I attended the Land Use Appeals meeting on October 3rd. To my surprise the meeting was very hard to follow compared to the previous Code Enforcement Board Hearing I attended.
I felt that the structure of the Land Use Appeals meeting wasn’t very informative for people that had not attended one before. The meeting began with an oath of witness. This meeting didn’t have a pledge of allegiance, or roll call like the Code Enforcement Board Hearing. The Code Enforcement Board Hearing also began the hearing with a PowerPoint slide to help everyone follow along. Each person in violation of a code enforcement would go to the podium and explain their case.
In the Land Use Appeals meeting the board called the first person up to the podium, Barbara Dowling. Dowling began her case by asking for a continuance. She proceeded to say that the board did not have November 16, 2007 hearing information in the January 25, 2008 hearing, and she had not realized the mistake until recently when speaking with a board member. She felt that the current hearing wouldn’t be fair to continue without all information provided to each board member. Now that each member had the information (as of that day) she asked to continue the meeting, so each member would have accurate time to fully review all information provided.
After Dowling had presented her case, and with the request of a continuance, the board gave the opportunity for all members opposed to the continuance to stand and present their reasoning. Susan Spurgeon, with the council of Tampa Bay Water, and Steve Algen made their way to the podium to oppose. Algen said, “this has been the second time Downing had asked for a continuance, and I do not agree with giving her the opportunity for another one.” Spurgeon had began to speak without going to the podium and a board member said, “Mam, you have to be on the recorded,” and the board member pointed to the podium. Spurgeon had agreed with Algen and the board still granted Dowling a continuance.
After this case, I spoke with Spurgeon. She said that she was aggravated that the board granted Dowling a continuance. In reference to Dowling’s case Spurgeon said, “she was already heard,” and she didn’t feel the board would be bias if the board continued the hearing that day.
The next case concerned Jason Garrison of Lutz. This case was much longer, but I understood this one better than the previous case. The problem was that Garrison had built a fence 6 ft tall after a code had been in place stating that a fence within 15 ft. of the road had to be 4 ft tall or less. Garrison came to the hearing with pictures of his fence and the location of his property. He expressed that he had two children and no backyard. He had built the fence to allow his children to play outside in a safe environment. He didn’t feel safe allowing his children out in the yard playing without a private fence.
Patricia Ortiz with Planning and Growth Management Department of Hillsborough County opposed Garrison’s request to keep the fence at the 6 ft tall. Ortiz stated to the board that his variance request for the fence was adjacent to Hannah Rd and Sunset Lane in the Lutz rural area. She ask that the decision to make the fence 4 ft tall or less be upheld, and her request was granted.
Immediately after the hearing, Garrison stated, “they’re denying me what everyone else has. We build our fence exactly the way the surrounding neighbors did, we didn’t build it 10 ft tall and paint it hot pink.” He was upset with the board’s decision.
After speaking with Ortiz, she said, “his (Garrison’s) request was already denied in the first meeting that heard his case.” She was very pleased with the decision of the board.
I felt that the structure of the Land Use Appeals meeting wasn’t very informative for people that had not attended one before. The meeting began with an oath of witness. This meeting didn’t have a pledge of allegiance, or roll call like the Code Enforcement Board Hearing. The Code Enforcement Board Hearing also began the hearing with a PowerPoint slide to help everyone follow along. Each person in violation of a code enforcement would go to the podium and explain their case.
In the Land Use Appeals meeting the board called the first person up to the podium, Barbara Dowling. Dowling began her case by asking for a continuance. She proceeded to say that the board did not have November 16, 2007 hearing information in the January 25, 2008 hearing, and she had not realized the mistake until recently when speaking with a board member. She felt that the current hearing wouldn’t be fair to continue without all information provided to each board member. Now that each member had the information (as of that day) she asked to continue the meeting, so each member would have accurate time to fully review all information provided.
After Dowling had presented her case, and with the request of a continuance, the board gave the opportunity for all members opposed to the continuance to stand and present their reasoning. Susan Spurgeon, with the council of Tampa Bay Water, and Steve Algen made their way to the podium to oppose. Algen said, “this has been the second time Downing had asked for a continuance, and I do not agree with giving her the opportunity for another one.” Spurgeon had began to speak without going to the podium and a board member said, “Mam, you have to be on the recorded,” and the board member pointed to the podium. Spurgeon had agreed with Algen and the board still granted Dowling a continuance.
After this case, I spoke with Spurgeon. She said that she was aggravated that the board granted Dowling a continuance. In reference to Dowling’s case Spurgeon said, “she was already heard,” and she didn’t feel the board would be bias if the board continued the hearing that day.
The next case concerned Jason Garrison of Lutz. This case was much longer, but I understood this one better than the previous case. The problem was that Garrison had built a fence 6 ft tall after a code had been in place stating that a fence within 15 ft. of the road had to be 4 ft tall or less. Garrison came to the hearing with pictures of his fence and the location of his property. He expressed that he had two children and no backyard. He had built the fence to allow his children to play outside in a safe environment. He didn’t feel safe allowing his children out in the yard playing without a private fence.
Patricia Ortiz with Planning and Growth Management Department of Hillsborough County opposed Garrison’s request to keep the fence at the 6 ft tall. Ortiz stated to the board that his variance request for the fence was adjacent to Hannah Rd and Sunset Lane in the Lutz rural area. She ask that the decision to make the fence 4 ft tall or less be upheld, and her request was granted.
Immediately after the hearing, Garrison stated, “they’re denying me what everyone else has. We build our fence exactly the way the surrounding neighbors did, we didn’t build it 10 ft tall and paint it hot pink.” He was upset with the board’s decision.
After speaking with Ortiz, she said, “his (Garrison’s) request was already denied in the first meeting that heard his case.” She was very pleased with the decision of the board.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment