TOWN OF MELBOURNE BEACH
MINUTES
TOWN COMMISSION - Special Meeting
****************************************************************************************************
Tuesday
January 13, 2004
COMMUNITY CENTER
***********************************************************************************************************************
A special meeting of the Town Commission of the Town of Melbourne Beach, Florida was called to order by
Mayor Walters at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 in the Community Center. Mayor Walters also led
the Pledge of Allegiance
Present:
|
Mayor Walters
Commissioner Guglietta
Commissioner Price
Commissioner Stacey
Commissioner Wilson
|
Others Present:
|
Building Official Munroe
35 members of the public
Town Clerk Masny
|
I. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING APPOINTMENT OF AN INTERIM TOWN MANAGER.
Mayor Walters stated that the Town Commission has interviewed Mr. Rex Taylor this past week regarding his
appointment as Interim Town Manager for Melbourne Beach.
Mayor Walters asked for public comment regarding the selection of an Interim Town Manager. There was no
public comment.
All Town Commissioners indicated that they met with Mr. Taylor and all indicated that they were satisfied with
the interview and were satisfied that he could fill this position for the Town.
COMMISSIONER WILSON MOVED, SECOND COMMISSIONER STACEY TO ACCEPT MR. REX TAYLOR AS THE
INTERIM TOWN MANAGER FOR MELBOURNE BEACH AT THE RATE OF $30.00 PER HOUR BEGINNING
JANUARY 14, 2003 AT 8:00 A.M.
VOTE: ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
Sherri Quarrie, 701 Pine Street, asked if there was going to be a benefits package for the Interim Town Manager
and Mayor Walters responded that he will be paid $30.00 per hour with no benefits except social security. Ms.
Quarrie asked how many hours per week Mr. Taylor will be working? Mayor Walters responded that he will work
some weeks 40 hours and others only 25 or 35 hours and he feels this will be enough hours to get the job done
and that Mr. Taylor will be available by telephone if necessary. Ms. Quarrie asked if the Town is pursuing hiring
its own Town Manager and was advised that the Town Commission is currently advertising for a new Town Manager.
Mr. Taylor came forward and stated that it is his goal to work himself out of a job.
Commissioner Wilson asked that if Mr. Taylor works over 40 hours per week for meetings and such, will he be paid
time and one-half? The Town Commission responded that he will receive $30 per hour.
Commissioner Stacey commented that he wants it clear that Mr. Taylor will be paid $30 per hour, when he works.
II. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING SETBACKS GRAND-FATHERED IN
(NON-CONFORMING) (COMMISSIONER PRICE).
Commissioner Price stated that there has been a lot of discussion about whether nonconforming use properties as
far as the setbacks are concerned are grand fathered in to the extent that construction could be undertaken by
properties in that situation without applying for a variance. Commissioner Price asked Building Official Munroe
to explain how this works to the Town Commission.
Building Official Munroe stated that you have an existing non-conforming structure, build prior to 1972, the setbacks
that were established then, as long as that house is not torn down, can be maintained. Only if they attempt to
move closer to the property line, than what they already have established under the nonconformity, then that
would be an increase in the nonconformity. If that house has a nine (9) foot side setback on it, it will always
have a nine (9) foot side setback on it, as long as that house exists there. Any addition they want to add to
that fore or aft that is parallel with that particular setback, I do not see where that is an increase in the
nonconformity and I have title people tell me that they concur with me.
Commissioner Price stated that the reason this came out was that there were some of our neighbors that
were concerned that by interpreting the nonconforming setbacks in this way, it could create a problem for
the Town in terms of maintaining the existing nature of the Town. Commissioner Price stated that he was
asked to put this item on the agenda for discussion to try to get comments from anybody and everybody
who has an opinion on this.
Commissioner Stacey commented that he received several e-mails and telephone calls on this and that he
looked at the property and the blueprints and if he understands it right, the side setback is 15 feet, but this
property has 14.5 feet right now and that he did not see the problem.
Commissioner Wilson stated that this is a fairly new house and Building Official Munroe stated that it was
built prior to 1972, but has been remodeled several times and to his knowledge there are no variances on
the property. Commissioner Wilson asked why this is not considered new construction and the grand
fathering would be over at that point, as the old house was not nearly the size of this.
Building Official Munroe stated that if someone built at 15 feet and wanted a variance to build into that
setback, and the Town granted a variance, that variance would be recorded with the county and there
would be a legal description on the survey and the title insurance would indicate the variance and how
much into the setback it protruded. On an existing nonconformity, there is no cloud on the title and
that is the side setback for that particular property and if they wanted to tear the house down, the setback
would move to 15 feet or if they tore off the part they received the variance for, it would go back to whatever
the side setback of that particular property was before the variance.
Commissioner Price commented that this item was put on the agenda not to deal with a specific house, but
because of the question that has been raised because of this particular situation, according to some, affects
the interpretation of the setback rules in the Town and stated that he would like to ask for public comment on
this item.
Mayor Walters opened up the meeting for public comment.
Trish Riemer, 607 Riverside commented that the nonconforming rule applies to property built prior to 1972 as
it is closer to the property line than it is supposed to be and unless you increase the property size more than
50%, you do not have to move the house. Ms. Riemer stated that any Board of Adjustment would give a
variance for six (6) inches for this purpose.
Xochitl Ross, 1106 Atlantic Street commented that it is not that this person has to make the house conform,
and it is not that this person would not be given a variance, the issue here is that anyone who has an existing
nonconforming house does not need a variance to extend the line. Ms. Ross commented that this seems to
establish that different people have different setbacks and would like to know when the Building Official
decided changed the interpretation. Ms. Ross commented that her house and her neighbor's house is
six (6) feet from the line and this would be a very dense community if we change the interpretation this way.
Gail Goudy, 215 Ash Avenue commented that she talked to the Town Planner of Melbourne and advised that
her interpretation would require a variance to extend a house built prior to 1972. Ms. Goudy commented that
she plans to appeal the Building Official’s decision and is willing to do so because she does not believe his
interpretation is correct.
Mayor Walters asked Building Official Munroe what the process is in the Code to appeal his decision, can any
person appeal a decision? Building Official Munroe stated that they can appeal it and it goes before the Board
of Adjustment and, if they want to appeal it again, they will have to take it to court.
Martha Remark, 707 Atlantic Street commented that regarding this house, Mr. Shaprio changed the roof line,
a pool was installed and he changed the facade, but he did not go outside the original footprint of the house.
Ms. Remark stated that she thought that if they were not grand fathered in, nothing could be done to our
nonconforming homes. Ms. Remark asked that the Town not remove the grand fathering clause from the code.
Trish Riemer, 607 Riverside Drive asked if somebody wants to add along the property line on a nonconforming
structure? Building Official Munroe agreed and stated that they are not increasing the nonconformity, they are
paralleling the existing side setback. Ms. Riemer asked Building Official Munroe to explain why he told her she
needed a variance to do exactly that? Building Official Munroe responded that when he started as a Building
Official in Melbourne Beach, it was the first time he was a Building Official anywhere and that he did not know
everything and the Town Attorneys and everybody else did not inform him and they still do not so he is kind
of winging it as he goes. Ms. Riemer responded that she was advised that the only thing that is grand fathered
in is the structure that was built prior to 1972. Building Official Munroe stated that he was wrong. Ms. Riemer
stated that the codes need to be tightened up to allow no room for interpretation.
Mayor Walters commented and if anyone objects to the Building Official’s interpretation, and it does not have to
be their property, they can appeal to the Board of Adjustment and they will make a ruling.
Commissioner Price stated that based on information that has been provided, the opinion is that now the setback,
as long as you do not expand the setback, you can build back, keeping that same setback without a variance.
Commissioner Price stated that there are those who did not receive this interpretation previously and it will create
problems for those who have built using the old interpretation; however, we can’t go back and we cannot change
that. Commissioner Price asked if this new interpretation is something the Town wants or do we need to tighten
it up?
Alice Graham, 305 Fifth Avenue commented that the Town does not have to accept the Building Official’s
interpretation as we had the same as with the interpretation of the height. The Building Official does not have
the right to say this is my interpretation, like it or not. Ms. Graham stated that there needs to be credibility
and accountability and consistency and these are
Tom Shaw, 406 Riverside Drive commented that if you read the code it says “you cannot extend the line that is
encroaching upon the setback” and asked that the Town Commission request the Town Attorney to look at this.
Mr. Shaw stated that he believes the code is straight forward and this entire discussion seems to be built
around allowing the Building Official to change the code, without having anybody go get a variance and go
through the process to have it approved. Mr. Shaw stated that it is skirting the procedures in order to support
building an expansion rather than keeping the Town how the people want it to be. Mr. Shaw stated that the
building setback was only five (5) feet and now he can move the building 100 foot down that same setback,
the code is clear and the interpretation is clearly wrong.
Letitia Langord, 407 Third Avenue commented that she was impacted by the move where people buy houses
and want to build larger as people maximize square footage and setbacks as she now has a two-story home
next to her on a street with many little one-story houses. Ms. Langord stated that this is happening all over
Town and rather than dealing with this property by property, can’t we get a consensus of what is permissible
and what is not permissible?
Mayor Walters stated that the Town Commission just had a workshop and changed the height ordinance and
took out the word appurtenance so the height issue is no longer and if you want to put a copula on, you need
to go for a variance. Mayor Walters stated that the Building Official has the authority under the Town Charter
to make these decisions and any resident can appeal his decision to the Board of Adjustment. Mayor Walters
stated that the Town Commission is going to address this issue and give the Building Official guidance.
Vice Mayor Guglietta stated that when he was reading Town Code Section 7A-83 on Page 214, the last time
this time this section was looked at was 1987 and that he contacted a former Town Commissioner, Jean Marshall
and asked for some history regarding this section of the code and was told that the Town Commission agonized
over this section, “No such structure may be enlarged or altered in any way which increases any existing
nonconformity. Any enlargements or alterations must meet all zoning requirements such as setbacks,
heights and location.” Vice Mayor Guglietta stated that Ms. Marshall’s explanation for that means, this
is exactly what we mean. If it is there, this is the way it can be. Vice Mayor Guglietta stated that if we
want to change this, we need to give specific instructions to our Building Official through our Town Manager.
Sherri Quarrie 701 Pine Street, commented that most of Melbourne Beach is non-conforming and we have to
be careful with our historic structures because if we take out grand fathering that we do not drastically change
the appearance of our Town with a knee jerk reaction. Ms. Quarrie commented that everything started
changing in the last three (3) years regarding the building codes and we need to be sure that we do not
supersede any new building codes as required now
Commissioner Wilson asked to bring something up where the Town Commission had asked the Building
Official to look at the structure on top of the house on Atlantic Street and we now have the report from the
Building Official. Mayor Walters responded that this issue is not administrative in nature and asked if this
could be on the agenda for the regular meeting as special meetings are limited to the items on the agenda.
III. ADJOURNMENT
COMMISSIONER STACEY MOVED, SECOND COMMISSIONER PRICE TO ADJOURN.
VOTE: ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
The special meeting of the Town Commission of the Town of Melbourne Beach, Florida adjourned at 8:13 p.m.
____________________________________
STEVEN O. WALTERS, MAYOR
____________________________________
CYNTHIA E. MASNY, CMC
TOWN CLERK
Note: a mechanical recording has been made of the foregoing procedures of which these minutes are a
part and is on file in the office of the Town Clerk.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 286.0105, FLORIDA STATUTES, THE TOWN HEREBY
ADVISES THE PUBLIC THAT: If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the
Town Commission with respect to any matter considered at its meeting, he will need a
record of the proceedings and that for such purpose, affected persons may need to insure
that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony
and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. This notice does not constitute
consent by the Town for the introduction or admission into evidence of otherwise
inadmissible or irrelevant evidence, nor does it authorize challenges or appeals not
otherwise allowed by law.
|