Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA approves rear-yard variance for hard‑roof screen room at Sandpiper home
Summary
The Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals approved a variance to reduce the rear-yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet at 1022 Caracara Circle to allow a hard‑roof screen room; staff said the roof had already been installed and neighbor submitted a letter of no objection.
The Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals on a unanimous vote approved a variance to allow a 10‑foot rear‑yard setback instead of the 20‑foot minimum at 1022 Caracara Circle in the Sandpiper Golf & Country Club planned unit development to allow a hard‑roof screen room to remain.
The request, filed as Variance 24‑014 by Grama Aluminum and Home Improvement on behalf of owner David Hutchinson, was presented by applicant David Langore, who said the homeowners wanted a covered family area. "They just basically wanted to add a aluminum pan roof to the top of it," Langore told the board.
Todd Vargo, with Community and Economic Development, explained that "once you put a hard roof on a screen room it becomes part of the principal structure," and that the setback for principal structures in this phase of Sandpiper is 20 feet. Vargo said staff discovered the hard roof had already been constructed while preparing the permit review and that the building division assesses a penalty equal to double the building permit fees when work is done before a variance is approved.
Vargo showed aerial and site‑plan images indicating the screen room's location on the corner lot and told the board staff had received a written "letter of no objection" from the nearest affected homeowner at 1025 Carrick Carroll Circle North. He recommended the variance be approved, noting the lot configuration and shallow yards in Sandpiper commonly create the hardship claimed.
The board opened the item for questions, heard no public opposition at the meeting and then voted to approve the variance. The motion to approve passed with the following recorded votes: Missus Hatfield — yes; Missus Tessmer — yes; Missus Farrell — yes; Mr. Sherritt — yes; Mr. Brodner — yes; Chair — yes. The motion and second were not recorded by name in the transcript.
The board noted the fine and permit penalty process and closed the item with staff and the applicant acknowledging the required building permit fee adjustment.
