Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 5A_10/12/1995 -Fi • VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA • " 4113C �j DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . "�� /,' �1� o Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive ^ `\ Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273•(407)575-6220 Fax: (407)575-6239 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 21, 1995 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, August 21, 1995 . The meeting was called to order at 7:33 P.M. by Chairman Kenneth Northamer. A roll call was taken by Betty Laur, the Recording Secretary. Boardmembers present were: Chairman Kenneth Northamer, Vice Chairman Raymond Schauer, Susan Brennan, Edwin Nelson, and Wayne Shindoll. Also in attendance were Joanne McCabe sitting in for Scott D. Ladd, Clerk of the Board, and Village Attorney John C. Randolph. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Nelson -moved -that- the Agenda . be approved as submitted. Vice Chairman Schauer seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Susan Brennan - for Edwin Nelson - for Recycled Paper 4 Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes August 21, 1995 Page 2 Kenneth Northamer - for Raymond Schauer - for Wayne Shindoll - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the Agenda was approved as submitted. III. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES (Meeting Minutes of July 17, 1995) Vice Chairman Schauer moved that the Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes of July 17, 1995 be approved as submitted. Boardmember Nelson seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: . Susan Brennan - for Edwin Nelson - for Kenneth Northamer - for Raymond Schauer - for Wayne Shindoll - for the motion was therefore passed and adopted and the Minutes were approved as submitted. IV. REVIEW AND EXPLANATION BY THE VILLAGE ATTORNEY OF VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA RESOLUTION NO. 29-94/95, REGARDING EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS IN QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTERS AND CERTAIN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS. Village Attorney Randolph explained that this Resolution had Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes August 21, 1995 Page 3 been adopted by the Village Council to take advantage of new legislation allowing ex-parte communications. In the past, the Village Attorney had advised the Board not to speak to people outside their meetings regarding applications ,which came before the Board, since case law existed within the State of Florida whereby by so doing a cause of action might be initiated claiming that the boardmember had been influenced in a decision by ex-parte communication. The Florida legislature had recently adopted legislation which now allowed ex-parte communications if disclosure of the communication was made before any action was taken by the Board on that item. The Boardmember would need to disclose the name of the person talked to, when the conversation took place, the subject matter of the conversation, and the site visited. The Village Attorney advised that this information should be recorded immediately after it took place and then provided to the Village so that it could be announced by the Clerk at the Board meeting prior to any action being taken. The Village Attorney advised that, the Resolution did not mean a boardmember must take advantage of ex-parte communications, but only that they must be disclosed. The final decision was up to the individual boardmember as to whether they have a communication. Village Attorney Randolph recommended that a form be provided by the Village Manager' s office so that Boardmembers could fill in the , blanks. The Village Attorney responded to Vice Chair . Schauer that the reference within the Resolution- allowing --- site visits to receive expert opinions regarding an action did not preclude non-expert opinions. V. NEW BUSINESS Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes August 21, 1995 Page 4 1. An application from Van Brock Construction Company, as agent for the owner of the property located at 513 Cypress Circle, Lot 15, Cypress Ridge Subdivision, requesting a variance to the terms of the Official Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Tequesta, Ordinance No. 355, as amended, Section VII, Schedule of Regulations and Application of Regulations, Subsection (C) , Schedule of Site Requirements, ' R-1 Single-Family Dwelling District, minimum front yard setback, and minimum corner side yard setback, to allow the construction of a single-family home with a front yard setback of 17.5' (feet) , and a corner side yard setback of 16' (feet) in lieu of 20' (feet) from setback, and 20 ' (feet) corner side yard setback, as required by the Code. Gary Van Brock explained that Cypress Ridge was an existing subdivision and that the cul-de-sac infringed on a portion of Lot 15, a condition not caused by the applicant. In order to conform to the Village Code, the size of the proposed house would have to be reduced, which Mr. Van Brock stated would be contrary to the standards of the community and the rights enjoyed by the other property owners. Mr. Van Brock explained that any way the house was positioned on this lot would require a minimum two variances, and the variance requested was a minor variance. Mr. Van Brock explained that this would be the only lot , in the subdivision where this infringement would exist, and the only other solution would be to reduce the size of the house. Vice Chair Schauer commented that the Board had very Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes August 21, 1995 Page 5 strict guidelines as to what constituted a variance, and that he did not see where this applicant had met any of those guidelines. This was a new house in a new subdivision where nothing had changed since the subdivision was laid out, and although he sympathized with the applicant, he saw no basis for a variance and did not believe a variance should be granted. Boardmember Brennan commented that a trend seemed to be placing large houses on small pieces of property without much green space and that she would hate to see the Village slowly creep towards that direction by granting variances of that nature. Mr. Van Brock stated the proposed house was only approximately 2, 000 square feet. Boardmember Brennan stated that she had been making a general comment. Boardmember Nelson stated he had driven by the lot, and did not believe granting this variance would be a deviation from the Board' s objectives. William E. Burckart, 11 Bayview Terrace, stated he was a member of the Village Council and did not have a conflict of interest in regard to this variance, but that he was involved in Cypress Ridge. Mr. Burckart explained that the subdivision was trying to save every tree that could be saved and to provide a ton of green space; and that part of the reason this house was situated on the lot the way it was had been done in order to save some trees on that lot. A large water catchment area behind the lot would allow for a ton of green space. Mr. Burckart explained this was in keeping with what the Village Council was trying to do within the Village so that taxes would not have to continue rising, but property values would be increased. Mr. Burckart commented that the Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes August 21, 1995 Page 6 Village Council had adopted a policy of providing a calming effect on Country Club Drive, and one way of doing that was to move landscaping as close to the roadway as possible which might not be directly allowed by the code but when it was something that would enhance the Village it was very good for the Village. Mr. Burckart stated that taking a position that there was no hardship actually caused a hardship to everyone in the Village because this house would generate additional tax income because of it being built, which would be lost if the house were not built. Mr. Burckart stated he could not imagine how granting this variance could create any problems. After further discussion, Vice Chair Schauer stated he stood by his original comments, and believed there was no basis for a variance. Boardmember Nelson made a motion to approve this application as requested. Chairman Northamer passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Schauer and seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Susan Brennan - against' Edwin Nelson - for Kenneth Northamer - for Raymond Schauer - against Wayne Shindoll - for the motion was therefore passed and adopted. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes August 21, 1995 Page 7 2. An application from Kurt and Nancy Larsen, owners of the property located at 141 Golfview Drive, Lot 354, 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 VII, Schedule of Regulations and Application of Regulations, Subsection (C) , Schedule. of Site Requirements, R-1A Single-Family Dwelling District, minimum rear yard setback, to. allow use of a pool screen enclosure constructed with a rear yard setback of 9.4' (feet) in lieu of 10' (feet) setback for any accessory building or structure, as required by the Code. Acting Clerk of the Board Joanne McCabe reported one letter had been received in regard to this application, which was from a neighbor, Carlton Stoddard, who had no objection. Mr. Larsen explained he had just built a new home with a pool and pool deck, and was the owner-builder. Mr. Larsen pointed out that the rear lot line curved slightly and that he had used the existing concrete block wall along the property line to measure from since he believed it to be on the property line. In fact, he later learned that the 10 ' 2" allowance on the tight corner was really only 9 .4' , so that the screen enclosure was approximately _ the width of a hand into the required setback. • Chairman Northamer commented that the neighbor who built the wall evidently did not know the property line curved. Mr. Larsen explained that the neighbor must have obtained a variance in the past since his screen enclosure was Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes August 21, 1995 Page 8 actually only six feet from the property line. Bill Graff, 140 Golfview, stated he lived directly across the street from Mr. and Mrs. Larsen, and was in favor of granting the variance. Mr. Graff stated he knew of no objections from any other neighbors and that it would be an advantage to have the pool screened. Boardmember Nelson made a motion to approve this application as requested. Boardmember Shindoll seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Susan Brennan - for Edwin Nelson - for Kenneth Northamer - for Raymond Schauer - against Wayne Shindoll - for the motion was therefore, passed and adopted. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Deferred from the July 17, 1995 Board of Adjustment Public Hearing: An application from Tequesta Country Club, owner of the property located at 201 Country Club Drive, including Parcel E, and Lots 176-179 & Lots 483- 485, requesting a variance to the terms of the Official " Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Tequesta, Ordinance No. 355, as amended, Section VII, Schedule of Regulations and Application of Regulations, Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes August 21, 1995 Page 9 Subseciton (C) , Schedule of Site Requirements, Rec./Open Space District, minimum front yard setback, and Section X, Supplemental Regulations, Subsection (A) , General Provisions, Paragraph C, to allow -the construction of two tennis courts with a front yard setback of ten (10) feet, and the installation of a twelve (12) foot high fence around the courts and forward of the building front, in lieu of twenty-five (25) foot front setback, and no wall or fence being erected or maintained within or adjacent to a property line to a height exceeding, six (6) feet and no wall or fence being permitted to extend forward of the building front on any lot or parcel, as required by the Code. Randolph Hansen, President of Interplan, Inc. , representing the petitioner, explained that the options suggested by the Board of Adjustment had been explored, and that it was feasible to reshape the pond, however an engineer had advised that drainage structures would have to be relocated, and Mr. Todd Miller, maintenance supervisor for Tequesta Country Club had indicated that a number of irrigation lines, potable water lines and electrical lines would have to be moved out of the area between the pond and the place the tennis courts would go if the 25-foot setback was to be in place. Mr. Hansen requested that the Board consider the initial request for placement of the tennis courts within ten feet of the property line, because (1) this would work better from the standpoint of the Club' s operation in trying to maintain existing items without the cost of relocation, i . e. , various water and electrical lines and the pond; and (2) at the August 10 Village Council site plan review Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes August 21, 1995 Page 10 of the parking area, the Council had requested relocation of trees from inside the property line along Country Club Drive to the area between the property line and the roadway since they preferred landscaping closer to Country Club Drive. The proposed tennis court plan would move the tennis courts closer and all of the proposed and existing landscaping closer to Country Club Drive which would be consistent with the Village Council' s request. In response to Chairman Northamer' s inquiry what the expense would be to reconfigure the pond and relocate the existing drainage 'structures, water lines, and electrical lines, Mr. Hansen estimated a total of $15, 000 - $20, 000. The cost of the tennis courts would be approximately $33, 000 and moving landscaping was estimated between $5, 000 and $8, 000 . Boardmember Nelson inquired whether landscaping had been proposed which would eliminate noise from the tennis courts for the neighbors across the street. Mr. Hansen commented that even with solid landscaping between the tennis courts and the street that tennis balls could still be heard, however he believed the difference between a 10-foot setback and a 25-foot back would not be significantly different in terms of noise to someone across the street. Mr. Hansen stated that a 12-foot high fence was. necessary for a tennis court, and the area of the proposed courts was 120 feet x 108 feet. After further discussion, Chairman Northamer verified that the applicant would not need a variance if the pond were reconfigured. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes August 21, 1995 Page 11 Boardmember Nelson made a motion to approve this application as submitted with the three variance requests: a 10-foot setback, a 12-foot high fence, and fence placement forward of the building front. Boardmember Shindoll seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Susan Brennan - against Edwin Nelson - for Kenneth Northamer - against Raymond .Schauer - against Wayne Shindoll - for the motion therefore failed. Village Attorney Randolph stated the motion had a negative vote; however, for example, a motion could be made to allow the fence height but deny the rest. Attorney Randolph questioned what would happen if the pond were reconfigured-- whether the applicant would have to return for a variance for the fence height. Mr. Hansen commented that going back to a 25-foot setback would not require a variance to the fence placement but only for the height. Vice Chairman Schauer made a motion to approve a 12-foot high fence in lieu of a minimum of 6 feet and to allow placement of that fence a minimum of 25 feet from the property line in lieu of no fence being constructed forward of the structure on the property. Boardmember Nelson seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Susan Brennan - for Edwin Nelson - for Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes August 21, 1995 Page 12 Kenneth Northamer - for Raymond Schauer - for Wayne Shindoll - for the motion was therefore approved and adopted. Vice Chairman Schauer reported he had spoken with the Village Manager regarding the future of the Board of Adjustment, who advised that his direction from the Village Council was to draft a Resolution which would abolish the Board of Adjustment, basically because the Village Council believed that it needed to control variances. Boardmember Brennan inquired whether the Council had provided any formal communication to this Board and was told nothing had been received. Boardmember Brennan expressed the opinion that this Board should not idly sit by, but should write to the Council asking their intentions. Chairman Northamer commented that this was just a rumor, that nothing was formal at this point. Vice Chair Schauer disagreed, pointing out that the Resolution had been drafted. Village Attorney Randolph commented that one of the items for consideration in a zoning amendment was that consideration be given to incorporating within the zoning ordinance amendment that the Tequesta Council consider variances as opposed to the Board of Adjustment, which would in essence do away with the Board of Adjustment. The Village Attorney advised he did not know whether the Resolution would pass or not and if the Board had feelings in regard to it, it would not be inappropriate for the Board to pass those on. If the Board just wanted to be informed Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes August 21, 1995 Page 13 of what the Village Council was doing, and have that brought back, that could be done first. If the Boardmembers had any strong feelings whether the Board of Adjustment should be abolished or not, it would not hurt anything to give their input to the Village Council. Boardmember Brennan suggested that a letter be drafted to the Village Council stating the consensus of the Board or the opinions of the individual Boardmembers, and stated that her personal feeling was that she did not get anything out of serving, was not paid to serve on this Board, and did not need the job; however, she believed the Board of Adjustment provided a service for the Village and the members took time to drive out and look at properties and were not encumbered by other Village matters. Boardmember Brennan stated that this Board was not elected, but served out of the goodness of their hearts and for the betterment of the Village. If the duties of the Board of Adjustment were passed to the village Council, she questioned whether the Village Councilmembers would want to take the time to really scrutinize the various variance requests when, for example, they had Palm Beach County breathing down their necks about something else. Since this Board was not elected they were not swayed by any political reasons, and Boardmember Brennan stated she really questioned why the Village Council would want to get rid of this Board, and did not understand their motives. - - Chairman Northamer commented he did not believe the Council had the time to get into researching variances, and that the Boardmembers all took the time to go visit each property on an informal basis to prepare themselves. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes August 21, 1995 Page 14 Boardmember Nelson commented he believed the Board of Adjustment served as a balance of power and gave the citizen a last resort to make a request for an exception that would not be possible if the Village Council were considering variances. Boardmember Nelson stated he believed the Board of Adjustment served a purpose for the Village Council since the Boardmembers were not elected, and were going to make some people mad, and therefore took the Village Council off the hot seat on a lot of decisions. Boardmember Nelson stated the main point in his mind was the balance of power. Vice Chair Schauer agreed with -Boardmember Nelson, and stated he believed government was more effective when more people -in the Village were involved, and adding to the responsibilities of the Village Council would dilute their effort because it was one more set of issues they had to deal with, and placed that responsibility on the Council where it did not need to be. , Vice Chair Schauer stated that another set of eyes and ears and another opinion was healthy for the whole system rather than to be polarized by a 5 member board. Vice Chair Schauer agreed to write a letter to the Village Council by the next meeting. Village Attorney Randolph advised that a - short letter might be drafted through the Village Managers office and that a transcript of this section of the meeting could be attached. VII. COMMUNICATION FROM CITIZENS There was no communication from citizens. • Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes August 21, 1995 Page 15 VIII. ANY OTHER MATTERS There were no other matters to come before the Board. • IX. ADJOURNMENT Boardmember Shindoll moved that the meeting be adjourned. Boardmember Nelson seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Susan Brennan - for Edwin Nelson - for Kenneth Northamer - for Raymond Schauer - for Wayne Shindoll - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ‘15- 266/- 14-1-44--) Betty Laur Recording Secretary Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes August. 21, 1995 Page 16 ATTEST: vottilieew TO:mciirae.. Joanne McCabe Acting Clerk of the Board DATE APPROVED: