Loading...
1992.12.09_PB_Minutes_RegularTOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING Wednesday, December 09, 1992 9:30 A.M. Chairman Robert L. Lowe called the Regular Meeting to order in Commis- sion Chambers at 9:30 A.M. Deputy Town Clerk Doris Trinley called the roll. Present were the Chairman, Vice Chairman Arthur R. Keller and Members Paul R. Kane, Sr., Leonard D. Bell, Frank L. CoIarullo, James F. Morrill and William Maltz. Also present were Town Attorney Thomas E. Sliney, Building Official Lee Leffingwell and Jim Park, Senior Land Planner for Gee and Jenson. Town Manager Mary Ann Mariano and Mayor Joseph A. Boulay were in the audience, as were members of the general public. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Upon MOTION BY MR. KANE/MR. BELL, the following sets of Minutes were unanimously approved: October 14 Regular Meeting October 22 Special Meeting November 12 Special Meeting OLD BUSINESS Regarding that portion of the October 22 Special Meeting Minutes which dealt with Peter Ince's submitting a letter ensuring all pertinent information on the Declaration of Unity of Title papers for Lots 129E North and South was indeed correct, it was determined that same had not yet been received and the Building Official was asked to contact Mr. Ince to request that the letter be submitted. The Status of Building Development in Town was referred to and the Building Official questioned about Royal Cove B & C sites at Boca High- lands. Before she responded, the Town Attorney noted it was his understanding that the project was in financial difficulty and might now be a Resolution Trust matter. Ms. Leffingwell then informed the members that Notices of Violation and Hearing had been sent to the party representing the property regarding its unkempt condition and as of this date it would be on the Code Enforcement Agenda for January 1993. 0 Planning Board •Regular Meeting - Minutes December 9, 1992 Page 2 of 4 NEW BUSINESS Discussion re Section 6.5 of Chapter 30 (Non -Conforming Structures Mr. Victor P. Hadeed, a resident of Beach Walk East Condominium, was invited to recap remarks he recently made to the Town Commission regarding this Section of Code. Basically, he asked that a "grand- father clause" regarding existing multifamily property, i.e., a condominium, be considered in the event it is partially or wholly destroyed involuntarily, with some conditions applying, such as over 50% of owners declare their intention to rebuild. He also noted the that while our Zoning Code calls for 70% destruction of an existing structure not being reconstructed except in conformance with existing Code, the Comprehensive Plan calls for a 50% destruction rate. (A complete copy of Mr. Hadeed's remarks to the Town Commission are attached to and made part of these Minutes.) Town Attorney Sliney noted the while Mr. Hadeed's proposal seemingly was a good one, the concept could be a bit tricky in that while the Town was in favor of low density, which is reflected in its Compre- hensive Plan, as it built out a different point of view of what is really wanted regarding density emerged. As an example he noted the ear of condominium unit owners that if their structure were destroyed, owners would not be able to rebuild it as it previously existed be- cause of the lower densities now in effect. However, he also noted it was kind of a balancing of interest of how the Town could allow the unit owners to rebuild as a matter of "right" regardless of the den- sity limitations in place; that would present a major conflict. He also asked that if the unit owners opted to sell to a new developer, after being given the go-ahead to rebuild a building as it previously existed, would the Town then be stuck with letting the developer put in whatever he wanted when the intent was to let the original property owners rebuild it, but not to--Tet developer "x" come into Town and do it. Regarding the inconsistencies on the percentage of rebuild capacity, Mr. Sliney noted that these must be addressed and resolved. Jim Park, Senior Land Planner for Gee and Jenson, next addressed the members, indicating that he personally had worked with the Town re- garding the Comprehensive Plan now in effect in accordance with the conditions of the Growth Management Act. He noted he was only re- cently aware of the inconsistency of rebuild percentages between the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code, but acknowledged it did exist and must be rectified. He added that the Town had a right to maintain the 70% rate reflected in the Zoning Code, but the Comp Plan must be brought into line in this regard. Planning Board �egular Meeting - ecember 9, 1992 Page 3 of 4 Lengthy discussion then took place among all present. Some areas covered are as follows: As a general rule, densities were universally accepted as applying to existing properties as well as undeveloped properties and were treated the same. Zoning should be consistent with a municipality's Comp Plan. This does not mean, however, that in individual cases special exception could not be made. It was noted that the Town's Board of Ad- justment could be petitioned regarding "hardship" in such a case. Made the distinction between other state/federal agencies such as DNR (CCCL) and FEMA and Florida's Department of Community Affairs, which must approve Comp Plans. It was noted the former was not involved with zoning or number of units on a specific site, but rather with structural soundness and storm vulnerability. • It is not the Town's responsibility to notify individual owners or real estate agencies when a Comp Plan is being prepared, rather this is accomplished legally through advertised public hearings. When the Town addresses zoning codes, it does not consider what disaster(s) might possibly befall certain structures, rather it focuses on what the infrastructure can withstand, as well as numbers of people and pertinent services to be made available to them. Also, it was noted that the Town must follow state guidelines (DCA) and cannot act arbitrarily. Possible loss of state funding was noted a consequence of not following guidelines. As regards land values, it was noted that zoning controls only the number of units allowed on a site; there is no correlation between density and land values. For the record, Mr. Bell expressed concern with the information pre- sented at this meeting, as well as concern that all the Town's resi- dents have access to same. Concluding discussion, it was the consensus of the members that since all of them, with the exception of Mr. Keller, were appointed to the Board after the Comp Plan had been approved, they would take time to acquaint themselves with the Plan and continue today's discussion at 10 heir next Regular Meeting on January 13. Planning Board Oegular Meeting - Minutes December 9, 1992 Page 4 of 4 There being the meeting meeting was 9 ATTEST: DATE no further business to come before the Board at this time, was adjourned upon MOTION by MR. KANE/MR. MORRILL, the adjourned at 11:00 A.M. APPROVE 4� Ro er e, Ch irman Arthur R. Keller, Vice C airman William Maltz • MEMORANDUM TO: ROBERT LOWE, CHAIRMAN PLANNING BOARD FROM: MARY ANN MARIANO, TOWN MANAGER DATE: NOVEMBER 05, 1992 RE: ZONING CODE Attached is a copy of a statement read into the record by resident Victor Hadeed at the October 27, 1992 Town Commission Workshop Meeting. As directed by the Town Commission at their November 04, 1992 Regular Meeting, this matter is being submitted to the Planning Board for their review and recommendation. Kindly advise when this matter will be placed on the Planning Board Agenda for discussion so that we may arrange to have Mr. Jim . Park of Gee & Jenson (who assisted Town Staff with the Highland Beach Comprehensive Plan) in attendance for consultation. is Mary A Mariano Town Manager Attach. (1) /amk cc: Mr. Jim Park (Gee & Jenson) Clipboard 11 October 27, 1992 Page Two 1. Most of us pay an additional insurance premium for replacement cost coverage. I believe the majority of insurance policies will pay replacement cost only if the property is replaced. Otherwise, pay market value only. Market value is generally less than replacement value. Classically, market value is replacement value — less depreciation. 2. With inflation abating and possibility of deflation on the horizon, mortgage lenders may become reticent on lending in Highland Beach, as they could end up with loans that are less than market value and thus suffer losses in the event of a disaster. Both of these will tend to decrease values of Highland Beach properties — again "ALA" CCCL. I submit that you consider a grandfather clause with reference to non —conforming properties as follows: In the event a multifamily property — i.e. condominium, is wholly or partially destroyed involuntarily, it be exempt from • the current zoning regulations, particularly re density and building height providing that, 1. Over 50% of the owners declare their intention to rebuild; 2. The repairs or reconstruction do not enlarge, expand or materially change the building as originally constructed; 3. Any repairs or reconstruction must conform to the then existing building codes. Condition 3 can impose a cost burden to the owners, however, I believe this is an insurable risk. Many insurance companies offer riders covering replacement costs directly related to changes in building codes. I urge you to address this issue and authorize counsel to prepare an amendment to the zoning ordinance for your consideration. 0 Respectfully, Victor P. Hadeed ZONING § 6 use of such land shall conform to the regulations specified by this ordinance for the district in which such land is located. (d) No additional structure not conforming to the require- ments of this ordinance shall be erected in connection with such nonconforming use of land, nor shall any structure destroyed or deteriorated to the extent of seventy (70) per- cent or more of the assessed valuation of the structure be replaced. (e) If such nonconforming use involves no structure with a replacement cost exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), such use shall be discontinued within three (3) years from the date it becomes nonconforming and any minor structures shall be removed unless converted to a conforming use and unless the structure would be a con- forming structure in the district. (fl Any and all nonresidential nonconforming uses shall be discontinued within forty (40) years of the date of construc- tion of the nonresidential building; provided, however, that no such mandatory discontinuance shall be required in less than twenty (20) years from the date the use became non- conforming. Any structure involved in such nonresiden- tial, nonconforming use shall be removed unless converted to a conforming use which complies with all property de- velopment regulations in the district within which it is located. For purposes of this section, the date of construc- tion shall be the date of issuance of the building permit in the principal building by the town. Additionally, no owner of real property may rent property to a tenant who will use the property for a nonconforming use. This provision ap- plies regardless of the type of nonconformity involved. 6.5 Nonconforming structures: Where a lawful structure exists at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this ordinance that could not be built under the terms of this ordinance by reason of restrictions on area, lot coverage, height, yards, its location on the lot or other requirements concerning the structure, such struc- r 1801 r § 6 HIGHLAND BEACH CODE ture may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, subject to the following provisions: (a) No such nonconforming structure may be enlarged or al- tered in a way which increases or extends its nonconfor- mity, but any structure or portions thereof may be altered to decrease its nonconformity. (b) Should such nonconforming structure or nonconforming por- tion of structure be destroyed by any means to an extent of more than seventy (70) percent of the assessed value of the structure at time of destruction, it shall not be recon- structed except in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. (c) Should any structure be moved for any reason for any dis- tance whatever, it shall thereafter conform to the regula- tions for the district in which it is located after it is moved. (d) Those nonconforming multifamily structures predating 1960, undergoing alterations, shall conform to the safety codes in effect at the time the permit is obtained, throughout the entire structure. 6.6 Nonconforming uses of structures or of structures and pre- mises in combination: If at the time of passage or amendment of this ordinance, lawful use exists involving individual structures, or such structures and premises in combination, and such use Would not be permitted by the regulations imposed: (a) No such structure shall be enlarged, extended, constructed, moved or structurally altered except in changing the use to one permitted in the district. (b) Any nonconforming use may be extended through parts of a building manifestly arranged or designed for such use at the time of adoption or amendment of this ordinance, but no such use shall be extended to occupy any land outside such building. (c) If no structural alterations are made which would extend the nonconforming use, any nonconforming use of such structure, or structure and premises, may as a special ex- ception be changed to another nonconforming use; pro- 1802 0