►
From YouTube: VRB 6/14/22
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
A
B
C
D
B
B
B
There
are
some
procedural
rules
we
need
to
follow
when
your
case
number
and
petitioner's
name
is
called.
Please
approach
the
podium
when
you
approach
the
podium.
Please
state
your
name,
your
address
and
confirm
that
you've
been
sworn
I'll
say
that
again,
when
you
come
up
to
the
podium
state,
your
name,
your
address
and
confirm
that
you
have
been
sworn
petitioner
and
their
agent
will
have
10
minutes
to
make
a
presentation.
All
other
persons
or
participants
wishing
to
speak,
will
have
three
minutes
and
the
petitioner
will
have
an
additional
five
minutes
for
a
bottle
if
needed.
B
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.
B
After
acceptance
by
the
board,
you
must
submit
the
item
to
staff
for
to
be
entered
and
made
part
of
the
permanent
record.
The
board
bases
its
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
variance.
B
All
other
city
codes
will
need
to
be
met
if
the
case
is
approved,
your
variance
will
expire
two
years
from
the
date
of
the
decision.
If
the
case
is
continued,
it
will
be
continued
to
either
the
next
month's
vrb
board
agenda
or
the
next
available
position
on
upcoming
vrb
board
agenda.
The
case
is
denied
you
may
wish
to
have
the
variance
review
board's
decision
appealed
by
the
city
council.
You
must
file
a
petition
for
review
of
the
board's
decision
within
14
days
of
the
written
decision.
B
B
F
Good
evening
kamaria
pettis
mackel
from
the
city
attorney's
office,
will
the
commissioners
please
state
whether
or
not
they
have
any
conflicts
of
interest
regarding
any
of
the
items
that
are
listed
on
the
agenda
additionally,
will
the
commissioners
please
state
whether
or
not
they've
had
any
ex
parte
communication
regarding
any
of
the
items
that
are
on
the
agenda?
F
B
Okay,
should
we
wait?
Let's
have
her
come
on
in
all
right,
terrific,
all
right
at
this
time,
I
would
ask
staff
to
please
conduct
the
swearing-in
for
the
members
of
the
audience.
If
you
plan
to
speak,
if
there's
a
chance
that
you
might
have
to
stand
up
and
say
something
tonight,
please
stand
and
be
sworn
in,
because
otherwise,
when
you
get
ready
to
say
something
and
you
haven't
been
sworn
we're,
just
gonna
have
to
go
through
this
whole
process
again.
So
if
there's
a
chance
you're
going
to
speak,
let's
do
the
swearing-in.
B
Great
at
this
time
I
will
ask
city
staff:
are
there
any
changes
to
the
agenda
or
anything
that
we
need
to
address
at
this
time?.
G
B
Okay,
so
that
would
be
vrb
2215,
brb,
2258
and
2261
correct
all
right
great.
Is
there
a
motion?
Can
I
have
a
motion
from
someone
to
continue
those
three
cases.
C
Yes,
I
move
to
continue
vrb
2215,
vrb,
2258.
G
C
All
right
I'll
start
over
I'd
like
to
move
that
the
following
cases
be
continued
to
the
july
12.
Next:
variance
review
board,
meeting
variance
review
board,
22-15
the
location
at
611,
north
bradford,
avenue,
vrb
22-58,
the
location
at
8715,
north
46th
street
and
finally
vrb
22-61,
the
location
at
4308,
west
virginia
avenue.
B
B
I
also
understand
that
we
have
some
some
clarification
as
to
21
136
brb
21-136,
that's
patis,
mackel,.
F
Good
evening,
commissioners,
in
regards
to
vrb
21-136,
that
application
was
heard
by
the
board
at
the
previous
board
meeting,
there
was
a.
I
believe
that
application
received
a
vote
of
three
to
two.
F
Three
to
one
I
just
wanted
to
let
the
board
know
and
the
applicant,
the
property
owner
has
been
updated
or
informed.
According
to
code,
section
2778,
a
simple
majority
of
those
present
and
empowered
to
vote,
shall
be
necessary
to
conduct
routine
business
and
approve
or
deny
an
application
for
a
variance
based
on
that
revised
or
updated
code
section.
The
variance
was
granted
for
vrb
214
136
and
there's
no
other
action
that
needs
to
take
place.
F
G
G
All
right,
the
first
case
before
the
board
this
evening
is
vrb
2206.
This
is
addressed
at
3116
west
highest
street.
The
property
owners
are
irene
and
juan
rodriguez,
and
the
variance
request
before
the
board
tonight
is
to
reduce
the
front.
You
are
set
back
from
20
feet
to
10
feet.
The
side
yard
set
back
from
seven
feet
to
zero
feet
and
the
rear
yard
setback
from
20
feet
to
zero
feet,
and
this
is
in
order.
This
is
to
keep
on
permitted
patios.
G
G
And
this
is
a
work
without
permits.
This
is
a
site
plan
that
applicant
has
provided
showing
those
patios
car
ports,
kind
of
situation
and
they're
both
on
both
sides
of
the
property.
G
This
was
reviewed
by
natural
resources
and
found
inconsistent
with
the
comment
that
for
single
family
lots,
25
of
the
property
needs
to
be
green
space.
Current
area
matters,
green
space
is
covered
in
pavers
and
above
ground
pool
and
sheds,
and
he
requested
that
they
provide
a
narrative
on
how
the
green
space
requirement
will
be
met.
G
This
is
a
picture:
well,
there's
a
picture
showing
the
patios
and
cab
port.
So
on
the
left,
you
have
that
car
code
for
a
recreational
vehicle
and
then
you're,
seeing
the
other
patio
kind
of
porch
situation
and
more
pictures
showing
that
and
on
the
right
side
you
have
what
would
be
the
front
of
the
building
or
front
of
the
residence.
B
H
H
Okay,
the
covered
area
in
the
patio.
It's
an
open
space.
It's
not
enclosed
the
one
that
it's
on
the
right
side
that
one
was
done
about
more
than
two
years
ago.
He
did
not
know
it
was
a
required
with
permits.
H
The
one
with
the
on
the
right
side
that
I
just
said
it
was
done
about
two
years
ago.
He
made
that
covered
just
to
do
like
a
little.
H
You
know
hang
out
space
for
family
members,
since
the
house
inside
is
not
as
big,
he
did
not
enclose
it,
as
I
said,
and
the
setbacks
on
the
rear
of
the
property
there's
a
building
there,
and
that
was
there
when
he
bought
the
house.
That
was
already
made,
and
he
was
told
it
was
on
the
property
survey
when
he
purchased
the
home.
B
Okay,
did
you
want
to
tell
us
a
little
bit
about
the
hardships,
as
are
described
in
in
the
statute,
which
is
part
of
the
application
packet?
The
code
criteria
for
variance
review
board
consideration
under
27-80?
H
As
I
said,
it
was
created
for
a
little
bit
more
space
for
family
members,
especially
his
mom,
which
is
my
grandmother
she's
in
a
wheelchair,
and
she
likes
to
be
taken
out
most
of
the
day
and
that's
for
her
to
not
be
under
the
sun
or
under
the
rain.
There's
no
other
there's
not
nowhere
else
outside
of
the
house
that
she
could
be
in
without
being
covered.
B
Okay,
I
heard
you
say
that
the
house
is
small.
Can
you
tell
us
a
little
bit
more
about
that.
B
B
So
did
you
have
anything
else
to
share
with
us
as
far
as
the
hardships
under
27-80.
H
H
B
D
The
structure
to
the
rear
of
the
house
on
one
exhibit
we've
got.
It
says
that
it's
a
enclosed
building
and
another
one
says
it's
a
detached
garage.
What's
what
is
the
rear
structure
used
for.
H
It's
just
it's:
he
uses
for
either
storage
or
whenever
family
comes
over,
they
just
throw
a
mattress
in
there
and
stay
in
there.
A
Excuse
me
with
the
detached
building
there
or
is
there
running
water
to
the.
B
So
you
have
you:
have
the
detached
garage?
That's
been
there
since,
since
your
dad
acquired
the
property,
when
did
he
acquire
the
property?
Let
me
buy
it.
B
Then
he
added
the
cover
for
the
rv
and
he
added
the
covered
portion
on
the
other
side
for
family
gatherings.
You
said
yes,
okay,
when
did
he
add
the
covered
portion
for
the
rv.
B
Okay,
so,
but
after
first
the
the
one
side
went
up,
then
the
rv
side
went
up.
B
And
can
you
explain
to
us
why
it
needs
to
be
at
the
essentially
at
the
property
lines?
Is
there
any
reason
why
we
couldn't
move
those
covers
in
five
to
seven
feet
so
that
we
can
meet
side
yard
setbacks.
H
B
Okay,
even
if
that
entailed
shrinking
the
cover.
B
H
B
B
Okay,
all
right!
Well,
then,
with
that
I
will
club
close
the
public
hearing
and
open
it
up
for
a
motion
from
the
board.
D
D
I
moved
at
the
variance
for
case
vrb
22-06
for
the
property
located
at
3116
west
highest
street
for
a
reduction
of
front
yard,
setback
from
20
feet
to
10
feet,
side
yard,
set
back
from
seven
to
zero
feet
and
reverse
yards
set
back
from
20
to
zero
feet,
be
denied
due
to
the
failure
of
the
petitioner
to
meet
its
burden
of
proof
to
provide
competent
and
substantial
evidence
and
record
and
at
this
public
hearing
of
an
unnecessary
hardship
or
practical
difficulty.
D
B
Second,
all
right,
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
is
there
discussion
on
the
motion.
I
would
like
to
have
a
little
bit
of
discussion
on
emotion,.
B
F
Kamaria
pedestal
from
the
city
attorney's
office,
so
mr
murphy
you're
you've
prepared
a
motion
to
address
all
of
the
various
requests
and
there's
three
in
this
one
and
this
this
application.
If
the
board
is
inclined
to
bifurcate
the
motion
to
take
care
of
each
variance
request,
you
know
each
specific
variance
request.
You
could
certainly
do
that,
so
you
could
do
three
motions
or
if
you
want
to
make
two
motions
and
one
it's
the
pleasure
of
the
the
motion
maker
on
how
you
want
to
proceed.
B
D
F
B
Probably
just
non-conforming
because
it's
just
been
there
before
the
issue
was
a
rose,
but
I
mean
to
me
I
would
say:
I'd
be
okay
with
proving
the
rear
yard
setback,
but
not
the
other
two.
But
we
can
take
a
vote
on
the
motion
as
it
stands.
If
you
choose.
B
This
pedestal
is
that
accurate.
Is
there
no
way
to
address
the
side,
the
rear
yard,
without,
unless.
G
B
Okay,
all
right:
well,
we
still
have
a
pending
motion
and
it
is
to
the
pleasure
of
the
motion
maker
as
to
whether
you
want
to
land
your
vote
on
it.
D
B
All
right,
let's
go
ahead
and
vote
on
it
all
those
in
favor.
The
motion,
as
as
it
stands
say,
aye
all
is
opposed.
Motion
passes
four
to
one.
Your
petition
has
been
denied.
B
If
you
choose
to
appeal,
you
have
ten
days
to
seek
the
appeal
from
the
city,
council
and
staff
can
help
you
with
that.
F
F
I
was
just
told
that
the
the
applicant
is
requesting
that
to
be
continued
to
the
august
9th
2022
vrb
agenda
at
5,
30
p.m,
vrb
2215
for
the
property
located
at
611,
north
bradford
avenue.
F
F
D
F
And
staff
just
informed
me
that
the
applicant
for
vrv
2258.
G
All
right,
the
next
case
before
the
board
is
vrb
2236.
This
is
addressed
at
3602,
east
oarsband
avenue.
It
is
zone
cg,
general,
commercial,
general
and
the
property
owner
is
temple
crest
haitian
baptist
church
and
the
various
requests
here
is
to
reduce
the
required
parking
spaces
from
36
to
36
spaces
to
16
spaces,
and
the
purpose
is
for
the
expansion
of
the
existing
church
structure.
G
And
that
has
the
place
of
religious
assembly
requires
0.3
parking
spaces
per
se.
G
G
G
Calculated
whatever
parking
spaces
they
are
requesting,
this
was
reviewed
by
natural
resources
and
found
consistent
and
reviewed
by
transportation.
Transportation
found
them
inconsistent
with
code
and
transportation's
comments,
and
memo
has
been
has
been
provided
in
the
staff
report
right
if
we
found
them
consistent
with
no
comments,
urban
design
found
them
inconsistent
and
the
staff
memo
was
also
included
in
the
staff
report
with
comments
regarding
the
architectural
finishes,
auto
lighting,
sidewalks,
landscape,
buffering
and
parking.
G
We
have
received
no
letters
of
objection
or
support
for
this
variance
request.
The
applicant
has
provided
pictures
showing
the
subject
property,
an
arial
showing
the
existing
building
and
in
yellow.
That's
the
proposed
addition.
G
I
H
My
name
is
jim
johnson,
2886
jaylene
wrote
north
port
florida
and
I've
been
sworn
in.
B
Terrific
all
right,
you
have
10
minutes.
If
you
would,
please
explain
to
us
your
hardships.
The
reason
why
you
can
you
need
to
reduce
the
parking.
I
said.
H
So
the
the
church
is
is
going
to
expand
and
we're
going
to
put
in
a
two-story
building,
alongside,
as
you
saw
in
the
picture
in
the
yellow
and
the
the
upstairs
of
that
is
going
to
be
for
the
children
and
for
the
bible,
studies
and
and
and
for
classrooms,
and
then
below
is
going
to
be
the
the
gathering
place.
H
If
you
will
in
order
to
put
that
in
there,
so
that
all
of
these
children
can
have
this
place
to
go,
they
need
to
have
that
size
of
the
building,
and
in
order
to
do
that,
we've
got
the
the
parking
parking
lot
problem.
We're
16
we're
about
16
the
area
of
16
spaces.
Shy
of
being
able
to
put
that
put
that
in
that
add
to
the
code
so
we're
requesting
to
to
have
that
have
the
variance
so
that
we
can
get
down
to
20..
We
can.
H
We
feel
that,
with
what
the
what
the
church
has
provided
for
the
community
for
the
24
years,
that
it's
been
in
business
or
been
in
operation,
that
it
would
be
beneficial
for
the
community
to
it
would
benefit
the
community
and
without
being
able
to
put
that
structure
in
there.
We
feel
it
would
hurt
the
community.
H
The
overflow,
if
the
church
is
open
for
two
or
two
hours,
two
hours
on
a
sunday
and
the
the
overflow
parking
would
be
the
is
in
in
in
conversations
with
the
neighbors
of
some
of
the
businesses
there
and
sharing
some
of
that
overflow,
as
well
as
they
they're
gonna,
be
carpooling
and
they're
they're
planning
on
on
a
bus
to
help
that
as
well.
I
Yeah
outside
that,
our
church
has
been
in
the
community
for
for
more
than
20
years
and
we
serve
the
community
in
several
different
ways.
We
have
food
ministry,
provide
educational
services
after
school
services
and
so
on
and
so
forth,
and
so
we
used
to
meet
on
a
different
building
on
40th
close
to
bus
garden.
We
recently
moved
to
recently
I
mean
we
bought
this
property
four
years
ago
and
we
would
like
to
continue
with
what
we're
here
for
which
is.
I
Besides
you
know,
serving
the
gospel
is
serve
the
the
community,
but
we
we
understand
that
there
is
a
an
issue
with
the
parking
space
and
we
tend
to
make
up
for
that
with
carpooling
and
and
bosses,
and
things
like
that.
So
I
just
wanted
to
add
that.
B
All
right
is
there,
you
still
have
time.
Is
there
anything
else
you'd
like
to
share
with
us
this
evening,
or
should
we
open
it
up
for
discussion
from
others.
I
B
It
okay
all
right.
Well,
then,
is
there
anyone
in
the
audience
who
would
like
to
speak
on
this
petition?
Seeing
none
is
there
anyone
who
has
questions
for
the
petitioners,
mr
pastor,.
E
I
It
works
fine,
okay,
we
have
enough
parking
for
for
the
members.
We
have.
I
Well,
I
mean
we
the
the
additional
space
we
are
adding,
it's
we're
still
gonna
use
the
the
sanctuary
for
service
and
the
additional
space
would
be
just
it's
not
like
we're
going
to
have
people
and
both
spaces.
So
our
service
is
also
going
to
be
held
in
the
central,
which
is
the
down
sales
space.
The
additional
space
will
be
used
for
sunday,
school
and.
A
D
Sure,
actually,
my
question's
for
mr
scott.
D
How
are
you
doing
looking
at
the
site
plan
and
some
of
your
comments,
it
looks
like
possibly
the
variance.
D
A
That's
the
churches
are
typically,
we
support.
You
know
parking
waivers,
we
had
objected
in
this
case,
but
they
provided
good
justification.
I
felt
you
know,
like
you,
said,
a
lot
of
it's
just
a
usually
one
day
a
week
type
of
thing
and
the
number
of
spaces
is
actually
based
on
the
number
of
seats
for
churches
in
the
main
sanctuary,
and
usually
they
don't
have
parking
problems
so
the
justification
they
provided.
I.
H
K
D
B
Before
you
go
so
the
numbers
that
you've
calculated
include
the
upgrade.
Is
that
correct?
That's
correct,
okay!
So,
despite
the
expansion,
the
numbers
with
with
some
of
the
justifications
that
you've
received,
you
feel
are
adequate.
That
is
correct.
Okay,.
D
B
A
B
The
number
well,
we
can
grant
16
if,
if
that
is
the
board's
desire,
but
we
can't
grab
so
that's
fine.
That's
fine!.
D
A
D
G
C
Okay,
sorry
john,
I
have
one
more
or
maybe
a
couple
so
on
our
you
know,
report
here
it
says:
36
spaces
are
needed,
but
in
your
letter
it
says
48
are
needed.
C
So
on
the
memorandum.
C
I
I
F
A
F
From
the
city
attorney's
office,
if
I
may,
if
we
could
pass
this
case,
just
to
get
clarification
from
the
applicant
regarding
what's
requested
and
what
was
noticed
right
now,.
B
So
you
just
want
to
pause
and
move
forward
with
a
different
case.
F
B
We
okay
with
doing
that,
you're,
okay,
all
right!
Then:
let's
go
ahead
and
set
this
one
aside
and
move
on
to
2251
and
we'll
come
back
to
2236
as
soon
as
that
issue
is
resolved.
G
The
next
case
before
the
board
is
vrb
2251..
This
is
addressed
at
3133,
west
euclid
avenue.
The
property
owner
is
matt
chapman,
and
this
is
zoned
rs
60,
residential
single
family.
The
variance
request
this
evening
is
to
is
to
remove
a
34-inch
live
oak
for
the
construction
of
the
single
family
residence.
The
code
section
in
reference
is
section
27-284.
G
G
G
Their
memo
is
attached
in
the
staff
report
right
if
we
had
no
comments
and
found
them
consistent
transportation
found
them
consistent
and
had
no
comments
as
well.
We
have
received
no
letters
of
support
or
objection
for
this
variance
request
and
in
the
determination
of
the
variance
request
before
the
board.
You
shall
consider
section
27-284.2.5.
G
B
L
L
M
M
I
lived
on
I've
been
a
resident
on
this
property
for
20
years
and
I
can
tell
you
cars
drive
very
fast
on
on
euclid
avenue.
It's
particularly
dangerous.
You
know
in
the
early
morning
rush
hour
and
in
the
evening
and
our
family
we're
playing
on
building
this
house
and
we
feel
we
need
to
turn
around
drop
our
driveway
for
the
safety
of
the
future
younger
drivers.
M
We
have
a
15
year
old,
that's
going
to
be
driving
by
himself
in
about
six
months,
an
11
year
old
in
about
five
years
and
an
eight-year-old
in
about
eight
years,
and
I
do
feel
you
know
you
know
as
an
adult
and
living
there
for
a
while
I've
been
able
to.
I
can
kind
of
gauge
when
I'm
pulling
out
on
the
euclid,
but
the
younger
driver
just
doesn't
have
that
skill
and
experience
yet,
and
I
think
there
is
truly
a
safety
concern
there.
M
M
In
the
last
five
years,
there's
been
two
major
accidents,
just
parked
cars
on
euclid,
where
a
driver
has
just
been
not
paying
attention
and
is
just
rammed
into
a
parked
car,
so
we'd
like
to
have
the
larger
driveway
for
that
functionality
as
well,
and
we
don't
approach
this
lightly.
You
know,
I
know
it's
a
big
ass
to
remove
a
tree
and
that's
why
we
submitted
three
different
site
plans.
You
know
we
paid
the
builder
to
develop
those
to
show
that
we're
trying
to
do
this
in
good
faith
and
really
feel
it's.
M
L
Again,
my
name
is
catherine
coyle.
I
am
going
to
go
through
a
quick
splash
of
photos
and
then,
through
the
hardship
criteria
and
the
site
plans
and
specifically
the
two
alternatives
that
were
proposed,
as
well
as
the
staff
comments
to
address
those
these
photos
were
submitted.
Jane
did
show
a
few
of
them.
I
L
The
this,
if
you
know
this
particular
area
I
am
actually
starting
from
the
west
and
moving
back
to
the
east.
This
is
actually
a
through
condition.
This
is
waverly
circle
right
off
of
euclid
euclid
is
classified
as
a
collector
roadway,
so
it
does
have
a
double
line
down
the
center.
L
L
This
condition
is
not
a
stop
condition
westbound,
so
this
traffic
does
come
through
and
sweep
through
on
waverly
circle.
The
house
is
right
here
behind
this
adjacent
yard.
Right
here,
as
I
move
to
the
east
down
waverly
circle
now
you're,
looking
down
euclid.
This
is
the
home
right
here
and
you
can
see
there
is
some
vegetation
which
is
not
theirs.
It's
actually
the
neighbors,
their
driveway,
actually
pops
out
from
that
vegetation.
L
You
can
actually
see
the
driveway
and
how
it
actually
encroaches
into
that
protective
radius
of
the
existing
tree
currently
and
the
canopy.
You
can
start
to
see
some
damage
and
I
do
have
some
pictures
that
blow
blown
up
with
that,
because
the
canopy
does
hang
low
over
the
street
in
this
particular
section.
L
L
This
is
the
shot
looking
back.
You
can
see
that
tree
here
and
that
canopy
there
how
it
does
hang
over.
You
can
even
see
just
by
the
discoloration
that
it
has
dead
or
limbs,
there's
not
as
much
foliage,
and
this
is
that,
through
condition
and
they're
backing
out
right
into
it.
There
is
no
visibility.
This
way
with
the
vegetation
from
the
neighbor's
yard,
as
well.
L
L
L
He
did
an
evaluation
as
well
and
raided
both
trees
and
luckily
the
city
arborist,
mr
eister
also
rated
the
trees,
the
exact
same
condition,
the
one
on
the
left,
which
is
marked
as
tree
one
and
casey's
report,
the
one
here
which
is
next
to
the
current
driveway.
L
That
is
a
c7
which
is
two
points
away
from
an
actual
to
be
deemed
hazardous,
see
by
the
by
the
city's
sea.
Condition
by
the
city's
evaluation
report
actually
is
deemed
a
major
problem,
and
when
you
go
through
the
structural
components
of
the
tree,
the
root
system
is
rated
as
a
c,
which
is
a
major
problem.
Limb
and
branch
structure
is
a
c
which
is
a
major
problem
and
then
the
twigs
which
is
the
new
new
growth,
is
also
represented
as
a
c
the
size
of
the
defect
shown
in
the
evaluation.
L
L
This
one
is
on
the
left
in
particular:
it's
the
lesser
condition
tree.
It's
actually
a
weaker
tree.
If
you
compare
the
two
ratings,
there's
girdling
roots
which
were
identified-
and
you
can
see
in
the
background
how
close
the
driveway
is,
there's
girdling
roots
essentially
on
all
sides-
and
this
is
the
blown-up
picture
of
that
branch
structure
of
that
particular
tree.
Where
you
can
see
damage
if
you
actually
zoom
in.
L
You
can
see
it
there's
there's
actually
open
wounds
on
the
tree
where
the
vehicles,
the
trucks
whatever's
going
down.
Euclid
is
actually
hitting
that
tree
and
leaving
those
those
defects,
though
that's
where
the
risk
comes.
If
they
do
fail,
either
dropping
on
cars,
pedestrians
or
in
other
people's
yards.
L
The
original
site
plan
proposal,
which
jane
showed
you
was
showing
this
tree
to
come
out
on
the
right
side
and
this
one
to
be
saved
after
the
evaluation,
private
arbors
and
the
city
are
worse
verifying
it.
It
actually
turns
out.
This
tree
is
actually
the
lesser
condition.
It's
it's
in
worse
shape.
It's
almost
hazardous
based
on
the
rating.
This
is
actually
a
b
condition,
which
is
a
very
healthy
tree.
L
One
of
the
conditions
of
the
code
for
reconfig,
reasonable
reconfiguration,
is
to
look
at
how
you
can
move
the
house
around
on
the
property
without
exception,
or
variance
under
section
27156
table
4-2,
footnote
7.
It
clearly
tells
you
that
you
actually
can
reduce
percentages
of
the
yards.
40
percent
in
the
rear
yard
buy
right,
no
exception,
no
variance.
L
What
we
did
is
we
shifted
the
house
around,
and
then
we
flipped
it
both
ways
to
see
how
the
yard
still
would
be
usable
for
the
lanai,
but
the
garage
would
actually
function
with
the
driveway
and
whether
or
not
it
would
work
with
both
trees
staying
or
which
tree
would
work
coming
out.
Saving
this
tree
again.
On
the
left
side,
we
pushed
the
house
to
six
feet,
which
is
the
allowable
condition.
Under
that
code,
section
150,
27,
156
you're
allowed
to
reduce
one
foot
in
the
rear.
L
You're
allowed
to
go
to
a
minimum
of
12
feet
in
the
rear.
I'm
sorry
six
feet
on
the
side,
12
feet
in
the
rear
by
right.
The
issue
that
we
have
here
is
the
overhead
power
lines
actually
are
running
in
the
rear,
and
there
is
a
transformer
right
there
hanging
on
this
pole
right
here
and
looking
at
the
tico
standards
for
that
separation
for
the
national
energy
code,
it
by
those
standards,
it's
10
and
a
half
and
three
and
a
half.
L
Actually
shows
you
retaining
the
15
feet,
flipping
the
house
back
with
a
six
foot
side
setback
here,
so
we
meet
the
energy
standard
for
tico
that
separation.
We
reduce
as
much
as
we
can
without
exception,
or
variance
down
to
six
feet
on
this
side
and
the
tree
that
actually
is
in
worse
condition
as
the
one
that's
coming
out
and
then
we're
saving
the
healthier
tree.
L
And
if
you
recall
how
close
these
trees
are
to
the
house.
Currently
what
we
ultimately
do
is
we
get
the
house
outside
of
the
true
20-foot
protective
radius,
and
we
just
have
the
impact
of
the
driveway
in
the
canopy
and
the
canopy
itself
is
actually
pruned,
so
we're
actually
saving
the
larger
canopy,
which
is
100
by
100
diameter
or
100
diameter.
L
I
just
wanted
to
address
really
quickly.
The
city
arborist's
comments
on
potentially
doing
a
24
foot,
driveway
versus
26.67
24
feet
is
fine.
We
can
reduce
it.
That's
fine!
We're
allowed
to
do
up
to
27.
L
L
Everything
in
red
is
where
the
roots
get
impacted,
even
though
their
pavers,
those
roots,
will
still
impact
also
by
city
standards,
because
it
says
you're
not
supposed
to
change
the
function
or
the
flow
of
the
house
against
city
technical
standards.
That's
how
we're
supposed
to
look
at
this
reasonable
reconfiguration
city
code
also
says
you
can't
park
on
these
root
zones
so
coming
out
of
this
garage,
whether
it's
a
two
car
wide
or
three
car
wide.
L
You
have
to
be
exact
and
perfect
so
that
you
don't
drive
over
nine
feet
which
technically
it's
supposed
to
be
10.
At
least
these
people
would
have
to
stick
to
directly
in
between
those
those
lines
and
visibility
with
the
trees
and
everything
else
it
just.
It
is
unreasonable
to
actually
reconfigure
that
way,
and
we
do
feel
that
it
is
better
to
actually
save
the
healthier
tree
as
found
by
both
arborists
as
far
as
condition.
B
There
you
go.
Thank
you.
Is
there
anyone
in
the
audience
who
wishes
to
speak
about
this
petition,
all
right,
seeing
none.
Is
there
any
questions
from
from
the
board
as
to
the
petition.
L
Thank
you
again.
Catherine
coyle
have
been
sworn
as
far
as
rebuttal
since
there's
technically
not
much
tuber
but
other
than
the
reasonable
reconfiguration,
which
I
already
showed
just
for
the
record,
to
make
it
abundantly
clear,
based
on
exhibit
a1
reasonable
reconfiguration
for
tree
removal.
We
did
submit
this
into
the
record
stating
that
the
impact,
the
protective
radius
of
the
trees,
the
protective
radius
of
both
grand
trees
combined
essentially
eliminates
the
ability
to
access
the
property
property
and
impacts
front
portion
of
building.
L
L
We
are
impacted,
what's
unique
about
this
property
is
we
are
impacted
by
the
electrical
line
separation
in
the
rear.
We
are
fronted
by
a
collector
roadway,
which
is
a
higher
speed
with
that,
through
condition
immediately
on
the
arc
to
waverly.
So
we
do
need
a
wider
space
to
actually
park
and
maneuver
in
a
safe
way.
L
L
As
far
as
the
unique
and
practical
difficulties
of
this
particular
property
on
this
section
of
euclid
between
mcdill
and
the
crosstown,
this
is
one
of
two
properties
that
have
two
large
or
grand
trees
in
the
front
yard.
This
is
the
only
one
that
has
them
literally
positioned
at
even
intervals
that
preclude
a
circular
drive
that
would
force
a
narrow,
weird
drive
in
the
middle,
with
visibility
issues.
The
other
house
that
has
the
two
trees
are
on
the
side.
E
For
removal
of
a
grand
tree
based
upon
the
petitioner
meeting
the
burden
of
proof
with
regard
to
the
six
factors
for
determining
tree
removal,
it's
set
forth
in
section
27,
284,
25
f4
of
the
city
code
for
granting
tree
removal,
specifically
that
the
evidence
provided
in
the
records
showed
that
the
petitioners
provided
several
site
plans,
as
are
already
using
their
code,
allowed
reduction
setbacks
when
preserving
a
tree
showed
the
condition
of
the
trees
on
the
site
and
the
necessity
for
safer
access
to
and
from
the
property
off
of.
Euclid.
B
All
right,
we
have
a
motion
to
approve
their
second,
a
second
second,
mr
murphy.
All
those
is
there
a
need
for
discussion
on
this
motion.
Anyone,
oh
okay,
all
those!
Let's
take
a
vote.
All
those
in
favor
say:
aye
all
right.
Let's,
post
okay
motion
passes
three
to
two
and
move
on.
Do
you
want
to
go
back
now
to
22
36.
F
A
Jonathan
scott
translation
planning
the
applicant
and
I
we've
got
together
they,
the
number
of
parking
reduction
from
36
to
16,
is
the
correct
number.
So
we
established
that
and
they're
going
to
make
some
changes
in
permitting.
You
know
to
get
everything
correct
on
there,
but
that
is
the
correct
number
they
need
for
the
variance,
and
that
was
noticed
correctly
and
everything.
So
they
should
be
fine
to
proceed.
B
Great
okay!
So,
where,
where
were
we
in
terms.
F
F
From
the
city
attorney's
office,
you
were
at
the
phase
of
asking
questions
of
the
applicant.
Yes,
there
was
already
determination
that
there
was
no
public
comment.
So
if
you
want
to
continue
asking
questions.
B
C
I
had
a
question
with
the
site
plan
with
jonathan's
remarks
on
them,
so
if
those
four-
so
let
me
get
my
drawings
up
off
of
osborne
need
to
be
taken
out.
So
now,
we've
reduced
it
so
they're
16
are
not
able
to
be
placed
on
this
site
anymore.
Is
that
only.
A
C
Okay,
great,
I
have
a
question
for
the
the
church
you
had
mentioned
that
there
were
nearby
stores
that
were
offering
up.
There
are
lots
for
you
to
park
at.
Do
you
have
that
agreement
or
anything?
I
just
feel
like
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
parking
on,
and
this
is
a
fairly
neighborhood
oriented.
You
know
housing
street.
C
How
exactly
have
you
worked
that
in
to
your
plans.
I
Well,
I
believe,
can
you
see.
I
Well,
my
name
is
bob
sanders
and
I
have
sworn
in
there's
a
vacant
lot
in
the
vicinity
of
the
property
and
we've
made
several
attempts
to
reach
them.
We
have
not
been
able
to
get
ahold
of
somebody
yet.
A
A
Okay,
and
do
you
have
any
support
from
any
of
the
local.
A
E
Miss
my
dude
has
there
been
any
opposition
at
all
lodged
from
the
city.
G
E
B
H
I
just
like
the
the
overflow
parking
that
I
think
I
believe
you're
concerned
with
is
is
again
they're
they're
in
the
process
of
locating
a
bus
and
they're
going
to
be
carpooling,
and
I
I
don't.
The
church
is
only
going
to
be
operating
for
about
two
hours.
You
know
under
of
the
extreme
the
extreme
condition
that
it
could
possibly
have.
B
E
I'll
move,
the
variance
request
for
case
vrb
2236
for
the
property
located
at
3602
east
osborne
avenue
be
granted,
is
depicted
on
the
site
plan
and
presented
the
public
hearing
for
reduction
required
parking
spaces
from
36
to
16
spaces
based
upon
the
applicant
presenting
confidence.
Substantial
evidence
in
the
record
in
this
public
hearing
of
necessary
hardship
or
practical
difficulty.
E
When
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
section
2780.
The
city
code,
specifically
that
they're
looking
to
expand
church
that
serves
the
community
and,
most
importantly,
that
mr
scott
from
transportation.
C
B
Motion,
second
by
ms
johnson:
all
right
is
there
a
need
for
discussion,
saying
none,
let's
take
a
vote,
all
those
in
favor
say
hi,
all
that's
posed
all
right.
Your
motion
passes
have
a
great
evening.
Thank.
G
G
G
You
have
new
plans
that
show
that
the
the
patio
to
the
rear
of
the
property
has
been
removed
from
the
plants.
G
And
the
applicant
has
provided
elevation
showing
that
proposed
construction.
This
was
reviewed
by
natural
resources
and
found
inconsistent
transportation,
found
them
consistent
with
no
comments
and
right
off.
We
found
them
inconsistent
with
comments
that
they
show
an
easement
that
is
reserved
over
the
vacant
vacated
alley
for
the
ordinance
and
the
ordinance
was
attached
in
the
staff
report
and.
G
G
N
N
N
Yes,
I
have
and
we're
ready
to
move
ahead.
As
indicated
by
the
staff,
there
are
two
variances
requested:
one
is
a
front
setback
from
20
feet
to
15
feet
and
a
side
set
back
from
20
feet
to
18
feet.
If
I
could
go
to
the
overhead,
please
excuse
me
and
if
we
could
stay
on
that,
please,
first
of
all,
if
we
could
pull
up
the
camera,
please.
N
So
one
correction:
this
is
not
a
brand
new
home.
This
will
be
a
renovation
and
additions
to
the
home,
which
will
be
a
quite
an
improvement
for
the
site
and,
as
you
saw
some
photos,
this
is
the
existing
home
and
enrique's
planning.
To
do
a
very
nice
improvement,
I
saw
the
elevations,
which
would
be
a
nice
addition
to
the
area,
the
primary
issue
here-
and
this
is
the
good
news,
mr
chairman
board
members,
rather
than
the
last
case
you
saw
seeking
to
remove
a
tree.
N
The
purpose
of
this
variance
is
to
make
sure
that
the
very
nice
tree-
that's
on
the
properties
you
see
here,
remains
undisturbed
and
not
imposed
upon,
and
we
did
have
mr
jeff
grubb,
who
is
a
certified
arborist
look
at
the
tree.
You
can
one
hand
a
copy
of
the
letter
h.
How
do
you
want
the
copy
letter
handed
to
you,
sir?
N
Who
indicates
to
you
that
preserving
the
42.35
dbh
oral
oak,
the
tree
has
a
31
foot
drip
line
to
the
west
32
foot
drip
line
to
the
east.
It
goes
into
a
lot
of
details,
but
the
proposed
construction
is
going
to
disturb
in
order
to
not
disturb
the
tree
and
the
roots.
He
recommends
that
at
least
a
minimum
15
foot
from
the
base
of
the
tree
would
be
required.
So
that's
what
we
are
proposing
and
when
you
look
at
the
site,
what
that
does
for
the
variants.
N
So
the
result
of
that
is
the
side
setback
that
you've
been
told
as
part
of
the
action
here
and
we
went
ahead
and
touched
base
with
the
property
owner
on
that
side
and
ricky
spoke
with
him,
and
we
have
a
letter
from
him
in
the
record
here
for
you,
his
letter
of
support
to
the
arnold
blue
variance
review
board
of
tampa
as
the
easter
bunny
property
owner.
This
letter
signed
a
support
for
the
variance
requested,
above
that
he
would
support
the
three-foot
proposed
site
setback.
N
So
we
are
trying
to
be
as
respectful
and
not
impacting
to
the
very
beautiful
tree
on
the
front,
which
is
a
nice
addition
to
the
lot
and
that
pushes
improvements
more
towards
the
rear,
and
we
seek
to
make
that
up
on
the
side
setback
which
the
proper
door
on
that
side
of
the
lot
is
fully
in
support
of
with
that
rick
and
ricky.
Did
you
have
any
comments
you
want
to
make?
No.
B
Okay,
if
that
completes
your
presentation,
we
will
look
to
the
audience.
Is
there
anyone
in
the
audience
who
wishes
to
speak
about
this
petition
this
evening?
E
N
That's
the
feature
that
we're
working
around
yes
there.
There
is
a
second
feature
if
I
may.
E
H
N
J
N
E
E
It's
already
20
feet
wider
than
a
regular
lot,
so
the
trees
in
the
front
yard.
So
I
don't
see,
even
though
you
said
it
several
times.
I
don't
see
how
that
impacts,
the
side
setback
at
all
and
the
front
we're
trying
to
encroach
further
on,
even
though
the
lot's
two
feet
longer
than
a
normal
lot.
So
what
is
the
hardship.
E
N
It's
not
we're
not
scraping
the
site
and
putting
a
brand
new
home
in
that
we
can
move
and
manipulate
in
any
manner.
So
our
concern
was
how
to
best
fit
an
existing
home.
That's
going
to
be
improved
with
certain
constraints
because
of
its
existing
nature
and
to
fit
that
in
to
a
spot
that
is
most
respectful
to
the
tree
and
respectful
to
the
neighbor.
Who
is
the
support
so
there's
a
number
of
constraints
in
terms
of
existing
structure
and
natural
features,
seeking
to
provide
a
nice
improvement
to
a
single-family
residential
home?
Okay.
B
Is
it
is
it
in?
Is
it
an
answer
to
the
question
because
you'll
have
rebuttal
time
all
right,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we
get
all
our
questions
asked
is
I'll.
B
Okay,
all
right
and
maybe
we'll
ask
a
question
that
will
address
the
issue
that
you're
about
to.
N
B
Address
were
there
other
questions
before
I
asked
one:
okay,
okay,
so
I
I'm
still
trying
to
follow
and
I
want
to
get
a
sense
you
gave
us
this
helpful
diagram.
B
N
So
this
is
from
the
property
appraiser.
The
existing
home
is
here
right.
You
can
see
the
crown
of
the
tree
here,
okay
and
then
so
that.
B
A
A
Existing
right
now,
I
think
the
the
the
problem
that
we're
having
is
that
the
I'm
trying
to
put
a
two-car
garage
on
the
property,
the
side,
the
side
property
that
I
have
left
on
the
on.
The
lot
is
too
narrow
to
put
the
two-car
garage
there
and
then,
if
I
go
forward
I'll,
be
affecting
the
tree,
so
I
have
to
go
to
the
side
so
that
I
don't
affect
the
tree.
Does
that
make
sense.
B
A
Drew
I
drew
in
the
tree
on
the
on
this
on
the
survey
kind
of
to
give
you
an
idea,
so
that
may.
N
I
A
B
All
right-
and
so
I
is
the
front
where
the
existing
carport
is
yes,
sir,
that
orients
it
to
the
15
feet.
Is
that
the
basis
for
asking
for
the
15
feet
actually
both.
B
Right
but
mr
pressman
mentioned
existing
structure
orienting
around
the
existing
structure
right,
so
I'm
just
trying
to
follow
that
sure
the
what
what
is
listed
as
I
guess
the
existing
park
carport
is
within
that
that's.
What
you
have
diamond
correct
is
that.
B
We
see
on
this
on
this
photograph
here
that
that
existing
carport
or
whatever
exists
there
today
sure
is
that
at
15
feet
or
is
that
at
20
feet.
B
So
then,
now
I'm
trying
to
understand
what
you
said,
mr
preston,
a
pressman
about
orienting
with
the
existing
structure.
Why
not
keep
it
at
the
existing
20
foot
setback?
Why
move
it
forward.
A
A
A
Otherwise,
if
we
tried
to
put
this
on
further
this
way,
then
it
would
obstruct
they
would
impact
the
tree.
B
What
what
exists
there
today,
it's
that
that
little
box
with
the
existing
carport
there's
right
here?
Yes,
sir?
Yes,
that's
an
existing
carport!
Okay!
Well,
it's
closed
in,
but.
B
N
The
so
the
area
in
the
highlights
are
improvements
or
additions
to
the
home.
Yes,
sir,
so
the
idea
or
the
layout
was
to
provide
square
footage
for
the
needs
of
the
home,
like
every
homeowner
has
in
terms
of
livable
space
and
how
that's
going
to
best
fit
on
the
lot
with
constraint,
towards
the
front
of
the
lot
that
we've
talked
about
and
seeking
to.
N
So
these
areas
are
the
improvement.
This
area
is
the
improvement.
Those
are
further
improvements
of
the
home
and
then
also
to
the
rear.
E
Okay,
thank
you.
So
the
tree
appears
to
be
in
the
middle
of
the
site
slightly
to
the
east
of
the
lot,
which
is
where
the
two-car
driveway
is
proposed.
E
O
O
So
I
know
right
now
it
says
the
rear
setback
is
18..
They
could
actually
do
the
forty
percent
to
try
to
accommodate
that
without
pushing
the
house
forward
and
then
same
with
the
sides.
Instead
of
seven,
they
go
to
six
to
try
to
accommodate
the
space.
By
right,
I
write
and
with
no
variances,
but
to
me,
if
you
flip,
the
house
you're,
basically
tearing
up
the
old
driveway,
which
any
impacts
would
have
been
made
already:
where's
where's
the
current
driveway.
O
E
B
O
E
O
You
would
be
within
probably
six
feet,
yeah
to
that
tree
and
you're
re-grading
everything
to
accommodate
the
driveway
and
the
transition
to
the
new
home.
So
is
that
allowed?
Are
they
allowed
to
do
that?
Typically?
No,
what
we
would
do
is
like
say
if
this
came
in
as
a
new
construction
and
they're
like
oh,
we
have
a
driveway
here
with
a
grand
tree
and
we
have
nothing
over
here.
We'd,
be
like
flip.
Your
plan,
yeah
put
the
driveway
on
the
other
side
with
the
garage.
O
O
That
probably
does
increase
their
green
space,
but
they
have
to
have
25
percent
and
with
the
reductions
in
all
setbacks,
that's
it's
probably
still
pretty
close.
C
Other
than
the
trees
not
being
shown
on
the
plan
at
all
for
us
we're
just
assuming
it's
there,
yeah
and.
O
C
C
O
If
they
keep
this
the
laurel
in
question,
they
will
meet
that
requirement.
Okay,
so,
but
but
that's
kind
of
why
I
objected.
Okay.
C
B
N
The
only
other
item
I
would
make
aware
of
is
as
we're
asking
for
the
front
setback.
The
area
does
have
very
varied
front
setbacks,
so
you
can
see
just
in
this
area.
I've
noted
them
as
the
white
bars.
So
there
is
not
consistency
in
the
front
setbacks
of
the
homes
in
this
area.
Even
a
wider
view
shows
that
even
more
disparity,
so
a
difference
of
front
setback
in
terms
of
visually
on
the
street
is
not
going
to
be
anything
different
than
what
you'll
see
on
the
street.
As
of
today,.
B
Okay,
great
thank
you
and
we
appreciate
it
and
I
want
to
close
the
public
hearing
and
open
it
up
for
a
motion
from
the
board.
C
You
emotion,
this
is
52
right,
so
I
move
that
the
variance
request
for
vr
beat
for
case
vrb
22-52
for
the
property
located
at
west
dewey
street
for
a
front
setback
from
20
to
15
feet
a
side
step
back
from
seven
to
three
and
a
rear
setback
from
20
feet
to
18
feet.
C
Eight
inches
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
when
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
section
2780
of
the
city
code,
specifically
that
I
believe
this
is
a
self-created
hardship
due
to
new
construction,
and
there
was
inconsistencies
found
by
natural
resources
and
transportation.
E
B
Okay,
we
have
a
motion
to
deny
in
a
second
by
mr
pastor,
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion
to
deny
say
aye,
all
those
opposed
all
right.
The
motion,
the
petition
is
denied
four
to
one.
You
have
10
days
to
appeal.
Should
you
need
it?
Thank
you.
G
G
G
G
Zoned
hours
50.,
this
is
the
subject
property.
It's
an
existing
single-family
precedence
and
the
proposed
location
for
the
pool
is
right
here
in
the
rear.
Oh
okay,
the
proposed
location
for
the
pool
is
here
in
the
rear.
G
G
This
was
reviewed
by
natural
resources
and
found
consistent
with
conditions
and
transportation
review
was
not
required
right
if
we
reviewed
and
found
them
consistent
with
comments
that
they
had
a
released
easement
per
instrument
number
two
zero,
two
one,
four,
five
one:
seven:
zero
zero
and
that
release
of
easement
was
included
in
the
stack
report.
G
G
And
pictures
that
the
applicant
has
provided
of
the
home
showing
existing
conditions,
so
we
have
the
front
of
the
property,
and
here
in
on
the
extreme
left,
we
have
a
picture
of
the
re
of
the
rare
yard
where
the
proposed
pool
is
going
to
go
and
more
pictures
showing
that
area
condition
where
they're
proposing
that
pool
and
the
enclosure
showing
the
fence
as
it
exists.
Currently.
G
C
Hi,
yes,
jamie
murano,
yes,
I've
been
sworn
in
3416
west
for
oaks.
Thank
you
for
taking
the
time
this
evening.
I
My
name
is
sergio
ray
property,
honors
3416,
west,
fair
oaks,
avenue
I've
also
been
sworn
man.
Thank
you.
Terrific!
We're.
C
C
I
can
tell
you
why
we
want
this,
so
thank
you
for
your
your
evaluation
and
your
your
comments.
We're
really
excited
to
hopefully
have
a
lifelong
dream
of
getting
a
pool.
We
have
one
six
year
old
and
when
we
looked
at
the
property
we
noticed
there'd
be
room
for
a
pool,
but
we
wanted
to
make
sure
for
safety
reasons
for
anyone
using
the
pool
that
there'd
be
enough
room.
Clearly,
you
know
to
to
use
the
pool
and
not
to
have
such
a
narrow
pool.
C
My
husband
was
successful
in
getting
easement
revoked,
there
used
to
be
power
lines
in
the
backyard
which
had
a
five
foot
kind
of
like
a
teco,
I
think
margin
and
we
were
able
to
get
that
if
you
wanted
to
say
a
few
words
about
this.
Yes,.
I
I
could
mention
a
little
bit
about
this,
so
we
have
a
five-page.
We
used
to
have
a
five-foot
not
only
on
our
side
of
the
property,
but
also
on
the
property
adjacent
to
us.
We
requested
a
removal
form
because
those
power
lines
have
been
removed,
long
removed
before
our
property
was
built
and
there
was
no
longer
need
for
it.
So
we
went
through
the
easement
process
and
we
we
were
successful,
getting
removal.
I
Ideally,
we
would
like
to
take
advantage
of
that
space
by
the
way
our
neighbors
are
just
still
have
that
easement,
so
they
still
have
the
requirement
to
meet
those
five
feet,
even
though
they
haven't
they
could
go
through
the
same
process
we
have
gone
through,
but
they
have
not
got
it
so.
I
The
important
aspect
of
this
is
they
are
not
leveraging
those
five
feet
from
their
size
of
property,
so
it's
not
affecting
them
in
any
way,
shape
or
form.
So,
in
requesting
this,
this
additional
space
for
the
bill
of
the
pool,
we
would
not
really
be
affecting
our
neighbors.
C
The
letter
of
support
came
from
the
neighbor
directly
in
back
of
us,
so
that
rear
easement,
which
I
believe
is
on
the
south
side
that
would
be
the
closest
so
that
he
supports
it.
He
supports
the
removal
of
that
small
tree,
which
is
not
a
grand
tree.
So
that's
good.
Also,
our
neighbors
to
both
sides
are
supportive
as
well,
and
we're
going
to
have
adequate
drainage
in
green
space,
actually
more
than
25
percent.
So
we're
able
to
calculate
that
in
25
percent
of
green
space
we're
actually
at
it's
closer
to
34
of
green
space.
I
Correct
and
for
the
sake
of
drainage,
to
make
sure
that
neighbors
are
also
not
affected
around
the
pool.
We
plan
to
have
some
tiles
that
will
slant
toward
the
pool,
so
in
case
there's
water
that
that
spills
over
it
always
drains
back
and.
C
Also
stones
also,
so
that
will
help
but
also
separately.
We
have
the
green
space,
so
that
should
be
hopefully
fine
from
those
aspects.
So
we
can
certainly
answer
any
questions,
but
essentially
we
were
successful
in
getting
the
easement,
so
we
thought
would
be
really
a
good
idea
to
maybe
use
some
of
that.
Otherwise
the
pool
becomes
a
little
bit
narrow
and
we
wanted
to
be
safe
enough
for
people
to
use
so
in
terms
of
hardship.
Probably
somebody's
gonna
ask
about
that.
What
is
your
hardship?
Well,
I
think
safety
would
be
a
hardship.
C
We
just
wanna
make
sure
that
it's
when
you
go
into
the
pool
that
it's
not
so
narrow
for
children
and
and
for
young
children,
we're
obviously
going
to
have
it
enclosed
per
code.
We're
just
trying
to
make
sure.
L
I
Enough,
so
maybe
perhaps
the
biggest
hardship
we
have
is
that
we
have
such
a
narrow
lot
from
the
back
right,
so
we
have
to
unfortunately
live
with
those
limitations,
and
this
is
perhaps
the
best
the
best
compromise
to
have
enough
green
space,
a
swimming
pool,
that's
that
we
can
actually
use
and
and
at
the
same
time
you
know
be
us
as
responsible
as
stewards
as
we
can.
Thank
you.
B
Is
there
anyone
in
the
audience
who
wishes
to
speak
about
this
petition,
seeing
none
anyone
on
board
have
any
questions
for
the
petitioners.
Mr
pastor.
E
One
of
which
is
that,
regardless
of
what
your
neighbors
today
say,
the
request
rides
with
the
property
for
the
life
of
the
property,
which
means,
if
you
guys
leave
other
people,
could
build
back
to
those
lot
lines
in
the
future
and
as
your
neighbors
leave
and
turn
over
over
time,
then
you're
encroaching
on
their
property,
and
so
there's
that
consideration,
but
also
the
act.
The
issue
of
access,
because
with
zero
lot
you
don't
have
a
way
to
get
around
the
property,
and
so
that
can
be
an
issue
for
fire
department
or
any
other.
E
You
know,
city
maintenance
issues
or
just
practicality,
because
you're
essentially
blocking
that
quadrant
of
the
property
from
transportation
pools
are
not
a
right,
so
some
properties
don't
fit
them
and
I'm
not.
I'm
not
saying
yours
doesn't,
because
I
don't.
I
didn't
get
a
good
look
at
the
dimensions
or
the
plans,
and
it's
not
really
for
me
to
say,
but
the
the
question
I
would
have
to
you
is
you
know
under
the
premise
that
I
traditionally
would
not
support
a
zero
lot
line
request.
I
Yeah
so
I'll
be
happy
to
answer
some
of
the
questions,
so
the
reason
we
requested
a
zero
lot
is
because
not
because
we
want
to
extend
the
pull
all
the
way
to
the
fence
line.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
we
will
have
some
space,
so
some
walkable
space,
which
will
be
accessible
for,
for
example,
any
emergency
services
if
needed.
So
that's
that's,
definitely
taken
into
account
and
also
taking
into
account
because
of
we
don't
want
any
water
to
spill
over.
I
For
the
other
comment,
you
made
practicality
and
potential
use
of
other
neighbors,
so
on
our
on
our
this
side
of
our
property,
we
have
another
neighbor
that
has
a
swimming
pool
around
the
same
area
as
well.
They
respect
the
the
easement
as
well,
of
course,
and
and
the
setbacks,
but
they
will
not
be
building
anything
beyond
it
because
they
have
their
swimming
pool
in
in
the
backyard
we've
had
a
lifelong
neighbor.
That's
been
there
for
20
so
year
years
and
he's
been
very
supportive
of
having
this.
I
He
has
a
a
little
bit
of
a
longer,
I
believe,
yard
based
on
his
house
layout.
So
he
has
significantly
more
amount
of
space
for
his
yard
and
he
has
been
also
supportive.
There
are
no
other
neighbors
impacted
really
beyond
those
two
there's,
perhaps
the
little
corner
of
the
other
neighbor.
But
that's
you
know
significant
beyond
that.
C
I
I
About
right,
so
the
neighbor
that
that
is
fully
supportive
is
the
one
that's
right
behind
us
right
here
at
the
south
of
us,
so
that
has
the
biggest
amount
of
space
and
and
the
pool
will
probably
impact.
If
anything
you
know
would,
since
this
adjacent
to
them,
it
would
impact
him
impacting
him
the
most,
but
he
has
the
one
he's
the
one
that
has
the
most
amount
of
space
here
in
the
back
base
on
this
layout
to
the
east
of
us.
I
There's
where
there's
another
swimming
pool
already
built
here
as
well,
so
there
aren't
any
other,
really
properties
or
buildings
that
will
be
erected
near
near
that
area.
C
Can
you
just
say
one
more
thing
also,
just
interestingly,
I
don't
want
to
go
back
to
dot
cam
again,
I'm
sorry,
the
interesting
thing
about
this
something
I
learned
about
florida
is:
there
has
to
be
space
between
the
screen
and
the
pool
so
because
my
husband
and
son
are
very
sensitive
to
mosquitoes
and
we're
trying
to
eliminate
chemicals
for
allergic
reasons,
we're
trying
to
eventually
get
a
screen
here,
so
the
pool
would
go
first
and
the
screen
would
go
later,
but
essentially
the
pool
would
go
here,
but
you
have
to
have
that
space
so
just
wanted
to
show
you
so
essentially,
as
you
know,
if
you
had
like
a
two
foot
right,
then
you'd
have
a
screen
and
you'd
have
to
have
an
additional
two
feet
and
that
would
really
narrow
the
pool.
C
So
for
someone
to
actually
have
a
screen,
you
have
to
really
start
kind
of
closer
to
the
property
line
which
becomes
kind
of
more
like
a
fence
more
than
anything
else,
but
I
think
the
plan
is
to
go
with
a
pool
first
and
then
leave
the
option
for
a
screen
really
for
health.
You
know
reasons
so
we
don't
have
to
spray
and
the
people
get
bitten.
C
So
that's
kind
of
the
reasoning
of
why
you
know
we're
pushing
it
we're
hoping
to
push
it
to
that
area.
It's
because
you
have
to
have
that
buffer.
As
you
know,
between
the
screen,
the
pool,
so
the
pool
wouldn't
be
at
the
property
line,
it
would
be
more.
The
screen
would
be
closer
to
the
property
line.
C
H
E
The
issue
is:
if
we
approve
zero,
you
can
go
build
to
zero.
We
can't
change
that
after
it
leaves
here
and
we
do
have
the
ability,
because
of
the
way
you
notice
to
approve
less
than
zero.
You
know
we
have
the
ability
to
do
that
if
we
agreed
on
that.
So
my
point
is
that
and
I'm
just
speaking
for
me
not
for
all
five-
that
I
won't
support
a
zero
and
it
sounds
like
you're
not
intending
to
build
to
zero.
E
C
So
the
good
news
is,
we
have
plans,
we
worked
with
a
pool
builder,
so
we
have
plans
four
zero
variants
and
a
non-zero
variance.
There's
plans
for
a
two
two-foot
margin
as
well,
and
so
we
would
definitely
be
open
to
that,
because
that
gives
us
the
ability
to
have
that
two
feet.
I
C
Open
and
flexible,
we
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
we
were
able
to
maximize
the
space
and
also
protect
people
from
mosquitoes,
as
we
could.
D
Actually,
the
quick
question
on
the
pool
equipment
equipment
on
the
narrow
side
of
the
home
right.
Well,
I
mean
that's
also
a
question
for
the
city:
will
that
require
additional
variance
or
anything
like
that?
It's
on
the
narrow
side,
so,
instead
of
having
to
set
back
on
the
would
that
be
the
westerly
side
of
the
home
right.
D
D
G
B
So
the
question,
which
is
a
fair
one,
I
think,
is
by
placing
the
pool
equipment
on
the
west
side
of
the
home.
Will
that
also
require
a
variance.
G
Right
now
I
don't
know,
but
they
haven't
provided.
B
A
C
G
G
I
Necessary
if
it
comes
to
it,
so
we
can
plan
around
it,
either
place
it
on
the
side
or
that's
it
on
the
side.
So
it's
definitely
if
I
may
so
it's
something
that
we
can
definitely
plan
around.
So
if,
if,
if
there's
a
potential
issue
for
having
it
on
the
west
side
of
property,
we
can
perhaps
have
it
move
to
the
east
side
of
the
property
or
to
the
south
side
of
problem.
I
B
And
that
that's
the
point
of
mr
murphy
raising
it
is
that
just
so
you're
aware
it
might
be
a
problem
to
put
it
in
that
location.
I
N
B
E
Right,
I
have
one
then,
since
there
weren't
any
other
questions
once
we
go
into
motion
and
board
discussion,
you
guys
can't
speak
anymore.
So
I
wanted
to
ask
now
if
we
were
to
entertain
a
two
foot
instead
of
a
zero
foot,
would
you
be
open
to
that?
If
that's
what
the
board
decides,
which
I'm
not
saying
they
will
absolutely.
I
B
C
No
thank
you
so
much.
We
do
have
extra
copies.
If
anybody
needs
to
look
at
them
as
well,
but
yeah,
no,
we
would
definitely
be
open
for
two
feet.
We
absolutely
understand
and
yeah.
That
would
be
great
and
we
could
certainly
move
the
pool
equipment
if
that's
a
problem
as
well.
B
C
I'll
have
a
motion.
I
move
that
the
variance
request
for
case
brb
2253
for
the
property
located
at
3416
west,
fair
oaks
avenue
for
a
reduction
of
the
side
yard
setback
from
five
to
zero
in
the
rear
yard.
C
Setback
from
five
to
zero
feet
be
denied
to
the
failure
of
the
petitioner
to
meet
its
burden
of
proof
to
provide
competent
and
substantial
evidence
on
the
record
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
I
believe
this
is
a
self-created
hardship.
C
B
E
F
E
So
if,
if
I
wanted
to
do
an
alternate,
I
would
need
to
do
that
before
a
denial,
or
I
won't
even
have
the
opportunity
to
do
that.
E
B
F
E
Let's
say
that
it's
not
clear
whether
or
not
I
was
going
to
make
an
alternate,
and
so
the
denial
is
seems
like
the
only
option.
Yes
or
no.
It's
voted
on
the
denial
is
approved.
I
now
no
longer
have
the
option
to
make
an
altar.
That
is
good.
That
is
correct
right,
so
I
still
don't
have
that
option,
because
it's.
B
Right,
we
have
a
motion
to
deny
and
a
second
all.
B
E
Okay,
I
would
like
to
move
that
variance
request
for
case
brb
2253
for
property
located
at
3416.
West
fair
oaks
avenue
be
granted
as
no.
I
can't
say
that
yeah
be
granted
as
depicted
on
the
site
plan
and
presented
of
the
public
hearing
for
reduction
in
rear
yard
and
side
yard
setbacks
from
five
feet
to
two
feet,
with
encroachment
for
use
and
gutters,
based
on
the
applicant
presenting
competent
and
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
at
this
public
hearing
of
unnecessary
hardship
or
practical
difficulty.
B
A
second
all
right:
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
was
there,
a
condition
on
your
motion.
I
didn't
hear
one.
B
Okay
and
the
two
conditions-
I
guess
one
would
be
that
it
never
be
enclosed.
It
floats
a
screening
closure
and
then
then
two
would
be
the
issue
with
the
pool
equipment
that
is
shown
on
the
site
plan,
but
that
we
are
not.
We
don't
have
a
purview
to
approve.
B
Is
there
a
reason?
Is
there
any
discussion
on
the
motion
as
made
and
if
you
just
ask
the
app
that
they
understand
the
conditions
yeah,
I
I
thought
we
did,
but
let's
go
ahead
and
ask:
do
you
understand
the
conditions.
B
I
B
C
B
Okay,
all
right,
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
all,
those
in
favor
say
aye.
All
right,
close
opposed
all
right.
Your
motion,
your
petition,
passes
3-2,
have
a
good
evening.
G
This
is
addressed
to
2915
west
harbour
view
avenue,
property
owner
is
tyrone
holmes,
and
this
is
zoned
rs
60,
residential
single
family.
The
variance
request
is
to
reduce
the
rare
yard
setback
from
20
feet
to
3
feet
and
the
side
yard
set
that
from
seven
feet
to
three
feet,
and
this
is
for
an
accessory
structure.
Detached
two-story
garage.
G
G
This
is
a
sub
ariel,
showing
the
subject
property.
It
is
an
interior
lot
in
the
south,
tampa
planning
district.
G
G
G
B
B
J
Scott
kirchner
with
terryland
homes
regarding
2915
west
harbour
view
avenue,
and
I
have
been
sworn
great
10
minutes
all
about
hardships.
I
try
to
make
it
nice
and
quick
upon
buying
the
lot
surveying
the
neighborhood
and
I
will
refer
to
it
as
harbor
view
ave,
as
well
as
the
abutting
street.
Next
to
it
with
the
homes
back
up
to
harbor
view,
there
are
over
50
homes
located
within
there.
Only
four
of
them
have
front-facing
attached
garages.
Everything
else
has
a
detached
product.
J
My
primary
reasoning
for
doing
this
is,
I
want
to
keep
to
the
to
the
appeal
of
the
neighborhood.
I
believe
it'll
make
the
neighbors
happier
and
I
think
it
does
a
neighborhood
of
service.
The
reason
for
the
second
floor
is
so
one
you
could
get
a
little
more
space
and
two.
My
client
could
have
their
in-law
suite
in
the
home
downstairs
and
use
the
second
floor
accessory
space
as
their
home
office.
J
In
doing
this,
we've
contemplated
views
of
the
neighbors.
The
neighboring
property
to
the
east
had
been
approved
for
a
variance
and
built
the
the
very
same
structure,
and
considering
we
looked
at
it
and
said,
we
don't
want
windows
on
the
neighboring
side,
except
for
on
the
rear.
We
planned
a
transom
window
if
we
do
in
fact
do
a
shower
in
there,
but
no
one
would
really
see
out
of
the
transom
window
to
appear
at
neighbors.
J
Your
two
accessible
windows
would
be
to
the
front
of
the
garage
accessing
from
the
driveway
so
that
if
fire
or
someone
had
to
access
they'd
have
direct
easy
access
to
it
and
not
have
to
work
around
the
building,
as
stated
over
50
homes
within
that
block,
over
10
of
them
have
detached
two-story
garages.
I
provided
pictures
of
of
the
ones
that
I
could
see
from
the
street
as
weird
as
that
seems
going
by
taking
pictures
of
neighbors
homes.
J
B
J
If
we
did
the
detached
structure,
the
living
space
above
that
would
be
approximately
450
square
feet,
so
definitely
less
than
500
square
feet
of
conditioned
space.
My
understanding
by
code.
I
could
still
do
that
detached
garage,
but
I'd
be
limited
to
15
feet
in
height.
So
what
the
real
objective
is
to
go
above
that
15
to
get
the
second
story
and
add
we'll
call
it
500
square
feet
of
living
space,
so
the
home
and
total
would
grow
from
4
000
to
4
500.
J
E
J
And
that's
my
understanding
on
it
is
that
an
accessory
structure
can
be
built
three
feet
and
three
feet
as
long
as
it's
not
over
the
15
feet
in
height,
but
then
for
every
foot
in
height,
you're
you're,
coming
back
in
towards
your
building
setback
until
you're,
essentially
back
into
it
to
do.
Okay,
can
I.
G
Gain
money,
development,
coordination
so
for
accessory
structures,
it's
three
feet
and
three
feet
and
fifteen
feet
for
the
height.
But
once
you
go
over
that
gross
floor
area,
you
need
to
make
principal
structure
setbacks
at
that
hot.
At
that
point,
the
height
is
no
longer
an
issue
because
you're
meeting
the
the
setbacks
for
the
principal
structure.
G
Right
now,
the
the
garage
is
going
to
be
a
thousand
232
square
feet.
Both
that
includes.
B
D
B
B
I'll
add
one
point,
and
it
is
something
the
applicant
said
that
I
think
trick
tripped
it
over
for
me,
and
that
is
that
he
could
build
a
much
bigger
home
if
he
wasn't
following
the
aesthetic
of
the
neighborhood.
B
G
Correct
brb
2256:
this
is
the
dress
at
321,
west
ham,
long
street
property
owner
is
paying
free
development
and
this
is
an
zone
shrs
seminole
heights,
residential
single
family.
The
variance
request
is
to
reduce
the
front
yard
setback
from
19
to
10
feet.
Beside
your
setback
from
seven
feet
to
three
feet:
the
rare
yards
set
back
from
20
to
10
and
they
amended
the
request.
So
it's
to
remove
just
one
grand
tree
as
opposed
to
two.
G
G
G
G
Because
they
are
looking
to
remove
a
grand
tree,
they
have
provided
alternative
site
plans
showing
reasonable
reconfiguration,
and
this
is
the
first
showing
those
three
levels
and
how
they
would
stagger
or
move
the
the
building
to
accommodate
the
tree.
On
the
to
the
east
of
the
property.
G
G
This
was
reviewed
by
natural
resources
and
found
inconsistent
with
technical
standards
and
code,
and
also
reviewed
by
transportation,
found
consistent
reviewed
by
right-of-way
and
found
consistent
urban
design
reviewed
and
found
them
inconsistent
with
the
comments
that
urban
design
does
not
support
the
side,
yard
setback
reduction
to
three
feet.
Urban
design
would
support
its
idea.
Setback
reduction
to
five
feet,
which
is
similar
to
other
residential
zoning
districts
outside
of
seminole
heights,
and
urban
design
has
no
issues
with
the
front
and
rear
yet
reduction
request.
G
Five
letters
of
objection
and
I'll
pass
those
letters
across
to
the
board
momentarily.
These
are
pictures
that
the
applicant
has
provided
showing
the
subject
property
and
the
trees
on
the
on
the
lot.
G
B
Okay,
mr
katarika
applicant,
come
on
up
state
your
name.
Your
address
confirm
that
you've
been
sworn
for
us
and
then
looks
like
you
have
a
lot
to
talk
to
this
one.
A
E
Plotted
lot
a
few
months
ago,
we
know
it's
historically,
not
conforming,
so
we're
trying
to
put
together
a
plan
to
have
enough
buildable
area
to
build
something
that
you
know
matches
all
the
all
the
home
other
homes
on
the
street.
So.
K
Good
evening
board
ricky
pedreca
with
dark
moss.
I
have
been
sworn
I'll.
Take
you
back
in
time
real,
quick
just
to
set
up
the
scenario
here
in
1915,
this
property
was
platted
the
goldstein's
hillsboro
heights
in
1924
it
was
replated.
You
can
see
a
slight
blue
area.
There
slide
it
up,
and
what
we're
talking
about
today
is
lot
11
and
12,
which
were
roughly
55
feet
wide
in
1924.
K
Zoning
certification
letter
that
found
the
lot
to
be
legally
non-conforming
and
subject
to
it
was
able
it
is
able
to
be
built
and
not
necessarily
re-split,
but
the
the
initial
plat
can
be
reused
as
it
was
planted
in
1924,
but
it's
subject
to
the
seminal
heights
design
criteria,
which
yields
a
a
footprint
about
this
size.
To
give
you
scale,
this
is
55
foot
wide
lot
by
approximately
50
feet,
deep
on
the
narrow
side
which,
and
it
fronts
the
hillsborough
river
and
then
there's
a
zixing
structure
on
the
other
lot.
K
This
is
the
property
line
here.
This
is
lot
12
and
lot
11
per
that
1924
plate,
and
this
is
roughly
25
by
25
square
feet-
is
what
would
be
allowed
to
be
built
without
any
relief
from
any
code
provision
that
we're
requesting
today.
K
What
we
are
requesting
is
this:
this
is
the
shrink
wrapping
of
the
setbacks
that
we're
requesting.
Currently,
it
removes
the
grand
tree
on
the
west
sets
the
rear
set
back
along
a
reduced
wetland
setback
line,
which
we
can
only
request
through
a
design
exception,
so
that
only
the
zoning
aspect
that
is
of
that
is
requested
today
through
two
three
foot:
side,
yard,
setbacks
and
then
we're
maintaining
a
setback
off
of
the
grand
oak.
That's
off-site
and
we've
requested
a
reduced
front
yard
setback.
K
K
This
is
a
lot
again
on
a
clean
survey,
very
faint,
but
you
can
note
here.
This
is
a
a
wetland
approval
from
epc,
a
small
I
mean
the
river's
large,
but
there's
a
small
section
of
wetland
that
encroaches
into
the
property
line
there.
K
Separate
from
this
request,
I'm
not
going
to
try
to
zoom
this
out,
so
I
think
I
need
to
keep
it
here,
but
we're
proposing
a
ground
level.
That's
elevated!
The
the
property
is
currently
at
elevation.
Five,
the
flood
zone's
at
elevation,
nine,
roughly
so
it'll,
be
we're
proposing
a
ground
level,
elevated
area
with
just
the
garage
and
then
two
floors
of
living
space
that
accommodate
the
off-site
tree
on
the
side
and
accommodate
the
reduced
wetland
setback
on
the
north.
K
So,
in
terms
of
uniqueness,
this
is
probably
the
smallest
lot
in
this
neighborhood
and
has
it
has
a
diagonal
rhombo,
rhombus,
parallelogram
arrangement
of
development
on
a
building
envelope
and
we're
proposing
this
is
roughly
a
1300
square
foot
footprint.
One
of
the
larger
site
plans
has
that
number
specifically.
K
K
I
think
the
decision
was
made
because
we
are
requesting
branchery
removal
we're
going
to
the
vrb
that
we're
bringing
kind
of
the
whole
package
together,
but
in
terms
of
hard
hardship,
practical
difficulties
being
unique.
This
is
a
very
difficult
site
to
develop,
given
it's
basically
half
the
size
and
subject
to
of
a
normal
minimum
lot
standard
and
subject
to
the
the
protective
radius
of
two
grand
trees.
We're
requesting
relief
from
one.
K
If
we
preserve
that
tree,
we
would
the
garage
would
be
lost,
a
portion
of
the
gallery
or
the
living
space
and
a
bedroom
would
be
lost
and
then
two
additional
bedrooms
would
be
lost
which,
in
my
professional
opinion,
impacts
the
internal
flow
and
function
of
the
structure.
K
The
tree
we
are
preserving
in
the
front
is
a
c8
live
oak,
that
trends
to
the
west
in
front
of
the
facade.
The
building
was
specifically
designed
to
accommodate
the
limbs
that
reach
out
towards
the
west
on
this
lower
level
in
the
upper
level
and
with
only
simple
structures
or
footers
coming
down
kind
of
close
to
the
radius.
The
tree
that
we're
requesting
relief
to
remove
I
apologize
this
is
washed
out.
Hopefully
it
looks
a
little
bit
better
for
you
in
person
is
a
double
live
oak.
K
When
we
do
the
trunk
formula
method,
it
turns
out,
we
get
a
it's
large
enough
to
be
considered
grand,
but
in
it
with
what
we're
proposing
in
our
setback,
both
the
roots
and
the
canopy
will
be
impacted
by
this,
and
we
feel
that
this
tree
creates
an
unreasonable
restriction
on
the
proposed
plan
for
a
site.
That's
already
restricted.
B
Okay,
well
before
we
get
to
questions
from
the
board,
let's
see,
if
there's
anyone
in
the
audience
who
wishes
to
speak
about
this
petition,
is
there
anyone
in
the
audience
who
wishes
to
speak
about
this
petition,
come
on
up.
B
State,
your
name,
your
address,
confirm
that
you've
been
sworn
in.
You
have
three
minutes
to
speak.
M
I've
been
sworn,
my
name
is
melissa
taylor.
I
live
at
311,
west
hamline
street.
I
was
the
previous
owner
of
the
property
and
question
that
they're
wanting
the
variances.
For
I
don't
know
if
you
have
read
all
the
letters
that
have
been
emailed
to
you.
I
hope
that
you
have.
I
don't
know
how
I
can
elaborate
on
those
or
I'm
afraid
I
would
just
be
restating
everything
that's
in
the
letter,
so
I'm
not
exactly
sure
how
you
want
me
to
approach
this
short
of
just
reading
a
letter
or
two.
M
We
do
feel
like
it's
a
self-created
hardship.
We
feel
like
mr
payne
is
trying
to
build
a
house
that
is
way
too
big
for
the
size
of
that
lot,
and
I
we
yes
aesthetically
how
it
will
appear
on
the
lot.
M
It
seems
like
it's
going
to
be
to
the
very
in
very
inches
of
the
green
space
we
felt
like
there
was
a
using
the
wetlands
along
the
riverfront
as
the
front
yard.
Green
space
seemed
a
little
extreme
and
excessive.
M
M
A
My
name
is
jamie
randazzo.
I
also
live
at
311
west
hamlin
street.
I
have
also
been
sworn
in
and
I
think
in
the
big
picture
you
know
that
to
go
along
with
melissa's
lines
and
and
most
of
the
neighbors
you
know
on
our
street,
you
know
to
say
that
there
are
two
grand
oaks
on
the
property
and
in
looking
at
the
one
on
the
west
side
there
there
actually
is
a
structure
on
the
property.
That's
right.
A
Next
to
it,
which
comes
up
gosh,
it
looks
like
it's
within
a
foot
or
two
of
the
property
line.
So
if
you
give
a
variance
to
build
a
house
over
there
and
take
out
an
oak
tree
to
build
closer
to
that,
I
don't
you.
Could
my
wife
even
said
you
probably
reach
your
arm
out
a
window
of
one
structure
and
touch
the
next
one?
A
Maybe
it's
not
that
close,
but
you
know
no
documents
to
show
that,
but
I
think
in
that
big
picture,
the
grand
oaks,
the
yellow
crown
night
herons
that
nest
in
the
grand
oaks
which
melissa's
sister,
has
pictures
of
those
it's
it's
the
neighborhood
walking
the
dogs
and
probably
that's
why
a
bunch
of
our
neighbors
do
it
because
we're
all
out
there-
and
it
is
a
canopy
over
the
street-
that
the
oak
in
question
is
set
back
from
the
road,
but
variances
on
all
around
on
the
property
seems
a
bit
excessive.
A
You
probably
could
do
a
smaller
footprint.
I
don't
know,
but
at
that
I'll
I'll
be
done
at
my
minute
and
a
quarter
here
and
thanks
for
the
time.
B
Okay,
all
right,
thank
you
thanks.
Anyone
else
in
the
audience
wish
to
speak
about
this
petition,
seeing
none
anyone
on
the
board
have
any
questions
for
the
petitioners.
C
I
have
a
question
so
tree
number
two
is
the
one
on
the
lot,
which
is
noted
tree
number
four
in
the
report,
so,
okay,
so.
C
K
B
Any
other
questions.
Yes,
sir.
E
E
B
E
F
Kamaria
pettis
mackel
from
this
city
attorney's
office,
so
that
that
is
correct.
You're
there
not
here
for
your
determination
for
the
lot
split,
but
as
it's
not
what
I
asked
getting
back
to.
F
As
staff
indicated,
they
can
go,
the
property
owner
can
go
back
and
she
can
verify
that
on
the
record,
they
can
go
back
to
the
original
plat
size
that
was
originally
obtained
for
this
property,
but
they
still
have
to
meet
the
hardship
criteria.
B
Okay,
so
the
I,
as
I
understood
the
question
it
was,
is
the
split
is
the
splitting
of
a
lot,
something
that
we
as
a
board
can
consider
in
evaluating
whether
or
not
there
was
a
self-imposed
whether
or
not
the.
How
do
I
phrase
this?
Whether
or
not
the
their
actions
in
splitting
a
lot
can
be
considered
in
our
decision.
G
E
F
E
B
Well
for
clarification,
as
I
understand
it,
the
lot
is
small
and
it
is
unusually,
it
is
unusually
small
and
it
is
unusually
shaped.
B
But
are
we
and
and
we've
come
up
against
this
argument
as
well
when
it
comes
to
the
trees
right
the
tree
existed,
they
saw
it
when
they
purchased
the
lot.
Are
we
considering
that
when
they
buy
a
lot
that
there's
a
tree
there?
My
understanding
is.
The
answer
is
no.
We
do
not
consider
that
as
a
self-imposed
hardship
or
a
self-created
hardship.
B
Similarly,
when
we
look
at
a
lot
split,
I
understood
that
our
that
our
purview
was
limited
to
we
have
an
existing
legally
platted
lot
and-
and
we
cannot
go
outside
the
boundaries
of
that
lot.
If
you're
instructing
that,
we
can
consider
the
applicant's
decision
to
split
that
lot,
it
changes
things
so,
whether
or
not
we
can
consider.
That
is
a
significant
issue.
I
understand
for
our
decision
and
that's
it.
I.
F
K
A
certification
letter
from
from
lisa
escobar-
I
guess
she
signed
on
behalf
but
officially.
F
So
if
it's
a
legal
non-conforming
lot,
it's
a
legal
lot,
but
you
still
they're
giving
you
their
basis
or
their
requests
their
justification
for
the
hardship
you
you
have
to
consider
why
they're
asking
to
reduce
the
lot.
That's
that's
information
that
they're
giving
to
the
board
on
why
they're
asking
to
reduce
the
setbacks.
F
B
Because
the
lot
is
very
small
and
it
is
unusually
small
and
it
is
unusually
shaped
and
it's
got
trees
on
it.
Okay,
so
again,
I
need
clarification
on
this.
I'm
sorry
to
put
you
on
the
spot,
but
it
is,
is
the
are
we
limited
to?
We
have
a
small
lot
that
they
have
that
they
legally
possess
and
they're.
Coming
to
us
and
saying
we
have
this
really
small
lot
and
we
can
only
build
within
this
small
shape.
Or
can
we
say
yes
but
you're,
the
ones
who
decided
to
split
it
and
get
this
small
line.
A
F
They
also
put
on
the
record-
and
that
was
their
argument-
that
they're
asking
to
refer
to
reduce
the
setbacks
because
of
the
irregular
shape.
I
don't
want
to
put
their
argument
on
before
for
them,
but
you
can
consider
what
they're
asking
and
their
justification
for
the
request
based
on
their
argument.
F
If
they're
presenting
information
to
this
board
that
they're
asking
to
reduce
it,
it's
not
the
city's
application,
it's
their
application.
It's
a
legal
non-conforming
lot.
They
have
setbacks
to
that.
The
board
can
consider
regarding
this
legal
non-conforming
law
their
basis
for
asking
for
the
heart,
the
the
variances
is
up
to
them
to
present
to
the
board,
and
if
the
board
doesn't
believe
that
that's
a
justification
for
the
setback
reduction,
then
the
board
is
entitled
to
deny
their
request.
B
F
A
E
1924,
that's
this
roughly
the
size
of
the
lot
or
maybe
exactly
the
size,
a
lot
as
it
is
today
and
what
is
the
total
square
footage
you're
proposing
to
build.
E
So
just
like
60
feet,
bigger
than
the
lot
itself,
because
I
think
this
lost,
like
3
600
square.
E
A
E
E
I
think
kind
of
counteracts
your
whole
argument
that
the
plat
matters
in
this
art-
you
know
if
the
plaque
matters,
then
the
setbacks
of
that
plot
also
matter
and
if
it,
if
it
doesn't
matter,
because
we're
way
you
know
building
way
more
than
the
character
the
neighborhood
in
1925,
then
probably
the
plaid
argument's
not
really
relevant.
From
my
perspective,.
K
There
were
no
setbacks
in
1924,
I
believe.
Okay,
I
mean
for
what
that's
worth
and
probably
no
other
zoning
requirements
technically
at
all.
But
I
guess
I'm
understood
for
your
point.
I
guess
so
I'll
just
leave
that.
B
Right
any
other
questions
for
the
petitioner.
K
Thank
you.
I
didn't
receive
any
opposition
notice
technically
until
earlier
last
week,
when
I
was
called
by
one
of
the
residents,
we
did
a
little
fact-finding
session
of
a
lot
of
the
statistics
that
went
into
one
of
the
letters
that
I
was
providing
the
numbers
for,
and
some
of
the
comments
are
a
little
skewed.
K
The
there's
no
wetland
impact,
only
a
wetland
setback-
that's
not
before
you.
The
green
space
can
consider
the
wetland
setback,
that's
not
against
the
code,
but
even
if
it
didn't
include
it,
we
would
still
meet
the
green
space
requirement.
The
in
terms
of
size.
You
know
I
mean
that
is
the
size
of
the
house
proposed.
K
This
is
a
confluence
of
multiple
things
coming
together
constraints
on
a
single
lot,
one
of
the
last
pages
in
your
in
your
packet
shows
the
sight
plane
again
with
just
sort
of
red,
blue
and
green.
These
are
overlays
of
the
footprints
of
the
adjacent
properties.
They
start
to
get
bigger
as
you
go
west.
This
is
this
red
is
the
property
that
exists
right
over
here
319..
K
This
blue
is
317..
The
green
is
315,
propose
that
we're
not
or
the
applicant
hasn't
proposed
this
abnormally
large
mansion.
K
It's
a
regular
size
building
relative
this
property,
they've
requested
relief
from
the
wider
setback
or
the
wider
width,
which
is
the
55
feet
of
the
north
of
the
of
the
street
side
setback
and
then
requesting
relief
from
the
wetland
setback
as
a
separate
as
a
design
exception.
So
it's
it's.
This
is
the
the
original
plat
and
legal
non-conforming
set
the
stage
for
us
to
ask
for
something-
and
this
is
what
we're
asking
for.
It
has
a
lot
of
components
and
we
were
asking
for
two
removals
initially
grant
tree
removals.
K
That
was
what
was
provided
in
the
notice.
We
changed
it
to
one
and
we
always
intended
to
accommodate,
but
just
in
case
one
of
the
setbacks
didn't
go
through.
We
wanted
to
be
able
to
leverage
potentially
a
green
tree
removal,
but
it's
there's
just
it's
just
a
challenging
lot
to
do
something
that
is
equivalent
to
the
its
neighboring
properties,
which
I
do
think
maybe
not
spatially
relative
to
24,
but
that
the
intent
of
the
plat
was
to
have
a
consistent
footprint.
E
E
As
much
as
you
know,
I
understand
that
the
trees
in
the
culture
neighborhood
and
the
fact
that
the
neighbors
are
really
trying
to
protect
the
trees.
I
get
that
most
of
my
comments
related
to
the
size
of
the
house
on
the
property,
and
it
is
an
incredibly
oddly
shaped
property
with
big
trees.
So
my
point
is,
I
think
I
would
be
open
to
bifurcating
the
tree
from
the
setbacks.
B
Okay,
I
think
ms
johnson
wants
to
make
a
motion.
Is
that
accurate,
or
did
you
want
to.
C
Continue
the
discussion,
I
would
just
like
to
continue
the
discussion
from
a
different
perspective.
C
So
at
the
least
you
know
you
know,
I
feel
like
this
lot
split
on
this
type
of
property.
It
creates
quite
quite
some
some
issues
from
multiple
perspectives
from
a
neighborhood
character,
natural
resource,
even
old
seminal
heights
has
rejected.
You
know
this
proposal,
so
I
think
it's
important
to
take
that
in
consideration.
C
B
So,
just
in
the
vein
of
continuing
that
discussion,
I
I
it's
an
interesting
perspective
and
I
appreciate
it
and
certainly
my
my
view
on
the
way
we
do
this
is
I
never
have
a
stake
in
any
of
these
things?
So,
however,
the
vote
turns
out.
I'm
always
okay
with
that.
B
B
I
also
think
that
people
have
a
right
to
use
their
property
without
being
burdened
by
what
other
people
may
want.
Even
though
I
think
trees
are
critical,
I
think
they're
very
important
to
the
extent
they
prevent
someone
from
using
property
that
they
own
the
code
tells
us
that
we
have
obligations
and
how
to
deal
with
it.
B
I
just
don't
know
that
it's
what's
being
asked
for,
particularly
because
we
have
some
some
of
the
city
administration
saying
well,
the
side
setbacks.
Probably
we
couldn't
support
in
this
fashion.
That
kind
of
thing,
but
with
that
I'll
say
again,
let's
go
ahead
and
see.
If
we
have
a
motion
that
we
can
consider
and
then
we
can
figure
it
out
from
there.
B
Do
you
want
to
make
motion
or
just
continue
discussion.
D
D
B
D
It
wouldn't
seem
it
wouldn't
seem
quite
as
a
substantial
request
if
those
numbers
were
much
smaller,
but.
B
D
B
This
penis
macbook
do
we.
We
have
the
ability
to
ask
the
staff
a
question,
even
though
the
even
though
the
public
hearing
is
closed,.
F
B
Question
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
all
right,
question:
ask
your
question.
D
Sure,
considering
they
are
going
to
save
one
of
the
grand
trees
instead
of
removing
all
the
grand
trees,
would
they
get
some
sort
of
relief
on
the
existing
setbacks?
So
maybe
some
of
these
numbers
that
we're
saying
here
from
seven
to
three
19
to
10
20
to
10,
might
be
slightly
different
than
what
we're
looking
at
yeah.
So
steve.
O
E
O
Good
and
it
can
apply
to
all
four-
the
code
doesn't
define
it
as
just
one.
It
leaves
it
open
for
all
four.
So.
E
Right
you're
saying
they
could
use
the
reduction
on
all
four
side:
yard,
rear
and
front
setbacks.
Correct
because
they're
saving
that
tree
correct.
Even
if
we
approve
the
removal
of
the
one
they're
asking
for
they'd,
still
have
that
ability,
because
the
one
that
they're
keeping
correct
we're
dealing.
D
With
so
just
quick
math
on
the
thing,
so
their
rear,
rear
yard
would
go
from
a
request
of
20
down
to
12
side
down
to
6
and
the
front
from
19
down
to
14.25.
O
B
That,
if
you're
done
oh
you're
right
since
we
asked
questions,
they
get
some
additional
rebuttal.
K
I
won't
rebut
long,
but
we
are
happy
to
amend
the
potential
request
to
bring
the
side
setbacks
to
five
on
both
just
to
make
this
trickier.
For
you.
B
Yes,
that's
okay.
We
appreciate
that.
Thank
you.
Okay,
with
that,
I
will
reclose
the
public
hearing
and
again
open
it
up.
If
anyone
would
like
to
make
a
motion,
given
the
new
information
that
we
have,
mr
pester.
E
B
About
the
truth,
so
so
what
you're
saying
is
you're
bifurcating
and
seeking
approval
only
of
the
tree.
Removal
of
this.
D
F
B
Okay,
well,
we
have
a
motion
on
the
floor.
Let's
see
if
there's
a
second
I'll.
Second,
we
have
a
motion
in
a
second
now.
Is
there
a
discussion
on
that
motion?
You
would
rather
see
go
ahead.
C
B
B
All
right:
well,
we
have
a
motion
on
the
floor
and
this
motion
is
only
to
it's
a
bifurcated
motion
only
to
approve
the
removal
of
a
39-inch
grand
oak.
We
have
a
motion
in
a
second
all,
those
in
favor
of
removal
of
the
tree
say
aye
all
right,
all
those
posed.
B
Okay,
the
removal
of
the
tree
passes
three
to
two.
Now,
how
if
it
all
would
be
like
to
deal
with
the
remaining
setback
requests,
we
either
need
a
motion
to
approve
some
portion
of
it
or
we
need
a
motion
to
deny.
C
Okay,
so
this
is
move
that
the
variance
request
for
case
vrb
2256
for
the
property
located
at
321
west
hamlen
street,
for
a
reduction
of
a
front
yard
setback
from
19
feet
to
10
feet,
side
yard
setbacks
from
seven
foot
to
three
foot:
rear
yard.
Setback
from
20
foot
to
10
foot
be
denied
due
to
the
failure
of
the
petitioner
to
meet
its
burden
of
proof
to
provide
competent
and
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
at
this
public
hearing
of
an
unnecessary
hardship
or
a
practical
difficulty.
C
B
Okay,
we
have
a
motion
by
ms
johnson.
Is
there
a
second.
B
All
right,
we
have
a
motion
to
deny
and
a
second
all
those
in
is
there
discussion
on
the
motion
saying
we
want
to
have
a
discussion
on
the
motion,
all
right,
all
those
in
favor
of
the
denial
say
aye
all
those
opposed
all
right.
The
motion
to
deny
the
setback
reduction
passes
four
to
one,
and
you
know
the
drill
you
have
ten
days
to
appeal.
Should
you
need
it?
Thank.
F
From
the
city
attorney's
office
board,
we
earlier
had
a
motion
to
continue
brb
22-58
for
the
property
located
at
8715
north
46th
street.
The
applicant
is
actually
present.
The
basis
for
the
motion
to
continue
was
that
the
applicant
needed
an
interpreter.
F
G
This
is
zoned
rs
60
and
the
variance
request
is
to
reduce
the
rare
yard
setback
from
20
feet
to
4.5
feet,
and
this
is
for
the
purpose
of
extension
of
an
existing
pool
deck.
An
elevated
spa
and
the
code
section
in
reference
is
section
27-290.3
that
has
that
stipulates
that
pulse
designed
within
a
with
a
retaining
wall
or
having
an
elevated
deck
above
12
inches
above
the
finish
grade
must
meet
the
required
setback
for
principal
structures
for
the
underlying
zoning
district,
and
this
is
an
aerial
show
in
the
subject
property.
G
And
this
is
a
site
plan
showing
the
existing
existing
home.
The
existing
pool
and
the
addition
here
in
the
hatch
is
the
addition
to
the
existing
deck,
and
here
we
we
have
sections
showing
the
pool
and
the
proposed
deck
area.
G
This
was
reviewed
by
natural
resources
and
found
consistent
with
conditions
that,
at
the
time
of
permitting
this,
would
have
to
comply
with
chapter
27
of
the
city
of
tampa
code
and
the
triangle
landscape
technical
manual.
It
was
reviewed
by
right
of
way
and
found
consistent
with
no
comments.
Transportation
review
was
not
required,
and
this
is
a
blow
up
of
that
proposed
plan
for
the
extension
of
the
pool
deck.
G
G
These
are
pictures
showing
the
existing
condition.
We
have
an
ariel
that
shows
that
pool
area
from
the
top
right
corner
and
we're
seeing
the
existing
pool
and
the
existing
conditions
as
they
currently
exist.
E
B
G
Yes,
so
they're
investing
what
is
already
existing
and
because
this
deck
has
is
elevated
above
12
inches.
It
has
to
make.
G
G
B
Okay,
applicant
come
on
up
state
your
name.
Your
address
confirm
that
you've
been
sworn.
B
A
I
want
to
thank
you
guys
for
being
here
tonight.
I
know
it's
a
long
night.
Thank
you
jane
for
helping
me
upload
those
pictures
the
other
day.
I
know
that
was
kind
of
tedious,
so
what
we're
doing
is
we've
done
a
total
renovation
of
the
home
when
we
submitted
the
permitting.
A
This
came
back
that
it
needed
a
variance
because
we
were
raising
the
existing
deck
that
part
of
that
deck
is
already
higher
than
than
the
ground
level
we're
trying
to
extend
that
deck
a
little
bit
more
to
have
a
little
bit
more
usable
space
back
there
create
less
tripping
hazards
and
actually
elevate
that
the
rest
of
that
deck
on
the
right
side
of
the
hot
tub
to
the
height
of
the
hot
tub.
That's
currently
already
that
high!
A
So
that's
pretty
much
it
I
mean
it's!
It's
a
tripping
hazard
for
the
kids,
my
mother's
elderly,
so
we're
just
trying
to
level
up
all
that
out
so
that
we
have
one
level
area
to
to
be
able
to
hang
out
in
the
backyard
and
and
and
utilize
that
space
a
little
bit
more.
Everything
is
inside
the
screen
over
the
top
of
the
existing
pool
deck,
so
we're
not
encroaching
any
further
back.
A
I've
got
support
from
the
neighbors
on
both
sides
and
from
neighbor
in
the
rear,
which
would
you
know
those
are
the
ones
that
would
be
obviously
a
negative
deal
if
negatively
affected.
If
if
this
was
really
an
issue
for
any
of
those
guys
so
I'll
make
it
short
and
sweet,
hopefully
this
one's
easier
than
some
of
the
other
ones.
I've
seen
tonight,
and
I
appreciate
your
consideration.
E
B
A
We're
looking
to
extend
that
deck,
see
where
that,
where
that
grill
is
right
here,
that
little
area
down
here
is
really
not
real,
not
real
usable
space,
and
we
have
a
lot
of
steps.
The
hot
tub
is
higher
over
here
than
when
you
come
out
of
the
house.
So
what
we're
looking
to
do
is
just
have
one
small
step
coming
out
of
the
backyard
out
of
the
back
deck.
You
know
rear
door
of
the
house
so
that
everything's
level
and
then
extend
that
back.
Currently,
my
grill
is
on
this
side
of
the
wall.
A
I
don't
know
if
we
have
a
shot
of
that
or
not,
and
it's
just
it's
real
cramped
in
there,
not
a
whole
lot
of
room
for
seating,
so
the
grill
area
is
right
here
currently
against
this
wall,
so
we
just
want
to
extend
it
back,
just
even
the
back
deck
up.
So
that's
so
that
the
line
is
even
with
the
back
of
that
hot
tub
back
there
and
extend
that
so
that
it's
all
one
height.
A
Yeah,
I
mean
I'm
not
sure
what
else
I
could
I
could
add
to
that.
Besides,
I'm
not.
I
think
I'm
asking
for
much
just
raising
my
current
deck
a
little
bit
to
me
to
be
even
with
a
hot
tub,
so
we
don't
have
tripping
hazards
for
the
kids
and
got
a
grandchild.
I've
got
another
one
coming
on
friday,
so
just
trying
to
make
it.
You
know
more
usable
space
for
the
family
to
be
able
to
hang
out
and
enjoy
the
pool
area.
Okay,.
B
Is
there
anyone
in
the
audience
who
wishes
to
speak
about
this
petition?
Seeing
none
are
there
any
questions
from
the
board
for
the
petitioner.
E
Would
you
be
open
to
a
condition,
since
this
is
a
would
be
a
primary
structure
setback?
Would
you
be
open
to
a
condition
that
this
never
be
enclosed,
meaning
that
you
never
put
a
roof
in
walls
around
this.
E
B
C
C
Description,
I
have
a
question
for
the
city.
Is
this
work
that
was
done
previously
without
a
permit?
And
then
it's
asking
to
renovate
the
work
that
was
done
without
a
permit
because
it
looks
like
the
spa
was,
is
already
built
high,
or
is
that
not
a
retaining
wall?.
G
The
work
that
they
did
was
done
with
permits,
so
this
was
not
work
without
permits.
A
Quick,
quick,
quick
so
so
when
the
pool
was
built.
Originally,
we
built
a
home
24
years
ago
when
we
built
the
pool
a
few
years
after
that
that
height
of
that
hot
tub
was
within
code,
everything
was
done
permitted
correctly.
So
that
was-
and
I
guess
the
code
changed
since
then,
and
that's
why
I'm
having
to
kind
of
come
before
you
guys.
B
Okay,
if
there
are
no
further
questions,
seeing
none,
I
will
close
and
you're
done
with
your
presentation,
yes
rebuttal.
Thank
you
sorry,
seeing
I
will
then
close
the
public
hearing
and
open
it
up
for
a
motion
from
the
board.
E
When
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
section
2780
of
the
city
code,
specifically
that
this
condition
already
exists
on
the
deck
and
they
are
trying
to
extend
that
condition
further
to
create
less
steps
and
a
more
even
surface
and
that
the
pool
was
built
before
this
code
existed
and
they're.
Just
trying
to
extend
this
condition
within
the
setbacks.
That
will
already
exist
for
the
deck
and
pool.
B
Oh
he
did.
He
definitely
accepted
the
condition,
he's
accepting
the
condition
all
right.
The
motion,
a
second
condition,
accepted
all
those
in
favor
of
approval,
say
aye
right.
Any
opposed.
All
right
motion
passes
five
to
nothing
have
a
great
evening.
Thank
you.
B
B
B
B
B
Two
more
to
go:
let's
go
ahead
and
swear
in
anyone
who
hasn't
been
sworn.
B
Okay,
all
right
22-63.
G
The
next
case
is
brb
2263.
This
is
addressed
at
200
sap
hoover
boulevard,
the
zoning
is
r01
residential
office,
the
property
owner
is
w
state
street
llc
and
the
variance
request
is
to
reduce
the
tree
retention
requirement
from
50
percent
to
zero
percent,
and
this
is
for
single
family
attached
residences
and
the
code
requirement.
The
quote
section
in
reference
is
section
27-284.3.1.
G
G
And
this
is
a
site
plan
showing
what
is
the
proposed
development
on
this
site?
This
was
reviewed
by
right
of
way
and
well.
This
was
not
reviewed
by
right
away.
This
was
by
natural
resources
and
their
memo
is
attached
to
the
staff
report,
transportation,
reviewed
and
found
it
consistent
with
no
comments.
G
And
this
is
a
tree,
a
landscape
plant
showing
the
trees
on
the
property,
those
that
would
be
impacted
by
this
development.
G
There's
the
pictures
that
have
been
provided
by
the
applicant
showing
the
existing
conditions,
the
existing
villains
and
the
existing
trees
here,
we're
seeing
those
palm
trees,
I'm
not
sure
what
corner
of
the
property
this
is.
I
believe
it's
at
the
entrance
we're
one
short.
G
Yeah,
more
pictures
of
the
existing
existing
conditions
on
the
side,
specifically
showing
all
the
trees.
P
Adam
wolf,
5602,
west
lineball
street.
I
have
been
sworn
in
the
architect
and
developer
on
the
project.
P
I'd
like
to
speak
a
little
bit
about
this
project
kind
of
holistically
and
then
how
it
relates
to
our
request
for
this
variance.
This
site
is
uniquely
situated
in
terms
of
its
adjacent
uses.
P
It's
currently
in
the
regional
mixed
use,
100
future
land
use
category,
which
is
quite
dense
and
intense,
with
its
limitations
on
what's
allowable,
however,
to
the
east,
we
have
a
residential
6
land
use
category.
P
This
property
has
been
before
city
council
on
multiple
occasions
over
the
last
few
years
and
whether
going
for
a
pd
or
a
variance,
they
were
unsuccessful
and
I
think,
due
in
large
part
to
neighborhood
opposition,
we,
our
proposal
has
considered
the
neighborhood's
concerns.
We've
met
with
the
neighborhood
association
for
on
four
occasions,
individual
property
owners
to
the
east
of
us
and
they're
in
favor
of
this
project.
P
So,
in
order
to
strike
what
we
think
is
a
sound
urban
planning
proposal,
considering
the
intensity
and
density
of
uses
to
the
northwest
and
the
north,
but
still
remain
with
a
neighborhood,
feel
and
quality
of
heights
and
off
setbacks.
We
are
seeking
to
get
relief
from
the
tree
retention
requirements
so
that
we
can
accommodate
both
parties
concerns
in
a
way
that's
palatable
for
the
neighborhood
I'll.
Let
ricky
discuss
the
details.
K
This
is
the
existing
site
plan
which,
if
it
looks
like
several
square
ish
buildings
with
parking
lot
over
the
whole
thing.
It's
because
it
is
that
the
trees
there's
about
70
palm
trees
and
they're
in
little
islands,
just
scattered
around
they're,
just
parking
lot,
trees
and
there's
a
handful
literally
three
or
four
live
oaks
scattered
in
this.
So
the
site
is
very
much
a
the
existing
site
is
very
much
a
concrete
wasteland.
K
Currently
that
consists
of
very
high
quality
palm
trees
and
live
oaks
in
very
small
planters,
but
the
code
doesn't
care
what
the
existing
condition
is
for
the
trees.
It
just
provides
for
a
site,
that's
non-wooded,
which
means
it
has
less
than
50
of
of
canopy
coverage.
50
of
the
trees
in
fair
or
better
condition
need
to
be
preserved.
K
So
unless
we
preserve
the
arrangement
of
this
office
park
to
a
roughly
50
percent
of
that
area,
unless
we
do
that,
we're
going
to
impact
all
these
trees.
So
this
is
an
overlay
of
the
color-coded
overlay
of
the
trees.
On
the
proposed
site
plan,
the
greens
represent
the
condition
of
the
tree
just
as
a
guide
dark,
green,
excellent,
good,
fair
as
white
poor
as
tan
camel
and
then
brown.
K
So
generally.
These
are
really
nice
trees
and
trees,
worth
pre
trees
worth
preserving
or
relocating
and
since
they're
palms
they're
very
easy
to
transplant.
But
the
code
doesn't
allow
us
to
transplant
trees
for
the
sake
of
meeting
this
retention
provision,
even
though
palm
trees
are
very
much
capable
of
doing
that.
K
So
that's
the
nature
of
the
hardship
here
for
any
pre-developed
site
unless
it's
redeveloped
in
relatively
the
same
arrangement,
the
tree
preservation
is
always
going
to
be
triggered
when
it's
sort
of
a
a
full
site
redesign
and
the
the
applicant
didn't
create
this
layout
of
palm
trees
in
the
parking
lot
it
was
provided
in
the
initial
design
and
the
applicant
wasn't
would
glad
the
site
plan
that
we're
providing
could
accommodate
relocations
of
these
palms,
which
are
there's
they're
easy
to
relocate
compared
to,
let's
say,
a
large
live
oak.
K
And
the
proposed
site,
this
site
plan
reduces
the
amount
of
impervious
cover
over
the
existing
site
plan
and
in
that
reduction
by
by
six
percent.
In
that
reduction,
and
with
the
current
code,
more
canopy
trees
will
be
required
and
provided
than
are
existing.
So
it's
not
it's
not
we're
not
far
enough
to
know
how
much
more
will
how
much
more
canopy
we'll
have
yet,
but
we
know
that
will
it
will
easily
exceed
the
canopy.
That's
currently
on
the
site
at
day,
one
with
the
with
the
plans
provided.
K
The
comp
plan
speaks
to
trees,
but
it
speaks
to
mature
tree
canopy,
which
is
not
present
on
the
site
except
his
palms,
and
the
ability
to
get
mature
tree
canopy
will
be
improved
with
the
proposed
site
plan
compared
to
the
site
plan.
That's
provided
in
the
in
the
forest
condition.
That's
currently
there.
K
Crashed
against
the
rocks
of
rezonings
a
few
times
or
of
neighborhood
opposition.
The
neighborhood
finally
agrees
to
a
building
product
with
the
proposed
design,
but
it
has
this
unfortunate
technicality
with
tree
tree
retention
that
we're
requesting
relief
of
because
it's
specifically
related
to
a
pre-developed
condition
that
doesn't
match
the
post-developed
condition.
It's
not
a
pristine
forest.
It's
not
new
tampa
on
virgin
lands.
These
are
just
ornamental,
mostly
ornamental.
Trees
required
landscaping,
trees
from
code
past
and
we're
requesting
relief
from
having
to
consider
the
preservation
of
those
palms.
K
B
That's
all
I
have
okay.
Does
that
conclude
your
presentation?
Yes,
thank
you
all
right.
Is
there
anyone
in
the
audience
wishing
to
speak
about
this
petition,
seeing
none.
Does
the
board
have
any
questions
for
the
petitioner
for
staff?
For
anyone
not
not
to
be
restrictive,
I
was
unnecessarily
restricted
the
last
time.
Any
questions.
Yes,
sir,.
E
E
It
appears
you're
doing
that
in
your
plan,
but
I'd
like
to
maybe
tie
you
to
it.
Unless
there's.
K
K
C
K
But
let's
say
because
there's
so
many
poems
the
the
code
allows
a
substitution
of
type
ones
to
palms
that
if
we
provide
the
required
I
project
and
feel
confident
that
when
we
provide
the
required
type
runs
we'll
easily
blow
the
mitigation
out
of
the
water.
Okay,.
C
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
it
looks
like
you
can,
because
you
are
increasing
the
tree
canopy
and
the
landscape
area
with
this
prior
to
this
asphalt
parking
lot.
Second
question
I
had
is
mr
eister
had
a
memo
with
some
conditions.
Do
you
feel
like
you
can
meet
those
conditions?
There's
six
of
them.
K
Yeah,
can
you
can
he
come
up
and
repeat
him?
I
don't
remember
me.
O
Steve
and
I
start
with
natural
resources,
so
the
conditions
kind
of
just
run
through
real,
quick
number.
One
is
the
mitigation
which
has
been
brought
up
already.
Number
two
is
the
variance
will
not
apply
to
the
right-of-way
trees.
I
know
you
guys
have
some
right
away
trees.
Those
have
to
go
through
parks,
okay,
that
won't
be
covered
because
they're,
not
on
property.
O
Okay,
three
through
six,
if
you
want
to
read
through
them,
are
all
the
standard
like
vua
buffers
they're,
just
kind
of
more
general
comments
that
they're
going
to
have
to
meet
at
the
time
of
building,
no
matter
what.
K
Yeah,
okay,
so
yeah
we
can.
We
agreed
all
the
conditions,
we're
only
requesting
relief
from
this
retention
percentage
that
second
one,
the
right-of-way
trees
were
not
considered
in
the
in
the
calculation
of
the
percentage.
So
I
didn't
really
interface
with
those
because
they're
kind
of.
K
B
Okay
sounds
like
we've
got
all
everything
covered,
any
other
questions,
seeing
none.
You
have
three
minutes
for
rebuttal.
Thank.
B
Awesome
well
with
that,
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
and
open
it
up
for
motion
from
the
board.
B
Regular
anyone
on
staff
or
legal
want
to
advise
on
that
one
which,
which
form
should
we
use.
E
When
considering
the
five
hardship
criteria
set
forth
in
section
2780
of
the
city
code,
specifically
that,
in
order
to
redevelop
this
property,
they
need
to
move
or
remove
trees,
because
otherwise
they're
tied
to
the
layout
of
the
property
that
already
exists.
They've
got
full
neighborhood
support.
We
saw
no
opposition
and,
with
the
stated
condition,
should
be
providing
a
property
that's
better
than
the
one
that
exists
today.
B
I
think
they
have
to
meet
those
at
building
at
the
time
of
issue
of
building.
Perhaps
so?
Yes,
yes,
yes,
everybody's
shaking
your
heads
all
right
motion.
Any
other
discussion
on
the
motion.
Seeing
none
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion
to
approve
with
conditions
say
aye
any
opposed,
no,
all
right
past
five
to
none.
G
G
G
G
G
G
Pictures
of
the
subject
property
and
the
area
where
the
proposed
air
conditioning
equipment
is
to
go
provided
by
the
applicant
we
receive
no
letters
of
support
or
objection
from
the
neighbors
or
from
the
community
and
stuff
is
available.
If
you
have
any
questions
regarding
any
part
of
this
presentation,.
G
B
B
All
right
did
you
have
more
to
share
with
us.
B
Okay,
well
then,
let's
get
the
applicant
up
here
when.
B
Fair
enough
applicant
state,
your
name,
your
address
confirm
that
you've
been
sworn
and
then
you'll
have
10
minutes
to
make
the
presentation.
A
Sean
seyfried
representing
38,
eight
state
street
and
yes,
I
have
been
sworn
in.
A
Bush
here
three
eight
one,
eight
twenty
three
and
I've
been
swinging.
Terrific
ten
minutes
go,
so
thank
you
for
taking
the
time.
The
reason
for
our
request
is
the
building.
As
it's
situated
on
the
lot.
We
are
right
up
against
our
south
setback.
A
A
Seven
or
eight
parking
spaces,
yeah,
seven
parking
spaces,
so
it's
already
tight
parking
so
and
based
on
our
discussion
with
the
people
at
the
building
department,
they
were
told
that
the
best
place
would
be
to
put
the
unit
on
the
roof.
A
East
side
of
the
property,
for
a
couple
reasons
and
and
the
hardships
being
it
would
be
a
safety
issue.
The
roof
is
a
12
12.
It's
a
12.
P
6
pitch
roof,
so
it'd
be
obviously
a
safety
issue.
We
would
have
to
create
a
platform
and
put
a
ladder
and
it's
just
not
optimal
and
it's
a
lot
of
cost
associated
with
that.
Obviously,.
A
It's
also
a
existing
roof,
so
there
would
be
structural
modifications
that
would
have
to
be
made
and
the
safety
issue
along.
B
That
conclude,
your
presentation
this
evening:
it
does
all
right.
Is
there
anyone
in
the
audience
wishing
to
speak
about
this
presentation
as
silly
as
it
is
to
ask
an
empty
room?
I
do
it
anyway,
seeing
none
is
there
any
anyone
on
the
board?
Who
has
questions
for
the
petitioners
or
staff.
K
A
D
P
P
It
would
be,
it
would
be
one
in
on
the
suite
100
on
that
existing
structure.
There.
D
D
C
B
Okay,
any
other
questions
for
petitioner
staff.
Seeing
none
you
have
three
minutes
for
rebuttal.
Should
you
choose
to
say
use
it.
B
You
very
time
yeah,
thank
you.
Okay,
then
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
and
open
it
up
for
a
motion
from
the
board.
B
Motion
in
a
second
any
discussion
on
the
motion,
seeing
none
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
the
opposed
all
right.
Your
motion,
your
petition
pass
is
five
to
nothing
we're
done
for
the
evening.
Thank
you.