TOWN OF OCEAN VIEW

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING

MAY 17, 2007

Chairman Dick Logue called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. with Commission Members Carol Goodhand, Joe Evans, and Perry Mitchell present.  Town Administrative Official Charles McMullen and  Town Solicitor Dennis Schrader were also in attendance.  Gene Brendel was absent because of a prior commitment.  Planning and Zoning Consultant Susan Frederick was absent because of a prior commitment.    

1.      The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 

2.      There were no changes to the Agenda.  Perry Mitchell made a motion to approve the agenda.  Joe Evans seconded the motion, and unanimously approved. 

3.      There were no changes to the Minutes of the April 19, 20087, meeting.  Carol Goodhand made a motion to approve the minutes.  Perry Mitchell seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.

4.      Old Business

None

5.      New Business

1. Public Hearing   Request from the Avon Park Homeowners’ Association for Reduction in Side Yard Aggregate Setbacks from 40 feet to 20 feet in the Avon Park Subdivision (PIDN’s 400.101 – 400.192)   Lynn Shifren, 4 Brookcenter Drive, served as spokeswoman.  She introduced Mr. Troublefield and said that they were both on the Board of Directors and the Architectural Review Board of the Avon Park subdivision.  She said that they wanted to amend the plat to change the 40 foot aggregate side setbacks to 20 feet.  She then explained that there are 90 duplexes in the Avon Park development, and the people on the outside section of the development that is closest to the street have matching sheds but the inside lots have 40-foot setbacks, which prevent the construction of such sheds.  She said that she thought that the developer used these setbacks for aesthetic reasons but Chairman Logue explained that the P&Z requested them so that the development would not appear too crowded.  Ms. Shifren said that she and Mr. Troublefield are the only property owners who want to build sheds at this time.  She said that property owners in the inside section are permitted to install outside showers but cannot erect walls around the showers because of the 40 foot setback and also said that she doesn’t think that the sheds will come out any further than 7 or 8 feet.  She stressed that they want the neighborhood to look good; any sheds would have to match the siding.  In answer to a question from Chairman Logue, Ms. Shifren explained that most of the homeowners use the same contractor for sheds, etc., and he is aware of their standards.  She also said that the Architectural Review Board reviews all construction before it is done to ensure that the development’s standards are upheld.  Chairman Logue then noted that the petition has 30 signatures but there are 90 homes in the development.  Ms. Shifren said that about 40% of the property owners are residents, and the remaining 60% are not.  Chairman Logue voiced concerns that not even half of the property owners are represented in this petition and asked if she had presented this issue to all property owners.  Ms. Shifren explained some of the problems in locating property owners.  Discussion followed about such issues as the actual distance between her house and the neighboring property and how much setback reduction was needed.  In answer to a question from the Town Solicitor, Ms. Shifren said that their lot is

lot 7B.  The Town Administrative Official confirmed the location of her property on the site plan.  In answer to a question from the Town Solicitor, Mr. McMullen said that most of the lots   are 5,000 square feet but some are somewhat larger.  Ms. Shifren used the site plan to show the Commission members and the Town Solicitor the proposed location for the shed.  In answer to a question from Carol Goodhand, she said that they would like to build attached sheds.  Mr. McMullen explained that Ms. Shifren has an aggregate side setback of 40.5 side setback and said that all of the setbacks in the subdivision are not the same.  In answer to a question from Carol Goodhand, Mr. McMullen said that Ms. Shifren’s lot is 54 foot wide.  Lynn Shrifrin expressed surprise that 40-foot setbacks are required on the side but not in the rear; she noted that the backs are very close after decks are built.  In answer to a question from Chairman Logue, Ms. Shifren said that all of the shed and showers that have been built are the same size but noted that some showers with enclosures were built on Brighton when the subdivision was still under the developer’s control.  In answer to a question from the Town Solictor, Ms. Shifren said that the developer still owns some homes in Avon Park and Wedgefield.   The Town Solicitor said that according to the subdivision’s restrictive covenants, the developer gets three votes for every property that he owns.   In answer to a question from Chairman Logue, Ms. Shifren said that the developer did not retain any veto power when the development was turned over to the HOA in February 2007.  Chairman Logue thinks that an adjustment is possible but would feel more comfortable if they had a document that indicated approval of this request from the majority of the property owners.  The Town Solicitor said that the restrictive covenants can only be amended by a two-thirds’ vote of all classes of membership at a meeting called for that purpose.  In answer to a question from Ms. Shifren, Mr. Schrader said that they cannot build within the setback area because the zoning code does not permit it.  He said that at least 60 homeowners must agree before the restrictive covenants can be amended.  He said that the covenants say that the setbacks will be as they are established by the Town, which means that the covenants have incorporated by reference the zoning requirements of the various setbacks, which were approved when the RPC was approved.  He went on to say that if a third of the homeowners can come to the Town to petition a change in the setbacks, you have effectively changed the restrictive covenants without having a two-thirds majority.  He was uncomfortable with such action because the intent was to keep the neighborhood stable and not allow change without the full participation of the HOA.  He suggested that the HOA should hire an attorney and work with him/her on this issue.  He thinks that they need to notice and hold an annual meeting and get two-thirds of the homeowners to vote in favor of this request.  He said that they need to get someone to look at the covenants and make sure that their actions follow the covenants and that they have sufficient people who have approved this request.  Chairman Logue agreed with the Town Solicitor’s opinion and said that they should follow the requirements set out in their covenants; i.e., they must have the approval of at least two-thirds of their homeowners.  He said that he wants to make sure that when this issue is presented to the homeowners, there is some type of agreement about the need to conform to the architectural standards.  He said that their Architectural Board should design standards for the showers.  Ms. Shifren said that much of the construction is already finished, which has created problems for those who have not yet built their sheds, etc.  Chairman Logue said that the Planning and Zoning Commission has never received a request from a development to change the setbacks within the development.  He noted that the setbacks for this development were established in this fashion because the homes were duplexes.  The issue of seeking an individual variance from the Board of Adjustment was discussed but the Town Solicitor reminded attendees that the more restrictive regulation applies, and the restrictive covenants are the more restrictive.  Chairman Logue suggested that Ms. Shifren work with the Town Administrative Official on this process.  Ms. Shifren said that she will ask the property manager to send out a letter to all Avon Park homeowners.  Mr. McMullen was told that the P&Z wants approval of/agreement with this request from two-thirds of the property owners; they do not need to present any architectural review standards.  Mr. McMullen asked about the applicability of the time limit for a report from the P&Z to the Town Council on a matter that the Council referred to the P&Z.  In answer to a question from Chairman Logue, Messrs. McMullen and Schrader said that the Code does not permit an extension of this time limit.  In answer to a question from Perry Mitchell, Mr. McMullen said that the Town Council asked the Planning and Zoning Commission to review this request because they reviewed the original RPC and make its recommendation to the Town Council, which is the ultimate authority in approving or denying the RPC and amendments to it.  Ms. Shifren said that the Council seemed to agree with their request when it was discussed at the Town Council meeting but wanted the P&Z’s recommendations before making a decision.  In answer to a question from the Town Solicitor, Ms. Shifren said that there was no charge for this application.  Mr. McMullen suggested that she withdraw this request and return to the Town Council with another request when they have the necessary number of signatures.  In answer to a question from Ms. Shifren, the Town Solicitor suggested that she should start over again and obtain all of the necessary signatures at one time rather than adding to the original signatures in order to protect themselves by following all of the requirements of the covenants. Ms. Shifren agreed to withdraw the application. 

Carol Goodhand made a motion to adjourn the meeting.  Joe Evans seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.   The meeting adjourned at 7:38 p.m.

                                                                   Respectfully submitted,

                                                                     Richard J. Logue    

                                                                     Chairperson

                                                                     Planning and Zoning Commission

Transcribed from recording:  June 18, 2007