Loading...
Minutes 09-26-77MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1977 AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT De~le B. Bailey, Chairman Vernon Thompson, Jr., Vice Chairman David W. Healy, Secretary ~Ms. Lillian Bond Walter B. Rutter Foy Ward Carl Zimmerman Ben Adelman, Alternate (Arrived 71:30) Bert Keehr, Asst. Bldg. Official Chairman Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P. M. and introduced the members of the Board, Assistant Building Official and Recording Secretary. M~nutes Mr. Rutter made a motion to accept the minutes as read, seconded by ~. Thompson. Motion carried 5-0 with M~. Healy and Mxo Zimmerman abstaining. PUTM N ~ HEARL,G Chairman Bailey announced that two appliCations had been tabled and tonight, a seven member Board was present to give further consideration to these petitions. ~M. Rutter made a motion that both petitions be withdrawn from the table and heard, seconded by ~. Zimmerman. Under discussion, M~.. Healy stated he believes each petition should be brought up individually. SinCe they are important, he thinks a motion should be made for each one to Be brought up individually and not a motion for both to be brought up at one tim~. M~. Rutter then withdrew his motion and Me. Zimmerman withdrew his second. M~. Thompson moved that the application for M~. Warren George be taken from the table and be brought before the Board at this time, seConded by ~M. Zimmerman. Motion carried 7-0. Re-Hearing on Application submitted by ~. Warren George, 600 Lake Side Harbor, requesting relief from 20 ft. rear setback requirement to 6 ft. 2 in. rear setback to Build new dul~.,....~n ~ine with existin~ du~le~.' M~. Keehr informed the Board that upon further study of this particular site by himself and the City Planner, they dis~ covered iff this petition is grsmted to build this~iduplex, a building permit cannot be issued because there is a density factor to be taken into account on this property, The den- sity there is all that is allowed. No additional units can MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT PAGE TWO SEPTEmbER 26, t 977 be built on the property because of the R-3 zoning density factor~ Consequently, he has been advised by the City Planner that he feels this is a zoning petition which cannot be handled by this Board. It is a zoning ordinance on which there cannot be a variance granted° He wanted the Board to appreciate this fact before discussing this case any further. Chairman Bailey announced he is a property owner within 400 feet of this property and must abstain and turned the peti- tion over to the Vice Chairman~ Mx. Ward asked Mr. Keehr if the applicant was informed of this situation when he submitted the application and ~. Eeehr replied: no, at that time, it was not discovered due to the request regarding the setback requirements and the density was not brought into the picture. He explained how the applicant would be relieved of having to submit completed drawings knowing now that when they reach the City Planner, they will not be accepted. Mr. Ward asked if the applicant would be denied the opportunity to go before another Board and Mr. Eeehr replied: yes, as according to the City Plar~uer, no variance can be granted on density. He clarified that this was the City Planner's opinion, but he did not know if it was a true fact by law~ Mro Healy asked if the City Planner and Building Department felt if the Board of Adjust~ ment grants this variance, it would be violating the ordi- nance and M~. Keehr explained that a variance could be granted for the setback, but itwould be turned down when reviewed by the Technical Review Board because of the density factor. Vice Chairman Thompson referred to the possibility of the Planning & Zoning Board granting permission to build and asked if it would have to come back before this Board and ~. Eeehr replied that it would always have to get the Board of Adjustment,s permission with varying the setback. ~. Rutter asked why the v~iance was applied for if the property could not be changed and Mr. Keehr replied that if this would have been discovered at the onset, he believes M~. George would have been saved a lot of time and trouble~ ~. Ward asked if the Planning & Zoning Board or the City Planner controlled the density and ~. Keehr replied that it was controlled by City ordinanc~ and the density is stated in the zoning ordinances.. M~ Healy clarified that the remedy would be an amendment to the ordinance which must be passed by the City Council and ¥~. Eeehr replied that he was not sure how a variance would be handled on density, but was told there could not be a variance on density unless the ordinance is changed. ~s. Bond asked if it was advisable for Mr. George to go back to the City Council in reference MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE THREE SE~MBER 26, 1 977 to this and M~. Keehr replied that he could apply to the Planning & Zoning Board for a change if such a change is possible. M~. Thompson clarified that the Planning & Zoning Board would make a recommendation to the City Council and .the City Council must make the decision. ~. Ward suggested that ~. George contact the City Attorney to find ou~ the proper procedure to follow next. Vice Chairman Thompson asked if ~. Warren George was present and ~. Clarence Clark, representing ~ George, appeared be~ fore the Board. Mr. Ward referred to a fee being paid for this application and Mr~ Clark informed him that one fee was paid. Mr. Ward referred to the application being tabled and one fee having been paid and stated he did not think this should be charged. ~ Clark requested that it be tabled, in case they have to come back to this Board so another fee would not have to be paid. Vice Chairman Thompson informed him that he believed the proper procedure would be to apply to the Planning & Zoning Boar~ for a change and then a recom~ mendation is made to the City Council and after that, he would know whether to come back to this Board. Mr. Eeehr suggested that the Board could vote on the setback variance and this part would be taken care of if Mr. Clark is successful in getting a variance on the density. ~. Rutter stated this would be working in reverse and Mr. Keehr agreed. Mr. Rutter then clarified that there was nothing much anyone could do until this is settled. He suggests that the applicant follow whatever procedure is necessary~ ~. Healy stated that in all fairness to the appi~cant, this Board is set up to review the request. New evidence has been presented to the Board by the Building Department; however, we can still hear the case as to the applicant,s desire on the variance. Vice Chairman Thompson asked if he meant to hear the case and not make a decision and Mro H~aly replied that a decision could he made but the new evidence presented by the Building Official must be considered. He thinks the Board would be obligated to hear the evidence. Mrs° Bond clarified that this variance was tabled. It was originally voted on, but resulted in a tied vote. Now, it has been brought before this Board for reconsideration Be- cause most of the members are pres~nto Howe~er, she cannot understand this evidence to have the variance reversed. Vice Chairman Thompson clarified that it was brought off the table after a tie vote and in all fairness to the applicant and Board members, he thinks they must check with the Plan- ning & Zoning Board° Mrs~ Bond added that since density has come into the picture, it is another consideration which we must decide on. Vice Chairman Thompson stated that we cannot make a decision on z~ning and this is stated in our bylaws. MINUTES BOARD OF AD~ST~NT PAGE FOUR SEPTEMBER 26 ~ 1 977 Since we cannot change zoning, he does not feel the case should be heard. ~. Rutter added that we have been formed by the Building Department that we cannot grant a variance on density. He thinks the right procedure should be followed and if the City Council or Planning & Zoning Board makes a decision on this, then we would be in a posi- tion to hear the case again° Right now, we cannot do thing on it. Mr. Ward ~erred to the possibility of the Board granting a vari~uce wi~h the stioulation that approval must be given by the Planning & Zoning-Board or proper Board and stated it would eliminate the necessity of having the applicant come back before this Board. ~ Rutter replied that he thinks this would put the other Board in a position and he believes £irst things should be first. He thinks it should be heard by the proper Boards first and then come back here. Mr~ Healy stated that new evidence has been presented and this new e~idence must be considered before making a deci- sion. ~. Rutter questioned what good it was without a varianc~ and F~. Healy replied that the setback is what is to be considered by this Board. He read the application and clarified that a ~ariance was requested for the setback° Vice Chairman Thompson then referred to having the same situ- ation as previously with having only six voting me~oers~ Then in ~iew of the new evidence, h~ thin~ the applicant and Board should be given the chance to go back through the proper channels° He would hate to make a decision which ~ight have an influence on another Board° ~o Ward referred to instructions being received from ~. Moore regarding vot~ ~ug with a si~ ~e~ber Board and ~ Healy read Mr. Moore's opinions regarding this° At thi~ time~ Mr. Adelman arrived and ~'ice Chairman Thompson announced that they did now hays the necessary members to vote on this~o The decision rests with the Board and applicant whether this case should be heard~ He think~ we should hear F~ George's opinion whether the case should be heard and ~. Healy replied that with seven members present, we are obligated to hear the case. ~ice Chairman Thomoson stated that with the new evidence, h~ helie~es a decision should be made whether to hear thi~ case~ Chairman Bailey stated he believed the Board should decide whether to hear the case with the new evidence pre~ sented. He suggests they decide whether to hear it, since there is new evidence. Mr o Zimmerman stated that in the light of the new evidence and to get things in the proper order, he makes a motion to withdraw consideration of thi~ case until such time it is presented to the Board again, seconded~by ~. Rutter. MI~YG~S BOARD OF ADJ~JSTMENT PAGE F~ SEPTEMBER 26, 1977 Under discussion, M~. Ward stated he thought it would pro- bably be correct to table this instead of withdrawing it and Mr. Zimmerman replied that he thought tablir~ it was out of place. If it was tabled~ in the future, they would have to consider it each time and it would be an undue hard- ship on this Board to bring it up at each meeting. ~. Ward replied that it would not necessarily haYe to be brought up at each meeting, but could be left on the table. Vice Chair- man Thompson pointed out that the applicant had requested it to be left on the table, so a new appli~ation would not have to be made. ~. Zimmerman replied that he would like to leave his motion as is to withdraw it until it is re-entered by the applicant. Mm. Ward asked if he meant it must be re-filed and questioned to what period of time it was withdrawn and Vice Chairman Thompson clarified that the motion means to withdraw it completely from the Board and a new application would have to be made. ~. Zimmerman clarified that he did not know if a new application would be necessary, but he hates to have it brought up at e~ery meeting for possibly another year until it goes through the Planning & Zoning Board, etc. Vice Chairman Thompson announced that it must either be withdrawn or tabled~ Mr. Rutter stated he thought it should be withdrawn and there be a new beginning. Keehr suggested that the Board possibly consider if ~. George has to re-apply to this Board, the $50.00 fee should be waived~ ~ Healy questioned the Board,s right to with- draw a petition and suggested that the applicant possibly ask for withdrawal based on the evidence submitted until he finds out from the Building Department what the next move would be. Mr. Ward agreed this would probably be the proper procedure since this Board cannot withdraw on its own. Chairman Bailey clarified that there was a hearing which re- sulted in a tied vote and the City Attorney suggested tabling the application to a future date when there would not be the possibility of a tied vote. M~ George was allowed to have a re,hearing and came before the Board and it was tabled by request. Tonight new evidence has come before~the Board and it has been suggested that this all should be straightened out before hearing this case. He thin~ it would be in order to table this until a decision is made by the proper Board. Vice Chairm~u Thompson asked the representative if he would like to withdraw this and Mr. Clark replied that he person- ally thought Mr. Keehr should have waited until after the vote to present the evidence as they are actually two dif- ferent items. Since it has been brought out, he thinks he will go along with Mr~ Bailey and request this to be tabled until approval is obtained from the Planning & Zoning Board. Chairman Bailey added that when this comes up ~or a re-hear~ ing, all interested parties should be notified before this is taken off the table. MINUTES BOARD ~i~OF ADJUSTmeNT PAGE SIX SEP~ER 26, 1 977 ~. Zimmerma~ then made an amendment to his motion that the fee not be required again when this is reconsidered. He clarified that the idea to withdraw it was only to keep it off the agenda of every meeting. Mr. Rutter agreed and seconded the amendment. Under discussion, ~. Ward clari- fied that it still was not to be tabled, but completely withdrawn and Mr. Adelman replied that he thought the effect would be the same as it would not be reconsidered until the other Board acts. Vice Chairman Thompson referred to it being pointed out that the Board has no right to discard a petition and the applicant has requested it to be tabled. There is a difference between withdrawing and tabling. ~. Adelman replied that if the applicant takes action not to work on the petition, we would not have to reconsider anything~ Mr. Ward clarified that they were only trying to settle whether to withdraw or table. !ir. Zimmerman stated he agreed with ~ Adelman and the effect is the same and also he has included that he would not hmve to pa~.~ the $50 fee again. Chairman Bailey clarified that the motion was to withdraw this application and no $50.00 fee or filing fee shall be charged when the application iS submitted for re-hearing. The first hearing resulted in a tied vote and then, there was a re-hearing, if this application is withdrawn at this time~and it is specified that re-application can be made without a fee, we are in the same position as a month ago. His opinion is that he does not see anything wrong with the motion on the fl&or because it is allowing the right for a re-hearing without additional ~unds plus notification to the other parties. Mr. Ward replied that he appreciated these comments and thinks they were~needed, but since he abstained, he does not think he should give them. Chairman Bailey replied that any suggestions that anybody could bring up would be helpful to come to a decision~ Mr. Jim Warnke appeared before the Board and stated that it seems a lot of time and effort could be saved if the Board would vote on the petition at hand and move it onto the other City Boards for their votes. It would eliminate having it to come back to this Board. It seems that this Board has only one petition in front of them which they should con~ sider. Mr. Adelman replied that he didn't think the Board of Adjustment could act before t~'~.Planning & Zoning Board. M~. Ward stated he thoughtlthis was out of order, ~ice Chairman Thompson requested the members, to get back to the original question, and requested further discussion. ~o Healy requested the motion to be read and ~s. Eruse read it back. Mr. Zimmerman clarified that the motion was not to withdraw the case, but was to withdr~wconsideration of the cas~ until such time it is brought up again~ MI~JTES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT. PAGE S~EN SEPTEFfl~ER 26 ~ 1 977 As requested, Mrs. Kruse then took a roll call vote on the amendment as follows: ~s. Bond ~ Yes Mr. Ward - Ne ME. Rutter ~ Aye PM o Adelma~ - Aye Mr. Healy - Aye Mr. Zimmerman ~ Aye Mr.. Thompson - Aye Amendment carried ~-~ o Vice Chairman Thompson then declared the floor open for dis- cussion on the original motion~ Mr. Healy questioned the meaning of withdrawing for further consideration and asked if it meant to be left on the table, take no more evidence, or remain status quo and Mr. Zimmerman replied that he meant to withdraw consideration until the applicant brings it before the Board again. It is not being tabled as he feels it should not be brought before the Board at every meeting. ~!r. Healy replied that the applicant could bring it up himself at every meeting and ~. Zimmerman replied that it would be rather foolish to do that. Mr. Healy referred to the zoning being the new e~idence and clarified that the application to the Board was for a setback and it should be disposed of one way or another. ~. Zimmerman referred to the application being referred to the Planning & Zoning Board and stated that the Board of Adjustment should take action after the Planning & Zoning Board. Mr. Healy asked how we knew it would go before the Planning & ZOning Board and ~. Zimmerman replied that the Building Official brought to their attention that an error had been made. M~. Healy stated that the application is be- ffore this Board and we must act on it; we must approwe~ dis~ approve or table. ~s. Bond clarified that it was taken off the table for dis~ cussion. Mr. Eeehr informed us that we have no right to grant a variance because it has not been approved by the Planning & Zoning Board, so we cannot grant a variance. M~. Keehr clari- fled that he did not say the Board could not grant a variance, but said e~en if they do, a building permit cmunot be issued .because of the density. Mm. Zimmerman stated that this is new e~idence and we should take action on it. Mr. Rutter questioned the reason for the Building Department Representative coming to these meetings and M~. Healy replied that he was present to answer questions and bring in evidence to aid our decision. However, we are not doing that, but are leaving the Building Department make the decision. ~4r. Ward added that it was plainly stated that the Building Department Representative is here to answer questions only. Vice Chairman Thompson announced that a vote must be taken on the motion, but first suggested that the correspondence be MI~J~S BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE EIGHT SEPI~BER 26, 1977 read. NE. Healy read a letter from M r, John J. Barici, Jr., 631 Las Palmas Park, requesting this variance to be rejected based on a precedent being set which would be detrimental to the property owners. He then read a letter from Mr. Charles H. Sipple~ 625 Lakeside Harbor Drive~ requesting that this request be denied because no hardship has been represented and the request is to continue non-conformance which is against the City ordinances. He then read a letter from ~. & Mrs. John J. Biclak objecting to the granting of this variance. He then read a letter from Mr. & Mrs. James C. Warnke, 617 Lakeside Harbor, in favor of this variance so the structures will be in line to give a favorable appearance. ~. Ward referred to Mr. Sipple's letter questioning the grounds for a re-hearing and requested the minutes to show that Mm. Sipple was ignorant in his statement because the ~ariance was not denied previously. Vice Chairman Thompson clarified that it was tabled because of a tied vote. ~. Healy clarified that at the first hearing, the variance was denied, but the attorney suggested that it be re-heard. Mr. Adelman added that M~. Moore's letter stated that four con- curring ~otes were needed and ~. Ward referred to having previously discussed this. ~ Clark appeared before the Board again and stated that he is the largest property owner next to Mr. George and is for this building~ Also, he is sure other p~ople here to- night are for it. Vice Chairman Thompson asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in reference to this. M~.. John Jameson, 649 Las Palmas Park, appeared before the Board and stated he was a little confused in hearing motions and amendments discussed back and forth and then letters being read. He then asked if the motion was still on the floor and Vice Chairman Thompson replied: yes. M~. Jameson then asked if the case was going to be withdrawn, then what good is all this correspondence and his speech and Vice Chairman Thompson replied that in case it is not presented in the future, it will be on the record. ¥~. Jameson re~ ferred to the members talking about tabling, etc. and notices will be sent so the opportunity exists for people to speak in the future. Evidently, it does not have to be done to- r~ght. Mr. Adelman stated that the other man was~given the opportunity to speak, so others should be given the same opportunity. ~. Rutter added that he third~s a new can of worms was opened with the letters being read. This case has been heard previously and resulted in a tied vote. It was tabled for the proper understanding from the City Attor- ney. Since then, new evidence has come up and now it is suggested to be withdrawn ~til consideration is given. Mr. Jameson suggested that the motion be cleared. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT PAGE NINE SEPTEmbER 26 ~ 1977 Mr. Jameson then stated that he was before the Board again to remind them that all the buildings in this C-3 area are non- conforming to the City's present regulations. He referred to the reasons noted in paragraph five of the petition and stated that no hardship was~shown. He referred to the appearance of the north end of Boynton Beach being enhanced and explained how the Inlet Harbor Club was positive for this area. He re- quests the petition to b.e denied because in his opinion it typifies the expression to jam as much as you can and it does not conform to the present b~lding standards of our City. Vice Chairma~ Thompson then requested that a roll call vote be taken on~i~the motion and Mrs. Kruse took it as~follows: Mrs. Bond - Yes ~. Ward - Ne, because he doesn't believe this Board can withdraw a petition~ ~. Rutter ~ Ay~ ~o Zimmerman - Aye Mr. Adelman - Aye Mr. Healy - Ne, because he takes the stand this Board cannot withdraw any p~ti- tion w~ich has been submitted by an applicant. Mr. Thompson ~ Yes~ because it was the wish of the applicmnt to withdraw it. Motion carried 5-2. Vice Chairman Thompson then turned the meeting back over to Chairman Bailey. Chairman Bailey introduced the alternate member, Mr. Adelma~, who arrived after the meeting started and thanked him for sitting in for him. He then declared a three minute break and called the meeting back to order at 8:15 P. M. Re-Hearing on Application submitted by Mr. George W. Culver, 728 Casa Loma Boulevard~ requesting relief from 53 required parking spaces to 1~ parking.spaces, no land being available for the additiona~ ~. Thompson mo~ed that the George Culver AppliCation be brought from the table for discussion, seconded by ~. Rutter. Motion~carried Chairman Bailey announced that the Board of Adjustment for the City ~f Boynton Beach hms passsd a motion to reconsider the variance which was granted to ~o Culver. M~. Rutter statsd that it was his understanding that the changing of any decision of this Board would be done by a court of law and not this Board and Chmir~an Bailey informed him that the City ~ttorney advised that we had a certain number of days to bring a motion before the Board to reconsider before getting involved in the courts. The deadline was met before the num~ bsr of days had expired. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT PAGE TEN SEPTEMBER 26, 1977 ~ Healy asked who presented the application and Chairman Bailey informed him the application was dated July 27~ 1977, for an August 8 hearing. Mr~ Ward referred to this re-hear- ing being on the request for the variance for parking and Chairman Bailey agreed. ~ Ward stated that it does not have to d~.with the previous building variance granted and Chairman Bailey clarified that it concerns the variance granted for approximately 53 parking spaces. He then asked if~ there were any further comments from the Board before hear- ing the public.. Mr. Thompso= requested that it be made clear to the Board and public that the application before us now- is for parking only and not seating capacity and Chairman Bailey announced that in no way does this variance effect the seating capacity. There are surrounding circumstances which bring the seating capacity into the picture, but it is not a variance to grant or deny any number of' seats. This only concerns the parking. He read the application and advised that a variance was granted, but new evidence came before the Board and the Board decided to reconsider the rsquest~ Chairman Bailey then asked if anyone was present representing Mr. George Culler and M~. George W~ Culver appeared before the Board. He referred to being here previously and stated he is tired of coming and imagines the Board is tired of hearing him. He requests that when they vote there will not be any politics involved, but that plain common sense is used. They must consider whether it is good for the City and whether it will be an asset or liability. People have come in groups and stood up just because they were from Coastal Towers. Some day~ COastal Towers will have to ask for a variance when it falls into the canal the way it is built° Also~ some of his competitors have objected. He requests the members to use common sense when ~oting. M~ Ward questioned his reference to a block vote and M~. Culver clarified that he was referring to everyone standing ~rom CO~tal Towers. ~. Rutter referred to the present 1~ parking spaces and questioned the damage from not having the addition parking spaces and ~. Culver replied that he could not see any parking problems° He referred to being in business there for 20 years and told how there were only four cars parked there when the boat is out. It is a City street and there is parking~ ~operty was given to the City for the street. There is always parking on the street on any day of the week. Mr. Rutter asked if this parking could be made illegal by the City Police and M~. Culver replied that if the Council made such a decision~ it could; but he does not know why it would. There have not been any serious accidents and it is a one way street~and is a deadend.~ MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE ELEVEN SEPTE~ER 26, ~ 977 Chairman Bailey asked if anyone else in the audience wished to speak in favor of this application and received no response. He then asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to this application. ~. Bill Mullen~ Coastal Towers~ appeared before the Board and stated it was their opinion at Coastal Towers that with the lack of Parking at this restaurant, there will be only one place for the patrons to go and that would be into their parking lot which is werylimited. Another a~pect~i which should be considered is the legal capacity~ The license states 50 at the present time. He questions why 53~ parking spaces are needed for a restaurant with 50 seats? Chairman Bailey informed him that the 53 was based on 150 seats. Me. Mullen requested that this be considered. M~o Rutter referred to the Coastal Towers being separated by water from the restaurant and asked why patrons would park there and ~. Mullen informed him that the restaurant main entrance is right across from their parking lot~and there is a connecting side street. M~. Rutter referred to the distance and ~. Thompson informed him that the walking dis- tance would be approximately 800 fleet. M~s. Janet Hall~ Sea Mist Marina, appeared be~re the Board. She requested that the original hearing request which was mailed to the property owners be read in full and Chairman Bailey read the notice. ~s. Hall referred to the notice requesting a variance on parking for a 150 seat restaurant and questioned the reason and Chairman Bailey informed her that the reason noted was that no additional land was avail- able.. He then read the application submitted to the Build- lng Department. ~rs. Hall stated that there must have been m reason for needing these parking spaces and Mr. Rutter replied that it was for a ~50 seat restaurant. Mrs. Hall stated that M~. Culver wanted a ~50 seat restaurant, but only had a license for 5!0 seats and Mr, Rutter agreed that it was discovered that a~50 seat license had been issued in error and there should only be 50 seats. ~Ms. Hall re- ferred to this reliance asking for parking for a ~50 seat restaurant. Chairman Bailey read items 3 thru 5 on the application for the June meeting and clarified that Hall~s concern was the mentioln of ~50 seats and ~s. Hall agreed that it was very specific that the request was for ~50 seats. She then asked if the Building Department had a request for a building permit upon which this is based and what was the permit issueld for to build there and ~. Eeehr informed her that the only permit issued to da~e is for a storage house with smalll office. ~Ms. Hall stated that the fishermen on the dock have been told that this small office is going to be a retail fish market. MINUTES BO~D OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE T~ELYE SEPTE~EER 26, 1977 ~s. Hall then requested that the following letter be entered into the record: ~'We are opposed to the granting of this parking variance on a one block long street already burdened by concentrate~m Vehicle traffic and parking for the Businesses located there nOW. This Board exists to protect fairly all of us from undue hardship caused by City ordinances. The request before yom now is for a number of parking spaces much in excess of that required for the business now oPeratingi~ therefore, denying it will not cause a hardship to the petitioner. ~ by allowing~is increase, the Board itself will be ~eatin~ a hardship for the twelve other businesses now located on that one block. Please consider these facts in your deter- minations.'~ ~s. Hall added that if there was any doubt about the con- centrated vehicle parking, they should visit this area in about six weeks around noon. Mr. Rutter asked her how many parking spaces she h~ for her business and I~s. Hall told about leasing a ps, king lot for her businesses where at least 75to 80 cars can be parked, which costs her~dreds of dollars. She added that if you have a business, you are supposed to provide parking. She is just one of twelve businesses on the block. There are nine charter'boats, all individually owned businesses supporting a captain, mate and their £amilies. They all cater to the public. They all need the use of that City street~ There are probably only about 75 to 80 parking spaces on that whole street. M~. Rutter aaked if one business added or attracted to the other businesses and ~rs. Hall replied that they all do. ~. Rutter asked if this improved facility, a 50 seat res~ taurant with a warehouse, help the overall community and ~@s. Hall replied that nobody objected to the improvement of the existing building, but what is being requested is a variance based on tripling the business. ~. Rutter clari- fied that wants are one thing and needs are another and Hall agreed~that this was the point she was trying to make. The needs are adequately met~ but there is no reason to crease the parking for the wants. ~o Thompson referred to it being pointed out previously that none of the b.usinesses in this area have adequate park- ing and Mr. Rutter referred to Mrs. Hall's statement that she pays a terrific amount of money for the purpose of park- ing 75 to 80 cars. M~. Thompson stated that it was pointed out by the Building Dep~tment that no business there had adequate parking and Mrs. Hall told. about a meeting held last year in City Hall when parking regulations were agreed upon. MI~'TES BO~RD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE THIRTEEN SEPTE~ER 2~, 1977 She explained how t7 parking spaces were required for a drift fishing operation, two for a charter boat~ and so many for a store according to the square footage of' the retail area. She does have the legal amount of parking spaces. M~ Rutter stated that this was the first time he had heard about her parking facilities as it was his understanding that it was on a first come basis~ ~s~ Hall stated that she has a charter boat, sight seeing boat, and retail store and must have parking for her cuStomers. Mr. Rutter asked if it was required by the City and ~s~ Hall replied that she found it necessary to do business. She added that the facilities there are strained~ There are fifteen businesses sharing the ps, king facilities. Also, the Two Georges have several businesses. The street is also being strained with the busi~ ness which exists. They are not trying to deny those in busi- ness~ but the use of the street should not be taken away from the people who are in business. If they give someone the legal right to double their business~ it is just like saying that the public street is theirs. That is all the parking there is~ Mr. Ward referred to ~s~ Hall~s question regarding the per- mits issued and ~. Keehr clarified that a permit had been issued for the storage building with sales room. Mr. Ward asked where the restaurant came in and M~. Keehr informed him that the restaurant is attached to this building. Mr. Ward stated that no permit was issued for the restaurant and M~ Keehr replied that none was2issued for the restaurant because the original yariance given by this Board granted permission to re-build the restaurant, but no variance was given for the parking. A statement was made by the Board that F~. Culver would have to come back for a variance on the parking~ Until that is done, they cannot issue a permit for reconstructing the restaurant. M~. ~ard then referred to there being a stipulation that the permit must be issued in a certain time limit and M~. Keehr clarified that at the meeting where this Board approved the parking variance for 150 seats~ the next day that permit was picked up for the storage building, but since that time the Board has seen fit to reconsider that variance so ~).at this time, the Building Department is still waiting for the ~ariance to be approved by this Boated before issuing any further permits. M~. Ward clarified that no variance has been issued for the ~estaurant and Chairman Bailey agreed and stated that this is being reconsidered now. M~o Ward stated that he thought the parking was being reconsidered and Chairman Bailey clarified that in order for M~. Culver to continue with the restaurant, he must have a parking variance. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT R~&GE FOURTEEN SEP~i~ER 26, 1977 Mr..Healy referred to most of the parking being on City pro- perty and ~s~ Hall agreed except for the lot she has leased. ~. Rutter ~dded that £mokey's is about the only place having the necessary requirements and Mrs. Hall agreed and stated that is why they feel it is unfair to allow this variance to increase a business which does not exist now. There is not a ~50 seat restaurant there, She still does not know if the ~50 seat license was obtained by fraud, ~ mistake or impro~ perly issued° ~. Healy referred to ~. Culver having 11 parking spaces and ~s. Hall agreed that ~. Culver has ~3 on his property, Mro Healy asked if they were located in £ront of his office to service the boats there and ~s. Hall agreed. ~ Healy asked if the people who rented boats would park there an~ M~s, Hall replied that the people who rent boats expect to be able to park their cars~ Chairman Bailey clarified that the license was issued inad- vertently for ~50 seats and ~s, Hall stated that the request was based on that, but it no longer exists. M~o Thompson referred to there not being adequate parking, but during the course of the year there are boats for sale or rent in this area and M~s. Hall replied that selling boats was part of their business and they have increased the parking space at their own expense. Mr. Rutter referred to there being restaurants in the City fronting on a street ~ud questioned the parking requirements and Mr, Keehr informed him that one space was required for every three people and one for every two employees. ~. Rutter referred to there being existing restaur~ts with no parking facilities and Mr. Keehr agreed, but stated they were covered by a grandfather situation. MrS~ Hall clarified that her request was not to deny the exist- ing business, but that it not be allowed to be increased. Mr. Vincent Molle, owner of Smokey's~ appeared before the Board and stated that he objects to this strenuously. It seems like this Board has grouted everything M~. Culver has asked for. He thi~_ks they are involved in a big coverup; not the Board, but the City and Building Department, He thinks a legal opinion is needed. As a matter of fact, the 50 ~a~ license is illegal, The license was issued in ~975. He thinks there is ~ coverup and this Board is being used to legalize what is illegal.. This is for a license which has been rescinded. He does not see why 53 parking spaces should be granted. He thinks it should be investigated to see what is going on, He thinks it should be checked to see if the 50 seat license is legal. ~. Rutter replied that M~. Culver must produce the license and au application must be made fOr the license. M~. Molle stated that the legality must be checked. They are trying to compound this variance and this MI~jTES BOARD OF' ADJUSTmeNT P.~GE FIFTEEN SEPTEMBER 26, 1 977 Board is being used as a coverup. He believes the City, Building Department and Mr. Culver were aware of the 150 seat license issued in error and also, the 50 seat license was issued in error or illegally. Mrs. Bond questioned his basis for this and Mr. Molle replied that Mr. Culver never had the parking for the 50 seat license issued in 1975 with- out a variance. Mrs. Bond clarified that he was talking about the license and not a parking permit and Mr. Molle re- plied that the license requires one parking space for every three seats. Mx. Culver asked if ~. Molle had sufficient parking when he leased this place? ~. Molle continued with stating that he believes there should be some legal investi- gation. He b.elie~es the 53 parking spaces requested is for a 150 seat restaurant to make it legal. He believes this Board is being used as a coverup. Mr. Healy asked Mx. Molle if he had made an investigation and 'Mr. Molle replied: yes, by requesting copies off all the per- mits issued. M~. Healy asked how many parking spaces were needed for a restaurant with 50 seats and M~. Keehr replied: ]7o ~. Healy asked if there was a license there for 50 seats and Mr. Molle replied that he believed so; he believes the ~50 seat license was rescinded and there is now a license for 50 seats with M~. Howell~s signature. M~. Keehr verified that a 50 seat license has been issued. ~M. Healy stated that 53 parking spaces were not needed now and M~. Eeehr agreed and stated that only ~7 were needed. ~;~. E~ A~ Horan,, representing the Lyman family owning property immediately adjacent to this street, appeared before the Board° He told about ~. Lyman calling him from out of state request- ing him to represent him as being very much opposed to this variance. This family originally donated half th~ street and it was supposed to be left open for access to the waterway, but it was closed o£f. At the present time, they own two large pieces of property with one leased to ~so Hall for parking. The other piece is directly accessible from this two way street and if it is blocked up any more than now, it will close off the eastern access to their rental property. ~° Lyman is very much concerned about this going through. It would have an adverse effect on his property. Also~ the property M~s~ Hall is lea~Ing will probably be open for the other businesses and it will be necessary to have access from this street. Chair~n Bailey asked why M~. Lyman was not present and M~. Hors~n explained that he was in Atlanta because of illness in the family and would return on Thurs~ day. He added that he handles the legal and banking affairs for the Lyman family. ~. C. King, 760 East Ocean Avenue, appeared before the Board and stated he was interested as a resident of Boynton Beach~ As he understands this application~ ~. Culver MiNU~$ BOARD OF AD~ST~NT PAGE SIXTEEN SEPTE~R 26, 1977 has asked for a variance for 53 parking spaces which was pre- dicated on a 150 seat license which he does not have. How can this application be considered at this time? Chairman Bailey replied that it was his opinion that this goes back to 7976 when this Board gave the Two Georges Marina their f±rst variance to rebuild what was there and at that time, there was a license issued on October t, 1976, for 150 seats. After the variance was granted, Mr. Culver had a certain per- iod of time to start construction, but ran into a flaw with parking~ When the parking case came before this Board, it was passed; but the following day, it was found the 150 seat license had been-.issued in error. At that time, the License Department recalled the 150 seat license and re-issued a 50 seat license, This has all resulted in this controversy before the Board at this time. ~. King replied that this answer was not acceptable and asked if the Board had a legal opinion on whether this application is valid today since the 150 seat license has been rescinded? Chairmsm Bailey replied that the Board did and it is his opinion that it is valid according to the.legal opinion submitted. Mr. King asked if I~r. Moore had stated this is still a legal application and Chairman Bailey replied that from Mr. Moore's letter, it was his interpretation that it is, but other members could have other opinions. Mr. King 'then asked ~. Ward if M~. Culver has used these same tl parking spaces previously for other applications be- fore the Board of Adjustment and M~. Ward replied that he had not to his knowledge.. Mr. King stated that he has been told that these same ~1 spaces were used for the drift boat, restaurant and another time or three separate times and now they are coming up again. Mr. Ward replied that this was not true since he has been on the Board. ~o King then asked if anybody had totalled the spaces needed for the entire operation and M~. Ward replied that he didn't know what the total operation would be. ~. King stated that the City Building Department should know. There is the Two Georges drift boat, bait and tackle shop, and restaurant and each one requires so many spaces. He cannot see where this particular application is vmlid today. He thinks it should be rescinded since it is not valid~ It was passed on a license which was issued in error, which has been rescinded. This application is null and void. M~o Ward replied that he did not think the Board could void it unless ~. Moore stated this in his opinion. M~. King stated that it.~could be turned down and M~. Ward agreed if the Board ignores M~. Moore's memo stati~gwe should rehear it. M~. King stated that his feeling as a citizen of Boynton Beach is that this Board has functions to protect the interests of the citizens of Boynton Beach. This situation is asinine in toying with a problem which should have been thrown out. It is based on a license MINUTES BOARD 0~ ADJUSTmeNT PAGE SE~NTEEN SEP~ER 26 , 1 977 which no longer exists~ Mr. Rutter replied that a license does exist for 50 seats and Mr. King clarified that the liw cerise does not exist on which this application is based. This application was~based on a license for 950 seats. This application is dead. Mr. Rutter referred to the tally of parking spaces for the fishingboat~ etc~ and asked if so many spaces were required for e~ery place o£ business other than the restaurant and ~. Keehr replied: yes. Mr. Thompson also referred to this being ~ tourist attraction and asked if it was necessary to have spaces for the tourists~ parking and Mr. Rutter added that sometimes 50 people were there to watch the boats coming in and purchase fish~ ~. Keehr informed them there were parking requirements for marinas with one space for each slip being required plus adequate parking for businesses such as restaurants~ motels~ etco ~lso, in reference to this area~ it is ~ grandfather situation which he thinks there is no a~swer to. M~. King stated that~he does not object to M~. Culver having a place to park cars. As a resident of Boynton Beach~ he w~uts to see this Board function reasonably following the guidelines~ He thinks they are dealing with a matter they have no business dealing with~ Their interest should be a ~ote of no. The application is based on a license which was rescinded. How can this application be valid? Mr. Ward~re- plied that he might agree with him, but the Board is acting on a legal opinion. ~. King stated that he would like to see that legal opinion because it is probably dealing with something else~ Chairman Bailey informed him that a copy would be mailed to him. Mr. Ward referred to not knowing how the Board is Eoing to ~ote, but explained how it was just not possible to get 50 parking spaces out of ~0o Chairman Bailey ascertained that nobody else desired to speak in opposition~ ~ Healy requested that ~ Culver be called back again and Chairman Bailey replied that if this was done~ anyone who spoke in opposition would also be given another opportunity° Mr. George Culver appeared before the Board. Mr o Healy re~ ferred to the June ~3 meeting and stated that the application w~ for a variance of 53 required parking spaces to ~ and ¥~o Cuiver agreed. P~. Healy referred to this being based on a 950 seat license which he no longer has and asked if he needed the 53 spaces and M~. Culver replied that in the £uture when remodelling the restaurant in the same size build~ ing, he could meet the requirements for ~50 seats. Mr. Healy asked when the restaur~mt would be converted and ~. Culler replied within the next two years, M~ Healy asked if he £elt he could get a permit and Mr. Culver replied that he does have a variance to rebuild the present building~ MINuTEs BOARD OF ADJ~JSTM~NT PAGE EIGHTEEN SEPTEmbER 26, 1977 Mr. Healy referred to him wanting to enlarge the restaurant and Mr~ Culver clarified that he could get 150 people in the current size-and there are 150 seats now. Mr. Healy referred to most of these seats being on the patio and ~. Culver agreed but added this was allowed~ Mr. Adelman referred to a statement from a building inspector that this restaurant would only qualify for 96 seats and ~o Keehr clarified that at the time it was inspected for the 150 seat license, the inspector noted that at that time, it was only large enough for 96 seats. ~. Thompson stated that it was also pointed out by the Building Official that it will accommodate 150 seats and ~. Keehr ~greed that Mr. Howell did state that this could be done by utilizing the exterior area. Mr. Ward asked if the 96 referred to only the inside of the faci~ lity and ~. Keehr replied that he really did not know. Mr~ Healy referred to the patio not being remodelled and ~. Culver agreed. ~. Keehr clarified that people could sit out in the open and it would be constituted as part of the restaurant° Mr. Healy clarified that at the present time, 53 parking spaces were definitely not needed. M~. Culver stated that this has been a restaurant for over 25 years and he does not know what the reference is with having the license being illegal° P~. Healy referred to the patio being added during the p~st few years and M~. Culver agreed, but stated that it has been operating as a restaurant~ ~. Healy stated that he never had a restaurant for ~50 seats and M~ Culver replied that he did from October ~ to JUne ~4. M~. Healy referred to it being issued in error. Mr. Culver then stated that a lot of lies have been brought up by the oppo- sition, mainly M~. Mo!le~ Chair~n Bailey asked if anyone wanted to speak in rebuttal. M~. Molle appeared before the Board and stated that in order to have ~50 seats~ the patio was included and M~ Keehr clari- fied that the variance was to rebuild the building in the dimensions as it exists. Whether the patio is being rebuilt~ he does not know. The dimensions of this property go beyond the patio~ The building may be rebuilt at the dimensions which exist and the patio may be included as part of the seating capacity with or without the roof. Mr. Molle asked if a permit was issued for the patio and M~. Eeehr replied that he did not kuow~ as it was built before he was employed. Mr. Molle asked if a setback variance was obtained when that was built and ~. Keehr replied that he did not know. Mrs. Janet Hall appeared before the Board again and stated at the meeting previously when the original varis_uce was granted, she made the statement that the restaurant had a license for 50 seats and was called a liar. Again this has happened tonight. She and ~. Molle have not state~ lies. She verified her statements the~following day by going through the applications. When this was brought to the attention of MiNU~S BOARD 0F ADJUSTP~NT PAGE NIh~TEEN SEPTEMBER 26, 1977 the City Manager and City Attorney, naturally the license was immediately withdrawn for 150 sea~s because it was not valid~ The license was in N~r. Culver's pocket and not on the wall of the restaurant° The person operating it had no knowledge of the existence of a 150 seat license. The t50 seat license never appeared in the restaurant~. If we have made any state- ments in opposing this~ we are ready to prove them and subw stantiate them. ~s. Hall then asked the Board if they were here to uphold the rights of the citizens of Eoynton Beach and other property owners, here to prevent a hardship created by some City ordi- nance, or here to try to figure a way to permit ~ Culver to get from 50 to 150 seats, which is e~actly what they would be doing unless this request is denied which substantiates what ~. Molle said isan attempt to use this Board to legal- ize something it is not. She knows they cannot become aware of all situations. She is not in competition with Mr. Culver with not running a restaurant, fish market or drift boat~ She feels unless this variance is denied, the Board is doing exactly what was intended to upgrade a 50 seat restaurant to ~50 seats~ There is no hardship and it is just using the City to do something aginst the City ordinances. Mr. Ward replied that he has tried to use his better judgement in listening to the people. He is a resident of Boynton Beach. He always ca~s his vote for what is fair and just for every- body° M~s. Hall replied that she thinks all the mem?~ers do, but hopes they are aware of all the facts. >~s. Bond asked if a 50 seat restaurant would be permitted to have a liquor license or if 150 seats were required and Chair- man Eailey replied that he thought it was more than 50 and possibly could he t50. ~. Thompson. added that it depends on the license and even?.though having the seating capacity1, it does not mean a liquor license will be issued. He do~s think ~50 seats are required. Chairman Bailey referred tohaving receive~ correspondence and Mr. Healy read the attached three page letter from ~. Charles Rodriguez dated August ~5, 1977~ Chairman Bailey added that copies of this letter had been distributed to all the members by the City Clerk,s office° Chairman Bailey then announced that at this time, we have to come to a decision and the floor is open for a motion. ~. Rutter questioned the kind of motion and Chairman Bailey stated that a ~ariance was originally granted for 53 parking spaces, but since that time a motion has been passed to re- consider the granting of that variance. We must either go with the Board's original decision or rescind that original decision. MI~TES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE TWENTY SEPTEMBER 26 ~ 1977 Mr. Rutter made a motion to rescind the Board's original variance granted on June 13, t977, seconded by Mrs. Bond. Under discussion, ~ Ward questioned what we were rescind~ ing to and Mr. Rutter replied to a clean slate~ Mr. Rutter stated that he thinks tonight we had a most thorough discus- sion regarding the parking conditions and facilities in the subject area~ Based on the new evidence brought before this Board regarding the changing of the license from 50 to 150 seats, he would like to start the record clean by doing away with the original approval of the varianc~e. Mrs~ Bond added that she seconded the motion to prevent a hardship on the fellow members of businesses in that particul~ area. Mr. ~ard clarified that he wanted to know where this leaves the situation~ This would mean that no variance has been granted for the parking and is the same as before applying for the variance and Mr. Rutter agreed this was his intent. Chairman Bailey clarified that if a variance is rescinded which has been granted, it is put back to its original point before being approved. ~ Thompson stated that this would mean that the property c~unot be improved and M~. Rutter clari- fied that it would be going back to the vari~uce granted for the parking. Mr. Eeehr informed the BOard that without park~ ing, the building cannot be rebuilt beyond the extent of the parking there now. Mr. Ward stated that the parking there now covers~ the seating capacity for 50 seats and Mr. Eeehr informed him that there was not ample parking there now for 50 seats, but 17 spaces were required. There are ~ but he does not know if they all can be designated for the restau- rant as the ch~ter boat, etc~ must be considered. P~o Healy stated that if this application is rescinded, it cannot be hear~ again and this application will be destroyed and Mr. Culver will have to re-apply with another application and Mr. Adelman clarified that the variance was being rescinded° Chair~n Bailey clarified that we are re-hearing this case from the point where the application stood, from the point we made the motion to grant it~ If we rescind it, it will be back at the point of beginning. We will return to the point where we granted the variance. There is a possibility if it goes back to that point, if the variance is rescinded, this Board can possibly make suggestions or come up with a workable situation in this case. We know there is a 50 seat license and a certain number of parking spaces are needed. There is the possibility that a variance could be granted for the necessary amount of parking spaces for a 50 seat license. ~. Ward referred to not having an application for less than 53 parking spaces and Chairman Bailey informed him this could be handled under special conditions of the vari- ance being granted~ It would be the same as a time limit being set. The rules do allow exceptions or certain condi~ tions to be inserted on which the variance is being granted~ M~. Thompson agreed that we do have the right to put in stipulations and it could ~e for ~7 instead of 53~ We also MINUTES BOARD OF ADJ!UST~NT PAGE T~ENTY- ONE SEPi~MBER 26 ~ 1977 may drive the man out of business and Pk. Ward disagreed. ~o Thompson stated that we would not allow the business to be improved arid Mx. Rutter clarified that we have agreed to let Mr. Culver improve the existing facilities~ but now we are getting to the point to extend the parking for the non- conforming building with no land being available. We are saying that the necessary requirements must be conformed to and M~. Healy questioned how. ~. Adelmau referred to the suggestion to grant a variance for 17 spaces instead of 53 and M~. Ward agreed and questioned why the original variance had to be rescinded. Chairman Bailey clarified that the variance has been granted s~d if it is going to be changed to another alternative, then it should be rescinded and started over~ ~. Thompson clarified that he was questioning whether this could be done without advertising, etc. ~s. Bond ex- plained how new evidence had been presented and suggested trying to reach a compromise~ ~. Thompson clarified that the motion was to rescind their vote and also come back with another motion and Chairman Bailey agreed. For further clari~ fication, ~. Healy read the paragraph from the Board of Ad- justment outline regarding their powers. As requested, ¥~s. Kruse then took a roll call vote on the motion as follows: Mrs. Bond - Yes Mr. Thompson - No ~. ~ard ~ Yes Mr. Rutter ~ Yes Mr. Eimmerman - Yes Mr. Healy - Yes M~. Bailey ~ Yes Motion carried 6~o Mm. Thompson made a motion that M~. Culver be allowed to improve his property for a 50 seat capacity resta~ant with the necessary parking Spaces, which is ~7o Mr. Adelman sug~ gested giving the variance down to !1. Chairman Bailey then ascertained there was no second for the motion. ~ Thompson requested that the floor be opened for discus~ sion of the variance necessary for the parking spaces for a 50 seat restaurant. Mr~ Keehr informed them that 18 would be required plus one for each two employees. It has been stated that with a ~50 seat restaurant, six employees~would be needed, but he does not know if that is to remain. If so, it would require three more parking spaces or a grand total of 21. F~. Ward questioned the requirements for the fish house~ boat, etc~ M~s. Eond then asked Mx. Culver how many employees he has and ~. Culver replied: six. Mr. Healy asked if he operated the restaurant at the present time and Mro Culver replied: no. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE TWENTY-T~O SEPT_EMBER 26, 1 977 Mro Healy asked if he had the authority to answer this ques- tion and ~ Culver replied that he does not operate it. Chairman Bailey asked if he had charter boats there and Culver replied that he has two charter hoats~ Chairman Bailey asked how many slips were available and ~*~. Culver replied that he has private slips and two charter boats° Chairman Bailey questioned the parking requirements and Mr~ Keehr informed him it was one per boat slip~ Chairman Bailey asked how many were there and ~ Culver replied: 20, but he believes theY are grandfatheredo Chairman Bailey clarified that ~7 were required for the drift boat and M~. Culver disagreed and stated they were not required by law. Chairman Bailey clarified that the total need was 41 parking spaces and M~. Culver replied that they were just talking about the restaurant~ Chairman Bailey stated that he wanted to make it permissable for him to oper- ate without having to come before this Board again~ ~k~o Culver stated that it was his understanding that a vari~ ance was given for the 25 ft. setback and to rebuild the restaurant as it was. The 50 seat license was in effect under the grandfather clause and no parking was needed° He only came 'back because of the ~50 seat restaurant~ !~. Keehr in~ ~ormed him this was not correct as if the building is rebuilt, the required parking laws must be adhered to~ That is why a permit could not be issued for the building ~ecause the park~ lng was not approved. Chairman Bailey referred to the build- ing being rebuilt for the same use and questioned the require~ ment for the additional par~ng and Mr~ Eeehr replied that it was required because the building was being rebuilt. Chairman Bailey asked Mr~ Culver for a figure of how many park~ ing spaces would be needed for the restaurant and ?~. Culver replied that 17 were required ~s stated plus three for the help. Chairman Bailey clarified that 2~ would be needed to continue the way it is now and Mr~ Molle replied that nothing was needed as it could stay as presently under the grandfather clause. Mr. Keehr informed the Board that the Building Official said the variance for the building would not hold up until a park- ing variance is granted° Chairman Bailey clarified that this meant if a variance is not granted for the parking, the build~ lng must remain the same and nothing can be done with the variance granted last December and Mro Eeehr replied that Culver can only do what he is doing now. Chair~u Bailey clarified that it could not be rebuilt and be brought up to the building code and ~. Keehr replied: no~ as he does not have adequate parlaing. Mm. Keehr stated that the permit issued is for psat of the building and Mr~ Ward clarified that it was for the fish shop and storage~ M~. Keehr agreed and stated it was approved after the parking was approved. Mr. Ward cls~ified that the MI~TES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE TWENTYmTHREE SEPTEmbER 26, 1977 restaurant was not incl~ed and there was more than one per- mit and ~. Keehr agreed and added that it could be done in phases, Mx. Ward referred to the time stipulation in the variance granted and ~. Eeehr explained~at it was picked up late, Chairman Bailey then asked how M~. Culverts case was progress- ing in court and ~o Culver informed him that the restraining order was lifted and he had an ins-oection made. He will call for another inspection within 30 d~ys of September ~9o Chair- man Bailey clarified that he was granted a variance to rebuild provided the permit was secured within 90 days and ~o Culver agreed and added that he was also required to have an inspec~ tion every 90 days. Chairman Bailey stated t~at the City re~ quires inspection in 90 days or the permit expires and the Board stipulated that he had to secure the permit within 90 days. He believes it was exactly six months after this took place and ~r. Ward is concerned whether the time limit was met. There has been some discussion about the interpretation of securing a permit. Mr. ~$ard stated that he knows a permit is not valid until the contractor picks it up and the permit was not picked up on time. ~. Eeehr clarified that no matter when ~. Culver picked up the permit, this Board did approve the parking for that building, The building was approved and a permit could have been issued, but then that approval was reconsidered. ~. Thompson referred to having previous dis- cussion about this and stated they were just trying to tie ~. Culver up. M~r. Ward asked if he was doing his own work and M~ Culver replied that he could not because it is com- mercial property. Mr. Culver stated that he paid his fee, but the Building Official would not give the permit to the contractor because of the parking question. This is just getting down to nit picking. He has already been blackmailed by th~ Fire Mar- shall requiring him to install a fire hydrant. Florida Power and Light Co, has also charged him to move the power lines off his property. N~. Keehr then stated that to clear up the question, Mr, Culver did not pick up the permit within six months and this is a true fact, Chairman Bailey then declared a five minute recess to allow ~s. Kruse to get more tapes, He called the meeting back to order at ~0:25 P. M. ~. Keehr stated that Mr. Howell was holding up the permit for approval of the parking, ~. Ward stated that the park- lng situation came into light later as at first, the contrac- tor would not sign it, ~o Keehr stated that Mr. Howell said he would not issue it until the parking was approved. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE T~ENT¥~FOUR SEPTE~v~ER 26, 1977 Chairman E~aiiey then asked if Mr. Eeehr had any suggestion to the Board on what kind of variance would help M~. Culver b' at this time and M~. Ward o jected because the Building Official is here to answer questions. Chairman Bailey clarified that this was a question for the benefit of the Eoard~ He then requested suggestions from the Board members. M~. Rutter referred to double decking parking facilities and asked if it was within reason. Mr. Hea!y stated that we are now at a point where we are a little more informed than on June ~3 when the variance was approved. ~e are back to where we started~ Mr~ Culver has an option: he could withdraw the application and apply for another variance or if rejected on the permit~ he could apply for a variance on that objection. ~ Cu!ver stated that he is a businessman and has made some money in this town and has helped the town. He has made a good living and only wan. ts to improve his property~ He has been before this Board for one year and it seems like every time he turns around, there is some block put in his way. There are new la~s~ but if he had the money to improve the building ten years ago, he could have done it and not be concerned with these lawso He thinks personally, as a busi~ nessman, that when they rezone, consideration should be given to the existing properties. He does not think a setback should have been put in that area. He is just trying to im~ prove his property~ He is Just asking for relief. He asked for a parking variance because the City Planner told him too He is confused. He knows how to make a dollar and sell a fishing trip, but thinks this is nit picking on some things. There was a one da~ difference in securing the permit, but if the man was there, it would have still been held up. ~. Ward sounds like he doesn't want him to do anything° if he had his way, he could not do.anything. Mr. W~d replied that was his opinion and he can interpret ~o Culver's actions too and so far~ he is beginning to doubt some° M~. Healy stated that there is evidence that the license for ~50 seats was given in error and a judgement must be made on that~ ~. Thompson replied that has all been rescinded ~ud we are back to the 50 seating capacity and parking space to operate that° This is entirely different from the boat in- dustry which was grandfatheredo Mro Culver needs the parking to operate a 50 seat restaurant~ ~. Rutter requested his suggestion and ~. Thompson replied that ~0 parking spaces are short and he is in favor of granting them so the business can be improved. They do not even have to talk about the boat as it is already grandfathered ino M~. Ward referred to the hoatspossibly not being grandfathered and ~. Thompson MI~TES BO~D OF AD~ST~T PAGE TWENTY-FI~ SEPTEMBER 26, 1977 called on Mr. Keehr and M~ Keehr replied that the boats are grandfathered. He clarified that the restaurant is being re- built and parking is needed for the restaurant only~ Mr. Ward asked about the other parts and ~v~. Keehr informed him it was storage and office and two parking spaces are utilized for that and ~1 are left. He needs a total of 21, so 10 are still needed. ~. Rutter asked if 2~ parking spaces could actually be marked off and M~. Thompson replied that the variance would be for 10 as there are only 1~ ~. Rutter asked if ~1 could actually he marked out and ~. Culver re~ plied:~no. ~. Rutter asked where they were located and ~ Culver informed him there were 1~ on his property~ He has ~3 and the new building requires two. The spaces are marked out on his property. Also, he just landscaped it and there are parking spaces going from the restaurant west. Mr. Rutter explained~that he was also sort of a businessman and liked to go where the business is~ He believes all the people in this area could benefit by more attractive places and the City and everyone wou~d also benefit. However, he had no idea about the par~ng facilities. ~ Culve~~ added that fishing is the biggest thing in this town° He knows the customers and kmows the people settled here because the fish- ing was good~ ~. Thompson made a motion that a variance of t0 parking sp~ces be granted in order to occupy a 50 seat capacity restaurant, seconded by M~s. Bond. Under discussion, Healy clarified that'instead of granting 53~ it was being reduced to ~0. Chairman Bailey added that a total of 2~ were required. M~. Rutter added that this would prevent it from going ove~ a 50 seat capacity restaurant. There was further discussion of the actual relief being given and then Chairman Bailey clarified that instead of giving relief from 53~ it is relief of 10. We are not going to give the 53 requested, but only the 2~ required. If we don~t give the requested 53, he cannot get 150 seats~ but with 2~, he can get 50 seats. Mr~ Healy asked if the request was being changed and Chairman Bailey replied that the Board does not have that right, but the application asked for 53 and we are only giving 21. The stipulation is to grant, the vari~ ance with only 2~ parching spaces instead o~ 53. Mr. Keehr suggested that it be written in the nature of the notice ~nat the reductmon is in the required parking of 2~ parking Spaces to ~ parking spaces. As~requested~ Mrs~ Kruse took a roll call vote on the motion as follows: M~s. Bond ~ Yes Mr. Thompson - Yes Mr. Ward ~ No Mr. Rutter - No Mr. Zimmerman - Yes Mr. Healy - No M~ Bailey ~ No Motion failed 4-3~ variance denied~ MINU~S BOARD OF ADJ~USTMENT PAGE ~TWENTY~S IX SEPTE~ER 26, 1977 Other Business Mm, Ward referred to the August 22 meeting when there was a vote of 4-2 and the motion carried and referred to.being in- formed that a vote of 5 was required to pass. Chairman Bailey asked if it was referring to a variance motion or administrative and Mr. Ward replied that it was not for a variance, but five votes were still required for administra= tire, 'Chairman Bailey disagreed' and stated that five were only required to grant a variance and t@. Ward disagreed. Chairman Bailey informed him that according to Roberts Rules of Order~ a aGori,y of the quorum cs~ries a motion, but the City Council has required five votes to grant a vari~Luce. ADJOURN}~NT Mm. Rutter made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mrs. Bond. Motion carried 7-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 10:50 P, M, Respectfully submitted, Suzanne Mo Kruse Recording Secretary (Four Tapes ) 720 East Ocean Avenue Boynton Beach, Fla. 33435 August 15, 1977 Mr. Der!e Bailey Chairman, Board of Adjustment City of Boynton Beach City Mall Boynton Beach, Fla. Dear ~:. Bailey: The Board of Adjustment has scheduled a meeting for August 22, 1977, and will again have on the agenda at that time what has been represented by the Board as a valid ap- peal filed -~th it by George W. Culver. This appeal was last on the agenda of the Board at the meeting of August 8, 1977. On August 8th, you, as chairman, made procedural rulings represented as being based upon applicable sections of Robert's Rules, the standard of parliamentary practice in accordance with which the Board of Adjustment is required to confor~o Tb.e effect of your rulings was to limit the possible action currently available to the Board members following upon their action of July 7, 1977 to reconsider the still earlier action taken by the Board on June 13, 1977 granting the variance sought by George W. Culver. A summary of the events leading up ~o your rulings, and following upon them, is presented herer.~th in the hope of avoiding additional confusion, and, in fairness, to seek to establish an agreed upon record: oositive performance began when a Board member moved the reappr~val~= the variance granted George W. Culver on June 13~ 1977, this motion was accepted by the ~airman, but in the absence of a "second~'~ it failed, another Board member then moved to ~mend the arlier action to approve ~y reducing the extent e level of nimumareli o v 1 e to the applicant, - 2 - e this motion to amend was' "seconded'~,. the ~hairman then ruled the motion to amend could not be accepted u~ntess~ and until, the Board would approve a further action to rescind the variance approval of June !3~ 1977, even though the Board had previously adopted, on July 7, 1977, a motion to reconsider the action of June 13, 1977, while the Chairman had not so ruled on the earlier motion to reapprove, but, in fac~, had waited patiently through a period of time for a "second" to be offered on the motion to re- approve, the maker of the motion to amend ac- cepted the ruling of the ChaizT~..,~an~ the maker of the motion to amend withdrew that motion, and then offered a motion to rescind the Board's action of June t3~ !977, this motion was "seconded", but, when a tie vote resulted from a roll call, the Ghairman tabled the motion to rescind, and the next meeting was scheduled for August 22, 1977, and, normally, the business of the Board would pro- ceed from this point at the meeting of August 22~ 1977. This letter represents my formal request ~nat the errors of interpretation ~hich were responsible for these events~ and for the conclusion reached, be corrected in public session, and that the matter of' the application and appeal by George ~. Gulve~ be restored to a status permit- ting proper address. I now make this reques~ as the rep- resentative of Coastal Towers Condominiun~, Inc~. ~ne fo!- !o~ing citations from the copy of Robert;s kules available in the Boynton Beach Public Library constitute the basis for this request. From Robert's Rules, section 6, page 66 - "The motion tha~ has taken the fo.~-~n either to Rescind or~Amend Someth~% Previousl_~ A~oDte~ is an inciden- tal main motion bec~6-J~ a) it' brings business be- fore the assembly by its introduction and b~ when it is voued on, business thereby ceases to be pend- ing. By contrast, two other mo~ions in this class~ Reconsider (as applied to a main motion) and Take - 3 - From ~ne Table, do not bring a question before the assembly by their introduction, but by their adop- tion which automatically causes a main question to become pending.~' and, Section 36, page 274 - "The effect of the adoption of the motion to Recon- sider is in,mediately to place before the assembl----~ again the question on which the ~vote is to be re- sidered - IN THE EXACT POSITION IT OCCUPIED THE MO~T BEFORE IT WAS VOTED ON ORIGINALLY." (~e underscoring represents italicized material in the text. ~ne capitalization is mine for indicated emphasis.) If you remember, ! became~ I admit, somewhat upset at the time you made your rulings during the meeting of August 8th. I was tempted to ask then that the copy of Robert's Rules, which I felt would at all times be avail- able to the members, be consulted. However, as I was new to these proceedings, I decided it would be more proper for me to research the questions and to present my findings should my initial concerns prove well founded. I hope this letter will prove helpful to you, and to the other members of the Board, and that you, as ~hair- man, will comply with our request that you restore this entire question of the application and appeal of George Culver to "the exact position it occupied the moment be- fore it was voted on originally." I have accepted the suggestion you made after the meeting of August 8th, and qutside City Hail. I have n~ read all of the related minutes most carefully, and I have gone through all of the folders and records pertaining to the applications and appeals of George W. Gu!vet, and on file in the office of the City Clerk. I have learned much, and I in~end to make a more informed and documented pre- sentation on behalf of Coastal Towers on August 22nd. ~qank you for your suggestion, and for your assis- tance in the matter of this request. Very truly ~vours, Complete Marina & Service Facilities Home of the Famous Boynton Fishing Fleet Off East Ocean Avenue BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA 33435 Phone 732-9974 Hoist - Dockage Bait - Tackle PHONE: 305 - 732°4567 617 LAKesIDe HaRbor BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA 33435 oznlon on the request of ~ ~ ~ ~.~ for a variance to be considered on ~r~. ~ 1977. To: Board of ~ Sirs: ks the oe~sons most directly ~fzected by the vari~ce request we wish to ~o on reco_d ~ ~ _y much in favor of the requested The structure~ ~:~r. G~orge is ~!~ing to buz~e will be in line with existing buildings. oran~ed ne would build in such a way as to detrac~ ~pea_~nce of the street. The rear of the property is dense shz~tbbery anc~ will not ~._fectz the proper~ o~ners south. The ~ zront of ~he property is partially wooded ~nd a 8 foot setback would allow the const~action without destroying trees - aha give a ~ore pleasing ~zzect The overall appearence of the area ~vould be ~ec~ed if the 20'set back is ~ ~=~ ~-~ property in question from our ~zont windows ~nd we are in favor of NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH Warren George has requested a RE-HEARING for variance Relief from 20 ft. rear setback requirement to 6 ft. 2 in. rear setback A part of Lot 5, SAM BROWN JR'S SUBDIVISION, described as: Beginning at the intersection of the S. line of said Lot 3~ with the Easterly right of way line of $.R. ~5 (U.S.~I) as said right of way is shown on plat recorded in Road Plat Book 3, pages 11 through 17 public records of PaLm Beach County~ Fi; thence S. 89° 157 00" East (bearings mentioned herein refe~ to said Road Plat Book 3) along the S. line of said Lot 3, a distance of 363.65 it; thence N. 0° 15' 00" East a distance of 128.14 thence N. 89° 47' 00" West a distance of 546.14 ft'. more or less, to the Easterly right of way line of said ~5; thence S. 08° 12' 00" West along said Easterly right of way line a distance of 125.97 ft. more or less, to the point of beginning. Subject to easement and rights of way of Record, and easement over the N. 10 ft. for ingress and egress, Section t5~ 45 S~ 45 E. Recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 81 Palm Beach County Records Address: 600 Lake Side Harbor Proposed Improvement - To build new duplex in line with existing duplex. HEARING WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH CITY HALL~ MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 1977, AT 7:00 P. Mo Legal advertisements will appear in the August 4th and llth issues of the BOYNTON BEACH NEWS JOUP~NAL. Notice of a requested variance, for RE-HEARING, is sent to property owners within 400 ft. of the applicant's property tO give you a chance to voice your opinion on the subject, t Objections may be heard in person at the meeting or~ filed in writing prior to hearing date. If further information is dlesired call 752-8114, City Clerk's Office. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH TEREESA PADGETT, CITY CLERK August 3, 1977