Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves larger accessory building at Lakeview Drive despite neighbor concerns about private-drive access
Summary
The Board approved a 1,500-square-foot detached garage at 237 Lakeview Drive but neighbors raised concerns that construction and future access would rely on a narrow private drive; county attorneys and staff said a variance does not grant rights to cross private property and recommended private agreements.
Seminole County's Board of Adjustment voted July 28 to permit a larger detached accessory building at 237 Lakeview Drive, while also recording neighborhood concerns about how the structure would be accessed during and after construction.
Staff described the request as a variance to increase the allowable accessory structure size from 984 square feet to 1,500 square feet for a detached garage. The property owner sought room for vehicle storage and related equipment.
Neighbor Jason Walker, who lives at 845 North Country Club Road, told the board the proposed garage appears to require access over a long, shared gravel driveway that crosses adjacent parcels. "It looks like the orientation of the building and the concrete pad would access through my private road," Walker said, and he raised concerns about heavy equipment, possible damage to an existing gravel drive and utility lines, and who would be responsible.
Assistant County Attorney Rob Imkew told the board that approving the zoning variance would not change property rights or create an easement: "Even if this board were to approve the variance, it wouldn't confer any special easement right, for purposes of constructing the shed. That would have to be a private agreement between the parties to work out those details." Development Services staff added that a condition could be included that required no access be taken across the private drive as part of the county permit process, though such a condition would not create a private easement.
The applicant, property owner John Obrimsky, acknowledged the shared access arrangement and said he had discussed the matter with neighbors and offered to help maintain the drive during construction, including improving it with gravel or millings.
After extended discussion about logistics and potential conditions, board member Blake Wright moved to approve the requested variance as applied for; the motion was seconded by Jeff Evans and passed, with Judge Bravo recording the lone dissenting vote. The board and staff advised the applicant to secure any private access agreements needed for construction and future use before beginning work.
The board's approval applies only to the size of the accessory structure under the county land development code; it does not grant legal rights to cross or use another property's driveway. Any private access or maintenance agreement will need to be worked out between property owners and documented outside the county's variance approval.
