Town Hall
About
Budget 07-08
Calendar of Events
Employment
Flood Information
Gallery
Gomez Children Trust Fund
History
Home
Hurricane Information
Links
Map
Meeting Minutes
New Resident Info
News
Newsletters
Ordinances/Resolutions
Parks
Town Updates
Volunteering

Building & Zoning
Code
Forms
New Building Checklist
Occupational Licensing
Permit Fees
Permit Process
Permit Status

Police Department
About
Employment
ORPD Links
News Alerts
Support Group
 

Search This Site

Local Weather

Privacy and Usage Policy
Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.

Meeting of the Board of Adjustment of the Town of Ocean Ridge, Florida held on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 at 8:30 AM in the Town Hall meeting chambers.  

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Barlage and roll call was answered by the following:

                                    Terry Brown                 Mark Hanna

                                    Gail Adams Aaskov      Stormet Norem

                                                Chairman Barlage  

III.       APPROVAL OF MINUTES

A.        March 10, 2004

Mr. Norem moved to adopt the March 10, 2004 minutes, seconded by Mr. Brown.  

Motion carried – Yea (5)  

IV.       VARIANCE REQUESTS

A.     An application submitted by Terence and Julie Cudmore, 805 Twin Lake Drive, Boca Raton FL 33496, requesting a variance from the provisions of the Land Development Code, Chapter 67, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article III; Technical Codes and other construction Standards, Section 67-32; Floor Elevations, Paragraph (a) finished Floor Elevations; Sub-Paragraph (5) providing that all basements, garages, or porches shall have a minimum finished floor elevation of not less than eight feet above zero elevation as established by the U.S. Coastal and Geodetic Survey – to permit the construction of a single family residence with a minimum floor elevation of not less than six feet for the garages and covered patio.  The property is located on the south side of Coconut Lane and described as Lot 5, Block 2, Boynton Beach Park Subdivision (exact legal description located at Town Hall)  

Town Clerk Hancsak read the variance application by title and advised for the record that all fees had been paid and no additional correspondence had been received.  

At this time all five members disclosed that they reviewed the site but had no contact with the applicant.   

Any individuals planning on providing testimony were sworn in.  

Chairman Barlage and Town Clerk Hancsak read the justification of application and responses for the requested variance.  The applicant stated that special conditions and circumstances exist because the properties to the east and west have living FFE’s of 4’ above zero elevation and the crown of the road is approximately 3’ above zero elevation.  They added that they do not result from actions of the applicant and the applicant desires to have a more gradual transition with the neighboring property. The applicant stated that granting the variance would not confer any special privileges because other property owners have the ability to build similar structures either through meeting the code requirements or the variance process and they believe it is a unique situation because Coconut Lane is unusually low. The applicant stated that literal interpretation of the ordinance would work unnecessary and undue hardship because the grade of this property would be at least 5’ higher than the adjacent property, would not look proper and they would not enjoy the same enjoyment of architectural symmetry as others in the area.  They felt it was the minimum variance sought to allow for blending of the existing grade with the surrounding community.  The applicant stated that the request would be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the ordinance.  The applicant concluded by stating that the variance would not be injurious to the area and would amount to little, if any, public impact.  They added that the symmetry and scale of the entire entry feature when looked at as a whole would be negatively impacted without the variance, therefore, have a negative impact on the surrounding area and they felt the variance would enhance the area and improve the public welfare.  

Town Clerk Hancsak read the administrative comments prepared by the Zoning Official, which included a brief summary of the request. The comments regarding the justification of application advised that special circumstances could exist because Coconut Lane is one of the lowest (3.63’) elevations in Town.   The comments advised that the conditions do not result from actions of the applicant.  The Zoning Official advised that granting this variance would be giving a special privilege because the applicant would be permitted to construct garages at a floor elevation of 6’6”, which is 1 ½ feet lower than permitted by code and there were several homes, including directly across the street, that conform to the code.  She advised that the comments stated that the literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district because the applicant would not be incurring unnecessary and undue hardship if not granted the variance.  The comments also stated that the strict interpretation of the elevation requirements would not negatively impact the adjacent properties by producing a difference in elevation because the drainage requirements must still be met.  The comments also stated that the request is not the minimum variance because the enforcement of the floor elevation as per the code will make the minimum reasonable use of the land as demonstrated by other homes with garages constructed at a higher elevation. The comments relayed that the request if not approved will still serve to be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the chapter since all the newer homes in the area have been made to comply with the 8’ elevation requirements.  In conclusion, the Zoning Official recommended denying the request because based on the information supplied by the applicant and an on-site inspection, the criteria for a hardship had not been met.  

Town Atty Spillias advised that correspondence was distributed to the board prior to this hearing regarding information related to quasi judicial hearings and said it could be helpful to the board in the future but it was not necessary for them to read it for this hearing this date.  Atty Spillias introduced Manuel Palacios as the Zoning Official for the Town and advised that Mr. Palacios had prepared the staff comments.  

Terry Cudmore, owner and applicant, advised that his intent was to build and reside in the home proposed.  He stated that he has been built several homes in the area and liked the demographics of Coconut Lane and wanted to build a home that would blend with the existing homes.  He stated that his plans reflect the main structure meeting the 8’ elevation requirement and a garage in the back of the residence with a gradual elevation driveway because he did not to create a steep slope to the street.  He added that he could fill the property and utilize a retaining wall, however, it may require the removal of a large ficus tree in the area of the wall that he planned to retain.  He stated that other municipalities do not have the requirement for an 8’ elevation for the garages and he felt it may be too harsh.  

At this point an elevation and site plan drawing were shown to the members by Huy Ngyuen, representative from Randall Stofft Architects.  He stated that the proposed residence was set back 5’ further in the front than required setback with three steps leading into the main residence.  He stated that if the garage must be raised it would create a hardship because of the proximity of the long drive to the side setback and the necessity for a retaining wall.   

Chairman Barlage questioned if the applicant believed the hardship is to try to eliminate the retaining wall to which the applicant advised that they were attempting to keep in harmony with other adjacent homes.   

Mr. Hanna questioned if the gradual elevation would improve the drainage.  Mr. Cudmore advised that it doesn’t necessarily improve drainage but other homes with the garages in front at the minimum 8’ elevation appear to sheet water to the street.  Mrs. Aaskov commented that the Town was currently in the process of addressing drainage improvements for Coconut Lane .  

Chairman Barlage questioned the staff if they were aware of a minimum 8’ elevation for garages or basements in other municipalities.  He was advised that it would need to be researched; however, FEMA requirements may be a major factor because of the Town being a barrier island.   Atty Spillias stated that he was unsure of the reasoning behind the requirement by the Town but the difficulty now is that it appears the board is dealing with an aesthetic issue.  He added that the Town may be faced with similar issues of replacing older homes that don’t meet the requirement but must comply as they are replaced and it becomes more of an aesthetic issued for the lower neighbor.  He concluded by stating that while the Town sympathizes with the applicant they did not feel a hardship was demonstrated.   

There were no comments from members of the public and the board declared themselves in executive session.  

All of the members concluded that while the proposed home would be more aesthetically pleasing, a hardship had not been proven.  They also concurred that the Town should keep enforcing the 8’ elevation so as the homes are redeveloped they would meet the code. 

Mr. Norem moved to deny the variance request, seconded by Mr. Brown.  

Motion carried – Yea (5).    

Town Clerk Hancsak advised the applicant that a letter would be forthcoming.  

 VI.      Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:10 A.M.