Agenda


AGENDA ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT January 15, 2014–8:30 a.m. Escambia County Central Office Complex 3363 West Park Place, Room 104

Call to Order.

Swearing in of Staff and acceptance of Staff as expert witnesses.

Acceptance of the BOA Meeting Package with the Development Services Staff Findings-of-Fact, into evidence.

Proof of Publication and waive the reading of the legal advertisement.

Approval of December 18, 2013 Resume' Minutes.

Consideration of the following cases:

CASE NO.: AP-2012-02 (Remanded)

Address:	7253 Plantation Rd.
Requested Appeal:	Appeal of the Issuance of Building Permits BD120502393 and BD120502394
Requested by:	Jesse W. Rigby, Esq., Agent for ADX Communications of Escambia, LLC & Relax Hospitality, LLC

Case No.: V-2014-01

Address:	9909 University Parkway
Request:	Variance to the Overall Height Limit for an On-Premise Sign in R-5 Zoning
Requested by:	Tiffany Lyons, Agent for Eaton Square Holdings, LLC

Discussion Items.

Old/New Business.

Announcement.

The next Board of Adjustment Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 19, 2014 at 8:30 a.m., at the Escambia County Central Office Complex, Room 104, 3363 West Park Place.

10.

Adjournment.


Board of Adjustment		5.
Meeting Date:	01/15/2014

Attachments
12-18-13 Draft Resume


Board of Adjustment		6. 1.
Meeting Date:	01/15/2014

I. SUBMISSION DATA:

APPLICANT:	Jesse W. Rigby, Esq., Agent for ADX Communications of Escambia, LLC & Relax Hospitality, LLC
DATE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION:	May 25, 2012
DATE OF APPEAL APPLICATION:	May 29, 2012
PROJECT ADDRESS:	7253 Plantation Rd.
PROPERTY REFERENCE NO.:	30-1S-304101-010-002
ZONING DISTRICT:	C-2
FUTURE LAND USE:	Commercial

III. REQUESTED APPEAL::

Appeal of the issuance of building permits BD120502393 and BD120502394

III. RELEVANT APPEAL AUTHORITY:

Land Development Code of Escambia County, Florida (Ordinance 96-3 as amended), Section: 2.04.00 & 2.04.01

Sections 2.04.00, Appeal of Administrative Decisions and 2.04.01, Procedures for the Appeal of Administrative Decisions of the Escambia County Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 96-3 as amended), provide the relevant authority for the BOA’s review of administrative decisions.

A. The BOA is authorized to hear and to rule upon any appeal made by those persons aggrieved by administration of this Code. An administrative decision, or staff interpretation, shall not be reversed, altered, or modified by the BOA unless it finds that:

1. A written application for the appeal was submitted within 15 days of the administrative decision or action indicating the section of this Code under which said appeal applies together with a statement of the grounds on which the appeal is based; and

2. That the person filing said appeal has established that the decision or action of the administrative official was arbitrary and capricious; or

3. An aggrieved party who files an appeal of a decision of the DRC approving or approving with conditions a development plan application, must show, by competent substantial evidence that:

(i) The decision of the DRC is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan or the Land Development Code;

(ii) Their property will suffer an adverse impact as a result of the development approval decision;

(iii) The adverse impact must be to a specific interest protected or furthered by the Comprehensive Plan or the Land Development Code; and

(iv) It must be greater in degree than any adverse impact shared by the community at large.

4. In the event the owner, developer, or applicant is aggrieved or adversely affected by a denial of a development plan application or the imposition of conditions, the owner, developer or applicant filing the appeal must show, by competent substantial evidence, that the denial of the development plan or the imposition of conditions is neither required nor supported by the Comprehensive Plan or the Land Development Code or the application of technical design standards and specifications adopted by reference in the Code, or Concurrency Management Procedures and is, therefore, arbitrary and capricious.

IV. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

On December 20, 2011 Mr. Christian Jensen requested zoning verification for the subject site
with a proposed use of crematory/funeral home. Development Services staff verified the site as
having C-2 zoning and that the requested use would be allowed based on initial review. As the
prior use on site was a restaurant, the proposed change of use would need to comply with the
County site plan review process.

Based on further staff review of the proposed use, it was determined that the crematory would
not be allowed in C-2 zoning. Mr. Jensen was contacted by staff in February 2012 and
subsequently applied for a Planning Board Interpretation of the Land Development Code (LDC)
regulation.

At the February 13, 2012 Planning Board meeting, the Board determined that crematoriums
located within a funeral home are not a permitted use in C-2 zoning (Planning Board
Interpretation # 2012-01).

Based on discussion with staff regarding appeal options, the property owner (CNL Funding)
applied for a change of use from restaurant to funeral home with crematory. On March 7, 2012
the application was denied by staff based on Planning Board Interpretation # 2012-01. On
March 12, 2012 the applicant filed for an Administrative Appeal of the Change of Use permit
denial.

At the April 18, 2012 Board of Adjustment (BOA) meeting, the Board voted 4-2 to reverse the staff denial of the Change of Use permit. Based on the decision of the BOA, the owner applied for building permits on May 18, 2012. The permits applied for were: BD120502393 (Building alteration), BD120502394 (Building addition). The permits were issued by the county on May, 25, 2012.

May 29, 2012 an appeal of those 2 permits was filed by Jesse W. Rigby, Esq., Agent for ADX Communications of Escambia, LLC & Relax Hospitality, LLC. A hold was placed on the permits May 31, 2012 per LDC 2.02.04.

Attachments
AP-2012-02 Remanded


Board of Adjustment		6. 2.
Meeting Date:	01/15/2014
CASE:	V-2014-01
APPLICANT:	Tiffany Lyons, Agent for Eaton Square Holdings, LLC
ADDRESS:	9009 University Parkway
PROPERTY REFERENCE NO.:	14-1S-30-3301-002-001
ZONING DISTRICT:	R-5
FUTURE LAND USE:	MU-U

SUBMISSION DATA:
REQUESTED VARIANCE: The Applicant is seeking a variance to the overall height limit for an on-premise sign in R-5 zoning. The existing residential complex on site has a non-comforming 19.41 foot sign that is proposed to be replaced with a 15.04 foot sign. The zoning limits the sign height to six feet for residential uses and the Applicant is requesting a variance of 9.04 feet. RELEVANT AUTHORITY: Land Development Code of Escambia County, Florida (Ordinance No. 96-3 as amended), Section: 8.07.02.B 8.07.02. Multifamily zones. B. Residential complexes: Height maximum . . . 6 ft. from grade CRITERIA Land Development Code of Escambia County, Florida (Ordinance No. 96-3 as amended), Section 2.05.02
CRITERION (1)
That there are special circumstances or conditions applicable to the building or land in question that are peculiar to such property that do not apply generally to other land or buildings in the vicinity. FINDINGS-OF-FACT Section 2.05.02 of the Land Development Code defines special circumstances or conditions specifically as follows: “Such special conditions shall be limited to unusual physical characteristics inherent in the specific piece of property and not common to properties similarly situated. Such physical characteristics include, but are not limited to, exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape, topographic conditions, or the presence of sensitive environmental resources, any or all of which will result in peculiar or practical difficulties in the quiet enjoyment and use of the property”. The property in question is different from other residential complexes nearby in that it is elevated from the roadside. Drivers heading south on University Pkwy. head uphill to the site and a six foot monument type sign would be difficult to see. The proposed new sign would use the existing pole with a new and smaller cabinet that would still allow for visibility given the physical limitation on site.
CRITERION (2)
That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and not merely to serve as a convenience to the Applicant. FINDINGS-OF-FACT The requested variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right given the physical limitation on site.
CRITERION (3)
That such a variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets, the danger of fire, imperil the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding area or in any other respect impair the health, safety, comfort, or general welfare of the inhabitants of Escambia County. FINDINGS-OF-FACT This variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets, the danger of fire, imperil the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding area, or in any other respect impair the health, safety, comfort, or general welfare of the inhabitants of Escambia County.
CRITERION (4)
The variance will not, in any manner, alter other provisions of this Code or Comprehensive Plan. FINDINGS-OF-FACT This variance will not alter other provisions of the Land Development Code or Comprehensive Plan.
CRITERION (5)
That the variance is the minimum necessary to make possible the use of the land, building or other improvements as approved by the BOA. FINDINGS-OF-FACT The requested variance would lower the overall height and size of the existing non-conforming sign while affording relief from the physical limitation on site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the variance as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FINDINGS: The Board adopted Staff's findings and approved the variance as requested.

Attachments
V-2014-01 Working Case File