Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Board of Adjustment_Tab 03_10/20/2008BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 19, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Village of Tequesta Board of Adjustment held a regularly scheduled Public Hearing at the Village Hall Council Chambers, 345 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Monday, November 19, 2007. The meeting was called to order at 7:01 P.M. by Chair Vi Laamanen. A roll call was taken by Recording Secretary Betty Laur. Boardmembers present were: Chair Vi Laamanen, Vice Chair Paul Brienza, Ward Bertholf, Steve Pullon, and Alternate Bernard Ward who was seated in the absence of Board Member Jon Newman. Also in attendance was Community Development Director Catherine Harding. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chair Brienza moved that the Agenda be approved as submitted. Board Member Pullon seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Vi Laamanen -for Paul Brienza -for Ward Bertholf -for Steve Pullon -for Bernard Ward -for The motion was therefore passed by unanimous 5-0 vote. III. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES BoardmemberPu/lon moved that the minutes forthe meeting ofSeptember 77, 2007 be approved as amended by addition of Bernard Ward's name in the listed voters for the last two motions. Vice Chair Brienza seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Vi Laamanen -for Paul Brienza -for Ward Bertholf -for Steve Pullon -for Bernard Ward -for The motion was therefore passed by unanimous 5-0 vote. IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 21, 2007 Page 2 Continuation of the previous application for the renewal of a Variance Agreement fora second dwelling unit with kitchen, dated November 15, 1993, located at 356 Church Road, Tequesta. Mary Hester, Applicant. Community Development Director Harding announced she had provided a memo to each member of the board stating the attorney's opinion, the Village code pertaining to variances, and that the granting of the original variance was in conflict with the permitted uses of the R-1 zone. Ms. Harding read the memo aloud. Mary Hester stated she wished to make a factual correction, that the date of her application for variance was August 1, 2007. Chair Laamanen stated she did not agree with the attorney's opinion, and asked the applicant why she had closed on that house before her application was acted upon by the Village. Chair Laamanen commented that because there had not been a letter sent to the Village every month would not negate the agreement, she felt the applicant should not have closed on the house, and she felt the kitchen should come out now. Applicant Mary Hester was sworn in, and stated her application had been made on August 1, 2007, prior to closing; the daughter and son-in-law living in the house were relocating and their elderly parents could not remain there alone, and they had provided written consent for her to make the application for a variance. Ms. Hester advised that the statement it was important that the purchaser had not applied until after the closing was incorrect. Ms. Hester read a letter she had written to the Village Council dated September 21, 2007. Ms. Harding stated it had been received beyond the point of submitting new information; that the Board had determined at the September meeting to have the attorney make a final ruling on the legality of the agreement. Ms. Hester commented there were not two dwelling units, it was one home with a split plan. Chair Laamanen stated the applicant had to have the Village's ruling in hand before proceeding to closing for her own benefit. Ms. Hester advised that had been the only way she could buy the home, she wanted to live in that home, there were not two independent dwelling units on the property, and she was concerned that was how her application was characterized. Board Member Bertholf stated the variance was in conflict with the R-1 zone; therefore he moved that the original agreement be declared null and void and the lady returned her money. Everything would stay the same as if nothing ever happened; it should never have been granted, and it had been an illegal action. Chair Laamanen commented it could not just be cast aside because it had been done and recorded; at this point the kitchen should be removed at Village expense and a lien put on the property until it was sold again; it was her opinion that the variance agreement did not need to be renewed. Ms. Harding stated the attorney's Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 21, 2007 Page 3 opinion was the Board did not have to automatically approve another variance; he was saying the Board did not have to take action to give a variance because requirements of the variance were not met. Board Member Pullon commented the attorney said they did not have to grant a variance and if they didn't the kitchen came out, and if the Board agreed the kitchen had to come out~what specifically came out. Ms. Harding responded the cabinets, all appliances, and the sink. Discussion ensued. Ms. Harding advised the kitchen was created to increase the square footage of the house creating an apartment, and focus should not be on the kitchen. It was already there and use of the area that was added was the subject and what would be changed. Board Member Bertholf stated a letter was never sent and the Village did not follow up on it; as far as he was concerned it was a null and void agreement. During ensuing discussion, it was brought up that a demolition permit would be needed to remove the kitchen; the applicant asked how to make an application to keep the cabinets, refrigerator, and sink, and stated this was not an independent living situation; suggestions were made to apply for a permit to replace the kitchen; take out the stove so there would not be a cooking facility; that the situation could infringe on others; the house was one of the better looking homes on the street; and the applicant confirmed if the variance agreement were continued that she would abide by the terms and provide an annual letter to the Village and continue the use as in the original agreement. Board Member Bertholf withdrew his motion. Board Member Ward stated if the Board withdrew the variance it would bring a lot of hardship for the owner, and asked if the Village was in a position to be sure a letter was provided annually; Ms. Harding stated no, that the Village was not in a position to enforce that. MOTION: Board Member Ward made a motion to continue the variance as originally written and that the new owner agree to make an annual written statement that it remains a single family home, and upon sale to have another consideration of this variance agreement Board Member Bertholf seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion Board Member Pullon indicated this agreement was messy and if they were going to grant a variance a new one should be done; Chair Laamanen expressed her agreement. Ms. Harding stated that this Board could not give a variance that was not permitted in that zone; the Board had agreed to leave it up to the attorney to decide whether the variance was valid and he decided it was not valid and it did not need to be renewed. Discussion ensued. Ms. Harding confirmed it was legal to have a home with two kitchens within the R-1 zone. Board Member Ward stated his motion was to renew this variance agreement as written. Board Member Bertholf seconded. The vote on the motion was: Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 21, 2007 Page 4 Vi Laamanen -against Paul Brienza -against Ward Bertholf -for Steve Pullon -against Bernard Ward -for The motion therefore failed by 3-2 vote. Board Member Pullon stated now that was over and done with, and asked if now the Board could grant the applicant a variance without an application. Ms. Harding responded in order to bring the property into full compliance that the applicant needed to get a demolition permit and then a building permit for a sink and stove. She would be coming into compliance and on the record because the kitchen would go by removing the stove and sink; but she could then install a sink and stove because a second kitchen was permitted and that would be legal. Board Member Pullon stated he had been uncomfortable allowing this to continue and this would c{ear up the lock out situation of a second apartment. The applicant thanked the board and left the meeting. V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS There were no communications from citizens. VI. ANY OTHER MATTERS Community Development Director Harding advised the terms for Chair Laamanen and Board Member Bertholf were expiring; that both had submitted letters requesting their terms be renewed, and the Village Council would consider affirming those terms at their December 13, 2007 meeting. Chair Laamanen indicated she enjoyed being on the board and serving as Chair. Ms. Harding advised the board had been provided with the ordinance creating the Board of Adjustment, limitations of the board, and the order of business for quasi- judicial hearings, and asked that each member read these materials to understand their function. Ms. Harding thanked the board for their patience with tonight's difficult case. VII. ADJOURNMENT Board Member Bertholf moved that the meeting be adjourned at 8:04 p.m. Board Member Pullon seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 21, 2007 Page 5 Vi Laamanen -for Paul Brienza -for Ward Bertholf -for Steve Pullon -for Bernard Ward -for The motion was therefore passed by unanimous 5-0 vote. Respectfully submitted, J Betty Laur Recording Secretary