Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procedure Public Notice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues Enderberry Court barn variance after staff-sent notice described wrong use
Summary
The Seminole County Board of Adjustment continued a decision on a side-street setback variance for a proposed barn at 1200 Enderberry Court after finding the mailed public notice described a different use; the applicant objected to the delay, and staff will re-notice the item.
The Seminole County Board of Adjustment voted to continue consideration of a variance request for 1200 Enderberry Court to next month's meeting after staff discovered that the public notice mailed to neighbors described a different use for the proposed structure.
What happened: Staff presented a request to reduce the side-street setback from 50 feet to 30 feet for a proposed 2,600-square-foot barn on a corner lot. After the staff report, the record showed the applicant had changed the stated use of the structure; staff also reported receipt of an opposition letter. Board members raised a procedural concern: the notice mailed to the community described a different use than what the board was being asked to consider.
Applicant's position: The applicant (referred to in the record as Mr. Marino) strongly disputed that he had changed the building's intent. He said the original permit application was submitted as a barn and that the incorrect description in the mailed notice was not his fault. Marino said he had pursued county staff assistance in person and by email before the hearing and that delaying the matter would push back construction work: "Pushing me back a whole another month means I have concrete that's now gonna get pushed out a whole another month." He also said two adjacent homeowners provided letters supporting the request.
Board concern and action: Board members and staff said an incorrect public notice could invite procedural challenges and deprive neighbors of proper notice. To avoid that risk the chair asked whether the applicant would accept a continuance to allow staff to re-notice the property; the board then voted to continue the item. One board member noted that if the board decided without proper notice, a third party could challenge the decision and delay the applicant further.
What's next: Staff was directed to re-notice the application and return it to the Board of Adjustment at the next scheduled meeting with corrected documentation. The continuance means the board will take no final action on the Enderberry Court variance until the item is re-advertised and re-heard.
Context: Staff cited a prior 2002 lot-size variance for the property and said a letter of opposition was on record. The board's action was procedural, aimed at ensuring the public-notice process was correct before a final decision was made.
