CC Minutes 09/25/2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CASSELBERRY CITY COMMISSION Minutes of September 25, 2006 - Regular Meeting Page 11 of]8 No one else came forward. Mayor Goff closed the public hearing. Applicant Rebuttal: No rebuttal was given to comments given during the public hearing. City Commission Discussion: Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the impacts on the property owners if the denial was upheld as well as the impact and precident that would occur should the variance be granted. Catherine Reischmann, City Attorney, stated the City Commission has to be sure that the Code's criteria is met ifthe variance is granted and clarified that conditions can be put on a variance. Commissioner Doerner and Commissioner Hufford did not feel it would be possible to grant a variance based on the Code's criteria. Mayor Goff stated that based on his prior experience with the Seminole County Board of Adjustment that the variance could be limited to the current property owners or a time limit could be set on the variance. Ms. Reischmann referred to staff s previous recommendation to the Board of Adjustment that should variance be granted, the motion should include the following conditions: I) The variance shall only pertain to the 352 sq. ft. accessory structure which encroaches 12 ft. into the rear yard building setback, as shown in Exhibit B. 2) The structure shall meet all other site development criteria. 3) The accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit or for a commercial use. 4) A building permit for all accessory structures on the property shall be obtained from the City's Building Safety Bureau within 30 days of the approval and a final inspection shall be approved within 120 days of the issuance of the building permit. 5) All of the above conditions shall be fully and faithfully executed or the variance shall become null and void. Ms. Reischmann requested that the City Commission review the recommended conditions prior to a motion being made on the matter and clarified that additional conditions such as limiting the variance to the current homeowner or a certain time period could be added. Ms. Reischmann stated the specific meaning of hardship in case law is that it is intended to relate to the shape, size and nature of the configuration of the lot and should not in any way relate to the people that live on the lot. Ms. Reischmann stated the Commission must base its findings of fact and conclusions on the Code's six critieria to overturn the Board of Adjustment's decision and deem the existence of special conditions not created by the applicant, special privileges not conferred, hardship conditions exist, only a minimum variance is granted and its not injurious to the public welfare, and then based on conditions. MOTION: Vice Mayor Hart moved to approve BA 06-11 subject to the following conditions: 1) The variance shall only pertain to the 352 sq. ft. accessory structure which encroaches 12 ft. into the rear yard building setback, as shown in Exhibit B; 2) The structure shall meet all other site development criteria; 3) The accessory