Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout03 08 03 MinutesMINUTES OF THE CODE VIOLATION HEARING HELD BY THE SPECIAL C) MASTER OF THE TOWN OF GULF STEAM ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 AT 10:00 A.M., IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. Special Master Paulette Torcivia announced that the case being heard is Case No. CE -4- 03, addressing a code violation at 1511 N. Ocean Blvd., N. 82' lot 1 blk D & blk E Palm Beach Shore Acres & s. 68' of Govt. lot 1 Sec. 10 Twnshp. 46 South Range 43 East Palm Beach County Florida East of Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, that is owned by John W. and Barbara S. Wynne. She announced for the record that the Respondents were not present and then administered the Oath to Town Manager William Thrasher and Town Clerk Rita Taylor. Attorney Torcivia asked the Petitioner, Town of Gulf Stream, to present the facts of this case. Attorney John Randolph, Attorney for the Town of Gulf Stream, presented a copy of the Statement of Violation and Notice of Hearing along with a return receipt signed August 14, 2003 by someone, not recognized by the staff, other than Mr. or Mrs. Wynne. The Special Master ruled that proper notice had been given and marked the documents as Exhibit #1 for the Town of Gulf Stream. The violation described in Exhibit #1 is that etched glass architectural features that had not been approved by the Architectural Review and Planning Board were subsequently attached to the entry columns that had been approved for construction in the North Ocean Blvd. Overlay District as provided in Section 66-141(2)f after the columns had been inspected and approved. The Town Clerk presented, at the request of the Special Master, the Property Appraiser's print out for the property showing Mr. & Mrs. Wynne as the owners and it was marked as Exhibit #2 for the Town of Gulf Stream. Town Manager Thrasher testified that any structure erected or installed within the North Ocean Blvd. Overlay District requires a Level 2 Architectural/Site Plan Review by the Architectural Review and Planning Board, and a part of the criteria for approval is that the use of exterior architectural elements, exterior materials and colors of proposed structures and improvements shall be consistent with other on-site structures and the surrounding neighborhood. Attorney Randolph ask that a copy of Section 66-144(b)(10) of the Gulf Stream Code of Ordinances, which lists the criteria, be entered and it was marked as Exhibit 43 for the'Town of Gulf Stream. Attorney Randolph referred to photographs of the entrance gate at 1511 N. Ocean Blvd., handing a set to the Special Master and a set to Mr. Thrasher. Mr. Thrasher verified that he had taken the pictures on September 4, 2003 and explained that they show two etched glass architectural features attached to the entrance columns. Mr. Thrasher further confirmed that these features were not included on the design that had originally been approved for the gates and were not submitted for approval prior to them being installed. The Special Master marked the photographs as Exhibit #4 for the Town. Special Master Hearing -9-8-03 page 2 The Town Attorney handed Mr. Thrasher a copy of a portion of the minutes of the Town CCommission Meeting of January 14, 2000 and a copy of a plan showing a gate and column design that was reviewed at the meeting. He asked Mr. Thrasher to verify that these documents are copies of the originals to which Mr. Thrasher answered they were. At this point the Attorney asked that these be entered as exhibits. Special Master Torcivia marked the minutes and plan as Exhibit #5 for the Town. Mr. Thrasher confirmed that the etched glass designs were not shown on these drawings that were approved on January 14, 2000. Attorney Randolph asked Mr. Thrasher if there was a subsequent meeting at which a revised gate design and location was approved and asked him to identify a portion of the minutes of a meeting of the Architectural Review and Planning Board held on September 27, 2001 and a revised drawing. Mr. Thrasher did identify the documents as being accurate. The Attorney asked that these documents be entered as exhibits and the Special Master marked them Exhibit #6 for the Town. Town Manager Thrasher testified that the etched glass feature was not included on this drawing as there is no protrusion shown on the drawing. In addition he testified that the General Contractor for the project had stated that the etched glass features had been added at a later time. Mr. Randolph asked if a Certificate of Occupancy had been issued that covered the house and the gate to which Mr. Thrasher replied this had been issued January 7, 2002 and that he had personally inspected the project and the etched glass features were not in place on the columns at that time. He stated that later in January he noticed the etched glass feature had been added and he phoned the contractor regarding the fact they had not been approved and are in violation. The contractor advised that the Wynne's were out of town on an extended vacation but they had thought that since this etched glass feature had been on the property at the time all of the structures had been demolished, they would be grandfathered and reinstalled on the new structure. Mr. Thrasher stated that he informed the contractor that these were not grandfathered. He further stated that on April 25, 2002 he wrote a letter to the contractor advising the etched glass was not a part of the original application for review and a request must be submitted, reviewed and approved by the ARPB. Attorney Randolph asked that a copy of this letter be included as an Exhibit that the Special Master marked as Exhibit #7. The Town Attorney reminded that the Town has two sections in the Code, Sec. 66-327 and 66-446 relating to signs: He then handed those sections to Mr. Thrasher and asked him if he had reviewed them when determining the etched glass features were in violation. Mr. Thrasher stated he had taken the sections into consideration. Mr. Randolph asked that the Hearing Officer take judicial notice of these two sections that relate to signs. He read from Sec. 66-327(2), "Signs shall be prohibited within the North Ocean Blvd. Overlay District, except the following: Address signs and signs designating the name or the owner of an estate or the name of a condominium or club and signs necessary to designate entrances and exits." With regard to Sec. 66-446(b), Mr. Randolph quoted "The erection, display and maintenance of a sign on any property or building within the town is prohibited except the following, which are permitted: Except for the designation of resident name, property owner, location, or address, the erection, Special Master Hearing -9-8-03 page 3 display, and maintenance of an illuminated sign on any property is strictly prohibited." These sections were entered as Exhibit #8 for the Town. Attorney Randolph asked Mr. Thrasher if the owners came back before the ARPB regarding this matter and was advised that the owners attorney came before the ARPB, but not with a formal application, asking for clarification as to whether or not this architectural feature should have been approved. He further advised that Chairman Wheeler stated the home and entrance gates and columns had been approved, but not with the etched glass feature. The Chairman had pointed out that the ARPB has discretion to make a judgment as to whether architectural elements are consistent with the style, which in this case is Mediterranean, and etched glass is not consistent with a Mediterranean style architecture. It was suggested that a wood or framed Spanish tile feature would be two options. The Special Master questioned if it would only be necessary to remove the etched glass feature from the columns to correct the violation and was advised that this is true. She remarked that it is necessary to display address numbers and understands this is acceptable if they are displayed in a style consistent with the architectural style. Mr. Thrasher replied that this is true. The Special Master accepted the minutes of the ARPB meeting of February 27, 2003 as Exhibit #9 for the Town. The Special Master asked if the owner would still be in violation if he were to move the etched glass features to the front of the home, that being beyond the 50' distance from the front property line. Mr. Thrasher answered that they would also be in violation for that since the etched glass would not be in conformity with the style of the home even though it would be outside of the North Ocean Blvd. Overlay District. Attorney Randolph then asked that the formal Notice of Violation, dated June 3, 2003, that is required, be entered as an exhibit for the Town. The Special Master marked the Notice as Exhibit #10 for the Town. Special Master Torcivia again asked Mr. Thrasher if he had inspected the entrance prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy to which he replied he had and the etched glass features were not present at that time, which was early January. In answer to a question from the Special Master, he further stated that he first noticed the etched glass features toward the end of the month of January. Attorney Randolph advised that the Town also has a copy of the Notice of Violation with the green card attached and the Special Master stated that will be Exhibit #11 for the Town. On being asked by the Special Master what is being recommended in this case, Attorney Randolph advised the Town would like to have the violation corrected with a finding of violation of the Code with a period of 15 days in which to comply by removing the etched glass features. In the event they did not comply within the 15 days, the Town requested that a fine of $150.00 per day be assessed retroactively from the date of non- compliance plus administrative costs. Special Master Hearing -9-8-03 page 4 The Special Master found the Respondents in violation in this case and ordered compliance by September 23, 2003 or a fine of $150.00 per day shall be assessed with a Fine Assessment Hearing to be held on September 26, 2003 at 10 A.M. The Special Master also approved administrative costs, which will be set at the Hearing on Sept. 26`h. The Hearing concluded at 10:45 A.M. Rita L. Taylor, Town Jerk