Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11-08-2004City of Cape Canaveral Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 8, 2004 A Meeting of the City of Cape Canaveral Board of Adjustment was held on November 8, - 2004 at the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Chairperson Rigerman called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. The Board Secretary called the roll. A moment of silence was observed in memory of Board Member Ronnie Farmer, who passed away since the last meeting. MEMBERS PRESENT Marilyn Rigerman Robert Laws Connie McKone Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Earl McMillin Vice Chairperson OTHERS PRESENT Susan Chapman Todd Peetz Jeff Buak Bea McNeely Leo Nicholas Todd Morley Duree Alexander Board Secretary City Planner Assistant City Attorney Ex- Officio Member Planning & Zoning Board Member Building Official Code Enforcement Officer All persons giving testimony were sworn in by Jeff Buak, Assistant to the City Attorney. Chairperson Rigerman congratulated Paula Collins for being appointed as a regular member to the Board. NEW BUSINESS Motion to Approve the Meeting Minutes of April 12 2004 Motion by Mr. Laws, seconded by Ms. Collins to approve the meeting minutes of April 12, 2004. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 8, 2004 Page 2 2. Motion Re: Time Extension for Special Exception No 03 -02 - Portside Villas - Richard Biery, V.P., Larcon Corporation. Chairperson Rigerman noted that Portside Villas was currently under construction. Motion by Mr. Laws, seconded by Ms. McKone to grant the time extension request for 12 months. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 3. Recommendation to Board of Adjustments Re: Variance Request No 04 -02 to Allow an Existing Pool Screen Enclosure to Remain in the Required 8 ft Side Setback by 3.61 ft. on the East Side Section 14 Township 24 South Range 37 East, Lot 4_(306 Lindsey Court) Atlantis Subdivision - Ronald and Patricia Scott Ms. McKone advised that she was one of the owners notified by mail of the request. Mr. Scott, Petitioner requested the Board to allow the pool enclosure. He testified that he had the support of all his neighbors; the townhouse was constructed in 1990; the pool was built in 1999; he and his wife purchased the house in December 7, 2001; they had purchased the house because of the Blue Marlin pool; they signed a contract with affordable screening in March, 2002; they understood that the contractor had received verbal approval from the building department for the enclosure in April, 2002; in April, 2004, they received a letter from the Building department advising that their permit had expired; they met with the Building department and learned that the enclosure did not meet the side setback requirement; they had another survey company perform a new survey in May, 2004 and verified that the screen enclosure was off 3.61 ft. in the required setback; the Building Official suggested that they apply for a Variance; costs incurred for this request has exceeded $1,600; the enclosure provides a double safety barrier from the children in the neighborhood; moving the enclosure would create a hardship on his family due to health conditions of his wife and her sister. Mr. Scott submitted photographs of the enclosure. Code Enforcement Officer, Duree Alexander gave an overview of the history of the request, including timelines, and exhibits. She voiced her opinion that this request was a result of a lot of confusion between staff and the screen enclosure company. Discussion followed. Building Official, Todd Morley testified that when someone applies for a pool permit, the applicant is required to also apply for a pool barrier permit at the same time; the contractor relied on verbal approvals even though they knew that the permit was not issued at the time they installed the enclosure. He advised that permits must be posted on -site during the entire time of construction and must be made available at time of inspection. He explained that plan reviews are normally performed within one -month from the time the permit application is received; the review comments are normally faxed to the contractor or the contractor is notified by phone. Mr. Morley advised that he supported the Variance request, which would not set a precedence. He voiced his opinion that this request is a result of an unfortunate event of circumstances. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 8, 2004 Page 3 Carol Oates, Representative for Affordable Screening, testified that she was involved in the permitting process; she had prepared the permit application; several attempts were made over a years' time to obtain the permit, but no one clarified exactly what information was needed for the permit; the submitted survey showed the pool and a drawing showed where the pool enclosure would be located; the contractor understood that they did not have a permit, but the Building Official had assured them that they would have a permit. Chairperson Rigerman pointed -out that no dimensions were shown on the survey as to the placement of the enclosure. Mrs. Scott testified that Affordable Screening was recommended by Blue Marlin Pools; they were told by Blue Marlin Pool Company that t he footing were already in place for aTT enctos - ure; she tol - Affordable Screening that she &d not tffe — work war - - -- after the permit was approved; they were told by Affordable Screening that the permit was issued; it took the contractor one day to install the enclosure; she was told by Tom Bubb of the Building Department and Affordable Screening that the setback was only 5 ft.; and they did not know that the permit was not issued at the time of installation. Mr. Lavoie, 308 Lindsey Court advised that he wrote a letter to the City stating he is in favor of the screen enclosure because it gives a second safety barrier for his 8 year old son and the other children in the neighborhood. Following discussion, Assistant City Attorney, Jeff Buak advised that this is a unique and peculiar request with special conditions surrounding this case. He agreed that there would be no precedence set with approval of the Variance; and the City Attorney's office supports the recommendations of the Planning & Zoning Board. He explained that if the Board denied the request, the structure would need to be reconstructed, creating further financial hardship on the property owner, along with life and safety hazards that the screen enclosure now protects. He explained that this hardship is not self- imposed by the property owners, because they believed a permit had been issued; and there is testimony that supports unfortunate circumstances that were created by others. The Board members reviewed the city code criteria for considering a variance, and the recommendations of the Planning & Zoning Board. Bea McNeely, Chairperson of the Planning & Zoning Board verified that the Board of Adjustment heard the exact same testimony as the Planning & Zoning Board. Brief discussion followed. Motion by Mr. Laws, seconded by Ms. McKone to Approve Variance Request 04 -02 according to the recommendations of the Planning & Zoning Board as follows: • The applicant acted in good faith that the contractor had a building permit. The contractor repeatedly asked for the building permit and the Building department assured the contractor that the building permit would be issued. The contractor proceeded to build in good faith thinking the building permit would be forthcoming, although it was never issued. • The Building code would require removal of the enclosure. Other landowners would not be wronged or effected because this applicant relied on a contractor who also relied /acted on Building department assurances. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 8, 2004 Page 4 • Circumstances did not result from actions of the property owner. • The applicants petition addresses a grievance caused by miscommunications between the contractor and Building department. Other property owners were not faced with this set of circumstances and, therefore, no special privilege is conferred upon the applicant of the Variance. The property owner had no knowledge of the code violation. • Reasons set forth justify the variance is the minimum possible encroachment, which leaves the structure useable. • Lea the structure una w bet ter serve the nei unaltered and thus presents a more compatible appearance. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. 4. Special Exception Request No. 04 -03 to Allow Rental Sales and Outside Display of Scooters, (6103 N. Atlantic Avenue Suite F) - Section 26 Township 24 South, Range 37 East parcels 22 & 23 Banana River Estates Subdivision Norman Weaver, Designated Agent Norman Weaver, owner of Beachside Scooters testified that his business was located next to the new ReMax real estate office at the Coral Shoppes. He explained that the scooters are moped type, and run on gasoline; he was requesting a special exception to display the scooters outside on only one parking space, and to rent scooters. Todd Peetz, City Planner clarified that the code requires a special exception for both uses. The Board members reviewed the exhibits. Discussion followed regarding the number of parking spaces. Mr. Peetz, City Planner advised that the Planning & Zoning Board would be entertaining an ordinance at the next meeting regarding Section 110 -566 to accurately reflect small motor vehicles. Chairperson Rigerman advised that the applicant will need a notarized consent from the property owner to the applicant to request the Special Exception. Assistant City Attorney, Jeff Buak suggested that the Board consider tabling the portion of the request regarding scooter rentals until after the adoption of the ordinance. The Board members reviewed the criteria worksheet and noted that the special exception would run with the use. Motion by Ms. Rigerman, seconded by Mr. Laws to approve Special Exception Request No. 04 -03 for scooter sales and outside display, with the condition that the City receive a Power of Attorney giving the notarized consent from the property owner to the applicant to request the Special Exception. The request for the rental of the scooters is postponed until City Council amends Section 110 -566 of the City Code of Ordinances. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 8, 2004 Page 5 There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m. Approved this ¢ day of " , 2004. � ��.. _., . Marilyn RigermanI Cha rperson � Susan Chapman, Board Secretary