Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the After The Fact Construction Setback topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Variance granted for after‑the‑fact sunroom at 3006 West Rio Vista with no‑AC condition
Summary
The Variance Review Board approved a setback reduction to 8 feet for an after‑the‑fact enclosed sunroom at 3006 West Rio Vista Avenue and attached a condition that no air conditioning be installed.
The City of Tampa Variance Review Board on June 10 approved a variance reducing the rear‑yard setback from 20 feet to 8 feet at 3006 West Rio Vista Avenue for an enclosed sunroom that was built without permits, and the board attached a condition prohibiting air‑conditioning for that structure.
Applicant Asleti (Acelepti) Corciero told the board she built and enclosed a sunroom and a small kitchen at the rear of her home to accommodate three elder family members after a relative died. She said she has been trying for about 10 months to resolve permitting issues and submitted neighbor support letters and photographs of the existing enclosed space.
Staff noted that the site previously had unpermitted structures along the sides that will be removed and replaced with green space, and that Natural Resources found the revised site plan inconsistent with green‑space standards because the site lacks existing trees and did not meet the 25% green‑space requirement. Transportation, wastewater, water, right‑of‑way and stormwater returned inconsistent findings; TECO had no comment.
Board members discussed the fact the structure had been built without permits and raised concerns about safety, ventilation and how the structure should comply with building‑code requirements if it moves forward through permitting. One board member voiced support for approval conditioned on no air conditioning being added to the enclosed addition; the applicant said she would accept that condition. Staff reiterated that permitting requirements for ventilation, electrical and fire safety are not waived by the variance.
The board voted to approve the variance as presented with the no‑AC condition and found the applicant presented competent and substantial evidence of unnecessary hardship when considering section 27‑80 of the city code. The decision included the board’s finding that the site is tight and reconfiguration options are limited; the approval requires the applicant to bring the project into compliance through permitting.
