Loading...
Minutes 05-23-77i~:I::~ i::S OF T~ BOARD OF ADJUST}~NT~:~:~:w~ ....... ::ELD AT CI~v HAL~ ~ -:, ~ LORIDa MONDAY MAY 25 ~9~7 AT 7:00 P. M. BO~dTON BEACH, ~ , , Derle Bailey, Chairman Vernon Thompson, Jr.,Vice Chairman David W. Healy, Secretary Walter B. Rutter Foy Ward Carl Zimmerman Ben Adetman, Alternate V. Paul Scoggins, Alternate Bert Keehr, : Building Dept. Rep. ABSE~:'T Liliian Bond Chairman Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P. M. and introduced the members of the Board and the Recording Secretary. Minutes of Apr.~1 2.5~ 1977 Mr. Thompson moved to accept the .minutes as printed, seconded by ~:r. Hea!y. Motion carried 7-0. Communications Chairman Bailey referred to giving each member an envelope from the City Clerk and also a folder containing the Planned Industrial Development District Intent and ~rpose Section. ~. Adelman replied that he had not received the envelope con- taining the financial enclosure information and it was re- quested that Mrs. Padgett mail him one. Chairman Bailey announced there was no reason for a meeting on May 9 and he requested Mrs. Padgett to contact everyone. A memo has been received from Mrs. Padgett advising this was done and will be filed with the minutes. ~b!ic H ar:n~ Parcel #3 - Lots 7, 8 & 9, Block 3, Central Park Annex Recorded in Plat Book 12, Page 51 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 9000 sq. ft. lot area requirement for each duplex to 8775 sqo ft. Address - 125-131S. W. 11th Avenue Applicant - William E. Grapentine ~. Healy read the above application and read the reason re- quested stated these properties were presented as being zoned for two duplexes and so priced. Denial of the petition would result in financial losses of $6,000. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT PAG~ ~iO ~D~Y 23, 1977 Mr. Grapentine appeared before the Board. The members stud- ied the site plan and then ~t was returned to Mrs. Kruse to be given to Mrs. Padgett. Mm. Thompson asked if the lot area was the only requirement which would not be met and Mr. Keehr replied that other than the lot area, the other requirements are met. ~. Ward asked when Mr. Grapentine acquired the property and MT. Grapentine replied: March 4, 1977. Ma~. Ward asked if he knew at i~that time the lots were not large enough and Mr. Grapentine replied that he understood they were originally zoned for two complete duplexes; but due to the rezoning, they were short 225 sq. feet. Chairman Bailey asked if anyone desired to speak in favor of this variance and received no response. He then ascertained that no correspondence had been received in favor. He then asked if anyone desired to speak in opposition and the follow- lng appeared before the Board. M~. Sam Mathis, 110 S. W. ~lth Avenue, stated he was speaking not only for himself, but everyone in the area who received a notice and signed a petition against it. The property was bought in March and if there is a hardship, it is self-imposed as the ordinance was already passed. There is sufficient room to build one duplex, but it would be too crowded to build duple~ces. Zt is not the neighborhood standards to allow such a unit and he cannot see how it can be done under the ordinamce. He cannot see where it would be beneficial to this neighborhood of single family dwellings to allow this unit to be built. It was this man's duty to find out about the ordinance before settlement and if it was misrepresented, it was wrong. He sees no way it could be granted. ~. Dale Hatch, 12!1 $.W. 1st Street, stated he lived just around the corner from the property in question. He opposes a duplex being built in this single family area in which he lives. He bought in that area with the idea it was a single family area. He believes if the neighborhood is checked care- fully, no other duplexes will be found. He thinks there are some nice homes ~n this area and he is opposed to having four families living on such a small lot. ~. Rutter asked if he opposed one duplex and Mm. Hatch replied that he did not like it and would prefer a single family house. Mr. Healy referred to there being a duplex built at Seacrest and loth ~&venue a~d Mr. Hatch replied that along Seacrest, it is duplex area. Mr. Pierson, 115 S. W. 11th Avenue, informed the Board that retired people and young children live in this area. There is a problem in the neighborhood with parking. He explained how there could possibly be 12 cars with two duplexes and only 4 parking spaces are required for each duplex, if the MI~JTES BOARD OF ADJUST~flENT P~GE THREE ~-Y 23, t 977 man bought a hardship, it is his problem. He hooes it will be.~ept a~ i~ is now. ~. Thompson referred to two cars per un!~ and ~Uhairman Bailey clarified that a total of eight parking spaces would be required. ~. Pierson continued with referring to the purchase of a hardship and comparing it to ~ne purchase of a car which could turn ou.~ to be a lemon and he would not expect to be bailed out. He also told about hav- ing the opportunity to purchase this land 12 years ago and stated it was sold at a profit now. He thinks it would be nice to build two homes. He again stress~ed how the parking was a problem and the whole neighborhood was upset about the notice, it is a nice neighborhood and they would like to keep it that way. Mr. Art Cloutier, 126 S. W. lOth Avenue, informed the Board that his property was directly behind this. He has a large family and built a beautiful home on a t00 ft. lot and would like it to remain single family residences. Mrs. Schlar, I21S. W. 11th Avenue, informed the Board this was next to her property. She would like two nice homes in- stead of duplexes. People are coming and going in duplexes and it would not be advisable. M~. Earl Engel, 111S. W. 11th Avenue, stated that he was in agreement with the previous speakers. He then told about ~. & ?~s. Hoffman, who live across the road from this pro- perty, having to buy additional land to put a little screen porch on and they were only 1 ft. short. How can somebody ask for this much? He thinks it is asking too much. Chairman Bailey then asked if any correspondence was re- ceived in opposition and ~. Healy read a petition subrmitted signed by 38 residents in the area strenuously objecting. He also read letters in opposition from M~. & ~s. Joseph imboden, 114 S. W. 11th Avenue, and Mr. Richard H. Raybuck, 141S. W. tOth Avenue. It was requested that this corres- pondence be filed with the minutes. Mr. Ward made a motion to deny this variance because he does not think the applicant has the right hardship for a variance to be granted. ~. Healy seconded the motion. Under discus- sion, ~. Rutter stated the testimony of the people ~.resent, being ta×payems of the City of Boynton Beach, must be con- sidered, plus the buyer ~maew he would have difficulty con- structing the duplexes and whatever hardship Was created, he created it. Mr. Ward added that a hardship must be unique and minute and not self-created. As requested, ~s. Kruse took a roll call vote on the motion as follows: MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~ENT RAGE FOUR I~Y 23, 1977 ~v~. Rutter - Yes Mr. Adelman - Yes Mr. Thompson - Yes Mr. Ward - Yes Mr. Zimmerman - Yes ~. Heaiy - Yes, because he feels the applicant has not given any real hardship smd believes it would only increase the density of the neighborhood. ~. Bailey - Yes Motion carried 7-0. In view of the people eXiting, Chairman Bailey declared a short break. He called the meeting back to order at 7:33 P.M. Parcel #~ - Lot 22, Lee Manor Isles Recorded in Plat Book 24, Page 211 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from fence height requirement to permit installation of 10 ft. chain link fence for proposed Tennis Court ~ddress - 640 Castilla Lane Applicant - M~. James E. Wurth Mr. Hea!y read the above application and read the reason re- quested is that the minimum fence height requirement for ten- nis courts is I0 ft. M~. James E. Wurth, 640 Castiila Lane, appeared before the Board. ~@. Healy referred to the minimum fence height re- quired for tennis courts being 10 ft. and Mr. Wurth replied that the zoning regulations say the maximum height for a fence is 4 ft. and he is asking relief to have ~0 ft. for a tennis court to retain the balls. Tennis courts use 10 and 12 ft. heights and he is asking for the minimum. Mr. Ward asked where this fence would be located and Mr. Wurth informed him that he has a lot next to his house where he would like to put in a tennis court and will have the fence around the court. ~. Healy asked where the 10 ft. requirement came from and Mr. Scoggins informed him that the 10 ft. requirement was per industry standards. ?~. Zimmerman asked if the fence would be on the lot line and Mr. Wurth explained how the back would be on the seawall and the front would be nes~ the lot line inside of a 6 ft. high hedge. The lot is 115 ft. and the standard court is 120 ft. and he will try 'to put it as close as possible to the hedge. The court will take up about 2/3's of the width of the lot. MI!~S BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE F~E ~Y a3, ~ 977 Chairman Bailey asked if anyone desired to speak in fsy¢or of this variance and received no response. He~then asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition and received no re- sponse. He ascertained that no co~nnunications had been re- ceived. M~. Rutter made a motion that the variance for the fence be granted, seconded by Mr. Ward. Under discussion, ~. Rutter explained that his reason was that he looked at the location and it is ideal for a tennis court. Also, no objections have been received from the neighbors. It will be an added attrac- tion for the neighborhood. If it was in ma area where it would be attmacting children or objections were submitted, he may be in opposition. I~k~. Zimmerman asked if smy similar variances had been granted since the fence ordinance has been in effect and Mr. Keehr replied that he has not been here a year and this is the first fence variance he has been aware of. ~ Rutter explained how ~t just would not be advanta- geous to have a 4 ft. high fence around a tennis court. Mr. Ward added that he could not remember granting such a variance through the years. ~. Rutter referred to the City tennis courts and also mentioned how a spite fence may be objection- able. i~. Zimmerman agreed a chain link fence would certainly not be objectionable compared to a wooden fence at this height. M~. Hea!y stated he understood this was the first time any re- quest was presented to the Board. of Adjustment for building a tennis court on a residential lot. Had this come up before, he is sure the Building Department or Planning & Zoning Board would have made provisions and possibly now they will take this into consideration. There must be a fence high enough to protect the play. 1~. Thompson agreed this was the first he had heard of this type. However, it is strange in Boynton Beach to see a tennis court in a residential area. He asked if the neighborhood was completely built and Mr. Rutter replied they must consider the type of homes and the manner of exercis- ing done today. ?~. Thompson referred to having problems pre- viously where a person wanted to fence in Mango Trees to pro- tect them. It is Mangoes versus tennis courts. Chairman Bailey informed them that he did some research on this and nobody ~new of a tennis court in a residential area in Boynton Beach. Mr. Scoggins stated he thought i~ was long overdue and told about other r~sidential areas having tennis courts. He added that everyone couldn't .~=ay at the City courts, be- cause the number was inadequate. ~wh~. Thompson agreed it was a worthy cause, but he questions bringing the fence to the street. He is sure if the property was deep enough, an appli- cation would not have to be submitted. ~. Wurth informed him there was a 15 ft. right-of-way. M~~. Rutter asked what the problem would be if the fence went to the building line and Mr. Thompson replied that he thought the door would be open to Mango Trees and anything else. M~.. Rutter stated there was a difference between Mango Trees and tennis courts. MINUTES' BOARD OF ~DJUoT~T PAGE S7_X ~Y 23, 1977 Mr. Healy asked if the tennis court would be used for personal use and M~. Wurth replied that it would be for!~nis family's personal use and all the neighbors have been invited to use it at their~leisure. It will not be private and locked. As requested, Mrs. Kruse took a roll call vote on the motion as follows: I~. Rutter - Aye Mr. Thompson - No ~r. Ws~d - Yes Mr. Zim~erman - Yes M~r. Scoggins - ~es Mr. Healy - Yes Mr. Bailey - Yes Motion carried 6-1. Parcel #2 - Lot 4~ Block 2, Lake Eden, Plat #2 Recorded in Plat Book 29, Page 53 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from fence height requirement to permit installation of 10 ft. chain link fence for proposed Tennis Court Address - 3~0~ S. Lake Drive Applicant - Thomas J. Bowles ~. Healy read the above application. Chairman Bailey re- ferred to the request being for both an 8 ft. and 10 ft. high fence smd Mr. Bowles clarified that ~0 ft. high was required and he changed some of the papers, but possibly not all of them. Chairman Bailey questioned the setback from the street and Mr. Bowles informed him it would be 45 ft. from the easement and on the other side it would be back 25 ft. He added that it would be 60 ft. wide ~ud 120 ft. long.. Chairman Bailey referred to the shape of the fence and ~. Bowles explained that it was '~U~ shaded with the middle open. ~. Zimmerman asked if he was going to leave the present fence there and Mr. Bowles replied: yes, just like it is and explained that the existing fence goes from both lots down the street to the corner of the other house and is 240 ft. long and 135 ft. wide. ?~. Healy asked if the tennis court would be for his own use and Mr. Bowles replied: yes, strictly private use. M~. Scoggins made a motion to grant the variance, seconded by Mr. Rutter. Under discussion, M~. Ward stated he didn't think either one had a hardship, but is going along with it since it is something new and not covered in the zoning ordi- nance. M~. Rutter stated that a 4 ft. high fence is definitely a hardship for a tennis court. M~. Ward stated there were no regulations about it at all. Mr. Thompson referred to there being a section covering fences in the ordinance and Mr. Ward replied that it did not state tennis courts. ~. Thompson M I~ TES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE S~VEN ~Y 23, 1977 replied that the ordinance does spell out fence and it would be impossible to list everything a person would like to fence in. ~. Scoggins stated that a fence and tennis court are almost synonymous and a fence is a necessity wm~h a tennis court. M~. Thompson agreed and stated it was nice to have a tennis court, but the fence should not be right at the street. it is not a hardship. He referred to other applications for fences and explained how he thought the door would be opened for other reasons, such as golf, with granting this. Mr. Rutter referred to the City having tennis courts and M~. Thompson replied that it was in a commercial area. Chairman Bailey stated he thought it was 6 ft. throughout the City and ~. Keehr informed him it was 8 ft. in industrial areas. Chairman Bailey suggested they look at this according to the circumstances and added that he thought it would be a compli- ment to the City of Boynton Beach. ~. Ward stated he thought this should be brought to the attention of the City Planner as far as any future regulations and ordinances to look into the tennis court situation. Mr. Adelman stated he thought tennis courts are a compliment to the area and does not think doors will be open. M~. Thompson referred to the screening in of swimming pools being a problem. Mr. Adelman replied that swimming pools were different as a fence is not needed. ~. Rutter added that a fence was necessary with a tennis court. ~. Thompson agreed, but referred again to it being close to the street. ?~. Zimmerman stated he could see Thompson's viewpoint and explained how someone may want to fence in an archery target area. ~. Keehr informed the Board that he did take this to the City Planner in regards to a tennis court being an accessory use to a single family residence and Mr. Annunziato whole- heartedly agreed that this is~an accessory use. Possibly the City Planner will come up with fence stipulations. M~. Healy referred to the City growing and stated he thought the City Planner and Planning & Zoning Board must give consideration to some changes. As requested, Mms. Kruse took a roll call vote on the motion as follows: M~. Rutter - Yes Mr. Thompson - No Mr. Ward - Yes ~. Zimmerman - Yes ~. Scoggins - Yes Ma~. Healy - Aye M~-. Bailey - Yes Motion carried 6-I. MII~ TES BOARD OF ADJUST~,~NT PAGE EIGHT ~[~Y 23, 1 977 Adjournment ~. Rutter made a motion, to ad3ou~n, seconded by ~. Zimmerman. Motion carried 7-0 and the meeting was pro- perly adjourned at 8:00 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Suzanne M. Kruse Recording Secretary (One Tape ) Derle Ba±ley Chairman, Board of ~Adjustment FROM OFFICE OF CITY CLERK CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH P, O, BOX 310 BOYNTON BEACH, FLA, 33435 ,DATE :.~ 5/9/77 ~JECT: ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... T-' FOLD J~ Pursuant to your telephone request at 10:35 A.M. this morning we have called the members of the above mentioned board and advised them that there wSll not be a meeting of the Board this evening since there are no applications on file for ~his date. Was able to contact everyone except Mr. Thompson. PLEASE REPLY TO ~ SIGNED REPLY ~DATE: SIGNED GRAY/%RC CO., INC.. BROOKI.¥N, N. Y. 11232 THiS COPY FOB PSRSON ADDRESSSD