|
|
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
|
Meeting of the Board of
Adjustment of the Town of Ocean Ridge, Florida held on The meeting was called to order by Chairman Barlage and roll call was answered by the following: Terry Brown Richard Lucibella Barbara Souther Stormet Norem
Vice Chairman Mark Hanna III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Mr. Norem moved to adopt the Motion carried – Yea (5) IV. VARIANCE REQUESTS A.
An application submitted by Marjorie M. Miley, 6057 Old Ocean
Blvd., Ocean Ridge FL 33435, requesting a variance from the provisions of the
Land Development Code, Chapter 64, Zoning, Article III; Supplemental
Regulations, Section 64-44; Fences, Walls and Hedges, Paragraph (c) Height of a
Wall, Fence located in the front yard shall be measured on the street side and
shall not exceed four feet in height – to permit the construction of a new
site wall that varies to a maximum height of 8’ from the street side and
approximately 4’ from the property side. The
property is located on the east side of 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. Vice Chairman Hanna 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
along this section of Old Ocean Blvd. have a finished grade to the first floor
of 3-4’ above Old Ocean Blvd. and have front retaining/privacy walls of 7-8’
measured on street side and these conditions were not the result from actions of
the applicant. The applicant stated that granting the variance would not confer
any special privileges because the variance opportunity exists to all properties
where the topography of the site and existing wall structures necessitate mainly
the same line of the structure. The applicant stated that literal interpretation
of the ordinance would work unnecessary and undue hardship because the majority
of adjacent properties enjoy privacy from existing walls and structures which
are not allowed by current zoning, thereby creating an undue hardship on this
applicant. They felt it was the minimum variance sought to grant the applicant
privacy and make reasonable use of the land. The applicant stated that the
request would be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the ordinance
in that it has not detrimental effect on any of the surrounding properties with
similar walls. The applicant concluded by stating that the variance would not be
injurious to the area and would in fact be in complete harmony with the
surrounding properties. Town Clerk Hancsak read the
administrative comments prepared by the Zoning Official. The comments regarding
the justification of application advised that special circumstances exist
because the elevation of this property is such that a retaining wall is needed
for the front yard to keep in fill and maintain its height. The comments advised
that the conditions do not result from actions of the applicant.
The Zoning Official advised that granting this variance would not be
giving a special privilege because several properties on either side are already
benefiting from a similar variance. He advised that the literal interpretation
of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly
enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district because it would work an
unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant but would also be very unfair.
The comments also stated that the request is the minimum variance to make
possible the most reasonable use of this land and building. The
comments relayed that granting this request would very much be in harmony with
the general purpose of this ordinance and it would not have any detrimental
effects on any of the surrounding properties and would not be injurious to the
area involved. In conclusion, the
Zoning Official recommended granting the variance stating the proposed wall not
only serves as a retaining wall but also harmonizes with the other adjoining
properties. He added that applicant
also plans to place planters in front to break up the height of their proposed
wall. Town Clerk Hancsak also
distributed photographs taken by the Zoning Official of neighboring property
walls. Digby Bridges, architect
representing the applicant, summarized the submitted drawings and advised that
the wall would be built on top of a three foot retaining wall and would be in
harmony with the neighboring properties. Town Clerk Hancsak commented
that she had received a telephone call from the neighbor to the south, Mr.
Duffy, who verbally advised that he was opposed to the variance request.
She stated that she advised him that he could either write a letter that
could be read into the record or appear in person but she had not received any
correspondence and he was not in attendance. Mr. Brown questioned if the
other walls on Vice Chair Hanna and Mr. Norem
asked if the existing grade would be raised.
Mr. Bridges advised that the only area that would be raised more than
2-3” would be the interior triangular area of the southwest portion of the
wall to make the land inside the wall flat. He added that the wall would be
consistent with the other neighboring walls. Mr. Lucibella questioned if the
variance could be approved with wording to the effect of allowing 8’ on the
exterior and 4’ on the interior side of the wall because he did feel that the
code encompasses surrounding area concerns. Mr. Hanna mentioned that the
wall would still be 8’ high from the street side so the applicant would still
have privacy. He added that he felt
the applicant was using other property walls as the hardship for their variance
and felt other areas would then be entitled to the same variance. Mrs. Souther stated that she
felt if the wall was lowered it would look unattractive and not blend with the
other homes that were built in the 1920’s. She
also asked how much higher the proposed wall was compared to the existing wall.
Mr. Bridges advised that the wall was approximately 1’ higher but they
could make it the same height if necessary. Mr. Lucibella questioned what
the hardship was to which Mr. Bridges stated that the topography was the
hardship. Mr. Norem questioned what
the applicant would do if the variance was not granted.
Mr. Bridges advised that they would probably construct a 4’ wall with
hedges behind it. Mr. Lucibella
commented that he felt there is an exception in this case based on the harmony
of the other homes in the area; however he was concerned with how high the wall
will actually be. Mr. Bridges
advised that the wall would be lower than the existing wall to the south and
approximately 6” lower than the wall to the north. Manuel Palacios, Zoning Officer for the Town, stated that after he inspected the property he saw a group of homes from north to south that had similar walls and felt that this wall would harmonize with the others and everyone would benefit. He added that he felt the contour of the dune justified a variance request for this property. There were no comments from
members of the public and the board declared themselves in executive session. Mr. Lucibella stated that he was
inclined to either table the request until a time certain so that Mr. Bridges
could return with actual figures on the heights of the neighboring walls or he
was more likely in favor of granting a 7’ maximum exterior and 3’ interior
height for the wall because he felt a hardship existed due to the other homes in
the area. Mr. Brown felt the variance
should be approved as requested as long as the planter was part of the motion.
Town Clerk Hancsak advised that the code required landscaping on the
street side of the wall. Mrs. Souther felt the area was
unique and quaint and would be consistent with the neighbors. Mr. Norem stated that while he
agreed with most of the comments he was more in favor of matching the applicants
existing walls between the garages and felt this would still blend with the
area. Vice Chair Hanna stated that he
felt a special privilege would be given to the applicant because of the natural
terrain of the land and he did not agree with granting a variance on the basis
that it would match the neighboring walls. He
felt they were creating their own hardship by raising the property up to 3’ in
the triangular area. Mr. Brown moved to grant the
variance with a maximum height of 7’ on the exterior street side, seconded by
Mrs. Souther. Motion failed: 2 Yea (Brown, Souther)
3 Nay (Lucibella, Norem, Hanna) Mr. Lucibella moved to grant the
variance for a 7’ maximum height for the exterior street side and 4’ maximum
height for the interior wall, whichever is less, seconded by Mr. Brown. Motion carried: 3 Yea (Lucibella, Brown, Souther)
2 Nay (Norem, Hanna) Town Clerk Hancsak advised that
a letter would be forthcoming. A brief discussion followed
regarding postponing the appointing a Chairman and Vice Chairman until after new
appointments were made to the board. VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at
approximately |
