Loading...
10-16-1984 o o CITY OF EDGEWATER Board of Adjustments October 16, 1984 Hinutes Chairman Garthwaite called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Shuffle- board Clubhouse. ROLL CALL Members present: Mrs. Martin, Mrs. Hurphy, Messrs. Moran, Savini, Roush, Newell and Garthwaite. Also present: Mrs. Taylor, Secretary, and one member of the press. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Roush asked if the minutes were correct where they make reference to Mr. Gold asking if Mr. Coleman had to go to the Planning Board for his addi- tion. He felt it should be Mr. Carter. The secretary explained that he was referring to Mr. Coleman, because Mr. Gold had to go before the Planning Board and he wanted to know if Mr. Coleman also had to go before the Planning Board for site plan approval of his proposed addition. Both properties are in R-4 zones. Mrs. Martin moved to approve the september 13, 1984 minutes. The motion was seconded simultaneously by Mr. Moran and Mr. Savini, and CARRIED 7-0. OLD BUSINESS For the benefit of the people in the audience, Mr. Garthwaite explained that Ordinance 880 was approved by the City of Edgewater in 1974. Its design was to upgrade the zoning in the City of Edgewater, provide guidance for future development, promote the public health, safety and welfare. The Board of Adjustments has been given the power to grant variances to this ordinance whereby reasons of unnecessary hardship or practical difficulties, the literal enforcement of the requirements of this ordinance would not carry out the spirit and purpose of the ordinance. He noted that there are five requirements that have to be met to grant a variance. and those will be reviewed by the Board for each case before it. Any appeal to the Board's decision will be to the Circuit Court. The Coleman Construction Company cases are continued from the September 13 meet- ing. Coleman Construction Co., Inc. - Variance of 6 feet to the rear setback to permit construction of an 8 x 15 foot screen room at 403 Shangri-La Circle. Mr. R. A. Coleman was present to speak to the Board, representing Mrs. Weiler, owner of the property. The question as to whether this R-4 property is nonconforming due to the amendment to the ordinance which changes the rear setback from 20 feet to 25 feet was discussed, and Mr. Garthwaite read the City Attorney's letter concerning the subject into the record. It stated, "Section 400 of the City Code spells out very specifically three types of nonconformance: a), lots; b), uses of land and structures and c), structures. Typically these nonconformities are found in case of future amendments to the ordinance which change zoning districts, their character or the official zoning map. As in this case, a change in the text of the ordinance involving setbacks does not necessarily create a nonconforming use of lots, land or structure use. The Board still has the option to hear a setback variance if all other prerequisites are present." Mr. Garthwaite intreprets this to mean that the Board can hear a request for a variance and can grant or deny a variance. Hr. Savini said that the Code now calls for a 25 foot variance and this pro- perty will have just 14 feet from the building to the property line. Mr. Newell asked why the new homes are built without a screen room to begin with. Mr. Coleman explained that the homes were built according to Code. The people who bought the home had enjoyed a screen room at their previous o o home and wanted to have the same thing at this place. Mrs. Murphy said that she is not sure Mr. Alvarez is answering their question. The Board wanted to find out if they can add to the nonconformity and he refers to the nonconforming use of lots. It's still going to be residential. That is not what the Board was worried about, she noted. The Board is worried about the places in the ordinances that say over and over again that you can't add to a nonconforming structure. He's referring to the use of. lots. If he had just said, "As in this case, a change in the text of the ordinance involving setbacks does not create a nonconforming lot" I would have been happier, Mrs. Murphy commented. The members agreed that the letter is not clear. On another matter, Mrs. Murphy remarked that she is concerned about the Board's liability and raised the question of liability insurance for the members. Advertising and notification of abutting property owners was verified. The members reviewed the criteria for the: granting: of a variance. Mrs. Martin motioned that the request for the variance,which will leave him 14 feet to the property line, should be granted. Mr. Savini stated that he felt the addition will help beautify the area. Mrs. Murphy said she was concerned that the Planning and Zoning Board rezoned the property so soon after the subdivision was laid out and that they didn't go in and study the subdivisions and somehow exempt them, such as calling it R-4B Existing, and that they will not be considered nonconforming. She stated that it must be tragic to develop a whole subdivision and then be told before you put in the last house that the whole thing is nonconforming. Mr. Roush seconded the motion to approve the variance. Mr. Newell asked if the building is going 8 feet back from the existing building and was advised it is. Mr. Garthwaite asked if the distance was mentiDned in the motion. Mr. Garthwaite said that it should be 13 feet, since the setback has been changed. Mr. Newell argued that that would then leave only 9 feet. After further discussion, it was agreed to leave it at an 8 foot variance. Mr. Coleman explained that the addition will be 8 by 15 feet. The motion to grant the variance was approved 7-0. Coleman Construction Co., Inc. - Variance of 8 feet to the rear setback requirement to construct a 10' x 12' glass room at 419 Shangri La Circle. Mr. Wheeler, owner of the property, was present to talk to the Board members. He advised the members that there is presently 22 feet between the existing dwelling and the property line. The members felt that this case was very similar to the variance just granted. The granting of this variance will leave 12 feet from the addition to the property line. Mrs. Murphy said she is not sure why the City changed the setback requirement. She had no objec- tion to the variance. Mr. Savini motioned to approve the request and Mr. Moran seconded the motion, which CARRIED 7-0. said Mrs. Murphy/the reason she is feeling a; little easy about approving these variances is because of Mr. Alvarez~ letter. NEW 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. Verification of advertising and posting of the property was made ~.: --- Mr. and Mrs. Sloan were present to present their case. Attorney David L. Shannon was present representing the abutting property owner, Mrs. Evangeline Dunn, whose property is affected by this application for a variance. Her residence is on yelka Terrace adjoining the subject property. He explained that Mrs. Dunn is elderly and has recently fallen and broken her hip and is unable to be at the meeting. He was retained the past Friday to represent her interests and asked that the Board defer consideration of the application until he is able to prepare his case. He would, he informed the Board, like to get property evaluations and to get Mrs. Dunn's testimony before the Board. Board of Adjustment october 16, 1984 - 2 - o o Mr. Garthwaite noted that Mr. and Mrs. Sloan have followed proper procedure and, though he had no objection to a postponement, he felt Mr. and Mrs. Sloan should be consulted as to whether they objected to a postponement. No member of the Board objected to the postponement of the case. Mr. Sloan said that in all fairness to Mrs. Dunn he was agreeable to waiting until she could present her case to the Board, commenting that she is a wonderful neighbor. Mr. Newell motioned that the hearing on this request be TABLED until the next regular meeting of the Board on November 8. Mr. Newell also commented that the drawings submitted with the application were very difficult to understand, and asked that better drawings be submitted. Mrs. Martin seconded the motion, which CARRIED 7-0. Mrs. Murphy noted that the word "setback" shown on the drawing is really the "lot line". Mr. Garthwaite advised that the right of way on Ye1ka Terrace is 40 feet and the paved road is 18 feet. Dan and Cheryl Harper - Request for an 11' variance to the front yard setback and a 5' variance to the side yard setback to construct a garage at the corner of Kumquat Drive and 19th Street. The question of whether or not tpe posting of the property was done in accor- dance with the Code was raised. Mr. Harper explained that he had posted the sign about ten days before the hearing, but apparently his children had pulled the sign up. This was called to his attention by two of the Board members who came to view the property, after which he again put up the sign. Mr. Harper was sworn in by the chairman and testified that the sign was proper- ly posted as required by law. There was verification that the hearing was properly advertised and abutting property owners were notified. Mrs. Murphy noted that when Florida Shores was laid out Mr. Magnuson would not sell anybody less than three corner lots; this would contribute to the spacious- ness of Florida Shores. Because some people bought four lots, the City realized that they had two lots at some locations, and this began to change the look of Florida Shores. Mr. Harper said that all the neighbors called him once he put the sign up and were not opposed to his plans. Mrs. Murphy asked if he could build on the left side of the house and connect a porch with it so they could stay out of the rain. She said she noticed there is a pump there. and didn't know if it could be done. She felt it would be better for the overall picture if the garage is on the left hand side. Mr. Harper said the reason is because of the access into the house. There are just two bedrooms on that side. He said that to put in a porch as suggested would entail another variance. Mr. Harper said that he had a 12 foot right of way on the left side already; there is a ditch and a telephone pole. There is heavy equipment brought in there and he fears for the children to be over there. Mr. Newell pointed out an error in the figures on the drawing - the garage will actually come to within 19 feet of the property line instead of 21 feet. Mr. Harper agreed he had made an error in his figures. Mr. Harper explained that he enclosed the garage when he added the room to the back. Mr. Savini commented that adding the garage will greatly improve the appearance of the house because at this time there is just a blank wall facing Kumquat Drive. Mr. Garthwaite asked if there was any reason the garage could not be moved back five feet from 19th Street and Mr. Harper said there was no reason but it was designed that way for appearances, and because this way he would not need to put another door through the side of the house - they could get out of the car and walk along the side of the house underneath the overhang. Mrs. Murphy said that she is very sympathic but the lot is substandard and they keep adding and adding by enclosing the garage and adding a room. She asked if he had over 30 percent coverage. Mr. Harper said he had 1900 square feet inside the house. The reason for the expansion is that he will have to put a big shed on there for the children's toys and bikes, and he would like not to do this. The addition will be 336 square feet. Mr. Harper asked if Mrs. Murphy was concerned about the cars coming by and not being able to see the other direction. She explained that Florida Shores was supposed to be laid out as a spacious community and the architech said that nobody could buy Board of Adjustments 10-16-84 - 3 - o Q less than three corner lots. Then when Ordinance 880 came along everything got mixed up. They let them build on the two lots, but said that they must be within the setbacks. Mr. Harper said that the problem is that he can only go one direction, to the left side, without a variance, and this is a dan- gerous side because of the utility'rig~t of way and canal there. The Florida Power and Light Company trucks are in there all the time and also, the City dropped a culvert in there and didn't put a drain in to get rid of the water and it backs up. He stated that the City and the Florida Power and Light Company are using more than what the right of way is allowed now. They are coming more like 20 feet in, and are taking part of his yard. Mrs. Murphy asked how wide a garage he could build on that side of the house without a variance and he replied possibly 12 feet; he has 30 feet but 12 feet is for the right of way. Mr. Garthwaite said that the setback is 10 feet if you call that the side. Mr. Garthwaite reviewed the request - Mr. Harper is asking for an 11 foot variance request to the east and a 5 foot variance to the south to construct a 14' by 24' garage. Mrs. Murphy asked if everyone on Kumquat Drive wanted to bring their house forward and only have 19 feet, would the Board be changing the setback on Kumquat Drive. Mr. Garthwaite said that they would not be changing the ordinance but only granting a variance to it. Mrs. Murphy was concerned if someone else came in with the same request, they would not have anything to support their reasons. Mr. Savini remarked that in his opinion this is a unique setup because this house should have been built to 20th Street. The members reviewed the criteria for granting a variance. It was generally agreed that special circumstances do exist. Item (b) was discus~ed at.:length and there was not full agreementnthat the applicant ,met this criteria. The members were not in agreement that item (c) was met. Regarding item (d), Mrs. Murphy noted again that the ordinance was supposed to have a 30 foot setback on all corners and she felt that the granting of the variance may impair the purposes and intent of this ordinance. There was also a difference of opinion as to whether or not the applicant met criteria (e). Mr. Garthwaite said that each case should be looked at differently and not judged on a past case. Mr. Garthwaite said that as they go though the criteria they have said basicly that he complies with four of them. He said that the Board has said that The special circumstance and conditions do result from the actions of the applicant. He has enclosed in his garage; now he wants to build another one. He felt he could get around the problem if he goes to the other side of his house. Mr. Savini pointed out that he has somewhat of a hardship because he will have to walk all the way around his house from the garage to the door of the house. Mrs. Martin said that she does not feel it will be an eyesore to the neighbor- hood and it is a much need request. Mrs. Martin motioned that the Board approve the request for the variances. Mr. Savini seconded the motion. The motion to grant the variance FAILED 4-3. Mrs. Murphy said that she would like to vote for the variance and is sympathetic, but cannot vote yes. Mr. Newell voted no because the addition wouLd be too close to the front line. Mr. Roush voted no for the same reason. Mr. Garthwaite voted no for the same reasons. Mr. Harper said that he had called the City about putting in a solid fence up on that side and was told by the girl in the building office that you could put a solid fence up as long as it is 50 feet from the center of the fulcrum of the road. The fence ordinance was discussed at length. Mr. Harper felt that if he could put up a fence, he should be permitted to put up the garage, as it would not impair vision any more than ,the fence would do. Mr. Garthwaite advised Mr. Harper that he would receive a letter advising the reasons for the denying of his request. Mrs. Murphy motioned that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Minutes prepared by Joan Taylor Board of Adjustments - 4 - October 16, 1984