them to where they need to be to be back in the wild.

We've had to make sure that they know how to hunt.

Native things.

I've done this 40 some years, so I know if they get to a point that I know they're ready.

You get anxious about it and then you're almost at peace that they're gonna be in a really good place.

So they're gonna figure it out.

In a world where loyal companions await one place stands as their beacon of hope.

The Pet Resource Center of Hillsboro County where you can adopt your very own superhero adopt the dog.

Find your sidekick and unlock the power of unconditional love.

Suit up show up and adopt today.

For more information visit hcfl.gov slash pets good morning if you could please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Please have a seat good morning everyone I want to welcome you to the May 11th 2026 land use hearing officer hearing my name is Susan Finch and I'll be presiding as the hearing officer over today's cases.

Let me start by introducing Miss Colleen Marshall she is with the development services department.

She'll go over any off the agenda changes as well as introduce uh staff members that will participate in today's hearing Miss Marshall.

Good morning Colleen Marshall Development Services to my left is Cameron Clark and Jared Delfino the Hillsborough County County Attorney's Office.

Carmen Mason of Development Services staff is joining us virtually today.

During the course of the hearing a number of other planners will be presenting their findings for various cases and be introduced for each item.

We have no changes to the published agenda.

Perfect thank you so much I appreciate it.

Let me start by going over our procedures for today's hearing.

Our hearing today consists of agenda items that require a public hearing by a land use hearing officer I'll conduct the hearing on each agenda item and we'll file a decision within 15 business days following today's hearing.

Our hearing today is informal I'll ask questions related to the scope of direct testimony I may call and question witnesses as I deem appropriate and I will decide all questions of procedure.

Evidence may be presented in written form and all testimony must be under oath hearsay evidence may be used to supplement or explain other evidence but should not be sufficient alone to support a finding by me unless it would be admissible over objections in a civil action.

Our order of presentation today is as follows the development services staff will uh start and present their staff findings uh regarding today's applications for a period of five minutes we'll then go to the applicant the applicant goes second and we'll have 15 minutes to present their case we'll then turn to proponents anyone who would like to speak in favor of an application everyone combined 15 minutes the same is true next when we go to opponents anyone who would like to speak against an application everyone together at 15 minutes.

The same is true next when we go to opponents.

Anyone who would like to speak against an application.

Everyone together at 15 minutes.

We'll then circle back to the development services department to see if they have any comments or uh changes based on today's testimony.

And then finally, the last word is had by the applicant.

The applicant has five minutes for rebuttal to address any items that they would like.

All right.

Regarding that time for proponents and opponents, I don't think we'll have this issue, but just in case when we get to those sections, I'll ask for a show of hands to to see how many people want to speak either in favor or against an application.

And then we'll divide that 15 minutes as equally as possible to give everybody a fair chance.

If you're in the room or perhaps participating virtually for this hearing, we'd like you to start by giving us your name and address for the record.

We are recording this hearing, and we want to make sure that we have your information correct.

If you are in the room and you're done speaking at the podium, if you could see Germain, Jermaine, raise your hand.

He's at the end of the dais and is with the clerk's office.

He is also keeping a written log of everyone that speaks at this hearing.

So when you're done, if you could just see him, sign in with your name, address, and the case number to which you spoke.

All right.

Let me now turn to Mr.

Delfino with the County Attorney's Office, who will provide you the legal requirements for appealing a decision made by a land use hearing officer.

Mr.

Delfino.

Good morning.

Uh Jared Delfino, assistant county attorney.

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 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 this 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 this 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 of the record made at today's public hearing.

Any evidence presented to the land use appeals board that is outside the record created at today's hearing could jeopardize the legality of the land use appeals board decision.

And the presenter of that evidence could hurt their own cause.

The safest course of action then is for you to write down any comments you make today and repeat them to the land use appeals board.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

As I mentioned, all testimony must be under oath.

So if you plan to speak today, if you could please stand, raise your right hand, and I'll swear you in.

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Thank you so much.

Please have a seat.

All right.

Then with that, Miss Marshall, we're ready to call the first case.

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 260590.

The applicants are Ashley and Cody Brown.

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

And staff findings will be presented by Wayne Doyen.

Thank you so much.

Good morning.

Morning, ma'am.

Wayne Doyen Development Services.

This is variance application 26-0590.

Request summary.

The applicant is requesting a variance from 30-foot wetland conservation area setback requirement.

Section 4.0107.4 of the land development code.

The applicant's specific requests are shown on the site plan submitted on 413 2026 is to allow for max encroachment of 30 feet for the pool spa, concrete bench, pool equipment steps, concrete, wall pad pad, well pump pads, stone fire pit favors, and existing elite roof and patio to be within the 30-foot wetland conservation area subback.

Requested variants, LEC section 4.0107 point B.4.

LUC requirement, no filling, excavating, or placement of permanent structures or other impervious services shall be allowed within the required 30-foot wetland conservation area setback.

Variance 30 feet.

Result, zero foot remaining setback.

Findings, one approval of variance petitioned by Hillsborough County does not constitute a guarantee that the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County approvals permits necessary for this development are proposed will be issued.

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

Two, a wetland setback conservation plan has been provided on the site plan, data 413, 2026, which provides compensation plantings for the encroachment into the wetland conservation area setback.

Thank you so much.

No questions at this time.

Is the applicant here?

Go ahead and come forward.

You start with giving us your name and address, please.

Ashley Brown, 19808 RIA C Drive, Lutes, Florida.

Okay.

You just want to tell us a little bit about your variance.

Um yes.

So we initially moved into this property after having another property over in New Tampa in which we could not build a swimming pool for our children.

Moved to the new property, had all the appropriate surveys done, specifically requested any wetlands or anything of the sorts to be marked, and unfortunately it was not.

Later on, we tried to build a swimming pool, and we were told we were not allowed to use the area.

Therefore, we applied for the variance for the swimming pool.

Unfortunately, almost everyone else around us does not have that limited amount of space as us.

They are allowed to do what they please because they have over 30 foot, but we do not, so we are humbly requesting that we are able to use that space.

Let me ask you just a couple questions.

When was the home built?

Do you know?

I have no idea.

We purchased it already built.

And so it was in its current location when you bought the property.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

And it looks like to me, from I've looked at your graphics in your wetland survey.

It looks like the almost the entire backyard is encumbered by this wetland setback.

Is that right?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

And the covered patio.

Um was that there?

Yes, the concrete part of it was there when you bought the house.

Yes, ma'am, as well as the uh the well pump as well.

That was all placed already in that same spot.

Okay.

All right.

And lastly, have you talked to your neighbors about your request?

We have.

Anybody have any issue?

No one has an issue at all.

We have um a gentleman next door that doesn't live there, but we did send a letter and he received it.

Had no issue with it.

He talked to my husband over the phone.

All right, and you didn't hear anything when you sent out the adjacent property notice.

No, ma'am.

Okay.

That was the last of my questions.

Don't forget to sign in.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Is there anyone here that would like to speak in support?

Anyone in favor?

Seeing no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

No one, Miss Marshall.

Anything else?

Nothing further.

All right, ma'am.

You have the last word if you'd like it, but you don't have to take it.

Anything left to say.

All right, thank you for your time.

I appreciate it.

With that, we'll close variants 26-0590 and go to the next case.

Next item is item F two, variance 260.

Oh, uh 0678.

The applicant is Ted Todd Pressman.

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

Staff findings will be presented by Wayne Doyen.

Good morning again.

Morning, Wayne Doyen Development Services.

This is variance application 26-0678.

Uh request summary of the applicant requested variance from the 30-foot wetland conservation area setback requirements.

Section 4.0107.b.4 of the land development code.

The applicant specific request has shown in the site plan submitted on 224-2026 is to allow for max encroachment 18.9 feet for existing pole barn with concrete floor, asphalt, and pavers to be within the 30-foot wetland conservation area subback.

LC section, section 4.01.07, point B.4.

LC requirement, no filling expaces or place uh placement of permanent structures or other impervious surfaces should be allowed within the required 30-foot wetland conservation area setback.

Variance 18.9 foot max encroachment and result is 11.1 foot setback remaining.

Findings, approval of this variance petition by Hillsborough County does not constitute a guarantee that the environmental protection commission of Hillsborough County approvals of permits necessary for this development as proposed will be issued.

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

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Is the applicant here?

Good morning.

Good morning.

Thank you.

Morning, hearing officer staff.

Uh my name is Todd Pursman, 200 2nd Avenue South, number 451 in St.

Petersburg.

And uh this is Mr.

Scott Dispenza.

Um he'll be speaking, uh, making some comments as a certified um building contractor.

So this is variance 260678 located as shown here in the Sassa area.

This is an aerial of the site as indicated from the staff.

It's a variance from the 30-foot wetland conservation area, uh, maximum 18.9 feet encroachment for existing pole barn with a concrete floor asphalt pavers and two covered structures.

As you can see, the aerial is the home and the pole barn and pavers which are located next to it.

That we would ask for a condition that if the variance is approved, they would remove the pavers that are shown in the setback.

Um and we would ask your consideration of that condition if you so see fit to approve the variance.

Um you notice in the red lettering in front of the pole barn is the approximate limits of a low area with poor compaction provided by the builder.

Uh Mr.

Dispenser will speak to that for a moment.

And that was an area that was felt that was unsafe or not appropriate for a structure and to be able to support a structure.

The setback is a bit of a sliding setback as it runs along the wetland line and showing the closest point uh in regard to the request.

So as noted here, asking conditions to remove the pavers in the setback with the variance approval.

And this is a closer look at the approximance of the low area of the poor impaction.

So there was a letter in the file from Mr.

Dispenza regarding his review of the site.

He found the soils are not good for building upon.

He consulted with the soil test engineer, showed in the pictures of water retention, soil type.

He agrees with the contractor about moving the uh structure.

Um additionally, I'll put in the record an email from EPC.

Uh of course our comments in the in the record, uh, but reading from their EPC, uh Melissa Yenes, environmental scientist to wetlands division.

Um this comment through this comment, she the EPC has shown we do not have an objection to the proposed variance request.

We're okay with what's being proposed and a moving forward.

So if I may put that in record, and Mr.

Dispenza uh will speak just for a moment.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning, Scott Dispenza, Planet Builders.

Um, I was requested to come out to take a look at an area where a proposed barn was going to be built.

Uh the original contractor doing the work was going through is is digging for a foundation and the the earth was basically um a soggy mess.

And I know that's kind of just a haphazard word.

But in and using a uh post hole digger, uh six-inch boring, and in the area that's depicted in the red, just show that that's that stable, that unstable area was not a good area.

Also, too, as you see it encroaches towards the home.

So movement uh either up or back.

Uh the back to me was a better decision.

I was not presented with the uh setback line.

I was just I was just asked to come on and examine the soil.

Okay.

All right.

Uh if you're done, you can sign in.

Mr.

President, I have several questions, and and you or Mr.

Dispensa is welcome to address them.

First, um, I see that in the application in the narrative, the box was checked that there was a code enforcement citation on this property.

That's correct.

All right, and was that for the construction of the pole barn?

Correct.

In the in the wetland setback.

That's correct.

Okay, because I didn't see that in the backup.

So I just wanted to verify that.

All right.

And as I look at your survey where it has the red area delineating that soil issue.

I don't see um the pool that is clearly there on the aerial.

It appears there's a pool behind the house as I look at a current aerial.

Is that correct?

There is a pool on the site.

Yeah.

The pool is located behind the home.

It's the blue aqua.

Yes.

That's what drew my attention.

Yeah, and it is not located on your survey.

Correct.

It's not cited.

All right.

Oh, um.

Correct.

I do not see that in the survey.

Okay.

But obviously, it's far outside the wetland and conservation areas.

Understood.

But the argument you're presenting is um there are evidently soil issues that are such that it drove the location of the pole barn to the north.

Right.

Correct.

That's the argument as okay.

So I went and pulled the pool permit, and I don't see any mention of any soil issue or anything for that permit that was issued.

And then further, um the letter from Mr.

Dispensa, who you identified as a building contractor, says that he consulted a soil testing engineer and showed him pictures.

Was there any soil borings or analysis or report by that soil engineer?

No, ma'am.

All right.

And so you showed him photos of the soil and he agreed with your assertion.

Yes, I basically showed him as we uh brought up the soil with a postal digger and put on a flat surface on how the slump.

All right.

And are you the contractor that built the pole barn?

No, ma'am.

Okay.

Um how did this come to light if you're looking at soils and getting a so uh consultation with a soil engineer, but then don't pull a building permit.

How what's the timing of that?

Uh the timing is I was I was um contacted by a realtor who knew the owners.

Uh the contractor that built the pole barn brought brought the brought the soil conditions to the owner.

Owner didn't know what to do, call the realtor realtor called me.

I do a lot of um consulting on you know problems, different things like that, and it was just my professional opinion that yeah, the the contractor that is building your pole barn is correct, you shouldn't build it in this area.

When you went to look at the soils, was the pole barn already built?

No, ma'am.

Okay.

And so we don't have any evidence that there, it's just this visual uh interpretation that was presented to someone, and I don't know their qualifications as a soil engineer.

Um they are I forget the name of their company, but they are soil engineers.

But we don't have any evidence to submit into the record to document that.

That is correct, yes.

Um I I would suggest with all due respect that Mr.

Dispenza is a certified building contractor in coordination with the soil expert came to that determination and his testimony today, we we felt supports that and we would ask you to consider that.

I I I certainly understand what you're saying.

But do you understand that uh if you're if your argument is that the soil condition forces the encroachment into the wetland setback, that it would be prudent to have an actual soil borings and analysis and professional qualifications of the person that came to that termination?

I I understand the direction you're going.

Um if you need more information, then we'll be happy to uh try and get that for you.

Uh I would just repeat again that Mr.

Dispensa has an expertise and um in building and building on lands, and we felt that was well supported.

But you agree that Mr.

Dispenser does not have an expertise in soil conditions.

Well, he doesn't, but correct, but he placed on testimony his uh interaction and communication with the soil experts and their determination.

If you need more information, and if you like more information, we can continue this and we can attempt or reach out and try and get that for you.

That is solely up to you whether you'd like to continue.

I think we need to do that.

I think they would report that today's findings not back then.

They reported today's findings not back then.

So it's dried up.

So they would be able to report on what they found.

So many years ago, I'm not sure.

Okay.

Um it was a number of years ago, uh, evidently.

Um what was the number of years ago?

How long ago was it?

Five years ago or so, whenever I know.

Well, I I'm sorry, I wasn't clear what was the number of years ago, Mr.

President.

What we're having discussion trying to resolve the or trying to decide to move forward.

Uh quite some time ago.

Yes, but I don't know how that's one could be since since they didn't do field work.

Right, so let's move forward ourselves if they need to field work.

I'm concerned about that.

Okay.

Yes, only it was uh our position is that uh Mr.

Dispenza uh is an expert in building and building on lands and his coordination with the soil experts, and we feel that that's a strong element of support in order to support the variance and uniqueness and the hardship.

All right, so you would like to not continue, you'd like to proceed?

Correct.

Okay, perfect.

Do you have anything else you'd like to say before I move on?

Uh the only other thing I would say is Mr.

Spencer may be able to add to it is you brought up the question about the pool and uh the potential soil area, and appears to me as a layman that that's quite a distance away.

I don't know if you want to respond to that.

If you would allow him to respond to that as well, of course, of course.

Yes, um, the the pool uh is in an area that was already built, and if that contract were issues would have probably reported it.

The only the only area that I found if you look on the uh on the um survey is only inclusive of the red area.

So the the limits of where I felt the st the soil was unstable was is only within that red area because that area was the one that was um pointed out as being uh potential problems.

Okay.

Any other questions that we can answer for you?

None at this time.

Thank you so much.

Don't forget to sign it.

All right, we'll ask for anyone who would like to speak in support.

Anyone in favor of this application?

Seeing no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

All right, Miss Marshall, anything else?

Nothing further.

All right, Mr.

Pressman.

I have one question on rebuttal that neglected to ask.

Um how did this come to light?

I understand it's a code enforcement issue, but do you know what the source of the uh the complaint was?

I I can't say I do.

Okay, perfect.

Um I just rebuttal, I just add that uh we did notice 37 individuals along with whatever HOA and uh there was nothing on file uh when I checked last night and no one here today, so no one in opposition or has concerns.

Understood.

Thank you.

All right, thank you for your time.

I appreciate it.

Then with that, we'll close variance two six-0678 and go to the next case.

There are no sign variants, um variance requests, which brings us to section H variance request.

Item H1 variants 260596.

The applicant is Louisa Alonzo.

The request is a variance to lot development standards, and I'll present the staff findings.

The applicant's requesting a variance of 13 feet three inches to the minimum required 20-foot rear yard setback to allow a six-foot nine-inch rear yard setback for an addition to the existing home.

Have any answer any questions?

None at this time, thank you so much.

Is the applicant here good morning?

Hi, good morning.

My name is Jorge uh Camarota.

I'm here representing Luis Alonso for the variance 260596 on 6917 North Cameroon Avenue.

All right, you just tell me a little bit about Airy Court.

Great.

So we provided a side plan on the application.

Just copy here, just uh for reference.

Uh we are requesting the uh segback to be reduced to six five six feet uh nine inches.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Uh to six feet nine inches uh to the rear of the property.

The uh when the house was built, they pretty much maximize all the setbacks for the for the property itself.

So leaving not uh much space in order to then for do annotations or anything like that sort.

Uh we also have uh picture of the uh an eagle view picture from the property.

So this is the main concern that we have, or the main uh point that we have for this uh application.

The owners, the current owner of the property, they bought the house in 2017, where DAC structure was already built.

All they did was just improve it.

Uh they created two bed two additional bedrooms and two additional bathrooms.

They are uh were decided for a violation, uh which they didn't do the the actual edition.

That was probably the previous owners.

Uh these pictures from 2006.

Uh and uh the addition was already built there.

So uh they didn't did it by the by himself, they just uh improved upon what was already built.

Uh they applied for a permit uh trying to comply with the violation.

The permit is already in process, but uh it got stopped because there's uh uh obviously uh setbacks issue there, so that's why we are presenting this variance and we hope uh for it to be approved.

Thank you.

Let me ask you just a couple questions to make sure I understand the chain of events.

So you said the your client, the property owner, the current property owner bought the property when uh according to the proper appraisal and uh the date that we already outside uh put in uh the application, they bought it into south 2017.

2017.

And when they bought it, that addition that they're being cited for was existing.

Uh so according to the appropriate appraisals, well, the that's just the picture there.

Uh these additions been there since two thousand and six.

2006 is the date of your aerial right?

And that shows that improvement.

Yes.

Uh I probably should have soon in a little bit more, but it's right there.

Okay.

And so the current property owner didn't make any improvements to the house?

They did inside the house.

They didn't do anything outwards.

So no structure was expanded.

They just remodeled.

Yeah, correct.

All right.

And then do you know how the code enforcement came to so they were uh also remodeling their garage, so that's why they they got cited.

So I'm assuming when they got cited for the garage, the the cold enforcement officer took uh a look on the theels as well, and they he saw the the addition there.

Were they building a garage or were they just remodeling?

Well, inside the garage that were remodeling the garage.

Understood.

Okay.

So it kind of a chain of events that this happened.

All right.

And um did you uh did they talk to the neighbors about the request for the variants?

So we send uh letters to all the neighbors.

Uh I think the requirement is 300 square feet uh from the property.

So we we send letters to everyone.

Uh me myself, we didn't uh receive any calls or any emails regarding these application.

I don't know if you guys uh receive anything.

Uh not to my knowledge.

We can ask staff if anything.

Ms.

Marshall, we don't have any uh letters in opposition that I saw on the file.

Is that correct?

I can I can double check real quick.

I don't think that there was.

Yeah, I don't think so.

All right, and let me just ask you one thing.

I looked through the backup that was submitted, and there was a deed um submitted for this, but it's a life estate deed.

Um that that's dated 2025, and it looks like um it's just establishing the the um who the property would be conveyed to in the in the uh event of a death.

And so, but your your testimony is that your client bought the property in 2017.

Yes.

Okay, all right.

Um I don't think I have anything further, unless you have anything you want to add.

No.

All right, thank you so much.

Don't forget to sign it.

Appreciate it.

Is there anyone who would like to speak in support of the property?

Of the application, sorry.

Seeing no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

No one.

Miss Marshall, did we see anything?

There's there's none.

No opposition.

Okay, thank you.

Did you have any additional comments?

Nothing further.

Perfect, thank you.

Sir, you have the last word if you'd like it, but you don't have to take it.

All right, thank you.

Then with that, we'll close variants two six-0596 and go to the next case.

Next item is item H2, variants 260598.

The applicant is Jason McIrvin.

The request is a variance accessory structure requirements, and I'll present staff findings.

The applicant's requesting a variance of 6.6 feet to the required 25-foot side yard setback for an accessory structure closer to the street than the principal building on the lot to allow an 18.4 foot setback for the accessory structure.

None at this time, thank you.

Is the applicant here?

Yes, ma'am.

Go ahead and come forward.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Give us your name and address, please.

Jason McCurvin, 9710 Brantley Road.

Thank you.

If you just tell us a little bit about your request.

So my request is for an existing poll barn.

Um wasn't cited by code enforcement.

This came to light when I had a survey done in a proposed property split.

And my poll barn is 6.6 feet closer than it should be.

So as I as I understand it, I'm sorry to interrupt, I just want to make sure before you move on.

So currently the pole barn meets the setbacks, it's legal and so forth, and it's because you want to subdivide the property that it becomes too close to the property line.

Is that correct?

Okay, understood.

Go ahead.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

So I'm seeking the variance for the 6.6 feet, so I can subdivide the property.

And I originally built a barn with the intent of having a bona fide agricultural purpose.

Um, and I'm learning as I go that that's just not the rural agricultural zoning, that's actually a property appraisal sighting.

So I'm in gonna seek that in this next year.

Okay.

Anything else you'd like to add?

Uh no, ma'am.

All right, perfect.

Thank you for your testimony coming down.

Don't forget to sign in.

Thank you so much.

All right, is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support?

Anyone in favor?

Seeing no one, anyone in opposition?

Ms.

Marshall, anything else?

Nothing pretty.

All right, sir.

You can have the last word, but you don't have to take it.

I appreciate it.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate it.

We'll close variants 26-0598 and go to the next case.

Next item is item H3, variance 260600.

The applicant is Suncoast Power Solutions.

The request is a variance to lot development standards.

Staff findings will be provided by Michelle Montabano.

Good morning.

Good morning.

The applicant is requesting a variance to the minimum minimum side yard setback permitted for mechanical equipment for a proposed generator.

May project three feet or no more than 50% of the required side yards, whichever is more restrictive.

The RSC6 zoning district requires a minimum side yard setback of seven and a half feet.

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

Applicant is crossing a variance of six inches to result in a four-foot side yard setback for mechanical equipment as shown in the site plan.

I'm available if you have any questions.

None at this time.

Thank you so much.

Is the applicant here?

Go ahead and come forward.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Matthew Groot on behalf of Sun Coast Power Solutions.

Could you give us your address too?

Oh, I'm sorry.

That's okay.

It's a 324 Northwest 11th Terrace, Cape Coral, Florida.

Great, thank you so much.

Go ahead.

So we're requesting a variance of six inches into the side yard setback.

We had applied for the permit for the generator, went to do the installation and had a uh electrical site inspection done uh when the inspector came out.

He had informed us that we were encroaching that six inches into the setback.

Uh we looked around the property due to the fact that there is a window on the back side of the property.

It would push the generator an additional five feet for um exhaust clearances, uh, and that would put it farther into the rear setback than the six inches would have been on the side.

Um also there is a fence on that side of the property.

Uh we've talked to the neighbors, and nobody says seem to have any issues or any questions about it.

Okay, that was my only question to see if you'd heard from any of the neighbors.

I did hear from one other gentleman gave me a phone call about five five doors down.

Um he was just looking for information on why he got a letter in the mail, and after explaining it to him, he said, Yeah, no problem.

Perfect.

All right, that was my only question.

Thank you so much.

So sign in.

All right.

Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support?

Anyone in favor?

See no one, anyone in opposition.

No, Miss Marshall, anything further?

Nothing further.

Okay, sir.

You have the last word if you'd like it.

All right, thank you for your time.

We'll close variants 26-0600 and go to the next case.

Next item is item H4, variance 260611.

The applicant is Jody M.

Martin.

The request is a variance to lot development standards and staff findings.

We presented by Sierra James.

Good morning.

Good morning, Sierra James with Development Services.

The applicant is seeking a variance to the required side yard setback.

In the RSC4 zoning district, the required side yard is 7.5 feet.

The applicant is requesting a variance of nine feet, resulting in a six foot and nine-inch side yard setback.

I'm available for any questions up at this time.

Thank you so much.

Is the applicant here?

Good morning.

It's nine inches.

The variance, not nine feet.

Oh, sorry.

There's a big difference.

That is a big clarification.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Um, my name is Jody Martin, 4813 Lenoak Circle, Dover, Florida.

Um, my daughter Jacqueline is over there.

I'm requesting, like I said, um, six inches into the setback for a um addition, which is actually an eight feet addition to the house for a special needs bathroom for my daughter.

Um this gentleman shows all the equipment and why we need that much space.

Okay.

We've been in the house since 2001.

Um we've made modifications through the years.

We're getting older.

She's not gonna get any bigger, but we had an environmental adaptations assessment done.

They kind of came out, gave us some ideas for her future needs, and we're looking to do a ceiling track system.

So we need to get everything squared.

You can see how do I advance?

I'm just that well, I just wanna just use that arrow right there.

Okay.

Um, in this photo, this is her shower gurney.

Um, it's actually a little small and it's starting to tear.

So the new ones are a standard 78 inches, so that's six and a half feet um for the shower and everything.

And then you'll see behind it, there's a changing table uh made from a massage table.

My husband made for her.

So those two things are always in there.

And then I'm in there, and then we need room for a rolling under shower and her various adult diapers, medical equipment, and all that type of stuff.

This is one of the other wheelchairs at all times.

There's like two or three pieces of equipment in the bathroom.

A bike when we roll her into the bathroom, lay her on a changing table, we run to the other side of the house, grab the bike.

We're tripping.

Luckily, everything is on wheels.

We're tripping over everything.

Her pony walker.

This is like I said, this is the changing table he made.

And a standing device she has.

There's just lots of equipment she has.

Anytime she goes into the pool, those three things are required to go outside for her therapy and everything in the pool.

This is like I said, the shower gurney and everything.

Um the bike again.

Uh this is the side yard.

And the my husband has the um measured out to where that would actually go, how far out it would go, and there would still be almost seven feet of side yard.

I've um given to the gentleman here um all the quite a few letters from neighbors who have no problem with it.

They're you know, they know Jackie, we've lived there for years.

They know it's a good neighborhood, or he's like, just do what we need to do.

Um I believe that should be that's I said there's an that's the neighbor's yard that will be hooked to mine.

She's got her, I don't know, 10, 12 feet, too.

Um just different uh views of where it would be in everything.

Um that's about it.

There's anything else I can uh no, you covered it, and thank you for your time and presentation.

I really appreciate what thank you so much.

Don't forget to sign it.

Thank you.

All right.

Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support?

Anyone in favor?

Yes, sir.

Go ahead and come forward.

I'm sorry?

Oh, sure, sure, sir.

Good morning.

Good morning.

I'm Stephen Martin.

I'm uh Jody Martin's uh husband.

I just like to say that the uh addition we're planning is merely to keep Jacqueline out of an institutional situation.

And she spoke of it.

We are getting older, and this is planning for the future.

But that's that's it.

All right, well, thank you, sir, for your time.

I really appreciate it.

Don't forget to sign it.

All right, anyone else that would like to speak in support?

See no one, anyone in opposition.

All right, Miss Marshall, anything else?

Nothing further.

Mr.

Martin, you guys have the last word if you'd like it, but you don't have to take it.

You're good?

All right, absolutely.

Thank you for your time and your presentation.

I really appreciate it.

With that, we'll close variants 26-0611 and go to the next case.

Next item is item H5, variance 260619.

The applicant is Lena Morales Gannon.

The request is a variance to lot development standards and staff findings to be presented by Tanya Chavella.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning, Tania Chapella, development services for the record.

This is variance applications.

Uh number 260619.

The applicant is requesting a variance to the required rear jar setback for an existing single family home on a through lot within PD 760267.

Um the request is to allow a three-foot south rear jar setback where 20 feet is required.

Staff reviewed the request based on the submitted survey and prior determination for true lots within this PD, including variant 17, 1152 and variants 08056, uh, which uh establish the applicable rear jar setback requirement.

Uh staff is available for any questions.

Just a couple.

Um I just wanted to verify.

It looks to me the lot size is a little over 3,000 square feet.

The lot itself.

And if you know, I'll just ask this all together.

And if you know what is the minimum lot size for that PD, I saw it was from 1971.

So if we know Miss Marshall or Miss Chapella, what that minimum lot size is might going to, is this a legal nonconforming lot or does it meet the standard?

Um I do not have the to wait to uh look at that this specific.

All right, we'll ask Ms.

Marshall.

And um that was my only question for staff.

I can I can double check.

I don't believe that there is a minimum lot size established in that PD.

It's just based on the um the comp plan designation, the density, but um from the res nine.

Right.

I see.

And but for the overall development when they were platted.

Okay.

And what would that be based on res nine?

What would that equivalent be?

Based on the res nine, typically it would be 5,000 square feet.

But if they um if it was developed and didn't have a specific minimum lot size, that we would look at the overall, so it would include if they had like a um if they had open space areas, the it would have been the overall density in the plan as the whole plan development.

I see.

Yeah, all right.

But we there's no evidence that there it's a legal non-conforming lot that we know of.

Not to my knowledge.

Okay, all right.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Is the applicant here?

Yes.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Uh my name is Roxana Bello, an assistant lina here with the variance.

I'm a building contractor.

Could you bring that microphone just a little closer to you?

It moves.

Yes, there you go, perfect.

Just so we can pick you up a little better.

Go ahead.

So I was saying that I'm a building contractor helping Lena with this variance.

Uh her English is a little limited, so I will assist it.

That's this.

Um the property address is 8325 Elwood Lane, Tampa, Florida.

And she's requesting this variance as she needs a little more space for her family.

She has two children.

Um they are growing very fast.

Um, and she has her mother that I need to live with her, and to help her with the care of the one of the kids.

Um she works uh a lot, long hours.

Um that's what she needs her her mother to to help her with this.

Um basically she needs a little more space, so we are requesting this variance to an addition of two new uh bedrooms and one bathroom.

So you know, everybody can live a little more comfortable.

The um the application uh one, you heard my question about how small the lot is to start.

Yeah, it was our understanding when we contact zoning that it's a zero setback to the sizes.

Um the the staff is asserting that there is a a rear yard setback of 25 feet, but was trying to establish the lot.

And um your application said that there were other variances or that the neighbors can you go in for that?

Some uh records that I brought that would be great.

That they were uh allowed uh Anna, and they were not objection.

Okay, so here is uh and it was uh they were not there.

Bring that microphone with you, it just moves over as you as you want to talk, you just perfect.

I don't want to break it.

No, no, no, you're good.

So uh this is one of them.

It was uh accepted with no objection, and as you can see there, the there is a a lot of going on back there.

And where is that relative to this property?

Oh, their neighbors, their neighbors, okay.

All right, yes, it's it's in the same uh area in the same subdivision.

Okay.

And you have other approvals as well?

Yes, yes.

I got this one too.

Um, I have the variance not the application number.

I don't know if you can see it.

It's also in the same subdivision.

Okay, a couple blocks from her.

Um are you able to submit these documents into the record, leave them with us?

Can you uh no, no, because I I I did this research after.

But you the documents that you're showing here, can you submit them into the record?

I can give it to them.

And then they'll be a part of this file.

Yes, that's perfect.

All right, that was my only question.

Do you have anything else you want to add before we move on?

Uh we have uh his employer here that can testify how hard she wore for building these for her family.

Um but to speak in support you mean all right.

Hold on just one second until we get to that section.

Thank you.

You want to say that it's fine.

Okay.

She's uh a little nervous.

Um but no, that would be it.

Um it will be very helpful if you can consider these variants for her.

Um thank you for coming down.

Don't forget to sign in and submit all those documents to Jermaine.

Thank you.

All right, now we'll call for anyone that would like to speak and support.

Good morning, sir.

Good morning.

Good morning, how are you?

Good, thank you.

Uh yeah, I'm just called came here to support Lena.

She works me as a caregiver for my mother, so she spends about uh 50 to 60 hours per week.

So it's you know, it was just a matter of her kind of um moving her mother in and having a mother take care of kids and kind of uh looking for space to create for them to live in a house.

So uh just from me going in the neighborhood, I could see similar structures uh as they noted here in the evidence.

Um so uh her assuming that she could go um and built that structure for a house.

Uh wasn't her intention to cut any corners, so I just want to come here and vouch for it today.

Um very honest, hardworking woman.

So thank you.

Could you give us your name and address?

Uh my name is Marcus West.

Sorry about that.

Marcus West, I live at 2952 West Beach Street, Tampa, Florida.

SIP code 33607.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your time and testimony.

If you could please sign in as well.

Thank you.

Anyone else that would like to speak in support?

All right, seeing no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

No one, Miss Marshall.

Anything?

I think all right, ma'am.

You have the last word, but you don't have to take it.

No, thank you so much.

Thank you for your time and coming down, I appreciate it.

All right, we'll close variance 26-0619 and go to the next case.

Next item is item H6, variance 260649.

The applicant and Sheen Robinson.

The request is a variance to landscaping and buffering requirements.

Staff findings will be presented by Michelle Montebano.

Good morning, Michelle Montemano Development Services.

Uh the applicant is requesting a variance to buffering and screening standards to waiver required vehicle vehicle use area buffer.

Parodyssee section 606 or 4E1, a landscaped buffer, a minimum of six feet in width shall be required between the off sheet for clear use area and any property round you not fronted by a road right away unless structure requirements apply.

Or if the adjacent property already provides the necessary buffering screening.

The applicant is requesting variants of six feet to result in a zero foot landscape buffer along the north property line as shown in the site plan.

Just one, Miss Montebono.

If you could um put that site plan up and show me where that six-foot area is, it's not evident to me on the site plan.

It's right here.

I see.

Um there's like a sidewalk there right now in the side plan.

So that's the area.

Okay.

Perfect.

That was my only question.

Thank you so much.

All right, is the applicant here?

Good morning.

Good morning.

I have I had the um area in question highlighted there.

Oh, you are ahead of the game.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Give us your name and address.

I'm Richard Coates with Golf Landing Engineers.

I'm the engineer of record on this uh development, 4700 140th Avenue, Clearwater.

Thank you.

Um thank you for the opportunity.

The conflict um strip of property or this area between the parking stalls and the um property line is the area in question.

Uh and the reason for the variance is we have conflicting comments from staff.

Um site engineering requires a five-foot sidewalk in that area.

Natural resources require a six-foot buffer strip in that area.

And I'm not sure why the baby wasn't split either long ways or or uh horizontally or or why the sidewalk maybe went out, but um it did.

Uh it really doesn't matter to the applicant which um whether it's landscaping or sidewalk, but that is the reasoning for the um uh variance.

All right.

Uh I just had that question about exactly where it is, but Miss Montebono covered that, so thank you.

Sir, did you want to add anything?

Yes, I do.

Uh my name is Shane Robinson.

I bought this property about three years ago.

Uh, but probably like everybody else in this room, we have driven by this property for I have since I was a kid.

And um, if you haven't taken notice, there's a junkyard right beside this property, uh, steps towing.

Um, I always thought what an eyesore when you drive into Tamba, the first thing you see is a junkyard.

Uh so when it came up for sale, I was very interested in it.

So I bought that property.

I bought the adjoining property next to it.

I bought the house at the end of the street.

The only other property owner there is the Hillsborough County uh Department of Recs.

Um, right after I bought this property, about six months later, the Department of Transportation came to me and said, Hey, we are going to widen I-4.

So the lovely young lady who showed this highlighted area before.

This piece right here, about 10 feet over here, is gonna be the new I-4.

So, whatever we do here is gonna be obsolete within one and two years.

I will be the only property owner on that street.

Hillsover County is in the process right now of moving their uh rec department to another location.

Um I'm not privy to any of that.

I just know uh the manager of the building, they have already cleared out and began clearing out some of their uh heavy equipment and so forth.

So this street is gonna end right where my property is, about between 10 to 20 feet.

Um I brought by the way, and I'm and I noticed I had to have five copies of it.

I have five copies of this.

But if I could put this down here, you have to stare at this, but you'll see Mr.

Robinson.

Bring that microphone over with it.

There you go.

If you stare at this, you'll see where the new I-4 is going to come right off of my property line.

And which one is yours?

My subject property is right here.

Okay.

The new I-4 is gonna be right here.

And is there any taking from your property to accomplish that improvement?

They have because this parcel is three different parcels, they're going to take this parcel, most of my second parcel, all over here of the county property.

So Eureka Springs Road will effectively end right where my property is.

So the only people that we could ever offend by changing this buffer would be me.

And I'm not offended.

Um I want to make it look good.

I just thought personally, and I've always thought this, I've been a big proponent of this property.

When you drive into Tampa, instead of seeing uh gang graffiti, which by the way, they use this property since 1974 as uh a chop shop for motorcycles.

So with the sheriff's office and myself, we got together, I removed probably 26 uh motorcycles off of that property as as well as a lot of debris.

Hurricane came in and finished off the building.

We got a permit, finished the building, but we just want to build a small electric car dealership there.

And in my opinion, you could differ.

I think that looks so much better driving into Tampa, especially now that I-4 is gonna be literally right at our doorsteps.

The first thing you see is something classy, cool, modern versus a literal junkyard.

So uh we hope you grant that.

Um we'll do you proud.

It's gonna look awesome.

People coming into Tampa will actually see something cool instead of an ISOAR.

Thank you.

Um, could you give us your name, your address for the record?

Um, I physically live here at 5279 Eureka Springs Road, but I will have to move when I-4 comes in.

Understood.

They told me and I bought it, they told me it could happen in in two to eight years.

It's already been well into two.

So if you guys know anything about the widening, you probably know more than I do.

All right, thank you for your testimony.

Sir, did you have anything else you want to add before I move on?

I I would I'll just add on on Mr.

Robinson's uh behalf.

You know, when he bought this property three years ago, uh CD activities was occurring on this site, and he's was working with the sheriff's office to get it cleaned up, and um as fate would have it, hurricane late a year later, hurricanes and Lena and Milton came through and um destroyed or nearly destroyed the building that the activity was occurring on, and he went through the process, got a demolition re permit and removed that building from that site, and um that activity has ceased since then.

And this is the only uh he's met all the conditions uh the staff is required, which was quite numerous.

Um we're down to this last item.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time and testimony.

I appreciate it.

All right, is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support?

Anyone in favor?

Seeing no one, anyone in opposition?

No one, Miss Marshall.

Anything further?

Nothing further.

All right, sir.

You have the last word if you'd like it.

Okay.

Well good.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Then with that, we'll close variants two six-zero six four nine and go to the next case.

Next item is item H7, variants 260682.

The applicant is Louisa Alonso.

The request is a variance to lot development standards and staff findings will be presented by Logan McKay.

Good morning.

Morning, Logan McKeg.

Uh variants 260684.

Applicant is requesting a variance to lot development standards to permit an existing extension into the rear yard setback.

Um per LDC section uh 50307 B2I.

Any decreased in required yards.

Excuse me.

Any decrease in required yards that applies to 3D um or less single family lots within a PD shall be reviewed for per PDLD section 1104.

Uh minimum of 25 foot rear yard setback is required within the PD.

Uh the applicants requesting a variance of 15.4 feet, um, resulting in a 9.6 uh uh rear yard setback.

Uh additionally during uh review, it was found that the property is cited uh for violation for failure to provide a residential due construction and additions permit uh for the extension.

None at this time.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Is the applicant here?

Good morning.

Morning again.

Uh my name is Jorge Camarota.

I'm here representing Luis Alonso for the variants BAR-26-0682 for the property located at 1400 five uh Fullerton Drive.

So we are requesting uh 15.4 uh feed relation of the site pack from the 25 feet required.

Uh there's currently a violation on this property that were cited for uh presidential alterations.

They changed uh windows and trying to remodel the house.

There's also these uh addition being um cited on the violation as well.

These additions have been there since 2004 or 2006 uh when the the current property owners bought the property.

Uh there are similar uh structures in the neighborhood.

So where we are requesting is uh because the the property lines the property itself is kind of like a diagonal angle on the on the rear.

Uh when we offset the the 20 the 25 feet set foot setback, it uh got right on the this corner right here.

So that's why we're uh requesting the setback uh reduction so that way we can uh do all the the perimeter process and do the plans as an after de facto permit and also try to keep that portion because they have like a little uh social gathering area on the rear.

So this is an older lady, and she uh usually keeps her family on the weekends there, so they prepare like you know, like family gatherings meals and uh try to be together.

So it's not a uh it's just a portion of it, and it's it's being requested this way because the shape of the of the lot doesn't allow us to uh keep that 25 uh feet setback.

If we were a straight line, it it wouldn't be a problem.

But being that it's in a diagonal uh position, it it requires for for us to come here and apply for a variance.

Thank you.

Um was the addition there when your client bought the property?

So they bought a property, the addition was there.

I believe uh looking uh uh aerials that they uh probably add a little bit to it, but the the structure of the the main structure was already there.

The main structure, but the part that extends into the setback, did they complete that or was that existing when they bought the house?

I believe they completed it.

Okay, so they bought it, they made the improvement.

Okay.

And how long ago?

How long has it been there?

So that probably been there for over 10 years.

I see.

And do you know how the uh code enforcement complaint came to light?

I do not know.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

Uh I believe that's my only question.

Thank you.

I appreciate your time.

Don't forget to sign it.

All right.

Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support?

Anyone in favor?

See, no one, anyone in opposition.

No one, Miss Marshall.

Anything?

Nothing further.

All right.

Sorry, you have the last word?

No.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

We'll close variants 26-0682 and go to the next case.

Next item is item H8, variance 260684.

The applicant is Miroslav.

The request is a variance to the Riverview Downtown, Uptown Overlay District Requirements.

Staff findings will be right by Caroline Petal.

Morning.

Good morning.

Again, this is variance 260684.

The applicants requesting multiple variances to the River Downtown.

Riverview Downtown Uptown Overlay District.

Per LDC section 3.20.04A2.

Off street surface parking shall be located behind the line of the building front facade fronting U.S.

Highway 31.

The applicants requesting a variance to allow the parking to be located in front of the building facing U.S.

Highway 40 uh 301.

Per LDC section 3.20.05B.

Building setbacks along U.S.

Highway 301 fronting frontage shall be a minimum of 10 feet or a maximum of 20 feet.

The applicants requesting a variance of 120 feet to allow for a maximum front yard setback of 140 feet from U.S.

Highway 301.

Per LDC section 3.20.05 C.

A building's primary orientation and front end shall be towards U.S.

Highway 301 rather than the parking areas.

The primary building entrance shall be visible and directly accessed from U.S.

Highway 301.

The applicant's requesting a variance to allow the board building orientation to be to allow the primary building entrance to be directly accessed from Dartmouth Hill Street.

Sorry.

That concludes my report.

All right.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Is the applicant here?

Good morning.

Good morning.

For the record, my name is Patricia Ortiz.

My address is 2810 North Central Avenue.

And the request is as stated.

I'm going to put the concept plan up on the projector here for you.

Is it oriented the I do see it?

Yes.

Perfect.

Okay, so the subject property consists of three development parcels.

All are currently vacant.

It has frontage along U.S.

Highway 301, Hackney Street, and Lake St.

Charles.

The most western parcel, the one here with frontage on 301, is the only parcel that is actually located within the overlay.

But as you probably know already, when we combine parcels, the overlay districts apply to the entire development site.

Our intent is to develop the property with a drive-through use, a bank, a restaurant, maybe an oil change, and the characteristics of that use, specifically the queuing area, prevent um compliance with the standards for which we're applying for relief.

That would be the parking location, the main door entrance, um, and the building setback.

Um just as a note, we're not allowed to put the stormwater pond on the frontage of US 301.

If we could, maybe we could rearrange things and put avoid the the parking variants.

So the um hardship is really associated with the use, the small size and shape of the lot, and the requirements of the overlay, which really do not consider this type of use.

Um the drive-thru use is consistent with the approved PD site plan and the conditions of approval, and it was approved prior to adoption of the overlay standards.

Um, like I said, development in accordance with the parking setback and main door uh location are just not feasible considering the size and shape of the lot.

Um and I think it's important to note that the overlay intends to improve the appearance of the Riverview business um center and established a mixed use and pedestrian friendly um type of downtown, but the existing conditions um it really kind of prevent that pedestrian friendly uh atmosphere that that the overlay intends for.

But the existing conditions really kind of prevent that pedestrian-friendly uh atmosphere that that the overlay intends for.

Um so with that I can conclude my presentation and answer any questions that you might have.

I don't have any questions, but I appreciate your testimony.

Yeah, thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

All right, is there anyone that would like to speak in support?

See, no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

No one, Miss Marshall, anything else?

Nothing further.

All right, Miss Ortiz, you have the last word.

Thank you.

With that, we'll close variance 26-0684 and go to the next case.

Next item is item H9, variance 260685.

The applicant is project management group LLC.

The request is a variance select development standards and staff findings to be provided by Tanya Chapello.

Morning.

Tanya Chapella.

This variance is for um the required side yard setbacks for the main uh house and for the rear and side uh setbacks for a cover patio.

Um I don't want to repeat all my report, but um just wanted to go through the main items.

Um for the um for the house, we we have the side yards uh that are required required at 7.5 feet, um, and it's a little encroachment into uh those on both uh sides.

Uh in regard to the cover patio, um was supposed to meet the principal side uh setbacks, and it's um encroaching 2.1 feet.

Um, and then in the rear for the cover patio, um it's not supposed to intrude more than 13 feet.

Um the required rear yard for that PD or for that lot is 25 feet.

Um and then the variance is to allow a 3.3 feet space between the rear property line and the edge of the cover patio.

And that concludes my my report.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Is the applicant here?

Good morning.

Good morning.

Rule Londono 1502 West Bush Boulevard Suite D, Tampa, Florida, 33612.

Okay, let me open the presentation.

The first page.

Okay, the property is the is located uh south of the Hallow Drea Drill Drive in Tampa, Florida, uh north of uh Summendale, West of Oakmar Maynard Drive, east of Norddale Boulevard.

This is a PD plan development zony.

Uh the requirements for the size are the I'm sorry, the PD was on 1976.

The building was there on 1979.

Okay, the requirements for the PD for the setback uh front 25, rear 25, and the size 7.5.

For the cover patio, they have a special land use requirements that can we include 13 feet into the rear setback.

That means that we need to meet 12 feet for the cover patio.

On this property, uh we found uh that the owner bought this property on 2014.

Uh they are ready uh the when they bought the property, the pooling closure and the pool was there.

Uh they made the decision to rescreen the pooling closure uh in 2023.

Uh that was when they uh get uh core compliance on 2023.

They start the process for the building permit on the 2023, but the plan examiner found that they don't meet the requirements for the setback.

Um we started all this process on 2023 by the end of the year.

The first thing that we found was that the the cover patio was in close to the rear setback that was um utility easement.

We was on the process for the utilities man back in 2023 by the end of the year.

Uh finally, we found the approval for the vacation easement the this year on January.

Um for the variance request.

I'm sorry, for the variant request, uh we found that the principal building was in close to the setbacks.

The house was billed on 1979, but for some reason they are in close to the setbacks.

That is the reason we are requesting for the principal dwelling, the reduction to the set the ease and waste setback for the rear jar setback the I'm sorry, and the other second variance is for the cover patio.

For the principal dwelling, we have two variances.

One for the size setback, um, one for the ease, and the other one for the waste.

We request to reduce point two uh feet, that the requirement is 7.5, and the result go to be 7.3.

On the other side, the West side will go to reduce 0.3, the requirements is 7.5, the result go to be 7.2 for the cover patio.

That's the second request.

We have two request, variant requests for the cover patio.

Like I explained before, the we can intrude into the rear setback 13.

That means that we need to meet 12 feet.

Uh we want to reduce the rear side from the uh to reduce the um the size setback reduced 2.1, the requirement is 7.5, and the result got to be 5.4 for the site.

And for the rear, uh we need to meet 12.

We go to reduce 8.7, and the result got to be 3.3.

Um, the cover patio is uh is attached to the house.

Uh that's the line that we want to reduce the rear setback to have the opportunity to the owners to stay on the part that is covered by um solid roof.

Um that's the four variances that we have today.

After the we approved this variance, the owner got to continue with the permit that they already have there.

If you have any question, just to confirm, Ms.

Lindono, the chain of events.

So as I as I heard you that the house was built in 1979, correct?

According with the property applies it, I found that the house was built on 1979, that's three GS after the PD.

Understood.

And your client bought the property in 2014.

2014, yes.

And when they bought it, the house was there as it stands today.

The house was there, and also when they bought the property, the pool and the pooling screen was there.

So the pool and the screen over the pool was there.

Was the patio there?

I understand they they covered it, but did they create the patio?

Yeah, they after they buy the property on 2023, they buy it on the 14th.

On the 2023, they made the decision to re-escreening the existing screen pool, but they cover the size, the little portion from the site, the from the pool.

But was that was the concrete patio there?

There was the concrete patio there, and they covered it.

And they cover understood.

Okay.

Um let me make sure.

Those are my questions.

Thank you so much.

Don't forget to sign in.

Is there anyone in the uh audience either online or in the room that would like to speak in support?

Anyone in favor?

See, no one, anyone in opposition to the request.

Marshall, anything further?

Nothing further.

All right.

Ms.

Lendono, you have the last word.

Anything?

Okay, thank you.

We'll close variance 26-0685 and go to the last case.

Last item is item H10, variance 260695.

The applicant is Elizabeth Good Chairas.

The request is a variance to the Waimama downtown overlay district requirements.

Staff findings will be presented by Carol Lampetle.

Good morning again.

Good morning.

Caroline Pedal Development Services again variants 260695.

The applicant requests multiple variances to the Will.

Will Mama downtown Subdistrict B downtown center overlay district.

Per LDC section 3.23.06B multi-use building lots require a minimum front yard setback of zero feet or a maximum of 10 feet.

There's two requests under this section.

The applicant requests a variance of 228.3 feet, which would allow the center building to have a maximum front yard setback of 238.3 feet.

Per LDC section 3.2306B.

Mixed use building lots require a building frontage percentage of a minimum of 70 feet, or excuse me, a minimum of 70% or a maximum a hundred percent.

The applicant requests a variance of 36% to allow no buildings to contribute, no new buildings to contribute to the building frontage percentage.

Per L DC section 3.2306B.

Mixed use building lots require building buildings to be a minimum of two stories or a maximum of four stories.

The applicant request a variance of one story to allow the rear building to be a maximum of one story.

Per LDC section 3.2306C.

Parking and mixed use lock types shall occur in the rear or side of the primary building.

Parking between the primary building and front setback shall not be permitted.

There's two requests under this one as well.

The applicant requests a variance to allow parking spaces to be located between the center building and front setback.

And the applicant requests a variance to allow all parking spaces to be located in the front of the rear building.

That concludes my report.

I just have one question, Ms.

Peddle.

Excuse me, um lots require a building frontage percentage of a minimum of 70% or a maximum of 100%.

And then it's stated that the variance is 36%.

Are there buildings there?

Is that how we came to that number?

Yes, there's um one existing building in the front.

So the shape of the lot um is that it's uh skinnier um compared to like the depth.

So to add the two additional buildings, it has to be in um they have to be behind the front building.

So there's no um area for the two new existing buildings to be priced to the east or west.

So the lot configuration prevents them to meet that minimum of 70 percent.

Correct.

Because there's just no room to put those buildings on the front.

That's correct.

So the uh the existing building um is to the southeast, I believe, and then there's the drive aisle.

Um, so there's no other room for them to build.

Okay, that was my only question.

Thank you so much.

And I understand the applicant is virtual.

Oh, you're here.

Here you are in in the real life.

Okay, please come forward.

Good morning.

Give us your name and address, please.

Thank you.

Uh good morning, I'm Liz Gutierrez.

I am the CEO and founder of Enterprising Latinas, and um we manage and own the property at 5128 State Road 674, and our intention is to expand the existing uh site that we have to provide greater services to the community uh as an organization that provides entrepreneurship business development services as well as overall services to the community.

This uh properties expansion will enhance our ability to make an impact in the community, you know, let our representatives speak.

Thank you so much.

Don't forget to sign in.

Good morning.

Good morning.

I'm Donald Odom with Moto 11620 Kilkenny Coral Drive and Riverview.

And as as previously stated, um the the configuration of the lot and the existence of the current building really drove our constraints to to abide by the the downtown overlay requirements.

Um so as you said, there's an existing building that was that was legally developed before the overlay went into effect.

And to because of the configuration of the site, we do have to add the additional buildings behind the existing building.

We want to maintain that existing building.

Um that's going to be renovated into a new use to support the programming of Enterprise and Latinas.

Um so that's what's driving the need for the variance as far as the the um the maximum 10 foot front setback and the the frontage requirements as well.

And the frontage requirements as well.

But we're actually building a third building to the rear of the property, which would be a daycare.

And because of the placement of the parking for the second building and the existing building, that's not going to be in compliance with the overlay with the parking being in the front.

And also that's going to be uh early learning center.

Um that's going to accommodate small children, so we want to use that rear area for a daycare.

And along with that, the functionality for that that early learning center, um, that's what's requiring the variance request for the the one story.

Um, that's gonna support the functionality of the the early learning center uh with regard to safety um and just the the overall functionality for for the daycare.

So that's the reason for our request today.

All right.

I didn't have any further questions.

All right, thank you so much.

Please sign in.

Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support?

Anyone in favor?

See no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

No one, Miss Marshall.

Anything further?

Nothing further.

All right, Mr.

Odom, anything else before we close?

Is there someone online?

Yes, ah, sorry.

Are you here to speak in support or in opposition?

I'm here to speak in support.

Okay, go ahead.

Give us your name and address.

Aaron Brecke, 5018 Cameron Road, Birmingham, Alabama.

I have uh accompanied uh enterprise and Latinas in this process as a design consultant.

And I want to point out too that uh in addition to what Donald expressed the proposals for artship and everything that with this particular development, the idea is also to fully respect the Waimama revitalization, the downtown revitalization revitalization action plan.

In that document, why mama has established certain criteria for how they want the growth to proceed, and there are certain ideas for business incubators and civic spaces for capacity building, and this property is due like there the organization enterprising Latinas is doing its best to provide the services as outlined in the action plan.

Um, and really all of the variance requests allow for reasonable and context-sensitive redevelopment for constrained already developed property.

This preserves lawful improvements, avoids unnecessary disruption, and supports safe site circulation.

It provides a community serving daycare use, remains compatible with surrounding properties.

We believe that this request satisfied the variance criteria and result in substantial justice for both the property owner as well as the general public.

And so we we respectfully request your approval, but thank you for your your time and attention.

Thank you, sir, for participating.

I appreciate it.

All right, we already asked support and opposition, and Mr.

Adam said you had nothing further.

All right, thank you then.

With that, then we'll close variants 26-0695 and adjourn the hearing.

Thank you all for your time and testimony.