Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_BoA_09/17/2007BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Village of Tequesta Board of Adjustment held a regularly scheduled Public Hearing at the Village Hall Council Chambers, 345 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Monday, September 17, 2007. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chair Vi Laamanen. A roll call was taken by Recording Secretary Betty Laur. Boardmembers present were: Chair Vi Laamanen, Ward Bertholf, Steve Pullon, Jon Newman who arrived at 7:05 p.m., and Alternate Bernard Ward who was seated in the absence of Vice Chair Paul Brienza. Also in attendance was Community Development Director Catherine Harding. 11. APPROVAL OF AGENDA BoardMember Steve Pullon moved that theAgenda he approved as submitted. Board Member Berthoff seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: K Laamanen —for Ward Berthoff -for Steve Pullon —for Bernard Ward -for The motion was thereforepassed by unanimous 4-0 vote. Ill. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES Boardmember Bertho#'moved that the minutesfor the meeting ofAugust 20,2007 be approved as submitted. Boardmember Pullon seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: V1 Laamanen —for Ward Berthoff - for Steve Pullon —for Bernard Ward -for The motion was therefore passed by unanimous 4-0 vote. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes September 17, 2007 Page 2 IV. NEW BUSINESS 1) An application for the renewal of a Variance Agreement for a second dwelling unit with kitchen, dated November 15, 1993, located at 356 Church Road, Tequesta. Mary Hester, Applicant. Community Development Director Catherine Harding explained the applicant's request for renewal of a variance agreement, which was originally to allow a second kitchen in a second dwelling unit built to house the homeowner's parents. Ms. Harding read the conditions of the agreement: I Upon the happening of any one of the following events, the kitchen to be installed pursuant to the Variance granted 10/18/93, shall be mandatorily removed at the expense of the Owner or his heirs, successors or assigns, to wit: a) Upon the said kitchen facilities being used for purposes other than for the use of members of Owner's family and his bona fide guests. b) Upon the premises being sold without the purchaser of the premises applying for, and being granted, a renewal of this Variance granted 10/18/93, and agreeing to be bound by the terms and conditions imposed thereon by the Village. If the purchaser agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions expressed in this agreement, said renewal of Variance shall not be unreasonably withheld by the Village. 2) Upon the failure of the Owner or someone in his behalf to comply with the requirements of Paragraph 1 above, Village shall have full right and authority to enter the above described premises, remove the kitchen facilities and assess the cost thereof against the lands hereinabove described regardless of the ownership of said lands at the time of the removal of said kitchen facilities. 3) The Owner does hereby agree that the proper Village officials may inspect the property to ascertain continuing single family use should any6 question arise as to this use and, further, the Owner will send to the Village an annual written statement to confirm that said single family use of the property is continuing and there is a need for the aforesaid second kitchen. Boardmember Newman arrived at 7:05 p.m. during the reading of item 2) above. Ms. Harding advised that the annual letter confirming status had never been done. e Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes September 17, 2007 Page 3 Applicant Mary Hester was sworn in. The following ex -parte communication was reported: Boardmember Bertholf stated he had seen the residence but had spoken to no one. Boardmember Newman reported none. Chair Laamanen advised she had visited the site and had spoken to no one, Alternate Ward reported he had spoken to no one; and Boardmember Pullon reported he had visited the site and had spoken to no one. The applicant, Mary Hester, advised she had closed on the property since the application was made on August 1, and she had permission from the former owner to make the application. The letter granting permission had been included in the meeting packets. Ms. Harding explained there was in effect a second dwelling unit created when the addition of 326 square feet had been added to the original home, and a variance had been granted for that addition. Chair Laamanen commented this agreement referred to the kitchen facility, and she would not approve of a second agreement, stating her position that the kitchen should be removed by the former owners at their expense. Ms. Harding explained the existing structure would not be removed, and if the agreement should be extended the second dwelling unit could be rented out—the Village had no supervision. Chair Laamanen raised the point that the agreement was very clear the occupant of the second unit must be a family member, which had been done to insure there would never be a rental situation. Ms. Hester stated she and her friend met the definition of family, which could be people not related by blood or marriage under the Tequesta Zoning Ordinance, and she would be happy to send a letter to the Village every year. Chair Laamanen advised the agreement would have to be re -done. Ms. Harding clarified that the decision was to be made by this board; the Village Council was not involved at all. When asked the definition of a kitchen, Ms. Harding responded it was a separate place to prepare food, and a photograph in the packets showed the way it was; just having a second stove would not constitute a kitchen. The variance was granted as a kitchen; care must be taken to assure there was not a lock out, which would make the unit appropriate to be rented. Ms. Hester advised that a part of the original home was used as the bedroom for the second dwelling unit; it had a small living room and kitchen which constituted the 326 square foot addition. Boardmember Newman indicated he would like to see a floor plan; Ms. Harding advised none had been submitted since the subject was the kitchen, not the layout of rooms. Ms. Harding clarified there was not a lock out, which meant from inside the house you could lock a person out. Ms. Hester advised the bedroom could be entered from the original house as well as from the second dwelling unit, and expressed her willingness to remove the exterior door to the kitchen and put it back in the garage if that would satisfy the criteria. Chair Laamanen expressed her opinion the purpose of the original agreement had been because of concern over what would happen when the property changed hands; that someone might want to rent it out, and she thought the second kitchen should be removed. Boardmember Newman read from the agreement and expressed his opinion this was a pre-existing problem. Discussion ensued during which Ms. Harding clarified Ms. Hester had called on July 19,2007 and she had advised her not Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes September 17, 2007 Page 4 to close on the property. Ms. Hester reported her friend could not climb stairs any more; that they had lived together for periods up to ten years; it would be a situation very close to that of the former owners; she would like him to maintain a certain amount of independence, which was why they were requesting to keep the kitchen, and that was one of the reasons they had been attracted to this house. The question of whether a condition that the kitchen be removed upon selling the house would have legal validity or whether a new owner could do this again was discussed. Ms. Harding advised the board could set their own terms for a variance and did not have to have the same agreement, but would have to determine if they wanted to allow the same usage if the house sold. Boardmember Pullon questioned how removing the kitchen and having the former owner pay could be done legally, to which Ms. Harding responded that was not the board's role—it was up to the board whether the terms were met, and the cost of removing the kitchen was not their role. Ms. Hester confirmed she had a copy of the agreement, stating that was why she had made application, and had thought she had submitted it in time for the August meeting. MOTION: Boardmember Newman made a motion to approve the agreement as written; to renew said lease with the same circumstances as written as the previous agreement. Boardmember Bertholf seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Boardmember Newman clarified that the board would need to go through this same process with a new owner because it was a pre-existing condition, which Boardmember Pullon had questioned as to legality, and had commented he wanted to be very clear on this. Chair Laamanen explained that she was uncomfortable, she had read every line in paragraph 2, which told the board what to do and the board was not doing that—there should be a new agreement, and the kitchen should have already been removed. Boardmember Newman clarified that Boardmember Pullon had asked if the board were to include a condition that these premises be removed upon selling the house would have legal validity and if a new owner could petition for the same variance. Ms. Harding explained the board should determine ifthey wanted the new owner to be allowed to assume the same usage of a second dwelling unit with a finite term on it and on sale of the house it would terminate permanently, and if so, then that would be the condition filed with the county. Chair Laamanen expressed her opinion that this agreement could not be changed since it was filed in the public records of the county. It was noted that the Village did not have the capability to follow up and administer the property, which was a problem with the last agreement. Ms. Hester commented she would be glad to send in a letter each year. Ms. Harding explained the history of this Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes September 17, 2007 Page 5 application. Chair Laamanen commented this agreement was very precise. Boardmernber Bertholf commented he did not like to go into anyone's house and take something out. Chair Laamanen felt the previous owners were in violation under the terms of the agreement, not because of lack of the annual letters, but they knew the kitchen had to be removed. Boardmember Pullon commented the former owners should have provided written letters annually and renewed this agreement before they sold the property. Boardmember Newman requested time to read the agreement silently. Boardmember Bertholf asked the applicant if it would be a real hardship for her to remove the kitchen, to which Ms. Hester responded yes, it would create a very awkward space with no other function. Chair Laamanen suggested the board would feel more comfortable with an opinion from the Village Attorney regarding what they should do. Ms. Hester asked if the board would be willing to enter into a new agreement with additional terms and restrictions, and pointed out she had provided justification under the six criteria. Chair Laamanen responded the terms of the existing agreement were still at issue. Boardmember Pullon questioned whether the board could set this agreement aside; Ms. Harding explained that the application was for what was in front of the board. Boardmember Newman commented he read this two ways—Chair Laamanen's way was correct because they had failed the contract; however, looking at it for the new landowner he would have to grant the variance, and he did not know which way was right. Chair Laamanen read from the agreement that the Village had full right to remove the kitchen. Boardmember Ward commented paragraph 2 referred to paragraph one and the conditions in paragraph one had been met. Ms. Harding suggested if the board felt unable to make a motion at this time that she present this application and variance agreement to the Village Attorney for review and an opinion. Ms. Hester noted in the Village definitions there was no statement that two kitchens made two separate dwelling units and she was sure other residences had much more elaborate second kitchens. Ms. Harding clarified the board was discussing that variance that was issued and whether the prior owner complied, this was not about whether the Village allowed two kitchens, and her recommendation was to get the attorney's opinion to see if this agreement had been complied with. Boardmember Pullon asked if this were postponed if Ms. Hester could move in and use the home. Ms. Harding advised there were no restrictions on the use of the house now, and the board was working on getting an answer. Chair Laamanen asked if the terms of this agreement had been met if it could be modified or if another agreement would have to be made. Ms. Hester asked what she could do; Chair Laamanen advised to wait until after the attorney's opinion was received. Boardmember Newman rescinded his motion. Bertholf withdrew his second.