Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 06_11/09/2006BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Village of Tequesta Board of Adjustment held a regularly scheduled Public Hearing at the Village Recreation Center, 399 Seabrook Road, Tequesta, Florida, on Monday, September 25, 2006. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chair Vi Laamanen. A roll call was taken by the Recording Secretary, Betty Laur. Boardmembers present were: Chair Vi Laamanen, Vice Chair Paul Brienza, Jon Newman, Steve Pullon, and Ward Bertholf. Also in attendance were Community Development Director Catherine Harding, Village Attorney Karen Roselli, and Recording Secretary Betty Laur. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chair Brienza moved that the Agenda be approved as amended with an addition requested by Chair Laamanen under Unfinished Business of discussion of the six criteria for applications in writing. Boardmember Pullon seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous 5-D vote. III. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES Boardmember Pullon moved that the minutes for the meeting of November 21, 2005 be approved as submitted. Boardmember Newman seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous S-0 vote. IV. NEW BUSINESS 1. An application from Vincent J. Arena, 463 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, requesting a variance to allow the parking of boats on the west front corner of lot within the setback in compliance with sec. 78-643 R-1, Sec. 2, under Zoning Code Section XIII (E)(1)(b)1 thru 6. Boardmember Pullon stepped down due to conflict of interest. Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes September 25, 2006 Page 2 A) Swearing-In of Witnesses, if Required Attorney Roselli swore in all those intending to offer testimony in this case. B) Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications Boazdmember Newman reported he had driven by the site and had had no communications with anyone. Chair Laamanen, Vice Chair Brienza, and Boazd Member Bertholf each reported they had visited the site, and had spoken to no one. C) Testimony of Witnesses and Cross Examination, if any Vincent Arena, applicant, explained he had lived at 463 Tequesta Drive for 19 yeazs, during which time many different code enforcement officers had provided different interpretations ofcorner lot criteria, and all of the officers had shown consideration and willingness to work with Mr. Arena to have his property comply. The present code compliance officer had shown the same willingness in helping Mr. Arena reach his goal, which was compliance of 463 Tequesta Drive, and he expressed his thanks. Mr. Arena explained that with the passing of an ordinance he now only had one side yard, and since his house was somewhat crooked on his lot, he was at a disadvantage compared to some of his neighbors. His boat had been parked in its present area for over 12 years, but now he needed a variance to have it remain. Mr. Arena commented he had complied with all the other requirements of the ordinance concerning boat parking, and his neighbors had shown nothing but support for him on this issue. Vice Chair Brienza asked which was considered the front yard and which was considered the side yazd. Community Development Director Catherine Harding explained the ordinance stated that a comer lot fronts on both streets on the comer. In this case the front street was Tequesta Drive, with a 25-foot setback. The side street in this case was North Dover Road with a 20-foot setback, and this ordinance had been in place for many years. Chair Laamanen asked if any percentage of land coverage came into play for this lot, to which Ms. Hazding responded it did not that the storage of a boat in what would be frontage on a comer was what was being addressed--mainly, because the properly was fully developed. Chair Laamanen commented there was a lot of concrete. Ms. Harding called attention to the survey and commented she had provided a memo to each member of the board, and the memo and survey were a part of this application. Chair Laamanen Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes September 25, 2006 Page 3 commented it appeared the additional driveway came as a result of the second boat, and when he pulled out to go south she believed he could not pull out onto North Dover and had to pull out onto Tequesta Drive. Mr. Arena testified that all of the concrete existed when he bought the property. Chair Laamanen clarified with Mr. Arena that there was no room to make the turn out onto North Dover with that boat so he had to pull it out onto Tequesta Drive. Board Member Newman asked what the board was being asked to decide. Ms. Harding advised the only subject was the parking of two boats within the side frontage setback of 20 feet. Board Member Newman commented he understood the current code did not allow parking a boat within the frontage so he was parking his boats on the west side of the property on North Dover, he was parking his boats on the secondary front yazd easement which had a 20-foot setback, and the board was not making an assertion regarding the concrete-only if he was allowed to pazk his boats in the front yard. Ms. Harding noted that Code Compliance Officer Joe Petrick had distributed to the board a diagram so that the boazd could understand the driveway situation, and why staff had made a recommendation that upon sale of the house two of the driveways be removed. Ms. Harding advised driveway number 4 was the original driveway which came off Tequesta Drive, and that driveway number 3 off of North Dover had been permitted to be a hazd surface, and now it was stone. Boazd Member Newman stated he had anissue-obviously the driveways were existing, and the applicant's request was whether he could park a boat in the front yard. He saw the boat not as a structural item, but something that was moveable just like an automobile, and he was wondering why the board was even looking at it, and he thought it should just be brought into compliance. Board Member Newman asked whether as a variance board, this board could grant variances to park vehicles. Ms. Harding commented that was the questior~it could be moved, but it could not be placed legally on the property as the ordinance was written for the storage of boats. Board Member Newman asked if this boazd could even legally make an exception on a moveable vehicle. Attorney Roselli advised she had a concern whether this was a use variance, which this boazd could not grant. Boazd Member Newman commented that was how he saw it. Attorney Roselli advised this could arguably be considered a use variance and it should not have been placed on this agenda. She also advised she had not been asked to make that determination, and she saw that there was no other relief for this situation other than a variance unless the code was amended, which the Village Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes September 25, 2006 Page 4 Council might want to consider to address corner lots, since there could be this problem with other corner lots. Attorney Roselli advised she believed staffhad interpreted this was proper subject matter for a variance, which was why it was on the agenda, and if the board felt it was a use variance they needed to state the criteria was not satisfied. Attorney Roselli stated it was a concern of hers, and the board needed to say the applicant did not satisfy the criteria, since variances were granted for encroachment of structures, such as a building or slab, and she did see this as somewhat of a use vaziance. Board Member Newman stated he saw this fully as a use variance because it was a boat the boazd was not making a ruling on existing driveways, and although there had been talk about the driveways that was not what the boazd would make a ruling on. The driveways were already installed; the application was for a boat, and that was the same as an automobile being pazked on the property. Mr. Newman stated that he did not see that the variance board could make a decision in this matter. Ms. Hazding commented because there had been so much confusion in the past on different opinions from code enforcement on what to do with the property and how it would be okay if they did this and that, staff had decided to give Mr. Arena every opportunity. He had been found in violation but in order to give him every opportunity, including coming to the Board of Adjustment, whether the board denied him by finding this a use variance or denied it because they did not like it, or approved it because they saw merit to the case-that was entirely up to the boazd. That was why they were here, to give Mr. Arena every opportunity to explore whether he could continue to do what he was doing. Vice Chair Breinza. stated he agreed with Board Member Newman and thought it was a use violation. Boazd Member Newman stated he believed this was something that could be better worked out by Village Council in the code, and whether there were permits for the driveways or where a boat could be parked was irrelevant for this board, and beyond the authority of this boazd. Board Member Newman stated he was willing to listen if anyone had feedback. Mr. Arena commented his situation was that for twelve years the boat had been pazked there and they had gone through numerous code enforcement officers who had come with many ideas of what needed to be done, and after twelve years he had been told that the side of his house was the front, and he could not park a boat there, which seemed very unfair after twelve years when everybody said it was okay. He had gone the extra mile to do whatever he could to try to comply and had done everything they had found wrong with his property and everything they had found wrong had been Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes September 25, 2006 Page 5 there for at least eight years with the approval of other code enforcement people. Mr. Arena advised he was here just to try to go ahead and do the right thing, whatever it took, for him to continue to do what he had done for twelve years. Chair Laamanen commented she had been here off and on since 1970, and the code had changed many times over those years, and the laws were so voluminous either as a result of someone who tried to find a way around the law or because as areas developed the laws had to be changed, and that had happened in this area where the homes were all on the small side and were originally inhabited by older husbands and wives, but were now inhabited by younger couples with children. Because they could not afford to move to a larger home they were trying to add on where they could, and her opinion was that when you expanded your property it affected others and the fact that others did not complain could be because they had to live together and did not want to offend their neighbor. It was not easy to say no, although that was sometimes the way to go. Chair Laamanen stated her opinion that this was a use variance and she did not know how that could be resolved with the code enforcement official, but she did not think it should be before this boazd. She was a little more covetous regazding this area because of the small properties. Mr. Arena commented he understood, however, the people present had taken their time tonight to come here to support him, and had not just taken the attitude of let him do what he wants. They had come to support him because what was happening here was not right. Attorney Roselli suggested going to the Village Council and asking for a text amendment to the zoning code to address corner lots, which she thought was what was needed here. Probably others in the community had the same situation, and with the support shown here she thought the Council would be behind him for a code amendment. Mr. Arena commented he believed it was not just boat parking because as the ordinance was written all the requirements of a yard that was considered a front meant that nothing could go in the front unless one got a variance, which Chair Laamanen agreed was correct. Mr. Arena commented that meant he would probably go with a good 30 minimum homeowners who had things on the side which was now considered the front. Attorney Roselli stated she felt bad Mr. Arena had received different opinions all along the way, seeing he was trying to comply, but she had an issue with this being a use variance and she thought it probably should not have came here. Board Member Newman stated if the board made a ruling he thought it would be easily overturned since this was not the proper board. Mr. Arena asked if he was being told to just kiss Boazd of Adjustment Meeting Minutes September 25, 2006 Page 6 goodbye the fee he had paid. Board Member Newman advised if he were to put a motion forward right now it would be a motion that the board not approve anything because it was a use variance, which was outside their realm, and Mr. Arena could either withdraw or he could make that motion. Ms. Harding commented if Mr. Arena's decision was to pull back, his money would be refunded. Attorney Roselli advised his next step should be to address the Mayor and Council. Mr. Arena withdrew the application. 2. An application from Chin Fa Chen and Linda Pao, 474 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, requesting a variance of 12 feet to allow a rear setback of 8 feet. Front of house faces Tequesta Drive North. A) Swearing-In of Witnesses, if Required Attorney Roselli swore in all those intending to offer testimony in this case. B) Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications Boardmember Newman reported he had driven by the site. Boardmember Pullon stated he was familiar with the site and had spoken to no one. Chair Laamanen, Vice Chair Brienza, and Board Member Bertholf each reported they had visited the site, and had spoken to no one. C) Testimony of Witnesses and Cross Examination, if any Community Development Director Harding explained the applicant had been granted a variance at one point for one foot off the rear yard which acknowledged at the time that was a rear yazd setback. Now the house extended into the rear yard by one foot. The house was to be torn down and a new house constructed. Attorney Joe Grass representing the applicant read prepared responses for the six criteria into the record. Attorney Grass explained the property abuts Loxahatchee River; originally it abutted both Tequesta Drive and Riverside Drive; at some point prior to the applicant's purchase the lot was split and the applicant purchased the rear portion which only abutted Tequesta Drive, essentially creating a lot wider than deep. The applicant would like to continue to treat the reaz of the property as the portion abutting the Loxahatchee River. Technical application of the code treated it as something different. Therefore, response to the first criteria dealing with special conditions and circumstances which exist that are peculiar to this land was Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes September 25, 2006 Page 7 that originally this lot was developed as a corner lot with frontage on both Tequesta Drive and Riverside Drive, also abutting the Loxahatchee River, and all lots within this subdivision had their rear yard as the riverfront portion of the property. The unusual circumstance in this case was the property did not have its rear portion facing the river; it was facing the common lot boundary with its neighbor. The applicant felt this unusual circumstance warranted special treatment for this property. Attorney Grass advised regarding criteria two, special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant the lot split occurred prior to this applicant's purchase of the land. Response to the third criteria, that granting the variance would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to other lands, buildings, or structures in this zoning district, was the applicant believed granting of this variance would allow construction of a home of similaz size and character as that permitted under the code for other riverfront lots and lots of this size and in practice to treat the yazd along the river as the rear yazd, so that granting this variance would not create any special privilege for this applicant different than that of any other riverfront property owner. Attorney Grass advised regarding criteria four, literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enj oyed by other properties in the same zoning district and would work unnecessary and undue hazdship, that again, the literal application of the code made what was originally the side boundary the rear and what was originally the reaz boundary along the river the side, making this lot one that was wider than deep. Imposing the setbacks on this configuration created an unusual, unappealing, and possibly unmarketable building envelope, one that was narrow and long, and deprived the applicant of significant buildable azea due to the fact that the building setback along the river was much greater than a typical side setback. As a result, application of the code reduced buildable area in a manner unique to this lot and the applicant believed this to be unfair. If this variance were denied, the applicant would be unable to construct a home of the quality and character dictated by the location and size of the property, thereby devaluing the property and creating undue hardship on the applicant. Response to the fifth criteria, that the variance requested was the minimum variance that would make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure, was that given the increased setback for land along the river and the lack of access from Riverside Drive, the applicant believed the variance requested was the minimum variance that would allow the applicant to build a home of the size, quality, and configuration that was dictated by this property's location and size, and one which would be marketable should the applicant ever decide to sell. In response to the sixth criteria, that the granting of the variance would Boazd of Adjustment Meeting Minutes September 25, 2006 Page 8 be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter and would not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfaze, the properly boundary which was the subject of the variance was a common boundary which was a side boundary of the neighboring property, not the rear, and therefore the neighbor would not be detrimentally impacted by the variance, since they treated this boundary as their side setback. In addition, given the great appreciation in the value of riverfront property, homes of greater size and expense had and would continue to be constructed along the river; further, the proposed lot coverage remained well below the maximum permitted by code, so that the applicant believed the variance was in harmony with the general intent of the code and would not be injurious to the area. The applicant advised two letters had been received from neighbors, one from Ed Nelson, who lived on the property that shazed a common boundary with this property. The letter was read into the record: I, Edward J. Nelson, owner of 370 West Riverside Drive, Tequesta, approve variance of Mr. Chin Fa Chen and Linda Pao for above variance. Signed by Edward J. Nelson, September 25, 2006. The second letter from John and Lillian Kane, 473 Tequesta Drive, who lived on the opposite side of the street along the river, was dated September 22, 2006: To Whom It May Concern, we are the property owners at 473 Tequesta Drive, the house directly across Tequesta Drive from the Chen 's property at 474 Tequesta Drive. We have no objection to their request for variance of the existing setbacks on their property. Our building and many of the other properties along Tequesta Drive have similar setbacks on the back of the buildings. We don't see any reason why the Chens shouldn't be granted the same use of their lot. Please feel free to contact us with any further questions. Community Development Director Harding stated no letters had been received at the Village's oi~ices. The board requested copies of the letters presented by the applicant. Board Member Bertholf asked if this would bring the building close to the neighbor. The applicant noted the neighbor had a 7-1 /2 foot setback there. Chair Laamanen indicated she was not in favor of this and she felt homes were being crunched together, and asked which way the house would face. Applicant Linda Pao explained the house would face Riverside Drive, and the existing driveways would be removed. Chair Laamanen advised she had thought the house would face Tequesta Drive with the back of the house to the south. Ms. Pao explained the back of the house would be on the Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes September 25, 2006 Page 9 riverfront. Vice Chaix Brienza asked the requirement for setback from the river, to which Ms. Harding responded the applicant was incompliance with all setbacks from the river, and the 46 feet shown was more than required. Ms. Hazding explained the applicant was choosing to call Tequesta Drive frontage but the house was oriented by the azchitect not to address what was being called their legal frontage on Tequesta Drive, but to address the property differently, and it was perfectly fine to do that. Boazd Member Newman commented he believed this was a prime example of why there was a variance board, and it was his opinion it would be unfair to constrict the applicants when the neighbor on the other side had the same setback; it was a side yazd as built; and it would be the side yard on the neighbor's side where it came down on the south side; the house was oriented more toward the water using the length of the property, and any of the houses along the river were subject to this type of situation. Chair Laamanen commented it was every other one facing the river. Boazd Member Pullon commented the thing that made this tricky was the lot split, and if the lot faced on Riverside they would be able to build a much larger house with 7-1/2 feet setback on each side, but every time there was a lot split it became a problem. Board Member Pullon suggested moving the house north about 7 feet to provide breathing room. Chair Laamanen stated she would go for that. Discussion ensued. Attorney Grass commented this was a lazge lot and the proposed house was roughly 22% below the maximum lot coverage. The applicant advised the house was approximately 3,000 square feet on the bottom story and 3,000 squaze feet on the top story. It was confirmed that they were okay on the height. Board Member Bertholf commented they had so much room on the east and west, but was advised there was a 25' setback along Tequesta Drive. Boazd Member Newman expressed his opinion the fact that the lot was split prior to their ownership, therefore they could not be held responsible for it, so the board was making a ruling whether to consider this a back yazd or a side yard as the property sits, and because of the unique situation, and on the neighbor's side it was a side yard with a 7-1/2 foot setback, so he believed as drawn that it was a side yard because the neighbor's was a side yard. Since another board had granted a variance and split this lot, they had created a unique situation on this property, and in Board Member Newman's opinion this board was making a ruling on whether to hold them to a hardship that existed prior to their purchase of the property or whether to decide what was a fair front yard and what was a fair back yard. The applicant indicated they had lived there eight years, and on the side facing Tequesta Drive there would be no windows because of the noise traffic. 1 Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes ° September 25, 2006 Page 10 Board Member Pullon asked the minimum finish floor elevation. Ms. Harding advised the minimum was 18" above the crown of the road. Boazd Member Pullon commented in the code it was 7-1/2 or 8 feet, or 18" above the crown of the road, whichever was more stringent, and he was aware of it because he had had this same problem with his property. He wanted to make sure this applicant did not trip on that because they had it written as 8 feet, and asked them to double check on that since there had been a lot of problems. Board Member Pullon asked the other members' opinion of moving the house north. Discussion ensued. T'he applicant's builder advised moving the house 5' north would not be a problem, but they must be sure no utility easements existed that would be encroached. Ms. Harding commented the air conditioner compressors would be moved to the east end of the garage. Board Member Pullon noted this had been advertised for a variance on the south side of the house, but now they were moving the house north. Attorney Roselli advised it would be necessary to re-advertise because it was a different variance. She understood the variance request was to move the south setback from 20 feet to 8 feet. It was clarified that the boazd was proposing to move the whole house north S feet, which meant the applicant would need a 5 foot front yard easement and a 5 foot back yard easement, and that the air conditioners be placed on the east side of the property inside the wall line. Ms. Hazding advised no variance was needed for the air conditioners; it had been agreed to and would be on the plans. Attorney Roselli advised the variance for the rear could be done tonight since that had been advertised, so the board would be granting part of it, and a second vote could be taken at the next meeting; however, it would be better to do it all at once at the next meeting. Attorney Grass asked if it were possible to grant a conditional variance, to which the response was no. T'he applicant commented instead of 8 feet, maybe they could get 10 feet from the south side. Board Member Pullon advised if the board granted a rear yard setback the applicant would have to re-draw the house; that a 30-day delay would hurt but the boazd needed to do this right and the only other way was to shrink the house. Board Member Bertholf asked if the applicants had been contacted by code enforcement, since he thought it looked like Hattie Siegel's house. Ms. Hazding responded some code enforcement had been done on a building in disrepair and the applicant had removed it, and now plans were before the Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes September 25, 2006 Page 11 Village so it did not make sense to tell them the yard needed to be mowed when they were going to demolish everything, so no further action had been taken. Following further discussion, Attorney Roselli advised the boazd could give the applicant direction as to their consensus, without a guarantee the applicant would receive approval. Chair Laamanen asked if the boazd was all in agreement the applicant be able to build their house if they were granted a variance of 5 feet on the south lot line and the setback was extended 5 feet forward to make it 20 feet instead of 25 feet, so the south setback would be 13 feet in the back and the setback would be 20 feet in the front. Board Member Pullon asked the applicant to check on the finish floor elevation and utility easements and roadway setbacks. Discussion ensued as to the date of the next meeting. Attorney Roselli advised this would need to be re-advertised for the additional setback on the north, but what the applicant was requesting tozught did not need to be re-advertised because it would be continued to a date certain, only the new portion. The neighbors 300 feet from the property would also have to be notified. All board members indicated they could be present October 16, 2006. MOTION: Board Member Newman made a motion to abstain from voting on the application from Chin Fa Chen and Linda Pao, 474 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, requesting a variance of 12 feet to allow a rear setback of 8 feet; and to continue this matter to a date certain of October 16, 2006. During discussion Ms. Harding made a recommendation that in the interim the demolition could proceed. The builder indicated he would not do that but would submit plans to Ms. Harding so she could look at the issues and there would be two weeks to make sure there were no other issues for demolition and for the house. Attorney Roselli advised this application would remain and there would also be another one for the front. Board Member Pullon seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous S-0 vote. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Chair Laamanen commented at the last meeting there had been discussion of submission of the criteria in writing, as well as drawings submitted and locations and dimensions on the plot plans, and it had been left that Ms. Harding would put something together for everyone to go by. Ms. Harding commented what was being called for was literally required in the Boazd of Adjustment Meeting Minutes September 25, 2006 Page 12 application and in the ordinance. Chair Laamanen advised a lot of things had been missing from time to time, before Ms. Hazding was here. Ms. Hazding advised staff was trying to check applications before they went to the board so that those things would be there. Board Member Newman commented he would like to see the six criteria in writing-last meeting they were not there for one applicant and tonight they were read but the board did not have them ahead of time. Ms. Harding indicated this application had been wingedthrough-the applicant had come in for a building permit and she had been unable to issue it, so they had to hurry to make this meeting. The next meeting was announced for October 16, 2006 at 7 p.m., and the item had been tabled. VI. COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS There were no communications from citizens. VII. ANY OTHER MATTERS There were no other matters to come before the Boazd. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Board Member Pullon moved that the meeting be adjourned. Board Member Newman seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 3-0 vote. The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the meeting was adjourned at 8:1 S p. m. Respectfully submitted, 1 "~ Betty Laur Recording Secretary