Good morning.

My name is Steve Luce, and I am this morning's land use hearing officer.

Welcome to the February 9th, 2026 hearing.

And before we get started, if we could all stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Good morning, Colleen Marshall Development Services.

To my left is Mary Dorman of the Hillsborough County County Attorney's Office.

During the course of the hearing, a number of other staff planners will be presenting their findings for various cases.

Let me introduce for each item.

Agenda page six.

Item H four variance twenty six zero two nine six.

Okay.

Does that mean we're going to hear that one first or yes?

Okay.

Got it.

All right.

And then we'll get started with this morning's agenda items.

Our hearing consists of agenda items that require a public hearing by the land use hearing officer.

I will ask questions related to the scope of direct testimony.

Hearsay evidence may be used to supplement or explain other evidence, but shall not be sufficient alone to support a finding by me unless it would be admissible over objections in a civil action.

Now I'll go over the order of presentations.

For the variances, the development services staff will present their findings.

They have five minutes for that purpose.

Then the applicant presents their variance requests, and they have a total of 15 minutes for that purpose.

Then anyone in the audience who wishes to speak in support, there's a total of 15 minutes for that purpose.

Then anyone in the audience who wishes to speak in opposition, they have 15 minutes for that purpose.

Then development services may come back and ask for any changes or provide additional comments.

They have five minutes.

Then finally, the applicant has five minutes for rebuttal.

We have two special uses on this morning's agenda.

In that case, the applicants go first and they have 15 minutes to present their case.

Then development services presents their staff report and they have five minutes.

Then the planning commission, I don't think the planning commission is here today, but so we'll skip over that part.

All right.

Then those in the audience that wish to speak in support have 15 minutes in total.

Then those in the audience who wish to speak in opposition have 15 minutes total.

Then development services has five minutes for additional comments.

And finally, the applicant has five minutes for rebuttal.

Regarding the time for proponents and obonits, the 15-minute time frame is the total time for each category.

If there are a number of people to speak, we will add up the total number of people, and the 15 minutes will be divided as equally as possible.

You may wish to designate a single spokesperson to more efficiently use the time.

When you come to the podium to speak, please start by giving your name and address for the record.

The meeting is being recorded, and we want to make sure we accurately document who is speaking on the record.

When you are done speaking, please sign in with the clerk's office with your name, address, and the application number of the agenda item you are speaking to.

The sign in pad is at the end of the podium here.

If you could raise your hand, that's where you sign in.

At this point in time, the county attorney's office will now provide legal requirements for appealing a decision made by the land use hearing officer.

I'm good morning.

This is Mary Dorman from the County Attorney's Office.

This land use hearing officer public hearing is for variance and special use requests.

This is the time for interested parties to present evidence and testimony.

Once the land use hearing officer has closed a case, the record of that case is also closed, and no new evidence regarding that case may be submitted thereafter.

Any decision by the land use hearing officer may be appealed to the land use appeals board.

Should a decision of the land use hearing officer be appealed, the record evidence, including the testimony presented at this public hearing, shall be the only evidence that is subject to review by the land use appeals board.

In reaching a final decision on petitions, the land use appeals board will only consider the decision of the land use hearing officer and the record evidence, including any evidence from this public hearing.

If an appeal is filed, the land use appeals board hearing shall consist of oral argument by the party appealing the decision, county staff, and any interveners, each of whom may be represented by legal counsel.

The following shall have standing to appeal a decision of the land use hearing officer or to intervene in an appeal.

One, the applicant, or two.

Anyone who appeared before the land use hearing officer presented testimony or other evidence and is adversely affected by the decision of the land use hearing officer.

It is the role of the county attorney's office to ensure that no new evidence or testimony is allowed before the land use appeals board that was not presented to the land use hearing officer at today's hearing.

The county attorney will recommend that the land use appeals board disregard evidence or testimony that is outside the record made at today's public hearing.

Any evidence presented to the land use appeals board that is outside the record created today at today excuse me, created today.

I'm struggling today.

Okay, thank you.

All testimony must be provided under oath.

Therefore, if you plan to speak, please stand and raise your right hand.

I'll swear you in.

So I have you got.

Okay, thank you.

You may be seated.

Okay, with that, that concludes all of our instructions for this morning's hearing.

Ms.

Marshall, we're ready for the first case.

Thank you.

On today's agenda, we have no vested rights, fee waivers, remands, or reconsideration requests, which brings us to Section F, Site Development Variance Request.

Item F1, variance 26296.

The applicants are Julieta Rendon and Pedro Morales.

The request is a variance to encroach into the wetland setback.

Staff findings will be presented by Wayne Doyen.

Okay, good morning.

Good morning, Wayne Doyne Development Services.

This is variance application 26-0296.

Uh request summary.

The applicant is requesting a variance from the 30-foot wetland conservation area setback requirements, section 4.0107.4 of the land development code.

The applicant specific requests as shown in the site plan submitted on 12325 is to allow for encroachment for a portion of the commercial of a commercial two-story building, concrete sidewalk with handrail and asphalt vehicle use area and embankment to be within the 30-foot wetland conservation area setback.

Requested variants LTC section, section 4.0107, point B point four, LSM requirement, no filling, excavating, or placement of permanent structures, or other impervious surfaces should be allowed within the required 30-foot wetland conservation area setback variants, 22.9 foot max encroachment for a portion of the commercial two-story building, a concrete sidewalk with handrails, and an asphalt vehicle use area and embankment in the wetland conservation area setback.

Result 7.1 foot remaining setback.

Findings.

One, a wetland setback uh compensation plan has been provided on the site plan dated 1232 and 25, which provides compensation plannings for the encroachment into the wetland conservation and setback and will be reviewed under project number 7684.

Two approval of this variance petition by Hillsborough County does not constitute a guarantee that the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County EPC approvals and permits necessary for the development as process will be issued.

Does not itself serve to justify any impacts to wetlands and does not grant any implied or vested right to environmental approvals.

Okay.

All right.

Um thank you.

But I I did look through the staff report and then optics.

I couldn't find the wetland planting plan.

Um is that something you have on you?

I do.

It should have been part of the staff report.

Okay, maybe it's there, but I didn't see it.

Could you know how to use that Elmo or I don't know if that's operable?

Just so I could take a look at it.

Okay.

All right.

Can you zoom in on that?

Don't bring my glasses.

Okay.

All right.

You see the area, the black outlined area along the wetland where the different plants are associated.

Oh do you see on the left hand side of the page uh the black outline area?

That's where the wetland plantings will be.

All right.

And um and I think all that writing on the right is is that the listing of plants?

If you get to yes, that will be for the whole project.

Uh but everything's gonna be reviewed under the construction plans.

Right.

But this was just how they're presenting it to us.

There is a portion on the right-hand table that does say wetland, it should say wetland.

Okay, I can't read that.

Yeah, all right.

Well, I actually because you blew it up.

Yeah, it's really small scale, and I do I do have it.

Okay, so I will go back and look at that in greater detail.

Okay, sir.

I don't understand which site plan it is.

Okay, sorry.

All right.

Um I have no other questions.

So thank you.

No problem.

Okay, any applicant, please.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

I do easier to see one here than it would be.

Good morning.

Uh Chris Mears with Native Engineering, 18856, North Dale Maybury Highway in Lutz, Florida.

Okay.

I'm gonna present some information on the screen rather than using the L-Mill, it'd probably be a little clearer.

It is the um it's the it's the PDF.

This is final.

Uh is that a PDF?

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

So I'm just gonna go through some uh some slides here just to make it clear on what we're proposing and kind of the process we've been through.

This is an aerial of the site that's on the north side of Rodine Road, just west of Balm Riverview Road.

So the project includes the construction of a two-story 8,000 square foot uh total of professional office building.

Uh we're using retaining wall.

There's a if you can see my mouse here.

We're using a retaining wall and stem wall on the north side of the building to limit our encroachment into the wetland setback, as well as uh wall along the pond and the west on the on the north side of the pond.

North is to the left on this on this drawing here.

Um obviously we have uh additional supporting infrastructure such as the vehicular use area, dumpster and utilities.

Uh the the project had a wetland uh determination done by EPC.

It was uh reviewed on 424 and then accepted.

Uh they accepted the survey on 5 to uh 24.

We started the project shortly after this.

Wetland line is shown here in the and the bold line there uh with the setback uh just to the to the west.

We started off with an initial concept of the project.

Um the applicant was trying to maximize their square footage, and we knew that.

So we we uh put together this initial concept showing what our intended or our initial impacts might be.

You can see that we were significantly encroaching into the wetland.

As we started the design, we did our best to try to get as much out of the wetland as possible.

On the north side of the project is our uh stormwater retention area.

Um we had zero setbacks on the east side, so we were proposing to be right up against the property line, essentially about a foot off or so of the property line to the east.

As we started the design, um obviously the the pond was modified slightly.

We didn't we weren't showing walls at this time.

We had done some initial coordination with the county and gone through our pre-sub meeting.

Then we made our initial submittal to EPC.

You'll see that the difference here is we we split the the single building into two separate buildings, still trying to get our fourth or our 8,000 square feet.

So we had two uh 4,000 square foot buildings.

Uh this this diagram shows pond wall around the entire pond.

However county code does not allow us to do that.

Um we're only we can only have a maximum of uh 50 percent of the pond can be walled if it's dry and 25 percent if it's wet.

With this initial uh plan that we submitted to EPC, you can see that there's a significant amount of wetland impact that we had proposed.

Uh that area is shown here in red uh with the encroachment into the wetland setback here in green.

Do the wetland impacts EPC would not approve this plan.

They asked us to exhaust all efforts to minimize encroachment in the wetlands.

Uh so we went back to the drawing board and did everything we could to uh uh reduce the impacts to the wetland as well as the wetland setback.

Um of the options that the EPC presented to us was just go through anything you can to reduce setbacks or buffers, and so we uh we looked at the possibility of reducing and requesting a reduction of 30-foot building setback along Rodine.

We also looked at uh uh a possible variance to reduce the landscape buffer along the west side of the property.

Um it's difficult to see in this drawing, but we have a uh a slight swale here on the west side of the property to redirect runoff from the west side.

Uh again, north is to the left here, uh, from the west side uh that would flow through the property and into the wetland, and so we could channel it along this west side and directly down to the uh wetland.

With this exhibit um and this this design, we also had impacts to the uh FEMA floodplain.

The floodplain line is shown with this jagged uh dark line that's here.

Um so obviously we'd have to mitigate for that impact to the floodplain.

Uh due to the the timing of how long this typically takes to go through the variance process for wetland setbacks and and landscape buffers.

We we requested the owner reconsider um you know single-story buildings and go maybe go to the two-story building.

So we went up with this concept, which is the current plan.

This is what was submitted.

Uh you you know, probably have the wetland or this site plan and the wetland setback, or the uh wetland impact plan, sorry, um, of this concept or this plan.

We were able to get the entire project out of the wetlands.

Um we have a retaining wall along the uh north side of the pond.

Uh again, we proposed um retaining wall and stem wall along the uh east side of the building.

Uh and again, what this does is just gets us completely out of the wetland.

At that point in time, we sent back to EPC and um they were very happy with this plan.

Um they gave us approval, essentially they indicated were exempt from the the permitting process through EPC.

Um here's an email from EPC indicating that their the revised plan does not have any wet wetland impact, so they requested we withdraw the application, which we did.

Okay.

Here's just a zoomed in plan of of showing the the the green line, which is the wetland line and the uh setback line, which is blue.

I'll reiterate in the in the code that portions of stormwater, you know, uh infrastructure such as walls are allowed within that wetland setback.

I just wanted to highlight that from the code.

So we we uh looking back at this drawing, we do have a pond wall here that we're not claiming as uh encroachment only because it's stormwater pond related.

So this is our paving grading and drainage plan of the current plan.

I'll zoom in here.

This shows the uh encroachment area of of roughly 1800 square feet, and that's what we're requesting the variance from.

Obviously, the building and sidewalk encroaches in, and then the embankment needed to support the uh vehicular use area is gonna slightly encroach into the uh the setback, and so we're just showing where that harmonizing slope would tie in.

This is the current landscape plan.

I can zoom in if you need me to.

I believe if you were interested in seeing the plantings, I have a hard copy if you'd like to see that.

That's might be a little more zoomed in than the copy you have, but um again, we're uh like county staff had said, just submit the uh the planting plan.

You said you have a hard copy of it.

I do, it's it's letter size, so it may not be great, but okay.

Well, just if you could leave a copy with the clerk, sure, and I'll get a copy of it.

I'll give you a copy of this slide.

Okay.

I will point out that we did have an environmental assessment and listed species surface survey done by Merriman Environmental.

Uh I highlighted some key points, and that native vegetation accounts for roughly five percent or approximately 0.05 acres of the one acre piece of property.

Um so roughly the other 95% is altered or exotic and nuisance vegetation.

Um also no animals on the listed uh species table, which I've included uh in this presentation, were observed on the site.

This is an excerpt from the environmental assessment.

Uh, you can see a lot of this is open area, uh, and again the building uh avoids impacts into the wetlands, just into the setback, which again a lot of this is uh somewhat open space, tall grasses.

These are some pictures of of the uh of the site from various uh viewpoints.

This image just shows uh the types of uh plants, exotic plants, and and some of the wetland plants that were uh observed.

Uh in addition, some of the species that were uh observed or are possibly present with on the within the site.

And this is the listed species of uh uh wildlife uh that may occur on the site, and any of them that that uh you know were were or are listed or enangered, obviously absent uh for all these species.

That concludes my presentation.

Okay, and with respect to the variants and the planting mitigation plan, um I don't know where you are in the site development process, but I think you said you've got it signed off on by EPC.

EPC agreed that we didn't need to proceed with uh wetland permitting and mitigation for the wetland.

We are we are kind of on a holding pattern until we get this uh variance approved, assuming we do, before we resubmit back to the county.

Okay, but the about the landscaping section of development services.

Have they reviewed your planting plan?

They won't until we resubmit this plan back to them.

Okay.

All right.

Um just stand there for a minute.

Let me ask staff.

Sure.

Colleen is the planting plan that they submitted.

If I condition the approval with the planting plan, will that be a problem?

Retire your hands moving forward.

If it's just well, if they're agreeing to those plantings at a minimum, then it wouldn't be an issue.

We would just the um natural resources staff would be.

Like a these are the minimum plantings, and then from there you could you could elaborate further, maybe, but there's a minimum standard that would be met.

Yes, we're meeting that minimum standard okay.

To our knowledge, we're meeting that minimum standard for their code.

Uh obviously they'll have to review it.

No, what I'm getting at is that your mitigation planting plan.

I'd like to condition this case to what you submitted, and then if staff wants to add anything more through the site development process, they would be free to work with you on anything more, but I will have at least a a standard limited standard that you'll have to meet.

That makes sense.

Wayne Doyen.

Uh natural resources.

Uh I've already been over this with the review manager.

What they've submitted to me for this variance process is the minimum.

And it will be required on the plans.

Okay, and the mitigation, you know what I'm getting at the mitigation planning.

Yep, the mitigation plannings will be at the minimum what they've listed on this plan.

It could be more.

Right.

But it'll be the minimum what's on here, what they already submitted.

All right, and the applicant, just put it on the record that you are okay with and support at least the minimum planting requirements that are on your plan at this point in time, and you could live with those moving forward.

Yes, sir.

We do not have to reason.

I want the applicant to answer your question.

Yes, that that which is why we put it on the plan.

Yeah, we we we understood what the minimum requirements were.

We we're committed to create we're committing to it.

All right, uh, yes.

All right, thank you, and thank you, and Colleen, thank you.

I'm good.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, at this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application?

See no one responding.

Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application?

I see no one responding.

Staff, anything further?

Nothing further, thank you.

Okay.

And the applicant an opportunity for rebuttal.

No need for rebuttal.

With that to concludes this application, and Ms.

Marshall, are ready for the next item.

There no sign variance requests, which brings us to Section H variance request.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Item H1, variance 26027.

The applicant is Matthew Remsen.

The request is a variance to let development standards.

Staff findings will be presented by Sam Dahl.

Okay.

Hey guy, good morning.

Uh Sam Ball with uh Tillsborough County uh development services.

The uh applicant is requesting a uh variance to lot development standards, which would allow a staircase to remain within a required um southwestern side yard setback on an AR zone property located at 9809 Harold Bedford Road.

The uh minimum side yard setback for AR zoning is 25 feet.

Uh the LDC uh section 613 I2 allows for the stairs to encroach up to three feet into a side yard setback.

The applicant is requesting a 12-foot increase to the allowable encroachment into the required yard setback, which would result in a staircase having a 10-foot setback from the southwestern uh property boundary.

I would I would like to add that the property has a an atypical configuration with access from John Robins Road, uh the right of way through multiple easements, and based on the the shape of the property and the means of access, the pro front of the property is ordered oriented towards the southeast, the sides are towards the southwest and northeast, and the rear towards the the northwest.

Uh development services issued a determination of nonconformity review for this property under application uh DNC 25 and 998, which resulted in the approval of illegal nonconforming lot and the approval of a residential structure and the attached deck.

However, the location of the staircase uh was specifically excluded from the approval of the nonconforming structure, which is what we're here for today.

Uh that concludes my presentation if you have any questions.

Yes, my first question is why was the staircase excluded from the DNC approval?

Because it it didn't meet the the setbacks.

Um we were able to uh approve the deck um and the the structure um based on what the the practice at the time originally what happened was when the house was built, it looked like the stairs came off the front of the house, and then over time it was shifted to the to the side, and so we we were able to basically disassociate the staircase from the rest of the house and the deck.

So or if you could walk me through the the DNC, it's let's start with the size side of the property, right?

It's zoned AR.

It's a five-acre lot requirement, right?

Correct.

Right, and they're 1.29 acres.

And and how did they how did we get to the point what they're asking for are variants?

Well from what I understand, uh and the applicant can speak to this.

I believe they were renovating the house or basically trying to you know bring the house back up, and it was caught during the building again.

All right, so somebody caught it.

You don't have the right lot size, so that's why they submitted the DNC.

That's correct.

Okay, to addressed really lot size, but you also recognize the the house itself and the patio of the deck, right?

But not the stairs.

Correct.

We were yeah, and uh we had several SAP discussions on the matter, and that was the that was the conclusion that we came up with.

Okay.

Um my second question is that I took a look at the survey, and it's a survey that was done in 2021.

And I think the applicant, I don't think the surveyor, I think the applicant added a dimension regarding the distance from the stairs to the property line, and and they put 10 feet, and it's not at the corner, the closest point to the property line.

So what happens if it's not 10 feet?

It looks like it's about seven feet.

If I had a I guess.

And I had this this conversation with the applicant that it you know, from based on you know, just looking at it didn't appear to be 10 feet, and we you know, we went over this and the under, you know, basically at the end of this conversation.

It was that if it's not 10 feet and there's ever a dispute in the future, then they would have to revisit those.

It's pretty clear that it's not 10 feet.

Right, and I and I had this they're gonna get to the next step, and would will they get their permit?

Right.

So if I don't, I'm not sure if this how the stairs were drawn on to the survey, if the surveyor drew them on there or if someone else drew them on there, but he whenever we had the discussion about it, he and he you know he'll be able to talk about it too, but no, he assured me that there was 10 feet uh regardless of how the sketch is drawn.

Um I guess he could proceed at his own risk, right?

That is that is essentially the case.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

All right, the applicant, please.

Good morning, everyone.

Morning.

I have some photos of the stairs and please state your name and address for the record.

Good morning.

My name is Matthew Remsen.

I'm the owner of property before you today, 9809 Harold Bedford Road, Riverview, Florida, 33578.

And I'm requesting a variance to allow an existing staircase to project 15 feet into the required side yard where three feet is currently permitted.

The results in the scare staircase being located 10 feet from the side property line.

The home was constructed in 1988 and is elevated approximately 16 feet above grade since its original construction, the porch and staircase have remained in the same location and configuration over the years.

Only routine maintenance has been performed, such as replacing deteriorated wood for safety purposes.

No expansion or relocation of the structure has occurred due to the height of the home, the staircase is an essential component for safe access.

The site is heavily wooded and environmentally sensitive, and relocating the staircase would require additional clearing and grading.

The hardship in this case is unique to the property.

The significant elevation of the home is not a condition shared by most other properties in the area.

Relocating the stairs to comply strictly with the setback would either eliminate the primary entrance or place it in a location that is unsafe or impractical, particularly for family members with medical limitations.

Granting the variance will not adversely impact the neighboring properties.

The home is located in a secluded area with no nearby residences within approximately a thousand feet.

The adjacent land along the side yard is a protected forested area along Bullfrog Creek and is not subject to development.

The staircase is private, produces no noise or traffic, and does not affect public services or infrastructure.

This request is consistent with the intent of the land development code and the comprehensive plan.

It allows for reasonable and safe use of an existing home while preserving the natural environment and maintaining the character of the area.

The variance represents the minimum relief necessary to maintain safe access without its expanding or intensifying use of the property.

Finally, this is not a self-created hardship.

The staircase has existed in its current location since the home was built, and the request is solely to allow continued maintenance and of an existing structure.

And for these reasons, I respectfully request approval of the variance.

Okay, and sir, if you could add any comments regarding the conversation I just had with staff, is that it appears that your staircase is closer than 10 feet from your property line.

Well, I have uh I I measured it at 10 feet.

It's hard to really determine exactly where it is.

It's specifically because of the fence.

So I know I've had my neighbor has installed the fence, and I I measured to the fence as well, but also I have dually trucks that are eight feet wide, and I can get my truck in and out like fine through the between the stairs.

I've done it before, so that's why I always so when I talked to him, I didn't think much about the seven feet because of that reason why, and now that I'm aware of it, or more you know how serious it is.

I wish I took better measurement, but really that's the whole my whole idea was I've it's close enough to where I can get my big trucks back and forth.

So you've asked for a variance for 10 feet, and that's what I will consider, right?

Yes, but in the event that you go to the next step after the variance, and you're in the process of I think you're remodeling your home or or doing changes and you're in for permitting.

Um, somebody may want to know what the distance is from your property line to that stairway.

And if it's less than 10 feet, you're you're you're in the same dilemma that you are today.

So if you feel absolutely 100% sure that that's at least 10 feet, then I don't think you have a problem.

Okay, but if you if it is less than 10 feet, you may have an issue.

You may not get your permits.

Okay.

Okay, I just want you to be perfectly clear that um that you are proceeding at your own risk.

Well, well, what would happen?

I would have to come back and repeat all of this again.

Yes.

Okay.

Well, I'm just wondering, do I have to reapply and pay the fine again or pay the fee again?

Or could I measure it and come back next month or how's it work?

You could continue today this morning.

Okay, go out there and measure it.

Okay.

Uh and confirm what that distance is.

And now Colleen Marshall may have some issues about procedures and notifications and that sort of thing, but for my perspective, that's what I'd want you to do.

Okay, just make sure your distance is right.

She may have more information about rather than coming back in six months.

She may have something that maybe you can't come back next month, but maybe the month after.

So Colleen, I don't know how quickly he could come back.

Um because of the notice deadlines, it March would be unavailable because we're past the the notice deadline.

Um, so it would be the April 13th hearing.

Um you would you'd have to renot through the mail notice again.

Um but and you would have a signposting fee that's like it's 1750.

But um, you that way you wouldn't pay the full fee again.

Like if you if you came back in six months, you would end up having to pay the full application fee.

Well, I'm fine with that, then make sure you you want to correct.

Yes.

I think we'll let's why don't you you know just measure twice cut this kind of thing, right?

Yeah, yeah.

Sounds good.

All right, let's do that.

So if you have no objections, let's continue this to the April April 13th.

April 13th hearing will be right back here, 9 a.m.

on April 13th.

All right.

Provided you do all the notice and and work with Colleen on the requirements.

All right, well, thank you.

All right, thank you, sir.

All right, with that.

All right, with that, this item is continued.

Ms.

Marshall are ready for the next item.

Next item is H2, variance 260247.

The applicant is living El Hernandez.

The request is a variance to fence requirements and variance accessory structure requirements and not development standards.

Staff findings will be presented by Caroline Peddle.

Good morning.

Caroline Peddle Development Services.

Again, this is variance 260247.

The applicant is requesting variances to the fence requirements and accessory structure standards.

Per LDC section 60702 C1B and 60101 for corner lots, fences up to six feet in height shall be allowed within one front yard, which functions as a side yard, provided the fence isn't located no more than 10 feet into the required front yard as measured from the rear line of the front yard.

A minimum 25 foot front yard setback is required in the RSC six zoning district.

Therefore, that's we therefore a minimum 15 foot front yard setback is permitted for a six-foot high fence within the front yard functioning as a side yard.

The applicant is requesting a 13-foot variance to allow the existing six-foot tall fence to remain in the front yard with a setback of two feet for the front yard functioning as a side yard.

Per LDC section 60.

Excuse me.

For per LDC section 61104 C4 and 60101.

On any corner lot, no part of any accessory structure shall be per located in the required front yard, except for where one front yard functions as a side yard.

On these lots, accessory structures shall be permitted to intrude up to 10 feet into the required front yard functioning as a side yard.

The intrusion is measured from the required yard line toward the street.

A minimum 20 foot, excuse me, 25 foot front yard setback is required in the RSC six zoning district.

Therefore, a minimum 15 foot front yard is permitted for an accessory structure within the front yard functioning as a side yard.

The applicant is requesting a 9.5 foot variance to allow the existing accessory structure to remain at the front yard setback of 5.5 feet for the front yard functioning as a side yard.

That concludes my report.

Okay, thank you.

I think it's pretty clear, straightforward.

Thank you.

This point in time, the applicant.

Good morning.

I want to ask for a variance for fence on the side.

Well it is considered front because it's gone a lot, but it's really on the side of the property.

Also in a structure, small structure that uh uh built there.

And uh I want to ask the variance to to be closer to the beginning of the property there.

Um the the variance um if if allowed, uh it would not um the structural with the ways building the fence, you should now um impact any neighbor.

I haven't received any complaints from my neighbors close by there.

Um the structure was built with inspections and everything.

We pass inspections towards the end where we were gonna do the final inspection for the structure.

That's when uh one of the representative from from the CD said, Hey, I think you are not in the correct location because you're probably to be in a side um a corner lot.

So that's when it this came about.

So I contact I contact the city, uh in this case really the county, and they explain.

Well, yes, there is this limitation uh for your property because it's a corner lot, which I wasn't aware of at the time.

Um so you will have to apply for the variance if you want to keep that structure and fence in place.

So I apply as such.

I mean, um I got some pictures here.

Uh I can see is it all the way to the back of the property is on the corner.

Um it should not um, you know, uh um have any issues with anybody because it's all the way in the back to the corner of east side of it.

Um, the structure is built, you know, properly.

As I said, I've passed all the inspection, and that is really the only location in my property that I feel like I can take advantage of building a s a small structure like that one.

You know, I have my bicycles there, I have my um a small um half bathroom that a building there as well.

For us, you know, when we are outside in in in the pool area or things like that, we don't have to go inside the house to go to the bathroom, it's just a half bath.

Um and and like I said, pass all the inspections.

I believe it should not you know be an issue with anybody.

Okay, anything else?

Um like I said, I have some pictures in here if you want to see it of the property.

Um so this is from up.

Thanks for good morning.

All right, so this is a structure here.

If you can see it, and this is the fence.

Perfect, thank you so much.

Um, so yeah, this is the fence right here.

This is the structure.

Is it small, it's 12 by 8.

So it's I'm sorry, sir.

Can you speak into the microphone?

Oh, I'm sorry.

So it's a very small structure, like you see.

Um, it's about 96 square feet.

Um it's on this on the back uh of the property to the side to the east site.

Um should not have an impact on any other neighbors.

Um also in here the half bath that it was built in inside the uh in in there.

So as you can see, it's just a half bath.

This the there's no shower or anything like that.

And then this is one more picture, and this is from when you come into the property on the side, you're gonna see it there.

The fence is is right next to it.

So that's what we're asking for.

Okay, but I can mention I don't think you will impact anybody uh negatively.

Um, so we're hoping to uh to have these uh approved by by you by you um you know by you guys and uh and um yeah that's pretty much it.

Okay, thank you, sir.

All right, no, not a problem.

At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application?

See no one responding.

Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application?

See no one responding.

Um staff, there were items uh submitted into the record from uh adjacent well, I don't know, I don't know if exactly adjacent property owners, but property owners in the community.

Have you ever chance to look at those comments?

Not specifically.

I know there was five party record emails.

All right, there's a um staff.

You have someone online in opposition.

Are you able to hear them?

No.

Yeah, can you hear them?

I can hear you now.

Okay.

Okay.

Should I go ahead and speak?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Um your name and address for the record first.

Sure.

Um, my name's Julie Hurst.

Um, my address is 6743 12 Oaks Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, 33634.

Um I would like to express my opposition to possibly granting the variants sought by the homeowner at 6902 Shady Place, Tampa, Florida, 33634.

I also represent the 12 Oak Special District.

We are a community, we as a community are opposed to granting this variance because doing so in this case will create a precedent, thereby emboldening other homeowners to illegally build tiny houses and other structures that were not permitted legally and to ask for forgiveness after the fact.

Um it's also um the setback is um from personal experience.

Um my husband and I were interested in building a um pool cage at our previous residence on Clearview Drive, and the contractor at that time um said that he couldn't do the work because it would um be within that setback.

And I just hope that like people that are actually playing by the rules, trying to get things permitted and and and do things legally, that you know you're um you you realize after the fact that perhaps I should have just for forgiveness.

Hello, can you not hear me?

Yes, I can hear you.

Okay.

Um instead of um uh we were told by my or I was told by our special project manager that this um work was not permitted, that she had approached the homeowner and told him that, and and he had said just mind your own business.

Um so it's news to us that it was permitted um because there was no sign up or anything that that was done.

Um I'm also a certified residential appraiser for the state of Florida in the case in the case of doing an inspection in the case of the doing an inspection for a home for an appraisal um with with this sort of um where additions are done illegally, we are to alert the county immediately.

I don't know if this is working.

Anyhow, um, as a representative of the 12 oak special district, we urge you to um to not grant to not grant this variance because it will set a terrible precedent within our neighborhood.

All right, ma'am.

I think I think I do have your entire testimony.

There was a little bit of lag between some of your sentences and words, but I think we got it.

Well, I had more to say, but it's it's disturbing.

Um, like if you're constantly hearing something about inputting your um code or whatever.

I mean, I'd have more to say if if I have time.

Um, please proceed if you have more to say.

You have 15 minutes.

All right.

Well, there may be some others online that want to speak.

Oh, okay.

If there are others online, they they um they can please go forward.

Um I I just um again I urge you um to uh to be fair to all the law-abiding um homeowners in our neighborhood, and and additionally, the contractor who performed this work at minimum should be fine and have his or her license revoked.

Once again, I urge you not to grant the application for a variance because it will create a terrible precedent in 12 months.

Thank you for your consideration.

All right, thank you, ma'am.

Uh is there anyone else online that wishes to speak in opposition?

Okay, I see no one responding.

All right, ma'am.

So I guess you're you're the rep.

We got your testimony on record.

Thank you.

All right.

Um, if I could, Miss Marshall or her staff rep that wrote the report.

There is evidence in the file that the applicant was cited by code enforcement in July.

And we're now sitting in February and told that they weren't meeting the setbacks or in violation.

And testimony by the applicant is that he's now completed the building.

Um he's passed final inspections.

I guess he's waiting for the variance to get his final approval permits.

Does that sound like that's an accurate you know, sort of depiction of the events the yes, the the code compliance case was in was cited in July of last year.

Um I don't see a permit in, but I did confirm with the permitting staff if for an accessory structure that's under 150 square feet, there isn't a permit required, but it is required to meet code requirements.

So that the required setbacks and the height.

Um I believe that there would be there would be a requirement um for a permit for the installation of the um the the bathroom.

Um but I I don't see one in the system under that.

Um that's helpful that helps, thanks.

All right, all right.

At this point in time, uh the applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal.

Actually, I'm I'm sorry.

Um just one thing.

So uh I thought there's an electrical permit, but then when I went back in um the description of the work does say adding a small half bath to part to the um shed it that is currently in process, it hasn't been approved, but it is in process.

All right, thank you.

All right, sir.

Yeah, I would like to clarify what's going on in there.

So like I mentioned it's a small property.

Is it 96 square feet?

The requirement is you only need a permit after 150 square feet.

That's why they started building the structure, thinking, hey, I'm legal, I'm good.

I didn't even think of the setback.

That's again, that's my bad.

But nobody brought up the must have said back onto the final, you know.

Now somebody came around, saw the building, and first at all.

I'm sorry, I don't know.

Nobody approached me to say anything, and I didn't say no, mind your business.

I nobody approached me.

Okay, okay.

People that were helping me that were approached, but they say, okay, you know, whatever.

It's no much, you know, it's not their structure, it's not their the you know, their house.

But anyway, with regard to the permit, 96 square feet, you don't need uh a permit for that.

Now, once I put electrical and the bathroom, that's when the the um the law enforcement person that came about say, well, look, now I understand you don't need a permit, but because you have electrical and bathroom, then you need a trade permit.

Okay, so that's what I did.

I followed that direction.

If you look at the dates, I think he uh put a uh fund for us.

Like early July, two days later, I got my inspect my um uh my permit.

Oh okay, and they want to pass all my inspections when we came to final, that's when this happened about the setback and all that.

But I follow so far everything that I've been told.

Again, 96 square feet is not a required, it doesn't require a permit.

That's what I was doing.

In my mind, I was doing it right.

My intent was not to, you know, get away with it.

That was not intent.

The intent was a it's a 96 square feet, I'm gonna do my my shed, and that's it.

And then when I found a you have to do more, I did more.

Okay.

All right, got it.

Yeah.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, sir.

All right.

All right, with that, that concludes this application.

Marshall ready for the next item.

Thanks item is item H3, variance 26 sir 256.

The applicant is George E.

Davis third.

The request is a variance to that development standards.

And staff findings will be presented by Michelle Montamato.

Good morning, Michelle Montamin on Development Services.

Uh, the applicant is requesting a variance to the minimum side setback permitted for mechanical equipment, and a variance to the side yard setback for an existing single family residence.

Per LDC section LDC section 60103i3, mechanical equipment, including generators, may project three feet or no more than 50% of the required side yards, whichever is more restrictive.

PD 98, 1513 requires a minimum side yard setback of seven feet.

Therefore, a minimum setback of four feet is required for mechanical equipment.

The variance requested is for one foot, resulting in a three-foot side yard setback for mechanical equipment.

Also, a minimum seven-foot side yard setback is required in the PD 98 1513 zoning district.

The variance requested is for 0.21 feet, resulting in a 6.79 foot side yard building setback.

Uh that concludes my report.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, applicant, please.

Yes, hi.

Uh morning.

Hi, morning.

George Davis, uh 715 Pinkton Drive, Apollo Beach.

So this home was built in 2021.

Um I purchased it this past summer.

Uh the only thing it didn't have was a whole house generator, and and in going through the process of uh contracting to get a generator, we realized that the home is actually built a little bit off center.

Um, you know, I think uh I I'm a home built, I was a home builder up in Cleveland, so I I know how it happens, you know, then they're putting the foundation and they just make a little mistake.

So so that was existing.

Um also all you know, I I think all of that subdivision in Apollo Beach, if you're on a if you have seven foot side yards, you're you're technically in violation because the existing equipment, as you can see, the pictures, those metal bases that the equipment set on are 48 inches.

Right, and they're attached to the house.

So my existing air conditioners, my existing pool equipment, they're all in violation.

And this generator actually will extend less than those.

Uh the generator has to be 18 inches off the property, I mean off the house for safety, and then the generator itself is 25 inches deep.

Um, so that is what 30 um that's 31 inch, or I'm sorry, 40 uh 43 inches off the house for the generator, uh, whereas the air conditioner is 48 inches, and so is the pool equipment.

So I'm I I'm here asking for a variance for all the existing equipment and for the house, and then also um hoping to be granted the variance for the whole house generator.

Um the homes in that area are very expensive, and you know, now that hurricanes do tend to hit Tampa, which they didn't, um it's for asset preservation.

You know, I think we all know that if power's out for any more than a couple of days, uh mold can and will grow.

So I'm asking for that variance.

Okay.

Um very good, no questions.

Thank you.

All right, thanks.

Okay, is there anyone in the audience so wishes to speak in support of the application?

Sir, can you sign the testing?

See no one responding.

Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application.

See no one responding.

Staff anything further?

Nothing further, thank you.

Okay, no need for rebuttal, sir.

You good?

Yes, thank you.

All right, very good.

With that, that concludes this application.

Marshall, ready for next item.

Next item is item H5, variance 260321.

The applicant is Yessi Marr Enterprises Corporation.

Request is a variance to minimum lot area requirements, and I'll present the staff findings.

The applicant seeks the variance to include the area of shared driveway access easements in the total lot area for proposed single family subdivision zoned RSE6.

LDC section 60103N requires each lot meeting the minimum square footage required by its zoning district, 7,000 square feet per lot, and does not allow privately owned access easements to be included in calculating compliance with the minimum lot area.

The applicant seeks to include the shared driveway access easements in the lot area calculation, which would allow allow the proposed lots to meet the minimum size requirement.

Um I don't usually like to know the answer or question before I ask it, but here's the question is that this is for four different lots.

Correct typically we can focus on one property owner, one property, and look at their hardship and and make a determination on that issue.

Right now, this is a vacant piece of land.

They wanted to divide it up in some manner to create four different homes with four different driveways.

It it feels like it should be something other than a variance that it should be a plant development or have conditions and um is there any sort of policy that you follow with respect to meeting with an applicant, like in a pre-app environment and guide them in what direction they should proceed.

Uh uh we do we have for rezoning requests.

We have um uh form that they can fill out for additional information, and then if it warrants a meeting, we have a meeting.

We don't have um schedule pre-subital meetings, right?

Okay, okay.

All right, um the other parts of this is um the applicant is saying that the reason where they're going to these shared driveways is because the county said that they can't get an individual driveway for each of the four lots.

I didn't see any letter in the file from the county saying that um I'll I can see if I can get transportation um to join us virtually um so that they can speak to that after the applicant.

All right, if you could, thank you.

All right.

At this point in time, um the applicant all right.

We're is the applicant for variants 26-0321.

Are they online?

Perhaps, Miss Marshall.

Uh I did email them with the uh the meeting link, but they haven't responded.

Uh is this for the home two suites and river view river view hotel investment group?

No, it's okay.

It's on Livingston Avenue.

I see in the virtual attendance list there was um someone from advanced engineers listed, just um attending virtually.

I don't know if they're online.

Ava Russo.

Okay.

Is advanced engineering representative online?

I I've reached out to Ava and uh they have not signed up online.

All right.

We have two issues here.

One is I'd like to speak to transportation staff, and second, I I think we're how about we do this?

We hold this one in abeyance and come back to it at the end of today's hearing and see if the applicant is online.

Sure.

All right.

Well, let's do that.

So we'll hold variance twenty-six-three two one uh in abeyance, and we'll come back and revisit this case at the end of all the agenda items.

So at this point in time, Smart, if we could go to the next item on this morning's agenda.

Is there any opposition to this?

Uh sorry, the applicant's not here.

We're gonna wait and see if he shows up, and then we'll at that point in time we'll get into the case and see who's in sport and opposition.

Um, not talking about coming back this afternoon and coming back.

There's four or five more items, and then we'll come back to this one.

I hazard a guess, maybe it's an hour at most.

All right.

All right, next item, please.

Next item is item H6, variance twenty-six zero three four five.

The applicant is Beth Kulichik.

The request is a variance defense requirements and staff findings will be provided by Sierra James.

Good morning, Sierra James with Development Services.

The applicant is seeking a variance to the required fence standards per LDC section six oh seven oh two.

The maximum fence height is six feet.

The applicant is requesting a variance of one foot, resulting in a seven foot high fence.

I'm available for any questions at this time.

No questions, thank you.

Okay, the applicant, please.

My name is Beth Kalichek.

My address is six oh six Valley Hill Drive, Brandon, Florida, three three five one zero.

Um I made a short video of the I don't know.

And my variance is um a request from six feet to seven feet for the fence.

Just pull them up and then some of them are pictures.

There's just one that's a video.

Maybe that last one.

Yeah.

Okay.

Pause that you're gonna go in order.

Um I guess just start with the video because the pictures are the same thing.

Okay, okay, and then I'll just hit that one as time to go.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, my request for the variance is because my street is on an incline, and with a six-foot fence, I can see into all the neighbors' properties.

They can see into mine, and I can see into the street across from me.

And um, I would prefer a little more privacy and security.

And I also had an issue where um I was away from my property for almost a year due to a death in the family, and during that period of time I had some people stealing my water and my electricity.

So I'd like to have a little more security and safety.

And um, I just took a video to show how much you can see when you just stand in my yard, how far you can see.

This one, okay.

And that's it.

Okay.

Um if I could just ask, is is that four feet high and six foot high fences are pretty typical in residential neighborhoods?

Um going to seven feet is is pretty extraordinary.

Have you ever considered uh and balancing and comparing the costs for for cameras around the perimeter of your home, like a like a ring camera?

Um, it's also because of the incline.

The people above me can see into my yard, I can see into the neighbors' yard.

I can see across the fence into the people's yard behind me into the street beyond that.

So is your concern that you don't want to see anybody, or is your concern security?

It's both.

Uh, like I don't if I want to be in the backyard, I would like the privacy of not having people being able to see me or me able to see them.

Um also the security of having the larger fence would I would think would keep people out, but I just would prefer not having the ability of everyone to look in my yard and me also to look in theirs.

I can see right into the neighbors' windows, and if I'm just in my backyard, I don't want to be to do that, and I don't want to have to like look away.

Um more of a very private person, and I want the ability to feel more um private in my own space.

Okay.

Okay.

Anything else?

No.

Okay.

All right, thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application?

Do I give I see no one responding?

Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application.

See no one responding.

Staff, anything further?

Nothing further.

Okay.

Any need for a rebuttal?

Okay.

Very good.

Thank you, ma'am.

All right, with that, that concludes this application.

Ms.

Marshall, ready for the next item.

Next item is item H six or H7, variance 2603.

The applicant is Peter Goyne.

The requested variance to let development standards.

A variance of 5.74 feet is also requested to the required side yard setback for a ground mounted solar panel, resulting in a nine point two six side yard setback.

Happy to answer any questions.

No questions, thank you.

Thank you.

Applicant, please.

Good morning.

Uh good morning, everybody.

Uh my name is Ryan Abadis.

Here we are for Peter Goins.

Um here regarding variance 26.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

Uh one twenty-two oh seven shall be drive rear view.

For uh variance twenty-six zero three seven nine.

Um here requesting uh two separate variances.

The first would be to a lot of groundwater in the front yard, reduce the required front setback from 50 feet to 12 feet 10 inches, and reduce the required side your setback from 15 feet to nine feet three inches.

The proposed placement ensures optimal performance of while minimizing any impact on adjacent properties.

Uh, we believe that this uh property has unique site conditions where exent extensive tree shading, extensive structures, I mean existing structures and require recall access, preventing insulation in typical co-compliant locations.

Would be a would a strict enforcement of the LDC would effectively prohibit installation with ground mounted solar system, do private homeowner of a reasonable use of the permitted to other properties in the same soil industry.

And not obstructing any access, light air, or any drainage or reducing parcells.

In conclusion, this properties unique combinational shading, structural layout, and required vehicle access creates a situation where no co-compliance location exists for a ground mounted solar system.

The requested variances would allow for a ground mountain and front yard and reduce the front yard setback from 50 feet to 12 feet 10 inches and reduce the size side yard setback from 15 feet to 9 feet 3 inches.

It would also allow an efficient solar placement while minimize the impact on neighborhood properties while maintaining compliance with all the all other LDC requirements, including height, safety, and remark remaining setbacks.

Supporting the goals of the comprehensive plan in preserving neighbor neighborhood character and minimizing any impacts on adjacent properties.

Okay.

One question.

If you could just sort of um provide a little bit more testimony on the location selected for the solar panels, yeah.

Why that specific location as opposed to anywhere else on the property?

Correct.

So basically that location will be to the west northwest of the home.

The other other area that would you could feasibly put it would be south of the home.

South of the home is where he has his vehicle access to get in and out of the house to the backyard.

And in the backyards, we have he has a garage, he has those massive extensive uh existing trees that have been there for for many many years.

Also, you can cut them down because we'll create a shading for our solar panels, and you know, we'll uh lower production a lot.

So basically, if you see a real picture of the the property, that's what we're the only spot you could put the solar panels at.

Okay.

All right, thank you, sir.

Yes, sir.

This point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application?

Yes, sir.

Please come forward.

How are you doing this morning?

Good.

My name is John Adair.

I'm the homeowner.

Okay.

Um where we're proposing to put this.

We need your name and address for the record, please.

John Adair, 12207, Shelby Drive.

Riverview, Florida.

Thank you.

Um the the spot that the solar panels we we want to use is unusable to me because of my drain field.

And with my drain field being there, I can't put a separate access in.

By the time we go through all of the setbacks and everything for the side yard that you would still be able to see from the street clearly.

So it's not like an eye sort of thing.

Excuse me.

It's gonna make it unaccessible to me to get back to my back shop where you know I work on my kids' cars, my cars, and tinker around with various things.

So it's I I have won the neighbor lottery whenever I moved in there in 2024.

Both people on either side are amazing.

The neighbors across the street, they were great during the hurricane.

I I don't want to get rid of any of the old oak trees.

I've been in Florida my entire life.

I love Florida.

I don't want to get rid of what's here.

Uh unfortunately, my front tree, it's going to end up coming down because we can't save it because of rot that's growing inside of it, which makes this a perfect spot for solar panels on an unaccessible portion of property that is close to a fence with uh hopefully that a neighbor that sent a letter, they said they would.

So hopefully they're in support of it, but everybody talking to them, they're happy with it.

I've had people stop and hey, who put this in?

You know, why'd you do this?

Why'd you do that?

And there's some other things with my home that I have to fix through the county that was not presented to me whenever I bought the home.

So I mean, there's a lot of stuff I still have to go forward with.

So solar panels would be a huge benefit to my family.

Uh it just I would really appreciate any assistance.

Understood.

Thank you, sir.

Any time?

All right.

Anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application?

So no one responding.

Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application?

No one responding.

Staff, anything further?

Nothing further.

Sir, no need for rebuttal.

Sir.

You good?

No need for rebuttal.

Okay.

All right, with that, that concludes this application.

This marshal referred next item.

This brings us to section I special uses.

Item I1, special use 260312.

The applicant is Azim Sanju.

The request is a special use for COP alcoholic beverage permit with separation waivers.

Jared Folan will be will provide in staff findings after presentation by the applicant.

Good morning.

My name is Azim Saju.

I represent the Home Two Suites Hotel by Hilton, located at 9903 Ala Faya Preserve Avenue, Riverview, Florida.

We're requesting a 4COOP license to serve pre-made beer and wine and alcoholic beverages in our hotel marketplace, which is in essence the gift shop for our guests.

Okay.

All right, anything else, sir?

No, sir.

All right.

All right, staff.

Thanks.

Good morning.

Jared Fallon with uh development services.

Uh so this is a request uh for a distance separation waiver for four COP alcoholic beverage permit for the sale of beer, wine, and liquor.

The wet zoning is soft for a hotel with 13,209 square feet of indoor area.

Uh the separation waiver uh is for residentially zoned property within 250 feet.

Uh residentially zone property is adjacent to the north, uh, but the building footprint or the wet zone area is 88 feet away.

Uh the the adjacent is multifamily.

Uh, this multifamily is gated and is a fenced.

Um, and there's also a 20-foot buffer between uh these properties.

Um we have no issues with this application, and we are supporting it.

Okay.

Um is it for COP for sales on and off premises?

Uh it's on pre permanent premises only.

Only.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right, let's see.

I don't know why, but I think I saw somewhere in here that it said the other way.

So good.

So just it's somewhere in there that says that.

The the four COP does it allows um consumption on premise and um also off you can also do package sales.

Okay, package sales.

So it is on and off.

Yeah, okay.

All right, so it's to be clear it's on and all sales.

All right.

Well, no other questions, thank you.

Okay.

This point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application?

I see anyone responding.

Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application.

No one responding.

Staff, anything further?

Nothing further.

Okay, any applicant opportunity for rebuttal.

No, sir, nothing further from the applicant.

All right, very good.

Thank you, sir.

All right.

With that, that concludes this application.

And Ms.

Marshall, we're ready for the next item.

Next item is item I2, special use 260357.

The applicant is Farrin Dolero Pizzeria, LLC, Lewis E.

Medio Senior.

The request is a for COPRX alcoholic beverage permit with separation waivers.

I will present the staff findings after presentation by the applicant.

Okay, the applicant, please.

Uh good morning.

Morning.

My name is uh Terry Haley.

I reside at uh 108 Clock Tower Drive, number 160, Brandon, 33510.

I'm uh representing the applicant.

The applicant uh is sure we get this one right.

Oh, first of all, I will make the comment.

I'm about I'm about to take this personal.

This is my fourth hearing in a row where I've been the last person.

I don't know.

So I don't is it something about me?

Uh I don't know.

Okay.

Uh I'm gonna mess this up, but for Randallario, okay, Italian restaurant.

Uh they are seeking a four COP RX license, which is the sell of beer, wine, and liquor in conjunction with the restaurant.

This requirement requires 51% more food sales over alcohol.

Uh very much they are opening a restaurant to share some of their delicious food with others.

Um, and the alcohol is just an amenity to that restaurant.

However, in doing so, uh, I am in need of a couple uh waivers, uh, and they are to do with the distance of residential properties.

Code calls for 150 uh or more feet from residential properties.

In our case, the closest property um is only 50 54 feet away.

So I'm asking for a somewhat 95-foot variance.

Um circumstances to support this in favor of our request, uh, is that the two properties abut to each other, both the back of each property, the back of our center, commercial center, and then the back of this residential property.

Uh we are located on a busy intersection of uh south southeast corner of that intersection of Gunn Highway, and um, I think it's Hudson Lane in Tampa there.

Uh Gun Highway is a very busy highway.

Our center is a strip center, uh, been there for quite a number of years, and the separations of the two properties.

You have a fence uh which keeps it um well secured from each other.

Also, there's the natural foliage trees, bushes, and such.

Um there have been other uh food establishments uh in previous years uh within the center.

Um our operation is totally contained inside, there's no outside.

Um again, our main priority or our main function is that of a restaurant, and we do not see any negative impacts with this.

Uh another thing would be that those persons living in the residential properties in which we seek the waiver, uh, other than going through the foliage and climbing the fence and such, uh, the natural way to get to the property would uh either by foot or by car would be well in excess of 500, close to even 600 feet.

So again, we uh hope for this request, and we see no uh immediate negative effects, and uh certainly can answer any questions.

Yeah, just uh one observation.

Uh staff report indicated that there was an AB at this location since 1981.

So the the actual location, there uh there were some it it was it was kind of weird and research myself and our surveyor.

Um I think uh there were some people previous time who kind of put the cart before the horse and they got it.

I don't know if maybe they change a heart, change a mind, economics or what.

I I don't know.

Okay, so it was never implemented, never used.

Not on this.

There are there is uh right off the bat.

I know there's uh uh a Latin market in there that sells you know package alcohol and such, but uh but like I say, it would it was a little confusing the whole uh setup of license there in the area.

I don't know if it was uh uh looser restraints back then or what, but uh it's kind of showing at this point.

Okay.

All right, so the the action that I would consider is it approval of this one and rescinding the old one.

Yes, right, to make it clean.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you, sir.

At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application?

No one responding.

Anyone in the audience wishes speak in opposition to the application?

No one responding.

Staff anything further.

Staff hasn't done the the staff presentation.

Oh, sorry.

Sorry, uh staff, please.

The app the applicant's requesting a full COPRX special use alcoholic beverage permit to allow the sale of beer, wine, and liquor for sale and consumption on the permit permitted prep premises only in connection with a restaurant.

Property zone PD, which allows for the host use and consideration of the proposed butt zoning.

I actually just noticed this Governor's error in the report that I'll um correct for you and um place the copy in optics.

The required distance separation is it's not 250, it's 150.

Um and the waiver distance, therefore would be 92 feet instead of 192 feet.

Um with the same resulting separation of 58 feet.

Right.

The nearest residentially zone properties located to the north of the proposed premises.

No outdoor areas are proposed for the wet zone area.

The residentially zone property is separated from the proposed wet zone area by a PVC fence, which screens the proposed wet zone area from view.

The proposed premises faces south while the residential building faces east, further reducing visual and functional interaction.

The walking distance between the nearest residential property and the premises exceeds 600 feet.

Staff finds the proposed wet zoning does not pose significant impacts on the surrounding land uses and the necessity for the specified distance requirement is negated.

Staff finds proposed for COPRX alcoholic beverage permit to be approvable, subject to one condition.

The portion of SUAB 81-0876 within the same legal description area as SUAB 260357 shall be rescinded.

Kind of the same question for you is do you know what type of AB was approved in 1981?

Yeah, it was um uh two COPR.

So this would be um adding the liquor.

Okay.

Apologize for not recognizing the order of things for the site item.

But I will repeat is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application?

Is no one responding?

Anyone in the audience wishes to speak in opposition to the application?

Is no one responding?

Staff anything further?

Nothing further.

All right, applicant opportunity for rebuttal.

It's good.

All right, well, that that concludes this application.

Ms.

Marshall, we will return to an item we heard earlier.

Excuse me.

Do we know if the applicant is here?

They the applicant is um virtually now.

Okay.

Okay, so you want to present.

I guess you did already.

Did you?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah.

Should you yeah, we talked about it, and then we we asked about the applicant.

Okay, so the applicant, please.

Good morning.

Uh yes, my name is Ava Russo.

I am a civil engineer with advanced engineering, speaking on behalf of the owner.

Can um a variance is being requested to allow address for the driver.

It's been areas.

Ma'am, hold on a second.

The clerk had a question.

Address for the record, please.

I apologize.

10009 gallon lane in Tampa.

All right, thank you.

Excuse me, Mr.

Herring Officer.

We also need to be able to see video of the um person speaking.

Okay.

Ma'am, can you put your camera on?

Sure.

We got it.

Thanks.

Okay, sorry about that.

Um, again, my name is Abra Rousseau.

I'm one of the civil engineers with advanced engineering, speaking on behalf of the owner.

A variance is being requested to allow for the proposed driveway easement areas to be included in the total lot area calculation for four single family home uh subdivision.

The property is zoned RSC six, which requires a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet per lot in order to comply with the access spacing requirements on Livingston.

The development is proposing two shared driveways instead of four individual driveways.

Um, one shared driveway serving lots one and two, and then another for lots three and four.

Each of these would have a 30-foot wide easement.

If the easement areas are to be permitted towards the lot size, all four lots will then meet the 7,000 square foot requirement.

The shared driveway has been intentionally incorporated to minimize the number of access points along Livingston to lessen the overall impact associated with the driveway spacing request.

However, due to the inclusion of the shared easements, the net area of the lots falls slightly under the threshold.

Therefore, variance is being requested to allow this.

Okay.

But in the record, the written justification was that the county was suggested that the county would not allow four driveways, one driveway to each individual lot.

Do you have anything in writing from the county transportation staff that states that?

Um I may have some from the pre-app notes.

I I do recall the county explaining that four individual lots would not be approved, so that's why we went to having the two.

Are you familiar with this application?

And do you recall well whether or not you and your staff uh had an opinion on number of driveways for this project?

Good morning, uh Mr.

Hearing Officer.

This is Richard Perez with the Development Services Transportation Review section.

Um I am not familiar directly with the site review uh for this particular um project, but I can speak to uh the classification of Livingston Road, which is an arterial roadway functional class.

Um it is also uh in the corridor preservation plan for a future uh four-laning.

Um in to answer your question about number of access uh access is allowed for development.

Um that is regulated by um section 60403i of the um land development code, uh speaking to the number of driveways that would be permitted.

Uh this project would not um justify having individual accesses from each driveway.

So in our review, we would be concerned with not only limiting the number of driveway accesses to Livingston Road, but also the spacing in arterial roadway would require a minimum of 245 feet spacing.

So our review um would uh speak to limiting the number of access points.

Okay.

Maybe I can ask the applicant if if they came in as one site plan.

I guess you'd look at it in totality, but if they came in as individual lots, can is there a like there are various levels of site development plan submittals that you can undertake if you're less than 10 lots?

There's there's a subdivision process with no improvements.

The standards change, I think, when you go from one type of review to another type review.

Do you the the driveway spacing would not change or whether it was um you know two lots or four lots or okay?

And could could they just carve off one lot at a time?

What come in with one lot this year?

I mean, not that the applicant's doing this, but I just want to understand.

Then come back next year with another lot and then so on.

Yeah, if they if they split the first split of a parent parcel can be done through a certified parcel review.

Um transportation would still be reviewing that for the driveway spacing.

Um depending on how it was split into two, there would may still be a concern.

Um and then if they if they came back for another split, then it would um trigger I believe this is urban service area.

Um then it would it then it would be a uh a platted subdivision review.

Um if it was um less than 10 lots and there they weren't doing any improvements, it could potentially be a plat and no improvements review.

Um if there is improvements, then it would be a full plat.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

All right, for the applicant, um the the site plan that was submitted for the record.

If you could just walk me through the site plan because trying to understand how each lot and lot owner independence would occur, and and as you know, folks over time want to add sheds, garages, fences, patios, pools, uh understood.

Right, and and so this site plan, it's it's very difficult for me to understand where you have the shared driveway, and it looks like there's like a T turnaround taking up their backyards.

Um could you move what just walk me through the site plan?

Sure, yeah.

So there's four individual lots.

Um, as you see, two shared driveways, so lots one and two would have a shared driveway with that T turnaround on the homes would include garages, so um that would be additional areas for parking.

Okay, where would the garage be located?

Inside those building per footprints?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay.

Oh, go ahead, sorry.

Um there would be a fence essentially along the outskirts of the entire property, so obviously not through the driveway, the shared driveways.

Um in terms of you know a backyard, yes, there would be limited space due to having the shared driveways.

Um, but this is essentially the best plan we could we could come up with with maximizing the amount of lots.

So for instance, if a property owner wants to put a a fence right down the middle of the the driveway, could they do that?

No.

Okay.

Okay.

And um I don't know if it's particularly relevant to the variance, but it may help me when I deliberate.

Uh will there be any kind of HOA documents along with this layout?

That was not discussed.

I don't believe so at this time.

Okay.

Okay.

All right, no further questions.

Thank you.

All right, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of this application?

See no one responding.

Anyone in the audience wishes to speak in opposition to this application.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Henry Stillball.

I live at uh 2507 Ranch Lake Circle.

Just for the record, I'd like to be I'm representing all four homes that butt up to this property.

Okay.

Uh 2503, 2505, and 2509 also.

Our main concern with this is the water flows from our area to Livingston.

That field right there collects all the water.

It has been literally a lake at times.

Uh that is our main concern.

Uh, we've lived there since 1988, and we've seen this many times.

We ourselves are not flooded, but our neighbors have got uh water up to their homes.

Uh we're also concerned, we're talking about widening widening Livingston.

We think there's some gas pipe that had been installed along the side on east side of Livingston, we'd like to be concerned with.

Um the other thing was we're talking about that driveway thing, and it seems like they're gonna sit back the homes further, and I'm understanding that three of the homes are gonna be two-story.

This is gonna be a two-story home backing up right into my house and pool and everything, and as lady said earlier, my privacy is gone and security also a fence.

Now I know a six-foot fence is required or maximum for residential, these are understood to be all rentals, so I would consider that commercial, and I would like an eight-foot fence if this goes through.

But um, let me see here.

Uh also is this gonna be on city water and sewer, or is this gonna all our homes are on what septic and wells, and so we and I just don't want to overdo the area with septics and so let me ask staff if they know because this is a variance that's not particularly relevant, but it is right.

So let's ask staff, they know.

I just want to put it out there, yeah.

And uh but like I said, most concerned bars is privacy and the setbacks, where the setbacks you something like you're gonna you're gonna be pushed further and further back toward us and uh but flooding is the main issue here.

Okay, and I appreciate that.

All right, thank you, sir.

Apologize for the delay.

Pardon me, apologize for that.

That's all right.

We appreciate my the time.

All right, thank you, sir.

All right, is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition to the application?

Snow on responding.

Staff anything further.

Yes, just uh a few clarifications.

Um the proposed the zoning of the lot is RC six, so it would require 25 foot front yard, rear yard, and seven and a half foot side yards.

Um, and they they will be required to meet that.

They're not requesting variants.

Um the properties in the Tampa service area and splitting the lot into four lots does require um they will be required to connect to City of Tampa water and wastewater.

Okay.

Um the property the the applicant prior to the variance request applied for the preliminary plat review.

Um which does also get reviewed by um all of the reviewing agencies, including stormwater.

So it would be read by stormwater.

The um project ID for your is 7728.

Um objects that would allow you to see the um the comments from all the reviewers as well, including transportation.

It's rather rather uniquely out.

Yes, okay.

Um grant you just just briefly, if you have a question, come up to the podium, please.

The only thing I forgot to mention, if this does go through the retention pond issues, how are we gonna get rid of this water?

That was the only thing I forgot to mention.

Thank you for your time.

All right, thank you, sir.

All right, at this point in time, the applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal.

Uh thank you for addressing your concerns, and I'm gonna try and answer them best I can.

Um, I know it's kind of already discussed the setback.

We are meeting the 25-foot front setbacks, so that's the reason the houses are set back in the location that they are.

Um we will be connecting to city waters that was mentioned as well.

Um, and then in terms of the stormwater plan is to have swales along the outskirts of the property as well as the lot line in between lots one and two and three and four, and that swell would also retain water, and it would then be outfalled to the drainage ditch along Livingston.

Um, you know, at this point in time, full stormwater reports and calculations haven't been conducted, but we do plan to retain the water and meet all applicable stormwater requirements for a subdivision.

Um, I believe the other concern was regarding privacy.

Well, flood flooding, but just not just a you know generic comment about stormwater.

Uh, there's there's a comment about flooding in the neighborhood.

Um, do you have any comment on that?

Uh statement by in terms of flooding in the neighborhood, we would ensure that the design does not make adverse effects and essentially flood other properties, if that's what the concern is.

All water that is historically flowing to this property will be maintained and outfilled appropriately.

So water will not just be you know redirected to neighboring properties.

Um you've had besides the driveways coming in, you have these T turnarounds.

What's the purpose of those T turnarounds?

Um that would allow for cars to back out of their garage.

Um essentially have a you know a turnaround area where they also um guest parking and things such as that.

So the garages are facing what direction?

Um the car would be turning in and facing the west.

So the garages are on the rear of the helm.

And there's enough turning radius to pull into those garages.

Yep, there it is.

Okay.

Okay.

And in terms of emprise surfaces, um, what kind of materials will the driveways be made of?

Um, concrete.

Okay.

What whatever the standard is, you can meet those.

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, any other question or comment, sorry.

Um, I believe I responded to them all.

I know there was privacy or concerns with privacy.

Um, and it was mentioned that an eight-foot fence, that is definitely something we can speak about to the owner and see if he's willing to do so.

But you know, I'm I'm sure he will be.

He's not trying to cause any hardship for any of his neighbors.

Well, just for your information, the the land development code, the maximum height is six feet.

So if you're suggesting that you you meet with a neighbor and try to work out something.

If you do, you'd have to come back and talk to staff about that.

Okay, understood.

All right.

All right.

Um that concludes your comments.

Yes, thank you.

All right.

Okay, very good.

I think that concludes this item.

It does conclude this item, and it concludes to this morning's land use hearing officer hearing.

We are adjourned.