Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 7A_10/12/2000 w 4 Tf obi 1.:' e•: VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT !� Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive ' p: Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (561) 575-6220 e • ` ' ,� Fax: (561) 575-6239 b C VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 9, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Tequesta Community Appearance Board held a workshop meeting in the Village Council Chambers at 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Wednesday, August 9, 2000 . The meeting was called to order at 9: 34 A.M. by Chair Vic Strahan. The roll was called by Recording Secretary Betty Laur. Boardmembers present were Chair Vic Strahan, Vice Chair Steve Parker, Robert Stein, Richard Sterling, and Gerald Wenta. Also in attendance was Scott D. Ladd, Clerk of the Board, Village Attorney John C. Randolph, Planner Kara Irwin, and Alternate Community Appearance Board member Karen Flint. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Strahan announced that the agenda was approved as submitted. III . NEW BUSINESS Training Session with Village Attorney Village Attorney John C. Randolph explained that he had been called upon to go over the basic rules and procedures, guidelines and criteria of the Community Board because of so Recycled Paper CONM4UNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 9, 2000 PAGE 2 many new members on this Board. The Village Attorney recommended that each member of the Board read Chapter 7 of the Village Code which related to the Community Appearance Board; and explained that the code contained criteria within it and the Board was not to force their tastes on someone else, but to act as a quasi judicial body and to follow the criteria. Village Attorney Randolph explained that generally these types of boards had very general criteria, which if the ordinance was taken to Court was usually how it was attacked, with the claim that the criteria was too vague . Attorney Randolph expressed his opinion that these criteria were very broad and that amendments could be made to make them more specific in order to sustain attacks made through the Courts . The attorney explained that the members of the board must be very careful how they treated people who came before the board and their projects and the manner in which they applied the criteria. The Ordinance stated that they may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the issuance of a building after consideration of whether the criteria were complied with; and if an application was denied the criteria that was not met must be detailed in the motion to deny in order for the applicant to know what they did so they could correct it and in order for the Village Council and the Circuit Court to see what was relied on if the denial was appealed. The first appeal would be to the Village Council and the next appeal would be to the Circuit Court . The Court would have before it the record of the Community Appearance Board action, and would look to see whether there had been competent, substantial evidence to support their decision. The other two things a Court would look at would be to see if due process was accorded--if everyone had been given an opportunity to present their case--and whether the correct law had been applied. Village Attorney Randolph explained that the Community Appearance Board sat as a quasi judicial body, which meant the board sat as a court and as judges to see if the criteria in the code had been met . Attorney Randolph advised that witnesses should be sworn in at the beginning of an application and that cross examination should be allowed, which meant that questions would be asked of the applicant and the applicant would be allowed to question anyone in opposition to the project . This should be done on an orderly basis : at the beginning witnesses should be COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 9, 2000 PAGE 3 sworn, everyone should be advised there was an opportunity for cross examination, the applicant would come forward first, and if there was anyone in opposition to a project they would have an opportunity to speak, the applicant would have an opportunity to speak again, then the Board would meet in executive session and ask the applicant questions . Attorney Randolph stated he would recommend that the Board not allow debate between parties in front of the Board but let them state their cases and then the Board make a determination during which they could ask questions and have those questions answered. Village Attorney Randolph commented the other thing that must be done in a quasi judicial hearing was to announce any ex-parte communications with anyone regarding a project before them. As an example, a judge was not allowed to only hear one side of a case, and an attorney was not allowed to talk with a judge without the other party present . The same thing applied to members of this Board, except the law had been changed to allow members to speak to parties and to tour the property before a meeting, but if that was done the Boardmember must disclose those actions at the meeting and on the public record. The procedure would be that each member would state either "No, I have not had any ex-parte communication", or "Yes, I have toured the property", or "Yes, I have toured the property and I spoke to the applicant about the merits of the project", or "I spoke to a neighbor who was in opposition to the project" . With this information on the record, the applicant could know the Boardmembers did not have any preconceived opinions, because as judges the members were not supposed to have preconceived opinions but their decisions were to be based on what they heard at the meeting and not what they heard somewhere else, and an applicant could ask a member of the board what was said in their conversation with a neighbor. Village Attorney Randolph stressed it was important to look at the code . One of the provisions of the code read, Failure of the Board to take final action within 15 days of sufficient plans and specifications being filed with the Board shall constitute approval of such plans and specifications by the board which indicated the Board was called on to act in a timely manner. The Village Attorney discussed the Sunshine Law, a Florida COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 9, 2000 PAGE 4 law which stated that two or more members of the board could not speak to each other about the business of the board outside the public meeting. This meant a member of the board could not call another member on the phone to talk to them about the business of the board. A member of the board could not be at a cocktail party and speak to another member of the board about the business of the board. This did not preclude the two members of the board from discussing other items, but the public was entitled to know the content of conversations about their business . Violation of the Sunshine Law was a criminal misdemeanor and a fine could be imposed. The States Attorney had been involved in Sunshine Law violations from time to time. More important than the violation or resulting fine was that any action the board took resulting from that violation of the Sunshine Law could be voided. A landmark case in Palm Beach had involved an ad hoc advisory board appointed by the Town Council to advise it in regard to proposed zoning amendments. They felt they needed input from residents on these amendments, and the advisory board met in various persons' homes and gave advice to the Town Council at their meetings . Because the meetings were held in homes and notice was not provided they were not considered public meetings . The Town Council argued that in their public meeting they could take the advice of the advisory board and pass their ordinance. The Supreme Court ruled that the Town Council could not ratify in the sunshine something that had been conceived in the dark. The Village Attorney advised that staff was responsible to give proper notice and the board should be sure that the topics discussed were the topics on the agenda for that day. No one should be allowed to submit an application who was not on the agenda. Discussions could be held about rules and procedures but applicants should not be discussed when they were not present or not scheduled. Attorney Randolph discussed conflicts of interest and that the board members should not vote on a project that could inure to their financial gain or loss . Members of the board should not consider an application presented by their partner, but should recuse themself. When a member was recused he could not vote or participate in the conversation and must announce the reason he was recusing himself on the public record by stating, "I am recusing myself because my firm represents the applicant before us", etc. , and then must file a conflict of interest form with the Clerk. COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 9, 2000 PAGE 5 Attorney Randolph cautioned the members of the board to follow the conflict of interest rules very carefully because they could have ethics violations filed against them in the event the procedure was not followed. The Attorney General had ruled it was not appropriate just to leave the room, but a conflict must be announced on the record and a conflict of interest form must be filed. Attorney Randolph advised that if a member of the board had a question regarding whether they had a conflict, he could advise them on the law in order for them to decide . Clerk of the Board Scott D. Ladd questioned the Village Attorney regarding the following situation: Boardmember Steve Parker had done landscape projects for the Village and recused himself to make the presentation. Mr. Ladd questioned whether Mr. Parker should bring someone from his firm to make the presentation. Village Attorney Randolph expressed his opinion it was all right for Mr. Parker to make the presentation; however, that raised another question because there were two types of conflicts: (1) conflicts of interest for which a Boardmember could recuse himself, and (2) conflicts of interest which were non permissible. A person who sat on a board should not be engaged in business in the community which might come in conflict with the board and for which the boardmember would need to recuse himself on a regular basis, since that would be a non permissible conflict. Attorney Randolph noted this issue was currently being argued by the Florida Bar which was taking a different position than the Commission on Ethics. An opinion was rendered recently that a lawyer who sat on a board in a particular community should not do business within that community which would require him to come before the board. Attorney Randolph explained that the Ethics Commission had ruled lawyers could not come before the board to represent clients . Attorney Randolph commented he needed to get more information on this subject for Mr. Ladd. Chair Strahan commented the board had indicated they would like to have a building architect on the board, but it might be difficult to find one who was willing to give up business in order to donate free time to a board. Attorney Randolph noted that in another community there was an Architectural Review Committee which was similar to this Community Appearance Board which required that two architects sit on the board. An ethics opinion had ruled that if the ordinance required a professional, such as an architect, to sit on the board and if the architect in order to do business within the community would be virtually COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 9, 2000 PAGE 6 put out of business as a result of sitting on the board, then they could sit on the board. Attorney Randolph advised he had written a letter to the Commission on Ethics in regard to this subject to get an opinion on this subject because there were two provisions (1) a requirement by ordinance that they must be on the board and (2) that they must be virtually put out of business as a result of not being able to sit on the board, and almost every building permit must have the approval of the Architectural Commission so that an architect in that community you virtually would be put out of business by sitting on the board. Attorney Randolph explained that not everything in Tequesta that came for a building permit had to go before the Community Appearance Board, so an architect or other professional could sit on the board and still do other business within the community and not be put out of business . Chair Strahan noted this would discourage professionals from sitting on boards, with which Attorney Randolph agreed, and commented he would provide Mr. Ladd with more information. Attorney Randolph advised that everything that came across the desk of each member of the board was a matter of public record and must be given to the press or anyone who wanted to see it, and that should be kept in mind regarding the meetings and any records relating to the meetings . Attorney Randolph commented that the Bert Harris Private Property Rights Act basically stated if the board took an action that placed an inordinate burden on the existing use of property that the applicant could hire an appraiser and show the extent of the inordinate burden and get relief from a Court or from the Village. The Village Attorney did not think this board would be involved in placing such a burden on property. Chair Strahan commented he had been on the board for approximately eight years and during that time the board had always managed to come to agreement with applicants except for one occasion. Attorney Randolph commented that this type of board was supposed to negotiate and not to strong-arm people, and that people were usually happy to hear the suggestions the board made since those suggestions made their projects better. Chair Strahan commented that before an applicant submitted an application they had the same information available to them from the code that the board had, and usually applicants were made aware by Mr. Ladd' s office of what the Village wanted, which was a COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 9, 2000 PAGE 7 benefit for the applicants. IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business to come before the board. V. COMMUNICATION FROM CITIZENS There were no communications from citizens. VI. ANY OTHER MATTERS Clerk of the Board Scott D. Ladd commented that the agendas for meetings would be changed beginning with the next meeting to a quasi judicial format, the format used for Village Council public hearings and the format used by the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Ladd advised that with regard to Communications from Citizens, the Chairman needed to accept only non-agenda items and adhere to the three-minute ruling by using the timer. The Chairman should remain in control of the meeting and not let citizens drift off into talking about political matters that did not pertain to this board, which also applied to Any Other Matters. Mr. Ladd stressed that in no way should this board end up a political forum for opinions about the Village, the Village Council, Village staff, problems with the Water Department, gripes, moans and groans. Mr. Ladd commented that any such remarks should be nipped in the bud, and only items within the board' s purview should be discussed. Mr. Ladd stressed that the work of the Board was very serious because what the board did could cost developers hundreds of thousand of dollars and should be kept professional. Mr. Ladd explained that the intent was to start a whole new era with this board, which had gotten out of hand for too many years, but it had worked because it was in a small town. Unfortunately, the Village was no longer a small town concerning legal matters, which had caught up with it, and now the business of the Board must be done properly. Mr. Ladd asked that the Board be very careful about how they presented themselves to the public. • COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 9, 2000 PAGE 8 VII. ADJOURNMENT Clerk of the Board Scott D. Ladd explained that formal motions would be made from now on with someone making a motion, someone seconding the motion and the roll called by the Recording Secretary. Vice Chair Parker made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Boardmember Wenta seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Vic Strahan - for Steve Parker - for Robert Stein - for Richard Sterling - for Gerald Wenta - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Betty Laur Recording Secretary ATTEST: D` " 04_ "{ Scott D. Ladd Clerk of the Board DATE APPROVED: 67-ai 00