6/22/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I BOOK 100 PAGE � related to litigation. He requested the Board consider providing an appeal process before them. Because the Board of Adjustment meets infrequently, he believed that the Board of County Commissioners would not be inundated with appeals of decisions. Mr. Herzog introduced into evidence the transcript of the Board of Adjustment hearing as well as photographs of the property. (Clerk's Note: Evidence submitted has been filed with the backup of the meeting in the Office of the Clerk to the Board.) He gave the history and ownership of the business, using the photographs of the property showing the original corrugated metal building which matched the character of the neighborhood at the time. (The photos were displayed on the ELMO.) Mr. Herzog then described the additions to the building over the years pointing out the changes to the building on the photographs. He told of the reasons for the changes and why the "wings" had been enclosed with glass under permits from the County. Mr. Herzog continued that, in 1999, Home & Patio determined there was a need to improve aesthetics in order to compete with new business and growth in the area. They made application for renovations to include a new roof facade and anew glass enclosure. The work was permitted and, as construction began, deterioration of the roofing structure was discovered. It was necessary to replace beams and other skeletal structure. In order to replace the deteriorated steel, old windows had to be removed, which were replaced with seamless glass which did not match other glass. Materials were ordered. These events caused the necessity for an application for a variance. The owners called in an architect for an aesthetic and structural design which was submitted to the Building Department. In early conversations with staff, Mr. Herzog was told there was a problem with parking. More parking was put in and then he was advised that there were also setback and lot -coverage questions. At this point, the new glass was installed and he instructed the owners not to have the old windows torn down because they might need them if they were to receive a "tear down" order and they could have the scofflaw problem. So, the old glass was also maintained and merchandise was put in the floor spaces in between. This new glass enclosed area puts the building over the lot coverage allowed. Legal nonconformity under the current definitions has resulted. There has been no increase in use but, according to the regulations, that area could be screened in, fenced in, shuttered, etc., but not enclosed. The total amount of nonconforming space, he believed, would be approximately 200 square feet and would actually necessitate the elimination of two panes of glass. He then reviewed the land use regulations with respect to facility, constitutionality, legitimate purposes, lack of clarity and reasonableness, impact JUNE 229 1999 58