Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1990-03-08 Special Meeting191 COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 8, 1990 - SPECIAL MEETING The special meeting of the Bal Harbour Village Council was held on Thursday, March 8, 1990 at 3:30 p.m. in Village Hall and in the residential area of the Village. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Estelle Stern and the roll was called. Those present were: Mayor Estelle Stern Asst. Mayor Matthew B. Blank Councilman Sol Taplin Councilman James E. Boggess Councilman Andrew R. Hirschl Also Present: Carole S. Morris, Village Manager Richard J. Weiss, Village Attorney Marilyn P. Kreger, Village Clerk Having a quorum present, Mayor Stern called upon the Village Attorney to explain the purpose of this meeting that being to conduct a field trip through the Village to view certain satellite dishes that were erected before making any decisions thereon and then to hold a meeting in the Chambers to discuss the matter. Three cars were used for traveling. C/M Boggess drove Mayor Stern, C/M Taplin and Ann Simmons, reporter with the Herald. Richard Weiss drove C/M Hirschl and Marilyn Kreger. Carole Morris drove Asst. Mayor Blank and George Desharnais. The Village Clerk took notes (on file in Village Clerk's office)during the field trip of observations made of each of the satellite dishes. The consensus of opinion in the field was the dishes do not appear to be a major problem which opinions were expressed subsequently at the meeting. Reconvened session in Council Chambers: Attorney Weiss stated there is no question that some or all dishes violate either the word or spirit of the ordinance. The decision that Council needs to make is what to do with the existing dishes. If Council feels that, irrespective of the ordinance, they are not egregious, then they would need to direct staff to take whatever actions necessary to grandfather those five dishes. If, on the other hand, Council feels the dishes are not something they want to stay as is, then that decision needs to be made. After that decision is made, then staff would go to work to carry out the Council's decision. Mr. Weiss added that if the second choice is decided there may be consequences to that. Mayor Stern questioned whether a precedent would be set if Council agreed on the first choice. Mr. Weiss said that if Council decided that the five dishes are not objectionable and would permit future dishes to go up in a like 192 manner, then the ordinance would have to be amended to change the criteria. On the other hand, if Council permitted the five dishes to remain as is, but wanted to go back to the letter of the law for future dishes, then there may be some modifications to be made to the ordinance and follow it strictly. C/M Taplin stated that he didn't think 15 feet was high enough, that perhaps the ordinance to allow up to 21 feet. Mr. Weiss stated that the 15 feet came from the county ordinance and is the standard throughout the county. It does work, but the problem experienced with it in the Village is that the people on the water didn't want to but it either on the waterfront which would ruin their view and it is illegal to put it on the street side. As a result, they were installed on the side of the house. Because of the narrow side setback, there wasn't enough room for the dish to rotate to follow the satellite, so they were raised. Attorney Weiss stated that what he would do if the ordinance was rewritten, is to distribute to people in the industry to make sure that it is practical. George Desharnais stated that problems do arise with ordinances which doesn't mean it is a bad ordinance. Some people just can't do what is required in the ordinance. He has not done final inspections on any of the five dishes except C/M Hirschl. There is only one that he might pass. He feels the issue to deal with is screening the dishes because they are objectionable to other people. Mr. Desharnais reiterated the problems with installing the dish on the side of the house at 15 feet and that there wouldn't be a problem with the 15 feet on the waterfront if there is no pool, or in the rear of a house. He said people are going to raise the dish until the signal can be picked up. Asst. Mayor Blank said he didn't find any serious objection to the dishes he saw with the exception of the Marshall's dish which is on the roof. Mr. Desharnais stated that he informed the Marshalls and their contractor that the dish cannot go on the roof and of the 15 foot requirement. He made a mistake in that on the plan it showed 15 foot from the bottom to the top and it said "the grade" he assumed it meant the "grade". But the contractor circumvented Mr. Desharnais by putting down "the ground", which are similar. The contractor meant the "ground wire" going to the ground. Asst. Mayor Blank stated that the 15 foot requirement should be raised to about 22 feet to the top of the dish. Mr. Desharnais said a problem could arise in another case as did the Marshalls where there wouldn't be a place to put the dish anywhere on the ground, so it would end up on the roof. He wouldn't support roof -mounted antennas. But the question is raised of where to put the dish when you can't put it anywhere on the ground. 3-8-90 Spec. Council Mtg. 2. 193 C/M Taplin stated that if it is put anywhere other than the street side and limit the height to 15 feet. C/M Boggess questioned whether the dishes come in other colors such as white and green. Mrs. Morris said the ordinance restricts the color. She said the ordinance requires a 15 foot ground mounted with a variance procedure. C/M Boggess observed that in the cases of Marshall, Larin and Combs, the dishes would not be offensive if they were white or green. Mrs. Morris read the requirement from the ordinance. Mrs. Hirschl stated that she believes Council should focus on what is to be done with those dishes that are existing. She discussed the fact that plans were submitted with no discussion, but the plans given to the Council as part of the backup representing the Hirschl plans are dated August 1989. Mrs. Hirschl stated that they did not meet with their contractor until October 1989. The plans which are being represented as the their plans are the same as those of two other families; are dated the same and the house on the plan is not theirs. She feels like a victim. George Desharnais stated that there are two different satellite dish companies that did work in Bal Harbour. They have one set of plans for their basic dish which is used for everyone. C/M Hirschl said that shouldn't be allowed. Mr. Desharnais stated that the dish is an manufactured item with few variations in the way they turn. He said what is different is the survey of the individual houses. Mr. Desharnais suggested that if there is a situation where the 15 foot requirement cannot be met, it the individual put the dish at whatever height he wants as long as it doesn't exceed the roof level and make sure it is 100% screened. He doesn't think that the height is the objection, but the appearance. He doesn't think that it was the intent of the author of the ordinance to screen the dish, because the ordinance says screening up to 10 feet no matter how high the dish is. Asst. Mayor Blank moved to leave four (4) of the five (5). The one on the roof he objects to. C/M Taplin stated that if the dish that is mounted on the roof can be screened, then it should be allowed as well. Attorney Weiss advised that it would be discriminatory enforcement to allow all except one. A legal problem would exist. What the Council could direct is that the current ordinance would not be enforced as to any of the five dishes, but they would be required screen the dishes to the satisfaction of the building official, so the dish is not visible from the street. Short discussion was held on which dishes might be able to be screened and which could not. 3-8-90 Spec. Council Mtg. 3. 194 Council discussed that for those dishes that cannot be screened would have to be moved to a location where it could be screened. Mrs. Hirschl commented that such a requirement would create an estoppel argument on the part of the homeowner. The dishes have been permitted to be installed in those locations. Mistakes were made and the Village would have major liability. The dishes that were installed without permits were done before the ordinance was enacted. So they do not have to comply. The problem is those that were installed after the ordinance was enacted but without plans. Mr. Weiss stated that the house on Camden Drive that "Jack built" is grandfathered. The other five houses had permits issued. If, on the plans, there was a site plan that showed the location of the dish and the dish is put up in accordance with the plan, then the Village has liability because the plan was approved by the Village. The liability might not be great, perhaps just the cost of moving the dish or screening. On the other hand, if,on the plan, the dish is shown someplace else on the property, and it is put in another location, that is a different story. Of, if the dish was not installed in accordance with the plan. George Desharnais disagreed with Mr. Weiss's statement. He said the Village does not have the right to violate the South Florida Building Code or the Zoning Code even if it is not on the plan. That is called compliance. He suggested that the homeowners would probably do what the Council would want, if they were spoken to. The matter could have been handled administratively except for the complaint that was logged relative to the Marshall's dish. Mr. Desharnais questioned why the Building Department can't go to the properties to enforce the ordinance. C/M Taplin stated that enforcing the ordinance to require the dishes be lowered to 15 feet from 17 feet, for instance, isn't going to make them more attractive. C/M Hirschl and Mrs. Morris stated that the entire matter was brought to the attention of the Council by C/M Hirschl two months ago when he stated at a meeting that he thought there was a dish in the Village that is in violation of the ordinance and the ordinance was not being enforced properly. He added that the previous minutes reflect that the ordinance was not adhered to by the Building Department. Whether or not the ordinance could be accommodated is not the issue. Mr. Weiss added that Mrs. Morris was instructed to look into the matter as to compliance of the ordinance and see to it that it is enforced. That is when it was discovered that the Village didn't quite handle the matter properly. 3-8-90 Spec. Council Mtg. 4. 195 C/M Taplin stated that if the Village didn't handle it properly, then it has to live with the mistake and grandfather in those five dishes and redraft the ordinance that they can live with. Asst. Mayor Blank's motion died for lack of a second. C/M Taplin moved to direct staff to take whatever steps are necessary to grandfather in the five existing dishes and to review the existing ordinance for appropriate revisions. Asst. Mayor Blank seconded the motion. Vote Taken: A11 Voted Aye (C/M Hirschl abstained from voting on this issue because he has a personal interest in the matter because he is one of the five homeowners in question) C/M Boggess stated that he is not happy with the way this matter has transpired. There is misunderstandings and lack of communication among the administrative staff. It is his understanding from the minutes that the Manager has directed the Building Official not communicate with the homeowners and he hopes she reconsider that. If the Building Official is permitted to speak with the homeowners, then perhaps something could be done to enhance the screening or lower a couple of them even though they are grandfathered in. Mrs. Morris stated that she agrees with C/M Boggess, but that was done because of the position of liability the Village has been in. C/M Boggess indicated that since the Village no longer has that liability, she would reconsider her directive. Asst. Mayor Blank questioned Mr. Desharnais as to when he receives a set of plans and a permit is issued, does he make inspections of the work. Mr. Desharnais stated that he has not been permitted to make inspections in this case. He restated his position that the Village does not have liability. Mrs. Morris stated that her directive to not make inspections was made within the past month. Mr. Desharnais stated that the procedure for making inspections that he has to wait for the contractor to call in for inspections. The contractor's have not called for inspections on the dishes until C/M Hirschl brought up the matter at the Council meeting. He doesn't know if anyone in the Village who is not willing to comply with the ordinances, but they have not been given the opportunity. Discussion was held on the procedures followed by the Building Department and whether they are appropriate or not. Item #4. Adjourn. There being no further business, C/M Boggess moved to adjourn, seconded by Asst. Mayor Blank. Vi11agL Clerk Mayor Stern 3-8-90 Spec. Council Mtg. 5. (b) The measure on which 1 abstained and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: /l r fcrismk117 cwtt 4 Prt.e 0.1,c Cc,-4c-e( pis ,b lc erail1trlCfi p16C ry i4 kti. - J-4c31e. rill hel Trl Je..e (4•1u.cesi eF. f2.A8if -- t w,f( / bi4-4,A Jv l•e ovtll s A c Date Filed Signature Please see PART C for instructions on when and where to file this form. ale,toce_( PART B VOTING CONFLICT DISCLOSURE FOR STATE OFFICERS [Required by Section 112.3143(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984).] Each state public officer is permitted to vote in his official capacity on any matter. However, any state officer who votes in his official capacity upon any measure which inures to his special private gain or the special gain of any principal by whom he is retained is required to disclose the nature of his interest as a public record in Part B below within 15 days after the vote occurs. I, the undersigned officer of a state agency, hereby disclose that on 19 (a) I voted on a matter which (check one): inured to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of by whom I am retained. (b) The measure on which 1 voted and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: Date Filed Signature Please see PART C below for instructions on when and where to file this form. PART C FILING INSTRUCTIONS This memorandum must be filed within fifteen (15) days following the meeting during which the voting conflict occurred with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who shall incorporate the memorandum in the meeting minutes. This form need not be filed merely to indicate the absence of a voting conflict. NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES { 112.317(1943), 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 55,000. FORM 4 - REV. 10-84