Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout09/23/2010MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 AT 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I. Call to Order. Chairman Ganger called the meeting to order at 8:33 A.M. II. Roll Call. C' Present and Robert Ganger Chairman Participating Thomas Smith Board Member Charles Frankel, III Board Member Malcolm Murphy Board Member Absent w/Notice Scott Morgan Vice -Chairman Amanda Jones Alternate Member William Coleman Alternate Member Also Present and William H. Thrasher Town Manager Participating Rita L. Taylor Town Clerk John Randolph Town Attorney Vinny Belushi Agent/Wehrle Courchene Development William Wietsma Agent/Keybank Nat'l William Wietsma Co. Assocs, Pers. Rep. for Ireland Est. & Liggett, Owner Robert Paglia Agent/Cotton, Owner Kermit White Architect/Cotton Ned MacDonald Neighbor/2538 Ave Au Soleil Mark Marsh Agent/Silverman James Bellarano, Esq. Counsel/Silverman Michael Weiner, Esq. Counsel/Alexander, Weiner & Lynn 1511 N. Ocean Blvd. Jeffrey Lynn, Esq. Counsel/Alexander Weiner & Lynn Chairman Ganger stated that a quorum exists and apologized for the lack of a full board, but assured each applicant they will have a fair hearing. III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 7-30-10. Mr. Frankel moved and Mr. Smith seconded to approve the minutes of the Continuation of the Public Hearing of July 30, 2010. There was no discussion. All voted AYE. IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. There were no changes. V. Announcements. A. Meeting Dates 1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing b. October 28, 2010 @ 8:30 A.M. c. November 18, 2010 @ 8:30 A.M. d. December 16, 2010 @ 8:30 A.M. e. January 27, 2011 @ 8:30 A.M. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, September 23, 2010 Page 2 Chairman Ganger stated that meeting dates were previously changed due to the holidays and asked if there were any conflicts. There were none. VI. PUBLIC HEARING. A. Applications for Development Approval Chairman Ganger asked Clerk Taylor to swear in anyone who will be speaking regarding their applications. Vinny Belushi, William Wietsma, Cj Kermit White, Ned MacDonald, Mark Marsh, Joseph Zeluski, James Bellarano, Michael Weiner and Jeffrey Lynn were sworn in by the Clerk. Chairman Ganger announced that he would ask for ex -parte communication disclosure before each hearing. 1. An application submitted by Paul Courchene, as Agent for Stephen Wehrle, the owner of property located at 1310 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as Lot 3 McLouth Subdivision for: a. SIGN PERMIT to allow erection of a contractor's sign. Chairman Ganger asked if there were any ex -parte communications concerning this application. There were none. Vinny Belushi of Courchene Development, agent for Stephen Wehrle, 1310 N. Ocean Blvd., stated that Courchene Development is remodeling 1310 N. Ocean Blvd. and is applying for a contractor's sign permit at that location. Mr. Frankel said the drawing of the sign does not conform to staff's recommendation and asked Clerk Taylor to confirm that. Clerk Taylor said staff does not believe it complies with the Code. Mr. Frankel said signs must be white with black lettering. Ms. Belushi said the sign has an all white background with black lettering and includes their logo which is a black box containing white lettering. She said it can be changed if required to conform to Code. Chairman Ganger asked if there is a time limit on signage. Mr. Thrasher said signs must be removed after final inspection and upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Chairman Ganger asked if there is a project completion date. Ms. Belushi said they hoped for the end of the year, but Mr. Wehrle has made several changes and it is difficult to estimate a completion date. Mr. Thrasher said the sign should conform to Code as required by other applicants requesting signage, stating that the sign must be single - sided with black lettering on white with a maximum height of not more than 4 feet, including support for the sign. Mr. Thrasher also said the survey indicates a shed which, if still present, must be removed from O the site. Mr. Frankel moved and Mr. Smith seconded to approve a permit to erect a contractor's sign based on the finding that the proposed sign meets the requirements of Code Section 66-447 with the following conditions: 1. The entire sign will be black lettering on white and single -side 2. The shed appearing on the survey shall be removed if it has not already been removed 3. The maximum height of the sign shall be 4 feet including support for the sign. There was no discussion. Roll Call: Mr. Frankel, AYE; Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Chairman Ganger, AYE. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, September 23, 2010 Page 3 2. An application submitted by William Wietsma, as Agent for Keybank National Assoc., Personal Representative of M. Ireland Estate, James A. Liggett, Vice President, owner of the property located at 3565 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Part of Lots 7 & 8, Gulf Stream Ocean Tracts and Part of Lots 9 & 10, Block "B", Palm Beach Shore Acres for the following: a. LAND CLEARING PERMIT to clear construction site. b. NORTH OCEAN BLVD. OVERLAY PERMIT to allow 2nd story addition to existing garage that is partially located in the overlay district; install driveway gates and pedestrian gates; add landscaping. c. SPECIAL EXCEPTION to allow a tad story addition to existing garage that encroaches approximately 4.6 ft. into the north side setback. d. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit a 918 sq. ft. addition to existing Gulf Stream Bermuda style one-story single family dwelling and a 700 sq. ft. 2nd story addition over the existing garage; brick driveway; 8 foot high south side easement wall; 5 gates; new swimming pool. Chairman Ganger asked if there were any ex -parte communications concerning this application. Mr. Frankel said he spoke to staff and two residents concerning the nature of the project and Chairman Ganger said he spoke to Rita Taylor, Town Clerk. William Wietsma of William Wietsma Co., agent for the Ireland Estate, said they are requesting approval for additions to the north side, a small addition of a lanai on the ocean side and another addition on the west side of the existing single family home, build a 2nd story addition over the existing footprint of the garage and replace the existing swimming pool. He said he believes the house complies 100% with the design standards of the Town. Mr. Wietsma said they will add a wall across the front with a gate to the driveway, and a wall on the north side of the pedestrian easement going east to west alongside the pedestrian easement. He said there is an existing wall on the neighbor's property along the south side of the easement and they want to add the wall to this estate to provide privacy. Mr. Wietsma said they originally planned to install a gate at each end of the easement, preventing residents from driving golf carts through, but it became a O contentious issue and, therefore, they decided to leave the easement completely open. Chairman Ganger asked if the easement is for pedestrian use only. Mr. Wietsma said it is, but a certain resident in Town who happens to be an attorney believes that since it has been used for vehicular traffic he has a right to do the same. Chairman Ganger asked if the owner is comfortable with no gates. Mr. Wietsma said he would prefer to install the gates to prevent golf carts parking up by the beach, but feels it is not worth the battle. Mr. Smith asked about the landscaping on both sides of the wall along the easement. Mr. Wietsma said the easement is part of the property; however, all of the landscaping shown along the Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, September 23, 2010 Page 4 wall on the easement side is coming out and nothing will replace it. Chairman Ganger asked about the width of the easement and Mr. Wietsma said it is 10 feet. Mr. Thrasher asked Mr. Wietsma to confirm that the roof materials will be white through and through and the coloring on the guest house structure will be the same as the main structure and all one tone. Mr. Wietsma confirmed that the roof materials will be white and the color of the guest house will be the same as the main structure, but less tan than shown on the rendering. Mr. Wietsma added that the shutter color on the rendering is slightly off and will be a more grayish green. Mr. Thrasher asked Mr. Wietsma to explain the 2nd story components of the guest house as it relates to 5 1/2 -foot ceilings and the square footage of the 2nd story. Mr. Wietsma said the existing foot print of the garage is approximately 1,000 SF and they chose to do a 700 SF addition over the garage to make it smaller. In doing that, they brought the walls in for the second floor approximately 3 feet all around. The wall going up for the 2nd story goes 4 feet above the finished floor of the 2nd story and starts to slope upward creating an attic space around the perimeter of the 2nd floor, bringing the roof level down with the use of dormers, having less of an impact on the neighbor's property. Chairman Ganger reminded applicants that when there is an increase in the height of a structure the board asks for a streetscape to compare heights to neighbors' homes. Mr. Thrasher said staff discussed height with the agent and requested that they do whatever possible to reduce the height of the structure, which could have been as high as 30 feet, but they were creative and as a result there is a 5 -foot difference in the allowable height, as well as screening of plant materials shielding the structure from AlA. Mr. Frankel moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of a Land Clearing Permit. There was no discussion. Roll Call: Mr. Frankel, AYE; Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Chairman Ganger, AYE. Mr. Frankel moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of a North Ocean Boulevard Overlay District Permit. There was no discussion Roll Call: Mr. Frankel, AYE; Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Chairman Ganger, AYE. r--- Mr. Frankel moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of a �J Special Exception to allow a 2nd story addition to the existing garage that encroaches approximately 4.6 feet into the north side setback. There was no discussion. Roll Call: Mr. Frankel, AYE; Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Chairman Ganger, AYE. Mr. Frankel moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of a Level III Architectural/Site Plan based on a finding that the construction of a 918 SF addition to an existing Gulf Stream Bermuda style one-story single family dwelling and a 700 SF 2nd story addition over the existing garage; installation of a brick driveway, an 8 -foot high north side of easement wall along with elimination the landscaping Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, September 23, 2010 Page 5 along the easement wall on easement side, three gates and a new swimming pool meets the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards with the following condition(s): 1. Up to twelve (12) Australian Pine Trees will be planted by the Town of Gulf Stream located between the roadway and the property line. There was no discussion. Roll Call: Mr. Frankel, AYE; Mr. Smith, AYE; Ct Mr. Murphy, AYE; Chairman Ganger, AYE. Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Thrasher if there are irrigation obligations on the owner's part when the Board requests and approves the planting of additional Australian Pines. Mr. Thrasher said it was part of the original Ice Tea Agreement and owners are encouraged to irrigate. He said sprinklers have been observed in the areas where Australian Pines have been planted, but irrigation has not been required in writing. Mr. Thrasher said it is not a condition for this application and has not been a condition previously. 3. An application submitted by Robert Paglia, as Agent for Glenn Cotton, owner of property located at 2534 Avenue Au Soleil, Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lot 49, Place Au Soleil Subdivision for the following: a. SPECIAL EXCEPTION to allow an addition of 277 sq. ft. to the northeast corner of the existing first floor that will extend a non -conforming wall that encroaches one foot into the required 15 foot north side setback and combined setbacks. b. SPECIAL EXCEPTION to permit a second -story addition of 1,192 sq. ft. that will extend over a non -conforming wall that encroaches one foot into the required 15 ft. south side setback and combined setbacks. c. SPECIAL EXCEPTION to permit the addition of covered, unenclosed area that exceeds the maximum FAR allowed by 142 sq. ft. d. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit a first floor addition of 277 sq. ft., a second -story addition of 1,192 sq. ft., 526 sq. ft. of covered, unenclosed area to an existing Anglo Caribbean style single family dwelling, new pool and driveway. Chairman Ganger asked if there were any ex -parte communications concerning this application. Mr. Frankel said he may have spoken to Ostaff concerning the basis of the application. Kermit white, Architect for the project, said this is a vacant 1 -story dwelling in poor condition. Next door is 2530 Avenue Au Soleil which is the exact floor plan with a 2 -story addition on the back side, on the opposite side is another 1 -story residence and a larger 2 -story Mediterranean style residence at the end of the road. He said most of the homes are the traditional Bermuda style and what they are proposing is a small addition to the first floor and a 2 -story addition on the south side of the property. Mr. White said two of the special exceptions they are asking for are side setbacks, keeping the existing garage and front of the house, currently at a 14' 1" setback. He said Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, September 23, 2010 Page 6 they are proposing an addition on the first floor to enlarge the kitchen, add a bedroom, a barbeque loggia in the rear and a swimming pool. Mr. White said the second -story addition will include a master bedroom on the second floor and a covered loggia on the ground floor. He displayed the front elevation stating that the windows are white with dividing mullions, the roof is a flat tile, the entry door and garage doors are wood -stained and they propose a soft yellow color for the exterior which is similar to other homes in the area. He said the actual color of the house is a little paler than the rendering. The architectural style is Anglo -Caribbean with a 2 -pitch roof, overhangs and outlookers, the design is clean, simple and similar to detailing found in the neighborhood. In the absence of the landscape architect, Mr. White displayed the landscape rendering and briefly summarized the plan. He said they will plant a couple of Gumbo Limbo trees in the front, remove the semi- circular driveway keeping one entrance to create a motor court, and they will add Coco palms in the front, maintain the existing Fichus hedges which buffer both property lines and add Coco palms in the back. Mr. Smith commented that the highest part of the home is on the south side and it appears there is very little landscaping in that area. Mr. White said they can move some of the landscaping from the heavier landscaped areas to that area. Mr. Smith asked Mr. White if he was aware of the memo sent to the Town by the neighbor who requests that the 8 -foot Fichus hedge in that area be maintained. Mr. white said he was not aware of the memo, but they planned to maintain the hedge. Mr. Murphy asked to go back to the photos of the neighbors, homes. He said he was looking at the colors of roofs and from the rendering it seems the roof is more of a moss green. Mr. White said the owner was looking at a slate color to a moss green color, but they are open to whatever the preference is. Mr. Thrasher said that Code Section 70-238, Subsection (a) Required, reads: White flat untextured tile, except that gray slate or slate -style tile may be permitted on homes that are predominately Georgian or British Colonial with Bermuda influences subject to Level II approval. Mr. White said they looked at moss green and slate and gray slate was his preference. Chairman Ganger asked Mr. white if he had a gray slate sample with him. Mr. White did not. Mr. MacDonald, the neighbor living at 2538 Avenue Soleil, addressed the Board expressing his appreciation for their support regarding the landscape and 8 -foot Fichus hedge. He said the south side addition overlooks two of their bedrooms and he would appreciate any concessions concerning additional landscaping in that area. Mr. MacDonald said that homes on the north, south and west sides all have white cement tile roofs and he would argue in favor of white if it does not interfere with the style of the house because the gray slate stands out in comparison to the other homes. Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Randolph, as a matter of record, where the Board would impose a condition on the height of the hedge. Mr. Randolph said it can be listed as a condition of approval and if it is a condition imposed to benefit a neighbor the Board can require a deed restriction be put in place as notice to future owners of the property. Mr. Frankel asked Mr. MacDonald if his house is a one- story. Mr. MacDonald said it is. Mr. Frankel asked if the house to the Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, September 23, 2010 Page 7 north is a one-story also. Mr. White said it is a one-story with the same floor plan, but a two-story addition built on the back. Chairman Ganger said that some form of additional buffering between Mr. MacDonald's home and this home is appropriate. Mr. white said they do not have a problem maintaining the hedge at 8 feet and he agreed that adding more landscaping in the two-story area would be appropriate. Chairman Ganger asked if the owner would consider white as the roof 0 color. Mr. Robert Paglia, agent for the owner, was sworn in by Clerk Taylor and said the original plan was for a slate/charcoal chiseled - edged roof, but the owner is not opposed to considering a white roof and will review color schemes and get that approved. Chairman Ganger asked Mr. Thrasher how the Board should proceed with the approval process. Mr. Thrasher said based on comments heard today it appears the Board's preference is a white roof. He added that white is actually required and preferred in the Code. Chairman Ganger said if he will agree to a white roof, the Board can move forward. Mr. Paglia said white should be fine. Mr. Smith commented that the wall from one corner of the house to the east corner of the two-story part of the house appears to be very open. Mr. White said they could easily add landscaping in that area. Chairman Ganger asked how old the original house is. Mr. Paglia said it was built in 1975. Mr. Murphy asked if the Board will need to see a revised landscape plan. Mr. Randolph said the Board can recommend approval of this project subject to a revised landscape plan being submitted to staff for review and approval. Chairman Ganger said he would be satisfied with a revised landscape plan being approved by staff. Mr. Thrasher said the Board must decide whether or not they will require a condition or a deed restriction as it relates to the 8 -foot Fichus hedge and they must set a condition for a revised landscape plan and a white roof. Mr. White requested the Board's approval without a deed restriction. Chairman Ganger said a deed restriction is commonly done in this community to promote privacy. Mr. Frankel moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval to permit an addition of 277 SF to the northeast corner of the existing first floor that will extend a non -conforming wall that encroaches one foot into the required 15 -foot north side setback and combined setbacks. (Special Exception 1.) There was no discussion. Roll Call: Mr. Frankel, AYE; Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Chairman Ganger, AYE. Mr. Frankel moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval to permit a second -story addition of 1,192 SF that will extend over a non- conforming wall that encroaches one foot into the required 15 -foot south side setback and combined setbacks. (Special Exception 2.) There was no discussion. Roll Call: Mr. Frankel, AYE; Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Chairman Ganger, AYE. Mr. Frankel moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval for a Special Exception to permit the addition of covered, unenclosed area that exceeds the maximum FAR allowed by 142 SF. (Special Exception 3.) Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, September 23, 2010 Page 8 Mr. Smith asked Mr. Thrasher if, when approved, it will be restricted to enclosing this space in the future. Mr. Thrasher confirmed that. There was no further discussion. Roll Call: Mr. Frankel, AYE; Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Chairman Ganger, AYE. All voted AYE. Mr. Frankel moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of a O Level III Architectural/Site Plan based on a finding that the proposed first floor addition of 277 SF, a second -story addition of 1,192 SF, 526 SF of covered unenclosed area to an existing Anglo Caribbean style single family dwelling, new pool and driveway meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the owner of the property shall prepare and record a deed restriction which shall provide that all unenclosed roof projection areas as approved shall remain so for as long as the structure is in existence or exceeds the maximum permissible FAR. 2. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the owner of the property shall prepare and record a Gulf Stream Driveway Removal Agreement. 3. Based on comments made at this meeting, a revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the Town Manager for review and approval which shall include the maintenance of an existing 8 -foot hedge on the south side of the property, additional appropriate landscaping on the south side of the property to provide privacy both in appearance and sound to the neighbors to the south and, as part of that, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, a deed restriction shall be prepared that will permit the landscaping plan to remain in perpetuity on the south side of the property. 4. The roof shall be white through and through flat tile. 5. Plans to be submitted to Place Au Soleil Homeowners Association for review and comment prior to Public Hearing to be held by Town Commission on October 8, 2010. Mr. Randolph said the landscape restriction can be included in the deed restriction for the unenclosed areas. There was no further discussion. Roll Call: Mr. Frankel, AYE; Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Chairman Ganger, AYE. All voted AYE. 4. An application submitted by Mark Marsh as agent for Dr. and Mrs. Steven Silverman, contract purchasers of the property owned by Flavia Milano located at 1465 N. Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described in metes and bounds in the revised plat of Blocks D&E of Palm Beach Shore Acres to permit the following: a. ADDITIONS TO EXISTING GUEST HOUSE AND GARAGE (1) VARIANCE to permit additions consisting of 1,006 sq. ft. to existing 1,946 sq. ft. non -conforming out buildings that exceed the maximum allowed 700 sq. ft. (2) SPECIAL EXCEPTION to extend the west wall of existing non -conforming guest house which encroaches 40 ft. into the front setback. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, September 23, 2010 Page 9 (3) NORTH OCEAN BLVD. OVERLAY PERMIT to extend existing non -conforming guest house 16 ft. southward. b. ADDITIONS TO EXISTING 3 -STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (1) VARIANCES to construct a loggia on the east side and new entry on south side of the non- conforming 3 -story dwelling. (a) Loggia encroaches 9111" into rear (east) setback. (b) Loggia encroaches approximately 2' into south side setback. (2) SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS to extend existing non- conforming walls on existing non -conforming dwelling. (a) South wall of existing non -conforming 3 - story dwelling is on the south property line, an encroachment of 15 ft. (b) North wall of existing non -conforming 3 - story dwelling encroaches approximately 6 ft. into the north side setback. C. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit additions to the existing Mediterranean Revival non -conforming structures, a total of 1,603 sq. ft. Chairman Ganger recused himself from this application hearing, stating that his family purchased this home, sold it in 1969 and his family has lived in the other half of the home since that time. He said in the event there is a conflict of interest, he would prefer to step down. Chairman Ganger passed the gavel to Acting Chairman Frankel and said he will sit with the public and speak if asked. Acting Chairman Frankel asked if there were any ex -parte communications concerning this application. He said he discussed this application with staff on more than one occasion concerning details of this matter and he spoke briefly with Chairman Ganger concerning the history of the house. Mark Marsh of Digby Bridges, Marsh & Associates, agent for the owner, introduced Steven Silverman, owner of the property, and James Bellarano, Esq., also representing Mr. Silverman. Mr. Marsh said the home is unique and the owners have a history of renovating old homes, adding that he is very excited to be involved in this project. He displayed an aerial shot of the site stating that the property averages about 60 feet in width, which is non -conforming to begin with, and pointed out the guest house and the out -building, which may have been the garage or stables for the original estate. He explained that the property was subdivided by previous owners several years ago and there are unique pre-existing conditions not standard to the Town which the codes do not address. Mr. Marsh said they originally thought they would be asking for special exceptions only; however, after a couple of meetings with Mr. Thrasher and staff, they found that variances would be necessary. Mr. Marsh said their approach to this project is to restore not demolish, which they have done on a couple of projects in Gulf Stream such as the Aker property and the Spear property which currently owned by Mulliez. He said you typically deal with non -conformities in restoration projects which can create a certain charm, but the home in Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, September 23, 2010 Page 10 its present state does not reflect current lifestyle issues. Mr. Marsh said they will respect the history of the structures and come up with solutions which address these lifestyle issues. Mr. Marsh pointed out that Mr. Ganger's property is on the south side and will have the most impact from improvements to the structures. He said they have met with Mr. Ganger, explained what they propose and he C1. believes they are in agreement at this point. Mr. Marsh said that Mr. Ganger shares a party wall structure which suffered previous storm damage. He said the current owner plans to address the party wall, create a more acoustic separation and improve the situation. Mr. Marsh said they are cognizant to the proximity of the neighbor to the south and they do not want to create structures or mass that will have impact or an adverse affect. Mr. Marsh explained that they were originally scheduled to make their presentation at the July ARPB meeting; however, they requested a deferral to address concerns expressed by Mr. Leslie Alexander, the neighbor to the north of the property. He said he flew to New York at Mr. Silverman's expense to meet with Mr. Alexander and would go over some of Mr. Alexander's concerns and how they are addressing them. Mr. Marsh displayed the aerial view to point out Mr. Alexander's property to the north, the subject property and the Ganger property to the south. He said there are two structures on the subject property, describing the main house on the east end, which has living area on the ground floor and a master bedroom suite on the second floor and a small area on the third floor, and a guest cottage on the west end which has two small bedrooms (8 x 9), a living room and a garage. He said the Silvermans have four grown children and would like to expand the guest cottage creating two additional bedrooms and an exercise space. Mr. Marsh summarized the requests for Special Exceptions and variances. He said the expansion of the guest house calls for a variance because Code only allows for a maximum of 700 SF for an accessory building and there is 1,946 SF existing to which they want to add just over 1,000 SF. There is a special exception request for the expansion of the two small bedrooms and the addition of two larger bedrooms on the southwest end of the property which maintains an existing non -conforming setback. Mr. Marsh noted a correction on the Architectural Review and Planning Report concerning the first variance request for the guest house, stating that the existing SF is 1,608 rather than 1,946 SF. Mr. Marsh said there are a number of out buildings surrounding the property; two located on the Ganger Estate, one on the Alexander property and another on a property to the north. He said they propose an addition to the single -story structure, which will have no impact, and the expansion on the east side of the existing guest cottage conforms to all setbacks with no issues, but the variance is requested to exceed the square footage. Mr. Marsh said the special exception was to extend the bedroom wing on the southwest corner. The third item pertaining to the guest cottage is the N. Ocean Blvd. Overlay Permit which is required because they are requesting expansion of an existing Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, September 23, 2010 Page 11 building that meets the side yard setbacks, but the structure is in that district. Mr. Marsh said there are two variances associated with the proposed improvements to the main house pertaining to the loggia element on the east side and two special exceptions pertaining to the north side expansion of the mud room/pantry area and the covered area to the main entry off the motor court. He displayed the rendering of the current guest cottage which has a family room, an exercise room, two small 8' x 9' bedrooms and a garage. Mr. Marsh said they want to enlarge the two small bedrooms and create a new wing on the east side with two identical bedrooms and bathrooms. He said the structure is unattractive in its current state with water damage to the walls throughout and a roof that is in total disrepair. He said they are proposing a clay barrel roof which is consistent with the original architecture. With respect to the main house, Mr. Marsh explained that the kitchen was previously expanded, but there is no rear entrance to the pantry area. The improvements include a 7 -foot addition creating a mud room/pantry area, a covered front entry which will be moved about 3 feet to the west and enlargement of the front powder room. Mr. Marsh said the biggest addition to this structure is the loggia on the east side. He said it is an open structure with 4 columns and a hard cover. There is a terrace off the master suite on the second floor which will be the roof over the loggia and the entrance to the house from the loggia has a gothic arch. He said if you live on the ocean it is common and almost necessary to have a loggia because it is extremely hot with harsh sun exposure. Mr. Marsh said Mr. Ganger mentioned that it was part of the original owners' plan to build a loggia and he said Mr. Ganger built a loggia on his main house several years ago. Now the property is divided and has two separate owners and the owner of the subject property wishes to build a loggia. This creates the need for the variances because they will be going into the rear setback, in fact, east of the old coastal control line, which does not comply with the setbacks. Mr. Marsh said the loggia structure encroaches to the east which is a DEP issue and they will have to obtain a DEP permit for the structure, but what they are proposing is not unique. Mr. Marsh explained that the two special exceptions pertain to the main house additions for the mud room/pantry area and the covered front entry. He said they are utilizing the existing non -conforming setback, but they have a unique situation on the south side because there is a zero setback due to the shared party wall. Mr. Marsh said the colors will blend with Mr. Ganger's structures, the new entry will have a simple shed roof, there will be very little architectural change and the proposed improvements will replicate all current architectural embellishments. He said their goal is to enhance and improve the property. Mr. Marsh explained that a laundry room was originally planned where the mud room/pantry area is currently proposed and Mr. Alexander was concerned that odors from the laundry might drift into their property which is just north of that area. They have relocated the laundry room Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, September 23, 2010 Page 12 to the master suite. In addition, the size of the loggia was originally the full width of the eastern face of the building. They have reduced the square footage of the loggia to address Mr. Alexander's concerns and also to conform to the amount of square footage allowed and, therefore, they are not asking for the variance to exceed the allowable square footage in the loggia area. Mr. Marsh said Mr. Alexander had no problem C) with the south entry expansion, but thought the gothic arch of the loggia would impact his view and there would be loud noise when entertaining on the loggia. He said the Sea Grapes are substantial and they create a buffer between the properties, and by reducing the square footage of the loggia they have reduced the amount of hard surface and will plant additional palms to create another barrier, which would mitigate the noise concern. In closing, Mr. Marsh stated that Mr. Alexander had no issues with the guest cottage improvements where they propose a small spa/barbeque deck area the existing court. He said landscaping is not part of this application, but they want to maintain what exists and add plantings to provide buffering and privacy. Mr. Marsh said the bottom line is that the property is so unique and current codes do not anticipate such a project. He said they are not trying to overbuild, but to come up with solutions that will be historically appropriate and will meet the requirements of the owner. Mr. Marsh introduced James Bellarano, Esq., who represents the Silvermans. Mr. Bellarano stated that this parcel is narrow with several pre-existing conditions that make it necessary to request variances and special exceptions in order to preserve the unique character and charm of the property. He said, to their knowledge, this is the only oceanfront parcel with oceanfront footage of 55 feet, widening to 68 feet at the western boundary. Mr. Bellarano explained that the unique conditions are the result of the prior subdivision of a much larger estate, creating an average size home where Mr. Ganger resides and the very narrow confining conditions of the subject property where the principal residence is a one -bedroom home. The narrowest part of the property is the oceanfront parcel and expanding the principal residence is not an option because it is located on the narrowest portion of the lot. Therefore, the expansion providing two additional bedrooms must be done on the guest cottage which is on the property to the west. He said the improvements to the guest cottage will have no .. impact to the east or to the west facing the golf course. Mr. Bellarano said the proposed loggia is within the bounds of existing landscaping and there will be additional landscaping which will block the view of all improvements. He said this is a very unique, one -of -a - kind property, a case book example of why the Code provides for the availability of variances. Section 66-150 of the Code provides that variances are deviations from the Code that would not be contrary to public use, owing to special exceptions, special circumstances or conditions, or where there is a hardship. Mr. Bellarano said that, although the Code requires that the resident show either special circumstances or a hardship, they sincerely believe and submit that Dr. Silverman's petition meets both the criteria. He said none of the Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, September 23, 2010 Page 13 improvements are contrary to public interest, but are in keeping with the intention and purpose of the Development Code and foster the preservation of the unique character of this home. He added that denial of any of the requested variances or special exceptions would result in an undue hardship. Mr. Bellarano said all of the proposed improvements are essential to the use and enjoyment of the home and they respectfully request approval of each of the requested variances and special Oexceptions. Mr. Bellarano read the eight standards for a variance, along with a response to each standard, into the record as follows: (1) what special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure and building involved and are not applicable to other land, structures or buildings in the same zoning district? Response: The property and adjacent property to the south were one development and subsequently subdivided. The principal residence remains connected to the principal residence on the adjacent property, sharing the party wall. The unique character was created through a number of nonconformities that still blend with the character of the district. Some of the nonconformities conformed at the time of original construction, but do not meet current requirements. The principal unique condition and circumstance that exists is the abnormally narrow width of the subject property resulting from the subdivision. (2) Did the special conditions and circumstances result from the actions of the applicant? Response: No. As described earlier, the subdivision of the property took place decades ago. (3) Will granting the variance confer upon the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the Zoning Code to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district? Response: No, Dr. Silverman seeks no special privilege, only the permission to construct and maintain essential features which benefit other residences fronting the ocean in the same zoning district. With regard to the loggia, a covered patio area would protect the residents and guests from direct sun exposure and landscaping throughout would shield the view of proposed improvements from adjacent properties. (4) How would a literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the same terms of the ordinance and work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant? Response: Applicant seeks permission to construct and maintain an essential element currently enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district, such as the covered area to protect residents and guests from direct sun exposure, provide increased energy efficiency and protect the residence and interior improvements from accelerated deterioration, since there is currently no other place in the oceanfront backyard that provides such protection. Direct sun exposure should be limited to avoid risk of skin cancer and other cancers and current energy efficiency requirements demand shading from direct sun exposure. The proposed covered area is a medical necessity for the health and safety of the occupants and guests and a necessity to accomplish desired increased energy efficiency and protection from accelerated interior deterioration. A literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, September 23, 2010 Page 14 Ordinance would therefore deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the same terms of the ordinance and work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. The property to the south has a loggia and the intention was that there would be a loggia to accommodate the guest quarters of this historic residence. (5) Is the variance the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure? Response: Yes. The original plan was that the loggia would be larger and it has been downsized considerably to address Mr. Alexander's concerns and removes the fourth requested variance. Respecting the Town's requirements that a variance be granted for the minimum reasonable area, applicant is requesting a covered area that is less than one-half of the area of an ideal covered loggia. The covered area will provide modest protected outdoor dining space and a seating area commonplace within the zoning district. The design and architecture calls for a covered loggia which was never constructed on this portion of the residence after the subdivision, leaving the residence exposed. The area of expansion throughout the rest of the property, particularly with regard to the guest cottage, is being done in such a way to be non -obtrusive and to improve the character, look and appeal of the property from the streetscape. (6) Will granting of the variance permit any prohibited use to be established or re-established? Response: No. (7) Is the requested variance consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the future Land Use Map of the adopted Comprehensive Plan? Response: Yes. (8) Will the variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Response: Yes, it will be in harmony and, in fact, what they are attempting to do is to restore and preserve a very unique building rather than have a complete renovation which would destroy the existing character. In closing, Mr. Bellarano said they are looking for an open ear from the Board's perspective and hopefully they have addressed the concerns of the property owners on either side through diligent efforts and have satisfied the Board's concerns as well. Acting Chairman Frankel said that Town Manager Bill Thrasher asked to comment before going forward. Mr. Thrasher asked the agents to defer this item and vote until October. Code Section 66-73, subsection (2) provides for the application to be heard with only three members present, but he asks them to defer to be heard before a full Board. Mr. Randolph said this probably should have been stated before Mr. Marsh made his presentation, but he believes Mr. Thrasher feels that with only three members present it might be more advantageous for both sides to have this presented to a full Board. He explained that the Ordinance provides that there should be a majority of a full board present in order to prevail on an application, which means you would need a 3/5's vote to prevail. However, the ordinance further provides that in the event a Board member recuses themselves, all you would need is a Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, September 23, 2010 Page 15 majority of the remaining members of the Board. In this particular case in order to prevail, all you would need is a 2 out of 3 vote. He said when he mentioned this to Mr. Thrasher he may have felt that an application such as this, where there may be objections stated by the attorneys present, it would be better to be heard by a five -member Board. Mr. Randolph asked if there were alternates that would make this a five -member Board. Clerk Taylor said yes, but they were both out of town. Mr. Randolph said it is up to the applicant and parties present. Michael Weiner, Esq., counsel for Alexander of 1511 N. Ocean Blvd., stated that they would have requested it when they had an opportunity to speak. He said there are no due process issues here, but they do object to the granting of any type of variance with respect to this particular subdivision. Mr. Weiner said it is a very unique property and the only one like it in the beach district. He said this matter is important and critical to the Town of Gulf Stream and should be considered by a full - member Board. Mr. Bellarano said he flew in from North Carolina for this hearing. His preference was to hear Mr. Weiner's presentation and have the Board make their recommendations. Mr. Weiner did not think it was an efficient approach to make their presentation now and then make two presentations to a full Board in October. Mr. Marsh commented that they have given their presentation and have had no comment from the neighbor's counsel. He said they would like to go forward. Mr. Randolph said a deferral will be the decision of the Board. He asked Mr. Weiner if he could make a presentation that is not as lengthy as intended so that, in the event of a deferral, the applicant will be aware of the objections when they return. Mr. Weiner said it is a quasi-judicial hearing and they want to speak. He said he met with Mr. Marsh before the hearing, there was nothing said today that has increased their knowledge of the circumstances and he suggested a 5 - minute break to collect their thoughts. Mr. Murphy asked the applicant's representatives if they are aware of the neighbor's objections. Mr. Marsh said they are not. Mr. Bellarano said the applicant asked for a deferral from the July ARPB meeting so that Mr. Marsh could fly to New York to meet with Mr. Alexander. Mr. Bellarano said the deferral was necessary to allow time to respond to Mr. Alexander's concerns. He said they responded weeks ago by submitting the revised plans to Mr. Weiner's office and have had no discussion with Mr. Weiner concerning the matter to date. Today Mr. Alexander's attorneys are asking for a deferral. Mr. Murphy asked if that discussion should take place in the public domain or should the discussion take place in private and then come to the public domain. Mr. Bellarano said by the presence of a court reporter, Mr. Weiner intends to have this discussed in the public domain and he suggested that the hearing continue. Acting Chairman Frankel said he has great confidence in the three members sitting here, including him. He said this still has to go to the Town Commission and it is unfair to ask the applicant to wait another month and, therefore, proposed to continue. Mr. Marsh said they knew Mr. Ganger would recuse himself, but they had no idea there would only be three members present. Acting Chairman Frankel said that Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, September 23, 2010 Page 16 it is difficult to get a variance approved and feels it should be discussed and voted on today to go to the Town Commission for a final decision. Mr. Weiner asked Acting Chairman Frankel to poll the other two Board members present. Mr. Murphy said his position is to move forward. Mr. Smith said his position is to move forward. Mr. Weiner asked for 5 -minute recess and stated, for the record, that they object to the fact that this matter will be voted on by three members rather than a full Board. The meeting was recessed at 10:30 A.M. The meeting reconvened at 10:40 A.M. Michael Weiner, Esq., stated that he was present on behalf of Leslie Alexander, owner of the property at 1511 N. Ocean Blvd. in Gulf Stream, who is an aggrieved and affected party. He said he is not only speaking on behalf of Mr. Alexander, but also because the Town regards its standards as an important issue for its community. Mr. Weiner said he and his partner, Jeffrey Lynn, will be making a presentation with respect to requested variances for the subject property and commented that there is a large difference between convenience and hardship. He pointed out the red coastal construction line on the rendering which indicates that the loggia sets a new standard by going out past the line. He said the property is within the beachfront zoning district with a restriction on density pursuant to Gulf Stream's Comprehensive Plan. He added that he differs with the legal description, measuring the property to be approximately 68 feet along A1A. Mr. Weiner stated that the Town was incorporated in 1925 and in February of 1947 the property was subdivided, sold to unrelated buyers and there was nothing in the record to indicate that this particular subdivision was approved by any governmental authority, it was just sold. He said there is no proof of a legally established non -conforming use and, as Mr. Lynn will explain, expanding non -conforming uses without a self-imposed hardship or meeting all of the standards is prohibited by the Town's Code and expansion of an illegal non -conforming use is impossible. Mr. Weiner stated the following: The property is subdivided with three separate structures on the property to the south and three separate structures on this particular property. The property has been sold at increasing values in 1991, 1996 and 2002 and now for the fourth time. There have been residents living there for 60 years and, therefore, the property, in its present state and configuration is not unusable. The total square footage of the single family house and two accessory structures is 5,500 SF, the applicant is requesting an additional 1,360 SF and the accessory structures will receive the bulk of the addition, being increased by 50%. The accessory structures were never available for occupation as a dwelling unit, they were only for accessory uses, and did not prevent the property from being sold. Mr. Weiner said his partner will talk about Code and the impact that the enlargement of this particular use and intensity will have on the Town of Gulf Stream as a whole. Jeffrey Lynn, Esq., introduced himself and stated that the applicant is not restoring the property, they are expanding it in six locations by creating two non -conforming structures. He said the cabana/garage area currently stands at 1,900 SF and Code Section 66-1 provides that, if Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, September 23, 2010 Page 17 built today, it could only be 700 SF and, therefore it is already a non- conforming structure. Section 66-131 precludes that a non -conforming structure cannot be expanded or enlarged and, therefore, the guest house must remain as is. The proposed additions to the guest house will create a structure measuring over 2,900 SF which appears that a second dwelling unit is being constructed on this property and it is the only multi -dwelling lot in the beachfront zoning district. Mr. Lynn said he would talk about how this violates the Town's Comprehensive Plan for density. He said the 4th bedroom cannot be built because Code Section 66-431 deals with AlA and its setbacks and provides that no building shall be constructed within 78 feet of the center line of AlA. Section 66-431(c) goes on to say that no further additions shall be made that do not conform to the setbacks. The 4th bedroom is 38 feet into a 78 -foot setback which is why staff is recommending denial and they ask that the Board concurs with staff that the variances, special exceptions and permits for this end of the property be denied. Mr. Lynn talked about the proposed additions and improvements to the main house on the eastern end of the property where the applicant proposes to add a mud room/pantry to the north side, cover and increase the front entry on the south side and build a loggia. The existing kitchen already encroaches 6 feet into the setback so the proposed addition of the mud room/pantry requires a special exception. Staff is aware that Section 70-75(c) requires additional criteria before recommending approval and this application is deficient in providing that additional criteria. Staff is recommending approval because it meets the Gulf Stream design guidelines and they disagree because you cannot approve a special exception upon meeting the design guidelines. The proposed covered entry to the south which measures about 47 SF asks this Board to extend a non -conforming setback. The adjoining wall to the property already encroaches into the setback by about 15 feet. This is a non -conforming structure and you cannot expand a non -conforming structure. Regarding the proposed loggia to the east, they believe there is no hardship due to direct exposure from the sun. He said you do not need to construct an entire loggia for protection when an awning or an umbrella and window tinting will do. He said the reality is that the applicant would like to expand the second floor master bedroom suite by 180 SF developing a terrace overlooking the ocean. In closing, Mr. Lynn said there are three reasons why the Board must concur with staff and recommend denial. First, Code Section 66-131 prohibits the expansion and enlargement of non -conforming structures. He said in 2004, the Commission added a caveat that says additions can be made to structures with non -conforming setbacks, but that means if you have a legal conforming structure you may be able to expand if you go through the rigorous special exception process, but it does not undermine the first sentence which states if you have a non -conforming structure you cannot expand it. Second, a variance can only be approved if there is a hardship that is not self-imposed. He said Dr. Silverman made these applications before closing and was well informed of what he was buying. They feel the hardship has been imposed by the applicant and not by the subsequent subdivision of the property. Third, approval Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, September 23, 2010 Page 18 of the site plan will likely conflict with the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Policy 1.1.1.2 provides that density in residential areas shall not exceed 2.64 units per acre and this lot is less than half an acre. Therefore, there can only be one dwelling unit on this property and they are asking you to approve a second unit. To do that would violate the Comprehensive Plan, and Policy 1.1.1.9 prohibits violation of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Marsh clarified that the existing guest house has three bedrooms so they are not creating a multi -family use. He said the attorneys are representing a client who has a free-standing dwelling that exceeds what they are asking for. He said he does not believe that this application violates the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The Board has granted special exceptions in the past and he believes it is a realistic request to utilize the property in a way that meets their best interest. Mr. Bellarano stated on the record that he wanted to object to an inference made that the current subdivision and occupancy of the property was illegal. There was an inference that there was no record in the 120s as to whether it was permissible to sell a property without a legal subdivision and then stated that perhaps this was an illegal use. He also objected to some of the calculations made with regard to the expansion of the existing footprint of the building. He said they are well within the Floor to Area Ratio of the property and the expansion is less than 20%, not in excess of 25%. He said multiple buildings exist on the parcel to the north owned by Mr. Alexander and if a case can be made for a first scenario of multi -family dwellings on the ocean, he suggests looking to the north of the existing property with an enormous oceanfront of width. The applicant is dealing with a shoehorned property and they are only proposing improvements to accommodate a family of the 21s` Century. Acting Chairman Frankel asked Mr. Ganger to speak. Mr. Ganger stated the following: He first entered the house in 1969 as it was about to be torn down. He and his father made the decision to rescue it and negotiated with Good Samaritan Hospital who held both deeds. They knew they were taking a chance moving into a house that was empty for six years and would be difficult to restore. They also knew that it would be the only duplex in town, but the original division of the house in 1947 was done for the right reasons. He said there may not have been �-� legal record because the gentleman that rented it was a 3 -star general who the military was allowing to do whatever he needed to get his full retirement. They assigned him to the Boca Raton Air Force Base for his last duty. He was one of a number of renters and it was rented free to servicemen in WWII. The fact that there is no paper trail as to how it was divided and why it was non -conforming is simply because the Phipps Family, who virtually owned the Town at the time and were it's management and the developers, were accommodating a distinguished General in both WWI and WWII. There were many more people living in the house during the war than today. Mr. Ganger said he has a totally different set of objectives in terms of how he feels about the plan because the house is part of his soul. He Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, September 23, 2010 Page 19 said he is pleased that someone wants to fix it up and does not want to see it lose its character or the potential to be deemed a historically preserved home. Mr. Ganger said he has made no changes, they have the original furniture. They put up awnings for shade, but it is not a permanent change to the structure. He said he respects the fact that the applicant wants to accommodate his family, but he previously pointed out in writing that the previous owners had four adult children who Cmanaged to live in the guest house during their visits. He said he feels strongly about his role as Chairman of this Board and advised the board to stick to the rules. He said he respects the fact that Dr. Silverman asked him for his advice regarding some of the proposed improvements. He said it is the only house where the Phipps, made this unusual adjustment. He believes it is important and nothing like this will come up again and advised the Board to take time to think it through to be sure we preserve something that makes this Town a better place to live. There were no public comments. Mr. Thrasher said legal counsel is very impressive and respects everything said. He said that Mr. Marsh was correct in that the staff report indicates 1,946 SF and should be 1,608 SF. He said he believes the current Code did recognize and did anticipate certain special exceptions. He said the comment that there are other loggias east of the 78 sea line has no merit. we do not know the date of those and, therefore, we have to assume they were allowed. He said he is sorry that Mr. Lynn used the word "illegal," he believes it was a poor choice of words. Staff has information from the Town attorney that health issues and costs do not qualify as a hardship for granting variances. Mr. Thrasher said he looked at the application in regard to special exception and recognized the standards that each special exception required. He reminded the Board that all eight (8) of the standards for granting a variance must be met. The 7th standard actually refers to the Comp Plan and in the present Comp Plan by text it adopts the design manual, so if it is a conflict in the design manual it is also, therefore, a conflict in the Comp Plan. He said, with those comments, his report remains as submitted except for recognizing the error of 1,608 SF. Mr. Randolph stated that he sees nothing in the application that violates the Comp Plan and although he does not believe that by variance you can allow a non -conforming use to be extended, you can by variance allow a non -conforming structure to be extended by special exception. This is not a non -conforming use, it is a non -conforming structure. It would be a non -conforming use if the guest house were being used as a single family dwelling, but it is an accessory to the main house and an accessory is allowed. He re-emphasized that the criteria for a variance does not involve either financial hardship, medical hardships or size of family and this is something you should consider in your decision of whether or not to grant a variance. Mr. Murphy stated that he was looking for guidance concerning hardships and Mr. Randolph has clarified that. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, September 23, 2010 Page 20 Mr. Smith commented that they looked at this proposal two months ago and it is a difficult decision. He looked at the house in 1991 and regretted that he did not purchase it because it was selling for $325,000. He said the Board will have to stick with Town Code and thought that most of the recommendations by staff and counsel would be that most of the requests not be approved. He suggested moving to that l� point in the agenda. Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Smith seconded the motion to recommend denial of variance to permit additions consisting of 1,070 SF to existing 1,946 SF of non -conforming out building that exceeds the maximum allowed 700 SF of land area based on the findings that this increases an already existing non -conformity and does not meet standards 3,5,7 and 8 on page CD70:33 of the Code of Ordinances of the Town of Gulf Stream. There was no discussion. Roll Call: Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Acting Chairman Frankel, AYE. All voted AYE. Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Smith seconded the motion to recommend denial of special exception to extend the west wall of the existing non- conforming guest house which encroaches 40 feet into the front setback based on the finding that this action would increase an already existing non -conformity and does not meet specific standard Section 70- 75(c)(2)(a) on page CD70:33 of the Code of Ordinances of the Town of Gulf Stream. There was no discussion. Roll Call: Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Acting Chairman Frankel, AYE. All voted AYE. Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Smith seconded the motion to recommend denial of a North Ocean Blvd. Overlay Permit based on previous motions to recommend denial of both the variance and Special Exception immediately above. There was no discussion. Roll Call: Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Acting Chairman Frankel, AYE. All voted AYE. Mr. Murphy moved to recommend denial of variance to construct a 224 SF loggia on the east side of the non -conforming 3 -story dwelling that encroaches 9'11" into the rear (east) setback based on the findings that it does not meet Variance Standards (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) and (8) on page CD66:47 of the Code of Ordinances of the Town of Gulf Stream. Mr. Smith inquired about the 224 SF loggia on the east side of the non- conforming 3 -story dwelling which he thought was 180 SF. Mr. Marsh stated that the loggia is only 180 SF. Mr. Murphy restated the motion as amended at 180 SF. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. There was no �f further discussion. Roll Call: Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Acting Chairman Frankel, AYE. All voted AYE. Acting Chairman Frankel asked the Board to return to the first motion regarding a variance to permit additions on the guest house and said the motion was made stating the incorrect existing square footage of 1,946. He asked Clerk Taylor if the correct existing square footage was 1,608. Clerk Taylor confirmed that. Acting Chairman Frankel asked Mr. Murphy to restate the motion. Mr. Murphy moved to amend the first motion substituting the 1,946 SF measurement to 1,608 Sr. Mr. Smith seconded. Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, September 23, 2010 Page 21 There was no discussion. Roll Call: Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Acting Chairman Frankel, AYE. All voted AYE. Mr. Murphy moved to recommend denial of variance to construct 358.4 SF loggia on the east side of the non -conforming 3 -story dwelling that encroaches 2 feet into the south side setback based on the findings that it does not meet Variance Standards (3)(6)(7) and (8) on page CD66:47 of the Code of Ordinances of the Town of Gulf Stream. Mr. Smith said he was confused as to what piece this is. Mr. Randolph asked if the Board already disapproved the loggia. Mr. Smith confirmed that. Mr. Randolph said this is addressing the encroachment into the south side setback. Mr. Smith said the description of the loggia is larger in this motion. Mr. Randolph said they could make an alternate motion to disapprove the 2 -foot setback on the loggia. For clarification, Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend denial of the variance that would allow the loggia requested for the east side of the 3 -story structure to encroach 2 feet into the south side setback based on the findings that it does not meet Variance Standards (3)(6)(7) and (8). There was no discussion. Roll Call: Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Acting Chairman Frankel, AYE. All voted AYE. Mr. Murphy moved to recommend denial to extend south structure wall of an existing non -conforming 3 -story dwelling located on the south property line, and encroachment of 15 feet based on the finding that it does not meet specific standards (c)(2)(a and d4) of Section 70-75 on pages CD70:32 and CD70:33 of the Code of Ordinances of the Town of Gulf Stream. There was no second. Mr. Randolph stated that the Board must act on this item with an alternate motion. Mr. Smith asked for clarification. Mr. Thrasher said it is the addition in that the entire addition is in the setback area. Mr. Smith stated that he will change his position and second the original motion. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll Call: Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Acting Chairman Frankel, AYE. All voted AYE. Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval to extend north structure wall of an existing non -conforming 3 -story dwelling that encroaches approximately 6 feet into the north side setback based on the finding that the extension meets the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards. There was no discussion. Roll Call: Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Acting Chairman Frankel, NO. The motion passed 2 - 1. Mr. Murphy moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of Level III Architectural/Site Plan only to extend north structure wall providing for the expansion of the north single story portion of the existing non -conforming 3 -story dwelling, a total of 88 SF. There was no discussion. Roll Call: Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Acting Chairman Frankel, NO. The motion passed 2 - 1. Acting Chairman Frankel thanked everyone and commented that it was a very difficult presentation. He stated that it will be heard again by the Town Commission on October 8, 2010. Acting Chairman Frankel Architectural Review and Planning Board Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, September 23, 2010 Page 22 returned the gavel to Chairman Ganger. Chairman Ganger thanked the Board and everyone who participated for their hard work. He said he hopes they can help make something come out of this that works for everyone. Mr. Murphy commented that this was a unique application and it was a dilemma because they did not really have the tools to address it. Chairman Ganger said he believes the Code of Ordinances served well in this matter. He asked Clerk Taylor if Mr. Weiner has asked for a deferral for this matter to be heard before a full Board. Clerk Taylor stated that he asked, but she told Mr. Weiner she did not have the authority to grant that and the Board made their decision to go forward. She confirmed that this application and the Board's recommendations will be heard by the Town Commission on Friday, October 8, 2010 at 9:00 A.M. VII. Items by Staff. There were no items by Staff. Clerk Taylor confirmed that the next meeting of the Architectural Review and Planning Board will take place on Thursday, October 28, 2010 at 8:30 A.M. She said there are no applications on the Agenda at this time. VIII. Items by Board Members. There were no items by Board Members. IX. Public. There were no items by the Public. X. Adjournment. Mr the meeting. Chairman 11:38 A.M. . Frankel moved and Mr. Smith seconded to adjourn Ganger adjourned the meeting at approximately Gail C. Abbale Administrative Assistant To: Members of the Architectural Review and Planning Board This letter will confirm my earlier decision to recuse myself from consideration of the Board Review of the Silverman family application re 1465 North Ocean Boulevard, originally scheduled for July 22, 2010. Robert W. Ganger September 23, 2010 FORM 86 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS ST NAME—FIRST NAME— DI LE NAME GA 2 g �ob� Ward ,ILING ADORESs 14'13 No. Ocean Blud- Gu l F siream R_ WHICH 3, a©io NAME OF BOARD. COUNCIL. COMMISSION. AUTHORITY. OR Architectural Review 6'_Plaming Board THE BOARD, COUNCIL. COMMISSION. AUTHORITY. OR COMI WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: X C'IIY . COUNTY ' OTHER LOCAL AGENCY Pl NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: ll..Li Town of Gulf Stream MY Post TION IS: ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM dB 1 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, I council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non -advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this fortr. before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inure! to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the specia gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure or which you are abstaining from voting; and Cl_ WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recordinl the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure whict inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited frotb knowingly voting on a measure which inures to thl ipecial gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but mus disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whethe made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICF THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible fo recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. • A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest i IF YOU MAKE NO.ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE' DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: e'You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You ,should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recordingthe minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. l DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST �Q I hereby disclose that on Y 3 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) (Yl)ll f10.vQ inured to my special private gain; or 0 $S inured to the special 'gain of , by whom 1 am retained. (b) The <measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: CS� C kd i rata n I� Gl nc� C, 001, Board/ ' - recti, cd ✓ht�Sel� � GNtsra[e i� 1 J �V1 I (C AFdVI,U-p-DVem evttS --D C� II 9 310'S h I s h -u C- �/1 cSYvt W'VL Jc;t W c.. s d t Jl ed 1,-1+D —iuu o VZ E t d e n - ic..l um ut , � 19 q7) icevL1 /ecevti'� P � zLa tic{ i-kQ nor - �L e(/Ld CT b -k-e SD cti ei.a� cr_4 Go o� ccnnce t u -c C.L- "1 t n cfT-L s e GLC. p e vC lt-P- rnY P✓o�e Cin -t�ltS hc4sis , vt&r i� -fLo- Boards Cfc(SI 6"s L3 /10 Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112317 (1985),'A'FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY -ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE Olt EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. -c cnou .e 1..a PAG