Loading...
01-24-1979 . 'II to. u o CITY OF EDGEWATER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS PUBLIC HEARING January 24, 1979 Chairman Millard called the Public Hearing to order at 7:00 P.M. in City Hall. ROLL CALL James Poland Lewis Lupinek Clarence Gnau William Glaser Kenneth Millard Present Present Present Present Present (At the request of the Board of Adjustments - the minutes of :tin~ fiirst-he-aring-'are-.' presented verbatim (insofar as the clarity of the tapes allows). Mr. Millard: I believe there are some of you here who have not been to a Board of Adjustments meeting before. I will briefly run over the rules of the game here. The number one rule lid like for you to all observe is that just one person at a time should speak so that we can get you all on tape. This is a record of a quasi judicial board meeting. This is not the same as a Council meeting or a Planning Board or a Zoning Board. We are here to respond to an appeal or an applicatio~ for a variance or a change, from an individual who is appealing to us to adjust an inequity that he feels he has under Ordinance 880 as it exists. The applicant concedes, when he comes here, that there is nothing wrong with 880. He is asking for a variation from its rules. Anyone who presents evidence to this Board will be put under oath. The evidence that you do present will be part of the record of the case which could eventually work its way into a court of law. I hope you don't feel that I am being overly stern about anything, 11m not. I am merely trying to establish a record that will stand up for everybody. If you have a statement or evidence to present, it will be done under oath. We tend to prefer to listen to people with abutting property. That means they own property directly next to the applicant's land. They have, I presume, in the eyes of the law the most valid grounds to either approve or not approve of the action. They can present their reasons. We would find it of interest if you wish to express your opinions about what is happening bU4 basically, the person who owns land next to it has the strongest voice. If you have objections of a zoning character, this is the wrong place to bring it up. You would take that to the Zoning Board or to your Council. We can only talk about specific cases. Previous cases, even though they may sound or seem to be the same, really are not the same. It is an individual each time and we try to balance the need of the community with the rights of the individual. In doing that, sometimes, not everybody gets everything they want but we try to be fair and just. This Board is independent. It is, and I emphasize, completely non-political and it is impartial and objective and unpaid. The applicant has paid for the expenses of the advertising, the registered letters and for the time of the clerk and the overhead here. The applicant is paying for the right to be heard so we are going to hear him or her. Then we will hear any opposition that there may be and members of the Board may interrupt at any time to ask questions. We donlt wish to conduct a debate with anyone in the audience. You may make a statement or present evidence but we don't get into debates. We are here to hear, investigate and to make a ruling. Mr. Harold Brown is here and we will start with his application. Mr. Brown will you stand and raise your right hand please? Do you swear that the evidence you have provided to this Board and that you will provide is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God? Mr. Brown: Yes, sir. Mr. Millard: You have provided us with an application for a used car lot. If the Board doesnlt mind I would like to ask a few questions () o based upon this application. It is, of course, in the B-3 zone. On this plot plan that you provided on u.s. 1, it shows Lot 1 and Lot 2 and behind it, Lot 3 and 4. Do you own Lots 3 and 4? Mr. Brown: Yes. Mr. Millard: Are Lots 3 and 4 in B-3? Mr. Brown: Yes. Mr. Millard: The used car lot that you propose is in Lot 2 only? Mr. Brown: No, the used car lot could extend to the corner. Right now I only plan to use that part. Mr. Millard: Lot 1 is where your present building is? Mr. Brown: Yes. The present building is on Lot 1. The used car lot could go down to the corner. You don't have the corner lot shown on that plat. The property I own goes to Magnolia and then back to Neptune. That whole square there. Mr. Millard: Magnolia? Where is that? Mr. Brown: It would be to the right of those lots. Lot 2 doesn't extend to Magnolia but the property I own does. I only plan to use Lot 2 but we could go all the way to the corner, if we see that we need it and business is good. Mr. Millard: Which lot is the application for? Lot 2? Mr. Brown: There is no such thing as it being a lot number. The building itself would be on Lot 2. Mr. Millard: Does the application read that? Mr. Brown: I gave you that drawing to show where the building would go. Mr. Poland: It says Lot 2 Unser subdivision. Right now he is talking about Lot 2,in the future he may extend. Mr. Brown: Right. What I'm saying is that is where 11m planning on putting it right now but we could extend to the corner. Mr. Millard: Not under this application you couldn't. You are applying for Lot 2. If you would like to put in an application for the whole area that is fine but that isn't what you have here. Mr. Brown: You mean if I want to go all the way down to the corner I would have to come to the variance board again? Even though I own the land all the way around and it is all commercial property all B-3? Mr. Millard: We don't give blanket authorization. Mr. Brown: You say I can put it on this inch of ground here but over to ,the left is another inch and I can't use that? Even though its all zoned the same and all joined together? Mr. Millard: I wish to say, at this time, that you have been put through quite a merry-go-round.. live gone through this evidence here and I can understand how you feel. You have been told at one time that it was a qood idea and the next time it was a bad idea and you have been bounced up and down and from board to board. I understand that but we can only respond to a specific request for doing somethingjnot you might do something later. We can1t issue a IImaybe you could do it laterll approval. You may own it, but I don1t know if it would be approved. Mr. Brown: It is my understanding that even though those pieces of land are blocked off in lots that that is not necessarily the way it has to go. If I owned a complete section here then I could use it. It is under the same ownership and in the same zoning area. But if that's what we have on the paper then go with that. I don't 2 o C) want to start anything else. I've had a hard enough time just getting that. Mr. Millard: This is going to be a very sad night, I'm afraid. We need to go over a few things and believe me we have your interest in mind as well as the community's which includes the Council. There is going to be a hearing on this change in B-3 on February 5th. Back on November 3rd, the Zoning Board recommended to the Council that they add automobiles and used car lots to B-3 as a permitted use. It was an unanimous vote from the Zoning Board that that be done. Somewhere along the line, it got bounced back to the Zoning Board, which in the meantime has changed, and the Zoning Board has reversed itself and has said that no, they are going to take some other permitted uses out and make them along with automobile sales special exceptions. They have changed the wording of this. Meanwhile, I have noticed that under B-3 there is no mention of what minimum lot size is required for anything. Speaking, I believe for the majority of the Board (and please correct me if 11m not) I personally feel and hope that the Board does, that we would better serve the community and your interest, in the long run, by continuing this hearing on your application until our next regular meeting. This will give the Council a chance to speak and the Zoning Board a chance to do whatever their last action is so that we will then have some standards, some platform, some guidelines from which to work. Right now, the way 880 reads, it is entirely possible to turn down this application. The way the ordinance is now written some people could construe it as saying that there isn't any way for anybody to sell used cars and yet we have evidence to the contrary. We have how many used car lots in town? At least 4 or 5 I think. It is the Board1s belief that it would be entirely proper, in fact necessary for the Council to speak on the nu~ber of used car lots they feel is allowable in this town of Edgewater. The Zoning Board should speak to that point. They may want to discuss how far apart they should be. I don1t know. We're here to respond to an application and an appeal from some ruling that the Zoning Board and the Council make. So far, I don't think that they have said what their policy is and it would behoove us to be cautious and just wait those few weeks more and find out what the automobile policy is for Edgewater. Then we can do our work and also this would give you a chance to do these things. No.1. To state on your application (we will continue this one and you can amend ~he application) at no additional cost, what area this is for. Then you can also make your drawing on the proposed new building conform, I believe, to the ordinance as far as the distance from the lot line. This is an area in which you and the building department ought to get into and find out. Even though you own both lots 1 and 2, there may be a requirement as to where that building should.be placed. Mr. Brown: According to the Building Inspector that is perfectly legal. We already hassled this out with the Zoning Board and the Planning Board. Mr. Millard: It would have to be looked at from the point of view of usage. You've got one use which is your air conditioning business and then you have a used car lot which is another thing. I don't believe you can add buildings, disregarding their use. If you were adding another building to your air conditioning business, he is right, but where you have a different use you may have to conform. In any case, I would like to see the complete plat plan for the proposed business. I noticed when I looked at your property that there was still an advertisement on it saying "will build to suit tenant." Were you personnally planning to operate a used car business? 'l Mr. Brown: Yes. I would rather go ahead like we are with Uot 2 then to depend on some other action of some other board. I've been running around with this thing for a long time. If I put this off for another two or three weeks it may end up another two or three weeks after that. I'd rather with what you have there then string it out any more. Mr. Millard: Let's give each member of the Board a chance to speak. I would still recess this hearing until the next regular meeting for my own guidance. Mr. Poland: I think that is something the Board may wish to vote on. We may wish to continue this to the next regular meeting pending some guidance from the Council. 3 u o Mr. Lupinek and Mr. Gnau indicated that they were ready to vote on this. Mr. Glaser: I feel that the Council and the Zoning Board has put us between a rock and a hard place. The Zoning Board wants Special Exceptions so that there can be some control over what goes into B-3 and isn't approved as part of the zoning ordinance per se. Under what we have to work with, as far as standards for special exceptions, there is nothing on this application that says that they will meet these requirements for a special exception. I feel that ought to be made part of the application so that we know what it is a person is going to do with the property and that we don't come down here just knowing that he is going. to put a building on a lot. I don't know whether it is my place to interpret the zoning laws or not but I feel that my interpretation of where the building is going on that lot it does not meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Until the City starts enforcing the stipulations that have been put on some of these other special exceptions that have been granted, in the past, such as 'opaque buffers at the back of commercial property that abuts residential zoning. We passed a special exception last month and that was one of the stipulations for the special exception and that has not been complied with. There have been several applications, I understand, for permission to sell recreational vehicles in different areas and they turn out to be used car lots and nobody is enforcing that. We also have used car lots in town that all of a sudden sprung up and nobody has done anything to correct that situation. What 11m trying to say is that 1111 take the devil's advocate position and I would vote no on any special exceptions for any more used car lots until we have some specific guidelines as to what kind of controls the City Council wants on them and where they are acceptable in town. Mr. Millard: I think that is very well taken. In fact, if we had a hearing on this today that would have come up and at the next meeting it will. This is not directed at you, Mr. Brown, you happened to have come in at a time when we have gotten up to here with these lackadaisical routines here. We feel that after this hearing that the Zoning Board and the Council are having they will have gone over all of this. I hope you are down there and I think a number of us will be down there. Let's get this thing done the right way and see what you can do. We will be glad to give you a copy of the stipulations that could apply right now it would make your head swim. It would really be better for you to wait until the next meeting. Does anyone else care to speak? Mr. Poland: I agree with Mr. Glaser, 100%. It is almost as if the Council, which is getting paid, is shoving this little potato as it were onto us who arenlt getting paid. I don't know whether they donlt want to make a decision or whether they canlt agree with what the Zoning Board wants or maybe the Zoning Board doesn't exactly know what it wants. I have also had it with these special exceptions for used car lots particularly when we do make a decision and nobody enforces what we say. I would like to go one step further and see if we can:t get a letter written to whoever is in charge of enforcing these varlances to see that ~ these people abide by these stipulations we put and I'm referring not only to the other used car lots but to that marina thing that we granted a variance on where there has been no fencing put up other than a hurricane fence ,to see if we .can't get some enforcement of these variances and of the stipulations we put into these variances. Would that be possible? Mr. Millard: I think these minutes are going to be the most adequate letter you .~o~ld have. Letls call the roll. We are voting to continue this application, amended if Mr. Brown desires, until our next regular meeting thereby giving the Council and the Zoning Board a chance to speak on their standards and guidelines. ROLL CALL Mr. Poland Mr. Lupinek Mr. Glaser Mr. Gnau Mr. Millard yes yes yes yes yes 4 . Q o Mr. Millard: Mr. Brown you have reached us after a lot of travail and I convey to you what this Board feels. We think that you have been the crowning case. You have caused us to want to say halt to this whole mess and say let's get it straightened out. I think you will end up a lot happier. We will see that verbatim minutes are typed up and presented to the Council and all the members of the Zoning Board. The next case before the Board was an application by Mr. Weisenberger who has requested a ruling on his lot (E. 75' of the W 400 ft. Lot 7 Hatch's Homestead Map Bd. 3 & S 15 ft. of said property subject to easement for rjw purposes). Mr. Weisenberger claims that 95% of his property is zoned B-3 and the other 5%-is zoned R-3. He would like the ~ntire property to be zoned B-3. Mr. Weisenberger presented his deed to the Board for review. The survey of the property was made in 1975. Mr. Weisenberger would like to get this straightened out in case he should want to resell the property, it should all be in one zone. The Board had received a letter from Mr. Cameron, owner of Eastern Shores Mobile Home and also owner of property adjacent to the property in question. Mr. Cameron objected to this property being zoned B-3 because it borders on a residential area. There was some question about when the property was posted. Mr. Millard and Mr. Lupinek went to the area of the property and attempted to measure the property to find out exactly where it was in relation to U.S. 1 and the properties east and north. This property has got to be located in reference to the boundary of U.S. 1. There is no way that the Board can proceed until the Board knows where B-3 boundary line actually is. The line is drawn on the map that was presented to the Board and it is drawn to scale. The Board needs two lines. Both at right angles to U.S. 1 . The first line as near as possible to rear or north of this lot and the other passed that line-to' the 'south so that the Board can see exactly where this boundary line intersects whose property and where. Mr. Cameron spoke to Mr. Millard and Mr. Lupinek and told them that he believed that the Lot is located on the map incorrectly. The issue is that we don't know where that line is. Mr. Diamond, City Planner, said he had given everyone a copy of the legal description of the zoning district from 880 on page 156 for parcel No.4. When the line was 250' from U.S. 1 (when it was drawn) it was assumed that the description described it as a line parallel to the West right-of-way of U.S. 1 250.. However, if you read the last part it says and the East 250' of Lots 7, 8 and 14 Hatch's Homestead and all of Lot 7 and 8. That changes the whole picture. Mr. Armstrong spoke from the audience. He said that originally the commercial zoning on U.S. 1 was from U.S. 1 250. not around a side street or a residential street to pick up a parcel that belonged to somebody else in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Diamond showed the Board a copy of the plat. The legal description says that you go back 250' the E 200' of Lot 7 and 8. According to the way it is presented in 381 (1893). The problem is the interpretation of where the boundary lines are. It does not show the original street or road. The Board continued a lengthy discussion about where the boundary line was. There appeared to be more than one way to interpret the measurements. Mr. Cameron spoke to the Board and he felt that the map presented to the Board that shows Mr. Weisenberger1s property and the boundary of B-3 was not accurate. He showed where his property was and also where Mr. Cole's property was located. He does not believe that the majority of Mr. Weisenberger's property is zoned B-3. There is also a question of where the property line is located. Mr. Cameron believes that all of Mr. Weisenberger's property could well be zoned R-3 and that the B-3 boundary line does not go through that property. 5 , o Q Mr. Millard asked Mr. Diamond about the legal description in 880. Mr. Diamond said that the legal description refers to the original lots. Mr. Millard again stated that the Board did not have accurate evidence of where the boundary line, drawn by the Zoning Bd., is located. Mr. Poland said that it was obviously difficult to measure something when you don't know where to start. The Board examined maps presented by Mr. Cameron as well as the maps presented with the application. There also seemed to be a conflict about property lines. Mr. Millard said that this did not concern the Board of Adjustments, it was a d.ispute between property owners and should be settled by the courts. The Board must establish where the zoning line goes through this property. Mr. Diamond will remeasure the area to try and more accurately determine where the zoning district line is in relation to the property in question. Mr. Millard asked the Board to vote on recessing this case until the next regular meeting. At that time, the Board should have additional information on the location of the zoning boundary line and should be able to make a ruling of this application. The Board voted 5-0 to recess until the next regular meeting. Also present at the Public H~arings were: MrjMrs. Tilley Mr. Davidson Mr. Salmon MrjMrs. Shaffer Mrs. Tedei Mr. James Cameron Mr. Swanson Mr. George Cameron MrjMrs. Meyer MrjMrs. Escolano Mr. Armstrong Mr. Brown Mr. Ledbetter Mr. Fredericks Mr. Mackie Mr. Siciliano Mr. Opal Mr. Diamond Meeting was recessed. Minutes submitted by: Nancy Blazi 6 o o " CITY OF EDGEWATER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS PUBLIC HEARING January 24, 1979 Chairman Millard called the Public Hearing to order at 7:00 P.M. in City Hall. ROLL CALL James Poland Lewis Lupinek Clarence Gnau William Glaser Kenneth Millard Present Present Present Present Present (At the request of the Board of Adjustments the minutes of .:the ftrst'-.he~aring"are:' presented verbatim (insofar as the clarity of the tapes allows). Mr. Millard: I believe there are some of you here who have not been to a Board of Adjustments meeting before. I will briefly run over the rules of the game here. The number one rule I'd like for you to all observe is that just one person at a time should speak so that we can get you. all on tape. This is a record of a quasi judicial board meeting. This is not the same as a Council meeting or a Planning Board or a Zoning Board. We are here to respond to an appeal or an applicatio~ for a variance or a change, from an individual who is appealing to us to adjust an inequity that he feels he has under Ordinance 880 as it exists. The applicant concedes, when he comes here, that there is nothing wrong with 880. He is asking for a variation from its rules. Anyone who presents evidence to this Board will be put under oath. The evidence that you do present will be part of the record of the case which could eventually work its way into a court of law. I hope you don't feel that I am being overly stern about anything, I'm not. I am merely trying to establish a record that will stand up for everybody. If you have a statement or evidence to present, it will be done under oath. We tend to prefer to listen to people with abutting property. That means they own property directly next to the applicant's land. They have, I 'presume, in the eyes of the law the most valid grounds to either approve or not approve of the action. They can present their reasons. We would find it of interest if you wish to express your opinions about what is happening but basically, the person who owns land next to it has the strongest voice. If you have objections of a zoning character, this is the wrong place to bring itup. You would take that to the Zoning Board or to your Council. We can only talk about specific cases. Previous cases, even though they may sound or seem to be the same, really are not the same. It is an individual each time and we try to balance the need of the community with the rights of the individual. In doing that, sometimes, not everybody gets everything they want but we try to be fair and just. This Board is independent. It is, and I emphasize, completely non-political and it is impartial and objective and unpaid. The applicant has paid for the expenses of the advertising, the registered letters and for the time of the clerk and the overhead here. The applicant is paying for the right to be heard so we are going to hear him or her. Then we will hear any opposition that there may be and members of the Board may interrupt at any time to ask questions. We don't wish to conduct a debate with anyone in the audience. You may make a statement or present evidence but we don't get into debates. We are 'here to hear, investigate and to make a ruling. Mr. Harold Brown is here and we will start with his application. Mr. Brown will you stand and raise your right hand please? Do you swear that the evidence you have provided to this Board and that you will provide is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God? Mr. Brown: Yes, sir. Mr. Millard: You have provided us with an application for a used car lot. If the Board doesn't mind I would like to ask a few questions u o based upon this application. It is, of course, in the B-3 zone. On this plot plan that you provided on U.S. 1, it shows Lot 1 and Lot 2 and behind it, Lot 3 and 4. Do you own Lots 3 and 4? Mr. Brown: Yes. Mr. Millard: Are Lots 3 and 4 in B-3? Mr. Brown: Yes. Mr. Millard: The used car lot that you propose is in Lot 2 only? Mr. Brown: No, the used car lot could extend to the corner. Right now I only plan to use that part. Mr. Millard: Lot 1 is where your present building i$? Mr. Brown: Yes. The present building is on Lot 1. The used car lot could go down to the corner. You don't have the corner lot shown on that plat. The property I own goes to Magnolia and then back to Neptune. That whole square there. Mr. Millard: Magnolia? Where is that? Mr. Brown: I.t would be to the right of those lots. Lot 2 doesn't extend to Magnolia but the property I own does. I only plan to use Lot 2 but we could go all the way to the corner, if we see that we need it and business is good. Mr. Millard: Which lot is the application for? Lot 2? Mr. Brown: There is no such thing as it being a lot number. The building itself would be on Lot 2. Mr. Millard: Does the application read that? Mr. Brown: I gave you that drawing to show where the building would go. Mr. Poland.: It says Lot 2 Unser subdivision. Right now he is talking about Lot 2, in the future he may extend. Mr. Brown: Right. What 11m saying is that is where I'm planning on putting it right now but we could extend to the corner. Mr. Millard: Not under this application you couldn't. You are applying for Lot 2. If you would like to put in an application for the whole area that is fine but ~hat isn't what you have here. Mr. Brown: You mean if I want to go all the way down to the corner I would have to come to the variance board again? Even though I own the land all the way around and it is all commercial property all B-3? Mr. Millard: We don't give blanket authorization. Mr. Brown: You say I can put it on this inch of ground here but over to .the left is another inch and I canlt use that? Even ,though its all zoned the same and all joined together? Mr. Millard: I wish to say, at this time, that you have been put through quite a merry-go-round.. live gone through this evidence here and I can understand how you feel. You have been told at one time that it was a good idea and the next time it was a bad idea and you have been bounced up and down and from board to board. I understand that but we can only respond to a specific request for doing somethinginot you might do something later. We can't issue a "maybe you could do it later" approval. You may own it, but I don't know if it would be approved. Mr. Brown: It is my understanding that even though those pieces of land are blocked off in lots that that is not necessarily the way it has to go. If I owned a complete section here then I could use it. It is under the same ownership and in the same zoning area. But if that's what we have on the paper then go with that. I don't 2 o U' want to start anything else. I've had a hard enough time just getting that. 'l Mr. Millard: This is going to be a very sad night, 11m afraid. We need to go over a few things and believe me we have your interest in mind as well as the community's which includes the Council. There is going tu be a hearing on this change in B-3 on February 5th. Back on November 3rd, the Zoning Board recommended to the Council that they add automobiles and used car lots to B-3 as a permitted use. It was an unanimous vote from the Zoning Board that that be done. Somewhere along the line, it got bounced back to the Zoning Board, which in the meantime has changed, and the Zoning Board has reversed itself and has said that no, they are going to take some other permitted uses out and make them along with automobile sales special exceptions. They have changed the wording of this. Meanwhile, I have noticed that under B-3 there is no mention of what minimum lot size is required for anything. Speaking, I believe for the majority of the Board (and please correct me if I'm not) I personally feel and hope that the Board does, that we would better serve the community and your interest, in the long run, by continuing this hearing on your application until our next regular meeting. This will give the Council a chance to speak and the Zoning Board a chance to do whatever their last action is so that we will then have some standards, some platform, some guidelines from which to work. Right now, the way 880 reads, it is entirely possible to turn down this application. The way the ordinance is now written some people could construe it as saying that there isn't any way for anybody to sell used cars and yet we have evidence to the contrary. We have how many used car lots in town? At least 4 or 5 I think. It is the Board's belief that it would be entirely proper, in fact necessary for the Council to speak on the nu~ber of used car lots they feel is allowable in this town of Edgewater. The Zoning Board should speak to that point. They may want to discuss how far apart they should be. I don't know. We're here to respond to an application and an appeal from some ruling that the Zoning Board and the Council make. So far, I don't think that they have said what their policy is and it woul.d behoove us to be cautious and just wait those few weeks more and find out what the automobile policy is for Edgewater. Then we can do our work and also this would give you a chance to do these things. No.1. To state on your application (we will continue this one and you can amend ~he application) at no additional cost, what area this is for. Then you can also make your drawing on the proposed new building conform, I believe, to the ordinance as far as the distance from the lot line. This is an area in which you and the building department ought to get into and find out. Even though you own both lots 1 and 2, there may be a requirement as to where that building should.be placed. Mr. Brown: According to the Building.Inspector that is perfectly legal. We already hassled this out with the Zoning Board and the Planning Board. Mr. Millard: It would have to be looked at from the point of view of usage. You've got one use which is your air conditioning business and then you have a used car lot which is another thing. I don't believe you can add buildings, disregarding their use. If you were adding another building to your air conditioning business, he is right, but where you have a different use you may have to conform. In any case, I would like to see the complete plat plan for the proposed business. I noticed when I looked at your property that there was still an advertisement on it saying "will build to s,uit tenant." Were' you personnally planning to operate a used car business? Mr. Brown: Yes. I would rather go ahead like we are with Uot 2 then to depend on some other action of some other board. live been running around with this thing for a long time. If I put this off for another two or three weeks it may end up another two or three -weeks after that. I'd rather with what you have there then string it out any more. Mr. Millard: Letls give each member of the Board a chance to speak. I would still recess this hearing until the next regular meeting for my own guidance. Mr. Poland: I think that is something the Board may wish to vote on. We may wish to continue this to the next regular meeting pending some guidance from the Council. 3 (.) (.) Mr. Lupinek and Mr. Gnau indicated that they were ready to vote on this. Mr. Glaser: I feel that the Council and the Zoning Board has put us between a rock and a hard place. The Zoning Board wants Special Exceptions so that there can be some control over what goes into B-3 and isn't approved as part of the zoning ordinance per se. Under what we have to work with, as far as standards for special exceptions, there is nothing on this application that says that they will meet these requirements for a special exception. I feel that ought to be made part of the application so that we know what it is a person is going to do with the property and that we don't come down here just knowing that he is going to put a building on a lot. I don't know whether it is my place to interpret the zoning laws or not but I.feel that my interpretation of where the building is going on that lot it does not meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Until the City starts enforcing the stipulations that have been put on some of these other special exceptions that have been granted, in the past, such as 'opaque buffers at the back of commercial property that abuts residential zoning. We passed a special exception last month and that was one of the stipulations for the special exception and that has not been complied with. There have been several applications, I understand, for permission to sell recreational vehicles in different areas and they turn out to be used car lots and nobody is enforcing that. We also have used car lots in town that all of a sudden sprung up and nobody has done anything to correct that situation. What I'm trying to say is that 1111 take the devil's advocate position and I would vote no on any special exceptions for any more used car lots until we have some specific guidelines as to what kind.of controls the City Council wants on them and where they are acceptable in town. Mr. Millard: I think that is very well taken. In fact, if we had a hearing on this today that would have come up and at the next meeting it.w.ill. This is not directed at you, Mr. Brown, you happened to have come in at a time when we have gotten up to here with these lackadaisical routines here. We feel that after this hearing that the Zoning Board and the Council are having they . will have gone over all of this. I hope you are down there and I . think a number qf us will be down there. Let's get this thing done the right way and see what you can do. We will be glad to give you a copy of the stipulations that could apply right now it would make your head swim. It would really be better for you to wait until the next meeting. Does anyone else care to speak? Mr. Poland: I agree with Mr. Glaser, 100%. It is almost as if the Council, which is getting paid, is shoving this little potato as it were onto us who aren't getting paid. I don't. know whether they don't want to make a decision or whether they can't 'agree with what the Zoning Board wants or maybe the Zoning Board doesn't exactly know what it wants. I have also had it with these special exceptions for used car lots particularly when we do make a decision and nobody enforces what we say. I would like to go one step further and see if we can:t get a letter written to whoever is in charge of enforcing th~se va~lances to see that these people abide by these. stlpulatlons we put and I'm referring not only to the other used car lots but to that marina thing that we granted a variance on where there has been no fencing put up other than a hurricane fence ,to see if we .can't get some enforcement of these variances and of the stipulations we put into these variances. Would that be possible? Mr. Millard: I think these minutes are going to be the most adequate letter you .~o~ld have. Let's call the roll. We are voting to continue this application, amended if Mr. Brown desires, until our next regular ~eeting thereby giving the Council and the Zoning Board a chance to speak on their standards and guidelines. ROLL CALL Mr. Poland Mr. Lupinek Mr. Glaser Mr. Gnau Mr. Millard yes yes yes yes yes 4 o Q Mr. Millard: Mr. Brown you have reached us after a lot of travail and I convey to you what this Board feels. We think that you have been the crowning case. You have caused us to want to say halt to this whole mess and say let's get it straightened out. I think you will end up a lot happier. We will see that verbatim minutes are typed up and presented to the Council and all the members of the Zoning Board. The next case before the Board was an application by Mr. Weisenberger who has requested a ruling on his lot (E. 75' of the W 400 ft. Lot 7 Hatch's Homestead Map Bd. 3 & S 15 ft. of said property subject to easement for r/w purposes). Mr. Weisenberger claims that 95% of his property is zoned B-3 and the other 5% is zoned R-3. He would like the entire property to be zoned B-3. Mr. Weisenberger presented his deed to the Board for review. The survey of the property was made in 1975. Mr. Weisenberger would like to get this straightened out in case he should want to resell the property, it should all be in one zone. The Board had received a letter from Mr. Cameron, owner of Eastern Shores Mobile Home and also owner of property adjacent to the property in question. Mr. Cameron objected to this property being zoned B-3 because it borders on a residential area. There was some question about when the property was posted. Mr. Millard and Mr. Lupinek went to the area of the property and attempted to measure the property to find out exactly where it was in relation to U.S. 1 and the properties east and north. This property has got to be located in reference to the boundary of U.S. 1. There is no way that the Board can proceed until the Board knows where B-3 boundary line actually is. The line is drawn on the map that was presented to the Board and it i's drawn to scale. The Board needs two lines. Both at right angles to U.S. 1 . The first line as near as possible to rear or north of this lot and the other passed that line"to the south so that the Board can see exactly where this boundary line intersects whose property and where. Mr. Cameron spoke to Mr. Millard and Mr. Lupinek and told them that he believed that the Lot is located on the map incorrectly. The issue is that we don't know where that line is. Mr. Diamond, City Planner, said he had given everyone a copy of the legal description of the zoning district from 880 on page 156 for parcel No.4. When the line was 250' from U.S. 1 (when it was drawn) it was assumed that the description described it as a line parallel to the West ri ght-of-way of U. S. 1 250'. However, if you read the last part it says and the East 250' of Lots 7, 8 and 14 Hatch's Homestead and all of Lot 7 and 8. That changes the whole picture. Mr. Armstrong spoke from the audience. He said that originally the commercial zoning on U.S. 1 was from U.S. 1 250' not around a side street or a residential street to pick up a parcel that belonged to somebody else in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Diamond showed the Board a copy of the plat. The legal description says that you go back 250' the E 2001 of Lot 7 and 8. According to the way it is presented in 381 (1893). The problem is the interpretation Qf where the boundary lines are. It does not show the original street or road. The Board continued a lengthy discussion about where the boundary line was. There appeared to be more than one way to interpret the measurements. Mr. Cameron spoke to the Board and he felt that the map presented to the Board that shows Mr. Weisenberger's property and the boundary of B-3 was not accurate. He showed where his property was and also where Mr. Cole's property was located. He does not believe that the majority of Mr. Weisenberger's property is zoned B-3. There is also a question of where the property line is located. Mr. Cameron believes that all of Mr. Weisenberger's property could well be zoned R-3 and that the B-3 boundary line does not go through that property. 5 o o .. Mr. Millard asked Mr. Diamond about the legal description in 880. Mr. Diamond said that the legal description refers to the original lots. Mr. Millard again stated that the Board did not have accurate evidence of where the boundary line, drawn by the Zoning Bd., is located. Mr. Poland said that it was obviously difficult to measure something when you don't know where to start. The Board examined maps presented by Mr. Cameron as well as the maps presented with the application. There also seemed to be a conflict about property lines. Mr. Millard said that this did not concern the Board of Adjustments, it was a dispute between property owners and should be settled by the courts. The Board must establish where the zoning line goes through this property. Mr. Diamond will remeasure the area to try and more accurately determine where the zoning district line is in relation to the property in question. Mr. Millard asked the Board to vote on recessing this case until the next regular meeting. At that time, the Board should have additional information on the location of the zoning boundary line and should be able to make a ruling of this application. The Board voted 5-0 to recess until the next regular meeting. Also present at the Public Hearings were: Mr/Mrs. Tilley Mr. Davidson Mr. Salmon Mr/Mrs. Shaffer Mrs. Tedei Mr. James Cameron Mr. Swanson Mr. George Cameron Mr/Mrs. Meyer Mr/Mrs. Escolano Mr. Armstrong Mr. Brown Mr. Ledbetter Mr. Fredericks Mr. Mackie Mr. Siciliano Mr.' Opal Mr. Di amond Meeting was recessed. Minutes submitted by: Nancy Blazi 6