Loading...
01-14-1988 . , t Q o o ? CITY OF EDGEWATER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS January 14, 1988 7:00 p.m. CITY HALL MINUTES The meeting of the Board of Adjustments of the City of Edgewater was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall, 104 North Riverside Drive. ROLL CALL Members present were: Jimmie Newell, Virginia Lawson, Ray Savini, Robert Garthwaite, Louise Martin and Sue Glover. Robert Wolfe was absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mrs. Martin asked for approval of the minutes of the meeting of November 12, 1987. Mr. Garthwaite moved the minutes be approved, seconded by Mr. Savini. Motion CARRIED 6-0. The Chairman then moved Old Business be heard later in the meeting, after Variance requests have been heard, to which the Board agreed. NEW BUSINESS DONALD HEWLETT, Requesting a 5 foot side Variance and 15 foot rear Variance, in order to erect a single car garage at 109 Knapp Avenue. Mr. Hewlett was sworn in. Mrs. Glover stated she noticed in Mr. Hewlett's letter to the Board he had objected to sheds and agreed with him they do rust out, but pointed out Mr. Hewlett has an existing shed on his property. Mr. Hewlett said that is how-~he~fourid out they do rust out and he plans to remove it. Mm. Glover also agreed with his statement this would not change the neighborhood, as she had noticed a place in the rear contained a motor home, a trailer and a shed. Mr. Newell stated if it wasn't for the trees, Mr. Hewlett could move closer to the house. Mrs. Martin questioned if this is not a noncomforming lot and Mr. Garthwaite said ,noncon- ~orming'lot of record. Mr. Newell s~id if the one palmetto tree was moved, Mr. Hewlett could come forward a good ten feet and have at least 15 feet in the rear; that perhaps he would have to move one tree. Mrs. Glover said that one tree is 40 feet tall, and Mr. Savini said he might have to remove two trees in order to get into the garage. Mr. Garthwaite said he had stepped off the distance from the house to the pool and if the palm trees were removed and the pool moved up closer to the house toward the lot line, we cou~d do away with a variance, as the pool is a temporary structure, an" above the ground pool. Mr. Newell agreed this is along the lines of his thoughts and Mr. Garthwaite added he cannot see a hardship. Mrs. Hewlett stated they told her that is where the pool has to be and Mr. Garthwaite asked who told her that. Mrs. Hewlett answered who ever gave the permit for the pool. Mr. Savini said he cannot go along with the five foot set back, and Mrs. Martin agreed. After several other suggestions, Mr. Newell stated we are trying to crowd five feet into what is supposed to be a 20 foot setback. Mr. Garthwaite said prior to 1974 there wasn't much of what you would call zoning laws; that a lot of these things were built prior to 1974 and after the Code Book laid down the rules which would ,be followed by the whole City, the rules included a lot which was nonconforming and nonconforming lots of record, which makes them legal, but you still have to go by the setbacks. o o Mrs. Martin added when you are building a new structure, you have to build according to Code, and when you are adding on you still have to go back to the Code Book. Mr. Hewlett asked why they went with the 20 foot setbacks as it seems a lot to him. Mr. Garthwaite stated it was mostly for fire access and probably astheticsi they had to set a figure and picked 20 feet rather than 40, or whatever. The Board discussed the possibility of facing the garage East, but agreed Mr. Hewlett would have difficulty getting his Suburban car into the garage facing that way. Mr. Garthwaite then moved the request for a variance be denied, seconded by Mr. Newell. Motion.CARRIED 6-0. Mrs. Martin said although the request has been denied, there are ways of putting this together which would not require a variance at all, as the Board has suggested. BURRELL, ROBERT C. - Requesting a 15 foot Variance to rear setback and 10 foot front variance, to allow construction of a business complex on Lot 17, West side of Guava Drive, between 19th and 20th Streets. Mr. Earl Wallace stated he is representing Mr. Burrell and was sworn in. Mr. Wallace stated as to the usage of the property, due to its oblong shape, their plans would utilize 28% of the total project area if they are fortunate enough to secure the Variances and their plans would also utilize more of their ground area for water retention. He stated they normally would not ask for a rear variance except in this instance, it is next to the F.E.C. rail- road, who has a 100 foot right of way. Mr. Wallace said with that 15 foot difference, they would be able to utilize, with the structure planned, for a business like orientation. He also said this whole complex was set up as a commercial business warehouse type situation and they would like to continpe the same situation. Mr. Wallace then asked if there had been any negative returns from the neighbors and the secretary said no, there had not. Mr.Newell asked Mr. Wallace if he would then be five foot within the lot line, there would not be room for an alleyway. Mr. Wallace stated they do not intend to have an access back there; all operation will be off Guava Drive. Mrs. Glover then stated since this was only her second meeting, she would like to ask a question; another meeting stated a couple weEe dealing with a commercial building and they stressed there would be an alleyway in the rear, and Mrs. Glover wondered if this was part of the Code. Mr. Qarthwaite answered no, that couple were up to a drainage canal, which is unusual. Mr. Newell stated if there was an alleyway there, it would have to be retained. Mr. Garthwaite then asked Mr. Wallace when this was purchased, was the gentlemen aware this was not a buildable portion of his land. Mr. Wallace said he is not certain; back in the thirties it was 30 feet and the existing project was based on 30 feet; and they would like to continue this. He stated they would like to get the 30 feet in the front and if all else fails, ten feet in the rear. Mrs. Martin then asked Mr. Wallace if this is considered mini- warehoueses and Mr. Wallace said no, business offices; the whole complex is business and storage. He also added they are anticipating a metal building, so there would be less fire worry than with a concrete or wooden structure. Mrs. Glover asked if there would be parking space there and Mr. Wallace said they have the area to the North and the paved area to the South is for parking also. Mr. Garthwaite asked the secretary if anything was on file as to when this property was purchased and the secretary answered no. Mr. Garthwaite said we should have a statement from the owner, but he believes it was in the early fifties, that basically, this is not a buildable piece of land. Mr. Garthwaite also stated it was still not buildable by 1974, and if you want to put anything on it, you have to meet the setbacks, the question being, can the Board work with Mr. Wallace and give him some relief. Mrs. Martin then read through all five criteria for granting a Variance, with the Board approving all criteria but (c), "Special circumstances and conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant." Mr. Garthwaite said he does not believe this meets -2- Board of Adjustments Minutes of January 14, 1988 Meeting. o o the criteria, as the applicant knew at the time of purchase it was not buildable. Mr. Newell said yes, he should have realized when he bought it that some of it was not buildable. The Board agreed it does not meet the criteria as to "c". Mrs. Martin announced the Board has four "Yes's" and one "No". Mrs. Martin asked Mr. Wallace if he would like to make his comments now and Mr. Wallace asked Mr. Garthwaite if he would read the criteria and Mr. Wallace's answers. Mr. Garthwaite then read from the criteria as follows: (a) Special circumstances exist which are peculiar to the applicant's land, structure or building and do not generally apply to the neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district or vicinity.- Mr. Wallace answered it is an extremely long and pie-shaped parcel, and for the Board to see the site plan of land. Mr. Wallace then stated he gathered everyone did get down to see the property, and they all agreed they had. (b) Strict application of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of reasonable rights commonly applicable to other properties in the same district. Mr. Wallace answered due to B-2 setback requirements. (c) Special circumstances and conditions do not result from action of the applicant. Reasonable land usage is Mr. Wallace's reply. Mr. Garthwaite stated the Board has voted No on this; it does not meet the criteria for granting a variance, saying the applicant is at fault. Mr. Wallace said at this point he would like some input and went on to say they are asking for reasonable usage of land; if they should not get the total setback variances they are asking for, they are then asking for partial, so at least they can do something. He stated should they get a little less than asked for as to rear setback and a little variance on the front, they could cause it to be usable property. Mr. Garthwaite asked Mr. Wallace what the hardship would be and Mr. Wallace stated asking for a front and part of a rear setback is their hardship. He asked the Board if they could work together for a little relief. Mr. Garthwaite continued: (d) That granting of the variance will not cause substantial detriment to the public welfare or impair the purposes and intent of this ordinance. Mr. Wallace answered the granting of the two variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare or impair the purposes and intent of this ordinance. (e) That granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege, that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Mr. Wallace answered there appears not to be other lands in this area similar to this situation; land area to the North is Indian River Boulevard, State Road 442; land to the South is 20m Street; land to the West is F.E.C. Railroad right-of-way (100 feet); land to the East is Guava Drive. Mr. Wallace thanked Mr. Garthwaite for reading this into the record and Mr. Garthwaite replied for the record, that is Mr. Wallace's input. Mr. Newell then moved the Board vote on each variance separately, to which the Board agreed. After discussion, Mr. Newell moved a ten foot variance be granted in the front. Mr. Savini answered he really sees no problem with the ten foot front variance and seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 6-0. 'Mrs. Glover asked if we gave ten feet in the back would there be enough room for emergency vehicles and Mr. Garthwaite said there is plenty of room back there. A fence was discussed, and Mr. Wallace said there is a fence behind the existing property but they had not planned a fence back there. After further discussion, Mr. Newell moved the Board grant a ten foot variance in the rear, provided no fence is put back there. Mr. Garthwaite reminded the Board at this point that the variance had not been granted. Mr. Wallace said; as we all go through this, he would like to say we still relate to reasonable land use and he feels they do comply with that. Mrs. Martin stated the Board was in a majority on the voting of the criteria; that the Board is now setting up the giving of the variances with stipulations. Mr. Newell asked what happens if just one criteria is turned down and Mr. Garthwaite answered all five criteria must be met. Mr. Wallace said there is still discussion to be made and Mr. Garthwaite asked for a five minute break at this time. Mrs. Martin first stated the Code Book reads"Before any Board of Adjustments -3- Minutes of January 14, 1988 Meeting. ~.... ..---. ~ ". o o variance can be granted, the Board of Adjustments must find all the following criteria is met, and we have met on all but one. A five minute break ensued from 8:10 to 8:15. The meeting again resumed and Mr. Garthwaite asked where the Board had been before breaking, and Mrs. Martin answered the Board had just gone back to the one "No" vote. Mr. Garthwaite said basically, when we voted No on a criteria, we killed the whole thing. Mrs. Martin then said the one "No" vote cancelled it out and asked if the Board would like to go through the criteria again. Mrs. Glover said she thinks we should reconsider it, and it was decided to go back to the criteria in question, (c). Mr. Garthwaite then reminded the Board we had a motion and had voted on it. Mrs. Martin said we should withdraw the original motion. Mr.. Garthwaite moved we withdraw the original motion to grant the ten foot variance for further discussion on the criteria. Mr. Newell seconded the motion and the Motion CARRIED 6-0. Mrs. Martin then read the (c) criteria again, that special circum- stances and conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant, and the Board would now go on to vote on the (c) criteria. After discussion, Mr. Newell moved this be tabled until we get the answer as to when the property was purchased, seconded by Mrs. Lawson. Mrs. Mprtin then said it has been moved and seconded to tablp. this request until the next meeting in order to obtain the purchase date. Mr. Garthwaite again stated the one question is that special circumstances and conditions do not result from actions of the applicant. Mr. Wallace said Mr. Burrell has not changed the land, that it has been there since day one. Mrs. Glover said what she believes Mr. Wallace is trying to say is the owner did not sub- divide or do any physical thing to the property, so it is not an action of his. Mr. Newell then withdrew his motion to table and Mrs. Lawson withdrew her second to that motion. Mrs. Martin then announced we have a "yes" answer to "C", and the Board would now go on to the approval of the variances. After discussion, Mr. Garthwaite moved the Board grant a ten foot front variance, seconded by Mr. Savini. Motion CARRIED 6-0. Mr. Garthwaite added the only reason he would consider granting variances to this property is the fact that it backs up to the railroad; that it is a useless piece of property. Mrs. Glover agreed it is a very unique problem. Mr. Newell then moved the Board grant a ten foot variance in the rear, with the condition no fence be put behind the building, Mrs. Glover seconded the motion and it CARRIED 6-0. OLD BUSINESS BYRNE, WILLIAM F., Variance to permit glass enclosures at 1009 Egret Court (Tabled November 12, 1987). Mrs. Martin said she had asked the secretary to retrieve the-6riginal files of Mr. Scherz where the Board was under the impression it was for a porch.and had apP70ved it. Mrs. Martin said Council approved Mr. Byrnes, basing thelr approval on Mr. Scherz's, but the Board had approved Mr. Scherz for ~ sc~eened room only. The Board discussed the original Scherz appllcatlon and stated their recollection was for a screened room only. Mr. Newell asked we contact Council as to definitions of ~creened rooms, Florida rooms, and porches but Mrs. Martin stated It d~esn't ~atter, as a screened room just cannot be closed in. Mrs. Martln contlnued when a glassed room is added, that increases the overall floor space, as a screen room does not. Mr. Garthwaite said all. the Board h~s to worry about is granting variances to the ordlnance, and In Pelican Cove West, Council has agreed to covering existing slabs with a screened room. Mr. Newell then stated looking at Mr. Byrne's plans, it is an addition room. After discussion M7s. Martin said any further requests for a closed in Florida r~om wlll have to be referred to Council as the Board has no jurisdiction over that. Mr. Garthwaite added anyone who wants to come to this Board c~n do so a~d Mr. Newell stated a lot of this could be stopped before It gets thls far. Mr. Garthwaite told the Board this all start~d with 108 variances by the Planning Board, back when Planning & ZO~lng were two separate Boards, five members on a 3-2 vote. Mrs. Martln added everyone who had a cement slab closed it in without a permit and a lot are only eight feet from the lot line. Mr. Newell -4- Board of Adjustments Minutes of January 14, 1988 Meeting. .#; o o moved the Byrne's case be put back on the table, seconded by Mr. Garthwaite and approved by the Board. Mr. Newell then moved the Board drop the case due to approval by Council, seconded by Mr. Savini. Motion CARRIED 6-0. A short discussion followed as to the number of "Excused" meetings a member can have and the secretary was asked to check on this. The Board also discussed the absence of Mr. Robert Wolfe, having missed the November and January meeting, and the Board asked what the By Laws state. The secreta~y read from the By Laws wherein a member who misses four out of twelve meetings is an automatic resignation, but nothing is set forth as to the number of "excused" meetings a member can have, and the secretary was asked to check into this matter, also. There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Savini moved the meeting be adjourned, seconded by Mrs. Lawson. The meeting then adjourned at 8:58 p.m. -5- Board of Adjustments Minutes of January 14, 1988 Meeting.