PZ 01/13/2010 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning & zoning Commisslonl Local Planning Agency January 13, 2010 Pago10 Mr. Parkhurst asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the request, Mr. Dave Henson, 233 Bridle Path, Casselberry, Florida came forward, Mr. Henson stated that he purchased his first property in Casselberry in 19T9. He stated that the requirements for parking recreational vehicles at that time allowed vehicles to be parked on your property as long as it was behind the front line of the house. He said that was in effect until 2008 when the new ordinance was passed, He said the ordinance was changed to state that the vehicle must be parked behind the front facade. Mr. Henson said in Sketch A the recreational vehicle is parked inappropriately according to the proposed draft ordinance. He said there was never a limitation on the length of recreational vehicles. He said the City Commission placed a maximum 35 foot length for recreational vehicles and now want to change the maximum length to 25 feet. Mr. Henson said the average length of recreational vehicles in today's market is 30 feet. Mr. Henson said that residents have gone to great expense to comply with the recent changes to the City Code regarding parking requirements. Mr. Henson suggested adding "screened from viev~' to the ordinance. He said if the recreational vehicle is screened from view, the length of the recreational vehicle should not be a factor. Mr. Henson said he is opposed to the maximum 25 foot length for recreational vehicles. Mr. Henson said he supports the "Mark Your Parking" which proMblts parking across the front yard. Mr. Henson said if he is doing things on his property safely and is not lowering the property values, the City should not tell him what he can and cannot do on his property. Mr. Henson requested the Planning and Zoning Commission remove the maximum length of 25 feet for recreational vehicles from the proposed ordinance. He said he fully supports "curb appeal", Mr. Henson stated that construction of an 8 foot fence would screen his recreational vehicle. Mr. Henson stated he was concerned with limiting the number of recreational vehicles allowed an one lot. Mr. Henson felt that if the property owner could legally park his recreational vehicles on his property, the number of vehicles should not be a factor. Mr. Henson said a recreational vehicle is not disruptive to the neighborhood because it is not used every day.