Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_BoA_05/20/2002VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA Post Office Box 3273 - 250 Tequesta Drive, Suite 300 Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 (561) 575-6200 Fax: (561) 575-6203 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING MEETING MINUTES MAY 209 2002 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Village of Tequesta Board of Adjustment held a regularly scheduled Public Hearing at the Tequesta Recreation Center, 399 Seabrook Road, Tequesta, Florida, on Monday, May 20, 2002. The meeting was called to order at 7:29 P.M. by Chair Jim Humpage. A roll call was taken. Boardmembers present were: Chair James Humpage, Vice Chair David Owens, Jon Newman,, Steve Pullon, and Vi Laamanen. Also *in attendance were Village Attorney John C. Randolph, and Director of Community Development Jeff Newell. Alternate Paul Brienza was present as a member of the audience 11. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Laamanen requested addition under Any Other Matters of discussion of an opinion of the Village Attorney dated April 17, 2002. Chair Humpage requested addition under Any Other Matters of discussion regarding changing the beginning time for meetings. MOTION: Boardmember Laamanen moved that the Agenda be approved as amended. Boardmember Newman seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5-0 vote. The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the Agenda was approved as amended. Recycled Paper Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 20, 2002 Page 2 III. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES Boardmember Newman moved that the minutes for the meeting of April 15, 2002 be approved as submitted. Boardmember Laamanen 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 I An application from Mr. and Mrs. Philip Cary, owners of the property located 129 Point Circle, Lot 35.2, Tequesta Subdivision, 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-A District, Front Yard Setback to allow for the construction of a single family residence, a portion of which will be located forward of the Building Line which establishes the required lot width of 100' (feet) and as defined in Section IV. Definitions, (47) Building Line. A line on a lot, general, but not necessarily, parallel to a lot line or road right-of-way line, located a sufficient distance therefrom to provide the minimum yards required by the zoning code. The building line delimits the area in which buildings are permitted subject to an applicable provisions of the zoning code. A. Swearing -In of Witnesses, if Required Clerk of the Board Jeff Newell swore in all those intending to speak. B. Disclosure of Ex -Parte Communications Board of Adjustinent Meeting Minutes May 20, 2002 Page 3 Vice Chair Owens, Boardmember Laamanen, Boardmember Pullon, and Chair Humpage reported they had visited the property and spoke to no one. Boardmember Newman reported he did not visit the site but was familiar with the site. C. Testimony of Witnesses and Cross Examination, if any Melanie Cary explained that she and her family lived in California and it had not been possible to attend the last meeting. This application had been presented at the April 15, 2002 meeting and had been withdrawn. Attorney Pat Gordon and Mr. Neandros, the home builder, were present on behalf of the applicant. Mrs. Cary explained that they had moved to California 4 years ago and now planned to return to live in Tequesta and had purchased their lot two years ago and were now ready to build a home. Since the last meeting the floor plan had been modified and the entire house was now located behind the setback; however, the garage still encroached over the line. Chair Humpage commented at the last meeting the problem the Board had was they did not make the ordinances but were required to enforce them, and that a hardship must be created by unusual circumstance. When this lot split initially had been made it was very obvious where this building front line was located, and the Board did not have the authority to change the ordinance unless a circumstance was caused beyond the applicant's control. Mr. Humpage stated in his opinion the size of the structure was creating the problem. Mrs. Cary stated it was because of the desire to have a detached garage. Chair Humpage reported he had visited the Community Development Department and reviewed the documents and it was his opinion the applicant was putting too much house on the property, and that the property was unusual in shape but the applicant was aware of that when they purchased the property. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 20, 2002 Page 4 Mrs. Cary explained they were given a survey by the seller that did not show the dotted line and they were not aware it existed; that the lot was 205' deep but one could only build on the first 80', and they were trying to pull the house off the water. In the 125' unbuildable space they were hoping to locate the garages. Boardmember Laamanen indicated she agreed with Mr. Humpage, that hardship meant one could not comfortably live in the home, and the applicant would have to build a house that fit within the restrictions. Attorney Pat Gordon respectfully disagreed, stating the hardship had not been created by the applicant, but perhaps had been created by the Village when they subdivided the lots. Mr. Gordon discussed the purpose of the 100' building line, commenting that the focus was on front yard setbacks, and that the purpose of setbacks was to create a yard to meet zoning code requirements which in this R -I -A district was 25'. In this case the setback was 53' with the garage encroaching. Mr. Gordon stated mi this case the Board would be imposing a setback 5 times greater than on any other lot in R- I -A. Mr. Gordon commented this was an irregular lot and the applicants were somewhat lynched by this very unusual interpretation of front yard setback, which he and Chair Humpage had discussed at the last meeting. Attorney Gordon stated this property met the intent of the setback, and everybody who bought these lots would be building large houses. Mr. Gordon commented he understood the Board was here to enforce the ordinances but he thought this was an issue that needed to be dealt with as a specific case and that this was the Board to do that, and there would be more. Boardtnember Laamanen commented everyone said their case was different. Mr. Gordon commented he had just told the Board it was not different and the Board would be faced with this again. Mr. Gordon commented he was not asking to go against an ordinance but to look at whether the interpretation being applied to Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 20, 2002 Page 5 this lot was correct. Mr. Gordon commented there was no ordinance that clearly stated one could not build past the 100' and this was a kind of anomaly. Village Attorney Randolph stated he wanted to make sure the Board was not misdirected in regard to the responsibility of the owner in purchasing the property. The Board of Adjustment was to take the property as they saw it and this applicant was not responsible for what happened previously. Attorney Randolph advised there was case law that if a person bought a lot knowing there was a restriction, that did not necessarily mean it was a situation of their own making, so he wanted to make sure the Board did not place too much weight on that. lt would be different if these people had done the subdividing or sold off a portion of the property. Attorney Randolph advised the Board that what they were here to do was to make a determination whether this was a unique situation. The Board was not here to uphold the laws ofthe Village, which was the job of the Village Council. The Board of Adjustment was here to make a determination whether or not a variance should be granted to the laws of the Village. In making that determination the Board must look at the criteria set forth in the code and determine whether this was a unique situation which was not the making of the property owner and met the other criteria. Chair Humpage indicated he was confused about the 100' back from the road, but it was really not 100' back from the road, but from the side yard. Mr. Gordon stated he was going by the dotted line shown by the surveyor, and the surveyor had said this was the point which was the first place the lot achieved 100' width. It was measured side to side but ended up projecting into the depth of the lot, therefore predicting where front yard improvements could be located. Mr. Gordon asked the Board to consider what the Village Attorney had said and commented this was not a situation the Board of Adjustirnent Meeting Minutes May 20, 2002 Page 6 applicant had created or was aware of until given a survey well after the purchase that finally projected the dotted line. The applicants had made inquiries as to what the line meant which were met basically with, I don't know. Attorney Gordon commented that there was always buyer beware, but they had been caught in the middle. Maybe they should have investigated more once they saw the line, but they already owned the property at that time, and creating the subdivision had caused the irregular lot. Mr. Gordon explained there was an interpretation of more than one section of the code that brought us into the cross hairs of this 100' and violating or not violating it, he wanted the Board to look at the property, think in terms of where the improvements could go, fliink in ternis of side yard setbacks in terms of the neighbors; and think of front yard setbacks. Mr. Gordon commented they did not even come close—the only thing that was violated was the sense of this 100' line and because of where it was located on the lot the Board should consider what harm was being created to the neighborhood because the 100' line was so deep. Mr. Gordon explained the applicant probably had not tried hard enough to come back with a minimum variance; that they could cram everything in the back, but they wanted to retain some integrity of the design by having the garage across the line, which was still a setback of 53' in the front and well off the side yards. Mr. Gordon asked the Board to look at what harm this would do, because it was such a vague principle to deal with this 100' line. Boardmember Laamanen asked if the plans were already drawn before the applicant was aware of the 100' line. Applicant responded after the closing they ordered their own survey and when they received it they called the survey department to ask what the line was, and inquiries had been met with not to worry about it and the setback was 25'. Boardmember Laamanen commented 25' setback was for when properties were side by side and this was irregular making it different and harder to put what they wanted on it, and it was a shame no one pointed it out to the applicant. Mr. Cary explained that he had pointed it out Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 20, 2002 Page 7 to his architect, who contacted the Village and there was no concern. They could not get a clear decision from anyone and were told they would have to go for a variance. Boardmember Pullon asked the size of the house, to which the response was approximately 6,000 square feet. Boardmember Pullon explained that the Board looked for minimum variance, and he would be more comfortable if the garage was turned the other way and attached to the house—then the variance request would be 10'- 15' as opposed to 5 5'. Mrs. Cary indicated they would be open to flipping the house and putting the garage on the other side. Bill Wallace commented he was the Martin County surveyor, had been a Tequesta, resident for 20 years, and lived across the street from this property. Mr. Wallace expressed his opinion the Village had created a rather non -conforming lot which was extremely difficult to build on, and the applicant wanted to build a house and garage that could not be accommodated with the 100' setback. Mr. Wallace commented it was a shame they did not know this when they purchased the lot, but advised the Board to be careful because they might be setting a precedent that could lead to problems. Mr. Wallace requested the Board stand by what was M' the ordinance and not accept this request. Mr. Wallace stated he did not want to look at a 3 -car garage across the street from his home. Ralph Shaw, the adjacent neighbor at 127 Point Circle, commented he built his home in 1982 and had very good memories of living there with his wife. Mr. Shaw recalled he had been very upset when the Village was considering subdividing the lot and had come to the Village Council, but found the Village Council had re -zoned lots and made the property available for two houses, and he could do nothing to stop it. Mr. Shaw commented this completely changed the area. When the Carys bought the property he had Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 20,,2002 Page 8 cooperated and to him it would be best to move the house closer to the road. Mr. Shaw commented the house would overwhelm his house and therefore he was not in favor of granting a variance unless the house could be put in front. Mr. Shaw commented he thought the house was too big for the property. Pat Gordon commented when Mr. Shaw decided to sell his property the person who bought it would tear it down to build a bigger house but would find that the 100' width line would be much farther back than on the Cary property. Mr. Gordon stated the Village must decide how to deal with these situations because the purchaser of the Shaw property might not have a buildable area. Boardmember Laamanen commented the trend today was to build bigger houses. Mr. Gordon requested the Board's help and guidance. Chair Hwnpage commented in defense of the Village when the subdivision was made their responsibility was to assure that setbacks were in place. Mr. Cary noted this property had been zoned twice and the first time it did not meet the criteria. Chair Humpage commented the house was too big for the property. Mrs. Cary explained they needed 4 bedrooms since her husband's mother would be living there as well as their two children, and they both worked from home so each needed a home office. Boardmember Pullon requested the Board give the applicant guidelines tonight regarding what they would find acceptable. Attorney Randolph advised from the comments he had heard most of the Board thought this was not the minimum variance that should be aranted, and if the Board wanted to give guidance regarding the minimum variance they would accept they could defer to a time certain instead of moving to approve or deny. Then this would not have to be re -advertised. Boardinember Pullon stated he had given his opinion. Boardmember Laamanen expressed her opinion that Board of Adjustirnent Meeting Minutes May 20, 2002 Page 9 the applicant was too emotional tonight and needed time to think this over. Mrs. Cary responded they would do that if they could get guidance from the Board. Boardmember Newman questioned how the Board could set guidelines, to which the Village Attorney responded they could (1) say that based on comments they had heard this evening they understood the applicant was looking for a minimum variance and the Board could defer and the applicant could come back with another plan, but that would not give guidance; or the Board could indicate what would be acceptable as a minimum variance—and they would not be bound by that. Village Attorney Randolph gave as an example if the Board felt if the garage were flipped as suggested, making the variance 10- 15' as opposed to 50' as it was now, that would give the applicant parameters to work within. Boardmember Pullon indicated he would be much more comfortable with the garage turned the other way, but the applicant would have to move some things around. The applicants looked at sketches provided by Boardmember Pullon and Chair Humpage. Chair Humpage referenced the code book and noted the building line was defined in the code as: "A line on a lot generally but not necessarily parallel to a lot line or road right-of-way line located a significant distance therefrom to provide the minimum yards required by the zoning codes." Chair Hutnpage commented when he tried to interpret that according to the dotted line he did not blame the Village for the lot configuration but held the Village did the right thing. Chair Humpage explained he had then tried to create something that would conform to the "generally but not necessarily" requirement and had pulled the 100' from the street as opposed to trying to find something perpendicular to the side yard, but that still divided the garage, but using Boardmember Pullon's concept it would fit Chair Humpage commented that from the conversation tonight if the Board voted tonight this would not be approved, and the Board might be wise to take the attorney's suggestion to defer to a date certain. The applicant could use the two drawings for what they needed to do Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 20, 2002 Page lo and the Board might be receptive to that. Discussion ensued regarding the date to defer to - Boardmember Laamanen indicated she would be out of town on June 17 but Mr. Brienza indicated he would be able to attend. The Village Attorney advised that a motion was needed to defer with direction to come back with plans along the lines of the input just provided. Boardmember Pullon asked if the applicant had a clear understanding what the Board would like to see on the 17th. Chair Humpage commented on what the Board was asking the applicant to do, that the Board would probably use as the setback 100' from the front road line in lieu of the dotted line. 100' would be an absolute. This was indicated on the drawing. Boardmember Pullon stated he personally would be comfortable with half the garage square footage being within the 100' radius side-to-side line. Chair Humpage clarified that would be rather than the 100' setback. Therefore the garage would have to be on the west side. Mr. Wallace commented that the Board was not bound by this. Attorney Randolph advised that was correct, this wasjust guidance and the Board could not vote on it tonight without seeing the plan. Attorney Randolph advised to keep in mind the applicant had the ability as they were doing the plans to contact members of the Board prior to the meeting. The Boardmembers would have to announce that as ex -parte communication, but the applicant would have a feel whether they were going in the right direction. The Boardmembers indicated they were comfortable with the proposal and were looking for the minimum variance proposal. Boardmember Laamanen asked how many square feet the plan had been reduced since last month, and the applicant indicated most of the back porch had been eliminated. Mr. Neandros asked if the house could go forward over the line, to which the Board did not agree. MOTION: Board of Adjustntent Meeting Minutes May 20,,2002 Page ii Boardmember Newman made a motion to defer voting on the application from Mr. and Mrs. Philip Cary until June 17,2002 at which time the applicants would provide revised drawings showing the minimum variance they were requesting. Boardmember Laamanen seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous 5-0 vote. Chair Htunpage clarified that the June 17, 2002 meeting would remain at 7:30 p.m., and if the Board changed the meeting time it would be effective for meetings after that. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business to come before the Board. VI. COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS There was no communications from citizens. VIL ANY OTHER MATTERS Consensus of the Board was that future meetings beginning with the July 2002 meeting would begin at 7 p.m. instead of 7:30 p.m. At the request ofBoardmember Laamanen, Village Attorney Randolph reviewed special exceptions and variances, and explained that special exceptions were done only by the Village Council, while this Board granted variances. Attorney Randolph explained that variances were a variance from the Village code. The Board had indicated tonight they were here to uphold the laws ofthe Village, but they were not—they were here to give consideration to whether they were going to vary the laws. Attorney Randolph explained that a special exception was a Board of Adjusbnent Meeting Minutes May 20, 2002 Page 12 permitted use so it would be granted if all criteria were met, but a variance was varying the law for reasons which were the criteria set forth in the code. Village Attorney Randolph commented the typical classic situation for which a variance would be granted would be a triangular piece of property in a rectangular neighborhood because that would be a hardship where they could not meet the setbacks because of an unusually shaped piece of property. Attorney Randolph advised that Mr. and Mrs. Cary's property was unusually shaped so the Board could consider granting a variance but there were other things that had to be considered—whether or not it was the minimum variance that would allow for reasonable use of the land. Therefore it was not black and white—the Board had to determine what was the reasonable use of the land and if the request was the minimum variance that would allow reasonable use of the land. Also, the hardship could not be created by the applicant, and he had explained earlier that the applicant did not create this hardship. The Village Attorney noted there was case law on this and there were two interpretations, the most favored interpretation was the mere fact somebody bought a piece of property knowing the limitations was not a hardship of their own making. Something of their own making would be if they were subdividing or if they sold off part of the property and then said they could not meet the setbacks. Attorney Randolph advised the other criteria must also be considered by the Board, one of which was whether the applicant was being denied something by strict construction of the code which others reasonably could do. In this particular application if there were a lot of lots that could support 6,000 square foot homes and these people had a unusual shaped lot they would be denied something others in the neighborhood had if their lot would not support a 6,000 square foot home within the setbacks. Village Attorney Randolph commented the Board sits in a quasijudicial capacity which meant they were sitting as judges and their decision must be made only on what they heard at the hearings. That was why ex -parte communications must be disclosed,, so that applicants would know of anything that occurred outside and whether the Board might be basing their decision on anything heard outside the hearing. Attorney Randolph advised the decision must be based on competent substantial evidence; that this Board's decisions were appealed to the Circuit Court, and the Court would have to make a decision whether this Board had had evidence before them allowing them to reach their decision. Attorney Randolph Board of Adjustirnent Meeting Minutes May 20,,2002 Page 13 advised this Board's decision must be based on the criteria in the code, not on the neighbor's or applicant's comments or applause meter at the meetings, but on the criteria. Boardinember Newman commented that applicants' reasons given to meet the criteria were not always direct and asked if he should apply his interpretation and give it more weight in those situations. Attorney Randolph responded a Boardinernber could come to their own interpretation but sometimes they did not put enough onus on the applicant to prove they met the criteria. Village Attorney Randolph advised it would be a good policy in the future to have each applicant go through the criteria even though it was in the packets, and advise the Board as to how they met each one, because the Board could draw more out of them verbally, and it was not a black and white issue, so the Board would be better equipped to make a determination. Boardinernber Laamanen stated she did not agree that it did not matter if the applicant knew there were restrictions when they purchased the property. Attorney Randolph advised there was case law and the uniqueness of the property should be considered, not whether the applicant knew when they bought the property. Boardmember Laamanen expressed her opinion they knew when they designed the house. Attorney Randolph advised that the issue was to the minimum variance and this was not a hardship of their own making. Mr. Cary returned to the meeting and requested the date of the next meeting be changed to June 3; however, Attorney Randolph advised that it could not be changed because others involved had left the meeting and there was not sufficient time to send out notices. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Boardmember Newman, seconded by Boardmember Pullon, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Board of Adjustiment Meeting Minutes May 20, 2002 Page :t4 Respectfully submitted, Betty Laur Recording Secretary DATE APPROVED: