Loading...
BOA04-28-10Min • CIT`lt OF >LONGWOOID • • Board of Adjustment . . Minutes . • • CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS 175 West Warren Avenue • , April 28, 2010 7 :00 P.M. ATTENDANCE: . • BOARD: • • STAFF: Arthur Heintz; Vice Chair • Daniel Langley, City Attorney Autumn Doulong, Member 4 Sheryl Bower, Community Development Director Tom DeNegre, Member ,. - , . . k , ,_ Chris Kintner, Planner /Stormwater Linda Goff, Recording Secretary ABSENT: Barry Revels, Chair Aaron Rupp, Member 1: CAIN., TO ORDER. Vice Chair Heintz called the Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF'Ai LEGIANCE.. Vice Chair Heintz` led ih the Pledge of Allegiance. • • 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR: A. Regular Meeting: March 24, 2010. • • • Member DeNegre moved to approve the March 24, 2010 Minutes. Seconded by Member Doulong and carried by a unanimous roll call vote with Chair Revels and Member Rupp absent. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. VAR 03 -10 Variance A variance to Longwood Development Code Article III, Section 5.3.3 A, a requirement that "Any fence located adjacent to a public right -of -way, private road, or • private property shall be placed with the finished side facing that right -of -way, road, or adjacent property," as well as a variance.to Section 3.2.1 (F) allowing for a self- imposed hardship. . Address:.160 Dog.Track Road Property ID #: 05 -21 -30 -518- 0000 -001B •Applicant: !: renda Soper • Mr. Kintner said this Item was to hear Variance 03 -10, a variance for 160 Dog . Track Road. He stated this was an issue that came to the Board of Adjustment by • Codes Enforcement.. The property owner was initially cited on October 29, 2009 BOA 04/28/10 Page -1- for erecting a fence without a permit. The property owner carne in for a building permit on November 9, 2009 and the permit was approved on November 11, 2009 with comments. When Codes Enforcement and Building went back out, the fence still had exposed structural supports facing outward. He advised both the City Code and Department Policy moved towards having the exposed structural supports and the framing facing the inside. He said this.was a comment that is on the building permit and when the Building Official did his inspection those comments were made. He stated that a fee of double the permit fee is charged for permits related to work that has been given a Notice of Violation, and in this case, • the Building Official waived the additional fee. He reviewed the Staff Analysis and said staff's determination was that there were no specific conditions that make this property unique in terms of a variance. When the Board is considering this Item, they should consider it based on the cumulative effect of it applying to all properties. He advised that staff's recommendation is based on the consistency of the variance request with the five findings. The variance request was for a variance to the section of the Code that relates to the finished side of the fence with regards to exposed structural supports facing outward from the property and also a variance to the section of the Code that refers to self imposed hardships. He said this was important as the fence was placed without a permit, and when a . permit was obtained, the ,fence was not,replaced to be consistent with what was in the pen application. He stated there are five required findings and staff was unable to concur with items one, two, and five. He said had a permit been pulled initially for the work, the Applicant would have been told that you cannot have structural supports facing out. He reiterated that the fence was not redone to meet that Section of the Code. Mr. Kintner said staff recommends denial of the variance. Vice Chair Heintz inquired liow long the fence was up before Code cited the violation. Mr. Kintner said he was not aware how long the fence was up prior to the Notice of Violation. Vice Chair Heintz opened the public hearing to the Petitioner: Brenda Soper, 160 Dog Track Road, said she was one of the Owners of Finishing Systems of Florida, Inc. She stated the fence was not a new fence and has been there since she developed the property in 2000. She said the fence had to be replaced because she was an out parcel of Lyman High School. Her property was originally a wooded area and children would skip school and come onto her property. She stated when she changed the .fence last year it was put back exactly like it was. She had to replace panels because students were knocking them down. She reiterated the fence was replaced just like it was originally. She did not realize she needed a permit to replace an existing She reviewed the staff report and stated she'did put up the fence without a permit. She was told when she went that she' had to pay a permit fee and a fine. She advised that she spoke to BOA 04/28/10 Page -2- Deputy Mayor Joe Durso regarding this and asked him to help her with the fine. She said she paid the $500 and an additional $200.for the variance.and pulled the permit as she was asked to do. She stated that after the fact, they approved her permit with the comment that the exposed structural elements and the framing • would have to be on the inside of the fence. She referenced Section 5.3.3 of the Development Code regarding fences that states, "Any fence located adjacent to a public right- of -way, private road, or private property shall be placed with the finished side facing that right- of -way, road, or adjacent property." She stated she was not facing a public right -of -way, nor was her fence facing a public road, and her fence was not facing a private property. She said her fence was facing a public • property. She went to the School Board to get their approval. She declared that she does not have the structural elements or unfinished side facing out. She stated the posts are the only thing on the outside of the fence: She. advised there was a chain link fence that belongs to Seminole County on the back and east side of her property on her property, line. She said, she was asking for - a variance because there is a fence on her property that she cannot touch. She asked for a definition of what the structural unit of a fence was. She reviewed photos of her fence showing the side facing the School and the side facing leer property. She reiterated that all structural elements, except for the posts, are on her side of the property and the original posts were on the outside. She stated she was only trying to make it look better and was not trying, to do anything outside of the Code. She said she was just trying to deter students from coming onto her property. She reviewed a photo taken from Dog Track.Road of her fence and other properties. She reviewed photographs of surrounding areas' that have fences with the structural elements on the outside. Member DeNegre inquired if when the fence was put up she knew the structure had to be to the inside. • • Ms. Soper said she replaced a fence that had been there. The posts. were placed back where they were and everything was replaced just like it was. • Member DeNegre inquired if when she obtained the permit, had the fence already been placed. Ms. Soper - responded in the affirmative. She said she did not know that she •needed a permit to replace an existing fence. When she found that she was wrong she pulled the permit and paid the fee. Vice Chair Heintz asked when the City Code was changed with regards for having to pull a permit for replacement of an existing fence. Mr..Kintner°said the Code had .not been changed within the last three years. He advised the way it was now is if replacing more than twenty (20 %) percent of a fence, it then requires a permit. He said this was far more than twenty (20 %) percent. BOA 04/28/10 Page -3- Vice Chair Heintz inquired the way the fence is was allowable in the previous Code. Mr. Langley advised that this Section of the Code was changed in 2007 according to the edit notes in the Codebook. However, you cannot tell what the previous Code stated. • Mr. Kintner said this was the way staff has consistently interpreted and applied this Section of the Code: • Member DeNegre inquired if staff would agree it would be difficult to put the fence up with the chain.link fence there. Mr. Kintner said in response to that, when the Applicant carne in for the pennit, that note was on the permit application. He stated part of the reason for getting the permit after the fact was to come in and. get it right under the City Code and it was not made right under the City Code. - Ms. Soper said the City's Code states the finished side of the fence shall be facing the right -of -way, and it does not say structural. She stated when she received her notice from Codes Enforcement, they told her she had to appear before the Board for Codes Enforcement, and to come in to compliance the fence panels must be reversed so that the finished side faces outward, or the fence must be removed. ,, She pointed out that again, it does not say structural element. She reviewed the time frame of when the fence was put up and when she was cited. She said nothing was stated 'about the structural side until she obtained the permit and this statement was stamped on the pen She stated she did not agree with the statement that she self imposed the hardship. She said this was a prejudicial situation. Mr. Langley said the Special Magistrate deals with Codes Enforcement. The Board of Adjustment would deal with the variance application and would have to apply the variance criteria to the application requested whether to waive the requirement that the fence has to be reversed. He reviewed what this Section of the Code states and the Applicant is asking for that provision and the interpretation of that provision to be waived to allow the existing condition of her fence to remain. Vice Chair Heintz closed the public hearing. Member DeNegre said it looks to him that this happened after the fact. He states she replaced an existing fence and the majority of the fence has a chain link fence behind it. He said he didn't know how you could put up a fence on the other side. :BOA 04/28/10 Page -4- Vice Chair Heintz said the fence was already up and she replaced it the way it was originally. He stated they don't know what the prior Code was with regards to this. Member Doulong looked at the provided photographs and said she didn't know how they could have done anything differently. The Board reviewed and discussed the photographs provided by the Applicant. Mr. Langley advised the Members needed to speak into the microphones. Vice Chair Heintz reopened the public hearing. Member DeNegre moved to approve the variance, as presented. Seconded by Member Doulong and carried by a unanimous roll call vote with Chair Revels and Member Rupp absent. Member DeNegre said the City was not prejudice. He stated the applicant may feel she was a victim, but staff was doing the best they can for all of Longwood. 5. 0L1 i: None. 6. NEW BUSINESS. None. 7. DISCUSSION AN) SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE AGEN.irA ITEMS. Next Regular Scheduled Meeting: May 26, 2010. Ms. Bower advised there was no business at this time. Mr. Langley reminded the Board Members of the Sunshine Law and that they need to be audible to the public when discussing the case. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT. None. 9. ADJOURNMENT. Vice Chair Heintz adjourned the meeting at 7:52 p.m. Arthui ileintz, Vi e Ch 'r ATTEST: c4, • _ a ` � Linda F. Goff, CMC, Re 6 Secretary BOA 04/28/10 Page -5-