Loading...
BOA02-24-10Min CITY OF LONGWOOD Board of Adjustment Minutes CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS 175 West Warren Avenue February 24, 2010 - 7:00 P.M. ATTENDANCE: BOARD: STAFF: Barry Revels, Chair Daniel Langley, City Attorney Arthur Heintz, Vice Chair Sheryl Bower, Community Development Director Autumn Doulong, Member Chris Kintner, Community Development Planner/ Stormwater Jessica Pugh, Recording Secretary ABSENT: Tom DeNegre, Member Aaron Rupp, Member 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Revels called the meeting to order at 7:00 p. m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. Chair Revels led in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR: A. Regular Meeting: January 27, 2010 Vice Chair Heintz. moved to approve the January 27, 2010 Minutes. Seconded by Member Doulong and carried by a unanimous roll call vote with Members DeNegre .and Rupp absent. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. VAR 01-10 Variance A variance. to Longwood Development Code Article III, Section 3.2.1, to reduce the required setbacks for the addition of an existing overhang. Address: 575 Preston Road Property ID#: 36-20-29-506-0000-1300 Applicant: Patricia and Tom. Moscoso Chair Revels opened the public hearing. Mr. Kintner said this was a public hearing on Variance 01-10 to the Longwood Development Code, Section 3.2.1, regarding setbacks. He stated the property owners were requesting a variance from the following standards found in the Longwood Development Code, Section 3.2.1: BOA 02/24/10 Page -1- A. "There shall be a side yard setback on all lots located in low density residential (LDR) and medium density residential (MDR) areas of seven feet. However, no structure shall encroach into any easement. " Mr. Kintner said the property owners were requesting a variance to the setbacks to allow for an existing, unpermitted overhang. He stated Codes Enforcement was notified about the overhang and the property owners responded by coming in for a permit. However, staffwas unable to approve the permit at that. time because it encroaches into the setbacks. The property owners' next step was to come before the Board and apply for a variance to that requirement. Based on the five findings reviewed by staff, the biggest concern staff had was that Section 3.2.1 (F) indicates that "...any structure that is improperly placed on the property will not be considered as grounds for application for a variance due to self-imposed hardship. " He :said the way the Code was setup, where you might normally be able to issue a variance in this situation, given that there is an existing structure there, there is additional language in the Code that makes it more difficult. He advised the concerns were that it would violate a setback, and there is a five (5') foot utility easement running along the side that would also cause a problem in this case. Mr. Kintner said the Applicant was proposing a three (3') foot side setback which allows for the existing 8' x 10' aluminum canopy to cover the property owners' barbecue grill. He stated on the first part of the staff analysis which determines the cumulative impact of this decision reads: "The need for the variance does not arise out of the physical surroundings, shape, topographical condition, or other physical or environmental conditions that are unique to the property. Because the structure on this site is an unpermitted structure, it cannot be considered as a hardship under 3.2.1(F). Therefore, the required findings are based on the cumulative effect of granting the variance to all that apply. " Mr. Kintner said that unlike a situation where you have to take a lot specifically because of an odd shape or something particular to the environmental factors of that lot, this needs to be judged on the cumulative effect of making this decision. Vice Chair Heintz inquired if this was. considered an overhang or a standalone canopy. Mr. Kintner said since it has posts that come out it has been referred to both as an overhang and a canopy. The drawing refers to it as an aluminum patio overhang. Vice Chair Heintz inquired if there were four posts in each corner making it a .standalone, or was. it coming off of the housing structure like an awning. Mr. Kintner advised this was attached to the house. BOA 02/24/10 Page -2- ~ Mr. Langley recommended that the Board disclose any ex-pane communications prior to continuing with the public hearing. Mr. Tom Moscoso, 575 Preston Road, said that he and his wife have lived in this home for thirty-three (33) years. He stated there was nothing that they would do to impact any of their neighbors as far as aesthetics or lowering property values. He said they did have signed and sealed structural engineered drawings. He stated. the President of the Homeowner's Association has stated there is no impact and all of their neighbors have not had any impact and have signed letters to that affect. He said all they are asking for is for peaceful enjoyment of their backyard which they have not had for the past ten (10) years. He provided photographs of what the neighbors would view. He affirmed that he did not realize he needed a building permit. He looked at this structure as an open. canopy covering his barbeque area. He stated as soon as he learned it did require a building permit he went to Codes Enforcement and asked them what he needed to do and he complied with everything they have asked. Chair Revels inquired who built the canopy. Mr. Moscoso said he purchased the materials and built it, He had the engineered drawings done after the structure was built. He stated they did come out and inspect the structure. Member Doulong inquired about the utility easement and if this structure would be in the way. Mr. Moscoso said there was a five (5') foot utility easement on his side and a five (5') foot utility easement on Ms. Mary Gamble's side. He stated there has never been any utilities ran in this easement in the thirty-three (33) years he has been there. Mr. Langley inquired if Mr. Moscoso obtained any review by the Utilities Division of the City to verify that there were no utilities within that easement or no intention to place utilities in the future. Mr. Moscoso said he spoke with a representative of Progress Energy regarding vacating the easement since it was not being used to see if that could be done voluntarily. He said there were no other utilities that would be impacted there. Mr. Langley asked if he had approached the City about vacating the easement. Mr. Moscoso said Progress Energy was the only utility he spoke to. He stated the City has a meter in front of the property that runs twenty five (25') feet up to where the driveway- line is. BOA 02/24/10 Page -3- Mr. Langley inquired if there were any posts touching the ground in the easement. Mr. Moscoso said there was a footer and the post was bolted into the footer. Chair Revels inquired if it could be relocated to an area that would not be in an easement. Mr. Moscoso said the way his backyard was situated it would be too far from the house and it would be non-productive. He stated this was the perfect place for it. Chair Revels inquired if there was concrete flooring there. Mr. Moscoso said there were pavers placed there that could be removed if needed. The following spoke regarding the Item: John Austin, 695 Chelsea Road, distributed some documents to the Board Members. I-Ie said he thought he was being a good neighbor by trying to help the adjacent neighbor with her yard. He stated she had some issues, but she enlightened him to several situations and inconsistencies with the neighbors. He said she did. not feel like the City of Longwood listens to her. He stated he would not comment on that. He said when you look at the survey the fence was installed in the wrong. area and was about thirty (30") inches on the adjacent neighbor's ~ property. Chair Revels advised Mr. Austin needed to adhere to the facts for this particular variance. Mr. Austin said that this all coincides. He stated Mr. and Mrs. Moscoso were o asking for a variance for this structure they did not pull a permit for, and you cannot give a variance for a structure with a fence in the -wrong area. He declared they were in correlation of each other. He said the fence was installed in the power line easement where it states not to do on the survey. He stated he found it difficult to believe that somebody who was a builder or certi"feed contractor would not know they would have to pull a permit. He addressed concerns and said if this variance was given, everyone would want a variance to put up a patio. He stated i;f the Board permits this they will be setting precedence. Lori Driskill, 560 Devonshire Boulevard, said she lives directly behind the Applicant. She stated the overhand was almost invisible to her and did not impact her at all. She said the utilities run through her backyard and do not go into that easement. She stated this was not an issue and did not think the neighbor called Codes Enforcement. Chair Revels said they were here for a variance and needed to stick to the facts for the variance. BOA 02/24/10 Pale -4- ~ Ms. Driskill said they should not have to take down the overhang as it does not affect anyone. Member Doulong asked staff if the fence supposedly being in the wrong yard had anything to do with the variance.. Mr. Kintner said from staff's perspective, the fence does not affect the variance. Mr. Langley suggested if the Board was inclined to approve the variance they may want to consider a condition that the City Utilities Division review whether there are utilities impacted and obtain their approval. Chair Revels closed the public hearing. Chair Revels said he did not see a problem with the structure itself considering the engineers have signed off on it. However, they do not meet all. of the criteria for a variance. He stated they need to see what the impact is on the existing neighbors. He said, as the City Attorney stated, they need to make sure the Utilities Division has no problem with the variance. Vice Chair Heintz said with regards to the utilities, would it be proper to ask staff at this point if there was any consideration to review that. Chair Revels re-opened the public hearing. Vice Chair Heintz questioned if when staff was considering this initially, was there any concerns in verifying whether there were any active utYities in the easement. Mr. Kintner said they did not contact City of Longwood Public Works Department about the easement area, mainly because of'the section in-the Code that says no structure will be approved in an easement. He stated part of the approval for getting past that language could be making, it contingent on approval of the Utilities Division. Chair Revels closed the public hearing. Chair Revels said as long as Utilities would approve this, he did not have a problem with it. He stated he wanted to make sure there were no drainage issues as well. Vice Chair Heintz moved to approve the variance, subject to a review by the Utilities Division for the easement and that there was sufficient drainage. BOA 02/24/10 Page -5- Mr. Langley inquired if the conditions the Board was seeking were that the Public ~ Works and Utilities Division review the proposal to place the structure in the utility easement area and to sign off as to whether it impacts the utilities or not and if they have any other concerns. He stated for clarification on the drainage, the condition would be for the City Engineer, or applicable department, review the drainage issue to see if it impacts drainage. If they come back with a finding that it does, then the variance would not be granted. Chair Revels responded in the affirmative. He said they would have to correct the problem and the Applicant could come back to request another variance. Mr. Langley said he understands the motion would include a finding of fact that the variance sought meets all the criteria. Chair Revels responded in the affirmative. Seconded by Member Doulong and carried by a unanimous roll call vote with Members DeNegre and Rupp absent. 5. OLD BUSINESS. None. 6. NEW BUSINESS. Mr. Kintner said as a follow-up on something discussed at the last Meeting, the Board had a question regarding Variance 10-09 and where it was located He advised this was for 211 West Warren Avenue and Historic District variances automatically go to the City Commission. 7. DISCUSSION AND SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. Next Regular Scheduled Meeting: March 24, 2010 Mr. Kintner said there was nothing for discussion at this time. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT. John Austin, 695 Chelsea Road, said he felt this Board had a selective attitude on who they enforce and who they don't. He stated if°they provide this variance, he would like the same for a patio on his property. He said the problem with this variance was the fence being located in the wrong spot and when they correct the fence, the overhang will be hanging over the fence. Commissioner Brian Sackett, 399 Harbour Isle Way, said he was the Commissioner representing that District as well as all of Longwood. He stated they understand what is going, on in that neighborhood and these things will happen. He said as Mr. John Austin said, precedence is a dangerous thing at times. He discussed the size of most lots in the City of Longwood. He stated when looking at drainage you have to look at the impervious ratio. He stated he did not BOA 02/24/ 10 Page -6- believe most houses in Devonshire even come close to that. He said when looking at the utility easement, you do have to get approval from. the City of Longwood. 9. ADJOURNMENT. Vice Chair Heintz moved to adjourn. Seconded by Member Doulong and carried by a unanimous roll call vote with Members DeNegre and Rupp absent. Chair Revels adjourned the meeting at 7:47 p.m. ~~'1~/l Barry Revels, Chair ATTEST: J sica Pugh, Recor ' g Secretary BOA 02/24/10 Page -7-