BOA Minutes 03/27/2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment March 27, 2008 Page 2 cannot fully support the request. He said if the Board of Adjustment chooses to grant the variance requested for BA 08- 02, for the property located at 410 Diane Court, to allow a 5-foot encroachment into a required rear yard building setback, creating a 15-foot rear yard in lieu of the required 20-foot rear yard, the motion should be based upon the Board of Adjustment's findings of fact and conclusions, the property site plan (Exhibit B attached to the staff report), and the conditions outlined in the staff report which were: 1. The variance shall only pertain to the proposed addition shown in Exhibit B. 2. The applicant shall obtain building permits for all unpermitted structures on the property prior to issuance of a permit for the addition. 3. The addition must match the material, design, and color of the existing house. 4. The addition must adhere to all other applicable codes and regulations; including impervious surface area requirements. 5. A building permit for the addition shall be obtained from the City's Building Safety Bureau within 120 days of the approval by the Board of Adjustment and the certificate of completion shall be obtained within 240 days of the issuance of the building permit. 6. All of the above conditions shall be fully and faithfully executed or the variance shall become null and void. In response to the Board's question, Mr. Senzee said it is difficult to determine the impervious surface for the property because staff has not received a site plan. Mr. Senzee said based on a site visit, the applicant should meet the impervious requirement. Mr. Senzee said condition number 5 allows the applicant additional time to obtain the building permit for the addition. He said the additional time allows the applicant sufficient time to obtain permits for the unpermitted structures. A general discussion ensued regarding setback requirements. In response to the Board's question, Mr. Senzee said that condition no. 3 should be deleted due to the type of the proposed structure. Mr. Bowman asked the applicant to come forward. Mr. Scott Brasol, 410 Diane Court, Casselberry, Florida came forward. Mr. Brasol said the 2006 variance replaced the existing screen room with an addition. He said they didn't realize how much they would miss the screen enclosure. He said it was an oversight that the screen room was not put on the original plans. Mr. Brasol said the shed was put in approximately 8 years ago by a shed company and he was not aware he needed a permit for the shed. He said the shed and pool deck could be removed it needed. He said he was not aware that a building permit was required for an above ground pool.