Bernard Johns, James Hattaway, Austin Beeghly, and Thomas

Present

Kunzen

Larry Wright, and Heather Stark

Absent

OPENING STATEMENT

VARIANCES

1201 Pomelo Court- Request for a side street (east) setback variance

from fifty (50) feet to thirty-seven (37) feet for a detached garage in the

A-1 (Agriculture) district; BV2023-011 (James Dunn, Applicant) District 5 -

Herr (Angi Gates, Project Manager)

2023-254

Angi Gates, Planner, presented this item as stated in the Staff Report.

James Dunn, Applicant, was present and asked if he was able to get the letters of

opposition of the neighbors that were received. The applicant stated that he is not

requesting the thirty-five (35) feet, he’s asking for twenty-one (21) feet and for

permission to build a garage, not a storage shed in his driveway. He explained that if

they see the layout of the property, the only place that he can put this garage is on the

opposite side. He stated that he has two (2) sons that are going to start driving soon

and he needs a garage in the driveway and he can’t push it back, because of the septic

tank and the drain field is there and the only place that the garage can fit logically is

where it’s being requested. He has letters from neighbors stating that they don’t have

an issue with the placement of the garage and there is also a neighbor present that

would like to speak in support.

Chairman Bernard Johns asked the applicant if he had a copy of the letters. Mr. Dunn

responded yes and he passed them to the Clerk. He further explained that one (1) of

the letters is from the neighbor that is not present and the other is from the neighbor

that is present to speak in support. Chairman Johns asked if the applicant had any

further comments and Mr. Dunn asked why the neighbors are in opposition, because in

their subdivision almost every lot has a garage. He further stated that within a three (3)

miles radius of him, there are already approved variances so for him not to get a

variance for a garage in the driveway would be ridiculous.

Chairman Johns stated that as far as the objectors they would have to see if they will

come to speak and the applicant would have a chance for rebuttal on the issues that

they raise and as far as reading the opposition letters, the applicant would have to get

with staff to get the letters and if it gets denied he would be able to appeal it to the

Board of County Commissioners.

Austin Beeghly asked the applicant if he has spoken with the neighbors about this

request and he responded that he spoke to about five (5) or six (6) neighbors in the

immediate area who all have huge garages. He further explained that there’s two (2)

neighbors that don’t like him because he complained about them driving a

four-wheeler.

Jim Hattaway asked staff if they are aware of any of the garages that have been built

inconsistent with the Land Development Code. Ms. Gates responded that some of the

garages received building permits because they met the setback and further stated that

in the vicinity, there are no variances for a garage, but they did have a lot of sheds, but

nothing similar to this. Mr. Hattaway asked if there’s any Code Enforcement actions,

and Ms. Gates responded no.

Mr. Hattaway asked Mr. Dunn if there’s a possibility to put the garage on the left side of

the house and he responded no and stated that it’s nowhere near the driveway, so it

will ruin all the grass with a building and a driveway. He further explained that the

entrance of the house is on the right side and putting the garage on the left side means

they will have to walk outside in the front because the entrance is on the opposite side

so they don’t prefer to take down two (2) trees and a lot of greenery to put a garage

where doesn’t fit and the septic tank is there in the back, so there’s no way he can put

it there.

Chairman Johns asked why not put the garage where the carport is and the applicant

responded that then he would lose the carport then he further explained that he will be

blocking the garage if he put it there. Chairman Johns asked if he already has a garage

and a carport and is now trying to build another detached garage and the applicant

responded yes.

Mr. Dunn asked the Board how he can get the names of the neighbors that sent the

opposition letters in. Ms. Gates responded that he could give her a call to do a public

record request.

Raymond Bowen spoke in support of this item and stated that he has been a resident

of this community for more than twelve (12) years and he is the neighbor right behind

the applicant. He stated that he doesn’t have an objection to the placement of the

garage as this request is only for thirteen (13) feet.

Connie Brashear spoke in opposition of this item and stated that she’s an engineer and

she will like to bring her opinion from an engineering view and explained why the

setback is necessary as there’s a minimum curve and the line would be affected if the

garage was put in this location.

Tom Kunzen explained that he might have a conflict because he worked with Mrs.

Brashear before.

Mr. Dunn responded that the utility comes from the back so with that there’s not going

to be any problems and also explained that the structure doesn’t affect the line of sight,

even if they go more than the speed limit on that curve.

A motion was made by Tom Kunzen, seconded by Jim Hattaway, to continue this

variance request to the next meeting.

Mr. Kunzen added that he reviewed the agenda over the weekend and there wasn’t an

attachment of neighbors support or opposition for this particular variance and when he

got to the meeting, there were a few letters of opposition, so it seems like this situation

is more complicated and for the Board to approve this variance request at this time

might be a little immature, because there are so many people in opposition that it would

cause a bigger situation in the neighborhood and it would be fair to let the other

neighbors that are in opposition talk.

Ms. Gates stated that the reason why they didn’t receive all the letters in the agenda is

because they didn’t received them in time before the agenda was sent to print and

everything received after that is always emailed to the Board. She further stated that

the opposition doesn’t have to be in attendance to be taken into consideration. Mr.

Kunzen responded that he understands that they don’t have to be there, but when

everyone has so many opinions about this, he thinks that additional time for them to

talk would be better.

Chairman Johns asked the applicant if he preferred that the Board vote on this now

and Mr. Dunn responded yes he preferred it be voted on tonight. Chairman Johns

added that it may not matter what they decide as it might get appealed to the Board of

County Commissioners, because there’s a big number of people objecting to this.

Mr. Hattaway asked Mr. Dunn if he’d rather take his chances tonight than wait to the

next meeting and see if they can come to an agreement with the neighbors and he

responded that the differences between the neighbors and him are not going to change

because he is a car guy and they do a car show once a month and they have called the

police on him because of this so unless he stops his car show that he does on the

second Thursday of the month, the issues are not going to get resolved and he is not

stopping his car show. Mr. Hattaway added that he strongly suggests considering the

idea of talking with the neighbors about this issue. Mr. Dunn replied that if they wait

until the next meeting it’s an extra month and they might not change their opinion. Mr.

Hattaway stated that every time there’s a contractor or developer that comes and

there’s a citizen dispute the Board typically suggest to go and talk to them and find a

compromise and it usually works, but you also have the right to say no and vote

tonight. The applicant asked if they don’t vote tonight and he comes back next month

what would happen next. Mr. Hattaway responded that there’s no promises or

guarantees, but talk to the neighbors and work a compromise with them and maybe the

opposition will disappear and that would be a different consideration for this Board.

A motion was made by Tom Kunzen, seconded by Jim Hattaway, to continue this

variance request to the next meeting.

Bernard Johns, James Hattaway, Austin Beeghly, and Thomas

Kunzen

Aye:

Larry Wright, and Heather Stark

Absent:

4073 Silverstream Terrace - Request for a side street (north) setback

variance from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet for a fence in the PD

(Planned Development) district; BV2023-026 (Elroy Pascoe, Applicant)

District 5 - Herr (Angi Gates, Project Manager)

2023-487

Angi Gates, Planner, presented this item as stated in the Staff Report. Ms. Gates

further explained that there was an email requesting how many variances for fences

there were in the subdivision and so far, there have been nine (9) approved by this

Board.

Jim Hattaway asked staff if among those, the backyard neighbor is included on that list.

Tom Kunzen replied yes, they have an approved variance from 2021.

Elroy Pascoe, Applicant, was present but did not have any comments for the Board.

Chairman Bernard Johns stated that the neighbor’s setback is at fifteen (15) feet from

the property line, but this request is for ten (10) feet when normally when there’s an

existing fence most people just want to align the fences. He asked the applicant why he

would need that extra five (5) feet and the Mr. Pascoe responded that he just wanted to

enjoy more of their backyard. Chairman Johns asked how far that puts the fence from

the house and the applicant responded around ten (10) feet.

Austin Beeghly advised the Board that he used to work with the applicant.

No one from the audience spoke in favor or opposition to this request.

A motion was made by ¬¬Austin Beeghly to approve this item. The motion did not pass

due to lack of a second.

A motion was made by Tom Kunzen, seconded by Jim Hattaway, to approve this

variance request, at fifteen (15) feet to align the fences.

Bernard Johns, James Hattaway, Austin Beeghly, and Thomas

Kunzen

Aye:

Larry Wright, and Heather Stark

Absent:

347 Beach Avenue- Request for a side yard (east) setback variance from

ten (10) feet to one and one-half (1½) feet for a shed in the R-1AA (Single

Family Dwelling) district; BV2023-030 (David S. Huysman lll, Applicant)

District 4 - Lockhart (Angi Gates, Project Manager)

2023-489

Angi Gates, Planner, presented this item as stated in the Staff Report.

David Huysman, Applicant, was present, but did not have any additional comments for

the Board.

No one from the audience spoke in favor or opposition to this request.

A motion was made by Jim Hattaway, seconded by Austin Beeghly, to approve this

variance request.

Bernard Johns, James Hattaway, Austin Beeghly, and Thomas

Kunzen

Aye:

Larry Wright, and Heather Stark

Absent:

801 Bill Dot Drive - Request for a side street (north) setback variance

from twenty-five (25) feet to twenty-one (21) feet for a fence in the R-1AA

(Single Family Dwelling) district; BV2023-032 (Julio Blanco, Applicant)

District 3 - Constantine (Angi Gates, Project Manager)

2023-491

Angi Gates, Planner, presented this item as stated in the Staff Report.

Austin Beeghly asked staff if the fence was already there and they are just replacing

the fence. Ms. Gates responded yes. Mr. Beeghly asked if there wasn’t a building

permit and she responded correct.

Jim Hattaway asked staff if the previous wooden fence had a building permit and Ms.

Gates responded that she could not find a building permit and doesn’t know when the

wooden fence was placed.

Tom Kunzen asked if the new fence was discovered and that is when the Code

Violation came into place. Ms. Gates confirmed.

Julio Blanco, Applicant, was present, but did not have any additional comments for the

Board.

No one from the audience spoke in favor or opposition to this request.

A motion was made by Tom Kunzen, seconded by Jim Hattaway, to approve this

variance request.

Bernard Johns, James Hattaway, Austin Beeghly, and Thomas

Kunzen

Aye:

Larry Wright, and Heather Stark

Absent:

1080 Dyson Drive - Request for a side street (east) setback variance

from thirty-five (35) feet to twenty-six (26) feet for a fence in the RC-1

(Single Family Dwelling) district; BV2023-034 (Dianne Johnson, Applicant)

District 2 - Zembower (Angi Gates, Project Manager)

2023-493

Angi Gates, Planner, presented this item as stated in the Staff Report.

Dianne Johnson, Applicant, was present and stated that she started trying to have her

fence replaced in the same location last December but, she was told that the variance

was thirty-five (35) feet. However, the fence that was built before she moved in was at

26.9 feet and the previous owner did not have the fence permitted over ten (10) years

ago. She explained that if she had to move it an inch, it would be a hardship on her

because she would have to relocate bushes and a swing set and move a gate that is

facing Dyson Drive. Ms. Johnson advised that she also has letters from the neighbors

stating that they did not have a problem with the placement of the fence.

No one from the audience spoke in favor or opposition to this request.

A motion was made by Austin Beeghly, seconded by Jim Hattaway, to approve this

variance request.

Bernard Johns, James Hattaway, Austin Beeghly, and Thomas

Kunzen

Aye:

Larry Wright, and Heather Stark

Absent:

5001 Palmetto Avenue - Request for a side street (south) setback

variance from twenty-five (25) feet to thirteen and one-half (13½) feet for

a detached garage in the R-1A (Single Family Dwelling) district;

BV2023-028 (Jacob Kuzman, Applicant) District 1 - Dallari (Angi Gates,

Project Manager)

2023-488

Angi Gates, Planner, advised the Board that this item is being continued to the June

26, 2023 meeting, because they did not post the placard in time to the property.

1105 Otter Lane - Request for a side yard (south) setback variance from

twenty (20) feet to thirteen (13) feet eleven (11) inches for an accessory

structure in the RC-1 (Country Homes) district; BV2023-025 (James &

Krystal Goodman, Applicants) District 2 - Zembower (Hilary Padin, Project

Manager)

2023-471

Hilary Padin, Planner, presented this item as stated in the Staff Report.

Chairman Bernard Johns asked staff to clarify if a detached structure with a bathroom

was prohibited. Kathy Hammel, Principal Planner, responded that they had a recent

determination that as long they can confirm in the building permit process that the

structure won’t be used for a guest house or converted into an accessory dwelling unit,

but the Board of Adjustment can also make it a condition of approval. Chairman Johns

replied that there’s been a change in the determination and Ms. Hammel responded

yes, but they would need to put conditions.

James Goodman, Applicant, was present, but did not have any additional comments

for the Board.

No one from the audience spoke in favor or opposition to this request.

A motion was made by Austin Beeghly, seconded by Jim Hattaway, to approve this

variance request with the condition that it not being utilized as an accessory dwelling

unit or guest house.

Bernard Johns, James Hattaway, Austin Beeghly, and Thomas

Kunzen

Aye:

Larry Wright, and Heather Stark

Absent:

3238 Upland Point - Request for a side street (south) setback variance

from fifteen (15) feet to three and one-half (3.5) feet for a privacy fence in

the PD (Planned Development) district; BV2023-029 (Michael & Katrina

Dantes, Applicants) District 1 - Dallari (Hilary Padin, Project Manager)

2023-476

Hilary Padin, Planner, presented this item as stated in the Staff Report.

Jim Hattaway asked staff about the fence erected on the rear property line and Kathy

Hammel, Principal Planner, replied that upon further research, the fence was approved

on the Final Master Plan when they starting preparing the ground before the houses

were constructed. She explained that they erected this fence, but it doesn’t meet the

setbacks for the corner lots and the lots weren’t created at that time, so that how the

fence was able to get approved.

Tom Kunzen added so that means that the fence was put in first before the lots and

Ms. Hammel replied that in the recording of the plat is when the lots are officially

created but they did know beforehand the layout, but it wasn’t officialized until the

recording.

Chairman Bernard Johns stated that it’s his understanding that they put fences up for

construction all the time, but when the construction is completed, the fences typically

go down so if someone decide to leave it there, it would stay. Ms. Hammel responded

that in this specific situation it was not constructed for security purposes, probably to

make it a selling point. Chairman Johns replied that it was put up inappropriately. Mr.

Hattaway added that if it was part of the plat and the Board of County Commissioners

approved it, they have blessed it. Ms. Hammel replied that it wasn’t part of the plat, it

was part of the engineering plans.

Mr. Kunzen asked staff if the required setback in that area it would be fifteen (15) feet

and that would include any part of the fence, not just the fence running parallel to the

county right-of-way that would also include the perpendicular side. Ms. Padin

responded that yes, any fence would be included as part of that. Mr. Kunzen added so

that mean that fence would end eleven and one-half (11.5) feet shorter than it actually

does. Mrs. Padin responded correct.

Mr. Kunzen asked if there have been any other variances approved in that subdivision

for corner lots. Ms. Padin responded yes there have been multiple and listed out that

2662 Estuary Loop was approved to five (5) feet was approved in April 2022, 2715

Estuary Loop was approved to three (3) feet in 2020, 3096 Cristal Water Run was

approved to five (5) feet in 2021 and 2641 Estuary Loop was denied twice at three (3)

feet and eight (8) feet.

Michael Dantes, Applicant, was present and stated that he was able to get an approval

from his HOA and provided a copy of it to the Clerk. He advised that they have spoken

to the neighbors and they don’t have any issues with it. He stated that they are

currently building a pool, so this fence would bring privacy and security for the kids.

Chairman Johns asked Mr. Dantes how much distance he wanted to leave in between

the edge of the pool and the fence, and the applicant responded ten (10) feet.

Chairman Johns asked if they were going to erect the fence at the edge of the of the

patio deck, how far that would put it off from the corner of the house and Mr. Dantes

responded it would be right off the lanai and he further stated that there were previous

variances that they approved for more or less and the builder told him that they were

able to attach to that fence. He advised that the variance that was approved for five (5)

feet is actually measured at almost three (3) feet from the sidewalk. Chairman Johns

replied that if they put it in the wrong place, that would be a Code Enforcement issue

and just because this happened doesn’t make it right and the setback is measured

from the property line, not the sidewalk.

No one from the audience spoke in favor or opposition to this request.

A motion was made by Jim Hattaway, seconded by Tom Kunzen, to deny this variance

request.

Mr. Hattaway stated that it’s unfortunate to the homeowner that he is going through

this, but that doesn’t give him an entitlement.

Chairman Johns asked the Board if there’s a lesser distance that they could agree on

and Mr. Hattaway replied that this homeowner already has these expectations since

they are putting in a pool and he sympathized with him, but this situation is self-inflicted

harm. Mr. Kunzen replied there might be a larger setback that is acceptable to the

homeowner to give some space in between the pool deck and the fence, because

there are some variances in the same subdivision that they approved down to three (3)

feet. Mr. Hattaway asked staff if they know the average of the approved variances and

Ms. Padin responded that the other two (2) were at five (5) feet. Mr. Kunzen asked

when that three (3) foot variance was granted, and she responded on July 27, 2020.

Mr. Kunzen added that it seems that the reason the homeowner is requesting the three

(3) feet is because the developer put that fence on the rear property line.

Austin Beeghly stated that he understands everyone’s perspective, but they already

have approved three (3) feet before, so he gets that they don’t want to let everyone

request that but that already happened.

Mr. Hattaway withdrew his motion to deny.

The applicant asked what he would do with the fence that was already there the part

that is sticking out and Chairman Johns responded that it’s not in front of them, but

staff mentioned that it’s something that they’re working on and if he had further

questions he can contact staff.

A motion was made by Austin Beeghly to approve this item. The motion did not pass

due to lack of a second.

A motion was made by Tom Kunzen, seconded by Jim Hattaway, to approve this

variance request at five (5) feet.

Bernard Johns, James Hattaway, Austin Beeghly, and Thomas

Kunzen

Aye:

Larry Wright, and Heather Stark

Absent:

1301 Blue Stem Lane - Request for a side street (north) setback variance

from fifteen (15) feet to eight (8) feet for a privacy fence in the PD

(Planned Development) district; BV2023-031 (Alexander & Brittany

Baumgartner, Applicants) District 1 - Dallari (Hilary Padin, Project

Manager)

2023-477

Hilary Padin, Planner, presented this item as stated in the Staff Report.

Brittany Baumgartner, Applicant, was present and stated that she wants to emphasize

that there’s mailboxes on the side of the house and many of her neighbors have said

that they are able to see inside of the house on many occasions and they just want the

proposed fence to be where the existing fence is, so they can cover the mailboxes to

get some privacy.

No one from the audience spoke in favor or opposition to this request.

A motion was made by Jim Hattaway, seconded by Tom Kunzen, to approve this

variance request.

Bernard Johns, James Hattaway, Austin Beeghly, and Thomas

Kunzen

Aye:

Larry Wright, and Heather Stark

Absent:

3153 Cecelia Drive - Request for a rear yard setback variance from thirty

(30) feet to twenty three (23) feet for a swimming pool in the R-1AA

(Single Family Dwelling) district; BV2023-033 (Jonathan & Eva Albert,

Applicants) District 3 - Constantine (Hilary Padin, Project Manager)

2023-481

Hilary Padin, Planner, presented this item as stated in the Staff Report.

Tom Kunzen asked staff if the seawall was maintained by Seminole County and Ms.

Padin responded no, its on their property.

Jim Hattaway asked staff what the purpose of Section 30.1345 of the Land

Development Code was in keeping swimming pools a distance from the normal

high-water line. Ms. Padin responded that it’s to keep swimming pools from being too

close to the water. Mr. Hattaway asked what happens if they are too close to the water

and she responded that it acts like another front yard so it’s to keep the appearance of

an open front yard from the lakeside. Mr. Hattaway replied so this would act more for

the aesthetic than protecting environmental concerns and she confirmed. Mr. Kunzen

added that its more for aesthetic than for the integrity of the sea wall and she

responded that it’s up to the pool company to go through the Building Code and those

processes. Kathy Hammel, Principal Planner, added that for new subdivisions they

have changed the regulation to fifty (50) feet away from the water edge for

environmental reasons, but they consider this to be a front yard.

Jonathan Albert, Applicant, was present, but did not have any additional comments for

the Board.

No one from the audience spoke in favor or opposition to this request.

A motion was made by Jim Hattaway, seconded by Austin Beeghly, to approve this

variance request.

Bernard Johns, James Hattaway, Austin Beeghly, and Thomas

Kunzen

Aye:

Larry Wright, and Heather Stark

Absent:

605 Oranole Road - Request for: (1) a front yard setback variance from

twenty-five (25) feet to 24.9 feet; and (2) a side yard (east) setback

variance from ten (10) feet to 8.3 feet for an addition in the R-1AA (Single

Family Dwelling) district; BV2023-035 (Sebastian Jimenez, Applicant)

District 3 - Constantine (Hilary Padin, Project Manager)

2023-490

Hilary Padin, Planner, presented this item as stated in the Staff Report.

Chairman Bernard Johns added that the point one is surprising because they are not

requesting the whole foot and Ms. Padin responded that it’s already an existing

structure they are converting that is encroaching.

Jim Hattaway asked staff if they know if it’s an unlawful non-conforming structure and

Ms. Padin responded that the structure was built before the zoning regulations were

put in place.

Sebastian Jimenez, Applicant, was present, but did not have any additional comments

for the Board.

No one from the audience spoke in favor or opposition to this request.

A motion was made by Tom Kunzen, seconded by Austin Beeghly, to approve this

variance request.

Bernard Johns, James Hattaway, Austin Beeghly, and Thomas

Kunzen

Aye:

Larry Wright, and Heather Stark

Absent:

CLOSING BUSINESS

Kathy Hammel, Principal Planner, advised that she requested a motion for the Planning

Manager’s appeal at the last meeting, but there was a conflict with the applicant and they

asked to be continued to the June 26, 2023 meeting.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

A motion was made by Jim Hattaway, seconded by Austin Beeghly, that the March 27, 2023,

minutes be approved, as submitted. The motion passed unanimously.

Bernard Johns, James Hattaway, Austin Beeghly, and Thomas

Kunzen

Aye:

Larry Wright, and Heather Stark

Absent:

ADJOURN

Having no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m.