2009-01-20_CDBminutes vMinutes of the January 20, 2009 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
-S =sL' 'r
. 'r .'
JS ~~ri1
s~
,~ a
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was convened at 6:00 pm on Tuesday,
January 20, 2009 in the City Hall Commission Chambers, located at 800 Seminole Road in
Atlantic Beach. In attendance were Community Development Director Sonya Doerr, Principal
Planner Erika Hall and Community Development Board members David Boyle, Ellen Glasser,
Kirk Hansen, and Chairman Chris Lambertson. Board member Lynn Drysdale arrived at
6:1 Opm, and Blaine Adams and Josh Putterman were absent.
1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Chris Lambertson called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Lambertson called for a motion to approve the
minutes of the December 16, 2009 regular meeting. Ellen Glasser said she had a comment
regarding, but not made, at the previous meeting. Mr. Lambertson explained that any
comment not previously made could not be considered a correction, but could be made now
and recorded in the minutes for tonight's meeting. Kirk Hansen moved that the Board
approve the minutes of the December 16, 2009 meeting, as written. Ms. Glasser
seconded the motion and it carried unanimously, 4-0. Ms. Glasser then added her
comment for tonights recorded, complimenting staff on their professionalism in the handling
of some difficult applications over the past few months, noting they should receive
recognition for all their hard work.
3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. There were no visitors present at the meeting.
4. OLD BUSINESS. There was no old business for consideration.
5. NEW BUSINESS.
a. ZVAR-2009-01, Pressley. Request for a Variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)x to
reduce the required ten (10) foot rear yard setback to allow a 144 square foot
storage shed to remain located five (5) feet from the rear property line on a lot
within the RS-2 Zoning District and located at 246 Pine Street.
Mr. Lambertson introduced the item and asked Ms. Doerr to summarize the request and
existing conditions. Ms. Doerr explained that the applicant had constructed an
unpennitted 144 square foot 10-foot high storage shed at the rear of his property, and
upon discovery by the Building Department, the applicant was required to apply for a
building permit. However, the permit application was denied by Zoning because it did
not meet the required 10-foot setback from the rear property line required for such a
Page 1 of 5
Minutes of the January 20, 2009 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
structure. Ms. Doerr explained that smaller storage sheds, 80 square feet in size or less,
are permitted to be located five feet from the rear property line, but anything larger, up to
the maximum allowable size of 150 square feet and 12-feet in height, must meet the 10-
foot setback. She noted that, though the storage shed is barely visible from the Pine
Street frontage because of dense vegetation, it is fully visible from the adjoining rear lot
that fronts Magnolia Street, and it is this property owner that has complained about the
size and location of the shed, thus demonstrating the purpose of the 10-foot setback for
larger storage sheds.
Mr. Lambertson asked applicant and property owner Greg Pressley, 246 Pine Street, to
address the Board regarding his request. Mr. Pressley stated that the house sits furthest
back of all the houses on the block and therefore there was not sufficient space in the rear
yard to place the shed the required ten feet from the property line. He explained that his
wife is currently overseas in the military and they have a great deal household and
personal items to store. He noted that the shed, at 144 square feet in area and 10-feet in
height, is below the maximum size allowed by regulations.
Mr. Lambertson opened the floor to public comment and with there being none, closed
the floor and brought the application back to the Board for discussion. Ms. Glasser asked
if the shed was finished at this point, to which Mr. Pressley replied no. She then asked if
the applicant was building the shed himself, to which he replied yes. She asked if the
structure was on a concrete slab, to which Mr. Pressley responded no, explaining that it
was on a skid on cinder blocks, anchored. Ms. Glasser asked how this issue had come to
the attention of the city...from a neighbor? Ms. Doerr said that was her understanding,
that Code Enforcement had received a complaint. Mr. Pressley said that was not his
understanding, that he had not received any complaints. Kirk Hansen noted that the Staff
Report said that a neighbor had complained. He then pointed out that the drawing
submitted shows a wooden deck in near proximity to the shed, and asked if it was still
there. Mr. Pressley explained that he had taken up the deck so that he could remove some
tree roots that were interfering with the anchoring of the shed, but that he planned to put
it back down. Mr. Hansen also noted an existing shed on the drawing. Mr. Pressley said
that one would be removed upon completion of the new shed. David Boyer asked if there
were regulations limiting the number of buildings on a property, to which Ms. Doerr
responded there may be up to three buildings, with only one being a shed.
Mr. Lambertson asked what the structure was constructed out of, and if the structure
required a concrete slab and Mr. Pressley said he had built the shed out of framing wood
and that it is portable. Ms. Glass asked if this home was part of a Homeowners'
Association, and Ms. Doerr confirmed that it was not. Mr. Lambertson asked Ms. Doerr
to go over the size of shed allowed to be located five feet off of the rear property line - 80
square feet -and the maximum size of storage unit allowed - 150 square feet. Mr.
Lambertson explained that that he was trying to find a hardship under which a variance
could be granted, and while the Board realized that the applicant had invested a lot of
time and money, this situation fell outside the normal parameters of what they could
normally approve. He made the recommendation that the applicant could downsize the
structure to 80 square feet, or relocated the structure ten feet off the rear property line.
Mr. Pressley asked about grandfathered structures, to which Mr. Lambertson responded
that was only in the case of structures that were existent before the current zoning
Page 2 of 5
Minutes of the January 20, 2009 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
regulations. He said that anything located any closer to the property line becomes an
encroachment. Mr. Pressley explained that to move the structure now he basically would
have to destroy it, pulling out bolts from concrete, removing the rafters. He said that he
already had a great investment. Ms. Glasser said that she was totally sympathetic to Mr.
Pressley's situation, but she did not see a hardship. Mr. Pressley asked what constituted
a hardship, to which Mr. Lambertson replied that it was more of a condition or set of
conditions that must exist in order for the Board to grant a variance. He noted that they
are listed on the variance application and then read from Section 24-64(d):
Grounds for approval of a Variance. A variance may be granted, at the
discretion of the Community Development Board, for the following
reasons. (1) exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property;
(2) surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property
disparately from nearby properties; (3) exceptional circumstances
preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other
properties in the area; (4) onerous effect of regulations enacted after
platting or after development of the property or after construction of
improvements upon the property; (5) irregular shape of the property
warranting special consideration; (6) substandard size of a Lot of Record
warranting a variance in order to provide for reasonable use of the
property.
Ms. Glasser continued that the Board has to be concerned about setting precedent. Lynn
Drysdale added that several similar applications have been before the Board over the last
year, and while she too was sympathetic to Mr. Pressley's situation, the Board must be
consistent.
MOTION: Lynn Drysdale moved that the Board deny ZVAR-2009-01, request for a
variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)x, to reduce the required ten (10) foot rear yard
setback to allow a 144 square foot storage shed to remain located five (5) feet from
the rear property line on a lot within the RS-2 Zoning District and located at 246
Pine Street. Ellen Glasser seconded the motion and it carried unanimously, 5-0.
b. ZVAR-2009-02, Budnick. Request for a Variance from Section 24-157(b) to permit
an eight (8) foot high fence along the rear property line on a lot within the RS-L
Zoning District and located at 37012th Street.
Mr. Lambertson introduced the item and asked Ms. Doerr to summarize the request and
existing conditions. Ms. Doerr ex~lained that the Budnicks are redeveloping a lot on 12tt'
Street, abutting another lot on llt Street with an unoccupied house which has been the
subject of Code Enforcement action over the last few years. Besides the vacant house,
there are unsightly storage sheds. The Budnicks have asked to be allowed to construct an
8' high fence along the back property line to lessen their view of the adjacent lot.
However, it must be realized that the situation on the adjacent lot is temporary and the
Building Department has been working to persuade the property owners to improve the
appearance of the property for several years, and has been successful to a degree. She
added that the property looks much better today that it did several years ago, and that the
property owners have expressed their intention to either redevelop the property or put it
on the market whenever economic conditions improve.
Page 3 of 5
Minutes of the January 20, 2009 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Mr. Lambertson asked applicants and property owners Christy and Todd Budnick, 363 7th
Street, to address the Board regarding their request. Mrs. Budnick confirmed that she
was requesting an 8' fence along the rear property line to shield her home and yard from
views of the abutting property. She said that she understood that the condition of that
property was supposed to be a temporary situation, but that it had been ongoing for a
number of years and she foresaw no resolution. She said that she had tried to do some
planting and landscaping that would help, but to get plants of the size necessary was cost-
prohibitive. She said the proposed fence would be vinyl, and that the 8' section would
not be visible from the [12 ]street.
Mr. Lambertson opened the floor to public comment and with there being none, closed
the floor and brought the application back to the Board for discussion. Ms. Glasser,
referring to a photo of the Budnicks' home under construction, asked the height of the
existing chain link fence separating the lots. Mrs. Budnick replied 4-5'. Mr. Boyer said
that it appeared to be standard 4' all the way around. Mrs. Budnick said that she had
someone hold up a piece of OSB on top of the existing fence. She then stood on her slab,
and saw that a fence of approximately the same height would block view of all of one
storage shed and most of the second. Mrs. Budnick said she was told that the [additional]
2' height of fence would cost approximately $400. Mr. Hansen asked had the Budnicks
gotten a quote for entire fence, and would not the cost come out to be approximately the
same as landscaping?
Mr. Boyer asked if they Budnicks had been aware of the condition of the adjacent
property when they purchased their lot, adding that he did not see this as a hardship. Mr.
Budnick said that they did not realize the severity of the conditions until after they had
purchased because their lot was highly vegetated. He said that it was not until they began
clearing for construction did they realize the condition of the adjacent lot. He then
questioned, "What is temporary?", adding that it appears this has been ongoing for ten
years, and asking if it would be another ten years [before it was resolved].
Ms. Glasser asked about the applicability of the International Properly Maintenance
Code, recently adopted. Ms. Doerr said that Code Enforcement Officer Alex Sherrer has
looked into it and said that nothing there applies.
Mrs. Budnick said that the couple had done their due diligence prior to purchasing the
property, and that they only wanted to protect their investment. She then asked if a 2'
section of lattice on top of the 6' fence was permissible. Ms. Doerr explained that lattice
is specifically included in the definition of a fence; however arbor is not. Ms. Doerr
suggested that such a landscaping device could be placed on top of the 6' fence and then
jasmine or some other running vine could be allowed to fill in. Ms. Budnick said that she
had not considered such a solution, but thought it was a good idea worth trying.
MOTION: Ellen Glasser moved that the Board deny ZVAR-2009-2, request for a
variance from Section 24-157(b) to permit an eight (8) foot high fence along the rear
property line on a lot within the RS-L Zoning District and located at 370 12th Street.
David Boyer seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
Page 4 of 5
Minutes of the January 20, 2009 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
6. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION. There was no other non-actionable
business for discussion.
7. ADJOURNMENT. Chairman Lambertson adjourned the meeting at 6:53 pm.
Si ed: Chris Lambertson, Chairman
~jr.~iLL__---.
Atte t
Page 5 of 5