HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-09-2008 BOA Agenda1225 MAIN STREET ^ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958
TELEPHONE (772) 589-5518 ^ FAX (772) 388-8248
AGENDA
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2008
6:00 P.M.
L CALL TO ORDER:
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. ROLL CALL:
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting 9-26-07
6. OLD BUSINESS:
7. NEW BUSINESS:
A. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING:
WILLIAM AND MARY INGUI, IN REGARDS TO LOT 5, BLOCK 104,
SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS UNIT 2, LOCATED AT 626 LAYPORT
DRIVE, IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE (POOL ENCLOSURE) TO BE FIVE (5) FEET FROM THE
REAR PROPERTY LINE, WHEREAS THE CODE REQUIRES SUCH
STRUCTURE TO~ BE TEN (10) FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY
LINE.
8. CHAIRMAN'S MATTERS:
9. MEMBERS' MATTERS:
10. STAFF MATTERS:
11. ADJOURN
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE BOARD OF
ADNSTMENT 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.)
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 (772) 589-5330 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN
ADVANCE OF THE MEETING.
~~
SE~s'rt~N
_ _ 1,__,
__ `.r _
HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (CITY COUNCIL)
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2007 - 5:30 PM
1225 MAIN ST, SEBASTIAN
MINUTES
Chairperson Coy called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
2. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
3. ROLL CALL
Board Members Present:
Mayor Andrea Coy
Vice-Mayor Sal Neglia
Council Member AI Paternoster
Council Member Dale Simchick
Council Member Eugene Wolff
Staff Present:
City Manager, AI Minner
City Attorney, Rich Stringer
City Clerk, Sally Maio
Deputy City Clerk, Jeanette Williams
Building Director, Wayne Eseltine
Growth Management Director, Rebecca Grohall
Growth Management Manager, Jan King
MIS Systems Analyst, Barbara Brooke
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS -None
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting 2-28-07
MOTION by Mr. Paternoster and SECOND by Mr. Neglia. Voice vote 5-0 carried.
6. OLD BUSINESS -None
7. NEW BUSINESS
A. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARIN
CHUCK BRADFORD, IN REGARDS TO A RESIDENCE LOCATED
AT 850 INDIAN RIVER DRIVE, IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO
ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE 1.12 FEET FROM THE NORTH
(SIDE) PROPERTY LINE AND 1.18 FEET FROM THE SOUTH
(SIDE) PROPERTY LINE, WHEREAS THE CODE REQUIRES SUCH
STRUCTURE TOBE A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET FROM THE NORTH
(SIDE) PROPERTY LINE AND 5 FEET FROM THE SOUTH (SIDE)
PROPERTY LINE.
Board of Adjustment Meeting
September 26, 2007
Page Two
Mayor Coy opened the public hearing at 5:30 p.m.
The following ex-pane communications were disclosed:
Mr. Paternoster stated Mr. Lulich called him to ask if he had any questions and
that Mr. Lulich is representing his wife on a legal matter. He was advised by the
City Attorney that as long as he disclosed this information there would not be a
problem.
Mayor Coy stated she had a brief conversation with Mr. Lulich this afternoon.
Mr. Neglia also had a conversation with Mr. Lulich.
Ms. Simchick stated Mr. Lulich called her but she did not return the phone call.
She also stated a neighbor asked her to call the petitioner during the previously
scheduled hearing but she did not feel that was appropriate.
Mr. Wolff stated he returned Mr. Lulich's call and left a message.
The City Attorney advised Council if they heard something during the phone
conversations not brought up tonight that would impact their thinking, they should
bring it out so all parties can address the concern.
The City Clerk swore in all those who intended to offer factual testimony.
Attorney Steven Lulich, representing Chuck Bradford, addressed City Council,
requested to ask questions of Growth Management Manager, and submitted nine
items into evidence. (attached)
The City Attorney said he may call her as a witness.
Mr. Lulich questioned Ms. King about building footprints, setbacks, elevations and
special riverfront overlay requirements.
The City Attorney asked Mr. Lulich to state his exhibits were from the City's files
and Ms. King said she did recognize the documents.
Mr. Lulich called Chuck Bradford to the podium and asked him if he was aware of
the estimate from Trendsetters Construction, Inc. Mr. Bradford said he had asked
for it and had been told about the estimate. The estimate was to take off the
balconies and reconfigure the structure.
The City Attorney asked Ms. King if the site plan reviewed was conceptual or if
more detail could be added later. Ms. King said more detail comes at the
.construction level but the plan is not conceptual, it does get reviewed and
approved.
Board of Adjustment Meeting
September 26, 2007
Page Three
The City Attorney asked her if, generally, elevations to be built looked like the
elevations on plans and she said yes; however in this case the elevations did not
look like the elevations and were still approved.
Mr. Lulich asked if the plans had two foot overhang rather than three foot
overhang would there be a difference in this case. Ms. King said this case is not
about overhangs.
The City Attorney objected to the question because Mr. Lulich said a site plan
approval is of "a footprint" and earlier in the presentation he stated a site plan
approval is of the elevations also. Ms. King said varying overhangs would need to
be reviewed to be sure it still meets zoning code.
Mr. Lulich asked at the time of this approval, what was the code requirement for
overhang. Ms. King replied residential overhangs are allowed to extend 48 inches
into yard space.
Mr. Lulich stated Mr. Bradford is the owner of the parcel and he purchased the
property from Joe Graham and is an innocent party. He further explained that Mr.
Bradford had the building permit properly issued and he was moving forward to
finish construction according to his permit. He requested a certificate of
occupancy or a variance.
The City Attorney said staff report is in the record and recommended a variance
but he took exception to the staff bashing because a mistake was made in the
past. He pointed out that if staff had not brought this forward for a variance it
would have been questioned in the future; and a qualified engineer, familiar with
the City's rules and procedures submitted an elevation and then a building plan
that didn't match that elevation. He recommended that the variance run with the
life of the structure, if the balcony is destroyed it should not be put back to the
property line.
Mayor Coy explained quasi-judicial procedures.
Mr. Neglia asked if a letter of objection from a homeowners' association should be
read into the record. The City Attorney responded the homeowner representative
should present that under oath.
Mr. Neglia asked why the inspector signed off on the building permit. The City
Manager responded that staff here tonight cannot respond to that, but the simple
answer was that he signed off on it after looking at it from a building standard.
Mr. Neglia stated the applicant did not act in good faith when he put the
applications in because the balconies are not visible. He stated Joe Graham and
his engineer, Martha Campbell who was the City's engineer, should be aware of
City codes.
Board of Adjustment Meeting
September 26, 2007
Page Four
Mr. Paternoster read on page two of the staff report that Tracy Hass
administratively approved site plan. He asked the City Attorney what is
administrative approval.
The City Attorney explained it did not have to go in front of the Planning and
Zoning Commission. The Growth Management Director added site plans for the
east side of Indian River Drive are approved by the Growth Management Director.
Mr. Paternoster asked if these type of approvals are driven back to the Building
Department so they everyone knows what has been approved. The Growth
Management Director responded that during her service she is now keeping an
open line of communication with the Building Department.
Mr. Paternoster asked if the inspector checks at points for compliance. The City
Manager explained that zoning sees at front end if it is in a special district, if it is in
the Highlands it goes straight to the Building Department. He said issues do arise
on special districts and that is where Growth Management and Building will look at
the structure.
The City Attorney added that inspectors are making sure it is constructed as
approved and following building codes. He said it should have been caught in
approval of plans.
Mr. Paternoster asked if the inspector is on site or in his office and are there
periodic inspections. The City Attorney said yes, there are inspections in steps.
Mr. Paternoster asked if the building stopped when the encroachment was
noticed. The City Manager said in this case, the flag went up when it got back to
the Growth Management Department and the structure was compared to the
picture.
The City Attorney said both cases where this has come up, the first sheet shows
the property lines/footprint/setback and staff did not flip over to construction plans,
if they had flipped to the sheet showing the second floor they would have seen the
deck.
Mr. Paternoster asked if there is a check-off list, even just from an administrative
point of view.
Ms. Simchick stated the City missed the mark on this big time and when the
inspectors saw the form board survey setback it should have been caught. The
City Manager stated once the Growth Management Director signed off the
inspector would not have questioned the Director.
Board of Adjustment Meeting
September 26, 2007
Page Five
Ms. Simchick stated five people have the right to take the applicant's home or
chop it up, or take his decks. She asked if the homeowner has a fire on his deck
and it is destroyed why can't he rebuild it. The City Attorney explained if
something else removes the deck, it is no longer unjust to make him follow the
rules after that.
Ms. Simchick asked what the fee was for the application and if it could be
waived. The Growth Management Director said it was $350.00 and the City
Manager said the fee could be waived if Council chose to do so.
Mr. Wolff asked how the applicant is at the mercy of the Building and Growth
Departments. Mr. Lulich stated it would have to be done at their wishes.
Mr. Wolff asked the Growth Management Director why she mentioned in her
report that other buildings have encroached on setbacks. The Director said the
one building that comes to mind is Steven Lulich's building next door.
Mr. Wolff said that is a poor example to cite because it prejudices the reader
against Mr. Lulich and perhaps next time anon-involved party could be cited.
The Growth Manager Director said she understood and appreciated the input.
Mr. Wolff said the City Attorney got impassioned in his response but pointed out
that the applicant had to hire an attorney. He said he accepted the City
Attorney's passion as well-meaning but cautioned him not to overstep and come
across as mean because it is not his nature. He said the most sensible thing the
City could do is to grant the variance.
The City Manager explained that he insisted on including Mr. Lulich's balcony
variance in the staff report to justify there were public safety issues and Mr. Lulich
was willing to work with the City, but staff made an error on this variance and it
should be granted.
Mayor Coy stated Mr. Lulich's balcony is slightly different but does see a
connection with a pattern. She asked Mr. Lulich for his understanding of the
difference between an overhang and a deck. Mr. Lulich replied an overhang is
an unsupported structure. She asked if he understood that an overhang has to
be on a footprint. He said in his opinion, on a plan but not a footprint.
Mayor Coy asked staff to define overhang by the City's code. Ms. King said the
code refers to roof overhang which may extend 48 inches into required yard
space. Ms. King went on to explain under definition of setback it is referred
specifically to balconies, and she read "minimum distance between the front rear
or side lines of the lot and the front, rear or sidelines of the building including
porches, carports, accessory uses." She said the interpretation of this has been
to roof overhang, and this is a deck that extends from the second floor of the
building and has a porch roof over it.
Board of Adjustment Meeting
September 26, 2007
Page Six
Mayor Coy asked if in Ms. King's experience, has an overhang been consistently
a roof overhang and asked if it has to be shown on a footprint elevation. Ms.
King said more often than not it is shown.
Mayor Coy then asked if the square footage of a deck and a balcony counts
toward the footprint, to which Ms. King said- it counts as building coverage and
setback, so the answer is yes.
Mayor Coy said there is a disconnect as to what people refer to as an overhang
and what the City calls an overhang, and that indeed a balcony is a footprint
whereas an eave does not count as a footprint.
Mayor Coy asked Council to consider recess and extend into the regular meeting
time. There was consensus to continue after a break.
Mayor Coy announced the regular meeting would not begin at 7:00 p.m. but
would follow this meeting. She called recess at 6:56 p.m. and reconvened the
meeting at 7:10 p.m. All members were present.
Public Input In favor of the Request
Charles Bergeron, 705 Cleveland Street which is 400 feet from the property, said
there was trash on this site previously and now the home is an attribute to the
community.
Joe Graham, 805 Indian River Drive, previous owner of the property said the
former Growth Management Director said he could have the deck as long as it
was not on the ground floor. He said he hoped the Board will see fit to give Mr.
Bradford a right to live in his house, and he felt bad because it was his fault and
now Mr. Bradford's.
Mr. Graham was not sworn in at the beginning of the meeting and at the City
Attorney's request he stated his comments were factual and the truth.
Damien Gilliams, said he was not giving testimony and was not in favor or
against the request but thanked the Mayor for keeping the meeting on schedule
Mayor Coy asked him to stay on topic and he said if she would stop interrupting
him he would. Mayor Coy gave him first warning.
Mr. Gilliams said he appreciated Mr. Wolff's comments comparing the previous
variance case.
Public Opposed to the Request
Lewis Gray, 732 Cleveland Street, was sworn in by the City Attorney. He read
into the record a letter dated September 7, 2007 from Board of Directors of River
Oaks Townhomes and cited an attached survey.
Board of Adjustment Meeting
September 26, 2007
Page Seven
The City Attorney advised the letter had to come to the Board as testimony.
Mr. Gray stated he would be affected by the variance. Mayor Coy asked the City
Attorney if Mr. Gray's concerns should be addressed by the Board. The City
Attorney stated his concern is not dispositive for the variance request but had the
City been aware of the boundary dispute, the City would have asked for a
judgement before proceeding.
The City Manager explained when the City receives a signed, sealed survey that
is used to work from and if another party brings in a different survey it becomes a
civil matter; and the City was not aware of the second survey until two years after
the fact. In response to the Mayor, the City Attorney said the variance will not
subject the City to liability down the road and the variance is specific to the
structure, if Mr. Bradford must tear down the building based on the property
dispute, the variance will go away.
Mr. Wolff asked why the letter was not given to Board in the packet. The City
Attorney explained because it was ex-parte evidence presenting the survey at the
hearing, and if it went to appeal, the Board could say they had the evidence and it
was considered.
Mr. Lulich did not have any responding comments.
The City Manager stated the staff report is before the Board.
Mr. Paternoster stated he was in favor of the variance.
Ms. Simchick agreed with Mr. Paternoster and added waiving the fee might be
considered.
Mr. Wolff did not have a comment.
Mayor Coy stated she was in favor of the variance but not inclined to refund the
permit fee because there was a process requiring a fee. She suggested that
Council may want to look at the LDC definition of footprint to clear up that a
balcony is considered part of a footprint.
Mr. Neglia said this stems from previous Growth Management personnel and did
not favor the reduction in fees.
The City Attorney read the variance criteria and pointed out the good faith
purchaser, without knowledge, did not create the hardship.
In response to the Mayor, the City Attorney stated the variance would be for the
life of the structure which is usually the norm.
MOTION by Mr. Paternoster and SECOND by Ms. Simchick to approve the
variance at 850 Indian River Drive and in addition the fee be reduced by 50%.
Board of Adjustment Meeting
September 26, 2007
Page Eight
Mr. Neglia and Mayor Coy were not in favor of the fee reduction but did not want
the variance to fail. Mayor Coy asked the Board to retract the motion.
In response to Mr. Wolff, Ms. Simchick explained she would like the fee reduced
because the hardship was created on the applicant because there was time to
modify the structure, and the negligence was done by prior staff. She asked if Mr.
Paternoster would withdraw his motion and the Board could address the matter
with two separate motions.
Mr. Paternoster explained the error was made by staff and the applicant had to
hire an attorney and reducing the fee to $175 would help ease Mr. Bradford's
concerns.
Mr. Wolff explained that generally if a hardship is proven, the fee should probably
be waived and asked if the Board would be setting a precedence.
Mr. Paternoster withdrew his motion.
MOTION by Mr. Paternoster and SECOND by Mr. Neglia to approve the variance
for Mr. Bradford, 850 Indian River Drive.
Roll call result was as follows:
Ayes: All
Nays: None
Passed
MOTION by Ms. Simchick and SECOND by Mr. Paternoster to reduce the
variance fee by 50%.
Roll call result was as follows:
Ayes: Paternoster, Simchick, Wolff
Nays: Coy, Neglia
Passed 3-2
8. CHAIRMAN'S MATTERS -not addressed
9. MEMBERS' MATTERS -not addressed
10. STAFF MATTERS -not addressed
11. Being no further business, Mayor Coy adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m.
1225 MAIN STREET ^ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958
TELEPHONE (772) 589-5518 ^ FAX (772) 388-8248
PUBLIC NOTICE
CITY OF SEBASTIAN
1225 MAIN STREET
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
FLORIDA
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON WEDNESDAY,
JANUARY 9, 2008, AT 6:00 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOCATED AT 1225
MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE FROM SECTION
54-2-7.5.(b).(1).a. OF THE SEBASTIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
WILLIAM AND MARY INGUI, IN REGARDS TO LOT 5, BLOCK 104, SEBASTIAN
HIGHLANDS UNIT 2, LOCATED AT 626 LAYPORT DRIVE, IS REQUESTING A
VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (POOL ENCLOSURE) TO
BE FIVE (5) FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, WHEREAS THE CODE
REQUIRES SUCH STRUCTURE TO BE TEN (10) FEET FROM THE REAR
PROPERTY LINE.
ANDREA COY, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CITY OF SEBASTIAN
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.)
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 (772) 589-5330 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING.
Published December 24, 2007
p~;~ Permit Application No.
~~~ City of Sebastian
Hot~et~Fncurwicts>un Develonlment Order /~nnlicatinn
A licant If not owner, written authorization notarized from owner is re wired
Name: j~ ,~/~
/Yfd~ iti.~W Q/lC~ /-~Lt- .~.-. LL.I
Address•
Phone Number: ( - FAX Number: ( ) -
'17y ~'C a/GG~ 77~- ~ v~
E-Mail:
6t0.1~6U.,~-~ ~a ~ ~-lto~ , Gc,,vt /`1./'l'-.S`3 ~ ~-6icv , Cv~
Owner If different from a licant
Name:
Address:
Phone Number: ( ) - FAX Number: ( ) -
E-Mail:
Title of permit or action requested:
PLEASE COMPLETE ONLY THOSE SECTIONS WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR THE PERMIT OR ACTION THAT YOU ARE REQUESTING.
COPIES OF ALL MAPS, SURVEYS, DRAWINGS, ETC. SHALL BE ATTACHED AND 8-1/2" BY 11" COPIES OF ANY ATTACHMENTS
SHALL BE INCLUDED. ATTACH THE APPROPRIATE SUPPLEMETAL INFORMATION FORM.
A. Project Name (if applicable):
B. Site Information
Address:
(:2f~ J!'i ~/:
..~eaf'kt,Si i li.~°- ~L :~a ~~
Lot: Block: rr Unit:
S ~ ~`~ ~ Subd1'~vision:
J'tBA~T ! t1I /~16NLsAN~.S
Indian River County Parcel #:
.3 ~ - ~~- - Oa-- i a 0 -- ooooS. ~
Zoning Classification:
S- Fug ure Land Use:
istin Use:. Proposed Use:
P_ S I ~ ~ 1 ~ YY~.~
C. Detailed description of proposed activity and purpose of the requested permit or action (attach
ext~~r66a sheets if necessary):
/A, I~JGl11 tz ~.
DATE RECEIVED: ~? l ~~/Q~p FEE PAID: $ ~5~. ~ RECEIVED BY: .°t~L-
I, ~ a'~ ~_ ,BEING FIRST DULY SWORN, DEPOSE AND SAY THAT: ~ AM THE OWNER _ I
AM THE LEGAL REPRE JTATIVE OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS
APPLICATION, AND THA ALL THE INFORMATION, MAPS, DATA AND/OR SKETCHES PROVIDED IN THIS APPLICATION ARE
ACCU TE AND TRUE T HE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.
U /17 06
SI NATURE , DATE
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME BY
WHO IS PERSONALLY KNOWN TO ME OR PRO
AS IDENTIFICATION, THIS AY OF
NOTARY~S SIGNATURE
PRINTED NAME OF NOTARY
COMMISSION NO./EXPIRATION
SEAL:
~'«~ MY COMMISSION q DD t2pOQt
~4 EXPIRES: Jima t8, 200&
Bonded Tluu AbOary Public Underwriters
Permit Application No.
Permit Application No.
The following is required for all comprehensive plan amendments, zoning amendments
(including rezoning), site plans, conditional use permits, special use permits, variances,
exceptions, and appeals.
I~~ THE OWNER(S) / _ THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER(S) OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED WHICH IS
THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION, HEREBY AUTHORIZE EACH AND EVERY MEMBER OF THE
BOARD/COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN TO PHYSICALLY ENTER UPON THE PROPERTY AND VIEW THE PROPERTY IN
CONNECTION WITH MY/OUR PENDING APPLICATION.
I/WE HEREBY WAIVE ANY OBJECTION OR DEFENSE I/WE MAY HAVE, DUE TO THE QUASI-JUDICIAL NATURE OF THE
PROCEEDINGS, RESULTING FROM ANY BOARD/COMMISSION MEMBER ENTERING OR VIEWING THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING ANY
CLAIM OR ASSERTION THAT MY/OUR PROCEDURAL OR SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE FLORIDA
CONSTITUTION OR THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WERE VIOLATED BY SUCH ENTERING OR VIEWING.
THIS WAIVER AND CONSENT IS BEING SIGNED BY ME/US VOLUNTARILY AND NOT AS A RESULT OF ANY COERCION APPLIED, OR
PROMIS MADE, BY EMPLOYEE, AGENT, CONTRACTOR OR OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN.
i
SIGN URE DA E
Sworn to and subscribed before me by //~
who is personally known to me or prod /
Notary's Signature
Printed Name of No'tar~..
Commission No./Expiration
Seal:
,4~,y~;y,,, LINDA M. LOHSL
'~'~ ~~ MY COMMISSION ;* DD 122001
-'' ' ' EXPIRES: June 16 2006
'-~-r' .. ~`' Thm Notary PublicUnde~wrtters
,~ o f ~;;d.:~ Bonded
Permit Application No.
~€~~s ~
Supplemental Information
Application to the Board of Adjustment
-1. This application is fora (check one): ~ variance(s) appeal(s)
- 2. Specify all code provisions for which a variance is being requested or the
decision or decisions that you are appealing. (Attach extra sheets if
necessary):__ Sc~~'a•~- Sri - L- ~ s(1 (-1 g
_ 3. Legal description of the property involved:
_ 4. Attach the following:
- a. Boundary survey of the property executed by a Florida Registered
Surveyor. The survey shall show the dimensions of the lot or parcel at
issue, the location of all structures, if any, along with adjacent streets,
and all easements and right-of-ways.
- b. Additional data and information as required to' properly advise the Board
of the facts and circumstances needed to decide the case on its merits.
_ c. The names and addresses of all property owners whose property or part
of their real property is within 300 feet of any outer boundary. of the lot
or arcel of land that is sub'ect of the a lication.
COLLIER CREEK
MEAOWALL
CHORD BEARING b DISTANCE (N B7°ot•04• E 9o.e1~ M.) -
- 587°00'14'E91.02'
- R=940:00' A=91.06' D=5°33'01 "P. o S. RA1/lIN
10' P.U.G D.E. 58 5'
= I I
F- °
K ~ _
Z w
v
~,
~ I ~
o CONC POOL J I
DECK W
J
s
~ w 6.2'?
9• i 5.9'I ~
116.8' T` 0.5'
13'9 ti .o COVERED 16.5'
I PATIO o a
v
Q l
~~ 18.2'
T ~
O
~~ ~ ONE STORY CONCRETE "'~
fV
N w BLOCK RESIDENCE #6Z6 ~ w ry
I
.°~ _ FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION=52.7 '" LOT4
LOT 6 Nom' I ~~A6.5'~,7, ?9.L?'
6'?9•'1
1
i' ~" BLOCK 104
BLOCK 104 $ ~ d ,
.
ta
/ s.3' 4.z, 3.z'
4.0'2.2 I `_-
(vl °
c °
~
1~
I W O
1
J1 0
l o Q
(] m
°- I ~
LOT 5 Ln
9 t 3.4' 23.', BLOCK
I 104
I ~ A Z P
~
N
F
~ CHORD BEARING Fi DISTANCE
<~ N 87°26'45' W 78.92' P.
I (S 86°47'43' W 78.88' M. )
R=815.00' A=78.95'
__ s
LINE
N. RIW _ --
u:L
o
g~,
_
F
D=5°33'01"P. ~_
,~~
.
.
unuTY POLE w ~ -
E O 3
'^
&GUY WIR Pw°
EE _
~~ g'O,-,
=22°12'04' ASPHALT PAVEMENT 8 g
z~.
56' P
75
'
°
p
p=302.24'
.~ -
700.0' P. ~~
~- . _ _ _
.
33_Ol
A=
R=700.00' _ D,=S
- CHORD BEARING Er DISTANCE
_
~ LNG fr DISTANCE
~- ~ CHORD BEAR 13 P• 0"'+
a~. ~ N B7°00' 13' E 75.53' P. Pt~p MEp
(N 86°59'56' E 75.56' M.) FEN PSSJ
PpICURVA'NRESE NLN72g9'1pE3°'°~M~' L AYPORT DRIVE
(70' RIGHT OF WAY )
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT 5, BLOCK 104, REPEAT OF PORTIONS OF SEBASTIAN
HIGHLANDS, UNIT 2, ACCORDING TO TH E PLAT TH EREOF
AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 6, PAGES 87 THRU 878 OF
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
SURVEYOR'S NOTES:
1. BEARINGS SHOWN ARE BASED ON THE CENTERLINE
LINE OF LAYPORT DRIVE AS N 72°59'11" E (CHORD BEARING)
AS SHOWN PER PLAT.
2. NO INSTRUMENT OF RECORD REFLECTING EASEMENTS,
RIGHTS OF WAY AND/OR OWNERSHIP WERE FURNISHED
TO THIS SURVEYOR EXCEPT AS SHOWN. NO TITLE
OPINION IS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED.
3. THIS SURVEY IS NOT INTENDED TO LOCATE EXISTING
UNDERGROUND FOUNDATIONS, ENCROACHMENTS OR
ANY IMPROVEMENTS EXCEPT AS SHOWN.
4. THE LOT SHOWN HEREON IS LOCATED IN FLOOD
ZONE "X" PER F100D INSURANCE RATE MAP 1206100076 E,
DATED MAY 4, 1989.
5. ELEVATIONS BASED ON ASSUMED DATUM, ELEVATION
50.00 ASSUMED ON THE CENTERLINE OF LAYPORT DRIVE.
ABBREVIATIONS:
P-PLAT M-MEASURED RIW-RIGHT OF WAY
C~CENTERLINE COV.-COVERED A/C-AIR CONDITION
R-RADIUS A-ARC LENGTH D-DELTA (CENTRAL ANGLE)
O.U.L: OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES CONC.-CONCRETE
PU&DE•PUBLIC UTILITY & DRAINAGE EASEMENT
PLS-PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
BOUNDARY SURVEY 11-I1-1997 ~ REVISEDCERTIFICATIONS 12-17-1997
FORM BOARD LOCATION 1-26-1998
MAP OF SURVEY
CERTIFIED T0:
WILLIAM INGUI and MARY JANE INGUI
COMMERCIAL TITLE SERVICES INC.
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
SUNTRUST BANK, SOUTH FLORIDA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
CEMCO HOMES
LEGEND:
O • FOUND 1-1/2' IRON PIPE
0° -FOUND 1" IRON REBAR
• -FOUND PK NAIL
~ -FOUND NAIL
PREPARED BY:
CECRLE LAND SURVEYING, INC.
FLORIDA LAND SURVEYING BUSINESS N6637
10749 HIGHWAY U.S.1, SUITE A, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958
PHONE (561) 388-0520
CERTIFIED CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND
BELIEF IN CONFOP,MITY WITH THE Lv11NMAUM TECHNICAL
STANDARDS SET FORTH dY THE FLORIDA BOATr^,D GF LAND
SURVEYORS, PU~SU~\NTTO CHAPTER 61G17-6 FLORIDA
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, THIS SURVEY IS PREPAREU kND
CERTIFIED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE CLIENT OR
CLIENTS NAMED HEREON, THIS SURVEY IS NOT VALID
WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL BABIED
SEA~L O-F A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER.
1H/OMAS RANDALL CECRLgg~
FINAL SURVEY 6-5-1998 ~ SCALE 1"=30' I FIELD BOOK 25-46 SHEET 1 OF 1 PROJECT NUMBER 97-218
City of Sebastian, Florida
`~I~~ ®~ °T~I~ tCI1°Y ~c°I°T'®t~1~
Agenda No.
Subject: William and Mary Ingui; pool enclosure Date Submitted: 12/3/07
For Agenda of: 12/12/07
~ur~zx
I am bringing this matter before you to clean-up a situation that was not handled properly when it first
arose in 1998. The matter has risen again due to post-hurricane restoration of the pool enclosure at issue.
Jan King provides a summary of the situation:
The City owned approximately 13 feet between the Ingui property and the seawall of the Collier
Creek. The Ingui property also had a 10-foot rear utility easement on it. In 1998 they applied for a
variance to allow a screen enclosure to be 7 feet from the rear property line instead of the required 10
feet. That variance was denied. Following that, they asked to purchase 3 feet of property from the City
and ±hat was approved by City Council also in 1998. We also placed an easement on the three feet that
we sold them. Then, they abandoned the southern 3 feet of their origina110-foot easement.
The decking of the pool extends 2 feet into their rear 10-foot easement (the original 10 foot
easement on their lot, less the 3-foot southern abandonment, plus the 3-foot easement on the purchased
property). This was allowed (concrete in an easement, with ail utilities signing off). However, the
screen enclosure had to remain at the easement line and could not extend into the easement area.
The hurricanes damaged their screen enclosure and they would like to replace it. If possible, they
would like to put the enclosure to the edge of the concrete. That would involve abandoning 2 feet of
their easement, and getting a variance to allow a structure to be 8 feet from their (new) rear property line.
All this is complicated even mare because Rich questions the validity of the sales transaction between
the City and the Inguis.
As noted by Jan, it has long been my opinion that it was unlawful for the City to sell part of a drainage
right-of--way, and the proper procedure for the sale of any excess city land, when lawful, requires that it be
done by taking bids. One additional wrinkle in this matter is that apparently Mr. and Mrs. Ingui took the
statement by the City Engineer that there was "no objection" to using the easement area as an approval to
do so, and the pool screen has been constructed over to the outer edge of their concrete deck.
To clear this matter up once and for all, I recommend the following course of action:
1. Mr. and Mrs. Ingui execute the attached Quit-Claim Deed, so as to cancel the unlawful transaction,
and the City shall hold the same in escrow and not record the same unless a variance for the pool
encroachment is granted.
2 . The Inguis obtain a variance for the pool and screen enclosure encroachment, which staff supports
due to the unique circumstances of this matter.
3 . The City Manager give formal written consent to Mr. and Mrs. Ingui for the utilization of the
additional two feet of easement for the existing pool enclosure.
4. The City issues a check to Mr. and Mrs. Ingui in the amount of original payment for the returned
drainage right-of--way.
REVIEWED BY CITY CLERK:
AUTHORIZED PLACEMENT ON AGENDA BY CITY MANAGER:
Return to:
Richard Stringer, City Attorney
1225 Main Street
Sebastian, FL 32958
QUIT-CLAIM DEED
THIS QiTIT-CLAIM DEED, executed this ~' day of January, 2008, by William Ingui and
Mary Ingui, whose address is 626 Layport Avenue, Sebastian, FL 32958, first party, to the City of Sebastian,
a Florida municipal corporation, whose address is 1225 Main Street, Sebastian, FL 32958, second party:
WITNESSETH, that the said first party, does hereby remise, release and quit-claim unto the said
second party forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said first party has in and to the
following described lot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the county of Indian River, State
of Florida, to-wit:
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same together with all and singular the appurtenances thereunto
belonging or in anywise appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest, lien, equity and claim
whatsoever of the said first party, either in law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the
said second party forever.
IT IS THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES TO RESCIND THAT CERTAIN QUIT-CLAIM
DEED BETWEEN THE PARTIES RECORDED AT BOOK 1212 PAGE 1087 OF THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said first party has signed and sealed these presents the day and year
set forth above.
Signed, sealed and delivered
in the presence of
Witness
Witness
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
William Ingui
Mary Ingui
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of January, 2008 by William Ingui
and Mary Ingui who are personally known to me.
Signature of Notary Public
State of Florida
31 sr~r~~e~ .Fto+'^ G{y
COLLIER CREEK
ab{`^~ Z(
_ ad a,,,o~ oases
LINF
_ °II
~
~ 10' P.O.b O.E.
.3' P, ~.-~ a~.7
0
z a
~
F1ea..dc.n~dl.
~
$o I ~ , conc. p00L
DECK W I
<
~Qs6 W~GII~'~i
11 w
6.8' 6:2'?y,
S.9'I
9' 1.a 0.5' 16.5'
13
-
.
r
;o COVERED
PATIO ^~ $ a
I
Z - O
I
18.2'
m O
ONE STORY CONCRETE yr
o w I BLOCK RESIDENCE #626 ~ w
> ~ FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION=52.7 _ '~ LOT 4
LOT 6 ~ a_'
I i.6'?y,l,".»p6.S'rJ, 1y.'1.A lal'
z'
3
n `~ ~' BLOCK 104
BLOCK 104 >C ~ d .
I
a.o'z z s.3' a.z' m ~
-' ~I ~
0 o
;IV ~
u W O
-~ of _ ~ O
9 m
I ~
LOT 5 ~
,3.a' 23''~ BLOCK
I 104
I „ ~? ~.
IV
E a CHORD BEARING G DISTANCE
<~ N 87°2,6'45' W 78.92' P.
I (S B6°47'43' W 78.88' M. )
.
R=815.00' A=78.95'
N.R7J10NE -_
.L Z~
gN
~ _
_ s
D=5°33'01"P. v:~
.
o.u
EE ~ ~'
PO
UTM
6 33
^ ^
IR
V
G mo _
~E
p=22°12'04'
4 t° > ASPHALT PAVEMENT g g
8; z~
R=780.00' _ D=5°33_Ol'A=75.56' P. _ _
_
E
_ _
P.
_ -
R=780A ~"
+ _
- CHORD BEARING G DISTANC
'
~' ~ _
CHORD / ~ DISTAPCE
BEARING b 0~
p0' N B7°00'13' E 75.53
P.E NPPO ~Eo
N 86°59'Sfi' E 75.56' M.) ,,E S
POI CUR A.NRESE N(N7259'10'E304.103M~) L AYPORT DRIVE
( 70' RIGHT OF WAY )
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT 5, BLOCK 104, REPEAT OF PORTIONS OF SEBASTIAN
HIGHLANDS, UNIT 2, ACCORDI NG TO THE PLAT TH EREOF
AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 6, PAGES 67 THRU 878 OF
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
SURVEYOR'S NOTES:
1. BEARINGS SHOWN ARE BASED ON THE CENTERLINE
LINE OF IAYPORT DRIVE AS N 72°59'11" E (CHORD BEARING)
AS SHOWN PER PLAT.
2. NO INSTRUMENT OF RECORD REFLECTING EASEMENTS,
RIGHTS OF WAYAND/OROWNERSHIP WERE FURNISHED
TO THIS SURVEYOR EXCEPT AS SHOWN. NO TITLE
OPINION IS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED.
3. THIS SURVEY IS NOT INTENDED TO LOCATE EXISTING
UNDERGROUND FOUNDATIONS, ENCROACHMENTS OR
ANY IMPROVEMENTS EXCEPT AS SHOWN.
4. THE lOT SHOWN HEREON IS LOCATED IN FLOOD
ZONE "X" PER FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP 1206100076 E,
DATED MAY 4, 1989.
5. ELEVATIONS BASED ON ASSUMED DATUM, ELEVATION
50.00 ASSUMED ON THE CENTERLINE OF LAYPORT DRIVE.
ABBREVIATIONS:
P-PLAT M-MEASURED R/W-RIGHT OF WAY
4-CENTERLINE COV.-COVERED A/C•AIR CONDITION
R-RADIUS A•ARC LENGTH D-DELTA (CENTRAL ANGLE)
O.U.L.-OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES CONC.-CONCRETE
PU&DE-PUBLIC UTILITY 6-DRAINAGE EASEMENT
PlS-PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
BOUNDARY SU RVEY11-11-1997 ~ REVISED CERTIFICATIONS 12-17-1997
FORM BOARD LOCATION 1.26-1998
MAP OF SURVEY
CERTIFIED TO:
WILLIAM INGUI and MARY JANE INGUI
COMMERCIAL TITLE SERVICES INC.
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
SUNTRUST BANK, SOUTH FLORIDA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
CEMCO HOMES
LEGEND:
0 -FOUND 1.1/Z" IRON PIPE
p-FOUND 1' IRON REBAR
• -FOUND PK NAIL
~ -FOUND NAIL
PREPARED BY:
CECRLE LAND SURVEYING, INC.
FLORIDA LAND SURVEYING BUSINESS N6637
10749 HIGHWAY U.S.1, SUITE A. SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958
PHONE (561) 388-0620
CERTIFIED CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND
BELIEF IN CONFOP,MITY WITH THE I'~AINII\AUM TECfiNICAI
STANDARDS SET FORTH 8Y THE FLORIDA BOAr^,D OF LAND
SURVEYORS, PU~SUr\NT TO CHAPTER 61G77-6 FLORIDA
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, THIS SURVEY IS PREPARED AND
CERTIFIED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE CLIENT OR
CLIENTS NAMED HEREON, THIS SURVEY IS NOT VALID
WITHOUTTHE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL BABIED
SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICEN~SEU~SURVEYOR AND MAPPER.
/ ~..1~~-~~i
THO AS RANDALL CECRLE, P.L.S. 4896
FINAL SURVEY 6-5-1998 ' SCALE 1"=30' I FIELD BOOK 2546 (SHEET 1 OF 1 I PROJECT NUMBER 97-218