Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11061987BOA MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING FRIDAY~ NOVEMBER 6, 1987 - 3:00 P.M. 1225 MAIN STREET, .~BASTIAN, FLORIDA Chairman Stephenson called the meeting to order at 3:02 P.M. Chairman Stepenson led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Gale Matthews Louis Priore, Vice Chairman Mary Heinicke Walter Shields Joseph Stephenson, Chairman Also Present: George Bonacci, Building Inspector Thomas Palmer, City Attorney 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Priore/Heinicke I move we accept the minutes of January 26, 1987 and August 18, 1987 as presented. ROLL CALL: Gale Matthews - Yes Louis Priore - Yes Mary Heinicke - Yes Walter Shields - Yes Joseph Stephenson - Yes Motion carried. 5. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Stephenson opened the Public Hearing at 3:15 1 P.M. and asked that Mr. Morrison come to the podium and state his request. Mr. Sam Morrison asked that the Board of Adjustment allow him a variance of the rear 20 feet set back on Lot 36, Block 65, Unit 2, explaining that an error was made when he judged his set back by his neighbors home. He is one (1)foot and eleven (11) inches into the rear set back. He explained that the problem started when he decided to put a roof over his slab and instructed the form foreman to shoot it, but to stay six (6) inches behind the house next door, assuming that it was within the proper set backs, as it was only approximately 5 years old. He also asked the Board to take into consideration that there is a zero lot (lot~80) behind him that no one can build upon, so he is'nt getting too close to anyone. He stated that the house next door is further into the set back than his own, and that he was eight and one half (8 1/2) feet behind a pool just approved. Mr. Bonacci explained that he found the problem and called the Building official during the slab inspection. Mr. Cooper (Building Official) approved the slab. But when Mr. Bonacci returned for a rough inspection of the house, the slab had been covered with a roof which created a two (2) foot encroachment with a permanent structure. Mr. Fussell (neighbor) stated that he had no objection to the encroachment, that Mr. Morrisons home was an asset to the community. Mr. shields questioned the fact that an addition to the plans had not been filed for a covered room. Mr. Bonacci pointed out that it was not a room, but only a covered patio. Mr. Morrison stated that he had no intensions of screening in the patio. Mr. Priore stated that he had looked at this slab and found it to be wired for electricity. Discussion followed concerning responsibility for enforcing the set back Ordinance. Attorney Palmer explained that the Building official enforced the Ordinance. Mr. Priore questioned Mr. Bonacci as to why a new plan was not requested by the Building Department when the slab was found to be in violation, and why the pouring wasn't stopped immediately. Mr. Bonacci explained that the Building Official was satisfied that the encroachment of the slab would not be a problem. Attorney Palmer explained that a slab at ground level can go into the set back. Only when poles and a roof are added does it become a violation of the codes. Mr. Bonacci showed a copy of the site plan showing the slab which was supposed to be only ten (10) feet, but instead it is eleven (11) feet eight (8) inches. And that no roof was ever mentioned. Mr. Bonacci explained further that Mr. Morrison was informed by the Building Official that he was in violation and would have to ask for a variance or move the stucture back two (2) feet. Mr. Matthews made reference to a letter dated October 19, 1987, in which Mr. Cooper informed Mr. Morrison that his slab would be approved providing it remained uncovered. He also instructed the concrete contractor to have the owner come in and change the plans to show the uncovered patio. Mr. Palmer questioned Mr. Bonacci for the record, besides the slab, what else extended beyond the set back. Mr. Bonacci answered that there were four (4) or five (5) poles and the roof setting two (2) feet into the set back. Mr. Palmer stated that this is a self created hardship, and that the Board did not have the power to grant a variance with the facts as presently presented. However it did violate the code and if the variance could not be granted the posts and the roof must be moved back to the set back line under the existing code. The only other alternative would be if someone would argue before the Planning and Zoning Board which would go before City Council, to change the 20 foot set back requirement. Ms. Heinicke requested a copy of the set back codes for the Board. Mr. Palmer assured the Board they would recieve copies of any rules and regulations that applied to them from the Land Development Code. MOTION made by Priore/Matthews I move we deny this variance, as it is a self created hardship. ROLL CALL VOTE: Gale Matthews - Yes Motion carried. Louis Priore - Yes Mary Heinicke _ Yes Walter Shields Yes Joseph Stephenson _ Yes Chairman Stephenson questioned the Attorneys opinion on the possible bonding of surveyors and contractors. Mr. Palmer explained that the State had recently passed a new law which allows municipalities to impose, if they pass an Ordinance, a performance bond on contractors and on electrical contractors up to five thousand dollars ($5,000,00) per building project. It may not apply to surveyors. Mr. Palmer stated he would research this to be sure. 7. CHAIRMANS MATTERS 8. COMMITTEE MATTERS MOTION made by Priore/Heinicke I move we recommend that City Council raise the fees as much as allowed for a variance request. ROLL CALL VOTE: Gale Matthews - Yes Louis Priore - Yes Mary Heinicke _ Yes Walter Shields Yes Joseph Stephenson - Yes Motion carried. 9. NEW BUSINESS MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:05 P.M.