TOWN OF I N D I A L A N T I C
Brevard County, Florida 32903
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

April 7, 1997 Town Hall 7:00 PM

MINUTES NO. 97-3

MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD IN THE INDIALANTIC TOWN HALL ON APRIL 7, 1997.

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 7:00 PM

Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.

2. APPROVAL OF PRIOR MEETING MINUTES

A. Minutes No. 97-2 - March 6, 1997

Mr. Rondinone moved to approve the minutes. Mr. Schetrom seconded. Motion carried unanimously.

3. VARIANCE REQUEST

A variance request filed by Grady Stewart, 346 Miami Avenue, Lot 12, Block 81, Indialantic. A variance is being requested to Code Section 17-88(2)(b) - In the case of a corner lot, the side yard fence shall be setback a minimum of ten (10) feet from the lot line on the abutting street. The requested variance is to erect a fence on the side yard lot line.

Mr. Stewart advised that he is requesting a variance to erect a fence on the side property line because the 10' setback imposes a hardship in that he loses the use of approximately 650' of his property on which he pays taxes. He noted that there are two reasons for the setback requirements: 1) to prevent obstruction to vision at intersections and 2) to prevent side yard fences from being next to a neighbor's front yard. Neither of these apply to his situation; the fence will be placed far enough back from the front building line so as to not interfere with the line of sight and the property behind him faces north so two back yards abut each other.

Pat Hartman, 346 Third Avenue, noted that there are other corner lots with fences on the property line.

Ron Campbell, 211 Deland, suggested that if the ordinance is bad it should be changed and expressed concern with variances being approved.

The Board questioned Mr. Stewart's hardship and noted that the loss of 10' is the same for everyone on a corner lot. Mr. Stewart stated that he felt the variance should be granted because the reasons for the ordinance do not apply in this situation.

Mr. Stewart advised that variances have been given for fences in front yards and that this request keeps the line of sight at the corner more open than if his fence were built to comply with the code. He also noted that his lot is irregularly shaped and that it is located at the intersection of four streets.

The Board agreed that the requested location is preferable to what is allowed by the code but that this is not a unique situation because all property owners have to meet setback requirements.

Mr. Stewart stated that he felt his situation was unique because the requested variance would allow the fence to be in a more favorable location than that allowed by the code, because of the location of his house on the lot and because of the peculiar size of the lot.

Mr. Stow moved to approve the variance on the condition that the fence not be brought forward of the line of sight as shown on the site plan. There was no second.

Mr. Rondinone moved to deny the variance. Mr. Dullaghan seconded. Motion carried with Mr. Stow voting "nay."

The Chairman advised of the right to appeal to the Town Council within ten days.

4. INTERPRETATION REGARDING CODE SECTION 17-125(12) - BUFFER STRIPS

Chairman Harris advised that the Administration has asked the Board to interpret Section 17-125(12) and determine at what point the block wall is to be constructed on an unpaved lot used by an adjacent business for overflow parking and on which no structures are to be built.

Keith Tuten, owner of Brevard Pools, and Daniel O'Brien, owner of 130 Seventh Avenue, presented background information on a lot which was recently cleared and graded and is being used for employee parking by Brevard Pools. Mr. Tuten advised that he was not required by the Town to construct the buffer wall because there was no substantial improvements made to the site. It was Mr. O'Brien's position that the wall should be required. Pat Hartman, 346 Third Avenue, and Henry Rockhill, tenant at 130 Seventh Avenue, also offered background information.

Chairman Harris advised that the Board's purpose is to make a code interpretation and not to address a particular situation.

Attorney Gougelman stated that the Town is requesting this interpretation and that if further action is to be taken, a complaint can be filed to Code Enforcement or a lawsuit could be filed in court, noting that the Council cannot overturn the Board's interpretation.

He advised that in making this interpretation the Board should determine if this is considered "development." Under the definition of "development" in Code Section 11-7 it refers to Florida Statute 380.04. He read that definition from the statute which stated, among other conditions, that a material change in the use of land or clearing of land as an adjunct of construction constitutes development.

The Board discussed these issues at length. It was also noted in a 1992 memo from Attorney Gougelman that substantial improvement or renovation is needed before the Town can enforce the requirement for the wall.

Mr. Harris moved that in reference the requested interpretation the Board finds that the block wall does not need to be constructed until such time at the lot is paved. Mr. Dullaghan seconded. Motion carried with Mr. Harris, Mr. Schetrom and Mr. Dullaghan voting "aye" and Mr. Rondinone and Mr. Stow voting "nay."

5. ADJOURNMENT

Attorney Gougelman advised that interpretation of the code in most municipalities falls under the authority of the Building Official, Town Planner, Town Manager or other individual. He requested the Board's input on who they felt should have this authority under our Code. It was the consensus of the Board that it was better to have several opinions than that of one individual.

The meeting adjourned at 9:50 PM.

__________________________

Bill Harris

Chairman

________________________

Laura Eaton, CMC

Secretary