Title:
title
Approve and Authorize the Chairman to execute a Resolution vacating and abandoning two (2), seven (7) foot wide utility easements along the west side of Lot 6 and the south twenty (22) feet of Lot 5 of the Opal Terrace Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 13, Page 38, of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida, more particularly known as 574 Ruby Court, Maitland; (Roger Vega and Katherine Exposito, Applicants) District 4 - Lockhart (Rebecca Hammock, Growth Management Director)
end
Division:
division
Development Services - Growth Management
body
Authorized By:
Rebecca Hammock, Growth Management Director
Contact/Phone Number:
Annie Sillaway/407-665-7936
Background:
Summary:
The Applicants have petitioned the County to vacate and abandon two (2) seven (7) foot wide platted utility easements, one temporary and one permanent along the west side of Lot 6 and the south twenty-two (22) feet of Lot 5 of the Opal Terrace Subdivision, as recorded in the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida Plat Book 13, Page 38.
The purpose of the request is to vacate two utility easements that conflict with the location of structures on-site that have been cited by the County for construction without building permits.
Code Enforcement Case History:
The case was initially opened on August 11, 2023, due to receiving a citizen report of potential unpermitted construction. The full citation on the Notice of Violation is as follows: “Extensive interior & exterior renovations including Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Bathroom renovations, Pool renovations to include a spa, pool screen enclosure, and additional building structures on the property without the required permits.” The “additional building structures”, refer to a shed, an enclosed garage that has been to be converted to living space, an existing addition in the rear of the main residence, and the guesthouse that has three (3) tenant individual tenant spaces.
The owners of the property were responsive from the commencement of the case, and communicated with the Building and Planning Divisions, to discuss permitting options. The owners maintained consistent communication by phone and email with the unpermitted construction team. Discussions to vacate the utility easements took place between August and December of 2023. However, due to the existing unpermitted construction, the Applicant only applied for one building permit for the existing addition to the primary residence, which staff explained via comments in ePlan that the homeowner would be required to apply for a variance due to the encroachment into the building setback. The homeowner did not attempt to apply for further building permits for the other existing structures before the Statement of Violation was filed with the Clerk of the Special Magistrate on December 19, 2023.
A permit application for the existing addition to the main residence was submitted in February (permit #24-1552) with multiple corrections from multiple departments. Comments are still pending and have been waiting on a response from the Applicant since August 7, 2024. One comment that was made during the review of the existing addition was the requirement to vacate the utility easement, which put a hold on the building permit until the utility easement vacate has been fully processed. By addressing the comments for building permit #24-1552, only a portion of the violations will be remediated.
The homeowner is required to submit additional permit applications for the pool/spa renovations/resurfacing, pool spa heater installation, screen enclosure, garage enclosure, separate guesthouse, whole house re-pipe (plumbing), plus any interior renovations within the main house. As discussed in the next section, only some of these structures encroach on the easements.
The case was heard by the Special Magistrate on August 8, 2024, for the first code enforcement order (Finding of Facts), who entered the Code Enforcement Order on August 16, 2024, to comply by September 11, 2024. The Order also required an onsite inspection by the Building Division, which was conducted on September 5, 2024. The homeowner and contractor were both onsite for this inspection and spoke with the inspector regarding permitting requirements for the proposed work that is to be completed. Below is an excerpt of comments from the inspection, as stated by Jason Rucker:
“Met with the owner Roger and the contractor Jamie on site to go over what would require permits. Permit #24-1552 for the addition is in plan check; however, permit #23-8412 for windows, and permit #23-18327 for the fence are required to be renewed. The pictures obtained to add to the casefile were permissible to be taken per the homeowner. See additional violations. The homeowner created three (3) living spaces at the rear portion of the residence with plumbing, electric, and mini split a/c units. Added a spa to the pool, added a spa heater, re-surfaced the pool, re-piped house, replaced a/c units. The master suite addition to main house and enclosed the garage to make living space and added a back porch with a roof and constructed a shed all without permits”.
Onsite Inspections:
The property was inspected on August 11, 2023, July 26, 2024, August 6, 2024, August 29, 2024, and September 5, 2024. Attached are the photos from the initial inspection, for reference, as well as aerial images of the property that show the progression of construction. The fine is still accruing daily.
Special Magistrate Status:
The Special Magistrate Ordered a compliance date by September 11, 2024, with a hearing scheduled for September 12, 2024, and the homeowners did not attend the Special Magistrate compliance hearing. The Special Magistrate imposed a fine of $200 a day, starting September 11, 2024, and all the administrative cost will have to be paid within 30 days.
Zoning Violations:
Based staff analysis of the subject property, there are also several existing zoning violations:
• The existing addition that was built onto the main residence appears to be encroaching onto the neighboring property at 2315 Lake Howell Lane and zoning review cannot be completed so long as this encroachment exists.
• The “guesthouse” may require a separate permit. Based on the plans provided, it does not match the structure as it exists on the property. Staff has requested the homeowner to provide accurate plans for this structure.
• The one-story guesthouse suite, pool and pool screen enclosure, addition onto the rear portion of the home, and converted carport to an addition, which all encroach into the required ten (10) foot side yard setback and thirty (30) foot rear yard setbacks that are required to be maintained in the A-1 (Agriculture) zoning district.
How will the vacate of the two easements resolve the code enforcement violations?
The vacate is a first step in the Applicant’s effort to come into compliance.
The Applicant has multiple structures, the pool deck/screen enclosure, the addition to the primary residence, and an existing guesthouse, that encroach into and are directly placed on the easements. Vacating the utility easements would remove the current encroachments into the easements.
There are no utilities within these easements. The letters that were provided from the utility companies all confirm that the utilities are placed along the front portion of the subject property and not within the subject easement.
Encroachments into Utility Easements:
The Applicants have petitioned the County to vacate and abandon one seven (7) foot wide platted temporary utility easement and one seven (7) foot wide platted permanent utility easement which exist along the west side of Lot 6 and south twenty (22) feet of Lot 5 of the Opal Terrace Subdivision, as recorded in the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida Plat Book 13, Page 38.
Vacation of the combined fourteen (14) foot wide utility easements will remove the encroachment of an existing guesthouse, an addition to the primary residence, and a pool deck/screen enclosure, into those utility easements. The existing guesthouse and the existing addition both encroach fourteen (14) feet into the fourteen (14) foot wide easement; the existing pool deck/screen enclosure encroaches seven and one half (7.5) feet into the combined fourteen (14) foot wide utility easements.
The guesthouse and addition do not comply with the property’s A-1 (Agriculture) zoning rear yard building setback of thirty (30) feet; therefore, a rear yard building setback variance approved by the Board of Adjustment will also be needed. Vacating the easements at this stage only allows the removal of the two utility easements and does not guarantee approval of a variance. The homeowner would need to demonstrate a hardship during the variance process and the request would be reviewed through a separate application process. The variance application will be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment at a public hearing who will ultimately either approve or deny the request for a variance(s).
The Applicant has provided letters of no objection from all applicable utility companies. County staff has no objection to the vacation and abandonment of the utility easements.
Analysis of 590 Ruby Court to see if there may be an encroachment of structures into the two (2) Utility Easements:
Based on the approved building plans for the new building located at 590 Ruby Court that is north of the subject property, the site plans show a seven (7) foot permanent utility easement, not the seven (7) foot temporary utility easement, and does not show an encroachment into the permanent seven (7) foot utility easement. The site plan pages have been included in the agenda package.
This request complies with the requirements for vacating easements under the authority of Section 35.184 (b), Seminole County Land Development Code.
September 10, 2024, Board of County Commissioners Meeting
The Board of County Commissioners met on September 10, 2024, and the County Manager pulled the Ruby Court Utility easement item from the agenda, so that staff could provide the following additional information:
1. The results of the Special Magistrate meeting that was held on September 12, 2024;
2. Zoning Violations; and
3. The Code Case History and the onsite inspections records on the subject property.
On November 4, 2024, staff met with Mr. Roger Vega, the homeowner at 574 Ruby Court. The meeting was to thoroughly explain to Mr. Vega that the utility vacation is just the first step toward resolving the issue and other actions, such as a variance and building permit review by Zoning, Building and Fire, will also be required to bring the property into compliance.
In addition to these processes, it was further explained that any decisions on the utility easement request will not have direct impact on other requests. If the utility easement is denied, the homeowner could appeal the circuit court or remove the structures that are encroaching into the utility easement.
Requested Action:
Staff requests the Board approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Resolution vacating and abandoning two (2) utility easements on a portion of Lot 5 and all of Lot 6 of the Opal Terrace Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 13, Page 38, of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida, more particularly known as 574 Ruby Court, Maitland.