BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
MINUTES NO. 06-02
PRESENT:
Bud Evans, Chairman
Laura Lewandowski, Vice Chairman
Brian Dullaghan, Member
Member Doug Wright, Member
Jack Kish,1st Alternate
Paul Gougelman, Town Attorney
Cliff Stokes, Building Official
Barbara Brownlie, Secretary
ABSENT: Mike Melhado,
1. CALL TO ORDER AT 5:30 PM
Chairman Evans called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM.
2. APPROVAL OF PRIOR MEETING MINUTES
A. Minutes No. 06-01– January 25, 2006
Ms. Lewandowski moved to approve Minutes No. 06-01. Mr. Dullaghan seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
3. VARIANCE REQUESTS
A. A variance request filed by Djon Pepaj regarding Lots 1-3 and 22-24, Blk 21, 249 5th Ave. A variance is being requested to Code Section 17-106.2 (c) – any sign that has any intentional motion or rotation of any part of the structure or of the sign, or the display of intermittent, rotating, flowing or flashing lights is prohibited. The effect of the variance, if granted, would be to allow an electronic marquee sign with a stationary message. (Postponed from January).
Djon Pepaj, 1000 N Riverside Dr., stated that he was seeking to replace the hurricane damaged sign in front of City Tropics on Fifth Ave. with a more modern electronic sign. He stated that the sign consists of a black box with stationary illuminated electronic lettering in four colors.
To further illustrate the type of sign, the Daktronics Total Display Solutions 2005-2006 Catalog was entered into the record citing the lower left corner illustration on page 14.
In response to a question from Ms. Lewandowski concerning the grounds for the variance, Mr. Pepaj said that changing the lettering by hand on a ladder poses a practical difficulty and a safety issue.
Attorney Gougelman clarified that, in a sense, the Board would be making an interpretation as to whether turning the sign on or changing the message is an intentional motion as prohibited by the Code. He also indicated that, if the sign were allowed, some body would have to set up standards to incorporate the new technology.
The Board discussed the need to update the Code and establish standards for electronic signs rather than address them on a case by case basis.
Mr. Wright moved to request that the Town Council review Code Sec. 17-106.2(c) taking into consideration new technology for electronic signs. Ms. Lewandowski seconded.
The following members of the public addressed the issue:
Dave Berkman, 225 8th Ave
Brian Bernard, IEE, 101 N Ramona Ave
Scott Smith, 321 7th Ave
Attorney Gougelman outlined the standard process for changing an ordinance.
After further discussion, Mr. Wright amended his motion to request that the Zoning/Planning Board review the Code Section. Ms. Lewandowski accepted the amendment. Motion carried unanimously.
B. A variance request filed by Michael Montgomery regarding Lots 13,14,15 and 16, Blk 37, 2 Fifth Ave. A variance is being requested to Code Section 17-132(11) – at any part of a ground floor café not blocked by a building, there shall be maintained or constructed a fence, not less than 3 feet high surrounding the outdoor café area subject to certain provisions. The effect of the variance, if granted, would be to allow concrete barriers in place of the fencing.
Mike Montgomery, 373 Flanders Dr., Indialantic, owner of the building at 2 Fifth Ave., stated that the tenants would like seats and tables on the sidewalk on the east side of the building creating an outdoor café that requires a fence.
Mr. Montgomery stated that constructing a continuous fence along that east side would restrict ingress and egress to the businesses and pose a safety hazard. He also noted that it would detract from the aesthetics of the building.
As a compromise, Mr. Montgomery’s architect had come up with a plan to install three foot unconnected concrete posts spaced 5’4” apart along the east side as a safety barrier from the parking lot while still allowing for ingress and egress.
Mr. Montgomery verified that the parking lot is a part of his property.
The Town Manager clarified that having tables and chairs outside makes the area an outdoor café and subject to the requirements.
Attorney Gougelman clarified Mr. Montgomery’s proposal as using 3 foot high pillars spaced every 5’4” inches apart in place of fencing as a condition of granting the variance.
Mr. Montgomery stated that his preference would be to have no fencing at all which would create a better situation
The Town Manager advised Mr. Montgomery that he could withdraw this variance request and reapply requesting no fence.
Ms. Lewandowski stated that she was not qualified to judge the proper engineering requirements for a safety barrier.
Mr. Montgomery said that the hardship was ingress, egress and safety and maintained that this outdoor seating was different than an outdoor café along Fifth Ave.
Mr. Wright commented that Mr. Montgomery seemed to be trying to address a safety concern that is not a requirement in the Code. He added that a better request might be to eliminate the fence since the outdoor café is facing his own property and is a unique situation.
Mr. Montgomery withdrew his variance request.
C. A request filed by Keith Milligan regarding Lots 4 & 5 and part of Lots 3 & 10, Blk 68, 915 S Riverside Dr to determine the exact meaning, intent and purpose of the provisions of Code Section 17-114(5)(c)(9)(a) – in ponds or detention basins where water is expected to stand as a consideration of design, the maximum side slopes shall be 5 horizontal to 1 vertical.
Keith Milligan, 915 S Riverside Dr., entered into the record a packet of information concerning wet ponds and stormwater management and proceeded to give background on his request to dig a fish pond on his property.
Mr. Milligan maintained that his project was not a stormwater system and that the cited code is not only impossible to meet but is being misapplied in his situation.
Ms. Lewandowski noted that Code Section 17-114(w) defines surface water and the question is whether a fish pond fits the description.
Mr. Wright cited Code Section 17-114(5)(a) requiring a management plan be submitted for any surface water project unless it is found exempt or a variance is granted.
Mr. Milligan clarified that his pond will not depend on storm water run-off and that Code Section 17-114 was not intended to prevent a fish pond.
The Town Manager pointed out that the problem all along has been the lack of documentation. He stated that a permit was not denied, but never issued because the requested information was not forthcoming.
Ms Lewandowski raised the possible ramifications of interpreting the Code as not applying to fish ponds as opposed to granting a variance for a particular property.
Mr. Milligan stated that he did not believe that the Code section was intended to prevent fish ponds.
Ms. Lewandowski pointed out that the Building Official had determined that the Code applies.
Ms. Lewandowski also noted a possible “hole” in the Code as fish ponds are not specifically addressed.
Mr. Milligan thanked the Board for their time and consideration and left the meeting.
The Town Manager noted that the Town Engineer had also agreed that the Code covered this situation.
Attorney Gougelman brought it down to the basic question as to whether Section 17-114 is applicable to Mr. Milligan’s project. He noted Mr. Milligan does not think it is a surface water system and that the Code does not apply. He noted that the Building Official and the Town Manager believe that it does apply.
The Town Manager stated that in their opinion it is very clear that this is a hole in the ground that will accept surface water from the ground and thus the Code applies.
Ms. Lewandowski moved to determine that, based on the definition of surface water as stated in Code Section 17-114(1)(w), Code Section 17-114(5)(c)(9)(a) is applicable to Mr. Milligan’s request. Mr. Wright seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
4. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 PM.
____________________________
Bud Evans, Chairman
______________________________
Barbara Brownlie, Secretary