Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_BoA_11/20/2000VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA DEPARTAIWr OF COMMUNnY DFVT-LOPNffiNf Post Office Box 3273 - 357 Tequesta Drive Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 - (561) 575-6220 Fax: (561) 575-6239 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Village of Tequesta Board of Adjustment held a regularly scheduled Public Hearing at the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Monday, November 20, 2000. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chair Kevin Kinnebrew. A roll call was taken. Boardmembers present were: Chair Kevin Kinnebrew, Vice Chair James Humpage, Jon Newman, and Steve Pullon. Also in attendance were Kara Irwin sitting in for Scott D. Ladd, Clerk of the Board, and Village Attorney John C. Randolph. Boardmember David Owens was absent from the meeting. Ii. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chair Hurnpage moved that the Agenda be approved as submitted. Boardmember Newman seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Kevin Kinnebrew - for James Humpage - for Jon Newman - for Steve Pullon - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the Agenda was approved as submitted. III. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS METING MINUTES Vice Chair Humpage moved that the minutes for the meeting of June 19, 2000 be approved as submitted. Boardmember Newman Recycled Paper Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 20, 2000 Page 2 ----------------------------------- seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Kevin Kinnebrew - for James Humpage - for Jon Newman - for Steve Pullon - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the minutes were approved as submitted. IV. NEW BUSINESS 1. An application from Thomas M. and Ila Mae Gocke, owners of the property located at 3 Yacht Club Place, Lot 1, Tequesta Subdivision, requesting the following variances 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 -1A Single -Family Dwelling District, Maximum lot coverage, and Section X, Supplemental Regulations, Subsection (A), General Provisions, Paragraph (8), Floor elevation above sea level, to allow the construction of an additional 37 square feet of living area to the front of the house with an existing lot coverage of 39.6% for a proposed total lot coverage of 40% in lieu of a maxirmm 37% lot coverage, the addition to match the existing finish floor elevation of 8.01,, in lieu of a minimum finish floor elevation above mean sea level (MSL) for all new construction, additions and substantial improvements to existing structures being 8.51 MSL or 1811 above the crown of the road, whichever is more stringent, all as required by the Zoning Code. A. Swearing -In of Witnesses, if Required Acting Clerk of the Board Kara Irwin swore in all those intending to speak. 2. Disclosure of Ex -Parte Courmnications Boardmember Newman reported no ex -parte Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 20, 2000 Page 3 ----------------------------------- communication. Chair Kinnebrew, Vice Chair Humpage, and Boardmember Pullon reported they had visited the site and had had no communications with anyone. 3. Testimony of Witnesses and Cross Examination, if any Thomas and Ila Mae Gocke presented their request, and explained they wanted to improve the look of their house when they added a new root. Mr. GoCke commented his lot was a little smaller than the others in his neighborhood and the percentage of coverage was probably a little higher than others when it was originally built. Mrs. Gocke explained that the additional inside space would be used for a window seat in front of the new window. Chair Kinnebrew explained that approval would be conditioned upon a waiver given to the Village so that if the property flooded in the future the property owners could not go back to the Village. Chair Kinnebrew questioned whether anything extra was required since thisproperty was already non- conforming. Village Attorney Randolph explained that the Board would be considering. a variance to grant lot coverage of 40% in lieu of a maximum of 37%. Vice Chair Humpage indicated he agreed with Chair Kinnebrew that & waiver would need to be given to the Village. Boa3,rdmember Pullon questioned a neighbor of Mr. and Mrs. Gocke who was in the audience as to whether he was in support of the request, to which he responded he was very much in support since it would improve the neighborhood. D) Finding of Fact Based Upon Competent Substantial Evidence Vice Chair Humpage made a motion to approve the. application from Thomas M. and Ila Mae Gocke, owners of the property located at 3 Yacht Club Place, Lot 1, Tequesta Subdivision, requesting the following variances 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 Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 20, 2000 Page 4 ----------------------------------- Regulations, Subsection (C), Schedule of Site Requirements, R -1A Single -Family Dwelling District, Maximum lot coverage, and Section X, Supplemental Regulations, Subsection (A), General Provisions, Paragraph (8), Floor elevation above sea level, to allow the construction of an additional 37 square feet of living area to the front of the house with an existing lot coverage of 39.6% for a proposed total lot coverage of 40% in lieu of a maximum 37% Int, coverage, the addition to match the existing finish floor elevation of 8.01, in lieu of a minimum finish floor elevation above mean sea level (MSL) for all new construction, additions and substantial improvements to existing structures being 8.51 MSL or 1811 above the crown of the road, whichever is more stringent, as submitted. Boardmember Newman seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Kevin Kinnebrew - for James Humpage - for Jon Newman - for Steve Pullon - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. B) An application from Florida Trend Development Corp., owner of Lots 12 and 13, Coconut Cove Subdivision, requesting a variance to the terms of the Official Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Tequesta, Ordinance No. 355, as amended, Section X Supplexnental Regulations, Subsection (A), General Provisions, Paragraph (1) (c), Walls and Fences, to allow the erection of the following: A) Six foot high decorative walls with six foot high pillars along the north property line of Lot 12 and the south property line of Lot 13, B) Five foot high gated decorative walls with six foot high pillars across the front of each property and located nine feet forward of the Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 20, 2000 Page 5 ----------------------------------- proposed building front, in lieu of no wall or fence being permitted to extend forward of the building front on any lot or parcel, as required by the Zoning Code. A. Swearing -In of Witnesses, if Required Acting Clerk of the Board Kara Irwin swore in all 2. Disclosure of Ex -Parte Communications Boardmember Newman reported no ex -parte communication. Boardmember Pullon reported he had visited the site and had spoken to the neighbor to the north. Chair Kinnebrew visited the site and had all spoken..briefly before the meeting to make sure everyone was familiar with the site location. Vice Chair Humpage reported he had visited the site and had no communications with anyone. 3. Testimony of Witnesses and Cross Examination, if any Gordon Ri-pma, 142 Pine Hill Trail, stated he was the applicant. Mr. Ripma presented the variance request from what he described as the Village's antiquated code to al -low the front wall of the courtyard area of the two houses to be in front of the structures by 9 feet to allow a security wall so that a.passage gate would not have to be placed in the walL of each house in order to get around the house. Mr. Ripma pointed out the area he was discussing on the plan. Mr.. Ripma described the location of the proposed wall, the proposed landscaping for both sides, the wall proposed for one side of the lift station and the proposed chain link fence for the other sides and the landscaping around the lift station. Using only a hedge as opposed to a wall with landscaping was discussed by Chair Kinnebrew, who noted that a hedge would be less obtrusive to the eye, provide less of a feeling that everyone else was. being walled out, and go along more with the intent of the code. Mr. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 20, 2000 Page 6 ----------------------------------- Ripma commented they could put a hedge there if that was the desire of the Board. Mr. Ripma described other locations throughout the Village where there were other examples of walls forward of the construction I i ne such as he was requesting, to show he was not asking for something that did not exist in the area. Vice Chair Humpage requested Mr. Ripma review the lift station, which was described, and it was clarified that no part of the wall would be on the easement but was set back 5 reet. to allow access all the way around it plus there was access from the front. The fire hydrant location was pointed out on the plan. Mr. Ripma verified that if Fire Rescue had any problems accessing the fire hydrant the- liability would be with the owner. Vice Chair -Humpage questioned whe-them the Community Appearance Board would be part of this process, to which the response was that.tb-e Community Appearance Board did not review residential properties. Mr. Pullon questioned whether the 61 wall on -the south side of Lot 16 had already been approved, to which the response was yes. Jay Fisher, 36 Coconut Lane, commented he had purchased his lot and built a hom-Q approximately a year ago, and had been attracted to the property because- of the open.area, but now Mr. Ripma wanted to erect a wall, to which he was opposed. Mr. Fished indicated he would not object to shrubs, but erecting a wa-1-1 would separate the properties from the rest of the neighborhood and he strongly objected to closing in the whole area. Mr. Fisher explained that his view of the Intracoastal would be obstructed by the proposed w4lls. The view going down the road and from Mr. Fisher's property was discussed. Jean Immucci, 32 Coconut Lane, commented she did not want to see a wall, and preferred beautiful landscaping. Chair Kinnebrew mentioned security as the reason for the wall but that a hedge would be easier on the eye. Mr. Fisher questioned why these two houses should be more secure than his home and Ms. Immuccils home, and stated his belief that the Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 20, 2000 Page 7 ----------------------------------- reason for the walls was to make those houses different. Mr. Ripma commented that the applicant already had the ability to provide a wall but the question was whether it would be forward of the building line or with the line. Vice Chair Humpage commented that the Board was trying to make a decision- based upon all the facts, and if the Board disapproved the request, Mr. Ripma could still put a wall up from the house to the property line which would also block Mr. Fisher' s, view. Vice Chair liumpage ted that mr. Ripma's request was to move the wall forward, Mr. Humpage commented he did not think safety was an. issue, but that the purpose was to enhance that area. Vice Chair Humpage expressed his opinion that the wall would.be less attractive coming off the side of the house. Mr. Ripma commented. that placing the wall one place would not block any more of the view than if it were in the other location. Village Attorney Randolph advised that this Board sat to. grant variances from the code and not to make changes to the code. Attorney Randolph stated he wished to point out reasons given by the applicant, that the applicant during his presentation had given a rea-s-on. that the Village code was antiquated, that in one reason he stated that this was.. a normal- condition in any other municipalities, and that the. ordinance should be re-wr-:Ltten for today's r-ealities. The Village Attorney advised the Board that if the ordinance was to he re -written it must be done by the Village Council and riot by this Board, but that this Board must- look at the ordinance that was in place, listen to the applicant, and make a determination whether there was some unique or special hardship relating to his piece of property that would allow the Board to grant a varian e=not because the Board felt it would be more aesthetically pleasing or because the Board believed the ordinance was outdated. Village Attorney Randplph. advised the Board must look at the criteria set forth in the ordinance to make their determinat�on as to whether there wa-s some unique hardship this property owner had that other property owners did not have. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 20, 2000 Page 8 ----------------------------------- Mr. Ripma commented he believed the Board should also consider the fact that this same variance had been granted numerous times in the Village of Tequesta and was not a precedent setting matter, and commented.that if the. Building Official were present tonight he could probably cite many, many cases where it had been -approved. Chair Kinnebrew commented after reading the code subparagraph (c) pertaining to walls he was still not sure the intent of the code. Village Attorney Randolph read from subparagraph (c) of the code: o ..... No wall or fence shall be permitted to extend forward of the building front on any lot or parcel, except for lots or parcels located along and fronting upon Country Club Drive, walls not exceeding five (5) feet in height may be located forward of the building front and fences associated only with accessory structures provided said fence is screened ...... which Attorney Randolph interpreted to be that on Country Club Drive, walls not exceeding 5 feet in height may be located forward of the building front, and stated that however this area- did not fit within that exception. The Village Attorney advised that a-ccessory structures were any structures. other than the primary structure, such as garages, cabanas, etc. Boardmember Pullon requested that the neighbors present look at the drawings to be sure they understood what Mr. Ripma. was allowed to do -that he could place a wall at the house f ront without a variance.. Discussion ensued. Vice Chair Humpage expressed his view that the key words in the code were only with accessory structures, etc., and since he saw no accessory structures he believed this did not f all into the. purview of the code which a-11owed coming forward, so that he believed the Board must stay within the way the code was written stating ...... No wall or fence shall be permitted to extend forward of the building front on any lot or parcel. Vice Chair Humpage indicated he did not feel this wall f ell into any of the exceptions. Village Attorney Randolph explained the only reason this was before the Board was because it did not fit within the code and it was Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 20, 2000 Page 9 ----------------------------------- not for the Board to look at the code and determine it did not fit within the code, which had already been determined by the Building Department and had told Mr. Ripma he needed to go before the Board of Adjustment to see if he could get a variance from the code. The Building Department had told Mr. Ripma- this did not fit within the code, but if he could convince the Board of Adjustment by meeting the criteria set forth under the code for granting variances that the Board might grant this, even though an ordinance precluded. it, but the Board must listen to the reasons given by the applicant. .Village Attorney Randolph. advised that Mr. Ripma had submitted his reasons on a piece of paper that wa-s. attached to his application, and the Board must make a determination that there was a unique ha-rdship which would allow the applicant to be treated differently than other properties. Mr. Ri-pma. stated precedent. would not be set by granting this variance. Chair Kinnebrew commented he understood the concerns.of the other residents, discussed the property and noted they had purchased it in-. an undeveloped st-ate.,- and when the two houses were built.the houses and landscaping and mangroves would- b -Lock some o -f- the- view, and the only way he would consider this was if a hedge were placed against- th-e wall. Chair Kinnebrew expressed his view that..Mr. Ripma had bought the property and worked hard. to devel-op it. and was trying to sell and he believed it would be vei - ry nice looking architecturally. . Cha-ir- Kinnebr-ew commented he agreed with the neighbors there would be a feeling of exclusion- but the. neighbors would not be able to walk out onto the dock anyway oncq the houses were built, and what they would see w#h or without the wall would be no different. Mr. Fisher commented that landscaping in front of a wall was different than landscaping without a wal�. Boardmember Pullon questi-oned the applicant. as to whether he planned to reside in this neighbothood once it was fully developed, to which Mr. Ripma responded that was an option, and he was not contemplating it at the pre -sent time, but he had not made a. decision. Vice Chair Humpage stated he disagreed with Chair Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 20, 2000 Page 10 ----------------------------------- Kinnebrew and in reading each of Mr. Ripma's comments he could not f ind a reason to give a variance f rom. the code. Ms. Immucci questioned what was meant by hardship, to which Boardmember Pullon responded that the code presented some specific hardship to this type of development in this spot. s -o. if the applicant could show it was unfair because of the conf iiguration of the land or some other situation that constituted a hardship to him, which was what the Board had to decide. Village IN-t-torhey Rando-Eph advised that iin response to the question., the hardships were listed in the code, which were that special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, structure or building. involved which are not applicable to other lands, -structures, or buildings in the same zoning district; that the special conditions and circumstances do not result f rom. the actions of the applicant; -that granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any. special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, buildings, or structures in . the. same zoning di -strict; that literal interpretation of the provisions of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district; that the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make _possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure; and that the grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and. purpose. of the ordinance and that such variance will..no-t be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public . welfare. Village Attorney Randolph indi-r-at-ed. the code also stated. that in granting any variance the Board must give consiqleration to those provisions. Jerilee Ripma was sworn in and indicated she was a real estate broker and the houses were being built with intent to sell and it was important to keep up with what other communities were doing and privacy walls.were what buyers expected. Mrs. Ripma stated they wanted this to be a successful project. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 20, 2000 Page 11 ----------------------------------- Chair Kinnebrew questioned whether Acting Clerk of the Board Irwin was familiar with the other properties within the Village which had been cited by the applicant as having these types of walls forward of the building line, to which Ms. Irwin responded she did not work with individual building permits-. Chair Kinnebrew (pieationed the applicant as to whether the properties he had cited were individua-L homes located outside Tequesta Country Club. Mr. Ripma responded that 331 Tequesta Drive was a mu-Lt1-tamiJ-y buildIng, several i-n-dividual lots in Bay Harbor, Point Drive, Riverside Drive, and Yacht Club all had walls forward of the building line which he had compiled that day just driving.around for an hour. Acting Clerk of the Board Irwin.questioned the Village Attorney as to whether ea -ch- variance. a-pplIcation must stand on its own, not based on precedent, sincp the lots cited could have irregularities,- etc - Village Attorney Randolph responded each application did stand on its.. own- and each one of . the appli-c�ations would have to be examined to find out if any were grand -fathered or -under what circumstances they had built the walls f orward of the building line. Chair Kinnebrew expressed. can-c-emn- that with respect to the five conditions just read by Attorney Randolph, if the. Board- denied, this applicant something that had already been granted to someone els-e, that.. deserved consi-deration. Village Attorney Randolph questioned whether Chair Kinnp-hre,w knew tha-t.- to be- true, to which Chair Kinnebrew responded he did not and therefore recommended tabling thi-s.reque-st and going to look at some of the properties to see what had been done- Mr. Ripma stated- tlo-e Board could refer to the Building Official, who would confirm what he had- indicated. Mr. Ripma- stated he would like a vote on his request tonight with the Board to con-fe-r.subse-cfaently with -the Building Official for confirmation that there were otherproperties with walls forward of the. building line. Chair Kinnebrew explained that was not possible, and re-spLanded that a representative of the Building Department was present to Mr. aipma-'s question asking if the Building Official was required to be Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 20, 2000 Page 12 ----------------------------------- present. It was clarified that Mr. Ladd had suffered a heart attack, which was why he was not in attendance. Mr. Ripma commented the Building Official would verify what he was saying and could cite case situations. Mr. Ripma. clarified that his houses had not been built but he was getting ready to submit plans to the Building Department. Boardmember Newman questioned If an approval should be ma -de contingent upon a planning proposal, to which the Village Attorney -responded the Board could impose any questions tney wanted. The setback and easement for the lift station were described, as well as the proposed wall, fence, and shrubbery, which Mr. Ripma advised would be completed when these two houses were built. Ms. Immucci commented that most of the other examples cited were not on a cul--de-s-ac like her home. Boardmember Pullon questioned Mr. Ripma as to whether he wanted a vote tonight that might not be favorable or to wait a month when the Chair might be. more comfortable,. expLained. that he had been delayed when he went through this process and that was why he was on the Board, and questioned what recourse would be available if M4. Ripma did not agre-e- with the. vote. Vi-1la-ge Attorney Randolph advised. that the applicant could go before the Village Council to request that the zoning ordinance be changed, and that he would have to wait- 90 days before re -applying to this Board. Mr. Ripma commented he felt -crippled without the Building Of f icial present since he had told Mr. Ripma this had been - granted in many other situa,ti-ons- and he f elt. it would be no problem but that the applicant would have to go in front of the Board. Mr. Ripma stated this was not precedent setting at all. Mr. Newman st4ted he had not driven- by the property. Mr.. Ripma asked if the four members of the Board would feel more comfortable deciding at a later date, to which Chair Kinnebrew stated he would be and that he was I-e-aning toward approval but lia had reservations because he had not spoken to Mr. Ladd and agreed it was a disadvantage for Mr. Ripma. Chair Kinnebrew commented he had also gone through this process but had had to wait 7 months, he knew Mr. Ripma had Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Nove�ber 20, 2000 Page 13 ----------------------------------- been waiting a long time, and sympathized with him, but could not say yes without seeing the other locations for himself. Discussion ensued. Mr. Ripma stated he understood if he deferred that the aQa-rd would talk with Scott. Ladd and would go to the locations he had cited to see that they all had walls forward of the building line. Attorney Randolph advised the Board did -not have to commit to- do- that because in looking at the sites the Board would not know if they were grandfathered in by Ee--in-g--buirt-before the ordinance was passed or if they had been granted a variance, and that what might be more relevant to the Board was whether Mr. Ladd could tell them whether or not other appli-c-ations similar to Mr- Ripma.'s had come before this.Board and if the Board -had granted approval in th(asa laa-rticular instances, although Attorney Randolph advised that was not relevant f rom a lega-L s-tandpoint. Boardmember- Pullon stated he was comfortable voting tonight and waiting a month would not change his . mind- Vice Chair Humpage commented he believed only item 4 applied to this appli-cation, and although. lie would be more comfortable talking to the Builang Official, he could -make up his mind.tonight.. Mr. Newman stated he preferred consulting with the Building Official. Mr. Ripma requested voting be delayed. Vice Chair Humpage made a motion to defer a decision on the variance request from application from Florida Trend Development Corp., owner of Lots 12 and 13, Coconut Cove Subdivision, requesting a variance to allow the erection of six foot high decorative walls with six foot high pillars along the north property line of Lot 12 and the south property line of Lot 13,and five foot high gated decorative walls with six foot high pillars across the front of each property and located nine feet forward of the proposed building front, in lieu of no wall or fence being permitted to extend forward of the building front on any lot or parcel, as required by the Zoning Code, until December 18, 2000 or the next meeting of the Board of Adjustment. Motion was seconded by Boardmember Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 20, 2000 Page 14 ----------------------------------- Newman. During discussion of the motion, the Village Attorney advised that if there was a problem with the December 18 date it could be delayed to the following meeting and the names and addresses of the neighbors present tonight could be taken so they could be notified. The vote on the motion was: Kevin Kinnebrew for .12 ames Humpage for Jon Newman for Steve Pullon for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business to come before the Board. VI. COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS There were no communications from citizens. VII. ANY OTHER MATTERS There were no other matters to come before the Board. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Humpage moved that the meeting be adjourned. Boarchnember Pullon seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Kevin Kinnebrew - for James Humpage - for Jon Newman - for Steve Pullon - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. X Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 20, 2000 Page 15 ----------------------------------- ATTEST: 1�v 01 dow i�YJIA Kara Irwin Acting Clerk of the Board DATE APPROVED: la-i�-oo Respectfully submitted, Betty Laur Recording Secretary