Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03191992BOA City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [] FAX (407) 589-5570 PUBLIC MEETING CITY OF SEBASTIAN 1225 MAIN STREET iNDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, WILL HOLD A SPECIAL MEETING ON THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1992, AT 3:00 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. a~i/~ KING, S~TaRY SEBASTIAN Bo~r~ oF Ar~ausTM~.N~ NOTE: 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.) :jk 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 ~ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 s FAX (407) 589-5570 AGENDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1992 3:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL OLD BUSINESS: APPROVE NOVEMBER 13, 1991 MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING: PETER R. & PAMELA J. HOLYK, IN REGARDS TO LOT 1, BLOCK 43, SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS UNIT 2, HAS REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN EIGHT (8) FOOT FENCE, WHEREAS THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS A MAXIMUM OF SIX (6) FEET. SUPERAMERICA OF FLORIDA, INC., IN REGARDS TO LOTS 1-4, 15-18, BLOCK 5, EDGEWATER SUBDIVISION, HAS REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A ROOF SIGN, WHEREAS THE ORDINANCE PROHIBITS SAID ROOF SIGN. AMOS L. AND JEAN L. BARROW, IN REGARDS TO LOT 5, BLOCK 1, SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS UNIT 1, HAS REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO CREATE A RESIDENTIAL LOT WITH A DEPTH OF APPROXIMATELY 76 FEET, WHEREAS THE CODE REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 100 FEET. CHAIRMANS MATTERS: COMMITTEE MATTERS: BUILDING OFFICIAL MATTERS: NEW BUSINESS: 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) 589-5330 [] 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 THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1992, AT 3:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOCATED AT 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20A-5.9 C 1 OF THE SEBASTIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. PETER R. & PAMELA J. HOLYK, IN REGARDS TO LOT 1, BLOCK 43, SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS UNIT 2, HAS REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN EIGHT (8) FOOT FENCE, WHEREAS THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS A MAXIMUM OF SIX (6) FEET. JAMES HUSK, 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, 1992 MARCH 11, 1992 City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [] 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 THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1992, AT 3:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOCATED AT 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20A-15.8 C 2 a OF THE SEBASTIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. SUPERAMERICA OF FLORIDA, INC., IN REGARDS TO LOTS 1-4, 15-18, BLOCK 5, EDGEWATER SUBDIVISION, HAS REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A ROOF SIGN, WHEREAS THE ORDINANCE PROHIBITS SAID ROOF SIGN. JAMES HUSK, 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, 1992 MARCH 11, 1992 City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [] 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 THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1992, AT 3:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOCATED AT 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20A-3.4 D 3 OF THE SEBASTIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AMOS L. AND JEAN L. BARROW, IN REGARDS TO LOT 5, BLOCK 1, SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS UNIT 1, HAS REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO CREATE A RESIDENTIAL LOT WITH A DEPTH OF APPROXIMATELY 76 FEET, WHEREAS THE CODE REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 100 FEET. JAMES HUSK, 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, 1992 MARCH 11, 1992 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT "SPECIAL MEETING" MARCH 19, 1992 - 3:00 P.M. MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN HUSK AT 3:05 P.M. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS LED BY CHAIRMAN HUSK. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: JAMES HUSK, CHAIRMAN WALTER SHIELDS MARY HEINICKE ALFRED VILARDI FRED BUECHLING, ALTERNATE (VOTING FOR ALAN SHISGAL) ABSENT: ALAN SHISGAL, VICE CHAIRMAN JOHN PRICE, ALTERNATE ALSO PRESENT: BRUCE COOPER, DIR. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RICHARD TORPY, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY OLD BUSINESS: MOTION BY MARY HEINICKE, SECONDED BY ALFRED VILARDI, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 13 1991, AT 3:00 P.M., AS WRITTEN. ROLL CALL: YES: JAMES HUSK, CHAIRMAN WALTER SHIELDS MARY HEINICKE FRED BUECHLING (FOR SHISGAL) ALFRED VILARDI NO: NONE MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING: PETER & PAMELA HOLYK, IN REGARDS TO LOT 1, BLOCK 43, SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS UNIT 2, HAS REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN EIGHT (8) FOOT FENCE, WHEREAS THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS A MAXIMUM OF SIX (6) FEET. PAGE 2 CAROL NICHOLS, 686 BENEDICTINE TERRACE, OF WOOD 'N NICHOLS FENCE COMPANY WAS PRESENT TO REPRESENT THE HOLYK'S WHO WERE OUT OF TOWN. THE ELEVATION OF THE NEW HOME ON THE HOLYK PROPERTY IS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE ELEVATION OF THE HOUSE ON THE REAR PROPERTY. THEY ARE REQUESTING AN EIGHT (8) FOOT FENCE ONLY ACROSS THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY AND TO TAPER DOWN TO SIX (6) FEET ON THE SIDES, TO GIVE THEM THE BENEFIT OF SOME PRIVACY. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE PROPERTY IS GRADED DOWN TO THE PROPERTY LiNE AND THEREFORE WILL NOT ACTUALLY LOOK LiKE AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE. IT WILL BE LOCATED AT THE LOW POINT AND NOT ON TOP OF THE FILLED PORTION OF THE YARD. BRUCE COOPER NOTED THAT THE ORDINANCE WAS CHANGED ABOUT A YEAR AGO. PRIOR TO THAT TIME, THESE REQUESTS WERE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD. NOW, THEY MUST COME BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR APPROVAL. STAFF, AFTER REVIEW, FIND THAT THE CONDITIONS DO EXIST AS STATED BY THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT DID NOT CREATE THIS SITUATION. H.R.S. MANDATED THE ELEVATION OF THE SEPTIC TANK WHICH CREATED THE NECESSITY FOR SUCH A HIGH ELEVATION FOR THE HOUSE. STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED FOR THE VARIANCE, AS OUTLINED IN BRUCE COOPER'S MEMO TO THE BOARD DATED 3-19-92. ALAN SHISGAL, BOARD MEMBER, ARRIVED AT APPROXIMATELY 3:15 P.M. AND SAT IN THE ALTERNATE POSITION. MR. VILARDI NOTED THAT IF THE APPLICANT BUILT A RETAINING WALL AND BROUGHT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY UP TO THE SAME ELEVATION, A SIX (6) FOOT FENCE WOULD BE EVEN HIGHER THAN THE REQUESTED EIGHT (8) FOOT FENCE AT THE PROPERTY LINE AS PROPOSED. MR. SHIELDS ASKED IF THE FENCE IS TO BE LOCATED IN THE UTILITY EASEMENT. MR. COOPER NOTED THAT iT WAS TO BE LOCATED IN THE EASEMENT, BUT BEFORE THE FENCE PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED, THE UTILITY COMPANIES MUST SIGN OFF APPROVAL FORMS. THESE FORMS ARE ON FILE IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED OF THIS HEARING. MR. COOPER ALSO NOTED THAT THE REAR NEIGHBOR DID NOT OBJECT TO THIS VARIANCE AND IN FACT SUPPORTS IT. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 3:15 P.M. PAGE 3 THERE BEING NO PUBLIC INPUT, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 3:15 P.M. MOTION BY MS. HEINICKE, SECONDED BY MR. SHIELDS TO GRANT THE VARIANCE FOR THE EIGHT (8) FOOT FENCE DUE TO THE PECULIAR CONDITIONS WITH THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT'S REQUIREMENTS FOR RAISING THE ELEVATION OF THE LAND. ROLL CALL: YES: JAMES HUSK, CHAIRMAN WALTER SHIELDS MARY HEINICKE FRED BUECHLING (FOR SHISGAL) ALFRED VILARDI NO: NONE MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING: SUPERAMERICA OF FLORIDA, IN REGARDS TO LOTS 1-4, 15-18, BLOCK 5, EDGEWATER SUBDIVISION, AS REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A ROOF SIGN, WHEREAS THE ORDINANCE PROHIBITS SAID ROOF SIGN. BOB WALTERS, REPRESENTING SUPERAMERICA, WAS PRESENT, ALONG WITH GEORGE BRIGGS WITH SUPERAMERICA AND THE STORE MANAGER. HE STATED THAT SUPERAMERICA WISHES TO PUT A SIGN UP ON THE CUPOLA, THE PERMIT WAS DENIED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT BECAUSE IT WAS CONSIDERED TO BE A ROOF SIGN WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED. MR. WALTERS SUGGESTED THAT SINCE THERE IS A ROOF ON TOP OF THE CUPOLA, THE SIGN WOULD NOT BE A "ROOF" SIGN, BUT JUST ANOTHER WALL SIGN. THEY FEEL THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT EVEN NECESSARY. ATTORNEY TORPY NOTED THAT THE CUPOLA IS JUST AN ARCHITECTURAL FACADE. THE REAL ROOF IS BELOW THE CUPOLA. THE DEFINITION OF A "ROOF" SIGN IS ANY SIGN WHICH IS ABOVE THE ROOF LINE. THEREFORE, IF THIS SIGN IS TO BE PERMITTED, IT WILL NEED A VARIANCE. MR. WALTERS STATED THAT SUPERAMERICA AGREED TO CHANGE THEIR STANDARD DESIGN FOR THE BUILDING TO A MORE "KEY WEST" STYLE BUILDING WHEN ASKED TO DO THIS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. PAGE 4 AT THAT POINT, THE REVISIONS WERE MADE AND THE CUPOLA WAS ADDED. SUPERAMERICA REVISED THEIR PLANS WHEN REQUESTED BY THE CITY, AND ARE NOW ASKING FOR SOME CONSIDERATION IN THIS MATTER. THEY FEEL THIS WILL ADD SOME IDENTIFICATION TO THIS BUILDING. MR. WALTERS ADDED THAT MANY OTHER EXISTING ROOF SIGNS ARE NOW IN THE CITY, SUCH AS SEBASTIAN AUTO PARTS, M & M AUTO PARTS, SEBASTIAN INTERIORS, TRUE VALUE, KEENS FOOD TOWN, SEBASTIAN CENTER, KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN (WHICH HAS THEIR NAME IN THE CUPOLA), MCDONALDS, ROSELAND SHOPPING CENTER, BAY STREET SQUARE. MR. COOPER NOTED THAT SEVERAL OF THESE SIGNS ARE NOT IN OUR CITY LIMITS. ALSO, THERE ARE A LOT OF EXISTING SIGNS WHICH ARE NONCONFORMING. ALSO, A FREE STANDING SIGN WHICH PROJECTS ABOVE THE ROOF, IS NOT CONSIDERED A ROOF SIGN. THE EXISTING SIGNS WHICH ARE NONCONFORMING ARE GRANDFATHERED IN. WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE ORDINANCE AS IT STANDS NOW AND WAS ADOPTED IN 1985. MARY HEINiCKE NOTICED THAT AN EMBLEM IS ON THE CUPOLA NOW. MR. WALTERS SAID THERE iS STRIPES ON iT NOW. MR. COOPER NOTED THAT IT IS NOT THEIR LOGO. WHEN THEY CAME IN FOR APPROVAL TO PUT UP THE SIGN, IT WAS DENIED. THEN THEY ASKED FOR A LIGHTED STRUCTURE TO HIGHLIGHT THAT AREA. THIS WAS APPROVED. HOWEVER, THE LOGO, ANY SIGNS OR ANY CHARACTERS THAT DEPICT THEIR BUSINESS, WOULD BE CONSIDERED A SIGN AND CANNOT BE APPROVED WITHOUT A VARIANCE. MR. COOPER ALSO STATED THAT THE CITY DOES APPRECIATE THE EXTRA EFFORT SUPERAMERICA EXTENDED BY CHANGING THEIR BUILDING PLANS. HOWEVER, GRANTING THIS VARIANCE MAY SET A PRECEDENT UNDER THE PRESENT ORDINANCE. MS. HEINICKE ASKED IF THE REQUEST FROM TEXACO SOME TIME AGO WAS SIMILAR TO THIS REQUEST. MR. COOPER SAID THAT TENNACO WAS REQUESTING SIGNS ON THE CANOPY. THE INTERPRETATION BY THE ATTORNEY WAS THAT iT SHOULD BE TREATED AS A FREE STANDING SIGN. MS. HEINICKE FELT THAT SUPERAMERICA HAD NO PROBLEM WITH RECOGNITION IN THAT AREA. SHE COULD SEE NO HARDSHIP IN NEEDING THIS SIGN FOR ADVERTISING OR RECOGNITION. SOMETIMES LESS IS BEST. iT IS A VERY ATTRACTIVE STORE AS IS. PAGE 5 MR. VILARDI NOTED THAT THIS BUILDING GENERATES A GREAT DEAL OF TRAFFIC AS IT IS AND THAT THE ADDED SIGN WOULD NOT HELP THE BUSINESS ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. HE ALSO ASKED IF A CLOCK WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE. MR. COOPER STATED THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN PROVISIONS FOR TIME AND TEMPERATURE TYPE SIGNS BUT WOULD STILL FALL UNDER THE SIGN CATEGORY AND WOULD STILL PRESENT A PROBLEM. MR. COOPER ALSO STATED THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WILL BE REVIEWING THE SIGN ORDINANCE VERY SOON TO RECOMMEND POSSIBLE CHANGES. HE ALSO EXPLAINED TO THE APPLICANT THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MUST LOOK AT CERTAIN CRITERIA TO GRANT A VARIANCE. IT CANNOT BE GRANTED JUST BECAUSE IT IS WANTED, BUT SOMETHING MUST BE PECULIAR TO THIS PROPERTY THAT WAS NOT CREATED BY THE APPLICANT. THE STRICT GUIDELINES MUST BE FOLLOWED BY THIS BOARD. MR. WALTERS ASKED iF TEXACO WAS GRANTED THE VARIANCE BECAUSE IT WAS A SECOND FREE STANDING SIGN. MR. COOPER NOTED THAT THE NUMBER OF FREE STANDING SIGNS IS NOT REGULATED AS LONG AS YOU MEET 48 FOOT SEPARATION. TENNACO WAS NOT GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR A ROOF SIGN, BUT FOR A SIGN ON A CANOPY WHICH WAS CONSTRUED TO BE SIMILAR TO A FREE STANDING SIGN. IT WAS NOT ABOVE THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING. YOU ARE ALLOWED ONE SQUARE FOOT OF SIGN FOR EVERY FOOT OF' FRONTAGE. THEREFORE, IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH ROOM, YOU COULD POSSIBLY PUT UP ANOTHER SIGN. MR. WALTERS SUGGESTED THAT HIS ROOF SIGN BE CONSIDERED A THIRD SIGN AND THAT iT BE GRANTED AS SUCH. HOWEVER, MR. COOPER REPLIED THAT THIS IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CRITERIA, DEALING WITH FREE STANDING SIGNS, WALL SIGNS AND ROOF SIGNS. MR. HUSK NOTED THAT PLANNING AND ZONING WILL BE TAKING UP THE SIGN ORDINANCE ISSUE iN THE FUTURE AND COULD POSSIBLY HELP SUPERAMERICA. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 3:35 P.M. THERE BEING NOT PUBLIC INPUT, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 3:35 P.M. MOTION BY MS. HEINICKE, SECONDED BY MR. BUECHLING, TO DENY THE VARIANCE. PAGE 6 ROLL CALL: YES: JAMES HUSK, CHAIRMAN WALTER SHIELDS MARY HEINICKE FRED BUECHLING (FOR SHISGAL) ALFRED ViLARDI NO: NONE MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING: AMOS & JEAN BARROW, IN REGARDS TO LOT 5, BLOCK 1, SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS UNIT 1, HAS REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO CREATE A RESIDENTIAL LOT WITH A DEPTH OF APPROXIMATELY 76 FEET, WHEREAS THE CODE REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 100 FEET. MR. JACK SPiRA, 5205 BABCOCK STREET IN PALM BAY, AN ATTORNEY, WAS PRESENT TO REPRESENT THE APPLICANTS. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS LOT 5, BLOCK 1, LESS THE SOUTH 31.75 FEET OF SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS UNIT 1. A VARIANCE TO SECTION 20A-3.4 D 3 OF THE SEBASTIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT PROVIDES FOR A MINIMUM LOT DEPTH OF 100 FEET IS REQUESTED. THE APPLICANT HAD ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT TO CONSTRUCT A HOME ON LOT 5. AS A RESULT OF AN ERROR, THE HOME WAS CONSTRUCTED ON LOT 4 (ALMOST ALL), AND PART ON LOT 5. LITIGATION ENSUED AS A RESULT OF THAT ERROR AND A SETTLEMENT WAS REACHED BETWEEN THE PARTIES. AN OVERHEAD PROJECTION WAS SHOWN TO POINT OUT THAT LOT 5 iS THE PIE SHAPED LOT, WITH LOT 4 BESIDE IT. THE PARTIES AGREED TO DEED THE PROPERTY ON WHICH THE HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED (LOT 4 AND PART OF LOT 5) TO THE BARROWS. THE BARROWS WOULD THEN DEED LOT 5 LESS THE SOUTH 31.75 FEET TO THE FORMER OWNERS OF LOT 4. THE SUBDIVISION HAS LOTS WHICH DO NOT MEET THE REQUIRED 100 FOOT DEPTH, BUT SINCE THE PLAT WAS RECORDED PRIOR TO THE ORDINANCE, THESE LOTS ARE GRANDFATHERED IN. NORMALLY, THE LOT COULD BE BUILT UPON AS IT STANDS NOW. BECAUSE THEY ARE DEEDING 31.75 FEET OUT OF THE LOT, THE CITY'S POSITION WAS THAT A VARIANCE WOULD BE NEEDED. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE LOT DID NOT HAVE THE REQUIRED 100 FOOT DEPTH EVEN BEFORE THE 31.75 FEET WAS DEEDED OUT OF THE LOT. MR. SPIRA ALSO NOTED THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A HOME ON A LOT WITH A 76 FOOT DEPTH. ALL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS CAN BE MET WITH NO ENCROACHMENTS. PAGE 7 MR. SPiRA REVIEWED THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST AS THIS LOT IS PIE SHAPED OR AN IRREGULAR LOT. EVERY OTHER LOT IN THiS SUBDIVISION IS ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT UNDER THE SAME CRITERIA. MR. BARROWS DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION. THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION IS ALLOWED TO BUILD UNDER THE SAME CONFIGURATION AND DOES NOT CONFER ANY SPECIAL PRIVILEGES ON THE APPLICANT. HARDSHIP CONDITIONS EXIST IN THAT, IF THIS VARIANCE iS NOT APPROVED, THIS LOT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BE BUILT UPON. THE APPLICANT IS ASKING ONLY FOR THE MINIMUM VARIANCE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO BUILD ON THIS LOT. IT IS NOT iNJURIOUS TO PUBLIC WELFARE OR INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. MR. COOPER EXPLAINED THE REASON THE APPLICANT IS BEFORE THIS BOARD. THE DEPTH IS MEASURED FROM THE MEAN (HALFWAY) POINT BETWEEN THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES. BY REDUCING THE WIDTH OF THIS LOT, THE POINT OF MEASUREMENT CHANGES TO REFLECT A SMALLER DEPTH. THERE IS PLENTY OF SQUARE FOOTAGE REMAINING ON THIS LOT. HOWEVER, BECAUSE THEY ARE INCREASING THE NON- CONFORMITY BY DECREASING THE LOT DEPTH, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED. ATTORNEY TORPY NOTED THAT THE ONLY REASON A VARIANCE IS NEEDED IS BECAUSE OF THE ISSUE OF THE NONCONFORMITY. THE LOT WAS ALREADY A NONCONFORMING LOT. THE LOT DOES NOT CHANGE iTS ALREADY EXISTING DEPTH. WHAT CHANGES IS THE MEASUREMENT OF THAT LOT DEPTH. MR. COOPER NOTED THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO ADMISSION OF GUILT BY ANY PARTIES, NEITHER BUILDER NOR SURVEYOR. THE ULTIMATE PERSON WHO BOUGHT THIS LOT WAS THE SURVEYOR. STAFF HAS NO OBJECTIONS TO GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE AS OUTLINED IN THE MEMORANDUM DATED 3-19-92 TO THE BOARD. HE RECOMMENDED THAT A CONDITION ON THIS VARIANCE BE THAT THE FUTURE OWNERS OF THIS PROPERTY NOT BE PERMITTED TO SEEK ANY OTHER VARIANCES FROM THE MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS. MR. VILARDI STATED THAT ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSED HOUSE LOOKS LiKE IT WILL FIT ON THE LOT, HE WALKED THROUGH THIS LOT AND IT LOOKS VERY SMALL. HE COULD NOT SEE WHERE A HOUSE COULD BE BUILT WITHOUT ENCROACHING INTO THE SETBACKS. ATTORNEY TORPY NOTED THAT THIS VARIANCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SETBACKS. THEY ARE ONLY ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE TOTAL LOT DEPTH. THEY WILL STILL HAVE TO MEET ALL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. PAGE 8 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 3:55 P.M. MR. ROBERT MCCARTHY, 222 FIG STREET, IN UNIT 1, BLOCK 1, LOT 7 (IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE LOT IN QUESTION) WAS PRESENT TO OBJECT TO THIS VARIANCE. MR. MCCARTHY ASKED WHY THE SURVEYOR WAS NOT TAKEN TO TASK OVER THIS SITUATION. HE FELT THAT THE LOT SHOULD REMAIN AS IS. HE ALSO STATED CONCERNS ABOUT HIS WELL IN THE REAR YARD AND THE POSSIBILITY THAT THIS CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE TOO CLOSE. ALSO, SINCE SMITH SURVEYING DID THE SURVEY SHOWING THE PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS, PERHAPS IT IS ALSO WRONG. MR. MCCARTHY WAS ALSO CONCERNED THAT LOT 6, BLOCK 1, UNIT 1 WOULD BE RENDERED UNBUiLDABLE BY THE LOCATION OF THE WELL AND SEPTIC ON LOT 5. HE WAS EXTREMELY CONCERNED THAT THE SURVEY BEFORE YOU MAY STILL NOT BE ACCURATE. MR. COOPER NOTED THAT WHEN THE CONTRACTOR APPLIES FOR THE SEPTIC PERMITS, H.R.S. WILL BE REVIEWING THE SURVEY SHOWING ALL EXISTING WELLS AND SEPTICS TO MAKE SURE THAT NO ENCROACHMENT WILL TAKE PLACE. MR. MCCARTHY NOTED THAT OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD BE PRESENT, HAD THEY BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE MEETING IN A TIMELY FASHION AND ALSO BECAUSE OF THE HOUR OF THIS MEETING. HE WISHED THAT THESE MEETINGS WERE IN THE EVENING SO THAT MORE PEOPLE COULD ATTEND. MS. HEINICKE NOTED THAT THE PEOPLE WHO COULD NOT ATTEND IN PERSON COULD HAVE ADDRESSED THE ISSUE iN WRITING. HOWEVER, NO OBJECTION LETTERS WERE RECEIVED. MS. HEINICKE ALSO NOTED THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS NOT iN A POSITION TO "GO AFTER A SURVEYOR" NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO, AND NO MATTER HOW THE BOARD FEELS ABOUT IT. MR. COOPER NOTED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION BOARD HAS NO AUTHORITY OVER SURVEYORS. THEY ARE REGULATED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION. AGAIN, THERE HAS BEEN NO ADMISSION OF GUILT BY ANY PARTIES. MR. MCCARTHY NOTED THAT THE OWNER OF LOT 3 TOLD THE SURVEYOR AT THE TIME, THAT THE STAKES WERE IN THE WRONG PLACE. HOWEVER, THE SURVEYOR CONTINUED ON. MR. MCCARTHY FEELS THAT NO HARDSHIP EXISTS. MR. VILARDI WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE IRRIGATION WELL ON LOT 5. PAGE 9 MR. SPIRA NOTED THAT BOTH PROPERTIES HAVE NEVER BEEN OWNED BY THE SAME PEOPLE. THE IRRIGATION WELL WAS PLACED THERE BEFORE ANYONE KNEW THAT THERE WERE TWO LOTS IN QUESTION. HE ALSO NOTED THAT NO ADMISSION OF GUILT WAS EVER OFFERED BY ANYONE, BUT THERE IS LITIGATION. THE SURVEYOR BOUGHT THE LOT AS SOON AS IT WAS DISCOVERED SO THAT THE PEOPLE COULD NOT BE HELD UP FOR AN EXORBITANT PRICE WHEN TRYING TO SETTLE THIS MATTER. HE DID WHAT WAS RESPONSIBLE, EVEN WENT BEYOND. THEN THE SETTLEMENT WAS WORKED OUT. THE LOCATION OF THE WELL AND SEPTIC IS IRRELEVANT. ALL REGULATIONS, BOTH CITY AND STATE WILL BE MET. KEVIN SMITH IS NOW THE OWNER OF LOT 4. SMITH SURVEYING IS A SEPARATE ENTITY. MR. SMITH IS TRYING TO RESOLVE THE SITUATION. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT HE PURCHASED LOT 4 FOR $15,000, AND HAS LOT 5 FOR SALE FOR $10,000 (AFTER THE SWAP). THIS ALSO DOES NOT INCLUDE THE ATTORNEY FEES. THEREFORE, MR. SPiRA ASSURES THE BOARD THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS NOT BEEN JUDGED GUILTY HAS PAID A LOT MORE THAT HE POSSIBLY SHOULD HAVE. MR. MCCARTHY NOTED THAT HE WAS NOT LOOKING FOR A BETTER VIEW AS THE LOT CANNOT BE SEEN FROM HIS LOT BECAUSE OF VEGETATION. HIS PRIMARY CONCERN IS THAT THE SEPTIC SYSTEM PUT ON LOT 5 WILL NOT VIOLATE HIS WELL. MR. SPIRA SUGGESTED THAT A CONDITION COULD BE PLACED ON THIS VARIANCE THAT THE SURVEY TO DONE BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN SMITH SURVEYING. ATTORNEY TORPY NOTED THAT THIS COULD BE A VALID CONDITION OF THIS VARIANCE. MR. VILARDI SUGGESTED THAT THEY MAY BE CREATING AN UNBUILDABLE LOT ON ANOTHER LOT BY GRANTING THIS VARIANCE (THE WELL-SEPTIC SITUATION). HE SUGGESTED THAT THIS BE DENIED UNTIL SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE WHEN PERHAPS CITY WATER WILL BE AVAILABLE. MR. COOPER NOTED THAT THE WELL ON LOT 7 WILL HAVE AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF IMPACT ON LOT 6, AS DOES THE PROPOSED WELL ON LOT 5. HOWEVER, THIS IS JUST AN ESTIMATE. MR. VILARDI SUGGESTED A MORATORIUM ON BUILDING ON THESE LOTS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS WATER IS AVAILABLE. MS. HEINICKE NOTED THAT IT HAS ALWAYS COME DOWN TO A FIRST COME FIRST SERVE BASIS. ' PAGE 10 THERE BEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. MOTION BY MS. HEINICKE, SECONDED BY MR. BUECHLING, TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE SUBJECT TO CONFIRMING ON THE SURVEY THAT MR. MCCARTHY'S WELL WILL NOT BE ENDANGERED BY THE SEPTIC SYSTEM ON LOT 5 AS PER H.R.S. REQUIREMENTS AND THAT THE SURVEY BE DONE BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN SMITH SURVEYING, AT THE TIME OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. ROLL CALL: YES: JAMES HUSK, CHAIRMAN MARY HEINICKE FRED BUECHLING (FOR SHISGAL) NO: WALTER SHIELDS ALFRED VILARDI MOTION CARRIED. CHAIRMAN MATTERS: NONE COMMITTEE MATTERS: MARY HEINICKE AGAIN ASKED MR. COOPER FOR BETTER DETAILED LOCATION MAPS. JAN KING, BOARD SECRETARY NOTED THAT THE PACKETS FOR THIS MEETING WERE PREPARED BY OTHER EMPLOYEES IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, AS SHE WAS OUT SICK. THE BOARD DID NOT RECEIVE A COPY OF THE TOTAL SURVEY REGARDING THIS LAST CASE. SHE APOLOGIZED FOR THiS OVERSIGHT. MS. HEINICKE ALSO INQUIRED ABOUT UPDATES FROM OTHER COMMUNITIES REGARDING THEIR RULINGS ON DIFFERENT VARIANCES. MR. COOPER PROMISED TO GIVE THE BOARD COPIES OF THE "ZONING DIGEST" WHICH GIVES VARIANCES AND APPEALS FROM ALL OVER. KEEP IN MIND THAT MANY ARE IN DIFFERENT STATES. ATTORNEY TORPY NOTED THAT THE BOARD MUST REMEMBER WHEN YOU ARE REVIEWING THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT EACH COMMUNITY HAS DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR APPROVING THESE. MAKE SURE THAT THE RULES THAT APPLY TO THAT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ARE THE SAME AS THE RULES WHICH APPLY TO YOU. PAGE 11 BUILDING OFFICIAL MATTERS: IN REFERENCE TO A PRIOR SUGGESTION ABOUT NIGHT MEETINGS FOR THIS BOARD, STAFF RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE AGAINST SUCH ACTION DUE TO THE ADDITIONAL EXPENSE INCURRED. NEW BUSINESS: NONE MOTION TO ADJOURN BY MS. HEINICKE, SECONDED BY MR. VILARDI. ROLL CALL: YES: JAMES HUSK, CHAIRMAN WALTER SHIELDS MARY HEINICKE FRED BUECHLING (FOR SHISGAL) ALFRED VILARDi MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 4:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED.