Loading...
Minutes 12-13-76MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUS~T HELD AT Ci?Z HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MONDAY~ DECE~'~ER 13, 1976 AT 7:00 P. M. PRESENT JOseph Aranow, Chairman Derle B. Bailey, Vice Chairman Robert Gordon, Secretary George Ampol Vernon Thompson, Jr. Foy Ward E. E. Howell, Bldg. Of_~c~o~l Robert B. Reed, City Attorney A~SENT Alvin C. Boeltz (Excused) Walter Rutter, Alternate A. J. Caravetta, Alternate (Excused) Chairman Aranow called the meeting to order at 7:00 P. M. and introduced the members of the Board, Building Official, and Recording Secretary. He ad~ed that M~. Rutter was un- able to be present and requested the secretary to note his absence as excused. Mr. Bailey informed the members that M~. Boeltz's wife had passed away last week and requested his absence to be noted as excused. Chairman Aran~w sug- gested they go on record as expressing their sympatb~ to Mr. Boeltz and the members agreed that the entire Board ex- tended condolences to Mr. Boeltz. Minutes of Novemb. er 8 ~ 1976 Mr. Ampol moved to accept the minutes as presented, seconded by Mm. Bailey. Motion carried 6-0. OLD BUSIneSS Mr. Thompson made a motion to remove the two applications from the table, seconded by ~. Bailey. Motion carried 6-0. Golf View Harbour, 2nd Section Lot 9, Block 19 Recorded in Plat Book 27, Page 47 Ps2m Beach Co~uty Records Request - Relief from 25 ft. rear setback requirement to 20 ft. rear setback To construct, on existing patio, a screen room with almminum roof Address - 1409 S. W. 25th Avenue Applicant - Reino Johnson Mr. Gordon read the above application. Chairman Aranow announced this was tabl~ ~o~ the purpose to give Mr. Johnson an opportunity to obtain a survey. Johnson appear~m before the Board and gave copies of the survey to the members. MI~YJTES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE ~¥ 0 DECE~ER 13, 1 976 The members reviewed the survey and noted that it was re- vised December 7, 1976. Mr. Johnson pointed out a 100 ft. right-of-way after his property line and stated there would be a minimum of 140 ft. between any existing buildings. He also explained that the rod was 4 ft. back on the east side because you would have to stand in the water to put in that rod and there is 110 ft. between the arrows. He then showed the original map of Golf View Harbour and explained. Mm. Johnson also informed the Board that eventually he wanted to put a bulkhead in and the Lake Worth Drainage District gave him permission to go 4.8' out and Chairman Aranow replied that this was not the Board's concern at this time. ~. Ward asked if there were auy seawalls in that area and Mr. Johnson informed him there were seawa!!s about three houses down and ther~ were five houses in a row with seawalis. Chairman Aranow asked if the Building Official had any ques- tions and Mr. Howell replied that this survey verifies his interpretation of the survey at the last meeting with the rod being 4 ft. back and the lot being t10 ft. Mr. Bailey asked if Mr. Johnson was planning to cover the area between the house and the canal with a roof and ~@. Johnson replied that he just wanted to put a roof over the existing patio. Chairman Aranow then gave a copy of the survey to Mr. Howell and one to ~. Gordon and returned the original to ~. Johnson.. ~. Thompson moved to grant the variance, seconded by M~. Ampol. No discussion. As requested, l~s. Kruse took a roll call vote as follows: ~o Bailey - Yes Mr. Ward - Yes M~. Thompson - Yes Mr. Ampol - Yes Mr. Gordon - Yes Mr. Aranow - Aye Motion carried 6-0. A~ this ti:me, P~. Reed arrived and Chairman Aranow welcomed him and requested him to sit with the Board members. Lots 1,2,3,4,5,6', & E 15.35' of 7, Casa Loma Recorded in Plat Book !1, Page 3 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 25 ft. front setback requirement to build up to front property line, to remodel and add an extension. M!~Y~TES BOARD OF ~JUST~NT ?AGE THREE DECEMBER 13, 1976 Address - 728 Casa Loma Blvd. Applicant - George W. Culver Mr. Gordon read the above application. Chairman Aranow re- ferred to this. application being tabled for a couple reasons and advised that two of the reasons had been answered in a letter received from ~. Reed. He then requested the secre- tary to read this letter and ~. Gordon read the attached letter dated NOvember 15, 1976, from the City Attorney. Chairman Aranow asked Mr. Culver if he had a consent signed by the other two trustees as requested in this letter ~nd Mr. Culver replied: no. Chairma~u Aranow asked if he could obtain it if necessary and ~. Culver replied: yes. Chairman Aranow then asked if Mr, Cu!ver had a survey and M~. CUiver presented one to the Chairman. The members re- viewed the survey and noted it was revised Nove~£oer 18~ 1976. Mr. Reed stated that ~r. Cu!ver should have received a copy of his letter, but due toga mixup, he did not receive a copy. Therefore, he certainly is not to blame for not having notice of the fact of consent from the trustees. Chairman Aranow replied that they could proceed on the theory that ~k~. Culver will obtain it if necessary and ~-. Culver agreed and stated he could have the two trustees go to Mr. Reed's office tomor- row. Chairman Aranow stated they would take for granted that he would take care of this if it is the only question involved. M~. Ampot referred to having Mr, Cuiver appear before the Board at least three times and stated he believed they should grant the variance at this time. He moved to grmat the vari- ance providing he submits the two signed statements from the co-trustees authorizing Mr, Culver to bring this application. ~. Bailey seconded the motion. Under discussion~ M~. Ward referred to past experience and stated he thought they should put limitations on how long variances should be for and M~. Bailey agreed. ~,~. Ampoi clarified that the reason he made~b,~,e motion is because they have had ~. Culver come back three times and he has provided all the documents requested. Chairman Aranow replied that this did not mean he is entitled to the applica- tion being granted just because he has comoiied with the re- quests, but they must still consider whether this Board has the authority to grant variances to build up to City streets and whether there is proper parking. Mr. Bailey stated that the application did not refer to parking at all and the re- quest was to build up to the front property line. He believes they should only rule on that portion. If there is a parklrg problem,he thinks it should be taken up at the time of the application for a permit, If he needs a variance on parking, he would have to appear again. MIEg'TES BOARD OF ADJUST!~NT PAGE FOUR DECE~ER ~ 3, 1 976 ~. Howell referred to their mentioning of building up to the front property line and clarified that the request was to rebuild the existing building. Chairman Aranow added that it was a non-conforming building and questioned if he had the right to ask to rebuild it and Mr. Howell replied that this was the only place for the applicant to come. ~. Thompson referred to this building being ~ eyesore and in not granting a variance, it could stay there for another 15 years with the same parking problems and same building. Chairman Aranow clarified that he was just calling the members' attention to the Board's li~itations. Mr. Howell stated that this building was non-conforming in the setback ~ud this Board has the right to grant variances on setback~ and Chairman Aranow agreed. M~. Bailey referred to the Chairman seeking a reason and the code stating if a certain percentage of the bum~mmng is going to be redone and it is non-conforming, it must come before this Board. Mr. Reed referred to the reference of a time period and ad- vised that they had the right under Section 10 of the code to set a reasonable time within which the action has to be com- menced and completed. The Board can set as many reasonable conditions that they want on any application. Mr. Ward asked what Mr. Culver thought and ~. Culver replied that he did not intend to do the whole old building at once. He would like to ~e half and in a couple yea_rs do the other half. He does not ?~ow what would be reasonable in the Board's opinion. He explained how it would be based on his economics. Mr. Ward asked if he thought a year would be reasonable and re- ferred to the possibility of him even selling and M~. Culver replied that the way the property was set up, he could not see this property being sold for the next 30 years. He re- quested possibly the granting of two years as long as he re- places half within the two years and then the other half'. Mr. Howell suggested that a completion date be given on the first half and a time limit set to secure a permit to com- plete the rest of the job. Also, when the permit is ob2mi~ed, work must be commenced in 90 days.. ~. Ampol added that what- ever was done would be an imorovement on the existing build- ing. Chairman .Aranow stated'he thought they must provide a starting date. M~. Bailey asked if he planned to get a per- mit within six months and ~-~ - ~-. Cutver replied: yes. Mr. Bailey asked if the first phase would be complSte~ in two years and Mr. Culver replied: yes. Mr. Bailey asked if it would be completed in one year and Mr. Culver explained how there was the possibility of it being held up because of a law suit he was involved in with his wifle. ~. Bailey re- ferred to the second phase being done in two years and Mr. Culver replied that ~ do it all at once. n~ hoped it would and he would like to Mr. Bailey then made an amendment to the motion that the permit shall be secured within six months of this date ~ad ~NUTES B0~qD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE FiVE D~CE~R 13, 1976 all necessary permits secured for the completion of the work within a 24 month period of this date. Chairman Aranow asked if he secured a permit within six months and 4¢ ~ nothing was done within 90 days, would he be able to contine the work and ~.%~. Howell explained how the code gave him authority to renew a permit which becomes void because of the time limit. How- ever, if he did not commence work within another 90 days, he must pay for a new permit. Chairman Aranow clarified that as far as this. Board was concerned, he would have to start the job within 89 days~ but asked when he would have to ob- tain a permit to do the b2her half of the job and Mr. Bailey replied that within 24 months, he must secure all the pernuts necessary for completion of the project. He must secure a permit within 90 dejs and if nothing~ done within the next 90 days, he must appear before this Board. ~, Howell sug- gested that it be stated that the permit cmunot be renewed- and ~'~. Bailey agreed this was the purpose of his motion. ~. Thompson referred to six months being a short period of time to obtain prints, bids, and a possible loan. ~. Culver agreed it would take about a year to get all the permits. Mr. Howell explained the City requirements for review by the vs~- ious Boards and advised there would be a maximum of six weeks clearing all the plans. Mr. Thompson replied that this was only part and referred~i~to the possible time required to ob- tain ~ moans,. Mr. Cu!ver stressed that he was going to start this as fast as he could. ~. Bailey asked if there was any reason why his amendment would create any problems and M~. Culver re- plied that he would like the six month oeriod to be a year. I~. Ampol asked if he was requesting tw~ 6 month stages or two 3 month stages and ~. Cu!ver replied that he would ts~e whatever the Board gave him. .~. Bailey asked if he would have the entire project completed in 2~ months and u~ - - . ~. Cu!ver replied: definitely. Chairman Aranow stated he still thought they must set a starting date and Mr. Howell agreed and stated he didn't think the Board could state he must be done within two years because as long as he is. building and calling for inspections and meeting the code, they could not set a com- pletion date. Mr. Bailey clarified that his amendment me,ut for securing all the proper permits. ~. Howell agreed, but asked what they were going to do if he didn't meet the com- pletion dates and ~. Reed replied that he must come back before this Board and request an extension. Mr. Howell re- ferred to the possibility of the building not being finished and it just setting there and Chairman Aranow replied that this should be considered. He personally thinks they should set a completion date. It is an eyesore now, but he wants to improve the building. However, if he is going to leave something half-built, then he would rather see it as it is now. M~. ~owel! suggested in setting a ~ompiev_on'~ date~i, to state it must be completed or come back before this Boe~d M Ii\~JTES BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT PAu~s SIX or the p~rt which is, not flni~he~ be demolished by the ' '~ ~ will . City at his. cost. Mr. Ampo! questioned the age of the exist- ing building and Mm. Culver informed him it was about 30 years old. M~. Ampo! then accepted the amendment to the motion. Mr. Ward stated that he thought it should be stated that this. variance, if granted, is granted without any authorization as far as parking. Chairman Arsmow agreed as the application did not call for it. Mr. Ampol agreed and added that this was ~@. Howe!i's department. Chairman Aranow referred to Mr.. Bailey's amendment ~ud ~-~. Bailey clarified that it was. to secure a permit to begin the project within six months from this date and completely se- cure all permits to complete the project within 24 months. Chairman Aranow referred to how it could be extended and go on and on and ~. Bailey clarified that his intent was to secure a permit within six ~ontns to start the project and have a non-renewable permit. [~. Ward asked if it meant~ he must secure a permit and start work within six months and M~. Bailey clarified that he must get a permit within six months. Chairman Aranow added that it would be a non-renew- able permit. Chairman Aranow questioned a termination date and Mm-. Bailey replied that it would go according to permits with inspections having to be made every 90 days. Mr. Ward added that he thought a completion date should be from the day. he is granted a variance and not whet. the permit is issued. He thinks they are being very generous in extending to two years. M~r. Bailey replied that if he secures all the permits within two years, then he must get inspection every 90 days or the permits will be void and he must appear before the Board. ~. Ward asked if it could be renewed at the end of 24 months and P~. Bailey replied: no, they will be non-renewable permits. P~. Ward asked w~.~ they couldn,t have a completion date and referred to two years being reasonable and M~. Cuiver agreed. He added that if he did this in two ~ ~ he would be ha]opy to agree that t~e first stage would be finished in two years or all of it within two years. If possibie~ he will get the second stage do~e in two years at the longest. ~t~. Bailey cl~ified that he must secure permits for the first phase v~ ~ ' i ~ i~hin the next two ~tnmn the f_rs~ six months and w'~ ~ he is required to secure all the permits and they are non- renewable ~ ...... ~. If he ~does not do the worR~ ~ad get in- spections, the permits will be null and void. }Mm. Ward stated ~ ~ha~ the completion date was two years and MT. Bailey clarified that he must secure all the permits within two years and they will be non-renewable permits. Chairman Aranow then questione~ how they knew just what the first and second phases ,~ .~- ~ . i ~_e and }e-. Am~o~ repl_em that it MINUTES BO~D OF ADJUST~iT was 5~ and ChairmanAranow questioned 5~ of what. ~. Reed suggested forgetting about the phases and suggested setting a period of time to finish the whole thir~g. He explained further how a recent ordinance was passed regard- ing the granting of uses and the establishment of a time limit. If it is not developed within the time limit, it expires unless improvements representing 25% have been con- structed. Also, specific grounds must oe met before getting an extension. He suggests that they require the entire pro- ject to be completed within 24 months of this date and Mr. Ward and ~. Bailey agreed. Chairman Aranow clarified, the amended motion to be: Mr. Ampo! moved to grant the variance providing Mm. Culver subm=ts the ~wo signed statements from the co-trustees author- izing him to bring this application and the permit shall be secured within six months of this date, which is non-renew- able, and the entire project shall be completed within 24 months of this date. Also, in!:~the event this project is abandoned by evidence of failure to pass the 90 day inspec- tions or it goes beyond 24 months, the City of Boynton Beach shall have the right to condemn and demolish the unfinished portion. ~. Bailey seconded the motion. Chairmam: Aranow referred to the possibility of things happen- ing and stated if the applicant did have reasonable excuses to request extension, he does. not think he would be denied a hearing before the Board regardless of the stipulations. Mr. Thompson asked about considering the pemk~ng and M~. Howell replied that in allowing the man to rebuild a non- conforming building, it includes the parking. Chairman Aranow disagreed. ~. Bailey referred to the application requesting a variance to build up to the front property line and stating nothing about parking. He does not think park- lng has anything to do with this application. Mr. Howell asked if there was any reason why this Board couldn't clarify the parking situation now and ~. Bailey replied that they didn't have a site plan. Mr. Howell replied that they did have a survey and M~. Bailey pointed out,that the parking area Was not marked off on the survey. Chairman Aranow agreed mud stated they did not have sufficient information to cover the parking. As requested, ~s. Kruse then took a roll call vote on the amended motion as follows: ~. Bailey - Yes ~[r. Ward - Yes Mr. Thompson - Yes Mr. Ampol - Yes I'~. Gordon - Yes M~. Aranow - No Motion carried 5~1. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTl~NT PAGE E !GHT ~. Cu!ver referred to this varismce being granted, but the possibility of the parking situation stopping him. There was a lengthy discussion and Chairman Aranow assured him the Board would entertain this application at arj future time with regard to the parking situation as an amendment to the original application voted on tonight without the pa~ent of another fee and without ma~ng another application. Hie added that ~. Howell and I~. Reed participated in the discussion and expressed agreement to this possible amendment to the pe- tition. Chairman Aranow referred to the last paragraph in Mr. Reed's attached letter reg~ding provisions to permit the Board to grant use variances. He advised that they discussed this before the meeting and also at the last meeting and it is the consensus of the Board that they are not in favor of hefting any amendments giving the Board of Adjustment the right to grant use variances. ~. Ward asked if they were operating under Chapter 163 in its entirety and M~. Howell replied that they were not under Chapter ~63 in its entirety according to the Zoning Book. ~. Ws~d clarified that he was referring to State law and not the Zoning Book and ~. Ampot asked if they were operating under City ordinances or State law and M~. Howell replied that he didn't think the State Statute said they had to operate under Chapter 163 in its entirety. M~. Reed clari- fied that Chapter 163 provides if a city is acting under an ordinance that establishes the Board of AdjUstment, it can continue - ~ operating under the ordinance until the ordinance is changed stating they are now operating under Chapter ~63. In June, t975, the City totally revised the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance including Section 10 on the Board of Adjust- ment. Section 10 provides conformity with Chapter 163~ Part 2. Part 2 of Chapter 163 applies to zoni=g ~ad the Board of Adjustment. H'e explained how the BOard actually operated under a combination of Section 10 and Chapter ~63, Part 2 and it actually was about the same word by word. ~@. Reed then referred to the Clark vs. Morgan case ~ud the possibility of the Board being given the right to grant use variances. He explained how he was in agreement with the Board's consensus not to grant use variances. Chairman Aranow asked if there were ~uy questions and ~. Ward agreed that Chapter 163 and Section 10 were similar except the statement in Chapter ~63 that the Board of Adjust- ment shall meet with the Zoning Board in granting special exceptions. This was included in the Zoning Book when it first came out, But later omitted. Chairman Aranow replied that if the Planning & Zoning Board did not meet with the MINUTES BOARD 0F A~J u S TI~N T PAGE NINE DECE~ER 13, t 976 BOard of ~dJ!ust~ent~ there was no way - ' ~ ..... specma_ exceptions could be granted. Also, they were told by ~. Barrett and ~. Simon that this Board could not grant special exceptions. There was some discussion about this difference in the City Ordinance and ~ ~ate Chapter. M~. Reed agreed the Board of Adjustment was the proper Board to grant special exceptions, but referred to the Zoning Ordinance requiring the reco~enda- tion of the Plam~ing & Zoning Board and approval of the City Council. w ~ , ..e exo!ained this discrepancy further and stated he was not sure it was appropriate and proper and possibly these sections should be amended to eliminate the City Coun- cil and Planning & Zoning Board functions in those areas. Chairman Aranow suggested that the ordinance be amended to be recommended by the Planning & Zoning Board to the Board of Adjustment. P~. Reed replied that technically this would not comply with Chapter 163 as it states the Board should meet as a joint committee. He added that it was not extremely clear if Chapter 163 applied in its entirety to the City of Boynton Beach~there have been different interpretations. There was further discussion about the procedure to be fol- lowed and Chairman Aranow requested a legal opinion from Mr. Reed. Other Business Chairman Aranow gave Mr. Cu!ver's sealed survey to ~ ~ ~ ~.~. howell. M~. Ward extended a vOte of thanks to P~. Reed for being ]ore- sent and Chairman Aranow than~em }~. Reed and Mr. Howell for their help and assistance. He then wished everyone a happy holiday season. -~ Mr. Ampo! moved to adjourn, seconded by ~. Bailey. Motion carried 6-0 and the meeting was orooerly adjonrned at 9:00 Respectfully submitted, Suzanne Kruse Recording Sec~ etary (Two Tape s) CITY of BOYNTON BEACH P. O. BOX 310 120 N.E. 2ND AVENUE BO'YNTON BEACH, FLORIDA 33435 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY November 15, 1976 Mr. Joseph Aranow, Chairman City of Boynton Beach ]Board of .AdjuslInent RE: Culver, George Wo Relief from 25' front setback requirement Dear Chairman Aranow and Board Members: PLease accept ~ny apology for being unable to attend your November 8, 1976, meeting; however, prior commitments had made it impossible for either myself or the Assistant City Attorney to attend. I have reviewed the minutes of your October 25 and November 8, 1976, meetings with respect to the above-captioned application and understand that you are interested in securing our response to the following questions: 1. Whether lhe Court Order and Administrator's Deed submitted by the app[icant sufficiently estab'[ish his au'tJhority to request the subject relief. 2. 'Whether it is necessary !o secure a letter from the remaining two (2)Trustees stating that Mr. Culver has authoriiy to act with respect lo the subject property. Be advised ~hat this office has examined lhe tit~e to the subject property, and it is our opinion that Yancy Byrd, III, Charles Herring and George Walter Cu[ver, as Trusiees of the Trust under the Will of George W~ CuLver~ Sr. are the present titleholders. In addilion, we ha~e reviewed the said decedent's lestamentary Trust and find that the pro- visions therein grant Trustees various general powers over the Trust property sufficient to entitle them to bring the aforesaid application. However, I believe that the remaining two Trustees (l~Iessrs. Byrd and Herring) should sign a statement to the effect that they, as Trustees under the aforesaid Trusl, consent and join in the application for a variance filed by Mr. CuLver~ Mr.. Joseph Aranow, Chairman November 15, 1976 Page 2 Hopefu[[y the foregoing opinion wi[[ serve to assist the Board in hearing this application; however, should there be any further questions I would be happy to attempt to answer same. Further, I have noted the Board's discussion of Mr. Smodish's September 28, 1976, letter to the City Clerk asking that copies of the Clark vs. Morgan case be distributed among Board rnembers. Since this office is in the process of preparing an ordinance revising the section of the Code pertaining lo the Board of Adjustment, we were interested in obtaining the Board's view as to whehher this revision should include provisions permitting the Board lo grant "use variances", which is presently prohibited under the terms of Section 10 (B) (4~) of the Code. Since ii appears there is some confusion concerning the applicability of - F.[orida Statutes Chapter 163 to Board activities as well as the jurisdiction of the Planning and Zoning Board vis a vis that of the Board of Adjustment, either myself or Mr. Smodish will again make an attempt to be present at your next meeting for the purpose of clarifying these questions.