CITY OF HALLANDALE BEACH

MEMORANDUM

DATE: March 27, 2009

TO:                 D. Mike Good, City Manager

FROM:            Richard D. Cannone, Director, Development Services Department

SUBJECT:     Application #09-30-AA by Ganey Cohen Appealing the Planning and Zoning Board Decision of a Variance for the Property Located at 636 Palm Drive.

PURPOSE:

The City Commission consider an appeal of a Planning and Zoning Board decision denying a variance request reducing the required impervious area from 50 percent to 36.15 percent as stipulated in Section 32-384(a)(1) for the property located at 636 Palm Drive.

BACKGROUND:

A Minor Development application was submitted to the Planning and Zoning Division in February 2002 to demolish an existing home and construct a new single-family home.  Upon submittal the application was initially denied because the impervious surface area requirements of 50% were not met; the applicant sought an area of 55%. 

The applicant was advised of the Code deficiency and the plans were revised.  The Minor Development was approved and the related building permit for the improvements with the 50% impervious area was issued on August 13, 2002.  Subsequently, an inspection of the property by the Building Division revealed the impervious areas had been increased to 63.85% by installing walkways, decking, and pavers in violation of the approved plans.   

In July 2003 and April 2004, Development Services staff sent letters to the contractor and owner respectively, stating the property was in violation of the City’s zoning regulations and that in order to bring the property into compliance, pavement in excess of 50% of the total lot area must be removed.  The contractor did not follow through with his promise to remove a portion of the walkway and pavers.   

In September 2008, the applicant submitted an after the fact permit in order to retain the property as is.  Planning and Zoning Division staff denied the permit and advised the applicant that the property needed to be brought into compliance with the original approved plans.  Ms. Cohen submitted a variance request in October 2008 in order to retain the property as is, an increase in the impervious area to 63.85% from the approved 50% landscape area required by City Code.  A letter from the Golden Isles Architectural Committee approving the variance request was provided with the application for the variance.  The Notices of Hearing for the January 28, 2009 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing were mailed on January 15, 2009 to all property owners within a one thousand foot radius of the subject property.  The Notice of Hearing was posted on the property on January 16, 2009. 

At the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing held on January 28, 2009, a motion was made to approve application # 09-10-V in order to provide a 40% landscaped area, but the motion failed for lack of a second. The Board felt that the applicant should not be granted the relief sought since the hardship experienced was brought on by their deviation from the approved plans. 

A second motion was made to approve the request in order to provide a 42% landscaped area, however the motion failed by a 2-4 vote (Natelson and Steinberg voted yes).  Due to failure of the motion, the application was denied.

Attached is the staff report prepared for the Planning and Zoning Board that includes both the policy and technical analysis and summary minutes of the hearing, as well as a letter dated January 30, 2009, from the applicant requesting the consideration by the City Commission. 

As a result of the variance request being denied, the applicant is now required to bring the property in to compliance with the 50% landscaping requirement. Pursuant to Section 32-965(h)(5), the applicant is appealing the Planning and Zoning Board’s decision to the City Commission.  The Notices of Hearing for the April 1, 2009 City Commission Hearing were mailed on March 19, 2009 to all property owners within a three hundred foot radius of the subject property.  The Notice of Hearing was posted on the property on March 18, 2009. 

DISCUSSION

Development Services staff has met with the contractor several times in an effort to resolve the issue of the 36.15% landscaped area that is in violation of the approved site plan. 

Allowing the property to maintain the additional impervious areas will increase stormwater runoff, decrease drainage, encourage other property owners to construct non-permitted impervious areas in conflict with Section 32-384(a)(1) of the City Code, and not promote the health of the environment and the aesthetics of the community.

RECOMMENDATION:

The City Commission uphold the Planning and Zoning Board’s decision to deny application #10-09-V requesting a variance to retain 36.15% landscaped area in violation of the approved site plan at 636 Palm Drive.

Prepared by:                                                                    Concur:

__________________________                                     ________________________

Shane Dixon                                                                    Christy Dominguez

Associate Planner                                                            Director Planning and Zoning

Reviewed:

_______________________________                                  __________

D. Mike Good, City Manager                                                       Date

_____Approved                _____Disapproved                _____Hold for Discussion

Comments: