12-12-1996 Regular Meeting•
MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 12, 1996
The regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on Thursday, December 12, 1996
in the Chamber of the Village Hall commencing at 7:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order
with the following members present:
Present: Cliff Walters, Chairman
Thomas J. Caldwell
Frank Hegedus
Les Forney
Robert Blum
Also Present: Mark Ulmer, Village Attorney
Frank LuBien
Lisa Kroboth
ITEM #1 MINUTES - NOVEMBER 14, 1996
Mr. Forney moved for approval of the minutes of November 14, 1996 as submitted. Mr. Caldwell
seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor.
ITEM #2 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION
OF A CARPORT LESS THAN 15 FEET FROM ACCESSORY BUILDING.
George H. Bennett 10007 N.E. 4 Avenue
Mr. LuBien stated that the applicant would like to build a carport on the north side of the house.
There is an accessory building currently existing on the property. By erecting the carport, there
would only be 4 feet of separation between the two. The Code provides that an accessory
building be 15 feet away from the main building.
Mr. LuBien noted that the accessory building encroaches on the required setback thus creating a
non -conformity. Discussion regarding setbacks and other alternatives to erecting the carport
® ensued. Mr. LuBien noted that the problems with the application (meeting the required setback
and the non -conforming accessory building) were pointed out to the owner.
Mr. George Bennett, the applicant, and Mr. Angle Beristartu, the architect were present and
explained that the carport would allow access to the guest house in inclement weather. Mr. Blum
noted that the accessory building is already a non -conforming use. If the carport addition were
approved, an additional non -conformity would be created. The Board is bound by the Code
which is very clear on this matter.
Planning & Zoning
December 12, 1996 Page 2
Mr. Caldwell inquired of the applicant if a hardship would be created should the application be
denied. Mr. Bennett stated there would not. Mr. Blum stated that there are other ways of
erecting the carport without further Code violations. Mr. Hegedus expressed his concern in
creating an additional non -conformity. Mr. Caldwell noted that any variance must be considered
as a hardship. Mr. Ulmer confirmed this by reading the Code.
Mr. Caldwell moved that the application be denied. Mr. Blum seconded the motion and the vote
was unanimous in favor.
ITEM #3 RECONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE APPROVED 10/24/96.
Reagan Hanson 955 N.E. 98 Street
Mr. LuBien explained that the original request for a variance was approved due to the
interpretation of the Code. The Village Council reversed the decision and remanded the
application back to the Board for a site visit to ensure harmony with the surrounding
neighborhood.
Mr. Blum stated that he had two concerns with the application. One is the orientation of the lot;
it being a corner lot. The other is the 5 foot height of a wood fence being non -harmonious with
the surrounding area. Mr. Ulmer clarified that the Board must consider the application as two
separate variances. The first is the front yard fence height and the second is the material.
Mr. James Hanson was present on his own behalf. He stated that the hardship of the property
abutting Biscayne Blvd. still remains. Mr. Caldwell asked why the fence could not be built of
masonry. Mr. Hanson stated that the cost to build a masonry wall was a major factor. The
additional cost would raise the selling price making the house less marketable.
Mr. Forney stated that after a site visit, he does not feel that the wood fence would be harmonious
with the area. Mr. Caldwell agreed stating that masonry or ornamental metal would be preferred.
Mr. Hanson inquired as to compensation for the wood material that had already been purchased
due to the previous approval of the request for variance. Mr. Ulmer stated the Board's authority
is limited to consideration of applications. The Board can consider compensation for the fencing if
an estoppel or vested right has accrued. However, such as in this case, the property owner should
only rely on a permit in hand rather than verbal confirmation of such issuance.
Mr. Caldwell made a motion to approve the request for a variance to increase the fence height to
5 feet in the front yard specifically the eastern property line along Biscayne Blvd and with the
stipulation that in the event the barricade is removed, all public safety requirements be met. Mr.
Hegedus seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor.
Mr. Caldwell moved that the request for a variance to construct a wooden fence be denied. Mr.
Blum seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor.
•
•
Planning & Zoning
December 12, 1996 Page 3
ITEM #4 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING SWEARING-IN OF
APPLICANTS.
Mr. Ulmer advised the Board that there are no State requirements regarding the swearing-in of
applicants. He noted that the Board sits as a trial court when considering variances and site plans
and as such the witness should attest that they will tell the truth. Mr. Forney stated that the policy
may not be user friendly suggesting that the applicant will not tell the truth. Mr. Hegedus
suggested that everyone expected to testify during the meeting be sworn in at one time before the
meeting.
Mr. Caldwell moved that the Board require that anyone who will testify before the Board be
sworn -in at the beginning of each meeting. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion. The vote was as
follows: Yes - Mr. Blum, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Walters, Mr. Hegedus; No - Mr. Forney.
ITEM #5 BOARD COMMENTS
Mr. Ulmer commented on the user-friendly aspect projected by the Board. He stated that a user-
friendly process includes firmly adopted and adhered to procedures with every applicant treated
equally.
1ThM #6 ADJOURNMENT
The December 12, 1996 meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was adjourned at 8:40 P.M.
Elizaeth A. Kroboth, Recording Secretary
(Cliff Walters, Chairman