The most intricate item on the agenda involved Francisco Ruperto’s property on Twin Lakes Drive, where multiple structures required side yard setback variances. After a code enforcement violation brought the non-compliance to light, Ruperto sought to rectify the situation by requesting variances for six accessory structures. These included a 100 square foot shed encroaching 4.2 feet into the north side yard, a 336 square foot detached garage violating the south side yard setback by 5.8 feet, and an 800 square foot carport encroaching by 6.7 feet. Additionally, a 192 square foot shed sat entirely within the south side yard, a 160 square foot shed encroached 6.9 feet, and a 240 square foot carport encroached by 5.2 feet.

Ruperto explained that he was unaware of these issues until recently and described the challenges of maintaining the property, including the prohibitive cost of tree maintenance. He had already moved one shed four inches off the property line to alleviate some of the encroachment. Stating, “Some of the stuff has been there for over 32 years,” Ruperto emphasized the historical nature of the structures. The board, after hearing Ruperto’s explanation and finding no opposition, passed a motion to approve the variance requests unanimously.

Another discussion centered on Shawn Canada’s request for variances on Kentucky Street in the Sanford Celery Delta subdivision. Canada sought to reduce the east side yard setback from 50 feet to 10 feet and the west side yard setback from 50 feet to 21 feet for a new 2,160 square foot barn. Due to the narrow and elongated shape of the property, these variances were necessary. Canada explained that the barn’s design and intended use for agricultural purposes, including bee storage, dictated its layout. Despite questions about the building’s orientation, Canada clarified, “That’s the style of the building, that’s the design of it.” The board proceeded to approve the request without dissent.

The board also addressed a variance request for a fence height increase from 4 feet to 5 feet on Pine Timber Point in the Red Ember North subdivision. The property is a corner lot, subject to dual front yard setbacks. The proposed aluminum fence, set back 3 feet from the sidewalk and 5 feet from the pavement, had no traffic objections and was approved by the local homeowners association. With the applicant satisfied with the staff’s presentation and no public comments, the board approved the variance unanimously.

In another case, a request for a rear yard setback variance was made for a pool screen enclosure on Bordo Circle in the Buckingham Estates phase two subdivision. The applicant sought to reduce the setback from 7.5 feet to 2 feet, encroaching into the required rear yard. The enclosure would back onto an open space easement, and previous approvals for similar constructions existed. Following a brief presentation and no public input, the board approved the variance request without opposition.

Additionally, the board reviewed a request for a rear yard setback variance on Hollow Pine Drive in the Tusca Ridge Unit 8 subdivision. The applicant needed a variance to reduce the setback from 30 feet to 18 feet for a screen enclosure on an existing concrete slab. They confirmed neighbor consultations and aligned with similar local structures, leading to unanimous approval from the board.

Another variance was granted for a pool screen enclosure on Roseborough Road in the Sunland Estates Spring Creek C subdivision. The contractor presented the request to reduce the south side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet. Despite not consulting neighbors, the board approved the variance, acknowledging the complications due to the property being a corner lot.