HomeMy Public PortalAbout10/27/2011MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2011 at 8:30 A.M., IN THE TOWN HALL,
100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA.
I. Call to Order. Chairman Ganger called the meeting to order at
8:30 A.M.
II. Roll Call.
Present and
Robert W. Ganger
Chairman
Participating
Scott Morgan
Vice -Chairman
Malcolm Murphy
Board Member
Thomas Smith
Board Member
Absent w/Notice
Amanda Jones
Alternate Member
Also Present and
William H. Thrasher
Town Manager
Participating
Rita L. Taylor
Town Clerk
John Randolph
Town Attorney
Douglas W. Mann, P.E of
Agent/Goodman
Coastal Planning & Engeering
Brian D. Pfeifler
Neighbor of Goodman
Mark Marsh of Bridges,
Agent/Silverman
Marsh & Associates
Keith Williams of
Mario Nievera Design
James Ballerano, Esq.
Land. Arch./Silverman
Leg. Counsel/Silverman
Chairman Ganger mentioned Charles Frankel's resignation from the
Architectural Review and Planning Board and asked Clerk Taylor if he is
still maintaining residency in the Town. Clerk Taylor said he has moved
out of Gulf Stream. Mr. Randolph said Mr. Frankel owns a home in Gulf
Stream, but he no longer resides there.
III. Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 9-22-11.
Chairman Ganger mentioned that the application for the proposed
subdivision of the Spence property, which was on the October 14th
Commission Meeting Agenda and has been debated at several meetings, was
deferred due to failure to achieve a quorum as a result of recusals and
a resignation. He added that this application will be addressed at the
November 10th Commission Meeting and Public Hearing. Chairman Ganger
announced the resignation of Chris D. Wheeler from the Town Commission.
Mr. Morgan moved and Mr. Smith seconded to approve the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of September 22, 2011. There was no
discussion. All voted AYE.
IV. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items.
There were no changes.
V. Announcements.
A. Meeting Dates
1. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
a. November 17, 2011 @ 6:30 A.M.
b. December 28, 2011 @ 8:30 A.M.
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing
Architectural Review & Planning Board - October 27, 2011 Page 2
c. January 26, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M.
d. February 23, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M.
e. March 22, 2012 @ 8:30 A.M.
Chairman Ganger asked if there were any conflicts with the meeting
schedule. There were no conflicts. He inquired about the availability
of Alternate ARPB Member Amanda Jones. Clerk Taylor said Ms. Jones
contacted her a couple of weeks ago saying she would be in South Africa
and would not attend the October Meeting, but would then be available
for the next few months. Chairman Ganger asked if there would be
nomination for a new ARPB Member at the November Meeting and Clerk
Taylor said there are two individuals who have expressed their interest
to serve on the Board.
VI. PUBLIC HEARING.
Chairman Ganger stated that he would request declaration of Ex -parte
communication prior to hearing each matter. Clerk Taylor asked those
intending to speak during this Public Hearing to stand. She
administered the Oath to Douglas Mann, Brian Pfeifler, Mark Marsh, Keith
Williams and James Ballerano.
A. Applications for Development Approval
1. An application submitted by Marc Julien Homes, LLC as
agent for William H. Binnie, owner of property located at
1314 N. Ocean Boulevard, Gulf Stream, Florida, legally
described as Lots 4, 4A, 5 and SA Replat of Donald B.
McLouth Subdivision, Gulf Stream, Florida.
a. LEVEL 2 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN SIGN REVIEW to permit
installation of a two (2) square foot black on white
contractors sign on the property at 1314 N. Ocean
Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida.
Chairman Ganger asked if there was ex -parte communication concerning
this matter. There were no declarations of ex -parte communication.
Clerk Taylor read the application summary. There were no
representatives present for this matter. Chairman Ganger asked what
type of sign will be erected. Mr. Thrasher explained that it is a
contractors sign and the recommendation includes conformity to Code
Section 66-447. He said he spoke to M.J. Homes informing them that they
will need to modify the requested size to the size required by Code and
they have agreed to do so. Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to
approve a sign permit for erection of a contractors sign based on a
finding that the proposed sign meets the requirements of Code Section
66-447, subject to a maximum height of 4 feet and maximum 2 SF sign
size. There was no discussion. Roll Call: Vice -Chairman Morgan, AYE;
Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Chairman Ganger, AYE. The motion
passed by a vote of 4 - 0.
2. An application submitted by Douglas W. Mann, P.E. of
Coastal Planning & Engineering, as agent for Barry
Goodman, owner of the property located at 3603 N. Ocean
Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, which is legally described as
a portion of Lot 8 of Replat of Lots 8 and 9, Gulf Stream
Ocean Tracts and a portion of Lots 7, 8 & 9, Block B Palm
Beach Shore Acres, to consider the following:
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing
Architectural Review & Planning Board - October 27, 2011 Page 3
a. SPECIAL EXCEPTION to permit extension of existing
tile deck 12' seaward to the leeward foot of the
dune and will include placement of beach
compatible fill held in place by a retaining wall
constructed with railroad ties.
b. LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL/SITE PLAN REVIEW to permit
construction of a 648 square foot tile deck
O extension to the existing deck which will extend 12'
seaward to the leeward foot of the dune, placed on
beach compatible fill material with a retaining wall
of railroad ties.
Chairman Ganger asked if there were any ex -parte communications
concerning this matter. Chairman Ganger stated that he drove by the
site and he knows the Goodmans and Brian Pfeifler personally. There
were no declarations of ex -parte communication. Clerk Taylor read the
application summary.
Douglas Mann of Coastal Planning & Engineering introduced himself and
said this is a small project relative to the overall property which was
developed about 12 years ago. He said there is an existing tile deck
surrounding the pool area and they are proposing to extend the deck 12
feet seaward and over the top of the existing concrete seawall. Mr.
Mann displayed a drawing of the existing area and the proposed section
of the deck addition which is directly seaward and south of the existing
dune overwalk structure. He said the overwalk structure will not be
altered as a part of this application and there is existing overgrown
vegetation in the dune system which provides a fair amount of privacy
between the Goodmans and the neighbor to the north. Mr. Mann said the
goal is to expand the deck to reflect the property to the south which is
completely horizontal to an existing 3 -foot tall concrete block wall
where the lawn on the adjacent property ends and the native vegetation
dune begins.
Chairman Ganger asked Staff if there was anything in the application to
renovate the old Ireland house indicating that they planned to extend
the dune seaward from the main house. Mr. Thrasher said there was
nothing to that effect in the application. Mr. Smith asked if a tile
deck exists on the property to the south going out to that seawall. Mr.
Mann said it is currently grassed. He said the proposed location of the
retaining wall is to match the southern adjoining property's concrete
block wall so they will be equal and level to each other. Mr. Smith
asked about the property to the north. Mr. Mann said the seawall is an
extension of the property to the north and the sloping concrete seawall
has been in existence for a long time. He said these properties have
narrow frontage, they were subdivided years ago and the seawall precedes
the Goodmans and previous owners. Chairman Ganger said there is a lot
of ocean activity in that area in a storm and it is difficult to get
around. Mr. Mann said he worked for the Goodmans a decade ago when they
put the first retaining wall in at the base, which is still visible from
the beach and is essentially built into the rock, and it was built there
so they would have some beach area to sit on. Chairman Ganger asked
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing
Architectural Review & Planning Board - October 27, 2011 Page 4
about the vegetation and Mr. Mann said it is primarily Scavola which is
an exotic species and requires a lot of maintenance.
Mr. Mann displayed a drawing indicating the existing railroad tie wall
which is founded on rock base and there is an accumulation of sand and
overgrown vegetation. Chairman Ganger asked if the existing wall is
tied into the rock with rebar. Mr. Mann said it is a frangible wall and
CIIwas designed to hold the sand back from rolling over the wall over and
CJ` not to hold the ocean from going westward. He said they are not trying
to increase the level of protection, but they are proposing the same
type of wall which will break away in a storm. Mr. Mann displayed a
rendering of what the wall will look like from the beach. He said the
wall is a low timber wall and all of the existing vegetation sitting
along the dune will remain and impair the visibility of the tile deck
looking west. Chairman Ganger asked if the neighbor to the north will
experience visual impairment looking south. Mr. Mann said the neighbor
to the north and the Goodmans share the vegetation which extends out as
far as the existing deck and the existing dune overwalk system will
remain and, therefore, will have very little impact on the neighbor to
the north.
Mr. Smith asked if they were putting in railroad ties and backfilling
with sand. Mr. Mann confirmed that. He said the State of Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) will require a permit to
build the structure since it is seaward from the Coastal Construction
Control Line, and they are very specific about the type of sand that can
be brought in. He said it must be clean and very similar to what is on
the beach because it will eventually wind up on the beach in a storm.
The most reliable source of that type of sand that is clean and the
right color and size is a plant located in Ortona, which is west of Lake
Okeechobee. Mr. Mann said they sell their sand mainly to concrete
manufacturers, but it is just sand. He said they are proposing to build
the retaining wall, back fill with sand and put the tiles on top, which
is the same type of construction that was permitted by the State 12
years ago.
Chairman Ganger asked about the impact a storm would have on what they
are proposing. Mr. Mann said any construction that is seaward of the
Coastal Construction Control Line has the potential of being impacted
during a storm. State regulations put a priority on habitable homes to
be sure they are storm proof and anything else from your habitable
O structure is frangible and non-essential to live there. They would like
to see this type of a structure break up and allow the sand to wash out
and go out to sea. He said the design is consistent with State
standards.
There were no further questions of the Board at this time. Vice -
Chairman Morgan mentioned a letter the Board received this morning from
Brian Pfeifler, the neighbor to the north of the subject property. He
wanted to hear from Mr. Pfeifler and then have Mr. Mann respond.
Chairman Ganger asked if the applicant has seen Mr. Pfeifler's letter.
Clerk Taylor said they did not, but the agent was given a copy this
morning. Chairman Ganger asked if the Town provided proper notice to
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing
Architectural Review & Planning Board - October 27, 2011 Page 5
the neighbors. Clerk Taylor said the Town was required to notice the
neighbors within 25 feet for this type of application. Clerk Taylor
read the letter addressed to the ARPB from Brian Pfeifler into the
record. In his letter, Mr. Pfeifler states that he received
notification of this application on Monday, November 24th and did not
have an opportunity to fully investigate potential problems. His
property and the Goodman property share a common seawall and Mr.
Pfeifler asked if the proposed changes to the sea wall would affect the
Cintegrity of his section of the sea wall and if altering the sea wall
would create a water vortex that may endanger his property. Mr.
Pfeifler had questions concerning the existing dune overwalk structure
and whether it would remain. In his letter Mr. Pfeifler recommended
that, at the expense of the applicant, an independent engineering firm
be retained to evaluate the proposed changes. Mr. Pfeifler's letter
will be filed with the Official Records of the Town.
Chairman Ganger noted that Mr. Mann addressed some of Mr. Pfeifler's
questions during his presentation and he asked Mr. Pfeifler if he would
like to comment further. Mr. Pfeifler said some of his questions have
been addressed, but he is still concerned that his southern view will be
obscured if the deck is built out seaward with a 3 -foot wall around it.
He said if the deck is extended 12 feet out and you stand at the edge of
the deck you would look directly onto his property, which would
interfere with his privacy. Mr. Pfeifler said the slope seawall is
impervious and was built right, but because of the way water comes into
that area he feels that anything backed by ties will be torn up in a
storm. He also asked about the wooden walkover and how they plan to
back it up. Mr. Mann said there is a return wall adjacent and parallel
to the existing dune overwalk to retain the sand and tiles south of the
overwalk. Chairman Ganger asked if the railroad ties used for the
retaining wall will be pinned to the concrete seawall. Mr. Mann said
they will be pinned to the concrete seawall. Chairman Ganger asked if
the north and south would also be pinned. Mr. Mann said they plan to
drill a short distance into the concrete seawall, put rebar in with
epoxy to hold it in place, drill holes into the ties and set them over
the top of the rebar so they stay in place while the soil loads and is
transferred down into the concrete. Chairman Ganger asked if there will
be a railing on the wall. Mr. Mann said it is not included in this
proposal and they would only add a rail if the Building Code required
them to do so due to the dropoff.
O Mr. Morgan asked Mr. Pfeifler what the Goodmans would see if they looked
over onto his property. Mr. Pfeifler said there is a concrete area with
chairs and at the present time he has privacy from the Goodmans because
of the dense vegetation they share. He said the vegetation has grown
outward and there is cement there which makes it impossible to plant
additional vegetation for privacy. Mr. Morgan asked about the property
to the south of the Goodmans. Mr. Mann said it is level and grassed out
to the concrete wall and they are trying to make the Goodman property
similar to the southern property. He said there is existing heavy
vegetation and his perception is that what they are proposing will have
minimal impact on visibility.
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing
Architectural Review & Planning Board - October 27, 2011 Page 6
Mr. Randolph said he sees nothing in the criteria for special exception
relating to view of adjacent property. He said there is a provision in
the Code which allows for patios and decks and it is under the standards
for special exception, but it does not include criteria relating to
views from adjacent properties. It relates to the integrity of the
patio and deck and says the deck shall not extend seaward of the leeward
foot of the dune. It provides that plans must be sealed by a licensed
engineer and must have DEP approval. The State requires that anything
Cwhich is erected east of the Coastal Construction Control Line must be
frangible. Vice -Chairman Morgan asked what would prevent them from
extending the deck out 24 feet. Mr. Thrasher said the leeward line of
the dune is right there. Mr. Mann said the property was surveyed and
the edge of the existing sloping seawall falls at the leeward side of
the dune. He said the State will limit how far seaward they can extend
and they can only ask the State if they can build the deck on top of the
sloping portion of the seawall, which is as far as they can go.
Chairman Ganger asked if the Board is empowered to make a decision based
on whether one change to a property, which can affect a contiguous
property, could potentially cause future damage. Mr. Randolph said
under the Code and through zoning regulations you try to resolve those
issues by dealing with setbacks of adjoining properties and lot
coverage. He said the State is also protective of that with regard to
what they allow to be built east of the Coastal Construction Control
Line. Mr. Randolph said there is nothing in the Code which would set
that forth as criteria and you must rely on evidence presented as
opposed to what might happen in the future. Chairman Ganger noted that
in his letter Mr. Pfeifler recommended an independent engineer be hired
to give a certified opinion and asked if that is a reasonable request.
Vice -Chairman Morgan said Mr. Pfeifler's concern with this proposal is
the impact it will have on his view, but by Code it meets applicable
standards and the Board's hands may be tied. Mr. Pfeifler said he
believes it will impede his view and will have an effect on his property
value.
Mr. Randolph said the ARPB will make their recommendation on this matter
to the Commission for their final approval. Mr. Smith asked if it would
be inappropriate to request an independent study. Mr. Randolph said
based on the criteria provided in the Code we are relying upon final
approval from the DEP and plans that must be signed and sealed by a
licensed coastal engineer, and Mr. Mann is a licensed Coastal Engineer.
Chairman Ganger asked if Mr. Pfeifler has the right to get another
opinion at his expense which may refute this proposal if he does not
agree with Mr. Mann's opinion. He said the Board would not make that a
condition on this application, but there have been applications which
have been debated and, at the expense of another party, an expert was
hired to render their professional opinion. Chairman Ganger said the
Board is sympathetic with Mr. Pfeifler's concerns, but he is convinced
that Staff has been very careful to assure there are no violations in
this matter. Vice -Chairman Morgan suggested that Mr. Pfeifler spend
some time reviewing the Code to prepare his presentation to the
Commission.
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing
Architectural Review & Planning Board - October 27, 2011 Page 7
Chairman Ganger said Mr. Pfeifler asked for a deferral to address some
issues. Mr. Randolph said an applicant is entitled to a special
exception unless there is evidence presented which would show a lack of
entitlement. He said he is not sure there has been evidence presented
which would indicate that the applicant is not entitled to a special
exception, but when looking at the criteria he missed another section of
the Code which includes criteria relating to the granting of a special
exception and says that the application shall not be detrimental to
Cadjoining property owners. Mr. Randolph said this might allow the Board
to consider a deferral of this application. He said if the Board would
like to defer this application they can do so and the obligation to
submit proof that the standards have not been met would be the
responsibility of the person objecting to this application. Mr.
Randolph said some of the standards are quite general and others are
vague.
Vice -Chairman Morgan referenced Section 66-164, Standards for Special
Exceptions, Subsection 3, which says that the proposed use or structure
will not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the
neighborhood where it is to be located. He said there are eight other
clauses which also speak generally to that sort of overall consideration
of the impact of the application. Vice -Chairman Morgan said a deferral
is not a bad idea for the Board and for Mr. Pfeifler to evaluate the
other sections of the Code and for the applicant to address them, and to
have time to present more evidence on what the impact will truly be.
Chairman Ganger said in all fairness a deferral may be necessary and he
would agree to a date certain deferral. Mr. Pfeifler said he would have
enough time to prepare for the November 17th ARPB Meeting. Vice -Chairman
Morgan commented that Mr. Mann did an excellent job with his
presentation. Mr. Smith moved and Vice -Chairman Morgan seconded to
defer this application until the next ARPB Meeting scheduled for
Thursday, November 17 to give Mr. Pfeifler an opportunity to review the
Code or consult an engineer at his expense. Mr. Thrasher asked Mr. Mann
if he would be able to address the Building Code requirement as to
whether or not this extension of the patio and immediate drop off will
require a railing. Mr. Mann said he could not do so today, but would be
able to address the matter on November 17th. Roll Call: Vice -Chairman
Morgan, AYE; Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Chairman Ganger, AYE. The
motion passed by a vote of 4 - 0.
VII. Items related to previous approvals.
i� A. Improvements at 1465 N. Ocean Blvd.
v 1. Final Landscape/Hardscape design
Chairman Ganger stated that he is the property owner directly to the
south of the subject property and recused himself from this matter.
Vice -Chairman Morgan took the gavel. Clerk Taylor read Robert W.
Ganger's recusal letter into the record. In his letter Mr. Ganger
confirmed his approval of the walkover as shown in the latest plans. He
said he has seen no elevated illustrations of the proposed landscaping
and cannot provide public comment as to whether it will reinstate the
lush appearance and privacy inherent in the prior design. His letter
will be filed with the Official Records of the Town of Gulf Stream
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing
Architectural Review & Planning Board - October 27, 2011 Page 8
Mr. Thrasher asked if he could read or have the Board consider the
deferral request from the Alexanders who are the neighbors to the north
of the subject property. Mr. Bellarano, counsel to the applicant,
objected to the letter being read aloud stating that the letter is
unsigned and is not from the property owner. He said there is no legal
authority or standing on the part of someone who is not a property owner
to have a letter of this sort read into the record. Mr. Randolph said
Canyone's comments can be heard during a public hearing and he asked
Clerk Taylor to summarize the letter since it is several pages long.
Clerk Taylor said the Alexanders are not in residence at this time and
they requested a copy of the plan be sent to them. Clerk Taylor said
they have had the plan in there possession for about one week now and
the Alexanders were not able to discern the differences between the two
plans. She said the Alexanders feel the new plan will encroach on their
privacy with the additional sidewalk and the height of the planters.
Clerk Taylor said the Alexanders would prefer to be present during this
discussion and they are asking for a delay. Mr. Smith commented that
the plans were small and he also had a difficult time seeing the
changes. He said the neighbors would benefit from viewing the larger
color renderings and to hear the presentation.
Mr. Marsh introduced himself saying that he has been on this project for
a year and a half and it is a very unique property. He commented that
the adjacent neighbor has objected to plans four times just before a
meeting date which is unfair to the applicant. Mr. Marsh said Keith
Williams is present to detail the new landscape plan and feels that the
Board should judge this application by what is presented. He said what
was originally approved was a concept and not a final hardscape/
landscape plan and the Town Manager has requested that this come with
the new landscape architect and they have complied with everything. Mr.
Marsh summarized the four objections, starting with a grill area. Mr.
Marsh said a grill area does not exist on the north side of the existing
building. He said there is also an objection to elevated planters with
banquette seats which are 16" high. Mr. Marsh said there is a bulkhead
that is 33" high and nothing is visible and will have no impact. Mr.
Smith asked if there is an outdoor cooking or barbeque anywhere on the
deck. Mr. Marsh said there is not, but there is an another area where
they can use a portable barbeque. Mr. Keith Williams introduced himself
and stated that originally they had a little bumpout of paving in the
deck area where a removable or portable grill could be set, but they
Oremoved it from the plan because it was a concern of the neighbors.
Mr. Marsh said when they acquired the easement they agreed to install a
7' high privacy wall, which is now in place, and they also agreed to
preserve much of the existing Sea Grapes. He said there will be a via
connecting the pool house to the main house, which is a trellised area
through the new landscape design and the idea is to create a bypass to
so that service and repair people do not use the main access entryway.
Mr. Marsh said it is sand set coquina stone and is very low key and
random and it will meander through the proposed landscape which serves
as a buffer to the north property.
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing
Architectural Review & Planning Board - October 27, 2011 Page 9
Mr. Marsh said they attempted to relocate the laundry room because the
neighbors were objecting to the possibility of fumes, but when they
could not find an alternative for relocation, they decided to leave it
where it is. In addition, Mr. Marsh said the neighbors are objecting to
anything electric or gas on the deck area facing the ocean. He said
nothing the Silvermans are trying to achieve will impact the neighbors,
it is a unique site and nothing has changed in terms of the original
O presentation except for the addition of the via designed for use by the
service people.
Keith Williams displayed a rendering of the proposed final hardscape and
landscape plan and summarized starting from the North Ocean Blvd.
entrance on the west side of the property. He said there are quite a
few large Sea Grape Trees, Screw Pines, Gumbo Limbos and Palm Trees
which they will relocate and reuse in the gardens and in the front of
the property. Mr. Williams said the existing entrance will remain with
two columns and entry gates and they will align the north side of the
driveway with various palms and hedges. He said the forecourt area
material includes a pattern of brick and Dominican Coral and large Sea
Grape and Magnolia trees. Mr. Williams said there is a walkway leading
to the pergola with a garden area on the side and a covered walkway
leading to the main house, all of which will be surrounded by 12' high
trees and a variety of lush tropical landscaping. Mr. Williams detailed
the final hardscape and landscape proposal as indicated on the plans.
Mr. Williams pointed out an addition to the existing wall that will run
from the southeast corner of the house heading east with decorative
elements matching the house to the south. Mr. Marsh added that the
originally proposed beach walkway has not changed. Mr. Smith said it
looks like they have expanded and created a new area around the pool.
Mr. Marsh said it was just a lawn area and they created a small patio
across from the pergola to give a flow through the garden area. Mr.
Marsh said they have heeded all concerns which came from both neighbors.
Vice -Chairman Morgan commented that it is a beautiful rendition and an
improvement over the original schematic. Mr. Smith commented that Mr.
Marsh has answered all objections and the minutes will reflect that. He
said the minutes will be available for the Alexanders to read. Mr.
Thrasher asked for the distance at the closest point of the north side
of the walkway to the property line. Mr. Williams said it is 6 feet.
Mr. Thrasher said it does not conflict with the Code.
l J Mr. Thrasher stated on record that in a telephone conversation with Ms.
lJ Liz Brown he told her the letter would be read verbatim. Vice -Chairman
Morgan asked Clerk Taylor if the Commission would have an opportunity to
read the letter as the ARPB has. Clerk Taylor said the decision to
approve or not to approve will be made by the ARPB and will not go to
the Commission. Mr. Randolph said there is no obligation on the part of
the Board to read the letter verbatim and the letter can be made a pert
of the record and filed with the Official Records of the Town. Vice -
Chairman Morgan said the Board Members have read the letter, the
questions and concerns have been addressed by the Board and the
applicant's Agent and he does not feel the need to read the letter
aloud.
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing
Architectural Review & Planning Board - October 27, 2011 Page 10
Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to approve the final hardscape
and landscape design plan as presented to the Board. There was no
discussion. Roll Call: Mr. Smith, AYE; Mr. Murphy, AYE; Vice -Chairman
Morgan, AYE. The Motion passed by a vote of 3 - 0.
VIII. Items by Staff. There were no items by Staff.
IX. Items by Board Members. There were no items by Board Members.
X. Public. There were no public comments.
XI. Adjournment. Chairman Morgan moved and Mr. Murphy seconded to
adjoy �the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 A.M.
i Gail C. Abbale
Administrative Assi
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
Clr ' �iTa /Y / I -FL ('OUNTI'
VOIL
"114
WHO MUST FILE FORM 819
IE 15 A UNIT OF: _
COUNTY 'OTHER LOCA( AGENCY
.. ELECTIVE
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,
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 form
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 inures
to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special
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 on
which you are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording
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 which
inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the
special 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 must
disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether
made by the officer or at his direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE.ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH
THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN:
• You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible fol
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.
IF YOU'MAK ,NO,ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION :EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT, THE MEETING:
o'You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
• Y:ou should compinethe form and file it within 15 days after the vote. occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes
of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'SI REST
���, ��G'L hereby disclose that on �c 2 19
(a) A measure came Rr will come before my agency which (check one),
✓ �t71 {'r1 �i � CN' OSS
�inurcd to my specn 1 private aairf: or
inueed'to'the speciaPgain of by whom 1 am retained.
(b)'The-measure before my agency and the nature of my`interest in the measure is as follows:
at -
Lu l d s cc �c1J1C�J
ffe h �
/IVaC1.' LI,
1
0 reC1L5Cw �1��
FI,!�-ACL d-�-
AA�
CXe c_r.S L��
z
Date Filed
/S cas 5 ( /lam
c411'Lat—&4- d--�
NOTICE: UNDER, PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §1121317 (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 OR EMPLOYMENT,, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN
SALARY, REPRIMAND OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000.
7E FORM go • 10.96 PAG