Loading...
1987.05.12_BAA_Minutes_RegularTOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH, FLORIDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING May 12, 1987 9.30 A.M. Harold B. Cohen, Chairman of the Board of Adjustment, Town of Highland Beach, called the Public Hearing to order at 9:30 a.m. for the purpose of reviewing the following Petition for Variance. The Recording Secretary called the roll. Present were Regular Members H. B. Cohen, G. Lorenz, C. Arbetman, D. Augenstein and G.Harbin (Alt). Absent from the Public Hearing was Regular Member A. M. Fox, Jr. Also present were Town Attorney S. Abrams, Building Official Bruce Sutherland, Recording Secretary Mary Ann Mariano, and Diane DeMarco, General Contractor, representing the Petitioner. A Workshop Meeting was held on April 20, 1987, at 1:30 p.m. at which time members of the Board of Adjustment examined the Petition, which was explained in detail by the Petitioners. Following an on site inspection of the subject property by Board members, the Workshop Meeting was adjourned by Chairman Cohen. PETITION NO. 4-87-31, MR. AND MRS. H. BOYD, 2475 SOUTH OCEAN BLVD., PRESENT ON BEHALF OF MR. AND MRS. BOYD: DIANE DEMARCO, GENERAL CON- TRACTOR. Chairman Cohen noted that PETITION NO. 4-87-31 was to examine a re- quest by the Petitioners for a variance for a fence to be placed with- in 5' of the front property line, under Section 5.1(a)(1) of Chapter 30 of the Code of Ordinances of the Town of Highland Beach upon property located at 2475 South Ocean Boulevard, Highland Beach, Town Lot No. 127. The Recording Secretary attested to the fulfillment of the legal re- quirements involving the advertising of the Public Hearing. Ms. DeMarco, representing the Petitioner, submitted the receipts of mail- ing to the surrounding neighbors, however, did not have the return receipts, proving delivery. Attorney Abrams noted that the provisions were specific in requiring proof of delivery and without same, the Board should not pursue the matter any further at this meeting. This meeting was recessed for approximately 10 minutes pending delivery of the return receipts. Upon re -convening the meeting, the return receipts were reviewed by the Board Attorney and placed into the record. It was further noted that three neighbors had submitted letters to the Board in support of the pending Petition for Variance. n LJ • L� Board of Adjustment Public Hearing May 12, 1987 Page 2 of 3 Chairman Cohen stated that members representative of the Petition and Members will discuss the merits of counsel and take final action. will hear sworn testimony from the persons interested in this matter. the petition, request advise from Diane DeMarco was then sworn in by Mr. Arbetman, who testified that Mr. and Mrs. Boyd were requesting the variance due to the fact that they desired to place the fence directly behind an existing hedge which already encroached into the front set back line. Ms. DeMarco stated that the maintenance of a 5' gap between the fence and the hedge would cause a hardship, and that to place the fence back 5' would not be aesthetically pleasing. It was pointed out that the fence had already been erected in viola- tion to law and without a permit on the front portion of the fence at its present location. It was noted that the Community Appearance Board had approved the fence to be constructed in compliance with the front yard setbacks, and it was pointed out at the Workshop that if a request were made to this Board for a Variance that the CAB would be supportive of same, realizing that the jurisdiction for such request would be within the realm of the Board of Adjustment. Ms. DeMarco stated that the fence in its present location was more uniform with other fences on adjoining properties. It was noted by the Board of Adjustment that those fences not in compliance with the existing set back requirements were grandfathered in and had been erected prior to the present requirements. The question of hardship arose. Ms. DeMarco's contention was that the difficulty in maintenance, as well as the aesthetic unattractiveness of the fence being placed away from the existing hedge created a hard- ship. Attorney Abrams noted that hardships could include such items as aesthetics, accessability, public safety and peculiarities of any certain property. With the placement of the fence in conformity with the existing town code, the moving of a water valve would be necessary, however, the Board did not consider this to be a hardship. Another concern expressed by the Board was the fact that although the existing hedge would serve to conceal the fence at this time, that any future owners might not want such hedge and could possibly remove same exposing the fence. Attorney Abrams noted that any approval could be conditioned upon the maintenance of such hedge, and that if any future owner chose not to maintain the hedge, that the variance would lapse and no longer be valid. Mr. Arbetman felt that a covenant running U • Board of Adjustment Public Hearing May 12, 1987 Page 3 of 3 with the land would be more binding on future owners. Mr. Harbin questioned whether the Board would feel the same toward the Petition if the fence had not been erected in violation of the Town's ordinances and the Petition would have been filed in the appropriate manner. Building Official Sutherland stated that the owners had been in viola- tion since the erection of the fence on the front property line, however, felt that inasmuch as the hedge is existing that the Town would not suffer in allowing the fence to remain if the Board felt that it was appropriate. Chapter 30, Section 11, stating conditions governing variances was cited with specific reference to sub -paragraph (a)(2) dealing with a condition of a variance which reads "That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant". It was the consensus of the Board that the particular matter in question had been brought on by the non-compliance of the applicants them- selves. The petition of Mr. and Mrs. Boyd under date of April 10, 1987, states that "An existing hedge which is well established is located approxi- mately 18" inside the property line. This hedge should be used as a cover for the chain link fence". Mr. Augenstein had noticed, and brought to the attention of the rest of the Board Members that while the above statement was true, the entire front of the property was not shielded by a hedge. The portion of the front property not shielded by the hedge existed South of the driveway. Thus, the entire front of the property was not shielded by a hedge and a chain link fence would be a clear and existing violation of the law as it now exists. Any attempt to plant additional hedges along this line is forbidden by ordinance. With it being the consensus of the Board that no actual hardship existed in the subject Petition for Variance, Motion was made by MR. ARBETMAN/MR. LORENZ to deny the Petitioner's request for variance. Upon roll call vote, this MOTION carried unanimously. There being no further business to come before the Board of Adjustment at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 A.M. D i �A�ugens `I/ George rbin, ATTEST: DATE: APPROVED: � > arold B. Ca n, Chairman n, Member lb t enz, Chairman Member C arle b tman, Secretary