Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council affirms variance-review board denial for front-yard carport at 8406 N. Edison Ave.
Summary
After a review hearing, the council unanimously affirmed the Variance Review Board’s denial of two variance requests to allow a carport one foot from the property line and to reduce required backup distance for a two-car structure.
The Tampa City Council on March 27 unanimously affirmed the Variance Review Board’s December 10, 2024 denial of two variance requests for a property at 8406 North Edison Avenue (case VRB-24-66-C).
Applicant Thomas Hanks requested variances to reduce an accessory-structure front-yard setback from 60 feet to 1 foot for a 20-by-18.63-foot aluminum carport, and to reduce the required 10-foot front setback for the structural edge of a two-car vehicle entrance to 1 foot. Development staff and Transportation Department reviewers found the site plan inconsistent with city code section 27-156 (table 4-2, note 8) requiring a 10-foot setback for the structural edge of a two-car carport, and Transportation recommended removal of unpermitted asphalt in the front yard.
At the review hearing, Hanks told council the carport had been at the property for more than 20 years, that it provides shade for his vehicle and daily use, and that he had neighborhood signatures supporting the structure. He also cited disability-related concerns about sun and heat exposure. Council members considered the five hardship criteria in section 27-80 of the Tampa Code. They concluded Hanks had not met the burden of proof for a variance — noting that hardships cited related to personal or self-created conditions and that testimony from neighbors would have carried more weight if presented at the hearing.
Council member Clendenin moved to affirm the VRB’s denial on the grounds that the petitioner failed to show the necessary hardship under section 27-80; council member (second speaker) clarified the motion by citing the code’s requirement that hardships must not be self-created and that variances must be in harmony with the Tampa Comprehensive Plan. The chair called a roll-call vote; all members voted “Yes.” The council’s recorded roll call (as read in the transcript) listed Glendening, Henderson, Viera, Miranda, Carlson, Hurtak and Maniscalco voting in favor of affirming the denial.
The petition for review was denied and the Variance Review Board decision was upheld; no variance was granted.
