Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors oppose detached garage variance, raise compliance and short‑term rental concerns
Summary
A homeowner asked for a front‑yard setback variance to construct a detached garage; multiple nearby residents opposed the request, alleging the property is being used as short‑term rentals and that trees were removed without permits. The owner said the garage is needed to store a tall boat and that enforcement is reviewing earlier complaints.
A request for a front‑yard setback variance to construct a detached garage drew multiple speakers in opposition at the June 23 Hillsborough County land use hearing.
Adonis (listed in the record as Adonis Perez Sarmiento) sought a variance to reduce the front‑yard setback required for an accessory structure in an RSC‑9 zoning district so he could build a garage that would be approximately 16 feet, 4 and 11/15 inches tall and sited roughly 30.6 feet from the front property line. County staff presented the required setback figures under LDC standards.
Several adjacent neighbors testified in opposition. Jennifer Godin, who identified herself as the northern neighbor, said the property was originally permitted as a single‑family residence but was built as a duplex and is being offered as short‑term rentals: “He built a multifamily property, which he now runs as a commercial Airbnb. He does not live on the property.” Godin asked the hearing officer to deny the variance and said she opposed adding another detached garage to the parcel.
Bruce Weir, who lives “a couple of doors down,” said Perez removed live oak trees without a permit and that he previously found the property advertised as a vacation rental online. Terry Summers, another adjacent resident, described concerns about traffic, worker parking and neighborhood quality during construction and said he had experienced property problems he associated with the owner’s activities.
Perez addressed the panel in rebuttal, saying he is on military orders and had people checking on the home while he is away. He said the structure is intended to store his boat, a tall 1989 vessel, and that mitigation and permit reviews related to tree removal were being handled: “everything is being reviewed by the department,” Perez said. He also said he will return to live at the property when his orders end.
County staff noted the accessory structure height and setback issues in their findings and that the permit for the building could not be approved until the variance was resolved. The hearing officer closed the public hearing; she did not rule at the meeting and said her written decision will be issued within 15 working days and filed with the Clerk of the Board.
Opponents asked staff and the hearing officer to check building permits, past variances and code‑enforcement records. The hearing record includes neighbors’ claims of past code and tree‑removal issues; that enforcement review was cited by the applicant as ongoing.
