Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-20-2024 BOA MinutesCITY OF Sf)3AST1_APq I.10,ME OF PELICAN ISLAND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 1225 Main Street, Sebastian, FL 32958 The attached November 20, 2024 Board of Adjustment minutes were approved at the September 24, 2025 Board of Adjustment meeting. Chairman Bob McPartlan ATTEST: ne�.e�C nette Williams, City Clerk Regular City Council, Board of Adjustment, and Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes November 20, 2024 Page 7 Nancy Moore, 1558 Ocean Cove, said she used to live in Ft. Lauderdale before she moved to Sebastian. She even bought the undeveloped lot next door to her house in order to provide a place for the local wildlife. She chose to move to Sebastian because of the quiet, the beauty, and the animals. She is against taking down every tree and driving away all of the animals. She says this undeveloped parcel was an asset to the City, and the residents should have a say in what is done with it. Damien Gilliams, President of the Sebastian Property Owner's Association, stated he has been in the community for 40 years as a real estate broker. He explained that General Development Corporation went bankrupt and turned over a lot of property to City. It was not given to special interests, but to the City. He stated this was surplus property that belonged to the taxpayers of Sebastian. He stated the City already had an opportunity to create low-income housing in the recent past when it annexed 2,000 acres, but they did not provide for it in the developer's agreement. Mort Orman, originally from Maryland, said in 1984 when the Baltimore Colts were owned by Robert Irsay, there was a lot of discussion about moving the team out of Baltimore. irsay promised lie would never do that, but one winter night, in the middle of die night, lie loaded up two Mayflower vans and moved the entire team to Indianapolis. Overnight the beloved Baltimore football team was gone, and there was nothing the people of Baltimore could do about it. Mr. Orman feels that the Council has done something similar here. He said there should have been a meeting to discuss this before Council signed over that property. Nikki Grant said that a lot of the issue tonight is a lack of communication and that people did not know what was going on. Transparency is a basic issue. She thinks if residents had more information ahead of' time, this would have been smoother and people would not have been as upset. She asked if the parameters say what the square footage of the houses will be. Council Member Nunn informed her the houses would be roughly 1,500 square feet. Charles Stadelman on Zoom said he was previously a real estate broker. He noted that people have been priced out of the market for various reasons and housing is out of reach for many. He wants to congratulate Council for taking this issue up and providing relief for people who work here. He concluded that these houses are needed. Council Member Nunn noted that some people have mentioned the low-income houses on Schumann Drive. He used to live in that area when he was young with his family, and it is a low-income rental area. He noted that Habitat for Humanity works hard to find qualified applicants. There is no bank or builder offering a 30-year interest free mortgage to help someone buy a house, but that is what Habitat for Humanity does. Mayor McPartlan called for a I0-minute recess at 7:32 p.m. 10. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING —� At 7:47 p.m., Chairman McPartlan convened the Board of Adjustment meeting. Mr. Dodd arrived soon after at 7:54 p.m. A. Consideration of a Variance Reauest - Sean Strobl - 798 Snire Avenue - Six-foot High Fence on a Corner Lot Located within the Secondary Front Yards. and Located in Front of the House - LDC Sections 54-2-7.7(c)(3) & 54-2-7.7(c)(1) The City Attorney asked for anyone who planned to speak to fill out a speaker oath card. Regular Citv Council, Board ol'Adjustinent, Ind Conimunity Redevelopment Agency Minutes November 20, 2024 Maze S Sean Strohl, the applicant, came forward and explained that the main issue with his variance request is line -of -sight or visibility concerns for drivers. The only potential affected driveways would be his driveway and the immediate neighbor behind him, but the lattice on his fence does not block the view for either of these driveways. Mr. Strohl took pictures from these driveways to show that the fence is not causing ail obstruction of the view of the road or the stop sign. 'File Community Development Manager reviewed that this is a variance request regarding a fence for a corner lot which is treated a little bit different than fencing on a regular lot. The City does not allow a 6-foot fence in the front of a house, and also on a corner lot. The Code requires a 6-foot fence to have to meet the secondary front yard setback of 20 feet from the secondary line, which is not measured from the edge of the road. The applicant came in and applied for a permit in May 2024 and brought in a survey indicating where he was going to put the fence. The Building Department staff showed him where a 6-foot fence or a 4-toot fence could be placed on his property. Mr. Strohl's 4-foot fence was installed and inspected and approved by the Building Department. After the fence was approved and the permit was closed out. Mr. Strohl installed an additional 2-toot lattice on top of the fence. The Code states that a permit is not needed if a lattice does not create a barrier, but that is referring to garden trellises and things like that. Mr. Strohl's lattice addition clearly creates a barrier and adds to the height of the fence. The fence is on the property line. The Code requires the Board of Adjustment to examine certain criteria in deciding if a fence variance can be granted. Mr. Strohl's fence does meet some of the criteria. • There is an existence of special conditions or circumstances because his property does face three roadways. It is a unique lot with three front yards. • It can also be argued that this creates a hardship condition for him because if' he has to use the 20-foot setback on three sides. this causes him to lose quite a bit of the use of his back yard compared to other corner lots or other interior lots. • However, with the addition of the trellis, the applicant has created a condition that puts his fence at odds with what is allowed by the Code, particularly in light of the fact that the applicant added the lattice after his permit had been approved. • \14any other corner lot owners have had to meet the ordinance regarding their fences within their secondary front yards and have had to use a 20-foot setback when they installed a 6-foot fence, so granting this variance would be granting him a special privilege. `File Community Development Manager reminded the Board of Adjustment that only the minimum variance should be granted. There is also a specific section ofthe Code that gives specific dimensions to make Sure that a fence is not within a visibility triangle. Staff went out and took pictures and Mr. Strohl's fence does meet the Code's requiremeIlts for a visibility triangle, however, his 6-foot knee juts 20 feet in front of the neighbor's house to the north on Wimbrow Drive and there may be a visibility concern for this specific neighbor when they are backing out of their driveway. Choice A. The Board of Adjustment can decide to grant the variance and allow the applicant to keep the fence that extends into the secondary front yards at 6 tlect. Regular City Council, Board of Adjustment, and Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes November 20, 2024 Page 9 Choice B. If the Board of Adjustment denies the variance, the applicant would have to take down the trellis so the fence will again be a 4-foot fence as originally permitted. There is a section on the rear yard where the 6-foot fence can remain. The applicant also has the option to keep his fence 6-foot high, but then he would need 20-foot setbacks on the two secondary front yards. Choice C. The Board of Adjustment may decide to partially grant the variance, allowing the applicant to potentially keep his 64bot fence with the condition that it is placed 10 feet from the property line on Wimbrow Drive, rather than the 20-foot setback required by the Code. Whatever the Board of Adjustment decides, Staff asked for the applicant to make the required changes within 2 months, and regardless of the choice to grant or deny, or grant a partial variance. the 6400t fence in the front of the yard needed to be addressed. Chairman McPartlan opened the floor for public input from anyone in favor of this variance request. Erik Hendrickson -Cruz, who lives at 465 Mark Street directly across from Mr. Strohl's house, said that he is the one most impacted by this fence since he frequently travels down Mark Street and stops at both of the stop signs that are near the applicant's house. He asked for the variance to be granted because this lot is very unique. The applicant has small children and his dogs were jumping the 4- feet fence, which is why the trellis was added at a later date. He says the applicant and his family have been wonderful neighbors. He gave an example of them flying a flag at one point that lie took issue with, but they took it down without any questions to be considerate to him. He is glad to have a neighbor that is a young family, rather than neighbors that look up variances and make complaints. He asks for the variance to be granted since it is for the safety of their children and their pets, and it causes no concern for him, an impacted neighbor. David Moore, 762 Wimbrow Drive, also brought up how unique this property is. He owns the home that the Community Development Manager mentioned with a driveway near the applicant's fence and with possible visibility concerns. He says visibility is not an issue for him or for anyone that uses his driveway. Chairman McPartlan asked if anyone opposed this request. Eugene Wolff, 757 Wimbrow Drive, opposes the granting of the variance because he views it as a privilege and such privileges should not be given to owners of properties that are not in line with Cade enforcement. He feels he is most impacted because his house faces the applicant's property. He says the applicant's property has several egregious Code enforcement issues, including parking a vehicle in a drainage swale, as exhibited oil page 34 in Exhibit F6, an unregistered vehicle on the property, and adults living in a utility shed on the property. William Thompson, 751 Wimbrow Drive, agrees it is an odd lot, but he thinks the fence was built in a haphazard way and it will fall apart and blow apart in a storm and affect everyone's safety. He also disagrees with the fence being built so close to the roadway, particularly since there is a lot of usable space on the property. He is also annoyed by the applicant's little dog that he says barks and whines all day long. Mr. Strohl said in response to the "egregious" violations, the Code allows a resident to have one unregistered vehicle on a property. He does have an unregistered 1987 Jeep that is a project that lie is working on. His 70-year-old mother lives with him, and she cannot walk all the way to the front door of the house because it is an uphill walk for her so he does park his car close to his house. Regular City Council, Board of Adjustment, and Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes November 20, 2024 Page 10 The City Attorney reminded the Board and told Mr. Strohl that he does not have to address issues except in regard to the fence. The Board of Adjustment will only be considering issues in relation to the variance request. Mr. Strohl said he no longer has anyone living in his shed at this time. He did apologize for his dogs offending his neighbor. He would like clarification with the problem with the fence on the front portion of the house to make sure he understood. The Community Development Manager clarified that a 6-foot fence cannot be in front of the house, but it can be a 4-foot fence. Mr. Strohl explained that this area is his mother's patio, and this is where his mother lets the dogs out of the house and why the higher fence was needed in this area. Without the lattice/trellis the dogs were jumping over the fence. He has one area of his fence, the gate, where he has not installed the lattice, and his dogs are able to jump over that section. Mr. Strohl said if they would consider granting the variance with a 10-foot setback for the fence, it would be even more of a help to him if they could give him an 8-foot setback because he would not have to move as many posts to remedy the situation. Mr. Nunn asked the Community Development Director to specifically clarify what needed to be changed about the portion of the fence that is in front of the house. She explained that the Board of Adjustment has never granted a variance for a 6-foot fence in front of a house because it does not meet any of the criteria for a variance. Mr. Nunn asked the applicant to look at Exhibit V and asked if that part of the fence that extends in front of the house is his mother's patio and if the fence was moved back could she still use the patio. Mr. Strohl said yes, that is his mother's patio, but if the fence was moved back, the patio would no longer be a private area for his mother, and she would no longer be able to let the dogs out into the fenced in yard. MOTION by Vice Chair Jones and SECOND by Ms. Dixon to grant a partial variance, allowing those portions of the fence that extend into the secondary front yards to remain 6 feet high with the condition that the fence along Wimbrow Drive must be 10 feet from the property line, but deny the portion of the fence that extends beyond the front house line to stay at 6 feet high. Mr. Nunn said he tends to agree with granting the partial variance because they do not want to set a precedent or make an exception allowing for the 6-foot fence in front of the house without extenuating circumstances. The Community Development Manager asked if the Board of Adjustment could include a 2-month deadline to make the required changes to ensure that the fence could be modified, inspected, and the pen -nit closed out within timeframe. Vice Chair Jones said he is tine with that being included in his motion and Council Member Dixon seconded that as well. Mr. Dodd asks if the applicant will then be charged another permit fee. The Community Development Manager said she was not sure. The other permit was closed out, but she said she could ask if it can be viewed as a permit modification. Regular City Council, Board of Adjustment, and Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes November 20, 2024 Page 11 Mr. Nunn asked for a waiver of the permit fee to be added to the motion. Vice Chair Jones agreed with a waiver of the permit fee being included in the motion and Ms. Dixon seconded that as well. Mr. Strohl asked the Board of Adjustment if they could agree with an 8-foot setback rather than 10- feet because it would help him to correct the fence by simply removing one panel of fencing. Vice Chair Jones was not willing to make that change to the motion. Roll call: Vice Chair Jones - ave Y Chairman McPartlan - ave Y Mr. Nunn - aye Mr. Dodd - ave Ms. Dixon - aye Motion carried. 5-0 B. Consideration of a Variance Request - Brandon & Jennifer Martin - 491 Kumquat Avenue - Six-foot High Fence on a Corner Lot Located within the Secondary Front Ward - LDC Section 54-2-7.7(c)(3) The City Attorney asked for anyone who planned to speak regarding this variance request to fill out a speaker oath card. Brandon Martin, the applicant, 491 Kumquat, came forward and explained there were no line -of - sight issues or visibility issues with the fence, but they also have a pool in the backyard and if they have to move their fence back, they will have no backyard area for their children or dogs. He believes their fence adds value to the neighborhood and most of his neighbors are happy with it. He also noted there are several instances near his home of overgrown 20-foot bamboo that affect visibility when driving. The Community Development Manager noted that it is highly unusual to have the same variance requests to come up within such a short span of time. She researched how often this issue has arisen in case a change to the Code needed to be addressed, but in the last 10 years this type of variance request has only come up twice. It does seem to simply be a coincidence that both requests came in within three weeks of each other, and each request should be looked at upon its own merits. She explained that the City received an application for a permit from a fence contractor to put up a 6-foot fence on this property. Comments were sent to the fence contractor from the Zoning Department that the permit was being denied due to the fence being 6 feet in height in the secondary front yard, as well as comments from the Engineering Department that the permit was denied due to the proposed location on the property line in the rear utility and drainage easement. The fence was installed without the issuance of the permit and without any of those concerns being addressed. City staff did not receive a revised survey. Thus, the applicant still does not have a building permit in place for the fence and that also needs to be addressed. Unlike the previous variance request, there is not a unique property. It is a standard corner lot that is wider than other corner lots in the area. Most corner lots are 85 feet wide, but this corner lot is 100 feet wide. 1Zegular City Council, Board of Adjustment, and Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes November 20, 2024 Page 12 The fence was put in about 3 to 4 feet into the street right of way, so it is incorrectly installed. The applicant cannot get a variance for that, no matter what, because a fence cannot be placed in the street right of way. The Board of Adjustment can allow the fence to be on the property line or moved inward. • In considering the criteria to be considered to grant a variance, there are not special conditions or circumstances that would favor the applicant's request. • The conditions were created by the applicant and his contractor installing a fence without a pennit and without addressing the concerns of the Zoning and Building Departments. • There would be special privilege conferred if the variance was granted. A close neighbor has been in this same situation and has conformed to the requirements of the Code and reduced their secondary front yard fence to 4 feet. • There is no hardship for the applicant to conform to the requirements of the Code. The property does have a pool and an auxiliary driveway, but the homeowner can still enjoy his backyard even if the variance is not granted. He still has recreational storage and parking abilities in his backyard. The Community Development Manager reviewed the options before the Board of Adjustment. Option A. The Board of Adjustment could deny the variance. Option B. The Board of Adjustment could grant the variance to allow the 6-foot fence on the secondary front yard setback, but the applicant would still need a permit issued. Staff did verify that the fence is not causing a problem with the required visibility triangle in his front yard. Option C. The Board of Adjustment could grant a partial variance and allow a portion of the 6-foot fence to extend into the secondary front yard and a distance specified by the Board, for instance, 10 feet from the property line, rather than 20 feet per the Code. Regardless of the option chosen by the Board of Adjustment, the fence must be relocated out of the street right of way and out of the rear easement. Mr. Nunn asked about the red and blue lines drawn on Exhibit F on page 62. The Community Development Manager clarified that the red lines show where the fence has been installed and the blue lines show what the permit had requested or what the applicant's contractor said he had planned to build if the permit was granted. The City had concerns because the blue line is shown to be in the rear easement, as commented upon by Engineering, and there were no dimensions given so it was unclear where the fence would be placed, as commented upon by Zoning. Mr. Nunn commented about fences being allowed within an easement as long as the homeowner grants access and assumes the cost of repairs. He asks if this is allowed in this type of case. The Community Development Manager said an affidavit can be completed by a homeowner that says they will relocate the fence if it needs to be accessed by the City or utility provider. Such an affidavit would also have to be signed off by the Engineering Department, but in this case the Engineering Department had already denied the permit based on the fence being in the rear easement and due to some maintenance issues with this specific drainage ditch. Such an affidavit is not always an option. Regular City Council, Board of Adjustment, and Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes November 20, 2024 Page 13 . Chairman McPartlan asked for public input from those that agree with the variance request. Marsha Brizzie, 182 Coconut Street, said that she walks past the applicant's house every day. There is nothing about this fence that is blocking her vision to watch for cars and walk safely around the neighborhood. She was shocked to hear there is a problem with the applicant's fence. The 8-feet bamboo at a nearby home that was even closer to the street was definitely a problem. This is the only part of his yard that can be used for his dog. There is no backyard space because of his pool. The Community Development Manager agreed that City staff did not consider there to be a visibility problem due to the fence. She noted that the applicant can keep the fence where it is on the property line but it needs to be taken down to 4 feet in the front yard setback to be in accord with the Code. Ms. Brizzie also pointed out that the fence does not look 6 feet high because the land goes downhill and lowering the fence may mean his dogs will be able to jump over it. She said the fence is not causing any visibility problems within the neighborhood. Chairman McPartlan asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to this variance request and no one came forward. Mr. Martin, the applicant, explained that they had no intention to file a permit for something that was not appropriate and that is why they hired a licensed contractor to handle the fence installation. He stated they have no problem moving the fence out of the rear easement. He was just trying to create some usable yard space on the side yard because the enjoyment of his property is limited. The Community Development Manager discussed that the Board of Adjustment could go with Option C and grant a partial variance. She also pointed out that from the side of their garage to their property line, there is 30 feet of usable space. By moving the fence 10 feet, that still gives them 20 feet by their garage. She explained this could have been avoided if the applicant had worked with the City through the permitting process. She also requested a deadline to move the fence out of the easement, to relocate the fence, and to get the fence permit issued. Mr. Dodd referred to Exhibit H 1 and asked for clarification on what Option A would provide to the applicant. The Community Development Manager advised that the applicant could move the fence out of the street right of way and install a 4-foot fence along the property line, shown with a red line on Exhibit H 1, but she does not think that is an option for the applicant because they needed a 6-foot fence because of their dogs. The blue lines on Option A on Exhibit H t show where the fence would have to be moved to if the Board of Adjustment denied the variance. Mr. Dodd confirmed his understanding of Option C was that it would reduce the side yard by 10 feet but the applicant can stilt have a 6-foot fence and a 20-foot side yard. Mr. Dodd asked about the responsibility of the contractor to pull a permit and then to finalize the permit process. The Community Development Manager confinmed that it is the responsibility of the contractor to follow through on the permit process and the contractor was fined for putting the fence up without the permit being issued. The contractor will have to pay that fee before there can be a final inspection. Mr. Dodd states he has a problem blaming the homeowner when there was a contractor involved and the contractor is responsible to know these requirements. Regular City Council, Board of Adjustment. and Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes November 20, 2424 Page 14 Mr. Nunn agreed that this needs to be addressed with the contractor. if there had not been a Code violation, we would not have known this fence was built without a permit. He wonders how many fences are being built without the required pen -nits. MOTION by Mr. Nunn and SECOND by Mr. Dodd to approve Option B and grant the variance to the applicant, but that includes completion of the permitting process. Mr. Dodd noted that the house is far enough back fiom the street that he does not believe the higher fence is creating any visibility issues for traffic. Mr. Nunn pointed out that the Community Development Manager agreed there were no visibility issues with where the fence is currently. She also confirmed there were no visibility issues with cars backing out of neighboring driveways. Chairman McPartlan asked if all of the neighbors were notified of the variance request. The Community Development Manager said letters were sent to the neighbors notifying diem. Mr. Nunn commented on how much space there is between the road and the swale. The Community Development Manager pointed out that the fence is in the street right of way and needs to be moved back about 3 feet and the fence in the rear will need to be relocated out of the rear easement. Because the permit has not been issued, the City would require the contractor to adjust his survey to show where the fence is, and staff would request that this all be completed within a set timeframe. Mr. Dodd asks if those changes, relocating the fence 3 feet to get it out of the street right of way and relocating the fence out of the rear easement, are required for Option B. The Community Development Manager clarified that those specific changes would be required for the permit to be issued, even if the Board of Adjustment agrees to grant the variance to the applicant. The Engineering Department will not sign off on the permit unless the fence is out of that rear easement. There will still be some fence relocation and then a survey showing where the fence is, even if the full variance is granted. The City Manager reminded the Board of Adjustment to give a timeline for completion. Mr. Dodd expressed concerned that a timeline might not be met since in involves a contractor who has been deficient and already chosen not to follow proper permitting procedures. The applicant has asked for the; variance but now he may have to become involved in litigation with the contractor before this is over with. The Community Development Manager said Staff had recommended giving the applicant 2 weeks to get the permit issued. The applicant can take over the permitting process and handle it himself. A survey is needed that shows where the fence is going to be, in accordance with the Board of Adjustment's decision. Then the pen -nit will be good for b months to get the fence relocated and call in a final inspection that will verify the fence is in the correct location. The City Attorney informed the Board of Adjustment that they can ask tor clarification from the applicant, but she would not open the meeting up to the public at this time. Mr. Nunn asks for the applicant to come forward because lie may have already considered some of these matters regarding his contractor. Mr. Martin, the applicant, said that the contractor has been in contact with him and he thinks he will be available to relocate the fence within 60 days. Regular City Council, Board of Adjustment, and Community Redevelopment Agency Minutes November 20, 2024 Page 15 Mr. Nunn agreed to add to his motion for Option B granting the variance the requirement of completing the permitting process with all proper fees within 60 days, and this was seconded by Council Member Dodd. Roll call: Chairman McPartlan - aye Mr. Nunn - aye Mr. Dodd -aye Ms. Dixon -aye Vice Chair Jones - -aye Motion carried. 5-0 Chairman McPartlan adjourned the Board of Adjustment meeting at 8:44 p.m. N 11. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Chairman McPartlan convened the Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting at 8:44 p.m. A. Approval of May 22.2024 CRA Minutes B. Approval of September 25, 2024 CRA Minutes C. Approval of October 16, 2024 CRA Minutes MOTION by Mr. Dodd and SECOND by Vice Chair Jones to approve the May 22, 2024, September 25. 2024, and October 16. 2024 Minutes. Roll call: Mr. Nunn - aye Mr. Dodd - aye Ms. Dixon - aye Vice Chair Jones - - aye Chairman McPartlan - aye Motion carried. 5-0 D. Consideration of a Florida Inland Navieation District (FIND) Grant Aureement for Design of the Riverview Park Renovations. Appropriate Matchine Funds and Forward to Citv Council for Approval The City Manager explained that this is a request from Staff for the Community Redevelopment Agency to approve and allow this FIND grant agreement to be forwarded to City Council. The request is for $100,000, which would include S50.000 provided by FIND and S50,000 matched from the CRA budget. These funds will assist with the design of the Riverview Park renovations. MOTION by Mr. Dodd and SECOND by Ms. Dixon to approve Item D. Chairman McPartlan asked for public input and there was none. Roll call: Mr. Dodd - aye Ms. Dixon - aye Vice Chair Jones - - aye Chainnan McPartlan - aye Mr. Nunn - aye Motion carried. 5-0