Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 5A_7/26/1990�r 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 E E T I N G M I N U T E S M A Y 2 1, 1 9 9 0 I. 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, May 21, 1990. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman William Kirkland and a roll call was taken. Boardmembers present were: Alfred DeMott; Kenneth Northamer; Chairman Kirkland; and James Van Wagner. John P. Turner and Mary L. Nolen called to say they were not able to attend. Jerre Reddecliff, Vice Chairman, was not in attendance. Also present were: Scott D. Ladd, Clerk of the Board, and John C. Randolph, Esq., Village Attorney. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was approved as submitted. III. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES - April 16, 1990. Boardmember DeMott moved to approve the above -referenced Minutes as submitted. Boardmember Northamer seconded the motion. The vote was: James Van Wagner - for Albert DeMott - for Kenneth Northamer - for Chairman Kirkland - for the motion therefore passed and was adopted. Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 21, 1990 Page 2 -------------------------- IV. NEW BUSINESS The application of Gordon R. Ripma, as agent for the owner of Lots 1, 2 & 3, Noit Gedacht Subdivision, Property Control No. 60-42-40- 36-00-003-0030/0040, requesting variances to the terms of the official Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Tequsta, Ordinance No. 355, as amended, as follows: A. Section VII(C), Schedule of Site Regulations, R-1A District, maximum building height, to allow the construction of a two- story/39.5' (feet) in height single family home on Lot 1, in lieu of a maximum building height of two-story/30.0' (feet); B. Section VII(C), Schedule of Site Regulations, R-lA District, minimum lot width, to allow for lot widths as follows: Lot ;1 - 65' (feet); Lot *2 - 78' (feet); and Lot *3 - 83' (feet), in lieu of a minimum lot width of 100' (feet); and, C. Section X, Supplemental Regulations, Subsection (A). Paragraph (1)(c), to allow the construction of a privacy wall at a location forward of the front building lines of Lots 1, 2 & 3, in lieu of no wall or fence being allowed to extend forward of the front building line on any lot or parcel, as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Gordon Ripma, Gary Van Brock and David Lewis - Engineer, were in attendance in representation of the above -referenced variance requests. Mr. Ripma explained the need for the variances and displayed drawings of the architecture of the proposed house and the site plan. Clerk of the Board, Scott Ladd, reported there was one letter in the file in reference to this case, that being from Mr. Richard Bonard, Lot 600, Tequesta Cuontry Club, stating no objection to granting of the requests for variance. Many residents living in close proximity to the proposed subdivision were in attendance in protest against the requested variances: Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 21, 1990 Page 3 -------------------------- REGGIE CLARK, 3 Shady Lane, was opposed to a 9.5 foot addition in height to a single family home. She felt 1-2 feet might be agreeable, but not 9.5 feet. She also objected to the proposed six foot high privacy wall, stating it would not be good aesthetically, and it might give potential newcomers to Tequesta a feeling that this is a high crime area, when in fact, it is not. She pointed out that the Village Code reads, there shall be "no fence or wall permitted forward of the front building line". NANCY STEVENS, 12 Shady Lane, objected to the proposed six foot high privacy wall. SAM STEVENS, 12 Shady Lane, asked Village Attorney Randolph what the rationale behind these requests for variances might be. Attorney Randolph answered that basically, a hardship needed to be shown. A hardship means it is necessary to show there is something unique to the property which shows the Zoning Board why that particular property should be treated differently than all other properties similarly situated. There is a list of considerations in the Village Ordinance which the Board of Adjustment can go through in determining whether or not there is a hardship. Mr. Stevens asked if the decision of the owners of this property to plot the property out in such a way as to have a cul de sac is something driven by the Village Zoning requirements or was this a free choice on the owners part to improve that particular subdivision? Attorney Randolph stated he could not give a legal answer to that, but that it was a policy decision. He stated he did not know what drove the subdivider into doing what they wanted to do in this case. He guessed that a cul de sac could have been put in there with one lot at the end of the cul de sac without a need for a variance to the lot width. An arc 25 feet back from that cul de sac would have ended up in a lot that was over the required 100 feet. Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 21, 1990 Page 4 -------------------------- Mr. Stevens asked if it was fair, then, to say the hardship had been created by the need of the owner to try to position himself to have three lots? Attorney Randolph answered it would not be unfair to say that. Mr. Stevens asked if the height of, or positioning of, a six foot high wall had been previously approved in Tequesta. Scott Ladd answered the height of the wall is acceptable. The position of the wall forward of the front building line is what the request for variance is all about. Without a variance, the owner could wall from their front building line, over to the side line, all the way along the north side, completely along the west side, make a return up the River, and all the way up to the retention drainage easement. Approvals have been given in the past for building a wall in front of the front building line. Mr. Stevens concluded by stating that the community objects to the positioning of the wall. ALMA DYKE, 12 Shady Lane, objected to the size of the lots which were smaller than the others in the same area, as well as objecting to the proposed six foot high privacy wall and the request for an additional 9.5 feet in height on the house. Chairman Kirkland asked if the lot sizes met Village requirements. Scott Ladd answered that the requirements for R-1A is 12,OOOsf: Lot #1 is 34,845 sf; Lot #2 is 29,185sf; and Lot #3 is 25,2659f. The widths differ. BRIDGBTTB MILLER, 11 Shady Lane, felt the proposed privacy wall detracts from the aesthetics of the neighborhood. She also felt the proposed additional 9.5 feet of height to the house structure was not appealing. She suggested use of landscaping as an alternative to the wall, which would not only enhance the dwelling, but the neighborhood as well. BARBARA KINKADE, ? Shady Lane, felt the privacy wall would have the possibility of devaluating her property. She was opposed to the wall in its entirety, and the height of the building structure. CHARLES GIFFORD, Bayview Court, objected to the height of the building structure, stating it would tower over his neighborhood. He felt no hardship had been proven by applicant. His position was that walls in front of houses are ugly, and that they imply a high crime area. He was also against approval of the variance for lot width, since he felt it was merely a ploy to 'squeeze in another lot'. Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 21, 1990 Page 5 -------------------------- MEREDITH GOLDSTEIN, 15 Shady Lane, objected to the height of the building structure, and the privacy wall. She felt it upsets the whole neighborhood. KIT LEGATO, Bayview Court, objected to the privacy wall and felt the same effect could be accomplished with landscaping. She also objected to the proposed 9.5 feet addition in height to the building. JOE BROEDELL, 1 Bayview Court, explained he was a little confused. When he purchased the Bayview Court lot, he was aware of an easement on the lot. He was told that was for a future driveway for a single family home on the back property. Applicant now wants to put in a cul de sac and a road. He asked for clarification. He also stated he had problems with the proposed privacy wall. Scott Ladd explained there is an access easement onLot 1 in Bayview Terrace, which Joe Broedell owns. That will have to be resolved before the completion of preliminary and final plat review for the subdivision. Mr. Broedell and the applicant are each aware of that. The Village's contention is that before DeWitt Place (the intended cul de sac) can become finalized and accepted by the Village for maintenance (dedicated to the Village as public road right-of-way), Mr. Broedell would have to dedicate that portion of his property that is the triangle and is described in the Bayview Terrace Plat as an access easement. If the village took over the road for public useage and the access easement remains, Mr. Broedell would own the land underlying the roadway. The Village would not like to enter into that situation. Mr. Broedell and the landowners would have to resolve that prior to Final Plat Review. Mr. Ripma stated that since most of the objections expressed tonight were with the privacy wall, he would consider bringing the wall back within the 25 foot setback. The public objected, since the wall would still appear in front of the house. Scott Ladd confirmed that once the house is located and built, the wall cannot go forward of the front building line of the house, regardless of what the setback might be. Applicant withdrew the offer. Boardmember Van Wagner stated the Zoning Ordinance is meant to be a protection for everyone, as well as protecting against undue hardships. He felt applicant showed no proof of hardship. He objected to the granting of this variance. Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 21, 1990 Page 6 -------------------------- Boardmember DeMott moved that the application for an additional 9.5' (feet) in height to the single family home on Lot #1 be denied. Boardmember Van Wagner seconded the motion. The vote was: James Van Wagner - for Albert DeMott - for Kenneth Northamer - against Chairman Kirkland - for the motion therefore passed and was adopted. Boardmember Van Wagner moved that the request for variance reduced lot widths on Lots 1, 2 and 3 be denied. Boardmember DeMott seconded the motion. The vote was: James Van Wagner - for Albert DeMott - for Kenneth Northamer - against Chairman Kirkland - against the motion therefore did not pass. Chairman Kirkland qualified his vote by saying: "This is a new subdivision, not a re -subdivision. There are no definitions for lot widths of cul de sacs." Boardmember DeMott moved to deny the request for variance to allow construction of a privacy wall. Boardmember Van Wagner seconded the motion. The vote was: James Van Wagner - for Albert DeMott - for Kenneth Northamer - for Chairman Kirkland - for the motion therefore passed and adopted, and the variance was denied. Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 21, 1990 Page '7 -------------------------- IV. 2. The application of George Crabtree, President, Tequesta Towers Condominium Association, located at 400 Beach Road, 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, Subsection (A), general provisions, Paragraph (1)(c), to allow the construction of a concrete block privacy wall at a location forward of the front building line of the condominium, inlieu of no wall or fence being allowed to extend forward of the front building line on any lot or parcel; and Section VIII, Off -Street Parking and Loading Regulations, Subsection (F), Off -Street Parking Space Requirements, Paragraph (8)(c), allowing for 66 parking spaces for the 44-unit condominium, in lieu of 88 spaces (multiple -family: two (2) spaces per dwelling unit), as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Anthony Falotico, Engineer, Jupiter, appeared in behalf of the Tequesta Towers Condominium, seeking approval for a privacy wall of five feet at the entry to the condominium, graduating to a six foot height at the corners because of the lower terrain at the corners. Tequesta Towers has parking which goes right up to the front property line. The front of the area used to be covered with a hedge which is now destroyed because of the winter freeze. Residents now desire to replace that previously hedged area with a wall, as described above. The existing parking in the front has been there since the development of the condominium. The wall would camouflage the parking area from the street. Mr. Falotico presented two letters of approval from neighboring condominiums, La Mar and Island House. Boardmember Northamer moved to approve the application as submitted. Boardmember Van Wagner seconded the motion. The vote was: James Van Wagner Albert DeMott Kenneth Northamer Chairman Kirkland the motion therefore - for - for - for - for passed and was adopted. Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 21, 1990 Page 8 -------------------------- 3. The application of S&S Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Step Saver, located at 104 U.S. Hwy One, North, Property Control No. 60- 43-40-30-00-003-0010/0011, requesting a variance to the terns of the official Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Tequesta, Ordinance No. 355, as amended, Section VII(D), Schedule of District Use Regulations, Paragraph (6)(d)(11), to allow the continued use of the gas pump canopy with a side yard setback of 10' (feet), in lieu of no such pump, tank, vent, pump island or pump island canopy shall be located closer than 25' (feet) to any side property line, as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Doug McGibbon, representative for S & S Enterprises, d/b/a Step Saver, explained this facility is currently improved with a convenience store and a gas station. A variance is requested for the southern border of the property line. The hardship is that since the Village of Tequesta widened Tequesta Drive, a non- conforming situation has been created at Step Saver where their pump island is now closer to the road setback, because of the road widening. A variance from the side setback is requested to allow the site to remain in its present condition. Wendy Harrison, Administrative Assistant to the Village Manager commented: "This variance request is as a result of the widening of Tequesta Drive. This is not an Advisory Opinion, but an actual variance request, since applicant is present. To clarify, the Village took five feet of right-of-way from the southern boundary of Step Saver property. Village Staff's request, therefore, is to allow for a reduction in the setback requirements of five feet in order to compensate for that loss, and recommends that the Board of Adjustment agree with this." Boardmember Demott moved that the variance be approved. Boardmember Northamer seconded the motion. The vote was: James Van Wagner Albert Demott Kenneth Northamer Chairman Kirkland - for - for - for - for the notion therefore passed and was adopted. Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 21, 1990 Page 9 -------------------------- V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. VI. ANY OTHER MATTERS There were no other matters before the Board. VII. ADJOURNMENT Boardmember DeMott moved that the meeting be adjourned. Boardmember Northamer seconded that motion. The vote was: James Van Wagner Albert DeMott Kenneth Northamer Chairman Kirkland the motion therefore adjourned at 9:00 P.M. DATE APPROVED: Attest: ,D.o1�u�CL Scott D. Ladd Clerk of the Board - for - for - for - for passed and was adopted, and the meeting was Respectfully submitted, 4!44c' . Fran Bitters Recording Secretary