Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03191991BOA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT "SPECIAL MEETING" MARCH 19, 1991 - 3:00 P.M. MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MATTHEWS AT 3:05 P.M. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS LED BY CHAIRMAN MATTHEWS. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: GALE MATTHEWS, CHAIRMAN JAMES HUSK JOSEPH STEPHENSON WALTER SHIELDS MARY HEINICKE EXCUSED: NONE ALSO PRESENT: BRUCE COOPER, DIR. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RICHARD TORPY, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY OLD BUSINESS: MOTION BY JOSEPH STEPHENSON, SECONDED BY MARY HEINICKE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JANUARY 8, 1991 AT 3:00 P.M. AS WRITTEN. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING: SEBASTIAN INLET MARINA & TRADING CO., IN REGARDS TO LOTS 8 THROUGH 21, BLOCKS 1 & 2, INDIAN RIVER HILLS SUBDIVISION, IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO REMODEL A STRUCTURE THAT WOULD ENCROACH APPROXIMATELY 4.5 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN ADVERTISED IN THE PAPER. TOM COLLINS, PRESIDENT AND PRINCIPAL OWNER OF SEBASTIAN INLET MARINA WAS PRESENT. ALSO PRESENT WAS MARTIN CARTER, HIS PARTNER. THEY HAVE OWNED AND OPERATED THE PROPERTY SINCE APRIL OF 1986. THEY WENT THROUGH SITE PLAN APPROVAL IN 1987 TO GET THE ENTIRE PROJECT APPROVED. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REQUIRED THAT THE OWNERS PUT UP A BUFFER FENCE BETWEEN THE BACK OF THEIR KITCHEN AREA AND THE STREET SO THAT THE GARBAGE PAGE 2 CANS, ETC., AND LOADING RAMP IN THIS AREA WOULD BE PROTECTED FROM THE STREET. EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT ON THE ORIGINAL PLANS, THEY AGREED TO ADD THE LOUVERED FENCE. SUBSEQUENT TO INSTALLING THE FENCE, THEY FOUND THAT THEY ARE HAVING PROBLEMS IN THAT AREA WITH RAIN, PARTICULARLY IN UNLOADING AND STORAGE. THEY WOULD LIKE TO PUT A ROOF OVER THIS AREA. INITIALLY iT WAS BELIEVED THAT A VARIANCE WASN'T NECESSARY BECAUSE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY ALONG INDIAN RIVER DRIVE. THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF CONFUSION AS TO THE SIZE OF THiS RIGHT OF WAY. THE COUNTY SURVEYOR AND COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY PEOPLE ARE NOT SURE EITHER. THE ORIGINAL PLAT SHOWS AN 80' RIGHT OF WAY. ALL THE UTILITIES ARE USING A 66' RIGHT OF WAY. THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES ALL HAVE A 66' RIGHT OF WAY. IF THE RIGHT OF WAY ON THIS PROPERTY IS 66', A VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE NEEDED. MR. COLLINS WAS NOT ASKING FOR A DETERMINATION AS TO THE CORRECT RIGHT OF WAY. BRUCE COOPER'S POSITION WAS TO TAKE THE WIDEST POSSIBLE RIGHT OF WAY WITHOUT PROOF OTHERWISE. FP&L HAS iNDICATED THAT THEY USE A 66' RIGHT OF WAY. THE COUNTY HAS INDICATED THAT BECAUSE IT SHOWS AS 80' ON THE PLAT, THEY WOULD KEEP IT FOR A RIGHT OF WAY, BUT WOULD NOT USE IT FOR UTILITIES OTHER THAN DRAINAGE, WITH THE ATTITUDE BEING WHY SHOULD THEY GIVE IT UP. MR. COLLINS HAS HAD TWO CONFLICTING REPORTS FROM SURVEYORS. ONE SAYS IT IS AN 80' RIGHT OF WAY. THE OTHER ONE SAYS THAT BECAUSE FP&L HAS ESTABLISHED A 66' RIGHT OF WAY, IT BECOMES 66'. THE FENCE RUNS ANYWHERE FROM 22' TO 21'6" OFF THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE. THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS ACTUALLY FOR AN ENCROACHMENT OF 3 TO 3 1/2 FEET. THE HARDSHIP IS THAT THE FENCE WAS REQUIRED TO BE PUT THERE BY PLANNING AND ZONING AND TO MOVE IT WOULD GO AGAINST WHAT THEY WANTED. SECONDLY, IF THE OWNER WAS TO MOVE THE FENCE BACK, THE USE OF THE LOADING AREA WOULD BE ELIMINATED. MR. COLLINS HAS MET WITH THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS, OYSTER POINT AND OYSTER BAY ASSOCIATION AND THEY HAVE ENCOURAGED THEM TO GET THE VARIANCE. WITH NO ROOF OVER THE AREA, WHEN IT RAINS, THE ENTIRE AREA GETS WET. THEY STORE THE GARBAGE CANS OUT THERE BEFORE THEY GO TO THE DUMPSTER, AND THE TRUCKS UNLOADING OYSTERS, ETC. ALSO GET WET. THE FENCE DOES NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE, BUT THE ROOF DOES. PAGE 3 MR. COLLINS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE SETBACKS ON EACH ADJOINING PROPERTY ARE IN QUESTION. THE BUILDING TO THE NORTH IS SET BACK 9 FEET FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY AND THE TENNIS COURT TO THE SOUTH OF THEM IS SETBACK 15' FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY. HE FEELS THAT THERE WILL BE NO ADVERSE EFFECT TO THE PROPERTIES THAT ADJOIN THEM AND THEY OWN THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET. IT WOULD MAKE THE OVERALL AREA LOOK NICE ACCORDING TO MR. COLLINS, HE ALSO HAD PICTURES OF THE AREA IN QUESTION TO SHOW THE BOARD MEMBERS. MARY HEINICKE ASKED IF THE CEMENTED AREA WAS THERE PRIOR TO THE FENCE. MR. COLLINS ANSWERED THAT IT WAS ALL ONE SITE PLAN. THE COUNTY AND CITY WANTED TO HAVE A MINIMAL NUMBER OF ACCESSES OF INDIAN RIVER DRIVE. THE ACCESS ON THE NORTH WAS USED FOR THE PARKING LOT AND ALSO FOR TRUCKS TO BACK INTO THE LOADING AREA. BRUCE COOPER SAID THAT A SEPARATE LOADING AREA RIGHT iN THE FRONT WAS CHANGED BY PLANNING AND ZONING TO THE FENCED AREA FOR AESTHETIC REASONS. MARY HEINICKE ASKED IF A ROOF WOULD CONSTITUTE A ROOM. BRUCE COOPER STATED THAT ON A SETBACK REQUIREMENT, IT CHANGES THE CHARACTER TECHNICALLY AWAY FROM A FENCE OR WALL TO A STRUCTURE. GALE MATTHEWS ASKED IF IT COULD BECOME AN ADDITION TO THE RESTAURANT. MARY HEINICKE QUESTIONED WHETHER THIS REQUEST SHOULD BE BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. BRUCE COOPER SAID THAT PLANNING AND ZONING HAD TO APPROVE IT ANYWAY AND THAT GENERALLY WITH THIS SMALL OF AN ADDITION, JUST THE CHAIRMAN OF PLANNING AND ZONING APPROVES IT, THEY MUST REVIEW ANY KIND OF ENCLOSURE OR ADDITION TO THE SITE PLAN. BUT, THEY CANNOT DEAL WITH THE ACTUAL SETBACK REQUIREMENT. MR. COLLINS NOTED THAT YOU MIGHT CALL THE NEW AREA A SCREENED IN PORCH. THEY PUT THE LOUVERS THERE SO THAT YOU CANNOT SEE THROUGH IT, BUT HE WANTS TO LET IT AS AN OPEN AIR AREA. HE NOTED THAT ALL TABLE CLOTHES AND LAUNDRY ARE ALSO STORED IN THAT AREA. HAD THEY KNOWN THIS BEFORE, THEY WOULD HAVE DESIGNED IT TO BE A COVERED AREA AND MOVED THE WHOLE SITE BACK. JAMES HUSK ASKED HOW LONG THE FENCE HAD BEEN UP. MR. COLLINS THOUGHT THAT THE INITIAL FENCE WAS iNSTALLED WHEN THEY PAGE 4 RECEIVED SITE PLAN APPROVAL A COUPLE YEARS AGO. THE LAST SECTION WAS ADDED TO THE FENCE 3 OR 4 WEEKS AGO AND HE NOTED THAT THERE IS ALSO LANDSCAPING iN THIS AREA BECAUSE IT GIVES THEM THE FULL VISUAL IMPACT. WALTER SHIELDS ASKED IF THIS WAS A PERMANENT STRUCTURE AND IF IT HAD TO BE BUILT ACCORDING TO THE BUILDING CODE. BRUCE COOPER ANSWERED YES TO BOTH QUESTIONS. MR. SHIELDS THEN ASKED IF THE FENCE WOULD SUFFICE AS A WALL FOR THIS STRUCTURE. MR. COOPER SAID THAT IT WOULD BECAUSE WHAT THEY WERE ADDING ON TOP DOES NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WIND LOAD. MR. COLLINS AGAIN NOTED THAT IT WAS A SCREENED ROOM WITH THE LOUVERED WALL AND WOULD BE BUILT TO CITY CODE. STRUCTURALLY BRUCE COOPER DID NOT SEE A PROBLEM. MR. COLLINS STATED THAT JIM DAVIS, THE COUNTY ENGINEER, TOLD HIM THAT A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE RIGHT OF WAY WOULD TAKE AT LEAST TWO YEARS. HiS ATTITUDE WAS THAT THE COUNTY WOULD ONLY EVER USE IT FOR DRAINAGE AND NOTHING MORE. MR. COLLINS NOTED THAT THE RIVERFRONT COMMITTEE ON WHICH HE IS A MEMBER IS PLANNING TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY LESSEN THE TRAFFIC ON INDIAN RIVER DRIVE. FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, THE RIGHT OF WAY WiLL ONLY BE USED FOR DRAINAGE OR UTILITIES AND NOT FOR A WIDENED STREET. GALE MATTHEWS ASKED IF SINCE THIS IS A RESTAURANT, WOULD THIS REQUEST AFFECT THE PARKING. MR. COLLINS NOTED THAT THiS WAS JUST A DELIVERY AREA. BRUCE COOPER NOTED THAT PARKING IS BASED ON SEATING AND THE SEATING IS NOT CHANGING. RICHARD TORPY, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, NOTED THAT THE BOARD DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE CORRECT RIGHT OF WAY. THE SETBACK IS ESTABLISHED BY PUBLIC RECORD. BRUCE COOPER QUESTIONED IF IN THE SAME DISTRICT WITH THE SAME SETBACK BUT A DIFFERENT RIGHT OF WAY, IF THAT COULD BE NOTED AS SOMETHING PECULIAR TO THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY. HOWEVER, THE RIGHT OF WAY SITUATION HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN AS A FACT AND MR. COLLINS IS ACKNOWLEDGING THIS. GALE MATTHEWS WAS WORRIED ABOUT STARTING TO GIVE VARIANCES ON INDIAN RIVER DRIVE WHEN THEY DO NOT ABSOLUTELY KNOW HOW WIDE THE STREET MAY BE. TOM COLLINS POINTED OUT THAT THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS BASED ON THE 80' RIGHT OF WAY. HE ALSO NOTED THAT THEY WERE REQUIRED TO PUT IN THE FENCE BY PLANNING AND ZONING. THE HARDSHIP IS CREATED IF THE FENCE IS MOVED OUT OF THE SETBACK, IT WOULD THEN LOOSE ITS FUNCTION AS A LOADING AREA. PAGE 5 MR. COLLINS NOTED WHEN THEY ORIGINALLY OPENED, THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT ASKED THEM TO GO TO A PAPER PLATE TYPE RESTAURANT SINCE THEY WERE NOT ON A SEWER SYSTEM. NOW THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT HAS ASKED THEM TO CONSIDER GETTING A DISHWASHER. THE FAR SOUTH SIDE OF THE AREA WILL HAVE A DISHWASHER LOCATED IN IT (ROOF OR NOT) WITH THE LOADING RAMP TO STAY THE SAME. MARY HEINICKE ASKED IF THE BOARD GRANTS THE VARIANCE AND PLANNING AND ZONING GRANTS THE ROOF, AND IF THE OWNER TURNS AROUND AND MAKES AN ILLEGAL ROOM OUT OF IT SUCH AS FOR A DINING ROOM, WOULD THE BOARD BE LIABLE BECAUSE THEY HAD ORIGINALLY GRANTED THE VARIANCE. BRUCE COOPER ANSWERED NO AND SUGGESTED THAT IF THE BOARD GRANTS THE VARIANCE, IT BE SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS TYPE OF STRUCTURE AND THIS TYPE OF USE. MR. COLLINS NOTED THAT THEY HAD NOT YET APPLIED TO PLANNING AND ZONING. MR COOPER STATED THAT THIS WOULD QUALIFY AS A MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE SITE PLAN (SUCH ITEMS AS ADDITIONS OF UNDER 500 SQUARE FEET, 5 PARKING SPACES, AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE). THESE REQUIRE APPROVAL OF BOTH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND THE CHAIRMAN OF PLANNING AND ZONING. MR. MATTHEWS ASKED ABOUT THE SEWER IN THAT AREA. SEBASTIAN INLET MARINA HAS HOOKED UP TO THE SEWER AND PUT IN THEIR OWN LIFT STATION. MR. COOPER ALSO NOTED THAT TRAFFIC ON INDIAN RIVER DRIVE WILL PROBABLY NEVER DICTATE MORE THAN A TWO-LANE ROAD. MRS. HEINICKE ASKED IF THE FACT THAT THE CITY REQUIRED THE FENCE, COULD THIS BE CONSIDERED A LEGAL HARDSHIP. MR. TORPY ANSWERED THAT THE BOARD HAS TO MAKE A FINDING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT IS A HARDSHIP. JUST BECAUSE THE CITY REQUIRES A PARTICULAR FEATURE, PUTTING A FENCE UP HERE FOR AESTHETIC REASONS, WHETHER THAT CREATES A HARDSHIP OR NOT IS AN ACTUAL DECISION THAT THE BOARD HAS TO MAKE. THE MERE FACT OF REQUIRING THE FENCE WITHOUT ANYTHING MORE IS PROBABLY NOT A HARDSHIP. BUT, AS THIS GENTLEMEN HAS PRESENTED, THERE ARE PLENTY OF REASONS THAT HE BELIEVES WILL CREATE A HARDSHIP FOR HIM. THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, IS NOT THE CALL OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, BUT OF THE BOARD. DO THE FACTS EXIST TO CREATE A HARDSHIP. LEGALLY, COULD I SIT HERE AND SAY PER SE THAT THIS IS A HARDSHIP?...NO. BUT CAN I SIT HERE AND TELL YOU THAT LEGALLY IT IS NOT?...NO. I CAN NOT TELL YOU THAT EITHER. YOU MUST LOOK AT THE FACTS AS THEY COME TO YOU AND DECIDE WHETHER IT MEETS THAT CRITERIA. PAGE 6 MARY HEINICKE NOTED THAT THIS WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO THE OWNER. MR. COLLINS NOTED THAT FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, IT WOULD LOOK BETTER, HELP THEM, KEEP UNSIGHTLY VEHICLES AND TRASH OUT OF SITE, BE MORE SANITARY AND IS ENCOURAGED BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT. MR. TORPY NOTED THAT THE EXISTENCE OF A HARDSHIP DOES NOT MEAN THAT A VARIANCE CANNOT GRANT A BENEFIT. IN FACT, ALL VARIANCES GRANT A BENEFIT. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE IS NOT A HARDSHIP CREATED. THEY WANT TO DO SOMETHING BENEFICIAL TO THEM BUT THE SETBACK PROHIBITS THIS. THE PERCEIVED HARDSHIP WOULD BE THAT WERE IT NOT FOR THE SETBACK, PROVIDED THEY CAN MEET ALL OTHER REGULATIONS FOR PUTTING A STRUCTURE OF THIS NATURE UP, THEY COULD PUT A ROOF UP THERE. HOWEVER, THERE IS A SETBACK. THAT IS THE HARDSHIP. BUT AGAIN, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A HARDSHIP THAT THEY NEED RELIEF FROM, SO THAT THEY CAN ENJOY THAT BENEFIT. MRS. HEINICKE STILL WAS NOT SURE IF THE CITY CREATED THE HARDSHIP. MR. COLLINS FEELS THAT A COMBINATION OF MANY THINGS HAVE CREATED THIS SITUATION INCLUDING THE CONFUSING RIGHT OF WAY, THE PLANNING AND ZONING REQUEST FOR THE LOCATION OF THE FENCE, THE INABILITY TO MOVE THE KITCHEN OR DRIVEWAY OR FENCE AND STILL USE THE LOADING AREA. MRS. HEINICKE STATED THAT IT MAKES GOOD SENSE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE BUT WHERE DOES IT COME UNDER THEIR REASONING TO ALLOW IT. IS iT UNDER HARDSHIP? MR. MATTHEWS NOTED THAT THE BOARD HAD TO BE SURE THAT A HARDSHIP EXISTS BEFORE GRANTING THE VARIANCE. BRUCE COOPER STATED THAT THE FIRST CONDITION THAT IS USUALLY IMPORTANT IS WHETHER CONDITIONS EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE PROPERTY. IN THIS CASE, IT MAY BE THE RIGHT OF WAY DIFFERENCE IN THIS AREA COMPARED TO OTHER AREAS IN THE SAME ZONING AREA. TO CONTINUE ON, YOU MAY SAY HE IS BEING DEPRIVED OF SOMETHING THAT IS NORMALLY ALLOWED. MR. TORPY STATED THAT TO GRANT A VARIANCE YOU HAVE TO MEET ALL THE CONDITIONS. YOU HAVE TO FIND ALL OF THE CONDITIONS EXIST. UNFORTUNATELY, THAT IS BASED ON THE FACTS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU RIGHT NOW. IF, IN THE BOARD'S OPINION BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT A HARDSHIP IS, THERE IS NO FORMULA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A HARDSHIP EXISTS. IT IS A FACTUAL DECISION. THAT IS WHY THERE IS A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. IF IT COULD BE DONE BY A FORMULA, THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR THE BOARD. AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION COULD BE MADE. YOU HAVE PAGE 7 TO TAKE THE FACTS AS YOU FIND THEM, LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE AND THE REQUIREMENTS THERE FOR HARDSHIP ALL THE WAY DOWN THE LINE AND IN YOUR MIND MAKE A DETERMINATION. IF YOU DO THAT IN GOOD FAITH AND THE BOARD FINDS FOR A VARIANCE, THAT IS FINE. IF YOU DO THAT IN GOOD FAITH AND THE BOARD FINDS NO VARIANCE, THAT IS ALSO FINE. YOU ARE A DISCRETIONARY BOARD. YOU ARE MAKING JUDGEMENT CALLS HERE ON HARDSHIP. THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO DO HERE. THAT IS ALSO WHY THERE ARE SEVERAL OF YOU ON THE BOARD BECAUSE YOU ALL MUST VOTE AND IT IS NOT LEFT UP TO ONE PERSON. NONE OF THESE THINGS ARE CAST IN STONE. UNFORTUNATELY, I CANNOT SIT HERE AND TELL YOU WHAT IS OR IS NOT A HARDSHIP. THAT IS, IN FACT, YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. MR. MATTHEWS ASKED WHY THIS IS BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FIRST AND NOT PLANNING AND ZONING. WHEN APPLICATION WAS MADE FOR THE PERMIT, BRUCE COOPER DENIED IT BASED ON THE REQUIRED SETBACK. MR. TORPY ASKED THE BOARD TO FOCUS ON TWO POINTS WHICH HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE iS A HARDSHIP. APPARENTLY THE 66' VERSUS 80' RIGHT OF WAY HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED. ON BOTH SIDES, STRUCTURES ARE WITHIN 15' AND 9' OF THE RIGHT OF WAY. THERE APPEARS TO BE ONLY ONE PARCEL OF LAND THAT IS BOGGED DOWN IN A QUAGMIRE OF WHAT REALLY EXISTS. THE OTHER ITEM WHICH YOU NEED TO CONSIDER IS THAT ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THIS FENCE IS CAUSING FROM A HEALTH STANDPOINT IS THAT SINCE THIS IS USED AS AN AREA FOR STORING TRASH AND OTHER THINGS, WHEN THEY GET WET, YOU HAVE STENCH, FLIES AND PROBLEMS. THAT COULD BE THE OTHER HARDSHIP FACTOR WHICH COULD BE RESOLVED BY THE ROOF. THESE ARE THE TWO FACTORS YOU MAY WISH TO FOCUS IN ON AND CONSIDER AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A HARDSHIP EXISTS THAT SHOULD BE RECTIFIED AND WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS THE WAY TO RECTIFY IT. MARY HEINICKE WAS HAVING A PROBLEM WITH THE CRITERIA THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT TO HAVE CREATED A HARDSHIP THEMSELVES. MR. TORPY FELT THAT THEY WERE ONLY PROPOSING A CURE TO A PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN CREATED BY OUTSIDE SOURCES, THE SETBACK AND THE FENCE. THAT IS ONE VIEW. THE OTHER VIEW YOU MAY FACE IS A MORE LITERAL VIEW WHICH IS THAT THEY ARE PUTTING A ROOF ON, THEREFORE THEY ARE DOING IT AND CREATING A SPECIAL CONDITION. IT STILL COMES BACK TO YOU TO DECIDE WHICH WAY TO LOOK AT IT. MR. SHIELDS ASKED IF THE FENCE WHICH HAS BEEN THERE FOR TWO YEARS IS IN VIOLATION OF THE SETBACK. MR. COOPER STATED THAT IT IS NOT. THE ROOF MAKES IT A STRUCTURE WHICH CANNOT ENCROACH. FENCES ARE PERMITTED IN SETBACKS. PAGE 8 MR. MATTHEWS NOTED THAT MOST REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES ARE AFTER THE FACT. AGAIN IT WAS NOTED THAT PLANNING AND ZONING DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT EXCEPTIONS TO SETBACKS. ONLY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN DO THAT. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE FENCE DOES NOT NEED A VARIANCE, AS IT CAN BE LOCATED IN THE SETBACK, BY THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. THE ROOF CREATES THE NEED FOR THE VARIANCE BECAUSE IT IS THEN A STRUCTURE. MR. COLLINS ASKED THAT THE BOARD LOOK AT THEIR REQUEST FAVORABLY KEEPING IN MIND THAT THEY HAVE BEEN OPEN AND HONEST IN THEIR APPROACH TO THE SITUATION. THEY ALSO AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY CODES FOR THiS MATTER. THE ATTORNEY NOTED THAT SUBSECTION G ON PAGE 752 SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES FOR CONDITIONS TO BE PLACED ON THE VARIANCE. A DISCUSSION FOLLOWED CONCERNING THE CONDITIONS FOR THE VARIANCE. MR. COOPER NOTED THAT THIS WOULD REMAIN A NON- CONDITIONED AREA. MR. COLLINS NOTED THAT THE DISHWASHER, A GARBAGE CAN CLEANING AREA REQUIRED BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND THE LOADING DOCK WILL ALL BE INCLUDED UNDER THE ROOF. IT WOULD NOT BE AIR CONDITIONED. (THE RESTAURANT IS NOT AIR CONDITIONED EITHER.) MOTION BY MARY HEINICKE, SECONDED BY JOSEPH STEPHENSON TO GRANT THE VARIANCE FOR SEBASTIAN INLET MARINA & TRADING CO., IN REGARDS TO LOTS 8 THROUGH 21, BLOCKS 1 & 2, INDIAN RIVER HILLS SUBDIVISION TO ALLOW A REMODELED STRUCTURE TO ENCROACH APPROXIMATELY 4.5 FEET WITHIN THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: AREA TO BE USED ONLY AS A LOADING DOCK WITH DISH- WASHER AREA ON SOUTH END OF AREA TO BE COVERED BY THE ROOF. ROLL CALL: YES: NO: GALE MATTHEWS JAMES HUSK JOSEPH STEPHENSON WALTER SHIELDS MARY HEINICKE NONE MOTION CARRIED PAGE 9 CHAIRMANS MATTERS: THE SUNSHINE LAW MANUALS WERE GIVEN TO EVERY BOARD MEMBER. ALSO, THE SIGNED ACKNOWLEDGMENTS WERE GIVEN TO THE BOARD SECRETARY. MR. MATTHEWS MENTIONED THAT HE HAS HEARD THAT SOME VOLUNTEERS AT THE GOLF COURSE ARE PAID. ALSO, THE A.A.R.P. WHICH MEETS AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER ARE NOT TREATED VERY WELL. THEY HAVE TO GO TO CITY HALL TO PICK UP THE KEY. ALSO, THEY HAVE TO PRACTICALLY BEG TO HAVE SOMEONE TURN ON THE SOUND SYSTEM. THEY HAVE TO MOVE ALL THE CHAIRS. MR. MATTHEWS FELT THAT THE CITY COULD DO A LITTLE MORE FOR THE ELDERLY PEOPLE IN THE CITY. MRS. HEINICKE NOTED THAT EVERYONE IS TREATED THAT WAY UNLESS YOU KNOW SOMEONE. MR. STEPHENSON MENTIONED THAT MANY PEOPLE ARE NOW USING THE NEW LIBRARY FOR MEETINGS. IT WAS NOTED THAT PERHAPS THE CITY MANAGER OR CiTY CLERK COULD BE APPROACHED ABOUT ANY PROBLEMS IN THIS AREA. COMMITTEE MATTERS: NONE BUILDING OFFICIAL MATTERS: NONE NEW BUSINESS: MOTION BY JOSEPH STEPHENSON, SECONDED BY MARY HEINICKE TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE REAPPOINTMENT OF JAMES HUSK TO AN ADDITIONAL THREE YEAR TERM. MOTION CARRIED. THE BOARD SECRETARY NOTED THAT THE POLICE INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR THE NEW APPLICATIONS WAS RECEIVED ON MARCH 18TH. THE APPLICANT, ALAN SHISGAL, WAS NOTIFIED BUT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT TIME TO SCHEDULE HIS WORK TO ENABLE HIM TO ATTEND THE MEETING. HE NOTED HAT HE WOULD ATTEND THE NEXT MEETING IF NOTIFIED IN ADVANCE. MR. MATTHEWS ASKED THE SECRETARY TO ADVISE HIM OF THE NEXT MEETING AND ASK THAT HE ATTEND. THE BOARD MEMBERS ALSO REQUESTED A COPY OF THE NEW FENCE ORDINANCE. MOTION TO ADJOURN BY MARY HEINICKE, SECONDED BY MR. STEPHENSON. MOTION CARRIED. THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:35 P.M. City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 r~ FAX (407) 589-5570 PUBLIC MEETING CITY OF SEBASTIAN 1225 MAIN STREET INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA THE SEBASTIAN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, WILL HOLD A SPECIAL MEETING ON TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1991, AT 3:00 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. NOTE: IF ANY PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE ON THE ABOVE MATTERS, HE/SHE WiLL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSES, HE/SHE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE APPEAL IS BASED. /jk City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [] FAX (407) 589-5570 AGENDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1991 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. OLD BUSINESS: 5. PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVE JANUARY 8, 1991 MINUTES SEBASTIAN INLET MARINA & TRADING CO., IN REGARDS TO LOTS 8 THROUGH 21, BLOCKS 1 & 2, INDIAN RIVER HILLS SUBDIVISION, IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO REMODEL A STRUCTURE THAT WOULD ENCROACH APPROXIMATELY 4.5 FEET WITHIN THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. 6. CHAIRMANS MATTERS: 7. COMMITTEE MATTERS: 8. BUILDING OFFICIAL MATTERS: 9. NEW BUSINESS: RECOMMENDATION TO CiTY COUNCIL REGARDING REAPPOINTMENT OF BOARD MEMBER JAMES HUSK TO ADDITIONAL THREE YEAR TERM. (TERM EXPIRES 5/91) REVIEW APPLICATIONS FOR ALTERNATE MEMBER ON BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. 10. ADJOURN ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING (OR HEARING) WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE HEARD. (286.0105 F.S.) City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-533O [] FAX (407) 589-5570 PUBLIC NOTICE CITY OF SEBASTIAN 1225 MAIN STREET INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1991, AT 3:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOCATED AT 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE FROM THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 20A-3.12 (E)(4)(a). SEBASTIAN INLET MARINA & TRADING CO., IN REGARDS TO LOTS 8 THROUGH 21, BLOCKS 1 & 2, INDIAN RIVER HILLS SUBDIVISION, HAS REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO REMODEL A STRUCTURE THAT WOULD ENCROACH APPROXIMATELY 4.5 FEET WITHIN THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. GALE MATTHEWS, CHAIRMAN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY OF SEBASTIAN ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING (OR HEARING) WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE HEARD. (286.0105 F.S.) PUBLISHED: MARCH 4, 1991 MARCH 11, 1991