HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Special Meeting_Tab 04_08/11/2011 `l!
LEWIS
LONGMAN &
��. WALKER [ P.A.
Reply To: West Palm Beach
August 9, 2011
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Michael Couzzo,Jr.,Village Manager
Village of Tequesta
345 Tequesta Drive
Tequesta,FL 33469-0273
Re: Site Plan Review
Application for 400 Beach Road,Tequesta, FL(Tequesta Towers)
Dear Mr. Couzzo:
This confirms our email exchange on August 8, 2011. On behalf of our clients, the
Cliveden Jupiter Island Condominium Association, Inc. and LaMar Condominium Association,
Inc. (the "Associations"), we have agreed to voluntarily withdraw the appeal filed on July 11,
2011 with the understanding that the matter will come before the Planning and Zoning
Committee at its meeting on September 1, 2011 and ultimately before the Village Council on or
around the second week of October,2011.
The voluntary withdraw of the appeal filed on July 11,2011 does not prohibit or preclude
the Associations from filing a similar request for administrative remedies at a later date on this
matter pursuant to the Village's Code and State Law. Our withdrawal of the currently pending
appeal is made with the express understanding that we will be allowed to make a presentation at
both the September 1, 2011 Planning and Zoning meeting and the October Village Council
meeting at which the Tequesta Towers project will be reviewed/discussed.
Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Julia Jennsion
JLJ/kss
C. Erin Deady, Esquire
I:\Client Documents\Casey,Bob\Corres\Couao Letter I-0809201 i.docx
See Things Di,,ffierently`
BRADENTON JACKSONVILLE TALLAHASSEE WEST PALM BEACH
1001 Third Avenue West 245 Riverside Avenue 315 South Calhoun Street 515 North Flagler Drive
Suite 670 Suite 150 Suite 830 Suite 1500
Bradenton,Florida 34205 Jacksonville,Florida 32202 Tallahassee,Florida 32301 West Palm Beach,Florida 33401
pi941-708-4040 • f1941-708-4024 p'904-353-6410 • f1904-353-7619 p1850-222-5702 • f1850-224-9242 p 1561-640-0820 • f1561-640-8202
www.11w.law.com
McWilliams, Lori
From: Julia L. Jennison Wen n ison@llw-law.coml
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 3:21 PM
To: Telfrin, Debra
Cc: Couzzo, Michael; McWilliams, Lori; Erin Deady
Subject: RE: Tequesta Towers
Hi Debra,
On behalf of our clients, the Cliveden Jupiter Island Condominium Association, Inc. and LaMar
Condominium Association, Inc., we are going to go ahead and withdraw our appeal currently
scheduled for this Thursday, August 11th. Our withdrawal of the currently pending appeal is
made with the express understanding that we will be allowed to make a presentation at both
the September 1st P&Z meeting and the October Village Council meeting at which the Tequesta
Towers project will be reviewed/discussed. This withdrawal is also being agreed to with the
express understanding that the final action of the Village Council will be subject to appeal
as allowed in the Village's Code.
Please let me know if this is acceptable.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Julia Jennison
-----Original Message-----
From: Telfrin, Debra rmailto:dtelfrinpteguesta.orgl
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 2:23 PM
To: Julia L. Jennison
Cc: Telfrin, Debra; Couzzo, Michael; McWilliams, Lori
Subject: FW: Tequesta Towers
Good afternoon Ms. Jennison,
At Village Manager Michael Couzzo's request, and in follow up to your email of Friday please
advise if any decision has been made in regard to the Tequesta Towers petition.
Thank you,
Debra A. Telfrin
Executive Assistant
561-768-0465
561-768-0697
-----Original Message-----
From: Julia L. Jennison rmailto:»ennison(@llw-law.com1
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 1:51 PM
To: Couzzo, Michael
Subject: Tequesta Towers
Hi Michael,
Thank you for the meeting yesterday to try and work out my clients issues in regards to
Tequesta Towers. I presented the request to withdraw our petition to our client and am still
1
waiting to hear back from him with a decision. I will let you know as soon as I get a
response, hopefully today, but by Monday at the latest.
Sincerely,
Julie Jennisonz
*********************************************************************************************
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended
for the named recipient(s) only.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager or the sender
immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.
*** This message has been scanned for viruses, vandals, and malicious content. ***
*********************************************************************************************
2
; r �
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
°',�,"- AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL FORM
1. VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING:
Meeting Date: Meeting Type: Special Ordinance #:
8/11/11
Consent Agenda: No Resolution #: �.�e6�k: ������ �:�? ��t��� �� ��:'��-.
Originating Department: Attorney
2. AGENDA ITEM TITLE: (Wording form the SUBJECT line of your staff report)
Council Consideration of Appeal by Cliveden Jupiter Island Condominium Association, Inc. and
LaMar Condominium Association, Inc. Appeal of Village Staff interpretation of building height
measurements in the R-3 Zoning District as applied to a proposed 2,904 square foot, two story pool
and fitness accessory building at 400 Beach Road. - Acting Community Developmenf Director Fire
Chief Weinand
3. BUDGET / FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
Account #: N/A Amount of this item: N/A
Current Budgeted Amount Available: Amount Remaining after item:
N/A N/A
Budget Transfer Required: No Appropriate Fund Balance: No
4. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES: (This is a snap shot description of the agenda item)
Lewis, Longman and Walker submitted an appeal to the Village Council on 7/7/11 immediately prior to
the scheduled Plannin & Zoning Board Meetin
5. APPROVALS:
�/ �i
no�o�.�� �l1fYLt�4.s� Finance Director: ��eviewed for Financial
.s �. c�� 2
� Sufficiency
� No Financial Impact
Attorney: (for legal sufficiency) Yes ❑ No ❑
Village Manager: ° �
• SUBMIT FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION: �
• APPROVE ITEM: ❑
• DENY ITEM: ❑
Form amended 08/26/08
v
��
� MEMORANDUM
�
TO: Village Council Members
FROM: Village Manager Couzzo
DATE: August 3, 2011
SUBJECT: Tequesta Towers Appeal
NOTE REFERENCE TO APPEAL:
The Village Manager will hold a mitigation discussion with those involved on Thursday,
August 4, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. in the Village Manager's Office Conference Room. He will
update you following the mediation.
�°,������ �%��� ��
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1111 Hypolmco Road, Suite 207
�� ���.�.��6.�
JOHN CORBETT TELEPHONE (561) 586-7116
TRELA J. WHITE TELECOPIER (561) 586-9611
BRADLEY W. BIGGS;^
KEITH W. DAVIS*
R. MAX LOHMAN
ABIGAIL FORRESTER JORANDBY • Boazd Certified in City, County and Local Government Law
JENNIFER GARDNER ASHTON ^ State Certified County and Circuit Court Mediator
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Paterno; Vice Mayor Arena; Council Members Brennan, Humpage and
Turnquest; and Village Manager Couzzo
FROM: Village Attorney Keith W. Davis, Esq.
DATE: July 21, 2011
RE: Request for Appeal of Staff Determination — Tequesta Towers Site Plan
Application
Tequesta Towers, 400 Beach Road, Tequesta, Florida 33469 has applied for a Site Plan
Modification to allow the demolition of the existing single story pool cabana and the
construction of an entirely new two story cabana/fitness center. After extensive review and
multiple meetings with the applicant, and as a result of a number of revisions to the application,
Village Staff has determined that the application is now compliant with Village Zoning Codes,
including the code relative to the measurement of building height. As a result, this matter is
ready for review by the Planning and Zoning Advisory Board.
However, neighboring residents in buildings to the west of the subject property have
retained counsel and have made an objection to the construction of the new pool cabana/fitness
center. The admitted reason for the objection is the fear that the new building will hinder the
objecting parties' ocean view from the west side of Beach Road. However; since there is no
legally recognized right to view, counsel for the objecting neighbors has made an attempt to
claim that the proposed building does not comply with building height requirements, and that
Village Staff has erred in its determination that the Tequesta Towers application is code
compliant. They ha�e utilized the language of Sec. 78-63. Appeal procedure. of the Village's
1
Zoning Ordinance to challenge the sta.ff interpretation of building height and the staff
determination that the application is compliant with the code.
Sec. 78-63. Appeal procedure. provides that any person aggrieved by a decision of an
administrative officer charged with enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance may file a written
appeal, specifying the grounds for the appeal. In this case, the specific staff determination being
appealed is that the proposed building complies with m�imum buiiding height requirements in
the R-3 Zoning District. The appeal is strictly limited to this issue since Sec. 86-63 clearly states
that "Such appeal shall be taken within 15 days of receipt of the written decision being appealed,
by filing with the village clerk a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof." The appeal
notice received by the village clerk on July 7, 2011 acknowledges receipt of the staff report on
July 6. Thus, July 21, 2011 is the 15�' day to provide notice of the specific grounds being
appealed, and the only grounds discussed in the appea.l are those described herein.
August 1 l, 2011 at 5:00 p.m. was selected as the date and time for the Village Council to
hear the appeal. At that time, you will hear arguments from both the appellant, through
whomever they choose to present their case, and from Village Sta.ff, through the Village
Attorney. It is recommended that the Village Council place and adhere to strict time limits for
each side's arguments. I suggest that 15 minutes per side would be more than enough time.
Such a process would be consistent with the process for oral argument in most appellate settings.
2
e°�- RECEIVED
„�• `�.
'`.�"'�' LE:WIS i
, � v�q• �
��..sw � JUL " 7 Z���
`�'�''�` �ONGMAN &
`--- VILLAGE CLERKS OFFICE
� � ��. WALKER � P.A.
; , FILED: Village of Tequesta
� Date: � " � ` � I
HelpiuR Shape Ftorida s Frrd�re."
Time: �' � � �'�`��
Repty To: West Palm Beach
SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
July 7, 2011
Village of Tequesta
Lori McWilliams, Village Clerk
345 Tequesta Drive
Tequesta, FL 33469
Re: Site Plan Review Application for 400 Beach Road, Tequesta, FL
(Tequesta Towers)
Dear Mrs. McWilliams:
Please be advised that Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A., ("LLW") has been retained by
Cliveden Jupiter Island Condominium Association, Inc. and LaMaz Condominium Association,
Inc., ("the Associations") to address Tequesta Tower's (the "Applicant") Site Plan Review
Application for 400 Beach Road Tequesta, Florida 33469. The Site Plan Review Applieation is
for the demolition of the current pool building and the expansion and reconstruction of a new
two (2) story pool and fitness buitding.
Currentty, the Staff Report concludes that the Application complies with the Village of
Tequesta Land Developr�ent-Code-�LHC"). Based-t�pon-the-determination that appii�atton
is in compliance with the LDC, and our review of the Application documents thus far, the
Associations hereby request an appeal of that determination, pursuant to the Village of
Tequesta's LDC Section 78-63. We received the Staff Report on July 6, 2011; therefore, our
request for appeat is timely. We provide the preliminary basis for our appeal herein. Please note
that our basis is not limited to all of the issues contained within this request, however, as we have
more time to review the Application package and its contents, we may have more issues to
include in the basis for appeal. We respectfully request that this appeal and the proposed Site
Plan Review Application be placed on the next available appropriate meeting agenda.
Hetping Shape Ftorrdcz`s Future�
BRAlaEN7ON JACKSQNVILLE TALLAHASSEE WE57 PALM BF_ACH
1001 Third Avenue Wesc 2n5 Rlverside Avenua 2b00 Centennial Place 515 iVorth F�gler C�r�ve
5�.:�te 670 Suite 150 Suite 100 Suite 1 i00
Hraden[c�n, Florida 34205 lacksonv+lle, Flor da 32202 iailahassee, Fiorid� 32308 West Palm fleach, Flonda 33401
p i`J4}-708-d04G • i; 941-7G8-a024 p � 904-353-5410 • f 904•353 7619 p 850•'122-�702 • f �$50-224.9242 p � 561 GAO-0820 • f � SG1-64O-(�201
www Ilw-law.com
Y. FINDINGS OF THE 5TAFF REPORT
The Staff Report finds that in terms of code compliaacs for building height, "two-story
accessory building, Code: Ma1c 2 stories or 20' measured from the average crest of the sand
dune line for main building or structure east of Beach Road, met Code Requirements." For the
reasons set forth below, this interpretation misses some key elements of the Village of
Teyuesta's Code, namely, the distinction between accessory buildings or structures and main
buildings or structures in relation to the Table Inset containe�l within Section 78-143. Read in its
proper context, the requirement to measure the height from the average crest of the height of the
sand dune only applies to main buildings or struchues and not accessory buildings or structures.
As such, the Application does not meet the LDC building height reyuirements because the Code
only allows two stories (or 20') for accessory structures and the existing pool house is already
two stories since it is located above the Tequesta Towers parking garage.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Property own�rs are entided to rely upon clear language of municipat ordinances. Nash
v. Fort Lauderdale Bd. of Adjustment, 462 So.2d 88 (Fla4th DCA, 1985). Generally, to the
interpretation given a statute or ordinance by the agency responsible for its administration has
deference; that deference is not absolute, however, when the agency's construction of a statute
amounts to an unreasonable interpretation, or is clearly erron�us, it cannot stand. Palm Beach
Polo, Inc. v. Village of Wetlington, 9l8 So.2d 988 (Fla4th DCA, 2006). Here, applying the
"average crest of the height of the sand dune line" to both main buildings/sttvctures and
accessory buildings/structures contravenes the plain language and construction of the ordinance.
III. THE STAFF REPORT'S INTERPRETATION AND THE CURRENT CODE
REQUIREMENTS
For two reasons the Staff Report recommendation does not co�y interpret the
---tnaximwn buildi�g height requirements. First, the maxim�un�eight define
requirements for main buildings or structures separate from accessory buildings or structures and
the average crest delineation is only applicable Lo main buildings or structures. Second, the
interpretation ignores the existing code definitions for building height, grade, elevation and
highest adjacent grade. The legislative history surrounding the adoption of the Table Inget in
Section 78-143 provides support for the fact that height has always been an issue of contention in
relation to the Teyuesta Towers site and that history is no less important when interpreting the
Code today as it was in 1973.
a. The Maaimam Height Requirements m R-3
The maximum height requirement in R-3 is as follows: "11 stories/101 ft. measw�d fiom the
average height of the crest of the sand "dune line, for main building or structure east of Beach
Road, and measured from grade west of Beach Road. 4[sic] 2 stories/20 ft. for any accessory
building or structure." The staf�s interpretation ignores the fact that there are tw�o (2) types of
structures defined in the limitation: (1) main buildings/structure in the first part of the limitation
and {2) accessory buildings/structures in the second sentence of the limitation. The StafFs
interpretadon blends these two concepts and applies the "the average height of the crest of the
sand dune line" to both main buildings/ struct�ues and accessory buildings/ structures. Cleazly,
this elevation only describes main buildings or structures, and not accessory buildings or
structures, because the "average height of the crest of the sand dune line" is only contain�
within the first part of the limitation related to the main buildings/structures category. If the
ordinance was to be interpreted as applicable to both types of structures, it would have been
written that way.
A statute or ordinance must be given its plain and obvious meaning. See Marion County
Hospital District v. Namer, 225 So.2d 442 (F1a.App.1 st 1969). Munici�l ordinances are subject
to the same rules of construction as are state statutes. Rose v. Town of Hillsboro Beach, 216
So.2d 258 (F1a.App.4th 1968); lacksonville v. Ledwith, 26 Fla. 163, 7 So. 885 (Fla. 1890). Rose
also stands for the substantive proposition that courts generally may not insert words or phrases
in municipal ordinances in order to express intentions which do not appear [emphasis added],
unless it is clear that the omission was inadvertent, and must give to a statute (or ordinance) the
plain atid ordinary meaning of the words employed by the legislative body (here the City
Council). Brooks v. Anastasia Mosquito Control District, 148 So.2d 64 (F1a.App.lst 1963). Here
the plain and ordinary language of the statute (and the Code) makes a distinction be�lween "main
building or structure" and "accessory building or structure" in terms of the applying the "average
height of the crest of the sand dune line". Main building/structure and accessory
building/structure are defined differendy under the Code. As stated, in its plain meaning, the
maximum height requirement "average heig�t of the crest of the sand dune line" measurement
east Beach Roac�(anc�grade vvest of Beach Road) only applies-�o `smain
"accessory building or structure". Under the case law, that reyuirement cannot be also ascribed
to accessory buildingsJstructures because that would be expressing an intention clearly not there.
b. Cons�ideration of Two Stories
In the R-3 zoning district an accessory building is limited to two stories not to exceed 20
feet (and the crest of dune language is inapplicable to accessory struct�ues for the reasons set
forth above). The Applicant states its project is only two (2) stories. However, the Applicant's
proposed Project is a two (2) story building that will sit on top of a one story covered garage.
This fact has not changed with the prior, or current, proposal to add another story to the pool
house in violadon of the Code.
c. The Other Requirements for Determining Iieight Under the Code
Ground and natin�al elevation in the context of this site plan application is established at
some point under the "center line" of Beach Road which appears to be 9.01' from a previous
analysis completed by our expert October 20, 2009 (attached hereto). The elevation identified at
the entrance to the private garage on the Applicant's documents appears to be 9.4'. Because this
elevation is somewhat higher, but close to the height of the crown of the road, it is evide�t that
the natural elevation of the ground surface is somewhere close to the 9.01-9.4 range' because the
garage was constructed on top of ground or natural elevation. Based on these calculations, the
follawing Code definitions are relevant:
• Adjacent is defined as "that which lies near or close to, not widely separated or
necessarily touching
• Building, height of, is dcfined as "the vertical distance measured from the existiing
average elevation of the highest adjacent grade, at the base of the building to the highest
point of the building or roof. Height shail be measured to the highest point of the
following:
1. The coping of a flat roof;
2. The average height level between the eaves and roof ridge or peak with
gable, hip, or gambrel roofs;
3. Deck lines on a mansard roof;
4. For a roof with equipment which exceeds more than four feex above the
highest point of the roof. Stauways, elevator penthouses, and accessory
operating equipment enclosed within the rootline are excl�ed, as are
screens to conceal facilities on the roof provided that the screen is not
under roof and is less than ten feet in height".
• Elevation is defined as:
1. "The vertical distance above or below a fixed reference level; or
2. A�lat scale drawiag of the front, rear, or side of a bui}ding o� stzuchu�e".
• Highest adjacent grade is defined as "the highest natural elevation of the ground surface,
prior to construction, next to the proposed walls of a structure, if the finished grade is
level. If the finished grade is not entirely level, the grade shall be determined by
averaging the elevation of the ground at each face of the building, or as otherwise
deterrnined by the building official".
• Story is defined as "that portion of a building included between the upper surface of any
floor and the upper surface of the floor or roof next above, or if there is no floor above it,
the space between the floor aad the ceiling above it".
In determining the intent of an ordinance, `When the legislative intent is clear from wotds
used in the enactrnent, courts are bound thereby and may not seek a meaning different from
ordinary or common usage connotation of such words unless, upon a consideration of the act as a
whole and the subject matter to wlrich it relates, the court is necessarily lead to a determination
that the legislature intended a different meaning to be ascribed to the language adopted by it.'
Gay v. City of Coral Gables, 47 So.2d 529 (Fla 1950). To determine the act as a whole, it
becomes important to review other provisions of the Code related to building heigh� As we
have previously notsd relative to this project, if the garage is incorporated into the resideAtial
dwelling of the site (any building or structure designed exclusively for residential occupancy
including the garage), then it must atso be included in the height calculation for the accessory
struct�ue because "building height" is calculated as the "vertical distance measured from thc
existing average elevation of the highest adjacent grade at the base of the building [emphasis
added] to the highest point of the building or roof." Simply put, all of the existing buildings on
the site include the garage as a story. Further, the base of the building is the point from which
building t�ight is calculated. When applying the Code, the result is that ground and natural
elevation in the context of this site plan application is established at some poirn likely between
9.01-9.4'. When reading these definitions wgether, the 20' or two story limitation would nced to
be measured from an elevation of somewhere between 9.01-9.4' rather then the 20.1' the
Applicant proposes because the pool house is an accessory building or structure. Strictly
adhering to the Code would prevent the second story from being added from two perspectives:
a) the two-story building wotild actually be thrce stories (accounting for the garage) exceeding
the limitation and b) it would exc,eed the 20' height requiremetrts because the point of
measurement would be anywhere from l 1.9'-10.7' lower than proposed.
The definitions in the Code, a� these _prescribed methods of calculating height, cannot
be discounted. City of Miami Beach v. Arthree, [nc., 269 So.2d 699 (Fla 3d DCA 1972),
involved a City of Miami Beach ordinance which allowed ancillary uses in hotels having more
than 100 rooms. The holding was that the definitioas in the city code were controlling: `the
definitions provided by the ordinance itself are a matter of first consideration,' Id. at 702.
Additionally, even the though the Ordinance adopting the building restrictions in Section 78-143
was adopted in 1994, the definitions in the Code related to building height, and the interpretation
thereof, remain validly enacted provisions of the Code that must be considered.
IV. INTERPRETATIONS OF ORDINANCES: STANDARD FOR REVICWING
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
In Maryland Casualty Co. v. Sutherland, 125 Fla. 282, 169 So. 679 (1936), the Court
states the first rule of statutory construction: `The legislative history of an act is important to
courts only when there is doubt as to what is meant by the language employ�.' (Emphasis
added.) Where words used in an act, when considered in their ordinary and grammatical sense,
clearly express the legislative intent, other rules of construction and interpretation are
unnecessary and unwarranted. Whenever possible, in preference to validating loosely written
statute or ordinance, look to legislative intent of enactment, including legislative history, if
possible, and construe enactment so as to bring it within constitutional bounds; courts should not
distill legislative intent from pure suimise. City of Pompano Beach v. Capalbo, 455 So.2d 468,
(Fla. 4th DCA., 1984). Only if the interpretation of the irrtent behind Section 78-143 is unclear,
should the legislative intent even be analyzed. Nonetheless, a brief overview follows.
Although, the inquiry on interpreting the maximwn height reyuirements should stop here
because the legislatiye intent is clear, the legislative history surrounding the enactment of verious
Code ordinances is instructive. In Ordinance 211 adopting the original Code in 1973, the
definition of "Building, Height of," was the vertical distance from grade to the highest finished
roof surface over habitable quarters in the case of flat roofs, or to a point at the average height of
roofs having a pitch of more than 1' in 4 1/2'. � Grade was defined as "The crown of the public
street or road at its highest elevation abutting the property...." Finally, the original l�ight
limitarion for more than two-family dwellings was six (6) stories or sixty-five (65) feet. It
wasn't until Ordinatice 479 was adopted in 1994 was their more specificity regarding site
requirements for the R-3 category.
In July 1994, the Village completed an inventory study to determine how pmperties relate
to the Code in effect at the time in comparison to the Palm Beach County Code. The result was
that properties in the R-3 category were nonconfornvng. In September 1994, more discussion of
the issue ensued regarding equalizing the height requirements across t6e existing structures.
Staff was directed to prepare an ordinance to bring the nonconforming properties into some sori
of compliance with new code provisions.
In October of 1994, when Ordinance 479 was adopted to bring maay of the condominium
properties along Beach Road into conformance with the Code, the minutes state, "Mayor
MacKail requested the 105-ft height be changed to 101 fe�t, and clarified with Building Official
Ladd that the height was measured 8.5 feet from the water level, finish floor elevation, and all
buildings had used the same formula." [Emphasis added]. The overall goal of the Ordinance
was to assure properties would be measw�ed from a common base in tezms of determining
elevation. In this same ordinance, the heigh,t restrictions for the R-3 category were first
developed. Important to note, Section 1, paragraph 3 of the Ordinance states, "Accessory
ctares�ot height constir�cted orrtot�with ress�than the minimum
lot depth, with apprQval of the Village Council." [Emphasis Added]. While this paragraph
chiefly related to a discussion of lot boundaries, it is clear that the intent was to limit aacessory
structures to 10' if the first story is not counted. But more specifically, the Table Inset of Section
78-143 for R-3 district site requirements (known as "E�chibit A'� was also adopted Section 3,
Ordinance # 479 on November 10, 1994 and this included the specific language at issue with tlus
application, "2 stories/20 ft. for any accessory building or structure". Reading these two
provisions together, and the definitions in ei�ect at the time, it is clear the intent was that the
accessory building or structure be only 10' in height when the first story is not included or a total
of 20' / 2 stories when the garage is included in the overall height calculation. Calculating the
building height of the accessory building/structiu�e from the average crest of the dune line adds
over 10' to the height of the structure from what was originally contemplated in 1994.
In December 8, 1994, the minutes describe an agreement between R. Mason Simpson and
`Tequesta Towers' that he deed restrict the rear portion of the property so that "nothing other
than a one-story building" could be built at 425 Beach Road in conjunction with the Site Plan
Review for the Cliveden. While related to the Clive�n and not Tequesta Towers, the intent was
to lunit accessory structures to one story.
V. CONCLUSIONS
Coupling the legislative history with the plain and ordinary meaning of the maximum
height limitarions in the R-3 category, it is clear that the use of the average crest of the height of
the sand dune line does not, and was never intended, to apply to accessory sttucdues. In
adopting the provision, the intent was to have a common frame of reference for measuring the
height of bodi main and accessory structtures. Principles of statutory construction and the
consideration of the Code as a whole simply do not permit another floor to be added to the pool
house as re�uested by the Applicant. Nothing has changed in the two (2) years since this project
was last brought forwazd, and any attempt to misapply a maximum building height standard
clearly intended for maia buildings/structures to accessory buildings/structures should be denied.
Based upon the Code, a one story building (above the parking garage) is all that is permitted.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you require any additioaal information
regarding this request for appeal, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
��C�-�" �`'
Erin L. Deady, Esquire
Enclosure(s)
_ . _ _ . _. _ _ __ ._ .
c: Keith Davis, Corbett & White
Trela White, Corbett 8c White
Conrad Damon
Bob Casey
� w�.., w._.. �.-. . . h..,,, ..__..
� AH�gher�9tunctartloPExceUerkn a AP:fJ�€� �`-� Ytt31d. P[,.M .;�,l.�.v
1�sl4 � '
���,,✓� � �� �, � ,�f, 9 t`_�"a`.�,P � ,
�i'CX.I� I('1G. � , � � ,.
t�
`�° � October 20, 2009
�: �
�A ;
Erin Deady, Esq., AICP
Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A.
=�
1700 Palm Beach Lakes, B►vd., Suite 1000
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
ite: Tequesta Towers Pooi/Cabana House Site Plan Apptication
Dear Ms. Deady:
On October 16, 2009 you requested that Engenuity Group, Inc. review some information
:_� related to the Site Plan Application for the demolition and reconstruction of the pool
� house/cabana located at 400 Beach Road, Tequesta, Florida. Engenuity Group, Inc. is
a firm of 24 people, providing engineering, surveying, and geographic information
system services for over 31 years in the stdte of Florida. Our engineers and surveyors are
properly licensed in the state of Florida.
I have been with the firm for 21 years, and am the President of the Company, I have 25
years of surveying experience and I have attached my resume (CV) for your review.
On October 17, 2009, I visited the site to gain a visual understanding of the facts you
described to me the previous day. I collected no topographical data from the site,
and have not verified any elevations shown. Based upon that site visit, the Applicant's
site plan stamped August 13, 2009, and other information you supplied to me on
October 19, 2009, my conclusions are as follows:
1. A topographic survey showing pre-construction conditions of the site was not
available for review to determine natural ground at the garage location.
2. The applicant's survey shows "spot" elevations based on a benchmark D.E.P.
Monument marked "PM BH R-8 1974, Elevation=16.09'. This elevation is based on
the National Geodetic Verfical Datum of 1929.
3. The natural ground elevation on the subject property cannot be determined
from the Applicant's submitted survey due the filling and terracing that has
occurred related to the construction of the existing improvements.
4. The elevation identified in the Applicant's site plan at the entrance to the
garage is 10.92'.
5. The elevation at the crown of 8each Road (State Road 707) adjacent to the
parking structure is 9.01'.
6. The elevation difference between the entrance of the garage and the crown of
Beach Road is 1.91 '
; ; : ,. ,. � ,. 9p WWW ENGENWTYGROUP <;sy
7. The ground levei elevations adjoining the parking garoge range from 10.92 at
the entrance to 11.82'outside of the retaining wall along the south side of the
property.
8. The property that is northerly and adjacent to the subject property is
undeveloped, and a transect(s) of that property would indicate the
approximate elevation of natural ground on the subject properfy adjacent to
the garage.
I hope this information answers the questions you hove presented. Please do not
hesitate to call me fo� any other questions you may have. I can be contacted at
561.818.6212.
Sincerely,
C. Andre Rayman, P. S.M., GISP
President
���� �o� Aeng° ��� �
�
group inc.
-� C. ANDRE RAYMAN, P.S.M., G.I.S.P.
,,
��.. ,..
PRESIDENT
��.
� Mr. Rayman is a Registered Land Surveyor in the State of Florida. In
�,� $ m ,� ' addition to being a GiS Certified Professional, he has over 25 years of
°4 �- experience working in the surveying field.
� ��`���� � Education
B.S., Surveying & Mapping, University of Florida
Registration: State of Florida, Surveying and Mapping #4938
GIS Certified Professional #47072
Experience
Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District
Plat Review
Basemaps for Various Projects
Created Sketch and Descriptions for Easements
GIS Coordination
Village of North Palm Beach
Topographic Survey for Bulkhead Design/Retrofit
Golf Course Boundary Definition for new Golf Course Layout
Plat review
Basemap and Sketch/Description for Carolinda Drive
Town of Lake Clarke Shores
Review Plats
Topographic and Boundary Survey of Town Hall �
X Section of LWDD Canal and Topographic Survey of City Park adjacent to Forest Hil! Blvd
Develop Property Ownership GIS
Town of Ocean Ridge •
uarious Basemappi�g-Projec#s �or Storr-�water Design-including �fropieal Drive, Coconut
Lane, A-1-A corridor
Review of Plats
Town of Highland Beach
Various Sketch and Descriptions
Basemapping for GIS for Water Distribution Systems
Town of Manalapan
Boundary Survey of Town Hall
Sketch for Sign Easement
City of Greenacres
Review of Plats
Miscellaneous Sketch and Descriptions
Indian Trails Improvement District
Topographic Survey for Berm Repair
MO Cana! Project
Page 1 of 2
„,t a Highm Stnidard o� Exoaltenca x
�� _ � ���il��� �� ���
.�� . w ,,. M . `
group inc. ,
C. ANDRE RAYMAN, P.S.M., GISP PRESiDENT
Topographic Survey and Datum for STA 2 Cell 4 North and South Build Out.
Developed a digital map and database for Indian Trai! Improvement District, Town of
Lake Clarke Shores, Town of Ocean Ridge, City of West Palm Beach, and Town of Palm
Beach.
Prepared right-of-way maps and parcel maps for the Port of Palm Beach's, 13+h Street,
1 1 m Street and Avenue "C”.
Developed and managed GIS Systems for the Town of Lake Clarke Shores, Town of
Ocean Ridge, Town of Gulfstream, Indian Trail Improvement District and Northern Palm
Beach County Improvement District.
Coordinated in-house mapping effort5 of Lake Worth Drainage District Canals.
Right-of-way map preparation for various Palm Beach County projects, including West
Atlantic Avenue, Belvedere Road (Phase I 8� II�, Flavor Pict Road (Turnpike to BarwickJ, .
and Folsom Road (Okeechobee Blvd. to Southern Blvd.�.
Plat Preparation for various projects in Palm Beach County, and Martin County.
Developed base maps for Kissimmee River Restoration Project for SFWMD as well as a
low-pressure sanitary sewer system project for Loxahatchee River District (ENCONj.
Organixations �& Honars
Florida Surveying and Mapping Society Palm Beach Chapter, Past President
Florida Association of Cadastral Mappers
Ame�ican Congress on Surveying & Mapping
Forest Hill High School Engineering Academy Adviser
FES Mentor Program at Fforida Atlantic Universify
Palm Beach County League of Cities, Associate Member
Florida Atlantic University Geomatic Engineer, Executive Chairman
Page 2 of 2
. _.___.._._ �..� --
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
� P�oat Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequeata Drive
;, Tequesta. Flarids 33469-0273 • (407) 575-6200
Fau: (407) 575-6�3
0
vII.�GE oF �uESTA
VII.LAGE COUNCIL
SPECTAL MEETII�TG NIINUTES
JULY 28 1994
i . c.u.i. �o oa�nffit ��un �o�. C�t•i•
The Tequesta Villaqe Council held a Special Meeting at the
Village Hall, 357 Tequ�sta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on
Thursd�y, July 28, 1994. The meeting was called to order a�t
7:00 P.M. by Hayor Ran T. Mackail. l� roll call was taken by
Betty Laur, the Recording secretary. council members
present were: Hayor Ron T. Mackail, Blizebeth 1�. Schauer,
Earl L. Col2ings, and Joseph N. Capretta. Alao fn
�� attendance were: Village Manaqer Thoeas G. Bradford,
Vfllage 7�ttorney John C. Rsndolph, Village Clerk Joenn
Manqaniello, and Departsant Heads. Ahsent was Vice �Iayor
�illiam B. Hurckart.
II. 71PPRW1�iL OF �G�1D,i1
o Councilmen�er Collinqs requested addit,ioa of .an item
under Ite�a XI reqarding BRIZT.
o Vil�age Me�nager Bradford requeated addition of an ftem
under Iten XI reqarding update of the xater issue.
Oamcil�ber Colli�qs aovea to approve the �da ss
as�ad. t�nuicilse�bez� 9cbsuer seoonded the satio�f. The
vote on the �otion ves:
Ron T. Mackail - for
Slisabeth Schausr - for
Berl L. Colli.ngs - for
Joseph N. Capretta - for
Tbe a�tion �r�s therefore passed a� a�op�ted anci tt�e 1l�qenda
was appro�ad as atended.
�..
Rervr.led Panr.r
Village Council
�... Special lleetinq Minutes
July 28, 1994
Paqe 2
III. RSSOLUTION NO. a0-93/94 - l�iCCEP'PII�TG 'l� TSt�3 a1�iD COHDITIONS
O!' THB �G�iCY 1�DIC�►L 3ffitVICSS (�LS ) l�liiARD GR�'P 11ITH '1'HS
PAI�[ BB�?iCH C�TY HOl�iRD OF (AU1�IT�f C�ISSI�l1ffitS, P1�lI.�t BB1�iCH
COUNTY, FIARID�, FOR �I�TY 1�O1�I83 RSCBIVSD FRO�[ GRAN'1'
1�iPPLICIlTI0113 �ZBTSD FOR 1994 , AOCBPTPiI�CE OF i1HICH. 11II,L
87�l�lND Pi�ID/QR IlIPR�NB THS FIRE D�1�iRTl�NR'�S �tGffi�CY
I�DICAI. SffirVICSS DIVISION AND 1iILL NOT HB OS$D TO SUPPL�iN'P
THB VILi�iGB•3 BXISTI1�iG B�DGBT �lLi�OCl�iTION: 1�T1�ORI8Il� '1$B
VILI.AGB M�N�Gffit '�O �i'1'SR INTO SOCH l�ltT AGRS�1'1' F+O�R lilNY
GRI�ITS R�C$IVSD. (Staff Recos�ends Appro�val)
Village Manager Bradford commented that this resolution
needed to be passed each year for the Villaqe to be eligible
for this grant, which he anticipated to be about $5, 000 this
year, and that if the amount should be a large contribution
that it could have the effect of reducing future
expenditures.
Councii�ber Schauez soved to approve Resolution No. a0-
93/94. Councilaeaber Collinqe seconded the 'otion. The
vote on the ,otion was:
Ron T. l�ackail - for
Blizabeth Schauer - for
Barl L. Collinqs - for
Joseph N. Capretta - for
The motion was therefore passed and adopted.
IV. (701�13IDffitATIO�i OF ST1�iFF RRPORT ON TE� R-3 ZONING DISTRICT
INVSNTORY ST[1DY.
Village Manager Bradford stated as a result of Vice Mayor
Surckart's recommendation that changes be made to section
VII of the Zoninq Code for the R-3 Zoning District [which
only appliee to properties within the Village of Tequesta on
Beach Road and allows the hiqhest density of any zoning
distxict under the Village's Zoninq Code] to make it more in
keep3nq with palm Beech County�s ai,milar �oni.nq dietrict,
the Village Council had directed staPf to p�cega��►� ;an
inven�tory ���ud�► tn ord�r to d�ater�ine; hcav � e��:��t�r�g..
properties relate to the exi�tinq code in e!'fect �or that
srea and to 'Falm Beaah County' a zoning code '�or th� �$ jacent
a�ea:. Village Manager Bradford reviewed"Vice Mayor
Burckart's suqgestions in reqard to amending the R-3 Zoning
villaqe Council
�... special l�eeting Iiinutes
J�ly 28, 1994
Paqe 3
District by chanqing Section VII of the Zoning Code to
aZlow:
b Side setback of 4t? feet plus ;2` feet for each additional
ten feet, and if an R-3 District abutted a sinqle family
district that the setback should be doubled to provide a
proper separation for the two land uses.
4 Front setback bf t�ro feet for a o�+a-�s�to�y gar�ge
structure thet is landscaped an� covered �ith greenery on
top. Other one-story garages would have a front:setbq�ck
of ten feet from the front property line if '�r.a :t�ere no'
landeaapir�g on top. The main structure front setback
would renain at 60 feet.
4 Building height of eleven living levels ov�x on� levs], vf
parkinq. (As described in the existing code except for
the addition of three additional levela.) Huilding
height wonld be changed from 85 feet to 115 feet to
accommodate the extra three stories.
In the absence of Scott D. Lsdd, Building Official, who had
prepared the inventory study, Village Manager Bradford
rev�ewed Mr. Ladd's report which included the number of
units, lot area in acres, units per acre, as-built front
yard, side yard, and rear yard setbacks, heiqht in storfes
and in feet, percentage of lot coverage, and whether
conPorminq or non-conforming to current code. Mr. Ladd had
also prepared a comparative analysis of various zoning code
ordinances for the Village and foz the County-and when they
were adoptsd. Th� Palm Beach C4unty cQde wa� shc��m:to:be
more libreral. than the Village code for �ront, eid� and �re+�r
yard.o��tbacks,, and allowed buildinq heiqht to increase in
relation to increased setbsck�. The, net result o� Mr.
Ladd's findinqs wa� that of all th� propertxe� �ri�tin t�le R=
3 Zoning Di�triict were noh-confarming, and that the only
property conforming under current code is Cliveden which was
approved by the Village Council on June 14, 1994. Villaqe
Manager Brad�ord clarified that "conforming" meant a
property met all requireme�ts under current cc�de and that.
'�ncan-conforming ��ant a property did not comply �►3tb one or
�aore of the` current �equirements. Implicit in 1�1r. Ladd's ,
report , wd� tY�at' these propertiea b�c� nar�-canfo�n9 �s `
more re�trictive t�rdinances raplaced previous +��di:�anc�s
oVer the y�ars. In response to Councilmember Capretta,
Villaqe Council
�- Special loieeting lYiinutes
J�l.y 28, 1994
Paqe 4
village Manager 8radfo=d clarified that in Janua�r 1973 when
Tequesta �ers` �a� permitted th:+t tlze- ca�e ;�th+�n in,:e:���at ,
a1�:4Med buiiding height o! 10� Peet, �o that, th+�y t�e�► �le
to �:l�d an" 11-stpry l�ilding.
Villaqe Manager Bradford responded to Councilmember
Schauer's question of what a�ould happen if the non-
conforminq properties remained non-conforming, that if there
were a disaster where one of those structures were damaqed
50$ or more, it would have to be rebuilt under the existinq
code, not the code that existed at the time it was built.
Councilmember Capretta suggested if Tequesta's code were
more consistent with the Palm Heach County code that the
buildings would be conforming and could be rebuilt to their
oriqinal plans, and also would make Tequesta competitive for
people wishing to annex into the Village. Mayor Mackail
questioned the dollar impact to the Village tax base in
liqht of the present inventory and potential annexation.
Villaqe Manaqer Bradford responded if the Village had
everything from Claridge to Seawatch that there would be a
nice tax base. Councilmember Collings informed the Council
that over the years the Coastal Construction Zone had been
moved back by the County, so that many of these properties
could not be rebuilt in their own footprint if they were
destroyed. Villaqe Manager Bradford commented that the only
undeveloped Heach Rosd property was the Cliveden
development.
i�ilfr�d Coyle, 375 Heach Road, stated he was confused by
comments made in a letter he hsd received from Village
Manager Bradford, which he planned to respond to next week.
He quoted from the letter, `Vice Mayor Burckart and some
members of the Council believe that the Cliveden condominium
project ae was oriqinally proposed was a better project for
all parties concerned in terms of design and
amenities......As to the proposed townhomes on the
northernmost parcel, there appears to be unanimity that
these units should be avoided if possible.� Mr. Coyle
stated if the original proposal included the toamhomes that
these statements appeared to be in direct contradiction, and
wondered if the townriomes had ever been seriously considered
and if they miqht be a red herrinq. He further quoted,
"development rights of the developer, and can they be
transferred thereby resolving the concerns". Mr. Coyle
asked what development rights were, whether they quaranteed
Village Council
� special l�iaetinq Minutes
July 28, 1994
Paqe 6
l�ason Si�on stated he had not made an offer for Mrs.
Sendzimir's property. Mr. Simpson atated that, speaking as
a professional, the nor�hern part of the island needed to be
in Tequesta to be able to use Village services and currently
under County regulations buildinqs there could be of
unlimited heiqht. xe explained a Conditional Use B permit
was granted by the County Commission to construct a building
with no height restrictions except those determined by
Betbacks, which would mean the 3endzinir property could
currently have a buildinq over 20 stories tall. Other
comments by Mr. 3impson included a statement that if he were
allowed to build townhomes at the Cliveden project that they
would be built.
Sd Hallberq, 350 Heach Road, requested clarification as to
how the height was determined on the Cliveden project. Mr.
Hallberg stated his belief that the buildinq was 97 feet
hiqh and the code stated 85 �eet. Vi].lage Manager 8redford
expinin�d the first floor and tt�e ,elevator tower �ere
typically not counted tn det�rmining hei�ght. l�tr. Hallberq
stated his belief that since the side yard setback wae 40
feet with an additional 2 feet added for each additional
ten, even using the 85-ft. heiqht that the requirement would
be 52 feet and not 50 feet as was approved. Mr. Hallberg
requested clarification from the Building Department as to
how Cliveden had been determined to be a conforming
property.
xerv c�ockett, 40o Heach Roaa, statea he was a ao-year
resident who had been on the Tequesta Towers Board for 18
years, and his comvaents were in their behalf. Mr. Crockett
stated they were opposed to any change in zoninq that would
permit the constructfon of five townhouses.
Brenda Si�pson, �5 Seddleback Road, questioned when the
meeting was held that authorized Mr. Meinken as
representative to speak for all Besch Road residents.
Steve Kennedy, Deputy Building Official, stated that
Building Official Ladd had determined the Cliveden property
to be conforming; however, a�ince the criterie in the
inventory study seemed to be contradictory he suqgested this
matter be revisited. Councilmember Colli.nqs comment+�d the
etudy was a g�neral study, whila t�� i�s1�� oi hot� h��.qh"� ai�d
setback had been determined for Clivec�en :aas a prec3se
village Council
Special Keetinq Nfnutes
July 28, 1994
Page 7
matter; and recommended revisiting this matter. Councilman
Capretta spoke regardinq the Cliveden project and stated the
Beach Road residents had never had the choice of no
condominium being built; their choices wsre on�.y in r-ogard
to the open.or covered parking and whether to incr�erse=:the
he3qht of the build3.ng. He informed the public that the
laws regarding conflict of interest were very specific, and
that data �ad not been seen to indicate Mr. Burckart has any
confZict or has been unethical in any way. Villaqe Attorney
Randolph stated any member of the Council who has an is�ue
which would inure to hfs personal financial gain should
recuse himself from voting on any such issue and in the
event of such a conflict he is to declare that conflict at
the public meeting and file a financial disclosure statement
and conflict of interest statement with the Villaqe which
would go to the State. Mr. Caprett� stated unless a member
of the public had proof that Mr. Hurckart had acted
unethically, he would appreciate them not maligning him.
Alfred Coyle stated he did not imply that Mr. Hurckart had
done anything unethical, but had stated that a member of the
Council who was in the real estate business probably has a
potential financial gain from approving this type of change
in the zoninq code.
Mr. Graveney stated after listening to Mr. Capretta that he
would like to withdraw his Pinal remark.
l�. 1[einken addressed comments to Mr. Capretta that the
people at Lamar, 375 Beach Road, the immediate abutter to
Cliveden, desired a 9-story bufidinq with cpen sir parking
rather than a building hiqher than their existinq buildinq.
He stated Mr. DiVosta had pianned to build a twin tower, and
the original purchasers based their purchases on that
premise. He stated there had been rumors that an 11 or 12-
story building would enhance the value of existing
properties, and stated that statement was untrue, and that
they had been told by real estate people that their property
values would go down.
Nr. Simpson stated the twin tower cauld not be built since
two parking spaces per unit are now required and the site is
physically not large enough for two spaces per ursit, and
that if it could be built he would be pleased to build it.
vii�aqe councii
�.. special Neeting 1+linutes
July 28, 1994
Page 8
It w�� the consen�us of the Viilage Council that sta��•,b�.
directed to qather further informa�ion on detezti�i.�inq ���e
height and setbacks in the R-3 zoning d'istrict.
Councilmember Schauer directed Deputy Buildinq Official
Steven Rennedy to inform Buildinq Off icial Scott D. Ladd to
include in his re�rt whether or not on there is a manager' e
apartment on the main level of every existing condo on Heach
Road, and where the electrical facilities are located.
Village Attorney Randolph recapped that direction to staff
was to produce. a-mor+� coaplete and preciss bac�groutnd r.egort
relat3nq to the R-3 Zoning District to incl�d� how �etbacks
and height are measursd on a practical ��is to giv� 'the,
Council a better understanding of how the ordinances are
applied.
Mayor Mackail stated at the original meeting regarding
Cliveden his impression was Beach Road residents were only
opposed to the amount of time they had available to study
the project and make comments, not that they were opposed to
the actual project. Mayor Mackail stated the Village is in
a lawsuit and he did not see a win for either the Village or
the people who are suinq the Village, and felt the real
concern was the five potential townhomes. He informed the
public that when the Council had asked for a special meeting
to try to work thinqs out in a neighborly fashion there was
rib support, therefore, he felt it imperative that staff
provide more information and asked that they include
information as to what would happen in the event of a
disaater to conforming and non-conforminq properties, and
the potential tax base that would be available for the
Village. Councilmember Collings asked that the Beach Road
properties whioh might annex in the future be listed in the
report with heights, etc., and that the future annexation
impact for all of Heach Road be stated.
Councilmember Capretta informed the public that the Council
could not interfere with or reverse the decision by the
Zoning eoard of Adjustment.
V. CONSIDB[iATIOli OF BID l�iRD FOR THB V�RIOQS SS(�ITS OF '1'�E
OODNTRY CI.OB DRIVS II�'ROV�1'P PROJSCT, �i 1994 BOHD ISSQB
PRO�7SGT HAVING DffiIG�U'1'SD P�C�S OF $172, 000 . ( 3taf f
Recommends Approval)
--•.,.. ' " .
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
r Pea� Oftioe aox 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive
�� ' r Te911�tf�. FlOrida 33469-0273 •(40� 575-6200
Fax: (407) 575-6203
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
VILLAGE CUUNCII.
MEETII�iG N'QNUTES
S ER 7,1994
r. cu�.L To o�us� �u � c�,t.i.
The Tequesta Village Council held a reqularly acheduled
meeting at the Villaqe Hall, 357 Tequeste Drive, Tequesta,
Florida, on �iednesday, 3eptenber 7, 1994. The meeting Was
called to order at 7:00 P.M. by lYlayor Ron T. Macknfl. �►
roll call was teken by 8�tty Laur, Recordinq secretary.
Council aesbers present were: Mayor Ron T. I�iackail, Vice
l+iayor Nillia�at B. Burckart, Elisabeth �►. Schauer, and Earl L.
Collinqs. Joseph ti. Capretta pas abeent from the meetinq.
Also in attendance were: Village Manager Tho�es G.
� BradPord, Villaqe Clerk Josnn Nanganiello, Departnent Iieac�s,
`'� and Village attorney John C. Randolph.
II. IUVOCA'PIC�1 Ai1D PLSDGB O� �id.1G7ANCB
c�onncil�e�ber 8lisabsth 1►. Schaue� gave ths Irrv�ocation aird
led tiwse in att,endanoe in tt� Pleaqe of 2►].leqianoe to the
l�ierican F�.aq.
�III. 1�lPPROVAI. OF �
oouncil�er Collfngs aaved tbat the 1lqorrda be app�avad as
sub�itted. Councilseaba� Schsuer se�o�ded the �tia�. The
v�ote on the aoti� �as s
Ron T. 1lscksil - fos'
t13111 s. �rt - for
Blfsabe�th ]►. Sc�surer - for
Sari L. Collinqs - for
The aation ras therelore pass�d and ad�opted and the lyqenda
�ras app�aoved as suhaitted.
IV. BOBLIC HS�tI1tG3
� A) Reviev of Proposed Villa�s Gensral Fuad, Special A�venu�e
and Debt Service Fnna. CaPital Iap�ov�e�ent Fund, Bond
xm,�ka Pa�e,
� villsc� Oouacii
�..,, Xeeting Itiantes
Septa■beY' 7, 1994
Page 11
--__�.__----______� _
hoped to oversee the etudy krieat nothinq about the
findinqs, thnt he feared another lawsuit. He stated he
hoped that the neighborhoods aflected by the poasible
sewers could oversee the atudy. l�tayor Mackail agreed,
and stated ha felt the roles of the people involved must
be defined. Villnqe l�anaqer Bradford responded to
Councilmember Collings that $63,000 had been allocated by
BNCON for the study and that Harbor Oceanographics•
$57,000 bid hed been accepted b�y BNCON to do the
engineerinq. Villaqe Ulanager Bradford voiced concex`n
that SNCON had selected a consultinq enqineer to do the
study vhich Nill be overaeen by a tecMical advisory
comnittee Nhich �o�ia possibly consist o!
representatives fro� anviromental regulatory agencies.
Althouqh ENCO�i had said they vanted a cftiaen's
com�ittee, their stateaent that they intended to keep an
arm�a length away from the technical adviaory com�ittee
could mean �iCOri would only go through the motions of
havinq citizen participation Mhile technical b�ureaucrats
run the study so that no one can get to the� to monitor
their sethodology. �lhether thie scenario is actually
`-�- �hat ENCOH plane to do is unknown eince no one has
offered any explanation as to how they intend to procead.
Counail�e�ber C+�llings sade a totion that th� Villaqe
Council aqree to bav�e Villaqe Nsr�aqer Bradtord �rrite a
letter to � in a000rdanoe �ith his suqgestiaos
raterarnced above to be sent ss quicJ�ly as possiale.
Dou�ilae�ber Sc�.ha�er sacowfded the aotion. The vote o� the
ac►tion �ias:
Ron T. MacJrsf l - for
Nillias s. HurCXert - fo�
811sabeth A. Schavsac - for
Esrl L. Collfngs - !or
T�e �ction ras tLereloz'�e passed and adoptad.
IX. �ll 0�1� 1Q�TTffi�tS
l�tayor Mackail requested discussion o! the R-3 Zoninq
District. Buildinq Official Scott D. Ladd oYplained that
the inventQry. atudy he had been workinq on sev4nl�d thet a11
o! ths existing c�ondom�iniu�s on tt�o b�aoh, �.ich nt�b� a.
total o�! 12, were ell non-oonfor�ing accordfng to t.ha
,- curr�nt sot�ing code. 1,s a reeult, in the event oP a
`,,, hurricane which arould wipe them out none o! the buildings
couid be rebuilt according to the�r oriqinal plans, but
f Villaqe Council
�... Keetinq Minutes �
Septeaber 7, 1.994
PBqe 12
would have to comply with the current zoning code. In
res�nse to Mayor Nackail's question as to what position
that would place the Village in, Buildinq Official Ladd
stated that FB1KA nationally has been f3ghting development on
the beachfront and were aqainst replacing beachfront
buildinqs since they had a very qood chance of being blown
away again j that both FEMA and the State of Florida were
looking at strengthening their position with reqard to not
rebuilding on the beach--the state by determininq where the
Coastal Control Setback line should be. Since the Villaqe�s
own buildinq code would not al1oW the builciinqs to be
rebuilt, the Village was really helping I�E'�IA at this po�»t.
Mayor Mackail r�aommended buildinq� be ��.lowad to equ�l the
maximvm height or �torie� ot the ,exi�stinq buil�d�.ng+�, and
that con�ider8tfon be given to altering the �etbaek
requirements�tq. covere� land�ca�p��ng°�or parkinq
structures within the front setback of the bUi�,�i.ng t� h.elp
the Vil].ag� taks care o� non-con�or�aing bui];�in� fo�c 'h�e
exfsting re�idente and to help the v�,llage in ths long-t�s�m
approach of attracting possible annexations into the
` Village. Buildinq Official Ladd explained that Palm Beach
'� County now has an unlimited building heiqht wbich is site
specific. It was the consensus of the Village Couttcil to
direct staff to consider a zoning chanqe to bring the non-
conforming properties into compliance, ].00kinq at the best
scenario for th� Villaqe, and to properly notify the
residents of Beach Road. Villaqe Attarney Randolph advised
that first a draft ordinance should be considered by the
Village Council and if approved then a quarter-paqe ad would
be placed in the newspaper and two public hearinqs
advertised. Vice Mayor eurckart requested that every
condominium preBident be sent a copy of the ardinance by
registered mail. He stated the tax increase that would be
needed to co�apensate for the loss of the buildings along the
beach should also be remembered. �fter discussion, it was
the consensus of the Villaqe council that staff prepare a
draft ordinnnc� for Council�s review at their ne�ct meati;nq
along +with beckup information to ju�t3.fy arrd. explain the
ordinance, arid that if approved by the yillage Courtc�l tha�t
copies be sent via reqistered mail to each of the
condominium. presidents. A1 De�tott stated that there is a
Beach Road Association which represents the other
condominiums, and that they ahould also receive a copy, to
�hich the Council agreed.
� X. CO�QIO�NIC1�iTION FROM CITIZBNS
,�
Jack Dovney, President of Island House 3outhvest, upciated
„ VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
'� . Post Of'['lce Box 3273 • 357 Teq�sta Dcive
� %; Tequesta, Fl�a 33469-0273 • (407) 575-6200
� Fax:(407)575-6203
�
+ VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
VILLAGE COUNCII.
MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 13, 1994
I. CAI,L TO ORDffit �ND ROLL CALL
The Tequesta Villaqe Council held a regularly scheduled
meeting at the Villaqe Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta,
Florida, on Thursday, October 13, 1994. The meetinq was
called to order at 7:29 P.M. by Mayor Ron T. Mackail. A
roll aall was taken by Betty Laur, Recordinq Secretary.
Councilmembers present were: Mayor Ron T. Mackail, Vice
Mayor William E. Burckart, Elizabeth A. Schauer, snd Earl L.
Collings. Also in attendance were: Village Manager Thonas
G. HradPord, Departaent Neads, and Attorney Scott Hawkins
eitting in for Villaqe Attorney John C. Itandolph. Council-
,,,,..
member Joeeph N. Capretta was absent from the meeting.
� II. PiPPROVaI. OF 1,GBNNDA
Under Aqenda Item VIII, Any Other Matters, Councilmember
Schauer requested the addition of the Interlocal Aqreement
with Palm Besch County School Boerd. Councilme�eber Collings
stated his position that Item 3II (A) which would:��$ R-3 >
District zoninq wae to have been cielayed untf]. '�e: majority
of Be�ch ro�d` ;residet�tis a�ere in r�s3det�ce� _and that he
intenc3ed to :move to table this `item. Councilmem�ber Collinqs
also requested to speak under Agenda Item VIII, Any Other
Matters, on the qarage.
Councilaeaber Collings ,ov�ed that the aqenda be approved as
asended. Council=a�ber Schauer seconded the motion. The
vote on the mtion vas:
Ron T. ltackail - for
1�illiaa E. Hurckart - for
Bliaabeth A. schauer - for
Sarl L. Collinqs - for
The sotion vas therefore passed snd adopted and the �qenda
Was approved as aaended.
,�^-
�, III. PUBLIC HBPiRING3
Rv.rvrLd Purrr
Village Council
.,�. lieetinq l�iinutes
October 13, 1994
Paqe 2
A) Ordinance - First Readinq -�endinq Zoninq Ordinance No.
355, as l�i�endect, by i�endinq section IV, Definitions, by
�iddinq a definition for Ta�nhw�ses and Revisinq t6e
Definition for �[ultiple-Faaily DWelliug; by J�,mendinq
5ection vli, ScAeaule of Regulations and l�ipplication of
Regulations, 3ub-Section (C), Schedule of Site
Requireaents, by �inq the R-ll�l, R-1 and R nistrict
Site Require.�ents by Addinq Require�ents for Mini�nm
Landscapeci Open 3pace and by 1�e�ing the R-3 District
Schedule of Site R�uireBettts in its �tirety; Hy
l�iaending Section VII ( D) , Scl�edule of District and Ose
Regulatf,on�, Sub-Section (4), R-3 Multiple-Fa�ily
DMelling District, Paragraph (a), Purpose of District, by
Chanqinq the w�� Density fro� T�relve (12) D�ellinq
IInits per Grass �cre to 11�enty-Four (24) Drellinq Units
per Grosa l�icre and by l�ending Paragraph (b) Per�itted
Dses by Deleting 3iugle Fasily D�rellinqe; Providing for
�verability; Providinq for Codification; Providinq an
Bffectfve D�ate.
-k__
Attorney Scott Hawkins read the above ordinance by title
on�y, on first reading.
Councilmeaber Collinc�s restated his p�ition on this ites
and soved to table this �atter until the preponderance of
Beach Road residents return. Councilmember Schauer asked
Village Manager Bradford if proper noti.fiC�'�ion had been
sent to sll Heach Road residents, to which Viliaqe
Manaqer Bradford replied yes; Councilmember 3chauer
asked Village Manaqer Bradford ff the Village would have
to pay another $1,000 in advertisement fees by delaying
this item and scheduling first reading for October 27 and
second reading in November to which the Village Manaqer
responded that it would cost $750. Couna3l�eaber Schauer
then ststed she irould sec�ond the �tion only 6ecouse of
the nt�ber of res�dents who bad contacted her. Mayor
Mackail commented he, too, had received several phone
calls from Heach Road residents and that his ow�, position
was that through sn inventory o� Heach Road prOp�r.t3�s i�t
aas learned that a11 0� the con�iominiums on Beach Road
were noncortform3.ng and tha�t he gelt it w�,s his
responeibili.ty to the peop�e on,�esch Road so that in the
event of a cata$trophf c event that they have a conforming
structure since if nonconforming they could not be built
to a previous configuration. Mayor Mnckail also
commented there had been a problem with FEMA and the
villaqe Council
.� I�eetinq lriinutes
October 13, 1994
Page 4
Executive Director of the Beach Road Association who was
in the audience as to when Beach Road residents would
return; she replied approximately 80� would be here in
December. Councilmem2�r Schauer stated that since many
would travel North for the Holidays she would prefer to
wait until after the holidays, when approximately 95$
would be in residence on the island. Council�.*+�*
Collinqs stated he risbed to �end his �otion to reflect
Council�ber Schauer's proposed date. Mayor Mackail
stated no one could tell him what they were opposing with
this non-conforming issue, and that he had cd"nsidered-the
proposed zaning chanqe in light of potential a�rtexation,
conforming, potential tax base for the villaqe; and that
by asking for a delay the residents were asking the
Council not to run the Villaqe in a prudent manner or to
make proper decisions. Attorney Kollins restated his
position that a catastrophe in the next few months was
very remote and pointed out that even if the proposed
zoning changes were made to brinq the bulk of the non-
``�` conforming buildings into conformity that the Coastal
Construction Control Line would not allow the buildings
to be rebuilt, and that the people wanted an opportunity
to participate in this matter. Attorney Kollins stated
since he had been retained so recently by his clf.ents he
had not had time to prepare a presentation on the
substance of the issue, but if the matter were deferred
ta January he would promise the Council they would have
such a presentation.
Both �. and 1+irs. Coyle stated they deferred their
comments to Attorney Kollins' comments.
1Kerv Crockett stated he was a m�mber of the Board of
Tequesta Towers and requested delay until October and
November, not January, since in the event of disaster the
Village could not then chanqe the code, and proposed t�at
height be. ahanged to 11 f loors `with $ heiqht ` of iol feet
- instead of the proposed 105 feet. He asked Beach Road
residents to consider that there would be a sharp decline
in property values for all the buildings on the road if
just one building could not be rebuilt. Mr. Crockett
stated Tequesta Towers supported the proposed zoning
amendment because it would brinq a ma�ority of buildings.
on Beach Road into conformity and because �t wou�:d
,._ eliminate the possibility of townhouses on'Beach Road.
villaqe council
_ Keeting Minutes
OCtober 13, 1994
Psqe 5
Jack Dovt�tey, President of Island House Southwest asked
Building Official Scott D. Ladd what percentage of the
buildings,would be brought into conformity to which Mr.
Ladd resgonded approximately 90$. Mr. Downey stated his
people supparted the proposed zoning amendment since if
one building burned tomorrow they would sit for months
boarded up and in lawsuits.
Jim l[cBnteqart, 400 Heach Road, stated Mr. Crockett had
expressed some of his views and questioned where on the
island the proposed density chanqe from 12 to 24 could be
done and how it would impact traffic. Huilding Official
Ladd replied that could be done on only one lot, the
Sansimier property, which the County was currently
considerinq for approval of a 15-story building 135 feet
in heiqht. Mr. McEntegart commented it seerned to be a
trend in certain towns that zoning changes were made
periodically to accommodate certain parcels; Mayor
Mackail stated this issue was conforminq and non-
~ conforming and had nothinq to do with accommodating a
developer.
�ir. Ren Yorke, 19850 Beach Road, stated he was the
President of Beach Road Association and at an attempted
meetinq of the executive committee which did not attain
a quorum, he had heard so many opposing views that he
could n�t repnrt a unified position among their
residents, however, he stated that hurried action could
result in mistakes and recommended that action be delayed
until more people were in residence.
Bob shank, 250 Heach Rosd, stated he was President of the
Aasociation and Chairman of the Board and stated he had
spent time with Villaqe personnel and Pelt this was an
opportunity to correct somethinq that had needed
correction for a long time. Mr. Shank stated he was also
a director of the Beach Road Association so at this time
he must side with them and at their next meetinq this
would be a topic of discussion. He thanked Village staff
for the time they spent with him.
Buildinq OPPicial Ladd commented the reason that this
matter was before the Village Council had nothing ta do
with Cliveden, or a developer, or with Mr. Simpson--th�►t
it was the rosult of researching 8each Road zoning which
showed that the 15 condominiums were non-conforminq, and
Villaqe Councii
- � � Heetinq 1linutes
October 13, 1994
Paqe 6
-------------------------------
the vi],lage felt duty-bound to bring them intb oompliance
Bo they would not be helping FBi�tA or s+ome other aqency
who would not allow rebufldinq. Mr. Ladd corrected his
earlier statement in regard to County consideration of
approving zoninq for the 3ansmier parcel that they were
considering an 18o-story, 185-ft. hiqh building with 17
stories above the dune line with density of 12 units per
acre. He commented that tragfic is an automatic factor
of the density, not height. Mr. Ladd �tated this
proposed amendment would help r�aidents on Heach Road to
be con�'orminq and that the draft ordinance was 'similar to
wriat the code was when the bulk of the condominiums were
built.
Mayor Mackail explained that presently there is on the
books an B-story proposed approved buildinq with a one-
level parkinq garaqe, Cliveden, plus a variance which has
been filed reqarding potential townhomes which the
developer would like to build, and theoretically a
'°� developer could alter his plans to come into existinq
code, as changed by the proposed amendment. Huilding
OPficial Scott D. Ladd agreed, however, he stated that
this proposed zoninq amendment would prohibit townhomes
on Beach Road property. Mayor Mackail asked how the
Villaqe could protect the Beach Rosd residents on both
sides of the issue--those who oppose townhomes and those
who oppose additional height. Village Manager Bradford
clarified this by inquiring whether there was any
language that could be added to the draft ordinance to
require Ma�son Simpson to adhere to the promises he,had
made, to which Building Official Ladd responded a minimum
lot depth requirement could be warded to :exclude anythi�aq
except an accessory structure limited ta 10 fe�t 1�
height on the aorthern parcel of the proposed CliveBen
site. Mr. Ladd explained that the Cliveden parcel
consisted of a great deal of submerged land which could
not be built on, but which was used in computing parcel
size. Mayor Mackail then proposed to delay this item for
two weeks to allow staff time to work on the additional
language. Attorney Kollins again urqed the Council to
delay longer.
Conncilmeaber Collings stated that in lfqht of all the
inforsation tbat had been brought far�ard at this
_ aeeting, he moved to table this �etter for tvo woeeka
until octol�er a�, 1994 ana subsequentiy to �ee abat
Villaqe Council
•�,... Keetinq l�tinute�
October 13, 1994
Paqe 7
happens then. Vice 1�ayor Burckart seconded tbe motion.
Councilmember Sahauer stated that most of the people who
had called her regarding this matter were not preeent at
the meeting; that this was not done for Cliveden but that
when that project was approved it wae brouqht to the
Council's attention by Building Official Ladd the number
of Beach Road units that were non-conforminq; that the
Council was not doing anything behind anyone's back and
were trying to do thinqs in the right way; and verified
with Building Official Ladd that if this aaend�ent were
approved that al1 would then be conPorming exGept three
condominiums which would sti11 -be non-conforminq for
density. Mayor Mackail reqeiested the 105-ft. heiqht be
chanqed to 103 feet, and clarffied with Bui.ldinc� Official
Ladd that the heiqht was measured 8.5 feet from the water,
level, finish floor elevation, and alI buildinqs had used
the same formula. Village Manager Bradford recapped as
follows: First readinq would be postpoaed until October
' 27; all chanqes that were discussed at this meetinq would
`�� be made; staff would readvertise and start from scratch.
Village Manager Bradford stated he had a procedural
concern as to the density which he would study and advise
Council on at the next meetinq. The vote on the �otion
was:
Ron T. Mackail - for
Willraa B. Burckart - for ___
Blisabeth A. Schauer - for
Sarl L. Collinqs - for
The aotion �rss therefore pass� and adopted.
All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be
routine and will be enacted by one motion.
B) Resolution Po. 1-94/95 - Pursuant to Chapter 163.3161,
Et. 3eq. F.s., Prop�i� to Trans�it to the state of
Florida Depart�nt of C�unity �ffairs, an heend�ent to
the G�prehensive Plan l�dopted Octpbsr 12, 1989, as
�nded, Authorisinq the Villaqe l+Ianqer to Trans�it the
Plan l�iaendeent to the Departaer�t of t7o��nnity Piffairs for
Revie�► Pursuant to Chapter 163, Florid,a Statutes.
i) Resolution Read by Titls:
Attorney Scott Hawkins read Resolution No. 1-94/95