During the meeting, the Community Development planner presented a report indicating that while the proposed pool exceeded the available lot coverage, a smaller pool of up to 123 square feet would not require a variance. In response, the property owner, S. Khan, emphasized the severe flooding issues, explaining that water from the streets and a nearby golf course accumulates on her property. This has led to the need for a barrier to protect her garage from flooding. Khan estimated that about 20,000 square feet of impervious area was contributing to the problem. She also highlighted that cutting back the concrete slab to accommodate the pool could compromise the foundation due to the sandy nature of the underlying soils.

The board members questioned the necessity of the variance and the property’s previous variance history. They also explored potential alternatives for the proposed pool. The conversation highlighted the property owner’s willingness to cooperate with the city to address the drainage issue, which was further complicated by the impact of existing concrete on the property and its correlation with drainage concerns. The property owner and an engineer underscored the impact of excess water on the property and the need to resolve the drainage issue before proceeding with pool construction.

The discussions touched upon the city’s role in helping with drainage issues, with the property owner expressing readiness to submit a survey to the city for confirmation of their assistance and considering delaying the variance request if the city would address the drainage concerns. Furthermore, the board discussed the hardship the variance request posed and the reasonableness of the proposed solutions, including the property owner’s efforts to mitigate excess runoff.

Debate arose over whether the hardship was due to the land itself or if it was self-created, with the board asserting that their authority to grant a variance was restricted to hardships related to the land. The property owner expressed frustration over the financial implications and the lack of resolution regarding the drainage problem. The board suggested that making the pool smaller could circumvent the need for a larger variance.

The meeting also involved input from a drainage engineer regarding the implications of lot coverage regulations and the potential for water runoff mitigation. Board members had differing opinions on the necessity of the concrete and the pool, with a focus on minimizing variance and the potential impact of excess concrete on the property.

A decisive moment came when a board member remarked on the unusual amount of concrete surrounding the house, which was uncommon in Temple Terrace. The property owner, in turn, questioned the process, asking if it would be necessary to file variance applications continuously. The board discussed options available to the property owner, including continuance, withdrawal of the application, or proceeding with a vote. The next meeting was tentatively scheduled for April 25th, depending on the availability of a quorum, with an alternative date of May 23rd considered.