Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 6A_12/12/1996 / • VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA Villa; IL A , elk• DEPARTMENT OF COMMUN IY DEVELOPMENT ' ; Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Te uesta Drive`s '�\ ` 1 Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273•(407)575-6220 NC '1-; �:\ ` Fax: (407)575-6239 ; cc tllag BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING MEETING MINUTES JUNE 17, 1996 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Village of Tequesta Board of Adjustment held a regularly scheduled Public Hearing at the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Monday, June 17, 1996. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Raymond Schauer. A roll call was taken by Betty Laur, the Recording Secretary. Boardmembers present were: Chairman Raymond Schauer, Vice Chair Alec Cameron, Donna McDonald, Gilbert Finesilver. Also in attendance were Scott D. Ladd, Clerk of the Board, and Village Attorney John C. Randolph. Boardmembers Betty Coyle, Susan Brennan, and Wayne Shindoll were absent from the meeting. • II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chairman Cameron moved that the Agenda be approved as submitted. Boardmember Finesilver seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Raymond Schauer - for Alec Cameron - for Donna McDonald - for Gilbert Finesilver - for The motion was. therefore passed and adopted and the Agenda was approved as submitted. Recycled Paper BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES JUNE 17, 1996 PAGE 2 III. Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes 1. Meeting of April 15, 1996 Vice Chairman Cameron moved that the Minutes be approved as, submitted. Boardmember McDonald seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Raymond Schauer - for Alec Cameron - for Donna McDonald - for Gilbert Finesilver - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the Minutes were approved as submitted. IV. Presentation by the Village Attorney relative to proper procedures at a Quasi-Judicial Hearing Village Attorney Randolph explained that at a Quasi-Judicial Hearing the Boardmembers were sitting as a Court. In order to determine whether a hearing was Quasi-Judicial, Village Codes would be examined to see if certain criteria needed to be applied. The Board would apply Code criteria to make a determination whether those criteria had or had not been met in determining whether to grant the requested variance. Criteria in the Village Code regarding variances related to whether a hardship existed, whether the hardship was of the applicant' s own making, whether it was the minimum variance which could be granted for the reasonable use of the property, etc. When sitting as a Court, the Board would apply scan of the same principals that a Court would apply. Formal rules of evidence would not have to be followed; however, due process to the applicant must be followed, i.e. , allowing an opportunity for cross examination which would be an opportunity for questions to be asked of and by the applicant and by the Board. A swearing-in of witnesses A I BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES JUNE 17, 1996 PAGE 3 was not necessary, however, was recommended in order for everyone to realize the formality of a Quasi-Judicial Hearing. When a ruling was made, findings should be a part of the ruling, because review of the Board's ruling would be by an Appellate Court who would look at the transcript of the Hearing and make a determination as to whether or not there was competent substantial evidence to support the ruling. They would need to look at the Board' s findings used in the decision whether or not to grant the variance. Village Attorney Randolph explained that ex-parte communications (communications which a Boardmember may have had with an applicant or someone else prior to coming to the Public Hearing) formerly were not permitted. Attorney Randolph compared this situation with that in a Court, and explained that he could not go to the Judge outside the hearing to try to lobby the judge without the presence of the other attorney. In the same way, case law formerly stated that it was inappropriate for the applicant or anyone opposed to an application to come to a Boardmember before a Hearing to try to lobby that Boardmember, because in sitting as judges the Boardmembers must not have any preconceived opinions as to how a particular application would be treated. The case law changed because of complaints that Municipal Boards could not be receptive to their electorate when Boardmembers could not talk to them. Legislation now allowed ex-parte communications, however, they must be disclosed at the Public Hearing so that the applicant and everyone else with an interest would know what the ex-parte communications were. Attorney Randolph advised that each Boardmember should announce whether they had had any ex- parte communications. The announcement would include a statement of with whom the communication was held and the subject matter discussed, and a statement that the ex-parte communication had not caused a decision to be made in regard to the application prior to this Public Hearing, and that any decision would be based solely on what was heard at the Public Hearing. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES JUNE 17 , 1996 PAGE 4 Chairman Schauer questioned when disclosure should take place. Attorney Randolph advised that items B) and C) on the agenda should be reversed in order to hear disclosure before testimony and cross examination of witnesses. Chairman Schauer questioned the findings of fact based upon competent and substantial evidence. Attorney Randolph explained that after testimony had been heard, for example in a situation where a piece of property was triangular in shape when all others were rectangles, a motion would be made stating: I make a motion to approve the variance based upon the fact that a hardship has been demonstrated because of the unique nature and configuration of the property as demonstrated by the applicant here this evening. This would help the reviewing Board in determining the basis for the finding and also would keep the Board more honest by making them think about the reasons for granting a hardship rather than granting it based on emotion. The same would hold true if the motion were to deny the applicant' s request, for example: I make a motion to deny because I do not believe that the applicant has carried the burden of showing a hardship in regard to the application. V. NEW BUSINESS Clerk of the Board Scott D. Ladd read aloud the following: An application from Florida Trend Dev. Corp., owner of the properties located at 52 & 48 Coconut Lane, Lots 12 a 13, Coconut Cove Subdivision, requesting variances 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) (a) , (3) , (6) and (7) , to allow the construction of a 372' long by 4' wide dock access walkway (of which approximately 240 linear feet of the proposed walkway will be constructed through an existing mangrove fringe) and a 50' long by 6' wide terminal platform, totaling 1,788 square feet, located on the shared property line of Lot 12 and 13, in lieu of no dock or pier being constructed which extends waterward from 1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES JUNE 17, 1996 PAGE 5 the mean high water line in excess of seventy-five (75) feet, no dock or pier which intersects at any angle with the main portion of a dock or pier exceeding a total combined length of twenty (20) feet, the total area of all docks and piers located on any riparian parcel not exceeding find hundred (500) square feet for each one hundred (100) linear feet of that parcel shoreline, and no dock or pier being located less than twenty-five (25) feet from the waterward extension of the property line of any adjoining riparian property owner, as required by the Code. A) Swearing-In of Witnesses, if Required Clerk of the Board Scott D. Ladd conducted the swearing- in of all persons who intended to speak at this Hearing, which in this case was only the applicant, Mr. Gordon Ripma. 8) Disclosure of x-Parte Communications Bach Boardmember announced they had had no ex-parte communications. C) Testimony of Witnesses and Cross Examination, If Any Gordon Ripma explained that the application was for one pier going out 240 feet through a Mangrove fringe and • extending a total of 372 feet, ending in a "T"with a dock and a boat lift at each end of the "T". Mr. Ripma drew a sketch of the proposed layout and explained the footage allowed under the Code. Mr. Ripma explained that State and Environmentalists had encouraged minimum impact on the seagrass beds and mangrove fringe by erecting a shared single pier between lots 12 and 13 rather than two separate piers, one for each lot. The requested pier length was necessary to meet the State requirement to . reach a level of 3 feet of water at mean low tide in order to moor a vessel. One leg of the "T" was offset to avoid certain seagrass beds. Mr. Ripma explained that permits had been obtained from the Submerged Lands & n BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES JUNE 17, 1996 PAGE 6 Environmental Resources Program, D.E.R. & E.R.M, Department of the, Army Corp. Of Engineers, and that Waterway Village had provided a letter of no objection, although they had been misinformed as to the location and believed that it would extend past the channel marker, which it would not, and had also requested lighting or reflectors. Mr. Ripma explained that the Army Corp. Of Engineers required a Coast Guard approved light on the end, eight reflectors on any part of the dock facing waterward, and the posting of manatee signs, to which the applicant had agreed. Mr. Ripma commented that the actual pier extension through water was 131 feet, and would not impede the waterway. Clerk of the Board Ladd verified that Waterway Village had been notified of this Hearing and had sent a letter, from which he read as follows: Dear Mr. Ladd: Waterway Village does not intend to appeal the dock construction application of the Florida Trend Development Corporation; however, we do have a concern that the boating safety issue be addressed and have so advised the Department of the Army Corp. Of Engineers. Please see attached letter. (Signed) Donald L. Witt, President, Waterway Village Homeowners Association. Attached to the letter was a copy of their letter to the Department of the Army Corp. Of Engineers. Boardmember McDonald questioned whether other docks of the proposed length existed in that area, to which Mr. Ripma responded there were none but north of the area there were many docks which exceeded the proposed length of this dock. Boardmember Finesilver questioned whether any other docks extended through mangroves. Mr. Ripma explained that during the 1950's when it was still legal to remove mangroves, mangroves had been removed and seawalls constructed so this would be the only dock extending through mangroves in this particular location; however, others did exist such as at Key West Village which did have a dock which extended through mangroves. Chairman Schauer questioned the 50-foot length of the "T", which Mr. Ripma explained was necessary to provide room for two boats coming in to dock. Chairman Schauer commented the Code allowed 20 feet plus the width, in BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES JUNE 17, 1996 PAGE 7 this case 4 feet, so doubling that length in order to accommodate a "T" would give a length of 44 feet, not the 50 feet requested. Mr. Ripma commented that this project would work at a 44-foot "T" length. Chairman Schauer questioned if this variance were approved how it would apply to each of the two lots. Attorney Randolph explained that Mr. Ripma was currently the owner of both lots and therefore could- make the application for both; however, an agreement should be recorded which would run with the land and which would recite the approval of the Village and the limitations imposed by the Village. Mr. Ripma commented that cross-riparian right agreements had already been signed on each lot which allowed the 25-foot setbacks to be ignored, and the applicant would desire to also sign an agreement stating this dock was only for lots 12 and 13 to be used by those lot owners in perpetuity. Chairman Schauer questioned whether language should be included to specifically prohibit either lot owner from building another dock. Attorney Randolph advised that could be made a condition of approval. Clerk of the Board Ladd requested that language also be included regarding maintenance and repair to avoid future Code Enforcement issues. Attorney Randolph stated that either one of the property owners would be responsible for the entire maintenance so that the Village could look at either one for all of the maintenance. Clerk of the Board Ladd pointed out that the seagrass survey helped show why the "T" was skewed to the left because the seagrass ran at an angle to the north out in the water. Vice Chairman Cameron made a motion to approve this application subject to the following conditions: . that the . width of the "T" would be 44 feet; that there would be a document in favor of the Village in recordable form which recites the conditions of approval of this agreement; that there would be a condition that there be no other docks built on either Lot 12 or Lot 13; and that there would be a maintenance agreement which would provide that each property owner of Lot 12 and Lot 13 shall be responsible for 100% of the maintenance of the dock. This variance shall be granted because of, a hardship as set forth in Tequesta's ordinance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES JUNE 17, 1996 PAGE 8 Boardmember McDonald seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Raymond Schauer • - for Alec Cameron - for Donna McDonald - for • Gilbert Finesilver - for • The motion was therefore passed and adopted • VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Vice Chairman Cameron questioned the status of a letter generated by a Boardmember which he commented had been sent to the Village Council some time ago, however, it had never been received by Councilmember Meder. Chairman Schauer explained that there had been miscommunication regarding the letter, which had been sent to Boardmembers for comments and had not been sent to the Village Council pending receipt of those comments. Clerk of the Board Ladd explained that the Boardmember who had written the letter was still waiting for comments from the Board. Attorney Randolph mentioned that the Sunshine Law, which basically prohibited two• or more members of the Board meeting in regard to official business outside of a meeting, would also include telephone calls or letters to each other regarding any matter which might come before the Board. Chairman Schauer explained that the Board had. had an issue they wanted to present to the City Council and questioned whether the letter should be drafted at a meeting. Attorney Randolph responded that the letter could be drafted by a Boardmember outside a meeting but should be brought to a meeting for any feedback from other Boardmembers. For the benefit of new Boardmembers, Chairman Schauer explained that the Village Council had basically felt the Board of Adjustment was no longer needed and they • could take on the duties of the Board. This had raised concerns by the Boardmembers regarding not being consulted or informed by the Village Council as to their thinking. Subsequently, the Village Council had limited the Board of Adjustment' s responsibilities regarding zoning issues to residential, and had taken on commercial zoning issues themselves. Boardmember Finesilver commented if the Village BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES JUNE 17, 1996 PAGE 9 • Council had already voted on this, that it was no longer an issue. Mr. Ladd explained that approximately 70% of all variance applications were residential, which the Board of Adjustment would still handle. Boardmember McDonald explained that she had applied for a position on this Board because of her commercial background, which she had expected to utilize, and- that residential zoning would be a learning experience. Boardmember Finesilver questioned the Village Council' s reasoning behind their action, to which Clerk of ' the Board Ladd responded that many times during Site Plan reviews the Village Council had had to deal with variances which had been granted by the Board of Adjustment and could not be changed by the Village Council, which sometimes caused problems during Site Plan reviews when the whole picture could be seen. Vice Chairman Cameron commented that the Village Council had also been interested in shortening the review process for commercial applicants. Boardmember McDonald asked how many members were on the Board of Adjustment, to which Mr. Ladd responded there were five members and two alternates. Boardmember McDonald questioned how the other Boardmembers felt regarding this issue. Mr. Ladd explained that Susan Brennan had felt strongly enough about the issue to propose the letter, and that the main thing had been that the Board knew nothing about it and had heard about it after it had been acted upon, and had not been a part of the process, which was very upsetting. The letter had been intended to ask how and why this had come about and how the Board could serve the Village better. Chairman Schauer commented that both Boardmember Brennan and Boardmember Betty Coyle had been very upset. In response to Boardmember McDonald' s question whether the letter would be continued, Attorney Randolph explained that the issue was moot unless the Board wished to make a motion to ask the Village Council to reverse their action. Michael R. Meder, Village Councilmember, who was present in the audience, questioned whether it would be appropriate for the Village Council to have a joint meeting with the Board of Adjustment such as that held jointly with the Community Appearance . Board if the Village Council reversed their action and gave back all of the former powers of the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Meder suggested that better decisions might result from joint hearings. Mr. Ladd explained that the Community Appearance Board decisions could be appealed BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES JUNE 17, 1996 PAGE 10 to the Village Council, however, that was not the case with decisions made by the Board of Adjustment. Attorney Randolph advised that joint meetings could be held, however, there was the downside just mentioned by Mr. Ladd. Mr. Ladd stated that advertising requirements were different for Board of Adjustment hearings, and that if a variance was required then two public hearings and four advisory boards could be involved at one meeting. Mr. Ladd commented he was not stating that was a problem, since the accelerated process had been designed to try to get applications through the process at one meeting. Mr. Ladd commented that only one notice to property owners within 300 feet would serve to cover both Special Exception hearings and ,Board of Adjustment hearings, which would provide some economy. Wade Griest commented that he represented a group of people who had questioned why Board of Adjustment decisions could not be reversed by the Village Council, but must be appealed through the Court. Mr. Griest stated that the Board of Adjustment should realize the importance of their decisions. Attorney Randolph explained that municipalities either had a Council which heard variances which were directly appealable to the Court, or a Board of Adjustment which heard variances which were directly appealable to the Court. Attorney Randolph advised that he knew of circumstances where the Board of Adjustment was simply an advisory Board and made recommendations to the Village Council, although that was an unusual situation. Mr. Griest reported many people had been unhappy with decisions made by the Board of Adjustment, however, they were in. a very tough spot, as was the Community Appearance Board. Attorney Randolph commented that would also happen if decisions were made by the Village Council, and that was why specific criteria in the Ordinance must be followed in making decisions. Chairman Schauer commented that the whole situation may have started with lack of communication between the Board of Adjustment and the Village Council, and that the Council's vision for the Village did not always match the Board' s criteria. Chairman Schauer stated that he personally did not have a problem with the Village Council handling commercial zoning variances. Chairman Schauer recommended this issue be closed unless any Boardmember wished to make a motion to reopen the matter. i BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES JUNE 17, 1996 PAGE 11 VII. COMMUNICATION FROM CITIZENS There were no further communications from citizens . VIII. ADJOURNMENT Boardmember Cameron moved that the meeting be adjourned. Boardmember McDonald seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Raymond Schauer - for Alec Cameron - for . Donna McDonald - for Gilbert Fineailver - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the meeting was adjourned at 8:27 P.M. Respectfully submitted, '412:TA Betty our Recording Secretary ATTEST: )1c4- o. Xacici . Scott D. Ladd Clerk of the Board DATE APPROVED: //-i ?-%