Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA 06-17-10 ..---- MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING HELD JUNE 17,2010 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Resnik called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers at City Hall. Member Colburn led the Invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag; the Clerk called roll and declared a quorum. PRESENT: Chairman Resnik, Members Colburn, Wilsen, and Alternate Member Cadle. Also present were Principal Planner Rumer, Assistant City Attorney Watson, and Deputy City Clerk Sibbitt ABSENT: Member Elliott was absent unexcused. Member Warren was absent excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 21, 2010 Alternate Member Cadle. seconded bv Member Colburn. moved to avvrove the minutes of Januarv 21.2010. Motion carried 4-0. OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS 733 L YMAN AVENUE - VR-10-01 Principal Planner Rumer presented exhibits and the staff report for the Variance located at 733 Lyman Ave. BACKGROUND The applicant, Jesus Garcia is requesting a side street setback variance from 25 feet to 18.27 feet for a proposed addition to the main dwelling structure. The room addition will be added to the rear of the existing dwelling structure. The structure was constructed in 1930 on a lot platted in 1925 as the Seegar Subdivision. The structure is considered by the City as a legally non-conforming since the structure does not comply with the required 25 ft setback from the adjacent right-of-way. The City's Land Development Code prohibits the expansion of a non-conforming structure. The applicant intends to attach the addition into the rear of the dwelling structure. The addition will keep the same building setback as the dwelling structure. The applicant explained that the addition cannot be off-set to meet the 25 ft setback because of the location of the access of the door from the main dwelling. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings, staff recommends the Board of Adjustment support the variance request. DISCUSSION The Public Hearing was opened Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting June 17, 2010 Alternate Member Cadle stated that in the presentation given by staff, that the applicant can position the addition to meet all applicable setbacks. Principal Planner Rumer explained that physically they can because there is not anything prohibiting with the land. It would just be the location of the access door. Alternate Member Cadle further inquired if there were any objections from any of the neighbors. Principal Planner Rumer stated they have not received any calls or written objections and the 300ft notices were sent out as well as the property being posted. Chairman Resnik inquired if there would be any drainage issue's being that it is close to the lot line. Principal Planner Rumer stated they are not even coming close to the maximum impervious for the site and they have sufficient area of square footage left. The Public Hearing was closed Member Colburn. seconded bv Member Wilsen. moved to recommend to City Commission the avvrovaZ of the request for Garcia Variance - 733 Lvman Ave. ver staff's recommendation. Motion carried unanimous Iv. 1104 DOREEN AVENUE - VR-10-02 Principal Planner Rumer presented exhibits and the staff report for the Variance located at 1104 Doreen Ave. BACKGROUND The applicant, Maggie Keen, is under a City of Ocoee code violation for construction of an addition without pulling the necessary permits. The applicant closed in an existing screened porch. The property contains a shed that is located 2.8 feet from the screened porch. The existing separation of the shed and the screened porch is permitted by code. The City's Land Development Code, Section 5-6, Article V (B); states...No separate accessory building shall be located within five (5) feet of any other building. Once the applicant enclosed the screened porch, the building violated the code stated above. The applicant is complying with the code violation by pulling the required building permits for the room addition. The first step in the building permit process is receiving zoning approval, which is contingently upon the variance request. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings, staff does not find the variance to meet any of the criteria. If the Board of Adjustment makes a recommendation to approve the variance, staff 2 Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting June 17,2010 recommends that any approval be conditioned on factual interpretation of code requirements and public testimony related to such provisions. DISCUSSION Member Wilsen inquired if the building permit was obtained before the construction of the addition, would the city had required the shed to be moved. Principal Planner Rumer stated the building permit would have been denied and the applicant would have been told they did not meet the setback requirements. Their options would have been to move the shed or not construct the addition. Member Wilsen further inquired as to how this was brought to the City's attention. Principal Planner Planner stated the applicant was turned into code enforcement by a citizen. Code Enforcement cited the applicant for the construction of the addition without a permit. Principal Planner Planner stated he has not received drainage or citizen complaints after the 300 ft notice was sent out by his department. The Public Hearing was opened Chairman Resik clarified that the shed was built without a permit. Principal Planner Rumer stated that he is not aware of that because his research did not produce a permit; however, the shed has been in that location for a long time and the city did issue are-roof permit for the shed in 2007. Maggie Keen, applicant, stated she purchased the home in October of 2007. The enclosed room already had the existing slab and roof. She further stated that when she purchased the home she was a single mother with two children, since then she has married and acquired three more children increasing her household to seven. Mrs. Keen explained in 1993, the previous owner had pulled the permit for the shed and screen enclosure which had existing electrical and a ceiling fan. Her and her husband built the room enclosure in phases not knowing a permit was required. Mrs. Keen stated she is not sure why a complaint was made when the addition was completed in December of 2009 but they do have speculations that it was done out of spite. She explained once she was told she needed a permit, she came down to the city to get one, at the time she was told about new requirements on setbacks. She is at a standstill until the variance is approved. Member Wilsen inquired as to what makes her think that the previous owner obtained a building permit. Mrs. Keen stated she has copies of documentation from property appraiser that shows when the previous owner constructed the patio, screen enclosure, and accessory building. Member Wilsen inquired if the documentation states it is a 3 Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting June 17,2010 permit to enclose the area. Mrs. Keen stated it only states screen enclosure and was built in 1998. Member Colburn inquired if Principal Planner Rumer could explain the staff recommendation. Principal Planner Rumer stated this case does not meet the criteria for a variance but if it is approved they ask the board to please base it on testimony. He further stated for past variances the board has been really good at stating a reason why they approved the variance. Chairman Resnik inquired as far as staff is concerned no one has complained about the shed being there illegally. Principal Planner Rumer stated that no complaints have been made to him and his best guess is that the shed is legal. Alternate Member Cadle clarified that to make this a conforming structure either the shed would have to be moved or the addition needs to be connected to the shed. Principal Planner Rumer stated that would be correct. Mrs. Keen stated she can not move the shed because it would then cover the drain field. Principal Planner Rumer clarified that the shed would have to become part of the main dwelling and that would put this under a different code. Member Wilsen commented that he would hate to penalize the property owner for trying to improve her property. The Public Hearing was closed Alternate Member Cadle stated he is leaning toward not approving this because he feels if they allow this variance others will try to build without a permit. Member Colburn stated one of the main issues is that the city allowed the re-roof which he feels should have been a red flag. He further stated he feels that she inherited this problem and he too would have thought a permit was not required just to put walls up since everything else was in existence, such as the electrical, slab, and roof. Chairman Resnik commented that if the shed did not exist and the addition was put up then they would not be having this discussion before the Board of Adjustment. Principal Planner Rumer stated that is correct. He further restated that there have been no drainage complaints for this property. Alternate Member Cadle. moved to recommend to Citv Commission to denv the aDDroval of the reauest (or Keen Variance -1104 Doreen Ave. Motion died due to lack of a second. Member Colburn. seconded bv Member Wiisen. moved to recommend to Otv Commission the avvroval of the request for Keen Variance - 1104 Doreen Ave. based on facts vresented before the board. Motion carried 3-1 with Alternate Member Cadle ovvosinf!. OTHER BUSINESS Principal Planner Rumer announced there may be a potential variance next month for Thursday, July 22, 2010. 4 Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting June 17, 2010 COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:26 p.m. ~ JJ/JJ{ - Melanie Sib bitt, Deputy City Clerk --- 5