Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_BoA_04/15/2002VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA DEPARIMEN7 OF CONB/1t-TNfTY DBTLOPIVIEN7 Post Office Box 3273 250 Tequesta Drive * Suite 305 Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 (561) 575-6220 - Fax: (561) 575-6224 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING MEETING MINUTES APRIL 15, 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, April 15, 2002. The meeting was called to order at 7:45 P.M. by Chair Jim Humpage. A roll call was taken. Boardmembers present were: Chair James Humpage, Jon Newman, Steve Pullon5 Vi Laamanen, and Alternate Paul Brienza. Also in attendance was Village Attorney John C. Randolph, and Director of Community Development Jeff Newell. Vice Chair David Owens was absent from the meeting. 11. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Newman that the Agenda 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 Agenda was approved as submitted. Ill. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES Boardmember Laamanen moved that the minutes for the meeting of February 25, 2002 be approved as submitted. Boardmember Newman seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5-0 vote. The motion Re( ),cW Paper Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes April 15, 2002 Page 2 was therefore passed and adopted and the minutes were approved as submitted. IV. NEW BUSINESS 1. An application from William M. and Sheri 1. Healy, owners of the property located at 287 Country Club Drive, Lot 209, 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 X, Supplemental Regulations Applying to a Specific, to Several or to all Districts, Subsection (A) General Provisions, (8) Floor elevation able sea level, to allow an existing front porch to be enclosed to living area to match the existing house floor elevation of 12.40' (feet) above mean sea level, and 10.08" (inches) above the crown of road, in lieu of all new construction, additions, and substantial improvements to existing structures being 8.5' MSL or 18" above the crown of the road, cul- de-sac or highway or meet the requirements of Section XV, Flood Hazard Areas, whichever is more stringent, as required by the Zoning Ordinance. 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 A poll of the Boardmernbers indicated that Boardmember Laamanen visited all 4 sites on tonight's agenda and spoke to no one, and in one case walked the property. Chair Humpage and Boardmember Brienza reported they had visited all four sites but had spoken to no one. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes April 15, 2002 Page 3 C. Testimony of Witnesses and Cross Examination, If Any William M. Healy, Jr., explained that he wanted to enclose approximately 140 square feet of his front porch, and would need to remove the existing front porch and lay another slab to bring the floor elevation to the level of the living room and dining room. Mr. Healy stated that his hardship was that if he tried to bring the front porch up to current code it would create a level 4-6" above the level of the house and would make a step inside the house. Mr. Healy reported that he would be raising the foundation of the house 34" by adding this addition, that the roof would not be raised, and that everything done would be interior work. D. Finding of Fact Based Upon Competent Substantial Evidence MOTION - Mr. Newman made a motion to approve the application from Mr. and Mrs. William M. Healy on the basis that it met the criteria and the hardship requirements, and conditioned upon the applicant providing a hold harmless agreement to the Village so that the Village would have no liability in the event of a flood. Mrs. Laamanen seconded the motion, which carried by 5-0 vote. 2. An application from Daniel and Tracy Petkas, owners of the property located at 351 Franklin Road, Lot 18, Block 32, Jupiter in the Pines 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 District, Minimum Rear Yard Setback and Section X Supplemental Regulations Applying to a Specific, to Several or to all Districts, Subsection (E) Swimming Pool Regulations, (3) All applicable setbacks for open swimming pools may be reduced by up to three (3) feet of the established setback Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes April 15, 2002 Page 4 required by the zoning district in which the pool is located, as set forth on the schedule of site regulations, to allow for the construction of a swimming pool with a rear yard setback of 4.5', in lieu of 7' as required by the Zoning Ordinance. 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 See agenda item IV (1)(B). C. Testimony of Witnesses and Cross Examination, if any Daniel Petkas explained that he would like to install a pool for recreational reasons to beautify and upgrade the value of his property. Mr. Petkas explained that this was a comer lot and his children played in front, causing him concern because of the traffic, so a pool would provide a safer place to play. Mr. Petkas explained the setbacks and easements would not allow the proper size pool for diving, which would not be wise for children diving and swimming. Mr. Petkas indicated he would bury the power line that was now overhead. Boardmember Laamanen indicated that she felt a pool the size the applicant was requesting would take away from the neighbors' property and that Mr. Petkas' property was not large enough to have a pool. Boardmember Laamanen reported that in her experience when more than 22% land coverage was allowed it created problems for the neighbors, and created noise, and explained that she would be willing to circumvent the code to allow expansion of the Petkas' home but she was not willing to do so to add a pool. Mr. Brienza asked for clarification of the Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes April 15, 2002 Page 5 setbacks for the rear and side yards. It was explained that in this case the west side was the side yard because on Franklin there was a 25' setback, and that the hedge would be replaced with a 6' privacy fence. Jeff Newell, Community Development Director, explained that under Florida Building Code now in effect, 4' clear wet deck was required all the way around a swimming pool, and that a child barrier on the perimeter 20" from the water's edge was also required. If there was a screen enclosure, Village code required the measurement from the screen and not from the water's edge. Village Attorney Randolph commented he assumed when this house was built that the front setback was appropriate and the code had apparently changed to allow a larger setback, which was why the front yard was on the other side of the house and this front yard could probably be grandfathered from where it was presently located. Chair Humpage noted that if this property had a Venus Avenue address this could be done on the side yard; however, because it was considered the rear yard the requirement was 10'. Mr. Newell reported notices had been sent to the neighbors and there had been no responses. Tracy Petkas testified that the original address for the property had been 3 5 1 Venus but at some time the address had been switched to 351 Franklin Road. Chair Humpage reported he had visited this lot, and it seemed that because of the way this property was deeded and that it was a comer lot, the applicants were the victims of circumstances. Chair Humpage noted he originally had a problem with this but now would probably vote to approve. Chair Humpage noted there was only 4'-6" from the pool to the lot line and if the 3' code requirement was added that would put it at 7'-6", and the applicant needed 7'. Mr. Newell noted this was a comer lot with front setbacks on both lot sides and from a planning view the front actually faced Franklin, and the rear which was showing 20'-8" indicated to him that was a rear yard. Mr. Newell explained that the setback requirement was 10' ifthey had a screen enclosure and without a screen that could be reduced by 3'. and those were really the true numbers. Chair Humpage agreed the applicant had a Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes April 15, 2002 Page 6 hardship. Boardmember Laamanen commented if one looked around this neighborhood, everything was enclosed because these were smaller lots and in order to have privacy they had fences and gates. Mrs. Laamanen commented another application had been approved on Franklin Road since she had been on the board but it had been for living space and she thought in this case it was inappropriate for the neighbors and apologized that she could not change her mind. Boardmember Pullon asked if there was a setback for a pool deck from the property line, to which Mr. Newell responded that Village code required 3' clear wet deck but that was overruled by the Florida Building Code which required 4% and if one had a screen enclosure the 10' setback started at the screen enclosure; if it was an open pool the measurement was taken from the water's edge, allowing the deck to encroach into the setback. Mr. Pullon asked how far off the property line could the deck be located, to which Mr. Newell responded he would have to research in order to answer that question. Mr. Newell stated 4'-6" from water's edge was shown on the plans. Mr. Brienza asked if Mr. Petkas' neighbor knew he was planning a pool and that when installing it that they would probably encroach on his property. Mr. Petkas explained there was now an oak tree that would prevent equipment from going in and out which he would have removed. Mrs. Tracy Petkas was sworn in by Mr. Newell. Mrs. Petkas testified that their neighbor's only concern was that he had thought there was a utility easement where his boat was parked but it had been confirmed that the easement was on the other side. Discussion ensued regarding the proper figures and requirements. Mr. Petkas explained that the proposed pool size was 13' wide and 30' long. Chair Humpage indicated he felt there would not be enough room and asked if the applicant would consider reducing the pool depth, to which Mr. Petkas responded that he would consider anything at this point because he had not realized that 4' clear wet deck was required all the way around the pool. Boardmember Laamanen commented the applicant should take time to walk and measure the area to see if they would be happy Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes April 15, 2002 Page 7 with a reduced size, rather than agreeing too quickly. The Village Attorney advised the applicant that they could delay this without any prejudice to come back next month. Pros and cons of delaying until next month were discussed. The Village Attorney advised that the only recourse the applicant would have if they were unhappy with a decision made tonight would be through Circuit Court. Mr. Petkas asked if the Board was concerned about the distance between the outside edge of the pool to the property line, to which the response was, yes. Mr. Petkas indicated if it were one foot that might leave 11'. Mr. Newman advised that the Board looked for the minimum that would work. Chair Humpage agreed with the others and requested that the applicant consider if they went to the maximum they would have to put a fence inside their property and if there was a problem with the pool and it needed repair there would be no room from the edge of the pool to the neighbor's property for anyone to work on it, which could be a disaster. Chair Humpage indicated he would consider the minimum variance with the pool size reduced; and that he was not worried about the pool width but was not comfortable with the setback between the neighbor's yard. Mr. Petkas stated to go ahead with 10'. Mr. Newman presented calculations that .2 of a foot converted to inches would be what the applicant needed for a variance. Discussion of the exact measurement needed ensued. It was determined that the variance would be 6.8 feet instead of 7' to the property line. MOTION: Boardmember Newman made a motion to approve the application from Daniel and Tracy Petkas, to provide a setback of 6.8 feet in lieu of 7 feet from the property line to the water's edge, on the basis that the criteria had been met including the criteria for hardship because of the configuration of the corner lot. Boardmember Pullon seconded the motion, which carried by 4-1 vote with Boardmember Laamanen opposed. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes April 15, 2002 Page 8 3. An application from Paul & Paula Whittmann, owners of the property located at 25 Bay Harbor Drive, Lot 8, Bay Harbor 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, Supplemental Regulations Applying to a Specific, to Several or to all Districts, Subsection (A) General Provisions, (8) Floor elevation above sea level; to allow the construction of additions to the living area at the existing house floor elevation of 7.40' (feet) above mean sea level (MSL) and 18+ inches above the crown of road, and to lower the floor elevation of the family room from 8.4' (feet) MSL to 7.40' (feet) MSL, to match the rest of the house and the proposed additions, in lieu of all new construction, additions, and substantial improvements to existing structures being 8.5' MSL or 1811 above the crown of the road, cul-de-sac or highway or meet the requirements of Section XV, Flood Hazard Areas, whichever is more stringent, as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Director of Community Development Jeff Newell announced that Mr. and Mrs. Whittmann had sent a letter to the Community Development Department and requesting withdrawal; therefore this item was withdrawn. 4. 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 (0, Schedule of Site Requirements, R -I -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 Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes April 15, 2002 Page 9 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 all 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 under agenda item IV (1)(A). B. Disclosure of Ex -Parte Communications Boardmember Laamanen, Boardmember Brienza, and Chair Humpage reported they had visited the property and spoke to no one. C. Testimony of Witnesses and Cross Examination, if any Attorney Pat Gordon, a Tequesta resident representing the applicants, explained that Mr. and Mrs. Cary were in California, and that he and Mr. Neandros,, the home builder, were present to speak on their behalf. Attorney Gordon commented that the hardship issue as the applicants saw it was interpretation of the codes taken together after this property was subdivided would require taking all the improvements on a rather deep lot and cramming them all up at the water's edge. It would create a hardship for Mr. and Mrs. Cary because it would minimize their living space and aesthetically would create a fortress look against the water. The second hardship affected their neighbors, one of whom was present to speak to this issue, in that if all the improvements were placed near the river they would significantly the neighbor's view of the water, which he had enjoyed. Attorney Gordon commented that this seemed to be an issue the Village would have to look at anyway because of the nature of what is going on with waterfront properties with subdividing becoming Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes April 15, 2002 Page 10 common, and the people buying these properties usually planned large homes. Mr. Gordon commented that this structure was set back from the road in excess of 50 feet and the Village needed to see if the literal interpretation of this part of the code was helping or hurting. Attorney Gordon commented that in this case it was hurting the person building the house and also hurting their neighbor; plus as the community grew older, people were tearing houses down and rebuilding new ones, and on some other properties if you projected the 100' line and established setbacks and the old structures were torn down the lots may not even be buildable. Mr. Gordon commented this was the bigger picture that the Village needed to look at, but the variance request was represented by the plan presented with some of the improvements on the road side of the 100' line but substantially behind setback lines required of other properties. Bruce Neandros and a neighbor were also present. Boardmember Pullon presented a proposal for the applicant's consideration, which was to turn the garage the other way which would require a more minimum variance, being 88' from the road. Mr. Neandros commented that in the house design it was going to be one large structure against the water to obtain the setback requirement and actually the applicant was asking to pull the house farther from the water and the neighbor was also asking that it be pulled back so his view would not be impeded. Boardmember Pullon commented that his proposal did not move the house but only the garage, and he saw what the applicant was wanting and it was admirable not to impede the neighbor's view. Discussion ensued. Mr. Brienza confirmed with the builder that he was speaking about the neighbor to the east. Chair Humpage commented he remembered when this lot split occurred and had asked Mr. Newell to provide the recorded plat, which showed the building front line and the owner should have been aware that he would have to comply with that building front line when he purchased this property. Attorney Gordon responded that Mr. Cary had told him the first time he was aware of the 100' line was when he got his boundary survey. Chair Humpage Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes April 15, 2002 Page I I commented the one on file with the Village was dated February 28, 2000. Chair Humpage commented that he also was concerned about all the lots on the river where people put up beautiful homes and all the variances, but in his opinion the problem on this lot was not created by the Village since the plat clearly showed where the front building line was on that property, and the house that was proposed was approximately 3400 square feet and the house itself was in violation, never mind the garage. The lot split had made the neighbor have a problem rebuilding if his house was torn down. Mr. Newman noted the numbers on the drawing did not add up. Chair Humpage commented that on the recorded survey it was correct. Mr. Gordon commented he had expected someone to say it was there when the property was purchased and maybe this was being addressed in the wrong venue because maybe this whole section of the code needed to be addressed to figure out if adhering to a strict set of rules such as this was doing good or bad to the residents and if the Village would be better served to allow people to build farther away from the water. Mr. Gordon commented that in this case the property owner as well as the neighbor were hurt and if someone bought the neighbor's property and wanted to tear down the house and replace it with a million dollar home, it could not be done. Chair Humpage agreed but stated that this Board's purpose was not to address changes to the code, but to enforce the ordinances,, and the Village Council would have to address any changes. Chair Humpage commented if he were playing devil's advocate he would say the owner knew when he bought the house where he could build and if he sized the house appropriately he could build. Chair Humpage noted that people needed to be aware of what they were purchasing and that he recently purchased land in Connecticut but bought it conditioned on it being buildable. Mr. Humpage explained that at this point he was not comfortable with the application as requested. Attorney Gordon asked if this application was rejected tonight whether the applicant was precluded from going to the Village Council. Village Attorney Randolph advised they could go before the Village Council or if a Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes April 15, 2002 Page 12 substantial change was made in the plans they could come back to this board for another variance. Bob Shaw, the neighbor at 127 Point Circle, commented the code required the building line to be parallel to the road which there was no way to do in this case, so something was wrong with the code as written, and in this case the roadway was an arc. Attorney Gordon stated he would elect to withdraw the application at this time. Chair Humpage stated the withdrawal was accepted. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business to come before the Board. VIL COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS Virginia von Frank, Dover Road, requested the name ofthe realtor who sold Mr. Cary the property. Mr. Newell responded that would have to be researched. VIII. ANY OTHER MATTERS Chair Humpage requested that Mr. Newell contact Vice Chair Owens to see if he intended to continue as a member of the Board and if not the Board would need to appoint another Vice Chair to act in the absence of the Chair. IX. ADJOURNMENT Boardmember Brienza moved that the meeting be adjourned. Boardmember Laamanen seconded the motion. The motion carried by unanimous 5-0 vote and the meeting was therefore adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes April 15, 2002 Page 13 Respectfully submitted, Betty Laur Recording Secretary A'TTES C. r ew 'I erk of he Board DATE APPROVED: