Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rear Yard Variance Patio topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies covered-patio variance after HOA, condominium association objections
Summary
An application to reduce a rear-yard setback from 15 feet to 3 feet for a covered patio at 215 West Sable Palm Place was not approved after the board’s motions resulted in no majority; the applicant argued minimal impact while the Sable Point HOA and Village on the Green objected, and the HOA indicated it would rescind prior approval.
The Seminole County Board of Adjustment did not approve a variance request to reduce the rear-yard setback from 15 feet to 3 feet for a covered patio at 215 West Sable Palm Place after motions to deny and to approve each failed to receive a majority. Staff described the project as a covered patio of roughly 270 square feet encroaching 12 feet into the required rear yard setback and said there were no prior variances on the property. Owner Ken Spannik told the board the structure would be “just simple structure, all wood” installed on posts and said it would improve shading and energy performance adjacent to a sunroom. Gerald Keane, speaking for the Sable Point HOA, told the board that an ARC approval the HOA granted in May had been based on an earlier, smaller representation and that the HOA planned to rescind that approval after seeing construction documents; he said no existing Sable Point structure sits three feet from a property line and that the HOA would likely not approve similar encroachments. Jim Horstman, executive director of Village on the Green, said the association opposed the variance because of precedent and aesthetics and raised a concern about potential flooding from retention ponds if structures are sited very near lot lines. Board members discussed whether the structure covered an existing pad and whether neighbors directly adjacent had been properly notified; several members suggested tabling the item to allow the applicant to negotiate with neighbors and the HOA. The board first voted on a motion to deny (moved by Mr. Beagley); that motion failed for lack of affirmative votes. A motion to approve, made by the vice chair and seconded by Mr. Evans, resulted in a tie and therefore failed; the chair confirmed the application fails for lack of an approving majority. The chair reminded the public that Board of Adjustment decisions have no precedential value and that the applicant may appeal to the Board of County Commissioners.
