Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08181987BOAL. Gene Harris Mayor City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978-0127 TELEPHONE (305) 589-5330 Kathryn M. Benjamin City Clerk PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 18, 1987 3:00 P.M. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVE MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE REQUEST - LOT 18, BLOCK 248, UNIT 10, MR. & MRS. BRUCE REDUS CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING NEW ~ ADJOURN NOTE: IF ANY PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS MEETING OR A SUBSEQUENT MEETING ON ANY OF THE ABOVE MATTERS, HE/SHE WILL NEED TO ENSURE A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE APPEAL IS BASED. L. (~ene Ha~l~ Mayor City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978-0127 TELEPHONE (305) 589-5330 Kathryn la. O'Halloran City Clerk 1. Chairman Stephenson called the meeting to order at 3:28 P.M. 2. chairman Stephenson led the Pledge of Allegiance. Present: Gale Matthews Louis Priore, vice chairman Mary Heinicke Joseph Stephenson, Chairman Also Present: Bruce Cooper, Building official Thomas Palmer, city Attorney After a motion and second were made to approve the previous minutes which had not been presented to the board, the Building Official said he would make them available to the committee. No vote was taken. chairman Stephenson opened the Public Hearing at 3:30 P.M. and placed a motion on the floor to approve the variance request made by Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Redus, of Lot 18, Block 248, Unit 10. Vice chairman Priore asked for an explanation from Mr. Redus as to why he wanted a variance. 1 Mr. Redus explained that at the time of the purchase of the exsisting home he was given the original certified survey dated 7/16/84, shown to the board as example number 2, that he later found to be incorrect. After attempting to obtain financing for which a new survey was requested, example shown to the board as example number 3, the home was found not to meet the minimum 10 foot set back requirements, and to be encroaching on the utility and drainage easement, also that the septic tank was shown in a different position. Due to this difference in surveys, it had been impossible to receive financing. He also stated that a request for an abandonment of easement would be coming before council at a later date, upon Mr. Coopers instruction. Ms. Heinicke questioned whether the septic tank, by being only 1 foot from the property line would cause a problem to the adjoining lot. In response Mr. Redus explained that no part of the drain field appeared to go down into the easement. When questioned by Mr. Priore as to the discrepancies between survey examples numbers 2 & 3 and the inability of the title search to discover the error, the Building official stated that the first certified survey was done in error by the original surveyor and the house and septic tank in fact were never moved. He said the original surveyor must have gone off an erroneous mark and the recent survey is the correct one. Mr. Priore said for the record that the Board of Adjustment for the past four years has requested the Council to address erroneous lot surveys. Attorney Palmer stated that the City council was contemplating such an ordinance at this time. A lengthy discussion concerning the possibility of the septic tank and drain field encroaching on the adjacent lot followed. Attorney Palmer said for the record that the Health Department is interested in three things, (1) That the septic tank is greater than 75 feet from the well. (2) They are interested in the height of a percolation point which is based on a test. (3) If the Tank is near a body of water such as the Indian River or a lake, the tank must be a certain distance away. Mr. Cooper stated he would flag the adjacent lot in the building department should information ever be requested concerning the variance given to the structure. Attorney Palmer discussed the fact that there had been an objection from F. P. & L. concerning the abandonment of easement request to go before council. Mr. Cooper stated that he felt sure he could obtain a letter of non- objection to the structure remaining on the easement. Attorney Palmer said this board does not have the power to grant a variance as to F. P. & L. interest in the easement but can grant a variance as to the septic tanks location vis a vis the set backs. He said if the board does not grant a variance for the septic tank vis a vis the setbacks as opposed to the easement the septic tank would have to be removed. As to the building, Attorney Palmer continued, the variance is to be granted as to the setback and the side yard, but not as to the easement, that would be the same boat as the septic tank vis a vis the City's right to use F. P. & L. easement that could be taken care of in the same instance either as a vacation of easement or if it's a building it can be a partial vacation of easement, it only encroaches 4 ft 9 inches into the easement. Its a six foot wide easement so it only encroaches 9 inches into the easement to the east side of the easement. Attorney Palmer suggested that the Board could grant that variance vis a vis the setback and let the easement take care of of itself by another mechanism. Mr. Redus asked the Board to consider the variance including the septic tank. Mr. Priore pointed out the fact that the application never mentioned his septic tank. Mr. Cooper took responsibility for that oversight due to the fact he felt that anything underground would have no bearing on approval of a variance concerning the setback. Mr. Cooper stated he would file an official complaint on behalf of the City with the Board of Regulations and any other State agency concerning the original surveyor for disciplinary action if in fact he is still working. Mr. Priore asked why the Board of Adjustment is never notified when something of interest to the Board is brought before council. Attorney Palmer suggested that the Board contact the City Clerk and request notification. Attorney Palmer stated for the record that all property owners within 200 hundred feet had been duly notified by the City Clerk's Office. No responce was ever received from any adjacent property owner by the Clerks office. Ms. Heinicke asked that in the future the notices be more specific. Upon recommendation from Attorney Palmer the following motions were made MOTION by Heinicke/Matthews I move we grant the variance for the principal structure to encroach 4.7 feet more or less into the 10 ft. easterly side yard setback subject to the conditions of the 6 ft. easements on this property line: ROLL CALL: Louis Priore - Yes Gale Matthews - Yes Mary Heinicke - Yes Joseph Stephenson - Yes Motion carried. MOTION by Heinicke/Stephenson I move the septic tank variance be granted as to the side yard set back line subject to the easement and subject to the condition as ascertained to the satisfaction of the Building official that no part of the drain field or the septic tank goes into lot 17. ROLL CALL: Louis Priore - No Gale Matthews - Yes Mary Heinicke - Yes joseph Stephenson - Yes Motion carried. The Building Official stated that he would notify the Board of any correspondence concerning this case and any information pertaining to Ordinances they may want to be aware of. Attorney Palmer again suggested the Board contact the City Clerk and request copies of all proposed ordinances going before the City Council that in any way effects building, zoning, or otherwise the Land Development Code or the Boards power of jurisdiction. Attorney Palmer questioned who would write the variance approval. The Building official stated that he, in conjuction with the City Attorney would draft the variance and present it to the Chairman for his signature. Before closing Mr. Priore requested that the minutes show he felt that the application had nothing to do with what was talked about as it made no mention of the septic tank, and he didn't think it was right. He also requested that the abandonment of easement written on the application in error be removed from the record. The City Attorney exlpained that they could not amend the application. And requested the Board to consider the easement abandonment as superfluous and ignore it. 8. 9. Gale Matthews questioned who enforced the decisions made by the Board of Adjustment. Attorney Palmer explained that the Board had final say unless overturned by the courts. And if the Board should deny a variance, it was up to the City to enforce the decision. NEW chairman Joseph Stephenson adjourned the meeting at 5:10 P.M. 5