Loading...
1994.07.26_BAA_Minutes_Regular• TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING - MINUTES Tuesday July 26, 1994 9:30 A.M. Chairman Harold B. Cohen called the Public Hearing to order in Commission Chambers at 9:30 A.M., advising its purpose was to hear testimony on the following Petition, after which the Board would issue its decision: No. 06-94-52. Submitted by Robert A. Eisen re Lot 129W for Evelyne Lahage, owner of Lot 129W North (2434 S. Ocean Blvd.), and M/M Allan Gardner, owners of Lot 129W South (2444 S. Ocean Blvd.). Seeking relief from Town Code of Ordinances Chapter 30 [Zoning], Section 5.1 (a) {Fences, Walls & Hedges/Height Limits} and Section 5.2(d)(1) {Noncommercial Docks, Piers, Launching Facilities & Mooring Devices}. The Chairman noted a Workshop had been held regarding the Petition on July 11, during which the members, Building Official and Town Attorney inspected the site. Deputy Town Clerk Doris Trinley called the roll. Chairman Cohen, Vice Chairman Robert F. Selby, Secretary Jane Rayner and Members Benjamin Cohen, Richard C. Seguso. Neil W. Burd and Daniel J. Loventhal were present. Town Attorney Thomas E. Sliney, Building Official Lee Leffingwell and members of the general public were also present. Before testimony began, the Deputy Town Clerk verified that the proper publications for today's Public Hearing had been made, and the Petitioner had submitted proof that all property owners within 300' of the properties for which variances were sought had been notified of today's Public Hearing by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested. Attorney Robert Eisen, representing the owners of both properties, was sworn in. He asked permission to use several aerial photos which showed pre- and post-construction condition of the property, and which would serve as visual aids in his presentation. Same were accepted as proposed upon MOTION by MR. BURD/MR. LOVENTHAL. Mr. Eisen then gave a brief history of the ownership and use of the property. He noted that 129W was previously one large lot, on which a previous owner had installed the dock that now existed, as well as the man-made "boat basin." At this time, Mr. Eisen explained, the Lot is divided into Lot 129W North and Lot 129W South, with single family homes occupying both, and a hardship has been created in meeting Code requirements because of the existing dock and man-made basin on the west ( Intracoastal ) side of the lots . Board of Adjustment Public Hearing - Minutes July 26, 1994 Page 2 of 7 Mr Eisen further stated that the hardship created in meeting Code requirements regarding the height of the front privacy wall on the east side (AlA) of the lots was twofold: the houses were already built and pilings for a 6' wall had already been driven. Having been sworn in, The Building Official here explained circumstances pertaining to the timing of plan review and the permission for the pilings being given. She also informed the Board that at her suggestion, a proposed amendment to this Section of Code, allowing for a maximum 6' height in frontal walls, where there would be no impairment to vision re traffic, was to be reviewed by the Community Appearance Board on July 28 and, hopefully, it would be that Board's recommendation to the Town Commission to amend the Code accordingly. Ms. Leffingwell advised that an amendment to Code in this regard would bring the Town into accord with. other municipalities, as well as the County. Before summarizing the variances sought for the two properties, Mr. Eisen advised that in a recent phone conversation with Gerald Marcy, owner of the property directly north of 129W North, Mr. Marcy had objected to the extension of the existing dock into the side setback to within 12-1/2' of his south property line. • Therefore, Mr Eisen advised, this portion of the variances sought for Lot 129W North was being withdrawn. Mr. Eisen further advised that Mr Marcy had no objection to the installation of a boat lift, as long as any boat used with the lift did not encroach on the north 25' side setback; Mr. Marcy had no comment on the 6'height of the front privacy wall. SUNIlKARY Variances requested for Lot 129 West North: .That the existing dock remain, thus creating a "0" side setback on the south side of the lot (25' side setback required by Code). That a boat lift be installed extending 10' from seawall (5' extension required by Code). .That a 5' allowance be granted in order for a 6' privacy wall (east side) to be installed on the front property line (2-1/2' maximum height required by Code when installed on front property line; 6' maximum height allowed when installed 5' within property line). Variances requested for Lot 129 West South: .That the existing dock remain, thus creating a "0" side setback on the north side of the lot (25' side setback required by Code). Board of Adjustment Public Hearing - Minutes July 26, 1994 Paae 3 of 7 .That an 8' extension into the south side setback be allowed, as now exists due to the unusual configuration created by the man-made basin, and the owners be allowed to extend the existing dock in and around the perimeter of the basin. (25' side setback required by Code). .That a boat lift be installed extending 10' from seawall (5' extension required by Code). .That a 5' allowance be granted in order for a 6' privacy wall (east side) to be installed on the property line. (2-1/2 maximum height required when installed on a front property line; 6' maximum height allowed when installed 5' within property line). In his summary, Mr. Eisen again stated, as he had in the Workshop Meeting, that if the Board would grant a variance for the dock to remain as it now exists, the owners would be willing to file a deed restriction for public record, that would apply to both properties, to protect any prospective future buyers. Mr. Eisen said he would prepare a draft of the deed restriction for Mr. Sliney's review within 30 days of this date. Ms. Dee Rose of Bel Air Drive was sworn in and questioned the reasoning behind a 25' side setback requirement. It was explained that such restriction was a measure to prevent overcrowding between residences. After the Chairman closed the Public Hearing, substantial discussion took place among the members, Town Attorney and Mr. Eisen during which Mr. Eisen answered members' questions to their satisfaction. During this discussion, it was also learned that existing dolphins would remain in place in the Intracoastal Waterway. Concluding discussion, it was the Town Attorney's suggestion that due to the complexity of the Petition, each request for variance be considered and voted on as separate items for each lot. He also advised that Mr. Eisen's proposal for the previously noted deed restriction was a good one and should be referred to in the applicable Motion. Note: The Motions made appear in these Minutes as pages 4, 5, and 6. On advice of Town Attorney, it is hereby noted for the record that on all Motions made and carried, there were at least four (4) "AYE" votes. There being no further business to come before the Board at this • time, Chairman Cohen adjourned the Public Hearing upon MOTION by MR. BURD/MR. BENJAMIN COHEN at 10:35 A.M. dmt Page 4 of 7 • EXHIBIT A TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION ON PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 0~-94-52 July 26, 1994 LOT 129 WEST/ NORTH (Lahage) NOTE: Because the owner of the property directly north of this lot (Marcy) objected to the dock being extended to 12-1/2' of his south property line, Mr. Eisen advised that the section of the petition relating to that portion of Section 5.2 (d)(1) [Chapter 30/Zoning] having to do with the north side setback requirement was withdrawn; the 25' required setback will be honored. All other variances requested in the petition remained intact. BOAT LIFT: That the boat lift be allowed to extend 10' from seawall with the condition that any boat used with the lift not extend into the 25' side setback requirement on the north side of the lot [Section 5.2(d)(1) of Chapter 30/Zoning calls for no more than 5' extension]. MOTION by MRS. RAYNER/MR. BENJAMIN COHEN with unanimous 'AYE' votes. SIDE SETBACK, SOUTH SIDE: That the existing dock be allowed to remain in place, at the request of the owner, thus reducing side setback on south side to '0', on the condition that this be noted in a deed restriction to be submitted for review by the Town Attorney within 30 days of this date (July 26, 1994) and subsequently be duly recorded in the public record(s) for the protection of any prospective future owners [Section 5.2(d)(1) of Chapter 30/Zoning calls for 25' side setback.] MOTION by MR. LOVENTHAL/MR. BENJAMIN COHEN with unanimous 'AYE' votes. FRONT PRIVACY WALL: That a 5' variance be granted for the front privacy wall, which will be 6' in height and placed on the east side property line. [Section 5.1 (a) of Chapter 30/Zoning calls for a maximum height of 2-1/2' for walls placed on property line; 6' height only if walls are placed 5' within property line] MOTION by MR. BENJAMIN COHEN/MR. SELBY, with all 'AYE' votes except for Chairman Harold Cohen, who voted 'NAY." • Page 5 of 7 • EXHIBIT B TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION ON PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 06-94-52 July 26, 1994 LOT 129 WEST/SOUTH (Gardner) FRONT PRIVACY WALL: That A 5' variance be granted for the front privacy wall, which will be 6' in height and placed on the east side property line. [Section 5.1(a) of Chapter 30/Zoning call for a maximum height of 2-1/2' for walls placed on property line; 6' height only if walls are placed 5' within property line]. MOTION by MR. BURD/MR. LOVENTHAL with all 'AYE' votes except for Chairman Harold Cohen, who voted 'NAY.' SIDE SETBACK, NORTH SIDE: That the existing dock be allowed to remain in place, at the request of the owner, thus reducing side setback on the north side to '0', on the condition that this be noted in a deed restriction to be submitted for review by the Town Attorney within 30 days of this date (July 26, 1994) and subsequently be duly recorded in the public record(s) for the protection of any prospective future owners [Section 5.2(d)(1) of Chapter 30/Zoning called for 25' side setback]. MOTION by MR. LOVENTHAL/MR. BENJAMIN COHEN with unanimous 'AYE' votes. SIDE SETBACK & BOAT LIFT, SOUTH SIDE: That because of the unusual configuration caused by an existing man-made "cove" on the south side of the lot, an 8' extension, creating a 17' side setback, be allowed [Section 5.2 (d) (1) of Chapter 30/Zoning calls for 25' side setback] . That the boat lift be allowed to extend 10' from the seawall [Section 5.2(d)(1) of Chapter 30 calls for no more than 5' extension] ; also any boat used with the lift will be allowed to extend no more than 8' into the side setback in keeping with the 17' side setback granted. MOTION by MR. BURR/MR. BENJAMIN COHEN with all 'AYE' votes. Page 6 of 7 EXHIBIT C • TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION ON PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 06-94-52 July 26, 1994 Because of the complexity of the Petition, and on advice of the Town Attorney, MRS. RAYNER/MR. BURR moved as follows: THAT THE MEMBERS HAD CONSIDERED ALL REQUESTS FOR VARIANCE CONTAINED WITHIN PETITION NO. 06-94-52 AS SEPARATE ITEMS AND HAD FOUND, IN REACHING THEIR DECISION TO GRANT EACH REQUEST, THAT THE SIX (6) REQUIREMENTS AS LISTED ON THE "DECISION ON PETITION FOR VARIANCE" FORM [ATTACHED HERETO] HAD BEEN MET. (Motion met with unanimous favorable vote.) r1 U ~16NL,~~~ • = ... o~.. ---'~~ ~, .. -_.~.~ i 3 ; _ _.~~~..: s jIY : +.~.. . _ ~~~R f~ D A 10~ r= Town of Highland Beach BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION ON PETITION FOR VARIANCE Petition No. Dated Town Code Petitioner: Public Hearing Date In the above numbered Petition, by vote as shown in the official minutes and recorded on the reverse side of this form, it was determined and ordered that the requested variance be granted [ J; denied [ j; granted subject to the following conditions and safeguards [ ]; In reaching its decision and order, the Board has found/has not found in the case of the above numbered Petition that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved, and which are not appli- cable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. 2. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the action of the applicant. 3. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the ordinance to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. 4, Literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other proper- ... ties in the same district under the terms of the ordinance and would work unnecessary and undo hardship on the applicant. 5. The reasons set forth in the applicant's petition justify the granting of the variance and the variance granted is the minimum reasonable variance that will make possible the reasonable use of • land, strucuture or building. 6, Granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general pur- e pose and intent of the ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. ., • Board of Adjustment Public Hearing July 26, 1994 Page 7 of 7 • ~ ~• ~ Harold B Coh Chairman Robert F. Selby, Vice Chairman ~ ~ ane Rayner, Secretary Neil W. Burd - f ,~~s ~= ~ i -- Daniel J. Lowenthal --~~ ^ ATTEST:, r-I~_~~- ~--~~ DATE : ~~G~ . ~ '~ , l I % ~~ • Benja in Cohen