Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Board of Adjustment_7/27/1981 MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 27, 1981 A public hearing was held by the Village of Tequesta Zoning Board of Adjustment at 7:30 P.M. , Monday, July 27, 1981 in the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida. Board members present were: Bryan, Meyerowich and Wagner. Head had advised the Clerk he would not be in attend- ance. Also present were R. Harp, Clerk of the Board, A. W. Butterfield, Building Official and John C. Randolph, Village Attorney. Wagner asked the Clerk to read the application from Ronald J. and Linda A. Otto, which was done. The Clerk read the notice of the public hearing, which was done and advised that proof of publication was in hand for publication of the notice in the July 12, 1981 issue of the Courier and that sixty-four (64) letter notices had been sent to property owners within 500 feet of the Otto property. The Clerk advised of written comments indicating no objection to the requested variance from Mr. & Mrs. Rudolph Schneider, 15 Pine Hill Trail East and from the Tequesta Pines Property Oumers Association. The Clerk's July 23, 1981 memorandum to the Board advising of telephone conversation with John J. Roland, owner of Lot 62, Tequesta Pines Subdivision, was also noted. The application was by Ronald J. and Linda A. Otto, owners of Lot 59, Tequesta Pines Subdivision (15 Pine Hill Trail East) requesting a variance to the terms of the Official Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Tequesta to allow the construction of an open swimming pool on said lot, with a rear yard setback varying from 8.4 feet to 9.4 feet instead of 13.0 feet as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. & Mrs. Otto were in attendance to present their application. L. Otto said she believed they had a hardship as to the land since the lot was of minimum size of 8300 square feet with the house of approximately 1900 square feet. She pointed out the house was not quite maximum size for the lot. She pointed out many other lots in the subdivision were irregular in shape. She said she had asked the builder, Ken Mates if a pool could be built on the lot and he advised her twice that it could be built. She stated Mates was a reputable builder who lives in the area and has no reason to lie about such a matter. He had built the same house and pool on a similar lot in the County and was not aware of the additional setback requirements in the Village. Otto advised that if the main wall of the house had been moved more toward the front of the house when it was located on the lot, there would be room for a pool. She advised that the Florida holly hedge and part of their sprinkler system had been put on the lot to the rear due to the fact that a marker stake used was evidently placed in position in error. 7-27-81 - 2 Bryan asked if the house was completed when purchased and Otto advised no, but it was under roof. The same house is on Lot 209 of the subdivision but it is set forward further. Bryan noted the proposed pool was within 3 feet of the screened area. Otto said they could build a 9.4 foot by 50 foot pool but did not believe this to be practical and would cause infringement on neighbors. Meyerowich noted their were six (6) smaller size lots in the area of Lot 59. Otto said odd size lots often were an advantage over the rectangular lot because areas were available for locating pools within the required setbacks. Wagner said he had a problem with the problem of one lot size in relation to another lot size. He can accept that owners of smaller lots would like to be able to have swimming pools the same as owners of larger lots. He noted the existing house has the proper setbacks. Meyerowich said the house was probably built to be an attractive model, and was placed further back on the lot for such purpose, not taking into consideration future uses of the lot such as construction of a pool. Bryan noted that if the survey had been in error, this could have been a problem. Otto noted she did not receive a survey when they purchased the property and presumed the sod was all on their property and that the stake was indicating the area of the lot. Bryan said he sympathized with the applicants but could not see a particular hardship. Wagner stated he also sympathized with the applicants. Butterfield suggested the August 10, 1978 survey was valid. Bryan asked if there would be a problem with moving the pool closer to the house. Otto advised that the breakfast nook had awning windows on the north side which would be a problem. She said she had looked into other designs but this was the only one that would be proper. Wagner noted there was no mistake in placing the house on the lot. Otto reiterated the stake they had used as a guide was evidently not in the right place. Otto said there are larger houses on smaller lots with pools in some areas mainly because of the shape of the lots. Marcia Evans, owner of Lot 38, 20 Pine Hill Trail East, said the developer platted small lots and then required large houses to be built on the lots, causing the problems with later swimming pool construction on the lot. Tom Hurley, owner of Lot 34, 36 Pine Hill Trail East, advised he had no objection to the requested variance. Wagner said he believed the Zoning Ordinance requirements pertain- ing to swimming pools should be revised. Bryan said it would be hard to grant this variance and not grant other similar ones. Otto questioned how the Board could grant a variance because of awning windows or other such reasons. Bryan said it appears the builder gave improper information and should have provided a survey to show existing construction. 7-27-81 - 3 Meyerowich noted that almost every lot in Tequesta Pines Sub- division is a different size. Wagner asked what does this mean, and said the location of houses and pools on the lots has to vary. Meyerowich said lot coverage governs what goes on a lot. Butterfield noted that a contractor frequently puts the largest house size possible on a lot. Meyerowich noted that the breakfast nook was added to the house by the builder as an after- thought. He also noted contractors build as large a house as possible on their lots. Otto repeated that Ken Mates had said a pool could be built on the lot. It was noted the breakfast nook was not on the original survey and Meyerowich said he thought the builder had seen such a breakfast nook on another house and :liked the idea, so he added it to this house. Meyerowich moved that due to the small size of the lot, that the requested variance to build a swimming pool on Lot 59, Tequesta Pines Sub- division with a rear yard setback varying from 8.4 feet to 9.4 feet instead of 13.0 feet, be granted. The motion died for the lack of a second and the application was therefore denied. The Board determined that the Village Council should be apprised of the need for revisions to the swimming pool setback requirements, especially for open pools and will so advise the Village Council in writing. Bryan said he will draft a proposed revision for the Zoning Board members review. Both Bryan and Wagner stated they had no objections to open pools with lesser setbacks. The Board members were advised that there would be another public hearing on Monday, August 31, 1981. The Clerk suggested that the Board hold their public hearings on a certain night each month and the Board agreed to hold future public hearings on the third Monday of each month instead of on a random schedule. The public hearing was adjourned at 8:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert Harp Clerk of the Board RH:jf