Loading...
1995.11.13_BAA_Minutes_RegularI 1 i! TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES Mondav. November 13, 1995 '3-~-P.M. .__. _, Chairman Harold B. Cohen called the Public Hearing Meeting to order in Commission Chambers at 1:35 PM, advising its purpose was to hear testimony on the following Petition, after which the Board would issue its decision. NO. 10-95-56 (A) Submitted by Richard Orman (Allian Harris Hoover\Owner), for property located at 2625 South Ocean Boulevard, Lot 122 East, Highland Beach, Florida (Dolphin Apartments) for relief from town zoning ordinance Chapter 30, Section 4.4(4) and Section 13.8 under RMM, for eight single-family attached zero lot line residences, two-story. Deputy Town Clerk Jane Dillon called the roll. Present were Chairman Harold B. Cohen, Vice Chairman Robert F. Selby, Secretary Jane Rayner, Members Neil W. Burd, Daniel J. Loventhal, Benjamin Cohen and Richard C. Seguso. Town Manager Mary Ann Mariano, Town Attorney Tom Sliney, Commissioner Rand and Building Official Ed Hardy were present along with members of the general public. Chairman Cohen stated for the record that there were three workshop meetings held on the 12, 20 and 26 of October at which time the Petitioner's representative explained his request for variances under the previous stated ordinances and a plea for hardship was made to conform to these sections. At the first workshop meeting the Board and Town Attorney visited the site. The Board is now sitting to adjudicate the case. 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 Certified Mail/Return Receipt letters notifying the property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property of today's Public Hearing. Town Manager Mary Ann Mariano swore in all who would be testifying on behalf of this Petition. At this time, Mr. Richard Orman presented an overview of his petition, stating that he is requesting a 25 foot setback from the road, rather than the required 40 feet. He also is petitioning, at the rear yard setback, to build four beach cabanas east of the Coastal Construction Control Line, but west of the existing seawall. • I 1 :~ Board of Adjustment __ __ November 13 , 1995 -Page 2 0~'- 5 Mr. Orman stated that the current Dolphin Apartments now sits 20 feet back from AlA, and while the requirement is 40 feet, his request of 25 is a farther setback than the existing Dolphin Apartments are now. In regard to the cabanas, Mr. Orman stated that the flanking condominiums extend out to an equivalent location as to where the cabanas would extend out to beyond the CCC, and he feels that the variance request is not something that would substantially change from what is there at the present time, but actually improve it in terms of look and character. Mr. Burd asked for the exact dimensions of the cabanas, if they will have plumbing, the type of construction, and exactly what they will consist of, for the benefit of the neighbors present. Mr. Loventhal asked Mr. Orman to tell the Board the unnecessary and undo hardship the petitioner will sustain if the Board does not grant this variance. Mr. Orman asked Atty. Kirschner to reply, after Mr. Johnson gives the cabana dimensions/descriptions per Attorney Sliney's request to have for the record. Mr. Johnson stated that there will be 4 cabanas at 80 sf. each (8x10) and will contain a 1/2 bath (toilet/sink). It is designed for changing/storage and will be approx 7 feet high inside with a slightly pitched roof, with barrel the to match the residences. The peak would reach 10 feet high and would be about 5 feet above the finished floor of the residences because they sit lower. They. would be made as obscure as possible. They would have double louver doors, CBS construc- tion, wood roofs with outriggers (bermuda style w/tile). They would be set either 4 in a row or as a Y shape (two faced in front w/2 behind.) Mr. Cohen read for the record, section 13.8 regarding cabanas, and Mr. Stoff confirmed that the cabanas meet all the requirements for same. Mr. Loventhal inquired about lot length and travel distance from the four homes closest to AlA, to the beach. Mr. Stoff replied it to be approximately 250 feet and travel distance would be about half of that. Attorney Mitchell Kirschner addressed the hardship, stating that in order to have a viable property, the cabanas are an attractive addition to the plans. Basically the hardship is that the property would be more viable to sell, and in order to have the project be viable for the homes closest to AlA which are far from the beach, it would be a wonderful accessory for the purchaser. The fact that the CCC has been moved in quite a bit has created somewhat of a hardship for the space that is needed to build the cabanas, and it would give the residents furthest from the beach easier beach access. Each owner would own their lot in fee simple, with a road- way and 10 foot easement on either side for beach access. 1 ti Board of Adjustment November 13, 1995 Paae 3 of ~ Mr. Loventhal again asked what the hardship was for the cabanas on the CCC if the front houses from AIA are only 250 feet from the beach. Atty Kirschner explained that in order to have the project be viable, and since the homes closest to AlA are far enough away from the beach, and not knowing the age range of the potential purchasers, that the developer would like to provide them the amenity of the cabanas, and there is really no other way to provide this than what is being presented. Mr. Burd asked what form of ownership the cabanas would be. Atty. Kirschner replied that each owner would own their lot in fee simple and the developer would declare a reciprocal roadway easement within the perimeter of the property. A proposed homeowners association has been drafted, and the association would be responsible for maintaining the guard house area. Mr. Hardy reviewed the Codes which apply to this development, and stated that the development falls under Town Houses, Patio & Villa Apartments, per Section 13.10 of Chapter 30. He also stated that the proposed project meets all of the criteria that the town has set forth as far as setbacks, except for the front of the building, and the neighbors need to be aware that without any variances the proposed owners could come in and build 18 units rather than 8 without coming before the board. After lengthy discussion, the public was invited for any comments or concerns. Several residents approached 'the Board and their concerns were addressed. Town Manager Mary Ann Mariano addressed the Board and Audience and stressed the reduction in town services which would be needed for 8 single family homes vs . an 18 unit condominium, and to please keep in mind the visual attractiveness of this project vs. a box condo. She suggested looking at hardship from the side of the town and the side of the petitioner, and the fact that the town and boards have tried to reduce density, and this petitioner is in fact creating a project which will do just that. Town Attorney Tom Sliney spoke on the difference of building a permanent structure east of the Coastal Construction Control Line vs. building removable structures, as the cabanas would be, and the state may be more likely to allow the structures because they are removable. Mr. Sliney recommended voting on the two variances separately. Mr. Loventhal does not does not find undue hardship with this case, as he is bothered that the Board is already reducing it by 15 feet. He sees absolutely no reason to grant the variance as he feels there is no hardship in respect to the cabanas. • Board of Adjustment November 13 1995 Paste 4 of 5 Mr. Cohen believes the 15 feet is permissible for the front setback. Mr. Burd felt that the dimensions of the space where the cabanas would be, and how far from the seawall, were not available to the Board and felt the petitioner could have done a better job presenting their case. Mr. Sliney stated that the Planning Board would see the plans with the actual dimensions, and Chairman Cohen agreed with both Mr. Burd and Attorney Sliney. Mrs. Rayner agreed to the setback, since it is an attractive plan and so few feet are involved. After further discussion and review, the following MOTION was made by MR. BURR/MRS. RAYNER: THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVES THE VARIANCE FOR THE FRONT YARD TO A REQUESTED 25 FEET FROM AlA RATHER THAN 40 FEET FROM AlA AND THAT THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF PARAGRAPH A OF SECTION 11 OF THE ZONING CODE HAVE BEEN MET WITH AND THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 11, D, E AND F HAVE BEEN MET WITH. Roll call met with unanimous favorable vote. Chairman Cohen read the second variance request to permit beach cabanas east of the Coastal Construction Control Line, dependant upon the Department of Environmental Protection approval and any other applicable state agencies. Mr. Burd stated that, at this point, a precedent should not be set with respect to any construction whether it is permanent or semi- permanent, with or without a foundation, east of the Coastal Construction Control Line. Mr. Selby stated that the Villa Magna had just such cabanas. The following MOTION was made by MR. LOVENTHAL/MR. SURD as follows: THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DENIES THE VARIANCE FOR BEACH CABANAS EAST OF THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE. The following vote was taken to DENY the variance Mr. Selby yes Mr. Burd yes Mr. Rayner no Mr. Loventhal yes Mr. B. Cohen yes Chairman Cohen yes Mr. Seguso no Motion to DENY passed by a 5 to 2 majority. s ' . _ ~ Board of Adjustment November 13 1995 Paae 5 of 5 Attorney Sliney asked, for the record, that the votes for the two variances be confirmed: 1) The 25 foot front set back was unanimously approved. 2) The Motion to deny the beach cabanas was approved by a 5 to 2 majority. Chairman Cohen presented a framed Certificate of Appreciation to Jane Rayner, whose term on the Board of Adjustment was completed after a six year tenure. With no further business to come before the board at this time, the Public Hearing was adjourned upon MOTION by MR. LOVENTHAL/MR. HAROLD COHEN at 2:45 P.M. APPROVE: ~ ~' Harold B. Cohen; Chairman Jane Rayner, Secretary Richard C. Seguso ~~~ ~~ Robert F . Selby, Vic Ch it /lam ~., ~ %~~ Benjam n Cohen ,. -~ ~._._~j~" Nei W. Burd aniel J. oventhal i ATTEST: C~~ ~~ DATE: ~ - • • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION ON PETITION FOR VARIANCE Petition No. 10-95-56 (A) Dated November 13, 1995 Town Code Ch.30, Section 4.4(4) Public Hearing Date November 13, 1995 Petitioner Richard Orman / Alliann Harris Hoover (Owner) 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 variances be granted [ ]; denied [X]; granted subject to the following conditions and safeguards [ ]: In reaching its decision and order, the Board has found as 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 applicable 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 properties in the same district under the terms of the ordinance, and would work unnecessary and undue 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, structure or building. /-' 6. Granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. • Board of Adjustment Decision on Petition for Variance Paae 2 Unless otherwise previously stated, any authorization by the Board for a variance shall expire if the Petitioner fails to obtain a building permit within one (1) year from the date of authorization of such variance. SIGNATURES Chairman, Harol B. Cohen Vice Chairman, Robert F. Selby retary, Jane R yner WRITE "FOR" OR "AGAINST" VARIANCE 25 FOOT FRONT SETBACK BEACH CABANAS ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ Neil W. Burd NOTE: ANY PERSON, OR PERSONS, OR ANY TAXPAYER, BOARD, DEPARTMENT, OFFICER, BOARD OR BUREAU OF THE TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH AGGRIEVED BY A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER RENDITION OF THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLY TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 163.250. CC: BUILDING OFFICIAL ~- ~~~ aniel J. L venthal BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION ON PETITION FOR VARIANCE Petition No. 10-95-56 (A) Dated November 13, 1995 Town Code Ch.30, Section 4.4(4) Public Hearing Date November 13, 1995 Petitioner Richard Orman / Alliann Harris Hoover (Owner) 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 variances be granted [X]; denied [ ]; granted subject to the following conditions and safeguards [ ]: In reaching its decision and order, the Board as found as 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 applicable 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 properties in the same district under the terms of the ordinance, and would work unnecessary and undue 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, structure or building. 6. Granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Board of Adjustment Decision on Petition for Variance Page 2 Unless otherwise previously stated, any authorization by the Board for a variance shall expire if the Petitioner fails to obtain a building permit within one (1) year from the date of authorization of such variance. SIGNATURES WRITE "FOR" OR "AGAINST" VARIANCE 25 FOOT FRONT SETBACK ~~ ~ ti Chairman, Harold B. Cohen ~V Ben,j~ in Cohen ~, y~ G G%%~ ~ Richard C. Seguso G ~/~ '~G~ f~' ri 1~' Neil W. Burd D niel J. oventhal NOTE: ANY PERSON, OR PERSONS, OR ANY TAXPAYER, BOARD, DEPARTMENT, OFFICER, BOARD OR BUREAU OF THE TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH AGGRIEVED BY A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER RENDITION OF THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLY TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 163.250. CC: BUILDING OFFICIAL • BEACH CABANAS