The URL can be used to link to this page

Land Development and Planning Project Files_2637 S. Ocean Blvd._20090723_Byrd BeachPlans and Applicant Exhibit 1 to be scanned in AMENDED TRANSMITTAL FORM F REVIEW & REQUESTED ACTION BY PLANNING BOARD Transmit To: Geoffrey Vanore, Building Official Date: June 23, 2009 Applicant/Owner: Byrd Beach Estates Property Address: 2637 S. Ocean Blvd, Highland Beach, FL 33487 Property Control Number: 24-43-46-28-09-000-0201 Developer Lots: 3 & 6 Lots: 20 & 21 REVIEW GIVEN TO SUBJECT PROPETY ❑ Preliminary Review ® Final Review: ❑ Amended Site Plan Review ❑ Other: THE PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE MATTER PER THE REQUEST OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND HEREBY CERTIFIES THAT THE FOLLOWING ACTION 1lvk al]110\ 400151 ❑ Denied ❑ Approved (plans attached) ® Approved with Modifications (as noted): Upon motion by Yucht and second by Sheridan, the application Byrd Beach LLC for approval of a site plan for construction of a single family home on Lots 3 and 6 of Byrd Beach Estates was unanimously approved, subject to the completion of the following conditions: 1) Applicant, as soon as practicable, after grant of the building permit, install the access roads from AIA on the north side and the south side of property with the Knox block box access. 2) The Applicant, as soon as practicable after grant of the building permit, shall widen the radius of the turn in the interior roadway at the Northeast corner between lots five (5) and six (6) as provided in the Fire Access Site Plan signed on October 3, 2006 by Fire Marshall John Tomaszswski of Delray Beach Fire Department, which was marked as Applicant Exhibit 1 at the June 23, 2009 public hearing. Form Created By: Valerie Oakes, Deputy Town Clerk a 3) Structure to be built on lots three (3) & six (6) conform in aesthetics with the existing community. ❑ Other: PLEASE TAKE WHATEVER ACTION IS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE SUBJECT MATTER, i.e., ISSUE PERMIT, TRANSMIT TO TOWN COMMISSION, RETURN TO APPLICANT, ETC. -)4, f 46�� airman is P. Stern IF THE ABOVE PLANS WERE DENIED OR APPROVED WITH MODIFICATIONS, PLEASE NOTE THE BOARD'S FINDINGS: See above under Approved with Modifications. CLERK'S OFFICE USE ONLY.- Date NLY.Date reviewed by Planning Board: June 23, 2009 Date transmitted to Building Official: July 7, 2009 TRANSMITTAL FORM iF REVIEW & REQUESTED ACTION BY PLANNING BOARD Transmit To: Geoffrey Vanore, Building Official Date: June 23, 2009 Applicant/Owner: Byrd Beach Estates Property Address: 2637 S. Ocean Blvd, Highland Beach, FL 33487 Property Control Number: 24-43-46-28-09-000-0201 Developer Lots: 3 & 6 Lots: 20 & 21 ❑ Preliminary Review ® Final Review: ❑ Amended Site Plan Review ❑ Other: THE PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE MATTER PER THE REQUEST OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DATED AND HEREBY CERTIFIES THAT THE FOLLOWING ACTION WAS TAKEN: ❑ Denied ❑ Approved (plans attached) ® Approved with Modifications (as noted): Upon motion by Yucht and second by Sheridan, the application Byrd Beach LLC for approval of a site plan for construction of a single family home on Lots 3 and 6 of Byrd Beach Estates was unanimously approved, subject to the completion of the following conditions: 1) Applicant, as soon as practicable, after grant of the building permit, install the access roads from A l A on the north side and the south side of property with the Knox block box access. 2) As soon as practicable, after grant of the building permit, the applicant widen the radius at the northeast corner, between lots 5 & 6, so that Fire Truck #6 can have access to the complex. 3) Structure to be built on lots 3 & 6 conform in aesthetics with the existing community. Form Created By: Valerie Oakes, Deputy Town Clerk ❑ Other: PLEASE TAKE WHATEVER ACTION IS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE SUBJECT MATTER, i.e., ISSUE PERMIT, TRANSMIT TO TOWN COMMISSION, RETURN TO APPLICANT, ETC. Chairmin Lo s . Stem IF THE ABOVE PLANS WERE DENIED OR APPROVED WITH MODIFICATIONS, PLEASE NOTE THE BOARD'S FINDINGS: See above under Approved with Modifications. CLERK'S OFFICE USE ONLY: Date reviewed by Planning Board: June 23, 2009 Date transmitted to Building Official: June 24, 2009 �'N\ON'ea ao``• = '� 14140 o: •n Town of Highland Beach 3614 SOUTH OCEAN BOULEVARD • HIGHLAND BEACH, FLORIDA 33487 Palm Beach County, Florida November 23, 2009 Mr. Jason S. Mankoff, Esquire Michael Weiner & Associates, P.A. 10 SE I" Avenue, Suite C Delray Beach, FL 33444 RE: Approved Site Plan- Byrd Beach Estates Dear Mr. Mankoff: 561-278-4548 FAX 561-265-3582 Mayor: Jim Newill, CPA Vice Mayor: Miriam S. Zwick Commissioners: Doris M. Trinley John J. Sorrelli John J. Pagliaro Town Manager: Dale S. Sugerman, Ph. D. This letter is being sent to you as a courtesy regarding the property you represent at 2637 South Ocean Boulevard in the Town of Highland Beach. The site plan for the subject property was approved with modifications by the Highland Beach Planning Board on June 23, 2009. That approval will expire on December 23, 2009. Attached you will find a copy of the Report of Review & Requested Action by the Planning Board. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH , D) --�- Dale S. Sugerman, Ph.D. Town Manager cc: Mike Desorcy, Building Official Valerie Oakes, Deputy Town Clerk & Secretary to the Planning Board www.ci.highland-beach.fl.us AMENDED TRANSMITTAL FORM REPORT OF REVIEW & REQUESTED ACTION BY PLANNING BOARD Transmit To: Geoffrey Vanore, Building Official Date: June 23, 2009 Applicant/Owner: Byrd Beach Estates Property Address: 2637 S. Ocean Blvd, Highland Beach, FL 33487 Property Control Number: 24-43-46-28-09-000-0201 Developer Lots: 3 & 6 Lots: 20 & 21 REVIEW GIVEN TO SUBJECT PROPETY ❑ Preliminary Review ® Final Review: ❑. Amended Site Plan Review ❑ Other: THE PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE MATTER PER THE REQUEST OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND HEREBY CERTIFIES THAT THE FOLLOWING ACTION WAS TAKEN: ❑ Denied ❑ Approved (plans attached) ® Approved with Modifications (as noted): Upon motion by Yucht and second by Sheridan, the application Byrd Beach LLC for approval of a site plan for construction of a single family home on Lots 3 and 6 of Byrd Beach Estates was unanimously approved, subject to the completion of the following conditions: 1) Applicant, as soon as practicable, after grant of the building permit, install the access roads from AlA on the north side and the south side of property with the Knox block box access. 2) The Applicant, as soon as practicable after grant of the building permit, shall widen the radius of the turn in the interior roadway at the Northeast corner between lots five (5) and six (6) as provided in the Fire Access Site Plan signed on October 3, 2006 by Fire Marshall John Tomaszswski of Delray Beach Fire Department, which was marked as Applicant Exhibit 1 at the June 23, 2009 public hearing. Form Created By: Valerie Oakes, Deputy Town Clerk 3) Structure to be built on lots three (3) & six (6) conform in aesthetics with the existing community. ❑ Other: PLEASE TAKE WHATEVER ACTION IS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE SUBJECT MATTER, i.e., ISSUE PERMIT, TRANSMIT TO TOWN COMMISSION, RETURN TO APPLICANT, ETC. —ChaiQman Lckis�P. Stem IF THE ABOVE PLANS WERE DENIED OR APPROVED WITH MODIFICATIONS, PLEASE NOTE THE BOARD'S FINDINGS: See above under Approved with Modifications. CLERK'S OFFICE USE ONLY. Date reviewed by Planning Board: June 23, 2009 Date transmitted to Building Official: July 7, 2009 Town of Highland Beach 3614 SOUTH OCEAN BOULEVARD • HIGHLAND BEACH, FLORIDA 33487 Palm Beach County, Florida December 4, 2009 Mr. Jason S. Mankoff, Esquire Michael Weiner & Associates, P.A. 10 SE I" Avenue, Suite C Delray Beach, FL 33444 RE: Approved Site Plan- Byrd Beach Estates Correction to letter of November 23, 2009 Dear Mr. Mankoff: 561-278-4548 FAX 561-265-3582 Mayor: Jim Newill, CPA Vice Mayor: Miriam S. Zwick Commissioners: Doris M. Trinley John J. Sorrelli John J. Pagliarc Town Manager: Dale S. Sugerman, Ph. D. On November 23, 2009 I sent you a courtesy notice about the expiration of the approved site plan for the property that you represent at 2637 South Ocean Boulevard in the Town of Highland Beach. That courtesy notice was sent in error. As per the provisions of Section 30-21 (g) (1) (f) and subsections (g) (2) (a) and (g) (2) (b) of the Town Code, the approved site plan will not expire until June 22, 2011. I am sorry if the previous letter caused any confusion. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH �-' ` Dale S. Sugerman, Ph.D. Town Manager cc: Mike Desorcy, Building Official Valerie Oakes, Deputy Town Clerk & Secretary to the Planning Board www. ci. highland -beach A us MICHAEL S. WEINER CAROLE J. ARONSON JASON S. MANKOFF KERRY D. SAFIER August 14, 2006 Mr. Robert S. Dawson, CBO Building Official Town of Highland Beach 3614 South Ocean Boulevard Highland Beach, Florida 33487 Re: Byrd Beach Our File No.: STOS002 Dear Bob: WEINER & ARONSON, P.A. n�Z 0 E21 � ATTORNEYS AT LAW The Clark House i CC77 L AUG 16 2036 102 North Swinton Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Telephone: (561) 265-2666 Telecopier: (561) 272-6831 E-mail: jmankoff@zonelaw.com OF COUNSEL: ROBERT MARC SCHWARTZ, P.A. Florida Bar Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer Via Telecopier and RegularMail Thank you for meeting with me on Friday, August 11, 2006. 1 understand that you are looking for the original approved plans. Please contact me as soon as they are located so that I can also review them. Additionally I understand that you will be having a staff meeting to discuss this matter. If possible, I would like to attend this meeting, so please let me know the time and date that it will occur. Thank you very much for your continued assistance in this matter. Very '1`7 yours, Jason . Mankoff J$M:adg C : Mr. Skip Stoltz (Via Telecopier) Mr. John Nevins (Via Telecopier) Michael S. Weiner, Esquire Ms. Ashlee L. Vargo Ms. Elizabeth Kennelly O:\STOS002\Letter to bob dawson august 14. 2006.doc Ruden McClosky June 05, 2007 Town of Highland Beach Town Commission 3614 South Ocean Boulevard Highland Beach, FL 33487 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE SUITE 800 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (561) 83SAM FAX: (561) 5143423 JEFF.REMBAUM@RUDEN.COM Re: Byrd Beach Estates Ad Hoc Committee position regarding Byrd Beach Estates, Ltd.'s application to construct one mega -home upon lots 3 and 6 of Byrd Beach Estates Dear Council Members: This Firm represents four of six homeowners who are members of the Byrd Beach Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. (the "Association") who live within Byrd Beach Estates (the "Community"). Byrd Beach Estates, Ltd. (the "Applicant") recently filed a petition with the Town's Planning Board to construct one mega -home upon the last two remaining lots within the Community, lots 3 and 6. While the Applicant and my clients are continuing to try to resolve their differences, as yet, they have been unable to do so. For clarification purposes and to prevent confusion, please note that the Applicant remains in complete and unfettered control of the Association as it controls the Board of Directors of the Association. It is recognized that this issue is separate and apart from the issues set forth herein. It is mentioned to facilitate your understanding that the Applicant remains in complete control of the Association which is why the homeowners within the Community organized themselves into an ad-hoc committee. Nevertheless, the control of the Association is not an issue raised herein. Other appropriate avenues exist for such matters. Mr. Sliney's decision to recuse himself in light of the circumstances is commendable though arguably it should have occurred sooner. Because of the many outstanding and unresolved issues regarding this issue, true independent counsel who has no existing ties to the Town should be appointed. It is our understanding that the Town is considering retaining George Rusty Roberts, Esq. My client understands that Mr. Sliney recommended Mr. Roberts, and that Mr. Robert's is a litigator who worked WPB:311806:1 Town of Highland Beach Town Commission June 05, 2007 Page 2 closely with Mr. Sliney in defending the Town in other litigious matters. While Mr. Roberts may be an excellent litigator, due to the complexity of issues at hand in the instant matter, an independent counsel is needed who is neutral, objective, and has the requisite real-estate and land planning background to opine on the issues at hand. Not only must the independent counsel review the Applicant's current petition, but in so doing he will be required to review the entire procedural history of the Community. Once appointed by the Town, and by way of this correspondence, one or more of my clients and I request a meeting with the independent counsel to further explain our concerns. This could accomplished at a workshop or in a less or more formal setting as may permitted or required. If my clients and the Applicant are able to resolve their differences by way of private agreement, the Planning Board will be advised of same. Due to the Community's existing design and build -out there are numerous "Inconsistencies" (as hereinafter defined) with the Town's Code of Ordinances (the "Code"). Until the Inconsistencies are resolved its is questionable and doubtful whether there remains a legal mechanism for the applicant's petition to be approved by either the Town's Planning Board or this Council, as may be appropriate, until such time as the Inconsistencies are resolved. The Inconsistencies include lack of an existing site plan, insufficient guest parking, insufficient width of the internal road system whether it be considered an actual road, driveway, or some other hybrid type of ingress egress access easement not otherwise provided for in the Town's Code, overall building length will exceed Code, maximum lot coverage may exceed Code, fire -safety issues, and potential conflict of interest matters as may have been caused by the Town's attorney who provided advice to the Planning Board. It is not suggested that these Inconsistencies were intended by the Applicant, the Town, or its representatives. Yet nevertheless these Inconsistencies exist which is why there is substantial confusion concerning this Community and its applicable approval process. Many of the Inconsistencies appear to result from the Town, on the one hand treating the permits needed to construct Community as a single multi -family dwelling and on the other hand treating it as a single family attached dwellings. The October 05, 1995 petition filed by the Applicant with the Board of Adjustment requested eight single family homes using multi -family set backs. This request included parking of two spaces per unit plus 25% for guests. This requirement has gone unanswered in that such guest parking does not exist in the Community. The only parking spaces within the Community are located within each home's garage. On October 20, 1995 during a meeting of the Board of Adjustment, the Board Members had a concern that the current ordinance required multi -family attached units WPB:311806:1 Town of Highland Beach Town Commission June 05, 2007 Page 3 and the plans showed separate residences. A five minute recess was held, the result of which was the Board asked the Applicant to rework the plans to show the homes attached to create a single, rather than separate units. Thereafter, on October 26, 1995 a Board of Adjustment workshop meeting was held to review the amended petition for relief from the Town Zoning ordinances under the RMM zoning designation for eight single family, attached, zero lot line residences being two stories each. During the meeting a revised site plan was submitted to the Board of Adjustment illustrating that eight homes would be attached via roof decks, walls, etc. to bring the plans into conformity with the Town Ordinance. I note there is no evidence such a site plan exists. To both the undersigned's and my Clients' knowledge, only a landscape plan exists and may now, some years later, be substituted or otherwise treated as an actual site plan. On November 13, 1995 the Towns Board of Adjustment approved the variance for the project which permitted a front yard setback of twenty five feet from the otherwise required forty feet. No other variances were approved at that time or in the future until 2006. During these meetings it was mandated that all other requirements of the Town Code must be met. Yet, in the end this did not occur as the Inconsistencies remain. The initial layout of the Community was prepared by the Applicant. It was required that all homes be attached. Astoundingly, recently the Town granted a variance to Byrd Beach Estates, Ltd. such that certain homes with in the Community would not need to be attached!!! It is important to understand the history of this project to understand that no such variance should have been provided. The Applicant caused the condition which required the variance. The Town's Code is quite clear in that an Applicant cannot cause a condition from which a variance is later sought. Pursuant to Chairperson Townsend's 2006 memorandum, Chairman Townsend sets forth that Town Attorney Sliney opined that the Community's overall layout site design that was approved by the Planning Board on December 13, 1995, as a residential planned unit development ("RPUD") However, the record does not substantiate same in that no site plan exists. All that exists is a landscape plan which, the Town presently relies upon as an actual site plan for the Community. If the Community is RPUD then the Town Commission approval was required. Such approval is not part of the record. Combining lots 3 and 6 to construct a mega -home would require an amendment to the RPUD by way of a site plan amendment. It is most difficult to amend a site plan that does not exist. It is improper and unjust to the residents of the Community to, in hindsight, label a landscape plan an actual RPUD site plan. If a true site plan (not a landscape plan) actually exists then the Applicant would need to file a petition to amend it prior to applying for a building permit from the Planning Board to build one mega -home upon lots 3 and 6. WPB:311806:1 Town of Highland Beach Town Commission June 05, 2007 Page 4 Additionally, and most important, constructing one mega -home upon two lots is a substantial deviation from the original approvals provided by the Town. Therefore, all prior approvals may be meaningless. Due to the change to overall site plan, the Applicant needs to comply with all current existing Code requirements. The Applicant would also need to apply for any necessary variances. Previous variances would be inapplicable to the current application because the previous variances were granted when 8, not 7 homes were contemplated. The question regarding whether the Town Council or the Town's Planning Board is the final approving body for this site plan is interesting indeed. Section 7.4 of the 1995 Town Code sets forth that the Town Commission is the final approving body for all site plans excluding single family dwellings. Interestingly, according to Chairperson Townsend's notes from his December 19, 2006 memorandum "The record disclosed that the overall Complex layout in addition to each Lot site plan except for Lot 7" was granted final approval by the Planning Board. Remember, too, that the in order to meet set back and other requirements, the Applicant was required to attach the homes which, in effect, creates a single unit. Chairperson Townsend's December 19, 2006 memorandum also sets forth that Town Attorney Sliney opined that "the road utility and landscape easements which run through the Community are not private streets because they are not dedicated and therefore not subject to the width requirements of Section 5.4 of the 1995 Code and that the access easements were graphically indicated and dimensioned in the overall Complex Plan [which, according to Town Attorney Sliney] was treated as a RPUD and approved as an overall layout of site design" that was approved by the Planning Board on December 13, 1995. If the Community is multi -family, the Planning Board could not approve the RPUD as the Town Council is required to do so. The Town Council did not and there is no site plan on record but rather merely a landscape plan. The width of the existing access easements, i.e. private roads are not twenty five feet wide and realistically cannot be accommodated to such width. Therefore in light of Code Section 5.4 which requires every building hereafter erected ... have access to a public street by a private street at least twenty five feet wide approved by the Town Commission, the Applicants' request must be denied because the Applicant cannot meet the requirement for the necessary road width. When it comes to parking, the Applicant claims each home is a single-family attached dwelling which only requires two parking spaces per unit. However, as previously explained, the Community itself appears to have been approved as a singular multi -family dwelling to avoid multiple setback, square footage and lot coverage requirements. If that is the case, then 25% of required spaces must be WPB:311806:1 Town of Highland Beach Town Commission June 05, 2007 Page 5 reserved for guests. At present, there is no additional parking other than two spaces per home in each garage for each of the six dwelling units constructed within the Community. The maximum building length of a multi -family dwelling unit within the RMM zoning district cannot exceed 180 feet. Notwithstanding, the Applicant's assertion that each home is a single family attached dwelling, it cannot be overlooked by the Town that the initial permit application process seems to have approved the Community as a multi -family singular dwelling unit.. Approval to construct the mega -home on lots 3 and 6 would violate the maximum building length requirement. The buildings are attached dwellings. Therefore, notwithstanding, the nature of the homes as single- family, they are attached dwellings. According to Code, the maximum length of a multi -family dwelling is 180 feet. Due to the existing length of the existing attached structures within the Community less than ten feet is left in which to construct the mega -home. Fire Safety remains an issue. At present, there is evidence in the record which sets forth that the Fire Department's larger rescue vehicles cannot navigate the road system within the Community. Also, the Applicant's construction plans for the mega - home are dangerous in that a retainer wall may be too close to an emergency egress window of an existing home located within the Community. The legal conflict matter raised by my clients should be further investigated by the Town. It is important to note that the undersigned does not have possession of first hand knowledge in regard to whether Mr. Sliney acting as the Planning Board's attorney has an actual conflict of interest. Because certain information was brought to my attention, it was necessary to convey such information to the Town so the Town could exercise its fiduciary duty to make a determination whether an actual conflict existed and, if so, how best to proceed. As evidenced by the Warranty Deed recorded in the Palm Beach County Official Record Book 13483, Page 1577 it is clear that on March 7, 202 Mitchell Kirschner of the law fine of Hodgen Russ, L.L.P. represented the Applicant when it sold property located within the Community to Elizabeth Susskind Komov. Mr. Sliney is a member of the same law fine. My clients' justifiable concern is that Hodgen Russ represents the Applicant in other matters while at the same time another lawyer from Hodgen Russ, L.L.P. is providing legal advice to the Town's Planning Board that directly impacts the Applicant's application. Again, an actual accusation of conflict of interest is not presented. Rather, the aforementioned issues should be investigated by the Town. While the conflict, if it exists or existed, may have been innocent and inadvertent it nevertheless exacerbates the complete confusion and lack of proper permitting for this Community. Even if an WPB:311806:1 Town of Highland Beach Town Commission June 05, 2007 Page 6 actual legal conflict does not exist, the appearance of impropriety arguably exists and at a minimum such disclosure should have been placed into the record by all concerned parties at all relevant times. The independent counsel retained by the Town to review this Community and the application process must review and opine upon the entire procedural history of this Community. Once this exhaustive task is undertaken it will be abundantly clear that no further homes can be approved for construction until the Community as a whole is brought into compliance with the Town's Code along with such other additional vari=.cces as may be required to do so. yours, the JAR/js cc: Town of Highland Beach, Planning Board Client WPB:311806:1 FAX a r To 6/19/2007 Company: Department: Name: Bob Dawson From— Company: Department: Name: Phone: FAX: Roberts, Reynolds, Bedard & Tuzzio, P.A. George P. Roberts, Jr.,/ems 561-688-6560 561-688-2343 Re: Byrd Beach v. Town of Highland Beach Please see the attached correspondence of today's date. LAW OFFICES ROBERTS, REYNOLDS, BEDARD & TUZZIO, P.A. BE ORO E PR O B E R T S. JR. LY MAN H. REY N O L D S. JR. BENJAMIN L. SEDARD GERARD A. TUZZIO LA U RA E. BED A RD DANNA P. CLEMENT SH E RRI L. RENNER JOYCE CRUZ SISON M I C H ALL R. M O R LEY ANDREW S. KAN TER Viafacsimile Robert Dawson Public Works Director Town of Highland Beach 3614 S. Ocean Blvd. 670 COLUMBIA DRIVE BUILDING C-101 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33409 TELEPHONE (561) SBS -6560 FACSIMILE (551) 698 2346 1651 WEST CYPRESS CREEK ROAD SUITE ]00 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33309 TELEPHONE (956)92B 2086 FACSIMILE (956) 92B-2057 PLEASE REPLY TO. WEST PALM BEACH OFFICE EMAIL'rr0YerISVrrbPat June 19, 2007 PA RA L EB A L 5 KATHRYN L. RE EVE S JENNIFER G. W HIT TA LL E R I CA O. KAHN MICHELLE L. SM I T H KAREN L BM I L E N D I A NE BO SWOR T ELIZABETH O MURGN JESSICAS GUILSE RT Jane Dillon Town Clerk Town of Highland Beach 3614 S. Ocean Blvd. Highland Beach, Florida 33487 Highland Beach, Florida 33487 Re: Byrd Beach Estates Ltd v. Town cfHighland Beach RRBT File No. 107-199 Dear Robert and Jane: W e have been retainedto assist the planning and zoning board on the application for approval of a single family home to be constructed by Byrd Beach LLC. Associates. We would appreciate if you would provide us with a copy of all relevant documents to the application and previous minutes of meetings, and all relevant documentation with respect to the initial application of approval back in 1995 of the units that have been built. We would also request a copy of the relevant zoning codes provisions that were in existence at the time of the 1995 approval, and which are currently in effect as of the time of the most recent application to build a single family home at this location. Thanks for your cooperation and assistance. Bob Dawson & Jane Dillon Byrd Beach r. Highland Beach June 19. 2007 Page 2 Kindest personal regards. Very truly yours, (l" P. ROA"&e';n. GEORGE P. ROBERTS, JR. For the Firm GPR/ems cc: Leonard Townsend Dale Sugerman A JIRuden McClosky July 05, 2007 Special Counsel George "Rusty" Roberts, Esq. c/o Town of Highland Beach Town Commission 3614 South Ocean Boulevard Highland Beach, FL 33487 �_�6 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE SUITE 800 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (561) 83BAS23 FAX. (561) 5143423 JEFF. REMBAUM@ RUDEN.COM Re: Byrd Beach Estates Ad Hoc Committee position regarding Byrd Beach Estates, Ltd.'s application to construct one mega -home upon lots 3 and 6 of Byrd Beach Estates Dear Mr. Roberts This Firm represents four of six homeowners who are members of the Byrd Beach Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. (the "Association") who live within Byrd Beach Estates (the "Community"). Byrd Beach Estates, Ltd. (the "Applicant") recently filed a petition with the Town's Planning Board to construct one mega -home upon the last two remaining lots within the Community, lots 3 and 6 (the "New Mega Home"). I understand you were recently appointed as special outside counsel to the Town's Planning Board in regard to the Applicant's request. While I am certain you will review the Town's file, there are many inconsistencies that must be resolved. By no means is the information and inquiries set forth herein intended to be exhaustive. Rather, the following information and inquiries are presented to provide an overview that will serve to provide guidance while you are reviewing the records at hand. Also, to further facilitate your understanding of the underlying issues and my clients' concerns, please consider this a formal request from both my clients and myself to meet with you to further explain our position. 1) Site Plan At present, the Community does not have an Approved Final Site Plan. Table 30-4 of the Town's Code sets forth, in pertinent part that Single family attached homes and Multiple Family homes require site plan approval. A copy of the Town's records in my possession establish that on December 13, 1995 Final approval of a Preliminary Site Plan was approved by the Town's Planning Board. This is evidenced on the Town's "Transmittal Form" signed by then Planning W1313:314255:1 Special Counsel George "Rusty" Roberts, Esq. Town of Highland Beach Town Commission July 05, 2007 Page 2 Board Chairperson Robert Lowe on December 13, 1995. It appears the Town is inadvertently relying on the Preliminary Site Plan, as the actual Final Site Plan. If, during your review, you identify information to substantiate that a Final Site Plan was actually approved in accordance with the Town Code, I would appreciate if you would forward a copy of such information to my attention. In Chairperson Townsend's 2006 memorandum, Chairperson Townsend set forth that Town Attorney Sliney opined that the Community's overall layout site design that was approved by the Planning Board on December 13, 1995, was as a Residential Planned Unit Development ("RPUD"). However, the record does not substantiate same in that no site plan exists. Also, if the Community is RPUD then the Town Commission approval was required. Such approval is not part of the record. Combining lots 3 and 6 to construct a New Mega Home would require an amendment to the RPUD by way of a site plan amendment. It is most difficult to amend a site plan that does not exist. It is improper and unjust to the residents of the Community to, in hindsight, label any non -final plans an actual RPUD site plan. If a true site plan (not a landscape or utility easement plan) actually exists, then the Applicant would need to file a petition to amend it prior to applying for a building permit from the Planning Board to build one New Mega Home. 2) Implications of Single Family Attached vs. Multi -Family Dwelling Notwithstanding lack of site plan, questions present themselves whether the Byrd Beach Community was permitted as Single Family -Attached or whether the Community was permitted as a Multi -Family? The decision in the regard is critical as it is clear there are two different approval routes for the Applicant to follow depending on whether the community is Single Family Attached or Multi - Family? If the Applicant's New Mega Home is considered part of a Single -Family Attached Community then the Town's Planning Board has final approval. Notwithstanding, the Town's Code must still be followed. To build the New Mega Home the Applicant will need a variance for set back and lot coverage requirements. Because according to Section 30-40(h) of the Town Code all variances naturally expire in 18 months after issuance, to the extent previous variances were granted, they would have expired long ago. Therefore, the Applicant needs to apply for new set back and lot coverage variances. Table 30-2 of the Town Code entitled "Property Development Regulations" requires that a single-family home be built on a site that has 8,000 square feet minimum lot area per dwelling unit. Each dwelling unit can only WPB:314255:1 Special Counsel George "Rusty" Roberts, Esq. Town of Highland Beach Town Commission July 05, 2007 Page 3 cover 40% of the lot. The set backs required are front 25 feet, sides 20 feet, and rear 25 feet. The Applicant's pending application to build one home upon lots 3 and 6 must be reviewed to ensure it meets these criteria. Moreover, Section 30- 38 of the Town's Code requires site plan approval which, as discussed above, remains at issue. If the Applicant's home is considered Multi -Family then the Town Council must provide Final Site Plan approval. Table 30-2 of the Town Code requires Multi -Family homes be constructed on 3,630 square feet minimum lot area per dwelling unit. Setbacks remain the same as Single Family dwellings. Most importantly, Section -30-66(b)(5) of the Town code sets forth that the maximum building length is 180 feet. As the existing attached homes were informally measured out to approximately 170 feet, the Applicant will need a variance as to the overall length of the structure. 3) Zero Lot Line Dwellings In addition to the issues set forth above, it is also possible that due to the manner in which the Community was built -out, it could also be considered zero lot line. If so, there are additional standards that must be met. Table 30-4 of the Town Code sets forth in Section (1) that "in addition to other important requirements residential developments containing zero lot line dwellings be subdivided and platted." Also, it is possible that the Project is in need of an approval as a "special exception". Table 30-4, Section 1 also sets forth that a "residential project may contain zero lot line homes and other forms of attached... dwellings. However, the inclusion of a zero lot line home within such project shall require the entire project to be considered for approval as a special exception. [Emphasis added] On October 20, 1995 during a meeting of the Board of Adjustment, the minutes reflect that the Planning Board Members expressed a concern that the current ordinance required multi -family attached units and the plans showed separate residences. A five minute recess was held, the result of which was the Board asked the Applicant to rework the plans to show the homes attached to create a single, rather than separate units. Thereafter, on October 26, 1995 a Board of Adjustment workshop meeting was held to review the amended petition for relief from the Town Zoning ordinances under the RMM zoning designation for eight single family, attached, zero lot line residences being two stories each. During the meeting a revised site plan was submitted to the Board of Adjustment illustrating that eight homes would be attached via roof decks, walls, etc. to bring the plans into conformity with the Town Ordinance. I note there is no evidence such a site plan received final approval. WPB:314255:1 Special Counsel George "Rusty" Roberts, Esq. Town of Highland Beach Town Commission July 05, 2007 Page 4 4) Parking and Driveway Access If the Community is Multi -Family, Table 3-5 of the Town Code requires 2.25 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Currently each home only has 2 spaces located in each dwelling unit's garage. Once you have conducted an on-site inspection you will understand the dangerous condition that is created by placing one vehicle in the drive isle. Since parking, but for the garages, is non-existent with the Community, it would only take one improperly vehicle parked in the drive -isle that surrounds the Community to create a catastrophic condition. One improperly parked vehicle in the drive isle will prevent police access, fire access, and orderly ingress/egress during times of emergency. Section 2 of Table 30-5 of the Town Code provides the Town an absolute right to require a parking study where an applicant is requesting to construct a dwelling unit larger than 3000 square feet, as in the instant matter. As a matter of safety for existing Town residents and in an abundance of caution, the Town should require the parking study. The Town has the power to require off-site parking. If ever there existed a need for parking, THIS IS IT! Chairperson Townsend's December 19, 2006 memorandum also sets forth that Town Attorney Sliney opined that "the road utility and landscape easements which run through the Community are not private streets because they are not dedicated and therefore not subject to the width requirements of Section 5.4 of the 1995 Code and that the access easements were graphically indicated and dimensioned in the overall Complex Plan [which, according to Town Attorney Sliney] was treated as a RPUD and approved as an overall layout of site design" that was approved by the Planning Board on December 13, 1995. If the Community is multi -family, the Planning Board could not approve the RPUD as the Town Council is required to do so. The Town Council did not do so and my investigation did not reveal a Final Site Plan is approved and of record. The Applicant claims each home is a Single -Family Attached dwelling which only requires two parking spaces per dwelling unit. However, it appears the Community was, at least in appearance, initially approved as a singular multi- family dwelling to avoid multiple setback, square footage and lot coverage requirements. If that is the case, then 25% of required spaces must be reserved for guests. At present, there is no parking other than two spaces per home in each garage for each of the six dwelling units constructed within the Community. W PB:314255:1 Special Counsel George "Rusty" Roberts, Esq. Town of Highland Beach Town Commission July 05, 2007 Page 5 5) Variances In addition to the matters set forth above, constructing the New Mega Home upon two lots is a substantial deviation from the original approvals provided by the Town. Due to these changes all previous approvals are meaningless and inapplicable to the current application because the previous variances were granted when 8, not 7 homes were contemplated. Section 30-40(e)(2) of the Town's code requires that an applicant seeking a variance "must truly represent a hardship that is not created by the actions of the applicant." In this instant matter, the Applicant has created all hardships for which variances are needed to build the New Mega Home. The Applicant created the need for the homes to be attached, and then, when it was not practical, sought and received a variance from the Town to not connect the dwellings that are located across the drive isle. All variances regarding this project were created by the applicant in its effort to maximize the usability of the site. In this instance the Applicant actually designed the sites overall layout. Thus, it created the hardships upon itself. Hence, no variance should have been granted. 7) Fire Safety Fire Safety remains an issue. At present, there is evidence in the record which sets forth that the Fire Department's larger rescue vehicles cannot navigate the road system within the Community. Also, the Applicant's construction plans for the New Mega Home are dangerous in that a retainer wall may be too close to an emergency egress window of an existing home located within the Community. 8) Non -conforming structures and Applicant's Current Petition To the extent the Town inadvertently created a Community using both standards applicable to Single -Family Attached dwellings and Multi -Family dwellings, the existing homes should be considered non -conforming structures as such term is defined Section 30-105 of the Town Code. As to the Applicant's current petition, the applicant should be compelled to adhere to the requirement's of the Town's Code. 9) Issues For Your consideration As a result of the aforementioned issues it is hoped that you will be able to clearly answer the questions set forth below. W PB:314255:1 Special Counsel George "Rusty" Roberts, Esq. Town of Highland Beach Town Commission July 05, 2007 Page 6 i) Is there an Approved Final site Plan for the Community? If so, please identify the document and substantiate your conclusions? ii) Is the Community RPUD? If so, please identify the document and substantiate your conclusion? iii) Is the community also considered zero lot line? iv) Are the homes Community Single Family -Attached or Multi -Family? What is the basis for such an opinion? V) What are the required setbacks, lot dimension, minimum lot square footage, maximum lot coverage, height limitations, minimum parking spaces for the Applicant's New Mega Home to be constructed upon lots 3 and 6? vi) What variances are required for the Applicant to build one mega -home upon lots 3 and 6? vii) Do the correct number of parking spaces exist within the Community? viii) Do the proper number of parking spaces per dwelling unit exist? ix) Is the Community's drive isle the proper width? X) What modifications should be made to the drive isle to make it safe for the Community's residents by providing fire -rescue and police clear, unfettered access? Thank you for your consideration of the aforementioned. Please contact me to arrange for a mutually convenient time to meet and further discuss these issues. Very truly yours, For JAR/js cc: Client Town of Highland Beach, Planning Board WPB:314255:1 �- ---/ -I BYRD BEACH ESTATES LTD RE: APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT VS. THE TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY Please be advised that the undersigned counsel for Byrd Beach Estates Ad Hoc Committee, will be unavailable from September 07, 2007 through September 17, 2007, and respectfully requests that no hearings or any other matter involving this matter be scheduled during that time period. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY.CERTIFY that a true and correct copy hereof has been furnished by US Mail this j day of July, 2007 to: Special Counsel George "Rusty" Roberts, Esq., c/o Roberts Reynolds Bedard & Tuzzio P.A., 470 Columbia Drive Ste. C101 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409-1983; Town of Highland Beach Town Commission, 3614 South Ocean Boulevard, Highland Beach, FL 33487; Town of Highland Beach Town Clerk, 3614 South Ocean Boulevard, Highland Beach, FL 33487; Jane Dillon, Town of Highland Beach, 3614 South Ocean Boulevard, Highland Beach, FL 33487 Lou Caplan, Esq., 301 Yamato Road, Suite 4150, Boca Raton, FL 33431; Jason Mankoff, Esq., 102 N. Swinton Ave, Delray Beach, FL 33444; Byrd Beach Estates Ad Hoc Owners Committee, c/o Elizabeth Susskind, 2629 S. Ocean Blvd., Highland Beach, FL 33487; and Jack Caldwell, 2635 S. Ocean Blvd., Highland Beach, FL 33487. RUDEN, McCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A. 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 800 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: 561-838-4 -4, / l00 /J Fax: 5 h1-3 12 Prowl1: 014 WPB:320804:1 j5:02 PM HELLER WEAVER SHEREMETA 5612438777 P,02/02 BYRD BEACH ENTRANCE - EXIT PARKING AREA CONCEPTUAL PLAN II OPTION 4 (WITH GUARD HODS! REMOVED) 5 PARKING SPACES wuoD 1 HANDICAP SPACE rol..r is i �Nr' I F•� �WF-li POLOY J DROP EI_t1_ rK WITH GA7E r tJl wl T ACCEN1 RI AO _.... _. .. CONC I ' FIRE PtiWFR I r H4Y0RANT^..,` P< -ELF IMP p 1' NOTES'—' - 1. SKETCH PREPARED AT CLIENTS DIRECTION. 2. NO DETERMINATION MADE REGARDING LANDSCAPE SUFFERS, DRAINAGE REVISIONS, USE OF PARCEL, REQUIRED SETBACKS FOR NEW IMPROVEMENTS AND OTHER STRUCTURAL CHANGES (WALLS, GATES ETC.). NORTH SCALE_ V- 20' UN / I E�El:rnlc MLIEII Ili ANT FP i _ I RECEIVED MAR 0 81007 -- Heller -Weaver and Sheremeta, inc. °"'�� ' ... SCALE: i' - 2G• Engineers ... Surveyors and Mapp®rs DRAWN BY; W.ROLLE CHECKED BY: ----- 310 S.E.lot Street, Sults 4, Dalley Beech, Florida 33483 SHEET: 1 OF i E.B. NO. W13b 9 (581) 24.}8700 - Phone (567) 243.8777 - FBiI FILE NO. 14117.9 Town of Highland Beach 3614 SOUTH OCEAN BOULEVARD • HIGHLAND BEACH. FLORIDA 33487 Palm Beach County, Florida June 25, 2007 Mr. George P. Roberts, Jr. Roberts, Reynolds, Bedard & Tuzzio, P.A. 470 Columbia Drive, Building C-101 West Palm Beach, FL 33409 RE: Byrd Beach Estates Dear Mr. Roberts: 561-2784548 FAX 561-265-3582 N Mayor: Harold R. Hagelmann Vice Mayor. Joseph J. Asselta Commissioners: Miriam S. Zwick James W. Newill Doris M. Trinley Town Manager: Dale S. Sugarman At its Regular Meeting on June 13, 2007, the Board acknowledged the Town's engagement of you and your firm to represent the Town regarding the Byrd Beach Estates, Ltd. zoning matter. The Board received correspondence dated June 8, 2007 from Attorney Jeff Rembaum, Ruden McClosky, representing four homeowners of Byrd Beach Estates (enclosed). Mr. Rembaum feels that the Town's retention of your services is still in direct conflict since Mr. Sliney has worked with you on other matters, and with the complexities at hand, an independent counsel who is neutral should be retained. The Planning Board would like you to review subject letter and advise as to whether you feel there may be a conflict of interest or may not be able to represent the Town in light of the fact that there is some implication of a conflict of interest. Cordially, Leonard O, Townsend Chairman, Planning Board .Enclosure cc. Town Commission Planning Board Members File www.ci.highland-beach.fl.us M I (Pages 1 to 4) 3. Consor & Associates Reporting & Transcription 561.682.0905 EXHIBIT MR AJ05 Page 3 TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH 1 property located at 2637 South Ocean Boulevard, PLANNING BOARD 2 Lots 20 and 21, which is also Lots 6 and 3, Byrd SPECIAL MEETING 3 Beach Estates. Owner applicant, Byrd Beach IN RE: 4 Estates. BYRD BEACH ESTATES, 5 What we'll do is, we will adjourn the 2637 S. OCEAN BOULEVARD, LOTS 20 & 21 (6 & 3) 6 meeting to travel to Byrd Beach Estates for a site 7 visit; and once the board has made the site visit, Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8 we'll come back and reconvene the meeting. 8:47 a.m. - 12:45 p.m. 9 Now, I'd like to advise all the members, 10 that because of the Sunshine Law, we are — it is Highland Beach Commission Chambers 3614 South Ocean Boulevard 1 1 not proper for us to talk amongst ourselves about Highland Beach, Florida 33487 1 2 anything on this. Everything we talk about must PRESENT: - 13 be on the record, so it's probably best if the LEONARD O. TOWNSEND, Chairperson 14 members are just quiet when they're walking PATRICIA PEMBROKE is through there. Save your thoughts and comments LOUIS P. STERN KEN TAPMAN 16 for when we get back to the meeting and reconvene MARIE MARCHESANI 17 it, and then whatever your opinions are can be KURT T. KALBERER 18 expressed in the public forum. THOMAS E. SLINEY, Town Attorney JANE DILLON, Deputy Town Clerk 1 9 Remember, everything that we talk or say on � B Y 20 this must be expressed in the public forum. 21 So, with that, we'll adjourn the meeting. -- Reported By: 22 And I guess if we could arrange for some can to Susan Shelling, RPR, FPR 23 take us over there, Mr. Dawson can take three. Notary Public, State of Florida 24 MR. STERN: I'll be happy tojoin you. Consor & Associates Reporting and Transcription Phone - 561.682.0905 2 5 MS. MARCHESANI: The two women will come Page 2 Page 4 1 (Thereupon, the following proceedings were 1 with you. 2 had:) 2 MR. SLINEY: I'll go with you. 3 THE CLERK: You may begin, Chairman. 3 Jane, I think we can leave our — 4 MR. TOWNSEND: Okay. It is 8:47 a.m., on 4 THE CLERK: Yes, leave everything here. 5 Wednesday, April 25, 2007, and the special meeting 5 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 6 of the planning board of the Town of Highland 6 8:51 am.) 7 Beach will come to order. 7 MR. TOWNSEND: It is now 9:31 a.m., on 8 Ms. Dillon, will you call the roll. 8 Wednesday, April 25, 2007, and the Town of 9 THE CLERK: Ms. Pembroke? 9 Highland Beach special planning board meeting will 10 MS. PEMBROKE: Present. 10 now reconvene. 11 THE CLERK: Mr. Tapman? 11 The Board has been to visit the site of the 12 MR. TAPMAN: Yes. 12 application and walk around the complex, I'll call 13 THE CLERK: Ms. Marchesani? 13 it Byrd Beach Estates assemblage the complex, for 14 MS. MARCHESANI: Yes. 14 purposes of identifying it. 15 THE CLERK: Mr. Kalberer? is Some questions were talked about, and we're 16 MR. KALBERER: Yes. 16 going to try to bring those on the record. 17 THE CLERK: Mr. Stern? 17 First I wanted to read a procedure that 18 MR. STERN: Yes. 18 Town Attorney Sliney has distributed to the Board, 19 THE CLERK: And Chairman Townsend? 19 it's called the quasi-judicial hearings procedure. 20 MR- TOWNSEND: Present. 20 One: Read petition resolutions by summary 21 We'll do the pledge of allegiance. 21 and title. 22 (All present stood.) 22 Two: Open the public hearing. 23 MR. TOWNSEND: Please be seated. 23 Three: Town clerk administers oath to all 24 This is a special meeting of final review 24 who speak. 25 for construction of a new sin le -family house for 2 5 ' - Four: Town staff presentalion. Rnildmv 3. Consor & Associates Reporting & Transcription 561.682.0905 EXHIBIT MR AJ05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 5 official offers town file into the record and states file is available for inspection in the town building department. Five: The Board, which is the Planning Board, questions staff. Six: Petitioner presentation, or the applicant. Seven: Public presentation and statements or questions. Eight: Petitioner can question anyone who speaks. Other people can question. Nine: Petitioner's closing statement. Ten: Board asks questions of staff, petitioner, public. Eleven: Public hearing closes. Twelve: Motion to approve or disapprove resolution petition, and discussion ensues. And, finally, Board votes on the petition resolution. And due to the nature of this matter, we'll try to adhere to this as best we can as reasonably as possible. The petition again for the record is -- actually I'll call it application, it's final review for construction of a new single-family Page 6 house for property located at 2637 South Ocean Boulevard, Lots 20 and 21, which are also Lots 6 and 3, Byrd Beach Estates. Owner applicant is Byrd Beach Estates. I would imagine since we've opened the public hearing, we'll now move -- the town clerk or deputy town clerk, Ms. Dillon, will administer an oath to all who speaks. So anyone who would like to speak, please stand up and be swom in. THE CLERK: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God? When you come to the podium, please state your name. MR. TOWNSEND: The next portion is the town staff procedure. Before we move with the — before we have Mr. Dawson speak, 1 would like to, as chairperson of the Board, I'd like to give a very brief history of what this application has been through, has gone through, with the Planning Board here, and also correspondence that has gone back and forth between parties and the Board. For the record, this is a continuation of a review of an anDlication for final review of a new 2 (Pages 5 to 8) Page 7 1 single-family home which was previously stated. 2 This application was originally considered 3 by the Planning Board during its regular meeting 4 on April 12, 2006, for preliminary review for 5 construction of a new single-family house for 6 property located at 2637 South Ocean Boulevard, 7 Lots 20 and 21, Byrd Beach Estates. 8 Upon consideration, the Planning Board 9 recommended that applicant obtain a variance to 10 omit the bridge connection to existing residences 1 1 to the east of the subject property, which is 1 2 subject properties Lots 3 and 6, i.e., over the 1 3 internal roadway or access road. And, if 14 approved, to reappear before the Planning Board. 1 s Upon submittal to and review by the Board 16 of Adjustment, the Town Board of Adjustment on 17 July 10, 2006, the Board of Adjustment unanimously 1 s agreed to grant the motion for approval of the 19 variance number 0606-90 in connection with the 2o elimination of the attachment to the proposed new 21 dwelling on Lots 3 and 6 in Byrd Beach Estates. 22 Planning Board again reconsidered this - 2 3 application at its regular meeting on August 9, 24 2006. During that meeting, the Board approved the 25 motion. Due to the complexity of the application Page 8 1 and the issue of whether it was a single-family or 2 a multiple -family project, more information was 3 required to properly consider the application and 4 the Board agreed by a motion -- excuse me, agreed s with the applicant and homeowners to schedule a 6 special meeting on August 23, 2006, to continue 7 its consideration of the application. 8 The Board also requested during the interim 9 that applicant, homeowners and their respective 1 o attorneys contact each other to begin a dialogue 1 1 to possibly resolve some of the issues that had 12 arisen that is actually out of the jurisdiction of 13 the Board. 14 During the special meeting on August 23, 1 5 2006, the Board presented a brief history of the 16 town's review of the numerous applications and 17 meetings concerning the complex, which is the 18 entire Byrd Beach project, from initial approval 19 of the overall project site plan on December 13, 20 1995, and individual approvals for Lots 1, 2, 4, 5 21 and 8; apparently Lot 7 was never considered or 22 approved. Also input by the Delray Beach Fire 23 Department with respect to ingress by emergency 24 and fire vehicles to the complex, and 25 miscellaneous additions to the individual units in J. Consor & Associates Reporting & Transcription 561.682.0905 EXHIBIT A � aoFS Page 9 1 the complex. 2 The Board also heard comments from the 3 applicant and its attorney. The Board heard a comments from the complex homeowners, their s attorney, and a member of the general public. 6 The Board requested documents from the 7 applicant and homeowners as to what issues needed s to be resolved. 9 And, finally, the Board agreed to schedule 10 a special meeting in the future at such time 1 1 determined by applicant and acceptable to the 12 Board to continue its consideration of the 13 application. 14 On behalf of the Board, 1, Chairperson 1 5 Townsend, sent a letter dated September 11, 2006, 16 to attorneys for both sides, the applicant and the 1 7 homeowners, requesting, among other things: 18 written status report of all items on the issues 19 list, existing as -built surveys, copies of 20 Declaration of Covenants, confirmation of guest 21 parking provisions, and a scaled representation of 22 the fire department access route. 23 Rembaum on behalf of the complex 24 homeowners -- or I'll just use the term 25 homeowners -- sent a letter dated September 18, Page 10 1 2006, to Attorney Mankoff, attorney for the 2 applicant, discussing the issue of association 3 control, proposing widening the north -south q internal easement, addressing various requests in 5 Chairperson Townsend's September 11, 2006, letter, 6 and attaching a draft agreement purportedly . 7 addressing the homeowners' concerns. 6 The homeowners sent a letter dated 9 October 12, 2006, to members of the town 10 commission: myself, Town Manager Sugerman, and 1 1 others, attaching previous correspondence 12 concerning the fire department vehicle access to 1 3 the complex and advising of a demonstration by the 14 City of Delray Beach Fire -Rescue Department 1 5 scheduled to occur on October 16, 2006. 16 Lt. James H. Tabeck - 1 7 If I mispronounce that, l apologize. Is it to Tabeck? 19 LT. TABECK: Tabeck. 20 MR. TOWNSEND: - of the City of Delray 21 Beach Fire -Rescue Department sent a letter dated 22 October 17, 2006, to Chairperson Townsend and 23 others stating that as a result of the October 16, 24 2006, demonstration of emergency fire and vehicle 25 access to the complex, the primary responding i gages y w 1 cJ Page 11 a I unit, Truck 6, was not able to access the project; 2 the primary rescue, Rescue 6, would have no 3 problems accessing and maneuvering the turns in a the complex; and, three, the secondary responding 5 unit, Engine 2, from Station 2 at Andrews Avenue, 6 was also able to access and maneuver the turns in 7 the complex. 8 Additionally, the letter stated that the 9 results were the same as the demonstration 10 performed in March 1997. 1 1 Attorney Mankoff sent a letter dated 1 2 November 21, 2006, in response to Chairperson 1 3 Townsend's September 11, 2006, letter stating 14 among other things that most of all items on the, is quote -unquote, list as defined in the 16 September 11th letter and Attorney Rembaum's 17 proposed agreement are outside the jurisdiction of 1 s the Planning Board; two, an as -built survey of the 19 complex has been previously provided to the town 20 and should be in the files; the association 21 property is not relevant to the application; and 22 four, two parking spaces are provided in the 2 3 application and, as a courtesy, two additional 24 guest parking spaces near the AIA common area will 25 be considered, provided there are no conditions Page 12 1 attached. 2 The letter attached a copy of the 3 Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants to the a complex, and attached written documentation 5 evidencing the fire department has approved 6 emergency vehicle access plan. 7 A memorandum was prepared by Chairperson S Townsend and distributed to Town Attorney Sliney, 9 members of the town commission, members of the 10 Planning Board, dated December 19, 2006, 11 requesting Attorney Sliney's opinion on the 12 following issues with respect to the application: 13 One, authority of the Planning Board to review the 14 application; two, required width of private 15 streets within the complex; three, fire department 16 access to the complex; four, may the Board 1 7 condition its approval on certain homeowners is concerns contained in the draft agreement attached 1 9 to Attorney Rembaum's September 18, 2006, letter. 20 On February 6, 2007, Chairperson Townsend 21 and Town Anomey Sliney had a conversation to 22 discuss the memo, the December 19, 2006, memo; and 23 on February 12, 2007, Chairperson Townsend, Town 24 Anomey Sliney met with Building Official Dawson 2 5 to review the memorandum. J. Consor & Associates Reporting & Transcription 561.682.0905 EXHIBIT �30�5 2 3 •4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Page 13 Mr. Sliney opined as follows with respect to the four issues raised in the memo dated December 19th: First: Authority of the Planning Board to review. Section 7.4 of the code effective on December 13, 1995 -- for everyone's information, that is when the overall site plan was approved by the Planning Board, I'll call that the old code — states the town commission is the final approving body for all site plans, quote, excluding single-family dwellings. Additionally, the record has disclosed that the overall complex layout in addition to each lot site plan, of course except for Lot 7, was granted final approval by the Planning Board. Thus, Town Attorney Sliney opined that the Planning Board has primary decision-making authority to review the current application. If I misstate something, please correct this for the record. Two: Required width of complex streets: That certain Byrd Beach Fire Access Site Plan prepared by Heller -Weaver and Sheremeta, Inc., dated September 29, 2006, indicates that both east -west and the northeast -southwest paved areas Page 14 are actually road utility and landscape easements. Thus Town Attorney Sliney opined that: One, since they are not dedicated, or dedicated streets, these easements are not private streets and, thus, are not subject to regulation per Section 5.4 of the old code; and, two, these easements were graphically indicated and dimensioned on the overall complex plan, which, according to Town Attorney Sliney, was treated as an RPUD and approved as an overall layout and site design. That was approved by the Board on December 13, 1995. Fire department access: With respect to emergency vehicle access to the complex, the fire department has provided to the Board in some ways conflicting information since previous correspondence -- in previous correspondence their concerns about the design problems in the complex were raised, yet the Fire Access Site Plan was signed OK and executed by Lt. John Tomaszewski, Fire Marshal, on October 3, 2006. Finally, Board conditioning its approval: Town Attorney Sliney opined that the agreement was between the homeowners and the applicant, and the Board may not condition any approval of the 4 (Pages 13 to 16 Page 15 1 application on satisfaction of any of the 2 provisions of the agreement that are not within 3 the jurisdiction or scope of review for the 4 Planning Board. s During the February 14, 2007, regular 6 meeting, the board agreed to hold a special 7 meeting which was later agreed to occur on e April 25th, today, when the Board will first visit 9 the complex to view the existing conditions and 10 reconvene, as we're doing now. 1 1 On March 9, 2007, Chairperson Townsend 1 2 received an e-mail from Building Official Dawson 1 3 attaching a sketch dated January 15, 2005, 14 prepared by Heller -Weaver and Shererneta, Inc., 1 5 Engineers, Surveyors and Mappers, whereby the 16 applicant proposed removal of the complex's 17 existing guardhouse located adjacent to State Road 1 8 A JA's right-of-way and replace it with six parking 19 spaces, including one handicapped parking space 20 and what appears to be concrete curbs and islands. 21 On March 18, 2007, Chairperson Townsend 22 prepared and distributed to the town attorney, the 23 town commission, and all planning board members a 24 memorandum requesting a determination from the 25 town attorney as to what code should be used to Page 16 1 address the parking proposal which also contains a 2 compilation of various zoning provisions relating 3 to the parking from the old code and as compared 4 with the current code. s And on April 19, 2007, Chairperson Townsend 6 received a letter from Morris Louis Stoltz Il, 7 dated April 19th, attaching Exhibits A through G, a providing a status report with respect to 9 settlement negotiations between the applicant the 10 homeowners and Mr. Stoltz. He very clearly said 1 1 that this letter is for courtesy only. A lot of 12 these issues are not -- or many of these issues 1 3 are not within the purview of the Board; but, as a 1 4 courtesy, Mr. Stoltz wanted to let the Board know 1 s the status of the settlement negotiations. 16 Mr. Stoltz said he met with the homeowners 17 on various locations negotiating in good faith, 1 8 but was not able to reach a settlement. The 19 letter sets forth the date of meetings between the 20 parties in interest. 21 The first meeting was held on October 6, 22 2006, with Louis Caplan, Esquire, of Sachs & Saks, 23 representing the applicant; Mr. Gebhard, as the 24 homeowners' appointed representative; Mr. Rembaum, 25 Esquire. Attorney Rembaum. representing the 3. Consor & Associates Reporting & Transcription 561.682.0905 EXHIBIT :� r 39 (Pages 153 to 15,6) J. Consor & Associates Reporting & Transcription 561.682.0905 •s EXHIBIT Page 153 Page 155 -t before our lune meeting. - l (Thereupon, the proceedings were adjourned MR REMBA14 Until you -all resolve it, 2 at 12:45 p.m) we ve just agreed anyway we're going to agree to 3 do it at least three business days —.. 4 MK WEINER:'Ihiee Business days before. .... 5 6 ; ". MR REMBAUM: And maybe we can use the time 6 in between to meet again and maybe — I dont want 7 a , to abandon the notion that the parties can somehow 8 9 reach a written, workableagrcement during this g 10 interim I know you support 60L 10 1 1 - MR. TOWNSEND: The Board's heard some — 1 1 12 the Board has seen some shifting. heard 12 ' 13 some encouraging comments. If you can continue 1 3 14 . that, maybe when we meet next time, a lot of these 14 'i 1 5 issues will be dealt with mid make it easier for 1 5 ]16: Us 16 1P, As you know, this has been a ten-year - ` `1 7 is " process. Things - the intents of parties and -- ` 1 s 1,9 issues ten years ago — the memory fades, as they 19 20.. :say. _ 20 21 MR REMBAUM; We would request the ability 21 22 to at least submit to this Board consideration of 22 Z 3 questions to ask the independent counsel. So 12 3 24 can probably get those to you in time for your 24 Z5 planning board meeting anyway, if that's okay with 25 Page 154 Page 15 6 1 counsel. He may have some of his own to submit. 1 R T I F I C A T E 2" MR TOWNSEND: I'd ask that you exchange — 2 71C - - 3 - MR REMBALM: The requests for the 3 4 independent counsel that we would like you to 4 Shelling, Registered Professional 5 consider asking the independent counsel 5 Reporter,: State of Florida at Large, certify that I was 6 MR WEINER- I don't think either one of us , 6 authorized to and did stenographically report the . 7 can actually limit what is given to you So as a - 7 foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a true e - practical matter, if you probably — as best as we 8 and complete record of my stenographic notes. 9 cart, we'll do it three business days before you 9 10 can convene an ythi4. But youll be getting 10 " Dated this 7th day of May, 2007. .. ;1 1 additional materials from ».s. 1 1 12 MR. TOWNSEND: So you want to submit a list 1 2.< . 1 3 of questions, that's fine. 13 f' „ ':14 MR REMBAUM: We'll submit. 14 (. 715 MR WEINER We'll submit it. 1 5 frusan Shelling, RPR 16 MR TOWNSEND: With a list of questions for 16 1 7 independent counsel. Obviously we're going to be 17 is working to try to retain independent counsel. 18 - 19 We'd want to get those questions as soon as 19 -., 20 possible. Not three business days, if it's 20 21 possible. - 21 "... 22 MR WEINER. We hear you 22 23 MR TOWNSEND: All right. 23 24 Everyone, thank you very much for your tirne 24 25 and your patience. And thismeeting is adjourned 12 5 J. Consor & Associates Reporting & Transcription 561.682.0905 •s EXHIBIT TRANSMITTAL PORN REPORT OF REVIEW AND REQUESTED ACTION BY PLANNING BOARD/COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD TRANSMIT TO: BUILDING OFFICIAL FROM: PLANNING BOARD DATE: DECEMBER 13, 1995 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Lot 122 EAST 2625 S. OCEAN BLVD. (DOLPHIN APTS.) APPLICANT: CHARLES JOHNSON (A.H. HARRIS ENTERPRISES -OWNER) REVIEW GIVEN TO SUBJECT PROPERTY K Prelimlaary Review of Site Plan for Entire Complex and Guard House and Wall. --___Final Review Amended Site Plan Review other/Specify THE PLANNING HOARD/COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE MATTER PER THE REQUEST OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DATED AND HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING ACTION WAS TAKEN: DENIED R APPROVED (Plane Attached) FINAL APPROVAL APPROVED WITH MODIFICATIONS AS NOTED PLEASE. TAKE WHATEVER ACTION IS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE SUBJECT MATTER, i.e., ISSUE PERMIT, TRANSMIT TO TOWN, COMMISSION, RETURN PLANS TO APPLICANT, ETC. Signature of Chairman IF THE ABOVE PLANS WERE DENIED OR APPROVED WITH MODIFICATIONS. PLEASE NOTE THE BOARD'S FINDINGS For Clerk's Office Use only: . Date Reviewedt 12/13/95 Date Transmitted to Bldg. Offcial 12/15/95 1994 FVZ BIT TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, Se tember 20 2000 9:30 A.M. Chairman Alfred E. Bresnahan called the Regular Meeting to order in Commission Chambers at 9:30 A.M. Deputy Town Clerk Jane Dillon called the roll. Present were Chairman Bresnahan, Vice Chair Gerald Church, Members Neil W. Burd, Harold Hagelmann and Eugene Diliberto. Guido Teichner and Theresa Colarullo were absent. Also present were Town Attorney Thomas Sliney, Building Official Bob Dawson, and members of the general public. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Upon MOTION by MR. HAGELMANN/MR. BURR, the following sets of Minutes were unanimously approved: August 9, 2000 Regular Meeting August 9, 2000 Public Hearing August 16, 2000 Special Meeting OLD BUSINESS PRELIMINARY REVIEW FOR DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4621 SOUTH OCEAN BLVD; APPLICANT: BENEDICT GROUP, ARCHITECTS / OWNER: JACURA FLORIDA. This being a second review of subject application, Mr. Sliney offered an explanation of how the Town's code indicates that the existing, legal non -conforming garage is a separate structure from existing house, and that the Board should not take this structure into consideration when reviewing subject application. There was discussion regarding Mrs. Milani's request for relocation of the air conditioning units, per her letter to the Planning Board dated July 8, 2000. As discussed at the Planning Board Meeting of August 16, 2000, Mr. Benedict agreed to work with Mrs. Milani's requests, and reinstated that subject air units can be relocated to the west corner on the North side of the house, which would bring them away from the living quarters of Mrs. Milani's house. He also reinstated that the pool pump can be relocated to the South side of the house. As to Attorney Sliney's findings regarding the existing garage, lengthy discussion ensued whereby several members felt garage and house should be considered as one entity. After lengthy discussion, the following MOTION was made by MR. BURD/MR. DILIBERTO: FtEXHIBIT �1oF3 Planning Board Special Meeting September 20 2000 Page 2 of 2 THE PLANNING BOARD GRANTS FINAL APPROVAL FOR DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, AND THAT APPROVAL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EXISTING GARAGE, AND THAT ANY FUTURE PLANS FOR STRUCTURE CHANGE TO THE GARAGE, MUST BE BROUGHT BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4621 SOUTH OCEAN BLVD.; APPLICANT: BENEDICT GROUP / OWNER: JACURA FLORIDA. MOTION met with the following rollcall vote: Mr. Burd yes Mr. Diliberto yes Mr. Hagelmann yes Mr. Church no Mr. Bresnahan no MOTION APPROVED by a 3/2 vote. CORRESPONDENCE LETTER FROM BOCA CONTRACTING CORP RE CONNECTION OF HOUSES WITHIN l BYRD BEACH ESTATES. (attached hereto and made a part of these ✓/ minutes.) The Board discussed, and requested an updated site plan be submitted to specify heights, etc. of attachment walls and fences. The following MOTION was made by MR. CHURCH/MR. HAGELMANN: THE PLANNING BOARD REQUESTS THAT AN UPDATED SITE PLAN BE PREPARED TO REFLECT APPROVED CONDITIONS OF EXISTING SITE PLAN. MOTION met with unanimous approval. OTHER BUSINESS Due to the inability of the Byrd Beach connection renditions to be produced for above discussion, the Board made the following MOTION: The Planning Board recommends that the Town Manager request a budget item to hire a consultant. in order to identify all plans, collate and categorize them, for easy access. MOTION met with unanimous approval. With no further business to come before the Board, MOTION to adjourn was made by MR. CHURCH/MR. DILIBERTO at 10:40 a.m. EXHIBIT �`�a�3 Planning Board Special Meeting gwntpmh1P ?n. 2nnn APPROVE: Alfred E. Bresnahan, Ch. Gerald B. Church, V.Ch. Guido Teichner Harold R. Hagelmann Eugene Diliberto Neil W. Burd Theresa M. Colarullo Attest: absent absent 1 t 0 C L �� Cil L Date: �1�L �J EXHIBIT 04,"' G "`A"�,, Town of Highland Beach Thom,"J !2;• •rye/ Vice Mayor. 3 • : a % Miclmo: W. Hill o: n� eomml"ioncnl: 3614 SOUTH OCEAN BOULEVARD • HIGHLAND BEACH. FLORIDA 33487 John J. Sarreill I Robert L La.e Ilk,,, f'(DAt�t�� Rachael scala-p..I ne Palm Peach County. Florida Town Manager. FAg 581.265.356E Bm Snag February 27, 2002 Boca Contracting Corp. 301 Yamato Road, Suite 3101 Boca Raton. FL 33431 RE: Lot 2, ByTd Beach Estates, LTD. Gentlemen: An Application for a Building Permit was received for a single family residence on the above captioned lot on April 21, 1999. The Planning Board approved the site plan May 17, 1999. Building plans were reviewed and approved by the building department. The Building Permit application expired, however an extension to January 23, 2002 was granted. That extension has since expired. The proposed residence may be built according to the plans submitted and approved by the Planning Board and the building department. Any changes to the site plan, and/or elevations would need approval by the Planning Board as well as the building department. The utility casement shown on the site plan dated 11-21-01 by Heller -Weaver & Sheremeta, Inc docs not affect the approved site plan. New building permit applications must be submitted. County and local impact fees must be paid, Required County Itnpact fees as well as Highland Beach's Impact Fees and Building Permit fees must be paid prior to issuance ofBuild ung permits. Sincerely, Robert S. Davison.riding Official Town of HiLhland Beach 561 278-4540. Fax 561 278-2606 c -mail: rdawson:iilhighlandbch.com C:11001Correspon&Byrd Bch 2.doe 02/27.102 - Page 1 of I www.highlandloch.com EXHIBIT xfl'ect I PUBLIC NOTICE TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA Tuesday June 23 2009 9:00 A.M. If any matter of the Planning Board affects you and you decide to appeal any decision made at this meeting with respect to any decision made at this meeting with respect to any matter considered, you will need a record of the proceedings and, for such purposes, you may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. (The above Notice is required by State Law. Anyone desiring a verbatim transcript shall have the responsibility, at his own cost, to arrange for the transcript.) In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons who need accommodation in order to attend or participate in this meeting should contact Town Hall 561-278-4548 within a reasonable time prior to this meeting in order to request such assistance. 1. CALL TO ORDER: r Nra • Roll Call • Pledge of Allegiance 2. INSPECTION: The Planning Board will take a short recess to inspect the property of Byrd Beach Estates at 2637 S. Ocean Boulevard. 3. RECONVENE MEETING: The Public Hearing will begin at 9:45 a.m. 4. ADDITIONS. DELETIONS OR ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: 5. ELECTION OF OFFICER: • Vice Chairman 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND REQUESTS: Public Comments and Requests will be limited to five (5) minutes each. This is the designated time for the public to speak. 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: • March 6, 2009 Special meeting • April 8, 2009 Workshop meeting 8. AGENDA CASES: a. Swearing in of Staff and Applicants b. Additions/Deletions/Reordering c. Withdrawal/Postponements d. Consent e. Public Hearing 1. 2637 S. Ocean Blvd.; Byrd Beach Estates The consideration for the construction of a new single family house on lots 20 & 21 (developer lots 6 & 3). 9. OLD BUSINESS: 10. NEW BUSINESS: 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND REQUESTS RELATED TO ITEMS DISCUSSED AT MEETING: Public Comments and Requests will be limited to five (5) minutes each. This is the designated time for the public to speak. 12. ADJOURNMENT: Posted: Thursday, June 18, 2009 TOWN of HIGHLAND BEACH 3614 South Ocean Boulevard Highland Beach, FL 33487-3325 561 278-4540 Fax 561 278-2606 THIS ST BE AT WORK SITE EAT ALL TAMES. INO INSPECTIONS WILL BE PER HIS PE IS NOT 'VAD IF TLABLE RMI Building Permit CONSTRUCTION WORKING HOURS Page 1 of 2 8 AM - 6PM MON-SAT ONLY Permit Number: BP -21296 NO WORK ON HOLIDAYS Printed 3/23/2009 Applicant Name:_ Company: BOCA CONTRACTING CORPORATION Address: 301 YAMATO ROAD, SUITE 3101 BOCA RATON. FL 33487 Phone: 561-998-3311 Fax: 561-997-7388 Parcel Address: 2637 S. OCEAN BLVD LOTS 3 & 6 HIGHLAND BEACH, FL Addition: BYRD BEACH Owner Name: BYRD BEACH ESTATES LTD Address: 2637 S. OCEAN BLVD LOT 21 HIGHLAND BEACH, FL 33487 Contractor Type: General Company: BOCA CONTRACTING CORPORATION Address: 301 YAMATO ROAD #3101 BOCA RATON, FL 33431 Phone: 561-998-3311 Fax; 561-997-7388 Construction Value : $750.000.00 Structure Use : Purpose: New SF Residence Total Fees: Total Receipts : Approved By: Approval Date: Parcel # : PARC -3550 Zone: Phone : 561-998-3311 Local License: REG -174 State License: CGC1510846 Workmans Comp Insurance: YES Cell: 561-371-3690 Start Date : End Date: ALL PERMITS REQUIRE A FINAL INSPECTION TO CLOSE PERMIT $700.00 $700.00 Building Permit Permit Number: BP -21296 Floor Areas Living Space: Basement/Storage : Garage : Decks : Porches : Other: Total Area: CONSTRUCTION WORKING HOURS 8 AM - 6PM MON-SAT ONLY NO WORK ON HOLIDAYS Structure Area Site Area Percent of Site Page 2 of 2 Printed 3/23/2009 Impervious Surfaces House: Garage: Driveways : Porch/Walk : Other: Total : ALL PERMITS REQUIRE A FINAL INSPECTION ALL PERMITS EXPIRE 180 CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE LAST APPROVED INSPECTION. REINSTATEMENT OF AN EXPIRED PERMIT REQUIRES A FIFTY DOLLAR ($50.00) FEE. FAILURE TO CALL FOR A FINAL INSPECTION WILL RESULT IN A FIFTY DOLLAR ($50.00) FEE. KNOW THE FLORIDA LITTER LAW FLORIDA STATUTES 403.413 COMMERICAL ILLEGAL DUMPING IS A 3RD DEGREE FELONY WHICH CAN BE PUNISHED BY IMPRISONMENT, FINES, FOREFITURE OF EQUIPMENT, AND CIVIL PENALITIES NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO APPLICATION, INSPECTION RECORD CARD, THIS PERMIT, PLANS AND DRAWINGS, PRODUCT APPROVALS, ETC. ISSUED WITH THIS PERMIT MUST BE AT THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES. NOTE: ALL CONTRACTORS (INCLUDING SUB -CONTRACTORS) MUST HAVE A VALID REGISTRATION WITH THE TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH. (NOTE: 1099 INDIVIDUALS ARE CONSIDERED SUB -CONTRACTORS.) IF ANY CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUB -CONTRACTORS LICENSE AND/OR INSURANCE IS NOT UP TO DATE WE WILL NOT SCHEDULE ANY INSPECTIONS FOR THAT PERMIT. NOTICE: IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PERMIT, THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY THAT MAY BE FOUND IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF THIS COUNTY, AND THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL PERMITS REQUIRED FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES SUCH AS WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS, STATE AGENCIES OR FEDERAL AGENCIES. ALL SUB -TRADE WORK MUST BE DONE BY CONTRACTORS PROPERLY LICENSED FOR THE TYPE OF WORK THEY ARE PERFORMING. SEC. 16-3. PARKING ON RIGHT-OF-WAY. IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY MOTOR VEHICLE AS DEFINED IN F.S. § 320.01(1)(A) TO BE PARKED ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR ANY STREET, ROAD OR HIGHWAY WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE TOWN EXCEPT THOSE VEHICLES IN DISTRESS, THOSE COMMONLY DESIGNATED AS EMERGENCY VEHICLES, OR UNLESS SPECIAL PERMISSION IS GRANTED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. IT SHALL FURTHER BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY MOTOR VEHICLE TO PARK ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IN ANY AREA WHICH IS NOT A PAVED PARKING SPACE APPROVED BY THE TOWN. (CODE 1972, § 27-2; ORD. NO. 638,12-7-93) Rev :7/17/2008 ALL PERMITS REQUIRE A FINAL INSPECTION TO CLOSE PERMIT TRANSMITTAL FORM REPORT OF REVIEW AND REQUESTED ACTION BY PLANNING BOARD TRANSMIT TO, BUILDING OFFICIAL DATE: April 20, 2006 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 2637 S. Ocean Blvd. Lots 20 & 21 APPLICANT/OWNER: Byrd Beach Estates REVIEW GIVEN TO SUBJECT PROPERTY _ Preliminary Review X Final Review for construction of a new house _ Amended Site Plan Review Other/specify THE PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE MATTER PER THE REQUEST OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND HEREBY CERTIFIES THAT THE FOLLOWING ACTION WAS TAKEN X DENIED APPROVED/FINAL _ APPROVED WITH MODIFICATIONS AS NOTED OTHER/SPECIFY PLEASE TAKE WHATEVER ACTION IS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE SUBJECT MATTER, i.e., ISSUE PERMIT, TRANSMIT TO TOWN COMMISSION, RETURN PLANS TO APPLICANT, ETC. Signature of Chair an IF THE ABOVE PLANS WERE DENIED OR APPROVED WITH MODIFICATIONS, PLEASE NOTE THE BOARD'S FINDINGS: Suggested applicant go before the Board of Adjustement with a request for a variance to omit bridge connection to the two beach houses. Application tabled until applicant goes before the BOA. For clerk's office use only: Date reviewed by Plan.Bd: 04112106 Date transmitted to Bldg. official: 04120106 04-07-'06 14:50 FROM -Highland Beach Build 5612782606 T-583 P001/002 P-090 Town of Highland Beach Application for Site Plan Review Planning 9gsk1 M��he Samnd Wadnesdw of ttte month at 9'.30M& AeplicaNan must bs re�lvad no laterow 3 weeks odor Oo meetlna Wits Plan RgjMMF 2 fot u r m n. 8uhmieal Req rertnnfs�p I on reverse. Pronerty L-01 ion: stmotAddress:_ ��— ;4GCA Ll/D• Block T K Subdivision:jagirp 2 /[ Q AG STif� Property Control Number; _ . 45 7v �?_QQ eaI�A LGM Telopbone:.Pax: _ S6/ 997 754PP _._ 9 35'8 AnlieantInformation:(if roamasabovesoIndieete) Applicant: idae- ,-- Iatephone: AtChitoot: _ Address: -� Telephone: Now Construction: eAlterstions: Describe:._ tL 5 u !e Applicant Signature: _ — Pax. U above re indioate) Fax: S6! __ Demolition _ MICAM lAolPhiu: -- Request For: Meeting on: _ Application # __ Preliminary Review: _ final Raview:_ Amonded Site Plan: —Other: . QPlans mast Town of Highland Reach Zoning sad other govegmeatnl ggenciea mquinaneuts. flans meet Town of Highland Bud Zoning requirements, however approvals aro ponding with other govarnnmtal egeneias. Plans do not meet Towa of'liighland Roach Zoning requitemenas• Building Department: —_ ` Z Date: W.%Falsal7mmkjg eoW AppficsUan don RSD 01 Radwd: 12114104 ` page 1 of 2 W/L0 -tovd 4jac 80hLE6Zi99 IV40 900UL.0/00 04.07-'06 14:50 FROM -Highland Beach Build 5612782606 T-583 P002/002 F-090 Town of Highland Beach Application for Site Plan Review Page 2 Mipimu� Ql submittal R€9 i'eipents for App—he-S ion: (Other requirements may apply, ace Chapter 30, Art icla to Section 3) 2.0 Architxturai elevations, dimeaaioned site plan, landscaping plan, drehwge Study. exterioi fighting details, location of walla and driveways, location of pools, site wells, etc. IDEAWge Provisiana Site Lighting Plan Landecape and irrigation Plan ey (one year old maximum) Water impact Study Affidavit of Autberizatlon if Applicant is not owner �W:Dead or other Pmol ofOwneatihip Separate Application Required for Signs AO Separate Application Stnquirad for Sales Trailmi. Saparato Application liequirad for Construction Trailers and /or 5tofage Containers, (May be promsed with Site Plan revidw as one application if roqutatad) H:ft"%Asmrlo4BoardApproaii0n.decRenslotnavh"IV14104 Paye go( 2 V9/E9 39Vd ajaa 80PLEOZ199 iS:LO 900Z/Le/00 Page 1 of 3 Karen Sauers From: Dale Sugarman Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 2:20 PM To: Geoffrey Vanore; Karen Sauers Subject: FW: Byrd Beach Estates Attachments: app 4 site plan rev. pdf Here is more background material on Byrd Beach Estates. From: George P. Roberts, Jr. [mailto:rroberts@rrbpa.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 2:18 PM To: Dale Sugerman Subject: RE: Byrd Beach Estates Dale Attached is a copy of the application for site plan review. It lists the docs that are to be submitted for review. Rusty From: Dale Sugerman [mailto:DSugerman@ci.highland-beach.fl.us] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:36 PM To: George P. Roberts, Jr. Cc: Geoffrey Vanore; Tom Forbes; Karen Sauers Subject: RE: Byrd Beach Estates Rusty - We do seem to be on the same page, but for one thing. We have not been able to find anywhere in the Building Department an application, nor any plans, for the proposed single family home. Therefore, I cannot confirm that there is a "house site plan presently submitted°. Geoff Vanore is our current Building Official, and Karen Sauer is our Building Department Office Manager. Via a copy of this e-mail message, I am asking both of them to search our records to see if they can find a house site plan for the proposed single family home on the two vacant lots. After they have completed their record search, I would like them to respond to the two of us via e-mail. Thanks, Dale From: George P. Roberts, Jr. [mailto:rroberts@rrbpa.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:00 PM To: Dale Sugerman Subject: RE: Byrd Beach Estates Dale Thanks for your input. 3/12/2009 Page 2 of 3 We have received the transcripts of the PZB meetings of August 9, 2006, August 23, 2006 and April 25, 2007 We are mailing them to Bev Brown for printing and distribution. From our brief review, it appears what is being considered by the PZB is a final review of a house site plan to build one single family home on lots 3 & 6. Bob Dawson stated on several occasions at these meetings that he approved the house site plan as being consistent with the zoning code in 1995. He states that the "plans" are on file at the Building Department. See the attachment which is from pages of the first meeting on 8/9/2006. My assumption is that the applicant's site plan was amended to show removal of the bridge per the variance granted; but I presently don't know what it shows. Thus, since this particular home site plan needs PZB or "town board" approval, all that is being considered is whether what is being proposed as a site plan for a single family home is consistent with the 1995 over all site plan and any other areas of concern that are typically considered by the PZB (e.g. Fire Department access). The PZB is not considering the granting or denial of a variance since those are determined by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. In April 2006, it appears that the PZB suggested to the applicant that since this bridge presented a FD access problem that an application for variance be requested. It was and was approved by the BOAA in July 2005. At the last meeting, I made sure that the applicant was advised that under the Town code, this variance had expired with the passage of 18 months since the approval without commencing construction or getting a building permit. If the house site plan presently submitted does not show a connection, then that could be a basis for denial by the PZB since the plan is not consistent with the previously approved overall development site plan. If it does show a connection, then it would be consistent with the overall site plan, but may or may not still be an FD concern. I think it would be helpful it the present Building Official produce the applicant's site plan on file and determine what it shows with respect to the connection. Throughout the various meetings, the applicant (who has the same principals as the overall developer) has taken the position that the objectors are claiming that changes need to be made to the overall site plan (which was approved in December 1995), which simply is not relevant to the approval of this house site plan. The applicant (developer) has offered a number of concessions, but it does not appear that they have appeased the objectors. Rusty Roberts From: Dale Sugerman [mailto:DSugerman@ci.highland-beach.fl.us] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:21 PM To: George P. Roberts, Jr. Cc: Geoffrey Vanore; Valerie Oakes; Tom Forbes Subject: Byrd Beach Estates Rusty - I just came from a Building Department staff meeting where we discussed the status of the Byrd Beach Estates matter that is pending before the Planning Board. I would like to share with you what our collective thoughts are: 1) There is an approved site plan (approved on December 13, 1995). 2) A total of eight lots were on that approved site plan. There are two easternmost lots which are separated by an internal "roadway" from the 6 westemmost lots; however the approved site plan shows a "bridge" attaching the eastern and western units in order to meet the imposed covenant that all of the units, once constructed, must be attached. 3) The approved site plan, including language imposed by the Planning Board giving that approval, mandates via a recorded Declaration of Covenants that each unit in the "Mediterranean style village" may be constructed individually, but that before complete build out, all of the units would have to be attached. The Town does not have a copy of the recorded Declaration of Covenants. 3/12/2009 Page 3 of 3 4) Sometime between 1995 and 2006, four attached units were constructed at the western end of the development, two attached units were constructed at the eastern end of the development, and presently there are two remaining unimproved lots between these two sets of attached units (one with four units and one with two units). 5) The developer was granted a variance to eliminate the "bridge" attaching the easternmost group of units to the westernmost group of units; however, the bridge was never constructed because the two empty lots have not been improved (there is nothing for this "bridge" to attach to at the present time). 6) The variance to eliminate the "bridge" has since expired. 7) The developer is planning on asking for approval to construct one single family home on the two remaining lots. It seems to staff that if the developer would like to build what was approved by the Planning Board on December 13, 1995 (as per the approved site plan), then he can come into the Building Department and obtain a construction permit. However, if he wants to deviate from that approved site plan, he will need to provide us with a set of drawings and an application to deviate from that approved site plan (December 13, 1995). Our sense is that the developer wants to build something other than what has been approved by the Planning Board. Therefore, we are taking the position that he will need to submit an updated set of plans for review, and possibly an application for a variance should he not want to build a "bridge" as is called for in the December 13, 1995 approval. Of course, I would be happy to discuss this with you further. You can always reach me via e-mail or call me at Town Hall at 561-278-4548. Regards, Dale 3/12/2009 Page 1 of 2 Karen Sauers From: Dale Sugerman Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:39 PM To: Geoffrey Vanore; Karen Sauers Subject: FW: Byrd Beach Estates Attachments: 8 9 2006 pzb trans.pdf The prior message sent to you on Byrd Beach Estates did not have the transcript document attached. This forwarded message does. The transcript seems to indicate that Bob Dawson said on the record that this single family home application was on file in the Building Department. Please see what you can do to find itl Thanks, Dale From: George P. Roberts, Jr. [mailto:rroberts@rrbpa.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:00 PM To: Dale Sugerman Subject: RE: Byrd Beach Estates Dale Thanks for your input. We have received the transcripts of the PZB meetings of August 9, 2006, August 23, 2006 and April 25, 2007. We are mailing them to Bev Brown for printing and distribution. From our brief review, it appears what is being considered by the PZB is a final review of a house site plan to build one single family home on lots 3 & 6. Bob Dawson stated on several occasions at these meetings that he approved the house site plan as being consistent with the zoning code in 1995. He states that the "plans" are on file at the Building Department. See the attachment which is from pages of the first meeting on 8/9/2006. My assumption is that the applicant's site plan was amended to show removal of the bridge per the variance granted; but I presently don't know what it shows. Thus, since this particular home site plan needs PZB or "town board" approval, all that is being considered is whether what is being proposed as a site plan for a single family home is consistent with the 1995 over all site plan and any other areas of concern that are typically considered by the PZB (e.g. Fire Department access). The PZB is not considering the granting or denial of a variance since those are determined by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. In April 2006, it appears that the PZB suggested to the applicant that since this bridge presented a FD access problem that an application for variance be requested. It was and was approved by the BOAA in July 2005. At the last meeting, I made sure that the applicant was advised that under the Town code, this variance had expired with the passage of 18 months since the approval without commencing construction or getting a building permit. If the house site plan presently submitted does not show a connection, then that could be a basis for denial by the PZB since the plan is not consistent with the previously approved overall development site plan. If it does show a connection, then it would be consistent with the overall site plan, but may or may not still be an FD concern. I think it would be helpful it the present Building Official produce the applicant's site plan on file and determine what it shows with respect to the connection. 3/12/2009 Page 2 of 2 Throughout the various meetings, the applicant (who has the same principals as the overall developer) has taken the position that the objectors are claiming that changes need to be made to the overall site plan (which was approved in December 1995), which simply is not relevant to the approval of this house site plan. The applicant (developer) has offered a number of concessions, but it does not appear that they have appeased the objectors. Rusty Roberts From: Dale Sugerman [mailto:DSugerman@ci.highland-beach.fl.us] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:21 PM To: George P. Roberts, Jr. Cc: Geoffrey Vanore; Valerie Oakes; Tom Forbes Subject: Byrd Beach Estates Rusty - I just came from a Building Department staff meeting where we discussed the status of the Byrd Beach Estates matter that is pending before the Planning Board. I would like to share with you what our collective thoughts are: 1) There is an approved site plan (approved on December 13, 1995). 2) A total of eight lots were on that approved site plan. There are two easternmost lots which are separated by an internal 'roadway" from the 6 westemmost lots; however the approved site plan shows a "bridge" attaching the eastern and western units in order to meet the imposed covenant that all of the units, once constructed, must be attached. 3) The approved site plan, including language imposed by the Planning Board giving that approval, mandates via a recorded Declaration of Covenants that each unit in the "Mediterranean style village" may be constructed individually, but that before complete build out, all of the units would have to be attached. The Town does not have a copy of the recorded Declaration of Covenants. 4) Sometime between 1995 and 2006, four attached units were constructed at the western end of the development, two attached units were constructed at the eastern end of the development, and presently there are two remaining unimproved lots between these two sets of attached units (one with four units and one with two units). 5) The developer was granted a variance to eliminate the "bridge" attaching the easternmost group of units to the westernmost group of units; however, the bridge was never constructed because the two empty lots have not been improved (there is nothing for this "bridge" to attach to at the present time). 6) The variance to eliminate the "bridge" has since expired. 7) The developer is planning on asking for approval to construct one single family home on the two remaining lots. It seems to staff that if the developer would like to build what was approved by the Planning Board on December 13, 1995 (as per the approved site plan), then he can come into the Building Department and obtain a construction permit. However, if he wants to deviate from that approved site plan, he will need to provide us with a set of drawings and an application to deviate from that approved site plan (December 13, 1995). Our sense is that the developer wants to build something other than what has been approved by the Planning Board. Therefore, we are taking the position that he will need to submit an updated set of plans for review, and possibly an application for a variance should he not want to build a "bridge" as is called for in the December 13, 1995 approval. Of course, I would be happy to discuss this with you further. You can always reach me via e-mail or call me at Town Hall at 561-278-4548. Regards, Dale 3/12/2009 Town of Highland Beach Application for Site Plan Review Piannina Board Miaetg the Second Wednesday of ft%—MMAAxMII J a nt• 9tten meat ba received ruf later than 3 weeks Drier to meeonn, Site Plan Review Fee is gel OD fora reoular meebno. submitted Recuirements are distad on reverse. kr UM Location: Street Address:—� S. OGCIt1 %fLUD Block:__ Lot. Subdivision:—Oyirpe+4r,b Mf d property Control Number; _24 .41 LO —MO -42M Owner: 0t—� Address: 3bfJ✓b n+aTo Ro Sol t % 3 0 Telopbenei-tri_Fax: i6/ p97 -75A 1 cant Information: (it same as above so Wichte) Applicant: -7 SAiee Telephone: Architect: .Fax: so indium) FWLIOZAMO Telephone: rrj/' 9j �' �/ Fax: S6! ` New Construction:Alterations: Describe; AJ 4W 91A; SI (le Applicant Signature: Addition: _— Demolition , l3oadlft/D8lphiu: Date: Request irkr: Meeting on: _ Application #_— preliminary Review: _ Final Review --`Amended Site Plan: —Otter! — 0 phe as meet Town of highland Beach Zoning and other goverarnental 49eacies roquirvmerusEl . Plans mem Town of highland Beach ZOWA9 raquimnWs, however approvals are pealing with other governmental agencies. El plans do not most Town of Highland Beach Zoning requirements Building Department: H-.W,MJPlanNng Board Appaeaaon doe RSD 6101 Revind: 12n4104 Page t of 2 Date: w.". -r I I"I nnw. rs.vrnr +r •,n annv nnren Town of Highland Beach Application for Site Plan Review Page a Minimumt i�eutdremen for Application: (Other requirements may apply, see Chapter 30, Article III Section 3) 0-011Thrtecurral elevations, dimensioned site plan, landscaping plan, drainage study, exterior lighting details, location of walks and driveways, location of pools, site walla, etc Dtauwge Provisions Site Lighting Plan _.. ,Landscape and Irrigation Plan urvey (one year old maximum) Water Impact Study ^ Affidavit of'Authotiaation if Applicant is not owner Deed or other Proof of Ownership Separate Application Required for Signs Separate Application Required for Sales Irailers, Separate Application Required forConstruction Trailers and /or Storage Containers (May be processed with Site Plan review as ono application if'requested ) i j4..W rmelPlennlnp Board AppN own.dw RSD 01 Revived! I WW04 Pope 2 of 2 2,2`G Page 27 1 we'll read from Tab A, or Exhibit A; that is the 2 meeting on Wednesday December 13, 1995. The 3 following conditions the developer will file 4 amongst the public records of Palm Beach County: 5 Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants or such 6 other documents that the town attorney approves. 7 So possibly that meant either Declaration 8 of Covenants and Restrictions or another document 9 that you would approve. It didn't seem -- correct 10 me if I'm wrong, it doesn't seem like you had to 11 approve the Dec. 12 MR. SLINEY: No, not at all. 13 MR. TOWNSEND; And let the record reflect 14 that the Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants 15 has what appears to be a recorder's stamp, May 24, 16 1996, at 9:13 a.m., Official Record Book 9276 at 17 page 1601 for the Declaration of Restrictive 18 Covenants for Byrd Beach Estates Homeowners 19 Association. So it appears that that condition 20 has been satisfied many, many years ago. 21 Now -- I'm a little out of breath here. 22 I'd like to ask now the town staff, 23 Building Official Dawson: The question would be, 24 of course, is the application meeting all the 25 restrictions and requirements of the town code and J. Consor & Associates Reporting & Transcription 561.682.0905 Page 28 1 1 building code and anything within your 2 jurisdiction? 3 MR. DAWSON: First, I'm Bob Dawson, I'm the 4 building official. 5 Second, you just asked me a multipoint 6 question. I do have all the records. 7 MR. TOWNSEND: Compound question. 8 MR. DAWSON: I do have all the records 9 here. The records are available in the Building 10 Department, have been for some time. Many of the 11 folks involved in this have come in and looked at 12 them from time to time. 13 To answer your other part of the question, 14 to my knowledge, this application will meet zoning 15 codes for that place. 16 The other half of the question you asked 17 me: Does it meet the building codes? I've not 18 reviewed it in-depth in the building codes. 19 That's something we do in the Building Department 20 prior to issuance of a permit after the Planning 21 Board approves. We don't get involved in that at 22 this point. 23 MR. TOWNSEND: So for zoning code -- 24 MR. DAWSON: Yes, sir. 25 MR. TOWNSEND: -- it meets the requirements 1. Consor & Associates Reporting & Transcription 561.682.0905 Page 29 1 of the town? 2 MR. DAWSON: To the best of my knowledge, 3 yes, sir. 4 MR. TOWNSEND: All right. And of course 5 the file is available for inspection in the town 6 Building Department -- 7 MR. DAWSON: That is correct, sir. 8 MR. TOWNSEND: -- for anyone. 9 Okay. I've just been passed a note, the 10 fire department, Mr. Tomaszewski, must leave by 11 eleven. if it's okay with everyone, could we have 12 the fire department speak first? Is that okay? 13 MR. WEINER: It's all right with me. 14 MR. TOWNSEND: Is it okay with all sides? 15 Thank you. 16 Please identify yourself. 17 ASST. FIRE CHIEF TCMAS2EWSKI: My name is 18 John Tomaszewski. I'm assistant fire chief/fire 19 marshal for the City of Delray Beach Fire -Rescue 20 Department which provides contract service here in 21 the Town of Highland Beach. 22 Going back in the history of this 23 subdivision, this site in question, we objected 24 early on into the development of this project as 25 to its access and the maneuverability for our J. Conor & Associates Reporting & Transcription 561.682.0905