Zoning and Planning Board Minutes February 23, 2016

Zoning and Planning Board Minutes February 23, 2016

TOWN OF INDIALANTIC

Brevard County, Florida 32903

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

February 23, 2016 Town Hall 5:30 PM

MINUTES NO. 16-01

A Meeting of the Indialantic Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, February 23, 2016, in IndialanticTown Hall, 216 Fifth Avenue, Indialantic, Florida32903, as publicly noticed.

PRESENT:Doug WrightChairman

David A. JusticeVice-Chairman

Brian DullaghanMember

Safvat KalaghchyMember

Chris Campbell1st Alt.

Joseph ColomboAttorney

Cliff StokesBuilding Official

Christopher ChinaultTown Manager

Joan ClarkTown Clerk

ABSENT:Bud EvansMember (excused)

Jeffrey Schulte2nd Alt. (excused)

1.CALL TO ORDER AT 5:30 PM:

Chairman Wright called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.

1. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR:

Mr. Campbell nominated Mr. Wright as Chairman and Mr. Justice as Vice-Chairman. Mr. Dullaghan seconded the nominations.

AYES:Wright, Justice, Dullaghan, Kalaghchy, and Campbell

VOTE ON MR. WRIGHT AS CHAIRMAN AND MR. JUSTICE AS VICE-CHAIRMAN:

AYES:Wright, Justice, Dullaghan, Kalaghchy, and Campbell

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (5 TO 0)

1. APPROVAL OF PRIOR MEETING MINUTES:

1. Minutes 15-08, September 9, 2015

*MOTION By Mr. Dullaghan; Seconded by Mr. Campbell, to approve the minutes of September 9, 2015.

AYES:Wright, Justice, Dullaghan, Kalaghchy, and Campbell

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (5 TO 0)

1. VARIANCE APPLICATIONS:

A.A variance request filed by Adam Turk regarding Lots 1 and 2, Block 18, 401 S. Ramona Avenue, Indialantic, Florida32903. A variance is being requested to Code Section 17-105 (4) – swimming pool setbacks. The applicant is asking for a 5-foot variance resulting in a 5-foot setback from the rear property line to waters edge instead of the required 10-foot setback to waters edge of pool.

Chairman Wright introduced the item and invited Mr. Turk to speak regarding his request.

Mr. Adam Turk, 401 South Ramona Avenue, advised that the particular hardship involving the property was that most of the houses were built farther back in that time. He explained that in order to install a pool in the backyard, it would have to be set back. He noted that several pools in the neighborhood had received variances. He stated he was asking for a variance based on a practical difficulty.

Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Turk as to how long he had owned the home. Mr. Turk advised he had owned the home for approximately one year.

Mr. Campbell pointed out, as a point of order, that previous variances were all based on merits and did not affect Mr. Turk’s.

Vice-Chairman Justice noted that a pool had to have a three-foot walk-around on all four sides per code. Mr. Stokes advised that the walk-around did not have to be a hard surface; it could be a grassed area.

In response to a question posed by Chairman Wright, Mr. Turk confirmed that he was proposing a 5-foot variance for a 5-foot setback from the rear property line.

Mr. Campbell questioned as to what size pool would be installed as an alternative. Mr. Turk advised he would be permitted a four or five foot pool.

Vice-Chairman Justice asked if anyone had looked at the northeast corner of the property. He noted that it was a much wider area than the area proposed for the pool. Mr. Turk advised that he was looking to extend an addition to the house in that area for the future growth of his family.

Vice-Chairman Justice asked if Mr. Turk had any photographs of the property. Mr. Turk provided a Google Earth print of the property.[1]

Chairman Wright opened the hearing to the public.

Ms. Mary Goodwin, 402 Eighth Avenue, spoke in support of Mr. Turk’s application. She stated he was up against a really awkward yard.

Ms. Amy Bond, 400 South Ramona Avenue, spoke in support of Mr. Turk’s application. She stated that the Turk’s were great neighbors and she noted that a pool added 7% value to a home, which was important to her as a property owner.

There being no further comments from those in the assembly, Chairman Wright closed the public portion of the hearing.

Chairman Wright indicated that a practical difficulty was the right variance request avenue for this issue. He questioned as to the age of the home. Mr. Turk advised the house was built in the 1960s or 1970.

Mr. Kalaghchy asked if any upgrades had been made to the property. Mr. Turk stated that cosmetic improvements had been made to the exterior and renovations to the interior.

Vice-Chairman Justice noted that the house was built to current setbacks, which was a particular problem for corner properties.

Mr. Dullaghan pointed out that a pool was not really a necessity.

Mr. Campbell advised that setbacks were there for a purpose, and stated that future owners had to be protected. He noted that since the financial downturn, he had seen an epidemic of people buying homes and requesting waivers.

Chairman Wright cautioned the board in not granting a reasonable request. He noted that, as presented, an 11’ pool is not unreasonable in terms of the size. He believed the request as outlined is the minimum required to have a viable pool.

Discussion was held with regard to fencing requirements and neighbor’s privacy.

Mr. Campbell questioned Mr. Stokes as to whether he had any concerns about the request. Mr. Stokes indicated he did not.

Chairman Wright re-opened the hearing to the public.

Ms. Mary Goodwin, 402 Eighth Avenue, believed that five or ten feet really didn’t make a difference with regard to noise. She stated the previous neighbors made so much noise they didn’t need a pool.

There be no further comments, Chairman Wright closed the hearing to the public.

*MOTION By Vice-Chairman Justice; Seconded by Mr. Kalaghchy, to approve the variance as requested.

AYES:Wright, Justice, Dullaghan, and Kalaghchy

NO:Campbell

THE MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 1.

5.INTERPRETATION REQUEST:

A.A request to interpret the Town’s Code as it relates to the possibility of allowing roof top dining.

Mr. Chinault advised that the Code Review Task Force discussed a question on whether or not a roof-top restaurant/bar seating area was permitted. He didn’t believe the language in the C and C-1 zoning districts permitted that; however, it might be permitted as an outdoor café. He referred to the memorandum[2] provided to the Board and asked for an interpretation of the Code as it relates to allowing outdoor cafes on rooftops.

Chairman Wright referred to paragraph 1 with regard to “every use customarily conducted within a building…shall be conducted in a building enclosed on all sides with permanent wall…” and stated he did not see this as necessarily precluding anything on a rooftop by default. He believed it applied more to open stalls or some kind of street vending type approach. He noted that Djon’s had an outdoor seating area with three walls and a roof. Mr. Chinault advised that was an outdoor café.

Mr. Campbell pointed out that nothing was said about a roof. Vice Chairman Justice advised that these type establishments were very popular in the South Florida area (Fort Lauderdale, Pompano Beach).

Mr. Dullaghan stated that it seemed like a dangerous type of thing. Mr. Campbell noted that Codes still applied and that railing would be required.

Chairman Wright continued to paragraph 2 with regard to “…an enclosed restaurant may operate a contiguous café, providing the following requirements are met: (2) only contiguous property leased or owned by the restaurant may be used for outdoor café seating. Such property must be adjacent to the licensed establishment.” He commented that when he read “contiguous, leased or owned,” it was contiguous or attached/joined; it wouldn’t preclude separation by a floor in the sense of a building.

Mr. Campbell stated he stumbled over the word “adjacent.”

When asked for his opinion, Mr. Colombo believed it had to be attached in some manner. He noted that when this was crafted it was crafted for a sidewalk café, and in the spirit of that, “adjacent” was as in “adjacent to the existing building.”

Vice-Chairman Justice noted they were still limited by the 35’.

Chairman Wright believed the first two issues were fairly clear as long as they were in the same building; however, it would have to be fenced in to be safe. Mr. Chinault believed this was a Building Code issue.

Vice-Chairman Justice believed he would be open to it as long as it wasn’t too crazy.

Discussion was held with regard to the height limitation and permanent and non-permanent structures on a rooftop.

Mr. Chinault clarified that what he was hearing was that anything permanent was a problem for the height, but anything movable (umbrellas, tables, chairs, etc.) was not part of the structure.

Mr. Campbell questioned as to noise, and asked what it took to rewrite the Code. He expressed concern about lawsuits. Mr. Chinault advised that music was not permitted in outdoor cafes and glare off the property was also not permitted.

Chairman Wright concluded that the primary issue was the height and no permanent structures.

Discussion was held with regard to the StrawberryMansion in Melbourne and other similar establishments.

6.ADJOURNMENT.

The meeting adjourned at 6:11 p.m.

______

Doug Wright, Chairman

______

Joan Clark, Town Clerk

Page 1 of 5

[1] See Exhibit A to minutes.

[2] See Exhibit B to minutes