Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09061988BOA City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 MINUTES BOARD O--F'ADJUSTMENT -- --~-~ETING SEPTEMBER 6,_ 1988 - 3:00 P.M. 122~ MAI~N ~TREET~, SE~A~TYAN, ~LO~ID~A Chairman Matthews called the meeting to order at 3:00 P.M. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Joseph Stephenson Mary Heinicke James K. Husk Gale Matthews Excused: Louis Priore Walter Shields Also Present: Bruce Cooper, Building Official Paul Kreuzkamp, Jr., Asst. City Attorney 3. Chairman Matthews led the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTE~ - Minutes of June 7, 1988 MOTION Stephenson/Heinicke I move we accept the minutes of June 7, 1988 as presented. Roll call: Joseph Stephenson - Yes Mary Helnicke - Yes James Husk - Yes Gale Matthews - Yes Moition carried unanimously 5. PUBLIC H_EARING - Fence Variance request from Ms. Margaret Levey. Chairman Matthews asked Ms. Leveys' representative to come to t~ Chairman Matthews asked Ms. Leveys' representative to come to th podium and state her case. Mrs. Ellen Hackett, daughter of the applicant, explained that Ms. Levey had the fence installed for privacy. She further stated that it was their contention that the fence was in the back yard. Mr. Cooper explained that the owners of the property had contracted with Sears for the installation of the fence and that the fence had been installed without a permit. He further stated that the contractor had been notified that they were in violation. He continued by explaining the Sebastian Land Development Code requires a front setback of 25 from any street. This property being a corner lot in fact had two (2) frontages as it fronted two (2) streets, although one street was not a thru street at this time. He further explained that plans were being made to make this street a thru street in the near future. His only recommendation was that the fence be allowed to remain temporarily until this street is in fact a thru street, at which time this fence must be removed or placed in compliance with the code. Mrs. Hackett again questioned the verity of this property having two (2) front yards. Again Mr. Cooper explained that the property fronted both Main Street and Wimbrow Drive. He further explained that the house was enchroaching at only twenty two . two (22.2) feet from the building line fronting Wimbrow Drive. Attorney Kreuzkamp recommended that the Chairman question the make and size of the fence. Mr. Cooper stated that it was a four (4) foot chain link fence. Ms. Heinicke stated that if a temporary variance was approved, the applicant would have to remove the fence eventually anyway. Mr. Bruce Cooper explained the code to the members of the Board and stated that he felt that a variance should be granted to allow the fence to be placed into the same front setback as the existing single family structure, which is grandfathered at twenty two two feet (22.2) instead of the twenty five feet (25) required by the code. A discussion followed concerning what the applicant could do in regards to the fence with approval of the above referenced variance. Attorney Kreuzkamp explained that the Board had two (2) separate issues before them, requiring two (2) separate 2 varainces. The first to be the permanent variance to allow the fence to encroach into the easement at Twenty two (22) feet instead of the Twenty five (25) feet required by the code with the existing structure. The second being a temporary varaiance to allow the fence to remain until such time as Wimbrow Drive becomes a thru Street. Chairman Matthews stated that he would entertain a motion at this time. Attorney Kreuzkamp stated that the Board must first make a motion on the finding of fact. Which is the following: (1). That a fence was built (2). Where it was built (3). What the fence is made of Motion Stephenson/Heinicke I move that based on the testimony, the Board agrees that a fence of at least four (4) foot but not exceeding six (6) feet made of chain link material located on property described as 398 Main Street a/k/a Lot #3, Block #65, Unit #2, has been erected in the drainage utility easement, and further that said fence was erected by Sears and Robuck Company under contract with the property owner. In addition the Board finds that the existing house is approximately twenty two. two (22.2) feet from the right- of-way of Wimbrow Drive. Roi1 call: Joseph Stephenson - Yes Mary Heinicke - Yes James Husk - Yes Gale Matthews - Yes Motion carried unanimously. Motion Stephenson/Heinicke I move that we grant a permanent variance of the twenty five (25) foot setback requirement to the existing setback of the house on the west side of the property which is approximately twenty two (22) feet. Roll call: Joseph Stephenson Mary Heinicke James Husk Gale Matthews - Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes Motion carried unanimously. Motion Heinicke/Stephenson I move we grant a temporary variance to allow the four (4) foot chain link fence to remain until such time as Wimbrow Drive becomes a thru Street. 3 Roll call: Joseph Stephenson Mary Heinicke James Husk Gale Matthews - Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes Motion carried unanimously. Next case on the agenda: Southern Bell maximum building coverage variance request. Mr. Husk questioned the attorney as to a possible conflict of interest on his part, due to the fact that he retired from Michigan Bell Telephone. Attorney Kreuzkamp stated that he need only to disclose this for the record and sign a conflict of interest form if he felt this was in fact a conflict. Mr. Cooper explained that a conflict of interest was possible only when there was some type of personal gain, and this was not the case in this circumstance. Chairman Matthews asked the Southern Bell representative to please step to the podium and state his case. Mr. Ben Brooks, Staff Manager from Ft. Lauderdale, explained that Southern Bell was requesting a variance to allow an addition to be built onto the central office located on U.S. Highway #1, increasing the total development of the property to thirty (30) percent, which by our City Code, is not allowed. He further explained that the addition was needed to house new equipment to enable the residents access to all long distance carriers. Attorney Kreuzkamp questioned the cost benefit ratio, making mention of figures presented in writing on the application that he felt should be read into the record. A lengthy discussion followed concerning the type and size of the new equipment. Mr. Stephenson questioned why Southern Bell could not use a second floor. Mr. Brooks stated that the building was designed for a second floor addition but that it was more desirable cost wise to add to the existing first floor building. He further stated that it was company policy to add and use a second floor as a last resort. Mr. Cooper explained that the Board could not grant a variance based on a monetary hardship and requested a ball p cost. Only if that amount was cost prohibited could the 4 Board grant a variance due to monetary reasons, because being a public utility, the cost would be passed on to the public. Mr. Brooks stated that for future expansion, a second floor may be added. He estimated that need for further growth would be approximately ten years. Mr. Cooper stated that the variance, being granted for the first or second floor would take care of the non- conformities in parking, so parking could not be used as a basis for approval. Attorney Kreuzkamp explained to the Board that Southern Bell being a public utility, is a unique circumstance in regards as to why an expansion must be made. He continued by explaining the fact that the Board had two issues to address, first being that Southern Bell is a Public utility serving the public, the second being, will this be a lateral or upward expansion ? If its a laterial expansion, they would obviously need a variance. The Board must look at the cost of a laterial expansion verses the upward expansion. Only if it is cost prohibited can it be used to grant a variance. Mr. Brooks estimated what it would cost approximately seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000.00) and eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000,00) to add a second floor, as again it is company policy to build a complete second floor instead of a partial. Mr. Cooper recommended that the Board postpone their decision until the exact figures could be brought forth to justify a variance. He stated that he did not feel comfortable making any recommendation not having all the facts before them. Chairman Matthews agreed. Attorney Kreuzkamp stated that by tabeling this case until the next regular meeting and allowing the applicant to bring more testimony and facts that weren't present today, the Board could feel more comfortable with their decision. Motion Heinicke/Stephenson I move we postpone this decision pending further facts and information until the October 4, 1988 meeting. Roll call: Joseph Stephenson - Yes Mary Heinicke - Yes James Husk - Yes Gale Matthews - Yes Motion carried unanimously 6. CHAIRMANS MATTERS None 7. COMMITTEE MATTERS None 8. BUILDING OFFICIAL MATTERS None 9. NEW BUSINESS Attorney Kreuzkamp explained two new varaince forms presented to the Board. (1). Form Granting a variance (2). Form Denying a variance He explained the above forms had to include finding of fact, conclusions of law, and order. He further stated that the secretary should sign a have notarized a notice verifing that letters were sent to ajacent property owners and that notices where placed in the paper twice with the days ran. As the next step from the Board of Adjustment is the appellic court. The courts would hear no testimony but would only look at this information to determine if the Boards Judgement was correct. A dicussion followed between the City Attorney and the Building Official concerning the thirty (30) day filing requirement for variances and appeals. Motion Heinicke/Stephenson I move that the Board of Adjustment thank Debbie West for all her tremendous work and wish her all the best in the future. Voice vote carried unanimously Motion Heinicke/Shields I move we adjourn Voice vote unanimous 10. The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 P.M. 6 City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 PUBLIC NOTICE CITY OF SEBASTIAN 1225 M~IN STREET IN--~IAN RI~ER COUNTY FLORIDA The Board of Adjustment of the City of Sebastian, Indian River County, Florida, will conduct a Meeting on Tuesday, September 6, 1988, at 3:00 P.M. in Council Chambers located at 1225 Main Street, Sebastian, Florida, to consider a Variance from the City of Sebastian Land Development Code, Section 20A-5.9 (L.D.C.). Ms. Margaret Levey of 398 Main Street, a/k/a Lot 3, Block 65, Unit 2, is requesting that an existing fence be allowed to remain although the code prohibits all fences or walls in any front yard. Kathryn M. O'Halloran, CMC/AAE City Clerk City of Sebastian, Florida 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: Press Journal - August 22, 30, 1988 City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 AGENDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 - 3:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 88.006 88.007 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. OLD BUSINESS: - Approve June 7, 1988 Minutes 5. PUBLIC HEARING: 6. CHAIRMANS MATTERS: 7. COMMITTEE MATTERS: 8. NEW BUSINESS: Discussion of Attorneys recommendation to change the Variance Denial order form. Ms. Margaret Levey - Request of Variance for existing fence. Southern Bell - Request of Variance on maximum Building coverage allowed. 9. 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.