PALM BEACH COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION

Transcription

1 PALM BEACH COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE TYPE I B - STAFF PUBLIC MEETING STAFF REPORT 04/02/2012 (continued from 3/15/2012) AGENDA ITEM CODE SECTION REQUIRED PROPOSED VARIANCE AVB B.1.A.5 Docks 5 ft - South and North proeprty lines 0 ft 5 ft SITUS ADDRESS: 2317 Palm Harbor Dr Palm Beach Gardens AGENT NAME & ADDRESS: OWNER NAME & ADDRESS: Conrad Damon Ward, Damon, Posner, Pheterson and Bleau 4420 Beacon Cir WPB FL Ira Kitzen 2317 Palm Harbor Dr Palm Beach Gardens FL PCN: ZONING DISTRICT: RS BCC DISTRICT: 01 PROJECT MANAGER: Juanita James, Zoning Technician LEGAL AD: Ward, Damon, Posner, Pheterson and Bleau, P.L., agent, for Ira Kitzen, owner, to allow a dock to encroach into the required side setbacks. LOC: 2317 Palm Harbor Dr approx..21 miles east of Prosperity Farms Rd in the RS Zoning District. (Control ) LAND USE: LR-2 S/T/R: PETITION #: LOT AREA: 0.36 LOT DIMENSIONS: CONFORMITY OF LOT: CONFORMITY OF ELEMENT: TYPE OF ELEMENT: ELEMENT SIZE: BUILDING PERMIT #: NOTICE OF VIOLATION: CONSTRUCTION STATUS: APPLICANT REQUEST: Approx sf x sf Non-conforming Non-conforming Structure/Dock approx sf B None Existing To allow a dock to encroach into the required side setbacks. 1

2 STAFF SUMMARY The Subject property is located at 2317 Palm Harbor Dr. approximately.21 miles east or Prosperity Farms Rd. The property is zoned RS - Single Family Residential with a consistent future land use designation of LR-2 (Low Residential 2). The property is located along the west side of the Intracoastal Waterway and includes submerged property rights that extend 160 feet into the waterway. The applicant is requesting to allow a 17.3 foot long dock to encroach the south (side) setback and the dock platform to encroach the north and south side setbacks. Pursuant to Article 5.B.1.A.5 of the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) docks located in a publicly owned waterway shall be subject to a minimum 5 foot side setback, measured on land and from the extension of the property lines into the waterway. The applicant submitted the required documents to the Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to request approval to construct the dock in the Intracoastal Waterway. Both agencies approved the proposed construction of the dock however they are not responsible for ensuring compliance with ULDC requirements. A building permit (B ) for the dock was approved and issued in January of Construction of the dock and platform commenced pursuant to the approved building permit. The structures passed the first two building inspections on March 16, 2011, and construction proceeded accordingly. During the final inspection it was noticed that the dock along with the dock platform was constructed without meeting the required 5 foot side setbacks. The applicant was then referred to the Zoning Division to pursue the possibility of applying for a Type 1B Administrative Variance. After the Zoning staff completed in depth research regarding the ownership of the Intracoastal Waterway it was determined that it was publicly owned opposed to privately owned. As previously mentioned, pursuant to the ULDC a dock in a publicly owned waterway must meet 5 foot side setbacks. The applicant has submitted documentation from DLS Environmental Services, Inc., dated January 27, 2012, indicating that special conditions warrant the need for the dock to be sited in its current location. The seawall of the property to the north projects 20 feet into the waterway beyond that of the seawall of the subject property. Pursuant to the consultant, the north seawall is functioning similar to a breakwater resulting in sediment being deposited in the northwestern portion of the applicant s submerged property. The sediment buildup results in a decreased water depth and impacts the ability to utilize that portion of the site for a dock. Constant dredging of the area would result in damage to could result in locally suspended sediments which may have adverse effects on marine animals, plants and the quality of the water. The ULDC encourages the most appropriate use of the land, water and natural resources, as well as, protecting human, environment, social and economic resources. 2

3 3

4 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Yes. Special conditions and circumstances do exist that are peculiar to the parcel of land, building or structure, that is not applicable to other parcels of land, structures or buildings in the same zoning district. The property owner to the north constructed a seawall that extends 20 feet into the Intracoastal Waterway beyond that of the seawall on the applicants property. This results in the northeast portion of the applicant s submerged property serving as a collecting area for sediment and debris. The constant deposit of sediment and debris render this area unusable for the placement of a dock without constant dredging. The applicant applied for and was granted permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the Palm Beach County Building Division to construct the dock. The dock passed the first two building inspections on March 16, 2011, and construction proceeded accordingly. The discrepancy was noted during the final inspection after the dock had been completed. 2. Yes. Special circumstances and conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant. As previously indicated the seawall adjacent to the north property line extends 20 feet into the waterway beyond that of the seawall on the applicants property. This condition that results in the deposit of sediment in this area limited the applicants ability in siting the dock. In addition, the owner applied for and was granted approval for construction of the dock and dock platform by all applicable agencies. A building permit (B ) was issued and the structures passed initial inspections. Construction continued, however, the error was not noted until final inspection. These circumstances and conditions are not the result of actions taken by the applicant. 3. Yes. Grant of the variance will be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan and this code. Pursuant to Article 1 of the ULDC one of the objectives of the Code is to protect natural resources. Denial of the variance will require the dock be reconstructed and maintained in a manner that will disturb the underwater community. Constant dredging would not encourage the most appropriate use of land and water protecting our natural resources. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Approval with Conditions, based upon the following application of the standards enumerated in Article 2, Section 2.D.3 of the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code (ULDC), which a petitioner must meet before the Administrative Variance Public Meeting Staff may authorize a variance. ANALYSIS OF ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2.D.3.G.2 VARIANCE STANDARDS 1. SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE PARCEL OF LAND, BUILDING OR STRUCTURE, THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER PARCELS OF LAND, STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT: l Yes. The property owner to the north constructed a seawall that extends 20 feet into the Intracoastal Waterway beyond that of the seawall on the applicants property. This results in the northeast portion of the applicant s submerged property serving as a collecting area for sediment and debris. The constant deposit of sediment and debris render this area unusable for the placement of a dock without constant dredging. The applicant applied for and was granted permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the Palm Beach County Building Division to construct the dock. The dock passed the first two building inspections on March 16, 2011, and construction proceeded accordingly. The discrepancy was noted during the final inspection after the dock had been completed. 4

5 2. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS DO NOT RESULT FROM THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT: 2. Yes. Special circumstances and conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant. As previously indicated the seawall adjacent to the north property line extends 20 feet into the waterway beyond that of the seawall on the applicants property. This condition that results in the deposit of sediment in this area limited the applicants ability in siting the dock. In addition, the owner applied for and was granted approval for construction of the dock and dock platform by all applicable agencies. A building permit (B ) was issued and the structures passed initial inspections. Construction continued, however, the error was not noted until final inspection. These circumstances and conditions are not the result of actions taken by the applicant. 3. GRANTING THE VARIANCE SHALL NOT CONFER UPON THE APPLICANT ANY SPECIAL PRIVILEGE DENIED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THIS CODE TO OTHER PARCELS OF LAND, BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT: 3. Yes. Granting the variance shall not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the comprehensive plan and this code to other parcels of land, buildings or structures in the same zoning district. The applicant is requesting to be able to utilize his dock the same as the surrounding property owners. Other similarly situated property owners in the same zoning district with properties adjacent to the Intracoastal are able to construct docks to allow access to their boats. The applicant followed the necessary procedures to ensure the dock and dock platform were properly permitted. 4. LITERAL INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHER PARCELS OF LAND IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT, AND WOULD WORK AN UNNECESSARY AND UNDUE HARDSHIP: 4. Yes. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels of land in the same zoning district, and would work an unnecessary and undue hardship. Denying the variance would require the property owner to demolish the entire dock structure and relocate it further north. As previously indicated the area to the north is not conducive for dock placement and would require continually dredging resulting in a negative impact on the underwater ecosystem. The applicant would be deprived of the ability to construct a useable dock as enjoyed by his neighbors. 5. GRANT OF VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE THAT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE THE REASONABLE USE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND, BUILDING OR STRUCTURE: 5. YES. Grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel of land, building or structure. The applicant is requesting to allow a 17.3 foot long portion of a dock to encroach the south (side) setback and the dock platform to encroach the north and south side setbacks. Based on the special conditions and circumstances previously indicated, the granting of this variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable of the parcel 6. GRANT OF THE VARIANCE WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THIS CODE: 6. YES. Grant of the variance will be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan and this code: Pursuant to Article 1 of the ULDC one of the objectives of the Code is to protect natural resources. Denial of the variance will require the dock be reconstructed and maintained in a manner that will disturb the underwater community. Constant dredging would not encourage the most appropriate use of land and water protecting our natural resources. 5

6 7. THE GRANT OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE AREA INVOLVED OR OTHERWISE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE: 7. YES. The grant of the variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare: The granting of the variance will not be injurious to the area. The property owners to the north and the south will still have the ability to enjoy their docks. Although there were discrepancies related to the construction of the dock its current location will be beneficial to the plant and sea life by not requiring the area be constantly dredged. Continual dredging of the area could also impact the neighbors enjoyment of their outdoor environment. 6

7 AGENCY COMMENTS LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS 1. This application has been reviewed by Bobby Jagoo. He can be reached at (561) and (RESOLVED) 2. The subject lots will have to be configured into legal lot(s) of record in accordance with the provisions of Article 11 of the Unified Land Development Code. (RESOLVED) 3. The subdivision plan and master site plan for Palm Harbor may have to be revised to show additional acreage. (RESOLVED) SURVEY COMMENTS 1. Identify the acreage and square footage of the site on the map sheet of the Survey. (RESOLVED) 2. Include together with between Parcel A and B in the description. Also correct the typo in the legal. (RESOLVED) 3. Provide and label existing record information for Parcel B on the survey (i.e. ORB & PG.). (RESOLVED) 4. Insufficient boundary corner monumentation is being shown to support this Survey. (RESOLVED) 5. Label the record information for the existing 12' Utlility Easement shown on the map.(resolved) 6. Label the Plat Name, Plat Book and Page within the lot on the Survey. (RESOLVED) 7. Label a pair of PRM's from the parent plat on the map sheet. Label specific calls at the PRM's based on the platted location. (RESOLVED) 8. Provide a Bearing Base Reference to a well-established monumented line shown on the map sheet of the Survey. Identify a specific line, bearing and label as grid or assumed. (RESOLVED) 9. Show all information referenced in the Legal descrition on the map sheet of the Survey, Including all lot dimensions. (RESOLVED) 10. A Boundary Survey of the entire ownership associated with this application must be provided in accordance with current Florida Minimum Technical Standards.(RESOLVED) 11. The project reviewer is Glenn Mark, who can be contacted at to discuss the following comments.(resolved) 12. Dimension and tie to the boundary all of the existing improvement show in Parcel B. Either dimension the improvements in Parcel A or remove them and add a note that improvements not located. Parcel B must show the improvements.(resolved) 13. The legal description does not match the maps sheet of the survey.(resolved) 14. Show or note a comparison between field measured directions and distances with deed directions and distances on the map sheet of the Survey.(RESOLVED) 15. Due to the number and nature of these Certification Issues additional Certification Issues or Comments may be forthcoming.(resolved) 16. Identify, leader and label the existing right-of-way record information for the adjacent roadways and lot, plat book and page for the adjacent property on the map sheet of the Survey.(RESOLVED) None ZONING COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT ORDER The development order for this particular variance shall lapse on April 2, 2013, one year from the approval date. (DATE: MONITORING:Zoning) ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE TYPE I B STAFF PUBLIC MEETING CONDITIONS VARIANCE-1. The property owner shall provide the Building Division with a copy of the Administrative Variance Staff Public Meeting Result Letter and a copy of the site plan and/or survey presented to the staff, simultaneously with the building permit application. (ONGOING-BLDG PERMIT: BLDG) 7