Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Board of Adjustment_02/25/2002 � a�' : ��^ r � ��� �.A.��� � � ����,i �� .�a � M r ' ll�;�>.��:t��rr�.��r c�r� c,o���� ��ra� �����;r.c�r�tir� '=`� . ' 1'n�;t Utfice �iox i:37 i �"" ,� ,� '`�U I"equesta Drive • Suite ,3()5 � :_ v Tec�uest��i, .Flc�ricla 7;469-()273 ��'N zO y� (SC1) 57�-(,����) • Fa�: (-iGl.) >?7-(�22=� �OARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Village of Tequesta Board of Adjustment held a regularly scheduled Public Hearing at the Tequesta Recreation Center, 399 Seabrook Road, Tequesta, Florida, on Monday, Februa.ry 25, 2002. The meeting was called t� order at 7:30 P.M. by Chair Jim Humpage. A roll call was t�,ken. Boardmembers present were: Chair James Huxnpage, Jon Newman, Steve Pullon, Vi Laamanen, and Alternate Paul Brienzae Also in attendance vvas Village Attomey John C. Randolph, and Director of Community Development 3eff 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 mot�on 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 positions just as , -�:., ,,, � � Board of Adjustment Meetin� Mixi�tes �e�TU�I'� 25 2002 �agC 2 -----------------------�__..__-----� they are with Mr. Humpage as Chair, Mr. Owens as Vice Chair, and Mr. Newell as Clerk of the Board. Mr. Newman seconded the mot�on, whicl� car�ed by unanimous 5-0 vote. Chair Hurnpage accepted the pos�tion as Ch�ir, and noted that if Mr. Ovvens had a problena with serving h� co�ld bring it up at the next me�ting, and that 1VIr, Newell probably clid not have a. �hoice since it was a p�°t of his job, IV. APPROVAL �F PItEVIOUS 1VIEETING MIIOTIJTES Boardmem�►er Laamanen mo��ed that the minut�s for the meet�ng of October 15, 2001 lbe approved as subffiitted. �oardmember �rienza seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5-0 vote. The motion was therefore pass�d and adoptecl and the minutes were approved a� subm�ttede V. I�TEW �USINESS 1. A�n applacation from Carol and Larry Wright, owners of the property located at 11 DeWitt Flace, Lots 2 and 3, Noit Geda�h� Subdivision and Lot 1, Noit Gedacht Subdivision, requesting a va�-%�nce to the terms of the Official Coffipreh�ensive Zoning tJrdinanc� of the Village of Tequesta, Ordinance No. 355, as amend�d, Section X, 5upplemental Re�ulations Apptying to a Specific, to Several or to All Dastricts, Subsect�on (A), Gen�ral I'rovisions, Paragraph (1)(c), Walls and Fences, to allow tbe construct�on of 100 foot of l�ee wall with wrought iron fence, lighted entry columns and one sev�n (°7� foot high el�ctrically operated access gate loca�ed approxianately 18' uaside the front prope� I�ne, in lieu of no wall or fence being permitt�d to ��tend fo�vard of the building fr�nt on any lot or parcel, as r�quired by the Zoning Ordi�ancea �oard of Adj�s#�n�n�t Meeting Mi�utes Felbrua� 25, �002 Pag� � -----------m----g__-_-�-----_�_ffi___ A. Swe�ring-�n of Witnesses, if ltequired Clerk of the �oard Jeff Ne�ell swore in all those intending to sp�ak. B. �isclosure of Ea�-�'�rte Communicahons �. poll of the Boardmembers inclicated that Chair H�page, �oardmember Pu11on, a.nd Boaxdmemb�r Brienza had �sited the site but spoken to no on�o B�ardmemb�r Laaman� had visited t11e site a.rid spoke v�th both La.rry �d Carol VVa��ht C. T'eshanony of Witnesses and Cross Examinat�on, �f any Larry �V�i�ht expl�ined he and his wife were askin� for r�lief fr�m the cod� regardang walls arid f�nces to put a gated entrance t� thei� pr�perty a�d relief fxarn the 6' fence height limit since in one gaxt their fence exceeded �' . N�r. Wri�ht clarified that their r�quest was for a gat� loca�i�n 11 feet u�side the property line, NIr. Wright reviewed the justification for the variance criteria which has be�n attached to and made a part of �these minutes. 1VIr. Wri�ht e�cplained that th�ir home had be�n robbed and �hey wished to ir��tall a�ate with lights and a fence to limit access and deter e��y. 1VI�re Wright prc�vid�d photogr�phs of an access point to the riv�r next to �lieir h�n�e which was us�d by t�ie public, and photos of other p�°operties where similar variances had b�era �ranted. Clerk of the �oard Newell read into the re�cord a letter fro� James and Joy Sheridan with six signatures attached, being �ritr,hin tl�� 300' of notification.: Dear Sir or Madam: Board �f Adjustment Meetin� Miriut�s February 25, 2002 1'age 4 � mewe w oosw��� sos�rmsrr� wuY�a w r sm ss m p We have receiv�d no4�ce of the variance request �iled by Carol and Larry VVright for the prop�erty located at 11 DeWitt Pl�.ce. V�e wish to notify you of our objection to this request for the fvllowi�g �easons. The Hoineow�ers Associations of both Shady Lane and Bayvi��v T�rrac� border the suble�t property c�n t�vvo sides. Oux neighborhoods are open with no front yard fences or hedges to close off individual homes, If the Wrights are allowed to build a wall with gated entrance it will effectively create a compound, �rhich we do not fe�l belongs in our neighborhood. By allowing one home to construct such a barrieade, it sets a precedence for otl�ers to r�qu�st the same variance, thereby changing tlae look and feel of �ur small coannrr��,r.a�ity. Additionally, the �Nright �rop�rty is located on a larg� riverfi°ont lot �vhich borders a co�on �ea owned by the Homeowners Associations. There is curr�ntly a hedge planted along the sidewalk leading to the waters edge, s�parating th� Wright's property from the cornrnon area. Th� proposed vvall will abut th� hedge, lirniiting the water view to residents of the neighborhood as they walk our str�ets, whi�h many people do thr°oughout the day ar�d early even�rig. VVe enjoy the openness of Tequesta and the friendly atmosphere afforded us by being able to see our neighbor� and say hello. Plea�se con�ider oug° object�on when making your d�cisi�n regard�g this request. Sincerely, Joy at�d Jim Sheridan Jear�ie Marisfield, 19 Shady Lane Ian Brown, 15 Shady Lane Charlie, 15 Shady Lane Julie VValsh, 12 Shady La�e gZob Nissenbaum, 19 Bayview Road I,ois �ook, 31 �a�ie�v IZoad Bo�x°d of �ld�ustrr�ent 1Vleetin� 1Vlinutes FEbrtlal'� '�J �.'OO2 p��e � ----------------------------------- Mr. �rienza quest�oned who owtied the adjacent lots. 1VIr°e Wright explained that all three lots were owned by him, and clarified for Chaa�° Hwnpage that they had no plans to subdivide the property but i� the future it was p�ssible lots might have to b� �old. �illage Attoa�ey Randolph advised you ca:n't have an accessory use on �. lot where you don't have a primary use, so in the ev�nt the Boa�°d passed this and allowed it to be constru�t�d, th�y would requir� a unity of title as a condation. Chair Hurnpa�e asked if that vvould meari th� v�rall would hav� to be removed if the prope�ty had to be subdivided, to which Attomey Ramdolph responded the property had already been subdiv�ded—that it vvas the I�oit Gedacht Subdivision, but the a�plicant had chosen to use a11 three lots, and if tlley gave the Village a unity of title the Iand would remain un�fied unless and until they decided to s�ll, in whieh case they would have to remove the �onstruction. ldir. Wright advised the Village had a u��ty of t�tle on lots 2 a�d 3 a:r�d they had r�o objection to providing a u�it� of title. Chair Hurxipage noted the vvall vvould be 11' onto the property lin� and asked how far it would be from the sidewallc, to vvhich Ndr. Wri�.ht responded it wou�d be 11' from the sidewalk and it would be behind �e exist�g fi�°e hydrant. lO�Ii°. New�ll �o�nrnented there mu�� be at lea�t 5' clear around the hydrant. Mr. Wright indicated th� hyd�°a�t was S' from the edge of the sidew�l.lko Boardm�mber Laamanen �ot�d it was a very tight clistance around the fire hydrant and asked if the appli�ant would be willixig to mov� tlxe fence back 2' . 1Vlr. Wr��at agreed to move the fenc� back 2' rnore and e.�plained th�t the architect had su�gested the 11' setb�.ck. Chair �Iu�page e�pressed concer� if he subdivid�d and sold tl,e property whether the applicant would object to removing the wall. 1\�Ii°. Wright i�clica.ted he �vould hav� no problem with that. My°. Newe11 ad�s�d tliat the application whach was sub��tted had sho�n 18' a�d not 11' setbacl�. Cha.u° �Itun.page cainmented then the f�re hydrant vvas not �n issuea The Board�nembers indicated their docurn.ents a11 sho�ed 11' . M�°. N�well expla�ed that he was looking at the survey that Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes February 25, 2002 Pa�e 6 �-----------------��,______�__e_---- was subriiit�ed. NIr. V6j�ght cornmented the survey with the red lirae that Mr. Newell wa� looking a.t was m�rely an attempt to show in general where that wa11 would be, and he was relying on the 11', whlch he had agreed to move back 2' additional fe�t, makking it 13' . Boardmember Laamanen com�ented that she vvas well known as having voted against �y f�nce or wa11 appli�cations but iri this case she felt it was different. All the other properties had been side by side with setbacks appr��mately the same distances. Boardmeniber Laamanen noted tllls one was different becau�� it �vas 150' off the road and in an insecure position a�ad this �as a unique situation. Cha�r Humpage asked how polic� or pararnedics would gain access through th� gate. Mr. Wright explair�ed that � code could be provided to em�rg�ncy p�rsonnel. The Village Attorney indicated h� kaiew that was done in oth�r communities. Chair H�page suminaaized the fence v�or.�ld be set back 13' and the unity of title had been agreed upon. Attomey Randolph advised that two variances were need�d--�ne for the location of the vvall and one for the hei�ht of the gate, and any motion must include that it would be subject to receiving a unity of title from tl�e applicant and if de-unified that the �ate and wall wou.ld be remov�d. D. Finding of Fact �as�d oa Compet�nt Substantial Evidence MOTIONo � Boardmember lLaamanen made a mot�on to approve the r�quest for a gate at 7' height aa�d for locat�on of wall p�vided that the setback line is 13' beyond the �idew�lk area, sulbject to rec�eipt of � unity of t�tl� vvhich would require the three properti�s to be uni�ied, and in the ev�nt lot 2 vvas ev�r sold off froa� the other properties the gate and wall e�vould be removed. Board of Adjustmen.t 1Vleeting M�.u�tes February 25, 200� Page � ________________.,_�m______--_--____ Boa�°dmer�ber Br°ienza seconded the motiao, whic� �arried by 4-1 vote, with �oardmember 1'ullon opposed. 2. An applicat�on from Mar°ina 1'ikas, o�vner of the property located �t 364 Church Road, Lot 5, Block 32, Jupiter in the Fines Sec. B Subdivision, request�n� a variance to the terms of the Official Conzp�ehensive Zon�ng Qrciinance of the Village of Tequesta, Ordinance No. 355, as amended, Section X, Supplemental Regulat�ons Applying to a Specific, To Several or to all Districts, Subsection (A), �eneral Pxovisions, (8) Floor elevat�on� above sea level; to allo�v an �adsting cover�d porch to be enclosed to living area to match the exis�ing hous� floor elevation of 7.3' MSL, in lieu of all new construction, additions, and substantial improvements to �xisting stA°uctures being 8.5' MSL or 1g" ab�ve tbe crown of th� road, cul- de-sac or highwa� or meet the requirements of Section XV, Flood Hazard Areas, whichever is more string�nte t�. S�vearing-In of Witnesses, if Requgred Clerk of the �oard Jeff N��vell swor� an a11 those int�nding t� speak. B. D�sclosuxe of Ex-P'arte Co�nanuni�at�ons A poll of the Boardinembers indicated that Cha�r Hu�npage, Boaxdnlember i'i.illon, Boardmember Laamaxien, and Boardmerriiber Brie�za ha,d visited the site and spok�n to no one. Boarci�neanber Nev��ar� reported he had had no exparte communication, C. Testimony of Witnesses anci Cro�s Examina�ion, af any 1'�Iarii�a Pikas testif�ed that she li��d at 364 Church Road and was trying to level off the floor of the enclosed back roorn �ven �rith th� rest ofth� house since she w�s �er�aoviai� an inside vva�. Ms. Pil�as Boa�rd of Adju�trnexrt Meetin� 1�'Iin�.ttes Februaay 2�, 2oc�2 Pa�e � --a---__�___�._____�.-------a-------- commented she understood tha.t 1f she did not r�ceive this variance that she would have to rais� the floor level of that room wh�ch would create a safety hazard within the hou�e. �oardmember I�Te�nan commented t�s was a typical proble�n. seen before by the �oa�d and he s�aw no problem and would vote in favor so long as a hold harmless agreement was signed bg� th� appli�ant. MQTION Boardmember Newman made a mot�on to approve the variance appIicat��a� from Marina Pikas based on a hold harmless agreement being executed to remove liability from the Village. Board�ember Laamanen se�onded the mot�on, wh�ch earri�d by unani�ous 5�0 vote. Chair �Iumpage noted that all applicants �ust complete the paperwork and get their pern�it within six n�ontl�s �r would b� required to go through the process again. 3m An applicat�on fro�n Mr. And Mrs. Charles lvi�lson, a�vners of the property Ioc�t�d at 1897� Point Drive, Property Control No 60-42� 40-36-00-003-0063, requesting � variance to the terms of the Offi�ial �omprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the V�llage of Tequesta, ()rdinance No. 355, as a�end�d, Sect�on X, Supple�ental Regulations Applying to a Specif c, to Several or to All Dxstricts, subsect�on (A), CTen�ral Pruvi�ions, Paragraph (1)(c), Walis and Fen�es, to allow the construc�ion of a driveway en�ranc�e feature consis�ng of two 30" long, 4' x 6' high curded walls vvith coluffims located approximately ten feet �oside the front prop�rty lane, in lieu of no wall or fence being p�rmitted to extend forward of the building front on any lot or par�el, as xequired by the Zonin� Ordina�nc�. A. Sw�earing-In of Witnesses, if itequared �lexk of the Board Jeff l�edvell swore in all tl�ase intendiri� to �oarcl of ,Adjustment 1Vleet�an,g Minutes February �,�, 2002 Page 9 _____________�__________---__�____m spe�.k. B. Disclosure of Ex�Parte Communications .A poll of the Boardinembers indicat�d that Chair Humpage, Boardme�nnber Pullon, Boarchnember I,aa�nanen, �nd Boardmember Brienza had visited the site and spoken to no on�. Boardmember New�an reported he ha� driven by the site and had sp�ken to no o�e. C. Testiruony of Wi�n�sse� and Cros� Exa�rniaation, if aa�y l�°. Chuck Nelson, 1897� l�oint Drive, explained that the request was for construction of a wa11 that vv�.s part of the pr�sentat�on entra,�ce for theu° homee Mr. l�Telson apologized for the circumstances of the applicati�n, 1!/Ir.lVevrrell explain�d when 1�Ir°. N�lsc�n was applying for a c�rt°af'icate of occupancy for his new residence, the D�partment of Communiity Development noticed the survey contained stn�ctures for which he would ne�d a variance. lalx�. Nelson �ndicated this had not been don� knowirigly, �rl�ich I�°. IoTe�ell stated �vas unde�stood. 1VI�°. Nelson advised they had stc►pped const�°u.ction immecliately upon leanzing a variance would b� n��ded. 1VIr. Nelson explained he vvas asking for a partial w�l and had not yet decided whether to have a��te. Mr. Nelson stated he need�d this type of entra�ce pres�ntatf on to hold the value of the home, and �as requesting a low vvall with a lot of vegetation to be in harmony w�� the surrounding area. 1VIr. Newell nc�ted it was duria�g reviewr of the final survey t�iat this was notBCed. 1Vi�°. Nelso� coYnmented this wa� part of the retaining wa11 applicat�on and tha� permit had been approved. Boardxnember Newman asked if the Board �as votnn� on a wall with or without a gate, to which Mr. I�elson responded he had no plans for a�at� but would like that option l�ft op�n. Followin� discussion, Mr. Nelson asked that the Boa�d consider th� vval� without a gate. �oard of Adjustment Meetin� Minutes Febru�ry 25, 2002 Page zo _-----�_��-----------------------�- Mr. leTelson confirmed his home was tvvo homes south of 1�9ir°. Ciilbert and one �iouse south of Mr. and l�Irs. Ja�obs�n, and next door to Peg�y Verhoeven. Pe�gy Verh��ven asked if lOilr, Nelson's home was completed, and commented the letter cam1e after one part �f it was already in, w�u�h had been explained tonight. It was confirmed that the drawing shawed the way it would be which was what was there no�v. Mrs. Verhoeven sta�ed she thought it was very �ce. 1VIr°s. Verhoeven stated her main cc�ncern vvas the property line and whether there was any footage betw�en property 11nes. Mr. New�ll �xplained tli� hedges vvere iris�ide Mre Nel�on's property line and the retaining wall was on his property and the hedge was on his property. 1\/Irs. Verhoeven was concerned with future sale of property and h�r cQncern was not the wa.11. Chair Hu.mpage comm�ented this had been reseai°ched on ariother piece of propert.y just north of this and he h�.d n� problegn with the variance u�der the same condition�, th� depth of the prop�rty was always a concern a�d tlus was more of an aesthet�c type of variat�ce. �oardmember Laamanen commented she had voted against a numb�r of tliese requests during t�e past year and it was definitely an erosion of th� Villa�e's ordin�nces. Boardm�mber Laaman�n comm�nted if one �vas allow�d ot�ers would want it. Boardme�nber Laa�anen explained that on� property not far from Mr. Nelson's was turned down, resulting iia a lot of anger, but the ownex had subsequemtly met �vith the neighbors �n.nd a11 had reached agreem�nt o� sometliing they ce�uld live with; they reapplied and their variance was approv�d. �oa�°°dm�inber Laa.�nanen cornna�nted that in other parts of town an erosion h�d already begun and she had voted no in every instance, and a11 of them had been alon� the edge of the property li�e, all in a straight line, vvith r�o cixcumstances that changed frorn one pi�ce of property to ano�h�r. Boardmembe�° Laanaanen cornm�nted tl�at the fact that this applicant had alr�ady started building had no e�eet on her and he should look to the people who h� contracted vvith to lBoard of Adjus�inent 1Vleetin� Minutes Fe�ruary 25, 2002 Page ia _,._____________________________�.�__ build, s�ce this was th�ir xesponsibility, Boardmember Laaman�n commented the whole idea had been not to have walled carnps in such a small town, and this was tlie th�°d on this �treet. Mr.ldIelson commented he had ta,llked to the n�arby r�sidents which was probably why no one came to object, cory�ment�d that he did not �o�nsid�r this a vvall but more like an entrance b�cau�� it was only 30' lon� a,nd there were hedges and not fences. �hair Humpage cornxnented it loc�ked more like an entryway, IVIY°s. Verhoe�en comme�ted that a courtyard code had be�n found that allowed Mr. (�ilbert's variance, It was clarified that th� low wall fell within 20' but be�aus� �t was curv�d it vv�.s actu.a.11y 30' longo Mr. l�ewman comrnented he saw this as an �ntry featiar°e since it was c�ver�d o�ly approxi.matel� 1/3 of the property. D. I�'incling of Fact ��sed Upon Competent Substanti�l E�dence MC)�'IOliT: � Mr. loTewman inad� a ffiot�on to appa°ove the ap�licat�o� from 1V�r. and Mr�. Charles Nel�on on the basi� that it met tl�e crite�a. Mr, Pullon seconded the motion, vvi�ich carried by 4-1 vote vvith Boardmeinber Laa��nen opposed. 4. An application fro� Philip Cary, owner of the propex�ty located at 129 Point Circl�, Lot 35.2, Tequesta Subdivision, requestiug a variance to the terms of the Official Comprehensive Z�ning Ordina�ce of the Villag� of Tequest�, Ordinance No. 355, as amended, Section XVI, Uniform �Vaterway Control, Subsection (B), I�ock �nd Pier Length, VVidth and Con�igurat�on, Para�raph (1) to all�� th� construction of a 110-foot boat do�k with a 6' x 20' terminal platform� in li�u of no dock �r pi�r being constru�ted wh�ch extenc�s waterw�rd froan the mean high water� line in exc�ss of seventy-�ve (75) feet, as requir�d by the Cod�. Board of Adjusfinent Meeting 1Vlinu.tes February 25, 2002 Page x2 ____________________�.m_____��______ A, Swearing-I� of Witnes�es, if Requared Clerk of the Board Je� Ielewell swore in all thos� intending to speak. B. Discl�sure of Ex-Part� Communicat�ons A poll of the Boardanembers indicated that Cha�r Humpage, and �oardmember Bri�nza ha.d visit�d the site and had spoken to no one, Boardmember Pullon, Boardme�nber Laaln�.nen, and Boar°dmegnber Ne�nan had had no exparte co�unicatian. C. Tesfimony �f W�tn�esses a�d Crass Exa�ainat�on, if aa�y Gene V�ehage, I?olphin Mar�e Construction, ea�pl�.ined th�.t the �vater d�pth at 75' out was not sufficient for a boat mooring or a boat li�t; tfliey were try�g to get 3' at the end of the dock but it was a little less. Ch.air g--Iumpa�e commented he saw no probl�ms vvith the ripa�an right� and had r�view�d the three app�°ovafls that were granted. Chair Humpa�e reported that he had spoken to a staff inember who had spoken with DEP and found that DEP's gre�t�st con�ern was the seagrass and with the depth of water irfl the area, Tequesta's ordirianc� vvas al�nost in cc�nflict with L�he DEP, vvhich �vas sorr�ething for Tequesta to work out. Chair Humpage �dicated he felt the criteria had been met and he had no problem with the requ�st. Chair � added t1�at if a person had a dock in the river �nd wished to put �n a new dock they cvuld do it v�ith a r�p�.ir p�rrmit if it was the same footpr�t and I��P �eeded �o address that because there could be a probl�n� with th� 2-1l2' low water level because of the way the riv�r was go�n� dowr�. �o�°c�t�iember Laarrianen comment�d that since September 19�7 throu�h March 2000, 33 variances had been grant�d and ask�d if that was b��ause the Vi11a�e ordin�nces were not si�x�ilar to Federal regulations. �1erk of the ��ard New�11 responded that Board of Adjustm�xit Meeting Minutes Feb�ttary 2,�, 2002 Page �� -__�------�---------------�---�---- t11e DEP and the Corps of En�eers had di�ferent crite�a than the `7illage cade and when they did not ag� that was v�hen variances w�re requested. Chair Humpage explaaned th�t when the c�rdinance was pass�d the depth of th� river was considerably deeper than it was now; tha.t DEP r�quires a certau� a�nount of �vatex at low t�d� so a boat will not hurt the seagrass, and in order to prese�°°ve the seabeds the Village had graalted variances, Discussion ensued. Mr. Newell added that there v�ere three types of criteria—regulatary, pr�prietary, and federal—all three inust be anet, and if there was a conflict with Tequesta's ordinances that vvas when � v�rianc� request was made, Mr. Newell �larified that the width of the dock was proper �nd the only thing the Board was to consider was the length. MOT'ION �oardmember laTewman ffiade a motion to approve the app�icat�on from Philip Cary on the ba�is that the criteria had been met. Boardmemb�r Laamanen s�conded the an�tion, �vhi�h carried by unan�mous 5-0 vote. VI. UNFINIS�IED BiT�II�TESS There was no �finished busin�ss to com� before the Board `'II. COIVIMUNICATIONS FI��10'I CI'TIZENS W�d� Griest, 494 Dover ltoad, �xpr�ssed his opinion that the �oard should look at tvvo thin�s very seriously when discussi.xig vvalls the height should be desc�bed in the code as from the ground up, sinc� this �oard had apprc�ved a 6' la�gh wa11 �hen a� applf cant request�d �' and th� applicant then piled 2 feet of �oard of Adjustment 1Vleeting Mu�utes Februaa�� �5, 2002 Pag�e a.4 ----�__�m________�_�.___m--__--m---- dirt up �d put the 6' wall on top, so they had 8' . Another item was that p�ople who object�d to applicatAOns shau.l.d be encoura�ed to come to the m�eti�g to st�te why they object, which vv�uld help the Board decide and �et other views 011 � Sltll��1011. VIII, A1�1Y OTI-�ER MA'TT'EItS Chair Hurnpage requested inforrnation from the Village Attorney as to the procedure to change the Village's oa°dinance regarding dock length. Village Attoa�ney I2�ndolph advis�d that the �oard could m�ke a recommendatio� to the Villag� C�uncil if they saw problems �rise as a result of tasks they under�ook. Chaar Humpage �ade a recom�riendation that the V�llage Attorney look into this matter a.�d also that the Village Cauncil take another Iook at the ordinance with reference to walls �.nd make it bulletproof since it was now like a sponge. Chair I�urnpage asked that t�e Vfllage Ccauncil look at these two items in whatever fash�on was req�red and maybe make changes. Chair Humpage requested 1!/Ir. Newell through darectian from thi� Village Ccaun�il address the problern of the road e��vations being changed to make some homes 2 g' - J " above the present elevations because of the se�v�ring, which could create probl�ms for hom�ov�mers such as the application pres�nted tc�a�ght. �3oardmember Brienza commented that the it�tent was not to cha,�ge th� road elevation at �.111 when installin� sevvers, and if there vvas a change ther� could b� an error in the survey. Boardmember Ne�vman commented regarding the length of docks that it was very impoxtant to consider prop�rty lines as t��.ey �xtend out into the water so fa�°; some property Iin�s were perpendicular to the cl�aniiel and out 75 feet or mor� the pro�erty liries could e��nd over another person's view of the water, and could impact hauses 2 or 3 c�ver. Boardmember N��� c�mmented this was a point often taken to court, and it was hard for the Bcaard to d�terrnine that. Villa�e Attor�ey Ramdolph advised it would be a good �dea to r�quire th� applic�t to provide a suavey b�caus� with longer docks �e B�a.�°d rriigl�t be approving so�ething tha� va�uld infi�inge on sor�a.eone's ripa�an rights. �oay°c�iember Newrn�n corrur�ented the ��ard should ha�e an ov�rlay of the S�ard of Adjust�nent 1Vleeting Mixiutes February 2,�, 2002 Page i� --------�_----___�___---------�_�_ survey to show how �.dja��n� properties vvould be ��cted. B�a.rrdm�anber Pu11on comm�nted an applicant had to be within �par�an rights before tl��y came to tlus Board. Vill�.ge Attorney Randolph respor�ded that was not th� issue— with�ut a sit� survey you could not s�e dvhere riparia� ri�lats of the n�i�ibors were out into th� water 100 . It was nc�ted that in some cases riparia� ri�hts ove�°la�aped since Tequesta used the properiy lin� to deternline riparian ri�hts arid the State did not. Bc�ardmembex Newman advised that ma;ny times drawing� provided to tlie Village were ax�big�ous as to th� angle and locati�n of the dock because two or thre� permits were associa.ted and on the pictures th�y did not pxo�ride ari angle associated with a knowri reference-- which was needed by th� Board. Mr. Newm�n co�n.ent�d that he only consider�d 'Teque�ta's requuernents when making a d�cision regarding riparian rights since that vvas th� entitgr he was representing, wh�ch Villag� Attorn�y Randolph indic�.ted was correct. Attomey IZandolph ad�ised riparian rights did not necessarily_stay with tl�e setbacks the farther they extend�d a�.d if they were �.t an angle, sc� the applicant �hoa�ld prov�de that inforrr�ati�n to the Vill�g�. 1VIC)TION Bo�rdmember 1�1�wman made a mot�an that any future dock applications provide �n overview to the �illage showir�g affe��ed propertres on each side of the propertg� oa- any affected property because if it was pie�shaped �t could affect �vvo prop�rtie�, �howing the survey of the proposed do�k loc�t�on. Boardmember Pullon seconded the mation, which c�rx�ed by unanimous �-0 vote. Chair I-�umpage request�d tha.t soaneone look into th� issu� af �v�.l1s tllrough wh�tever was th� proper pa°ocess. Cha�r �-I�ar�page also requested th� d�ck is��e be looked at as to wheth�r th� foota�� n�ed�d to be arraendede �oa�rdnien�ber I�Tewman �or�rr�.ented the Villag� should be s�fe on the dock issue because State crite�a onl.y allovv�d docks �cs �o out tc� a specific depth in a natt�°al river and you w�re not all�wed to build through that depth. 1!�°. �Te�an indicated the �oard should have sorne guid�line� for docks �vhere th�r�e w�re shallow water �onstraints that would Boarcl vf Adjustment Meet�g M�utes Feba°uary 25, 2002 Pa�e i6 ��-=e--�_______________s_�_------��. caus� damage to sea�r°as�. T'he Villag� .Attorn�y advised that could b� looked at but sorne people just could not have th� s�ze boat th�y vvo�.ld like be�ause the dep�th vvould not support a large siz�. Boardn,ember Newraia�r� inclicated that the Stat� no�v required 3' depth and if the boat was too large for that it should be k�pt in a n�arina. Villa�e Attomey R�ndolph requested 1VS�°. I�Tevvxnan provide the Stat� regulati�n to Mr. Newell. Mr. N�wman explained that ther� was a lot of special criteria becau�e of it being a natural river. Attomey Randolph advised a inotion was nc�t necess�.ry to have these items lor�ked at unless a m�mber of the Board object�da T'here were no objections, therefore it was authorized to loc�k inta these items. Boardmemb�r Laama�.en requ�st�d tlie itexn on walls be expeclited. Village 1-�ttorney Randolph �,dvised these items would not be look�d at until af°ter it had gone befc�re t�i� Villa�e Coua�cil, wha vvould direct the �-lttomey can these items. I�. ADJOU121e1MElVT �oardmember Laamanen moved that th� meeting be adjou�°nned. Boa�°danember Pullon seconded the motion. The motion carried by unanimous 5-0 vote ancl the uaeeting was therefore adjourn+ed at 9:30 p.m. Respe�tfi��ly submi�ted, Betty Laur Recordixig Secr�tary Reyuest 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 wa.11s or fences "forward of the building front" and height limitation of 6'. Applicant plans include lOQ Feet af 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 the property is available to any would be "Thief' or "Felon" from Dewitt Place or Bayview road. During March 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 home 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 li,ghting for the entire subdivision, which creates the haxdship, 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 (1998) 18882 Point Dr. Tequesta (1998) 19207 Riverside Dr. Tequesta (2000) 19649 Riverside Dr. �I'equesta (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 enjayment 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 reasanable "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 fnut trees on the property and on many occasions, people have been seen climhing 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 af 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 community 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. � �� � � ��� �� � � �` . ��' ���� S� ,, ��a� ���� t . , . ��`��,' ,.a .�°°''°� , �' � �1 B• .+ °�""" .�6"�' � '� � .� , �����;� � ����� ��� �a,�..,�..t�.