Neighbors split on lanai roof: applicants seek to replace existing screen enclosure with solid roof; one neighbor strongly objects

Hillsborough County Land Use Hearing Officer · January 13, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Sharon Gianata and Gregory LaChapelle requested a variance to replace an existing screen lanai with a solid roof in the same footprint. HOA representatives spoke in favor; a nearby neighbor raised multiple objections about process, drainage, storm safety and loss of light. The hearing officer closed the item; decision to be filed within 15 working days.

Sharon Gianata and her husband, Gregory LaChapelle, requested a variance to allow the replacement of an existing screen lanai with a solid roof and gutters, leaving the structure in the same footprint. Gianata said the existing lanai "predate[s] our proposed improvements" and the project had Traditions at Villa Rosa HOA approval dated 10/17/2025. She said the work would not expand the structure and argued that gutters would "improve storm water control and help ensure the runoff is properly managed to protect both our home and our neighboring properties."

The homeowners presented HOA support: John Giannoni, representing the HOA, said the proposal "would do nothing but improve the value of the property" and that due diligence had addressed neighbors' drainage concerns. Sandra Windsor, another neighbor, said similar improvements had been made by others in the subdivision and she supports the request.

A nearby neighbor, Denise Himes, strongly opposed the request, citing proximity (less than 4 feet from her house in places), potential hurricane debris, water drainage and loss of light. Himes also said she was not individually contacted by the HOA's architectural review and raised concerns about process and safety; she warned of increased insurance and structural risk to her house if the roof were approved.

Applicants and supporters said the requested change is limited to adding a roof and maintaining the same footprint, and that many adjacent homes have similar covered lanais. The hearing officer closed the item without a decision; a written ruling will be filed within 15 working days and any appeal would be limited to the hearing record.