Loading...
2018.01.16_BAA_Minutes_Regular• - TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT & APPEALS REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Town Hall / Commission Chambers Date: January 16, 2018 3614 South Ocean Boulevard Time: 9:30 AM Highland Beach, Florida 1. CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Leinson called the Board of Adjustment and Appeals Regular Meeting of Tuesday, January 16, 2018 to order at 9:30 A.M. in Commission Chambers. Roll call was taken followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. MEMBERS PRESENT UPON ROLL CALL: Member Donald "Don" Gill Member Ilyne Mendelson Member Barbara Penn Member Thomas "Tim" Burnich Secretary Stephen Lang Vice Chair Joel Leinson MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Bryan Perilman Deputy Town Clerk Cuebas advised that Chair Perilman notified her that he would not be able to attend the meeting. The board members passed a unanimous vote to excuse his absence. 2. INSPECTION: The Board of Adjustment and Appeals, as part of the public meeting, conducted a site inspection of the property located at 4408 Intracoastal 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 9:34 AM to visit the site. 4408 Intracoastal Drive, Highland Beach, Florida — Site Visit Discussion: Vice Chair Leinson requested that the applicant and builder, Larry Frankel, outline the reasons for the variance request. Larry Frankel, demonstrated exactly where the current proposed pool is located and where the new pool, which would require the variance, would be located. Board of Adjustment and Appeals Regular Minutes Tuesday, January 16, 2018 Page 2 of 10 Secretary Lang questioned the builder to show where the edge of the pool will be. Mr. Frankel demonstrated the edge of the pool. Secretary Lang questioned exactly how many feet encroaches the set back. Mr. Goldstein, the applicant, advised it is about 4 feet into the setback. Member Penn asked for clarification with regard to the setback, if it was in fact the setback from the Intracoastal. Mr. Goldstein confirmed it was the setback from the Intracoastal. Member Mendelson requested the Mr. Frankel to draw a line where the setback as outlined in the Code and draw a line to show where they are proposing the pool be constructed within the setback. Mr. Frankel outlined Christina Bilenki, attorney representing Mr. Goldstein, provided comments with regard to the property line and advised there is another 5 feet that is outside of the property line which is technically a part of the Intracoastal. Secretary Lang questioned as to when the last time the seawall as replaced. Mr. Goldstein advised the seawall was replaced in 2011. Sectary Lang questioned how far does the cap on the seawall extend out from the actual property into the Intercoastal. Mr. Goldstein advised 5 feet. Member Penn questioned about the length of the pool. Mr. Goldstein advised it is 17 feet at its widest and is a crescent shape. At the smallest part, which are the sides the pool goes down to 2 feet at those points. Member Mendelson questioned when the applicant became aware that they needed a variance requested for the setbacks. Mr. Goldstein advised when they were made aware that the Town required alarm systems on the doors to alert if any children go out of the house towards the pool area. Mr. Goldstein rather have a baby gate to ensure if someone is upstairs they have enough security around the pool to prevent a child from falling in. He advised that there are specific setbacks with regard to the baby gate which caused the pool to be moved to accommodate the baby gate. Mr. Goldstein advised there will be two fences installed, one around the whole property including the Intracoastal and there will be a fence surrounding the pool. Member Mendelson asked if the variance was not granted would it be possible to make the pool smaller in order to accommodate the baby gate. Mr. Goldstein advised the pool cannot get any smaller for the fact that on the sides it already goes down to 2 feet and becomes problematic for a house of this size. Secretary Lang advised that the pool is an infinity pool; is the catch basin within the pool or outside of the pool. Mr. Frankel answered the catch basin is a part of the pool. Board of Adjustment and Appeals Regular Minutes Tuesday, January 16, 2018 Page 3 of 10 3. RECONVENE MEETING: Vice Chair Leinson reconvened the meeting at 10:05 AM in the Chambers. MEMBERS PRESENT UPON ROLL CALL: Member Donald "Don" Gill Member Ilyne Mendelson Member Barbara Penn Member Thomas "Tim" Burnich Secretary Stephen W. Lang Vice Chair Joel Leinson Town Attorney Leonard Rubin 4. ADDITIONS, DELETIONS OR ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Deputy Town Clerk Cuebas made the following announcements: • Coffee with Mayor Feldman — Tomorrow, January 17, 2018 — 9:30 AM at the Highland Beach Library Community Room • Town Commission Workshop Meeting — January 30, 2018 — 1:30 PM • Town Board's Luncheon — February 13, 2018 — Noon at the Delray Sands Resort • Planning Board Regular Meeting — February 14, 2018 — 9:30 AM • Board of Adjustment & Appeals Regular Meeting — February 20, 2018 — 9:30 AM (Tentative) The Agenda was accepted as presented. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND REQUESTS: There were no public comments. 6. PRESENTATIONS: • Introduction of New Member Stephen Lang. Vice Chair Leinson welcomed Secretary Lang to the Board. 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: • December 19, 2017 — Regular Meeting Vice Chair Leinson called for a motion to approve the minutes as presented from December 19, 2017 Regular Meeting. Board of Adjustment and Appeals Regular Minutes Tuesday, January 16, 2018 Page 4 of 10 MOTION: Member Bumich moved to approve the minutes of December 19, 2017, Regular Meeting as presented. unanimously. 8. OLD BUSINESS: None. 9. NEW BUSINESS: Secretary Lang seconded the motion, which passed A. Variance Request: 4408 Intracoastal Drive — Public Hearing APPLICATION #17-0868 — RELIEF FROM TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 30-68 (F) SWIMMING POOL SETBACKS FROM REAR PROPERTY LINE, REQUIRED TO BE 10' TO 6'. APPLICANT: S Goldstein & Son Inc The members were asked to disclose any ex parte communication and no members disclosed any. Vice Chair Leinson called on Deputy Town Clerk Cuebas to administer the oath to all those who would be providing testimony. Vice Chair Leinson closed the regular meeting and opened the Public Hearing at 10:06 AM. Staff Presentation: Building Official Perez provided testimony with reference to the application and presented the findings of the Building Department. The applicant is requesting relief from the Town of Highland Beach Zoning Ordinance, Section 30-68 (f) Swimming Pool setbacks from rear property line, required to be 10', to 6' per the drawings that were submitted. Vice Chair Leinson questioned Building Official Perez whether the original plans included a pool. Building Official Perez advised that the original plans did include a pool which complied with the required 10' setback however the new revised plans encroach into that required setback. Member Mendelson questioned if there has been any communication received from any property owners near the proposed property stating concerns or objections. Deputy Town Clerk Cuebas advised that the Clerk's Office did not receive any communication and outlined the dates that all notices were published as according to the law. Member Penn asked Building Official Perez to confirm if there is in fact an additional 5 feet that extends past the property line which is considered the Intracoastal. Building Official Perez confirmed that it is accurate information. Board of Adjustment and Appeals Regular Minutes Tuesday, January 16, 2018 Pave 5 of 10 Member Mendelson questioned whether the survey that was submitted would outline the additional feet as described during the site inspection. Building Official Perez confirmed it would and he did review the survey. Secretary Lang questioned Building Official Perez when the pool was changed. Building Official Perez explained this application was the first that was received that outlined a change in the pool. Secretary Lang questioned that there were pilings already drilled in order to construct the pool fairly quickly, therefore someone had to know the pool was changing. Building Official Perez could not provide an answer to the question and suggested the applicant provide those details. Petitioners Presentation: Christina Bilenki, Dunay, Miskel and Backman, presented on behalf of the applicant. She provided clarification that the original site plan when originally submitted met all code requirements as outlined by the Town. The change came about when they became aware of the Town's code with regard to security alarms. The concern for the safety of the applicant's grandchildren, whom will be frequenting the property, were the main reason that the pool was redesigned to include a baby gate. Ms. Bilenki demonstrated to the Board members using a large-scale exhibit of the site plan to show the additional land that is a part of the Intracoastal. She advised that this particular property does not have another property owner abutting the property therefore the encroachment into the setback does not impede on the space of another property owner. The encroachment is into the Intracoastal area which provides adequate separation from the property and the Intracoastal's property line. Member Mendelson questioned who is the owner of the property that keeps being mentioned with regard to the additional 5 feet. Ms. Bilenki advised it is a part of the Intracoastal Right of Way, which is essentially known as the Army Corp of Engineers. Member Mendelson asked if the Army Corp of Engineers has been contacted and made aware of the 5 -foot buffer that the property owner is using as a buffer. Ms. Bilenki advised when the docks and seawalls were built, that information was outlined in the permits received from the Army Corp of Engineers which outlined the buffer and everything was constructed within the perimeters outlined in the permits. Member Mendelson requested clarification with regard to the alarms and the baby gate and how that correlated to the necessity of a bigger pool. Ms. Bilenki advised that the requirement of the alarm system started the thought process with the property owner about what would be adequate and provide the most safety for the children that will be visiting the residence. She advised that when they were reviewing the hardscape plans of the outside of the property, it occurred that an alarm system would not provide enough safety if a child were to get outside into the back yard and the owner was on the 2nd floor of the residence. At that time, the baby gate was then drawn to be included around the pool. However, the baby gate cannot sit directly on the outer edge of the pool and must be set back 5 feet from the edge of the pool. This required the pool to be redesigned in order to properly accommodate the baby gate. Board of Adjustment and Appeals Regular Minutes Tuesday, January 16, 2018 Page 6 of 10 Allan Goldstein, property owner, provided a history regarding the property. He currently lives at 4307 Intracoastal Drive and about 8 years ago he purchased 4408 Intracoastal and 4410 Intracoastal Drive with the intent to have a main house and a guest house, however that design did not work out. When the architects designed the initial plans, Mr. Goldstein inquired about the baby gate around the pool and the architects made him aware that there is an alarm system being installed. We were happy with the way construction was going until we learned about the installation requirements for the baby gate. This is the reason we are coming to the Board after construction has already begun, which is not typical. Secretary Lang questioned Mr. Goldstein as to where he was living now and if that residence has a baby fence around the pool. Mr. Goldstein replied that there is a baby fence around their pool at their current residence. Secretary Lang inquired as to why there were no plans or drawings submitted that depict the baby gate in order for the Board members to have a visual idea of the baby gate. Mr. Goldstein said the plans were submitted prior to the plans being updated to show the baby gated now that a variance was required. Secretary Lang questioned if the fence that will go around the whole property will match the baby fence that will be installed around the pool. Mr. Goldstein advised they would not be the same. He clarified that the designer wants to put glass panels by the pool on the part that faces the Intracoastal. The rest of the fence will be coordinating wired fence along the other area. The designer is in the process now of proposing the baby fence to be constructed of glass or the coordinating wired fence. Secretary Lang provided comments to the effect that he has seen in his experience, property owners drill the holes for a fence, the inspector comes and checks it and then in turn the property owner removes the fence. Following that, Secretary Lang inquired if the baby gate is going to be permanently installed. Mr. Goldstein advised that the intent is for the fence to be permanent. Secretary Lang asked if Mr. Goldstein would be willing to have the stipulation of the fence being permanently added, if the Board were to approve the variance. Mr. Goldstein said he would not be opposed to having that caveat however the house will outlive him and he does not want to restrict the sale of the property due to the fact that a permanent baby gate is installed around the pool. Vice Chair Leinson inquired about the ages of Mr. Goldstein's grandchildren. Mr. Goldstein advised he has 4 children which range from newborn to 5 years old. Member Burnich inquired why the pool was proposed at the north end of the property where there is a lot of space to accommodate a large pool on the south end. Ms. Bilenki explained that there is a property located right next to the south end which would intrude on the privacy of both properties. Also, the kitchen area and outdoor living area is accommodated to the north end and the focal point is the intracoastal, that is why the pool was designed in the north end. Board of Adjustment and Appeals Regular Minutes Tuesday, January 16, 2018 Page 7 of 10 Member Mendelson stated she agreed with Secretary Lang in the fact that if the variance is approved, the baby gate should be constructed in a permanent fashion. She stated that the pool could be accommodated or built in a different area and does not see the effort of the property owner to do such things in order not to require a variance. Mr. Goldstein reiterated that the pool is on the intracoastal so it does not affect anyone. He also stated there were 3 or 4 variances of this same nature granted, one was just a few doors down from his property. Member Mendelson clarified that each variance stands alone. Town Attorney Rubin agreed that the Board does not make decisions based on other variances that were previously granted. Karen Goldstein, property owner, provided comments with regard to it being mentioned a few times about them selling the property for maximum value. She wanted to clarify for the record they are building the house to live there and stay there for a long time. She clarified that it may have been misstated earlier and wanted to make it clear that they relied on their landscape architect to design plans for their vision of the home they wanted. After further review, they noticed only alarms had been proposed but they wanted a baby gate which would offer the most safety. Secretary Lang provided comments with regard to the design and build of the house however the baby gate that is being proposed is not a chicken wire fence and to meet the needs and requirements of both sides, a meeting in the middle will probably be the consensus of the board. Member Burnich questioned whether the property was going to include other alarm and monitoring systems. Mr. Goldstein advised that is correct. Member Gill stated that the home is enormous and huge and could have been scaled down to make room to accommodate the pool and any safety nets needed. Ms. Bilenki clarified that the original plans included a pool area and met all the code requirements. Vice Chair Leinson questioned if the alarm was satisfactory for the applicant, then a variance would probably not be requested. Ms. Bilenki advised if the Goldstein's felt that the alarms were sufficient, then the pool would probably be constructed to meet code requirements. Public Comments: Carl Lee Gehman, Highland Beach Villas, as a grandfather and out of the protection and safety of children, the board should approve the variance request. Secretary Lang questioned for the record, that there has been no communication received from neighbors or property owners expressing their concerns or support. Deputy Town Clerk Cuebas confirmed this information was correct. Vice Chair Leinson declared the Public Hearing closed at 10:39 AM. Board of Adjustment and Appeals Regular Minutes Tuesday, January 16, 2018 Pate 8 of 10 Vice Chair Leinson called for a motion to approve, deny or modify the variance request with regard to 4408 Intracoastal Drive. MOTION: Secretary Lang moved to approve the variance request with the caveat that the baby gate be put constructed in a permanent nature so that it cannot be arbitrarily removed at a moment's notice. Motion was seconded by Member Mendelson. Board Discussion: Member Mendelson clarified with Secretary Lang with regard to the motion that was made to include the fence be permanent. She asked for clarity if the fence is only permanent to the current owners. Secretary Lang clarified that the fence could be removed by the next owners that purchase the home. Vice Chair Leinson questioned at what time could they pull up the fence because the children are all grown up and they no longer have the necessity for the baby gate around the pool. Secretary Lang stated that he is accepting the applicant's concern for their grandchildren at face value and is suggesting the approval based solely on that concern. Member Gill asked for clarification that the approval of the variance as moved by Secretary Lang, would be for the lifetime of the home, what about the next owner? Secretary ang advised the next owner would be able to remove the fence, if he or she so desired. AMENDED MOTION: Member Burnich moved that the initial motion is amended to require door alarms in addition to the baby gate. Motion was seconded by Member Gill. Town Attorney Rubin clarified that the code requires either the baby gate or an alarm. Building Official Perez confirmed that the information was correct. Board Discussion: Member Burnich commented that if the baby gate were to be removed the property owners would have to install the alarms on the doors. Secretary Lang advised that most security systems include door chimes and alarms. ROLL CALL: Member Burnich - Yes Member Gill - Yes Secretary Lang - Yes Member Mendelson - No Member Penn - Yes Vice Chair Leinson - Yes Motion carried 5-1. Board of Adjustment and Appeals Regular Minutes Tuesday, January 16, 2018 PalZe 9 of 10 Board Discussion: Member Mendelson questioned the definition of permanent. She advised, that in the legal profession, if the term is not strictly defined, the term permanent can be defined differently by different people. Secretary Lang clarified that he was using construction terms and if the motion needed to be updated to include a different word, he agreed that would be fine. Town Attorney Rubin called on Building Official Perez to clarify how the word permanent is defined as per the town code. Building Official Perez outlined that the definition for permanent is defined as cemented in or non -removable. Building Official Perez also clarified what the code requirement for alarms details. Member Mendelson provided comments stating that requiring the baby gate around the pool be permanent could open the doors for litigation. Secretary Lang provided comments with regard to his initial motion stating that he is trying to satisfy the applicant's request for the safety of his grandchildren while also respecting the code. Town Attorney Rubin clarified with the explanation of Secretary Lang that the initial motion is to have the baby gate permanently installed. ROLL CALL: Secretary Lang - Yes Member Mendelson - No Member Gill - Yes Member Penn - Yes Member Burnich - Yes Vice Chair Leinson - Yes Motion carried 5-1. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, Vice Chair Leinson called for a motion to adjourn. MOTION: Member Burnich moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:56 AM. Member Gill seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. APPROVAL: SEAL: Board of Adjustment and Appeals Regular Minutes Tuesday, January 16, 2018 Page 10 of 10 ATTEST: ( ta�a- ( �� T isha Cuebas, MPA —Deputy Town Clerk Date: ~Z -�