Loading...
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