Loading...
11-26-1984 Special '. 8 B CITY OF EDGEWATER Board of Adjustments November 26, 1984 Special Meeting Minutes This special meeting was called to order by Chairman Garthwaite at 7 p.m. at the Shuffleboard Clubhouse. Members present: Mr. Garthwaite, Mrs. Martin, Messrs. Newell, Roush, Savini and Moran. Excused: Mrs. Murphy. Also present: City Attorney Jose' Alvarez and Joan Taylor, Secretary. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Roush moved that the November 8, 1984 minutes be approved. Mrs. Martin seconded the motion which CARRIED unanimously. Mr. Garthwaite suggested that the correspondence from Dominick Fazzone be moved up on the agenda for discussion because Mr. Jose' Alvarez was present and needed to attend another meeting later. Mr. Fazzone's letter was in relation to the variances recently granted in the Shangri-La Sub- division. Mr. Fazzone was present to speak to the Board. Also present was Mr. R. A. Coleman, owner and developer of the Shangri-La Subdivision. Mr. Coleman asked why the Board was going over this matter again and was advised by the Chairman that there is a possibility that there may have been a mistake made in the granting of the variances. He explained that the case is under study by the City Attorney at this time. Mr. Fazzone thanked the Board for giving him an opportunity to present his side of the story, and to explain why he opposes the granting of the variances at 403 and 419 Shangri-La Circle. Mr. Fazzone exhibited a map which is the same as that given to the people who buy lots in Shangri-La Village. He pointed out the lots in question and indicated the location of his property on the map, noting that the sales people, at the time of purchase, advised that the 20 foot setback could not be built upon. Mr. Fazzone explained the possible situation if all homes in the subdivision were granted such variances. I Mrs. Martin asked if the developer had given the property owners a set of by-laws at the time of purchase and Mr. Fazzone responded that there are rules and regulations but there is nothing which ties down the requirements. But, he said, they were told verbally that they couldn't build a big house on a small lot and that the could not build into the setback. Mr. Fazzone submitted his letter dated November 26, 1984, to be added to the record of this case. Mr. R. A. Coleman commented that in his opinion everyone has a right to ask for a variance, and there is nothing in the re~trictions in Shangri-La which prohibit this. Mr. Garthwaite advised that he will send a letter to the Building Official requesting that he not issue building permits on these two structures and will advise the property owners involved not to make any additional expendi- tures until such time as this matter is cleared up. He pointed out that the cases are under study by the City Attorney and until an opinion is received from him nothing is to be done. He said the Board will meet again on this matter if another meeting is indicated by the City Attorney's opinion. Mr. Coleman asked when they could expect an opinion. Mr. Alvarez asked if Mr. Coleman is being represented by an attorney. Mr. Coleman said that he is not at this time but Mr. Alvarez is welcome to talk to his attorney, and was asked by Mr. Alvarez to have his attorney call him. Mr. Coleman said that he is trying to keep expenses down, but he will see if the pro- perty owners want to get involved with an attorney because he does not want to. Mr. Alvarez said that he wants to clarify his understanding. If it is not accurate let him know. Mr. Alvarez advised that he will render an opinion 8 8 basically stating that this Board, as well as any other Board, should not be deprived of the opportunity to hear a request for a variance, only because there has been a change in the text of the ordinance. whether the Board grants or denies a variance is up to the Board and not to the criteria in the Ordinance. Obviously the Board heard the case and granted a variance. Mr. Alvarez said he has received a memorandum from the Chairman asking, "Can the Board reverse the decision?". There seems to be apprehen- sion with the Board that perhaps the criteria was not followed or some error was committed. He will review the minutes, he stated, to see if he can de- terminewhat the error, if any, is. In response to Mr. Coleman's question as to what they think the error might have been, Mr. Garthwaite advised that they must wait until the attorney has had an opportunity to review the case. Mr. Alvarez said that in his opinion the change in the text of the ordinance is not the main issue; the main issue is whether or not the applicant was entitled to the variance and whether the Board found sufficient criteria within the ordinance to grant the variance. He stated that a variance does not set a_precedence because it is granted because of unique hardship of a piece of land. Mr. Fazzone remarked that he can understand the need for a variance when hardship is shown, but in this case it is only a few months since they bought the property, and they have been told of the setback, and to him the hardship doesn't become very evident. Mr. Alvarez observed that the motion to grant the variance was approved 7-0, so he will be contacting each board member, Mr. Coleman's attorney and Mr. Fazzone, and asked that if anyone wishes to contact him personally to please do so. He asked Mrs. Taylor to provide him with a package on the case. NEW BUSINESS Ron Carwile, front and side corner setback variances to existing building located at the corner of 1701 S.Ridgewood Avenue and Hardin Place Mr. CarWile, representing the owner, Interloch Enterprises, Inc., was present to speak to the Board. The chairman noted that the request is for a 4.5 foot front variance and a 13 foot side variance. Mr. Carwile explained that the planter or greenhouse will be glass and cedar. It will run from the top of the planter to the roof. The main object is to make the whole building look better. After the first of the year he intends to add an addition of approximately 7,000 square feet. Mr. Newell moved to approve the request for the variance, seconded by Mr. Savini. The motion CARRIED 6-0. The second variance request is for the covered area to the side coming out to Hardin Place. The existing building is already into the setback. Mr. Newell questioned if this would lay the same distance as the existing building and Mr. Carwile said this is correct. Mr. Savini asked if it would be higher than the existing and was advised by Mr. Carwile that the front part of it will be 15 feet tall and the back part will be 14 feet. The back part of the existing building is 12 feet high. There will be an open space under the proposed cover. Mr. Roush asked about the water runoff and Mr. Carwile responded that it will not create any water runoff which is not being taken care of by their storm water plans for the addition. He explained that they propose an underground water retention system to the back,which will take care of all of the runoff. The open space between the proposed roof and the existing building roof is so there will not be much wind lift. Mr. Garthwaite noted that this is a commercial property which is abutting residential property. He wondered if there should not be a buffer included as part of the motion, if they move to approve this variance. Mr. Carwile said that the only part which is residential which abuts his property is the 80 feet across the back and he proposes to put a buffer there. There exists a fence across that part. Mr. Carwile pointed out that part of the abutting commercial property on the plan. The Chairman suggested that a fence be constructed along the 25 foot easement line to where the structure Board of Adjustments November 26, 1984 - 2 - 8 8 is to be. Mr. Carwile said they intend to compound the whole corner. Mr. Garthwaite asked if he had any objection to that being made a condition of the variance and Mr. Carwile said he can only operate with a chain link fence along there. He explained that it would be impractical to put a wooden fence with a gate there because he runs many trucks through there. Mr. Garthwaite said he would like to see a condition put on this variance that a buffer be in place on the east and on the north side. He said that if he puts up a chain link fence he could put the strips down through the fence which would shield it from view and make the place look nicer. Mr. Carwile disagreed with this proposal, pointing out that he is doing this work to make the place look nicer, but he snongly objected to a blind fence because, in his opinion, his property would be broken into every night. He intends to put up warehouse space for storage. The Board members referred to Sec. 904.01 and reviewed the criteria for grant- ing variances, and agreed that this application meets all five criteria. Mr. Newell asked again for clarification the location of the residential property abutting the subject property and Mr. Carwile identified it for him. Mr. Newell moved that the variance request be granted providing a buffer is put in all the way along the back and across to the corner (indicating same on the plan). Mr. Garthwaite reviewed the definition of a buffer for Mr. Carwile. The motion was clarified by Mr. Newell, who stated he is moving that the buffer be on the east side of the property. Mr. Carwile replied that his plans call for a buffer there. Mrs. Martin seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED 6-0. Mr. Garthwaite advised Mr. Carwile that he will be advised in writing of the Board action and that he should be able to pick up his building permit tomorrow. Warren Wilson - requesting a five foot rear setback variance to erect a 2 x 4 frame porch on an existing patio sl'abat 314 Wildwood Drive, zoned R2A Mr. Wilson was present to talk to the Board members. He explained that the jacuzzi will be under the proposed structure on the existing patio. There is an existing setback of 30 feet and the Code requires 25 feet. To enclose the patio will require a five foot variance. In response to Mr. Savini's query concerning the overhang, Mr. Wilson advised that he intends to follow the existing roof structure so that it will look like a part of the original building. There will be a two foot overhang. Regarding the windows to be installed, Mr. Wilson said that he has not been able to find what he wants but would like something that would give him 90 percent airflow. Mr. Garthwaite asked if there were any adjoining property owners present who objected to this proposal. Mr. Chip Niebel, an abutting property owner! was present and advised that he had no objections. Mr. Savini informed the members that he talked to the other abutting property owner and was told that he had no objection to the proposal. Proper advertising and posting of the property was verified. The members reviewed the criteria for the granting of a variance. It was the concensus of the members that this application meets all the criteria and a motion made by Mrs. Martin to approve the request for a five foot variance at 132 West Park Avenue and seconded by Mr. Roush! CARRIED 6-0. The applicant was informed that he would be advised in writing and could pick up his permit the next day. Mr. Wilson pointed out that the request for the variance is for 314 Wildwood Drive and not 132 West Park Avenue. The Board agreed that this is correct. Guy Jones! representing Henry C. Belcher-requesting a variance of approxi- matelyfivefeet to the side setback to construct a carport and utility room at 24 Kingfisher Lane in the R-4Zoning District. Mr. Garthwaite questioned the amount of area to be covered by the building with the additions and Mr. Jones said it would be 33 percent. Mr. Roush noted that with the additions it would leave just 4.85 feet to the property line. Mr. Jones explained that the proposed carport would be 11' x 28' and the utility room will be 91 x 6'. Board of Adjustments November 26, 1984 - 3 - 8 [] Mr. Savini pointed out that a magnolia tree to the right of the driveway will cause a problem getting into the garage. Mr. Jones said that the owners realize they will have a "little jog" in the driveway but they don't want to get rid of the tree. Mr. Garthwaite advised the members that a letter in the file indicates that Mr. Jones has the authority to represent the property owners. There was continued discussion about the magnolia tree with the consensus of the members that it would cause a dangerous situation. Mrs. Martin asked if it would be possible to reduce the size of the carport to 10 feet to bring the setback up to 6 feet. Mr. Jones said that even 11 feet for a carport is close. Mrs. Verna Judd, owner of the property at 28 Kingfisher Lane, was present to ) speak to the members. Mrs. Judd said she was concerned about the the addition being so close to her property that there may be an overhang and water coming onto her property. Mrs. Judd's setback is 7 feet from the utility shed to the property line. Mr. Garthwaite asked when she got a variance for the utility shed; Mrs. Judd explained that when she bought her property and built her carport Mr. Carter gave her enough land to come within the City limits. She said that she got a corrected deed. The members pointed out that the 7 feet setback which she now has does not meet the Code. Mr. Garthwaite asked if people are allowed to park their cars in the street in Pelican Cove East. Mrs. Judd responded that you can if you want to run over the mailbox. The Chairman noted that the Code requires one and one-half parking spaces per duplex. According to the slab shown on the plan, he does not have it. Mrs. Judd was fearful that the owner of the subject property may close up the section between the utility room and the carport and make another bedroom, and was advised that he could not do that. She was also concerned that she could not park a trailer between her carport and the building next door, and was told that she would have to stay on her own setback. She also questioned keeping the magnolia tree, as it came three feet into the~_driveway. Mr. Garthwaite noted that the tree had no bearing on the granting of the variance. Mrs. Judd questioned how the water runoff from the roof would be handled. Mr. Jones explained that the roof will be slanted toward Mrs. Judd's house with a gutter which will carry the water out to the street. There will probably be three drainoffs; you need one about every 20 feet, he explained. The Chairman explained that if the property owner did not handle the water from his property she has the right to file a complaint with the City. Mrs. Judd asked what she would have to do if she disagreed with the decision of the Board and Mr. Garthwaite pointed out that if the Board grants the variance she would have to make an appeal to the Circuit Court. Mr. Jones said that they would like her good blessings. Mrs. Judd said she would go along with whatever the Board decided. Mr. Garthwaite reviewed the request, noting that the applicant is asking for a 5.15 foot variance to the side setback. The Board members went over the cri teria for the granting of a variance. All members except I1r. Garthwaj;te :_ agreed that the applicant met criteria (a); it was the general concensus of all the members that the applicant's request met the criteria set out in (b), (c~, (d), and (e). Mr. Newell moved to grant the variance request providing the tree is removed and the cement is moved over. Mrs. Martin asked if it could be a suggestion rather than a requirement. This question was discussed at length. Mr. Newell said that he would withdraw his motion and let somebody else make one because he felt the tree should be removed. Mr. Garthwaite said they could vote on his motion as it is if he wanted to leave the stipu- lation in. Mr. Newell agreed to move that the variance be granted provided the magnolia tree is removed. Mr. Savini seconded the motion. Mr. Jones said he was sure the owners would follow the wishes of the Board. Mr. Jones also mentioned that there are guy wires almost up to the end of the driveway. The Chairman said that if the guy wires are a problem the owner can call the Florida Power and Light Company to have them moved. Mr. Garthwaite repeated the motion which was to grant the variance with the condition that the tree be removed and the concrete be moved over. The motion to grant the variance CARRIED 5-1. Mr. Garthwaite voted No because he is not in agreement that special circumstances exist. The applicant was advised to pick up his permit and that a letter would be forthcoming advising him of the decision. Board of Adjustments November 26, 1984 - 4 - 8 a The Chairman informed Mrs. Judd that he was going to request the Code Enforce- ment officer to check her property at 28 Kingfisher to verify that she did get a variance and the proper permits to put up that structure. Mrs. Judd said it was probably on her deed. Mr. Garthwaite said the reason he is doing this is because he was informed this was put up without a permit and without a variance. Mrs. Judd said that Rocky's Aluminum Company put it up. The Chairman asked if anyone on the Board remembered of this coming before them. No one recalled that it had. Mr. Newell asked when the addition was added and Mrs. Judd thought it was the early part of 1980 because she bought it in December - possibly Mayor April. The Chairman went over the letters which he wished sent out. One to the enforcement official about the property at 28 Kingfisher, one to Mrs. Weiler, Mr. and Mrs. Wheeler and the Building Official so that he does not issue any permits for those two residences. They are to be advised that the matter is under review by the City Attorney. A letter is to be sent to the Planning and Zoning Board a~so. Mrs. Martin asked if the investigation being done on these two cases should not be done by the Circuit Court. Mr. Garthwaite said he felt it would be better if the Board takes care of their own problem. Mr. Newell motioned that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Minutes prepared by Joan Taylor Board of Adjustments November 26, 1984 - 5 -