Loading...
2013.03.06_BAA_Minutes_Regular r 4. ► h • •� :m �,� TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH ' _% MINUTES OF THE ' ►y��''F ... BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS REGULAR MEETING Wednesday, March 6, 2013 1:30 PM Members Present: Chair David Stern, Vice Chair Ruth Samuels, Board Member Barry Axelrod, Board Member Barry Donaldson, and Board Member Evelyn Weiss. Also Attending: Town Attorney Len Rubin, Building Official Michael Desorcy, Deputy Town Clerk Valerie Oakes and members of the public. CALL TO ORDER Chair Stern called the Regular Meeting to order at 1:30 PM. Roll call was taken by the Deputy Town Clerk Oakes followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. INSPECTION: The Board of Adjustment and Appeals, as part of the public meeting, conducted a site inspection of the property located at 4521 S. Ocean Blvd., Highland Beach. All members • of the public and interested parties were invited to attend the site inspection. Site Visit Discussion: Vice Chair Ruth Samuels — What kind of home/building was here before? Building Official Michael Desorcy — There was a Sea Frolic motel; a commercial property. Member Weiss — How long was the building uninhabitable? Building Official — There were people staying here right before it was demolished. This property belonged to Bibb Latine. He had a non - profit organization and his guests were staying here. Darrin Dunlea, Seadar Builders — There were people in the building before we took ownership of the property. Elaine Smith, 4519 S. Ocean Blvd. — It was a one -story building. Jason Brodsky, 4517 S. Ocean Blvd. — There was nobody living here that I knew of six months or prior. I am here year round and nobody was living here. Due to the mold, nobody lived here from six months to one year ago. Darrin Dunlea, Seadar Builders gave details of the property's location. Jason Brodsky, 4517 S. Ocean Blvd. — What are the plans for landscaping? Scott Elk — Attorney representative for the property owners. There is no definitive answer for the S landscape plans as it is still premature. The variance is to determine if we can decrease Board of Adjustment & Appeals Regular Meeting Wednesday, March 6, 2013 Page 2 of 9 the minimum lot size. We will meet all code requirements such as the requirement for the buffer. The property owner has agreed to meet with the neighbor to the north to collaborate and come to a mutual agreement. RECONVENE MEETING: Chair Stern called for a motion to reconvene the meeting of the Board of Adjustment & Appeals. MOTION: Vice Chair Samuels moved to reconvene the meeting. Member Weiss seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Chair Stern called on the Deputy Town Clerk for a roll call. Members Present: Chair David Stern, Vice Chair Ruth Samuels, Board Member Barry Axelrod, Board Member Barry Donaldson, and Board Member Evelyn Weiss. Also Present: Town Attorney Len Rubin, Building Official Michael Desorcy, Deputy Town Clerk Valerie Oakes and members of the public. ADDITIONS, DELETIONS OR ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Chair Stern called for any additions or deletions to the agenda, hearing none, called for a motion to accept the agenda. MOTION: Vice Chair Samuels moved to accept the agenda as presented. Member Axelrod seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND REQUESTS: No public comments or requests. PRESENTATIONS: No presentations. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: • December 18, 2012 — Regular Meeting Chair Stern called for a motion to approve the minutes from the December 18, 2012, Regular Meeting. MOTION: Vice Chair Samuels moved to approve the minutes from the December 18, 2012, Regular Meeting. Member Axelrod seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. i Board of Adjustment & Appeals Regular Meeting Wednesday, March 6, 2013 Page 3 of 9 OLD BUSINESS• No old business. - NEW BUSINESS: Chair Stern called for a motion to close the regular meeting. MOTION: Member Axelrod moved to close the regular meeting. Member Weiss seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. • Variance Request: 4521 South Ocean Blvd. — Public Hearing Application No. 29490 — RELIEF FROM HIGHLAND BEACHCODE OF ORDINANCES SECTION 30 -64, TABLE 30 -2, THAT REQUIRES SINGLE - FAMILY DWELLINGS BE CONSTRUCTED ON LOTS NO LESS THAN 80 FEET WIDE. THE PROPERTY ON WICH THE PROPOSED TWO ZERO LOT LINE RESIDENCES WILL BE CONSTRUCTED IS APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET WIDE. PER CODE SECTION 30 -64, TABLE 30 -2 ALSO REQUIRES MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF 30 %. Chair Stern called for a motion to open the public hearing. MOTION: Vice Chair Samuels moved to open the public hearing. Member Weiss seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. S Chair Stern called for board members to disclose any ex parte communication, hearing none. The Town Attorney administered the oath to all those who would testify. Deputy Town Clerk read into the record a letter from Linda Socolow of Schutts & Bowen, LLP representing Larry and Elaine Smith (attached as Exhibit A). The Board discussed delaying the final decision of the Board. Chair Stern questioned the Town Attorney if proper protocol would be for a motion to be made regarding the request for continuance, then hold a discussion of the Board. Town Attorney Rubin confirmed that he was correct. Board Member Axelrod suggested not making a final decision for thirty days; however, the Board should review and discuss the item today. Board Member Donaldson agreed and noted that there was proper notice and the plans were available at Town Hall. There is no reason to seek a continuance solely for this case. MOTION: Board Member Axelrod moved to delay final decision of approval for 30 • days, if necessary. Board of Adjustment & Appeals Regular Meeting Wednesday, March 6, 2013 Page 4 of 9 Chair Stern asked if the motion could be amended to either delay the decision or not. Board Member Axelrod did not see a reason to delay the meeting. AMENDED MOTION: Board Member Axelrod moved to deny the request for continuance. Member Weiss seconded the motion. Roll Call: Member Axelrod - Yes Member Weiss - Yes Member Donaldson - Yes Vice Chair Samuels - Yes Chair David Stern - Yes Motion carried 510. Staff Presentation: Building Official Michael Desorcy presented the variance petition, and explained that the property setbacks comply with the code. Board Member Donaldson questioned if the code section that refers to 30% lot coverage concerns the petition. Building Official stated it did not. The lot is approximately 28,000 square feet according to a density test, which allows for six units per acre. The maximum units allowed are four units to be built on the property. The building height has been met of 35 feet. Chair Stern asked if the Building Official was aware of any cases that the Board granted a similar variance. Building Official has conducted research and could not find a similar variance that was approved. Chair Stern noted that the petitioner's application listed that there were several properties that had received a similar variance for approval. Attorney Rubin clarified that the code specifically states that neighbors of non - conforming use of lands of the same zoning district shall not be considered for grounds of authorization of a variance. That information cannot be used to grant this variance. Board Member Axelrod questioned if these were zero lot line or less than code setback. Building Official responded that they are constructed in the middle of property, which is narrow. Petitioner's Presentation: Scott Elk, P.A. is the legal representative for Sea Frolic, LLC. In doing a general review and research through what is online, I cannot make representation of what granted by variance or however. It looks like the property of Ocean Cove Estates are approximately 65 feet wide, and the property at 3575 that is approximately 65 feet in width. I cannot represent how they got there, but those are properties that would be consistent. I agree • Board of Adjustment & Appeals Regular Meeting Wednesday, March 6, 2013 Pate 5 of 9 completely with Town Attorney that these cannot be relied upon as precedence, but I do believe it goes to one of the criteria in a variance request of harmony of the neighborhood. What we are asking is consistent with other lots in the RML zoning district. Therefore, we think it will be consistent with the general harmony of the Town and the RML zoning district. As the Building Official properly stated, we are requesting minimum lot width from 80 feet to 45 feet. The architect has done a beautiful job to create two zero lot line homes that will not affect the neighbors to the north and south because we are still meeting the minimum lot width coverage to the north and the south. We have done the best we can to mitigate the impacts, if any. Consistent with the Code of Ordinances, we will file a declaration of restrictions unified control against the property, which will make sure that these properties stay compatible, neat, clean and consistent with the Code of Ordinances. Randy Stoff, Project Architect — Is familiar with the Town's codes. There are not a lot of developers who want to down zone a property, and here we are down zoning it by 50 %. We did have two prior concepts for this property: 1) four townhouses with a flat stacked on each side, and 2) three level flats with the fourth level having a roof deck for entertainment. Both projects that we had proposed, met the code but were far more dense. Currently, a contemporary duplex is popular. We then thought to have two single - family homes, which is the same mass as a duplex but we discovered this glitch in the code. I don't believe this code intended to prevent down zoning the property. If I connected these buildings down the middle, I would not be here today. We have reduced the size; the architecture has stayed identical; and eliminated the roof top terraces. We • are here to be good neighbors, and there is definitely potential for us to remove some of the side windows and reorient the third floor rooms. The first and second floor will be completely buffered. We want this to be an asset for our clients and the Town. We are not asking for a variance on height, massing, density, coverage, or setbacks. Scott Elk, P.A. — The reason for the two single family homes is that it is market driven. We could have built one large mansion on the property, or we could build four condominiums. We feel based upon what we have learned, through a lot of market research, this is the best product for the market. Carmine D'Angelo, Premier Properties — Since the downturn in 2008, we have seen an interest in ocean front homebuyers, but the game has changed a bit as they want new construction with modern architecture and single family zero lot line homes; most of all, they want privacy. Going back to the early 90's, the town approved Ocean Place Estates, which is 11 zero lot line homes and today there are no homes for sale; it has been very successful. The modern design and quality construction will only enhance the prestige and values of Highland Beach. Board Member Axelrod — I bought my home through one of your partners, Premier Properties. I agree with everything you say. In your statement, to prove hardship is the selling of the house. If you drive from here to Lantana, you will pass ten mansions that are built or just being built; four are in Highland Beach. How can you say it is not • marketable when these homes are being built? Carmine D'Angelo, Premier Properties — R Board of Adjustment & Appeals Regular Meeting Wednesday, March 6, 2013 Page 6 of 9 Those are custom made homes, not spec homes. They are built for the individual who • bought the lot and is building the home. If you go south to Hillsboro Beach or ten miles north, there is not one spec house being built on the ocean that is zero lot line; it is only condominiums. Board Member Axelrod — Are you saying that it is not easy to find a client that wants to build a custom home on that lot? Carmine D'Angelo, Premier Properties — At this point, no. Board Member Axelrod — Then who is buying all of the others? Carmine D'Angelo, Premier Properties — To the north you have Mr. Leeds who bought that property several years ago. There is Mr. Wheeler who I sold that property to. That is two people in the town. Board Member Axelrod — I am not trying to be negative, but I read your letter and I see your flyers every month bragging about how much property you are selling. I am wondering how this all fits together. Member Donaldson — Is there any difference in marketability whether it is fee simple or duplex? Carmine D'Angelo, Premier Properties — Yes, one is across the street called Villas of Highland Beach and Ocean Place Villas its years that this product has been sitting because it is attached. It is more of a lifestyle. Scott Elk, P.A. — As we have said, the property owner is entitled to build up to four units , per code. In spite of what we have learned in the marketplace, we want to down zone by reducing the density to two units. Based upon research, we can do this by condominium. People in the price point of approximately $6 million would prefer to own the land underneath their property and fee simple. The property owners to the north own their property in fee simple. When people buy a condominium, they buy an undivided interest in the common elements; we found that is not desirable. We are still in a difficult marketplace for real estate, so we are trying to make the most attractive property from an aesthetics point as well as a legal standpoint to bring buyers quicker so the property is not sitting vacant. This leaves us with the specific conditions of the variance that must be satisfied with the following criteria: we have an expensive beach front property and must provide a product compounded by the market conditions. We feel that those conditions are specific to this market and this property that necessitates zero lot line homes being built to take it to product. If were inland, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion as property values would be much lower. The other option is to build a four -plex, which can be done, but based on the market we want to reduce the density to deliver a far better product specific to this property, which would probably not be applicable to other properties. We will put in certain design controls and maintenance controls so they stay as nice, well maintained, and good looking properties similar to the controls that you would see in a condominium; even though we do not have to, we feel it is the best move. We are asking that the minimum lot width be reduced from 80 ft. to 45 ft. We could modify the plans slightly to create a condominium and build without requesting this variance. However, due to the marketplace, and the nature of this peculiar property, we Board of Adjustment & Appeals Regular Meeting Wednesday, March 6, 2013 Page 7 of 9 believe this is the best condition that we can create, which necessitates the request for variance. The applicant has not created a self - imposed hardship. Unfortunately, we are bound by the fact that this is a bad real estate market and are starting to see signs of improvement, but it is still very difficult. The market has created a hardship as well as the size of the property. Financial hardship is not the reason for the variance. We could build a mega mansion that might sit for years. We could build four units that could sell quicker, cheaper but based on advice from experts such as the architect, builder and broker we feel this is the best project. We do not feel that the granting of a variance will be detrimental to the public welfare. Public Presentation: Jason Brodsky, 4517 S. Ocean Blvd. — You said that this type of development would sell the quickest and the best in the marketplace that is current. I would think that there are more people willing to place less for four units than two units. Linda Socolow, P.A. (Attorney representing the Larry and Elaine Smith of 4519 S. Ocean Blvd.) — The property owners did receive notice within time; however, they are not architects or planners so for them to receive an architect rendering they were not sure. They thought the zero lot line would be adjacent to their property, and didn't understand that the zero lot line was in the middle of the property. It was a lot of information for them to absorb in a short period of time. They have concerns because there is a lot of glass on the side facing their property. Our clients are concerned because 12 ft. is close when you are talking about a 35 ft. building. We have not seen a scale so we do not know how this building compares next to their building. Another issue is that we have not seen a landscape plan so we do not know how this is going to affect the views, privacy and shadows onto the property. We are not just opposed to the variance. It is a beautiful project and would rather that than the abandoned hotel, but we would like to have some input on landscape buffers and privacy and the backyard, so it does not interfere with the client's privacy and views. Our client will be there long after these projects are sold. Scott Elk, P.A. — I have spoken to the Smith's and have continuously offered, on behalf of Tibor Toth, to sit with them and go through potential landscape buffer easements and how we can make it beneficial to them to try to screen the properties. What is good for them, is good for us. Right now it is premature to ascertain a landscape plan. They wanted a definitive agreement signed by today's meeting, which was not possible. When the time is right in the near future, we do not mind sitting down to satisfy their concerns. Board Discussion: Board Member Axelrod — I would rather see two then four units on a property. I think they look nice, but I personally do not like that railroad style. I have no problem with this, but my understanding is that they have to prove a hardship, which I don't think they have done, so how necessary is the hardship? Attorney Rubin read into the record the conditions for variance approval that need to be . met. Board of Adjustment & Appeals Regular Meeting ` Wednesday, March 6, 2013 Page 8 of 9 Chair Stern — If we approve a variance, we are setting the groundwork for similar • variances. On the other hand, the Board may feel that it is the right thing to do. Vice Chair Samuels — In the past we have made changes that would help Highland Beach. We granted a variance for an addition because a family had grown and they needed the additional room. Basically, everything is for the neighbors. I think everything meets the criteria and there is no reason to say no. Board Member Donaldson — We are sitting here because this is a special exception case. In trying to look at the criteria, it seems like the owner came into this property with their eyes wide open. They have options and decided to go with a special exception. I am not feeling that they are meeting all of the criteria necessary to do that, so I am incline to not support this. MOTION: Vice Chair Samuels moved to approve the request for variance at 4521 S. Ocean Blvd. Member Weiss seconded the motion. Board Member Axelrod — Do they need a hardship to approve the variance? Yes. Now we are looking at granting the variance anyway. Is it necessary? If they are not meeting the requirements, can we say yes? Attorney Rubin — They need to have a hardship. The purpose of this Board is to weigh the facts from the testimony presented and determine whether it meets the criteria. • Roll Call: Vice Chair Samuels - Yes Member Weiss - Yes Member Donaldson - No Member Axelrod - No Chair David Stern - No Motion failed 2/3. By consensus, the Board closed the public hearing. By consensus, the Board opened the regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Being no further business, Chair Stern called for a motion to adjourn the meeting at 2:51 PM. MOTION: Member Weiss moved to adjourn the meeting at 2:51 PM. Vice Chair Samuels seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. • Board of Adjustment & Appeals Regular Meeting Wednesday, March 6, 2013 Page 9 of 9 APPROVED: David Stern, hair th S uels, Vice Barry Axelro , Bo d ember TOWN SEAL Barry Donaldson, Board Member E n ei oard Nlember ATTESTED: Vacancy 4 � Vacancy Va erie Oakes, CMC Deputy Town Clerk Appointed Board Secretary Date • SHqM BOWEN MAR 6 2013 LLP A d „ Founded 1910 - LINDA H. SOCOLOW E -MAIL ADDRESS: PARTNER lsocolow@shutts.com (954) 847 -3839 Direct Telephone (9S4) 888 -3072 Direct Facsimile March 6, 2013 VIA EMAIL VOAKES ()CI.HIGHLAND- BEACH.FL.US Board of Adjustment and Appeals c/o Valerie Oakes, Deputy Town Clerk 3614 South Ocean Blvd Highland Beach, FL 33487 Re: Variance Application 4521 South Ocean Blvd., Highland Beach, FL ("Subject Property") Request for Continuance Dear Chair and Members of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals: Our firm represents Larry and Elaine Smith, the owners of the home located at 4519 South Ocean Blvd., Highland Beach, Florida, which is directly adjacent to the Subject Property for the Variance Application. Our client has several concerns regarding the Variance Application and they have asked us to request that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals ( "Board ") grant a 30 day continuance in order to allow time to work with the Applicant to address their concerns. Our clients live directly north of the Subject Property and they only recently became aware of the Variance Application. Our clients have spent the past five days gathering information about the project and variance, and sharing their concerns with the Applicant and his attorney. Some of our clients concerns include: 1. Our client's primary concerns are privacy, setbacks and view. 2. Unfortunately the Applicant has not provided a site plan, landscape plan or other information to address privacy, setbacks and view. 200 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 2100, Fo Lau F lorida 33301 • ph 954.524.5505 . fx 954.524.5506 • www.shutb.com MIAMI FORT LAUDERDALE WEST PALM BEACH ORLANDO TAMPA TALLAHASSEE AMSTERDAM Board of Adjustment March 6, 2013 Page 2 3. The orientation and architecture of the project includes a 35 foot tall building with a northern orientation and extensive windows and balconies looking down on and through our client's home. We've requested a landscape buffer that preserves the privacy and security. 4. We've also requested additional information about the setbacks and how the project will affect views. As you know, a variance may only be granted if the Application meets the variance criteria including hardship, special circumstances and compatibility. Unfortunately, at this time we don't have enough information to understand how the project addresses the concerns listed above and the variance criteria, particularly compatibility. Our client would like to support the project and variance, but without additional time and information, we cannot offer our clients support. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Board grant a 30 day continuance of the Variance Application so that our client may have the opportunity to work with the Applicant towards an agreement that adequately addresses their concerns. Thank you for your attention and consideration in this regard. If I can answer any questions or provide any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Shutts & Bowe LP f - * 6�1— nda H. Socolow Cc: Kathleen D. Weiser, Town Manager Michael Desorcy, Building Official Leonard Rubin., Esq., Town Attorney Stephen Tilbrook, Esq. Scott Allen Elk, Esq. F 11DOCS 61552612 200 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 2100, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 • ph 954.524.5505 • fx 954.524.5506 • wwwshutts.com MIAMI FORT LAUDERDALE WEST PALM BEACH ORLANDO TAMPA TALLAHASSEE AMSTERDAM