Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Board of Adjustment_11/15/2004 i BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 15,2004 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Village of Tequesta Board of Adjustment held a regularly scheduled meeting at the Tequesta.Recreation Center,399 Seabrook Road,Tequesta,Florida,on Monday,November 15, 2004. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. A roll call was taken by Village Clerk Gwen Carlisle. Board Members present were: Chair Vi Laamanen, Vice Chair Paul Brienza,Board Member Steve Pullon,and Board Member Jon Newman. Also in attendance were Village Attorney John Randolph and Village Planner Carol Lux,sitting in for Clerk of the Board Jeff Newell. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Board Member Newman moved to approve the Agenda as submitted; seconded by Vice Chair Brienza; motion passed 4-0. III. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES MOTION: Board Member Newman moved to approve the Minutes of the April 19, 2004 Meeting as submitted; seconded by Board Member Pullon; motion passed 4-0. IV. NEW BUSINESS 1. An application from Richard S. Kozell, owners of the property located 119 Point Circle,Part of Lots 32 &34 and all of Lot 33, Tequesta Country Club,requesting a variance to the terms of the Official Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Tequesta,Ordinance No. 355,as amended,Section VII. Schedule of Regulations and Application of Regulations, Subsection(C), Schedule of Site Requirements,R- lA District, Front Yard Setback, to a11ow for the construction of a house located forward of the Building Line which establishes the required lot width of 100' (feet), and as defined in Section N. Definitions, (47) Building Line. A line on a lot, generally,but not necessarily,parallel to a lot line or road right-of-way line,located a sufficient distance there from to provide the minimum yards required by the zoning code.T'he building line delimits the area in which buildings are permitted subject to a11 applicable provisions of the zoning code. IV. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Lux read the application request into the record. A. Swearing-In of Witnesses . Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 15,2004 Page 2 Acting Clerk of the Board Carol Lux swore in all those intending to speak for this application. B. Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications Ex-parte Communications - Chair Laamanen, and Board Member Newman mentioned they had not spoke with anyone regarding this matter.Vice Chair Brienza and Board Member Pullon mentioned they had visited the site, but had not spoken with anyone regarding this matter. C. Testimony of Witnesses and Cross Examination Board Member Newrnan questioned whether the applicant was going to demolish the existing structure and build a new residence. Ms. T'heresa Kozell, applicant responded in the affirmative.Cha.ir Laamanen questioned whether there would be any difference in the land coverage than the current structure. Ms. Kozell indicated she did not have house plans at this time,but intended on using the setbacks allowed by code. Board Member Newman commented this was very similar to something the Board had previously reviewed,and felt the request was a preexisting situation for a lot under 100'. He noted based on the code requirements,Ms.Kozell was seeking a variance. Board Member Newman questioned the age of the current home. Ms. Kozell indicated the home was probably built in the 1960's. Vice Chaar Brienza questioned whether the house would be moved forward on the lot more than the adjacent homes. Ms. Kozell indicated she was not planning on encroaching or moving the house forward on the lot. Chair Laamanen noted the applicant had not submitted any elevations, or plans for approval. Board Member Newman indicated those were not required. Ms. Lux indicated the structure would have to be in compliance with all the setbacks and lot coverage requirements. She reviewed the required setbacks and noted the lot coverage would be 37%. Board Member Newman stated the applicant usually provided more information, and the Board Members were apprehensive since they could not see the full scope of the project. He noted he did not ha�ve any reservations in granting the application. He indicated the applicant did meet the hardship associated this project.Cha.ir Laamanen stated she would like to know the existing percenta.ge vs.the proposed percentage of lot coverage. She felt the Board should know what the applicants were proposing, and suggested more information be provided on these requests. Vice Chair Brienza questioned whether the house would be one or two stories. Ms. Kozell indicated it could be two stories.Chair Laamanen questianed the height requirement for the area. Ms.L�indicated 30 feet for two stories was the maximum allowable height.Board Member Pullon noted with the 37% lot coverage, and if she stayed within the setbacks, she could not build too big. He felt the height should be monitored.Vice Chair Brienza cautioned Ms.Kozell that if anything changed she may need to come ; Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 15, 2004 Page 3 back before the Board. D. Finding of Fact Based on Competent Substantial Evidence MOTION: Board Member Newman moved to approve the variance,since the applicant had met the criteria as a preexisting situation with the dimensions of the lot, subject to meeting the rules and requirements of the building codes; seconded by Vice Chair Brienza; motion passed 4-0. Vi Laamanen For Paul Brienza For Steve Pullon For Jon Newman For 2. An application from Richard J. Berube, owner of the property located at 4 Country Club Cr.,Lot 13 Block 1, Country Club Point,requesting a variance to the terms of the Official Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Tequesta,Ordinance No. 355, as amended, Section VII. Schedule of Regulations and Application of Regulations,Subsection(C),Schedule of Site Requirements,R-1 District,Rear Yard Setback, to a11ow for the construction of a 25'�0' one story workshop addition to extend within the 20' rear setback. The addition is to extend 3.8 feet into the rear yard setback for a total proposed rear setback of 17.2 feet. Ms. Lw�read the application request into the record. A. Swearing-In of Witnesses Acting Clerk of the Board Carol L� swore in a11 those intending to speak for this application. B. Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications Ex-parte Communications - Chair Laamanen, Vice Chair Brienza, and Board Member Pullon stated they had visited the site, and indicated they had no conversations regarding this matter. Board Member Newman indicated he had no disclosures on this matter. C. Testimony of Witnesses and Cross Examination Mr. Richard Berube, applicant distributed a revised survey. He noted the room and the distances of the proposed building were included on the revised survey. He pointed out the attached letters of the neighboring residents,within 300 feet,having � Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 15,2004 Page 4 no objections to the project. He explained for clarification his original plans showed a garage,but he indicated the revised plan was for a workroom for his hobby,cabinet making. He stated he wanted it to look like a house not a garage, including French doors, instead of a garage door. He noted the construction would encroach into the 20-foot setback,and indicated Staff was questioning whetlier it was a side setback or front setback.He noted the house was originally built facing Country Club Drive,and due to the placement af the driveway he was now dealing with a rear setback instead of side setback. He mentioned he could have arranged the building to be long and narrow, but it would have moved it out towards the side-yard on Country Club Circle.He felt that would break up all the houses as you turn the corner and come down the street,the room would stick out 5 feet beyond every structure.He noted he could go back to the south with it,but that would block the bedroom window of his residence.He stated it makes sense to arrange the room the way he has proposed, and was asking to encroach 4.19 feet. Chair Laamanen questioned where he would park his boat.Mr.Berube responded on the other side of the house, behind a 6 foot fence. Board Member Newman questioned the proposed site location and whether the 4.19 feet was to correct the 15.9 feet as proposed.Mr.Berube indicated that was the difference,and the surveyor had not subtracted the difference from the setback requirements. Board Member Newrnan questioned whether the actual difference from the property line to the wall was 15.9 feet. Mr. Berube responded in the �rmative. Board Member Newman noted that would be in lieu of the required setback of 20 feet. Mr. Berube agreed. Board Member Pullon asked that the Staff Report and the handwritten letters be read into the record so the applicant and the Board Members were aware of the situation. Ms.L�read the Staffreport.Mr.Berube sta.ted Ms.L�had called him two or three weeks ago and told him he needed another survey that showed other features. He questioned why she was requesting the information when he had submitted his plans over three months. He noted the next day after the phone call he contacted his surveyor and ordered the revised survey:He mentianed he did not receive the revised survey until last Thursday. He explained Ms. L�wanted to debate whicl�was the front or the side of the house, and whether it was a garage or workroom. He stated she was requesting the plans state if it was a garage or workroom.He felt that request was unique to him. Ms. L� indicated he was required to have a finished floor elevation, and suggested that in the motion that if the workshop is to be converted anytime in the future to livable space, that it had to meet the regulations of the Village. Board Member Newrnan indicated the original survey did not show the impact or the elevations, and he felt in order for the Board to ascertain whether the impact was correct, a revised survey was needed. Board Member Newman felt the policy should be rewritten to sta.te exactly what was needed of the applicant so the impact was shown on the survey.Ms.Lux agreed the application should be more in- . Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 15, 2404 Page 5 depth.Board Member Newman indicated a site overlay takes time,because it needed to be drawn into the survey. He noted a proper site survey should have ground elevations,so it did not become an issue in the future.Attorney Randolph questioned whether the application received sta.ted the 4.19 feet encroachment into the setback. Ms.Lux stated no.Board Member Newman indicated the new request was over and above by 1 foot.Attorney Randolph questioned whether the 4.19 feet was advertised. Ms. Lux indicated the additional amount of the encroachment had not heen advertised. Attorney Randolph explained the Board could vote on what was advertised,but could not vote on the 4.19 feet, because the surrounding property owners had not be notified of the increase. Board Member Newrnan suggested tabling the item to give Staff time to advertise and notify the surrounding property owners.Ms.Lux asked the Board to keep their packets for�lie next meeting. Board Member Pullon reviewed some options for the applicant to consider: 1) The Board could approve the 3.8 feet as advertised this evening or otherwise the applicant would have to wait a month for the additional foot; 2)consider reducing the room down 4 feet so the applicant would not have to come back to the Board,and if within the setbacks the applicant could move forward; and 3)consider raising the finished floor elevation up 6 inches,so the applicant did not have to address the finished floor elevation so in the future it could be livable.Mr.Berube indicated he was not willing to give up the additional footage, and stated it would cost him more money to go back and change it. Attorney Randolph stated the Board should not vote on this matter this evening, but could give the applicant an indication of how they felt regarding the additional amount of encroachment. Board Member Newman noted he typically did not give a 4-foot encroachment into an easement or setback.He noted the determination of what was the front yard would have a role in his decision. He suggested the applicant review the code. Vice Chair Brienza questioned whether the room would have doors or windows.Board Member � Newman felt the reason Staff was requesting the floor elevation was because there was bathroom.Mr.Berube mentioned the elevation was the same so there would not be a step up to the workroom.Board Member Pullon reviewed the code requirements regarding raising the finished floor elevation. Board Member Newman questioned whether there would be a height requirement since he had proposed a bathroom.Mr. Berube indicated he had spoke with Mr.JeffNewell,the Community Development Director and he indicated having a bathroom should not change the requirements. Ms. Lux agreed. Vice Chair Brienza mentioned concerns regarding the noise level of woodworking in regards to the neighbors.Mr.Berube indicated there were minimal windows,and the room would be well insulated. Chair Laamanen indicated she did not put much weight on the letters by the surrounding neighbors regarding additions,because even . Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 15, 2004 Page 6 the objectionable neighbors sometimes did not come forward since everyone had to iive in harmony. She preferred to address the facts of what was currently there and what was being proposed. She mentioned she did not like small sidelines, and mentioned concerns with the 4.19 feet. She felt the size of the building was large for a woodworking shop. Mr. Berube explained the size of building was not large by woodworking standards.He noted on a freestanding building the setback was 10 feet, . and he could build the room 10 feet from the neighbor's house without a variance.He pointed out since it was attached to his house the setback was 20 feet.Board Member Pullon commented that the Board did not make the rules.Mr.Berube suggested the code needed to be reviewed. Mr.Berube indicated he would wait another month for approval of the 4.19 feet.He felt the elevation would not be an issue,but noted he would look into the higher floor elevation. Chair Laamanen suggested moving the Board of Adjustment Meeting up earlier in the schedule by having a Special Meeting.Board Member Pullon noted his schedule was fairly open. Vice Chair Brienza noted his schedule was open. Chair Laamanen mentioned she would be out of town if the Board waited to the regularly scheduled meeting in December. Board Member Pullon indicated he might know someone interested in serving on the Board of Adjustment. Board Member Newman indicated the Board would not be voting on this matter,and requested Staff do the proper advertising. Ms. Luar indicated she would notify the surrounding property owners,and set a date for the next Meeting.Mr.Berube asked what information would he need to provide for the next Meeting. Board Member Newrnan mentioned a corrected survey that denotes the impact and the setbacks.Ms. Lux indicated she would send an email out notifying the Board of the Meeting date. Chair Laamanen mentioned she could pick up her packet at the Clerk's Office. MOTION: Board Member Newman moved to approve deferring the vote, and convening at a Meeting date set by Staff via email;seconded by Vice Chair Brienza;motion passed 4-0. Vi Laamanen For Paul Brienza For Steve Pullon For Jon Newman For V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -None VI. COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS-None . Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 15, 2004 Page 7 VII. ANY OTHER MATTERS T'here were no other matters to come before the Board. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Board 11lember Newman moved to approve adjournment;, seconded by Board Member Pullon, motion passed 4-0. The Meeting was adjourned at 7:SSP.M. Respectfully submitted, .,� � ' � � t,�`�='�'� �. �,.,�. Gwen Carlisle,Village Clerk