Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 12 02 Board of Adjustment Regular Minutes BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES December 2, 1993 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Greene BOARD MEMBERS: James Greene, Chairman, Present Wendy Austin, Present Al Becker, Present Frank Adams, Absent Greg S~ith, Absent CITY OFFICIA:"'S: D. LeBlanc, Land Dev. Coordinator M. Jenkins, Engineer Approval of Minutes of Au~ust 5, 1993: Becker moved to approve the minutes of August 5, 1993. Seconded by Austin. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. Request of Mr. Louis J. Particelli for a Variance to Section 6-84(b) of the Code. The property is Located at 647 Silvercreek Drive, Zoned R-1A (One Fa~i1y Dwellin~ District): LeBlanc stated that the Code states that an accessory building can be no greater tha~ 240 sq. ft. and the height can be no more than 12 ft. and this would not allow a double car garage; which is what Mr. Particelli is requesting. LeBlanc said that Mr. Particelli is present for any questions. Greene asked Particel1i that on the drawing it is indicated that he is requesting a b~ilding 22 ft. wide by 22 ft. which is 484 sq. ft. Particel1i stated yes that is what he is asking for. Greene asked Particelli if he had a problem with the 12 ft. height. Particelli stated that it will be between 12 and 13 feet, depending on the pitch of the roof. Greene asked what pitch he was planning on. Particelli said 5/12. Greene then you are talking 13 ft. so you could live with 14 ft. Particelli said yes, it won't be any higher than that, and he mentioned that he could lower it if necessary. Greene asked if he could live with 500 sq. ft. if we set that as a maximum. Particelli said yes. Greene asked if he was staying 8 feet off the rear property line and 8 feet off the side property line. Particelli answered yes. Becker asked if Particelli's neighbors were aware of the plans. particelli said yes they were. LeBlanc stated that all the neighbors were notified by certified letter. Particelli said that all his immediate neighbors are in favor of it. Becker stated that he drove by Particelli's home and noticed he already has a two car garage and asked if the proposed building was to be used for other purposes. Particelli said no it will still be a garage and will use it for sar~ storage besides a garage. Greene said that in the request it states that this will be used as a garage and asked Particelli if he was planning on having plumbing or air conditioning. Particel1i said no. __t.________ .. ..-. -- Board of Adjustment Minutes Decanber 2, 1993 Page 2 Austin moved to approve the request of Louis Particelli for a variance to Section 6-84(b) with a ~aximum height of 14 feet and a maximum 500 sq. ft. Seconded by Becker. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. Request of Bowyer-Singleton & Associates for a Varia~ce to Section 9-241(d) of the Code. The property is located in the Tuscawilla PUD, Approximately 600 ft. South of State Road 419/434, East of Howell Creek, and North and West of the Seaboard Coast Railroad. The Property is Zoned PUD: LeBlanc stated all the property owners within 150 feet of this property were notified. He said that he received a written note from Frank Schri~sher stating he had no objections, a verbal from Missy Cassells stating she has no objections, and a phone call stating no objections. LeBlanc said that Mr. Bines of Florida Residential Communities, is requesting this variance so he can do the engineering as a wet bottom pond if it is approved by this Boare. He said that he was asked to look into the records and found 6 variances requested for a wet bottom pond, 5 were approved and one was not approved; the pond that was not approved was because the engineer had talked against it. Greene explained to the Board about a wet bottom pond. Ray Braddock with Bowyer-Singleton & Assoc.; the consulting engineers for this project, said that the request for wet botta~ ponds is before you for several reasons; one is that the property grounoNater characteristics are that it has high groundwater and a good engineering practice would dictate that wet bottom ponds would be the most suitable design for the project not only for the function but for the ease of maintenance. Secondly the S.J.R.W.M.D. encourages the use of wet bottom ponds for any drainage areas in excess of 10 acres and this project is about 105-110 acres. As LeBlanc has explained to this Board, the City Engineer has reviewed this request and has approved it subject to conditions and the conditions being that it be designed to meet the pollution abetment requirements of S.J.R.W.M.D. and that the pond volume be designed to meet the City's 25 yr./25 hr. design storm; both of these criteria will be met and suitable drainage calculations will be reviewed by both your City Engineer and S.J.R.W.M.D. Braddock said in addition he would like to point out that there was a pond build when Vistawilla Drive was built and that pond was approved as a wet bottom pond and that shows you that the drainage characteristics for that area dictate wet bottom. Aaron Gorovitz with the Law Firm of Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, said that the City's code has six items that you should find in order to give a variance - the first is that special conditions peculiar to land have to exist and in this partic~lar case the terrain and groundwater Soa,d of Adjust~ent ~inutes Dece~~er 2, 1993 Page 3 conditions are ~n~sua: because of the high grcundwater table. The second is that those conditions ca:i't res;.;1t from the actions of the applkant anc of co~rse we did ~ot create the grouncwate: table. The third is that granting the v~~iance won't concur on us any special privileges and as LeSlanc has pointed out there have been other wet bottom ponds granted so we wouldn't be getting special privileges. 7he fouith is the literal interpretation of the provisions of this law would ceprive us of rights canncnly enjoyed by others, again the other resicential developments that have come through have ~een approvec so we wc~;cn'~ ~e dc~ng anything special. The fifth is that the variance granted is the minim~, variance there can be and that is the case. And sixt~ is that it won't be injurious to the neighborhooc and it won't be as a practical matter there is alreacy one in this tract as was pointed out earlier. From our perspective Vistawilla is already set to standarc and we have to comply with the requirements of the S.J.R.W.M.D., we happen to hold their handbook for management and storage of surface waters and that interestingly provices that projects of this size which serves the Grainage areas in excess of 10 acres must use wet ponds. In essence we feel based on that we are required to have wet ponds in this project. As our e;19~:;eer :-;as indic.3.:.ec:,o you - \ve meet or exceed a;; ~he a~plicab;e S-:ate and Federal regulatio::s anc we have so\..:nd engineering practkes. One concer~ ~~at yeu s~~et~~es have fra~ time to t~~e w~t~ wet ponds is the maintenance of the ponds ove, time and the way that that issue and that concern 15 resolved 1S that we will and always do have a homeowners association that has mancatory assessments and each of the homeowners pays on a rronth 1 y , quarter 1 y , or annua 1 bas is; the :noney goes into the association al:e the associatior. is there to maintain the pones. C~rovitz went on to say that we are not building a borrow pit, we won't be transporting any of the materials off site and if you would like to make as a condition of our approval that this not be a borrow pit that would be fine w~th us. Secker lroved to grant the variance including the last two paragraphs of the engineer's letter (attachec). Seconded by Austir.. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. -h -l-. . I Ie meel..o 1ng was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, :":argo Hopkins Deputy City Clerk /