TOWN OF INDIALANTIC
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
MINUTES NO. 06-03
PRESENT:
Bud Evans, Chairman
Laura Lewandowski, Vice Chairman
Brian Dullaghan, Member
Member Doug Wright, Member
Jack Kish,Member
Paul Gougelman, Town Attorney
Cliff Stokes, Building Official
Christopher Chinault, Town Manager
Barbara Brownlie, Secretary
This meeting was tape-recorded. Records are indexed and filed for ready reference where such have been summarized in typed minutes.
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. 06-02– March 15, 2006
Mr. Wright pointed out that the last line of Item 3 B. should read “Mr. Montgomery withdrew his variance request”.
Mr. Evans moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Dullaghan seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
3. APPEAL
A. An appeal from the Casuarina Club Owners Assn., Inc. regarding the February 28, 2006 site plan approval by the Indialantic Zoning & Planning Board permitting a two-story addition to the residence at 1027 Wavecrest Ave.
Joseph Fechner, 1101 S Miramar Ave #310, represented the Casuarina Club Condominium Association and outlined the basis for seeking to reverse the Zoning & Planning Board’s site plan approval.
Gerry Duggan, 1101 S Miramar Ave #410, gave historic background on the Casuarina Club and townhome projects and entered into the record a document prepared by the Casuarina Club Owners Association citing the following code violations as justification for reversing the decision:
1. 30% breezeway violation - 17-27(16)
2. 25’ setback violation – 17-27(15)
3. violation of the coastal construction line seaward code – 6-30(c)(1)
4. altering the character of the locality – 17-86(5)
5. endangering landward property – 6-30(c)(2a)
Mr. Duggan requested the Board to reverse the decision of the Zoning & Planning Board thus protecting the coastal environment and safeguarding and preserving the market value of the neighboring properties.
Patricia Paulson, 1101 S Miramar Ave #204, entered into the record an estimate of real estate resale value losses for the units with views affected by the proposed construction.
Mr. Fechner requested that the material presented also be considered as evidence to not grant the variance being requested for the same property.
Attorney Gougelman clarified that denying the appeal does not grant the variances.
Attorney Gougelman pointed out that the Zoning and Planning Board motion clearly states that site plan approval was contingent on obtaining the CCCL variance. He added that two issues in the appeal were directly related to the CCCL variance leaving three issues unresolved.
Attorney Gougelman gave the following alternatives available to the applicant if the appeal is granted based on those three issues:
appeal to the circuit court
return to the Zoning & Planning Board for further considerations
submit further variance request(s)
In response to a question from Ms. Lewandowski, Mr. Fechner explained his breezeway calculation.
Mr. Fechner said that the Zoning and Planning Board had considered the project as new construction and not reconstruction making all current codes applicable.
Mr. Wright pointed out that the former addition had also violated the breezeway code but that the Casuarina Club Assn seemed not adverse to having that same structure rebuilt.
Mr. Fechner pointed out the differences in the old and proposed structures.
Clayton Bennett, Fleis & Bennett Engineering, representing the Carrolls, provided figures obtained from the property appraiser supporting the fact that the construction cost does not exceed 50% of the property value and should not be viewed as a “substantial improvement” thus exempting it from the CCCL code.
As to the breezeway requirement, Mr. Bennett felt the entire parcel must be taken into consideration and not just the subject lot. He verified that the footprint of the original structure is not being extended.
Mr. Fechner pointed out that there is no breezeway to the south.
Pat Mallick, 1101 S Miramar #307, challenged the construction costs provided by Mr. Bennett.
Mr. Duggan stated that the original one story structure, which was built up gradually, also violated all the points raised and was an illegal structure from the onset.
Mr. Chinault clarified that the Zoning & Planning Board looked at the entire parcel in examining the breezeway issue.
Ms. Lewandowski felt there was no evidence provided to prove a breezeway violation.
Mr. Bennett addressed the setback issue citing the submitted certified boundary survey prepared by Kane Surveying providing for the 25’ setback from the bluff line and dated within six months of the application as required by code.
Mr. Fechner alleged that the bluff line had moved back six to eight feet due to hurricane damage but admitted he had no professional survey to support that contention.
The Board concluded they must rely on the evidence provided.
As to Item 4 concerning the character of the locality, the Building Official verified that the construction does not violate any codes.
The Town Manager pointed out that this is a judgment call and it is up to the Board to determine if the two-story structure changes the character of the area.
Attorney Gougelman stated that in order to grant the appeal on this issue, the Board would need to decide that the structure is incompatible with the area.
Attorney Gougelman advised the Board that they are sitting in an appellate capacity meaning that they are determining whether the Zoning & Planning Board made a mistake based on the evidence from the record. He stated that it was implicit in approving the site plan that the Zoning & Planning Board had found that it was compatible.
Mr. Fechner stated that the association had not had sufficient time to prepare their objections to present to the Zoning & Planning Board and that their decision was not based on all the evidence.
Jan Larsen, 1101 S Miramar #209, felt that the architectural design did not go with the rest of the structure.
Ms. Lewandowski verified that the Town has not adopted an architectural code and felt there was insufficient information to overrule the Zoning & Planning Board.
Mr. Gougelman summed up the Board’s direction to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning & Planning Board’s determination. He proposed to draft an order addressing all five points and bring it back to the Board for action.
Mr. Wright moved to request that Attorney Gougelman draft a letter to the Zoning & Planning Board documenting the discussion and decisions related to the appeal. Mr. Evans seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Attorney Gougelman clarified that the order would need to come back to the Board for approval.
Mr. Fechner requested a copy of the letter when it is prepared.
4. VARIANCE REQUESTS
A. A variance request filed by Clayton Bennet, Fleis & Bennett Engineering, representing Wayne & Mary Carroll regarding Lot 7, Blk. 99.A, 1027 Wavecrest Ave. A variance is being requested to Code Sec. 6-30(c)(1) – no major structure may be constructed seaward of the Brevard County coastal construction line without a variance being granted. The effect of the variance, if granted, would be to permit a two story addition to the north end of the townhouse.
Clayton Bennett, Fleis & Bennett Engineering, represented the Carrolls in seeking the variance to build seaward of the CCCL.
Mr. Bennett maintained that the evidence presented depicting the cost of the proposed improvements as less than 50% of the appraised value supports the fact that this is not a substantial improvement and is thus exempt from the variance requirement.
Attorney Gougelman agreed that if the Board accepts that supposition there is no need to hear the variance but also pointed out that the Zoning & Planning Board had attached this condition to approving the site plan.
The Town Manager advised that this is a routine Zoning & Planning Board requirement and was made based on the evidence presented at the time. He recommended that the Board hear the variance request or the applicant would have to return to the Zoning & Planning Board to have the condition removed.
Mr. Bennett clarified that the structure stays within the line of continuous construction and is no further seaward than the existing building.
Mr. Bennett requested a variance to allow construction not further seaward than 220.21 feet east of the 1986 Brevard County Coastal Construction Control Line.
Joseph Fechner voiced his objection to granting the variance for a new structure.
Mr. Chinault clarified that it is new construction and will be built to the current code.
Mr. Bennett clarified that the addition will be built to current building codes and DEP requirements.
Attorney Gougelman advised of the criteria for granting a CCCL variance.
Mr. Wright stated that the applicant does meet the burden of proof and moved to approve the variance request for construction 220.21 feet seaward of the 1986 CCCL. Ms. Lewandowski seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
B. A variance request filed by Clayton Bennet, Fleis & Bennett Engineering, representing Robert Goldschmidt regarding Lot 10, Blk. 100, 1701 S Miramar Ave. A variance is being requested to Code Sec. 6-30(c)(1) – no major structure may be constructed seaward of the Brevard County coastal construction line without a variance being granted. The effect of the variance, if granted, would be to permit construction of a single family residence.
Clayton Bennett, Fleis & Bennett Engineering, represented the Goldschmidts.
Mr. Bennett explained that the plan is to tear down the existing hurricane damaged single family residence and rebuild.
Mr. Bennett stated that the proposed structure would be located landward of the line of continuous construction and that he was requesting a 166.02 foot variance from the 1986 CCCL.
Mr. Bennett verified that the home improvements would be built to hurricane standards and that the DEP approval would be part of the building permit application.
Mr. Wright moved to approve the variance request to build 166.02 feet seaward of the 1986 CCCL. Ms. Lewandowski seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
C. Variance requests filed by Denise Halkias regarding Lots 19 & 20, Blk 77, 320 Orlando Blvd. Variances are being requested to the following Code Sections: 17-164 – a non-conforming building can only be reconstructed, repaired or rebuilt provided the expense of such work does not exceed 50% of the assessed valuation at the time of damage; 17-91(3) – total square footage of an accessory building and shed shall not exceed 30% of the required rear yard; 17-91(5) – accessory buildings designed to be used for a private garage shall not exceed 600 sq ft; 17-121(2)(b) – all accessory buildings in the rear yard shall be set back not less than four feet from all lot lines; 17-121(2)(c) – all accessory uses shall meet the requirements of section 17-91 and 17-121(3)(b) – maximum height for a permitted accessory structure shall be 8 ft if the use is set back at least 4 ft from the rear line. The effect of the variance, if granted, would be to allow reconstruction of a damaged accessory structure.
Denise Halkias, 320 320 Orlando Blvd., cited her intent to restore the existing guest house on her property. She gave background explaining that the house was built in 1926 and she was striving to keep the original character of the Spanish mission style historic property.
Ms. Halkias said that she is complying with Code Secs. 17-158 1-3 and 17-159 1-2 by not increasing the non-conformity and that the building would be as it is today.
The Building Official reported that the plans call for a complete rebuild of the existing structure within the same footprint.
Ms. Halkias stated all improvements would meet the current hurricane code.
The Board discussed the practical difficulty involved with having to meet the current codes on the substantial renovation.
Carlo Mayer, 318 Orlando Blvd, observed that the guest house has exceeded its life span and that the improvements were necessary to make it usable.
Ms. Lewandowski moved to grant the variances as requested provided the non-conformities are not increased based on practical difficulties. Mr. Dullaghan seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
5. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 PM.
____________________________
Bud Evans, Chairman
______________________________
Barbara Brownlie, Secretary