HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 04 18 Special
, ,.
Hembers of ,dnt,., Springs I ci ty Council:
,-
.~ residents of the North Orl~Ddo Ranches we are appealing
the action taken by the board of adjustment at its meeting
of February 14, 1978. The board granted a variance for a lot
split of Lot 9, Block B, Section 1 into two lots. Our appeal
is based on the following information:
1. The published notices and letters to adjacent property
ol'mers stated that the hearing was to be on the question of
issuing two building permits for one lot. After the hearing
began the subject ,,-:as changed from the published subject to a
request for a lot split without due public notice. Residents
called attention to the fact that had the notices been correct-
ly worded more residents would have attended since most were a-
ware that it is not possible to issue two permits to one lot
(Sec. 44.27(6) ) and they did not feel it necessary to attend.
2. The board granted the lot split request without consider-
ing or proving hardship as required in Sec. 14-4(a): liThe board
of adjustment may grant a variance from the terms of this chap-
ter when such vffi'iance will not be contrary to public interest,
and where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement
of this chapter Hould result in unnecessary hardship. II
wnen questioned by residents as to the hardship on which those
voting approval based their vote we were informed that they did
< .
not have to prove any.(See Item 5.) There were, and are, no
Ilspecial conditionsll existing on Lot 9 "lhich would "larrant the
lot:splittingj the lot is capable of being built upon in accord-
ance "lith the zoning and building regulations for that district.
In fact, the board violated Sec. 14-4: It..., such variance shall
be granted by the board of adjustment unless and until: (4) The
granting of the variance requested will not confer on the appli-
cant any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to
other lands, structures or required subdivision improvements un-
der similar conditions."
}. The variance granted clearly conferred on the applicantpri-
vileges not enjoyed by other subdividers in the city since they
have been required to put in improvements under similar conditions
.. /","".-
(meaning subdiv"" ton and/or resubdivision) Other subdividers
and resubdividers have been required to ins vall the improvements
outlined in our zoning regulations. This lot split does come
under either Chapter 14 or Chapter 44 under the definitions of
"resubdivision" therein. In the absence of adequate local ad-
vice we obtained the definition of 'resubdivision' from Semincle
County Zoning Regulations adopted 8/17/76: "Resubdivision: A
change in a map of an approved or recorded subdivision plat if
such change effects any street layout or such layout or area
reserved thereon for public use, ~ any lot line; or if i t ef~-
fects any map or plan legally recorded prior to the adoption of
any regulations controlling subdivisions."
..",..""--
4. Should the board claim it granted the variance under Chap.
14 then they further violated Sec. 14-4, specifically that por-
tion of (c) Hhich states: "The board of adjustment shall fur-
ther make a finding that the reasons set forth in the applica-
tion justify the granting of the variance that would make poss-
ible the reasonable ~ of the lands, buildings or other improve-
ments." 'Reasonable use' of Lot 9, characteristics allowing con-
struction of a house, has always existed.
5. Since the board stated that the resulting two lots would
meet zoning requirements in Chap. 44, that they did not have to
establish 'hardship', and since the city attorney stated the lot
did not came under subdivision provisions in Chap. 14, and, fur-
ther, since the published request was for a variance from Sec.
44.27(6) and since Sec. 44.21 provides for board of adjustment
authority, perhaps the variance was granted under Chap. 44, in
which case it would come under the definitions in that chapte~
44. 24( 58) 1I Subdi vision; For the purpose of th~,,, l"egulations, a
subdivision of land is either:
(1) The platted division of land comprising one acre or more
in area, into lots, sites or parcels; (or)
(3) The resubdivision of land of one acre or more in area
heretofore divided or platted into lots, sites or parcels."
(Hote that there is !l2. minimum number of lots stated.)
Under either Chap. 14 or 44 the board lacked adequate authority
to grant such a variance and we request the city council over-
,
turn it on the above ini'ormation. ,.- // . 7. /~ ,/~ -
1 ../ /.l'-/{./'-'C r / .-4' ./ -? - /./.r--
, '-~ ." Jr/~ /ieY.~
.J I ~ ~/
.... /, -I'! I \,- ~ I 1/ ' / ~ /
/:_ -,," .,r.., --4 ,; ,'~ /L: l r.. a / / t '- (
.J!{!iiLH~ rt /1Ja€;Y?U(~
3 March 1978
Members of Winter Spring's City Council:
As residents of the Cypress Court and Murphy Road neighborhood we are
appealing the action taken by the Board of Adjustment at its meeting
of 14 February 1978. The board granted a variance of 20 foot for a
front yard setback and a 19 foot for a backyard setback. The property
is owned by Belmont Homes and is located at the intersection of Murphy
Road and Cypress Court. (Lot One, Block N, North Orlando Terrace,
Section 4, unit 1, P.B. 17, page 30 of the Seminole County Public
Records).
The residents were not properly notified by mail of the pending action
and therefore were not present to oppose the Boards action. We request
that the City Council conduct a Public Hearing in respect to this action
and that we the current homeowners be properly notified via the u.S. Mail
so that we can appear before you to to let you know how we feel about
what will affect our neighborhood and our property value.
Thank you.
NAME
ADDRESS
";;~~
l!'/-5<J cc </ /' .
-; ::;{
/ -<-0/ ;;/<2-<-'
k_~ '~Jj(. . { /-
V Wall-eft. .J i ~hf''{,~ PUj~- <2oq~~r~.
V'lV . G- J[t '-I t (. L- - 2 t- 7 C' I )_H ,j} C (
/J 1/
c).:. I, "/ //
-",...-,
,/
.J
,I
.:07
\- . P j, "I, 11) I( -t C ~ .p! l
~ I'~
\ \" ,.c (.-1i1, v)....... t, -t
J
Other
:inent information in referenc
to the two appeals is filed in separate files "Appeals
to Board of Adjusment Decision"
3 March 1978
Members of winter Spring's City Council:
As residents of the Cypress Court and Murphy Road neighborhood we are
appealing the action taken by the Board of Adjustment at its meeting
of 14 February 1978. The board granted a variance of 20 foot for a
front yard setback and a 19 foot for a backyard setback. The property
is owned by Belmont Homes and is located at the intersection of Murphy
Road and Cypress Court. (Lot One, Block N, North Orlando Terrace,
Section 4, Unit 1, P.B. 17, page 30 of the Seminole County Public
Records).
The residents were not properly notified by mail of the pending action
and therefore were not present to oppose the Boards action. We request
aSl
that the City Council conduct a Public Hearing in respect to this action
and that we the current homeowners be properly notified via the U.S. Mail
so that we can appear before you to to let you know how we feel about
what will affect our neighborhood and our property value.
Thank you.
, .
NAME
ADDRESS
:k~
!c:/. ./-j Ct: ~I ~
.") y(
.0 A.-</I );Iu~_
l( AI}(
A -;JJ:tJ , .
,
,
It,
/ -1-1./ .
v IL~_'..-"~/-~ .'
V:-f? tJ ~ I
,a-
I t
-:5
.en
:5
I
~-IPiJr.
\
,1~ 1(+( ~I.{.' I J
r t
\v,
Nembers of ':[inter Springs t ci ty Council:
.
.~ residents of the North Orlando Ranches we are appealing
the action taken by the board of adjustment at its meeting
of February 14, 1978. The board granted a variance for a lot
split of Lot 9, Block B, Section 1 into two lots. Our appeal
is based on the fo110Hing information:
1. The published notices and letters to adjacent property
owners stated that the hearing was to be on the question of
issuing two building permits for one lot. After the hearing
began the subject ':;as changed from the published subject to a
request for a lot sp1i t i'Ji thout due public notice. Residents
called attention to the fact that had the notices been correct-
ly worded more residents Hould have attended since most Here a-
ware that it is not possible to issue two permits to one lot
(Sec. 44.27(6) ) and they did not feel it necessary to attend.
2. The board granted the lot split request without consider-
ing or proving hardship as required in Sec. 14-4 (a): lIThe board
of adjustment may grant a variance from the terms of this chap-
ter when such vffi'iance will not be contrary to public interest,
and where, O1.Jing to special conditions, a li tera1 enforcement
of this chapter Hou1d result in unnecessary hardship. II
wnen questioned by residents as to the hardship on which those
voting approval based their vote we were informed that they did
~ L "
not have to prove any.(See Item 5.) There Here, and are, no
Ilspecial conditionsll existing on Lot 9 Hhich would warrant the
lot splitting; the lot is capable of being built upon in accord-
ance with the zoning and building regulations for that district.
In fact, the board violated Sec. 14-4: II..., such variancE:' shall
be granted by the board of adjustment unless and until: (4) The
granting of the variance requested will not confer on the appli-
cant any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to
other lands, structures or required subdivision improvements un-
der similar conditions."
). The variance granted clearly conferred on the app1icantpri-
vi1eges not enjoyed by other subdividers in the city since they
have been required to put in improvements under similar conditions
LC- ~..'-' v r - ~ "-'''-'"' -v -. --'\.. /
(meaning subdiv__ion and/or resubdivision). Other subdividers
.
and resubdividers have been required to install the improvements
outlined in our zoning regulations. This lot split does come
under either Chapter 14 or Chapter 44 under ~he definitions of
"resubdivision" therein. In the absence of adequate local ad-
vice we obtained the definition of 'resubdivision' from Semincle
County Zoning Regulations adopted 8/17/76: IIResubdivision: A
change in a map of an approved or recorded subdivision plat if
such change effects any street layout or such layout or area
reserved thereon for public use, or any lot line; or if it ef-
fects any map or plan legally recorded prior to the adoption of
any regulations controlling subdivisions."
, -
4. Should the board claim it granted the variance under Chap.
14 then they further violated Sec. 14-4, specifically that por-
tion of (c) It/hich states: liThe board of adjustment shall fur-
ther make a finding that the reasons set fo~th in the applica-
tion justify the granting of the variance that would make poss-
ible the reasonable use of the lands, buildings or other improve-
ments.1I 'Reasonable usel of Lot 9, characteristics allo\>:ing con-
struction of a house, has always existed.
5. Since the board stated that the resulting two lots would
meet zoning requirements in Chap. 44, that they did not have to
establish 'hardship', and since the city attorney stated the lot
did not come under subdivisipn provisions in Chap. 14, and, fur-
ther, since the published request was for a variance from Sec.
44.27(6) and since Sec. 44.21 provides for board of adjustment
authority, perhaps the variance was granted under Chap. 44, in
which case it would come under the definitions in that chapte~
44.24(58)"Subdivision: For the purpose of th~,,, regulations, a
subdivision of land is either:
(1) The platted division of land comprising one acre or more
in area, into lots, sites or parcels; (or)
(3) The resubdivision of land of one acre or more in area
heretofore divided or platted into lots, sites or parcels.ll
(Hote that there is !!2. minimum number of lots stated.)
Under either Chap. 14 or 44 the board lacked adequate authority
to grant such a variance and we request the city council over-
/--;) ..... ~
turn it on the above information. ,~/. // / 7 /J2, /' -
~ ')~CJ/'-t?v-t-Ct ,_ (/~ /~'t/~
Y L v
,./.,/1/11/ (~/(/ /-/' ~.
, . , :1 l-v r / .' - .' L '-- ( -
;;lt1:~A~ ~.. L)~~~~~~t~.~~~~___