Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 07 11 Board of Adjustment Regular Minutes ... ~. ~ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING JULY 11, 1985 7:00 P. M. The Board of Adjustment meeting was called to order by Chairman Ted Holz. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chairman Ted Holz, Roll Call: Ted Holz, Chairman, present Harry Reid, Vice Chairman, present Louise Poole, present Richard Kessler, present Gil Artman, present City Official: Peter Cowell, City Planner, present Motion was made by Reid to approve the minutes of June 6, 1985 subject to the minutes being corrected to include the reasons for denials as stated in the record. Seconded by Poole, Discussion. Vote on the motion: All aye; motion carried. Request of Lee Munuzzi for a variance to setback requirements between C-I and R-3 zoning (Code Reference 44.51) on the east side of new Moss Road where Third Street intersects. (Out parcel Doug's Unit 2). The City Planner explained the sketch the Board has in front of them is the out parcel of Doug's Unit 2 located on North Moss Road. The site is just under one acre. The peculiarity of this particular site is that is is zoned commercial with an R-3 abutting the north side of the property and property with conditional R-3 zoning on both the east and south borders, with new Moss Road on the west. Mr. Munizzi, in order to'accommodate his parking spaces has asked for this request. Staff has some concern with the request not in regard to the two ~arcels with conditional use, but the parcel that is specifically stated as R-3. That setback is required to be 30 feet. The Staff did not have a problem with the 15 foot buffer and an overhang of parking into the area; however, Staff did have a problem with the structure being that close. Therefore, Staff has requested that if it is parking that Mr. Munizzi wishes within the 30 foot setback, that could be granted. If it is the structure within the 30 foot setback, then other recommendations should be considered. Mr. Munizzi was present and spoke about his project. No one spoke against the request. Motion was made by Kessler, to approve the applicant's request as presented with the modifications per Staff by having the 30 foot setback on the south and east side of the property and to allow parking within 15 feet of the west and the north side. Seconded by Poole. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Poole, aye; Artman, aye; Reid, aye; Kessler, aye; Holz, aye; motion carried. ,. I" ,r r". ~ Board of Adjustment Meeting July 11, 1985 Page 2 Request of Vernon A. Pitt for a variance to fence setback in a P.U.D. (Code Reference 5-127, 5-131 and 44.21) on Lot 88 Unit 9, Tuscawilla P.U.D., 698 Tuscora Drive: The City Planner explained that pools, fences, etc. are not part of the zoning code and therefore not allowed or subject to any form of variance thereof. The two questions in regard to this are basically the points of P.U.D. zoning which allow for variance provided they are granted by the A.R.B. and Sec. 5-127 of the Code through Sec. 131. The applicant was present to ask for a variance to a sideyard setback. Mr. Pitt had been turned down by the Architectural Review Board. The deed restrictions supersede, however Mr. Pitt had requested to be heard. Mr. Jay Alpert, designated representative for the ARB, said the deed restrictions for this particular lot call for fences on corner lots to not go closer to the property lines than building setback lines and in that case 25 feet. Mr. Alpert said there are some specific times within Tuscawilla where that variance has been granted by the A.R.B., but that they are few. In Section 5-131, it says in the article on fences, they should not supersede or control deed restrictions, but if deed restrictions are more restrictive, this does not make them less restrictive. Mr. Alpert pointed out that in the zoning ordinances, Sec. 44.85, every place a variance can be granted, the P&Z Board does not grant it. (The Board of Adjustment grants variances in the zoning code, and PUD is a zoning classification; however, it is yet to be determined as to whether or not this request is a modification in zoning or an alteration to the final development plan.) The final development plan which is required every time you develop a section of Planned Unit Development, Sec. 44.85.7 (12) says that covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be used as part of that development plan. They are incorporated and approved by the City Commission. Mr. Alpert said it is definitely against the deed restrictions to put a fence closer on a corner lot than the side building setback. Mr. Mike Bogg from the Homeowners Board, spoke about enforcement of deed restrictions and why the ARB denied the request for a permit. Mr, Reid said Sec. 5-127 does not apply since it is not against the City Code, but against the deed restrictions put on the property, so the Board has no power to overcome whether it is fair or not. Motion was made byK~ssler that we deny the applicant based on the decision;made by,the A. R. B. and the fact that it.is out of our jurisdiction as,;Board of Adjustment we have no control over the deed restrictions within the City of Winter Springs, and recommend the applicant, Mr. Pitt, take his next step and go to the City Commission. Seconded by Artman. Disc~ssion. Vote on the motion: Artman, aye; Kessler, aye; Poole, aye; Reid, aye; Holz, aye; motion carried. Motion was made and seconded to adjourn. Respectfully submitted, 5?~/J Peter Cowell, City Planner