Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 7A_6/8/2000 F Tf,G4, (� VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA ; DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (561) 575-6220 .;, _ Fax: (561) 575-6239 N CO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING MEETING MINUTES MARCH 20, 2000 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, March 20, 2000 . The meeting was called to order at 7 : 35 P.M. by Vice Chair Jim Humpage . A roll call was taken. Boardmembers present were: Ron Poirier, Jon Newman, Steve Pullon, David Owens, and Vice Chair James Humpage. Also in attendance were Scott D. Ladd, Clerk of the Board, and Village Attorney John C. Randolph. II . APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Owens moved that the Agenda be approved as submitted. Boardmember Pullon seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Ron Poirier - for 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 Boardmember Owens moved that the minutes for the meeting of February 28, 2000 be approved as submitted. Boardmember Pullon seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Recycled Paper t Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes March 20, 2000 Page 2 Ron Poirier - for 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 None V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1 . Tabled at February 28, 2000 meeting: An application from Charles White, owner of the property located at 18978 Point Drive, Property Control No. 60-42-40-36-00-003- 0063, 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) & (2) , to allow the construction of a 4 foot wide by 82 foot long access pier with a 8 foot by 20 foot 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, and no dock or pier area shall be constructed with a maximum width in excess of six (6) feet, as required by the 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 the following exparte communications : Boardmember Poirier reported no exparte communications . Boardmember Pullon had Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes March 20, 2000 Page 3 visited the site prior to the last meeting but had no communication; Boardmember Newman had visited the site prior to the last meeting and reported no exparte communication; Boardmember Owen reported no exparte communication; Vice Chair Humpage had visited the site prior to the last meeting and spoke to a neighbor as reported in the minutes of the last meeting, but since then had had no exparte communications . C) Testimony of Witnesses and Cross Examination, if any. Gene Wehage, Dolphin Marine Construction, reported the property had changed hands and the owner was now Charles Nelson, who was not present at the hearing. Village Attorney Randolph advised it was proper to continue if the present owner had requested Mr. Wehage to go forward with this request . Mr. Wehage responded that Mr. Nelson had requested he proceed with this application. Clerk of the Board Scott D. Ladd advised that Mr. Nelson would need to come to the office of the Department of Community Development to sign the application. Mr. Wehage reported agreement had been reached since the last meeting to move the dock, and presented the revised configuration. Upon advice from Village Attorney Randolph, Mr. Wehage presented the request and explained that the reason for the requested dock length of 90 feet was to acquire more water depth, and the reason for the 8- foot wide platform request was to have more room on the platform. Discussion ensued. Mr. Wehage reported that Mr. Rinehart, the neighbor to the north, had expressed a preference for the dock to be moved to the other side of the property, which had resulted in the present proposed configuration. Mr. Wehage reported that the length of the dock in the new configuration was approximately the same as in the previous configuration. William Rinehart, 18980 Point Drive, explained that when he met with Mr. Nelson and Mr. Wehage, the proposed configuration had been requested by Mr. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes March 20, 2000 Page 4 Nelson. Mr. Rinehart reported he had pointed out to Mr. Nelson that he did not like the way the dock was proposed, had concerns about riparian rights, and that he had concerns about achieving the depth of water he wanted and the depth of water under the proposed lift. Mr. Rinehart stated that the drawing he had done which had been presented at the last meeting was to scale and that the drawing indicated a dock position in which the depth could be increased without increasing the dock length, and in using that position riparian rights were not violated. Mr. Rinehart explained how that the newly proposed configuration was the best solution not to violate riparian rights and the best solution aesthetically, since Mr. Nelson had turned the dock area so that it would not block as much view. Mr. Rinehart stated that he appreciated the changes made by Mr. Nelson and that he could live with the new configuration. Clerk of the Board Scott D. Ladd explained that the State mandated and controlled riparian rights, and that they established such rights from the channel rather than the land. Mr. Ladd reported no problems with riparian rights with the new configuration. Peggy Verhoeven, 18996 Point Drive, stated she was the neighbor to the south of the subject property. Mrs . Verhoeven discussed the proposed configuration, and stated her husband was out of town and could not attend this hearing, but that he had indicated a preference for the first configuration and that she and her husband were not pleased with the new configuration. Mrs. Verhoeven discussed how the dock might be changed. A member of the Board questioned whether the Board was to only decide the overall length or whether it could decide the dock could be moved right or left. Village Attorney Randolph responded that the Board' s responsibility was to determine whether the criteria in the code were met and if the criteria was determined to have been met, then a variance could be granted with conditions, and a condition could be that the dock was to be moved right or left. Discussion ensued with comments by Mrs. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes March 20, 2000 Page 5 Verhoeven and Mr. Rinehart. Vice Chair Humpage clarified with Mrs . Verhoeven that she would prefer the dock be farther from her property; and clarified with Mr. Rinehart how he was calculating the riparian rights. Mr. Rinehart explained that riparian rights provided access to deep water from each property and allowing a long dock to be built along a property line would cause others to have no access . Mr. Rinehart explained that the dock must be placed in the center of the property to avoid violating the riparian rights of others . Mr. Rinehart reported his conversation with Mr. Nelson, and the fact that riparian rights got smaller farther from the shore. Vice Chair Humpage verified with Mr. Wehage there was no expediency to build this dock. Vice Chair Humpage commented these were not the same set of facts presented to the Board at the previous meeting since the property had changed hands and the configuration was different. Mr. Ladd commented the variance request had not changed, which was the length of the dock and the size of the platform. Boardmember Pullon questioned whether if the Board approved the 90 ' length and the 8 ' wide terminal platform they could let the neighbors and Mr. Wehage worry about the placement of the dock as long as the riparian rights of the State were met. Mr. Ladd verified that could be done so long as the placement did not create any more variances, and that placement must be decided before issuing a permit, at which point he would confirm the two variance criteria were still being met. The neighbors were asked whether they would be agreeable to a 90' length and an 8 ' terminal platform if the dock was properly positioned. Discussion ensued. Mr. Wehage verified the water depth for an 80 ' dock. Vice Chair Humpage expressed preference for an 80 ' long dock. Mr. Wehage explained that a few inches more depth made a big difference for the boat lift. Mr. Wehage agreed that the dock could be shortened, which would make a big difference in the riparian rights issue with the neighbors . Discussion ensued. It was proposed Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes March 20, 2000 Page 6 to move the dock north five feet and shorten it to 80 ' . Mrs . Verhoeven discussed her property line and agreed with the proposal. Mr. Rinehart explained moving the dock north was placing it into shallower water, which the owner had not intended. Mr. Wehage as representative for the owner indicated he did not think moving the dock north only five feet would cause a problem. Boardmember Pullon made a motion to approve the application from the owner of the property located at 18978 Point Drive, 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) & (2) , to allow the construction of a 4 foot wide by 80 foot overall length dock with an 8 foot by 20 foot long terminal platform, moving the current proposed dock five feet to the north. Boardmember Newman seconded the motion. Village Attorney Randolph clarified that the terminal platform must conform to the latest drawing and would not be an "L" . Mr. Ladd clarified that the motion was to conform to the latest drawing. The vote on the motion was: Ron Poirier - for David Owens - for James Humpage - for Jon Newman - for Steve Pullon - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. VI. CO44UNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS There were no communications from citizens . VII . ANY OTHER MATTERS Village Attorney Randolph encouraged the members of the Board to consider the Code criteria provided to them by Mr. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes March 20, 2000 Page 7 Ladd with each application and to look at the criteria as they made a determination in regard to an applicaiton. Mr. Ladd stated he would continue to provide the criteria in each meeting packet. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Boardmember Pullon moved that the meeting be adjourned. Boardmember Newman seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Ron Poirier - for 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 10:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Betty Laur Recording Secretary ATTEST: Att clackfl Scott D. Lad Clerk of the Board DATE APPROVED: 5-/5.UO