HomeMy Public PortalAbout03 05 2020 MeetingMINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 2020 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE WILLIAM F. KOCH,
JR. COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM,
FLORIDA.
I. Call to Order
Chairman Smith called the meeting to order at 8:30 A.M.
II. Roll Call
Present and
Participating:
Thomas Smith
Malcolm Murphy
Robert Dockerty
Curtiss Roach
Jorgette Smith
Chairman
Vice Chairman
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Also Present & Gregory Dunham Town Manager
Participating: Edward Nazzaro Staff Attorney
Rita Taylor Town Clerk
III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing 02-27-2020
Vice Mayor Murphy pointed out a sentence needing to be added on
page five. Board Member Dockerty moved and Board Member Roach seconded
the motion to approve the minutes of February 27, 2020 once the changes
have been made and all voted AYE at roll call.
IV. PUBLIC HEARING
A.Declaration of Ex -Parte Communication
There was none.
B.Administer Oaths
Town Clerk Taylor swore in Hassan Tajalli, Roger Ramdeen and Dan
Stanton.
C.Continuation of consideration of a VARIANCE from the provisions in
Section 70-73 that require the second story to be setback from
each first story side elevation a minimum of 15% of the width of
the first story of the house to be granted for the east elevation.
Chairman Smith explained that he would like those presenting to
go through the eight criteria one at a time, with discussion allowed
after each point. He then confirmed with Town Manager Dunham that all
eight points needed to be met for the variance to be approved.
Mr. Roger Ramdeen, a Land Use Planner from Shutts & Bowen LLP,
stated they were engaged by Mr. Stanton to provide the justification as
to the need for the variance. Mr. Ramdeen began by saying he wanted to
emphasize Section 70-73 c. New construction of a second floor for a
single-family house within Place au Soleil zoning districts shall
include additional side setbacks for the second -story portion of the
building. The second story shall be setback from each first -story side
elevation a minimum of 15 percent of the width of the first story of
the house. Mr. Ramdeen stated that, in his opinion, when the Code was
written it didn't take into consideration new construction in the
traditional sense. He added what they had was a renovation and an
Minutes of ARPB Special
Meeting & Public Hearing
Held 3-5-2020 @ 8:30 A.M.
addition to an existing home and the reason for the variance was that
they needed to utilize the structural integrity of the first -floor
elevation and fagade to support the second floor. Mr. Ramdeen stated
had it been a new construction situation, the second floor could have
been accommodated with structural support from the first floor. Mr.
Ramdeen then moved on to the eight criteria beginning with number one:
"Special 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 the same zoning district". He
stated that the special circumstance was the existing building and the
need to utilize the first -floor structural wall to support the second -
floor component. Mr. Ramdeen stated the building was designed so as
not to have one wall going straight up, accommodated by the eyebrow to
get the illusion of the setback. Board Member Smith asked if they were
saying that was the only place to put the second -story wall. Mr.
Ramdeen stated it was his understanding that they needed to utilize the
first -floor wall structurally to support the second -floor component.
He added if they didn't utilize the first floor and had to meet the
setback there would have to be improvements on the inside of the home
to support the second -floor component. Board Member Smith stated that
it could be done. Mr. Hassan Tajalli, from Urban Design Studio and
agent for Mr. Stanton, stated it could be done but it would defeat the
purpose of keeping the structure as it currently existed. Mr. Tajalli
explained everything would have to shift over, which would then have a
domino effect on landscape savings, construction savings, etc. He then
handed out a sheet with the landscaping super -imposed, which the Board
had asked him to bring to this meeting. Mr. Tajalli noted that you
could barely see anything of the second -story portion of the house.
Board Member Smith stated she was understanding this as it could be
built a different way, but due to cost and ease of build they are
choosing to build it this way. Mr. Tajalli agreed and added it was a
$350,000 to $600,000 savings.
Vice Chairman Murphy asked if the renovation was greater than
500 of the existing floor plan, doesn't the entire building have to
meet the Code. Asst. Town Attorney Nazzaro explained if there were any
existing non -conformities, they would have to be brought into
conformity if it's over the 50%. He added that he didn't know if there
were any existing non -conformities on either lot that didn't meet the
Code. Mr. Ramdeen stated there were no non -conformities on this
property, and they were just seeking relief from an existing Code
Section that may have been written in the past to address new homes
being constructed. Board Member Smith asked if the cost created a
special condition and Board Member Dockerty echoed the same question to
which Mr. Ramdeen stated it should not be considered. Mr. Tajalli
added this was a special condition because it was an irregular site and
there was no site, after combining the two, that existed in Gulf
Stream. Mr. Tajalli stated it could be done per the Code, but it would
Minutes of ARPB Special
Meeting & Public Hearing
Held 3-5-2020 @ 8:30 A.M.
negate the current status of the homes. Mr. Ramdeen stated the
situation was a much wider lot typically seen in this zoning district
requiring a much greater setback, which was another hardship in this
situation adding another special condition. Chairman Smith stated that
when you read the Code it read "which are not applicable to other
lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district". He added
that he thought there would be other lands, structures, or buildings in
the zoning district that this would be applicable, so he didn't think
this was a special, one -of -a -kind situation in Place au Soleil. Board
Member Smith stated she thought there were other alternatives.
Mr. Dan Stanton wanted to know if they were arguing whether
this was a renovation vs. a new home because he wasn't clear to the
position of the Board. Board Member Smith stated that putting a second
story on top seemed to be a new build. Mr. Stanton wanted to know if
that was consistent to prior renovations in Place au Soleil and he
stated there was a recent issue with the board regarding too much
glass. He added that was classified as a renovation and they were
adding a second floor using the existing and that they added about 50%
to the first floor. Mr. Stanton went on to say they were keeping the
first floor on both homes, adding a second story and he didn't
understand why this would be treated any different. Chairman Smith
stated he didn't believe they granted a variance on the house Mr.
Stanton was speaking of and that the glass did conform with the Code.
Mr. Stanton stated the other home was considered a renovation, not a
new home, and that his project was no different, so why would it be
considered a new home and not a renovation. Chairman Smith stated the
setback would apply whether it was a new home or a renovation. Asst.
Town Attorney explained the language Mr. Stanton and his agents were
referring to was something the Town had looked over very strictly to
make sure the interpretation was consistent and correct, with that
language being "new construction of a second -story" not new
construction of a new house to which he explained Mr. Stanton did not
think it should be applied at all because it was not new construction
but a renovation. Town Manager Dunham gave an example of a recent
second story house in the Core that came through the ARPB and was
viewed as a new construction of a second story on an existing house,
not a renovation. Mr. Stanton stated the house next door had almost
two million dollars in liens on it and it was worth 25% less than the
purchase price due to those liens. In addition to that, he added, the
community had been burdened with homeless people and drug addicts in
these houses that had been vacant for years. Mr. Stanton stated he
thought the special circumstances were beyond cost and added the width
was unique, the burden of the liens on the property were a special
condition, as well as it being a renovation and not a new home. He
went on to say he had built commercial properties across the country
and had never heard that a portion of the home was a new construction,
but the rest was a renovation. Mr. Stanton stated that cost was a
3
Minutes of ARPB Special
Meeting & Public Hearing
Held 3-5-2020 @ 8:30 A.M.
component and while it wasn't a special exception, he thought it was
reasonable when you had almost two million dollars in fines on a
property you had to factor in the reasonableness for someone to acquire
the property, renovate and turn it into a livable space that wasn't
riddled with homeless people and drug users. Board Member Smith
questioned why he kept talking about homeless people and drug users to
which Town Manager Dunham stated he would like to comment on that
issue. He added that Lt. Haseley was present and could address the
issue as well. Town Manager Dunham stated the Town had been aware of a
squatter who claimed that he had been renting but had been evicted by
the Palm Beach Sheriff's Department. He added that they had received a
call from a surveyor who had stated he thought he saw someone in the
house which prompted the Gulf Stream Police to go and search the house
where they found no proof of squatters or drug users, i.e. syringes,
McDonald's bags, etc. Town Manager Dunham then asked Lt. Haseley if
had received any calls to which Lt. Haseley stated he had received a
couple of calls to which he had answered himself and found the property
to be unsecured and accessible but no sign of anyone being inside. Mr.
Stanton stated that the surveyor who called was very clear that he had
seen someone in the kitchen but ultimately ran off through the
property. He added that he frequently plays tennis in his backyard and
sees people coming and going from the property daily. Mr. Stanton
stated that when his wife called to report someone in the property the
police instructed her to be on alert, be cautious and call 911. Town
Manager Dunham stated that is exactly what she needed to do and the
response that should have been given to her from the police department.
Mr. Stanton reiterated there definitely was drug paraphernalia present
in the home. Town Manager Dunham wanted to know how he could have this
information and not the police department. Lt. Haseley stated they had
gone to the 2900 house a few times when the squatters were present, but
since they had been evicted there had been very few calls. Mr. Stanton
stated if they wanted to stay busy and have them call every time they
see someone then he could definitely accommodate. Town Manager Dunham
and Lt. Haseley both stated that is exactly what Mr. Stanton should do.
Mr. Stanton stated the solution was not to keep calling the police but
to put people in the home that care about the community, want to add to
the community and not destroy it. Asst. Town Attorney Nazzaro stated
that everyone should focus the conversation to the specific variance at
issue, so the special circumstances needed to relate to the variance,
which was the offset of the second floor. Mr. Ramdeen reiterated that,
in his opinion, new construction would be defined as a new home from
the ground up and that is why standard one was addressed the way it
was. Chairman Smith asked to move to number two: "The special
conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant". Mr. Ramdeen stated that this relates to the existing home
and the intent to utilize and renovate what was already present. He
added they weren't looking to demolish and construct new but wanted to
4
Minutes of ARPB Special
Meeting & Public Hearing
Held 3-5-2020 @ 8:30 A.M.
renovate and expand on their current home, so it wasn't a direct result
of the applicant's actions. Vice Mayor Murphy stated that actions to
him meant choice, therefore asking the question of other options
available. He went on to ask if they could achieve what they were
looking to build on the existing lot they own and if they had
considered that as an option. Mr. Stanton stated that there was no
choice and the way to make the property work is what they had designed
within all the Code criteria and he felt they had met the criteria and
the Board needed to make a decision whether they agreed with that or
not. He added it was the only option because they did not want to demo
and build a new home. Board Member Dockerty stated it may not be an
option for Mr. Stanton, but it was an option. Mr. Stanton disagreed
with Board Member Dockerty and stated they were seeking to renovate a
home that they own and include the home adjacent to them into that
renovation. He added the only other option was that they don't
purchase the home adjacent to their property, then sell their home.
Board Member Dockerty reiterated there were other options. Mr. Stanton
again disagreed and stated the property was either built as designed or
it's not built at all and those were the two options.
Mr. Ramdeen moved to point number three: "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". He stated that in this zoning district there
were several lots on the larger side, and it wasn't a special privilege
because it could be granted to anyone who wanted to do the same thing
on their lot. Chairman Smith disagreed and stated they probably would
not grant the variance to anyone else in that same district requesting
the same thing, so it would be a special granting of a variance to Mr.
Stanton. Board Member Roach stated this was their opinion and the
Board had a different opinion due to the Code that the Board is
instructed to enforce. Mr. Ramdeen stated that there would always be
differences in opinions, but he felt variances fell in a gray area,
which then fell to the consensus of the Board to make the final
decision. Chairman Smith asked that they move on to number four:
"Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Code would deprive
the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the
same zoning district under the terms of this Code and would work
unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant". Mr. Ramdeen stated
that if Mr. Stanton was granted the variance that other property owners
would be deprived of the same. He added that another property owner
could seek the same variance and would have to prove their case and
their hardships. Mr. Ramdeen stated the undue hardship on this
property is the need for the first -floor wall to support the second -
floor component. He added the wider lot forced the greater setback
from the first -floor wall. They went through criteria numbers five
through eight without any disagreements. Mr. Ramdeen then wanted to
remind the Board of the significant landscaping along the eastern
5
Minutes of ARPB Special
Meeting & Public Hearing
Held 3-5-2020 @ 8:30 A.M.
border providing buffers and screening. He then added there had been
no opposition or negative feedback from the neighbors. Chairman Smith
asked Town Clerk Taylor if that was true and she answered that one
neighbor had come in to look at the drawings but hadn't left any
indication of yay or nay. Vice Chairman Murphy wanted to make it clear
to the applicant that whatever the Board recommended it would go to the
Town Commission at the March 13, 2020 meeting. Chairman Smith stated
he felt items four through eight were fine, but he was having a problem
with items one through three and felt they were asking for too large of
a variance and didn't see them passing all eight of the criteria. Vice
Chairman Murphy stated he was having an issue with number two and Mr.
Stanton stating it was a do or don't option, which Vice Chairman Murphy
thought was a choice. Board Member Roach agreed that the first three
were a problem. Board Member Smith had problems with one and two as
she didn't see it as a true hardship and felt there were alternatives.
Board Member Dockerty had an issue with number two as well.
Vice Chairman Murphy made a motion to deny the application for
a variance as presented on March 5, 2020, concerning the eight criteria
that must be met, the Board find that criteria five to eight are met.
The criteria one to four are deemed not met by the Board. Board Member
Dockerty seconded the motion. Mr. Ramdeen asked to speak before the
Board voted. He addressed criteria number two, which he thought
everyone was having a problem with. Mr. Ramdeen reiterated there was
an existing condition that was not the result of the actions of the
applicant. Chairman Smith stated he did think the action of the
applicant was creating the condition in choosing to erect a second
floor on a renovation and they don't exist if the applicant didn't
choose to build a second story. All voted AYE at roll call.
Chairman Smith asked Asst. Town Attorney Nazzaro to explain
what would happen going forward to which Mr. Stanton stated it wasn't
necessary as they would not be purchasing the property and he left the
meeting. Asst. Town Attorney Nazzaro asked if the applicant was
withdrawing the application to which Mr. Tajalli did not have an
answer.
Vice Chairman Murphy made a motion to deny a demolition permit
of an existing residential structure except for two walls. Board
Member Dockerty seconded the motion. Mr. Ramdeen asked if that was
still open for discussion with the applicant or the agent because if
there was an opportunity or an option to redesign and push the
structure back to comply then the variance goes away. Board Member
Dockerty had to step out of the meeting at 9:31 A.M. Chairman Smith
stated they wouldn't block a denial if a redesign happened. Asst. Town
Attorney Nazzaro reminded everyone this was a recommendation to the
Commission for final approval and if the applicant had modifications or
a redesign to meet the Code, they would bring that before the
Commission. All voted AYE at roll call.
Minutes of ARPB Special
Meeting & Public Hearing
Held 3-5-2020 @ 8:30 A.M.
LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit the construction,
across the two lots, of one Gulf Stream Bermuda, single family, two-
story home with attached four -car garage.
Vice Chairman Murphy made a motion to deny a Level III
Architectural/Site Plan based on a finding that proposed construction of
a Gulf Stream Bermuda style, two-story, single family dwelling with
attached four -car garage consisting of 11,988 SF meet the minimum intent
of the Design Manual and applicable review standards with the following
conditions:
1. Any minor modifications to th
submitted to the Town Manager
major modifications shall be
review and approval, prior to
2. Prior to obtaining a building
unity of title.
e existing landscaping shall
for review and approval and
brought back to the ARPB for
commencement of landscaping.
permit, the owner shall file
be
any
a
Board Member Roach seconded the motion with all voting AYE at roll call.
V. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting at 9:41 A.M.
7