HomeMy WebLinkAboutUntitled (2)Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
December 7, 2009
Page 2
John Bond, Chairperson, read the agenda item for the record.
Barry Brown, Planning & Development Director, gave his staff report. He
advised that this was a request for variances as read by Chairperson Bond. The
surrounding zoning to the north, east, and south were R-2 residential, and to the
west C-1 commercial; surrounding uses to the north, east, and south were
residential and to the west LaVilla Apartments.
Mr. Brown advised that the Joneses purchased the townhome in June of 2008,
for weekend use. The townhome was constructed in 1983, and the pool was
constructed in 1986, without a screen enclosure. Members of their family are
highly allergic to mosquito bites. In addition, Cabbage Palms and a Banyan tree,
located adjacent to the pool, drop leaves, berries, and blooms into the pool
creating a maintenance issue. Therefore, the Joneses decided to have a screen
enclosure constructed over the pool. Earlier this year, they retained Coastal
Craftsman to construct the screen enclosure. Unfortunately, Coastal
Construction failed to obtain the required permit, resulting in the screen
enclosure being constructed illegally. The screen enclosure was not properly
engineered, and did not meet the city code for side and rear setbacks. The
Joneses did not realize that the enclosure was not properly permitted and that it
did not meet the code. When it was brought to their attention, they wanted to file
for the proper permits and follow the provisions of the city code. In evaluating_
their application for the screen enclosure, staff discovered that there were
several nonconformities with the recently construct screen enclosure, as well as
an existing privacy fence, shed, and pool pump.
The Board members viewed current photos and site plan of the property. Mr.
Brown depicted areas where the variances were being sought.
Mr. Brown explained that the current city code called for a 15 ft. side yard
setback for the pool, enclosure, and accessories. The pool was 15 ft. from the
side yard property line and met the current code. However, without a variance
the screen enclosure would have to be built on the lip of the pool, and one would
not be able to walk around the perimeter of the pool. In order to allow
reasonable use of the pool, the applicants were requesting a side setback of 10
ft. for the screen enclosure, rather the 15 ft.; the applicants were also requesting
a rear setback of 4 ft. rather than 5 ft. in order to keep the screen enclosure as
currently installed along the rear of the pool deck; the applicants were requesting
a fence setback of 9 ft. rather than 25 ft. to allow the 6 ft. high wooden stockade
privacy fence. In addition, the applicants were requesting a variance for the pool
equipment (accessories), a setback of 4 ft. 8 in. rather than 15 ft.; and finally they
were requesting a rear setback variance for the shed of 4 ft. rather than 5 ft.