Loading...
Minutes 10-11-12 MINUTES OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MEETING. HELD ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2012, AT 6:30 P.M. IN THE CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL 100 E. BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT. Michael Bessell, Chair Andrew Mack, Engineer /Interim Beverly Agee Building Official Sanford Guritzky Shana Bridgeman, Board Counsel Richard Shores ABSENT: Timothy Rurey A. Call to Order Chair Bessell called the meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m. B. Acknowledgement of Members and Visitors Chair Bessell acknowledged the applicants were present, as were the Board members, Building Official, and City Attorney as noted above. C. Approval of Agenda and Minutes (Minutes of August 2, 2012, meeting) Motion Mr. Guritzky moved to approve the minutes. Ms. Agee seconded the motion that unanimously passed. D. Appeals Chair Bessell explained there were only four members present. The first item on the agenda required three affirmative votes and the second item required four affirmative votes. When the applicants were asked whether they wanted to proceed, they both agreed to proceed. Chair Bessell explained the City would present its testimony first, followed by the Applicant's. 1 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, FL October 11, 2012 Applicant: Todd Benson Reference: 1645 & 1665 Renaissance Commons Boulevard (Monteverde) Explanation: Applicant is appealing Section 105.4 and 105.4.13, inclusive of the City of Boynton Beach Administrative Amendments to the 2004 Florida Building Code to allow an additional extension. Ten extensions were previously granted. He is requesting that his permit applicant number 05 -4678 be extended for a period of twelve (12) months. There is a perspective buyer /contractor for the property; this will allow time for the new buyer to review plans and assess the work completed, comply with City requirements, and begin construction. Andrew Mack, Interim Building Official, explained this project was ongoing for some time. They received extensions and the project was an active project with an active permit. Staff felt it was in the City's best economic interest to move forward with the project and allow its construction. Currently, the applicant had a builder to take over the project; however, it would not be completed within a year. Mr. Mack explained he could only grant an extension for 90 days. The applicant was requesting a one -year extension predicating the need for the Board meeting. To -date, the City had granted 10, 90 -day extensions. Todd Benson, owner of Monteverde Land, thanked the Board and explained they took ownership slightly over two years ago. The condominium documents were originally drafted for one project and when the market changed, the prior developer did not complete it. When Mr. Benson took over, he spent a year and a half going through the process to bifurcate the land, making it a separate entity and obtaining the title policy. Because the project originally would be built as a second phase, there would be a pedestrian bridge that would connect the two properties. This no longer applied as the land was now a stand alone property. They had to pay Master Association Dues, CDD fees and it was expensive for them to carry the land. The three -month extensions were helpful, but they needed more time to get the lenders and banks on board. Mr. Benson distributed a handout which he reviewed. He also identified the site for the members. Discussion followed the applicant wanted a one -year extension and had already had 10, 90 -day extensions totaling 900 days. Chair Bessell inquired what guarantee the City had they would complete the project. Mr. Benson responded they did not receive prior extensions. They became involved in the project two years ago after the bifurcation. It was not feasible for anyone to 2 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, FL October 11, 2012 construct anything on the property until it was separated, which was just done within the past few months. As to assurances about the project, the fees associated with the land totaled nearly $300,000 so there was a lot of pressure to build. When asked if the applicant would agree to the stipulation that if the extension was granted, the project had to be substantially underway as it was seven years in the making. Mike Covelli, Land Planner, explained there were a number of plan changes needed to accommodate the project. It was possible they may not be completely finished. The applicant would need at least six to eight months just to make plan changes. On the first floor in the courtyard, they would widen the pool which required they take units out of the ground level so they could provide the amenity center that was required to support the facility. Storage areas on upper floors would be reconfigured. The prior project had the amenities contained in a satellite recreation area. Part of the reason for the pedestrian bridge was to go allow one to go to the other side to reach the satellite recreation area. It was not just picking up plans, and commencing construction. They had to ensure they had a viable project after construction. They anticipated it would take the Building Department at least one month to review the plans, which after the six to eight months for the plan changes, would be almost a year. At that point, they would have accomplished a substantial amount of work towards the project. A year's extension would end in 2013, and the applicant would be working under the 2005 Building Code. Chair Bessell noted the Code changed twice since 2005. and the Building Department would review the project against a Code that was eight years old, which was an additional burden. Mr. Covelli acknowledged the project would not be finished, but they would have advanced a substantial distance towards it. There were fairly substantial foundations already in the ground, constructed to accommodate multi- storied buildings, which was a critical part of the financial side of it. If those items had to be removed, it would be costly. Mr. Covelli believed they would have submitted a plan to the City within the first eight months of the extension and they would obtain an amended permit from the City. If the Board did not approve the request, they would continue to request 90 -day extensions to get through the process. Motion Mr. Guritzky moved to extend this for one year and the stipulation they would submit site plans to the City for approval within eight months of the extension as a condition. The extension would expire October 26, 2013. Attorney Bridgeman explained the motion was to approve the application or disapprove it. The Board could not add stipulations. Accordingly, the stipulation was withdrawn. Ms. Agee seconded the motion. 3 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, FL October 11, 2012 Mr. Mack explained in response to a question posed, that at the end of the one -year period, the applicant could either return to the Board for another extension or petition him for 90 -day extensions. Vote The Recording Secretary called the roll. The motion passed unanimously. Applicant: Renan Laurore Reference: 504 NW 12th Avenue Explanation: Applicant is appealing Section 105.4 and 105.4.1.3, inclusive, of the City of Boynton Beach Administrative Amendments to the 2004 Florida Building Code to allow an additional extension and also to submit a plan revision. Four extensions were previously granted. He is requesting that his permit applicant number 06 -7765 be extended to allow him to eliminate a blighted condition. Mr. Mack explained the applicant has been working on the project since 2006 and the project received four extensions. They had several site visits with the applicant, with the most recent being in 2012. They met to discuss how to further the project and at that time, the City was advised they would move forward with revisions and close the project out. There was, however, no movement after that except for one revision that did not go anywhere. In May, staff conducted a status check and since there was no movement, staff wanted finality. The matter went to Code Compliance in July and activity resumed since then. Mr. Mack explained the property has been a chronic nuisance. Photographs reflected individuals "hanging out" in the area and he would love the project to be completed and gone. Staff believed it was in the City's best interests to have the building demolished and removed from the site. Mr. Mack clarified the work was mainly to the interior, but some exterior work was needed. Discussion followed the project failed a number of electrical and plumbing inspections. There were several changes and work on the interior that was not per the plan. There were several contractors on the project which dragged on, and trying to rectify the issues and move forward was problematic. Reginald Cox, representing the applicant was present and explained he was the architect for the project and a certified Building Code Administrator. Chair Bessell reminded him four affirmative votes were needed for this project, which Mr. Cox acknowledged. He distributed a handout to the Board. 4 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, FL October 11, 2012 Mr. Cox explained this application was to eliminate a blighted condition. He commented there was some miscommunication when a revision was made in February. He agreed with Mr. Mack that work was done that was not per the plan, and when that occurs, resolution could occur in a number of ways. One way to do so with minor framing changes, not per plan, could be via an as -built at the end in order to keep the project moving. They had a tentative agreement to move forward in that manner, but after discussion with the Building Department, they decided not to pursue that route. The photographs indicated they were ready for an electrical, mechanical, and plumbing rough inspection, and a top out. These inspections were passed and drawings were submitted based on the changes made in the field. The drawings were in the Building Department and the applicant could Sheetrock the areas in the drawings and move forward. He noted it was difficult for a contractor, with vandalism and robbery throughout the project. The area was predominantly a residential area. The outside stucco needed to be painted. If granted the extension, the project was not far off from completion. When the Building Department reviewed the last drawings in February, the project was based on the 2004 Code, but some of the reviewers reviewed it under the 2007 Code, which caused delay. From a site walk conducted with the Building Department, those discrepancies were cleared and the Building Official and Assistant Building Official cleared them with the reviewers. At this point, the plans conformed with changes made in the field. The applicant was requesting the extension to finish the project and was unaware if the plans were approved. Mr. Mack clarified Mr. Cox submitted the changes with the application. The Department had not reviewed any revisions since July as the plans were out on comment and the application had expired. They were recently resubmitted; however, they were not resubmitted through the Building Department. The only way the applicant could submit revisions was to receive an extension from the Board. Mr. Cox came onboard with the project in approximately 2009. At the Board's request, Mr. Cox reviewed his credentials as a licensed Architect, a licensed Building Code Administrator, a licensed Plan Reviewer and a licensed Building Inspector. Chair Bessell inquired about granting a 90 -day extension and noted he did not request a time limit. Mr. Cox explained it was his experience that a six -month extension would be more realistic; however, with the holiday season, one year would be adequate. Mr. Mack preferred a 90 -day extension be given. If showing progress, he could extend it then. Motion Mr. Guritzky moved to extend this for 90 days. Mr. Shores seconded the motion. The Recording Secretary called the roll. 5 M eeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals Boynton Beach, FL October 11, 2012 The motion passed 4 -0. E . Old Business None. F. New Business None. G . Announce None. There being no further business to discuss, Chair Bessell adjourned the meeting at 7:04 p.m. ok)au�� Catherine Cherry Recording Secretary 101512 6