Loading...
Minutes 09-29-05 MINUTES OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29,2005 AT 6:30 P.M. Present: Milton Russell, Chair Beverly Agee Richard Kurtz Frank Lindsay Robert Zimmerman Brita Peterson, Voting Alternate Robert Bonagura, Voting Alternate Tim Large, Deputy Building Official Jim Cherof, City Attorney Absent: Michael Bessell, Vice Chair Sanford Guritzky A. Call to Order - Milton Russell, Chairman Chairman Russell called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. B. Acknowledgement of Members and Visitors Chairman Russell acknowledged the presence of the Board members and requested the Recording Secretary call the roll. The roll was called and a quorum was declared present. Chairman Russell welcomed Tim Large, Deputy Building Official, and City Attorney Cherof. C. Approval of Agenda & Meeting Minutes of July 7,2005 Meeting Motion Mr. Kurtz moved to accept the minutes of the July 7, 2005 meeting. Motion seconded by Mr. Zimmerman and unanimously carried. D. Old Business None Chairman Russell requested that Attorney Cherof administer the oath to all persons that would be testifying. Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustment & Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida September 29, 2005 E. New Business: Applicant: Reference: Explanation: Kasee Vickery, Property Owner 660 Las Palmas Parkway Applicant is requesting a fifth extension of permit application #03-4109 pursuant to Section 104.1.6 ("Time Limitations") of the Boynton Beach Administrative Amendments to the 2001 Florida Building Code. Applicant's permit application is still pending approval from the Army Corps of Engineers as required by the City. Mr. Large explained that Mr. and Mrs. Vickery were present to apply for a fifth extension to complete the permit process for their dock and are attempting to obtain approval through the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Large spoke with Don Johnson, the City's former Building Official, who told him he was in touch with Ms. Penny Cutt of the Army Corps of Engineers. Ms. Cutt informed Mr. Johnson that the Army Corps of Engineers had misplaced the applicant's file. The applicants are present to apply for another extension of time to resolve the situation. Ms. Kasee Vickery told the Board they were applying for an extension of the application for a dock that had already been built. Ms. Vickery was in contact with Ms. Cutt today and reiterated what Mr. Large had stated that their file had been lost. Ms. Vickery received e-mail today from Ms. Cutt and distributed a copy to the Board and the Recording Secretary, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk's Office. In summary, the e-mail informed Ms. Vickery that once a copy of their application, along with their drawings is provided to the Army Corps of Engineers, the issuance of the federal authorization for the permit would be expedited. Ms. Vickery will be meeting with the DEP tomorrow to review their file in order to obtain the necessary information for submittal to the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Vickery added they have cooperated with the City, the DEP and the Army Corps of Engineers. They have spent a great deal of money in attorney's fees in dealing with the Army Corps of Engineers. They have continually remained in contact with Mr. Johnson and have met with the City Attorney as well. He anticipated they should be receiving approval from the Army Corps of Engineers within the next month after their conversations with Ms. Cutt; however, nothing is for certain in dealing with that agency. Mr. Russell inquired if a permit was necessary from the City's Building Department prior to submitting an application to the Army Corps of Engineers for approval. Mr. Vickery did not think the City first required approval by the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Vickery acknowledged they built the dock without first obtaining a permit from the City or the Army Corps of Engineers, because the canal was exempt from the Department of Environmental Protection. Because they built the dock without a permit, the City's Code Compliance Division has fined them at the rate of $25 per day until they are issued a permit. 2 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustment & Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida September 29, 2005 Mr. Vickery pointed out there are applicants throughout the State in the same situation that are waiting for approval from the Army Corps of Engineers for their docks. Ms. Cutt also informed him that many other applications have been lost. Mr. Kurtz asked Mr. Vickery if he knew the status of the fine, and Mr. Vickery estimated it to be around $5,000 to $6,000. Ms. Agee inquired where the canal was located and Mr. Vickery explained that it was located in the north end of the City. Their property has 25' of seawall and is next to the Harbor's project. This is where they placed the dock. Ms. Agee inquired if the applicants spoke with Ms. Cutt regarding the new manatee key that the Corps would be using to make permitting decisions. Ms. Vickery spoke with Ms. Cutt today, but Ms. Cutt did not address any specifics of the litigation. Ms. Vickery understood that the litigation was over, because Ms. Cutt informed her their application process would be expedited as soon as she received the requested information. This fact is also stated in the e-mail. Ms. Agee asked Attorney Cherof if the Code limited the number of extensions the City could grant, after the three extensions that the Building Official is allowed to grant. Attorney Cherof responded this Board has the authority to grant as many extensions it deems appropriate. Ms. Agee inquired what would be the advantage or disadvantage if the applicants were denied an extension and had to begin the process over again, rather than granting another extension. Attorney Cherof pointed out the applicants are already going through the City's process and are attempting to comply with the order of the Code Enforcement Board that requires them to obtain the permit. Beginning the process over would serve no purpose whatsoever. The applicants have acted as diligently as possible in his dealings with them. Attorney Cherof pointed out that it is very difficult to deal with the Army Corps of Engineers and the applicants are one of many, many people in a similar situation waiting for dock permit clearance. Mr. Bonagura inquired if the Army Corps of Engineers informed the applicant when the Fish and Wildlife Service would be getting back to them. Ms. Vickery did not discuss this with Ms. Cutt. Mr. Lindsay pointed out the e-mail stated the new key allowed the Army Corps of Engineers to authorize the structure without consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, and Ms. Vickery confirmed that this was her understanding as well. Mr. Kurtz asked how much time the Board could grant the applicants. Attorney Cherof responded the Board is allowed to grant an extension up to 90 days. Even though the Army Corps of Engineers has indicated they would be expediting the Vickery's application, Attorney Cherof would recommend granting them the full 90 days. 3 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustment & Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida September 29, 2005 Motion Mr. Kurtz moved to grant the applicants 90 days' extension in this procedure. Motion seconded by Ms. Peterson. Ms. Agee noted in previous minutes the applicant was granted an extension of 180 days. Mr. Kurtz requested that his motion remain at 90 days, which Ms. Peterson concurred. Ms. Agee felt if it were possible to grant the applicants more than gO days, she would recommend as much time as allowed by the code. By providing more time, Ms. Agee felt the applicants would not have to come back for another extension. Chairman Russell requested the roll be called for the motion on the floor for a gO-day extension. Ms. Agee moved to amend the motion to 180 days, if this were allowed, since the applicants received 180 days in March 2005. Mr. Kurtz asked Attorney Cherof for his opinion. Attorney Cherof recommended limiting the extension to 90 days since this is the language in the code and is cited in the staff memorandum. Ms. Agee withdrew her amendment of the motion. Vote The Recording Secretary called the roll and the motion unanimously carried. F. Announcements Mr. Kurtz declared that Don Johnson, the former Building Official, would be missed. Mr. Kurtz commended Mr. Johnson and felt he has been an asset to the City for many, many years and he wanted to express his appreciation to Mr. Johnson. All Board members concurred with Mr. Kurtz's comments and wished Mr. Johnson good luck. G. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting properly adjourned at 6:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,-4-((;~,:67d 4- A - k-rt:-eil-c... Barbara M. Madden Recording Secretary (October 6, 2005) 4 BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH IN RE: APPEAL OF CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL DECISION 660 Las Palmas Parkway Applicant: KASEE VICKERY, Property Owner ORDER GRANTING NINETY (90) DAY EXTENSION The application for fifth extension of time to complete the permit process for the dock filed by Kasee Vickery, property owner, the "Applicant", was submitted to the City's Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals on September 6, 2005. The Applicant was requesting the extension based upon Section 104.1.6 ("Time Limitations") of the Florida Building Code limiting the applicant to three extensions on his permit application. The City's Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals reviewed the testimony and evidence provided to the Deputy Building Official, and the arguments of Applicant's counsel, and orders as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Section 108.4 of the Florida Building Code, as adopted by the City, provides for the procedure relating to appeals of decisions made by the Chief Building Official to the Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals ("Board"). 2. The Board makes the following preliminary findings: The Applicant has applied for a dock permit, after the fact, which afforded him 180 days to build the dock. The waterway in question is under the control of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and is not City waterway. The Applicant has applied for and did receive three extensions from the Chief Building Official. The Applicant also appealed to the Board and received a fourth extension of 180 days on April 1, 2005. The Applicant is now requesting a fifth extension. The Applicant has requested this extension pursuant to Section 104.1.6 ("Time Limitations") of the Florida Building Code. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 1. After review of the record before the Deputy Building Official, the recommendations and comments of the Deputy Building Official, Applicant's testimony and evidence, the Board hereby grants the request. The request for a fifth extension (90 days) of his permit application (#03-4109) pursuant to Section 104.1.6 ("Time Limitations") of the Florida Building Code is granted. 2. The Building Official's reports, memoranda, comments, and recommendations on the appeal, agenda back-up before the Building Board of Adjustment, along with the record established before the Building Board of Adjustment on Septembcr 29,2005, are hereby incorporated by reference. DONE AND ORDERED this /8 day of OCTOBEX, 2005 In the City of Boynton Beach, Florida. ~ki M..IIl€Q..- MIL ON RUSSELL, CHAIRMAN CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ,U~ S:\CA\FORMS\BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Order (Vickery #2).doc