07/24/1980
......"
"'
. ... ~ I ., ',c t ,
, '~I \t
. ..~.. .........~;.,+"'..1.'....:.;'..;.'. lee ".,c .'...,.
@,
" iC
f'~ ~.'
Alma powerst owner of Lot 5, Block 6, North Shore
Parkt 1729 Sunset Drive, spoke in opposition stating the
fence would obstruct her view to the water. She pointed
out that Lot 32 is south of the applicant's property and
would not be subject to view obstruction. She submitted
a letter in opposition from the owner of Lots H 28 and
29, Sunburst Court, which was read into the record.
In rebuttal, the applicant reiterated that at the
time he purchased the property there was no view of the
water because of the condition of the property. Ad-
ditionally, on the west side of his property there is
a large camphor tree which is one of the largest in the
County. To relocate the pool in that area would re-
quire removal of the tree. He reiterated that exten-
sive remodeling would be required which would be very
expensive.
Having held a duly constituted public hearing and
since, based on the material submitted by the applicantt
there are not practical difficulties or unnecessary hard-
ships that cannot be overcomet ~fr. Gans moved that such
appeal be denied. Mr. Morris seconded the motion.
Mr. Gans stated he does not agree that the view will
be destroyed but he feels the applicant failed to show
practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship.
Upon the vote being taken, Messrs. House, Gans, and
Morris voted "Aye"; Mr. Donnell voted "Nay". Mr. Regulski
abstained as he did not hear all the evidence. Motion
carried. Request denied.
ITEM #2 - Laszlo Szabo for a variance to allow a
parking space in both side yards (delete
the requirement of a clear space from street
to water) OR delete the off-street parking
requirement from six spaces to five.
The Planning Official stated the parking spaces are
only 8 1/2 feet wide which would not be approved by the
Traffic Engineering Department. He recommends the appli-
cation be continued to give the applicant time to re-
work the plan to gain Traffic Engineering approval, which
will probably require additional variances.
George Haddox, architect representing the applicantt
enumerated the special conditions, as outlined in the
application, which create a hardship. Ninety-five per-
cent of the properties along Brightwater Drive have side
yard setbacks of only 5 feett so there is virtually no
vista existing on the street. He pointed out the width
of the lot absolutely precludes providing six parking
"spaces 9 ft. wide and a 3-foot buffer zone on each side.
Considerable discussion ensued concerning the accuracy
0;, the ""application and t:le lfording of the public hearing;,ad.
'" .' . " ~
",
o"~.
~
'0
o
.A
'.
"
,.",' . T'
. .',
j~:t)/~:"!.:,;;:::{~'":(.:;;'" '""\,'~::~, "
, ,J ,".'
2'.
7/2"4/80 '
, f,':~ :\:::'.:>.
, .. ,I:,~ ~ ..
"\ " . ,"'
I'
~~~~~~~~-;;
~~__ _..I!W"~ :~ij,."""
'.-' .'1
, "