Loading...
11-08-1984 '~ 8 [) CITY OF EDGEWATER Board of Adjustments November 8, 1984 Minutes Chairman Garthwaite called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Center. ROLL CALL Members present: Mr. Garthwaite, Mrs. Martin, Mrs. Murphy, Messrs. Moran, Newell, Roush and Savina. Also present: Mrs. Taylor, Secretary. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Mrs. Martin and seconded by Mr. Roush to approve the October 16, 1984 minutes. The motion CARRIED 7-0. OLD BUSINESS Henry C. and Nancy Sloan- Variance request of 11 feet to construct a 2-car garage on a corner lot at 428 N. Riverside Drive ~ continued from October 16 meeting. Mr. William Gillespie, Attorney, was present to represent the applicant. Mr. David L. Shannon, Attorney, was present to represent Mrs. Evangeline Dunn. Attorney Gillespie explained the request and pointed out that the homes on YelckaTerrace are between 14 and 20 feet back from the road. He said that the impossibility of making an addition onto their home in any other way makes it almost imperative to put the garage addition to the north as shown on the plan. This would provide cover for the automobile which is usually left in the open. Mr. Sloan said that the entrance to his home is from Yelcka Terrace, but his address is 428 N. Riverside Drive. Mr. Sloan presented photographs and explained how the roof line would run. The roof line would follow the roof line of the low structure. He explained that the house is over 50 years old but the addition would blend as close as possible to the existing structure. There was some discussion about whether the front of the house is where the front door is, or if it is the side where the address is. Mrs. Murphy felt the front of the house would be where the front door comes out; Mr. Newell recalled a conversation he had with the Building Official and was advised that the front of the house is considered to be where the address is. Mr. Newell asked about the driveway into the garage and Mr. Sloan said it would be a circle drive coming off of Yelcka Drive and the front door would be facing Riverside Drive. This is for safety purposes and would eliminate parking a car in front of the garage. Mr. Garthwaite asked Mr. Sloan if he was aware of the setback requirements when he bought the home. Mr. Sloan said that he, unfortunately, paced it from the street. Mr. Shannon spoke to the members, explaining that Mrs. Dunn could not be present. He did read a sworn statement from Mrs. Dunn. This was presented as Exhibit #1. The affidavit states that the proposed garage will obstruct her view from her enclosed porch, living and dining room area which presently give her a clear view of the Indian River. The structure will also impede the flow of the easterly and northeasterly wind, she stated. In addition, Mrs. Dunn expressed the opinion that the garage will diminish the value of her property by as much as 50 per cent. Mr. Shannon presented a plat of the property and produced photographs of the view from Mrs. Dunn's property illustrating the possible blocking of vision. Mr. Shannon introduced Mr. Hayward Paxton, local real estate appraiser. Mr. Paxton stated that he is a registered real estate broker and a certified appraiser, and that he viewed the subject property and the photographs 8 8 taken by Mr. Shannon and presented to the Board. Mr. Paxton stated that in his opinion the property value would be decreased approximately 20 per cent if the structure is put up, based upon the loss of breeze coming in from the east and the substantial loss of the view. In his judgment each of these factors has a 10 per cent impact on the value of the property, giving a total devaluation of 20 per cent. Mr. Garthwaite asked how much view could normally be expected for a home situated such as this one. Mr. Paxton explained that a good number of homes in the second position back do have a good view, but not all of them. Mrs. Martin asked the position of the photographer when the photos where taken and was advised that they were not taken from the window of the house. She pointed out that the view is already obstructed by the trees. The photos were discussed at length. Mr. Garthwaite pointed out that if the carport were raised and the recreational vehicle shown in the pictures was parked under the carport, it would be perfectly legal. Mrs. Murphy pointed out that the house has a very shallow back yard, so the whole house is nonconforming. She is questioning if he can make (pmore nonconforming. Mr. Garthwaite expressed the opinion that they cannot increase a nonconformance, but as long as they are not increasing to the rear of the property they are not increasing a nonconformance. He stated that where he is requesting the variance it is presently conforming. Mrs. Murphy said that he is requesting to put another nonconforming condition on the house and she questions granting this, which will create nonconformities on three sides of the house. The owner, Mr. Sloan, noted that the whole area is nonconforming, in that Mrs. Dunn's garage is 18 inches from his property, and the house is approxi- mately 15 feet from Yelcka Terrace. Mr. Savini commented that if a car is parked in the carport it would block the view almost as much as the proposed garage. Mr. Roush asked if Mr. Sloan had thought about utilizing the property in front of the house to construct a garage. Mr. Sloan said that he had two licensed contractors come to his home and try to find a workable solution or alternate plan for the location of the garage, but this is the only position they could find which would fit with the home. The applicant presented photographs to the members to view and informed them that the camper shown in the pictures is 25 feet long. Pointing to the picture showing the view due east, he stated that there is no view for Mrs. Dunn because of the trees on the lot across the road. The windows on the east side of Mrs. Dunn's house are solid and do not open, except for those which are already blocked by the home that is presently there. The chairman asked about the size of the carport and was informed that it is about 20 feet; the garage will be the same height as the roof level of the existing home. Mr. Sloan explained that the motor home will be parked along the north side of the property. Mrs. Murphy spoke about the variance recently denied for a corner lot in Florida Shores and indicated that she is not comfortable with changing a front setback line because, in her opinion, it is one of the most important parts of a subdivision. The Board members reviewed the criteria for the granting of a variance (Sec. 904.01 of the Code). (a) - Do special circumstances exist. There was disagreement as to whether the applicant meets this requirement. Mrs. Martin felt that the location of the existing dwelling on the lot consti- tuted a special. circumstance. Mrs. Murphy pointed out that he has all of the other land which could be used. The other members agreed that special circumstances do exist. Mr. Garthwaite agreed with Mrs. Murphy - in his opinion no special circumstance exists. (b) - Strict application of the provisions of the ordinance would deprive applicant of reasonable rights. Mrs. Murphy said that they do not know if the rights are applicable to other properties, because they would have to ask for a variance. She does not believe that the applicant has met this criteria. The general opinion of the other members is that this criteria has been met. (c) The special circumstances and conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant. All members were in agreement that the applicant meets this Board of Adjustments November 8, 1984 - 2 - 8 8 criteria except for Mr. Garthwaite. It is his opinion that when the Sloans bought the property they should have been aware of the setbacks. (d) That granting of the variance will not cause substantial detriment to the public welfare or impair the purposes and intent of this ordinance. Mrs. Martin and Mr. Newell ag~eed that the applicant met this criteria. Mrs. Murphy felt that when the ordinance was passed requiring the 30 ft. setback on the corner they felt that it was necessary. She felt that to approve this variance would impair the intent of this ordinance. Mr. Garthwaite agreed with Mrs. Murphy on this point. The rest of the members felt that the applicant met this criteria. (e) Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege. Mrs. Murphy said to be consis- tent, she is of the opinion that the applicant does not meet this criteria. The other members believed that to grant the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege. Mr. Garthwaite asked the applicant if he has considered putting the garage to the back of his property, beyond his picture window. Mr. Sloan said that it doesn't fit in with the roof. Two contractors who looked at the house said that it would not be feasible to build it into the structure in that manner. Mrs. Martin motioned that the request for a variance be approved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Savini. The motion CARRIED 5-2. Mr. Garthwaite and Mrs. Murphy voted No. Mr. Garthwaite explained that he felt the condi- tion resulted from the applicant buying the property knowing the setbacks as' they are. The applicant was advised that the Building Official will be notified in the morning that the variance request has been granted, and he will receive a letter advising him of the outcome of the hearing. Mr. Shannon, attorney for Mrs. Dunn, asked when this would go to City Council and was informed by the Chairman that an appeal to this decision must go to Circuit Court. Mr. Shannon said that he will be requesting a copy of the record because he will take the case to Circuit Court. He left the plat and photographs with the secretary to be kept in the file. CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Dominick Fazzone regarding varlancesforadditions in Shangri-La Mr. Fazzone's objection to the granting of variances was based upon his fears that once a precedent is set an entire block can apply for a variance and expect approval, thus changing the setback for the entire area. Mr. Garth- waite explained that Mr. Fazzone's property does not abut the property which was under consideration at the last meeting, therefore he was not aware of the request in time to oppose it. It was suggested that in future cases both the front and rear of the property be posted to give public notice. Mrs. Murphy pointed out that even though the Board has maintained that it doesn't set a precedent, one of the tenets of the Constitution is that there is equality under the law. This question was discussed at length. The members agreed that Mr. Fazzone's comments should be kept in mind, but the Board must go strictly by the criteria set out in Sec. 904.01 of the Code when considering a variance request. Posting of the signs was discussed further. All members agreed that two signs should be posted for any variance request and the secretary was asked to prepare two signs for the applicant to post. Advertising of the hearings was brought up, noting that the ads appear in the Daytona Beach News Journal. NISCELLANEOUS Mr. Ron Carwile, Coastal Tire Company, was present to petition the Board for a special meeting. Mr. Garthwaite advised the Board members that due to a mistake by the Building Official, who told 'him that he needed five days lead time to get the information to the Board to have a meeting, Mr. Carwile is asking for a special meeting. He informed the members of the content of the request. Mr. Garthwaite said that if it is possible Board of Adjustments November 8, 1984 - 3 - . 8 8 he would like to see the December meeting cancelled. All cases pending could be brought before the Board at the special meeting. He asked for the Board's opinion on the request. . Mrs. Murphy questioned the need for a variance to the front setback line for the proposed planter. She asked. why there is a rush to hold the meeting and Mr. Carwile explained that he had contractors lined up and the loans are secured; he would like to start construction as soon as possible. The date to be set for the special meeting was considered. It was decided to try for November 20th if the ad could be published in time. If this date is not feasible the 26th was proposed. Councilman Asting was present and suggested that the local News Observer be used to carry the public notices. It was the concensus of all that faster service could be received by using the News Observer. The secretary explained that she was advised to place all ads in the News Journal. Mr. Newell asked what needed to be done to change the ads to the local News Observer. Mr. Asting advised that there is no need to go to Council on this matter. The City Clerk can authorize this. Mrs. Taylor was asked to speak to the City Clerk about this; they would like to see all notices go to the News Observer. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Minutes submitted by Joan Taylor Board of Adjustments November 8, 1984 - 4 -