Laserfiche WebLink
CASSELBERRY CITY COMMISSION <br />Minutes of June 28, 2021 — workshop <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />The City Commission agreed by consensus to direct Mr. Bowley and staff to draft an ordinance for <br />regulation of accessory structures as follows: setting size and number limitations on installation of <br />accessory structures to two (2) structures of 120 square feet each for a total of 240 square feet; setting <br />conditional use requirements for anything greater than that; including conditions for restrictions on <br />placement, buffering/screening of the structure, and restrictions on blocking of neighboring property <br />views; and excluding pools, ponds, screened enclosures and pergolas from the two (2) structures per <br />property limitation. <br />Additional brief discussion ensued regarding open detached carports and pergolas. Mr. Bowley advised <br />that exclusion from those structures from the limitation on number of accessory structures on a lot would <br />address that issue, and also advised that there is a limitation in the Florida Building Code regarding the <br />size of a pergola, so staff would need to be cognizant of that. Ms. Reischmann inquired whether the Code <br />amendment would need to also address consideration of the impervious surface ratio (ISR). Mr. Bowley <br />advised that is already included in the Code and an application for an accessory structure would not be <br />approved if the required impervious space ratio would be violated. He further advised he would prepare <br />a draft ordinance based on the input from the City Commission at tonight's workshop and would most <br />likely bring it back as a presentation for further discussion prior to consideration on first and second <br />reading. <br />5. CITIZENS' COMMENTS <br />Mayor Henson announced persons that wished to make comment or make inquiry on any matter may <br />request to be recognized during Citizens' Comments. The following individuals came forward: <br />1. Bill Hufford, 527 Queens Mirror Circle, thanked the City Commission and staff for their <br />review of existing regulations and possible new regulations relating to accessory <br />structures. He expressed various concerns about the issue, including curb appeal; <br />screening/buffering; effect on real estate values; property line setbacks; sightlines; and <br />impact on neighboring properties. <br />2. Paul Yeargain, 160 S Winter Park Drive, thanked the City Commission for providing an <br />opportunity for citizens to speak on this issue and also expressed concerns, including <br />curb appeal both front and lakefront; aesthetics and conformance to the main structure; <br />property line setbacks; code enforcement and potential for periodic inspections; and the <br />possibility of notification to neighboring properties when permits are pulled for <br />accessory structures. <br />3. Chris Burke, 519 Queens Mirror Circle, expressed concerns about restrictions on <br />connecting power or water to accessory structures and utilizing those connections as one <br />of the criteria for defining a shed. He also agreed that there should be a definition of the <br />field of view for lakefront properties so line of sight to the water would not be impeded <br />for neighboring properties. <br />4. Rhonda Ovist, 220 South Embrey Drive, also expressed concerns, including that this <br />issue had arisen from a single complaint about an accessory structure built according to <br />