TOWN OF INDIALANTIC
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
MINUTES NO. 03-09
PRESENT: Brian Dullaghan, Vice Chairman
David Berkman, Member
Ray Disher, Member
Bud Evans, 1st Alternate
Laura Lewandowski, 2nd Alternate
Paul Gougelman, Town Attorney
Cathy Spafford, Building Official
Barbara Brownlie, Secretary
ABSENT: John Allen, Chairman
George Gergora, Member
1. CALL TO ORDER AT 5:30 PM
2. APPROVAL OF PRIOR MEETING MINUTES
A. Minutes No. 03-08– June 25, 2003
Ms. Lewandowski moved to approve Minutes No. 03-08. Mr. Berkman seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
3. VARIANCE REQUESTS
Request filed by Dominick Villano regarding Lots 25 & 26, Blk 41, 1010 Wavecrest Av. Variances are being requested to:
A. Code Section 6-30(c)(1) – no major structure may be constructed seaward, in whole or part, of the Brevard County coastal construction control line without a variance having been granted
B. Code Section 17-127(5) - front yards shall not be less than twenty five (25) feet in depth
C. Code Section 17-127(16) - a minimum thirty percent (30%) breezeway shall be maintained on all property in the tourist zone. The breezeway is defined as a clear, open vertical area free of construction or buildings running from the ocean to Highway A1A. The thirty percent (30%) calculation is measured on a line parallel to Highway A1A to include the percentage of open distance (breezeway) from the building to the property lines perpendicular to Highway A1A.
Attorney Mike Minot, 319 Riveredge Blvd., Cocoa represented Mr. Villano and gave a brief background on the subject property and addressed each variance request.
Attorney Minot explained that all properties westward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) require a variance to be developed. He noted that this property already has an existing structure and that Wavecrest Ave. and the dunes serve as stabilizing factors and thus the variance is appropriate.
Attorney Minot displayed a plot of the property with existing and proposed structures and stated that because of the existing structure behind the proposed project, the intent of the breezeway ordinance could never be met. The existing structure is non-conforming on a 125’ lot and does not line up with the subject property that occupies a 100’ lot.
David Berkman disclosed that he had stopped by and walked around the subject property.
Attorney Gougelman clarified for Mr. Berkman that it is the width and not the height of the proposed building that is considered as an intrusion into the breezeway.
Dominick Villano, owner of the property and a civil engineer, further explained how the proposed structure is affected by the existing building.
Attorney Minot advised that the hardship involved is the impossibility of performance especially on the north side. Attorney Minot again pointed out that the existing structure, barring some disaster, could remain for decades and that as long as it does, there will be no effective breezeway running from A1A to Wavecrest.
Attorney Minot continued that the variance requested to the front setback is solely for adding aesthetics with the steps and balconies to provide the best possible structure. He likened the steps to a sidewalk, which is not considered an intrusion into the setback.
Dominick Villano outlined his attempt to provide the best quality of structure maximizing the space available.
Mr. Villano stated that he is also the owner of the existing apartment building behind the proposed structure.
John B. MacNeill, 1320 S Riverside Dr., and Vice Chairman of the Zoning & Planning Board, advised that the Board had discussed the breezeway issue extensively and felt that this situation was an ideal circumstance for granting a variance to the breezeway running from A1A to the ocean. But Mr. MacNeill also pointed out the possibly detrimental precedent of reducing the required breezeway from 30% to 20%.
Attorney Minot requested that the following be entered into the record:
Exhibit A - “Before and After” plot board
Exhibit B - complete set of plans
Exhibit C - Variance application
Exhibit D - Picture Board of existing site and Miramar building
Exhibit E – Engineer’s letter concerning the CCCL
Attorney Gougelman clarified that the plans submitted are the actual structure that will be built.
Ken Strandberg, Casuarina Club, advised that the residents there supported the proposed structure.
Attorney Gougelman outlined the criteria for granting a variance to the CCCL.
Mr. Disher moved to grant a variance to Code Section 6-30 (c)(1). Mr. Dullaghan seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
In regards to the variance to Code Sec 17-127(16) – breezeway, Ms. Lewandowski pointed out that there is a twofold variance request; first to the 30% requirement and secondly to the ocean to road requirement.
Ms. Lewandowski concluded that the ocean to road capability is not possible and that a variance is needed to build. However, Ms. Lewandowski believed that the integrity of the code should be upheld and that a 30% breezeway should be maintained on the subject property.
Ms. Lewandowski moved to deny the variance to Code Sec 17-127(16). Mr. Dullaghan seconded. Motion carried with Mr. Dullaghan, Mr. Berkman, Mr. Evans and Ms. Lewandowski voting “yes.” Mr. Disher voted “no.”
Attorney Gougelman clarified that the Board was denying the variance as presented but that there was a willingness to search for an alternative that preserves the integrity of the code and provides some leeway for the developer.
The Board went on to consider the variance to Code Sec. 17-127(5).
Mr. Villano clarified that there will be an 11’ encroachment by the steps and 2’ by the balconies.
Attorney Gougelman pointed out that the variance is only being requested to where the stairs and balconies are situated and not the entire frontage of the building, which is the minimum required. He also reminded the Board they can consider unnecessary hardships and practical difficulty as the basis for granting a variance.
Mr. Villano advised that he was trying to maintain the existing pool which prevented him from moving the entire structure backward.
Mr. Berkman moved to approve the variance request to Code Sec 17-127(5). There was no second.
Mr. Disher moved to deny the variance request to Code Sec. 17-127(5). Mr. Dullaghan seconded. Motion carried with Mr. Dullaghan, Mr. Disher and Mr. Evans voting “yes.” Mr. Berkman and Ms. Lewandowski voted “no.”
4. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:45.
____________________________
Brian Dullaghan, Vice Chairman
______________________________
Barbara Brownlie, Secretary