February 5, 2008

This material was filed under
[ Board of Adjustment - Meeting Minutes ]
February 5, 2008

Bud Evans, Chainnan
Laura Lewandowski, Vice Chainnan
Brian Dullaghan, Member
Mary Coggshall, Member
Paul GougelmanT, own Attorney
Cliff Stokes, Building Official
Barbara Brownlie, Secretary
Doug Wright, Member
David A Justice, 1 st Alt
This meeting was tape-recorded. Records are indexed and filed for ready reference where such have been
summarized in typed minutes.
Chainnan Evans called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM.
A. Minutes No 08-01- December 6,2007
Mr. Dullaghan moved to approve Minutes No 08-01
carried unanimously
Ms. Lewandowski seconded. Motion
A. A variance request filed by James M Brown, regarding Lots 6 & 7, Blk 45A, 808 N Riverside
Dr. A variance is being requested to Code Sections 17-88(3)(a) -No fence, wall or partial
fence or partial wall shall be constructed on front lot lines nor in the front setback region and
17-88(3)(b) -in the case of the front yard the wall shall be set back a minimum of25 feet, or
to the front line of the building, whichever is greater. The effect of the variance, if granted,
would be to allow a masonry buffer wall in the front setback region.
Ms. Platt, co-owner of the property entered into the record additional pictures, a Brevard
County traffic count and description of the wall product.
James Brown, owner of the property at 808 N Riverside Dr., requested that the Board grant
the variance because a fence was necessary to reduce traffic noise, to provide safety for
children and pets and for privacy from pedestrian and bicycle traffic on the sidewalk.
Mr. Brown provided photographs showing that several other homes along the roadway had
fences in the front setback and requested the same consideration..
Letters from the adjoining property owners in support of granting the variance request were
also included with the application.
Mr. Brown clarified that the fence would be set back 60′ from the center of the road.
The Building Official confinned that the proposed location is at least 25′ back from the
property line.
Ms. Coggshall observed that a fence placed as required along the house line would greatly
diminish the use of the property.
Mr. Brown deternlined that the distance from the front door to the property line was 160′,
Ms. Platt explained that the house was placed on the lot to preserve the numerous older,
mature trees using the same footprint as the home that was there.
Ms. Lewandowski observed that the distance from the road provides a natural buffer.
Ms. Platt maintained that the oak trees have huge trunks but that the canopy is high and does
not provide a sound buffer.
Board of Adjustment February 5, 2008 Page 2
Ms. Coggshall observed that the couple went to great lengths to preserve the trees limiting
where the house could be placed on the property.
Mr. Dullaghan asked if there was a reason other than having a larger front yard to not place
the fence according to Code.
Mr. Brown indicated there could be a problem with parking.
Ms. Coggshall stated that people have the right to protect their home and property and that
not granting the variance would greatly diminish the use of the property imposing a practical
Attorney Gougelman noted that the Board needs to decide whether or not having to cut down
trees in order to situate the property further to the east rises to the level of a practical
Mr. Evans agreed that the further back the home the better protected they are from the street.
Ms. Platt pointed out that the traffic study indicates more than 11,000 cars per day travel that
section of the roadway.
Ms. Coggshall thought the applicants should be commended for preserving the “majestic”
trees that are a part of the Town’s history and that this created a practical difficulty.
The Building Official observed that this is not a typical situation and that most homes of this
magnitude along Riverside Drive do have a buffer wall.
Ms. Lewandowskia dvisedt hat variancesd o not seta precedenat nd eachc asei s judged on its
own circumstances.
Ms. Platt stated that she thought they were following the proper procedure to get the fence
since other properties had been granted similar variances and again stressed the safety issues.
Ms. Coggshall moved to grant a variance to construct a wall 60′ from the crown of the road.
There was no second.
Ms. Lewandowski stated that she would like to request that the Council re-examine the
ordinance and consider modernizing the Code.
Attorney Gougelman advised how the Board could get an issue before the Council.
Ms. Lewandowski moved to deny the variance request based on the absence of a practical
difficulty. Mr. Dullaghan seconded. Motion carried with Mr. Evans, Ms. Lewandowski and
Mr. Dullaghan voting “yes.” Ms. Coggshall voted “no.”
Ms. Lewandowski advised that she would be at the next Council meeting to present the issue
to Council.
Mr. Dullaghan moved to retain the same officers. Ms. Coggshall seconded.
Motion carried
The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 PM