1999.09.08_PB_Minutes_Regular
• TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH
PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Wednesdav, September 08, 1999 9.30 A M
Chairman Alfred E. Bresnahan called the Regular Meeting to order in
Commission Chambers at 9:30 A.M.
Town Clerk Doris Trinley called the roll. The Chairman, Vice
Chairman Myron S. Browner and Members Harold R. Hagelmann, Gerald
Church, Victor P. Hadeed and Eugene Diliberto were present. Vice
Chairman Guido Teichner was absent.
Town Attorney Thomas E. Sliney and Building Official Robert S.
Dawson were also present, as were members of the general public.
NEW BUSINESS
PRELIMINARY REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED
GARAGE/STORAGE BUILDING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2444 S. OCEAN
BLVD., BYRD BEACH, LOT 11A. APPLICANT: JOHN D. CONWAY, ARCHITECT;
OWNER: ALLEN & CHRISTINE GARDNER.
• Mr. Conway advised the owners had acquired 50' of property adjacent
to their existing property and planned to add a building to serve
as garage/storage, with a small sitting area on the Intracoastal.
Chairman Bresnahan questioned if a permit had been issued for a
wall that had been removed in preparation for the project. The
Building Official said there was an oversight in this regard, but
that the issue would be rectified.
Members convened to the table to review plans and, concluding
review, MOTION was made by MR. HAGLEMANN/MR. BROWNER to give final
approval to the protect as presented. Motion met with unanimous
favorable vote.
PRELIMINARY REVIEW FOR DEMOLITION OF EXISTING RESIDENCE AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 4229 TRANQUILITY DRIVE, LOT 17/BLOCK 4. APPLICANT: JOHN D.
CONWAY, ARCHITECT; OWNER: PETE AND ANNA HARBIN.
Mr. Conway gave an overview of the project and, after brief
discussion, Members convened to the table to review plans.
Concluding review, MOTION by MR. BROWNER/MR. HADEED to give the
project final approval met with unanimous favorable vote.
OTHER
• Vice Chairman Browner initiated discussion of a letter recently
addressed to Chairman Bresnahan by Vice Chairman Teichner
pertaining to work recently undertaken by the Board with planning
consultant Marty Hodgkins of Duncan Associates as regards single
family building heights.
Minutes of Planning Board Regular Meeting
September 08, 1999 Paae 2 of 2
• (Note: Mr. Hadeed had also submitted a letter on this issue to the
Town Commission on August 26 and same was also referred to in
discussion; Mr. Teichner submitted his letter to Chairman Bresnahan
on August 31 and Mr. Bresnahan subsequently read it into the record
at the Town Commission August 31 Workshop Meeting.)
MOTION by MR. HAGELMANN/MR. CHURCH that discussion be tabled until
Mr. Teichner was present failed due to split vote as follows:
Chairman Bresnahan......No Mr. Diliberto...Yes
Vice Chairman Browner...No Mr. Church......Yes
Mr. Hadeed ..............No Mr. Hagelmann...Yes
Lengthy discussion took place among the members, with differing
opinions being offered on the content of both letters, as well as
the way each was presented. Town Attorney Sliney offered some
historical background regarding zoning/building in Town. Mayor
Reid, who had observed the meeting, also offered his comments,
thanking the Members for their efforts on the Town's behalf and a
job well done.
A COPY OF MR. HADEED'S AUGUST 26 LETTER AND MR. TEICHNER'S AUGUST
31 LETTER ARE ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE PART OF THESE MINUTES.
ADJOURNMENT
• There being no further business to come before the Board at this
time, Chairman Bresnahan adjourned the Regular Meeting at 10:45
A.M. upon MOTION by MR. HADEED/MR. DILIBERTO.
dmt
APPROVE:
Al ed E. Bresnahan, Chairman
Guido Teichner, Vice Chairman
Harold Hagelm nn
•
Attest:
~- fJ c
_~~ 6 ~.t
yron Browner, Vice Chairman
Victor P. Hadeed
ug~ne Diliberto
Gerald B. Church
r~
Guido Teichner
4740 S Ocean Blvd - #1210
Boca Raton, FL 33487-5361
(561)395-1188 FAX (561)395-1149
E-Mail: sybarite99@yahoo.com
August 31, 1999
Plr. A! Bresnahan
Chairman
Planning Board
Town of Highland Beach
Dear Mr. Chairman:
After yesterday's special meeting I did not have time to discuss with
you my concerns about the recent events surrounding the consultant, hired
to assist the Planning Board in revamping the entire Town Zoning
Ordinance. I am leaving on an extended trip this morning and will be unable
to attend the next series of meetings on this matter, but I would like to
• express my position, as well as convey the information to the Commission.
Firstly, 1 am disturbed by the process. To review the history, the Board
way presented with a request to review the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to
building heights some time last Spring, deemed urgent by the Commission.
The Board responded in a timely manner with a recommendation that was
unanimously approved and submitted to the Commission, That
recommendation eliminated any ambiguity in the code and clearly and
completely addressed the concerns of the Commission for forthcoming
applications. Nevertheless the commission was swayed by a different
recommendation expressed by our building official that was not in
agreement with our Board's duly considered recommendation. One arrived
a utter considering the building officials comments and point of view. The
uo~~=mission elected to send the matter back to our Board for further
c~: =sideration with the comments that we should rather revamp the entire
~o~e ail at once. Our Board proceeded with this larger undertaking and
be~;ar. the process by inviting the building official from another similar
co nrnunity to give us some guidance.
• The commission then recommended that we retain a Consultant to
.~ .~ • Ir
expedite the process as well as getting the benefit of professional guidance.
We evaluated several potential consultants and recommended that Duncan
Associates as our first choice, to be retained as Consultants to the Planning
Board to develop a complete new Zoning Ordinance.
No sooner had this process commenced than a new request came
down from the Commission to expedite a recommendation for dealing with
height issues prior to a complete proposal for revising the Zoning
Ordinance. We were back where we started in the Spring, trying to plug a
hole in the dam with toilet paper again. Nevertheless we responded and
reviewed the consultant's recommendations, which included several options
for dealing with the problem. Our Board voted to submit a recommendation
to the Commission in a very specific manner that was voted upon, I believe
~~he vote was 6-1. Again, someone has been trying to do an end run around
us. This time it appears to be the consultant who has been communicating
directly with the building official and the Commission with HIS
recommendations, completely bypassing our Planning Board.
1t appears to me that the consultant, hired by the Commission is
• working for the Commission and the entire presentation being submitted to
our Planning Board is simply for cosmetics and just to have us act as their
rubber stamps. I feel that we are being manipulated.
`that concept totally subverts the purpose of having a separate Planning
Board to review and recommend these matters. I submit that the Planning
Board has individuals at this time who are eminently qualified, with
Engineering degrees and technical backgrounds, to review and recommend
a proper Zoning Code that is unambiguous, and should eliminate the need
fer s;sbmittals to the Board of Adjustment for variances. Clearly, it is the
Cor;~~i~nissions prerogative to accept or reject the Board's recommendations,
as ~.he Commission is the one legally responsible for enacting the Zoning
cde and amendments to it. We just recommend. However, I cannot,
acs apt the apparent posture that we are expected to recommend what they
v~~artt even if it is contrary to our collective expressed desires. I have to
bey; eve that if our 7 individuals who are independent, express a collective
~s~fir;$ cf view, it should be deemed as representative of something and it
~~,,~.u1d be given some credence.
• ~~.~~. ~~: ;Vlr Hadeed's letter of August 26th, which only reached me
~, , ' .
~.
incidentally„ it is clear to me that Mr.Hadeed, in league with some members
• of the Commission has a viewpoint that more and bigger is better and their
goal appears to be monetary, and to increase property values for purposes
that are not clear to me. Perhaps some of these individuals will gain by
increased values either from sales of their own properties or from earnings
sucr as sales commissions?
I believe our Planning Board's mandate is to make Highland Beach a
wondertul place to live in for the people living here now and to preserve a
good quality of life for our present constituency. It is not our purpose to
increase property values. {t is not our purpose to make sure that purchasers
of highly priced properties get maximum usage of their property. We have
no obligation to people who are purchasing property in Highland Beach.
They must do so with their eyes open. Caveat Emptor. It is not our purpose
to increase the tax revenues of the Town which is abundantly endowed at
this time with a secure tax base for the foreseeable future. Again, bigger is
not better. Getting more mansions and effectively squeezing out the old-
timers is not what it is all about, and that is what is happening defacto as a
by-product of the growth. There is no god-given right to build a 12 story
• mansion on top of the dunes.
I suggest that we need to all take a long hard look at what we are doing and
why. I don't think we should rush ahead with a new Zoning Ordinance till we
are clear on what it is that we want to accomplish. 1 suggest that the
consultant be directed to prepare a COMPLETE Zoning Code, that is
consistent with practices widely adopted by other similar communities. Upon
its completion a draft should be presented to the Planning Board which we
car, alter to comply with our views, but a usable format would be established
to form the basis for review. At that time the planning Board should
schedule afull-day Workshop together with the Town Commission to create
a jingle forum that will air all the opinions that have been flying around, and
su;: c.ue some of the anger and get a workable result that can be enacted.
! d~epiy regret that I will be unavailable till October 25th to participate in this
i~-;i_~~r~ant matter.
din rely, , ~i' ./
~~
~.c~ ';arming Board members ~~ ~ ~-~iC. ~2
.
t7~5
* Victor P. Hadeed
3201 South Ocean Boulevard No. 502
Highland Beach, Florida 33487-2565
561-276-0959
• Fax 561-272-2249
E-Mail nohow~aol,com
August 26, 1999
Highland Beach Town Commission
Gentlemen:
At the Planning Board meeting of August 11, 1999, the majority of members
agreed upon recommendations to you with reference to building heights in
Highland Beach. I felt compelled to vote against the proposal for several
reasons. The principal reason being the recommendations are not in the best
interest of the residents of Highland Beach.
The matter of the Code revision came about because the Building Official and
our Town Attorney believed that the method being used for measuring of height
and height restrictions were ambiguous. In addition, our Code had provisions
that were no longer applicable due to technological changes in the building
industry.
A proposal was sent to you which was returned to the Planning Board with the
request that it not be done piece meal. Your charge to the Board was to seek
• the advice of a consultant and submit a complete review of the Code with
recommended changes.
Subsequently, the Chairman of the Board of Adjustment urged you to act hastily
on the height issue. Otherwise, that Board ~nrould be faced with several
applications for variances and, in effect would establish the zoning code.
The Commission then requested that the Planning Board, with the consultant,
deal with the height issue first. The issue was primarily to determine a
consistent way to measure height and from what point. The Planning Board
dealt with that issue in a manner that resulted in the reduction in the height of
buildings permitted to be constructed in Highland Beach. The majority of the
members of the Board did not like the luxury houses that have been recently
built, i.e. the Gordon house. Whether one likes or dislikes the Gordon house is
very subjective, and it is inappropriate fora zoning code to be based on such
subjectivity.
It is my opinion that the luxury homes being built in our town have added to its
beauty, as well as to the tax roll.
It is important in establishing any code or regulation that the reality of the
• marketplace be recognized. A free society creates a free economy which, in
the final analysis, determines the market place. We must not, nor can we, make
Highland Beach the Town it was 25 years ago
.~ •
I submit to you the following thoughts for you consideration:
• 1. Acceptance of the proposed changes will reduce real estate values in
Highland Beach
2. This proposal was not the consultant's original recommendation. His
proposal was rejected by the Planning Board and he was sent back to the
drawing board.
3. Acceptance of this proposal will place many of the houses in Highland
Beach in a non conforming status.
4. Acceptance of this proposal will encourage flat roofs rather than
provide for architectural diversity. Though this issue can be dealt with by
constructing smaller houses, it is not realistic.
5. Recognizing they may have an interest, developers and an architect
who have worked in this Town addressed the Board in an attempt to convince
the Board of the problems that will be created wi#h this proposal.
6. The Town Attorney stated opposition from a legal point of view.
7. The Building Official did not express full support of this proposal.
Gentlemen, I urge you to reject the proposal as recommend by the Planning
Board. Admittedly, 1 am not a qualified technician and cannot make a
recommendation as to the specifics that need to be changed. I do, however,
understand the bottom line.
• In my opinion the revisions in the code should be such that the majority, if not
all, of the houses recently built remain conforming. Secondly, the final code
should encourage architectural diversity, be flexible and permit development
that reflects the marketplace. Revisions in the code should not be so restrictive
as to encourage variances, i.e., no electricity on a roof, no spas on a roof, etc.
Restrictions are essential but they must be reasonable, and not determined by
individual likes or dislikes.
Lastly, acceptance of the proposal may set as the legacy for this Commission a
costly avalanche of litigation. I do not believe the residents of Highland Beach
want more litigation and they should be spared the disagreeable prospect.
Moreover, I believe this Commission is worthy of a far better legacy.
It is my recommendation the Commission request the Consultant meet with the
Building official to prepare a new proposal that is workable and would achieve
the desired result.
Thank you for your attention
~_ .~
Victor P. Hadeed
• cc: Town Attorney
Town Manager