Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the After The Fact Variance Shed Canopy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies after‑the‑fact variance for 3313 West Ivy St.; members cite self‑created hardship and safety concerns
Summary
The Variance Review Board denied an after‑the‑fact request that would have legalized a covered walkway/shed connection that caused a primary‑structure setback encroachment at 3313 West Ivy St., citing failure to meet variance hardship criteria.
The City of Tampa Variance Review Board on March 11 denied an after‑the‑fact variance request for 3313 West Ivy Street after concluding the petitioner had not met the burden of showing a property‑related hardship under section 27‑80.
Staff described the case as an after‑the‑fact permit involving an addition, a covered area and a block masonry shed connected to the house by a walkway. The connection changed the legal classification of the accessory structure and created a rear setback encroachment; staff said front green‑space restoration would be required at permitting.
Applicant representative Lasord Lantus, a general contractor, said the homeowner uses the shed to store equipment for a home‑based cleaning business and that releases or approvals had been obtained for the vacated alley behind the lot. He told the board the homeowner planned to restore green areas indicated by Natural Resources. Lantus said the shed and covered walkway predate the current occupancy in some respects and that the applicant is attempting to legalize the situation.
Board members expressed concern that the structure was built without permits and that the resulting encroachment appeared to be self‑created. One member noted variance relief runs with the land and is not typically granted for personal circumstances of a current occupant. Another member cited fire‑safety and welfare concerns given the proximity of main building elements to the rear property line.
A motion to deny said the petitioner failed to present “competent and substantial evidence in the record ... of an unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty” per section 27‑80; the motion carried and the request was denied. The applicant was advised that bringing the property into compliance would require further work with staff and that the shed and canopy situation would remain subject to applicable code enforcement and permitting requirements.
