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-