Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater And Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tampa variance board denies setback variance after stormwater, hardship questions
Summary
The City of Tampa Variance Review Board denied a request to reduce rear- and side-yard setbacks at 2507 West Gardner Court, citing inadequate site information and unresolved stormwater concerns raised by staff and neighbors.
The City of Tampa Variance Review Board on May 13 denied a variance request to reduce the rear-yard setback from 20 feet to 5 feet and a side setback to 4 feet at 2507 West Gardner Court, after staff and neighbors raised unresolved stormwater and hardship questions.
The board's decision followed a presentation by the applicant's architect, John Boziak, and an extended exchange with staff and a neighboring resident about drainage. The board chair, Anna Walrath, said she could not approve the plan as presented: "I could not approve this. No way, no how," and staff emphasized that the site plan did not show a required stormwater detention system.
Why it matters: Staff told the board the development exceeds the city—s 50% impervious-area threshold and the project area is larger than 10,000 square feet, triggering stormwater retention/detention requirements in the City of Tampa technical manual. The property immediately east of the site is on the city—s stormwater advisory list because of flood sensitivity, and a neighbor, Steven Sears, told the board he experiences regular ponding and opposed the variance, arguing the application did not state a valid zoning hardship.
Details: The petitioners sought to enclose areas adjacent to an existing elevated pool and to add a covered carport on a narrow, 83-foot-deep lot. Planning staff—s report noted that stormwater review found the proposal inconsistent and asked the petitioner to provide written responses and either a pond or an exemption reference; no written response was in the record at the hearing. The applicant told the board they intended to install an underground detention system (a StormTech-style system) and replace pavers with pervious surfacing, but the board said that information must be on the site plan before approval.
Board action and rationale: The board moved to deny the variance after members agreed the petitioner had not met the burden of proof on the five hardship criteria in Section 27-80 of the City code, citing a likely self-created hardship and an incomplete submission that left stormwater impacts unclear. The motion to deny was adopted by the board (vote recorded at the hearing). The board noted that approval without the required site-level stormwater detail would leave the city unable to confirm how runoff would be collected and directed away from adjacent properties.
What happens next: Because the variance was denied, the petitioner may revise the site plan with the requested stormwater documentation and resubmit or seek a continuance at a future meeting; the board discussed that a continuance could allow the applicant to return with a revised plan showing detention and other remedies.
Community voices: Neighbor Steven Sears said the application lacked required elevations and other site plan details and that the petition did not demonstrate an unnecessary hardship: "This position does not state a valid zoning hardship." Planning staff and at least one board member expressed concern that approval without confirmed retention/detention could worsen flooding on nearby properties.
