Welcome to the works. In today's episode, we're taken to the skies with Hillsborough County Mosquito Control to find out how they combat the spread of disease and the rising mosquito population. So when it comes to mosquitoes, how exactly are we combating them in the sky? Nobody complains about larvae. They complain about mosquitoes, and specifically adult mosquitoes, female mosquitoes, the ones that bite you, right? But it's a lot easier to control adult mosquitoes by controlling them than larvae. What we do is we use a larvicide product that attacks the larval in the swamps of the mangrove areas along the coast here. We stop their growth so they never grow up and become adult mosquitoes. At Upper Tampa Bay Conservation Park, it is a 600-acre conservation park, kind of in the northwest corner of Hillsborough County. We are releasing some bobcats today. Owls and Us Rescue has worked with us several times, releasing animals, not just at Upper Tampa Bay Conservation Park, but at many of our parks and nature preserves. And they pick them because they have suitable habitat, they have large spaces. This park in particular is about 600 acres, and only a small portion of that is actually used for human recreation. The rest is just kind of wide. For bobcats, you're looking at a year that you have to get 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 going to be in a really good place, so they're going to figure it out. Where loyal companions await, one place stands as their beacon of hope. The Pet Resource Center of Hillsborough County, where you can adopt your very own superhero. Adopt a 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 11, 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 Ms. Colleen Marshall. She is with the Development Services Department. She'll go over any off-the-agenda changes, as well as introduce staff members that will participate in today's hearing. Ms. 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, 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. I'll 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 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 start and present their staff findings 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, 15 minutes. We'll then circle back to the Development Services Department to see if they have any comments or 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 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 were in the room and you're done speaking at the podium, if you could see Jermaine, 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. 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 a decision of the land use hearing officer be appealed, the record evidence, including the testimony presented at this public hearing, shall be the only evidence that is subject to review by the land use appeals board. In reaching a final decision on petitions, the land use appeals board will only consider the decision of the land use hearing officer and the record evidence, including any evidence from this public hearing. If an appeal is filed, the land use appeals board hearing shall consist of oral argument by the party appealing the decision, county staff, and any interveners, each of whom may be represented by legal counsel. The following shall have standing to appeal a decision of the land use hearing officer or to intervene in an appeal. One, the applicant. Or two, anyone who appeared before the land use hearing officer, presented testimony or other evidence, and is adversely affected by 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, Ms. 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. Good 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 4.01-07.B.4 of the Land Development Code. The applicant's specific request as shown on the site plan submitted on 4-13-2026 is to allow for max encroachment of 30 feet for the pool, spa, concrete bench, pool equipment, steps, concrete, well-pump pads, stone fire pit favors, and existing elite roof and patio to be within the 30-foot wetland conservation area setback. Requested variance, LAC Section 4.01-07.B.4, LAC requirement, no filling, excavating, or placement of permanent structures or other impervious surfaces shall be allowed within a required 30-foot wetland conservation area setback. Variance, 30 feet. Result, 0-foot remaining setback. Findings, 1. Approval of variance petitioned by Hillsborough County does not constitute a guarantee that the Environmental Protection Commission to 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. 2. A wetland setback conservation plan has been provided on the site plan dated 4-13-2026, 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 Rhea C Drive, Lutes, Florida. Okay. You just want to tell us a little bit about your variance. 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, I've looked at your graphics in your wetland survey, it looks like almost the entire backyard is encumbered by this wetland setback, is that right? Yes, ma'am. Okay. And the covered patio, was that there, the concrete part of it, was there when you bought the house? Yes, ma'am, as well as 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 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. Okay. 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. Ms. Marshall, anything else? Nothing for them. 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 Variance 26-0590 and go to the next case. Next item is Item F2, Variance 26-0678. The applicant is Todd Pressman. The request is a variance to encroach into the wetland setback. Staff findings will be presented by Wayne Doyen. Good morning again. Good morning. Wayne Doyen, Development Services. This is Variance Application 26-0678. Request summary of the applicant is requested of variance from the 30-foot wetland conservation area setback requirement, Section 4.0107.B.4 of the Land Development Code. The applicant-specific request, as shown in the site plan, submitted on 224-2026, is to allow for max encroachment at 18.9 feet for existing pole barn with concrete floor, asphalt, and pavers to be within the 30-foot wetland conservation area setback. LLC section, Section 4.01.07.B.4, LLC requirement, no filling, extrobatial, or placement of permanent structures or other impervious surfaces shall be allowed within the required 30-foot wetland conservation area setback. Variance, 18.9 foot max encroachment, and the result is 11.1 foot setback remaining. Findings, approval of this variance petitioned 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. Good morning, hearing officer, staff. My name is Todd Pressman, 200, 2nd Avenue South, number 451 in St. Petersburg, and this is Mr. Scott Dispenza. He'll be speaking, making some comments as a certified building contractor. So this is variance 260678, located as shown here in the Thelon-Sassa area. This is an aerial, the site, as indicated from the staff, it's a variance from the 30-foot wetland conservation area, 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. I will make you aware that we would ask for a condition that if the variance is approved, they would remove the pavers that are shown in the setback, and we would ask for your consideration of that condition if you so see fit to approve the variance. So you'll 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. Mr. Dispenza will speak to that for a moment. And there 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 in regard to the request. So as noted here, asking for a condition to remove the pavers and the setback with the variance approval. And this is a closer look at the approximate limits of the low area of the poor compaction. 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 engineers, showed them the pictures of water retention, the soil type. He agrees with the contractor about moving the structure. Additionally, I'll put in the record an email from EPC. Of course, there are comments in the record, but reading from their EPC, Melissa Yanez, Environmental Scientist 2, Wetlands Division, though this comment, through this comment she'd EPC has shown we do not have an objection to the proposed variance request. We're okay with what's being proposed and moving forward. So I may put that on record and Mr. Dispenza will speak just for a moment. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. Scott Dispenza, Planet Builders. I was requested to come out to take a look at an area where a proposed barn was going to be built. The original contractor doing the work was going through is digging for a foundation and the earth was basically a soggy mess. And I know that's kind of just a haphazard word. But in using a post hole digger, six inch boring, and the area that's picked it in the red just show that that unstable area was not a good area. Also, too, as you see, it encroaches towards the home. So movement either up or back, the back to me was a better decision. I was not presented with the setback line. I was just asked to come out and examine the soil. Okay. All right. If you're done, you can sign in. Mr. President, I have several questions and you or Mr. Dispenza is welcome to address them. First, 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 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 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? 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. It's not cited. All right. Oh, correct. I do not see that in the survey. Okay. But obviously it's far outside the wetland and conservation areas. Understood. Understood. But the argument you're presenting is there are evidently soil issues that are such that it drove the location of the pole barn to the north. Correct. That's the argument. Yes. 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, the letter from Mr. Dispenza, 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 brought up the soil with the postal digger and put it on a flat surface and how the slump. All right. And are you the contractor that built the pole barn? No, ma'am. Okay. How did this come to light if you're looking at soils and getting a consultation with a soil engineer, but then don't pull a building permit? What's the timing of that? The timing of that is I was contacted by a realtor who knew the owners. The contractor that built the pole barn brought the soil conditions to the owner. Owner didn't know what to do, called the realtor. The realtor called me. I do a lot of consulting on, you know, problems, different things like that. It was just my professional opinion that, yeah, the contractor that's 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 interpretation that was presented to someone, and I don't know their qualifications as a soil engineer. They are, I forget the name of their company, but they are soil engineers. But we don't have any evidence to submit to the record to document that. That is correct, yes. I would suggest, with all due respect, that Mr. Dispenza, as a certified building contractor, in coordination with the soil expert, came to that determination, and his testimony today, we felt supports that, and we would actually consider that. I certainly understand what you're saying, but you understand that 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 determination. I understand the direction you're going. If you need more information, then we'll be happy to try and get that for you. I would just repeat again that Mr. Dispenza has an expertise in building and building on lands, and we felt that was well supported. But you agree that Mr. Dispenza does not have an expertise in soil conditions? Well, he doesn't, correct, but he placed on testimony his interaction and communication with the soil experts and their determination. If you need more information, and if you'd 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. Yeah. It was a number of years ago, evidently. What was a number of years ago? How long ago was it? Years or so, whenever. I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. What was a number of years ago, Mr. President? What we're having discussed in trying to resolve the, or trying to decide to move forward? I suppose forward ourselves if they do feel we're concerned about that. Okay. Our position is that Mr. Dispenza 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 the uniqueness and the hardship. All right. So you'd 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? The only thing I would say is, Mr. Dispenza may be able to add to it, is you brought up the question about the pool and the potential soil area, and it appears to me as a layman that that's quite a distance away. I don't know if you want to respond to it, if you would allow him to respond to it as well. Of course. Of course. Yes, the pool is in an area that was already built, and if that contract were at issues, would have probably reported it. The only area that I found, if you look on the survey, is only inclusive of the red area. So the limits of where I felt the soil was unstable is only within that red area because that area was the one that was pointed out as being a potential problem. Okay. Any other questions that we can answer for you? Not at this time. Thank you so much. Don't forget to sign in. 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. Ms. Marshall, anything else? Nothing further. All right. Mr. Pressman, I have one question on rebuttal that I neglected to ask. How did this come to light? I understand it's a code enforcement issue, but do you know what the source of the complaint was? I can't see. I do. Okay, perfect. I just, in rebuttal, I just add that we did notice 37 individuals along with whatever HOA and there was nothing on file when I checked last night and no one here today. So no one in opposition has concerns. Understood. Thank you. All right. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Then with that, we'll close variance 26-067. 8 and go to the next case. No signed variances, variance requests, which brings us to section H, variance requests. Item H1, variance 260596. The applicant is Louisa Alonzo. The request is a variance to lot development standards. I'll present the staff findings. The applicant's requesting a variance of 13 feet, 3 inches to the minimum required 20-foot rear yard setback to allow a 6-foot, 9-inch rear yard setback for an addition to the existing home. 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 Camarota. I'm here representing Luis Alonzo for the variance 260596 on 6917 North Cameron Avenue. All right. You just tell me a little bit about your request. Okay. So we provided a site plan on the application. Just putting a copy here, just for reference. We are requesting the setback to be reduced to 6 feet, 9 inches. I'm sorry. To 6 feet, 9 inches to the rear property. When the house was built, they pretty much maximized all the setbacks for the property itself. So leaving not much space in order to then for do additions or anything like that sort. We also have a picture of the, an eagle view picture from the property. So this is the main concern that we have or the main point that we have for this application. The owner is the current owner of the property. They bought the house in 2017 where that structure was already built. All they did was just improve it. They created two bed, two additional bedrooms and two additional bathrooms. They were decided for a violation, which they didn't do the actual addition. That was probably the previous owners. This picture is from 2006 and the addition was already built there. So they didn't, they did it by themselves. They just improved upon what was already built. They applied for a permit, trying to comply with the violation. The permit is already in process, but it got stopped because there's obviously a setbacks issue there. So that's why we are presenting this variance and we hope for it to be approved. Thank you. Let me ask you just a couple of questions to make sure I understand the chain of events. So you said the, your client, the property or the current property owner bought the property when? According to the property appraisal and the deed that we already have, put it on the application, they bought it in 2017. 2017. And when they bought it, that addition that they're being cited for was existing? So according to the property appraisal as well, that's just the picture there, these additions been there since 2006. 2006 is the date of your aerial, right? And that shows that improvement. Yes. It's probably sure how soon, and 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 inside? No, they just built in the, yeah, correct. All right. And then do you know how the code enforcement came to? So they were also remodeling their garage, so that's why they got cited. So I'm assuming when they got cited for the garage, the code enforcement officer took a look on the aeros as well, and he saw the addition there. Were they building a garage, or were they just remodeling it? No, inside the garage, they were remodeling the garage. Understood. Okay. So kind of a chain of events this happened. All right. And did you, did they talk to the neighbors about the request for the variance? So we sent letters to all the neighbors, I think the requirement is 300 square feet from the property. So we sent letters to everyone. Me, myself, we didn't receive any calls or any emails regarding this application. I don't know if you guys received anything. Not to my knowledge. We can ask staff, if anything. Ms. Marshall, we don't have any letters in opposition that I saw on the file. Is that correct? I can double check. Okay. 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 submitted for this, but it's a life estate deed. But that's dated 2025 and it looks like it's just establishing the, who the property would be conveyed to in the event of a death. And so, but your testimony is that your client bought the property in 2017? Yes. Okay. 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 up. Thanks. 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. Ms. Marshall, did we see anything? There's none. No opposition. Okay. Thank you. Did you have any additional comments? Nothing for them. 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 variance 26-0596 and go to the next case. Next item is item H2, variance 260598. The applicant is Jason McIrvin. The request is a variance to 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. Did I answer any questions? None of this time. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Go ahead and come forward. Good morning. Good morning. Give us your name and address, please. Jason McIrvin, 9710 Brantley Road. Thank you. Just tell us a little bit about your request. So my request is for an existing pole barn. I wasn't cited by code enforcement. This came to light when I had a survey done in a proposed property split, and my pole barn is 6.6 feet closer than it should be. So 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, is 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. And I'm learning as I go that that's just not the rural agricultural zoning. That's actually a property appraisal siting. So I'm going to seek that in this next year. Okay. Anything else you'd like to add? No, ma'am. All right. Perfect. Thank you for your testimony coming down. Don't forget to sign in. All right. 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 for me. All right. Sir, you can have the last word but you don't have to take it. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. We'll close variance 2.6-0598 and go to the next case. Next item is item H3, variance 26.600. The applicant is Suncoast Power Solutions. The request is a variance to lot development standards. Staff findings will be provided by Michelle Montevano. Good morning. Good morning. The applicant is requesting a variance to the minimum side yard setback permitted for mechanical equipment for a proposed generator. Para-LDC section 60103 I3, mechanical equipment, including generators, may project 3 feet or no more than 50% of the required side yards, whichever is more restrictive. The RIC6 zoning district requires a minimum side yard setback of 7 1⁄2 feet. Therefore, the minimum setback of 4 1⁄2 feet is required for mechanical equipment. The applicant is requesting a variance of 6 inches to result in a 4 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 Suncoast Power Solutions. Could you give us your address too? Oh, I'm sorry. That's okay. It's 324 Northwest 11th Terrace, Cape Coral, Florida. Great. Thank you so much. Go ahead. So we're requesting a variance of 6 inches into the side yard setback. We had applied for the permit for the generator, went to do the installation, and had an electrical site inspection done. When the inspector came out, he had informed us that we were encroaching that 6 inches into the setback. 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 5 feet for exhaust clearances, and that would put it farther into the rear setback than the 6 inches would have been on the side. Also, there is a fence on that side of the property. We've talked to the neighbors, and nobody seemed 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 doors down. 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. That was my only question. Perfect. Thank you so much. Thank you. 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 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 variance 26-0600 and go to the next case. Next item is item H4, variance 260611. The advocate is Jody M. Martin. The request is a variance to lot development standards and staff findings to be 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 RSC 4 zoning district, the required side yard is 7.5 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance of nine feet, resulting in a six-foot, nine-inch side yard setback. I'm available for any questions at this time. None at this time. Thank you so much. Is the applicant here? Good morning. It's nine inches, the variance, not nine feet. Oh, sorry. That's a big difference. That is a big clarification. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Jody Martin, 4813 Linoke Circle, Dover, Florida. My daughter Jacqueline is over there. I'm requesting, like I said, six inches into the setback for a addition, which is actually an eight-feet addition to the house for a special needs bathroom for my daughter. This gentleman shows all the equipment and why we need that much space. Okay. We've been in the house since 2001. We've made modifications through the years. We're getting older. She's not going to 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 want to. Just use that arrow right there. Okay. In this photo, this is her shower gurney. 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 for the shower and everything. And then you'll see behind it, there's a changing table 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 roll 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. The bike again. And this is the side yard. And my husband has the 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 given to the gentleman here quite a few letters from neighbors who have no problem with it. They know Jackie. We've lived there for years. It's a good neighborhood. But he's like, just do what we need to do. I believe that should be it. That's the neighbor's yard that would be hooked to mine. She's got her, I don't know, 10, 12 feet too. Just different views of where it would be and everything. That's about it. If there's anything else I can. No, you've covered it. And thank you for your time and presentation. I really appreciate it with the pictures. Thank you so much. Don't forget to sign in. 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, sure. Good morning. Good morning. I'm Stephen Martin. I'm Jody Martin's husband. I'd just like to say that the 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. That's it. Well, thank you, sir, for your time. I really appreciate it. Don't forget to sign in. All right. Anyone else that would like to speak in support? Seeing no one, anyone in opposition? Ms. 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? I appreciate it. All right. Absolutely. Thank you for your time and your presentation. I really appreciate it. With that, we'll close variance 26-0611 and go to the next case. The next item is item H5, variance 26-0619. The applicant is Lena Morales-Gannon. The request is a variance to lot development standards and staff findings will be presented by Tanya Chappella. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. Tanya Chappella, Development Services. For the record, this is variance applications number 26-0619. The applicant is requesting a variance to the required rear yard setback for an existing single-family home on a true lot within PD 760267. The request is to allow a three-foot south rear yard 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 variance 17-1152 and variance 080586. which establishes the applicable rear yard setback requirement. Staff is available for any questions. Just a couple. 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 altogether. And if you know, what is the minimum lot size for that PD? I saw it was from 1971. So if we know Ms. Marshall or Ms. Chappella what that minimum lot size is, going to, is this a legal non-conforming lot or does it meet the standard? I do not have the way to look at this specific. All right. We'll ask Ms. Marshall. And that was my only question for staff. I can double check. I don't believe that there is a minimum lot size established in that PD. It's just based based on the comp plan designation, the density. Oh, from the res nine? Right. I see. And for the overall development when they were platted. Okay. Yeah. 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, 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, if they had open space areas that 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 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? Good morning. Good morning. My name is Roxana Bello. I'm assisting 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 Lina with this variance. Her English is a little limited. So I will assist her. That's fine. With this. The appropriate address is 8325 Elwood Lane, Tampa, Florida. And she's requesting these variance as she needs a little more space for her family. She has two children. They are growing very fast. And she has her mother. They need to live with her to help her with the care of one of the kids. She works a lot, long hours. And that's why she needs her mother to help her with this. And basically, she needs a little more space. So we are requesting this variance to an addition of two new bedrooms and one bathroom. so, you know, everybody can live a little more comfortable. The application, 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. So the staff is asserting that there is a rear yard setback of 25 feet, but I was trying to establish the lot. And your application said that there were other variances that the neighbors... Can you go on in for that? I have some records that I brought... That would be great. ...that they were allowed and they were not objection. Okay. So... Bring that microphone with you. It just moves over as you want to talk. You just... Oh, okay. Perfect. I don't want to break it. No, no, no. You're good. So this is one of them. It was accepted with no objection. And as you can see there, there is 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 in the same area, in the same subdivision. Okay. And you have other approvals as well? Yes, yes. I got this one too. I have the variance, 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. And are you able to submit these documents into the record, leave them with us? No, no, because I did this research after. But the documents that you're showing here, can you submit them into the record? Perfect. 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? We have his employer here that can testify how hard she worked for building this for her family. Okay. But... To speak in support? You mean? All right. Hold on just one second until we get to that section. Thank you. Do you want to say... She's a little nervous. But no, that would be it. It would be very helpful if you can consider this variance for her. Understood. Thank you for coming down. Don't forget to sign in and submit all those documents to Germaine. 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. Yeah, I'm just... I came here to support Lena. She works me as a caregiver for my mother. So she spends about 50 to 60 hours per week. So, you know, it's just a matter of her kind of moving her mother in and having her mother take care of kids and kind of looking for space to create for them to live in the house. So just from me going in the neighborhood, I could see similar structures as they noted here in the evidence. So her assuming that she could go and build that structure for her house wasn't her intention to cut any corners. So I just want to come in and vouch for her today. Very honest, hardworking woman. Thank you. Could you give us your name and address? My name is Marcus West. Sorry about that. Marcus West. I live at 2952 West Beach Street, Tampa, Florida. ZIP 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? One, Ms. Marshall. Anything? I don't think. All right. Ma'am, you have the last word, but you don't have to take it. 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. This item is item H6, variance 260649, the applicant is Sheen Robinson. The request is a variance to landscaping and buffering requirements. Staff findings will be presented by Michelle Montalbano. Good morning. Michelle Montalbano Development Services. The applicant is requesting a variance to buffering and screening standards to waive a required vehicle use area buffer. Per Odyssey section 606-04E1, a landscaped buffer a minimum of six feet in width shall be required between the offsheet for clear use area and any property boundary not fronted by a road wide way unless strict requirements apply or if the adjacent property already provides the necessary buffering screening. The applicant is requesting a variance of six feet to result on a zero-foot landscape buffer along the north property line as shown in the site plan. Avail if you have any questions. Just one. Ms. Montalbano, if you could 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. There's like a sidewalk there right now in the site plan. So that's the area. Perfect. That was my only question. Thank you so much. All right. Is the applicant here? Good morning. Good morning. I have the 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 development, 4700 140th Avenue, Clearwater. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. The conflict strip of property or this area between the parking stalls and the property line is the area in question. And the reason for the variance is we have conflicting comments from staff. 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 horizontally or why the sidewalk maybe went out. But it did. It really doesn't matter to the applicant whether it's landscaping or sidewalk. But that is the reasoning for the variance. I just had that question about exactly where it is, but Ms. Montalbano covered that. So thank you. Sir, did you want to add anything? Yes, I do. My name is Shane Robinson. I bought this property about three years ago. But probably like everybody else in this room, we have driven by this property for, I have since I was a kid. And if you haven't taken notice, there's a junkyard right beside this property, steps towing. I always thought what an eyesore when you're driving to Tampa, the first thing you see is a junkyard. 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 Department of Wrecks. 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 going to be the new I-4. So whatever we do here is going to be obsolete within one to two years. I will be the only property owner on that street. Hillsborough County is in the process right now of moving their rec department to another location. I'm not privy to any of that. I just know the manager of the building, they have already cleared out and began clearing out some of their heavy equipment and so forth. So this street is going to end right where my property is, about between 10 to 20 feet. I brought, by the way, 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 you. 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 going to 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. 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're driving to Tampa, instead of seeing gang graffiti, which, by the way, they use this property since 1974 as a chop shop for motorcycles. So with the sheriff's office and myself, we got together, I removed probably 26 motorcycles off of that property as well as a lot of debris. The 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 going to be literally right at our doorsteps. The first thing you see is something classy, cool, modern, versus a literal junkyard. So we hope you grant that. We'll do you proud. It's going to look awesome. People coming into Tampa will actually see something cool instead of an eyesore. Thank you. Could you give us your address for the record? I physically live here at 5279 Eureka Springs Road, but I will have to move when I-4 comes in. Understood. And they told me, I bought it, they told me it could happen 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. Thank you. Sir, did you have anything else you wanted to add before I move on? I'll just add on Mr. Robinson's behalf. You know, when he bought this property three years ago, seedy activities was occurring on this site. And he was working with the sheriff's office to get it cleaned up. And as fate would have it, a year later, hurricanes Helena and Milton came through and destroyed or nearly destroyed the building that the activity was occurring on. And he went through the process, got a demolition permit and removed that building from that site. And that activity has ceased since then. And this is the only, he's met all the conditions that staff is required, which was numerous. And then 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. Ms. Marshall, anything further? Nothing further. All right. Sir, you have the last word if you'd like it. Okay. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. I appreciate it. Then with that, we'll close variance 26-0649 and go to the next case. Next item is item H7, variance 260682. The applicant is Louisa Alonzo. The request is a variance to lot development standards. Staff findings will be presented by Logan McCaig. Good morning. Logan McCaig, variance 260684. Applicant is requesting a variance to lot development standards to permit an existing extension into the rear yard setback per LDC section 50307B2I. Any decrease in required yards, excuse me, any decrease in required yards that applies to 3D or less single family lots within a PD shall be reviewed per PDLD section 1104. Minimum of 25 foot rear yard setback is required within the PD. The applicant is requesting a variance of 15.4 feet resulting in a 9.6 rear yard setback. Additionally, during review, it was found that the property is cited for violation, for failure to provide a residential new construction and additions permit for the extension. No more for any questions. None at this time. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Is the applicant here? Good morning again. My name is Jorge Camerota. I'm here representing Luis Alonso for the variance BAR-26-0682 for the property located at 14005 Fullerton Drive. So we are requesting a 15.4 feet reduction of the setback from the 25 feet required. There's currently a violation of this property. They were cited for presidential alterations. They changed windows and trying to remold the house. There's also this addition being cited under violation as well. These additions have been there since 2004 or 2006 when the current property owners bought the property. There are similar structures in the neighborhood. So where we are requesting is because the property lines, the property itself is kind of like a diagonal angle on the rear. When we offset the 25 feet foot setback, it cuts right on this corner right here. So that's why we are requesting this setback reduction. So that way we can do all the permitting process and do the plans as an after-the-fact permit and also try to keep that portion because they have like a little social gathering area on the rear. So this is an elderly lady and she usually keeps her family on the weekends there. So they prepare like, you know, like family gatherings, meals and try to be together. So it's not a, it's just a portion of it and it's being requested this way because the shape of the lot doesn't allow us to keep that 25 feet setback. If we were a straight line, it wouldn't be a problem. But being that it's in a diagonal position, it requires for us to come here and apply for a variance. Thank you. Was the addition there when your client bought the property? So they bought a property. The addition was there. I believe looking at aerials that they probably add a little bit to it. But the structure, 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. 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 code enforcement complaint came to light? I do not know. Okay. I believe that's my only question. Thank you. I appreciate your time. Thanks. All right. Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak and support? Anyone in favor? See no one, anyone in opposition? Ms. Marshall, anything? Nothing further. All right. Sir, you have the last word? No, I'll take your time. Thank you. I appreciate it. We'll close Variance 26-0682 and go to the next case. Next item is Item H8, Variance 260684. The applicant is Miroslav Mituzina. The request is a variance to the Riverview Downtown Uptown Overlay District requirements. Staff findings will be provided by Caroline Petal. Morning. Good morning. Again, this is Variance 260684. The applicant's 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 facade, fronting U.S. Highway 31. The applicant's requesting a variance to allow the parking to be located in front of the building facing U.S. Highway 301. Per LDC Section 3.20.05B, building setbacks along U.S. Highway 301 frontage shall be a minimum of 10 feet or a maximum of 20 feet. The applicant's 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 3.20.05C, a building's primary orientation and frontage 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. That concludes my report. 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? Okay. 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 entire development site is zoned planned development and located in a development pod that allows commercial general uses. 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 compliance with the standards for which we're applying for relief. That would be the parking location, the main door entrance, and the building setback. Just as a note, we're not allowed to put the stormwater pond on the frontage of U.S. 301. If we could, maybe we could rearrange things and avoid the parking variance. So the 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. The drive-through 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. Like I said, development in accordance with the parking setback and main door location are just not feasible, considering the size and shape of the lot. And I think it's important to note that the overlay intends to improve the appearance of the Riverview Business Center and established a mixed use and pedestrian friendly type of downtown. But the existing conditions, it really kind of prevent that pedestrian friendly atmosphere that the overlay intends for. 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. Please sign in. Thank you so much. All right. Is there anyone that would like to speak in support? I see no one. Anyone in opposition to this request? No one. Ms. Marshall, anything else? Nothing, brother. All right. Ms. 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 26-0685. The applicant is Project Management Group, LLC. The request is a variance to lack development standards. Staff findings will be provided by Tanya Ciappello. Good morning. Tanya Ciappello. This variance is for the required side yard setbacks for the main house and for the rear and side setbacks for a covered patio. I don't want to repeat all my report, but I just wanted to go through the main items. So for the house, we have the side yards that are required at 7.5 feet and it's a little encroachment into those on both sides. In regard to the covered patio, it was supposed to meet the principal side setbacks and it's encroaching 2.1 feet. And then in the rear for the covered patio, it's not supposed to include more than 13 feet. The required rear yard for that PD or for that lot is 25 foot. And then the variance is to allow a 3.3 feet space between the rear proper line and the edge of the covered patio. And that concludes my report. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Is the applicant here? Good morning. Good morning. Rue Londuno, 1502 West Bush Boulevard, Suite D, Tampa, Florida, 3361-2. Okay, let me open the presentation. Okay, the property is located south of the Hallow Drill Drive in Tampa, Florida, north of Somendale, west of Oakmanor Drive, east of Northdale Boulevard. This is a PD plant development zoning. The requirements for the size are the, I'm sorry, the PD was in 1976. The building was there in 1979. Okay, the requirements for the PD for the setback are front 25, rear 25, and the size 7.5. For the covered patio, they have special land use requirements that can we intrude 13 feet into the rear setback. That means that we need to meet 12 feet for the covered patio. On this property, we found that the owner bought this property in 2014. when they bought the property, the pooling closure and the pool was there. They made the decision to rescreening the pooling closure in 2023. That was when they get court compliance in 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. We started all this process on 2023 by the end of the year. The first thing that we found was that the covered patio was enclosed to the rear setback that was utility easement. We was on the process for the utility easement back in 2023 by the end of the year. Finally, we found the approval for the vacation easement this year on January. For the variance request, I'm sorry, for the variance request, we found that the principal building was enclosed to the setbacks. The house was built 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 east and west setback. For the rear yard setback, the, I'm sorry, and the other second variance is for the covered patio. For the principal dwelling, we have two variances. One for the side setback and one for the east and the other one for the west. We request to reduce 0.2 feet that the requirement is 7.5 and the result will go to be 7.3. On the other side, the west side, we go to reduce 0.3. The requirement is 7.5. The result will go to be 7.2 for the covered patio. That's the second request. We have two requests, variant requests for the covered patio. Like I explained before, we can intrude into the rear setback 13. That means that we need to meet 12 feet. We want to reduce the rear side to reduce the side setback, reduce 2.1. The requirement is 7.5 and the result got to be 5.4 for the side. And for the rear, we need to meet 12. We go to reduce 8.7 and the result got to be 3.3. The covered patio is attached to the house. 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 a solid roof. That's the four variances that we have today. After we approve of these variants, the owner got to continue with the permit that they already have there. If you have any question. Just to confirm, Ms. Landon, the chain of events. So as I heard you, the house was built in 1979, correct? According with the property appraisal, I found that the house was built in 1979. That's three years 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 covered it, but did they create the patio? Yeah. After they bought the property in 2023, they bought it on the 14th. On the 2023, they made the decision to re-screening the existing screen pool but they cover the size, the little portion from the side from the pool. But was that, was the concrete patio there? There was the concrete patio there. And then they covered it. And they covered. Understood. Okay. Those are my questions. Thank you so much. Don't forget to sign in. Is there anyone in the audience, either online or in the room that would like to speak and support? Anyone in favor? Seeing no one, anyone in opposition to the request. Ms. Marshall, anything further? Nothing further. All right. Ms. Landano, 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 Gutierrez. The request is a variance to the Wimama Downtown Overlay District requirements. Staff findings will be presented by Carol Ann Petal. Good morning again. Good morning. Carol Ann Petal Development Services, again, variance 260695. The applicant requests multiple variances to the Wimama Downtown Sub-District 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. Then the applicant requests a variance of 495.4 feet, which would allow for the rear building to have a maximum front yard setback of 505.4 feet. Per LDC Section 3.2306B, mixed-use building lots require a building front yard percentage of a minimum of 70 feet or, excuse me, a minimum of 70% or a maximum of 100%. The applicant requests a variance of 36% to allow no new buildings to contribute to the building front yard percentage. Per LDC Section 3.2306B, mixed-use building lots require buildings to be a minimum of two stories or a maximum of four stories. The applicant requests 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. Petal. Of course. The second variance request, the mixed-use building, excuse me, lots require a building frontage percentage of a minimum of 70% or a maximum of 100%. And then it stated that the variance is 36%. Are there buildings there? Is that how we came to that number? Yes. There's one existing building in the front. So the shape of the lot is that it's skinnier compared to like the depth. So to add the two additional buildings, it has to be, they have to be behind the front building. So there's no 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%. Correct. Because there's just no room to put those buildings on the front. That's correct. So the existing building is to the southeast, I believe, and then there's the drive aisle. So there's no other room for them to build. Okay. That was my only question. Thank you so much. You're welcome. And I understand the applicant is virtual. Oh, you're here. Here you are in the real life. Okay. Please come forward. Good morning. Give us your name and address, please. Thank you. Good morning. I'm Liz Gutierrez. I am the CEO and founder of Enterprising Latinas and we manage and own the property at 5128 State Road 674 and our intention is to expand the existing site that we have to provide greater services to the community as an organization that provides entrepreneurship, business development services, as well as overall services to the community. This property's expansion will enhance our ability to make an impact in the community. And I'll let our representatives speak. Thank you so much. Don't forget to sign in. Good morning. Good morning. I'm Donald Odom with Modo, 11620 Kilkenny, Coral Drive, and Riverview. And as previously stated, the configuration of the lot and the existence of the current building really drove our constraints to abide by the downtown overlay requirements. So as she said, there's an existing building that was legally developed before the overlay went into effect. And two, 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. That's going to be renovated into a new use to support the programming at Enterprising Latinas. So that's what's driving the need for the variance as far as the maximum 10-foot front setback and the frontage requirements as well. With the development of the second building, the middle building, that's actually going to comply with the parking requirements being behind the building. 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 being 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 an early learning center 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 early learning center, that's what's requiring the variance request for the one story. That's going to support the functionality of the early learning center. With regard to safety and just the overall functionality for the daycare. So that's the reason for our request today. I didn't have any further questions. Thank you so much. Please sign in. Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak and support? Anyone in favor? See, no one, anyone in opposition to this request? No one. Ms. Marshall, anything further? Nothing further. All right. Mr. Odom, anything else before we close? All right. Thank you. Do you have someone online? 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 accompanied Enterprise and Latinas in this process as a design consultant. And I want to point out, too, that in addition to what Donald expressed in the business for the hardship and everything, that with this particular development, the idea is also to fully respect the Waimama revitalization, the downtown revitalization action plan. In that document, Waimama 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, the organization, Enterprise and Latinas, is doing its best to provide those services as outlined in the action plan. And really, all of the variance requests allow for reasonable and context-sensitive redevelopment for a constrained, already-developed property. This preserves lawful improvements, avoids unnecessary disruption, and supports safe site circulation. It provides a community serving daycare use and 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 respectfully request your approval, but thank you for your time and attention. Thank you, sir, for participating. I appreciate it. All right, we already asked support and opposition, and Mr. Odom said you had nothing further? No. All right, thank you then. With that, then we'll close variance 26-0695 and adjourn the hearing. Thank you all for your time and testimony. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir.