Loading...
2015.12.15_BAA_Minutes_Regular •:m TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH 10 Nat: .� r: : MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS � 0110 �4' REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, December 15, 2015 9:30 AM Members Present: Chair Barry Donaldson, Vice Chair Barry Axelrod, Secretary Evelyn Weiss, Board Member Edward Neidich and Board Member Peter Rodis. Members Absent: Board Member Joel Leinson and Board Member Bryan Perilman. Also Attending: Town Attorney Leonard Rubin, Building Official Michael Desorcy, Town Manager Beverly Brown, Deputy Town Clerk Patrice Robinson and members of the public. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Donaldson called the Regular Meeting to order at 9:30 AM. Roll call was taken by Deputy Town Clerk Robinson followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. INSPECTION: The Board of Adjustment and Appeals, as part of the public meeting, conducted a site inspection at 4314 Tranquility Drive, Highland Beach, FL. All members of the public and interested parties were invited to attend the site inspection. The Board left the Commission Chambers at 9:32 AM to visit the site. 4314 Tranquility Drive,Highland Beach- Site Visit Discussion: Chair Donaldson— Mike, can you give us a once over of the situation we are looking at? Building Official Desorcy — I don't have the paperwork in front of me. The applicant is asking for relief from the dock requirement. He wants a larger dock and he wants to extend his pool deck out over the seawall like the gentleman next door. Roger Brown — I'm the homeowner. The gentleman next door, Mr. Ferguson, was granted a 10 foot setback. I'm only asking for a 15 foot setback so not as large or as big of a setback as he asked for. There has been four other homes that have actually been granted setbacks. B.O. Desorcy — I have a tape measure if anybody wants to look at the tail of the tape if they want to visualize what the gentleman's asking for. Member Rodis — Can you give us the simple version? He wants more? B.O. Desorcy — He wants more. Member Rodis — The discussion about the egress of other boats, what did he mean by that? B.O. Desorcy — I don't know. I don't' see an issue with ingress and egress. Town Attorney Rubin — You're so wide here. B.O. Desorcy — That's why Mr. Ferguson was granted a variance over here because the next door neighbor to the south has such a little seawall. Any boat traffic in and out of that corner or Mr. Ferguson's lot. Because the lot was so small that's why he was granted the variance. Every variance stands on its own merit. Member Rodis — So he wants to go a little further? B.O. Desorcy — Right. He wants a longer dock on both sides. Board of Adjustment& Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday,December 15,2015 Page 2 of 16 Roger Brown — Ten feet. I want to extend the dock just 10 feet. Mr. Ferguson extended his dock 15 feet. Member Rodis — Five feet on each side? Roger Brown — Ten feet on each side. Member Neidich—That's twenty feet. Roger Brown—Ten feet over here and ten feet over here which would give us a fifteen foot setback whereas the dock right now is a 25 foot setback. Mr. Ferguson has a 10 foot setback. He was able to extend his dock fifteen feet. Member Rodis — On each side? Roger Brown — On the north side. B.O. Desorcv — It was shifted to the north. At the time he told the board he was going to get an 80 foot boat. This was years ago. I have never seen an 80 foot boat over there. Roger Brown—I currently have a 55 foot boat and the dock is only 50 feet. His boat is docked all the way to the north end of his dock. I don't want to have any collisions or any issues. B.O. Desorcv — Do you have any thrusters on your boat? Roger Brown—Yes. Member Rodis—How big is this boat? B.O. Desorcv — I couldn't tell you. It looks like a 40 something foot boat, maybe. Member Rodis — Mr. Brown, do you know how big? Roger Brown—That's a 42 foot intrepid. Shelley Greenwald, 4308 Tranquility Drive—The previous owner had an 80 foot boat docked here. B.O. Desorcv—Yes he did. He had two boats docked here. He had an 80 foot boat here and a boat like that parked next to it. Shelley Greenwald—This is true. Roger Brown — But the previous owners had difficulty getting on and off the boat because the boat had to hang over the dock so much. So he couldn't get on to the stern of the boat. He had to lay the boat much to one side. I don't want to necessarily put my boat all the way to my property line. I think that would be intrusive on the neighbors. Jerry Marshall, 1088 Bel Lido Drive — Is there any ruling at all for someone with a boat overhanging an imaginary property line? B.O. Desorcv — No. The town ordinance prohibits any boat from extending over the imaginary property line. Essentially you could put a 90 foot boat here or a 95 foot boat as long as it did not drift over the property lines. Carl Benda, 4203 Tranquility Drive — I think his concern was how far can the beam project in the waterway. B.O. Desorcv — There are no requirements. There are no regulations about the beam. You can have a 20 foot beam. It doesn't matter as long as it is not a hazard to navigation. Member Rodis—Mr. Brown, how big is the boat you're going to have? Roger Brown —I have a 55 foot boat today and I am looking at an 80 foot boat, actually 82. Again, I don't want to take the boat and skew it all the way to one side so that we have the ability to get on and off the boat. I have an 89 year old father and an 83 year old mother who come on the boat with us a lot. It's not easy for them to get on and off the boat. So we need to be able to create a situation where they have the ability to get on and off the boat. Member Rodis — Having a 99 year old mother, I understand that. Roger Brown—Every moment with my parents is a blessing. Member Rodis— Yes it is. Roger Brown—Again, I'm only asking for 10 feet on either side. Member Rodis— What are you going to do with the pool? Roger Brown — The land is so soft. My architect, Stew Brenner is here. The land is so soft that we have to put an inordinate amount of pilings in to be able to support the balconies that we are going to be building. Moving the pool back five feet, which again has been a variance that has Board of Adjustment& Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday,December 15, 2015 Page 3 of 16 been granted four times in the last three or four years for moving a pool back five feet because of the softness of the ground. We are going to be putting pilings in the entire backyard to support the whole backyard. This house that's existing, this backyard even though it had pilings was sinking. The driveway was sinking. The street has sunk 16 inches in 20 something years or 30 years. This whole island is just soft ground. Vice Chair Axelrod — It's the whole town, basically it's everywhere. It is the whole town. We have that on the main property too. Everything sinks. Secretary Weiss — Are any neighbors objecting to this at the present time? Shelley Greenwald — I am and I don't mean to be unfeeling. But everybody here is in the same situation. There is nothing unique with this house. We have town variances that were put in for a reason. If people want to change them, then change them for everybody, but let's not single people out and start with variances. I just don't like the way it smells. There is nothing unique with this pool versus my pool and versus anybody else's pool. Everything is sinking. We know that. Town Attorney Rubin — This is more stuff for the public hearing. You'll be able to speak again. I wasn't cutting you off. Does anyone else have any questions about the layout or what they observe? Okay. Thank you. 3. RECONVENE MEETING: Chair Donaldson reconvened the meeting at 9:59 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 Edward Neidich and Board Member Peter Rodis. Members Absent: Board Member Joel Leinson and Board Member Bryan Perilman. Also Attending: Town Attorney Leonard Rubin, Building Official Michael Desorcy, Town Manager Beverly Brown, Deputy Town Clerk Patrice Robinson and members of the public. 4. ADDITIONS,DELETIONS OR ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Chair Donaldson called for any additions or deletions to the agenda. Hearing none, the agenda was accepted as presented. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND REQUESTS: None. 6. PRESENTATIONS: None. Board of Adjustment& Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday,December 15,2015 Page 4 of 16 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: • September 2, 2015 —Regular Meeting Chair Donaldson called for a motion to approve the minutes from the September 2, 2015, Regular Meeting. MOTION: Member Rodis moved to approve the minutes from the September 2, 2015, Regular Meeting. Secretary Weiss seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 8. OLD BUSINESS: None. 9. NEW BUSINESS• A. Review and Approve the 2016 Meeting Schedule 31 Tuesday at 9:30 AM as needed in the Town Commission Chambers At this time, Deputy Town Clerk Robinson notified the Board about proposed Ordinance No. 15-008 O and offered the following: the ordinance is scheduled for a second reading on January 5, 2016; the Town Commission wishes to clarify how meetings may be called therefore all meetings of the Board of Adjustment & Appeals shall be held at the call of the Town Manager. Chair Donaldson called for a motion to approve the 2016 meeting schedule as presented. MOTION: Member Neidich moved to approve the 2016 meeting schedule as presented. Member Rodis seconded the motion,which passed unanimously. B. Variance Request: 4314 Tranquility Drive—Public Hearing Application No. 38312 — RELIEF FROM THE HIGHLAND BEACH ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 30-68 (g)(6)(d)(1), THAT STATES A MARINE FACILITY (DOCK) SHALL BE SET BACK AT LEAST TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET FROM SIDE LOT LINES. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS TO REDUCE THE DOCK SETBACKS TO FIFTEEN (15) FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. APPLICANT: Roger Brown Chair Donaldson closed the regular meeting and opened the public hearing at 10:02 AM. Chair Donaldson called for board members to disclose any ex parte communication. Hearing none, called on the Deputy Town Clerk to administer the oath to all those who would testify for any item. The Chairman read the title and summary of the petition. Board of Adjustment& Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday,December 15, 2015 Page 5 of 16 Staffs Presentation: Building Official Desorcy—The first item is an application from Roger Brown asking for relief from the zoning ordinance 30-68 (g)(6)(d)(1) that state a marine facility dock shall be set back at least 25 feet from the side lot lines on a piece of property 100 feet wide. His property is 100 feet wide. Everyone has had a chance to look at the survey and the plans. The applicant cited the wrong code section which was noted in the recommendation. He cited the code section that applies to boat basins and this is not what the request is for. I made a correction in the recommendation section that applies to the request. Is this an issue? Member Rodis — Do any of the existing regulations impede us to make a decision in favor or against the request? B.O. Desorcy — That is entirely up to the Board. I am a neutral party that cites the code sections. It is the board's decision whether to approve or disapprove the application or request. Chair Donaldson — I would like the attorney to give us an opinion on the wording of the applicant's submittal. Town Attorney Rubin — As long as what was being requested was clear so that everyone was on notice as to what the actual request was. I think the fact that it was the wrong section is not an issue. The requirement is 25 feet and he is seeking a 15 feet variance. Chair Donaldson—Just to make sure that we are all on the same page. Does everyone on the board understand? At this time board members expressed their understanding. B.O. Desorcy — I cited the correct code section. Are there any questions from the board members? Chair Donaldson — The current dock is compliant with the code? B.O. Desorcy— Yes. It was recently rebuilt. The previous owner had let the dock fall into disrepair and the Town was initiating a code violation to have him fix the dock and the dock was fixed. It probably should be replaced. Chair Donaldson—Any other questions on the dock portion of the variance? At this time we would like to hear from the applicant regarding the dock variance. Petitioner's Presentation: Roger Brown (property owner) — I applied for a widening of our dock. Only 10 feet on the north side and 10 feet on the south side. The home to the south of me, Mr. Ferguson was granted a variance to extend his dock 15 feet. I am not asking for 15 feet. I am only asking for 10 feet. I currently have a 55 foot vessel. I am looking to purchase an 82 foot vessel. I don't want to skew the boat all the way down to one side of the property line. It would be put right back on the property line. Also, since Mr. Ferguson to the south of me has his boat all the way to the north end of his dock it could make navigation tenuous. I don't want to have any issues with collisions or anything like that. The home as you saw, is in the process of being torn down. We are looking forward to living here in Highland Beach. I did donate the home,just for your information, to the police and fire department for their use in training exercises, which they actually did. Any questions of me? Board of Adjustment& Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, December 15, 2015 Page 6 of 16 Member Rodis — The current size of the house is 5,300 [square feet]? Mr. Brown — 5,300 [square feet]. Member Rodis — The future size? Mr. Brown — It's going to be 8,300 [square feet]. Member Rodis — The backyard is essentially going to stay the same or is that going to be enlarged? Mr. Brown —No. The backyard will essentially be the same. The only difference is that on the next variance which we will talk about is the excessive amount of pilings that we have to put in in order to be able to combat the sinking of Bel Lido Isle. Member Rodis—Thank you. Vice Chair Axelrod — You haven't really mentioned what the hardship is which is a requirement for a variance. Mr. Brown—My hardship is that navigating the boat into the dock is going to be difficult. Mr. Ferguson has his dock extended all the way to the north. You gave him a 10 foot setback. I'm only asking for a 15 foot setback and I don't want to have any issues navigating the boat in. Even if I can't get the setback on both sides, I'd prefer it just on the north side so at least I can move my boat away from Mr. Ferguson's boat and I don't want to have any kind of collision. That could be more problematic than anything. Vice Chair Axelrod— If you purchase an 82 foot boat you're going to be almost to the end of your property line on both sides. Mr. Brown—It's a 100 foot property line. Vice Chair Axelrod—That's going to leave less than 10 feet on each side. Mr. Brown — One of the reasons why I want to be able to extend the dock is I have an 89 year old father and an 83 year old mother who come on the boat quite often. Having their egress onto the boat is difficult without having the ability to get on the stern of the boat. Vice Chair Axelrod — Even with the extension you're not going to have that anyway with an 82 foot boat. Mr. Brown — I believe I will. I believe I will be able to have access because you're not accessing from the swim platform. My parents can't climb down onto the swim platform. Stewart Brenner, Architect—I think with regards to the dock with the extensions he'd like, his dock of course would be centered on the property and then he could leave the boat somewhat centered. If he's down to the 50 foot size dock; I apologize I am not a boater; but in order to get his parents onto the boat he would have to push the boat all the way to one side to allow them to enter onto the boat from the dock. So if we are stuck with the 50 foot dock then the boat won't be able to be kept centered on the property. Vice Chair Axelrod—Moving it to one side to allow them to get on doesn't mean it has to stay on that one side. It could always be centered and then moved to allow them entrance onto the boat. I am a boater. I have been on small docks much smaller than that boat before and done things like that. Mr. Brown—There is also the issue about navigation. You saw how close Mr. Ferguson's boat is. His propellers are actually at the property line. Vice Chair Axelrod — I don't see how a larger dock is going to facilitate that. Your boat is still the same size. Member Neidich — You characterized the need for your variance request was to avoid navigational hazards. But you seem to only cite Mr. Ferguson's boat which seemed a fair distance away as a navigational hazard. Looking at that property and I guess what's called a lake back there, although it's probably not a lake, looked pretty wide and it didn't look to me as a lay person that there would be navigational hazards there in any event, absent the possibility, however remote it is of Mr. Ferguson's boat. Do you want to comment on that? Mr. Brown — Based on wind and current it all depends on how you approach the dock. The house to the north of me, the lady that's here in the room, she's got Board of Adjustment& Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday,December 15, 2015 Paae 7 of 16 some sort of cage in the water as well. I don't know what that cage is but if I were to foul my props up against that cage that would be a problem. Coming into the dock you usually come in on an angle to be able to bring the docked boat in. I don't have the ability to put the boat in sideways. It's just a matter of coming in based on the wind and the current. Member Neidich — You acknowledge that you are looking at purchasing an 82 foot boat? Mr. Brown — That's correct. Member Neidich — We can agree that is merely speculative, is that right? Mr. Brown — No. It's not merely speculative. I'm actually in the process of negotiating the contract today. Member Neidich — That deal may or may not happen. Mr. Brown — It's going to happen. Member Neidich—Okay. Chair Donaldson — Any other questions of the applicant? At this time we'd like to hear from members of the audience that were sworn in that may wish to make a comment. Public Comments: Jerry Marshall, 1088 Bel Lido Drive — I am here because I received a certified letter advising me of this meeting. I must be within 300 feet of this, which I am. I am also here as I am on the board of directors and vice president of Bel Lido Property Owners Association. I am here not to state any objections, but to monitor this meeting. I have a dual purpose. Let me preface what I have to say. I think that the house that Mr. Brown is going to put up will certainly be an additional beauty to Bel Lido. There is no question about this. Our biggest concern is appealing to you for any bypassing of an ordinance or relief from an ordinance will become a habit after they see the type of construction being done by Mr. Brown. If we can go back to Mr. Ferguson for a moment. What Mr. Ferguson has done instead of regular boat piles in the water the way you as a boater and I use. I have a 55 foot boat. What he has done is put piles out equal to the deck where the pool is extended that to almost over the water. Actually it's over the present dock. He doesn't have a dock like we all do and Mr. Brown does. So he substituted just the two ends for his small boat and the rest of it is all additional pool area space, another 400-500 feet, maybe 1000 feet added to the deck. So that's why we are concerned. It may become a problem with the rest of Bel Lido when seeing this and it becomes a habit. Other than that the only objection we have if I understand it correctly the board of adjustment cannot consider or no one can present that he's got it why can't I have it. I don't think that would be fair. Member Rodis — You do realize that in Highland Beach each request is taken on its merit so that what we do with Mr. Ferguson in the past and what we do today with Mr. Brown has to do with their individual request. We as a board never look at what we did in the past because what we did in the past was based on those extenuating circumstances. Although, I appreciate your concern I want you to feel that this board only looks at the individual merits of each request. Shelley Greenwald, 4308 Tranquili, Drive — I am the house on the north. The first thing I want to say is thank you so much for clarifying that you look at every situation based on the merit of that situation and don't take into account what somebody else had. I think that is an excellent policy. Thank you very much. Just as a general rule, the house before Mr. Brown purchased it had an 80 foot boat behind it and there did not seem to be a need to increase the dock. And just being a neighbor I would prefer Board of Adjustment& Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday,December 15, 2015 Paae 8 of 16 that he not increase the dock and just leave things the way they were. It's not that I am not going to be a good neighbor to the Brown's when they move in. It's not that I am singling them out. It's just that I really don't think that we need a longer dock. Carl Benda, 4203 Tranquility Drive — Just a couple of thoughts for clarification. I think that some of the issues that we are dealing with here is the fact that in the larger power yacht category there has been a trend in construction to maximize interior volume of a vessel and thereby limiting beam access and having only stern access. If you visit some of the marinas that have larger yachts you'll see that most of them now are designed to be boarded only from the stern. And I think we have a compatibility issue that the vessel that is being considered for purchase might not be perfectly suitable to the dock where he wants it at. However, I just wanted to point out that there are other vessels of similar size. A good example which happens to be in my canal, is an 80 foot [inaudible]. The owner made several modifications to that dock so that he could board that vessel from the beam which does actually have beam access. I think the issues here are he has a great piece of property and he probably has a pretty nice boat he's looking at and the issues are can the two fit together. As far as navigating the vessel to the dock, most captains qualify to operate such a vessel would be pretty good with the bough and I'm guessing the stern thruster to be able to go almost sideways, almost hundreds of feet to be able to fit into where he wants to fit. So once the vessel is there it can sit. I think that access is the issue that there might not be a good way to get onto the boat when the boat is moored at that particular location. Just wanted to point that out. Jerry Marshall— In reference to the size of the boat I took the liberty of Googling the location with the old boat. I'd like to present that to you so you can get some sort of picture. What do you think? Town Attorney Rubin— If the board wishes to view the document you can accept it. Chair Donaldson—Does the board have any objection to receiving the document? Member Neidich — I prefer to see it if it can be unofficially authenticated. Chair Donaldson accepted the document (attached as Exhibit 1) with no objection from the board. Town Attorney Rubin — I'm not sure other than the printout that it can be authenticated. At this time Member Neidich reviewed the printout. Member Neidich—What you just gave us is Exhibit 1 or however it wants to be referred to. As I'm showing you the picture on the right side there are three homes on the water, is the home with the large boat that I am looking at? This is correct? Jerry Marshall — That is the prior owner's boat. Member Neidich—Do you know what kind of boat that is? Is it an 80 foot boat? Jerry Marshall — An 80 foot boat. Member Neidich — It docked successfully there? Jerry Marshall—It was docked there with no problems. At this time the exhibit was passed along the dais for review and then provided to the Deputy Town Clerk. Chair Donaldson — Thank you for the exhibit but we have no way to confirm that's an 80 foot boat. Roger Brown — I just wanted to say that again that I am only looking to expand the dock. If the board should see that they are not willing to provide me that extension of 10 feet to the north and 10 feet to the south, then I would ask for the board to give me Board of Adjustment& Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday,December 15,2015 Page 9 of 16 a variance for at least 10 feet to the north on one side so I can get away from Mr. Ferguson's propellers. Chair Donaldson—Any further questions of the applicant? Member Rodis — May I ask the architect to approach? I'm wondering in as much as you're the architect can you give us an overall aspect of your plan as it relates to the house and to the dock and also to the pool which we'll discuss in a moment. Just your own appreciation or reason for the design. Mr. Brenner — As it relates to the dock itself? Chair Donaldson — We'll need to keep this pertinent to the variance on the dock. Mr. Brenner — The first floor living space of the home across the rear of the house overlooking the waterway is going to be the living room, family room, and I guess what some people call nowadays a club room, taking advantage of the views. With regards to the boat itself, we're trying to keep the boat centered to the property which with regards to access from the dock to the boat. If we are at 50 foot it may cause the boat to have to be pushed to one direction,to the north or to the south which I think will impede upon the neighbor more than if we can keep the boat centered to the property. Chair Donaldson declared the public hearing closed at 10:30 AM. Board Discussion: Vice Chair Axelrod — I don't know what's been done in the past, but since I have been on this board we've tried to hold to ordinances of the town otherwise why else should we have them. Property values are going up extremely high. People are buying property and trying to maximize the use of it. I think if we continually allow that we are going to do a great disservice to the town. I don't see a hardship here. Unfortunately I don't think wanting an 82 foot boat and maybe not being able to have it is a hardship, unless I hear of another reason. Especially when neighbors object it is very difficult for us to grant variances. Member Rodis — I am blessed to have a 99 year old mother and I know how every day is a gift and a joy. I understand making it easier for your mother and your father to board the boat. I'm not a boater so I don't understand all of the ins and outs. I'm respectful of the fact that certainly if it's easier for your mother and father to board the boat that would be a reason. I think if we weren't able to grant both the 10 foot to the south and 10 foot to the north the least we might be able to do is provide 10 foot to the north. Chair Donaldson called for a motion to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the variance request. Board of Adjustment& Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday,December 15,2015 Page 10 of 16 MOTION: Vice Chair Axelrod moved to deny the request for a variance as stated concerning the dock at 4314 Tranquility Drive, Highland Beach. Secreim Weiss seconded the motion. Chair Donaldson— Based on our quorum today, we would need four positives to pass denying the variance. A yes vote would be a vote to deny the variance. Roll Call: Vice Chair Axelrod - Yes Secretary Weiss - Yes Member Neidich - Yes Member Rodis - No Chair Donaldson - Yes Motion carried 4/1. C. Variance Request: 4314 Tranquility Drive—Public Hearing Application No. 38313 — RELIEF FROM THE HIGHLAND BEACH ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 30-68 (f)(1)(a), THAT STATES A SWIMMING POOL SHALL BE SET BACK AT LEAST TEN (10) FEET FROM REAR LOT LINES. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS TO REDUCE THE REAR POOL SETBACK TO FIVE (5) FEET FROM REAR PROPERTY LINE. APPLICANT: Roger Brown Chair Donaldson opened the public hearing at 10:34 AM. The Chairman read the title and summary of the petition. Staffs Presentation: Building Official Desorcy — The second item on the agenda for today is an application for a variance requesting relief from the Highland Beach code of ordinances, section 30-68 (f)(1)(a). As on the other application the code section was incorrectly cited and I corrected it. The code section that was cited on the application has also requirements that includes pools, pool decks, cabanas, prohibited pools, barriers, pool buffering, etc. I corrected it to the correct code section that refers to setbacks of the pool. The applicant is requesting that the setback be reduced to five feet instead of ten feet as required by the code. There's also a section that wasn't discussed in the application that talks about alternate setbacks and clearances. That would be in (d) under (1). That wasn't cited on the application. You all have had a chance to look at the application, the survey and the plan. In reference to the pilings, everything in Highland Beach is built on pilings. Some structures more than others. It could be 100 pilings or it could be 200 pilings. It really has no bearing on anything other than the structure which would be the pool. The pool would be constructed on top of pilings. The home would be constructed on top of pilings. The pool deck wasn't part of the application,just the pool. I scaled out the pool at 32 feet long. It's not a remarkable length. It's a standard sized pool, 15 x 32 approximately. The setbacks on the house is correct. You can see on the plan, but you don't have it in Board of Adjustment& Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday,December 15, 2015 Paite 11 of 16 front of you, that the deck is incorporated with the dock. It becomes one unit on the plan. He's looking to push the pool closer to the water's edge and incorporate the deck and the dock as one structure. Any questions from the Board? Vice Chair Axelrod — You said the pilings don't' matter. What is the hardship? B.O. Desorcv — That is something that has to be addressed by the architect and the owner. Everything in Highland Beach is built on pilings. Vice Chair Axelrod — Everything. B.O. Desorcv—Everything, except driveways. Driveways sink. We have applications for driveway permits all the time because they do sink and they have to be brought back up to garage level. Equipment pads, generators, air conditioning pads are built on pilings. It's all incorporated into the structure. Member Rodis —From an engineering standpoint, moving the pool deck closer to the seawall does that impede or make dangerous the seawall or the pool deck being part of the dock? B.O. Desorcv — Everything is supported by the pilings. Everything. Member Rodis—Because the pilings are there the deck and the dock are secure? B.O. Desorcv—That's correct. Chair Donaldson — Any other questions for Mr. Desorcy? Thank you. At this time, we'd like to hear from Mr. Brown,the applicant. Petitioner's Presentation: Roger Brown (property owner)— The request is to move the pool back five feet. The rear deck and the dock is going to be a monolithic pour so it will be all one deck. The pool is at grade level so it's not being elevated. It's at the same place it is today. But because of the poor soil conditions and the excessive amount of pilings that have to be put in to support the home and the rear balcony it left us with a very narrow pool, an 8 foot wide pool. We wanted to be able to move the pool back five feet. The variance of moving the pool back five feet has been granted three times at 1087 Bel Lido Ilse, at 4307 Intracoastal Drive and at 4320 Tranquility Drive. Three times in the past this has happened because of the excessive amount of pilings. The homes are not built like they were years ago. The balconies need more support. So there has to be more pilings. The home that you were at today did not have any pilings in its backyard and the backyard sunk. The driveway sunk. That's one of the reasons why we are tearing the house down. Our request is to simply move it back. It will still be 14 feet from the end of the dock. It's basically the same as the home next door to us where he was granted to move it back 14 feet from the water's edge and simply move the pool back five feet. Any questions? Chair Donaldson — I have one question that might be better addressed by your architect. But to clarify the issue of the piles, is it the pile itself or is it the pile cap that is extending, that is restricting the width of the pool? Stewart Brenner, Architect — With regards to the weight of current structures, where in the past homes were one story, homes were two stories, and the second floors were wood framed walls. The second floor itself may have been wood framed. Nowadays with homes being two story block concrete second floors, the weight of the home requires more piles than they did in the past. There are pile caps that extend underground beyond the line of the wall of the house. You take those piles in addition to the piles that the pool may Board of Adjustment& Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday,December 15, 2015 Paae 12 of 16 be sitting on and then piles for the deck and you have to have certain distances between piles which then starts to shrink the size of what the pool would be able to be. When we talk about the hardship and the weight of the structure. The piles that are required with the pile caps would be causing the pool to become too small. The pool, the pool deck it's not as though it is a raised pool deck that affects neighbors on either side or across the water. Everything is down at ground elevation. Chair Donaldson — Any other questions of the applicant? Any members wish to comment on this variance? Public Comments: Carl Benda, 4203 Tranquility Drive. — It was more of a question that I had. Can anybody here provide background on why there is that necessity for a setback for a pool? Does anybody know? I was just curious? Chair Donaldson—As a professional architect, I would suggest that it probably has to do with enjoyment between neighbors that they are not set so close that you are violating the rights of privacy and enjoyment of their own property. Add that to the degree that it's a somewhat arbitrary number, it is set and that is what it is. Mr. Benda — Being that we are looking at an enjoyment issue if that may be the case. It appears at the moment that we have another compatibility issue where we have a property of a given size and there are within the rules only a certain amount of things you can do with this piece of property. You can have certain size improvements on the property, which means if you have certain size improvements then other improvements on the property have to be either negated or sacrificed or things have to be worked out away so that everything can be put into place. If the footprint of the improvements is smaller, my guess is then there is more room for a pool. If the desire is to maximize square footage of an area then maybe the sacrifice is well that means a smaller pool. Again, more observations than anything else. Shelley Greenwald, 4308 Tranquili Drive— I have one quick question. I understand from what you're saying that your pool will be at the same level that it is now. As a neighbor, I know that he's applying for a variance and I don't like the idea of a variance, but I really don't' object at all. Chair Donaldson—At this time if the applicant has any further comments they would like to make,this would be the time to do so. No further comments. Mr. Desorcy, any further comments? B.O. Desorcv — Like I stated before the swimming pool setback is and it has been done in the past. Mr. Brown is correct that other variances have been granted in reference to other pools. The design professional has to bring documents. They have to bring proof to the board, to the building department for these alternate setbacks and clearances. They are subject to the building official and planning board. The building official is permitted to require an investigation and recommendation from a registered design professional to demonstrate that the intent of the section in the code has been satisfied. I have not been in receipt of any of these documents. It could have been something that the design professional, architect, or engineer could have brought to the board for review. Town Attorney Rubin — I think that is another method that the Board of Adjustment& Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, December 15,2015 Page 13 of 16 property owner can use without going through the variance process. I mean the way that is worded it says it sets forth the setbacks and then that last subsection says that the building department and planning board I guess because you have to present it to the planning board can approve these alternate setbacks with all the proof that is required. I guess you can still pursue that, but if he gets a variance that supersedes it. I think that's another avenue for a homeowner to seek relief from the setbacks. B.O. Desorcv—Okay. I just wanted to put that in the record. Chair Donaldson declared the public hearing closed at 10:49 AM. Board's Discussion: Vice Chair Axelrod — I don't know if this is for you or for the attorney. But if we deny this, do they still have that other avenue? B.O. Desorcv — That's correct. Vice Chair Axelrod — In other words, we won't be just willy-nilly granting a variance. They would have to show that they really need this, which has not been shown today. B.O. Desorcv — It would have been helpful. Town Attorney Rubin — This board has certain standards. Hardships. We have been through this a bunch of times before. It's a different set of standards. That section sets forth a different set of standards. You're deciding this application based on the variance standard, whether there is a hardship. But, yes he could pursue the other avenue. There is no guarantee that it will be granted under the other avenue. Chair Donaldson—Any other questions? Member Rodis—Is it possible to call the question now? Chair Donaldson called for a motion to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the variance request. Board of Adjustment& Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday,December 15, 2015 Page 14 of 16 MOTION: Member Rodis moved to approve the variance for the pool setbacks at 4314 Tranquility Drive, Highland Beach, in as much as the property owner could have promise on his own without our approval. Chair Donaldson seconded the motion. Chair Donaldson — Based on the attendance here today we would need four positive yes votes to approve the variance. During the roll call vote, the following statements were made: Chair Donaldson — I believe that the applicant has adequately proved a hardship in this case and I note that they have added to the setbacks on the north and south to further give peaceful enjoyment of the property to their neighbors. Member Neidich — I agree. I think the applicant has shown some need for this and very importantly the neighbor has no objection to that. I grant a significant amount of weight to that. Roll Call: Member Rodis - Yes Chair Donaldson - Yes Member Neidich - Yes Secretary Weiss - Yes Vice Chair Axelrod - Yes Motion carried 5/0. Member Rodis — I am concerned about what the owner can do about requesting the variance to the north of ten feet. Does that mean that he has to provide another request or can we deal with that now one way or the other? Town Attorney Rubin — The variance has already been denied. Member Rodis—It's been denied for both. But he requested one. Does he have to reapply or can we deal with that? Town Attorney Rubin — The board could have granted it for one side when you considered the item. There didn't seem to be any support on the board for that one side as opposed to both sides. I think it's disposed of. If he wants to apply again, I suppose he could but it didn't seem like there was any support for that. The code says whenever the board of adjustment has acted on a request the board shall not consider any request for substantially the same action for a period of one year from the date of the initial decision. I think that it is the same variance. It was within the board's discretion to grant it on only one side, but the board did not do that. I would say that it is prohibited from here. Board of Adjustment& Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, December 15, 2015 Page 15 of 16 10. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: A. Chair Chair Donaldson called for nomination(s) for the office of Chair. MOTION: Member Neidich moved to elect Barry Donaldson as Chair of the Board of Adjustment & Appeals. Secretary Weiss seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. B. Vice Chair Chair Donaldson called for nomination(s) for the office of Vice Chair. MOTION: Secretary Weiss moved to elect Barry Axelrod as Vice Chair of the Board of Adjustment & Appeals. Member Neidich seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. C. Secretary Chair Donaldson called for nomination(s) for the office of Secretary. Vice Chair Axelrod noted that Evelyn Weiss could not be nominated as Secretary since she has reached her term limit. MOTION: Member Rodis moved to elect Edward Neidich as Secretary of the Board of Adjustment & Appeals. Vice Chair Axelrod seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Board of Adjustment& Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, December 15,2015 Paae 16 of 16 11. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Board, Chair Donaldson called for a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:56 AM. MOTION: Member Rodis moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:56 AM. Secre Weiss seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. APPROVED: Barry Donal son, air Barry Axelr , Vice Chair 0 /Us, Secretary Absent Joel Leinson, Board Member Absent Bryan Perilman, oard Member TOWN SEAL Peter Rodis, Board Member ATTESTED: r 2� Edward Neidich, o ember Patrice Robinson, CMC Deputy Town Clerk Date: 0,�- 1 lD - QU Bel Lido Dr-Google Maps Page l of I Exhibit 1 Google Maps Bel Lido Dr .1 Google Map data 02015 Google 50 ft Bel Lido Dr Highland Beach,FL 33487 https://www.google.com/maps/placeJBel+Lido+Dr,+highland+Bcaci4+FL+33487/@26.3986531,-80.0680571,95m/data=!3ml!le3!4m2!3,l!1 sOx8gdgelb24d3ba... 12/11/2015 The Patin Bead1 Post REAL NIM MIM NERC Palm Beach Daily News TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH PALM BEACH Before the undersigned authority NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING personally appeared Tiffani Everett, who on oath BOARD OF ADIUSTMENT&APPEALS says that she is Call Center Legal Advertising The Board of Adjustment&Appeals of Representative of The Palm Beach Post, a daily and the Town of Highland Beach will con- duct a Public Hearing in the Town Hall Sunday newspaper, published at West Palm Beach Commission Chambers located at 3614 in Palm Beach County, Florida; that the attached S. Ocean Blvd., Highland Beach, FL y 33487 on Tuesday, December 15,2015 copy of advertising for a Notice was published in said at 9:30 AM to consider the following: newspaper on First date of Publication 12/05/2015 REQUESTS SUBMITTED BY ROGER BROWN FOR TWO (2) VARIANCE RE- and last date of Publication 12/05/2015 Affiant further QUESTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT says that the said The Post is a newspaper published 4314 TRANQUILITY DRIVE, HIGHLAND BEACH, FLORIDA REQUESTING THE at West Palm Beach, in said Palm Beach County, FOLLOWING: Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore APPLICATION #38312 - RELIEF FROM been continuously published in said Palm Beach THE HIGHLAND BEACH ZONING OR- DINANCE, SECTION 30-68 (g)(6)(d) County, Florida, daily and Sunday and has been (1), THAT STATES A MARINE FACILITY (DOCK) SHALL BE SET BACK AT LEAST entered as second class mail matter at the post office TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET FROM SIDE in West Palm Beach, in said Palm Beach County, LOT LINES.THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS TO REDUCE THE DOCK SETBACKS Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the TO FIFTEEN (15) FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. first publication of the attached copy Of advertisement; APPLICATION #38313 - RELIEF FROM and affiant further says that she/he has neither paid THE HIGHLAND BEACH ZONING ORDI- nor promised any person, firm or corporation any NANCE, SECTION 30-68(f)(1)(a),THAT STATES A SWIMMING POOL SHALL discount rebate, commission or refund for the purpose BE SET BACK AT LEAST TEN (10) FEET of securingthis advertisement for publication in the FROM REAR LOT LINES. THE APPLI- CANT'S REQUEST IS TO REDUCE THE said newspaper. Also published in Martin and St. REAR POOL SETBACK TO FIVE (5) FEET FROM REAR PROPERTY LINE. Lucie Counties. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Ad ID: 987381 Ad Cost: 220.16 Application is available for public in- spection at the Town Clerk's Office, 3614 S. Ocean Blvd., Highland Beach, Florida during normal business hours - Monday - Friday from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM. Any person who decides to appeal the decision made by the Board of Adjust- ment&Appeals made at this meeting with respect to any matter considered, you will need a record of the proceed- ings and, for such purposes, you may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which re- cord includes the testimony and evi- dence upon which the appeal is based. Patrice Robinson,CMC Deputy Town Clerk PUB:The Palm Beach Post 12-5/2015 #519774 q; „P JUSTIN PETERSON,Notary Public igned " �~ ' In and for the State of Ohio = - - _ n My Commission Expires July 31,2019 Sworn to and subscribed b re = Who is personally know e.