QUASI-JUDICIAL ZONING APPEALS SPECIAL MASTER HEARING MINUTES CITY OF DEERFIELD BEACH, FLORIDA July 12, 2011 CALL TO ORDER

Transcription

1 QUASI-JUDICIAL ZONING APPEALS SPECIAL MASTER HEARING MINUTES CITY OF DEERFIELD BEACH, FLORIDA July 12, 2011 CALL TO ORDER Special Master Jeffrey Siniawsky called the hearing to order at 2:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers, City Hall, 150 N.E. 2 nd Avenue, Deerfield Beach, Florida. Present: Attorney, Jeffrey S. Siniawsky, Special Master Jerry Ferguson, Director of Planning and Growth Management Maria Stevens, Senior Planer Amanda Martinez, Planner Also Present: Vernadette Fuller, Minutes Secretary SWEARING IN APPELLANT AND PUBLIC Vernadette Fuller swore in all those who would be testifying at the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO Appellant: Request: Location: TRAVIS MCGREEVY Seeking the following 2 VARIANCES from the provisions of the Deerfield Beach Land Development Code: 1) from Section 98-73(b)(1) in order to allow an accessory structure (specifically a chickee hut) to be located 19 feet from the corner (street side) property line rather than 25 feet as required by Code; AND 2) Section 98-73(2)(a) in order to allow said accessory structure to be located 2.5 feet from the rear property line rather than 5 feet as required by Code. Lot 22, Block 6, EASTWAY PARK SECTION 3, located at 925 SE 16 th Street. Amanda Martinez, Planner, 150 N.E. 2 nd Avenue, reported that 43 letters were mailed; 3 were returned undeliverable. No letters of objection or approval were received. Special Master Siniawsky asked if the height requirements have been met and if the structure would be permitted, if the setback issue did not exist. Ms. Martinez replied yes. Travis McGreevy, Appellant, 925 S.E. 16 th Street, stated that the chickee hut was put in this location because there is an existing pool and the pavers would have to be moved to install two of the beam structures. He also said that the chickee hut would be 2-3 feet in front of a window

2 and a couple of inches from the roof. He added that it was placed in the location for safety reasons and he did not know about the setback requirements. He admitted that he was cited by Code Enforcement, but the company that installed the chickee hut told him he did not need a permit. He said that the engineer and developer have submitted plans to the Planning Department for review. He made the following statements as it relates to Section : (A) The special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or buildings involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district; special condition do exist which are unique to our land and building. We have space restrictions due to the existing pool and pavers in our yard. Also, during installation, we were told that the tiki hut should be placed as far as possible from the house. Due to these restrictions; the tiki hut was installed in the far northeast corner. (B) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; they are due to the space restrictions from the existing pool and pavers. They were already present when we purchased the home. (C) That the granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Code to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district; (D) That literal interpretation of the provisions of this Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this Code and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant; the pavers which are in excellent condition would need to be removed in order for the tiki hut to be installed under the terms of the Code. In addition, one of the beams would be obstructing the view from the back window. (E) That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and (F) That the grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Code, and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. We do have a general contractor who is involved with the safety of this structure. This will ensure that our structure will not cause any harm to the public or area. Special Master Siniawsky asked if this was the only size chickee hut that could be installed. Mr. McGreevy replied that a smaller one could have been installed. Special Master Siniawsky asked if there are any special conditions other than the location of the pavers to the pool. Mr. McGreevy replied that the tiki hut would be hanging over the Florida room and it was installed because they do not have any shade trees. Special Master Siniawsky asked why the appellant did not install a tree. Mr. McGreevy replied that he does not know. Ms. Martinez advised that the building permit was not approved because the chickee hut does not meet the setbacks requirements in the Zoning Code. Special Master Siniawsky made reference to the photographs in the packet and asked if the chickee hut roof hangs over the fence. 2

3 Ms. Martinez replied no. Mr. McGreevy acknowledged that the chickee hut is 6-8 inches from the fence. Special Master Siniawsky invited the public to speak either for or against the application. No one came forward. Mr. McGreevy said that if the setbacks are corrected, if the Code allows the chickee hut to abut against the house. Special Master Siniawsky replied that Mr. McGreevy needs to meet with City staff regarding this issue. FINAL ORDER CASE NO was DENIED because the testimony given by the appellant does not meet the requirements as set forth in the Code, pursuant to Section that (A) The special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or buildings involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district; (B) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; (C) That the granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Code to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district; (D) That literal interpretation of the provisions of this Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this Code and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant; (E) That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and (F) That the grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Code, and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. CASE NO Appellant: Request: Location: REEL SMOKERS CIGAR DISTRIBUTOR, by Carmelo Sanchez Seeking CONDIITONAL USE approval from Section 98-54c(3)(i) of the Deerfield Beach Land Development Code in order to allow an alcoholic beverage establishment (on-premise consumption) in the B-2 (Business Highway) zoning district; AND seeking 2 VARIANCES from the provisions of the Deerfield Beach Land Development Code in conjunction with said conditional use: 1) from Section 98-91c(1) in order to allow said alcoholic beverage establishment (onpremise consumption) to directly abut residentially zoned property rather than being located at least 100 feet away as required by Code, and 2) from Section 98-91c(1) in order to allow said alcoholic beverage worship rather than 500 feet as required by Code. 140 N Federal Highway. 3

4 Amanda Martinez, Planner, 150 N.E. 2 nd Avenue, reported that 30 letters were mailed; 0 were returned undeliverable. No letters of objection or approval were received. Carmelo Sanchez, 1706 S.E.5 th Court, stated that his business has been located in Deerfield Beach for the past 15 years. He said that prior to that they were located at 540 S. Federal Highway and it too was adjacent to a residential neighborhood. He added that they are a private establishment; however, they cannot stop someone from walking in off the street. He noted that there is no signage, they have 6 members, sell wine and have wine tastings. They have a little seating area and their selection of wines is expensive and cannot be purchased from most stores. Special Master Siniawsky asked how long they have been in the current location. Mr. Sanchez replied 1 ½ months. He made the following statements as it relates to Section of the Deerfield Beach Land Development Code; he said that 3) the use is so designed, located and proposed to be operated that the public health, safety, welfare and convenience will be protected as far as tangible effect, including but not limited to noise, air pollution, traffic problems or overcrowding; the wine tasting sales is within the space in a commercial center on Federal Highway in a semi-private setting; 4) the use will not cause injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood where it is to be located here such injury results from the noise, traffic or other tangible effects which will occur as a result of the intended use and; the location is in a commercial shopping center on Federal Highway. All use is within the space. The center is separated from the residential area behind it and they use the lot to park their cars; there is a private tennis court and neighbors on both sides; landscape buffer zone and a 6-foot block wall and the business closes at 7:00 p.m. 5) the use will be compatible with adjoining development and the proposed character of the district where it is to be located; Federal Highway is at the entrance to this site, the center is fully occupied by a variety of businesses in a mostly commercial zone.; 6) that the use will have a density and intensity of development as compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located; commercial shopping center built in the 1960 s; 7) adequate landscaping and screening is provided to screen the development or use from neighboring residential areas (there are no residential areas near the property). As it relates to the variance, Mr. Sanchez advised that wine sells and tasting is a big part of his business, there have been no complaints from the neighbors and they don t have mass crowds. He said that there is another business in the same plaza that sells alcohol and he signed a 5-year contract with the owner. Special Master Siniawsky asked Mr. Sanchez if, legally, he can sell the wine without serving it at this location. Mr. Sanchez replied that he does not know. Ms. Martinez advised that (1) the use is a permitted conditional use as set forth in Article III hereof; meets requirements; 2) the use complies with all specific development requirements as set forth for that use in the district in which it is located; the Code requires that all alcoholic beverage establishments in the B-2 zoning district be on a property that is 100 feet from 4

5 residentially zoned property. This property is closer than 100 feet to residentially zoned property and does not meet this requirement. The applicant is requesting a variance from this section of the Code. Section c requires that all alcoholic beverage establishments where consumption takes place on premises shall not be located within 500 feet of any established church or school. Staff review confirms there is no school located within 500 feet of the proposed alcoholic beverage establishment; however there is a church located in the same shopping center as the proposed use. The applicant is requesting a variance from this section of the Code. 8) the use will not increase traffic on an adjoining street so as to lower its level of service below the adopted level of service or create a traffic nuisance to adjoining properties utilizing the same streets; staff review confirms that this proposed use will not lower the level of service for traffic below the City s adopted level of service established by Policy TE of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan ; 9) adequate offstreet parking, stacking and loading is provided, that ingress and egress are so designed as ton cause minimum interference with traffic on abutting streets and that the use has adequate frontage on a public or approved private street; the shopping center has 110 parking spaces, currently 95 are required by other tenants. This use will increase the requirement by 9 spaces, for a total of 104 spaces and 10) the use conforms with all applicable regulations governing the district where it is located; this use is to be located within a building developed in compliance with the regulations for the B-2 zoning district per site plan 86-B2-32. Review indicates there are no outstanding or open Code violations associated with this site. Continuing, Ms. Martinez reported that the application was denied because it does not meet the zoning separation requirements. Jerry Ferguson, Director of Planning and Growth Management, 150 N.E. 2 nd Avenue, advised that the Code permits off-premise consumption alcoholic beverage establishments in the B-2 zoning. He said that the on-premise alcoholic beverage establishment in the B-2 zoning would require conditional use approval. He added that the City has no way to monitor how many of the sells are for cigars and how many are for beer and wine. Special Master Siniawsky asked if wine tasting only is considered on premise consumption. Mr. Ferguson replied that it would depend on what the State Alcohol and Beverage licensing requires. Ms. Martinez advised that the issue relates to the proximity of the business to the church and the abutting residents. Special Master Siniawsky asked for clarification on the other establishment in the plaza that sells alcohol. Ms. Martinez replied that an application was submitted for a restaurant with a kitchen. She said that the applicant did not put the kitchen in and a letter of violation was sent to them asking them to cease operation and request conditional use to have alcoholic beverages on premise or submit application for a building permit to put in the kitchen. She added that the establishment has 5

6 pulled a permit for the kitchen and allowing them to have the on premise consumption without the separation requirement. She also said that the church has been in the plaza since Mr. Sanchez reported that in order to have a liquor license in the State of Florida, 85% of the sells must come from food. He acknowledged that he is at his business everyday from 9:30 a.m. to 7:30 or 8:30 p.m. He said that the chapel is only open on Sunday mornings from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. He added that he does not know if State Law distinguishes between a church and a chapel. Special Master Siniawsky invited the public to speak either for or against the application. No one came forward. Special Master Siniawsky recommended that Mr. Sanchez speak with City and State staff regarding this issue. Mr. Ferguson agreed and said that City staff is willing to work with Mr. Sanchez. FINAL ORDER CASE NO was DENIED because the testimony given by the appellant does not meet the variance and conditional use requirements as set forth in the Code, pursuant to Section c(1) A) The special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or buildings involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district; (B) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; (C) That the granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Code to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district; (D) That literal interpretation of the provisions of this Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this Code and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant; (E) That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and (F) That the grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Code, and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. He added that the appellant met most of the requirements for the conditional use; however, denying the variance disapproves both. Appellant: Request: CASE NO DARYL HOWARD Seeking a VARIANCE from the provisions of Section of the Deerfield Beach Land Development Code in order to allow a single-family home addition to be located 7 feet from the side property line rather than 7.5 feet as required Code. Location: Lot 8, Block 1, DEERFIELD BEACH ESTATES SECTION A, located at 208 N.E. 8 th Avenue. 6

7 Amanda Martinez, Planner, 150 N.E. 2 nd Avenue, reported that 27 letters were mailed; 0 were returned undeliverable. No letters of objection or approval were received. Daryl Howard, 208 N.E. 8 th Avenue, stated that he would like to add a garage to his home. He said that based on the original approved plan and survey, they were not expecting to exceed the 7.5-feet. He noted that once the wall was constructed, a preconstruction survey determined that it was 7.22 feet and the slab and concrete had been poured based on the original survey. He added that they only require a 3.5-inch variance, but they requested 7 inches in case future surveys had to be done. He said that he has a hardship because the construction that has already taken place based on the approved survey and the monies that would lost. Special Master Siniawsky asked the appellant if he would have been able to build the structure without encroaching, had he known about the error in the original survey. Mr. Howard replied yes. Ms. Martinez stated that the permit for this project was rejected because it was too close to the setback. Special Master Siniawsky commented that a permit was issued for certain work to be done based on the original survey that was in existence. He said that once the new survey was done it disclosed the problem and further permitting was not allowed. Ms. Martinez replied that is correct. Mr. Howard pointed out that the plumbing; drainage and slab were inspected and approved. Special Master Siniawsky invited the public to speak either for or against the application. No one came forward. FINAL ORDER - CASE NO was APPROVED because the testimony given by the appellant meets requirements as set forth in the Code, pursuant to Section c(1) A) The special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or buildings involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district; (B) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; (C) That the granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Code to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district; (D) That literal interpretation of the provisions of this Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this Code and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant; (E) That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and (F) That the grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Code, and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 7

8 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 2:50 p.m. SPECIAL MASTER 8