Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 6A_6/12/1997 iiiJ ii VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA AL 11 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �:� Post Office Box 3273. • 357 Tequesta Drive s �� y��o q •,��}} Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273•(407)575-6220 `}�� .;'�` Fax: (407)575-6239 Cy COUM� BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING MEETING MINUTES APRIL 21, 1997 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, April 21, 1997. 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, Susan Brennan, and Gilbert Finesilver. Also in attendance were Scott D. Ladd, Clerk of the Board, and Village Attorney John C. Randolph. Absent from the meeting were Boardmembers Betty Coyle and Wayne Shindoll, as well as Alternate Donna McDonald. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chair Brennan moved that the Agenda be approved as submitted. Boardmember Finesilver seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Raymond Schauer - for Susan Brennan - for Gilbert Finesilver - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the Agenda Recycled Paper 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES APRIL 21, 1997 PAGE 2 was approved as submitted. • III . APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES 1. Meeting of February 24, 1997 Boardmember Brennan made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted for the February 24, 1997 meeting of the Board of Adjustment. Boardmember Finesilver seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Raymond Schauer - for Susan Brennan - for Gilbert Finesilver - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the minutes were approved as submitted. IV. NEW BUSINESS An application from Larry and Carol Wright, owners of the property located at 11 DeWitt Place, Lots 2 and• 3, 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 X, Supplemental Regulations, Subsection (A) , General , Provisions, Paragraph (1) (c) , to allow the construction of an accessory use tennis court surrounded by a four (4) foot high fence along the sides and a ten (10) foot high fence on either end of the court, and located forward of the building front, in lieu of walls and fences may be erected or maintained within or adjacent to a property line to a height not exceeding six (6) feet and no wall or fence shall be permitted to extend forward of the building Front on any lot or parcel. . , as required by the Code. Clerk of the Board Scott D. Ladd announced this agenda item. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FETING MINUTES APRIL 21 , 1997 PAGE 3 Chairman Schauer advised the applicants that since there were only three members of the Board present at the meeting, that did constitute a quorum; however, with only three members available to vote that the vote must be unanimous in favor of the applicants in order for the applicants to be granted their requests. The applicants were therefore given the opportunity to either continue or to delay their hearing to another meeting when more Boardmembers might be present. Chairman Schauer stated in error that the applicants could make the decision to delay the hearing at any time during the proceedings. Discussion ensued, during which Village Attorney Randolph stated that the decision whether to delay must be made at this time, before the hearing started. Village Attorney Randolph explained that if a decision was made to deny the applicants' petition that it could not be re-presented for six months; however, if the hearing was delayed to a time certain the hearing could be held at the next meeting of the Board. Clerk of the Board Ladd estimated that another meeting could be held in two weeks . Mr. Ladd explained that Alec Cameron, who had been Vice Chairman of the Board, had been appointed to serve on the Village Council, and had therefore resigned his position on the Board of Adjustment, which was one reason that so few • Boardmembers were present. After further discussion, Mr. Wright stated that the applicants were prepared to proceed. A) Swearing-In of Witnesses, if Required. Clerk of the Board Ladd conducted the swearing-in of all those present who intended to speak during the hearing. B) Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications. A poll of the Boardmembers indicated that none had ex- parte communications. C) Testimony of Witnesses and Cross Examination, if any. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES APRIL 21 , 1997 PAGE 4 Larry Wright, 11 DeWitt 'Place, explained that he and his wife, Carol, had made application for a variance to construct a tennis court on a lot contiguous to the lot where their home was located. Because of the configuration of the property, a variance had been requested to place the tennis court in front of their home. Mr. Wright explained that there was not room for the tennis court on the same lot as their home, and that the lots would be placed under Unity of Title. Another lot contiguous to the house lot was also owned by Mr. and Mrs. Wright. Mr. Wright explained that another variance was requested to allow a ten-foot fence at either end of the court in order to keep balls inside the court, which would wrap around the sides a distance of ten feet. Mr. Wright submitted photographs of two other properties within the Village where variances had been granted to allow ten-foot high fencing. Mr. Wright explained that owners of abutting properties had written letters testifying that they would not be affected negatively by construction of, the tennis court in the location requested by the applicants . Mr. Wright read aloud the six factors that the Board of Adjustment were required to consider in granting variances under the zoning code. Ross Dudley, 32 Shady Lane, testified that he had no objection. Discussion ensued regarding proper procedure for the hearing. Lois Minor, 28 Shady Lane, next-door neighbor to Mr. Dudley, testified that she did not see any problem and did not fight the tennis court. Mr. Wright explained that he had also obtained letters from very creditable real estate people who had been doing business in Tequesta for many years, which BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES APRIL 21 , 1997 PAGE 5 indicated that in no way would a tennis court impact residential values of nearby properties'. Mr. Wright explained that the application was in compliance with Village code, that evidence had been provided that the Village had approved similar variance requests in the past, that testimony had been heard from immediate neighbors, and that written testimony had been presented regarding property values. Attorney Randolph advised Mr. Wright that this was a quasi-judicial hearing at which the Board was to make a determination based upon criteria in the zoning ordinance and upon competent substantial evidence, and that he would have an opportunity to cross examine witnesses. Ray Royce stated that he was the attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Robert Gibson, 5 Bayview Court, Tequesta, living adjacent and close by where the tennis court was to be placed. Mr. Royce requested copies of the. documents which Mr. Wright had provided to the Board. Mr. Royce presented a graphic exhibit of lots 1, 2, and 3 owned by Mr. and Mrs. Wright, and requested that it be made a part of the record. Mr. Royce questioned Mr. Wright as whether the tennis court could be placed in another location. Mr. Wright testified that the location suggested by Mr. Royce would involve expense since that area contained underground utilities, a well, garage doors, fifteen trees approximately 35 years old which would have to be removed, as well as a driveway. Mr. Royce commented that Mr. Gibson had offered to relocate the trees. Mr. Wright indicated that he had offered not to install the tennis ' court lights which had been included in the application, to accommodate Mr. and Mrs. Gibson. Attorney Royce asked other questions regarding the possibility that night play might be conducted, and questioned whether the sun would be in the faces of the players with the court situated in an east-west configuration. Mr. Wright responded that trees would block the sun. Attorney Royce requested that the packet given out to Boardmembers for this meeting be BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES APRIL 21 , 1997 PAGE 6 made a part of the record. Attorney Royce referred to the six points within the Code which must be considered by the Board. In response to Mr. Royce' s question as to the hardship of this application, Mr. Wright responded that there was no space on lot 2 to put it plus the configuration of the subdivision forced it to be located on lot 3, and if he was unable to build the tennis court it would be a hardship for him since he would not be able to use his property for physical exercise. When Mr. Royce suggested that a house was a reasonable use for this lot rather than a tennis court, Mr. Wright responded that he believed his request to be for a minimum variance, and that the property was zoned for reasonable use and allowed a tennis court. In response to Mr. Royce' s contention that the position of the court so close to Mr. Gibson' s home would be too close, Mr. Wright responded that the Village had set the setback requirements. Mr. Royce referred to letters submitted by Mr. Wright, verified that none of the people who had written lived next to the proposed tennis court, and that none of the realtors who had submitted letters were present at tonight' s hearing. During cross examination of Mr. Dudley by Attorney Royce, Mr. Dudley pointed out on the exhibit where he lived, which was on Shady Lane on the water. Mr. Dudley stated that he had no objection to the tennis court location as proposed by the applicant . Lois Minor testified as to the location of her home across from the cul-de-sac, and stated that she had no objection to the tennis court location as proposed by the applicant. Mr. Gibson testified that he had prepared the exhibit being used, pointed out where he lived, submitted photographs of the rear of his home, and stated that he felt this would be an invasion of his family' s privacy and that they were the closest neighbor to the proposed location for the tennis court. Mr. Gibson suggested other locations on Mr. wright' s property where the tennis court could be placed, and stated that he had offered to pay the expense BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES APRIL 21, 1997 PAGE 7 of relocating trees on Mr. Wright' s property. Mr. Gibson explained that his two children went to bed at 7 P.M. and their bedroom was only 30 to 40 feet from the proposed location. Mr. Gibson indicated that he believed the tennis court would adversely affect his family' s life style and that he believed it would lower the value of his property. Mr. Gibson indicated that he was not against his neighbor having a tennis court, but requested that it be located farther away from his home. Linda Kippenberger, 17 Rio Vista Drive, stated that she had been a real estate salesperson in this area for the past 14 years, and had sold Mr. Gibson his home. Ms. Kippenberger testified to the effect that she believed the tennis court would adversely affect the value of Mr. Gibson' s property, and estimated that his property would be devalued 10% to 20%. Kit Legotto stated that she and her husband owned lot 3, Bayview Court, upon which they intended to build at a later date, and indicated that if they knew for sure the tennis court would devalue their property that they would be against it. • Mr. Wright cross examined Ms. Kippenberger and requested that she provide statistical data to back up her statement that she believed the tennis court would result in devaluing Mr. Gibson' s property by 10% to 25%. . Ms. Kippenberger explained that she had no statistics but that in the process of showing properties in Eastwinds that people did not want the two lots that abutted a parking lot with lighting. Mt. Wright commented that the tennis court would not be lighted. Ms. Kippenberger reported a lack of interest in lots which surrounded the former River Edge tennis court, stated that if she had been requested to provide statistical information she would have done so, stated that she had been asked to provide an opinion, and stated she was not being paid to attend this hearing. Mr. Gibson responded to Mr. Wright BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES APRIL 21, 1997 PAGE 8 that he had no statistical information to back up the devaluation statement . Mr. Gibson asked why the tennis court could not be closer to Mr. Wright' s. home. After ensuing remarks, it was pointed out that this conversation was beyond the scope of cross examination. Applicant Carol Wright stated that she wished to cross examined Mr. Gibson, and asked Mr. Gibson to verify that his two young children played in the pool and were very noisy; and that Mr. Gibson had had a rock and roll band practicing on three occasions, and that the police had been called by other neighbors because of the noise. Mr. Royce objected that these statements were not relevant to these proceedings. Mrs. Wright expressed her opinion that the question of noise was relevant. Village Attorney Randolph explained that formal rules of evidence were not followed in a quasi-judicial proceeding, but due process was followed and everyone was allowed to be heard. Mr. Gibson commented that the last time he had had a rock and roll band was at his 40th birthday .party. Mrs . Legotto stated for the record that Mr. Wright had stated that Mr. Gibson had come by himself, and stated that she and her husband were present, and that their property and Mr. Gibson' s property were the only two properties affected. Attorney Royce summed up by stating that the application was not within the intent of the code; that there was no hardship in this case; that there were a lot of things • Mr. Wright could do to move the tennis court so that he could request a minimum variance;. that Mr. Wright did not produce a live person to testify regarding property values; that this would cause a hardship for Mr. Gibson; that the Board would set a terrible precedent for people to place tennis courts on vacant lots; and that no offer of landscaping or buffering had been made.. Attorney Royce requested denial of this petition. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES APRIL 21 , 1997 PAGE 9 Mr. Wright summed up that the tennis court would be 65 ' back from the cul-de-sac-de-sac; that he had letters from prominent people that the tennis court would not have a negative impact; that the R-1-A zoning allowed accessory use for tennis courts; that others had been granted the same variance in the past; that he had called Callaway & Price who had declined to make a statement regarding devaluation of properties since they could not back up such a statement; that moving the court would only be done with significantly more cost; that he would be happy to install a hedge and to give up the lights. Mr. Wright asked that he not be treated differently than others had been treated in the past . D) Finding of Fact Based Upon Competent Substantial Evidence. Boardmember Finesilver questioned under what conditions the previous variance was granted for the tennis court on Golfview Drive. Chairman Schauer responded that the Board of Adjustment did not react to previous actions and that each case was to be evaluated on its own merit. Boardmember Finesilver questioned whether precedents did not apply, to which Village Attorney Randolph responded that each application should b e considered on its own and not compared to other situations. Boardmember Finesilver questioned whether lights could be installed by the next owner of the property. The Village Attorney responded that no lighting of the tennis court could be made a deed restriction. Mr. Wright stated that he was willing to do that. Boardmember Brennan commented that as the application now stood she would find it very difficult to approve; that she did not believe it was an undue hardship for the applicant; that she believed a tennis court so close to Mr. Gibson' s property would create an undue hardship for him; that there was leeway for compromise by keeping the same orientation but moving the court closer to Mr. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES APRIL 21 , 1997 PAGE 10 Wright' s house; that she would like to see written provisions regarding lighting placed in a deed restriction; that the applicant should work with Mr. Gibson, who had offered to help with expenses; and that it was her opinion that these items must be worked out before a variance could be granted. Mr. Wright stated that he was withdrawing the application as submitted. Village Attorney Randolph stated that nothing in the code addressed withdrawal, and the Board had already conducted a full hearing. Attorney Randolph explained that the applicant had decided to proceed with his presentation at the beginning of the meeting. Attorney Randolph explained that the problem with withdrawing after going through the process was if withdrawn without prejudice that would allow the applicant to come back with the same application in a month, and the Board could not be expected to go through the same thing again. Attorney Randolph explained that one Boardmember would have no objection to deferring a final decision to allow the applicant to work out details and perhaps come back with an application that perhaps would allow for a minimum variance, and that the applicant had that right. The Village Attorney advised the Boardmembers that if they granted deferral of this application they should give the applicant direction and they should advise the applicant why they could not vote in favor, if they could not. Chairman Schauer stated that he could not support the variance at this time, that evaluation of each application must be done on its own merits, that the Board must follow the six criteria in the code, and that he thought the court could be relocated to result in a minimum variance that would then be required. Village Attorney Randolph explained that the Board' s options were deferral, a motion to approve, or a motion to deny. After ensuing discussion, Mr. Wright indicated that he would live with a deferral with clarification. The Village Attorney advised that the • applicant would need a variance for the tennis court BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES APRIL 21 , 1997 PAGE 11 location in front of the building and if he wanted to, continue the 10' high fence at each end a variance would be needed for that. Village Attorney Randolph stated that although the Board should not indicate tonight how it might vote in the future, if the Board were inclined to only grant a minimum variance, on the condition that the applicant met certain conditions, that was the type of direction needed. Boardmember Brennan made a motion to defer the application upon the condition that the applicant come back with certain changes, one being that he take into consideration moving the position of the tennis court further from the Gibson property to allow less hardship on Mr. Gibson; that no lights be planned; that a deed restriction be applied to the property regarding lights so that lights cannot be added by a new purchaser; that more communication occur between the applicant and Mr. Gibson regarding buffers and hedges that would help minimize noise and visual objections and regarding removal of trees, that the applicant should return with things that are more concrete and not so many things . dangling, and that this application shall be deferred to a time certain of the meeting of the Board of Adjustment on June 16, 1997, at 7 : 30 P.M. Boardmember Finesilver questioned whether the results of the requested communication should be in writing. Discussion of the motion ensued regarding how to give direction and ensure that the next hearing would not result in the same problems. Various suggestions were made. The motion was restated as follows: Boardmember Brennan made a motion to defer this application until a time certain of June 16, 1997 at 7:30 P.M. with 'direction that the applicant reconfigure the tennis court location so that it was in a position less obtrusive to the Gibson and Legotto properties; that an attempt be made to discuss with the neighbors the potential buffering and that there be no lights; that the Board would require a deed BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES APRIL 21, 1997 PAGE 12 restriction that there be no lights. Boardmember Finesilver seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Raymond Schauer - for Susan Brennan - for Gilbert Finesilver - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished to come before the Board. VI. COMMUNICATION FROM CITIZENS Wade Griest, Dover Road, commented that he believed every effort should be made to have a full Board present at the meetings, and that the finding should be yes or no, since in the case of Mr. Wright the Board was proposing what he should do. Mr. Griest stated that the decision of the Board of Adjustment was final and could not be overridden by the Village Council . VII. ANY OTHER MATTERS Chairman Schauer read into the record the letter of resignation from Vice Chairman Alec Cameron, expressed appreciation to Mr. Cameron for his work on the Board, and wished him luck in his new position as a Village Councilmember. Chairman Schauer passed the gavel to Boardmember Brennan. Chairman Schauer made a motion to nominate Boardmember Susan Brennan as Vice Chair. Boardmember Finesilver seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: ' BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES APRIL 21 , 1997 PAGE 13 Raymond Schauer - for Susan Brennan - for Gilbert Finesilver - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Brennan moved that the meeting be adjourned. Boardmember Finesilver seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Raymond Schauer - for Susan Brennan - for Gilbert Finesilver - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the meeting was adjourned at 9: 54 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Betty Laur Recording Secretary ATTEST: NdeRY da4 . 62-60 Scott D. Ladd Clerk of the Board DATE APPROVED: