Tampa VRB grants rear-yard variance for Davis Island house but bars second-floor addition

The Tampa Variance Review Board on April 15 approved a variance to reduce the rear-yard setback at 409 West Davis Boulevard from 20 feet to 5 feet so the homeowner may raise a nonconforming rear portion of the house and match the main finished floor level, but the board limited the work to a single story and imposed setback requirements for mechanical equipment.

Board staff presented the application (case VRB-25-08), saying the work would raise the rear one‑story section roughly 14 inches to flush with the main level and that no new lot coverage was proposed. The applicant, architect Philip Lendzin, told the board owner Alexander Coffin was not present and that the proposal seeks to reduce flood risk by raising that rear portion and adding a second floor above it if allowed.

The board’s motion approved the setback reduction but attached conditions: the nonconforming rear area may be elevated to match the existing main finished floor level and remain a single‑story structure; the approval applies only to the primary structure (not accessory structures); pool equipment, generators and air‑conditioning units must meet the code‑required setbacks; and the applicant must present competent substantial evidence of hardship in the record consistent with the variance standards in section 27‑80 of the City Code. Board members said the narrowing of authority was intended to allow flood‑risk mitigation while preventing a new, taller wall that neighbors said would harm privacy.

Neighbors who spoke during the public hearing opposed the second‑story component. Leslie Wager Hudock, who lives at 409 Erie Avenue directly behind the subject property, said the built form would create a “massive wall” overlooking rear yards and questioned whether the applicant had shown a hardship to justify adding a second story. Debbie Zommerman and Lisa Hadermota, other nearby residents, raised similar concerns and asked for clearer finished‑floor elevation figures and documentation showing the proposed flood‑protection benefit.

The applicant acknowledged neighbors’ concerns and confirmed the owner’s intent was to raise the low first‑floor section to match the rest of the house; he said structural work could allow a second‑floor addition but that the applicant’s immediate priority was elevating the existing area to reduce flooding risk.

Board discussion focused on two issues: (1) whether the record supported a hardship for adding a second floor over the rear nonconforming portion, and (2) whether the site plan clearly delineated the exact area to be elevated and the elevations involved. Several members said they were comfortable allowing the elevation to match the existing main level but were not persuaded that a second story hardship had been demonstrated. One board member urged a condition requiring the raised slab to match the main house finished floor.

After debate the board voted to grant the variance with the conditions described. The motion included language tying approval to the site plan as presented and limiting work to single‑story construction for the portion inside the reduced setback.

The decision permits the owner to pursue permits to elevate the existing rear area consistent with the approved site plan and conditions; any future request specifically to add a second story would require a new application or amendment and additional board review.