Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 06A_9/13/1990jj-A VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA BUILDING DEPARTMENT Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (407) 575-6220 FAX: (407) 575-6203 Z O N I N G B O A R D O F A D J U S T M E N T P U B L I C H E A R I N G M I N U T E 8 J U L Y 1 6, 1 9 9 0 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Village of Tequesta Zoning Board of Adjustment held a regularly scheduled Public Hearing at the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Monday, July 16, 1990. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by John Turner, Acting Chairman. A roll call was taken by Fran Bitters, the Recording Secretary. Boardmembers present were: John Turner, Ken Northamer, Alfred DeMott, James Van Wagner, and Mary Louise Nolen. Chairman Kirkland and Vice -Chairman Reddecliff were both out of town. Also present were: Scott D. Ladd, Clerk of the Board and John C. Randolph, Esquire, Village Attorney. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Northamer suggested that Item IV.2. be heard before Item IV.1. The Board concurred. The Agenda was approved as amended. III. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTE8 (Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes, May 21, 1990). Boardmember Northamer moved to approved the above -referenced Minutes as submitted. Boardmember DeMott seconded the motion. The vote was: Mary Louise Nolen - for James Van Wagner - for Alfred DeMott - for John Turner - for Ken Northamer - for the motion was passed and adopted and the Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes of May 21, 1990 were approved as submitted. Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting Minutes July 16, 1990 Page 2 -------------------------- IV. 2. The application of Rod Hartless, owner of Lot 2, Bay Harbor Subdivision, located at 9 Bay Harbor Road, requesting a variance to the terms of the official Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Tequesta, Ordinance No. 355, as amended, Section %VI, Uniform Waterway Control, Subsection (B), Dock and Pier Length, Width and Configuration, Paragraphs (1)(a) and (7), to allow a 62, (foot) extension with a 6' x 20' terminal "L" to an existing 50, (foot) dock, and 668 square feet total area, in lieu of no dock or pier extending waterward from the mean high water line in excess of 75, (feet) and the total area of any dock or pier not to exceed 500 square feet, as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Scott Ladd, Clerk of the Board, read a letter from Tom and Nancy Petillo, 6 Bay Harbor Road, stating their support of Mr. Hartless' application request for a variance. Applicant Rod Hartless reviewed his case for the Board: Approval has been received from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) agreeing to a 112' pier. The original proposal to erect the pier 5' above mean high water line has now been changed to 3.5' above mean high water line, verbally per DNR. A 4' wide pier is now being proposed as opposed to the present 6' wide pier. Mr. Hartless presented two survey drawings showing the exact location of the pier, the Hartless property and the Namath property on one side, and the Drazick property on the other. Boardmember Van Wagner stated that Mr. Drazick had told him he was opposed to the proposed pier extension. The Board noted that Mr. Drazick was not in attendance at this meeting, nor had he submitted a letter expressing his lack of support of this application. Mr. Hartless pointed out that the Black, Easton and Drazick properties, in the same vicinity, have longer piers and felt his position needed to be considered similarly. Robert Gazelle, Esq., of ALLEY, MAASS, ROGERS, LINDSAY i CHAUNCEY, Palm Beach, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Joe Namath of Lot 1, Bay Harbor Subdivision, neighbors to applicant. Mr. Gazelle stated that the Petillo letter read from the file carried no weight since they did not have to view the area in question. He asked Village Attorney Randolph to give a summary of the circumstances and facts required to exist prior to the Board's authority and ability to grant a variance to the applicant. Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes July 16, 1990 Page 3 -------------------------- Attorney Randolph stated that any time a variance is sought, the Board of Adjustment should consider all of those circumstances which are set forth in the Code which would allow for the granting of the variance, which are set forth on page 113 of the Code. These provide: To authorize, upon appeal, the granting of a variance where the following findings are made by the Board. 1. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land or the structure involved which are not applicable to other lands or structures or buildings in the same zoning district. 2. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. 3. That the granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. 4. That literal interpretation of the provisions of the Ordinance would deprive applicant of the rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the Ordinance and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. 5. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. 6. That granting of the variance would be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Attorney Gazelle stated that the granting of this variance would prohibit the Namath's from landscaping out, at the end of their property line, the Hartless dock area, if they intended to do so. He contended no hardship exists for applicant: applicant's pier is presently useable, since he has a boat docked there today; the DNR requirement is not a hardship; that neighbors docks are larger than applicants' is no entitlement to obtain a variance, and that raparian rights are not an issue. Approving the variance would be unfair to surrounding property owners and not in harmony with the neighborhood. Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes July 16, 1990 Page 4 -------------------------- Mrs - Joe Namath stated that she and her husband purchased their particular house because of the view it offered. If applicant's request for variance is approved, it would severely interrupt that view. Mrs. Namath further stated that this is their primary residence, and much time is spent at this location. William Mason, Anchorage Point, stated that though he is not a resident of Bay Harbor Subdivision, he would not like to see a dock 112' long on the river, since it would set a precedent for larger boats and similar docks up and down the river. He felt DNR requirements are not applicable here and urged the Board to use caution. Boardmember Nolen felt that because there were many hours of the day when applicant's boat could not be maneuvered to and from the dock because of a lack of water at low tide, that created a hardship. Boardmember DeMott felt that he, like Mrs. Namath, would be highly disappointed if a dock and boat blocked the view he had spent much money to purchase. Acting Chairman Turner suggested that applicant and his neighbors try to reach a compromise, since this appeared to be a "neighborhood dispute". Boardmember Van Wagner stated this seemed to be a battle of the hardship issue, and it appeared there was hardship on both sides of the issue. He felt strongly for the applicant, but felt the strength of the opposition was very impressive. Boardmember Van Wagner moved that the applicant get together with his neighbors to try to reach a compromise. Boardmember DeMott seconded the motion. Attorney Randolph pointed out that if this matter was to be postponed, it would have to be postponed for a time certain. Otherwise, it would have to be re -advertised. Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting Minutes July 16, 1990 Page 5 -------------------------- Boardmember Van Wagner restated and amended his previous motion by moving to postpone further consideration of this matter until the next meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment on August 20, 1990 so as to allow the parties to attempt to resolve their differences. Boardmember DeMott seconded the motion. The vote was: John Turner - for Ken Northamer - for Alfred DeMott - for James Van Wagner - for Mary Louise Nolen - for the motion Was therefore passed and adopted. IV. 1) The application of John Eldon, owner of Lot 604, Tequesta Subdivision, located at 16 Yacht Club Place, requesting a variance to the terms of the official Comprehensive Zoning ordinance of the village of Tequesta, Ordinance No. 355, as amended, Section %VI, Uniform Waterway Control, Subsection (B), Dock. and Pier Length, Width and Configuration, Paragraph (1)(a), to allow the construction of a 126' (foot) pier with a 6' z 20' terminal "L", in lieu of no dock or pier extending waterward from the mean high water line in excess of 75' (feet), as required by the Zoning ordinance. Scott Ladd read a letter from Charles F. Gireaux, 11 Yacht Club Place, stating he had no objection to the approval of this petition. There was another letter from Richard Barnard, 32 Yacht Club Place, stating disapproval of the petition. John Eldon, applicant, 16 Yacht Club Place, stated there is presently no dock on the property, there is no place to put a boat, he has received approval from DNR after dealing with them for 17 months, and DNR will not approve a lesser length than 126' (feet). Mr. Eldon also pointed out the River is substantially more shallow behind his house than other areas on the River. Boardmember Northamer stated he walked the property and noticed the dock to the left was approximately 751, installed with no need for a variance, and the dock to the right was approximately 451, and asked if the water depth was different at Mr. Eldon's property. Gene Wehage, Dolphin Marine, stated that the River was once dredged up to Mr. Eldon's property area. That is why other properties are deeper. Zoning Board of adjustment Meeting Minutes July 16, 1990 Page 6 -------------------------- Boardmember Nolen moved to approve the variance as submitted. Boardmember DeMott seconded the motion. Boardmember Northamer suggested the motion be amended to reflect that the height of the dock should not be more than 3 1/2' (feet) above mean high water line. Boardmember Nolen amended her previous motion to state that the above - referenced variance be approved and that the height of the dock should not exceed 3 1/2' feet above mean high water line. Boardmember DeMott seconded the motion. The vote was: John Turner - for Ken Northamer - for Alfred DeMott - for James van Wagner - for Mary Louise Nolen - for the motion was therefore passed and adopted. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. VI. ANY OTHER MATTERS There were no other matters before the Board. zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes July 16, 1990 Page 7 -------------------------- VII. ADJOURNMENT Boardmember Van Wagner moved that the meeting be adjourned. Boardmember Northamer seconded the motion. The vote was: John Turner - for Ken Northamer - for Alfred DeMott - for James Van Magner - for Mary Louise Nolen - for the motion Was therefore passed and adopted. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Fran Bitters Recording Secretary DATE APPROVED: Attest: J/� z- Aw Scott D. Ladd Clerk of the Board