Loading...
Minutes 05-08-78MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON 'BEACH, FLORIDA, MONDAY, MAY 8, 1978 AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT Vernon Thompson, Jr., Chairman David Healy, Vice Chairman Carl Zimmerman, Secretary Mrs. Litlian Bond Ben Adelman Foy War.d Charles Rodriguez, Alternate Bert Keehr, AsSt. Building Official ABSENT Joe Maiorana (Excused) William .Cwynar~ Alternate chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:02 P. M. and introduced the members of the Board, Assistant Building Official and Recording Secretary. Mr. Healy advised that Mr. Maiorana telephoned him requesting tobe excused this evening. MINUTES OF APRIL 24, 1978 Mr. Healy referred to Mr. Ward's statement on the last page being in favor of postponement and stated he understood We were going to use the word continuance instead of postponing or tab- ling and Mr. Ward agreed. Mr. Healy explained that since we are a qua~i-judiciat Board, we-should have a continuance instead of postponing or tabling anything to follow court procedure. Mrs. Bond made a motion to accept the minutes as read, seconded by Mr. Healy. Motion carried 7-0. CORRESPONDENCE Chairman Thompson announced he had not received any correspon- dence from either the City Council members or City Attorney and ascertained the other members also had not received any. PUBLIC HEARING Parcel #1 - Lot 12, Venetian Isle Recorded in Plat Book 24, Page 231 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 25 ft. rear s~tback require- ment to 12 ft. rear setback to build family room and porch addition. Address - 402 Venice Drive Applicant - Vincent J. Gallo Mr. Zimmerman read the above application and read the meason requested is that most R-1AA lo.~3~ in the City average 115 ft. to 120 ft. in depth, but this one is only 100 ft. and it backs up to a canal with no adjoining neighbor. Also, the subdivision restrictions~allow a 15 ft. setback for family room and pomch addition in lieu of the 25 ft. required by the City. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE TWO MAY 8, 1978 Mr. Vincent J. Gallo appeared before the Board. Mr. Ward asked him when the home was built and Mr. Gallo replied approximately two years ago and he purchased it approximately six months after it was.constructed. Mm. Adelman asked if deed restrictions take precedence over City regulations and Mm. Keehr informed him that the Building Depart- ment has no control over deed restrictions nor do they honor them. Chairman Thompson referred to questioning the City Attor- ney about this at the first meeting and advised that he pointed out that deed. restrictionswould have no bearing in the City. A variance eould be granted, but there is the possibility the deed restrictions would not"allow it. Chairman Thomspon questioned the distance from the house to the rear lot line and Mr. Hea!y referred to it showing the new family room being 12 ft., so it would be 24 ft. from the rear of the house to the~lot line and Mr. Gallo agreed. Mr. Adelman referred ~o the neighbor constructing a seawall to get as much landas possible and Mr. Gallo agreed that ~he neighbor was gaining almost 5 ft. with the bulkhead installa- tion even though not their p~operty. He referred to the deed restrictions not requiring a 25 ft. setback and told about other homes in the subdiVision being~Within 10 feet of the shore line because the lots areshallow and apparently variances were ob- tained to build the houses. Mr. kodriguez meferred to a bedroom addition~ new porch and new family, room ~eing proposed and questioned the total area and Mr. Gallo informed him it would be about 800 sq. feet or about 60%. Mr. Rodriguez referred to him purchasing the property in' Septem- ber i976 and stated that within two years time, he is proposing toincrease it 60% and questioned what justified almost an as- sault on the zoninglaw by somebody aware of the regulations just two years ago and Mr. Gallo replied that they sold a larger home thinking a smaller home would be suitable, butit is not. He added that he does have a sale sign and will move if unable to put on the addition. Mr. kodriguez referred to a Substantial area addition planned and Mr. Gallo explained his plans to en- close the existing patiorrand porch and have a family room and screen porch. Mr.' Rodriguez asked if thiswould be a Viable home for someone else as it.exists and Mr. Gallo replied affirma- tively since others have different needs and tastes. Mr.-Healy asked if this variance Was granted, would there be any further violations here and Nm. Keehr replied negatively and added that he checked the maximum lot coverage and'it would be about 150 to 200 feet under maximum. Mr. Healy clarified that it would not be interfer~g~th the present code and Mr. Keehr agreed that it would be ali~right as far as the rest of the code. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone else wanted toaspeak in favor or'this variance and received no-response. He asked if anyone wanted to speak against this variance and received no response. He ascertained that no cormespondence had been received. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE THREE MAY 8, 1978 Mr. Healy stated in hearing this evidence so far, he cannot see where there is really any hardship. He thinks possibly there is a self-imposed hardship. Mr. Rodriguez stated that he has been trying to consiste~y follow the position set forth in the mater- icl establishing the Board. The underlying condition imposed upon the Board is that the person has not been resPOnSible for the eon- ditions which necessitate the application. That is why he asked how recently the property was acquired. He explained ihow he con- sidered the basis fora hardship. M~-. Ward clarified that it mus~ be a uni.que and unusual hardship. Mr. Adelman agreed %hat the code set forth Conditions, but stated that it seemed unfair to take this house ~7out of a group of houses and hold it down.to a certain figure when there are shorter set- backs along the canal. Mr. R6driguez reptiBd that the houses built in conformity'with the deed-restrictions would be under one circumstance, but~are not The responsibility of the City, The City has established a standard Which sets forth that a certain distance must be maintained. If we were dealing with deed re- striations, he might be inclined to ~agree more readily. Mr. Gallo stated that there seems to be a certain degree of can- flietionin the building codes. If he wanted to put in a swimming pool and scree~ enclosure~ he would be automatically granted a variance to go"'within 10 feet of the property-line~ bUt~since he' wants to put a roof and walls, he is not aliowed.~ He does not see where at'swimming pool is less construction. Mr. Rodriguez ex- plained how the conflict was 'with the definition of a structure and swimming pool and stated that the Board must deal With the zonir~eode as written. He told about having a previous applica= tion to install a swimming pool. with screen enclosure on a canal and it was not allowed. ~ossibty some considemation should be giVentto changing the zoning code as it deals with frontages on water. Mr. Heaty clarified that if the zoning is unreasonable, it~is up to the Zoning Board'to make a change. Chairman Thompson r~£erred totthere being some exceptions to the law and explained how waterfront locations were not readily available and possibly beeauseof the size of the family and wanting this !ocati'o~n, there is a hardship with an application to enlamge it, Mr. Rodriguez replied that it was a tough situ- ation~ but we are not to be concerned with humanitarianism but are to deal with the land. Mrs. Bond refermed to Mr. Keehr~s statement that the square foot- age of the house in reference to the lot would be within the provision of the law if a variance was granted and stated she thought' this should be considered. Chairman Thompson stated that if we live according to the law, we will turn down every-request fom a variance. The purpose of the Board is if there is a hardship to make some vamiations inside the law, Mr. Ward replied that we must find a hardship and Mr. Rodriguez added ~or which the individual is essentially not responsible. Chairman Thompson stated that there will be times we will have to make some adjustment init. MINUTES PAGE FOUR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 8, 1978 Mr. Adeiman asked if the new room would be the size of the paDio there now and Mr. Gallo informed him that it wouldnft extend any further than the existing patio. Mrs. Bond asked if the patio was there originally and Mr. Gallo replied negatively and stated that he added it. Mr. Zimmerman referred to the owner of this property having some other options without a variance and explained how the present screen room could be enclosed~ a bedroom addition could be added as noted~ or a swimming pool could be put in. Hsually when we startqranting variances o£ this kind, we are opening the door to more~ especially when there is no real hardship as he sees it. There are otheroptions to improve the property and enlarge the house. Mr. Gallo re~er~ed to Mr. Keehr's statement that there are certain setback requirements and maximum lot coverage limitations and stated even though extending beyond the presently zoned setback requirement~ it would still not extend beyond the maximum lot coverage permitted. He does not understand what the theory is behind a 25 ft. setback and why waterfront properties have not been considered separately in establishing setbacks-since there is nobody to encroach on. This canal in back of him is almost like a lake and he would not be bothering anyone and~would not be encroaching upon anyone's privacy. He'does not understand why the setback is so critical. Chairman Thompson informed him that the BOard can only follow the rules of the City and One is that in residential zones~ 'the requireme~nt is a 25~ft. set- back. Mr. Keehr referred to Mr. Gallo making a good point about water front properties and stated that it would be up to the Planning $ Zoning Board to act on this. He thinks it would be a good idea to request them to look at situations re- garding homes backing onc~na&s. This will be recorded in the minutes and~he will see they get accopy of them., Mr. Adelman made a motion to follow Mr. Ke.ehr~s suggestion and refer this matter to the Planning~& Zoning Board and take no~ .action on this application. Chairman Thompson~rep!ied that we must act on the variance. We must take a position whether to grant it or deny it. We are in no position to refer anything to another Board. Mr. Haaly ~tated he believed it was the applicant's prerogative that~ifthere is a qUestion which could be resolved by the Planning & Zoning Board~ the applicant could ask for continuance of this application until discussing it with the Planning & Zoning Board a~d then come back to this Boar'd, Mr. Rodriguez stated that if the Planning $ Zoning Board responded and made a change~ the application would not ~e nSeded. Als$~ even if 'we denied the va~iance~it would not p~eciude his right to go before the Planning $'Z6~inq Boardl Mr. Healy stated that in view of the fact he could not find any hardship~ he moves that the application be denied~ seconded by Mr. Rodriguez. As requested~ Mrs. Kruse took a roll tall'vote and the motion carried 7-0. Variance Denied. MI~/TES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE FIVE MAY 8, 1978 Chairman Thompson suggested that the Bu~ilding Department bring things~ of this sort to the attention of the City Planner and added that,we have had similar problems. Mr. Rodriguez added that canals seem to be a .problem. Mr. Keehr advised that he would talk to the City Planner tomorrow and request him to bring it to the attention of the~Planning & Zoning Board. Chairman Thompson suggested reminding the applicants at the beginning of the meeting that hardships mustbe proven and ex- plain the basis and the members agreed~there should be a sum- mary of the laws governing the Board for the applicants' infor- mation. Chaiz~na~'Thompsonalso suggested informing .the public of the amount of Votes necessary to pass or deny a variance since there was some doubt previously when the vote was 4-3 and 'the Board is aware thatany three votes will deny a uari- ance. Parcel #2 - Lot !! tess E 42 ft.'and all of Lot 12, Blk. 8, Bei!amy Heights, Recorded in Plat Book 13, P~ge 62 Palm Beach County Records Request -.Relief from 7.5 ft. side setback require- ment to 1.3 ft. side setba6k to build bed- room addition Address - 448 S. W. 10th Avenue Applicant - Gene and Barbara Esper Mr. Zimmerman read the above application and noted that it was requested because they. have a two bedroom house with two boys aged 1t and i3 and a new baby 8 months old and need to add an additional bedroom. Mr. Gene Esper, 448 S. W. loth Avenue, appeared before the Board and pointed out on the survey that the house was right next to !-95 and advised.that where it was noted "platted road right-of- way unimproved~'', this was~between his house and 1-95. He does not want to build on this property, but wants to use it for a 6 ft. easement. As far as he knows, nothing will ever be built there. He has maintained it with mowing'and planting shrubs. He would like to build about t ft. away from the property line and use this 6 ft. of land for an easement.. They have a new baby and when they ~ought the house, it was supposed to be an impossibility according to the docto~ and now they need thePr6om for the baby. sThey just don't have enough room with two teen- aged boys. Mr. Keehr'stated thatupon inspecting this home today, he found it to bequite unique. He also discovered in walking around, it was pretty close to the rear property line. In checking the sketch, he found that a rear variance would also be required or the bedroom must be 25 feet from the rear property line. The house is non-conforming in the rear also and if a variance was granted for the side setback, the plans would have to be changed or an additional variance requested for the m~m set- back. Mr. Esper referred to the house being 17' years oldand MINUTES PAGE SIX BOARDOF ADJHSTMENT MAY 8~ 1978 clarified that if the room.is built at the end-of the present buildinq~ another vamiance would be needed and Mm. Keehr agreed, unless it is'moved 25 feet front. Mr. Ward asked if the Board could act on aomething non-conform- ing and Mr. Keehr replied that an addition can be made to a non- conforming structn~D~,as long as the non-Conformity is not. being added ton Mr. Ward stated that the non-confommity would be added to in this case and Mr. Keehr agreed. Mm. Ward clarified that it would be increasing the'non-confommity and Mm. Keehr agreed. Mr. 'Rodmiguez questioned who-owned the land of the platted street and. Mr. Esper informed him that the City does. Mr. Rodmiguez asked if it would .be possible for him to obtainthis landand include in '~hi's site and Mr. Esper replied that he ta~ked to the City Engineer dand the propemty would have to be condemned which would cost quite a. bit to make the app!ieation. Mr. Rodriguez questionedifnegOtiation was possible and Mr. Keehr stated that he could mequest thestreet to be abandoned through the Planning g Zoning Board. Mr. Rodriguez explained with the acquisition of this property~ ~he lot could be enlarged and 'the sitdation changed completely. Mrs.. Esper explained that they were told they could.not do anything with this pmope~ty beeau.se of it having buried utilities. Mr. kod~iquez elarified that'an easement could be given to prevent construction over a'eable. He ex- plained how pogSibl~ through negotiations the City would aband~ their interests and he could acquire the land and include in his ownership but not build ovem the easement. M~. Zimmerman added thatwith 1-95 haVing cut"off this might-of-way, ~he situation is different:-~ than previousty..and the stmeet is of no use to the City except for buried eables~ Mr. Esper meferred to still not having 25 feet and Mr. kodriguez explained how'With includ- ing this property, it would make a difference on what could be done on the,enti,re Site. Mr. Esper stated-thathedid not realize the setback in the rear was not~egal. Mr. Healyreferred to the survey not~showin~ the amount of footage bet~een~the house and 1-95 might-of-way a~d Esper informedhim there was at least 15 feet from the chain link ~ence to hiB propertyline and the front is a lot-wider. Mr. Ward asked if the east side of the propemty was conforming and Mr. Keehr replied negatively since it is 5'7" and 7'6" is required; however, with the addition, it would still be in con- formity as far as the maximum coverage. Chairman Thompson asked if the room was moved to be 25 feet from the rear line, would the permit be issued and Mr. Keehr replied affirmativeIy if the variance is granted. Chairman Thompson referred to a variance for the rear setback being required and stated that this would have to be advertised for two weeks. Possibly during that time, he could talk to the City in reference to abandoning the right-ofJway. Mr. Ward MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ,PAGE SEVEN I~LAY 8, 1978 suggested possibly if the applicant wanted a continuance to look into this, it may be better. Mr. Healy asked if this case was continued, could the other variance be added without addi- tional cost and Mr. Keehr replied that he was qu~te sure it could be. Mr. Esper asked if they thought it would be better to try for a double variance and Chairman Thompson replied that. he would recommend it. Mrs.~Esper asked what they should donow and Mr. Healy asked how much time.they wanted and Mrs. Esper explained that they did.not plan to start ~construction un~il July. Mr. Keehr sugg,ested that~ it be continued for a month and added that the City Clerk ~would have to re-advertise for both setbacks. M~s. Bond .added that du~ing this time, they could make the effort to acquire the property from the City 'also. Chairman Thompson clarified that even i~ the property to the west was acquired, a variance would still be required for the rear. Mr. Rodriguez stated that there was also the possibility of changing the lay- out of the structureof the addition. Mr. Zimmerman re£erred to this being continued until the June t2th meeting and Mr. Keehr stated he would check into this and i~ there are any complications, he will contact the applicants. He will talk to the City Clerk about re-advertising and arrange it for Junel2.' Chairman Thompson stated that in the meantime, if he wants to acquime the propertyto the west, who should he contact and~ Mr. Keehrrep!ied that he should contact the City Planner, Mr. Carman Annunziato. Mr. Ward asked what happened to the continuance since it is going to 5~re-advertised and Mr. Healy replied thatit is being con- tinued on the grounds of being re-entered. Mr. ROdriguez as~J~d if the new ad would be on the basis of an amendment to thettotal variance and Mr. Keehr replied that he thought the total variance would be advertised for c~rity. Mr. Rodriguez asked i~ it could be granted pending a new application and Mr. Keehr replied negatively since he does not think it would be fair to grant a variancewhieh could not be used. He thinks it should be re- advertised on the changed basis. Mr. Ward medea m~tion that the variance be continued to give Mr. Esper time to look into thesetback which he was not aware of before and see if he has to re-advertise or amend thea~pli- cation, seconded by Mrs. Bond. As requested, Mrs. K~ase took a roll call vote and the motion carried 7-0'. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Thompson referred to Mr. Healy's request to have written evidence pertaining to the number of votes required to grant or deny a motion and Mrs. Bond replied that she has a copy of Mr. Moore's wmitten opinion re~arding thisa~ehwill bring it to the next meeting. Mr. Healy referred to No. 5 on Page 38 of the Offieia! Zoning Regulations stating that a ooncurring vote of four members was required and Mfrs. Bond replied thatthis was changed and she would bring the letter verifying this. Mr. Healy stated he thought we should have the written information for the basis of our voting in case of being challenged. ~ MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ADJOURNMENT PAGE EIGHT MAY 8, 1978 Mm. Ward made a motion to adjourn~ seconded by Mrs. Bond. Motion carried 7-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 8:!5 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Suzenne M. Kruse Recording Secretary (Two Tapes) NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the following appl{cations have been made to the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT of the CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA for variances as indicated, under and pursuant to the provisions of the zoning code of said City: Parcel ~1 - Lot 12, VENETIAN ISLE Recorded in Plat Book 24, Page 251 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 25 ft. rear setback requirement to 12 ft. rear setback to build family room and porch addition. Address - 402 Venice DriVe Applicant - Vincent J. Gallo Parcel ~2 - Lot 11 less E 42 ft. and all of Lot 12, Blk. 8, BELLAMY HEIGHTS, Recorded in Plat Book 15, Page 62 Palm Beach County Records Request - Reli~f from 7.5 ft. side setback requirement to 1.3 ft. side setback to build bedroom addition. Address - 448 S. W. 10th Avenue Applicant - Gene and Barbara Esper A PUBLIC HEARING will be held relative the above applications by the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT at the City Hall~ Boynton Beach, Florida, on Monday, May 8~ 1978 AT 7:00 P. M. Ail interested parties are notified to appear at said hearing in person or by Attorney and be heard. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH P~BLiSH: PALM BEACH POST-TIMES April 22 and 29, 1978 cc City Manager City Council City Attorney Building Official i Board Members Mrs. Kruse