2001-08-28 BOA
CITY OF OKEECHOBEE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY OF BOARD ACTION
Pa
I
ACTIÒN - DISCUSSION - VOTE
Board of Adjustment meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m.
Chairman Walker called the August 28. 2001
AGENDA
7 :00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER - Chairman.
Board of Adjustment, August 28.2001,
I.
L.í)
00
N
Board Secretary Arnold called the roll
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent (without consent)
Present
Present
Present
Secretary .
...........-
CHAIRMAN, MEMBER AND STAFF ATTENDANCE
Chairman Jerry Walker
Board Member Dawn Hoover
Board Member Thomas Keller
Board Member William Ledferd
Board Member Christopher Mavroides
Board Member Douglas McCoy
~",",--Board Member Frank Mueller
Alternate Daniel Creech
- -AÎ;¡OO:ìãte Sandra Jones
Attorney John R. Cook
Secretary Carolyn Arnold
II.
I
Member Mueller moved to dispense with the reading and approve the Summary of Board Action
for the July 24, 2001 meeting. Member Keller seconded the motion.
MINUTES - Secretary.
Motion to dispense with the reading and approve the Summary of Board Action
for the July 24, 2001 meeting.
A.
III.
VOTE
HOOVER - YEA
KELLER - YEA
LEDFERD - YEA
MA VROIDES - YEA
MCCOY - YEA
MUELLER - YEA
WALKER - YEA
MOTION CARRIED.
I
August 28, 2001 -
ACTIQN - DISCUSSION; VOTE
;AGENDA
I
Member Hoover seconded
Member Mueller moved to remove Petition 0 1-005-SE from the table.
the motion.
VOTE
HOOVER - YEA
KELLER - YEA
LEDFERD - YEA
MA VROIDES - YEA
MCCoy - YEA
MUELLER - YEA
WALKER - YEA
MOTION CARRIED.
IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
Consider Petition 01-005-SE: Gene Fulford, property owner; Thomas Meara,
applicant. The property is located at l110 N.W. Park Street. The purpose of the
request for a special exception is to allow for a vehicle maintenance and repair
shop within a Heavy Commercial zoning district. The item was tabled at the July
24,2001 regular meeting. - City Planning Consultant.
A.
I
Vince Catero, City Planning Consultant described the petition and gave a brief background of the
property. The subject property is currently zoned as Heavy Commercial (CHV) and is consistent
with the Land Development Regulations as well as the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends
granting approval of Petition 01-005-SE
N
CXJ
0\
Member Hoover reminded the Board that this petition had problems with properly posting the
property, this was confirmed by Secretary Arnold, who also noted that the permission from the
property owner was never received. She has attempted numerous times to contact the applicant.
Discussion ensued between the Board Members after which, Member Mueller moved to deny
Petition 01-00S-SE based on an in com DIe lication. Member Keller seconded the motion.
I
VOTE
HOOVER - YEA
KELLER - YEA
LEDFERD - YEA
MA VROIDES - YEA
MCCOY - YEA
MUELLER - YEA
WALKER - YEA
MOTION CARRIED.
Au~ust 28, 2001 -
~'<..'-_.~. ';,. ,. .. ;
ACTIQN-nISCtJSSION - VOTE
Vince Catero, City Planning Consultant addressed the Board regarding the Variance Request made
by John W. Abney on behalf of the Applicant A.V.W., Inc. The purpose of the request is to allow
a two-foot landscaping buffer instead of the required ten- foot along the street frontage for property
located at 312 Southwest 7th Avenue. The subject property has an existing structure and parking
area. The property owner intends to use the property for an aerosol plant. This project will fall
under the strict regulations regarding the location of the buildings and parking by the Department
of Environmental Protection (DEP), therefore, it is near impossible for the applicant to
accommodate the Land Development Regulations with the ten-foot landscaping buffer. Staff finds
no inconsistencies with the Land Development Regulations and recommends granting approval of
this petition.
V. NEW BUSINESS
Consider Petition 01-003-V: A.V.W., Inc., property owner and John W. Abney,
Sr., applicant. The property is located at 312 Southwest 7th Avenue. The purpose
for the request of a variance is to allow a two-foot landscaping buffer in place of
the required ten-foot, in order to be consistent with the existing parking area with
in an Industrial (1) zoning district - City Planning Consultant.
A.
I
I"-
00
N
Listed in the Staff Report is the following criteria that was met in order to draw the above
conclusion: Special conditions and circumstances exists, which are that Federal regulations control
the placement of buildings. The City's LDR's do not allow for options that would allow for the
property setbacks and buffering. A twenty-foot drainage ditch exists between the existing parking
lot and the property line and the existing parking structure. The special conditions and circum-
stances do not result from actions ofthe applicant. Literal interpretation ofthe Code would restrict
the applicant's ability to increase the existing parking in order to provide the number of spaces
required. This is the minimum variance necessary to make possible the reasonable use ofthe land
and structures and will not create a greater encroachment. There will be no special privileges
granted to the applicant with the approval of this request. Finally, the request is compatible with
the Land Development Regulations, approval will not be injurious to surrounding property. The
applicant has done all that can be expected while working under DEP guidelines.
I $:-.>
Mr. Abney, Applicant/Contractor for applicant, addressed the Board stating the business is in Ft.
Lauderdale and the applicant is proposing to relocate to Okeechobee. He gave an example to better
explain the nature of this business. There was no further discussion.
Member Mueller moved to approve Petition 01-003- V based on the findings in Staffs Report.
Member Keller seconded the motion.
I
st 28,2001 -
i\C'FION·- DISCUSSION - vot£E
Au
I
VOTE
HOOVER - YEA
KELLER - YEA
V. NEW BUSINESS CONTINUED.
A. Consider Petition 01-003-V: A.V.W.. Inc.. continued.
B.
LEDFERD - YEA
MA VROIDES - YEA
MCCOY - YEA
MUELLER - YEA
WALKER - YEA
MOTION CARRIED.
Attorney Cook explained that there is a sign between Brantley's and Pogey's along the East side
of South Parrott Avenue that impairs the vision of drivers when exiting onto Parrott A venue for
oncoming traffic on the sidewalk or southbound traffic. The City cited the owner for violation of
sign codes and was forwarded to the Code Enforcement Board. Normally, the Code Enforcement'
Board would have been the appropriate Board to submit this violation to, however, the City issued
a permit for the sign. The Board of Adjustment has jurisdiction over building permits and now we ,.1·
need to have the Board to consider to rescind the building permit for the sign. The purpose for;
rescinding the permit is that it does not meet code regulations ~
799 South Parrott Avenue, continued.
Discussion about the sign located at
c.
N
o;¡
00
There was much discussion regarding whether the sign was built according to the constmction
plans, the location ofthe sign, and how legal it would be to rescind a permit issued. Attorney Cook
advised that once the Board rescinds the permit it would then be left to the City Administrator and
City Attorney to work out the details with the applicant. He noted that legally this can be done and
should be done due to the permitted sign being in violation ofthe LDR's.
issued by the Building Department for
in violation of the Land Development
Member Ledferd moved to rescind the sign permit
1799 South Parrott Avenue due to the sign being
Regulations. Member Keller seconded the motion.
I
"
Board of Adiustment - Pa!!:e 5 of 5
ACTION -DISCUSSION.. VOTE
st 28,2001
Au
VOTE
HOOVER - YEA
KELLER - YEA
V. NEW BUSINESS CONTINUED.
Discussion about the sign located at 1799 South Parrott Avenue, continued.
B.
I
LEDFERD - YEA
MA VROIDES - YEA
MCCoy - YEA
MUELLER - YEA
WALKER - YEA
MOTION CARRIED.
There being no further items on the agenda, Chairman Walker adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT - Chairman
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE AND BE ADVISED that if any person desires to appeal any decision made by the Board of Adjustment
with respect to any matter considered at this proceeding, such interested person will need a record of the proceedings, and for such
purpose may need to ensure a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon
which the appeal is to be based. General Services tapes are for the sole purpose of backup for official records of the Department
VI.
I
~
ATTEST
",
',-
I