Loading...
01-17-1979 Joint Workshop/Special w/Planning Board (.) u CITY OF EDGEWATER ZONING BOARD AND PLANNING BOARD JOINT WORKSHOP AND SPECIAL MEETING January 17, 1979 The Zoning Board and the Planning Board held a joint Workshop and Public Meeting at 7:30 P.M. in City Hall. ROLL CALL Planning Board Arthur Schilling Edward Yackel Steve Hardock Ryta Webber Jacob Lodico William Grollemund Harold Read, Jr. Daniel Nolan George Ladhoff Betty Still Present Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present Present Absent Zoning Board James Mackie James Engle Sebastian Siciliano Frank Opal M. F. Wheeler Clair Bowser Present Present Present Present Present Present Also Present Richard Diamond, City Planner Councilman Rotundo Councilman Ledbetter Mr. and Mrs. Biggerstaff Paul Loeffler Harold Brown The City Council had requested that the Zoning Board and the Planning Board come up with a criteria to separate commercial or business from residential areas in regards to occupational licenses and to review the Home Occupational licenses. Mr. Diamond said that he believed the Council wished the Boards to review the requirements and see if they are being complied with or not or whether the requirements are adequate to protect the residential areas from the external effects of some home occupations. He handed out copies of an Occupational License with an attached sheet stating that the applicant agrees to conditions stated on that sheet primarily concerning storage. Mr. Schilling said that it appeared that the second sheet seemed to repeat the requirements listed in Ord. 972 as it amends 880 and also Ord. 1001. Ord~ 1001 states that the City Council shall approve all Home Occupational Licenses and renewals of Home Occupational licenses. Mr. Mackie said that he felt Ord. 972 was a good ordinance but that it is not always followed or enforced properly. Mr. Diamond said that he has reviewed the occupational licenses and Home Occupational licenses. There seem to be a number of problems connected with the issuance of these licenses. There is a problem in determining what is or is not a Home Occupational License. Some businesses are operating in homes but were not required to fill out the second sheet as a home occupation requirement nor were they required to go before the Council for approval. In some cases it is contractors and in others it is people who list a mobile business (doing business out of a truck) but the only address given is in a residential area. ~ o Mr. Diamond also noted that some of the Home Occupational licenses appear not to have gone to the Council for approval. In some cases the only address the business gave was a P.O. Box number. In that case it is impossible to tell whether they are operating in a residential or commercial zone. In many cases the use has not been specifically defined in the application. There is no space on the application to show if the Council has approved this application. The Board members studied the information that Mr. Diamond had given to them and discussed, at length, various changes that could be made to improve the administrative procedures that should be followed before an occupational license is issued. The Boards adjourned the Workshop. Both Chairman called the Special Meeting to order. Mr. Schilling listed the recommendations that both Boards agreed should be sent to the Council concerning Home Occupational and Occupational licenses: 1. Separate forms should be prepared for Home Occupational licenses from the ones used for general occuaptional licenses. 2. Form must include street address of business to help distinguish from general license applicants. P.O. Box numbers are not acceptable. 3. There must be a space on the form indicating approval by the City Council before license can be issued or renewed. 4. The date the new form was created or revised should be on the form. 5. A new application must be filed for renewals each year. 6. There should be a space on the form for Zoning Enforcement Official approval or disapproval. 7. The issuance of a Home Occupational license shall be subject to a personal investigation of the property by the Zoning Enforcement Official. 8. Any pending applications can be acted upon, according to these suggested administrative procedures. The Council should consult Ordinance 972 as a guideline to approving Home Occupational licenses. Both the Zoning Board and the Planning Board felt that they needed more time to review the requirements listed in Ordinance 972, before making a final recommendation to the Council on possible changes to this ordinance. Motions were made and seconded by both Boards to send these recommenda- tions to the Council. Both Boards voted unanimously to approve these recommendations. Mr. Nolan suggested that perhaps a committee, made up of members of both Boards, could be formed to study Ordinance 9J2. Most of the Board members felt that they already had so many meetings that the study of this ordinance should be taken up at their regular meetinos. Each Board will make their own review and then combine their recommendations for presentation to the Council. Mr. Schilling said that the Boards would go on record as making strong recommendations for revising the application forms and perhaps that there should be some revision of the ordinance itself. Mr. Nolan said that he did not think the Boards or the Council should hold up the issuance of licenses for too long a period. The applicants could get discouraged and decide to take their business elsewhere. 2 (.) <.) Mr. Siciliano said that he felt the Boards should give Mr. Diamond the opportunity to continue investigating the present licenses and possible violations and make his recommendations to the Board for any chaRges that should be made in the Home Occupational Ord. A joint letter will be sent to the Council. The next item on the agenda was an application for a Special Exception for a used car lot in B-3 Highway Commercial District. Mr. Harold Brown has made an application to the Board of Adjustments for a used car lot. This is a Special Exception and therefore needs to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Boards. Mr. Siciliano asked Mr. Brown if he owned both of the lots pictured in the survey. Mr. Brown said that he did and he also owned the land all the way over to Magnolia and back to Neptune. Mr. Siciliano noted that the new office for the used car business would be right on the lot line. These are two separate plots and if Mr. Brown happened to sell one then the building would be right on the line. Mr. Brown said that he be~ieved you could put a commercial building right on a line. Mr. Siciliano said he thought you could if you had a common wall between the buildings. Mr. Brown said that the used car lot would be on Lot 2 and he had a driveway next to his present place of business (Brown's Air Conditioning) which runs next to the line of Lot 2. The driveway would be utilized for the used car business. Mr. Diamond said that he believed the question was the possibility of selling this lot in the future. At that time the lot could not be split between the two buildings and still maintain the side yards which is a 20 ft. requirement if it is not a single ownership. Mr. Mackie said that they were not concerned with the present building that was already there. The plan indicates 4 lots and the application is for a license to operate a business on Lot 2 and the plan calls for another building right on the line. There was a lengthy discussion about the location of the building on the proposed site of the used car business. Mr Schilling said that if Mr. Brown did not object to putting the building farther away from the line there would not be any future problems if the land was sold. Mr. Diamond said that at the present time Mr. Brown had single ownership of both lots so that it is not necessary to consider both lots you would consider it one building lot. Mr. Mackie said that the survey indicates 4 lots and the dimensions of each lot is given. Mr. Diamond said that it was not necessary to worry about plat lines you should be concerned with ownership lines. Mr. Brown said that it might be possible in the future that he would want to get out of the used car business and build small business buildings right down that lot line. Mr. Diamond said that 880 would not allow Mr. Brown to subdivide and sell the lot unless he has 20 ft. from both buildings to the line. Technically, at this time, he can put the building anywhere he wants since it is single ownership. Mr. Nol~n made a motion that the Planning Board approve the Special . Ex c e p t ion for t his bus i n e s s . Mr. Lad h 0 f f s e con d e d the mot ion. l~e mU~lon CARRIED 8-0. 3 o o Mr. Siciliano made a motion that the Zoning Board approve the issuance of a Special Exception for the used car lot. Mr. Engle seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED 7-0. The recommendations of the Planning Board and the Zoning Board will be sent to the Board of Adjustments. Both Board discussed the possible creation of an Industrial Development Board. Councilman Rotundo had presented this plan to the Council last year. The idea was tabled at that time. However, Councilman Rotundo would like the Boards to review the establishment of an Industrial Development Board and make recommendations to the Council. Mr. Diamond said that this type of board would try to utilize the present industrially zoned property in the City and encourage industrial development in the City to establish a better tax base and job employment market. The New Smyrna Beach-Edgewater Chamber of Commerce is involved in trying to encourage industrial development within New Smyrna and Edgewater. New Smyrna Beach has an advantage because they own an area that they plan to develop into a commercial park. Edgewater could encourage the development of privately owned industrial property. Mr. Schilling asked if it might not be better to wait until after the comprehensive plan was completed before initiating this type of industrial development board? It has been brought out at some of the planning meetings that it is not good to have an industrial area right in the middle of a residential area which is the situation now in Edgewater. It might be better to wait until after the comprehensive plan has been redefined as to proposed industrial areas. We would not want to encourage people on the basis of the present industrial zoning to come in and possibly make the matter worse. We would like to encourage the growth of a new area which is removed from the residential area as an industrial zone. That might be a better time to create an industrial development board. Mr. Siciliano asked if it might not be better to form an industrial board to work with the Planning Board on an industrial park area? Mr. Ladhoff said that might be an advantage if members of both Zoning and Planning Boards were to assist in forming an industrial development board to work along with the Planning Board in defining and proposing future industrial areas. Mr. Schilling said that would mean acting in an advisory capacity. He felt that any board that was created would want to get to work to accomplish something and not merely act as advisors. He is certain that the idea of an industrial board is most acceptable but that the timing is not right. After the comprehensive plan is completed would be a better time to establish such a board. Mr. Mackie said that in the meantime they could be studying the suggestions for establishing this board. Councilman Rotundo said that it would probably take at least four months to get this industrial board together. Mr. Schilling said that they would look at the requirements and have an answer at the next meeting. Mr. Mackie said that the next subject on the agenda was clarifying the responsibilities of the Zoning and Planning Boards under Ord. 880. Mr. Diamond said that the language of Ord. 880 refers to the Zoning and Planning Board. The City no longer has a Zoning and Planning Board. The two Boards are separate. Unofficially, they have tried to divide the responsibilities under 880. He would like clarification on this. The responsibilities of the boards are not detailed from a legal standpoint. Mr. Nolan said that he understood that at the time the comprehensive plan was finalized that members of the Zoning and Planning Boards would get together to complete this plan. 4 ~ Q Mr. Diamond said that it would probably be the recommendation of the State Attorney as interpretations of the local comprehensive planning act become available that both boards would be involved. He is not asking for a merger of the boards only that the language of 880 be clarified. The Zoning and Planning Board references in 880 were put in there when it was one board. We should correct the legal language of this ordinance and also detail what the responsibility of the two boards should be at this time. Mr. Siciliano said that possibly zoning questions should be left to the Zoning Board until such a time as the comprehensive plan is completed. After further discussion both boards voted unanimously to send the following letter to the City Council: At a joint meeting of the Planning Board and Zoning Board held on January 17, 1979, there was a unanimous vote by both Boards to recommend that all reference to the Zoning and Planning Board in Ordinance 880 be changed to refer to the Zoning Board only with the exception of Article VII, Section 715 (Site Plan Approval) which would be changed to refer to the Planning Board and the Zoning Board. There was no further business before the Boards. Mr. Siciliano made a motion that the special joint meeting be adjourned. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned. MINUTES SUBMITTED BY: Nancy Blazi 5