The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutPRR 17-2528RECORDS REQUEST (the “Request”) Date of Request: _______________ Requestor’s Request ID#: __________________ REQUESTEE: Custodian of Records Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas Custodian of Records Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs Custodian of Records Town of Gulf Stream Custodian of Records Richman Greer, P.A. Custodian of Records Cole Scott & Kissane Custodian of Records Johnson Anselmo Murdoch Burke Piper & Hochman, P.A. REQUESTOR: __ Martin E. O’Boyle _______________________________ REQUESTOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION: E-Mail: records@commerce-group.com Fax: 954-360-0807 or Contact Records Custodian at records@commerce-group.com; Phone: 954-360-7713; Address: 1280 West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 REQUEST: Please provide a copy of all transcripts in connection with the litigation styled Martin O’Boyle vs. the Town of Gulf Stream, Case Number 2014CA001572 (the “Case”), including, without limitation, all communications and other records in connection with the Case. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING REQUEST: The term “Town of Gulf Stream” shall mean each of the following: the Town of Gulf Stream, its Commissioners, its Manager, its employees, its officers, its staff, its Police Department, its Police Officers; including, without limitation, the attorneys, employees and partners of the following law firms: Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas; Richman Greer, PA; Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs; Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.; and Johnson Anselmo Murdoch Burke Piper & Hochman, P.A. THIS REQUEST IS MADE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE I, SECTION 24 OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION AND CHAPTER 119, FLORIDA STATUTES IF THE PUBLIC RECORDS BEING SOUGHT ARE MAINTAINED BY YOUR AGENCY IN AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT PLEASE PRODUCE THE RECORDS IN THE ORIGINAL ELECTRONIC FORMAT IN WHICH THEY WERE CREATED OR RECEIVED. SEE §119.01(2)(F), FLORIDA STATUTES. IF NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORM, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THIS RECORDS REQUEST BE FULFILLED ON 11 X 17 PAPER. NOTE: IN ALL CASES (UNLESS IMPOSSIBLE) THE COPIES SHOULD BE TWO SIDED AND SHOULD BE BILLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH Section 119.07(4) (a) (2) ALSO PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF §119.07(1)(H) OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES, WHICH PROVIDES THAT “IF A CIVIL ACTION IS INSTITUTED WITHIN THE 30-DAY PERIOD TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION WITH RESPECT TO THE REQUESTED RECORD, THE CUSTODIAN OF PUBLIC RECORDS MAY NOT DISPOSE OF THE RECORD EXCEPT BY ORDER OF A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION AFTER NOTICE TO ALL AFFECTED PARTIES.” ALL ELECTRONIC COPIES ARE REQUESTED TO BE SENT BY E-MAIL DELIVERY. PLEASE PROVIDE THE APPROXIMATE COSTS (IF ANY) TO FULFILL THIS PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST IN ADVANCE. It will be required that the Requestor approve of any costs, asserted by the Agency (as defined in Florida Statute, Chapter 119.01 (Definitions)), in advance of any costs imposed to the Requestor by the Agency. “BY FULFILLING THIS RECORDS REQUEST, THE AGENCY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS ARE “PUBLIC RECORDS” AS DEFINED IN CHAPTER 119, FLORIDA STATUTES”. IN CONNECTION WITH ANY RECORDS WITHHELD, NOT PRODUCED OR REDACTED, PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH A “PRIVILEGE LOG” AND/OR THE BASIS (PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 119 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES) FOR ANY SUCH RECORDS WITHHELD, NOT PRODUCED OR REDACTED. I/P/NP/FLRR 03.30.2017 TOWN OF GULF STREAM PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Delivered via e-mail April 17, 2017 Martin E. O’Boyle [records@commerce-group.com] Re: GS #2528 (PRR 1414) Please provide a copy of all transcripts in connection with the litigation styled Martin O’Boyle vs. the Town of Gulf Stream, Case Number 2014CA001572 (the “Case”), including, without limitation, all communications and other records in connection with the Case. Dear Martin E. O’Boyle [records@commerce-group.com]: The Town of Gulf Stream has received your public records request dated April 17, 2017. The original public records request can be found at the following link: http://www2.gulf-stream.org/weblink/0/doc/110697/Page1.aspx Please be advised that the Town of Gulf Stream is currently working on a number of incoming public records requests. The Town will use its very best efforts to respond to you in a reasonable amount of time with the appropriate response or an estimated cost to respond. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel As requested by Rita Taylor Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records TOWN OF GULF STREAM PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Delivered via e-mail June 21, 2017 Martin E. O’Boyle [Mail to: records@commerce-group.com] Re: GS #2528 (PRR 1414) Please provide a copy of all transcripts in connection with the litigation styled Martin O’Boyle vs. the Town of Gulf Stream, Case Number 2014CA001572 (the “Case”), including, without limitation, all communications and other records in connection with the Case. Dear Martin E. O’Boyle [Mail to: records@commerce-group.com]: The Town of Gulf Stream received your public records request on April 17, 2017. You should be able to view your original request and partial response at the following link: http://www2.gulf-stream.org/weblink/0/doc/110697/Page1.aspx The Town notes that your request is extremely broad and seeks all records “in connection with” a particular case. The Town further notes that the case has not concluded and therefore implicates exemptions under the Public Records Act. In an effort to respond to your extremely broad request in good faith for “all communications and other records,” the Town is providing you with a partial production at the above link, which includes pleadings, invoices, pdf letters, pdf documents, deposition transcripts and e-mails from the e-service/e-filing system and e-mails to Plaintiff’s attorneys. These records are not limited to communications, however, and include some other records as stated. To the extent you seek all records “in connection with the Case,” you have failed to sufficiently specify the records that you seek with sufficient particularity to enable the Town to provide a good faith response. The Town requests you clarify your request and we will endeavor to respond with an appropriate estimate based on any clarification you provide. As the Town understands your request, the Town estimates to supplement the above production, including reviewing records for exemptions, will require three hours of Jones, Foster paralegal support at $125.00 per hour and one hour of attorney time at $250.00 per hour, the labor cost of the personnel providing the service, per Fla. Stat. § 119.07(4)(d). If the costs of producing these documents will exceed your deposit, the Town will provide you with an initial production of responsive records and an estimate for the production of any additional responsive records. If the costs of production are less than the deposit, the Town will provide you with the responsive records and a refund. (Three hours @ $125.00 + One hour @ $250.00) = Deposit Due: $625.00 in cash or by check. Upon receipt of your deposit, the Town will use its very best efforts to further respond to your public records request in a reasonable amount of time. If we do not hear back from you within 30 days of this letter, we will consider this request closed. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel As requested by Rita Taylor, Town Clerk Custodian of the Records Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Attorneys and Counselors 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (561) 659-3000 Flagler Center Tower, Suite 1100 IRS# 59-1292566 Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 O'Boyle - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ R E M I T T A N C E C O P Y HOURSRATE/HR.AMOUNT TOTALS FOR THIS STATEMENT February 28, 2014 Invoice No. 169497 JCR File No. 13147.00051 P.O. BOX 3475 $94.00235.00 0.40JOHN C. RANDOLPH $329.00235.00 1.40JOANNE M. OCONNOR $423.00 $423.00 TOTAL CHARGES THIS INVOICE $423.00TOTAL ACCOUNT BALANCE PREVIOUS BALANCE $0.00 PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE PREPARATION OF THIS INVOICE WILL NOT BE REFLECTED. IF AN UNPAID PRIOR BALANCE IS DISPLAYED ABOVE AND YOU HAVE RECENTLY REMITTED PAYMENT, PLEASE PAY ONLY THE CURRENT INVOICE CHARGES. THANK YOU PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH YOUR REMITTANCE. $0.00 TOTAL COSTS ADVANCED THIS INVOICE TOTAL FEES THIS INVOICE FILE COPY Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Attorneys and Counselors 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (561) 659-3000 Flagler Center Tower, Suite 1100 IRS# 59-1292566 Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 O'Boyle - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ February 28, 2014 Invoice No. 169497 JCR File No. 13147.00051 P.O. Box 3475 TOTALS FOR THIS STATEMENT RATE HOURS AMOUNT $94.00235.00 0.40JOHN C. RANDOLPH $329.00235.00 1.40JOANNE M. OCONNOR $423.00 TOTAL CHARGES THIS INVOICE $0.00 $423.00 PREVIOUS BALANCE TOTAL ACCOUNT BALANCE $0.00 $423.00 TOTAL COSTS ADVANCED THIS INVOICE TOTAL FEE THIS INVOICE FILE COPY February 28, 2014 Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Town of Gulf Stream O'Boyle - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ File No. 13147.00051 Invoice No. 169497 Page 2 HOURS AMOUNTDATEINDVDESCRIPTION OF SERVICES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED: 02/21/14 RECEIVE AND REVIEW SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT 0.20 47.00JCR 02/26/14 REVIEW COMPLAINT, SUMMONS AND EMAIL FROM COUNSEL REQUESTING DEPOSITION DATES FOR SCOTT MORGAN 0.30 70.50JMO 02/26/14 RECEIVE AND REVIEW LETTER FROM GIOVINI MESA RE: SETTING DEPOSITION OF SCOTT MORGAN 0.20 47.00JCR 02/26/14 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE RE SANCTIONS FOR VEXATIOUS LITIGATION, REVIEW MEMORANDUM OPINION ON SAME 0.50 117.50JMO 02/26/14 REVIEW COMPLAINT AND ATTENTION TO DEADLINE TO RESPOND 0.30 70.50JMO 02/27/14 EMAILS TO ATTORNEY G. MESA RE SCOTT MORGAN DEPOSITION; INQUIRIES RE MORGAN AVAILABILITY 0.20 47.00JMO 02/28/14 REVIEW EMAIL FROM G. MESA RE MORGAN DEPOSITION 0.10 23.50JMO 1.80TOTAL HOURS FILE COPY Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Attorneys and Counselors 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (561) 659-3000 Flagler Center Tower, Suite 1100 IRS# 59-1292566 Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 O'Boyle - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ R E M I T T A N C E C O P Y HOURSRATE/HR.AMOUNT TOTALS FOR THIS STATEMENT March 31, 2014 Invoice No. 170348 JCR File No. 13147.00051 P.O. BOX 3475 $2,279.50235.00 9.70ASHLEE A. RICHMAN $71.5027.50 2.60EDWARD NAZZARO-PARA $211.50235.00 0.90JOHN C. RANDOLPH $1,386.50235.00 5.90JOANNE M. OCONNOR $400.00200.00 2.00KELLY A. GARDNER $235.00235.00 1.00KEITH W. RIZZARDI $47.00235.00 0.20SCOTT G. HAWKINS, $4,631.00 $4,631.00 TOTAL CHARGES THIS INVOICE $4,631.00TOTAL ACCOUNT BALANCE PREVIOUS BALANCE $0.00 PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE PREPARATION OF THIS INVOICE WILL NOT BE REFLECTED. IF AN UNPAID PRIOR BALANCE IS DISPLAYED ABOVE AND YOU HAVE RECENTLY REMITTED PAYMENT, PLEASE PAY ONLY THE CURRENT INVOICE CHARGES. THANK YOU PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH YOUR REMITTANCE. $0.00 TOTAL COSTS ADVANCED THIS INVOICE TOTAL FEES THIS INVOICE FILE COPY Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Attorneys and Counselors 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (561) 659-3000 Flagler Center Tower, Suite 1100 IRS# 59-1292566 Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 O'Boyle - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ TOTALS FOR THIS STATEMENT RATE HOURS AMOUNT March 31, 2014 Invoice No. 170348 JCR File No. 13147.00051 P.O. Box 3475 $2,279.50235.00 9.70ASHLEE A. RICHMAN $71.5027.50 2.60EDWARD NAZZARO-PARA $211.50235.00 0.90JOHN C. RANDOLPH $1,386.50235.00 5.90JOANNE M. OCONNOR $400.00200.00 2.00KELLY A. GARDNER $235.00235.00 1.00KEITH W. RIZZARDI $47.00235.00 0.20SCOTT G. HAWKINS, $4,631.00 TOTAL CHARGES THIS INVOICE $0.00 $4,631.00 PREVIOUS BALANCE TOTAL ACCOUNT BALANCE $0.00 $4,631.00 TOTAL COSTS ADVANCED THIS INVOICE TOTAL FEE THIS INVOICE FILE COPY March 31, 2014 Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Town of Gulf Stream O'Boyle - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ File No. 13147.00051 Invoice No. 170348 Page 2 HOURSDATE INDVDESCRIPTION OF SERVICES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED: 02/26/14 (NAZZARO) DRAFT ANSWER RE: FILE 13147.51 2.10 ECN 03/03/14 RECEIVE AND REVIEW MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE HEARING 0.20 JCR 03/06/14 REVIEW EMAIL FROM SCOTT MORGAN RE DEPOSITION 0.20 JMO 03/07/14 REVIEW NOTICE OF HEARING AND EMAILS WITH G. MESA RE SAME 0.20 JMO 03/07/14 (NAZARRO) FINISH ANSWER 0.50 ECN 03/09/14 REVISE ANSWER; EMAILS WITH RIZZARDI AND NAZZARO RE SAME 0.30 JMO 03/10/14 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH A.RICHMAN, T.NAZARRO RE: IMMEDIATE HEARING AND PRODUCTION, EVIDENCE, SCHEDULES, CASELAW 0.40 KWR 03/10/14 REVIEW DOCUMENTS RE STATUS; REVIEW AND EDIT MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE; COMMUNICATIONS RE RECORDS REQUESTS AND STRATEGY WITH LITIGATION WITH K GARDNER AND K RIZZARDI; COMMUNICATIONS WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL RE HEARING AND STATUS 2.80 AAR 03/10/14 COMMUNICATE WITH A. RICHMAN REGARDING STRATEGY FOR REQUESTED IMMEDIATE HEARING, DRAFTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE; REVIEW PLEADINGS; DRAFT MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE. 1.70 KAG 03/11/14 EDIT MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE; COMMUNICATIONS WITH COUNSEL RE HEARINGS AND STATUS; COMMUNICATIONS WITH INTERNAL TEAM RE STRATEGY 1.80 AAR 03/11/14 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH A.RICHMAN RE: HEARING 0.20 KWR 03/12/14 OFFICE CONFERENCE WITH A.RICHMAN RE: HEARING 0.20 KWR 03/12/14 OFFICE CONFERENCE WITH A.RICHMAN RE: HEARING 0.20 KWR 03/12/14 MEET WITH K RIZZARDI RE STRATEGY; COMMUNICATIONS WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL RE HEARINGS; PREPARATION FOR HEARINGS 1.60 AAR 03/14/14 COMMUNICATIONS INTERNALLY AND WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL RE CONSOLIDATION, DISCOVERY ISSUES, AND STRATEGY 1.30 AAR 03/14/14 COMMUNICATE WITH A. RICHMAN REGARDING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND STRATEGY. 0.30 KAG FILE COPY March 31, 2014 Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Town of Gulf Stream O'Boyle - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ File No. 13147.00051 Invoice No. 170348 Page 3 03/14/14 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH A. RICHMAN RE SUBPOENA TO SCOTT MORGAN FOR DEPOSITION, CONSOLIDATION OF CASES 0.10 JMO 03/17/14 COMMUNICATION RE STRATEGY AND OUTLINE NOTES AND PLAN RE SAME 0.20 AAR 03/19/14 MEETING WITH J OCONNOR AND K GARDNER RE STRATEGY AND STATUS; COMMUNICATION WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL RE SAME 0.30 AAR 03/25/14 PREPARATION FOR SCOTT MORGAN DEPOSITION 0.40 JMO 03/25/14 REVIEW NOTES AND MEET WITH J OCONNOR AND J RANDOLPH RE STATUS 0.30 AAR 03/25/14 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SCOTT MORGAN, ROBERT SWEETAPPLE 0.50 JMO 03/25/14 REVIEW ALL PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS RELATIVE TO THOSE RE SCOTT MORGAN; EMAILS WITH FREDA RE SAME 0.50 JMO 03/26/14 DEPOSITION OF SCOTT MORGAN (2.0); TRAVEL TO AND FROM GULFSTREAM (.8); CONFER WITH FREDA AND REVIEW LOG OF PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS AND RESPONSES RE SCOTT MORGAN (.4) 3.20 JMO 03/26/14 REVIEW AND RESPOND TO EMAILS RE SCOTT MORGAN DEPOSITION; PHONE CALL WITH FREDA RE SAME; DISCUSS DEPOSITION WITH J OCONNOR 0.70 AAR 03/28/14 RESEARCH AND IN FIRM COMMUNICATIONS RE STRATEGY 0.50 AAR 03/28/14 COMMUNICATIONS WITH S HAWKINS RE STRATEGY 0.20 AAR 03/28/14 CONFER WITH A. RICHMAN RE STRATEGY 0.20 JMO 03/28/14 REVIEW LITIGATION STRATEGY WITH A. RICHMAN.0.20 SGH 03/29/14 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SCOTT MORGAN 0.20 JCR 03/31/14 RECEIVE AND REVIEW PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 0.30 JCR 03/31/14 INTEROFFICE MEMO TO J. O'CONNOR 0.20 JCR 03/31/14 REVIEW MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 0.30 JMO 22.30TOTAL HOURS FILE COPY Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Attorneys and Counselors 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (561) 659-3000 Flagler Center Tower, Suite 1100 IRS# 59-1292566 Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 O'Boyle - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ R E M I T T A N C E C O P Y HOURSRATE/HR.AMOUNT TOTALS FOR THIS STATEMENT April 30, 2014 Invoice No. 171244 JCR File No. 13147.00051 P.O. BOX 3475 $282.00235.00 1.20ASHLEE A. RICHMAN $70.50235.00 0.30JOANNE M. OCONNOR $352.50 $1,073.02 TOTAL CHARGES THIS INVOICE $1,073.02TOTAL ACCOUNT BALANCE PREVIOUS BALANCE $0.00 PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE PREPARATION OF THIS INVOICE WILL NOT BE REFLECTED. IF AN UNPAID PRIOR BALANCE IS DISPLAYED ABOVE AND YOU HAVE RECENTLY REMITTED PAYMENT, PLEASE PAY ONLY THE CURRENT INVOICE CHARGES. THANK YOU PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH YOUR REMITTANCE. $720.52 TOTAL COSTS ADVANCED THIS INVOICE TOTAL FEES THIS INVOICE FILE COPY Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Attorneys and Counselors 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (561) 659-3000 Flagler Center Tower, Suite 1100 IRS# 59-1292566 Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 O'Boyle - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ April 30, 2014 Invoice No. 171244 JCR File No. 13147.00051 P.O. Box 3475 TOTALS FOR THIS STATEMENT RATE HOURS AMOUNT $282.00235.00 1.20ASHLEE A. RICHMAN $70.50235.00 0.30JOANNE M. OCONNOR $1,073.02 TOTAL CHARGES THIS INVOICE $0.00 $1,073.02 PREVIOUS BALANCE TOTAL ACCOUNT BALANCE $720.52 $352.50 TOTAL COSTS ADVANCED THIS INVOICE TOTAL FEE THIS INVOICE FILE COPY April 30, 2014 Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Town of Gulf Stream O'Boyle - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ File No. 13147.00051 Invoice No. 171244 Page 2 HOURS AMOUNTDATEINDVDESCRIPTION OF SERVICES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED: 04/03/14 RECEIVE AND REVIEW MORGAN DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT 0.30 70.50JMO 04/03/14 REVIEW DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ANALYZE SAME 1.20 282.00AAR 1.50TOTAL HOURS COSTS ADVANCED DATE AMOUNT 720.52CHECK: DEPO OR TRANSCRIPT SCOTT MORGAN DEPOSITION 3/26/14 - ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS LLC 04/24/14 $720.52 FILE COPY Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Attorneys and Counselors 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (561) 659-3000 Flagler Center Tower, Suite 1100 IRS# 59-1292566 Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 O'Boyle - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ R E M I T T A N C E C O P Y HOURSRATE/HR.AMOUNT TOTALS FOR THIS STATEMENT September 30, 2014 Invoice No. 175047 JCR File No. 13147.00051 P.O. BOX 3475 $94.00235.00 0.40JOANNE M. OCONNOR $94.00 $94.00 TOTAL CHARGES THIS INVOICE $94.00TOTAL ACCOUNT BALANCE PREVIOUS BALANCE $0.00 PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE PREPARATION OF THIS INVOICE WILL NOT BE REFLECTED. IF AN UNPAID PRIOR BALANCE IS DISPLAYED ABOVE AND YOU HAVE RECENTLY REMITTED PAYMENT, PLEASE PAY ONLY THE CURRENT INVOICE CHARGES. THANK YOU PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH YOUR REMITTANCE. $0.00 TOTAL COSTS ADVANCED THIS INVOICE TOTAL FEES THIS INVOICE FILE COPY Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Attorneys and Counselors 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (561) 659-3000 Flagler Center Tower, Suite 1100 IRS# 59-1292566 Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 O'Boyle - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ September 30, 2014 Invoice No. 175047 JCR File No. 13147.00051 P.O. Box 3475 TOTALS FOR THIS STATEMENT RATE HOURS AMOUNT $94.00235.00 0.40JOANNE M. OCONNOR $94.00 TOTAL CHARGES THIS INVOICE $0.00 $94.00 PREVIOUS BALANCE TOTAL ACCOUNT BALANCE $0.00 $94.00 TOTAL COSTS ADVANCED THIS INVOICE TOTAL FEE THIS INVOICE FILE COPY September 30, 2014 Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Town of Gulf Stream O'Boyle - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ File No. 13147.00051 Invoice No. 175047 Page 2 HOURS AMOUNTDATEINDVDESCRIPTION OF SERVICES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED: 09/09/14 ATTENTION TO SCHEDULING OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 0.20 47.00JMO 09/16/14 REVIEW PLAINTIFF'S CORRESPONDENCE TO JUDGE MCCARTHY WITH SCHEDULING ORDER AND NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 0.20 47.00JMO 0.40TOTAL HOURS FILE COPY Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Attorneys and Counselors 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (561) 659-3000 Flagler Center Tower, Suite 1100 IRS# 59-1292566 Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 O'Boyle - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ R E M I T T A N C E C O P Y HOURSRATE/HR.AMOUNT TOTALS FOR THIS STATEMENT October 31, 2014 Invoice No. 175876 JCR File No. 13147.00051 P.O. BOX 3475 $352.50235.00 1.50ASHLEE A. RICHMAN $47.00235.00 0.20JOANNE M. OCONNOR $399.50 $399.50 TOTAL CHARGES THIS INVOICE $399.50TOTAL ACCOUNT BALANCE PREVIOUS BALANCE $0.00 PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE PREPARATION OF THIS INVOICE WILL NOT BE REFLECTED. IF AN UNPAID PRIOR BALANCE IS DISPLAYED ABOVE AND YOU HAVE RECENTLY REMITTED PAYMENT, PLEASE PAY ONLY THE CURRENT INVOICE CHARGES. THANK YOU PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH YOUR REMITTANCE. $0.00 TOTAL COSTS ADVANCED THIS INVOICE TOTAL FEES THIS INVOICE FILE COPY Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Attorneys and Counselors 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (561) 659-3000 Flagler Center Tower, Suite 1100 IRS# 59-1292566 Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 O'Boyle - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ October 31, 2014 Invoice No. 175876 JCR File No. 13147.00051 P.O. Box 3475 TOTALS FOR THIS STATEMENT RATE HOURS AMOUNT $352.50235.00 1.50ASHLEE A. RICHMAN $47.00235.00 0.20JOANNE M. OCONNOR $399.50 TOTAL CHARGES THIS INVOICE $0.00 $399.50 PREVIOUS BALANCE TOTAL ACCOUNT BALANCE $0.00 $399.50 TOTAL COSTS ADVANCED THIS INVOICE TOTAL FEE THIS INVOICE FILE COPY October 31, 2014 Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Town of Gulf Stream O'Boyle - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ File No. 13147.00051 Invoice No. 175876 Page 2 HOURS AMOUNTDATEINDVDESCRIPTION OF SERVICES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED: 10/07/14 OFFICE CONFERENCE WITH A. RICHMAN RE RESPONSE TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION 0.20 47.00JMO 10/07/14 CONFER WITH J OCONNOR RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT RESPONSE; REVIEW DOCUMENTS AND RESEARCH RE RESPONSE TO MOTION 0.80 188.00AAR 10/21/14 RESEARCH RE RESPONSE TO MOTION 0.70 164.50AAR 1.70TOTAL HOURS FILE COPY Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Attorneys and Counselors 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (561) 659-3000 Flagler Center Tower, Suite 1100 IRS# 59-1292566 Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 O'Boyle - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ R E M I T T A N C E C O P Y HOURSRATE/HR.AMOUNT TOTALS FOR THIS STATEMENT November 30, 2014 Invoice No. 176558 JCR File No. 13147.00051 P.O. BOX 3475 $70.50235.00 0.30ASHLEE A. RICHMAN $47.00235.00 0.20JOHN C. RANDOLPH $258.50235.00 1.10JOANNE M. OCONNOR $616.00220.00 2.80KELLY A. GARDNER $992.00 $992.00 TOTAL CHARGES THIS INVOICE $992.00TOTAL ACCOUNT BALANCE PREVIOUS BALANCE $0.00 PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE PREPARATION OF THIS INVOICE WILL NOT BE REFLECTED. IF AN UNPAID PRIOR BALANCE IS DISPLAYED ABOVE AND YOU HAVE RECENTLY REMITTED PAYMENT, PLEASE PAY ONLY THE CURRENT INVOICE CHARGES. THANK YOU PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH YOUR REMITTANCE. $0.00 TOTAL COSTS ADVANCED THIS INVOICE TOTAL FEES THIS INVOICE FILE COPY Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Attorneys and Counselors 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (561) 659-3000 Flagler Center Tower, Suite 1100 IRS# 59-1292566 Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 O'Boyle - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ November 30, 2014 Invoice No. 176558 JCR File No. 13147.00051 P.O. Box 3475 TOTALS FOR THIS STATEMENT RATE HOURS AMOUNT $70.50235.00 0.30ASHLEE A. RICHMAN $47.00235.00 0.20JOHN C. RANDOLPH $258.50235.00 1.10JOANNE M. OCONNOR $616.00220.00 2.80KELLY A. GARDNER $992.00 TOTAL CHARGES THIS INVOICE $0.00 $992.00 PREVIOUS BALANCE TOTAL ACCOUNT BALANCE $0.00 $992.00 TOTAL COSTS ADVANCED THIS INVOICE TOTAL FEE THIS INVOICE FILE COPY November 30, 2014 Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Town of Gulf Stream O'Boyle - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ File No. 13147.00051 Invoice No. 176558 Page 2 HOURS AMOUNTDATEINDVDESCRIPTION OF SERVICES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED: 11/03/14 ATTENTION TO STATUS OF PLAINTIFF'S MSJ AND EMAIL TO G. MESA RE SAME 0.30 70.50JMO 11/03/14 ATTENTION TO SJ DEADLINES; EMAIL G. MESA RE HEARING; CONFER WITH A. RICHMAN RE MOTION AND HEARING 0.30 70.50JMO 11/03/14 CONFER WITH A. RICHMAN REGARDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT RESPONSE AND HEARING. 0.20 44.00KAG 11/03/14 STATUS COMMUNICATIONS RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT 0.30 70.50AAR 11/04/14 REVIEW MOTION TO DISQUALIFY 0.30 70.50JMO 11/07/14 REVIEW MOTION TO DISQUALIFY 0.20 47.00JCR 11/11/14 CONFER WITH J. O'CONNOR REGARDING HEARING; REVIEW RELEVANT PLEADINGS; PREPARE FOR HEARING. 0.60 132.00KAG 11/12/14 REVIEW AGREED ORDER ON MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF MSJ HEARING 0.20 47.00JMO 11/12/14 PREPARE FOR HEARING; COURT APPEARANCE FOR J. O'CONNOR ON MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE. 2.00 440.00KAG 4.40TOTAL HOURS FILE COPY Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Attorneys and Counselors 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (561) 659-3000 Flagler Center Tower, Suite 1100 IRS# 59-1292566 Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 O'Boyle - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ R E M I T T A N C E C O P Y HOURSRATE/HR.AMOUNT TOTALS FOR THIS STATEMENT January 31, 2015 Invoice No. 178203 JCR File No. 13147.00051 P.O. BOX 3475 $141.00235.00 0.60JOANNE M. OCONNOR $141.00 $141.00 TOTAL CHARGES THIS INVOICE $141.00TOTAL ACCOUNT BALANCE PREVIOUS BALANCE $0.00 PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE PREPARATION OF THIS INVOICE WILL NOT BE REFLECTED. IF AN UNPAID PRIOR BALANCE IS DISPLAYED ABOVE AND YOU HAVE RECENTLY REMITTED PAYMENT, PLEASE PAY ONLY THE CURRENT INVOICE CHARGES. THANK YOU PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH YOUR REMITTANCE. $0.00 TOTAL COSTS ADVANCED THIS INVOICE TOTAL FEES THIS INVOICE FILE COPY Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Attorneys and Counselors 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (561) 659-3000 Flagler Center Tower, Suite 1100 IRS# 59-1292566 Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 O'Boyle - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ January 31, 2015 Invoice No. 178203 JCR File No. 13147.00051 P.O. Box 3475 TOTALS FOR THIS STATEMENT RATE HOURS AMOUNT $141.00235.00 0.60JOANNE M. OCONNOR $141.00 TOTAL CHARGES THIS INVOICE $0.00 $141.00 PREVIOUS BALANCE TOTAL ACCOUNT BALANCE $0.00 $141.00 TOTAL COSTS ADVANCED THIS INVOICE TOTAL FEE THIS INVOICE FILE COPY January 31, 2015 Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Town of Gulf Stream O'Boyle - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ File No. 13147.00051 Invoice No. 178203 Page 2 HOURS AMOUNTDATEINDVDESCRIPTION OF SERVICES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED: 01/26/15 REVIEW OBOYLE FOLLOW UP EMAIL RE PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST FOR 1,442 DOCUMENTS; CONFER WITH K. AVERY; EXCHANGE EMAILS WITH W. RING 0.60 141.00JMO 0.60TOTAL HOURS FILE COPY Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Attorneys and Counselors 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (561) 659-3000 Flagler Center Tower, Suite 1100 IRS# 59-1292566 Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 O'Boyle - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ R E M I T T A N C E C O P Y HOURSRATE/HR.AMOUNT TOTALS FOR THIS STATEMENT February 28, 2015 Invoice No. 178964 JCR File No. 13147.00051 P.O. BOX 3475 $188.00235.00 0.80JOANNE M. OCONNOR $188.00 $188.00 TOTAL CHARGES THIS INVOICE $188.00TOTAL ACCOUNT BALANCE PREVIOUS BALANCE $0.00 PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE PREPARATION OF THIS INVOICE WILL NOT BE REFLECTED. IF AN UNPAID PRIOR BALANCE IS DISPLAYED ABOVE AND YOU HAVE RECENTLY REMITTED PAYMENT, PLEASE PAY ONLY THE CURRENT INVOICE CHARGES. THANK YOU PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH YOUR REMITTANCE. $0.00 TOTAL COSTS ADVANCED THIS INVOICE TOTAL FEES THIS INVOICE FILE COPY Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Attorneys and Counselors 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (561) 659-3000 Flagler Center Tower, Suite 1100 IRS# 59-1292566 Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 O'Boyle - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ February 28, 2015 Invoice No. 178964 JCR File No. 13147.00051 P.O. Box 3475 TOTALS FOR THIS STATEMENT RATE HOURS AMOUNT $188.00235.00 0.80JOANNE M. OCONNOR $188.00 TOTAL CHARGES THIS INVOICE $0.00 $188.00 PREVIOUS BALANCE TOTAL ACCOUNT BALANCE $0.00 $188.00 TOTAL COSTS ADVANCED THIS INVOICE TOTAL FEE THIS INVOICE FILE COPY February 28, 2015 Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Town of Gulf Stream O'Boyle - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ File No. 13147.00051 Invoice No. 178964 Page 2 HOURS AMOUNTDATEINDVDESCRIPTION OF SERVICES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED: 02/27/15 DRAFT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (.5) AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE (.3) 0.80 188.00JMO 0.80TOTAL HOURS FILE COPY Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Attorneys and Counselors 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (561) 659-3000 Flagler Center Tower, Suite 1100 IRS# 59-1292566 Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 O'Boyle vs. Gulfstream - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ R E M I T T A N C E C O P Y HOURSRATE/HR.AMOUNT TOTALS FOR THIS STATEMENT March 31, 2015 Invoice No. 179884 JCR File No. 13147.00051 P.O. BOX 3475 $70.50235.00 0.30JOANNE M. OCONNOR $70.50 $70.50 TOTAL CHARGES THIS INVOICE $70.50TOTAL ACCOUNT BALANCE PREVIOUS BALANCE $0.00 PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE PREPARATION OF THIS INVOICE WILL NOT BE REFLECTED. IF AN UNPAID PRIOR BALANCE IS DISPLAYED ABOVE AND YOU HAVE RECENTLY REMITTED PAYMENT, PLEASE PAY ONLY THE CURRENT INVOICE CHARGES. THANK YOU PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH YOUR REMITTANCE. $0.00 TOTAL COSTS ADVANCED THIS INVOICE TOTAL FEES THIS INVOICE FILE COPY Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Attorneys and Counselors 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (561) 659-3000 Flagler Center Tower, Suite 1100 IRS# 59-1292566 Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 O'Boyle vs. Gulfstream - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ March 31, 2015 Invoice No. 179884 JCR File No. 13147.00051 P.O. Box 3475 TOTALS FOR THIS STATEMENT RATE HOURS AMOUNT $70.50235.00 0.30JOANNE M. OCONNOR $70.50 TOTAL CHARGES THIS INVOICE $0.00 $70.50 PREVIOUS BALANCE TOTAL ACCOUNT BALANCE $0.00 $70.50 TOTAL COSTS ADVANCED THIS INVOICE TOTAL FEE THIS INVOICE FILE COPY March 31, 2015 Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Town of Gulf Stream O'Boyle vs. Gulfstream - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ File No. 13147.00051 Invoice No. 179884 Page 2 HOURS AMOUNTDATEINDVDESCRIPTION OF SERVICES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED: 03/02/15 FINAL REVISIONS TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 0.30 70.50JMO 0.30TOTAL HOURS FILE COPY Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Attorneys and Counselors 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (561) 659-3000 Flagler Center Tower, Suite 1100 IRS# 59-1292566 Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 O'Boyle vs. Gulfstream - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ R E M I T T A N C E C O P Y HOURSRATE/HR.AMOUNT TOTALS FOR THIS STATEMENT April 30, 2015 Invoice No. 180766 JCR File No. 13147.00051 P.O. BOX 3475 $47.00235.00 0.20JOANNE M. OCONNOR $47.00 $47.00 TOTAL CHARGES THIS INVOICE $47.00TOTAL ACCOUNT BALANCE PREVIOUS BALANCE $0.00 PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE PREPARATION OF THIS INVOICE WILL NOT BE REFLECTED. IF AN UNPAID PRIOR BALANCE IS DISPLAYED ABOVE AND YOU HAVE RECENTLY REMITTED PAYMENT, PLEASE PAY ONLY THE CURRENT INVOICE CHARGES. THANK YOU PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH YOUR REMITTANCE. $0.00 TOTAL COSTS ADVANCED THIS INVOICE TOTAL FEES THIS INVOICE FILE COPY Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Attorneys and Counselors 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (561) 659-3000 Flagler Center Tower, Suite 1100 IRS# 59-1292566 Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 O'Boyle vs. Gulfstream - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ April 30, 2015 Invoice No. 180766 JCR File No. 13147.00051 P.O. Box 3475 TOTALS FOR THIS STATEMENT RATE HOURS AMOUNT $47.00235.00 0.20JOANNE M. OCONNOR $47.00 TOTAL CHARGES THIS INVOICE $0.00 $47.00 PREVIOUS BALANCE TOTAL ACCOUNT BALANCE $0.00 $47.00 TOTAL COSTS ADVANCED THIS INVOICE TOTAL FEE THIS INVOICE FILE COPY April 30, 2015 Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Town of Gulf Stream O'Boyle vs. Gulfstream - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ File No. 13147.00051 Invoice No. 180766 Page 2 HOURS AMOUNTDATEINDVDESCRIPTION OF SERVICES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED: 04/09/15 REVIEW NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENSE COUNSEL 0.20 47.00JMO 0.20TOTAL HOURS FILE COPY Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Attorneys and Counselors 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (561) 659-3000 Flagler Center Tower, Suite 1100 IRS# 59-1292566 Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 O'Boyle vs. Gulfstream - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ R E M I T T A N C E C O P Y HOURSRATE/HR.AMOUNT TOTALS FOR THIS STATEMENT February 29, 2016 Invoice No. 188994 JCR File No. 13147.00051 P.O. BOX 3475 $70.50235.00 0.30JOANNE M. OCONNOR $70.50 $70.50 TOTAL CHARGES THIS INVOICE $70.50TOTAL ACCOUNT BALANCE PREVIOUS BALANCE $0.00 PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE PREPARATION OF THIS INVOICE WILL NOT BE REFLECTED. IF AN UNPAID PRIOR BALANCE IS DISPLAYED ABOVE AND YOU HAVE RECENTLY REMITTED PAYMENT, PLEASE PAY ONLY THE CURRENT INVOICE CHARGES. THANK YOU PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH YOUR REMITTANCE. $0.00 TOTAL COSTS ADVANCED THIS INVOICE TOTAL FEES THIS INVOICE FILE COPY Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Attorneys and Counselors 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (561) 659-3000 Flagler Center Tower, Suite 1100 IRS# 59-1292566 Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 O'Boyle vs. Gulfstream - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ February 29, 2016 Invoice No. 188994 JCR File No. 13147.00051 P.O. Box 3475 TOTALS FOR THIS STATEMENT RATE HOURS AMOUNT $70.50235.00 0.30JOANNE M. OCONNOR $70.50 TOTAL CHARGES THIS INVOICE $0.00 $70.50 PREVIOUS BALANCE TOTAL ACCOUNT BALANCE $0.00 $70.50 TOTAL COSTS ADVANCED THIS INVOICE TOTAL FEE THIS INVOICE FILE COPY February 29, 2016 Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Town of Gulf Stream O'Boyle vs. Gulfstream - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ File No. 13147.00051 Invoice No. 188994 Page 2 HOURS AMOUNTDATEINDVDESCRIPTION OF SERVICES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED: 02/02/16 DRAFT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 0.30 70.50JMO 0.30TOTAL HOURS FILE COPY Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Attorneys and Counselors 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (561) 659-3000 Flagler Center Tower, Suite 1100 IRS# 59-1292566 Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 O'Boyle vs. Gulfstream - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ R E M I T T A N C E C O P Y HOURSRATE/HR.AMOUNT TOTALS FOR THIS STATEMENT April 30, 2016 Invoice No. 190637 JCR File No. 13147.00051 P.O. BOX 3475 $3,102.00235.00 13.20JOANNE M. OCONNOR $160.00200.00 0.80MINDY HALLEY-PARA $3,262.00 $3,288.43 TOTAL CHARGES THIS INVOICE $3,288.43TOTAL ACCOUNT BALANCE PREVIOUS BALANCE $0.00 PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE PREPARATION OF THIS INVOICE WILL NOT BE REFLECTED. IF AN UNPAID PRIOR BALANCE IS DISPLAYED ABOVE AND YOU HAVE RECENTLY REMITTED PAYMENT, PLEASE PAY ONLY THE CURRENT INVOICE CHARGES. THANK YOU PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH YOUR REMITTANCE. $26.43 TOTAL COSTS ADVANCED THIS INVOICE TOTAL FEES THIS INVOICE FILE COPY Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Attorneys and Counselors 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (561) 659-3000 Flagler Center Tower, Suite 1100 IRS# 59-1292566 Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 O'Boyle vs. Gulfstream - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ April 30, 2016 Invoice No. 190637 JCR File No. 13147.00051 P.O. Box 3475 TOTALS FOR THIS STATEMENT RATE HOURS AMOUNT $3,102.00235.00 13.20JOANNE M. OCONNOR $160.00200.00 0.80MINDY HALLEY-PARA $3,288.43 TOTAL CHARGES THIS INVOICE $0.00 $3,288.43 PREVIOUS BALANCE TOTAL ACCOUNT BALANCE $26.43 $3,262.00 TOTAL COSTS ADVANCED THIS INVOICE TOTAL FEE THIS INVOICE FILE COPY April 30, 2016 Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Town of Gulf Stream O'Boyle vs. Gulfstream - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ File No. 13147.00051 Invoice No. 190637 Page 2 HOURS AMOUNTDATEINDVDESCRIPTION OF SERVICES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED: 04/14/16 WORK ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT OPPOSITION 1.50 352.50JMO 04/15/16 WORK ON OPPOSITION TO AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 3.00 705.00JMO 04/17/16 DRAFT OPPOSITION TO O'BOYLE'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION 2.00 470.00JMO 04/18/16 COMPLETE DRAFTING OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DRAFT AVERY DECLARATION AND CONFER WITH K. AVERY RE SAME; OVERSEE PREPARATION OF HEARING NOTEBOOK FOR COURT; CORRESPONDENCE TO JUDGE COLIN 3.60 846.00JMO 04/18/16 REVIEW RESPONSE AND LOCATE CITED CASELAW FOR JUDGE. 0.80 160.00MSH 04/19/16 REVIEW OBOYLE AFFIDAVIT SUPPORT SJ 0.20 47.00JMO 04/24/16 REVIEW OBOYLE AFFIDAVIT, PREPARE FOR SJ HEARING 0.60 141.00JMO 04/25/16 COURT APPEARANCE FOR HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MSJ; POST-HEARING CONFERENCE WITH G. MESA 1.50 352.50JMO 04/25/16 PREPARE FOR HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MSJ 0.80 188.00JMO 14.00TOTAL HOURS COSTS ADVANCED DATE AMOUNT 26.43FED.EXPRESS/SPECIAL DELIVERY 04/18/16 $26.43 FILE COPY Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Attorneys and Counselors 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (561) 659-3000 Flagler Center Tower, Suite 1100 IRS# 59-1292566 Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 O'Boyle vs. Gulfstream - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ R E M I T T A N C E C O P Y TOTALS FOR THIS STATEMENT May 31, 2016 Invoice No. 191401 JCR File No. 13147.00051 P.O. BOX 3475 $0.00 $95.00 TOTAL CHARGES THIS INVOICE $95.00TOTAL ACCOUNT BALANCE PREVIOUS BALANCE $0.00 PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE PREPARATION OF THIS INVOICE WILL NOT BE REFLECTED. IF AN UNPAID PRIOR BALANCE IS DISPLAYED ABOVE AND YOU HAVE RECENTLY REMITTED PAYMENT, PLEASE PAY ONLY THE CURRENT INVOICE CHARGES. THANK YOU PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH YOUR REMITTANCE. $95.00 TOTAL COSTS ADVANCED THIS INVOICE TOTAL FEES THIS INVOICE FILE COPY Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Attorneys and Counselors 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (561) 659-3000 Flagler Center Tower, Suite 1100 IRS# 59-1292566 Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 O'Boyle vs. Gulfstream - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ May 31, 2016 Invoice No. 191401 JCR File No. 13147.00051 P.O. Box 3475 TOTALS FOR THIS STATEMENT $95.00 TOTAL CHARGES THIS INVOICE $0.00 $95.00 PREVIOUS BALANCE TOTAL ACCOUNT BALANCE $95.00 $0.00 TOTAL COSTS ADVANCED THIS INVOICE TOTAL FEE THIS INVOICE FILE COPY May 31, 2016 Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Town of Gulf Stream O'Boyle vs. Gulfstream - Case #502014CA001572 XXXX MB AJ File No. 13147.00051 Invoice No. 191401 Page 2 COSTS ADVANCED DATE AMOUNT 95.00CHECK: DEPO OR TRANSCRIPT COURT REPORTING AT 04/25/16 HEARING - PLEASANTON GREENHILL MEEK & MARSAA 05/24/16 $95.00 FILE COPY UIR800.211. DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com S O L U T I O N S ·1· · · · IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL · · · · · CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA ·2 ·3· · · · · · · · CASE NO. 502014CA001572XXXXMB ·4 · · ·MARTIN E. O'BOYLE, ·5 · · · · · · · ·Plaintiff, ·6 · · ·-vs- ·7 · · ·TOWN OF GULF STREAM, ·8 · · · · · · · ·Defendant. ·9· ·_____________________________________________________ 10 11 12· · · · · · · · · DEPOSITION OF SCOTT MORGAN 13· · · · · · · TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF 14 15 · · · · · · · · · · Wednesday, March 26, 2014 16· · · · · · · · · · · 10:05 - 11:46 a.m. 17 18 19 · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·100 Sea Road 20· · · · · · · · ·Gulf Stream, Florida· 33483 21 22 23 24· ·Reported By: · · ·Kathleen Lusz, RPR 25· ·Notary Public, State of Florida · · ·Job#112005 ·1· ·APPEARANCES: ·2· ·On behalf of the Plaintiff: ·3· · · · MARRETT W. HANNA, Esquire · · · · · THE O'BOYLE LAW FIRM, P.C. ·4· · · · 1286 W. Newport Center Drive · · · · · Deerfield Beach, Florida· 33442 ·5· · · · Telephone: (954)834-2201 ·6· ·On behalf of the Defendant: ·7· · · · JOANNE M. O'CONNOR, Esquire · · · · · JONES, FOSTER, JOHNSTON & STUBBS ·8· · · · 505 South Flagler Drive · · · · · Suite 1100 ·9· · · · West Palm Beach, Florida· 33401 · · · · · Telephone:· (561)650-0400 10 11· ·On behalf of the Deponent: 12· · · · ROBERT A. SWEETAPPLE, Esquire · · · · · SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, P.L. 13· · · · 20 S.E. 3rd Street · · · · · Boca Raton, Florida· 33432 14· · · · Telephone:· (561)392-1230 15 16· ·ALSO PRESENT: 17· · · · JONATHAN O'BOYLE, Law Clerk · · · · · WILLIAM H. THRASHER, Town Manager 18· · · · CHRISTOPHER O'HARE · · · · · MARTIN O'BOYLE, (11:08 until 11:46 a.m.) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·_· _· _ ·2· · · · · · · · · · · · · I N D E X · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·_· _· _ ·3 ·4· ·SCOTT MORGAN· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE ·5· ·Direct Examination by Ms. Hanna· · · · · · ·4 ·6 ·7 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·-· -· - ·8· · · · · · · · E X H I B I T S· ·M A R K E D · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·-· -· - ·9 10· ·Plaintiff's 11· ·No. 1· · · · · · · · Records Request· · · · ·12 · · ·No. 2· · · · · · · · · ·Composite· · · · · · 24 12· ·No. 3· · · · · · · July 23, 2013 Letter· · · 36 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ·1· · · · · · · · ·DEPOSITION OF SCOTT MORGAN ·2· · · · · · · · · · · · MARCH 26, 2014 ·3· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·-· -· - ·4· · · · · · ·(Oath administered.) ·5· · · · · · ·MR. MORGAN:· I do. ·6· ·Thereupon, ·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·SCOTT MORGAN, ·8· ·having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified ·9· ·as follows: 10· · · · · · · · · · · DIRECT EXAMINATION 11· ·BY MS. HANNA: 12· · · · Q.· ·All right.· Mr. Morgan, you're an attorney I 13· ·understand so I don't really need to go through the -- 14· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· I'd prefer if you don't mind 15· · · · putting on the record any instructions you want the 16· · · · witness to follow. 17· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Okay.· Fine.· Sure. 18· · · · · · ·Mr. Sweetapple, before I get started, are you 19· · · · insurance counsel on this case, or what's your 20· · · · position here? 21· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· I'm here representing the 22· · · · witness. 23· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Oh, okay.· Can I have your card 24· · · · when you get a chance? 25· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Sure. ·1· ·BY MS. HANNA: ·2· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· I'm sure you've been through this a ·3· ·million times, but I'm going to ask you questions.· From ·4· ·time to time your attorneys may interpose objections. ·5· ·And I might stop and think about my question, rephrase ·6· ·my question, or I might not.· I might just continue on. ·7· · · · · · ·But you're aware if there is an objection, you ·8· ·know, you still do answer the question unless your ·9· ·attorney imposes a different type of objection, which 10· ·I'm sure you're well aware of, attorney-client privilege 11· ·information. 12· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I'm sorry.· Mr. O'Hare, you're 13· · · · not a party to this case? 14· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· He can sit here. 15· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· He can sit here? 16· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Yeah.· It's an open 17· · · · proceeding. 18· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Oh, okay.· Sorry.· Where I am 19· · · · from, it is not.· Only parties are permitted and 20· · · · counsel of record only. 21· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Okay. 22· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So my mistake. 23· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Where is that? 24· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Pennsylvania. 25· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Pennsylvania. ·1· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· No. ·2· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· As Mr. O'Boyle would know, in ·3· · · · Pennsylvania that's how it's done. ·4· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· Well, we're in a ·5· · · · public building, and unless there's a prior ·6· · · · protective order granted by the Court, anyone in ·7· · · · the world can sit in here just like you're in ·8· · · · trial. ·9· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay. 10· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Florida is a little more 11· · · · liberal than Pennsylvania. 12· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yeah, interesting.· Okay.· All 13· · · · right.· Well, sorry. 14· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Okay.· Now I lost my place. 15· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· You were explaining to the 16· · · · witness that he's to answer questions except when 17· · · · instructed by counsel.· Typically based on 18· · · · lawyer-client privilege, but that's not the only 19· · · · reason under Florida law but -- 20· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Typical.· I used the word typical, 21· · · · maybe I didn't. 22· ·BY MS. HANNA: 23· · · · Q.· ·Regardless, if you don't understand a question 24· ·that I've asked you, please feel free to ask me to 25· ·explain myself.· I'm disheveled, and I may be confused, ·1· ·and I'd appreciate it if you could ask me to clear up ·2· ·any confusion. ·3· · · · · · ·You know that you should answer your questions ·4· ·verbally so that the court reporter -- you're close to ·5· ·her, so she understands.· You don't nod or any other ·6· ·gestures that can't be taken down on the record. ·7· · · · · · ·And if you need to take a bathroom break, ·8· ·please just tell me, and we'll stop. ·9· · · · A.· ·Got it. 10· · · · Q.· ·Or if you need another break for any other 11· ·reason, I have no problem.· Just let me know.· Okay? 12· · · · A.· ·That's fine. 13· · · · Q.· ·All right.· Let's start from the beginning. 14· ·Can you tell me where were you born? 15· · · · A.· ·I was a born in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 16· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And can you give me a little bit more 17· ·about your background?· Take me through your life up to 18· ·this point. 19· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Object to the form. 20· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Join. 21· ·BY MS. HANNA: 22· · · · Q.· ·Or do you want me to ask you? 23· · · · A.· ·What do you mean? 24· · · · Q.· ·Where did you go to school? 25· · · · A.· ·I went to Susquehanna Township High School. ·1· ·And then I went to Pennsylvania State University, and ·2· ·then Dickinson School of Law. ·3· · · · Q.· ·And what did you do after you graduated from ·4· ·law school? ·5· · · · A.· ·Then I practiced law in Philadelphia, then in ·6· ·the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. ·7· · · · Q.· ·What kind of law did you practice? ·8· · · · A.· ·General litigation. ·9· · · · Q.· ·When did you come to Florida? 10· · · · A.· ·I came to Florida in the early '90s. 11· · · · Q.· ·Do you mind if I ask why? 12· · · · A.· ·How in the world would that be relevant to 13· ·this proceeding? 14· · · · Q.· ·Are you making an objection? 15· · · · A.· ·I'm asking. 16· · · · Q.· ·I'm getting your background.· And credibility 17· ·is always an issue.· I'm just -- Background information 18· ·is always relevant. 19· · · · A.· ·I like Florida. 20· · · · Q.· ·That's all you had to say. 21· · · · · · ·Do you have any professional licenses? 22· · · · A.· ·I was a licensed lawyer.· I have an inactive 23· ·license at this time. 24· · · · Q.· ·Oh, so was.· How long ago did that happen? 25· · · · A.· ·It's been inactive, I can't recall exactly, ·1· ·but probably within five years. ·2· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· How long have you been in Florida? ·3· · · · A.· ·We came in the early '90s to Florida. ·4· · · · Q.· ·Did you move directly to Gulf Stream? ·5· · · · A.· ·No.· Moved to Boca Raton for a couple of ·6· ·years, and then moved to Gulf Stream. ·7· · · · Q.· ·And your residence now where you live, was ·8· ·that the first place you moved to in Gulf Stream or ·9· ·was -- 10· · · · A.· ·No.· We've moved a couple times. 11· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· But you've stayed within the -- 12· · · · A.· ·Yes. 13· · · · Q.· ·-- Gulf Stream boundaries? 14· · · · · · ·Are you retired from the practice of law then 15· ·I take it? 16· · · · A.· ·I wouldn't use the word retired.· I have 17· ·another business. 18· · · · Q.· ·What's that business? 19· · · · A.· ·It's called Humidifirst.· We manufacture 20· ·commercial humidifier systems.· And I am the president 21· ·of that company. 22· · · · Q.· ·And where is that located? 23· · · · A.· ·In Boynton Beach. 24· · · · Q.· ·Let's see.· Do you have any building 25· ·experience? ·1· · · · A.· ·What do you mean? ·2· · · · Q.· ·Construction.· Are you experienced with ·3· ·development construction that would enable you to ·4· ·interpret a code, a building code, that kind of thing? ·5· · · · A.· ·I guess that depends. ·6· · · · Q.· ·Depends on what? ·7· · · · A.· ·Your definition of ability to interpret. ·8· · · · Q.· ·Have you ever built a house? ·9· · · · A.· ·I haven't laid the brick, but I've had a house 10· ·built. 11· · · · Q.· ·So you had a general contractor? 12· · · · A.· ·Yes. 13· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Do you know why we're here today? 14· · · · A.· ·You're taking my deposition. 15· · · · Q.· ·For -- 16· · · · A.· ·The lawsuit. 17· · · · Q.· ·-- the public records lawsuit? 18· · · · A.· ·Yes. 19· · · · Q.· ·Are you familiar with Florida's Public Records 20· ·Act? 21· · · · A.· ·Vaguely. 22· · · · Q.· ·Have you ever read the statute? 23· · · · A.· ·No. 24· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· When did you first find out about the 25· ·request that was made which is the subject matter of ·1· ·this litigation? ·2· · · · A.· ·I haven't seen the complaint in this matter. ·3· · · · Q.· ·I would happily provide -- ·4· · · · A.· ·But it is a complaint relative to a public ·5· ·records request. ·6· · · · Q.· ·Correct. ·7· · · · A.· ·So I'm aware of that.· And I first became ·8· ·aware of that lawsuit when the Jones, Foster law firm ·9· ·contacted me about this deposition. 10· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· But my question was more specifically 11· ·directed to the actual request itself prior to the 12· ·initiation of litigation. 13· · · · A.· ·Oh, I had -- Would you repeat the question? 14· · · · Q.· ·When did you become aware of the public 15· ·records request that was made regarding your 16· ·communications with respect to your position on the 17· ·Architectural Review and Planning Board? 18· · · · A.· ·That's the subject of this case? 19· · · · Q.· ·Yes. 20· · · · A.· ·When I received a call from Jones, Foster. 21· · · · Q.· ·So you never saw -- Or Mr. Thrasher never 22· ·called you and asked you about any public records you 23· ·might have on your computers or -- 24· · · · A.· ·No. 25· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Would you mark that? ·1· · · · · · ·(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 1 was marked for ·2· ·identification.) ·3· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· I apologize, I only have one copy. ·4· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay. ·5· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· It's attached as an exhibit to the ·6· · · · complaint. ·7· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Okay. ·8· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Just for the record, it's -- ·9· · · · What number is the complaint, the exhibit number of 10· · · · the complaint as well? 11· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· I believe it's Exhibit B. 12· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Exhibit B.· Okay. 13· ·BY MS. HANNA: 14· · · · Q.· ·Could you just take a look at that document 15· ·for me.· Read it over, and let me now when you are 16· ·finished. 17· · · · A.· ·Okay. 18· · · · Q.· ·Has that refreshed your recollection at all 19· ·with respect to the request? 20· · · · A.· ·Your question was whether Mr. Thrasher called 21· ·me to ask me about a records request that you've just 22· ·marked as Exhibit 1. 23· · · · Q.· ·Or anybody from the Town of Gulf Stream. 24· · · · · · ·Did anyone call you and ask you to produce 25· ·these records? ·1· · · · A.· ·I received a call from someone at the Town of ·2· ·Gulf Stream.· I don't recall who it was.· I'm not sure ·3· ·when it was, but it was this year, saying that there had ·4· ·been more requests by -- and I don't recall if it was ·5· ·Mr. O'Boyle or Mr. O'Hare, but there were requests and ·6· ·also involving me, and did I know of any letters or ·7· ·documents I may have submitted to the Town in the last ·8· ·year or so. ·9· · · · · · ·I was not told specifically about a request 10· ·for records of Scott Morgan of the ARPB.· That 11· ·conversation was pretty much as I just described. 12· · · · Q.· ·While we're on the topic, you mentioned ARPB, 13· ·could you -- 14· · · · A.· ·It's the Architectural Review and Planning 15· ·Board. 16· · · · Q.· ·And when did you become a member of that 17· ·board? 18· · · · A.· ·I don't recall. 19· · · · Q.· ·It's been -- 20· · · · A.· ·It's been five years or six years, something 21· ·like that. 22· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And what does the Architectural Review 23· ·board -- Review and Planning Board do? 24· · · · A.· ·We review applications to the board regarding 25· ·development permits, construction, whether it's whole ·1· ·house or just renovations.· It could be plan ·2· ·renovations, code modifications, anything assigned by ·3· ·the commission for the ARPB to review, and then report ·4· ·back to the commission as an advisory panel. ·5· · · · Q.· ·How many applications do you think that you ·6· ·have in a year?· Can you give me a figure, just a ·7· ·general guess? ·8· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· One of the instructions that ·9· · · · she should have given you was not to speculate or 10· · · · guess. 11· · · · · · ·So if you have a general idea, you can 12· · · · certainly testify to that, but don't guess or 13· · · · speculate. 14· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· We meet monthly generally except 15· · · · August.· And it varies considerably as to how many 16· · · · applications.· It may be one.· It could be four. 17· · · · · · ·So depending on the amount of construction 18· · · · activity and the economy, it does vary 19· · · · considerably. 20· ·BY MS. HANNA: 21· · · · Q.· ·And how does that -- What happens?· You 22· ·receive the packet, and what happens after that? 23· · · · A.· ·Well, we receive a packet which is a good way 24· ·of describing it, and it includes the applications that 25· ·are to be heard by the board.· We generally get them a ·1· ·week or so before the meeting.· And then witnesses are ·2· ·brought in to present the application information on. ·3· ·It may be some plans, could be architectural drawings. ·4· ·It really depends on what the applicant is trying to ·5· ·accomplish.· And then we hear that evidence, if you want ·6· ·to call it evidence, it's really not a judicial body. ·7· ·And then we determine whether it should be approved or ·8· ·not. ·9· · · · Q.· ·I just want to be clear.· So the Architectural 10· ·Review and Planning Board has witnesses in front of it, 11· ·or is it -- I'm sorry.· Note -- 12· · · · A.· ·People are sworn in.· They generally stand up 13· ·at the podium and give I guess you would call it 14· ·testimony.· It is transcribed I believe or at least is 15· ·taped.· I'm not quite sure. 16· · · · Q.· ·So just so I understand the function of this 17· ·board, if I wanted to build a home in Gulf Stream and 18· ·I'm going to exceed the lot lines, I would come to you 19· ·first? 20· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Note my objection to the form 21· · · · to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. 22· · · · · · ·I suggest you read the Snyder opinion 23· · · · regarding quasi-judicial proceedings and land use 24· · · · applications in the State of Florida.· It governs 25· · · · all of the proceedings. ·1· · · · · · ·But you can give your lay opinion if you have ·2· · · · one. ·3· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· My understanding of it is that ·4· · · · if you had an application, and that application is ·5· · · · pretty general - I think that's what you're getting ·6· · · · at - you would bring it to the Town, generally meet ·7· · · · with the town manager who would go over it, let you ·8· · · · know if there is any changes that really should be ·9· · · · made or some things that definitely won't comply 10· · · · with the code. 11· · · · · · ·Then it is brought to the ARPB.· We make a 12· · · · decision, and refer it on to the commission with 13· · · · our recommendation.· Our decision is not binding. 14· · · · I believe that's the process. 15· ·BY MS. HANNA: 16· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Thank you.· Is there -- Are there 17· ·qualifications or anything that Gulf Stream requests 18· ·that you have before you sit on the ARPB? 19· · · · A.· ·I don't believe so. 20· · · · Q.· ·Well, once you got there and are on the 21· ·board -- 22· · · · · · ·What's your position on the board? 23· · · · A.· ·I'm not on the board anymore. 24· · · · Q.· ·Prior to -- At the time this request was made. 25· ·It was January 1, 2012. ·1· · · · A.· ·Yeah.· I was chairman of the ARPB at that ·2· ·time. ·3· · · · Q.· ·You were chairman. ·4· · · · · · ·All right.· You receive a packet you explained ·5· ·to me.· How do you get the packet? ·6· · · · A.· ·You can come pick it up, or it typically will ·7· ·be dropped off at our house. ·8· · · · Q.· ·Who drops it off? ·9· · · · A.· ·Sometimes a police officer will bring it. 10· ·Other times I assume of member of staff.· I don't know. 11· ·I just come home from work, and it's there. 12· · · · Q.· ·I'm sorry to skip around.· I just want to -- 13· · · · · · ·So you work full-time? 14· · · · A.· ·Yes. 15· · · · Q.· ·Okay. 16· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Except today. 17· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Lucky me. 18· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· It looks like you're going to 19· · · · go well beyond the normal background.· Is this 20· · · · case -- And I'm just a casual observer.· But it 21· · · · looks like it's more about your client lost an 22· · · · election than about a public records request, 23· · · · because this is totally unnecessary for purposes of 24· · · · establishing anything you want to prove in a public 25· · · · records request lawsuit. ·1· · · · Normally questions are calculated to lead to ·2· ·discovery of admissible evidence.· I hope certainly ·3· ·you're going to at some point leave background. ·4· · · · You might want to ask him what he had for ·5· ·breakfast.· Maybe when you're done asking what he ·6· ·had for breakfast, we can get to the subject matter ·7· ·of your lawsuit. ·8· · · · MS. HANNA:· Thank you for the speech.· That ·9· ·was nice. 10· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Yeah.· Unless you're just 11· ·doing this for harassment. 12· · · · MS. HANNA:· Have you ever read Lorei v. Smith, 13· ·the Second DCA case? 14· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Yeah, I'm familiar.· I've 15· ·been board certified as a civil trial lawyer and a 16· ·business lawyer here for decades. 17· · · · MS. HANNA:· And you've read that case -- 18· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Yeah, uh-huh. 19· · · · MS. HANNA:· -- as it pertains to public 20· ·records? 21· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Yes.· And what I'm suggesting 22· ·to you is why he moved to Florida and these other 23· ·questions you're asking him, are really just not 24· ·calculated to lead to -- 25· · · · MS. HANNA:· Are you making an objection? ·1· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· I am.· And I'm laying a ·2· ·predicate for the fact that at some point I suspect ·3· ·that I'm going to have to move to suspend this ·4· ·deposition, because you are starting to just harass ·5· ·the witness.· And what you're doing is you have the ·6· ·Plaintiff's son here, the Plaintiff just lost an ·7· ·election. ·8· · · · MS. HANNA:· I'm sorry.· Can we stop for a ·9· ·second? 10· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· No, we can't. 11· · · · MS. HANNA:· I would like to go off the record. 12· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· I don't want to go off the 13· ·record. 14· · · · MS. HANNA:· Okay.· Fine. 15· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· You have the Plaintiff's son 16· ·here as your law clerk.· The Plaintiff just lost an 17· ·election. 18· · · · You indicated in the beginning you're 19· ·disheveled and disorganized.· You're required to be 20· ·prepared.· And you're required as an officer of the 21· ·court to use this proceeding pursuant to your oath 22· ·not to harass people for any improper purpose. 23· · · · We're here.· This gentleman has taken off from 24· ·work.· And you have some issues that you want to 25· ·prove or take discovery regarding concerning a very ·1· ·discrete, limited case. ·2· · · · And I would appreciate it if you would conduct ·3· ·yourself as a professional and stick to questions ·4· ·that are calculated to lead to discovery of ·5· ·admissible evidence. ·6· · · · Are we done with your background examination, ·7· ·or are you going to harass him with regard to ·8· ·things that have nothing to do with your purpose ·9· ·here today? 10· · · · MS. HANNA:· Are you done? 11· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· I just posed a question to 12· ·you. 13· · · · MS. HANNA:· Can I continue? 14· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Can you please answer my 15· ·question? 16· · · · MS. HANNA:· I'm not in a deposition.· I'm 17· ·taking a deposition. 18· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· Well, I forewarned 19· ·you, so let's watch what you do here. 20· · · · MS. HANNA:· Thank you.· That was a lovely 21· ·speech, and I appreciate it. 22· · · · As you're aware the issue here is whether 23· ·records were produced, when they were produced and 24· ·the existence of other records.· And I suggest that 25· ·you read Lorei v Smith.· It's a Second DCA case ·1· ·that speaks directly to the point when records are ·2· ·not produced and there's an allegation that the ·3· ·government is playing fast and loose, discovery is ·4· ·much broader and not limited to a strict public ·5· ·records typical deposition. ·6· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· I understand that, but you ·7· ·haven't asked anything to do with any production of ·8· ·any records here yet. ·9· · · · So please proceed to do that.· You've been 10· ·under the guise of background wasting our time.· So 11· ·please get to your point. 12· · · · MS. HANNA:· I appreciate that, but I believe 13· ·that the ARPB information is relevant. 14· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· I believe you're here to 15· ·harass this witness.· So keep asking questions. 16· ·Let's go.· Let's see if I'm correct or your 17· ·correct.· Because I have a feeling we're going to 18· ·have other proceedings very soon. 19· · · · MS. HANNA:· So are we going to call the judge 20· ·or -- 21· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· No, no.· I think we're going 22· ·to end up with other proceedings very soon.· So you 23· ·continue, because I'm watching very carefully. 24· · · · MS. HANNA:· I would ask that you keep your 25· ·objections to a minimum so we don't have this whole ·1· · · · Emancipation Proclamation on the record.· It does ·2· · · · cost five dollars a page. ·3· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Your client has filed dozens ·4· · · · of requests and lawsuits.· Okay?· And I'm going to ·5· · · · make my statements and objections on the record. ·6· · · · I'm objecting that your questions are not ·7· · · · calculated to lead to discovery of admissible ·8· · · · evidence and that you are harassing the witness and ·9· · · · that this deposition is a pattern of harassment 10· · · · that your client has been pursuing for his own 11· · · · psychological purpose and issues. 12· · · · · · ·So please, I'll say it one more time, let's 13· · · · get to the questions that you as a responsible 14· · · · member of the Bar and professional should be asking 15· · · · in this type of a deposition. 16· · · · · · ·Now please proceed. 17· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· I'm sorry.· Could you read the 18· · · · last question back to me? 19· · · · · · ·(The requested portion of the record was read 20· ·by the reporter.) 21· ·BY MS. HANNA: 22· · · · Q.· ·Are you aware that those packets are public 23· ·records? 24· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Note my objection to the 25· · · · extent it calls for a legal conclusion. ·1· · · · · · ·Go ahead and answer. ·2· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I guess they would be. ·3· ·BY MS. HANNA: ·4· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Mr. Morgan, do you have a computer? ·5· · · · A.· ·Sure. ·6· · · · Q.· ·Do you have more than one computer? ·7· · · · A.· ·Sure. ·8· · · · Q.· ·Do you use those computers for business? ·9· · · · A.· ·Yes. 10· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Object to the form. 11· ·BY MS. HANNA: 12· · · · Q.· ·Do you use the computers for Town business? 13· · · · A.· ·No.· I wouldn't say I use my computers for 14· ·Town business.· I'm a member of the ARPB. 15· · · · Q.· ·How do you communicate with the Town when an 16· ·issue arises from the -- 17· · · · A.· ·What kind of an issue? 18· · · · Q.· ·A variance request with the ARPB. 19· · · · A.· ·As I said, typically what happens we get a 20· ·packet of material from the Town.· We don't -- We don't 21· ·know what's in it.· We don't know the issues that are 22· ·before the Town until we receive the packet, read the 23· ·packet, see what the applications are.· They usually are 24· ·not variances.· They're usually much simpler than that. 25· ·And then we go to the hearing. ·1· · · · Q.· ·Do you communicate -- ·2· · · · A.· ·We don't -- No.· I don't call the Town and ·3· ·say, you know, I see we have an application for Joe ·4· ·Smith, I'd like to get some more information on that. ·5· ·No.· At least I've not done that. ·6· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Yesterday I received an e-mail from ·7· ·Ms. O'Connor forwarding me a document that I believe was ·8· ·an e-mail from you to Mr. Thrasher. ·9· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Mark that. 10· · · · · · ·(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 2 was marked for 11· ·identification.) 12· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Thank you. 13· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· I did bring copies of that. 14· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· You marked this as Two? 15· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Yes. 16· ·BY MR. SWEETAPPLE: 17· · · · Q.· ·Could you just take a second and read that 18· ·e-mail? 19· · · · A.· ·Yes. 20· · · · Q.· ·Is this e-mail an e-mail that you used for 21· ·official business with the Town, related to the Town? 22· · · · A.· ·This particular e-mail was -- You use the word 23· ·used for official business.· I don't know that that's a 24· ·correct way of designating it.· It's just an e-mail 25· ·address. ·1· · · · Q.· ·As in this e-mail, the Exhibit 2, do you -- ·2· ·Strike that.· I'm sorry. ·3· · · · · · ·Do you have a specific e-mail address that you ·4· ·use to communicate with members of the Town with respect ·5· ·to your duties with the ARPB? ·6· · · · A.· ·No. ·7· · · · Q.· ·Do you have more than one e-mail address that ·8· ·you use to communicate with the Town? ·9· · · · A.· ·I don't regularly communicate with the Town 10· ·for official business.· So I'm not quite sure what 11· ·you're asking. 12· · · · Q.· ·I guess I'm not being clear. 13· · · · A.· ·I sent this e-mail with that e-mail address. 14· · · · Q.· ·And what was the date this e-mail was sent? 15· · · · A.· ·October 18th of 2013. 16· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· The second paragraph of the e-mail 17· ·addresses a request that was made.· And you state that 18· ·the request is vague.· So you were unable in good faith 19· ·to respond to it? 20· · · · A.· ·That's correct. 21· · · · Q.· ·What did you use to make that determination? 22· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Note my objection to the 23· · · · form.· Do you have the underlying -- 24· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Join. 25· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· -- the underlying ·1· ·communication that he's referring to? ·2· · · · MS. HANNA:· Is there an underlying ·3· ·communication that he's referring to? ·4· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Well, yeah.· He says the ·5· ·highlight in request number five of the e-mail ·6· ·makes no sense. ·7· · · · So do you have that? ·8· · · · MS. HANNA:· Unfortunately, I don't, which is ·9· ·one of the issues in this lawsuit. 10· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay. 11· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· This is referencing an e-mail 12· ·that your client sent making a public records 13· ·request.· So I would suspect that you have it. 14· · · · MS. HANNA:· The time frame is October 18, 15· ·2013.· Mr. O'Boyle made a request for -- 16· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· It's not the request we're 17· ·talking about here. 18· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· You don't have his e-mail? 19· ·You don't have Mr. O'Boyle's e-mail? 20· · · · MS. HANNA:· No, I do not.· I have 21· ·Mr. O'Boyle's public records request, which 22· ·includes any communication sent or received by 23· ·Scott Morgan of the Architectural Review and 24· ·Planning Board at the Town of Gulf Stream for the 25· ·period beginning January 1, 2012 through the date ·1· ·of this request, which is 1/24/14. ·2· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· That request itself as a ·3· ·matter of law is vague.· It doesn't even indicate ·4· ·who to or from. ·5· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· And just for the record, this ·6· ·e-mail -- ·7· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Is that what you're referring ·8· ·to? ·9· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· -- was produced to you in an 10· ·abundance of caution to the extent it might fall 11· ·within the ambit of the public records request 12· ·that's at issue in this lawsuit. 13· · · · Exhibit 2 references another public records 14· ·request made by your client back in October of 2013 15· ·so... 16· · · · MS. HANNA:· We've received 1422 pages after 17· ·this litigation was initiated.· All of those 18· ·documents were responsive to Mr. O'Boyle's request, 19· ·including packets from the ARPB. 20· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Are you saying you don't have 21· ·an e-mail from your client in or about October of 22· ·2013? 23· · · · MS. HANNA:· This is not my client who made the 24· ·request. 25· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· Mr. J. O'Boyle.· You ·1· ·don't have an e-mail from Mr. J. O'Boyle from on or ·2· ·about October 18th as referred to -- ·3· · · · MS. HANNA:· Yes, I do.· I do. ·4· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· So you stand corrected ·5· ·because Mr. J. O'Boyle is showing it to you. ·6· · · · Do you have a copy of it here for the purposes ·7· ·of the deposition so that this exhibit can be ·8· ·complete? ·9· · · · I'm objecting to this exhibit because it's not 10· ·complete.· It make a reference to a document in a 11· ·string that I would like to see and have made part 12· ·of the record if we could. 13· · · · Do you only have it on your computer screen, 14· ·or do you have a hard copy of it? 15· · · · MS. HANNA:· Could we just go off the record 16· ·for a second, please. 17· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· No.· We're not going off the 18· ·record with you.· We're going to have an official 19· ·record about your public records request about your 20· ·client's home improvement.· So we're never going to 21· ·go off the record. 22· · · · MS. HANNA:· Mr. Sweetapple, you're bringing 23· ·up -- I mean you're throwing around election. 24· ·We're not talking about election.· We're not 25· ·talking about my client's home improvement. ·1· · · · I'm trying to get to some issues here.· I have ·2· ·some genuine questions.· You dispute the ·3· ·genuineness of my questions. ·4· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· No, I don't. ·5· · · · MS. HANNA:· However, your job here is not to ·6· ·dispute my questions.· It's just to sit and listen ·7· ·and object to form.· No speaking objections. ·8· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· You have a -- ·9· · · · MS. HANNA:· But you have decided that you're 10· ·going to interpose voluminous statements on the 11· ·record. 12· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· I can object for a number of 13· ·grounds besides just form.· Your understanding of 14· ·the law is entirely unsophisticated. 15· · · · I am now objecting because this exhibit is 16· ·incomplete.· And I'll ask you for the third time 17· ·very respectfully, other than the fact that 18· ·Mr. Jonathan O'Boyle just showed you a computer 19· ·screen and corrected your earlier position and 20· ·there is a communication from Mr. Jonathan O'Boyle 21· ·in October of 2013 which your Exhibit 2 apparently 22· ·is part of and relates to, I will ask you one last 23· ·time do you have a copy of it so the witness can 24· ·see it so he can have a complete exhibit?· Or do 25· ·you need -- ·1· · · · MS. HANNA:· I'm sure that I do. ·2· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· May I please make it part of ·3· ·the record?· Because you're asking him about that ·4· ·communication.· And he would like to see it. ·5· · · · MS. HANNA:· I am not asking him about that ·6· ·communication. ·7· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Yes.· Because you asked him ·8· ·what -- He referred to a document as being vague. ·9· ·That's the document. 10· · · · Do you have it here today? 11· · · · MS. HANNA:· Can you read my question back for 12· ·me? 13· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· You'll see in your questions 14· ·you asked him about what was vague. 15· · · · MS. HANNA:· I believe I asked him what his 16· ·understanding of vagueness was. 17· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Well, that would be a silly 18· ·question to ask. 19· · · · MS. HANNA:· Would it? 20· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Because that would be a legal 21· ·conclusion as to what's vague.· A judge will make 22· ·that decision. 23· · · · And after you've had that read back, please 24· ·answer my question I've asked three times.· Do you 25· ·have the rest of this exhibit or not? ·1· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· To make Mr. Sweetapple happy, ·2· · · · we'll take it out for the time being, and we'll ·3· · · · move on. ·4· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· I'm happy to have you give me ·5· · · · the complete exhibit.· That's not Two.· We'll leave ·6· · · · that marked as Two, but we'll move on. ·7· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Thank you. ·8· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· The next exhibit will be ·9· · · · Three. 10· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Thank you.· Thank you for that, 11· · · · Mr. Sweetapple. 12· ·BY MS. HANNA: 13· · · · Q.· ·Going back to January 1, 2012 when the public 14· ·records request was made that's at issue in this case -- 15· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Objection.· The public records 16· · · · request was made in January of 2014.· The request 17· · · · was made in January 2014.· It concerns documents -- 18· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Oh, I'm sorry.· You're right.· You 19· · · · are right. 20· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· I just want to clarify for the 21· · · · record. 22· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Okay.· Thank you. 23· · · · · · ·Where is the request? 24· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· With Exhibit 1. 25 ·1· ·BY MS. HANNA: ·2· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Morgan, I'm asking you to take a look at ·3· ·that again. ·4· · · · A.· ·Yes. ·5· · · · Q.· ·At the time that request was made, did you ·6· ·have any documents that would be responsive to the ·7· ·request? ·8· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Object to the form. ·9· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I'm sorry.· At the time this 10· · · · request was made, January 24th of 2014, but not 11· · · · made to me. 12· ·BY MS. HANNA: 13· · · · Q.· ·To the Town. 14· · · · A.· ·Did I have any public records responsive to 15· ·this? 16· · · · Q.· ·Did you have any documents or e-mails or 17· ·letters that you communicated with the Town regarding 18· ·Town business? 19· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Object to the form. 20· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Not to my knowledge. 21· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· What's your basis? 22· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Pardon? 23· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· What's your basis? 24· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· My basis is that anything 25· · · · that he had in his possession that you're asking ·1· · · · about would not be a public record.· It would be ·2· · · · his personal record.· It would be a public record ·3· · · · only if it were held by the city or town or ·4· · · · municipality or government entity. ·5· · · · · · ·So your whole area of inquiry is based on a ·6· · · · predicate that has no legal basis.· Anything in his ·7· · · · computer is not a public record because he sent it ·8· · · · to a government agency. ·9· · · · · · ·That's the basis for my objection.· Please 10· · · · proceed. 11· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· I'm going to take a break. 12· · · · · · ·Jon, can you come outside with me? 13· · · · · · ·MR. JONATHAN O'BOYLE:· Sure. 14· · · · · · ·(A recess was had from 10:41 until 10:54 a.m.) 15· ·BY MS. HANNA: 16· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Morgan, have you ever -- I know you have. 17· ·I'm just going to give you Exhibit C to the complaint. 18· ·I'll give it to your lawyer first. 19· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Thank you. 20· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· I think it's got an extra page on 21· · · · it. 22· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Not part of the exhibit? 23· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· No. 24· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· Here you go. 25· · · · · · ·Are you going to mark this as Three? ·1· · · · MS. HANNA:· No.· Let's mark this as Two. ·2· ·We'll come back to -- ·3· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Well, we already have a Two ·4· ·marked even though you're not -- ·5· · · · MS. HANNA:· It's just a sticker.· We can take ·6· ·it off. ·7· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· Well, then the record ·8· ·won't know what we were talking about.· I prefer to ·9· ·leave Two.· We talked about Two being incomplete. 10· · · · MS. HANNA:· All right. 11· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· So I want a complete record. 12· ·So if you don't mind, we'll mark this as Three. 13· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· And just for the record, it's 14· ·not an exact copy.· It's just a part of Exhibit C 15· ·to the complaint. 16· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· So Exhibit C to the complaint 17· ·is -- 18· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· Yes.· You don't have the cover 19· ·letter, the February 3, 2014 cover letter.· Here it 20· ·attaches. 21· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· I've got an attachment here. 22· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· And there was more than just 23· ·this document.· There's five pages attached. 24· · · · MS. HANNA:· For Exhibit C? 25· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· Yes.· I have your complaint ·1· ·right here if you'd like to look at it. ·2· · · · MS. HANNA:· Yeah.· May I see that? ·3· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· Uh-huh. ·4· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· So this is incomplete also ·5· ·you're saying? ·6· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· Correct. ·7· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· We could just say it's part ·8· ·of Exhibit C of the complaint.· At least we'd have ·9· ·the whole exhibit to look at. 10· · · · MS. HANNA:· Okay. 11· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· Do you need to make a copy of 12· ·that? 13· · · · MS. HANNA:· I have this right here.· It's just 14· ·a little confusing because there is an extra sheet 15· ·attached to this.· So I did not believe that it was 16· ·part of the exhibit. 17· · · · Do you want to take a look at this?· Is that 18· ·more complete for you? 19· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay. 20· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· It's missing pages three out of 21· ·eight and seven out of eight. 22· · · · MS. HANNA:· One, two, three, four, five. 23· · · · How many pages do you have in your hand? 24· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· Five. 25· · · · MS. HANNA:· This exhibit right here has five ·1· ·pages.· It starts with a letter from the Town of ·2· ·Gulf Stream, February 3, 2014, and ends with a page ·3· ·signed by Scott W. Morgan. ·4· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Is this letter the only part ·5· ·of the exhibit that Mr. Morgan authored? ·6· · · · MS. HANNA:· Yes. ·7· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· I suspect you may have attached ·8· ·an incomplete exhibit to your complaint.· This is ·9· ·an eight page fax, and you're missing -- And it's 10· ·both this and the exhibit to the complaint only has 11· ·five pages.· You're missing a page three out of 12· ·eight and page seven and eight out of eight. 13· · · · And the letter indicates that there are five 14· ·eight-and-a-half by eleven one-sided documents that 15· ·are included with this fax cover page.· And it 16· ·appears that only three were attached. 17· · · · MS. HANNA:· Actually, page three is Exhibit B 18· ·of the complaint. 19· · · · MR. JONATHAN O'BOYLE:· Yeah.· It's all A, and 20· ·the exhibits. 21· · · · MS. HANNA:· Page two is Exhibit A to the 22· ·complaint. 23· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Do you want to ask him about 24· ·this letter, the July 23rd letter? 25· · · · MS. HANNA:· Yes. ·1· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· I marked that as ·2· · · · Three.· So why don't we just go ahead and go ·3· · · · forward with that. ·4· · · · · · ·(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 3 was marked for ·5· ·identification.) ·6· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Two is subject to completion per ·7· · · · Mr. Sweetapple's request. ·8· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· So you're holding it. ·9· · · · Fine. 10· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Can we continue, please? 11· ·BY MS. HANNA: 12· · · · Q.· ·Have you had a chance to read the letter that 13· ·I've handed you?· It's marked as Exhibit 3. 14· · · · A.· ·I did not read it, but I'm familiar with it. 15· · · · Q.· ·Who was the author of that letter? 16· · · · A.· ·I wrote this and signed it. 17· · · · Q.· ·What prompted you to write that letter? 18· · · · A.· ·At an ARPB meeting, the town manager asked the 19· ·members of the board to take a look at the code and 20· ·propose any comments, modifications, changes, anything 21· ·that they thought might be helpful to an ad hoc 22· ·committee that was being set up to review the design 23· ·manual of our code.· And so in response to that request, 24· ·I wrote this letter. 25· · · · Q.· ·Is this a letter that -- ·1· · · · A.· ·Oh, I'm sorry.· I should have read it.· Strike ·2· ·that.· I'm looking at the wrong one. ·3· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Right. ·4· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I wondered why you were ·5· · · · looking...· I'm sorry. ·6· · · · · · ·This was a letter I wrote on July 23rd.· It's ·7· · · · titled Hidden Harbour Estates Lot 5.· This was a ·8· · · · letter that I -- or a fax that I sent in to the ·9· · · · Town noting my objection to an application that was 10· · · · coming before the ARPB I guess for the July 11· · · · meeting.· Sorry about that. 12· ·BY MS. HANNA: 13· · · · Q.· ·That's all right. 14· · · · · · ·Do you typically send letters to the town? 15· · · · A.· ·No. 16· · · · Q.· ·Only when you have specific objections? 17· · · · A.· ·I would rarely send a letter to the Town.· But 18· ·I had voiced my objection to the Harbour View Estates 19· ·development early on.· This was one of the proposed 20· ·buildings that I objected to.· And I wanted my 21· ·objections to be known to the ARPB for their 22· ·consideration. 23· · · · Q.· ·So when you have objections, you write a 24· ·letter to the ARPB? 25· · · · A.· ·No.· Sometimes I would be sitting on the ARPB. ·1· · · · Q.· ·Okay. ·2· · · · A.· ·This letter -- Frankly, I knew I was not going ·3· ·to be on.· And had I been there, I more likely than not ·4· ·would have recused myself.· Because as a neighbor in ·5· ·proximity to this property, as I had done before ·6· ·previous times, had recused and vocalized my objections ·7· ·to it.· Others I did not object to with this property. ·8· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Thank you. ·9· · · · · · ·I just want to clarify one point.· Your 10· ·position as the commissioner of the ARPB gave you the 11· ·authority to author documents? 12· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Form. 13· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Objection. 14· ·BY MS. HANNA: 15· · · · Q.· ·Did you author documents during your tenure 16· ·as -- What was it? 17· · · · A.· ·Anyone can write letters, faxes, come and give 18· ·public comment, come and testify relative to any 19· ·application.· You needn't be a member of the board or 20· ·the commission. 21· · · · Q.· ·But as a member of the board or the 22· ·commission, did you create correspondence? 23· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Objection. 24· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· For what? 25 ·1· ·BY MS. HANNA: ·2· · · · Q.· ·Related to the applications that were before ·3· ·you? ·4· · · · A.· ·All the applications, no. ·5· · · · Q.· ·Was there ever a time when you did create ·6· ·correspondence relative to an application pending before ·7· ·you? ·8· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Objection.· Asked and answered. ·9· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Form. 10· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Not to my knowledge. 11· ·BY MS. HANNA: 12· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· How many e-mail accounts do you have, 13· ·Mr. Morgan? 14· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· You don't have to disclose 15· · · · that.· You can say number, but you don't have to 16· · · · tell them your e-mail addresses if you don't want 17· · · · to. 18· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· I didn't ask for the e-mail 19· · · · addresses. 20· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I believe three. 21· ·BY MS. HANNA: 22· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· I know I asked you this before, but I'm 23· ·asking you this again and with an addition, but just so 24· ·there is some context here. 25· · · · · · ·When the request was made on January 14th -- ·1· ·January 24, 2014, you had indicated earlier that ·2· ·Mr. Thrasher did not contact you, nor anyone from the ·3· ·town, correct? ·4· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Form. ·5· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Objection. ·6· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· When? ·7· ·BY MS. HANNA: ·8· · · · Q.· ·When this request was made. ·9· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Pointing to Exhibit 1. 10· ·BY MS. HANNA: 11· · · · Q.· ·Did anyone -- 12· · · · A.· ·No one -- I was not called or notified or 13· ·written on January 24th about a records request. 14· · · · Q.· ·At any time thereafter, were you contacted 15· ·about a records request? 16· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Objection. 17· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.· Thereafter, I believe it 18· · · · was thereafter based on what I saw, but I can't 19· · · · really tell. 20· ·BY MS. HANNA: 21· · · · Q.· ·When? 22· · · · A.· ·I said I don't know.· I think I testified 23· ·earlier it was in the New Year.· I'm assuming it was 24· ·after this, but I'm not positive.· But I received a 25· ·telephone call from someone from the Town of Gulf Stream ·1· ·indicating that more records requests had come in.· It ·2· ·was either from O'Boyle or O'Hare, I don't recall, and ·3· ·had I helped written anything; did I help guide them; ·4· ·had I submitted anything in the last year or so. ·5· · · · · · ·And that's when I said there was a Spence ·6· ·property objection.· And there was the ad hoc committee ·7· ·recommendation on the design code changes.· Those were a ·8· ·couple that I could think of. ·9· · · · Q.· ·What's the ad hoc committee? 10· · · · A.· ·There is an ad hoc committee reviewing the 11· ·design manual for any proposed changes or additions. 12· ·And Mr. Thrasher had asked the members of the ARPB to 13· ·send in any comments that they had that might be helpful 14· ·to the ad hoc committee studying that manual. 15· · · · Q.· ·How did Mr. Thrasher ask you?· Did he send you 16· ·an e-mail? 17· · · · A.· ·No.· It was at a board meeting. 18· · · · Q.· ·Board meeting. 19· · · · · · ·(Mr. Martin O'Boyle entered the room.) 20· ·BY MS. HANNA: 21· · · · Q.· ·Do you presently speak with the town solicitor 22· ·on ARPB matters? 23· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Object to the form. 24· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Join. 25 ·1· ·BY MS. HANNA: ·2· · · · Q.· ·Have you spoken with Mr. Randolph, who's the ·3· ·town solicitor, to address matters that come before the ·4· ·ARPB? ·5· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Form. ·6· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· At board meetings. ·7· ·BY MS. HANNA: ·8· · · · Q.· ·When you say the Spence property came up, do ·9· ·you -- What happened with regard to the Spence property 10· ·with the application and your objections? 11· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Form. 12· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· There had been a number of 13· · · · applications on the Spence property.· And that's 14· · · · just a general phrase to describe what was 15· · · · originally a single home.· It was purchased by a 16· · · · developer who prepared a plat to develop it into 17· · · · six homes. 18· · · · · · ·Mr. O'Boyle actually led the objection to that 19· · · · property at least with respect to the plat. 20· · · · · · ·Thereafter, there have been applications filed 21· · · · after that was approved for the individual homes. 22· ·BY MS. HANNA: 23· · · · Q.· ·Did you ever talk to any of the contractors 24· ·involved in that project, the Spence property project? 25· · · · A.· ·Had I ever spoken to Mr. Laudani who's I ·1· ·guess, the head of Seaside Builders?· Yes. ·2· · · · Q.· ·After his application was made? ·3· · · · A.· ·Yes. ·4· · · · Q.· ·Was that during an ARPB commission meeting? ·5· · · · A.· ·Both. ·6· · · · Q.· ·Did you ever have any e-mail exchange with ·7· ·Mr. Laudani? ·8· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Form. ·9· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't recall.· I don't know. 10· · · · I don't recall. 11· ·BY MS. HANNA: 12· · · · Q.· ·When you were preparing for the ARPB meetings, 13· ·did you take notes? 14· · · · A.· ·No.· I might occasionally jot something on the 15· ·paperwork that was provided to us.· I don't routinely 16· ·take notes.· I might for questions.· I might either 17· ·write on a paper or on a pad something to ask as a 18· ·question.· But other than that, no, I don't take notes. 19· · · · Q.· ·What do you do with the papers once you're 20· ·done with the meeting? 21· · · · A.· ·I discard them. 22· · · · Q.· ·You've been quoted as saying that you want to 23· ·take a proactive approach to the litigation involving 24· ·the Town with Mr. O'Boyle and Mr. O'Hare's public 25· ·records request. ·1· · · · · · ·Could you explain what you mean by that? ·2· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Form. ·3· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Join. ·4· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Not calculated to lead to ·5· · · · discovery of admissible evidence. ·6· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.· I believe the Town should ·7· · · · take a very aggressive stance with respect to ·8· · · · lawsuits such as this one in order to defend the ·9· · · · Town's interests. 10· ·BY MS. HANNA: 11· · · · Q.· ·Have you ever received any documents from the 12· ·Town in the mail? 13· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Object to the form. 14· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· What's your basis? 15· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· "Have you ever received any 16· · · · documents from the Town in the mail?" 17· · · · · · ·You don't think that's a little overly broad? 18· · · · You don't have a time period?· You're talking he's 19· · · · probably received hundreds of documents from the 20· · · · Town in the mail. 21· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Thank you for that. 22· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· I think you would be a little 23· · · · more specific than that.· Otherwise we'll be here 24· · · · for like weeks. 25 ·1· ·BY MS. HANNA: ·2· · · · Q.· ·Of the hundreds of documents that your ·3· ·attorney has so pointed out -- ·4· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Water bills -- ·5· ·BY MS. HANNA: ·6· · · · Q.· ·-- from the town -- ·7· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Notices of elections, ·8· · · · properties -- ·9· ·BY MS. HANNA: 10· · · · Q.· ·-- with respect to your position as the ARPB 11· ·planning -- 12· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· That's not what he said. 13· ·BY MS. HANNA: 14· · · · Q.· ·-- ARPB -- Architectural Review Board and 15· ·Planning, did you ever receive mail with respect to your 16· ·duties as the head of that board from the Town? 17· · · · A.· ·No. 18· · · · Q.· ·I have one more thing. 19· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Do you have a complete 20· · · · exhibit now?· Do you have this? 21· · · · · · ·You are going to read it? 22· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I will this time having made a 23· · · · mistake on the last one. 24· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay. 25 ·1· ·BY MS. HANNA: ·2· · · · Q.· ·Who authored that e-mail? ·3· · · · A.· ·The e-mail on the top is the one that I sent ·4· ·dated October 18, 2013. ·5· · · · Q.· ·And that's Exhibit 2, composite? ·6· · · · A.· ·Right.· I think Two comprises four pages. ·7· · · · Q.· ·Could you read the e-mail prior to that? ·8· ·Could you slide that sheet over, Exhibit Two top. ·9· · · · A.· ·This -- I don't think this is an e-mail.· It 10· ·looks like a letter from the town, or maybe it was 11· ·e-mailed because it's got Jonathan O'Boyle's e-mail 12· ·address on it.· I don't know. 13· · · · · · ·Do you want me to read this, whatever it is? 14· · · · Q.· ·Go ahead. 15· · · · A.· ·It's dated October 18, 2013.· Dear 16· ·Mr. Jonathan O'Boyle, The Town of Gulf Stream has 17· ·received your public records request dated October 15, 18· ·2013.· If your request was received in writing, then the 19· ·first page of that request is attached to this cover 20· ·letter.· If your request was verbal, then the 21· ·description of your public records request is set forth 22· ·in the space below.· Our staff will review your request 23· ·within the next three business days, and we will 24· ·promptly send you the appropriate response or an 25· ·estimated cost to respond." ·1· · · · Q.· ·Now, would you do me a favor and take a look ·2· ·at Mr. O'Boyle's, Jonathan O'Boyle's request? ·3· · · · A.· ·This is dated October 15, 2013. ·4· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· How many pages is the request? ·5· · · · A.· ·The e-mail request is two pages. ·6· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Do you mind if I have that for a ·7· ·second? ·8· · · · · · ·How did you become aware of this request which ·9· ·would have prompted you to send that e-mail to 10· ·Mr. Thrasher dated October 18, 2013? 11· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Object to the form. 12· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't recall, but I was 13· · · · obviously given at least request number five, but I 14· · · · don't recall how I received it. 15· ·BY MS. HANNA: 16· · · · Q.· ·And why did you -- What was the basis for your 17· ·conclusion in your e-mail? 18· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Object to the form. 19· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Why don't you read it?· Does it 20· · · · make sense to you? 21· · · · · · ·It doesn't make sense. 22· ·BY MS. HANNA: 23· · · · Q.· ·Why? 24· · · · A.· ·Read it. 25· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Read it into the record. ·1· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I'll read it into the record. ·2· · · · Give it to me. ·3· ·BY MS. HANNA: ·4· · · · Q.· ·Okay. ·5· · · · A.· ·Number five.· "E-mail's sent from ·6· ·Scott Morgan's for the month of September 2013." ·7· · · · · · ·What does that mean?· What is that?· It's ·8· ·vague.· I'm not going to respond to that. ·9· ·BY MS. HANNA: 10· · · · Q.· ·Could you just read -- When you were confused, 11· ·did you seek assistance for your confusion? 12· · · · A.· ·Mr. -- I think I got this from Mr. Thrasher, 13· ·and I would assume that anybody reading that would have 14· ·the same reaction I did. 15· · · · Q.· ·So your reaction you felt, and if I'm 16· ·misstating this, you felt that based on this response 17· ·being vague no records would be provided? 18· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Object to the form. 19· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I didn't understand it, 20· · · · Counselor. 21· ·BY MS. HANNA: 22· · · · Q.· ·Did you ask Mr. Thrasher to explain it to you 23· ·or seek -- 24· · · · A.· ·No. 25· · · · Q.· ·-- clarification? ·1· · · · A.· ·No.· I responded in my e-mail, which is marked ·2· ·as Exhibit 2 and is self-explanatory. ·3· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· I'm just going to ask you ·4· · · · gentlemen if we could have a five minute break.· We ·5· · · · may be concluding. ·6· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Sure. ·7· · · · · · ·(A recess was had from 11:22 until 11:33 a.m.) ·8· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· If we could also note for the ·9· · · · record that also in attendance is the Plaintiff, 10· · · · Martin O'Boyle, as well as Chris O'Hare, and 11· · · · Mr. Thrasher from the Town. 12· · · · · · ·MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· And if I may, my name is 13· · · · Martin O'Boyle -- 14· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· You're not allowed to make 15· · · · any comments at this time.· We are in the middle of 16· · · · a court proceeding. 17· · · · · · ·MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· Okay. 18· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· You're entitled to observe 19· · · · and that's all.· Please sit down, sir, or else I'm 20· · · · going to suspend the deposition and move the Court 21· · · · for sanctions, including contempt citation against 22· · · · you. 23· · · · · · ·Please sit down.· There's an attorney here 24· · · · representing you.· Do you want to speak to her 25· · · · privately?· You can do so. ·1· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· I want to speak with her ·2· ·on the record.· I'm terminating the services of my ·3· ·attorney. ·4· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Do not speak to her on the ·5· ·record, sir.· Please sit down, Mr. O'Boyle. ·6· ·Mr. Boyle, sit down and observe the -- ·7· · · · MS. HANNA:· Mr. Sweetapple, please don't raise ·8· ·your voice. ·9· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· I'm terminating the 10· ·services of my attorney. 11· · · · MS. HANNA:· There is no need to raise your 12· ·voice. 13· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· I'm going to be on the 14· ·phone with Judge McCarthy.· Let's go.· Let's take a 15· ·break.· I'm going to call Judge McCarthy it 16· ·appears. 17· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· Well, we'll call him 18· ·together because -- 19· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Oh, we're going to call him 20· ·together.· I'm going to pull his number out of my 21· ·speed dial here from my -- 22· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· Sure. 23· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· -- court judges. 24· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· Sure. 25· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· And then we are going to have ·1· · · · to call him in a few minutes. ·2· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· He is not going to be available. ·3· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· Can you talk to your ·4· · · · client and make him aware that he's not to make ·5· · · · speeches? ·6· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Did you hear what my client just ·7· · · · said? ·8· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· We're going to leave.· You ·9· · · · talk to your client.· You speak for your client. 10· · · · · · ·We'll leave, and when you're done -- Let's go 11· · · · ahead and excuse ourselves.· Then you can put on 12· · · · the record whatever you want to say on behalf of 13· · · · your client.· This is not his soapbox or his 14· · · · psychiatric office. 15· · · · · · ·(Mr. Sweetapple, Ms. O'Connor, Mr. Thrasher 16· ·and the witness exited the room at 11:34 a.m.) 17· · · · · · ·MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· As I said, my name is 18· · · · Martin O'Boyle I'm the Plaintiff.· I have 19· · · · terminated the services of our counsel.· I am now 20· · · · pro se.· I am prepared to continue with the 21· · · · deposition where counsel has left off. 22· · · · · · ·(A recess was had from 11:34 until 11:40 a.m.) 23· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Back on the record.· I'm 24· · · · ready for counsel to proceed. 25· · · · · · ·Counsel, are you going to continue to finish ·1· ·this deposition?· I think you've told me you've ·2· ·been fired; is that the case? ·3· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· Counsel no longer ·4· ·represents me.· I'm pro se. ·5· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· You're pro se. ·6· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· Yes. ·7· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· Well, we're going to ·8· ·have to take that up with the judge.· You weren't ·9· ·here for the beginning part of the deposition. 10· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· That's correct. 11· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· You don't even know what's 12· ·been asked.· Is it -- Is it your intention to 13· ·complete a deposition after terminating your 14· ·counsel? 15· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· It is my intention to 16· ·take the deposition.· And, of course, I would have 17· ·to complete the deposition.· Otherwise -- 18· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· I'm going -- I'm going 19· ·to move to suspend the deposition, and file a 20· ·motion with the Court.· You couldn't possibly 21· ·complete this deposition not having been here.· You 22· ·don't even know what's been asked or answered.· I'm 23· ·not going to take time for you to go through and 24· ·have the court reporter read all that to you. 25· · · · You also still have a law firm that is of ·1· ·record in this case.· Until that law firm has ·2· ·withdrawn, they are your counsel.· I'm going to ·3· ·call upon your counsel to finish this deposition. ·4· ·She's still counsel of record.· Your son is here; ·5· ·he is still counsel of record. ·6· · · · MR. JONATHAN O'BOYLE:· Not true. ·7· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· So at this point, if your ·8· ·attorney wants to put on the record that she has ·9· ·been terminated and her firm has been terminated, 10· ·do you want to put that on the record? 11· · · · MS. HANNA:· My representation of Mr. O'Boyle 12· ·has been terminated, as the services of this firm 13· ·have been terminated as well. 14· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· Fine.· Then you'll 15· ·need to move -- And you're not going to take any -- 16· ·not going to continue with this deposition at this 17· ·time?· Is that no? 18· · · · MS. HANNA:· Yes, that's a no. 19· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· So at this point are 20· ·you suspending the deposition, or what are you 21· ·doing? 22· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· I'm taking the 23· ·deposition. 24· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Excuse me. 25· · · · MS. HANNA:· Mr. Sweetapple, I asked you -- ·1· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· She's no longer counsel, ·2· ·Counselor. ·3· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· No, she's counsel of record, ·4· ·sir. ·5· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· I understand. ·6· · · · MS. HANNA:· Mr. Sweetapple, I asked you if we ·7· ·could suspend the deposition. ·8· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Right.· You cannot. ·9· · · · MS. HANNA:· You refused to.· And now you are 10· ·saying that you want to suspend the deposition. 11· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· No, no.· I want to know if 12· ·you're going to finish the deposition as counsel 13· ·for the Plaintiff.· You're telling me you've been 14· ·terminated.· Then I guess you can't make any more 15· ·representations on this record. 16· · · · MS. HANNA:· Correct. 17· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· I will suspend this and take 18· ·it up with the Court.· I think the termination in 19· ·the middle of the deposition is in bad faith.· I 20· ·think it's a ploy in order to try to continue this 21· ·deposition.· I'm going to ask the Court to 22· ·determine that this firm has been terminated from 23· ·all matters as a result of this, that it's no 24· ·longer Mr. O'Boyle's counsel on any matters. 25· · · · And I will be moving to suspend at this time. ·1· ·I'll be moving for an award of attorney's fees and ·2· ·costs.· I think this is game playing.· We've had a ·3· ·good indication of that based on your questioning ·4· ·and based on this ploy by Mr. O'Boyle. ·5· · · · Have a good day.· I'll be filing a motion with ·6· ·the Court.· And we'll be serving Mr. O'Boyle ·7· ·personally with that motion. ·8· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· Madam Court Reporter, I ·9· ·would like to say -- 10· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· The deposition is -- This is 11· ·concluded now.· You can go off the record. 12· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· You are not to turn off 13· ·the record unless both parties agree.· I do not 14· ·agree. 15· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· You're not -- 16· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· I am a pro se party. 17· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· You have not appeared. 18· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· I'm not going to debate 19· ·it with you, Mr. Sweetapple. 20· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· You can do whatever you want 21· ·on the record, Mr. O'Boyle.· Mr. O'Boyle, you talk 22· ·to the court reporter. 23· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· I am not going to debate 24· ·it with you. 25· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Mr. O'Boyle, talk to the ·1· ·court reporter. ·2· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· I'm not going to debate ·3· ·it with you.· Thank you. ·4· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Let the record reflect that ·5· ·all counsel, the counsel for the city, the counsel ·6· ·for the witness, and the witness had left.· And ·7· ·we're going to let Mr. O'Boyle sit here and talk to ·8· ·himself, his son, and his former law firm. ·9· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· No, I'm going speak to 10· ·the court reporter only, Mr. Sweetapple. 11· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Good. 12· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· And we will seek 13· ·sanctions against you. 14· · · · (Mr. Sweetapple, Ms. O'Connor, the witness and 15· ·Mr. Thrasher exited the room.) 16· · · · MS. HANNA:· Marty. 17· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· Anyway, I am here.· I am 18· ·pro se.· I was ready as I'm sitting in the person 19· ·formally taking the deposition's seat.· I am 20· ·prepared to take the deposition.· I alerted 21· ·Mr. Sweetapple to that. 22· · · · He has unilaterally decided based on what I 23· ·would consider to be inappropriate comments about 24· ·my psychiatric condition and so forth to walk out 25· ·of the deposition. ·1· · · · We -- At this point if he leaves the building, ·2· ·we will ask the Court to allow us to continue the ·3· ·deposition. ·4· · · · We come in good faith.· We come with the ·5· ·thought of finishing the deposition.· The ·6· ·documentation that has been, I guess, shown to the ·7· ·witness and has been admitted as exhibits I'm ·8· ·familiar with.· And I feel that there could have ·9· ·been an easy transition for the completion of the 10· ·deposition.· And, indeed, there should have been. 11· ·And I will let Mr. Sweetapple's conduct speak for 12· ·itself. 13· · · · And beyond that, I would like to say thank you 14· ·very much for your patience, your tolerance and 15· ·your kindness. 16· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· We are off the record. 17· · · · (Deposition was adjourned at 11:46 a.m.) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ·1· · · · · · · · · · ·CERTIFICATE OF OATH ·2· ·THE STATE OF FLORIDA) ·3· ·COUNTY OF PALM BEACH) ·4 ·5· · · · · · ·I, the undersigned authority, certify that the ·6· ·witness, SCOTT MORGAN, personally appeared before me and ·7· ·was duly sworn on Wednesday, the 26th day of March, ·8· ·2014. ·9 10· · · · · · ·Dated this 29th day of March, 2014. 11 12 13 14 · · · · · · · · · ·_________________________________ 15· · · · · · · · ·KATHLEEN LUSZ, RPR · · · · · · · · · ·Notary Public - State of Florida 16· · · · · · · · ·My Commission Expires:· 6/9/16 · · · · · · · · · ·My Commission No.:· EE 201660 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ·1· · · · · · · · · · C E R T I F I C A T E ·2· ·THE STATE OF FLORIDA) ·3· ·COUNTY OF PALM BEACH) ·4 ·5· · · · · · ·I, KATHLEEN LUSZ, Registered Professional · · ·Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of ·6· ·Florida at large, do hereby certify that I was · · ·authorized to and did report said deposition in ·7· ·stenotype; and that the foregoing pages are a true and · · ·correct transcription of my shorthand notes of said ·8· ·deposition. ·9· · · · · · ·I further certify that said deposition was · · ·taken at the time and place hereinabove set forth and 10· ·that the taking of said deposition was commenced and · · ·completed as hereinabove set out. 11 · · · · · · · ·I further certify that I am not attorney or 12· ·counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or · · ·employee of any attorney or counsel of party connected 13· ·with the action, nor am I financially interested in the · · ·action. 14 · · · · · · · ·The foregoing certification of this transcript 15· ·does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any · · ·means unless under the direct control and/or direction 16· ·of the certifying reporter. 17· · · · · · ·Dated this 29th day of March, 2014. 18 19 20 21· · · · · · _____________________________________ · · · · · · · KATHLEEN LUSZ, RPR 22 23 24 25 ·1· · · · · · · · · ·DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET ·2 ·3· · · · Our Assignment No.· 112005 ·4· · · · Case Caption:· ·MARTIN E. O'BOYLE ·5· · · · vs.· TOWN OF GULF STREAM ·6 ·7· · · · · · ·DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ·8 ·9· · · · · · · ·I, SCOTT MORGAN, declare under 10· · · ·penalty of perjury that I have read the entire 11· · · ·transcript of my Deposition taken in the captioned 12· · · ·matter or the same has been read to me, and 13· · · ·the same is true and accurate, save and 14· · · ·except for changes and/or corrections, if 15· · · ·any, as indicated by me on the DEPOSITION 16· · · ·ERRATA SHEET hereof, with the understanding 17· · · ·that I offer these changes as if still under 18· · · ·oath. 19· · · · · · ·Signed on the _____ day of 20· · · ·________________, 20___. 21 22· ·________________________ · · ·SCOTT MORGAN 23 24 25 ·1· · · · · · · ·DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET ·2· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________ ·3· ·__________________________________________________ ·4· ·Reason for change:________________________________ ·5· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________ ·6· ·__________________________________________________ ·7· ·Reason for change:________________________________ ·8· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________ ·9· ·__________________________________________________ 10· ·Reason for change:________________________________ 11· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________ 12· ·__________________________________________________ 13· ·Reason for change:________________________________ 14· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________ 15· ·__________________________________________________ 16· ·Reason for change:________________________________ 17· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________ 18· ·__________________________________________________ 19· ·Reason for change:________________________________ 20· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________ 21· ·__________________________________________________ 22· ·Reason for change:________________________________ 23 24· ·SIGNATURE:_______________________DATE:___________ · · · · · · · ·SCOTT MORGAN 25 ·1· · · · · · · ·DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET ·2· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________ ·3· ·__________________________________________________ ·4· ·Reason for change:________________________________ ·5· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________ ·6· ·__________________________________________________ ·7· ·Reason for change:________________________________ ·8· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________ ·9· ·__________________________________________________ 10· ·Reason for change:________________________________ 11· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________ 12· ·__________________________________________________ 13· ·Reason for change:________________________________ 14· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________ 15· ·__________________________________________________ 16· ·Reason for change:________________________________ 17· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________ 18· ·__________________________________________________ 19· ·Reason for change:________________________________ 20· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________ 21· ·__________________________________________________ 22· ·Reason for change:________________________________ 23 24· ·SIGNATURE:_______________________DATE:___________ · · · · · · · ·SCOTT MORGAN 25 SCOTT MORGAN MARTIN E. O'BOYLE -vs- TOWN OF GULF STREAM March 26, 2014 Index: 1 -assume 31:13 ability agency application 1 2013 26:15 10:7 33:8 a 13:24 27:14,22 abundance aggressive 14:5,16, 1 12:1,22 29:21 27:10 45:7 15:24 26:25 47:4,15, 23:23 accomplish agree 40:2,4 31:13,24 18 48:3, 41:9 10 49:6 15:5 56:13,14 43:13,20 1/24/14 2014 4:2 accounts ahead 23:1 approach 40:12 37:2 44:23 27:1 31:16,17 32:10 Act 10:20 47:14 approved 10:41 52:11 33:14 34:19 activity 15:7 36:2 41:1 14:18 alerted 43:21 103 57.20 33: 3:14 23rd 36:24 actual architectur 38:6 11:11 allegation al 11:17 11:22 50:7 21:2 13:14,22 24 41:1 ad 37:21 15:3,9 11:33 50:7 allowed 24th 32:10 42:6,9, 26:23 11:34 41:13 10,14 50:14 46:14 52:16,22 26 4:2 addition ambit 33:5 27:11 area 11:40 40:23 52:22 amount arises 3 additions 23:16 11:46 - 42:11 14:17 58:17 3 34:19 address anymore ARPB 16:23 13:10,12 1422 27:16 36:2 24:25 14:3 14th 40:25 37:4,13 25:3,7,13 apologize 16:11,18 43:3 12:3 17:1 15 47:17 5 47:12 apparently 21:13 48:3 addresses 29:21 23:14,18 18 26:14 25;17 25:5 47:4,15 5 38:7 40:16,19 appeared 27:19 48:10 56:17 37:18 adjourned 18th 25:15 9 58:17 appears 38:10,21, 51:16 24,25 28:2 administers 39:10 90s 8:10 applicant d 4:4 42:12,22 2 9;3 15:4 44:4,application admissible 46:10114 18:2 20:5 2 24:10 A 22:7 45:5 15:2 16:4 assigned 25:1 24:3 38:9 14:2 admitted 39:19 27.13 a.m. 33:14 58:7 40:6 assistance 29:21 50:7 43:10 49:11 47:5 50:2 52:16,22 advisory 44:2 2012 26:25 58:17 14:4 assume 17:10 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) 5 0• Y* 1 0 N 9 Esquire Solutions.com SCOTT MORGAN March 26, 2014 MARTIN E. O'BOYLE -vs- TOWN OF GULF STREAM Index: assuming -clarification 49:13 8,14 bills 46:4 broader called assuming 22:22 binding 21:4 9:19 41:23 48:8 52:4 16:13 brought 11:22 15:2 12:20 attached bit 7:16 41:12 12:5 B 16:11 board calls 34:23 build 35:15 back 14:4 11:17 15:17 5:21 1 13:15,17, 22.25 36:7,16 22:18 23,24 Builders 47:19 27:14 card 4:23 14:25 44:1 attaches 30:11, 23 15:10,17 carefully 31:13 building 34:20 16:21,22, 21:23 34:2 6:5 9:24 attachment 52:23 23 18:15 10:4 58:1 case 4:19 34:21 26:24 5:13 background 39:19,21 buildings attendance 7:17 42:17,18 38:20 1:18 50:9 8:16,17 43:6 built 177 :20 18:13,17 attorney 17:19 46:14,16 10:8,10 20:1,25 4:12 5:9 18:3 20:6 Boca 9:5 business 31:14 46:3 21:10 body 15:6 9:17,18 53:2 54:1 50: bad 55:19 18:16 casual 51:3,10 born 7:14, Bar 22:14 23:8,12, 17:20 544:8 15 14 24:21, attorney's based 6:17 boundaries 23 25:10 caution 56:1 33:5 9:13 32:18 27:10 41:18 attorney- 49:16 Boyle 51:6 47:23 certified client 56:3,4 18:15 Boynton 5:10 57:22 9:23 C chairman attorneys basis 17:1,3 break 7:7, 5:4 32:21,23, 10 33:11 calculated chance August 24 33:6,9 50:4 18:1,24 4:24 14:15 45:14 51:15 20:4 22:7 37:12 48:16 45:4 Chris author breakfast 37:15 bathroom 18:5,6 call 11:20 50:10 39:11,15 7:7 12:24 citation brick 10:9 13:1 authored Beach 9:23 15:6,13 50:21 bring 16:6 36:5 47:2 beginning 17:9 21:19 city 33:3 authority 7:13 24:13 24:2 57:5 39:11 19:18 41:25 civil 26:25 bringing 51:15,17, 18:15 award 56:1 53:9 28:22 19 52:1 aware 5:7, behalf broad 54:3 clarificati 10 11:7,52:12 45:17 on 49:25 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSol utions. corn SCOTT MORGAN MARTIN E. O'BOYLE -vs- TOWN March 26, 2014 OF GULF STREAM Index: clarify..credibility clarify 42:6,9, 23:4,6 41:2 corresponds 31:20 10,14 28:13 contacted nce 39:22 39:9 communicate 29'18 11.9 40:6 clear 7:1 23:15 33:7 41:14 cost 22:2 15:9 24:1 computers 47:25 contempt 25:12 25:4,8,9 11:23 50:21 costs 56:2 clerk communicate 23:8,12, 13 context counsel 19:16 d 32:17 40:24 4:19 5:20 client communicati concerns 6:17 31:17 continue 17:21 on 26:1,3, 52:19,21, 5:6 20:13 22:3,10 22 29:20 concluded 24,25 21:23 26:12 30:4,6 56:11 53:3,14 37:10 27:14,21, communicati concluding 52:20,25 54:2,3,4, 23 52:4, ons 11:16 50:5 54:16 5 55:1,3, 6,9,13 12,24 company conclusion 55:20 57:5 client's 58:2 9;21 15:21 28:20,25 Counselor complaint 22;25 contractor 49:20 close 7:4 30:21 10:11 11:2,4 55:2 code 10:4 12:6,9,10 48:17 contractors 14:2 33:17 condition 43:23 couple 16:10 34:15,16, 57:24 9:5,10 conversatio 42:8 37:19,23 25 36:8, conduct n 13:11 42:7 10,18,22 court 6:6 20.2 comment complete 58:11 copies 7:4 19:2124:13 39:18 28:8,10 50:16,20 29'24 confused copy 12:3 51:23 comments 31:5 6:25 28:6,14 53:20,24 37:20 34:11 49:10 29:23 55:18,21 42:13 35:18 confusing 34:14 56:6,8,22 50:15 46:19 35:14 35:11 57:1,10 57:23 58:2 53:13,17, confusion correct commercial 21 7:2 49:11 11:6 cover 5:20 completion 21:16,17 34:18,19 conaiderabl 36:15 commission37:6 58:9 y 14:15,19 24:24 14:3,4 25:20 47:19 16:12 comply considerati 35:6 41:3 create 39:20,22 16:9 on 38:22 53:10 39;22 44:4 composite constructio 55:16 40:5 commissions 47:5 n 10:2,3 corrected credibility r 39:10 comprises 13:25 28:4 6:16 committee 47:6 14:17 29;19 37:22 computer contact ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. corn SCOTT MORGAN March 26, 2014 MARTIN E. O'BOYLE -vs- TOWN OF GULF STREAM Index: date -evidence 28:7 Dickinson 45:11,16, earlier D 50:20 8:2 19 46:2 29:19 52:21 DIRECT dollars 41:1,23 date 25:14 53:1,9, 4:10 22:2 early 8:10 26:25 13,16,17, 9:3 38:19 19,21 directed dozens dated 54:3,16, 11:11 22:3 easy 58:9 47:4,15, 20,23 directly drawings economy 17 48:3, 55:7,10, 9:4 21:1 15:3 14:18 10 12,19,21 56:10 discard dropped eight -and - day 56:5 57:20,25 44:21 17:7 a -half days 47:23 58:3,5, disclose drops 17:8 36:14 DCA 18:13 10,17 40:14 election duly 4:8 20:25 deposition' discovery 17:22 Dear 47:15 s 57:19 18:2 duties 19:7,17 debate describe 19:25 25:5 46:16 28:23,24 56:18,23 43:14 20:4 21:3 elections 57:2 22:7 45:5 - 46:7 describing decades 14:24 discrete E eleven 18:16 description 20:1 e-mail 36:14 decided 47:21 disheveled 24:6,8, Emancipatio 29:9design 6:25 18,20,22, n 22:1 57:22 37:22 19:19 24 25:1, enable decision 42:7,11 disorganize 3,7,13, 10:3 16:12,13 designating d 19:19 14,16 end 21:22 30:22 24:24 dispute 26:5,11, 18,19 ends 36:2 defend determinati 29:2,6 27:6,21 entered 45:8 on 25:21 document 28:1 42:19 definition12:14 determine 40:12,16, 10:7 24:7entitled 18 42:16 15:7 28:10 44:6 50:18 depending 55:22 30:8,9 47:2,3,7, entity 14:17 develop 34:23 9,11 33:4 depends 43:16 documentati 48:5,9,17 10:5,650:1 developer on 58:6 establishin g 17:24 15:4 43:16 documents E-mail's deposition development 13:7 49:5 Estates 4:1 10:1438:7,18 10:3 27:18 e-mailed 11:9 19:4 13:25 31:17 47:11 estimated 20:16,17 38:19 32:6,16 47:25 21:5 36:14 e-mails evidence 22:9,15 dial 51:21 39:11,15 32:16 15:5,6 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com SCOTT MORGAN MARTIN E. O'BOYLE -vs- TOWN March 26, 2014 OF GULF STREAM Index: exact -government 18:2 20:5 52:16 February 9:2,3 function 22:8 45:5 57:15 34:19 15:24 15:16 exact experience 36:2 18:22 34:14 9:25 feel 6:24 Florida's G examination experienced 58:8 10:19 4:10 20:6 10:2 feeling follow game 56:2 examined explain 21:17 4:16 gave 39:10 4:8 6:25 45:1 fees 56:1 forewarned general exceed 49:22 felt 20:18 8:8 10:11 15:18 explained 49:15,16 form 7:19 14:7,11 exchange 17:4 figure 15:20 16:5 44:6 explaining 14:6 23:10 43:14 excuse 6:15 file 53:19 25:23 29:7,13 generally 52:11 extent filed 22:3 32:8,19 14:14,25 54:24 15:21 39:12 15:12 exhibit 22:25 43:20 40:9 41:4 16:6 12:1,5,9, 27'10 filing 42:23 gentleman 11,12,22 extra 56:5 43:5,11 19:23 24:10 33:20 find 10:24 44:8gentlemen 25:1 35:14 fine 4:17 45:2,13 50:4 27:13 48:11, 28:7,9 7:12 49:18 genuine I. 19:14 29:2 29:15,21, 37:9 formally 24 30:25 54:14 57:19 genuineness 31:5,8,24 fact 19:2 29:3 33:17,22 29:17 finish forward 34:14,16, 52:25 37:3 gestures faith 7:6 24 35:8, 25:18 54:3 forwarding 9,16,25 55:19 55:12 24:7 give 7:16 36:5,8, 58:4 finished14:6 Foster 10,17,21 12:16 11:820 15:13 37:4,13 fall 27:10 , 16:1 31:4 41:9familiar finishing frame 33:17,18 46:20 10:19 58:5 26:14 39:17 47:5,8 37:14 fired 53:2 Frankly 49:2 50:2 58:6 firm 11:8 39:2 good 14:23 exhibits fast 21:3 53:2525:18 free 6:24 36:20 54:1,9,12 56:3,5 58:7 favor 48:1 55:22 front 57:11 existence fax 36:9, 57:8 15:10 58:4 20:24 15 38:8 Florida full-time government exited faxes 6:10,19 17:13 21:3 39:17 8:9,10,19 33:4,8 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) 3 0 L u r i o N s EsquireSolutions.com SCOTT MORGAN 17:17 52:2,6 March 26, 2014 MARTIN E. O'BOYLE -vs- TOWN OF GULF STREAM Index: governs.. inquiry governs 12:3,5, 48:15,22 helped imposes 15:24 11,13 49:3,9,21 42:3 5:9 graduated 14:20 50:3 helpful improper 8:3 16:15 51:7,11 37:21 19:22 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com 17:17 52:2,6 granted 18:8,12, 54:11,18, 42:13 improvement 6:6 17,19,25 25 55:6, Hidden 28:20,25 grounds 19:8,11, 9, 57:16 38:7 inactive 29:13 14 20:10, happen High 7:25 8:22,25 13,16,20 guess 10:5 21:12,19, 8:24 highlight inappropria 14:7,10, 24 22:17, happened 26:5 to 57:23 12 15:13 21 23:3, 43:9 hoc 37:21 included 23:2 11 24:9, happily 42:6,9, 36:15 25:12 13,15 11:3 10,14 38:10 26:2,8, includes 44:1 14,20 happy holding 14:24 55:14 27:16,23 31:1,4 37:8 26:22 58:6 28:3,15, harass home 15:17 including guide 42:3 22 29:5,9 19:4,22 17:11 27:19 guise 30:1,5, 20:7 28:20,25 50:21 21:10 11,15,19 21:15 43:15 incomplete 31:1,7, Gulf 9:4, 10,12,18, harassing homes 29:16 6,8,13 22 32:1, 22:8 43:17,21 34:9 35:4 12:23 12,21,23 harassment hope 18:2 36:8 13:2 33:11,15, 18:11 indicating house 16:17 20,23 22:9 10:8,9 42:1 26:24 34:1,5, Harbour 14:1 17:7 indication 36:2 10,24 41:25 35:2,10, 38:7,18 humidifier 56:3 47:16 13,22,25 hard 28:14 9:20 individual 36:6,17, Harrisburg Humidifirst 43:21 H 21,25 7:15 8:6 9:19 information 37:6,11 5:11 8:17 38:12 head 44:1 hundreds hand 35:23 39:14 46:16 45:19 15:2 40:1,11, 46:2 21:13 handed hear 15:5 24:4 37:13 18,21 52:6 41:7,10, initiated HANNA 42:20 heard _2 27:17 4:11,17, 43:1,7,22 14:25 initiation 23 5:1, 44:11 hearing idea 14:11 11:12 21,25 45:10,14, 23:25 identificat 6:14,20, 21 46:1, ion 12:2 inquiry 22 7:21 5,9,13 held 33:3 24:11 33:5 11:25 47:1 37:5 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) Esquire Solutions. com SCOTT MORGAN Jonathan 43:25 15:21 March 26, 2014 MARTIN E. O'BOYLE -vs- TOWN OF GULF STREAM Index: instructed.. made instructed job 29:5 leaves litigation 6:17 Joe 24:3 L 58:1 8:8 11:1, instruction 33:13 led 43:18 12 27:17 Join 7:20 36:19 8:2,4,5,7 44:23 a 4:15 6:12 laid 10:9 9:14 11:8 letter 53:3 42.24 48:2 54:6 left 52:21 14:8 45:3 land 15:23 57:6 live 9:7 insurance Jon 33:12 Laudani legal located 4:19 interpose 9:22 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) G L S* 1 0 M 5 Esquire Solutions.com Jonathan 43:25 15:21 intention 44:7 22:25 long 8:24 29:18,20 53:12,15 30:20 9:2 33:13 law 6:19 interesting 36:19 8:2,4,5,7 33:6 longer 6:12 47:11,16 9:14 11:8 letter 53:3 interests 48:2 54:6 19:16 34:19 55:1,24 45:9 Jones 27:3 36:1,4, loose 21:3 11:8,20 29:14 13,24 interpose 53:25 37:12,15, Lorei 5:4 29:10 jot 44:14 54:1 57:8 17,24,25 18:12 interpret judge lawsuit 38:6,8, 20:25 10:4,7 21:1917,24 10:16,17 lost 6:14 involved 30:21 11:8 39:2 17:21 43:24 51:14,15 17:25 47:10,20 19:6,16 53:8 18:7 26:9 letters lot 15:18 involving judges 27:12 13:6 38:7 13:6 51'23 lawsuits 32:17 44:23 38:14 lovely issue 8:17 judicial 22:4 45:8 39:17 20:20 20:22 15:6 lawyer liberal Lucky 23:16,17 July 36:24 8:22 6:11 17:17 27:12 38:6,10 18:15,16 31:14 33:18 license 8:23 M issues R lawyer- 19:24 - client licensed 22:11 6:18 8:22 Madam 56:8 kind 8:7 23:21 10:4 lay 16:1 licenses made 10:25 26:9 29:1 23:17 laying y g 8:21 11:15 16:9,24 kindness 19:1 life 7:17 25:17 `T 58:15 lead 18:1, limited 26:15 knew 39:2 24 20:4 20:1 21:4 27:14,23 January 22:7 45:4 28:11 26:25 knowledgelines 31:14,16, 31:13,16, 32:20 leave 18:3 15:18 17 32:5, 17 32:10 40:10 31:5 34:9 listen 10,11 40:25 52:8,10 29:6 40:25 41:1,13 41:8 44:2 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) G L S* 1 0 M 5 Esquire Solutions.com SCOTT MORGAN MARTIN E. O'BOYLE -vs- TOWN OF GULF STREAM March 26, 2014 Index: mail-O'boyle 46:22 13,17 members 32:2 18 mail 51:1,9, 25:4 33:16 Notices 45:12,16, 17,22,24 37:19 36:3,5 46:7 20 46:15 52:17,18 42:12 40:13 53:3,6, notified make 16:11 10,15 mentioned Morgan's 41:12 22.5 54`22 13:12 49:6 noting 25:21 55:1,5 middle motion 38:9 28:10 56:8,12, 50:15 53:20 30:2,21 16,18,23 55:19 56:5,7 number 31:1 57:2,9, million move 9:4 12:1,9 35:11 12,17 24:10 5:3 31:3,6 48:20,21 58:16 26:5 50:14 mind 4:14 50:20 29.12 52:4 Marty 8:11 53:19 37:4 55:14 57:16 34:12 54:15 40:15 material 48:6 moved 9:5, 43:12 makes 26:6 23:20 6,8,10 48:13 making minimum 18:22 49:5 matter 21:25 8:14 51:20 18:25 10:25 minute moving 26:12 11:2 18:6 50:4 55:25 27:3 56:1 0 manager minutes 16:7 matters 52:1 municipalit 42`22 y 33:4 O'boyle 37:18 43:3 missing 6:2 13:5 manual 55:23,24 35:20 26:15 37:23 36:9,11 N 27:25 Mccarthy 42:11,14 51:14,15 misstating 28:1,5 manufacture 49:16 needn't 29:18,20 9:19 meet 14:14 39:19 33:13 16:6 mistake neighbor 36:19 MARCH 4:2 meeting 5:22 39:4 42:2,19 mark 11:25 15:1 46:23 43:18 24:9 37:18 modificatio nice 18:9 44:24 33:25 38:11 ns 14:2 nod 7:5 47:16 34:1,12 42:17,18 37:20 normal 50:10,12, marked 44:4,20 month 49:6 17:19 13,17 51:1,5,9, 12:1,22 meetings monthly note 17,22,24 24:10,14 43:6 14:14 15:11,20 52:17,18 31:6 34:4 44:12 22:24 53:3,6, 37:1,4,13 member Morgan 25:22 10,15 50:1 13:16 4:1,5,7, 50:8 54:6,11, 12 13:10 Martin 17:10 23:4 notes 22 55:1,5 42:19 23:14 26:23 44:13,16, 56:4,6,8, 50:10,12, 39:19.21 12,16,18, ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) 11 Esquire Solutions. com SCOTT MORGAN objecting papers March 26, 2014 MARTIN E. O'BOYLE -vs- TOWN OF GULF STREAM Index: O'boyle's..planning 44:19 21,23,25 42:23 10 47:6 26:25 57:2,7,9, 45:13 office 48:4,5 45:18 12,17 48:11, 52:14 panel 14:4 permits 58:16 49:18 44:15 personal officer paper 13:25 O'bo2 objected 5:7,9 paragraph 33:2 7:20 24:7 17:9 44:17 permitted 26::1919,,21 38:20 8:14 25:16 personally 25:24 19:20 36:14 5:19 27:18 objecting papers 47:11 official 44:19 person 22.6 28.9 48:2 29:15 24:21,23 paperwork 57:18 55:24 25:10 44:15 personal objection 28:18 O'Connor 5:7,9 paragraph 33:2 7:20 24:7 one -aided 8:14 25:16 personally 25:24 36:14 26:11,16 15:20 Pardon 56:7 27:5,9 18:25 open 5:16 32:22 pertains 31:15,20, 22:24 opinion part 28:11 18:19 24 34:13, 25:22 31:15 15.22 29:22 Philadelphi 18,22,25 38:9,18 16:1 30:2 a 8:5 35:3,, 39:13,23 order 6:6 33:22 11,2024 40:8 45:8 34:14 p hone 36:7 36:7 41:5,16 55:20 35:7,16 51:14 39:13,23 42:6 originally 36:4 53:9 phrase 40:8 43:1843:14 43:15 parties 41:5,16 42:24 objections overly 5:19 pick 17:6 45:3 5:4 21:25 45:17 56:13 place 6:14 46:12 22:5 29:7 party 5:13 9:8 50:8 38:16,21, 56:16 52:15 23 39:6 P Plaintiff 57:14 43:10 patience 19:6,16 58:14 50:9 O'hare observe packet p 52:18 5:12 13:5 50:18 14:22,23 pattern 55:13 42:2 51:6 17:4,5 22:9 23'20'22' plaintiff's 50:10 observer 23 pending 12:1 O'hare's 17:20 40:6 19:6,15 44:24 occasionall packets Pennsylvani 24:10 22:22 oath 4:4 y 44:14a 27'19 5:24,25 37:4 19:21 October 6:3,11 plan 14:1 pad 44:17 7:15 8:1, object 25:15 6 planning 7:19 27:14,21 pages 11:17 23:10 28:2 27:16 people 13:14,23 29:7,12 29:21 34:23 15:12 15:10 32:8,19 47:4,15, 35:20,23 19:22 26:24 39:7 17 48:3, 36:1,11 period 46:11,15 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) ' � _ � . � . EsquireSolutions.com SCOTT MORGAN MARTIN E. O'BOYLE -vs- TOWN OF GULF STREAM plans 15:3 practiced proceed plat 8:5 21:9 43:16,19 predicate 22:16 p 19:2 33:6 33:10 playing 52:24 21:3 56:2 prefer Proceeding ploy 55:20 : 414 34:8 5:17 8:13 p 56:4 prepared 19:21 podium 19:20 50:16 P 15:13 43:16 Proceedings 57:20 point 7:18 15:23,25 18:3 19:2 Preparing 21:18,22 p 21:1,11 44:12 process 39:9 present 16:14 p 54:7,19 15:2 58:1 Proclamatio presently n 22:1 pointed 42:21 p 46:3 produce president 12:24 Pointing 9:20 p 41:9 produced pretty 20:23 police 13:11 21:2 27:9 17:9 16:5 p production portion previous 21:7 a 22:19 39:6 p professions posed prior 6:5 1 8:21 20:11 11:11 20:3 position 16:24 22:14 4:20 47:7 project 11:16 privately 43:24 16:22 50:25 29:19 prompted privilege 37:17 46:10 5:10 6:18 48:9 positive 41:24 pro 52:20 promptly 53:4,5 47:24 possession 56:16 32:25 57:18 properties 46:8 possibly proactive 53:20 44:23 property 39:5,7 p practice problem 42:6 p 8:7 9:14 7:11 43:8,9, 13,19,24 March 26, 2014 Index: plans..questions propose purpose 37:20 19:22 roposed 20:8 38:19 22:11 42:11 purposes rotective 17:23 28:6 6:6 rove 17:24 19:25 rovide 11:3 rovided 44:15 49:17 roximity 39:5 sychiatric 52:14 57:24 sychologic 1 22:11 ublic 6:5 10:17,19 11:4,14, 17:22,24 18:19 21:4 22:22 26:12,21 27:11,13 28:19 31:13,15 32:14 33:1,2,7 39:18 44:24 47:17,21 u11 51:20 urchased 43:15 pursuant 19:21 pursuing 22:10 put 52:11 54:8,10 putting 4:15 ©' qualificati ons 16:17 quasi- judicial 15:23 question 5:5,6,8 6:23 11:10,13 12:20 20:11,15 22:18 30:11,18, 24 44:18 questioning 56:3 questions 5:3 6:16 7:3 18:1, 23 20:3 21:15 22:6,13 29:2,3,6 30:13 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) S 0 L U i 1 0 4'+ Esquire Solutions.com 6:6 rove 17:24 19:25 rovide 11:3 rovided 44:15 49:17 roximity 39:5 sychiatric 52:14 57:24 sychologic 1 22:11 ublic 6:5 10:17,19 11:4,14, 17:22,24 18:19 21:4 22:22 26:12,21 27:11,13 28:19 31:13,15 32:14 33:1,2,7 39:18 44:24 47:17,21 u11 51:20 urchased 43:15 pursuant 19:21 pursuing 22:10 put 52:11 54:8,10 putting 4:15 ©' qualificati ons 16:17 quasi- judicial 15:23 question 5:5,6,8 6:23 11:10,13 12:20 20:11,15 22:18 30:11,18, 24 44:18 questioning 56:3 questions 5:3 6:16 7:3 18:1, 23 20:3 21:15 22:6,13 29:2,3,6 30:13 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) S 0 L U i 1 0 4'+ Esquire Solutions.com SCOTT MORGAN March 26, 2014 MARTIN E. O'BOYLE -vs- TOWN OF GULF STREAM Index: quoted -respect 44:16 42:2 8,10 refreshed represents quoted 44:9,10 55:3,15 12:18 53:4 44:22 48:12,14 56:11,13, refused request receive 21 57:4 55:9 10:25 14:22,23 58:16 11:5,11, R regard 17:4 records 15 12:19, 20:7 43:9 23:22 10:17,19 21 13:9 raise 46:15 11:5,15, regularly 16:24 51:7,11 received 22 12:21, 25:9 17:22,25 Randolph 11:20 25 13:10 related 23:18 43:2 13:1 24:6 17:22,25 24:21 25:17,18 26:22 18:20 40:2 26:5,13, rarely 20:23,24 15,16,21 38:17 27:16 21:1,5,8 relates Raton 9:5 41:24 45:11,15, 22:23 29:22 11,14,18, 11,1, reaction 19 47:17, 26:12,21 relative 24 28:19 49:14,15 18 48:14 27:11,13 11:4 31:14,16, 28:19 39:18 23 32:5, read 10:22 recess 31:14,15 40:6 7,10 12:15 33:14 32:14 37:7,23 15:22 50:7 41:13,15 relevant 40:25 18:12,17 52:22 42:1 8:12,18 41:8,13, 20:25recollectio 44:25 21:13 15 44:25 22:17,19 n 12:18 47:17,21 renovations 47:17,18, 23:22 49:17 14:1,2 19,20,21, 24:17 recommendat 22 48:2, ion 16:13 recused repeat 30:11,23 42'7 39:4,6 11:13 4,5,8,13 37:12,14 requested 38:1 record r refer rephrase 46:21 4:15 5:20 16:12 5:5 22.19 47:7,13 ' 7:6 12:8 reference report requests 48:19,24, 19:11,13 28:10 14:3 13:4,5 25 49:1, 22:1,5,19 16:17 10 53:24 27:5 references reporter 22:4 42:1 reading28:12,15, 27:13 7:4 22:20 required 49:13 18,19,21 referencing 53:24 19:19,20 29:11 26:11 56:8,22 ready 30:3 57:1,10 residence 52:24 31:21 referred28:2 repreaentat 9.7 57:18 33:1,2, 30:8 ion 54:11 respect reason 34:7,11, referring 11:16 6:19 7:11 13 48:25 26:1,3 repreaentat 12:19 49:1 50:9 27:7 ions 55:15 25:4 recall 51:2,5 reflect representin 43:19 8:25 52:12,23 57:4 g 4:21 45:7 13:2,4,18 54:1,4,5, 50:24 46:10,15 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com SCOTT MORGAN March 26, 2014 MARTIN E. O'BOYLE -vs- TOWN OF GULF STREAM Index: respectfully -Stream respectfull y 29:17 respond 25:19 47:25 49:8 responded 50:1 response 37:23 47:24 49:16 responsible 22:13 responsive 27:18 32:6,14 rest 30:25 result 55:23 retired 9:14,16 review 11:17 13:14,22, 23,24 14:3 15:10 26:23 37:22 46:14 47:22 reviewing 42:10 room 42:19 52:16 57:15 routinely 44:15 S sanctions 50:21 57:13 school 7:24,25 8:2,4 Scott 4:1, 7 13:10 26:23 36:3 49:6 screen 28:13 29:19 Seaside 44:1 seat 57:19 seek 49:11,23 57:12 self- explanatory 50:2 send 38:14,17 42:13,15 47:24 48:9 sense 26:6 48:20,21 September 49:6 services 51:2,10 52:19 54:12 serving 56:6 act 37:22 4 7: 21 sheet 35:14 47:8 showed 29:18 showing 28:5 shown 58:6 signed 36:3 37:16 silly 30:17 simpler 23:24 single 43:15 Sir 50:19 51:5 55:4 sit 5:14, 15 6:7 16:18 29:6 50:19,23 51:5,6 57:7 sitting 38:25 57:18 skip 17:12 slide 47:8 Smith 18:12 20:25 24:4 Snyder 15:22 soapbox 52:13 solicitor 42:21 43:3 son 19:6, 15 54:4 57:8 space 47:22 speak 42:21 50:24 51:1,4 57:9 58:11 speaking 29:7 speaks 21:1 specific 25:3 38:16 45:23 specificall y 11:10 13:9 speculate 14:9,13 speech 16:8 20:21 speeches 52:5 speed 51:21 Spence 42:5 43:8,9, 13,24 spoken 43:2,25 staff 17:10 47:22 stance 45:7 stand 15:12 28:4 start 7:13 started 4:18 starting 19:4 starts 36:1 state 8:1 15:24 25:17 statements 22:5 29:10 statute 10:22 stayed 9:11 stick 20:3 sticker 34:5 stop 5:5 19:8 Stream 9:4,6,8, 13 12:23 13:2 16:17 26:24 36:2 41:25 0r 800.211.DEPO (3376) ESQUIRE Esquire Solutions. com SCOTT MORGAN March 26, 2014 MARTIN E. O'BOYLE -vs- TOWN OF GULF STREAM Index: strict -town 47:16 12:4,8,12 50:6,14, taped throwing strict 14:8 18 51:4, 15:15 28:23 21:4 15:20 7,13,19, telephone time 5:4 17:16,18 23,25 Strike 18:10,14, 52:3,8, 41:25 8:23 25:2 38:1 18,21 15,23 telling 16:24 string 19:1,10, 53:5,7, 55:13 28:11 12,15 11,18 tenure 21:10 22:12 20:11,14, 54:7,14, 39:15 26:14 studying 18 21:6, 19,24,25 42:1414,21 55:3,6,8, terminated 29:16,23 subject 22:3,24 11,17 52:19 31:2 10:25 23:10 56:10,15, 54:9,12, 32:5,9 11:18 24:12,14, 17,19,20, 13 55:14, 40:5 37:6 16 25:22, 25 57:4, 22 41:14 :18 455:22 submitted 25 26:4, 10,11,14, terminating 4 13:7 42:4 10,18 21 51'2'9 50:15 27'2'7' Sweetapple' 53:13 53:23 suggest 20,25 s 37:7 termination 54:17 15:22 28:4,17, 20:24 22 29:4, 58:11 55:18 55:25 8,12 sworn 4:8 testified times 5:3 suggesting 30:2,7, 15:12 4:8 41:22 17:10 18:21 13,17,20 s y stems testify 30:24 suspect 31:1,4,8, 9:20 39:6 19:2 11 32:8, 14:12 39:18 titled 26:13 19,22,24 38:7 36:7 33:19,22, T testimony 24 34:3, 15:14 today suspend 19:3 7.11,16, taking thing 10:4 10:13 50:20 21 35:4, 10:14 46:18 17:16 53:19 7'19 20:17 20:9 55:7,10, 36:4,23 54:22 things 30:10 17,25 37:1,8 57:19 16:9 20:8 told 13:9 suspending 38:3 39:12 talk 43:23 thought 53:1 54:20 40:9,14 52:3,9 37`21 tolerance 41:4,9 56:21,25 58:5 58:14 Susquehanna 7:25 42:23 57:7 Thrasher top 47:3,8 43:5,11 talked 11:21 Sweetapple 44:834 :9 12:20 topic 4:14,18, 45:2,4, 24:8 41:2 13:12 21,25 13,15,22 talking 42:12,15 totally 5:14,16, 46:4,7, 26:17 48:10 17:23 23 6:1,4, 19,24 28:24,25 49:12,22 10,15 48:11,18, 34:8 50:11 town 12:23 7:19 25 49:18 45:18 57:15 13:1,7 F- ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. com SCOTT MORGAN March 26, 2014 MARTIN E. O'BOYLE -vs- TOWN OF GULF STREAM Index: Town's..Yesterday 16:6,7 23:12,14, 15,20,22 24:2,21 25:4,8,9 26:24 32:13,17, 18 33:3 36:1 3 7: 18 38:9,14, 17 41:3, 25 42:21 43:3 44:24 45:6,12, 16,20 46:6,16 47:10,16 5 0: 11 Town's 45:9 Township 7:25 transcribed 15:14 transition 58:9 trial 6:8 18:15 true 54:6 turn 56:12 type 5:9 22:15 typical 6:20 21:5 typically 6:17 17:6 23:19 38:14 U uh-huh 18:18 35:3 unable 25:18 underlying 25:23,25 2 6: 2 understand 4:13 6:23 15:16 21:6 49:19 55:5 understandi ng 16:3 29:13 30:16 understands 7:5 unilaterall y 57:22 University 8:1 unnecessary 17:23 unsophistic ated 29:14 V vague 25:18 27:3 30:8,14, 21 49:8, 17 Vaguely 10:21 vagueness 30:16 variance 23:18 variances 23:24 varies 14:15 vary 14:18 verbal 47:20 verbally 7:4 View 38:18 vocalized 39:6 voice 51:8,12 voiced 38:18 voluminous 29:10 W walk 57:24 wanted 15:17 38:20 wasting 21:10 watch 20:19 watching 21:23 Water 46:4 week 15:1 weeks 45:24 withdrawn 54:2 witnesses 15:1,10 wondered 38:4 word 6:20 9:16 24:22 work 17:11,13 19:24 world 6:7 8:12 write 37:17 38:23 44:17 writing 47:18 written 41:13 42:3 wrong 38:2 wrote 37:16,24 38:6 Y year 13:3, 8 14:6 41:23 42:4 years 9:1, 6 13:20 Yesterday 24:6 ESQUIRE 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions. corn Page 1 ·1· · · · IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL · · · · · CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA ·2 ·3· · · · · · · · CASE NO. 502014CA001572XXXXMB ·4 · · ·MARTIN E. O'BOYLE, ·5 · · · · · · · ·Plaintiff, ·6 · · ·-vs- ·7 · · ·TOWN OF GULF STREAM, ·8 · · · · · · · ·Defendant. ·9· ·_____________________________________________________ 10 11 12· · · · · · · · · DEPOSITION OF SCOTT MORGAN 13· · · · · · · TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF 14 15 · · · · · · · · · · Wednesday, March 26, 2014 16· · · · · · · · · · · 10:05 - 11:46 a.m. 17 18 19 · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·100 Sea Road 20· · · · · · · · ·Gulf Stream, Florida· 33483 21 22 23 24· ·Reported By: · · ·Kathleen Lusz, RPR 25· ·Notary Public, State of Florida · · ·Job#112005 Page 2 ·1· ·APPEARANCES: ·2· ·On behalf of the Plaintiff: ·3· · · · MARRETT W. HANNA, Esquire · · · · · THE O'BOYLE LAW FIRM, P.C. ·4· · · · 1286 W. Newport Center Drive · · · · · Deerfield Beach, Florida· 33442 ·5· · · · Telephone: (954)834-2201 ·6· ·On behalf of the Defendant: ·7· · · · JOANNE M. O'CONNOR, Esquire · · · · · JONES, FOSTER, JOHNSTON & STUBBS ·8· · · · 505 South Flagler Drive · · · · · Suite 1100 ·9· · · · West Palm Beach, Florida· 33401 · · · · · Telephone:· (561)650-0400 10 11· ·On behalf of the Deponent: 12· · · · ROBERT A. SWEETAPPLE, Esquire · · · · · SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, P.L. 13· · · · 20 S.E. 3rd Street · · · · · Boca Raton, Florida· 33432 14· · · · Telephone:· (561)392-1230 15 16· ·ALSO PRESENT: 17· · · · JONATHAN O'BOYLE, Law Clerk · · · · · WILLIAM H. THRASHER, Town Manager 18· · · · CHRISTOPHER O'HARE · · · · · MARTIN O'BOYLE, (11:08 until 11:46 a.m.) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 3 ·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·_· _· _ ·2· · · · · · · · · · · · · I N D E X · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·_· _· _ ·3 ·4· ·SCOTT MORGAN· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE ·5· ·Direct Examination by Ms. Hanna· · · · · · ·4 ·6 ·7 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·-· -· - ·8· · · · · · · · E X H I B I T S· ·M A R K E D · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·-· -· - ·9 10· ·Plaintiff's 11· ·No. 1· · · · · · · · Records Request· · · · ·12 · · ·No. 2· · · · · · · · · ·Composite· · · · · · 24 12· ·No. 3· · · · · · · July 23, 2013 Letter· · · 36 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 4 ·1· · · · · · · · ·DEPOSITION OF SCOTT MORGAN ·2· · · · · · · · · · · · MARCH 26, 2014 ·3· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·-· -· - ·4· · · · · · ·(Oath administered.) ·5· · · · · · ·MR. MORGAN:· I do. ·6· ·Thereupon, ·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·SCOTT MORGAN, ·8· ·having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified ·9· ·as follows: 10· · · · · · · · · · · DIRECT EXAMINATION 11· ·BY MS. HANNA: 12· · · · Q.· ·All right.· Mr. Morgan, you're an attorney I 13· ·understand so I don't really need to go through the -- 14· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· I'd prefer if you don't mind 15· · · · putting on the record any instructions you want the 16· · · · witness to follow. 17· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Okay.· Fine.· Sure. 18· · · · · · ·Mr. Sweetapple, before I get started, are you 19· · · · insurance counsel on this case, or what's your 20· · · · position here? 21· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· I'm here representing the 22· · · · witness. 23· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Oh, okay.· Can I have your card 24· · · · when you get a chance? 25· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Sure. Page 5 ·1· ·BY MS. HANNA: ·2· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· I'm sure you've been through this a ·3· ·million times, but I'm going to ask you questions.· From ·4· ·time to time your attorneys may interpose objections. ·5· ·And I might stop and think about my question, rephrase ·6· ·my question, or I might not.· I might just continue on. ·7· · · · · · ·But you're aware if there is an objection, you ·8· ·know, you still do answer the question unless your ·9· ·attorney imposes a different type of objection, which 10· ·I'm sure you're well aware of, attorney-client privilege 11· ·information. 12· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I'm sorry.· Mr. O'Hare, you're 13· · · · not a party to this case? 14· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· He can sit here. 15· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· He can sit here? 16· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Yeah.· It's an open 17· · · · proceeding. 18· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Oh, okay.· Sorry.· Where I am 19· · · · from, it is not.· Only parties are permitted and 20· · · · counsel of record only. 21· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Okay. 22· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So my mistake. 23· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Where is that? 24· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Pennsylvania. 25· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Pennsylvania. Page 6 ·1· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· No. ·2· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· As Mr. O'Boyle would know, in ·3· · · · Pennsylvania that's how it's done. ·4· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· Well, we're in a ·5· · · · public building, and unless there's a prior ·6· · · · protective order granted by the Court, anyone in ·7· · · · the world can sit in here just like you're in ·8· · · · trial. ·9· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay. 10· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Florida is a little more 11· · · · liberal than Pennsylvania. 12· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yeah, interesting.· Okay.· All 13· · · · right.· Well, sorry. 14· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Okay.· Now I lost my place. 15· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· You were explaining to the 16· · · · witness that he's to answer questions except when 17· · · · instructed by counsel.· Typically based on 18· · · · lawyer-client privilege, but that's not the only 19· · · · reason under Florida law but -- 20· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Typical.· I used the word typical, 21· · · · maybe I didn't. 22· ·BY MS. HANNA: 23· · · · Q.· ·Regardless, if you don't understand a question 24· ·that I've asked you, please feel free to ask me to 25· ·explain myself.· I'm disheveled, and I may be confused, Page 7 ·1· ·and I'd appreciate it if you could ask me to clear up ·2· ·any confusion. ·3· · · · · · ·You know that you should answer your questions ·4· ·verbally so that the court reporter -- you're close to ·5· ·her, so she understands.· You don't nod or any other ·6· ·gestures that can't be taken down on the record. ·7· · · · · · ·And if you need to take a bathroom break, ·8· ·please just tell me, and we'll stop. ·9· · · · A.· ·Got it. 10· · · · Q.· ·Or if you need another break for any other 11· ·reason, I have no problem.· Just let me know.· Okay? 12· · · · A.· ·That's fine. 13· · · · Q.· ·All right.· Let's start from the beginning. 14· ·Can you tell me where were you born? 15· · · · A.· ·I was a born in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 16· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And can you give me a little bit more 17· ·about your background?· Take me through your life up to 18· ·this point. 19· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Object to the form. 20· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Join. 21· ·BY MS. HANNA: 22· · · · Q.· ·Or do you want me to ask you? 23· · · · A.· ·What do you mean? 24· · · · Q.· ·Where did you go to school? 25· · · · A.· ·I went to Susquehanna Township High School. Page 8 ·1· ·And then I went to Pennsylvania State University, and ·2· ·then Dickinson School of Law. ·3· · · · Q.· ·And what did you do after you graduated from ·4· ·law school? ·5· · · · A.· ·Then I practiced law in Philadelphia, then in ·6· ·the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. ·7· · · · Q.· ·What kind of law did you practice? ·8· · · · A.· ·General litigation. ·9· · · · Q.· ·When did you come to Florida? 10· · · · A.· ·I came to Florida in the early '90s. 11· · · · Q.· ·Do you mind if I ask why? 12· · · · A.· ·How in the world would that be relevant to 13· ·this proceeding? 14· · · · Q.· ·Are you making an objection? 15· · · · A.· ·I'm asking. 16· · · · Q.· ·I'm getting your background.· And credibility 17· ·is always an issue.· I'm just -- Background information 18· ·is always relevant. 19· · · · A.· ·I like Florida. 20· · · · Q.· ·That's all you had to say. 21· · · · · · ·Do you have any professional licenses? 22· · · · A.· ·I was a licensed lawyer.· I have an inactive 23· ·license at this time. 24· · · · Q.· ·Oh, so was.· How long ago did that happen? 25· · · · A.· ·It's been inactive, I can't recall exactly, Page 9 ·1· ·but probably within five years. ·2· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· How long have you been in Florida? ·3· · · · A.· ·We came in the early '90s to Florida. ·4· · · · Q.· ·Did you move directly to Gulf Stream? ·5· · · · A.· ·No.· Moved to Boca Raton for a couple of ·6· ·years, and then moved to Gulf Stream. ·7· · · · Q.· ·And your residence now where you live, was ·8· ·that the first place you moved to in Gulf Stream or ·9· ·was -- 10· · · · A.· ·No.· We've moved a couple times. 11· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· But you've stayed within the -- 12· · · · A.· ·Yes. 13· · · · Q.· ·-- Gulf Stream boundaries? 14· · · · · · ·Are you retired from the practice of law then 15· ·I take it? 16· · · · A.· ·I wouldn't use the word retired.· I have 17· ·another business. 18· · · · Q.· ·What's that business? 19· · · · A.· ·It's called Humidifirst.· We manufacture 20· ·commercial humidifier systems.· And I am the president 21· ·of that company. 22· · · · Q.· ·And where is that located? 23· · · · A.· ·In Boynton Beach. 24· · · · Q.· ·Let's see.· Do you have any building 25· ·experience? Page 10 ·1· · · · A.· ·What do you mean? ·2· · · · Q.· ·Construction.· Are you experienced with ·3· ·development construction that would enable you to ·4· ·interpret a code, a building code, that kind of thing? ·5· · · · A.· ·I guess that depends. ·6· · · · Q.· ·Depends on what? ·7· · · · A.· ·Your definition of ability to interpret. ·8· · · · Q.· ·Have you ever built a house? ·9· · · · A.· ·I haven't laid the brick, but I've had a house 10· ·built. 11· · · · Q.· ·So you had a general contractor? 12· · · · A.· ·Yes. 13· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Do you know why we're here today? 14· · · · A.· ·You're taking my deposition. 15· · · · Q.· ·For -- 16· · · · A.· ·The lawsuit. 17· · · · Q.· ·-- the public records lawsuit? 18· · · · A.· ·Yes. 19· · · · Q.· ·Are you familiar with Florida's Public Records 20· ·Act? 21· · · · A.· ·Vaguely. 22· · · · Q.· ·Have you ever read the statute? 23· · · · A.· ·No. 24· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· When did you first find out about the 25· ·request that was made which is the subject matter of Page 11 ·1· ·this litigation? ·2· · · · A.· ·I haven't seen the complaint in this matter. ·3· · · · Q.· ·I would happily provide -- ·4· · · · A.· ·But it is a complaint relative to a public ·5· ·records request. ·6· · · · Q.· ·Correct. ·7· · · · A.· ·So I'm aware of that.· And I first became ·8· ·aware of that lawsuit when the Jones, Foster law firm ·9· ·contacted me about this deposition. 10· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· But my question was more specifically 11· ·directed to the actual request itself prior to the 12· ·initiation of litigation. 13· · · · A.· ·Oh, I had -- Would you repeat the question? 14· · · · Q.· ·When did you become aware of the public 15· ·records request that was made regarding your 16· ·communications with respect to your position on the 17· ·Architectural Review and Planning Board? 18· · · · A.· ·That's the subject of this case? 19· · · · Q.· ·Yes. 20· · · · A.· ·When I received a call from Jones, Foster. 21· · · · Q.· ·So you never saw -- Or Mr. Thrasher never 22· ·called you and asked you about any public records you 23· ·might have on your computers or -- 24· · · · A.· ·No. 25· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Would you mark that? Page 12 ·1· · · · · · ·(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 1 was marked for ·2· ·identification.) ·3· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· I apologize, I only have one copy. ·4· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay. ·5· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· It's attached as an exhibit to the ·6· · · · complaint. ·7· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Okay. ·8· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Just for the record, it's -- ·9· · · · What number is the complaint, the exhibit number of 10· · · · the complaint as well? 11· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· I believe it's Exhibit B. 12· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Exhibit B.· Okay. 13· ·BY MS. HANNA: 14· · · · Q.· ·Could you just take a look at that document 15· ·for me.· Read it over, and let me now when you are 16· ·finished. 17· · · · A.· ·Okay. 18· · · · Q.· ·Has that refreshed your recollection at all 19· ·with respect to the request? 20· · · · A.· ·Your question was whether Mr. Thrasher called 21· ·me to ask me about a records request that you've just 22· ·marked as Exhibit 1. 23· · · · Q.· ·Or anybody from the Town of Gulf Stream. 24· · · · · · ·Did anyone call you and ask you to produce 25· ·these records? Page 13 ·1· · · · A.· ·I received a call from someone at the Town of ·2· ·Gulf Stream.· I don't recall who it was.· I'm not sure ·3· ·when it was, but it was this year, saying that there had ·4· ·been more requests by -- and I don't recall if it was ·5· ·Mr. O'Boyle or Mr. O'Hare, but there were requests and ·6· ·also involving me, and did I know of any letters or ·7· ·documents I may have submitted to the Town in the last ·8· ·year or so. ·9· · · · · · ·I was not told specifically about a request 10· ·for records of Scott Morgan of the ARPB.· That 11· ·conversation was pretty much as I just described. 12· · · · Q.· ·While we're on the topic, you mentioned ARPB, 13· ·could you -- 14· · · · A.· ·It's the Architectural Review and Planning 15· ·Board. 16· · · · Q.· ·And when did you become a member of that 17· ·board? 18· · · · A.· ·I don't recall. 19· · · · Q.· ·It's been -- 20· · · · A.· ·It's been five years or six years, something 21· ·like that. 22· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And what does the Architectural Review 23· ·board -- Review and Planning Board do? 24· · · · A.· ·We review applications to the board regarding 25· ·development permits, construction, whether it's whole Page 14 ·1· ·house or just renovations.· It could be plan ·2· ·renovations, code modifications, anything assigned by ·3· ·the commission for the ARPB to review, and then report ·4· ·back to the commission as an advisory panel. ·5· · · · Q.· ·How many applications do you think that you ·6· ·have in a year?· Can you give me a figure, just a ·7· ·general guess? ·8· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· One of the instructions that ·9· · · · she should have given you was not to speculate or 10· · · · guess. 11· · · · · · ·So if you have a general idea, you can 12· · · · certainly testify to that, but don't guess or 13· · · · speculate. 14· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· We meet monthly generally except 15· · · · August.· And it varies considerably as to how many 16· · · · applications.· It may be one.· It could be four. 17· · · · · · ·So depending on the amount of construction 18· · · · activity and the economy, it does vary 19· · · · considerably. 20· ·BY MS. HANNA: 21· · · · Q.· ·And how does that -- What happens?· You 22· ·receive the packet, and what happens after that? 23· · · · A.· ·Well, we receive a packet which is a good way 24· ·of describing it, and it includes the applications that 25· ·are to be heard by the board.· We generally get them a Page 15 ·1· ·week or so before the meeting.· And then witnesses are ·2· ·brought in to present the application information on. ·3· ·It may be some plans, could be architectural drawings. ·4· ·It really depends on what the applicant is trying to ·5· ·accomplish.· And then we hear that evidence, if you want ·6· ·to call it evidence, it's really not a judicial body. ·7· ·And then we determine whether it should be approved or ·8· ·not. ·9· · · · Q.· ·I just want to be clear.· So the Architectural 10· ·Review and Planning Board has witnesses in front of it, 11· ·or is it -- I'm sorry.· Note -- 12· · · · A.· ·People are sworn in.· They generally stand up 13· ·at the podium and give I guess you would call it 14· ·testimony.· It is transcribed I believe or at least is 15· ·taped.· I'm not quite sure. 16· · · · Q.· ·So just so I understand the function of this 17· ·board, if I wanted to build a home in Gulf Stream and 18· ·I'm going to exceed the lot lines, I would come to you 19· ·first? 20· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Note my objection to the form 21· · · · to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. 22· · · · · · ·I suggest you read the Snyder opinion 23· · · · regarding quasi-judicial proceedings and land use 24· · · · applications in the State of Florida.· It governs 25· · · · all of the proceedings. Page 16 ·1· · · · · · ·But you can give your lay opinion if you have ·2· · · · one. ·3· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· My understanding of it is that ·4· · · · if you had an application, and that application is ·5· · · · pretty general - I think that's what you're getting ·6· · · · at - you would bring it to the Town, generally meet ·7· · · · with the town manager who would go over it, let you ·8· · · · know if there is any changes that really should be ·9· · · · made or some things that definitely won't comply 10· · · · with the code. 11· · · · · · ·Then it is brought to the ARPB.· We make a 12· · · · decision, and refer it on to the commission with 13· · · · our recommendation.· Our decision is not binding. 14· · · · I believe that's the process. 15· ·BY MS. HANNA: 16· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Thank you.· Is there -- Are there 17· ·qualifications or anything that Gulf Stream requests 18· ·that you have before you sit on the ARPB? 19· · · · A.· ·I don't believe so. 20· · · · Q.· ·Well, once you got there and are on the 21· ·board -- 22· · · · · · ·What's your position on the board? 23· · · · A.· ·I'm not on the board anymore. 24· · · · Q.· ·Prior to -- At the time this request was made. 25· ·It was January 1, 2012. Page 17 ·1· · · · A.· ·Yeah.· I was chairman of the ARPB at that ·2· ·time. ·3· · · · Q.· ·You were chairman. ·4· · · · · · ·All right.· You receive a packet you explained ·5· ·to me.· How do you get the packet? ·6· · · · A.· ·You can come pick it up, or it typically will ·7· ·be dropped off at our house. ·8· · · · Q.· ·Who drops it off? ·9· · · · A.· ·Sometimes a police officer will bring it. 10· ·Other times I assume of member of staff.· I don't know. 11· ·I just come home from work, and it's there. 12· · · · Q.· ·I'm sorry to skip around.· I just want to -- 13· · · · · · ·So you work full-time? 14· · · · A.· ·Yes. 15· · · · Q.· ·Okay. 16· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Except today. 17· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Lucky me. 18· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· It looks like you're going to 19· · · · go well beyond the normal background.· Is this 20· · · · case -- And I'm just a casual observer.· But it 21· · · · looks like it's more about your client lost an 22· · · · election than about a public records request, 23· · · · because this is totally unnecessary for purposes of 24· · · · establishing anything you want to prove in a public 25· · · · records request lawsuit. Page 18 ·1· · · · Normally questions are calculated to lead to ·2· ·discovery of admissible evidence.· I hope certainly ·3· ·you're going to at some point leave background. ·4· · · · You might want to ask him what he had for ·5· ·breakfast.· Maybe when you're done asking what he ·6· ·had for breakfast, we can get to the subject matter ·7· ·of your lawsuit. ·8· · · · MS. HANNA:· Thank you for the speech.· That ·9· ·was nice. 10· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Yeah.· Unless you're just 11· ·doing this for harassment. 12· · · · MS. HANNA:· Have you ever read Lorei v. Smith, 13· ·the Second DCA case? 14· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Yeah, I'm familiar.· I've 15· ·been board certified as a civil trial lawyer and a 16· ·business lawyer here for decades. 17· · · · MS. HANNA:· And you've read that case -- 18· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Yeah, uh-huh. 19· · · · MS. HANNA:· -- as it pertains to public 20· ·records? 21· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Yes.· And what I'm suggesting 22· ·to you is why he moved to Florida and these other 23· ·questions you're asking him, are really just not 24· ·calculated to lead to -- 25· · · · MS. HANNA:· Are you making an objection? Page 19 ·1· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· I am.· And I'm laying a ·2· ·predicate for the fact that at some point I suspect ·3· ·that I'm going to have to move to suspend this ·4· ·deposition, because you are starting to just harass ·5· ·the witness.· And what you're doing is you have the ·6· ·Plaintiff's son here, the Plaintiff just lost an ·7· ·election. ·8· · · · MS. HANNA:· I'm sorry.· Can we stop for a ·9· ·second? 10· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· No, we can't. 11· · · · MS. HANNA:· I would like to go off the record. 12· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· I don't want to go off the 13· ·record. 14· · · · MS. HANNA:· Okay.· Fine. 15· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· You have the Plaintiff's son 16· ·here as your law clerk.· The Plaintiff just lost an 17· ·election. 18· · · · You indicated in the beginning you're 19· ·disheveled and disorganized.· You're required to be 20· ·prepared.· And you're required as an officer of the 21· ·court to use this proceeding pursuant to your oath 22· ·not to harass people for any improper purpose. 23· · · · We're here.· This gentleman has taken off from 24· ·work.· And you have some issues that you want to 25· ·prove or take discovery regarding concerning a very Page 20 ·1· ·discrete, limited case. ·2· · · · And I would appreciate it if you would conduct ·3· ·yourself as a professional and stick to questions ·4· ·that are calculated to lead to discovery of ·5· ·admissible evidence. ·6· · · · Are we done with your background examination, ·7· ·or are you going to harass him with regard to ·8· ·things that have nothing to do with your purpose ·9· ·here today? 10· · · · MS. HANNA:· Are you done? 11· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· I just posed a question to 12· ·you. 13· · · · MS. HANNA:· Can I continue? 14· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Can you please answer my 15· ·question? 16· · · · MS. HANNA:· I'm not in a deposition.· I'm 17· ·taking a deposition. 18· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· Well, I forewarned 19· ·you, so let's watch what you do here. 20· · · · MS. HANNA:· Thank you.· That was a lovely 21· ·speech, and I appreciate it. 22· · · · As you're aware the issue here is whether 23· ·records were produced, when they were produced and 24· ·the existence of other records.· And I suggest that 25· ·you read Lorei v Smith.· It's a Second DCA case Page 21 ·1· ·that speaks directly to the point when records are ·2· ·not produced and there's an allegation that the ·3· ·government is playing fast and loose, discovery is ·4· ·much broader and not limited to a strict public ·5· ·records typical deposition. ·6· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· I understand that, but you ·7· ·haven't asked anything to do with any production of ·8· ·any records here yet. ·9· · · · So please proceed to do that.· You've been 10· ·under the guise of background wasting our time.· So 11· ·please get to your point. 12· · · · MS. HANNA:· I appreciate that, but I believe 13· ·that the ARPB information is relevant. 14· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· I believe you're here to 15· ·harass this witness.· So keep asking questions. 16· ·Let's go.· Let's see if I'm correct or your 17· ·correct.· Because I have a feeling we're going to 18· ·have other proceedings very soon. 19· · · · MS. HANNA:· So are we going to call the judge 20· ·or -- 21· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· No, no.· I think we're going 22· ·to end up with other proceedings very soon.· So you 23· ·continue, because I'm watching very carefully. 24· · · · MS. HANNA:· I would ask that you keep your 25· ·objections to a minimum so we don't have this whole Page 22 ·1· · · · Emancipation Proclamation on the record.· It does ·2· · · · cost five dollars a page. ·3· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Your client has filed dozens ·4· · · · of requests and lawsuits.· Okay?· And I'm going to ·5· · · · make my statements and objections on the record. ·6· · · · I'm objecting that your questions are not ·7· · · · calculated to lead to discovery of admissible ·8· · · · evidence and that you are harassing the witness and ·9· · · · that this deposition is a pattern of harassment 10· · · · that your client has been pursuing for his own 11· · · · psychological purpose and issues. 12· · · · · · ·So please, I'll say it one more time, let's 13· · · · get to the questions that you as a responsible 14· · · · member of the Bar and professional should be asking 15· · · · in this type of a deposition. 16· · · · · · ·Now please proceed. 17· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· I'm sorry.· Could you read the 18· · · · last question back to me? 19· · · · · · ·(The requested portion of the record was read 20· ·by the reporter.) 21· ·BY MS. HANNA: 22· · · · Q.· ·Are you aware that those packets are public 23· ·records? 24· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Note my objection to the 25· · · · extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Page 23 ·1· · · · · · ·Go ahead and answer. ·2· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I guess they would be. ·3· ·BY MS. HANNA: ·4· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Mr. Morgan, do you have a computer? ·5· · · · A.· ·Sure. ·6· · · · Q.· ·Do you have more than one computer? ·7· · · · A.· ·Sure. ·8· · · · Q.· ·Do you use those computers for business? ·9· · · · A.· ·Yes. 10· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Object to the form. 11· ·BY MS. HANNA: 12· · · · Q.· ·Do you use the computers for Town business? 13· · · · A.· ·No.· I wouldn't say I use my computers for 14· ·Town business.· I'm a member of the ARPB. 15· · · · Q.· ·How do you communicate with the Town when an 16· ·issue arises from the -- 17· · · · A.· ·What kind of an issue? 18· · · · Q.· ·A variance request with the ARPB. 19· · · · A.· ·As I said, typically what happens we get a 20· ·packet of material from the Town.· We don't -- We don't 21· ·know what's in it.· We don't know the issues that are 22· ·before the Town until we receive the packet, read the 23· ·packet, see what the applications are.· They usually are 24· ·not variances.· They're usually much simpler than that. 25· ·And then we go to the hearing. Page 24 ·1· · · · Q.· ·Do you communicate -- ·2· · · · A.· ·We don't -- No.· I don't call the Town and ·3· ·say, you know, I see we have an application for Joe ·4· ·Smith, I'd like to get some more information on that. ·5· ·No.· At least I've not done that. ·6· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Yesterday I received an e-mail from ·7· ·Ms. O'Connor forwarding me a document that I believe was ·8· ·an e-mail from you to Mr. Thrasher. ·9· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Mark that. 10· · · · · · ·(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 2 was marked for 11· ·identification.) 12· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Thank you. 13· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· I did bring copies of that. 14· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· You marked this as Two? 15· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Yes. 16· ·BY MR. SWEETAPPLE: 17· · · · Q.· ·Could you just take a second and read that 18· ·e-mail? 19· · · · A.· ·Yes. 20· · · · Q.· ·Is this e-mail an e-mail that you used for 21· ·official business with the Town, related to the Town? 22· · · · A.· ·This particular e-mail was -- You use the word 23· ·used for official business.· I don't know that that's a 24· ·correct way of designating it.· It's just an e-mail 25· ·address. Page 25 ·1· · · · Q.· ·As in this e-mail, the Exhibit 2, do you -- ·2· ·Strike that.· I'm sorry. ·3· · · · · · ·Do you have a specific e-mail address that you ·4· ·use to communicate with members of the Town with respect ·5· ·to your duties with the ARPB? ·6· · · · A.· ·No. ·7· · · · Q.· ·Do you have more than one e-mail address that ·8· ·you use to communicate with the Town? ·9· · · · A.· ·I don't regularly communicate with the Town 10· ·for official business.· So I'm not quite sure what 11· ·you're asking. 12· · · · Q.· ·I guess I'm not being clear. 13· · · · A.· ·I sent this e-mail with that e-mail address. 14· · · · Q.· ·And what was the date this e-mail was sent? 15· · · · A.· ·October 18th of 2013. 16· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· The second paragraph of the e-mail 17· ·addresses a request that was made.· And you state that 18· ·the request is vague.· So you were unable in good faith 19· ·to respond to it? 20· · · · A.· ·That's correct. 21· · · · Q.· ·What did you use to make that determination? 22· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Note my objection to the 23· · · · form.· Do you have the underlying -- 24· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Join. 25· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· -- the underlying Page 26 ·1· ·communication that he's referring to? ·2· · · · MS. HANNA:· Is there an underlying ·3· ·communication that he's referring to? ·4· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Well, yeah.· He says the ·5· ·highlight in request number five of the e-mail ·6· ·makes no sense. ·7· · · · So do you have that? ·8· · · · MS. HANNA:· Unfortunately, I don't, which is ·9· ·one of the issues in this lawsuit. 10· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay. 11· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· This is referencing an e-mail 12· ·that your client sent making a public records 13· ·request.· So I would suspect that you have it. 14· · · · MS. HANNA:· The time frame is October 18, 15· ·2013.· Mr. O'Boyle made a request for -- 16· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· It's not the request we're 17· ·talking about here. 18· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· You don't have his e-mail? 19· ·You don't have Mr. O'Boyle's e-mail? 20· · · · MS. HANNA:· No, I do not.· I have 21· ·Mr. O'Boyle's public records request, which 22· ·includes any communication sent or received by 23· ·Scott Morgan of the Architectural Review and 24· ·Planning Board at the Town of Gulf Stream for the 25· ·period beginning January 1, 2012 through the date Page 27 ·1· ·of this request, which is 1/24/14. ·2· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· That request itself as a ·3· ·matter of law is vague.· It doesn't even indicate ·4· ·who to or from. ·5· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· And just for the record, this ·6· ·e-mail -- ·7· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Is that what you're referring ·8· ·to? ·9· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· -- was produced to you in an 10· ·abundance of caution to the extent it might fall 11· ·within the ambit of the public records request 12· ·that's at issue in this lawsuit. 13· · · · Exhibit 2 references another public records 14· ·request made by your client back in October of 2013 15· ·so... 16· · · · MS. HANNA:· We've received 1422 pages after 17· ·this litigation was initiated.· All of those 18· ·documents were responsive to Mr. O'Boyle's request, 19· ·including packets from the ARPB. 20· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Are you saying you don't have 21· ·an e-mail from your client in or about October of 22· ·2013? 23· · · · MS. HANNA:· This is not my client who made the 24· ·request. 25· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· Mr. J. O'Boyle.· You Page 28 ·1· ·don't have an e-mail from Mr. J. O'Boyle from on or ·2· ·about October 18th as referred to -- ·3· · · · MS. HANNA:· Yes, I do.· I do. ·4· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· So you stand corrected ·5· ·because Mr. J. O'Boyle is showing it to you. ·6· · · · Do you have a copy of it here for the purposes ·7· ·of the deposition so that this exhibit can be ·8· ·complete? ·9· · · · I'm objecting to this exhibit because it's not 10· ·complete.· It make a reference to a document in a 11· ·string that I would like to see and have made part 12· ·of the record if we could. 13· · · · Do you only have it on your computer screen, 14· ·or do you have a hard copy of it? 15· · · · MS. HANNA:· Could we just go off the record 16· ·for a second, please. 17· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· No.· We're not going off the 18· ·record with you.· We're going to have an official 19· ·record about your public records request about your 20· ·client's home improvement.· So we're never going to 21· ·go off the record. 22· · · · MS. HANNA:· Mr. Sweetapple, you're bringing 23· ·up -- I mean you're throwing around election. 24· ·We're not talking about election.· We're not 25· ·talking about my client's home improvement. Page 29 ·1· · · · I'm trying to get to some issues here.· I have ·2· ·some genuine questions.· You dispute the ·3· ·genuineness of my questions. ·4· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· No, I don't. ·5· · · · MS. HANNA:· However, your job here is not to ·6· ·dispute my questions.· It's just to sit and listen ·7· ·and object to form.· No speaking objections. ·8· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· You have a -- ·9· · · · MS. HANNA:· But you have decided that you're 10· ·going to interpose voluminous statements on the 11· ·record. 12· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· I can object for a number of 13· ·grounds besides just form.· Your understanding of 14· ·the law is entirely unsophisticated. 15· · · · I am now objecting because this exhibit is 16· ·incomplete.· And I'll ask you for the third time 17· ·very respectfully, other than the fact that 18· ·Mr. Jonathan O'Boyle just showed you a computer 19· ·screen and corrected your earlier position and 20· ·there is a communication from Mr. Jonathan O'Boyle 21· ·in October of 2013 which your Exhibit 2 apparently 22· ·is part of and relates to, I will ask you one last 23· ·time do you have a copy of it so the witness can 24· ·see it so he can have a complete exhibit?· Or do 25· ·you need -- Page 30 ·1· · · · MS. HANNA:· I'm sure that I do. ·2· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· May I please make it part of ·3· ·the record?· Because you're asking him about that ·4· ·communication.· And he would like to see it. ·5· · · · MS. HANNA:· I am not asking him about that ·6· ·communication. ·7· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Yes.· Because you asked him ·8· ·what -- He referred to a document as being vague. ·9· ·That's the document. 10· · · · Do you have it here today? 11· · · · MS. HANNA:· Can you read my question back for 12· ·me? 13· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· You'll see in your questions 14· ·you asked him about what was vague. 15· · · · MS. HANNA:· I believe I asked him what his 16· ·understanding of vagueness was. 17· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Well, that would be a silly 18· ·question to ask. 19· · · · MS. HANNA:· Would it? 20· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Because that would be a legal 21· ·conclusion as to what's vague.· A judge will make 22· ·that decision. 23· · · · And after you've had that read back, please 24· ·answer my question I've asked three times.· Do you 25· ·have the rest of this exhibit or not? Page 31 ·1· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· To make Mr. Sweetapple happy, ·2· · · · we'll take it out for the time being, and we'll ·3· · · · move on. ·4· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· I'm happy to have you give me ·5· · · · the complete exhibit.· That's not Two.· We'll leave ·6· · · · that marked as Two, but we'll move on. ·7· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Thank you. ·8· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· The next exhibit will be ·9· · · · Three. 10· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Thank you.· Thank you for that, 11· · · · Mr. Sweetapple. 12· ·BY MS. HANNA: 13· · · · Q.· ·Going back to January 1, 2012 when the public 14· ·records request was made that's at issue in this case -- 15· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Objection.· The public records 16· · · · request was made in January of 2014.· The request 17· · · · was made in January 2014.· It concerns documents -- 18· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Oh, I'm sorry.· You're right.· You 19· · · · are right. 20· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· I just want to clarify for the 21· · · · record. 22· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Okay.· Thank you. 23· · · · · · ·Where is the request? 24· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· With Exhibit 1. 25 Page 32 ·1· ·BY MS. HANNA: ·2· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Morgan, I'm asking you to take a look at ·3· ·that again. ·4· · · · A.· ·Yes. ·5· · · · Q.· ·At the time that request was made, did you ·6· ·have any documents that would be responsive to the ·7· ·request? ·8· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Object to the form. ·9· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I'm sorry.· At the time this 10· · · · request was made, January 24th of 2014, but not 11· · · · made to me. 12· ·BY MS. HANNA: 13· · · · Q.· ·To the Town. 14· · · · A.· ·Did I have any public records responsive to 15· ·this? 16· · · · Q.· ·Did you have any documents or e-mails or 17· ·letters that you communicated with the Town regarding 18· ·Town business? 19· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Object to the form. 20· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Not to my knowledge. 21· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· What's your basis? 22· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Pardon? 23· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· What's your basis? 24· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· My basis is that anything 25· · · · that he had in his possession that you're asking Page 33 ·1· · · · about would not be a public record.· It would be ·2· · · · his personal record.· It would be a public record ·3· · · · only if it were held by the city or town or ·4· · · · municipality or government entity. ·5· · · · · · ·So your whole area of inquiry is based on a ·6· · · · predicate that has no legal basis.· Anything in his ·7· · · · computer is not a public record because he sent it ·8· · · · to a government agency. ·9· · · · · · ·That's the basis for my objection.· Please 10· · · · proceed. 11· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· I'm going to take a break. 12· · · · · · ·Jon, can you come outside with me? 13· · · · · · ·MR. JONATHAN O'BOYLE:· Sure. 14· · · · · · ·(A recess was had from 10:41 until 10:54 a.m.) 15· ·BY MS. HANNA: 16· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Morgan, have you ever -- I know you have. 17· ·I'm just going to give you Exhibit C to the complaint. 18· ·I'll give it to your lawyer first. 19· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Thank you. 20· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· I think it's got an extra page on 21· · · · it. 22· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Not part of the exhibit? 23· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· No. 24· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· Here you go. 25· · · · · · ·Are you going to mark this as Three? Page 34 ·1· · · · MS. HANNA:· No.· Let's mark this as Two. ·2· ·We'll come back to -- ·3· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Well, we already have a Two ·4· ·marked even though you're not -- ·5· · · · MS. HANNA:· It's just a sticker.· We can take ·6· ·it off. ·7· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· Well, then the record ·8· ·won't know what we were talking about.· I prefer to ·9· ·leave Two.· We talked about Two being incomplete. 10· · · · MS. HANNA:· All right. 11· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· So I want a complete record. 12· ·So if you don't mind, we'll mark this as Three. 13· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· And just for the record, it's 14· ·not an exact copy.· It's just a part of Exhibit C 15· ·to the complaint. 16· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· So Exhibit C to the complaint 17· ·is -- 18· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· Yes.· You don't have the cover 19· ·letter, the February 3, 2014 cover letter.· Here it 20· ·attaches. 21· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· I've got an attachment here. 22· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· And there was more than just 23· ·this document.· There's five pages attached. 24· · · · MS. HANNA:· For Exhibit C? 25· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· Yes.· I have your complaint Page 35 ·1· ·right here if you'd like to look at it. ·2· · · · MS. HANNA:· Yeah.· May I see that? ·3· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· Uh-huh. ·4· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· So this is incomplete also ·5· ·you're saying? ·6· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· Correct. ·7· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· We could just say it's part ·8· ·of Exhibit C of the complaint.· At least we'd have ·9· ·the whole exhibit to look at. 10· · · · MS. HANNA:· Okay. 11· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· Do you need to make a copy of 12· ·that? 13· · · · MS. HANNA:· I have this right here.· It's just 14· ·a little confusing because there is an extra sheet 15· ·attached to this.· So I did not believe that it was 16· ·part of the exhibit. 17· · · · Do you want to take a look at this?· Is that 18· ·more complete for you? 19· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay. 20· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· It's missing pages three out of 21· ·eight and seven out of eight. 22· · · · MS. HANNA:· One, two, three, four, five. 23· · · · How many pages do you have in your hand? 24· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· Five. 25· · · · MS. HANNA:· This exhibit right here has five Page 36 ·1· ·pages.· It starts with a letter from the Town of ·2· ·Gulf Stream, February 3, 2014, and ends with a page ·3· ·signed by Scott W. Morgan. ·4· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Is this letter the only part ·5· ·of the exhibit that Mr. Morgan authored? ·6· · · · MS. HANNA:· Yes. ·7· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· I suspect you may have attached ·8· ·an incomplete exhibit to your complaint.· This is ·9· ·an eight page fax, and you're missing -- And it's 10· ·both this and the exhibit to the complaint only has 11· ·five pages.· You're missing a page three out of 12· ·eight and page seven and eight out of eight. 13· · · · And the letter indicates that there are five 14· ·eight-and-a-half by eleven one-sided documents that 15· ·are included with this fax cover page.· And it 16· ·appears that only three were attached. 17· · · · MS. HANNA:· Actually, page three is Exhibit B 18· ·of the complaint. 19· · · · MR. JONATHAN O'BOYLE:· Yeah.· It's all A, and 20· ·the exhibits. 21· · · · MS. HANNA:· Page two is Exhibit A to the 22· ·complaint. 23· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Do you want to ask him about 24· ·this letter, the July 23rd letter? 25· · · · MS. HANNA:· Yes. Page 37 ·1· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· I marked that as ·2· · · · Three.· So why don't we just go ahead and go ·3· · · · forward with that. ·4· · · · · · ·(Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 3 was marked for ·5· ·identification.) ·6· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Two is subject to completion per ·7· · · · Mr. Sweetapple's request. ·8· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· So you're holding it. ·9· · · · Fine. 10· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Can we continue, please? 11· ·BY MS. HANNA: 12· · · · Q.· ·Have you had a chance to read the letter that 13· ·I've handed you?· It's marked as Exhibit 3. 14· · · · A.· ·I did not read it, but I'm familiar with it. 15· · · · Q.· ·Who was the author of that letter? 16· · · · A.· ·I wrote this and signed it. 17· · · · Q.· ·What prompted you to write that letter? 18· · · · A.· ·At an ARPB meeting, the town manager asked the 19· ·members of the board to take a look at the code and 20· ·propose any comments, modifications, changes, anything 21· ·that they thought might be helpful to an ad hoc 22· ·committee that was being set up to review the design 23· ·manual of our code.· And so in response to that request, 24· ·I wrote this letter. 25· · · · Q.· ·Is this a letter that -- Page 38 ·1· · · · A.· ·Oh, I'm sorry.· I should have read it.· Strike ·2· ·that.· I'm looking at the wrong one. ·3· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Right. ·4· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I wondered why you were ·5· · · · looking...· I'm sorry. ·6· · · · · · ·This was a letter I wrote on July 23rd.· It's ·7· · · · titled Hidden Harbour Estates Lot 5.· This was a ·8· · · · letter that I -- or a fax that I sent in to the ·9· · · · Town noting my objection to an application that was 10· · · · coming before the ARPB I guess for the July 11· · · · meeting.· Sorry about that. 12· ·BY MS. HANNA: 13· · · · Q.· ·That's all right. 14· · · · · · ·Do you typically send letters to the town? 15· · · · A.· ·No. 16· · · · Q.· ·Only when you have specific objections? 17· · · · A.· ·I would rarely send a letter to the Town.· But 18· ·I had voiced my objection to the Harbour View Estates 19· ·development early on.· This was one of the proposed 20· ·buildings that I objected to.· And I wanted my 21· ·objections to be known to the ARPB for their 22· ·consideration. 23· · · · Q.· ·So when you have objections, you write a 24· ·letter to the ARPB? 25· · · · A.· ·No.· Sometimes I would be sitting on the ARPB. Page 39 ·1· · · · Q.· ·Okay. ·2· · · · A.· ·This letter -- Frankly, I knew I was not going ·3· ·to be on.· And had I been there, I more likely than not ·4· ·would have recused myself.· Because as a neighbor in ·5· ·proximity to this property, as I had done before ·6· ·previous times, had recused and vocalized my objections ·7· ·to it.· Others I did not object to with this property. ·8· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Thank you. ·9· · · · · · ·I just want to clarify one point.· Your 10· ·position as the commissioner of the ARPB gave you the 11· ·authority to author documents? 12· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Form. 13· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Objection. 14· ·BY MS. HANNA: 15· · · · Q.· ·Did you author documents during your tenure 16· ·as -- What was it? 17· · · · A.· ·Anyone can write letters, faxes, come and give 18· ·public comment, come and testify relative to any 19· ·application.· You needn't be a member of the board or 20· ·the commission. 21· · · · Q.· ·But as a member of the board or the 22· ·commission, did you create correspondence? 23· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Objection. 24· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· For what? 25 Page 40 ·1· ·BY MS. HANNA: ·2· · · · Q.· ·Related to the applications that were before ·3· ·you? ·4· · · · A.· ·All the applications, no. ·5· · · · Q.· ·Was there ever a time when you did create ·6· ·correspondence relative to an application pending before ·7· ·you? ·8· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Objection.· Asked and answered. ·9· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Form. 10· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Not to my knowledge. 11· ·BY MS. HANNA: 12· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· How many e-mail accounts do you have, 13· ·Mr. Morgan? 14· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· You don't have to disclose 15· · · · that.· You can say number, but you don't have to 16· · · · tell them your e-mail addresses if you don't want 17· · · · to. 18· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· I didn't ask for the e-mail 19· · · · addresses. 20· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I believe three. 21· ·BY MS. HANNA: 22· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· I know I asked you this before, but I'm 23· ·asking you this again and with an addition, but just so 24· ·there is some context here. 25· · · · · · ·When the request was made on January 14th -- Page 41 ·1· ·January 24, 2014, you had indicated earlier that ·2· ·Mr. Thrasher did not contact you, nor anyone from the ·3· ·town, correct? ·4· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Form. ·5· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Objection. ·6· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· When? ·7· ·BY MS. HANNA: ·8· · · · Q.· ·When this request was made. ·9· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Pointing to Exhibit 1. 10· ·BY MS. HANNA: 11· · · · Q.· ·Did anyone -- 12· · · · A.· ·No one -- I was not called or notified or 13· ·written on January 24th about a records request. 14· · · · Q.· ·At any time thereafter, were you contacted 15· ·about a records request? 16· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Objection. 17· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.· Thereafter, I believe it 18· · · · was thereafter based on what I saw, but I can't 19· · · · really tell. 20· ·BY MS. HANNA: 21· · · · Q.· ·When? 22· · · · A.· ·I said I don't know.· I think I testified 23· ·earlier it was in the New Year.· I'm assuming it was 24· ·after this, but I'm not positive.· But I received a 25· ·telephone call from someone from the Town of Gulf Stream Page 42 ·1· ·indicating that more records requests had come in.· It ·2· ·was either from O'Boyle or O'Hare, I don't recall, and ·3· ·had I helped written anything; did I help guide them; ·4· ·had I submitted anything in the last year or so. ·5· · · · · · ·And that's when I said there was a Spence ·6· ·property objection.· And there was the ad hoc committee ·7· ·recommendation on the design code changes.· Those were a ·8· ·couple that I could think of. ·9· · · · Q.· ·What's the ad hoc committee? 10· · · · A.· ·There is an ad hoc committee reviewing the 11· ·design manual for any proposed changes or additions. 12· ·And Mr. Thrasher had asked the members of the ARPB to 13· ·send in any comments that they had that might be helpful 14· ·to the ad hoc committee studying that manual. 15· · · · Q.· ·How did Mr. Thrasher ask you?· Did he send you 16· ·an e-mail? 17· · · · A.· ·No.· It was at a board meeting. 18· · · · Q.· ·Board meeting. 19· · · · · · ·(Mr. Martin O'Boyle entered the room.) 20· ·BY MS. HANNA: 21· · · · Q.· ·Do you presently speak with the town solicitor 22· ·on ARPB matters? 23· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Object to the form. 24· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Join. 25 Page 43 ·1· ·BY MS. HANNA: ·2· · · · Q.· ·Have you spoken with Mr. Randolph, who's the ·3· ·town solicitor, to address matters that come before the ·4· ·ARPB? ·5· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Form. ·6· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· At board meetings. ·7· ·BY MS. HANNA: ·8· · · · Q.· ·When you say the Spence property came up, do ·9· ·you -- What happened with regard to the Spence property 10· ·with the application and your objections? 11· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Form. 12· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· There had been a number of 13· · · · applications on the Spence property.· And that's 14· · · · just a general phrase to describe what was 15· · · · originally a single home.· It was purchased by a 16· · · · developer who prepared a plat to develop it into 17· · · · six homes. 18· · · · · · ·Mr. O'Boyle actually led the objection to that 19· · · · property at least with respect to the plat. 20· · · · · · ·Thereafter, there have been applications filed 21· · · · after that was approved for the individual homes. 22· ·BY MS. HANNA: 23· · · · Q.· ·Did you ever talk to any of the contractors 24· ·involved in that project, the Spence property project? 25· · · · A.· ·Had I ever spoken to Mr. Laudani who's I Page 44 ·1· ·guess, the head of Seaside Builders?· Yes. ·2· · · · Q.· ·After his application was made? ·3· · · · A.· ·Yes. ·4· · · · Q.· ·Was that during an ARPB commission meeting? ·5· · · · A.· ·Both. ·6· · · · Q.· ·Did you ever have any e-mail exchange with ·7· ·Mr. Laudani? ·8· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Form. ·9· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't recall.· I don't know. 10· · · · I don't recall. 11· ·BY MS. HANNA: 12· · · · Q.· ·When you were preparing for the ARPB meetings, 13· ·did you take notes? 14· · · · A.· ·No.· I might occasionally jot something on the 15· ·paperwork that was provided to us.· I don't routinely 16· ·take notes.· I might for questions.· I might either 17· ·write on a paper or on a pad something to ask as a 18· ·question.· But other than that, no, I don't take notes. 19· · · · Q.· ·What do you do with the papers once you're 20· ·done with the meeting? 21· · · · A.· ·I discard them. 22· · · · Q.· ·You've been quoted as saying that you want to 23· ·take a proactive approach to the litigation involving 24· ·the Town with Mr. O'Boyle and Mr. O'Hare's public 25· ·records request. Page 45 ·1· · · · · · ·Could you explain what you mean by that? ·2· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Form. ·3· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Join. ·4· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Not calculated to lead to ·5· · · · discovery of admissible evidence. ·6· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.· I believe the Town should ·7· · · · take a very aggressive stance with respect to ·8· · · · lawsuits such as this one in order to defend the ·9· · · · Town's interests. 10· ·BY MS. HANNA: 11· · · · Q.· ·Have you ever received any documents from the 12· ·Town in the mail? 13· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Object to the form. 14· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· What's your basis? 15· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· "Have you ever received any 16· · · · documents from the Town in the mail?" 17· · · · · · ·You don't think that's a little overly broad? 18· · · · You don't have a time period?· You're talking he's 19· · · · probably received hundreds of documents from the 20· · · · Town in the mail. 21· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Thank you for that. 22· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· I think you would be a little 23· · · · more specific than that.· Otherwise we'll be here 24· · · · for like weeks. 25 Page 46 ·1· ·BY MS. HANNA: ·2· · · · Q.· ·Of the hundreds of documents that your ·3· ·attorney has so pointed out -- ·4· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Water bills -- ·5· ·BY MS. HANNA: ·6· · · · Q.· ·-- from the town -- ·7· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Notices of elections, ·8· · · · properties -- ·9· ·BY MS. HANNA: 10· · · · Q.· ·-- with respect to your position as the ARPB 11· ·planning -- 12· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· That's not what he said. 13· ·BY MS. HANNA: 14· · · · Q.· ·-- ARPB -- Architectural Review Board and 15· ·Planning, did you ever receive mail with respect to your 16· ·duties as the head of that board from the Town? 17· · · · A.· ·No. 18· · · · Q.· ·I have one more thing. 19· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Do you have a complete 20· · · · exhibit now?· Do you have this? 21· · · · · · ·You are going to read it? 22· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I will this time having made a 23· · · · mistake on the last one. 24· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay. 25 Page 47 ·1· ·BY MS. HANNA: ·2· · · · Q.· ·Who authored that e-mail? ·3· · · · A.· ·The e-mail on the top is the one that I sent ·4· ·dated October 18, 2013. ·5· · · · Q.· ·And that's Exhibit 2, composite? ·6· · · · A.· ·Right.· I think Two comprises four pages. ·7· · · · Q.· ·Could you read the e-mail prior to that? ·8· ·Could you slide that sheet over, Exhibit Two top. ·9· · · · A.· ·This -- I don't think this is an e-mail.· It 10· ·looks like a letter from the town, or maybe it was 11· ·e-mailed because it's got Jonathan O'Boyle's e-mail 12· ·address on it.· I don't know. 13· · · · · · ·Do you want me to read this, whatever it is? 14· · · · Q.· ·Go ahead. 15· · · · A.· ·It's dated October 18, 2013.· Dear 16· ·Mr. Jonathan O'Boyle, The Town of Gulf Stream has 17· ·received your public records request dated October 15, 18· ·2013.· If your request was received in writing, then the 19· ·first page of that request is attached to this cover 20· ·letter.· If your request was verbal, then the 21· ·description of your public records request is set forth 22· ·in the space below.· Our staff will review your request 23· ·within the next three business days, and we will 24· ·promptly send you the appropriate response or an 25· ·estimated cost to respond." Page 48 ·1· · · · Q.· ·Now, would you do me a favor and take a look ·2· ·at Mr. O'Boyle's, Jonathan O'Boyle's request? ·3· · · · A.· ·This is dated October 15, 2013. ·4· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· How many pages is the request? ·5· · · · A.· ·The e-mail request is two pages. ·6· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Do you mind if I have that for a ·7· ·second? ·8· · · · · · ·How did you become aware of this request which ·9· ·would have prompted you to send that e-mail to 10· ·Mr. Thrasher dated October 18, 2013? 11· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Object to the form. 12· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't recall, but I was 13· · · · obviously given at least request number five, but I 14· · · · don't recall how I received it. 15· ·BY MS. HANNA: 16· · · · Q.· ·And why did you -- What was the basis for your 17· ·conclusion in your e-mail? 18· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Object to the form. 19· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Why don't you read it?· Does it 20· · · · make sense to you? 21· · · · · · ·It doesn't make sense. 22· ·BY MS. HANNA: 23· · · · Q.· ·Why? 24· · · · A.· ·Read it. 25· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Read it into the record. Page 49 ·1· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I'll read it into the record. ·2· · · · Give it to me. ·3· ·BY MS. HANNA: ·4· · · · Q.· ·Okay. ·5· · · · A.· ·Number five.· "E-mail's sent from ·6· ·Scott Morgan's for the month of September 2013." ·7· · · · · · ·What does that mean?· What is that?· It's ·8· ·vague.· I'm not going to respond to that. ·9· ·BY MS. HANNA: 10· · · · Q.· ·Could you just read -- When you were confused, 11· ·did you seek assistance for your confusion? 12· · · · A.· ·Mr. -- I think I got this from Mr. Thrasher, 13· ·and I would assume that anybody reading that would have 14· ·the same reaction I did. 15· · · · Q.· ·So your reaction you felt, and if I'm 16· ·misstating this, you felt that based on this response 17· ·being vague no records would be provided? 18· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Object to the form. 19· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I didn't understand it, 20· · · · Counselor. 21· ·BY MS. HANNA: 22· · · · Q.· ·Did you ask Mr. Thrasher to explain it to you 23· ·or seek -- 24· · · · A.· ·No. 25· · · · Q.· ·-- clarification? Page 50 ·1· · · · A.· ·No.· I responded in my e-mail, which is marked ·2· ·as Exhibit 2 and is self-explanatory. ·3· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· I'm just going to ask you ·4· · · · gentlemen if we could have a five minute break.· We ·5· · · · may be concluding. ·6· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Sure. ·7· · · · · · ·(A recess was had from 11:22 until 11:33 a.m.) ·8· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· If we could also note for the ·9· · · · record that also in attendance is the Plaintiff, 10· · · · Martin O'Boyle, as well as Chris O'Hare, and 11· · · · Mr. Thrasher from the Town. 12· · · · · · ·MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· And if I may, my name is 13· · · · Martin O'Boyle -- 14· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· You're not allowed to make 15· · · · any comments at this time.· We are in the middle of 16· · · · a court proceeding. 17· · · · · · ·MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· Okay. 18· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· You're entitled to observe 19· · · · and that's all.· Please sit down, sir, or else I'm 20· · · · going to suspend the deposition and move the Court 21· · · · for sanctions, including contempt citation against 22· · · · you. 23· · · · · · ·Please sit down.· There's an attorney here 24· · · · representing you.· Do you want to speak to her 25· · · · privately?· You can do so. Page 51 ·1· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· I want to speak with her ·2· ·on the record.· I'm terminating the services of my ·3· ·attorney. ·4· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Do not speak to her on the ·5· ·record, sir.· Please sit down, Mr. O'Boyle. ·6· ·Mr. Boyle, sit down and observe the -- ·7· · · · MS. HANNA:· Mr. Sweetapple, please don't raise ·8· ·your voice. ·9· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· I'm terminating the 10· ·services of my attorney. 11· · · · MS. HANNA:· There is no need to raise your 12· ·voice. 13· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· I'm going to be on the 14· ·phone with Judge McCarthy.· Let's go.· Let's take a 15· ·break.· I'm going to call Judge McCarthy it 16· ·appears. 17· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· Well, we'll call him 18· ·together because -- 19· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Oh, we're going to call him 20· ·together.· I'm going to pull his number out of my 21· ·speed dial here from my -- 22· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· Sure. 23· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· -- court judges. 24· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· Sure. 25· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· And then we are going to have Page 52 ·1· · · · to call him in a few minutes. ·2· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· He is not going to be available. ·3· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· Can you talk to your ·4· · · · client and make him aware that he's not to make ·5· · · · speeches? ·6· · · · · · ·MS. HANNA:· Did you hear what my client just ·7· · · · said? ·8· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· We're going to leave.· You ·9· · · · talk to your client.· You speak for your client. 10· · · · · · ·We'll leave, and when you're done -- Let's go 11· · · · ahead and excuse ourselves.· Then you can put on 12· · · · the record whatever you want to say on behalf of 13· · · · your client.· This is not his soapbox or his 14· · · · psychiatric office. 15· · · · · · ·(Mr. Sweetapple, Ms. O'Connor, Mr. Thrasher 16· ·and the witness exited the room at 11:34 a.m.) 17· · · · · · ·MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· As I said, my name is 18· · · · Martin O'Boyle I'm the Plaintiff.· I have 19· · · · terminated the services of our counsel.· I am now 20· · · · pro se.· I am prepared to continue with the 21· · · · deposition where counsel has left off. 22· · · · · · ·(A recess was had from 11:34 until 11:40 a.m.) 23· · · · · · ·MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Back on the record.· I'm 24· · · · ready for counsel to proceed. 25· · · · · · ·Counsel, are you going to continue to finish Page 53 ·1· ·this deposition?· I think you've told me you've ·2· ·been fired; is that the case? ·3· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· Counsel no longer ·4· ·represents me.· I'm pro se. ·5· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· You're pro se. ·6· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· Yes. ·7· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· Well, we're going to ·8· ·have to take that up with the judge.· You weren't ·9· ·here for the beginning part of the deposition. 10· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· That's correct. 11· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· You don't even know what's 12· ·been asked.· Is it -- Is it your intention to 13· ·complete a deposition after terminating your 14· ·counsel? 15· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· It is my intention to 16· ·take the deposition.· And, of course, I would have 17· ·to complete the deposition.· Otherwise -- 18· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· I'm going -- I'm going 19· ·to move to suspend the deposition, and file a 20· ·motion with the Court.· You couldn't possibly 21· ·complete this deposition not having been here.· You 22· ·don't even know what's been asked or answered.· I'm 23· ·not going to take time for you to go through and 24· ·have the court reporter read all that to you. 25· · · · You also still have a law firm that is of Page 54 ·1· ·record in this case.· Until that law firm has ·2· ·withdrawn, they are your counsel.· I'm going to ·3· ·call upon your counsel to finish this deposition. ·4· ·She's still counsel of record.· Your son is here; ·5· ·he is still counsel of record. ·6· · · · MR. JONATHAN O'BOYLE:· Not true. ·7· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· So at this point, if your ·8· ·attorney wants to put on the record that she has ·9· ·been terminated and her firm has been terminated, 10· ·do you want to put that on the record? 11· · · · MS. HANNA:· My representation of Mr. O'Boyle 12· ·has been terminated, as the services of this firm 13· ·have been terminated as well. 14· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· Fine.· Then you'll 15· ·need to move -- And you're not going to take any -- 16· ·not going to continue with this deposition at this 17· ·time?· Is that no? 18· · · · MS. HANNA:· Yes, that's a no. 19· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· So at this point are 20· ·you suspending the deposition, or what are you 21· ·doing? 22· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· I'm taking the 23· ·deposition. 24· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Excuse me. 25· · · · MS. HANNA:· Mr. Sweetapple, I asked you -- Page 55 ·1· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· She's no longer counsel, ·2· ·Counselor. ·3· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· No, she's counsel of record, ·4· ·sir. ·5· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· I understand. ·6· · · · MS. HANNA:· Mr. Sweetapple, I asked you if we ·7· ·could suspend the deposition. ·8· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Right.· You cannot. ·9· · · · MS. HANNA:· You refused to.· And now you are 10· ·saying that you want to suspend the deposition. 11· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· No, no.· I want to know if 12· ·you're going to finish the deposition as counsel 13· ·for the Plaintiff.· You're telling me you've been 14· ·terminated.· Then I guess you can't make any more 15· ·representations on this record. 16· · · · MS. HANNA:· Correct. 17· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· I will suspend this and take 18· ·it up with the Court.· I think the termination in 19· ·the middle of the deposition is in bad faith.· I 20· ·think it's a ploy in order to try to continue this 21· ·deposition.· I'm going to ask the Court to 22· ·determine that this firm has been terminated from 23· ·all matters as a result of this, that it's no 24· ·longer Mr. O'Boyle's counsel on any matters. 25· · · · And I will be moving to suspend at this time. Page 56 ·1· ·I'll be moving for an award of attorney's fees and ·2· ·costs.· I think this is game playing.· We've had a ·3· ·good indication of that based on your questioning ·4· ·and based on this ploy by Mr. O'Boyle. ·5· · · · Have a good day.· I'll be filing a motion with ·6· ·the Court.· And we'll be serving Mr. O'Boyle ·7· ·personally with that motion. ·8· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· Madam Court Reporter, I ·9· ·would like to say -- 10· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· The deposition is -- This is 11· ·concluded now.· You can go off the record. 12· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· You are not to turn off 13· ·the record unless both parties agree.· I do not 14· ·agree. 15· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Okay.· You're not -- 16· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· I am a pro se party. 17· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· You have not appeared. 18· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· I'm not going to debate 19· ·it with you, Mr. Sweetapple. 20· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· You can do whatever you want 21· ·on the record, Mr. O'Boyle.· Mr. O'Boyle, you talk 22· ·to the court reporter. 23· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· I am not going to debate 24· ·it with you. 25· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Mr. O'Boyle, talk to the Page 57 ·1· ·court reporter. ·2· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· I'm not going to debate ·3· ·it with you.· Thank you. ·4· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Let the record reflect that ·5· ·all counsel, the counsel for the city, the counsel ·6· ·for the witness, and the witness had left.· And ·7· ·we're going to let Mr. O'Boyle sit here and talk to ·8· ·himself, his son, and his former law firm. ·9· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· No, I'm going speak to 10· ·the court reporter only, Mr. Sweetapple. 11· · · · MR. SWEETAPPLE:· Good. 12· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· And we will seek 13· ·sanctions against you. 14· · · · (Mr. Sweetapple, Ms. O'Connor, the witness and 15· ·Mr. Thrasher exited the room.) 16· · · · MS. HANNA:· Marty. 17· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· Anyway, I am here.· I am 18· ·pro se.· I was ready as I'm sitting in the person 19· ·formally taking the deposition's seat.· I am 20· ·prepared to take the deposition.· I alerted 21· ·Mr. Sweetapple to that. 22· · · · He has unilaterally decided based on what I 23· ·would consider to be inappropriate comments about 24· ·my psychiatric condition and so forth to walk out 25· ·of the deposition. Page 58 ·1· · · · We -- At this point if he leaves the building, ·2· ·we will ask the Court to allow us to continue the ·3· ·deposition. ·4· · · · We come in good faith.· We come with the ·5· ·thought of finishing the deposition.· The ·6· ·documentation that has been, I guess, shown to the ·7· ·witness and has been admitted as exhibits I'm ·8· ·familiar with.· And I feel that there could have ·9· ·been an easy transition for the completion of the 10· ·deposition.· And, indeed, there should have been. 11· ·And I will let Mr. Sweetapple's conduct speak for 12· ·itself. 13· · · · And beyond that, I would like to say thank you 14· ·very much for your patience, your tolerance and 15· ·your kindness. 16· · · · MR. MARTIN O'BOYLE:· We are off the record. 17· · · · (Deposition was adjourned at 11:46 a.m.) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 59 ·1· · · · · · · · · · ·CERTIFICATE OF OATH ·2· ·THE STATE OF FLORIDA) ·3· ·COUNTY OF PALM BEACH) ·4 ·5· · · · · · ·I, the undersigned authority, certify that the ·6· ·witness, SCOTT MORGAN, personally appeared before me and ·7· ·was duly sworn on Wednesday, the 26th day of March, ·8· ·2014. ·9 10· · · · · · ·Dated this 29th day of March, 2014. 11 12 13 14 · · · · · · · · · ·_________________________________ 15· · · · · · · · ·KATHLEEN LUSZ, RPR · · · · · · · · · ·Notary Public - State of Florida 16· · · · · · · · ·My Commission Expires:· 6/9/16 · · · · · · · · · ·My Commission No.:· EE 201660 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 60 ·1· · · · · · · · · · C E R T I F I C A T E ·2· ·THE STATE OF FLORIDA) ·3· ·COUNTY OF PALM BEACH) ·4 ·5· · · · · · ·I, KATHLEEN LUSZ, Registered Professional · · ·Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of ·6· ·Florida at large, do hereby certify that I was · · ·authorized to and did report said deposition in ·7· ·stenotype; and that the foregoing pages are a true and · · ·correct transcription of my shorthand notes of said ·8· ·deposition. ·9· · · · · · ·I further certify that said deposition was · · ·taken at the time and place hereinabove set forth and 10· ·that the taking of said deposition was commenced and · · ·completed as hereinabove set out. 11 · · · · · · · ·I further certify that I am not attorney or 12· ·counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or · · ·employee of any attorney or counsel of party connected 13· ·with the action, nor am I financially interested in the · · ·action. 14 · · · · · · · ·The foregoing certification of this transcript 15· ·does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any · · ·means unless under the direct control and/or direction 16· ·of the certifying reporter. 17· · · · · · ·Dated this 29th day of March, 2014. 18 19 20 21· · · · · · _____________________________________ · · · · · · · KATHLEEN LUSZ, RPR 22 23 24 25 Page 61 ·1· · · · · · · · · ·DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET ·2 ·3· · · · Our Assignment No.· 112005 ·4· · · · Case Caption:· ·MARTIN E. O'BOYLE ·5· · · · vs.· TOWN OF GULF STREAM ·6 ·7· · · · · · ·DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ·8 ·9· · · · · · · ·I, SCOTT MORGAN, declare under 10· · · ·penalty of perjury that I have read the entire 11· · · ·transcript of my Deposition taken in the captioned 12· · · ·matter or the same has been read to me, and 13· · · ·the same is true and accurate, save and 14· · · ·except for changes and/or corrections, if 15· · · ·any, as indicated by me on the DEPOSITION 16· · · ·ERRATA SHEET hereof, with the understanding 17· · · ·that I offer these changes as if still under 18· · · ·oath. 19· · · · · · ·Signed on the _____ day of 20· · · ·________________, 20___. 21 22· ·________________________ · · ·SCOTT MORGAN 23 24 25 Page 62 ·1· · · · · · · ·DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET ·2· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________ ·3· ·__________________________________________________ ·4· ·Reason for change:________________________________ ·5· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________ ·6· ·__________________________________________________ ·7· ·Reason for change:________________________________ ·8· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________ ·9· ·__________________________________________________ 10· ·Reason for change:________________________________ 11· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________ 12· ·__________________________________________________ 13· ·Reason for change:________________________________ 14· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________ 15· ·__________________________________________________ 16· ·Reason for change:________________________________ 17· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________ 18· ·__________________________________________________ 19· ·Reason for change:________________________________ 20· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________ 21· ·__________________________________________________ 22· ·Reason for change:________________________________ 23 24· ·SIGNATURE:_______________________DATE:___________ · · · · · · · ·SCOTT MORGAN 25 Page 63 ·1· · · · · · · ·DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET ·2· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________ ·3· ·__________________________________________________ ·4· ·Reason for change:________________________________ ·5· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________ ·6· ·__________________________________________________ ·7· ·Reason for change:________________________________ ·8· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________ ·9· ·__________________________________________________ 10· ·Reason for change:________________________________ 11· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________ 12· ·__________________________________________________ 13· ·Reason for change:________________________________ 14· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________ 15· ·__________________________________________________ 16· ·Reason for change:________________________________ 17· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________ 18· ·__________________________________________________ 19· ·Reason for change:________________________________ 20· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________ 21· ·__________________________________________________ 22· ·Reason for change:________________________________ 23 24· ·SIGNATURE:_______________________DATE:___________ · · · · · · · ·SCOTT MORGAN 25 5617370188 Fax 031551 p.m 02032014 3/8 Your oriatnal request dated Sanuarvi24.2014 is reproduced in the space below Ot24U flOORDSEQtJESTt5tcsfl flticUeqiztte I24 buuxaftXtqedW 434 REQUESPEt Cu Rxcozt towu of Gulf Svuirn _______ REQUESTORI MrffpEJUo4 ZSQUEStOWS QONFACI 1NFOtMktOW g.MEII fOflnCC5$ttputSa Yzu t$4-360-QQ71Mtvn J2ZDWTwpwC rDdve1DtrEsi4Bcutha aai2 Qfl3fl Piwldaz OOP9OU4C7zunUVk6QflflndPUblicRcsO us deed bPS Cbsuer 19sutbyorraceivudir Sean Mn at hoMchittctwal Rniew .zidPfrngncazdeuibe Towt ef GutfSJran jbcthe pdbcizbflaajzsry llZthnlu9JI thc dine ofthisPeucg Theabovareguest ehatflnc1ueTt b4nsaguathE-Mafla tavpdatnceomt ADlIRMALlNPOBMAttMRSGAKDDGflQtZfl_____________ TasaEtVES-rmManmsuA2tnorvDucBscotwsscz aIAnxR IISOflIWPLORTDA SLTUUS AND JS ALSO REQUESTER UNDER TUE C07IB%WNLflIImT TDIWOWTht COIdMOflZAWBIGncAcGtS$ AlWsrAttrotY GBT 701t%GW VICLtnm%\nROvTLtMzTAx1o$ANV TATOTOYRIGSF OTACcES$7aAYPIICASLE 00N82710fl0N rsonEnrAtTmspEcoAsneOusrpnfLyrbLeDrNexsCvpowm RECOtDSRtQVtSTU $UtnttflflCNii inyu_iqoym NAUiCASSUT2Et M4D9OtU3E BtLLED 77 21 ALELtCTRONTCOxFs AR BECWJEWJtU Tonrsr4tuYLMAmnzIng PLEASE P2C7VWZTBE APPROWJA1tCOfl ANVZOIWJILLTBTS FUBUC REcORDSUEQVESTINADVAKCE kesi bsrauiad thath RqunwIdppvafl btoiyccth1 cnartS bytheAguwyf.nduEcedh ThrtduSflteChqtur1t90l flatUertinetcuftsj tAsttotpQItotflaBsnIto1tbg 1IitAguty PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT scottmorgan75@gmail.com cscottmorgan75@gmail.com Public Records Request 10/15/13 -t October 18 2013 83711 AM EDT Bill Thrasher cbthrasher@gulf-stream.org Hello Bill You sent me copy of an e-mail from Mr OBoyle which purports rather informally to be Public Records request The highlighted Request of the e-mail makes no sense as it requests Emails sent from Scott Morgans sic for the Month of September 2013 assume that is the request you wish me to answer but since Mr OBoyles request is vague am unable in good faith to respond to it Should you have any further questions do not hesitate to contact me Scott Morgan w-561 -752-1936 c-561 -573-6006 PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT TowN OF GULF STREAM PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA October 18 2013 Jonathan OBoyle jonathanroboy1egmai1.com Re PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST Emails from Morgan Sept 2013 Emails sent from Scott Morgan sfor the Month of September 2013 Dear Mr Jonathan OBoyle The Town of Gulf Stream has received your public records request dated October 15 2013 If your request was received in writing then the first page of that request is attached to this cover letter If your request was verbal then the description of your public records request is set forth in the space below Our staff will review your request within the next three business days and we will promptly send you the appropriate response or an estimated cost to respond Sincerely Town Clerk Custodian of the Records Your original request dated October 15 2013 is reproduced in the space below From Jonathan OBoyle .coml Sent Tuesday October 152013 1227 PM To Rita Taylor Subject Public Records Request Rita Pursuant to the Chapter 119 of the Florida Code and the Florida Constitution request the following records in electronic form or in paper form only if the electronic form is unavailable The Registry of Work Permits under Sec 10-1 of the Town Code for the FY 2014 starting in October 2013 The Registry of Work Permits under Sec 10-1 of the Town Code for the FY 2013 starting in October 2012 The Agendas for commission meetings from August 2004 up to October 2004 Receipts for the advertising of public hearings of Ordinance No 04-4 Sec Emails sent from Scott Morgans for the Month of September 2013 The last emails from Thrasher which include the acronym Fema The last emails from Thrasher which include the phrase Flood Insurance The last emails from Com Stanley which include the acronym Fema The last emails from Com Stanley which include the phrase Flood Insurance 10 The last Employment applications for the Town of Gulf Stream where the applicant was African American These requests are all separate and have merely been included together for convenience of record keeping Note My contact information is 561-758-1223 and Jonathanroboylethgmail.com await your prompt response and thank you for your public service IRS Circular 230 disclosure To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication unless expressly stated otherwise was not intended or written to be used and cannot be used for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or ii promoting marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein NOTICE TO RECIPIENT THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION AND MAY BE COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGED BY LAW IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR ANY REVIEW USE DISSEMINATION DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED PLEASE NOTIFY ME IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION 561730188 Fax 031638p.m 02032014 7/8 SCOTT MORGAN 1740 Ocean BAS Gulf Strewn FL 33483 Ph 561 243-7432 July 23 2013 To Town of Gulf Stream Architectural Review and Planning Board Re Hidden Harbour Estates La/S 1224 Ocean Blvd Dear Board Members Please note my objection to this application for Level Architectural/Site Plan Review of 8726 sf Colonial West Indies single family dwelling Sec 66-144 4J0Q The proposed architectural design of this home violates the prohibition against excessive similarity both in regard to neighboring homes and in comparison of its East and West breezeway structures The latter composition gives an appearance more of the wings of an aircraft than of an Ocean West District home Because the lot is long and narrow the applicant has attempted to create useable space by symmetrically loading the farthest East and West sides of the property The result is forced balance that gives the appearance of outstretched anus on measuring scale The long breeze-ways nearly 27 each only heighten the sense of awkward balance between the two ancillary buildings Sec 70-4 and Sec 70-29793 This long narrow and drawn out house design also conflicts with the Codes prohibition against excessive similarity to neighboring homes which by definition then conflicts with the Codes prohibition against applications that do not maintain the desired character or quality of the zoning district within which they are located...Art Sec 70-4 The Ocean West District is characterized by lots that are set back great distances from the road..the homes and landscape features lend formal elegant and estate-like feel to the lots in the district Art 11 Sec 70-29 b3 The homes of this District have unique separate character that helps define the Town of Gulf Stream The similarity of lots inside Hidden Harbour Estatesall of which are rectangular long East to West and narrow and which lay next to each other like two rows of domino tileshas from its conception risked the potential of turning into gated INTWFS EXHIBIT /7 Fax56173Jul88 03lb58p.m 02 03 2014 iIi community sub-division typical of large home neighborhoods in Boca R.aton and West Defray Beach The previous three Hidden Harbour Estates homes approved by the ARPB were all corner lots and so were evaluated on their own rather than in juxtaposition to homes on adjacent lots The current application for Lot is middle lot and is sandwiched between two approved homes each of which employs the now ubiquitous lone narrow rectangular design In order to preserve the integrity of the Ocean West District character and to prevent an over-crowding of similar homes inside Hidden Harbour Estates ask that the Level ArchitecturaVSite Plan Review of Lot be denied and request that the applicant re-submit house design consistent with the Gulf Stream Code /8 Very truly yours M lnoAVT (INV -37SNOUrnoin MISAS 011d35 aM 3-1�i 'avvadols 12 ii-Luia'am-JnHOS s o _ S 70 � F - i C#llu Yls rotcrt7,a •,a•�,t �' 4 'i a'iYr9+keB7 7✓iSm uv ScricO-Z*O*ms ; ''taxes r Isy(� r nn r 5TT5}} ry + >s baa i s 112 41 i - 4. pa R p � d F gy. G �C� xg0 s gn lE 0 w r—, 91,M-= m "H10H (.roxn-I Aqlatill], jjl!;'Y 'pA(riea30 tlll()N—1 HP sEwasssay��7-} x��fi nl� 'iaxails}jn'� �, og� IPA MH u1!3 -)n gIJ0NT T IFF. IIo6Jaf��[ 1-" LU uj \- C1 Q� 0 C� oa LL J CL 49 elNpf��d�id ��'j oBieaQ I��JwJ�� _ srasrnad S;uWO H danxn��y 6410m,y 3[irw xppota " ruxajrsJjnn 'PAI uEa-,p gIJO ,I IIft V LLA � o ® � , . �elw.m wmTl m LU o £r ` f glum .. 2"'m� E m� __.[D ' !g ur3jo q ®N !!;p w rn w�i"�]� o .... .r+� „i,*�.bi • a>mn� r[snxr�� 3t��aiuiy �s:py ©+.G�+' l"K 9 Sad _ epr�nl�'meast s�fn 0kn 0CLcr aj :, 4 ill it I1;: 411M HIM 1101 h i dki i � a�ga8a8@�3?s�a�e� 1 i F. Y it e 6 �s9 W 1 i F. Asx w� ui R{B�Piggajp� P$t39[f llOSF�d _ ow - r. aaalaH dznsnT TJRW LU episo�� 'measlr�.�n+� U) ca LL P"IH usaaO IIIJO 11198 Lu a x 9 �x fr id m - Y wi / � � k a � \ � § O 2 c / f \ � Q O � � e k 0 k � ■ �■ z5 . «_ \y: ]' �|� �� § EQq! � /w} §� 2 � y . � COMMISSIONERS JOAN K.ORTHWEIN, Mayor THOMAS M. STANLEY, Vice Mayor MURIEL 1. ANDERSON W. GARRETT DERING ROBERT W. GANGER May 12, 2013 TOWN QF 'GULF STREAM PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA V v s •� w 34 Telephone +- 3211 North Ocean Boulevard, LLC Attn: Mark T. Pulte, Member 3211 N. Ocean Blvd. Gulf Stream, Florida 33483 Dear Mr. Pulte: (561) 276-5116 Fax (561) 737.01 BB Town Manager WILLIAM H. THRASHER Town Clerk RITA L. TAYLOR This is to confirm that at the Public Hearings held by the Town Commission on April 12, 2013 and May 10, 2013, your application for a Demolition Permit to remove existing structures, a Land Clearing Permit to prepare for some new landscape materials and adjust the grade to accommodate new structures & improvements, a North Ocean Boulevard Overlay Permit to install entry gate and piers along with additional landscaping in the corridor, a Variance to permit a terra cotta slate style roof to be installed on the proposed Georgian style dwelling and a Leval 3 Architectural/Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a 10,410 square foot partial 2 -story, single family, Georgian style home with a 4 car garage and swimming pool was considered. The application was approved conditioned upon the following: 1) The electric service lines shall be buried; 2) Any minor modifications in the landscape plan shall be submitted to the Town Manager for review and approval and any major modifications shall be brought back to the ARPB for review and approval, prior to commencement of landscaping, 3) Wall and/or fences will be measured from the lowest abutting grade with a maximum height of 8' including any lighting fixtures that may be attached; 4) All chain link fencing will be screened from neighbor's view; 5) The landscape plan will protect existing Australian pine trees and provide a 13' clear zone where possible allowing for the planting by the Town of additional Australian pine tree(s); b) Change the proposed terra cotta roof to that allowed by the Town Code, your second choice, a dark grey slate like tile. 100 SEA Roan, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA 33483 Mark T. Pulte 3211 N. Ocean Blvd. Gulf Stream, Florida 33483 page 2 This approval shall expire on May 10, 2014 if a Building Permit Application, including the aforementioned improvements, has not been applied for. Very truly yours, Rita L. Taylor t Town Clerk CC: Benjamin Schreier Affiniti Architects INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK Rita L. Taylor TO: Mayor & Commissioners DATE: May 3, 2013 RE: North Ocean Blvd. Overlay Dist. Set -Back At the last Commission Meeting, action was deferred with regard to the installation of gates and piers within the N. Ocean Blvd. Overlay District at 3211 N. Ocean Blvd. The Town has always permitted walls, gates and fences to be constructed in the Overlay District. As the result of a question that was asked at the last meeting with regard to the setback for the gates being. 78" from the centerline of AlA, a review of the Code was conducted. Section 66-431 addresses the 78' but ends with "unless specified otherwise in the Code" In Chapter 66, Article VI. District Regulations, the regulations for each district are listed. Please note that in Sec. 66-191, Single Famil Residential it directs you to Chapter 70 for ALL regulations which includes setbacks. In Chapter 70, Section 70-187 9. Front Yards it states that compliance with the North Ocean Blvd. Overlay District is required. In Sec. 66-322 it lists the things in North Ocean Overlay that need to have a permit. One of those is gates, and also columns, fences, walls etc. Section 66-141(2)f. covers projects requiring a Level 2 review specifically names "new entrance gates" within the 50' Overlay Dist. All of this considered, the proposed location of the gates and piers conforms to the Code. Also, I believe gates & piers would be included where fences and walls are addressed in Sec. 70-74(b)(4)"No setback requir- ed provided wall or fence is located on the property & at least 5' from edge of the pavement. V7.A. r. a. Date/Time 05-06-2013 65:02:16 p.m Local ID 1 561-737-0188 Total Pa t ransmission Report Transmit Header Tent Local Name 1 This document . Confirmed (reduced sample and details below) Document size : 8.5"x11 " town of gulf stream Past -,r Kan Nola 7077 za #�� oc G� Frww� enn.� 7V j1 1NTER•OFF] CT Na fsr 7 LI TOV4 N OF GULF STREAK FLORIDA OFFICE OF TRE TOW'CIMK Rita L. Taylor TO: Mayor & Commissioners DATE: May 3, 2013 RE: North Ocean Blvd. Overlay Viet. Set -Back At the last Commission Fleeting, action was deferred with regard to the installation of gates and piers within the N. Ocean Blvd. overlay District at 3211 N. Ocean Blvd. The Town has always permitted walls, gates and fences to be constructed in the Overlay District. As the result of a question that was asked at the last meeting with regard to the setback for the gates being 78' from the centerline of ALO, a review of tlxe Code was conducted. Section 66-431 addresses the 78' but ends with "unless speciEied otherwise in the Code". In Chapter 66, Article VI. District Re lat ionk the regulations for each district are listed.. P ease note t t n -EC. 66-191, Single Family Residential it directs you to Chapter 70 for ALL regulations w c includes setbacka. In Chapter 70, Section 70-187 9. Front Yards it states that compliance with the North Ocean Blvd. Overlay Distr ct s required. In Sec. 66-322 it lists the things in North Ocean Overlay that need to have a permit. One of those is gates, and also columns, fences, walls etc, Section 66-141(2)£. covers projects requiring a Level 2 review specifically names "new entrance gates" within the 50' Overlay Dist. All of this considered, the proposed location of the gates and piers conforms to the Code. Also, I believe gates & piers would be included where fences and walls are addressed in Sec. 70-74(b)(4)"No setback requir- ed provided wall or fence is located on the property & at least 5' from edge of the pavement. es Confirmed : 1 Abbreviations: H5: Host send PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system HR: Host receive PR: Polled remote RP: Report FA: Fall G3: Group 3 WS: Waiting send NES: Mailbox save FF: Fax Forward Til: Terminated by user EC: Error Correct ransmission Report Date/Tlme 05-06-2013 05:00:00 P.M. Transmit Header Text Local 1D 1 561-737-0188 Local Name 1 This document :+Confirmed (reduced sample and details below) Document size : 8.5 "xl 1 " town of gulf stream Po9*ft' Fac Nda 7871 r� A /Z gTc Fm INTEROFFICE NIIE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLOREDA OFFICE OF THR TOWN CLERK Rita L Taylor TU Mayor & Commissioners DATE: May 3, 2013 RE: north Ocean Blvd. Overlay Dist. Set -Hack At the last Commission Meeting, action was deferred with regard to the installation of gates and piers within the N. Ocean Blvd. Overlay District at 3211 N. "Ocean Blvd. The Town has always permitted walls, gates and fences to be constructed in the Overlay District. As the result of a question that was asked at the last meeting with regard to the setback for the gates being 78' from the centerline of AlA, a review of the Code was conducted. Section 66-431 addresses the 78' but ends with "'unless specified otherwise in the Code". In Chapter 66, Article VI, District Re ulatiotla, the regulations for each district are listed. Please note tat n ec. 66-191, Sin le Family Residential it directs you to Chapter 70 for ALL regulations wq c1 nci�ludee setbacks. In Chapter 70, Section 70-187 9. Front Yards it states that compliance with the North Ocean Blvd, Overlay DiatrIct, is required. In Sec. 66-322 it lists the things in North Ocean Overlay that need to have a permit. (bee of those is gates, and also columns, fences, walls ecc. Section 66-141(2)f. covers projects requiring a Level 2 review specifically names "new entrance gates" within the 50' Overlay Disc. All of this considered, the proposed location of the gates and piers conforms to the Code. Also, I believe gates & piers would be included where fences and walls are addressed in Sec. 7'0--74(b)(4)"No setback requir- ed provided wail or fence is located on the property & at least 5' from edge of the pavement. Total Pages Scanned : 1 Total Pages Conf I rmed : 1 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages 1 Line Moyle I Job Type Results 001 1325 104:58:52 p.m. 05-06-2013 00:00:37 1111 1 1 EC IHS I CP14400 Abbreviations: HS: Host send PL: Polled local MP: Mallbox print CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system HR: Host receive PR: Polled remote RP: Report FA: Fail G3: Group 3 WS: Walting send MS: Mallbox save FF: Fax Forward TU: Terminated by user EC: Error Correct DatelTime 03-23-2013 12:17:57 p.m. Local ID 1 561-737-0188 fransmission Report Transmit Header Text Local Name 1 town of gulf stream This document: Confirmed (reduced sample and details below) Document size : 8.5"x14" - as CIiAIRHk'i: Scott Morgon---- VICE c;I MF0i417: Amanda Jones BEARD Hr�BER, Paul A. Lyons, Jr. Thomas sr,i th Zcoi.Murphy ALTERNATE MEMBER: ['eorua Delafieled, 3r. REGUt-hR 5=UCi AMJD PUBLIC NPXsrn3 REIfV- REI.D By THE ARCtUTBCTURAL REVIEW 74VD PLANtaN3 BOARD OF THE TOW GF GULF STREP -41 PLO9113A ON TRURODA7'. 'MRACK 7!. 9013 AT 8#30 A.M., IN THS T17M HALL. 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM. ?tnRl0A. /Vll:rnA I. Call to order. II. Fail Ca 11. III, Minutes of tha Regular 1teeting and Fublic Kea_ing 2-28-13. IV. P44iei9os. withdrawala, sinferrala. arrangaWanr of agenda. itw, V. An uncattent4. A. Meeting Dates I. Regular NdCting & Public Hearing s, Karch 26, 2013 0 8:30 A.N. h. April 25, 7011 F 8.36 h. M. c. Nay 23. 7013 8 8:30 A..M. d. June 27, 2013 8 9:30A.K.. a. July as, 2013 B 8.36 A.M. f. August 2013 -No !laeriug VS. POBLIc HEARING. A. APplicatioaa for Dovelalaent ApptoVai 1, A -I applicaticn submitted by Benjamin Schreier, Affiniti ArChiracte, iia Agent for 3211 s. ocean Boulevard, LIZ. Nark T. Pune Nearer, the uwnerq of p"X0perty located at 331. M. ocean Blvd., GLIE Strean. Florida, which is legal iy described as tial North 4.3 ft of lot 3 4 the 0 :08 ft. of lot 4 Gulf stream 3cean Tracts in GSMIf Stream, Slarida a, DAMOL TION PZRKIT to rwc a existing atn#cturea. A. 1.A±t11 CseARING PD=-' to PrePdra for some new landscape materials and adjust the grade to ecccmmodate the new structures and impravma tq. c. 903cm OcXkW BO➢LyVab OVALAY PEstlst'J• to install entry gate and pier& and oupplement exlstin0 landscaping wirhin the corridoz. d. VAFSi171C1s to perk a terra cotta aiata style roof to be Installed on the proposed zeorglan style home. e- LEC$ 3 AfCBITfCTQ.RlLlH3TZ FZAM XZV2EM to permit the canstrcction of a 10,408 oguare foot partial 3 -story, single family. Ceorgian style dwelling with a d car - garage a:ul ewimning goal. 2. An application sukmittw try William wiktram as agent far Ralph Macl?onald, owner of the rroperty located at 143o H. arean Blvd.. Gulf 6Lream, Florida, which is legally descrlaed is: metes and hounds as Lots 1 1-A a d. 2, KcLOuth Sath'iiviaian., Malf Stream, Florida. a. mmozvlasom to divide cne, 4,.733 acre, parcel of land into 3 lots. b. DMIOU1710ir PRTMT to remove and- existing dri Veway, a garage and shed. Total Pages Scanned : 4 Total Pages Confirmed : 4 No, JobRemotestation Start Ti me I Duration Pages kine Mode I Job Type Results 001 1972 15517507872 12:16:15 p.m. 03-23-2013 00:01:05 14f4 1 EC IHS ICP26400 Abbrevlations: HS: Host send PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system HR: Host receive PR: Polled remote RP: Report FA: Fall G3: Group 3 WS: Waiting send MS: Mallbox save FF: Fax Forward TU: Terminated by user EC: Error Correct I ransmission Report Date/Time 03-23-2013 12:22:39 p.m. Transmit Header Text Local ID 1 561-737-0180 Local Name l town of gulf stream Total This document: Confirmed (reduced sample and details below) Document size : 8.5"x14" vhf Far � Cs �r CHAIRMJ: Scutt 1largan VICE QWMAN: Amanda Jones BOARD IU2,'BER.r Paul A. myons. Jr, Tbomaa Smith Malcolm k{nrphy ALTERNATE MEMBER: Gcozge Delaf'elod, Jr. REGULAR -KKE TING AND F'JBLIC REARING BEING HELD BY THS ARCKITBL'TVPJIL RP:VIEW AND PLAMIING BOARD or T?" TOWN OF Gl3LF STREAM, ,?Lt3RIDA Oil TBRRSDAI. MARCH 20 2813 A2 800 A.M., rM THE TOW RAA, 100 SEA ROAD, G'JL7' bTPL Vd, FLOFSOA. T �.r"14DA I. Call Co Cider. II. Roll rali. III. Minutes of the Regular Heating and Public Hearing 2-26-13. IW. Mditians, Withdrawals, deferrale, arrangement of ayanda itwq . V. Anuounrements. A. Ke eting Datm 1. Regular Meeting L public Hearing a. March 20. 7013 i P:30 A.H. b. April 35, 2013 Y Br30 A.M. c. way d3. 2ol3 9 6:30 A.H. d. JLwe 7T, %01..3 P a-30 A. M. h. .Tiny 2s, 2013 P 0:30 A.M. f. August 2013 -FIC Meeting VI. YLIBLIC HPAR.INo. A. Applications for Dgvelopment hppxoval 1.. An appliCaLian submitted by Ben)amio Schreier, Affimiti ArchftetLs, as Agent for 32211 N. Ocean Boulevard, LLC, Mark. T. Pulte Hemher, the owners of property located at 3311 H. or.ean Elva., Gulf 6^_ream., Florida, rinich ie legally descrihad as the North 8.5 ft of lot 3 6 the S los ft.. of lot d Gulf Stream Ocean Tracts in Gulf Stream, Florida. a. DOIGLMCFR F to resvve existing Structures. b. LAND CLIARIwn PXXNrT to prepare for aome new landscape P twldl$ and adjust, the grade to arcommmdata the new strict erFF and imoKg'p Mte. C. WORTH OCEAN HOULEVAD 04RI.1Y Pl6MT W install entry gate and piers and supplement existing landscaapicg wlthin the corridor. d. VARIAN= to permit a terra cotta slate style roof to ba installed on the proposed Georgian style horse. e- LRVR&.. 3 A*=XT#GG'iZIAAU19117 FLAW RZVMW to permit the const rut rian of a 10,446 agvare foot partial 2 -story, sirilc family. Georgian style dwelling with a d car garage and swimming pool. 2. An application vubmitted by William Wietsma as agent for Ralph MlCDenald, Owner Of rhe PrOPerty located at 1411E N, ocean Blvd., Oulf Stream. Florida, whicb is legally described in mat" and baunds as lata 1, I -A and z Htl,Outl. Subdivision, Gulf Stream, Florida. a, a11ROXVI➢1018 to divide ona, 4,733 acre, parcel of laiuI ir.Lo 3 Lots. b. E=GLITIOM PHINIT to re u and- Bari Pting driveway, a garage and nc�d, Total Panes Confirmed : 4 Abbreviations: H5: Host send PL: Polled local MP: Mallbox print CP: Completed T5: Terminated by system HR: Host receive PR: Polled remote RP: Report FA: Fadi G3: Group 3 W5: Waiting send M5: Mailbox save FF: Fax Forward TU: Terminated by user EC: Error Correct f ransmission Report Date/Time 04-06-2013 01:00:27 p.m. Transmit Header Text Local ID 1 561-737-0188 Local Name 1 This document : Confirmed (reduced sample and details below) Document size : 8.5"x14" MAYOR: Scan T.. Orthwal.n VICE MAYOR; Thomas H. Stanley CO MISSIONLR: Maciel S, AndersOn W. i;a.-rett Daring Robert W. Ganger �Mr•clnrc� �.e. ':f/,L- 7 O- e town of gulf stream FBM' LAR MEETI M; AND 2Lt3LIC HEARING BEING � fly T:7% 'L'P1WN Coang,,ION OF THE T19M OF =IF ETAZVM Ofi "IV". APRIL 17. 2013 Ar 9900 A.M. rig THE COM MISG14N CFAMBZ'FS OF TffA TOW KALL, 100 SEA ROAD„ [GULF STRP.AIM, FLORIDA. AGFROA E. Call to order, II. Pledge of Allegiance. 1I1. Roll Call. IV. Minutes - A. RP7.1lar Meeting, Tuoal commission S Bd. of Adjuatmmt, 3-15-13 S. Certification of Election Returea, 3-15-13 V. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals. arrangemant of agenda items. V1. Aoraounc�y. A. Regular Meetings and famhlic Hea.rtngs 1. May 10, 2013 a 4:00 A.H. 2. ,Tuna 14, 200 i 9s60 A.M. 3. July 12, 2013 a 9:00 A -M, 4. August 9,1013 a 9:00 A.M, 5. Suptembez 13, 2.713 ;i 9:00 A.. N. 6. October 11, 7.013 a 9:00 A.M. S. Mayor's Proclamations 1. Wates Aeuaeweek-Nay 19 thru May 25, 2013 2. National Hissing Cbildran's Day -May 25, 2013 V1I. PUBLIC HEAKING. A. Applications ter DeveloWent Approval 1. Anapplicntiuo submitted by Ren Jamin Schreier. Aftiniti Architects, as Agent for 3211 R. Ocean Boulaverd, Llr. Marie T. Fnite-Hemher . the ownara of property located at 3211 N. Ocean Blvd., @sit Stress, Florida., which ..s legally described as f;lia North 4.5 ft of int 3 4 the S SOB ft. of lot f GkIlt Streaca. Ocean Tracts in ;u.l: Streets. Florida. a. ^UN*LITXOH FeRltrr to rccove existing atrvetures. b. LAW C*.wso' = PERKrT to prepare for some new landscapa materials and adjust the grade to accomodate the new structures and imprm, cnts. c. DOR= OCEAa BOVL[91L OVZRLA7 PIRKI7! to 'install entry gate and piers eild supplwent exioting landscaping within the corridor. d. V"XAU= to parm:t a terra :.'utta slate style rcaf to be install06 an the proposed Georgian style home. s. L=VZL 3 ARMTiOMRAL/CIa PLRU RLYIW to parmit the EOAarruttlnn of a 10,HS scpaara foot partial 2-ste,ry. Single faadly, Georgiao style dweliing With a 4 car garage and swinusing pool. .., An app:.ication submitted by Williau Wietsme as agAnt ftr Ralph MacDonald, cunei of the property located at 1710 N. Ocean Elvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, 'which is legally dearribod in :sates. and bounds as Lots 1, 1-A and 2, iti:LOUth Subdivision, Gulf Stream, Florida. a. SUBDM820K to divide :ane, 4.733 acre, patrel of land into 3 lOcs. Total Pages Scanned : 4 Total Pages Confirmed : 4 No. I Job I Remote Station Start Tl me I Duration Pages tine Mode I lob Type Results 001 1093 115617507872 12:58.11 p.m. 04-06-2013 00:01:35 14J4 1 JEC IHS ICP240 Abbreviations: HS: Host send PL; Polled local MP: Mailbox print CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system HR: Host receive PR: Polled remote RP: Report FA: Fall G3: Group 3 WS: Wafting send MS: Mal lbox save FF: Fax Forward TU: Terminated by user EC: Error Correct INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK Rita L. Taylor TO: Mayor & Commissioners DATE: May 3, 2013 RE: North Ocean Blvd. Overlay Dist. Set -Back At the last Commission Meeting, action was deferred with regard to the installation of gates and piers within the N. Ocean Blvd. Overlay District at 3211 N. Ocean Blvd. The Town has always permitted walls, gates and fences to be constructed in the Overlay District. As the result of a question that was asked at the last meeting with regard to the setback for the gates being 78' from the centerline of AIA, a review of the Code was conducted. Section 66-431 addresses the 78' but ends with "unless specified otherwise in the Code". In Chapter 66, Article VI. District Regulations, the regulations for each district are listed. Please nate that in Sec. 66-191, Single Family Residential it directs you to Chapter 70 for ALL regulations which includes setbacks. In Chapter 70, Section 70-187 9. Front Yards it states that compliance with the North Ocean Blvd. Overlay District is required. In Sec. 66-322 it lists the things in North Ocean Overlay that need to have a permit. One of those is gates, and also columns, fences, walls etc. Section 66-141(2)f. covers projects requiring a Level 2 review specifically names "new entrance gates" within the 50' Overlay Dist. All of this considered, the proposed location of the gates and piers conforms to the Code. Also, I believe gates & piers would be included where fences and walls are addressed in Sec. 70-74(b)(4)"No setback requir- ed provided wall or fence is located on the property & at least 5' from edge of the pavement. Bill Thrasher From: Marty Minor ¢MMinor@ udkstudios.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:29 PM To: Bill Thrasher Subject: RE: Yes, I will be there With regards to the terra cotta roof color for 3211 W Ocean, as we discussed, the color is not consistent with code and that's why there if an application for a variance. As Benjamin Schierer has shown, there is some architectural precedent of Georgian homes with a terra cotta slate -type roof. However, I am not aware of terra cotta slate -like on a Georgian home in the Town. The ARPB should consider whether the roof meets this criteria: 1. Consistency of neighborhood character. 2. Consistency of architectural style. 3. Consistency of building form and mass. 4. Consistency of materials and colors. 5. Consistency of location of elements, I don't have a strong opinion on the appropriateness of the color. The roof color has been used on other Georgian homes, just not here. The ARPB will need to determine whether the color is appropriate for the district and the community for this one house. Being in the Beachfront district, there Is a wider variety of architectural styles than in other districts, which is also another factor to be considered by the ARPB. See you in the morning. Marty Marty R.A. Minor, AICP Urban Resign Kilday Studios The Offices at City Place North 477 South Rosemary Avenue, Suite 225 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5758 561-366-1100 urban The Offices of CityPloce North ph. (561) 366.1100 ! �1 1 477 S. Rosemary Avenue. Suite 225 I, j5bl l 366.1111 1 west Palm Beach. Florida 33401 www.udkstudio5.corn kiIcdu ST U D 1 O S Urban Planning and Design I Landscape Architecture i Communication GrapfiFcs From: BillThrasher[maltto:bthrasherftulf-stream.oro] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:08 PM To: Marty Minor Subject: Marty, confirming you will be here tomorrow at the ARPB for the subdivision update? BT William H. Thrasher, ICMA-CM, CGFQ CGFM Town Manager Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Load Gulf Stream, FL 33483 Office 561.276.5116 I Fax 561.737.0188 Direct a -mail: Bthrasher4gulf-stream.org Town of Gulf Stream TOWN OF GULF STREAM mrna"i APPLICATIONFORDEVELOPMENT APPROVAL This form is to be used for all development review applications to be heard by the Town of Gulf Stream Architectural Review and Planning Board, Board of Adjustment, and/or Town Commission. To complete the form properly, please review the accompanying Town of Gulf Stream !ns[rerct/on Manual forApplication for Development Review Form_ Failure to complete this form properly will delay its consideration. ARPB File #` To be completed by ail applicants. PART II. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Project Information I,A.1. Project/Owner Name:_?,!iLOA 0, M W_DWAA—Z� I,A.2. Project Address: i 4.%0 V.1CO_-ir�A [)C* iavl�F I.A.1 Project Property Legal Description: 'Its Aijr I.A.4" Project Description (describe in detail, including # ofstorr'es, I.A.5. Square Footage of New Structure or Addition: Architectural Style: N` I R 1.A.6. Check all that apply: tr`%Architectu IlSite Pian Review ❑ Land Clearing [!,/North Ocean Boulevard Overlay (complete section B} Y Demolition of Structures 0 Non-residential uses O Variance (complete section G) O Special Exception (complete section E) 1.AY. (a) Proposed F,F.E: Type of Foundation: B. Owner Information I.B.1. Owner Address: t4vcl"ji 1 -per] Ttyp r� I,B.2. Owner Phone Number: Fax: I.13"3. Owner Signature: C. Agent Information IZA. Agent Name and Firm Name: I.C.2. Agent Address: l 0'3o ZPV-110 {,J{�.. C.C.3. Agent P�honeNum r: (01561 '�L'74. $tfl3 bl � •g2." r Fax1.C.4. Agent Official Use Onty Pre -App Date: ARP6 Date: App Date: Recommendation: Com Date: TC Dale: Decision: Application for Development Approval Form ADA.2000 revised 6113/00 Page 2 Town of Gulf Stream ------------- PART III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION To be completed by all applicants after pre -application conference with Town Staff. Please be concise but brief. Attach additional sheets only when necessary and be sure to include the app question number for each response. ropriate and complete A. Project Description and Justification IILAA, In what zoning district is the project site located?- O III.A.2. Is the project compatible with the intent of the zoning district? IRd'// Yas ❑ No Explain. Stia©lO3©It7fa -?`'� (A►Lk, p,.'t1,Ctl,.? - �V LISTS 1}-It�T qwo Ash] 4t4 arP� —ywc, III.A.3, Is the project consistenty+vith the Future Land Use Map and goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan? STYes CJ No Explain.U_ Lfa,rJVD LIST , III.A.4. How are ingress and egress to the property to be provided? ; VQ)Ab �Q ) To CM4%A -'f awn r�,a III.A.5. How are the following utilities to be provided to the property? a. 5tormwater Drainage 00`5 t7I1 b. SanitarySewer 00-51TI „ L_ c. Potable Water TMJ, Or- 601—r - S �t"e t T6.2 h1l Ila �1a t Illi, d. Irrigation Water e. Eiectricity f. Telephone -- g. Gas A_ A1C. Ull i.0 ISS h. Cable Television r a �r tll.A.6a If the project involves the erection of one or more structures, please describe how the structures are consistent with the criteria In Section 66-144 of the Town of Gulf Stream Code, (Attach additional sheet if necessary,) W 11-4 T4r, Twa OF 40L* PART IV. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Section is to be completed by all applicants after pre -application conference with Town staff. Answering "Yes" to any question in Section A requires the completion of additional Sections as indicated. A. Additional ApprovalstRequirements W.A.I. Does theyroject involve land area within fifty feet (50') of the AIA (North Ocean Boulevard) right-of- way? 19 Yes ❑ No (If "Yes", section B of this part must be completed.) IV.A.2. Does the project involve the demolition of one or more structures? @ Yes ❑ No (It "Yes', section C of this part must be completed.) IV.A.3. Does the project involve the clearing or filling of any portion of an exist in vacant lot or more than fifty percent (50%) of the landscaped area of a developed lot? © Yes Na Of "Yes", section D of this part must be completed.) IV.A.5. Does the p ject require approval of a Special Exception?© Yes No (If "Yes", section E of this part must be completed.) IV,A.6. Is the proj t at variance with any regulations contained in the Zoning Cade? ❑ Yes No (If "Yes", section G of this part must be completed.) Application for Development Approval Form ADA.32000 Page 3 Town of Gulf Stream B. Projects Requiring North Ocean Boulevard Overlay Permit IV.B.1. What significant landscape features or architectural features are to be disturbed or added and to what extent? µta IV -13.2. o 4��^ W.B1. Will the disturbanceladdition destroy or seriously impair visual relationships among buildings, landscape features and open space, or introduce incompatible landscape features or plant material that destroys or impairs significant views or vistas within the North Ocean Boulevard Overlay District? Yes (SO Explain: I-30tt..DI&-'(v DP` #—)qU? UOT5 %%Li43v k% OVUMLL. LA —'e�br� rso f e- a 11 c9 i IV.B.4. How is the design consistent with the AIA Landscape Enhancement Project? 41a IV.B.5. What mitigation is proposed so that the disturbance/addition has the least impact possible to the visual and aesthetic quality of the North Ocean Boulevard Overlay District: V.$Ia C. Projects Requiring a Demolition Permit IV.C.1. When are the existing structures to be demolished? IV.C.2. When are the proposed structures to be constructed? IV.C.3. What is the landmark status of the structures to be demolished? D. Projects Requiring a Land Clearing Permit IV.D.1. Describe those vegetative materials of 8 inches in diameter and greater to be North Ocean Boulevard Overlay District: IV.D.2. Describe the need and justification for the removaVrelocation: IV.D.3. How is the removal from the project site of vegetation to be mitigated: IV -D.4. How are the remaining and relocated vegetative materials to be protected and preserved during the land clearing and constriction activities and thereafter? IV.D.5. What replacement materials are proposed? Application for Development Approval, Form ADA.32000 page 4 February 2002 - v�,caon E. Projects Requiring a Special Exception. N t4_ IV.!<,1, is the ro � . R eased use a Permitted special exception use? f7 Yes D No Code Section: IV -E.2. Haw is the use designed, located and Proposed to welfare, and morals will be protected? be Operated so that then Public health, safety, be located? 0 yes CI IV.E.3, Will the use cause substantial injury to the value aF ether property in the neighborhood No where it is to IV, 11,4. Naw will the use be compatible with adjoining development and the charas#er of the D` is to be located? District where it IV,l;.g. What landscaping and screening are provided? IW.(r,g_ Does the use conform with all applicable regulations governing the pitri ionated? fu yes Cl No sat wherein it is to he Explain. F, Non -Residential Projects and Residential Protects of Greater than 2 Units IV,F.1. If common area facilities are to be provided, describe them and how they areatube maintained. IVT -2. If recreation faciiities are to be provided, describe thein and their potential Impacts on surrounding Properties. IV.F.3, For each of the following, list the number provided and their dimensions, Loading Spaces: Standard Parking Spaces: Small Car Parking Spaces; Handicapped Parking Spaces: Driveways/Aisles; Applicalion for Development Approval Form ADA,3200(} Page 5 Townof Gulf Stream G. Projects Requiring a Variance (code Section 66-150 through 157) Nll-" IV.G.1. From what specific Zoning Code regulation Is a variance requested? IV.G.2. What does the Zoning Code require for this specific site? tV.G.3. What is proposed? IV.G.4. What is the total variance requested? IV,G.5. The following 8 mandatory variance findings from Section 66-154, must be addressed: (Attach additional sheet if necessary.) (1) What specific conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in lila same zoning district? (2) Did the special conditions and circumstances result from the actions of the applicant? Yes No (3) Will granting the variance confer upon the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the Zoning Code to olher lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district? Yes No Explain: (4) How would a literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the same terms of the ordinance and work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant? (5) Is the Variance requested the minimum variance that makes possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure? Yes No Explain: (6) Will granting the variance permit any prohibited use to be established or re-establlshed: Yes No (7) Is the requested variance consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the future Land Use Map of the adopted Comprehensive Plan? Yes No (8) Will the variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Yes No Explain: _ Application for Development Approval, Form ADA.32000 'Page 6 February 2002 "J"' Qt gulf Stream Vii. Projects Requiring Rezoning H f 1VA-1. What is the Future Land Use designation of the project site? IV -H.2. If the project involves a rezanin Comprehensive Plan text ez n , Zoning Code text change, f=uture Land Use Ma g or any combination thereof, please describe the needs and justification for the request PART V. OPTIONAL INFORMATION This entire Pert is Optional for all applicants. Applicants are encouraged, but not required, to provide any additional relevant information regarding the project that was not covered elsewhere on this form or vi any of the other materials submitted with the application. Application for Oevelopnnenl Approval Form ADA. 2000 revised 518100 Page 7 Robert W. Ganger 1443 North Ocean Blvd Gulf Stream, FL 33483 To the Architectural Review and Planning Board Re: Application for Development Approval MacDonald Property Sub Division This application is scheduled for your review on March 28. As neighbors across the street from the project, my wife and I have no reason to oppose sub -division into three lots, nor any other specific permits or plans you will be reviewing. However, while the landscaping plan is very preliminary, we would hope that Mr. MacDonald's Kush tree and privacy hedge border on AIA and along the private road at the northern end of the property, be retained as a condition of approval. Ideally, there will be an opportunity for select planting of Australian Pines along the state road, consistent with the former Spence property to the south. Sincerely, Robert Ganger Anneli Ganger Page I of 1 Rita Taylor From: rwganger [rwganger@bellsouth.net] Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 2:17 PM To: Rita Taylor Attachments:. ARPB-McDonald..doc Rita. Attached is a letter regarding the upcoming ARPB review on the MacDonald property development application. I ask that it be entered into the record as an affected neighbor. I will drop off a signed hard copy as soon as possible. Bob Ganger 3125/2613 William Wietsma Architect, PA Florida License Number AR -0014766 Parcel ID: 20-43-46-09-03-000-0010 Property Address: 1410 North Ocean Boulevard Project: Proposed Subdivision of MacDonald Property Architect: William Wietsma Architect, PA Date:02/12/2013 Below are the responses (in blue italics) to the review comments Reviewer: Marty R.A. Minor, AICP Subdivision Re -Plat Process 1. Application Fee to be determined by the Town. Ok. i RECEIVED 44 FEB 14 2413 To\Nn of Gulfstream, FL 2. Written and notarized consent of the owner for the requested subdivision and designation of agent. The requested document has been submitted as part of this application. 3. Warranty Deed of the property and copies of all easement and plat documents on or adjacent to the property or serves the property. The requested document has been submitted as part of this application. 4. Aerial Location Map with the appropriate zoning and future land use information for the site and surrounding properties. See AeriallZoningr Map on sheet A-01 5. A certified boundary survey by a surveyor registered in the state of Florida at a scale of not less than one inch equals 200 feet containing the following information: a. An accurate legal description of the property; b. A computation off the total acreage of the parcel to the nearest tenth of an acre; c. Topographical data; d. The location of all existing structures on the site, as well as those on adjacent properties within 100 feet of the outside boundaries of the site; e. Location and width of all existing driveways, streets (named), intersections, easements and utility locations (underground and overhead) adjacent to and across the subject site. Refer to Boundary Survey for items a - e. 6. Plat Plan, compliant with Section 177 of Florida State Statutes, indicating the ,proposed subdivision. The plat plan should indicate all existing and future easements, restrictions and common -owned property, if any.. Refer to submitted Plat Plan. 1030 Basin Drive, Delray Beach, FL, 33483 Office (561) 274-4863 Fax (561) 266-5915 William Wietsma Archite_ct,PA Florida License Number AR -0014766 7. A written narrative describing the request and indicate how the following services will be provided to the site: a. Potable water; b. Sanitary sewer; c. Drainage; d. Access/Traffic Circulation; e. Solid Waste disposal. See attached response to comments from civil engineer. Concurrency Certification 1. Application Fee to be determined by the Town. ak. 2. Written and notarized consent of the owner for the requested subdivision and designation of agent. The requested document has been submitted as part of this application. 3. Warranty Deed of the property and copies of all easement and plat documents on or adjacent to the property or serves the property. The requested document has been submitted as part of this application. 4. A certified boundary survey by a surveyor registered in the state of Florida. Boundary survey has been submitted for review under this submittal. 5. A traffic impact statement, prepare by a traffic engineer, indicating how the proposed increase in the number of dwelling units on the site will comply the Town's Level of Service standard as described within the Town's Comprehensive Plan and the applicable traffic circulation standards in Chapter 44 of the Code of Ordinances. The applicant will also provide to the Town a copy of Concurrency Certification from Palm Beach County Department of Engineering. See attached traffic statement. 6. Provide a statement from a qualified professional regarding the provision of sanitary sewer service for the proposed subdivision. The plan for sanitary sewer service shall comply with the Town's Comprehensive Plan and Section 44-1.02 of the Code of Ordinances. See attached response to comments from civil engineer. 7. Provide a statement from the City of Delray Beach that potable water service can be provided for the additional dwelling units proposed. Also, the applicant should provide a statement on how the proposed subdivision would comply with the Town's Comprehensive Plan and Section 44-59 of the Code of Ordinances. See attached response to comments from civil engineer and fetters from City of Delray Beach water/sewer network manager. 1030 Basin Drive, Delray Beach, FL. 33483 Office (561) 274-4863 Fax (561) 266-5915 William Wietsma Architect, PA Florida License Number AR -0014766 8. Provide a statement from a registered civil engineer addressing how storm water drainage will be addressed on site. The statement should include how the subdivision's storm water drainage plan will comply with the Level of Service standard as described in the Town's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. See attached response to comments from civil engineer. 9. Provide a statement on how solid waste will be collected and disposed for the subdivision's homes. Provide a copy of the annual capacity letter from the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County. Solid Waste shall be collected by the Waste Management of Palm Beach County. Attached is the requested copy of the annual capacity letter from the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County. 10. Provide a statement addressing how the additional dwelling units within the proposed subdivision addresses the Recreation and Open Space Level of Service found in the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Level 3 Site Plan Review 1. Application Fee to be determined by the Town. Ok. 2. Written and notarized consent of the owner for the requested subdivision and designation of agent. The requested document has been submitted as part of this application. 3. Warranty Deed of the property and copies of all easement and plat documents on or adjacent to the property or serves the property. The requested document has been submitted as part of this application. 4. A certified boundary survey by a surveyor registered in the state of Florida at a scale of not less than one inch equals 200 feet containing the following information: a. An accurate legal description of the property; b. A computation off the total acreage of the parcel to the nearest tenth of an acre; c. Topographical data; d. The location of all existing structures on the site, as well as those on adjacent properties within 100 feet of the outside boundaries of the site; e. Location and width of all existing driveways, streets (named), intersections, easements and utility locations (underground and overhead) adjacent to and across the subject site. Refer to Boundary Survey for items a - e. S. Aerial Location Map with the appropriate zoning and future land use information for the site and surrounding properties. See Aerial/Zoning Map on sheet A-01 1030 Basin Drive, Delray Beach, FL. 33483 Office (561) 274-4863 Fax (561) 266-5915 William Wietsma Architect, PA Florida License Number AR -0014766 Site Plan depicting the entire site, The Site Plan small include the following information: L Location of wooded areas existing or proposed water bodies, and other environmentally -sensitive lands. F. The location of all existing structures on the site, as well as those on adjacent properties within one hundred (100) feet of the outside boundaries of the site. iii. The use and approximate dimensions and location of all proposed buildings and other structures. iv. The number of dwelling units by type and gross floor area of nonresidential structures proposed, if any. v. All existing and proposed means of vehicular access to and from the site, and the location and width of proposed streets, walkways, and off-street parking facilities for the various buildings and uses vi. Centerline and ultimate rights-of-way dimensions for roads and canals (note if existing, proposed, dedicated, reserved, etc.) vii. The location and width of proposed and existing driveways, streets (named), intersections, easements and utility locations to and across the subject site. viii. Evidence of compliance with all applicable environmental ordinances. ix. The location and size of open space and recreation areas, including docks and common structures, and the form of organization proposed to own land and maintain said areas, x. Proposed location, size and type of permanent outdoor signs, if any. xi. Indication of all exterior lighting, location, height, type, foot candles, including cut sheets. xii. Zoning category of the site and all parcels within 150`. xiii. Land use of the site and all parcels within 150'. xiv. Site Data information providing the following: 1. North arrow (north up when possible) 2. Scale (graphic and written) 1030 Basin Drive, Delray Beach, FL. 33483 Office (561) 274-4863 Fax (561) 266-5915 William Wietsma Architect, PA Florida License Number AR -0014766 3. Name of development and project name 4. Range/Township/Section S. Date Plans prepared and subsequent revisions 6. Total acreage of site 7. Boundary dimensions 8. Lot coverage 9. ©pen space calculations 10. Parking Spaces {required/proposed/dimensions/Handicap/loading (as applicable) 11. Building setback and/or separations 12. Building height. See site plan, sheet A-01, for all relevant information. 7. Landscape Plan indicating compliance with Sections 66-396 through 66-402, 70-146 and Section 66-144(b) of the Code of Ordinances. The Landscape Plan shall indicate all existing and proposed landscaping including the location of landscape buffers or screening walls along roadways, with landscape plans for entrance features, subdivision streets, buffers and common areas. Landscape Plans shall include safe sight triangles. Landscape drawings have been submitted for review under this submittal. 8. Preliminary Drainage and Utilities Plans indicating proposed easements, structures, retention areas, etc. Civil drawings has been submitted for review under this submittal. 1030 Basin Drive, Delray Beach, FL. 33483 Office (561) 274-4863 Fax (561) 266-5915 January 7, 2013 Mark Hammond Executive Director Solid Waste Authority 7501 N. Jog Road West Palm Beach, FL 33412 YOUR PARTNER FOR X111 ID WASTF S0 IA-rlI NS Subject: Availability of Solid Waste Disposal Capacity Dear Mr. Hammond: The Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County hereby provides certification that the Authority has disposal capacity available to accommodate the solid waste generation for the municipalities and unincorporated county for the coming year of 2013. This letter also constitutes notification of sufficient capacity for concurrency management and comprehensive planning purposes. Capacity is available for both the coming year, and the five and ten year planning periods specified in 9J-5.005(4). As of September 30, 2012, the Authority's North County Landfills had an estimated 30,355,853 cubic yards of landfill capacity remaining. In addition, the Authority has contracted for the construction of a second Waste -to -Energy facility, projected to begin operations in 2015. This wili significantly extend the useful life of the landfill. Based upon the existing Palm Beach County population, the most recently available population growth rates published by the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business and Research (BEBR), medium projection, and projected rates of solid waste generation, waste reduction and recycling, the Solid Waste Authority forecasts that capacity will be available at the existing landfill through approximately the year 2046, The Authority continues to pursue options to increase the life of its existing facilities and to provide for all of the County's current and future disposal and recycling needs. As part of its responsibility, the Authority will provide an annual statement of disposal capacity, using the most current BEBR projections available. Please provide copies of this letter to your plan review and concurrency management staff. If you have any questions or I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Marc C. Bruner, Ph.D. Chief Administrative Officer 7501 North Jog Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33412 (561) 640-4M FAX (561) 640-34M 1 Cf EITY OF UELRRY BEREN DURAVREACH All -America City January 14, 2013 Mr. Joseph Pike, P.E, President, Engineer 298 Pineapple Grove Delray Beach, FL 33444 RE: Proposed Development Macdonald Three -Lot Subdivision Water Availability Town of Gulf Stream, Florida Dear Joe: Potable water is provided to the Town of Gulf Stream by the City of Delray Beach, thru 2 metered locations, Adequate treatment capacity for water is available to serve the subject project without any plant or piping upgrades. Per the agreement with the City of Delray Beach and the Town of Gulf Stream the City is to provide the Town with up to 800,000 gallons of water per day. A twelve (12) month average was calculated and present usage is approximately 535,500 gallons per day. Exact connections and other improvement requirements will be identified once a preliminary plan is submitted for review. If you have any questions or require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact me at (561) 243-7309. Sincerely, C4 ezi Scott W. Solomon Water/Sewer Network Manager City of Delray Beach U.'TORMSIWaterAvail MacDonald Propoerty.doc EnvirvDesgn Associates in. - .!V. -v: EHIV,fE-wi:,ri.curn 298 Pineapple Grove Way Delray Beach, FL 33444 Florida Certificate of Authorization #6506 TRAFFIC STATEMENT FOR 1410 N. OCEAN BLVD. GULF STREAM, FL FEBRUARY 8, 2013 Tables 4, 5 and 6 show the daily, A.M. peak hour, and P.M. peak hour traffic generation for the proposed development, respectively. The proposed redevelopment entails the subdivision of a large single-family home site into three single-family home sites. This will result in a net increase of two single-family dwelling units, for a total of three single-family homes. The associated traffic generation may be summarized as follows: Daily Traffic Generation — 30 tpd A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Generation = 2 pht P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Generation = 3 pht The net difference in traffic generation as a result of the proposed redevelopment may be summarized as follows: DAILY A.M. PEAK HOUR P.M. PEAK HOUR 20 daily trip increase 1 peak hour trip increase 2 peak hour trip increase CONCLUSION An analysis of the traffic impacts associated with the proposed development was performed in accordance with Palm Beach County's Article, Traffic Performance Standards. The proposed redevelopment has been estimated to generate the following, an increase of 20 daily trips, an increase of AM peak hour trips and an increase of 2 PM peak hour trips at a build -out in 2016. The results of this analysis indicates, that the proposed redevelopment will have an insignificant impact on the surrounding roadway network, meeting the requirement of Palm Beach County's Traffic Performance Standards Certified By: Envir©Design Associates, Inc. Certificate of Authorizatio o 6506 l_ I Jo ts I ed A. Pike, P.E., President FL` Registration No. 42696 I ; r r°r 1 ��i Associates, Inc. 1410 !North Ocean Blvd. Town of Gulf Stream, FL February 6, 2013 Page 2 of 6 0 4 Un E. M 0 I - a. C; LU J m H urn MEMORANDUM des gn TO: William Thrasher ki I day Town Manager S T U p 1 0 S FROM: Marty R.A. Minor, AICP Urban Planning and Design Landscape Architecture DATE: December 18, 2012 Communication Graphics RE: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF MACDONALD PROPERTY The proposed subdivision and re -plat of the MacDonald Property at 1410 North Ocean Boulevard (Property Control Number #20-43-46-09-03-000-0010), as outlined in the November 10, 2012 plan prepared by EnviroDesign Associates, Inc., for a total of three lots will require three concurrent review processes. Those processes are: • Subdivision Re -Plat Process, consistent with Chapter 62, Subdivision, of the Town's Code of Ordinances. • Concurrency Certification, consistent with the rules and standards of Chapter 44, Concurrency Management System, of the Town's Code of Ordinances. This process will confirm that there are sufficient municipal services for the two additional lots/houses proposed. • Level 3 Site Plan Review, consistent with Section 66-140, Architectural/Site Plan Review -- Levels 1, 2 and 3, of the Town's Code of Ordinances. All three processes will require review by Town Staff, the Architectural Review and Planning Board and the Town Commission. Along with the standard application requirements required by the Town, the applicant will need to address each of the subdivision criteria outlined in Section 62-10. The three identified development review processes above require the submittal of plans and documents to the Town to demonstrate compliance with the Town's Comprehensive Plan, Code of Ordinances, state regulations and all applicable rules and standards. Below is a listing of such plans and documents: Subdivision Re -Plat Process I. Application Fee to be determined by the Town. 2. 'Written and notarized consent of the owner for the requested subdivision and designation of agent. 3. Warranty Deed of the property and copies of all easement and plat documents on or adjacent to the property or serves the property. H:WOBS\Gulf Streamm94-0121MacDonald Subdivlsion\Subdivision Process Memorandum 121812.doc 477 S. Rosemary Avenue Suite 225 - The Lofts at CiityPlace West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561.366.1100 561.366.1111 fax www.UDKstudlos.com LCC35 Mr. William Thrasher December 18, 2012 Proposed MacDonald Subdivision Page 3 7. Provide a statement from the City of Delray Beach that potable water service can be provided for the additional dwelling units proposed. Also, the applicant should provide a statement on how the proposed subdivision would comply with the Town's Comprehensive Plan and Section 44-59 of the Code of Ordinances. S. Provide a statement from a registered civil engineer addressing how stormwater drainage will be addressed on site. The statement should include how the subdivision's stormwater drainage plan will comply with the Level of Service standard as described in the Town's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 9. Provide a statement on how solid waste will be collected and disposed for the subdivision's homes. Provide a copy of the annual capacity letter from the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County. 10. Provide a statement addressing how the additional dwelling units within the proposed subdivision addresses the Recreation and Open Space Level of Service found in the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Level 3 Site Plan Review 1. Application Fee to be determined by the Town. 2. Wratten and notarized consent of the owner for the requested Level 3 Site Plan Review and designation of agent. 3. Warranty Deed of the property and copies of all easement and plat documents an or adjacent to the property or serves the property. 4. A certified boundary survey by a surveyor registered in the state of Florida at a scale of not less than one inch equals 200 feet containing the following information: a. An accurate Legal description of the property; b. A computation off the total acreage of the parcel to the nearest tenth of an acre; c. Topographical data; d. The location of all existing structures on the site, as well as those on adjacent properties within 100 feet of the outside boundaries of the site; e. Location and width of all existing driveways, streets (named), intersections, easements and utility locations (underground and overhead) adjacent to and across the subject site. 5. Aerial Location Map with the appropriate zoning and future land use information for the site and surrounding properties. 6. Site Plan depicting the entire site. The Site Plan shall include the following information: i. Location of wooded areas existing or proposed water bodies, and other environmentally -sensitive lands. ii. The location of all existing structures on the site, as well as those on adjacent properties within one hundred (100) feet of the outside boundaries of the site. Mr. William Thrasher December 18, 2012 Proposed MacDonald Subdivision Page 5 features, subdivision streets, buffers and common areas. Landscape Plans shall include safe sight triangles. 8. Preliminary Drainage and Utilities Plans indicating proposed easements, structures, retention areas, etc. I Page 1 of 1 Rita Taylor From: Marty Minor [MMinorudkstudios.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 1:36 PM To: Bill Thrasher Cc: Rita Taylor Subject: RE: Yes, we can send the "what we do" letter as the staff report for ARPB. I have no problem with that. Wantman has provided with a list of questions/additional info they would Eike to see that I will include with my comments. However, Brian LaMotte and I both do not see any initial concerns with the application and have no problem with this moving forward. Marty R.A. Minor, AICP Urban Design Kilday Studios The Offices at City Place North 477 South Rosemary Avenue, Suite 225 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5758 561-366-1100 urban The Offices at CityPiace North ph, (.561 ) 366.1100 477 S. Rosemary Avenue. Suite 225 f. (561 J 366.11 11 dffiign West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 www.udkstudios.com kaliMINN S T U D 10 5 Urban Planning and Design I Landscape Architecture ! Communication Graphics From: Bili Thrasher [mailto:bthrasher@gulf-stream.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:01 PM To: Marty Minor Cc: Rita Taylor Subject: Bill Wietsma wants to know if there will be some additional report for the subdivision. We were thinking_ that the "what to do" letter was sufficient for the up -coming ARPB meeting, They are on the agenda. Please let Rita know what to expect. Do we sent your "what to do" out as the "staff' report? William H. Thrasher, ICMR-CM, CGFO, CGFM Town Manager Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 Office 561,276.5116 1 Fax 561.737.0188 Direct email: bthrasher{ci_)gulf-stream.orq 312.612013 William Wietsma Architect PA Florida License Number AR -0014766 Parcel ID: 20-43-46-09-03-000-0010 Property Address: 1410 North Ocean Boulevard Project: Proposed Subdivision of MacDonald Property Architect: William Wietsma Architect, PA Hate., 02/12/2013 Below are the responses (in ,blue italics) to the review comments: Reviewer: Marty R.A. Minor, AICD Subdivision Re -Plat Process 1. Application Fee to be determined by the Town. ok. 2. Written and notarized consent of the owner for the requested subdivision and designation of agent. The requested document has been submitted as part of this application. 3. Warranty Deed of the property and copies of all easement and plat documents on or adjacent to the property or serves the property. The requested document has been submitted as part of this application. 4. Aerial Location Map with the appropriate zoning and future land use information for the site and surrounding properties. See AeriallZoning Map on sheet A-01 5. A certified boundary survey by a surveyor registered in the state of Florida at a scale of not less than one inch equals 200 feet containing the following information: a. An accurate legal description of the property; b. A computation off the total acreage of the parcel to the nearest tenth of an acre; c. Topographical data; d. The location of all existing structures on the site, as well as those on adjacent properties within 100 feet of the outside boundaries of the site; e. Location and width of all existing driveways, streets (named), intersections, easements and utility locations (underground and overhead) adjacent to and across the subject site. Refer to Boundary Survey for items a - e. Plat Plan, compliant with Section 177 of Florida State Statutes, indicating the proposed subdivision. The plat plan should indicate all existing and future easements, restrictions and common -owned property, if any. Refer to submitted Plat Flan. 1030 Basin Drive, Delray Beach, FL. 33483 Office (561) 274-4863 Fax (561) 265-5915 William Wietsma Architect, PA Florida License Number AR -0014766 8. Provide a statement from a registered civil engineer addressing how storm water drainage will be addressed on site. The statement should include how the subdivision's storm water drainage plan will comply with the Level of Service standard as described in the Town's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. See attached response to comments from civil engineer. 9. Provide a statement on how solid waste will be collected and disposed for the subdivision's homes. Provide a copy of the annual capacity letter from the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County. Solid Waste shall be collected by the Waste Management of Palm Beach County. Attached is the requested copy of the annual capacity letter from the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County. 10. Provide a statement addressing how the additional dwelling units within the proposed subdivision addresses the Recreation and Open Space Level of Service found in the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Level 3 Site Plan Review 1. Application Fee to be determined by the Town. Ok. 2. Written and notarized consent of the owner for the requested subdivision and designation of agent. The requested document has been submitted as part of this application. 3. Warranty Deed of the property and copies of all easement and plat documents on or adjacent to the property or serves the property. The requested document has been submitted as part of this application. 4. A certified boundary survey by a surveyor registered in the state of Florida at a scale of not less than one inch equals 200 feet containing the following information: a. An accurate legal description of the property; b. A computation off the total acreage of the parcel to the nearest tenth of an acre; c. Topographical data, d. The location of all existing structures on the site, as well as those on adjacent properties within 100 feet of the outside boundaries of the site; e. Location and width of all existing driveways, streets (named), intersections, easements and utility locations (underground and overhead) adjacent to and across the subject site. Refer to Boundary Survey for items a e. 5. Aerial Location Map with the appropriate zoning and future land use information for the site and surrounding properties. See Aerial/Zoning Map on sheet A -DI 1030 Basin give, Delray Beach, FL. 33483 0ffice (561) 274-4863 Fax (561) 266-5915 William Wietsma ,Architect PA Florida License Number AR -0014766 3. Name of development and project name 4. Range/Township/Section 5. Date Plans prepared and subsequent revisions 6. Total acreage of site 7. Boundary dimensions 8. Lot coverage 9. Open space calculations 10. Parking Spaces {required/proposed/dimensions/Handicap/loading (as applicable) 11. Building setback and/or separations 12. Building height. See site plan, sheet A-01, for all relevant information. 7. Landscape Plan indicating compliance with Sections 66-396 through 66-402, 70- 146 and Section 66-144(b) of the Code of Ordinances. The Landscape Plan shall indicate all existing and proposed landscaping including the location of landscape buffers or screening walls along roadways, with landscape plans for entrance features, subdivision streets, buffers and common areas. Landscape Plans shall include safe sight triangles. Landscape drawings have been submitted for review under this submittal. 8. Preliminary Drainage and Utilities Pians indicating proposed easements, structures, retention areas, etc. Civil drawings has been submitted for review under this submittal. 1030 Basin Drive, Delray Beach, FL. 33483 Office (561) 274-4863 Fax (561) 266-5915 1- a 0 � �y _ f �j� Fll�ns r 0 ROPOSED SllW1VWSK7IV OF MACCOMALQ PROPERFY WILLIAM WIETSMA ATCbiteCta PA ,;� 1410 NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD _ Floridaµ License Number AN. -0014766 6 11111 ' a a i 11 6 A\ IN' + i — ql� k I � a g ig I r T y Oil sir l I 1 geL_��--------_j pp aF adAl d77 f�o q STATE ROA® A_1 -A [OCEAN BdULEVAI2Q) new+.o a°rr..•w d ROPOSED SllW1VWSK7IV OF MACCOMALQ PROPERFY WILLIAM WIETSMA ATCbiteCta PA ,;� 1410 NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD _ Floridaµ License Number AN. -0014766 6 11111 ' a a i 11 am ql� k g ig ont ROPOSED SllW1VWSK7IV OF MACCOMALQ PROPERFY WILLIAM WIETSMA ATCbiteCta PA ,;� 1410 NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD _ Floridaµ License Number AN. -0014766 \/ ` , o , ^ «z § A lion: . 1 WILLIAM WI TSMA Architect, /A / License £um w,AR-0014766 I F y0� b. .'de • I egOPOSLO Two -STORY {. ° I ; �S1I3ENGE. CMJ 1 SUBQ{vlpg" PRC]P£RTY r A" FF HL 10.0' NM 7 §I t 1 I L I r -- t I I I G f I \ 3 c I 1 I oil p 1 I ' m� o f E �-29020M SiNGc-cTORY "I a. RES NCE ON i SiJBU1HOED PROPERTY ,--} 1 4 Fr EL = 14,0' My 1 _ 1 a o R MINIM r.m0 �x H ggNj2iji �n . ��A r,Z119N ; v� G7 � I o I 105 I to I 1 I I I i MAP. oil p 1 I ' m� o f E �-29020M SiNGc-cTORY "I a. RES NCE ON i SiJBU1HOED PROPERTY ,--} 1 4 Fr EL = 14,0' My 1 _ 1 a o R MINIM r.m0 �x H ggNj2iji �n . ��A r,Z119N ; v� G7 xxalNEERs iR mmmwa mNffmTARFs CIVIL SITE IMPROVEMENTS PUN FOR: MACDONALD SUBDIVISION 1410 N OCEAN sLVD GULF STR Apt, FLORIDA `^: •�,' � �`�' m g � F ti •.y F (' �� En�(IO6Cni9n ��.�do�- 1938 RS— •_ENVrmNereNTAI CMULTA1Ts CIVLL 3iTti IMPROVEMENT DETAILS FOR: CDCiNALD SUBDIVISION 1410 N OGEAN BLVD GULF STREAM. FLORIDA _ mnaa a�ue�w[ "mm eui � owe zos ae. +'w. owui o.na: ei�w�°0iseee $fix I .ta �yj N �j` I. �� Qui Aysr��m ��yl58 �la^ �' y �11 [111 �IPA"j, 111j; Sqj gal ill Py~ $� qq�� RA ME 83 F9 JypB Y�ppy�R jig s � @� &1�1yi2a i!i 9 9 A 11 N CIA I N Hill mI ;Wyl! in p 11 , oeocag is �g gig 61-11 ;52111 115 11i 8g� n � N F��': � ¢�g !!!!?ix ��x6666 ��gYa73�w�� R i c� log $ g¢E $$ 1 yp� oll H111111 1 H re- um 9 t qj ,9 R41 'll 1111®RF � A. l All hp�N IgI ga Y Y 11F 3H Ila 11,gH Jill �I IX ^p�� =S �i�iaGIg�b, �Fy�iPi Fs I S5S URN 21 N xl�g xx lip lip -1 11A RP j1pi A. Ru 11 P11 IF 1 Q;, ?Mq T, I � 9 � � ftn6� INE RS � ENVIRONMENTAL coxsuLrurrs C'IVA, SITE I3dPRQ9RM8N7' DETAILS FOR: maAcnaNAI•D SUBprvrsTON 1410 N OCCAN BLVD GULF STREAM. FLORIDA b� � obi +9M�'$ bnenbe 5-63W Fv4 591 t1Ftl.Y �RpZ T � 9 � � ftn6� INE RS � ENVIRONMENTAL coxsuLrurrs C'IVA, SITE I3dPRQ9RM8N7' DETAILS FOR: maAcnaNAI•D SUBprvrsTON 1410 N OCCAN BLVD GULF STREAM. FLORIDA b� � obi +9M�'$ bnenbe 5-63W Fv4 591 t1Ftl.Y a g o o a 46 ENGINEERS • W—VIR NIIENTAL CONSULTANTS POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN FOR: MACDONALD SUEDMSION 1410 N 0CF,AN BLVD GULF STRE". YLORMA FRRSRRk63FRiRpCpik0pl[t R�FiSF�ii••'nn• PPPPPP�PPPPFYPPPiSPPPPPPYPP�[PiPEEEEPPPF iyaaa#yaaga- .aa aRi.'<4aaa��aarx q q:. e taR=Fis:==a't FS iFSFFS {kFCCCkikSRtF=FFFFL� IMFIFFIf 1'fEEFI EEFdFFHif fillf �e�� F Ll�ex 33 S� € A asi a q�Ri�R5g5=4i¢pRi,r0.p �YY]'kYki.FeReR■;Rpp 1if FEFFFP if I F a �iR;ggara�iaFF�iA�A ��» 1RL L sY::iS rxr Sprjc'r iarxa.�•=a-----=2so§sesen8 fill Iffif di 3111FEA [i i June Jill 1411 1 Ili 11 111111 imill"Im"I Ili,[ FF FP�egEE��it I� FF66FF22p�pe:P.. �!R €�s�l,�i` s 0.4R5ti RR ac: Ay « ' �Ei?F-RY�_FFCP �'-`�i l�wpf F`c9� 0.Fq�$a445��CCLC €; RRP[[ Macdonald Property Subdivision pacers°! rDesign1. 1410 North Ocean Boulevard �Professionals ~i151 S...`. Fa�xs IN�'Ae�l�} Gulfstream, Florida RwRww;bk IM" 11-- � F -r Macdonald Property Subdivision pacers°! rDesign1. 1410 North Ocean Boulevard �Professionals ~i151 S...`. Fa�xs IN�'Ae�l�} Gulfstream, Florida RwRww;bk IM" 11-- � 0 t4 Macdonald Property Subdivision petemn Design 1410 North Ocean Boulevard Professionals Gulfstream, Florida MEW. -- Mt n.. ]1� — 171 iR': K S� 1)lq.H4T 4e®RMia�lall�l�6 h {t r Macdonald Property Subdivision { Desiren gn 141 0 North Ocean Boulevard�J p1°fess'°"als Iabup Arshrtwt� 8ir.�r.�. Gulfstrearn, Florida I�.:cral Ins of+�. esaeaalheld`3XK 1P'e^�^�+me'dA.un.�i e,r: V, NI a it T- a �; r Macdonald Property Subdivision ien esi Y 1410 North Ocean Boulevard Ll� Profegnssianals Gulfstream, Florida I- 4 � � .. L Y H _ — r is .., Y t• � ��.��<, r im�yTr Mfir,, !!Jill: N 0 1;*8 mag I IF '8 t iff I �. 4 awiulk I s�� 11181 :. Igloo �Q2a Macdonald Property Subdivision Peterson Design 141 o North Ocean Boulevard d Gulfweam, Florida »s.w.nratwt rg fNa �+ Han ereh7lenaa 73tli y 4 � � .. L Y H _ — r is .., Y t• � ��.��<, r im�yTr Mfir,, !!Jill: N 0 1;*8 mag I IF '8 t iff I �. 4 awiulk I s�� 11181 :. Igloo �Q2a Macdonald Property Subdivision Peterson Design 141 o North Ocean Boulevard ionals n� Gulfweam, Florida »s.w.nratwt rg fNa �+ Han ereh7lenaa 73tli y 9E9i-ftz (195)xe3 [984a {1957 031330 vaiuo-u Eie =nno c"CE $PPOI3 '.4'P9'd- yaxag AV -310a •—!Acl msua 0£01 99i410U-'#iV �agmn ��oa„, Bp,:x¢I�. CIIJVA�` OB NVE100 HiHON Olt[ Yd P -41110-1V VIVSIJIM fiV VI77IA4 KLUiWOW MMOGOVIN =10 NOMMOMS OmISO c dd r, -a3 3 z- ° I FFppaEpEz,,� CCRip°A37f1pg N737OJ 7 -la rY dklU�l. 31V1,5 �j LL- ddd� !?�g I+ I .00 t • i ti � J Rs�a �, Ili c 1.1- t fig I \ s y C3� a J 3 Im0.�JI a% € IS .00 C3� a J 3 Im0.�JI a% € IS ML.ta (145) xe3 £9$4-s'a (195) an-ujo v(3ao 'waustnu E84£E BPPoI3 'gaaa$ FeiFZCI •aelsd u19129 o£41 ff''�.�.�r d A'�../ r� 1� � �-+� 94LbIU0•TIV sagrun aauaal-I spunl3 ❑H V n3-inoe N V DOo HiHON DGtjl .r fid `1�a�rt �1�r VIVSI-71.M NVI77IA9 lF9isFM it p�rcrzrrn�-lnae rvv��o� +r-i� a � Will 1'1 'F - N 39 I Iuy if to r—� — f -- - I to + i ti y f � IMa�¢ I k o f ]yOyg■j j$ 0 +� 0!IL �Ip p p LL 0 (Mft - -WW-- - -P Wi6k�}IdT^.] wvwavw%i0� ................................... ------- ........ : ................................................ LL X jt Tid LS:OV:� MVIL/Z '6mP*9N3-OQC)jj\uoprip4nS jul � WDDJjs)jnq-oRc)tj\jjC)Z\:C) Nv, Ulf if W-Mmm 4-W W"MO "Ho CV I PRE. LD "S Ld 'ilia rig RZ Zi og! Z' vamorid wvau s MO CE&JEJ XVaDO N OjtT MOISIAMEMS (I'IVKO(IOVN :UOA Krid SI?MMOZIMU Mis &MY.LIRSKOO TVJMHBNQUIAMH Nv, Ulf if W-Mmm 4-W W"MO "Ho CV I PRE. LD "S Ld 'ilia rig RZ Zi og! Z' Li x il Ad 8l lb � CIOZ/ll/Z `6Mp*11O-08011\uois!^!p9nS lol � Luoai1spnO Og�11\11Oi\:� wAPt x+44 Y.f [,. 1Y1 Y wn iw ['Pule InN 1Pln[In[ ��..PP i,.. J �IA Ho d ;TV= Cl Y1J ~Se AP y! OBPPY��t,=c 1 W QAM XYROO N 01VT d a R Ln 1my-LI SHOOITINaaru CEwtaa - sziaar Iwa i � �� d Q _ 4 a ,.>wR.w�aPnou ,.nv+ _ w 2EO, S7IBL3'Q .LNHVMOHdPQ MS 'IIAL7 ai gggj F��!g 0 W w hi-- I WEI I I �� Mm ��.. a i � �� d Q 4 a oil IR 0 dLl x „ll 'INd S£:ltr:£ £lOZ/4l/Z '6mp.11Q-0QOIl\uoisinipgnS lol £ woajisjjno-oR011\[loz\:o valumd 'ilVf uls &M-0 neje Ma4 H oxer NOISIMUEMS Q'IMO(EWNi :Hod MNLZ4 J.Nminoadm mus 'iidL'S °°�" ••° 'w �.a �'imei M1" �"� w.o � •� •we.rx. ax rmrsam .mou e s��«, 7VLKXK �axFARs °"'•'•, ""•• M a Ip 9x 9 4 "''• PPPsss 5�5~ � 3 y •e ' L d d �GQE .o. mm ..Ll x Jt 'Ad9S l� f zlOZ/ll%Z 'bmG'11O-020E1`u0rS!AjpqnS lol i-Dajjsjln0-0g0jj\tj0Z`:0 Hl Y �,Y IYEgCY rwN°`M""ux Tani L(1 INMILLs AMD {L1ZH HMO N MIT :7503 S'IStli34 SN3A[HAb75dF'fi vrss '[IhSa tt�LC �RmIf�'w^N C PQ zvcruta�+a Asx—rmff p - w .a .. R q IM ssrir�znsNoa �at�aaw lilt!$$$ Ilk .e wue nunau .ae«w auw w .wne eer ��nsn� IDA Hl 4g a€ k g IM lilt!$$$ Ilk IDA ilirk y w z y � T �7Cofp3 dy�B gp w B JI a 1111", ga t s all 91 1a 4 9 a lip, p g`1 ix Q1 V11 H ph 1El a � � d� al � ��s� e 6 %h @ffi ��z iSR a1 MIR a � gg g 009 541 ��I€ 12 S gb Ilk IDA 2 bill �7Cofp3 b5g$6 B ��1x1i 1111", ga t s 4 9 a d 4 9 Y 2 ��1 1 �py'gggg yy q � � F %h d� S ��z S9 1541! 009 541 ��I€ 12 d r. - �r40 "A � x� Ri � g 110 � ��'f w n + n d PNY a d d ,Ll x rll Ad 1YL:ZtT �[OZ/ll/Z 'bmP'0N3 —ORO lI VOISIAIMnS 14'1 � woaalslyno—L18QlliLlQZ\:C} a � � o � w $p gg a Syp 3r ¢ JI A oil f BRi F ti y na FIJI xz a µ a ll gc� gaa' jigsa'8 awl i.. ------. f � I mix fill Cb 14 1 a r �RJ��i�� issRl� afi� $ �� vK� C � i el r E•� �l 1 �G �� ■ R�#� W ice'! y ^p X�i i._-- -----. ip i599 O &" r t i - >IaunlA `meagsjing f13S Z aj iW:'n6141 4(Itr C9iaA� �� plenalnog moo qlJaM 01 171 baa ® uom/upgnS Avadwj pltuopouW D ��YY X77777:7::.:77 9.h �t khhhhhkkilpahhi�Y -,eaa�rrcre#dggxq_#cxefsy##ii ttYll t ` Y Y6ry.lhj4jYyh Y`y t 414y YYY7 �� Y��i��A��ti�pt7��YkhRj hbba.t xd YYloll ttLay bYY!' yYh t��l h'�hk°Y�ttlp�p�!'-h y`Yab7 �xx�94ltt plop Ij��3� 11i1111s1ii-1111iil31till��ii��i�! :dafrrtiffrre�r*r7.nfrrarfrerrrraerrz�.:r "777777:::tf 77777'. r. xk 7::::77.77'777:7777 9 h'3!rlk h9lit4�kh� kAhhh „xhkh lGhkk.k _.+.s.-..yddirrrtlrrrgaq%#1t6rll llydd r.rrrrr I— qpa wwj%.n SFuo13 `u�s31no ssu � �r awns 1st Ko �� ..0 slau0sssa wa p-MAelnog UMO LWOK 01171. ualad gd i uoistAi q s f4jodold pllouopoeW _— -Y"-[-V' G""od -a�"-Lr, E31 apPold lmuanMng PXUADPIOE[ tMODO qVOM 0 1 J71 uoiSiAlpqnS f4x2dojl pinuopoeW 41 J j D 4, J j D 9CItZ0i4t9Fl rq� � sFeuoissa3•awY I fS�Q UoSJO14M f epuol,d 'umaasiln'J plenalnag UBaap tWON Q 1171 uoisiAipgnS f4iodoad p;uuopapw May 16, 2013 CHAIRMAN: Scott Morgan VICE CHAIRMAN: Amanda Jones BOARD MEMBER: Paul A. Lyons, Jr. Thomas Smith Malcolm Murphy ALTERNATE MEMBER: George Delafield, Jr. REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY,MAY 23, 2013 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. AGENDA I. Call to Order. II. Roll Call. III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 3-28-13. IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. V. Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. June 27, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. b. July 25, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. c. August 2013-No Meeting d. September 26, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. e. October 24, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. f. November to be determined g. December 26, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. VI. PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by William Wietsma, as Agent for the owner of the property located at 3122 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida 33483, which is legally described as Lot 36 less the S. 50 ft. thereof and the S. 47.94 ft. of Lot 35, Gulf Stream Properties Subdivision. a.DEMOLITION PERMIT to remove the existing outside stairway on the garage/guest quarters. b.LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit an addition of 888 SF to the west side of the existing one-story, single family, Gulf Stream Bermuda style dwelling, an enclosure of 65 SF on the second story of the garage/guest quarters, the removal of the existing outside stairs and the construction of new interior stairs in the garage to the guest quarters, re- location of the existing garage door from the north side to the west side of the garage to provide an entrance off Gulf Stream Road and a new paver brick driveway off Gulf Stream Road. VII. Items by Staff. VIII. Items by Board Members. IX. Public. X. Adjournment. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM AGENDA CONTINUED RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 2013 AT 8:30 A.M.,IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I.Call to Order: Chairman, Scott Morgan called the Meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. Present: Chairman, Scott Morgan, Vice Chairman Amanda Jones, Board Member: Thomas Smith, Malcolm Murphy Alternate Member: George Delafield, Jr. Town Manager: William Thrasher Town Clerk: Rita Taylor Absent were: John Randolph, Esq. (with notice) Recording Secretary: Susan Cooper II.Roll Call Present and Scott Morgan Chairman Participating Thomas Smith Vice Chairman Malcolm Murphy Board Member Amanda Jones Board Member George Delafield Alternate Member Absent w/Notice Paul Lyons Board Member John Randolph Town Attorney Also Present & William Thrasher Town Manager Participating Rita Taylor Town Clerk Mark Pulte Property Owner Benjamin Schreier Architect for Pulte Joe Peterson Landscape Arch.-Pulte William Wietsma Architect-MacDonald Marty Minor Town Consultant Randy Ely Town Resident III.Minutes of the Previous Meeting(s) Mr. Smith moved to accept the minutes of the Meeting of February 28, 2013 with no correction, Mr. Murphy seconded the Motion. Motion carried unanimously. IV.Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items.None V.Announcements.None A.Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing a. March 28, 2013 @ 8:30 a.m. b. April 25, 2013 @ 8:30 a.m. c. May 23, 2013 @ 8:30 a.m. d. June 27, 2013 @ 8:30 a.m. e. July 25, 2013 @ 8:30 a.m. ARPB – Regular Meeting and Public Hearing March 28, 2013 Minutes f. August, 2013 – No meeting All stated they would be attending all meetings listed on agenda. No ex parte communications prior to the public hearing. VI.PUBLIC HEARING. Ms. Taylor swore in all who planned to speak at public hearing.Those sworn in: Mark Pulte, Property Owner; Benjamin Schreier, Architect for Mr. Pulte, Joe Peterson, Landscape Architect for Mr. Pulte. William Wietsma, Architect for property owner Ralph MacDonald, Paul Engle, Surveyor for Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Becker, Engineer for Mr. MacDonald. Marty Minor, Town Consultant and Town Resident Randy Ely A.Applications for Development Approval. 1. Application submitted for construction to property of owned by Mark T. Pulte located at 3211 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, FL. Legal description of North 4.5 ft. of Lot 3 and the S 108 ft. of Lot 4, Gulf Stream Ocean Tracts in Gulf Stream, Florida. a.DEMOLITION PERMIT to remove existing structures. Mr. Benjamin Schreier, Architect for Mr. Pulte requested demolition of existing structures as well as approval of the construction of a 10,408 square foot home on the site. Mr. Schreier stated that their intent was to clear the site and begin construction of the new home immediately rather than waiting for the permit for the new home to be issued before demolition occurs. x Thomas Smith moved to approve the demolition permit to remove the existing structures. Amanda Jones seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. b.LAND CLEARING PERMIT to prepare for new landscape materials and to adjust the grade to accommodate the new structures and improvements.Presentation by Joe Peterson, Landscape Architect for Mr. Pulte demonstrating via sketches, the proposed landscape to include 220 trees along A1A including placement of the cabbage palms, coconut palms and existing Australian Pines. The existing sea grapes will be re-located along the existing driveway to form a canopy as you drive into the site. Along the front of the property the sea grapes will be removed and put into a staging area in order to raise the grade. The sea grapes will then be re-planted at the conclusion of the landscape project. x Thomas Smith made a motion to approve the Land Clearing Permit to prepare for new landscape materials and to adjust the grade to accommodate the new structures and improvements. Amanda Jones seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. 2 ARPB – Regular Meeting and Public Hearing March 28, 2013 Minutes c.NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY PERMIT to install entry gate and piers and supplement existing landscaping within the corridor. x Thomas Smith further moved to approve the NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY PERMIT to install entry gate and piers and supplement existing landscaping within the corridor.Malcolm Murphy seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. d.VARIANCE to permit a terra cotta slate style roof to be installed on the proposed Georgian style home. Upon Mr. Morgan’s request for explanation of the new home, Mr. Schreier stated they are proposing a 10,408 square foot Georgian style home with a dark green shutters and terra cotta colored slate roof. Variance was requested as town code calls for terra cotta roofs on Mediterranean-style structures, and either a gray slate or “slate-like” or white thru and thru concrete flat tile roof for the Georgian style homes. Presentation by Mr. Schreier with sketches of the home, actual samples of proposed roofing tiles as well as a choice of gray slate tiles as suggested in the Town Code. Discussion was had as to roofing materials. Mr. Schreier argued that the beachfront homes in Gulf Stream are unique and individual in style in contrast to the white on white Bermuda-style in the more general areas of the town. Mr. Schreier also stated that the home will be surrounded by a variety of palm trees and the roof of the home will in no way be visible from the road. Mr. Morgan suggested the roof be discussed with the Town Commission. Mr. Pulte advised that his “alternate choice” was the darker gray “slate-like” tile recommended in the Code, as the lighter gray tile would fade to almost white from the Florida sun within a very short time. Mr. Thrasher advised “Section 70.238 – Roofs.Flat, white through and through, smooth and gray slate tile may be permitted on predominantly Georgian or British-colonial influences. Flat, gray through and through, uncoated tile or slate-like tile may be permitted at the discretion of the Architectural Review and Planning Board and Town Commission thru level 3 review process. …Section D – Prohibited.Tiles other than white flat untextured tiles or grey slate tiles.” Ms. Jones felt the lighter tile would be more appropriate. x Thomas Smith further moved to recommend DENIAL of a VARIANCE to permit a terra cotta slate style roof to be installed on the proposed Georgian style home based on the findings that not all of the 8 standards to allow for variance have been met.Amanda Jones seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. 3 ARPB – Regular Meeting and Public Hearing March 28, 2013 Minutes e.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit construction of a 10,408 square foot partial 2-story, single family Georgian style dwelling with a 4 car garage and swimming pool. x Thomas Smith moved to recommend Approval of a LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit construction based on the findings that the proposed construction of a 10,408 square foot partial 2-story, single family Georgian style dwelling with a 4 car garage and swimming pool meet minimum intent of the design manual and applicable review standards with the following conditions: a) electrical service lines shall be buried; b) any minor modifications of the landscape plan shall be submitted to the Town Manager for review and approval and any major modifications shall be brought back to the ARPB for approval prior to the commencement of landscaping; c) Wall and fences shall be measured from the lowest abutting grade with a maximum height of 8 feet including any lighting fixtures that might be attached; d) all chain link fences will be screened from neighbor’s view; e) the landscape plan will protect existing Australian pine trees and provide a 13’ clear zone where possible for the planting of Australian pine trees and f) to change the proposed terra cotta roof to that of the town code, to wit: the gray-slate-like tile.Amanda Jones seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. Ms. Taylor informed Mr. Pulte and Mr. Schreier that their next hearing will be at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, April 12, 2013. 2. Application submitted by William Wietsma as agent for Ralph MacDonald, owner of property at 1410 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream Florida legally described in metes and bounds as Lots 1, 1-A and 2, McLouth Subdivision, Gulf Stream Florida. a.SUBDIVISION to divide one, 4.733 acre parcel of land into 3 lots. Mr. Wietsma presented proposal to subdivide nearly 5 acres into 3 lots. Essentially Lot A would be 40,000 square feet, Middle lot would be 80,000 square feet preserving the house and the third lot about 80,000 square feet. They are proposing to keep the existing grading, existing landscaping and preserving the house in the middle. Theye are not changing the character and structure of the neighborhood. The private yacht basin will be part of the deed to property A. A buffer of landscaping will be provided to eliminate line of sight from the water and road. Mr. Morgan expressed concern with the driveway access from A1A and its visibility from the road. His concern is that the driveway will require removal of a considerable amount of foliage from the property south and north of the driveway. Mr. Wietsma stated that the access will remain where it is now and therefore the foliage will not need to be removed as the same cut for the drive will remain intact, the entrance will remain the same, it will just be enhanced. 4 ARPB – Regular Meeting and Public Hearing March 28, 2013 Minutes Mr. Wietsma advised that all the neighbors had been notified and polled, the only letter received was from Mr. Ganger stating that it is his hope that the lush foliage at the northern end of the property be retained as a part of the condition of approval for subdivision. Mr. Wietsma stated that it is their intent to retain that area in its current condition. Mr. Smith questioned the chance that the DOT would disallow future entrance onto North Road from A1A to Lot C. Mr. Wietsma advised that there was not a chance due to the location of the curve. Mr. Morgan stated we all like to see the old properties remain the same and that he liked the idea of this proposal. x Malcolm Murphy moved for APPROVAL of a SUBDIVISION at 1410 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream Florida and to divide one, 4.733 acre parcel of land into 3 lots. George Delafield seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. b.DEMOLITION PERMIT to remove an existing driveway, shed and garage. x Malcolm Murphy further moved for APPROVAL of a DEMOLITION PERMIT to remove an existing driveway, shed and garage at 1410 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream Florida and to divide one, 4.733 acre parcel of land into 3 lots. George Delafield secondd the motion. Motion unanimously carried. c.NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY PERMIT to remove existing driveway from proposed Lot “C”. Malcolm Murphy moved for APPROVAL of a NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY PERMIT to remove existing driveway from proposed Lot “C” at 1410 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream Florida. George Delafield seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. Discussion was had regarding the exact request of the removal of the driveway and while possibly retaining the curb cut for an option of keeping it to feed proposed Lot “C” at a later date. Malcolm Murphy moved to RESCIND his prior motion to Approve. George Delafield seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. x Malcolm Murphy then moved for APPROVAL of a NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY PERMIT including the authority to remove existing driveway from proposed Lot “C” and retaining the curb cut as shown on sketch A-01 .George Delafield seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. 5 ARPB – Regular Meeting and Public Hearing March 28, 2013 Minutes d.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the division of one parcel of land containing 4.733 acres into 3 lots with the existing structures on proposed Lot “B” to remain. x Malcolm Murphy further moved for APPROVAL of a LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the division of one parcel of land containing 4.733 acres into 3 lots with the existing structures on proposed Lot “B” to remain at 1410 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream Florida and to divide one, 4.733 acre parcel of land into 3 lots with the condition that the lot and foliage on the West side of A1A and the North side of the property be retained.George Delafield seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. VII.Items by Staff None VIII.Items by Board Members None IX.Public: None X.Adjournment At 9:35 a.m. Mr. Morgan adjourned the meeting of the Architectural Review and Planning Board. Susan Cooper Recording Secretary 6 TOWN OF GULF STREAM ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING REPORT Application #: 013-11 Owner: Charles L. White, III Address: 3122 North Ocean Blvd Agent: William Wietsma, Wm. Wietsma .Arch. Proposed Improvement: Addition and renovation to existing one-story Gulf Stream Bermuda style dwelling Approvals Requested: Demolition Permit: To remove the existing outside stairway on the garage/guest quarters Level II Architectural/Site Plan: To permit an addition of 888 SF to the west side of the existing one-story, single family, Gulf Stream Bermuda style dwelling, an enclosure of 65 SF on the second story of the garage/guest quarters, the removal of the existing outside stairs and the construction of new interior stairs in the garage to the guest quarters, re- location of the existing garage door from the north side to the west side of the garage to provide an entrance off Gulf Stream Road and a new paver brick driveway off Gulf Stream Load. Gross Lot size: 27,927 SF Effective Lot Area: 27,927 SF Proposed Total Floor Area: 5,500 SF Allowable: 8,500 SF Zoning District: RS -0 Height: 12' 7" (roof height E 24' Preferred) Finished Floor: 18.0' NGVD Issues Considered During Review: Section 70-67 Effective lot area Section 74-70 Floor area calculations Section 70-74 Setbacks Section 70-100 Roof and eave heights Section 70-187 `fable of district standards Motion to approve demolition permit to remove existing outside stairway. Motion to recommend approval Level II Architectural/Site Plan based on a finding that the proposed addition of 888 SF to the west side of the existing one-story, single family, Gulf Stream Bermuda style dwelling, an enclosure of 65 SF on the second story of the garage/ guest quarters, the removal of the existing outside stairs and the construction of an interior stairs in the garage to the guest quarters, re -location of the existing garage door from the east side to the west side of the garage to provide an entrance off Gulf Stream Road and a new paver brick driveway off Gulf Stream Road meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards. Architectural Review and Planning Board ARPB Pile #013-11 ARPB May 23,2013; Page 2 ARPB Date: May 23, 2013 Action: Demolition Permit Approved as requested. (4-0) Level I I Architectural/Site Plan: Approved as requested and recommended by staff. (4-0) Town of Gulf Stream TOWN OF GULF STREAM - Ric iv D A APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL This form is to be used for all development review applications to be heard by the Town of Gulf Stream Architectural Review and Planning Board, Board of Adjustment, and/or Town Commission. To complete the form properly, please review the accompanying Town of Gulf Stream Instruction Manual for Rppf/cation for Development Review Form. Failure to complete this form properly will delay its consideration. ARP8 File 4_L3t� To be completed by all applicants. PART II. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Project Information I.A.I . Project/Owner Name: y S k vle.MGE t.A.2. Project Address: t 2 t jCD lcZ:yt \ C7[ I.A.3. Project Properly Legal Description: scarrk 4-; ."�4 PT. C'� LDT , Cis tx _S-T%ZrE'C„ ,CaTJ e S A, �radU+J5koK C,� L4". -los Tt1vN Pw �'CQJCrA"�l'i g[,1�2.fYJR.ACC.e't�.Y�IJJC� U A-V& VE* 660—V I A 11% OF -1`14k OF TUC- C -L W -V []F T§it 64_r�} q c[�SYzi-ern I'R rPtRT e�1e ItP�r.{AGF 2-4• I.A.4. Project Description (describe in detail, In ludln # ofst ries, S I r'--�j I.� S-Ti.)� r�fN-I , f s1v�1r S--i''l'E 7CT , -tty't-ty- TO : e l� vii IR2 � � pleA ore C o k --w 5-t 1 i p- . I.A.5, Square Footage of New Structure or Addition: Architectural Style:—r,2yey-f 1y�U I.A.6. Check all that apply: VArchilectural/Site Pian Review D Land Clearing ❑ North Ocean Boulevard Overlay (complete section 8) &K Demolition of Structures ❑ Non-residential uses ❑ Variance (complete section G) p Special Exception (complete section E) 1.A.7. (a) Proposed F.F.E.: Cl - Type of Foundation: B. Owner Information I.B.I. OwnerAddress: 2'Z tjpj�� 0 1.8.2. Owner I.B.3. Owner C. Agent Information I.CAi Agent Name and Firm Name: 1! jlLLlP[m 1LU m ►n)�r �yf A r�}j1 LC I.C.2. Agent Address: 31 pf1 P.W .L3rrt1 f�-►ot � rz, r� ala—, I.C.3. Agent Phone i.yC04. Agent Signature: Pfe-App ke App Date: +' Com Date: Decision: cell n�I —44 h Z-4l�v Fax l- Or77 E; /y7fficial Use only A PB Date: Recommendation: TC Date: Application for Development Approval Form AOA,2000 revised 6113/00 Page 2 Town of Gulf Stream PART NI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION To be completed by alf applicants alter pre-applrca[ion conference with Town staff. Please be concise but brief. Attach additional sheets only when necessary and be sure to include the appropriate and complete question number for each response. A. Project Description and Justification III A.1. In what zoning district is the project site located? iII.A.2, is the project compatible with the intent of the zoning district? *Yes la No Explain._ j ...._ .. -to Y?YGt1 N l' �c I PPrTZT -cam iC Lit.�+rL 1h�1Ft31. vhf Cr�^.3] III.A.3. Is the project consistent with the Future Land Use Map and goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan? 4Yes ❑ No Explain. fAf5,jo r4}pt]t 10 L)G T � Iii.A.4. How are Ingress and egress to the property to be provided? ` s. 0211 t r f N Vy7"'S U LE:. III.A.5. How are the following utilities to be provided to the a. Stormwater Drainage ,2,,,,1t t p� b. Sanitary Sewer ¢ c. Potable Water: O t^. t d. Irrigation Water _�� e. ElectricityV L- _ f. Telephone ,�-[ g. Gas h. Cable Television Gt�*r`[ ill.A.fi. If the project involves the erection of one or more structures, please describe how the structures are consistent with the criteria in Section 66-144 of the Town of Gulf Stream Code. (Attach additional sheet if necessary.) }alS tS N 71CM(�t' -TQ TH*, iTJP-t-fie PART IV. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Section A is to be completed by all applicants alter pre -application conference with Town staff. Answering "Yes'ta any question in Section A requires the completion of additional Sections as indicated. A. Additional Approvals/Requirements IV.A.1, Does the project 'volve land area within fifty feet (50') of the AIA (North Ocean Boulevard) right-cf- way? ❑ Yes (If "Yes", section B of this part must be completed.) IV.A2 Does the project involve the demolition of one or more structures? ❑ Yes No (If "Yes", section C of this part must be completed.) IV.A.3. Does the project involve the clearing or filling of any portion of an existF.'. acant lot or more than fifty percent (50%) of the landscaped area of a developed lot'? Ll Yes(If "Yes", section D of this part must be completed.) W.A.5. Does the project require approval of a Special Exception? ;< Yes L NO (If "Yes", section E of this part must be completed.) IV,A.& Is the prFo 't at variance with any regulations contained in the Zoning Code'? 11 Yes (if "Yes", section G of this pari must be completed.) Application for Development Approval Form ADA.320D0 Page 3 un11�Z Stream H. Projects Requiring Rezoning IV•H.9 • What is the Future Land Use designation of the project site? IV -H.2. If the project invotves a rezoning, Zoning Code text change, Futtire Land Use Map change, th Comprehensive Plan text change, or any combination thereof, please describe e need and justification for the request. PART V. OPTIONAL_ INFORMATION This entire Part is 000"al far all applicants. Applicants are encouraged, but not required, to provide any the other relevant information regarding the pnyject that was not covered elsewhere arr this form or on any of the other materials the with the application. M -I t „r_1% -- .�r�rlllti�Ifi1<R��r+11a MAI F� hpC� I any t -R I 1� `�� I—Ft f -7t t Q" U -N , . ... Applicalion for Development Approval Form ADA. 2000 revised 6113100 Page 7 f fIi I` ,. II I r � ' ff%U - %.%flllf/!J///lY//✓/LJ///. � -Hj.yyH/!d �PiJ __ . _ r - tri rrr E.e�rwr\r�r \ �`\ ♦ ± \i �Jr rrrr� 1 — AA (.r• - TiiT � � s�y ver �'�iri°irrYli'r'��ilc'� Tit GULF STREAM, FLOFODA I'!II i A qJd IMMI J' f fIi I` ,. II I r � ' ff%U - %.%flllf/!J///lY//✓/LJ///. � -Hj.yyH/!d �PiJ __ . _ r - m �9 VV irrE RESEENCE 1 5 3122 NORTH OCI GULF STREAM, FLOFODA WlLiIAM WIETSMA Architect, PA --AN BLVD. Florida License Number AR -6014765 lO3O Basin Drive, DeiraY Beach, Florida 33493 Office (561) 274.4$69 Pax (561) 266.5915 �� ---�� \ �� % �� _ 7 �� q �� |! /�� ( <\ EEEE E. 4 R::F R �il ;q 44:R [ E ( .EEEH FEEEF] MIM J !w , �� 7 Al �� o & WHIM RESID I !,|,\ ' WILLIAM I�kArchitect, Pk 3122 NORTH OCEAN BL�� Flo�.License _m_AR_m�Cal ��,�am j. m,_ma __ _�._nGULF Office (561) 274-4863a !__5A MHz!! lI wwrE �sioENce WILLIAM WIEPS'11v1A Architect, PA Cj 3122 NORTH OCEAN BLVD. Florida License Number AR -0014766 rt^ GULF STFE", i -ARIDA 1030 Basin Drive, Delray Beach, Florida 3348'3 -F-� Office (56l) 274-4863 Fax (561) 266.5915 Page 1 of 2 FLO903.1052 B2undary Survey SURVEY _# FL0903.11752 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 3122 N OCEAN BOULEVARD DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33483 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot U, less the South So Feet thereof, and the South 47.94 Feet of Lot 35. GiriF STREAM PROPERTIES, a subdivision of lands In the Town of Gulf Stream. Florida. according to the plot thereof on file and of record In the office of the Clerk of the ClrcwIt Court In and for Pafrn Beach Caunty, Florida, in PIaI Book 18 at Page 27. WE Date: 09/30/82 Work: 3/23/2009Carnpleted: 3/24/2009 1.6. 7337 61 CERTIFIED TO: CHARLES WHITE; SUNBELT TITLE AGENCY; FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY;; . t For Surveyors Nates and Legend, -5e( -2 pgg _ 1 - _ !1 5 N55'()O'g4-W 206.61' D. f y (BA, A55umed) 266-361fM r FNP IR 112" c5dwe o l _ wt �fU - FN0 PK NAIL (� n ' + 0 II Cr Im 12 5TO BLDG. F00rfD " GRAVEL - - - Z ah WOOD,;,/ ARFA WC0 � tC,, ss, r �; DW - 41. FLAG r o; ��'= ii) rc�jCyPoi- to - V PC7Ok CDNC mM BWPSL % DECK _ r m sr CONC PORCH "a."' +.3 -0.9, o a e rFNCE; ^+ is r NB7'07'P3'YJ 267.07' DSC. I o + l —_______________, ____—__--_—_-+ I hereby �er� descnlved p P a true suruey m2 der my ern and the minim eehsgreal standards set Doard Of r F r 1 d 51) 472.0]2 50 0 25 50 Administr n Code. Fu r, this c h� 5r ned an led u Sect i Flarrda Sta and Gla r 6 I G- f3R.ApI-iLC SCALE (in Feet) 1. inch = 5a' it CO MN 1 11 MAIL 1 "C" !7 LU O AI Q � U �.a C O of the hereon representatran of a raid survey meets i'y the Florida want to 5ectcon I G- 17-6 rlond2 t is electranicaHy 2.027 of the )025 of the Marida W,,, . -nsr k 65.71 Project: Addition to White Residence 3122 North Ocean Blvd, Town of Gulf Stream, FL 11" RECEIVED It Architect: William Wietsma Architect, PA APR 15 2013 Photos of Existing Residence TOWO Of Guf fstreaM, Ft Existing Photos Key_ Pian (not to scale) Aj Southwest View of Existing Main Residence and detached Garage/ Guest Suite B) Southeast View of Existing Main Residence Project: Addition to White Residence 3122 'North Ocean Blvd, Town of Gulf Stream, FL Architect: William Wietsrna Architect, PA Gj forth View of Existing Detached Garage/Guest Suite D) East View of Existing Main Residence E) West View of Existing Main Residence RECEIVED -4 APR 15 2013 %wn of Gulfstream, FL July 18, 2013 CHAIRMAN: Scott Morgan VICE CHAIRMAN: Thomas Smith BOARD MEMBER: Paul A. Lyons, Jr. Amanda Jones Malcolm Murphy ALTERNATE MEMBER: George Delafield, Jr. REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY,JULY 25, 2013 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. AGENDA I. Call to Order. II. Roll Call. III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 5-25-13. IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. V. Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. August 2013-No Meeting b. September 26, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. c. October 24, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. d. November to be determined e. December 26, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. VI. PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by Richard Jones, as Agent for Harbor View Estates LLC, the owners of property located at 1224 N. Ocean Blvd, Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lot 5, Hidden Harbour Estates Plat 2. a.NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY PERMIT to permit the installation of landscaping and the easterly portions of privacy walls within the North Oceana Boulevard Overlay District. b.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit construction of an 8,726 square foot, partial two-story, Colonial West Indies single family dwelling with 3 car attached garage, pool and cabana. VII. Items by Staff and Attorney. A. Proposed amendments to the Town’s Zoning Code, including Design Guidelines. VIII. Items by Board Members. IX. Public. X. Adjournment. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S. AGENDA CONTINUED FAXCover Sheet TO: Phone: Fax Phone: 272-8941. Bate: 7-24-13 Number of pages including cover sheet; .� FROM. Rita Taylor Phone: 561-276-5116 Fax Phone: 561-737-0188 REMARKS: a As Requested to Urgent o FYI ro For Your Review o Reply ASAP See attached. Originals to Fallow by Mail: Yes CC: Fax Plione: No I)aJaoy J0JJ3 :33 jesn Aq pal:: .jjal :ni i Pjemj0j xej : j j pAes xoglleA :SIN Puas 6ul;leM :SM E dnoig :fig Ilej :vj 1-iodad :da alowaJ Pallod Add anla:)aJ IsoH :HH walsAs 4q pale ulwaj,:Sl paleldwo:) :d] Iuljd xoglleIN :dA le701 Pallod :Id Puas Iso H :SH :suollelAaJggy GDDVZd:)l SH 33 L I SIS LV:DO:0o 1 ELDZ-4Z-LD'w'e9b:8b:0L LV613ZLZL9SI SLEI LOO sllnseu adA.L qor I apovy I aun I s96ed uollejno, Iawllliel5 I uollels alowaj I qor a - s : P8we}u0}sa6ed lelo.l. S : PauueoSsa6ed lelol CnverShea4 Darier 7-24-13 Tlamber oipagas iarlading rover ahrxt:.� TO. Tuu Ieuknl LFROM Phone: Fox Pd one: 272-8441 .5116 -p15a S: o As Requested o Urgent sr FYi ❑ For Yunr Review o RePly ASAP Sec attsomd. I Orfgmslr to Follow by Madh Yes No CCs PAT Phone: .rt7lxr. S-8 : azis juawn:)o(] (Molaq splap pulp aidwes pampaj) pawailuoD : juawmop sigl xej L aweN legal 99LOLELM L i111001 1xa-LJaPeaHllwsuea1 •w'eSO: OS! OL ELOZ-VI-LD awl.Llalea laodad uoissiwsuea1 FAXCovet Sheet TO: Tom 1 aaudani Phone: Fax Phone: .272-8941. Date: 7-23-13 Number ofpages including cover sheet: 3 FROM: Rita Taylor, Town Clerk Phone: 561-276-5116 Fax Phone: 561-737-0188 IREMARKS: o As Requested c Urgent c FYI o For Your Review o Reply ASAP I received the enclosed letter from Mr. 11brgan this morning. He will not be present for the meeting on Thrusday. I will be presenting this as a part of the record at the meeting. Driginals to Follow by Mail: 'Yes CC: Fax Phone; No _ X _— Transmission Report DatelTlme 07-23-2013 03:45:03 p.m. Transmit Header Text Local ID 1 5617370188 Local Name 1 Fax This document : Confirmed (reduced sample and details below) Document size : 8.5"x11" f sheet Tom laudeni Phone: 272-8941 Date: 7-23-13 Number efpages irtsintiing saver sheet 3 j FROM.. Rats Taylor, Town Clerk Phone_ 561-276-5116 Vax Panne: 561-7-11-mAn O As Requested o Urgent o FYI n For Your Review a Reply ASAP I received the enclosed letter from Mr. IbrW Chis horning. Re wilt not be present for the meeting on, Thnmxhy. I will be presenting this as a pert of the record at the rreeting. to Follow by Mail: Yes No ICC: Fax Phone: Total Pages Scanned : 3 Total Pages Confirmed : 3 No. jo I Remote Station Start Time I Duration Pages Line Mode I Job Type Results 001 1305 15612728941 03:44:08 p.m. 07-23-2013 00:00:28 1313 11 JEC JHS ICP24000 Abbreviations: HS: Host send PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system HR: Host receive PR: Polled remote RP: Report FA: Fall G3: Group 3 WS: Waiting send MS: Mailbox save FF: Fax Forward TU: Terminated by user EC: Error Correct Transmission Report Date/Time 07-23-2013 04:23:26 p.m. Transmit Header Text Local ID 1 5517370188 Local Name 1 Fax f TU: This document : Failed (reduced sample and details below) Document size : 8.5"x11 " Ate" R Cr'VCr Shc--"i Ric}zr] Jrnee Phone. Fax Phone: 274-9196 Date: 7-23-13 INu-ber ofpages including cover sheet: 3 FROM; Pita Taylor, To6n Cleric Phone:. 561-276-S1 J 6 REAIARJ{S: c As Requested o Urgent o FYI o Fnr Your Review o R --ply ASAP I received the enclosed letter front Mr. Morgan this uurning. 1Be gill not be present for che u-etsng on Th=sda.y. I will be presenting this as a parr of the record at the meeting. �(3riginals to Faila;v by Afiail: Yes No x CC: Fax Pbane: Total Pages Scanned : 3 Total Pages Confirmed : 0 No. I Job I RemoteStatlon Start Time IDuration Pages Line Mode I Job Type Results 001 1307 12749196 03:45:05 p.m. 07-23-2013 00:00:051 013 11 1 IHS I FA Abbreviations: HS: Hast send PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print CP: Completed TS: Term Inated by system HR: Host receive PR: Palled remote RP: Report FA: Fall G3: Group 3 WS: 'Malting send M5: Mailbox save FF; Fax Forward TU: Terminated by user EC: Error Correct FAXCover Sheet TO: Richard Janes Phone: Fax Phone: 274-9196 Date: 7--23-13 Number ofpages including cover sheet: 3 FROM: Rita Taylor, Town Clerk Phone: 561-276-5116 Fax Phone: 551-737-0188 1 REMARKS: a As Requested ❑ Urgent n FYI o For Your Review o Reply ASAP I received the enclosed letter from Mr. Morgan this morning. He will not be present for the meeting on Thursday. I will be presenting this as a part of the record at the meeting. originals to Follow by Mail: Yes LCC: Fax CC: No x '3�I f)L JL Z:)o "3 J- 11-1 Z5 - S '31'•I C:> f- cr a !r R ti ■ c o! E d r a■�� p�� W S 186[1 V i'11 V3B RA1i!- Att AOIM • IA L63N I �, 3 3 fm 4'- aft s � 3= -- - a � J..LI v ccoo1J wv"P 15 Tlig-C a � S,LDTsu+lan�J�.�nan1 `_e._ t 3 W �+ c�7 IL L) � a r tL Q = aQ�axa -A F a R Q Z W gxaF W=W W N � x R 4 z W Z W 0 R Q Ra s V o IL f�p tL Q = aQ�axa -A F a R Z Z W gxaF W=W N MA 8 I PH � ' o Z Z7�Y`t V wi92�� Z X LU CL wH xa zo CL mwaw ' N W vz •Y � ~y�O�m to a -Uai'� Z n N 'w; d U ii� W X1171 Z�i Q w a li pLL{y�wLL C gy» di 10 1 Q' Z a o f 4d s x�i mKm 3 9I¢¢U N u� 04woN � s V o IL ri s zw Q = aQ�axa 00 J Q � ' o Z Z7�Y`t V wi92�� Z X LU CL wH xa zo CL mwaw ' N W vz •Y � ~y�O�m to a -Uai'� Z n N 'w; d U ii� W X1171 Z�i Q w a li pLL{y�wLL C gy» di 10 1 Q' Z a o f 4d s x�i mKm 3 9I¢¢U N u� 04woN � Z W gxaF W=W 3�ti n -IL C) 3 -L, 11-3 �D S 31lZ C7 r' Cl H i� `. C34 CF VUIldO'a'HnV3H AVII"L[Q 'NEI "= a tz E w oLLI f� j r' � Lu .. y 1 SlLIC 11 .ISY s o a 3 "Id WY.iN.B.53'ii1J' fl hl'w77�� ] gr r— T O o N tz E w oLLI f� j r' � Lu y LU o f� r— r. "'S ✓ Yu" 4 i •Tui c ■ ■ : ,� y9 3 £66££ VOMO IJ'liJYIU AV)rU(l PD19 JnNRAV RUIN w l m.- ammo gCIISVHS � I � � 4 r -13 WV7:I.IS JlrlD'(IAIEI NV7DD'N 6ZZS r. "'S ✓ Yu" 4 N � I � � 4 r r. "'S ✓ Yu" 4 3 fl ._L, �D, -A -1L I H r s, t%z C> Ct 3 i� ■ ■ x £8Mf V(IIilO'lel'H�V3'& AVtlTJ(1 {SIN JnMJAV IW.P 3N 991 s>Irrnns JMMS @ °� j W� ,§ �_ i ! q. 6� o oz 4 p} A nexs wrzzl / Boal €� ■■ �fi i W 7 wva an�n wrvsAlln� J,0-1- S' .U�I• S'31.V.L5311fYL�VH NN200 III - g y 6 $ s¢ 5� $ '70 LU c+ o rri ui iLU 4 J p} A Z, - -T. iItl I P{I" it Q 0 w 22 J p} a Z, - -T. €� AM r 11 I'l Q 0 w 22 J cq CL A is ti ti 1 8 0� c ■ � � � � 2 p = '� � � Y � � EME V(jm-Fd'H3w31; AVTBU Sbitl'T117fi 3tlY5w3S � `��`�(J � a a a � 4,'t' � � '� %1453'1f19 UA'19 NC"3�D N F•i[I S .j.(]'j-539.w.L£1 xnDflavYl N3UUIF1 10.1 cq CL A is ti ti 1 8 0� 4p'P 1+-WJ-a 59 01 f3L tel., o r-� 7- w I VA � w w '70— w SON ro CY Win L{� • n G2 9 3 1g r to ' l a #'Fr iq day , 1 e�ti a tkill3k4!lii�t kr 3 a tii ��l � � I �P! ie€ k� faa(r► i!r r ,� �i =ad 1 7i {ak I{; !!! I °r ,� Paii r E� d to � ea a tP to{I e# [ d`a! i!! � }€ rjikt�i fi} }rk' I =d Id ' di PI! E! € t3 € i' !!' a {•I r9 } 1 klitt tltt[ie c 2 1}, k ! 6 #]l! {�tat ki}$idi i'a# 'tt#t€ r 3 ! F e{a st S' }ee• , e ,�� a�' 43 a-3• �il�d ��}� ;},} E 2�f#� }iii! �1;ii[P�I3l��1l�d {}��# � �d�i€i r-tfr } ;iila r!{>1i Ikl�i �� }k ,t� }�R �� ,i �e�i IF r a lf��= �a�ttll !! e � }�k 1t • }� I« ` Fe , L � ki '� � ��i � �1�� } p � s } a al 'i•iF Li I' atii t;' t 1 tpt e° 3! # E}e i ,dt j P a}•! ! Pak ! L} i P t i fr , ►# d .� . a d d'"� R i !kg!}�} €! !� iy ! l&}rri'_: Pgdi ii{,i : «, ;�s§ it €! P i = !f .!Ei ikltt P€}:t : �,� .€€' li 39 #f !! i , d i !i , o �i I� � ii{ki��;knP € lai �;? �k ,� � �€l�•t;a�a31!) 1 k! a;2P� is {f � ii t ;� fl !1# '3 a, ,{ s• t � + t # a , e; # !a d t r+ g i ", t t° ! F!6 y t # ` t k; • ! ki L, ' f f3! iiPi iaz€ts t! I P .i ;3P i p �}F��#� !�° _� a #}!g(, 6 {,F# y i &;t 13�!i1 IF i i i F{}f !i� Ili i 1['Ipp ! #1 It It t t!� ! a!}� �; k k. �e 2� ,EtE�F }i � =it P !iq ii, l{� �kt il3il } {LP tP��t � •� I r�ilell',�'I;f I;t i P L a t= },)} ie t [, ktl'iiPi kid to a m } lie + ,1#ay P� # ,�� ,� i] a � !PL #t!p f t{plP i � taa e�aL�j i�id '1€ � P e diTiP`t° L - I ki -• kk ,{ 'ik � }id ii'i � «tt i, as {�� atm r P �]�. { E �jp'i! ai.q tt 't9 � a � i �j• j�l; � 1 dtr i! ++ d + € rl i ! i} P�.I! �� `!{ , i �!�! „� 6— q Eta 1y� ;P , gl r e' aii ! i•i ! a,'!I ap r i � tr �P{ � � i�'� €!� � #� ��_ �(� i� 3li,t �i , {�a � ' �� j} '€li Pf =t 3� i }�}� � F,�tF1 � �Ij�l� �r k[ �j• t�°a� j 5!i to �t i t a , a as to t� a t I} A�, k P a , #! !P I} JJr [' a,Etra Ii€{ �,d,P P!P # ,' Pli 1Fjr° liiek' i {'t dit } g! t,I _ Ott a '' e' r 3 � Ft L' �� ?I'• kp1 € !, I �F. k{ii I{ I i L• Ii�fPS� iy i! a Y tphrh e t {Ffi e6 [FP �� it {Ea E r ddt F=F� I] ! B !►i �" !t = t ��t�€,•! it'd �}}tttt If alibi t g t! t g t I �' '[9E1�+.! kkif � ��,iik L �i�•. k;al� #} ,.�� ,p! �i�1 'g P�ei� � �` � 8. 6 i 3�}'li ii{ E P !! }iti ti ii[ �ada'�L �2#' � �€ i 1�', �� ka• a}P �{{!p �� kep � l P !� }. ke R r �'• P � %� iP€a� l �6 # [lee �t k� 1,k 6 p[[, ii 1�I t t +JJ IfT IIP T t e '� €tpi if i t P 1 [F}}3 r,S i' yi �, kfEk•id !,, eE ak Ir # rlai e r t ]t xtl'fy a Ir!} t k!!i k' . [ i pi r Sr Ott } P 1 l ,#t k} { it 1. }#!i{, i{i; tlt !{� ttt P e �i'r •# ki €}i(1(!; :�1I lilt d! _ ,di ! } �1 : i d�,l € } €t ±{ 1€1111111"1 r all 1l, °I, }I it � a ! ldd#r:: (=l } 11 to ttalka i ,da €gk} € I[ lilt i} t Jill, tii �P? tri# tR � if{�' }• {, �;� !� ir�� a� } P isp a i �, l�� , � + ,��2 � if•tt 3 3 #t std 11 �i ! } !` lits k! s� � i 'k� Li {jlila3 }t a }f i y!# , iii , !j ;.I 1 } {}kPi a t tp,, LE{it e r lai r,�a 2 d P3€ �tdddPE inti} ;ili i! € ,1 }i iP Ow 1i ;td f€ t T !� �? �! � f[•C� j}lta � ,isa! i k P';i fP L i y�d tl Ir� {rt tifi�'i id i ft]t ! ,7' I at: 1 i ieisiiiif tarp �$ P 13i�= r�3 to i ' t! r Y ie F a a! P a eP 1! It �" i„} Ilt� Ei t�t! } a}•sr � �Et t R#y Edi f kaE i€d Bili iai'�g! �]Rai'81t k iid�tt?� �� t { j, #° ilgSp tli�e ij afa�PsP• } • t t ' �� !, i !aii=_aaissa� ,tk �k jtfzst =�F gi r1 2 HUM, Pi l sit itl ilt�;iMi l�i iii#� l}�� i�ki �i}e� ii tit la P Fiaiii�� ii PI 1 t g' 3i�t Ii}'d tlP , 1•t td d j P a a e t P pa R P a! e, a n i� l�i P� ! li t�i3}lil 6:iP93liPP i z :ir } all; Nil i al a A . J a 5 1. . " . • a e P k t11 rn C) I-) -03 :I -,x -W WW .. CYQ2i.l14D- Ptl g' 07.aaznOlau , M13143JI*4x..Mk71.Y3 77 1 o Is$ r. A ti W aC9: ! W+? -N!d �Eb u tlOb94A9-P�7`i1t171d@OBIPo"P�PY9liYi!#'I[3]IfC 2z -EEil d UJ` y a� G r— �r3Wiq�� yy� a i 6 J if Y� L� .s. ... so..r a :r, 27nde - � _ LRpiatn.v z � Z 1 d 7+ S 1 0 7 I September 19, 2013 CHAIRMAN: Scott Morgan VICE CHAIRMAN: Thomas Smith BOARD MEMBER: Paul A. Lyons, Jr. Amanda Jones Malcolm Murphy ALTERNATE MEMBER: George Delafield, Jr. REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2013 at 8:30 A.M.,IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. AGENDA I. Call to Order. II. Roll Call. III. Minutes of the Regular Meetings and Public Hearings. A. May 23, 2013 B. July 25, 2013 IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. V. Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. October 24, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. b. November to be determined c. December 26, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. d. January 23, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. e. February 27, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. f. March 27, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. VI. PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by Dave Bodker, Landscape Architect as agent for 1275 North Ocean Blvd. LLC, owners of property located at 1275 North Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Palm Beach Shore Acres Rev. Pl. Blks. D & E, S 50 ft. of Lt 6 & Lt 7 Blk. D a. NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY PERMIT to install privacy gate, columns, walls, aluminum picket fencing and landscaping at the existing beach access. b. LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the installation of a privacy gate, columns, walls, aluminum picket fencing and landscaping to an existing beach access. 2. An application submitted by Randall Stofft Architects as agent for Kevin & Michelle Clark owners of property located at 3250 Polo Drive, Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lot 13 and part of Lot 14, Polo Cove Subdivision for the following: a.DEMOLITION PERMIT to demolish existing structures. b. LAND CLEARING PERMIT to clear site for new construction. c. SPECIAL EXCEPTION #1 to allow 236 square feet of covered, unenclosed area that exceeds the maximum Floor Area Ratio. d.SPECIAL EXCEPTION #2 to permit rear waterfront setback of 30’. e.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit construction of a Bermuda style, partial 2 story, AGENDA CONTINUED single-family dwelling with attached garage, pool and pavilion, a total of 7,552 square feet. VII. Items by Staff. VIII. Items by Board Members. IX. Public. X. Adjournment. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA, ON THURSDAY, JULY 25, 2013, AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I. Call to Order: Vice-Chairman Smith called the meeting to order at 8:30 A.M. II. Roll Call: Present and Thomas Smith Vice-Chairman Participating Paul A. Lyons, Jr. Board Member Amanda Jones Board Member Malcolm Murphy Board Member George Delafield Alternate Member Absent: Scott Morgan Chairman Also Present and William H. Thrasher Town Manager Participating Rita L. Taylor Town Clerk John “Skip” Randolph Town Counsel Martin O’Boyle Resident Richard Jones Architect Mark Grant Owners’ Attorney Thomas Laudani Developer David Bodker Landscape Architect III. Minutes: Regular Meeting and Public Hearing held on May 23, 2013 Vice-Chairman Smith suggested the May 23, 2013 minutes be deferred until the next ARPB Meeting, as they were not in the Board Members’ packets. All agreed. IV. Additions, Withdrawals, Deferrals, Arrangement of Agenda Items: Vice-Chairman Smith asked for any changes to the agenda. There were none. He also confirmed that each member received a copy of Chairman Morgan’s letter, in addition to their meeting packet. V. Announcements: A. Meeting Dates Vice-Chairman Smith announced the upcoming Regular Meetings and Public Hearings. 1. August 2013 – No Meeting 2. September 26, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. 3. October 24, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. 5. November 2013 - TBD 6. December 2013 - TBD Vice-Chairman Smith inquired regarding the re-scheduling of the ARPB meeting dates during the holiday season. He also reminded Board Members to contact Town Clerk Taylor when they will be unable to attend any ARPB meetings. ARPB - Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream July 25, 2013 – Page 2 Town Clerk Taylor responded there has been no decision made, as yet, on any date changes, and suggested that those be determined at the September 2013 hearing. Vice-Chairman Smith asked for ex-parte communication relative to the items this day. There were none. Town Clerk Taylor swore in all persons who planned to speak at this meeting: Martin O’Boyle, Richard Jones, Mark Grant, Thomas Laudani and David Bodker. VI. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by Richard Jones, as Agent for Harbour View Estates LLC, the owners of property located at 1224 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lot 5, Hidden Harbour Estates Plat 2. a. NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY PERMIT to permit the installation of landscaping and the easterly portions of privacy walls within the North Ocean Boulevard Overlay District. b. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit construction of an 8,726 square foot, partial two-story, Colonial West Indies single family dwelling with a 3-car attached garage, pool and cabana. Mr. Jones introduced himself and stated he represented Seaside Builders, as well as, Mr. Bodker and Mr. Grant. He discussed and displayed the renderings of the three (3) houses well under construction in Harbour View Estates. Mr. Jones continued that two (2) of the three (3) under construction have been sold, and one of the remaining lots has also been sold. He further reported that out of the six (6) lot subdivision, three (3) have been spoken for. Mr. Jones continued that Lot 5 is a very important lot, due to the fact that it is directly adjacent to the entry of Harbour View Estates, and it sets the tone for the entire community. He recapped that Lot 3, Lot 4 and Lot 6 have been approved and that they all have their own unique appearance; two (2) of the homes are designed in a classic Bermuda style, and Lot 6 is a Colonial West Indies style. Mr. Jones continued that all three homes meet the Town’s codes for setbacks, ratio and diversity to its neighbors. He described the differences with Lot 5’s site orientation by displaying its landscape plan. He reported another difference of the three (3) approved homes is their second floor carriage homes above the garage with full courtyards on each lot. On Lot 5’s home, the carriage home was brought down to ground level and attached to the home. Mr. Jones continued that another difference is that it implies classic symmetries with the two (2) projected wings. He reported on historical homes that have this type of classic design. Mr. Jones further detailed how the unique characteristics will blend together. He displayed the floor plans and the colors and feels that this home will be the nicest house in the community. Board Member Lyons inquired regarding the elevations. He also asked Mr. Jones to address some of Chairman Morgan’s concerns that were listed in his letter. ARPB Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream July 25, 2013 – Page 3 Mr. Jones detailed the north, south and east elevations of the home. He continued that he appreciated Chairman Morgan’s opinion, and stated that the house contradicts itself due to the wings. Mr. Jones further discussed its charm and character with the design. He repeated that Lot 5 is different and that the developer achieved their style quite nicely. Board Member Lyons commended the developer. Vice-Chairman Smith inquired regarding the two (2) story mass between the two (2) homes from scale photographs to confirm that the bedrooms were not visible from one to the other. Mr. Jones displayed and discussed the second floor layouts where there were no overlaps with the houses. He reported that his client has a lot of money at stake, and his architectural designs are the best. Vice-Chairman Smith inquired regarding the height and if the artificial fireplace on the east side of the home was for symmetry. He was concerned the smoke would enter the 2nd floor windows. Mr. Jones responded that it is a functioning fireplace, but it is approximately 15 feet away and does meet codes for clearance. Board Member Jones inquired regarding the distance between main house and garage. Mr. Jones stated approximately 27 feet or one dozen (12) steps. Vice-Chairman Smith asked if any thought was given to bringing in either one of the wings a little. Mr. Jones answered one (1) or two (2) feet would employ classic symmetries. Mr. Laudani discussed how he takes pride in his work. He continued that he took exception to Chairman Morgan’s comments in his letter and his absence from this meeting. Mr. Laudani stated that after the home is built, it will be a signature property as he is an expert developer. He requested that the design be left as drawn. Board Member Lyons discussed his impression of the wings eventually being all blended in on the home. Mr. Laudani gave an overall review of the structure and the development. Vice-Chairman Smith inquired regarding the building on the east side being a guest house. Mr. Laudani responded that it could be a guest house or a gym. Mr. Bodker completely detailed the landscape with photographs and descriptions of the plantings. He also discussed his plans on the other adjacent properties in the community. ARPB Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream July 25, 2013 – Page 4 Town Manager Thrasher requested the PDF of the drawings for Lots 3, 4 and 6. He also asked for the Condition of Approval. Town Clerk Taylor responded that she wasn’t sure regarding their roof sample being received in Town Hall. Mr. Jones displayed a sample of the gray slate-like tile. Vice-Chairman Smith inquired if the Board could, in the future, see all six (6) masses on the eventual site, so they can see where all were positioned on the property. Mr. Laudani stated that he would do a massive study for Board Members’ viewing. Vice-Chairman Smith asked for any comments from the audience. Mr. O’Boyle stated that if the Board Members heard ample testimony and feel they could make a favorable recommendation, he felt he did not have to speak at all. He addressed the letter from Chairman Morgan whom he favored very much, but questioned its contents. Town Counsel Randolph stated that it was not in violation to be distributed to Board Members. He continued that if there were comments back, that would be in violation of the Sunshine Law. Town Counsel Randolph responded that he always encourages communications like this to come to the public meeting, as opposed to appearing before the meeting. He repeated the Sunshine Law stating that no two (2) or more members of a board may communicate in regard to something. Vice-Chairman Smith asked the Board Members if any two (2) or more members communicated with anyone regarding Chairman Morgan’s letter. They all responded “No”. Mr. O’Boyle discussed Mr. Laudani’s project in the Town, and their “roller coaster” relationship. He continued that he finds the home acceptable from his experience and what the markets say. Mr. O’Boyle suggested that the Board Members have to yield to Mr. Laudani’s discretion, his taste and his experience. He commented negatively on Board Chairman Morgan’s letter. Mr. O’Boyle highly recommended Mr. Laudani’s knowledge and experience in building homes. Vice-Chairman Smith inquired if all neighbors were notified and if there were any other comments received. Town Clerk Taylor responded that all were notified and Chairman Morgan’s letter was the only one received. ARPB Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream July 25, 2013 – Page 5 Board Member Murphy moved and Board Member Lyons seconded that approval of a North Ocean Boulevard Overlay Permit based on a finding that the landscaping and easterly portion of a privacy wall, meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards be recommended. All voted AYE. Board Member Murphy moved and Board Member Lyons seconded recommendation of Level 111 Architectural/Site Plan based on a finding that the proposed partial two-story single family Colonial West Indies style dwelling, a 3-car attached garage, pool and cabana, a total of 8,726 SF meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards with the following conditions: 1. The entry feature, measured from FFE to top of railings, shall be <14’. 2. The electric service lines shall be buried. 3. A sample of the gray color roof tile to be provided for approval. 4. Any minor modifications in the landscape plan shall be submitted to the Town Manager for review and approval, and any major modifications shall be brought back to the ARPB for review and approval, prior to commencement of landscaping. 5. Wall and /or fences will be measured from the lowest abutting grade with a maximum height of 6’ including any lighting fixtures that may be attached. 6. All chain link fencing will be screened from neighbor’s view. All voted AYE. VII. ITEMS BY STAFF AND ATTORNEY: A. Proposed amendments to the Town’s Zoning Code, including Design Guidelines. Mayor Orthwein thanked everyone serving on the ARPB for all their hard work. She discussed how the Town should rethink the codes and expand changes to them. Mayor Orthwein stated that the world is changing and how we have to also. She also mentioned flexibility and going forward in regards to the building codes. Mayor Orthwein commented how she liked the new homes in Town. Vice-Chairman Smith agreed and stated that he would like to see other residents on the ARPB, as alternates, to get their ideas. Mayor Orthwein responded that the search for more ARPB members has been on the Town’s website for a long time with no responses. She continued that any interested party has to write a letter to the Town or attend a Commission Meeting and show their interest in becoming an alternate ARPB member. VIII. ITEMS BY BOARD MEMBERS: Alternate Board Member Delafield inquired regarding a power point presentation for better audience viewing of visuals with regard to site plan approvals, at a Commission or Board Meeting. Board Member Lyons commended the idea of having a committee to update codes and he suggested possibly a developer being on the committee which may have the process work even better. ARPB Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream July 25, 2013 – Page 6 Mayor Orthwein agreed with the developer being involved as they have helped the Town’s property values go up, and put their investment in the Town. Town Counsel Randolph stated if the Board Members agree with Mayor Orthwein, they should make a recommendation to the Commission that they appoint a committee to look into the issues that she has raised, e.g., how the codes can become more user friendly, try to prevent a “cookie cutter” look in the Town, and to make more versatility in Town also. He admitted it’s going to be a big job for a committee to take on because they would have to start from scratch, e.g., is a design manual the way to go which was utilized in the past, and which did not allow flexibility and versatility. He reminded Board Members how there were problems that came up these past couple of years with regard to colors, metal roofs, etc. Mayor Orthwein stated she would take suggestions and would consider Mr. Laudani and other developers. Board Member Lyons moved and Alternate Board Member Delafield seconded to recommend the Town Commission appoint a special committee to review comprehensively the codes and regulations to provide a little more flexibility to meet today’s concerns. All voted AYE. Town Counsel Randolph stated that motion will take care of the substantive portion of it. He suggested also that the Board pass on to the Commission to add three (3) words to real estate signs “and political signs”. Vice-Chairman Smith commented on the importance of uniformity of exterior wall colors on all structures on a property. Board Member Lyons inquired on accent colors and trims. Town Counsel Randolph explained that both the color codes and sign codes can be looked at also by this new committee, and if need be, the color codes may even be done away with completely. Vice-Chairman Smith asked if these changes are intended to be recommended for adoption in the meantime and the answer was, yes. He then asked for feedback from the Board members. Board Member Murphy commented on the black and white colors on the signs at the present time. Board Member Delafield asked the status of the new traffic signs and was advised that an order would soon be placed. Town Clerk Taylor inquired if these new issues needed to be read into the record. Town Counsel Randolph responded “No” and that it should just be recommended that the Commission give consideration to them and to include ordinance amendments to adopt them. ARPB Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream July 25, 2013 – Page 7 In response to Vice-Chairman Smith’s request for public comment on these issues, Mr. O’Boyle stated he emphatically concurs with Mayor Orthwein and Town Counsel Randolph’s statements. He also wanted confirmation that political signs no longer require review. Town Counsel Randolph stated there is no review required for political signs. Board Member Murphy moved and Board Member Lyons seconded that it be recommended to the Town Commission that in the interim, consideration, and possibly amendments, be made to the sign code and the section of the code relating to “color” as suggested by Attorney Randolph in his letter to the ARPB. All voted AYE. IX. PUBLIC: Mr. O’Boyle discussed his home’s rear elevation issues. Town Counsel Randolph stated that these are an attempt at a clarification of what was intended by the code, “having uniformity of the colors”. He continued that by doing this he was not trying to usurp the work of this committee, which could look at what Mr. O’Boyle suggested. Town Counsel Randolph stated that it was done to clarify the code at present and have uniformity of color on all walls. He continued that maybe this new committee can come up with a suggestion for Mr. O’Boyle. Mr. O’Boyle stated that there are a lot of conflicts in the code. He related his efforts with metal roofs. A discussion ensued regarding the colors of the home discussed earlier at this meeting. X. ADJOURNMENT: Vice-Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting at 9:40 A.M. ___________________ Sandra Fein Recording Secretary TOWN OF GULF STREAM ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING REPORT Application *: 013-14 Address: 1275 North Ocean Blvd. Proposed Improvement: Approvals Requested: Owner: 1275 NOB, LLC Agent: Dave Bodker, Landscape Architect Install privacy gate, columns, walls, aluminum picket fencing and landscape.. N. Ocean Boulevard Overlay Permit: To permit the installation of a privacy gate, columns, walls, aluminum picket fencing and landscape to an existing beach access. Level II Architectural/Site Plan: To permit the installation of a privacy gate, columns, walls, aluminum picket fencing and landscape to an existing beach access. Issues Considered During Review: Article VII. North Ocean Boulevard Overlay District Motion to approve a North Ocean Boulevard Overlay Permit to install a privacy gate, columns, walls, aluminum picket fencing and landscaping at the existing beach access. Motion to recommend approval Level II Architectural/Site Plan based on a finding that the proposed privacy gate, columns, walls, aluminum picket fencing and landscaping at the existing beach access meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards. ARPB Date: September 26, 2013 Action: North Ocean Boulevard Overlay Permit: Approved as requested. (4-0) Level Il Architectural/Site Plan: Approved as Requested. (4-0) October 17, 2013 CHAIRMAN: Scott Morgan VICE CHAIRMAN: Thomas Smith BOARD MEMBER: Paul A. Lyons, Jr. Amanda Jones Malcolm Murphy ALTERNATE MEMBER: George Delafield, Jr. Robert Dockerty REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. AGENDA I. Call to Order. II. Roll Call. III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 9-26-13. IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. V. Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. November 21, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. b. December 19, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. c. January 23, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. d. February 27, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. e. March 27, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. VI. PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by Jose Gonzalez, Gonzalez Architects as agent for Dennis & Lanore McDonagh owners of property located at 530 Middle Rd., Gulf Stream, Florida legally described as Lt. 18 and 50 Ft. of Lt. 17, Gulf Stream Cove Subdivision for the following: DEMOLITION PERMIT to demolish existing pool, screen enclosure and all windows. LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit construction of a new pool, glass patio canopy, new front entry porch, and installation of impact resistant windows to the existing one-story single family home, and with some new landscaping being included. VII. Items by Staff. VIII. Items by Board Members. IX. Public. X. Adjournment. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA, ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2013, AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I. Call to Order: Chairman Morgan called the meeting to order at 8:35 A.M. II. Roll Call: Present and Scott Morgan Chairman Participating Thomas Smith Vice-Chairman Paul A. Lyons, Jr. Board Member Malcolm Murphy Board Member Absent w/Notice Amanda Jones Board Member Absent w/Notice George Delafield Alternate Member Also Present and William H. Thrasher Town Manager Participating Rita L. Taylor Town Clerk John C. Randolph Town Counsel Richard Jones Architect Thomas Laudani Developer David Bodker Landscape Architect Billy Himmelrich Resident Carlos Linares Architect Maureen Smith Landscape Architect Katareyna Meleda Property Representative III. Minutes: A. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing held on May 23, 2013 B. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing held on July 25, 2013 Chairperson Morgan reported that at both meetings Board Member Murphy and Alternate Member Delafield were absent with notice. Board Member Murphy moved and Board Member Lyons seconded the approval of the amended minutes of May 23, 2013 and July 25, 2013. All voted AYE. IV. Additions, Withdrawals, Deferrals, Arrangement of Agenda Items: There were none. V. Announcements: A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Chairman Morgan held a discussion amongst the Board Members regarding the holiday season meeting dates. ARPB - Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream September 26, 2013 – Page 2 Chairman Morgan announced the following approved ARPB meeting dates: a. October 24, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. b. November 21, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. c. December 19, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. d. January 23, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. e. February 27, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. f. March 27, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. Chairman Morgan asked for ex-parte and there was none. He also asked for any persons speaking at this meeting to be sworn in. Town Clerk Taylor swore in David Bodker, Billy Himmelrich, Carlos Linares, Maureen Smith and Katareyna Meleda. VI. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by Dave Bodker, Landscape Architect as agent for 1275 North Ocean Blvd., LLC, owners of property located at 1275 North Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Palm Beach Shore Acres Rev. Pl. Blks. D & E, S 50 ft. of Lt. 6 & Lt. 7 Blk. D a. NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY PERMIT to install privacy gate, columns, walls, aluminum picket fencing and landscaping at the existing beach access. b. LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the installation of a privacy gate, columns, walls, aluminum picket fencing and landscaping to an existing beach access. Mr. Bodker introduced himself and stated he was representing Seaside Builders, with regard to the beach access easement at 1275 North Ocean Blvd. He described the existing conditions and displayed, while discussing, the design that he was presenting. Mr. Bodker reported in detail the landscaping features with the two (2) 3-foot aluminum gates that would be installed. He continued that the path would be sand, as it is at present. Mr. Bodker stated that he has been in contact with the next door neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Knobel, conveyed the plans to them, did a walk through with them, and there were no problems with them. He discussed and displayed the colors being used for the columns and walls. Mr. Bodker reported that the property is 25-26 feet from the edge of A1A. Chairman Morgan stated he liked the idea of both gates. Board Member Lyons inquired regarding the beach access. Mr. Bodker stated that there were fifteen (15) homes that had access to this area. ARPB Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream September 26, 2013 – Page 3 Mr. Himmelrich, a resident at 1304 North Ocean Boulevard for fifteen (15) years introduced himself. He reported that he has a copy of the deed and stated that everyone in that area should have a recorded deed. Mr. Himmelrich continued that anyone that does not have a recorded deed should not be able to use the beach access. Mr. Himmelrich stated that he has paid landscapers over the years to maintain the beach access area. He offered his help with any beach access issues, and that he is in favor of this project. Chairman Morgan stated that this project will be an improvement to the area. Board Member Murphy moved and Vice-Chairman Smith seconded to approve the North Ocean Boulevard Overlay Permit for the installation of a privacy gate, columns, walls, aluminum picket fencing and landscaping at the existing beach access. All vote AYE. Board Member Murphy moved and Vice-Chairman Smith seconded to approve the Level 2 Architectural/Site Plan Review to permit the installation of a privacy gate, columns, walls, aluminum picket fencing and landscaping of the existing beach access which meets the minimum intent of the design manual. All vote AYE. 2. An Application submitted by Randall Stofft Architects as agent for Kevin & Michelle Clark owners of property located at 3250 Polo Drive, Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lot 13 and part of Lot 14, Polo Cove Subdivision for the following: a. DEMOLITION PERMIT to demolish existing structures. b. LAND CLEARING PERMIT to clear site for new construction. c. SPECIAL EXCEPTION #1 to allow 236 square feet of covered, unenclosed area that exceeds the maximum Floor Area Ratio. d. SPECIAL EXCEPTION #2 to permit rear waterfront setback of 30’. e. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit construction of a Bermuda style, partial 2-story, single-family dwelling with attached garage, pool and pavilion, a total of 7,552 square feet. Mr. Linares, Randall Stofft Architects, introduced himself and described and displayed the rendering of the partial 2-story Bermuda Style home. He stated that the home has the proper setbacks. Mr. Linares reported that the home has 6,000 square feet under A/C, and a total of 7,552 square feet. He continued that the height limitations were met. Maureen Smith, Landscape Architect, Delray Beach described the buffering from the neighbors of the home. She continued that she utilized a great deal of native materials. Ms. Smith highlighted in detail the landscaping from the renderings. She discussed the privacy hedge which is very maintainable, and the other manicured and clipped vegetation. Ms. Smith reported that it will be a very nice Palm Beach, Florida landscape. Chairman Morgan inquired if there were any comments received from the neighbors and Town Clerk Taylor advised there had been no comments. ARPB Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream September 26, 2013 – Page 4 Board Member Lyons stated that the neighbors were not in Town, and questioned the procedure of informing them of this project. Town Clerk Taylor responded that there was a mailing sent to the neighbors at their address listed on their tax bill. Katareyna Meleda stated she represents the neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Hagen, at 3232 Polo Drive, and their concern is regarding the privacy on the south side of their property. She continued that Mr. and Mrs. Hagen will be returning to Town the beginning of November, and spend only 3-4 months in Town. Ms. Meleda also inquired regarding when construction will begin and how long it would take to complete. Ms. Smith reported that no privacy would be taken away from what is there now. Chairman Morgan discussed the importance of privacy and how all property owners request that. Board Member Lyons inquired about outdoor lighting plans for this home. Mr. Linares responded that at this time there are no outdoor-landscape lighting plans, but that he will make a proposal at a later date. He continued that there are two (2) sconces at the front entry of the house, and on the each side of the garage. Vice-Chairman Smith inquired regarding the location of the pool pavilion bathrooms stating he had two (2) different site-plans. Mr. Linares reported that the #A101 is the correct one, and that #A102 is not valid any longer. Vice-Chairman Smith inquired regarding the air-flow of the pavilion. Mr. Linares stated that the pavilion will be connected to a small trellis, not a large feature, but rather a garden feature to create a bridge effect between the house and the pavilion, and the structure is open to allow the free flow of the air. Chairman Morgan inquired if the color of the home would be white. Mr. Linares responded that it would be a very light color, possibly on a white tone. Chairman Morgan also asked the type of roof. Mr. Linares replied that it will be a flat-tile roof, probably grey, and when he is able to obtain roof samples, he will present his proposal to the Town. Chairman Morgan asked for any further comments or questions. ARPB Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream September 26, 2013 – Page 5 Town Manager Thrasher pointed out that there was a typo under Level 3 on the Staff Report stating “a total of 7,557 square feet”. He continued that it should read 7,552 square feet. and also stated that all landscaping must be located on private property. Chairman Morgan stated that when Mr. Linares comes before Staff, they would handle those things and have everything spelled out. Town Manager Thrasher repeated that he was concerned that all the plantings and landscaping (not grass), in the front of the home, were on private property, not in the right of way. Vice-Chairman Smith inquired regarding the setbacks. Town Manager Thrasher reported in the core district, Code Section 70-75 allows for a special exception to reduce the rear waterfront setback from 50 ft. to 30 ft. He stated that in his review all code standards have been met. Vice-Chairman Smith inquired if there is a similar structure there at the present time. Mr. Linares stated there were two (2) one-story detached homes on the location. Chairman Morgan asked for any further questions. There were none. Vice-Chairman Smith moved and Board Member Murphy seconded to approve a DEMOLITION PERMIT to demolish the existing structures. All voted AYE. Vice-Chairman Smith moved and Board Member Murphy seconded to approve a LAND CLEARING PERMIT to clear the site for new construction. All voted AYE. Vice-Chairman Smith moved and Board Member Murphy seconded to approve SPECIAL EXCEPTION #1 to allow 236 square feet of covered, unenclosed area that exceeds the maximum Floor Area Ratio. All voted AYE. Vice-Chairman Smith moved and Board Member Murphy seconded to approve SPECIAL EXCEPTION #2 to permit rear waterfront setback of 30 ft. All voted AYE. Vice-Chairman Smith moved and Board Member Murphy seconded to approve a LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit construction of a Bermuda style, partial 2-story, single-family dwelling with attached garage, pool and pavilion, a total of 7,552 square feet with the following conditions: (1) All boat lift ancillary fixtures shall conform to Section 66-369 of the Town of Gulf Stream Code (2) Utilities shall be underground (3) Outdoor lighting color selections and roof materials shall be presented for approval prior to completion of the approval process and (4) Landscaping in front shall all be installed on private property, not in the right of way. All voted AYE. ARPB Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream September 26, 2013 – Page 6 VII. ITEMS BY STAFF: Town Manager Thrasher updated the progress of the Town’s undergrounding project. He advised surveying the locations for the transformers and the staking of the sites is starting. Town Manager Thrasher reported that Place Au Soleil is being included in upgrading of the street signs. He reported that the custom lighting on AlA has been eliminated in favor of replacing the existing poles with smaller poles with the Cobra fixtures in place of the Viper fixtures. This change resulted in a savings of $300,000. He continued that there will be no overhead lines once the project has been completed. Board Member Lyons inquired when the ground breaking will take place at the south end of Town. Town Manager Thrasher reported optimistically the surveyors will be putting in at least one (1) stake on September 30th. Board Member Lyons questioned if there would be any increase costs in this project with further delays. Town Manager Thrasher stated he did not expect that to be the case. VIII. ITEMS BY BOARD MEMBERS: Vice-Chairman Smith inquired when restrictions on building activities are in effect. Town Manager Thrasher stated certain construction activities are restricted beginning on December 1, 2013 but that temporary exemptions for certain activities can be given. Chairman Morgan inquired where the restricted activities information was listed in the Town’s Code. Town Manager Thrasher responded either in Section 22 or 41. Town Clerk Taylor stated “In the Nuisance Section”. Chairman Morgan asked what action has been taken with regard to Code clarification and modification. Town Counsel Randolph reported that there were no changes made at this time. He continued that at the next Commission Meeting there will be a finalization of appointments for the Ad Hoc Committee. Town Counsel Randolph stated then this Committee will begin studying the code, prior to making their suggestions, which could take some time, possibly months, or longer. IX. PUBLIC: There were none. ARPB Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream September 26, 2013 – Page 7 X. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Morgan adjourned the meeting at 9:15 A.M. _____________________ Sandra Fein Recording Secretary November 14, 2013 CHAIRMAN: Scott Morgan VICE CHAIRMAN: Thomas Smith BOARD MEMBER: Paul A. Lyons, Jr. Amanda Jones Malcolm Murphy ALTERNATE MEMBER: Robert Dockerty E. Hewlett Kent REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2013 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. AGENDA I. Call to Order. II. Roll Call. III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 10-24-13. IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. V. Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. December 19, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. b. January 23, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. c. February 27, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. d. March 27, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. e. April 24, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. f. May 22, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. VI. PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by Seaside Builders, as Agent for Harbor View Estates, LLC, the owners of property located at 1228 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as Lot 1 Hidden Harbour Estates Plat 2. a. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit construction of a Georgian style partial two-story, single family dwelling, 3 car garage with guest quarters above, a total of 10,222 square feet, and a swimming pool. VII. Items by Staff. VIII. Items by Board Members. IX. Public. X. Adjournment. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA, ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2013, AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I. Call to Order: Chairman Morgan called the meeting to order at 8:30 A.M. II. Roll Call: Present and Scott Morgan Chairman Participating George Delafield Alternate Board Member Robert Dockerty Alternate Board Member Absent w/Notice Thomas Smith Vice-Chairman Absent w/Notice Amanda Jones Board Member Absent w/o Notice Paul A. Lyons Board Member Absent w/o Notice Malcolm Murphy Board Member Also Present and William H. Thrasher Town Manager Participating Rita L. Taylor Town Clerk John C. Randolph Town Counsel Jose Gonzalez Gonzalez Architects Christopher O’Hare Resident Chairmen Morgan welcomed Robert Dockerty, as the newest Alternate Board Member. III. Minutes: A. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing held on September 26, 2013 Alternate Board Member Delafield moved and Alternative Board Member Dockerty seconded to approve the September 26, 2013 Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing held by the Architectural Review Board. All voted AYE. IV. Additions, Withdrawals, Deferrals, Arrangement of Agenda Items: There were none. V. Announcements: A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Dates Chairman Morgan announced the following approved ARPB meeting dates: a. November 21, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. b. December 19, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. c. January 23, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. d. February 27, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. e. March 27, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. Chairman Morgan asked for any ex-parte communications, and there were none. He also requested that any persons speaking at this meeting be sworn in. ARPB - Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream October 24, 2013 – Page 2 Town Clerk Taylor swore in Jose Gonzalez and Christopher O’Hare. VI. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by Jose Gonzalez, Gonzalez Architects as agent for Dennis & Lanore McDonagh owners of property located at 530 Middle Rd., Gulf Stream, Florida legally described as Lt. 18 and 50 Ft. of Lt. 17, Gulf Stream Cove Subdivision for the following: DEMOLITION PERMIT to demolish existing pool, screen enclosure and all windows. LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit construction of a new pool, glass patio canopy, new front entry porch, and installation of impact resistant windows to the existing one-story single family home, and with some new landscaping being included. Mr. Gonzalez introduced himself stating he was representing Dennis and Lanore McDonagh owners of 530 Middle Rd., Gulf Stream, Florida. He displayed photographs and reported that the house is relatively a non- descript home built in the early 1960’s. Mr. Gonzalez described the roof as a Bermuda-style roof with a combination of stucco and board and batten siding on it. He stated that the house was somewhat of a paradox, designed with a ranch style in the front and the back with a more modern bunch of angles. Mr. Gonzalez continued describing the cornered windows of the home which is actual glass. He discussed the bizarre screen enclosure around the kidney-shaped pool which is on the end of the canal. Mr. Gonzalez stated that he wanted to modernize the house and enhance the great views in the rear of the home. He continued that the owners wanted to give the home more presence and curb appeal. Mr. Gonzalez presented the new renderings and plans. He compared the openness of the new home compared to the older rendition. Mr. Gonzalez discussed the present “mishmash Grandma’s” front garden, and presented the noble appeal he was going to give it with the circular driveway behind it. He continued stating that the original bizarre detail of the home would be removed, by making it all stucco. Mr. Gonzalez further reported that the entrance would be a lot clearer, and more appropriate with the style of the home. He discussed and presented renderings of the complete openness of the back of the house. Mr. Gonzalez continued that he utilized all the original openings of the house, adding the muntins to complying with the Town’s Code. He again discussed the importance of the wonderful view from the rear of the home. Mr. Gonzalez explained the benefit of the loggia with regard with both shade and sunlight. He also stated that all the windows comply with the Town’s Code. He pointed out that the canopy over the patio is glass with the middle layer being treated so as to block some of the sun’s rays but not the light. Chairman Morgan stated that this is a vast improvement, and a very nice rendition of the house. He also inquired if there were any inquiries from the neighbors. Town Clerk Taylor responded “None”. Alternate Board Member Delafield inquired regarding the distance of the loggia glass. ARPB Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream October 24, 2013 – Page 3 Mr. Gonzalez demonstrated the distance of the loggia on his renderings. He pointed out that that it is all open and no screening. Mr. Gonzalez stated that there will be no plantings at all. He also commented that this home was almost a “schizophrenic” kind of home, due to the use of the stucco and board and batten. Alternate Board Member Delafield inquired whether the bricks on the house are to be removed. Mr. Gonzalez responded “Yes” referring to his renderings stating “The brick work was a silly accent”. He continued that the previous architect was having a different day in the front of the house than in the back. Mr. Gonzalez did state that the driveway bricks will remain. Chairman Morgan commended Mr. Gonzalez on his presentation. He stated it was very well done, and that it was why there were few questions. Alternate Board Member Delafield moved and Alternate Board Member Dockerty seconded to approve the Demolition Permit to remove existing pool, screen enclosure and all windows. All voted AYE. Alternate Board Member Delafield moved and Alternate Board Member Dockerty seconded to approve Level II Architectural/Site Plan based on a finding that the proposed demolition and construction of a new pool, glass patio canopy, new front entry porch, and installation of impact resistant windows to the existing one-story single family home, with some new landscaping being included meeting the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards with the following conditions: 1. Service line shall be buried if they are not already. 2. Any work on the seawall, seawall cap, existing boat lift and existing dock shall conform to Section 66-369 Docks. 3. Driveway removal agreement shall be signed for recording prior to permitting All vote AYE. VII. ITEMS BY STAFF: Town Manager Thrasher reported that the street signs’ installation has been postponed until Tuesday, October 29th. VIII. ITEMS BY BOARD MEMBERS: There were none. IX. PUBLIC: Mr. O’Hare stated that he had enjoyed and had been happy living in the above-named house. X. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Morgan adjourned the meeting at 8:49 A.M. ARPB Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream October 24, 2013 – Page 4 _______________________ Sandra Fein Recording Secretary January 19. 2012 CHAIRMAN: Robert Ganger VICE CHAIRMAN: Scott Morgan BOARD MEMBER: Paul A. Lyons, Jr. Thomas Smith Malcolm Murphy ALTERNATE MEMBER: Amanda Jones Thomas M. Stanley REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. AGENDA I. Call to Order. II. Roll Call. III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing 12-22-11. IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. V. Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. February 23, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. b. March 22, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. c. April 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. d. May 24, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. e. June 28, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. f. July 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. VI. PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by Mark Marsh, Bridges Marsh & Associates, as Agent for Mr. & Mrs. Curtiss Roach, the owners of property located at 3560 Gulf Stream Road, Gulf Stream, Florida, 33483, which is legally described as Lot 3, Block 2, Polo Fields. a.SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS to permit two, one-story additions to the existing one-story Gulf Stream Bermuda style single family dwelling, each of which would encroach 2.3 feet into the north side setback, and also to permit a single story addition to the same dwelling that would encroach 2.8 feet into the south side setback. b.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the construction of three one-story additions, 809 square feet, to the existing one-story Gulf Stream Bermuda style single family dwelling with two of the additions encroaching 2.3 feet into the north side setback and one addition encroaching 2.8 feet into the south side setback, and to permit the reconfiguration of the driveway. VII. Items Related to Previous Approvals. A. Revision of an approved renovation at 554 Palm Way submitted by Mark Marsh as Agent for Mr. & Mrs. James Davis to permit the elimination of a 2-story garage with storage/guest room and the addition of a second story above the existing garage for storage/guest room. AGENDA CONTINUED VIII. Items by Staff. A. Proposed Zoning Code Changes 1. Section 70-238, Roofs 2. Section 70-100, Roof & Eave Heights 3. Section 70-51, Minor Accessory Structures 4. Section 66-367, Swimming Pools 5. Section 66-369, Docks 6. Section 66-1, Definitions 7. Section 70-7l, Floor Area Ratio 8. Section 70-68, Lot Size & Dimensional Requirements 9. Section 70-4, How To Use This Manual IX. Items by Board Members. X. Public. XI. Adjournment. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 22, 2011 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I.Call to Order. Chairman Ganger called the Meeting to order at 8:30 A.M. II.Roll Call. Present and Robert W. Ganger Chairman Participating Scott Morgan Vice-Chairman Thomas Smith Board Member Malcolm Murphy Board Member Thomas M. Stanley Alternate Member Amanda Jones Alternate Member Absent w/Notice Paul Lyons, Jr. Board Member Also Present and William H. Thrasher Town Manager Participating Rita L. Taylor Town Clerk John Randolph Town Attorney Hassan Tajalli of Ames Agent for McCrady Architectural Design William Allis 3883 Bermuda Lane #6 Tom Laudani of Seaside Agent for Arscott & Builders Harbor View Estates Marty Minor of Urban Town Consultant Design Kilday Studios III.Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 11-17-11. Mr. Smith moved and Vice-Chairman Morgan seconded to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of November 17, 2011. There was no discussion.Roll Call: Mr. Stanley, AYE; Vice-Chairman Morgan, AYE; Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Chairman Ganger, AYE. The motion passed 5 – 0. IV.Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. There were no changes to the Agenda. V.Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. January 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. b. February 23, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. c. March 22, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. d. April 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. e. May 24, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. f. June 28, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. There were no conflicts with meeting schedule. Chairman Ganger asked Clerk Taylor if any applications have been submitted for the January 26th Public Hearing. Clerk Taylor said there were no applications at this time. Chairman Ganger announced that he would request declarations of ex-parte communication prior to each matter for public hearing. He asked if Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – December 22, 2011 Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 2 there has been ex-parte communication concerning the application by Hassan Tajalli for Mr. and Mrs. McCrady. Chairman Ganger stated that he only drove by the property. There were no additional declarations of ex-parte communication. Clerk Taylor administered the Oath to Hassan Tajalli, William Allis, Tom Laudani and Marty Minor. VI.PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by Caroline Rudolf or Hassan Tajalli as agent for Mr.& Mrs. William McCrady, owners of the property located at 3883 Bermuda Lane, Apt. 8, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as Bermuda Club of Gulf Stream Condo #8, to consider the following: a.VARIANCE to permit the addition of outside emergency stairs attached to the south end of the existing building that will encroach three feet (3’) into the required fifteen foot (15’) setback. b.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the addition of aluminum emergency stairs attached to the south end of the existing building which would encroach approximately 3’ into the required setback. Mr. Tajalli introduced himself and stated that he represents Mr. and Mrs. McCrady in this matter. He said the McCradys feel that, in the event of an emergency, they may not be able to safely exit their unit and are requesting a variance to add outside emergency stairs to be bolted to the south end of the existing building. Mr. Tajalli said the emergency stairs will be accessed from their master bedroom through a window which will be converted to a swing-out, lockable door and will match the main entry door. Mr. Tajalli stated that a neighbor reviewed the initial drawings which indicated a protrusion of almost 4’ past the edge of the building and he was concerned that the protrusion would impact his privacy and property value. He explained that there was enough space to push the stairs back so that they now clear the corner of the building and the only extension is to the south, which is heavily vegetated and has the least amount of traffic. Mr. Tajalli said the stairs will not be obtrusive to the landscaping; however, they may have to cut out a portion of the sodded area and replace it with concrete pads in order to bolt down the stairs. Mr. Smith asked about the existing storage units. Mr. Tajalli said the shed area will be removed and totally eliminated. Chairman Ganger asked about the construction timeframe, including the construction to convert the window to a door. Mr. Tajalli said it would be about two days. Mr. Tajalli asked that the Board consider the age and health of the occupants and explained that Mrs. McCrady has health issues, she recently had hip surgery and she suffers from anxiety. Vice-Chairman Morgan said this is a variance to the Code and in order to qualify for a variance the applicant must meet all eight (8) hardships. He said the Town Manager Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – December 22, 2011 Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 3 believes this application does not appear to comply with five (5) code sections. Vice-Chairman Morgan said he believes there are three (3) sections that are not proven and that there is nothing unique or different from others where they are suffering some sort of disadvantage by the original design of the building. Mr. Randolph said that hardship runs with the land and not the individual. Chairman Ganger asked Clerk Taylor if there were any comments from neighbors. Clerk Taylor said that Mr. Allis, who is present at this hearing, stopped by Town Hall to review the drawings and had some objections. Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Tajalli if he thought others in the building would come forward with the same request if this were approved and Mr. Tajalli said it is possible. Mr. Smith asked if the Condo Association had addressed this matter. Mr. Tajalli said Mrs. McCrady gave him a letter of authorization from the Association. Mr. Stanley said if the Town approves this application the Condo Association still has the right to reject it. He asked Mr. Tajalli if they discussed moving the stairs. Mr. Tajalli said they want them in the proposed location because the only window is in the master bedroom. Chairman Ganger asked how they would currently exit their unit in an emergency. Mr. Tajalli explained that the only door exits from the kitchen area onto a catwalk and then down a stair case to the sidewalk. Mr. William Allis introduced himself saying he resides in Unit #6 which is just below the McCradys in Unit #8. He said he just learned of this construction a week ago and it was unacceptable as it was first presented because he felt it would intrude on his privacy and lower his property value. Mr. Allis also stated that he is on the Association Board and he said it was mentioned that this is what the McCradys were asking for, but the Board has not specifically voted on this. He said his concerns have been resolved and he no longer objects, but he was looking for information because he believes there is a pipe in that location which cannot be found. Chairman Ganger asked Clerk Taylor if there was a survey issue and Clerk Taylor said she asked the architect for a new survey and they had one done just for that corner. Mr. Thrasher stated that his report stands as submitted and that his recommendation is for the Board to recommend denial of the request for a variance in that a hardship has not been proven on items 1, 2, 4, 7 & 8. Mr. Smith moved and Vice-Chairman Morgan seconded to recommend denial of a variance to permit the addition of outside emergency stairs attached to the south end of the existing building that will encroach three feet into the required fifteen foot setback based on the finding that required variance standards 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 are not met. There was no discussion. Roll Call: Mr. Stanley, AYE; Vice-Chairman Morgan, AYE; Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Chairman Ganger, AYE. The motion passed 5 – 0.Mr. Smith moved and Vice-Chairman Morgan seconded to recommend denial of a Level III Architectural/Site Plan to permit the addition of aluminum emergency stairs attached to the south end of the existing building which will encroach approximately 3’ into the required setback based on the finding that the required variance standards 1, 3, 4, 7 and 8 are not Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – December 22, 2011 Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 4 met. There was no discussion. Roll Call: Mr. Stanley, AYE; Vice- Chairman Morgan, AYE; Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Chairman Ganger, AYE. The motion passed 5 – 0. Clerk Taylor stated that the Town Commission will hear this application at their Regular Meeting and Public Hearing which is scheduled for Friday, January 13, 2012 at 9:00 A.M. 2. An application submitted by Seaside Builders, Tom Laudani, as agent for John Arscott, owner of property located at 582 Palm Way, Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lots 24 and 23A Polo Cove Subdivision, Gulf Stream, Florida. a.SIGN REVIEW to permit installation of a contractors sign, Seaside Builders, at the above address that shall not exceed 2 square feet in size and be white background with black lettering. Chairman Ganger asked for declaration of ex-parte communication. There were no declarations. Tom Laudani of Seaside Builders introduced himself and explained that he is requesting a standard contractors sign at 582 Palm Way which will be 2 SF in size and will conform to Town Code.Vice-Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to approve a sign permit for erection of a contractors sign based on a finding that the proposed sign meets the requirements of Code Section 66-447, subject to a maximum height of 4’ and maximum 2 SF sign size. There was no discussion.Roll Call: Mr. Stanley, AYE; Vice-Chairman Morgan, AYE; Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Chairman Ganger, AYE. The motion passed 5 – 0. 3. An application submitted by Seaside Builders, Tom Laudani, as agent for Harbor View Estates, owner of property located at 1220 North Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lots 4, 5 & N. 96’ of 6, Golf Course Addition, Gulf Stream, Florida a.SIGN REVIEW to permit installation of a contractors sign, Seaside Builders, at the above address that shall not exceed 2 square feet in size and be white background with black lettering. Chairman Ganger asked for declaration of ex-parte communication. There were no declarations. Mr. Laudani explained that he is requesting a standard contractors sign at 1220 N. Ocean Blvd. which will be 2 SF in size and will conform to Town Code. Vice-Chairman Morgan asked if there is any construction going on at this point. Mr. Laudani said the gates are up, they are working to stabilize the site and the property has been seeded. He said road construction is expected to begin within the next six weeks. Mr. Laudani said the sign will identify the site and will indicate Seaside as the exclusive builder. He said the sign will remain through the completion of construction, including the construction of homes. Mr. Laudani said realtors will have individual signs which will be separate from the contractors sign. Vice-Chairman Morgan commented that several vehicles have been parked there. Mr. Laudani said he was aware of that, but they are not associated with Seaside Builders. He said no work vehicles will be Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – December 22, 2011 Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 5 parked there until such time as the hammerhead construction begins. Chairman Ganger asked Clerk Taylor if the Town has received the drawings and architectural history which was previously requested by the ARPB. Clerk Taylor confirmed that it has been received. Mr. Thrasher asked Mr. Laudani if they will be doing any irrigation. Mr. Laudani said he realizes there have been complaints about the dusty conditions due to the seed being folded into the top soil and he assured the Board that watering would begin no later than Tuesday, December 27th. Mr. Thrasher said sooner would be best. Vice-Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to approve a sign permit for erection of a contractors sign based on a finding that the proposed sign meets the requirements of Code Section 66-447, subject to a maximum height of 4 feet and a maximum 2 SF sign size. There was no discussion.Roll Call: Mr. Stanley, AYE; Vice-Chairman Morgan, AYE; Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Chairman Ganger, AYE. The motion passed 5 – 0. VII. Items by Staff. A. Recommended Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1. Future Land Use Element 2. Transportation Element 3. Housing Element 4. Infrastructure Element a. Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element b. Solid Waste Sub-Element c. Drainage & Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub- Element d. Potable Water Sub-Element 5. Coastal Management Element 6. Conservation Element 7. Recreation & Open Space Element 8. Intergovernmental Coordination Element 9. Capital Improvement Element Marty Minor of Urban Design Kilday Studios prepared a Summary of Amendments to the Town of Gulf Stream Comp Plan which was distributed to the ARPB Members in their meeting packet. He said the Town Commission reviewed the proposed amendments to the Comp Plan and Zoning Code at their December meeting and their direction was to move forward and present the proposed amendments to the Architectural Review and Planning Board (ARPB). Mr. Minor explained that the ARPB will make their recommendations to the Local Planning Agency (LPA). The LPA will decide whether to send the amendments to the State and other required agencies, such as the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and Palm Beach County. The agencies will have 30 days to review the amendments and make comments and then it will come back to the Town. The Town Commission will then make the decision to either adopt or deny the amendments. Mr. Minor said the annexation of 16.6 acres created changing conditions within the Town and, in addition, the State Legislature has made massive changes to their growth management plan. He said the University of Florida (BEBR) estimates that 98 permanent residents live within the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – December 22, 2011 Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 6 annexed area, which includes 102 existing dwelling units, 34 approved but not yet built units, and less than an acre of vacant land. The annexed area currently has a future land use designation of Palm Beach County HR-12 (High Residential-12) which allows 12 units per acre. Mr. Minor said the recommendation is to change that to the Town’s current future land use of MF (Multi-Family), which allows 5.7 units per acre and is consistent with other multi-families within the Town. He said no commercial or industrial future land uses exist or are projected for Gulf Stream and that the Town of Gulf Stream is essentially built-out and will experience only minor fluctuations in populations. Mr. Minor said the Level of Service for the provision of recreation facilities, private and public, will be revised from 0.23 acre per person to 0.1 acre per person, noting that the general standard is 5 acres of recreation per 1000 residents. Chairman Ganger asked if the general standard differentiates between recreational areas which are open to the public versus those that are private. Mr. Minor said it does differential and he stated that one of the options provided through growth management legislation is to be able to review and incorporate this information into the Comp Plan. He said someone could convert a recreational facility into something else without affecting the level of service, but if they did so at the present time they would have to amend the Town’s Comp Plan to address that type of provision of recreational services. Chairman Ganger said he was not sure that the Comp Plan should contemplate population growth. He said Gulf Stream does not want to grow and the reason the Town decided to annex the 16.6 acres of unincorporated Palm Beach County was to prevent that area from overgrowth. Mr. Minor pointed out some additional items saying that during the summer the State Legislature made concurrency optional. He said none of the local governments took that option, they are still part of the concurrency system and the Town is taking this opportunity to strengthen their concurrency management system within its Comp Plan. With regard to non-conforming densities, Mr. Minor said there are densities ranging from 8 units to 16.5 units per acre within the annexed area and the Town’s density is 5.7 units per acre. He said there is a clause in the Comp Plan that if an entire building was destroyed due to a hurricane or an act of God they can rebuild as is. In addition, he said throughout the Comp Plan some of the time frames have been eliminated, such as those associated with certain actions or studies for situations involving historic preservation or the creation of standards for the citing of group homes. The State Law has changed and, although it is still a goal within the State Growth Management Laws, there is no longer an emphasis on immediacy, which allows local governments to decide when they want to move forward with such studies. Chairman Ganger commented that not long after the first Comp Plan a goal was set to have historic preservation as a guide in the decision process in situations such as the Spence Estate. He said there should be something in the Comp Plan concerning historic preservation before the Town loses more of their historic homes. Chairman Ganger also commented that there are issues with group homes and he feels the Town should be Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – December 22, 2011 Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 7 vigilant with regard to transient rentals, be aware of the situation facing the City of Delray Beach and take action. Vice-Chairman Morgan asked Chairman Ganger what he proposes. Chairman Ganger said he mentioned to Mr. Minor in a telephone conversation that the premise should be consistent with the Town’s beliefs and more articulate in putting forth what is important to the Town. Vice-Chairman Morgan asked Mr. Minor if the Delray Beach group home situation could occur in the Town of Gulf Stream. Chairman Ganger said he has spoken to several attorneys who say it could already be in planning stages without the Town being aware. Mr. Thrasher said the timeframe for these studies has been eliminated, but not the potential to study and make changes in these areas. He asked Mr. Minor to explain the timeframes. Mr. Minor said the timeframe under the older growth management regulations required towns to meet and adopt certain standards, such as group home citings, home-based occupations, rentals less than 3 months and commercial uses, which are all prohibited in the Zoning Code. Timeframes were required for communities without specific regulations which the State wanted to include in all comp plans and rather than making communities adopt regulations immediately the State’s focus in review of comp plans is on larger issues of State concern. Mr. Minor said he took the opportunity to eliminate the timeframes, but not the desire to adopt specific regulations. Chairman Ganger said he would like the ARPB to have more time to put their thoughts together and clean up the Comp Plan before making their recommendations to the LPA. He said he would like an opportunity to address fundamental issues to give the LPA substantial goals and planning guidelines. Clerk Taylor said she does not disagree, but understood that when the annexation took place there were some time constraints in bringing the Comp Plan up to reflect the annexation. She said while there are other issues that should be considered, we should move forward now and continue with other issues later. Clerk Taylor said there are no limits on the number of Comp Plans submitted. Mr. Minor said there are some studies to be done and the Board can address some of the other issues under the Zoning Code where those types of regulations occur. He suggested that the Board make their recommendations to the LPA with the proposed amendments they have before them at this time, including any suggested changes. Mr. Randolph said the ARPB has a responsibility to deal with the density issue in a reasonable time and urged the Board to move forward with the proposed amendments now and address other issues later. Both Chairman Ganger and Vice-Chairman Morgan suggested that ARPB members meet to share ideas on some of the issues. Mr. Randolph said the ARPB can hold a workshop, but it would be in violation of the Sunshine Law for members to meet with each other outside of a meeting. Mr. Thrasher said his recommendation is for the ARPB to move forward with the proposed amendments as submitted by Mr. Minor. Chairman Ganger said he would rather hold off on making their recommendations because there are mistakes in the proposed amendments and he would prefer to Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – December 22, 2011 Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 8 fine tune them before recommending them to the LPA. It was the consensus of the Board and Staff that there would not be enough time to hold a workshop, submit changes to Urban Design and have everything ready to distribute in the Commission meeting packets. Clerk Taylor explained that if the ARPB moves forward in recommending the proposed amendments as submitted, the Commission will have 1st reading of the Ordinance to be able transmit the amendments to the DCA and other required agencies on January 13th. Following the response from the DCA and other agencies which should be within 30 days, the Commission will review and address their comments and have a 2 nd reading of the Ordinance for adoption of the Comp Plan Amendments. Chairman Ganger said he is uncomfortable with that timetable. Mr. Randolph asked Mr. Minor if elements that do not relate to the annexed area could be put off at this point in order to allow the ARPB to deal with elements that do relate to the annexation, such as future land use and transportation, in order to move forward. Mr. Minor said yes because, generally, future land use is the main focus. He said, however, because of an increase in population, there could be an issue if someone were to ask how the sanitary elements and infrastructure would be impacted. Chairman Ganger said the Town has commercial enterprise which can be converted into a group home with transients who are part owners. Mr. Randolph said the Board could move forward with the proposed amendments with the understanding that there are concerns with certain elements which the ARPB will be addressing to make changes. Vice-Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to recommend approval of the Summary of Amendments to the Town of Gulf Stream Comprehensive Plan as submitted. Roll Call:Mr. Stanley, AYE; Vice-Chairman Morgan, AYE; Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Chairman Ganger, AYE. The motion passed 5 – 0.Vice-Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Murphy seconded a motion to allow the Architectural Review and Planning Board to request authority from the Town Commission to hold a Workshop for the purpose of reviewing additional changes and amendments to the Gulf Stream Comp Plan to submit adjustments to the Commission.Roll Call:Mr. Stanley, AYE; Vice-Chairman Morgan, AYE; Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Chairman Ganger, AYE. The motion passed 5 – 0. Mr. Randolph said, if the Board has no objection, Chairman Ganger could bring any mistakes in the proposed amendments to Mr. Minor’s attention and, as long as they are not substantive, Mr. Minor can make the changes before the January meeting. The consensus of the Board was that they had no objections. Mr. Thrasher said he would prefer that Chairman Ganger brought the changes to Clerk Taylor to prepare them for Mr. Minor. Mr. Smith suggested having a workshop at the next ARPB Meeting if the Agenda is minimal. Clerk Taylor said she does not favor workshops because no motions can be made. Mr. Randolph suggested calling it a Special Meeting. B. Code Review 1. Section 66-369 Docks (7); Pg. CD66:71 Materials & colors. Materials & colors of docks & ancillary structures shall be considered as part of Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – December 22, 2011 Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 9 architectural review and planning board consideration and shall be maintained as approved. 2. Section 70-51 Minor accessory structures (2); Page CD70:24 In-ground swimming pools and spas 3. Section 70:238. Roofs (a); Page CD70:93 Required. White flat untextured tile, except that gray slate or slate-style may be permitted on homes that are predominately Georgian or British Colonial with Bermuda influences subject to Level II approval. 4. Section 70-100. Roof and eave heights Define preferred, discouraged and prohibited height of entry feature. Mr. Thrasher said these items have been accumulating for review by the ARPB. He said the first step would be recommendations concerning these items from the ARPB to the Commission. Chairman Ganger said that because the roof issue has been a hot subject it should be addressed. He said he would like to discuss the process for a code amendment that would preclude or mitigate subdivision of lots that currently exceed 1 acre into smaller subdivision. Chairman Ganger said the subdivision of the Spence property initiated a lot of talk in the community and he suggested that the subdivision of lots be added to the list of items up for discussion. Mr. Randolph said that the size of a lot is addressed in the Zoning Ordinances which allows subdivision a property as long as it meets existing Code requirements. He said there is case law that says you cannot deny subdivision if it meets your existing Code and, therefore, you will need to modify the Zoning Code. Vice-Chairman Morgan said he believes the Town Code does allow denial and Section 70, Subsection 4 addresses the matter, but it fell on deaf ears in the application for subdivision of the Spence property. Mr. Randolph said he did not believe the section to be applicable; however, he said it can be added as an item for discussion in the future if the Board would like to tighten it up. Mr. Thrasher said he would like to get the discussion started today on the items listed on the agenda. Chairman Ganger said they will discuss the items listed and he also suggested adding the subdivision item. He added that he would like Staff to have the assignment of identifying property in the Town that could potentially be subdivided. Mr. Thrasher said there are properties that could be subdivided, but he did not know how many. Vice-Chairman Morgan said he would also like to explore whether Section 70, Subsection 4 would allow this Board to limit further subdivision of properties that can be subdivided. He also suggested that FAR Standards be reviewed again. Mr. Stanley clarified that the Board would like to identify properties that can be subdivided and look into whether it is feasible to do an overlay including those properties and change the regulations to a certain point where if someone wanted to redevelop those properties against the code it would be a privately initiated LDR amendment. Mr. Randolph said this matter should be more broadly approached and asked the Board if they want to add this item to the list. Chairman Ganger said he would like it added to the list and he would like the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – December 22, 2011 Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 10 roof item to be a priority to prevent another resident from approaching the Board for the slurry-coated tile. Mr. Randolph said that cannot happen due to zoning in progress. Mr. Thrasher said these items are addressed in sections of the Code that have caused many issues in interpretation. Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Thrasher to summarize the issues with Section 66-369 Docks and Ancillary Structures in terms of materials and colors. Mr. Thrasher said the Board will discuss the specifics of whether a dock can be concrete or made from real or false wood, acceptable colors of docks, if any, and the extension of 5’ from the water line. Vice-Chairman Morgan said he has added FAR and subdivision consideration items. Mr. Smith said that Mr. Thrasher previously informed the Board that they do not have the authority to regulate driveway elevations, but asked whether this matter should be added to the list for discussion. Mr. Thrasher said it is something to discuss, but he will have Marty Minor look into whether the Town can legally regulate driveway elevations. Vice-Chairman Morgan said that all of these items can be fairly involved and suggested taking one item per meeting for discussion. He asked if the ARPB is authorized to direct Mr. Minor to investigate and report on these issues. Mr. Thrasher said we have historically operated that way and are authorized to do so, and he added that some of the items will be controversial and some will not, such as pools and grottos. Clerk Taylor said most of the items on this list have already been discussed and staff has been authorized to do something about them. Chairman Ganger recommended the roof issue be scheduled for the next meeting and asked the Board and Staff to be prepared. Clerk Taylor suggested considering the eave heights for discussion at the next meeting also. VIII.Items by Board Members. There were no items by the Board Members. IX.Public. There were no items by the Public. X.Adjournment. Chairman Ganger adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:30 A.M. ________________________ Gail C. Abbale Administrative Assistant February 16, 2012 CHAIRMAN: Robert Ganger VICE CHAIRMAN: Scott Morgan BOARD MEMBER: Paul A. Lyons, Jr. Thomas Smith Malcolm Murphy ALTERNATE MEMBER: Amanda Jones Thomas M. Stanley REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2012 AT 8:30 A.M.,IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. AGENDA I. Call to Order. II. Roll Call. III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 1-26-12. IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. V. Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. March 22, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. b. April 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. c. May 24, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. d. June 28, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. e. July 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. VI. Items by Staff. A. Proposed Zoning Code Changes 1. Subdivision Review a. Section 66-1, Definitions b. Section 70-71, Floor Area Ratio c. Section 70-68, Lot Size & Dimensional Requirements d. Section 70-4, How to Use This Manual 2. Section 70-238, Roofs 3. Section 70-100, Roof & Eave Heights 4. Section 70-51, Minor Accessory Structures 5. Section 66-367, Swimming Pools 6. Section 66-369, Docks VII. Items by Board Members. VIII. Public. IX. Adjournment. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I.Call to Order. Chairman Ganger called the meeting to order at 8:30 A.M. II.Roll Call. Present and Robert W. Ganger Chairman Participating Scott Morgan Vice-Chairman Thomas Smith Board Member Malcolm Murphy Board Member Paul Lyons, Jr. Board Member Absent w/Notice Thomas M. Stanley Alternate Member Amanda Jones Alternate Member Also Present and William H. Thrasher Town Manager Participating Rita L. Taylor Town Clerk John Randolph Town Attorney Mark Marsh, Architect Agent for Roach and Bridges, Marsh & Assoc. Davis Grant Thornbrough Agent for Roach Landscape Arch., A. Grant Thornbrough & Assoc. Pat Scullen Gulf Stream School III.Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing 12-22-11. Chairman Ganger said he hoped all Board Members had an opportunity to read both the 12/22/11 ARPB Minutes and the Minutes of the January 13, 2012 Commission Meeting. He said the Comp Plan revisions were approved by the LPA in context and some of the changes reflect the views of the ARPB. Chairman Ganger added that there were notations from Clerk Taylor concerning the process of revising the Comp Plan and Zoning Codes.Mr. Smith moved and Vice-Chairman Morgan seconded to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 12/22/11. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. IV.Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. There were no changes. V.Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. February 23, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. b. March 22, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. c. April 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. d. May 24, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. e. June 28, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. f. July 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. Mr. Smith asked if there would be a February meeting. Clerk Taylor said there will be a February meeting for the purpose of discussing other items concerning zoning code changes. There were no conflicts in the meeting schedule. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – January 26, 2012 Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 2 VI.PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by Mark Marsh, Bridges Marsh & Associates, as Agent for Mr. & Mrs. Curtiss Roach, the owners of property located at 3560 Gulf Stream Road, Gulf Stream, Florida, 33483, which is legally described as Lot 3, Block 2, Polo Fields. a.SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS to permit two, one-story additions to the existing one-story Gulf Stream Bermuda style single family dwelling, each of which would encroach 2.3 feet into the north side setback, and also to permit a single story addition to the same dwelling that would encroach 2.8 feet into the south side setback. b.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the construction of three one-story additions, 809 square feet, to the existing one-story Gulf Stream Bermuda style single family dwelling with two of the additions encroaching 2.3 feet into the north side setback and one addition encroaching 2.8 feet into the south side setback, and to permit the reconfiguration of the driveway. Chairman Ganger asked if there was any ex-parte communication concerning this matter. There were no declarations. Clerk Taylor administered the Oath to Mark Marsh, Grant Thornbrough and Patricia Scullen. Mark Marsh introduced himself and stated that Grant Thornbrough, Landscape Architect, was present to review the proposed landscape plan. Mr. Marsh described the existing home as a Gulfstream Bermuda Style of the 1960s, which is not conducive to current lifestyles, and he said the owners are asking for modest renovations, minor expansions and some interior renovation and remodeling. He displayed photos of the existing home as viewed from Gulf Stream Road showing a white tile roof, a nice roof line and simple architectural detail. Mr. Marsh said the home sits on a standard lot, it consists of 3200 SF and the expansions will take it to 3900 SF. Mr. Marsh said they propose an extension of the garage 7’ to the east, an addition of a bedroom/office area/ cabana and extend the dining area on the northwest side, and an addition of an office/sitting area off of the master suite. He said the reason for the Special Exception is that these additions are maintaining the existing non-conforming setbacks, which were 12 ½ feet many years ago when the house was built and are now 15’ under current code. Mr. Marsh said they are in violation by 2.8 feet; however, he said in the past Staff and the ARPB have allowed such expansions that have no impact adjacent properties. Mr. Marsh said the plan modifications include moving the garage to the east to accommodate an interior laundry room, reworking the living room, family room, kitchen and foyer areas, and adding office/sitting areas and a cabana area. He said the courtyard has a very dark and alley-like feel and to capture the use of the courtyard they will reduce the wall Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – January 26, 2012 Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 3 height and add a scallop and rail detail, create a trellis to serve as a winter porch and introduce an outdoor fireplace. With regard to the fenestration, Mr. Marsh explained that the detail along the east face of the home includes a Bay Window which will be replaced by casements with shutters to create a balance both inside and out. He said the existing sliding glass doors at the rear which face the pool area will be replaced with impact and the arched entryway will be simplified with plaster detail and simple embellishment. Mr. Marsh said the exterior wall color will be beige, the shutters will be a muted green, the projected garage will be an extended hip roof with white roof tile to match the existing. Vice-Chairman Morgan asked if there were any objections or comments by neighbors. Mr. Marsh explained that the only comments were from Gulf Stream School concerning the driveway, noise from the air conditioning and a drainage matter. He said the idea is to maintain the buffer and, therefore, they will relocate the driveway with hedging across the front and a small pedestrian entry into the motor court. They plan to replace the air conditioning units, but keeping them in the same location and they will eliminate the roof drainage with a new drainage plan. Pat Scullen of Gulf Stream School said there are no further objections as long as they maintain the hedge, which they have agreed to do. Mr. Marsh said there is a meandering well-established hedge along the north side of the property. He said the owners are environmentalists and appreciate the lush landscaping and they will maintain that hedge. He introduced Grant Thornbrough, the landscape architect, to explain the landscape plan. Mr. Thornbrough said the existing driveway is semi-circular and faces the Gulf Stream School parking lot. He said the proposed driveway will have one entrance and they will create a motor court area. The loose Chattahoochee material will be replaced with pavers, there will be a small seating area and planted areas in the motor court which will be enclosed by a short privacy hedge with piers and there will be a small pedestrian walkway into the motor court. He said there are low catch basins in the road and to avoid interference with the drainage the pedestrian walkway will be three steps up with a small privacy gate. Mr. Thornbrough described the front courtyard which will feature a trellis with vines, a small bench and a platform for decorative potted plants. It will also feature a propane gas log fireplace and the exterior finish on the chimney will match the exterior wall color and finish. He said the exterior finish is currently stucco, which may change slightly. Mr. Thornbrough said there will be a continuous walkway from the front yard to the backyard, new irrigation and not much additional landscaping along the sides of the home; however, he said they will work with the adjoining neighbors in an effort to maintain the meandering hedge and Areca Palms along the north property line for privacy. He said they will use the existing pool and the deck, which will require some pilings underneath, and will be resurfaced using a stamp concrete with sea glass. Mr. Thornbrough said there will be a small patio with a garden off of the office addition which will be Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – January 26, 2012 Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 4 separate from the pool area, a small garden area around the pool and a Butterfly Garden with flowering plants in the back. Chairman Ganger asked about the road elevation and the house elevation. Mr. Marsh said the road elevation is 4 feet and the house elevation is 8.27 feet. Mr. Lyons asked about the School’s concern regarding the drainage. Pat Scullen stated that the former owner of the home put downspouts through the hedge and the school property would get quite wet; however, she said this issue has been addressed. Vice-Chairman Morgan said his only concern was the non-conforming setbacks which will require the involvement of the north and south neighbors to work with the owner on landscaping. He complimented the consultants for maintaining the Old Florida look of the home. With regard to the roof plan, Mr. Smith asked about the Cricket. Mr. Marsh explained that it is elevated in the valley where two sloped roofs come together creating another interior sloped element which is called a cricket, and it diverts the water to the exterior. Chairman Ganger asked for comments from the Staff. Mr. Thrasher asked the consultants to verify the height of the piers in the front and the distance of the piers from the pavement. Mr. Marsh said the piers are 3 ½ feet back from the property line and 6’ to 8’ back from the pavement. Mr. Thrasher said he would like to add the condition that the height of piers and distance from the edge of pavement would conform to Code Section 70-187, subsection 6, which prohibits the top of piers to be greater than 4’ tall and the edge of the pier would be at least 7 ½ feet from the edge of pavement. Vice-Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of a Special Exception based on a finding that the proposed two, one- story additions to the existing one-story Gulf Stream Bermuda style single family dwelling, each of which would encroach 2.3 feet into the north side setback, and the single story addition to the dwelling that would encroach 2.8 feet into the south side setback meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. Vice-Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to recommend approval of the Level III Architectural/Site Plan based on a finding that the proposed construction of three one-story additions, 809 SF, to the existing one-story Gulf Stream Bermuda style single family dwelling with two of the additions encroaching 2.3 feet into the north side setback and one addition encroaching 2.8 feet into the south side setback meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards, with the condition that the height of piers and their location comply with Code Section 70-187, subsection 4. No Discussion. All voted AYE. VII.Items Related to Previous Approvals. A. Revision of an approved renovation at 554 Palm Way submitted by Mark Marsh as Agent for Mr. & Mrs. James Davis to permit the elimination of a 2-story garage with storage/guest room Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – January 26, 2012 Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 5 and the addition of a second story above the existing garage for storage/guest room. Mr. Marsh summarized the Davis application to renovate their existing home at 554 Palm Way which was approved last summer. He said construction began about two months ago and the owners have concerns about the proposed 2-story detached building which would have been a one-car garage with a guest room and exercise area on the second floor. The structure cannot be attached to the house because of a 10-foot drainage easement which dissects the property; however, he said the owners feel that a detached structure would be too remote from the main house and they would like to maintain that open space as a play area for the children. Mr. Marsh said they would like to eliminate the detached structure and are proposing to expand the existing two-car garage and add a second floor, which would be a full suite consisting of a guest room and bath and an exercise room. He said the entry element of the existing garage currently faces north and they are proposing to expand the garage about 12’ to the north with flip garage doors facing east and a half-garage door facing north for bicycles and other recreational equipment. The entry into the second floor of the garage will be from an interior staircase going up to a loft play area and then into the exercise room and guest suite. Mr. Marsh displayed drawings of the new plan showing all views. He said the owners are going with a ventless fireplace and, therefore, propose removing the chimneys. Mr. Marsh displayed the new rendering, saying they have simplified what they refer to as the service area of the home by removing the heavy dramatic piers and creating wing walls instead. He said he would like the Board to support the removal of the piers. Vice-Chairman Morgan pointed out that there appears to be bars over the sidelight windows on the north elevation. Mr. Marsh said it is grillwork. In addition, Mr. Marsh stated that the grey roof tile which was originally presented to the Board may be revised to add mottling to the grey. Chairman Ganger said the Board is in the process of looking at the section of the Code that addresses roof tile and, therefore, the Board will definitely need to review any revisions in that regard. Mr. Marsh said he will come back to the Board with the actual tile, saying that it will be closer to the roof tile used in Ocean Ridge. Mr. Thrasher said, for the record, this went to Urban Design for calculations in two areas. The first was the FAR, and their response indicated that a variance would be required to exceed the FAR. In discussing the matter, Mark Marsh and Marty Minor worked it out and the plan was modified to conform to the FAR. He said the second area was the calculations of percentage of second story to first story, which seemed to be a bit massive with a 26% increase. Mr. Thrasher said Staff was trying to accommodate Mr. Marsh, but if he had more time for review he would have commented that the house as presented appears to be massive and not in context with the neighborhood. In closing, Mr. Thrasher stated that the FAR now conforms and the second story coverage has always conformed. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – January 26, 2012 Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 6 Mr. Marsh explained that Marty Minor said the square footage and FAR did not correlate with their calculations. He said the ground floor has a brick veneer on concrete block and the owner could not decide whether to keep the brick and stucco over the brick or remove the brick and stucco over standard concrete block. Mr. Marsh said he took calculations to the outside face of the brick, which created the FAR situation. He said the owner has decided to keep the brick and stucco over it. He said with regard to the other issue, the house has water on two sides, it is set back far from the edge of the water, they are 60 feet from the road at any point and they are 57% uncovered. Vice-Chairman Morgan said he had the same impression as Mr. Thrasher when reviewing the plans because there seemed to be massing on the north side when changing this property. He said the previous drawing had symmetry and now, with the ancillary wing and the elevated garage on the northwest side, the elevations caught his attention. Mr. Marsh said his presentations are always in 3D because it shows mass and imbalance. Vice-Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Smith seconded to approve the revised renovations of 554 Palm Way to permit the elimination of a 2-story garage with storage/guest room and to permit the addition of a second- story above the existing garage for a storage/guest room, the elimination of the chimneys, the elimination of piers as submitted, with additional drawings to come, and with submission of the adjustment of the color and texture of roof tile. There was no further discussion. All voted AYE. The ARPB Meeting was recessed at 9:30 A.M. to review a letter from Vice- Chairman Morgan addressed to the ARPB regarding changes to Article II of the Gulf Stream Design Manual/Single Family Districts, Art.II, Section 70; and, to review the Memorandum from Marty Minor of Urban Design Kilday Studios addressed to William Thrasher regarding subdivision analysis. The Meeting reconvened at 9:40 A.M. VIII.Items by Staff. A. Proposed Zoning Code Changes 1. Section 70-238, Roofs 2. Section 70-100, Roof & Eave Heights 3. Section 70-51, Minor Accessory Structures 4. Section 66-367, Swimming Pools 5. Section 66-369, Docks 6. Section 66-1, Definitions 7. Section 70-7l, Floor Area Ratio 8. Section 70-68, Lot Size & Dimensional Requirements 9. Section 70-4, How To Use This Manual Chairman Ganger suggested beginning with items having zoning in progress. Mr. Randolph explained that zoning in progress is in place on any item being considered for change by the Board, such as subdivisions, lot dimensions and any item under study, whether it was discussed at a previous meeting or during this meeting and it is reflected in the Meeting Minutes. Chairman Ganger asked for Mr. Randolph’s insight, specifically concerning subdivisions because case law is cited, and Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – January 26, 2012 Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 7 Vice-Chairman Morgan asked Mr. Randolph to go over the Memorandum from Urban Design while it is still fresh. Chairman Ganger said the Commission is expecting the recommendations from the ARPB and he said when the State and Treasure Coast Regional Planning Counsel comments concerning the amended changes to the Comp Plan are received, there should be one change to the Comp Plan and one change to the Code at the same time. Mr. Randolph said, per the request of the Board, Mr. Minor included a list of lots in his Memorandum which may be subject to subdivision in the future. He said Mr. Minor also took note that the County has a provision regarding Coastal High Hazard Areas which indicates that no increase in density or subdivision should be included in Coastal High Hazard Areas. Mr. Randolph said he sent Mr. Minor a copy of Tequesta’s Ordinance in that regard, which may no longer exist, showing that other communities had something in place which was similar to Palm Beach County in that respect. He said Mr. Minor looked at subdivision codes from other municipalities and saw that some are more complete than Gulf Stream Code. Mr. Randolph said the Board is not in a position to finalize anything today; however, he said suggestions, recommendations and proposed criteria included in Mr. Minor’s Memorandum are worthy of continued study and consideration. Mr. Randolph said the Board may not implement all of the criteria, but he said one of the most specific proposed criteria provides that a subdivision shall be in character with other lots within 500 feet in any direction of the subdivision. He recommended that the Board ask Mr. Minor to continue with the study and come back with his presentation. Mr. Randolph said Mr. Minor pointed out the Burt Harris Act which was adopted about 15 years ago. He said any regulation in effect prior to the Burt Harris Act is not subject to the Act, but any regulation adopted subsequent to the Act would be subject to it. Mr. Randolph said the Burt Harris Act provides that if persons having reasonable investment-back expectations in a property at the time of purchase and regulations are imposed subsequent to the Act which could diminish their reasonable investment-back expectations and their property is diminished in value, the entity imposing those regulations may be subject to the provisions of the Burt Harris Act and may be responsible to pay the difference incurred as a result of the regulation. He said communities should not fear the Burt Harris Act, but should consider it in their planning process. Mr. Randolph said when the Commission is determining whether to put new regulations in place they should give consideration to how the Act will impact those regulations. Mr. Randolph was asked, if a change had been made by the Board with respect to subdivisions prior to the Spence matter that would have potentially restricted the purchaser to the use of that property, would the next step have been some form of appraisal. Mr. Randolph confirmed that and said it would only relate to the regulations that were imposed subsequent to Burt Harris. He said the reasonable investment-back expectations would have applied to the prior owner of the property and, if they wanted to sell to a developer and regulations were imposed prior Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – January 26, 2012 Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 8 to their sale they would have had a cause of action and the next step would be to get an appraisal. The appraiser could say that, as a result of the regulations put in place, the property has diminished in value at “X” amount, which would present an opportunity for mediation between the Town and the property owner to come to an agreement. If an agreement is not reached, the property owner could go to court. Mr. Randolph was asked if existing Code predates Burt Harris and he confirmed that saying most of the Code was in place prior to Burt Harris and there have been substantive changes, but none that would invoke the Burt Harris Act. He said if regulations in Section 70-4 allowed the Town to give consideration to the size of surrounding lots when determining whether or not a subdivision could be approved, he believes those regulations were in effect prior to Burt Harris. Mr. Randolph said the concern should be with any future amendments made to the Code that could invoke Burt Harris. Mr. Randolph was asked, what if in five years from now someone wants to subdivide and states they were not aware of the impact on the value of their property five years ago, but they are now. Mr. Randolph said that question went unresolved in the courts for a long time because they questioned whether or not the year runs from the time of the imposition of the code or from the imposition of the regulation on their property. He said he would look into that for clarification. Mr. Randolph was asked if there was anything in the proposed criteria that does not already exist in the Code which could invoke Burt Harris, and if there is a stipulation in the Code with regard to the 500-foot rule. In response, Mr. Randolph said the 500-foot rule does not currently exist in the Code, unless we can determine that Section 70-4 is similar, and he said that would have been the one criteria proposal he would have pointed out in Mr. Minor’s list that could invoke Burt Harris. Mr. Randolph said the other criteria are very general, almost implying “shall protect the character of the Town.” He said, if put into place it would not change the current state of the law as it relates to subdivisions and it would not invoke Burt Harris, but neither does it provide a tool to allow the Town to turn down a subdivision. Mr. Randolph summarized the other criteria saying Bullets #3 and #4 are similar and Bullets #5 through #9 are implied in existing language of the Code. Chairman Ganger asked if the 500-foot rule is appropriate and has it been tested. Mr. Randolph said he has discussed this with Marty Minor and he needs to do some research in other codes with regard to the 500- foot rule. Vice-Chairman Morgan said the point of his letter was to show that the 500-foot rule is already in the Code and, with regard to the Spence Property, the Board may have considered this and felt that the property was not inconsistent with the character of the Town. Mr. Randolph said there are no decisions being made today and he encouraged the Board to not act too quickly in putting new language in place. He said as these matters are being studied, the Town Manager cannot grant building permits until the study is complete. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – January 26, 2012 Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 9 Vice-Chairman Morgan asked if there are State Laws that may be in conflict with what the Board is trying to accomplish. Mr. Randolph said there is specific case law with regard to subdivisions, one in particular which provides that as long as a subdivision application is in conformity with all of the lot, yard and bulk regulations within a zoning district, the municipality has no discretion as to whether or not they can turn it down. He said he would like to study Chapter 163 which addresses Coastal High Hazard Areas and examine that with regard to the Burt Harris Act. He will look for language putting people purchasing property on notice that if they are in a Coastal High Hazard Area the municipality may have a right to restrict further density and subdivision within that district. Mr. Randolph said that, although the Town may not have that language in effect, if Chapter 163 gives notice to people purchasing property that such restrictions may go into effect in a Coastal High Hazard Area it may be a defense for Burt Harris if the Town is ever in a position to defend itself. Chairman Ganger said the State has removed that policy and the County has chosen to maintain it and, therefore, DCA will not be looking at this, but it may come back. He said we are a municipality within a county that has this policy and we should lean heavily on it. Mr. Randolph said if the Board feels any of Mr. Minor’s recommendations are worthy of study, the Board should ask him to continue and come back with his findings. He said there may be an opportunity for the Board to include provisions beyond lot size when giving consideration to subdivision. Mr. Randolph said there is more than lot size included in the current Code, such as road width, easements and lot frontages and, after reviewing Mr. Minor’s findings and further case law, the Board may find one or two items that would be helpful or find nothing further to impose. Mr. Randolph said it may be necessary to have a study of what the actual lot sizes are of all homes within a particular district as opposed to what the Zoning Code calls for and we may find that most of the lots are larger than the minimum lot size in the Code. If that is so, it would be justification to increase minimum lot size. If it shows that they are all as set forth in the Code, it would be difficult to select certain areas in a zoning district to increase lot size. When asked if it would invoke Burt Harris if lot size is increased, Mr. Randolph confirmed that, but he said it would depend on how much the lot size was increased. Chairman Ganger used the empty lot recently annexed into Gulf Stream as an example and Mr. Randolph said that different laws may come into play. He said State Law says that the zoning applicable in the County will apply until rezoned by the Town. Chairman Ganger said there are 24 lots that have the potential for subdivision and asked if it is worth the effort to seek opportunities to maintain the scale of the community. He said citizens of the community do not want to see massive subdivisions, which is why we are addressing the matter. Mr. Randolph said Mr. Minor has provided the information requested by the Board and, if the Board feels that the report is dramatic enough to impose further regulations he suggests that Mr. Minor continue a study of the items he proposed from the standpoint of specific regulations and the Coastal High Hazard Areas. Clerk Taylor Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – January 26, 2012 Architectural Review and Planning Board Page 10 said she has a question concerning the lots Mr. Minor chose and believes it is strictly by lot size. She said the beachfront requires that frontage be 150 feet and she is not sure this was taken into consideration when counting the lots that could be divided. Clerk Taylor said some of the lots include canals and they should not be counted. Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Minor to be more specific with lots and land mass and to tighten the language. Mr. Randolph said it seems as though the Board would like the study to continue with regard to lot size and dimensions and with regard to subdivisions, to include the various items discussed today, such as Coastal High Hazard Area and some of the proposed criteria. He recommended that the Board make a motion to authorize the Consultant to move forward with a study of all of the items considered today, specifically those items which were included in the Consultant’s January 25, 2012 Memorandum, the Coastal High Hazard Area, lot size and dimensions and subdivision viability. Vice-Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Smith seconded to authorize Urban Design Kilday Studios to continue their study and subdivision analysis, following up on issues raised in their January 25, 2012 Report and issues discussed at this meeting, specifically looking at lot size and subdivision viability, Coastal High Hazard Area and how it may impact any decision by the Architectural Review and Planning Board and the Town Commission, and other legal ramifications. There was no further discussion. All voted AYE. IX.Items by Board Members. Mr. Lyons asked if Gulf Stream would be addressing the transient housing issue. Chairman Ganger said it is not the Town’s jurisdiction; however, he said the City of Delray Beach Commission will consider changes in their regulations relating to transient housing as early as February 7, 2012 or as late as February 21, 2012. X.Public. There were no items by the Public. XI.Adjournment. Mr. Smith moved and Vice-Chairman Morgan seconded to adjourn the Meeting. The Meeting was adjourned at 10:35 A.M. ________________________ Gail C. Abbale Administrative Assistant February 28, 2012 CHAIRMAN: Robert Ganger VICE CHAIRMAN: Scott Morgan BOARD MEMBER: Paul A. Lyons, Jr. Thomas Smith Malcolm Murphy ALTERNATE MEMBER: Amanda Jones Thomas M. Stanley CONTINUATION OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING THAT WAS HELD ON FEBRUARY 23, 2012, IS BEING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON FRIDAY, MARCH 2, 2012 AT 8:00 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. AGENDA I. Call to Order. II. Roll Call. III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 2-23-12. IV. Items by Staff Continued from 2-23-12. A. Proposed Zoning Code Changes 1. Subdivision Review a. Section 62-10, Proposed Criteria b. Section 66-1, Definitions c. Section 70-71, Floor Area Ratio d. Section 70-68, Lot Size & Dimensional Requirements e. Section 70-4, How to Use This Manual 2. Basement Definition Section 66-1 a. Definitions used in other municipalities V. Items by Board Members. VI. Public. VII. Adjournment. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2012 AT 8:30 A.M.,IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I.Call to Order. Chairman Ganger called the meeting to order at 8:30 A.M. II.Roll Call. Present and Robert W. Ganger Chairman Participating Scott Morgan Vice-Chairman Thomas Smith Board Member Paul Lyons, Jr. Board Member Amanda Jones Alt. Member sitting as Board Member Thomas M. Stanley Alternate Member Absent w/Notice Malcolm Murphy Board Member Also Present and William H. Thrasher Town Manager Participating Rita L. Taylor Town Clerk John Randolph Town Attorney Marty Minor of Urban Town Consultant Design Kilday Studios Mrs. Cuppy Craft 10 Little Club Rd. III.Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 1-26-12. Chairman Ganger thanked Mr. Randolph for preparing the Bert Harris Act information and he thanked the Board for reading the material provided in their packet. He said the Minutes are a bridge to what will be discussed today and he asked if there were any questions or comments concerning the January Meeting Minutes.Mr. Smith moved and Vice- Chairman Morgan seconded to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of January 26, 2012. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. IV.Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. There were no changes. V.Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. March 22, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. b. April 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. c. May 24, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. d. June 28, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. e. July 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. Chairman Ganger asked if there were conflicts with the meeting schedule. Mrs. Jones: May be available May 24th; will not be available June 28th and July 26th. Vice-Chairman Morgan: Will not be available March 22 nd. Mr. Lyons: May be available June 28th; will not be available July 26th. Chairman Ganger said it will be necessary to establish a quorum for these discussions and he asked the Board to inform Clerk Taylor of these and any additional conflicts in the meeting schedule well in advance. He said he hopes to have zoning matters resolved by summer and said it Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 23, 2012 Page 2 would be best to submit zoning changes and any tweaking to the Comp Plan at the same time. VI.Items by Staff. A. Proposed Zoning Code Changes Mr. Thrasher stated that Marty Minor was present to guide the Board through discussions of the zoning items. 1. Subdivision Review a. Section 66-1, Definitions Mr. Thrasher said staff is concerned with the definition of “basements” and thought about what could be changed to prevent a similar situation that exists on County Road. He referred to page 66-7 of the Code and read the current definition of “basement”, as follows: “Basement shall mean that portion of a building, the ceiling which is entirely below grade or less than three feet above grade. A basement is not considered a story with regards to the height measurement of a building. There shall be no entrances to such basement on the street side and the exterior appearance of such basement shall conform to the general architecture of the building.” Chairman Ganger referred to the situation cited on County Rd. and said there is an entrance into the lowest story, which is the garage, and he asked if the floor of the basement is at the same level as the garage floor, and Mr. Thrasher said confirmed that. Chairman Ganger asked if the Code should also prohibit entrances that are visible from the street. Mr. Thrasher read Staff’s recommended change to the definition of “basement,” as follows: “Basement shall mean that portion of a building which is below the finished floor elevation of the building. A basement is not considered a story with regards to height measurement of a building. The square footage of a basement shall be included in the FAR calculations at 50% and not be usable for living purposes which includes working, sleeping, eating, cooking or recreation, or a combination thereof. There shall be no entrances to such basement on the street side and the exterior appearance of such basement shall conform to the general architecture of the structure.” Mr. Thrasher said the entire area below finished grade in the structure on County Road is livable, and he said the reason for changing the Code to what it is today was that the only concern was the massing of the structure and that anything below the finished floor elevation did not add to the mass of the structure, which is true. He said the definition, in part, has caused some of these issues and Staff feels that if you include a margin of that area as FAR, people may think twice about where they put their allowable FAR. Mr. Smith referred to a new home under construction on N. Ocean Blvd which has a basement that can hold 15 cars and he asked Mr. Thrasher if that project would have been impacted by this proposed language. Mr. Thrasher said it would have been impacted and so would every structure that has a basement that was created after the original date of the Code. Vice-Chairman Morgan asked how many other properties could be affected. Clerk Taylor said anything on a hill, or dune and Mr. Thrasher added that the DEP offers little support to the Town’s Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 23, 2012 Page 3 concerns. He said there are other areas that could potentially create this situation because of elevation, such as a home on Gulf Stream Road that has a basement. Mr. Thrasher said in a previous discussion concerning this matter a comment was made that it is not unusual to control habitable space in a basement and that some percentage is typical. Mr. Minor confirmed that. Mr. Lyons said it is different in the Northeast because an entire basement, all four sides, is below grade. Mr. Thrasher said finished floor grade is determined in the Code by other factors such as the crown of the road and the lowest grade between residences and, after that is determined and depending on the contour of the land, you have the potential of a basement area. Chairman Ganger asked if there is anything in the Code to prevent people from going below grade in flood zones. Mr. Thrasher said livable space is presently controlled by 7.0 finished grade and when you try to renovate more than 50%, or a certain percentage, and you have a grade below that flood plain elevation, you must get appraisals on value. He said the key factor may be the percentage of the home that is livable space and basement. Chairman Ganger said if you look at the structure on County Road from the golf course it appears to be three stories, and he said the ARPB recognized this when the project was presented to them, they made their recommendations to the Commission and the Commission did not uphold their recommendations. Mr. Thrasher said they modified the Code. Chairman Ganger said he believes the responsibility of the ARPB is to make appropriate recommendations and stand by their decisions. Mr. Lyons asked if the structure is built in compliance with existing Code and Mr. Thrasher said it was permitable under the current Code. Mr. Lyons asked if the proposed language would have eliminated this structure and Mr. Thrasher said the proposed language would have altered the design of this structure. Vice-Chairman Morgan said the proposed language seems straight forward, it only modifies the use of basements and does not prohibit them, and he asked if there is anything objectionable to the way the proposed language is presented. Mr. Smith said he agrees with the 50% in the proposed language, but he said it may be too restrictive with respect to use of a basement. He said, for example, his home could have a 10-foot basement where he could have a workshop or a small office rather than just using it for storage. Mr. Thrasher said the language in the previous code was much more restrictive than what he is proposing for discussion. Mr. Randolph asked why language in the Code prohibiting occupancy of basements was taken out. Clerk Taylor said the previous Code provided for the right of inspection from time to time to ensure that the area was not converted to bedrooms and so forth. She said, when going though his approvals, the owner of this particular home expressed violent objection claiming that would intrude on his privacy, and, therefore, the Commission radically changed the language in the Code. Chairman Ganger said he is seriously concerned that people will use basements as bedrooms and putting more people in homes, and maybe renting the space for income. He said the definition of a boarding house includes having a place to eat and sleep and we restrict commercial activity in Gulf Stream. Vice-Chairman Morgan said he agrees with Mr. Smith in that an Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 23, 2012 Page 4 office, workshop or recreational activity is acceptable; however, he said we want to avoid someone using the space for sleeping and cooking. Clerk Taylor said if you count the entire basement area in the FAR, the structure on County Road would be one story less. She said if you count a garage at the side of a house at 100% in the FAR, what would be the difference if you count a garage that is under the house at 100% in the FAR, and she said use of the space would not matter if you did that. Mr. Thrasher suggested that, in the language we use, we articulate in a way that would eliminate the requirement of post-construction inspections or deed restrictions. Mr. Stanley suggested that the percentage counted for FAR be determined by District and Mr. Thrasher said he thought it should be restricted in some way. Mr. Minor said Clerk Taylor’s suggestion is very good in that it addresses Chairman Ganger’s concern because it makes the homeowner decide where to put their livable space. With regard to defining height of a basement, anything less than 5’ or 3’ would be considered traditional crawl space and could be allowed without being counted. He said 7’ or 8’ may be considered storage space, but he said it may be acceptable to some people as living space. Chairman Ganger asked if there is an established height that would discourage habitation. Mr. Minor said maybe 6’ within the basement, but he said with respect to height from finished floor grade he would like to keep the height at 3’ and that would not be included in the FAR. Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Thrasher to refine the proposed language to be consistent with comments and suggestions made by Mr. Minor and Clerk Taylor and Mr. Thrasher said he would put something together. Cuppy Craft asked for permission to comment. Chairman Ganger allowed public comment at this time. Mrs. Craft said she lives at 10 Little Club Road, which is just behind the subject home on County Road. She said neighbors are not concerned with the use of the basement, they are concerned and distressed with the access to the basement, saying that it is offensive, it is below the Coral rock and it is unsafe. Mr. Thrasher said the current language in the Code allows that to happen. He said the owner wanted to maximize the usability of that space and thought they could do that by lowering it, which created the drop-off. Mrs. Craft asked the Board to address the drop-off. Chairman Ganger thanked Mrs. Craft for her comments and said the Board is working on the matter by working on the definition and height of basements. Mr. Lyons said that basements are very common in the Northeast and said he gathers from history that the Town prefers not to have usable basements. Mr. Randolph said basements in the Northeast are generally enclosed on all four sides and not visible from the street and in Gulf Stream we are concerned with appearance. Mr. Thrasher said in every District, with the exception of Ocean West and Beachfront, the Code controls size of a second story, which can be no more than 75% of the first story. He said we carte blanche basements allowing them to be 100% of the first story and it makes no sense to not have some control over the size of a basement. To have that become part of the FAR calculations places the responsibility on homeowners to maximize their Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 23, 2012 Page 5 potential for the sale of their home. Mr. Smith said Clerk Taylor’s suggestion of the 100% covers it and he suggested increasing the FAR calculation to 100%, eliminate the reference to use and define a basement as something that is taller in height of more than 5’ or 6’ from floor to ceiling, or whatever height suggested by the consultant. Mr. Randolph asked Mr. Smith if he was suggesting no restriction on use. Mr. Smith confirmed that, saying 100% eliminates the necessity to describe use because owners would have to conform to Code with regard to use and it also eliminates the policing of it. He also suggested leaving in Mr. Minor’s recommendation of no more than 3’ above grade because it is in the current language. Mr. Thrasher said finished grade must be determined by the crown of the road, average height between homes and existing grade of buildable area of lot. Mr. Randolph said they would look into whether it is necessary to include that. Chairman Ganger said it seems to be the consensus of the Board that Mr. Thrasher fine tune his proposed language regarding the definition of basements, using Clerk Taylor’s suggestion of the 100% and Mr. Minor’s suggestion of some height limit, and present that language to the Board at their next meeting. Mr. Randolph said a motion will not be necessary if it is a consensus. There was a consensus. b. Section 70-71, Floor Area Ratio Mr. Thrasher said this item is brought forward for discussion as it relates to controlling subdivisions and size, and he said he and staff feel that the FAR seems to work for us as it is. However, he said if you include FAR in a combination of things to get a better feeling of potential subdivisions, it is worthy of discussion. Mr. Randolph said the FAR has nothing to do with subdivisions and should not be considered in the regulation of subdivisions. He said it should be done in the Subdivision Code and not in the Design Element. Mr. Thrasher said FAR was brought into the discussion at a previous meeting about the size and massing of new homes on Polo. Mr. Lyons remembered that Vice-Chairman Orthwein commented at a previous meeting that while lowering the FAR will address homes being massive in size, should we consider amending the Code that addresses design issues to stop the construction of blocky-looking buildings. Mr. Thrasher said Mr. Morgan also commented on massive homes in that area and thought the FAR may have been incorrectly calculated or the data used in making a decision was wrong. He said, subsequently, the Town started asking Mr. Minor to run through calculations and floor plans to determine whether or not we should do more than rely on an Architect’s sealed drawings. Mr. Thrasher said they found some minor changes that were enough to require one person to modify their plans. Mr. Minor said he can request Auto Cad drawings from an architect and run them through his program to calculate FAR, and he said that kind of enforcement will help define some of the issues. He said when looking at FARs, or the equivalent lot coverage of height, up and down the coast, Gulf Stream is not the smallest, but it is at the lower end in relationship to everyone else. However, he said when deciding whether or not to include other design features, such as setback of second stories or length of overhangs, FAR is something to look at to avoid the issue of blockyness and massing. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 23, 2012 Page 6 Chairman Ganger said that architects have software and Cad Cam to assist in calculations and he asked about technology that can assist the Board in their evaluation process. Mr. Randolph said there was an architect the Town used in the past who could show numbers transposed into elevations and asked if he might be willing to do that again. Clerk Taylor said he probably would. Vice-Chairman Morgan suggested drafting additional design language that would assist in restricting the second story so that all buildings will comply with the Code and Design Manual. Mr. Thrasher said that second story coverage at 75% has been an issue in the past and on more than one occasion Staff has asked for assistance from Mr. Minor. He said this has happened several times where, from a visual standpoint, two-dimensional elevations seem to present something that is out balance. Mr. Thrasher said a perfect example of this is on Palm Way where calculations were sent to Mr. Minor for recalculation and it came back acceptable, but it did not look right. He said if it meets the mathematical requirements in the Code there is nothing we can do, and he said maybe the language is too lenient. Mr. Smith said the homes to be constructed on the Spence Property will be two-story and the Board will experience these issues when those plans are presented to them. He said Vice-Mayor Orthwein commented on the lineal straight up from the ground appearance and she is probably looking for some stepback in the front and on the sides. Mr. Thrasher said there are two factors in the Code that address this, one being square footage coverage percentage where, in the Core for example, the second story can be no more than 75% of first story. He said the second has to do with the stepback that the second story must be from first story. Chairman Ganger asked if any communities require three-dimensional presentations. Mr. Randolph confirmed that and said some require a model or a CAD presentation. He said the meeting room would need a screen, a projector and more to accommodate that. Mr. Thrasher said technology is great, but he said this room cannot accommodate the equipment. Chairman Ganger said Vice-Mayor Orthwein has raised a real issue and he feels the Town should request proposals on what is required to use existing technology that would assist in the evaluation process. Mr. Randolph said the first step is to amend the Code to include certain provisions and then have someone like Mark Marsh come in to show us what those provisions will look like before imposing them. He said Gulf Stream’s Code is unique to all of Palm Beach County in having the Design Manual. He said if proposals meet the Design Manual the Board has very little discretion, but he said other jurisdictions such as Palm Beach and Jupiter Island have architectural review boards and impact review committees where they allow themselves more discretion. They can look at a house and see if it is in keeping with the character of a neighborhood. Chairman Ganger said it would be helpful in the evaluation process to view Level II and Level III presentations in a more interactive way than on a flip board and we should use all of the tools that are available to us. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 23, 2012 Page 7 Mr. Randolph asked Chairman Ganger if he is looking for an explanation of what we currently have in place in the Code dealing with mass and design issues, along with a suggestion as to what can be done to address these issues in the Code as it exists. Chairman Ganger confirmed that. He said having studies done and asking architects to change the way they do things can be very expensive and, before time and money is spent, he would like to inform the Commission of how the Board is addressing these issues. Chairman Ganger said he would like input from the Commission in hopes that they would encourage the Board to move forward. Clerk Taylor said that when the Code was established these steps were set up. She said the Commission has approved the list of zoning items for the ARPB to work on and, therefore, the Board has Commission approval to study these issues and then make their recommendations to the Commission. Clerk Taylor said the Town Manager knows how much money is available and he will let you know if spending is getting out of line. Mr. Randolph asked about the recommendation of new technology. Mr. Thrasher said he has no idea what that would cost and Clerk Taylor reminded the Board that the Commission did not give that to the Board as an assignment. Chairman Ganger said it would not be costly to find out what other communities are using. Mr. Thrasher said he could inquire and get some estimates and ideas, but he said the Board should decide whether or not they would like to engage Marty Minor and his recommendation is to do so. Mr. Smith noted that Section 70-70. Floor area calculation. Item (6) reads “Areas in basements shall not be included.” He said we need to amend Section 70-70 to eliminate Item (6) if the Board makes the recommendations changes in Section 66-1. Mr. Lyons wanted clarification of what we are asking from Mr. Minor with regard to blocky-looking structures. Chairman Ganger said we are asking for language that is missing from the current Code that will assist us in the evaluation process by helping us understand presentations to recognize whether or not they meet the FARs. In addition, he said we would like to know if there is technology available to help with calculations so that we have looked at something better than a blueprint or architectural drawings before making recommendations to the Commission. Vice-Chairman Morgan said the current Design Manual has allowed excessive mass of a structure and we are asking Mr. Minor to evaluate that and come up with what is causing this and what we can do to reduce mass. Mr. Minor said his understanding of what the Board is asking is where the Code can be modified to avoid some of the bulkier issues. With regard to software, he said it is common for architects to have three-dimensional modeling software and there is a program called “Sketch-Up” which takes two-dimensional and turns it into three- dimensional. The Board recessed from 9:40 A.M. and reconvened at 9:45 A.M. c. Section 70-68, Lot Size & Dimensional Requirements Mr. Thrasher said comments have been made indicating that lot size and dimensional requirements may need to be changed and he noted that this is found at Section 70-68 in the Code. He said, as an example, we have an effective lot area minimum of 16,500 in the Core, 30,000 in Ocean Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 23, 2012 Page 8 West and Beachfront, 20,000 in North-South and 15,000 in Place Au Soleil, with frontage and things of that nature. Mr. Thrasher said Mr. Minor provided an inventory of those properties that have potential to be subdivided under most of the requirements of the Code. He said it is difficult to do, but he asked Mr. Minor if he looked at how someone might configure a driveway or a roadway. Mr. Minor said the difference in this report compared to the January report is that they looked at effective lot areas, taking out water, and they used a scale map provided by the GIS Consultant so they could estimate how much was water and how much was outside the Coastal Construction Line. He said they looked at minimum lot widths and lot sizes in each zoning district and they did look at possibilities of where a road could go, but did not spend much time on that. Mr. Randolph said Mr. Thrasher is presenting this as a consideration of Section 70-68 regarding lot size and dimensional requirements and he asked Mr. Minor if he is concerned with lot size and dimensional requirements within the Town. He said Mr. Minor prepared a document that seems to deal with lots that have potential to be subdivided as opposed to a document that was prepared as a study to determine whether or not current lot size and dimensional requirements are correct. Mr. Randolph said if you are going to amend 70-68 you will need a thorough study of the lots in the Town and the different districts of the Town to determine how they have been developed. He said if lots have been developed as 125-foot lots and Code requires that they shall be 100-foot lots, it would be evidence to assist in revising the Code. If lot sizes throughout the Town are fairly consistent with what exists in the current Code, the study should not relate to 70-68, but rather to the subdivision regulations, which is what he thought was the Board’s direction to Staff and the purpose of the preparation of the document. Chairman Ganger said they wanted facts and the map is clear. He said lots developed in the Ocean West District tend to be large and the characteristic of the District, as described in the Design Manual, is larger homes on large wooded lots with water. Chairman Ganger said it appears that the characteristic of that District is large-scale and if you change the characteristics of the Ocean West District by subdividing into smaller lots, you will be making it more like the Core and other districts of the town. Mr. Minor said it would be somewhat smaller than what currently exists in the Ocean West District, but it is still almost double of what exists in the Core. Chairman Ganger said when the Spence property was redeveloped, the concern was that it would change the characteristic of the district. He asked if there is data that suggests subdividing large lots into small lots will go to Bert Harris, and is one large lot worth more than two smaller lots. He asked if it would be better to impose esthetic restrictions rather than financial restrictions. Mr. Minor said he included potential criteria in his January report to assist the Town in determining whether a subdivision is appropriate. He said it provides general guidance that is missing in current subdivision regulations, it provides criteria to be complied with and addresses conformity to surrounding parcels that helps maintain the existing Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 23, 2012 Page 9 character of a neighborhood. Mr. Minor said these criteria are common in more advanced zoning codes and does not create prohibition or sever restriction, but rather provides guidance to the Town in making decisions. He said, for example, we encourage all multi-family areas to become single family and certain provisions in the Code may suggest it would require a subdivision. Mr. Minor said his recommendation is to provide more criteria to address these situations. Mr. Thrasher asked Mr. Minor if he is suggesting there are ways to modify the Code to protect the desire for subdivisions to fit within the character of a neighborhood. Mr. Minor confirmed that and Mr. Thrasher said it sounds like the direction we should take. Mr. Lyons asked if we could be getting into Bert Harris by crossing the line if we went in Mr. Minor’s direction. Mr. Randolph said potentially, but he said you will not know until you deny someone. Chairman Ganger said it is important to let it be known that the Town is trying to preserve the character of one of their neighborhoods that is different from the others. Mr. Randolph said you are not asking for a study to be made of this district to determine whether or not the district regulations should be modified, but rather you are focusing on the subdivision regulations and whether or not we can incorporate the language Mr. Minor is proposing. Mr. Randolph said the Board should determine whether or not this is dramatic enough to do anything and not just focus on the Ocean West District. Chairman Ganger agreed. Vice-Chairman Morgan said the criteria Mr. Minor is proposing flushes out existing general criteria in the Code and provides clarity as a guideline for the Board and Commission as they review these applications. Chairman Ganger said the Board will soon be looking at houses for the six lots on the Spence Property and we will be looking at how to maintain the character of the district. Mr. Randolph said those guidelines currently exist in the Code. Vice-Chairman Morgan asked if the criteria set forth by Mr. Minor place the same discretionary onus on the Board as before, and he asked if the ARPB will have the discretion to deny. Mr. Randolph said yes, but he said Bert Harris may come into play and the ARPB will have the necessary tools to deal any Bert Harris liability. He said, for example, if someone were to say you have placed restrictions on their property where, under the old Code they could have subdivided into two lots and now, using your discretion, you have indicated that only one lot is permissible, they can make a claim and you will have the tools to deal any Bert Harris liability. Mr. Randolph said the potential liability would be if they came in for a building permit and they were denied. He said at that point they would have to come in with an appraisal showing that you have denied their reasonable investment back expectations and you would then have to make the determination as to whether that is true or whether one larger lot is more valuable than two smaller lots. Mr. Randolph said he would not avoid putting tools in force that are beneficial to the Town because you can always negotiate a Bert Harris matter at a later time. Mr. Lyons asked how to handle a one-year claim. Mr. Randolph said, for example, if someone is denied a subdivision of six lots and only gets four lots, their one year could run from the time of denial of their Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 23, 2012 Page 10 building permit or from denial of their subdivision, but to avoid that you give notice to them that you are imposing this regulation and they then have one year to make a claim. Vice-Chairman Morgan asked if notice would have to be sent to all affected property owners if a change is made to a Code regulation in the Design Manual. Mr. Randolph said you would not notice all property owners, but he said there would be notice by advertising in a newspaper. Chairman Ganger said the process has been that the ARPB makes recommendations to the Commission, the Commission either objects, modifies or approves, there are new ordinances with two hearings for first and second readings, which will be advertised for public notice. Mr. Randolph said to avoid Bert Harris going on forever, you would only give notice to property owners who are directly affected in Bert Harris and then there is the potential for appraisers coming in. Chairman Ganger asked if it would be enough for someone to make a claim if we said no further subdivisions are permitted in Town, versus providing a new set of guidelines to help the Board give definition to maintaining character and including criteria such as the 500-foot rule. Mr. Randolph said it is possible and you have to wait and see. Vice-Chair Morgan said there are a number of recommended subdivision criteria in Mr. Minor’s January report that could be included. Mr. Minor said he could bring that criteria back in a separate document for further discussion and he can also provide a graphic showing what 500 feet looks like on an aerial. Vice-Chairman Morgan said he likes criteria, but he said he also likes a general statement that sets forth guidance which he believes we already have. He referred to his letter of January 25 th wherein he recommends modification of Section 70-27(c) at line 5 to read: . . . proposed projects must incorporate design features that are compatible with, and complimentary to, the preferred elements and overall character of the district, including parcel size, parcel shape, architecture and landscaping. Mr. Thrasher said, it would be helpful if Mr. Minor could take the proposed criteria and overlay it on the Spence Property as a case study, if it is not very difficult or expensive. Mr. Minor agreed to do that. Chairman Ganger said the surrounding neighbors of the Spence Property effectively argued for a public road to serve the new homes rather than using existing roads, which changed the character of the design and took away a substantial amount of acreage that could have been used for other purposes. He said roads take space and have other issues with respect to maintenance, fire and so on and he would like to provide guidelines for contractors to consider before they address a subdivision. Chairman Ganger asked if the proposed criteria to avoid traffic congestion and eliminate conflict between pedestrian and vehicular movement should be included and he asked if there are other criteria that would require addressing access before addressing subdivision. Mr. Minor said the spacing of access points on roadways is very important. He said it is appropriate to have separate driveway access from a local street rather than from an area such as Ocean Boulevard where you should limit access points by congregating them. Mr. Minor said he will look at the general wording for access, but he said he is not sure he can draft something to cover both situations. He said determining access is done on a case-by- Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 23, 2012 Page 11 case basis. Clerk Taylor said there is something in our current Code in the subdivision regulations that says the plat must include access and, therefore, contractors know it is something they have to address. Mr. Smith excused himself from the meeting at 10:20 A.M. Chairman Ganger said we have regulations in place and we have not lost sight of our goal to maintain the character of our neighborhoods, but he said we want to make things clearer in the subdivision regulations. Mr. Thrasher said the current language relating to roads is sufficient. Chairman Ganger said that leafy and meandering driveways and large homes should be addressed and clarified in our Code. Mr. Thrasher suggested consideration of having more than one meeting a month to address these items and maybe set some time limits. He asked the Board to schedule another meeting to take place in the next couple of weeks for the purpose of concentrating on the assignment given to Marty Minor. Mr. Thrasher asked Mr. Minor if he could have everything prepared by then. Mr. Minor said the FAR information may take a bit longer, but the basement language and the subdivision criteria will be prepared. Clerk Taylor said she would include all three items on the Agenda and Mr. Minor can present what is prepared. Mr. Randolph asked if Clerk Taylor could give the Board a time certain. Clerk Taylor asked for availability on Friday, March 2, 2012 at 8:00 A.M. There were no conflicts.Mr. Lyons moved and Vice-Chairman Morgan seconded to defer this meeting to reconvene at a time certain of Friday, March 2, 2012 at 8:00 A.M. There was no further discussion. All voted AYE. d. Section 70-4, How to Use This Manual 2. Section 70-238, Roofs 3. Section 70-100, Roof & Eave Heights 4. Section 70-51, Minor Accessory Structures 5. Section 66-367, Swimming Pools 6. Section 66-369, Docks There was no discussion concerning Item 1.d. and Items 2 through 6. These items will remain on the list for a future meeting agenda. VII.Items by Board Members. There were no items by Board Members. VIII.Public. There were no items by the Public IX.Recess. The meeting was recessed at 10:30 A.M. to be reconvened at 8:00 A.M. on Friday, March 2, 2012. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 23, 2012 Page 12 CONTINUATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2012 AT 8:30 A.M.,IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA, WHICH WAS RECESSED AND RECONVENED ON FRIDAY, MARCH 2, 2012 AT 8:00 A.M. I.Call to Order: Chairman Ganger called the meeting to order at 8:05 A.M. II.Roll Call: Present and Robert W. Ganger Chairman Participating Scott Morgan (8:50 A.M.) Vice-Chairman Thomas Smith Board Member Paul Lyons, Jr. Board Member Thomas M. Stanley Sitting as Bd. Member Absent w/Notice Malcolm Murphy Board Member Amanda Jones Alternate Member Also Present and William H. Thrasher Town Manager Participating Rita L. Taylor Town Clerk John Randolph Town Attorney Marty Minor of Urban Town Consultant Design Kilday Studios III.Minutes of The Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 2/23/12. Clerk Taylor asked to let the record show that both Malcolm Murphy and Amanda Jones are absent with notice, and she said Vice-Chairman Morgan has advised that he would be one hour late. Chairman Ganger stated that it would be necessary for him to leave at 9:50 A.M. IV. Items by Staff Continued from 2/23/12. A. Proposed Zoning Code Changes 1. Subdivision Review a. Section 62-10, Proposed Criteria Clerk Taylor said the Minutes of the February 23, 2012 Regular Meeting were included in the meeting packets; however, she said no action is required until the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing scheduled for March 22, 2012 at 8:30 A.M. She said the minutes will be continued to include the discussions of this meeting. Chairman Ganger said the February 23rd meeting was recessed after presenting Mr. Minor with his assignment concerning FAR, proposed criteria as it relates to subdivisions and the definition of Basements. He asked Mr. Minor if he was prepared to discuss these items at this time and also if he had an opportunity to review the correspondence from Vice-Chairman Morgan dated March 1, 2012. Mr. Minor introduced himself for the record and stated that he reviewed the proposed language provided by Vice-Chairman Morgan and recommended incorporating it into the proposed criteria for subdivisions. Mr. Randolph said he does not understand the language Vice-Chairman Morgan Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 23, 2012 Page 13 proposes to be added to Mr. Minor’s Criteria B which deals with design features. He said Vice-Chairman Morgan uses the word “architecture” in the last sentence of Paragraph B in his letter and, he said when looking at subdivisions you deal with the layout of the land and you should not incorporate design features in subdivision regulations. Mr. Randolph said when the Board reviews the proposed design of a house in a subdivision they will have the opportunity to deal with design features under the Design Manual, where there is existing language that talks about maintaining the design of the neighborhood. Chairman Ganger referred to the applicant for the subdivision of the Spence Property and a continuous comment made by their attorney, which was that they were only applying for subdivision of the land at this time and not the architecture of future structures. He said the Board tried to impress upon them that architectural design features was another step in the process, which is something that should be made clear to an applicant proposing a subdivision. They must follow the Design Code and understand that they must maintain the character of the neighborhood with respect to design features, architecture and landscaping. Mr. Randolph said when the developers of the Spence Property made their presentation they made the mistake of showing houses on the property and, he said, he reminded them at that time that their application was strictly for the division of the land and nothing else. He said when plans for a house are presented to the Board they should rely on the strength of the Design Manual at that time. With regard to Vice-Chairman Morgan’s proposed language in Paragraph B of his letter, Mr. Lyons suggested striking the word “design” in line 2 and the word “architecture” in line 4, so that Paragraph B reads, “Proposed subdivisions shall protect the character of the Town by incorporating features that are compatible with and complimentary to the preferred elements and overall character of the neighborhood district in which they are located, including but not limited to parcel size, parcel shape and landscaping.”Mr. Stanley suggested striking the word “landscaping” and Mr. Thrasher did not agree. Mr. Thrasher said there have been several previous discussions concerning berms and buffers. Mr. Randolph suggested striking the word “landscaping” and replacing it with the word “topography” and Mr. Stanley suggested also adding the words “berms” and “buffers” amending Criteria B to read,“Proposed subdivisions shall protect the character of the Town by incorporating features that are compatible with and complimentary to the preferred elements and overall character of the neighborhood district in which they are located, including but not limited to parcel size, parcel shape, topography, berms and buffers.” Mr. Smith inquired about Vice-Chairman Morgan’s proposed language in Paragraph A of his letter to amend Mr. Minor’s Criteria A. Mr. Minor said Vice-Chairman Morgan added the words . . . which term “surrounding” so that Criteria A would read,“Lots to be created by the proposed subdivision should be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, which term “surrounding” shall be defined as residential lots within 500 feet of the subject parcel.”Mr. Minor referred to the map he provided Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 23, 2012 Page 14 which was done as a case study regarding how Criteria A would apply to a parcel and where the 500-foot line would go. Chairman Ganger asked if the 500 feet is used by other communities and Mr. Minor confirmed that. Mr. Randolph said he does not see where Vice-Chairman’s proposed language in his Paragraph A is that different from Mr. Minor’s proposed language in his Criteria A and Mr. Smith said he is trying to emphasize what “surrounding” means, but it is covered in Criteria A. With regard to the overlay map, Mr. Smith said that, looking at the 6 lots superimposed on the map, it appears there was no way to deny the Spence subdivision. He said people are more concerned about six cookie- cutter lots all in a row and access to the lots from A1A. Mr. Thrasher said the neighbors did not want vehicular traffic on the private road and, therefore, there will be two entrances from A1A. One entrance will service one lot and the other entrance will service five lots. Mr. Randolph asked if the word “access” should be included in Criteria B. Mr. Stanley said it is covered in Criteria F which reads, “Proposed subdivisions shall avoid traffic congestion on streets, and eliminate conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular movements.”He said when reviewing the overall Spence subdivision, Chairman Ganger asked the applicant several times where the roads would go and he also mentioned that they had to account for improvements, drainage and catch basins. With regard to roads, Mr. Thrasher said hammerheads totally eliminate the meandering roadways and he said there was previous discussion about prohibiting them. Mr. Randolph suggested that the proposed language in Criteria B be amended to read,“Proposed subdivisions shall protect the character of the Town by incorporating features that are compatible with and complimentary to the preferred elements and overall character of the neighborhood district in which they are located, including but not limited to parcel size, parcel shape, access, topography, berms and buffers.”He further suggested including a separate statement in the Subdivision Criteria that says, “Hammerheads are prohibited.” It was the consensus of the Board to amend the proposed language of Criteria B as recommended to read “Proposed subdivisions shall protect the character of the Town by incorporating features that are compatible with and complimentary to the preferred elements and overall character of the neighborhood district in which they are located, including but not limited to parcel size, parcel shape, access, topography, berms and buffers.”. It was also the consensus of the Board to add a statement in the Subdivision Criteria that reads, “Hammerheads are prohibited.” Mr. Lyons referred to the overlay on the aerial map and said there is enough there to suggest to a developer that he could develop a subdivision. He said the 500 feet could work against us and suggested eliminating that from Criteria A. Mr. Thrasher agreed and suggested there be no exact distance. Mr. Stanley suggested eliminating a radius and simply say, “the surrounding area.” Mr. Randolph said he would prefer to not leave it vague, but he said Criteria A could read, “Lots to be created by the proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the adjacent or immediate property.” Clerk Taylor suggested using the design district as the neighborhood because it is already defined. She Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 23, 2012 Page 15 said when they originally designed the design districts through windshield surveys the lots were somewhat the same size and architecture. Mr. Thrasher said there are three districts already identified on this aerial map, which are Ocean West, Beachfront and North/South.It was the consensus of the Board that the proposed language in Criteria A would be amended to read, “Lots to be created by the proposed subdivision should be consistent with the adjacent and immediate properties.” Mr. Randolph asked Chairman Ganger to confirm that the Board concurs with all of the changes and that they are ready to make their recommendations to the Commission. Chairman Ganger confirmed that. Mr. Randolph asked Mr. Minor to prepare a final draft of the language for review by the Architectural Review and Planning Board before the make their recommendations to the Commission. b. Section 66-1, Definitions Mr. Minor said he reviewed the code provisions from other communities provided by Mr. Randolph and he has incorporated some of that language into proposed language previously discussed. He summarized the proposed language for Sec. 66-1. Definitions which reads, “Basement shall mean that portion of the building which is below the finished floor elevation of the building and is located within the footprint of the first floor. A basement is not considered a story with regards to the height measurement of a building, unless the ceiling of the basement is greater than three (3) feet above grade. The square footage of a basement shall be included as 100% of the building’s Floor Area Ratio calculations. Basements shall conform to all setback regulations for structures. There shall be no entrances to such basement on the street side and the exterior appearance of such basement shall conform to the general architecture of the building.” Mr. Smith referred to Exhibit A, Illustration 1–Basement, which was attached to the Jupiter Island Definitions, if a home has a real basement that is completely under the first floor with nothing more than an emergency exit to the outside, we should not be as punitive. Mr. Minor said if the ceiling of the basement is not more than 3’ above grade it would not be counted in the FAR. Mr. Thrasher suggested using 75% in the FAR calculations rather than 100% if the ceiling of a basement is more than three feet above grade. Mr. Lyons said that part of the reason the Board is addressing basements is because of the home on County Road where there is concern over grade and the slope of the driveway and the danger it may cause. He said he is not sure how the proposed definition would avoid the situation and asked if we could define a slope and grade of a driveway. Mr. Randolph said it can be done, but he said it is a different issue. Clerk Taylor said that grade should be controlled under the terms of the Building Code rather than the Zoning Code. She said the Florida Building Code has regulations with regard to Multi-Family, but she said there are no restrictions that apply to Single Family. She asked if there would be a way to include a restriction that would apply without causing an issue. Mr. Randolph suggested incorporating an on-point regulation in the Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 23, 2012 Page 16 Design Manual that would address the grade and slope of driveways. Mr. Thrasher said the Town has asked the City of Delray Beach to examine the situation on County Road and advise whether or not their current code and inspections would prohibit such a driveway. He said their answer was “No” and he said Palm Beach County had the same answer. The consensus of the Board and Staff was that grade and slope of a driveway should be a separate issue. Mr. Lyons agreed that we should not be as punitive if a basement is not visible from the street, not creating mass or impacting the neighbors. Mr. Thrasher said it could still appear as a three-story from the rear. Mr. Randolph said there should be some impediment imposed if a house has a basement where a portion of it can be viewed. Mr. Stanley said it should be controlled by the entrance. He said a basement under the bottom floor, or under the footprint of the house, should only have access from inside the house, and he said if a basement has any external access you would include a percentage of the square footage in the FAR calculations. Mr. Randolph asked the Board if they agree that if a basement is designed in a way that it is habitable space, that space should be counted in the FAR calculations. The Board was in agreement. Mr. Lyons asked if office space or a workout room would be considered habitable space. Mr. Randolph said anything over a six or seven-foot ceiling should be counted as square footage. Mr. Minor asked the Board to confirm that square footage of a basement area having external access and creating a three-story look would be counted 100% in the FAR calculations. Chairman Ganger confirmed that. Mr. Minor asked for clarification concerning a basement completely under the first story with a ceiling that is no greater than 3’ above grade with no external access.It was recommended that square footage of a basement completely under the first story with a ceiling that is no greater than 3’ above grade and with no external access should be counted as 75% in the FAR calculations. Mr. Smith said a description of non-accessible, with the exception of an emergency escape from such an area, should be included. Mr. Stanley asked Mr. Minor for another sketch similar to Illustration 1 of Exhibit A that would include what has been discussed and agreed upon.Mr. Minor agreed that the sketches are extremely helpful and he would provide a new sketch that would depict the 100% and the 75%. Vice-Chairman Morgan arrived at 8:50 A.M. Chairman Ganger updated Vice- Chairman Morgan on the changes the Board has agreed to so far and he thanked him for the letter to the Board saying that it was very helpful in their thought process and decision making. c. Section 70-71, Floor Area Ratio Mr. Minor said there have been discussions concerning the current FARs and some feel the FARs may be creating a boxy look to homes. He said we include design features such as covered space with no walls which provides flexibility, but he said we see less of that because if applicants feel they can have indoor space in that same area they will choose the indoor space. Mr. Minor asked the Board if they would prefer more articulation in the buildings or if they would prefer not counting Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 23, 2012 Page 17 as much of the outdoor spaces, such as porticos, overhangs and back porches, as a way of tweaking FAR calculations and how that transfers into design of houses. Clerk Taylor said a special exception is available which provides that you can go 300 SF over and above the maximum allowable FAR if it is a covered, unenclosed space, and she said almost everyone building a new house will take advantage of that special exception. She said the reason they offer the special exception is to encourage balconies. Clerk Taylor said that the space can be used on any side of a house, but she said it is typically used on the first floor as a lanai and the Town would place a deed restriction on that area which restricts the area from ever being enclosed. Chairman Ganger asked if we have asked guidance from architects on how to achieve the amount of living space their client desires while being able to avoid mass or a boxy look. Mr. Smith said the 75% rule is not the problem, he said it is the 25% that must be taken off of the second story that needs to be defined. Mr. Stanley referred to the Delray Beach Code and said that Mr. Minor did the BPOA overlay for the North Beach. He said we are talking about flush walls and a lot of those issues are addressed in the Delray Beach Code and he asked Mr. Minor if there is anything in the Gulf Stream Code that addresses flush wall breaks or that provides incentives for breaking up a side of a building. Mr. Minor said there are standards for that within the Delray Beach Code, but he said there is nothing like that in the Gulf Stream Code. Mr. Stanley said Delray’s issues are similar and he said Mr. Minor may have input from architects like Gary Eliopoulos and others that have projects in Gulf Stream. He said Delray has incentives, but you must have height plains coming from the street and flush wall breaks every so many feet on the house. Mr. Lyons asked Mr. Stanley to describe a flush wall break. Mr. Stanley said if you come in on three sides on the second story, there must be a break in the flush wall on the fourth side every 50 feet. He said the alternative is to have an additional architectural element on the street side to break up the flush wall. Mr. Stanley said other towns offer incentives that Gulf Stream may not be ready to offer at this time. Mr. Thrasher asked if Delray regulations talk to different architectural styles. Mr. Stanley said the regulations are shorter and simpler and leave room for interpretation, but he said they define four different architectural styles, including photos, as does Gulf Stream. He said the regulations are very similar and they could serve a model for Gulf Stream. He recommended providing more sketches and requiring flush wall breaks, and he said incentives could be considered down the road. Vice- Chairman Morgan asked Mr. Minor for his input. Mr. Minor said one of the things Delray was looking at was buildings as they relate to their neighbors to avoid creating canyons of buildings that are straight up. He said they want to create a preferred living environment with some building sections set back creating light in those areas. Mr. Randolph asked Mr. Minor if the implementation of height plane would help in this regard. Mr. Minor said it would be helpful.Mr. Randolph requested Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 23, 2012 Page 18 another sketch from Mr. Minor showing the apparent height from the street. Mr. Thrasher said many previous applications introduced different architectural elements and setbacks on both the front and rear of a structure, and he said the differences we see in large walls seem to appear on the sides. He said height plane seems to be something you would look at from a front elevation only and, therefore, we should concentrate more on 75% second story coverage and/or some kind of setback break on more sides of a second story. Mr. Randolph said, due to height plane regulations, you cannot bring a side wall all the way to the front of a house and, therefore, you are dealing with the sides when looking at height plane from the front. Mr. Stanley said that Gulf Stream should include a separate section that addresses building height plane for corner lots, which is not addressed in the BPOA regulations. Mr. Thrasher said our setbacks are different for lots located on one, two or three streets, and he said you will typically see additional architectural elements on the street sides for that reason. Mr. Thrasher said, from a two dimensional drawing, it consistently appears that the 75% rule is not sufficient and it disputes the first impression of mass. He said when we send two-dimensional drawings to our consultants for recalculation they come back okay and, therefore, it appears that the 75% rule is lacking something. Chairman Ganger suggested that maybe the 75% rule should require all four elevations to contribute to the 75%. Mr. Thrasher said that type of restriction would limit creativity of a good architect and there are many architectural elements that can be used to create a break without creating a boxy look. He said the incentive concept is good if we can incorporate something similar to the Delray Beach, and he said the incentives would have to be tailored to the two predominant architectural styles in Gulf Stream. Mr. Thrasher said we encourage architects to be more creative with the introduction of architectural elements and there may be common terminology that will create incentives to increase the use of those elements. He asked Mr. Minor to provide some information. Mr. Minor said it would be an excellent addition to the Code to address this issue. Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Stanley about other architects who contributed to the Delray Beach Code. Mr. Stanley said Bob Curry, Jeff Sowers and William Wietsma contributed their ideas and he said Gary Eliopoulos sat on the Delray Beach Commission when they were reviewing the Code. Vice- Chairman Morgan asked how long it has been in place and if it is working. Mr. Stanley said it is now on the Delray Beach website, but he said it has been in place for five or six years and it works primarily because of the FAR. He said the setbacks are better, structures have to be smaller and are limited to 6,000 SF on an average lot. Chairman Ganger said the Board would like to go in this direction to address mass and the boxy look. Mr. Minor said he has a very good idea of what the Board is looking for and he will come back with his recommendation. Mr. Thrasher asked why Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 23, 2012 Page 19 we do not have second story requirements in the Beachfront and Ocean West Districts. Clerk Taylor said it is because of the larger lots. Mr. Stanley said if you have a larger lot with a 30’ or 40’ setback from your property line, general design standards allow you to go up, and he said it should be based on actual lot size and not district specific. He said the idea is the larger the setback, the bigger the buffer, the more you can do. Mr. Thrasher said it really shows up when we are dealing with a stand-alone garage with a second story apartment. Clerk Taylor referred to the existing special exception which allows an additional 300 feet of covered, unenclosed space and asked if it would help to increase the additional allowable area. Mr. Thrasher said he likes the elements they have to produce in those areas. Chairman Ganger said it could be used as an incentive in that if you are under the 75% you will receive a credit on the 300’. He said it is logical because those elements create breaks and it would be the rewarding of good design. d. Section 70-68, Lot Size & Dimensional Requirements Chairman Ganger asked if there is a formula that would preserve some larger lots where large lots exist. Mr. Randolph said the Board is attempting to do this in the subdivision regulations, and he said you must keep in mind that with lot size requirements you are dealing with regulations within an entire district and you could create a problem if you try to change lot size. Mr. Thrasher asked if a reward system could be applied with regard to larger lots that would allow a larger FAR. He said, for example, for the first 20,000 square feet of lot the FAR is 33%, thereafter it is 20% of the remaining square footage, and somehow you would correlate that 20% upward in relation to the size of the lot to encourage future subdivision to be larger lots. Mr. Thrasher asked if that would work to help us maintain larger lot sizes. Mr. Minor said you may want to limit that to a large size of a certain threshold as a way of encouraging preservation of larger lots. Chairman Ganger said Ocean West is where we are focused and we are talking about how to maintain the economic value of the entire community by having a sprinkling of beautiful estates as part of our inventory of homes. He said it is a concept worth pursuing and it should be done in terms of acre as opposed to lot, and he said we should say that the reason for doing this is to maintain a few large lots. Mr. Stanley said he believes we need to move forward, but he said some of these things will have to be tested over a period of time to see results. Mr. Minor said he will come back with several options and he will also provide a three- dimensional sketch-up with regard to that point. e. Section 70-4, How to Use This Manual There was no discussion concerning this item. 2. Section 70-28, Roofs Mr. Thrasher said Staff has issued four reroof permit applications in the last few weeks where contractors are using the white cement tile thru and thru which is a flat material with no slurry coating. He said this tile has been used forever and he said its purpose was to mirror the original design of the Bermuda Style homes. Mr. Thrasher said there has been more discussion recently concerning white roof tile material, specifically the white cement thru and thru with a slurry coating and a slight glaze. He said there are pros and cons concerning both roof materials, but he said Staff’s recommendation is to maintain our Code in Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 23, 2012 Page 20 the manner in which we have administered it for several years, and that is the use of the white flat cement thru and thru, untextured, unpainted and with no slurry coating. Mr. Thrasher said there have been reports that this tile is no longer available, but he said Staff has found that to be false. He asked the Board if they want to allow the white slurry- coated tile to be placed on Gulf Stream Bermuda Style homes. Mr. Thrasher said there has been additional discussion as to what the Board would like to do with grey slate-like roof tile. He said the Board has allowed a solid grey tile, which does not appear to be slate- like, and a light green, which was approved for the Sargeant home. He said the discussion between slate and slate-like allows distortion and he said architects feel that limiting them to white or grey tile handicaps their ability to create a desirable look. Mr. Minor said he spoke with a carpenter/roofer friend who does work up and down the Island, and he said his friend confirmed that the non- slurry-coated white flat cement tile thru and thru by Entegra is readily available. Mr. Randolph asked what there is in the Code that precludes a slurry-coated tile. Mr. Thrasher said that when he sought guidance from the ARPB several years ago, the Board directed him to approve the white flat cement thru and thru. He said there were discussions in the past about consistency in the Bermuda styling and he said there is also some language in the Code that discourages shiny-surfaced roof tile and specific tile material in certain districts, or in the Core. Clerk Taylor said there is an additional word in the description of roof tile under “Required” which reads, . . . white flat untextured tile. Chairman Ganger said the ARPB and the Commission cannot be oblivious to new technology or a new product, but he said there has to be some benefit to using it such as, it has the same look or that it is better than what has been used in the past. He said the functionality of each tile may be similar, but he said we are trying to maintain a certain look. Mr. Randolph said those who presented the slurry-coated tile say they are advised that it holds up better, it avoids mold and it is not harmed when pressure cleaned. Mr. Thrasher said there are contractors that believe the non-slurry-coated tile is the better product and Mr. Minor agreed saying that professionals claim the non-slurry-coated tile holds up better and is preferred. Chairman Ganger pointed out that the slurry-coated tile is a larger tile. Mr. Thrasher said the size of the tile is what alerted Staff to the slurry-coating, but he said there is nothing in the Code that defines size. Mr. Lyons said the slurry-coated tile is too big and suggested adding something in the Code that defines size. Mr. Stanley pointed out that the slurry-coated tile could probably be custom-made to any size. Mr. Smith said roofers are selling the larger slurry-coated tile because it is easier to install and it is cheaper to maintain. Mr. Lyons commented that the larger roof tile will give the appearance of mass. Mr. Thrasher said with regard to requesting a variance, money cannot be a hardship. Mr. Smith said that Peter Bennett is the resident who has a Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 23, 2012 Page 21 slurry-coated roof tile and suggested driving by the property to see what it looks like. He said he supports not going to multi-color tile on Bermuda Style homes. Vice-Chairman Morgan said color is covered under Section 70-238, but he said the slurry-coated tile is not covered and it would be subject to interpretation. Mr. Thrasher explained that Mr. Bennett’s permit application for the slurry-coated tile was denied at the administrative level and he appealed the administrative decision. He said his appeal came before the Board of Adjustment and they approved the slurry-coated tile, then directed there be Zoning in Progress. Vice-Chairman Morgan said that, because of the way the Code Section is written, the Board of Adjustment could not preclude the slurry-coated tile. Chairman Ganger agreed saying the word “untextured” can be interpreted in different ways. Chairman Ganger excused himself from the meeting at 9:50 A.M. In closing, Mr. Thrasher said Mr. Bennett, in Place Au Soleil, has the slurry-coated tile roof and two houses south of Mr. Bennett has the white flat cement thru and thru. He said if you drive by you may be able to see the difference, and he said try to picture the slurry-coated tile in the Core. Mr. Thrasher said there is a variety of architectural styles and roofs in Place Au Soleil, but he said it is mostly Bermuda Style in the Core Area, and he said once a decision is made you can affect the character of the Town. He said roofs are a very important element in the architectural styling of Gulf Stream and there are no tools in place as guidance to make these decisions. Mr. Randolph said the Code is vague, Mr. Thrasher’s interpretation of the Code was challenged and the Board of Adjustment granted it, but then held zoning in progress, giving the ARPB an opportunity to look at it and decide whether a change is appropriate. Mr. Randolph suggested looking at some of the roofs that have the slurry-coated tile, ask Mark Marsh for his opinion and make your decision based on that information. VII.Items by Board Members. There were no items by Board Members. VIII.Public. There were no items by the Public IX.Adjournment.Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Smith seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 A.M. _____________________________ Gail C. Abbale Administrative Assistant March 18, 2012 CHAIRMAN: Robert Ganger VICE CHAIRMAN: Scott Morgan BOARD MEMBER: Paul A. Lyons, Jr. Thomas Smith Malcolm Murphy ALTERNATE MEMBER: Amanda Jones Thomas M. Stanley REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2012 AT 8:30 A.M.,IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. AGENDA I. Call to Order. II. Roll Call. III. Minutes: Regular Meeting and Public Hearing 2-23-12 & 3-2-12. IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. V. Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. April 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. b. May 24, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. c. June 28, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. d. July 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. VI. Items by Staff. A. Proposed Zoning Code Changes 1. Subdivision Review a. Section 66-1, Definitions b. Section 70-71, Floor Area Ratio c. Section 70-68, Lot Size & Dimensional Requirements d. Section 70-4, How to Use This Manual 2. Section 70-238, Roofs 3. Section 70-100, Roof & Eave Heights 4. Section 70-51, Minor Accessory Structures 5. Section 66-367, Swimming Pools 6. Section 66-369, Docks VII. Items by Board Members. VIII. Public. IX. Adjournment. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S. April 20, 2012 CHAIRMAN: Robert Ganger VICE CHAIRMAN: Scott Morgan BOARD MEMBER: Paul A. Lyons, Jr. Thomas Smith Malcolm Murphy ALTERNATE MEMBER: Amanda Jones Thomas M. Stanley REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2012 AT 8:30 A.M.,IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. AGENDA I. Call to Order. II. Roll Call. III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 3-22-12. IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. V. Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. May 24, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. b. June 28, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. c. July 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. d. No meeting in August e. September 27, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. VI. Reorganization of ARPB. A. Swearing in of re-appointed members B. Election of Chairman C. Election of Vice Chairman VII. Items Related to Previous Approvals. A. Change of roof tile at 554 Palm Way submitted by Mark Marsh as Agent for Mr. & Mrs. James Davis. VIII. Items by Staff. A. Proposed Zoning Code Changes 1. Section 70-71, Floor Area Ratio 2. Section 70-68, Lot Size & Dimensional Requirements IX. Items by Board Members. X. Public. XI. Adjournment. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2012 AT 8:30 A.M.,IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I.Call to Order. Chairman Ganger called the meeting to order at 8:35 A.M. II.Roll Call. Present and Robert W. Ganger Chairman Participating Scott Morgan Vice-Chairman Paul Lyons, Jr. Board Member Malcolm Murphy Board Member Amanda Jones Alt. Member sitting as Board Member Thomas M. Stanley Alternate Member Absent w/Notice Thomas Smith Board Member John Randolph Town Attorney Also Present and William H. Thrasher Town Manager Participating Rita L. Taylor Town Clerk Marty Minor of Urban Town Consultant Design Kilday Studios III.Minutes: Regular Meeting and Public Hearing 2-23-12 & 3-2-12. Vice-Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of February 23, 2012 and March 2, 2012. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. IV.Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. There were no changes. V.Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. April 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. b. May 24, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. c. June 28, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. d. July 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. Mr. Lyons reminded Clerk Taylor that he would not be available for the July 26, 2012 meeting. There were no additional conflicts. Chairman Ganger asked Clerk Taylor if there were any applications for public hearing for the April meeting. Clerk Taylor said there were no applications at this time. She said there have been pre-application meetings, however, she said those applicants have not yet applied for a hearing by the Board. VI.Items by Staff. A. Proposed Zoning Code Changes Marty Minor of Urban Design Kilday Studios introduced himself for the record. He prepared a Memorandum and a draft ordinance concerning “Zoning Code Amendments Regarding Subdivision Review, Criteria and Basement Definition” for review by Staff and the Architectural Review and Planning Board (ARPB). Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – March 22, 2012 Page 2 1. Subdivision Review Mr. Minor summarized the recommended changes to the Criteria for Subdivision Review saying that in Criteria A, the proposed language that read . . . “within 500 feet of the subject parcel” has been eliminated. He said proposed Criteria A now reads, “Lots to be created by the proposed subdivision should be consistent with the immediate and adjacent surrounding neighborhood.” Mr. Minor read amended proposed Criteria B which language now reads, “Proposed subdivisions shall protect the character of the Town by incorporating features that are compatible with, and complementary to, the preferred elements and overall character of the neighborhood district in which they are located, including but not limited to parcel size, parcel shape, access, topography, berms and buffers, and encourage the orderly and aesthetic development of the Town.” Mr. Minor said the 500-foot language was eliminated and language was added to provide clarification on what the Town is looking for when reviewing future subdivision applications. He said this type of criteria does not exist in the current Code and he is proposing the addition of the criteria to provide a basis for decisions to be made by the Town. Mr. Minor commented on proposed Criteria G, which addresses hammerheads, and reads, “Streets and vehicular use easements shall provide safe and efficient access for municipal services, such as fire, police and solid waste removal. As such, dead-end streets and easements ending in a “T” or “Y” turnaround shall not be permitted.” Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Minor if other municipalities have similar language in their code. Mr. Minor confirmed that, and he said it is tied to municipal services for the safe and efficient provision of those services. He said there is a chain of logic between the Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and he said that goal is restated in the Comprehensive Plan. With regard to proposed Criteria D, Mr. Lyons asked Mr. Minor to explain the words . . . “and minimize conflicts among uses of land and buildings.” Mr. Minor said if you are creating a subdivision and dividing land with existing structures on site, creating a non- conforming structure in that subdivision would be a conflict and could impact your neighbor with regard to where structures can be within that subdivision. Mr. Murphy said he noted that subdivision is a separate issue from building structures in subdivisions and he asked Mr. Minor if there is language that provides guidance when looking at the design of buildings in subdivisions. Mr. Minor said the current Code defines that you have to come back for the building of structures in a subdivision. All Members of the Board stated that they were comfortable with the proposed Criteria and amended language in the proposed Criteria as it relates to subdivisions. a. Section 66-1, Definitions Mr. Minor said there was a very interesting discussion at the previous meeting concerning basements which provided great input. He summarized the amended portion of the definition of basements which reads, “The square footage area of a basement completely under the first floor Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – March 22, 2012 Page 3 footprint and having no outside entrance shall be included as 75% of the building’s Floor Area Ratio calculations. The area of a basement with an outside entrance shall be included as 100% of the building’s Floor Area Ratio calculations.” Mr. Minor noted that two graphics have been added which better reflect what the Code is asking for when there is a change in grade. With regard to Section 70-70, Floor Area Calculation, Mr. Minor noted that subsection (6) is amended to read, “Areas in basements shall be included as 75% when it is located completely under the first floor footprint and has no outside entrance. Areas in basements with an outside entrance shall be included at 100%.” He said this is a limited situation within the Town of Gulf Stream, but he said there are cases of this and by including this language in the FAR calculations you reduce the size of the above-ground structure. Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Minor if he proposes use of the graphics in the Code. Mr. Minor confirmed that and he said the Code does an excellent job of incorporating graphics to explain complicated concepts. With regard to Section 70-27, District Descriptions, subsection (c), Mr. Minor said Vice-Chairman Morgan suggested including the phrase . . . “including parcel size, parcel shape, architecture and landscaping.” He said it further defines the overall character of the district and that proposed projects must incorporate design features that are compatible with that type of character. Mr. Minor said the word “character” will always be subjective when rendering a decision. All Members of the Board stated that they were comfortable with the proposed language for Section 70-70, Floor Area Calculation, and Section 70-27, District Descriptions, subsection (c) as recommended. Chairman Ganger thanked Vice-Chairman Morgan for his contributions and he thanked Marty Minor and Clerk Taylor for a great job and for providing this information saying that it was very helpful to see the language in ordinance form. He asked Clerk Taylor when this might be presented to the Commission for first reading. Clerk Taylor said if there is a motion to recommend the amendments to Code it may be presented to the Commission at their next meeting. Vice-Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to recommend that the Code of Ordinances of the Town of Gulf Stream be amended as discussed, particularly at: Section 62-10, Criteria for Subdivision Review; Section 66-1, Definitions; Section 70-27, District Descriptions; and, 70-70, Floor Area Calculation. There was no further discussion. All voted AYE. Chairman Ganger said he will present a short progress report at the Annual Meeting of the Civic Association which is scheduled for April 2nd to let their members know that the Town is taking action on these issues and it is a work in process. Clerk Taylor said the Commission will have an opportunity to review the minutes of this meeting and they will know where the Board is in the process. She pointed out that there Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – March 22, 2012 Page 4 is currently zoning in progress and suggested waiting on adopting the ordinance until the process is complete and zoning in progress can be removed. b. Section 70-71, Floor Area Ratio This matter will be discussed at a future meeting. c. Section 70-68, Lot Size & Dimensional Requirements This matter will be discussed at a future meeting d. Section 70-4, How to Use This Manual This matter was covered in the discussion of Section 62-10 and 70-27. No further discussion or action is required. 2. Section 70-238, Roofs Mr. Thrasher said Mark Marsh is not present, but he said he invited Mr. Marsh to give his professional opinion concerning this matter at today’s meeting. Mr. Lyons said he drove around Gulf Stream Rd., Polo Dr. and through Place Au Soleil where he saw some roofs with the slurry-coated tile and he said it was difficult to see a difference. He said he spoke to John Mulavey of RoofTec and found that you will not save money on maintenance with the slurry-coated tile because it requires yearly cleaning to maintain the whiteness, but he said the cost of the slurry- coated tile is about 40% less than the white flat cement thru and thru. Mr. Lyons said Mr. Mulavey stated that the manufacturing process is more expensive with the thru and thru and that there may come a time in the future when the only option will be to have the thru and thru custom made, which will make it very expensive. He said Mr. Mulavey also noted that, over time, the glossy finish flattens out due to the elements. Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Murphy if he received negative comments concerning the slurry-coated tile roof in Place Au Soleil. Mr. Murphy said he has had no feedback. Chairman Ganger said that, as a Board, they have to acknowledge new technology that may bring new products and if they are similar to what is currently preferred it would be a bad idea to enforce the more expensive product. However, he said if there is a substantial difference in quality, the Board will have the authority to deny it. Chairman Ganger asked if the Code language can be drafted in such a way where the applicant must demonstrate that a different product is the same as the preferred product as far as appearance, durability, safety or any other pertinent criteria. Mr. Lyons said there are two issues, one being the appearance with respect to a flat or glossy finish, and another being the width of the tile. He said it is difficult to distinguish between the flat finish and the slurry-coated tile, except for the width, and he said the fit is different where the narrow flat finish tiles are deeper with flat sides and the larger slurry-coated tiles are more tongue in groove. Mr. Minor said the Town demands a certain quality of building materials to be used on all its projects, and that should include roof tiles. He said Staff proposes that the white flat cement thru and thru is preferable, but he said they need some direction from the Board as to what is an acceptable roof tile. Mr. Minor said both arguments have been heard and now the Board must determine the level of quality that is acceptable in the Town of Gulf Stream. Mr. Thrasher asked to go on Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – March 22, 2012 Page 5 record saying it is true that the larger tile gives the appearance of a tongue in groove and he said if you look at it from a 45 degree angle you see a 45 degree run in that tongue in groove, which is counterproductive and conflicts with the linear concept in Gulf Stream Bermuda. He said, in his opinion, it looks a bit fake, and he said his recommendation would be to maintain the untextured, unpainted and unfinished flat thru and thru. Mr. Thrasher displayed a drawing showing the smooth lines of the Bermuda Style and said the smaller tile aligns better than the larger tile with the smooth and flowing line. Mr. Murphy asked about the possibility of the thru and thru no longer being available. Mr. Thrasher said the Board will deal with that if it happens, but he said it is available now and we have permitted three homes in the last month that are using the product. Chairman Ganger said the Town does demand quality and if there is a perception that another material appears to be of a lesser quality it would affect the judgment of the Board. He said if there is another product that is indistinguishable from what is preferred at this time, there would be no reason to deny it. Clerk Taylor commented that while the Board is discussing the type of roof tiles they will also need to discuss color. She said existing Code says either white untextured, gray slate or slate-like. Vice-Chairman Morgan moved to retain Section 70-238 on Roofs and not change the color and texture of the roof tile as described in that section. Mr. Thrasher said the Board must discuss slate-like and other coloring of tiles as a part of this recommendation. He said there is proposed language which was discussed at a previous meeting that may amend this Section of the Code. Vice-Chairman Morgan struck his motion. Mrs. Jones suggested retaining white or slate and eliminating “slate- style.” Chairman Ganger said the Board will soon be looking at proposals for six new homes which will be situated in one area, and he said we must establish quality standards.Mr. Murphy moved and Vice- Chairman Morgan seconded to recommend that Section 70-238, Roofs, (a) Required, at Page CD70:93 be amended to read as follows: Required. Flat, white thru and thru, smooth, un-coated tile, except that gray slate, may be permitted on homes that are predominately Georgian or British Colonial with Bermuda influences, subject to Level II approval. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. The meeting was recessed at 9:25 A.M. and reconvened at 9:30 A.M. 3. Section 70-100, Roof & Eave Heights Mr. Thrasher said he feels the language is insufficient in this Section of the Code in defining preferred, discouraged and prohibited height of the entry feature. He said when defining “Preferred” it is not clear as to what the phrase in parenthesis . . . “(from 8 feet to 14 feet for entry feature)” specifically refers to. Mr. Thrasher said this concept was introduced to try to maintain a low profile front feature and to avoid a Boca look. He referred to the example drawing saying this was an application brought to the Town, and he said it was argued that it December 12, 2013 CHAIRMAN: Scott Morgan VICE CHAIRMAN: Thomas Smith BOARD MEMBER: Paul A. Lyons, Jr. Amanda Jones Malcolm Murphy ALTERNATE MEMBER: Hewlett Kent Robert Dockerty REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2013 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. AGENDA I. Call to Order. II. Roll Call. III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 11-21-13. IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. V. Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. January 23, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. b. February 27, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. c. March 27, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. d. April 24, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. e. May 22, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. VI. PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by Mark Marsh of Bridges, Marsh & Associates as agent for Mr. & Mrs. John Smith, owners of the property located at 555 Old School Road, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as Lot 2, H. V. Pope Subdivision. a.LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit construction of a new entry portico and covered loggia over an existing open patio, a total addition of 597 square feet, to the existing one-story, single family dwelling, relocate existing west driveway and reopen a previously existing driveway at the south east corner of the property. 2. An application submitted by Mark Marsh & Keith Williams as agents for Mr. & Mrs. Nelson Grumney, owners of the property located at 2960 Polo Drive, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as Lot 21 & Part of Lot 20, Gulf Stream Cove Subdivision. a.LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to slightly modify both driveways, add paver bricks, and revise previously approved landscape design and materials at the above address. 3. An application submitted by Mark Marsh as agent for Mr.& Mrs. Steven Silverman, owners of the property located at 1465 North Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida 33483, which is legally described in metes and bounds in Section 10, Township 46 South, Range 43 East, Palm Beach County, Florida. a.NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY PERMIT to permit installation of new driveway pillars and an iron entry gate at the above address. AGENDA CONTINUED 4. An application submitted by Maria T. Bonilla & Joaquin Grillo, owners of the property located at 335 Old School Road, Gulf Stream, Florida 33483, which is legally described as Lot 6, H. V. Pope Subdivision. a.LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the conversion of the existing garage to living space, the construction of two new additions consisting of a 487 square foot garage and 668 square feet of new living space on the east side of the existing structure, a 174 square foot lanai on the northwest corner of the existing structure, with total additions to the one-story Bermuda style, single family dwelling being 1,329 square feet, and adjustments to the existing landscaping with some new plantings added. VII. Items by Staff. A. Update-Ad Hoc Committee VIII. Items by Board Members. IX. Public. X. Adjournment. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA, ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2013, AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I. Call to Order: Chairman Morgan called the meeting to order at 8:31 A.M. II. Roll Call: Present and Scott Morgan Chairman Participating Thomas Smith Vice-Chairman Amanda Jones Board Member Paul A. Lyons, Jr. Board Member Malcolm Murphy Board Member Robert Dockerty Alternate Board Member Hewlett Kent Alternate Board Member Also Present and William H. Thrasher Town Manager Participating Rita L. Taylor Town Clerk Absent w/notice John C. Randolph Town Counsel Mark Marsh Architect Hollis Tidwell Architect Keith Williams Landscape Architect Joaquin Grillo Resident David Frank Precision Drafting & Design III. Minutes: A. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing held on November 21, 2013 Vice-Chairman Smith moved and Board Member Jones seconded to approve the November 21, 2013 Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing held by the Architectural Review Board. All voted AYE. IV. Additions, Withdrawals, Deferrals, Arrangement of Agenda Items: There were none. V. Announcements: A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Dates Chairman Morgan announced the following approved ARPB meeting dates: a. January 23, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. b. February 27, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. c. March 27, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. d. April 24, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. e. May 22, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. Chairman Morgan asked for any conflicts with the next meeting date and any ex-parte communications, and there were none. He also requested that any persons speaking at this Public Hearing be sworn in. Town Clerk Taylor swore in Mark Marsh, Keith Williams and Joaquin Grillo. ARPB - Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream December 19, 2013 – Page 2 VI. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by Mark Marsh of Bridges, Marsh & Associates, as agent for Mr. & Mrs. John Smith, owners of the property located at 555 Old School Road, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as Lot 2, H.V. Pope Subdivision. a. LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit construction of a new entry portico and covered loggia over an existing open patio, a total addition of 597 square feet, to the existing one-story, single family dwelling, relocate existing west driveway, and reopen a previously existing driveway at the south east corner of the property. Mr. Marsh introduced himself, Keith Williams, Landscape Architect, and Hollis Tidwell, who was technically savvy with the power point and sketch-up computer presentation for the massing he was presenting this day. Mr. Marsh continued that it was an auto cad program. He reported this program has been received well from all levels, and that it is simplistic but the elements and proportions are real. Mr. Tidwell described and demonstrated in detail the new computer program. Board Member Lyons inquired regarding encouraging this program being utilized when building a new single-family home. Mr. Marsh responded that it was not substantial for some homes, as size and financial costs are the criteria. As an example, he recommended this great tool for beach front homes, due to the massing of the homes. Chairman Morgan inquired regarding the preservation of this computerized tool for record keeping. Mr. Tidwell reported that it was saved in a PDF file folder, as with photographs. Mr. Marsh stated that he would be leaving a thumb drive for the staff to review. Board Member Jones inquired if it could be printed out, to which Mr. Tidwell answered “Yes”. Mr. Marsh continued describing the above-named interesting reversed residence which faces the golf course in the back and Old School Road in the front. He reported that the residents were trying to create an entry feature to replicate a covered porch and loggia over an existing tattered awning. Mr. Marsh identified the exact placement and discussed the color of light white brick, the coin work, which will contrast with a shadow line. Vice-Chairman Smith inquired regarding the distance of the awning with regard to the eaves. Mr. Marsh stated that the “silly” wall will come out. He continued that the portico element will anchor the element to the floor. Mr. Marsh also reported that the loggia will be wider than the front door, and will ARPB Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream December 19, 2013 – Page 3 now give a sense of entry and arrival to the house. He commented that the house is on line with a Georgian style but with more elements. Mr. Marsh stated that the roof is flat and dramatic. Mr. Williams described and demonstrated the landscaping improvements with photographs. He reported that the entrance will be adjusted with the driveway. Mr. Williams continued and discussed the motor court with canopy trees. He stated that coral and cast stone will be used on the driveway, and gardens will flank the entrance. Mr. Williams also stated that this will create better circulation in the driveway. He commented that the present ficus hedges will be replaced with more white fly tolerant hedges being put in, and that the pool will remain, with the removal of quite a bit of paving, and will incorporate the cast stone for the pool furniture area. Mr. Williams also reported that there will be a feeling of expanse with the elevations. Mr. Marsh continued that the new driveway will still be on the west side of the house making it easier to get to the garage. Vice-Chairman Smith stated that he presently loved the house, and that with these new proposed additions, it will be excellent. Chairman Morgan asked for any further comments. There were none. Board Member Murphy moved and Vice-Chairman Smith seconded to approve Level 2 Architectural/Site Plan Review to permit construction of a new entry portico and covered loggia over an existing open patio, a total addition of 597 square feet, to the existing one-story, single family dwelling, relocate existing west driveway and reopen a previously existing driveway at the south east corner of the property. All vote AYE. 2. An application submitted by Mark Marsh & Keith Williams, as agents for Mr. & Mrs. Nelson Grumney, owners of the property located 2960 Polo Drive, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described s Lot 21 & Part of Lot 20, Gulf Stream Cove Subdivision. a. LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to slightly modify both driveways, add paver bricks, and revise previously approved landscape design and materials at the above address. Mr. Marsh stated that the residents have asked Mr. Williams to revisit the previously approved elements. Mr. Williams reported that the residents requested to incorporate a spa which would water into the remaining pool, with a new emerald green finish. He continued that the cast stone paving will remain. Mr. Williams also stated there will be no change in the landscaping in the back. Mr. Williams stated that all equipment will be out of the setback and will be walled in. He stated that off the breakfast room there will be a garden, which would have a walk through leading out to a little terrace with an urn or sculpture. Mr. Williams discussed and further demonstrated on the computer the driveways and the remaining ficus trees. He stated that the gardens will be all freshened up throughout the property. ARPB Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream December 19, 2013 – Page 4 Vice-Chairman Smith inquired regarding the hedge in front of the driveway. Mr. Williams responded that it will be replanted out of the right of way and onto the property. Board Member Jones inquired if the plantings would survive that transition, including the citrus trees. Mr. Williams commented that there is a 75% chance. Chairman Morgan asked for any comments. There were none. Board Member Lyons moved and Vice-Chairman Smith seconded to approve the Level 2 Architectural/Site Plan Review to slightly modify both driveways, add paver bricks, and revise previously approved landscape design and materials, which meet the intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards at the above address. All voted AYE. 3. An application submitted by Mark Marsh, as agent for Mr. and Mrs. Steven Silverman, owners of the property located at 1465 North Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida 33483, which is legally described in metes and bounds in Section 10, Township 46 South, Range 43 East, Palm Beach County, Florida. a. NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY PERMIT to permit installation of new driveway pillars and an iron entry gate at the above address. Mr. Marsh reported that this property will be one of the sterling properties in Town, due to the outstanding work done, and the monies invested on this project. He continued that they are requesting a new gate and gate post on A1A. Mr. Marsh described and discussed the sketch of what is being proposed. He further reported that the gate post has no encroachment, is very pricey, antique, and is a very classic element to the property. Mr. Marsh continued that the compositions were rot iron and bronze, eighty (80) years old, and is from France. He reported that there has been a great deal of unfair conflict from some neighbors regarding this property. Mr. Marsh continued that the owners have been very patient with the situation. Town Manager Thrasher stated that he passed through the above-named property and was very impressed with what he saw, and commented that there was no conflict with the approval documents. Mr. Marsh reported that the owners planted very substantial landscaping on their property, at a cost of $500,000, with respect to their neighbors. Vice-Chairman Smith questioned the heights of the gates with regard to the codes. Mr. Marsh stated that the restrictions are between 7 and 8 feet and those were met. Board Member Lyons stated that he liked it because it was not a wall, and the entrance looked great. Chairman Morgan commended Mr. Marsh for the remarkable job. ARPB Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream December 19, 2013 – Page 5 Vice-Chairman Smith moved and Board Member Lyons seconded to approve the North Ocean Boulevard Overlay Permit to permit installation of new driveway pillars and an iron entry gate at the above address. All voted AYE. 4. An application submitted by Maria T. Bonilla and Joaquin Grillo, owners of the property located 335 Old School Road, Gulf Stream, Florida 33483, which is legally described as Lot 6, H.V. Pope Subdivision. a. LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the conversion of the existing garage to living space, the construction of two new additions consisting of a 487 square foot garage and 668 square feet of new living space on the east side of the existing structure, a 174 square foot lanai on the northwest corner of the existing structure, with total additions to the one-story Bermuda style, single-family dwelling being 1,329 square feet, and adjustments to the existing landscaping with some new plantings added. Mr. Grillo introduced himself and stated that he and his wife are the owners of the above-named home for the past two (2) years. He stated his wife fell in love with the house, as soon as she saw it. Mr. Grillo continued that his three (3) children attend school in Town, and discussed the comparison of their small home to their neighbors’ larger ones. He commented on how he wanted to “grow” the house towards the east, for more space for his family. Mr. Grillo discussed and referred in detail to the floor plan handout. He wishes to convert the current garage into a guest room, another garage, a mud room and a new bedroom in the northeast corner. Mr. Grillo discussed an entry bathroom which would convert to a cabana bathroom leading out to the pool area, and a lanai as transparent as possible, which would not interfere with the view of the grounds. He discussed in detail the lanai’s views from the extreme east and that the existing neighbors cannot be seen. Mr. Grillo commented that there will be a small barbeque structure with drawers on the lanai. Chairman Morgan inquired regarding the driveway. Mr. Grillo responded that there will be two (2) driveways; one goes around the house in the front and will not be touched. He continued that the shorter driveway will be 23 feet east from the property. Mr. Grillo stated that one tree will have to be replaced. Board Member Lyons questioned replacing the roof as it looks old. Mr. Grillo responded “No”, and that some pipes have to be amended but the roof will have to be painted to appear as one new roof. Chairman Morgan inquired regarding the landscaping off the addition of the bedroom. ARPB Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream December 19, 2013 – Page 6 Mr. Grillo stated that the vegetation will move closer to the property line. He continued he will look to the ARPB for suggestions for new vegetation. Mr. Grillo stated that there will be a fence inside the new calusa vegetation, which is the same vegetation as is planted two (2) houses to the south of his house. Vice-Chairman Smith discussed the short driveway and the issues of a car backing out of the driveway. Mr. Grillo responded that the ficus hedge will disappear which would help. He continued that he realizes it is too tall. Board Member Jones inquired regarding the roof line, which seems a lot higher, and if it could be made all one height. Town Clerk Taylor swore in David Frank, of Precisions Drafting and Design who reported that they are working with the same plane and therefore, they cannot lower it. Board Member Lyons inquired as to the new height of the roof. Mr. Frank responded approximately 3 to 4 feet higher. He continued that the only way to lower the roof would be to flatten it out, and that it would not be seen from the ground level. Board Member Lyons questioned the monotonous roof line which would not make it desirable. Chairman Morgan discussed the windows on the north side, which are all vertical, and takes your eyes straight up to the roof. He continued that all structural issues are permissible under Code. Mr. Grillo reported on the large amount of landscaping, and that the roof will only be seen from the golf course, and that there was no major impact on the house. Board Member Murphy inquired if there was any feedback from the neighbors. Town Clerk Taylor replied “No”. Chairman Morgan stated that it’s a nice improvement and change to the house. Town Manager Thrasher added that he did ask for help from Urban Design Associates, and there were no violations. ARPB Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream December 19, 2013 – Page 7 Board Member Murphy moved and Board Member Lyons seconded to approve Level 2 Architectural/Site Plan Review to permit the conversion of the existing garage to living space, the construction of two new additions consisting of a 487 square foot garage and 668 square feet of new living space on the east side of the existing structure, a 174 square foot lanai on the northwest corner of the existing structure, with total additions to the one-story Bermuda style, single-family dwelling being 1,329 square feet, and adjustments to the existing landscaping with some new plantings added from the Design Manual. All voted AYE. VII. ITEMS BY STAFF: A. Update – Ad Hoc Committee Town Manager Thrasher reported that the Ad Hoc Committee has been completed and is full. The Chairman is William (Bill) Boardman, and the members are: Benjamin Scheier, Richard Mouw, David Bodker, and Patricia (Patsy) Randolph. Town Manager Thrasher requested receiving suggestions or comments from the ARPB for changing the qualifications of the code. He stated that the ground work would take a minimum of ninety (90) days. Town Clerk Taylor stated she hoped an Organizational Meeting would take place right after the holidays, and be totally completed by May 2014. She continued that the Committee was not expected to review the entire code just certain issues brought before the Committee. Town Manager Thrasher reported that Chapter 70 can be addressed, which has caused difficulty in the past. Vice-Chairman Smith inquired regarding the amount of cars in front of the Silverman house. Town Manager Thrasher agreed that it’s a nuisance, and that it has nothing to do with the Spence house. He continued these are all related to the Silverman construction. VIII. ITEMS BY BOARD MEMBERS: There were none. IX. PUBLIC: There were none. X. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Morgan adjourned the meeting at 9:29 A.M. ___________________ Sandra Fein Recording Secretary January 17, 2014 CHAIRMAN: Scott Morgan VICE CHAIRMAN: Thomas Smith BOARD MEMBER: Paul A. Lyons, Jr. Amanda Jones Malcolm Murphy ALTERNATE MEMBER: Hewlett Kent Robert Dockerty REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 2014 AT 8:30 A.M.,IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. AGENDA I. Call to Order. II. Roll Call. III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 12-19-13. IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. V. Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. January 23, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. b. February 27, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. c. March 27, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. d. April 24, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. e. May 22, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. f. June 26, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. VI. PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by Dave Bodker, Dave Bodker Landscape Arachitecture/Planning, Inc.as Agent for Robert Julien, the owner of property located at 1601 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described in metes and bounds in Section 10, Township 46 south, range 43 east. a.NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY PERMIT to permit installation of paver bricks over existing concrete driveway. VII. Items by Staff. VIII. Items by Board Members. IX. Public. X. Adjournment. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA, ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2013, AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I. Call to Order: Chairman Morgan called the meeting to order at 8:31 A.M. II. Roll Call: Present and Scott Morgan Chairman Participating Thomas Smith Vice-Chairman Amanda Jones Board Member Paul A. Lyons, Jr. Board Member Malcolm Murphy Board Member Robert Dockerty Alternate Board Member Hewlett Kent Alternate Board Member Also Present and William H. Thrasher Town Manager Participating Rita L. Taylor Town Clerk Absent w/notice John C. Randolph Town Counsel Mark Marsh Architect Hollis Tidwell Architect Keith Williams Landscape Architect Joaquin Grillo Resident David Frank Precision Drafting & Design III. Minutes: A. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing held on November 21, 2013 Vice-Chairman Smith moved and Board Member Jones seconded to approve the November 21, 2013 Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing held by the Architectural Review Board. All voted AYE. IV. Additions, Withdrawals, Deferrals, Arrangement of Agenda Items: There were none. V. Announcements: A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Dates Chairman Morgan announced the following approved ARPB meeting dates: a. January 23, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. b. February 27, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. c. March 27, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. d. April 24, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. e. May 22, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. Chairman Morgan asked for any conflicts with the next meeting date and any ex-parte communications, and there were none. He also requested that any persons speaking at this Public Hearing be sworn in. Town Clerk Taylor swore in Mark Marsh, Keith Williams and Joaquin Grillo. ARPB - Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream December 19, 2013 – Page 2 VI. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by Mark Marsh of Bridges, Marsh & Associates, as agent for Mr. & Mrs. John Smith, owners of the property located at 555 Old School Road, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as Lot 2, H.V. Pope Subdivision. a. LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit construction of a new entry portico and covered loggia over an existing open patio, a total addition of 597 square feet, to the existing one-story, single family dwelling, relocate existing west driveway, and reopen a previously existing driveway at the south east corner of the property. Mr. Marsh introduced himself, Keith Williams, Landscape Architect, and Hollis Tidwell, who was technically savvy with the power point and sketch-up computer presentation for the massing he was presenting this day. Mr. Marsh continued that it was an auto cad program. He reported this program has been received well from all levels, and that it is simplistic but the elements and proportions are real. Mr. Tidwell described and demonstrated in detail the new computer program. Board Member Lyons inquired regarding encouraging this program being utilized when building a new single-family home. Mr. Marsh responded that it was not substantial for some homes, as size and financial costs are the criteria. As an example, he recommended this great tool for beach front homes, due to the massing of the homes. Chairman Morgan inquired regarding the preservation of this computerized tool for record keeping. Mr. Tidwell reported that it was saved in a PDF file folder, as with photographs. Mr. Marsh stated that he would be leaving a thumb drive for the staff to review. Board Member Jones inquired if it could be printed out, to which Mr. Tidwell answered “Yes”. Mr. Marsh continued describing the above-named interesting reversed residence which faces the golf course in the back and Old School Road in the front. He reported that the residents were trying to create an entry feature to replicate a covered porch and loggia over an existing tattered awning. Mr. Marsh identified the exact placement and discussed the color of light white brick, the coin work, which will contrast with a shadow line. Vice-Chairman Smith inquired regarding the distance of the awning with regard to the eaves. Mr. Marsh stated that the “silly” wall will come out. He continued that the portico element will anchor the element to the floor. Mr. Marsh also reported that the loggia will be wider than the front door, and will ARPB Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream December 19, 2013 – Page 3 now give a sense of entry and arrival to the house. He commented that the house is on line with a Georgian style but with more elements. Mr. Marsh stated that the roof is flat and dramatic. Mr. Williams described and demonstrated the landscaping improvements with photographs. He reported that the entrance will be adjusted with the driveway. Mr. Williams continued and discussed the motor court with canopy trees. He stated that coral and cast stone will be used on the driveway, and gardens will flank the entrance. Mr. Williams also stated that this will create better circulation in the driveway. He commented that the present ficus hedges will be replaced with more white fly tolerant hedges being put in, and that the pool will remain, with the removal of quite a bit of paving, and will incorporate the cast stone for the pool furniture area. Mr. Williams also reported that there will be a feeling of expanse with the elevations. Mr. Marsh continued that the new driveway will still be on the west side of the house making it easier to get to the garage. Vice-Chairman Smith stated that he presently loved the house, and that with these new proposed additions, it will be excellent. Chairman Morgan asked for any further comments. There were none. Board Member Murphy moved and Vice-Chairman Smith seconded to approve Level 2 Architectural/Site Plan Review to permit construction of a new entry portico and covered loggia over an existing open patio, a total addition of 597 square feet, to the existing one-story, single family dwelling, relocate existing west driveway and reopen a previously existing driveway at the south east corner of the property. All vote AYE. 2. An application submitted by Mark Marsh & Keith Williams, as agents for Mr. & Mrs. Nelson Grumney, owners of the property located 2960 Polo Drive, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described s Lot 21 & Part of Lot 20, Gulf Stream Cove Subdivision. a. LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to slightly modify both driveways, add paver bricks, and revise previously approved landscape design and materials at the above address. Mr. Marsh stated that the residents have asked Mr. Williams to revisit the previously approved elements. Mr. Williams reported that the residents requested to incorporate a spa which would water into the remaining pool, with a new emerald green finish. He continued that the cast stone paving will remain. Mr. Williams also stated there will be no change in the landscaping in the back. Mr. Williams stated that all equipment will be out of the setback and will be walled in. He stated that off the breakfast room there will be a garden, which would have a walk through leading out to a little terrace with an urn or sculpture. Mr. Williams discussed and further demonstrated on the computer the driveways and the remaining ficus trees. He stated that the gardens will be all freshened up throughout the property. ARPB Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream December 19, 2013 – Page 4 Vice-Chairman Smith inquired regarding the hedge in front of the driveway. Mr. Williams responded that it will be replanted out of the right of way and onto the property. Board Member Jones inquired if the plantings would survive that transition, including the citrus trees. Mr. Williams commented that there is a 75% chance. Chairman Morgan asked for any comments. There were none. Board Member Lyons moved and Vice-Chairman Smith seconded to approve the Level 2 Architectural/Site Plan Review to slightly modify both driveways, add paver bricks, and revise previously approved landscape design and materials, which meet the intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards at the above address. All voted AYE. 3. An application submitted by Mark Marsh, as agent for Mr. and Mrs. Steven Silverman, owners of the property located at 1465 North Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida 33483, which is legally described in metes and bounds in Section 10, Township 46 South, Range 43 East, Palm Beach County, Florida. a. NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY PERMIT to permit installation of new driveway pillars and an iron entry gate at the above address. Mr. Marsh reported that this property will be one of the sterling properties in Town, due to the outstanding work done, and the monies invested on this project. He continued that they are requesting a new gate and gate post on A1A. Mr. Marsh described and discussed the sketch of what is being proposed. He further reported that the gate post has no encroachment, is very pricey, antique, and is a very classic element to the property. Mr. Marsh continued that the compositions were rot iron and bronze, eighty (80) years old, and is from France. He reported that there has been a great deal of unfair conflict from some neighbors regarding this property. Mr. Marsh continued that the owners have been very patient with the situation. Town Manager Thrasher stated that he passed through the above-named property and was very impressed with what he saw, and commented that there was no conflict with the approval documents. Mr. Marsh reported that the owners planted very substantial landscaping on their property, at a cost of $500,000, with respect to their neighbors. Vice-Chairman Smith questioned the heights of the gates with regard to the codes. Mr. Marsh stated that the restrictions are between 7 and 8 feet and those were met. Board Member Lyons stated that he liked it because it was not a wall, and the entrance looked great. Chairman Morgan commended Mr. Marsh for the remarkable job. ARPB Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream December 19, 2013 – Page 5 Vice-Chairman Smith moved and Board Member Lyons seconded to approve the North Ocean Boulevard Overlay Permit to permit installation of new driveway pillars and an iron entry gate at the above address. All voted AYE. 4. An application submitted by Maria T. Bonilla and Joaquin Grillo, owners of the property located 335 Old School Road, Gulf Stream, Florida 33483, which is legally described as Lot 6, H.V. Pope Subdivision. a. LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the conversion of the existing garage to living space, the construction of two new additions consisting of a 487 square foot garage and 668 square feet of new living space on the east side of the existing structure, a 174 square foot lanai on the northwest corner of the existing structure, with total additions to the one-story Bermuda style, single-family dwelling being 1,329 square feet, and adjustments to the existing landscaping with some new plantings added. Mr. Grillo introduced himself and stated that he and his wife are the owners of the above-named home for the past two (2) years. He stated his wife fell in love with the house, as soon as she saw it. Mr. Grillo continued that his three (3) children attend school in Town, and discussed the comparison of their small home to their neighbors’ larger ones. He commented on how he wanted to “grow” the house towards the east, for more space for his family. Mr. Grillo discussed and referred in detail to the floor plan handout. He wishes to convert the current garage into a guest room, another garage, a mud room and a new bedroom in the northeast corner. Mr. Grillo discussed an entry bathroom which would convert to a cabana bathroom leading out to the pool area, and a lanai as transparent as possible, which would not interfere with the view of the grounds. He discussed in detail the lanai’s views from the extreme east and that the existing neighbors cannot be seen. Mr. Grillo commented that there will be a small barbeque structure with drawers on the lanai. Chairman Morgan inquired regarding the driveway. Mr. Grillo responded that there will be two (2) driveways; one goes around the house in the front and will not be touched. He continued that the shorter driveway will be 23 feet east from the property. Mr. Grillo stated that one tree will have to be replaced. Board Member Lyons questioned replacing the roof as it looks old. Mr. Grillo responded “No”, and that some pipes have to be amended but the roof will have to be painted to appear as one new roof. Chairman Morgan inquired regarding the landscaping off the addition of the bedroom. ARPB Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream December 19, 2013 – Page 6 Mr. Grillo stated that the vegetation will move closer to the property line. He continued he will look to the ARPB for suggestions for new vegetation. Mr. Grillo stated that there will be a fence inside the new calusa vegetation, which is the same vegetation as is planted two (2) houses to the south of his house. Vice-Chairman Smith discussed the short driveway and the issues of a car backing out of the driveway. Mr. Grillo responded that the ficus hedge will disappear which would help. He continued that he realizes it is too tall. Board Member Jones inquired regarding the roof line, which seems a lot higher, and if it could be made all one height. Town Clerk Taylor swore in David Frank, of Precisions Drafting and Design who reported that they are working with the same plane and therefore, they cannot lower it. Board Member Lyons inquired as to the new height of the roof. Mr. Frank responded approximately 3 to 4 feet higher. He continued that the only way to lower the roof would be to flatten it out, and that it would not be seen from the ground level. Board Member Lyons questioned the monotonous roof line which would not make it desirable. Chairman Morgan discussed the windows on the north side, which are all vertical, and takes your eyes straight up to the roof. He continued that all structural issues are permissible under Code. Mr. Grillo reported on the large amount of landscaping, and that the roof will only be seen from the golf course, and that there was no major impact on the house. Board Member Murphy inquired if there was any feedback from the neighbors. Town Clerk Taylor replied “No”. Chairman Morgan stated that it’s a nice improvement and change to the house. Town Manager Thrasher added that he did ask for help from Urban Design Associates, and there were no violations. ARPB Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream December 19, 2013 – Page 7 Board Member Murphy moved and Board Member Lyons seconded to approve Level 2 Architectural/Site Plan Review to permit the conversion of the existing garage to living space, the construction of two new additions consisting of a 487 square foot garage and 668 square feet of new living space on the east side of the existing structure, a 174 square foot lanai on the northwest corner of the existing structure, with total additions to the one-story Bermuda style, single-family dwelling being 1,329 square feet, and adjustments to the existing landscaping with some new plantings added from the Design Manual. All voted AYE. VII. ITEMS BY STAFF: A. Update – Ad Hoc Committee Town Manager Thrasher reported that the Ad Hoc Committee has been completed and is full. The Chairman is William (Bill) Boardman, and the members are: Benjamin Scheier, Richard Mouw, David Bodker, and Patricia (Patsy) Randolph. Town Manager Thrasher requested receiving suggestions or comments from the ARPB for changing the qualifications of the code. He stated that the ground work would take a minimum of ninety (90) days. Town Clerk Taylor stated she hoped an Organizational Meeting would take place right after the holidays, and be totally completed by May 2014. She continued that the Committee was not expected to review the entire code just certain issues brought before the Committee. Town Manager Thrasher reported that Chapter 70 can be addressed, which has caused difficulty in the past. Vice-Chairman Smith inquired regarding the amount of cars in front of the Silverman house. Town Manager Thrasher agreed that it’s a nuisance, and that it has nothing to do with the Spence house. He continued these are all related to the Silverman construction. VIII. ITEMS BY BOARD MEMBERS: There were none. IX. PUBLIC: There were none. X. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Morgan adjourned the meeting at 9:29 A.M. ___________________ Sandra Fein Recording Secretary February 21, 2014 CHAIRMAN: Scott Morgan VICE CHAIRMAN: Thomas Smith BOARD MEMBER: Paul A. Lyons, Jr. Amanda Jones Malcolm Murphy ALTERNATE MEMBER: Hewlett Kent Robert Dockerty REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2014 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. AGENDA I. Call to Order. II. Roll Call. III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 1-23-14. IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. V. Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. March 27, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. b. April 24, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. c. May 22, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. d. June 26, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. e. July 24, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. f. There is no meeting in August VI. PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by Mark Marsh of Bridges & Marsh, as Agent for Mr. & Mrs. Nelson Grumney, the owners of property located at 2960 Polo Drive, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as Lot 21 Gulf Stream Cove Subdivision. a.SPECIAL EXCEPTION to permit the addition of a spa, that will encroach 4.34 ft. into the west setback, which will be attached to and become a part of the existing swimming pool that encroaches 6.42 ft. into the west setback. b.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN REVIEW to allow the construction of a spa which will encroach 4.34 ft. into the west setback and will be attached to and become a part of the existing pool that encroaches 6.42 ft. into the west setback. 2. An application submitted by Mark Marsh and Nievera Williams as agents for Mr. & Mrs. Bryan Cook, owners of property located at 1226 North Ocean Boulevard, Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lot 2, Hidden Harbour Estates Plat Two. a.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the construction of a partial 2 story, Anglo Carribbean style single family dwelling with guest quarters and a three car garage, a total of 9,403 sq. feet, and a swimming pool. VII. Items by Staff. VIII. Items by Board Members. AGENDA CONTINUED IX. Public. X. Adjournment. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA, ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 2014, AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I. Call to Order: Vice-Chairman Smith called the meeting to order at 8:32 A.M. II. Roll Call: Present and Thomas Smith Vice-Chairman Participating Paul A. Lyons, Jr. Board Member Amanda Jones Board Member Malcolm Murphy Board Member Robert Dockerty Alternate Board Member Hewlett Kent Alternate Board Member Absent w/Notice Scott Morgan Chairman Also Present and William H. Thrasher Town Manager Participating Rita L. Taylor Town Clerk John C. Randolph Town Counsel David Bodker Landscape Architect Christopher O’Hare Resident III. Minutes: A. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing held on December 19, 2013 Board Member Lyons moved and Board Member Jones seconded to approve the December 19, 2013 Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing held by the Architectural Review Board. All voted AYE. IV. Additions, Withdrawals, Deferrals, Arrangement of Agenda Items: There were none. V. Announcements: A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Dates Chairman Morgan announced the following approved upcoming ARPB meeting dates and asked for any conflicts. a. February 27, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. b. March 27, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. c. April 24, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. d. May 22, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. e. June 26, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. Alternate Board Member Kent reported that he cannot attend the February 27th ARPB Meeting. Board Member Jones also reported that she may be unable to attend the February 27th ARPB Meeting, and will contact Town Clerk Taylor if that is the case. ARPB - Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream January 23, 2014 – Page 2 Town Clerk Taylor swore in David Bodker, and asked if there was any ex-parte communication, and there was none. VI. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by David Bodker, David Bodker Landscape Architecture/Planning, Inc. as Agent for Robert Julien, the owner of property located at 1601 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described in metes and bounds in Section 10, Township 46 South, range 43 east. a. NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY PERMIT to permit installation of paver bricks over existing concrete driveway. Mr. Bodker introduced himself and stated that this application is for the repaving of the gravel driveway at 1601 N. Ocean Blvd. He reported that that he will be utilizing a red Dominican brick which he displayed and distributed samples amongst the ARPB Members for their review. Vice-Chairman Smith inquired if the brick was new or recycled. Mr. Bodker responded that he did not know the answer, but stated that the same type of brick was utilized on the driveway 3 or 4 driveways south of this residence. He also stated that he received a Department of Transportation Permit for the portion of the driveway which is in the public right of way. Mr. Bodker further commented that the new brick will be installed on top of the existing concrete after removing the gravel. He described and displayed his photographs of the brick border along the perimeter of the driveway, and described and displayed the area where the owners requested the concrete auxiliary area. Vice-Chairman Smith inquired if that area would be unfinished concrete. Mr. Bodker responded that it will be a light broom finish. He continued that it will be for auxiliary parking. He stated that according to DOT requirements, there has to be 3’ of asphalt past the driveway. Vice-Chairman Smith inquired if the driveway will have the exact same configuration as it has at present. Mr. Bodker responded “Yes”. Alternate Board Member Kent stated that it looks a lot better with the brick paver rather than the concrete. He continued that there will be no weeds or pesticide used to kill the weeds with concrete under the bricks. Mr. Bodker also stated that this property is heavily screened with landscape material. Town Clerk Taylor swore in Christopher O’Hare. ARPB Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream January 23, 2014 – Page 3 Mr. O’Hare commended Mr. Bodker on a job well done. He commented on the number of Board Members present just to approve a brick paver on an existing driveway. Mr. O’Hare pointed out that the code states that brick pavers are preferred because they are pervious and better for drainage. He inquired why the concrete is being kept on this project, and the pavers being installed over it. Alternate Board Member Kent replied it depends on the size of the lot, and the ratio of the pervious area as to whether the concrete is acceptable. Mr. Bodker stated that this was already a paved driveway, and the pervious area that is required has been exceeded. Mr. O’Hare stated that he had no problems with the merits of Mr. Bodker’s application, but was questioning the members of the body about what was preferred and not preferred. Alternate Board Member Kent stated that there had to be ten (10) persons here for approval of this application because the property is along A1A, a State road, requiring a North Ocean Blvd. approval. Mr. O’Hare also stated he had an issue regarding last month’s minutes referring to Town Manager Thrasher’s comment with regard to a new policy with plants listed in Section 70-150. He inquired why he was prosecuted by the Town in 2013 for having certain plants, on his property and wondered if that policy was changed. Town Manager Thrasher responded that neither the code or policy has changed in that regard. Board Member Murphy moved and Alternate Board Member Kent seconded to approve the North Ocean Boulevard Overlay Permit to replace the existing concrete and gravel driveway and driveway approach with paver brick. All vote AYE. VII. ITEMS BY STAFF: There were none. VIII. ITEMS BY BOARD MEMBERS: There were none. IX. PUBLIC: There were no additional comments from the public. X. ADJOURNMENT: Vice-Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting at 8:45 A.M. ARPB Regular Meeting & Public Hearing Town of Gulf Stream January 23, 2014 – Page 4 ___________________ Sandra Fein Recording Secretary From:scottmorgan75@gmail.com To:Bill Thrasher Subject:Public Records Request 10/15/13 Date:Friday, October 18, 2013 8:54:36 AM Hello Bill, You sent me a copy of an e-mail from Mr. J. O’Boyle, which purports, rather informally, to be a Public Records request. The highlighted Request (5) of the e-mail makes no sense, as it requests “Email’s sent from Scott Morgan’s (sic) for the Month of September 2013”. I assume that is the request you wish me to answer but since Mr. O’Boyle’s request is vague, I am unable in good faith to respond to it. Should you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Scott W. Morgan w-561-752-1936 c-561-573-6006 Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – March 22, 2012 Page 6 meets Code and that the eave height of entry feature was at an acceptable or discouraged level. Mr. Thrasher said the first thing you notice about this house is the entry feature and the height of that roof. He said the overall height of the entry feature should be controlled by the heights in the parenthesis, not just the eave height. In previous applications the Town was successful in requiring that the overall height of that entry feature was from the finished floor to the very top elevation of whatever element was up there, and he said if this language concentrates only on eave heights an application could potentially be approved and end up with the look of this south elevation example, which we do not want in entry features. Mr. Thrasher said this looked wrong to Staff and we tried to convince the applicant to consider changing it to see what it would look like and they refused. He said it was sent to Mr. Minor for his assistance and with his interpretation of the Code it could not be prohibited, however, he said the applicant did not come back. Mr. Thrasher said if we want to control the entry height from finished floor to the very peak of what is up there the language must be changed to address that. Chairman Ganger said the proposed changes are consistent with the information and background provided by Staff and he asked the Board if they are comfortable with what is recommended. Mr. Thrasher said he has been successful interpreting the Code because the entry feature is controlled by the heights in parenthesis. Mr. Minor said it needs clarification and the recommended change clarifies this as looking at the entire feature and not just the eave height.Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Lyons seconded to recommend changes to Section 70-100, Roof and eave heights as follows: Entry features are the front portion of the structure which provide door entrance to the dwelling. The height of the entry feature is measured from the finish floor elevation to the upper portion of any balcony railings, Dutch gable or other such elements. Height: Preferred, from eight feet to 14 feet; Discouraged, from 14 feet to 16 feet; Prohibited, greater than 16 feet. Clerk Taylor asked if the same issue should be addressed with regard to two-story structures. Mr. Minor said the same text in parenthesis appears where the Code addresses two-story structures. Mr. Thrasher asked for confirmation from either Mr. Minor or Clerk Taylor that the same language appears for both single-story and two-story structures when addressing the entry feature. Mr. Minor said breaking it out and pulling the language out of the eave height category shown in parenthesis for both one and two-story structures will provide clarification. Chairman Ganger noted that the motion pluralized “elements” and asked if there are other elements that would add height. Mr. Minor said he could not think of anything else. Staff and Members of the Board agreed that “elements” will remain plural and that the language in parenthesis addressing entry features under eave heights shall be removed. There was no further discussion. All voted AYE. 4. Section 70-51, Minor Accessory Structures Mr. Thrasher said the recommendation is that the only addition to Section 70-51, Minor Accessory Structures, is the word “Waterfalls.” Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – March 22, 2012 Page 7 Mr. Murphy moved and Vice-Chairman Morgan seconded to recommend amending Section 70-51, Minor accessory structures (2) at Page CD70:24, In-ground swimming pools and spas to read: “In-ground swimming pools, spas and waterfalls.” There was no discussion. All voted AYE. 5. Section 66-367, Swimming Pools Chairman Ganger asked if there are a lot of requests for grottos and Mr. Thrasher said no. He said they are very nice and a great thing for kids, but they do not fit in with Gulf Stream standards. Chairman Ganger asked if the 4-foot height limit on waterfalls is a safety issue or an aesthetic issue. Vice-Chairman Morgan said he agrees with the 4- foot height limit, but he said he was not sure about screening. Mr. Thrasher said the main focus is on height. Mr. Lyons asked if the sound from a waterfall would be a concern. Clerk Taylor said there is a section in the Code relating to fountains requiring they be turned off by a certain time and Mr. Thrasher said the minor accessory setbacks should be sufficient. With regard to paragraph (k), Chairman Ganger suggested that screening will be eliminated and there will be a period after the word “property.” Mr. Stanley asked if a height is required on a grotto. Mr. Thrasher asked Clerk Taylor if a grotto is described in definitions and Clerk Taylor said it is not. Mr. Thrasher said the Code defines a structure as that which requires assembly, and he said a grotto would be a formation of rocks which would require assembly and would be prohibited. Mr. Minor said this would fall under minor accessory structures.Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Lyons seconded to recommend amending Section 66-367, Swimming Pools by adding the following paragraphs: (j) No grotto shall be permitted in any zoning district. A grotto shall be considered an artificial structure or excavation made to look like a cave or cavern; and, (k) Waterfalls, minor accessory structures, shall not exceed 4’ in height as measured from the average finished grade of the property. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. 6. Section 66-369, Docks Mr. Thrasher said concrete docks have been allowed because it was not clear if the language in the Code prohibited them. He asked Mr. Minor if other municipalities control type of docks. Mr. Minor said the material is not typically controlled, but he said fake wood is usually prohibited. Mr. Stanley asked about concrete spun piles, which are concrete piles. He said spun pilings are not as warm-looking as wood pilings and they do not have the texture, but they are more durable. Mr. Thrasher said concrete docks look terrible when they are deteriorating and it is more expensive to remove them, and he said that wood docks and pilings should be required. Mrs. Jones asked about floating docks. Clerk Taylor said there is a State Law which prohibits the Town from not allowing them. Vice-Chairman Morgan said as pilings and dolphins deteriorate they are sheathed with concrete below the waterline to preserve them and he said the proposed language would prohibit that. However, he said you would not see the sheathing and it probably would not be applied for.Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Lyons seconded to recommend amending Section 66-369, Docks (7) Materials and colors, at Page CD66:71 to read: “All docks and pilings will be made from wood.” There was no discussion. All voted AYE. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – March 22, 2012 Page 8 VII.Items by Board Members. Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Minor to update the Board on the changes to the Comp Plan. Mr. Minor said the changes were submitted to the the State and to the Treasure Coast Advisory Board and the comments have come back. He said there was one minor comment from South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and, as they requested, he has made the changes to the water supply plan, which is a part of the Comp Plan. Mr. Minor explained that since Boynton Beach supplies the water to the annexed area, SFWMD wanted Boynton Beach to be better referenced in the water supply plan. He said he has supplied revised copies of the Comp Plan to Staff for the Commission to take up at their meeting. Chairman Ganger asked when the Comp Plan will go into effect if the Commission has no objections. Mr. Minor said if there are no objecttions there will be a 45-day period and then the Comp Plan could go into effect either by late Spring or early Summer. Clerk Taylor distributed material to the Board which was submitted by Mr. Minor and will be on the Agenda for their next ARPB Meeting. Mr. Thrasher asked Mr. Minor to explain what their assignment is. Mr. Minor said that, based on the Code, his office has provided a visual look of what is permitted and what the existing FAR regulations provide for in both one and two-story structures in each of the single family zoning districts. He said the Board should look at possible alternatives and he will create a visual so that we can begin discussing whether or not they are appropriate for Gulf Stream. Mr. Minor said there are items on the cover of his material which were previously discussed that could provide revisions and encouragements for good design, such as where the Delray Beach Property Owners’ Association allows an additional area of lot coverage if a second story is brought back 5 feet. Clerk Taylor said the purpose of this information is for the Board to determine whether or not our FAR is sufficient as it stands to address the issue of boxyness, and she said Mr. Minor has provided alternatives that the Board may want to consider. Mr. Minor said if the Board eventually recommends changes they will be able to show what is currently allowed and what is proposed, and he said it is easier to grasp when you provide a visual. Mr. Minor suggested that the Board study the material and decide whether they find the alternatives acceptable, too restrictive or not restrictive enough. Chairman Ganger said he would like to have Tom Smith in attendance when this matter is discussed because he suggested addressing boxyness in our FAR. VIII.Public. There were no items by the Public. IX.Adjournment. Chairman Ganger adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:20 A.M. __________________________ Gail C. Abbale Administrative Assistant May 17, 2012 CHAIRMAN: Robert Ganger VICE CHAIRMAN: Scott Morgan BOARD MEMBER: Paul A. Lyons, Jr. Thomas Smith Malcolm Murphy ALTERNATE MEMBER: Amanda Jones Thomas M. Stanley REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, MAY 24, 2012 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. AGENDA I. Call to Order. II. Roll Call. III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 4-26-12. IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. V. Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. June 28, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. b. July 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. c. No meeting in August d. September 27, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. e. October 25, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. f. November to be determined g. December 27, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. VI. PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by James F. & Pamela Landquist, owners of the property located at 800 Tangerine Way, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as Lot 16, Place Au Soleil Subdivision. a.SPECIAL EXCEPTION to permit a 155 sq. ft. garage addition to the existing 396 sq. ft. garage that encroaches 7.8 ft. into the required 20 ft. rear setback. b.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit a 155 sq. ft. garage addition to the existing Gulf Stream Bermuda Style single family dwelling. 2. An application submitted by John & Elisabeth Woolley, owners of property located at 935 Orchid Lane, legally described as Lot 88, Place Au Soleil Subdivision, Gulf Stream Florida. a.LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the replacement of existing broken, awning type windows in all existing openings visible from the street with triple horizontal sliders. The sliders will have impact glass set in white frames. B. Ordinances 1. No. 12/2; AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, PALM BEACH, COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING THE TOWN’S ZONING MAP TO REZONE 12 PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY COMPRISING APPROXIMATELY 16.6 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, IN SIZE; SUCH REAL PROPERTY IS LOCATED GENERALLY EAST AND WEST OF STATE ROAD A1A, SOUTH OF LITTLE CLUB ROAD AND NORTH OF SEA ROAD; FROM THE PALM BEACH COUNMTY DESIGNATION AGENDA CONTINUED OF RM-MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (MEDIUM DENSITY) TO THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM ZONING DESIGNATION OF “RM” (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT); PROVIDING THAT THE TOWN ZONING DISTRICT MAP BE REVISED ACCORDINGLY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREOF; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 2. NO. 12/3; AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TOWN’S CODE OF ORDINANCES, AT SECTI0N 71-1, TO INCLUDE NEWLY-ANNEXED PROPERTIES UNDER THE RM-EAST AND RM-WEST ZONING DESIGNATIONS; AMENDING, AT SECTION 66-131, THE NON- CONFORMING USE REGULATIONS TO ADDRESS STRUCTURES WITH A NON-CONFORMING DENSITY; ADDING SECTION 71-8, ADDITIONS AND REHABILITATIONS, TO INCLUDE REFERENCE TO STANDARDS FOR ADDITIONS AND REHABILITATION OF MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. VII. Items by Staff. A. Proposed Zoning Code Changes 1. Section 70-71, Floor Area Ratio (continued from 4-26-12) VIII. Items by Board Members. IX. Public. X. Adjournment. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2012 AT 8:30 A.M.,IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I.Call to Order. Chairman Ganger called to order at 8:30 A.M. II.Roll Call. Present and Robert W. Ganger Chairman Participating Scott Morgan Vice-Chairman Paul Lyons, Jr. Board Member Malcolm Murphy Board Member Tom Smith Board Member Thomas M. Stanley Alt. Member sitting as Board Member Absent w/Notice Malcolm Murphy Board Member Amanda Jones Alt. Member Also Present and William H. Thrasher Town Manager Participating Rita L. Taylor Town Clerk John Randolph Town Attorney Mark Marsh, Bridges, Agent/Davis & Assoc. Marty Minor of Urban Town Consultant Design Kilday Studios III.Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 3-22-12. Vice-Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Smith seconded to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of March 23, 2012. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. IV.Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. There were no changes. V.Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. May 24, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. b. June 28, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. c. July 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. d. No meeting in August e. September 27, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. Chairman Ganger asked the Board Members if there were any conflicts in the meeting schedule. Vice-Chairman Morgan stated that he would not be available for the May 24th meeting. Mr. Lyons stated that he would not be available for the July 26th meeting. Chairman Ganger said he is hoping that, at the end of this meeting, the Board will have concluded the re-writing of the ordinances and that it will go to the Commission for 1st reading at their May 11th meeting. Clerk Taylor said the ARPB recommendations will go to the Commission, but they will not be in ordinance form. She said one ordinance is prepared and is sufficient; however, she said it was decided to hold the ordinance until the process is complete. Chairman Ganger said he will assume that 1st and 2nd readings will have been done by the Fall. Chairman Ganger said the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board – April 26, 2012 Page 2 public is very interested in what the ARPB is doing to make changes in the Code and they feel it has taken a long time. Clerk Taylor said the public will have to understand that these things take time. Chairman Ganger said it would be to the public’s benefit to attend the meetings. VI.Reorganization of ARPB. A. Swearing in of re-appointed members Clerk Taylor administered the Oath to Robert W. Ganger, Scott Morgan and Tom Smith who were re-appointed to the ARPB for another 3-year term. B. Election of Chairman Mr. Morgan moved and Mr. Lyons seconded to nominate Robert W. Ganger as Chairman. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. C. Election of Vice Chairman Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Lyons seconded to nominate Scott Morgan as Vice- Chairman. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. VII.Items Related to Previous Approvals. Clerk Taylor administered the Oath to Mark Marsh, Agent for Davis, and to James Davis, property owner. Chairman Ganger asked Clerk Taylor to go through the timeline concerning this matter. Clerk Taylor said this project was first presented to the ARPB one year ago this month and, at that time, the ARPB recommended approval with the condition of a “grey roof.” She said the project and ARPB recommendations were presented to the Commission in May of 2011 and the Commission approved the ARPB recommendations, with the exception of the roof tile. Clerk Taylor said the Commission asked to see a roof tile sample and then Mr. Marsh distributed photos of similar roofs, including a photo of the Ocean Ridge Town Hall. She said the Commission approved the roof tile with the condition that they see a sample of the roof tile material, but she said nothing happened until recently. Clerk Taylor said Mr. Marsh came back to the ARPB on January 26th with changes to the design of the house, there was no discussion with regard to the roof material, but she said the commitment was made that the ARPB would need to review any revisions. Mark Marsh said he would come back to ARPB with an actual roof tile sample which he said would be closer to the Ocean Ridge Town Hall roof tile. Clerk Taylor said the ARPB’s Motion stipulated that the adjustment of color and texture of the roof tile was to come back to the ARPB for approval, which is what Mr. Marsh will present today. However, Clerk Taylor said, as result of the Commission asking to see the tile one year ago, the ARPB will be able to make their recommendations today for the Commission to consider at the May 11th meeting. Chairman Ganger asked if there has been any ex-parte communication. He said he drove by the Davis property this morning. There were no other declarations of ex-parte communication. A. Change of roof tile at 554 Palm Way submitted by Mark Marsh as Agent for Mr. & Mrs. James Davis. Mark Marsh said he initially presented a tile that had a bit of a glaze and he is now proposing a smaller tile with a matt finish. He said the architectural style of the home is Cape Dutch which typically features a white exterior with a dark grey roof. Mr. Marsh displayed the smaller Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board – April 26, 2012 Page 3 tile with a matt finish, the color of which is called natural slate and he said it is equal or superior to the other white tile. He said you will not see much of the roof because of the pitch. Mr. Marsh said the tile on Ocean Ridge Town Hall is a blend of black, grey and white and the Entegra tile he is proposing is a solid color. He said he would like to encourage diversity and the architectural style merits contrast. Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Marsh about the color of the shutters. Mr. Marsh said they will be gun metal grey. Vice-Chairman Morgan commented that he likes the roof tile and agrees that the architectural style warrants contrast. Mr. Smith also commented that he likes the roof tile more than the previous tile proposed. Chairman Ganger reminded the Board Members that at the last meeting the Board made the decision that roof tile must be white or slate, not slate-like. He said the minutes from that meeting state that roof tile shall be flat, white thru and thru, smooth, un-coated tile, except that gray slate may be permitted on homes that are predominately Georgian or British Colonial with Bermuda influences. The Town Clerk advised that this provision was only applied to Section 70-238. It was suggested to revisit the Code changes and possibly build the Cape Dutch architectural style into the Code. Vice-Chairman Morgan said the gray roof should be limited to this architectural style with the white exterior. Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Lyons seconded to recommend approval of the proposed solid through and through dark cement tile. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. VIII.Items by Staff. A. Proposed Zoning Code Changes 1. Section 70-71, Floor Area Ratio Mr. Minor reminded that there has been a concern with houses appearing to be more “box-like”. He further reminded that in discussions of FAR Calculations, attention had been given to adding more visual interest to the design. In so doing, porches, balconies, etc. that were roofed but not enclosed were included in the FAR calculation. In addition, this would limit the size of homes. The result has been that this interest and the required 25% reduction of the size of the 2nd floor as compared to the size of the lst floor, for the most part, is being concentrated in one area, often the rear, which adds to a box-like appearance. He then explained 4 options to possibly improve the design. These are: Eliminate porches, patios, balconies and arcades from the FAR calculations up to 400 square feet. Allow additional FAR for the lot if the second story of the home is set back a minimum of 10 feet from the front setback line. We have provided three options for the increase in FAR for this second story setback for the ARPB’s consideration. Limit the second floor area of homes to be .75 of the first floor area in all single family zoning districts. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board – April 26, 2012 Page 4 Allow front porches and balconies to extend within front setback. With regard to Option 1, there was no vote but it was thought that the current provision which allows an additional 300 square feet through a Special Exception better fits with regard to open porches etc. due to the accompanying deed restriction that prevents the open, roofed areas from being enclosed. It was unanimously voted to provide the suggested incentive FAR in Option 2 by adding 5% allowable FAR to the portion of square footage of the lot over the first 20,000 sq. ft provided the 2nd floor was setback an additional 10’ from the front property line. The motion was made by Mr. Lyons and seconded by Mr. Morgan. It was felt this may help to reduce the box-like appearance of the structure. With regard to Option 3, it was moved by Mr. Morgan and seconded by Mr. Lyons that the current 75% reduction of the 2nd floor be further reduced to 70% of the 1st floor area in all single family districts to also address the problem of a box-like appearance. No vote was taken but the discussion indicated the members favored this change. There was very little discussion on Option 4 and it is expected this along with all of the other options will be further discussed at the next meeting. Chairman Ganger observed that most of the options are incentive driven which may not solve the box-like appearance. He ask Mr. Minor if he could offer any additional solutions for consideration after hearing this discussion. He added that he did not believe the Town is interested in adding strict mandatory provisions. Mr. Minor replied that he may be able to offer a few more suggestions for consideration at the next meeting. 2. Section 70-68, Lot Size & Dimensional Requirements There were no recommendations to change this section. IX.Items by Board Members. There were no items by Board Members. X.Public. There were no items by the Public. XI.Adjournment. Mr. Smith moved and Vice-Chairman Morgan seconded to adjourn the meeting. There was no discussion. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:25 A.M. ______________________________ Gail C. Abbale Administrative Assistant June 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN: Robert Ganger VICE CHAIRMAN: Scott Morgan BOARD MEMBER: Paul A. Lyons, Jr. Thomas Smith Malcolm Murphy ALTERNATE MEMBER: Amanda Jones Thomas M. Stanley REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY,JUNE 28, 2012 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. AGENDA I. Call to Order. II. Roll Call. III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 5-24-12. IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. V. Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. July 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. b. No meeting in August c. September 27, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. d. October 25, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. e. November to be determined f. December 27, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. VI. PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by Roy Simon as agent for Mr. & Mrs. Paul Lyons, Jr., owners of property located at 2945 Polo Drive, legally described as Lot 12, Gulf Stream Properties Subdivision, Gulf Stream, Florida. a.VARIANCE to permit the replacement of an existing semi-circular flat roof over the dining area with a roof of a complex geometrical configuration consisting of 5 sections. b.SPECIAL EXCEPTION to permit the extension of the existing north wall of a single family dwelling that encroaches 2.5 feet into the north side setback for a bedroom addition of 272 square feet. c. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the addition of a bedroom and an enlargement of the dining area which includes a roof of complex geometrical configuration, a total of 323.9 square feet, to the existing Gulf Stream Bermuda style, 1- story single family dwelling. 2. An application submitted by Roy M. Simon, Architect as agent for Mr. & Mrs. Peter A. Lyons owners of property located at 3550 Gulf Stream Road, Gulf Stream, Florida 33483, legally described as Lot 2, Block 2, Plat No. 1 Polo Fields, Gulf Stream, Florida, for the following: a.SPECIAL EXCEPTION to permit the extension of the existing north wall of a single family dwelling that encroaches 2.5 feet into the north side setback for a bathroom addition of 277 square feet. b. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the addition of a bathroom and reconstruction of the AGENDA CONTINUED front entry porch that includes a Dutch gable, a total addition of 488.7 square feet, to existing Colonial West Indies style 1-story single family dwelling; the removal of existing pool and construction of a new pool; and the removal of the circular driveway to accommodate a front lawn enclosed with a 4’ high fence. The driveway into the garage will be Chicago brick and a back-out space will be included. VII. Items Related to Previous Approvals. A. Landscaping revision related to approved renovations and improvements at 1314 N. Ocean Blvd. submitted by Krent Wieland Design, Inc. VIII. Items by Staff. A. Additional Review of Proposed Amendment to Section 70-238, Roofs, as Written in Proposed Ord. 12\4. IX. Items by Board Members. X. Public. XI. Adjournment. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, MAY 24, 2012 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I.Call to Order. Chairman Ganger called the meeting to order at 8:25 A.M. II.Roll Call. Present and Robert W. Ganger Chairman Participating Paul Lyons, Jr. Board Member Malcolm Murphy Board Member Thomas M. Stanley Alt. Member sitting as Board Member Absent w/Notice Scott Morgan Vice-Chairman Tom Smith Board Member Amanda Jones Alt. Member Also Present and William H. Thrasher Town Manager Participating Rita L. Taylor Town Clerk John Randolph Town Attorney James Landquist Applicant / 800 Tangerine Way John Woolley Applicant / 935 Orchid Lane Marty Minor of Urban Town Consultant Design Kilday Studios III.Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 4-26-12. Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Lyons seconded to approve the Minutes of April 26, 2012. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. IV.Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. There were no changes. V.Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. June 28, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. b. July 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. c. No meeting in August d. September 27, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. e. October 25, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. f. November to be determined g. December 27, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. Chairman Ganger asked if there will be a quorum for the next two meetings. Clerk Taylor said it looks like there will be a quorum. There were no conflicts with the meeting schedule. VI.PUBLIC HEARING. Chairman Ganger asked for declarations of ex-parte communication concerning the applications for public hearing. Mr. Murphy stated that Mr. and Mrs. Landquist are his neighbors and he advised them of the application and approval process. Mr. Lyons stated that he drove by the Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – May 24, 2012 Page 2 property. Clerk Taylor administered the Oath to James Landquist, John Woolley and Marty Minor. A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by James F. & Pamela Landquist, owners of the property located at 800 Tangerine Way, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as Lot 16, Place Au Soleil Subdivision. a.SPECIAL EXCEPTION to permit a 155 sq. ft. garage addition to the existing 396 sq. ft. garage that encroaches 7.8 ft. into the required 20 ft. rear setback. Mr. James Landquist of 800 Tangerine Way introduced himself and presented his application to the ARPB. He said he is proposing the addition to his one-car garage to make it a two-car garage, which will also increase the size of their driveway. Mr. Landquist saidhis house was built in 1962 and they were informed that the addition is too close to the 20’ setbacks, and he said because of the angle at the back of the lot they had to design the additional garage to be much shorter than the existing. He said, in doing this, they are planning to redo the landscaping, which landscape plan is included. Mr. Landquist said his rear fence borders the new Hyundai Property where trees have been removed. He said they would like to plant in that area to screen Hyundai’s 6’ fencing. Mr. Landquist said one side of their home is mostly sand where they would like a grassy area and more plantings, and they will remove some of the pathways. Mr. Murphy asked about the timeline for construction and Mr. Landquist said it will be done over the summer. Mr. Stanley asked how the front of the garage will look from the street. Mr. Landquist said it looks like a standard two-car garage from the front elevation, it will have the same roof line as the existing, they will remove the roof from the existing garage and it will be uniform. Chairman Ganger asked if their existing driveway is pavers. Mr. Landquist said they currently have gray pavers and they will redo the entire driveway with coral-colored pavers. Chairman Ganger asked Clerk Taylor if there were any comments concerning this matter from neighboring residents. Clerk Taylor said Ingrid Kennemer commented that she was in favor. There were no comments from Staff. Mr. Stanley moved and Mr. Lyons seconded to recommend approval for a Special Exception to permit a 155 SF garage addition to the existing 396 SF garage that encroaches 7.8 feet into the required 20 feet required setback. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. b.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit a 155 sq. ft. garage addition to the existing Gulf Stream Bermuda Style single family dwelling. Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Stanley seconded to recommend approval of Level III Architectural/Site Plan based on a finding that the proposed 155 SF garage addition to the existing Gulf Stream Bermuda style single family dwelling meets the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – May 24, 2012 Page 3 2. An application submitted by John & Elisabeth Woolley, owners of property located at 935 Orchid Lane, legally described as Lot 88, Place Au Soleil Subdivision, Gulf Stream Florida. a.LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the replacement of existing broken, awning type windows in all existing openings visible from the street with triple horizontal sliders. The sliders will have impact glass set in white frames. Mr. Woolley introduced himself and presented his application to the ARPB. He said he would like to replace their 40-year old, poorly functioning, awning type windows with horizontal, high impact sliders. Mr. Woolley said they chose horizontal sliders to avoid having them open onto the porch. They look almost identical to casement except that they move from side to side. He said Plantation shutters are throughout the house and sliders are easier than casement to open and maneuver. He said they would like to do the window replacement in two phases due to cost and his wife’s asthma issue. Mr. Woolley said doing this in a 40- year old house can create a lot of dust and release materials from the walls and, therefore, they plan to section off the house and do the work in two phases. Mr. Woolley stated that all windows will duplicate the existing with regard to size and number. Mr. Lyons said he viewed the property and commented that the window Mr. Woolley is proposing in the patio area will not look different from the street. With regard to the other windows, he asked Mr. Woolley why he would not use casement. Mr. Woolley said he thought the ARPB would prefer one style throughout to be consistent. Mr. Murphy asked about the discouraged element and Mr. Thrasher said roller-style sliders are clearly discouraged. Mr. Stanley noted that there are no muttins on the proposed windows and Mr. Woolley said if muttins are preferred they would do that. Mr. Thrasher said the total glass has been measured and muttins will not be required by Code, but he said if the existing blinds remain, there will be some busyness in appearance, which may not be relevant. He said, as presented, they meet the Code with regard to opening size, but he added that they could accomplish the look they are going for with another type of window that does not go against the Code. Mr. Stanley asked if any other ranch-style homes in Place Au Soleil have had window replacement with a similar style. Mr. Thrasher indicated that, to date, he has not received any permit applications to replace dated windows. Chairman Ganger said there are certain safety standards for bedroom windows. Mr. Woolley said they are replacing bedroom windows, but he said sliders are not a safety issue and, in fact, are easier to climb through. Mr. Lyons asked Mr. Thrasher for his view of having a slider in the porch area and casement throughout the remainder of the house. Mr. Thrasher said it should be consistent. Chairman Ganger said he does not like to approve discouraged elements, but he said he would be willing to Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – May 24, 2012 Page 4 approve this application because they will look like the existing windows from the street and they will be consistent throughout. Mr. Randolph said this application stands on its own merit and does not necessarily set a precedent in the event another property owner requests the same. Mr. Stanley asked Mr. Woolley if he had a strong objection to replacing all windows at once for reasons other than cost. Mr. Woolley said it is mainly because of his wife’s asthma. He said, if the approval depends on replacing all windows at the same time, they may have to spend the summer in Maine. Mr. Thrasher commented that regardless of screening, the fine dust will travel throughout, and he said he would prefer that all replacement is done at the same time. Chairman Ganger asked Clerk Taylor if there have been any comments from neighbors. Clerk Taylor said there have been no comments. There were no further comments from Staff.Mr. Stanley moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to approve Level II Architectural/Site Plan for the replacement of all windows on all elevations to a roller-style window as proposed on the spec sheet, with the following condition: The replacement of all windows on all elevations to roller-style will be done in completion, not in phases. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. Mr. Lyons suggested that Mr. Woolley have his contractor install a heavy duty filter and change it frequently during the window replacement, which will help keep the air clean. Chairman Ganger updated the ARPB Members on the Special Commission Meeting saying that there was a lively discussion with regard to the ARPB recommendations that have been set forth to date. He said the recommendations will go before the Commission in ordinance form for first reading at their June 8th meeting. Chairman Ganger said there were some changes and some additions, such as no clear cutting of lots when coming in with a subdivision. He said, in general, the recommendations were endorsed. Chairman Ganger thanked Mr. Lyons for joining him at the Commission Meeting and he said there were a few residents that also attended. He thanked the Commission and commented that the Commission took the ARPB recommendations very seriously and asked great questions. Chairman Ganger asked if any recommendations made today would go into the ordinance for first reading. Clerk Taylor and Mr. Randolph confirmed that. B. Ordinances. Mr. Minor briefly summarized the Ordinances for a recommendation of approval to the Commission. He said the first ordinance concerns rezoning of the annexed area. The Town Commission has adopted the land use portion of that area as multi-family, which change has been reviewed by the State Land Planning Agency (formerly DCA) and other appropriate State agencies, all of whom have signed off on it. Concurrently, it will be rezoned so that the rezoning has the Town’s designation of Residential Medium (RM) to match the land use applied to that area. The first ordinance concerns the rezoning of this property from the County designation of RM to the Town designation of RM. Mr. Minor said the Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – May 24, 2012 Page 5 County allowed 12 units per acre and the Town will allow 5.7 units per acre. Mr. Minor said the second ordinance includes a provision regarding reconstruction of loss in the event of an emergency such as a hurricane or fire, which states they can reconstruct as is, but no larger. It amends the multi-family section of the Zoning Code, listing the projects in RM West and RM East, with an additional provision addressing rehab and additions to existing structures in that area, which states that it must be consistent with Town Code. There is also a reference to the Special Exception process. Chairman Ganger asked about the one commercial property in that area that operates as a time share. He asked if it could be sold for the same use. Mr. Minor said time share is not allowed by Code and, therefore, it is a non-conforming use. Mr. Randolph said these are purely zoning regulations that run with the land and they have the right to sell it for the same use; however, he said if it is abandoned, the property would have to conform. 1. No. 12/2; AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, PALM BEACH, COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING THE TOWN’S ZONING MAP TO REZONE 12 PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY COMPRISING APPROXIMATELY 16.6 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, IN SIZE; SUCH REAL PROPERTY IS LOCATED GENERALLY EAST AND WEST OF STATE ROAD A1A, SOUTH OF LITTLE CLUB ROAD AND NORTH OF SEA ROAD; FROM THE PALM BEACH COUNMTY DESIGNATION OF RM-MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (MEDIUM DENSITY) TO THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM ZONING DESIGNATION OF “RM” (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT); PROVIDING THAT THE TOWN ZONING DISTRICT MAP BE REVISED ACCORDINGLY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREOF; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Stanley read the title of Ordinance No. 12/2.Mr. Stanley moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to recommend approval of Ordinance 12/2 to the Town Commission of the Town of Gulf Stream Town, FL for 1st reading at their June 8, 2012 Meeting. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. 2. NO. 12/3; AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TOWN’S CODE OF ORDINANCES, AT SECTI0N 71-1, TO INCLUDE NEWLY-ANNEXED PROPERTIES UNDER THE RM-EAST AND RM-WEST ZONING DESIGNATIONS; AMENDING, AT SECTION 66-131, THE NON- CONFORMING USE REGULATIONS TO ADDRESS STRUCTURES WITH A NON-CONFORMING DENSITY; ADDING SECTION 71-8, ADDITIONS AND REHABILITATIONS, TO INCLUDE REFERENCE TO STANDARDS FOR ADDITIONS AND REHABILITATION OF MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Murphy read the title of Ordinance No. 12/3.Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Stanley seconded to recommend approval of Ordinance 12/3 to the Town Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – May 24, 2012 Page 6 Commission of the Town of Gulf Stream Town, FL for 1 st reading at their June 8, 2012 Meeting. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. Mr. Lyons asked Mr. Minor why RM West and RM East are divided. Mr. Minor said it was an established breakdown because East of A1A has slightly different regulations than West of A1A which reflect current conditions. Chairman Ganger asked whether there have been any proposals from the Seahorse for construction on the West side of A1A. Mr. Minor said single family structures are encouraged in RM West, the minimum lot size is 20,000 SF and there is room for two single family structures. Mr. Thrasher said Staff has reviewed some conceptual designs, all of which are multi-family. No applications have been submitted for that property. VII.Items by Staff. A. Proposed Zoning Code Changes 1. Section 70-71, Floor Area Ratio (continued from 4-26-12) Mr. Minor said Floor Area Ratio was discussed at the last meeting and the Commission looked at two recommendations. One was the additional FAR incentive and moving the second story back 10 feet and the other was making the maximum second floor area .7 of the first floor area for all districts. At the end of the discussion, the ARPB requested additional mandatory measures to ensure further variations rather than the cookie cutter façade. He said a new paragraph is proposed under 70-73. Two- Story Structures, where an applicant must incorporate one of four features within the front façade of any new two-story structure: (1) A second-story setback of 5 feet; (2) a front porch with a minimum of an 8’ depth; (3) a balcony of a minimum of 24 SF; or (4) an arcade, each of which would provide a level of visual interest. In addition, a waiver is included which provides that the Town Commission may waive this requirement if the applicant can demonstrate that these features are inconsistent with the homes architectural style and that the visual variation is provided through other measures. Mr. Lyons said the use of the word “front” does not work with corner lots with one very long wall that faces the streets. Mr. Minor suggested “incorporated within the front façade or facades facing roadways. Mr. Lyons said he prefers that wording. Chairman Ganger asked how he would respond to these suggestions if he was an architect. Mr. Minor said he has had this conversation with several architects and they like the waiver and they like everything spelled out to better understand their parameters and to provide options to the applicant. Mr. Stanley suggested using “. . . facades facing public or private roadways.” Mr. Minor clarified that he would be making a change to the second sentence of Section 70-73(b) to read, “One or more of the following features shall be incorporated within facades facing public or private roadways on any two-story single family home in all zoning districts.”Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Lyons seconded to recommend approval of the proposed language, as amended, to the Town Commission. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – May 24, 2012 Page 7 Mr. Lyons noted that the ARPB approved a slate roof on Palm Way and he said at a previous meeting it was suggested to include the Cape Dutch architectural style in the Code. Chairman Ganger said that gray tile is now an approved color. Mr. Randolph clarified saying the Commission decided to leave the strict language of the Code as it relates to white thru and thru, non-coated tiles and gray slate tiles, eliminating slate- like, with a provision to allow the discretion for a modification to that if good cause is shown. Further, he said any modification to that would be subject to the ARPB approval process. Mr. Randolph said this only relates to the predominant architectural style of Gulf Stream Bermuda. Clerk Taylor said Cape Dutch does not fall into the predominant styles, but it can fall into the overall section, which everyone must comply with. Mr. Minor said the Board would like to clean up the section of the Code that addresses metal roofs. He said metal roofs are listed under “prohibited” with a note which states, “Certain metal roofs determined by the Town to be appropriate to the structure and to the neighborhood may be approved only in instances of re-roofing of existing structures based upon an engineer’s certification that the existing structure will not support a tile roof.” Mr. Randolph said a recent applicant did provide an engineer’s certification stating that his structure cannot support a tile roof and when the Commission wanted the Town’s engineer to test that certification, the applicant refused to allow that. He said the recommended language, which reads, “This certification shall be reviewed and confirmed by the Town and its engineer prior to approval of the roof material”will provide clarification of the note in this section.Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Stanley seconded to recommend approval of inserting this language into the note to clarify this section of the Code. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. With regard to slope of driveways, Mr. Thrasher said Mr. Minor had communication with an engineer who indicated that an existing slope of driveway of a newly-constructed single family home in Gulf Stream has a 1 in 10 slope. Mr. Thrasher said he walked this slope and it is reasonable, compared to the driveway slope on the Coon property, which is 1 in 5. He asked Mr. Minor if he was at a point where simple language could be comprised to include, “no slope would exceed the 1 in 10 degree.” Mr. Minor said he is waiting to hear from another engineer before providing this language. Mr. Randolph said the Board can approve the concept that they want language incorporated into the ordinance which allows for a reasonable slope approaching garages or driveways, and he said if the Board is comfortable considering this without figuring out the slope it can go directly to the Commission from here. Mr. Stanley moved and Mr. Lyons seconded to approve the recommendation of language addressing the slope of driveways to be further reviewed by Staff and submitted to the Town Commission. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. With regard to Section 70-238, Roofs, Mr. Thrasher asked Mr. Minor if Cape Dutch could be included in the phrase, “ . . . predominantly Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – May 24, 2012 Page 8 Georgian or British Colonial with Bermuda influences.” Mr. Minor said he is not as familiar with Cape Dutch, but he said he would talk to Mark Marsh to provide an answer. Mr. Randolph said as a result of the Commission Meeting we now have a no clear cutting provision in the subdivision Code. He said the Commission directed Staff for a landscaping provision to address single family lots which would regulate the manner in which people treat their landscaping. They asked for language from many standpoints such as leaving existing landscaping along the lot perimeter during construction, or requiring that new landscaping must stay and an approval process would be required if taken out. Mr. Randolph said there are no language details, but he said this can be handled in the same fashion as slope of driveways. Mr. Thrasher said he would also like to add a description of a Level II Architectural/Site Plan that includes landscaping. He said currently there are not provisions in the Code that address changing out, moving, modifying or adding landscaping. Mr. Randolph said Jupiter Island has a provision that screening is required to protect the neighborhood from viewing construction. Mr. Stanley said Delray handles this matter administratively. He said construction screening cannot be left up indefinitely, the contractor must put in landscaping such as a hedge, and certain trees could be tagged that must remain. Mr. Lyons said Vice-Mayor Orthwein suggested phases where a hedge could be removed to allow entry of equipment, but the hedge must be replaced at the close of construction. Chairman Ganger suggested informing the Commission that the ARPB is addressing the removal of historic trees and hedging during construction, but that additional information and further guidance is required to put this language in ordinance form. Chairman Ganger mentioned painted bulkheads. Mr. Thrasher said this should require a Level I review, which currently addresses structures only, not seawalls. He said this should be addressed. VIII.Items by Board Members. IX.Public. There were no items by the Public. X.Adjournment. Mr. Stanley moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 A.M. ____________________________ Gail C. Abbale Administrative Assistant July 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN: Robert Ganger VICE CHAIRMAN: Scott Morgan BOARD MEMBER: Paul A. Lyons, Jr. Thomas Smith Malcolm Murphy ALTERNATE MEMBER: Amanda Jones Thomas M. Stanley REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, JULY 26, 2012 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. AGENDA I. Call to Order. II. Roll Call. III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing 6-28-12. IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. V. Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. No meeting in August b. September 27, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. c. October 25, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. d. November to be determined e. December 27, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. VI. PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by Roger Cope, as Agent for the owners, Thomas & Kirsten Stanley, of property located at 3524 Oleander Way, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as Lot 57, Gulf Stream Properties No. 2 together with that portion of the South half of the right- of-way known as Pandanus Rd. lying North of adjacent Lot 57, Gulf Stream, Florida. a.SPECIAL EXCEPTION to permit air conditioning equipment to encroach approximately 2’ into the South side setback. b.DEMOLITION PERMIT to remove a portion of existing West wing and the existing one car garage. c.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/ SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit demolition of a portion of the West wing and existing one car garage, the addition of a two car garage and expansion of the West wing, a total of 1,492 sq. ft. to the existing 1-story, single family historic Polo Cottage, and to permit an encroachment of approximately 2’ into the South side setback to accommodate air conditioning equipment. 2. An application submitted by James Boyce as agent for OK Seahorse, LLLP, owners of the property located at 4001 N. Ocean Blvd. on the West side of State Road A1A, legally described in metes and bounds. a. The construction of two buildings, one of Georgian and one of Anglo Caribbean architectural style, containing a total of five 2-story villas. AGENDA CONTINUED VII. Items by Staff. VIII. Items by Board Members. IX. Public. X. Adjournment. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY,JUNE 28, 2012 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I.Call to Order. Chairman Ganger called the meeting to order at 8:30 A.M. II.Roll Call. Present and Robert W. Ganger Chairman Participating Scott Morgan Vice-Chairman Paul Lyons, Jr. Board Member Tom Smith Board Member Thomas M. Stanley Alt. Member sitting as Board Member Absent w/Notice Malcolm Murphy Board Member Amanda Jones Alt. Member Also Present and William H. Thrasher Town Manager Participating Rita L. Taylor Town Clerk John Randolph Town Attorney Roy M. Simon, Architect Agent for Paul Lyons And Peter Lyons Marty Minor of Urban Town Consultant Design Kilday Studios III.Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 5-24-12. Mr. Smith moved and Vice-Chairman Morgan seconded to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of May 24, 2012. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. IV.Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. There were no changes. V.Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. July 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. b. No meeting in August c. September 27, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. d. October 25, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. e. November to be determined f. December 27, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. Chairman Ganger noted that there will not be an August meeting, and he said the ARPB will schedule their November meeting after the Commission schedules their November meeting. Clerk Taylor said no applications have been submitted and, therefore, there may not be a July meeting. Chairman Ganger noted that 2nd reading of the Ordinances changing the Code and Comp Plan is scheduled for the July 13 th Commission Meeting and, if adopted, Code changes will be effective as of that date. VI.PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – June 28, 2012 Page 2 Chairman Ganger asked for declarations of ex-parte communication concerning the matters scheduled for public hearing. Chairman Ganger stated that he drove by the Binnie property at 1314 N. Ocean Blvd. Mr. Stanley stated that he is a neighbor of Peter Lyons of 3550 Gulf Stream Rd. Mr. Smith stated that he drove by the Binnie property and that he is familiar with the properties located at 2945 Polo Dr. and 3550 Gulf Stream Rd. ARPB Member Paul Lyons recused himself from the hearing of both development applications as he is the owner/applicant for the property at 2945 Polo Drive, and Peter Lyons, applicant for the property at 3550 Gulf Stream Rd., is his brother. Mr. Lyons left the room and stated he would return to listen to the hearing for 3550 Gulf Stream Rd. Clerk Taylor administered the Oath to Roy Simon of Roy M. Simon, Architect, and Marty Minor of Urban Design Kilday Studios. 1. An application submitted by Roy Simon as agent for Mr. & Mrs. Paul Lyons, Jr., owners of property located at 2945 Polo Drive, legally described as Lot 12, Gulf Stream Properties Subdivision, Gulf Stream, Florida. a.VARIANCE to permit the replacement of an existing semi-circular flat roof over the dining area with a roof of a complex geometrical configuration consisting of 5 sections. b.SPECIAL EXCEPTION to permit the extension of the existing north wall of a single family dwelling that encroaches 2.5 feet into the north side setback for a bedroom addition of 272 square feet. c. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the addition of a bedroom and an enlargement of the dining area which includes a roof of complex geometrical configuration, a total of 323.9 square feet, to the existing Gulf Stream Bermuda style, 1- story single family dwelling. Roy Simon introduced himself and stated that he represents Mr. and Mrs. Paul Lyons, Jr. He said the original house was built in 1977 according to the setbacks existing at that time and, therefore, the applicant is asking that it be accepted as non-conforming because of those setbacks. Mr. Simon said the dining alcove, which is beginning to deteriorate, is located in the existing flat-roof, semi-circular addition and the applicant would like to enlarge the dining area and add a guest bedroom. He said they tried to simplify by following the planes of the existing roof to avoid drainage problems and tearing up the house. However, he said they created what seems to be a complex configuration. Mr. Simon explained the roof drainage, he said there is a lot of foliage in the rear of the home which will be maintained, and he said the original windows do not have muttins and the applicant does not want them on the new windows. He said the Bermuda Style architecture typically has open windows to provide panoramic views. Vice-Chairman Morgan commented that the Code uses the word “complex” to provide discretion. He said it does not appear complex to him. Chairman Ganger asked Clerk Taylor if there were any comments concerning Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – June 28, 2012 Page 3 the design from the neighbors. Clerk Taylor said there were no comments from neighbors. There was no further comment from Staff. Vice-Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of variance based on the finding that the replacement of an existing semi-circular flat roof over the dining area with a roof of a complex geometrical configuration consisting of 5 sections meets the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards, as defined by Code Section 66.154. There was no discussion. All voted AYE.Vice- Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Stanley seconded to recommend approval of Special Exception of the extension of the existing north wall of a single family dwelling that encroaches 2.5 feet into the north side setback for a bedroom addition of 272 SF, as defined by Code Section 70- 74. There was no discussion. All voted AYE.Vice-Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of Level III Architectural/Site Plan based on the finding that the proposed addition of a bedroom and an enlargement of the dining area which includes a roof of complex geometrical configuration, a total of 324 SF, to the existing Gulf Stream Bermuda style, 1-story single family dwelling meets the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. 2. An application submitted by Roy M. Simon, Architect as agent for Mr. & Mrs. Peter A. Lyons owners of property located at 3550 Gulf Stream Road, Gulf Stream, Florida 33483, legally described as Lot 2, Block 2, Plat No. 1 Polo Fields, Gulf Stream, Florida, for the following: a.SPECIAL EXCEPTION to permit the extension of the existing north wall of a single family dwelling that encroaches 2.5 feet into the north side setback for a bathroom addition of 277 square feet. b. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the addition of a bathroom and reconstruction of the front entry porch that includes a Dutch gable, a total addition of 488.7 square feet, to existing Colonial West Indies style 1-story single family dwelling; the removal of existing pool and construction of a new pool; and the removal of the circular driveway to accommodate a front lawn enclosed with a 4’ high fence. The driveway into the garage will be Chicago brick and a back-out space will be included. Roy Simon stated that he represents Mr. and Mrs. Peter A. Lyons. He said the home is a U-shaped, Colonial style with a swimming pool in the middle, a flat-roofed screened porch and semi-circular entrance. Mr. Simon said they propose to alter the exterior façade, build a bedroom/bathroom addition on the rear of the home, remove the existing pool and concrete patio and install a new pool in the back yard, remove the circular driveway to provide a larger front yard, and enclose the flat-roofed screened porch to provide additional living area, which will have a gable roof and will follow the existing roof lines. He said the front façade will change by removing the two windows and converting them Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – June 28, 2012 Page 4 to French doors, which will open onto a small, covered, unenclosed sitting patio. Mr. Simon said the aluminum awning windows in the rear of the home will be changed to impact resistant casement with muttins that provide a simple horizontal separation. He said everything meets current Code except for the side setbacks, and he said the applicant is requesting a special exception because the Code has changed since the home was built and the setbacks are different today. Chairman Ganger asked if the roof over the enclosed porch area will match the rest of the roof and Mr. Simon confirmed that. Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Simon if the Dutch feature at the entrance of the home meets Code and Mr. Simon confirmed that. Vice-Chairman Morgan commented that the changes maintain the classic proportion of the structure. Chairman Ganger asked about additional landscaping in the front. Mr. Simon said they submitted a landscape plan with their application, along with a drainage plan. He said there will be a tall hedge across the front with a chain link fence behind it as part of the hedging, which continues around the property. Mr. Thrasher recommended a condition of approval to the Level III Architectural/Site Plan that the applicant shall complete a Gulf Stream Driveway Permit Application and a Driveway Maintenance and Removal Agreement. Chairman Ganger asked about the proposed underground propane gas and Mr. Simon explained that they are changing their cooking range from electric to gas, they have a fire place where they would like to use a gas log, they will use a tankless water heater for the addition, and they would like to establish a barbeque area. He said the underground tank will probably be located on the side yard. Mr. Thrasher reminded Mr. Simon of the minor accessory setback of 12 feet on the side, and he said the underground tank is fine, but any equipment such as a generator or barbeque grill that is 8 inches above ground must conform to the side setbacks. Vice-Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Stanley seconded to recommend approval of a Special Exception to permit the extension of the existing north wall of a single family dwelling that encroaches 2.5 feet into the north side setback for a bathroom addition of 277 SF, pursuant to Code Section 70-74. There was no discussion. All voted AYE.Vice Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of Level III Architectural/Site Plan based on the finding that the proposed addition of a bathroom and reconstruction of the front entry porch that includes a Dutch gable, a total addition of 489 SF, to existing Colonial West Indies style 1-story single family dwelling; the removal of existing pool and construction of a new pool; the removal of the circular driveway to accommodate a front lawn enclosed with a 4’ high fence; modifications to the driveway into the garage that includes Chicago brick and a back-out space meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards, with the following condition: 1. The applicant shall complete a Gulf Stream Driveway Permit and a Driveway Maintenance and Removal Agreement. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – June 28, 2012 Page 5 VII.Items Related to Previous Approvals. A. Landscaping revision related to approved renovations and improvements at 1314 N. Ocean Blvd. submitted by Krent Wieland Design, Inc. There was no representation from Krent Wieland Design, Inc. to present the application for the landscape revisions. Mr. Thrasher stated that there were no odd species proposed in the revision and the plan looked okay to Staff. He said he is authorized to approve minor changes only and the changes to this landscape plan are major, which is why this has been brought back to the ARPB for approval. Chairman Ganger commented on the roof of this home saying that he drove by during daylight hours and it is a beautiful roof and very appropriate for the design of the home.Vice-Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Smith seconded to approve the revisions to the landscape plan. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. VIII.Items by Staff. A. Additional Review of Proposed Amendment to Section 70-238, Roofs, as Written in Proposed Ord. 12\4. Mr. Thrasher stated that Marty Minor was present to discuss additional review of proposed Section 70-238, Roofs, as provided in Ordinance 12/4. Chairman Ganger commended Mr. Randolph for his recommendations, and he said the Commission was open-minded, they reacted to specific proposals and made suggestions, and there was a general feeling that the changes were constructive. Mr. Randolph said the specific issue before the ARPB with regard to roofs is whether or not it is necessary to better define the shade of gray and whether or not the language should be more specific than “appropriate for the neighborhood.” He said so many shades of gray are brought before the Board and the ARPB tried to make it broad enough to allow for discretion to make a decision as to whether a certain shade of gray is appropriate for the neighborhood. Mr. Lyons said the ARPB suggested deleting “slate-like” and the Commission felt that would be too rigid. Clerk Taylor clarified that the Commission stuck with real gray slate for Bermuda style architecture only. She said if a structure is not Bermuda style, the roof tile can be considered under another Code section where nothing specific is required. Mr. Minor said the Commission considered eliminating specific shades of gray and they wanted input from the ARPB concerning “appropriate for the neighborhood.” Chairman Ganger noted that the issue of “appropriate for the neighborhood” was brought up by Commissioner Anderson who lives in Place Au Soleil, which is a very eclectic neighborhood. Vice-Chairman Morgan said that the eclectic nature of Place Au Soleil argues in favor of even more discretion, and he said he believes the phrase should be maintained. Mr. Thrasher noted the proposed language in Section 70-238 (a) and he said it is not necessary to define shades of gray because the flexibility for the Board to evaluate a home is provided in the underlying section. Clerk Taylor said when you look at different Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – June 28, 2012 Page 6 architectural styles, another shade of gray may be more appropriate. She said, for example, the new home at 1314 N. Ocean may not be as attractive with a very dark shade of gray. However, she said the home at 554 Palm Way, which is a different architectural style, called for the dark contrast. Chairman Ganger pointed out that roof tile looks different in daylight and suggested reviewing a proposed roof tile outside to get a better idea of the actual color. Mr. Minor said the exterior color of the home should be considered. Mr. Stanley said it is helpful to consider the rhythm of the street. Mr. Thrasher said, on a Level I, he will only approve flat white thru and thru smooth uncoated tile or gray slate. He said anything other than that would go through the Level III process. Mr. Randolph said the ARPB must send their recommendation back to the Commission concerning the issue of gray roof tile and the phase “appropriate for the neighborhood.” He said a unanimous consensus of the Board that the recommended language is appropriate will be sufficient. Clerk Taylor stated that Commissioner Anderson has strong feelings about the phrase “appropriate for the neighborhood” due to certain projects that were approved in Place Au Soleil. She said the detached 2-story garage that was approved in Place Au Soleil is a type of structure which is far removed from that area. Clerk Taylor said when considering amendments to the Subdivision Code and how widespread a neighborhood should be, the ARPB scaled it back. Mr. Randolph said the Code language provides discretion and he does not believe it should be changed. Chairman Ganger noted that the primary issue with the 2-story garage was privacy and what was appropriate for the neighborhood was secondary. He said the home was the first built in Place Au Soleil, it is a very eclectic home, and neighborhood design was not paramount. Vice-Chairman Morgan said the ARPB did not recommend approval of that application, the Commission approved it. It was the unanimous consensus of the Architectural Review and Planning Board that the recommended language in Section 70-238, Roofs, (a) concerning gray roof tile, and the phrase, “appropriate for the neighborhood” is appropriate and there are no further recommended changes. Chairman Ganger noted that Mr. Randolph recommended Criteria K in Section 62-10, Criteria for Subdivision Review, which provides for no clear cutting of parcels, and he said the Commission approved the recommended language. It was the unanimous consensus of the Architectural Review and Planning Board that the language in Criteria K is appropriate. IX.Items by Board Members. Chairman Ganger mentioned that he attended a Town of Manalapan Commission Meeting where they discussed the issue of term limits. He said their Planning Board and Architectural Board are separate and their Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – June 28, 2012 Page 7 members have term limits, and he said the Town of Manalapan will have a referendum for term limits for Commissioners. Chairman Ganger said when he addressed their Commission he suggested merging the two Boards. He extended an invitation to Commissioner Gottlieb to attend a Gulf Stream ARPB meeting. Mr. Stanley said there is a possibility of an application being filed in time to be included on the July 26th ARPB Meeting Agenda. Mr. Randolph asked Mr. Stanley if he will have to recuse himself from the proceedings on July 26th and Mr. Stanley confirmed that. Mr. Smith noted that the hammerhead at 1220 N. Ocean Blvd. is under construction. Chairman Ganger said he heard there was a contingent as to whether the developer has fulfilled his obligation to the parties of the Neighborhood Agreement with respect to drainage. Mr. Thrasher said the Town has been advised that the drainage plan has been installed. He said the developer was required by South Florida Water Management District to acquire their permit. Mr. Thrasher said Neighborhood Agreement requires maintenance on the pipe because it can frequently clog which will cause flooding on either end of the pipe. He said the Town’s approval process required that they apply for, and receive, appropriate regulatory permits. X.Public. There were no public comments. XI.Adjournment. Mr. Smith moved and Vice-Chairman Morgan seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 A.M. ________________________ Gail C. Abbale Administrative Assistant September 19, 2012 VICE CHAIRMAN: Scott Morgan BOARD MEMBER: Paul Lyons, Jr. Thomas Smith Malcolm Murphy Amanda Jones ALTERNATE MEMBER: Ann Aker George Delafieled REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2012 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. AGENDA I. Call to Order. II. Roll Call. III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 7-26-12. IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. V. Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. October 25, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. b. November 15, 2012 at 8:30 A.M. c. December 27, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. d. January 24, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. e. February 28, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. f. March 28, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. VI. PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by Seaside Builders LLC, as agent for Harbor View Estates, LLC owners of property located at 1224 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lot 5, Hidden Harbour Estates Plat II, Replat of Golf Course Addn. Lts 4, 5 & N 92’ of Lt 6, Gulf Stream, Florida. a.NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY PERMIT to allow removal of existing nuisance exotics and some native trees providing for a 13’ clear zone from edge of roadway. 2. An application submitted by Seaside Builders LLC as agent for Harbor View Estates LLC, owners of property located at 1220 North Ocean Boulevard, Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lot 4, Hidden Harbour Estates Plat Two, a replat of Lots 4, 5 & 6, Golf Course Addition according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 15, Pages 173 & 174, Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. a.NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY PERMIT to allow the removal of existing nuisance exotics and extensive planting of native species and the installation of an entrance wall and gates, a portion of which is within the 50’ corridor. b.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the construction of a partial two-story Bermuda style single family dwelling, 3 car garage with bonus room above, 8,603 square feet, and a swimming pool. 3. An application submitted by Seaside Builders as agent for Harbor View Estates LLC, owners of property located at 1230 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, AGENDA CONTINUED legally described as Lot 6, Hidden Harbour Estates Plat Two, being a re-plat of Lots 4, 5 & 6, Golf Course Addition, Gulf Stream, Florida. a.NORTH OCEAN BLVD. OVERLAY PRMIT to allow removal of existing nuisance exotics providing for a 13’ clear zone from the edge of roadway and extensive planting of native species and installation of a 6’high aluminum rail fence 12’ west of the east property line that will be screened with landscape material. b.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit construction of an 8,857 square foot Colonial West Indies style partial two-story, single family dwelling, attached 2 car garage with 6’ high walls and fences screened with landscape material around the property, and a swimming pool. 4. An application submitted by Seaside Builders LLC as agent for Harbor View Estates LLC, owners of property located at 1222 North Ocean Boulevard, Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lot 3 Hidden Harbor Estates Plat Two, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 15, Pages 173 and 174, Public Records of Palm Beach County. a.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the construction of a partial two story single family Bermuda style dwelling, a 3 car garage with guest suite, a detached outdoor seating area, a total of 9,229 square feet, and a swimming pool. VII. Reorganization of ARPB. A. Election of a Chairman B. Election of a Vice Chairman VIII. Items by Staff. IX. Items by Board Members. X. Public. XI. Adjournment. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA, ON THURSDAY, JULY 26, 2012 AT 8:30 A.M.IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I.Call to Order. Chairman Ganger called the Meeting to order at 8:30 A.M. II.Roll Call. Present and Robert W. Ganger Chairman Participating Scott Morgan Vice-Chairman Tom Smith Board Member Malcolm Murphy Board Member Thomas M. Stanley Alt. Member sitting as Board Member Absent w/Notice Paul Lyons Board Member Amanda Jones Alt. Member Also Present and William H. Thrasher Town Manager Participating Rita L. Taylor Town Clerk John Randolph Town Attorney Roger Cope, Architect Agent/Tom Stanley Cope Architects Benjamin Shrier, Arch. Agent/4001 N. Ocean W. Affinity Architects Jeff Brophy of Land Agent/4001 N. Ocean W. Design South Robert Vale, Kolter Rep. 4001 N. Ocean W. Jim Boyce, Kast Const. Rep. 4001 N. Ocean W. III.Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing 6-28-12. Vice-Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Smith seconded to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of June 28, 1012. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. IV.Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. There were no changes. V.Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. No meeting in August b. September 27, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. c. October 25, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. d. November to be determined e. December 27, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. Clerk Taylor said the Town Commission will not be changing their November Meeting Date and she suggested that the ARPB act today on scheduling their November Meeting. Mr. Smith suggested Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 8:30 A.M. There was no further discussion. All agreed. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission – July 26, 2012 Page 2 VI.PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval Chairman Ganger asked for declarations of ex-parte communication concerning either of the applications being heard. Chairman Ganger stated that he was involved in discussions at the beginning of the development of 4001 N. Ocean Blvd. East, which was over a year ago, and he said it would not pertain to this matter. There were no other declarations of ex-parte communication. Tom Stanley, ARPB Alternate sitting in as Board Member, stated that he is the owner of the property located at 3524 Oleander Way, he recused himself from that portion of the hearing and left the room. Clerk Taylor administered the Oath to: Roger Cope of Cope Architects, Agent for Stanley; Ben Shrier of Affinity Architects and Jeff Brophy of Land Design South, Agents for 4001 N. Ocean West; Bob Vale of Kolter Homes; and, Serge Della Ville, Gulf Stream Resident. 1. An application submitted by Roger Cope, as Agent for the owners, Thomas & Kirsten Stanley, of property located at 3524 Oleander Way, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as Lot 57, Gulf Stream Properties No. 2 together with that portion of the South half of the right- of-way known as Pandanus Rd. lying North of adjacent Lot 57, Gulf Stream, Florida. a.SPECIAL EXCEPTION to permit air conditioning equipment to encroach approximately 2’ into the South side setback. b.DEMOLITION PERMIT to remove a portion of existing West wing and the existing one car garage. c.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/ SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit demolition of a portion of the West wing and existing one car garage, the addition of a two car garage and expansion of the West wing, a total of 1,492 sq. ft. to the existing 1-story, single family historic Polo Cottage, and to permit an encroachment of approximately 2’ into the South side setback to accommodate air conditioning equipment. Roger Cope of Cope Architects introduced himself and stated that he is representing Mr. and Mrs. Stanley in the renovation of their home. He said it is a sprawling, very linear home with a swimming pool in the rear. Mr. Cope said they are proposing a modest renovation of the historic Polo Cottage which is just south of Gulf Stream School. Mr. Cope said Gulf Stream Rd. runs along the rear of the property where most of the proposed improvements will take place. He said the existing 1- car garage will be expanded to a 2-car garage, and the existing rear wing, which includes a bedroom, bathroom, a laundry facility and a breezeway, will be deconstructed to make it about 4’ wider and slightly longer, and the breezeway will cut through from the new garage to the swimming pool. Vice-Chairman Morgan asked where the bulk of the additional square footage will be going. Mr. Cope said the garage is doubling in size, so the bulk of the additional square footage is the garage and the strip Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission – July 26, 2012 Page 3 that will be added to the West wing. Mr. Smith asked if they will be replacing the roof. Mr. Cope said the existing asphalt shingle roof is too low and will be coming down, but he said they will match the existing material. He said the windows in the new wing and garage will match the esthetic look of the existing single-hung aluminum windows, and the existing exterior color of the house, which is white, will not change. The breezeway will be open-air, but covered, and there will be French doors going into the kitchen area of the wing. Mr. Cope said they are asking approval to allow the A/C equipment to sit outside of the garage and encroach 2’ into the south side setback; however, he said there will be no infringement on the neighbors. Members of the Board agreed that the proposed improvements will preserve and enhance the property. Chairman Ganger said this home may have once been used as living quarters for the polo groomsmen and it is one of the 10 oldest homes in Gulfstream. There were no further comments from the Board, Staff or the public.Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to recommend approval of a special exception to permit air conditioning equipment to encroach approximately 2’ into South side setback. There was no discussion. All voted AYE.Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to recommend approval of a demolition permit to remove a portion of an existing West wing and the existing one-car garage. There was no discussion. All voted AYE.Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to recommend approval of a Level III Architectural/Site Plan based on a finding that the proposed demolition of a portion of the West wing and existing one-car garage, the addition of a two-car garage and expansion of the West wing, a total of 1,492 SF to the existing 1-story, single family historic Polo Cottage, and to permit an encroachment of approximately 2’ into the South side setback to accommodate air conditioning equipment meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. Mr. Stanley returned to the Dias. 2. An application submitted by James Boyce as agent for OK Seahorse, LLLP, owners of the property located at 4001 N. Ocean Blvd. on the West side of State Road A1A, legally described in metes and bounds. a. The construction of two buildings, one of Georgian and one of Anglo Caribbean architectural style, containing a total of five 2-story villas. Mr. Randolph said the Board has before them the signed Stipulation and the Memorandum from Mr. Thrasher. He explained that the applicant had vested rights under Palm Beach County and now, as a result of the annexation, the Town’s Zoning Code applies. Mr. Randolph provided some history saying that the applicant submitted a preliminary plan months ago which was not acceptable. The Mayor and Town Staff met with the applicant, they negotiated with them for several months, and now they are back with a new proposal. He said they were entitled to seven units under Palm Beach County, but only five units under the Town’s Code. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission – July 26, 2012 Page 4 Mr. Randolph said they compromised on design and density, the design and density have come a long way and they are now proposing five units. He said to avoid further dispute, this will be presented to the Commission as a compromise settlement, and he said the Board’s action today is to review the application and make their recommendations to the Town Commission. Vice-Chairman Morgan asked where they compromised. Mr. Randolph said the compromise was the number of units per acre, the architectural design, and he said the setbacks were greater in the previous design. Chairman Ganger reminded the Board that the 4001 N. Ocean Blvd. project was opposed by the Community prior to the annexation and the developers worked with the Town and made compromises at that time. He said this design has come a long way from the original idea for developing the west side of A1A, which did not come close to compliance with Town Code. Benjamin Shrier of Affinity Architects introduced himself. He said the structure was divided into two masses to appear more like two single family homes, one of Georgian architecture and one Anglo Caribbean. Mr. Shrier said each structure is rectangular in configuration, they will have simple façade treatment, and they reduced the visibility of the garages from the street. He said the 2nd story mass was reduced to 70% of the 1st floor and the height restrictions have been met, with one structure at 30’8” and the other at 32’, and he said there is a 2-story eave height of 22’. Mr. Shrier displayed a drawing showing the height comparison to the neighboring structures which indicated that the two structures are shorter than adjacent structures. Other drawings showed the entire site with the Georgian structure to the north and the Anglo structure to the south, and proposed landscaping along the front of the property which faces A1A. Chairman Ganger said he would like to see a drawing showing what will be behind the structures. Mr. Shrier said the landscape drawings will show what the rear of the structures will look like. Mr. Smith asked if the mass of the structure will fit inside the smallest line of space. Mr. Shrier said the smallest line occurs along the 2-story portions, and in order to avoid seeing five garage doors directly facing Ocean Blvd., two free standing, one-story garage structures were designed to place one at each end of the property. Mr. Smith asked if the entrances to the property will line up with the entrances to the property on the East side of A1A and Mr. Shrier confirmed that. Chairman Ganger asked if the West side residents will have access to the East side amenities. Mr. Vale stated that they will have beach access and access to the pool and fitness center. He also stated that FDOT permit requires that the entrances on both the East and West sides of A1A are in alignment. Jeff Brophy of Land Design South introduced himself, he displayed the proposed landscape graphic, streetscape and a rendering of the landscape you will see when driving by the property. He displayed a rendering of the interior landscape plan and the front façade of the structures, and he said the formal landscaping will be along A1A and in the front of the property. Plantings at the north and south corners of the property will be very heavy to provide adequate screening of the garages, a line of Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission – July 26, 2012 Page 5 Australian Pines and a 4-foot Ficus hedge will be planted along A1A, with canopy and flowering trees at the north and south corners. Mr. Brophy said there will be accent palms and plants at all unit entrances, with shorter palms along the structures, Sea Grapes will be planted along the north and south elevations, and lush plantings and flowering trees will be located in the rear of the property, along with a 4-foot retaining wall to provide screening and privacy. Each unit will have a private patio, a small sod area and a modest pool. Mr. Brophy said the private courtyards have individual gate systems and guest parking, the two accessory garages structures have separate gate systems and guest parking and there is another guest space in the open court. Each garage is a 2-car garage, except for one interior garage which holds 2 cars and a golf cart. Mr. Brophy said the idea was to create the court, turn the garages in on the project, place the accessory garage structures at the north and south corners and turn them in as well. He displayed a simplified drawing of the setbacks for the units and the accessory garages saying that they met the 78’ setback from the center line of A1A and the 25’ rear setback for each unit. Each end unit has a 20’ setback from the property line. The accessory structures have a 60’ setback to the center line and a 15’ side setback to the north and south. Mr. Smith asked if there is living space above the inside garages and Mr. Shrier said there is no living space over the garages. Mr. Smith asked if the two accessory garage structures would have ordinarily been approved. Mr. Thrasher said, due to the size of the accessory garages, they are not minor accessory structures in single family terms, but if they were single family structures the 15’ setback would be acceptable. He said the tradeoff is that the garages would not face the street and the architects said they could do that, but there would have to be a give and take on the setbacks. Chairman Ganger commented that Polo Ridge could not get equipment between the structures and the property line when painting their soffits, and he said they asked L’Hermitage if they could bring the equipment on their property. He asked if there would be similar issues with their side setbacks. Mr. Brophy said it is a normal side yard with 15’ and 5’ of buffer. Vice-Chairman Morgan commented that the Developer has made substantial attempts to comply with Town Code, and he asked Mr. Thrasher if there were other inconsistencies besides the garage setbacks. Mr. Thrasher referred to the second sentence of his Memorandum which states that the proposal complies with either the County’s land use regulations as of the date of annexation or the land use regulations planned for the West parcel by the Town. He said there were inconsistencies such as front setback of garages, maximum building lengths, maximum façade length without breaks, lot coverage, landscape buffer and percentage of glass on the west elevation. Mr. Smith asked if there were any comments from neighboring properties. Clerk Taylor said 50 notices went out to neighbors and only one neighbor responded, and she said he is present today. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission – July 26, 2012 Page 6 Chairman Ganger asked how many single family homes would Town Code have allowed and Mr. Thrasher said two would have been allowed. Mr. Thrasher asked Mr. Brophy what density would have been allowed by County Code and Mr. Brophy said seven units would have been allowed and they would have allowed more lot coverage than the Town. Mr. Thrasher said the Town’s allowable height restriction 35’ and they are proposing between 32’ and 33’, and he added that the layered and intensive landscape plan, which will include over 120 trees, is a result of discussions with the developers. Vice-Chairman Morgan asked how the design of the buildings would be affected if they brought the lot coverage back to the required 30%. Mr. Shrier said they would lose significant portions of the units. Chairman Ganger asked about the size of the units. Mr. Shrier said they range in size from 3,521 SF to 3,912 SF, excluding covered patios and garages. Chairman Ganger asked about the exterior color. Mr. Boyce said it will blend with 4001 N. Ocean East, which is a creamy tan. In closing, Mr. Vale said the developers and architects worked closely with Mayor Koch, Mr. Randolph and Town Staff and they have complied in every possible way. He thanked everyone for their assistance and cooperation in allowing them to get to this point. Serge Delaville of 425 N. County, located just behind the subject property, said as long as the Town is going to do what is best for Gulf Stream, he is not against this project. However, he said neighboring residents were inconvenienced during the construction of 4001 N. Ocean Blvd. with noise and heavy dust. Mr. Delaville said it would have been helpful if residents were better informed during that project. He said a temporary fence was installed, but most of the noise came from the construction trailers during the night and early morning. Mr. Delaville said residents were hoping for a smaller project with a more charming look on the west side. He asked that neighboring residents be better informed of what to expect and when during the construction. In closing, Mr. Delaville wished everyone good luck with the project. Chairman Ganger said, during the construction of 4001 N. Ocean Blvd. East, Bellamar and Ballentrae were in constant contact with the Kolter Group and they had Kolter attend HOA meetings so that they were aware of everything that was going on. He requested that, as best as possible, construction schedules be made available to residents. Mr. Thrasher said the Town will do whatever they can to give proper notice. Mr. Delaville asked who owned the path to the beach. Tom Hill, Property Manager of Ballentrae, stated that it is their property and it is not a public right-of-way. Vice-Chairman Morgan said he was not aware of the lengthy conversations between Mayor Koch, Town Staff, Town Attorney and the developer of the property, and he said it strikes him that this comes to the ARPB as a late July submittal. He said the issue is whether the applicant received vested development rights when they purchased the property, and whether or not the vested development rights continue on through an annexed property like Gulf Stream. Vice-Chairman Morgan said he would think those rights would not apply to annexed property in a new town, Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission – July 26, 2012 Page 7 that is the Town did not change the Code, but the property was brought in by popular vote into the new Town and, therefore, should be covered by that Town’s legitimate Code. He said the key to our land development Code is lot coverage and he views this as another congested property being placed within the Town. Vice-Chairman Morgan said it needs to comply with our Code in every way. He said the design is good, the landscaping is well done, but he said it is the mass that bothers him. Mr. Randolph said the annexation statute provides that, after a property is annexed, the regulations of the entity of which they were in prior to annexation travel with the land until the Town makes their decision otherwise in its Code. He said the applicant submitted their application prior to the final reading of the changes to the Code. Mr. Randolph said, with regard to lot coverage, some of the discrepancies already existed in our Code when they came in under annexation. Mr. Smith commented that neighbors will be impacted by this construction and finished project, and he said he would have preferred to have heard from more residents before making a decision. He referred to the Spence property where feedback from residents came in after the fact because everyone was gone for the summer. Mr. Smith asked the developer when he would like to start the project if this is approved within the next couple of months. Mr. Vale said they wanted to start the project while they had personnel on site and hoped the project would be complete by this time next year. He said this was not intentional timing, it just took a while to get to this point. Mr. Stanley said a 3-unit building is not as appealing as a single family home and mass is somewhat questionable, but he said the height is good and there is adequate parking with the garages. Mr. Murphy commented that this is a unique situation and it seems there has been a lot of bending to accommodate. Chairman Ganger asked the developer if they could provide something in their presentation to the Commission that will offer a better understanding of what the project will look like. Mr. Vale said they will use today’s feedback and will provide additional graphics. Mr. Stanley moved to recommend approval of the construction of two buildings, one of Georgian architecture and one of Anglo-Caribbean architecture, consisting of a total of five 2-story units, at 4001 N. Ocean Boulevard West (West side of A1A). Mr. Randolph said that Mr. Thrasher wanted the stipulation to be approved, but he said all that was needed is the way the motion was stated. Mr. Stanley amended his motion as follows:Mr. Stanley moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to recommend approval of the proposed architectural design and site development plan after the stipulation agreement has been signed and recorded, in regard to the construction of two buildings, one of Georgian architectural style and one of Anglo-Caribbean architectural style, consisting of a total of five 2-story units, at 4001 N. Ocean Boulevard West (West side of A1A). There was no discussion. Roll Call: Mr. Stanley, AYE; Mr. Morgan, NO; Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Chairman Ganger, AYE. The motion passed by a vote of 4 – 1. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Town Commission – July 26, 2012 Page 8 Chairman Ganger asked the Developer to provide more information in their presentation to the Town Commission on August 10th to give them a better idea of what the finished product will look like. VII.Items by Staff. There were no items by Staff. VIII.Items by Board Members. There were no items by Board Members. IX.Public. There were no items by the Public. X.Adjournment. Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to adjourn. The Meeting was adjourned at 10:25 P.M. _____________________________ Gail C. Abbale Administrative Assistant October 17, 2012 CHAIRMAN: Scott Morgan VICE CHAIRMAN: Amanda Jones BOARD MEMBER: Paul A. Lyons, Jr. Thomas Smith Malcolm Murphy ALTERNATE MEMBER: Ann Kasten Aker George Delafield, Jr. REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY,OCTOBER 25, 2012 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. AGENDA I. Call to Order. II. Roll Call. III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 9-27-12. IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. V. Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. November 15, 2012 at 8:30 A.M. b. December 27, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. c. January 24, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. d. February 28, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. e. March 28, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. f. April 25, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. VI. PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application, deferred from Public Hearing held September 27, 2012,that was submitted by Seaside Builders LLC, as agent for Harbor View Estates, LLC owners of property located at 1224 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lot 5, Hidden Harbour Estates Plat II, Replat of Golf Course Addn. Lts 4, 5 & N 92’ of Lt 6, Gulf Stream, Florida. a.NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY PERMIT to allow removal of existing nuisance exotics and some native trees providing for a 13’ clear zone from edge of roadway. 2. An application,deferred from Public Hearing held September 27, 2012,submitted by Seaside Builders LLC as agent for Harbor View Estates LLC, owners of property located at 1220 North Ocean Boulevard, Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lot 4, Hidden Harbour Estates Plat Two, a replat of Lots 4, 5 & 6, Golf Course Addition according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 15, Pages 173 & 174, Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. a.NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY PERMIT to allow the removal of existing nuisance exotics and extensive planting of native species and the installation of an entrance wall and gates, a portion of which is within the 50’ corridor. b.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the construction of a partial two-story Bermuda style single family dwelling, 3 car garage with AGENDA CONTINUED bonus room above, 8,603 square feet, and a swimming pool. 3. An application,deferred from Public Hearing of September 27, 2012,submitted by Seaside Builders as agent for Harbor View Estates LLC, owners of property located at 1230 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lot 6, Hidden Harbour Estates Plat Two, being a re-plat of Lots 4, 5 & 6, Golf Course Addition, Gulf Stream, Florida. a.NORTH OCEAN BLVD. OVERLAY PRMIT to allow removal of existing nuisance exotics providing for a 13’ clear zone from the edge of roadway and extensive planting of native species and installation of a 6’high aluminum rail fence 12’ west of the east property line that will be screened with landscape material. b.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit construction of an 8,857 square foot Colonial West Indies style partial two-story, single family dwelling, attached 2 car garage with 6’ high walls and fences screened with landscape material around the property, and a swimming pool. 4. An application submitted by Benjamin Schreier, Affiniti Architects, as Agent for Doris J. Gillman, the owner of property located at 3333 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as Part of Lot 5, Gulf Stream Ocean Tracts, Gulf Stream, Florida. a.NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY PERMIT to remove existing landscape material and driveway, install new driveway and landscaping and construct5 foot perimeter wall with entry gate within the North Ocean Boulevard Corridor. b.LAND CLEARING PERMIT to relocate/clear existing landscaping material for relocation of driveway, preparation of building site and property beautification. c.DEMOLITION PERMIT to remove existing structures. d.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit construction of a 9,036 square foot Colonial West Indies style partial 2-stor single family dwelling, 3 car attached garage and a swimming pool. VII. Items by Staff. VIII. Items by Board Members. IX. Public. X. Adjournment. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2012 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I.Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman Morgan at 8:35 A.M. II.Roll Call. Present and Scott Morgan Vice-Chairman Participating Tom Smith Board Member Malcolm Murphy Board Member Amanda Jones Board Member Absent w/Notice Paul Lyons Board Member Ann Aker Alt. Member Beau Delafield Alt. Member Also Present and William Thrasher Town Manager Participating Rita Taylor Town Clerk John Randolph Town Attorney Martin O’Boyle, Resident Hidden Harbour Est. Representing Tom Laudani Developer Richard Jones of Architect Jones Architects Dave Bodker of Landscape Arch. Dave Bodker Landscape & Architecture Mark Grant, Esq. Atty. For Seaside Vice-Chairman Morgan welcomed the return of Amanda Jones, who has moved from Alternate Member to Member of the Architectural Review and Planning Board. III.Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 7-26-12. Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of July 26, 2012. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. IV.Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. Mr. Thrasher requested that Item VI.A.4 be heard first and Item VI.A.1 will replace Item VI.A.4. V.Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. October 25, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. b. November 15, 2012 at 8:30 A.M. c. December 27, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. d. January 24, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. e. February 28, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. f. March 28, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. Vice-Chairman Morgan asked if there will be applications for public hearing for the October meeting. Clerk Taylor said there will be one application, possibly two. There were no conflicts declared. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – September 27, 2012 Page 2 VI.PUBLIC HEARING. There were no declarations of ex-parte communication. Clerk Taylor administered the Oath to Robert Jones, Dave Bodker, Mark Grant, Martin O’Boyle and Tom Laudani. Clerk Taylor stated that she received an email addressed to the Town Commission and Architectural Review and Planning Board from Mrs. Nancy Touhey of 1200 N. Ocean Blvd. The letter was read into the record. In her letter, Mrs. Touhey said she is unable to attend public hearings concerning applications for new homes in the subdivision. She said she believes the developer failed to live up to the agreements that supported the Town’s approval of the subdivision, specifically the stipulation that the arbor canopy would not be destroyed. Mrs. Touhey said she might have been more supportive of the project if the Banyan tree across from her driveway had not been cut down. She requested that any approved plans and construction of the six homes be frequently inspected by the Town to be sure the builder is abiding by conditions of approval. The letter will be filed with the Official Records of the Town of Gulf Stream. Mr. Thrasher responded to Mrs. Touhey’s comments saying that he has been watching the property very closely, he has done daily inspections during business hours, after hours and on weekends. He said he also inspected the property at 2:00 A.M. during Tropical Storm Isaac. Mr. Thrasher said he has observed nothing that was not approved or permitted. A. Applications for Development Approval (In order of Agenda rearrangement). 4. An application submitted by Seaside Builders LLC as agent for Harbor View Estates LLC, owners of property located at 1222 North Ocean Boulevard, Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lot 3 Hidden Harbor Estates Plat Two, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 15, Pages 173 and 174, Public Records of Palm Beach County. a.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the construction of a partial two story single family Bermuda style dwelling, a 3 car garage with guest suite, a detached outdoor seating area, a total of 9,229 square feet, and a swimming pool. Richard Jones of Richard Jones Architects introduced himself and noted his team members, including Tom Laudani, the Developer, Mark Grant, Esq., and Dave Bodker, the Landscape Architectect. He said the six lots are ready for development and each are similar in their narrow width and depth, which has created challenges with regard to buffers, setbacks and rights-of-way. He said they looked at similar communities and found ways to minimize mass and size and capture courtyards and create outdoor living space. Mr. Jones described Lot 3 as situated in the southwest corner of the subdivision with a unique view of Hidden Harbour. The proposed 2-story Bermuda Style structure is long and narrow with an east/west orientation. It is broken up into various masses, including a detached carriage home connected by an exterior breezeway, a pool deck terrace and loggia connected to a boat house featuring a small pavilion above with views of the harbor and storage below, and balconies on the Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – September 27, 2012 Page 3 front and rear of the home. Mr. Jones said the materials are common, including smooth stucco and a mitered hip roof. Mr. Smith asked about the proposed storage area under the boat house. Mr. Jones said there is 6.5’ of headroom under the sitting pavilion for miscellaneous boating storage. Mr. Smith asked about a meandering wall on the south side of property. Mr. Jones said it is an existing retaining wall which was required for subdivision approval. Mr. Smith asked where Mrs. Touhey’s property entrance ties into this property. Mr. Bodker said it is near Lot 4 at the southeast corner of the property. He said the tree in question was not within the 15’ buffer, it was a rotted Ficus tree with a lot of vines and it will be replaced with six native trees which will block views of the property. Vice-Chairman Morgan asked if there are additional walls planned for this property. Mr. Jones said there will be 3’ entry walls at the front driveway, 3’4” welcome walls near the front of the home, and terrace walls at the pool deck that will be 2’ at the base with 42” of railing above, and the piers are 6’ tall, but he said 3.5’ of that is decorative railing. Vice-Chairman Morgan commented that the three proposed homes will be similar, but he said this design is the most attractive because it is better balanced. Mr. Smith said the landscaping is the biggest concern for the neighbors. Mr. Bodker said there are 11 existing trees on the south side, two that are 40’ in height and spread. They will supplement the existing with 12’ high Buttonwood and Fishtail palms on the south side and they will supplement the landscaping on the west side with hedging and trees. He said there will be layering and overlapping of vegetation for additional screening around the pool area. Vice-Chairman Morgan opened the hearing to public comment. Martin O’Boyle of 23 Hidden Harbour Drive asked Mr. Randolph if the Applicant’s statements made under oath are binding. Mr. Randolph said the ARPB and the Commission make decisions based on statements made under oath and if something is done that was not approved it can be revisited and additional conditions can be imposed. Mr. O’Boyle said he believes the developer is not abiding by the Agreement between the developer and the neighbors. He said the canopy was damaged and nothing has been done, and he said he requested different material for the meandering wall because it has a commercial look and is not fitting for the Hidden Harbour Development. Mr. O’Boyle was also concerned with the drainage saying there has already been flooding on the Himmelrich property. He said there were modifications to the drainage, it ties into Hidden Harbour and any drainage modification or tie-in to that community is subject to a majority vote of its residents. Mr. O’Boyle said there is no positive drainage, meaning there is no place for the water to go, it uses Hidden Harbour facilities and their covenants do not allow that. Another concern is the Interlocal Agreement with Delray Beach. Mr. O’Boyle said that Delray should have no say in the removal or installation of trees on the property. He said he has spoken to Mr. Thrasher and he wrote a letter to Mark Grant, Attorney for the Applicant concerning these matters. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – September 27, 2012 Page 4 Mark Grant said he disagrees with Mr. O’Boyle concerning a majority vote requirement; however, he said these are private matters and not the subject before the Board at this time. He explained the flooding issue on the Himmelrich property saying that a temporary cover was in place over the drain to avoid blockage and when the cover was removed the water was gone within an hour. Mr. Grant also said the one tree that was removed was outside of the 15’ landscape buffer and it was rotted and dangerous, but he said it will be replaced. Mr. Laudani introduced himself, he said he has made great strides with the property improvements and would like to address these matters with Mr. O’Boyle privately. Mr. Laudani said he spoke with Mr. Himmelrich about the flooding weeks ago and since the drain was uncovered there has been no further water accumulation, even after Tropical Storm Isaac. He said Mr. Himmelrich called him to thank him and to say there are no issues. Mr. Laudani said everything has been approved by South Florida Water Management District and other appropriate authorities and both systems are working perfectly. He described the stucco meandering retaining wall as small and low, 24” above grade with aluminum rail above, and he said there will be lush vegetation and landscaping masking the wall. Mr. O’Boyle distributed some documents to the Commissioners for their information concerning changes to the Hidden Harbour Declaration and how the changes pertain to the required signatures for approval. Vice- Chairman Morgan asked Mr. Randolph if there are legal issues beyond the ARPB that would call for a legal halting of the subdivision and does it mute what the ARPB is doing today. Mr. Randolph said the Commission gave final approval of the project and they will make that decision. He said the ARPB is only required to make a decision based on the application before them today and not to hear concerns relating to violations of the subdivision agreement or the agreement with the neighbors. Mr. Randolph said Staff has looked at many of these issues, particularly the canopy and drainage, but he said they do not relate to the architectural review. If the ARPB recommends approval of this application, he said the Commission will determine if there have been violations and they will deal with that. Mr. Randolph said the issue of the western wall may relate to this application, and he said he is reviewing the agreement between the neighbors and Harbour Estates. He said where it talks about the retaining wall it states that it requires the approval of the neighbors. He said documents such as this may come before you, but the Town does not have the jurisdiction to enforce covenants. Vice-Chairman Morgan said he agrees; however, he said the subject agreement was made a part of the subdivision approval by the ARPB and Commission. Mr. Randolph commented on Vice-Chairman Morgan’s statement that the ARPB and Commission asked for an agreement between the developer and the neighbors. He said the request specifically concerned the 15’ landscape buffer, the canopy and drainage, but the agreement also talks about the western wall and the neighbors having an opportunity to approve it. Mr. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – September 27, 2012 Page 5 Randolph said the ARPB and Commission may or may not have commented on these matters, but he said he believes it is beyond the authority of the Town Commission to enforce an agreement that never came before them. However, he said the Commission does have the authority to speak out if they believe the agreement has been breached. Mr. Smith asked Clerk Taylor if the neighbors and Mrs. Touhey were notified of the applications before the ARPB. Clerk Taylor confirmed that. She explained what the Code requires concerning notification and stated that she went beyond Code requirements to cover a larger area. Clerk Taylor said that Mrs. Touhey received a notice and responded. Mr. Smith moved and Mrs. Jones seconded to recommend approval of Level III Architectural/Site Plan based on a finding that the proposed partial two-story single family Bermuda Style dwelling, a 3-car garage with guest suite, a detached outdoor sitting area, a total of 9,229 SF, and a swimming pool meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards with the following conditions: (1) The electric service lines shall be buried; (2) The roof shall be white (through and through) un-textured, un-coated flat cement tile; (3) Any minor modifications in the landscape plan shall be submitted to the Town Manager for review and approval, and any major modifications shall be brought back to the ARPB for review and approval prior to commencement of landscaping; (4) Wall and/or fences will be measured from the lowest abutting grade with a maximum height of 6’ including any lighting fixtures that may be attached; and (5) All chain link fencing will be screened from neighbors’ view. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. 2. An application submitted by Seaside Builders LLC as agent for Harbor View Estates LLC, owners of property located at 1220 North Ocean Boulevard, Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lot 4, Hidden Harbour Estates Plat Two, a replat of Lots 4, 5 & 6, Golf Course Addition according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 15, Pages 173 & 174, Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. Vice-Chairman Morgan stated that he would rather not address the Overlay Permit at this time and just concentrate on the house. a.NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY PERMIT to allow the removal of existing nuisance exotics and extensive planting of native species and the installation of an entrance wall and gates, a portion of which is within the 50’ corridor. (THIS ITEM DEFERRED TO THE OCTOBER 25, 2012 MEETING.) b.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the construction of a partial two-story Bermuda style single family dwelling, 3 car garage with bonus room above, 8,603 square feet, and a swimming pool. Robert Jones said Lot 4 is similar to Lot 3 in width and depth, but he said it is the only lot with a direct access driveway onto A1A. He said there is a formal entry driveway through the motor court, detached structures connected by covered breezeways, multiple outdoor sitting Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – September 27, 2012 Page 6 areas, and the house wraps around the pool area. This is a four-bedroom home with the potential for a fifth bedroom above the garage, which is a detached structure with a carriage house above. Mr. Jones said Lots 3 & 4 are spec homes and will have some flexibility. He said this application meets all of the Gulf Stream Code criteria. Vice-Chairman Morgan said the north and south walls go straight up and he asked if there is any jogging back between the first and second floors of the main house. Mr. Jones said the north and south end walls are continuous, but he said there is a balcony feature extending 4’ from the wall with columns and a shed roof above. Vice-Chairman Morgan said there are other walls that go straight up without deviation which gives a massy and unbalance appearance, and he said the garage is also box- shaped. Mr. Jones said the H-shape of the plan provides stepping and there are three balconies that offset. He said there is a stairway on the courtyard side of the garage leading up to the carriage house and there are small architectural details that wrap around the structure and break down mass. Mr. Bodker said there will be a tremendous amount of trees reaching 50’ in height which will block the view of the house. In his review, Mr. Thrasher said he concentrated on second story coverage in comparison to first story, but did not apply the newer portion of the Code. He said there have been recent Code changes and there is a requirement upon the applicant to incorporate certain architectural features in the design. Mr. Thrasher read from Code Sec. 70-73, Two-Story Structures (a) In order to limit the construction of bulkier homes in districts with full second stories with small to medium lot sizes, the following restrictions shall be used: Ocean West - .70 of first floor area, (b) The use of architectural design features to provide variation among two-story single family homes is required. One or more of the following features shall be incorporated within facades facing public or private roadways on any new two-story, single family home in all zoning districts: Second-story setback (minimum 5’ setback, in addition to round level front setback); Front porch (minimum 8’ depth; Balcony (minimum 24 SF); Arcade. The Town Commission may waive this requirement within subsection (b) if the applicant can demonstrate that these features are inconsistent with the home’s architectural style and that the desired visual variation is provided through other measures. Mr. Thrasher said one of these elements must be incorporated in the design and if not, you must demonstrate why. He said a front porch with a depth of 8 feet, or a balcony of 24 SF, qualify as a necessary element. Mr. Jones said there is an entry portico that is 5 feet deep and could be 8 feet, and he said there are balconies on the east and west facades, but not on the north and south facades. Mr. Smith said the homes are too close to each other without incorporating some design features and he suggested they do more work with the walls and come back to the ARPB for review. Mr. Thrasher said one option is that the second story would be set back 5 feet from the first story. Vice-Chairman Morgan agreed that this application should be withdrawn and revisited. Mr. Jones said he can incorporate some stepback on the north side. Mr. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – September 27, 2012 Page 7 Randolph said an appropriate motion would be to defer to a time certain to eliminate the need to advertise, and to have the applicant return with some of the recommended changes. He suggested the architect meet with the Town Manager to be sure they are in compliance with the Code. Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to defer this application and have the applicant return to the ARPB with the recommended changes at a time certain of Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 8:30 A.M. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. Mr. Jones asked if the Board wished to discuss the Overlay Permit portion of this application. Vice-Chairman Morgan stated that two of the Board Members will be leaving at 10:50 A.M., which would result in the lack of a quorum. Mr. Laudani asked the Board to take a quick look at Lot 6. 3. An application submitted by Seaside Builders as agent for Harbour View Estates LLC, owners of property located at 1230 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, legally Described as Lot 6, Hidden Harbour Estates Plat Two, being a re-plat of Lots 4, 5 & 6, Golf Course Addition, Gulf Stream, Florida. a.NORTH OCEAN BLVD. OVERLAY PRMIT to allow removal of existing nuisance exotics providing for a 13’ clear zone from the edge of roadway and extensive planting of native species and installation of a 6’high aluminum rail fence 12’ west of the east property line that will be screened with landscape material. (THIS ITEM DEFERRED TO THE OCTOBER 25, 2012 MEETING.) b.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit construction of an 8,857 square foot Colonial West Indies style partial two-story, single family dwelling, attached 2 car garage with 6’ high walls and fences screened with landscape material around the property, and a swimming pool. Mr. Jones said there are similarities to Lots 3 and 4, such as a detached garage with a carriage house above, loggia connections, entry wall features and lush landscaping. He said there is a homeowner involved with this lot and, therefore, this will be a custom home of Colonial West Indies architecture, there will be different window articulation and different roof lines, and he said the roof material will be gray slate-like tile. Mr. Smith said the north elevation has great setbacks and features and he asked if the north elevation has straight up walls. Mr. Jones confirmed that, but he said that can be adjusted. He said Marty Minor reviewed this design and found it to be in compliance with Code. Mr. Morgan asked if they were changing the half-moon window. Mr. Jones said Mr. Minor found this window to be inconsistent with Gulf Stream Architecture, but he said they feel it works well with the architectural style. Vice-Chairman Morgan commented that the garage doors open to the streets, Code requires that they be blocked, and he asked how they will accomplish that. Mr. Jones said there will be gates. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – September 27, 2012 Page 8 Mr. Murphy asked that the roof material be referenced when the application comes back to the ARPB for vote. Mr. Thrasher said there will be a sample to view. Mrs. Jones asked the applicant to submit a second drawing showing an alternative to the half-moon windows on that particular façade. The applicant agreed. Mr. Randolph suggested that before this Meeting is adjourned a motion be made to defer the remainder of these items to the October 25th Meeting.Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Smith seconded to defer this application and the remaining applications to the October 25, 2012 Meeting. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. 1. An application submitted by Seaside Builders LLC, as agent for Harbor View Estates, LLC, owners of property located at 1224 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lot 5, Hidden Harbour Estates Plat II, re- plat of Golf Course Addition Lots 4, 5 & N 92’ of Lot 6, Gulf Stream, Florida. a.NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY PERMIT to allow removal of existing nuisance exotics and some native trees providing for a 13’ clear zone from edge of roadway. (THIS ITEM DEFERRED TO THE OCTOBER 25, 2012 MEETING.) VII.Reorganization of ARPB. A. Election of a Chairman Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to elect Scott Morgan as Chairman of the Architectural Review and Planning Board. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. B. Election of a Vice Chairman Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to elect Amanda Jones as Vice- Chairman of the Architectural Review and Planning Board. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. VIII.Items by Staff. There were no items by Staff. IX.Items by Board Members. There were no items by Members of the Board. X.Public. There were no public comments. XI.Adjournment.Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to adjourn the meeting. There was no further discussion. All voted AYE. Chairman Morgan adjourned the Meeting at 10:50 A.M. ______________________________ Gail C. Abbale Administrative Assistant December 20, 2012 CHAIRMAN: Scott Morgan VICE CHAIRMAN: Amanda Jones BOARD MEMBER: Paul A. Lyons, Jr. Thomas Smith Malcolm Murphy ALTERNATE MEMBER: Ann Kasten Aker George Delafieled, Jr. REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 27, 2012 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. AGENDA I. Call to Order. II. Roll Call. III. Minutes. A. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing of 10-25-12. B. Joint Meeting with Twn. Commission of 12-14-12. IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. V. Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. January 24, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. b. February 28, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. c. March 28, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. d. April 25, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. e. May 23, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. f. June 27, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. VI. PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by Quinn Miklos, Miklos & Asssoc. as Agent for Gerald & Sharon Clippinger, the owners of property located at 2538 Avenue Au Soleil, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as Lot 48 Place Au Soleil Subdivision. a.SPECIAL EXCEPTION to permit the extension of an existing non-conforming wall that encroaches 4.2 feet into the required 15 foot south side setback. b.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit additions consisting of bathroom, covered entry and additional living area, a net total of 716.6 square feet, to the existing one-story single family dwelling and an exterior renovation to smooth stucco with the addition of quoins on the corners. A new brick driveway will also be a part of the renovations. 2. An Application submitted by Rene Tercilla, Tercilla Courtemanche Architects, Inc. as agent for The Gulf Stream School Foundation, Inc., owners of property located at 3600 Gulf Stream Road, Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as a parcel of land lying in Section 3, Township 46 South, Range 43 East, Palm Beach County, Florida. a.VARIANCE #1 to allow an increase in total floor area that will exceed the 61,737 square feet allowed in the existing Developer’s Agreement by 1,617 square feet. AGENDA CONTINUED b.VARIANCE #2 to permit an increase of 1l,765 square feet over the 6,000 square feet permitted for the second floor area in the existing Developer’s Agreement. c.DEMOLITION to demolish the existing one story pavilion consisting of 1,681 square feet. d.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to replace and enlarge the first floor pavilion and add three second floor classrooms, an interior corridor and an exterior covered walkway and stairs, a total of 4,l875 square feet. 3. An application submitted by Peter Carney as agent for James and Beverly Kolea, owners of property located at 960 Orchid Lane, Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lot 83, Place Au Soleil Subdivision, Gulf Stream, Florida. a.LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to construct a rear portico and a new front entrance to the existing one-story, single family Bermuda/British Colonial style dwelling, additions of 403 square feet. 4. An application submitted by James Boyce of OK Seahorse LLLP as agent for OK Seahorse LLLP, owners of the property located at 4001 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream Florida, which is legally described in metes and bounds in Sec. 34, Township 45 South, Range 43 East in Palm Beach County. a.DEMOLITION PERMIT to demolish the existing southern most dune crossover. b.SPECIAL EXCEPTION to permit the relocation and reconstruction of the existing southern most dune crossover to a location that is 15 feet north of the south property line at the above address c.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to rebuild the southern most dune crossover in a new location that is 15 feet north of the south property line of 4001 N. Ocean Blvd. That will be the same size as the existing structure. VII. Items by Staff. VIII. Items by Board Members. IX. Public. X. Adjournment. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY,OCTOBER 25, 2012 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I.Call to Order. Chairman Morgan called the Meeting to order at 8:35 A.M. II.Roll Call. Present and Scott Morgan Chairman Participating Amanda Jones Vice-Chairman Malcolm Murphy Board Member Paul Lyons Board Member Beau Delafield Alt. Member sitting As Board Member Absent w/Notice Tom Smith Board Member Ann Aker Alt. Member Also Present and William Thrasher Town Manager Participating Rita Taylor Town Clerk John Randolph Town Attorney Hope Calhoun, Esq. of Rep. Applic./Developer Greenspoon, Marter Tom Laudani Tom Laudani of Seaside Applic./Developer Builders Richard Jones of Architect/Harbour View Jones Architects Dave Bodker of Landscape Architect/ Dave Bodker Landscape Harbour View & Architecture Joe Pike of Engineer/Harbour View EnviroDesign Martin O’Boyle, Res. 2300 N. Hidden Harbour Dr. George Elmore, Res. 1320 N. Ocean Blvd. Bill Himmelrich, Res. N. Ocean Blvd. Lisa Morgan, Res. 1140 N. Ocean Blvd. Ben Schrier of Arch./3333 N. Ocean Affinity Architects Joe Peterson of Landscape Architect/ Peterson Design Prof. 3333 N. Ocean Guy Flora of GC/3333 N. Ocean Mark Timothy Construction Tom Murphy, Esq. Rep. Audrey Schwartz Audrey Schwartz, Res. 3265 N. Ocean Blvd. III.Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 9-27-12. Mr. Murphy moved and Vice-Chairman Jones seconded to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of September 27, 2012. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. IV.Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. Mr. Thrasher requested to re-arrange the Public Hearing Agenda to be heard as follows: Item VI.A.2.b., VI.A.3.b., VI.A.1.a., 2.a., 3.a., Item VI.4.a.,b.,c.,d. There were no objections. Chairman Morgan noted Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board – October 25, 2012 Page 2 that Tom Murphy, Esq., is involved in Item VI.4 and has to be in court this morning. He said, depending on how the meeting goes, Mr. Murphy may be taken out of turn to make his presentation. V.Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. November 15, 2012 at 8:30 A.M. b. December 27, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M. c. January 24, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. d. February 28, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. e. March 28, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. f. April 25, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. Chairman Morgan noted that the November Meeting will be held early in the month and asked if anyone had a conflict. There were no conflicts with the Meeting Dates. VI.PUBLIC HEARING. Chairman Morgan asked if there was Ex-parte communication concerning any of the items being heard today. Mr. Morgan stated that he spoke with Mr. Laudani last week regarding some of the matters discussed at the previous meeting explaining why items were deferred to this meeting. There were no further declarations of Ex-parte communication. Clerk Taylor administered the Oath to the following individuals who were planning to testify during this Public Hearing: Hope Calhoun, Esq., Tom Laudani, Richard Jones, Dave Bodker, Joe Pike, Bill Himmelrich, George Elmore, Martin O’Boyle, Tom Murphy, Esq., Audrey Schwartz, Lisa Morgan, Ben Schrier, Joe Peterson and Guy Flora. Hope Calhoun, Esq., introduced herself and said she is present on behalf of the Applicant. She thanked the ARPB for their consideration and said they have gone through many drafts working with Town Staff and they believe the application has satisfied all architectural requirements. Ms. Calhoun stated that, due to possible time constraints, all testimony should be focused primarily on architectural review and then the overlay. She said issues of the plat were heard previously and are not necessarily relevant today. Ms. Calhoun requested the opportunity to re-address the Board following the presentation to respond to any questions or comments. A. Applications for Development Approval 2. An application,deferred from Public Hearing held September 27, 2012,submitted by Seaside Builders LLC as agent for Harbor View Estates LLC, owners of property located at 1220 North Ocean Boulevard, Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lot 4, Hidden Harbour Estates Plat Two, a replat of Lots 4, 5 & 6, Golf Course Addition according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 15, Pages 173 & 174, Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. a.NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY PERMIT to allow the removal of existing nuisance exotics and extensive Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board – October 25, 2012 Page 3 planting of native species and the installation of an entrance wall and gates, a portion of which is within the 50’ corridor. b.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the construction of a partial two-story Bermuda style single family dwelling, 3 car garage with bonus room above, 8,603 square feet, and a swimming pool. Richard Jones introduced himself and thanked the Board for recommending approval of Lot 3 and said it did go through the Commission and received approval. He said they received good comments from the ARPB at the last meeting relating to the Town’s new ordinance addressing two-story mass and the appropriate methods of addressing the issue. Mr. Jones said the proposed 2-story Bermuda Style structure will sit on the southeast lot. He said they addressed the issue of mass by breaking down the house into various portions interconnected by covered roofs, and they created courtyards to capture outdoor space. He said the color scheme is the traditional off-white with black shutters and white mitered roof. To address mass on the second floor, two balconies were added on the south elevation facing the private road and one on the north elevation facing another lot, all of which are a minimum of 24 SF and consistent with the two proposed balconies on the east elevation. In addition, they did overlays of the existing landscape and Mr. Jones said Dave Bodker created elevations showing the existing 15’ no-cut zone landscaping as well as the proposed new landscaping, which will screen the entire south elevation of the home and provide ample screening on the north, east and west elevations as well. Mr. Jones said that Dave Bodker will review the proposed landscaping, Joe Pike will address any drainage questions, and the Developer, Tom Laudani, will any questions. Chairman Morgan asked what the distance will be from A1A to the gate and then to the house. Mr. Jones said it will be 50 feet to the gate and 98’9” feet to the house. Chairman Morgan asked if the additional balconies are identical and asked for their depth. Mr. Jones said they are identical and they are 4’ deep by 6’ wide, 24 SF. Chairman Morgan asked if the addition of the balconies meets Code. Mr. Thrasher confirmed that saying Section 70-73, Two- story, provides four options that can be used to break massing of the façade and one option is the use of balconies that are a minimum of 24 SF. Dave Bodker introduced himself. He said they depicted the proposed and existing vegetation to show how all elevations will be seen from different property lines. Mr. Bodker said there are 19 existing trees along the south property line which will remain and any gaps will be filled in with Buttonwood trees or Fishtail palms, and a series of under plantings with various hedging. On the north elevation which faces the interior, they will plant tall Sable palms at higher elevations of the house and smaller trees throughout. The west elevation will also be seen from the interior and shade trees will be planted in several locations to break up the garage. The east elevation will be seen from A1A, there are a large number of existing trees along the east elevation Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board – October 25, 2012 Page 4 that will be filled in with additional plantings and there will be additional vegetation on the north side of the entrance gate to provide sufficient screening. With regard to the wall on the south elevation as you drive down Hidden Harbour Road, Mr. Lyons asked if existing vegetation will block the wall on the south elevation. Mr. Bodker said they have already planted a 5’ high Buttonwood hedge along the wall which will eventually block the wall, and he said there is also hedging on the top of the wall and along the interior of the wall. George Elmore introduced himself and questioned the Minutes of the 9/27/12 ARPB Meeting where on Page 4, Paragraph 2, it says Mr. Himmelrich is happy with the drainage and there are no issues. Mr. Elmore the drainage system works, but he said there are issues if it is not properly maintained everyone in the 1300s will be flooded and it must be resolved. He said Mr. Laudani is working on it and informed him that documents were sent to his attorney, but they have not been received. Chairman Morgan noted that this was covered in the last meeting and the conclusion was that it should be brought to the Commission for further pursuit. He said Staff will make record of Mr. Elmore’s comments in the Minutes of this meeting. Ms. Calhoun confirmed that documents were sent to Mr. Elmore’s attorney about two weeks ago. Lisa Morgan introduced herself and said she would like to address landscape issues exclusively and asked if the Board would hear her presentation at this time or wait until after the building has been addressed. Chairman Morgan said they will address the buildings and the immediate landscape designs first. He said there is a separate application for the overlay permit with the Australian Pines, which will be addressed separately at the conclusion of the building. Mr. Thrasher said there are two actions to be taken, one of which is on Level III and the other is a portion of this property abutting N. Ocean Blvd. where there is request for the creation of a clear zone on the east side. Chairman Morgan recommended addressing all questions on building and then move into the Overlay Permit. Vice-Chairman Jones commented that she really liked the addition of the balconies, which improves all facades of the building. Martin O’Boyle introduced himself and asked if there is a requirement under the Code for positive Drainage. Mr. Thrasher said the requirement is for the individual lots and properties to retain the first 1” of runoff on their site by either positive outfall or exfiltration trenches, or a combination of both. He said Delray Engineering will be verifying that, but he said the requirement is not restrictive to just positive outfall. Mr. O’Boyle agreed saying there are two alternatives, positive outfall and retention, and asked if runoff will be retained on site. Mr. Laudani asked Mr. Pike to answer the question and Ms. Calhoun stated that Mr. Pike can answer the question generally because drainage is not before the Board today. She said drainage issues were handled with respect to the plat during a previous hearing. Chairman Morgan said much of this was covered at the last meeting, but he said it involves our Code, which relates to ARPB activity. He asked Mr. O’Boyle to make Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board – October 25, 2012 Page 5 his points so they are of record and then Mr. Pike may give a brief response; however, he said it may or may not impact the Board’s decision today. Mr. O’Boyle asked Mr. Pike if the drainage required under the Code is positive or retained on site. Further, Mr. O’Boyle said there is no positive drainage, the drainage system installed is hooked into the drainage of Hidden Harbour Estates, and he said there is a declaration of record prohibiting any modification without agreement of the property owners. He expressed concern for the new homeowners who may later find out they have no rights, and he said, after what Mr. Elmore and Mr. Himmelrich experienced, he does not believe there is positive drainage and they should take a closer look. Mr. O’Boyle said the ARPB is obligated to protect homeowners and he asked if anyone present could show they have positive drainage. Mr. O’Boyle mentioned three large signs on the property between his home and the property previously owned by Mr. Wheeler property that were erected by the Developer and are prohibited. Chairman Morgan said the issue of signs should be brought to the Town Manager. He said the point raised with regard to drainage is legitimate and it should be brought before the Town Commission. Mr. Randolph said it is relevant to the ARPB that the first 1” of rainfall is retained on the property because it deals with individual lots, and he said Mr. Pike may want to address that. Mr. Pike introduced himself and said that legal positive outfall and outside retention meet the requirements of the City of Delray Beach, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), the Town of Gulf Stream’s Engineering Consultant and two independent drainage engineers hired by the neighbors. He said there is a series of on-site collection inlets and two positive outfall pipes to the Intracoastal, which is State water. Mr. Pike said Hidden Harbour has a drainage easement, but they tied directly into the waters of the State. He said they are working on a maintenance and inspection schedule and have covered everything required by law and then some. Mr. Himmelrich introduced himself and stated that he did tell Mr. Laudani the system is working, but he said his concern is whether it will continue to work. He said there is an agreement between the neighbors and the Developer and he is concerned about the Developer honoring the agreement with regard to drainage, landscaping or any other issue. Mr. Himmelrich said he discussed this with the Town Manager and the general response is that it is not a matter of the Town, but rather a civil matter. He said he would like to go on record saying that if the Town approves any changes in the buffer it would specifically contradict the agreement the neighbors have with the Developer because the buffer is outlined with measurements. Mr. Himmelrich said he disagrees with Mr. Pike in that the drainage they installed was not set forth to the neighbors prior to installation. He said they are satisfied the system is currently working, but it was not approved as it was supposed to have been done according to the agreement. He said it may be seen as a civil matter and not a matter of the ARPB or the Commission, but it is important to know that the agreement between the neighbors and the Developer is in place. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board – October 25, 2012 Page 6 Tom Laudani introduced himself and said he would like to address Mr. Himmelrich’s comments. He said his attorneys supplied Mr. Elmore’s and Mr. Himmelrich’s attorney with a draft of the drainage agreement for maintenance two weeks ago. He said he signed a private maintenance agreement with Centerline Utilities for semi-annual maintenance of the system due to concerns of drains clogging with leaves, etc., and he said he will continue to work with Mr. Himmelrich and Mr. Elmore to satisfy their concerns of drainage system maintenance. In addition, Mr. Laudani said the signs that are in place were approved by the Town in terms of location prior to their installation. Chairman Morgan suggested moving on with the architectural review of Lot 4, and he said the next point in the application is the Town’s requirement of planting Australian Pines. Mr. Thrasher asked that the Board take action on the Level III at this point due to some concerns regarding the clear zone. To clarify, Mr. Randolph asked Mr. Thrasher if he is suggesting all matters relating to the clear zone come at the end of the Agenda and that the Board vote on the Level III first. Mr. Thrasher confirmed that. Chairman Morgan said the Level III relates strictly to the architectural plan before the Board and the immediate landscaping of the structure. Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to recommend approval of Level III Architectural/Site Plan based on a finding that the proposed partial two story single family Bermuda Style dwelling, a 3-car garage with a bonus room, a total of 8,603 SF, and a swimming pool meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards with the following conditions: 1. The electric service lines shall be buried. 2. The roof shall be white (through and through) un-textured, uncoated flat cement tile. 3. Any minor modification in the landscape plan shall be submitted to the Town Manager for review and approval and any major modifications shall be brought back to the ARPB for review and approval, prior to commencement of landscaping. 4. Wall and/or fences will be measured from the lowest abutting grade with a maximum height of 8’ including any lighting fixtures that may be attached. 5. All chain link fencing will be screened from neighbor’s view. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. 3. An application,deferred from Public Hearing of September 27, 2012,submitted by Seaside Builders as agent for Harbor View Estates LLC, owners of property located at 1230 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lot 6, Hidden Harbour Estates Plat Two, being a re-plat of Lots 4, 5 & 6, Golf Course Addition, Gulf Stream, Florida. a.NORTH OCEAN BLVD. OVERLAY PRMIT to allow removal of existing nuisance exotics providing for a 13’ clear zone from the edge of roadway and extensive planting of native species and installation of a Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board – October 25, 2012 Page 7 6’high aluminum rail fence 12’ west of the east property line that will be screened with landscape material. b.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit construction of an 8,857 square foot Colonial West Indies style partial two-story, single family dwelling, attached 2 car garage with 6’ high walls and fences screened with landscape material around the property, and a swimming pool. Ms. Calhoun said their Architect will present the architectural features of this home and reminded the Board that all non-related issues should be considered, but that the focus remains on what is before them. She requested time to re-address the Board at the conclusion of this presentation to respond to any questions or comments. Mr. Jones said this particular home is under contract, and he described the proposed structure as a long and narrow Colonial West Indies Style, changing mass from one-story to two-story with a garage connected by a loggia and a carriage house above. He said they contacted Marty Minor of Urban Design Kilday Studios and Mr. Minor corresponded by letter with his interpretation of the Code regarding two-story mass. Mr. Jones said the Code provides options to address second-story mass, one of which allows the applicant to propose an alternative in the event the other options are not consistent with the architectural style. He said they are proposing an alternative that is consistent with the Colonial West Indies style. Mr. Jones explained that the second story will be a different color and will have a clapboard-look siding, and the roof will be a gray flat slate-look tile with mitered ridges. Mr. Jones said at the last meeting Vice-Chairman Jones commented on the half-moon window and felt it was not consistent with the architectural style, and he said they are now proposing an alternative half-moon window with a flatter arch. Mr. Jones summarized the landscape overlay saying they presented the existing 15’ no-cut zone landscaping with the proposed additional landscaping. He said you will barely see the home on the north elevation, the south elevation is internal to the community and you will see a mix of landscape and architecture, and the east and west elevations are the same. Chairman Morgan said the wall along the north elevation appears to be uneven. Mr. Bodker said it is existing vegetation which is up to 18 feet high, and he said there is a gap where the drainage swale to the catch basin goes through where they are proposing new trees of about 20 feet high to plank the swale and to block the house. Mr. Lyons asked if the gap along the north elevation will be closed. Mr. Bodker said there is an easement there, but he said the proposed additional plantings will eventually close the gap. Chairman Morgan asked if the Board Members had questions or comments. Vice-Chairman Jones said she likes the flatter-arched design of the half-moon window. Mr. Lyons expressed concern about possible loss of existing vegetation and vegetation put in place to screen architecture in both the buffer zone and throughout individual lots. He said he would like to have something put in place to enforce replacement to Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board – October 25, 2012 Page 8 maintain the approved landscape plan. Mr. Himmelrich stated that he lives very close to the property and expressed similar concerns with regard to open spaces and gaps in the landscaping. Mr. Laudani and Mr. Bodker assured the Board and Mr. Himmelrich that there will be sufficient landscaping for screening and it will be maintained in the future. Mrs. Morgan requested that the ARPB make a specific recommendation to the Commission concerning maintenance of the buffer around the entire development. During this discussion concerning the protection and maintenance of existing and new vegetation both in the buffer area and throughout the property, it was suggested that a landscape agreement could be put in place or deed restrictions applied to individual lots. Mr. Randolph said he would work with the Applicant’s attorney, Mark Grant, to put documentation together. Mr. Murphy moved to recommend approval of Level III Architectural/Site Plan based on a finding that the proposed partial two-story single family 8,857 SF Colonial West Indies style dwelling, attached 2-car garage, with 6’ walls and fences, screened with landscape material around the property and a swimming pool meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards with the following conditions: 1. Replace the two half-moon windows as shown on the north and south elevations with the proposed alternative design as presented. 2. The electric service lines shall be buried; 3. Any minor modifications in the landscape plan shall be submitted to the Town Manager for review and approval and any major modifications shall be brought back to the ARPB for review and approval, prior to commencement of landscaping; 4. Wall and/or fences will be measured from the lowest abutting grade with a maximum height of 6’ including any lighting fixtures that may be attached; 5. All chain link fencing will be screened from neighbor’s view; and, 6. A recommendation to the Town Commission to set a condition through documents and provisions that the landscaping in the buffer areas as prescribed in the landscape plan is maintained. Mr. Randolph asked the Board if they are satisfied with the landscape plan as presented and that it provides the necessary buffer. Chairman Morgan and Mr. Thrasher said they are not satisfied. Chairman Morgan suggested including a recommendation of a deed restriction to the lots, to be incorporated in both the homeowners’ association agreement and also in the individual property deeds, that the buffer property as defined in the landscape plan be maintained at the homeowners expense, that the lot foliage abounding each individual lot be maintained at that individual homeowners expense, and that it be subject to approval and supervision by the Town. Ms. Calhoun asked if the recommendation could be for appropriate documentation determined by Attorneys Randolph and Grant as opposed to a deed restriction. Mr. Randolph asked the Board if they are saying they approve the landscaping and want it to be maintained in the future and, if so, is the Board satisfied that the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board – October 25, 2012 Page 9 landscaping as shown does create a screen along the road to the abutting properties. Chairman Morgan said he does not see that on the plan, but he said there is a representation that it will create the buffer and he will accept the representation and turn it over to the Town to enforce it. Mr. Randolph explained that the deed restriction would apply to the properties themselves and provide a restriction so that the purchaser would be aware of their obligation to maintain a site screen along the boundary of their property in perpetuity. Chairman Morgan said this recommendation to the Commission should apply to all the properties and all applicable landscaping and buffer zonings, not just Lot 6, and it would be the entire responsibility of the homeowners’ association. Mr. Murphy asked if the ARPB could make a recommendation that the condition to maintain the landscaping is by way of documents and provisions to be determined in discussion between Attorneys Randolph and Grant. Mr. Randolph said it requires a strong recommendation to the Commission saying that their approval is subject to there being binding provisions in place that will assure the buffer will be maintained into the future. Mr. Himmelrich commented that the site screen language is important because they have already agreed to the buffer, but he said it is important that they agree to maintain what the Board is approving from the drawings, which is a full screening of 80% of the structure. Chairman Morgan asked how they could make the recommendation apply to all of the lots, since two of the lots have already been approved without it. Mr. Randolph said he would discuss the matter with Mr. Grant. Mr. Murphy amended Condition 6 to read as follows: 6. A recommendation to the Commission to set a condition by way of binding documents and provisions that the prescribed landscaping in the landscape plan be maintained in a way to be determined through Attorney Grant and the Town Attorney. Mr. Randolph said he would recommend adding the Applicant’s promise that there will be a site screen of hedging or plantings that would fully screen the property.Mr. Murphy added Condition 7, as follows: 7. The site screen as detailed in the plans which were presented to the ARPB will be provided by the Developer to the best of his ability. Mr. Lyons seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. All voted AYE. Chairman Morgan asked for a motion to incorporate the conditions made on Lot 6 to all of the lots in the subdivision. Mr. Delafield moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to recommend to the Commission that the conditions imposed on Lot 6 in terms of site screening and illustrations of the landscaping will be consistent with all of the lots in the subdivision, including Lot 3, which has already been approved by the Commission, and Lot 4, of which the ARPB has recommended approval to the Commission, by way of binding documentation and restrictions imposed by the Town Commission. Mr. Randolph said the Board can make this recommendation to the Commission, but he said he does not know how enforceable it will be based on the fact that there Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board – October 25, 2012 Page 10 has already been an approval by the Commission of one of the lots. Chairman Morgan said it would be an advisory to the Commission. Mr. Randolph stated that he will be working with Mr. Grant to come up with a provision that holds the homeowners’ association responsible for maintaining the buffer. There was no further discussion. All voted AYE. Chairman Morgan asked Attorney Tom Murphy to make his presentation to the Board. Mr. Murphy introduced himself and stated that he represents Audrey Schwartz who resides at 3265 N. Ocean Blvd. He said Mrs. Schwartz is looking forward to meeting her new neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Gillman, who have purchased the property at 3333 N. Ocean Blvd. Mr. Murphy said Mrs. Schwartz has no objection to the proposed improvements on the Gillman property; however, he said it is important to her that her trees are protected during construction. He said Mrs. Schwartz would like to have her representative present when they begin removing trees and she is requesting a 30-day notice of commencement of construction. Mr. Peterson of Peterson Design Professionals, who is the landscape architect for 3333 N. Ocean Blvd., stated that he would be happy to provide Mrs. Schwartz with 30 days notice. Chairman Morgan called for a short break at 10:15 A.M. The Public Hearing continued at 10:25 A.M. Chairman Morgan recused from this portion of the hearing because Mrs. Morgan would be making a presentation to the Board with regard to the existing canopy and buffer area of the subdivision. He turned the meeting over to Vice-Chairman Jones. Mr. Randolph asked Mr. Thrasher to give his presentation before discussion. 1. An application, deferred from Public Hearing held September 27, 2012,that was submitted by Seaside Builders LLC, as agent for Harbor View Estates, LLC owners of property located at 1224 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lot 5, Hidden Harbour Estates Plat II, Replat of Golf Course Addn. Lts 4, 5 & N 92’ of Lt 6, Gulf Stream, Florida. a.NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY PERMIT to allow removal of existing nuisance exotics and some native trees providing for a 13’ clear zone from edge of roadway. There was no application for a Level 3 Architectural Site Plan Review at this time, only consideration of the clear zone. Town Manager Thrasher explained that the Florida Department of Transportation right-of-way west of the pavement on AlA is included as a part of the North Ocean Boulevard Overlay District and as such he would like to address this area in relation to all three lots, numbers 4, 5 and 6. Mr. Thrasher displayed a survey of the entire plat and one of just the area along A1A and pointed out that the proposed 13’ from the edge of pavement was shaded in red pencil. He further called attention to the fact that the west line of the 13’ is almost the same as the easterly property line of the three lots. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board – October 25, 2012 Page 11 Mr. Thrasher advised that he had asked the developer if he would be willing to clear this area of existing plant material, some of which is nuisance exotic growth, sod and install irrigation in the 13’so the Town could plant Australian Pine trees in this area. He explained that the Town had been successful in having the State declare A1A a historic and scenic highway because of the Pine canopy and a Special Act of the State Legislature had given Gulf Stream the authority to restore and extend the canopy along both sides of AlA on the right-of-way, provided they were planted beyond the clear zone. Mr. Thrasher stated that the Town has planted over 90 additional trees since the Special Acts were enacted. He pointed out that the clearing would not encroach into the landscape buffer area that the developer had provided on the private property. Lisa Morgan, the property owner south of the development, made a presentation with regard to the importance of the preservation of the natural hammock and canopy along A1A, the existing vegetation at the entrance of the subdivision and the buffer area. She said she has lived in Gulf Stream since 1996 and she supports the Australian Pines; however, she said not every project can be approved before considering the properties to be affected by removing nuisance and non-native vegetation and planting Australian Pines. Mrs. Morgan provided photos of what exists and was particularly concerned that there is very little existing vegetation to the south of the entrance of the subdivision and in the buffer area. She said taking down any of the native landscaping to make room for the Australian Pines would be a mistake. Mrs. Morgan said if it is possible to maintain the 15’ buffer and plant Australian Pines in front of it, she would be all for it. She said she would hope that the ARPB would recommend to the Commission that this is not the right location to do this. Mr. Thrasher said they are not suggesting the removal of some of the large trees. He said at the request of the Town, the Developer’s plan is to mitigate the trees that were native and accidentally removed. He said the DOT requirements were not as strict years ago as they are today and he said we are obligated to the 11’ clear zone. Mr. Thrasher said it is true that a lot of the vegetation behind the hammock was removed, but he said there will be new plantings and screenings behind that. He said the Australian Pines do give the Town some protection with regard to the widening of the road, adding bike lanes and/or sidewalks, since they are somewhat protected by the Special Acts. Mr. O’Boyle asked if there was a requirement that none of the foliage along A1A be touched. Mr. Bodker said there is a 10’ buffer. Mr. O’Boyle said Mr. Thrasher pointed out that the DOT has control over their property and he asked Mr. Thrasher why the DOT would come in now. Mr. Thrasher said there is nothing preventing them from doing what they want with property in their jurisdiction, but he said he is not implying that they are going to do that now. Several neighbors of the subdivision and Board Members expressed their concern over disturbing the vegetation along A1A in this location. Mr. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board – October 25, 2012 Page 12 Lyons said if the community does not want this he would suggest not recommending approval. Mr. Thrasher said if this is not approved the Developer would move on. Mr. Laudani said he is more than happy to comply with the wishes of the neighbors, the Town and its residents. Clerk Taylor said that it is her understanding that a motion will be required to approve the N. Ocean Blvd. Overlay Permit with the exception of the 13’ clear zone, due to the fact the Overlay District extends an additional 50’ onto the private property. Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Delafield seconded to recommend approval of the North Ocean Boulevard Overlay Permit excluding the 13’ clear zone with regard to Lots 4, 5 and 6. Mrs. Morgan asked about a fence 12’ in from the property along Hidden Harbour Rd. Clerk Taylor said the Code mandates that any walls or fences in that zoning district facing A1A must be 12 feet back, whereas along the Beachfront District walls and fences can be along the property line, but she said it meets Code. There was no further discussion. All voted AYE. Vice Chairman Jones returned the gavel to Chairman Morgan. 4. An application submitted by Benjamin Schreier, Affiniti Architects, as Agent for Doris J. Gillman, the owner of property located at 3333 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as Part of Lot 5, Gulf Stream Ocean Tracts, Gulf Stream, Florida. a.NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY PERMIT to remove existing landscape material and driveway, install new driveway and landscaping and construct5 foot perimeter wall with entry gate within the North Ocean Boulevard Corridor. b.LAND CLEARING PERMIT to relocate/clear existing landscaping material for relocation of driveway, preparation of building site and property beautification. c.DEMOLITION PERMIT to remove existing structures. d.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit construction of a 9,036 square foot Colonial West Indies style partial 2-stor single family dwelling, 3 car attached garage and a swimming pool. Ben Schrier introduced himself and briefly presented the project proposed for 3333 N. Ocean Blvd. He said the new structure will be 9,036 SF, it is a Colonial West Indies Style home with clapboard style siding, a gray slate tile roof and brown windows. Mr. Schrier asked for consideration of the front entry gate which was originally proposed with an elliptical element in the center and Staff was not happy with that. He said they are proposing an alternative design which is horizontal at the top, but he said that Mr. and Mrs. Gillman would still like the Board to consider the original design. Chairman Morgan asked about shutters. Mr. Schrier said there will be some white Bahama shutters. Chairman Morgan asked about the doorway on Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board – October 25, 2012 Page 13 the balcony above the entrance and asked if there was a purpose for the clumping of windows. Mr. Schrier said it will bring light into the interior. Mr. Lyons asked what the view would be from the street. Mr. Schrier said you would only see the structure as you enter through the driveway, but he said you would not see much from the street. Joe Peterson, the Landscape Architect, said there will be a 6’ high privacy wall in front with trees and plantings along the wall, throughout the interior and against the home. He said there will be layers of shrubs in front and along the walkway, hedging along the sides and in the back and Coconut Palms around the pool and deck. Mr. Peterson said the existing Ficus hedge on the north elevation will be removed and replaced with a new Ficus, and he said the existing Sea Grapes will remain with additional plantings around them. Mr. Peterson said that very tall Sea Grapes will be planted along the side property lines for additional screening. He said there are some very overgrown Sea Grapes that will be removed and replaced with much denser Sea Grapes. Mrs. Schwartz mentioned the privacy wall they are proposing along N. Ocean Blvd. and was concerned about the column on her property line. She asked if the wall would meet her column and Mr. Peterson it would be about 4’ from her column. Mr. Lyons was concerned with protecting the neighbors to the north and south during demolition and construction and he asked Mr. Peterson if they were going to remove all of their vegetation immediately. Mr. Peterson said they are only removing the cluster of Sea Grapes to the south and the existing Ficus hedge to the north. He said the neighbors to the north have a 6’ high screen wall on their property. Mr. Peterson said there may be some period of time when there would be openings. Guy Flora of Mark Timothy Construction stated that he would be responsible for the property during construction. He said the Australian Pines will be removed immediately and they will install a screened privacy fence, and they will put up the privacy wall in the front as soon as possible. Chairman Morgan said Mrs. Schwartz asked for a 30-day notice before commencement of construction and he asked Mr. Flora if he can do that. Mr. Flora said he can do that. Chairman Morgan asked Mrs. Schwartz if she had any other comments. Mrs. Schwartz said she would like them to do the screening to protect her property and her vegetation. Mr. Flora said they would install a chain link fence with a green shade for protection. Chairman Morgan asked Mr. Thrasher for Staff’s analysis of the roof tile. Mr. Thrasher said it is consistent with the architectural style. Clerk Taylor noted that the neighbor to the north was by Town Hall to look at the plans and there were no objections. Mr. Lyons moved and Vice-Chairman Jones seconded to recommend approval of each of the following: Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board – October 25, 2012 Page 14 North Ocean Boulevard Overlay Permit to allow the removal of existing landscape material and driveway, install new driveway and landscaping and construct a 5 foot perimeter wall with entry gate within the North Ocean Boulevard Corridor. Land Clearing Permit to relocate/ clear existing landscaping material for relocation of driveway, preparation of building site and property beautification. Demolition Permit to remove existing structures. Level III Architectural/Site Plan based on a finding that the proposed construction of a 9,036 SF Colonial West Indies Style partial 20story single family dwelling, 3-car attached garage and a swimming pool meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards, with the following conditions: 1. The electric service lines shall be buried. 2. Any minor modification in the landscape plan shall be submitted to the Town Manager for review and approval and any major modifications shall be brought back to the ARPB for review and approval, prior to commencement of landscaping. 3. Wall and/or fences will be measured from the lowest abutting grade with a maximum height of 8’ including any lighting fixtures that may be attached. 4. All chain link fencing will be screened from neighbor’s view. 5. The landscape plan will protect existing Australian pine trees and provide a 13’ clear zone where possible allowing for the planting by the Town of two Australian pine trees on the north of the existing driveway entrance and up to eight on the north side of the existing driveway. 6. Change the proposed gate design to the alternate gate design that is less ornate. The agent has shown several gates along SR A1A, several of which are fronting homes classified with Mediterranean style architecture. 7. The property owner will give the neighbor to the south 30 days notice prior to commencement of construction. There was no further discussion. All voted AYE. VII.Items by Staff. There were no items by Staff. VIII.Items by Board Members. There were no items by Board Members IX.Public. There were no items by the Public. X.Adjournment. Chairman Morgan adjourned the meeting at 11:45 A.M. ________________________ Gail C. Abbale Administrative Assistant January 17, 2013 CHAIRMAN: Scott Morgan VICE CHAIRMAN: Amanda Jones BOARD MEMBER: Paul A. Lyons, Jr. Thomas Smith Malcolm Murphy ALTERNATE MEMBER: Ann Kasten Aker George Delafieled, Jr. REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY,JANUARY 24, 2013 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. AGENDA I. Call to Order. II. Roll Call. III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 12-27-12. IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. V. Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. February 28, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. b. March 28, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. c. April 25, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. d. May 23, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. e. June 27, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. f. July 25, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. VI. PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by Seaside Builders LLC, as Agent for 1275 N. Ocean LLC, the owners of property located at 1275 N. Ocean Blvd, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as Lot 7 and 50’ of Lot 6, Revised Plat of Blks. D&E of Palm Beach Shores Estates. a.DEMOLITION PERMIT to remove existing structures. b.LAND CLEARING PERMIT to clear building site and re- arrange/remove existing landscape material. c.NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY PERMIT to supplement existing landscaping and install rail fence and entrance gate. d.SPECIAL EXCEPTION #1 to allow 300 square feet of covered, unenclosed area that exceeds the maximum floor area permitted. e.SPECIAL EXCEPTION #2 to permit construction of a dune crossover. f.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit construction of 11,566 square foot Bermuda style, single family, partial 2-story dwelling with guest quarters, attached 3 car garage, outdoor pavilion and swimming pool and dune crossover. 2. An application submitted by George Brewer as agent for Ross and Katherine Jones, owners of property located at 450 Banyan Road, Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lot 4, Blk. 1, Plat No. 1 Polo Fields Subdivision, Gulf Stream, Florida. a.DEMOLITION PERMIT to completely remove the existing AGENDA CONTINUED second story of existing structure. AGENDA CONTINUED b.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the addition of a bedroom wing and covered loggia on the south east corner and an addition to existing bedroom on the south west corner, along with a new entry feature, a total of 1,431 square feet, to the existing Bermuda style single family dwelling and new landscaping and driveway. 3. An application submitted by George Brewer as agent for Richard Paul-Hus, owner of the property located at 3500 North Ocean Boulevard, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as Part of Lot 55, lying west of westerly right-of-way line of State Road A-1-A, plus the east ½ of Palm Way, lying west of and adjacent to said Lot, Gulf Stream Properties No. 2, as in Plat Book 18, Page 42, Public Records of Palm Beach County Florida. a.NORTH OCEAN BLVD. OVERLAY PERMIT to allow the reconfiguration of existing driveway, construction of a fireplace and enhanced landscaping within the North Ocean Blvd. Corridor. b.LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL\SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit an addition of 32 square feet and renovation of an existing partial two story, single family dwelling of Monterey Vernacular style and the addition of an outside fireplace, reconfiguration of existing driveway and enhancement of existing landscaping. VII. Items by Staff. VIII. Items by Board Members. IX. Public. X. Adjournment. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S. REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 27, 2012 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I.Call to Order. Chairman Morgan called the Meeting to order at 8:33 A.M. II.Roll Call. Present and Scott Morgan Chairman Participating Malcolm Murphy Board Member Paul Lyons Board Member George Delafield Alt. Member sitting As Board Member Absent w/Notice Tom Smith Board Member Amanda Jones Board Member Ann Aker Alt. Member Also Present and William Thrasher Town Manager Participating Rita Taylor Town Clerk John Randolph Town Attorney Quinn Miklos of Agent/Clippinger Miklos & Associates Greg Young G.S. School Rene Tercilla of Agent/G.S. School Tercilla Courtemanche Arch. Peter Carney Agent/Kolea James Boyce Agent/4001 N. Ocean OK Seahorse LLLC III.Minutes. A. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing of 10-25-12. Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of October 25, 2012. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. B. Joint Meeting with Town Commission of 12-14-12. Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Lyons seconded to approve the Minutes of the Joint Meeting with the Town Commission of December 14, 2012. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. IV.Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. There were no changes. V.Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. January 24, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. b. February 28, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. c. March 28, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. d. April 25, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. e. May 23, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. f. June 27, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. Mr. Murphy asked if applications have been submitted for the January Meeting. Clerk Taylor said there will be two, possibly three Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board December 27, 2012 Page 2 applications on the January Agenda. There were no conflicts in the Meeting Schedule. VI.PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval Chairman Morgan asked for declarations of Ex-parte communication with regard to any of the applications being heard. Chairman Morgan said he had a telephone communications with Greg Young, who will speak on behalf of Gulf Stream School, with regard to the attendance at this meeting and to set forth the itinerary of their presentation. There were no other declarations of Ex-parte communication. Clerk Taylor administered the Oath to the following individuals: Quinn Miklos, Architect representing Clippinger; Greg Young representing Gulf Stream School; Joe Zelewski, Principal of Gulf Stream School; Rene Tercilla, Architect representing Gulf Stream School; Charles Frankel, former resident present on behalf of Gulf Stream School; Peter Carney, Agent for Kolea; and, James Boyce representing OK Seahorse LLLC, 4001 N. Ocean Blvd. 1. An application submitted by Quinn Miklos, Miklos & Asssoc. as Agent for Gerald & Sharon Clippinger, the owners of property located at 2538 Avenue Au Soleil, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as Lot 48 Place Au Soleil Subdivision. a.SPECIAL EXCEPTION to permit the extension of an existing non-conforming wall that encroaches 4.2 feet into the required 15 foot south side setback. b.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit additions consisting of bathroom, covered entry and additional living area, a net total of 716.6 square feet, to the existing one-story single family dwelling and an exterior renovation to smooth stucco with the addition of quoins on the corners. A new brick driveway will also be a part of the renovations. Quinn Miklos of Miklos & Associates introduced himself and stated that the existing structure is a brick Ranch style home consisting of 2,700 SF. He said they are proposing an addition of 1,716 SF to the existing structure and updating the style of the home to a Gulf Stream Berumda. Mr. Miklos displayed a drawing of the existing floor plan indicating the addition of square footage in both the front and rear of the home. He said the existing portion of the home was dominated by a large roof and a flying beam with the house tucked in. Mr. Miklos said in keeping with the Gulf Stream Bermuda style architecture they have created a clear center and a clearer front entry, the windows have a more symmetrical pattern and the roof will be appropriate to the neighborhood. Chairman Morgan asked if the windows will be changed. Mr. Miklos said they will be changed to a clear muttin pattern. Mr. Murphy asked if there has been feedback from neighbors. Clerk Taylor said Mr. and Mrs. Adams were in recently and had no objections and she said there has been Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board December 27, 2012 Page 3 no other feedback. Mr. Miklos said he is a neighbor and has no objection. He said the neighbors are excited when there is any improvement to properties. Chairman Morgan asked Mr. Miklos to address the requested Special Exception. Mr. Miklos said the Special Exception is for the addition of square footage which will extend an existing non- conforming wall to accommodate a new master bath. Mr. Lyons commented that it is a positive change. Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Delafield seconded to recommend approval for a Special Exception to permit the extension of an existing non-conforming wall that encroaches 4.2’ into the required 15’ south side setback. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Delafield seconded to recommend approval of a Level III Architectural/Site Plan based on a finding that the proposed addition consisting of 776.4 SF, bathroom, covered entry and additional living area patio to the existing one-story single family dwelling and an exterior renovation to smooth stucco with the addition of quoins on the corners and a new brick driveway meets the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. 2. An Application submitted by Rene Tercilla, Tercilla Courtemanche Architects, Inc. as agent for The Gulf Stream School Foundation, Inc., owners of property located at 3600 Gulf Stream Road, Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as a parcel of land lying in Section 3, Township 46 South, Range 43 East, Palm Beach County, Florida. a.VARIANCE #1 to allow an increase in total floor area that will exceed the 61,737 square feet allowed in the existing Developer’s Agreement by 1,617 square feet. b.VARIANCE #2 to permit an increase of l,765 square feet over the 6,000 square feet permitted for the second floor area in the existing Developer’s Agreement. c.DEMOLITION to demolish the existing one story pavilion consisting of 1,681 square feet. d.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to replace and enlarge the first floor pavilion and add three second floor classrooms, an interior corridor and an exterior covered walkway and stairs, a total of 4,l875 square feet. Clerk Taylor corrected an error in the Variance #2 description on the Agenda. She said rather than an increase of 11,765 SF, it is an increase of 1,765 SF. Greg Young, representing Gulf Stream School, asked Mr. Randolph if the error occurred on information distributed for Public Notice or if it is incorrect on the Agenda only. Mr. Randolph said it did not go out in the Public Notice. Clerk Taylor said the error is on the Agenda only and not on the Staff Report. Greg Young, an Attorney with the Law Firm of Edwards, Robin and Palmer, introduced himself saying he represents Gulf Stream School. Mr. Young said he is President and Board Chairman for Gulf Stream School and a Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board December 27, 2012 Page 4 parent of five children who have attended, or are attending, Gulf Stream School. He introduced Joe Zelewski, the head of Gulf Stream School, Rene Trecilla, a principal of Trecilla Courtemanche Architects, and Charles Frankel, a former Gulf Stream resident and former member of the ARPB. Mr. Young said Gulf Stream School, who will celebrate their 75 th Anniversary next year, is a member of the National Association of Independent Schools in Washington, DC and accredited by the Florida Council of Independent Schools and Florida Kindergarten Council. He said the School operates on a No Debt Policy, they will not begin construction before paying for it, and they look forward to fundraising around it. Mr. Young said 29 families in Gulf Stream have children that attend Gulf Stream School, his family included, and they are in favor of the application before the Board. Mr. Young said the land use and zoning considerations start with the fact that the school is grandfathered non-conforming within the Town based on its location in the RS-O district, which is residential. He said Section 70-50 of the Town’s Code requires approvals for new construction, and he said there is a Developer’s Agreement in place which caps the student head count at 250 and includes one-story and two- story building envelopes. He said they are not asking for an increase in enrollment and do not seek to alter the building envelopes. Mr. Young said the School approached their maximum enrollment number capped by the Town in the last seven years, but he said there is a dire need for three additional classrooms because they have had to double up in some classes in each grade level due to inadequate space. Teachers are switching classrooms and teaching in the Library and other inadequate teaching environments. Mr. Young said he is confident their application meets all variance criteria and Town Code, and he said their Architect, Rene Tercilla, will discuss their proposal and answer any questions. Rene Tercilla of Tercilla Courtemanche Architects introduced himself. He said they have done over $1 billion in educational work over the past ten years and he said in the last five to seven years teaching has become more individualized in K-12 schools. Teachers are covering the same subject at different grade levels and it creates the need for more classrooms and teaching space. Mr. Tercilla displayed a drawing of the current site, pointing out the current 1-story open pavilion which is adjacent to the 2-story Media Center where the Library is located, and referred to a line along the Pavilion area. He said the second level of the Developer’s Agreement refers to that area and states that a second story addition is only allowed 120 feet from every property line, and he said the plans as submitted are within the Developer’s Agreement area. Mr. Tercilla said what they are proposing is to take down the current pavilion, replace it with a slightly larger open-air pavilion and add a second story with an open balcony to accommodate three additional classrooms. He said the stair tower in the existing two-story Media Center will come down to be able to push the pavilion to the Media Center and the stair tower will be replaced at the end of the building. Mr. Tercilla displayed various elevations indicating the little bit of the new addition that can be seen from the front of the School property. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board December 27, 2012 Page 5 He displayed the west elevation where the second-story addition will be visible and pointed out that the roof is lower and the massing is less than the existing two-story structure. Mr. Tercilla noted that during construction, all work vehicles will be parked on site. Mr. Lyons asked about feedback from the neighbors who may be impacted by the addition. Mr. Young said they met with Tom Stanley who lives on Oleander directly to the south, and he said the School owns the property across from Mr. Stanley. He said he has not spoken to the O’Briens, who are adjacent to the School, and they have not spoken to the family on Banyan who is from Connecticut, but he said there have been no objections from the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Delafield asked about the timing of the construction and how the School will address it from a safety perspective. Mr. Tercilla said 65% of his projects are on active campuses, but he said there is never a good time for construction on a school property. He said their intention is to begin at the start of Spring Break and the entire construction area will be fenced off so that students will not be exposed to that area when they return to class. Mr. Young said there will be no activity on the playing field during construction. In addition, he said that not only will the contractors be required to register with the Town, the School will also require vendors to certify their workers. Mr. Lyons inquired about the School’s No Debt Policy and asked if the School will have capital committed prior to commencement of construction. Mr. Young explained that the School has no debt, they have cash on hand that will pay for about 50% of the structure, a healthy endowment for Pre-K through 8th Grade of $8 million and, although they do not want to draw on it, they have $2 million in reserves. He said pledges will add to their funds and they will fundraise in a fairly aggressive manner around this project. Mr. Lyons commented that he thinks this improvement will be great for the community. Chairman Morgan said the Developer’s Agreement establishes the legal issue and sets forth a total allowable floor area and a total allowable 2nd floor area. He said the 2nd floor area seems to be a fairly significant increase over the Developer’s Agreement of about 29%, but he said it is only a couple percent over the total allowable 2 nd floor square footage. Mr. Tercilla explained that the total increase is reduced by taking down the pavilion which is a first floor issue, and he is taking down a stair tower at the Media Center which is a first and second floor issue of the current building. Chairman Morgan said in keeping with the Developer’s Agreement to provide for the better needs of the students, it seems the School currently has some safety issues with children moving from class to class, teachers having to relocate from class to class and in using rooms such as the Library for teaching purposes rather than Library purposes. Mr. Young said the Library is also used for 24 class instructions and study halls per week, Auxiliary Meetings, Parent Coffees, Teachers’ Meetings and Board of Trustees Meetings. He said Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board December 27, 2012 Page 6 computer labs and science labs are also being used for other class instruction. Mr. Young said there is great need for additional classroom space and also for a Learning Specialist, and he said by relocating the kitchen facility to the first floor of the new pavilion, it will create space to accommodate a learning specialist. Chairman Morgan commented that the School is taking a very reasonable approach to their needs. Chairman Morgan asked if the recommended conditions of approval are currently included in the Developer’s Agreement. Mr. Thrasher said the 2nd sentence of Condition 1, which requires a yearly certification of enrollment be provided to the Town, and Conditions 4 and 5 are not included, Condition 6 was included in the 2002 Amendment to the Developer’s Agreement, and he recommended adding Condition 7 requiring that the Developer’s Agreement be amended to incorporate these conditions. He asked Mr. Young about the plan to require certification of construction workers. Mr. Young said there is no formal policy in place, but they want all workers entering campus to be certified that they are not on a sex offender list or any other alert list. Mr. Tercilla said he would recommend that the School follow the State of Florida and require the Jessica Lundsford Act reviews of all workers, which is a Level III background check of every worker entering the campus. Chairman Morgan asked Mr. Young if he wanted to comment on the conditions of approval set forth in the Staff Report. Mr. Young said he had no comments concerning the six conditions listed in the Staff Report; however, he asked about the 7th condition which was recommended by the Town Manager. Mr. Randolph said it is just saying that the six conditions and terms of approval be incorporated within an amended Developer’s Agreement. Mr. Young had no objection to Condition 7. There were no comments by the Public. Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Delafield seconded to recommend approval of a Variance to allow an increase in total floor area that will exceed the 61,737 SF allowed in the existing Developer’s Agreement by 1,617 SF. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Lyons seconded to recommend approval of a Variance to permit an increase of 1,765 SF over the 6,000 SF permitted for the second floor area in the existing Developer’s Agreement. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Delafield seconded to recommend approval of demolition of the existing one-story pavilion consisting of 1.681 SF. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Lyons seconded to recommend approval of a Level III Architectural/Site Plan to replace and enlarge the first floor pavilion and add three second floor classrooms, an interior corridor and an exterior covered walkway and stairs, a total of 4,875 SF, with the following conditions: Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board December 27, 2012 Page 7 1. The student enrollment shall be permanently capped at 250, as limited by the existing Developer’s Agreement. A yearly certification of the enrollment shall be provided the Town; 2. No additional after-hours functions shall be held at the School other than those allowed by the existing Developer’s Agreement; 3. The private school campus shall not be expanded onto existing single-family lots, as dictated by RS-C and RS-O zoning district use regulations; 4. A Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit application. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Police Chief; 5. The School shall reimburse the Town for all Town legal fees and Town advertising associated with this application; 6. The School is respectfully requested to dedicate a 9’ utility easement across the entire frontage of A1A to be used exclusively for future undergrounding of power, phone and utility lines. (A long-term Town goal.); and, 7. The above-listed Conditions and figures set forth in the Variance approvals shall be incorporated into an Amended Developer’s Agreement. Mr. Young asked Mr. Thrasher if the amount of legal fees have been established. Mr. Thrasher said he does not have an estimate on legal fees, but he recommended that they are not to exceed $5,000. Mr. Young had no objection. Condition #5 was amended to read: 5. The School shall reimburse the Town for all Town legal fees associated with this application, in an amount not to exceed $5,000, and for all Town advertising costs associated with this application. There was no further discussion. All voted AYE. 3. An application submitted by Peter Carney as agent for James and Beverly Kolea, owners of property located at 960 Orchid Lane, Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lot 83, Place Au Soleil Subdivision, Gulf Stream, Florida. a.LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to construct a rear portico and a new front entrance to the existing one-story, single family Bermuda/British Colonial style dwelling, additions of 403 square feet. Peter Carney of Carney, Stanton in Delray Beach, Florida, introduced himself as Agent for James and Beverly Kolea. He said there have been two previous constructions on this home, one in 1963 and the last in 1985. Mr. Carney said most of the proposed work will be interior and they are proposing the addition of a rear portico to protect from direct sun and the addition of a new front entrance to their home. Mr. Lyons asked about the recommended condition of approval concerning Health Department requirements. Mr. Thrasher said sometimes the Health Department requires additional sizing on the septic tank and drain field, which at times can only be met by modifying the site plan. Mr. Carney said they are not adding a kitchen or bathroom and it is doubtful there will be an issue since they are only providing shade. Mr. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board December 27, 2012 Page 8 Thrasher agreed. Chairman Morgan asked if they will be changing windows. Mr. Carney said they will not change them, only replace with impact. Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Delafield seconded to approve a Level II Architectural/Site Plan based on a finding that the proposed rear portico and a new front entrance to the existing one-story, single- family Bermuda/British Colonial style dwelling, net additions of 403 SF meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards with the following conditions: 1. If the proposed site plan is altered because of the requirements of the Health Department a revised site plan will require ARPB approval. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. 4. An application submitted by James Boyce of OK Seahorse LLLP as agent for OK Seahorse LLLP, owners of the property located at 4001 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream Florida, which is legally described in metes and bounds in Sec. 34, Township 45 South, Range 43 East in Palm Beach County. a.DEMOLITION PERMIT to demolish the existing southern most dune crossover. b.SPECIAL EXCEPTION to permit the relocation and reconstruction of the existing southern most dune crossover to a location that is 15 feet north of the south property line at the above address c.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to rebuild the southern most dune crossover in a new location that is 15 feet north of the south property line of 4001 N. Ocean Blvd. that will be the same size as the existing structure. James Boyce, representing the owner of OK Seahorse, LLLP at 4001 N. Ocean Boulevard, introduced himself. He said there are two existing beach access crossover ramps on the property, both in need of repair, and he said they are proposing to move the existing southern ramp about 28 feet to the south. Mr. Boyce explained that the purpose of doing this is because of the five new villas that will be located across the street from 4001 N. Ocean that will be allowed beach access and this will make access easier for those residents. He said this has already been approved by the Department of Environmental Protection, they want to maintain the existing Sea Grapes and the will be able to do so with this relocation of the dune crossover. Mr. Boyce said it will look similar to the crossover to be demolished, it will be taken away from the site line and hidden by the Sea Grapes and it will be done before turtle nesting season. Mr. Delafield moved and Mr. Lyons seconded to recommend approval of a Demolition Permit. There was no discussion. All voted AYE.Mr. Delafield moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to recommend approval of a Special Exception to permit construction of a dune crossover east of the Coastal Construction Control Line 1978 based on the finding that the dune crossover meets the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. Mr. Delafield moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to recommend approval of a Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Architectural Review and Planning Board December 27, 2012 Page 9 Level III Architectural/Site Plan to permit construction of a dune crossover structure seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line 1978 based on the finding that the dune crossover meets the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. VII.Items by Staff. There were no items by Staff. VIII.Items by Board Members. There were no items by Members of the Board. IX.Public. Martin O’Boyle of 23 Hidden Harbour Drive introduced himself, his son Jonathan and Brien Whitmore, an employee in his office. He said he has some questions concerning the Code because is upgrading his home and wants to do it right. Mr. Whitmore referred to Section 66-131(4) dealing with setbacks and requirements to extend or enlarge a non- conforming structure and asked what would qualify as an extension of a non-conforming structure. For example, he asked if it would be considered an extension if you build under an awning or roofed area. Mr. Randolph said this portion of the Meeting is for Public comment with regard to the Meeting. He said the Town Manager is the Official who is authorized to review pre-application proposals and interpret the Code. Chairman Morgan said the ARPB would be presented with applications for approval that have been previously reviewed by the Town Manager. Mr. O’Boyle said he has already addressed this with Mr. Thrasher and does not believe he can answer his questions. Chairman Morgan suggested that he meet with Mr. Thrasher to go over his proposal, and he said if Mr. Thrasher has difficulty answering your questions he will seek guidance from the Town’s Consultant. Mr. O’Boyle explained that he cannot get hurricane insurance and they are trying to install hurricane impact windows prior to Hurricane Season. He said if he cannot get this done in time and incurs any damage to his home due to a storm, he will hold this Board responsible. Mr. Randolph stated that Mr. O’Boyle has a meeting scheduled with Mr. Thrasher at 2:00 P.M. this date. Mr. O’Boyle confirmed that, but he said there is a process which can take months and Hurricane Season is quickly approaching. X.Adjournment. Chairman Morgan adjourned the Meeting at 9:45 A.M. ____________________________ Gail C. Abbale Administrative Assistant February 20, 2013 CHAIRMAN: Scott Morgan VICE CHAIRMAN: Amanda Jones BOARD MEMBER: Paul A. Lyons, Jr. Thomas Smith Malcolm Murphy ALTERNATE MEMBER: Ann Kasten Aker George Delafield, Jr. REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2013 AT 8:30 A.M.,IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. AGENDA I. Call to Order. II. Roll Call. III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 1-24-13. IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. V. Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. March 28, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. b. April 25, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. c. May 23, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. d. June 27, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. e. July 25, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. f. August 2013-No Meeting VI. PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by Bernard and Stephanie Molyneux, owners of the property located at 915 Emerald Row, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as Lot 64, Place Au Soleil Subdivision, Gulf Stream, Florida a.VARIANCE to allow a roof replacement on an existing Gulf Stream Bermuda style, single family, one story dwelling, of a color and material that do not conform to the provisions of Sections 70-107 and 70-238 of the Gulf Stream Zoning Code. b.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the installation of a brown, flat cement tile roof, replacing the existing wood shake roof, on an existing Gulf Stream Bermuda style, single family, one story dwelling 2. An application submitted by William Ring, Commerce Group, Inc. as agent for Martin O’Boyle, owner of property located at 23 Hidden Harbour Dr., Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lot 5, Hidden Harbour Estates, Gulf Stream, Florida. a.VARIANCE #1 to allow a net addition 109 square feet to the front entry feature of the existing non- conforming two-story single family dwelling that currently exceeds the maximum permitted floor area ratio by 2,589 square feet. b.VARIANCE #2 to permit the first-story eave height of the proposed entry feature to exceed the maximum discouraged height of 12.5 feet by 2.5 feet to the architectural element. AGENDA CONTINUED c.VARIANCE #3 to permit the second-story eave height of the proposed entry feature to exceed the maximum discouraged height of 23 feet by 2 feet. d.VARIANCE #4 to permit an additional 2 foot encroachment beyond the existing 9 foot 8 inch front setback encroachment. e.DEMOLITION PERMIT to remove 229 square feet of gross floor area. f.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit an addition for a cumulative increase of 109 square feet to an existing 8,001 square foot, non-conforming, Spanish Mediterranean Revival, two-story single family dwelling. 3. An application submitted by Mark Marsh, Bridges, Marsh & Associates, Inc. as agent for Mr.& Mrs. Robert Julian, owners of property located at 1601 North Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described in metes and bounds in Government Lot 1, Section 10, Township 46 South, Range 43 East. a.LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit an addition of 392 square feet to the south east corner of the existing Spanish Mediterranean Revival style single family dwelling, to enclose an existing breezeway on the north side of the dwelling and to install a roof over the existing trellis connection to the existing guest house. 4. An application submitted by Mark Marsh, Bridges, Marsh & Associates, Inc., as agent for Mr. & Mrs. Nelson Grumney, Jr., owners of the property located at 2960 Polo Drive, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as Lot 21 and part of Lot 20 in Gulf Steam Cove Subdivision. a.SPECIAL EXCEPTION #1 to permit the extension of the non-conforming south wall of the existing structure, that encroaches a maximum of 1 foot into the south side setback, to add a master bedroom of approximately 302 square feet to be located on the first floor. b.SPECIAL EXCEPTION #2 to permit the addition of the proposed 302 square foot master bedroom to extend 20 feet into the 50 foot rear setback. c.DEMOLITION PERMIT to allow small portion of existing garage to be removed in order to realign the 2 car garage. d.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the addition of a master bedroom, a small addition to the kitchen, a realignment of the 2 car garage and a new front entry, a net increase of 540 square feet on the first floor of an existing partial two story Neo- French Eclectic single family dwelling. VII. Items by Staff. VIII. Items by Board Members. IX. Public. X. Adjournment. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S. AGENDA CONTINUED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 2013 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I.Call to Order. Chairman Morgan called the meeting to order at 8:35 A.M. II.Roll Call. Present and Scott Morgan Chairman Participating Tom Smith Board Member Paul Lyons Board Member Amanda Jones Board Member Absent w/Notice Malcolm Murphy Board Member George Delafield Alt. Member Ann Aker Alt. Member Also Present and William Thrasher Town Manager Participating Rita Taylor Town Clerk John Randolph Town Attorney Tom Laudani of Seaside Agent/1275 Builders N. Ocean LLC Richard Jones of Architect/1275 N. Jones Architects Ocean LLC Dave Bodker of Landscape Architect/ Dave Bodker Landscape 1275 N. Ocean LLC & Architecture Joe Pike of Engineer/1275 N. EnviroDesign Ocean LLC George Brewer of Brewer Agent/Jones Architecture, Inc. Mr. and Mrs. Ross Jones Applicant/450 Banyan William Himmelrich 1304 N. Ocean Blvd. III.Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 12-27-12. Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Smith seconded to approve the Minutes of the December 27, 2012 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. IV.Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. There were no changes to the Agenda. V.Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. February 28, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. b. March 28, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. c. April 25, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. d. May 23, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. e. June 27, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. f. July 25, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. Chairman Morgan noted the Meeting Schedule. There were no conflicts with the February meeting date. Mr. Lyons stated that he would not be present for the March meeting. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – January 24, 2013 Page 2 VI.PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval Chairman Morgan asked for declarations of Ex-parte communication concerning any of the applications being heard today. Mr. Lyons stated that he met with William Thrasher concerning the condition for approval for 450 Banyan. Chairman Morgan stated that he spoke with Mr. Paul-Hus of 3500 N. Ocean Blvd. who asked for some concerning design matters. Mr. Randolph noted that full Board membership is not present, and he said Code provides that for an application to be approved, a motion requires three-fifths vote or greater in favor to pass. He said there are four Board Members present and three members would have to vote in favor to pass a motion. Further, he said the Code provides applicants the option to either make their presentation to less than a full Board or to come back and make their presentation to a full Board. Tom Laudani of Seaside Builders said his application for 1275 N. Ocean Blvd. is a Level III, the ARPB will make a recommendation only to the Commission, and, he said he would prefer to have his presentation heard at this time. Clerk Taylor said one of the two applications being presented by Mr. Brewer is a Level II and this Board will have final approval on that. Mr. Brewer said he would prefer to have both applications heard today. 1. An application submitted by Seaside Builders LLC, as Agent for 1275 N. Ocean LLC, the owners of property located at 1275 N. Ocean Blvd, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as Lot 7 and 50’ of Lot 6, Revised Plat of Blks. D&E of Palm Beach Shores Estates. a.DEMOLITION PERMIT to remove existing structures. b.LAND CLEARING PERMIT to clear building site and re- arrange/remove existing landscape material. c.NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY PERMIT to supplement existing landscaping and install rail fence and entrance gate. d.SPECIAL EXCEPTION #1 to allow 300 square feet of covered, unenclosed area that exceeds the maximum floor area permitted. e.SPECIAL EXCEPTION #2 to permit construction of a dune crossover. f.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit construction of 11,566 square foot Bermuda style, single family, partial 2-story dwelling with guest quarters, attached 3 car garage, outdoor pavilion and swimming pool and dune crossover. Richard Jones of Jones Architects introduced himself. He said this property is located across from Harbor View Estates and they want to be somewhat consistent with the architectural style of the subdivision, but he said this property will be unique in its own right. Mr. Jones said the home will be a partial two-story traditional Bermuda style with an attached 3-car garage and guest quarters above. There will be a front Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – January 24, 2013 Page 3 motor court and a pool courtyard to the east with an outdoor pavilion overlooking the ocean. Mr. Jones said the property is very secluded and cannot be seen from A1A when driving by, and he said they want to maintain the estate-like feel. He said much of what you see when you enter the property will remain, but with the addition of several upgrades. Further, he said access to the property will not change, there will be entry gates and piers along the street, and the defining feature of the house, common to the Bermuda style, will be the parapets on the front elevation. The structure will feature overhangs with traditional cypress wood out-lookers, wood carriage garage doors, shutters and decorative railings, with landscape walls and gates on the interior of the property. The covered loggia will feature a two-sided fireplace, Bermuda grass will extend to the pool edge to maintain the natural environment, and six large Bending Coconut Palms will also extend to the pool edge. Mr. Jones said the exterior will be white stucco with a white mitered roof and Sherwood Green shutters, rails and overhangs. Chairman Morgan asked if the peak of the roof is the highest point. Mr. Jones said the peak of the roof is 33.7’ and the chimney pots are just below 35’, a foot higher than the ridge of the house, but he said the pots are a decorative feature and can be dropped in height if made a condition of approval. Mr. Lyons asked why shutters are not shown on all windows. Mr. Jones said shutters will be used on the majority of windows that are in view, and Bahama shutters will be used on some of other windows. Mr. Lyons asked if the front Ficus and Sea Grapes will remain. Dave Bodker, the Landscape Architect, confirmed that, and he said as much of the existing front vegetation as possible will remain. Mr. Lyons asked about the planting of Australian Pines. Mr. Thrasher said the clear zone is yet to be determined, but Australian Pines will be planted where possible. Mr. Smith asked about the wall on the south side which frames the right-of-way. Mr. Jones said it will be a stepped masonry wall, it will follow the same profile as the existing wall on the south side of the right-of-way and it will be painted the same color as the existing wall. Chairman Morgan referred to the streetscape elevation and said the home appears to be connected to a wall on the north side that runs to the property line. Mr. Jones said it is part of the design feature. Chairman Morgan said it may be permissible, but there is a 15’ setback. Mr. Jones said it is a garden wall and could be set back a few feet. Mr. Randolph said when it is attached to the structure it is deemed to be a part of the structure. Mr. Jones said it appears seamless, but it is not physically attached and falls under the Code as a perimeter wall. Clerk Taylor said this wall acts as a barrier for the swimming pool and most houses have something to connect to the property line such as a wall or a chain link fence. Mr. Thrasher said there is no real restriction on such a wall and he would not argue against it. Dave Bodker of Dave Bodker Landscape & Architecture introduced himself and addressed the vegetation along N. Ocean Blvd. saying north of the Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – January 24, 2013 Page 4 driveway is a huge existing Strangler Fig and south of the driveway there are a number of existing trees including Tropical Almond, Gumbo Limbo and Sea Grapes with multiple trunks. Day Palms under-planted with Crotens and various annuals will be planted along the radius walls on the west elevation. Mr. Bodker said they propose 5’ high columns or piers along A1A with a 4’ railing between them, and a railing-type entrance gate that will match the railing between piers. In the interior, Day Palms under-planted with shrubs will flank the motor court, and a series of Sea Grapes separating public access from the home on the south elevation will be filled in with Green Buttonwoods and Sabal Palms. Toward the back they propose Silver Buttonwods with Coconut Palms on either side, and plantings on the north elevation will be similar. Mrs. Jones said she finds the parapets to be very sharp in design, much like pagoda architecture, and she asked if they considered rounding them out. Mr. Jones said they are consistent with the Bermuda style and minimize mass. Mr. Morgan commented that the parapets are a prominent feature. Mr. Thrasher said he likes the uniqueness of the parapets and the Board tries to encourage creativity. He said he likes the look, but they do seem to be prominent. Mr. Jones said they can lower the parapets about one foot and drop the chimneys down about 16 inches. Mr. Laudani agreed to that. Mr. Thrasher asked Mr. Jones to address the front setback required distance and what is being proposed. Mr. Jones said the required front setback is 50’ and they are at 78.2’ to the garage and roughly 130’ to the main structure, which provides a very large setback. William Himmelrich of 1304 N. Ocean Blvd. introduced himself and said he was present at the request of Mr. George Elmore who could not attend and wanted his concerns brought forward. He said the neighbors are aware of the project and they think it is terrific. He said the first concern is for the existing vegetation along A1A and that it not be disrupted, and he said the other concern is with parking along A1A. Mr. Himmelrich said construction can generate a lot of work vehicles and they are hoping contractors will be considerate. In closing, Mr. Himmelrich asked to see a drawing of the south elevation if available. He was able to view the south elevation. Mr. Laudani said he spoke with Mr. Elmore and addressed the parking concerns. He said there will be no construction parking along A1A and that the staging areas and all construction parking for 1275 N. Ocean Blvd. will be along the hammerhead in the subdivision directly across the street. Mr. Laudani added that he will work with Chief Ward to develop the traffic management plan before this application goes to the Town Commission. Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of a demolition permit to remove the existing structure. There was no discussion. All voted AYE.Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of a land clearing permit to clear the building site and re-arrange/remove existing landscape materials. There was no Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – January 24, 2013 Page 5 discussion. All voted AYE.Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of a North Ocean Boulevard Overlay Permit to supplement existing landscaping and install a rail fence and entrance gate. There was no discussion. All voted AYE.Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of a Special Exception to allow 300 SF of covered, unenclosed area that exceeds the maximum floor area permitted. There was no discussion. All voted AYE.Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of a Special Exception to permit construction of a dune crossover. There was no discussion. All voted AYE.Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of a Level III Architectural/Site Plan based on a finding that the proposed construction of 11,566 SF Bermuda style, single family, partial 1-story dwelling with guest quarters, attached 3-car garage, outdoor pavilion and swimming pool and dune crossover meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards with the following conditions: 1. The electric service lines shall be buried; 2. Any minor modifications in the landscape plan shall be submitted to the Town Manager for review and approval and any major modifications shall be brought back to the ARPB for review and approval, prior to commencement of landscaping; 3. Wall and/or fences will be measured from the lowest abutting grade with a maximum height of 8’ including any lighting fixtures that may be attached; 4. All chain link fencing will be screened from neighbor’s view; 5. The landscape plan will protect existing Australian pine trees and provide a 13’ clear zone from white travel line where possible allowing for the planting by the Town of two to ten Australian pine trees; 6. The two chimney heights will each be lowered by 16”; and 7. A construction parking plan will be coordinated with the Town of Gulf Stream and the Gulf Stream Police Department. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. 2. An application submitted by George Brewer as agent for Ross and Katherine Jones, owners of property located at 450 Banyan Road, Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lot 4, Blk. 1, Plat No. 1 Polo Fields Subdivision, Gulf Stream, Florida. a.DEMOLITION PERMIT to completely remove the existing second story of existing structure. b.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the addition of a bedroom wing and covered loggia on the south east corner and an addition to existing bedroom on the south west corner, along with a new entry feature, a total of 1,431 square feet, to the existing Bermuda style single family dwelling and new landscaping and driveway. George Brewer of Brewer Architecture, Inc., Agent for Mr. and Mrs. Jones, introduced himself and described the existing home, located on the corner of Banyan and Polo, as a classic Florida Ranch. He said the goal is to beautify the home by removing the wood-framed second story addition, change it to a Bermuda style and bring it to Code. Mr. Brewer Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – January 24, 2013 Page 6 said the home has never been renovated, except for an outdoor porch which was enclosed and air-conditioned. They will improve the interior, add a new wing to the house, create a backyard courtyard and outdoor loggia, replace the landscaping, modify the pool deck and add a spa. They will extend the existing master bedroom to add a bathroom, remove all aluminum awnings, replace all windows and add shutters and they will redo the driveway, replacing asphalt with pavers. There will be a new entry feature, crown molding along the soffits and they will add a chimney for the new interior fireplace. Mr. Brewer said the exterior will be painted Crème Fleece, the shutters will be a grayish blue and the trim and roof will be a flat white. Mr. Lyons asked about the condition of approval. Mr. Thrasher said the finished floor elevation is 6.3’ and the flood elevation required in that zone is 7’. He said the existing home is below the flood elevation and to maintain our CSR Rating and Certification FEMA requires that the Town have the applicant/owner go through an analysis evaluation to prove, state and certify that the additions and changes are not greater than 50% of the value of the structure. He said the Town is required to ask for this certification and to retain in their records. The owner retained an appraiser and the Town has provided forms to be completed. Mrs. Ross stated that she is not exactly sure of the colors and they may change. Mr. Thrasher said any changes in color must be approved by the Town Manager. Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of a Demolition Permit to remove the entire second story. There was no discussion. All voted AYE.Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of a Level III Architectural/Site Plan based on a finding that the proposed addition of a bedroom wing and covered loggia on the south east corner and an addition to existing bedroom on the south west corner, along with a new entry feature, a total of 1,431 SF, to the existing Bermuda style single family dwelling and new landscaping and driveway meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards with the following condition: (1) Prior to permitting, applicant’s agent shall demonstrate and verify that the proposed additions and improvements do not exceed 50% of the market value of the structures before “start of construction”. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. 3. An application submitted by George Brewer as agent for Richard Paul-Hus, owner of the property located at 3500 North Ocean Boulevard, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as Part of Lot 55, lying west of westerly right-of-way line of State Road A-1-A, plus the east ½ of Palm Way, lying west of and adjacent to said Lot, Gulf Stream Properties No. 2, as in Plat Book 18, Page 42, Public Records of Palm Beach County Florida. a.NORTH OCEAN BLVD. OVERLAY PERMIT to allow the reconfiguration of existing driveway, construction of a fireplace and enhanced landscaping within the North Ocean Blvd. Corridor. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – January 24, 2013 Page 7 b.LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL\SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit an addition of 32 square feet and renovation of an existing partial two story, single family dwelling of Monterey Vernacular style and the addition of an outside fireplace, reconfiguration of existing driveway and enhancement of existing landscaping. Mr. Brewer, Architect and Agent for Mr. Paul-Hus, said a large family with four children and one on the way will be moving into this very modest Monterey style home. He said the modifications to this home are mostly interior and he summarized the proposed improvements, as follows: There are two bedrooms on the 2 nd floor, one of which will be divided into two bedrooms, the kitchen will be relocated, they will create an outdoor environment, a new front courtyard entry, a new side entry for the children and the laundry room will be moved to the garage. The exterior of the ground level is stucco, the second story is board and batting with a tile roof and they will add a small chimney. All windows will be single-hung hurricane impact with shutters, there will be a new garage door and the second floor will be re-strapped to bring it up to Code. Mr. Brewer said the existing driveway entrance from A1A is a disaster and very difficult to maneuver in and out. He said the driveway will be reconfigured to allow safe exit onto A1A. Mr. Smith referred to the additional right-of-way piece and asked if it could be used for turning. Mr. Thrasher said the application was examined based on the property they own and it was concluded that the additional right-of-way was not on their property and cannot be used. Mr. Brewer said they also wanted to install a gate for security for the children, but he said he was told that gates are not permitted in the central Core. Mr. Thrasher said the plan showed a gate and he asked that it be removed. He said gates in the Core area are prohibited and he provided the Agent with the option of the owner applying for a variance, which would be a Level III, where the Board would be the recommending body and the final decision would rest with the Commission. Mr. Thrasher referred to Page 70-78 of the Code, Section 70-187(5), Gulf Stream Core, where it talks about entrance gates and provides that all gates are prohibited. Mr. Brewer said he heard it is rare for the Commission to grant a variance. Mr. Randolph said variances have been granted; however, he said the criteria in the Code are strict. You must show hardships that are unique to the property and not common to other area properties. You must apply so that surrounding neighbors will be noticed, and he said you should not be discouraged to apply. Mr. Smith said the owner should consider applying for a variance to install a gate for the security of the children. Chairman Morgan asked if the second right-of-way was unique to this property. Mr. Thrasher said he was not sure what that right-of-way piece is and cannot answer the question. Mrs. Jones asked the height of the wall surrounding the pool area, which includes the fireplace. Mr. Brewer said it is an existing wall with a picket fence detail along the top, it is 4’ to 4.5’ high and it will not be altered. He said there is a courtyard type Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – January 24, 2013 Page 8 entrance with a gate and they will correct that space to provide a sense of direction. Mr. Lyons asked about the regulations for outdoor showers. Mr. Thrasher said they are not prohibited, but he said they must be attached to the wall with no overhang, it must be greater than 2.5’ and it cannot encroach on the FAR. Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Smith seconded to approve a North Ocean Boulevard Overlay Permit based on a finding that the proposed reconfiguration of an existing driveway, construction of a fireplace and enhanced landscaping within the North Ocean Boulevard Overlay zone meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards. There was no discussion. All voted AYE.Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Smith seconded to approve a Level II Architectural/Site Plan based on a finding that the proposed addition of 32 SF and renovation of an existing partial two-story, single family dwelling of Monterey Vernacular style, the addition of an outside fireplace and the reconfiguration of an existing driveway that includes enhancement of existing landscape, meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. VII.Items by Staff. There were no items by Staff. VIII.Items by Board Members. Mr. Smith asked about items coming up on the February Agenda. Clerk Taylor said there are three applications for February, and Mr. Thrasher said there is a variance request on one application. Clerk Taylor said Mark Marsh brought in two applications, one of which is for a remodel of Mrs. Jones’ former home and the other is an application for 1601 N. Ocean, which includes two small additions and the conversion of a trellised walkway to a roof-covered walkway. She said the variance request is by Mr. Molyneux in Place Au Soleil for a re-roof replacing cedar shake with a flat cement tile, but he does not want to use white tile and the color is the issue. Mr. Smith noted that Seaside Builders should work with the Police Department with regard to traffic management and parking for the 1275 N. Ocean project. Mr. Thrasher said the construction traffic for this project should not be an issue due to their easy access to the hammerhead in the subdivision across the street. IX.Public. There were no items by the Public X.Adjournment. Being no further business to come before the Board, Chairman Morgan adjourned the meeting at 9:55 A.M. __________________________ Gail C. Abbale Administrative Assistant March 21, 2013 CHAIRMAN: Scott Morgan VICE CHAIRMAN: Amanda Jones BOARD MEMBER: Paul A. Lyons, Jr. Thomas Smith Malcolm Murphy ALTERNATE MEMBER: George Delafieled, Jr. REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 2013 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. AGENDA I. Call to Order. II. Roll Call. III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing 2-28-13. IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. V. Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. March 28, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. b. April 25, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. c. May 23, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. d. June 27, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. e. July 25, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. f. August 2013-No Meeting VI. PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval 1. An application submitted by Benjamin Schreier, Affiniti Architects, as Agent for 3211 N. Ocean Boulevard, LLC, Mark T. Pulte Member, the owners of property located at 3211 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as the North 4.5 ft of lot 3 & the S 108 ft. of lot 4 Gulf Stream Ocean Tracts in Gulf Stream, Florida. a.DEMOLITION PERMIT to remove existing structures. b.LAND CLEARING PERMIT to prepare for some new landscape materials and adjust the grade to accommodate the new structures and improvements. c.NORTH OCEAN BOULEVAD OVRLAY PERMIT to install entry gate and piers and supplement existing landscaping within the corridor. d.VARIANCE to permit a terra cotta slate style roof to be installed on the proposed Georgian style home. e.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the construction of a 10,408 square foot partial 2-story, single family, Georgian style dwelling with a 4 car garage and swimming pool. 2. An application submitted by William Wietsma as agent for Ralph MacDonald, owner of the property located at 1410 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described in metes and bounds as Lots 1, 1-A and 2, McLouth Subdivision, Gulf Stream, Florida. a.SUBDIVISION to divide one, 4,733 acre, parcel of land into 3 lots. b.DEMOLITION PERMIT to remove and- existing driveway, a garage and shed. AGENDA CONTINUED c.NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY PERMIT to remove existing driveway from proposed Lot “C”. d.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the division of one parcel of land containing 4.733 acres into 3 lots with the existing structures on proposed Lot “B” to remain. VII. Items by Staff. VIII. Items by Board Members. IX. Public. X. Adjournment. SHOULD ANY INTERESTED PARTY SEEK TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, SAID PARTY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 286.0105, F.S.S. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2013 AT 8:30 A.M.,IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I.Call to Order. Chairman Morgan called the Meeting to order at 8:30 A.M. II.Roll Call. Present and Scott Morgan Chairman Participating Tom Smith Board Member Paul Lyons Board Member Malcolm Murphy Board Member George Delafield Alternate Member Absent w/Notice Amanda Jones Vice-Chairman Ann Aker Alternate Member Also Present and William Thrasher Town Manager Participating Rita Taylor Town Clerk John Randolph Town Attorney Bernard and Stephanie Applicant/915 Emerald Molyneux Hilel Presser of For Molyneux 2745 Ave Au Soleil Martin O’Boyle Applic/23 Hidden Harbour Dr. Charles Siemon, Esq. Rep. Martin O’Boyle Siemon & Larson P.A. Robert Currie, Arch. Rep. Martin O’Boyle Currie, Sowards & Aguila Architects Bill Ring, Esq., of Agent/O’Boyle Commerce Group, Inc. Mark Marsh of Digby, Agent/Julien & Bridges, Marsh & Assoc. Grumney III.Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 1-24-13. Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 1/24/13. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. IV.Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. There were no changes. V.Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing a. March 28, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. b. April 25, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. c. May 23, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. d. June 27, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. e. July 25, 2013 @ 8:30 A.M. f. August 2013-No Meeting Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 28, 2013 Page 2 Chairman Morgan noted the Meeting Schedule and asked if there were any conflicts. Mr. Lyons stated that he would not be available for the March 28th Regular Meeting and Public Hearing. There were no other conflicts. VI.PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval Chairman Morgan asked for declarations of Ex-parte communication for any of the applications being heard. There were none. Clerk Taylor administered the Oath to the following: Bernard Molyneux, Stephanie Molyneux, Hilel Presser, Martin O’Boyle, William Ring, Esq., Charles Siemon, Esq., Robert Currie, Arch., Mark Marsh, Arch. 1. An application submitted by Bernard and Stephanie Molyneux, owners of the property located at 915 Emerald Row, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as Lot 64, Place Au Soleil Subdivision, Gulf Stream, Florida a.VARIANCE to allow a roof replacement on an existing Gulf Stream Bermuda style, single family, one story dwelling, of a color and material that do not conform to the provisions of Sections 70-107 and 70-238 of the Gulf Stream Zoning Code. b.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the installation of a brown, flat cement tile roof, replacing the existing wood shake roof, on an existing Gulf Stream Bermuda style, single family, one story dwelling Bernard Molyneux of 915 Emerald Row stated that he would like to change his roof from shaker to flat cement tile and is asking for a variance to allow a brown tile which is similar in color to the existing shaker. He said the original home had a brown shaker roof, it was later replaced with brown shaker, and now he would like a flat cement tile of a similar brown color, which is characteristic to the style of the home. The Board Members were shown a tile sample. Chairman Morgan said the Town worked very hard on Code changes relating to roof material and color. He said he personally likes the idea of the shake look, but brown cement tile is directly prohibited. Chairman Morgan said the ultimate decision is with the Commission, and he suggested that maybe the approach should be that the shake-look of the brown tile is an integral design element to the structure. Mr. Smith asked if any precedent was set in the past allowing the original roof color to remain if replaced with another material. Mr. Thrasher said to his knowledge there is no precedent. Mr. Lyons asked if the applicant could replace his roof with a shake roof. Mr. Thrasher confirmed that. Mr. Molyneux said there is nothing wrong with his roof, but it is difficult to get insurance on a wood shake roof. He said he had three estimates and they have either refused coverage or quoted a very high rate. Mr. Molyneux said he changed his windows and garage door to hurricane resistant as suggested by insurance carriers, but he cannot get insurance without improving the roof. He said he would like to replace the roof with a similar-colored cement tile. Mr. Molyneux said Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 28, 2013 Page 3 another reason for replacing the roof is that it is 15 years old, and he said he has an engineer’s report stating that cement tile will hold up better in a storm. Hilel Presser of 2745 Avenue Au Soleil, a neighbor of Mr. Molyneux, was present to lend his support and to encourage the Board to approve the request. Mr. Molyneux said his neighbors have no objections and may send letters of support to the Town. Chairman Morgan said the Kubrickys, who are adjacent to Mr. Molyneux, sent a letter in his support. Clerk Taylor said there have been no objections from neighbors and no other letters have been received. Mr. Lyons asked about other wood shake roofs in the neighborhood. Mr. Molyneux said there are three or four others. Mr. Thrasher said he likes the roof tile, but believes a variance is required, and he said at least one of the eight standards have not been met. He said in Standard #2 it states “The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the action of the applicant,” but he said based on what we have heard, they do result from the applicant. In addition, he said Standard #3 states “Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Code to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district.” Chairman Morgan said he also reviewed the Standards and was trying to find a basis on which to recommend approval. Mr. Lyons asked if a refusal of insurance would be considered a hardship. Mr. Thrasher said the Code is more strict with white cement thru and thru groove, non-textured, non- coated being added, but he said white thru and thru was always preferred and required. He said the applicant can purchase a concrete roof material of a color that meets Code and he would be able to get insurance and, therefore, as it relates to insurance it is not considered a hardship. Mr. Molyneux said there are two roofs across the canal from him that are brown and were done recently. Mr. Thrasher said if the architectural style of a home is determined to be something other than Bermuda, there is more flexibility relating to color in our Code. Mediterranean and Other Various styles would have more flexibility with color. Chairman Morgan said the Board is sympathetic with their position, but their hands are tied. He said he would encourage them present their position to the Commission. Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Lyons seconded to recommend denial of a variance based on a finding that the proposed brown/tan concrete roof material is prohibited by Gulf Stream Zoning Code Sections 70-107 and 70-238. Additionally, none of the required eight (8) Standards for granting a variance have been met as defined in Section 66-154. There was no discussion. All voted AYE.Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Lyons seconded to recommend denial of Level III Architectural/Site Plan based on the finding that the proposed brown/tan roof material is prohibited by Gulf Stream Zoning Code Sections 70-107 and 70-238, and none of the required eight (8) standards for granting a variance have been met as defined in Section 66-154. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 28, 2013 Page 4 Mr. Randolph asked if there was any sympathy on the part of the Board to recommending that the Town Commission look at an amendment to the Code to create an exception where a roof color that has been in existence would be allowed to remain if replaced with a tile roof. Chairman Morgan, Mr. Smith, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Lyons and Mr. Delafield were in agreement and sympathetic to what the Molyneuxs are going through, particularly with the hardship they face on the insurance issue. Chairman Morgan said the color of the tile is attractive and appropriate to their home, and he said because it is a design element of the existing structure, Code Section 70-107 may allow the Commission to approve an exception under these limited circumstances. Mr. Randolph asked if the Board would like to move the recommendation to the Commission.Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to recommend that the Commission look at an amendment to the Code, or approve an exception, where a certain roof color, which has been in existence, can remain if replaced with a tile roof of the same color. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. 2. An application submitted by William Ring, Commerce Group, Inc. as agent for Martin O’Boyle, owner of property located at 23 Hidden Harbour Dr., Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lot 5, Hidden Harbour Estates, Gulf Stream, Florida. a.VARIANCE #1 to allow a net addition 109 square feet to the front entry feature of the existing non- conforming two-story single family dwelling that currently exceeds the maximum permitted floor area ratio by 2,589 square feet. b.VARIANCE #2 to permit the first-story eave height of the proposed entry feature to exceed the maximum discouraged height of 12.5 feet by 2.5 feet to the architectural element. c.VARIANCE #3 to permit the second-story eave height of the proposed entry feature to exceed the maximum discouraged height of 23 feet by 2 feet. d.VARIANCE #4 to permit an additional 2 foot encroachment beyond the existing 9 foot 8 inch front setback encroachment. e.DEMOLITION PERMIT to remove 229 square feet of gross floor area. f.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit an addition for a cumulative increase of 109 square feet to an existing 8,001 square foot, non-conforming, Spanish Mediterranean Revival, two-story single family dwelling. Charles Siemon of Siemon & Larsen, P.A. in Boca Raton, introduced himself and stated that he is a Land Use Planner and Land Use Attorney. He said some expert testimony is appropriate for this matter and he offered his resume into the record. Mr. Siemon’s resume will be filed in the Official Records of the Town of Gulf Stream. Mr. Siemon said he will present the applicant’s position, but he said it is a difficult and complex set of facts, and he said whether his Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 28, 2013 Page 5 applicant qualifies for a variance, or if a variance is even necessary, requires the interpretation of the Town Code. He said the issues are judged by legal principles and architectural design. Mr. Siemon said the Board has been given a recommendation that draws conclusions or interpretations of the Code that are not consistent with legal principals or architectural design. He added that Staff analysis is also devoid of the principles that guide the interpretation of the Code. Mr. Siemon said the purpose and intent of the Town’s variance provision includes two separate concepts that are separated by the word “or,” which is alternative. He said he believes the proper reading of the Code is: “Variance are deviations from the terms of this Code that would not be contrary to the public interest when owing to special circumstances or conditions, or when the literal enforcement of the provisions would result in an undue hardship.” Mr. Siemon said he believes the law requires that it be read disjunctively, that there are two circumstances under which variances are authorized by this Code. Mr. Siemon said the following: There are numerous cases in the State of Florida where the State has interpreted the word “or” to mean that they are disjunctive. That leads to analyzing each of the set standards and the eight standards do not apply to every variance application. Two of them are about uses and have nothing to do with this matter. This is a non-conforming structure made non-conforming by the adoption of the Gulf Stream Design Manual in 1995 through no fault of the owner. Mr. O’Boyle built the house in 1983 and complied with all requirements and it is a lawfully non-conforming structure that he can maintain as is, but it has lived out its usefulness as a design in the community and their attempts to upgrade are being frustrated by an inaccurate interpretation of the Code. Chairman Morgan asked for the citation of the variance section. Mr. Siemon said the purpose and intent is in 66-150. A series of standards are in 66-154, and he said the special circumstances would apply here. He said the home is significantly non-conforming and, with the changes in setbacks, if this property did not have a home on it you could not build on it. Mr. Siemon said he understands that the Town made a decision to set up guidelines to control future development in the community, but he said when there is a major change you look for ways to deal with existing structures that are not consistent with new regulations and recommend a provision allowing improvement by complying with the maximum extent practical with the requirements of the new design regulations. Mr. Siemon said the area of improvement is the façade of the home facing the private lane. It has a very ordinary character unique to the community and they would like to upgrade from the long horizontal look and create architectural interest by building a tower at the entrance and replace all windows and redo the building. He said he believes a variance is not required for the entry feature and that staff has applied the wrong provision of the Code. If it does apply, a variance is supposed to allow deviations from the Code that is in the spirit and intent of the regulations which are non-conforming as long as they are Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 28, 2013 Page 6 harmonious. Mr. Siemon said this is not a hardship created by the applicant, it comes from the Code and everything is non-conforming. This is a special circumstance where they are applying for a minimum amount of change. He said the real issue is the tower, which is intended to mitigate the horizontal character of the design, and leaving the existing condition rather than improving it in a modest way is not consistent with the Design Manual. Granting the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Code and not detrimental to the public welfare. The property owner, his neighbors and the Town will benefit. Mr. Siemon referred to a drawing of the proposed entry feature and he said Staff believes the feature violates the eave height provisions of the design manual, but he said the overall height of the structure, which is 30 feet, meets Code. He said the structure is covered, but there is no floor, it is clear from the top of the step to the top of the structure inside, and there are no windows, just arches. It is an entryway that provides vertical character to the horizontal look of the home. Mr. Siemon referred to a drawing of a tower with a flat roof, no second- story eave, saying that particular design is permitted by Code, which he indicated was on Page A2.01 of their presentation documents. He said this is where an architect’s expertise should be included in evaluating what is an eave and what violates Code. Mr. Siemon said an eave is part of a roof, and the area of the structure staff calls a first story roof is not a roof, it is a cornice line, or a decorative treatment. Without the cornice line it is not consistent with the intent of the overall design of the design manual. He said the proposed entry feature does not have a second story and it complies with the height limit. Mr. Siemon said if you look at the definition of “story” and the definition of “floor” in the Code, what the applicant is proposing is not a second story, it is an entry feature and both the height of the entry feature, which is 30’, and the eave height, satisfies the Code. He said it is not a second story because you cannot get to the top, there are no stairs, only air, and he said there is a provision in the Code addressing that. Mr. Siemon said the design manual uses FAR as a surrogate for regulating the volume of the building. The Code says if you have a covered space that exceeds 15’, you have to double in calculating the floor area. He said the entry feature is outside of the building and it is not a porch area and, therefore, you do not have to calculate floor area. Mr. Siemon said there is an entry feature provision in Subsection 70- 100. Roof and eave heights. (a) Generally.(4), which is difficult to understand and apply. He said, “I think it is understood that it is a different kind of feature from a one-story portion of the residence and a two-story portion of the residence, which are these lines right here and right here.” Mr. Thrasher asked Mr. Siemon to clarify and said, “could you tell me again, you made the statement that variance is required because of square footage, and only because of this thing. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 28, 2013 Page 7 What is this thing?” Mr. Sieman said it is the entry feature which replaces the existing entrance. Mr. Siemon said there is a provision in the Code addressing modifications of existing structures and provides that the height from the base building can vary to the extent necessary to identify the entranceway to make it more monumental. Mr. Siemon displayed a photo of the Gulf Stream Town Hall, which he said reflects the architectural principle they are trying to achieve with the proposed tower, or entry feature. He said it will be an improvement over the existing condition, the applicant built the home himself, he built it to Code, it is his principal residence, and it is a lawful non-conforming structure. Mr. Siemon said he did not care whether or not a variance is required, or granted to make this clear, but he does care about the recognition that the intent of the design manual is met here. Mr. Siemon displayed a survey of the property and said there is a provision in the design code that excludes certain portions of a property in calculating the floor area, and that includes any property separated by a public or private road. He pointed out the private road indicated in green at the top of survey, which is dated November 21, 1994. Mr. Siemon offered the survey into the record. The survey will be filed in the Official Records of the Town of Gulf Stream. Mr. Siemon said, I am now talking about this small deviation of adding space, if you interpret this as floor area, and I believe there is a reason not to, the double counting of what is not floor area because it is more than 16’ under this area, that goes away, and then the fact that more than 50% of this property is not counted in the effective floor area-land area, this lot is 39,000 plus feet, the water is excluded, the road is excluded, the 10’ buffer is excluded and this is what is left. This lot and its unique configuration was not considered in the Code interpretation. Chairman Morgan asked Mr. Siemon if his analysis is leading up to addressing the setback change. Mr. Siemon said he is only addressing the application of the Code and that Mr. Currie and Mr. Ring will address the setback issue. Mr. Siemon said in Section 70-100, the sub-categories of height are one story homes and two story homes, and he said all of the eave height regulations apply only to the two story portions and the only one that doesn’t is the 30’ height limit which is found in the negative in the prohibited section and what it says is that for two story portions greater than the following, the north south district, 30’, you can’t go beyond that, that’s what the prohibited says, and by definition that means 30’ is this and I believe Staff has acknowledged that this part of it is conforming and it is only this eave and while that eave is a part of a roof I would submit to you that it is not a two story portion of the building. He said he believes it is consistent with the intent and purpose and language of the Code. Robert Currie of Currie, Sowards, Aguila Architects, Project Architect, introduced himself and said in his 44 years as an architect he designed a number of homes in Gulf Stream that have won architectural awards. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 28, 2013 Page 8 Mr. Currie said, as Mr. Siemon explained, they are trying to apply a vertical element in the horizontal scheme of this home to make it more characteristic of Gulf Stream and to make the entry feature more appropriate than the existing entry. He explained that they will cut the lanai area back into the setback and add only a couple of feet in the front to capture the two roofs that come out on the side, which is almost equal to what they will cut away. Mr. Currie said the Code provides that when you take something off you can only count half and when you add you have to count the full amount. He said they are not adding more physical space and they are reducing the physical setback. Mr. Thrasher asked Mr. Currie to display the lanai area. Mr. Currie said it is on Page A3.01 of their presentation documents. With regard to the tower, Mr. Currie said the height is in compliance with Code, but he said if they brought the eave down to the 22’ where it would comply, it would have a smashed appearance. He said an eave is the underside of a roof overhang, but he said this is a cornice, it is a much better design and it improves the look of the home. Chairman Morgan asked Mr. Currie to confirm that the drawing he is referring to is on Page A2.01. Mr. Currie confirmed that. Mr. Smith referred to the new 8’ open air area and asked if it just went up like a shaft and if there were any windows on the inside of the home located behind that area. Mr. Currie said there are windows now, but they will be closed off and there will be no access from the physical structure to the tower. Mr. Lyons said it does look like a tower and he likes the other version better because it is more subtle. He asked if there was another design that did not stick out as much. Mr. Currie said the graphic is deceiving because of the coloring. Chairman Morgan said it could be the mass of the feature, and he asked if they could design a smaller and more diminutive feature that would not raise the potential for variance issues. Mr. Currie said the problem with bringing down the height is how it intersects with the existing roof and it would look like a mistake. He brought the drawing to the dais in front of Chairman Morgan to explain. Chairman Morgan asked Mr. Currie about the setback. Mr. Currie said the setback is a consequence of the changes in the Code, and then a road was put in after the fact, and then the Code imposes a 10’ buffer. He said the current setback only allows for a couple of feet of building. Mr. Currie said the other setback issue is the lanai that sticks out, they are getting rid of it and pulling the new feature out two feet. Mr. Lyons asked if there has been any feedback from the neighbors. Clerk Taylor said there has been no feedback. William Ring, Agent for the applicant and a Florida Attorney, introduced himself, and to assist him in answering questions about the setback issue, he distributed some photos and referred to Sheet A1.01 in the packet, which shows the site plan, the lanai area and the dimension of 6’6”. He said you can see that the existing location of the lanai area extends further into the setback area than the proposed entry feature. Further, he pointed out that the actual Variance #4 states that they are asking for an additional 2’ encroachment beyond the existing 9’8” setback. Mr. Ring said the 9’8” that is referenced is measured from the Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 28, 2013 Page 9 planter, maybe because that is where the roof overhangs, but he said the new entry feature comes out to about the edge of the planter and the encroachment is not 2’. He said there may be some amount that is further than the roof edge to give it a bit of reveal, but he said the 9’8” is measured from the edge of the planter to the 10’ buffer from the edge of the paved area. Mr. Ring referred to Sheet A1.01 where it says line of effective lot area, and he said if you follow the line where there is a 10’ measurement (buffer area), the next line is 11’8” existing building setback. He said whomever drew this plan measured the setback from the actual building. Mr. Smith asked if the face of this feature will be flush with the roof on the west side. Mr. Ring said it will be consistent with the roof, but not with the wall. Chairman Morgan asked if any portion of the feature is livable space. Mr. Ring said there is no livable space with this feature. Mr. Currie said it is all open space. Mr. Ring said Variance #1 is the request for a 109 SF net addition, and he said Mr. Siemon explained that this is not an addition. He said there is no additional floor area being added, there is one entry feature to be demolished and one being constructed that is covered, but with no additional floor area. Mr. Ring said he does not believe a variance is required for that, but if it is required it should be approved because it is a fictional measurement. Mr. Ring said Mr. Siemon and Mr. Currie spoke to Variance #2 which was the requirement that the first floor eave height was exceeded because what the Town calls the first floor eave is 15’. Mr. Ring pointed out Marty Minor’s report of 1/25/13, Table 2, where Mr. Minor called this an architectural element, not an eave. He said it is a tiled ridge or a cornice, an architectural element, and he said they do not need a variance to exceed the first floor eave height because it is not an eave, but if it is required the Board should approve because it is not an eave. Mr. Ring said Mr. Siemon spoke to the effects of the Code on the gross and net lot area of the property and showed an old survey. He said one of the requests was for a Level III/Architectural Site Plan Review for the addition to a non-conforming use where the square footage of the home exceeds what is allowable. If you ran the Code’s percentages to the real lot area this home would not exceed any allowable floor area ratios, it is only when you apply the Code ratios to the fictional net lot area that you come to this non-conforming calculation. For those reasons, that variance should be granted. Mr. Siemon referred to the last two sentences in Section 70-100 (a) Generally. (4), which read: “Entry features, if used, should provide a sense of arrival, yet should not overpower them or the remainder of the structure. The scale and proportion of entry features should be consistent with the rest of the structure, varying just enough to provide a focal point to the front of the house.” He said it is ironic that we are in a building using that same architectural design to create an identity of where the entrance of Town Hall is. The Code requirement Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 28, 2013 Page 10 is will it be in harmony, will it make it more consistent with the intent of the design manual. The applicant, Martin O’Boyle of 23 Hidden Harbour Drive, introduced himself, he stated that he is a Real Estate Developer with 43 years or experience in development, building and design. Mr. O’Boyle thanked Mr. Currie, Mr. Siemon and Mr. Ring for making a presentation on his behalf and he said they did a wonderful job and they were very diplomatic. He said he is somewhat outraged and explained that he bought the lot in the 70s, he built the home between 1981 and 1983 in keeping with the style of the time, but he said it is not the style of today. Mr. O’Boyle said he has worked with Mr. Currie and Mr. Ring for probably a thousand hours on a multitude of designs to come up with one that functions, bring the home into the new millennium and will improve the neighborhood. He said there are six homes in Hidden Harbour, he built his home and the home next to him, and he said he is in the process of rebuilding 16 South Hidden Harbour. Mr. O’Boyle said he believes everyone on the Board and those who drafted the Code has good intentions. He said this will be a big improvement to his home and he disagrees with Mr. Thrasher’s analysis of the project. Mr. O’Boyle said he has millions of dollars invested in this home which he has lived in for 30 years and believes a bit of deference should be given to him and that nobody should impose their taste upon his assets. With regard to the setback issue, he said he considered taking down the home and rebuilding, but the property has been zoned to oblivion and he said he could not build a dog house on it. Mr. O’Boyle said he believes his property is worth between $2.6 million and $3.6 million to build a dog house on it, and he said if you want an ugly building, he will oblige. In closing he said he hopes the Board will accommodate their request, he has millions of dollars invested, he has neighbors and there are no objections, and he said he hopes the Board will allow he and his wife to do what they want with their asset. Mr. Lyons asked Mr. O’Boyle if he knows of any other home in Gulf Stream with this type of entryway. Mr. O’Boyle said he has not viewed any other of the homes in Gulf Stream in that way, but he has in Palm Beach and he said he is impressed with the Town Hall building. Mr. Lyons asked to have the picture of Town Hall put up against the picture of what they are proposing. Mr. Currie said that one is a one story structure and the other is a two story structure. Mr. O’Boyle asked if anyone on the Board found the design distasteful. Mr. Lyons said he did not feel it was particularly appealing and asked if it could be wider and more proportionate. Mr. Currie agrees that it should have been shown in one color so that it didn’t appear as prominent. Mr. O’Boyle said taste should not be considered here. Chairman Morgan said a lot has been heard about the primary issues of setback and the interpretation of eave height and whether or not this is a variance from Code or a design application. Mr. Randolph said the issue before the Board today is limited to substantiating the variance that is requested. There is an opportunity in the Code to challenge the decision of the Administrative Official, and if they challenge the decision of the Administrative Official it should be applied for and advertised. When Mr. Siemon made his comments, he indicated that he did Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 28, 2013 Page 11 not care if the Board agreed with him as to whether or not a variance is required, and that he was only laying the background for the fact that if you were to grant a variance today it would not do an injustice to the Code the way he interprets it. Mr. Randolph said, because this was not advertised as a challenge of the decision of the Administrative Official, he is not prepared to advise the Board Members on whether or not the Administrative Official is correct in his interpretation, and he said that is not the decision the Board has to make today. He said if the challenge was going to be made to his opinion it should have been applied for and advertised so that you would know what you were dealing with. Chairman Morgan said it is a good point, but he assumed that the opposition to Staff’s determination would be to challenge any aspect of that decision and whether it is in support of a variance or whether it undermines the determination of a variance, and he said he assumed that it would be a part of the application. He said if it is not, it will change the direction this Board will take. Mr. Thrasher said that, on more than one occasion with Rita Taylor in his presence, he offered Mr. O’Boyle information which provided his options; one option was a variance application, and the other was the opportunity to challenge his administrative decision. He said the options were on the table from the beginning, and conversations with Mr. Ring indicated to him that they would not challenge the administrative decision, but would apply for variances as it relates to that specific issue. Chairman Morgan said by challenging the determination of variance they are recognizing that the Code sections to which they argued did not apply, which seemed to be the entire crux of the argument. He said they were not disputing Staff’s decision that the applicant did not meet the eight requirements for variance, they were saying a variance did not apply at all. Mr. Randolph said they were saying that, but as background for why the Board should grant the variance and why criteria for variance have been met. He said the Board is not here today to determine whether or not they need a variance, but to determine whether or not the variances applied for meet the criteria, and he said the Board can consider the background and the arguments made. Chairman Morgan said it becomes very easy. Mr. Murphy asked Mr. Randolph for clarification on one of the arguments of what is an eave and what is not an eave. Mr. Randolph said he is not prepared to discuss whether or not the ordinance as drafted would consider this an eave or not, but the issue before the Board is based upon the application as made for a variance regarding eave height. Mr. Siemon asked Mr. Randolph if he is talking about an appeal under Division 5. Appeals. Mr. Randolph confirmed that. Mr. Siemon asked if the appeal would be of the administrative decision that a variance is required, and he asked if there is a development order or something that makes that an appealable issue. Mr. Randolph said the Code does provide for an appeal of the decision of the Administrative Official in regard to his interpretation of the Code, and he said it was discussed with the applicant as an option. Mr. Siemon asked if the appeal goes to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Randolph confirmed that. Chairman Morgan asked Mr. Siemon if he would like an opportunity to consult with his Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 28, 2013 Page 12 client. Mr. Siemon said he would like to consult with his client. Mr. Randolph suggested they leave the room for privacy and the discussion would resume following the next items. Mr. Currie read the definition of “Eave” from Code as follows: “Eave shall mean projected overhang of the lower edge of a roof.” Item VI.A.2 was recessed at this point to allow Mr. Siemon to consult with the applicant. Mr. Randolph asked Chairman Morgan to move on to Item VI.A.3 and 4 at this time. 3. An application submitted by Mark Marsh, Bridges, Marsh & Associates, Inc. as agent for Mr.& Mrs. Robert Julien, owners of property located at 1601 North Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described in metes and bounds in Government Lot 1, Section 10, Township 46 South, Range 43 East. a.LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit an addition of 392 square feet to the south east corner of the existing Spanish Mediterranean Revival style single family dwelling, to enclose an existing breezeway on the north side of the dwelling and to install a roof over the existing trellis connection to the existing guest house. Mark Marsh, of Digby Bridges, Marsh & Assoc, Agent for Julien, introduced himself, he said there are three areas covered in this application; the first is a one-story addition on the south east corner of the existing structure, the second is the enclosure of the existing breezeway and the third is to roof what is now an open trellised walkway linking the guest house to the main house. He said displayed renderings of elevations showing the proposed improvements, and he said it is all compatible with the existing structure, the materials are the same and there are no issues with FAR coverage. Chairman Morgan asked if there have been any objections from neighbors. Clerk Taylor said there have been no objections. Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Smith seconded to approve Level II Architectural/Site Plan, based on a finding that the proposed addition of 392 SF to the south east corner of the existing Spanish Mediterranean style single family dwelling, enclosure of an existing breezeway on the north side of the dwelling and installation of a roof over the existing trellis connection to the existing guest house meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. 4. An application submitted by Mark Marsh, Bridges, Marsh & Associates, Inc., as agent for Mr. & Mrs. Nelson Grumney, Jr., owners of the property located at 2960 Polo Drive, Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as Lot 21 and part of Lot 20 in Gulf Steam Cove Subdivision. a.SPECIAL EXCEPTION #1 to permit the extension of the non-conforming south wall of the existing structure, that encroaches a maximum of 1 foot into the south side setback, to add a master bedroom of approximately 302 square feet to be located on the first floor. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 28, 2013 Page 13 b.SPECIAL EXCEPTION #2 to permit the addition of the proposed 302 square foot master bedroom to extend 20 feet into the 50 foot rear setback. c.DEMOLITION PERMIT to allow small portion of existing garage to be removed in order to realign the 2 car garage. d.LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the addition of a master bedroom, a small addition to the kitchen, a realignment of the 2 car garage and a new front entry, a net increase of 540 square feet on the first floor of an existing partial two story Neo- French Eclectic single family dwelling. Mr. Marsh introduced himself as Agent for Mr. and Mrs. Grumney. He said the home is a Neo-Classical French Eclectic style home, previously owned by Mr. and Mrs. David Jones, and he said there have been a couple of renovations over the years. Mr. Marsh said when the Grumneys purchased the home they identified some areas that are not compatible with their lifestyle, and he said they are applying for two special exceptions to allow them to extend the non-conforming south wall for the addition of a Master Bedroom. He said under the special exception criteria in Section 70-75, they meet the justification for the side yard setback and they are allowed to encroach 20’ into the required 50’ setback. Mr. Marsh said they will create a new entry feature, expand the kitchen to the west and realign the garage to be parallel with the road and more compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Marsh displayed renderings showing the expansion of the kitchen area, which he said created some difficulty in complying with setbacks because of the strange angle. He referred to the following on the renderings: (1) The new entry portico, which is in keeping with the scale of the structure; (2) the new garage wing, which will mimic the existing brick and the existing slate roof; (3) the expansion of the master wing; and, (4) the reconfiguration of the kitchen area. Mr. Marsh said they will match the fenestration across the west face, groom the overgrown landscaping, replace hedging and create some foundation planting. He said one area that was not addressed was as part of the improvements is the driveway. Mr. Marsh said they would like to replace the gravel with a paved driveway to make it a hard surface. Chairman Morgan stated that the south side setback is a continuation of the non-conforming use and the west side falls under Sec. 70-75 allowing the encroachment. Mr. Lyons asked if the neighbor to the south who will be most impacted by the improvements has commented. Mr. Marsh said they may not notice the improvements because there is a huge buffer between the properties. Mr. Lyons said he lives across the street from the subject property and he said the existing driveway to the garage is brick. He asked Mr. Marsh if they will make the material consistent. Mr. Marsh said it will be similar, but they want a hard driveway. Mr. Lyons asked about lighting across the front of the property. Mr. Marsh said there may be two wall sconces within the portico, and he said the center of the house is recessed with a couple of magnolia trees that Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 28, 2013 Page 14 flank the front door. He added that the entry will have a stucco element as a contrast to the brick. Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of a Special Exception to permit the extension of the non-conforming south wall of the existing structure that encroaches a maximum of 1 foot into the south side setback, to add a master bedroom of approximately 302 SF to be located on the first floor. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of a Special Exception to permit the addition of the proposed 302 SF master bedroom to extend 20 feet into the 50-foot rear setback. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of a demolition permit to allow a small portion of the existing garage to be removed in order to realign the 2-car garage. Mr. Marsh said the garage is on a pile structure and during their research they discovered that it may be necessary to demolish more than indicated in order to properly realign the garage. He said he did not know how much more at this time, but the end result would be the same.Mr. Lyons amended the motion and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of a demolition permit to allow a portion of the existing garage to be removed in order to realign the 2-car garage. Clerk Taylor asked how much of the existing roof will be removed. Mr. Marsh said it may affect the whole wing, but it will not change the heights or the form. Mr. Randolph suggested that the Board ask the applicant to come back to the Town Manager for approval of any additional demolition of the garage.Mr. Lyons amended the motion and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of a demolition permit to allow a portion of the existing garage to be removed in order to realign the 2-car garage, and final approval of any additional demolition of the garage is subject to Staff review and approval. There was no further discussion. All voted AYE. Mr. Lyons moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of a Level III Architectural/Site Plan Review to permit the addition of a master bedroom, a small addition to the kitchen, a realignment of the 2-car garage and a new front entry, a net increase of 540 SF on the first floor of an existing partial two-story Neo-French Eclectic single family dwelling based on a finding that the proposed construction meets the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. The Public Hearing for Item VI.A.2., Continued.Mr. Siemon said he has consulted with the Town Attorney, and he said this renovation involves an insurance problem and there are time constraints. He said Mr. O’Boyle cannot obtain hurricane insurance at this point and hoped for an approval in time to redo the windows prior to the peak of hurricane season. Mr. Siemon said Mr. O’Boyle would like to move forward and they are going to apply for an appeal from the determination as to whether a variance is required. He asked that the Board go forward with the merits, he asked that the appeal go before the Board of Adjustment at the next Meeting, and he said hopefully they will look at the appeal first, before the Commission hears the request for variance. In Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 28, 2013 Page 15 addition, he said they will remedy the esthetic focus on the entry feature prior to that meeting. Mr. Siemon said one thing the Code says is that granting a variance will not do any violence to the Code and its purposes, and the fact that a variance may not be required goes directly to that point. He asked the Board to consider his remarks with regard to that in that context. Mr. Randolph stated that the ARPB recommendation will go to the Commission on March 15th. He said their appeal would have to be submitted to the Town of Gulf Stream this date in order to be heard by the Board of Adjustment at the March 15th Meeting. Mr. Siemon said they will file the appeal today. Mr. Randolph noted that the applicant hopes that the Board of Adjustment will hear the appeal first. Mr. Lyons asked about the window replacement. Mr. Siemen said the applicant is not willing to commit to replacing the windows if this design is not approved, but he said it is not relevant to the decision, it is only to explain why time is of the essence. Chairman Morgan asked what level of review applies to a front entryway. Mr. Thrasher said if determined that it meets Code it is a Level I, but he said if it requires a variance it is a Level III. He said, for the record, Mr. O’Boyle has submitted a permit application for window replacement, it was approved and was forwarded to Delray for approval. Mr. Thrasher said the front entry feature elements will be different, but he said other portions of the home are unchanged and he could proceed with the window replacement for that part of it. Mr. O’Boyle said Mr. Thrasher is correct, they did apply for a window replacement permit and it was approved, but he said the windows were designed in conjunction with this façade and if this façade is not approved those windows will not be appropriate. Mr. Morgan noted that in proceeding with this application we are being asked to interpret the application in conjunction with the issues that resulted in its denial, including eave heights and setbacks, which are the issues to which they are seeking variance, rather than disputing the application of variance as a decision by Staff. He said he is sympathetic to the applicant’s position, but he said he cannot advise on how to proceed. Mr. Thrasher asked if he could comment. Mr. Randolph asked Mr. Thrasher that he not comment in regard to the issue as to whether or not they need a variance. Mr. Thrasher said we are hearing these variance applications and he said he is asking for time to address comments made by the agent of record or the expert witnesses. He said he would like to question things that have been stated as fact. Mr. Randolph asked Mr. Thrasher if there is something he heard that would change his recommendation, or does he simply want to support his recommendation. Mr. Thrasher said he would like to support his recommendation. Mr. Randolph asked Chairman Morgan if the Board needed to hear anything more. Chairman Morgan said the Code has been spelled out, we have been provided with Mr. Minor’s report and we have the applicant’s admission as to where their heights and setbacks fall. He said the applicant is Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 28, 2013 Page 16 challenging the Administrative Official’s decision in a separate application and, therefore, we must proceed with what we have. Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Delafield seconded to recommend denial of a variance to allow a net addition of 109 SF to the front entry feature of the existing non-conforming two-story single family dwelling that currently exceeds the maximum permitted floor area ration by 2,589 SF based on the finding that not all of the required eight (8) standards for granting a variance have been met. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Delafield seconded to recommend denial of a variance to permit the first-story eave height of the proposed entry feature to exceed the maximum discouraged height of 12.5 feet by 2.5 feet to the architectural element based on the finding that not all of the eight (8) standards for granting a variance have been met. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Delafield seconded to recommend denial of a variance to permit the second-story eave height of the proposed entry feature to exceed the maximum discouraged height of 23 feet by 2 feet of the architectural element based on the finding that not all of the required eight (8) standards for granting a variance have been met. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Delafield seconded to recommend denial of a variance to permit an additional 2-foot encroachment beyond the existing 9-foot 8-inch front setback encroachment based on the finding that not all of the required eight (8) standards for granting a variance have been met. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Delafield seconded to recommend denial to remove 229 SF of gross floor area as the proposed alterations do not meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards. There was no discussion. Roll Call: Mr. Lyons, AYE; Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Delafield, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; and, Chairman Morgan, NO. The motion passed by a vote of 4 – 1. Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend denial of Level III Architectural/Site Plan to permit a cumulative increase of 109 SF to the existing 8,001 SF non-conforming, Spanish Mediterranean Revival style two-story single family dwelling based on a finding that it does not meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. VII.Items by Staff. There were no items by Staff. VIII.Items by Board Members. Mr. Lyons asked if the ARPB would be involved in making the decision concerning the new street lighting. Mr. Randolph said the Town Commission will make that decision, but he said the Commission may ask the ARPB for their input. Chairman Morgan announced that Amanda Jones, Vice-Chairman of the ARPB, has requested a six-month leave from her Board duties due to a personal matter and that she may need to resign as a Member and come back as an Alternate Member. He suggested that Mr. Smith be nominated as Vice- Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – February 28, 2013 Page 17 Chairman. Mr. Randolph asked if there is a rule for Members who miss a certain number of meetings. Clerk Taylor said there is a rule for missing meetings without being excused, but she said the Commission could grant a six-month leave. Mr. Randolph asked the Board if there is a nomination for Vice-Chairman.Mr. Lyons nominated Mr. Smith as Vice- Chairman, all voted AYE. IX.Public. No Public Comment. X.Adjournment. Chairman Morgan adjourned the Meeting at 10:45 A.M. ________________________ Gail C. Abbale Administrative Assistant Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Monday, March 3, 2014 5:11 PM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Notice Of Unavailability.pdf This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the ePortal system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail as the mail box is unattended. Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 03/03/2014 05:11:02 PM ET. Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Document Title: Notice Of Unavailability Filer: Joanne M. O'connor 561-659-3000 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 Giovani Mesa oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com Notice is not sent to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 No Matching Entries Filing #: 10895330;Audit #: 34329536;Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB; 1 Renee Basel From:OConnor, Joanne M. Sent:Tuesday, March 4, 2014 9:36 AM To:gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com Cc:Matias, Sally; Macfarlane, Mary Subject:GulfStream - Morgan depostion Mr. Mesa – Mr. Morgan did not realize that spring break is approaching. He is unavailable for deposition March 14 through March 24. Thanks. Joanne M. O’Connor Attorney Direct Dial: 561.650.0498 | Fax: 561.650.5300 | joconnor@jonesfoster.com Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 561-659-3000 | www.jonesfoster.com U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. 1 Renee Basel From:Norma Lenna <nlenna@oboylelawfirm.com> Sent:Friday, March 7, 2014 3:00 PM To:Randolph, John C.; Matias, Sally Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENTS Attachments:Notice of Hearing.pdf Court Identity: In the Circuit Court of the 15 Judicial Circuit, Palm th Beach County, Florida Case No.: 2014-CA-001572 Initial Parties (Plaintiff) Martin E. O’Boyle Initial Parties (Defendant): The Town of Gulf Stream Title of document(s) served: Notice of Hearing on Motion for Immediate Hearing Pursuant to Florida’s Public Records Act Sending Attorney’s Name: Giovani Mesa Sending Atty’s Phone 954-834-2201 Number: Norma S. Lenna, Paralegal The O’Boyle Law Firm P.C. 1286 West Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 Telephone #954-570-3501 Fax #954-360-0807 Email: nlenna@oboylelawfirm.com This message and each attachment, may contain confidential and/or privileged information intended for the named addressee(s). Any interception, copying, disclosure, distribution, action or use on this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete the email with all attached files, and notify the sender immediately by telephone at 954-570-3501 or by return email. 1 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Friday, March 7, 2014 3:14 PM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Notice Of Hearing.pdf This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the ePortal system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail as the mail box is unattended. Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 03/07/2014 03:14:13 PM ET. Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Document Title: Notice Of Hearing Filer: Giovani Mesa 954-574-6885 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 Giovani Mesa oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com Notice is not sent to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 No Matching Entries Filing #: 11096965;Audit #: 35059355;Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB; 1 Renee Basel From:Norma Lenna <nlenna@oboylelawfirm.com> Sent:Friday, March 7, 2014 3:16 PM To:OConnor, Joanne M.; Macfarlane, Mary Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENTS Attachments:Notice of Hearing.pdf Importance:High Court Identity: In the Circuit Court of the 15 Judicial Circuit, Palm th Beach County, Florida Case No.: 2014-CA-001572 Initial Parties (Plaintiff) Martin E. O’Boyle Initial Parties (Defendant): The Town of Gulf Stream Title of document(s) served: Notice of Hearing on Motion for Immediate Hearing Pursuant to Florida’s Public Records Act Sending Attorney’s Name: Giovani Mesa Sending Atty’s Phone 954-834-2201 Number: Norma S. Lenna, Paralegal The O’Boyle Law Firm P.C. 1286 West Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 Telephone #954-570-3501 Fax #954-360-0807 Email: nlenna@oboylelawfirm.com This message and each attachment, may contain confidential and/or privileged information intended for the named addressee(s). Any interception, copying, disclosure, distribution, action or use on this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete the email with all attached files, and notify the sender immediately by telephone at 954-570-3501 or by return email. 1 Renee Basel From:OConnor, Joanne M. Sent:Friday, March 7, 2014 3:32 PM To:gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com Cc:Matias, Sally; Macfarlane, Mary Subject:FW: O'Boyle vs Gulf Stream 13147.51 Attachments:1IG5605-notice hearing march 14 2014.PDF Mr. Mesa – As you know we have filed a notice of unavailability in this case for all of next week as I am in trial and Skip is out of the country. Since one of us will be handling the ultimate hearing, we need to be available to set it. thth I am available any day the week of March 17, with the exception of Thursday March 20. I am not sure why it is noticed for hearing at 3:30 pm on a Friday as I was not aware Judge McCarthy had motion calendar at that time. I see no reason why we can’t go over at motion calendar one morning to obtain a date. We will also be filing a motion to consolidate this case with Case. No. 001776, filed by Mr. O’Hare, that relates to similar records of Scott Morgan. Please advise whether you oppose consolidation. We will attempt to set it at the same time. Please confirm you will reset next Friday’s hearing and not set any other hearings next week. Thanks, Joanne Joanne M. O’Connor Attorney Direct Dial: 561.650.0498 | Fax: 561.650.5300 | joconnor@jonesfoster.com Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 561-659-3000 | www.jonesfoster.com U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. From: Matias, Sally Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 3:22 PM To: OConnor, Joanne M. Cc: Macfarlane, Mary Subject: O'Boyle vs Gulf Stream 13147.51 1 See attached notice of hearing. Please advise if you can attend. Sally Matias Secretary to John C. Randolph and H. Michael Easley Direct Dial: 561.650.0458 | Fax: 561.650.5300 | smatias@jonesfoster.com Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 561-659-3000 | www.jonesfoster.com U.S. Treasury Regulation Circular 230 requires us to advise you that written communications issued by us are not intended to be and cannot be relied upon to avoid penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. 2 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Monday, March 10, 2014 11:47 AM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Answer.pdf This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the ePortal system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail as the mail box is unattended. Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 03/10/2014 11:47:06 AM ET. Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Document Title: Answer Filer: Joanne M. O'connor 561-659-3000 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 Giovani Mesa oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com Notice is not sent to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 No Matching Entries Filing #: 11132251;Audit #: 35186921;Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB; 1 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:45 AM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Notice Of Hearing.pdf This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the ePortal system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail as the mail box is unattended. Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 03/12/2014 10:45:14 AM ET. Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Document Title: Notice Of Hearing Filer: Ashlee Richman 561-659-3000 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com mkieta@jonesfoster.com Giovani Mesa oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com Notice is not sent to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 No Matching Entries Filing #: 11235418;Audit #: 35557994;Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB; 1 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Wednesday, March 12, 2014 8:29 AM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Motion.pdf This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the ePortal system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail as the mail box is unattended. Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 03/12/2014 08:29:21 AM ET. Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Document Title: Motion Filer: Ashlee Richman 561-659-3000 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 Giovani Mesa oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com mkieta@jonesfoster.com Notice is not sent to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 No Matching Entries Filing #: 11226382;Audit #: 35520095;Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB; 1 Renee Basel From:OConnor, Joanne M. Sent:Wednesday, March 12, 2014 9:38 AM To:Macfarlane, Mary Subject:FW: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Notice Of Hearing.pdf From: O'BoyleCourtDocs Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 9:34:57 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) To: OConnor, Joanne M.; Richman, Ashlee A. Subject: FW: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Document Title: Notice Of Hearing Filer: Giovani Mesa 954-574-6885 1 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Wednesday, March 12, 2014 2:57 PM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Notice Of Email Designation.pdf This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the ePortal system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail as the mail box is unattended. Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 03/12/2014 02:57:18 PM ET. Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Document Title: Notice Of Email Designation Filer: Ashlee Richman 561-659-3000 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com mkieta@jonesfoster.com Kelly A. Gardner kgardner@jonesfoster.com Giovani Mesa oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com Notice is not sent to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 No Matching Entries Filing #: 11258179;Audit #: 35639852;Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB; 1 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Wednesday, March 19, 2014 2:19 PM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Notice Of Cancellation.pdf This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the ePortal system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail as the mail box is unattended. Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 03/19/2014 02:18:49 PM ET. Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Document Title: Notice Of Cancellation Filer: Giovani Mesa 954-574-6885 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com mkieta@jonesfoster.com Kelly A. Gardner kgardner@jonesfoster.com Giovani Mesa oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com Notice is not sent to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 No Matching Entries Filing #: 11515584;Audit #: 36562278;Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB; 1 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Monday, March 31, 2014 11:18 AM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Notice Of Appearance.pdf Notice of Service of Court Documents Documents have been electronically mailed to: Name Email Address Status Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com On eService List Ashlee Richman mkieta@jonesfoster.com On eService List Kelly A. Gardner kgardner@jonesfoster.com On eService List Giovani Mesa oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com On eService List Giovani Mesa gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com On eService List Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com On eService List Joanne M. O'connor mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com On eService List John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com On eService List William F. Ring Jr. wring@commerce-group.com On eService List Documents have not been electronically mailed to: Name Email Address Status No Matching Entries Filing Information Filing #: 11918785 Filing Time: 03/31/2014 11:18:20 AM ET Filer: William F. Ring Jr. (954)570-3510 Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, 1 Document Title: Notice Of Appearance This is an automatic email message generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. This email address does not receive email. Thank you, The Florida Courts E-Filing Portal Filing#:11918785;Audit#:38019865;UCN#:502014CA001572XXXXMB; 2 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Monday, March 31, 2014 11:52 AM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Motion For Summary Judgment.pdf Notice of Service of Court Documents Documents have been electronically mailed to: Name Email Address Status Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com On eService List Ashlee Richman mkieta@jonesfoster.com On eService List Kelly A. Gardner kgardner@jonesfoster.com On eService List Giovani Mesa oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com On eService List Giovani Mesa gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com On eService List Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com On eService List Joanne M. O'connor mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com On eService List John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com On eService List William F. Ring Jr. wring@commerce-group.com On eService List Documents have not been electronically mailed to: Name Email Address Status No Matching Entries Filing Information Filing #: 11921799 Filing Time: 03/31/2014 11:51:23 AM ET Filer: Giovani Mesa 954-574-6885 Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, 1 Document Title: Motion For Summary Judgment This is an automatic email message generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. This email address does not receive email. Thank you, The Florida Courts E-Filing Portal Filing#:11921799;Audit#:38031391;UCN#:502014CA001572XXXXMB; 2 Renee Basel From:OConnor, Joanne M. Sent:Monday, November 3, 2014 12:53 PM To:gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com Cc:Richman, Ashlee A.; Vrenda Cain (vcain@oboylelawfirm.com); Macfarlane, Mary Subject:O'Boyle v. Gulf Stream, Case NO. 2014 CA 001572AJ Giovani – Your MSJ in this case is set for hearing before Judge McCarthy on November 14, 2014. Your firm has now moved to disqualify my firm in one case brought by Mr. O’Boyle and another case brought by Mr. O’Hare. I am copying Ms. Cain as she recently moved for a continuance of another MSJ hearing in an O’Hare matter pending before Mr. O’Hare on the grounds that the disqualification issue should be heard first. Please advise whether you intend to move forward with the MSJ hearing in this case on November 14, 2014. Thanks, Joanne Joanne M. O’Connor Attorney Direct Dial: 561.650.0498 | Fax: 561.650.5300 | joconnor@jonesfoster.com Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 561-659-3000 | www.jonesfoster.com Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. 1 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Wednesday, November 5, 2014 9:46 AM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Motion For Continuance.pdf Notice of Service of Court Documents E-service recipients selected for service: Name Email Address Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com mkieta@jonesfoster.com Kelly A. Gardner kgardner@jonesfoster.com Giovani Mesa oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com William F. Ring Jr. wring@commerce-group.com E-service recipients deselected for service: Name Email Address No Matching Entries Filing Information Filing #: 20208963 Filing Time: 11/05/2014 09:46:10 AM ET Filer: Giovani Mesa 954-574-6885 Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Court Case #: 2014CA001572 Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, 1 Documents Title File 11-05-14 Pl's Motion for Continuance - as filed.pdf Motion For Continuance This is an automatic email message generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. This email address does not receive email. Thank you, The Florida Courts E-Filing Portal request_id#:20208963;Audit#:68688645;UCN#:502014CA001572XXXXMB; 2 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Thursday, November 6, 2014 9:17 AM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Motion - Pages 1 to 315.pdf Notice of Service of Court Documents E-service recipients selected for service: Name Email Address Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com mkieta@jonesfoster.com Kelly A. Gardner kgardner@jonesfoster.com Giovani Mesa gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com William F. Ring Jr. wring@commerce-group.com E-service recipients deselected for service: Name Email Address No Matching Entries Filing Information Filing #: 20260513 Filing Time: 11/06/2014 09:16:11 AM ET Filer: Giovani Mesa 954-574-6885 Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Court Case #: 2014CA001572 Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, 1 Documents Title File 11-6-14 Motion to Disqualify Def's Counsel.pdf Motion This is an automatic email message generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. This email address does not receive email. Thank you, The Florida Courts E-Filing Portal request_id#:20260513;Audit#:68874186;UCN#:502014CA001572XXXXMB; 2 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Friday, November 7, 2014 4:10 PM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Notice Of Hearing.pdf Notice of Service of Court Documents E-service recipients selected for service: Name Email Address Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com mkieta@jonesfoster.com Kelly A. Gardner kgardner@jonesfoster.com Giovani Mesa gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com William F. Ring Jr. wring@commerce-group.com E-service recipients deselected for service: Name Email Address No Matching Entries Filing Information Filing #: 20351497 Filing Time: 11/07/2014 04:10:01 PM ET Filer: Giovani Mesa 954-574-6885 Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Court Case #: 2014CA001572 Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, 1 Documents Title File 11-12-14 Notice of Hearing - Motion for Continuance.pdf Notice Of Hearing This is an automatic email message generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. This email address does not receive email. Thank you, The Florida Courts E-Filing Portal request_id#:20351497;Audit#:69196939;UCN#:502014CA001572XXXXMB; 2 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Wednesday, March 12, 2014 2:57 PM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Notice Of Email Designation.pdf This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the ePortal system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail as the mail box is unattended. Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 03/12/2014 02:57:18 PM ET. Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Document Title: Notice Of Email Designation Filer: Ashlee Richman 561-659-3000 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com mkieta@jonesfoster.com Kelly A. Gardner kgardner@jonesfoster.com Giovani Mesa oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com Notice is not sent to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 No Matching Entries Filing #: 11258179;Audit #: 35639852;Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB; 1 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Wednesday, March 12, 2014 9:17 AM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Notice Of Hearing.pdf This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the ePortal system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail as the mail box is unattended. Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 03/12/2014 09:17:09 AM ET. Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Document Title: Notice Of Hearing Filer: Giovani Mesa 954-574-6885 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com mkieta@jonesfoster.com Giovani Mesa oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com Notice is not sent to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 No Matching Entries Filing #: 11228447;Audit #: 35530655;Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB; 1 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Wednesday, March 12, 2014 9:17 AM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Notice Of Hearing.pdf This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the ePortal system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail as the mail box is unattended. Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 03/12/2014 09:17:09 AM ET. Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Document Title: Notice Of Hearing Filer: Giovani Mesa 954-574-6885 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com mkieta@jonesfoster.com Giovani Mesa oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com Notice is not sent to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 No Matching Entries Filing #: 11228447;Audit #: 35530655;Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB; 1 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Wednesday, March 12, 2014 8:29 AM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Motion.pdf This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the ePortal system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail as the mail box is unattended. Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 03/12/2014 08:29:21 AM ET. Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Document Title: Motion Filer: Ashlee Richman 561-659-3000 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 Giovani Mesa oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com mkieta@jonesfoster.com Notice is not sent to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 No Matching Entries Filing #: 11226382;Audit #: 35520095;Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB; 1 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Wednesday, March 12, 2014 8:29 AM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Motion.pdf This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the ePortal system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail as the mail box is unattended. Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 03/12/2014 08:29:21 AM ET. Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Document Title: Motion Filer: Ashlee Richman 561-659-3000 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 Giovani Mesa oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com mkieta@jonesfoster.com Notice is not sent to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 No Matching Entries Filing #: 11226382;Audit #: 35520095;Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB; 1 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Monday, March 31, 2014 11:52 AM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Motion For Summary Judgment.pdf Notice of Service of Court Documents Documents have been electronically mailed to: Name Email Address Status Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com On eService List Ashlee Richman mkieta@jonesfoster.com On eService List Kelly A. Gardner kgardner@jonesfoster.com On eService List Giovani Mesa oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com On eService List Giovani Mesa gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com On eService List Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com On eService List Joanne M. O'connor mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com On eService List John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com On eService List William F. Ring Jr. wring@commerce-group.com On eService List Documents have not been electronically mailed to: Name Email Address Status No Matching Entries Filing Information Filing #: 11921799 Filing Time: 03/31/2014 11:51:23 AM ET Filer: Giovani Mesa 954-574-6885 Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, 1 Document Title: Motion For Summary Judgment This is an automatic email message generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. This email address does not receive email. Thank you, The Florida Courts E-Filing Portal Filing#:11921799;Audit#:38031391;UCN#:502014CA001572XXXXMB; 2 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Monday, March 31, 2014 11:52 AM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Motion For Summary Judgment.pdf Notice of Service of Court Documents Documents have been electronically mailed to: Name Email Address Status Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com On eService List Ashlee Richman mkieta@jonesfoster.com On eService List Kelly A. Gardner kgardner@jonesfoster.com On eService List Giovani Mesa oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com On eService List Giovani Mesa gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com On eService List Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com On eService List Joanne M. O'connor mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com On eService List John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com On eService List William F. Ring Jr. wring@commerce-group.com On eService List Documents have not been electronically mailed to: Name Email Address Status No Matching Entries Filing Information Filing #: 11921799 Filing Time: 03/31/2014 11:51:23 AM ET Filer: Giovani Mesa 954-574-6885 Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, 1 Document Title: Motion For Summary Judgment This is an automatic email message generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. This email address does not receive email. Thank you, The Florida Courts E-Filing Portal Filing#:11921799;Audit#:38031391;UCN#:502014CA001572XXXXMB; 2 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Monday, March 31, 2014 11:18 AM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Notice Of Appearance.pdf Notice of Service of Court Documents Documents have been electronically mailed to: Name Email Address Status Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com On eService List Ashlee Richman mkieta@jonesfoster.com On eService List Kelly A. Gardner kgardner@jonesfoster.com On eService List Giovani Mesa oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com On eService List Giovani Mesa gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com On eService List Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com On eService List Joanne M. O'connor mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com On eService List John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com On eService List William F. Ring Jr. wring@commerce-group.com On eService List Documents have not been electronically mailed to: Name Email Address Status No Matching Entries Filing Information Filing #: 11918785 Filing Time: 03/31/2014 11:18:20 AM ET Filer: William F. Ring Jr. (954)570-3510 Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, 1 Document Title: Notice Of Appearance This is an automatic email message generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. This email address does not receive email. Thank you, The Florida Courts E-Filing Portal Filing#:11918785;Audit#:38019865;UCN#:502014CA001572XXXXMB; 2 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Monday, March 31, 2014 11:18 AM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Notice Of Appearance.pdf Notice of Service of Court Documents Documents have been electronically mailed to: Name Email Address Status Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com On eService List Ashlee Richman mkieta@jonesfoster.com On eService List Kelly A. Gardner kgardner@jonesfoster.com On eService List Giovani Mesa oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com On eService List Giovani Mesa gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com On eService List Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com On eService List Joanne M. O'connor mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com On eService List John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com On eService List William F. Ring Jr. wring@commerce-group.com On eService List Documents have not been electronically mailed to: Name Email Address Status No Matching Entries Filing Information Filing #: 11918785 Filing Time: 03/31/2014 11:18:20 AM ET Filer: William F. Ring Jr. (954)570-3510 Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, 1 Document Title: Notice Of Appearance This is an automatic email message generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. This email address does not receive email. Thank you, The Florida Courts E-Filing Portal Filing#:11918785;Audit#:38019865;UCN#:502014CA001572XXXXMB; 2 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Tuesday, March 18, 2014 9:55 AM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Notice Of Cancellation.pdf This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the ePortal system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail as the mail box is unattended. Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 03/18/2014 09:54:42 AM ET. Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Document Title: Notice Of Cancellation Filer: Ashlee Richman 561-659-3000 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com mkieta@jonesfoster.com Kelly A. Gardner kgardner@jonesfoster.com Giovani Mesa oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com Notice is not sent to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 No Matching Entries Filing #: 11440943;Audit #: 36297744;Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB; 1 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Tuesday, March 18, 2014 9:53 AM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001776XXXXMB Attachments:Notice Of Cancellation.pdf This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the ePortal system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail as the mail box is unattended. Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 03/18/2014 09:53:23 AM ET. Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001776XXXXMB Case Style: OHARE, CHRISTOPHER F VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Document Title: Notice Of Cancellation Filer: Ashlee Richman 561-659-3000 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com mkieta@jonesfoster.com Kelly A. Gardner kgardner@jonesfoster.com Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com Marrett W. Hanna mhanna@oboylelawfirm.com oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com Notice is not sent to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 No Matching Entries Filing #: 11440826;Audit #: 36297314;Case #: 502014CA001776XXXXMB; 1 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Tuesday, March 18, 2014 9:52 AM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001833XXXXMB Attachments:Notice Of Cancellation.pdf This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the ePortal system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail as the mail box is unattended. Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 03/18/2014 09:51:36 AM ET. Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001833XXXXMB Case Style: Not Available VS Not Available Document Title: Notice Of Cancellation Filer: Ashlee Richman 561-659-3000 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com mkieta@jonesfoster.com John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com Joanne M. O'Connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com Kelly A. Gardner kgardner@jonesfoster.com Giovani Mesa gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com Ryan L. Witmer oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com rwitmer@oboylelawfirm.com Notice is not sent to: Name Primary Email Alternate Email 1 Alternate Email 2 No Matching Entries 1 Filing #: 11440671;Audit #: 36296737;Case #: 502014CA001833XXXXMB; 2 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Friday, November 7, 2014 4:10 PM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Notice Of Hearing.pdf Notice of Service of Court Documents E-service recipients selected for service: Name Email Address Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com mkieta@jonesfoster.com Kelly A. Gardner kgardner@jonesfoster.com Giovani Mesa gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com William F. Ring Jr. wring@commerce-group.com E-service recipients deselected for service: Name Email Address No Matching Entries Filing Information Filing #: 20351497 Filing Time: 11/07/2014 04:10:01 PM ET Filer: Giovani Mesa 954-574-6885 Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Court Case #: 2014CA001572 Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, 1 Documents Title File 11-12-14 Notice of Hearing - Motion for Continuance.pdf Notice Of Hearing This is an automatic email message generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. This email address does not receive email. Thank you, The Florida Courts E-Filing Portal request_id#:20351497;Audit#:69196939;UCN#:502014CA001572XXXXMB; 2 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Thursday, November 6, 2014 9:17 AM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Motion - Pages 1 to 315.pdf Notice of Service of Court Documents E-service recipients selected for service: Name Email Address Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com mkieta@jonesfoster.com Kelly A. Gardner kgardner@jonesfoster.com Giovani Mesa gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com William F. Ring Jr. wring@commerce-group.com E-service recipients deselected for service: Name Email Address No Matching Entries Filing Information Filing #: 20260513 Filing Time: 11/06/2014 09:16:11 AM ET Filer: Giovani Mesa 954-574-6885 Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Court Case #: 2014CA001572 Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, 1 Documents Title File 11-6-14 Motion to Disqualify Def's Counsel.pdf Motion This is an automatic email message generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. This email address does not receive email. Thank you, The Florida Courts E-Filing Portal request_id#:20260513;Audit#:68874186;UCN#:502014CA001572XXXXMB; 2 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Wednesday, November 5, 2014 9:46 AM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Motion For Continuance.pdf Notice of Service of Court Documents E-service recipients selected for service: Name Email Address Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com mkieta@jonesfoster.com Kelly A. Gardner kgardner@jonesfoster.com Giovani Mesa oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com William F. Ring Jr. wring@commerce-group.com E-service recipients deselected for service: Name Email Address No Matching Entries Filing Information Filing #: 20208963 Filing Time: 11/05/2014 09:46:10 AM ET Filer: Giovani Mesa 954-574-6885 Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Court Case #: 2014CA001572 Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, 1 Documents Title File 11-05-14 Pl's Motion for Continuance - as filed.pdf Motion For Continuance This is an automatic email message generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. This email address does not receive email. Thank you, The Florida Courts E-Filing Portal request_id#:20208963;Audit#:68688645;UCN#:502014CA001572XXXXMB; 2 Renee Basel From:OConnor, Joanne M. Sent:Monday, January 26, 2015 1:01 PM To:William Ring (wring@oboylelawfirm.com) Cc:records@commerce-group.com; Kelly Avery; Macfarlane, Mary Subject:FW: GS #1549 (922), Our File No. 13147.51 Attachments:GS #1549 (922).pdf Dear Bill – The Town is in receipt of the email below following up on the attached public records request, to which it previously and timely responded by providing a link to the responsive documents, which are the 1,442 documents that were previously produced to your client in October and before. Specifically, a disk containing those same documents were couriered to Giovani Mesa and The O’Boyle Law Firm as counsel for Mr. O’Boyle March 12, 2014 in O’Boyle v. Gulf Stream, Case No. 2014CA001572, by Ashlee Richman back on . Mr. Mesa acknowledged as much at paragraph 14 and Exhibit A of the Motion for Summary Judgment filed in this case back in March. If you would like another CD of these documents, or for the Town to spend the time to load these files in a manner that will make it efficient to produce them electronically, please advise within 24 hours and we can provide an estimate. Otherwise, since you have had the documents since March, we assume that there is no further need for the documents. Regards, Joanne Joanne M. O’Connor Attorney Direct Dial: 561.650.0498 | Fax: 561.650.5300 | joconnor@jonesfoster.com Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 561-659-3000 | www.jonesfoster.com Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. From: Kelly Avery \[mailto:kavery@gulf-stream.org\] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 4:36 PM To: OConnor, Joanne M. Subject: FW: GS #1549 (922) 1 Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. From: Records \[mailto:records@commerce-group.com\] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:38 PM To: Bill Thrasher Subject: FW: GS #1549 (922) The link to Responsive Documents on the attached letter is no longer working. Could you please provide a link that works? From: Bill Thrasher \[mailto:bthrasher@gulf-stream.org\] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 9:42 AM To: Records Subject: GS #1549 (922) Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 2 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Monday, March 2, 2015 5:04 PM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Motion.pdf Notice of Service of Court Documents E-service recipients selected for service: Name Email Address Kelly A. Gardner kgardner@jonesfoster.com Giovani Mesa gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com William F. Ring Jr. wring@commerce-group.com E-service recipients deselected for service: Name Email Address Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com mkieta@jonesfoster.com Filing Information Filing #: 24381000 Filing Time: 03/02/2015 05:03:28 PM ET Filer: Joanne M. O'connor 561-659-3000 Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Court Case #: 2014CA001572 Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, 1 Documents Title File MOTION FILE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 51.pdf Motion This is an automatic email message generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. This email address does not receive email. Thank you, The Florida Courts E-Filing Portal request_id#:24381000;Audit#:83561437;UCN#:502014CA001572XXXXMB; 2 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Tuesday, April 7, 2015 3:28 PM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Notice.pdf Notice of Service of Court Documents Filing Information Filing #: 25792876 Filing Time: 04/07/2015 03:27:56 PM ET Filer: Giovani Mesa 954-574-6885 Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Court Case #: 2014CA001572 Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E VS TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Documents Title File 04-07-15 PL's Notice of Withdraw - Disqualification.pdf Notice E-service recipients selected for service: Name Email Address Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com mkieta@jonesfoster.com Kelly A. Gardner kgardner@jonesfoster.com Giovani Mesa gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com 1 Name Email Address John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com William F. Ring Jr. wring@commerce-group.com E-service recipients deselected for service: Name Email Address No Matching Entries This is an automatic email message generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. This email address does not receive email. Thank you, The Florida Courts E-Filing Portal request_id#:25792876;Audit#:88639523;UCN#:502014CA001572XXXXMB; 2 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Thursday, January 21, 2016 3:48 PM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Amended.pdf Notice of Service of Court Documents Filing Information Filing #: 36843278 Filing Time: 01/21/2016 03:47:56 PM ET Filer: Giovani Mesa 954-574-6885 Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Court Case #: 50-2014-CA-001572-XXXX-MB Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E - TOWN OF GULF STREAM Documents Title File 01.21.16 Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment.pdf Amended E-service recipients selected for service: Name Email Address Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com mkieta@jonesfoster.com Kelly A. Gardner kgardner@jonesfoster.com Giovani Mesa gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com 1 Name Email Address John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com William F. Ring Jr. oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com wring@oboylelawfirm.com E-service recipients deselected for service: Name Email Address No Matching Entries This is an automatic email message generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. This email address does not receive email. Thank you, The Florida Courts E-Filing Portal request_id#:36843278;Audit#:127455955;UCN#:502014CA001572XXXXMB; 2 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Tuesday, February 2, 2016 4:34 PM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Motion For Leave.pdf Notice of Service of Court Documents Filing Information Filing #: 37325333 Filing Time: 02/02/2016 04:34:19 PM ET Filer: Joanne M. O'connor 561-659-3000 Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Court Case #: 50-2014-CA-001572-XXXX-MB Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E - TOWN OF GULF STREAM Documents Title File MOTION FILE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1572.pdf Motion For Leave E-service recipients selected for service: Name Email Address Giovani Mesa gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com William F. Ring Jr. oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com wring@oboylelawfirm.com E-service recipients deselected for service: 1 Name Email Address Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com mkieta@jonesfoster.com Kelly A. Gardner kgardner@jonesfoster.com John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com This is an automatic email message generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. This email address does not receive email. Thank you, The Florida Courts E-Filing Portal request_id#:37325333;Audit#:129037548;UCN#:502014CA001572XXXXMB; 2 Renee Basel From:OConnor, Joanne M. Sent:Tuesday, February 16, 2016 3:19 PM To:Kristina Russell; Macfarlane, Mary Cc:Giovani Mesa Subject:RE: Case 2014CA001572 AJ Kristina – I expect that I will cover this hearing and even if I do not, need to be available to consult in advance. This date is my first day back after 2 weeks. I would really appreciate it if we can find a date later that week. Thanks. Joanne M. O’Connor Attorney Direct Dial: 561.650.0498 | Fax: 561.650.5300 | joconnor@jonesfoster.com Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 561-659-3000 | www.jonesfoster.com Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. From: Kristina Russell \[mailto:krussell@oboylelawfirm.com\] Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 2:04 PM To: Macfarlane, Mary Cc: Giovani Mesa; OConnor, Joanne M. Subject: Case 2014CA001572 AJ Ms. Macfarlane: Giovani Mesa asked that I contact you and try to set up potential dates for a Hearing on the attached. I am seeing that there are a few attorneys from your firm on this case. Please let me know which attorney will attend this hearing. th The only date, at the moment, is March 14: 10 am, 10:15 am, 11:00 am, 11:15 am. I will keep checking dates if the th March 14 date and times do not work. Thank you. Kristina Russell The O’Boyle Law Firm P.C. 1286 West Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 Telephone # 954-570-3501 Email: krussell@oboylelawfirm.com 1 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Monday, February 22, 2016 12:52 PM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Notice Of Unavailability.pdf Notice of Service of Court Documents Filing Information Filing #: 38090393 Filing Time: 02/22/2016 12:51:38 PM ET Filer: Joanne M. O'connor 561-659-3000 Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Court Case #: 50-2014-CA-001572-XXXX-MB Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E - TOWN OF GULF STREAM Documents Title File 1572.pdf Notice Of Unavailability E-service recipients selected for service: Name Email Address Giovani Mesa gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com Robert A Sweetapple pleadings@sweetapplelaw.com cbailey@sweetapplelaw.com rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com 1 Name Email Address William F. Ring Jr. oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com wring@oboylelawfirm.com E-service recipients deselected for service: Name Email Address Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com mkieta@jonesfoster.com Kelly A. Gardner kgardner@jonesfoster.com John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com This is an automatic email message generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. This email address does not receive email. Thank you, The Florida Courts E-Filing Portal request_id#:38090393;Audit#:131639476;UCN#:502014CA001572XXXXMB; 2 Renee Basel From:OConnor, Joanne M. Sent:Monday, February 22, 2016 10:17 PM To:'Kristina Russell'; Macfarlane, Mary Cc:Giovani Mesa Subject:RE: Case 2014CA001572 AJ Any of those is fine with me. Thanks. From: Kristina Russell \[mailto:krussell@oboylelawfirm.com\] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 12:47 PM To: OConnor, Joanne M.; Macfarlane, Mary Cc: Giovani Mesa Subject: RE: Case 2014CA001572 AJ I checked dates and times to schedule this 30 minute Special Set (only Mondays are available). Please see the below times and let me know if any of these work for you. Thank you. 4/18 – Monday -11:00 am 4/18 - Monday – 1:30 pm 4/25 – Monday – 11:00 am 4/25 – Monday – 1:30 pm Kristina Russell The O’Boyle Law Firm P.C. 1286 West Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 Telephone # 954-570-3501 Email: krussell@oboylelawfirm.com From: OConnor, Joanne M. \[mailto:JOConnor@jonesfoster.com\] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 3:19 PM To: Kristina Russell; Macfarlane, Mary Cc: Giovani Mesa Subject: RE: Case 2014CA001572 AJ Kristina – I expect that I will cover this hearing and even if I do not, need to be available to consult in advance. This date is my first day back after 2 weeks. I would really appreciate it if we can find a date later that week. Thanks. Joanne M. O’Connor Attorney Direct Dial: 561.650.0498 | Fax: 561.650.5300 | joconnor@jonesfoster.com Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 561-659-3000 | www.jonesfoster.com 1 Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. From: Kristina Russell \[mailto:krussell@oboylelawfirm.com\] Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 2:04 PM To: Macfarlane, Mary Cc: Giovani Mesa; OConnor, Joanne M. Subject: Case 2014CA001572 AJ Ms. Macfarlane: Giovani Mesa asked that I contact you and try to set up potential dates for a Hearing on the attached. I am seeing that there are a few attorneys from your firm on this case. Please let me know which attorney will attend this hearing. th The only date, at the moment, is March 14: 10 am, 10:15 am, 11:00 am, 11:15 am. I will keep checking dates if the th March 14 date and times do not work. Thank you. Kristina Russell The O’Boyle Law Firm P.C. 1286 West Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 Telephone # 954-570-3501 Email: krussell@oboylelawfirm.com 2 Renee Basel From:eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2016 1:55 PM Subject:SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT - CASE NUMBER 502014CA001572XXXXMB Attachments:Notice Of Hearing.pdf Notice of Service of Court Documents Filing Information Filing #: 38274232 Filing Time: 02/25/2016 01:54:54 PM ET Filer: Giovani Mesa 954-574-6885 Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502014CA001572XXXXMB Court Case #: 50-2014-CA-001572-XXXX-MB Case Style: OBOYLE, MARTIN E - TOWN OF GULF STREAM Documents Title File 02.25.16 Notice of Special Set Hearing for April 25.pdf Notice Of Hearing E-service recipients selected for service: Name Email Address Ashlee Richman arichman@jonesfoster.com mkieta@jonesfoster.com Kelly A. Gardner kgardner@jonesfoster.com Giovani Mesa gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com 1 Name Email Address John C. Randolph jrandolph@jonesfoster.com Robert A Sweetapple pleadings@sweetapplelaw.com cbailey@sweetapplelaw.com rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com William F. Ring Jr. oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com wring@oboylelawfirm.com E-service recipients desel