Loading...
Minutes 12-20-78MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ~ETING HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1978 PRESENT Vernon Thompson, Jr., Chairman Carl Zimmerman, Secretary Ben Adelman Charles Rodriguez Foy Ward Robert Olds Serge Pizzi (Applicant, not participating) Bert Keehr, Asst. Building Official ABSENT David Healy, Vice Chairman (Excused) Mrs. Lillian Bond (Excused) Chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P. M. He introduced the Assistant Building Official, members of the Board and Recording Secretary. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23, 19'78 Mr~. Zimmerman moved to approve the minutes as received, seconded by Mr. Olds. Motion carried 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING Parcel ~1 - West 32.0 feet of Lot 109, Lot 110, and Lot 111 less South 10 feet, Block A, Boynton Hills Recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 51 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from requirement to construct a 6 ft. high masonry wall to separate commercial facility from residential property. Address - 209 & 213 N. W. 2nd Avenue Applicant - Serge P. Pizzi Mr. Zimmerman read the above application. Mr. Serge Pizzi, 79 Coral Drive, came before the Board and told about proceeding with plans to remodel these two houses last June, but was not aware the ordinance was being adopted changing the requirement of the buffer wall. He explained how he thought since the property was in commercial zoning, it would be considered a grandfather use. He believes the MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 20, 1978 ordinance was changed in July because of the bowling alley in Leisureville. He was surprised when he was apprised by the Building Department that it would have to be built. The one property has been commercial for about six years and has been used commercially. The other property always had a tenant, but it is not conducive for someone to live on this street. The property has been classified commercial for several years and the classification predates the ordinance. There is also a power easement which has been there 30 years and comes in three-quarters of boHh properties, 13 feet into the property. The ordinance provides no buffer wall is required when abridg- ing easement rights. The remodeling being done is not a major modification. The term "major modification" is vague and does not provide any guidelines. He told how there wasn't clarifi- cation of the term major modification. This would require 147 feet of wall and the approximate cost would be more than $3,500. For these reasons, he submits this property is exempt from the requirements of Section 4L of the zoning ordinance. If the Board of Adjustment should vote negatively on the reasons, it is requested that a hedge be allowed in lieu of a concrete block wall in front of the existing chain link fence. Mr. Pizzi then presented original surveys to the Board members. He added that there is the possibility other owners may improve their propertiesr but when this requirement is mentioned, he thinks it will be very discouraging to them to know they have to spend that much money for a wall most people ~on't want. His neighbor in the rear said he was going to bring in a letter because he is opposed to a wall. The neighbor would rather have a view in the back instead of a wall. Mr. Ward questioned the location of the easement and Mr. Pizzi explained that the easement comes into the property and is in 13 feet at the north end of the property. Mr. Keehr informed them that the home at 213 was occupied as a commercial use for the last six years; consequently, it does not have a change of occupancy but the property is being up- graded and this is where the major modification comes into play. Actually under the present zoning laws, he would not be required to put this wall behind this particular building because of the grandfather act but with the fact it is being modified, the Board must answer whether it is a major modification. He could not obtain an answer from the City Attorney. According to the Standard Building Code, i% classifies a major modifica- tion under improvements to the property exceeding 50% of its value~ This amount of work was not done at this particular house. It would be less than 20% according to the value. Mr. Keehr then referred to the building at 209, tbs house to th~ east, ~nd advised this has been a residence and th~ occu- pancy has been changed from residential to commercial. -2- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 20, 1978 Mr. Keehr continued that our laws plainly state this property must meet all required codes meaning handicapped, zoning, etc. and includes this buffer wall since it is C-2 property. Mr. Keehr then advised that the plans for these homes are to be used as office, low-profile type businesses. The buffer wall requirement was eliminated in the C-1 zone with office type businesses by the Planning & Zoning Board. This use is C-l, but it will be located in the C-2 zone. Since it is a C-2 zone, at a later date it could change use and C-2 allows neighborhood businesses. The residential property abutting it must be considered. Mr. Keehr stated that the easement behind the building to the west does come off the back line about 13 feet. He discussed this with the City Planner and it is not the intent to eliminate the wall because of that easement; but on the same token, the City Planner is in agreement if we can decide what is major modification, he feels it would not be necessary according to our laws. Mr. Ward asked if the easement exists all the way through[~ the property and Mr. Keehr explained that in this case, it is over- head power lines and the easement does not interfere with the location of the buffer wall. Mr. Ward referred to the easement covering about two-thirds of the property and Mr. Pizzi clari- fied that it covers one property and a little more than one-half of the other. Mr. Keehr explained that the easement is back from the point of the wall being 13 feet inside the property line. Further discussion followed and then Mr. Rodriguez clarified that the statement concerning the applicant's opinion does not seem to be relevant because he feels the requirement of the wall is not proper because of the easement, but Mr. Keehr has said the aerial encroachment does not apply in this case. The only question remaining is the hedge instead of a wall. Mr. Rodriguez clarified that if a C-2 business applied, a wall woUld be required and Mr. Keehr agreed. Chairman Thompson clarified that we are talking about use in C-1 and C-2 and this Board cannot grant a use variance. The ruling we make tonight remains in the c-2 zone. Mr. Keehr agreed and ex- plained that he mentioned this because a similar business in the C-1 zone would not require a wall. He added that a stip- ulation could be stated on the variance if the occupancy is changed from office to something else, a wall would be required. Mr. Rodriguez referred to the outside area being used for parking and Mr. Pizzi agreed. Mr. Rodriguez referred to the parking arrangement and traffic flow and Mr. Pizzi replied there would be six parking spaces for each building. -3- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECE~ER 20, 1978 Mr. Rodriguez questioned whether it is the function of this Board to determine what is or is not major modification and Mr. Keehr replied that part of it could be forgotten and the ruling made-on whether the buffer wall is necessary or not. The determination of a major modification may still be a ques- tion for someone else to answer. Mr. Rodriguez stated that a buffer wall is required for the property to the east and Mr. Keehr replied affirmatively be- cause we don't know what major modification means. Mr. Rodriguez clarified that it was required because one building is ch. angi~g to commercial and the other because we don't know what major modification is and Mr. Keehr agreed. Mr. Zimmerman asked if this type of office would have a lot of cars going in at night where lights would bother the neighbors~ and Mr. Pizz± replied that most offices are open from 9:00 to 5:00 and it will be the type such as a doctor, real estate, lawyer, etc. Most of the offices on that street have only day hours. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in favor of this variance and received no response. He asked if anyone wished to speak against this variance. Mrs. Patricia Jones, 311 N.W. 1st Street, advised that she lives on the north side of the eastern lot. They are worried if the wall is not put up, it will lower the value of their property. There is a chain link fence, but according to the 1975 survey it encroaches on their property by 1.4 feet. She thinks a wall would prevent the cutting of their shrubs. The tre~s have also been clipped down. She thinks a wall would stop this frOm happening and would not look so bad from her yard ~ooking at grills and headlights of cars. Ms. Zimmerman asked if she felt the chain link fence should be removed if a wall is installed since it is encroaching on her property and Mrs. Jones rePlied affirmatively and added that it would give her more room in the small back yard they have and it is tangled into her trees. Mr.'Zimmerman clarified that she would be in favor of moving the fence back onto his side and Mrs. Jones replied that she did not think a fence is as important as a wall and she is in favor of the wall. Mr. Ward asked if she would object to having a fence if the wall is eliminated and Mrs. Jones replied that hedges take a long time to grow. Mr. Dave Jones, 311 N.W. 1st Street, added that the moving of the fence did not concern him too much, but he is con- cerned with having a wall there. Either a wall or a nice hedge would afford them some privacy in their back yard and that is what he is concerned with. He likes to enjoy his back yard and does not want to be looking at car grills. -4- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUST~NT DECEMBER 20, 1978 Mr. Jones referred to the east building being residential and stated he was not clear regarding the C-2 zoning and Mr. Keehr replied that it has had a residential use, but was zoned C-2 in 1975. With any change in use, it must be brought up to code. Mr. Rodriguez added that both buildings are C-2 and Mr. Keehr agreed and added that both sides of the street are C-2 and this was zoned in 1975. Mr. Jones asked if the C-2 zone allowed something like a Lil General and Mr. Keehr replied affirmatively and advised that C-2 allows neighborhood stores. Mr. Jones referred to it being a low-profile use now, but stated he is concerned about what will happen in the future and Mr. Keehr replied that he made it clear that being C-2, it can be changed to a different use with major modifications. Mr. Ward added that the Board could include a stipulation as far as the present use. Mr. Keehr added that if the use changes to anything other than office, the variance would not be in effect and at that point, a wall would be required. Mrg Rod~iguez referred to the car wash being built further east on 2nd Avenue having a wall in the rear and he explained how there was the possibility of this setting a precedent. Mr. Keehr agreed, but stated this could be true of any variance. Mr. Ward referred to clarifying the buffer part and stated a 6 ft. high fence would only buffer the lights and not noise and Mr. Keehr agreed and added that privacy for the residences must also be considered. Mr. Ward referred to a chain link fence being a partial buffer and preventing access by young- sters and Mr. Keehr added that a chain link fence would pro- bably keep a youngster in his yard, but would not block head- lights. Mr. Adelman asked Mr. Jones if he said he would not mind a good hedge even though his wife objected and Mr. Jones replied that a nice hedge would not bother him. There is a hedge there now but it has been cut down and he doesn't know if it will do any good. If they don't build a wall here, the people on the corner will want the same thing. Chairman Thompson stated that a precedent will not be set because we have ruled on similar cases several times such as on 23rd Avenue where the residents favored a hedge. A lot of people do not favor the looks of a wall. He explained how with this zoning there could possibly be a continuous wall from Railroad Avenue to Galaxy Elementary School and ques- tioned how a wall would look running for ½ mile. He hopes some of the low-profile businesses will accept a hedge. Mr. Ward then asked Mr. Pizzi if he would be in favor of moving the fence and Mr. Pizzi replied that he is surprised that it is encroaching and was not aware of it. The members consulted the survey and decided the fence location was not clearly defined. There was also discussion about the hedge presently growing along the fence. -5- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECE~ER 20, 1978 Mr. Zimmerman then read a letter from Mrs. G. A. Foster, owner of the property at 910 N. W. 1st Avenue, objecting to any wall being built adjoining or near her property. Mr. Zimmerman read a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Arthur Sloane, 212 N.W. 3rd Court, objecting to the wall because it will adjoin his property and will block the breeze and possibly give cover to someone wanting to breakin his home. Mr. Rodriguez referred to there being two objections to the wall and questioned if it was realistic to grant a variance with the condition that a hedge be planted and maintained at a certain height approved by the abutting owners so long as the low-profile use is not changed. Mr. Keehr agreed the reference to the low-profile business is fine, but he questions main- taining it to the satisfaction of somebody else. Further dis- cussion followed about the height of the hedge to be main- tained. Mr. Ward asked if the chain link fence was going to remain and Mr. Pizzi replied affirmatively. Mr. Ward referred to the height and Mr. Pizzi informed him that it is 4' high and was on the property when he purchased it. He added that he would agree to maintain the level of the shrubs at 4 ft. Chairman Thompson explained how he was concerned with compar- ing the stability of a fence versus a wall with regards to cars driving through. However, he also explained how the number of cars would not be in excess and not traveling fast. He suggested using concrete posts placed in front of the hedge where the cars will park. Mr. Pizzi explained there would be a 5 ft. planted area between the parking and fence. He added if it will put the residents at ease, he will definitely put barriers there. ~. Keehr pointed out that the cars would not be parked in that direction, but will be parked east and west. Mr. Pizzi also pointed out that a 2' retaining wall would be continued. M~. Zimmerman stated that he is inclined to feel maybe we should grant a variance with a stipulation for low-profile usage only and the variance expire at such time heavier usage is made of it. We have had a good deal of discussion regarding setting a precedent, but he doesn't think any future Board or ~ariance asked by adjoining property owners would be compulsory to follow this example set. All variances are on an individual basis. Even though we grant thist some other property may very defi- nitely be held to the wall if it is a necessity. Chairman Thompson stated that each application is based on its own merit and the Board has shown this does exist. Mr. Adelman clarified that we can grant a variance for this one type of business and Mr. Keehr replied affirmatively. -6- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT DECEMBER 20, 1978 Mr. Ward referred to no reference being made to the height of the hedge or fence and Mr. Rodriguez suggested that a hedge be planted and maintained to the height of the existing fence. Discussion followed whether the height of 4 ft. would be sufficient to match the existing fence or if it should go to 6 ft. to meet the wall requirement. There was also discussion about the maintenance and density of a hedge. Mr.- Keehr read the ordinance regarding the requirements for vegetation replac- ing the wall in the C-1 zone. Mr. Ward pointed out that the ordinance sets a minimum for the vegetative barrier to be at least 2 ft. high at time of planting~ but stated a minimum and maximum height could be stated by stipulation in the vari- ance. Mr. Jones stated that his main concern is privacy in his back yard and further discussion followed about the proper height. Mr. Rodriguez moved that the variance be granted during the continuing C-1 use on the stipulation that a chain link fence to the height of 4 feet be maintained between the properties in question and that a shrubbery hedge be installed at a mini- mum of 2 feet at planting and be maintained at a height not in excess of 5 feet. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mr~ Ward questioned whether there was more than one property in question and Mr. Rodriguez rePlied that the application, is for the entire north bOrder. Mr. Pi'zzi asked if it should be added that if someone would want to use it for C-2, he would be permitted to do so if a wall is constructed and Mr. Rodriguez replied before anyone could use it for C-2, they would have to come in for a major modification and the variance would not apply. As requested, Mrs. Kruse then took a roll call vote on the motion and the motion carried 6-0. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Piz~i thanked everyone for attending with the meeting being close to the 'holidays. Mr. Rodriguez made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mr. zimmerman. Motion carried 6-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 8:15 P. M. Respectfully submitted ~ Suzanne M. Kruse Recording Secretary (Two Tapes') -7- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH Ser~e P. Pizzi has requested a variance as follows: Relief from requirement to construct a 6 ft. high masonry wall to separate commercial facility from residential property. West 32.0 feet of Lot 109, Lot 110, and Lot 111 less South 10 feet, Block A, BOYNTON HILLS Recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 51 Palm Beach County Records Address - 209 & 213 N. Wo 2nd Avenue HEAPING WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH CITY HALLs WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1978, AT 7:00 P. M. Legal advertisements will appear in the December 2 and 9 issues of the PALM BEACH POST-TIMES. Notice of a requested variance is sent to property owners within 400 feet of the applicantts property to give you a chance to voice your opinion on the subject. Objections may be heard in person at the meeting or filed in writing prior to hearing date. If f~rther information is desired, please call 732-8111, Extensions 231 or 260. TEREESA PADGETT, CITY CLERK CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA. December 1, 1978 sk