Land Use Hearing Officer - 04.13.26

Most people to the untrained eye are going to sit here and say that this owner starved for dogs. We're going to head up to that dog hall right now. So we'll go out, we'll assess the situation. I'm looking at these dogs, I'm like garbage. I mean, that's just like, did you see those bags through there? She was very upset about losing all of her cats. She called me up a few times in tears. I need my photos. I need to be able to paint this picture for the judge so that he sees what I see. In Hillsborough County, your tap water is more than just convenient. It's safe, trusted, and affordable. Every drop is monitored 24 hours a day and tested regularly to meet strict state and federal standards. So you can trust what's coming out of your tap. Skip the plastic water bottles and go with tap. That way you're choosing sustainability and savings. Hillsborough County Water Resources is proud to deliver quality on tap. For helpful tips and for more information, visit hcfl.gov slash quality on tap. Welcome to this morning's Land Use Hearing Officer hearing. My name is Steve Luce and I'll be this morning's Land Use Hearing Officer. Before we get started, if we could all stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag, the states of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, to liberty, and justice for all. Thank you all and may be seated. Thank you for that. At this point in time, I'd like to introduce Colleen Marshall from Development Services staff, who will introduce other members here at the dais and go over any changes to this morning's agenda. Good morning. Good morning, Colleen Marshall, Development Services. To my left is Mary Dorman and Jared Delfino, the Hillsborough County County Attorney's Office. Carmen Mason, a Development Services staff, is joining us virtually. During the course of the hearing, a number of other planners will be presenting their findings for various cases and introduce for each item. We have no changes to the published agenda. All right, very good. I have a few instructions to read into the record before we get started. Just take a few minutes. The County Attorney's Office has a few instructions to read into the record. And then we'll get started. Our hearing today consists of agenda items that require a public hearing by a land use hearing officer. I will conduct a hearing on each agenda item. We'll file a decision within 15 working days after the conclusion of today's hearing. Our hearing will be informal. I will 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. I will take evidence, but will exclude evidence that is irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious. 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 shall not be sufficient alone to support a finding by me unless it would be admissible over objections and civil action. The order of presentation for the variances is development services presents the staff report and findings. They have five minutes for that purpose. And the applicant presents their case, and they have 15 minutes for that purpose. And anyone in the audience who wishes to speak in support speaks next. Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak in opposition then follows. Then development services as an opportunity to provide an additional information. And finally, applicant as an opportunity for rebuttal. There's one special use on this morning's agenda, and I'll go over that procedure when we get to that item. Regarding the time for proponents and opponents, 15-minute time frame if the total time 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 divide it as equally as possible. You may wish to designate a single person 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. There's a sign-in sheet at the end of the desk, and if the clerk can raise their hand, right over in that area. The meeting is being recorded, and we want to make sure we accurately document who is speaking on the record. When you're done speaking, please sign in with the clerk's office with your name, address, and application number. I'm going to be sure of the agenda item that you're speaking to. At this point in time, the county attorney's office will now provide the legal requirements for appealing a decision made by the land use hearing officer. Good morning. Jared Delfino, Assistant County Attorney. This land use hearing officer public hearing is for variants 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 the 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 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. Your testimony must be provided under oath. Therefore, if you plan to speak, please stand and raise your right hand so I may swear you in. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. Okay. Thank you. You may be seated. All right. At this point in time, Ms. Marshall ready for the first item. Today's agenda, we have no vested rights, fee waivers, remands, reconsideration requests, or site development variance requests, which brings us to Section G, sign variance requests. Item G1, variance 260531. The applicant is Lori Smith, Florida Certified Sign Erectors. The request is a variance to sign requirements. Staff findings will be presented by Sam Paul. Okay. Good morning. The applicant is requesting a sign setback variance to install a pole sign on an ASC1 property located at 16235 Lake Magdalene Boulevard. LDC Section 70300C1B requires pole signs to have a 10-foot minimum front setback. The applicant is requesting a 5-foot reduction of this requirement to allow a 14-foot, 10-1-half-inch tall pole sign to have a 5-foot front setback from Lake Magdalene right-of-way. I'd like to add that the residential support use requirements of Part 7, LDC 70300C3B, do not apply because the property is agriculturally zoned. That concludes my report if you have any questions. In a backup, I was looking for a survey to find out where the right-of-way line. I didn't see a survey. When the applicant asked for a 5-foot setback, do you know where that right-of-way line is? They marked it, it's basically at the edge of the parking lot. How do you know that? On their site plan, it was an aerial site plan. There's a line that they depicted there as the setback. I mean, typically it's the back edge of the sidewalk. Typically it is. You know, that or sometimes they allow another foot or two for sidewalk maintenance. True. But that's not, sometimes there's exceptions to that. Sure. I'm not sure what the exception would be, but I looked at it in GIS and our GIS records were, it showed pretty much the same location. I mean, the site, the sign code requires a site plan. It doesn't specifically require a survey. Right. So as long as it's something that looks, you know, that we feel is accurate, then we can approve the site plan. As long as it's submitted by the applicant. Okay. Well, in this particular case, it's an issue of do they have enough room to put the sign that they're requesting, you know, 10 feet back from the edge of right-of-way. And there's an island in the parking lot where the existing sign is located. That is correct. Right. And in my opinion, looking at the length of that island, there's ample opportunity to place the sign at 10 feet back. That's why it's a critically important point to know where the right-of-way line is. Okay. I discussed the location of the sign with the applicant several times before this application came through. And explained that the sign basically could not extend past the island. So I don't know how wide the sign would, how they made the basically geometry work. Right. Where the sign would not extend past the island into the drive aisles. Well, to that point, the drive aisles are 24, 25, 26 feet wide. Correct. They're extraordinarily wide. So there is room to expand and extend the island. And you go back and look at historical aerials. They used to be landscape islands throughout their parking lot. And over the years, they've removed all their landscape islands in their parking lot. So there's ability on this behalf of this property owner to add islands and put the sign back 10 feet. So that's why I come back to the same question about where that right-of-way line is. I don't think they even need to expand the island. I think there's room on the island. But that's my question. If you have any additional information, maybe you can come back on rebuttal. And I'll turn to the applicant at this point. The only thing I would add is that I'll tell people a lot of times to keep the signs two feet away from the drive aisle in case there's, you know, to allow for cars to move without possibly hitting the sign. Right. Which, and then if a parking lot is, a parking space is generally 19 to 20 feet deep and the islands are roughly the same. So if a 10-foot setback, excuse me, if everything lined up, that would allow, basically, if you take 10 off the eight or nine feet, plus another two feet, that would allow a limited window for the sign. And I'll explain that to the applicant. All right, the island's about 16, 18 feet. And if there's five feet between the back of the, maybe the curb to strike that. If they're saying the back of the parking space is the edge of right-of-way, so they have 18 feet. So their sign is roughly seven feet. So that leaves them 11 feet to play with. And that's enough. Okay. Well. So I don't understand the hardship. That's where I'm getting at. Okay. And I, you know, I explained the design parameters to them and they came through, they came and submitted the variance application. All right. Let's, let's hear from the applicant. Okay. Okay. Applicant, please. Lori, go ahead and unmute yourself. Thank you. Sorry. Can you hear me now? Yes. Good morning. Okay. Hi, good morning. My name's Lori. This particular. Ma'am, can you please take your full name for the record? Lori Smith. And your address? 4835 Laurel Oak Drive, Pace, Florida. Thank you. Is that it? Okay. This particular parking lot, the parking spaces are only 14 feet. So the, the island that this sign sits on is only 14 feet from what we discerned off of the property appraiser website as to where the property line currently is. And the existing sign that, that, that is there now that we will be replacing that property line looks like it goes halfway across the sign that's currently there. I don't know if it's due to, um, history or, or the old, I don't even know how old the original sign is. Ma'am, do you, do you have a survey? I, I don't have a survey. I pulled my information off the property appraiser website. Okay. Did you measure the, the length of the parking spaces? Yes, we did. We sent, um, our employees out there to, to perform a, uh, survey of the area and they measured the parking spaces. They took the imagery from the, um, property appraiser website and measured from there, um, to get, um, and the sign itself is seven foot, four inches wide. So we have it backed up, um, I'm showing it backed up to the edge of the, um, to the, to the edge of the island within maybe a foot. And then that would allow us a five foot setback to the edge of the parking lot, which the property appraiser website shows as the property line. That's where the five foot comes in. That's five foot from the edge of the parking lot to the leading edge of the sign would be five feet. And then seven foot four inches is the width of the sign. And then that allows for just a little space at the end of the island before the, uh, before the flow of traffic would begin. Okay. Anything else? Not at this time. Do you have any further questions? No. I just wanted to know if you had a survey. Oh, not a civil survey. No, we do not. Okay. All right. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak in support of the application? I see no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? No one responding development services, anything further? Nothing further. Okay. The applicant an opportunity for rebuttal. Um, not at this time. I'm not sure what more I could add. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. With that, that concludes this application. Ms. Marshall ready for the next item. Springtess is Section H, variance requests. Item H1, variance 25, 1340. The applicant is Doritza Lopez. The request is a variance to accessory structure requirements. Staff findings will be presented by Jared Fallon virtually. Okay. Uh, good morning. Can you hear me? Yes. Good morning. This is, uh, Jared Fallon with Hillsborough County Development Services. Uh, this is a request, uh, for a variance to accessory structure standards to allow an existing accessory structure to occupy more than 20% of the required rear yard. Land development code allows accessory structures to occupy up to 20%, granted that the rear yard is not closer than three feet. Uh, in this case, the variance is for 13%, uh, resulting in 33% of the required rear yard being occupied. Um, happy to answer any questions. Uh, how do, how do you calculate the size of the rear yard to figure out how much space they're occupying for their accessory structure? Uh, so the rear yard is the area between the property line and the required rear yard setback. Uh, in this case, I believe it's 25 feet. Uh, in this case, I believe it's 25 feet. So that area of 25 feet, um, and with a survey, they, they let us know how much of the, that space is occupied by that building. Yeah. Did you calculate what that backyard square footage is? Um, I don't believe we have that. We, we go off of what their survey says. Okay. Um, so that's basically it. Uh, to be clear, the accessory structure is understanding it's 618 square feet. Is that your understanding? Yeah. Looking here. Um, yes, that's correct. Okay. And do you know if that structure has electricity? So it is labeled as an office. And so I assume that it does, but I, I am not a hundred percent sure on that. Uh, do you know if it has public water and sewer? That's my knowledge. Yeah. All right. No further questions. Thank you. Thank you. Any applicant, please. Mr. Chair, uh, Ms. Lopez has not joined the meeting virtually. I don't know if she's in the room. Marshall. Signed up virtually. And I, there was an email that was just sent to communication. Uh, 10 minutes ago that she didn't receive the link. She was going to be contacting them to try to get on. Okay. Well, um, why don't we hold this item open in an abeyance? We'll come back to it at the end of this morning's agenda. Okay. All right. And hopefully she'll join us by that point in time. Okay. All right. Set that one aside for now. And we'll move on to the next item on this morning's agenda. This item is item H2, variance 260227. The applicant is Matthew Remsen. The request is a variance to lot development standards. Staff findings will be presented by Sam Ball. Sam Ball, Development Services. Uh, this application, uh, was continued during the February 9th Lujo hearing to allow the application to, or excuse me, allow the applicant to correct the application for the setback. Um, this applicant is requesting a variance to lot development standards to allow a staircase to remain within the required Southwestern side yard setback on an AR zone property located at 9809 Herald Bedford Grove. Uh, the minimum side yard setback for AR zoning is 25 feet. Uh, section 60103 I2 allows for stairs to encroach up to three feet into a side yard. Uh, the applicant is requesting a six foot increase to this, uh, three foot allowable encroachment, uh, which would, uh, result in a staircase having a six foot, uh, setback from the Southwestern property boundary. Uh, the subject property has an atypical figuration with access from John Robbins Road, uh, public right away, uh, through multiple easements, uh, and based on the shape of the lot and the means of access, the front property is oriented towards the Southeast. The sides are towards the Southwest and Northeast and the rear, um, is oriented towards the Northwest. Uh, development services staff issued a termination of nonconformity review for the property under application DNC 250998, which resulted in the approval of a legal nonconforming lot and approval of the residential structure in the attached deck. However, the location of the staircase that's the subject of the variance was specifically excluded from the approval of the nonconforming structure. Uh, this concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions. All right. We, we did hear this one, uh, previously, right? And remember the... That is correct. The distance was 10 feet on the application information last time. This time I see it's six feet. Correct. Correct. And I, and I explained previously prior to the previous application that it didn't look like 10 feet. Right. And anyway, throughout, um, after the hearing, we decided that he decided it was a safe move to continue. Yeah. It's good. I got it. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Any applicant please. Morning. Welcome back. Good morning, everybody. Uh, my name is Matthew Remsen. I'm the owner of the property 9809 Harold Bedford Road, Riverview, Florida, 33578. And I am requesting a variance to allow an existing staircase to project 19 feet into the required side yard where three feet is currently permitted. This results in the staircase being located six feet from the side property line. The home was constructed in 1988 and is elevated 16 feet above grade since its original construction. The portion 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. This location was intentionally selected to accommodate elevation while minimizing environmental disturbance to the surrounding property. 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 neighbor 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 infrastructures. 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 expanding or intensifying use of the property. And 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 of an existing structure. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. I appreciate you going back and measuring the distance from the stairway to the property line. Oh, well, thank you for letting me do that. Sure. Because I don't want to have to do all the paperwork again. So thank you. Yeah, you got it. Thank you, sir. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? Is there anyone responding? Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? Is there no one responding to development services? Anything further? Nothing further. Thank you. And sir, any final comments, rebuttal? No need for rebuttal? With that, that concludes this application. Ms. Marshall ready for the next item. Next item is item H3, variance 260381. The applicant is Bernadette Rogers Revocable Trust. The request is a variance to lot development standards. I'll present the staff findings. The applicant's requesting a five-foot variance to the required 25-foot front yard setback in the RDC6 zoning district to allow a 20-foot front yard setback for a new home on the subject property. I'm happy to answer any questions. No questions. Thank you. Okay. Any applicant, please? Hi. I'm Bernadette Rogers and the address is 5317 Orange Avenue. Ma'am, could you repeat your name again? I'm sorry. I couldn't hear it. Bernadette Rogers. Ma'am, are you the property owner? I am. All right. Thank you. Ms. Rogers, please go ahead with your testimony. Okay. All right. So I just want to understand the fact that I'm still within my property according to my survey that was across the front driveway and I really didn't understand why we even needed a variance hearing simply because we weren't, we were told that we were encroaching, not that we had one outside of the property line as well as the survey, we were still on our property that I own. So I didn't even understand what the need for the variance hearing was. But then they said that I had needed the variance hearing because of the setback. So again, the setback that we have is 20 feet based upon the land development codes for an individual unit. And they then said, well, the area is zoned for duplexes. And I'm like, okay, so I see houses and I see duplexes. So it kind of became like a little debate and it just all kind of like went crazy. Everybody went crazy other than myself. They tried to accuse me of having the wrong type of permit when the land development codes and the building codes said that I could have a owner's permit. But the owner permits only allow certain things, not a foundation or anything like that. So when I hired this contractor, he was supposed to be a Green Side Up Contracting and Servicing, LLC. That's the name of their company. He was supposed to do his part of, you know, registering with the county and so forth. And after they're saying that, you know, they didn't have a permit of some sort. So then I went to check it out because again, he confirmed because he said that he worked for the Department of Transportation. So I'm, you know, I'm just like, okay. So anyway, I'm still on my property based on my survey and everything that's being done behind the property line and where the county is claiming that we're encroaching, we're encroaching, but we're not actually on the county side of the property line. So I didn't, I'm not, I don't know. I don't. I just think that if there is someone made a mistake at the building department because the individual that designed the house and all of that, you know, they have to get clear of what the setback would be when it is a one unit, an individual unit in one unit. And according to what I understand that is correct, it would be the 20 feet setback. But we're here today about the 25 foot setback for a duplex. So I guess there's some ambiguous or ambiguity with the way all of that stuff is written. Cause the duplex, it's not a single family home. It's two units or that's why I call it duplex. Duplex means two and individual is one unit. So, and then let me go on further to talk about the septic. So we've gotten the type of septic that is, that can be utilized in that space because it was a septic tank there previously, because there was a house there previously. And, but the, the health department wants us to buy something expensive according to what they want. And you can't tell me what to spend my money on. And then you falsify documentation to deny me the permit before I could provide you the documentation for the permit. So we're, we're wanting to go with the same, it's the same type of system. It just is slower in processing than the one that the state, the health department, not the state, but the health department is saying, which is more expensive than the one that operates the same, but at a slower speed. And I provided that documentation for you to get the clarity on that. But now this is going to be the end of the testimony about this stuff because I'm not dead. I'm just needing to speak my mind and my peace. These, these contractors, there is something wrong somewhere. When you hire a contractor, he gives a contract to do the work and so forth. And he's paid to do that in the stages or the steps that they say. And then he doesn't provide the materials. And the, the, he gets, he gets what you would say, I don't think discombobulated or he gets offended. And then instead of the, uh, employees or the staff or the administration or whatever you want to call them, uh, instead of them letting me, uh, get someone to continue on with the construction, uh, became a problem. Um, and now there is damage to my property. My foundation, uh, has now has a crack in it. And, um, there are other things, uh, like people just, when they came to put their sign out there, they discarded their materials and on my property. And then they said they took it, but they did not. Uh, cause we, uh, saw the boxes that they discarded. Right. Ma'am, you, you've kind of gotten a little, a field of, on a tangent with other issues, but I think I understand the request. Oh, okay. And I understand. Okay. Well, I just want you to know that me being an ADA citizen, I'm disabled and crippled. I should not have been, uh, treated that way, uh, for someone else's mistakes. But also, now I have property damage to my trusses and the foundation, because it took just entirely too long to get to this hearing over, uh, address, which, uh, for your information. Uh, all, most of those are, I would say a handful of the, uh, APOL GIS listing. Uh, their, uh, letters have been being returned as, uh, dead boxes. That's what they're saying. Cause they keep sending it back and forth to them. And they just wrote on the envelopes, dead boxes. Okay. So, um, but they did, uh, we could have had this hearing in February and they did all of that to, uh, because of, uh, uh, um, I think it was a name that was misspelled or something like that, when they did the certificate of mailing. So the process had to be done all over, uh, where we didn't even get to do March. Uh, they skipped over March and just went into April. Um, you know, and just, this is like, and see, I'm, I'm in this, I'm at a, uh, one of these AirBNDs. And, uh, it's not ADA compliant. And so, um, I'm, I'm someone that know how to, um, improvise. And so that's what I've been doing, uh, improvising and paying, um, uh, storage fees and rental fees for things that I didn't even need to, because when I asked for them to continue with the building of the house, uh, they could have allowed that to prevent the damage to the trust. So those have to be replaced now. And the foundation have to be repaired because of the crack in it. And, uh, you know, it, it, it, this was really like, uh, unnecessary. I don't think that this should be. Ma'am, I understand the request. I think we're good. Your, your position is clear. If I could, let's move on. Thank you. All right. Thank you, ma'am. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? There's no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? There's no one responding staff. Anything further? Nothing further. Thank you. All right. Uh, county attorney's office, anything further? There are a lot of other comments made about other issues outside the realm of the variance application. Um, I don't think that the county attorney's office has any comments at this time. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Ma'am, an opportunity for rebuttal. Um, I'm just, you know, uh, glad that we have. Uh, glad that we're at the end of this, uh, aspect now. I just need the, um, whatever is due me for all of this trouble for something, uh, very simple that could have been resolved, uh, instead of going through all of this process and the delay, uh, which, you know, we have 120 days. Um, outside of that, and it's, it has caused me significant harm, hardship and harm physically. Uh, thank you. All right. Thank you, ma'am. You're welcome. Have a good day. Likewise, ma'am. Have a good day. All right. With that, that concludes this application. Ms. Marshall, ready for next item. Next item is item H4, variance 260421. The applicant is Nyamira Gual. The request is a variance to lot development standards. Staff findings will be presented by Sierra James. Good morning. The applicant is seeking a variance to the rear yard setbacks to accommodate in addition to the home and side yard setbacks to address the original non-conforming footprint of the home. And the RSC six zoning district, the required rear yard is 25 feet and the required side yard is 7.5 feet. They are seeking a variance of 25 feet, resulting in a zero foot rear yard setback and a variance of 0.2 feet, resulting in a 7.3 foot side yard setback. The property is currently under co-compliance violation for the unpermitted addition to the home. Those improvements also extended to the county right-of-way and they do have a permit open to bring the right-of-way into compliance. It is to staff's understanding that they will remove the infrastructure in the right-of-way rather than vacate. I'm available for any questions. Based on your review of the application, you say there's a variance to the rear yard setback. So the variance to the side yard is for the original structure that was non-conforming and then the variance to the rear yard is for an unpermitted addition that has already been made. Already built. However, yes sir. However, the extension does extend into the county right-of-way, but they have stated that they will be removing what is in the county right-of-way, but would like the zero foot yard setback for their property. Okay. Understood. All right. Thank you, man. All right. At this point in time, the applicant. Good morning. My name is Ned Rollins. My property address is 7910 North, I'm Vincent Street, Tampa, Florida, 33614. I got my neighbor, he's got a translator for me, but my English is not very good. Okay. That's fine. Excuse me, sir. Was that your full name? It's Ned Rollins. Thank you. I'm Dina and I'm his neighbor. So he's basically here to ask for a zero setback because of- Marilyn, I know you're a neighbor, but just what's the address? Oh, my address? Yes. 7908 North St. Vincent Street. Okay. Thank you. So he's asking for a zero setback in order not to have to cut the like little construction that he created, which was, is a storage shed or storage room. So basically that's what he's asking for. It's like literally, I think a foot he measured a foot into the county property back there, I guess. Okay. Is there, I don't think it's a foot. It looks a lot deeper than that. So hopefully he has a survey and he knows exactly where the property line is and how far into that right away he encroaches. Okay. So he does have a survey. It's from when he bought that house. When he bought the house, apparently he was informed that that back piece, I think it's five feet, he said, was part of the property. But then apparently the county or the city came out and said, no, it was not. So he did push the fence back to where the survey says his property line is except for that one little piece where he's asking for the zero setback. I just gotta, I can't reiterate this enough. It's more than one foot. So I don't want to walk away from this hearing thinking it's one foot. It is not. It is a lot deeper than one foot. That little piece. I don't know what piece you're talking about, but. It's more than the piece that comes out of the house, from the 4th S to the lote. Here. This piece. Let me explain. Let me explain. The inspector to move the fence where they say they're going, is where the building is attached to the building. And he says that he's more than one foot. He has to put the plane, the map, or whatever, to see what he's saying. When they're attached to the building, it's not the magic. Now, if they tell me, from the line to the front, it's what I don't understand. He says that since he moved the fence back to where it's supposed to be, he says it's one foot. Right. That it sticks out. That he would have to, because now the fence runs like this and then it sticks out a little bit that way. So he would have to tear all that off to push the fence back one foot. Ah. All right. Besides, I would recommend after this hearing that he talks to somebody from development services, right? If you could give him a business card so he can call you, so he can work with you and you can explain to him where his property line is, where his encroachments are. And I'm certain he's got a, he's got a code enforcement violation. Yes. So hopefully he's got the name and the number of the code enforcement officer as well. So we could discuss where his property line is and what his encroachments are with the enforcement officer as well. So make sure that he goes through all this effort that he doesn't do it wrong. Let's do it right the first time. Okay. I think he did speak with one of the property and they're the ones that told him in this hearing to say that he was asking for a zero setback. That's all I know. I don't know anything else about it. Yes. It's clear. That's fine. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. The code enforcement officer showed, said he marked. Marking to me, the center, the back property, 25 feet. This is the right there. I move a fan, right? And 25 feet. This is the reason we, I move it for the new code. Close to my. If he's speaking, he needs to get on the microphone. I don't, I'm not sure if the clerk is picking this up. You stay here. You stay here. Okay. I tried my English. Okay. Okay. The code enforcement, he called me. I got him go to my house. I got a market, 25 feet. The property line. The property line. I move my fan ready to the property line. Supposed to be for the subway. This is the reason they stay here today for a zero seat back. It's too close. One fee separate for the, my construction. Yeah. You know, but I understand a long time. You got a bigger when you buy the house. He told me, I explained to me, what is the problem? I got him move it ready. I don't know. If you do inside the property line, inside the, my house, you need how much you separate. And so the reason zero seat back. So I tried to. So the code enforcement officer told him. He called me. I got a number, everything here. Yeah. He's the one that said, say this when we come. All right. He marked it to me in the line. He said, you move your fan here to here, 25 feet. I moved my fan ready. I caught in my back. I move it now. This is the reason I'm serious about, but it's too close. Yeah. When you, when you bought the property, is, did you add any further additions to the home that went further into that, the rear yard? No. I mean, basically just mango trees, but no, as far as adding actual. Right. Structure. No. Okay. When did he buy the property? 2017, April of 2017. And. And he has, did not, since 2017, he's not added any additional buildings. To the back. Extending the back. No. Okay. The property line. No. There was a shed there that when he bought the property, it was already there. So he left it, but then somebody reported it that it was in county property. So then he had to, he removed that shed. All right. So the existing house, it was like that in 2017 and he's not added onto it. Well, no, he did, he had added on, but he's within his, within his property line, not past that. Okay. Did he encroach into, he's supposed to have the house 25 feet back from the property line. So the addition that he added, was it into the 25 foot setback? Yes. Okay. Yes. That little piece. Yes. Okay. He created that back room because, because he was told he had to remove the shed. That was part of the property when he bought it. Okay. How, how big was this addition length and width? If he knows. 11 by 12. Okay. Okay. That helps me. Thank you. Anything else? Well, he did want to just say that he feels that he hasn't had any problems with the neighbor until the neighbor, he had a party and someone parked in front of his house and the neighbor got a little upset. And that's how all this began. Cause this has been like this since 2019. And all of a sudden it's become problem just because someone parked in front of his house on the street, not on the person's and that's, they have filed the complaint, which is made. Okay. There's a problem seven years later. All right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? I see no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? I see no one responding. Um, Ms. Marshall, do you, do you have a feel for how big is, his extension is into the right of way beyond his property line? Based on the survey, um, it's 5.3 feet. Right. Or at least that, that was what was shown on the date of the survey. Okay. Um, so ma'am, just so you understand that his survey is showing he's got a five foot extension outside of his property, um, that needs to be removed. It's not one foot. It's at least five feet. No, I'm saying there's a house encroachment outside of his property line into the old right of way. It's a five foot extension. This piece of the home is encroaching into the county, um, right of way. Right. So that has to be removed. Even if you are permitted the zero foot setback, you have to remove that piece of the home because that's in county property. Move this line to out, everything out. So everything past that line right there needs to be removed. So that addition to the house, I think we said that's five feet about five feet has to be removed. So there's a bunch of other level. Yeah. I can't see what that is. I mean, that's the extension of the house. So this part right here, this is all a part of the home. So this is the home and this, it moves back into county right away. Right there. Yes, ma'am. In white. Mm hmm. And then there's a line that shows that's where they were encroaching in county right away. That's where the fence was. The fence needs to be here all the way through. Okay. Okay. So, okay. So then he's asking for that so that he doesn't have to move this fence through here. He can keep it. No, the fence needs to be there and he needs to remove the house that's in the way of the fence. Okay. He has to do it. Yes. Even asking for a zero setback. That's right. Yes. It's not related to the zero setback request. Okay. He's put a house on property he does not own. Got it. Okay. Business card. So if you have any other questions. Okay. All right. Ms. Marshall, thank you very much. Sure. And ma'am, any final comments on rebuttal? Any final comments? Okay. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. All right. Well, that concludes this item. Ms. Marshall, we're ready for the next item. This item is item H5, variance 260467. The applicant is Todd Simi. The request is a variance to minimum lot size by availability utilities. Staff findings will be presented by Michelle Montabano. Good morning, Michelle Montabano Development Services. The applicant is requesting variances to the minimum lot size permitted for the use of septic on two parcels. LDC section 6010603 requires a minimum lot size of one half of an acre of upland is required for the use of a septic system. One parcel is 0.24 acres. The other is 0.29 acres. This has come up because the two parcels are not lots of record. They were divided through the property appraiser's office. And now they're coming through to divide them through development services. Thanks. So the request is for two slots, not just one, two. And then my understanding is that there's a house on one of the lots. Correct. And that house is already on septic as far as you know? Correct. Yes. Okay. So they need a variance for the existing house that's on a septic tank? Yes, because we believe it was split to the acreage that it is now after our vesting date in 1989. So to memorialize that split that happened, they have to go through development services and get a certified parcel. And that means that each parcel needs to meet our current development standards. Okay. And so the agenda talks about a variance to the middle and lot size by available utilities and a variance to lot development standards. I wasn't following. What does that mean? I think there was maybe a thought that there needed a variance for the stairs, but ultimately it was not needed. Okay. So it's just for middle and lot size for our septic tank? Correct. All right. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. All right. The applicant, please. Good morning. Todd Simi 191, Peel Box 191, Gibson, Florida 33534. Let me go to the Elmo real quick because this is just an interesting kind of case here. Yes. I guess the staff was saying here, this is our, this is our property here. Okay. The owner is here also, and we're in permitting. Okay. So he's been in permitting for this piece only to find out recently that this piece was cut in half. Okay. So, so as he went to the title company, this had a folio number from the property appraiser, Bobby Enriquez's office. So, you know, he believed he could build here and this woman bought the home. Okay. And she had no issues or whatsoever. And so when he was going for his permit, it came back that we needed a variance for lot development standards and the septic tank issue. This home does have a septic tank existing. So this woman, Ms. Fernandez is party to this hearing. So both of them, that's why you see the radius here. And I notified it, notified, you know, within the 300 feet requested. Right. So as you see here, you know, our application is 9107 Memorial and 5803 More Loop. Right. Okay. So that's why that's, that's there, there. We are in, as I said, we're in building permitting, and this is how this came up. Okay. This is our permit number and some comments here. And so we are all approved, except, you know, they requested us to put a driveway in instead of on Memorial to move it over here as their driveway is here. Right. So, so that is why we're here. Okay. Okay. Um, just, just, just one, go ahead. Uh, yeah. Okay. Um, when was that? If you know the existing house that's on septic, when was it built? Uh, I'll tell you this here is see here. I have a date. I have a survey of the home. Um, I'm looking for a date on there. Does it show? Does it not show? Okay. Okay. So this is the, this is the neighbor's home here. Okay. We're over here on the vacant lot. And, um, I'm looking for a signature, a signed date. I can't, I can't make it out, but this is the survey about a year and a half ago. Oh, I'm sorry. Here. Survey for 1425 bottom. Yeah. Okay. So this home was here. Okay. And so the vacant lot was sold to us and unbeknownst to Ms. Fernandez, who owns this piece, who signed on for our hearing today, she didn't know that she had an existing nonconforming lot. Okay. And so I had to go to her to have her sign the application to let her know she's in violation and to remedy it here today. All right. Um, and this is a picture of her house. Just so you, so you can see that's her existing home right there. Yeah. If you could just turn that. I can turn that a little bit better. There we go. All right. Okay. And so a bigger neighborhood question is, is there not public sewer available in this neighborhood? No, as I'm surprised, I'm surprised there's not. There's a, this is a septic tank. As far as you know, everybody on the street, all the houses around there on septic tanks. Yes, sir. To, to my knowledge, to my, she's on septic and she's been on septic and I, that's, that's surprising in Hillsborough County. I, you know, I think the commissioners need to put some, uh, some, some sanitary sewer there. This is, this is her deed. Just so you see, you know, and I went to her house and had her sign. You could turn that, please. This is, uh, yes. I'm sorry. That's Miss Fernandez. That's the owner of that piece. That was that home right there. Okay. Okay. And, um, you know, so that, that, that's your honor. That's why we're here today is because not only, you know, my client was just getting a permit and thinking everything was copacetic only to find out that he had an existing nonconforming lot and the previous, and the owner next door had one. And apparently that property was cut in half. And right. They didn't. So that's where we are. So another question. Is there on public? Are they on public water? Yeah. I believe they're on public water. Okay. I believe. So that's where we are there. And, um, I have the owner of this, of my piece, which is right there, you know, here today on right here. So I have him here just to, uh, you know, respectfully say thank you. All right. Does that conclude your presentation? Yes, sir. Any questions? No. All right. I'm good. Thank you. All right. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? In support? Yes. Go ahead. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. My name is Leonardo Aleman. My name is Leonardo Aleman. Good morning. And your address? Uh, 2511. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience? So we should speak in support of the application? All right, sir. If you could sign in. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience who should speak in opposition to the application? There's no one responding. Ms. Marshall, a question I've had in the past is, uh, about public sewer versus septic and the standards and the land development code about allowing for smaller lots to use septic. So the, as far as the use of septic versus the, um, um, connection to public wastewater, the code allows for the, from the parent parcel up to three lots can, you can split in the urban service area and not have to connect to sewer. However, then six, this 60106, this section, um, requires the half acre for use of septic. And so if they're not each meeting the half acre, then they would need the variance. All right. So they do not need to connect to public sewer because of that land development code standard, but the lot size is still an issue. Correct. Yeah. Um, just for the record that, that existing house was built in 1956. Um, when they were, um, working on the research, we, we did try to find a permit, but we didn't have anything in the record. And I believe that the split, um, by deed was done in the early 2000s, I believe. Okay. And the vesting date of 1989? July 26th, 1989. What happened on July 26th, 1989? That's the date that the county adopted the comprehensive plan. Okay. And to your knowledge, do you know if public sewer is available in this neighborhood? There appears to be some public sewer near there, but I, I can't speak to how easy it is to connect or not, or what type of line. Okay. All right. With that, the applicant is an opportunity for rebuttal. Your Honor, I just want to say thank you. Appreciate you, um, working with us through the variance process to remedy both Ms. Fernandez's situation and my client's situation. All right. Very good. Thank you, sir. Thank you so much. That, that concludes this application. Ms. Marshall, we're ready for the next item. Next item is item H6, variance 260479. The applicant is Amesh Kumar Patel. The request is a variance to lot development standards. Staff findings will be presented by Logan McCaig. Morning. Logan McCaig, development services, application 260479. The applicant is requesting a variance for mechanical equipment setbacks to allow a generator within the rear yard of the property. Uh, per LEC section 601 of three I three, mechanical equipment such as air conditioning units, pumps, heating, equipments, so forth, including generators, may not project into required front yards, may project up to five, but may project up to five feet into required rear yards. The applicant is requesting a four foot variance, resulting in a one foot rear yard setback for the generator. No additional findings available for any questions. Uh, no questions. Thank you. The applicant, please. Morning. Morning. Hi. My name is Amesh Kumar Patel. I'm the owner at, uh, 12430 Horseshoe Bend Drive, Lithium, Florida, 33547. Okay. Um, this generator was installed through a big company, Generex. Um, we researched and looked for the largest one, um, who was, you know, well into the business. Uh, the salesman came out, he looked at everything, uh, saw everything, submitted, submitted the property surveys, um, and they said everything was good to go. We submitted the HO applications, um, they got the permitting done, uh, generator got installed, uh, through Cantor Power, who is a manufacturer of Generex. Um, so then, uh, installation, uh, it was placed, the electrical inspection was done, then gas inspection was done. Um, somewhere in between, we heard, uh, the inspector who came out through the county, that this may possibly be, um, within that one foot setback issue. Um, and this was in between the electrical and gas, uh, inspection. So I contacted Generex. I was asking like, hey, I heard something about this possible issue. Is this an issue? Do we need to pause? Um, Generex said, no, that's not the issue. There, there was some, um, back and forth between them and the inspector. And Generex told me it was an electric issue, which, uh, the inspect, the installer came out and fixed the electrical issue. They proceeded with the gas inspection. Um, and then at the end, uh, to finalize the turn on, it was determined that I had to file a variance for it. Mm-hmm. I asked Generex to, um, represent, uh, but they said I had to represent myself. Um, and then I, you know, I was wondering why I didn't know from their end. Didn't know from their end from the start because I wanted to follow everything to the T. Mm-hmm. Um, and, uh, you know, I put deposits in, uh, and, uh, they helped me with the application, uh, submission. And then I had to make some corrections on it. And Charles Phillips, who works for the county, was very helpful in, uh, making me make those corrections. But, uh, what we said in the application was I wanted to move the generator after, after I found out the issue. Mm-hmm. Um, there was no space on the right side of the house because it would come too close to any other property. And on the left side of the house, there's an easement. Um, and we were told we cannot install the generator on that side. So I wanted to try to move it somewhere, um, where we could make this work. Um, and, and they said there's no other spot and the lines are in them all. So. And what, what is behind you? What's the use behind you? There's a retention pond. It's, it's a huge retention pond. Okay. That was the other issue was would it be, uh, any sort of, uh, threat to that side? But there's no threat to anyone else on the sides or, or to us. Okay. All right. Anything else? No. Okay. Thanks. All right. Sir, if you could sign in this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? Yes, ma'am. Please come forward. Good morning. Hi, how are you? Um, I'm Jill Catchtory. I leave at 12426 Horseshoe Bend Drive. I live directly to the left of Mr. Patel and I approve the location. There is no place for him to put it other than that. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak in support? I see no one responding. Anyone in the audience wishes to speak in opposition to the application? I see no one responding. Staff, anything further? Nothing further. Thank you. Okay. An applicant opportunity for rebuttal? Sure. Good. All right. Very good. Thank you, sir. With that, that concludes this application. Ms. Marshall, ready for the next item. Next item is item H7, variance 260493. The applicant is Sharkees Clayton. The request is a variance to accessory dwelling requirements. Staff findings will be presented by Jared Fallin, virtually. Yes, this is Jared Fallin with Hillsborough County Development Services. This is a request for a variance to the minimum lot size requirements for accessory dwellings for a property in the RSC 6 zoning district. According to the land development code, a minimum lot area of 7,000 square feet shall be required to allow an accessory dwelling. The subject property is 6,000 square feet currently, which is a variance of 1,000 square feet. And I'm happy to answer your questions. All right. So, I think you've said it. And I apologize if I'm making you reiterate. But the request is that the applicant wants to put an accessory dwelling unit on his property. But he can't because he doesn't have a 7,000 square foot lot. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. Land development code section 611.02.A requires at least 7,000 square feet. Okay. So, this issue before me is not about the accessory dwelling unit, its size, its shape, its location. It's just about the lot size. It really is about the accessory dwelling standard. That section is about the accessory dwelling standards. So, to establish an accessory dwelling, you have to have at least 7,000 square feet. Right. But it has nothing else to do with the size of the accessory dwelling, its setbacks, its height. No, no, yeah. It's just about the lot. Yes, that's correct. All right. Very good. I got it. Thank you. Yep. All right. Any applicant, please? My name is Charquez Clayton, property owner of 4604 North 72nd Street, Tampa, Florida. Okay. Okay. Anything to add? I think it's a little misconfusion here. I'm not trying to put anything on the property. I bought the property in 22, and I did have knowledge of the previous property owner started a application process with you guys of trying to get a permit for something he already established and built when I bought the property. I did have a call in on me from a former tenant that I was working with the program, and that's why I'm here today, just to see how I will move forward. As of now, I fitted the tenant out. I haven't cut all power and water. I'm using this just for storage now, and I just wanted to see what I can move forward now. I'm not clear what you just said. So code enforcement came by because I was working, originally I was working with a program. I was evicted. You were working with what program? It's called Empath. Okay. I was evicted the tenant. The tenant called it. I'm sorry, you're going to have to slow down for me. Okay. What program are you talking about? It's an affordable housing program, for example, yes. Okay. All right. So I was evicted the tenant. The tenant was getting angry, called code enforcement on the property. Okay. And what does that have to do with filing a variance? So I'm not, I didn't file a variance. I'm here today because of code enforcement said I have excessive dwellings. I'm not, I'm not filing a variance for it. Yeah. That's what I thought you said. So I'm not clear. Ms. Marshall, if you didn't file an application, how did he get to this point? The, the code enforcement told me that I would have to talk to you, that you guys, and they told me I would have to have a hearing for the developed property when I bought it already. All right. I'm not sure if you file it, maybe it's the, the, the terms that you're using. I mean, code enforcement has said for you to file it. So it's, so you did file. So, yes. So code enforcement came one day and just said, Hey, you have excessive dwellings. You need to go to a hearing. I called you guys. Um, I talked to them and they said, yes, you will need to, you know, pay a certain amount here to hearing. I'm here today. I'm not. Excuse me, Mr. Hearing officer. Yes. I think that maybe the confusion is because the applicant is stating that he bought the property like this. So he's not trying to put anything on the property that it was like this when he bought it. So perhaps that's the confusion. Yeah. But let me just ask, did, so maybe the prior property owner filed the variance? Uh, he did have a open permit, but he didn't finish it. So the code enforcement is basically saying I have a illegal non permitted dwelling on my property. I'm just trying to tell him I bought the property like this. I didn't stat. I didn't construct anything after I bought the property. And as of right now, no one's in that property at all. It's just used for storage. Well, is your intent to, at some point in the future, because this runs with the property. It's not about what it's used for today. No. It's, are you still interested in, and eventually, at some point in the future, using that structure as an accessory dwelling unit? Uh, it seems like a hassle, um, uh, I spoke with, um, forgot what's the guy's name. Um, that was just speaking. Um, it's not, it's only 7.6 away from the property line. He said, I would have need 25. So I, I rather just use the storage unit and not put anybody in it. Mr. Marshall. I, if he's not wanting an accessory dwelling unit, which seems to be the sort of the foundation for why he filed, do we want to give him a little time to think about the application and, um, come back next month or two months from now? Since he's using it for storage anyways, I don't, I don't know if there's a rush. Um, so, someone was standing before, like I told you, I worked on the program. And then when the cold unfortunate came, he told him I would need to, you know, get him out of there, do the proper steps, go to the hearing. Um, so, I mean, instead of just doing all the hassle, I know the property line is not going to be big enough for it. I'd rather just use it as a storage, uh, storage unit than trying to, you know. Um, do you have any objections to continuing this while you can work with staff to figure out what the best path forward is for you? Uh, no, sir. Okay. And staff can talk to code enforcement if necessary. So there's open communication. So everybody understands that you did show up at this hearing. You are trying to remedy a code enforcement issue. Um, that may give you the time to work with staff to make sure we're moving forward in the direction you want to go in. Does that make sense? Yes, sir. Okay. Ms. Marshall, if he, if we continue this application, when is the next hearing he could go to? Just get the exact date. It'll be June, um, because the May hearing is May 11th. So we're past the mailing deadline. Let me just get the exact date. Okay. Just give us a second. It'll be June 8th. Okay. 2026. And, and why, if you could explain to him why we can't go in May, we have to go to June 8th. The, there's a, the note, the mail notice that has to be, will have to be resent. Um, there's a 30-day requirement, it has to be sent at least 30 days before. So for the May, the May hearing being May 11th, since we're at April 13th, we're past that deadline for the mail notice. So it wouldn't need to go to the June hearing so that it could be noticed appropriately. If, if I'm not trying to do a variance on trying to permit it, is that a point of me coming back to the June hearing? Yeah. If you decide that, you know what, I don't need to do this, you can just withdraw. Okay. All right. And who's responsible for the notice? The applicant. Okay. So if you, if you do decide you want to move forward, you're responsible for notifying the adjacent property owners. Okay. And then I just want to make sure like, uh, I'm closed out. Do I, do I reach out to you guys about? What do you mean by you're closed out? I'm not, I closed out, but if I'm, if I'm withdrawing from the variance, you're saying? If you're withdrawing, then you don't need to notify the adjacent property. Okay. Okay. All right. I think we got a plan. All right. So you're welcome. So variance 26-04, get the number right. 9-3 will be continued to the June 8th land use hearing officer hearing at 9am in these chambers. Okay. Very good. All right. For that, we'll move on to the next item. Actually, I'm sorry. The, the June hearing got moved to June 15th. Okay. June 15th. I apologize. It was originally scheduled for the 8am. All right. Let's strike June 8th from the record. June 15th. It's June 15th is the land use hearing officer hearing. And sir, I don't know if you heard the discussion, but June 15th is the Luo hearing. June 15th. Okay. All right. All right. Well that, that concludes this item for now. And we'll move on to the next item on this morning's agenda. Next item is item H8, variance 260539. The applicant is Jason Fawcett. The request is a variance to lot development standards. Staff findings will be provided by James Baker. Hello. My name is Jason Fawcett. I'm sorry. The staff presents first and then, yeah. Good morning. The applicant is requesting a variance of five foot to encroach into the required 25 foot front yard setback. This encroachment is to accommodate a standard depth 25 foot two car garage attached to the existing primary residence, which will be 20 feet from the front property line. The requested variance is from the LDC section 6.01.01 requirement of a minimum 25 foot front yard setback in the required RSC six district. The variance will be five feet and the result will be a 25 foot front yard setback. Okay. Thank you. All right. Now they apply it. Hi. Good morning. Morning. My name is Jason Fawcett with on-site construction. Enter full address, please. The address, 1014 Eccles Drive, Tampa, 33612. Thank you. So yeah, it's just that. The existing garage is not suitable for my customers' needs right now. It doesn't hold the cars as it should. He's requesting to do an addition forward towards the property. And the way the house sits on the lot and the way the road is turning, I can't get a proper garage to fit a vehicle in the addition without a variance. Okay. Proposing to build a 25 foot by 20 garage attached. The well is staying, is existing. I'm not touching that. Both neighbors are in agreeance with the project. And all the finishes are going to tie into the house to remain. All right. For the record, you're, the property owners hire you as a contractor to do the improvements? Yes. Got it. Okay. All right. Anything else? It's clear. I understand the request. All right. Very good. Good. Yep. You sign in. All right. At this point in time, is there anyone in the app, in the audience who wishes to speak in support of the application? Good morning. My name's Hunter Klassen. I'm the homeowner of 1014 Echols Drive. And obviously I support it. I don't know if this is worth your time, but I'm here. All right. I appreciate your time. Thanks for coming downtown. All right, sir. I also need you to sign in. All right. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? See no one responding. Anyone in the audience wishes to speak in opposition to the application? See no one responding. Staff, anything further? Nothing further. Okay. Any applicant opportunity for rebuttal? Any further comments? All right. No need for rebuttal. With that, it concludes this application. It's Marshall, we're ready for the next item. Next item is item H9, variance 260567. The applicant is Affordable Building Products of Florida. The request is a variance to accessory structure requirements. And I'll present the staff findings. The applicant's requesting a variance of 1.5 feet to the required 25-foot rear yard setback in the RFC6 district to accommodate an existing accessory structure with a 23.5 foot rear yard setback. Building permit HC-BLD-25-0068475-REV1 was issued for the accessory structure with a rear yard setback of 25 feet shown. An error in the required yard measurement was discovered following the construction of the accessory structure. Happy to answer any questions. No question. Thanks. The applicant, please. This is variance 26-0567. Is the applicant online? Mr. Chair, we do not have anyone checked in online for that item. Okay. Well, we have a special use. And then we have another item that we did put in abeyance. Why don't we hold this one to be the second in line in abeyance. And maybe somebody can reach out to an applicant and see if they can join us. Yes. All right. We'll hold this one in abeyance. At this point in time, we'll move to the special use on this morning's agenda. And we'll come back to this item later. Brings us to section I, special uses. Item I-1, special use 260420. The applicant is 11202 Dewhurst, LLC. The request is a special use for COP alcoholic beverage permit with separation waivers. Tim Lampkin will provide staff findings after presentation by the applicant. Okay. The applicant, please. Good morning. Cammie Corbett with the law firm of Hill Ward and Henderson, 101 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 3700, Tampa, Florida. I forgot where I live for a second. It's okay. This is an existing assisted living facility called the Bridges at Sweetwater Grand. You could have the presentation come up, please. Are you seeing it, Mr. Hearing Master? I have not yet seeing it. It's up on the screen. I just needed to. There we go. There it is. We're all good. Yep. You just needed to put it upstairs. That's all. This is the existing facility. It's located on Bloomingdale Avenue. It's right across from the Winthrop development. You can kind of see that there where the commercial development is at the, on the south side. It's currently has a future land use of res six and res 12. The zoning is PD. We recently did a major modification to the PD. You can see the allotted single family homes to the north part of where the red outline is for special use. That is part of a common PD. There are single family residences there. And then there's this assisted living facility with this community. And the part of the major modification was to transfer some of those single family units into the ALF to add some additional beds. And that was recently unanimously approved by the board. Okay. What we're in here for today is an AB for a special use permit for the bridges community facility, which is out is sort of shaded in yellow here. And this is the existing facility that have an existing dining room, indoor and outdoor areas. They currently serve meals there. The idea is to turn this into more of an amenity for the overall PD. There are no outside folks coming in to use this restaurant is solely for the assisted living and for the single family residential that are within the bridges community. And this is the wet zone boundary. And again, you have the wet zone survey and we are asking for a distance separation from residential uses. So because of those close proximity of the single family uses, we have residences as close as 11 feet, but those are direct. The alcohol beverage permit is for to serve those residents within the community. We don't have any distance separation for community uses or for other AB establishments. We have justified the waiver. Essentially it's within the existing community clubhouse. It's buffered from residential uses by the pond and existing vegetation. And it doesn't negatively affect the community's residential uses due to these separation. And again, it's foreign amenity for the uses of the residents within the community. Staff has reviewed this and is recommending approval and we'd respectfully request the same. And I'm here to answer any questions. Should you have any, I'm not sure this is related at all, but are the single family homes? Is that, are they part of the, is this like some sort of live in place and move into the, it is loosely structured. So there's different ownership. The single family was developed by another developer and those lots were sold to individual families. And then there's an owner of the assisted living facility, but it's an overall scheme of development. It's all within the PD and they're all tied together. Okay. And do those people live in those single family homes? They have access to the, to the restaurant? Yes. And I don't know if this is relevant either, but there's a AB type. Mm-hmm. I think it's called like a 11 C. So is that. So we want to do the four cup because it'll be a, essentially an SRX or restaurant license. It will be a state license for a restaurant. Okay. And so we wanted to be able to have a beer, wine, alcohol, liquor. Okay. And to ensure that the 11 C didn't release square peg, round hole, didn't fit? Correct. Right. Didn't fit. Okay. And you're representing the, the owners, but to, is there a membership meeting where they have to get together? Is this just a owner's decision? This, the owners of this facility own this, but they coordinate very closely with the, uh, rest of the development. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Um, development services staff. Hello, Tim Lampkin. Uh, as you heard, uh, SU AB 26 dash, uh, 420. It's a request for a distance separation, uh, for a, for COP alcoholic beverage, a permit. This location may be, uh, familiar as the applicant stated, it's associated with, uh, major modification 25 dash, uh, 1247, which was approved by the Hillsborough County, uh, Board of, uh, Commission on March the 10th, uh, 2026, uh, partly to allow additional uses within the clubhouse, including a member only restaurant with alcoholic beverage service. And as the applicant stated, the required separation from residentially zoned properties, 250 feet, the applicant is proposing a separation of 11 feet from residential for a waiver of 239 feet. And as shown on the wet zone survey, residential areas within the same plan development are located 11 feet west. I'm sorry, east of the proposed wet zone within the, uh, indoor outdoor community center. Additionally, these residential areas are also located within the same mixed use plan development, PD 04 dash 0459 with the community center being for the benefit of the members only residences. Uh, there have been no objections from review agencies. The applicants included additional justification within their narrative request for the reasons above, uh, the location of the alcoholic beverage permit within the member only community center negates the need for strict adherence to the specific distance requirement. Staff finds that the proposed wet zoning will not result in significant impacts on surrounding land uses and the application of the specified distance requirement is therefore unwarranted and, uh, uh, finds the request to be approvable. And that concludes my presentation unless you had any questions. No questions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? I see no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? I see no one responding, um, development services. Anything further? Nothing further. Thank you. There's an opportunity for rebuttal. No need for rebuttal. That, that concludes this application. Ms. Marshall, we're ready for the next item. This will take us back to, um, H1, variance 25-1340. The applicant, um, is now on virtually. This would be Laritza Lopez. Good morning. Good morning. Um, Lopez, I believe, Ms. Marshall, correct me if I'm wrong. We already introduced the item and the staff did the presentation? Yes. Okay. So, ma'am, it's now your opportunity to say any words in support of, uh, the application that was filed. Thank you. Um, my name is Laritza Lopez and I'm the property owner of 4525 Tarpon Drive, Tampa, Florida, 33617. Um, so this request is based on an existing accessory that exceeds the allowable enroachment of 20% because of the limitation in my yard and the, the way that it's shaped. It's kind of like a diamond shapes. Um, that would only give me about 240 square feet of allowable rear yard access coverage, um, for this, this building or, or this, um, this office that I'm trying to, to establish. So the square footage of my actual property is about 1,974 and this new office structure would be about 618 square feet, which would exceed that 240, 20% that I'm given. Um, this unit would not inflict any issues with any of the neighboring, um, properties. It would follow all of specific kind of like drainage, um, public welfare safety issues. So it wouldn't cause any issues to the outstanding properties. I don't know if you heard my question, ma'am. No, sir. I'm sorry. All right. Uh, there's a, the application talks about there's a variance for rear yard. Like coverage. And it's saying it's exceeding the land development code standard of 20%. That's your rear yard. Like covers 33%. How did you get to 33%? Um, I'm not entirely sure. So I went by my survey as far as like distancing everything specifically from, um, fencing, I guess, kind of like county lines and all that stuff. Um, so I, when we initially started this structure, I don't believe that the 20% rear yard was in place. I believe that kind of happened afterwards. Um, because I had submitted everything that it was originally approved. And then I was told that I needed to request a variance hearing for this being outside of that 20% rule. Okay. Um, all right. And then the same question I had for staff earlier, um, the accessory structure is labeled as an office. So, uh, the question I had is, is there electricity provided to the office? Yes. There won't be. And does it have air conditioning? Yes. And does it have, uh, water and sewer? Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Um, how did, because it's in your rear yard and it's hard to see, how did code enforcement get involved? This happened when we had that hurricane back in 2024. Um, so where my property line or where my property is, there are specific property lines that have to deal directly with TECO and electricity. Um, when the hurricane hit, one of those lines came down, um, and caused an issue. So when TECO had to come back out to rewire all of those lines, that's when the issue arose. Could you, um, provide a little bit more detail as to how they got involved? So hurricane came, I guess the power went out and then TECO came out and started repairing power lines. And what happened next? Yes. Right in my backyard. There's one of those like holes with large power boxes on top. Yes. Um, so that damage during the hurricane. Right. Um, then, um, County Hillsboro TECO got involved. They had to come repair. And then, um, uh, I guess that was reported directly to the county. And that's when code enforcement came out. Yeah. Why, why, why would they call code? Why would TECO call code enforcement? Uh, well, this property, this office wasn't originally in my initial survey. So this was a, um, an establishment that was established afterwards, after, after I purchased the property. So I'm not sure why code enforcement was called. Okay. Um, all right. Anything else, ma'am? No, not at all. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. Thanks. Um, at this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wish to speak in support of the application? I see no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? I see no one responding. It's Marshall. Yes. Do we have any idea why code enforcement got involved? I do not. No. I'm not sure. Okay. Um, I do have some clarification on the, the measurements for the 33%. Okay. Um, initially when the application came in, the request was for just over 20% and didn't specify the exact percentage. Um, and we asked the applicant to clarify that. And in doing that, we also ran calculations approximate, but, um, because the, so the rear yard being 25 feet deep. Um, and then when you look at the way that the, um, lot is configured, essentially it's like a rectangle and a triangle next to it. And we calculated that area, um, which was 1376 square feet. And then, um, the area of the accessory structure that's within the rear yard, because, because it sits back between seven and a half and nine and a half feet. Um, a portion of it isn't within the required rear yard. So that doesn't count towards the 20, that 20% calculation. So, um, the portion that's within the rear yard is, uh, approximately 453.75 square feet. Okay. So then we took that divided by the 1376 square feet of the rear yard. That's the rear yard, which came to approximately 32.9%. And that was how we came, we verified the 33%. What I'm struggling with is I don't understand how TECO would call the county code enforcement. They're not doing that math right there. I have to double check. I don't believe. Well, I'm not sure if it was permitted previously or if it may have been because it wasn't permitted and then received. Then realized that that it's the only requirement that it didn't meet was the 20%. It meets the setback requirements. Right. I mean, the staff report says it's an unpermitted construction, right? So building department would get involved with issuing a building permit of some kind for the accessory dwelling. Correct. Accessory structure. Correct. Well, yes. Glad you clarified that because that's another. Yes. So initially that's how this all started. So I did request a permit to finalize the structure and get everything permitted. And while that was being partially accepted and running through, I was then told that I needed to have a variance request because the only, I guess the only thing that wasn't breaking through was that 20% or that 30% I'm trying to understand the math as it was being explained. But that's the only requirement that I'm not meeting. But that's the only requirement that I'm not meeting. So I think the variance hearing is the last part that I need to establish building permit. So upon getting a result of this hearing, then that would then potentially cause approval or denial of the building permit that I'm trying to establish. So it kind of goes one into the other. Okay. When did you initially build the structure? It was August of 2024. Okay. And what's the office used for? So I am a public notary. I work with health insurance, car insurance and immigration forms. I currently do have an office that I'm working out of, but I'm trying to establish this closer to home just to cut back a little bit. I would have another employee with me. So that's why we're establishing kind of that electric water and all that stuff. That way I can keep privacy from my home and then just work directly out of the office. Okay. So it's try to work from home essentially. Yes. Work from home, but also have privacy to not have someone else with me in my home. So just home, but separate. Okay. All right. Kind of jumped out of order, but I think, Colleen, unless you have anything further. Nothing further. Okay. And ma'am, last comment, any final comments? So as far as what happens next, I'm assuming I would be reached out to with a decision from variance. And then from there, I would proceed directly with my initial application with code enforcement and direct those results to them. Or is that something that happens automatically? Yeah. My decision comes out in about three, four weeks. Okay. And development services staff will forward that decision to you. Okay. So you can call them if you're in anticipation of the decision and they'll get it to you as quickly as they can. Otherwise it gets mailed to you, email or hard mail. Okay. Thank you. I understand. All right. Very good. Thank you, ma'am. Thanks for joining us. Okay. So that concludes this application. Ms. Marshall will go to the last item. So this will bring us back to item H9, variance 260567. The applicant was Affordable Building Products of Florida. And I've been notified that they are on virtually now. Okay. All right. Maria, can you hear us? I can. Okay. Good morning. Good morning. And ma'am, that's your opportunity to say a few words in support of your variance that you filed. Okay. So this is an issue. We did an accessory structure. It was a 20 by 30 garage. We had a back setback of 25. Excuse me. And I think it was. I need your full name and address, please. Oh, I'm sorry. Maria, marriage. 215 Hernando Street. Thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you. You may continue. Okay. We built the structure and with the permitting department, we had to, or the building department, we had to submit a survey upon completion. And in doing so, it came back with 23.93 feet and 24.03 feet from the property line. So, and we have a 25 foot setback. So we were asking for a variance to just accommodate that a little over a foot. Okay. It's pretty straightforward, ma'am. I understand. Yes, it is. Anything else? I mean, no, it's just that little pesky foot. Okay. All right. Very good. Thank you. Let's see if anybody wants to speak in support or opposition. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? I 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. And ma'am, any final comments? Just thank you for your time. All right. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. All right. Well, that concludes this application. And it concludes this morning's land use hearing officer hearing. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. We are adjourned.