Loading...
2004-09-21 (meeting minutes) vMinutes of the September 21, 2004 meeting of the Community Development Board. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD September 21, 2004 A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was held on Tuesday, September 21, 2004, in the City Hall Commission Chambers. Present were Lynn Drysdale, Robert Frohwein, Sam Jacobson, Carolyn Woods, Craig Burkhart, and David MacInnes, Community Development Director Sonya Doerr and Recording Secretary Amber Lehman. Steve Jenkins was absent. 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. The meeting was called to order at 7: 00 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Meeting of August 17, 2004. Mr. Frohwein stated that there were names that were incorrect and some language that needed to be corrected in the minutes. Craig Burkhart made a motion to approve the minutes of August 17, 2004 with changes, seconded by Lynn Drysdale, motion unanimously carried. 3. Recognition of Visitors. None. 4. Old Business. a. ZVAR-2004-09, Bajagilovic. Request for a Variance from Section 24-105 (e)(2} to reduce the rear yard setback from 20-feet to 10-feet to allow for a screened porch addition (with a solid roof) to the rear of an existing single-family residence within the RS-2 Zoning District, and located at 1011 Jasmine Street. Eddy Bajagilovic, 1011 Jasmine Street, speaking for Mr. Bajagilovic, requested that the Board approve variance request to reduce the yard setback from 20-feet to 10-feet to allow a screened porch to be built because his mother is very sick. Mr. Frohwein reported to Eddy Bajagilovic that the City Commission instructs the Community Development Board to grant variances only under specific guidelines. Mr. Frohwein asked Eddy Bajagilovic to identify which guideline supports this request for a variance. Carolyn Woods asked Mr. Bajagilovic when the home was purchased. He replied in September of 1999. Ms. Woods comments that the rear setbacks have always been 20 feet. In response to Ms. Woods, Craig Burkhart reported that he did not feel Mr. Bajogilovic's request for a variance qualified under condition #4, since the 20-foot rear yard setback was in effect at the time this lot was platted. A motion to deny the request for a variance was made by Craig Burkhart; seconded by David MacInnes; motion unanimously carried. Page 1 of 3 Minutes of the September 21, 2004 meeting of the Community Development Board. b. ZVAR-2004-10, Fiore. Request for a Variance from Section 24-151 (b) (1) (ix) to allow an existing storage shed to remain in its current location at 1-foot, 8 inches from the side lot line and 3-feet, 6 inches from the rear lot line for property within the RS-1 Zoning District, and located at 412 Whiting Lane. Mr. Fiore stated that the previous owner of the property would be bringing a survey that clearly shows the building on a survey that was completed when previous owner had addition put onto the house. Craig Burkhart asked Mr. Fiore about a letter that was written to the Community Development Board about the building. Mr. Frohwein replied that the letter was not to the CDB but to the City Commission. Mr. Fiore stated that if the building was moved and turned 90 degrees, so that it would clear the zoning setback of 5-feet and it might be 10-feet from rear edge of the property, but it would be very close to the house. Sonya Doerr reported that if building permits were issued for this building, then the building could be "grandfathered" in under current zoning laws. However, since there weren't any building permits issued the building, it is considered an illegal structure. Mr. Frohwein '' reported that an illegal building cannot be grandfathered in. Sonya Doerr stated that the building has existed for a number of years (since 1992). Jim Walls, 2526 Cortez Road (previous owner) stated that when he requested a building permit for an addition on house, a survey was completed with it clearly showing the shed. After the addition was completed, inspections were approved, and the City of Atlantic Beach never asked about the shed being illegal. Ms. Doerr responded that if the addition to the house, built at that time, met setbacks and codes, permits for the addition to the house would have been issued. A survey represents only a picture of what buildings are on a lot at the time of the survey and constitutes no permitting approval of those buildings. Carolyn Woods stated that Mr. Fiore should call insurance company because they issued title insurance without doing proper research for the property. Samuel Jacobson stated that he would be in favor of granting a variance for an accessory structure if Mr. Fiore agreed to rotate building and move it 7.5 feet from westerly property with it being one-foot from the house. Mr. Fiore stated that the building was 14.1-feet by 16.8-feet, which is about 235 square feet. Ms. Doerr replied that 235 square feet size exceeds the maximum permitted size of 150 square feet for an accessory storage structure. Ms. Doerr stated that until November of 2001, detached garages and storage buildings could be 5-feet from rear and side lot lines, and that these were probably the setbacks that applied when this shed was re-built, but since there were no permits issued, this cannot be verified for sure. Ms. Doerr noted that the storage structure does not meet even those earlier required setbacks. Page 2 of 3 Minutes of the November 16, 2004 workshop of the Community Development Board Mr. Ansbacher spoke briefly about the Bert Harris Act, the Special Master process and property rights laws. He explained that the Special Master process is available where property owners may feel they have been treated unfairly or deprived of their rights because of the denial of an application. The first phase of the Special Master process is to mediate; the second phase is to have an informal hearing to discuss finding of facts and to make a recommendation back to the local government. Mr. Frowhein asked whether anyone who had been denied a zoning related request has the right to go to a Special Master. Mr. Ansbacher replied yes. If the Special Master supports the denial, then the applicant may lose all together. However, if the Special Master recommends approval to the project with changes, the local government may then reconsider and either approve or deny the project based on the Special Master's recommendations. The workshop ended at 8:02 p.m. ,~ .% Signed ~f ~ , -`~Yt Attest 2