Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Board of Adjustment_11/21/2005 � . ,�' ,F TE Gf; VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA � DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVF,LOPMENT � '`� � 250 Tequesta Drive • Suite 305 ; o Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (561) 575-6220 @�qc,y �o +�`v Fax: (561) 575-6224 BOARD OF ADJI7STMENT PUBLIC HEARING MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2005 I, CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Village of Tequesta Board of Adjustment held a regularly scheduled Public Hearing at the Village Recreation Center, 399 Seabrook Road, Tequesta, Florida, on Monday, November 21, 2005. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chair Vi Laamanen. A roll call was taken by the Recording Secretary,Betty Laur. Boardmembers present were: Chair Vi Laamanen,Vice Chair Paul Brienza,Jon Newman,Steve Pullon, and Ward Bertholf. Also in attendance were Community Development Director Catherine Harding and Recording Secretary Betty Laur. Village Attorney Scott Hawkins was absent from the meeting. Alternates John Brazinskas and Bernard Ward were present in the audience. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmi�mberNewman moved that theAgenda be approved us suhmitted. Bourdmem.ber Plcllon seconded the motion. Motion carried by Ltinanimous 5-0 vote. III, APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTE5 Boardmembcr Pullon moved that the minutes for the rneetings o f Novembef•I5, 2004 cajad .Ianuary 4, 2005 be approved as submitted. Boardmember Newman seconded tlie motion. Motion carried hy unanimous 5-0 vote. IV. NEW BUSINESS 1. An application from Stephen F.Coffey,owner of the property located at 3C8 Church Road,Tequesta,Florida,requesting a variance from the requirements of the "Official Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Tequesta, Florida", Article VI, Schedule of District Regulations, Section 78-143, Schedule of Site Requirements, R-1 District, Rear Yard Setback for a principal structure of 20 feet,to allow for the construction of a 28 feet x 30 feet 11-3/4 inch one-story addition to extend within the 20 foot rear setback. The applicant is requesting a variance of 2 feet 1 11/16 inch from the 20 Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 21, 2005 Page 2 foot rear yard setback to allow for a proposed rear setback of 17 feet 10 5/16 inch. A) Swearing-In of Witnesses, if Required Applicant Stephen F. Coffey was sworn in. B) Disclosure of Ex-Parte Comrnunications Boardmember Newman reported he had not visited the site and had had no communications with anyone. Chair Laamanen reported she had visited the site, and said "Hi" as she was leaving. Vice Chair Brienza, Boardmember Pullon, and Boardmember Bertholf reported they had visited the site but had had no communications with anyone. C) Testimony of Witnesses and Cross Examination, if any Stephen F. Coffey, applicant, explained he and his wife had lived here nine years and now wanted to add on to their house since they wanted to increase their family, and when the plans were drawn up they had not realized the setbacks were 20'. They had drawn it three different ways, the one they decided on was now in front of the Board. They had gone to the Village for approval and had been told they would have to obtain a variance. They 11ad gone over the plans and tried to make them as small as possible. Mr. Coffey advised they would like to add a pool on the east side of the house eventually, when they could afford it. Chair Laamanen commented that area consisted of small lots and she had a difficult time with additions of this size in that area. Chair Laamanen expressed her opinion that there was more than 50%land coverage on the lot. Mr. Coffey confirmed where the addition would begin and that he was going to have the tree in front and the tree in the back removed. Chair Laamanen stated she had a problem with an extension of this size and that those on either side had not been extended. Mr. Coffey advised that the home two houses east of his was all the way back to the setback, and he had brought some pictures. His neighbor directly across the street had asked for 10' and had been allowed 5'. Boardmember Newman confirmed with the applicant that with the proposed addition there would be a 17' 10+"setback,with a 20' setback required. Boardmember Pullon expressed his opinion that the new bedroom would be very small. Mr. Coffey responded that it would be 11' x 14', that the grand Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 21, 2005 Page 3 room would be the family room, and a pool would be added later. The total square footage of the addition was almost 900 square feet. Boardmember Pullon suggested moving the wall of the 23' x 16' grand room in a couple of feet,and collapsing the closets a little,and then no variance would be needed and the process would be speeded up. Boardmember Pullon commented no square footage could be taken off the bedroom, and he was not sure the applicants would be happy with that size bedroom later. Vice Chair Brienza asked if the alternate plans had been in conformance, to which Mr. Coffey responded they were not. Vice Chair Brienza asked if the addition could go out the west wall. Mr.Coffey explained he had not wanted to add another hip on the roof line. Boardmember Newman asked for the proper orientation of the map. Mr. Coffey confirmed there was a screen porch. Board member Newman asked if anything had been heard from the neighbors. Community Development Director Harding responded one had called and asked about a pool and there had not been a pool on the site plan. Boardmember Pullon asked if the applicant had checked on pool setbacks and Boardmembers Pullon and Newman discussed pool size. Boardmember Bertholf comrnented the residence at 360 was set back as far as this applicant wanted to go and confirmed that they had an existing pool. Boardmember Pullon commented the western elevation had very few windows. Mr. Coffey explained that would be used for the bed wall,and that wall would be broken up with landscaping. Boardmember Newman advised there were six criteria that must all be met in order for the board to grant a variance. Applicants usually submitted their responses to the criteria in writing but that had not been submitted. Mr. and Mrs. Coffey were given the criteria to look over. Mrs.Laura Coffey was sworn in. Mrs.Coffey explained that this process was new to her and her husband. They had outgrown their home but did not want to move. In reading tr�e criteria, nurnber 4, there was not necessarily undue hardship on them but they lived in a small home,her husband had started his own business working out of their bedroom, their son had a small room to plan in, and there was not much room for a larger family. Mrs. Coffey explained that they had a lot of different reasons for wanting this addition. They wanted to better their home,they did not want to move,and they did not Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 21, 2005 Page 4 want to be in an association where they could not have a truck. Chair Laamanen indicated she understood, that the homes in the area where the applicant lived were originally intended for retirees and in the last ten years a lot of them had been increased,but she felt residents should abide by the zoning code, there was not a hardship, and if the applicant stayed within the setback lines they would not need a variance. Chair Laamanen expressed her opinion that if everyone in that area were granted a variance there would not be an inch of ground left anywhere,and more and more fences were going up because people wanted privacy. Board member Pullon explained that he was on this board because seven years ago he had been an applicant requesting to add one room, and he had stayed to try to help folks like the applicant get through the process. Board member Pullon commented that Chair Laamanen was saying go out and buy another house, but property taxes would be double or triple what the applicant was paying now. Board member Pullon advised looking at their house and staying within the setback and they could have everything they wanted—their architect had dropped the ball and it was unfortunate it had gotten this far. Board member Newman explained that the hands of the board were tied in that the criteria must be met—that in regard to number 4,even a handicapped child would not meet that,because the hardship applied to a limitation of the property itself,and that was hard to meet. Board member Newman explained that the board did not know what the criteria had been that allowed the house two houses down to get a variance. They had to consider each case on its own, and had granted a few square feet in some cases, but never anything great. In this case, there was only a foot and a few inches and he felt the applicant could squeeze it out of the house without going for a variance. Board member Newman commented if the applicant still wanted a variance, the board did not have to take a final vote tonight. They could take a poll, and the applicant could revise their drawings for another day. Mr. Coffey stated they were not coming back—if they could not get a variance it was better to make it smaller---he could not waste more time and had to make his monthly payments. Mr.Coffey advised that the reason none of his neighbors were present was that they had no problem with this; he had talked with each one of them. Mr. Coffey stated he did interior trim, and knew four who had come in front of the board, and across the street 5' had been granted, and he didn't know if the board was opposed because he was Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 21, 2005 Page 5 just asking for 2'. Chair Laamanen advised that the variance was totally out of the question and it was easier to revise 2' than 5'. Mr. Coffey advised that he was going to size it down. Board member Pullon commented the choice was to have a vote as is or to withdraw the application. Mr. and Mrs. Coffey withdrew the application. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Community Development Director Harding advised she had been notified that Board member Newman's term had expired and it was only a matter of asking for a reappointment letter. Discussion ensued. Chair Laamanen expressed her opinion that Board member Newman was needed on the board for his water expertise which was needed when requests for docks came in. Board member Newman indicated he would fill one out and send it in. Board member Newman requested that in the future applicants submit their responses to the six criteria in writing, and commented he believed this applicant had been misled. Chair Laamanen agreed. Community Development Director Harding advised she had told the applicant he had to meet the criteria and it should have been discussed with him—this was his own doing—he had had a misadvised designer to draw up the plans who later admitted he had made a mistake, and that was not something you got a variance for. This had been discussed with the applicant,but he had already paid in October, and had wanted to proceed to take his chances. Board member Newman commented he had an incomplete application without the six criteria filled out--his company applied for variances all the time to Tequesta and always had to respond to the criteria in writing. Community Development Director Harding explained she had gone through the files to get samples on the format for applications and did not see written responses to the criteria, only the criteria, which had been given to the applicant. Community Development Director Harding advised she would do the applications any way the board wished. Chair Laamanen commented just simply write the criteria for them to fill in the answer. Community Development Director Harding commented the board may have been seeing responses not from the applicant but from the staff analyzing the criteria for the board and giving the staff opinion whether it had been met. Board member Newman stated he would like the applicant to fill it out, so the board could address what the applicant put down; and they were supposed to put on the drawing and circle it what the board was looking for—on tonight's drawing he did not know which side the setback was on. Also directions and dimensions were to be on the drawing. Board member Pullon commented when the applicant went through the application and answered the six criteria themselves, they might see they did not meet it. Community Development Director Harding commented she thought that Mr. Coffey had been encouraged to make the application and when he didn't meet the specifications, he had decided to go ahead because Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 21, 2005 Page 6 he had already paid. Board member Newman expressed his opinion that in the last year it had been vaguer and vaguer when they got applications and there was no longer a straight formal procedure—it seemed the Village was digressing on the applications,the drawings,and the submittals that were being presented, leading to a more arbitrary discussion meeting. Community Development Director Harding requested the board go through what they would like to see on future applications. Board member Newman stated he would have no problem meeting one day and drawing up a rough outline,which could be presented under new business at the next meeting. Board member Pullon indicated what was needed was a complete application, good plans, the six criteria written by the applicant—some people had their architect or lawyer address the criteria,which was fine—but a handwritten scribble was fine, too. Vice Chair Brienza indicated a staff recommendation on whether the criteria were met would be fine. Board member Pullon responded the staff did not have the power to make the call. Community Development Director Harding advised she was really not in favor of a staff opinion—it influenced the board and almost pre-determined the outcome. Community Development Director Harding stated she was willing to write down now what the board wanted, and commented the architect could place into a cloud where the setbacks were on the plans. Board member Newman responded they could just highlight it or circle with a pen the area they were asking for and write in the setback. Community Development Director Harding commented all the setbacks should be on the plans. Board member Newman commented that was important on dock plans and they needed to show how far it was going to go out, how far it was from the side of the property, and the actual property lines in an overview. The length of the dock was determined on the depth of the water, and that needed to be surveyed in to a mean high water mark. Exact dimensions for everything were needed. 11" x 17" size plans were okay with the board, as long as the Building Department had an original sealed survey. Board member Newman commented that several times the survey presented to the board had not been the same as the original sealed survey. Community Development Director Harding advised that in this case the plans had been drawn by a designer who did not know the setbacks, not an architect. Community Development Director Harding commented sealed surveys would be required. Board member Pullon stressed the importance of having the attorney present,to get the board back on track when they went astray. Board member Newman commented this was the first time in the three years he had been serving that the attorney had not been present. Board member Newman commented if applicants had approval from their neighbors, the neighbors should send correspondence in writing if they could not attend. Chair Laamanen expressed her opinion the onus should not be on the neighbors if anyone was in violation; Board member Newman agreed. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes � November 21, 2005 Page 7 Board member Newman noted a slab elevation was needed, and this applicant was going to have to come back for the slab height. Board member Pullon requested Community Development Director Harding call to advise the applicant that Tequesta required the slab to be 8-1/2' above mean sea or 18" above the crown of the road. Mr. Newman recommended applicants be advised of this so that if they needed a variance for a setback or something that the finish floor elevation (slab height) could be done at the same time and put in the same notice. Vice Chair Brienza noted that in the minutes just approved tonight there had been an application that covered both; they saved the $300 fee and coming for a second meeting. Community Development Director Harding read the list of requirements back: Finish floor height elevation; have the architect put the finish floor height elevation on the plan. Community Development Director Harding asked for clarification on the six criteria. Discussion ensued. The board indicated they wanted the applicants to provide the answers to the six criteria in writing; Community Development Director Harding indicated the application would make it clear that each of the six criteria must be responded to. The next items on the list were: show all setbacks for the zone,full measurements for docks, a sealed survey, and have the attorney present. Community Development Director Harding noted she I had assumed the attorney would do what was needed. Board member Newman noted for dock applications it was very important to put the mean high water line and it was not a hardship since they had to do it for the DEP application,and they already had that application when they came for a variance; the board needed all that information. Board member Newman noted very few departments actually did a check between the DEP application and the building application. Community Development Director Harding responded she was from the Keys where there were a lot of docks and the DEP application had to match the building application. Board member Pullon requested that someone contact Mr. Coffey regarding the finish floor elevation. Community Development Director Harding stated she would do that. Board member Newman felt that requirement probably had not already been met, and advised that those were approved with a hold harmless agreement for the Village. It was brought up how the applicant could have changed the plan—Board member Newman cautioned the board should not be discussing the application since it had already been considered, and the attorney was not present. Chair Laamanen requested that Community Development Director Harding mail each member of the board a copy of what she put together for applications, for review and comment. Community Development Director Harding commented she wanted to do it exactly as this board wanted. Board member Newman noted he had given the department a format for the docks that he could provide again, and also he had copies of previous � applications. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 21, 2005 Page 8 VL COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZEN5 There were no communications from citizens. VII. ANY OTHER MATTERS There were no other matters to come before the Board. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Brienza moved that the meeting be adjourned.Boardmember Ptcllon seconded the `rtotion, which carried by unanimous 5-0 vote. The motion was therefore passed ancl acloptecl and the meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, .� ..���c.�' Betty Laur Recording Secretary