Laserfiche WebLink
extended or expanded in a way which is non - compliant where this is located. Any structure in the rear, which is a <br />30ft setback, every permit would be denied and this was the reason for the denial of this permit. <br />Nishad Kahn, Attorney for Mary Luciano, advised that almost all of the homes have a rear porch that leads up to a <br />wall in the back, more than half of the homes have enclosed porches, a lot without permits. Ms. Luciano went to the <br />Home Owners Association and mentioned to them that she wasn't going to be able to enclose the porch and the HOA <br />didn't think it would be a problem and for her to go ahead. Ms. Luciano then came to the City of Casselberry and <br />was told a permit would not be needed if construction was less than 100sq ft., so she went forward and enclosed the <br />porch. <br />Mary Luciano, 2683 Cayman Way, stated in September 2013 she spoke with Ms. Debra Arnold and was told she did <br />not need a permit for 100sq ft. Ms Lucian spoke longer, however the secretary was not able to understand much of <br />what was said. Ms. Luciano just requests something that everyone else has, enclosed the porch. One photograph was <br />entered in to record as Exhibit B. <br />Mr. Kahn stated the application should not have been denied based on the original plat not having a 30ft setback, <br />more than half of the properties already have porches enclosed. They feel this selective of his client, or a code that no <br />one else complies as well. Mr. Kahn has a list, which he would also like to add of permits that have been approved <br />for other additions onto enclosed porches. <br />Mr. Kahn stated they were asking for the violation to be lifted and if possible approve the building permit. <br />Ms. Luciano gave testimony. <br />Mr. Hernandez stated that on December 5t' and asked if Ms. Luciano if she told everything that was being done and <br />she said no. That's why Ms. Arnold may have said that Ms. Luciano didn't need a permit. <br />Mr. Sorensen stated that on what was submitted as exhibit D shows they are mostly re -roofs and did not show there <br />were permits issued for similar work that the applicant had applied for. <br />Mr. Kahn stated the survey that was provided in exhibit B was incorrect showing a 9ft setback, it is believed to be a <br />mistake. <br />The special Magistrate asked Mr. Kahn, it's not his argument that the structure meets the setbacks? <br />Ms. Luciano gave testimony. <br />Mr. Hull stated when Ms. Luciano mentioned maybe a limited scope of work when she talked with Ms. <br />Arnold, mentioning repairs, siding and a roof, which under the square footage of 100 sq ft would not need a <br />permit. Mr. Hull thought there was miscommunication. The existing wall that was added on to is more a of <br />a dividing common wall not living area. <br />Mr. Sorensen read part of the code 2 -8.8 1 for non - conforming structures, "no such alteration, extension, <br />enlargement or expansion of a non - conforming use of a non - conforming building or structure shall be <br />permitted in a way which increases its non - compliance use standards of the zoning district in which it's <br />located or portion thereof may be altered to decrease its non - compliance. Mr. Sorensen pointed out the <br />violation. <br />Mr. Kahn stated this is not an extension of living area, it's simply a roof on the common wall and therefore <br />not an addition. <br />Ms. Luciano stated the association told her she needs to enclose the porch to be in compliance with <br />everyone else. <br />3 1 P a g e <br />