Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Board of Adjustment_06/16/2003 vP OF Tf G�, �� ; VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA � � DEPAR'I1V�NT OF CO1��IVILJNTTY DEVELOPMENT �� t Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive �3 ''�'e o� Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (561) 575-6220 �N c ��" Fax: (561) 575-6239 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING MEETING MINUTES JIJNE 16, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Viliage of Tequesta Board of Adjustment held a regularly scheduled Public Hearing at the Tequesta Recreation Center, 399 Seabrook Road, Tequesta, Florida, on Monday, June 16, 2003. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chair Jim Humpage. A roll call was taken by Recording Secretary Betty Laur. Boardmembers present were: Chair James Humpage, Steve Pullon, Jon Newman, Paul Brienza, and Alternate Steve Gordon, sitting in for regular member Vice Chair Vi Laamanen, who was absent. Also in attendance were Village Attorney John C.Randolph,Clerk of the Board Jeff Newell, and Village Planner Carol Lux. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was clarified that there was only one item on tonight's agenda. MOTION: Boardmember Pullon moved that the Agenda be approved as submitted. Boardmember Brienza seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5-0 vote. The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the Agenda was approved as submitted. III. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES Recycled Paper Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes June 16, 2003 Page 2 Boardmember Brienza moved approval of the minutes for the meeting of January 27, 2003 as submitted. Boardmember Gordon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5-0 vote. The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the minutes were approved as submitted. IV. NEW BUSINESS 1. An application from Dorothy May Campbell,owner of the property located at 30 Eastwinds Circle, Lots 7 & 8, Eastwinds Landing subdivision, requesting a variance to the terms of the Official Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Tequesta, Section XVI. Uniform Waterway Control, (B), Dock and Pier Length, Width, and Configuration (1) "No dock or pier shall be constructed which extends waterward from the mean high water line in excess of the least of the following distances; (a) Seventy-five (75) feet; or (b) Ten (10) percent of the waterway width; or (c) The distance from the point at which the dock or pier intersects the mean high water line measured in a straight line to the nearest point on the three-foot mean low water line; provided, however, the foregoing limitations shall not prohibit a dock which does not extend waterward from the mean high water line in excess of six (6) feet." The applicant seeks relief from the regulation outlined above to extend the dock from the allowed seventy-five feet,to ninety (90) feet into the north fork of the Loxahatchee River. A. Swearing-In of Witnesses, if Required Village Planner Carol Lux swore in all those intending to speak for this application. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes June 16, 2003 Page 3 ................................... B. Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications Boardmember Gordon reported he had met with Dick Turgon, Mrs. Campbell's contractor. Boardmember Newman reported he had spoken on the phone to the neighbor who lived on the southeast side of the property, and he was concerned about the length of the dock being over 95' and was not very happy. Mr. Newman advised him to come to this meeting. Mr. Brienza indicated he had visited the site but had spoken to no one. Boardmember Pullon reported that he had visited the site and spoken to no one there but that day had been contacted by Joe Capretta by telephone. Chair Humpage reported he had visited the site many times since he was the electrical contractor. Chair Humpage stepped down due to conflict of interest, and passed the gavel to Boardmember Newman. Boardmember Newman became Acting Chair by consensus. C. Testimony of Witnesses and Cross Examination, if any Mrs. Campbell distributed to the Board an aerial overview of the property showing the location of the dock penciled in, and a sketched out drawing survey of the properties of the Tequesta Country Club in her area, and a paper outlining the docks in her cul-de-sac by lot number and with the names of the marine contractors who installed them. Gene Wehage, Dolphin Marine Construction, explained that the purpose of the request to extend the dock to 90' instead of 75' was to gain water depth to get 3' of water. Acting Chair Newman commented the depth was shown consistent at 3.2' for 20' out. Mr. Wehage responded that was not the proper drawing, that he had only one copy of the proper drawing. The Village Attorney advised that everyone needed to look at the correct drawing in order to take it into consideration. Boardmember Pullon asked the Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes June 16, 2003 Page 4 ................................... depth at 75', to which Mr. Wehage responded it was 2.5', and the applicant was trying to put a boat lift off the side farther out. Village Attorney Randolph asked why there was a different drawing in the packets. Mr. Wehage responded he did not know, but he had a girl who did his drafting and she must have made a mistake. Boardmember Newman asked where the high tide line started on this property and if the 75' the Board was looking at for a variance was from the mean high water line. Clerk of the Board Jeff Newell explained there were three requirements of the code— the 75', the waterway width, and a third condition—in this particular case he scaled out the waterway width at mean high water line to the other side where perpendicular. That width of the river there was approximately 525', so by code the dock could go out to 52.5' and the variance requested was the difference between the 52.5' and the 90'. The 75' was governed by the width of the waterway, so if it was at a part of the river that may be 1,000- 1,200 in width you would be limited to 75'. Village Attorney Randolph requested Mr. Wehage note what was different about the drawing in the packet and the correct drawing. Mr. Wehage noted that it shows the river bottom line going out level in the drawing in the package which was wrong; it should have been going out at an incline. In the drawing in the packet, depth was shown at 3.2' at the end of the dock; the correct depth at 40' out was 2' and at 50-70' out was 2.5 and at the end of the dock was 3' at mean low water. Mr. Wehage stated those were the correct measurements and he felt sure that was the drawing on which DEP had relied. Mr. Newman confirmed there was a letter from DEP and a drawing from the State of Florida showing the elevation as submitted with a terminal depth of 3' and sloping generally out, which would have been the one submitted to the state for approval. Gary DeLyle, 220 Country Club Drive, reported he lived two houses north of the parking lot which was adjacent to Mrs. Campbell's property, and submitted two pictures he had taken Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes June 16, 2003 Page 5 ................................... which had yellow arrows showing a float and showing approximate location of the dock as well as an overview of the lot in question with the proposed dock. Mr. DeLyle reported he had placed buoys at 75' and at 90'—the picture was at 90'—and at mean tide there was only a 3" difference in water depth. At 75' the depth was 4" to 3"and at 90' the depth was 4" to 6". Mr. DeLyle stated he saw no reason to go out 15'; and that his measurements were taken at medium tide between high and low tide. Acting Chair Newman commented the variance started at 52.5'. Mr. DeLyle stated he saw no reason to exceed the 52.5' maximum except you might need to go to 75'. John Pinkham, 4980 County Line Road, stated he lived directly across from the new house. Mr. Pinkham stated he used a yardage marker to measure, and directly across the water he got 465', and 10% of that would be 46.5',but beyond that, off his property there was a bit of a sand bar that ran out and he had been told that was a no-wake zone, although he had never seen anyone abide by that; and if another dock came out 90' from the other side he thought there would be a lot of injuries and accidents with people trying to negotiate that turn. Dick Turgon, Dottie Campbell's contractor, 17731 Haney Lane, Jupiter, Florida, commented he had been working on this house since October, and had watched boat traffic ten hours a day and had seen how they had to maneuver near the sand bar. Mr. Turgon commented he had watched Mr. DeLyle measure and went home and checked the tide—it had been at one o'clock—and it was dead high tide, not medium tide. Mr. Turgon reported he had seen people skiing and standing in the water at chest height, so the water was low out there. Mr. Turgon stated from everything he had seen in the last six-seven months, the dock had to be 90'. He had been out there in his boat to get close to take pictures of the house, but had been unable to do so. He had had to be out in the middle, and his boat drafts two feet. Mr. Turgon reported Mr. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes June 16, 2003 Page 6 ................................... DeLyle had been in a pontoon boat,which was the only way to get in, and he had watched the measuring, and Mr. DeLyle's wife had measured, yelling out to him what it was. Steve Osborn, 216 Country Club Drive, just north of subject property, commented everyone who lived on the river was happy to have others enjoy docks and boating, and no one wanted another property owner ill-affected and kept from that privilege, but all had the same responsibility to show respect and find a solution that worked best for everyone. Mr. Osborn stated he had two issues—one had already been discussed, which was water depth and that the river is shallow there all the way across. Mr. Osborn reported he and everyone who had boats had trouble getting off the lifts at low tide and the sandbar made it extra shallow. Mr. Osborn commented if the water depth was the same there was no reason for a variance, and asked the applicant and the Board to consider putting the dock closer to the center line of the two lots Mrs. Campbell owned and work with the 160'-plus frontage to find deeper water which would also help the neighbors' view, which would be obstructed if placed where planned. Mimi DeLyle, 220 Country Club Drive, the second dock north of Mrs. Campbell's property, reported she had helped her husband measure the depth, and whether it was mean tide or high tide, the three-inch difference might be maintained or it might be a minimum or a maximum of a couple more inches that the 90' over 75' might make, which did not rectify going out. Mrs. DeLyle asked the Board to consider from the pictures with the little yellow arrows that they were taken from up river so one could see how a 90' dock with a platform at the end would obscure the view for all the people who were north of this site. Mrs. DeLyle confirmed that she and her husband measured at 75' and at 90' out and the water depth difference was only 3" and she thought it would be the same at medium or high tide; and the view for all of the Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes June 16, 2003 Page 7 ................................... neighbors for two blocks north would be obscured, and she and her husband would be looking down at 90' of dock and lift. Bill Docklin, 4948 County Line Road, expressed his opinion the biggest problem would be the safety issue. Tim Goldsbury, 20 Tradewinds Circle, reported he just went by that property with his boat which drew 30' of water; that he did not measure, but felt what was important here was to get an accurate determination; and if 75' brought you 4' of water you could operate your boat, and it was important for Mrs. Campbell to have enough depth to manage the boat. Dorothy May Campbell, 4 Tradewinds, owner of Lots 7 & 8 in Eastwinds Landing subdivision, reported she had researched the Village's permit files on the docks, and there were six existing, docks, only one dock without a variance. The existing docks were shown on the picture she had distributed and the dock lengths starting at the south end were 95', 95', 95', 75', 88, and 80', then her properties, the Country Club lot, then Osborn, DeLyle, and Pugsley. The picture also showed the two smaller docks of Osborn and DeLyle,which she believed were already in when she came here 32 years ago. Also, the first exhibit she had distributed which showed the property indicated by a pink square which she had taken off the wall of the Building Department that morning, and that was where the river got wider, not narrower, and the Eastwinds properties with the longer 95' and so forth docks were on a narrower part of the river, which she hoped the Board would consider. The other thing she had learned that morning was that the first four docks in Eastwinds had been done by Dolphin Marine and they were an established marine contractor. Mrs. Campbell stated she had a love affair with the river and did not want to do anything harmful to the river or to the people using it; on the other hand, she would like the Board to consider her application. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes June 16, 2003 Page 8 ................................... Gene Wehage explained that regarding the suggestion to move the dock more to the center of the property that it got more shallow there. Also, 3"-4" in water depth made a lot of difference for a boat lift. Mr. Wehage reported DEP liked to get at least 3' depth for a boat lift at low tide and their minimum requirement was 2.5'. Boardmember Brienza asked if the code was the same in 1992- 1995 when these other permits were granted. Mr. Newell indicated he would need to research that because he knew there had been some code changes in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Acting Chair Newman noted the Board voted on each issue. Boardmember Gordon commented Mr.Barnes had a 75' dock that had not required a variance when built in 1994, and asked if that dock was built today whether it would require a variance . Mr. Newell responded he would have to know the width of the river at that point—that the dock would be limited to 10% of the width, and if it exceeded that it would require a variance. Acting Chair Newman clarified that the maximum for the requested dock was not 75' but 52.5'. Mrs. Campbell commented the Barnes lot had a significant mangrove cove with a beach and the dock was built over the mangrove land, not over the water as a boat dock. Acting Chair Newman commented Steve Osborn had commented about moving the dock and this Board did not vote on that issue. The Board was looking at a dock supposed to be 52.5' proposed to be 90', and in addition to that there would be 16' poles sticking out. Dolphin piles were shown out another 18', a cluster of 2 or 3 poles tied together, and that would have to be considered since there was also a mooring slip, according to the drawing. Mr.Newell advised that pilings waterward of a dock were limited to 15' from waterward side of the dock and that would be in the waterway control. Mr. Newman noted these were shown at 18'. Mr.Newell commented whatever the Board approved would be reviewed by the Community Development Department against the code and if variations were found the applicant would be immediately Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes June 16, 2003 Page 9 ................................... notified. Village Attorney Randolph advised the Board was here only to consider the application that was before them;if there were plans showing mooring pilings and if they did not meet the code, then a permit would not be granted for them. This application was only for dock length and had nothing to do with the mooring pilings. This was confirmed by Mr. Newell. Boardmember Gordon confirmed with Mr. Newell that where the description of the application stated 75' it should be 52.5'. Mr. Newell advised that the difference was 38.5'. Village Attorney Randolph stated the first part of the application as read was read properly and it had stated to grant the least of the following distances, then it said 75', 10% of the width of the waterway, and then a third item. The last item read, which was improper, it was not a variance in lieu of 75'—it was a variance in lieu of the minimum allowed which in this case was 52.5'. Cyrese Colburn asked where the 18' pilings were shown. Acting Chair Newman responded that was on the drawing Mr. Wehage had submitted at the beginning of the meeting. Mr. Wehage confirmed it was on the seagrape survey, not on the actual drawing. Boardmember Pullon commented he had been informed by the Village Attorney that he needed to disclose the nature of his conversation with Joe Capretta, and Mr. Capretta had wanted to inform him that he was not in favor of the dock as proposed and he felt there were others also opposed. Acting Chair Newman commented that on other applications the Board had always tried to give the minimum variance that was workable and in most of those cases, although it was not relevant, the minimum was 10 or 15 feet, and there had never been this great a variance. Mr. Newman stated that he would have a problem at this point going out so far just to gain 3" or 4". Mr. Newman stated 28' of dock could be knocked off and meet the State criteria as far as mooring depth at 2.5' of water. Boardmember Pullon commented he had wanted to mention that Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes June 16, 2003 Page 10 ................................... too, and the mooring pilings were out 105', and although the Board was not considering that it was a quarter of the width of the waterway. Mr. Pullon stated he knew the Board was not considering those pilings, but when someone ran into them in the dark he was going to feel bad. Mr. Pullon stated it was a big jump to go almost 40' what was allowed by code. Mr. Pullon stated he did not know if a 52' dock would work,; he thought you might have to row up to it,but if Mr. Wehage would go back and redraw this dock,possibly shifting to the south a little bit, maybe a middle ground could be found that would be a better solution than what was now before the Board. Boardmember Gordon commented that looking at the overhead aerial and knowing that waterway, the radius of the docks in that area would probably lend itself toward a 75' dock, and there would not be a break in that radius,which was also the radius of the channel, and asked if there was a provision to go to 75' or if that would take a resubmission. The Village Attorney responded a resubmission not to exceed 75' would have to be re-advertised, but this Board had the authority to approve a lesser distance. The alternatives were if the Board wished to approve the application as submitted tonight they could do that; if the Board wished to deny the application as submitted they could do that; if they wished to exceed a certain length they could do that; and the fourth alternative was if in the event the Board was not comfortable and felt they needed to see something else, a redesign, they could defer it with specific direction to the applicant to come back with another design. The contractor, Mr. Turgon commented that whatever length the dock ended up, an incoming boat would have to shut down at 25' or if shut down at 75' he would be50' away and would definitely be grounded. The Recording Secretary read into the record three letters which were in favor of the application, from John Blackert, 4 Eastwinds Circle, Tequesta, Florida, from Antonio Romano, 20 Eastwinds Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes June 16, 2003 Page 11 ................................... Circle, Tequesta, Florida, and from Baynham's of 8 Eastwinds Circle, Tequesta, Florida, which are attached and made a part of these minutes as Exhibits "A", "B", and "C". Acting Chair Newman stated he would like to see more of a minimum asked for on this project, and would not vote for it as presented since a minimum variance was not requested; however, he was for getting a workable solution to this and knew a 52' dock would be very restrictive in this area,being very familiar with the area and knowing it was shallow, but felt too much was being requested. Boardmember Pullon stated he agreed with the Chairman and asked if the Board denied the application what the applicant's next step would be, to which the Village Attorney responded the next step would be an appeal to the 9`" District Court of Appeals. Boardmember Brienza expressed his opinion that a dock should be denied but felt it should be restricted, possibly to what DEP would allow, because if she had to go back to DEP that would be a lengthy process, and maybe that could be a compromise. Acting Chair Newman commented it would have to be more specific and scaled out to show where the 2.5' minimum depth would occur. Boardmember Pullon asked if Mr. Wehage could tell the Board where that would occur. Acting Chair Newman indicated from the drawing he had been provided it looked like it would fall at about the 60' line, and would work if the lift was added there and the dock ran out to about 70'. That would lose 18' of dock. Mr. Wehage expressed his opinion 75' would be better if it had to be reduced at all. Boardmember Pullon asked if that would allow the boat lift to be tucked in at all so the motor would not stick out into the channel. Mr. Newman indicated that could be accomplished going out 78'. Village Attorney Randolph cautioned to make sure all comments were on the record. Boardmember Gordon commented the owner of Lot 175 had spoken earlier and asked how long his dock was,to which the response was 70'. Boardmember Gordon stated that in theory the radius of the channel where it made an "S" turn to clear the Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes June 16, 2003 Page 12 ................................... point over on the other side threw boat traffic to that side and then back to the Country Club side, so if the applicant built an equally long dock there would not be a protrusion into the waterway that had not already been created, which would give fairly good flow of the traffic without having to go out and around something else. The owner of Lot 175 responded that it would certainly be better than 90' and if one looked at the aerial the turn in the river had his dock pulled back farther than where this one would start. Boardmember Gordon stated he understood that and he knew the area quite well. The owner of Lot 175 commented the new dock would be out farther than his, to which Boardmember Gordon responded it was that way on every convex radius. Discussion ensued. Boardmember Gordon expressed his opinion there was a safety issue when a motor was tilted up on a lift sticking out beyond the existence of someone else's motor. The Lot 175 owner advised Mr. Wehage had installed his dock and the only reason it was that far out was to get the boat lift, and there was 2' of water under the boat at low tide on the stern. Acting Chair Newman commented there was no way to scale off the drawing provided to find where the 2.5' minimum was, and it would have to be re-addressed. Mr. Wehage expressed his opinion the dock needed to go out at least 75' because at times the river was more shallow than being discussed. Acting Chair Newman commented he would like to see where 2.5' was to find the minimum for the State requirement and to have it shown scaled out on a drawing. Mr. Wehage commented he would need to go out and remeasure to get an accurate measurement. Acting Chair Newman called for a motion to set a new date, determine where the 1.5' minimum depth line would be and have a drawing showing that, so the problem could be re-addressed at a future meeting. The Village Attorney advised that any motion to defer should be deferred to a time certain so as to keep from having to advertise it again, and people attending tonight would know that date. Ms. Lux advised the next regular meeting date was July 21, 2003. Attorney Randolph advised that if someone made a motion to defer they Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes June 16, 2003 Page 13 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, could defer to the next regular meeting on July 21, 2003 with direction to the applicant to provide whatever information the Board was seeking in regard to the deferral. MOTION: Boardmember Gordon made a motion to defer the application from Dorothy May Campbell to the next regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment on July 21, 2003 at 7 p.m., with direction to the applicant to bring back information that has been requested this evening, specifically where the 2.5' depth is in the waterway. Acting Chair Newman advised he would be on vacation so would need an alternate to sit in for him on that date. It was noted that Vice Chair Laamanen would be back, so there would be five members including the alternate, except Chair Humpage would have to recuse himself,so there would be four members who could vote. Boardmember Brienza seconded the motion,which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. The gavel was passed back to Chair Humpage. Mr. Newell advised the new information needed to be submitted 15 days prior to the scheduled meeting ,including weekends, in order to allow staff time to review. The Village Attorney advised that if the applicant had to go back to the State and that process was not completed in time, the hearing should be convened even if it was just to delay the hearing again until the August meeting. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business to come before the Board. VI. COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes June 16, 2003 Page 14 ................................... There was no communication from citizens. VII. ANY OTHER MATTERS Chair Humpage announced that another alternate member of the Board was needed and asked the Village to advertise. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Boardmember Newman, seconded by Boardmember Gordon, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 1�i�-�`�' Betty Laur Recording Secretary ATTE T: � e ell, lerk of the Board ATE APPROVED: 7- � l-- ��