Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 6A_5/13/1993 , / ..„: ja -11 ,�!~i', VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA w' .�' l.c BUILDING DEPARTMENT s,.l `���r o • e 11. _.ik„ Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive +-0 Co.UN + Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (407) 575-6220 FAX: (407) 575-6203 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1993 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL . The Village of Tequesta Board of Ad.iustment held a regularly scheduled Public Hearing in the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Monday, February 22, 1993. The meeting was called to order at 7: 30 P. M. by Chairman Kenneth Northamer. A roll call was taken by Jo-Ann Zinni, the recording secretary. Board , Members present were: Chairman Kenneth Northamer, William Kirkland, and Raymond Schauer. Also in attendance were Scott D. Ladd, Clerk of the Board, and John C. Randolph, Village Attorney. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board Member Kirkland moved that the. Agenda be approved as submitted. Board Member Schauer seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: • Kenneth Northamer - For William Kirkland - For Raymond Schauer - For the motion was therefore passed and adopted and the Agenda was approved as submitted. III. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES ( Meeting of January 19, 1993) . Board Member Kirkland moved to approve the January 18, 1993 meeting minutes as submitted. Board Member Schauer seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Kenneth Northamer - For William Kirkland - For Raymond Schauer - For • the motion was therefore passed and adopted. John C. Randolph, Village Attorney, pointed out that there was not a • full Board in attendance and being that the full Board 'is a membership of five, a unanimous vote would be needed for approval. He wanted the applicants to consider whether or not they wanted to be heard prior to addressing the Board so that they would not feel that their case was prejudiced in any way. There were no objections from the three applicants in attendance. • Board of Adiustment Meeting Minutes February 22, 1993 Page 2 IV. NEW BUSINESS A. An application from Powell Marine Const. , as agent for Antonio Romano, owner of Lot 5, Eastwinds Landing Subdivision, 20 Eastwinds Circle, requesting a variance to the terms of the Official Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Tequesta, Ordinance No. 355, as amended, Section XVI, Uniform Waterway Control, Subsection ( B), Dock and Pier Length, Width and Configuration, Paragraphs ( 1) & ( 7) , to allow the construction of a 4' X 88' dock with a 8' x 20' terminal platform, 512 total square foot, in lieu of no dock or pier being constructed which extends waterward from the mean high water line in excess of seventy-five feet ( 75' ) and the total area of ' all docks and piers located on any riparian parcel not exceeding five hundred ( 500) square feet for each one hundred linear feet ( 100' ) of that parcel shoreline, as required, by the Zoning Ordinance. Ken Powell of Powell Marine Construction, representing 'Antonio Romano, stated that application for this variance was made because the environmentalists basically determined that they needed to have minus three or four feet of water at the terminus of the dock to allow for dockage. The bottom of the Loxahatchee River in this area is mud and they didn' t want prop—wash stirring up the problem. He explained that they originally applied for a dock at the 75' length but that they had been pushed out a little bit further. Mr. Powell felt that disallowance of this variance probably would cause the Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources Management ( ERM) and the Department of Natural Resources ( DNR) to disallow a dock completely which would totally encumber the property. Mr. Powell had an aerial view of the area for the Board Members to see. Scott Ladd verified that no letters had been received for or against this variance. Attorney Randolph informed the Board that, should they make a motion to approve this application, they should consider the fact that the terminal platform of the dock is larger than what is allowed by ordinance; that is, being 6' ( feet) X 20' ( feet) and the application is for 8' ( feet) X 20' ( feet) . Board Member Kirkland suggested that it should be said that they would be setting a precedent by allowing an 8' ( feet) wide terminal platform. Board of Adiustment Meeting Minutes February 22, 1993 Page 3 The Board discussed how many lots were in the subdivision and that two variances had previously been approved; however, they would prefer to be consistent, the 'other docks being approved with 6' ( feet) wide terminal platforms. Board Member Kirkland moved to approve the application for a 4' ( feet) X 88' ( feet) dock with a terminal platform 6' ( feet) X 20' ( feet). instead of 8' ( feet) X 20' ( feet) as requested. Board Member Schauer seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Kenneth Northamer - For William Kirkland - For Raymond Schauer - For the motion was therefore passed and adopted. B. An application from Powell Marine Const. , as agent for Greg Mericle, owner of Lot 6, Eastwinds Landing Subdivision, 24 Eastwinds Circle, requesting a variance to the terms of the Official Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Tequesta, Ordinance No. 355, as amended, Section XVI, Uniform Waterway Control, Subsection ( B), Dock and Pier. Length, Width and Configuration, Paragraph ( 1), to allow the construction of a 4' X 80' dock with a 8' x 20' terminal platform, in lieu of no dock or pier being constructed which extends waterward from the mean high water line in excess of seventy—five feet ( 751 ), as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Ken Powell ' of Powell Marine Construction, representing Grea Mericle, stated that this is a similar case as the aforementioned, however, in this case, the dock length requested is 80' ( feet) . Board Member Kirkland moved to approve this application with the exception of making the terminal platform 6' ( feet) wide instead of 8' ( feet) . Board Member Schauer seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Kenneth Northamer - For William Kirkland - For Raymond Schauer - For the motion was therefore passed and adopted. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes February 22, 1993 Page 4 V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Tabled from the January 18, 1993 meeting, reconsideration of the application of Richard DeWitt, owner of property located at 11 DeWitt Place, Lot 2, Noit Gedacht Subdivision, requesting a variance to the terms of the Official Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Tequesta, Ordinance No. 355, as amended, Section XVI, Uniform Waterway Control, Subsection ( B), Dock and Pier Length, Width and Configuration, Paragraphs ( 1) & ( 6), to allow the construction of a 3' X 125' dock with a 5' x 28' terminal platform, in lieu of no dock or pier being constructed which extends waterward from the mean high water line in excess of seventy-five feet ( 75' ) and all sections or areas of any dock or pier which intersect at any angle with the main portion of a dock or pier extending from the shoreline, may not exceed a total combined length of twenty feet ( 20' ), as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Northamer remarked that this has been an ongoing case for well over a year and remarks should be kept to a minimum as all arguments for and. against had been heard. Chairman Northamer also stated that a letter had been received from Donald H. Keirn, Planning Manager, Department of Natural Resources, in response to the Board' s request at the last meeting to find out if DNR had given consideration on the reduction of the dock length from 125' ( feet) to 108' ( feet) , and would be included as part of the agenda. Scott Ladd read the aforementioned letter, dated February 16, 1993, a copy of which is attached to these minutes. To summarize: Mr. Keirn states that DNR is unwilling to allow a reduction in the proposed length of the dock in light of the depth at the site. Authorization of a shorter dock is expected to result in the prop—dredging of the submerged land. With regard to the applicants request to reposition the proposed dock to the east 'property line extension, Mr. Keirn' s letter states that his staff had conducted a site inspection of the site and water depths along the alignment of the proposed dock and that the depths are the same as the previous alignment and that he could allow this modification provided they receive the waiver of setback requirements as authorized by the adjacent owner. Chairman Northamer asked Mr. DeWitt if he had signed the affidavit, as he was the owner of the property next door as well . Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes February 22, 1993 Pave 5 Gordon Ripma, representing Richard DeWitt, stated that Mr. DeWitt is willing to sign the affidavit. He also stated that they were requesting that Mr. Dudley ( 32 Shady Lane) sign as well . Mr. Ripma stated that they had a brief meeting with the closest property owners regarding repositioning the dock within the required 25' ( feet) side riparian setback. He stated that they had come to an agreement with these neighbors, as long as they could get the County and the Village to approve it, and that both DNR & DER had approved the new location. Mr. Ripma stated that they would reduce the length of the terminal platform by 5' ( feet) , making it 23' ( feet) which is standard in the code ( 10' on each side of the dock) . He said they would like to take the five feet that they were taking off the terminal platform, which is about 25 square feet, and add it to the width of the dock. This would add about four inches in width to the dock and still maintain it within the 500 square feet allowed by code. Board Member Kirkland agreed that this sounded like a fairly reasonable solution to the problem. Board Member Kirkland moved to approve this application with the conditions set forth earlier; that the Board' s legal counsel draft a document that sets this forth as a single family dock and not applicable to the other lots. He also stated that another reservation be added to the document that no boat lift be put at the end of the dock which would extend it another 10' ( feet) or so. A discussion ensued at this time as to not allowing a boat lift. Chairman Northamer seconded the motion. A discussion ensued and Mr. Charles Gerow, Jr. of 11 Yacht Club Place requested that his letter of objection be entered into the record. ( A copy of Mr. Gerow' s letter is attached to these minutes. ) Board Member Schauer commented that there were a significant amount of people against this variance being granted at ^the last meeting. If there were no objections from the adjacent property owners, he would support the motion. There being no further discussion, the vote on the motion was: Kenneth Northamer — For William Kirkland — For. Raymond Schauer — For the motion was therefore passed and adopted. Board of Adiustment Meeting Minutes February 22, 1993 Page 6 VI. ANY OTHER MATTERS There were no other matters before the Board. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no other matters before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8: 25 P. M. Respectfully submitted, DATE APPROVED: ATTEST: Scott D. Ladd Clerk of the Board • S OP utrq,Qr Lawton Chiles • Governor FLORIDA DEPARTMENTJim Smith o rTabriN W OF NATURAL RESOURCES setr im S of slate Jam : b Butterworth 9�RAL REST 1 QAt n 1 General Vlrgide B.Wetberel RECE•'E�Jtat.Co••Mier Executive Director .SOUTHEAST FIELD OFFICE Tom i r 7400 H s0.FLORIDAGEORGILORIDAA AVENUE February 16 , 1993 C �Tn360'r VEST PALM BEACH, PI. 33405 C E B 18 199�h Undo,. loner of riculture Mr.. Scott Ladd V'lL NGtuE&� tt r TEQ oner Education Building Inspector BLDG. DEPT. Village of Tequesta • Post Office Box 3273 • Tequesta, Florida 33469 Dear .Mr. Ladd: RE : Application No . 501819936 Applicant.: DeWitt, Richard This will advise you that ' my staff has conducted a site inspection of the site and water depths along the alignment of the proposed dock which is shown on the 'enclosed drawing. My staff has advised me that the depths are the same as the previous alignment and that the depths. of the mooring area the same, or three feet deep at mean low water. The dock as shown on the enclosed drawing is a structure that I could allow as a modification to the consent letter issued previously. However, we have not received the waiver of setback requirements as authorized by the adjacent owner; by copy of the letter we are sending Gordon Ripma the form to be signed by his father' s neighbor. We have all discussed .the length of the structure and I can advise you that I am unwilling to allow a reduction in the proposed length of the dock in light of the depth at the site. Authorization of a shorter dock is expected to result in the prop-dredging of. the submerged land. A similar decision. has been made by the DER staff. I am sending a copy of this letter to the .DER staff person responsible for the permit, Ms . Caroline Hanes , and am requesting \ that they issue a modification of the permit and to copy me with their response. The. applicant must also contact the Palm Beach County staff to obtain a modification to their permit . should you have any additional questions , as always, please, feel free to contact me at the letterhead address or at 407/547-5825 . Sincerely, • • 4 • A ,/', ` • .Donald H. Keirn Planning Manager Bureau of Submerged Lands and Preserves Division of State Lands • • cc : Caroline. Hanes-DER Gordon Ripma Administration Beaches and Shores Law Enforcement Marine Resources Recreation and Parks Resource Management State Lands -,,, \\:......... • LEGEND v►: �.:._�� J I - F1.117� •1-•.4' COwc. NONUNBNT 81p4 fl�p�• O - 94•T IRON ROD ; CAP •3335 • - K•.10.T401.1 17001 CAr+ 1533S 0 - aao FM1W.e.,ear.935s _ .d •• 1J...7.a Malts 6 • Plat llvoai.us• 4 • t.or , r3 )401T GEDACHT • • o. • r.PIL N F�sI�VMA4N.. N. OOb,Z ' 2" a. 20D.00' N. W. FORK .vnwv Z� 4 4 - 5igii'.ded6>0 © .� coup. . • ---)-s,r1‹- •s.a t tl-7tl nfl1Yt/IuumMlttapRl1 •. 1'I r .•^%�!![f► / • 10 tI ci IS • tararr 4 l�o' s. - .1' Cewaap tatJG� ..-` t 1l 41 6YM1aLA� �I /I L0O4 I.0 a1� 3• a • �.. Y d * sotYEd •r• ■_ .s...,.�,— ,( k-: , 8. OO „ z� 12 v • 315.004 'G0 eCARW 1� G ew513 ZO' DR^JNIAQE EA38MgNT \\\ . - BSLP 0975 WAIVER OF SETBACK REQUIREMENTS (SETBACK.WAI) TO: Bureau of Submerged Lands & Preserves Division of State Lands Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. , MS 125 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 FROM: Lease No. Lessee: A F' F' = D A V I T STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF Before me this day personally appeared who, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he/she has been advised that Section 18-21.004(3)(d), Florida Administrative Code, states: "All structures and other activities must be set back a minimum of 25 feet from the applicant's riparian rights line. Marginal docks may be set back only 10 feet. There shall be no exceptions to the setbacks unless the applicant's shoreline frontage is less than 65 feet or a sworn affidavit of no objection is obtained from the affected adjacent upland riparian owner, or the proposed structure is a subaqueous utility line." and, as adjacent upland riparian owner to the facility covered under subject sovereign submerged lands lease, has no objection to the structures/activities associated with the subject lease area not meeting the 25 foot setback requirement. (Original signature of person making affidavit) Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of , A.D. , 19 by , who is personally known to me or who has produced as identification or who did (did not) take an oath. My Commission Expires: Notary Public, State of Commission/Serial No: Printed, Typed or Stamped Name 10/01/92 Attachment A, Page 2 . . . ' • , . 11 Yacht Club Place . . ' Tequesta . FL 3469 14 February , 1.99:7: Boarri nf Acijustment Village of TPue.st-a :7457 Tequesta 'Drive . . ' Tequesta, FL 3349 Dear Mr. North. mer & Memhers, • . I.n regard to ,4our letter of the llth re the aPPlication of Ift R. DeWitt : Pleased be advised that I am nPPosed to an9 variance frcim . the existing Ordinanre(s) limiting this structure to a length of 75 Feet. I am also oPPosed to anq varianre fnr a branch structure in ' excess of 2n feet. M4 reasons area. follows: 1 I fear that the aPPlicant seeks to endeavor to circumvent the intended Protections covered Ey,' this restrirted zoning ordinance, in that the ProPosed structure mill berome a marina-t9Pe of thing, with a few, then PerhaPs MAnY small , then PerhaPs larcier, vessels moored adjacent thereto, owned and/or oPerated .bq more than one familY , within what I feel should remain • . sing1.e-fami1.9 residential zone. • Two of aPPlicant-nwne4 adjarent lntc. are ar-Ivertised Publicl..4 for sale, with waterfront access. 2 I have studied nautical charts of thP area, and it aPPears to m0 that the deeP,,,st water, channel or fairwaq of the Loxahatchee _ . River follows the Tequesta :Thoreline within about izslu feet, from a . point South of the west end of Yacht r1ub P1arg, to another Point South of Anchoracie Point in juPiter, West of its junction with the North Fork . I have investigated man9 , if riot all of the docks, actuall9 Piers, in this stretch, and rone aPPear to me to encroach • uPon this fairwaq nnly one aPPears tn me to exceed the ordinated length. BY 1:11XrPPIAitiq the length imPosed bq ordinance, in this case by Almost dnubling that length, and then rnmPnunding that with a branch aPPurtenance of .almost 1/4 the new length, I Fear that this ProPosal will rrPate a hazard to navigation. . 3 Has the aPPlicant advertised his intentions in the Local . Notice To Mariners, Published b9 the , 7th Coast. Guard District, informing the Public of his aPParent intentions, and his infringements uPon ever9one using the River? Will he (or sore other Part9 using his Pier) in future request a restricted sPeed zone, further inhibiting river traffic? 4 If some Persco .tangles (gets Killed or injured) with what ma9 . . Prove t:.o be deemed a hazard, sanctioned bq the Board, Will M9 taxes . go uP? Will the aPPlicant 9karantee M9 reimbursement:7' ( I ait ead9 KNOW that. answer ! ) • . . . . • c-, kind of Fire Protection ' does aPPlicant ProPose? What haPPeris ii:' . (frame?) Pier structure is rendered imPassable due to 411 exPloe.iorl or other calamit...,4 INSHORE of an occuPied vessel at its outer extremit9? How man9 hose-lenths is it to the nearest Vilia9e . FirePlug'? How lnrici would it take a fire-boat to resPond? 6 Nothing is said in qour letter ce the ProPosed HEIGHT of this structure . nor of its' construction f -ie. Is it to be a Pile trestle, wood, steel . concrete, old barges, or PerhaPs a sPari from ar1 oId railroad bridge? 7 Is the ProPosed structure to be built. Parallel to the shore. PerPevIdiculr to it, or at an angle between the two? 8 Who will maintain this structure, esPeciall9 if it becomes a joint.. venture? 9 Will this Pier be lighted? I would not want to walk down a :/. --fgot-wile piD-: g...p4bt.,. 0i4ill A...ihve haf...12rilstief.rgiall!“,Asec 19 ac 4aLelit . ....,..i1J.H .,..... - , )use weuruON W111( IJIAJ W1 , le:=A- lki It-, shine into? ( I lived next to a tennis court at one time. . . . ) WilT the vessels (assumed) moored at the end be- lighted since the!J will interfere with navigatioTO Will these lights be ProPerhi shielded, as required [y1 law? 10 It aPPears to be an ar9ument in this case that a State Acienry has "required" this excessive length of structure, in order to obtain its aPProval „ It variarice from the Local Ordinance be "required" bq said A9P-nr9 ., in order to build this structure, then it is time to STAND FAST against the ageric9 , much as States have h.-7?ld their rights, sorAetimes beiwzi mor.e restrictive than Federal statute. Otherwise ANYONE in Tequesta will have the riciht to exceed the ordinance, and rightiq so ! • ResPectfully submitted, • • CaPtain (Marie.; F. nerow, Jr. . . . • . -