Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-09-2020 BOA AgendaINDIVIDUALS ARE SUBJECT TO MEDICAL SCREENING PRIOR TO ENTERING ANY CITY BUILDING AND ENTRY MAY BE DENIED IF ANY INDICATOR OF ILLNESS OR PRIOR COVID-19 EXPOSURE IS IDENTIFIED. ory OF SEA .T V HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL SUNSHINE LAW & PUBLIC RECORDS WORKSHOP — 5:00 P.M. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING, COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY & REGULAR MEETING UPON ADJOURNMENT OF WORKSHOP WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2020 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. MOMENT OF SILENCE 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. ROLL CALL 5. CONVENE SUNSHINE LAW & PUBLIC RECORDS WORKSHOP A. Florida Government in the Sunshine Presentation - Manny Anon, Jr., City Attorney 6. ADJOURN WORKSHOP & CONVENE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS Modifications for additions require unanimous vote of City Council Members 8. PROCLAMATIONS. AWARDS. BRIEF ANNOUNCEMENTS Presentations of proclamations, certificates and awards, and brief timely announcements by Council and Staff No public input or action under this heading. A. Presentation by AguaCulture, LLC — Mike Elfenbein Brief Announcements City of Sebastian Annual Christmas Parade — December 1 i at 6:30 pm —� 9 RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND CONVENE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A. Approval of June 24, 2020 Board of Adjustment Minutes B. Quasi -Judicial Public Hearings Adopted Quasi -Judicial Public Hearino Procedures: Chairman opens hearing Attorney reads title of request Board discloses ex-parte communication City Clerk swears in all who intend to provide testimony Applicant makes presentation Staff presents findings and analysis Board asks questions of the applicant and staff Chairman opens the floor for anyone in favor of the request Chairman opens the floor for anyone opposing the request Applicant provided opportunity to respond to issues raised by staff or public Staff provided opportunity to summarize request if needed Board deliberations and questions Chairman calls for a motion i. CHRISTOPHER LAWHON, IN REGARDS TO LOT 16, BLOCK 493, SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS UNIT 15, LOCATED AT 242 DICKENS AVENUE, IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 280 SF SHED TO BE TWO (2) FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND WITHIN A DEDICATED UTILITY EASEMENT, WHEREAS THE CODE REQUIRES THE STRUCTURE TO BE TEN (10) FEET FROM THE SIDE YARD PROPERTY LANE IN THE RS-10 (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONING DISTRICT. (Transmittal, Staff Report, Exhibits, Application) ii. CHRISTIAN ELLIS, IN REGARDS TO LOT 20, BLOCK 231, SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS UNIT 6, LOCATED AT 702 CARNATION DRIVE, IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A FENCE SIX (6) FEET IN HEIGHT ON A CORNER LOT WITHIN THE SECONDARY FRONT YARD AREA, SPECIFICALLY ELEVEN AND ONE-HALF (11.5) FEET FROM THE CORNER PROPERTY LINE, WHEREAS THE CODE WOULD REQUIRE SUCH FENCE TO BE TWENTY (20) FEET FROM THE CORNER PROPERTY LINE. (Transmittal, Report, Exhibits, Application, Signatures) —;b 10. ADJOURN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING AND CONVENE THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING A. Approval of September 28, 2020 CRA meeting minutes. B. Award Bid (ITB#21-02) Landscaping Maintenance in the CRA District to SSS Brevard OPCO LLC dba Tropical Property Management with an Annual Expense of $171,684 (Transmittal, Bid Tab, Ex. A, Reference Checks, Specs) 11. ADJOURN THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AND RECONVENE THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 12. CONSENT AGENDA All items on the consent agenda are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of consent agenda items unless a member City Council so requests; in which event, the item will be removed and acted upon separately. If a member of the public wishes to provide input on a consent agenda item, he/she should request a Council Member to remove the item for discussion prior to start of the meeting or by raising his/her hand to be recognized. A. Approval of Minutes — November 18, 2020 Regular City Council Meeting B. Resolution No. R-20-33 — Expressing Support for an Innovative Pilot Project by AguaCulture, LLC (Transmittal, R-20-33) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SUPPORTING AN INNOVATIVE PILOT PROJECT BY AGUACULTURE, LLC TO REMOVE INVASIVE AQUATIC VEGETATION AND UNCONSOLIDATED SLUDGE FROM LAKE OKEECHOBEE WHICH WILL REDUCE CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. C. Notification and Ratification Request of Emergency Contract for Ground Application Services from Aquatic Vegetation Control, Inc., using South Florida Water Management District Contract #4600004255 in an Amount Not to Exceed $50,000 (Transmittal, Agreement, Notice, Certificate, Rate Sched., Cover Page, Information) He said he has been discussing how to enforce a mask mandate with County o ' ' s and noted one way is to use the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" idea where stomers can chose which businesses they feel comfortable with. He said the mas uirement is a work in progress; the enforcement is a challenge. Mayor Dodd said an Orlando bar was closed by t orida Dept. of Alcohol and Tobacco because the people were not social distanci nd several individuals became infected. He asked that as patrons, everyone b areful that we don't hurt the owners of the establishments by not wearing S. Council Member G' ' ms noted the wearing of masks has to be a community effort, statewide. The-ity Manager stated Miranda Hawker with the Florida Department of Health has the City vii thu 61. Lu Lc a tzot site and will let us knew when tests will be availa IP. - —+ 8. Recess the Citv Council Meetina and Convene the Board of Adiustment Hearinq 6:13 pm Mayor Dodd recessed the City Council meeting and convened the Board of Adjustment meeting at 6:11 p.m. A. Aooroval of January 8. 2020 Board of Adiustment Minutes Motion by Mr. Gilliams and SECOND by Ms. Parris to approve the January 8, 2020 Board of Adjustment meeting minutes passed with a unanimous voice vote of 5-0. B. Quasi -Judicial Public Hearing JOSEPH AND JULIA SCOZZARI, IN REGARDS TO LOT 26, BLOCK 381, SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS UNIT 11, LOCATED IN THE RS-10 (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONING DISTRICT AT 1411 THORNHILL LANE, ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE: TO ALLOW AN EXISTING 1728 SF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE CONSIDERED THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE OF THE LOT FOR STORAGE USE, WHEREAS THE CODE DEFINES A DWELLING UNIT TO BE DEEMED THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, AND WHEREAS THE CODE DOES NOT ALLOW A STORAGE FACILITY [AS THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE] AS A PERMITTED OR CONDITIONAL USE IN THE RS-10 ZONING DISTRICT. (Transmittal, Report, Criteria, Exhibits, Application, Notice) Chairman Dodd opened the hearing and the City Attorney read the title of Mr. and Mrs. Scozzari's request. Ex Parte Communication Chairman Dodd indicated he had four telephone conversations and one meeting with the applicant. Vice Chairman Mauti said he spoke to the applicant and met with him at the property. Mr. Gilliams also said he spoke to the applicant. Ms. Parris said she spoke to the applicant on the phone. June 24, 2020 Board of Adjustment, CRA, and Regular City Council Meeting Page 2 In response to the City Attorney's request to identify the subject matter of the board members conversations, they all indicated they spoke in regard to the requested variance. Andrea Coy, 501 Palm Avenue, asked if Mr. Gilliams had any business activities with the applicant. The City Attorney advised the contrary statement should be regarding the conversations or site visits that were disclosed by the board members. Mr. Gilliams stated he threw Mr. Scozzari out of his business Christopher Nunn asked if there were any promises made to Mr. Scozzari. The City Attorney stated the board member did not indicate any promises. The City Clerk swore in everyone that was to provide testimony. Michael Saproun, representing Mr. and Mrs. Scozzari, said he was retained after the March 18`h hearing was not held at which time he regrouped with the Scozzaries and discussed what they really wanted. He said they bought the property to enjoy the benefit of the personal storage facility (further referred to as the barn) which was permitted and approved in 1994 but the unity of title was never received by the original owner. The Scozzaries would now like to fence the property with an adjacent lot that they own to protect the property. Mr. Saproun stated the City has acquiesced over time that the storage facility is considered to be the principal structure. Julie Scozzari said they bought this property a year ago but lived next to it for 17 years and they would like to put up a fence to protect the property and prevent liabilities. She stated they do not intend to run their commercial roofing business out of this building and requested approval. Joe Scozzari said they have come to the City in good faith, an error was made in 1994, the title is clear to the properties. Staff Presentation The Community Development Manager said Mr. and Mrs. Scozzarri's request has changed since the March 18 and April 22 Board of Adjustment meetings. In April, they wanted to unify the lot to the house and there were some variances that would have been needed. She asked that the Staff Report dated June 17, 2020 be entered into record. She said today, she found a note in the file from June 2018 indicating that Mr. Scozzari wanted to join the 1,700 sq. ft. accessory structure onto his double lot which was his initial approach to the City. Council Member Gilliams objected to her entering the note into the record because it was not part of the backup. The Community Development Manager said at that time staff assumed the barn had been unified to the original permanent structure it was permitted to, because it was a requirement for issuance of the building permit. She let him know that the City would need a survey to see if the unity could be released; there wasn't a fence application until January 2020. Based on the survey submitted, staff determined four variances would be needed. June 24, 2020 Board of Adjustment, CRA, and Regular City Council Meeting Page 3 She noted this barn and a Quonset but in the area of Brisbane were the two impetuses that prompted the existing code into place. The Community Development Manager reported the barn did meet all of the required conditions in 1994; the staff report does not state that staff or the court house made an error with the unity of title but just simply it cannot be located. She stated the City did not discover this until Mr. Scozzari made his request which refutes Mr. Saproun's comment that the City acquiesced to this. She also noted if the barn would be allowed to be the principal structure, it would not be in compliance with the comp plan; once the properties are unified, the Scozzaries can begin to install the fence. Mr. Mauti said he understood people's rights to protect their property as he came before the board to fence his vacant lots at which time he found that his rights were being taken away because he wanted to protect his property. A simple fence should not be denied. Mr. Saproun said the unity wasn't followed up on in 1994 and it did not appear on the: title search when the Scozzari's bought the property and in fairness they should have been noticed they would have a problem. He said he would like the board to say they understand the properties weren't unified, you can have the fence. Chairman Dodd noted the hearing was to define the barn as the principal structure and was not a decision on the fence. Ms. Parris asked if there was a grandfather effect to the unity of title. Mr. Saproun said that would be the same as acquiesce. Mr. Gilliams said this was on March 18 agenda and asked if there was a difference between that agenda and this one. Mr. Saproun said the meeting was adjourned before his client could ask for the unity of title and now that the Scozzari's have thought about their property and would now like to keep the lot separate and have the barn to be considered a principal structure. Mr. Gilliams asked Mr. Saproun if his client was denied his hearing and due process. In response to Chairman Dodd, Mr. Scozzari stated that Mr. Dodd did call him on March 18 to let him know the why the hearing would not take place and he did not come to the March 18 meeting. Mr. Gilliams continued to talk about the March 18 meeting and Chairman Dodd called for a ten minute recess at 6:51 p.m. The hearing reconvened at 6:57 p.m. All members were present. Chairman Dodd stated during the quasi-judicial process, the board is obligated to make! their decision based on the evidence presented by the applicant and the staff. Mr. Gilliams said the application started March 18 and was postponed to April 22 and further because of the pandemic and the lack of meetings; he wanted the board to take everything into consideration. June 24, 2020 Board of Adjustment, CRA, and Regular City Council Meeting Page 4 The City Attorney advised they were at the point in the agenda that questions could be asked of staff and the applicant; Mr. Gilliams could continue his discussion during the deliberations. In response to Mr. Gilliams, Mr. Saproun stated the applicant would not be using the structure for his commercial business. There was no one to speak in favor of the request In O000sition Tracey Cole said she was upset that Mr. Saproun's letter addressing the closure of the March 18 meeting was being used to overtake the City; she did not want to see the request approved because every lot could have a two story storage unit. Grace Reed said she did not know the applicant but her concern is this is not primary structure but storage and should always be. Sharon Herman, Sebastian, said the zoning was changed to keep this from becoming routine in the City and if this was opened up this could happen anywhere in town which isn't reasonable. Andrea Coy, Sebastian, said in regard to Mrs. Scozzari's comments, a dumpster should not be allowed on residential lots, she has pictures of three roofing trucks on their property and workers should not be coming and going to a residential site for their work vehicles. Ms. Coy said at the last time the variance was presented, the City recommended approval because there was unity of title but tonight's request was a different variance. She asked the board to follow the City's rules and do it right. Aoolicant's Response Mr. Scozzari said the dumpster goes on his two lots. Mr. Saproun said he heard legitimate concerns that if this was granted, structures would pop up everywhere but that is not true. The Scozzaries do not want to unify the lots to have something to fall back on if the world continues to turn upside down (they could sell one of the lots); and the code definition does not limit dwellings as principal structures in residential districts. Mrs. Scozzari said they have one employee that comes to their house every morning; they have a unified lot next to her house where she keeps her trucks, and a boat. They are trying to do this the right way. The City Attorney asked for a meeting pause to speak to the Community Development Manager. Staff Summarization The Community Development Manager stated the City did not acquiescence to the absent unity of title because the City did not realize there wasn't one and staff proceeded to advise June 24, 2020 Board of Adjustment, CRA, and Regular City Council Meeting Page 5 7:24 pm 7:27pm the applicant on the procedure to correct the unification to eliminate non -conformities on their property. She said Mr. Saproun is correct in that the code does not say, in a residential district that a residence is the only allowed primary structure. The RS40 district allows other uses such as churches to be primary. But it does not allow storage facilities as permitted or conditional uses in the residential districts. She went over the criteria required by code to approve the variance to which staff felt the request did not meet. (See attached) Board Deliberations Mr. Gilliams asked if conditions of approval could be attached to the variance. The City Attorney advised there could be; as well as restrictions. Mr. Gilliams asked if a condition could be that the lot would stay single but future owners would have to own property within 300 feet. The Community Development Manager stated the lot could be sold to a different owner but she wasn't sure if they could impose restrictions on who a new owner could be. Ms. Parris said the omission of the word only (in definitions) led her to believe that the barn could be considered the principal dwelling; the family is considering safety and liability, it was only fair to vote in favor of their request. Mr. Hill stated they cannot grant the request; it is not an allowable use. He noted that staff is willing to work with the applicant to get the fence around their property. Vice Chairman Mauti asked what the difference was between a storage facility and a garage. Mr. Hill replied the unity of title is critical so the storage facility becomes the accessory structure to the home. Vice Chairman Mauti said the applicant could put up a fence on one side, receive a permit from the neighbor in the back and have his fence; he just won't receive his stand alone building; and it could go on for another 20 years. Chairman Dodd said the one thing the City can't do is to provide exceptions to the code because it is convenient, they should change the code instead of allowing exceptions. He said the code is very clear that every time, a person asks to build a garage or storage facility the property owner is required to have a unity of title. He said he couldn't support this option because a storage facility is not defined as a primary structure; he said they could change the code to open up the residential areas to commercial development. MOTION by Mr. Hill and SECOND by Chairman Dodd to deny Mr. and Mrs. Scozzari's application. Mr. Gilliams said he could list three or four properties on Indian River Drive with variances; based on who someone is, there are waivers and favors. He said he would deny Mr. Hill's motion. Chairman Dodd noted that he didn't believe he ever said he wouldn't support this because he doesn't like the guy but because it doesn't fit the code. June 24, 2020 Board of Adjustment, CRA, and Regular City Council Meeting Page 6 753 pm Chairman Dodd called for a break at 7:40 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:46 p.m. All members were present. The motion was to disapprove the request to define the accessory structure as the principal structure on the lot; a yes is to deny the application. Roll call: Vice Chairman Mauti - nay Mr. Gilliams - nay Mr. Hill - aye Ms. Parris - nay Chairman Dodd - aye Motion failed. 3-2. MOTION by Mr. Gilliams and SECOND by Ms. Parris to approve the variance for Joseph and Julie Scozzarri in regards to lot 26, block 381, Sebastian Highlands Unit 11. Roll call: Mr. Gilliams - aye Mr. Hill - nay Ms. Parris - aye Chairman Dodd - nay Vice Chairman Mauti - nay Motion failed. 3-2. Mr. Gilliams started to make a motion to include a condition that if the Scozzaries would sell the property, they would have to sell the lot to someone who lives within 500 feet of the structure. Chairman Dodd said he wasn't sure how that could be stipulated as the code was clear. The City Attorney advised that the City's position outlined on pages 11-51 of the agenda backup were to be included as part of the record. 9. Recess the Board of Adiustment Hearina and Convene the Communitv Redevelooment E— Aaencv Meetinq Mayor Dodd adjourned the Board of Adjustment Hearing and convened the CRA meeting A. MOTION by Mr. Hill and SECOND by Vice Chairman Mauti to approve the F ary 2G 6, 2020 CRA Meeting Minutes passed with a unanimous voice vote. 20.080 B. Aoorove Sidewalk Replacement at Riverview Park r the Timothv Rose Contractina. Inc. Concrete Construction Service Aareement_iwth�e Amount of $78.622.36 and Authorize the Citv Manaaer to Execute the Apo ate Documents (Transmittal. Quote. Bid. Plan. Minutes Excerot) The City Mana aid the sidewalk replacement is part of Riverview Park tree protection plan to ve existing sidewalk and replace it with a more substantial sidewalk. In regard e bidding process, the City Manager explained that the City does multiple year contracts June 24, 2020 Board of Adjustment, CRA, and Regular City Council Meeting Page 7 an v HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA TRANSMITTAL Council Meetino Date: December 9, 2020 Aaenda Item Title: Lawhon Variance Request Recommendation: Conduct a quasi-judicial public hearing to consider a variance request for the property located at 242 Dickens Avenue, Lot 16, Block 493, Sebastian Highlands Subdivision Unit 15 Backaround: A variance application has been submitted from Christopher Lawhon for relief from Section 54-2-5.2.3(d)(5) and Section 54-2-7.5(b)(1) of the Sebastian Land Development Code to allow an existing 280 SF shed to be 2 feet from the side property line and encroach into a public 6-foot utility and drainage easement, whereas the code requires the enclosure to be a minimum distance of 10 feet from the side property line and prohibits accessory structures to be within an easement. hi accordance with Section 54-1-2.5, staff has provided a report detailing the request, applicable exhibits, the criteria established for determining variances, along with additional information to assist with your consideration. If Aaenda Item Reauires Exoenditure of Funds: Budgeted Amount: Total Cost: N/A Funds to Be Utilized for Appropriation: Attachments: 1. Staff Report and Board Criteria 2. Exhibits A through G 3. Application Administrative Services DepartIn evie�w;�� City Attorney Review: Procurement Division Re lew, if applicable: City Manager Authorization: Date: /! / ?� LM C, SEBASTIN HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND Community Development Variance Application - Staff Report Project Name: Lawhon Shed Encroachment 2. Requested Action: Variance requested from Section 54-2-7.5(b)(1) and 54-2- 5.2.3(d)(5) of the Sebastian Land Development Code to allow an existing 280 SF shed to be 2 feet from the side property line and encroach into a public 6-foot utility and drainage easement, whereas the code requires the enclosure to be a minimum distance of 10 feet from the side property line. 3. Project Location a. Address: 242 Dickens Avenue Sebastian, Florida b. Legal: IRC Tax Parcel ID No. 31-39-07-00001-4930-00016.0 Lot 16, Block 493, Sebastian Highlands Subdivision Unit 15 4. Project Owner: Christopher M Lawhon 242 Dickens Avenue Sebastian, Florida 32958 (732)620-0011 5. Project Agent: Homeowner 6. Project Surveyor: Thomas R Cecrle, P.L.S. #4896 Cecrle Land Surveying, Inc. 10749 US Highway#1, Suite Sebastian, Florida 32958 (772)388-0520 Project Description: a. Narrative of proposed action: Mr. Lawhon purchased this property as his residence in November 2019. A few months later he applied for a fence permit. However, at that time he was told by the Building Department that his property had been previously flagged in 2008 after proper notice was given to the previous owner that an illegal shed had been placed without a permit and that it was encroaching into the required side yard setback and public utility easement (Exhibit A). A permit application for the shed was never submitted by the previous owner. The survey that was submitted with Mr. Lawhon's fence penrR application clearly identified the encroaching shed (Exhibit B), and because of the permit system's flag on the property, the plans reviewer denied the fence permit until the shed matter is resolved (Exhibit C). The applicant is willing to apply for the after -the -fact shed permit, but does not desire to relocate the structure out of the setback and/or easement area. The applicant is requesting an 8-foot variance from the 10-foot side yard setback required for this zoning district. Mr. Lawhon will also need to formally apply to abandon the 6-foot public utility and drainage easement, if the variance is granted, in order to allow the shed permit to be issued given that Section 54-2-7.5(b)(1) prohibits accessory structures to be placed in an easement. b. Current Zoning: Current Land Use: C. Adjacent Properties: North: East: South: West: RS-10 (Single -Family Residential) LDR (Low Density Residential, 5 units per acre) Zoning RS-10 RS-10 RS-10 RS-10 Current Land Use residence residence residence residence Future Land Use LDR LDR LDR LDR d. Site Characteristics (1) Total Acreage: .23 acres, or 10,000 SF (2) Current Land Use(s): Single-family residence (3) Water Service: County water (4) Sanitary Sewer Service: Septic system 8. Staff Comments: Florida Building Code regulates specific distances that structures must be from adjacent property lines before they are required to be fire -rated. The Building Director has determined the subject shed must be a minimum three feet the property line unless fire suppression measures are added to the walls (Exhibit D). Building permit issuance for the shed, as it is located currently, could not occur unless a relocation of the structure by 1 foot at minimum is proposed, independent of a variance approval or denial. 4 Staff has reviewed the aerial of the property (Exhibit E) and scaled survey, and established at least two alternative locations that the shed could be relocated to which meet code requirements and that would not require abandoning the utility and drainage easement (Exhibit Fl & 2). State law requires that properties undergoing real estate transactions (sales/purchases) must verify that all building permits and code enforcement violations are closed before final documents are executed. Usually this verification is performed by a Title Company or similar service, but can be done by the sellers/purchaser themselves. If due diligence occurred for the subject property, even though a permit did not exist for the shed, the property's flag would have disclosed the shed violation. 9. Board Criteria for Determining Variances: See attached analysis. This criterion was considered in determining staff's recommendation. The applicant has also submitted a written deliberation for the Board's consideration (Exhibit G). 10. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the variance request for the property located at 242 Dickens Avenue, Lot 16, Block 493, Sebastian Highlands Subdivision Unit 15, to allow a shed to be 2 feet from the side property line within a public utility and drainage easement. The denial is based on the movability of the structure, and having to abandon the 6-foot easement. 11. Board Action: Conduct quasi-judicial hearing to consider the requested variance. Dom Bosworth, Manager/Planner Community Development Department fall I ab Date i BOARD CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING VARIANCES Section 54-1-2.5 In order to authorize any variance from the terms of the land development regulations, the Board of Adjustment must use the following criteria for approving or denying a variance: a. Existence of special conditions or circumstances. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district. Meets Standard Yes ❑ No f1Y The applicant's property is a standard Sebastian Highland interior lot, 80' X 125' in size, with the same 6-foot side yard public utility and drainage easements (PU&DE) as the surrounding neighborhood. The shed is a standard pre -manufactured metal accessory structure with a wooded floor, not tied to a concrete slab, which is similar to many accessory structures found in Sebastian. The physical property and structure does not present any special conditions or circumstances. b. Conditions not created by applicant. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Meets Standard Yes Id No ❑ The incorrect placement of the shed, and the no -permit violation are not the results of any actions by the applicant. However, it appears proper due diligence regarding the property, whether by a Title company or the applicant, was not done prior to the real estate transaction or conveyance and issuance of the deed. C. Special DrivileQes not conferred. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. % Meets Standard Yes ❑ No Ei Numerous permits have been issued for sheds and accessory structures on interior lots that have met the setback requirements. When structures are determined to not have a proper building permit, the required after -the -fact application must meet all current code requirements, independent of how long the structure existed or when constructed. Currently, only fences and concrete are allowed to be constructed within easement areas, and only after the homeowner signs an affidavit acknowledging that the concrete or fence rd may need to be removed, at the homeowner's expense, if the city or utility needs use of the easement. For practical matters, buildings are not allowed in the easements considering the costs, and hurdles, for both the property owner and utility entity, if a building in the easement would impede a utility service. A special privilege would be conferred if the shed was allowed to remain in the easement. d. Hardshin conditions exist. That literal interpretation of the provisions of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the ordinance and would create unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. Meets Standard Yes ❑ No COY Because the structure is not tied to a concrete slab, the shed is movable. At minimum, in order to at least meet the Florida Building Code (FBC) for fire -rated exterior walls, (which needs to be met in order to be able to issue a building permit), the structure will need to be moved one foot. Since the necessary means to relocate the shed for that required amount will be in place, additional relocation can occur to remove the building out of the easement and meet the 10-foot setback regulation, as proposed in Exhibit Fl & 2. e. Only the minimum variance uranted. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. Meets Standard Yes Ci' No ❑ If a variance is considered, the 8 feet requested will still not allow a building pemut to be issued based on non-compliance with the FBC's regulation of having to be a minimum 3 feet from the property line (Exhibit D). If granted, only a variance of 7 feet should be approved. Abandonment of the PU&DE would still need to be applied for. f. Not iniurious to aublic welfare or intent of ordinance. That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the comprehensive plan and this code, and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. / Meets Standard Yes ❑ No S/ The intent of separation between buildings and structures from adjacent properties will not be met. If the requested variance for 8 feet is granted, fire safety regulations of the FBC will not be complied with. ¢. Conditions and safeguards may be imposed. In granting any variance, the board of adjustment may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with chapter 163 F.S., the comprehensive plan, and any ordinance enacted under its authority. Violation of such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the variance is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the ordinance. Meets Standard Yes V No ❑ Staff's recommendation is for denial based on movability of the structure. However, if a variance is granted, it should be conditional that abandonment of the side -yard easement is achieved and recorded, and that the variance is specific for the existing 280 SF shed only - which does not transfer to any future replacement shed. h. Time limit may be imposed. The board of adjustment may prescribe a reasonable time limit during which the applicant shall commence and/or complete the subject actions and conditions approved by the board. Meets Standard Yes C;/ No ❑ If a variance is granted, staff recommends that the applicant be required to apply for the after -the -fact shed permit and Abandonment of Easement within 30 days. If a variance is not granted, staff recommends that the applicant be required to apply for the after -the -fact shed permit within 30 days and relocate the structure within 60 days. i. No use variance permitted in specified instances. Under no circumstances shall the board of adjustment grant a variance to permit a use not generally permitted in the zoning district involved or any use expressly or by implication prohibited by the terms of the ordinance in the zoning district. No nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district and no permitted use of lands, structures, or buildings in other zoning districts shall be considered grounds for the authorization of a variance. / Meets Standard Yes No ❑ The request is not a use -related variance — Accessory structures are allowed in this zoning district. 11 Exhibit C 'm �x SEBASTLAII,,N HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1225 MAIN STREET • SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE: (772) 589-5537 • FAX (772) 589-2566 Date: 1/13/2020 Permit No: 20-115 Work Description: FENCE Permit Address: 242 DICKENS AVE BUILDING PERMIT PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS Notice to applicant: Your application for permit has been reviewed for code compliance. The following comments were; made regarding your project which requires correction and/or clarification. Please provide revised plans as applicable to address the comments. Corrections require a plan correction/revision form to be filled out and resubmitted through the City of Sebastian Building Department. Zoning Status: General Denied by Daniel Hainey DUE TO THE PROPERTY VIOLATION THAT EXISTS AT THIS PROPERTY SINCE 10/29/2008 FOR A SHED INSTALLED IN THE SIDE YARD SET BACK,WITHOUT A PERMIT. NO PERMITS CAN BE ISSUED, PLEASE CORRECT THIS VIOLATION A.S.A.P. Please feel free to contact our plan reviewers directly for any questions or concerns. A complete list of contact information can be found at our website at cityofsebastian.org. Exhibit D Dorri Bosworth From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dorri, Wayne Eseltine Thursday, December 03, 2020 8:57 AM Cord Bosworth Daniel Hainey RE: 242 Dickens Ave Here are the Building Department findings regarding the property located at 242 Dickens Ave.: Our records show that a permit for a fence was applied for on 1/3/2020. This permit was denied by Daniel Hainey on 1/13/2020 due to a previous unresolved property violation from 10/29/2008 where a shed was placed on the property without a permit. This shed tie down system was never inspected for code compliance, it was placed in the 6 ft. utility and drainage easement and does not meet the 10 ft. side yard setback requirement. Records show that a violation notice was posted on the property and a letter was sent to the owner on 10/29/2008. In these situations, additional permits that are not essential for health and safety are withheld until the previous violation is resolved. The new survey provided with the fence permit application shows that this shed was located approximately 2 ft. from the side yard property line. The Florida Building Residential Code section R302.1 states that exteriorwalls of dwellings and accessory structures which require a permit to be a minimum of 3 ft. from the property line unless a one hour fire rated exterior wall is provided. Further, it is incumbent upon the buyers of real estate to research the property records for any potential open permits or code violations from the City. This is typically done through a realtor or a title company. Regards, Wayne Eseltine, CBO FSI CFM City of Sebastian Building Director/ Fire Marshal 772-388-8235 BOARD CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING VARIANCES Section 54-1-2.5 In order to authorize any variance from the terms of the land development regulations, the Board of Adjustment must use the following criteria for approving or denying a variance: a. Existence of special conditions or circumstances. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district. Meets Standard Yes ❑� No ❑ The existence of a corner lot within the grid layout of Sebastian does not create a peculiarity for the subject property, nor by installing a fence on the secondary front yard. Most corner lots are wider by 5 to 10 feet than interior lots within the same block. The applicant however does have a septic drain field that may create a special condition and circumstance that the Commission may wish to consider. b. Conditions not created by applicant. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Meets Standard Yes ❑ � No ❑ There is no regulation in the Land Development Code that requires corner lots to have a fence; also, the location of the property was evident when the purchase was made- however, it should be noted that the placement of the home and septic system were conditions not created by the applicant. C. SDecial Drivileees not conferred. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. Meets Standard Yes ❑� No ❑ Numerous permits have been issued for fences on corner lots that have met the secondary front yard setback requirement for a 6-foot fence; It is also common for single family dwellings to have privacy fences. The Commission must decide what would be considered to be a reasonable amount of relief required- if any, for the applicant to obtain a privacy fence. rd d. Hardship conditions exist. That literal interpretation of the provisions of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the ordinance and would create unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. Meets Standard Yes ❑ � No ❑ Due to the location of the home and septic drain field, location of the septic and associated plumbing within the secondary front yard, requiring a 6-foot fence to be located 20 feet from the secondary front yard on this property may create undue hardships for the applicant. e. Only the minimum variance granted. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. Meets Standard Yes ❑ � No ❑ Allowing a 6-foot fence to encroach eight and one-half (8.5) feet within the 20' secondary front yard setback area, as requested by the applicant, would make reasonable use of the property; staff feels that it would be the minimum amount of distance required to clear the active septic field plumbing and allow reasonable utilization of the rear yard, while maintaining sight visibility to motoring traffic at the nearby intersection. f. Not injurious to public welfare or intent of ordinance. That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the comprehensive plan and this code, and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Meets Standard Yes ❑ � No ❑ The granting of the variance would be in compliance with the requirements of Section 54-2-7.10 regarding visibility triangle regulations, and meet the general intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development code and will not be injurious to the area involved, or surrounding properties. 5 E. Conditions and safeguards may be imposed. In granting any variance, the board of adjustment may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with chapter 163 F.S., the comprehensive plan, and any ordinance enacted under its authority. Violation of such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the variance is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the ordinance. Meets Standard Yes ❑ � No ❑ If the variance is granted, the code will require that the finished side of the fence must face the street. It. Time limit may be imposed. The board of adjustment may prescribe a reasonable time limit during which the applicant shall commence and/or complete the subject actions and conditions approved by the board. Meets Standard Yes ❑ � No ❑ No time limit is being proposed. i. No use variance permitted in specified instances. Under no circumstances shall the board of adjustment grant a variance to permit a use not generally permitted in the zoning district involved or any use expressly or by implication prohibited by the terms of the ordinance in the zoning district. No nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district and no permitted use of lands, structures, or buildings in other zoning districts shall be considered grounds for the authorization of a variance. Meets Standard Yes ❑ � No ❑ The request is not a use -related variance. 3