|
|
Town of Ocean Ridge |
|
|
Town Hall: 561-732-2635 561-737-8359 (fax) |
Town Hall Hours: |
Police Dept.: |
|
|
Town Hall
Building & Zoning Police Department
Local Weather
Privacy and Usage Policy
|
Public Hearing and Special Meeting of the Planning and
Zoning Commission of the Town of Ocean Ridge held on The meeting was called to order at Gerald Goray James Bonfiglio Ward Northrup Peggy Smith
Chairman Bruce Gimmy III.
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES
A.
Mr. Bonfiglio moved to adopt the Motion carried – Yea (5). IV.
AN APPLICATION REQUEST FROM V & O ISLAND PROPERTIES,
LLC., 5582 NORTH OCEAN BLVD., OCEAN RIDGE FL 33435 AND THE OCEAN RIDGE
YACHT CLUB HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. 5600 NORTH OCEAN BLVD., OCEAN RIDGE
FL REQUESTING A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE
PROVISIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AT CHAPTER 63; GENERAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, ARTICLE 4; SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURES, SECTION
63-53; MAJOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION AND
SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS AND SECTION 63-74;
MODIFICATION OF TOWN COMMISSION CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL, AND CHAPTER 64; ZONING,
ARTICLE 5; SUBDIVISIONS; SECTION 64-100 THROUGH 64-105
PERTAINING TO REPLATTING REQUIREMENTS AND ALSO A REQUEST FOR THE TOWN TO
VACATE AND ABANDON ITS INTEREST IN THE UNIMPROVED THIRTY (30) FOOT WIDE
CHICKASAW AVENUE PLATTED RIGHT OF WAY LOCATED ON
THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE TOWN RUNNING EAST AND WEST
LOCATED BETWEEN THE OCEAN RIDGE YACHT CLUB AND CROWN COLONY IN THE
5500-5600 BLOCK OF SR A1A. THE REQUEST IS
FOR A SITE PLAN MODIFICATION TO ANNEX IN A .56 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED SOUTH OF Town Clerk Hancsak commented that
this meeting was a continuation of the Town Clerk Hancsak also stated
that at the last meeting staff was directed to retrieve any complaint reports
relating to odors or noise from either sewage treatment plant.
She advised that since 2002 there were two relating to the Crown Colony
plant and four relating to the ORYC. Chairman Gimmy stated that he had
hoped to receive the additional requested correspondence prior to this meeting
and the board would now be updated along with the public. Atty Spillias questioned whether
the public portion was closed at the last meeting and if so a motion should be
made to reopen the public and applicant portion of the meeting. Mr. Bonfiglio moved to reopen the
public and applicant portion of the meeting.
Mr. Northrup seconded the motion. Motion carried – Yea (5). At this point all individuals
planning on giving testimony were sworn in.
Atty Spillias reminded the public that since this was a quasi-judicial
meeting the board is to consider expert or factual information and not opinion
and he therefore asked the public to limit their comments if they were opinions.
Greg Young, attorney representing
the applicant, introduced Ernie and Maria Vavarikos and Matt O’Connor,
principles in the company, and the Ocean Ridge Yacht Club (ORYC) President, Norm
Levine. Atty Young stated that he had
five pieces of additional
correspondence he would like to enter into the record which included: two e-mail
letters to the Town in support of the project from Karen and Gerry Rogers and
Patricia Goodspeed, both residents of the ORYC, a letter from Waste Management
advising that they approve of the configuration of the road and did not foresee
any problems with curbside pick up for the additional units, a letter from the
ORYC Homeowners, Inc. providing misc. information and a copy of their Health
Dept. permit for the sewage treatment plant, and a letter from H. Burton Smith,
their engineer, stating that if the easement on the south increased from 15’
to 22’ and the units shifted 7’ further north the drainage requirements
could still be able to be met. Atty Young stated that since this
was a continuation meeting he would only present the information requested at
the last meeting which included an alternative (#2) increasing the proposed
easement along the east and south property lines if the ROW was abandoned and
another alternative (#3) not abandoning the 30’ Chickasaw ROW. Atty Young showed the first
rendering with his clients’ preferred alternative (#2) depicting a 15’
easement along the east property line, increasing to 17’, back to 15’ and
then increasing to 27’ and then 22’ by the ICWW.
He stated this alternative provides for uninhibited access and expands
the walkway area. He added that
their intent was to landscape and maintain the area and felt there would be no
need for the eastern boundary wall because there would be an interior barrier
for the ORYC residents, who have expressed safety and security concerns with the
existing ROW. He stated that a wall
could still be constructed along the south property line.
He added that an attempt to contact Crown Colony regarding this wall met
with negative results. Atty Young
then showed a rendering with proposed landscaping for the alternative #2 showing
a walkway, seating areas and landscaping. He
stated that the area would actually be a passive linear park maintained by ORYC.
He added that Crown Colony would have direct access with no walls
separating the easement. Atty Young stated alternative #3
(and provided a rendering) depicted the existing 30’ Chickasaw ROW.
The drawing showed a gate running north/south across the ROW at the
extreme east side to provide for access for maintenance and the public.
He stated that the ROW meanders slightly to the north midway to the ICWW.
He stated that his was not the preferred alternative for his clients.
Mr. Bonfiglio stated that he had
concerns gating across the ROW and questioned why the ORYC could not erect a
gate at a north side of the proposed parcel and a south side of existing ORYC.
Atty Young stated that two gates could be accomplished. He
added that alternative #3 would provide for a wall along the property line with
the maximum height permitted by code. Mr. Vavarikos stated that he met
with Director Hillery regarding the fire related concerns.
Director Hillery advised him that the existing fire hydrant located in
the ORYC is well within the required distance to serve the new units, however,
the developer could provide another hydrant if requested.
He added that the new units would receive better insurance rates if there
was another hydrant. He concluded by stating that Director Hillery advised him
that the configuration of the road was adequate to provide access for any fire
apparatus needed. Atty Young stated he wanted to
address comments made earlier in the meeting through the written correspondence.
Regarding a possible health issue to the proposed units resulting from
the Crown Colony sewage treatment plant, he stated that Regarding his clients not
reaching out to the Crown Colony residents he stated that their telephone calls
were unanswered and that Crown Colony had requested it be a short presentation.
He stated that concerns relating to their view being impaired does not
provide a reason for denial per Florida Law.
He added that any building in the proposed location would affect some
views. Atty Young stated that his
clients should not be penalized for buildings in Crown Colony not meeting the
required setbacks, adding that this project meets all the code requirements with
respect to alternative #2. In conclusion Atty Young stated
that this project was a good benefit to the Town, the residents of the ORYC and
Crown Colony in that the property is zoned RMM and meets the zoning requirements
as proposed, the project would help support the tax base and infrastructure of
the Town, and he felt it was the highest and best use for he property. Mr. Bonfiglio clarified that with
alternative #2 the Town would be giving up the 30’ ROW in exchange for an
L-shaped easement close to the equivalent amount of land, and an improved access
that the ORYC would maintain. Atty Spillias commented that if the access was for
pedestrians only it can be an easement to the public and not subject to
additional requirements. He added
that the Town could abandon the 30’ ROW in exchange for them providing the
Town an easement. Atty Young stated
that the easement could also be utilized for utility and drainage purposes. Mr. Goray questioned if the
project would meet all code requirements or a unit would need to be eliminated
if alternative #3 was approved. Atty
Young stated that a variance would be required for the north setback.
Mr. Goray stated that he was concerned with a gate crossing the ROW and
questioned how the public would access the ROW.
Atty Young stated that the gate would always be open for pedestrians
because it would not be wide enough for vehicular access to which Mr. Goray
stated that the ROW is not improved now but it may be in the future.
The board concurred that they had a problem with the gate crossing the
ROW. Atty Young stated that there is
currently no parking on Chickasaw and it is arguable whether it has been
maintained and historically the Town has not maintained it. Mr. Bonfiglio questioned if the
applicant would scale back one unit if alternative #3 was recommended.
Atty Young stated that he was unsure and he did not feel this was a basis
to deny the rest of the project with the exception of the abandonment. Atty Spillias reminded the board
that the request for the Site Plan Modification and Replatting were land use
issues and should be granted if the applicant meets all the code requirements,
however, there are ways to critique, tweak, or in some cases require changes.
He stated that it is not a requirement to approve the abandonment.
He added that Atty Young alluded to a litigation involving the non-use of
a ROW over periods of time which may constitute an abandonment and there is a
question whether this statute is applicable.
He then stated that the pending litigation does not need to drive their
decision. He concluded by stating
that if the board was inclined to recommend alternative #3 the board could
condition the approval on getting a variance. Atty Young commented that they believe the ROW should be abandoned because both affected sides of the immediate ROW agree to the abandonment, the circumstances are unique and also because other safety issues have been met. He stated that his clients did not want to pursue the legal alternative. Atty Spillias commented that each fact needs to be considered on its own merits. Chairman Gimmy questioned the
Town Manager whether the staff had recommended approval of the proposal to which
she advised that staff did not make a recommendation but forwarded a letter to
them stating that it appears that the project met the code requirements. Chairman Gimmy announced he would
open the meeting to the public and he reminded them that this board has
recommended twice to the Commission in the past not to approve abandonment of
the Chickasaw ROW. Joe Belmonte, Steve Smith, George Bierlin, Dr. Loretta Sosa, Paget House
#102, stated that the meeting between the applicant and Crown Colony was cut
short because the residents felt it was unfair to have the meeting during the
off season and the applicant had advised that another meeting would be scheduled
which never took place. Dr. Sosa
stated that she was not for or against the project; however, she felt any health
issues should be thoroughly investigated. Paul Tuck, Norm Levine, Gerald Levy, Gail Aaskov, Atty Young reminded the board
that there have been no previous denials by his client and they had no
involvement with any prior requests. He
again stated that if the Crown Colony sewage treatment plan was creating a
nuisance for his clients that they need to stop it immediately. He concluded by
stating that the comments presented by Mr. Bierlin should be considered and
encouraged the board to recommend abandonment of the ROW and approval of
alternative #2. Mr. Bonfiglio moved to close the
public portion of the meeting. Mrs.
Smith seconded the motion. Motion carried – Yea (5). Atty Spillias advised the board
that they should review the benefits of abandoning vs. not abandoning and their
ultimate motion could be specific. After reiterating some of the
benefits and concerns of the Crown Colony residents, and also the fact that an
abandonment was rejected on two other occasions, Mr. Bonfiglio moved to
recommend approval of alternative #3 – preserving the Chickasaw ROW as much as
possible, conditioned upon the issuance of a variance or modifying the plan so
as not to require a variance, installing a fire hydrant in the .56 acre parcel,
removing the gate on the east side so that the public can access the ROW, and
that adequate signage be erected notifying that the ROW is a public access.
The motion was seconded by Mrs. Smith. Motion carried – Yea (Goray, Bonfiglio, Smith)
Nay (Northrup, Gimmy) V.
DISCUSS LANDSCAPING IN IMPROVED RIGHTS OF WAY Town Manager Dailey advised that
the Town Commission directed that the P & Z review landscape requirements in
the improved ROW’s. She stated
that minutes from prior Commission meetings were distributed to the members and
also the recently adopted ordinance from Atty Spillias stated that the
Commission is looking for guidance and has questioned whether there should be a
general policy approach to deal with these obstructions. He added that almost
every address has landscape or other obstructions in the ROW but he felt the
Commission may be concerned with a more site specific area, such as Mr. Goray stated that he felt if
the plantings were of an invasive nature or a public safety hazard then the
problem could be resolved through code enforcement.
He stated that his research uncovered that the Dept. of Public Safety
enforces the safety type problems and he did not feel the Town should add more
legislation to this regard. Chairman
Gimmy and Mr. Bonfiglio concurred. Atty Spillias commented that the
current code requires that all obstructions in the ROW be licensed.
Mr. Bonfiglio suggested notifying the residents in a newsletter that
their landscaping in the ROW may be required to removed at any time if
necessary. Mr. Goray moved to recommend that
the Commission consider amending the existing code pertaining to licensing for
landscape obstructions in the ROW, but to preserve the Town’s right to remove
or request that suggested plantings be removed as the Town may deem appropriate.
Mr. Northrup seconded the motion. The
board also stated that if the Commission wanted a specific site reviewed then
they should request it. Mr. Bierlin stated that it
appears that Motion carried – Yea (5). IV.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at
approximately ____________________________ Chairman Gimmy Attest: _______________________________ Town Clerk |
