Meeting of July 13, 2015 The following are the minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of July 13, 2015, held in the Think Tank at 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Sarasota. Members Present; Members Absent: Staff Present: Public Present: Tom Stovall - Chair, Thomas Arthur, Elmer Berkel, Mary Glidden-Williams, Paul Radauskas, Michael Shelton Frank Malatesta Donna Thompson, Zoning Administrator, Amy Lavender, Liaison, Patrick Napier, Planner, and Dave Pearce, Assistant County Attorney Mary Bogen, Tracey Starrett, Michael Holderness, Harry Haskins, Francisco Ruiz, Jeremiah Herlihy 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Tom Stovall, Chair called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. a. Pledge to the Flag - led by Tom Stovall b. Roll Call - conducted by Amy Lavender c. Announcement of new BZA member Paul Radauskas - conducted by Tom Stovall 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS VARIANCE 15-120155-ZZ: The applicant is requesting reduction of 7' from the required 10' rear yard setback to allow the placement of a shed. The property (Parcei ID #0458-04-0025) is zoned Residential Single Family-3 (RSF-3) and is located at 479 Pelican Road, Venice. The owner of the property is Mary M. Bogen. Donna Thompson, Zoning Administrator, presented the request and explained the code requirements. She stated that the existing foundation from the previous shed was used for the new shed. The Board asked questions of Ms. Thompson. Thomas Arthur asked if the shed was a replacement with the same dimensions. Ms. Thompson stated that new shed was a replacement with the same dimensions. Tracy Starrett, Representative for the applicant, presented the case and need for the variance. She asked if the penalties for the upcoming code enforcement hearing could be waived. She also submitted two letters, and a signed petition from the neighbors, all in favor of the variance request. Tom Stovall mentioned that the Board doesn't have the authority to waive code enforcement penalty fees.
Dave Pearce stated that there wouldn't be any code enforcement fees without a hearing. The associated permitting fees would have to be waived by the Board of County Commission, Mr. Pearce stated the letters and signed petition were here-say and the Boards' decision could not be based entirely on the letters and signed petition. He also stated that the appiicant could present the letters and signed petition to the Board and they could be submitted into the record. Elmer Berkel stated that the information regarding the case is received 10 days prior to the hearing. He asked if the rules should be suspended to accept the letters and signed petition. Mr. Pearce made a recommendation to have the letters and signed petition reviewed by the Board and placed into the record. He also stated that the Board could vote to suspend the rules to allow the review of the letters and signed petition or they could be reviewed by acclamation. Mr. Berkel made a motion to suspend the rules and allow the Board to review the letters and signed petition for the record. Mr. Radauskas seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously by a voice vote. Mr. Stovall asked if the Board members had any questions for the applicant. Michael Shelton asked if the original shed was permitted. Ms. Starrett stated that the original shed was built in 1977 and wasn't sure a permit was required at that time. Ms. Thompson stated that permits were not required for sheds until the mid 2000s. Mr. Sheiton inquired about the setbacks and if there was a variance for the original shed. Ms. Thompson stated that the setbacks were always in place and there was no variance or permit for the original shed. As a rebuttal, Ms. Starrett stated that she did some research and found that setbacks were not effective until 1979. Ms. Thompson stated that the date of November 11,1975 is used for nonconforming structures and sheds were not required to be permitted until the mid 2000s. Mr. Arthur asked if the permit for the new shed was obtained by the contractor and asked if the contractor was licensed. Ms. Starret stated that contactor was licensed but didn't obtain a permit for the shed. With no one else present to speak for or against the variance request, Mr. Stovall closed the public hearing. Paul Radauskas made a motion to approve the variance request. Mary Glidden-Williams seconded the motion. Mr. Shelton asked to call the vote and it passed five to one. VARIANCE 15-123231-ZZ: The appiicant is requesting reduction of 4! from the required minimum & side yard setback to allow the placement of a shed. The property (Parcel ID #0080-17-0086) is zoned Residential Multi-Family-1/Siesta Key Overlay (RMF-1/SKOD) and is located at 124 Columbus Boulevard, Sarasota. The owner of the property is Holderness Enterprises LLC. The appiicant is Michael Holderness. Ms. Thompson presented the request and explained the code requirements. She explained that the shed was being used to store supplies. Ms. Thompson asked if the Board had any questions. The Board asked questions of Ms. Thompson. Mr. Arthur asked if fhe shed was installed on the property. Ms. Thompson stated that the shed was presently on the property. Mr. Stovall asked if
there was previously a shed in the same location on the property. Ms. Thompson stated that there was no shed previousiy in that location on the property. Mr. Radauskas inquired about the rear setback for the property. Ms. Thompson stated that the applicant is requesting a side yard setback. The rear yard setback is 10!. Harry Haskins, Attorney for the applicant, presented the case and need for the variance. He reviewed each criteria and explained how his client's request met each. He stated that the lot is nonconforming and there was not enough space to put the shed in a different location on the property. Mr. Holderness stated that he put in landscaping to improve the property. The Board asked questions of Mr. Holderness. Mr. Arthur asked if the shed was installed without a permit. Mr. Holderness stated that there was a misunderstanding and he thought that the contractor obtained a permit. He stated that the shed was on hold at the company, for over a month, waiting on the permit before it was delivered. Mr. Arthur asked if Mr. Holderness or the contractor had received a notice for a stop work order. Mr. Holderness stated that a stop work order notice was received for work being done to the employee room because there was an error on the address. He also stated that there was a stop work order received for a tiki hut that was built on the property. Mr. Arthur asked if the shed could be put in a different location. Mr. Holderness stated because the property is a nonconforming lot, there was no other location on the property to put the shed. Mr. Arthur asked if the issue of the permit had been brought up before the shed was placed on the property. Mr. Holderness stated that the contractor applied for the permit when the shed was installed and didn't know that a variance was needed. Mr. Stovall inquired about when the shed was installed. Mr. Holderness stated that the shed was installed on the same day the permit was applied for. Mr. Arthur inquired about the actual date that the shed was installed. Mr. Holderness stated that the shed has been on the property for about three months. Mr. Shelton inquired about the width of the shed. Mr. Holderness stated that the width of the shed is 8'. Mr. Shelton asked if the applicant could have ordered a 4' shed. Mr. Holderness stated that an 8' shed was the smallest size to store the supplies. Mr. Shelton inquired about the number of units on the property. Mr. Holderness stated that there were 13 units on the property. Mr. Shelton asked if the property was purchased in January. Mr. Holderness clarified that he purchased the property in March 2014 and took over management on January 1, 2015. Mr. Shelton inquired about the size of the shed and if there was the possibility for the applicant to purchase a smaller one. Mr. Holderness stated that when the shed was ordered it was not made to accommodate the setback requirements and that 4' wide wouldn't be large enough to store the supplies. Mr. Shelton asked if one of the units could be used for storage. Mr. Holderness stated that the units are used to generate income and it wouldn't be feasible to use one for storage. Mr. Stovall asked questions of staff about the setbacks and if the shed was encroaching on the 8' setback. Ms. Thompson stated that there is a minimum side yard setback of 4'. Mr. Stovall asked if there was anyone present to speak for or against the request. Mr. Ruiz was present and addressed the Board. Mr. Ruiz stated that he is the current property manager of Village
West Condos, adjacent to the subject property. He expressed his opposition to the placement of the shed. He also stated that there is a tiki hut on the subject property that sits on the property line and believes that it is a code violation. He stated that the roof of the tiki hut is on the property line. He submitted a before and after picture to the Board. Mr. Holderness stated that the deck from Village West Condos is on the property line. Mr. Berkel reminded Mr. Holderness not to interrupt the person speaking for or against the variance request and that he would have a chance for a rebuttal. Mr. Radauskas asked questions of Mr. Ruiz regarding the tiki hut and how close it was to the property line. Mr. Ruiz stated that the tiki hut is encroaching on their property and also believes that it is a code violation. Mr. Stovall stated that the Board cannot determine if the tiki hut is a code violation. Mr. Pearce stated the Board bases its decisions on the code criteria. As a Rebuttal, Mr. Haskins objected to the comments about the tiki hut and stated they were not related to the case. Mr. Holderness stated that he wasn't required to apply for a permit for the construction of the tiki hut. He stated that the deck from Village West Condos was built on the property line. Mr. Holderness also stated that Village West Condos added concrete and brick pavers under the balconies of the units and it has caused flooding on his property, which he has corrected by installing two sump pumps. With no one else present to speak for or against the variance request, Mr. Stovall closed the public hearing. Mr. Shelton made a motion to deny the variance as requested. Mr. Berkel seconded the motion. Mr. Shelton asked to call the vote and the motion passed unanimously denying the variance request. VARIANCE 15-126625-ZZ: The applicant is requesting reduction of 30' from the required 50' rear yard setback to allow the construction of a hangar. The property (Parcel ID #0576-01-0951) is zoned Open Use Estate (OUE) and is located at 3595 Hidden River Road, Sarasota. The owner of the Property is Jeremiah F. Herlihy. Ms. Thompson presented the request and explained the code requirements. She explained that the subdivision was platted to allow hangars and there is an existing runway in the neighborhood. Ms. Thompson presented some pictures of the existing structures on the property along with a rendering of the proposed hangar. She stated that there was a well head on the property that would cause some space constraints for the hangar. She also stated that the applicant has cattle on the property and would like the pasture to remain open for them. Ms. Thompson asked if the Board had any questions. The Board asked questions of Ms. Thompson. Mr. Arthur asked how many hangars existed in the platted subdivision. Ms. Thompson stated that she was not sure how many hangars already existed but recalls that she has reviewed many applications for hangars in that neighborhood. She stated that the applicant did receive approval from the home owners association. Mr. Stovall asked if the reduction of the setback was for the east property line. Ms. Thompson clarified that because of the
shape of fhe property it would affect the rear property line and the setback was 50\ Mr. Stovali asked if the existing stable was within the 50' setback. Ms. Thompson stated that the existing stable meets the setback but because of the existing well head the hangar wili not fit in that location. She stated that the hangar is proposed to be placed adjacent to the concrete horse stables to allow enough open pasture land for the cattle. Mr. Herlihy reviewed each criteria, and explained how his request met each. He explained that when the property was subdivided it resulted in a narrow portion along the rear property line. He also explained the difficulties of placing the hangar within the setback requirements because of the existing well head on the property. He stated that his neighbor located to the rear of his property submitted a letter with no objections to the variance. He also stated that the home owners association had no objections to the variance. Questions were asked of Mr. Herlihy by the Board. Mr. Shelton asked if the hangar could be placed on the north side of the property and moved forward towards the stables. Mr. Herlihy stated that the septic system was located in that area. He explained that there was also a slight hill with fill dirt in that area and it would not be suitable to drive on. He also stated that there are about 35 existing hangars in the neighborhood. Mr. Stovall asked if the proposed structure was a hangar or a pole barn. Mr. Herlihy clarified that a hangar is a free-span barn with a large door. He stated that he currently doesn't own a plane and it doesn't make sense to put a barn in that location, but a future owner of the property could store a plane in the hangar. Mr. Berkel asked if hangar could be moved in front of the well. Mr. Herlihy stated that if the hangar was moved in the front of the well it would block his view of the pasture and it also wouldn't fit in with the style of the neighborhood. He suggested that the hangar could possibly be placed 35' from the road and would prefer that option over moving it in front of the weil. With no one present to speak for or against the variance request, Mr. Stovall closed the public hearing. Mr. Radauskas made a motion to approve the variance request. Mr. Arthur seconded the motion. Mr. Stovall asked to call the vote and the motion passed unanimously. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Radauskas elected to abstain from the vote because he was not a member of the Board on June 8, 2015. With no corrections or additions being noted Mr. Arthur made a motion fo approve the minutes of June 8, 2015, Mr. Shelton seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously by a voice vote. 4. OTHER MATTERS Mr. Arthur made a comment regarding legal representation not being present at the June 8, 2015 meeting and suggested that there be legal representation present when making a recommendation. Mr. Pearce apologized for being absent at the June 8, 2015 meeting. He stated that he was working on a different case at the time of the meeting.
Mr. Berkel stated that he made a suggestion for the Chair to re-open the June 8, 2015 public hearing to consider a proffer, but the Board decided to vote instead. 5. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Stovall asked if there were any items to discuss. Mr. Pearce noted the election of officers. Ms. Thompson stated that Mr. Lipperfs term ended on June 8, 2015. Mr. Stovall was Vice Chair and has currently moved to Chair. She made a suggestion to the Board to elect a new Vice Chair. She also made a suggestion to the Board to appoint a Vice Chair until the new election of officers in October 2015. Mr. Pearce made a suggestion to Mr. Stovall to appoint a Vice Chair to lead the meeting in the event that he was absent. Mr. Berkel suggested that the election of the Vice Chair should be included on the Agenda for the next meeting, to allow the board members some time to make a decision. He also suggested that in the event the Chair was absent, a Chair could be elected as needed. Mr. Pearce agreed that a Chair could be elected as needed. The Board agreed to put the election of the Vice Chair on the Agenda for the next meeting. 6. ADJOURN With no further business to discuss the meeting adjourned at 7:12 p.m. Thomas Stovall Vice Chair Amy L Lavender Liaison