Bernard Johns, James Hattaway, Larry Wright, and Thomas Kunzen

Austin Beeghly, and Heather Stark

Present

Absent

OPENING STATEMENT

OTHER BUSINESS

2023-699

Board of Adjustment Appeal - Appeal of the Board of

Adjustment decision to uphold the Planning Manager’s

determination of the measurement of a setback from the first

vertical plane of the structure located at 3067 Cecelia Drive;

(Douglas K. Gartenlaub, Appellant) Countywide (Mary Moskowitz,

Planning Manager)

Mary Moskowitz, Planning Manager, presented this item as stated in the staff report.

Douglas K. Gartenlaub, Appellant, was present and introduced each of the witnesses

he has in attendance. Using his provided PowerPoint presentation, he stated that there

are two (2) issues. One is an ADU issue that under Section 40.71 that specifically

requires that all the zoning decision must be made prior of issuance of the permit. This

was submitted back then and the Board can see in the plans that it was there, but

nobody mentioned anything about it and they did not file an affidavit for the ADU and

they are making him comply with the ADU requirements. If there were specific

requirements for that zoning district, they should have brought it up at the beginning

and not at the end.

He referenced Ordinance 40.71 compliance with zoning requirements “all work done

pursuant hereto shall conform to setback and other zoning requirements and no permit

shall be issued for any installation which does not, or will not, comply with said

requirements”. Mr. Hayne will testify that he has done a lot of permits and he will not

try to avoid zoning review. Civil compliance with Section 40.71 would’ve prevented

where we are now, which is CO, as this building is already built. That’s when they

raised this issue when they needed to add an additional meter because they needed

additional power is when it was brought up. They have held the CO for two (2) years

based on this ADU issue and setback issue, which the County has created. In October

of 2021 was when Seminole County Planning & Development first brought this issue

over a year after they have applied for this permit.

The ADU Ordinance came into place in 1972, and on this property, there was already a

structure prior to 1972. The applicant bought this property in 1987 and they combined

this structure to the main residence so this ADU is not detached. The applicant applied

in August of 2020 and they did not say anything, but a couple months later they said

that the foundation of the property is fine but the stem wall has deteriorated to the point

that it has to be replaced and a new permit was submitted with the new drawings and

they never said anything about the setbacks or the ADU issue.

After the third submittal around February of 2021, the issue was raised by a building

inspector that they had a cantilevered roof that they built to create a long overhang

and the architect can testify that they don’t need it, but the inspector insisted that they

do and that they also have to add columns in to hold the roof, and this was permitted

and resubmitted again and the new drawings are on the paper that was submitted for

the Board to see. When they made the applicant submit this column, they did resubmit

with all the changes and they did not mention anything about the ADU issue or the

columns yet. Is fair for the applicant that they had an approval, but they changed their

mind when they resubmitted and took that approval away. It’s not fair because the

applicant already spent $700,000 on this. The first issue was the setbacks in the first

vertical plane that they told the applicants to put the columns in and there was the

setback change. The second problem is the ADU. The applicant would have to submit

the affidavit attesting that the unit will be rented at an affordable rate to an extremely

low income, which was never submitted because it’s not an ADU.

The original design was a cantilevered roof and there wasn’t a setback issue. It’s not

until the building inspector required the columns that the setback issue came up.

Despite that, they have trusted and complied with the requests of the inspector and

they put the columns in, and they did not raise the issue in that moment until they

received an email on October 21, 2022. The variances are applied under two (2)

circumstances typically when the Planning Department said in the beginning of the

review is needed or they build something they they weren’t supposed to.

If there was an issue in February of 2021 the very first time that they raised this months

later when they were already in CO and saying that they did not built this according to

the plans is false.

Mr. Gartenlaub introduced Paul Medley, the architect, and asked him questions. He

asked if he was familiar with this project and he responded yes. He asked if he has

permitted more than a few previous projects like this one, he responded yes. Mr.

Gartenlaub asked Mr. Medley if there were in some in Seminole County and he

responded yes. Mr. Gartenlaub asked him if there was any attempt to make this pool

house an ADU and he responded no, this was supposed to be a summer kitchen as

the location of the kitchen is between the house and the lake and the location of this

structure was there before they even started this project and they were already using it

as a summer kitchen. They ended up opening it up more and creating much more

connection with the pool deck. Mr. Gartenlaub asked Mr. Medley if is realistic how the

space is laid out to be able to be a rental and he responded no because this is right on

the back patio between the house and the lake. Mr. Gartenlaub asked him if it was

unusual to put a summer kitchen in and he responded no that they put summer

kitchens in almost every single project that he does.

Mr. Gartenlaub provided plans to the Board to reference. Mr. Medley explained on the

plans that they presented the columns that the building inspector instructed them to

install. He received a call from the job superintendent, not from the inspector, that they

needed to install the columns there, he also asked if the owner of this property was

okay with them. He modified the drawings and submitted them back to the Building

Department for review and he had the contractor come and get the plans for submittal.

Whenever he makes a change like this, he has to cloud it and make it different colors

and there is a delta revision number on it and in the title block on the side it lists the

change and that will get back in to the County for review. The initial process for this is

they make the original drawing and they are submitted to the County and they come

back and if they have any comments they will make the adjustments and they will put

the cloud on it, a delta number, the reason, the date and then it will go back again and

if they don’t have any more comments they will issue the building permit. Anytime a

change is made, it will be treated like he stated.

Mr. Gartenlaub asked Mr. Medley if they raised the issue at the time of the second

submittal with the changes made and he responded no they did this submittal early,

this type of projects need different types of inspections all the way until drywall and

they never mentioned the issue with the columns until after the job was done, then the

client came in doing the final inspections to get the CO and that’s when the County

bring the setback issue up. They further discuss the plans and explain the floor plan

and layout of the structure.

Mr. Gartenlaub asked Mr. Medley if he has ever seen the vertical plane be measure

from the wall to the columns and he responded that he has seem them go both ways in

different counties. Mr. Gartenlaub asked him if that setback issue was supposed to be

brought up during plan review and he responded yes.

Mr. Gartenlaub introduced Richard Hanes and asked him questions. He asked him

what his position with this project is and he responded he is the CEO of RLH

Residential and RLH Construction. Mr. Gartenlaub asked Mr. Hanes if he was the

license holder and he responded yes. He asked him if he is familiar with this project

and the process of permitting in Seminole County and he responded yes. He asked Mr.

Hanes if the contractor should point out when zoning review should occur, and he

responded no. Mr. Gartenlaub asked who will be responsible for that and Mr. Hanes

answered that would be the responsibility of the county guidelines. Mr. Gartenlaub

asked him how many times this project went for review and he responded at least three

(3) times, maybe four (4). Mr. Gartenlaub asked Mr. Hanes in what part of the project

was this setback issue raised and he responded that they had already completed the

construction and waiting for power and CO. He asked him if it was his understanding

that the Seminole County Building Inspector was requiring the addition of the columns

and he responded that he wasn’t on site, but received a called from the president of the

residential division asking for clarification that the inspector required the addition of the

columns and he told him it’s an architect deal and he couldn’t believe an inspector

would put his neck on the line like that. Explanation ensued regarding the work that

was completed, and Mr. Hanes stated that the columns were flown to the property via

helicopter, so to dismantle it would be substantial.

Mr. Gartenlaub introduced Curtis Sheffield, the neighboring property owner, and asked

him questions. Mr. Gartenlaub asked him if he’s familiar with the home in question and

he responded yes, he lives next door to him on the north. He asked him if he had any

objections to the structure and he responded no at all. Mr. Gartenlaub asked Mr.

Sheffield even if a variance had been sought, he did not have any objection and he

responded no.

Mr. Gartenlaub introduced Dr. Ronald Shaw, the property owner, and asked him

questions. Mr. Gartenlaub asked Dr. Shaw if he has been involved in the whole

permitting process and he responded yes. He asked if he was present the day that the

inspector told them about the changes and what was his reaction and he responded

yes, the project was about ninety (90) percent done, they were putting the decking

down and the inspector said that he did not like the cantilevered roof and they will need

to add the posts, and the project manager on site said that the architect said they don’t

need it and that the inspector told them he didn’t care, that they want those columns

installed. He stated that they called Mr. Medley about revising the plans and adding the

columns and those plans were sent to the County. He further explained that after that

was submitted and done is when the setback and ADU issue appeared. Mr. Gartenlaub

asked Dr. Shaw in what point of the project was when he learned of the ADU and

setback issue and he responded that they informed him about the issue at the end

when they tried to apply for the CO.

Chairman Bernard Johns stated that assuming that the County make an error in the

permitting review and understanding the doctrine of invested rights and how the courts

have ruled that just because the government made an error, it’s a greater injustice to

compound the error and have made people tear down structures because of these

types of things and asked Mr. Gartenlaub how he responds to that. Mr. Gartenlaub

responded that he responds by the cases that he cited, equitable estoppel is argued

over for this reason. He stated that yes maybe there was a mistake but at the same

time they will have to weigh the equity and the County could’ve prevented this, but the

applicant or the architect could’ve prevented this from happening. This permit went

through three (3) review cycles and in the very last one after the columns were

installed, is where they mentioned something about setbacks. He stated this was not a

mistake and is all based on interpretation.

Jim Hattaway asked Mr. Gartenlaub if there’s anything in Florida statues that they are

preempting the County by that definition of an accessory dwelling unit and he

responded no. Mr. Hattaway asked so that means that the County is free to define an

ADU any way they want to, right? Mr. Gartenlaub replied no that it’s not supposed to let

the county define it any way they want too if it conflicts with the statute and said yes,

they are preempted. Mr. Hattaway asked Mr. Gartenlaub what Seminole County’s

definition of an ADU is and he responded that an auxiliary dwelling unit that is intended

for rental to lower and middle income housing. Mr. Hattaway added that if is true that in

the Seminole County Land Development Code uses the word “rental” in the definition

of the ADU and he responded that it uses the word rental in that they require an

affidavit where it does.

Mr. Hattaway asked Mr. Gartenlaub when the inspector said that he wanted to add the

beams and the columns was he acting beyond of the scope of his authority and he

responded no he was the Building inspector and he was allowed to make that change.

Mr. Hattaway asked if he appealed that decision and he responded no.

Mr. Hattaway added that the meaning of the permit being issued is that the applicant

only have the ability to start the project not to be free of subsequent government review

and approval, correct and he responded that it means that once the permit is issued

and the plans are provided now, they are vested in the right of those plans. Mr.

Hattaway asked if it still has to be consistent with the Seminole County Land

Development Code and he responded yes, but that the reason of the Seminole

County’s Ordinance 40.71 that makes that determination at the beginning of the

process.

Mr. Hattaway also asked if they uphold Ms. Moskowitz’s determination, they will still

have the right to seek a variance and he responded yes. He asked if they are all in

agreement that it’s not uncommon in Florida law for the courts to demand even

multi-story structures to be demolished because they did not comply with the local land

development code. He responded if the was a violation of the code, yes.

Mr. Hattaway asked if Mr. Gartenlaub is suggesting that because this project was really

expensive that this applicant deserves any rights above and beyond any other citizens

of Seminole County. Mr. Gartenlaub responded that the amount is only relevant in the

sense that under the equitable estoppel doctrine the amount of damage to the party is

weighed in considering the equities. Mr. Hattaway asked that if the applicant was in the

wrong, no amount of money puts them in the right, and he responded correct, because

if his client is in the wrong, you would have unclean hands and wouldn’t be entitled to it

in your favor.

Tom Kunzen asked Mr. Gartenlaub on what basis did the building inspector override

the design choice of the architect asking for the addition of the columns, if he cited a

particular part of the Land Development Code or engineering judgement? Mr. Medley

responded and said that the field inspector just said I want it installed and even if they

ask for something that isn’t required by the Code, they do it without argument, so he

had the drawings updated and to the County the next morning. Mr. Hattaway asked Mr.

Medley that if part of the thought process was is acceding to the columns was to avoid

politics on a future project and he responded that it is primarily to move the job forward,

but it’s not about bucking heads with the guys doing their job.

Mr. Kunzen asked Paul Chipok, Acting County Attorney, if in Chapter 15 of the Land

Development Code goes into determination for vested rights and the appeal process

when the property owner would apply for this and he responded that will go towards the

application of the Comprehensive Plan situation, it’s not applicable to this situation.

Mr. Gartenlaub provided the Board an affidavit from the superintendent and documents

regarding the County’s definition of an ADU. He explained that they had no intent of

filing the affidavit for an ADU to have the low cost living.

Mr. Hattaway stated that on the paper that he just provided the definition says an

accessory dwelling unit is a dwelling unit attached to or included within a principal

dwelling unit, or located on the same lot and having an independent means of access,

such units may include a full kitchen. He asked if the structure meets this definition and

Mr. Gartenlaub replied that he will need to read the entire definition as any statute

needs to be read in its entirety and although this fits the definition meets as an ADU,

you would need to apply for an ADU, so in order to apply for an ADU, you would need

to file the affidavit. Mr. Hattaway stated that is not correct and went through the

handout he provided asking for clarification of how it defines it.

Chairman Bernard Johns asked Ms. Moskowitz what make this structure an ADU and

she responded that the zoning review at the time believed that it could be an ADU and

zoning does not approved this permit but the person who review it asked for additional

information like providing the gross floor area of the primary residence because ADU

has a limit of thirty-five (35) percent of the gross floor area or 1,000 square feet,

whichever is less. She further stated that they also needed to identify the off-site

parking space and needed to meet the impervious surface coverage. At that time she

did not have enough information to determine if it was an ADU but as Mr. Hattaway

indicated, the definition of the ADU is a subordinate structure that is either attached to

a principal building or located on the same lot and has an external entrance. She stated

that the requirements for the rental and affordability applies to the waiver of the impact

fees to be considered an affordable housing unit.

Chairman Johns asked Ms. Moskowitz if in the past they had people that wanted to

build structures on their property, like a shed, and they wanted to put a kitchen in it and

they are told no as it is not an ADU. Ms. Moskowitz responded that in the past there

was a use called a guest cottage, which did not allow for a kitchen. Chairman Johns

asked if the ADU requires that they submit a paper saying that they are going to use it

only for rental purposes and she responded no that only applies for the impact fee

waiver.

In rebuttal Ms. Moskowitz stated that this permit was reviewed by our zoning

department and they made the comment about meeting the setbacks and whether or

not it was an ADU, they tried to fix the situation and come up with a solution that would

help all the parties. Her primary goal was for them to be in compliance with the Code

and they offered the ability to apply for the variances and for the terms of the accessory

dwelling units, they did do research and they found that there was another structure on

site that was treated as a ADU.

A motion was made by Jim Hattaway, seconded by Tom Kunzen, to uphold the

Planning Manager decision.

Mr. Hattaway added that Seminole County has the right to define an accessory

dwelling unit however it sees fit as the state of Florida has not preempted that and he

also thinks that the estoppel is inapplicable in this situation. He stated that there’s

nothing here that the appellant showed that he met his burden to overturn the decision

of Mrs. Moskowitz.

Larry Wright stated that his concern is that the appellant went through the process

three (3) or four (4) times and they did not give a reason why they had to erect the

columns and result of that, now they have a violation. In his opinion, they were given

the direction of installing them and they did and then found out they were not in

compliance with the setback.

Mr. Kunzen added that the intervention of the building inspector at that point to

mandate the addition of those columns, which was not in the original design of the

architect, this would not have become an issue and the inspector was duly empowered

as an employee of Seminole County and the applicants and the appellant seem to be

acting in good faith.

Chairman Johns stated that he has a lot of sympathy for the owner, but they do have

another option for them to fix this, but the issue is that if its considered an ADU, they

way that they measured it is different and if they overturn this decision, they will have to

go back and fix every single one that they did before on the permits and that is

unreasonable. He stated that although this property owner doesn’t intend to make it an

ADU, that doesn’t mean the next property owner wouldn’t. He further stated that he

would be more willing to go for a variance given the circumstances, but that is not what

is before them, so he is not willing to override the County’s decision.

Mr. Kunzen asked the Board that the variance applications that come before them and

them making a decision on those the precedent and establishing the aye or nay, and

what are they creating on them in this particular circumstances and asked what

precedence they would be creating by voting yes or no on this. Chairman Johns

responded that if they override the Planning Manager’s decision on how its measured,

that will change every other one that they have ever done.

Ms. Moskowitz stated that the decision on whether this is an ADU has not been made,

they asked for the additional information, so they can still make that determination.

Chairman Johns asked if it is determined that it is not an ADU, would the columns be

good and she responded that it is the measurement of the setback, they haven’t made

the determination whether or not it’s an ADU. Chairman Johns asked even if it was a

regular house, it will be measured from the columns not the wall and she responded

yes.

Mr. Hattaway asked Mr. Chipok on appeals like this what difference or standard of

review is applicable in this case and he responded that the standard of review in this

situation is to uphold the zoning managers decision on her interpretation of the code

based on the evidence that was presented before you as to whether it is supportable or

not in her determination. Mr. Hattaway asked if staff presumed correct and he

responded that there is a presumption that they acted in good faith, but they will need

more evidence that her determination was correct than incorrect.

Chairman Johns advised the appellant of their right to appeal.

A motion was made by Jim Hattaway, seconded by Tom Kunzen, to uphold the

Planning Manager decision.

Bernard Johns, James Hattaway, Larry Wright, and Thomas Kunzen

Austin Beeghly, and Heather Stark

Aye:

Absent:

VARIANCES

2540 Bullion Loop - Request for a side street (south) setback variance

2023-639

from fifteen (15) feet to seven and one-half (7½) feet for a fence in the PD

(Planned Development) district; BV2023-037 (Marcia Brown, Applicant)

District 2 - Zembower (Angi Gates, Project Manager)

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

Marcia Brown, applicant, was present and stated that she will like this fence because

she is the first house coming in the left side and she just want protection with the fence

because they have a pool in the backyard.

Chairmen Bernard Johns asked the applicant why she wants the fence to extend to the

side of the house and not stopped it where the pool ends, Mrs. Brown responded that

her home is the first on the left in a main street and she needs protection.

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

A motion was made by Larry Wright, seconded by Jim Hattaway, to approve this

variance request.

Bernard Johns, James Hattaway, Larry Wright, and Thomas Kunzen

Austin Beeghly, and Heather Stark

Aye:

Absent:

1661 Carlton Street - Request for: (1) a side street (west) setback

variance from twenty-five (25) feet to ten (10) feet for a shed, wall and

garage addition; and (2) a wall height variance from six and one-half (6½)

feet to eight (8) feet in the R-1AA (Single Family Dwelling) district;

BV2023-041 (Lawrence Ziebarth, Applicant) District 3 - Constantine (Angi

Gates, Project Manager)

2023-640

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

Chairman Bernard Johns asked the applicant why 8 1/2 feet for the wall, the applicant

responded that area would be a lanai for garden space between the garage and the

shed that he is going to put a roof, Mr. johns added if its just the back of the structure

and the applicant responded yes.

Tom Kunzen asked the applicant that there’s a substantial hedge row on the west side

of the property adjacent to Pressview Ave is that going to remain, the applicant

responded that yes it will remain.

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

A motion was made by Tom Kunzen, seconded by Larry Wright, to approve this

variance request.

Bernard Johns, James Hattaway, Larry Wright, and Thomas Kunzen

Austin Beeghly, and Heather Stark

Aye:

Absent:

114 Willow Tree Lane - Request for a rear yard setback variance from

2023-642

thirty (30) feet to twenty (20) feet for an addition in the R-1 (Single Family

Dwelling) district; BV2023-043 (Andrea J Hamlin, Applicant) District 3 -

Constantine (Angi Gates, Project Manager)

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

Chairman Bernard Johns, asked staff there was a building there and its being

reconstructed and that’s why it triggered the variance, Angela Gates responded yes,

and they would have to build it to code.

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

A motion was made by Larry Wright, seconded by Jim Hattaway, to approve this

variance request.

Bernard Johns, James Hattaway, Larry Wright, and Thomas Kunzen

Austin Beeghly, and Heather Stark

Aye:

Absent:

114 Camphor Tree Lane - Request for a side yard (east) setback

variance from ten (10) feet to two and one-half (2½) feet for a boat dock

addition in the R-1AAA (Single Family Dwelling) district; BV2023-46 (Peter

2023-646

Devoney, Applicant) District 3 - Constantine (Angi Gates, Project

Manager)

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

Tom Kunzen, asked staff, the application mention that there was a structure of the

county water system where is that in the relation of the dock, Mrs. Gates responded

that the applicant would have to respond that question.

Peter Devoney, applicant, was present, but did not have any additional comments for

the Board.

Tom Kunzen asked the applicant about the structure of the county water system where

is that in the relation of the dock, the applicant responded that the pipe would be next

to the dock and that it deposits debris to the water body.

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, Larry Wright, and Thomas Kunzen

Austin Beeghly, and Heather Stark

Aye:

Absent:

546 Chula Woods Court - Request for a rear yard setback variance from

2023-678

thirty (30) feet to twenty-six (26) feet for a covered patio in the R-1 (Single

Family Dwelling) district; BV2023-047 (Gregory Raymond, Applicant)

District 1 - Dallari (Angi Gates, Project Manager)

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

Gregory Raymond, applicant, was present and state that he is only looking for a patio

extension it would be a slopping roof that would be coming out thirteen (13) feet from

the roof line.

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

A motion was made by Tom Kunzen, seconded by Larry Wright, to approve this

variance request.

Bernard Johns, James Hattaway, Larry Wright, and Thomas Kunzen

Austin Beeghly, and Heather Stark

Aye:

Absent:

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

2023-488

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)

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

Tom Kunzen, asked staff about the expanded narrative of the home owner experience

and the county office, what did they think it happened, Angi Gates responded that she

got the permit for review and that she spoke with the applicant about this situation and

told the applicant that they have to seek traffic engineering approval for this zoning

district, she further explained that traffic engineering doesn’t have the authority to

approved nothing less than the fifteen (15) feet so it was never approved that and the

review was completed and stamp at fifteen (15) feet when they went to do the final

inspection it was denied because it was done at 13.5 feet.

Jacob Kunzen, applicant was present and stated that the story that she say was correct

but she forgot to mention that he submitted a variance application in case traffic

engineering did not approved of the request to go down to fifteen (15) feet. He received

a call from the planning office that they have being approved by traffic engineering to

go down to 15 feet.

Carol Swanson, spoke in opposition of this request and stated that she is really

opposed because nobody in their neighborhood has a two story, she is also

concerned about the property values in the house. Jim Hattaway asked what

property rights will be damaged and she responded that the value of the home.

A motion was made by Larry Wright, seconded by Tom Kunzen, to approve this

variance request.

James Hattaway, Larry Wright, and Thomas Kunzen

Bernard Johns

Aye:

Nay:

Austin Beeghly, and Heather Stark

Absent:

209 Collins Drive - Request for a rear yard setback variance from thirty

(30) feet to six (6) inches for a guest house in the R-1A (Single Family

Dwelling) district; BV2021-56 (Ninive Castillo, Applicant) District 2 -

Zembower (Angi Gates, Project Manager)

2023-641

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

Ninive Castillo & Victor Castillo, was present and stated that the previous owner of the

house did not pull the permit for the structure in the back so when they pull a permit to

put a fence the inspector went to the site and told them that they need to get a permit

for that house in the back.

Chairman Bernard John added that when they bought that house the structures was

already there.

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, Larry Wright, and Thomas Kunzen

Austin Beeghly, and Heather Stark

Aye:

Absent:

9709 Bear Lake Road - Request for: (1) a rear yard setback variance

from thirty (30) feet to 6.8 feet; and (2) a side yard (south) setback

2023-624

variance from ten (10) feet to 2.19 feet for an accessory structure in the

R-1AA (Single Family Dwelling) district; BV2023-28 (Maria Bonilla,

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

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

Chairman Bernard Johns, asked that they have approved already 9 variances including

some for this structures and they were put wrong anyways, she responded yes.

Tom Kunzen asked staff was it already build when they request the variance, she say

no.

Kathy Hammel, Principal Planner, added the site plan that they provide for this

variance process with incorrect information on the setbacks, even when the inspector

went out and its wrong that will fall back on the applicant.

Hilary Padin, added that her assumption would be that the structure was already there

because the numbers provided were precise even in the previous variance.

Maria Bonilla, applicant was present and stated that she bought the house 2 years ago

and she didn’t know about the code violations and when she put the house for sell

again that when she noticed the code violations.

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

A motion was made by Larry Wright, seconded by Tom Kunzen, to approve this

variance request.

Bernard Johns, James Hattaway, Larry Wright, and Thomas Kunzen

Austin Beeghly, and Heather Stark

Aye:

Absent:

4572 Old Carriage Trail - Request for a rear yard setback variance from

2023-628

thirty (30) feet to seven (7) feet for an accessory structure in the R-1AA

(Single Family Dwelling) district; BV2023-38 (Michael Stapp, Applicant)

District 1 - Dallari (Hilary Padin, Project Manager)

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

Jim Hattaway asked staff that the letter about the HOA did they know if it was from the

association or a member because in that email he only say he was a member of, Hilary

Padin responded that she only can go by what they send her.

Michael Stapp, applicant was present and stated that he apply for the HOA and he got

denied and then he ask the board what would be the plan he explain that he had

columns and concrete so they will add like a temporary sun sails.

Tom Kunzen added that the approval from the HOA was by email on Monday February

20, 2023 which was after the new president started so that means that the RBA

approved it but then the president doesn’t approved it so what your saying is that he

doesn’t have the power to disapproved this, he responded yes that would be correct.

Tom Kunzen also asked if he still want to go with the proposal because this matter is

being in dispute, the applicant responded yes because he is using the same structure.

Larry wright asked how tall the structure and the applicant responded no more than 12

feet. Mr. Wright asked at what point did they make him stop the structure the applicant

responded that he hired a GC to build it for him put he never pull the permit for it.

Larry Wright also asked prior to taking down the roof if he spoke with the county prior to

that to get a variance the applicant responded no.

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

Steve Olson, hes spoke in opposition, their backyard face them directly and they can

see the structures from their living room and kitchen, he also show some pictures about

the structure being really visible and close to their property line, this structure was not

approved and the HOA president sited the section 8.0.1 which requires a 30 feet

setback, also the section 8.0.9 that no structure would exceed 12 feet or 240 sgft

around.

Jim Hattaway asked Mr. Olson is there anyway that the neighbor could modify the

request that would be acceptable, he responded that when in the beginning came up

he asked how he can make this situation better but the construction continued when he

was out of town but he will say no.

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 denied request.

Bernard Johns, James Hattaway, Larry Wright, and Thomas Kunzen

Austin Beeghly, and Heather Stark

Aye:

Absent:

127 Varsity Circle - Request for a rear yard setback variance from thirty

2023-629

(30) feet to twenty-three and one-half (23.5) feet for an addition in the

R-1A (Single Family Dwelling) district; BV2023-040 (Joseph & Kristen

Harmon, Applicants) District 3 - Constantine Herr (Hilary Padin, Project

Manager)

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

Joseph Harmon, applicant was present and stated that the are that they want to put

that structure is being there since the late 90s one of the previous home owner erected

that, their HOA had a 25 feet setback requirement and its different from the county Mr

Johns responded that the HOA can be more restricted but they don’t have no say over

the county.

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

A motion was made by Tom Kunzen, seconded by Larry wright, to approve this

variance request.

Bernard Johns, James Hattaway, Larry Wright, and Thomas Kunzen

Austin Beeghly, and Heather Stark

Aye:

Absent:

2205 Winnebago Trail - Request for a side street (south) setback

variance from twenty-five (25) feet to seven (7) feet for a privacy fence in

the R-1A (Single Family Dwelling) district; BV2023-042 (Bruce Smith,

Applicant) District 4 - Lockhart (Hilary Padin, Project Manager)

2023-630

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

Bruce smith, applicant was present and stated that he close on this house on April 20th

and there was a permitted issue and the previous owner never took care of the issue

along Osage that fence being there since 2004.

Chairman Bernard Johns asked the applicant so he was only trying to replace it on the

same place the applicant explained that the fence is being there since he has

purchased the property there was an issue and based on what the research has shown

is that the fence was moved at some point.

Michael Herr, spoke in favor and explained that at the beginning pof the process they

did was in opposition but they spoke to the home owner and they got everything

resolved.

No one spoke in opposition or in favor of this item.

A motion was made by Larry Wright, seconded by Jim Hattaway, to approve this

variance request.

Bernard Johns, James Hattaway, Larry Wright, and Thomas Kunzen

Austin Beeghly, and Heather Stark

Aye:

Absent:

5648 Autumn Chase Circle - Request for a side street (south) setback

2023-631

variance from twenty-five (25) feet to ten (10) feet for a privacy fence in

the R-1A (Single Family Dwelling) district; BV2023-44 (Ryan Shifman &

Alyssa McComb, Applicants) District 2 - Zembower (Hilary Padin, Project

Manager)

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

Alyssa McComb, applicant was present and stated that they like the vegetation that the

house brought and there was a oak tree there but it make it difficult to place the fence.

The being having a back and forth with the HOA about the setbacks.

Tom Kunzen asked the applicant most of the time this applications come for approval

with an HOA already in place usually cost the homeowner nothing to approved this by

the HOA why did they come before the board without approval of the HOA the

applicant explained that they have gone to the HOA several times and they got denied

and they figure that they will come before the board and get that corrected through the

variance. Mr. Kunzen also added that even thought the variance is granted the HOA

can still denied it.

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

Colleen Crigger, was speaking in opposition of this request and stated that the by laws

say that the fence is connected in the rear point and this fence is 17 feet from the

sidewalk they have meet with the applicant and they say they will allow to come out

four feet to give them a little room. They say that they will allowed it to go 12 feet and

they understand this situation and they sent email multiple times and all the times they

say no that’s why they decided to come to the county and they will are okay to go down

to 15 feet.

Bill Campbell, all they asked is to go down to 15 feet and that they will be compliance

with the other fences in the neighborhood. He also agree that is fine to go down to 15

feet.

A motion was made by Tom Kunzen, seconded by Larry wright, to approve this

variance request, but with the modification to go to the 15 feet.

Bernard Johns, James Hattaway, Larry Wright, and Thomas Kunzen

Austin Beeghly, and Heather Stark

Aye:

Absent:

CLOSING BUSINESS

none

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

none

ADJOURN

Having no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.

NOTE: PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES NEEDING ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THESE PROCEEDINGS SHOULD

CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT ADA COORDINATOR 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING AT

407-665-7940.

PERSONS ARE ADVISED THAT IF THEY DECIDE TO APPEAL ANY DECISIONS MADE AT THIS HEARING, THEY WILL NEED A

RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE THEY MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE

PROCEEDINGS ARE MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE

BASED, PER SECTION 286.0105, FLORIDA STATUTES.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS AGENDA, PLEASE CONTACT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CLERK AT (407)

665-7387.