
5
30
to
be
revisited
if
necessary
in
december,
say
aye
any
opposed
all
right.
There
you
go.
G
G
This
is
work
that
was
done
without
permits
and
they
are
coming
in
as
an
after
the
fact
to
rectify
that.
So
they
have
an
active
bld
permit.
They
have
an
active
code
permit
as
well.
G
A
J
J
Okay,
thank
you
so
much
so
the
the
request
that
we're
doing
is
to
accommodate
my
family.
We
have
recently
had
a
family
member
who
has
alzheimer
so
she
lives
with
us
now
and
the
house
has
kind
of
gotten
a
little
bit
too
small.
For
us,
it
only
has
a
full
bathroom
so
clearly
as
I
live
there,
my
girlfriend
who
does
not
live
there,
but
it
spends
a
lot
of
time
there.
My
parents
and
her
there's
a
necessity
for
more
room
in
the
space
in
the
living
space.
J
Welcome
because
she
knows
that's
her
house
and
when
she
has
her
episodes.
She
wants
to
like
come
back
to
her
home
place,
but
unfortunately
that's
not
where
she
resides
anymore.
Therefore,
if
we
were
to
be
able
to
provide
her
with
something
that
was
somewhat
similar
to
what
her
house
would
look
like,
we
felt
like
that
would
be.
That
would
do
a
lot
of
good
for
her
and
it
definitely
did
and
it
has
to
improve
her
living
and
our
living
as
well
since
living
with
somebody
with
that
illness
is
not
a
difficult
thing.
J
It's
not
an
easy
thing,
but
that
is
with
regards
to
the
one
in
the
back
to
the
one
to
extension
on
the
side.
J
The
main
reason
that
we
did
it
is
because,
as
you
can
see
on
this
picture,
the
the
trees
on
top
right
technically
on
the
side
of
the
house
cover
a
lot
of
the
area
on
the
roof
and
they
bring
a
lot
of
pollen,
a
lot
of
branches
that
have
falling,
and
fortunately
thank
god
has
not
hit
anybody,
but
they
could
so
the
poland
after
a
while
and
all
that
little
debris
that
comes
from
the
trees
when
it
rains
it
solidifies,
and
then
it
creates
this
nasty
mold
on
the
on
the
side
of
it
on
around
here
and
because
of
that,
and
because
it's
an
old
house,
we've
basically
have
mole
issues.
J
I've
been
having
mold
issues
for
a
good
while
which
made
us,
you
know,
require
a
lot
of
help
and
a
lot
of
payment
for
air
conditioning
and
repair
to
you
know
just
keep
up
with
that.
So
one
time
one
of
the
technicians
said
that
if
we
were
able
to
have
something
that
just
not
allowed
or
would
block
all
that
dust
that
would
get
you
know
right
in
here.
It
would
be
really
really
helpful
for
us.
So
we
decided
that
we
would
kill
two.
J
J
J
You
know
close
this
part
here,
which
is
not
what
we're
here
for,
but
also
close
by,
adding
that
the
fawning
in
there
it
close
the
softer
part
of
the
of
the
house
or
the
ceiling
for
the
rodents,
since
this
part
here
it's
this
brick,
so
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
you
know
bite
through
it.
J
J
So
we
thought
that
if
we
were
to
extend
it
up
to
here,
we'll
still
be
respecting
sony,
but
clearly
not
the
case,
but
at
least
it
shows
you
an
insight
of
what
we
were
thinking
when
we
did
it
and
the
reason
why.
J
J
J
I
mean
there
are,
there
are
more
pictures
but
they're,
not
here
hi
is
there
any
way
I
could
show
it
from
the
send
it
anywhere.
A
Well,
do
you
have
pictures
on
your
phone?
Do
you
have
the
pictures.
A
On
this
laptop
yeah,
okay,
well,
you
can
put
it
right
onto
the
onto
the
overhead
projector
sure.
J
This
is
just
one
of
the
branches
that
have
fallen
from
the
neighboring
house
trees.
This
one
is
quite
large,
there's
been
larger
ones,
especially
within
a
hurricane
season,
and
but
even
smaller
ones
can
also,
as
you
may
see,
because
a
lot
of
harm
if
they
were
to
follow
somebody
either
ourselves
or
our
pets,
then.
J
This
this
image
here
shows
the
the
rodent
issue.
I
was
talking
about
later
the
squirrel
right
in
there
they
get
through
there
and
get
inside
of
the
ceiling.
So
that's
just
on
the
one
side,
but
on
the
other
side
it
does
the
exact
same
thing.
So
far,
we've
been
able
to
you
know,
maintain
them
away,
but
thanks
to
to
the
extension
that
we
did,
but
otherwise
it
would
have
been
really
really
problematic
for
us.
A
Okay.
That
concludes
your
presentation.
Then
it
does
all
right.
Are
there
any
members
of
the
public
wishing
to
speak
about
this
petition?
Anyone
all
right,
seeing
none?
I
will
open
it
up
to
the
board
for
board
questions.
If
anyone
has
any.
J
I
wouldn't
be
able
to
tell
you
right
away,
but
it
was
built
by
my
steps
that
father
so
around
the
50s,
I'm
pretty
sure
so
not
54,
something
like
that.
It
was
after
the
war.
J
Yeah
three
three
bedroom
bedrooms,
one
full
bath
and
then
a
half
bath
just
with
a
toilet
and
a
sink
that
is
attached
to
my
parents
bedroom.
So
of
course
it
would
be
kind
of
hard
to
just
you
know,
get
through
there
for
when
either
me
my
girlfriend
or
my
aunt
needs
it.
A
K
J
E
And
what
is
in
the
audition
now?
I
know
you
said
that
there's
a
full
bath
is
that
it.
J
It's
a
bath
and
just
another
room
that
that's
where
she
her.
It's
basically
like
a
mock
living
room
for
her
kind
of
so
there's
a
tv
there's,
a
sofa
in
there
just
a
little.
You
know
just
her
own
little
space
and
then
I
just
because
there's
a
middle
room,
but
the
middle
room
was
quite
small
and
there
were
a
few
instances
where
she
fell
at
night
because
it's
kind
of
small
and
there's
not
you
know
a
lot
next
to
it.
C
Did
you
have
a
question?
Yes,
so
you've,
it
looks
like
there's
three
things
you
added
the
cover
to
the
to
the
side
of
the
house,
the
back
edition
with
extra
room
bathroom
and
then
at
the
enclosing
of
the
front
porch.
Is
that
what
the
third
one
was
was
that
was
that
something
you
pointed
out
was
different.
J
F
C
And
in
our
packet
we
have
a
pretty
extensive
plans.
J
C
I
J
No,
the
the
reason
for
the
thing
on
the
next
on
the
side
is
for
the
trees.
The
reason
for
the
bag
is
a
familiar
reason.
Is
it's
a
domestic
situation
that
our
we
have
more
people
living
in
the
in
the
house.
The
house
can
afford.
So
that's
why
we
expanded
it
would
be
nice
to
like
go
out
but
budget-wise.
It's
too
much.
A
All
right,
why
don't
we
do
this?
You
do
you
have
a
copy
of
the
plan.
Sets
that
we
have
do
you
have
that
access
to
the
set
of
plans
that
shows
the
layout?
I
can
look
it
up
on.
A
I
just
want
to
be
able
to
understand
to
dovetail
into
ms
johnson's
question
about
what
what
work
was
done
and
what
wasn't.
Because
when
staff
showed
us
a
presentation,
they
showed
us
a
topographical
survey
and
I
just
want
to
be
able
to
identify
which
work
was
added
and
which
work
was
not.
A
There
you
go
slide
it
down
or
down
a
little
bit
perfect.
Okay,
if
you
would,
mr
montero,
would
you
point
to
the
additional
part
it's
the
piece
in
the
back
for
starters
right
correct,
so
it
says
that
that
chunk
in
the
back
with
the
dining
living
room
area.
A
Okay,
all
of
that
in
the
back
was
added
on
including
the
bathroom.
J
A
Okay
and
the
open
porch,
you
simply
put
a
cover
over
that
on
the
side.
A
Now
that
open,
porch
that
existed
previously
is
that
correct,
but
but
not
covered,
just
open
all
right
and
was
it
paved
beforehand?
Do
you
have
papers
out
or
something
like
that
earlier
before
you
covered
it?
Yes,
yes,
we
did
it.
Okay,
wait
say
that
again
you
it
it
was.
It
had
pavers
before
you
put
a
cover
on
it.
Is
that
correct.
A
B
J
A
G
A
West
side
of
your
property,
thank
you,
so
you've
got
some
some
pretty
large
trees,
overhanging
the
house
and
so
miss
miss
hertag
was
asking.
If
you
had
hypothetically
budget
aside,
if
you're
going
to
put
on
an
addition
on
the
top
those
tree
branches
that
hang
over
your
house,
those
you
would
probably
have
to
cut
some
of
those
down.
Is
that
correct,
correct?
Okay?
A
All
right,
I
don't
have
any
other
questions
for
you.
Thank
you
before.
We,
no
all
right,
yep,
three
minutes
for
rebuttal
to
talk
about
anything
else
that
we
raised
or
anything
else
that
you
want
to
say.
J
D
Close
the
public
hearing-
yes,
I
I
would
I'm
curious
if
you
would
accept
a
a
rule
attached
to
this,
that
that
open
porch
could
never
be
enclosed,
that
it
would
stay
an
open,
porch
forever.
A
A
J
Absolutely
that
the
intention
of
that
approach
was
just
to,
as
I
said,
protect
yourself
from
the
animals
around
and
just
from
the
far
on
the
fauna
of
the
place.
You
know
from
the
branches
and
trees
we're
not
expecting
to
make
an
air
conditioning
space
because
we,
like
you
know
being
outside,
and
it's
good
for
her
to
you-
know,
walk
her
around
and
for
my
parents
to
get
smoking
cigarettes,
it's
a
good
place
that
we
live
there
and
we
use
it
as
such.
We
do
not
intend
to
just
expand
it
as
a
livable
place.
J
A
So,
given
that
we
just
asked
another
question,
do
we
need
to
go
back
to
just
offer
another
rebuttal?
Are
we
good.
A
If
I'm
gonna,
given
that
we
just
asked
you
another
question,
should
you
choose
to
have
any
more
rebuttal
time?
It
is
open
to
you
otherwise
we'll
go
ahead
and
close
the
public
gear.
It's
up
to
you.
C
A
So,
typically,
when
we
put
a
condition
that
it
never
be,
enclosed
screening
is
not
prohibited.
It's
just
merely
a
distinction
between
air
conditioning
and
under
conditioned
space,
but.
A
A
As
I'll
just
start
the
discussion,
then,
as
I
understand
it,
we
do
have
a
relatively
small
property
on
a
relatively
small
lot.
The
only
real
place
for
expansion
is
in
the
rear,
and
you
know
had
this
been
presented
to
us
before
hand.
It
would
have
been
something
that
we
could
have
and
would
have
considered.
A
There
doesn't
seem
to
be
any
real
prospect
for
expansion
upward,
as
mr
attack
pointed
out
so
expansion
in
the
rear
in
a
reasonable
fashion
that
did
not
impact
the
trees
around
the
property
and
that
matches
the
neighbors
property
seems
like
it
would
be
fairly
reasonable
from
my
perspective.
But
the
chair
cannot
make
a
motion.
So
that's
my
discussion
and
I'll
leave
it
from
there.
A
C
I'll
make
a
motion
if
all
right,
please.
C
So
I
move
that
the
variance
request
for
a
case
brb
21102,
located
at
3615
west
tackin
street,
is
depicted
on
the
site
plan
presented
at
the
public
hearing
for
a
reduced
rear
yard
setback
from
20
to
6.3
feet
and
a
side.
West
yard
setback
from
7
to
2.4
feet
with
the
following
conditions
that
the
side
yard
canopy
structure
will
not
be
enclosed
in
an
air-conditioned
space.
C
With
that
said,
variants
as
conditioned
be
granted
based
upon
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.
Fourth
and
2780
of
the
city
code,
specifically
that
you,
the
backyard
encroachment
matches
the
other
residential
house,
there's
still
plenty
of
room.
It
was
built
in
a
time
that
created
very
small
residences
and
it
was
difficult
to
improve
upon
okay.
E
I'll
second,
with
an
amendment
that
the
rear
yard
setback
be
reduced
from
20
feet
to
16.3
feet,
I
think
there
was
a
typo
in
our
little
packet.
A
Do
you
accept,
I
accept
absolutely
all
right
so
motion
in
a
second
all,
those
in
favor
say
aye,
all
it's
posed
your
motion.
Your
application
is
approved.
Thank
you.
Have
a
good
night
as
well.
G
They
would
be
represented
today
by
their
agent
jamie
meyer,
and
this
property
is
addressed
at
2410
west
walters
avenue
it
is
zoned
rs,
60,
residential
single
family.
The
variance
request
is
to
reduce
the
side
yard
setback
from
seven
feet
to
2.3
feet,
and
this
is
in
order
to
construct
a
second
story.
Addition
over
an
existing
single
family
residence.
G
A
H
Good
evening,
jamie
mayer
of
the
law-
firm
hill,
ward,
henderson,
representative
of
the
applicant,
my
address
is
101
east
kennedy
boulevard
and
I
have
been
sworn.
I
do
have
a
powerpoint
if
I'm
able
to
load
that,
would
I
be
able
to
do
that
worst
case.
I
can
show
it
on
the
elmo,
but
it
goes
a
little
easier.
If
I
can
thank
you.
H
Okay
is
do
I
need
to
swap
okay,
so,
okay,
sorry
about
that.
So
this
is
a
request
to
improve
an
existing
home
with
a
second
story
edition
that
will
maintain
the
existing
setback.
As
was
described,
the
as-built
home
was
constructed
in
1949
and
has
a
west
side
yard
setback
of
2.3
feet.
That's
a
4.7
foot
encroachment
into
the
7-foot
setback,
that's
required
by
the
zoning
district.
This
request
won't
change
that
existing
condition.
It
will
maintain
it
by
building
vertically
and
just
reiterate
the
timeline.
H
H
H
H
It
is
a
carport
with
a
pitched
roof
and
that's
the
area
where
the
access
drive
and
the
stacked
parking
area
is
so
the
east
side
of
the
house
cannot
be
expanded
into
because
that
access
of
course
is
necessary
and
in
the
rear,
there's
an
existing
pool
and
deck
that
was
built
in
2001
prior
to
the
applicants,
purchasing
it
and
there's
also,
as
you
can
see,
a
significant
tree
canopy
that
forecloses,
together
with
a
pool
and
deck
forecloses
the
ability
to
expand
rear,
so
the
existing
flat
roof
is
the
only
area
that
can
be
added
to
in
a
structurally
sound
and
aesthetically
consistent
way,
here
are
what
we're
proposing
that's
circled
in
blue,
and
maybe
it's
a
little
difficult
to
see
on
the
the
screen,
but
there
that
area,
it's
narrow.
H
It's
a
4.7
foot
area
that
the
house
has
built
extends
into
the
setback,
so
the
area
circled
in
blue
is
the
only
portion
of
the
proposed
addition
that
triggers
the
variance
request.
Everything
else
is
outside
of
the
setback,
but
because
the
existing
structure
is
within
it
and
that's
not
going
to
change
in
order
to
build
a
structurally
sound
addition,
it
has
to
be
within,
what's
already
in
the
setback.
H
There's
an
overhead
of
the
similar
concept
on
the
left,
the
hatched
area
that
little
rectangle
in
the
bottom
portion
of
the
house
that
I've
got
the
arrow
pointing
to
that
is
the
portion
of
the
second
floor.
Addition
that
is
going
to
be
within
the
existing
encroachment
into
the
setback
and
on
the
right
is
the
entire
strip
of
the
existing
house.
That
already
is
within
the
encroachment
to
the
setback.
H
The
walls
of
the
proposed
second
floor
edition
are
going
to
be
affixed
to
the
foundation
by
way
of
being
built
on
top
of
the
existing
load-bearing
walls,
especially
in
high
wind
conditions.
It's
critical
to
have
the
walls
anchored
to
the
foundation
and
also
aesthetically,
as
you
saw
from
the
elevation,
the
proposed
addition
is
going
to
be
aligned
with
the
existing
windows
and
walls.
H
The
practical
difficulty
faced
by
any
addition
to
this
home
is
the
existing
siting
and
layout
of
the
home
in
relation
to
the
property.
I
showed
you,
the
existing
conditions
and
the
layout
of
the
site.
The
home
encroaches
into
the
setback
and
any
addition
on
that
flat
roof
area,
which
is
the
only
area
that
is
ripe
for
an
addition,
is
going
to
trigger
a
need
for
variance
because,
as
explained
structurally,
the
second
floor
has
to
be
built
on
top
of
those
existing
walls.
H
Granting
this
variance
will
not
injure
anyone's
rights,
it
doesn't
change
the
existing
setback,
it
doesn't
expand
it,
it
doesn't
increase
the
encroachment
our
adjacent
neighbor
on
the
west,
the
one
who
is
on
the
side
that
the
variance
is
you
know
proposed
on
is
in
full
support
of
the
request
we
are.
We
have
copies
of
that
letter
to
submit
to
the
record,
but
I
have
it
up
on
the
screen
for
you
as
well.
He
wrote
a
very
nice
letter
supporting
the
applicant
as
great
neighbors
stewards
of
their
own
property
and
of
the
request
itself.
H
The
variance
requested
is
consistent
with
the
code
in
the
comprehensive
plan.
It
facilitates
preservation
and
maintenance
of
existing
building
stock
and
preserves
the
neighborhood
character
and
certainly
does
not
negatively
impact
it.
It
promotes
a
continued
residential
character
and
enjoyment
of
property
and,
finally,
allowing
this
variance
results
in
substantial
justice
being
done,
because
without
it
the
opportunity
to
add
to
the
home
is
foreclosed
and
a
reduced
side.
Yard
setback
doesn't
impact
or
change
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
At.
G
H
In
some,
this
is
not
a
variance
request
to
expand
into
the
setback,
but
a
request
to
maintain
an
encroachment
that
exists
and
has
existed
for
70
years.
What
we're
proposing
is
the
only
structurally
sound
and
aesthetically
consistent
way
to
improve
this
house,
absent
to
variance
that
ability
is
foreclosed,
so
we
respectfully
request
that
this
variance
be
granted
and
myself
and
the
architect
and
builder
are
here
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank
you.
A
I
Yes,
sir,
I'm
an
adjacent
property
owner
at
2407
sunset
drive,
and
I
believe
that
that
they've
already
pointed
out
that
this
subdivision
was
planted
in
1925,
actually
1924
and
25,
and
the
houses
that
are
in
there-
I
don't
think,
probably
more
than
about
90
percent
of
them
do
not
meet
current
setbacks
according
to
code.
So
you
frequently
encounter
issues
regarding
additions
and
modifications
to
the
existing
homes,
and
my
home,
for
example,
doesn't
meet
any
of
the
existing
codes
regarding
setbacks.
I
So
I
think
that
their
request
is
appropriate
and
the
the
driveway
that
exists
on
the
west
side
provides
an
additional
buffer
and
separation
from
the
adjacent
home
so
you're.
By
granting
this,
you
would
not
be
infringing
upon
the
rights
of
the
property
owner
of
the
west,
who
would
be
the
most
easily
affected
by
the
granting
of
the
variance.
I
So
I
think
that
it
is
appropriate
for
you
to
request
and
approve
this.
This
variance
and
I'm
here
to
support.
Thank
you.
A
A
A
Okay,
well
with
that,
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
and
open
it
up
for
a
motion
from
anyone
from
the
board.
D
Oh
I'll
make
a
motion.
I
moved
at
the
variance
request
for
case
vrb
21-109
for
property
located
at
2410
west
watrus
avenue
be
granted
as
depicted
on
the
site
plan
presented
at
the
public
hearing
for
a
reduction
in
the
west
side
yard
setback
from
seven
feet
to
two
point:
three
feet:
to
construct.
A
second
story
addition
over
in
a
first
story:
single
family
residence,
with
an
encroachment
for
eaves
and
gutters
based
upon
the
applicant,
presenting
competent
and
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
and
at
this
public
hearing
of
an
unnecessary
hardship
or
practical
difficulty.
D
When
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
section
27-80
of
the
city
code.
Specifically
that
this
addition
simply
follows
the
setback
that
already
exists
and
has
existed
and
that
this
is
not
a
self-created
hardship.
B
D
A
G
Okay,
the
next
case
before
you
is
vrb2112,
the
property
owner
is
alyssa
mariscal
and
the
applicant
is
rene
mariscal.
The
property
is
addressed
at
3305
west
dewey
street.
The
variance
request
is
to
reduce
the
front
yard
setback
from
20
feet
to
19.6
feet
and
reduce
the
side.
You
are
set
back
towards
the
east
from
seven
feet
to
three
point
five
feet,
and
this
is
to
accommodate
accommodate
existing
additions
to
a
single
story.
Single-Family
residents.
This
is
work
that
was
done
without
permits.
G
G
G
And
these
are
the
floor
plans
for
the
addition.
There's
a
picture
showing
that
front
edition.
G
The
board
would
consider
section
27-80
in
its
determination
for
this
variant's
request.
If
there
are
any
questions,
stuff
will
be
available
in
hand.
C
I
have
a
question.
You
stated
that
this
case
it
they
didn't
have
any
permits.
Is
that
correct,
correct?
I
just
noticed
in
the
response
questions
from
the
applicant.
They
claimed
that
the
plans
had
been
approved
by
the
city
of
tampa
and
they
were
issued
a
tournament
permit.
Was
there
certain
permits
accepted
and
not,
or
is
that
just
a
false?
Well.
G
A
Okay,
applicant
I'm
going
to
come
on
up
state
your
name,
your
address
and
confirm
for
us
that
you've
been
sworn
please.
B
My
name
is
renee
mariska
3305,
two
e
street.
We
we
submitted
for
me.
B
Thank
you.
We
have
submitted
an
a
permit
for
this
construction
that
we
started
and
there
was
a
pr
there's
a
permit
issue
back
on.
Well,
I
got
a
march
of
2020
permit
number
bld2004
72554,
so
we
had
a
permit
issue.
B
We
submitted
all
the
paperwork
required
to
for
the
permit
to
be
issued.
It
was
issued.
We
started
the
construction
some
time
after
that,
and
then
we
had
inspections,
frame,
inspection
and
also
electrical
inspection,
rough
electrical
inspection
which
did
not
pass.
We
have
to
hire
a
contractor
on
the
electrical,
so
we
have
we,
we
have
hired
a
constructor
after
he
was
done.
B
We
request
for
an
inspection
again
and
it
was,
I
was
told
it
was
denied
or
stopped.
B
So
the
construction
was
stopped
at
that
point,
then
we
we
find
out
that
there
is
a
setback
issue
on
the
on
the
permit
on
the
property.
So
if
the
the
setback
right
now.
B
It's
19.5
from
the
front
the
the
the
pro
the
the
project
was.
Can
you
see
the
picture
that
I
have?
Okay,
that's
that's
the
front
the
front
view
of
the
house
so.
B
That's
what
it
was
before
it
was
like
existing
porch,
it's
an
old
house
1948.
So
it
was.
That
was
how
it
was
built
with
the
arches.
B
B
I
have
to
move
the
front
wall
backward
back
so
and
then
the
the
side
this
and
on
the
east
side.
If
you
can
see
on
that
picture
right
now
on
the
right
side
that
that
plywood
space,
that
is
the
space
that
needs
to
be
that
would
have
to
be
moved
seven
feet
in.
B
A
D
I
I
can't
tell
on
this
the
site
plan,
but
how
far
is
the
existing
house
from
like
what?
What
is
it
setback
right
now
on
the
on
the
side,
setback.
B
As
I
as
I
as
how
we
we
bought
the
house-
and
it
was
already
existing,
as
you
can
see
the
picture,
this
picture
right
here-
that
is
an
existing,
so
the
the
from
the
the
front
wall
to
the
is
19.5.
A
Yes,
I
think
the
question,
sir,
is
on
the
east
side
on
the
east
side.
Yes,
you're
seeking
you
have
a
request
to
reduce
the
east
side,
setback
from
seven
feet
to
3.5
feet.
Are
you
doing
any
work
on
the
east
side?
That
is
reducing
the
setback
or
is
it
existing?
Is
the
house
existing
and
sitting
currently
at
3.5
feet.
D
Yes,
but
if
you
go
back
to
the
picture,
you
showed
us
before
no
go
the
one
more
this
right
here
where
you
said
that
it's
it
looks
like
it's
in
a
little
bit
the
front
so
so
it's
the
setback
is
actually
not
3.7,
but
probably
more
like
four
points.
B
That
is
space
that
you
see,
oh,
that
is
on
with
with
the
plywood
it's
3.5
just
that
area
and
then
and
then,
if
you,
if
you
go
further
back
after
that
area,
it
shows
three
on
the
surface.
Let
me
see
so
three
three.
A
Can
would
it
be
okay
if
I
asked
you
a
clarification
question?
Yes,
the
only
reduction
that
you're
doing
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
is
that
you
only
enclose
that
front
part
of
the
porch,
so
you've
really
only
reduced
the
front
setback.
B
Enclose
it
enclose
the
front
porch
okay,
so
the
enclosed
front
porch
is
was
existing
since
1948
or
sometime,
so
it
had
3.5
on
the
east
side
and
19.5
on
the
front.
When
did
you
buy
this
house
2004.
A
B
Everything
I
mean
the
house
was
was,
as
you
can
see,
in
the
picture
right
now.
It's
just
that.
I'm
enclosing
gacha
that
the
porch
okay
on
an
existing
setback.
A
G
So
this
is,
this
is
the
scope
of
work
and
because
when
it
was
existing
as
a
porch,
it
was
compliant,
but
now
because
he
has
enclosed
it,
it
is
now
encroaching
in
the
front
set
back.
I
A
Yes,
okay
yeah
would
have
been
helpful
to
understand
that
earlier.
But,
yes,
I
think
we
all
understand
that
now
and
the
in
the
front
the
front
overhang
is
that
miss
madhu?
Is
that
a
does
that
require
setback
or
that's
permissible?
Because
that's
right
am
I
right?
Yeah.
A
No,
all
right,
sir.
You
have
three
minutes
if
you
want
to
share
anything
else
or
clarify
anything
else
for
us,
you
have
three
minutes
of
rebuttal
time.
B
Well,
just
I
like
to
add
that
that
the
cost
that
I
already
went
into
the
cost
of
construction
materials,
labor
and
everybody
to
have
it
like
you
see
it
right
now
in
cover
right
now.
So
if,
if
the,
if
the
variance
is
not
approved,
then
I
have
to
move
this
whole
front
wall
that
you
see
black
in
black,
I
have
to
move
it
back,
half
a
foot
to
make
it
to
20..
B
So
right
now
it's
19.5.
I
have
to
move
it
half
of
a
whole
front.
I
have
to
move
it
back
to
comply
and
then
on
the
side
I
had
to,
I
had
to
move
three
feet:
the
the
wall
that
you
saw
in
the
previous
picture,
with
the
with
the
dragon
with
the
plywood,
I
have
to
move
back
three
and
a
half
feet
more
to
make
it
set.
B
A
Okay,
thank
you.
If
that
concludes
your
presentation,
I
will
open
it
up
for
motion
or
board
discussion.
E
When
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
section
27-80
of
the
city
code,
specifically
that
the
alleged
hardships
are
singular
to
the
property
and
that
this
property
was
constructed
in
the
mid-1900s
and
has
encroached
upon
the
setbacks
and
the
approval
of
the
encroachment
on
the
east
side
yard
would
function
to
vest
the
current
conditions
and
the
new
encroachment
is
relatively
minor
and
for
similar
reasons,
the
variance
will
result
in
substantial
justice
being
done
when
considering
both
the
public
benefits
and
the
individual
practical
hardships.
Because
both
the
front
setback,
encroachment
and
the
east
setback.
D
I
will
second
with
an
amendment:
it
is
a
reduction
of
the
front
yard
setback,
not
the
rear
yard
setback.
Thank
you.
Yep
accepted.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Both
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
all,
those
in
favor
say
aye
aye,
any
opposed
all
right.
Your
motion
passes
your
application
passes.
It's
proved
five,
nothing
thank
you
and
have
a
good
evening.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you.
G
The
code
section
in
reference
is
section
27-290,
where
accessory
structures
shall
not
exceed
15
feet
in
height.
This
has
been
reviewed
by
natural
resources,
transportation
and
right-of-way.
They
found
them
consistent
and.
G
G
G
K
Yeah,
so
my
name
is
matthew
rumanick
and
I
live
at
3701,
west
cleveland
street,
I'm
the
owner
and
resident
my
wife,
and
I
and
yes,
I
was
just
sworn
in,
so
I
am
asking
to
increase
the
the
height
of
the
accessory
structure
from
15
feet
to
27
feet.
So
my
wife
and
I
bought
this
house
in
2013.
We
moved
to
south
tampa
and
we
took
this
house
from
rags
to
to
what
it
is
now
and,
as
you
can
see
from
the
pictures
we
had
recently
redeveloped
behind
us
was
a
behind
me.
K
Now
I
have
some
windows
staring
in
my
backyard:
10
feet
off
my
property
line,
so
we've
grown
to
love
our
neighborhood
and
we've.
We've
we've
looked
at
it
a
bunch
of
times
in
the
backyard
and
we're
like
well,
how
can
we
improve
this
situation
right?
We
eventually
wanted
to
put
a
pool
in
our
backyard
and
we
came
up
with
the
idea
of
taking
the
existing
shed.
K
That's
there
adding
a
lanai
onto
it
and
coming
out
this
the
the
size
that
we
want
to
come
out,
putting
a
higher
roof
pitch
on
it
that
breaches
to
the
top
of
that
window
to
where,
when
we
do
eventually
go
to
step,
two
of
our
our
plan
to
do
a
pool
that
we
can
sit
in
our
pool
and
not
have
our
neighbors
looking
in
down
into
us
into
our
pool
the
pool
the
the
step.
Two
of
that
has
I've
done
all
my
due
diligence
and
I'm
good
with
setbacks
as
a
corner
lot
for
that.
K
So
so
my
hardship
on
in
increasing
the
height
is,
is
in
in
doing
the
structure.
The
way
it
is
is
is
to
really
to
block
the
windows
as
a
structure.
Since
that
existing
structure
so
close
there,
the
left
side
of
the
structure,
as
you
can
see,
I
started
to
plant
some
trees
to
block
it,
but
and
also
to
give
us
an
area
of
the
for
alumni
for
outdoor
seeding.
When
we
do
do
our
pool
in
that
area.
Now
I
was
going
to.
K
I
think
you
have
the
pictures,
but
I
also
wanted
to
show
kind
of
I
wanted
to
show
the
board
my
existing
house
he's
like
and
sorry
I
didn't.
I
didn't
have
these
printed
out.
This
was
actually
my
existing
hat
the
house
when
I
bought
in
2013
and
kylie,
we
didn't
realize
we
were
going
to
be
here
as
long
as
we
did
and
did
what
we
did
at
this
house.
I
look
at
it
and
it's
exhausting
to
see
what
we've
done,
but
it
from
this
point.
K
K
K
K
So
now
that
that
is
now
that
that's
done,
I
did
receive
support
from
the
newly
elected
board
with
president
vice
president,
which
is
ken
day
he's
the
president
he's
out
he's
on
my
signatory
list
and
then
I
also
have
a
letter
from
the
president
of
our
homeowners,
association
or
neighborhood
association
acting
as
an
individual
as
he
signed
it,
but
just
supporting
it
as
well,
so
full
support
of
the
neighborhood
on
this,
and
I
was
going
to
go
into
the.
K
Pictures
which
I
think
you
guys
have
those
pictures
on
on
your
presentation.
Sorry,
that's
the
view
where
I
would
be
sitting
in
the
proposed
eventual
pool.
K
If
I,
if
the
as
the
step
two
goes
into
place
and
so
yeah
as
you
can
see,
with
that
27
foot
there,
that
I
would
just
block
those
windows
not
their
view,
because
the
bottom
of
those
windows
are
roughly
at
about
the
same
height
but
at
the
angle
it
would
block
it
and
then
going
down.
That's
another
view
of
it
and
then
sitting
on
my
deck.
That
is
another
view.
K
K
It
it
fits
the
neighborhood
I
drive
through
hyde
park
in
the
areas
and-
and
they
have
these
accessories
structures-
and
I
know,
through
historical
preservation,
they're
allowed
to
do
that
and
ask
for
variants.
For
that.
You
know,
building
new,
we
do
have
a
couple
structures
that
that
were
built
on.
In
fact,
one
of
the
original
houses
in
our
neighborhood
from
the
original
developer
in
1920
has
an
original
accessory
structure
in
the
back
of
the
house,
and
it's
it's
it.
It
exceeds
the
15
foot
limit
and
there's
a
couple
other
older
houses.
A
Okay,
if
that
concludes
your
presentation-
yes,
all
right.
Is
there
anyone
in
the
audience
who
wishes
to
speak
about
this
application?
A
Going
once
no
one,
okay!
Well,
you
have
three
minutes.
If
you'd
like
to
rebut
anything
that
hasn't
been
said.
A
All
right
thanks,
I
will
then
close
public
hearing
and
open
it
up
for
a
motion
from
anyone
from
the
board.
A
E
Yeah,
that
is
my
question
question
for
legal.
Can
we
consider,
I
guess,
adjacent
properties
when
we
analyze
whether
a
variance
is
appropriate
for
a
subject,
property.
F
F
Really
you're
supposed
to
be
basing
it
on
the
hardship
criteria,
that's
presented
to
you.
So
if
it's
been
included
with
what's
being
claimed
as
hardship,
you
have
the
opportunity
to
assess
it
tonight,
but
it
also
should
just
be
based
on
the
competent
substantial
evidence
that's
outlined
in
the
27-80
okay.
E
All
right,
okay,
so
I
will
just
I
I'm
not
going
to
make
a
motion.
I
just
have
comments.
I
I
am
having
a
little
bit
of
a
hard
time
making
a
decision
on
this
one,
because
for
better
or
worse
you
know
these
multi-family
housing
projects
in
south
tampa
are
becoming
more
prevalent,
and
I
have
some
concerns
about
setting
a
precedence
for
you
know
for
issues
such
as
this.
E
D
A
So
one
of
the
I
guess
this
is.
A
Again,
question
for
legal,
so
the
the
the
reason
the
height
is
necessary
is
because
of
the
distance
to
the
property
line.
Is
that
accurate?
A
A
A
Let's
open
up
the
public
hearing,
we
don't
have
to
vote
on
that.
Do
we
no.
A
G
So
this
is
a
hardship
that
I
believe
that
was
created
by
the
adrenaline
property.
Now,
because
they
are
a
pd,
they
are
allowed
to
set
their
own
setbacks.
They
determine
what
their
own
setbacks
would
be.
B
G
K
G
They
get
to
determine
what
their
setbacks
are,
which
would
explain
why
it's
much
closer
to
this
property
than
you
would
see
normally.
So
if
it
was
a
regular,
conventional
euclidean
zoning,
it
would
be
at
least
15
feet
set
back,
but
because
this
is
a
pd,
they
choose
what
that
setback
is
going
to
be,
so
they
are
significantly
closer
to
their
neighbor
than
you
would
have
with
you
know,
say:
rn
24,
zoning
or
rm16.
A
Okay,
great
so
that
being
said
before
we
close
the
public
hearing,
we
give
you
another
opportunity
for
a
butler
to
say
anything
else.
K
Before
we
so
the
comment
about
the
building
behind
me
it's
closer
than
normal,
and
to
top
it
off
the
the
the
setback
is
ten
foot
for
the
structure
or
for
the
foundation.
K
They
got
around
it
a
little
bit
and
they
came
up
and
over
another
two
feet,
so
really
that
that
that
structure
is
actually
eight
feet
off
of
my
property
line,
not
ten
feet,
so
it
went
up
and
over
it
had
an
overhang
if
that
makes
sense
so
and
to
top
it
off
as
well
with
new
flood
zone
requirements
and
building
a
new
building
in
south
tampa.
K
Where,
where
my
house
sits,
it's
actually
three
foot
higher,
you
know
as
far
as
where
the
foundation
starts.
K
So,
yes,
it
is
35
feet
from
foundation
to
the
top
of
the
building,
exactly
because
I
measured
it
when
you're
building
it,
but
it's
also
another
three
feet
on
top
of
that,
so
it
just
takes
the
it
takes
the
structure
that
much
higher
into
my
property
and
then
were
you.
Was
there
a
question
regarding
my
accessory
structure
and
how
close
it
could
be.
A
That
that
was
essentially
the
question
I
was
asking
was
regarding
the
the
height
and
the
spacing,
but
I'm.
K
K
So
so
yeah,
so
that
was
that
that
was
the
hardship
in
in
in
what
what
happened
there
and
I
do
feel
like
it's
unique
to
my
property
and
and,
like
I
said
there
are
other
older
properties
that
that
have
this
same
this
this
same,
I
guess
you
know
code,
it's
it's
above
15
feet
for
the
accessory
structure,
so
yeah
in
the
accessory
structure
that
I'm
proposing
will
also
maintain
five
foot
of
clearance
off
of
the
existing
structure,
which
that's
your
that's
your
minimum
clearance
from
eve
to
eve
so
where
I'm
bringing
that
out
to
it's
exactly
or
a
little
bit
close.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Well,
then,
with
that
I
will
now
reclose
the
public
hearing
and
reopen
it
up
for
discussion.
That
sounds
like
that
may
have
clarified
your
question.
Ms
decker,
is
that
correct.
E
It
it
does,
and-
and
I
mean
listen
looking
at
this
picture
and
like
seeing
this
apartment
right
behind
you
like,
I
can
totally
appreciate
the
hardship
like
that
is,
and
it
sounds
like
you
did
not
know
that
that
was
going
to
be
the
result
and
of
the
construction,
and
you
know
I
understand
the
hardship
like
that
is
definitely
a
a
privacy
issue
it.
E
I
also
realized
that
I'm
a
little
bit
more
comfortable
with
this,
because
you
know
there
are
requirements
as
to
green
space,
and
you
know
the
amount
of
space
that
an
accessory
structure
can
be
so
that
makes
me
feel
a
little
bit
better
about.
You
know
that
this
the
accessory
structure
is
not
going
to
be
a
similarly
like
looming
structure
over
you
know,
neighbors
to
the
east
and
the
west.
E
When
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
section
27-80
of
the
city
code,
specifically
that
the
alleged
hardships
are
unique
and
singular
to
this
property,
as
there
was
an
apartment
complex,
a
multi-family
unit
constructed
immediately
adjacent
to
the
subject
property.
That
is,
you
know,
within
a
a
lesser
setback
than
would
typically
be
required,
and
that
poses
a
potential
privacy
issue.
And
accordingly,
this
variance,
if
granted,
would
not
interfere
with
health
safety
or
welfare,
but
would
rather
protect
the
privacy
and
welfare
of
the
subject.
Property
owner.
A
A
All
right,
miss
madu.
How
do
you
want
to
do
this.
A
Cases
before
you
start
mr
murphy's
going
to
excuse
me.
G
B
G
Identical
even
through
the
addresses
and
the
folios
are
different,
the
request
is
the
same.
The
owner
is
the
same,
and
the
result
of
the
reviews
are
the
same.
So
this
would
be
one.
G
This
will
be
combined
or
merge
into
one
presentation
for
all
seven
lots,
so
this
presentation
will
be
for
vrv,
21,
129,
130,
131,
132,
133,
134
and
135,
and
this
will
be
for
properties
addressed
at
7602-7604.
G
G
The
zoning
is
pd.
The
request
here
is
to
reduce
the
front
yard,
set
back
from
20
feet
to
15
feet,
and
this
is
for
new
for
new
to
construct
new
single
family
residents
with
the
pool
the
code
section
in
reference
is
section
27-137,
138-7i.
G
G
G
This
is
the
aerial
for
seven
six
zero
force
outfall,
showing
where
that
proposed
lot
would
be.
This
is
the
survey
and
again
the
identical
site
plan.
G
This
would
be
47606
the
aerial,
and
this
is
the
survey
showing
that
property
and
the
easement
the
floor
plan
proposed
site
plan
for
7606.
G
This
is
the
aerial
for
7608.
G
G
G
G
G
A
All
right,
mr
applicant
agent,
why
don't
you
come
on
up
state,
your
name,
your
address
and
confirm
that
you've
been
sworn
for
us.
Please.
I
I
have
been
sworn
my
name
is
steve
miccellini,
I'm
representing
mike
levine,
who
is
the
property
owner
in
this
location,
of
all
seven
of
those
lots
that
are
being
petitioned
for
a
front
yard
setback
reduction
from
20
feet
to
15
feet
I'll!
Wait
until
you
have
those.
A
I
This
is
the
the
plan
that
shows
all
of
each
of
the
seven
lots.
This
takes
up
the
entire
block
on
on
the
one
side,
and
what
I'm
showing
here
in
yellow
is
the
private
drainage
easement
that
that's
been
recorded
and
has
to
be
adhered
to.
The
city
does
not
have
any
jurisdiction
over
a
private
easement,
so
we
no
other
modification,
can
occur
without
the
consent
of
all
the
adjacent
property
owners
and
there
are
14
adjacent
property
owners.
I
There
are
seven
on
this
side,
which
is
a
single
property
owner,
seven
on
the
other
side,
which
all
have
to
consent
to
that,
as
well
as
there's
a
swift
mud
plan
that
has
to
be
adhered
to
as
well,
so
in
the
pre
and
the
post
condition
there,
the
actual
development
will
be
in
a
better
position
than
it
currently
is
right.
Now,.
I
I
don't
know
if
you
can
see
that
I
tried
to
outline
the
subject
property,
which
is
right
here,
and
you
can
see
there's
a
number
of
well.
Let's
pull
this
down,
there's
a
number
of
drain
fields
that
are
wetland
areas
that
are
connected
as
well
as
this
entire
section
that
runs
across
the
bottom
down
here,
and
this
drainage
and
private
easement
connects
to
that.
I
This
is
a
photograph
showing
the
drainage
system
that
the
easement
is
on
this
side
of
the
property.
It
is
not
on
the
other
side
where
the
existing
homes
are
so
all
of
those
homeowners
on
the
left
side
of
your
of
the
photograph
have
rights
to
this
drainage
easement,
and
they
have
to
concur
with
whatever
happens
here
and
it's
25
feet,
plus
a
5
feet
of
a
free
board
beyond
that,
so
it's
actually
30
feet
of
area,
that's
that's
being
encumbered!
I
This
is
the
corner
property
that
you
had
asked
about
and
showing
the
25
foot
private
easement,
as
well
as
it's
showing
you
ten
feet
to
the
to
the
rear
of
the
building
and
five
feet
of
that
is
taken
up
by
the
what's
generally
called
the
free
board.
I
I
This
is
7614
eight
and
a
half
feet
on
the
outside
3.4
feet
at
the
bottom
of
the
ditch-
and
this
is
this-
is
going
further
to
the
south,
so
this
would
be
the
area
that's
connecting
to
that
east-west
wetland
area
that
conveys
the
water
to
the
to
the
bay.
I
I
We
will
comply
with
all
other
city
of
tampa
codes,
including
the
drainage,
technical
standards,
as
well
as
city
of
tampa
technical
standards
for
transportation,
we're
adjacent
to
the
single
family
houses
that
I've
pointed
out
to
you,
and
they
will
all
have
the
same
rights
to
that
easement
that
they
currently
have.
Those
will
not
be
abridged
in
any
way
unless
all
those
property
owners
agree
to
a
an
amendment
or
adjustment.
To
that
document.
I
I
It
protects
the
easement
and
protects
the
access
for
maintenance
in
perpetuity,
as
I
said,
unless,
for
example,
that
that
easement
is
is
modified
in
some
way
through
the
normal
permitting
process.
I
I
It
is
unique
and
singular
because
I
I,
in
the
entire
time
that
I've
been
working
on
issues
like
this.
I
don't
think
I've
ever
seen.
A
private
easement
like
this.
That
was
this
extensive
and
impacted
these
lots.
They're
all
they're
100
feet
deep,
and
so
you
have
25
feet
has
been
removed
from
any
kind
of
construction
or
consideration,
plus
the
five
feet
for
the
free
board.
I
A
E
All
right,
I
have
a
couple
questions.
So
can
you
tell
us
a
little
bit
about
the
planned
unit
development
and
who
proposed
that.
E
I
I'm
not
sure
who
they
purchased
from,
but
I
know
that
my
client
did
purchase
the
properties
outright.
G
I
don't
have
that
information,
it's
it
was
an
area
resilient.
But
if
you
give
me
some
time,
I
can
pull
that
up.
Okay,.
E
So
I
saw
in
the
application
that
there
was
some
discussion
about
pools,
will
pools
be
offered
with
these
homes.
I
I
don't
know
that
they're
being
offered
with
with
that
25
foot
easement
and
the
five
foot
of
freeboard.
They
still
may
not
have
enough
room
for
that.
I
E
I
E
Yeah
one
of
my
initial
concerns
was
okay.
Are
we
gonna,
have
seven
property
owners
coming
and
asking
for
variances
to
build
a
pool?
But
you
know
it's
a
private
easement
so
that
wouldn't
really
be
within
our
jurisdiction
anyway,.
E
Yeah,
okay:
I
think
that
are
my
questions
for
now,
but
if
staff
could
get
that
pud
information
that'd
be
helpful.
C
I
have
a
question,
so
this
is
all
new
construction
and
we
have
all
the
easement
setbacks
we
need.
So
is
it.
You
are
unable
to
architecturally,
modify
these
homes
to
meet
these
criteria
that
have
been
created.
I
This
typically
is
not
a
variance
issue
regarding
economics,
but
I
think
that
the
economics
are
probably
driving
the
size
of
the
homes
and
if
you
look
at
the
plan,
you'll
see
that
the
garage
is
actually
set
back
and
it
I
couldn't
get
a
scale
on
that.
To
correctly
tell
you
exactly
what
it
is,
but
I
think
the
garage
entryway
is
close
to
the
20
feet,
if
not
at
about
18
feet,
but
that's
just
an
assumption.
I
can
show
you
on
this
plan.
I
Especially,
if
that's
if
you
look
over
here,
this
is
the
front
where
this
is
15
feet
and
the
garage
area
is
set
back.
You
see
that
little
set
back
there
and
I
couldn't
tell
exactly
what
that
dimension
was,
but
it
does
provide
enough
space,
for
you
know,
for
the
cars
to
park
and
outside
of
the
sidewalk
area.
I
It's
considering
the
size
of
these
these
lots
and
that
you've
lost
a
significant
amount
in
the
rear.
It's
requesting
to
go
from
from
20
to
15
is
pretty
consistent
with
a
minimal
request.
I
mean
it's,
it's
very
close.
You've
got
the
five
foot
sidewalks
that
have
to
go
in,
and
we've
committed
to
making
sure
that
the
cars
didn't
encroach
across
the
sidewalks.
C
I
A
All
right
any
other
questions
from
the
board,
all
right,
seeing
none!
Mr
michelini,
you
have
some
time
for
a
bottle.
I
A
Okay,
now
it
would
be
21
minutes
to
be
fair.
Oh
okay,
right
all
right!
Well,
if
that's
it,
I
will
open
it
up.
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
and
open
it
up
for
a
motion
from
anyone
on
the
board.
I
think
we
need
seven
motions.
F
F
A
E
I
don't
feel
like
we
have
enough
information
or
I
feel,
like
I'm
missing
some
information.
I
think
ms
johnson
made
a
good
point
about.
You
know
whether
the
pro
the
houses
can
be
reconfigured.
I
have
some
questions
about
the
pud
that
I'm
not
sure
we're
going
to
get
answers
to
this
evening.
F
Simone
savino
says
density
attorney,
so
I
understand
it.
Only
an
applicant
can
request
to
continue.
A
A
So
let's
say
it's
five
feet
of
freeboard
distance.
Now
you've
got
30
out
of
a
70
out
of
100
foot
lot
length,
that's
being
addressed
and
essentially
precluded
from
development.
By
of
any
development
by
you
can't
put
a
shed
on
it,
you
can't
do
anything
with
it.
Now,
the
I
understand
your
question,
which
is,
did
they
know
about
this
before
they
put
the
put
the
pd
in
in
place?
A
It
sounds
like
they
didn't
necessarily
have
a
hand
entirely
in
the
pd,
but
from
my
perspective,
when
you've
got
a
drainage,
easement,
that's
cutting
off
a
third
or
a
quarter
sec
quarter
of
of
the
lot
space
for
any
use
whatsoever.
A
That's
kind
of
what
I
see
as
one
of
the
principal
reasons
for
the
variance
board
is
we
say
well?
Is
there
something
that's
particularly
impacting
this
property?
In
a
way
that
wouldn't
impact
another
property
that
doesn't
have
this
issue,
you
know
we
sometimes
see
it
with
with
those
little
cutouts
in
the
in
the
sea
wall.
We
see
it
on
other
types
of
instances.
A
So
to
me
this
looks
like
the
kind
of
stuff
that
the
variance
board
was
designed
to
deal
with,
and
so
I'm
okay
with
it
in
that
perspective,
regardless
of
whether
it
was
a
known
or
unknown
issue,
because
ultimately
they're
going
to
have
to
deal
with
it
one
way
or
the
other.
A
So
again
from
my
perspective,
I'm
okay
with
it
as
as
is
I
understand
that
well
their
new
construction,
you
know
how
can
they
deal
with
it,
but
again
it's
something:
that's
taken
up
a
quarter
of
their
property
and
they
have
absolutely
no
ability
to
use
or
build
on
a
quarter
of
their
property.
A
So
it
seems
like
it's
something
to
me.
That
is
a
unique,
singular
hardship
that
the
variants
was
designed
to
deal
with.
G
Jane
married
development
and
group
management,
I
was
able
to
locate
the
easement
agreement,
the
document
the
recorded
document
for
the
easement.
It
was
recorded
in
2013
and
even
though
I
don't
have
the
exact
date
for
the
pd,
it
was
sometime
between
2015
and
2017..
A
Yeah,
I
was
just
thinking
we
probably
need
to
open
up
the
public
hearing
since
we're
having
staff
and
yeah
to
talk
about
it
very
often.
A
Awesome:
let's
open
up
the
public
hearing
so
that
we
can
get
that
information
in
on
the
record.
F
So
most
of
you
know,
assistant
city
attorney.
I
just
wanted
to
provide
the
reminder
that
the
packet
that's
before
you
and
the
information
that's
already
been
presented
is
considered
what's
relevant
here.
I
understand
you
have
questions
and
we're
going
to
try
and
get
them
answered,
but
that's
what
the
board
should
be
basing
it
on.
So
I
understand
that
you
have
some
questions,
but
really
technically
hardship
should
have
been
established
for
what's
before
you,
and
so
you
have
no
obligation
to
force
an
issue.
F
A
And
that
that's
a
great
point
and
a
great
reminder,
I
think,
as
I
understood
the
issue
ms
dekker's
trying
to
evaluate
whether
this
is
a
self-created
hardship
or
not.
A
And
so
her
I
understood
the
concern
was:
is
this
something
that
whoever
put
this
thing
into
motion
caused
themselves
so
that
that's
how
I
understood
it.
I
E
I
A
technical
standard
from
the
storm
water
department
that
you
can't
you
cannot
build
or
come
near
the
top
of
the
bank
of
any
storm
water
conveyance
facility.
Okay.
So
it's
there
for
safety
to
keep
the
ditch
from
collapsing
and
it
that's
a
that's
a
normal
standard.
It's
a
five
foot
minimum.
E
I
I
A
I
Yeah,
they
all
have
access
to
that
and
they
their
properties
drain
into
that
ditch
as
well.
So
I
mean
it's
it.
You
could
not
alter
that
ditch
without
an
extensive,
permitting
process
and
unanimous
consent
from
all
the
property
owners
in
is
that
means
you
could
you
couldn't
reduce
it
and
you
couldn't
put
any
structures
on
it?
You
couldn't
even
put
a
storage
area
on
it.
You
can't
put
a
deck
on
it,
there's
nothing,
there's
no
building
that
would
be
allowed
in
that
easement.
A
Mr
mclean,
you
may
have
answered
this
when
you
when
you
gave
your
presentation,
but
you
talked
about
the
the
neighbors
to
the
rear
of
of
these
properties
that
your
applicant
owns.
They,
you
said
that
they're
built
right
up
to
or
close
to
the.
A
I
That
would
have
the
vacated
alley.
I
don't
know
if
it
was
10
feet
or
15
feet,
okay,
but
that's
where
that
drainage
easement,
that's
where
it
lies.
That
would
have
reduced
that
platted
lot
to
75
feet
in
depth,
as
opposed
to
100
feet,
but
you
can
see
they,
they
have
structures,
I'm
not,
they
have
pools.
They
have
a
variety
of
other
things.
Right
up
looks
to
me
like
right
up
to
the
property
line
within
within
the
normal
settings.
A
C
K
C
I
C
Right
so
I
I
kind
of
see
these
lots
as
being
special,
but
yet
you
know
about
these
setbacks.
You
know
about
the
drainage
and
I
just
feel
like
these
houses.
Just
I
mean
we're
talking
about
the
front
of
the
property,
not
really
about
the
back
that
we're
approving
this
variance
for,
and
it's
only
only
looks
like
a
few
feet
and
a
overhead
front
door.
So
why
couldn't
it
all
be
built
to
code?
It
seems
very
simple
to
me:
I
don't
know
with
this
new
site
plan.
I
think
it's
it's
great.
C
I
Clients
wishes,
you
know,
they're
asking
for
some
consideration
and
relief.
You
know
based
upon
the
site
constraints
and
the
fact
that
this
is
a
is
a
master
system
that
you
can't
and
with
all
these
private
easements,
that
you
can't
touch.
C
F
I
A
justification,
but
I'm
sure
that
economics
is
deriving
part
of
this
in
terms
of
size
of
home
and
those
kinds
of
things
you're
not
likely
to
have
any
amenities
in
the
rear.
I
don't
know,
I
just
don't
know
how
you
would
get
them.
I
know
that
this
I
know
that
the
request
says
that
they
want
to
do
something.
I
C
A
From
a
procedural
standpoint,
let's
do
this:
we,
we
will
have
an
opportunity
to
have
discussion
amongst
the
board.
I.
B
C
A
There
are
any
questions,
then
we'll
give
mr
mclean
another
opportunity
to
have
his
rebuttal,
we'll
close
it
up,
and
then
we
can
have
our
discussion
amongst
us.
That.
F
F
F
A
Okay,
so
miss
deckard
did
you
have
before
we
go
back
on
that?
Did
you
have
any
other
questions
now
that
you
looked
at
that
document.
E
Yes,
sorry,
one
more
question,
so
is
it
possible
to
shift
the
houses
back
five
feet?
I
I
keeping
in
mind
that
I
understand
your.
Your
client
gave
you
the
site
plan
and
you
know.
I
The
closer
you
get
to
that
ditch
the
more
extensive
the
structural
components
have
to
be,
and
I
don't
know
if
you
may
recall.
I
presented
a
letter
not
on
this
case,
but
on
another
case
where
it's
they
have
a
line
of
sight
where
they
do
an
angle
of
a
triangle
for
the
exposure
to
other
elements
that
need
to
be
protected
and
the
five
feet
is
a
minimum
of
that.
I
I
think
we
have
some
other
complicating
issues
to
develop
this
site
and
again
this
is
speculation
on
my
part,
but
I
have
a
feeling
that
lennar
probably
wanted
to
get
rid
of
these
because
they
looked
down
the
road
and
saw
the
difficulties
associated
with
developing
these
sites.
F
Thank
you
the
just,
so
the
record
reflects
the
pd
was
accepted
and
filed
with
for
the
record.
That's.
A
Okay,
did
anybody
else
have
any
other
questions
now
that
we've
looked
at
the
easement
and
gotten
some
additional
information,
any
other
questions
for
the
applicant
or
for
staff
all
right,
seeing
none,
mr
mcglaney
for
good
procedure.
You
have
additional
time
for
rebuttal.
You
need
no.
A
A
Thank
you.
Well
then,
now
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
again
and
now
we
can
have
our
discussion
and
and
or
emotion,
eventually,
we're
gonna
have
to
make
a
motion.
So
just
keep
that
in
mind.
C
I
will
continue
at
the
right
time
now
so,
like
I
was
saying,
plan
development
there's
planned
drainage,
it
has
to
be
there.
These
are
standards
that
are
set.
Usually
these
areas
have
to
be
kept
clear,
free,
moan
because
it
is
handling
the
developments
water.
You
know
as
it
moves
through
where
it
needs
to
end
up.
C
So
that's
just
part
of
this
property,
no
matter
what
and
I'm
sure,
there's
other
ones
just
just
like
it.
So
I
feel
like
as
a
builder
developer,
who,
who
knows
this
they
should
be
accommodating
in
their
architecture.
C
It's
it's
simple
they've
already
been
accommodating
by
you
know,
giving
an
extra
by
the
driveway
area
for
a
car
to
sit
in
front
of
the
driveway
between
the
sidewalk,
not
impeding
it
too
much.
So
it's
just
really.
What
I
see
is
the
overhead
doorway
and
that
wall
that
extends
it's
hard,
there's
no
scale
to
tell
exactly
what
that
setback
is.
If
it's
still
15
there.
I
guess
so,
but
I
just
don't
see
I
mean
if
that
little
portion
was
just
redesigned.
A
So
again
I'll
phrase
it
a
different
way.
If
we
were
looking
at
a
tree
in
the
backyard,
a
grand
tree
that
took
up
essentially
prevented
any
kind
of
construction
for
a
quarter
of
the
lot.
The
developer
came
in
and
said
I've
got.
I
can't
build
anything
in
the
backyard
because
we've
got
this
tree
here,
it's
an
existing
tree.
They
knew
about
it
before
they
acquired
the
lot
and
they
said
well
as
a
result
of
that.
A
A
That's
not
the
situation.
We
have
an
easement,
whether
known
or
unknown,
that
takes
up
a
good
chunk
of
the
of
the
property.
It's
burdened
by
the
neighboring
properties
who
are
using
it
and
have
a
right
to
use
it,
and
so
I
your
what
you're
saying
makes
perfect
sense.
Hey
look.
You
got
a
brand
new
development
got
a
brand
new
house.
Why
can't
you
build
it
within
the
space?
That's
provided,
but
again,
that's
what
I
believe.
A
This
board
is
here,
for
is
to
say,
our
property
is
being
burdened
by
something
that
is
not
typical
and
is
not
burdensome
amongst
other
properties
of
this
same
shape
and
size,
and
as
a
consequence
of
that
we'd
like
a
little
bit
of
leeway,
and
so,
from
my
perspective,
I'm
okay
with
the
request.
I
understand
it.
I
totally
understand
you're,
where
you're
coming
from
in
terms
of
can't
they
make
an
adjustment,
but
I
I
I
do
think
that
that's
what
we're
here
to
do
so,
I'm,
okay
with
this.
C
I
guess
you
know
this
house
is
maxing
out
the
available
lots.
It's
two
stories.
It's
new
construction,
it's
not
an
addition.
It's
the
whole
thing
is
new,
most
of
the
cases
with
trees
or
something
else
is
an
older
structure
that
wants
an
addition
or
something
like
that,
but
for
new
construction.
I
I
just
can't
see
the
logic
for
this
scenario,
but
I
also
understand
your
point.
E
I'm
also
troubled
by
the
fact
that
there
is
this
sort
of
10
foot
free
board
that
we've
gotten
some
speculation
about.
You
know
you
can't
move
the
houses
back
five
feet.
You
know
in
my
experience
I
I
would
just
like
to
hear
some
competent
and
substantial
testimony.
If
that
is
in
fact,
the
case.
E
C
So
these
setbacks
are
set
by
storm
water.
E
E
A
A
A
Well,
so
how?
How
do
you
want
to
move
forward
on
this?
Because
we,
we
do
need
to
make
a
motion
and
ultimately
we're
going
to
have
to
address
it
in
that
fashion?.
E
For
property
located
at
26
or
sorry,
7602,
south
fall
street
be
denied
for
sorry
for
a
proposed
reduction
in
the
front
yard.
Setback
from
20
feet
to
15
feet
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.
E
When
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
section
27-80
of
the
city
code,
specifically
that
the
alleged
practical
difficulty
or
hardship
resulted
in
from
the
actions
of
the
applicant
as
this
is
vacant
property
and
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
construct
a
new
structure
on
the
property.
In
violation
of
the
setbacks.
C
A
Okay
motion
to
deny,
second,
all
those
in
favor
of
denial
say
I
was
posed.
Hi
motion
for
vrb
21
129
is
denied
3-1.
A
I
A
A
A
The
rules,
mr
michelini,
the
rules-
I
don't
know
when
legal
can
tell
us
when
those
rules
adjusted,
but
the
rules
now
are
a
majority
of
those
present
cannot.
F
I
A
Would
you
the
the
denial
would
have
been
there
would
have
been
a
denial
at
three
votes
regardless.
A
Here's
here's!
What
we're
gonna
do
we're
to
have
another
we're
going
to
have
another
motion
in
a
moment.
F
I
F
A
F
I
understand
it
not
recently.
Yes,
so
that
is
not
new
information
correct.
I
don't
believe
that
that
should
prohibit
the
board
from
moving
forward.
I.
E
That's
fine.
I
do
have
one
statement
for
what
it's
worth
for
legal
to
consider.
You
know.
I
I
think
that
I
think
that
we're
still
missing
information,
so
I
would
be
open
to
a
continuance.
F
So
simone
savino
assistant
city
attorney,
all
of
the
items
were
open
to
for
ease
and
fluidity
of
the
situation.
They
all
had
the
same
hardship
criteria.
It
was
open
this
way
so
that
they
could
be
presented
cohesively
to
the
board
once
the
board
decided
to
close
all
of
the
hearing.
For
that,
we
had
now
moved
past
the
hearing
and
into
discussion
and
then
voting
okay,
so.
A
F
C
Okay,
so
this
will
be
for
the
following
case.
I
move
that
the
variance
request
for
case
vrb
21-130
for
the
property
located
at
76.04
south
fall
street
for
a
reduction
of
the
front
yard,
step
back
from
20
feet
to
15
feet
to
be
denied
due
to
the
failure
of
the
petitioner
to
meet
the
burden
of
proof
to
provide
competent
and
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
and
at
this
public
hearing
of
an
unnecessary
hardship
or
practical
difficulty.
A
All
right
motion
by
miss
johnson
second
by
miss
hertag,
all
those
in
favor
of
denial,
say
hi.
All
this
posed
hey
all
right.
Next.
D
For
the
property
located
at
7606,
south
fall
street
for
a
reduction
in
the
front
yard.
Setback
from
20
feet
to
15
feet
be
denied
due
to
the
failure
of
the
petitioner
to
meet
its
burden
of
proof
to
provide
competent
and
substantial
evidence,
both
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
this
is
a
self-created
hardship.
E
E
E
I
move
that
variance
request
for
case
vrb
21-132
for
property
located
at
7608
south
fall
street,
be
denied
due
to
the
failure
of
the
petitioner
to
meet
its
burden
of
proof
to
provide
competent,
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
27-80
of
the
city
code,
specifically
that
the
practical
difficulties
appear
to
be
self-created.
C
Okay,
I
moved
for
the
variance
request
for
vrb
21-1333
for
the
property
located
at
7610.
South
falls
street
for
a
reduction
of
the
front
yard.
Setback
from
20
to
15
feet
be
denied
due
to
the
failure
of
the
petitioner
to
meet
its
burden
of
proof
to
provide
competent
and
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
of
this
public
hearing
of
an
unnecessary
hardship
of
or
practical
difficulty.
When
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
as
set
forth
in
section
2180
of
the
city
code,
specifically.
C
That
a
self-created
hardship,
sorry.
A
All
right,
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
all,
those
in
favor
of
denial,
say
aye
all
right.
All
those
posts.
D
Moved
at
the
variance
request
for
case
vrb
21-134
for
property
located
at
7612
south
fall
street
for
a
reduction
in
the
front
yard.
Setback
from
20
feet
to
15
feet
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
this
is
a
self-created
hardship.
D
E
Remove
that
variance
request,
vrb
21-135
for
property
located
at
7614
south
fall
street
for
a
reduction
of
the
front
yard.
Setback
from
20
feet
to
15
feet
be
denied
due
to
the
failure
of
the
petitioner
to
meet
its
burden
of
proof
to
provide
competent,
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
and
that
this
public
hearing
of
an
unnecessary
hardship
or
practical
difficulty.
When
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
section
27-80
of
the
city
code,
specifically
that
this
hardship
appears
to
be
self-created.
A
F
Simone
savino
assistant
city
attorney
before
the
hearing
ends.
I
just
wanted
to
address
one
thing:
I
believe
some
of
those
motions
included
language
about
self-created
hardship.
Some
didn't
I
don't
know
if
anyone
wants
to
go
back
and
correct
and
make
sure
they're
all
consistent,
because
all
the
hardship
information
presented
was
consistent.
F
F
B
A
A
21
to
deny
was
it
your
intent
to
include
that
the
hardship
was
self-created.
A
Okay,
all
those
in
favor
of
denial
with
that
amendment,
say
aye
all
those
opposed,
hey,
miss
johnson.
You
had
a
motion
for
vrb
21-130.
Was
it
your
intent
to
include
that
the
hardship
was
self-created.
C
A
All
right
with
that
amendment,
let's
vote
all
those
in
favor
of
denial,
hi
all
those
in
favor.
A
Just
for
clarity,
vrb
21-131,
miss
hertag.
You
made
an
amendment.
You
made
a
motion
to
deny.
Was
it
your
intent
to
include
that
the
denial
was
based
upon
self-created,
hardship.
D
A
You
made
a
motion
to
deny.
Was
it
your
intent
to
include
that
the
denial
included,
self-created,
hardship.
E
A
All
right,
all
those
opposed
all
those
in
favor
of
denial,
say
aye.
I
was
opposed,
miss
johnson
for
vrb
21-133.
You
made
a
motion.
Was
it
your
intent
that
you
include
that
the
denial
includes
self-created
hardship?
Yes,
all
right,
all
those
in
favor
of
the
denial
say
aye.
A
Those
opposed
hey,
miss
hertek
for
vrb
21-134.
You
made
a
motion
to
deny.
Was
it
your
intent
that
the
denial
include
language
about
the
self-created
hardship.
A
Okay,
all
those
in
favor
of
denial
say
aye,
all
those
opposed,
nay,
miss
decker.
We
know
you
did
you
know
we
did
that
for
135
right.
We
know
that
for
the
last
one.