Loading...
BOAMin10-27-99CITY OF LONOWOOD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS Summary oP Minutrs October 29, 1999 A'fTENUANCE: ROARU STAFF fim Dely, (Chvirperson) F. Jny Sargem -Planning Division M¢neger Suzanne Wilder (ViceLheirperson) Beverly Majors-Planning Seuelary J. Russell llvmmovd (arrived lvtc) Richard'fvylor-City Attorney 'f'un Onangc A65ENT: Laura Moehlef 4amp 1. CALL TO ORDF,R: Mr. Daly called the meeting to order at 6".I2 PM. L CON9IDF.RA'CION OF THE MAV 26, 19J9 MINUTES: Mr. Ommge made a nmrion ro approve the niMarer ofMay 26, /99Y arpresenreA Mr: ~Ida.recnnded the mo~larr. The motion vas unantmairrly droved (3~0). The Ciry Alfomey has advived Mr. Daly thn[ there may be some diflicuhy wi~E him chairing tMt pan ofthe meeting that has to due with the public hearmg on the Steve Miller variance. So Mr. Daly will be excusing himself, not because he felt that the C'ty Attorney could tell ~ha CFm'v ofajudicial boanl when he should seep down. but becxum he did nor want any thought at all shot he would be peejudicial in this cvse. He will excuse himselfwhen the hearing oP~he varlvtce requasi is heard. Mr. Daly emenained a e she public hearing on VAR-o]-99 io the end ofthe agenda so fMt he may di~sp'ense.wih normal husiness. Mc Wilder o~ade a rnonon eo move the pu6llc henrlrcg an VAA-0I-99 tv the end I /he agenda Mr. Orange xeaonded the motion. Tfie motiam u~~ u»animuiesty ap-roved (3-0/. OLD BUSINESS: -none NEW 6USINESS-none 6. DISCDSSION AND SCHEDULE POR FUTURE,ITEMS Statidoas have an npplicetion chat wll be on the agenda for November. Mr. Daly reminded 6oazd that this was the day before"flwikagiving and there may be a problem having a quorum. Me. Daly asked Ifthe Plerming Division would advLae the rnernbere offhe Board a little bit earty so chat he could find out if theta is a wntlict he can reschedule 6r vRer the holiday. Mr. Sargent advised Mr. Daly that a new dace mould be estoblishcd al This t'unc. There was a d cession on a date due to various conflicts. Should Nc Miller variance M fabled it will be heard aevin of the NOVetnhu meeting. Although Mr. Daly did not feel it wav necessary Cor Mr. i'aylor fo be preseur AAs. W ilder duagreed. Therefore a dale wonkl also have ~o be scheduled tires would nut interfere wish Mr. Taylor's schedule. Mr.Omnge suggested This be tabled un~ll after Ne public hearing on VAR-0]-99 be brought on she floor. Ms Wilder mode a motion that the date J fhe NovemAm meeiiieg he esralllshed net the esofty of the oarfanre 6e kwown. Mr. Onange econded the mason. 7'he motion was unannnouslY a-mvved (3-0). '/. PUBLIC CGMMF.NT: Mr. Daly asked ifanyone in the audience waitred to speak on anything except the Steve Miller Uecausc there was a misundemanding by audiexe. he explained to the audience again Nat he ould no n the chafe when any dim s about the Steve Miller ce beca hew sing Nmselfdw'vig tl>at pan of the ring. IJcadvised that when tltis em uopen Ne eud ence would have an opportunity ro speak ei Nat time. Mr OrranXe mach a malonf r a>ecess uneil Mr. !~ maraud arrivez Ms. Mlder secorcded the mutton. Phe mollon was ui~animovsly approved (3-0). Mr. Daly rttronvencd tix meeting at 6 35 P.M. at which time Mr Daly passed the gavel to Mx Wilder. Mc Wilder requested thn Anumey Taylor assist her N this matter to make sure everyihmg is done properly. Ms. Wilder asked if there was prooPof publication. Mr. Sargent showed proof of publication in the Seminole Heald on Oc~ober I5. 1999 aril the public hearing on Ne variance..as opened 3. PUBLIC HEARING: A. VAR-07-99 Applicant: Stephen R. Miller Lneation: 3tlI F,. Jexsup Avenue Rear se~baek Mr. Sareent read the staff repon: MOTION/12ECOM M R.NUATION: Based on the Development Review board's review and ream xndation end the Findings of [act. the Planning Division of the Community Services Depanmem recommends that the Board of Ad'lustment deny the request. EXPLANATION/BACKGROUND: Scv attached Development Review board Report INFORMATION: LDC Sect an 24103.04 d. The BOA may prescribe appropriate <otxlitions for any variance rind rwy prescribe a me limn not to exceed ninety (90) days for which the vannnce shall begin, completed or both. I UC Sect on 24-103 OS _Gxg'v_akion Unless specifically stated otherwise, all variances shall etipire ninety (90) days after final ROA action, unless a building permit or certi0cate ofoecupaney Itas been issued. [.DC semmn z4_J.A.3A3.-~A ApPeats of 6OA decisions shall be modern the Circuit Court in the menrcr vnd 6rm required by the Conn. RE: VAR 0]-99. Stephen R. Miller, 381 E Jessup Avenue, icqucst Cor u varinnce to Table 24-5 of the City Code to reduce rear yard mthack Gone fifteen (I S) feet to one and one hulf(1 ''/z) fiat from the north property liae for a attached Garage (14' x 24'). Tax Pnrcel ID # 71-20-30-SAU-0000.4860. BACKGROUND: The eppliean4 Mr. Stephen R. Miller. G seckiug e setback variance to construct an addition (gerege) to his home at 381 F_ Jessup Avenue. Mr. Miller regnirts this variance. as he can't locate his ached garage immediately adjacent to his home TO do so, he would have to r uP hu`septic ank and a port n of the drain field. which would not be perm tied by the Sem note County Hralth Dept t wth this vaziance, Mr. Miller propose aced walkway over the dram field to connect the home to the garage. TI eogarage must be structurally attached, as Nr. Miler already has a detached storage building on his propettY and the subjec oo big Cor to be wnsidered as a demched storage building (on Mr. Miller `aspen cularslot) according to City Code. STAFF ANALYSIS: Comprehensive plan \ Zoning Consistency Trie subject site is Acsignnted Medium Deneity Residemial on the FLmre rand Use Mea The site is zoned ResidGttial Duplex (R-2). The Future land Use and zoning on this site are compedble- and Ne ux of the subject site is coneistem with Ciry ppticies 'there are a I'mvted number ofoptional ways in which the xubjut srcuctnre could. theorotically, ba plviced on the applicant's properly. Attach the garage directly to the rear of the house. [hereby coverivg up a ponion of the ving septic tank and drain field area the Semtnolc County Health Dept. however. u%uld mt allow this. Attach the earege to the east aide of the house, thereby requiring the exis[ing shed to be rebated to another ppni not the lot. Iv this scenario, the existing travel trailer, which has been located on the east portion of the lot Cor a number ofyears would no longer have the capability far ingress/egress pinWly, ifthe garage was located in this manner, a varivnce ~ould still be required from theside lot setback requirement, and it would tusituate4 within 20 tut ofthe rear ofthc hoax located to the east. Loca a the enrage, rithon achine o the m n the re proposed rear yard loc n. rhos ring setback cr with no a required a~ xtback. How due o the a rting shed and max a allowed for the s e ofthe proposed detached e this could not be permitted per code; nor does the (code allow for variances for number of sheds or six. locate the garage in the rear yaal as proposed with v strucwrally covered welkwvy. 1'Fe ttached garage would then hav et the required setback ol'15 fat unlcssa variance was granted, To the rear of this bt u e former i0-foot railroad right~of--way which was taken by the City in 1996 and utilized for utilities antl the provision ofawess to residcnus which abut it. Invfield invenigati notthe site avd the suaowding ar it ltas been voted that the area has a history of von--oconfortrvng svucwres. including addnional sheds and some with more square footaee than the existing code allows. AIx, there are sheds that are not properly located on the lots they serve. avd even a primary stnicturc that has a rear setback that is omplience with the City code. These noted structures are located within 200 feet of the requeeted vananw and have existed br o number of years Since a variance is aquasi-judicial decision, the applicant has the bwden of proefto provide evidence (facts) that enforcement ofthe Code provisions in this specific situation should be chanced. The City Code provisions are assumed to be a valid representation of public policy and .vere adapted for the benefit ofthe public health, mfety and welfare. fn each ease, the BOA will detem[ine the relative importance ufeach ofthc criteria found N Chapter 24- lOJ(c.) ofthe City Code az shown below: 1. That rantin o![he r sad variance will im lementx ecifcal identified ol'c' anJ ob'ec s of the Com rehen ve Plaa Staff has reviewed the Comprehenaive Plan and has fount no peliciex or opjeclives [ha[ will he implemented wish the issuance of this vvriancc The applicant nmey no[ xceed the 0.55 (2.]SOSq.ft.7 maximum impervioussuriha ravo (ISIi). The ISR for this site. wish the proposed attached garage and covered walkway, will be .43 (2,ISOsq.h.} The proposed var is wnsu;[eot with the policies end objectives of[he Comprehensive plance 2. That ra n the used variance will not result in ontinuin e of eithera stru<tarc. [he land or ombination of lanJtanJ structure, wh'ch's oaf'ble with adivicent land uses in the area. 1 he proposd variance will pertni[ the applicant [o erect an attached gauge Iha[ is ompatble with other sruc[ures io the neighborlmood. Sevcml of the neighbors have clad shade in then rear yards. Inspection o(the area revealed several sheds very clone to rear popeny lines, including one partially olPdme property and panielly on the (•IOrida Ave. right-ofway. Itesuarch ofproperry appiai er dola indicates Iha[ all of these slmeJs ere older than ten years, and pwamt status mould not he determined. Becautt This proposed a[[aohed garage moll actually M part of the primary s[ruc[urz s appropriate to exavvoe whether any ofthe othu residences arc closer m property lines than provided by code. In the immediate area, one residence aPDears [o have v covered screen parch that ouches into the Bear yard setback area The encroachmem eppaars to be Tess then ten (107 feel. The Board should aIw consider that [here is a good chance that nwny ofthe sheds mbar make This xhod/garege compatible may bare been erected without a permit. 3. That the variance tithe min' vailable to e nahle uxe nEthe prooem~. The npplicanl wnnte and needs adJhional garage and s[oinge araa. tlis particular pnrcel hosa legally allowable Impervious SnrlHce Ratio ol'.55. Therelore. the m of lot coverage{ r this lot is (S,U60 sqR. x .55) 2'150 sq.R The appti sums proposed st ould ca e the to bo covered with 2,160 sq.2 , .vhich intapproxtn+atelyrS90 sq.9. less shoo allowed. The epplirsnt asserts that he Wald add onto his home with a garage along the rear oftbe houtt. but the septic tart: and drain field cannot be cover4 The applicant's soluti orequest tlvs corder oreduce Cher setbeekm and of half(I Y,) fat artd to nrn~mlly wnnect the Garage m theahoure with a ewered walkway. Anothu possible solution could be piaring the etntcture witFin twenty (2U) fe[ of the exkvbtg residence to the east and moving the existing shed m ilia rear alone the oar property line This would still require a variance (side yard). and the existing shed would be pWwd on the rear propeny 1'ute. Curthu, the property would be atualty unusable for the applicant s Travel Trviler. The lessor impacting cod snore desirable solar othis n, due to proximity oPthe adjacent residence.would be as the appti ant` bas requested. 4. That the has cal char sof tbo sub'ec site are ant a other ecitic and not nr ntadlaeent sites. Thephysical <ham softhiss unique. The apphcan seWUest is hazed on the loo n of dre reptie mrikasnd drain 5eld. This i unique o the s except that earby property or nay have their septic systems in the front yardte ~ us the rear yard. Fiad the septic taNr been locatedm the from yard. the situation may ao st. The applicant s assertion is a rnttonol one, but rt is not totally unique to this silex'~ 5. That thee n the Deed fora ttber salt f ash ttbeast lira action usedb the era licant The applicant Deeds additional spaw for he end his Family to enjoy theh home and personal activities. It could be argued that perhaps they have outgrown the home. Rased on the lot coverage diswssion earlier. however, this does not hold we The applicant could move the septic system and add a room or garage N order to aze the square footage.'fhis is a financial burden for the applicant, and tberofore [hc request frr an attached garage results. The City Cade requires chat mic hardship Dot ba sufiicieot rystifieation to grout a variance. (See. 24- 103~01) The apPlieant is creating the hardslilp by not choosing the mom expensive options to a~rieve the same means and wifhio code compliance. 6. That the r n the r osed varia iii not result i cunlinuin a onformin sent the use of eithera sfraclvre the land o omniaafioa onne snnemre sad load. The granting of the v will nc salt in ring, o wing, a onforming use on th~p of crty. If will make the etructweca Icgel non con( fining RECOMMENIIATION: The Plavning Division, based on the Devalopmem Review Board (by a vote of~2), mends to the Board ofAdjusfineat that the request be denied due to the Fmdings of Feet below. This decvslon should also be Dredicated on input fiom affected properly owners Findines o(Fact: I. The proposed vur uconstsfenf with the Policies and objeraives offhe Comprehensive Plence' 2. The proposed vas will result in ring, o nunuing, a use that fs ompafible with Innd us n the imnxdiat i. The proposed wriance, whh wnsidernfion ofalternatives, is not the veilable fo perm sable use of the property. !{ow n fs more desirable a~ affects adjac of properties ~n a lesser fashion f. Tne physcal chazvc orally nfuquc o the specific svbjec ~. The proposed vanonce request does result fiom actions xM deacons bystl>c appecam. 6 The granting of the will noffuolt in crv ~ing_oreonnnuivg,nnon- wnfortniug utt on fherprupenY, The sfalfrepon also consisted of a maD showing the property, a plot plan showing how Ping st are laid out. Also attached is IF9 which is the DR6 m wmg this it m. When thedoo as put toge[her and reproduced for 60A informs n. there sfaFl're endat~ ncluded_fhis page leas been copied for the board tofndd to their packof. ibis becomes~pvge 2l A. With that sfnfTrepon wns concluded. W. Daly spoke up for "point oforder'. Ms. W ildcr recogrfized Mr. Daly and he apProaehed the podium to spook. Point oforder being this is a quvsi-judicial hearing. If is his undcrs ending iffhe applicant for the v ender a fret he must hnvc legal representation and he did not believe MrnHattvway is currently a member offhe Florida Bar, m he objected to his textimony tensed ov thkv knowledge. Second point of order, the introduction of the supplement that Mr. Sargentjust gave did not give proper novae to me Board efwdjnstmeot. On the Firsl pom[ ofordcr: Mr. Taylor replied that the applicant or his representative must end them ring or the nn cold be tabled for the ne ring fiis tinders andNg is tnln Mr. Hatteway was passant as the representative of the appf ant. The rules do not specifically say chat the representative has to be a member ofthe Florida Bar and as far as iha evles are concerned he is not in violative ofthe rules. On the Sewed W int oPotder: Mr. Taylor felt that the packet was timely provided for the Board ofAdjustment to review, and certainty a smell supplement tint was given this everting would be allowed under the rules. Mc. SaS°ent stated tha[ trier o letter fiom the epplicam m the fil¢ naming Intr. Hatt way as his representative Cor drisvappliretion. Ms. Wilder asked Tthere was anyone present to speak in favor ofthis variance. Mr. tlauaway introduced himself "Request to Speak' fomt had been completed and submitted to the secretary. Mr.Hattaway had taken pi<ttves this morning of the applicanw property and adjoining neighbors end handed them [o the members Fie explained what each picture was depining Two drawings were then disteibuted sho.v'vt6 a typical subdivision and how the tots are all jeinivg vemus rho subject request Tots and that thus is a fifty-foot open arse which is the abandoned right of way between the nor':' iron[ and back. The applicant's vaziance request does not infiinge on anyone else s properly. He then went into the technical asps. of she Staffrevort. He fah that the side issues that the DR6 had gone into should no[ o. lie highlighted the staff analysis that the Future I..and Use and zoning oe ompetibla, and the use of the subject is with clty policies. He painted outathat ifthe applicant had requested to put the gaage at the rear ofhis property that the Seminole Connty Health Department would not allow Ws. TLere H a 50 foot right ofway behind the property and teat a field investigation showed that this structure would be in keeping with the neighborhood. Also, page two the proposed varimce H emnistent with the policies and objemives ofihe Comprehensive Plan. On page tlvee it states that the proposed variance will permit Ne appticvrt to ereq an mehed garage that is comps ble wirh other structures in the neighborhood. Alm the applicants request ae PU ae site structure would Mless than allowed. Also, page three, the repott stated "The lessor impuaing and more desirable solution to rhos eituehloq due to proximity of the adjacent r¢sidence, would be es the applicant tars requested Page four: The physical eh¢racteristies oFthie property are unique because nearby property ers have their septic tanks in the fiont yard. He reed Item F that states the granting of the vat lance would not create or contmue a non-coot rming ux ofthe property. In tlw DRB m s the technical aspec e thor o objection.¢ page I J ofthe DRB s tMt thu impact on traffic or Ne Police Department. Page 15 the Util ty Department says itshae o objet n, the City Engineer had no wmments. The Flre MarsFtall said that altfiough tbe request does oat have a direct impact on the Fbe Marshal's ogee it might have an effut on possible fire rescue operation. Mr. h[atveway interpreted tlus ho mean that the Eue Marshall could ooh speak on behalfof fire rexue operations. On page I ] Mr. Sargent explained that the varance was ai should be reviewed as iFNe riolatiov does t. ?be garage is [here a after the f'act_ but this E why the v reque ubefore tlrish6oard. [f ther weanvolatiov the variance request would be thew route to take to wrrect the si[uetion. lie then went through iha Elndings ofFea I. Stating the variance is consistent; 2. It will non emit iv a compatible issue in [he area; 3. I[ is the minimum request that coultl be made; 4. }le is a victim of location of the drain Geld; 5. Does rat remit from actions. it H the location ofthe drzivfield cad 6. TYr¢t the grantin¢ ofthe variarce will not remit in creating, or aonnnuiug, a noneonfrnning use ov the properly. Mr. Hathaway then dish bated pepor nark wiN a history ofvariances that have gone before the Board of Adjustment showing same approvals that were similar to tws request. Reeommendati sot the DRB et shat [his dec nshould be predicated upon input frorv ad ued property ownus Mr. Hxttaway they distributed a signed prsitiou fiom Mr. Miller's adjeceut neighbors stating they had no objection to the granting of the variance. Mr. Orrenge asked why none ofthe neighbors came for the meeting and Nr. Hathaway explained ho did not know why none of theta came to the meeting. It was then stated Nat he was looking at e piece of paper with su signatures and Mr. Hathaway s ward that Ney neighbors. Mr. Taylor stated that all the neighbors had been notified by Planuin¢ of the When Mr. I lattaway concluded Ms. Wilder asked the three times it was detenrured there e else present ho speak in favor ofthis varimce, Ms. Wilder than rolled on those who were in opposition Sprsking in opDOSition wvm Judy Putz, Jim Daly, Robert Woos, IZUSty Miles and ]oAntre Rcbello. "Request [o Speak"furors were completed. Ms. Wilda requestedathrcc-minute limit. Ms. putz inmoduwd herself and opposed the three-minute limit in a public hearing. It was her oprzd n that the Board can not igno a tlx fact that Mr. Miler installed an awessory b lding without first obtaivivg then ssery pemu end in fact, told by the Planning Division before he installed the building that he could not have it because he already had the allowvble number of storage buildings. He needs to be told to follow the rules Ike everyone else. Tvvo espies ofsmveys were not submitted, the 2% allowable rule was not followed end setbacks were not obxrved. M. Wilder reminded Ms. Putz tint this xzs for a vazionce request and not the violations. She asked Ms Putz b keep i[ on track. Ms. Putz felt that her information was relevant. This reques is for a rear setback on an illegal structure and her understanding was that a varinnee could not be approved when Cher code violations. In the narta[ive prepared by the Planning DivisiontMt another possble mlution would be for him to remove the other etornge shed located on the last Side of hu property. Dwause of tlretravel trailer loce[ed on the East Side would not have any ingreasregress. If Mr. Miller hod perorated in ref ring to the structure as a shed instead ofa garage this would nw be Before the Board sine there amt not be v varianvv 6r a shed Ins eed thec cept ofa garage was created. Dec node doe tnllnw for detached garages he hod to devise a covered walkway ro attach the garage to the house. She fah that the lntem does not embody the spirit of the rules If this variance is granted it would bee slap in the fiu f'or every law abiding cit¢en iv Longwood. She vsked that the Bovrd deny the reyuo t. She ued ov a ofMr. Hatt way's rcque .she (sale the request evolves everyone n Longwood.a She questioned his signvmresskom the neighbors as being authentic She objected to the nomwnfomring uses through the City ns being correct. Compliance with code violation needs to be resolved and the illegal structure needs to be removed. Once in corJortnity otcode then let Mr. Miller come back far a varinnee. Mr. Duly approached the podium and introduced Iumself He obected to evidence being mroduced in the public hearing that the hoard did not have a chance to review prior to the eting. He stated that Mr. Miller did mqucst a permit and was denied. No matter what the Planning Department come up with after and no mattes what they say they would like to ee happen their opini nsidered during the DRD hearing and w re disc nted. Regarding violatio n the area, multiple wrongs do not make a right. He wmmwted on ns I the Fire Marshall's wmnxnt that thue might be a negative impact es not being a neuvel i t. For months Mr. Miller has mC<rted to the building as u shed all of o saddui it is a garage. Hobert Wona spoke next against the variance. Ida talked about the strucnnc as being a shed or garmge Having first hantl knowledge of o shed and a Garage the difference ix a roll tip dour. f Ic felx the strucwre is not a garage h~ aim opposed Mr. Miller not obtaining a permit end this ixsuo being aide stepped This is about one Dcrson being brought before the Board applyin8 tar this variance. Mr. Hatraway may hove made some good points but the Ihct of the matter is the neighbors who signed the non-objective form vre not here before the Board but those who we objecting to the structure are, lire building was trucked in and mould easily be trucked out. Rusty Miks approached the podium and introduced himself He advised that he was a ated an the dais with Mc Miler. He felt that there relev poinLMS that Mr. Hatt wvy did not address and needed to be addressed. oThe tvct that the aK eted property owners definitions seem to very. bm as residents of the City all arc aR oted. This rs not a typical variance request. It a typical in the Gcu that first oCall it should never have come before the Board because there is a code violation on the property_ As a commissioner Mr. Miller has copies of the Land Development Code. he has to read them and he has to understand them to the best of his ability. To be aware of the code and llfntly violate the code i t the t thing to do for e Comm i who is here repres (the resltlen s. Hew viola( on and has bcen granted thefopponwiity to present of IyDicul nsiMs issue He wanted to know if the structure is n shed or o garagenif ibex re bus anything to do wltlr it. He also heard the options in the Staff Report that it could be placed on ~u Cast Side afthe property. Ifibe motor home presenta a difrmulry he should move the motor home. Ne aim rcfcaed to the page that was omin W fiom the packet as briny unfav. I{e asked that the Board deny this request. Ms. JoMne Hebello also spoke in opposition She spoke out as being against the variance. She fah that super-human efforts were made to allow Mr. Miller to do this. even though he knew it was illegal. Yea he is a citrzen, but he should as a Commissioner is someone who other citi>ens should be able to look up to. She does not feel that he should be given anything more special than any other person. Ms. Wilder asked the appropriate three times if(here was anyone else who wished to speak t r opposition ofihe variance. Mr. Onange made a motiam rfim public hearlmg be cloned. Mr. Nammorrd seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously dented (0-3). Mr. Taylor advised the Board that it would be appropriate for Mr. fletivway to have the opportunity to rospond if it was the Board's wish. Gourd was in wnsensms of(hix. Mr. MJes questioned rebuttal by opposition. Mr.'faylor responded Thal the party in favor gives argument. [heat people in opposition to epeak and then Ihose in favor are given the opporlunity to rebus. "this is where it should nop so Ihal it doesn't goon Corever. Mr. Miles asked the Ms Wilder if he could address the mtomey. lie asked if Mr. liattaway induced ne informnttonthat has vot Men commented on if this does nos uonsmvte the apposition m speak. Mr. Taylor said thus if the board allowed Mr. Haltaway to introduce new malarial that opposition should be able to speak. Mr Hauaway approached the podium to speak and assured the Board that he would not be troducing new issues. if the Ms. Wilder finds him doing that he asked that he be remivded s'wp Hie fitst comment was on the question that was asked by opposition if this a gamge Slafl says it is a garage. vtd it' a garago. As for as the effect this has n the en city. there. many van ea granted,sand all atlect the city. Having e separation oftovor 50 Eat Mtweev the buildings won'I aRul properly values ofanyom m die City. Ho referred bark w page 17 ofthe atalf report, this variance should be reviewed variance and Ihat (he violation does not edsl. This is for a varivnce reque only. It is uD to the board to look at the iesue of'a variance only and make ihurdetcrmtnattov on Ihae. Mr. Daly asked to approach the bench, but it was denied. Mr. Orrange made a motion to clone public hearing. Mr. Daly xpproavhed Ilre potlium out of order slating thus Mr. hlattaway did introduce new evidence, that being the attached garzge issue. He asked to address shat. Mr. Miles approached the podium and asked for permission to speak. With Ms. W'ilder's perm to do so. he s aced that Mr. Hatt way brought up a new issue. Ihat being staffs assignmem ofthe attached garage definitiong He asked if he could ask Mr. Sargent a couple of qua [iota to clarify the iesue. Ms. Wilder responded atfirmmtve Mr. Miles asked Mr. Sargem if the applicant for the variance came belbre him the first lime in disc n of any out buildings on his property and if those discussions centered on an attached garage Mr. Saegvnt eeplied no sir. Mr. Miles then asked Mr. Sargem ifthe appliean to before him wish v rode vivWtiu and asked liim specifrrally questions relative to the Land Develapmem Code and stow that code might be circumvented in allowing his shed to not be a shed Mr. Snrgent replied that before Nc shed was placed on the property. (Mr. Miles interrupted asking it Mr. Snrgent had stated that it ryas a shed) (Mr. Sargcm repevted himself~or the detached garage, it is ref ed to as a gauge because it does have a gnrngc door it k ortsNered a garage as Nr az we aro concerned When he came in and had i[ placed on Ne propeny Planning. the 6vilding Depantnem and the Fire Marshall made the deoision that it as a garage although Mr_ Miler enlled it a ehed. He was informed that it was a detached garage et that time, and needed to be submi¢ed as nn attached garage. A tletached garage opld not allow the application IDr a variance because dmached awording to wde it would be deleted es a shed. Mr. Miles asked if Mr. Miller was Given any advice as to the method by which it miglrt be clauified not as a detached garage. Mr. Sargent replied that he was. Mr. Miles asked who gave him that advice and Mr. Snrgent replied the Nuilding Department, himself and the Firc Marshall. Mr. Miles asked itthat was a typical thing for Staffto do when someone comes befrre them with a variance request. Mr. Sargent replied yes sir, and that everythin8 they did for Mr. Miller was very typical Mr Miller went beyond the nomtel the[ everybody else would look at. decide not to do that, but he did want this and continued with the process and Statfcominucd working with him az Nay do with everyone. Mr. Miles asked on re quc on br clarifica n, il'an applica to Fleeting with v shed and the applican~has n tlifFctdty with dwt sltcd, being that there many eheds n [hat propeny, or that the shed doe a the setback requir owbate end the applicam says he wants to put a walkway attaching that shed w hi~ dwelling, mnk~mg it teched shed or Sarage, how is he still allowed to get n variance sinoe he still has a code . olation on the shed. Mr. Sargtrt replied that one of the options Mr Miller was given when he was given the violati as the[ he get o allow Iheahed to be [here. Howevor. the varianoc he asking foris for attachedtgnrege. and not fora detached shed. which is ezistiog thueN violation is taro diR rent issues. This is the same huilding bur two different isues, so they are asking Por a vminucc Por the rcaryard setback for the attached rtructurc. Mr. Miles thanked Mr Sargent end replied that he wanted to make sure he could violate the codes and still get venanee. Ms. Wilder asked ff anyone else wanted to speak on this issue. Mr. Daly said he would and approached the podiwn. Ile asked for clarification on attached and detached. He eked if taohed is a walkway with grovel and laadmape timbers leading to the builtling attached by landscape [eewres, or is it some kind of soond strvctam that would keep tire[ building in place should we have hoary winds. Mr. Sargon said this of his dcte a building ofticial's Bete n. tt is tw[ nlajob to date eathis, how r. he would share hearsay iftl>et what he en ed Mr. Daly replied thaut a buildivy oticial skrould have been at the meeting. Mr. Sargon replied that Code requir ould require this structure to meet the building standwds ofthe code. and the required wnd loads Mr. Daly asked to sprzk again reyardiug the attached/dotached issue He asked for the definition ofanached, detached end the definition ofa shed or a garage. He.said that the applicam for the building says that this structure is attached, he asked Mr. Sareem bow it uas attached. Mr. Sargent replied by the walkway that has been reviewed by the Building OtAchl that identifies it avtavhed per building wde. It is reE<aed as a 5-foot area called a breezeway. Mr_ Dely then said the applicant for the variance continues to call the stnvture a shed and that is what it is. Ms. Wider asked ganyone else wavred to speak on this. There was vo one. Mr. Orrang¢ ntada a rrcvriarc ro close public henring, A-G~. Hammorcd seconded rhv morion. THa modon ens unonlrrcously approved (3-0). Mr_ Hammond asked to speak. He said it appeared that Mr. Miller had done e lot ofwrovg thivys. bet he oouldn't, in good Gith, briny those issues up when he isjusv asking ~r a and he did not understand what all the otherc issues had to do with it The code vgolation is a difteeevt deparwtent. Mr. Taybr suggested a motion to deny or approve would be more appropriate and they discussion would follow. .Nr. Orronge made a nrot: +ro d• ~ R~lt>-9p n.r~m~dircR rofandingr c':. is na Through stxr jf D -rAdJ,r '-Wdde i Them n. Av k jntand ,q i»s.~ , ;.he m- Yolce vore was Mr. liaammorcd na_ Mr. Orrmge yes and Mv. Wilder y¢s Under the nom. this issue has been tabled aM will be brought back before the Board oC Adjustments next month as per the adopted board of Adjustmem Rvles and Procedures. Uiwnssion followed end Mr. Hammond repeated M1w stelenrenr tha[ code viole~ions should have been taken cwc of, but it has no bearing on this variance reque t. Mr. Taylor commented as the Cirv s legal co naelor rhea 24.1U3.UTA General Requ'vements wys o e shall be Droc sled until any existing city code violatio o the pwperty related to the subjec erred. 1{is imerpret Uthat ifthere code violali related to thm subicm shed than these need to heawrrected. but if it is related to the actual struetwe than those do not have to lie corrected. With public hearing closed Ms. Wilder passed the gavel back to Nr. Daly. 6. UISCUSSIOR AND SCHEDULE POR RUTUItE AGENDA ITEMS: There was a discussion regwdmg the date tl>et the Board should meet tI>at would be eonvervent for ell. Ms. Wilder asked that the City Aatomcy be prevent. ~1yr. Onange made a motion that the near ~nevlney be he(Aon [he 1T° ojNooember. Monday night at 6.OOP M d2s. Wlfder,eeonded the u~orion The motion tra+unnnimous[y approved (4-U). Mr. Daly asked tlmt the Plmwng Smff have their swffreport Prepared nnU that publishing be done appropriately w there is no delay in the issues. Discussion followed and Mr. Hatiaway explained that he would be unable to attend the me on the 22"'. Mr. Orrmrge made a n~atlon to wllhdrmv ItU' previous morlan_ Ms_ Wilder ~n()tdr'ew her .second oflhe irionon. Mr. lhrnage made a motion to uhedtJe the next Uoard ofAdJusemenr meGing on November d9, [999 at G_00 pug A2v_Wifdar.vecortded the motion. %'He motion sr~as~ urtnumrously approved (i-0). 8. AU.IOURNMF.NT: ,Nr. Orrange madeamntionfor ndjwmtmenr. Ms. WI[der n¢conduirhe mu»m~. The modon vxu unanimously approved (~I-0). Mr. Swgent requesed that the Board keep they agenda packets on the Miller Variance since they will be the same agenda packets.