Loading...
10-25-82 v MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS OCTOBER 25, 1982 7:00 PM CITY HALL PRESENT: L. B. MacDonnell, Chairman C. T. Tinsley, Secretary George Bull, Jr. Dorothy Kerber Frank J. Tassone AND: A. William Moss, City Manager AND: Don MacLean Sydney MacLean Wesley R. Wilson ABSENT: Mary L. Dombrowski, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order at 7:05 PM by Chairman MacDonnell, who called for a motion to approve the minutes of the last meeting dated April 19, 1982. Mr. Bull motioned to approve the minutes, which Mrs. Kerber seconded. The minutes were approved unanimously. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Tinsley inquired about Mr. Spain, who had put up a fence with no permit. (Last meeting April 19, 1982, Item P2) It was requested at that time that the City Attorney advise us as to whether or not the board had the authority to forgive this misdemeanor. Mr. Tinsley's intention was not to penalize or harm Mr. Spain, but rather to have this information for the board. Mr. Moss replied, that if he understood the question, it is whether or not a person has, in fact, committed a misdemeanor by doing something contrary to the zoning ordinance, can he be forgiven by the Board's official action. The answer in essentially "Yes", he can. By hearing a case of something that has already occurred, and if a misdemeanor citation has not been issued prior to the Board's meeting, then the Board, by Nearing the case and ruling in favor of the applicant, in fact saying: "Well, you did it wrong, but we agree that there are reasons for it, and you're (the board) telling the administration that if we have not issued a citation,• then we (the City) don't need to at that point, and that it no longer violates the zoning ordinance." Mr. Tinsley stated that was fine. Then the board was relieved then of the respon- sibility of possibly having done somethingwehad no authority to do. * * 1 1 i .L 1 *, is * The next item discussed under old business was the deck that was started at the house on Sixth Street and Ocean Boulevard, and was stopped by the former City Manager, Mr. Bill Davis. Mr. Bull wasn't sure whether it violated the Sixth Street setback line, however, it remains as is. Mr. Bull wanted to know the disposition of the case; whether or not it had come before the Board of Adjustments, and if so, was it denied. It has remained in that condition for approximately tip years now. Mr. Moss responded that the board hasn' t acted on the matter to his knowledge, nor has the owner taken down what was partially constructed, or completed what he did construct. Mrs. Kerber remarked that she believed Mr. Davis had issued a stop work order and had informed the owner that what had been constructed would have to be torn down. To her knowledge, Mr. Davis had never followed up on that matter. Mr. Bull suggested that this matter was something that they might want to look into further. y J. -3- 1 1 1 _l. S. 1 1 1 Page 2 , Boa'rd of Adjustment October 25, 1982 There being no further old business, the chair directed the board's attention to the first item on the agenda: Lot 718, Saltair Section 3, undeveloped lot at the corner (SE) of Sylvan Drive and David Street. Petition brought forth by Mr. Bob Retherford on behalf of the MacLean Company of Jacksonville. Messers Sydnay and Don MacLean, principals. This petition was presented by Mr. Don MacLean, Secretary-Treasurer for the MacLean Company. Basically, Lot 718 is a 50' corner lot, which the new zoning ordinance requir be treated as having two 20' front setbacks on those lot lines that abutt streets, leaving a 25' building area. This lot is zoned duplex (RG-1) . Mr. MacLean would prefer to have a 10' setback on the property line on the north side (fronting on David Street) , which is the long way of the lot. Also, a 5' setback on the south side (interior side lot line) , which will give us a 35' building area. This particular lot has unique circumstances in that both Sylvan Drive and Davis Street are dead end streets. Insofar as obstruction of view on the corner is concerned, the only traffic which would be there is that which is generated from Lot 718 or the' adjacent lot on David Street. We've spoken with Mr. Dancer, the developer of the adjacent lot , who agrees with our request. Mr. Dancer would prefer to have any development not as close as would be allowed with the new zoning. We would like to accomodate a 35' wide buildi with the 44'8" long oriented west towards Sylvan Drive. A lengthy discussion followed concerning the side lot lines; what was considered the rear yard under the old zoning; the specific setbacks Mr. MacLean was requesting; the placement of the required off-street parking behind the building restriction line; the density of lot coverage. The chair called for any comments in opposition to this variance request. Mrs. Kerber remarked that it appears that there would be very heavy density in that area. Mr. Bull felt that the new ordinance was more lenient as far a buildable area, and that this case would not fall under a hardship condition. Both Mr. Bull and Mrs. Kerber were opposed to granting the variance. Discussion followed regarding specific setbacks under the old zoning ordinance as opposed to the new zoning ordinance. Mr. Moss remarked that this concern was under discussion with the Advisory Planning Board at this time to determine whether or not the ordinance should be changed. Mr. Bull felt that if Mr. MacLean were asking for a minor variance, he would be incline to approve, however, what is requested is a major restructuring, which is contrary to what the ordinance is trying to accomplish. Mr. MacLean replied that the unique circumstances of his lot regarding the two dead end streets should be considered. Mr. Bull responded that although the traffic flow is admittedly limited, there is still a potential hazard. Mr. Tassone stated that, in his opinion, the board would be in error to grant this variance from compliance with the present ordinance. The chair called for a motion. Mr. Tassone made the motion that due to the circumstanc and due to the fact that we do have a new ordinance, that regrettably, we'll have to deny the variance. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion. The chair commented that, before the board votes, perhaps Mr. MacLean would consider a lesser variance, since it didn't appear that anyone on the board approved of the 12' Page 3 Board of Adjustment October 25, 1982 instead of the 20' . Perhaps a 15' would be more acceptable instead of the 12' . Mr. Tassone questioned Mr. Moss about the Advisory Planning Board's consideration of this matter. Mr. Moss replied that the Planning Board had asked us to bring forth a recommendation as to whether the ordinance should be changed. Mr. Tassone questioned who the recommendation was to come from. Mr. Moss replied the staff. In light of that, Mr. Tassone suggested that perhaps it might be better for Mr. MacLean to withdraw their application and resubmit it later. Mr. Tassone verified with the chair that should this request be denied, they would have to wait another year before they could bring it up again. The chair confirmed one year before resubmittal. In lieu of the Advisory Planning Board considering this matter, the MacLean's decided to withdraw their petition. The chair called for a motion for this petition to be withdrawn. Mr. Tassone motioned that the petition be withdrawn, which Mr. Tinsley seconded. The chair thanked Messers. MacLean for their patience. * * * * * * * * * The chair directed the board's attention to the second item on the agenda: Lot 700, Saltair Section 3, undeveloped lot on the corner (SW) of Sylvan Drive and David Street. Petition brought forth by Mr. Wesley R. Wilson, owner of the property. Both Mr. & Mrs. Wilson presented the petition, with Mrs. Wilson providing the back- ground concerning their construction plans and the hardship incurred by the new zoning ordinance. Mr. Bull took the change in zoning into consideration when he reviewed their petition and discussed the matter with Mrs. Dombrowski to verify their contact prior to the adoption of the new zoning ordinance. Mr. Bull pointed out that Mr. Wilson's project doesn't even comply with the old zoning. Mr. Wilson replied that he apparently misinterpreted the old ordinance. Perhaps, Mr. Bull suggested, Mr. Wilson was confusing the old ordinance with the new ordinance, and asked if Mr. Wilson had had an opportunity to review the text of the ordinance. Mr. Wilson replied that he had not reviewed the text of the ordinance. A discussion followed on the precise measurements envolved in Mr. Wilson's variance request. Mr. Tinsley remarked that it would be a 4 1/3' variance involved. Mr. Tassone felt that Mr. Wilson's petition was a different set of circumstances, with hardship involved, and only a 4 1/3' variance requested. Mr. Tassone thought there was some logic involved concerning the two (2) dead end streets. Mr. Tassone was inclined to grant Mr. Wilson the requested variance, stating that the visual barrier was of secondary importance considering the lack of traffic, which would apply to the other lot also. Discussion followed on the specifics which would have to be stipulated in order for the board to act on this petition. To front the house on David Street, and not allow any projections to come within 5' of the side property line, 15.67' from the front property line. Mr. Bull cautioned Mr. Wilson to remember that when he resubmitts his plans that the parking spaces have to be behind the setback lines from the street. All other setbacks to be maintained. The chair indicated that he would entertain a motionpto grant Mr. Wilson a variance facing his building on David Avenue, no closer than 15.67' from the David Avenue prcperty line, which would involve his reorienting his building and having his require parking spaces approved by the City Building & Zoning Department. Mr. Bull requested that the chair add to the motion as follows: That all other setback requirementsbe maintained. (5 & 20' ) . The chair agreed to the addition. _Mr. Bull so_--roved, which Page 4 BQa,►d of Adjustments October 25, 1982 Mr. Tassone seconded. The motion to grant the designated variance was approved unanimously. There being no further business before the board, the chair declared the meeting ajourned. C. T. Tinsley - Sec4tary t r