Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12031996BOA City of Sebastian 1225 MAIN STREET [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [] FAX (407) 589-5570 AGENDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1996 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OLD BUSINESS APPROVE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 5, 1996 4. NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING: THERON C. PHINNEY, IN REGARDS TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 158 CRAWFORD DRIVE, CITY OF SEBASTIAN, LOT 2, BLOCK 620, SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS UNIT #17, IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20A- 6.1C14(b)(1) OF THE SEBASTIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW ONE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE WITH A CARRYING WEIGHT OF ONE TON TO BE PARKED AT THE APPLICANT'S RESIDENCE, WHEREAS THE CODE LIMITS THE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OF A HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE HOLDER TO A MAXIMUM CARRYING WEIGHT OF 3/4 TON. PUBLIC HEARING: DONALD ELSESSOR, IN REGARDS TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 129 FRIAR COURT, LOT 31 & 32, BLOCK 440, SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS UNIT #17, CITY OF SEBASTIAN, IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20A-3.4(D)6(a) OF THE SEBASTIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW AN EXISTING HOUSE TO BE 24.05 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, WHEREAS THE CODE REQUIRES A MINIMUM 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. PUBLIC HEARING: CHRIS DIBENEDETTO, IN REGARDS TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15 CARL COURT, LOT 105, SAN SEBASTIAN SPRINGS, CiTY OF SEBASTIAN, IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20A-3.2(D)6)(b) OF THE SEBASTIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE BUILT 10.7 FEET FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE, WHEREAS THE CODE REQUIRES STRUCTURES TO BE A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. 5. CHAIRMAN'S MATTERS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 3, 1996 MEETING PAGE 2 6. MEMBERS' MATTERS 7. STAFF MATTERS 8. 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.) ADJIII.DOC City of Sebastian 1225 MAiN STREET g SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 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 MEETING ON DECEMBER 3, 1996, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. GERR~/KUBES/ANN BRACK, SECRETARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 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.$.) IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WiTH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA), ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY'S ADA COORDINATOR AT (407) 589-5330 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. ADJIV.DOC BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 3~ 1996. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Oberbeck at 7:00 PM. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mr. Crocker Chmn. Oberbeck V. Chmn. Capp Mr. Devito Mr. Beckwith Mr. Freeland EXCUSED ABSENCE: Mr. Gore ALSO PRESENT: Robert Massarelli, Director of Community Development Valerie Settles, City Attorney Gerry Kubes and Ann Brack, Secretaries OLD BUSINESS: APPROVAL OF,MINUTES: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 5, 1996 MOTION by Freeland/Devito I move to approve the minutes A voice vote was taken. Unanimous approval. NEW BUSINESS: Chmn. Oberbeck reviewed information relative to quasi-judicial procedures, as established recently by adoption of Resolution No. R-96-87. The city Attorney, Valerie Settles, noted several things at this point: 1. The oath is only used when you are a party or pan'y-intervenor (city or applicant), if requested. 2. The ex parte communication is only used in non-land use matters (new Florida statute that passed that allowed local governments to pass an ordinance which did away with that disclosure requirement for land-use matters). You can now meet with people, go to the site, and use your discretion - if you talk to one side, you must talk to the other side - and use common sense roles. Ex parte communication only applies to quasi- judicial matters that are not land-use. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 1966 PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - THERON C. PHINNEY - 158 CRAWFORD DRIVE There were eighteen (18) notices of hearing sent and we received no letters of objection or non- objection received. Mr. Massarelli gave a staff presentation, reminding the Board that this matter was before them last month (November). The motion made at the November meeting was to approve the variance, but the motion failed. An application cannot be denied on a failure to approve. Formal action must be taken to deny with reasons stated for that denial. He noted that the staff recommendation remains much the same as presented in November, and recommends that the variance be granted. It also recommends that the variance expires when the Home Occupational license expires or is not renewed, and require the applicant to screen the truck so that it is not visible to the side or to the rear. (The public hearing was opened at 7:12 and there was no public input.) Mr. Phinney was present and noted that he is retired, and does not work very much. He repeated previous comments concerning the surrounding properties adjacent to his property at 15 8 Crawford Drive. He also offered to put up screening as requested. In response to a question from Mr. Massarelli, Mr. Phinney responded that the truck is registered in his name as a private vehicle, and is listed as a 1-ton truck. (The public hearing was closed at 7:18 P.M.) V. Chmn. Capp mentioned the fact that the applicant could rent a warehouse location to do his business from, and bring his truck home to park, without a Home Occupational License. Mr. Massarelli concurred with this. There was then discussion on fence heights and types, and hedge heights and types. MOTION by Crockett/Freeland I make a motion to grant (the variance) with screening. Discussion followed and Mr. Crockett amended his motion to add: 1 ...... of a six (6) foot fence (1 st amendment, seconded by Freeland) 2 ...... based on the staff recommendation. Roll call was taken. Mr. Capp - Yes Mr. Devito - No Mr. Freeland - Yes BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 1996 Mr. Crockett - Yes Mr. Oberbeck - No Roll call was taken. 3 - 2 motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - DONALD ELSESSOR - 129 FRIAR COURT There were twenty-two (22) notices of hearing sent. We received no letters of objection or non- objection. Mr. Massarelli gave the staff presentation, noting the change in building contractors. He noted that the construction of this house was well under way before the error to the front property line was caught. A City official approved the encroachment when it was discovered. A prospective new owner wants this cleared up before proceeding with the purchase. Staff recommends approval, with the recommendation that the variance expire when and if more than 50% of the house is destroyed. He noted that the form-board survey currently being used by the City, will prevent this type of error in the future. (The public hearing was opened at 7:20 P.M.) Mr. Bruce Cooper of Cooper Consulting, was present representing Mr. Elsessor. He question the "50%" destroyed - condition referred to in the staff presentation. Mr. Massarelli responded that the Board of Adjustment, in the past, has set time limitations that variances should be discontinued if the house has to be substantially replaced, and this is in line with the Flood Insurance Program guideline. Mr. Cooper suggested that wording be changed to state that "if the affected area is ever destroyed more than 50%, necessitating the rebuilding of the entire house", then the variance would expire. Mr. Devito asked for clarification on ownership. Mr. Cooper explained that Mr. Muir is the present owner, but Mr. Elsessor is closing on the house. Mr. Dante Cotmfo of 122 Friar Court was present and stated that after he heard what the actual situation is, he has no objections. (The public hearing was closed at 7:25 P.M.) MOTION by Capp/ I make a motion that we approve this variance per staff recommendation with the exception of the 50% of the house being destroyed, that the house has to then meet compliance. The motion died for lack of a second. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 1996 MOTION by Freeland/Oberbeck I move to approve as staff recommends. Discussion followed with Mr. Freeland noting that the Board ought to have consistency in these things and he sees no reason to change it. Mr. Capp mentioned that previous decisions were on accessory structures, not main buildings. Roll call was taken. Mr. Freeland -Yes Mr. Oberbeck -Yes Mr. Crockett -Yes Mr. Capp -No Mr. Devito -Yes Roll call was taken. Motion carried with 4 - 1 vote. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE - CHRIS DIBENEDETTO - 15 CARL COURT, LOT 105, SAN SEBASTIAN SPRINGS, SEBASTIAN (There were eleven (11) notices of hearing sent out. We received no letters of objection or non- objection.) Mr. Massarelli gave staff presentation on a requested variance from Section 20A-3.2(D)(6)(b) of the Land Development Code, to allow a structure to be built I 0.7 feet fi'om the north property line. The code required this distance to be fit~een (15) feet. The property line was improperly determined and the deck of the pool was located within the set-back. The building official required the removal of the screen enclosure and it was reconstructed within the setback. Staff feels that a special condition exists and creates a possible safety hazard as the width of the pool deck is only seventeen (17) inches. Standard pool deck width on residential pools is commonly three (3) R. This condition was not created by the applicant, but by the contractor who used a standard procedure that had been accepted by the City, by running a line from a comer marker. Mr. Massarelli noted that this type of error should be prevented in the future as a formboard survey is now being required for any structure being built on a property. Staff recommends the request be granted, with the variance expiring if 50% or more of the pool is destroyed or replaced. (The public heating was opened at 7:55 P.M. Mr. Chris Dibenedetto was present and presented the history of the situation, and called attention to several photographs showing the detail of the area involving the pool skimmer, deck area and screen enclosure. (The public hearing was closed at 8:02 P.M.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING OF DEC. 3, 1996 Various Board members asked questions of the applicant. MOTION by Freeland/Capp I move to grant this adjustment, variance of 4.3 feet as per staff recommendation. Discussion: Mr. Devito asked what staff recommendation was. Mr. Freeland read this recommendation to Mr. Devito, who noted that it must be clear that the 50% damage must happen to the pool before it would have to be moved into compliance, and not damage to only the screen, and this was his way of getting this on record. Roll call was taken. 5-0 motion carried. CHAIRMAN'S MATTERS: Mr. Oberbeck: discussed the "50%" destruction factor, and suggested that the Code be clarified and staff recommendation use the term 50% destruction of "affected area" or "outbuilding" or "area in variance". Mr. Capp: asked why a variance previously requested involving a garage didn't specify "50% destruction of the garage"? He suggested that each situation is different, and that the 50% damage reference might be better applied to the portion of the structure involved in the variance. There was discussion about whether the 50% destruction factor was monetary or structural damage. The City Attorney, Valerie Settles, commented that FEMA regulations refer to 50% of the structure. MEMBERS MATTERS: Mr. Freeland directed his inquiry to Mr. Massarelli and noted that a lot of these existing variance problems are never the fault of the owner or applicant, but of the builder or contractor. He wondered if the City is keeping track of contractors and making a list of repeat offenders. Mr. Massarelli responded that departmental procedures are being redone, ordinances being updated, surveys of all structures are being considered. Contractor testing, licensing and the entire process is being looked at for accountability, and keeping track of the performance of Contractors. Complaints must be categorized, but trends can be detected. Discussion took place pointing out some of the building problems of years past, why some decisions were made, and steps to be taken to prevent these problems from being repeated. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING OF DEC. 3, 1996 Mr. Devito brought up the subject of 3/4 ton truck versus 1-ton truck in reference to Home Occupational License versus homeowner. Mr. Massarelli pointed out that it is virtually impossible to be able to tell the difference between a 3/4-ton truck and a l-ton truck. He pointed out the inconsistency in the Land Development Code on this subject, as well as many others. In response to Mr. Crockett's comment on the "billboard" type advertising on a specific truck, Mr. Massarelli responded that signs on vehicles is specifically exempt in our code, and is one of the sections of the Land Development Code that will be looked in the next year. STAFF MATTERS: Mr. Massarelli noted that there was no business pending and suggested that the January meeting be canceled and wait until February for the next meeting. At that point the Land Development Code and any other items that need discussion. Chmn. Oberbeck adjoumed the meeting at 8:27 P.M. 6 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF MEETING HELD APPROVED AT MEETING HELD, ANN BRACK, RECORDING SECRETARY GERRY KUBES, SECRETARY