Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09262007BOA~~ ccCC~T !AM I ~v~w 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 HEARING: 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-parte 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 Reauest 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 Reauest 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-pane 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. Ap r ved at e January 9t", 2008 Board of Adjustment meeting. Sal Neglia, Vice-Mayor for Andrea Coy, Mayor AT S Sally A. Ma , MMC -City Clerk ~ _ `O \Oa \ AI ~~0~ "moo 2~ ZONING CR r'~y\Oy a ~~ ~ \ ~y ~ ~ \~ m •,.~ ~\` \ 9 y \ 0 • ~ ~ \ O .I. y \ ~ ^\O 0 •° `~ VEGETATION y \ p~ `OOo ~~ p~ r-+ ~• GRASS d VINES) tN~~' ~ ~q0 ~ \-o •~. 20.45'001'W y y \1, y s y y\y y ~~ .,dp~cn 40.48'(D)~40.50'(("I) y y Nsy * y \~ \~ s P• y '~ 1P ." J. y y Z ~~~ ~ O ~ Nom. h PROPOSED y y ~3 ~~ '` y \ `' h =o -p,t~ a` ry PALM y y \~ p~ PROPOSED ~ ~. ~+ FD IRON ROD ~~ ~ ~ y y \ y ~ SILT FENCE `R -Ic 5.151E 4 0.2415 ~' 1 y y+~ ~'] y' FD IRON OD ^ ~ ~~ ~ p .~ \ y `~ ~ O.B91W 1 0.05'5 (~' `- \ . Q~ • '.~ np oo // P / y y y X • " Y •• • l~ ~~ `fin ~O~ Q' PROPOSED •o ~y y y y y \ ~ ~ / / i ~~-`i' ~ ., ~ ?~F"a o ., ~Y ..•. /RESIDENCE y y y1 .,, \ ~yl EXIST NG l% °P~OOR~ EWP+ ° . W F.F. ELEV/ X ~ .~ p, `.. ~~` , PALM p tS ooao~. 'o_ 13.50' NGVD ~y y ,~ ..2\p 00 If) / ~ e~. .~~~, °~~ 3RPAOSE 3`~, y, yo ~r -A(~o0"V` ~~ ~~~•~ • •~• o o ~PARC ~ ~ oo .s 5~0. ~. 4y• of N h• ~ °' ~ Ns h~ \ ~ ~ P . `~~ , o°2i W~o ~ P.O.B. OF PARCEL I AND I I h.~ ~ PER LEGAL DESCRIPTION Q~, • ~_~Y°~ ~ ~/ ~~~~ .e CORNER SEAWALL p~. p, ~ - J~ 0.48' S ~ 0.33' E /P\Q/PR'O~R P 1"~ ~ PROPOSED 3' DIAf1ETER WET WELL EW ~ \ ~ (SIMPLEX PUMP STATION) •. ~ THIS . IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY \~ `, 4 THIS IS AN ENLARUEI"IENT OF A PORTION .~ OF THE ATTACHED BOUNDARY SURVEY ~ AND IS-.ONLY FOR EASE OF VIEWING. IT ~\ I"IUST BE,gUSyED IgN CONJUNCTION WITH THE A. TY OF SEBASTIAN ARY SURVEY. ENGIN LEERING DEPARTMENT \ RAINAGE PLAID APPROVED - C:Rr^-,fl-II~ SC,Ai-E NCU3TCN ~ 6r~YAivi, iNC. so o ,o zo Lid Surveyors (LB 6905) I I I I 9436 U.S. Highway I Sebastian, Florida C IN FEET) 32958 North I Inch = 2fd Ft. TEL: (772) 388-8603 PLAT OF SURVEY FOR: JOSEPH C~RANAM TYPE: SKETCH OF INFORMATION ONLY - NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY PROD. N0. OI-180R DATE: 2/19/02 OWN. BY: S.A.N. F.B. PG. CKD. Bl': SCALE: I"=20' THIS PLAT AND REPORT ARE NOT VALID WITHOUT TNE,SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF THE FLORIDA REGISTERED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER NAMED HEREON WNIGN SIGNATURE AND SEAL MAY BE FOUND AT THE END OF THE ATTACHED REPORT. r~lr n~ Am 1AIn nrnnnT AnC AInT nlll AAIn rnM01 CTC I.IITII/111T nAIC AAI/ITI LCD r \ ~° CHs, ~ ~• 4 9~\~ ~ o \N ?~ 1 ~`J~R EGp~pE GIL ~t,0\N P13,'C ~ ~1 OF APPROXIMATE MHWL ELEV.=0.55' N VD/192 S , ` t ~ ~ ~p,P OF ~Nti C~~ \\ _ AS LOCATED BY FIELD SURVEY ON 7/23/0 \ \ ~>~rl 5 5°P~~9 F~O~ Za \ \\ A ~ \\~ a, WIDE w. s \ ` r \\ ., . Z NO \ ~y~ . ~ . . ~ ZONING ~ GR M \ L ; , \~ ..~'" O\ o \ ~ •o ,, \ `p p0 \~ ~~ ~ ~, ~\ y y y y y \ 1 ~11 ~ O 1 ~\` ~ VEGETATION ~ \ ~. ~~p'A5 \qp' 1 '~. 20'45'00n1„I y GRA55 t VINES \ p. ?~ `"0~ 40.48'(D),40.50'(M) y y ys y Why y •\ d~• y ~y ~ y PARCEL: I i Z ~ ~ ~ lr a y y O y y y y\\lr ~ , ~y PROPOSED w 'Y y \yZ •\ ~ ~ I~NO ~~ +y ~ y ~ y W y `yy ~ O~ PROPOSED / / ! , SILT FENCE ' FD IRON ~' x 1~ y iJl i .~ .. ~~N .d /RE5IDENGE~( y ~ 1 y \ ~ 1, - ° j p d 7 ~`1 `may ~j/,~ ;J'~~ t. y~J r~ ' d •.t VSO ~ yROPOSE ~ p W ~_\~ Y y .' k j I `~. C STE - - Y' ~ ' y. g'~ ~Ai~G ,~. op ~O '~~ I s h• L '• ,p ' ~ ~?~ ~• ~ ~' ~ I:+~+ . SEBASTIAN \~P X o.~1'w•t o. ' P,O.B. OF PARCEL I i4ND II ZONING h`~ ~ ,~ . f°ER LEGAL DESCRIPTION ~ 'h'~ `ON \ e • • ~ CORNER SEiAWALL Ap~.•', ~/',,rpA`N 0.48' S 1 0.33'E ~'~ \N~D' GE \ •\ ~ PROPOSED 3' DIAMETER WET WELL ~a~ o.,., , ~% _~a01~ MGR (SIMPLDC PUMP STATION) 0 ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~° ~ '• \ ~\ ~a s L~ga I Descr(ption: \ ~ PARCEL I~ A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN ; DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. FROh SECTION 6, RUN EA57 ALONG ' NORTHERLY. ALONG $Alp LFaJTI THE PLAT OF E.DGEkVATfR PAR ALbNG 'rHE SOOT . RIC~FJT OF N \ SHORE OF THE I~[)1.4M RIVER A DISTANCE OF 40,48 FEET TO T RIGHT OF WAY OF INDIAN RIVE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF CLEV 31'Id t Abbrevfatfons: (symbols not ecal@8b16 fOr 8126) ~ AND PARCEL III PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR E- _ A PARCEL OF SUBMERGED LAN PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR t MAPPER gyp, GUY WIRE FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY LAND SURVEYING BUSINESS ® - WOOD UTILITY POLE - SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF CENTERLINE - TELEPHONE SERVICE OF U.S. HIGHWAY No, i/~THENCE ® - GABLE T.V. BOX FD IRON RDD - CLEVELAND STREET, Ab.SHOWp RIGHT OF WAY. ® - ELECTRIC E',OX .FLORIDA REGORDS~ THENCE RUI COMMERCIAL RIVERFRONT ~ - LIGHT POST OF 795,84 FEET TO THE WEST. LEGAL DESCRIPTION - WELL NORTHERLY DIRECTION A DIST/ MEASURED o - HYDRANT N70'45'00°E A DISTANCE OF 190 FINISH FLOOR ~ - GATE VALVE FEET TO THE SEBASTIAN YACH FOUND ® - WATER METER _ OF 190.00 FEET TO THE POINT ' EDGE OF PAVEMENT Q - SANITARY MANHOLE `1EAN HIGH WATER LINE ®® - SANITARY SERVICE PARCEL I AND II SIJBJEGT TO ~ LEVATION ® - SEPTIC TANK FOR INGRESS AND E?GfESS TO SQUARE FEET ® = SURFACE INLET THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN WNIGH JOINT OF BEGINNING ~ --••---. a nn c....r ..~ _~,.. _. __ ._. - d~~c.fl~r~6- ;~I.A~S :~ - ~{ i t ~" ip3; WEST ELEV ~. 1~4,.=~ ~-0 ~. - A B ~C S4 S4 ~S4/ ~ui~oirJG L____ 5'_D.. ' " 30 -0 t ~/ OPEN DECK RAIL TO CODE ° ~ r 0 `V i'-5 1 2" 9 ' " ~ r- 4„;, 3 -61/2 l H EXTERIOR WALLS I L- ~ ARE SHOWN 9" THICK. ~ I I I i I KITCHEN ~ e PEN GREAT ~ I O Q I wo ~® ECK 4' , ROOM ;' i m I ~ ' I ~ r I I Y ~ I za I o i ° ~ I C101 I -I ~ 3 0l o N OWj ~ ~ REFR... ° I ° o ~ ~ f' M I ~ N AHU --- ----J ' " / 14 -5 NOTE 6. / I I I 11 2,-8" '~ : 2'-71/2 ~ 1 ~ ; ' " f B i/2 I'~ 12 NOTE 6, o O ALL INT WALLS ARE 3-1/2" HB _ STUD UNLESS NOTED. I 1 10'-9 1 /2" ° a ~ . ' ` BEDROOM ~ ~ 1 0 ~ .. - _~ . ... . :; :::, .:.; . . :, : . . I s~ 1'-31/2" 10' 8';l/2"' D E ' " 10'-9' ~- 4'-3.. . TO CODE ~ M ~.:' .; 4 -3 1/2 O . W" ~ ': 1'-0" d -I- o 7'-0,. I o "r _ I 4'-10" '- 25'-2" ~ 0 I-- 4'-0" , f 1 ST FLOO R PLAN " ' =1 -0 NOTE 1 /4 i. WINDOW, DOOR, AND FINISH SELECTION BY OWNER_ 2. ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS SHALL 8E IMPACT RESISTANT. FLOOR AREA SUMMARY 3. WINDOW SIZES SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY AS SHOWN HEREIN. AIR CONDITIONED AREA 4. MIN OF (4) 2X4 STUDS IN WALL TO 1ST FLOOR 930 S0. FT. SUPPORT 6204 ABOVE . 2ND FLOOR - ~ 496 S0. FT. 5_ MIN OF (3) 2X4 STUDS IN WALL TO n ei n r eor ...._ __ _ ROQTE LIST: Applicant Address ~~(~ ~ Lot Bloc; Qnit :{. J. 1 !1 1 ~y :~ 1 :.'~ :1 :1 :1 1. :L y :y ;(, '~ µ LL 1 ;L :L .1 1 '1 y :1 .1. 1 1 µ ,L :1 :1 1 LL LL T T T T T ., T r, ~ ;r 7 T T :T .7 .T T T ,T T T T T T T T T 7 T- T ;; T :i' T T T :f T T ':f .T T T ,! 7- 1= 1 :L1 1 J. ___ 1 - T TTT T7 TT,-_ Received: _ Date ~(~ G~ SQ Time ,/~_~~ ~Pproved Comments : _ ror ^~ Pie rm i t 1 Released Date Time ~_ LL :1 :l.:y µ LL ;y 1 1 LL :L µ _L µ µ y 1 .J. 1. LL µ :L LL LL l __ ff ~, T T 7' Y? fi T T T T :7 T .T .T ,T T y' ff' ,T T tr ~i' T R 7 T T 1 y 1 LL LL LL '~ LL LL LL LL 1 :1 :1 :L :L 1 :L LL µ :L :! :1 1 y T .Y .7 Y T T !{' 7 R rt T !Y T T T T :T T :i' .T :f T T Y T .T T_ .T T Contractor Licensing: Revie~.~ Date ~ , ~i ~1 (,, Time Comments . ~' `~ \^;~-i`(~; ~^ ~~~\•A ~'.~ !~ i~ ~ 1 1` {(`~-. c~ a- __ Released Date Time 1 L' LL :L :1 µ LL :~ :L :t T 7 ., T .T ,T T T f' T :L :1 J, µ :1 :1 :1 1 :L .1. LL. 1 :! µ LL ;~ LL 4 LL µ :1 LL LL :1 :1 '~ LL 1 µ LL R T T R .T ., ,T T ,T T Y ~ ff if tt T .T 7 ? 7 .T M 7 .l' :f T T T :T - _ - _ _ µ :1 '1 :1 ;1 T T T T f: - -_ T :t' _ _ __ ., T ., T T T Zoning: ~~~.~-~:E?evif=w ~D~~e .3 /~^~~ Time Com?rents By ._ ~ Re.leased Data Time .l :1 1 LL LL LL :1 LL '1 :l. LL1 _ 1 :1 !~ µ µ LL LL LL :1 IA LL LL LL µ µ µ ~. ;. :L LL LL µ LL µ µ :1. :L .. :1 µ _, :L :1 T .T .7 T ? ,T T T T fi' T T ,T ? T .7 .T T :I' t ,1 ff T fY fr f~ tf T T R T ft ,T R T T .T T T ~' ,T !( T .7 T .T T _ :T .T ,T T _ T T .T - T Plan Re~riev: Rev ief.~ Datf' T.tme Comments: By Released Date ~' Time :L µ µ .L :! LL :: y '1 1 1 LL J. 1 1 S~ 1 121 1 LL µ 1 LL 1~ LL µ :( J. :{. .1 :L :1 :i 1 1 µ µ LL LL :. 1 µ :L µ :1 1 1 1 _ 1 T 7 ., T P ., „ T Z' .T T :f 7 T 7' T T T T ff R f T Tr 7 .: h' T T T 7 7 T T T T ff T T T ;T 7 T T T T- T T T T T T T T T .-'TT PQrmit Issuance: Review Date ~~•~ Time ~~ Comments: 1 - Released Date ~ Time ~ f J. 1 :. :L µ 1 J. 1 1 1 :` ~ :L 1 :L LL µ . :: iL :L 1 'J. . J. _L :: " .' µ 1 :_ .. J. -• " 1 A :L :L ~• .. TT .7TT - T TTT .T T- T~ T T :T T T T "~ T T T- •T :T T T ~'T •T _ ., T T .T T T T T .T T T T TT .7 T- ;T R- ---,- T T APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT TO DO THE WORK AND INSTALLATIONS AS INDICATED. (CERTIFY THAT NO WORK OR INSTALLATION HAS COMMENCED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT, AND THAT ALL WORK WILL BE PERFORMED TO MEET THE STANDARDS OF ALL LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUCTION, INSURANCE, AND WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION. I UNDERSTAND THAT A SEPARATE SUB-PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, MECHANICAL, POOLS, ETC. PROPERTIES SHALL BE KEPT CLEAN OF LITTER AND ALL STREETS, SIDEWALKS, AND CURBS DAMAGED DUE TO THIS CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPAIRED TO THF_. SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT: I CERTIFY THAT ALL THE FOREGOING INFORMATION IS ACCURATE AND THAT ALL WORK WILL BE DONE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUCTION AND ZONING. '"`WARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY.** (1F YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING, CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEME„pl:~). A N.O.Si.-IBS REQUIRED FOR ALL JOBS VALUED AT $2, 500 OR MORE. S1131~1A~fUfi~L OFbWNER OR AGENT DATE ~7-~~~-~ ~ { , ' ,.; c~~ G7i`'°.~ NOTARY AS TO OWNER OR AGENT MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: Notary Seal: ~,~" Geraldine Fran ces Kubes v ~Y Commission DD15b837 ~aaaP+.~ Expires October 28, 211pg MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 3'"-`~,~"ke., Gana d~ a Frances Kubes ~c'~ Y~ MY Commlaslon DD155837 or w~ Expires October 26, 21106 .............. DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE - OFFICE U ONLY _ BUILDING PERMIT # . C~ ~~(~ ZONING TAZ # ~, ~ . APPLICATION RECEIVED BY: DATE: ~-~/ Z~ ~ ~P YMENT: ., ZONING REVIEWED BY: PLANS REVIEWED BY:~" ~~ SSUANCE BY: COMMENTS: PLANS REVIEW FEES $ c --FEES `3j t~ J . _ !~' l 3~(~ BUILDING PERMIT $ t -W PLUMBING PERMIT $ ~ -~~~ ` 6C~ ~ ~~ ELECTRICAL PERMIT $ p MECHANICAL PERMIT $ RADON (STATE) $ REC. IMPACT FEES $ Q TOTAL FEES $ ( ~. L The original staff report is attached for your review, as well as a portion of the site plan showing the proposed residence, the proposed west elevation and the first and second floor layouts. Tn the CR district, the side yard requiremena is slated as follows: "Side yard; 5 feet, except 10 feet ~vvlien abutting a residential district or nse." Setbacks are established to provide a visual separation between properties. The greater setback of 10 feet is to provide additional protection for residential uses. The side setback noted in the on ainal Sty Ff ,-P,,,,,~f ' -~~~~~'Pr11 Sated for the north side as, "5 feet required". This should have been 10 feet because the property to the north is zoned RM-8, which is a residential district. When application was made -for the building permits, the construction plans submitted were different from those approved by the Growth Management Department. Attached are copies of those plans. The site layout submitted for the building permit was still the same as that submitted for the zoning review. The building permit plans show an entirely different floor plan and also includes elevated decks that extend beyond the building footprint into the side setbaclts. Those decks were not shown on the proposed site layout depicted on the survey. As a result, the Building Department staff did not see the encroachment and permits were issued. The property owner to the north filed a formal complaint regarding the setback of this stnicture. Staff reviewed the files anal advised Mr. Bradford, Ivlr. Graham and the Building Director of the encroachment. As a result, no certiFcate of occupancy has been issued and Mr. Bradford has applied for this variance. 9. f30A.i21~ CY2TTETHA ><+'012 nETER1V[rNrNC'VARTANCES (Section 54 1 2 5j• In order'to arrthorize any variance from the terms.o:f the land development regulations, the 73oard of Adjustment rnnst find the follo~vving; a. Existence of special conditions or circumstances. b. Conditions not created by applicant. c. Special privileges not conferred. d. Hardship conditions exist. 3 12. Commission Action: Hold quasi judicial hearing to consider the request for variance. Prep e by Jan Kin Growt Management Deparhnent I" ~~~~ Date 5 69/19!2©67 12;26 772-589-9676 Tzez~dsetters Construction, Inc_ 725 J Cornrnerce Center Dr, Sebastian, k'I, 32958 (772)589-8229 I Name /Address I Chuck Bradford 850 Indian River Drive Sebastian, Florida 32858 TRENDSETTERS COFdT. PAGE 62/6'' Estimate Date Estimate # 9/19/2007 254 Project Description Qty Rate Total This estlmats Is in regard to the removal of the North facing balcony " & the Eest facing 4' wide extflnsipn of the, North facing balcony. Engineering 500.00 600.Q0 Drafting 1,000.00 1,000.00 Remove existing roof at baleorty to Include ail cedar rafters, b®ams, 2,800.00 2,800,00 posts, etc_ Remove, replace, and modifyraile 3,100.00 3,100.00 Concrr;te cut arld removal of concrete balcony landings and Supports 0,000.00 3,000.00 S[ucco repair and coating 1,800.00 1,800.00 Rebuild overhang roof labor and materials to tie into existing rear 8,200,00 13,200.00 porch balcony and roof. includes au cedar, posts, eaams, refteis etc. Remove and rapl4ce siding labor and materials to match existing 2,800.00 2,800.00 elevations Re-palm areas affected by alterations to match existing finishes 2,100,00 2,100.00 Cool Coat cottony deck affected 000.00 900.00 ~umpater and fiaea SOO:OQ 500.00 Casual Labor 1,t3Q0.00 1,800.00 Clean-up eoo.oo t3oo.o0 Equipment Rehtal 1,51]0.013 1,504.00 Contractor Fees 9.780.00 9,780.00 Total $a0,3so.o0 Memorandum of Law The doctrine of equitable estoppel has long been recognized by the Courts in Florida and maybe invoked where a landowner has in good faith made a substantial change in position in reliance upon the issuance of a permit. This doctrine has frequently been applied to municipalities in regard to the permitting process. In the case of Hollywood Beach Hotel Co. v. City of Hollywood, 329 So.2d 10 (Fla. 1976), the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel would prohibit a municipality from revoking a building permit where the property owner, in good faith, has substantially relied upon the permit. The doctrine is specifically applicable tinder the facts involved in the permitting and construction of the residence located at 850 Indian River Drive, Sebastian being constntcted by Joseph Graham. pursuant to a permit issued by the City of Sebastian upon the application of Joseph Graham, the land owner currently owned by Chuck Bradford. In this instance a fitll set of plans was submitted to the city including the elevations which showed a second story balcony on the north side of the building. The plans submitted were approved by the city and a permit based on the plans submitted was issued for the constniction of the building. At the present time the improvements are substantially completed in accordance with the approved plans. At this juncture the city has raised an objection that the balcony extends into the easement and has now required that the property owner apply for a variance in order to allow the constniction as it presently is configured. In this case the permitted property owner has performed work and expended money tinder the permit which constihites substantial reliance and a substantial change of position. As a result, the city is equitably estopped from altering or requiring the property owner to change the in place building improvements. See Dade County v. Benders Associates, Inc., 257 So.2d 291 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3rd Dist. 1972). In a case remarkably similar to the instant situation the building inspector issued a permit authorizing a structure within the 15 foot setback and the builder in reliance upon the permit constricted a building within the set back. The Court ruled that the city was prohibited by the doctrine of equitable estoppel from canceling the permit to the builders prejudice. Alderman v. Stevens, 1.89 So.2d 168 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2nd Dist. 1966). The issuance of a building permit is the most common government act used by the Courts to justify the application of equitable estoppel. In the case of Texas Co. v. Town of Miami Springs, 44 So.2d 808 (Fla. 1950) the Court noted the owners justifiable reliance and change of position and stated that the issuance of the permit represented official permission to proceed. In short, the doctrine of equitable estoppel is applicable against a local government when a property owner (1) relied in good faith (2) on an act of the government, (3) to make a substantial change in position or incur extensive obligations and expenses so that it would be highly unjust and inequitable to destroy the right acquired. See Hollywood Beach Hotel Co. v. City of Hollywood, supra. In the present instance the property owner relied in good faith on the issuance of the permit issued by the City of Sebastian to constrict his building in accordance with the permit and incurred substantial expenses in undertaking the construction and therefore the City should allow the completion of the stricture as authorized and should be estopped from requiring any alteration to the north side balcony. Dated.: ~ Respectfiilly Submitted Steven. Lulich, ESQ.