For mosquitoes because they are a threat to public health. There are many mosquito-borne illnesses that they can pass on to humans and other animals. Therefore we want to mitigate their populations and we're only spraying whenever we have justification and that could come from our surveillance data or from our inspectors who go out and are looking at different larval production sites every single day. We don't have a spray schedule because everything we do is based on data that we collect. So it's based on the number of mosquitoes that we find in our traps every day. It's based on what the inspectors are finding out in the field. If they're finding a lot of breeding they'll obviously treat then. But we don't have a set schedule because everything is based on data that we find. We don't do any individual spray requests. You can always submit a request for a spray, a request for a property inspection, or report any standing water that you have around your house and we'll come send out an inspector. They'll come look at that area, see if it's breeding, and then based on the data that they find we'll see if that area is eligible for treatment. But we don't do treatment based on special events. We're spraying right at sunset because dawn and dusk are the most active times for mosquitoes. So in order for our treatments to be the most effective we obviously want to treat when the mosquitoes are most active and we're going to be able to mitigate the population best at those times. 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 call right now. So we'll go out, we'll assess the situation. I'm looking at these dogs look like garbage. I mean, that's just like, did you see those bags of food 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. Good morning. Could you please stand, excuse me, 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 so much. Please have a seat. Good morning, everyone. I want to welcome you to the October 5th, 2026 Land Use Hearing Officer hearing. My name is Susan Finch and I will 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 will introduce other staff members that will participate in today's hearing as well as go over any off the agenda changes that we have. Ms. Marshall. Good morning. Colleen Marshall, Development Services. To my left is Jared Delfino of the Hillsborough County County Attorney's Office. Carmen Mason, 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 when we introduce for each item. We do have one change to the published agenda. Agenda item page 8, item H6, variance 26-1391. The applicants submit Patel DHRUV development and staff is requesting a continuance to the November 9th, 2026 Lujo hearing. Okay. Let me make sure. Is there anyone in the audience, in person or online, that was here to speak to agenda item H6? It's on page 8, and it's variance 26-1391. Anyone that was here to address that item? Yes, this is Celeste Murphy-Gerling. I am an attorney for Dhruv development. I was unaware of the agreement to a continuance, so I signed up for to speak, but we will not be speaking today due to the continuance. Okay. Thank you so much. Just for the record, that's being continued to the November 9th, 2026 land use hearing officer hearing at 9 a.m. Ma'am, could you identify yourself for the record in your address? Yes, my name is Celeste Murphy-Gerling. My address is 2600 East Robinson Street, Orlando, Florida 32803. Thank you. Not a problem. Can I just go, before you leave us, Ms. Gehring, I had you down as signed up for the item before of 1389. Was that my mistake? You're here for 1391? Yes, I believe that's correct. Okay. Perfect. All right. Then we'll take you off then. All right. Then with that, Ms. Marshall, that was the only off the agenda change. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Perfect. Then let me go back to our hearing procedures. Our hearing today consists of agenda items that require a public hearing by a land use hearing officer. I'll conduct a hearing on each agenda item and will 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 shall 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 for today's hearing is as follows. Development services will present their staff report and findings first. They go first. Next up we go to the applicant. The applicant has 15 minutes to make their presentation for their case. Then we'll 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. All combined 15 minutes. We'll then circle back to the development services department who will have five minutes to make any comments based on today's testimony. And then finally the applicant has the last word with five minutes for rebuttal. I don't think we'll have this issue but just in case when we get to that section of the hearing where we call for proponents or opponents and the 15 minutes I'll ask you to raise your hand if you would like to speak. We have people that want to speak that are present today in the room and we also have people that are going to participate in the hearing virtually. So we'll get a count of those hands and then we will divide that 15 minutes as equally as we can. If you'd like to use a spokesperson sometimes that's a more efficient use of time but you can handle it however you wish. We're just trying to make sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to speak but also keep that limit of 15 minutes for either those in favor or those against. When you are at the podium or online and you go to speak if you could start by giving us your name and address for the record. We are recording this hearing and we want to make sure we have your information correct. When you're done at the podium if you're in the room if you could see Michael and Lily they're over there at the clerk's office if you guys could raise your hand. They are keeping, thank you, they are keeping a written log on top of the dais. So when you're done at the podium if you could just head over there and sign in with your name, address and the case number to which you spoke. All right with that being said let me turn to Mr. Delfino of the county attorney's office who will provide you the legal requirements for appealing a decision made by the land use hearing officer. Mr. Delfino. Good morning. Jared Delfino assistant county attorney. This land use hearing officer public hearing is for variance and special use requests. This is the time for interested parties to present evidence and testimony. Once the land use hearing officer has closed a case, the record of that case is also closed. 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 intervenors, 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 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. With that, if my voice holds up, Miss Marshall, if you could please call the first case. To Jay's agenda, we have no vested rights, fee waivers, remands, reconsider or reconsideration requests, which brings us to section F site development variance requests. Item F1, variance 26, 1383. The applicant is Jason Kendall. The request is a variance to encroach into the wetland setback and variance to lot development standards. Staff findings will be presented by Wayne Doyen and Sierra James. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning, ma'am. Wayne Doyen Development Services. This is variance application 26, 1383. The request summary. The applicant is requesting a variance from the 30 foot wetland conservation area setback requirement section 4.0107.B.4 of the land development code. The applicant's specific request as shown on this site plan submitted on 08-11-2026 is to allow for max encroachment of 27.9 feet for a new construction house, pool, pool, pool decking, retaining wall and concrete driveway to be within the 30 foot wetland conservation area setback. The applicant will also be seeking a front yard setback variance for the proposed home. Requested variances section 4.0107.B.4, no filling, excavating or placement of permanent structures or other impervious surfaces shall be allowed within the required 30 foot wetland conservation area setback. Variance requested 27.9 feet result 2.1 foot remaining setback. Findings for this portion. Approval of this variance petitioned by Hisborough County does not constitute a guarantee that the environmental protection commission of the of Hillsborough County. Approvals permits necessary for development as proposed will be issued does not itself serve to justify any impact to wetlands and does not grant any implied or vested right to environmental approvals. Approvals. Number 2. A wetland setback conservation plan has been provided on the site plan dated 08-11-2026 which provides compensation planning for the encroachment into the wetland conservation area setback. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Sierra James of Development Services. The applicant is also seeking a variance to the required front yard setback in the RSC 2 zoning district. The required front yard setback is 25 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance of 2.5 feet resulting in a 22.5 foot front 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, sir. Good morning. Jason Kendall, 871 Bayou View Drive, Brandon, Florida. My client purchased this lot, you know, not quite understanding the extent of the setback. The plat, which I have a copy of and can share if needed, doesn't show the wetland at all. You know, there is a lake behind this property and it's just kind of assumed that they could build up to the lake line. It's very limited. I have a copy here if I can put this on the screen to show the actual buildable. If you could, while you do that, just bring the microphone with you. It moves. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. So in this exhibit, the green hatched area is the actual buildable land that's not within either the wetland setback or the front and side setbacks. So it's a very narrow buildable area in the front. There's only 13.6 feet of depth in the middle there where you can actually build a house. So it's very limited. They are working with an architect. They've kind of designed the house around the wetland setback line to limit the impacts. They're showing a retaining wall behind the house to, again, limit that. And they've also shown the wetland setback compensation plantings to try to preserve the quality of the wetland. There's several houses down the street that have had the same problem. There's a house three doors down that had a variance approved for the same situation in 2024. They've recently built a house and it's the same square footage essentially as we're proposing here. So we're just trying to work with the area and protect the wetland as best we can but still build a house and a lot. You answered my question. That was my question. There were other lots that were similarly situated. Okay. That's the only question I had. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Don't forget to sign in. And you're welcome to submit whatever documents you like to the clerk's office as part of the record. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support? Anyone in favor? I see no one. Anyone in opposition to this request? No one. Ms. Marshall. Anything else? Nothing further. All right. Sir, you have the last word if you'd like it but you don't have to take it. Okay. Thank you. With that, we'll close variance 26-1383 and go to the next case. This brings us to section G, sign variance request. Item G1, variance 26-1381. The applicant is anchor sign incorporated. The request is a variance to sign requirements. Staff findings will be presented by Michelle Montevallo. Good morning. Good morning, Michelle Montevallo Development Services. The applicant is requesting setback variances to permit improvements to an existing monument sign. Para LDC section 70300C1C, monument signs shall be setback a minimum of 15 feet from the right-of-way line. It shall be permitted an increase in height of one foot for each foot of additional setback provided from the right-of-way line. The proposed sign of 10 feet in height requires a minimum 21-foot front setback. The applicant is requesting a variance of two-and-a-half feet, resulting in an 18-and-a-half-foot front yard setback to East Bears Avenue. And the other variance is 270300C1B, which states all ground signs shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from any side-yard property line. The applicant is requesting a variance of four feet, resulting in a six-foot side setback to the west property boundary. Move available if you have any questions. Just one. Ms. Montevallo, is this request to replace an existing sign? I think they're just improving the existing one and adding new panels and elimination to the existing foundation. So it's not a replacement, it's just an enhancement of that existing sign? I believe so. That's perfect. That was my only question. Thank you so much. Is the applicant here? Yes, ma'am. All right. Kenneth Crabb. Give us your name and address, please. Kenneth Crabb, 2200 Disher Street, Charleston, South Carolina. Thank you so much. Go ahead with your presentation. Okay. So one quick correction. They are wanting to remove the existing cabinet. The foundation and everything else will stay the same and put a new modernized cabinet in place of that existing structure. It will be the exact same dimensions, everything is just a modernized version of it. Okay. So the foundation stays in place, but the guts of the sign are replaced, but it doesn't relocate the sign. Correct. With an LED sign. Yes, ma'am. Understood. And again, we're going to be replacing it in the exact same location, exact same foundation, everything. Like the dimensions, nothing changes. The hardship just for us is based on the lot layout and the same where, you know, with the existing sign location, the physical layout of the lot and the existing infrastructure leaves us with no alternative location on the property to relocate the sign. And to maintain compliance with the sign set back. And so allowing a variance will not interfere with, you know, the rights of neighboring property owners because the sign is located. Because we're using an existing location rather than a new location or anything obstructed. I don't, you know, we were hoping that you guys would be in acceptance or allowance of the variance because we're not, again, we're not moving anything. It's just, it's a new sign, new cabinet going on the existing, you know, structure. All right. I think I understand the request. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Is there anyone in the room or online 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. All right, sir. Mr. Crabb, you have the last word if you'd like it. Good. We'll go back to the applicant. The applicant have anything to add before I close. I don't think there's anything else. I mean, other than I think, you know, if we, if the variance is granted, I think we'd be within full harmony and general intent of the, of the land use development code. But, you know, I'll, I'll leave that up to you guys. All right. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. With that, we'll close variance two, six dash one, three, eight, one, and go to the next case. Next item is item G2, variance 26, 14, 12. The applicant is PV Ruskin 19 LLC. The request is a variance to sign requirements. Staff findings will be presented by Sam Ball. Good morning. Good morning. Sam Ball of Hillsborough County Development Services. The applicant is requesting two variances, which would allow for four signs to be placed on a development up front of US Highway 41 and 19th Avenue Northeast. The first variance would be to allow for a second sign to be placed along US 41. Section 7030C2A2 of the LDC restricts that frontage to one sign because they have, they don't have the 600 feet they need for the second sign. The second variance is to increase the amount of sign area that would be allowed on all four signs. The LDC 70300C2B restricts the sign area to 50 square per face, 50 square feet per face. The applicant is requesting 50 additional square feet for each sign, which would result in foreground signs having 100 square feet of sign area per face. Just to, I'd like to add that the site is a unified development for the purposes of signs and that 19th Avenue Northeast and US 41 are both arterials, which would allow for a 30 foot tall sign. That concludes my report if you have any questions. None at this time, but thank you so much. I appreciate it. All right. We'll call for the applicant. It's the applicant here. Good morning, sir. Good morning. My name is Alvin Ramos. Address 4590 118th Avenue North Clearwater, Florida 33772. I'm here on behalf of Thomas Sine and Awning in regards to representing PV Ruskin 19 LLC. The requested variance will allow for creation of a unified sign plan for the proposed multi-lot commercial development located at the northeast corner of North Highway, US Highway 41 and 19th Avenue Northeast intersection in Ruskin. The proposed unified sign plan consists of three 30 foot tall multi-tenant pylon signs and one 30 foot tall prototype 711 fuel pricing pylon sign, each with a maximum coverage signage copy area of 100 square feet per side designed to accommodate the overall roughly fixed 6.5 acre plan development. The combined maximum ground signage copy area is 800 square feet distributed evenly evenly amongst the four coordinated ground signs to implement implement the proposed unified sign plan. A variance is requested to increase the maximum allowable ground sign copy area from 50 square feet per side to 100 square feet per side for each of the four proposed ground signs. As you can see here, we have the prototype of the remaining multi-tenant signs and also the prototype of the 711 fuel pricing sign. This development is anticipated to accommodate multiple commercial users, each of which would otherwise be entitled to install its own freestanding ground sign in accordance with the land development code. Rather than permitting individual signs on each lot, the requested variance consolidates the development's signage into four coordinated ground signs. This approach reduces the overall number of freestanding signs, minimizes visual clutter and establishes a cohesive and unified sign program for the development. As you can see from the site plan here, we have five proposed lots for this development. While the approved plan development PD25-0700 permits a variety of commercial uses, a 711 convenience store with fuel sales is currently under review for permitting as the first tenant within the development. Accordingly, the proposed unified sign plan includes one prototype, again 711 fuel pricing sign, together with three coordinated multi-tenant pylon signs to accommodate both the anticipated convenience store with fuel sales use and future commercial tenants. As you can see, we have a few drawings of the 711 prototype, which would include the car wash there to the side. The development is served by three primary access points, including one access from North US Highway 41 and two accesses from 19th Avenue Northeast. Given the property's property frontage along two highly traveled roadways, the proposed sign locations are intended to provide clear business identification and effective wayfinding for motorists approaching from multiple directions while maintaining a coordinated sign program that minimizes unnecessary sign proliferation. The requested sign size allows each multi-tenant sign to effectively identify multiple businesses while avoiding the need for additional freestanding signs throughout the development. Our alleged hardships, the subject property is unique and that it is planned as a multi-lot commercial development located on an irregular, located on a regular shaped wrap parcel that has frontage along US Highway 41 and 19th Avenue Northeast. Unlike a typical commercial parcel with frontages and access from a single roadway, this development is served by three separate access points, including one access again from US Highway 41 and 19th Avenue Northeast. Both roadways carry high traffic volumes with posted speeds of 45 miles an hour, including 55 miles an hour along portions of US Highway 41 adjacent to the site. These unique site characteristics require motorists to identify businesses and make safe navigation decisions from multiple directions while traveling at a higher roadway speed. The requested unified sign plan provides a coordinated and strategically located signage that improves visibility and allows motorists to safely identify business and site entrances without increasing the overall number of freestanding signs that could otherwise be permitted. Rather than allowing each individual lot to install separate signage, the proposed plan consolidates tenant signs into a cohesive program that reduces visual clutter while providing enhanced safety for overall development to the public. The requirements of the land development code would require each individual lot within the development to comply independently with the applicable sign height, copy area and location requirements. While those standards are appropriate for typical standalone commercial parcels, they do not adequately adequately address the unique characteristics of this multi lot commercial development. The results would be the installation of additional freestanding signs throughout the project, which would increase the visual clutter and decrease the effectiveness of wayfinding for motorists approaching the site from multiple directions on the surrounding roadways. The variance requested will not substantially interfere with or endure the rights of surrounding property owners. Rather than increasing the number of freestanding signs, a proposed unified sign plan consolidates the number of freestanding signs into four coordinated ground signs, reducing overall sign clutter while establishing a cohesive architectural appearance throughout the development. Subject property is located within an established commercial corridor where larger multi tenant developments utilize coordinated ground signage. The proposed signage is therefore compatible with the surrounding commercial character and scale of the development. Additionally, the development has been designed with multiple access points and future cross access connection to adjacent properties to promote interconnected circulation. The proposed sign locations will provide clear business identification and wayfinding for motorists approaching from multiple directions, allowing drivers to safely identify businesses and access points in advance. In closing, the requested variance is consistent with the purpose and the intent of Hillsborough County Land Development Code by promoting good planning design practices through the implementation of a coordinated unifying sign plan for an integrated commercial development, rather than allowing each individual lot to install separate freestanding signs, a proposed sign plan consolidates business identification into four coordinated ground signs. The need for requested variance does not result from any illegal act or self-imposed hardship on the part of the applicant, rather the request is driven by the unique characteristics of the proposed development, including its integrated multi lot design, frontage along two highly traveled roadways and multiple site access points. The variance is therefore requested to implement a coordinated design solution that better serves the property and the traveling public, rather than to remedy a condition created by the applicant. Granting this variance would result in a substantial justice by balancing the public objective of the land development code with the unique characteristics of the proposed development. The unified sign plan provides a coordinated and aesthetically cohesive sign program that reduces the overall number of freestanding signs while improving business identification and wayfinding throughout the development. This approach promotes good planning and design practices, strengthens the visual character of the commercial corridor, and supports the orderly development of the property. With that, I end my presentation. All right. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. I don't have any questions at this time. All right. Don't forget to sign in. Yes ma'am. All right. Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support? Seeing no one, anyone in opposition to this request? No. Miss Marshall, anything else? Nothing further. Sir, you have the last word if you'd like it, but you don't have to take it. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. With that, we'll close Variance 26-1412 and go to the next case. Springs is a Section 8 variance request. Item H1, Variance 26-1227. The applicant is Jersey Montevicci. The request is a variance to fence requirements. And staff findings will be presented by Logan McCaig. Good morning. Good morning. Logan McCaig, Development Services, Variance 26-1227. The applicant is requesting a variance to fence requirements for Section 60702. The maximum average height of any fence or wall shall be six feet, except under certain circumstances which now apply to this case. Applicants requesting a two-foot variance from this requirement, resulting in an eight-foot-high fence. It was found the property was under code enforcement violation for an existing fence over six feet in height, and we're available for any questions. None at this time. Thank you so much. Is the applicant here? Good morning. Jersey Montevicci, 12726 North Old Avenue, Tampa, Florida, 33612. Thank you. I'm here requesting a dimensional variance to keep my eight-foot privacy fence along the property line to resolve a serious physical site hardship created by an architectural evaluation of the house next door. And I apologize focusing on the people viewing my backyard and entry door on the variance application, but I'm here now focusing on the reason why they have access viewing. Our structural hardship request is based strictly on the unique physical layout and the structural and changes on the lot immediately next to me at 12728 North Old Avenue. It's a wood frame house on cement blocks, and over the years, that home has been physically raised a few times, and most recently, I believe in 2019. The window site line sits unnaturally high. The standard six-foot fence leaves my active yard where my grandkids, niece, nephews, and my friend kiddos swim in the kiddie pools and play in direct line of sight. My eight-foot fence is not a cosmetic luxury. It's an absolute minimum dimensional adjustment I need to give my family, the basic expectation of privacy that other Hillsborough County homeowners have. My neighborhood flooding, I'm sure, is related and reasons for the height structural difference. The neighborhood suffers from chronic to severe flooding that forces us to rely on the submergible pumps to manage standard water, to manage the standing water on our properties. I have relied on my submergible pump. I place in my backyard, and the hose travels all the way down to the drainage pipes. Thank God for them from the county. The elevated house next door on the blocks have deep crawl space underneath, camouflaged by the wood siding around it. Also, underneath has an automatic professional submergible pump withdrawing their standard standing water and valuable foundation dirt. And it drains right in the front of their house, right into the county drainage pipes there. That house has been rented and sold quite a few times. Some of the buyers would have to adjust and secure the falling floors and structures, plus run multiple pumps to adapt to the hard managed drainage conditions on our street. And please, I hope that under Florida law, Hillsborough County variance codes, that I met every standard criteria so you're able to support me. I didn't create the problem. I did not raise a neighbor's home on those cement blocks, nor did I create chronic regional flooding issues in my neighborhood. The eight-foot-high fence has minimal adjustment, the smallest modification possible to block the direct angle from the elevated window line to my pool area in the backyard for my adults and children at play. My fence has no adverse impact. It's professionally built, well maintained, attractive, fully supported by surrounding neighbors, including written letters and supporting support already in your files, like Elaine Bradford. I respectfully ask the board to approve my variance request so that my family can continue to enjoy the peaceful privacy in my backyard, including my entry door. I have learned that variances are evaluated on case-by-case basis, unique lot characteristics, because most of the homes in my neighborhood are not elevated on cement blocks overlooking neighborhood yards. Approving my variance creates no automatic precedent for standard lots. Your approval is based on site specific physical facts, and I understand it, and it does not bind the board to grant similar requests where those unique physical conditions are absent. And I sincerely apologize as a homeowner just trying to do the right thing by putting up that fence. I was uninformed. I needed a variance when hiring that professional, costly fence company. Never mentioned a serious variance. I appreciate Officer Edwards of Code Enforcement directing me to apply for the variance after installation of the fence to cure the technical code violation he gave me. Hopefully I met the standard administrative remedy, and I appreciate Carmen Mason and Logan, the case manager, who advised me to stick with the facts of the criteria for the variance. And I'm leaving you with these. I have these photos of the before and after of the magnitude of the flooding and the submergible pumps that we use all year round, you know, but heavily in the winter because the ground is hard. So the magnitude of the flooding says submergible pump locations, and these photos may be helpful in your decision. Okay? Okay. I'd like to show you this. I have two lots. This is my backyard, and this is before and after. I have to keep my yard mode really close and put these submergible pumps, which I have to maintain myself, and it travels all the way down to the easement. And this is the house next door where you can see where the house is beveled on the bottom, where they have their submergible pump that the last guy that flipped the house has put underneath here, and all of his, all the water exits here into the county code pipes, and that's where you're losing your foundation and they keep raising it up and down. This is the windows to my backyard. I don't take great pictures. This is the six foot high fence. This is eight foot, and thank you for your time. Thank you. I just had a couple questions. In reading the backup, your application that you submitted, the bulk of the argument for the increase in the fence height pertains to an objectionable neighbor. Right. And again, I apologize for focusing on that. But, you know, the time that they moved in, I lost my daughter to wrongful death, and when I found out after the newscast people came there, action news came to my property, and made me a nervous wreck. And so filling out this application, I'm so new. I just wrote it down. I'm taking care of my elderly mom. I didn't write the focus like I was supposed to. Like, I didn't have, you know, I didn't have an attorney. I can, so. Just so you know, there's nothing wrong with what you submitted. There's all kinds of reasons for people to request variances. Well, I keep on listening to everybody, and they keep telling me to just, it has to be a fact about the property. But I'm a nervous wreck there right now, and I've been there since 1985, and people are coming and going. Even HUD took over that house at one point, and they moved out because of structural damages. I mean, they raised the house up, and they couldn't even open up their windows at one time. But I don't want to keep too long because I have somebody else that would like to talk in my favor. We'll, we can get to that person when I call for support, so don't worry about that. And you're still well under your time. I thought it was combined. No, no, no, you're all good. Let me ask you this, though. Sure. Your application that talks about this neighbor, you said that you were, you talked to the sheriff's office. Yes. Do you have documentation regarding that? I said, I have documentation. I just have the card that I submitted in there that shows that I was there and who I spoke to. They, you know, put him coming on my property. They said, I have, I even mounted cameras. I've been spending a lot of money securing my property with lighting and everything. But they said that they have to catch him on my property to give him a trespassing, and that was it about that. But you, you're the, and I'm reading right from your, just to make sure this is on the record. That's why I'm going to read this back to you. Right. This is from your application. It says, that's when I found out my next door neighbor is a sex offender who, after convicted, did not register and was hiding out in that corner house until they caught him. And they were reporting about him live on the news. And that's why the newspaper was there. Okay. This is what, when I came, when I was, when I came, I came home one day and all these action news people were all cornered. The, the, everybody was there. There was cops, action news, reporters, three cars in my front yard. I said, I, you got the pictures there, three blocking me to go home. But it didn't matter. I couldn't come down the street anyways, because they were all there. And when I waited till they were packing up and when I pulled in, one gentleman was putting the stuff in. I'm going, what is going on? What's going on here? And they said that this is what he told me. That's a hearsay thing, but it is not. He's, he's a registered sex offender. And that person still lives there. Yes, he does. He's married to the girl there. And, and because when I found out, and I was really, I was generous with them. I mean, I've known everybody there through that, that lived there. When I tried to talk to her and ask her, does he live here? Does he, you know, because I've been nervous. I mean, I just lost my daughter to a wrongful death. You know, I have, I have a, you know, family and kids and stuff. Anyways, long story short, she got offended by that. And she was physically one to fight me and telling me to shut up and told me I was nosy. I said, this is not a nosy situation. This is a serious situation. But all in all, I don't want to ramble. Well, I appreciate it. I just wanted to clarify because your testimony about the sight lines and so forth is certainly valid. Thank you. As is the information that you included in your application. Thank you. I appreciate you so much. I just want to make sure that the condition still exists. Thank you. That that person is still there. Yes. All right. Thank you. If that concludes your presentation, I'd like you to sign in with the clerk's office. And then you can submit your photos into the record. Thank you. I appreciate you very much. Absolutely. All right. Then with that, we'll call for proponents. Anyone who would like to speak in favor of an application, of this application, you can come forward. Yes, ma'am. While she's coming forward, is there anyone else who would like to speak in support? Okay. Good morning. Good morning. Beverly Keeney, 10902 North Edison Avenue, Tampa, Florida, 33612. Good morning, Ms. Finch and County Commissioner staff. This October, this week marks two years since Hurricane Milton came to our area. And it passed us on October 9th and the flooding that occurred in the aftermath. And we're real thankful for the county support during our need in Forest Hills. Ms. Montavecci lives here in Forest Hills with us and they did a study and everything. But you've found that different people have worked around the situation there and everybody is pretty resilient in the efforts. And I invest my time pretty heavily in Forest Hills, building a strong community. And this is one thing that has impacted a lot of people. You know, I can spend my time at the Senior Center and assisting schools and in churches with the projects. But as President of the Neighborhood Association today, I come here to support Ms. Montavecci in her variance request. We hold the land use codes in the highest regard. I've always come here before in opposition. So this is a first, but after visiting her property and hearing her case, I see that good fences will make good neighbors in this case. Directly, I was able to help her contact a lot of her neighbors. And that's why she does have many letters in support. I see no opposition among it. In fact, they think it looks very good in the increased height. The minimum, the six foot really doesn't block the window sight line at all because of the elevation there. And there are other reasons in the neighborhood to keep everybody using the codes and I uphold them. But this is a really good case to have support, Mrs. Montavecci. I'm going to just stop there because I have spoken to many people. And I think that we are in a good position to ask you for a variance, please. All right. Thank you so much. Don't forget to sign in. Yes, ma'am. All right. I'm going to call one more time. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in support of this application? All right. Seeing no one, is there anyone in opposition to this request? No one. Ms. Marshall, anything else? Nothing further. All right. Ms. Montavecci, is there anything you want to add before I close the case? If you're going to talk, you have to come to the microphone. No, no problem. And just give us your name real quick. Jersey Montavecci. You want my address again? Sure. 12726 North Ola Avenue, Tampa, Florida, 33612. Thank you. I was told that I couldn't use my original application for the variance, my reasons. They said it has to be, it wasn't a criteria that met the criteria. That's exactly what they said. And I was saying like, well, let me, that house is raised up and down. I said, well, let's talk about that then as I desperately need this variance and I appreciate it and I apologize again that I put it up before. I didn't know I needed one. Thank you again. Thank you. I appreciate it. All right. Then with that, let's, we'll close variance 26-1227 and go to the next case. Thanks. Next item is item H2, variance 26-1309. The applicant is Flobert Lupin. The request is a variance to accessory dwelling requirements and variance to lot development standards. Staff findings will be provided by Jared Fallon. Development services. Hold on one second, sir. The staff goes first. It's like he's not here. Okay. Looks like you're up. All right. Thank you. The applicant is requesting a variance to the accessory dwelling requirements for an existing accessory dwelling on property that's zoned AS1. The applicant is requesting a variance of 4.5 feet to the minimum side yard setback of 15 feet in the AS1 zoning district to result in a 10.5 foot side yard setback. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. All right. We'll call on the applicant now. Yes, sir. Give us your name and address to start, please. Thank you so much. Go ahead with your presentation. The intent of the construction was to be 30 by 30. For some reason, when the architect made the foundation plan, he made it 26.4 by 30. And then where everything else by 30 by 30. That's been, I realized that after they already did the foundation and everything. And then I decided to move it to the side where the 15 feet setbacks was to be. But I think because if you build it 26 by 30, nothing will be able to fit because everything is, the drawing was 30 by 30. That's why I request variance for the setback requirement. The required setback is 15 feet while the completed structure is located 10.7 feet from the property line. During the construction, the project underwent all the requirement inspections and receive approvals at each stage. The setback is issue was not identified until after the structure has been completed. The building was constructed and go to it under the understanding that it complied with the approval plans and the inspections process. The requested variance is the minimum necessary to allow the existing structure to remain. The encorachment of 4.5 does not create a safety hazard, interfere with access or adverse impact neighboring properties or the character of the surrounding area. Requiring removal or reconstruction of the completed structure will impose a significant hardship disproportionate to the impact of the setback encorachment. For this reason, I respectfully request approval of the variance to permit the existing 10.7 feet setback in place of the required 15 feet setback. Unlike a topical and undeveloped property where planes can be modified before construction, correcting the setback on this property will require substantial demolition demolition and reconstruction of an otherwise completed structure. This hardship is specific to the existing conditions on this property and it is not a condition commonly shared by other similarly situated properties. Granting the requested variance would allow to continue use of the completed structure without adversely affecting neighboring properties, public safety or the character of the surrounding area. All right. Thank you. I just had a quick question. Your application, when you go through the variance criteria, you mentioned that you have a valid building permit. Do you have a copy of that permit or the permit number by any chance? Yes, I do. All right. And you can submit that into the record? Yes. Can you put it on the overhead so I can see it here? Okay. That's the notice of commencement where you hired someone to build that accessory structure. Do you have an actual building permit? I see a number, the BLD number. Is that the permit associated with it? Yes. All right. Do you have the actual copy of the permit by any chance? I mean, I can look up that number and that's fine. But I just wondered if you had the actual permit. Unfortunately, I don't. If you don't, the permit number is sufficient in my mind too, that I can look at it now that you've put it on the record. All right. And you bought the property in 2015, I see, from your deed? Yes. Okay. And then you built the single family home that was there. I did see that permit from 2018, I believe? Yes. Okay. All right. And have you, the contractor that built it, I am assuming that the plans that were submitted as a part of this 2024 building permit show the structure at 10.5 feet from the side property line. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. All right. That's all I needed. Thank you so much. If you could please submit that notice of commencement document into the record when you sign in with the clerk's office, I'd appreciate it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support? Anyone in favor? All right. Seeing no one, anyone in opposition to this request? No. Ms. Marshall, anything else? Nothing further. Mr. Lubin, you have the last word if you'd like it, but you don't have to take it. Anything you'd like to say? If I can be granted a variance, I would appreciate it. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your time. All right. Then with that, we'll close variance 26-1309 and go to the next case. Next item is item H3, variance 26-13-60. The applicant is Janet Marks. The request is a variance to accessory structure requirements and I'll provide the staff findings. The applicant's requesting a variance to allow proposed detached garage to encroach into the required side yard setback. The applicant's requesting a variance of 10 feet, 11 inches to the required 15 foot side yard setback to allow for a four foot, one inch side yard setback for an accessory structure. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Is the applicant here? Good morning, sir. Good morning. Joe Cato on behalf of Janet Marks for 19223 Ridge Lake Road. We are asking for side yard building for a detached garage. According to the code, it has to be set behind the farthest point of the home in the backyard and it is not a feasible location. And if I can put this up. Yeah, of course. This here is the proposed area and then back here is where this is the farthest, the farthest point of the home. It had to be behind that and right here you have the pool enclosure, the pool, you have potable water well and then right back here you have all the drainage easement before the lake and I think it would be crazy to put a garage in the view of a lake after you buy lakefront home. We're just looking for this to be approved so we can move forward with her structure and she can get back to a normal storage and car parking life. All right. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. Don't forget to sign in. If you'd like to submit that graphic, you're welcome to. All right. Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support? Anyone in favor? Yes, sir. While he's coming up. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Ladies first. All right. Thank you, sir. Good morning. How are you? Good morning. My name is Mary Whitworth. I live next door to Ms. Marks. I'm at 19221 Ridge Lake Drive, Luce, Florida. I actually told her to put it there. I cannot see it from my house. Matter of fact, my house sits more closer to the street than her house. So the garage is very remote. I mean, you would have to stop to actually look at it. I thought the variance was was 10 feet from the setback was 10 feet from a side yard, but found out that it was 15. But I am not opposed. I think it's the perfect place. It looks right in line with the house. It looks like it was built there. It will look like it was built there permanently when the house was built. So I'm for it. And I'm her next door neighbor. And I believe that it would affect me more than anyone else in the neighborhood. So I approve it. All right. Thank you for coming down. If you could sign in. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Good morning. I'm David Naiman 19222 Ridge Lake Drive Lutes. I'm the neighbor directly across the street from Janet. We have no objections. The garage itself that is being requested is right at the end of her driveway entrance. So it's a natural fit for the house. It doesn't provide any sort of an objectionable view from our house. So we're in complete favor of it. Thank you, sir, for coming down. I appreciate it. If you could sign in. All right. Seeing no one else in support. Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition? Seeing no one. Ms. Marshall, anything else? Nothing further. Sir, you have the last word if you'd like it. Okay. Thank you. Then with that, we'll close variance 26-1360 and go to the next case. Next item is item H4, variance 26-1388. The applicant is Housh Gouve with Northside Engineering Incorporated. The request is a variance to sidewalk requirements. Staff findings will be presented by Jessica Kowal. All right. Good morning. Good morning. Jessica Kowal with Transportation Review Section of Development Services for Application 26-1388. Thank you, sir. The applicant is seeking to waive the sidewalk requirement along their prestige place frontage. Specific sections sought to be waived include multiple subsections of Land Development Code 60302, specifically subsections A, C, G, and H. Included in the staff report is the site plan submitted by the applicant, as well as the sidewalk implementation protocol, approved by the Director of Development Review, sitting in his capacity as the county engineer. This protocol provides details on how the administrator interprets relevant sidewalk provisions to determine when sidewalks are required. As we do for variances which affect transportation-related life and safety issues, staff has issued some findings with respect to the applicant's application and responses to the variance criteria. Staff found that the applicant failed to meet multiple criteria, as noted in the staff report. I also would like to provide a little graphic. This area in white is the actual PD boundary that this subject site is within. The red areas are areas where sidewalks have been established. There are there is an adjacent plan development that was recently modified last year. When developed or redeveloped, it will be required to complete this sidewalk. It's about 80 feet to the north of its boundary and any other parcels within this PD that develop as the vacant ones are or redevelop will be required to install sidewalks along their frontage as well. I'm going to submit this into the record. I'm going to submit this into the record, but I also wanted to point out there are several transit stops that serve as wonderful facilities that these sidewalks are able to connect to. Available for any questions. Just a couple. I see the PD number is 2001. Can you tell me if you know when that sidewalk requirement came into the land development code? Certainly before that, correct? I am not aware of the date of that, but I can try to research in our code while the applicant presents to see when that was implemented. All right. And if you could, you don't have to tell me the exact date, just whether it was in place when that was approved, that it's always been a requirement. And I do see from your staff report that the approved plans for this expansion do show a five foot sidewalk. Correct. Correct. Okay. I think that was it. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Is the applicant here? Morning, sir. My name is Houshkovahi. I am with Northside Engineering. Could you bring that microphone just a little bit towards you? Perfect. Thank you. Go ahead. I had too many things in my hands. That's okay. No problem. Houshkovahi, Northside Engineering, 300 South Belcher Road in Claywater. I have been sworn in. I appreciate your looking at this today. This is an existing development. It's been there for a long, long time ever since the project was developed. We're making an addition to this building. So we're adding 7,500 square feet to this particular site. It is really not our habit to request a waiver for sidewalks. We always want to meet accessibility. We always are in favor of placing sidewalks. And so I would say, you know, after 40 some odd years being in business, this is probably the first time we are asking for a sidewalk waiver just because in our minds, in our hearts, we believe that this sidewalk doesn't really go anywhere. It'd be just a waste of time and money. I know money is not a situation, but even looking at the grades, looking at the elevation, there's about two and a half feet drop from the parking lot to the sidewalk in about, I'm going to say, about 30 feet or so. So it kind of makes the sidewalk and ADA accessibility challenging. And, you know, where is it going to? I understand long-term plans down the road, sidewalks generally would expand as we develop projects, but this is a well-established subdivision. You know, there are no sidewalks. So, you know, again, as I stated, we're not in the habit of requesting waivers, but in this particular case, we believe that it's justified. I'll be able to answer any questions. Okay. I do have a couple. Yes. You saw the staff's graphic that they put up and indicated that there were sidewalks in red on her graphic. Not near this project at all. They're mostly on the, if you're able to put that up again. She could bring that graphic back up? It's mostly around the perimeter and some areas where it's already connected. Thank you for doing that. I appreciate it. Sir, if you could bring that microphone over and then you show me where your expansion is for the building. Her testimony was that those sidewalks are existing where there is a red line. All right. All right. I have John Spera. He is our contractor. May I ask him to join me? Sure. Can you point to your property where the building is being expanded? It's right here. Okay. Yes. Is that correct, John? This is the site right in here. Sir, if you could give us your name and address. John Spera with Ranmar Development, 12645 Racetrack Road, Tampa, Florida, 33626. Perfect. Thank you. So the question is, where is the building that's being expanded? The proposed, well, there's an existing building that we permitted back, let's see, where it says subject site. Okay. Sorry, I can't get my finger right. That's okay. Back in approximately 2014, we went in for a site plan approval for approximately 15,000 square feet. At that time, no sidewalk was requested at that time. This is a 7,500 square foot addition warehouse with no new employees. We're less than 50% of the value of the property as well, so it's not like we're making a substantial improvement. Also, I pulled a permit on this property right here, probably a couple years later. Again, no sidewalk was ever brought up, was not requested. If you can look within the park there, there are no sidewalks. There's one up in this area that she's got in red. Don't know where that came from, but the majority of the park, which is almost built out, does not have sidewalks. Okay. Of course, where Publix and all that is along Tampa Road, I can understand that. Did you prepare the plans associated with the permit for the expansion? The architectural plans? The plans that were submitted as a part of, it's HC, STR, CON, 26, a lot of zeros, and a 14. That was done by Northside. Okay. Sir, you prepared those plans? We did, yes. All right, and you agree that those plans show a five-foot sidewalk? We showed it just to make a presentation, yes, just to see what it looks like. And those plans were approved by Hillsborough County? The plans were approved by Hillsborough County, yes. Okay. So the approved plans show the five-foot sidewalk? Yes, it does. And so what has changed, what has changed between the time you prepared the plans, submitted it to the county, the county approved them, and now that a sidewalk is no longer required or needed? Yeah, go ahead. The owner is in desperate need to get into this because they desperately need the space. So I instructed Northside, I said, put the sidewalk on so we could get a site plan approval, so we could start the building, and then we would come in for a variance afterwards. It was pretty much because the owners have to get the construction going, and we didn't have another 30 days to wait to try to get this going. So construction is underway currently? Yes, ma'am. Okay. All right. All right. I believe that's the end of my questions for now. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. If you could both sign in and make sure that graphic gets put back into the record, that would be great. Thank you very much for your time. 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 to this request? All right. We'll go back to county staff. If you have that information, that would be helpful. I am not able to find when the sidewalk was actually added to the section of code that we were referencing. However, as the applicant noted, it was in effect at the time when their site review was done and is shown on the site plans as staff would have required for its approval. Do you have any information, by the way, let's get your name on the record. Jessica Kowal. Thank you. Sorry. Do you have any information about the existing building approval and were sidewalks required back then? And the gentleman said he built it, he permitted it, and it wasn't a standard at that time. Do you have any information? I'm not aware of any past permitting on the building prior to this request. All right. Thank you so much. Ms. Marshall, do you have anything to add? I can add just a little bit of clarification. The sidewalk, I don't have exactly when the sidewalk requirements came into the code, but that section of the code has only been modified twice. Once in 97 and once in 2004, I checked the 2004 modification, and that was solely to remove, there was an exemption regarding county drainage ditches, and that was the only thing that was removed at that time. So, as it currently is, would have been in place in 2001. In 2001. All right. Thank you. All right. I don't think I have any other questions for our staff, so we'll go back to the applicant. You have five minutes for rebuttal. This park is Monroe Business Park, and it probably started back in the early 2000s, because at one time we had it under contract to buy the land to develop it and do the warehousing side of it and sell the front side, but we backed off because of some pristine wetlands, and it was just too difficult to do. But with that being said, when Monroe did do this park, it did not follow the land development code back then from our understanding, and that is why it is a private road. The road is owned and operated by the association. So, my guess is when we came in on those other site plans and all the other people that came in didn't have to do the sidewalk, possibly maybe that's because it was a private road, and Hillsborough County never took over the road because they didn't meet the requirements that Hillsborough County had in place. So, that's why everything is private. So, that is my best guess of why it's there. Let me just hold that thought for one second. Ms. Marshall, a private road in an industrial park, would it still, or perhaps the staff person, would it be required to install a sidewalk? Thank you for letting me interject one second. Okay, you'll have the last word. Jessica Kowaligan. You can bring this down. There you go. Jessica Kowaligan, whether they're private roads or public roads, our technical manual would require sidewalks. All right, thank you so much. I appreciate it. Sir, you can come back up. We'll continue the rebuttal if you want to have any last words before I close the case. Anything you'd like to add? More to point out that, you know, sort of the precedence was set in the park when we did all the other, or when I did the other ones and all the other site plans were approved through Hillsborough County, why they were allowed not to have a sidewalk, or how we got a permit without a sidewalk on those two other permits that I've pulled. And again, it was done, the sidewalk was put in so we could start construction and figure we'd deal this during construction. I would hope you would entertain all that past history. Thank you for that testimony. Before you go, so if you permitted, it's your testimony you permitted the original building? Yes. Okay, and you said you permitted another one in the industrial park? Yes, ma'am. And so this permit that for the expansion of the 7,500 square feet includes, we've established, includes the five-foot sidewalk. So you were aware of the requirement. Did you also put the five-foot sidewalk on the prior building? I was not aware of the five-foot sidewalk and staff was pushing back very hard that they weren't going to approve the site plan. For the expansion? For the expansion. So I was completely unaware. This was a complete surprise to me because no one else in the park had sidewalks, and nor did we have it in the other two site plan approvals that I've been through. So it was allowed to be put on there just so we could start construction, and we were hoping to get the variance at this time. Understood. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Then with that, we'll close variance 26-1388, and go to the next case. Next item is item H5, variance 26-1389. The applicant is Louisa I. Alonzo. The request is a variance to lot development standards. Staff findings will be presented by James Baker. Good morning. James Baker Development Services. This application is to request a variance to the 20-foot front yard setback on a corner lot with two front yards. The requested variances are such that it's 5.03.07 B2I, and a PD is also involved, which is PD 82-0187. The first variances increase in the required yards when such decrease is to apply to three or less single-family lots within the project shall be reviewed in accordance with LD section 11.04.00 variances. And the second LDC requirement is for a 20-foot front yard setback as required per the PD, which is 82-0187, most recently modified by a minor chain 090861. Specifically, the variance that is requested is for 5 feet 3 inches, resulting in 14 feet 9 inches. And also, there is a code compliance violation that was issued to a failure to obtain a residential new construction and addition permit for construction of addition to the rear of the house. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. All right. Is the applicant here? Good morning. Hi. Good morning. Name is Jorge Camerota, C-A-M-E-R-O-T-A. Address is 1024 West Hills Road Avenue. Here, on behalf of Luis Alonso and Associates, representing the owners of the property located at 4302 Gulf Winds Drive, Lutz, Florida, 23558. The requested variance is from your setback. The property is located in a corner lot. And the PD calls for a 20-feet setback from the front this way and this way. So, we are requesting, the variance is requested for these two black portions. The owners, they added that part there, which it was previously wasn't a screen, like a screen rear porch, which usually porches are allowed to protrude to the setbacks in this case. And they followed that construction that they have already there, not taking into account those setbacks. The request is for those blacked out portions there. They have enclosed that area and they use that space for their kids, which one of them has ADHD, it's a special needs kit. So, they have all their equipment, all their training to educate them and to provide for them. It's a family space. It's for the kids. It's not being used as a commercial space or anything like that. And the condition on the lot, being that it's fairly regular, attends to the addition. So, there's also a fence that creates a sense of privacy. And there's an easement up there that has remained untouched, and there's also a couple of trees that have remained untouched, which gave them privacy. So, there's no effect to any of the neighboring properties or trees or the easement, for that matter. So, that's mainly what we're requesting the variance, and we hope that you guys take that into consideration. All right. Thank you. I don't have any questions at this time. Thank you so much. All right. We will ask for anyone who would like to speak in support in the room or online. Anyone would like to speak in favor? Seeing no one. Anyone in opposition to this request? All right. So, I see two hands. Is that it? Go ahead and both of you come forward. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. So, it's just the two of you that would like to speak. Is that correct? I just want to make sure we have a count. All right. Go ahead and come forward. Michael, we'll do seven and a half minutes. Good morning. Give us your name and address. Jennifer Rahn, 18139 Leafwood Circle. Thank you. I'm the homeowner who pretty much brought all this to light. I share the side yard with this property. So, my backyard has a vinyl fence to this property's side yard. Okay. There's another property next to my yard that seems to be affected as well. Some basic background of how this even came to light was I purchased the home in 2007. Since I purchased the home, there's always been a drainage issue, water drainage issue. Calusa Trace Boulevard runs parallel to Leafwood Circle, and it was built up higher. All the yards behind it, it grades down. So, we've always had a water drainage issue. Several years ago, it was getting worse. So, I installed French drains for my property as well as all the neighbors down the entire strip because I've spoken with all of them. There's kind of two separate issues. There's this ongoing issue of the water for many years, but mine has now been compounded by this home because a couple years ago, they started making some changes to their property. They removed all the trees, which there was less to absorb water because, again, their property is raised in comparison to mine. Then, a couple years ago, we noticed cement or concrete coming onto our property under the fence. So, that sparked a little concern of where is this concrete coming from? Come to find that they removed all of the grass in their entire side and backyard and have poured concrete. There was no drainage put in to help, so all of the permeable surface was now gone. They also installed multiple sheds. It does not look like a residential home anymore. There are several sheds on the property. One is very large, and sitting in my backyard, I just see a big shed, which you can also see it from the street, which I've been trying to communicate with the HOA, and they say it's in the attorney's hands, because that should not be visible from the street. They also put an addition onto the home with a solid flat roof and no gutters, so all of the water just dumps to my house. The addition that was placed in the home is a completely enclosed structure from what it looks like. It also doesn't blend with the home, so cosmetically, it's not appealing. It doesn't look like it was part of the original structure. It just looks like I now have a commercial business in my backyard. On top of it, because of how they've raised it up with this concrete, you now can see people's heads. So my six-foot fence is no longer privacy. They walk, and you can see into my backyard, so there's no privacy. So it's like the multiple things compounded it. But where it really became an effect was when on August 8, 2025, there were some heavy rains, sudden heavy rains. My house flash flooded into my home. Water was just pouring in. The French drains couldn't keep up. I thought it was a freak rain, so I let it be. Then again, so since then, since that August 2025 flooding, we checked the French drains. Everything was fine. We made sure they were always cleared. There was no issue. Then December, which is not even rainy season, a heavy rain came all of a sudden. Again, my house flash flooded. Water intruding midway into my living room. And then I said, something's got to give. Like, I can't keep doing this. It's damaging my property. Water is seeping up from the foundation. Like, it can't keep up anymore. There's no more I can do. Now, from when we initially installed our French drains several years back, I think it was around 2021, our yard was dry. Everything was dry. We didn't have any issues until all the modifications to the home. So that is a big concern of multiple levels that I've mentioned of why all of these modifications. I have concern that it is not just a residential property. It doesn't look like one anymore. So that's that part of it. I've been trying to communicate with the county on the stormwater issues because, again, there was issues even before. I was told it's all kind of lumped in, so I'm a bit confused. There's several different departments, apparently, between stormwater and developmental services and public works of who's looking at all these different things. When I initiated the call in December, I spoke with a Robert Trammell, who had told me that it looked like stormwater drains weren't cleaned out in years, and there was a broken culvert. I kept trying to get updated information on that, and every time I call, I can't get in touch with him or somebody else had said, oh, that's not a concern. We checked the drains. So nobody ever could go back to that initial comment from Robert Trammell, who had said that the stormwater drains hadn't been cleared and the broken culvert, which, again, those things would have just compounded the issue. So it's multiple issues that are going on. But this all initiated because it got to the point my house can't take it anymore and it's flash flooding. So when you reported the property to code enforcement, did you include that it's your opinion that they have paved their entire backyard? Did you report that as well? Yes, because we saw it because I did tell them, and there's pictures of it in the report, of all the concrete. There's aerial views of comparison to the home previous and now. I was able to see those online that it shows it. And I had reported that I'm concerned that there is an issue with a code because I know all the – I was actually first inquiring, is this allowed? And I knew there was a concrete thing, again, because what brought my attention was when they poured it, it came into my yard and we had a request for them to come and clean it out. So it went butted up to the fence even. There was nothing in between to – a lot between the two properties. Okay. All right. I think that was my only question. Thank you for coming down. And I appreciate it. Thank you. Don't forget to sign in. Yes, sir. Good morning. Hi. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Robert Weinstock, 18414 Oriel Street Lutes. I support pretty much everything this young lady just said. I want to make it clear that the homeowner is claiming hardship at this point due to the way the lot is structured, the way the house is on the lot. They want to plant, say, the side yard is the front yard or whatever. This hardship was completely created by them. Had they followed the process, followed the rules, the law, when we buy our homes, we sign off that we know there's an HOA that we have to have – there's guidelines for us to follow. And clearly those guidelines were not followed, and I believe our HOA has also asked for some pre-mediation on some of what we're dealing with with that property. The other thing I want to focus on is by granting this variance, you're kind of setting a precedent for any other property to build right up against that fence because, indeed, the trees have been cut. We have pictures of where the homeowner actually – somebody was cutting trees on the boulevard because that tree went over their fence and perhaps was impeding the future construction that went on. So from a line-of-sight standpoint, when you drive by on Inclusive Trace Boulevard, again, I support what this lady just said is it doesn't fit in with everything else that you see. And for that reason, we're opposed. I'm opposed to granting this variance, and hopefully you'll agree. Thank you so much. Appreciate you coming down. Don't forget to sign in. All right. Anyone else? Yes, sir? Can I just make a note? No, you have to come and speak on the record. Put your name and address on the record if you'd like to say something. Sure. Yep. My name is Robert Nagel, 4117 Apple Blossom Road. Just wanted to make a note that Bob here and myself are HOA board members for Colucitrace. And as Bob did reiterate that this homeowner did not follow the rules. They did not submit any HOA architectural request committee documentation at all. So not only did they not submit a construction permit, they did not go through the HOA. In addition, the areas that are highlighted on the document showing the enclosure that is in violation is a big concern of the board. Because, as Bob had mentioned, there are other homes that could also be asking for the same type of variance requests. And that's about 30 plus homes that do back up to Colucitrace Boulevard, which is a highly traffic main road through Colucitrace. And most of those homes do have pool enclosures made of aluminum. And if this request was approved, as the applicant actually said, they originally had a pool enclosure, they took it down, and they made a full enclosed new building. The other 30 homes would be able to do the same. And that's why the HOA board does not support this request. All right. Thank you for your comments. I appreciate it. Please sign in. Thank you. All right. Anyone else that would like to speak in opposition? Yes, sir. Did you have a change of heart? Okay. All right. No problem. So we're going to close opposition right now for the hearing, and we'll move to development services. Ms. Marshall, do you have any comments you'd like to make? No, I don't have any. All right. Let me ask you, the neighbor's assertion that the backyard has been paved, and the code's requirement regarding impervious surface ratio, is that a, how is that, if she were to report that to code enforcement, that requires an on-site inspection, I imagine, to verify? I believe so. I'd have to double-check the PD requirements. It's typically in, like, the RSC districts, there isn't a specific impervious surface ratio requirement. It's more, like, there may be an issue with the stormwater, but not a zoning requirement. A zoning issue. Okay. That was my question. Thank you so much. Ma'am. I'm sorry. There's no more comments from that portion of the hearing is closed. We go back to the applicant now who has five minutes for a rebuttal. You can give us your name real quick. Jorge Camarota, C-A-M-E-R-O-T-A. Just to clarify a couple points, for us being here, requesting this variance is only for zoning. That's just the first one, with regards to the lady, stormwater. The property, the owner, they took upon themselves two gutters. All the gutters are contained into a train system that abuts to the front of the street, so it ends up in the right-of-way. So all the stormwater goes to the front. So there is all the water that gets to the, on the roof and on the concrete, it's collected and directed to the front of the right-of-way. So from there, that's the right-of-way and the drainage of the county. The old gentleman was mentioned and the trees were cut. Trees were not cut. They only trimmed some portions of the root of the branches that were getting into the property. So it's understandable that that's allowed. And the other one is, the other gentleman mentioned that there was a pool enclosure. There was no pool in there. It was only a screen with no pool underneath. So just wanted to clarify that. And if there is any other requirement pertaining to the violation itself with regards to building and the structure itself, how it was built, that can be taken into, with the proper building process, which we intend to do. We are just trying to see if we can get this portion approved, so that way we can go ahead and continue the process of the building, the after-fact permit process. So I just wanted to clarify that. That was my question. So you are obtaining an after-the-fact building permit? Yes, but the first step is to see if we can get approval for this, because if we submit plans for the building as it is, it's going to get flagged by zoning, and then they were going to require us to come here. So we're just trying to tackle this first to see if we can get it approved, and if it gets approved, if it gets approved, then we can go ahead and submit all the required paperwork, engineering plans, all the drawings, taking this into consideration, and then move with the inspection process. All right. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Then with that, we'll close variance 26-1389, and go to the last case. Last item is item H7, variance 26-14-13. The applicant is Erin DeShaw. The request is a variance to accessory structure requirements. I'll present the staff findings. The applicant's requesting a variance of 1.2 feet to the required 25-foot cider setback for an accessory structure exceeding 15 feet in height to allow a 23.8-foot side yard setback. I'm going to answer any questions. None at this time. Thank you so much. Is the applicant here? Good morning, sir. Erin DeShaw, 10139 Bryant Road. Just as she mentioned, we're asking for a variance of the 25-foot setback on the back corner of the barn, which is, excuse me, 23.8 in distance. The rest of the barn itself fully meets the requirements. The position of the building was set because in the application, there's a tree survey. There's very mature oak trees in the front of the property. We wanted to keep that in place, as well as the well associated with the property. We wanted that set back far enough away from the well, as well as not to impede any of the large oak trees on the property, which is why we put the building in its current position, and that's why we're asking for the specific variance. All right. No, I don't have any questions at this time. Thank you so much for coming down. Please sign in. All right. Is there anyone in the audience or online that would like to speak in support? Anyone in favor? Seeing no one. Is there anyone in opposition? I know we have one person online. Is there anyone in the room that would like to speak in opposition? No. All right. Ms. Bronner? Hi. Good morning. Michelle Bronner. Hi. 1-8-5-3-9 Dorman Road in Lithia. I do want to bring up to you that the findings, it does show on here a code enforcement violation. This is the second sports training facility that was built in Lithia with zero permits, operating a Brazilian jiu-jitsu business on AR-zoned property. Um, the building is at least 10,000 square feet. It's built out completely as a gym with AC on the inside. Um, I know they're mentioning that, um, it will be used as an agricultural barn. The neighbors are a little bit concerned about that, considering it's built out already for a gym with AC on the inside. Um, the only hardship that they have is this is another, um, person that built, um, prior to, um, any zoning request or permits, um, if they had pulled permits, they would have realized that they had an issue with the setback, but none of that was done. They didn't take any consideration. The neighbors, um, they were operating, um, a Brazilian jiu-jitsu academy along with Friday night, date night, drop offs, um, and birthday parties. So I respectfully ask that you deny this variance. All right. Thank you for your comments. I appreciate it. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition? All right. Seeing no one will close that portion of the hearing. Um, Ms. Marshall, anything you'd like to add? Um, nothing unless you have any questions. Um, just to clarify Ms. Bronner's, um, information regarding the use of the accessory structure on property zoned AR. So as an accessory structure, um, on AR zoned property would either have to be associated with the residence or, um, an agricultural use. All right. And certainly not a non-residential business. Correct. Would be, that would be not permitted. Correct. All right. Thank you so much. All right. Uh, Mr. DeShaw, we'll go back to you. You have five minutes for rebuttal. Um, so we did think that it was acceptable at the time because it was, uh, um, you know, a residential business, we were incorrect on that. As soon as we got the violations, everything was stopped. Everything has been moved. I just want to make sure that the property is, and the building is set appropriately. It is functioning as storage. Um, it is housing some broiler chickens, chicks before they go out into a, um, uh, a movable chicken area with a little chicken coop. Um, but that's all it is. Um, just asking for the variance for that back corner so we can get the, um, after the fact completed so I can be above board, everything good to go and appropriate in nature. Do you live on the property? I own the property. I did, and I do not anymore. Okay. And how large approximately, how large is this structure? It's 7,000 square feet. Okay. It is not. And so it's your testimony now. It's just being used for storage and, um. That is correct. Chickens and so forth. Okay. All right. And now you're aware that, uh, business is not permitted to be operated from that. I am aware now. Absolutely. Yeah. Okay. Um, I think that was my only question. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Thank you. Then with that, we'll close variance 2-6 dash 1-4-1-3 and adjourn the hearing. Thank you all for your time and testimony.