Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Minutes 11-28-77
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON ~A~n, FLORIDA~ MONDAY~ NOVEMBER 28~ 1977 AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT Derle Bailey, Chairman Vernon~ Thompson, Jr., Vice Chairman David Ee~aly~ Secretary Mrs. Li1±i~ Bond Walter R~utter Fey Ward" Carl Zimm~rman Charles Rodriguez, Alternate Bert Keehr, Asst. Bldg. Official Bud Howell, Building Official ABSENT Ben Adelman ~ '!~lternate (Excused) ~ t Chairma~ Baite~. called ~the meeting o order at 7:00 P~ Mo and introduced }~', Howe~.l, ~ Koehr~ the members of tho Board, ~ua the ~cordingI Secretary. Mm. Ward made a m~tion to approve the minutes of October 24~ seconded by Mr. RU~ter. Motion carried 7-0. ANMOL~CEMENTS M~. Healy announce~ that ~ Ben Adelman, an alternate member of the Board4 had a stroke and was confined to the hospital~ but is home now. Mr~ Healy suggested M~. Adelman a get w~ll card wishing him the best and hoping he returns as soon ~s he can~ Mr. Zimmerman so moved, seconded by M~. Ward. Under discussion, Chairman Bailey requested ~. Healy to take care of this and ~. Healy plied that he would ~and sign it from the Board of Adjust- ment ~ot~on carried 7~0 Chairman Bailey announced that as far as he knew, the annual Board dinner was still scheduled for December ~5~ He added that he had not as yet received a personal invi- tation the same as ~he members~ but they should still plan on it~ OLD BUSINESS Mr~ Healy read the attached letter dated November ~8, ~977 sent to Mr~ Edgar Eo Howell, Building Official, from ~ Gene Moore~ City Attorney~ regard~ug George Culver / Two ~e orges ~ Chairman Bailey requested Mr. Howell to inform the Board what he did upon receipt of this letter. M~ Howell stated that upon receiving this letter from the City Attorney, a MINUTES BOARD OF ~_DJUST~NT PAGE ~0 NOVEMBER 28 ~ ] 977 stop work_order was placed on the job and he sent a letter to M~o Culver with a copy of the attorney's letter advising that he was stopping the job until either the Board clari- fied their position of the original variance whether park- ing was tied in or not or he complied otherwise. Since that time, he has talked to the attorney and believes Moore has been ~ touch with ~. Culver's attorney. He was requested to have the Board call a special meeting due to the job being shut down and the man having money invested, but he told him the Board was meeting tonight andhe agreed to have it listed under Old Business. Mr. Howell then stated that he would like to clarify a couple things which will hopefully help the Board ~ their decision. As they are aware, there was an illegal license issued on this job, which he made this Beand aware of. When this Bos~d rescinded their action, he had M~. Culver com~ in for th~ parking variance. According to statements made in th~ minutes, he had to do this before issuing a permit~ A variance was granted, but it was granted on an illegal license and he ~ade the Board aware of it. ~. Culver was refunded $~00 and issued a license for what was existing, a 50 seat license for a restaurant~ When the Board scinded their action to correct this, they did not clarify whether whe~ at the time the variance was granted on this building that the parking, was tied in with it. There was a statement by Y~. Aranow, the previous chairman, that ~o Culver would have to come back before the Board for parking and that is why he brought it back. That state- ment was not put in the form of a motion and was not voted on~ In speaking with the City Attorney, there was doubt in his ~nd also. The Board must clarify whether when the variance was granted that parl~ng had anything to do with it~ The parking and restaurant were existing. There would not be a ]50 seat license issued to that premises even with the rebuilding project until the proper parking was acquired for it. Now he was told by ~o Culver the other ds~ that he probably will tear that restaurant down. He thinks from what Mm~o Culver told him if he does go ahead with the pro- Ject that due to the increased cost, he probably will build a fresh fish sales area there. He cannot issue a license for that under the present situation. As far as he is con- cerned, there are ~3 parking spaces there and the code quLres one parking space for e~ery three seats in a res~ taurant~ There is no license for anything other than a restaurant there~ When the Board granted the variance, everything was tied to the restaurant~ The problem they are faced with tonight is that when the variance was gra~uted, the question s~ose whether it included parking and he personally stated at that time that the variance was granted for setbacks and included parking for what was existing. Any time a variance is granted~ he thinks MINUTES BOARD OF AD~STM~NT PAGE THREE NOYE~F~ 28, 1977 it includes whatever is existing in this nature, This is strictly his opinion, There is a question in his mind because they rescinded their action and because of the statement ~ade by the chairman that the man would have to apply for a parking variance before the permit was issued, so he made him do it. With dewing the parking, it also rescinded the action on the variance. He think~ this Board has to say they feel the existing parking was tied in with the 50 seat resta~mrant or was not, If not~ then Mr. Culver can finish the :project he started~ If it was tied in~ then the permit is void. He thinks they must make the decision tonight that when M~. Culver was granted a variance to tear down and rebuild what was existing in two phases whether or not the parking was pursuant to issuing the permit or was not. If it was not tied in with issuing the permit, then M~. Culver can finish his job. They must tell him and the City Attorney how the Board feels. ~hether the parluing was tied in or not. The parh~dng really was not voted on originally. The vs~iance was given to tear down and rebuild the existing building~ but the Board did not clarify the parking that night. The statement was made by the chairman at that time that F~. Culver would have to come back in on paris_lng, but it was not voted on and he was not sure whether ~ Culver had to come back or not~ ~. Ward stated that he thought the ~nutes would he~e to be reviewed to inform the members of this case. ~. Healy stated that two variances were brought before the ~oard. There was the original one on December 13~ i976~ and he believes that is the one referred to. Mr. Howell replied affirmatively and added that this is when a ques~ tion was left in his mind and the attorney's mind as to what the Eoard wanted M~. Cu.lver to do. Did they want him to come back in before a permit was issued? He thinks they must really study the minutes to make that decision because it was not voted on as far as the parking. Clarification must be made on this on what this Board intended at that time. Chairman Bailey suggested that the Board members ask any questions of ~o Howel!~ ~. Healy referred to this taking place at the December t3~ ~976~ meeting and questioned the mention of two variances and ~. Howell replied that the question here is was the second variance necessary? M~. Healy referred to mixing up these two variances and suggested talking only about the one granted on December 13, ~976 and leaving the other out completely and M~. Howell agreed. ~so Bond c!sm~ified that the variance greeted on December 13~ ]976, was to rebuild the building and ~o Howell agreed that it was to rebuild the existing building in two phases. Mrs. MI~TES BOARD OF ADJ~ST~_%~T PAGE FOUR NOVE?~ER 28, 1 977 Bond clarified that the qUestion is whether there was a variance for parking at the same time and Mr. Howell rem plied that the question came up in regards to parking at that meeting, but the chairman said ~o Culver would have to come back in for parking. The statement was made at that meeting that Mr. Culver would have to apply for park- ing~ but it was not voted on-~. The variance granted was ~oted on. He suggests that the members review these min- utes~ M~. Healy referred to this being very confusing and stated that to ask this Board at this time to make a decision when probably only three members were on the previous Board he thinks would be unfair to the applicant and the Board. He thinks the minutes of December 13, 1976, should be reviewed. Also, the minutes of the JUne meeting should be reviewed, so we can come up with an intelligent answer. M~. Howell informed them that he thought only the December t3 minutes would be pertinent to this. This is what the a~torney is asking about The City now has !~. Culver stopped on his job. He knows from talking to the attorney that he would like to see a decision made tonight. ~. Healy replied that he would also like to see a decision tonight, but does not think it is fair to the applicant or the Board as the members do not have enough information. Mr. Howell clarified that he was only presenting the facts~ Chairman Bailey clarified that a motion was made at the December meeting to grant the variance and then the park- ing question came up~ ~ir. Hea!y then read one paragraph from these minutes containing the discussion following the motion. Chairman Bailey then stated his'interpretation of 'this vs~iauce granted on December 13 is when you grant someone something existing, you do not have to grant any- thing else such as parking. In this case where M.~. Culver came in later and decided to request a ~50 seat restaurant~ that brought up the portion of having to grant a parking variance. After four years of sitting on this Board, h~ has found in the past that anything granted to be rebuilt does not effect anything else. Since M~. Culver was granted a vari~uce to rebuild, he was granted what he had. Mr. Rutter agreed this was his muderstanding. ~. Ward clari- fied that it would be for the amount of par~king he had at that time m~d additional parking was not considered and Chairman Bailey agreed. M~ Thompson stated that he recalled the Board voted to allow M~. Culver to rebuild using the same dimensions and the~chairman pointed out that parking was not part of the variance. It was strictly to rebuild the building. MINUTES BO~RD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE FIVE NOVEMBER 28, 1977 Chairman Bailey then gave a similar example of the Board granting a variance on an existing house just 2 ft. from the property line~ but by granting the variance we did not request the other portion to be removed~ Mr. Culvsr has been held up mainly because of the interpretation of what the Board meant~ He thinks it can be resolved tonight without delaying it any longer~ He then requested the mem- bers input~ ~. Ward clarified that if the parking was not tied in, he can go ahead; but if it was, he must stop. Chairman Bailey referred back to December ~3 and stated when ~. Culver asked to rebuild the building as it was, the fact was disregarded that he had been issued a license for ~50 seats. By granting a v~iance to rebuild~ the Bos~d cannot deny anything which he had existing at that time. Later when he decided to use the ~50 seat license, he had to come in and get a variance for parking. The key question is Mr. Howell~s interpretation that by rescinding the variance on the parking that we also rescinded the variance granted in December? ~ Ward replied that he didn't believe that we rescinded it. Chairman Bailey agreed that in December, Mr. Culver was given the right to rebuild his struct~mre and use the parking he had at that time. M~. Howell disagreed and stated that ~ Culver applied again because when he read the minutes, he was not sure he could issue a permit until M~o Culver obtained a parking variance. When he did apply, he was possessing a license for 150 seats, which was really an illegal license because it was not approved by the Build~ lng Department or Hotel and Restaurant Commission and only had Health Department approval. The Building Department turned it down because of improper seating° ~nat is where the confusion began° He requested ~ Culver to apply for the parking variance according to his interpretation of the minutes~ The attorney has now requested the Board to clar~ ify their action. It is not the way M~. Bailey stated, be- cause he made M~. Culver come in. Chairman Bailey rePlied that when Mr. Culler came in June, he asked for a variance for so many spaces to use a 150 seat license issued in error and M~. Howell replied that the permit had not been issued at that point~ Chairman Bailey clarified that in December, ~976, Mro Culver was granted a variance to rebuild exactly what he had being given a variance to the front setback~ At that time, he was using the parking he had~ His opinion is the parking he had at that time would remain with the rebuilding and no parking variance would have to come before this Board unless he changed the plans. Mr. Ward stated that he was including the parking and Chairman Bailey agreed as that was his inter- pretationo Mr. Ward agreed ~. Culver would be entitled to the parking he had at that time. MI~3 TES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE SIX N01~MBER 28~ 1977 M~. Zimmerman referred to the parking he had and questioned just what parking he did have at that time and Chairman Bailey replied that there was parking which he had been using for several years, Mr~ Culver had a b~id~ng and a business and was operating without a vs~ianceo He came in for a variance to rebuild the structure he had and would be using the existing parking. M~ Ward asked how many parking spaces he had at that time and ~. Howell replied: ~3~ Mr~ Rodriguez stated that eventually there was a variance granted which exempted him for the specific requirement of a 50 seat restaurant and absolved him from having to provide the number required~ If that variance was granted~ wouldn't it match the setback vs~iance? The Board authorized status quo, Nothing has changed, The action in December provided for a setback variance and the action in JUne provided for a parking variance. ~. Howell suggested that everything be forgotten from December on~ The ~ ~' qu~s~mon facing the Board when th~ygranted the variance to rebuild the build~ ing~ is there any reason that Mr. Culver would have to come in for a parking variance? Mr. Healy suggested going back to the variance on December ~3 and not continue to refer to any other variance as it is just complicating the matter. The letter ~. Moore sent to M~~, Howell refers only to the variance on December 13. The license and the other variance should be left out. Mr. Healy then read another portion of the minutes with Mr. Ward's statement that if the variance is granted, it is granted without any authorization as far as parking and Mr~ Ampol agreed this was ~o Howell's department. M~. Howell stated again that the only reason he had M~. Culver apply before issuing a per,mit was because of the statement made by the chairman that he would have to come back for parking. ~. Rutter referred to M~. Howell stating that one depended upon another and stated that from what he has heard~ the plans were for the building only and no consideration was being given for parking° ~ Howell replied that parking did not come into it. The restaurant was there ~ud could have stayed that way for many years. However~ Mr. Culver wanted to rebuild the building to improve it~ The problem he was faced with at the issu~uce of the permit was that one question. When he came in~ the rest happened° He does not know how the license was issued, but it has been corrected~ There will never be more than 50 seats or a restaurant unless additional land is acquired for pa~king. Mr. Thompson stated that the minutes of December 13 clearly state to him that the vari~mce was given on the building only~ However~ when ~.~. Culver came back the second time, MINU~S BOARD OF ADJUST~B~ PAGE S~EN NOVE~.R 28 ~ 1977 he came back because he had a license for 150 seating capa- city~ Then he needed additional parking spaces, The ori- ginal variance was strictly for the building, ~. Howell replied that there is a statement in the minutes that park- ing is included, but Mr. Aranow said it was not. This is the question he was faced with. ~@. Healy suggested taking a recess to go over the minutes. Chairman Bailey ascertained the members were in agreement and declared a five minute break. He reconvened the meeting at 7:50 Ps M, F~ Healy then read the request for the variance from the minutes of December ~3 and read the motion made granting the variance° He pointed out that the motion was to ap- prove the request only and nothing was mentioned about parking. Chairman Bailey announced that the people in the audience who requested to speak would be heard at this time. M~so Lori Culver appeared before the Board and requested her name to be noted beside her ex-husband's ~mme so she is notified about these matters. She then questioned the extension referred to on the original variance request and M~. Healy replied that he didn't know what it was, ~s. Culver stated she would like the BOard members to see that extension~ She told about her ex-husband bulldozing the back of her restaurant down and now having a new business ready to open. He wants to push her right out of business. The license for the restaurant was never approved. She applied for the ~50 seat license and agreed to remodel to meet the requirements~ The restaurant would not compete with the other people at the marina as they r~mu drift boats and sell fish, However, ~r~ Culver has taken over and got- ten most of the charter boats. He would like to have the restaurant condemned, She is not going to leave Boynton Beach, They should check the records in the County to get this clarified. ~. Culver is threatening suit against the City~ but she will be on the side of the City. ~. Howell referred to the motion read from the minutes by ~. Healy and stated that this motion was amended to strictly allow the existing building to be rebnilt~ t~. Thompson then stated that the reason the Board voted on this application in the first place was because proof was presented ~ ,~ M~. Culver was legally in charge of the operation. Mrs. Culver replied that she stood before the Board and made a fool of herself previously~ the same as tonight. She only hears about these hearings ten minutes before they start. This is George Walter Culver and he does not have the authorization. Her son, George William Culver~ does, George Walter Culver is in the process of MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT PAGE EIGHT NOVEMBER 28~ ~ 977 being removed from the trust and a date for the court hear- ing has been set in December. He has taken all her daughm ter's money and there is only $57.00 left in her trust after ~4 years. Mr. Kenneth Lyman appeared before the Board and advised that he was the original builder of Lyman docks~ They had a pro~ blem years ago on this parYing. He complained before the restaurant was there. He has put up with this for many years. Mr. Culver has used parking he has no right to use. ~ Culver built an office building on the end of the road and ties his charter boat on the City right~of-way. He went to the Inland Navigation District and had him moved. The end of the road is blocked and it was meant to be a park for the City. His family donated half of the road to the City. The parking situation is bad. Mr. Culver has at least four to five charter boats and a drift boat a3~d at the most ten park~ing spaces. All the time he has operated his business~ he has complied with the City laws. It is so bad ~ ~ . ,here ms~ be blood shed All the boats have paid for a license to operate their boats and sell fish ~d now ~. Culver plans to sell fish in competition to all the boats there~ The parking situation is bad now and the members should go there and see it~ ~. Culver should be forced to furnish parking for his own boats. ~. Culver does not even have enough parking for 'the captains and mates on his boats~ He does not think the City should furnish Mr~ Culver parking and does not think the 50 seat license is legal. He closed the east entrance, but during the week the chain was cut. He asked the City trash men to place the dumpster in the center of the exit'and entrance, but ~. Culver came out like he owns the City and maybe he does and told the driver the dumpster could~ not be put there. Right now, Mr. CUlver has two dumpsters on the opposite side of the street. The City driver told the Halls they could not put their dumpster there~ but it is' legal for George Culver. He is getting tired of being pushed around. They will have to close the east entrance and put a sign at the west entrance that it is for the Sea Mist Marina only. This must be stopped now. He does not think the 50 seat license is legal. M~ Culver does not have parking and never will~ t~. Rutter referred to going into the parking situation at great length previously and stated they do understand the problem° The answer was at that time, that the park= lng ~ariance would not be approved. Tonight the parluing is not being discussed, but the first varismce granted~ 9~, Thompson added that as far-as competition, that is what America is based on. M~. Lymsm replied that he was referring to unfair competition. MINUTES B0t~D OF ADJUST~NT PAGE NI~ NOVEM~ER 28 ~ 1977 Chairman Bailey referred to ~, Lyman having lived here for many years and building the docks and stated that he is sure he must have some kind of solution in mind, ~, Lyman re- plied that they ~.ould do what the judge told George Culver once and that is for him to leave town° Healy then read from the December.minutes the amendment Howell referred to and the discussion on the motion. .~ Rodriguez announced that even though he appeared in reference to this case previously~ he is abstaining and not participating in this tonight as a Board member, ~s~ Janet Hall appeared before the Board and stated that she owns the property ~. Lyman referred to. She just wants to state what she has said several times before that she does not think anyone wants to put anyone out of business. She would like it made clear that what was approved was for what ~as existing and not for any increases which have been proposed since December 13~ One of those things is a retail sales fish market, which is on the plans right now in City Hall, This would be adding another business to the already over-crowded condition there. ~. Paul King appeared before the Board and stated that he has no interest in this other than that of a citizen. He is interested how the Board of Adjustment functions and is going to take exception with the statement M~. Bailey made that parking had nothing to do with the variance grmuted at that time. In his opinion when a variance is requested for any reason, it would be the responsibility of this Board to see the applicant is in accordance with the exist- ing rules, regulations and laws before any variance is given. He has attended several meetings and questions whether any of the members have gone to the trouble to verify anythihg which has been said right here. ~@. Cutver has claimed he has ~3 parking spaces and is this fact or say so? If he has 13, how many businesses is he presently operating and how many are needed to comply with City law? if he is not comp!ying~ they do not have the right to give -a variance for anything~ Mr. Rutter replied that after the last meeting, he went to the area and verified his state~ ments. The ~3 spaces are there. Also, the Sea Mist Marina has the additional parking needed. Mr. Culver does comply with the regulations, but a variaz:ce was needed to'improve the existing building and this is what the variance was given for° Chairman Bailey added that in giving the vari~ ante to Mr. Cutver, it did not deny the right for anything which he had previously. ~, Healy asked if he appeared at the December ~3 meeting and ~, King replied that he did not and underst~mds that only three present members sat on that Board, He does not MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE TEN NO%~MBER 28 ~ ! 977 see how this Board can pass judgement. He thinks it should be a new project. ~. Ward replied that in his opinion~ this would be up to the Board and not an outsider~ ~;~. ~ing clarified that he was only making a suggestion. ?&r. Wallace Shooley~ attorney representing Mr. George Culver~ appeared before the Board and stated he thinks a number of things have been stated from the residents which do not touch upon the issue before the Board~ The critical issue is whether at the December meeting in the granting of the motion for the variance whethar ~. Culwsr was to come back for a vari~uce on parking~ All th~se ~other statements con~ fuse the issue and are not involved at thi~ point~ At the December meeting, there was discussion of the parking, but it was not part of th~ motion. The interpretation in pass- ing the motion is that the Board did not intend for M~. Culver to come back before the Board for an additional var- lance regarding parking° He does not think anyone felt Mr. Culver was not entitled to the parking existing. When the previous motion was rescinded, it left Mr. Culver with some- thing he did not have before. It has been overlooked to~ night that Mr~ Culver has been allowed to start construc- tion~ spend money~ etc~ before a motion was made to rescind the previous action mud a stop order was put on the build- ing. Bond has also been posted with the City. There are other expenses involved and Mr. Culver does not know what is going to transpira. He does not think it was the intent of any Board member to deprive Mr. Culver of any parking which was in use before the variance was granted on Decem~ bar 13. He thinks the motion intended to carry evarything. necessary to rebuild the building. He thinks some other issues have been given tonight. He thinks the sole issu~ is whether M~. Culver can use the facility in accordance with the usage prior to the first meeting in December. He thinks that is what the Board should confine itself to tonight. They should not lose fact that money has been expended which alters the situation. It is a different situation since a variance was gi'~en. He thinks the sola issue is as stated by Mr. Bailey at the onset and they should make a determination on that. ~. Healy referred to there being no mention about parking when the varimuce came before the Board in December and stated that the Board takes the position only to issue a~ma~_ces on what the Building Department tells the appli- cant the permit is rejected on. He thinks the permit was rejected because of the 25 ft. setback in front of the building. At that time if there was parking there, it would not interfere with the building. ~. Shooley plied that he thinks the permit was rejected because ~. Howell was confused about what the Board did~ ~. Healy replied that it was before the Board to take action and the Board only took action on the relief requested from MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT PAGE EL~EN NOVEmbeR 28, 1977 the 25 ft~ front setback. Chairman Bailey added that at that time, there was nothing in the application about park- ing and the Building Department directs the applicant on the type of vari~uce they must apply for. The Building De- partment did not give any indication of having to come be- Eore the Board for parking but only on the setback require- merit. ~.~. Healy continued that the Board, at that time, did not change anything as far as parking was concerned~ The pa~king remained the same as before. Mr. Shooley clarified that according to the application., i~. Culver could use the facility as modified with the existing park- ing. M~. Ward replied 'that he did not think he could say with the parking because pe~rkingwas not brought up. The application was strictly for the building. Mm. Culver was granted the right to continue the operation of the building. There was nothing about Parking~ 5-~. Howell .clarified that on the original refusal of the permit~ it was based on the zoning ordinances not allowing a non-conforming building to be demolished and rebuilt. ~. Culver could have applied for a repair permit to model the whole building and the permit could have been issued, but because he wanted to demolish and rebuild~ he had to apply for a variance. M~. Hea!y asked if that was why the permit was denied and Mr. Howell replied that it was denied because of the type of repair to be made° M~, Healy asked if the variance was granted for the 25 ft~ setback, could the permit be denied on parking and Howell replied: no, but it was unclear in his mind because of the statements in the ~nutes. He thinks the City At- torney is of the same opinion as he is. He believes the Board should clarify whether the parking applied to the variance or not. Mm~ Vincent Mo!Is appe~ed before the Board and referred to attending the previous meetings ~ud stated as far as he is concerned, it was based on the t50 seat license which was illegal and has been proven. It was stated at the original meeting that parking would come up later. He stated that he filed complaints because when he built~ he had to submit parking plans with the building plans. ~hen the use of the building is changed~ parking must be met. On what basis was the permit issued? Mro Keehr informed him that it was issued after the Board gave the variance on the !50 seats~ ~ Healy clarified that the discussion was on the variance given on December !3 and the Board had nothing to do with the oermit. Mr. Molls continued that he b_ougnt parking up and kept being told that it did not pertain and Mro Culver would have to apply for a parking variance. formed him that the Board only took action on the 25 fto setback according to the request~ M~. Molls clarified that this was to rebuild the building for the same usage. When MII~JTES BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT PAGE T~Ei,,VE NOVE~ER 28, ~ 977 it is changed, the parking and zoning requirements must be met and Chairman Bailey replied that he thinks that is why ~-~o Culver came back in June. M~. Mo!!e agreed and added that he came with an illegal license. !~. Howell added that the permit was not issued until the Board approved the var- iance. Chairman Eailey clarified that ~. Mo!le was referring to a seating license. The Board is trying to decipher the vari~ anc~ granted on December ~ 1976 It is true M~ Cu!ver did have a ~50 seat license, but it is out of the question now. The me~Zoers are trying to determine the intention of t~ ne Board on December 13 to rebuild something ~. Cutver already had or something he did not have and change the use and come back for a parking variance. If the decision is that the vari~ace was given with expecting the use to be changed and the parking variance was based on this~ it would nullify the December 13 variance. It has nothing to do with the ~50 seat license. ~o Moi!e referred to ~. Howell saying ~. ~ulver came back because the parking was not included and Chairman Bailey replied that it was for the amount of seats in the~ new restaurant. Mr. Mo!lc stated that he referred at that time to the license being illegal~ but the Board did not investigate° Is the 50 seat license legal now? There was only a vending license there originally. Consequently it was made 30 seats~ 50 seats, ~00 seats and 150 seats. He has copies of all these. ~. Ward asked~!if he was saying the new 50 seat license was illegal and Mx~. Molle replied that he absolutely was. M~. Ward asked how many parking places he had when he used the building and M~. Mo!le re- plied that he probably had more because the office has been moved onto the parking and the dumpster was moved-onto City property. ~. Ward clarified that the number was down to 13 and Mr. Mol!e replied that he did not count them. He continued that he was under the assurance that the build- ing would be condemned when he moved. However, the main thing now is about changing the usage. Chairman Bailey informed him that the Board of Adjustment could not make a use change~ if ~. Cu!ver is asking for a different use, he would have to come before the Board for that pa~ticu!ar use if it has to do with .the parking. ~. Molle stated that a fish market is a different use and Chairman Bailey agreed. Chairman Bailey then asked Mro Mo!le if he had a solution and ~h~. Mo!!e replied that he thinks a solution will come out. His~so!ution would be to run Mr. Cu!ver out of busi~ ness~ He thinks the City is involved in a coverup and is using this Board to ~cover up the mistakes or illegal actions of the ~uiidingDepartment~ Chairman Bailey replied that the City was not using him and Mr. Mol!e replied that they MINUTES BOARD OF AD~UST~ENT PAGE THIRTEEN NOVE~ER 28, 1977 were trying too Chairman Bailey added that this Board could not be used to run people out of business~ M~. Molle continued that when he moved~ the vacant building was supposed to be demolished~ but they obtained a non-cook- ing license and upgraded it to a 30, 50 seat~ etc. restaurant. M~. Ward questioned who was doing all this illegal operation and Mr. Molle replied that the Two Georges were. He then stated when he applied for a building permit, he had to sub~ mit a pl~n showing adequate parking. They seem to have rules for M~. Culler only and other rules applying to the other peopl~i, Mr. Culver does not have to conform. M~. Thompson pointed out that when Mr. Culver cams before the Board, it was definitely only to replace what was existing. ~s~ Lori Culver appeared before the Board again and stated based on her obtaining the 150 seat license, M~. Culver ~ade an agreement with the Halls to lease parking which is not shown in the Building Department records. Once she spent the money to meet the requirements, the Building Department sent her license to M~ George Culver. Once he got that license~ he moved her out. Two days after he got his hot little hauds on the license, he tried to push E~ out and thought he could get a liquor license to make it into a go~go place~ M~ Rutter asked if she was referring to the illegal license and Mrs~ Culver replied affirmatively and added that she tried to submit it at the previous meeting. She knew of the requirements for remodelling included the additional parking needed, but Mr. Culver couldn't buy that. ~ Culver did not have the seating capacity yet, because he had not done the work yet~ The original vending license covered 24 seats. She was going to upgrade it, but Mr. Culver pushed her out~ ~. Healy asked if she appeared before the Board at the original hearing on December 13 and ~s~ Culver replied affirmatively. M~. Healy asked if she was in favor and ~,~s. Culver replied negatively and added that she brought in the plans and informed the Board that Mr. Culver was merely an heir to the property and was in error then by claiming he was George Culver because ~. George W. Culver, Sr. is dead. ~. Culver managed to fool the Board then~ Mm~. Culver brought out the license, but it was issued through a clerical error° They mailed him the wrong application. When he got the license, he threw her out and that is when the divorce was started. The business prospered~and the marriage failed~ Chairman Ba~ley asked if all the Board members were clear on what they were trying to decide. ~k~. Ward asked if Moore was asking if this was tied in with December and June and ~. Howell replied negatively that they wanted to ~uow if the Decen~her t3 meeting when the variance was MINUTES BOARD 0F ADJUSTmeNT PA~ FOURTEEN NOVE~ER 28, 1 977 granted if the parking was tied in or not. Is it this Board's impression that they meant for Mr. Culver to come back for parking before a permit ~as issued? ~,~ Ward replied that he thought the minutes were clear. Chairman Bailey asked if he was asking the Board to inter- pret the December ~3 minutes and M~. Howell replied ~ * ,ha~ he and Mr. Moore want to know what the Board meant at that time. Chairman Bailey questioned the final interpretation he was looking for and ~. Healy replied that he thought such an answer would have a bearing on the decision of the Board. Chairman Bailey clarified that the Building Dffi- cial and City Attorney were looking for a decision and ~. Healy agreed~ but not a suggested decision. Mr. Hea!y clarified that the request before the Board on December ~3 was for relief from the 25 ft. front setback requirement to build up to the front property line and that was the only thing the Board was asked for~ Howell added that because Mr~ Culver was tearing the build- ing down, he had to come before the Board. Mr. Healy referred to the parking and asked if the Building Department knew how many parking spaces M~. Culver had and ~. Howell replied negatively. ~. Heaty referred to this being a requirement and Mr. Howell disagreed. Mr. Healy asked if it was ~uder the grandfather clause and Mr. Howell replied affirmatively and added that if ~. Culver came in for a permit to remodel the building without tearing it down, a permit could have been issued. ~. Healy asked if this was a mistake on the part of the Building Department amd Mr. Howell replied negatively because it had to come before the Board because the ordinance says a building can~ not be demolished and rebuilt if it is non=conforming~ Mm~. Healy clarified that they were only concerned with the 25 ft~ setback~ He asked if there was not enough parking, could the permit be refus~.i~, and Mr. Howell replied nega- tively. He clarified that he only brought Mro Culver back because of the statements in the minutes~ ~k~. Charles Rodriguez requested to speak as a private citi- zen and not a Board member~ He questioned where this lined up with the grandfather aspect and referred to the variance only being granted to accomplish what was sought which was a 50 seat restaurant. Chairman Bailey referred to stating his opinion enough. The variance on December 13 did not have anything to do with parking. By allowing the building to be rebuilt~ I~~. Culver got the use which was existing. M~. Ward clarified that the restaurant was the particular use in existence when the variance application was filed~ but now another use is mentioned. Chairman Bailey replied MINUTES BOARD OF' ADJUST~NT PAGE F IFTFHN NO~E~R 28~ 1 977 that a variance was granted for the use existing and Mr. Ward stated that it was<strictly a restaurant° He added that if they weren't sure, he suggests postponing this. ~. Howell clarified that there is a license there and has been for a 50 seat restaurant. Mr. Culver will not be ai- lowed another use. ~A~. Healy referred to this being left up to the BUilding DePartment ~aud Mr. Ward stated tho~ it was ~rought out another use or uses were intended for that property'~ It must be brought out for the record. ~. Healy referred to this confUSing the whole ~ ~ vh~ng. Mr. Rutter suggested that Mr. Moore be given an answer to his letter and ~tr~ War~ replied that some other things are i~relevant~ ~. Healy referred to the original request and stated Mr. Culver had some intention when he applied for a permit and he is sure the Building Department knew what he wanted to do and b~ed the petit on it~ The relief they asked the Hoard to act on was a 25 fi. set~ack and this Board acted on that. If Mr. Culver is doing something different than he made application for~ then it is up to the Building De~ partment to take action~ M~. ~ompson Stated that the variance was granted for what- ever it was used for at that time° ~. Healy referred to going over a lot of things and stated the ~oting could not be changed. The variance has been passed. We are only interpretting what the Board meant at that time. Mr. Rutter replied that it was to grant a 25 ft. setback var- iance. Chairman Bailey clarified that Mr. Howell put a stop order on the jo~ at the request of the City Attorney. The reason the City Attorney requested this was because he ~ud Howell are not clear on what the Board's meaning was on their December !3 action~ ~. Ward replied that the intent was to grant a variance for the application. ~ Zimmerman added that he thinks the Board has within their power to make a decision onthe request from the Building Department and we should be capable of doing that tonight. Mr. Vincent Molle appeared before the Board again and stated he believes the ~' Boarm s action was based on a legal valid licenSe~ which the applicant did not have~ a~d the a~plica- tion also referred to an addition. Chairman Bailey mnformed him that the application stated an extension and ~r. Molle questioned what it was for~ He added that the Board has granted extensions of time and extensions for at, thing. However, something came to light finally and the parking was denied. How could the Building Department submit a partial varianc~ request? There were no specified plans submitted. Now, a fish market is being built. Chairman Bailey replied that M~. Culver could not do ~ytnzng now. The job is stopped. ~. Culver cannot do a thing without the Nosed making a decision° MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE SIXTEEN N0~gEMBER 28, 1977 ~h~. Motle asked if the Board would be making a decision for the Building Department to issue a permit and Chairman Bailey replied that the Board would make a decision for the Building Department and City Attorney at their request. A clarification has to be made. Either the Building Depart- ment will continue to nullify the permit or will allow the building to proceed. The Building Department and City At~ torney would like to know if the two variances are incor~ porated or separate° ~o Ward stated that the two meetings should not be tied tcgether ~ud Mr. Healy added that June was not tied in with December and they are only referring to the minutes of December ~3~ Mro Molle informed them that he kept re~ ferring to the parking at the December meeting~ but was told it would come up later. It has t~en a year to solve this~ He thought the Board would investigate and have a full set of plans submitted. However, ~. Cu!ver was given approval to build with an extension and did not have to worry about parking~ ~k~ Ward made a motion that this Board give the interpre~ ration that the minutes of December ~3 stand as read only granting the variance for the buiiding~ the parking was not asked for and the Board cannot tie the June decision into the December ~3 decision. ~. Rutter seconded the motion~ Under discussion~ ~o Molle referred to the Board being able to request the City Attorney to be present at the meetings since Mr~ Reed was present previously and asked why ~ Moore was not present tonight and Chairman Bailey informed him that M~o Moore was attending school tonight. Mr. Healy referred to Mr. Molle attenmmno the December ~3 meeting and asked if he was in favor of the variance and Mr. Moile replied that he was opposed aud requested the license to be researched. M~. Healy asked if he knew the building was under grandfather rights and the ps, king which existed would stay with it and ~ Molte replied that he mentioned parking and was puzzled it would not block the permit because it was not sufficient. ~ Hea!y asked if he was aware of the grandfather clause sand Mro Mol!e re~ plied that the chairman stated that parking would be sepa~ rate and another variance would be needed~ ~. Healy clarified that it was not mentioned as far as the request was concerned and Mr~ Mo!le replied that he brought it up, but Chairman Aranow said Mr. Culver would have to come back for another variance~ The Building Dep~tment would not give it to anyone else without parking~ M~o Healy cia~i~ fied that at the December ~3 meeting, he suggested paring be considered but the Bos~d refused to discuss it and Moile agreed and stated the Board said parking was not relevant and if parking was required another application would have to be made. Mr~ Hea!y stated that was the end of it and Mr. Molie replied that they did not grant imm~mu~ ity from the parking requirements. Mr. Healy clarified MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE SEVE~EEN NOVEM~R 28, ~ 977 that if the variance was granted, the Building Department could deny the permit based on the part~ng~ therefore, the Board was right in their decision. Ms. Molle referred to the Boea~d presuming everything was legal to that point and Mr. Healy agreed the Board was and could only take action on the request brought before them°. ~. Molle referred to the City issuing a 50 seat license this year and stated that if it was illegal last year, how does it make it legal from now o'n~and Mr. HealY replied that the Board could not answer that~ but only the Building Department As requested, ~s. Kruse then took a roll call vote on the motion as follows: ~ Rutter = Aye Mms. Bond ~ Aye Mr. Thompson ~ Yes Mro Ward ~ Yes Mr. Zimmerman ~ Yes Mr. Healy ~ Yes Mr~ Bailey ~ Yes Motion carried 7-0~ ~ Chairmsm Bailey declared a three minute break At this ~_me~ and called the meeting back to order at 9:05 P~ M. ~k~ Rutter anno~nced~ he had received a request_ for the motion to be read which was just passed and Mrs. Kruse read it back. ~s. Vincent Molie appeared before the Board and referred to the original varisaace ~equesv noting the building was to be extended and asked if this was correct? Does it say where or what will be extended? She referred to people having to submit plans to build on an extension~ She added that it was to their asset to havs:~il this building remodelled~ but to be able to extend the building she thinks is illegal. Chairman Bailey informed her that she would have to take this up with~the Building Department now because it is be- yond this Board. Mrs. Molle replied that she certainly tended to file suit. Chairman Bailey clea~ified that the variance was passed as::~requested~ Mss° Molle stated that the request was to rebuild and extend and Chairman Bailey replied affirmatively and added that he thinks the build- ing was 3 ft. on one end and ~½ ft. on the other and a variance was needed to extend it to even it. Yk~s. Molle stated that pl~us should be submitted for what is being bnilt and Chairman Bailey replied that the Board voted on What was there and proposed and Mrs. Molle replied that an extension was included. MI~YJTES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE EIGHTEEN NO~,~BER 28s 1977 ?@. Ward clarified that the Board informed ~-. Moore and Mr. Howell that parking did not have a~thing to do with the December 13 variance~ M~s. Molle asked how the Board could approve an extension on a building which is already illegal? It should be rebuilt as it needs it, but to extend it cannot be legal. Chairman Bailey replied that the Board listens to ~ariance requests and if it is granteds it is in the hands of the ~uiiding DeDartment~ The Board cannot answer legal questions~ ~s. Mol!e replie~, that she surely intends to take this to court no matter what the cost. She thinks the Board was wrong and it was illegal to have voted for it in the first place. RE-HEARING on a part of Lot 3, Sam Brown Jr~s S/D, described as: Beginning at the inter'section of the S. line of said Lot 3, with the E'~ly right of way line of So R. #5 (U.S. 1 ) as said right of way is shown on plat recorded in Road Plat p~ Hook 3~ Pages l~othru 17 public records of a~m Beach County F ~, thence S 89 ~5' O0~' East (bearings mentioned herein refer to said ~oad Plat Book 3) along the S~oLine of said Lot 3~ a distance of 6~ 3 D~65 ft~ thence N~ 0 ~3' O0~'' East a distance of ~28~4 ft; thence N. 89© 47' O0~ West a dis- tance of 346~4o ft,~ ~more or less~ ~ the E~ly~right of way line of said S R #5~ thence S. 0 ~2' O0~ ~est along said E~ly right of way line a distance of ~25~97 ft. more or less~ to the point of beginning~ subject to easements and rights of way of record and easement over the N. 10 fto for ingress and egresss Section ~5, 45 S, 43 Eo Recorded in Plat Book ~ ~ Page 8~ Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 20 ft~ rear setback requirement to 6 ft. 2 in~ rear setbacks to build new duple~ in line with existing duplex. Address ~ ~00 Lake Side Harbor Applicant ~ Warren George Mr~ Healy read the above application ~d also a letter from ?@~ Warren George giving Mr, Clarence L, Clark authoriza- tion to represent him.. Chairman Bailey announced he would abstain because of being a property owner in this area, He turned the meetiDg over to the VicelChairman and requested M~, Rodriguez to sit in his place to have a se~en member Board, ~k~ Clarence L~ Ciarks 605 Lake Side Harbors appeared before the Board~ Vice Chairman Thompson asked if he had anything further to add and M~. Clark replied that he thinks they went through this pretty well previously, Vice Chairman Thompson requested that ~ Rodriguez be 'brought up to date on what has transpired to this point, MINUTES BOARD' OF A~ST~NT PAGE NINETEEN NOVE~ER 28, 1977 M~. Healy stated that this case was heard twice previously with new evidence being presented and then M~. Zimmerman made a motion to discontinue any ftu~ther evidence on this case~ The application now is for a re-hearing and he thinks it would be up to the Board to vote on whether to re-hear it or continue where we left off. ~, Rodriguez replied that since he did not luuow the background, he would like to know the first disposition. ~. Ward formed him that the first time the case was heard~ there was a tie vote and it was the attorney's opinion that it should be re-heard. When it came back~ the density was brought outi~ but M~. Clark requested another hearing since only five members were present. ~ Rodriguez referred to this being a re-hearing and stated he would like to kuow the major points. M~. Healy replied that he did not believe there was any request made by Mr. Clark for withdrawal~ He thinks Mr~ Zimmerman requested that we discontinue hearing evidence~ Mrs~ Bond referred to I~ Clark supposing to find out about the density~ Vice Chairman Thompson added that since only six members were present at the previous meeting, there was the possibility of hs~¢ing another tied vote and it was suggested possibly that Mr~ Clark get this straightened out with the other ~oards regarding density. M~s~ Bond asked ~ Keehr if he could confirm why this application was back ~before the Board and Mr. Keehr re- plied that if this variance is granted, the Planning & Zoning Board will deny the permit because of the density. He believes it was left at the last meeting that M~. Clark would get the density cleared with the Planning & Zoning Board before applying for a variance. ~. Ward stated he didn't believe it was definite that Mr~ Clark had to do this° Vice Chairman Thompson referred to having six mem- bets present at the previous meeting and he suggested why tak~ the chance of having a tied vote~ ~kTM, Ward clarified that this Board should not be talking about density because it is not on the application. If this Board grmuted a variance and the other Board turns it down, it is none of this Board's business~ If Mr. Clark can't get a building permit because of density, he must apply to the Planning & Zoning Board. M~, Zimmer~n stated that with the previous tied vote~ the motion was ~enmem. After that, he made a motion not to consider it any further~ If we do~ we will be getting into the same kind of hassle as the previous case~ The density issue should be resolved before ~o Clark comes back before this Board~ ~t has been denied now and there is nothing further to say. ~ Ward clari- fied that it was denied with a tied vote~ but there was MINUTES BOARD Ow A~JUSTME~T PAGE NOVEMBER 28~ ~ 977 nothing about the density then~ Vice Chairman Thompson stated that they did not vote again~ ~. Rutter stated that we all agreed the proper thing would be for Mr. Clark to go to the proper Board regarding the density. Vice Chairman Thompson agreed and stated it was suggested cause we felt it was not our concern at that tir~. How= ever, the 3-3 vote actually denied the variance~ ~ Rodriguez clarified that previously this same case had been denied and ~s. Bond agreed° ~ Rodriguez stated that nothing new has been added. He referred to the State law regarding BOards of'.~i'~his ty~ saying special conditions and circumstances should not be th~ result of actions of the applicant~ The deed is dated 1969 and the condition is firmly esta~lishedo This applicant ini~iat~U this quest for his self-interest and initia~ed the problem. ~ Clark replied that he betie~ves everyone applying has done that and M~. Rodriguez disagreed. Mr~ C!s~k requested the Board to vote on this tonight one way or the other~ He referred to ~ Keehr stating it was atpeak density and advised that it is not. He showed the plot plan~ wi~ the area left to build the duplex!. Vice Chairman Thompson informed him that in a case like this, the Board would have to abide by the rule of the Building Department. He is sure this has been checked and has reached the density° Mr. Eeehr added that it was not allowed to draw from a differently zoned area to compensate for lacking density in another area. Mr. Hea!y questioned the request for a re-hearing and ~. Clark replied that he was present tonight because he re= ceived a notice. Mrs~ Bond asked if he had submitted a letter and ~o Hea!y added that it was requested by some- one. M~s. Xruse informed them that the Board did make a motion to have this rase brought back and suggested checking the previous minutes, t~. Rutter stated that it was decided before we could make a decision that Meo Clark should go to the proper Board to clarify the density~ Vice Chairman Thompson stated that the Board voted once ~ud it was a tie vote and we were informed this meant denial by the City Attorney. With that in mind~ he questions whether it is'necessary to vote on this again. There are no addi- tionai cha~es or information to reconsider~ Mr. Ward re- plied that the City Attorney suggested re=hearing it. M~o Healy then consulted the previous minutes and read where he had made a motion to call the case of Warren George back for continuation of consideration at this meeting, The application went out as a re-hee~ing~ It is up to the Board whether they want to continue consid~ eration or make it a re~hearing~ MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE TWENTY~ O~ NOVEMBER 28 ~ ~ 977 Mm~ Rutter asked if everyone involved in this was notified about this re-hearing and ~ Clark replied that everyone received notices~ Vice Chairman Thompson noted that it was properly advertised~ Vice Chairman ~ompson then stated that in the first voting~ it was a 3~3 vote and does this stand or must a vote be taken to re-hear the case? What should be done legally? Mr~ Healy read ~the motion from the October 24 minutes and Vice Chairman Thompson replied that at the meeting before that, it was suggested that Mr~ Clark apply to the Plan~ ning & Zoning Board regarding density and he thinks he also asked th~ question whether it should be withdrawn~ M_r. Clarkagreed and stated his answer was no to withdrawing. ~o Healy stated that they were referring to two different things~ Vice Chairman Thompson questioned whether they could re-hear it after voting it down? ?@. Healy stated that it was the opinion of the attorney that the tie vote disqualified it ~ud Mr~ Ward agreed. ~ Hea!y clarified ~ it was re-heard again and they got into discussion of the density and Mr~ Zimmerman made the motion to discontinue any further discussion. Mr. Rodriguez stated that he listened to the discussion at the last meeting on this and the problem seemed to be a procedura~?!one~ The item seemed to hang unless it was re~ solved and! it was decided to bring it before the Board to be reso!ved~ The intent of bri~Eing it back was to clear the calendar and bring it to a conclusion. ~. Rutter read the discussion from the minutes of October 24. Hea!y added that there was discussion at the meeting previ- ous to thalt and ~o Zimmerman's motion to withdraw was carried 5~2o After that, a letter was received from Clark referring to ~. Thompson~s statement that he wished to withdraw the application which M~ Clark did not want to do. There was further discussion and he then made a motion to bring it back tonight and continue from where we left off. However, his motion to bring it back for con~ tinuation was not adhered to because the application was sent out as a re~hesm~ing. He thinks the Board should take a vote whether to re-hear or continue on the motion made. ~o Ward q~estioned whether it made thatlmuch difference and Mr~ Hea!y replied that he didn't kuow if it would, but thinks it would be fair to the people who received notices° ~. Hea!y then made a motion to re-hear this case~ seconded by ~h~. ~ard. Under discussion, M~s. Bond questioned whether there was any new evidence° M~ Rodriguez stated he was puzzled because if the application was technically denied previously, what is there to re-hear? A new application hasn't been submitted and the previous application failed with a tied vote~ Are they taking a new vote to satisfy MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT PAGE TWENTY-T~O NOVEmbER 28~ 1 977 the attorney? PM. Zimmerman added that when the variance was denied~ it did not leave the option to the applicant to withdraw, It is automatically withdrawn° Mi~. Ward questioned when it was denied and ~h~o Zimmerman replied With the tied vote, Vice Chairman Thompson agreed and added that a letter was received from the City Attorney advising that we could not terminate the applicsmt in that sense~ .As requested, M~s, Kruse then took a roll call ~ ~oue on the motion as follows: Mr. Rutter - Aye Mrs, Bond ~ No ~. Ward ~ Aye Mr~ Rodriguez ~ No Mr, Zimmer~tu - No ~. Hea!y ~ Yes ~, Thompson ~ No Motion failed 4-3, i~. Healy announced they would now continue' with consid- eration where they left off the last time. Mro Rodriguez asked if the City Attorney requested another vote of re~ cord and Vice Chairman Thompson replied negatively. Rutter added that a legal opinion was given of the 3~3 vote and ~;~s~ Bond added that the ordinance was clarified that 5 votes were needed in favor. Mr. Rodriguez asked if the mechanics of the vote counted on this item and M~s. Bond replied affirmatively~ M~, Healy clarified that the 3-3 vote was brought up and he thinks the applicant asked to have it tabled at the meeting previous to September ~2o M~. Rodriguez asked if it had been voted down and ~. Healy replied that it was~ Mr. Ward disagreed in that it was a tie vote~ Mr, Healy stated that according to law~ a vote for approval must have 5 votes. Mr. Zimmerman read the letter from Mr, Moore regarding the 3~3 vote. ~o Clark again requested the Board to take a vote on the application~ ~, Ward stated he thinks the intent of the City Attorney's letter was to inform us that the situation was not right since there was a tie vote~ He feels we Should have followed it by recessing until a full Board was present to vote~ M~s~ Bond stated that the letter meant to her that the variance was denied with a 3=3 vote~ Vice ~airman Thompson agreed that it was denied and sug~ gested the discussion be terminated, i~, Ward requested the record to show that he did not believe it was denied and believes that is why it was referred to ~k~. Moore~ ~. Rutter suggested making a motion and voting on it and Vice Chairman Thompson replied that he did not think a motion was needed as they must consider the 3~3 vote and opinion of the Cmt~ Attorney~ He suggests the discussion be terminated~ MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE .~ ~N =Y- THP~E EOV~ER 28 ~ ~ 977 ~s~ Bond then made a motion to terminate this discussion~ M=~. Ward clarified that she was m~king a motion to deny hearing this case and F~s. Bond replied that a motion was made before to denny the re~hearing~ M~ Ward stated he just wanted to lay the groundwork in case this:applicant wants to take this to court about it not being properly heard~ M_~. Z~mmerman then seconded the motion~ As requested, Mrs° Kruse took a roll call vote on the motion as follows: Mro Rutter - Aye i~s~ Bond - Aye ~. Ward - No Mr. Rodriguez ~ Aye ~k~. Zimmerman ~ Ay~ Fh~. Healy ~ Aye ~;~o Thompson ~ Aye Motion carried M~. Healy added that three letters were submitted in refer- ence to this case~ however~ since discussion has been ter- minated, he would like to make them part of the minutes without being read, ~. Zimmerman referred to being under the subject of Old Business and asked what became of the form presented by the Building Department to be used for approval of vari- ances and Mr, Keehr replied that Mr. Howell did work out the form, but he was not prepared to present it tonight, N~ BUS INESS Parcel #21~ Lot 26~ Lake Eden, Plat #4 Recorded in Plat Book 30~ Page ~22 Palm Beach County Records Request ~ Relief from fence height requirement to permit installation of ~0 £t, fence fo~ existing tennis court° Address ~ 93~ S~ W. 34th Avenue Applicant - Gerald L. Skinner Y~. Healy read the above application. ~. Gerald Lo Skinner appes~ed before the Board and told about purchasing his .pro~ perry m~ing sure it was large enough to have room for a tennis court~ He explained how the property was bordered With a canal and advised that he contacted the people on the western side of the canal and all the people in the s~ea and received no objections. Me told about positioning his house close to the front in order to allow the tennis court to be in the rear~ He then explained how a ~0 fro fence would be necessary around the tennis court to keep the balls out of the canal. MINU~S BOARD OF ADJ!TST?~NT PA~ ~ENTY-FOUR NO~¢E?~ER 28 ~ t 977 ~ Rodriguez told about looking at the site and trying to~termine if this would block the view of the vacant lots and questioned if a wind screen would be installed? M~ro Skinner replied that he has had a tennis court in the past~ For someone else to presume they are going to have a view through his ~ ~ ~ p_oper~y because of how he positioned his house is an incorrect assumption~ He could plant large trees anywhere with no restrictions~ He does not think the ~iew is the important thing, but how it is landscaped~ ~s~ Bond asked if trees would eventually encompass the whole fence and Mr~ Skinner replied that this was the land~ scape architect's design~ Chairman Bailey asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor of this application and received no response. He then asked if'anyone wanted to speak in opposition. Mr. Thomas Sicilians, ~0~ N. Eo 26th Avenue, Lighthouse Point, appeared before the Board and stated he was the brother and brother-in-~aw of Nancy and John Krimp, who own the house d~rectly across the canal. He submitted pic~ tures to the Board taken from his sister's property look- ing down the canal. At the time his brother-in-law and ~ister purchased their pror~rty, there was no tennis court or fence~ He thinks it is pretty clear from the photographs it was reasonable for them at'that time to assume there would be no fence there. With the ordinance in effect, they had no reason to assume a ~0 ft. fence would be erected. The value of the land was related to the view .they were given~ He emphasized that when people moved into a new area, they were aware of ordinances giving them proteCtion. There is a natural setting across the canal, but now they are faced with the prospect of looking out their backiyar~ at a ]0 ft. fence which would be an eye- sore. The market value of their home would undoubtedly be dlzlinished by this. This would be seen immediately when walking into their house. They go along with a 6 fto fence properly landscaped, but to allow a ]0 ft. fence would be a gross injustice. Mr~ Rutter asked if he believed tennis courts are an eye~ sore and M~. Siciliano replied that he thinks a ~0 ft. fence is d~nitely an eyesore. ~. Rutter referred to a screened pool and ~ Siciiiano replied that it was not as large as a tennis court. He continued that this matter must be considered from the point of view of someone who has invested in property and is given protection with the law stating nothing can be erected higher than 6 ft. Mr. ~ ~h~ Rutter stated that there is a 50 ft canal between ~ ~ properties and he thinks tennis courts have added value to communities and properties~ He added that to pl~y tennis with a 6 fro fence, it would be a problem~ ~. Siciliano MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTI~NT pA~E TVJENTY-F lVYE NOVEi~ER 28~ ~ 977 replied that he respected his opinion~ but questioned if he went to the trouble to study this and ~. Rutter replied that he visited the site. ~!r. Siciliano added that land~ scaping is one thing~ but he thinks they had the right to assume there would not be a ~0 ft. fence there~ ~k~s~ Bond asked if this house was built after or before ~h~. Skinner's house and Mr. Siciliano replied that it was built after. Mrs~i Bond clarified that they had no way of knowing what would develop and ~o Sici!iano agreed. He added that he doesn't be!level, i! Mr. Skinner told them before th~pur~ - chased the lot that he was going to put a tennis court there. AlsO, the sUbdivision does not allow for this without the express ~authorization by the subdivider~ They had the laws of Boynton Beach and the rules of the subdivision to r~y on. M~. Zimmerman referred to the Board being interested in hardships and asked if he saw a hardship created to Mi~. Skinner and:M~. Siciliano replied that he did not see any. He added that in a case like this~ he is not being denied by ordinance to construct any fence at all, but has the right to construct a 6 ft. fence~ Zt would probably not be as convenien~ as a ~0 ft. fence, but a ~0 ft. fence is not convenient to his sister. They must take into account the interest of both parties. ~. Healy read from the application that the hardship stated that without a ~0 ft. fence, you cannot have a tennis court. Mr. Siciiiano replied that if a hardship can be leniently construed, then the rest of the people would have the same for not being able to erect a circus tent. ~. Ward then read the State Statute pertaining to hardships. ~. Thompson referred to this being the third case of this type co~ng before the ~oard and each time, they he~a little different hardship. He has voted against ail~ He personally feels there will be a dilemma in the City of Boynton Beach with constructing ~0 ft. fences in residen~ tia! areas. He feels te:~is courts add Value~ but they must consider whether someone else's property is being devaiuated~ He thinks close consideration should be given ~ this. ~. Rutter referred to Boynton Beach being a growing City and told about seeing many tennis courts in other ties. He thinks a tennis~court is essential to a family, the same as a swimming pool. It is a hardship to play tennis with a 4 ft. or 6 ft. fence, especially being bordered by water~ ~ Siciliano stated *~* ~ '~ . ~n~.~ he had notnm~_g against playing tennis~ but the point is the peculis~ situation of this property. The property is located at the intersection of MI~TES BOARD OF ~&~DJU~T~NT PAGE T&~ENTT-S IX NOVEMBER 2 8 ~ ~ 977 wo canals~ A fence would oosbruct the view and it ~s_ debatable whether it would be aesthetically pleasing to the other people. He thinks Mr~ Skin, er brought the hardship to the property himself. He thinks it should be resolved in favor of his sister~ Chairman Bailey asked if any correspondence had been re~ ceived and Mr~ Hea!y re~lied negatively. Mr~ Rodriguez stated that it seemed to him that the basic zoning code shouldbe amended by the elected officials to' provide for tennis courts ~ud tennis court fences to take it out of the category of hardship. Mr~ Thompson referred to this being a growing City and stated that it did not mean that this should be allowed~ He referred to several top communities and not seeing tennis courts in residential areas~ Mr. Rutter replied that most lots in Boynton Beach were restricted by the size~ but when people buy a large amount of land for this purpose~ it is different~ He referred to seeing tennis courts in the residential areas of Palm Beach and Manala~ pan~ He thinks it is wonderful for the community to grow that way~ ~ Siciliano stated that there was no question that tennis is a good sport for a comm~uity to adopt~ but there is an ordinance on the books that people rely on~ M~. Rutter stated that he thinks in this situation~ there is ampi~~ room to provide for the neighbors~ The property he is referring to is 50 to ~00 feet away~ This is not the nextdoor neigh~ bor and ~. Siciiiano replied that he thinks it is as close as the nextdoor neighbor could be~ M~. Zimmerman stated that the Board is not concerned about deed restrictions or enforcements~ but he would like to know what the deed restrictions state. Mm~, Sici!iano read the applicable paragraph. Mr~ Tom Sici!iano~ father of Mancy Mrimp~ appeared before the Board and told about Nancy and John Krimp liking fresh water and the naturalness of the area~ but if steel fences are allowed right on the canal~ there must be something wrong with Boynton Beach. The CitY will not grow right. It will not kill or starve them~ but it will affect the ecology and view of that area. It is one of the nicest areas of Boynton Beach~ but if they continue~ maybe every other house will have a ~0 ft~ fence with a screen around it~ Gera_m L okmnn~r appeared before the Board again and told about his next door neighbor having a tennis court already estabiished. He told how it made for good neighbor MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE ~¥EN~-SEVEN ~0VEI~ER 28 ~ 1977 relationships with everyone playing tennis. As far as appro~ val according to the deed restrictions from the Architectural Control Committee~ it came from the builder of his house. A!so~ the fence will probably only be viewed from his house because there will be trees growing all around the fence. He does not want to hurt anyone ~y putting this in. He told ,abOut wanting to have a place for his ~hil~en and their friends to play to establish a home relationship. He told about playing on the City courts ~d how children were kept off the courts by the adults playing. Ample provisions are not made for tennis in BoyntOn Beach. Mr. Thomas Siciliano stated that it was his ~muderstanding from his sister that when the subdivider approved the tennis court~ he did not approve the ~0 ft. fence and they are in agreement with the tennis court~ ~. Skinner informed him that Mr. Nei! Collins did not disapprove of the fence. When he bought the property~ he was told to check with his neighbors about it~ which he did and he did not speak to anyone who did not say they wanted the ~ence~ He told about talking to the neighbors in the area including M~. K ~mp~ who did not object but s~a~ed he had not made up his mind. ~. Rutter referred to there being various types~of fences~ but stated when you come to tennis courts and swimming pools, it is different~ ~ Sici!iano s,ated he was not present when Mr. Skinner ~alked to his brother~in~law, but k~uows that other neigh~ bors did not like the idea, but did not want to get in~ volved~ Mr~ Rutter made a motion that the variance be granted~ seconded by Mrs. Bond. Under discussion~ ~. Rutter stated he considered the use for the fence and to play tennis with a 6 ft. fence is a hardship. ~. Zi~mmerman referred to having two similar applications ~ud stated there were no objections and they were not made aware o£ any deed restrictions~ so this is a little bit different~ He does believe the deed restrictions could be enforced even with giving permission by the people who live there~ ~. Rutter asked how many notices were sent to the people and Chairman Bailey replied that notices were sent to property owners within the 400 ft. radius° ~. Healy then studied the pl~t plan further ~ud reviewed the location of the lots and the tennis court~ He asked if there would be lights on the tennis court and ~. Skinner replied negatively° Chairman Bailey stated he really did not see a hardship involved in this~ bUt feels a person cannot be denied a right somebody else has in the same zoning district. ~. Thompson commented that we have created a dilemma~ Com~ pa~lsOns na~e seen made to other areas, b~t ~t ms a dif~ ferent situation with large acreage, He feels the lot MII'~TES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE T~¥ENTY-E IGHT NOVE~ER 28 ~ ] 977 sizes in Boynton Beach where one is allowed that to have a ]0 ft~ fence will create a hardship on someone~ ~. Zimmer- man asked if the other tennis court in this vicinity has a ~0 ftc fence around it and Mr. Rutter replied affirmatively a~ad added it was ~ oved by this Board. Chairman ammey referred to setting a precedent and suggested considering this in this case. ~. Tom Sici!iano stated that the tennis courts in other areas have been on large acreages of land~ These lots were sold for single family homes and not for tennis courts~ ~:~. Skinner informed him that the tennis court on the lot across the canal from him fronts on Lake Drip'e. It is right on the road a~d not hidden behind the house~ ~t is there for everyone to see driving along. He situated his house so the 'tennis court could be in the rear with lamdscaping around it. Mr. Rodriguez referred to in this situation with being on the water~ the back was actually the desirable side of the house~ ~. Skinner explained how he thought it was more proper to have it in the back yard than in the front where everyone could see it when driving by~ i~. Ward asked how many tennis courts were in this immediate vicinity and Mr. Skinner informed him there were two in Boynton Beach~ counting his~ and ,one in Deir~v Beach. ~h~. Heaty then amended the motion that if this is granted that it be restricted that no lights be placed on it. He thinks it would be more objectionable if it is open in the evening and played under lights. ~. Ward seconded the amendment~ provided the motion is granted. As requested~ ~k~s. Eruse took a roll call vote on the amendment as follows Mr~ Rutter - Aye Mrs~ Bond - Aye Mr. Thompson - Aye ~. Ward ~ Aye M~. Zimmerman - Aye Mro Hea!y ~ Aye R~. Bailey - Aye ~mendment carried 7~0~ As requested~ Mrs~ Yruse then took a roll call vote on the original motion as follows: Mr. Rutter -Aye Mrs. Bond ~ Aye ~'~. Thompson - No M~. Ward ~ No ~'. Zimmerman - No ~o Heaiy ~ Aye ~. Bailey ~ Aye Variance denied 4~3. Chairman Bailey announced that the City ordinance requires five af~zrmatmve votes to be mn favor to grant a variance. ML%~J TES BOARD OF ADJUST~_v~NT PAGE ~ENTY~NINE NOVE~ER 2 8, ~ 977 Parcel #~ - Lots 5, 6 and 7, Pine Crest Ridge Recorded in Plat Book 24~ Page 753 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 40 ft. rear setback re- quirement to $7.5 rear setback Relief from20 ft. side setback re~ quirement to 4~3 ft. side setback to enlarge screen enc!osure~ Address ~ 123~t29 S~ W. 26th Avenue Applicant - Frank E. Kucera ~ Healy read the above application and the reason to build an enclosure for an orchid greenhouse since the plants are presently outside a~d being eaten by roaches~ ~. Frank E. Kucera~ 129 S. W. 26th Avenue, appeared before the Board a:ad advised that this was a two story apartment complex~ His hobby is raising orchids and they are at the mercy of the insects and wind and he would like to bring them inside° ~. Rutter stated that he visited the site and referred to it looking like a confused situation and asked if the shed was temporary and Mr. Yucera replied affirmatively and added that he believed this would be fa_~ more attractive~ 6~airman Bailey asked if it would be just a screen room and Mr. !i~Kucera replied affirmatively. Chairman Bailey questioned the rear setback requirement on a screen enclo- sure for a swi~ing pool and ~. Keehr informed him it was 8 ft. Chair~n Bailey referred to the side setback and ~. Keehr informed him it would be the same as for the Struc~ ture and would be 20 ft. in this case. Chairman Bailey clarified ~ ~ ~a~ the requirements were based on a multi- family zoning. ~. Zi~merman referred to there being a screened porch there already being used for orchids and ~. Kucera agreed and added that he needed additional room. M~ Zimmerman questioned the size and ~. Eucera explained that the existing one was ~0 x 14 ft. and he was proposing a "L shaped extension approximately 18 x 24 ft. Mrs. Bond asked if the portion next door would be extended and Kucera replied that it would not since they are separated by a wail. Mm~s~ Bond questioned what was located in the res~ and Mr. Kucera informed her there were single family dwellings and advised that he had talked to both neighbors and because of the height of the hedge~ it will not be visible to them and they had no objections. ~s. Bond referred to the tem~ porary structure and M_~. Eucera replied that it was inade- quate in many ways and would be removed. ~. Rutter asked if the orchids were for business or hobby and Mr. Kucera replied they were definitely a hobby. MINUTES BOARD OF AD~WJST~,]ENT ?AGE TH ZRTY NOVEMBER 28~ ~ 977 Chairman Bailey asked if anyone waiated to speak in favor of this ~' ~ ap~mcatmon and received no response. He asked if any~ one wanted to speak in opposition and received no response° Mm. Ward made a motion to grant the variance, seconded by Mm. Rutter. No discussion~ As requested, ~s. ~Kruse~ took a roll call vote on the motion as follows~ ~. Rutter Mms. Bond ~@. Thompson Mr. Ward Mr. Zimmerman Mr. Healy [~. Bailey Aye Aye No, because it is not a hardship. Aye Aye Aye Motion carried 5~2. Parcel #4 - N ½ of Reserved Tract lying W of Lots 3] & 32~ Coquina Cove Recorded in Plat Book 24, Page ]4 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 25 ft. front setback quirement to ]8½ ft. front setback to add additional bedroom and breakfast nook. Address ~ 620 Ocean Inlet Drive Applicant - Fran~mlin B~ Green Healy read the above application and also a letter from Franklin B~ Green requesting ~. Richard P. Marks, Gen- eral Contractor, to act in his behaif~ announced he would abstain on this and requested Rodriguez to take his ptac, e~ l~k~o Healy then read the reason for the application was that this addition would not protrude any ~r~r thmu the buitd~ lng and additional room was needed for company~ Chairman Bailey showed the plans to the members. [~ Richard Marks~ 634 Ocean Inlet Drive~ appeared before the Board and advised that ~t~h~. Green would like to add a bedroom and breakfast room on the front of his house. It Will not protrude any more than the existing building. It was originally built ]8½~. ~rom~ the _~ine and he would just like to close in the "L"~ ~. Rutter asked if the garage would always be a garage and ~h~. Marks replied affirmatively. Mr. Thompson clarified that all he was asking for was one bedroom and den and Mm~. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~T PAGE TH!RTY~ ONE NOVE~ER 28~ ~977 M~rks agreed that this is what was proposed~ Mr. Rodriguez asked when the people acquired the property and Mr~ Marks replied that he believed it was in ~ 973~ P~. Rodriguez asked if the present zoning was existing then a~ud' Mr. Marks replied that he believed so~ P~. Thompson stated that at ~8½ ft.~ it would not protrude any f~ther and Mr~ Marks agreed and stated it would be in line with the existing line of the house as built. Mr~ Rodrigue~ referred to the location of the garage and the new addition and pointed out that the new addition seemed to be closer to the road~ The members studied the plan and roughly measured the distance and expressed agreement to ~.. POdriguez's point~ Mro Marks requested amending it to match the 'existing structure~ Cha~man Bailey asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of this application and received no response° He asked i£ anyone wanted to speak in opposition and received no re~ sponseo They then discussed further the difference in the setbacks and M~. Marks explained how they just used the survey in preparing the pla~. M~. Rodriguez pointed out that the front line of the garage was established and explained how the addition would be in line with that~ ?~. Rodriguez made a motion to amend the application for this variance request to request the variance to be granted for the necessary addition following the front line of the existing garage a distance of ~4~i~ 7" in a southwesterly distance~ seconded by ~s~ Bond~ Chairman Bailey ascer- tained this was satisfactory with Mr. Marks and M~~. Keehr~ Motion carried 7~0~ Chairman Bailey announced that itwas now in order to approve or deny the application as amended~ Mm~ Thompson moved that the ~ariance be granted~ seconded by ~o Rutter. No discus~ sion~ As requested~ I~s~ ~ruse took a roll call vote on the motion as follows: ~ Rutter Mrs. Eond ~. Thompson M~. Rodriguez ~ Zimmerman Mr. Hea!y Mr~ Bailey Aye Aye Aye No~ being consistent with the position of a hardship~ No Aye Aye Motion carried 5~2~ BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT P~GE THIRTY-~ 0 NOVEM~BER 28, ~ 977 ADJ OURN~NT ~. Mutter made a motion to adjourns seconded by ~rs. Bond. Motion carried 7-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 11~15 P~ M~ Respectfully submitted Suzanne M~ I~ruse ~ecording Secretary (Four Tapes ) GENE MOORF LAWYE~ SUITE I8, OCEAN PLAZA 640 EAST OCEAN AVENLIE ~OYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA 33435 TELEPHONE ~305} 734-242A N4AiL~NG ADDRESS= p. O. BOX 910 November 18, 1977 Edgar E. Howell, Building Official City of Boynton Beach P. O. Box 310 Boyn~on Beach, Florida 33435 Re: George Culver / Two Georges Pursuant to your request, I have reviewed actions taken by the Board of Adjustment in connection with the above matter. It would appear that the intent of th% variance granted by the Board to Mr. Cutver to tear down and rebuild the building in question on December 13, !976/carried with it a requirement that the parking problem be resolved in connection with_ the rebuilding plan. The fact that the final action taken by the Board was to deny the parking variance would appear to result in their original · action being also nullified. If the Board, in fact, intended for the additional parking requirement not to be interlocked with the original variance authorizing demolition and re- constructipn of subject building, Mr. Culver would be faced with the end result of not being allowed to utilize the rebuilt buildin~ for its intended purpose, inasmuch as the City could not issue an occupational license to him without the required parking spaces being available, or the Board ultimately granting a variance to reduce required parking spaces. _One solution might be for Mr. Culver to purchase or lease ad- ditional required parking spaces in the immediate area pursuan~ to the terms of our Ordinances. In the meantime, unless the Board of Adjustment desires to clarify its position that'it did not intend for the original variance to be interlocked with the parking requirement, it would appear tha~ the existing building permit should be voided. ~ GM:~m Derle Bailey, Chairman Board of Adjustment GENE MOORE, City Attorney November 8, 1977 City of Boynton Beach Zoning Board of Adjustment Boynton Beach~ FL 33435 Gentlemen: Re: Warren George 600 Lake Side Harbor This is the third letter I have written giving reasons for rejection of Mro George's request for a variance for relief from 20' rear set back to a 6' 2" rear setback° As I stated in the other letters concerning ~rior hearings, a precedent could be set should this pass w~ick~'~ be ~detrimental to the property owners~ including myself~ as to invasion df privacy and the resale value of our otherwise valuable property. Again I strongly object° Very truly yours, n J. Barici 63]. Las Patmas Park Boynton Beach, FL 33435