Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 7A_3/9/2000 F ►E. ;ON ; VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA DF.PAR1'MEN1'OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT --f� • ' '' �!� .g Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive ��� Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (561) 575-6220 C`'4-[ 4.. Fax: (561) 575-6239 Co BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 29, 1999 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, November 29, 1999 . The meeting was called to order at 7 : 30 P.M. by Acting Chair David Owens . A roll call was taken. Boardmembers present were : Jon Newman, Steve Pullon, David Owens, and James Humpage. Also in attendance was Scott D. Ladd, Clerk of the Board, and Village Attorney John C. Randolph. Vice Chair Kevin Kinnebrew and Boardmember John Taylor were absent from the meeting. II . APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Humpage moved that the Agenda be approved as submitted. Boardmember Pullon seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: David Owens - for James Humpage - for Jon Newman - for Steve Pullon - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the Agenda was approved as submitted. III . APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES Po,-,,-le.l Pnnn. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES November 29, 1999 PAGE 2 Boardmember Humpage moved that the minutes for the meeting of October 25, 1999 be approved as submitted. Acting Chair Owens passed the gavel and seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: David Owens - for James Humpage - for Jon Newman - for Steve Pullon - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the minutes were approved as submitted. IV. NEW BUSINESS 1 . An application from Zecca Builders as agent for owner, Tom Johnson, owner of the property located at 47 River Drive, Lot 16, 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, Paragraphs (1) and (6) , to allow the construction of a 4 ' x 90' dock with a 6' x 22' terminal platform and one boat lift, 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; 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 (20) feet, as required by the Zoning Code. Al Swearing-In of Witnesses, if Required. Clerk of the Board Scott D. Ladd swore in those wishing to speak. B) Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications. A poll of the Board revealed the only ex-parte BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES November 29, 1999 PAGE 3 communication to be by Boardmember Pullon who reported he had visited the site but had spoken to no one. C) Testimony of Witnesses and Cross Examination, if any. Larry Shaw presented the request and explained that he was employed by Marine Construction representing Chris Zecca, who was building the dock for Tom Johnson. Mr. Shaw explained that the proposal was to extend the dock to obtain water depth and to be in line with neighboring docks, with a 6' x 26' terminal platform. Clerk of the Board Ladd explained that the criteria for dealing with docks was included in each Boardmember' s packet. Boardmember Humpage stated that he believed the criteria had been met, that it seemed the biggest problem was water depth, and the paperwork for the environmental agencies appeared to be in order. Boardmember Humpage stated he had no problem with this request. Boardmember Newman requested and received clarification of the riparian rights lines . Mr. Shaw explained that the dock would run parallel to the riparian rights lines and to the other docks on neighboring properties . Boardmember Humpage read aloud a condition from the general conditions of the Federal authorization documents which indicated that the signature and mailing address of a new property owner must be forwarded to their office to validate transfer of the authorization. Boardmember Humpage questioned whether it was the responsibility of the Village to make the transfer to a new owner. Village Attorney Randolph clarified that this was a condition of the permit which the owner of the property was required to carry out. There were no comments from the public. D) Finding of Fact Based Upon Competent Substantial Evidence. Boardmember Humpage made a motion to approve the application from Zecca Builders as agent for owner BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES November 29, 1999 PAGE 4 Tom Johnson as submitted. Boardmember Newman seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was : David Owens - for James Humpage - for Jon Newman - for Steve Pullon - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. 2 . An application from Kenneth Shockley, owner of the property located at 19207 Riverside Drive, Lot 16, Block 3, Riverside on the Loxahatchee 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 removal of an existing dock and construction of a 4 ' x 94 ' dock with a 6' x 20' terminal platform and two boat lifts, 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 Zoning Code. A) Swearing-In of Witnesses, if Required. Clerk of the Board Scott D. Ladd swore in those wishing to speak. B) Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications. A poll of the Board revealed that Boardmember Newman had ex-parte communication and was a Vice President of Octopus Marine, the construction company for the proposed dock. Mr. Newman recused himself due to conflict of interest . Boardmember Pullon reported he had visited the site but had spoken to no one . Boardmembers Owens and Humpage indicated they had had no exparte communications . C) Testimony of Witnesses and Cross Examination, if any. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES November 29, 1999 PAGE 5 Village Attorney Randolph announced that with only three Boardmembers voting, the applicant would be given an opportunity to come back when a full Board could be present, since in this situation all three must vote in favor in order for the variance to be granted. John Newman, Octopus Marine Construction, indicated that the owner, Mr. Shockley had authorized him to proceed. Mr. Newman displayed an aerial photograph showing existing conditions, and another showing the new dock drawn to scale. Mr. Newman explained that riparian rights lines extended to the center of the channel and came back perpendicular which actually crossed the existing dock, making it not in conformance with Village codes or with the riparian lines . Mr. Newman reported many older docks on the river were not in conformance so that when major repairs were made the docks were re- permitted. Re-permitting this existing dock would not be possible because it did not meet Tequesta codes or comply with the riparian rights lines . Therefore, a new dock was proposed. The location of the proposed dock had been determined by required setbacks, riparian lines, and at a natural opening in the mangroves as required by Department of Environmental Protection. From this starting point the dock needed to extend a little over 90' to reach sufficient water depth. Mr. Newman explained the DEP rules on water depth, and that the front cradle beam of Dr. Shockley' s boat lift would be at 2 .9' and the lift was placed on the platform so that the outboard would not stick out and create a hazard to other boats; and the second boat lift was located on the inside of the terminal platform. Water depths were described. Mr. Newman explained that the proposed dock had been approved by both DEP and the US Army Corps of Engineers, and that there would be no hazards created by construction of this dock. The dock had been designed to be as unobtrusive as possible, and had been approved at 3' above mean high tide. Mr. Newman explained that the dock extended out at an angle so that it would BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES November 29, 1999 PAGE 6 not interfere with the riparian right lines . Mr. Newman explained that the necessity to seek a variance was not the result of any actions by the owner, and the new dock when constructed would be similar to many others approved by this Board and would meet the Codes of the Village. Martin Haynes, 19195 Riverside Drive, adjacent to the subject property on the south, stated he believed it would be a hazard to allow a 94 ' dock, and he felt that length was not necessary. Mr. Haynes questioned the draft of the boat which required this length and also questioned whether this would be a lighted dock. Mr. Haynes stated his belief that this would be the longest dock on the waterway and stated he was concerned that there would be a hazard to kids on wave runners and other watercraft . Jane Nagel, 19223 Riverside Drive, stated her dock was 68 ' , and objected to the length as a hazard to water skiers . John Brandt, 19257 Riverside, explained he had sent a letter to Mr. Ladd but since he was present he read the letter aloud. (The letter from Mr. Brandt has been attached to and made a part of these minutes . ) Mr. Brandt reported a new long dock at Pine Tree had blocked his view of the river, and expressed his opinion that the length of this dock demeaned the property, and was a danger. Mr. Brandt pointed out the location of his property on the map. Mr. Newman responded to the concerns raised by the neighbors and explained that if the speed laws were enforced the dock would not be a hazard; that Dr. Shockley wished to enjoy his property and use a boat in the 30 ' contender class as well as a flats boat . Mr. Newman pointed out that a property without a suitable boat lift it substantially affected the value of the property and could reduce the appraised value approximately $100, 000 . BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES November 29, 1999 PAGE 7 they would propose for the applicant, to which the response was a smaller boat, shorter dock, and/or dredging. Mr. Newman explained that a shorter dock probably could be permitted by DEP, and that dredging was not permitted in the Loxahatchee River. Boardmember Humpage commented that lighting was not addressed by this Board. Boardmember Humpage suggested compromise, discussed water depth requirements, and explained that the Board must act in accordance with the criteria required for a variance. Boardmember Humpage stated he would like to see the dock 10'-15' shorter, which would be within DEP guidelines, and questioned Clerk of the Board Ladd whether that would be a problem for the Village . Mr. Ladd responded that would not be a problem for the Village, and that in the past only 3' water depth at the end of the dock had been the criteria used, which would shorten this dock, and when such compromise had been agreed to in the past no negative response had been received from the agencies involved. Mr. Newman stated if the design were changed he would send a notification letter to DEP and US Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Ladd commented that an approval could be made subject to obtaining outside agency approvals. Mr. Humpage and Mr. Newman discussed the length that could be used. A general discussion ensued. D. Finding of Fact Based Upon Competent Substantial Evidence. Boardmember Humpage made a motion to approve the application from Kenneth Shockley as submitted with the exception that the overall dock length be 80 feet. Boardmember Pullon seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: David Owens - for James Humpage - for Jon Newman - o C/ec IAra 0,10(( Steve Pullon - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES November 29, 1999 PAGE 8 V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Clerk of the Board Scott D. Ladd stated the Board had new members and that the Board was currently lacking a Chair, and at a future Board meeting when enough members were present a reorganization would be held. Boardmember Humpage requested that a Chair and Vice Chair be seated at the next meeting of the Board. Village Attorney Randolph advised that reorganization could be held at the beginning of a regular meeting. Mr. Ladd commented that reorganization was typically done in January anyway. VI. COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS Russell Von Frank, 489 Dover Road, stated he had submitted an application to be an alternate to the Board and that Mr. Pullon had been selected, and had also submitted an application for Village Councilmember. Mr. Von Frank questioned each member of the Board as to their motivation for volunteering to serve on this Board. Mr. Newman responded that he had been a resident approximately one year and wished to. actively participate in the Village. Mr. Pullon explained that he had been frustrated in obtaining a variance recently because there were not enough members on the Board, and had therefore volunteered his services. Mr. Owens commented he wanted to participate in the Village as much as possible. Mr. Humpage commented he was a former policeman for the Village and he was just giving back. VII. ANY OTHER MATTERS There were no other matters to come before the Board. VIII . ADJOURNMENT Boardmember Humpage moved that the meeting be adjourned. Boardmember Pullon seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES November 29, 1999 PAGE 9 David Owens - for James Humpage - for Jon Newman - for Steve Pullon - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the meeting was adjourned at 8 : 35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Betty Laur Recording Secretary ATTEST: 0964/ Scott D. Ladd Clerk of the Board DATE APPROVED: F-0 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR • • NTY, MUNICIPAL, � .. :.,. AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS AME-MIDOLE NAME w ' NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL. COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE �I IL` RE ;�•`• " — THE BOARQ COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON _ WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF. �6 ,. ,z),� (CITY COUNTY OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY COUNTY NAME Or POLITICAL SUBDIVISION. /5,I. DATE 0,4 WHICH ',OTC OCCURRED / / /c.2 MY F�OSIIION IS `/•-/�/ ! ELECTIVE / APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM SS This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board. council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required try law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. • INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED O ' ICERS: A person hot', .e county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his s., „' I, n. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain .(er than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In ei. should disclose the conflict: ,:• w THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 13 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsibk for recording the minutes of the meeting. who should inco►rri,TPte the form the minutes APPOINTED OFFICERS: A pe •n holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inu • .' ial private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the spec' pe incipal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A t = ...•intive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclor "3 ' �. ,. i: conflict before making anyattempt to influence the decision %� . � by oral or written communication, whether made by 'the of his direction. IF YOU INTEND t AKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. • A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. I 1 r K\I 'H In nF • t IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION OR VOTE AT THE - +t NG: • You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You should complete the form and file it within IS days after the vote occurs with the person responsible tes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. I DISCLOSURE OF STATE OFFICER'S INTEREST I, 36^/ ��/U.c.'i►li9n.' , hereby disclose that on ///40/9 19 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) -inured to my special private gain; or - inured to the special gain of , by whom I am retained. (b) The measure before my agency And the nature of my inter:st in tthc mc.lsure is as follows. n //cn IoA/ e. c)x2 i;r_ e M S/lc,Gk/c` 1-065 , c1/C'est i 77-,:s Uar e i.tias /u, c tic -75— -40 e/�aS lve.:.c.l-mod 6y cc p t.() /t " v-V/ r e 5 ' CC" /71 ?6 ? iel v c•-z s,c) L 1,40i vice "re 5 ►e/e ✓I u C CY% c�� u 65 Cue- l a 6O `6 5%4 rc A o l do� - 0 5 5 ry e-c) Gf/herz Al /�1/f c/ ! 1 f 7'40 t ` /9 1/7 //cci 04./ Vet vl u ti'cC � a"" I�2 . lit iv/tJ e��y . 1 c-1` l e� ovi VzEWE5 Date_ f c l T- .1 t- udit CMG o /!(1Prk (i 1I 3 tL(„ ais /? 4i Adana Date Fil,Z ture NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 1112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT. DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED S5,000. CE FORM 111/40-I1 PAG