On the agenda

1. 0.cApproval of Minutes: March 15, 2018▶ 0:00
2. 1

   Variance Application VAR2017-1561 - 5447 Tropic Drive

   approved

   The Land Development Review Board considered a variance application (VAR2017-1561) for 5447 Tropic Drive to allow a dock with a zero-foot side setback (a 12-foot variance) located within a 6-foot utility easement. Staff recommended approval subject to four conditions, and the board approved the variance 6-1 despite a letter of opposition from neighboring property owner Marie Doyle.

   Ord. VAR2017-1561

   • motion:Motion to approve variance VAR2017-1561 with the four staff-recommended conditions. (passed)6–1
   • motion:Motion to adjourn. (passed)

   📍5447 Tropic Drive👤Christian Arias👤Dr. Cato👤Gus Bar👤John St. Martin👤Marie Doyle👤Mr. Gray👤Mr. Perillo👤Mr. Smallwood👤Mr. Smith👤Ms. Barnett👤Ms. Mahan👤Ms. McDonald👤Ms. Moran#12-foot side setback variance#6-foot utility easement#VAR2017-1561#single arm davit dock design#use agreement with John St. Martin

   ▶ Jump to 0:14 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:14] Well here our first case is variance application number VAR 2017-1561-5447 [00:00:27] on Tropic Drive. Can we hear from staff? [00:00:39] So this property is 0.15 acres located on Tropic Drive just north of Warren [00:00:48] Avenue. A portion of the rear yard of the property abuts a canal and the canal [00:00:57] would be located about right there. And again here on the survey there's a house, [00:01:06] here's the canal over here. The required setback for any dock is 12 feet from the [00:01:15] side property lines. The applicant would like to locate his dock right on the [00:01:21] north side property line with a zero foot setback. The applicant is seeking [00:01:27] then a 12-foot variance to reduce the north side setback for the dock. The dock [00:01:35] will also be located in a utility easement, 6-foot utility easement, which is right [00:01:40] here. And he's been informed that the dock must be removed at his expense if [00:01:48] Public Works needs to access the easement. I'm told by Public Works it is [00:01:53] a water pipe. The proposed location of the dock itself would be about right [00:02:01] there. And it is shown here on this diagram. [00:02:08] We don't, I don't know if anybody else, I don't have a survey like that. [00:02:14] Survey you were just showing a minute ago? [00:02:31] It's a piece of a survey. Way back. I see a sketch. It's a piece of a survey. [00:02:49] It's a piece of the survey and it's got purple and yellow on it. But you showed a [00:02:55] survey earlier, the whole lot, right? I did show a survey, yes. That's what I'm [00:02:59] talking about. We didn't have it. We can go back to that. Okay, so yes, this is a piece of the [00:03:14] survey on the northwest side of the property. The applicant drew the diagram [00:03:20] of where he would like to locate his dock. Here are some photos of the canal. [00:03:27] And the property is located right at the end of the canal. So that's what we [00:03:33] have the photos of. This is actually what it looks like at high tide. And this is [00:03:40] what it looks like at low tide. As you can see, there's very little water during [00:03:46] low tides. And that's why the dock would have a single arm davit design, which [00:03:55] would lift the boat out of the water at any low tides. And here's a diagram drawn [00:04:06] by the applicant showing the single arm davit design of the dock. This is an [00:04:15] example of a similar dock and a similar size boat that he would have. Now this [00:04:25] map shows the four parcels into which the canal is divided. It's unusual, [00:04:34] they each have four different owners. Should the variance be approved, the [00:04:40] applicant would have to get permission from the various property owners to [00:04:45] navigate his boat in and out of the canal. The city would have no role in [00:04:51] that matter. We would only be approving a variance to say, yes, he can have a dock [00:04:57] located in that area, not whether or not he has permission to go up and down the [00:05:04] canal. Also just to note, Marie Doyle, who owns the property highlighted in blue on [00:05:14] this map, she had submitted in November 2017, when we were first going to [00:05:22] bring this case to LDRB, she submitted a letter of opposition to the [00:05:27] variance. She contacted our office today and she reaffirmed her opposition to [00:05:34] the variance. So the DRC recommends approval of the request, but subject to [00:05:46] four conditions. One, the boat must be stored out of the water after every use [00:05:52] and not more. Two, if the dock has water service, a backflow device will be [00:05:59] required. Three, that the dock be removed at the owner's expense should public [00:06:06] works need to access the utility easement. And four, that if the use [00:06:12] agreement with John St. Martin is terminated, the dock must be removed. And [00:06:19] the use agreement was also in your, part of your packet. [00:06:35] Any questions for staff? I guess when I reviewed this, there was, it said that [00:06:48] this canal was just dug by a contractor and the county was involved in part of [00:06:53] that? That's possible. The county did provide a letter which is in your packet [00:07:06] and they said that they have no objection to the dock filings or boat [00:07:13] lift. But the, like I said, the ownership of the canal, according to the property [00:07:21] appraiser, are those four private owners. When this canal was dug, there was no [00:07:29] requirement for any permit. You could go dig anything anywhere. That's why there's no seawall. [00:07:35] That was, this was back in the 50s. You could dig a channel through the marsh, [00:07:40] you could dig it through this mangrove, you could dig it anywhere you want. There were no [00:07:44] requirements whatsoever. So who owns the property just to the north? That's Mr. St. [00:07:51] Martin. Okay. [00:07:54] So why, what is the status on Mr. St. Martin? You said if he withdrew his [00:08:00] approval? Well, he signed an easement agreement with the applicant and there's [00:08:11] just a condition that if for some reason one of them wanted to, you know, revoke [00:08:18] that agreement, then he would have to remove it. He's agreeing that he would [00:08:23] have to remove his dock. Can you go back to the map of the property owners [00:08:30] that you had? So the blue is what Ms. Doyle owns, is that correct? Is that just [00:08:42] water or is that property? It is. There's a little bit of water in her portion and [00:08:49] there's a little bit of land in her portion. How much water is in there when [00:08:54] it's high tide? That's the point. Oh, I mean just in general, she's at [00:09:03] the end closest to the river, so her portion, it's part of the land, part [00:09:12] on land and part on water, but there's always water in that section of the [00:09:16] canal. It's just the southern end of the canal down where you see the yellow [00:09:21] portion, that's the portion where the water really recedes at low tide. I guess [00:09:31] the question is, can you get to the river without going through her property? [00:09:41] It looks in the one picture you have here, low tide, and it doesn't look like you [00:09:46] get the river from any of them, including her property, unless you [00:09:51] were in a paddleboard. Ms. Doyle says in her letter that she wrote [00:10:00] that she'd be blocked from accessing her property from the water. What [00:10:06] does staff have to say about that? That would not be true. If the [00:10:13] variance, if the applicant were allowed to have the variance, it would not in any [00:10:20] way be blocking her property. The dock would be located over here, and her [00:10:29] property is just this blue piece here. Yes, ma'am. But in order to trust or go [00:10:40] through from the applicants and out to the big water, it has to go through the [00:10:51] lady who is objecting, right? They can't go up on the land and then get back into [00:10:58] the water. Likely he would have to do that, and that is why we're saying that [00:11:05] the city is not commenting on that either way. It would be the applicant's [00:11:11] responsibility to make agreements with the owners of the property in order for [00:11:17] him to be able to navigate. In other words, she doesn't want to agree with his [00:11:23] ability to cross over her territory. Yes. I have to go down the east side of the [00:11:31] canal. You won't touch her property anyway, but I don't think anybody's gonna [00:11:35] be able to stop anybody from doing that anyway. It appears to me that they can [00:11:39] handle enough boats to go through the center of this canal or even on one side [00:11:46] of the canal without infringing on her property. That's what it appears. I would [00:11:51] say that. I would agree. Yeah, I mean, there's a boat in the picture. I think let's not get [00:11:59] bogged down in all that, because it's really not, that's another battle. Yeah. I [00:12:05] think we just need to decide whether or not we're going to approve the variance [00:12:09] for the dock, because I don't think the rest of us are going to be a problem in [00:12:14] the future. So, any other questions? Does anyone here speak in favor of this? [00:12:21] Would you please state your name and address for the record, please? [00:12:27] Gus Bar, 5447 Tropic Drive. And yeah, it's, and I'm not sure if it matters, but it is actually my [00:12:37] understanding that somebody owns the land, but not the water, because that's [00:12:42] owned by the state. So for trespassing by boat, then I'm thinking, well, it's, you [00:12:47] know, it's, there shouldn't be any objection just going over the water. She [00:12:52] owns the land. I don't know. And other than that, I have, like, unless you have other [00:12:58] concerns or questions for me. Are you the property owner? Yes, correct. Okay. Anybody [00:13:05] have a question? Any concerns? What kind of boat? Oh, it's a John boat, like a flat, [00:13:14] really flat boat, 16 feet as per the, I have, yeah. Okay, have anything else you [00:13:25] want to tell us? No, unless you, unless any of you have a concern as to why [00:13:32] it shouldn't be granted, then I would like to take this time to hopefully level any [00:13:40] of those concerns. Any other questions? Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. [00:13:46] Is anyone else here to speak in favor of this? Is there anyone here to speak in [00:13:51] opposition to it? Being there is not, what's the pleasure of the board? Make a [00:13:58] motion for approval with the conditions. Motion is made and seconded. Any further [00:14:04] discussion? I'm sorry, who's second? What's that? Okay, Ms. Barnett does not have [00:14:10] voting privileges today. That's okay. Do we have a second? Ms. Moran, second. Okay, I [00:14:16] just want to clarify. My address is on the list here of the approvals, the other [00:14:22] variances that were granted. I know we brought this up before, but I just want [00:14:25] to make sure that's known that. I brought that up to Ms. Mahan. She said it [00:14:28] shouldn't be an issue for me voting, but it is. You have received a variance? [00:14:32] Right, is on previously, right. Yes, yeah, that would not be a conflict, yes. Okay, [00:14:39] there's a motion made and properly seconded, and is there any further [00:14:43] discussion? Being none, we have a roll call vote, please. Mr. Smallwood? Yes, to the [00:14:50] motion. Dr. Cato? Yes, to the motion. Ms. Moran? Yes, to the motion. Ms. McDonald? No, to the motion. [00:15:00] Mr. Gray? Yes, to the motion. Mr. Perillo? Yes, to the motion. Mr. Smith? Yes, to the [00:15:06] motion. Okay, motion is passed, and you want what time frame do they have before [00:15:16] they can do that for any, this is going to go, will this have to go to council? No, [00:15:21] it does not. There has to be a 10-day waiting period, and then they can apply [00:15:26] for their permit. Okay, all right, thank you very much. One other thing I just [00:15:35] want to introduce to the board, Christian Arias, he is going to be the new [00:15:41] planner. We're so happy to have him in our department. Welcome, welcome. Hey, you [00:15:50] have something you want to bring up? No, nothing for me. Okay, we don't have [00:15:56] anything else to discuss today. We're going to hear the motion. Motion made and [00:16:01] seconded, we adjourn. All those in favor? Aye.

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

3. 0.aRoll Call
4. 0.b

   Pledge of Allegiance

   Pledge of Allegiance.
5. 99

   Adjourn

   Adjournment of the meeting.