HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 05B_05/16/2002 � �°�'x �':��I.�.�� � ��'� �����'�:'�.
` �o- ��, �
� �� �
�' � ' ll��'��:r�N��:�7' c�r-� c,o�u��c;�t'r� �����:r,vr�tir�
'`� ., � 1'�sC Olfic,e Bc�4 i:�?7�i
�, �� ' o 'S0 Teq�.resta Dr1ve • Suite 30�
�' Q� Tec�uest���, rloricla 37�69
����h eo `� � �>61) 57>-(i�'�0 • P<t�: {�67 ) `77�-(i22�
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
PUBLIC HEARING
MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 25, 2002
I. CALL °TO URDER AND ROLL CALL
The Village of Tequesta Board of Adjustment held a regula.rly scheduled
Public Hearing at the Tequesta Recreation Center, 399 Seabrook Road,
Tequesta, Florida, on Monday, February 25, 2002. The meeting was called t�
order at 7:30 P.M. by Chair Jim I�umpage. A roll call was taken.
Boardmembers present were: Chair Jaines Huxnpage, Jon Newman, Steve
Pullon, Vi Laamanen, and Alternate Paul Brienza. Also in attendance was
Village Attomey John C. Randolph, and Director of Community
Development Jeff Newell. Vice Chair David Owens was absent from the
meeting.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
� Boardmember Laaananen moved that the Agenda be approved as
submitted. Boardmember Newman seconded the motion, which carried
by unanimous 5-0 vote. The motion was therefore passed and adopted
and the Agenda was approved as submitted.
III. REORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Boardmember Pullon made a motion to leave all positi�ns just as
, .-�- r,,
�:
»
Board of Adjustment 1Vleetin� Min�tes
Februagy 25, �002
Pa�e 2
____o_---�--a_______�_____________�.
they are wit�a Mr �IUYI'l��g� aS Cllali' Mr. Owens as Vice �hair, and
Mr. New�ll as Clerk of the Board. Mr.1\Tewman seconded th� motion,
wl�c� �arried by unanimous 5-0 vote.
Chair Humpage accepted the position as C�aaiy°, and noted that if lislr. ()wens
had a problem with serving he could bring it up at the ne�t meetiu�, and that
I�Ir. Newell probably did not have a choice �ince it was a part of l�is jobe
IV. APFROVAL O�+' PIZEVIOUS l�l[EETING 1V�INUTES
�oardffiember Laamanen moved that the minutes for the meetan� of
October 1S, 2001 be approved as �ubffiitted. Boardmember Ba-ie�za
seconded the motion, which carr�ecl by unanimous 5-0 vot�. Th� �ot�on
was therefore passed and adopted and the minutes were approved as
subm�t�ed.
V. NEW �USINESS
1. �n application from Carol and Larry Wright, owne�°s of the properly
located at 11 DeWitt 1'lace, Lots 2 and 3, Noit Geda�ht Subdivision
and Lot 1, Noit Gedacht Subdivision, requesting a variance to the
terms of the Ufficial Comprehensive Zoning tJrdinanc� �f the Village
of Tequesta, Ordinance liTo. 355, as amended, Section X,
Supplen�►ental Regulations Applying to a Specific, to Several or to All
Districts, Subsect�on (A), General P'rovisivns, Paragraph (1){c), Walls
and Fences, to allow tbe construct�on of 100 foot of icn�e vvall with
wrought iron fence, lighted entry columns and one seven (°� f�ot l��
electrically operated access gate la►cated approxi�ately 1�' inside the
front property l�ne, in li�u of no wall or fence being perffiitted to
e�tend for�ard of the builciing front on any lot or parcel, as x°�uired
by the Zonin� Ordinancee
�oard of Adjus#�aient IVleetuig 1Vli�ute�
�'elbruary 2,�, 2002
Page �
_�______________�______________m___
A. Swearing-In of Wit�esses, �f Itequired
Cl�rk of �e Board JefF 1\Tew�ll swore � all those �tendinig to
sp�ak.
B. Di�closure of Ex-P�rte Co�municat�ons
.A poll of the Boardxnemb�rs indicated that Chair H�ripage,
�oardmember Pu11on, and Boaxdmember �rienza had visited the
site but �poken to no o�.�o Boardmember Laamanen had vis�ted the
site and spoke w�th both La,ny �d Carol V6�right
C. 1'est�anony of Witnesses and Cross Examinat�on, if �ny
Larxy Wrigl�t explained he and his wif� were asking for r�lief froni
the cod� rega�ding wa11s and f�nces to put a gated en�rance to their
prop�rty and relief fron� th� 6' fence height limit since in one part
their fence exceeded 7' . 1Vdr. Wright clarified that their request
was for a gate locati�n 11 feet inside the property l�ee Mr. �ri�ht
reviewed the justification for the vaxi�anc� criteria whi�h has been
attached to and m.ade a part af thes� minutes. NIr. Wright
explained that the� home had been robbed and they dvished to
install a gate vvith li�hts and a fence to lir�t access and d�ter ent�°y.
M�. VVright provided photographs of an ac�ess point to the river
next to thein c��me which was used by thhe public, and photos of
other prc�perties where similar variances had been gr�.nnted.
Clerk of th� Board �Tewell read into the record a le�ter from James
arid Joy Sherida� wit� six si�atures attached, be�g �thin tlze
300' of notification:
Dear Sir or l�I�.da.m:
Boarcl of Acljusttrient Meetin� 1VIirlut�s
February 25, 2002
Pa�e 4
_____�___e__�a___a___________�m___a
We have receiv�d no�ice of th� variance request filed by Carol and
I.,arry iUright for the properiy located at 11 DeWitt Place. We
wish to notify you of our objection to this request for the followir�g
re�sans. The Homeo�vners Associations of botl� Shady Lane and
�ayviev�r T�rrace border the �ubj��t property on twt� sides. O�ax
neighborhoods �re open with no front yard fences or hedges to
close off inclividual hoYnes, If the Wrights are allowed to build a
wa11 with gated entra�ce it vvill effect�vely create a�ompo�nd,
which we do not fe�l belongs in our neighborhood. By a1l�wing
on� horne to construct such a ba.rricade, it sets a precedence for
others to request the same var�ance, thereby changing the look at�d
feel of our small cornrrflunity. Additionally, the Wright property is
located on a large river&ont lot vvh�ch borders a coa�on ��a
owned by the Homeowners Associations. There is currently a
hedge planted along the sidewalk leading to the w�ters �d�e,
s�paratin� th� Wright's property from the c�mtrgon area. 'The
proposed wall will abut the hedge, lir��ting the wat�r view to
residents of the neighborhood as they walk ou�° streets, which r�any
p�ople do throug�iout the day and early even�g. �Ve enj oy the
openn�ss of Tequesta and t�e fri�ndly atn��sphere a,�Ford�d us by
being able to see our neighbors and say hello. Please consid�r o�°
objection wh�n making your decisian regard�ng this req�est,
Sin�erely,
Joy and Jim Sheridan
Jeanie 1Vla�sfi�ld, 19 Shady Lane
I�n �r��vn, 15 Shady Lane
Cl�arlie, 1 S Shady Lane
Julie Walsh, 12 Shady Lane
Rob Nissenba�, 19 B�yview Ro�.d
Lois �ook, 31 �i�yvie�v IZoad
Bo�rd o�Adjustm�n� Me�t�g 1VI�nn.utes
Febrtiary 2,�, 2002
Pa�e �
_-__--__-_�------------------------
Mre Brienza questioned vvho owtied the adjacent Ic�ts. Mr, Wri�lat
�xplained that all three lots were owned by him, and clarified for
Chair Humpage that the� l�ad n�o plans to subdivide the �aroperty
but u� the fiiture �t was possible lots might hav� ta be sold. �illage
A�torney Randolph ad�ised you can't hav� an accessory use on a
lot where you don't have a primary use, so in the eve�t the �oa�d
passed tlus and allowed it to be construct�d, they would require a
unity �f title as a conclition. Cha.u° Hurnpa�e asked if that would
n�ean the wa11 vvould have to be re�oved if th� prope�ty had to b�
subdiv�ded, to which Attorn�y Randolph responded the properiy
had allready been subclivided—that it vv�.s.s the Noit G�dacht
Subclivision, but the applicant had chosen to use alI three lots, and
if they gave the Village a�nity of title the land would rema.in
un�fied �.inless and until they de�ided to sell, in which case �iey
would hav� to remove the construct�on. �slr. Wxight advised the
�Iillag� had a un�ty of title on lots 2 a.�d 3 and they h�d no
objection to }aroviding a unity of title. Chair Humpage noted the
vva11 �vould b� 11' onto the property lu�� and asked how far it
would be from the sidewalk, to whi�h Mr°. Wri�ht respond�d it
wo�1d be 11' from t�e sidewalk and it would be behi�d the existing
�°e hydxant. lOilr. Newell comrr��nted tliere rn.ust be at least 5' clear
around the hydra�t. M�°. Wright indicated the hyd�°a�t was 5' fcom
the edge of the sidewalko �oardmember Laamanen not�d it w�s a
very tight distance around the fire hydrant and asked if the
applicant would be v�illing to move the fence back 2' . lV'Ir. Wr��t
agreed to move the fence back 2' more and e�plain�d that the
architect had suggested the 11' setback. Chair Humpage expressed
concern if he subdivid�d and sold the property wh�ther the
applicant wou.ld object to removin� the �va11. 10i1a°. Wri�ht i�clicated
he �vould have no problem with that. My°. Newe11 ad�s�d that tl�e
application �v�ch was submitted had shovvn 18' a�d not 11'
setback. Chaar �Iulnpage corn�nented then the fire hydrant �vas not
an issuee °The Boardanembers indi�ated th�ir docurnents a11 sh��ed
11' e Mr. I�Tewell expla�nted that he vvas looking at the survey that
Board of Adjustm�nt Meeting 1Vlin.ut�s
Februa�yy 25, �002
Page 6
.._____________�.a�---------a�____d__
was subrnitted. 1VIr. V67r�ght commented th� surv�y with the red
line that My°. Newell was� looki�g at �vas m�rely an atte�pt to show
in general where that wall would be, and he was relying on the 11',
whi�h he had agreed to move back 2' addit�onal fe�t, m�king it
13' .
Boardmemb�r Laam.anen comr�ented that she was well kn�wn as
having voted against any fen�e or wa11 a�ppli�cations but in this case
she �elt it was different. All tl�e other propertie� had been side by
side with setbacks �pproximately the same distances.
Boardmember Laarr�ar�en noted this one vvas dffferent bec�.use it
was 150' of� the road and in an insecure position and this was a
u�que si�tuat�on. Ch�r Humpage a�ked how polic� or param�da.cs
�vould gaan access t�u°ough th� gate. Mr. V6Tright explain�d that a
code could b� provided to emerg�ncy personnel. The Vi�lage
Attorney indicated he kriew that was done in other cornnauniitieso
Chair Humpage summarized the fenc� v�ould be set back 13' and
the unity of t�tle had been agreed upon. Attorney Randolph
advised that two variances were ne�d�d—one for the location of
the �vall and one for the height of the gate, and any motion must
include that it would be subject to r�ceiving a unity of titl� from tl��
app�ic�nt a.nd if de-unified that the gate and wall dvould be
remov�d.
I). Finding of Fact �as�d on Competent Substant�al Evidence
MOTION
Board�aember I.,aaxr�anen ffiade a motion to approve th�
request for a gate at 7' hei�ht and for locat�on of �vall p�ovided
that the setback l�ne i� 13' beyond the side�valk area, subject to
re�eipt of a unity of t�tle vvl�icb would require the three
properties to be u�uf ed, and g� the �vent lot 2 v�as �ver sold off
�roBn the other pr°opea ties the gate and wall dvould b� removed.
Board of Adjustm.ent 1Vleeting Mint�tes
Febru�tx°y 25, 2002
Page °7
______________�--�---------_--_____
Boardmember Brienza seconded the �o�on, wb�ich �arried by
4-1 vote, with �oardmember Pullon opposed.
2. An applicat�on from Marina Pik�s, ovvner of the property I�cated at
364 Church Road, Lot 5, Block 32, Jupiter in the Pines Sec. �
Subdivision, requesting a dariance to ti�e terms of the Official
Comprehens�ve Zoxung Ordinance of the Village of Tequesta,
Or°dinance No. 355, as amended, Section X, Suppleanental
Regulat�ons Applying to a Specific, To Several or to all Districts,
Subsection (A), General Provisions, (8) Floor elevation �bove se�
level; to allovv an eausting c�vered porch to be enclosed to Iiving area
to match the existing hous� floor el�vation of 7.3' MSL, in lieu of all
new construct�on, additions, and substantial improvem�nts to ��►isting
st�°uctures being 8v5' MSL or 1�" above the crown of the road, cul-
de-sac or l�ighway or meet the requirements of Section XV, Fl�od
Haxard Areas, whi�l�ever is more stringe�t<
A. Swearing-In of i�'itnesses, if Requgred
Clerk of tlie Board Jeff I�evvell swor� in a11 those intendfng t�
speak.
B. Disclosure of Ex�Parte Co�nmunicat�ons
A poll of tlle Boardmembers inclicated that Chair Humpage,
Boaxclrriemb�r Pullon, Boa�°°dlnember Laaman�n, and �oardmerriber
Srie�a had vis�ted the site and spoken to no one, Boardmeanber
I�Tewrnan reported he had had no exparte cc�n�mmunica�ion,
C. �°estimony of Witnesses anci �ross Examinat�on, �f any
1Vlarina Pikas testified that sh� liv�d at 364 Church Road and �vas
t�ying to level offthe flc�or ofthe enclosed back roorn �ven with t1��
rest of the ho�ase since she �vas removin� an niside vvall. Ms. Pikas
Boax°d of Ad.justment 1Vleeting Minutes
�ebrua� 2,�, 2002
Page �
____�_______¢__m_______4___________
c�rnrn�nented she understood thha.t if she did not receive this variaric�
that she would have to raise the floor level af that rooin which
would cr�ate a safety hazard withirf the house. Boardmember
Ne�vvman commented this was �. typical problem seen before by the
Board and he saw no problern and would vot� in favor so long as a
hold har�xiless agr�ement was signed by the appli�ant,
MQTION
�oardmember Newman made a mot�on to approve the
variance appIicat�on from Marina Pikas based o�a a holci
harmless agreement being exe�uted to re�ove liability froffi
the Village. Boardffienmber Laamanen seconded �he motaon,
which carried by unanim�us 5�0 vote.
Chair Humpage noted that all applicaa�nts must complete the
paperwork �d get their pem�it within six n�onths or would b�
required to �o tl�rc�u�h �lie process again.
3. An appl�cat�on fr�m Mr. And Mrs. Charles N�lson, owners of tl�e
property located at 18�7� PoYnt Drive, I'roperty Control No 60-42-
40-36-00-003-0063, requesting � variance to the terffis of the Off cial
Comprehensiv� Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Tequesta,
Ordinar�ce No. 355, as a�ended, Section X, Supplemental
Regulations Applying to a Spe�ific, to Several or to All Districts,
subsec�ion (A), General Provi�ions, Paragraph (1)(c), Walis and
Fences, to allow the construction of a drive�vay entr°ance f�atu�°�
consisting of two 30" long, 4' x 6' high curded walls with coluffins
located approximately ten feet inside the front pr�perty line, in lieu
of no wali or fence being perffiitted to extend for°ward of the builcling
front on �ny Iot or par�elp a� required by tl�e Zoning �rdinance.
A. S�earing-In of Witnesses, if Required
Clerk c�f the Board Jeff Newel� swore � all thase ir�tendin� to
Boarc�. of Adjustm�nt 1Vleetin� 1Vlinutes
Febr°uary 25, �002
Page 9
________m____m_____________________
spe�kk.
�. Disclosur� of Ex-Parte Communication�
A poll of the Baardtx�embers indicat�d that Cha�° Hurnpage,
Boardmernber 1'��llon, Board�n�mber La.a�nanen, �d Boardmeynber
F3rienza had v�sit�d the site and spok�n to no one. BoardxneYnber
l�tewm�n. reported he had driven by the site and had spoken to no
one.
C. Tes�rnony �f �Va�nesse� and Cro�s Exa�mination, if any
Mr. Chuck Nelson, 1897� Foint Drive, expl�ned that th� request
was for co�struction of a wall that vvas pa,rt of the pr�sentation
entrance for the�r horne. Mr. Nelson apolo�ized for th�
�irculnstances of the applicati�n, Mr. ATe�vell e�plaia��d when 1VIa°.
Nelson was applying for a c�rtificate of occu�a�cy fc�r his new
resi�lence, the D�partment of Community Development noticed the
su.u:rvvey contained �tructures for which he would need a varianc�.
1VIr. TTelson indicated tl�is had not been don� knowingly, v�rhich I01Ir.
IoTew�ll stated was understood. 1VI�°. N�lson advis�d they had
stopped const�°ucrion immed�ately upon learning � variance would
be need�d. Ndr. Nelson e�plained he was asking for a partial wall
and had not gret decided whet.liier to have a gate. Mr. Nelson stated
he n�ed�d tbis type of entra�ce presentarion to hold the value of the
honz�, aa�d vvas requesting a low wa11 wit11 a lot of v�get�tian to be
in harmony with the suxrounding area. 1VIr. Newell noted it was
duuriing rev�e�vv of the fin�l survey that t1�s was noticed. Mr. N�lso�
corninented this wa� part of �1ie retaining wall application and that
permit had been approved. Boardmember l�ew�rian ask�d if tlle
Board v�as votrng on a wall with or without a gate, to which Mr.
I�Teison responded he had no plans for a gate but vvould like that
option Ieft o�en. Following discussion, Mr. Nelson asked that the
Board consider th� wa11 without a gate.
�oart�. of Adjustinent 1Vleetin� Minutes
February 2,�, �ao2
Page it�
_________�A_____________..--�-----m,�
Mr. leTelson confirmed his home was two homes south of Mx°.
Galbert and one house south of Mr. and Mrs. Jacob�en, and n�xt
door to Peggy Verhoeven. Pe�gy Verho�ven asked if Ntr.
Nelson's home was completed, a.nd commented the letter came
after one part of it was al�eady in, which had be�n explained
tonight. It was �onfirrned that the drawing showed the way it
would be wliich was what was there now. Mrs. Verhoev�n stated
she th�ught it was very Yai�e. Mrs. Verhaeven stated h�r main
cc�ncerrn was the properrt3� line and v�hether there wa�s any fo�tage
betwe�n property ltnes. Mr. Newell expla�ned the hedges wexe
ir��id� Mra Nel�on's prop�rty line and the retaini.ng wall was on his
property and the hed�e was on his property. Mrse Verhoeven �vvas
cancemed with future sale of prop�rty and h�r conc�m was not the
wall. Chau° �Iumpage c�mrr�ented this had been xesearched on
a�otber piece of property just north of this and he had no problem
with the variance u�der the sanie conditions, the depth of the
property was always a concexn and this was more of an �esthetic
typ� of variar�ce. Boardmember Laa.n�anen comrriented she had
voted against a n�mber of these requests during the p�.st y�ar and it
was definitely an erosion of tbe Village's ordin�nces,
�oaa°dmember Laamanen commented if o�e �vas a�lowed oth��°s
would want it. Boardmember Laamanen explaaned thhat on�
prop�rty not far from Mr. Nelson's �vas turned down, resulting � a
lot of anger, but the owner had subsequently met �th the
neighbors and all had r�ached agreement on someth�ng they cou�d
live with; tliey reapplied arid their varian�e was approved.
�oardxnexnber I,aamanen coinment�d tha.t in other parts of town ari
erosion had already begun and she had vo�ed no in e�ery instance,
artd all of them had been along the edge of th� propexty line, �llll in a
straight line, with no circumstances that changed from one piece of
properiy to �other. Boardmember Laaxr�anen cammented that the
fa.ct tb.at th�s applicant had a�r�ady st�rrted bui�ding had no e�ect on
her a�d he shoiald look to the p�ople who he contracted �itl� to
�oarcl. of Adju�nent 1Vleeting Minutes
February 2�, 2002
Page 1�
_,.____________________�_____s______
build, s�ce this was th�ir re�ponsibzlity. Boardmember Laaman�n
comm��ted the vvhole idea had been not to have wall�d c�ps in
such a small town, and this was the t�d on this streeto Mr. loTelson
cornm�nted he �iad t�llked to the n�arby residents which was
probably why no one came to object, �orr�mented that he did nat
�onsider tbis � wall but more like an entrance b�cause it was only
30' lon� a.nd there were hed�es and not f�nces. Chair Hux�page
con�mented it looked a�ore like ari entryway. Mrs. Verhoeven
eomm�nted that a courtyard cod� had be�n found that allowed Mr.
Cailbert's variance, It was clarified that the low wa,Il fell within 20'
but be�ause it was �urved it vva� actuall� 30' longo Mr. l�e�nan
�om�nent�d he saw this as ayi entry featuxe since it was cover�d
only approxixn.ately l/3 of the prop�rty.
D. Finciing of Fact ��sed Upon Compet�at Substantial Evidence
M07CION
Mr. l�tewman ffiad� a mo�on to appa°ove the applicatioa� from
Mre and Mrs. Charles Nel�on c�n the basi� that it met th�
criteria. Mr. Pullon seconded the ffiation, �i�ich �arried by 4-�
vote vvith Boardmeind�er Laa�anen oppos�d,
4. An application fro� Philip Cary, owner of the propert� located at
129 Point Circle, Lot 35.2, Tequesta Subdivis�on, r�questi�g a
variance to the terms of the Official Comprehensive Zoni��
Ordanance of the Village of Tequesta, Ordanance No. 355, as
ainendecl, Section XVI, Uniform Waterway Control, Subsect�on (B),
I�ock anci Pie� Length, VVidth and Con�igurat�on, Paragraph (1) to
allo� the construc�ion of � 110-foot boat dock. with a 6' x 20' terminal
platforan, in lieu of no dock or pier being construct�d w�ich ex��nc�s
vvate�°waa°d froa� the mean ��h water line in excess of sev�nty-�ve
(75) fieet, as req�ired by the Cod�e.
Eoard of Adjustment Meeting 1V1Cinutes
�'ebruary 25, 2002
Page �2
________e_____�_____�.m_____________
Am Swearing-In of Witnesses, if Required
Clerk of the Boa� Jeff Newell swore in all thos� int�nding to
spea�e
�3. l)isclo�ure of Ex-Part� Communications
A poll of the Boardn indicat�d that Chair H�apage, �d
Boardmember Brienza had visited th� site and had spoken to no
one; �oardmember Pullon, Boardxnember Laam�en, and
Boardmetnber Nfevvman had had no exparte corr�unication.
C. 'Teshm�ny a�f Wmtne�ses and �ross Exaffiiaat�on, if any
Gene Wehage, Dolphin l�ilarin� Construction, expl�aned that
the watex depth at 75' aut was not sufficient for a boat moori�.g or
a boat li�t; they �vere tr�ag to �et 3' at the end of th� dock but it
was a little less. Chair �-Iurnpa�e commented he s�w no problems
�vvith the ripaxian rights and had reviewed the three approva.ls that
were granted. Chair Humpage reported that �ie had spoken to a
�taff m��nber who had spoken vvith DEP and found that DEP's
gr�atest con�ern was th� seagrass and with the depth of water in
the area, Tequesta s ordinance �as almost in conflict w�th the
DEP, vvhich was something for Tequ�sta to work oute Chair
Humpage indicated he felt the criteria had been met and he had no
pxoblem with the request. Chair Humpage added that if a person
had a dock in th.e river �d wished to put in a new dock they could
do it with a rep�.ir permit if it vvas the sa�ne footpr�t and DEP
needed to address that because there could be � problem with the
2�1/2' l�w water level because of the vvay the river was gc�a��
dowrr�. Boardmember Laaxr�anen comr�ented that since Septe�nber
1987 throu�h Maxc� 2000, 33 vari�.nces had be�n grant�d and
aske�i if that was b��a�se the Villa�e ordu�ances w�re not simila�°
to �°ederal regulat�ons. Cl��°k of the Board Newell responded that
Soard of Adjustment Me�tin� Minutes
February 2�, 2002
Page x�
--_---_--m________________�,____e___
the I�EP arid the �orps of Engitaeers had different critea�a than �ie
Village code and when they did not agree that was vvhen vari�c�s
were requested. Cha�r Humpage explained that vvhen the
c�rdin�nce uvas passed the depth of the river was considerably
deeper than it was now; that DEP r�quires a certain amount of
water at low t�de so a boat will not h�art the seagrass, arid in ord�r
to preseave the seab�ds th� Village had granted variances,
Discussic�n �nsued. MMa�. l�ew�ll added that there vvere thr�� types
of criteria—regulatory, proprietary, and federal—all three must be
inet, and if thexe was a�onflict with Tequesta's ordinances that
was when a varianc� request was made. 1l1Ir°. I�Tewell clarified that
the widtb of the dock was proper �nd the only thing the Board vvas
to consider was the length.
MOTION
�oardmember N�wman ffi�de a motion to appro�e the
application from Philip Cary on th� basis that the �riteria had
beea met. Boardmeffib�r I.aamanen seconded the motion,
�vhi�h carraed by unan�mous 5-0 vote.
VI, UNFIN�SHED BUSII�TESS
Th�re was no unfinislx�d busin�ss to come before the Board
VII. COMMLTNICATIONS FI2�10'I CITIZENS
Wade Gr�est, 494 Dover Road, �xpressed his opinion that the Board should locak
at two thi:�gs very seriously—when discussing walls the height should be
described in the code as fron� tl�e ground up, sinc� this �oard had approved a 6'
l�gh vvaP� when � app�acant re�uested �' and th� applicant then piled 2 feet of
Board of Adjustment YVieeting 1Vla�utes
February 25, 2002
Page �4
________4______________________�___
dart up and put th� 6' wall on top, so they had 8' . Another item was that people
�vho ob�ected to �p}�lications should be encouraged to come to the meeting to
state why they object, which �ou1d help the Board de�ide and �et other views
on a �itua�ion.
VIII. ANY OTI�ER MA'�"I'E12S
Chair I-�umpage reque�ted information from the Village Attorney as to th�
procedure to change the Village's ordinance regarding dock 1�ngth. Village
Attorney R�.ndolph advis�d �tliat the Bo�rd could rrnake a recommenda�ion to the
Village Council if they saw problems arise as a result of tasks th�y u�dertook.
ehair Hu�pag� made a reco��ndation that the V�llage Attogney look into this
n�atter �.nd also that the Village Coun�il take another Iook at the oa°dinance with
reference to wa11s and make it bulletproof since it was now lil�� a spon�e. Chair
Ilumpage asked tha,t th� �Till��e Council look at these tvvo items in wh�tever
fashion was req�ired and ma�b� make changes.
Chaar Hu�np�.ge requ�sted 1!/IY°e l�Tewell througli directic�n fronz th� Villag�
Coun�il address th� problem of the road e��vati�ns being chang�d to make some
hom�s 2" — 3" above the present elevations becaus� of the sewering, which
could create probl�ms fc�r homeov�ers such as the applica�i�n presented tc�a�ght.
Boardmember Brienza commented that the intent w�.s.s not to change the road
elevation at a11 when installing sew�a�s, �d if there �vas a change there could be
an error in the survey. Boardmember Newman commented re��°ding the l�ngtli
of docks that it was very important to consider property lines as the� ext�nd out
into the water so far; some property lines were p�r�e�di.cular to the cha�el and
out 75 feet or mor� t�ie property line� could extend over another person's view
of the vvat�r, and could impact houses 2 or 3 over. Boardmember N���
comxnent�d this was � po�t often taken to co�.rt, and it was hard for �lhe �oard
to determine tliat. Village Attorney IZ�ndo�ph advised it would be a goc�d idea to
r�quue the applicant to provide a survey b�cause with longer do�ks tl�e Boa.�d
�.ght be approving s�methirig that would infi°i��e on sorneone's �iparian riglits.
�oard�nen�ber Nevvvrnman comrrgented th� Board should have ari over�ag� of �he
Soard vf Adjust�ne�t Nieef�ng M�utes
February �,�, 2002
Page ��
--..____o______�----�----____�,_____�
swrvey to sho�cr h�w adjacent properries would be affe�ct�d. Boardm��nber
Pu11on commented an appli�ant had to be within riparian rights b�fore they carne
to �lias �oard. �illage Attorney I��ndolph respc�r�ded tha� was not th� issue—
without a site survey you could not see dvhere ripari� rights of the neighbors
w�re out into the w�.ter 100' . It was not�d that in sc�me cases riparia� rights
ovex°Iapped since 'Tequesta us�d the properiy line to determir�e riparian rights arid
the Stat� did not. �oardrriembe� l�ewwn�an advised that many times drawing�
provided to the Village were ambig,��.ous ats to th� angle and location of the dock
b�cause two or thre� perrnits were a�sociated and on the pict�ares they did not
provide an an�le a�sociated with a kriown reference-- which was need�d by the
Board. Mr. Newman �omnlented that he only considered Teque�ta's
�°equir�ments when inaking a d�cision regaxd�g riparian rights since that vvas th�
entity h� was repres�;nting, wh�ch Villag� Attorn�y F�andolph indieated was
correct. Attorney IZandolph advised rip�an rights did not necessarily_stay
with the setba�ks th� farther they �xter�ded and if they were at an angle, so the
applicatit should provid� t.�at �ormation to the Village.
1VI(JTYON
Boardmeuiber Newxr�an m�de a mot�on tl�at any future dock applications
provide an overview to the �''illage showir�g affected propert�es on ea�h side
of the propert,y or ang� affected prop�erty because �f it was pie-shape�d: �t
could �ffect �o propertie�, showing the survey of the proposed do�k
locatio�. �oardmember 1'ullon seconded the motion, which c� r�ed by
unanimaus 5�0 vote.
Chair I�u�nnpage request�d that someone look into th� issue of �valls t1'�ou�h
�vh�.tever was the proper process.
C�i�r I-��page also requested th� do�k issue be looked at as to v�heth�r t��
footag� ne�ded to be �ended. Boa.rdmen�ber Newr�an comr�ented the Vill�.g�
should b� sa.fe on t11e dock issue because State criteria only allowed docks �o go
out to a specific depth in a nat�al �iver and you �v�r� �aot all�wed tc� build
through that depth, Mr, I�e�vn�an indicated th� Board should ha�e scarn�
gu.id�lin�s �or do�ks wher� th�re �vere shallow vvater �onstraints that �o�ld
Boarcl of Adjustment 1VIee�� M�nut�es
February �,�, 2002
Page �fi
_�_,�____�________________________o_
�ause daa;rnnage to s�agras�, The ViIla.g� Attorney advised that could be loaked at
but sorne people just could ncat have the size boat they would like because the
depth would not suppo�t �. large siz�. Boardmember Ne�� indicat�d that the
State novv required 3 ' depth and if the boat was too large for that it should be
kept in � marina. Village Attorney IZand�lph r�quested MY°.1V�w1n�n provide
the State regulation to Mr. laTew�ll. Mr. Newman explained that there was a lot
of special crite�ia because of it b�ing a natur�.1 river.
Attorney Randolph advised a motion was not necess�°y to have these it�ms
looked at unless a memb�r of the Board object�do There v�rere no objections,
�herefore it was author�zed to Iook ir�to these i�ems. Boardmember Laama�.��
requested tbe iten� on vvalls be expedited. Village Attorney Randolph advised
these iteins vvould not be looked at until after it had gor�e before th� Village
Cou.ncil, wl�o would direct the t�ttorney on these items.
IX. ADJUU12N11�1E1�TT
Bvardmember Laamanen moved that the meeting be adjou�nnecl.
Boardffiembex° Pullon seconded the naot�on, The motion carrlecl k�y
unanimous 5-0 vote ancl the meeting was therefore adjourned at 9:30
p.m.
Res�ectfi��ly subm.i�ted,
Betty Laur
IZecording S�cretary
Request for Variance
Noit Gedacht Subdivision
Lots 1,2&3
Justification of Variance
The applicant requests a variance under section R-lA Single-Family Dwelling
District subsection regarding "Walls and Fences". Specifically, applicant is seeking relief
from the requirement limiting the use of walls or fences "forward of the building front"
and height limitation of 6'. Applicant plans include 100 Feet of knee wall, lighted entry
columns and one electrically operated access gate.
1. Special circumstances and conditions do exist regarding the proposed request.
Due to the depth of the property, over 200 feet to the front door of the residence
from the street and the absence of any public street lighting, undetected access to
ihe property is available to any would be "Thief' or "Felon" from Dewitt Place
or Bayview road. During Maxch of 2001 the subject residence was broken into
and robbed of a large amount of personal items during the nighttime, completely
unnoticed. Do to the length of the driveway and the lack of public street lighting;
the thief could have merely driven up the drive without any detection.
2. The special circumstances and conditions do not exist due to the actions of the
applacant. The applicant purchased the horne many years after it's construction
and thus had no hand in its design relative to the frontage road. Additionally the
applicant had no hand in the lack of street lighting for the entire subdivision,
which creates the hardship, and the continuous potential for undetected access.
3. Numerous similar variances have been granted by the town of Tequesta for
residences in the same zoning district. A sample of those include:
19179 Riverside Dr.
Tequesta (1995)
18882 Point Dr.
Tequesta (1998)
19207 Riverside Dr.
Tequesta (200�)
19649 Riverside Dr.
Tequesta (2000)
4. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the ordinance have and will
continue to deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the
same zoning district. Other residents in the same zoning district enjoy the quiet
enjoyment of their homes both literally and psychologically due to streetlights
that exist, for the most part, throughout the Town of Tequesta.. The existence of
Street lighting has been proven to deter crime and provide the psychological
benefit of personal security. Additionally, the absence of a control gate at the
property's perimeter allows uncontrolled access to the applicant's residence.
The applicant proposes to minimize on such hardship by limiting the possibility
of unfettered and undetected vehicular access to their front door.
5. The requested variance is the minimum variance that will make for the
reasonable "secure" use of the property. Without gated access to the residence,
limiting vehicular traffic, the applicant will continue to be subject to the
undetected risk of robbery or property damage.
6. Since the applicant has lived at said residence, there have many instances of
trespassers on the property. There are many Mango and fruit trees on the
property and on many occasions, people have been seen climbing the trees. They
could possibly incur an injury on property that could result in a liability issue for
the owner. No trespassing signs are not respected. Photos have been taken of
adults, children and pets roaming freely way into the property of the applicant.
Persons have walked their dogs on the property and allowed them to relieve
themselves on the applicant's property. Applicant travels quite a bit and is
concerned that trespassing is occurring while they are away.
7. As designed, the proposed gate and fence structure will be in perfect harmony
with the corrununity and the purpose of the ordinance, given the Towns' desire
to create a secure environment for it's residences. As the request represents relief
to a single family resident and it's application only affects the use of that single
property no detriment exists to the public welfare.
�ioarcl of Adju�trn�nt Meeting Mixiutes
February 25, 2002
Page �.7
____________m_______________,.______
TEST:
�
�
�. .,
� we11
1 k of th Board
ATE AI' ROVED:
�` P � � �.�—