File #: 17-0024    Version: Name:
Type: Discussion Items Status: Passed
File created: 2/13/2017 In control: Planning & Zoning Board
On agenda: 3/13/2017 Final action: 3/13/2017
Title: Request for Variance - 3 Stonegate Drive
Attachments: 1. 3 Stonegate Drive, 2. 3 Stonegate Drive Original variance, 3. Hail opposition letter, 4. Sec._66_251.___Nonconforming_development., 5. Taraszki Notice of Legal Representation for John Connelly, 6. Sec._66_253.___Nonconforming_development., 7. Sec._74_288.___Docks_and_piers., 8. Connelly NTA-3 Stonegate, 9. Sec._74_84.___Schedule_of_dimensional_regulations., 10. Sec._74_82.___Schedule_of_district_regulations., 11. Sec._74_281.___General_standards., 12. Connelly Legal Representation attachment
Related files: 18-0263, 18-0143, 18-0267
Summary
To: Town Commission
From: Micah Maxwell, Town Manager
Date: 4/13/2017
______________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Request for Variance -3 Stonegate Drive
Summary:
The applicant is requesting a variance to two sections of the code with respect to construction of new boat dock. The first request would allow the dock to be extend thirty-five feet outside the fifty foot length maximum resulting in a eighty-five foot long dock. The second request would allow for the construction of a dock outside of the center one third of the property.
Previous Commission Action:
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of variance for dock extension, but did not recommend approval for the variance to allow for the construction of the dock outside of the center one third of the property
Background/Problem Discussion:
The variances in question are governed by Section 66-251 and 66-253, which area attached. Section 66-253(b)(1)a, 1-6 outline the items that the town commission is required to initially determine prior to granting a variance request.
Criteria #1 - Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or buildings involved.
1. Mangroves and seagrass are present in the majority of the area adjacent to subject property.
2. The water depth appears very low in the area adjacent to the subject property. A survey has been provided as to the water depths in the area proposed for installation, however, there is no data provided for the water depth for the center 1/3 of the property. That said, visual inspection points to the area within the center 1/3 being very shallow as well.
3. Two of the three parcels attached to this variance were historically common areas to Stonegate, but were recently transferred to the applicant. This is significant because one of the parcels in question would house the connection point for the proposed dock and the town needs to ensure that the conditions o...

Click here for full text