HomeMy WebLinkAbout10101980 min MINUTES
Board of Adjustment
Oct. 10, 1980
11:30 A.M.
• Members Present:
B. L. Perkins, Chairman
W. M. Philips
Garnett White
Larry Blair
Members Absent:
Robert Karns
The Board of Adjustment meeting was called to order at 11:30 A.M. by the
Chairman, B. L. Perkins.
The first item for consideration was the following letter:
Board of Adjustment
City Hall
Sanford, F1
Gentlemen,
I am submitting the following information for your consideration in
requesting variance in the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to side yard
setback requirements in SR -1AA Zoned District.
Legal description Lot 24, Blk C, Idyllwilde, 5th Sec.
Property location 110 Brierwood Drive.
The planned use of the property is Swimming Pool.
Any consideration given this request will be appreciated.
Signed Alan Dickey, Owner
Mr. Dickey was present to represent the request and said the neighbor on the
side of the property in question has no objections to the 2' variance.
Mr. White moved to grant the variance. Mr. Blair seconded. Motion carried.
The next letter for consideration:
Board of Adjustment
City Hall
Sanford, FL
Gentlemen,
I am submitting the following information for your consideration in requesting
variance in the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to side and front yard set-
back requirements in MR -1 Zoned District.
Legal description Lots 5 thru 18 and 35 thru 42, inclusive, Geneva Terrace,
Amended Plat.
Property location west side Ridgewood Ave. between Ridgewood Arms Apt. and
• Geneva Terrace.
The planned use of the property is Townhouse Complex.
Any consideration given this request will be appreciated.
Signed: Robert E. McKee, Owner
MINUTES - Bparj of Adjustment - Oct. 10, 1980 - 11:30 A.M.
Page 2
Mr. McKee was present to represent the request and had a plan of the proposed
• Townhouse Duplex dwellings, showing the placement of the units and the amount
of open area. He pointed out that the density is less than the zoning requires
but the 17' variance in front and side yard setback is needed.
A letter from the City Attorney was given to the Chairman, expressing his
opinion that the Board of Adjustment has jurisdiction to grant the requested
variance in this instance, considering the common area planned for the units.
After discussion Mr. White moved to grant the variance. Mr. Philips seconded.
Motion carried.
Mr. White also recommended that the Planning & Zoning Commission be advised
of the action and the opinion of the City Attorney and also that the P & Z
Board might consider a zoning that would apply in this type of construction.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjournde.
B. . Perkins, Chaim:,
• 4 4.1P 41
W. M. Philips, S ec'y. - Trea
•
CLEVELAND, MIZE & BRIDGES
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
PICO BUILDING
MACK N. CLEVELAND, JR. 209 NORTH OAK AVENUE
C. VERNON MIZE, JR. p P. 0. DRAWER Z
JACK T. BRIDGES October 10, 1980 SANFORD, FLORIDA 32771
TELEPHONE 322 -1314
Mr. B. L. Perkins, Jr.
Chairman - Board of Adjustment
City of Sanford, Florida
Re: Variances - Setback Requirements
Dear Mr. Perkins:
I have been requested as attorney for the City of San-
ford, Florida to give an opinion relative to the variance
provision as set forth in Section 6 of Article X of the
Zoning Ordinance.
It is my understanding that the Board is considering an
application for a variance as to the setback requirements
for the construction of a residential development. It is
further my understanding that the contemplated development
will have four (4) residential units in each building, and
will have common areas between buildings.
The variance section of our Ordinance provides that the
Board may authorize such variance as will not be contrary
to the public interest when a literal enforcement of the
provisions of the regulations will result in unnecessary
hardship. The section further states that the spirit of
the Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice
done.
It appears that the contemplated development needs to have
the common area considered when determining the proper set-
back requirements. While no section of our Ordinance appears
to address this particular situation, it is my opinion that
the Board has the authority to consider the couuuon area in
this situation when determining whether or not the applicant
has sufficient setbacks between the various buildings.
Very truly yours,
CLEVELAND, MIZE & BRIDGES
C. Vernon Mize, Jr.
CVMj r /np