Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12-02-2003 City of Cape Canaveral 1 Construction Board of Adjustment and Appeals Meeting Minutes December 2, 2003 A Meeting of the City of Cape Canaveral Board of Adjustment was held on December 2, 2003 at the City Hall Annex, 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Chairperson Rigerman called the meeting to Order at 2:00 P.M. The Board Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Quinn Chairperson Randall Byrd Vice Chairperson Norm Boucher OTHERS PRESENT: Jeffrey Buak Assistant City Attorney Todd Morley Building Official Susan Chapman Board Secretary All persons giving testimony were sworn in by Assistant City Attorney, Jeffrey Buak. NEW BUSINESS 1. Motion to Approve the Meeting Minutes of May 8, 1997. Motion by Mr. Boucher, seconded by Mr. Byrd to approve the meeting minutes of May 8, 1997. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. The Assistant City Attorney gave an overview of the required procedures regarding this request. Mr. Buak swore-in all persons giving testimony. 2. Administrative Appeal of the Building Official's Decision Relating to the Denial of the Issuance of a After-the-Fact Building Permit for the Construction of a Deck located at (8517 Canaveral Boulevard) - James and Sandi Adams, Petitioners. Mr. Todd Morley, Building Official, testified that this is not a zoning code matter but an issue of the Florida Building Code (FBC). He explained that an application was received approximately six weeks prior to this meeting to erect a two story wood deck structure; the plans reviewer had rejected the application because the structure is built as an extension of the townhome; on one side the structure is built up to the zero lot line and within three feet from the property line on the other side; the building is a townhouse and according to the FBC each townhouse unit shall be considered a separate building and shall be separated from adjoining townhouses by a party wall or by the use of separate exterior walls meeting the requirements of Table 600 of the FBC. Mr. Morley read the requirements and options. He explained that it is his professional opinion that this deck is a combustible projection of the townhome. He clarified that it could catch on fire. He explained that according to FBC clearly states that the fire wall shall extend not less than 18 inches past where it intersects or past the exterior projection. He further testified that he had explained to Mr. Adams the requirement to install a two-hour fire wall that extends past the deck. Mr. Adams responded that his neighbor did not want him to do that. They had discussed the codes and setback requirements. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes December 2, 2003 Page 2 Mr. Morley further testified that he advised Mr. Adams that another option was to treat the structure with a product that would make it non-combustible. Mr. Adams brought a product forward that would make the deck non-flammable but the manufacturer would not provide information to verify that the deck would be permanently non-combustible. Mr. Adams had advised that if he used the product he would need to retreat the deck with every couple of years. Mr. Morley stated that he did not believe this method would meet the intent of the code. He advised that another option was stated on Table 600 FBC, fire resistance rating and requirements of walls as they relate to property lines. Mr. Morley read from Table 600 FBC. He explained that if a structure is over three feet from the property line then it is not required to be built of non-combustible materials. He advised that another option would be to modify the deck to keep it a minimum of three feet from each property line. Mr. and Mrs. Adams, property owners, testified that they did not start building the deck without first speaking with the Building department. They were told by Building I Inspector, Tom Bubb, that the property had a zero setback and could build from fence to fence; he also told them they needed to obtain engineered drawings for proper construction; they paid to have an engineer to make their deck plans; they found out the rules before construction began and they followed them accept for obtaining a building I permit; the rules had been changed on them from the time they had spoke with Tom Bubb. Mr. Morley's opinion differed from Mr. Bubb; Mr. Morley states (and she quoted) "the deck is an extension of the townhome and needs to be separated from adjoining townhomes"; Mr. Morley has come to the conclusion that the deck is an extension of their townhome; he is wrong and basing their permit denial on his misguided opinion. Mrs. Adams stated that she prays that common sense prevails and that the Board realizes this error. She advised that their deck is an add-on structure just like their neighbor's screen porches and other neighbor's one-story deck. She further advised that in Mr. Morley's own words speak as to why his argument makes no sense. She referred the Board members to their permit application under comments, that Mr. Morley wrote in with his own words "Florida Building Code requires townhomes to be constructed with a two-hour fire wall." Mrs. Adams testified that this means when the building was constructed, not when adding onto an existing structure. She questioned why her neighbors were not required to have a fire wall on their screen porches and other structures throughout the city. She questioned Mr. Morley's interpretation. Mrs. Adams read letters from her architect and the Cape Canaveral Fire Chief. Mrs. Adams advised that fire walls would block each side view of their townhome. She clarified that their deck is not an extension of their townhome and they should be allowed issued the deck permit. They believed that they were in compliance with all applicable ordinances, codes and are doing nothing wrong. She stated that her deck is no different than screen porches or any other deck on any other townhomes throughout the city. She believed that this is an injustice. Discussion followed. j i i 1 Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes s December 2, 2003 Page 3 j The Board members reviewed the engineered drawings that they paid for. Mr. and Mrs. Adams testified that they did not intend to have a door on the 2nd floor onto the deck; the only access to the deck is from the stairs on the outside; they were not going to enclose the downstairs of the deck; they were not going to put a roof over the deck; they knew they needed a permit but did not obtain one; there was not three feet on either side of the deck to move it away from the property lines. Mrs. Adams verified that this deck is not part of the townhome, it is not an addition or extension, or an accessory use to the townhome and therefore the code should not apply. Discussion was held regarding fire walls and townhomes. Mr. Morley verified that he did not research or review the original construction plans of the townhome. Board members Mr. Quinn and Mr. Byrd explained to Mr. and Mrs. Adams how they could modify the deck to meet the setback requirements. Mr. and Mrs. Adams stated that they did not understand why they were being required to modify their deck when their neighbors had screen rooms on either side of them which were not being required to be modified to Ii meet code. Discussion continued. Mr. Boucher pointed out that this townhome was the only one that had a deck. Mr. Boucher voiced his opinion that the deck was not aesthetically in harmony with the neighboring townhomes. Assistant City Attorney Buak advised that the only issue for the Board to consider was whether or not the Building 1 Official has misconstrued the interpretation of the current Florida Building Code as it relates to the requirement for the party wall. Discussion continued. Mr. Byrd clarified that this deck is attached to the side of the townhome and adjoins the property line because the owner shares a common wall and fence with the neighbors. Mr. Adams verified that he did not receive anything from Mr. Tom Bubb in writing. Motion by Mr. Byrd, seconded by Mr. Quinn to agree with the interpretation of the Building Official. Vote on the motion was as follows: Mr. Boucher, against; Mr. Byrd, against; and Mr. Quinn, against. Motion failed. Mr. Byrd suggested that the property owners submit to the Building department a set of drawings with a building permit application for review by the Building department. He advised that at this time the deck is considered a code violation. Mrs. Adams stated for the record that the drawings were turned in with an application after-the-fact and the permit was denied on a totally different ordinance. Motion by Mr. Byrd, seconded by Mr. Boucher to find the interpretation of the Building Official to be correct and the Board denies the Appeal. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. I There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:57 p.m. Approved this day of , 20 I I 1 Thomas Quinn, Chairperson j I Susan Chapman, Board Secretary