BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
MINUTES NO. 04-04
PRESENT: Bud Evans, Chairman
Laura Lewandowski, Vice Chairman
Brian Dullaghan, Member
Mike Fischer, Member
Doug Wright, Member
Mike Melhado, 1st Alternate
Jack Kish,2nd Alternate
Paul Gougelman, Town Attorney
Mike McCaughin, Building Official
Barbara Brownlie, Secretary
1. CALL TO ORDER AT 5:30 PM
Chairman Evans called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM.
2. OATH OF OFFICE FOR NEW MEMBERS
A. Jack Kish, 2nd Alternate arrived at 5:45 PM and Attorney Gougelman administered the Oath of Office after Attorney Nohrr’s presentation.
3. APPROVAL OF PRIOR MEETING MINUTES
A. Minutes No. 04-03– May 26, 2004
Mr. Evans moved to approve Minutes No. 04-03. Ms. Lewandowski seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
4. CODE INTERPRETATION
A. An interpretation of Code Section 17-126(3)(p) – dance hall as a prohibited use in the Commercial Districts – to determine if a dance instruction studio is a dance hall (requested by Attorney Philip F Nohrr, representing Robert Cochran)
Attorney Philip Nohrr, 1800 W Hibiscus, Melbourne, requested that the Board interpret the code to determine if his client’s proposed use falls under the definition of a dance. Attorney Nohrr pointed out that the code’s only reference to “dance halls” is as a prohibited use in the C district.
Attorney Nohrr explained that his client, Robert Cochran, had been approached to lease space in his building on Fifth Ave. for an instructional dance studio.
Differentiating an instructional studio from a dance hall, Attorney Nohrr equated the proposed business to an “Arthur Murray” type operation. He pointed out that it would not be open to the general public and customers would not pay to dance.
Attorney Nohrr maintained that clients would have specific scheduled appointments, receive instruction and then leave the premises. He also pointed out that there would be no food or drink.
Attorney Nohrr advised that the hours of operation would be Monday thru Friday from late afternoon to early evening and no later than 10:00 PM and perhaps occasional classes on Saturdays.
Attorney Nohrr enumerated the credentials of Barry and Jeff Sandland, owners of the proposed business.
Attorney Nohrr pointed out that Dancin’ Dance Studio, located in the Indialantic shopping center, has had a license since the mid 80’s and is a similar operation.
Attorney Nohrr also acknowledged that the Board had previously interpreted a dance studio as a dance hall and thus a prohibited use, but that the Board at that time did not have the opportunity to hear tonight’s presentation and that their decision was based on the facts available at that time.
Mr. Dullaghan advised that he was part of the prior decision and noted that tonight’s presentation was entirely different.
Ms. Lewandowski maintained that “dance hall” was somewhat of an antiquated term with negative connotations and is not applicable today. She suggested recommending to the Council that they evolve the code language to bring it up to date.
Attorney Gougelman agreed that much of the language as far as permitted and prohibited uses does go back many years and might not be applicable.
Attorney Gougelman pointed out the “catch-all” phrase under permitted uses that could be used to permit a business not specifically listed as permitted.
Mr. Fischer recommended that the Council either include instructional dance studio as a permitted use or define the term “dance hall” to avoid future conflict.
In answer to a question, Barry Sandland clarified that any large gatherings would be held off premises to accommodate the clients.
Mr. Fischer moved that an instructional dance studio not a dance hall and is a permitted use in the “C” district. Mr. Dullaghan seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
5. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 6:05 PM.
____________________________
Bud Evans, Chairman
______________________________
Barbara Brownlie, Secretary
PURSUANT TO SECTION 286.0105, FLORIDA STATUTES, THE TOWN HEREBY ADVISES THE PUBLIC THAT: IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THIS BOARD, AGENCY OR COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT ITS MEETING OR HEARING, 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 INADMISSABLE OR IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE, NOR DOES IT AUTHORIZE CHALLENGES OR APPEALS NOT OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY LAW.