Loading...
2004-03-16 (meeting minutes) v MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD March 16, 2004 A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was held on Tuesday, March 16, 2004, 2004, in the City Hall Commission Chambers. Present were Vice-Chair Mary Walker, Lynn Drysdale, Sam Jacobson, Steve Jenkins, Community Development Director Sonya Doerr and Recording Secretary Susan Dunham. Absent were Craig Burkhart, Robert Frohwein and Carolyn Woods. 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. The meeting was called to order at 7:20 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of the meeting of February 24, 2004 and minutes of the workshop of February 03, 2004. A motion was made by Mr. Jenkins, seconded by Ms. Drysdale, and unanimously '` carried to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 24, 2004. Ms. Doerr advised that she had some corrections to make to the February 3, 2004 workshop minutes, which she would bring to the next meeting. 3. Recognition of Visitors. None. 4. Old Business. None. 5. New Business. a. ZVAR-2004-03, Thomas Mylod. Request for a Variance from Section 24-105 (e) (2) and (3) to reduce the rear yard setback from 20-feet to 7-feet and also to reduce the side yard to less than the 5-foot minimum and less than the required combined 15-feet to provide a 4-foot setback on the north the side of the lot, and a combined 11-foot, three- inch setback to allow for an addition to the rear of an existing town-home on property within the RS-2 Zoning District, and located at 187 Sylvan Drive. Mr. Thomas Mylod introduced himself and stated that he reduced the size of the room and, therefore, reduced his request from a 7-foot setback to an 11-foot setback. He advised that he would like to add a 14-foot x 12-foot sunroom, which would be a little bigger than the existing wood deck. He further advised that he would not be changing the setback on the side, just the rear. Mrs.Walker asked Mr. Mylod to state the reason for the variance request. Mr. Mylod responded that he would like to expand the living room. Minutes of the March 16, 2004 meeting of the Community Development Board "' Ms. Drysdale asked the applicant if he would be extending the wooden deck as well as incorporating ceilings and walls. Mr. Mylod advised that he would be tearing up the deck and laying a foundation, adding a roof with shingles and fully glassed-in windows. Ms. Drysdale stated that, in effect, he was adding an additional room. Mr. Mylod responded yes. Mr. Jacobson advised the applicant that the City Commission had created an ordinance that the Board was required to follow. He stated that to grant a variance, they would need to have a specific reason and the fact that it would be nice to have a sunroom or add onto the house was not an adequate reason. Mr. Mylod stated that the reason he needed a variance was due to the configuration of the lot and the house being situated so far back on the lot. He stated that he could not expand in the front because that would offset the architectural look of his neighbor and the neighborhood combined. Mrs. Walker read Section 24-64, Grounds for Approval of a Variance. Mr. Mylod stated that this was a substandard lot in that it was 25 feet x 100 feet. A motion was made by Ms. Drysdale to deny the variance request. Ms. Drysdale stated that the grounds for approval had not been met. Specifically, she advised that she did not believe that the exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property had been substantiated and believed that the nature of the variance requested was a substantial encroachment into the rear setback. Mr. Jacobson seconded the motion. Mrs. Walker asked Ms. Doerr if this property was a substandard lot? Ms. Doerr responded that it was not. Mr. Mylod owns half of the lot, but that the lot was a typical 50-foot x 100- foot lot and that it is a platted lot of record. The vote was called and the motion to deny the requested variance passed by unanimous approval. b. ZVAR-2004-04, Fred Bender. Request for a Variance from Section 24-105 (e) (2) to reduce the rear yard setback from 20-feet to 9-feet and also to reduce the 15-foot street side setback on a corner lot to 5-feet to allow for asecond-story addition over an existing attached garage on anon-conforming structure within the RS-2 Zoning District, and located at 1098 Beach Avenue. Mr. Fred Bender introduced himself. Mr. Bender advised that the requested addition would be built above the garage and would not change the footprint or add to the lot coverage. In response to questions from Mrs. Walker, Ms. Doerr advised that the rear yard was 10 feet 6 inches according to the survey and the side yard was about 5 feet. Mrs. Walker stated that this was anon-conforming building, which was the reason a variance was required. 2 Minutes of the March 16, 2004 meeting of the Community Development Board ,"'"""` Mr. Jacobson asked Mr. Bender what he planned on putting in the addition. Mr. Bender responded that he planned on using it as a studio and, in the future, it could be used as an in- law room. In response to a question from Ms. Drysdale, Mr. Bender advised that he imagined the height of the proposed addition would be 20 feet and would be compazable to the existing roofline. Mrs. Walker asked Mr. Bender for clarification as to grounds for approval of the variance. Mr. Bender responded that he was not sure of the true interpretation for grounds for approval. He stated that he was just trying to build up, which he has seen done throughout their neighborhood. Mr. Jenkins stated that the existing garage was non-conforming, so that if Mr. Bender were required to start aver, the Board would not be able to assist him in building the garage again. He stated that Mr. Bender was asking the Board to approve an increase to what already exceeds what is now permitted. Mr. Jenkins informed Mr. Bender that adding onto or facilitating further non-conformance was not within the Board's discretion unless there were circumstances beyond Mr. Bender's control. In response to a question from Mr. Bender, Ms. Doerr advised that he could have an open deck with a roof on it extending four feet beyond the setbacks but it could not be enclosed. Mr. Bab Hamil of 160 11~' Street introduced himself. Mr. Hamil stated that Mr. Bender was not trying to extend the footprint, and he would not have any trouble with the addition. He stated that Mr. Bender did everything in a first class manner and he thought it would be a great addition to Mr. Bender's property. Mr. Hamil also noted that the garage apartments that had been remodeled on Beach Avenue were not within the standard setbacks. Ms. Doerr responded that garage apartments could be built 5 feet from the property line until 3anuary 1, 2002, at which time they were required to adhere to a 20-foot setback. She further stated that existing detached garage apartments were allowed to be remodeled: 1 } as long as they did not build more than 25 feet in height; and 2) provided they stay within the existing footprint. Ms. Doerr advised that due to the length of construction time and coastal permitting, there still might be a few garage apartments being built that were vested under that 5-foot setback. Mr. Jacobson stated that the existence of other violations could not be considered by the Board. A motion was made by Mr. Jacobson to approve the variance request. Mr. Jacobson stated that given the footprint that was already there, the fact that the Benders were dealing with a structure built in the 1920s; he thought they were dealing with a "rough hand". He stated that denying the variance request would penalize and deprive the Benders. Ms. Drysdale informed the applicant that if the Board moved forward and denied the variance request, he could not bring this matter to the Board for one year; however, if he ~.... withdrew, he could bring this item back to the Boazd with another request. The motion to approve died for a lack of a second, 3 • Minutes of the March 16, 2004 meeting of the Community Development Board Mr. Bender stated that to modify the addition to be 25 percent of the footprint to fit into the law was a half dream and it would look like it was a second thought. Ms. Doerr advised Mr. Bender that, since not all members of the Board were not present, if he would like, he could request a continuance to the next meeting. Mr. Bender advised that he would like to continue the matter. The item was continued to the April meeting. c. ZVAR-2004-05, Joseph Speckman. Request for a Variance from Section 24-105 (e) (2) to reduce the rear yard setback from 20-feet to 15-feet to allow for an addition to the rear of an ezisting single-family residence within the RS-2 Zoning District, and located at 501 Seaspray Avenue. Mr. Joseph Speckman introduced himself and stated that he would like to add a garage workshop to the back of the house. He said that he had a 15-foot setback on the corner lot that disallowed him to bring the garage forward so he had no choice but to build to the back of the lot. Mr. Speckman stated that he had letters from his neighbors and they had no objections to his plans to add the garage. Mrs. Walker asked Mr. Speckman to inform the Board of the reason for the variance request. Mr. Speckman responded that this was a substandard size corner lot and, therefore, he was not able to build forward to add the garage to the front of the house facing Seaspray. He also stated that the way the house was situated on the lot did not give him many options to expand. Mrs. Walker advised that the structure was non-conforming because there was a less than 20- foot setback on the Seminole Road side. Mr. Speckman responded that he added on that structure 20 years ago and it had originally been a deck. Mr. Jacobson asked Mr. Speckman what the distance would be from the garage to the western side. Mr. Speckman responded that it would be 15 feet. Mr. Jacobson asked how wide the garage would be. Mr. Speckman responded that he believed it would be 18 feet. Mrs. Walker asked Mr. Speckman if he could fit the garage into the 13 feet. She stated that this was anon-conforming structure unless a variance had been granted. Ms. Doerr responded that she could not find reference to a variance. In response to a question from the Board, Ms. Doerr advised that a carport was treated the same as a garage and must meet the setbacks. She stated that a smaller garage addition would be okay if it met the setbacks. Ms. Doerr stated that she could give Mr. Speckman one-foot. Mr. Jacobson advised Mr. Speckman that he could build a 14-foot garage and he could pour a car pad or a permeable car pad without the Board's approval. Ms. Doerr advised that Mr. Speckman must maintain 15 feet on the Seaspray side. A motion was made by Ms. Drysdale, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, and unanimously carried to deny the request for variance because there were alternative uses of the property and, therefore, the request did not meet the qualifications. 4 Minutes of the March 16, 2004 meeting of the Community Development Board 7. Other Business Ms. Doerr advised that the Atlantic Beach Yacht Club had asked for a deferral to a later date. She stated that they would be providing changes to the application and, if the nature of the project was changed or the changes were substantive, it would come back to the Board. 8. Adjournment. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Q~~L_ ~~ 5