Loading...
1985.04.24_PB_Minutes_SpecialTOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH, FLORIDA PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 24, 1985 ROYAL HIGHLANDS 9:30 A.M. Chairman Irving S. Saunders called the Special Meeting of the Planning Board of the Town of Highland Beach, Florida, to order at 9:30 A.M. The recording secretary called the roll. Present were Chairman I. S. Saunders, Vice Chairman D. R. Rome, R. F. Blosser, M. A. Waldman, first alternate member John E. Ward and second alternate member A. Leng. Ab- sent from this meeting was Secretary William J. Wernecke. Also present were Town Attorney Tom Sliney, Building Official Bruce Sutherland, Recording Secretary Anne Kowals, representatives of Teron International and several Town residents. Chairman Saunders said this Special Meeting of the Planning Board is a continuation of the Royal Highland discussion of Regular Meeting held on April 10, 1985. Attorney Stephen B. Moss of Holland & Knight law firm, representing . Teron International, Inc., expressed their appreciation for the Planning Board meeting in special session. P 40 Mr. Moss said a question was raised on April 10, 1985, regarding the location of parking area on the original site plan. Peabody & Childs, architects who prepared the original plan, submitted a letter on April 16, 1985, addressed to Mr. Moss contending that the note 112 story parking below" meant that there would be two levels of parking below both the condominium and recreation facilities. The Building Official and Mr. Blosser interpret the original site plan as showing the parking area below the two buildings only. Mr. Blosser said the one -sentence Peabody & Childs letter simply echoed their clients' contention and contributed no new knowledge. Building Official Sutherland said there is just one site plan and that is very, very limited. The way arrows on the site plan are placed, said Mr. Sutherland, indicates there is parking under the buildings only but none under the recreation facilities. Attorney Moss noted that the Planning Board, at the April 10, 1985, meet- ing stated there was no record or indication of the required approval process by the Planning Commission "at the time that the previously ap- proved site plan was presented to the Town pursuant to the court order." PLANNING BOARD Special Meeting April 24, 1985 Paqe 2 of 8 • Mr. Moss' staff reviewed Planning Commission Minutes of July 8, 1981, regarding Royal Highlands, a portion of which reads as follows: "Building Official F. Hamzik presented copies of modified plans for the Royal Highlands project. Following examina- tion of the plans, members of the Planning Commission present indicated they had no objections to changes shown on the plans." Mr. Moss stated that building permits were first issued on July 23, 1981, after that Planning Board Meeting, and that minutes indicate Thomas E. Sliney was present as the Town Attorney. Mr. Moss observed that the Planning Board, at the April 10, 1985, meeting, made it clear it would not be receptive to 120 units. It was suggested Teron consider further reductions in density and concessions in a spirit of compromise. Planning Board members indicated that some figure less than 100 units would probably be acceptable. Attorney Moss continued that Teron had spent the last two weeks in meet- ings reviewing all the aspects and feelings of the Planning Board, and • had determined the reduction suggested by the board and further compro- mise would be economically unfeasible. Therefore, said Mr. Moss, Teron is withdrawing the new revised site plan and will build according to the court ordered settlement stipulation. He thanked the Planning Board mem- bers for their time and consideration. Mr. Blosser inquired whether Teron intended to file for building permits to preserve its legal position in regard to the two -building plan of 1981 and thereby endeavor to keep their stated case valid. Attorney Moss advised that Teron intends to build pursuant to the site plan approved by the court order - application was made for building permits and Teron is prepared to pay the fees and go forward. When asked about the Roy family litigation under the original court order plan, Mr. Moss said the case was dismissed without prejudice by the court, and he said the Roys do not want any project built on that property. Mr. Moss said the easement will be maintained. It must remain there to serve certain Bel Lido residents. The court felt as long as the easement was observed, they cannot stop construction, he added. 0 PLANNING BOARD •Special Meeting April 24, 1985 Page 3 of 8 Mrs. Rome mentioned a letter from Dorothy Comerford, who is also con- nected with the easement situation, asking several questions including questions about the easement and the most recent survey date of this property. Since the acreage of the site seems to be decreasing, Mrs. Rome said she wonders if the Town were to go back to court, would Teron be allowed to build that number of units on the 4 plus acres rather than the previous 5 plus acres. Mrs. Rome suggested the Town Attorney look into the property taxes to ascertain if Teron asked for a reduction of taxes because of the lower acreage. vice Chairman Rome said she does not think there ever was any permission given by the Planning Commission at that time. Though the court order tells how and what Teron may build, they would have to go through the proper channels for design, setback approvals, etc. You wish to build something granted under a court order five years ago when you had 5 plus acres, she pointed out. is Chairman Saunders stated that Rita Ebersole of the Building Department listened to the tapes of the Planning Board meetings and heard no ap- provals by the Planning Board members for this particular project. Mr. Blosser said apparently some changes were agreed to by the Planning Board at the July 8, 1981, meeting without a formal vote, but the question is when and what plans were approved and by whom; and what changes were approved. It does not indicate anything except reference to gazebos. The burden of proof is on you to prove you have the right to build some- thing. We have no definitive records here and as far as we can deter- mine, you have no definitive records on anything being signed by the Planning Board or with proper authority by anybody else. Excerpts from the July 8, 1981, Planning Commission meeting indicate that the commission conditionally approved changes regarding six gazebos pro- viding they did something that is in keeping with Florida climate and weather on the main buildings. The members were advised no MOTION was necessary as they only asked for verbal approval. Mr. Blosser continued that the procedures were shabby. Mr. Moss stated that under the court order, Teron has a legal right to . build what court allowed. The site plan changed slightly, continued Mr. Moss. If there was a procedure problem, said Mr. Moss, it is the Town's problem. We are prepared to go forward, we will be bringing in our check for building permits. If we are refused those permits, we will have to go back to court and let the courts decide. • • • PLANNING BOARD Special Meeting April 24, 1985 Page 4 of 8 Building Official Sutherland stated that a few months ago Engineer Goch of Strock Engineers stated the survey indicated the site consisted of 42- acres. Chairman Saunders said that at the time the court was rendering a deci- sion, the zoning for this particular site was (a maximun of) 20 units per acre. It would be out of place to come up with a figure of 35 units per acre. Our zoning called for 20 units per acre, and at this point, to allow you to build so many units per acre seems out of place. Chairman Saunders inquired of Town Attorney Sliney if it is necessary for Planning Commission to have approved this site with the approval of final plans, etc., before they can go to an application for a permit? Town Attorney Sliney answered there are a number of questions that are not resolved. Some of the problems are which plans were approved, which changes were approved, the acreage problem which initially was 5.6 acres and now is 4.5 acres because of beach erosion. Knowing what direction Teron is going in, Attorney Sliney will look at the situation, study it and see where the Town goes from there. Mr. Blosser said that was not a settlement determined by court --it was a compromise by stipulation which was approved by a court, that number of units was brought in. It is not necessarily there forever. Mr. Blosser stated that in his opinion, Teron would have difficulty selling the 156 units based on what happened before on that property. Nobody had interest in it --the response was so poor, it was removed from the real estate market, he observed. The Planning Board, said Mr. Blosser, had been trying to reach a reason- able agreement with Teron in light of zoning in effect in 1979, the year before the court settlement. Mr. Moss said no doubt the settlement stipulation was a compromise be- tween the Town and the developer at that time. And, it was by court order, sealed in stone. With respect to what may have happened at prior Planning Commission meetings, there's nothing to indicate from the July 8, 1981, tapes that there was any formal approval of building plans by the Planning Commission, continued Mr. Moss. Attorney Sliney was present at that meeting and he should have brought that to the attention of everyone if something was awry, stated Mr. Moss. Attorney Moss said Teron will be submitting payment for the building permits and expects to receive them. � I . PLANNING BOARD Special Meeting ISApril 24, 1985 Page 5 of 8 Mrs. Leng said the differential between the Planning Board and the devel- oper was just thirty units. With all the money that Teron spent on this project, Mrs. Leng continued, isn't there a compromise on thirty units? What was the economic difference between the 120 units and the 90 units? Attorney Moss said there are a lot of factors with respect to Mrs. Leng's questions. The key ingredient that seems to have been forgotten is that Teron has the right to build 156 units and came down to 120 units, he said. Teron, said Mr. Moss, has demonstrated good faith and tried to compromise. It is economically unfeasible to reduce the density further and have the building appear to be similar to the new proposal. Teron will attempt to make the court -approved plan as attractive as possible. Attorney Sliney said Mr. Blosser had a good point when he brought up the fact that this is a court -ordered stipulation. The parties made the sti- pulation and came to a compromise on the basis of circumstances and nego- tiations between former Commissioner Bauer and property owner representa- tive, Mr. Totz. With changes in the conditions, Mr. Sliney said, it is unrealistic to think that the court may not take that into consideration •should we go back to court. Acreage is something the Town is concerned about and Attorney Sliney suggested Teron work with the Planning Board in reaching a compromise. If Teron is coming in with the original building plans for two buildings, Mr. Blosser said, they should consider the sales unattractiveness of their small balconies. He said that as far as he is concerned, as one member, permission to change those plans would not be granted and Teron would have to build strictly according to whatever had been approved. It is the obligation of the Planning Board to review any changes that would be in the best interest of the Town, said Mr. Moss. Teron has worked in cooperation, and it is their intention to continue working, with the Town. Mr. Moss continued Teron is under a deadline and must move forward. Attorney Moss assured the Planning Board members that Teron can only build what they are legally entitled to build; and, that is what they will do. A building permit cannot be issued under Town Ordinances without a valid seawall permit if there is to be a seawall, said Mr. Blosser. Teron's seawall permit expires in September and it is doubtful an extension will be granted. It might be impossible, continued Mr. Blosser, for Teron to get a building permit unless it wishes to proceed without a seawall. PLANNING BOARD Special Meeting April 24, 1985 Page 6 of 8 • Attorney Moss said Teron is planning and intends to very quickly move forward, pay the fees, and with Town cooperation, construction will commence within the time frame per the court order. If permits are issued timely by the Town, Mr. Moss said there will be no problem meeting those deadlines. Unfortunately, Mr. Blosser stated, the building permits are in dispute. If Teron goes through with the plan originally approved by the court order, the easement will run through the center of the property and on the North and South end of the property. Mr. Waldman said it is doubtful a judge would go along with a decision given five years ago with 20% less land now. With all the seawall prob- lems, beach erosion and density, a judge would be inclined to rule in favor of the Town, continued Mr. Waldman. We must take that chance and try to block those permits, stated Mr. Waldman. Mrs. Rome asked if a building permit can be pulled on a site plan and picture, without any complete plans. Building Official Sutherland said the Building Department has complete • plans. The site plan was just what the court order was based on. The plans, Mr. Sutherland continued, as interpreted do not show parking under the recreation building and are about 43� years old. Chairman Saunders asked Attorney Sliney on what basis Teron had a hear- ing, it was turned down by the Planning Commission, and went to court. Was it a hardship case? The original problem, said Attorney Sliney, was in 1960 when zoned for high density. When the Town grew, it adopted comprehensive plans and zoning which was in conflict with what people thought they had a right to build. That necessitated a number of law suits. The court cases resulted from the conflict between overly high density, continued Mr. Sliney, that was put on these parcels coming in conflict withmore rational comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances that the Town designed from time to time. Mr. Blosser made reference to a letter dated July 9, 1979,--Drexel Management versus Highland Beach --predecessor to the plans that were finally approved. The bottom paragraph reads as follows: 0 r PLANNING BOARD Special Meeting April 24, 1985 Page 7 of 8 • "At the conference of May 31, 1979, it was suggested that the proposed structures for Site 1 should be reduced in height so as to comply with the current zoning restriction with respect to the highrise buildings of 130'. Accordingly, Peabody & Childs has redesigned the concept plan for Site 1 removing five floors from each building (i.e., 60 units) so that the revised plans currently contemplate two 15 floor highrise buildings, 240' in length, 13 floors of which are devoted to residential apartments at the rate of 6 per floor, or a total of 78 units per building. Two floors of each building are reserved for parking providing 204 inside parking spaces (i.e., 102 per building). There are 68 outside parking spaces (i.e., 34 per building). Nowhere does it say or imply there is going to be parking between the two buildings; and, if plans were not changed from that concept, then we have to assume that they actually provided nothing between the buildings in the way of a garage, continued Mr. Blosser. Mrs. Rome said the court stipulation for the settlement does not say these two buildings will be joined by parking. It does mention a one- story recreation building but does not say where it is to be located. Attorney Sliney said he disagrees with Mr. Moss regarding the permits. Because of facts that were brought out, particularly the acreage dis- crepancy, the permits are not "of right issuance". We are not in a situation, continued Mr. Sliney, where Teron can come in, pay the fees and get permits. Mr. Sliney said he will look into the factual issues and form some conclusion as to what the Town and Town Officials should do on this matter, now that we know in what direction Teron is going. Since Teron has received permits which have expired, the Building De- partment must now receive approval from the Town Commission and the Planning Board before issuing new permits, stated Mr. Waldman. Mrs. Rome said with the erosion along the ocean, it might be wise to consult with the Department of Natural Resources regarding this parcel. Building Official Sutherland agreed to contact the Department of Natural Resources regarding this project. Mrs. Rome stated that before the next regular meeting hopefully reports will be received from the Department of Natural Resources and Attorney Sliney on this matter. • PLANNING BOARD Special Meeting April 24, 1985 Page 8 of 8 • Mr. Blosser mentioned Town Ordinance #520 which was adopted on April 3, 1985, which sets forth the duties and powers of the Planning Board and the Community Appearance Board. It was suggested that the methods and procedures for reviewing the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning be discussed at the next Planning Board Meeting. The next date for the Planning Board Meeting is set for Wednesday, May 8, 1985, at 9:30 A.M. The agenda for this meeting closes on April 24, 1985, at noon. Chairman Saunders adjourned the Special Me'z a 00 A.M. . � APPROV v S. u C 'rman D. R. Rome, Vice Chairman R. losse • Attest: Date: r amk 5/7/85 0 M. A. Waldman ' . Jo E. Ward