ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2014

Transcription

1 ORANGE COUNTY MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2014 The Orange County Board of Zoning Adjustment meeting met at 9:00 a.m. on September 4, 2014 in the Orange County Commission Chambers on the 1st Floor of the Orange County Administration Building, 201 South Rosalind Avenue, Orlando, Florida BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Betterman- Chairman Pinkie P. Freeman Tony Rey Ka'Juel J. Washington Gabriela Ortigoni BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Zachary Seybold- Vice Chairman Vishaal Gupta STAFF PRESENT: Rocco Relvini, AICP, Chief Planner, Zoning Division Nicholas Balevich, Development Coordinator, Zoning Division David Nearing, AICP, Development Coordinator, Zoning Division Debra Phelps, Recording Secretary, FOS Division The Chairman called the meeting to order at 9:09a.m. Following the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, the following applications, as advertised, were called up for public hearing. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Chairman requested a motion approving the minutes of the August 7, 2014, Board of Zoning Adjustment meeting (BZA). A motion was made by Peter Betterman, seconded by Gabriela Ortigoni, (Zachary Seybold and Vishaal S. Gupta were absent) and unanimously carried to APPROVE the minutes of the August 7, 2014, Board of Zoning Adjustment meeting. YOLONDA HARRELL-JONES VA REQUEST: Variance in R-3 zone to construct a triplex 25 ft. from the rear property line (north side) in lieu of 30ft. (Note: On August 7, 2014, the BZA requested this application be amended to request a rear yard variance in lieu of a front yard variance). ADDRESS: 319 E Fillmore Ave. LOCATION: Northwest corner of E. Fillmore Ave. and Anno Ave., west of S. Orange Ave. S-T -R: TRACT SIZE: 73ft. x 144ft. DISTRICT#: 3 LEGAL: W R ANNOS ADD TO PINECASTLE F/53 LOT 8 BLK 9 SEE 4340/1365 PARCEL ID: MEETING OF SEPTEMBER4,

2 Development Coordinator Nicholas Balevich recapped and outlined the location of the subject property and the revised request from the August 7, 2014 BZA Meeting. Mr. Balevich indicated the applicant was requesting a five (5) foot variance from the rear setback to construct a triplex twenty-five (25) feet from the rear property line on the north side in lieu of thirty (30) feet. It was reported by Mr. Balevich that the BZA advised on August 7, 2014, the five (5) foot variance should be for the rear setback and not the front setback; therefore, staff was required to re-advertise this case. If approved, then the approval of August 7, 2014, would become null and void, and this approval would supersede. Staff received one (1) commentary in favor and two (2) commentaries in opposition to the request. Mr. Balevich further stated staffs recommendation was for approval subject to the three (3) conditions as listed in the staff report. Yolanda Harrell-Jones, 660 Lake Harbor Circle, Orlando, Florida 32809, applicant, addressed the Board summarizing the error of legal staffs determination prior to proper public notification; and further, reiterated that the proposed use was consistent with the overall area which is zoned R-3, and contained primarily duplexes and triplexes. No one spoke in favor or in opposition to the request. A brief discussion ensued between the BZA and the applicant with regards to the appropriateness of the use in the surrounding area. The BZA concluded that the request was suitable for the neighborhood and concurred with staffs recommendation. A motion was made by Peter Betterman, seconded by Ka'Juel J. Washington, (Zachary Seybold and Vishaal S. Gupta were absent) and unanimously carried to APPROVE the Variance request in that the Board made the finding that the requirements of Orange County Code, Section 30-43(3) have been met; further, said approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Pursuant to Section , Florida Statutes, issuance of this development permit by the County does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the County for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. Pursuant to Section , the applicant shall obtain all other applicable state or federal permits before commencement of development; 2. Approval granted on August 7, 2014 is null and void; and 3. Approval is for a rear setback of twenty-five (25) feet in lieu of thirty (30) feet. Board member, Tony Rey entered the public hearing at 9:12a.m. DAVID RAMIREZ VA REQUEST: ADDRESS: LOCATION: Variance in R-2 zone to construct a sunroom addition to single family residence 15 feet from rear property line in lieu of 25 feet. (Note: The lot backs up to a retention area and the Stoneybrook Hills Homeowners Association submitted a letter of approval) Palm Isle Way East side of Palm Isle Way, south of Curry Ford Rd. MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 04,

3 S-T-R: TRACT SIZE: 49ft. x 105ft. DISTRICT#: 4 LEGAL: ISLANDS OF CURRY FORD 40/69 LOT 7 PARCEL ID: Development Coordinator David Nearing explained the location of the subject property and the request. Mr. Nearing presented an overview of the case that entailed the applicant requesting a Variance to construct a sunroom within fifteen (15) feet of the rear yard setback in lieu of thirty (30) feet in the R-2 zoning district. Mr. Nearing indicated that the homes to the north and south of the subject property, currently, had screen rooms with solid roofs located within the rear setback as is permitted by Code. Mr. Nearing explained the primary difference between a screen room with a solid roof and a sunroom was the presence of glassed windows. In Accordance with Florida Building Code, 'when a room is enclosed with glass windows, the room becomes living space and must meet Orange County Code for living space.' Additionally, the glass windows trigger the requirement to meet setbacks for the principal structure. Mr. Nearing also noted that the subject property backed up to a fifty (50) foot wide dry stormwater retention area along with the rear yards of other homes to the east that consisted of numerous mature trees which further enhanced the isolation of the lots. Moreover, all of the adjacent neighbors' rear properties were surrounded by a solid 5 1/2 to 6 foot tall fence for privacy. Staff received two (2) commentaries to include a neighbor in favor and none in opposition to the request. Mr. Nearing stated staffs recommendation was for approval subject to the conditions as set forth in the staff report. The applicant was not present at the public hearing. No one spoke in favor or in opposition to the request. The BZA discussed the case and found that the request was compatible since the neighboring properties did, in fact, set the character and tone for the appearance of the surrounding area; in addition, all of the yards had visual barriers. Therefore, the BZA concurred with staffs recommendation. A motion was made by Peter Betterman, seconded by Gabriela Ortigoni, (Zachary Seybold and Vishaal S. Gupta were absent) and unanimously carried to APPROVE the Variance request in that the Board made the finding that the requirements of Orange County Code, Section 30-43(3) have been met; further, said approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Development in accordance with site plan dated July 8, 2014 and all other applicable regulations. Any deviations, changes, or modifications to the plan are subject to the Zoning Manager's approval. The Zoning Manager may require the changes be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) for administrative approval or to determine if the applicant's changes require another BZA public hearing; 2. Pursuant to Section , Florida Statutes, issuance of this development permit MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 04,

4 2. Pursuant to Section , Florida Statutes, issuance of this development permit by the County does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the County for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. Pursuant to Section , the applicant shall obtain all other applicable state or federal permits before commencement of development; 3. Construction plans shall be submitted within two (2) years of final County approval or this approval becomes null and void; and 4. The exterior of the sunroom shall match or compliment the exterior of the existing home. STARCHILD ACADEMY- WINDERMERE VA REQUEST: Variances in P-D zone for signage as follows: 1) 2 wall signs at 60 sq. ft. each in lieu of 3 wall signs at 8 sq. ft. each 2) 1 ground sign at 30 sq. ft. in lieu of 1 ground sign at 10 sq. ft. 3) To place a wall sign not facing a street frontage in lieu of placing it on a street frontage. ADDRESS: Silverlake Park Dr. LOCATION: Northwest corner of Reams Rd. and Silver Lake Park Dr., south of Winter-Garden Vineland Rd. S-T -R: TRACT SIZE: 2 acres DISTRICT#: 1 LEGAL: COMM ATE 1/4 CORNER OF SEC TH S W FT ALONG N LINE OF THE SE 1/4 TO A PT ON THE WL Y RMI OF REAMS RD TH ALONG SAID WLY RMI N E FT TH DEPARTING SAID RMI N W FT TO POB TH S E FT TO PT OF CURV CO PARCEL ID: Chief Planner Rocco Relvini explained the location of the subject property and the request. Mr. Relvini gave a brief presentation to include diagrams of the site plan and indicated the applicant was proposing additional signage to an existing child care center known as Starchild Academy consisting of two (2) wall signs at sixty (60) square feet and one (1) ground sign. It was reported by Mr. Relvini that the subject site had three (3) road frontages; wherein, one (1) sign would be on the north side and the other sign would be on the west side of the building, thereby, each sign would advertise to different streets. Mr. Relvini also informed that the Orange County Code allowed for wall signage to face each street but limited the size to eight (8) square feet. Additionally, Mr. Relvini stated the applicant was proposing a thirty (30) square foot sign on the wall at the intersection of Reams Road and Silver Lake Drive, whereby, the Orange County Code limited this sign to ten (1 0) square feet. It was further pointed out by Mr. Relvini that one of the wall signs proposed as Sign #3, was not located on a street frontage, thus, requiring a variance. MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4,

5 More importantly, Mr. Relvini reported that the P-D was approved when the older signage standards were applicable; however, since the approval of the P-D, the Board of County Commissioners approved newer signage standards for Horizon West. Pursuant to the newer signage standards of Horizon West, no variances would have been necessary for this project to be in compliance. Regardless, since the older signage standards were applied to the subject property during the time of approval to this application, variances were necessary to be appropriately permitted. It was further noted by Mr. Relvini that according to the applicant's cover letter, the Village Code District permitted additional signage equaling up to no more than square feet. In conclusion, Mr. Relvini advised that the requested signage was not excessive and was comparable to the signage of other child care facilities. Staff received two (2) commentaries in opposition to the request. Lastly, Mr. Relvini stated staff's recommendation was for approval subject to the conditions in the staff report; providing no additional signage would be permitted. Cas Suvongse, 1053 N. Orlando Avenue, Suite #3, Maitland, Florida 32751, consultant on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Board and gave a brief presentation with comparisons of the old signage standards versus the new signage standards for Horizons West. In addition, Mr. Suvongse advised that the proposed signage types were more aesthetically pleasing to the surrounding neighborhood, goes better with the design and scale of the building, and would be more easily recognized by motorists. Mr. Suvongse agreed with staff's recommendation and acknowledged that if this request was approved, no additional signage would be allowed for this site. No one spoke in favor or in opposition to the request. The BZA discussed the case and determined that the signage types were reasonable based on the size of the building, and acknowledged this parcel as being the last one under the old code instead of the newly adopted code for Horizon West in which the enactment allowed for more signage. Finally, the BZA concurred with staff's recommendation. A motion was made by Gabriela Ortigoni, seconded by Tony Rey, (Zachary Seybold and Vishaal S. Gupta were absent) and unanimously carried to APPROVE Variance Requests #1, #2, and #3 in that the Board made the finding that the requirements of Orange County Code, Section 30-43(3) have been met; further, said approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Development in accordance with sign plans submitted with this application and all other applicable regulations. Any deviations, changes, or modifications to the plan are subject to the Zoning Manager's approval. The Zoning Manager may require the changes be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) for administrative approval or to determine if the applicant's changes require another BZA public hearing; 2. Pursuant to Section , Florida Statutes, issuance of this development permit by the County does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 04,

6 obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the County for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. Pursuant to Section , the applicant shall obtain all other applicable state or federal permits before commencement of development; and 3. No additional signage shall be permitted for this project. JOSEPH WANG WONG SE REQUEST: ADDRESS: LOCATION: S-T -R: TRACT SIZE: Acres Special Exception and Variance in P-0 zone as follows: 1) Add three 24 ft. x 36 ft. classroom modular buildings for Sunday School. 2) Install a 1,472 sq. ft. deck to connect the modular units. 3) To allow 20 additional unpaved parking spaces in lieu of paved S Goldenrod Rd. West side of S. Goldenrod Rd., approximately 450ft. north of Pershing Ave. DISTRICT#: 3 LEGAL: S 315 FT OF N 840 FT OF NE1/4 OF SW1/4 (LESS W 205 FT) & (LESS PT TAKEN FOR RD RIW PER 4474/0500) OF SEC PARCEL ID: Chief Planner Rocco Relvini explained the location of the subject property and the request. Mr. Relvini gave a brief presentation and indicated the applicant was proposing to place three (3) modular classroom buildings to the existing religious use; install a wooden deck which would connect to the three (3) modular units; and, to provide an additional twenty (20) unpaved parking spaces on the site. The use required twenty-nine (29) parking spaces by Orange County Code; however, the applicant would provide thirty-nine (39) parking spaces, twenty (20) of which to be unpaved. Mr. Relvini interjected that the applicant complied with the required number of parking spaces. It was also pointed out by Mr. Relvini that there was ample space for the improvements and the additional parking as the subject property was almost eight (8) acres in size. Aside from the modular units and the paved parking slab, the site still contained approximately eighty percent (80%) open and green space. Mr. Relvini advised that the requests would not adversely impact anyone since the existing and proposed additions represented a low intensity land use of which staff supported. In the past, the BZA has required the removal of modular units after five (5) years due to the shelf-life and deterioration of the structure; therefore, a discussion was suggested by staff associated with the duration of the timeline. Mr. Relvini further stated staff's recommendation was for approval subject, but not limited to, the three (3) conditions as listed in the staff report. Joseph Wang Wong, 262 Portstewart Drive, Orlando, Florida 32828, applicant, addressed the Board stating the purpose of the request was to serve the community in the capacity of children, adults, youth and college students with diverse educational MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 04,

7 applicant may reapply to the BZA for approval of an extension after five (5) years. CRYSTAL YOAKUM SE REQUEST: Special Exception and Variance in A-2 zone to expand the existing charter school as follows: 1) Add eight 875 sq. ft. modular classrooms (7,000 sq. ft. total) 2) Add a softball field and a football/soccer field 3) Add a concession stand near the fields with restroom facilities 4) Variance to install 32 grassed parking spaces in lieu of paved (NOTE: This is an expansion to an existing K-12 Charter School located in the City of Winter Garden) ADDRESS: 1600 E Crown Point Rd. LOCATION: West side of E. Crown Point Road, north of Fullers Cross Road, west of SR429 S-T-R: TRACT SIZE: Acres DISTRICT#: 1 LEGAL: NE1/4 OF NE1/4 (LESS BEG SW COR RUN N 785FT TO RIW OF ACL RY E 624 FT S 785 FT W 624 FT & LESS BEG 624 FT E OF SW COR OF NE1/4 OF NE1/4 RUN N 1055 FT SEL Y 925 FT MIL TO EAST CROWN POINT RD SWL Y ALONG RD 435 FT M/L TO S BNDRY OF NE1/4 OF NE1/4 TH W TO POB PARCEL ID: Development Coordinator David Nearing explained the location of the subject property and the request. Mr. Nearing presented an overview of the case that entailed the applicant requesting approval of a Special Exception to install eight (8) 875 square feet modular classrooms in conjunction with an existing K-12 Charter School; to construct a multipurpose athletic field and a softball field to the northeast corner of the subject property; and to construct an 875 square foot concession stand with water fountains and restrooms. Mr. Nearing also indicated that the applicant was requesting a Variance to install thirty-two (32) grassed parking spaces with a stabilized drive aisle in lieu of paved parking spaces in the A-2 zoning district; and further, outlined the request noting that the applicant was in the process of obtaining approval of a Conservation Area Determination from Orange County Environmental Protection Division. Currently, the school enrollment would remain the same; however, the new spaces must be provided to meet Orange County Code. The primary purpose of the new classrooms was to provide added room for existing students to increase the amount of space for new curriculum. Mr. Nearing elaborated that the existing school facility was approved and constructed within the City of Winter Garden on ten plus ( 10+) acres of land. Only the additional fourteen (14) acres being added to the north side of the site was under the County jurisdiction; and, to the north of the subject property was a large PUD approved by the City of Ocoee. The total project area was 392 plus (+) acres which included up to 371,000 plus(+) square feet of nonresidential floor area and 481 single family residence and townhouse residential units. The site had also reserved 13.5 acres for an elementary school and 51.2 acres for a high school site. MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 04,

8 Thereafter, Mr. Nearing informed the BZA that only nine (9) of the thirty-two (32) new parking spaces were actually depicted on the plan as being within County jurisdiction, the remainder was located within the jurisdiction of the City of Winter Garden. The design of the proposed parking was a logical configuration that sought to maintain a compact design profile which minimized the potential impacts on the conservation area. The applicant would be connecting the new classrooms to the public sewer system that currently was serving the existing school site. Obviously, due to the presence of the conservation area, it would not be possible to service the proposed concession stand until the Ocoee PUD was developed. In light of the City of Ocoee not opposing the application reported by Mr. Nearing, the City of Winter Garden had expressed some concerns associated with the application, but, as of the morning on September 4, 2014, the Winter Garden staff had communicated by telephone to the Orange County staff that these concerns had been met; and thereby, withdrew any opposition. Mr. Nearing conveyed as a part of this review, the applicant was required to obtain a Conservation Area Determination (CAD) from the County's Environmental Protection Division (EPD). Typically, staff would not begin processing an application requiring approval of a CAD until the CAD had, at a minimum, been initially reviewed and tentatively approved by EPD. However, it was noted by Mr. Nearing that during the time this application was submitted, the applicant had already performed the initial work to prepare the CAD for EDP. Because of the familiarity that the applicant's Environmental Specialist had previously had with the County regulations, EPD determined that it would be appropriate to proceed with processing the application. Afterwards, during preparation of the Staff Report, the application for final approval had been submitted to the EDP, and anticipated that the CAD would be approved by the date of the BZA public hearing on September 4, Unfortunately, on the date of this public hearing, the request was not finalized, although, had been preliminarily approved by the EPD. Additionally, Mr. Nearing recommended an amendment to Condition #5, to require the modular units to be permitted for five (5) years as opposed to three (3) years for consistency with prior cases reviewed by the BZA. An existing mobile home located adjacent to the proposed fields would be used for storage only and would not be used as any type of occupiable residence. Based on the foregoing, Mr. Nearing stated staffs recommendation was for approval subject, but not limited to, the conditions in the staff report as the targeted area was in flux and consistent with the pattern of development. Greg Hudak, 1550 E. Crown Point, Ocoee, Florida consultant on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Board and indicated that he was in agreement with the staffs recommendation and available to answer any questions. Mr. Hudak noted that he had met with Winter Garden staff, including the City Manager, on the previous Friday, August 29, 2014, and resolved the majority of the issues. Finally, Mr. Hudak stated the applicant would entertain annexation, if required to do so, in order to obtain water and sewer service. Renee M. Ference, 1301 E. Fullers Cross Road, Winter Garden, Florida 34787, resident in opposition, addressed the Board and voiced concerns about working the late shift MEETING OF SEPTEMBER4,

9 and having trouble sleeping because of the noise from the school. Ms. Ference stated that even with considering the trees between her home and the new proposed ball fields which were a distance away, noise carried from afar within this area which would make sleeping increasingly more difficult. Also, Ms. Ference explained that any food sales from the proposed concession stand would increase trash and the rodent population which would increase intrusion from rodents into the surrounding homes. The BZA discussed the case and asserted the necessity to permit reasonable use of the property by the School during school hours; although, empathized with the resident respective to sleep, yet, were keenly aware that the majority of society's activities were substantially scheduled during the daytime. The BZA duly noted that the use was primarily restricted to accommodate school hours; and further, affirmed Condition #8, whereby, no outdoor lights for the recreational areas to be permitted. A brief discussion ensued between the BZA and the applicant's consultant concerning the intent of the concession stand and the term, 'concession stand.' The applicant clarified that the use of the term 'concession stand' was perhaps incorrect and expounded on the main intent of the building was to provide restrooms and a place to provide liquids to the participating students on the fields. After clarification by the applicant of the intended use for the concession stand, the BZA suggested that the term 'concession stand' be replaced with 'accessory building' for restrooms and/or storage; and added Condition #14, to prohibit the sale of food or beverages from the accessory building. Finally, the BZA concurred with staff's recommendation and amended Condition #5, to change the duration of use for the modular units from three (3) years to five (5) years. A motion was made by Ka'Juel J. Washington, seconded by Tony Rey, (Zachary Seybold and Vishaal S. Gupta were absent) and unanimously carried to APPROVE the Special Exception Requests #1, #2, and #3 in that the Board finds it met the requirements governing Special Exceptions as spelled out in Orange County Code, Section 38-78, and that the granting of the Special Exception does not adversely affect general public interest; and, to APPROVE the Variance request in that the Board made the finding that the requirements of Orange County Code, Section 30-43(3) have been met; further, said approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Development in accordance with site plan dated 7/28/14 and all other applicable regulations. Any deviations, changes, or modifications to the plan are subject to the Zoning Manager's approval. The Zoning Manager may require the changes be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) for administrative approval or to determine if the applicant's changes require another BZA public hearing; 2. Pursuant to Section , Florida Statutes, issuance of this development permit by the County does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the County for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 04,

10 undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. Pursuant to Section , the applicant shall obtain all other applicable state or federal permits before commencement of development; 3. Construction plans shall be submitted within two (2) years of final County approval or this approval becomes null and void ; 4. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall complete a Conservation Area Determination. If any impacts are proposed, the applicant shall obtain a Conservation Area Impact Permit prior to the issuance of any permits; 5. Use of modular buildings for classrooms shall be approved for a maximum of five (5) years after the units are granted a Certificate of Occupancy. After five (5) years the units shall be removed, or the owner shall apply to the BZA for a determination if the use of the units may be extended; 6. Parking spaces may be unpaved. However, handicapped spaces shall be paved, and all driving aisles shall be stabilized using materials approved by the County engineering staff; 7. A Type C buffer in accordance with Chapter 24 shall be provided along the south property line adjacent to the new drive aisle in front of the new modular classrooms; 8. Lighting for the outdoor recreational areas shall be prohibited unless approved by the BZA; 9. Approval of this request does not constitute approval of the use of a septic tank for the concession stand. The use of septic tanks and wells shall be in accordance with all applicable regulations; 10. The use of the existing mobile home shall be limited to storage. The unit shall not be used as a dwelling unit; 11. There shall be no impacts or encroachments to any Orange County Conservation Areas unless approved by Orange County; 12. The site plan shall undergo Commercial Site Plan Review; 13. Prior to issuance of construction permits, the applicant shall provide verification that the City of Winter Garden will permit the 23 grassed parking spaces located within their jurisdiction. In the event the City is not supportive, the site plan must be revised to show where the spaces shall be located within that portion of the site under County jurisdiction. Unless deemed necessary by the Zoning Manager or their designee, the revision shall not require BZA approval; and 14. No food or drink sales shall be permitted from the accessory restroom/storage facilities. W. F. CRIDER VA REQUEST: ADDRESS: Variance in P-D zone to construct a 1,488 sq. ft. accessory building in lieu of 1,000 sq. ft Kirby Smith Rd. MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 04,

11 LOCATION: East side of Kirby Smith Road, south of North Shore Golf Club Blvd. S-T-R: TRACT SIZE: 2 acres DISTRICT#: 4 LEGAL: NORTH SHORE AT LAKE HART PARCEL 11 65/19 PT TRACT N (FUTURE DEVELOPMENT) DESC AS COMM SW COR OF TR N TH N E FT TO POB TH N E FT TH S E FT TH S E FT TH S E FT TH S E FT TH S3 PARCEL ID: Development Coordinator Nicholas Balevich explained the location of the subject property and the request. Mr. Balevich indicated the applicant was requesting a Variance to construct a 1,488 square foot accessory building in lieu of 1,000 square feet. It was noted by Mr. Balevich that due to the distance from the road and the placement of the house along with the preserved specimen trees on site, the accessory building would not be visible from the road. Additionally, the nearest property adjacent to the proposed accessory building had a buffer which included a wetland tract that would not be developed. Staff received three (3) letters from neighbors in favor and none in opposition to the request. Mr. Balevich further stated staff's recommendation was for approval subject to the three (3) conditions as set forth in the staff report. Sonny Hewitt, 6021 S. Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32809, representative on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Board stating that the proposed building would match in color and materials of the primary structure; wherein, the house in question would be constructed behind the trees for the purpose of seclusion. Mr. Hewitt further stated the proposed building would be a workshop only for the owner's use and would not have any commercial activity. Lastly, Mr. Hewitt concurred with staff's recommendation. No one spoke in favor or in opposition to the request. The BZA discussed the case and acknowledged the subject property was a big lot with the proposed accessory building being built away from the road in the far back on the parcel of land wherein an adjacent property would remain undeveloped. Based on the foregoing, the BZA concurred with staff's recommendations. A motion was made by Peter Betterman, seconded by Pinkie P. Freeman, (Zachary Seybold and Vishaal S. Gupta were absent) and unanimously carried to APPROVE the Variance request in that the Board made the finding that the requirements of the Orange County Code, Section 30-43(3) have been met; further, said approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Development in accordance with site plan dated received on July 15, 2014, and all other applicable regulations. Any deviations, changes, or modifications to the plan are subject to the Zoning Manager's approval. The Zoning Manager may require the changes be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) for administrative approval or to determine if the applicant's changes require another BZA public hearing; MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4,

12 2. Pursuant to Section , Florida Statutes, issuance of this development permit by the County does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the County for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. Pursuant to Section , the applicant shall obtain all other applicable state or federal permits before commencement of development; and 3. The accessory building will be designed to match the house. RAY COUDRIET VA REQUEST: ADDRESS: LOCATION: S-T-R: Variance in P-D zone to construct a single family residence 40 ft. in height in lieu of 35 ft. Cartmel Ln. West side of Cartmel Ln., north of Bridge House Rd., west of Chase Road TRACT SIZE: 2 acres DISTRICT#: 1 LEGAL: RESERVE AT LAKE BUTLER SOUND 45/120 LOT 5 PARCEL ID: Development Coordinator Nicholas Balevich explained the location of the subject property and the request. Mr. Balevich indicated the applicant was requesting a Variance to construct a Single Family Residential home forty (40) feet in lieu of thirtyfive (35) feet in height. The highest portion of the house was proposed at the interior of the lot, furthest away from the property lines, thus, having minimal impact on adjacent neighbors. Further, Mr. Balevich advised that the visual impact was minimal and would not adversely impact anyone. Staff received no commentaries in favor and three (3) commentaries in opposition to the request. Mr. Balevich stated staffs recommendation was for approval subject to the conditions as listed in the staff report. Ray Coudriet, 7635 Ashley Park Court, Suite 505, Orlando, Florida 32835, applicant, addressed the Board and explained that he had received multiple variances for height in the targeted area; and, for this reason, the request would blend into the neighborhood. Mr. Coudriet elaborated on how it would be architecturally incorrect to cut off a section of the roof from the design and true architecture of a French style steep roofline which required a peak located at the center point only. Finally, Mr. Coudriet agreed with staffs recommendation. No one spoke in favor or in opposition to the request. The BZA asked if the applicant could just make the roof thirty-five (35) feet in height. The applicant stated to reduce that portion of the roof to thirty-five (35) feet would not be visually appealing; and further, stated that the Architectural Review Board for the neighborhood recommended approval of multiple roof lines for the visual appeal. As such, the BZA agreed the request was appropriate and reasonable based on other MEETING OF SEPTEMBER4,

13 variances that had orchestrated the fabric to the surrounding area; and therefore, concurred with staff's recommendation. A motion was made by Tony Rey, seconded by Ka'Juel J. Washington, (Zachary Seybold and Vishaal S. Gupta were absent) and unanimously carried to APPROVE the Variance request in that the Board made the finding that the requirements of the Orange County Code, Section 30-43(3) have been met; further, said approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Development in accordance with site plan dated June 27, 2014, and all other applicable regulations. Any deviations, changes, or modifications to the plan are subject to the Zoning Manager's approval. The Zoning Manager may require the changes be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) for administrative approval or to determine if the applicant's changes require another BZA public hearing; and 2. Pursuant to Section , Florida Statutes, issuance of this development permit by the County does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the County for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. Pursuant to Section , the applicant shall obtain all other applicable state or federal permits before commencement of development. QUANG LAM VA REQUEST: ADDRESS: LOCATION: S-T-R: TRACT SIZE: DISTRICT#: LEGAL: Variances in A-2 zoning district as follows: 1) To place a mobile home on.38 acres of land in lieu of 2 acres, and 2) To allow existing accessory structure in front of the proposed mobile home in lieu of the side or rear yards Bermuda St. Northwest corner of Bermuda St. and Mercury Ave., approximately 180 ft. north of Sunflower Trail ft. X 140 ft. 4 EAST PINE ACRES V/143 LOT 12 BLK G PARCEL ID: Development Coordinator David Nearing explained the location of the subject property and the request. Mr. Nearing presented an overview of the case that entailed the applicant requesting approval of a Variance to permit a mobile home on.38 acres in lieu of two (2) acres in the A-2 zoning district, and to have an accessory structure in front of a principal structure. It was reported by Mr. Nearing of staff's research found that a mobile home had existed on the property until 2012, of which the property had been homesteaded through Additionally, the area was developed with a mix of approximately sixty percent (60%) mobile and/or manufactured homes and approximately forty percent (40%) site built modular homes; hence, the proposed use of MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4,

14 the lot would be consistent with the surrounding area. The subject property was a substandard sized lot; but, a recorded lot of record and, as such, considered buildable. According to the Property Appraiser's records, the lot had a mobile home located on the subject property until 2012, wherein, the property had a homestead exemption until While the Property Appraiser's records reflected the lot as vacant, a current photograph on the Appraiser's website revealed a mobile home with an existing accessory structure on the subject property. Mr. Nearing stated mobile homes on similar size parcels of land with A-2 zoning were very common in this neighborhood; however, some of the lots in the neighborhood had been rezoned to R-T-2. Moreover, Mr. Nearing advised that the applicant could pursue this option; although, the time constraint made the pursuit of a variance a more viable option. In addition, staff research discovered several other variances had been granted to permit mobile homes on lots smaller than two (2) acres in the A-2 zoning district. Specifically, numerous other mobile homes on similar sized parcels were located either adjacent to the subject property or within the neighborhood. Furthermore, Mr. Nearing conveyed that the accessory structure had been removed from the property. As a result, the variance for an accessory structure in front of the principal structure was not required; and therefore, no action was necessary. Staff received one (1) commentary in favor and none in opposition to the request. Mr. Nearing concluded with staff's recommendation for approval subject to the three (3) conditions as set forth in the staff report. Quang Lam, 328 Ponce De Leon Place, Orlando, Florida 32801, applicant, addressed the Board and agreed with staff's recommendation. No one spoke in favor or in opposition to the request. The Board asked if the applicant had any plans with the existing concrete structure on the property. The applicant responded that the concrete slab had been used as a porch or patio from a previous mobile home of which he would utilize for similar purposes. Finally, the BZA found the lot size was the same as that of most other lots in the area; and, the use of the property for a mobile home to be consistent with the development patterns, and characteristic to other mobile homes in the targeted area. Therefore, the BZA concurred with staff's recommendation and deemed Variance Request #2, as unnecessary since the accessory structure had already been removed from the subject property. A motion was made by Peter Betterman, seconded by Ka'Juel J. Washington, (Zachary Seybold and Vishaal S. Gupta were absent) and unanimously carried to render as UNNECESSARY the Variance Request #2, due to prior removal of the accessory structure; and to APPROVE the Variance Request #1, in that the Board made the finding that the requirements of the Orange County Code, Section 30-43(3) have been met; further, said approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Development in accordance with site plan dated July 28, 2014, and all other applicable regulations. Any deviations, changes, or modifications to the plan are MEETING OF SEPTEMBER4,

15 subject to the Zoning Manager's approval. The Zoning Manager may require the changes be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) for administrative approval or to determine if the applicant's changes require another BZA public hearing; 2. Pursuant to Section , Florida Statutes, issuance of this development permit by the County does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the County for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. Pursuant to Section , the applicant shall obtain all other applicable state or federal permits before commencement of development; and 3. Construction plans shall be submitted within two (2) years of final County approval or this approval becomes null and void. ADJOURN: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:42 a.m. ATTEST: Peter Betterman Chairman Recording Secretary MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4,