HomeMy Public PortalAbout10/17/2003 * Case #CE-4-03 * WynneTOWN OF GULF STREAM
CODE ENFORCEMENT
100 Sea Road
Gulf Stream, FL 33483
(561) 276 -5116
AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE OR NON - COMPLIANCE
(circle one)
CASE NO. CE -4 -03 DATE: 10 -17 -03
LOCATION OF VIOLATION:
John W. and Barbara S. Wynne
1511 N. Ocean Blvd.
Gulf Stream, Florida 33483
I, William Thrasher , have personally examined the property described above and
(Town Official/Inspector)
Find that said property is in compliance with Section(s) 66 -141 (21 fof the
Code of the Town of Gulf tS�ream as of the 13th day of October , 20 03
Ef•
Affiant
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 13th day of
October 2003 by William Thrasher Town Official/Inspector,
who is personally known to me or who has produced a Florida driver's license as
identification who did/did not take an oath.
(SEAL) v` °,�0j4
RITA L TAYLOR
MY COMMISSION* OOI1N2J11
i 4P
?p, PD P. %PIRES'Febrmn 21. _'IMB
f f)MINOTMY FLW yS�MS Bm ,g i,c
NOTARY PUBLIC
State of Florida
The Law Office of
Glen J. Torcivia and Associates, P.A.
Northpoint Corporate Center
701 Northpoint Parkway
Suite 209
West Palm Beach, Florida 33407 -1950
Glen J. Torcivia *
Paulette Torcivia
Lara Donlon **
*Also admitted in New York
* *ALso admitted in Georgia
October 14, 2003
Rita Taylor, Town Clerk
Town of Gulf Stream
100 Sea Road
Gulf Stream, Florida 33483
Re: Code Enforcement Hearing
October 10, 2003
Dear Rita:
Telephone
(561) 686 -8700
Telefax
(561) 686 -8764
Email:
Glen@torcivialaw.com
Enclosed please find the Order for the Code Enforcement Hearing that was held on Friday,
October 10, 2003.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
�f 7
Paulette Torcivia
PT:dm
enclosure
CODE ENFORCEMENT ORDER
TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA
ORDER FINDING NO VIOLATION
TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
Petitioner,
Case No. CE -4 -A3
JOHN W. and BARBARA S. WYNNE,
Respondents.
Re: Violation of Section 66- 141(2)f, of the Code of Ordinances of the Town of Gulf Stream.
Address: 1511 North Ocean Blvd.
Gulf Stream, Florida
Legal Description: N. 82' Lot 1, Blk. D R cv Plat Blk D & Blk E Palm Bch Shore
Acres & S 68' Govt. Lot 1 Sec. 10 Twns. 46 South Range 43
East Palm Beach Co. Fl., East of Ocean Blvd.
The Special Master appointed by the Town Council to hear code enforcement cases
for the Town of Gulf Stream, in accordance with Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, has heard testimony
at the Code Enforcement Hearing held on the 10`h day of October, 2003, and based on the evidence
and testimony presented, the following FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, and
ORDER are hereby entered:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Respondents, John W. and Barbara S. Wynne, were not present at the
hearing, but were represented at the hearing by their attorney, Todd Messenger.
2. The Town was represented at the hearing by its attorney, John Randolph.
3. William Thrasher and Chris Wheeler testified for the Town.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondents are not in violation of Section 66- 141(2)f, of the Code of Ordinances
of the Town of Gulf Stream.
It is the Order of the Code Enforcement Special Master that Respondents, John W.
and Barbara S. Wynne, are not in violation of Section 66- 141(2)f, of the Code of Ordinances of the
Town of Gulf Stream.
DONE AND ORDERED this 10`^ day of October, 2003.
TOWN OF GULF STREAM
CODE ENFORCEMENT
BY: %a?--
Special Master
4 �
l 1
MINUTES OF THE CODE VIOLATION RE- HEARING HELD BY THE SPECIAL
MASTER OF THE TOWN OF GULF STEAM ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2003
AT 1:00 P.M., IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA
ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA.
Special Master Paulette Torcivia announced that the case being re -heard is Case No. CE-
4-03, addressing a code violation at 1511 N. Ocean Blvd., N. 82' lot 1 blk D & blk E
Palm Beach Shore Acres & s. 68' of Govt. lot 1 Sec. 10 Twnshp. 46 South Range 43 East
Palm Beach County Florida East of Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, that is owned by
John W. and Barbara S. Wynne. She announced for the record that the Respondents were
not present but were being represented by their attorney, Todd Messenger. She then
administered the Oath to Town Manager William Thrasher and to Chris Wheeler,
Chairman of the Architectural Review and Planning Board of the Town of Gulf Stream.
Attorney Torcivia asked the Petitioner, Town of Gulf Stream, to present the facts of this
case.
John Randolph, Attorney for the Town of Gulf Stream, advised that copies of all of the
exhibits that had been presented at the hearing held on September 8, 2003 were furnished
to Attorney Messenger. In view of this, he requested that rather than introducing them
one by one, he be permitted to re- submit them all in one group. Attorney Messenger had
no objection to this. The Special Master advised the numbers the exhibits were given at
the September 8`h hearing would remain. She then advised that the Memorandum of Law
containing motions for reviewing and a composite of exhibits listed A through J
submitted by the Respondents when asking for a re- hearing will be Respondents Exhibit
#1.
The Special Master asked Attorney Messenger he would_stipulate_as_toshe_proper
notices of the hearings and he replied in the affirmative.
Attorney Randolph called Chris Wheeler as the first witness who acknowledged that he is
the Chairman of the Architectural Review and Planning Board in Gulf Stream and that he
is CEO and Chairman of the Board of a real estate multi - family design and construction
company. Mr. Wheeler testified that on the two different sets of plans that were
submitted to the ARPB, which he had reviewed along with the other members, the feature
containing the etched glass palm tree with the numbers 1511 included was not shown and
the plans would not have been approved if this had been shown. He farther testified that
in a subsequent informal appearance, this feature was shown and the Board advised that
this etched glass feature would not be approved in that it is not consistent with the
Mediterranean architecture of the development which is a criteria for approvals.
Attorney Randolph asked Mr. Wheeler if he was familiar with the type of address signs
that exist along AlA in particular those shown in pictures he introduced that were
assigned Town Exhibit #12. Mr. Wheeler replied that he is familiar with these. The
Special Master asked if these are consistent with the architecture of the property and Mr.
Wheeler replied that they are consistent with what is in the Town of Gulf Stream. Mr.
Randolph asked to explain the purpose for which the pictures are being entered. He
Special Master Hearing 10 -10 -03 page 2
explained that these are pictures of signs as defined in the sign code and these are not the
types of things that would become before the ARPB. Mr. Randolph finther explained the
ARPB would review things like walls, columns and gates but after their review, residents
may, under the sign code, install these types of signs. He noted these are not architectural
features. He maintained the etched glass features are architectural features and should
have been reviewed by the ARPB.
Special Master Torcivia asked for an explanation of the difference between the etched
glass sign or feature and one of the other signs along AlA showing the address number
and street name with what appears to be some artwork at the comers of the sign.
Attorney Randolph approached this from the legal aspect, referring to Mr. Messenger's
Exhibit #1E, by calling attention to the fact that signs are defined in the Code as "any
printed, lettered, pictured, figured, or colored material on any building, structure or
surface ". He then referred again to Mr. Messenger's Exhibit #1 E under Division 7. that
reads "The erection, display and maintenance of a sign on any property or building within
the town is prohibited except the following, which are permitted: Item (4) - - - -a sign
identifying their name or ownership, entrance and exit roads and street number
identifying such property ". And once again referring to Mr. Messenger's Exhibit #lE in
Sec. 66 -327; Signs, the Code reads "Signs shall be prohibited within the North Ocean
Boulevard Overlay District except the following: (2) Address signs and signs designating
the name or the owner of an estate or the name of a condominium or club and signs
necessary to designate entrances and exits ". Mr. Randolph pointed out that this is the
section that applies since the property is in the North Ocean Blvd. Overlay District and
that the other signs in the area that are pictured in Town's Exhibit #12 are all under this
exemption. None in the area displayed an architectural feature showing an etched glass
__,palm_ tree. He stated that he believed the etched glass feature_could have_been_cited_as_a
violation of the sign code but that it was not necessary to do that since this is a design
feature that had been reviewed by the ARPB and was not approved.
The Special Master asked the following questions: 1) Is it customary to put a house
number on an architectural plan? 2) Is the etched glass picture something that can be
removed? 3) What was fastened to the old house? 4) Is it required that there be numbers
posted on all properties? Mr. Wheeler answered it is not customary to put a house
number on an architectural plan, the etched glass picture can be removed, it was fastened
to an entry pier when the old house existed and it is required that there be address
numbers posted on all properties.
Attorney Randolph believed it is not a question as to whether the Board was correct in the
way they applied the Code but that it was not approved, which gave an opportunity for
appeal. Special Master Torcivia believed the issue to be whether this etched glass is a
sign or an architectural feature.
Mr. Randolph agreed and stated the Town's position is that if it is a sign, it is in violation
of the sign code since all that is permitted is the address and the resident's name. He
maintained that had the applicant presented a column design with a palm tree carved in it
Special Master Hearing 10 -10 -03
page 3
the ARPB would have had an opportunity to review it as an architectural feature. As it
were, the applicant presented a drawing of a plain column and then hung the etched glass
on it after the column was in place.
Attorney Messenger presented his Hearing Brief, Respondents Exhibit #2, in which there
are pictures of address signs attached to columns for 3224 N. Ocean, 3545 N. Ocean,
3603 N. Ocean, 3110 N. Ocean and 3435 N. Ocean. He asked Mr. Wheeler if the ARPB
had reviewed these, calling attention to 3435 being on two entrance walls. Mr. Wheeler
replied that none of these were before the board. Mr. Messenger then asked if they had
reviewed a set of mail boxes, located on the west side of AIA across from Wynne's, that
had hunting dogs painted on them, to which Mr. Wheeler replied they had not seen those
and would not consider mail boxes an architectural feature. Mr. Messenger then asked if
there is a limit on the size of signs and Mr. Wheeler answered in the affirmative and
added that he does not recall what that is. Attorney Messenger asked Mr. Wheeler to
read a portion of Section 660 -447 of the Code that is included in Respondents Exhibit
#lE which stated that any permitted sign other than a real estate sign shall not exceed 6
square feet and then made the point that an address is considered a sign and could be as
much as 6 square feet, adding that the etched glass sign is only 3.6 square feet.
Mr. Messenger asked if there is a threshold to determine when an address becomes an
architectural feature and the answer was no. The attorney then asked if Mr. Wheeler
liked the sign at 1511 and he replied yes but not with this style of architecture. When
asked if the other Board members agreed with him, Mr. Wheeler replied that one had
declared a conflict of interest but the others were in agreement. Mr. Messenger asked if
the Board gets to express an opinion about all address signs to which Mr. Wheeler stated
only if they are architectural features. Attorney Messenger asked how is it determined
when an_ address sign becomes-an-architectural feature. _Mr. WheeleLStated_thatby-the
size and in this instance by the fact that the palm tree is predominant in the design. Mr.
Wheeler was then asked by the Attorney to read the definition of a sign in the code
section that is included in Respondents Exhibit #lE after which Mr. Messenger made the
points that the Wynne sign conforms to the definition of a sign in that there is a picture, it
is on a surface and it communicates something, all of which are included in the definition
of a sign.
Attorney Randolph advised that Mr. Thrasher would be saying pretty much the same as
what Mr. Wheeler had said and he wanted to make sure for purposes of this re- hearing
that there is nothing else that the Special Master or Attorney Messenger needed to hear
from him where he would argue that the administration hasn't testified. Attorney
Randolph, for the record, stated Mr. Thrasher would testify that he is the Town Manager
of Gulf Stream, that this particular architectural feature was not included in the plan
before the Board, that the plan was before the Board on three occasions and was not
approved, that the owner was noticed to remove the feature but the owner did not comply
and that he did refer to the feature as a sign in the notice of violation as a generic
description of this architectural feature that had gone before the Board. He further stated
that Mr. Thrasher had taken the pictures of the address signs today and is prepared to
testify that these address signs are as described in the Code and are permitted, but that
Special Master Hearing 10 -10 -03
page 4
anything further than this including palm trees, etched glass and that sort of thing is not
allowed under the Town Code. Mr. Randolph restated that this is substantially what he
had said in the first hearing and he felt no need to have him testify unless the Special
Master or Attorney Messenger requests that he do so.
Special Master Torcivia asked Attorney Messenger if he had any questions for Mr.
Thrasher to which he replied he did with regard to address signs which have a great
significance and should not be dismissed as address sign that has legal import in this case
being the short hand for architectural features. He noted that there is inconsistency by
interchanging the words address sign and architectural feature.
Mr. Wheeler was dismissed at this point.
Attorney Messenger asked Mr. Thrasher if he had written the letter to Mr. Ince dated
April 25, 2002 and the reply was that he had. He was then asked why he had referred to
the etched glass as house number signs. Mr. Thrasher stated that he thought that's what
they were. Mr. Messenger then asked if Mr. Thrasher had written a subsequent letter
advising that there was no approval procedure for signs. Attorney Randolph stated the
Town would stipulate there is no procedure for signs. Mr. Messenger had no further
questions.
In his closing argument, Mr. Messenger stated that common sense and the Town Code
demands that this is an address sign and not an architectural feature. He called attention
to the Hearing Brief that is Respondent Exhibit #2 that addresses the key facts that he
believed to be undisputed. The gates were constructed in accordance with approved
plans and the notice of violation that was sent states the gates were inspected and
approved. He stated that the signs, which _had _been removedSrom-the_old_pmperty_and _
stored on the property, were subsequently attached to the columns. He submitted that
these signs are exempt from review according to the Town Code. Mr. Messenger
maintained that the pictures of other address signs in the area had some type of
ornamentation included along with the number and that the etched glass sign is no
different. He pointed out that the Wynne's had requested an application for a sign and
was told there is no process for address signs and therefore the Wynne's are not in
violation.
Attorney Randolph, in his closing argument, pointed out that the Town was so concerned
about what is placed along AIA in the Historic Corridor that they included a section in
the Code to mandate that anything, including landscaping, walls, gates, etc. be reviewed
by the ARPB. He reminded that two detailed gate designs were submitted and approved
without showing the etched glass feature, and the Board had every right to rely on the
drawings showing exactly what was to be placed in this area. He further reminded that
this feature fits the code description of a sign that is prohibited and could have been cited
as a violation of the sign code. Attorney Randolph made the point that the address signs
shown in the pictures are address signs and do not have ornamentation as a predominate
portion of the sign like the palm tree on the etched glass which falls in the category of an
architectural feature. He fm Cher made the point that by calling this an address sign, it
Special Master Hearing 10 -10 -03
page 5
would allow anything to be put on a gate as long as the house numbers were shown on
some portion of the attachment.
Mr. Messenger reminded that both Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Thrasher had referred to this as
an address sign and Mr. Wheeler had stated that he knows an architectural feature as
opposed to an address sign when he sees it. Mr. Messenger further reminded that there
are no criteria in the Code for differentiating between them. He stated again that the
Wynne's had asked for an application procedure for an address sign and had been told in
writing that there is none and therefore maintain they are not in violation.
Mr. Randolph restated that there is no procedure for approval of an address sign because
address signs are exempt from the sign code.
The Special Master stated that she is finding no violation of Section 66- 141(2)f for the
following reasons: 1) The framed combination of the numbers and a picture falls under
the purview of the sign ordinances and as such would follow along the same
qualifications as the various numbered signs as shown in the pictures of other entrances
along AIA. She believed to say that a tile with a small flower is OK but a palm tree on
etched glass is not, is splitting hairs. She added that with there being no specifics in the
Code as to what is acceptable on a gate, she found no violation. 2) The address is separate
from the gate and not a part of it. 3) None of the addresses on other gates as shown in the
pictures have any particular consistency and if the Town wants there to be a very specific
type of sign in this district, that should be outlined in the Code. She ruled that this etched
glass feature is an address sign and not an architectural feature.
Rita L. Taylor, Town Clerk
r�
MINUTES OF THE CODE VIOLATION HEARING HELD BY THE SPECIAL
MASTER OF THE TOWN OF GULF STEAM ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2003
AT 10:00 A.M., IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL, 100
SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA.
Special Master Paulette Torcivia announced that the case being heard is Case No. CE -4-
03, addressing a code violation at 1511 N. Ocean Blvd., N. 82' lot 1 blk D & blk E Palm
Beach Shore Acres & s. 68' of Govt. lot 1 Sec. 10 Twnshp. 46 South Range 43 East Palm
Beach County Florida East of Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, that is owned by John
W. and Barbara S. Wynne. She announced for the record that the Respondents were not
present and then administered the Oath to Town Manager William Thrasher and Town
Clerk Rita Taylor. Attorney Torcivia asked the Petitioner, Town of Gulf Stream, to
present the facts of this case.
Attorney John Randolph, Attorney for the Town of Gulf Stream, presented a copy of the
Statement of Violation and Notice of Hearing along with a return receipt signed August
14, 2003 by someone, not recognized by the staff, other than Mr. or Mrs. Wynne. The
Special Master ruled that proper notice had been given and marked the documents as
Exhibit #1 for the Town of Gulf Stream. The violation described in Exhibit #1 is that
etched glass architectural features that had not been approved by the Architectural
Review and Planning Board were subsequently attached to the entry columns that had
been approved for construction in the North Ocean Blvd. Overlay District as provided in
Section 66- 141(2)f after the columns had been inspected and approved.
The Town Clerk presented, at the request of the Special Master, the Property Appraiser's
print out for the property showing Mr. & Mrs. Wynne as the owners and it was marked as
Exhibit #2 for the Town of Gulf Stream.
Town Manager Thrasher testified that any structure erected or installed within the North
Ocean Blvd. Overlay District requires a Level 2 Architectural/Site Plan Review by the
Architectural Review and Planning Board, and a part of the criteria for approval is that
the use of exterior architectural elements, exterior materials and colors of proposed
structures and improvements shall be consistent with other on -site structures and the
surrounding neighborhood. Attorney Randolph ask that a copy of Section 66- 144(b)(10)
of the Gulf Stream Code of Ordinances, which lists the criteria, be entered and it was
marked as Exhibit #3 for the Town of Gulf Stream.
Attorney Randolph referred to photographs of the entrance gate at 1511 N. Ocean Blvd.,
handing a set to the Special Master and a set to Mr. Thrasher. Mr. Thrasher verified that
he had taken the pictures on September 4, 2003 and explained that they show two etched
glass architectural features attached to the entrance columns. Mr. Thrasher further
confirmed that these features were not included on the design that had originally been
approved for the gates and were not submitted for approval prior to them being installed.
The Special Master marked the photographs as Exhibit #4 for the Town.
Special Master Hearing- 9 -8 -03
page 2
The Town Attorney handed Mr. Thrasher a copy of a portion of the minutes of the Town
Commission Meeting of January 14, 2000 and a copy of a plan showing a gate and
column design that was reviewed at the meeting. He asked Mr. Thrasher to verify that
these documents are copies of the originals to which Mr. Thrasher answered they were.
At this point the Attorney asked that these be entered as exhibits. Special Master
Torcivia marked the minutes and plan as Exhibit #5 for the Town. Mr. Thrasher
confirmed that the etched glass designs were not shown on these drawings that were
approved on January 14, 2000.
Attorney Randolph asked Mr. Thrasher if there was a subsequent meeting at which a
revised gate design and location was approved and asked him to identify a portion of the
minutes of a meeting of the Architectural Review and Planning Board held on September
27, 2001 and a revised drawing. Mr. Thrasher did identify the documents as being
accurate. The Attorney asked that these documents be entered as exhibits and the
Special Master marked them Exhibit #6 for the Town. Town Manager Thrasher testified
that the etched glass feature was not included on this drawing as there is no protrusion
shown on the drawing. In addition he testified that the General Contractor for the project
had stated that the etched glass features had been added at a later time.
Mr. Randolph asked if a Certificate of Occupancy had been issued that covered the house
and the gate to which Mr. Thrasher replied this had been issued January 7, 2002 and that
he had personally inspected the project and the etched glass features were not in place on
the columns at that time. He stated that later in January he noticed the etched glass
feature had been added and he phoned the contractor regarding the fact they had not been
approved and are in violation. The contractor advised that the Wynne's were out of town
on an extended vacation but they had thought that since this etched glass feature had been
on the property at the time all of the structures had been demolished, they would be
—" grandfathemd -and reinstalled on the new structure: Mr. Thrasher stated tha£heinfonne3—
the contractor that these were not grandfathered. He further stated that on April 25, 2002
he wrote a letter to the contractor advising the etched glass was not a part of the original
application for review and a request must be submitted, reviewed and approved by the
ARPB. Attorney Randolph asked that a copy of this letter be included as an Exhibit that
the Special Master marked as Exhibit #7.
The Town Attorney reminded that the Town has two sections in the Code, Sec. 66 -327
and 66 -446 relating to signs. He then handed those sections to Mr. Thrasher and asked
him if he had reviewed them when determining the etched glass features were in
violation. Mr. Thrasher stated he had taken the sections into consideration. Mr.
Randolph asked that the Hearing Officer take judicial notice of these two sections that
relate to signs. He read from Sec. 66- 327(2), "Signs shall be prohibited within the North
Ocean Blvd. Overlay District, except the following: Address signs and signs designating
the name or the owner of an estate or the name of a condominium or club and signs
necessary to designate entrances and exits." With regard to Sec. 66- 446(b), Mr.
Randolph quoted "The erection, display and maintenance of a sign on any property or
building within the town is prohibited except the following, which are permitted: Except
for the designation of resident name, property owner, location, or address, the erection,
Special Master Hearing- 9 -8 -03
page 3
display, and maintenance of an illuminated sign on any property is strictly prohibited."
These sections were entered as Exhibit #8 for the Town.
Attorney Randolph asked Mr. Thrasher if the owners came back before the ARPB
regarding this matter and was advised that the owners attorney came before the ARPB,
but not with a formal application, asking for clarification as to whether or not this
architectural feature should have been approved. He further advised that Chairman
Wheeler stated the home and entrance gates and columns had been approved, but not
with the etched glass feature. The Chairman had pointed out that the ARPB has
discretion to make a judgment as to whether architectural elements are consistent with the
style, which in this case is Mediterranean, and etched glass is not consistent with a
Mediterranean style architecture. It was suggested that a wood or framed Spanish tile
feature would be two options. The Special Master questioned if it would only be
necessary to remove the etched glass feature from the columns to correct the violation
and was advised that this is true. She remarked that it is necessary to display address
numbers and understands this is acceptable if they are displayed in a style consistent with
the architectural style. Mr. Thrasher replied that this is true. The Special Master
accepted the minutes of the ARPB meeting of February 27, 2003 as Exhibit #9 for the
Town.
The Special Master asked if the owner would still be in violation if he were to move the
etched glass features to the front of the home, that being beyond the 50' distance from the
front property line. Mr. Thrasher answered that they would also be in violation for that
since the etched glass would not be in conformity with the style of the home even though
it would be outside of the North Ocean Blvd. Overlay District.
Attorney Randolph then asked that the formal Notice of Violation, dated June 3, 2003,
that is required; lie entere3 as an exhibit for the Town -The Special Master mazkiff e
Notice as Exhibit #10 for the Town.
Special Master Torcivia again asked Mr. Thrasher if he had inspected the entrance prior
to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy to which he replied he had and the etched
glass features were not present at that time, which was early January. In answer to a
question from the Special Master, he further stated that he first noticed the etched glass
features toward the end of the month of January.
Attorney Randolph advised that the Town also has a copy of the Notice of Violation with
the green card attached and the Special Master stated that will be Exhibit #11 for the
Town.
On being asked by the Special Master what is being recommended in this case, Attorney
Randolph advised the Town would like to have the violation corrected with a finding of
violation of the Code with a period of 15 days in which to comply by removing the
etched glass features. In the event they did not comply within the 15 days, the Town
requested that a fine of $150.00 per day be assessed retroactively from the date of non-
compliance plus administrative costs.
Special Master Hearing- 9 -8 -03 page 4
The Special Master found the Respondents in violation in this case and ordered
compliance by September 23, 2003 or a fine of $150.00 per day shall be assessed with a
Fine Assessment Hearing to be held on September 26, 2003 at 10 A.M. The Special
Master also approved administrative costs, which will be set at the Hearing on Sept. 26`h.
The Hearing concluded at 10:45 A.M.
/ .-¢ �Q
�✓i.A� iC21t
Rita L. Tay or, Town lerk
I ,
BEFORE THE CODE ENVORCEMENT SPECIAL MASTER
OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA
TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
Petitioner,
V. Case No. CE -4 -03
JOHN W. AND BARBARA S. WYNNE,
Respondents.
MOTION FOR REHEARING
COMES NOW, Mr. John W. Wynne and Mrs. Barbara S. Wynne, who by and through their
undersigned counsel, respectfully request rehearing of the above styled matter, and in support
thereof, state as follows:
I.
INTRODUCTION
I. On September 8, 2003, Special Master Paulette Torcivia heard a code enforcement
matter in the Town of Gulf Stream regarding etched glass address signs at 1511 North Ocean
Boulevard, Gulf Stream, Florida. After a one -sided presentation by the Town, the Special Master
entered an order finding the Wynnes in violation of Section 66- 141(2)f of the Town of Gulf Stream
Code.
2. The Wynnes did not receive actual notice of the hearing due to circumstances that
were beyond their control. Moreover, the Wynnes are not, as a matter of fact and law, in violation
of any applicable provision of the Town's Code. Therefore, the Wynnes respectfully request a
rehearing on the merits of this matter on September 26, 2003.
H.
THE WYNNES DID NOT RECEIVE
ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE HEARING.
3. The Wynnes acknowledge that the Town apparently did send notice of the hearing
by registered mail to their Gulf Stream residence. However, the Wynnes did not receive actual notice
of the hearing due to circumstances that were beyond their control.
4. The return receipt for the notice was stamped August 14, 2003. It was signed by the
Wynnes' caretaker.
5. At the time, the Wynnes were in Indianapolis, so the caretaker forwarded the letter
to Mr. Wynne's administrative assistant in Indianapolis. The letter arrived at approximately the same
time that Mr. Wynne was admitted to the hospital for surgery.
6. Mr. Wynne suffered life - threatening complications following his surgery. Mr. Wynne
was released from intensive care just last week, following an ordeal that included time in a coma and
on a respirator.
7. As a result of his condition, Mr. Wynne did not receive the notice of hearing.
Additionally, in the confusion, no one forwarded the notice to the Wynnes' counsel, who have been
representing the Wynnes with regard to this matter for more than a year.
8. Making matters worse, although the Town was and is well aware that Mr. David
Dickenson of Dickenson, Murphy, Rex, and Sloan, and Ms. Wendy Larsen and Mr. Todd Messenger
of Siemon & Larsen, P.A. are all counsel of record who have communicated with the Town on many
occasions regarding this matter, the Town did not provide courtesy copies of the notice to any of
them.
9. The Town's decision to forego sending courtesy copies to the Wynnes counsel is a
departure from its established pattern in this matter. Most of the communication has been with the
-1) -
F
I
r-,
1
J
Wynnes' attorneys. The record of the prodeedings show this —the Statement of Violation andNotice
of Hearing dated August 5, 2003 states that the Town had previously delivered notices, not to the
Wynnes, but to the Wynnes' counsel — on April 25, 2002 and on May 16, 2002. See Exhibit A.
10. Siemon & Larsen was made aware of the code enforcement hearing on the afternoon
of September 8, 2003, when Todd Messenger called Town Attorney John Randolph with regard to
an unrelated matter, and the Town Attorney noted that no one was present on behalf of the Wynnes
at the Gulf Stream code enforcement hearing earlier in the day.
11. The Statement of Violation and Notice of Hearing provides in part:
If you wish to have the Special Master RECONSIDER your case for
any reason... an APPLICATION AND THE APPROPRIATE FEE
MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM
FOR ANY SUCH REQUESTS. ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR
SUCH REQUEST MUST BE MET FOR THE SPECIAL MASTER
TO RECONSIDER YOUR CASE.
See Exhibit A.
12. On September 12, 2003, Todd Messenger sent a written request for all required
application materials for a rehearing. See Exhibit B.
13. On September 15, 2003, the Town Attorney responded by letter, stating that the Town
does not have a form for the petition, and that the Wynnes should seek rehearing by contacting
Special Master Paulette Torcivia directly. The Town Attorney recommended that the petition for
rehearing should request that the hearing take place on September 26, 2003. See Exhibit C.
III.
THE WYNNES ARE NOT VIOLATING
THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM CODE.
14. The Wynnes respectfully submit that fundamental fairness requires a rehearing in this
matter because:
511
a. the Wynnes' addre §s signg'are specifically permitted by the Town's Code, and
b. by calling the Wynnes' address signs "architectural features," the Town
tortures Section 66- 141(2)f. (attached as Exhibit D) of the Town Code — and in the same
breath nullifies the provisions of the Code which are actually relevant and applicable — all
in an attempt to single the Wynnes' address signs out because members of the Town's
Architectural Review and Planning Board simply do not like them.
15. Put another way, if the Wynnes address signs are "architectural features" and not
"address signs," then so is every other address sign in Gulf Stream. If that is the case, then:
a. Sections 66 -1 (defining address signs), 66- 446(a) (permitting address signs),
and 66 -327 (permitting address signs within the North Ocean Boulevard Overlay District)
(these sections are attached as Exhibit E), of the Town's Code are legal nullities, and
b. every other property owner in Gulf Stream is in violation of the Town's Code.
16. The Wynnes respectfully submit that there is no way such a construction' was
intended when Section 66- 141(2)f was adopted.
17. Still, the Wynnes have volunteered to undergo any review process that may be
specifically applicable to address signs. In April 2003, Mr. Messenger called the Town on behalf of
the Wynnes and requested application materials for approval of an address sign.
18. By letter dated May 1, 2003, the Town Manager responded that "[the Town does] not
have any forms for the approval of address signs," and stated further that "the Town does not
consider the Wynnes' etched glass design ... to be an address sign, but rather a part of the
architectural features of the structure which are reviewable by ARPB." The Town Manager
demanded that the Wynnes respond to his letter by May 9, 2003 regarding their intent to comply
with the Town Code. See Exhibit F.
0
19. By letter dated May 9, 2003, Mr. Messenger provided the response the Town
Manager demanded. Mr. Messenger explained why the Wynnes address signs are very specifically
permitted by the Town's Code, citing to Sections 66 -1 (defining signs), Section 66- 446(a)
(permitting address signs), and Section 66 -327 (permitting address signs within the North Ocean
Boulevard Overlay District). See Exhibit G. Mr. Messenger also reminded the Town that it had not
provided a specific citation that supports its position regarding the Wynnes' alleged code violation,
and that the Wynnes intend to keep their signs in place because they are permitted to do so by the
Town's Code.
20. Almost a month later, the Town sent a "Notice of Violation" (dated June 3, 2003),
alleging that the Wynnes were in violation of Section 66- 141(2)f of the Town Code, "which
provides that new entrance gates along State Road AIA require a Level 2 Architectural /Site Plan
Review." The notice demanded that the Wynnes "alter the design of the entrance columns to
conform to the design that was approved on September 27, 2001 within 15 days." See Exhibit H.
21. By letter dated June 9, 2003, Mr. Messenger responded that the Wynnes had not
installed "new entrance gates," and therefore they are in full compliance with Section 66- 141(2)f.
of the Town Code. See Exhibit I. What the Wynnes did was attach address signs to their gates (which
are constructed according to the approved plans), as specifically permitted by Sections 66- 446(a) and
66 -327 of the Town Code. The signs, according to the Town Manager's letter dated May 1, 2003,
are not subject to Town review and approval. As such, the letter requested that the Town withdraw
the notice, given the fact that the Wynnes are in full compliance with the Town Code.
22. The Town did not respond to Mr. Messenger's letter.
23. Instead, almost two months later, the Town sent a "Statement of Violation and Notice
of Hearing" to the Wynne residence. The notice, dated August 5, 2003 again asserts a violation of
-5-
Section 66- 141(2)f of the Town Code. See Exhibit A.
24. A few of the Town's letters regarding this matter have carefully described the
Wynnes' address signs as "architectural features," apparently in an attempt to dodge the clear
application of Sections 66 -1, 66- 446(a) and 66 -327 of the Town Code (which specifically permit
address signs). Exhibit F. The Town has even gone so far as to describe the installation of Wynnes'
address signs as "installation of new entry gates." Exhibit H.
25. The Wynnes respectfully submit that the old adage "a rose by any other name ..."
applies with overwhelming force in this case. The signs are not "architectural features" — they are
just signs.
26. Try as it might, even the Town cannot resist this obvious fact. On the face of the
Statement of Violation and Notice of Hearing, the Town states that the violation of Section 66-
141(2)f is alleged because:
etched glass signs were attached to each column which were not a
part of the design that was approved.
Exhibit A (emphasis added).
27. The record of the September 8, 2003 code enforcement proceeding also includes the
letter from the Town Manager to Mr. Peter Ince regarding this matter (dated April 25, 2002), which
states:
I write this in reference to the house number signs at the above
property. The signs, as indicated on the enclosed pictures, were not
on the original application. A request for the signs must be submitted
and approved by the Architectural Review and Planning Board.
Exhibit J (emphasis added).
28. Although the record of the code enforcement proceeding is actually sufficient to
demonstrate that the Wynnes are in full compliance with the Town's Code, the Town apparently did
In
not provide the special master's with a copy of the applicable portion of Section 66 -1, which defines
a "sign" as "any ... announcement ... or communication produced ... by affixing ... a structure
... on any other structure, or .. by attaching on or posting ... any printed, lettered, pictured,
figured, or colored material on any building, structure, or surface."
29. The Wynnes submit that the Town's definition of "sign" demonstrates that Sections
66- 446(a) and 66 -327 of the Town's Code are the applicable law in this case. The Wynnes explained
this to the Town in their letters dated May 9, 2003 and June 9, 2003, (Exhibits G and I, respectively).
The letters are conspicuously absent from the record of the code enforcement proceedings.
IV.
CONCLUSION.
30. Put simply, the reason that the Wynnes were not represented at the September 8, 2003
hearing was because, given the combination of Mr. Wynne's dire circumstances and the Town's
failure to notify the Wynnes' counsel of record in this matter with a courtesy copy of the notice, no
one knew about it.
31. The Wynnes respectfully submit that the allegation that they are in violation of the
Town's Code because they did not receive Architectural Review and Planning Board approval for
their address signs is outrageous. Moreover, the Town's one -sided presentation and selective record
on September 8, 2003 did not fairly represent the true facts and applicable law.
32. The Wynnes further submit that the Town will not be prejudiced by a rehearing, as
their address signs do not present a hazardous condition.
33. The Wynnes believe that fairness dictates that they should be given an opportunity
to present their side of the merits of the case to the special master.
-7-
c
WHEREFORE, the Wynnes respbctfully request a rehearing of the merits of this matter on
September 26, 2003.
Respectfully submitted this 1'7 day of September, 2003, by:
SIEMON & LARSEN, P.A.
Mizner Park
433 Plaza Real, Suite 339
Boca Rato nda 33432
(561 8 -3808
Fa simile (561) td8 -400,
BY: V
7 Todd G.lMdssenger
I Florida Var No. 0385514
Attorney for Respondent
V.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Motion for
Rehearing has been fiunished by first class United States mail to:
Rita Taylor, Town Clerk John Randolph, Town Attorney
Town -of Gulf-Stream - - - - -- -- Jones,- Foster,- Johnston - &- Stubbs, P. -A.
100 Sea Road PO Box 3475
Gulf Stream, Florida 33483 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
on this day of September, 2003.
SIEMPN & LARSEN, �
13
Todd G. Messenger
Florida Bar No. 0385514
Attorney for Respondent
G
t
F
EXHIBIT LIST
EXHIBIT
DESCRIPTION
A
Statement of Violation and Notice of Hearing, dated August 5, 2003
B
Letter from Todd Messenger to Rita Taylor, dated September 12, 2003
C
Letter from John Randolph to Todd Messenger, dated September 15, 2003
D
Section 66- 141(2)f., Town of Gulf Stream Code
E
Sections 66 -1, 66- 446(a), and 66 -327, Town of Gulf Stream Code
F
Letter from William Thrasher to Todd Messenger, dated May 1, 2003
G
Letter from Todd Messenger to William Thrasher, dated May 9, 2003
H
Notice of Violation, dated June 3, 2003
I
Letter from Todd Messenger to William Thrasher, dated June 9, 2003
J
Letter from William Thrasher to Peter Ince, dated April 25, 2002
C
C
J
C
- 1
J
1
I
Town�of Gulf Stream
100 Sea Road
Gulf Stream, FL 33483
Phone (561) 276 -5116 Fax (561) 737 -0188
CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MASTER
TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA
CASE: CE 4 -03 August 5, 2003
STATEMENT OF VIOLATION AND NOTICE OF HEARING
Pursuant to Section 2 -75 of the Town of Gulf Stream Code of Ordinance, the undersigned herby gives
notice of uncorrected violation(s) of the Town of Gulf Stream Code(s) and more particular described
herein, and requests a PUBLIC HEARING before the CODE ENFOECEMENT SPECIAL MASTER
of the Town.
1. Location/Address where violation(s) exist(s): 1511 North Ocean Blvd. Gulf Stream FL 33483
2. Legal
I
3. Name and address of owner /person in charge where violation(s) exist(s): John W. and Barbara S.
Wynne, 1511 N. Ocean Blvd Gulf Stream Florida 33483
4. Violation of Town Code Section(s) and d_escription(s): Section 66- 1410f provides that new
entrance gates along State Road AIA require a Level 2 Architectural/Site Plan Review. A design
was "approved by the ARPB and columns were constructed inspected and approved
Subsequently, etched glass signs were attached to each column' which were not a part of the design
that was approved.
(SEE ATTACHED "EXHIBIT OF'VIOLATIONS ")
5. Date of first inspection: April 25, 2002
Town of Gulf Stream
C YOU MUST NOTIFY THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM AT (561) 276 -5116 ON OR BEFORE
August 31, 2003 1 , THAT THE PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY
C YOU AND DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE IS NO LONGER IN VIOLATION OF TOWN
CODES AND THAT YOU ARE REQUESTING A REINSPECTION.
C IF THE VIOLATION(S) IS /ARE NOT CORRECTED IN THE TIME SPECIFIED FOR
CORRECTION, OR IF THE VIOLATIONS) IS /ARE CORRECTED AND THEN RECURS,
THE CASE MAY BE PRESENTED TO THE SPECIAL MASTER EVEN IF THE VIOLATION
(S) HAVE BEEN CORRECTED PRIOR TO THE SPECIAL MASTER HEARING.
IF YOU FAIL TO NOTIFY THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, IT WILL BE PRESUMED BY
THE CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MASTER THAT THE PARCEL OF REAL
PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND OWNED BY YOU CONTINUES TO BE
VIOLATION.
If the Special Master finds that you have committed a violation, he/she may order IMMEDIATE
COMPLIANCE with the Code and if you fail to comply with such order within the time period set
forth therein, he/she can IMPOSE A FINE OF UP TO $250.00 PER DAY for each violation
remaining in non - compliance.
If the Town is successful in prosecuting your case before the Special Master, FINES WILL BE
IMPOSED BY THE SPECIAL MASTER. SUCH FINES SHALL CONSTITUTE A LIEN ON
ANY REAL OR PERSONAL, PROPERTY OWNED BY YOU. FAILURE TO PAY SUCH
FINES CAN RESULT IN FORECLOSURE AND COLLECTION ACTION BY THE TOWN.
If you disagree with a decision of the Special Master, you may appeal to the CIRCUIT COURT OF
PALM BEACH _COUNTY within30_(thirty)DAYS- after -the- Special - Master's- Order -is- entered:
If you wish to have the Special Master RECONSIDER your case for any reason or if your case was
in fine and now complied and you wish to request a REDUCTION IN FINE an APPLICATION
AND THE APPROPRIATE FEE MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM
FOR ANY SUCH REQUESTS. ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH REQUEST MUST BE
MET FOR THE SPECIAL MASTER TO RECONSIDER YOUR CASE.
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Special.Master with respect to any matters
considered at subject meeting, they will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose,
thev may nerd to rncnrr that a vor} atim runn.A ..r tw.. ------ a:___ :_ ___ _.,_ .
[.. 966441
GULF STREAM CODE
r
cantly different in color, texture,'or
and perimeter walls parallel to AIA
l
appearance than the existing mate -
that are within the 50 -foot North
pals.
Ocean Boulevard Overlay District;
re.
Changes in exterior wall, roofing,
g.
Development proposals which other -
l.
window or door colors which do not
wise would require a level 1 archi-
require a building permit;
tectural/site plan review but which
j f.
Increases or decreases in impervious
also require a sign review;
surface areas or changes in impervi-
h.
Development proposals which other -
ous surface materials;
wise would require a level 1 archi-
g.
Walls, fences and driveway gates not
tecturallsite plan review but which,
in the opinion of the planning and
--
within the North Ocean Boulevard
building administrator, warrant a
Overlay District.
level 2 architectural/site plan review
h.
Minor improvements and landscap-
due to the d'evelopment's potential
ing along AlA and fences or walls
impacts.
along side property lines that are
(3) Projects'requiring level 3 architectural/
within the 50 -foot North Ocean Bou-
site plan reuiem:
levard Overlay District.
a.
New primary structures;
i.
Removal of up to two trees over eight
inches provided that
b.
Expansions of existing primary or
replacer,
posed. replacement tree(s) are pro-
pro-
accessory structures of greater than
posed.
50 percent of the existing total floor
area on the ro e
P P rtY;
(2) Projects requiring level 2 architectural/
C.
Demolitions of existing primary or
site
plan review.
accessory structures of greater than
a.
Detached, habitable, minor acces-
50 percent of the existing total floor
sary structures;
area on the property;
b.
Expansions of existing primary or
d.
Development proposals which re-
accessory structures of greater than
quire a variance;
300 square feet or ten-percent—of the
a
Development propos which re-
existing total floor area on the prop-
quire a special exception;
ertN but not larger than 50 percent;
f.
Development proposals which are the
C.
Demolitions of existing primary or
subject of a development agreement;
accessory structures of greater than
g.
Development proposals which re-
300 square feet or ten percent of the
quire a subdivision;
existing total floor area on the prop-
erty but not more than 50 percent;
h.
Development proposals which re-
quire an amendment to the official
d.
Projects which utilize design styles,
zoning map;
elements or materials in a manner
classified as discouraged by the Gulf
i.
Development proposals which re-
Stream Design Manual in the appli-
quire an amendment to the future
cable zoning district;
land use map of the comprehensive
plan;
e.
Removal of more than two trees of
j.
Development proposals which are
over eight inches in caliper, or re-
deemed developments of regional im-
moval of any trees where replace-
pact pursuant to F.S. § 380.06 or
ment trees are not proposed. Not-
which are subject to review for extra-
.
withstanding the foregoing, removal
jurisdictional impacts under the pro-
or alteration of more than 50 percent
visions of the intergovernmental co-
of vegetation on a site requires level
ordination element of the adopted
III approval.
comprehensive plan;
f.
New entrance gates along AlA, ma-
k.
Clearing of more than 50 percent of
jor landscaping additions or removal
a site's existing vegetation;
Supp. No. 1
CD66:32
[ ..
Tk§
D.
\
R % /
/
,
\
}(
& &
!
\
\
Lk-
\
\
(
}}E\em
kja
.
�
e
«
.
l £
0.
f
fE
\/
(P)C4
0,
I
❑\
(eo
® °
Jf
ru
/
!
{
Ln
/
C3
\
\ 2 7
m
C3 .
S
\ 7
k
D.
ƒ
S
rL
\
Lk-
\
\
.
�
e
«
.
.
f
\ 7
k
\
Lk-
em
(( {
`
f=
fE
I
❑\
(eo
Jf
!
|�
w�F1,e-
C SIEMON & LARSEN, P.A.
(j Mizner Park
u 433 Plaza Real, Suite 336, Born Raton, Florida 33432
Telephone (561) 368 -3808 - Facsimile (561) 368 -4008
E -Mail - infoQsiemonlarsen.com
C
C September 12, 2003
VIA FACSIMILEAND US MAIL 561- 737 -0188
Rita Taylor, Town Clerk
C Town of Gulf Stream
100 Sea Road
Gulf Stream, Florida 33483
Dear Ms. Taylor:
Thank you for faxing copies of the materials related to the September 8, 2003 code enforcement
special master hearing regarding the Wynne's address signs (1511 North Ocean Boulevard). We note that
page 2 of th e Statement of Violation and Notice of Hearing states in part:
If you wish to have the Special Master RECONSIDER your case for any
reason... an APPLICATION AND THE APPROPRIATE FEE MUST BE
SUBMITTED TO THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM FOR ANY SUCH
REQUESTS. ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH REQUEST MUST BE
MET FOR THE SPECIAL MASTER TO RECONSIDER YOUR CASE.
As we discussed by telephone earlier this week, Mr. Wynne is critically ill. He is in intensive care
in Indianapolis due to severe complications from a recent surgery. His ordeal apparently began at
approximately the same time the caretaker at his Gulf Stream residence forwarded the Town's notice to him,
_. and in the confusion the notice was never sent to his attorneys. Accordingly, the Wynne's were not
represented at -the code enforcement hearing because -Mr.. Wynne'sattomeys did not know-about-it
The Statement of Violation and Notice of Hearing indicates that the Town had previously provided
notice of the alleged violation to "Atty. Dickenson, representing Wynne, May 16, 2002." We do not
understand why the Town saw fit to contact Mr. Dickenson in 2002, but did not see fit to provide notice to
Mr. Dickenson, Ms. Larsen, or myself — all of whom, your records will show, have been representing the
Wynne's in this matter for many months — before taking official action in the form of a special master
hearing.
We believe that fundamental fairness requires that this matter be reheard. As such, we respectfully
request that the Town provide us the portions of the Town Code which contain "ALL REQUIREMENTS
FOR SUCH REQUEST," including the amount of the appropriate fee.
Please fax the requirements and application form to us at (561) 368 -4008.
Todd
cc: David Dickenson, Esq.
John Randolph, Esq., Town Attorney
William Thrasher, Town Manager
JONES
FOSTER
JOHNSTON
& STUBBS, P.A.
Attorneys and Counselors
John C. Randolph, Esquire
Direct Dial: 561 -650 -0458
Direct Fax: 561- 650 -0465
E -Mail: jandolph @jones- foster.com
September 15, 2003
Todd Messenger, Esquire
Siemon & Larsen, P.A.
433 Plaza Real, Suite 339
Boca Raton, Florida 33432
Re: Town of Gulf Stream
John W. and Barbara S. Wynne
1511 North Ocean Boulevard
Our File No. 13147.1
Dear Todd:
Hagler Center Tower, Suite 1100
505 South Hagler Drive
WAstPalm Beach, Florida 33401
Telephone (561) 659 -3000
VIA FAX: 561 - 368 -4008
Mailing Address
Post Office Box 3475
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 -3475
I understand you have been speaking with Rita Taylor in regard to a petition for
rehearing. The Town does not have a form for the petition. It is my recommendation
that you simply file a petition for rehearing with Paulette Torcivia in regard to her Order
and request that the matter be heard at the hearing scheduled for September 26, 2003.
You may contact Paulette Torcivia at Northpoint Corporate Center, 701 Northpoint
Parkway, Suite 209, West Palm Beach, Florida 33407. Her telephone number is 561-
686 -8700.
Sincerely,
JONES, FOSTER, JOHNSTON & STUBBS, P.A.
John C. Randolph
JCR/ssm
Enclosure
cc: Rita Taylor, Town Clerk
www.jones foster.com
p 10 03 10:43a Town of Gulf Stream 561 737 0188 p.l
e '
RECEIVED
CODE ENFORCEMENT ORDER SEP 10 2003
TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA
JONES, FOSTER, JOHNSTON
ORDER FINDING VIOLATION & STUBBS
TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
Petitioner,
Case No. CE -4 -03
V.
JOHN W. AND BARBARA S. WYNNE,
Respondents.
Re: Violation of Section 66 -141 (2) f, of the Code of Ordinances of the Town of Gulf Stream.
Address: 1511 North Ocean Blvd.
Gulf Stream, Florida
Legal Description: N. 82' Lot 1, Blk. D R cv Plat Blk D & Blk E Palm Bch Shore
Acres & S 68' Govt. Lot 1 Sec. 10 Twns. 46 South Range 43
East Palm Beach Co. Fl., East of Ocean Blvd.
The Special Master appointed by the Town Council to hear code enforcement cases
for the Town of Gulf Stream, in accordance with Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, has heard testimony
at the Code Enforcement Hearing held on the 8' day of September, 2003, and based on the evidence
and testimony presented, the following FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, and
ORDER are hereby entered:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Respondents, John W. and Barbara S. Wynne, were not present al the
hearing, however, there was a finding of proper notice.
2. The Town Manager, William Thrasher, testified to and introduced
photographs of the violation.
Sep 10 03 10:43a Town of Gulf Stream 561 737 Oise p.2
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondents are in violation of Section 66 -141 (2) > of the Code of Ordinances of
the Town of Gulf Stream.
•M
It is the Order of the Code Enforcement Special Master that Respondents, Jo',m W.
and Barbara S. Wynne, shall comply with Section 66 -141 (2) f, of the Code of Ordinances of the
Town of Gulf Stream by the 23d day of September, 2003.
If Respondents do not complywithin the time specified, a fine ofone - hundred- fifty -
dollars ($150.00) per day shall be assessed for each day the violation continues to exist.
A Fine Assessment Hearing will be held before the Special Master on the 26"' clay of
September, 2003, at the Town of Gulf Stream, 100 Sea Road, Gulf Stream, Florida, at 10:00 a.m.
The Town is hereby awarded their administrative costs, the amount ofwhich will be
determined at the Fine Assessment Hearing.
A certified copy of this Order maybe recorded in the Public Records of Palm Beach
County, Florida, and, once recorded, shall constitute a lien against the property of the original
amount upon which the violation existed and upon any other real or persona] property owned by the
Respondent, pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes for the original amount.
Upon complying, it is the responsibility of the Respondents to notify the Gulf Stream
Code Enforcement Clerk at (561) 276 -5116 to request a reinspection of the property.
DONE AND ORDERED this 8 " day of September, 2003.
TOWN OF GULF STREAM
CODE ENFORCEMENT
BY: 107G'r.Iri'� _
Special Master
h �. Gb. GVJU'J
66-111
7•�CHI'1 ivnI z rvDiGm JVt'9101VIt a
C,tW STREAM CODE
rantly different in color, teticture, or
appearance than the existing mate
rials.
e. Changes in exterior wall, rooi -mg,
window or door colors which do not
require a building Permit;
f. Increases or decreases in impervious
surface areas or changes in impervi-
ous surface materials;
Walls, fences and driveway gates not
within the North Ocean Boulevard
Overlay District-
b_ 'Minor improvements and landscap-
ing along A1A and fences or walls
along side property lines that are
within the 50 -foot North Ocean Bou-
levard Overlay District -
i 'Removal of up to two trees over eight
inches in caliper, provided that rea-
sonable replacement tree(s) are pro-
Posed-
(2) projects requv'zng level 2 architecturall
site plan revzcm.
a. Detached, habitable, minor acces-
sory structures; or
b. S xpansions of evsting r>m� than
accessory structures of greater
300 square feet or ten percent of the
existing total floor area on the prop-
erty, but not larger than 50 percent;
c. Demolitions Of 'fisting primary or
accessory structures of greater than
300 square feet or ten percent of the
existing total floor area on the proP-
erty but not more than 50 percent;
d projects which utilize design styles,
elements or materials in a manner
classified as discouraged by the Gulf
Stream Design 'Manual in the appli-
cable zoning district;
e. Removal of more than two trees of
over eight inches in caliper, or re-
moval of any trees where replace-
ment trees are not proposed. Not-
withstanding the foregoing, removal
or alteration Of more than 50 percent
Of vegetation on a site requires level
III approval.
£ l andscaping entrance gates
ma-
jor additions or removal
l
and perimeter walls parallel to ALL
that are within the 50 -foot North
Ocean Boulevard Overlay District;
g. Development proposals which other-
wise would require a level i archi-
tecLu al/site plan review but which
also require a sign review;
ly Development proposals which other-
wise would require a level 1 archi-
teetarallsite plan review but which,
in the opinion of the planning
building ar7ministrator, warrant a
level 2 architecturaVsite plan review
due to the development's potential
impacts.
(3) projects requiring level 3 architecturalI
site plan reuiew.
a_ New primary structures;
b. Expansions of e3'sting rimary or
accessory structures of greater
50 percent of the e fisting total floor
area on the property;
C. Demolitions of existing Prom` or
accessory structures of greater than
50 percent of the existing total floor
area on the property,
d. Development proposals which re-
quire a variance;
e. Development proposals which re-
quire a special exception;
f. Development proposals which are the
subject of a development agreement;
g. Development proposals which re-
quire asubdivision;
h Development proposals which re-
quire an amendment to the official
zoning map;
i Development proposals which re-
quire an amendment to the future
land use map of the comprehensive
j
Development proposals which are
deemed developments of regional im-
pact pursuant to F.S. § 380.06 or
which are snbj review t
jurisdictional impacts u he pro -
visions of the intergoveznmental co-
ordination element of the adopted
comprehensive plan;
lL Clearing of more than 50 percent of
a site's existing vegetation;
CD66:32
Suap. No. 1
$ 66-142
ZONING
L Development proposals which other-
wise require a level 2 architectural/
site plazi review but which in the review
opinion n g b architectural a level
and planning
3 architecturallsite plan review due
to the project's potential impacts.
(Ord. No. 95-1, § 2,1- 30 -95; Ord. No. 00 -1, §§ 10-
13, 3- 10 -00)
Sec. 66.142. Review authorities.
(a) Level 1 architectural/ site plan review. The
planning and building administrator shall act as
the final review authority an all applications for
level l architecturallsite plan reviews pursuant to
the provisions of the section.
(b) Level 2 architectural /site plan review. The
architectural review and planning board shall act
as the final review authority on all applications
CD66:32.1
Supp. No. i
F
C
IJ
7
J
J
J'
g s6 -1
vu.... oinsuun
Public utility shall mean any publicly or pri-
vately' owned utility such as, but not limited to,
storm drainage, sanitary sewers, electric power,
water service, gas service, telephone lines; whether
underground or overhead.
Record lot. See Iiot of record.
Recreational vehicle shall mean a vehicular
type unit primarily designed for recreational,
camping or travel use, which either has its own
motive power or is mounted on or drawn by
another vehicle. The basic entities are: travel
trailer, camping trailer, truck camper, and motor
home, boat, all- terrain vehicle (ATVs)..
Residence. See Dwelling.
Residential use shall mean use of land or
structures thereon, or portion thereof, for residen-
tial occupancy of a permanent or semipermanent
nature; but not including occupancy of a transient
nature such as in hotels or time- sharing uses.
Restrictive, more (less), shall mean a regulation
imposed by this chapter is more (less) restrictive
than another if it prohibits or limits development
to a greater (leaser) extent or by means of more
(less) detailed specifications.
Right -of -way shall mean a street, alley or other
thoroughfare or easement, whether physically
_ accessible or not,.which has been permanently
established or dedicated for the passage of per-
__ sons or vehicles. Title to this land remains with
the public until the need no longer exists and is
thereby abandoned.
Sand dunes shall mean naturally occurring
accumulations of sand in ridges or mounds land -
ward of the beach.
Satellite television antenna system shall mean
a system of equipment designed to receive satel-
lite television and radio signals for distribution to
private residences including both single - family
dwellings and multifamily dwellings. Satellite
television antenna system does not apply to cable
television systems which are governed by sepa-
rate franchise and federal regulations.
Screening (concealing) shall mean a structure
of metal, masonry, wood, landscape planting or
other suitable opaque material, for the purpose of
totally concealing from view those areas so
screened.
Setback shall mean the horizontal distance
between the front line, side line or rear line of the
building site to the front, side or rear of the
building or structure respectfiilly. Setbacks shall
be measured perpendicular to and parallel with
property or right -of -way lines. For purposes of
calculating setback distances, the beginning point
of measurement shall be the wall of the building
or structure unless the bay window, bow window,
fireplace, chimney or save extends greater than
2Y2 feet from the wall of the building or structure,
in which case the edge of the bay window, bow
window, fireplace, chimney or save minus 2112 feet
shall constitute the beginning point of measure-
ment. For purposes of this chapter, bay and bow
windows are limited to one -third of the length of
the wall of the building or structure.
Setback, centerline. See Street centerline set-
back.
Sign shall mean any advertisement, Announce-
ment, direction, or communication produced in
whole or in part by the construction, erection,
affixing, or placing of a structure on any land or
water or on any other structure, or produced by
(attaching on or posting or placing any printed,
'lettered, pictured, figured, or colored material on
any building, structure or surface> Signs placed or
erected by governmental agenc54s or nonprofit
civic associations for a public purpose in the
public interest shall not be included herein, nor
shall this include signs which are a part of the
architectural design of a building. Every sign,
ground sign, wall sign, roof sign, illuminated sign,
projecting sign, temporary sign and street clock
shall include any announcement, declaration, dem-
onstration, display, illustration or insignia used to
advertise or promote the interests of any person
when the same is placedin view of-the- general
public are included in this definition.
Single - family dwelling. See Dwelling, single -
family.
Site or development plan shall mean a graphic
and informative representation of a specific de-
sign solution for an entire project or development
phase thereof, which meets the requirements and
conditions of the applicable sections of this chap-
ter.
Special exception shall mean a use that would
not be appropriate generally or without restric-
tion throughout the zoning district, but which, if
controlled as to number, area, location, or relation
to the neighborhood, would promote the public
health, safety, welfare, morals, order, comfort,
convenience, appearance, prosperity or the gen-
eral welfare of the district and the community.
Such uses may be permitted in such zoning dis-
CD66:14
8)
front yard driveway for a period not ex-
ceeding four hours in any one 24 -hour
period.
None of the vehicles or equipment de-
scribed in this section may be parked on a
vacant lot within the town; however, such
equipment may be parked on a lot adja-
cent to a lot containing a single - family
residence subject to a unity of title being
executed by the owner thereto and re-
corded in the public records of the county,
such unity of title tying thereto the vacant
lot and the adjacent property containing
the single - family residence. Any of the
equipment described in this section which
is parked on the vacant lot shall comply
with all provisions of this section.
.b) This section shall not apply to the parking
vans and similar types of vehicles used prima -
for personal transportation rather than com-
-cial purposes.
rd. No. 83 -1, § 2(X, L, 1), 4 -8 -83; Ord. No. 92-4,
P.. 9- 28 -92; Ord. No. 00 -1, § 22, 3- 10 -00)
. 66 -417. Same On public property; ex-
ceptions.
EL) No commercial vehicle or truck over three -
arter -ton rated capacity, may be parked on any
operty or right -of -way within the town.
b) This restriction shall not apply to:
(1) The temporary parking of such vehicles
on private property in residential areas
whereon construction is underway for
which a current and valid building permit
has been issued by the town and such
permit is properly displayed on the pre-
mises.
'2) Routine deliveries by tradesmen or the
use of trucks in making service calls,
providing that such time period is actu-
ally in the course of business deliveries or
servicing, as the case may be.
3) The parking of emergency vehicles, pro-
viding that the time parked is actually
necessary for the emergency.
4) A situation where such vehicle becomes
disabled and, as a result of such emer-
gency, is required to be parked within a
residential district for longer than the
time allowed herein. However, any such
vehicles shall be removed from the resi-
dential district within 24 hours by wrecker
ZONING § 66-446
towing, if necessary, regardless of the na-
ture of the emergency; and the cost of
such towing shall be at the expense of the
owner of the vehicle.
(Ord. No. 83 -1, § 2(X, L, 2), 48 -83)
Secs. 66- 418 -66 -430. Reserved.
DIVISION 6. SETBACKS
Sec. 66 -431. State Road AlA.
(a) There is hereby fixed the setback distance
for the construction and erection of buildings and
improvements along the right -of- -way of State
Road ALA through the town at 78 feet from the
centerline of the road unless otherwise specified
in the Code.
(b) No building permit shall be granted by the
town for the construction of buildings or other
improvements within 78 feet of the centerline of
State Road AlA.
(c) Any buildings, improvements or facilities
now existing which are located within a distance
of less than 78 feet from the centerline of State
Road AIA are classified as nonconforming uses,
but such uses shall not be extended and all future
changes or alterations shall conform to the set-
back line.
(Ord. No. 83 -1, § 2(X, D, 1 -3), 4 -8 -83; Ord. No.
00 -1, § 23, 3- 10 -00)
Sec. 66 -432. Coastal areas.
Construction in coastal areas of the town must
comply with all of the provisions of the "Palm
Beach County Coastal Construction and Excava-
tion Setback Ordinance No. 72 -12" and the con-
struction control line established by the state
bureau of beaches and shores, which ordinance or
its successor shall prevail in the absence of a
conflicting town ordinance.
(Ord. No. 83 -1, § 2(X, D, 2), 4 -8 -83)
Secs. 66- 433 -66 -445. Reserved.
DIVISION 7. SIGNS
Sec. 66 -446. Restriction generally.
(a) The erection, display and maintenance of a
sign on any property or building within the town
is prohibited except the following, which are per-
mitted:
(1) Signs required by the town or other gov-
ernmental agencies where required by
). No. 1 CD66:65
E
§ 66-446
GULF STREAM CODE
law and those which are necessary and
incidental to the performance of govern-
mental activities and responsibilitids.,
(2) Signs required by a club designating and
namin'the club as well as those signs
providing notice to the public designed to
prevent trespassing and/or the use of the
club's property by persons other than those
authorized by such club.
(3) Signs required by owners of private prop-
erty including their agents and contrac-
tors shall be limited to:
a. Only one real estate sign, which shall
be removed within 48 hours of the
sale `or rental of the property on
which the sign is located.
b. Only one sign which identifies con-
tractors and/or subcontractors and
their building or renovation activi-
ties only in relation to such activities
as are being conducted on the partic-
ular property on which the sign is to
be erected, displayed and main-
tained. Such sign shall be perma-
nently removed prior to the issuance
of a certificate of occupancy or final
inspection for the building or reno-
vation activity described on the sign.
(4) Owners of private property may erect,
display and maintain a sign identifying
their name or ownership, entrance and
exit roads and street number identifying
such property.
(b) Except for the designation of resident name,
property owner, location,,or address, the erection,
display, and maintenance of an illuminated sign
on any property is strictly prohibited.
(Ord. No. 83 -1, § 2(X, C), 4 -8 -83)
Sec. 66 -447. Specifications for permitted
signs.
Any real estate sign offering property for sale
or rent may be double -sided in design, however, it
shall not exceed two square feet in total dimen-
sion. Color of signs shall be a white background
with black lettering thereon. There shall be no
raised lettering. Further, no such real estate sign
shall be extended or hung from a pole or poles, but
shall be enclosed within a metal frame. The
supporting member of the frame of the sign shall
be installed into the ground to provide that the
top of the face of such sign shall not be more than
four feet above the finished grade of the ground.
Supp. No. 1 CD66:66
Real estate signs shall consist of one sign only,
and there shall be no accessory signs attached
thereto or located within the frame in which the
real estate sign is enclosed. Any other sign per-
mitted herein shall not exceed a dimension of six
square feet and shall be single -sided in design. All
real estate signs must be located on the premises
of the property being advertised for sale, no such
signs being allowed on the public right -of -way or
off -site. Any sign erected, displayed or maintained
in violation of this section shall constitute a
violation of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 83 -1, § 2QX C), 4 -8 -83; Ord. No. 92.3,
§ 1, 9- 28 -92)
Sec. 66 -448. Approval required.
Except for the placement of real estate signs,
all signs shall first be reviewed and approved by
the architectural reivew and planning board prior
to the placement of such signs.
(Ord. No. 83 -1, § 2(X, C), 4 -8 -83)
c
An beginning at Sea Road on the
•iding to Pelican Lane on the south;
feet east and west from the east and
Ps of the right -of -way of Al2: (North
Lrd), such overlay district to include
.way.
6, § 1, 10- 21 -91)
Permit— Required.
odification or addition of signifi-
featuresin the North Ocean Bou-
ay District is prohibited without a
` for the removal and replacement of
:ed trees and vegetation and that
;ult of maintenance of plant materi-
�lawn care, pruning and accepted
iractices. For the purposes of this
_!cant landscape features shall in-
be limited to, trees having a caliper
r greater, masonry walls, ornamen-
iamental shrubs, berms, columns,
driveways or other structures within
-an Boulevard Overlay District.
6, § 2, A, 10- 21 -91)
Same — Application.
for a North Ocean Boulevard Over-
all be made in writing by the owner,
s authorized agent, to the planning
dministrator, and shall include the
tement describing the extent and
for the intended disturbance.
ient photographs of the site and of
ling properties as viewed from the
right -of -way of North Ocean Bou-
,, drawn to scale, showing the area
iisturbed with respect to existing
, oposed buildings, driveways, set-
, street and lot lines; and showing
;m ficant landscape features to be
pd, modified or altered. The plan
Jac show the location, type and size
- proposed plantings and/or struc-
aithin the area to be disturbed.
(6, § 2, B, 10- 21 -91; Ord. No. 00 -1,
Same— Issuance.
.Ocean Boulevard Overlay permit
ntaining the required information
with the town in the same manner
ZONING
§ 66 -327
and be acted upon in the same manner as is
required'by the- town for site plan review. How-
ever, there shall be no charge for a permit for
those seeking authorization for removal, modifi-
cation or destruction. A permit shall be approved
where the town finds that the disturbance will
neither destroy nor seriously impair desirable
visual relationships among buildings, landscape
features and open space, nor introduce incompat-
ible landscape features or plant material that
destroys or impairs significant views or vistas
within the North Ocean Boulevard Overlay Dis-
trict.
(Ord. No. 91 -16, § 2, C, 10- 21 -91; Ord. No. 00 -1,
§ 15, 3- 10 -00)
Sec. 66 -325. Mitigation. T.
If a North Ocean Boulevard Overlay permit is
granted, the town may require mitigation as a
condition of the granting of such a permit. Miti-
gation shall be in a form and manner directed by
the town commission which may require the re-
placement of significant landscape features else-
where on the property within the North Ocean
Boulevard Overlay District in a manner so as to
cause the least impact possible to the visual and
aesthetic quality of the North Ocean Boulevard
Overlay District. Mitigation, for example, may
require the planting of canopy trees or the instal-
lation of other significant landscape features.
COrdNo_91_16,_§ 2, D, 10- 21 -91; Ord. No. 00 -1,
§§ 15, 16, 3- 10 -00)
Sec. 66 -326. Driveway cuts,
within the North Ocean Boulevard Overlay
District only one driveway cut per buildable lot
shall be allowed, the driveway to be situated in a
manner so as to require the least disturbance of
significant landscape features.
(Ord. No. 91 -16, § 2, E, 1, 10- 21 -91)
Sec. 66 -327. Signs.
Signs shall be prohibited within the North
Ocean Boulevard Overlay District, except the
following:
(1) Official road signs, including traffic con-
trol devices, erected by the department of
transportation or by the town having ,ju-
risdiction over the portion of the North
Ocean Boulevard Overlay District ill-,
volved.
CD66:59
(2) -Address signs and signs designating the
Cname_o\r` the owner of an estate or the
§ 66 -32 7
GULF STREAM CODE
name of a condominium or club and signs
necessary to designate entrances and ex-
its.
(3) Signs ;not visible from North Ocean Bou-
levard.
(4) '. Real estate signs which are in conform-
ance with section 66-446 et seq.
(Ord. No. 91 -16, § 2, E, 2, 10- 21 -91)
Sec. 66 -328. Alteration, expansion prohib-
ited-
The alteration or expansion of the physical
dimensions or location of North Ocean Boulevard
within the overlay district is prohibited. This
prohibition shall not preclude ordinary mainte-
nance and repair. 10- 21 -91)
(Ord. No. 91 -16, § 2, E, 3,
Sec. 66 -329. Maintenance.
The provisions of this article shall not restrict
the trimming or removal of vegetation in the
North Ocean Boulevard Overlay District by util-
ities where such trimming or removal is deemed
necessary by the utilities for the maintenance and
protection of utilities located within the corridor.
(Ord. No. 91 -16, § 2,-E, 4, 10- 21 -91)
such property and that such change would negate
the application of zoning requirements relating to
the proposed use, the town may require the prop-
erty owner(s) to execute a unity of title declare -.
tion as a condition precedent to the issuance of a
building permit for the proposed use. The unity of
title declaration shall apply to all the property
necessary for the proposed use, and shall declare
that no portion of said property shall be sold or
transferred by the owner or successors in interest
apart from the whole.
(b) If there is a sale or transfer in contraven-
tion of a unity of title declaration, no building
permit will be issued for any portion of the prop-
erty contained in the unity of title declaration.
Declaration shall remain in effect until a release
of the unity of title declaration is executed by the
town.
(c) The unity of title declaration shall be filed
at the expense of the owner in the public records
of the county. Proof of such filing shall precede the
issuance of a building permit-
(Ord. No. 83 -1, § 2(7, IQ, 4 -8 -83)
Sec. 66 -352. Nuisances-
No use shall be made of any property within
district that shall in any way be offensive or
Sec. 66 -330. Recreational uses.
Recreational uses, including basketball goals,
tennis courts, and swimming pools shall not be
located within the 50 -foot North Ocean Corridor
and shall be completely screened from view of
AIA. All existing tennis courts may remain in
their present location but shall meet the screen-
ing requirements of this section.
(Ord. No. 00 -1, § 17, 3- 10 -00)
Secs. 66- 331-66 -360. Reserved.
ARTICLE VIII. SUPPLEMENTARY
DISTRICT REGULATIONS*
�
DIVISION I. GENERALLY
Sec. 66 -361. Unity of title declaration.
(a) Where it reasonably appears that a certain
proposed use of property, as set forth in an aPPh-
cation for a building permit, may subsequently be
changed by the sale or transfer of a portion of
* Crosa references — Coastal construction code, § 42 -51 at
seq.; marine facilities, structures and places, ch. 52.
Supp. No. 1
an
J
noxious by reason of the emission of any dis-
charge, odor, gas, dust, smoke, vibration or noise;
nor shall .any vehicle be parked or used in any
way that would- constitute -a- nuisance; nor shall
anything be constructed or maintained that would
in any way constitute a nuisance to adjacent
property owners, residents or to the col"'unity
Each use shall be operated so as to lessen the
damage from fire and explosion.
(Ord. No. 83 -1, § 2(%, J), 4-8-83)
Cross reference — Nuisances, ch. 22•
Secs. 66. 363-66 -366. Reserved.
DIVISION 2. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
Sec. 66 -366. Antennas and antenna systems/
structures.
(a) Broadcast receiving antennas or commum-
cation antennas may be permitted in any zoning
district upon site plan review and approval Y the
town commission and upon issuance of a building
permit by the town.
CD66:60
li
"u
COMMISSIONERS
WILLIAM F. KOCH, JR. Mayor
JOAN K. ORTHWEIN, Vice Mayor
FRED B. DEVITT III
ROBERT W. HOPKINS 11
WILLIAM A. LYNCH
May 1, 2003
Todd Messenger
Siemon & Larsen, P.A.
433 Plaza Real, Suite 339
Boca Raton, FL 33432
RE: Mr. and Mrs. John Wynne
1511 North Ocean Boulevard
Etched Glass Entry Columns
Dear Mr. Messenger:
TOWN OF GULF STREAM
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
This is a follow up to recent conversations in regard to this matter.
eG' TGM
Telephone
(561) 276 -5116
Fax
(561) 737 -0188
Town Manager
WILLIAM H
own
[ECIEOVIE kL
MAY 2 E03
THRASHER
Clark
TAYLOR
As you are aware, the Gulf Stream Architectural Review and Planning Board took no action in regard
to your clients' application for clarification relating to the above referenced matter. A copy of the
Town's letter relating to this matter is enclosed.
Subsequent to the meeting of the ARPB, your office requested information which would allow you to
file for an appeal regarding your clients' application. Although there was no action to appeal, we did
originally, prior to the A .PB meeting, provide you with a list of the materials necessary for an
application for review by the ARPB.
You subsequently requested forms for the approval of an address sign. As advised, we do not have any
forms for the approval of address signs. As previously advised, however, the Town does not consider
the Wynnes' etched glass design located on the entry columns to be an address sign, but rather a part of
the architectural features of the structure which are reviewable by ARPB.
It is the position of the Town that the Wynnes' entry columns as designed, having not been approved
by the ARPB, are in violation of Town code. Therefore, unless we hear something from you by the
end of next week, May 9, 2003, as to the intent of your clients to comply with the Town's code, we
will have no other course of action but to issue a notice of appearance for your clients to appear before
the Special Master.
Sincerely,
1
k�,-; jlt;� IT����t
William H. Thrasher
Town Manager
cc: John Randolph, Attorney
enclosure 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA 33483
TOWN OF GULF STREAM
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
COMMISSIONERS
WILLIAM F. KOCH, JR. Mayor
JOAN K. ORTHWEIN, Vice Mayor
FRED B. DEVITT III
ROBERT W. HOPKINS 11
WILLIAM A. LYNCH
March 5, 2003
Mr. and Mrs. John Wynne
1511 N. Ocean Blvd.
Gulf Stream, FL 33483
Re: 1511 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, FL
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Wynne:
- Y L E
2 2003 I I I
I. .
Telephone
(561) 276 -5116
Fax
(561) 737 -0188
Town Manager
LIAM H. THRASHER
Town Clerk
RITA L. TAYLOR
This is to confirm that at the meeting held by the Architectural Review and Planning
Board on F ebruary 27, 2 003, your r equest for clarification relating to the etched g lass
entry columns at the above address was considered. The Board took no formal action
and, on the basis that the etched glass entry column signs were not incorporated in and
were not a part of the plan previously approved by the Board. The Board, after
deliberation, chose to take no action, thereby standing by its previous approval.
Although no motion was made, discussion reflected that the Bard members were of the
opinion that the etched glass entry column signs are not typically associated with and
consistent with the Mediterranean style architecture that has been previously approved.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely, �n
Yvlinne Manboard
Deputy Town Clerk
cc: Wendy Larson, Attorney
100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA 33483
COMMISSIONERS
WILLIAM F. KOCH, JR. Mayor
JOAN K. ORTHWEIN, Vice Mayor
FRED B. DEVITT III
ROBERT W. HOPKINS II
WILLIAM A. LYNCH
June 3, 2003
TOWN OF GULF STREAM
PALM 'BEACH' COUNTY, FLORIDA
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Mr. & Mrs. John Wynne
1511 N. Ocean Boulevard
Gulf Stream, Florida 33483
RE: Revised Entrance Column Design
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Wynne:
Telephone
(561) 276-5116
Fax
(561) 737 -0188
Town Manager
WILLIAM H. THRASHER
Town Clerk
RITA L TAYLOR
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETERN RECEIPT REQUESTED
In April 2002, it was noted that the design of the entrance
columns had been changed after the Certificate of Occupancy had
been issued for the new structures at 1511 N. Ocean Boulevard.
A review of the records revealed that the original design had been
approved on January 14, 2000. A revised design was approved at a
hearing before the Architectural Review and Planning Board on
September 27, 2001. The Certificate of Occupancy was issued
based on this design. In that the existing columns did not receive
approval from the Architectural Review and Planning Board, they are
in violation of Section 66- 141(2)f. which provides that new
entrance gates along State Road AlA require a Level 2 Architectural/
Site Plan Review.
This is to be considered official notice to alter the design of the
entrance columns to conform to the design that was approved on
September 27, 2001 within 15 days. Failing to comply with this
order shall result in further action as provided in Chapter 2, Article
III, Division 2 of the Code of Ordinances, a hearing before the
Special Master for Code Enforcement.
IVery truly pyours,
William Thrasher
Town Manager
K'o 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA 33483
[
[l
C
o°
N
m
Q
r
T
CO
CO
c
C
0
LL
-
IN
la
;z
E313 m
00
>
�l
V
kj
m
o°
N
m
Q
r
T
CO
CO
c
C
0
LL
-
IN
la
SIEMON & LARSEN, P.A.
Mizner Park
433 Plaza Real, Suite 339, Boca Raton, Florida 33432
Telephone (561) 368 -3808 - Facsimile (561) 368 -4008
E -Mall - info @siemonlarsen.com
May 9, 2003
VIA U.S. MAIL AND FACUAME (561) 737 -0188
William H. Thrasher
Town Manager
Town of Gulf Stream
100 Sea Road
Gulf Stream, Florida 33483
Dear Mr. Thrasher:
This letter is in response to your letter dated May 1, 2003, in which you responded to our
request for an application to review the Wynne's address signs by advising us that the Town does
not have any forms for the approval of address signs, and, further, that it is the Town's position
that the Wynne's "entry columns as designed" are in violation of Town Code. You also
requested that we respond by May 9, 2003, as to the intent of our client's to comply with the
Town's Code.
Put simply, we believe that the Wynne's are already in compliance with the Town's code.
The Town defines signs as "any ... announcement ... or communication produced ... by
affixing ... a structure ... on any other structure, or ... by attaching on or posting.. . any
printed, lettered, pictured, figured, or colored material on any building, structure, or surface." §
66 -1, TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA, CODE OF ORDINANCES (2003) ("Town Code'D. The
Wynne's signs are etched glass that is attached to the columns at the entry gates with exposed
screws. They are simply not "part of the architectural features of the structure," but are, rather,
"lettered, pictured, ... material" that is attached to the surface of the columns.
Since the panels are signs, they are permitted by Sec. 66- 446(a) of the Town of Gulf
Stream Code, which states in pertinent part:
Owners of private property may erect, display and maintain a sign
identifying their name or ownership, entrance and exit roads and
street number identifying such property.
William H. Thrasher
Page 2 of 2
May 9, 2003
The Code also specifically permits the signs within the North Ocean Boulevard Overlay District:
Signs shall be prohibited within the North Ocean Boulevard
Overlay District, except the following: * * * (2) address signs and
signs designating the name or the owner of an estate ....
§ 66 -327, Town Code.
The Town has not provided the Wynne's with a specific citation that supports its position
that the Wynne's are in violation of the Town Code. We have searched in vain for such a Code
provision. Accordingly, in the absence of a specific, clear right of the Town to seek removal of
the signs, it is the Wynne's intent to keep them in place — as they had been for many years prior
to the reconstruction of the Wynne's house. Moreover, the Wynne's have indicated that they are
prepared to vigorously defend their right to keep their signs.
Ver truly } ur
Todd G. Mes nger
4z
4
Sep 03 03 07:21a Town of Gulf Stream 561 737 0188 p.35
Sep 03 03 07:25a Town of Gulf Stream
n p �
e
561 737 0188
p.36
SIEMON & LARSEN, P.A.
Mizner Park
433 Plaza Real, Suite 339, Boca Raton, Florida 33432
Telephone (561) 368 -3808 - Facsimile (561) 368 -4008
E -Mail - info @siemonlarsen.com
June 9, 2003
YIA U.S. MAIL AND FACSIMILE (561) 737 -0188
William H. Thrasher
Town Manager
Town of Gulf Stream
100 Sea Road
Gulf Stream, Florida 33483
Dear Mr. Thrasher:
This letter is in response to your "Notice of Violation" letter dated June 3, 2003. The Notice
of Violation asserts that the Wynnes are in violation of Section 66- 141(2)f TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
FLORIDA, CODE OF ORDINANCES (2003) (Gulf Stream Code), "which provides that new entrance
gates along State Road AIA require a Level 2 Architectural/Site Plan Review." The Wynnes installed
their entrance gates in accordance with the plans approved by the Architectural Review and Planning
Board. Accordingly, there is no violation of Section 66- 141(2)f.
The Wynnes have attached address signs to the approved gates. The address signs are clearly
not "new entrance gates," and they are permitted as a matter of right by the Gulf Stream Code. See
§ § 66446(a), 66 -327, Gulf Stream Code. The Town has informed the Wynnes in writing that there
is no approval process for address signs by letter dated May 1, 2003. Because the signs are permitted
as -of -right without Town approval, the placement of address signs on the approved gate columns is
not a violation of the Gulf Stream Code.
Because the Wynnes are not violating the Gulf Stream Code, they respectfully request that
the Town withdraw its Notice of Violation. The Wynnes remain prepared to vigorously defend their
right to keep, their address signs in place.
cc: Client
D. Dickenson
-R
Sap 03 03 07:18a
COMMISSIONERS
WILLIAM F. KOCH. JR. Mayor
JOAN K. ORTHWEIN. Vice Mayor
FRED B. DEVITT III
ROBERT W. HOPKINS II
WILLIAM A. LYNCH
Town of Gulf Stream 581 737 0188 p.33
TOWN OF (MLF STREAM
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
"elephana
•
(56I) 276 -517fi
Fax
(561) 737 -0188
To,m Manager
WILLIAM H. THRASHER
-'
Town Clerk
RIT % L TAYLOR
April 25, 2002
Mr. Peter Inca
P. O. Box 2553
Delray Beach, EL 33447
RE: Wynn Residence
1511 North Ocean Boulevard
Dear Mr. Ince:
I write this in reference to the house number signs at the
above property. The signs, as indicated on the enclosed
pictures, were not on the original application. A request
for the signs must be submitted and approved by the
Architectural Review and Planning Board.
I appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
William H. Thrasher
Town Manager
100 SEA ROAD. GULF STREAM, FLORIDA 33483
Y
BEFORE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MASTER
OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA
TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
Petitioner,
V. Case No. CE -4 -03
JOHN W. AND BARBARA S. WYNNE,
Respondents
RESPONDENTS' HEARING BRIEF
COMES NOW, Mr. John W. Wynne and Mrs.
Barbara S. Wynne, who by and through their
undersigned counsel, respectfully submit this
Respondents' Hearing Brief for the convenience
of the Special Master in the disposition of this case,
and state as follows:
• The Wynnes stand accused by the Town of
violating a section of Town Code which does
not apply m any way to the cucumsCances of
this case.
The Wynnes submit that they are in full
compliance with the Town's applicable
regulations, and respectfully request that the
Special Master dismiss the Statement of
Violation and Notice of Hearing with prejudice.
THE ALLEGED VIOLATION
The Statement of Violation and Notice of Hearing
— which as a matter of constitutionally mandated
due process of law, is supposed to put the Wynnes
on notice as to what they are accused of —
provides:
At issue: the Wynnes entry gate column with the attached
etched glass address sign.
4. Violation of Town Code Sections) and description(s): Section
66- 141(2)f. provides that new entrance gates along State Road AlA
require a Level 2 Architectural/Site Plan Review. A design was
I
approved by the ARPB and columns were constructed, inspected and
approved. Subsequently, etched glass signs were attached to each
column which were not a part of the design that was approved.
Section 66- 141(2)£, which the Town accuses the Wynnes of violating, provides in its entirety:
Projects requiring level 2 architectural/site plan review
f. new entrance gates along a A IA, major landscaping additions
or removal and perimeter walls parallel to A I A that are within the
50 -foot North Ocean Boulevard Overlay District.
NOTHING IN THE TOWN CODE REQUIRES LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN
REVIEW BEFORE A PROPERTY OWNER IS PERMITTED TO ATTACH ADDRESS
SIGNS TO EXISTING ENTRANCE GATE COLUMNS.
THE KEY FACTS
r
• It is undisupted that the Wynnes
constructed their entry gates
(including the gate columns)
according to the approved plans. The
Town admits that the gate columns
were constructed, inspected, and
approved."
• The Wynnes- attached- etched- glass-
signs to their existing — approved
The Wynnes' address signs
and inspected — entry gates. They
are attached to the approved
did not construct new gates. They just
entry gate columns with
screwed the signs onto the existing
screws. The columns were not modified to accommodate
columns.
the address signs.
• Other homes in Gulf Stream have
also attached address signs to their walls and gate columns. Examples are provided below and on
the top of the next page.
ARGUMENT
A. THE WYNNES' "ETCHED GLASS SIGNS" ARE PERMITTED "ADDRESS
SIGNS" FOR WHICH NO REVIEW IS REQUIRED.
• The Town Code defines signs as:
any... announcement... or communication produced ... by affixing
... a structure ... on any other structure, or ... by attaching on or
posting ... any printed, lettered, pictured, figured, or colored material
on any building, structure, or surface.
• The Wynnes attached "etched glass signs" to their entry gate columns. The etched glass signs
communicate the Wynnes address number (lettering) and a palm tree (a picture). The signs are
attached to the entry gate column structure with screws. Accordingly, the "etched glass signs"
are address signs.
• In an abundance of caution, the Wynnes requested an application for approval of their address
signs. The Town notified the Wynnes in writing that the Town has no process for approving
address signs.
• The Wynnes' property is located in the North Ocean Boulevard Overlay District. That district
allows "address signs and signs designating the name or owner of an estate ...." § 66- 327(2),
Town Code. The Wynnes' "etched glass signs" are permitted "address signs."
• Additionally, in general, signs are regulated by Section 66 -446, Town Code, which provides
"Owners of private property may erect and maintain a sign identifying their ... street number. .
' § 66- 446(4), Town Code.
B. THE WYNNES' ADDRESS SIGNS COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE
PROVISIONS OF THE TOWN CODE.
Section 66 -447, Town Code, provides that signs (except real estate signs) "shall not exceed a
dimension of six (6) square feet ..." The Wynnes signs are approximately 3.6 square feet — well
within the Town's limitation.
CONCLUSION
The Wynnes respectfully submit that their etched glass signs are permitted without Town review,
and the accusation that the Wynnes have constructed "new entrance gates along State Road AIA"
without a required "Level 2 Architectural /Site Plan Review" is factually and legally incorrect.
Wherefore, the Wynnes respectfully request that the special master dismiss the Town's Statement
of Violation and Notice of Hearing with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted this 10th day of October, 2003, by:
SIEMON & LARSEN, P.A.
Mizner Park
433 Plaza Real, Suite 339
Boca Raton, Florida 33432
(561) 368 -3808
Fac e (561) 0 8
BY:
Todd a Mes nger
Florida Bar No. 0385514
Attorney for Respondent
FU
IM
Postage
s
.74
ru
Centried Fes
2.30
-0
Postmark
,U
Return Racmipt Fear
(Endorsement Required)
1.75
Hem
C3
Restricted! Delivery Fee
C3
(Enclorsernarl Required)
O
Total Postage & Fees
$
4.79
-1
UrIl
ru
Sent TO
Mr. & Mrs.
Hohn W.
Wynne
r-I
................
Street. Apt. No.;
O'POB-AID. 1511
.....
N. ocean Blvd.
Stream,
FL 33483
Certified Mail Provides:
• A mailing receipt
• A unique identifier for your mailpiece
• A signature upon delivery r
• A record of delivery kept by the Postal Service for two years
Important Reminders:
• Certified Mail may ONLY be combined with First -Class Mail or Priority Mail.
• Certified Mail is not available for any class of international mail.
• NO INSURANCE COVERAGE IS PROVIDED with Certified Mail. For
valuables, please consider Insured or Registered Mail.
• For an additional fee, a Return Receipt may be requested to provide proof of
delivery. To obtain Return Receipt service, please complete and attach a Retum
Receipt (PS Form 38111 to the article and add applicable postage to cover the
fee. Endorse mailpiece Return Receipt Requested ". To receive a fee waiver for
a duplicate return receipt, a USPS postmark on your Certified Mail receipt is
required.
• For an additional fee, delivery may be restricted to the addressee or
addressee's authorized agent. Advise the clerk or mark the mailpiece with the
endorsement "Restricted Delivery".
• If a postmark on the Certfed Mail receipt is desired please present the arti-
cle at the post office for postmarking. If a postmark on the Certified Mail
receipt is not needed, detach and affix label with postage and mail.
IMPORTANT: Save this receipt and present it when making an inquiry.
PS Form 3800, January 2001 fRererse) 102595- 01 -M -1 D49
" C o m p e t e I t e m s 1 , 2 , a n d 3 . A l s o c o m p l e t e
A . s a t u r e -
i t e m '