Loading...
Minutes 10-24-77MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF~ ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, MONDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1977 AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT Derle B. Bailey, Chairman David W. Healy, Secretary Walter B. Rutter Foy Ward Carl Zimmerman Ben Adelmam, Alternate Charles Rodriguez, Alternate Bob Donovan, City Plan Checker ABSENT Vernon Thompson, Jr Mrs. Lillian Bend o, Vice Chairman (Excused) (Excused) Chairman Bailey called the meeting' to order at 7:00 P. M. and introduced the members of the Board~, the Building Depart- ment Representa%ive, and Recording Secretary, Minutes ~of Sept. ember 26.,~ 1977 N~. Ratter referred to receiving a letter from Mr. Clarence L. Olark regarding the mina~es and stated he did mot k~ow if the minutes coal~ be accepted as read with no changes with such a letter having been received. Mr. Healy replied that the letter just calls ear attention to what N~. Thompso~ said and there is nothing wrong as far as the mimutes are concerned. Everything as stated is in the minutes. Mr. Ward questioned the status of this application now and Mr. Healy replied that the status of this application at the pre- sent ~me is status quo and it can be bromght up by the appli- cant or this Board. A motion was made for ~o further comsid- eration at that meeting. He thinks consideratioa cam be taken ap at amy meeting when desired. Chairmam Bailey announced ~hat the maim thing was approval ef the mimutes and this application could be ~i~.cmssed under Old Business and at that time, the members may come to a~ agreement and request the City Clerk to send Mr. Clark a letter advising him of o~ interpretation of his position at this time. ~. Healy moved for approval of the mimutes as read, seconded by Mr.. Rutter. No discussiom. Motion carried 7-0. Correspondence Mr. Healy read a letter from City Manager Fra~Kohl advisimg that the annual Board dinner would be held at Bernard,s en Thursday, December 15. It also requested if the Board de- -~ s~re$ to si~ together to please advise Mr. John P. Jameson, MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE T~0 OCTOBER 24, 1 977 Chairman of the Commuaity Promotions Board. After discassioa, ~. Healy moved to motify Mr. Jameson that we would all like te sit together, seconded by Mr. Zimmerman. Motioa carried 7-0, Mr. Healy requested the Chairman to write Mr. Jameson a letter and Chairmam Bailey replied that Mr. Jamesoa was his neighbor amd he will advise him. Mr. Healy them read a letter from Mr~ Clarence L. Clark re- gardimg the Warren George Petitioa disc~sed at the last meeting and requesting this petitioa to be tabled and the minates not be approv'ed with the Wice Chairmam's statement. Chairmaa Bailey suggested clarifying to ~. Cls~k the Board's actiom. Ne thinks the words the Vice Chairman used gave Mr. Clark an impression, but he thinks Mr. Thompsoa meant to with- draw consideration. Mr. Ward disagree~ with this interpreta- tion and stated ~hat only Mr. Thompsoa could clarify this. Mr. Adelmamstated that Mr. Zimmermam's motiom was stated plaimly to withdraw censideratioa ~til brought up agaia a~d ~airmam Bailey agreed. Mr~ Healy explained how am original motion was made followed ~y a~ amendmen~ and there was~ dis- cnssion abomt the statements ma~e at the meeting. Ohairma~ Bailey then asked if the members thought the minutes were clear er if there was the feeling something mus~ be changed to rectify Mr. Clark's positiom~ Mr. Ratter replied that the miautes are clear, but Mr. Clark is under the impres- siom that this was to be tabled. Mr. Healy suggested postpeaing this until after hearing the cases before the Board, as he thins there will be a lengthy discussio~ on this. N~. Rutter suggested writing a letter to Mr. Clark telling him that he should follow the necessary pro- cedure and go to the proper Boards as discussed at the meet- ing. Mr. Healy replied that he thinks the Board is coafused and he is smre Mr. Clark is~confused. He thinks we should take some time to discuss this and let Mr. Clark kaow his exact positioa by mail, but it will take further discussion. Mr. Ward made a motion to ,e~ with ~he regular order of business, seconded b~Mr. Motio~ carried 7-0. .Public Nearing Parcel #2 - Lots ~3 & 48, Harbor Estates Recorded in Plat Book 21, Page 98 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 25 ft. front property line setback requirement ~o 20 ft. froat property lime setback, to build mew residemce Address - 848 East Drive Applicant - Paul Mcbride MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE THREE OCTOBER 24, 1977 Mr. Healy read the above applicatiom. Chairman Bailey asked if anyone was present representing Mr. McBride. Chairmam Bailey referred to only having a survey with a site pla~ at- tached to the application° Mr. Paul McBride, 652 South Road, appeared before the Board. He stated that he has combine~ Lots 13 and 48 as one and would like relief as stated. There will mot be amy ether variances required.. All the lots are small. Since the area in the front is usually taken up with a circular driveway and parking, he would prefer the extra 5 ft. in the back yard. The lot is 100 ft. deep and the seawall takes part ortho back yard. Mr. Rutter asked if he was going to live in this home and Mr. McBride replied affirmatively and added that he has owned the lot for 20 years and is finally able to build. He submitted the plans te the Board members to review. They discussed the rear setback and Mr. McBride explained there would be 13 feet less the seawall from the edge ef the pool. Ne stressed that the additional 5 feet would make a lot of difference and give a much nicer back yard. Mr. Healy questiemed the neighbor's setback and ~. McBride informed him it was 25 feet, but he has no objectiom. Also, the neighbor has built right to the line in the rear, but he would like some room in the rear. Mr. Zimmermam asked if there was a bulkhead te ~he east of his lot and Mr. McBride replied affirmatively and advised that it was practically in mow and showed the seawall plam. Mr~ Zimmerman asked if it was right on the property lime and Mr. McBride replied that it was ~ot as about 7 feet of the seawall comes im~to his property as there is an 8 feet base. He explaimed that with taking off this additional 7 .~. for the seawall, it made it pretty narrow but would be better with the variance. Mr. Ward asked how much land there would be from the screen enclosure to the back property line and F~. McBride replied that there would be 32 feet to the line. Mr. Healy asked if there was a seawall in the rear of his lot amd M~. McBride informed him there would be a seawall ~m the east and north. Mr. Healy asked if this would be em the property line and Mr. McBride explained that it would be the same situation as the other one with being 7 ft. en h&s property. Mr. Rodriguez asked if this meant the edge of the seawall would begat the edge of the patio and pool a~d Mr. McBride replied that it would be very close, but with the 5 ft. variance, he would not have amything to worry abomi. Mr. Rodriguez asked if the rear patio would have to be dimimished if he did not get the variance and Mr. McBride replied: yes, as it would be right to it, as the pool is 15 ft. wide. He explained how it would be crowded even with the 5 £t. ~ariance since it is a shallow lot~ MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE FOUR OCTOBER 24, 1977 Chairman Bailey asked if the seawall was a special design for that terrain and ~. Mcbride replied that it was and added that it was approved by the City and Corps of Engi- meers. Chairman Bailey asked if it was the only type which would work and Mr~ Mcbride replied: no, but it is the only kind he would trust and he told about ~evious damage from winds. They then further discussed the setbacks. Me. Ward referred to the house projecting ou~ from the house next door and M~. Mcbride explained how his lot had water on the east and north, a street o~ the west, and a house on the south. Mr. Healy referred to there being another home in this area and questioned the setback and M~. Mcbride replied that it was 25 ft. ~. Healy clarified that his house would be the only house im the area set back 20 ft. amd Mr. Mcbride imformed him there was on~ other house with a 20 ft. se~back. Chairman Bailey asked if amyone else desired to speak in favor of this petitiom and received no response. He the~ asked if anyone wanted to speak in oppositiom and received no respomse. Mr. Healy added that no correspondence had been received per~ taiming to this application. Mr. Rutter made a motio~ that the variance be granted, seconded by Mr. Adelmam. Under discussion, Mr. Healy stated that he did take a look at this and doesn't approve of one home being set f~rther front than the next. He feels an ordimance was passed by the City Co~u~cil to give people more room in the front of their homes. Because this is~an ordimamce of the City, it is very important. Although 5 feet does not so~umd like much, it sometimes can look like 45 ft. when projected out in front of a neighbor,s home. He does not mind ~ ft., but 5 ft. is quite a bit. Mr. MCBride informed him that his omly neighbor, Mr. Gill,is happy about this because it will give him a better view out to the water with his house setting front. Mr. Rutter stated they must consider when a neighbor is being denied of sunshime, circulation of air or view, but this is just a sparse nei housesand possibly only two other people would be a~ There are no other homes which will look umsi~ This is his reason for granting the ~ariance. We are ~ the Board of Adjustment an~ even though zoning amd lawsare set up b~y the City, there must be room for this Board to function. Mr. Zimmerman stated he thought there could~possibly be a ~ifferent design of the pool and house so it would fit with~ in the code without a v~riance. No advantage has been takem Lot 48 is entirely vacant canal. M~. Mcbride informed him thatthere was a 16 fto inset on the dock which comes to the corner of his house. Mro Zimmermam referred to the draw~ ing showing a side setback of 37.67 feet and ~. Mcbride formed him that this was to the line, ~ut he will only have a MI~TES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE F I~E OCTOBER 24, 1977 little less than 30 ft. when the seawall is in. AlSo, it would be impossible to build a circmlar drive with moving the ho~se further east. Mr. Rutter asked if Mr. Zimmerma~was suggesting that the home be reduced in size and Mr. Zimmerman replied that it possibly could be redesigned. ~. Mcbride stated that it has bee~ designed to take advantage ef the view to the north and east. If the homse were te be moved £arther to the east, it would cut off the view for the people across the street. The neighbors are happy he is staying to the south end. There also is a t5 ft. setback required on the south, it is a two story house, so it is not large om the ground. Mr. Rodriguez stated he was concerned with the requirement that the applicant should not self-cause the problem to be dealt with~ There seems to be a choice of design which could alleviate the situation. Possibly there could be a~ alter- hate seawall, but only the desi~ is accepted which cuts imto the property. Mr~ Mcbride referred to the design of the con- ventional type seawall possibly holding, but there is a ~ues- tion because of the soil plus it wo~ld cost more tha~ the house. The seawall planned ha~ been engineered by am expert and approved by the engineers an~ will hold there. In this area, there are very strong wakes from the large boats. Mr. Rodriguez clarified that it was not quite the capricious choice, but based on necessity and Mr~ Mcbride agreed. He stressed agaim that this would be the b.est use of the lot and does not interfere with anyone. The~e have been no ob- jections. The ~eighbors have built out to the water far~her tha~ he has with their houses and have gotten variances. His ~iew i~' cut off to the south. His other neighbor will have a better view with him ~eing ~orwardo It is the best use of the lot. Mr. Ward asked if he knew of a~y neighbors having any troubl~ with the typical seawall and Mr. Mcbride replied that they built theirs like his so it would holdo He ~aw the other one go out. Mr. Zimmerma~ asked if the neighbor had a pool and Mr. Mcbride replied affirmatiwely. Mr. Zimmerman clarified that the other home was a~le to ~uild at the right setbacks and Mr. Mcbride agreed but informed him that the pool is o~ the line and he would like to have a little room in the rear. M~. Ward questioned the requirements for a screem enclosure o~ the rear property line and Mro Donovan informed him an 8 ft. setback would be required. Mr. Mcbride stated that it would be an eden pool with a covered porch, but he could screen it in the future being 8 ft. from the line~ Mr. Donovan clarified that a porch requires 25 ft. and a pool requires 8 ft. Chairman Bailey stated that if the house were moved back 5 ~t., he would lose 5 ft. of the patio and M~. Mcbride stated MINUTES BOARD OF~ ADJUSTMENT PAGE SIX OCTOBER 24, 1977 that it would crowd things a lot just like his neighbor's. The neighbor,s is built right on the rear line and he got a variance, but he would like room in the rear as it is the most desirable part of his property. Cha~rma~ Bailey clari- fied that if he does get a variance, the patio will come te the seawall and Mr. McBride replied that it would be very close. He explained how there would still be more than 8 ft. from the line even with the pool being 15 ft. at its wi~est point. Chairman Bailey referred to possibly r~ing into problems and Mr. McBride explained the plan further. Chair- man Bailey stated that the pool must be se far from the foun- dation and F~. Denovam stated that it must be 8 ft. om the deep end and 5 ft. on the shallow end from the foundation° Chairman Bailey pointed out that he would not be able to put the deep end 8 ft. fromtthe foundation and Mr. McBride ex- plained how he could put it to the south and he was sure there was enough room even though crowded with the 5 ft. variance. Mr. Ward referred to there being 28 ft. from the pool to the property line and Chairman Bailey agreed. Mr. Ward stated that he was concerned about the property line and Chairman Bailey stated he was concerned about not jamming everything in and having room betweem the seawall and pool. Mr. McBride explained how there was actually ~2 fto from the pool to the property line and mot 28 ft. Mr. Adelmsu~ stated that from the description given and his observatio~ of the property, he does not think anyone will be hurt with granting a variance. Nobody has appeared or written and he thinks it should be granted. As requested, N~s. Kruse then took a roll call vote on the motion as follows: Mr. Rodriguez - Aye Mr. Rutter - Aye N~. War~ - Aye, with the understanding there were no objections. Mr. Adelman - Aye Mr. Zimmerman - No Mr. Healy - No Mr. Bailey - Aye Motion carried and variance granted Parcel #1 - Lots 4,5,6,7, &~8 less N 40 ft. of Lot 4 & E 17 ft. of Lots 4,5,-6,7, & 8, Blk. ~, Lake Additiom Recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 71 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 100 ft. lot depth require- ment to 82.85 ft. lot depth, to comstruct a commercial building for occupancy of gift shop and fruit display. MINUTES BOARD 07 ADJUSTMENT PAGE SEVEN OCTOBER 24, 1977 Address - 1001 NOrth Federal Highway Applicant -Frank Strazmulla Mr. Healy read the above application. Chairma~ Bailey asked if a~one was present representing Mr. Strazzulla. Mr. Arthur Barrow, Attorney, 324 Royal Palm Way, Palm Beach, appeared before the Board and advised that he was represent- ingMro Frank Strazzulla, owner of this property. He stated that this property is located several blocks north of the center of town on the west side of Federal Highway. He told about the property and businesses in this area. This is vacant property. Mr. Strazzulla bought the property with the intention of pmtting in a fruit shop and was told when he bought it by Mr. Jack Barrett with the City that he would be able to do it, but now is unable to because t00 ft. depth is required. He wants to use this property. It has always been vacant. In its present condition, it is no use to him at all and it is no use to the City sitting vacant. He thimks it would be an advantage to both parties, Mr. Straz- zulla and the City, if he were able to use it. He think~ the business would mpgrade that area. He think~ the fruit business would be an asset. He then showed the plans to the members and explained them. He added that the lot is 209 ft. wide and there is ample space for the building a~d parking. Mr. Rodriguez asked if the bmilding would be centered on the praperty and Mr. Barrow explained the plans to put the build= img at one end and the parking at the other because there is an easement through the property~ Chairman Bailey stated that he researched this and according to the code, ~00 ft. depth is required to build on C-4 pro- perty and this property does not have it. If the variance is granted, all regulations and setbacks must be met and it would be a depth variance on the lot. ~. Barrow agreed and stated they would abide by all ordinancesand amy provi- sions of this Board. Chairman Bailey clarified that the only thimg being applied for was a variance on the depth of the property to use it and Mr~ Barrow replied affirmatively. Mr.. R~drig~ez referred to the petition stating that it was formerly zomed C~2 and questioned when it was changed and Chairman Bailey replied im June, 1975. Mr. R~driguez asked if it was before Mr. Strazzulla purchased it and Chairman Bailey informed him that it was purchased in 1974o Mr. Rodriguez asked if a variance would be necessary mnder C-2 and ~. Strazzulla informed him that he was told by Mr. Jack Barrett that the property was C-2 when he purchased it, but it would be changed to C-4 and he would be allowed to do everything. However, now he is told he ca~not do it. He explained how he just wanted to have a small machine for washing the fruit, package the fruit ~nd have a gift house. MIb~TES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE EIGHT OCTOBER 24, 1977 Chairman Bailey the~ consulted the old code and advised that C-2 required a certain number of square footage and ~ot a certain depth. Mr. Rodriguez asked if the change te benefited this intended use and Chairman Bailey replied that he thimks it did because under C-2, the machine would not be allowed; but render C-4, it could be used. Mr. Rodriguez clarified that he got a beneficial use, but mow has a lot size problem. Chairman Bailey asked if C-4 was an additional zoning in 1~75 and Mr. Ward replied that he thinks it was. ~ Riedriguez asked if C-4 came about because of this appli- cation and Chairman Bailey replied that he thinks C-2 was the highest density commercial use previously. Mr. R~tter stated that if this had not been changed and remained C-2, there would not have been a problem and Mr. Ward replied that the machinery may be limited under C-2. Mr, Redriguez asked if the applicant applied for C-4 or was it imposed and Mr. Rutter replied that it was impose~ and Mr. Healy added that the whole City was rezo~ed i~ I975. Mr. Healy then asked if the eastern 17 ft. had ~een taken by the highway and Mr. Barrow replied that he was not s~re, but it does look like it was taken for the wide~ing of Federal Highway. Mr. Healy pointed out that it would have been 100 ft. with this 17 ft. ~. Z±~merman asked if the business was ~uilt either to the north orsouth of the easement, would it be possible to locate another business on the other end at another time or could the property be divided and sold and Mr. Donovan replied: yes, because the minimum lot frontage required is 50 ft. Mr. Zimmerman suggested that if a variance is granted that it indicate that it is for this business only and not the entire property. F~. Ward stated that the only thing to be considered was the variance for the depth of this lot, but a stiDulation could be included that all setback reqmirements must be met. Chairman Bailey then asked if they intende~ to use the entire piece of property or sell some of the property and Mr. Bamrow replied that they planned to use the entire property f~0r the ~usiness and parking. ¥~. Rodriguez asked if it would be possible for the variance to cover parking and Chairman Bailey replied that if a variance is granted, pamking mu~t he provided as required. Mr. Rodriguez asked if it would be appropriate to require additiomal ~der the Chairman Bailey replied that he didn't he does not think we can extend ourselves beyond the City regulations.~ Mr. Rodriguez referred to the possibility of some of the land being sold and suggested limiting he application to the parcels he intends to use and Chairma~ Bailey replied that at this time, they are ask- ing for use of the land. Plans must be submitted to the Building Department, but the depth must be relieved first. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJ~STMENT PAGE NI~FE OCTOBER 24, 1977 Chairman Bailey stated that this Board is not concerned with the parking or building. Mr. Healy stated that we have the power to put in a stipulation and could state the variance was only granted to this owner and if he decided to sell off two lots, this variance would not apply. Chairman Bailey· agreed this could be done or the variance apply to the lets in their entirety° He explained how in situations like this with two separate lots, the Building Department may want a unity of title. Mr. Barrow informed the Board that the intention and desire is to use this property for this one business, the building and parking. He assumes when Mr. Strazzulla goes to the Building Department and submits plans, the parking must be shown and the Building Official can show where the building and parking should be. Mr. Healy stated that the Board's concern is that the lots may not all be necessary for this building and parking. Mr. Barrow replied that the building will not take up the entire 209 ft. and the rest will be used for parking. Mr. Redriguez clarified that it would not be incumbent upon him to use all the space so there will be some space left for an alternate use. ~. Barrow replied that he understoo~ and stressed that M~o ~trazzullm ~oes not plan to sell any of it and they can put any applicable provision on it they desire to protect the City. The property is a waste now and ~. Strazzulla just wants to mse it. Chairman Bailey asked if anyone desired to speak in favor of this application and received no response. He then asked if anyone wanted to spe~k in opposition and received no response. Mr. Healy added that no correspondence had been received~ Mr~ Healy moved for the approval of this application for the variance with the restriction that it ~e given to the appli~ cant only and to no other owner. Mr. Ward seconded the motion° Under discussion, Mr. Healy referred to this being an awkward piece of property and he believes there was 100 ft. at one time and the highway took 17 ft. and now it does ~ot con£orm to the present code. As long as three to four lots are going to be used, he is sure a presentable building will be built for Boy, ton Beach. Mr. Rodriguez referred to the zoning being ch~uged by the City and the property not being able to be used without a varianee and stated with the stipulation, he is in agreement. ~s requested, Mrs. Kruse then took a roll call vote on the motion as follows- Mr. Rodriguez - Aye Mr. Rutter - Aye Mr. Ward - Aye Mr. Adelman - Aye Mr. Zimmerman - Aye Mr. Healy - Aye ~. Bailey - Aye Motion carried MINUTES BOARD 0F AD~J~STMENT PAGE TEN OCTOBER 24, 1977 OLD BUSINESS Mr. Ward referred to the Warren George application and sug- gested finding out where we stand. Chairman Bailey stated that as far as the letter received from Mr. Clark, he feels this is on hold until the Planning & Zoning Board does some- thing and then he can come back before this Board as le~E as everyone is notified. Mr. Ward asked if another application would have to be filed and Chairman Bailey replied that he thought there could be a rehearing after the Planning & Zoning. Board takes action. Mr. Ward stated that the applica- tion was actually tabled then and Chairman Bailey disagreed in that if it was tabled, the application could come off the table at any time, but the action the Board took left it open for a rehearing so every interested party could be notified. rM. Healy referred to Mr. Zimmerman's motion being very clear and 'referred to the discussion in the mimutes about the motion and application. Chairman Bailey asked if it would behoove the Board to go ahead since we withdrew consideration at that time, maybe we should put something together now to permit Mr. Clark to have a rehearing to correct the error we made in withdrawing consideration. rM. Healy requested Mr. Zimmerman to clarify his motion and ~M. Zimmerman stated that the motion was to withdraw consid- eration of this case until such time that it is presented to the Board again. Mr. Ward asked in what manner it should be brought before the Board and would the man have to refile and Pr. Zimmerma~ replied that he did not know what the Build- ing D~ regulations are. He thinks he should ha%,e the to present the case after appearing before the g & Zoning Beard at no cost. Chairman Bailey replied that this is up to us and we must tell the man whether he can do this. Mr. Zimmerman stated that if an additional motion was needed to clarify it, he is sure it would satisfy F~. Clark. Chairman Bailey stated that M~. Clark requested it to be tabled, but if we do that, we ~en't be letting the interested parties kaow when it will be coming off the table. Mr. Adelman asked if ¥~. Clark was told everyone would have to be noti~d again and Chairman Bailey replied that it was mentioned, But not fully understood. Chairman Bailey suggested that a motion could be ma~e to allow the Warren George case to be reheard at a future date with no charge and notification to the interested parties. ~. Rutter questioned the density and Chairman Bailey re- plied that it must Be straightened out before coming back to us. MINUTES BOARD OF AD~.~USTMENT PAGE E -L~EN OCTOBER 24, 1977 Mr. Healy moved to call the case of Warren George back for continuation of consideration at the next meeting. Mr. Ward suggested adding or at smch time N~! George desires to bring it up and Mr. Healy replied that he thinks we should bring it up. Mr. Adelm~ asked if Mr. Clark would be ready and Healy replied that it was not our concer~ and we have the right to bring it back. He should be notified for the next meeting. Mr. Zimmerman questioned the advantage of this and Mr. Healy replied that the case is not complete and it must be either approved or disapproved. Mr. Adelman referred to waiting for a report from the other Board and Mr. Healy re- plied that the case is pending and has not been moved in any way except not to consider it furthers Mr. Rutter questioned the grounds to consider it at the next meeting and ~. Healy replied that it would be under the same grounds as previously and a vote must be taken either to approve or disapprove. Mr. Adelmam s~ggested waiting until the applicant is ready and questioned why a date should be set without a ruling and Mr. Healy replied that he was not concerned with the ruling. Mr~ Adelma~ referred to there being a zoning ordinance on whic~ a variance canmot be granted and Mr. Healy replied that this was new e~idence by the Building Department and he thinks we ar the case. Mr. Rutter stated that the Board did hear the case and there was thorough discussion, but no conclusion and ~. Healy replied that it~should be con- tinued. Mr. Rutter then seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mr. Rutter clarified that we spent over omc hour on this applicatiom previously and could not come to any decision feeling we did not have the authority or power to make a decision~ He referred to Mro Zimmerman making a motion to wait for a decision umtil obtaining approval from the other Board. Mr. Adelma~ referred to Mr. Healy's remarks at the last meeting that the new evidence should be considered and Mr. Healy agreed that it must be considered, but a vote must also be taken on the petition. Mr. Adelman stated he thinks it is foolish to set a ~ate two weeks from tonight with not having the information and Mro Healy questioned what infor- mation~ Mr. Adelman referred to sending Mr. Clark to the Planning & Zoning Board and M~. Healy replied that we did not send him back, but e~idence was brought Chairman Bailey clarified that Mr. Healy's motion was plain and clear - he is requesting this application to be brought up at the next meeting and dispose of it one way or the other~ ~&r. Rodriguez stated that since he did not know anything about this case, he thinks he should abstain unless his vote is needed and Chairman Bailey replied that being a member, he must serve whether familiar with the case or not and briefly explained the case to him. ~. Rodriguez asked if the density had a bearing on the variance sought and Chairman MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTF~I~ PAGE TWELVE OCTOBER 24, 1977 Bailey replied: no, a variance was sought on the setback, but the Building Department would not issue a permit because of the density. Mr. Rodriguez clarified that the setback could be resolved even though the density is notresolved. Mr. Zimmerma~ referred to Mr. Clark's letter requesting the matter to be tabled until approvm~ is obtained from the Planning & Zoning Board and stated that if this motion is passed, we would not be satisfying Mr. Clark's wishes. He does not see the purpose to bring it up. It is not to our advantage or Me. Clark's desire. ~. Rutter replied that we could vote on the variance and let the other Board worry about the density. Chairma~ Bailey stated he did not think this should be tabled because it could be removed from the table at any time when the applicant or interested parties are not present. He does not think it should come up at the next meeting because Mr. Clark will not be given time to straighten out the problems. He feels the motion on the floor would not be acceptable under the circumstances. Mr. Ward referred to him abstaining o~ this case all the way through and Chairman Bailey explained that he thought he could participate in this vote because it is an administrative issue. Mr~ Ward stated that it was still pertinent to the variance and Chairman Bailey replied that he thought it was an administrative problem and thinks he can help straighten it out without granting or denying the vari- Mr. Healy referred to this Board being quasi-judicial branch and stated that we must do something about this case. Mr. Adelman replied that he thinks the applicant has a certain right and he requested a continuance of time. Mr. Healy re- plied that it was not requested at the meeting. ~. Adelman commented he thought we would be going beyond fairness. M~. Healy stated that according to the motion passed, we can bring it up and he thinks this must be done with a decision being made. Mr. Rodriguez asked if it was tabled if the opposition would be adequately advised and Chairman Bailey explained that they would only be notified for a rehearing. Mr. Rutter suggested going along with Mr. Healy's motion and starting all over again. Mr. Adelman replied that he did not think two weeks was enough time for the applicant to get things done. Chairman Bailey referred to only havingameetings when notified by mail and Mr. Healy clarified that this appli- cation would be added at the next meeting. As requested, Mrs. Kruse then took a roll call vote on the motion as follows: MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE THIRTEEN OCTOBER 24, t977 Mr. Rodriguez - Aye~ with the idea this might clear up the situation Fro. Rutter - Aye Mr. Ward - Aye Mr. Adelman - Ne Mr. Zimmerman - Ne Mr. Healy - Aye ~. Bailey - Ne Motion carried 4-3. (Administrative decision) Pk. Healy then made a motion that the Chairman notify the City Clerk that we have asked for this petition to be brought back before the Board again and to notify all parties con- cerned, seconded by M~r. Rutter. Under discussion, Mr. Rodri- guez asked if it would be for a certai~ date or just notifi- cation that the Board has taken this action and Fr. Healy re- plied that it would be for the next called meeting. Motion carried 7-0. (Chairman Bailey requested ¥~s. Padgett to phone him about this..) Fern Regarding variances Chairman Bailey distributed a form submitted by the Building Official for the members' review. He explained Mr. Howell's suggestion to have this form to be signed and given to the person applying for a variance. He stated that if it meets with the Board's approval, we will start using it. Mr. Rutter made a motion to approve the form, seconded by Mr. Zimmerman. Under discussion, M~. Healy stated he thought we should discuss the form with the City Attorney first in regards to it being a legal document. M~. Zimmerman informed him it would be for the use of the Building Department only an~ would stay within the City. Mr. Donovan agreed an~ clari- fied that something was needed to know a variance was granted to keep with the plans. Mr. Ward stated that the only way he would go along with it would be to have it completed and read before the meeting was adjourned. Mr. Healy referred again to it possibly being considered a legal document which could be filed in the court house. He thinks the form must be approwed by the City Attorney first. When the form is made out, it should be signed by the Chairman and every mem- ber of the Board and be submitted to the City Clerk to be forwarded to the Building Department. ~m. Rutter explained how it was actually just a memo and Mr. Rodriguez referred to the possibility of it being used officially beyond the limits of the Building Department. M~. Zimmerman referred to the correctness in completing the form and stated there should be some way to control it. M~. Rutter suggested that he could certify it as a notary public. MINUTES BO~RD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE FOURTEEN OCTOBER 24, 1977 Mrl Rodriguez asked if the variances were reduced to writing and certified by the City Clerk and Mr. Zimmerman replied that they were taken from the minutes and added that if the form conflicted with the minutes, he did not think it would have any value. Ms. Rodriguez asked who was the custodian of the minutes and Mr. Ward replied that it was the City Clerk. ~, Rodriguez suggested that the Chairman signs it and the City Clerk certifies it. Mr. Adelman suggested giving it £urther study and making suggestions at the next meeting. He added that possibly the City Attorney could review it also in the meantime, but he doesn't think anything should be resolved now° Mr. Adelman then amended the motion to approve the form at the next meeting. Chairman Bailey ascertained the amendment died for lack of a second. As requested, Mrs~ Eruse then took a roll call vote en the original motion as follows: Mr. Rodriguez - No Mr. Rutter - Aye Mr. Ward - No Mr. Adelman - No Mr. Zimmerman - Aye Mr. Healy - No Mr. Bailey - No Motion failed 5-2. Chairman Bailey anno~ced the form has not been approved and advised that he woald turn it back to the Building Department for further information. ~ A~elma~ made a motiom to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Zimmerman. Motion carried 7-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 9:00 P. M. Respectfully submit ted, Recording Secretary (Twe Tapes)