Loading...
2014.02.18_BAA_Minutes_Regular .••'. -: :..•. O it ° • - '• m ` ►, TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH MINUTES OF THE ►' •. . . '_" BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, February 18, 2014 9:30 AM Members Present: Chair Barry Donaldson, Vice Chair Barry Axelrod, Secretary Evelyn Weiss, Board Member Joel Leinson, Board Member Peter Rodis and Board Member William Weitz. Member Absent: Board Member Bryan Perilman (excused). Also Attending: Town Attorney Leonard Rubin, Building Official Michael Desorcy, Deputy Town Clerk Valerie Oakes, Town Manager Kathleen Weiser, Vice Mayor Ron Brown, Commissioner Sheridan, Commissioner Stem and members of the public. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Donaldson called the Regular Meeting to order at 9:30 AM. Roll call was taken by Deputy Town Clerk Oakes followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence for our fallen soldiers. INSPECTION: The Board of Adjustment and Appeals, as part of the public meeting, conducted a site inspection at the following properties located at 4521/4523 S. Ocean Blvd., Highland Beach and 1124 Highland Beach Drive, Highland Beach. All members of the public and interested parties were invited to attend the site inspection. The Board left the Chambers at 9:32 AM to visit the sites. 4521/4523 S. Ocean Blvd., Highland Beach - Site Visit Discussion: Darren Dunlea, General Contractor, Seadar Builders (Petitioner) — We are applying for a variance because the building was put in the wrong location. There was a mistake on behalf of the engineer. We are approximately .71 feet at this corner and 1.46 at the eastern most point of the building. The building is on a skew, so the distances are a little bit different from the front to the back. Member Rodis — Could you please explain how you got to this point? William P. Stoddard, Engineer, Schulke, Bittle & Stoddard, LLC (Petitioner) — We were contacted by Darren in August of 2012 to be involved in the site plan for this development. We had it originally surveyed and the north and south property lines are slightly off of perfectly east/west. They are 36 minutes off of east/west. My surveyor took the architectural plans, which are always drawn horizontal/vertical, and then took the survey and twisted it 36 minutes so the north and south property lines were horizontal and vertical, and fit the building on the site. Everything matched at that time. It was submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in October 2012. Hurricane Sandy came at that time and caused a great deal of erosion. This site was then used for staging and access for beach restoration projects and a seawall project. As a result of that, they breached the dune and had to reconstruct the dune at the completion of that activity. The Board of Adjustment & Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday. February 18, 2014 Pane 2 of 15 DEP requested that the site be resurveyed before they could evaluate this application due to all the changes that have occurred. The site was resurveyed with the topography. The new draftsman took the old survey out, brought the new survey in, but did not rotate the survey the 36 minutes causing us to have this issue. Gary Muren, 4600 South Ocean Blvd.. #1204 (P114) — Before you did the concrete, why wasn't the Town here to inspect this to see if you were doing this right? The Inspector is very detailed and good at what he does, so I can't imagine that you did it and then he looked at it. Mr. Dunlea — We caught the problem and there is an inspection called the form board inspection. A form board inspection is not required until we pour the first living floor. I took it upon myself to have the surveyor come out, just to check, to make sure our block is where it is supposed to be. I had no idea we were going to be out this amount. Chair Donaldson — What is on the other side of the setback? Mr. Dunlea — There is a condominium, Parker Highland, which is approximately 90 feet away from our property line with heavy vegetation that goes up approximately 30 to 40 feet. Ira Oaklander, 1000 Russell Drive — Is this a two family project? I thought the zoning was for a single family home. Mr. Dunlea — This is a multi- family lot. We could put up to four units on this property. Member Axelrod — Who owns the property next door? Mr. Dunlea — It is part of the condominium building. Gayle Muren, 4600 South Ocean Blvd., #1204 (P1-14) — This is the second variance you are applying for. What was the first variance? Mr. Dunlea — The first variance was for zero lot line homes, which means the homes would not be connected. These two homes share a common wall. The definition is single - family attached. Mrs. Muren — I am a little concerned about this inconsistency since, with condos, the inspector comes in before you can get to the next step. Mr. Dunlea — We have had numerous inspections on this project. When we build, we rely on stakes that the surveyor puts in the ground and that it is in the proper location. We stopped once we found this condition. Chair Donaldson — Is this the only issue with inconsistency with the site plan? Mr. Stoddard — That is correct. Everything else complies with the regulations. Chair Donaldson — How many piles do you have along this line? Mr. Stoddard — There are approximately 40 or so down this property line. Mr. Muren — Is there any change with the height of these houses from the original plans? Mr. Dunlea — No, there are none. Mr. Oaklander — How many extra square feet do you gain by this error? Mr. Dunlea — We don't gain anything. The dimensions are still the same. The whole structure shifted. Elyse Riesa, 1133 Boca Cove Lane — Is this the only error that has occurred to date? Mr. Stoddard — Yes it is. Mrs. Riesa — What precedent do we set, if every time a mistake is made by the developer or the builder for our residents that live here, you don't pay for it? Board of Adjustment & Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 18, 2014 Page 3 of 15 Mr. Dunlea — The developer of this property has been a resident of Highland Beach for over fifty years. 1124 Highland Beach Drive, Highland Beach - Site Visit Discussion: Greg Berman (Petitioner) — I own this unit which is 1124 Highland Beach Drive. What I am looking to do is take down this unit and the unit next door, build two new structures, and do a renovation on the house next to it. These are all separate owners and have banned together to do this project and improve our property. Elyse Riesa, 1133 Boca Cove Lane — Could you explain what it is that you are looking to do that does not meet code? Mr. Berman — The square footage of the lot currently does not support three units. These three units that are currently here have been here for about sixty years. In order to recreate this, you could not do it today. In order for us to improve our property, we are asking for a variance because we have a hardship with the three units on this property that have been here forever. I would like to demolish the three units and build new units where they sit. I don't have to do that. I could just renovate them, but that would be my first choice. Ira Oaklander, 1000 Russell Drive — Are you increasing the square footage? Mr. Berman— Yes. Mr. Oaklander — Does the increase in square footage meet the building code? Mr. Berman — Yes, it is not part of the variance. It is the density. Leigh Rzasa Ormes, 4200 S. Ocean Blvd., #2, 3 & 4 — I have the plans. This structure is proposed to be a three story. The first story will be a garage. It will be doubling in size. This gentleman, who is a developer, is proposing 7,200 square feet on .28 of an acre. Kevin Ormes, 4200 S. Ocean Blvd. — These two units are going to be demolished and the third unit is staying where it is. You are going to add a garage. You will have two brand new structures and one old structure with a new garage. Silvio Blaskovic, 1120 Highland Beach Drive — When they built this, there was a 20 foot setback required. Now it would be 12 feet and will be very tight. RECONVENE MEETING: Chair Donaldson reconvened the meeting at 10:18 AM and called on the Deputy Town Clerk for a roll call. Members Present: Chair Barry Donaldson, Vice Chair Barry Axelrod, Secretary Evelyn Weiss, Board Member Joel Leinson, Board Member Peter Rodis and Board Member William Weitz. Member Absent: Board Member Bryan Perilman (excused). Also Attending: Town Attorney Rubin, Building Official Michael Desorcy, Deputy Town Clerk Valerie Oakes, Town Manager Kathleen Weiser, Vice Mayor Ron Brown, Commissioner Sheridan, Commissioner Stern and members of the public. ADDITIONS, DELETIONS OR ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Chair Donaldson called for any additions or deletions to the agenda, hearing none, called for a motion to accept the agenda. Board of Adjustment & Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 18, 2014 Page 4 of 15 MOTION: Member Rodis moved to accept the agenda as presented. Secretary Weiss seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND REQUESTS: No public comments or requests. PRESENTATIONS: • Welcome New Board Members — Joel Leinson & William Weitz Chair Donaldson welcomed Member Leinson and Member Weitz to the Board and asked that they introduce themselves. Member Weitz announced that he is a licensed psychologist; lived in Highland Beach for 15 years; served in the military for 20 years and retired; was involved with the Enclave's Board for many years; and wanted to contribute to the community. Member Leinson stated that he is originally from Massachusetts; has been a contractor by trade for 42 years; lived in Highland Beach since 2010; and is here to offer his skills to the community. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: • December 10, 2013 — Special Meeting Chair Donaldson called for a motion to approve the minutes from the December 10, 2013, Special Meeting. MOTION: Member Axelrod moved to approve the minutes from the December 10, 2013, Special Meeting. Member Rodis seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: No old business. NEW BUSINESS: Chair Donaldson called for a motion to close the regular meeting at 10:22 AM. MOTION: Member Rodis moved to close the regular meeting at 10:22 AM. Member Weitz seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Chair Donaldson opened the public hearing. A. Variance Request: 4521/4523 South Ocean Blvd. — Public Hearing Application No. 30298 — RELIEF FROM HIGHLAND BEACH CODE OF ORDINANCES SECTION 30 -64, TABLE 30 -2, THAT REQUIRES SINGLE - FAMILY DWELLINGS (BUILDING LINE) BE SET BACK FROM THE SIDE YARD PROPERTY LINE A MINIMUM OF 12 FEET. THE PROPOSED BUILDING (4523 SOUTH OCEAN BLVD.) DOES NOT MEET THAT REQUIREMENT. Deputy Town Clerk Oakes read the summary and title of the application into the record. Board of Adjustment & Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 18, 2014 Page 5 of 15 Chair Donaldson called for board members to disclose any ex parte communication, hearing none, called on the Town Attorney to administer the oath to all those who would testify. Staff's Presentation: Building Official Michael Desorcy presented the variance petition. He indicated that at the site inspection there was a question regarding his role in inspecting this project. Prior to the first inspection, form board survey, they noticed the problem. The Building Official and General Contractor met regarding the issues and reviewed all possible options; in which, the contractor opted to go before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for relief. Chair Donaldson — One of the setbacks mentioned is 17 inches closer, correct? B.O. . Desorcy — The setback is only affecting the south side of the building. In the southwest corner, they reduced it from 12 feet to 11.29 feet, which calculates to four inches. The southeast corner the petitioner is requesting to reduce the setback from 12 feet to 10.54 feet, which calculates to approximately 17 inches. The line is skewed; it is not parallel to the property line. Member Rodis — In your estimation, how much impact are we to consider based on the hurricane potentiality in the past? The reason for the skewing of the setback from the past hurricane. B.O. Desorcv — The impact is negligible. Petitioner's Presentation: Darrin Dunlea, Seadar Builders (Petitioner) — I represent the owner of Sea Frolic. The hardship is completely out of our control. The owner has lived in the town for over 15 years and he contributes to the town whether it is holiday decorations; sea turtle volunteers use his property to access the beach; and property used for beach re- nourishment for seawall construction. The owner did not ask for this and he is not gaining anything. This is something he had no control of. As it sits, if the Board approves the variance, the owner will still have a building that is out of skew, which he is willing to live with as he can correct that with landscaping. However, having to tear down what is existing would be an extreme disaster. This project would get tied up for at least a year with insurance companies and lawyers fighting over who will pay for what. At that time, we would be in jeopardy of losing our State permit, which has a three year time limit. It can be renewed, but there is no guarantee. Member Weitz — I appreciate your remarks. I do recall that property being used extensively to bring in truckloads of sand and other materials for the beach re- nourishment and seawall. Did the landowner receive payment for that permission or was courtesy provided to the township? Mr. Dunlea — I believe the first one was a courtesy; the second time payment was received because a lot of money had to be put back into the dune to bring it back to conditions that the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) approved. Member Weitz — The clarification is that part of it was a concession and a gift to the Town, and part of it was the receipt of remuneration for use of his property for providing that service. Is that correct? Mr. Dunlea — It was a gift to the homeowner's, but that is correct. Board of Adjustment & Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 18, 2014 Page 6 of 15 William P. Stoddard, Engineer, Schulke, Bittle & Stoddard LLC (Petitioner) — This hardship is not from the applicant and developer. This was a drafting error. I am part owner of the firm and I have draftsmen that work for me. What I do check appeared to be correct, but when it is one foot at a 20 scale it is very hard to discern. Ultimately, I am the one that signs the plan and is responsible. We have an architectural footprint and the building that is drawn by the architects is vertical and horizontal. We had a survey that has the north and south property lines off by 36 minutes. Instead of rotating the building, my draftsman rotated the survey and fit the building within the side setbacks, which was submitted to the DEP and there were no issues. When the DEP requested that we re -do the survey because of the changes due to the dune reconstruction, at that time, I had another draftsman working on the survey. They brought the survey on real world coordinates and didn't rotate the building. As a result, this is what has occurred. When they brought the building in, they brought the lines that show the setback. When I looked at the plans visually, it looked like the south side of the building was on the 12' side setback. If we could simply relocate the building on the existing foundation system, we would. The problem is that this is a four -story building and the loads that are coming down on the walls are fairly significant. We have a grade beam and piles. If we start introducing eccentric loading, where we are loading up the edge of those grade beams, it is going to cause a lot of additional forces and limits to the foundation system that it has not been designed for; that is not an option. Secondly, trying to get in there to add more piles to reconfigure the grade beam system, as you saw on the site, to get a crane in there to drill new piles would be extremely difficult given the constraints on that site at this stage in the construction; especially, the piles on the east side that are beyond the hill. If we put in additional piles, in order to avoid interaction, we would need to space the piles by three diameters apart. It is not simply going next to the existing piles and drilling another one, we need to space them out, and we are getting very constrained with available space in that area to do that. The building on the floor shows that we are asking for 1.46 inches and it is on the edge of the grade beam. There is an open air patio in the back that is 14' to 15' deep. There is a single concrete column in the back and that one only encroaches 1.27'. The actual wall of the building is 1.63'. As you can see, we have an open air in the back, so the wall is not continuous all the way to the back of the property. The other item I would like to show is that this plan is drawn to scale of the Parker Highland Condominium; it is over 90 feet from the property line, which would be over 100 feet to the side of the building. In the Town of Highland Beach, they do allow overhangs to encroach into the setback by 4'. This building being constructed is a modern building which has no overhangs, so it has a small parapet at the top. What I want to try to illustrate is that if we had an overhang, we would be 8' off the property line. In our work case scenario, at the southeast corner, we are 10.5' from the property line. If we were building a house that was not ocean-front, there are provisions in the building code inspection that we have a form board survey done prior to pouring any concrete. The reason is to avoid these types of mistakes. This is an ocean front project so different construction standards are required, and there are no provisions stating that there needs to be a form board survey when piles are being installed in the ground. This is not discovered until it is far along in the process when there is a lot of money and concrete sitting in the ground. It is something that we certainly did not intend to happen. This was an honest error. Board of Adjustment & Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday. February 18, 2014 Page 7 of 15 Member Leinson — Was your company at any time responsible for verifying the locations of the pilings? Mr. Stoddard — We designed the pile foundation; we provided that to the surveyor; and the surveyor took that and set the pins in the ground for the installation. Member Leinson — It is your responsibility? Mr. Stoddard — To check the location of those, no. Member Leinson — Do you have an estimate of remedial work if this project is not granted? Mr. Stoddard — It would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Member Leinson — The foliage that is currently there, does it carry all the way to the beach or is it just in the front of the property? Mr. Dunlea — The foliage does carry from the west side of the property all the way to the east. There are trees on the Parker Highland side that are even taller. Member Leinson — Is it correct that the square footage has not been impacted from the approved plans, and that this is just a setting issue? Mr. Stoddard — That is correct. The whole building has been improperly sited. If I could pick up the building and set it, it would meet the setbacks and the building square footage has not been changed at all. Member Leinson — So we can conclude that the owner is not receiving a benefit on the variance, if granted. Mr. Stoddard — That is correct. Member Rodis — I am concerned the next time there is an issue with a zoning variance where do we draw the line? Do you have a point of view on that? Mr. Stoddard — I haven't seen it in practice in other municipalities, but a suggestion would be to require a form board survey prior to the piles being drilled, to avoid this from happening in the future. Deputy Town Clerk Oakes read into the record letters received from the following: Cynthia Siedlecki (attached as Exhibit `A'); Mary Lou O'Brien Jackson (attached as Exhibit `B'); and Jason Brodsky (attached as Exhibit `C'). Public Statements: Ira Oaklander, 1000 Russell Dr. — I heard in the presentation that you are building a four - story building, it is my understanding that Highland Beach only has three -story zoning. The building is only up one -story, can the additional floors be set back to the actual setback that is allowed? Mr. Dunlea — The building is three habitable floors and the garage floor, which makes it the fourth floor. The building meets the height requirements for Highland Beach. To shift the upper floors is not feasible because this is a tall structure and everything has to line up. Gail Muren Wisan, 4600 S. Ocean Blvd. #1204 — I am very concerned on a number of issues here. The precedence is a very important issue here. How is this going to have an impact on the future, and we also have the issue of double - standards, multiple- standards. We have an extra issue that has been raised right now about the four - stories. It is being referred to as a four -story and it looks like a four -story in the drawings. We have not had an official variance on that. We have a question about definition that was raised here that is not even in the application. In the application you have to address four points. There is an issue of the action of the applicants, which has been addressed regarding questions and concerns on how a professional could have made this mistake. It states that the granting of the variance requested will not infer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. On the face of it, it is a special conferring of a special privilege. The answer to that question does not even address the point. It says this requested variance does not alter the Board of Adjustment & Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 18, 2014 Page 8 of 15 proposed use of the property allowed within the RML zoning district. It is not asking about the purpose; it is asking about special privilege. On the face of it, it is a special privilege. There are different standards for different groups of people. When condominium owners are renovating their units, there is very careful review at every step of the way. If any mistake is made, they have to tear out the property; they have to tear out the construction. Why is it that when we have a large, very expensive project that there is a different standard? It suggests special privileges. Different standards for different folks. Even the application fee, is it a flat $500.00 fee? Chair Donaldson — Yes. Ms. Wisan — For a large project, $500.00 is nothing. For a condominium, $500.00 raises a whole other issue. I request that in the future that you have the fee based upon the project to make the review process more accessible to the condominium owner. I certainly think that on the face of it, there is no question; there is a violation of granting this variance request will confer on the applicant special privileges. Attorney Rubin — The granting of each variance is fact specific, and you cannot use the granting of a variance on one property to justify a grant in another. Mr. Dunlea — The fact is that we have requested a variance before, and we failed. I don't think that we would put all of this money into this project with the idea of requesting another variance because it is so easy. It is not easy. We did not do this to come back in three months down the road and say that we are going to trick them. We are not gaining anything. If that was the case, we would have put the building in parallel, the building isn't even square to the property. There is no gain in here at all. We did not ask for this. The developer did not ask for this. We in no way created this problem. Regarding the four - stories, these plans have been approved and we are not against any codes. This was not caused by the contractor or the developer. Gordon Yowell, 4605 S. Ocean Blvd. #5A — The variance request is okay with me. However, there are two things that have to be done. First, the drafting error shouldn't happen; you don't rotate property lines to be square with the world; or the building to be square with the world. You put the building in square with the property lines that exist; you don't create fictitious lines. Secondly, address how to stop this from happening again in the future. The recommendation was to have an inspection prior to the installation of the footing. I recommend that the Board consider changing the code. Mr. Dunlea — The letters read into the record by the Deputy Town Clerk were from the residents that are directly north of the property and the homeowners to the south of the property that are directly affected by this error. Mr. Stoddard — For clarification, the boundary lines were not fictitious on the survey, originally or after the update was done. The north arrow was rotated with the property lines. The boundary has been identical from day one that we started this project. Elyse Reisa, 1133 Boca Cove Lane — I would like to understand why there are no consequences when mistakes are made? The petitioner stated at the site inspection that there was a consequence to the owner. What is the building department/code enforcement supposed to do when there is an error? Mr. Dunlea — The consequence is that if we are not granted the variance, we would have to tear everything down, which is hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Town could impose a fine. I would like to reiterate that this is not our fault. I did not go out there and put the building in the wrong spot. If I make a mistake, I have to pay for it. If I put in the wrong color marble, I have to pay for it. At this point the engineer is paying for everything. The check for the variance application Board of Adjustment & Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 18, 2014 Page 9 of 15 has all come from the engineer because I did not create this, our engineer did. As for a fine, that would be for the Board to agree on. Attorney Rubin — The Board has no authority to impose a fine. Petitioner's Closing Statement: The petitioner chose not to give a closing statement. Board Discussion: Member Rodis — What is it that we can do based on this issue in order for this to not happen again? I understand that this is an error that was not preordained, but I do not want it to happen again. B.O. Desorcy — That is a town code issue. There could be an administrative amendment adopted by resolution that the building department collect a survey at the grade beam inspection instead of the slab inspection. It places an extra burden on the contractor and developer to have the surveyor come back in additional time prior to pouring concrete. Attorney Rubin — This Board can suggest to the Town Commission to adopt this requirement. By consensus, the Board agreed to make a recommendation to the Town Commission to adopt the requirement. Secretary Weiss — The letters read into the record were they from the residents in Parker Highland? Deputy Town Clerk read aloud the names and addresses of those who submitted the letters. Chair Donaldson declared the public hearing closed at 11:03 a.m. Member Rodis made a motion to disapprove the request for variance at 4521/4523 South Ocean Blvd., Highland Beach. Due to the lack of a second, the motion failed. Vice Chair Axelrod moved to approve the request for variance at 4521/4523 South Ocean Blvd., Highland Beach. Secretary Weiss seconded the motion. Board Discussion: Member Leinson — I am concerned with the foliage on the property line that exists now. If approval is granted, that the foliage, in kind, is maintained by the owners of the property and that it is part of the variance. If the foliage dies, that it is to be replaced with equal value. Attorney Rubin — You can impose a condition; however, whose property is that foliage on? Mr. Dunlea — The foliage is on both properties. Their privacy is just as much a concern as our privacy. It is in our best interest to keep that hedge maintained. If you want to add a stipulation that we are required to additional foliage, I would be more than willing to agree to that. Attorney Rubin — As an amendment to the motion, require the petitioner to submit a landscape plan to the Building Official for approval. Vice Chair Axelrod and Secretary Weiss agreed to amend their motion to include that a landscape plan that includes additional foliage must be submitted to the Building Official for approval. Board of Adjustment & Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 18, 2014 Page 10 of 15 Member Weitz — I read the variance requirements. Thank you to everyone for sharing their thoughts and views as participation is critical. One of the things that I saw is that hardships are not acceptable when they are created by the applicant or their representative. Secondly, finances, as drastic as they can be, are not considered a criteria for hardship. However, I am persuaded to support the motion as presented. My first reason is the variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public wellfare. I think what has been presented in viewing the site, taking a look at the nature of the relationship to the other locations, I think that criteria would certainly be of help. I want to share something that is important and has not been discussed, which is the impact on Highland Beach generally. Construction sites, especially at the entrance to Highland Beach, tie up traffic and create public safety issues. We have men out there holding up traffic for long periods of time. We also have machinery and equipment moving in and out. It really is a critical issue in terms of traffic, bicyclists, and the general activity around that site, which impacts the residents. So, to prolong, extend or increase the timing on the building construction site with all of the pit falls that go into the general activity levels is a public safety issue and for those reason I will support the motion to approve. AMENDED MOTION: Vice Chair Axelrod moved to approve with a condition the request for variance at 4521/4523 South Ocean Blvd., Highland Beach that the petitioner submit a landscape plan that includes additional foliage that must be submitted to the Building Official for approval. Secretary Weiss seconded the amended motion. Roll Call: Vice Chair Axelrod - Yes Secretary Weiss - Yes Member Weitz - Yes Member Leinson - Yes Member Rodis - Yes Chair Donaldson - Yes Motion carried 6/0. Chair Donaldson called for a recess at 11:09 a.m., then reconvened the meeting and opened the public hearing at 11:21 a.m. B. Variance Request: 1124 Highland Beach Drive — Public Hearing Application No. 30516 — RELIEF FROM HIGHLAND BEACH CODE OF ORDINANCES SECTION 30 -64, TABLE 30 -2, WHICH REQUIRES A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 6 UNITS PER ACRE BE PERMITTED. A 3 UNIT (BUILDING) COMPLEX EXISTS THERE CURRENTLY. THE MOST RECENT SURVEY (OCTOBER 22, 2013) SHOWS THE PROPERTY AT 12,618 SQ. FT. OR .2896 ACRES. AT 6 UNITS PER ACRE, 1.7380 UNITS WOULD BE PERMITTED TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THAT PROPERTY. THE EXISTING 3 UNIT BUILDING IS CONSIDERED A NON - CONFORMING STRUCTURE PER HIGHLAND BEACH ORDINANCE SECTION 30 -101. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT AREA FOR MULTI- FAMILY DWELLING FROM 7,260 SQ. FT. PER UNIT TO 4,206 SQ. FT. PER UNIT. Board of Adjustment & Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 18, 2014 Page 11 of 15 Deputy Town Clerk Oakes read the title and summary of the application into the record. Chair Donaldson called for board members to disclose any ex parte communication, hearing none, called on the Town Attorney to administer the oath to all those who had not been sworn -in, and there were none. Staff's Presentation: Building Official Michael Desorcy presented the variance petition. He indicated that the current structure is three one -story units. The applicant has submitted paperwork to tear down two units and construct two three -story attached buildings. Additionally, the one- story building will be renovated with an addition of a garage and a bonus room above the garage. The submitted documents do not comply with the code of ordinances. Petitioner's Presentation: Greg Berman, Owner of 1124 Highland Beach Drive, Unit #3, Petitioner — Initially when I first came to the community, I was looking to do a small renovation. After speaking to the other two residents in the community, they all seem to want to do something more. I reviewed the regulations in Highland Beach. Basically, I looked at building the highest and best that I could in that particular community. That being said, I brought my plans in and the building department reviewed the plans and explained that the percentages of the land area were off. That was a surprise to me and I felt that if there are currently three buildings there, why couldn't we keep three buildings there and just improve two of them and do one renovation. My hardship is surrounding my view that there are currently three units that are existing, if I lost two due to a hurricane, would I not be able to replace those two units? So the hardship here is keeping the ability to have those three units as long as I follow the land use and codes for the Town of Highland. I didn't think that we would have a difficult time with allowing to keep the three units. I am not changing the width of the units, but I am going up higher by two floors. The depth is going to be deeper on these units. That will be the change. I think it will be a nice change to the neighborhood. I know there are some dissenters here. I am willing to sit down with them, review the plans, and make some changes that would make them happy. If they feel that there is too much here, structure or what have you. This is new to me. I just found out today that some of my neighbors were uncomfortable with the sheer magnitude of the structure. That being said, I am willing to do whatever it takes because I am looking to do something fair and reasonable for everyone. Deputy Town Clerk Oakes read into the record letters received from the following: Frederick Capacchione (attached as Exhibit `D') and Anthony Chernoff (attached as Exhibit `E'). Public Comments: Dr. Steve Glanz 4215 Tranquility Dr. — You looked at the site, but looking at the canal — the entire canal from the opposite view, this unit is right at the turn of the canal, so everyone sees it. The proposed structure really changes the entire appearance of the canal. It affects everyone along the canal. I am disappointed in Mr. Chernoff, but everyone is talking about how this is going to change things. I wouldn't have a problem if the current structure was grandfathered in, or if it were wiped out by a hurricane and you re -built the current structure. If you change the density in all of Highland Beach, where Board of Adjustment & Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 18, 2014 Page 12 of 15 you cause an exception here, we open ourselves up to all kinds of undesirable elements — a rehabilitation facility that we have much less stringent control over in the surrounding communities. It is my understanding that you are doing this not to live there to be part of our community but to resale it and increase your square footage. It would change the nature of Highland Beach and the appearance for everyone involved. The height is the main thing. The current structure is not horrible, but beyond that, is pretty horrible. Unfortunately where your location is, by changing the density for you or anyone else, to change the general rule would be disastrous. Mary Ronco, 4206 S. Ocean Blvd., Unit 2 — In using Mr. Bennan's word "magnitude ", that is the part that makes me feel that to agree with this, is to infringe on the aesthetic beauty of what we see around the canal. I think it would deter from the view and it is too great of a building to be put in that area, especially at that location. I am against this variance. Kevin Ormes, 4200 S. Ocean Blvd. — The first issue is if those buildings were knocked down by a hurricane, I understand the codes today they could be replaced. This is a non- conforming structure. When you look at the zoning of what the Town is trying to do, we are looking at aesthetics factors; we are looking at a quality of life. If you look at the plans and the way this building is laid out, there are two units that are going to be massive monstrosities, the third unit is staying exactly the same, and then you have a garage and a bonus room on the end that looks like it is being stuck there. From an aesthetic value, that does nothing but destroy the quality of life as far as I am concerned. One of the reasons people move to Highland Beach is because we have established a good, workable way to live. The properties that are being developed, are being done in such a way that when you have a non - conforming property such as this, to go in and expand it is beyond reasonable. This is a monstrosity that will, if it is built, destroy the symmetry and the overall serenity of the neighborhood. When you look at the symmetry of this building, it's like an add-on — like a building block situation. We do not need this in Highland Beach. Please don't make us live with this monstrosity. Thomas Collica, 4206 S. Ocean Blvd., #4 — I agree with the gentleman prior to me. I think that because they are attached units, by doing two out of three, aesthetically it will not work. If you owned all three, and your plans were to improve the structure that would be something to consider, but as the plans are drawn out, aesthetically it is not acceptable for our town. Silvio Blaskovic, 1120 Highland Beach Drive — I own the two story building that is west of Greg's building. Both buildings were built in 1978, when the density was 18 units per acre; now it is reduced to six. At that time, the setback for a single -story building was 12 feet, for a two -story the setback was 20. I know that this is only a schematic, but I know that there is an existing dock that goes from property line to property line, which is not right. There is a code for dock setbacks. If this is approved, I would like to see trees with the type of tree that when the tree is grown up that the canopy is supported by the owner's property. I don't want a tree that is put two feet near the line and that reaches into my property. I have been in Highland Beach since 1969; I am planning on staying there until I die. If you approve this application, I want to have the same privileges to do the same to my property. Board of Adjustment & Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 18, 2014 Page 13 of 15 Leigh Rzasa Ormes, 4200 S. Ocean Blvd., #2,3 & 4 — This building is immediately next to me. There is very little buffer to begin with. Unit no. 1 that will be renovated, which only consists of replacing the dock and adding a monstrous garage going into the greenery with a bonus room that is really another living room. In addition, the owner of unit no. 3 is a developer, he purchased that unit for $400,000.00, and it is 1,200 sq. ft. He does not own unit no. 2; it is own by a lady who is 88 years old that does not want to sell. If he wants to live at unit no. 3, why is he trying to build two three -story townhouses with each one having three -car garages, two elevators, two pools, a wine cellar and four bedrooms on a property that is .2896 of an acre. So if a developer is allowed to buy a cheap piece of property, which is a postage stamp, then build a three -story, four bedrooms, three car garage, two condos, and get rich on it at our expense. I will have a garage literally where I have palm trees. On my balcony, I will lose all of my views. It looks ugly. There is no land. I don't have a garage and my property is huge; does that mean I can put up a 10 unit complex. I am retired. I am a snowbird. Next year we will be here full time. I will be combining my two units to have a bigger home. If this gentleman wants to live there, and can purchase the unit in the middle then he could make himself a home in 2,400 sq. ft. then perhaps put bedrooms on the second floor. Paul Olsen — I lived in Highland Beach for 40 years. I live to the east of the proposed property. It is too large for the property it is on, and it is out of proportion. An improvement would be great, but not as big as it is. Petitioner's Closing Statements: Petitioner Berman — I live in unit #3, which is for my family where I plan to raise my kids, so it is not a speculative venture. The unit next to me is owned my Juanita Moody who is 88 years old. She wanted to do a joint venture in remodeling and then sell her property. Is that important to me? No. It is important that I have the right to develop my unit and live there, which is all I am asking for. I am not a big developer looking to change the look of the waterway. I want to work with my neighbors, not against them. This hearing is based on the density and allowing for this variance the construction of units in place of what is currently there. I would be happy to work with them if there is some language that the Attorney could give me to give me the right to build my unit. I could maybe re -scale the size of it to make some of the neighbors happy. I am about doing what is fair and reasonable; I am not looking to make a million dollars. I want a place to raise my kids, it just so happens that the lady next door wanted me to do a project with her. The guy at the end wanted a garage and something above the garage to store stuff. It is not a complex, multi - million dollar project, but it is meaningful to me because I will be living there. Whatever it is that you choose to do, I am willing to work with you and the public. I will sit down with you and go over the plans, we can talk about landscaping and scaling the project down. I have no problem with that. I am going to live there so I want it to look the way that you want it to look. If I drive a boat down the canal, and I am looking at a monstrosity, it wouldn't make me happy. It wasn't my sense that it was going to be that way; maybe I am looking at things different than you are. I would be happy to sit down with you and discuss that. Attorney Rubin — We talked about reconstruction. For a non - conforming structure, if it is destroyed by an act of God, it can be reconstructed but it cannot increase in height, it would have to be in the original footprint. Essentially, if you are granted a variance, it Board of Adjustment & Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 18, 2014 Paee 14 of 15 renders it conforming, so it loses its non - conforming status. We talked a lot about the plans. All this Board can do is grant the variance as to lot size /density. The actual plans are not relevant, but if the Board were incline to grant the variance, the Board could limit height, et cetera. What the applicant is proposing at this time would have to go through the normal development process. The Board can impose limitations. Board Discussion: Member Leinson — What if the current owner wants to remodel based on the current density on a non - conforming property? Attorney Rubin — The owner can remodel as long as you are not increasing the non - conformity. Kelly Yates, Yates & Associates Architecture — We are not trying to increase the density, we are going to remain three units. By increasing the square footage, we are not increasing the density. We are not asking to make it more non - conforming by adding the square footage. Attorney Rubin — It is a non - conforming structure and the general theory is for them to phase out, not to perpetuate and expand them. Petitioner Berman — It seems that most of the public comments are focused on the sheer mass of the structure. Perhaps you could limit the size of the structure to two stories and make it only unit no. 1. Member Weitz — Under what criteria are you asking for a variance, other than desirability? Petitioner Berman — The hardship is when I bought the property, I was not told that I could not put a second floor, which is one of the criteria that I made to the broker. Since there were three units, I assumed the density was okay. I received approval from the residents in 1124 Highland Beach Drive HOA. Member Rodis — Our role is to protect the neighbors and not change anything erratically. I think there are so many comments that it is obvious that the neighbors do feel impacted by these changes. I think it is part of our role not to allow one neighbor to change the configuration of the area in the detriment to the other neighbors. I think the neighbors have indicated extraordinarily how they believe that these issues would change. In my view, we need to be concerned about the quality of life in Highland Beach, and not destroying it. We want to maintain the quality of life for everyone. Chairman Donaldson declared the public hearing closed at 11:50 a.m. MOTION: Member Weitz moved to deny the request for variance at 1124 Highland Beach Drive, Highland Beach, based on the fact that this would essentially be new construction, if the initials were torn down, we have different regulations and requirements, I think it would significantly impact and change the physical nature of the environments. Member Rodis seconded the motion. Board Discussion: None. Board of Adjustment & Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 18, 2014 Page 15 of 15 Roll Call: Member Weitz - Yes Member Rodis - Yes Member Leinson - Yes Secretary Weiss - Yes Vice Chair Axelrod - Yes Chair Donaldson - Yes Motion carried 6/0. ADJOURNMENT: Being no further business, Chair Donaldson adjourned th AM. APPROVED: //LL Barry Donaldson, Chair Barry ; e Vic Chair TOWN SEAL velyn ; ss, ecretary Joel, - inson, : • . Member ATTESTED: A. "A Bry. ' erilman, Board ember \ 1 Valerie Oakes, CMC eter Rodis, Board Member Deputy Town Clerk William Weitz, Board Member Date: 3 ' ► t /