Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 7A_5/9/1996 .0i 1f • • VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT o Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Te uesta Drive T-'h ���t Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273•(407)575-6220 �� ► BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 22, 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, January 22, 1996 . The meeting was called to order at 7 : 30 P.M. by Acting Chairman Raymond Schauer. A roll call was taken by Betty Laur, the Recording Secretary. Boardmembers present were: Acting Chairman Raymond Schauer, Susan Brennan, Betty Coyle, and Alec Cameron. Also in attendance was Scott D. Ladd, Clerk of the Board. Attorney Clay Brooker, sitting in for Village Attorney John C. Randolph, arrived at 7:38 P.M. Boardmember Wayne Shindoll was absent from the meeting. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. Boardmember Cameron moved that the Agenda be approved as amended by the addition under Any Other Matters of remarks by Boardmember Betty Coyle. Boardmember Brennan seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Raymond Schauer - for Susan Brennan - for Alec Cameron - for Betty' Coyle - for Recycled Paper Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes January 22, 1996 Page 2 The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the Agenda was approved as amended. III . REORGANIZATION OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 1. Appointment of Chairman 2 . Appointment of Vice Chairman 3 . Appointment of Clerk of the Board Boardmember Brennan made a motion to postpone reorganization of the Board of Adjustment to the next meeting since all Boardmembers were not present. Motion was seconded by Boardmember Cameron. The vote on the motion was: Raymond Schauer - for Susan Brennan - for Alec Cameron - for Betty Coyle - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. IV. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES (Meeting Minutes of September 18, 1995) Boardmember Brennan moved that the Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes of September 18, 1995 be approved as submitted. Boardmember Coyle seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Raymond Schauer - for Susan Brennan - for Alec Cameron - for Betty Coyle - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the Minutes Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes January 22, 1996 Page 3 were approved as submitted. V. NEW BUSINESS 1. An application from Jackson D. King, owner of the property located at 135 Point Circle, Lot 37, Tequesta 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, Paragraph (1) , to allow the construction of a 4 ' wide by 94 ' long dock access with a 6' wide by 20' long 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 (75) feet, as required by the Code. Attorney Michael Tamara from the law firm of Carlton Fields, stated that he represented new village residents Jackson King and Catherine Ford King, who had closed on this property the previous week and who were present at the meeting. Also in attendance was Gene Wehage of Dolphin Marine Construction, who had submitted the application and prepared the design for this dock. Attorney Tamara explained that there was a neighbor with concerns which the applicant was trying to address. Attorney Tamara explained that the 94' length of the proposed dock was determined by the place where 3 feet of water depth was reached as required by Palm Beach County Code. Graphic exhibits were presented to the Board to orient them as to land configuration and location of neighboring properties. Exhibit A was a survey, Exhibit B was the Palm Beach County permit, and State and Federal approvals. Exhibit C was a list of previous similar actions by the Board of Adjustment, which Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes January 22, 1996 Page 4 Attorney Tamara explained were presented as evidence that this request was reasonable. Attorney Tamara explained that Mr. Perry, owner of the adjacent property, had raised the following issues : (1) Mr. Perry had questioned whether the 94 ' dock length had been measured properly. Attorney Tamara explained that the applicant believed the measurement should be from the mean high water line and believed that was in accordance with the Village Code. (2) Mr . Perry had raised the issue of riparian rights in existence between the various property owners within that area of the river. Attorney Tamara explained that the general rule of riparian rights was to run perpendicular to the thread of the stream of the channel, which in this case was essentially due north. Attorney Tamara stated he believed the orientation determined by Mr. Wehage was reasonable and was consistent with the docks that were constructed and with the previous actions of the Village. Attorney Tamara explained that no property rights had been conveyed by the County, the State of Florida, or the Core of Engineers with respect to riparian rights by granting permits; but that the orientation was a matter of property law, and if it was not correct then Mr. Perry had a course of action in the Courts . Attorney. Tamara stated that the applicant would not build the dock even with all approvals in place including the requested variance, until he was. fairly certain that the alignment was defensible or had obtained Mr. Perry' s concurrence. 3 . Mr. Perry had also questioned setbacks. Attorney r J Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes January 22, 1996 Page 5 Tamara explained that there had been disagreement about how wide the property actually was because of the unusual shoreline. Attorney Tamara commented that compliance with the village Code was achieved if the dock was equidistant from the property lines as they intersect the mean high water line. The shoreline frontage was estimated at 68 feet and only 60 feet had been used on the application in order to be conservative. Attorney Tamara explained that no matter how the orientation was ultimately determined to be that the dock would always be equidistant. Attorney Tamara stated that the applicant had tried to be reasonable and did not believe that by granting the variance request the Board would be creating any rights which did not already exist. Clerk of the Board Scott D. Ladd read into the record a letter received by the Village to the attention of Mr. Ladd from Mr. Perry: Dear Mr. Ladd: I am the new owner of 131 Point Circle. Only today I received a copy of your letter dated January 8, 1996, regarding a variance for a very long dock located at 135 Point Circle. Before I purchased my property the previous owner of 131 Point Circle, Dr. Francis P. Maraist, sent a letter to Mr. Ronald C. Medina, South Permit Section of the Department of the Army, with a copy to DERM stating his formal objections to the dock as proposed. The plans for this dock which I saw in November were inaccurate, did not match to survey data, and did not have the correct setback from riparian rights line as required by Florida Administrative Code. Please send me by return fax a complete copy of the drawings for the subject so that I may review them before the scheduled hearing. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes January 22, 1996 Page 6 Sincerely, Henry A. Perry Mr. Perry addressed the Board and explained that his position was that the dock would be right in front of their dining room, therefore it was important for them to really understand the facts in the case. Mr. Perry commented regarding the permit obtained from DEP that there were certain exemptions created for properties with only 60 feet of frontage in order to be able to put in a dock. Since this property shoreline was 68 feet, Mr. Perry stated he was unsure why DEP had issued a permit since it did not fit within their own regulations. Mr. John Newman, Octopus Marine Services, explained that the State law required that if the shoreline was over 65 feet it fell into different setback requirements of at least 25 feet for any activity, i.e. , boat lift, dock, etc. Mr. Newman stated the application had shown the property to have 60 feet of shoreline, with the legal description of lot 37, which was incorrect, since the property owned by Mt. King was lot 37 and roughly an additional 25-foot section of lot 36 . Mr. Newman pointed out that Tequesta' s plat showed frontage of 95 feet, same of which had been filled in, for which DEP claimed State ownership; and reported a conversation with the DEP enforcement officer who had indicated that the DEP permit probably had been issued in error and should be reviewed. Mr. Newman stated that the enforcement officer would be getting in touch with Clerk of the Board Scott Ladd. Mr. Newman addressed riparian rights lines, and referred to NOAH maps to point out the location. Mr. Newman stated that the submitted survey was not clear as to where mean high tide was and did not show riparian rights lines. Mr. Newman stated that state law required adjacent property owners to give written consent for any penetration of riparian rights lines within a 25-foot boundary when the shoreline exceeded 65 feet, and that the written consent must accompany the application, which Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes January 22, 1996 Page 7 had not been done. Mr. Newman explained that DEP had aerial photos taken each year and that it was questionable how the shoreline had become filled in. Boardmember Cameron questioned the direction of the channel since it was not marked in that area. Mr. Newman explained that the information had come from the NOAH chart . Boardmember Coyle questioned whether this area had been under water during the tremendous October rains, to which Mr. Newman responded that it had been under water. Mr. Perry stated that the reason he was objecting at this point was to get the facts better established so that he could understand what he was dealing with, and that the dock as proposed would effectively block off any northern view from his house especially if a boat of any size were docked there. Mr. Perry requested more time in order to sit down with Mr. Jackson and work out their differences, if possible, and to determine the true facts. Mr. Perry stated he was a boat owner and had no objection to docks but in this case it would encroach so badly upon his view that he felt it very important to have enough time to ascertain all of the facts. Attorney Tamara responded to issues raised by Mr. Newman that the applicant had not tried to deceive the State, but had tried to be conservative, and questioned the importance to the Village since the applicant would comply with Village requirements. In regard to the question of riparian rights orientation, Attorney Tamara stated that the dock would not be built until either it had been determined by appropriate experts that the orientation was correct or agreement had been reached with Mr. Perry. In regard to the location of the mean high water line, Attorney Tamara explained that the 94- foot length was necessary to reach a 3-foot depth, and if the filled in area had occurred naturally then mean high • water line came to that point; if it had been artificially filled the State would claim ownership. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes January 22, 1996 Page 8 Attorney Tamara requested a variance from the Village Code similar to others granted in the past. Mt. Perry commented that the survey showed the apparent mean high water line, and if that apparent line could move 50 or 60 feet, then it had a definite impact upon his view. Mr. Perry stated that he felt it would be appropriate to have such issues resolved before the village was asked to make a decision for a variance. Fred Riley, 139 Point Circle, stated that he was the neighbor to the north and that the dock would also block his view. Mr. Riley stated that he would like the extra length requested for the dock since large objects such as a boat and boat lift would be placed at the end of the dock and the farther away they were the smaller they would appear and would block less of the view. Mr. Riley stated the filled in area had been determined to be normal accretion when he had purchased his home, that even though dock was 100 feet in length there were times when there was not sufficient depth for him to take his boat out, and that engineers had determined that the channel was filling in a little. Discussion by the Board ensued. Boardmember Brennan commented that it seemed the cart had been placed before the horse since several issues needed to be resolved before action was taken by the Board. Attorney Tamara stated this was the end of the process since all other permits had been granted. . Chairman Schauer agreed with Boardmember Brennan that the Board was not qualified to make a determination on property law, and stated that in the majority of cases in which other dock variances had been granted those had been situations where the Board had acted as referee between the applicant and adjacent property owners and the preference of the Board was for the property owners to come to agreement with something they could live with and have that come before the Board. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes January 22, 1996 Page 9 It was the consensus of the Board to continue this matter to allow the parties to come to agreement . Clerk of the Board Scott D. Ladd assured Mr. Perry that another time extension could be granted if necessary, and agreed to a meeting as suggested by Attorney Tamara if one was requested. Boardmember Brennan made a motion to continue this request to a time certain of March 18, 1996 at 7:30 P.M. at the Village Hall. Boardmember Cameron seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Raymond Schauer - for Susan Brennan - for Alec Cameron - for Betty Coyle - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. VI . COMMUNICATION FROM CITIZENS Wade Griest, Dover Road, referred to the actions of the Board at their August 11, 1995 meeting in regard to a request made by Tequesta Country Club for variances to allow construction of a second tennis court, and explained that this matter had subsequently been approved at a joint meeting of the Village Council and the Community Appearance Board on January 18, 1996 . Mr. Griest questioned how the village Council could override a decision made by the Board of Adjustment . Clerk of the Board Ladd explained that the Village ordinance had been changed recently, so that the Board of Adjustment was no longer required to review the proposal as made by Tequesta Country Club. VII. ANY OTHER MATTERS Boardmember Coyle pointed out that several months ago the Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes January 22, 1996 Page 10 Village Council had reduced the scope of consideration of variances by the Board of Adjustment to residential variance requests, and stated that she had hoped to be involved in commercial variances which really affected the Village. Boardmember Coyle stated that she felt the Board had been emasculated and was now very ineffective as to the scope of their duties; that the Boardmembers had volunteered to serve, and that she thought the Village Council had taken away the opportunities for them to do something positive for the Village. Boardmember Coyle stated she was very distressed over this matter. Boardmember Brennan stated she believed the Board of Adjustment had a very important part to play in the Village in regard to zoning matters, and that she agreed with Boardmember Coyle that the Board had been emasculated by the Village Council and believed the Council should reconsider their action. Boardmember Brennan stated that the Board was made up of volunteers with no secret agendas who were here strictly for the good of the Village and its people, and that it was very dangerous that so much power lay in the hands of so few- -the five members of the Village Council who represented approximately 4700 villagers. Boardmember Brennan stated she felt the issues now being decided by the Board were insignificant and that she saw no reason for the Board to exist under these circumstances, since there had not been a meeting since September, 1995. Boardmember Brennan cemented that if the Boardmembers were unanimous in feeling the same way that she believed it would behoove the Board to request that this issue be readdressed. Clerk of the Board Scott Ladd commented that the Board would still see more variances than the Village Council would, since residential requests historically outweighed commercial requests. Mr. Ladd also commented that there was a big difference between a Board of Adjustment and a Planning and zoning Commission, such as existed in most other communities, which reviewed all development. Boardmember Brennan suggested that the Village should consider such a Commission since in her opinion this area was growing Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes January 22, 1996 Page 11 rapidly and dangerously, and the Village should begin acting in accordance with their location which was now in the thick of urban areas, instead of like a small community twenty miles away from the City of West Palm Beach. Boardmember Coyle commented on people she knew moving to Tequesta from Miami . Boardmember Brennan suggested the Board meet with the Village Council to discuss these issues which she felt were important . Boardmember Cameron stated that he believed the commercial development just down the road would be very key to the future of the village, about which he was also concerned, and suggested that since the Board felt so strongly that the village Council should be asked to review their position. Boardmember Brennan suggested that a' letter be drafted to the Council expressing these concerns . Clerk of the Board Ladd agreed that dialog should take place in order to establish a better comfort level for the Board, and suggested that a letter could be addressed to Village Manager Bradford stating the Board' s concerns and requesting a workshop with the Village Council to discuss these issues so that there would be feedback, and that the Board might want to suggest establishment of a Planning and Zoning Commission. After further discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that Boardmember Brennan would draft a letter and send it to each Boardmember for review and comment, and the Boardmembers would submit their revised copies to Chairman Schauer who would consolidate the revisions into a final draft which would be sent to each Boardmember for concurrence before submitting it to the Village Manager. The Board discussed points which might be included in the letter as growth of the village, the danger of putting all decisions into the hands of only five people, the distress of the Board regarding the Village Council ruling to take away consideration of commercial variance requests, and possibly the existence of additional items upon which the 1 Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes January 22, 1996 Page 12 • Board would like to comment and discuss with the Village Council . After ensuing discussion it was decided to make the letter simply a request for an audience with the Village Council to discuss Board concerns. The upcoming election on March 22 for three Village Council seats now held by Mayor Mackail, Vice Mayor Burckart, and Councilmember Capretta was discussed briefly. IX. ADJOURNMENT Boardmember Brennan moved that the meeting be adjourned. Boardmember Coyle seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Raymond Schauer - for Susan Brennan - for Alec Cameron - for Betty Coyle for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the meeting was adjourned at 8:37 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Betty Laur Recording Secretary ATTEST: )deett / Yadi Scott D. Ladd Clerk of the Board DATE APPROVED: