HomeMy Public PortalAbout10 10 03 MinutesMINUTES OF THE CODE VIOLATION RE -HEARING HELD BY THE SPECIAL
C' MASTER OF THE TOWN OF GULF STEAM ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2003
AT 1:00 P.M., IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA
ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA.
Special Master Paulette Torcivia announced that the case being re -heard is Case No. CE -
4 -03, addressing a code violation at 1511 N. Ocean Blvd., N. 82' lot 1 bik D & blk E
Palm Beach Shore Acres & s. 68' of Govt. lot 1 Sec. 10 Twnshp. 46 South Range 43 East
Palm Beach County Florida East of Ocean Blvd., Gulf Stream, Florida, that is owned by
John W. and Barbara S. Wynne. She announced for the record that the Respondents were
not present but were being represented by their attorney, Todd Messenger. She then
administered the Oath to Town Manager William Thrasher and to Chris Wheeler,
Chairman of the Architectural Review and Planning Board of the Town of Gulf Stream.
Attorney Torcivia asked the Petitioner, Town of Gulf Stream, to present the facts of this
case.
John Randolph, Attorney for the Town of Gulf Stream, advised that copies of all of the
exhibits that had been presented at the hearing held on September 8, 2003 were furnished
to Attorney Messenger. In view of this, he requested that rather than introducing them
one by one, he be permitted to re -submit them all in one group. Attorney Messenger had
no objection to this. The Special Master advised the numbers the exhibits were given at
the September 81h hearing would remain. She then advised that the Memorandum of Law
containing motions for reviewing and a composite of exhibits listed A through J
submitted by the Respondents when asking for a re -hearing will be Respondents Exhibit
#1.
The Special Master asked Attorney Messenger if he would stipulate as to the proper
notices of the hearings and he replied in the affirmative.
Attorney Randolph called Chris Wheeler as the first witness who acknowledged that he is
the Chairman of the Architectural Review and Planning Board in Gulf Stream and that he
is CEO and Chairman of the Board of a real estate multi -family design and construction
company. Mr. Wheeler testified that on the two different sets of plans that were
submitted to the ARPB, which he had reviewed along with the other members, the feature
containing the etched glass palm tree with the numbers 1511 included was not shown and
the plans would not have been approved if this had been shown. He further testified that
in a subsequent informal appearance, this feature was shown and the Board advised that
this etched glass feature would not be approved in that it is not consistent with the
Mediterranean architecture of the development which is a criteria for approvals.
Attorney Randolph asked Mr. Wheeler if he was familiar with the type of address signs
that exist along AlA in particular those shown in pictures he introduced that were
assigned Town Exhibit #12. Mr. Wheeler replied that he is familiar with these. The
Special Master asked if these are consistent with the architecture of the property and Mr.
Wheeler replied that they are consistent with what is in the Town of Gulf Stream. Mr.
l Randolph asked to explain the purpose for which the pictures are being entered. He
Special Master Hearing 10-10-03 page 2
explained that these are pictures of signs as defined in the sign code and these are not the
C' types of things that would become before the ARPB. Mr. Randolph further explained the
ARPB would review things like walls, columns and gates but after their review, residents
may, under the sign code, install these types of signs. He noted these are not architectural
features. He maintained the etched glass features are architectural features and should
have been reviewed by the ARPB.
Special Master Torcivia asked for an explanation of the difference between the etched
glass sign or feature and one of the other signs along AIA showing the address number
and street name with what appears to be some artwork at the comers of the sign.
Attorney Randolph approached this from the legal aspect, referring to Mr. Messenger's
Exhibit #1E, by calling attention to the fact that signs are defined in the Code as "any
printed, lettered, pictured, figured, or colored material on any building, structure or
surface". He then referred again to Mr. Messenger's Exhibit #1 E under Division 7. that
reads "The erection, display and maintenance of a sign on any property or building within
the town is prohibited except the following, which are permitted: Item (4)----a sign
identifying their name or ownership, entrance and exit roads and street number
identifying such property". And once again referring to Mr. Messenger's Exhibit #lE in
Sec. 66-327; Signs, the Code reads "Signs shall be prohibited within the North Ocean
Boulevard Overlay District except the following: (2) Address signs and signs designating
the name or the owner of an estate or the name of a condominium or club and signs
necessary to designate entrances and exits". Mr. Randolph pointed out that this is the
1 section that applies since the property is in the North Ocean Blvd. Overlay District and
that the other signs in the area that are pictured in Town's Exhibit #12 are all under this
exemption. None in the area displayed an architectural feature showing an etched glass
palm tree. He stated that he believed the etched glass feature could have been cited as a
violation of the sign code but that it was not necessary to do that since this is a design
feature that had been reviewed by the ARPB and was not approved.
The Special Master asked the following questions: 1) Is it customary to put a house
number on an architectural plan? 2) Is the etched glass picture something that can be
removed? 3) What was fastened to the old house? 4) Is it required that there be numbers
posted on all properties? Mr. Wheeler answered it is not customary to put a house
number on an architectural plan, the etched glass picture can be removed, it was fastened
to an entry pier when the old house existed and it is required that there be address
numbers posted on all properties.
Attorney Randolph believed it is not a question as to whether the Board was correct in the
way they applied the Code but that it was not approved, which gave an opportunity for
appeal. Special Master Torcivia believed the issue to be whether this etched glass is a
sign or an architectural feature.
Mr. Randolph agreed and stated the Town's position is that if it is a sign, it is in violation
of the sign code since all that is permitted is the address and the resident's name. He
maintained that had the applicant presented a column design with a palm tree carved in it
Special Master Hearing 10-10-03
page 3
the ARPB would have had an opportunity to review it as an architectural feature. As it
were, the applicant presented a drawing of a plain column and then hung the etched glass
on it after the column was in place.
Attorney Messenger presented his Hearing Brief, Respondents Exhibit #2, in which there
are pictures of address signs attached to columns for 3224 N. Ocean, 3545 N. Ocean,
3603 N. Ocean, 3110 N. Ocean and 3435 N. Ocean. He asked Mr. Wheeler if the ARPB
had reviewed these, calling attention to 3435 being on two entrance walls. Mr. Wheeler
replied that none of these were before the board. Mr. Messenger then asked if they had
reviewed a set of mail boxes, located on the west side of AIA across from Wynne's, that
had hunting dogs painted on them, to which Mr. Wheeler replied they had not seen those
and would not consider mail boxes an architectural feature. Mr. Messenger then asked if
there is a limit on the size of signs and Mr. Wheeler answered in the affirmative and
added that he does not recall what that is. Attorney Messenger asked Mr. Wheeler to
read a portion of Section 660-447 of the Code that is included in Respondents Exhibit
#lE which stated that any permitted sign other than a real estate sign shall not exceed 6
square feet and then made the point that an address is considered a sign and could be as
much as 6 square feet, adding that the etched glass sign is only 3.6 square feet.
Mr. Messenger asked if there is a threshold to determine when an address becomes an
architectural feature and the answer was no. The attorney then asked if Mr. Wheeler
liked the sign at 1511 and he replied yes but not with this style of architecture. When
asked if the other Board members agreed with him, Mr. Wheeler replied that one had
declared a conflict of interest but the others were in agreement. Mr. Messenger asked if
the Board gets to express an opinion about all address signs to which Mr. Wheeler stated
only if they are architectural features. Attorney Messenger asked how is it determined
when an address sign becomes an architectural feature. Mr. Wheeler stated that by the
size and in this instance by the fact that the palm tree is predominant in the design. Mr.
Wheeler was then asked by the Attorney to read the definition of a sign in the code
section that is included in Respondents Exhibit #lE after which Mr. Messenger made the
points that the Wynne sign conforms to the definition of a sign in that there is a picture, it
is on a surface and it communicates something, all of which are included in the definition
of a sign.
Attorney Randolph advised that Mr. Thrasher would be saying pretty much the same as
what Mr. Wheeler had said and he wanted to make sure for purposes of this re -hearing
that there is nothing else that the Special Master or Attorney Messenger needed to hear
from him where he would argue that the administration hasn't testified. Attorney
Randolph, for the record, stated Mr. Thrasher would testify that he is the Town Manager
of Gulf Stream, that this particular architectural feature was not included in the plan
before the Board, that the plan was before the Board on three occasions and was not
approved, that the owner was noticed to remove the feature but the owner did not comply
and that he did refer to the feature as a sign in the notice of violation as a generic
description of this architectural feature that had gone before the Board. He further stated
_ that Mr. Thrasher had taken the pictures of the address signs today and is prepared to
testify that these address signs are as described in the Code and are permitted, but that
Special Master Hearing 10-10-03
page 4
C anything further than this including palm trees, etched glass and that sort of thing is not
allowed under the Town Code. Mr. Randolph restated that this is substantially what he
had said in the first hearing and he felt no need to have him testify unless the Special
Master or Attorney Messenger requests that he do so.
Special Master Torcivia asked Attorney Messenger if he had any questions for Mr.
Thrasher to which he replied he did with regard to address signs which have a great
significance and should not be dismissed as address sign that has legal import in this case
being the short hand for architectural features. He noted that there is inconsistency by
interchanging the words address sign and architectural feature.
Mr. Wheeler was dismissed at this point.
Attorney Messenger asked Mr. Thrasher if he had written the letter to Mr. Ince dated
April 25, 2002 and the reply was that he had. He was then asked why he had referred to
the etched glass as house number signs. Mr. Thrasher stated that he thought that's what
they were. Mr. Messenger then asked if Mr. Thrasher had written a subsequent letter
advising that there was no approval procedure for signs. Attorney Randolph stated the
Town would stipulate there is no procedure for signs. Mr. Messenger had no further
questions.
In his closing argument, Mr. Messenger stated that common sense and the Town Code
demands that this is an address sign and not an architectural feature. He called attention
to the Hearing Brief that is Respondent Exhibit #2 that addresses the key facts that he
believed to be undisputed. The gates were constructed in accordance with approved
plans and the notice of violation that was sent states the gates were inspected and
approved. He stated that the signs, which had been removed from the old property and
stored on the property, were subsequently attached to the columns. He submitted that
these signs are exempt from review according to the Town Code. Mr. Messenger
maintained that the pictures of other address signs in the area had some type of
ornamentation included along with the number and that the etched glass sign is no
different. He pointed out that the Wynne's had requested an application for a sign and
was told there is no process for address signs and therefore the Wynne's are not in
violation.
Attorney Randolph, in his clbsing argument, pointed out that the Town was so concerned
about what is placed along AlA in the Historic Corridor that they included a section in
the Code to mandate that anything, including landscaping, walls, gates, etc. be reviewed
by the ARPB. He reminded that two detailed gate designs were submitted and approved
without showing the etched glass feature, and the Board had every right to rely on the
drawings showing exactly what was to be placed in this area. He further reminded that
this feature fits the code description of a sign that is prohibited and could have been cited
as a violation of the sign code. Attorney Randolph made the point that the address signs
shown in the pictures are address signs and do not have ornamentation as a predominate
portion of the sign like the palm tree on the etched glass which falls in the category of an
architectural feature. He further made the point that by calling this an address sign, it
Special Master Hearing 10-10-03
page 5
would allow anything to be put on a gate as long as the house numbers were shown on
some portion of the attachment.
Mr. Messenger reminded that both Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Thrasher had referred to this as
an address sign and Mr. Wheeler had stated that he knows an architectural feature as
opposed to an address sign when he sees it. Mr. Messenger further reminded that there
are no criteria in the Code for differentiating between them. He stated again that the
Wynne's had asked for an application procedure for an address sign and had been told in
writing that there is none and therefore maintain they are not in violation.
Mr. Randolph restated that there is no procedure for approval of an address sign because
address signs are exempt from the sign code.
The Special Master stated that she is finding no violation of Section 66-141(2)f for the
following reasons: 1) The framed combination of the numbers and a picture falls under
the purview of the sign ordinances and as such would follow along the same
qualifications as the various numbered signs as shown in the pictures of other entrances
along AIA. She believed to say that a the with a small flower is OK but a palm tree on
etched glass is not, is splitting hairs. She added that with there being no specifics in the
Code as to what is acceptable on a gate, she found no violation. 2) The address is separate
from the gate and not a part of it. 3) None of the addresses on other gates as shown in the
pictures have any particular consistency and if the Town wants there to be a very specific
type of sign in this district, that should be outlined in the Code. She ruled that this etched
glass feature is an address sign and not an architectural feature.
�.i
2 Y, f�
Rita L. Taylor, Town Clerk