Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 09 07 Board of Adjustment Regular Minutes ~ J BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7,1995 r-- AMENDED 1. Call to Order: Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairperson Greene. Attendance: James Greene, Chairperson, Present Frank Adams, Present AI Becker, Present Elizabeth Harrow, Absent Greg Smith, Absent Don LeBlanc, Land Management Specialist 2. Consideration of the J.~~~~ry 5. 1995 Meetine Minutes: Mr. Adams moved to iilit the January 5, 1995 meeting minutes as presented. Seconded by Mr. Becker. Vote: AIl aye; motion carried. 3. Request of John D. and Linda D. Stibich for a variance to Section 6-219(a) to allow a .1"'"' swimmine: 0001 (water's ede:e) to be closer than ten (0) feet from the rear orooertv line and ten and one-half 00-1/2) feet from the side orooertv line. The orooertv is zoned Planned Unit Development and is located at 625 Clearn Court. Chairperson Greene said the Board members should have received notice with the agenda regarding ordinance number 577. Ordinance 577 states that the Board of Adjustment is now a recommending body as opposed to a granting body. Mr. LeBlanc explained to the Board that this only pertains to the second case on the agenda (Jondro), which has to do with Chapter 20. The first case (Stibich) has to do with Chapter 6. Chairperson Greene said the pool was constructed back in 1978, and currently the people are trying to clear the property for sale. Mr. LeBlanc said that is when they discovered the pool was in the easement, and did not satisfy the setback requirements. The Commission has vacated the southerly eight (8) feet of that easement, so there is only a seven (7) foot easement. According to the plat the water's edge is 7-1/4 inches from the rear property line, which is satisfactory. I"'"' He said he was not sure of the measurements for the water's edge on the side yard property, and he put that in, in the event that it does not figure out the side yard requirements for this particular subdivision. The subdivision has a 7-1/2 foot side yard setback, and the Code states it has to be '" "'CORRECTIONS ARE SHADED. .--- Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes - September 7,1995 Page 2 the side yard requirement plus three (3) feet. The extra is put there just to insure that the pool meets all the requirements for future sale, or whatever the case may be. Chairperson Greene asked if it was permitted, and if anyone objected to it? Mr. LeBlanc said he gave the Board a copy of the permit. Certified letters were mailed out, and no comments were received as a result. Chairperson Greene asked if there was anyone present to speak against granting of the variance? No response given. Mr. Becker moved that the variance be granted. Seconded by Mr. Adams. Vote: All aye; motion carried. 4. Reauest of Raman L. and Sharon P. Jondro for a variance to Section 20-166 (3) to allow the side vard setback to be less than ten (10) feet from the side orooerty line. The property is zoned R-1AA (One-Family Dwelline District) and is located at 266 Morton Lane. I"""""' Mr. LeBlanc explained that Mr. Jondro is in the process of attempting to sell lot 3 and possibly the house on lot 4. To insure that there is no variance required for lot 3, the variance is for lot 4. It appears the house is about 3 to 8 feet from the side property line, and that is the reason a variance is being sought. Chairperson Greene, for clarification asked that when the house and property was purchased, it was a house built on a lot and a half, and he is now seeking to sell off lot 3 ? Mr. LeBlanc said that is correct, with the possibility of selling lot 3 and lot 4. Chairperson Greene asked if he was looking at the possibility of splitting the two and selling as two parcels? Mr. LeBlanc said that was correct. Chairperson Greene asked that since he owns part oflot 4, could he also have cut off part oflot 3 to add to that parcel or is the other alternative easier? Mr. LeBlanc explained that if you cut offlot 3, you would have a lot split, and it would have to be two equal size lots. The smallest lot would have to be ten-thousand (10,000) square feet and I"""""' eighty (80) feet or ninety (90) feet wide. !' ~ Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes - September 7, 1995 Page 3 Chairperson Greene asked if he is then seeking a variance to sell a piece of property with a house on it that is closer than the required setback? Mr. LeBlanc said that was correct. Chairperson Greene, looking at the plat, said the area in the front looks to be a garage slab, but actually it is the comer of the house, and that requires the ten (10) foot setback? Mr. LeBlanc said that is correct. Mr. Adams asked if both lots 3 and 4 were considered one lot at the time it was purchased? Was there concern at the time of construction of the house that a property line ran through there? Mr. LeBlanc said no, because the person owned both lots, and he was using half of lot 4 and all oflot 3. I"""" Mr. Adams said there must be some alternative. If the variance is not granted, what size would lot 3 be reduced to? Mr. LeBlanc said the issue is not lot 3, lot 3 is all right. The issue is the setback on lot 4 where the house was when he purchased it. Discussion regarding lot splitting and minimum lot size requirements for R-1AA zoning. Mr. LeBlanc said presently Mr. Jondro is attempting to seUlot 3 in its entirety. Mr. Jondro is disabled, and there is a possibility he may have to sell the residence on lot 4. When he came to see me, I said lot 3 is all right as it stands, somebody can build on it, but lot 4 is where the problem is. In case you do have to sell your residence, let us proceed for a variance for the side yard setback. Chairperson Greene asked if he would have the same problem we just had with the swimming pool if he tried to sell lot 4? Mr. LeBlanc answered yes. Mr. Adams, for clarification, asked that the only alternative then is to grant a variance for lot 4, or the property could not be sold or split? "..... Mr. LeBlanc said lot 3 could be split, but it does not answer the question. If you have somebody that purchases right next to lot 4, (that half oflot 3) and then he wants to sell his residence on lot 4, the problem still exists that he still has less than ten feet, and will continue to be a problem later on. """'" Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes - September 7, 1995 Page 4 Chairperson Greene asked if there is anyone pres~mJR~peak for or against this? None appearing, and if there are no further questions, I'll A#.GlPl a motion. Shirley Johnson Jenkins - 265 Morton Lane, Winter Springs said for a long time they have enjoyed such a large area in reference to the acreage. At this point, it seems to bring it down some, and houses start getting a little closer together. That is not so much a problem if the neighbors next door were to buy it. The Dunns, present here this evening, asked me to come as an interested party. I thought if they were to buy it, it would all stay together because they are interested in keeping the acreage, as opposed to splitting the lots. ,.-. Mr. Raman Jondro said his intention on the lot is to keep it the same size. I don't want to split it because it would spoil (like Mrs. Johnson said) the ambiance of the whole place. My concern is that I am unable to work. I have a lot of property that I can no longer maintain, and is costly to have cut and so on. Our idea is to sell the lot, apply the money to our present mortgage enabling us to stay here. I want to keep the property as it is, almost a full acre, and not destroy the neighborhood. That is why I am going this route. Weare talking about a matter of a few feet, and I just don't want to run into a problem later. Mr. Adams moved to recommend granting the variance. Seconded by Mr. Becker. Vote: All aye; motion carried Chairperson Greene said it is the action of this Board to recommend to the City Commission that this variance be granted. 5. Adjournment: Meeting adjourned at 7:20 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, ~~ Shirley . Frankhouser, Administrative Secretary Prepared September 14, 1995 ,"-' mE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WILL BE HELD muRSDA Y OCTOBER 5,1995 AT 7:00 P.M. r- BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7,1995 1. Call to Order: Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairperson Greene. Attendance: James Greene, Chairperson, Present Frank Adams, Present Al Becker, Present Elizabeth Harrow, Absent Greg Smith, Absent Don LeBlanc, Land Management Specialist r 2. Consideration of the January 5. 1995 MeetinS! Minutes: Mr. Adams moved to except the January 5, 1995 meeting minutes as presented. Seconded by Mr. Becker. Vote: All aye; motion carried. 3. Request of John D. and Linda D. Stibich for a variance to Section 6-219(a) to allow a swimminS! pool (water's edS!e) to be closer than ten (10) feet from the rear property line and ten and one-half (10-l/2) feet from the side property line. The property is zoned Planned Unit Development and is located at 625 Clearn Court. Chairperson Greene said the Board members should have received notice with the agenda regarding ordinance number 577. Ordinance 577 states that the Board of Adjustment is now a recommending body as opposed to a granting body. Mr. LeBlanc explained to the Board that this only pertains to the second case on the agenda (Jondro), that has to do with Chapter 20. The first case (Stibich) has to do with Chapter 6. Chairperson Greene said the pool was constructed back in 1978, and currently the people are trying to clear the property for sale. Mr. LeBlanc said that is when they discovered the pool was in the easement, and did not satisfy the setback requirements. The Commission has vacated the southerly eight (8) feet of that easement, so there is only a seven (7) foot easement. According to the plat the waters edge is 7-1/4 inches from the rear property line, which is satisfactory. r- He said he was not sure of the measurements for the waters edge on the side yard property, and he put that in, in the event that it does not figure out the side yard requirements for this particular subdivision. The subdivision has a 7-1/2 foot side yard setback, and the Code states it has to be /""'" Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes - September 7, 1995 Page 2 the side yard requirement plus three (3) feet. So the extra is put there just to insure that the pool meets all the requirements for future sale, or whatever the case may be. Chairperson Greene asked if it was permitted, and if anyone objected to it? Mr. LeBlanc said he gave the Board a copy of the permit. Certified letters were mailed out, and no comments were received as a result. Chairperson Greene asked if there was anyone present to speak against granting of the variance? No response given. Mr. Becker moved that the variance be granted. Seconded by Mr. Adams. Vote: All aye; motion carried. /""'" 4. Reauest of Raman L. and Sharon P. Jondro for a variance to Section 20-166 (3) to allow the side yard setback to be less than ten (0) feet from the side orooerty line. The property is zoned R-1AA (One-Family Dwellin~ District) and is located at 266 Morton Lane. Mr. LeBlanc explained that Mr. Jondro is in the process of attempting to sell lot 3 and possibly the house on lot 4. To insure that there is no variance required for lot 3, the variance is for lot 4. It appears the house is about 3 to 8 feet from the side property line, and that is the reason a variance is being sought. Chairperson Greene, for clarification asked that when the house and property was purchased, it was a house built on a lot and a half, and he is now seeking to sell off lot 3 ? Mr. LeBlanc said that is correct, with the possibility of selling lot 3 and lot 4. Chairperson Greene asked if he was looking at the possibility of splitting the two and selling as two parcels? Mr. LeBlanc said that was correct. Chairperson Greene asked that since he owns part of lot 4, could he also have cut off part of lot 3 to add to that parcel or is the other alternative easier? r- Mr. LeBlanc explained that if you cut off lot 3, you would have a lot split, and it would have to be two equal size lots. The smallest lot would have to be ten-thousand (10,000) square feet and eighty (80) feet or ninety (90) feet wide. , I"""'" Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes - September 7, 1995 Page 3 Chairperson Greene asked if he is then seeking a variance in order to sell a piece of property with a house on it that is closer than the required setback? Mr. LeBlanc said that was correct. Chairperson Greene, looking at the plat, said the area in the front looks to be a garage slab, but actually it is the comer of the house, and that requires the ten (10) foot setback? Mr. LeBlanc said that is correct. Mr. Adams asked if both lots 3 and 4 were considered one lot at the time it was purchased? Was there concern at that time of construction of the house that a property line ran through there? Mr. LeBlanc said no, because the person owned both lots, and he was using half oflot 4 and all oflot 3. I"""'" Mr. Adams said there must be some alternative. If the variance is not granted what size would lot 3 be reduced to? Mr. LeBlanc said the issue is not lot 3, lot 3 is all right. The issue is the setback on lot 4 where the house was when he purchased it. Discussion regarding lot splitting and minimum lot size requirements for R-1AA zoning. Mr. LeBlanc said at the present time Mr. Jondro is attempting to sell lot 3 in its entirety. Mr. Jondro is disabled, and there is a possibility he may have to sell the residence on lot 4. When he came to see me, I said lot 3 is all right as it stands, somebody can build on it, but lot 4 is where the problem is. In case you do have to sell your residence, let us proceed for a variance for the side yard setback. Chairperson Greene asked if he would have the same problem we just had with the swimming pool if he tried to sell lot 4? Mr. LeBlanc answered yes. Mr. Adams, for clarification, asked that the only alternative then is to grant a variance for lot 4, or the property could not be sold or split? .'" Mr. LeBlanc said lot 3 could be split, but it does not answer the question. If you have somebody that purchases right next to lot 4, (that half of lot 3) and then he wants to sell his residence on lot 4, the problem still exists that he still has less than ten feet, and will continue to be a problem later on. ,-.. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes - September 7, 1995 Page 4 Chairperson Greene asked if there is anyone present to speak for or against this? None appearing, and if there are no further questions, I'll except a motion. Shirley Johnson Jenkins - 265 Morton Lane, Winter Springs said that for such a long time they have enjoyed such a large area in reference to the acreage. At this point, it seems to bring it down some and houses start getting a little closer together. That is not really so much a problem if the neighbor next door were to buy it (and the people here, the Dunns asked me to come as an interested party). I thought if they were to buy it themselves, it would all stay together because they would be interested in keeping the acreage as opposed to splitting the lots. ,-.. Mr. Raman Jondro said his intention on the lot is to keep it the same size. I don't want to split it because it would spoil (like Mrs. Johnson said) the ambiance of the whole place. My concern is that I am unable to work. I have a lot of property that I cannot maintain anymore and is costly to have cut and so on. Our idea is to sell the lot, apply the money to our present mortgage enabling us to stay here. I want to keep the property as it is, almost a full acre, and not destroy the neighborhood. That is why I am going this route. We are talking about a matter of a few feet, and I just don't want to run into a problem later. Mr. Adams moved to recommend granting the variance. Seconded by Mr. Becker. Vote: All aye; motion carried Chairperson Greene said it is the action of this Board to recommend to the City Commission that this variance be granted. 5. Adjournment: Meeting adjourned at 7:20 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Shirley A Frankhouser, Administrative Secretary Prepared September 14, 1995 ,- THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WILL BE HELD THURSDAY OCTOBER 5,1995 AT 7:00 P.M.