HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Board of Adjustment_11/24/1980 MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THE
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
NOVEMBER 24, 1980
A public hearing was held by the Village of Tequesta Zoning
Board of Adjustment at 7:30 P.`M. , Monday, November 24, 1980 in the Village
Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida. Board members present were
Head, Chairman, Otto and Wagner. Also present were R. Harp, Clerk of the
Board, John C. Randolph, Village Attorney and A. W. Butterfield, Building
Official. Bryan had notified the Clerk that he would not be in attendance.
Chairman Head asked the Clerk to read the legal notice of the
public hearing, which was done. The Clerk advised that proof of publication
was in hand for the publication made in the November 6, 1980 Courier and
that thirty-two (32) letter notices had been sent to property owners within
500 feet of Lot 126, Tequesta Pines (Mazur) and seventy-five (75) letter
notices to property owners within 500 feet of Lot 6, Block 26, Jupiter in
the Pines, Section "B" (Bowder) . The .Clerk advised a letter had been
received from William G. Dickie, Jr. , owner of Lot 131, Tequesta Pines,
stating he was against any deviations from the published ordinance.
The first application to be considered was that of Stephen H.
Mazur, owner of Lot 127, Tequesta Pines Subdivision (81 Pine Hill Trail
West) requesting a variance to the terms of the Official Zoning Ordinance
of the Village of Tequesta, Ordinance No. 211, as amended, Section 9.6(1) (a)-
Front Yard, to allow a front yard setback varying from 24.8' to 25.0'
along the east 13' 10" of the south wall of a house constructed on said lot.
Stephen H. Mazur, owner, was in attendance, as was his father, Henry S. Mazur,
who constructed the house. H. Mazur said he did not know how the error
occurred because he laid out the house in that area at 45'1li" from the edge
of the paving since he could not find a PK in that area.
Butterfield said a tie in survey was required at the time
before proceeding with construction but a tie in survey had not been
submitted at the time. Mazur said the tie in survey had been delivered to
Kathy in the Building Department. Butterfield said there was no record of
the tie in survey having been turned in. He further acknowledged that the
house is a new house. Butterfield said the requested variance is a house-
keeping problem to clean up possible future title problems and this was
verified by the Village Attorney.
Since the house had been constructed the Board felt that the
variance should be approved. Wagner moved, seconded by Otto, that the requested
front yard variance for Lot 127, Tequesta Pines (81 Pine Hill Trail West)
be approved. The vote on the motion was:
11-24-80 - 2
Wagner For
Otto For
Head For
and the motion therefore passed. Joseph Pagano, 114 Pine Hill Trail West,
(Lot 150, Tequesta Pines) asked why the audience could not speak to the
application since they had been notified of the hearing. Head apologized
for not requesting comments. Pagano questioned how the house got built
without a plot plan. Butterfield said a plot plan had been submitted with
the plans for the permit but that there evidently was a mix-up in the
inspection of the house.
The next application to be considered was that of Franklin D.
and Ida M. Bowder, owners of Lot 6, Block 26, Jupiter in the Pines,
Section "B" (363 Cedar Avenue) , requesting a variance to the terms of the
Official Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Tequesta, Ordinance No. 211,
as amended, Section 9.6(2) (a) - Side Yard, to allow a side yard setback
of 7.2 instead of 7.5' on the north side of the existing house and to allow
the construction of an approximate 20' by 35' addition to the northwest
corner of the existing house with a side yard setback of 7.2' instead of
7.5 feet.
Franklin D. Bowder was in attendance to present his application.
He said the side setback error was found by the Building Department when
he submitted his plans for the proposed addition for a building permit.
The house had been built in 1961 and Bowder had purchased it some time later.
He said he needed the proposed addition for an additional room and storage
space. Butterfield said the survey for the original house showed a side
setback of more than eight (8) feet on each side but was actually constructed
only 7.2 feet from the north side and approximately 9 feet on the south side.
Bowder said the proposed addition could be constructed to conform to the
setback requirements but believed the wall should line up and match the
existing house wall.
Wagner moved, seconded by Otto, that the requested north side
yard variance for the existing house and new addition for Lot 6, Block 26,
Jupiter in the Pines, Section "B" (363 Cedar Avenue) be approved. The vote
on the motion was:
Wagner For
Otto For
Head For
and the motion therefore passed.
The next item for consideration was reconsidering the application
of B. H. Jr. and Joyce E. Carlisle, owners of Lot 67, Tequesta Pines Sub-
division (46 Poplar Road) to allow a fence exceeding the allowable maximum
height of five (5) feet. This matter had been tabled at the September. 15,
1980 hearing so that the Building Official could review the situation and
report back to the Board.
11-24-80 - 3
Head referred to the Building Official's September 18, 1980
memorandum to the Board members. The fence height had been measured
by the Village Building Inspector on both the south side (Carlisle) and
north side of the fence. The memorandum indicated evidence that a dis-
continuity exists between the immediate grades on the north and south sides
of the rear fence showing that an attempt had been made to bring the fence
into "cosmetic" compliance, but that in all instances, the fence exceeds
the maximum height of five (5) feet. The height on the south side of the
fence was measured from finished grade and on the north side from natural
grade.
Carlisle explained that the precut fence comes in height of
five (5) feet and that it would be necessary to put lower part of fence into
ground to conform to maximum allowable height. He said he did not believe the
amount over five (5) feet to be significant and that it would be an economic
hardship to him to have to have the top of the fence cut back to a five (5)
feet height. Butterfield said the fence had been tied into the neighbor's
fence on the west, despite the fact that he had told the contractor that
this fence exceeded the five (5) foot maximum height. Carlisle pointed out
that hedges were not restricted to five (5) foot height.
Otto said the Holmes fence (neighbor on the west) was in violation
of the height and making the Carlisle fence meet same compounds the problem.
( Carlisle suggested the Zoning Ordinance should be amended so that
five (5) foot high fence sections could be used but would exceed the maxi-
mum allowable height and indicated he will contact the Village Council in
this regard.
Butterfield showed a copy of the permit for the fence which said
"5' Maximum Fence". Head said that he believed a 5'8" fence would be too
much of a variance to grant.
Head moved, seconded by Wagner, that the application of B. H.
Carlisle, Jr. and Joyce E. Carlisle, owners of Lot 67, Tequesta Pines
Subdivision, (46 Poplar Road) requesting a variance to the terms of the
Official Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Tequesta, Ordinance No. 211,
as amended, Section 16.1(3) to allow an existing fence in excess of the
maximum height of five (5) feet to remain on said property be denied.
The vote on the motion was:
Head For
Otto For
Wagner For
and the motion therefore passed.
The public hearing was adjourned at 8:20. P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
AM ert Harp
Clerk of the Board