Loading...
MInutes 09-27-76MINUTES OF TPH~ BOARD OF ADJUST?~NT.-=~m~?~T?'~- ~= H.~_~D~ AT CITY HALL~ ~ ~ p~ ~ ~v SEPTE~ER 27, ~976 AT 7:00 P.M. BOYNTON B~AC~, ~ ~OR ~DA, ~'~ ...... ~ PRESENT Joseph Aranow, Chairman Der!e B. Bailey, Vice Chairman Robert Gordon, Secretary Alvin C. Boeltz George Ampoi Vernon Thompson, Jr. Foy Ward A. J. Caravetta~ Alternate Walter Rutter, Alternate E. E. Howell, Bldg. Official Michael Smodish, Asst. City Atty. Chairman Aranow called the meeting to order at 7:00 P. M. and m._~roduced the members of the Board and the Building Official, Mm. Howell. Minutes of September ~} 1976 Mr. Bailey referred to Page ~, last paragraph~ pertaining to the motion he made and requested that it read: "~. Bailey moved to request the City Attorney to clarify the question of ruling on granting use variances." Chairman Aranow referred to Page ~, Minutes of August 9~ first line, and stated it should be: there were no "additions~'. He then referred to Page ~0, next to last paragraph, which should be: "it is overruling this Board". Chairman Aranow then entertained a motion to adopt the minutes as corrected, M~. Bailey so moved, seconded by I~. Thomeson. Motion carried 7-0. At this time, Mr. Smodish arrived and Chairman ~ v, ~rano~ intro- duced him. OLD Parcel #1 - Lots 148,' 149 and 150, Arden Park Recorded in Plat Book ~, Page 96 Palm Beach Co-mnty Records Request - Relief from 15 ft. side setback requirement Proposed Improvement - Roof over existing slab Applicant - James M. Hopkins Address - 905 N. Railroad .Avenue Mr. Gordon read the above asp!mca~mon and advised it was re- quested to make the building uniform and provide shade and shelter while working on automobiles. He added that it had been t~bie~ at the meeting on September ~3, Mr. Bailey made a motion that this ap~imca~_on be taken from the table, seconded by Mr. Gordon. Motion carried 7-0. MI~J~S BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT SEPTEi~ER ~ a? ~ 1 976 PAGE ~¥0 ~ha~rman Aranow an~ounce~ this was tabled re~ara~_ng the ques- tion of a survey and asked i£ ~. Hopkins was present. Mr. James Hopkins stated his name and his address as 905 N. Railroad Avenue, Chairman Aranow asked if he had an up-to- date survey and ~. Hopkins replied: yes and presented it to the Board. Mr. Ampol questioned when the survey was made and ~. Hopkins replied that it was dated and M~, Ampol noted it was dated September 15, ~976. Ma~. Howell added that it shows the existing roofed-over area and the slab he wants to roo£ over. M~. Thompson referred to it being a ~972 survey and asked if an architect noted the addition and Mr. Howell in- formed him that an engineer did. Mr. Rutter asked if the engineer went physically to the location and ~. Howell pointed out that it was verified with his seal. Chairman Aranow referred to the existing and proposed roofed- over areas and asked if they would block the vision of anyone travelling on Railroad or EighthAvenues and ~Ir. Hopkins re- plied: no and that he had no intentions of bioc~ning ~!t in. Chairman Aranow explained' about his concern regarding the vision being blocked and asked if he had any objection to the condition that he would not be allowed to enclose this area of ~ by 8~ ft. ~. Hopkins replied that he had no intentions of closing it in. M~. Howell added that if he planned to enclose any of it, it wou_~d have to come bac~ before this Board because it would add to the non-conformance. There was some further discussion and then ~,~. Gordon referred to a lift being located in this addition and asked if it would, obstruct traffic and M~~. Hopkins~,~rep!ied: no. Chairman Aranow suggested that this discussion be considered when a motion is made. Chairman Aranow ~ as~..~a if anyone in the audience wished to say anything for or against this application and received no response. ~.~. Thompson made a motion to grant this application with the understanding that it cannot be closed in. I@. Boeitz seconded the motion. Chairman Aranow requested adding speci- fically that the area P_~.I x 81 ft. may not be enclosed without fu_~ther a3~plication to the Board of Adjustment. ~. Thompson replied that he did not think it was needed and ~. Ampo! added that he believed the restriction was in the original motion. As requested, ~s. Kruse then took a roll call vote on ~h~ ~o~mon as follows: M~. Boeltz - Yes I~. Bailey - Aye M~. Ward - ~e Mr. Thompson - Aye ~. Ampo! - Aye M~. Gordon - Aye Chairman Aranow - Aye Motion carried ?-0. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT SEPTEMBER 27, 197~$ PAGE THREE ?CEW BUS i~ESS Parcel #2 - Lot 14, Block 6, First Addition. Rolling Green Recorded in Plat Book 24, Page 86 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 25 ft. rear setback requirement to 14 ft. rear setback Improvement - Additional living area Applicant - Robert ffrester Address - 311N. E. 15th Avenue ~. Gordon read the above application and advised it was re- quested because they need additional living area to accommo- date their growing family. Chairman Aranow passed the plan to the members for review and then gave it to 1,~s. Kruse to return to ~s. Padgett. Chairman Aranow then asked Mr. Howell if there was anything he could assist the Board. with and Mr. Howell replied that he just saw this application for the first time. ~. Bailey questioned the definition of the front lot' line and ~. Howell informed him that it referred to all lots facing the same street and explained. Chairman Aranow noted that the survey was dated 1973 and Mm. Howell informed him that they do ac- cept them up to ten years old. Mr. Robert Trester stated his name and his address as 3il N. E. 15th Avenue. Mr. Ward clarified that the rear setback was 20.7 ft. n~ and ~. Trester agreed. ~. Ward asked how far the new part would go and ~Lr. Trester informed him it would be 6 more feet and added that there was an existing si~b there now, but it was not shown on the s~vvey. ?~. Howell referred to the survey not showing an area location and explained how it was difficult to determine which way this lot faces. He pointed out that if it faces N. E. 2nd Street, the rear setback would be opposite from shown and ~ ~ ~ ~$ WOU--~ be the side setback. ~. Bailey informed him that there ~re houses fronting on N. E. 2nd Street and have the same setback~ as this house. ~. Ward asked if he meant the rear of this house could be the side and ~. Howell replied that if the lots all faced the same street with the depth all the same down th~ block, then this lot may face 2nd Street. He ex- plained further how the ordinance only referred to the front of the lot and not the house. ~'~. Ward asksd the house num- ber and ~. Trester informed him that it was on 2nd Street when he bought the house, but they requested the 15th Avenue address from the post office and had it changed. He added ~n~t he wanted to put th~ addition on the r~r of the house, but it was the side of the lot. There was further discussion regarding the actual front and how the ordinance read. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT SEPTEM~BER 27, 1 976 PAGE FOUR ~. Trester then asked how long the 25 ft. setback had been in effect a~d Mr. Howell replied that since June, 1975~ and ~ossibly before then. Chairman Aranow read Ordinance 62-9 requiring a 25 ft. setback in 1962. ~. Trester advised that his house was built three years ago and does not con- form. Mm. Ampo! asked how long he had owned the house and Mr. Trester replied: three years. Mm. AmDoi clarified that at the time h~ purchased this house, he had a N. E. 2nd St. address, but he now has a 15th Avenue address and the drive- way comes in x~om 15th Avenue and ~. Trester agreed. Chairman Aranow stated that under the definitions in the ordi- nance, they could consider the rear of the house on the west side and Mr, Howell repliedtthat he was not sure because this area is not shown on the survey. He explained how they could consider the lot facing 2nd ~$treet if the lots were the same depth. There was further discussion r~garamng this and Howell suggested that the ordinance be clarified to re~6$t the address as being the front of the lot. ~. Ward disagreed. ~. Bailey referred to the zoning m~p showing the lots facing 2nd Street. Chairman Aranow stated he thought the Board was entitled to have an up-to-date survey showing the area location. He sug- geststo the Board that this be adjourned to the next meeting. They can then determine if it meets requirements. However, if all the lots face on 2nd Street, is there any necessity of this gentleman coming back? Isn't he ~ntitled then to get a permit to make the change he wants without going before this Board? Mr. Howell replied that the way he read the ordi- nance, he would be entitled to. Mm. Ward then questioned the side setbacks and they discussed the various setbacks shown. Chairman Aranow then asked if anyone wished to speak for or against this application and received no response. Mr. Bailey moved to table this application, seconded by M~. Ampoi. Chairman Aranow added that it was tabled to allow the applicant to submit a survey with the area location set forth clearly to be presented to the Building Department. He then requested a roll call vote on the motion and Mrs. Kruse took it as follows: ~. Boe!tz - Yes Mr. Bailey - Aye Mr. Ward - Aye M~. Thompson -Jge ~. Ampol - Aye ~. Gordon - Aye Chairman Aranow - Aye Motion carried 7-0'. MinUTES PAGE F~fE M~. Ampol informed Mr. Trester that the Board's next meeting would be on October 25. Mr. Howell asked if Mr. Trester would have to come back if they determined the lot faced on 2nd Street and Chairman Aranow replied that ~. Howell could inform the Board of this and the application could be with- drawn. Parcel #! - Lots I thru 2t and Lots 38 thru 41 Block 8, Boynton Heights Rev. Plat Recorded in Plat Book t0, Page 64 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 40 ft. setback requirement on Seacrest Blvd. to 23 ft. 7 in. setback to conform to existing building line Improvement - Addition to existing building Applicant - First United Methodist Church Address - 101N. Seacrest Blvd. }~. Gordon read the above application and advised it was re- quested to make an addition to the present building to make it more functional without going beyond the building line which is non-conforming by the latest zoning requirements. Mm. Robert Alan Black stated'his name and his address as 1~5 N. Federal Highws~y and advised that he was the s~chitect re- presenting First United Methodist Church. He presented an engineering survey to the Bo~d. Mr. Black then explained a colored plan and pointed out that the 23 ft. 7 in. setback referred to the northeast corner of the building. Chairman Aranow questioned the actual distance and Mr. Black replied that from the closest point, it would be 25 ft. Chairman Aranow questioned plans to widen Seacrest Blvd. and Mr. Howell informed him that according to the County engineer- ing drawings, when Seacrest is widened, it will encroach 7 ft. on this property. Mr. Black continued and advised that this building has been here for over 30 ye~s and they are asking to comply with the line which exists. Ail the parking is in the re~. it is a historic building. They only want to make it functional. It will match the character of the existing building. ~'~. Bailey asked if he could get the permit if the corner was 25 ft. from the road and Mr. Black replied that it must be 40 ft. He added that the setback was changed to 40 ft. in 1975. ~h~. ~ are not going to infringe uoon~ it any more than already. If the County was going to take the building, they would not even consider this. MINUTES BO~RD OF ADJUST~'~NT SEPTE!~ER a?, 1976 ~&GE S IX ~. Rutter asked what the width off Seacrest would eventually be and I~. Howell replied: 80 £t. Mr. Rutter questioned iff it would be hazardou~ and M~. Howell re£erred to them not extending and explained how he did not tamn~ there would be a vision problem. Chairman Aranow clarified that this addi- tion would not shorten the distance £rom Seacrest as the bum!tatung now exists ann ~. Black ag_~d. ~,'~. Ward asked which side was non-con£orming and M~c. Howell informed him it was the northeast corner~ but the addition is going on the southeast corner. Chairman Armaow then gave the %Wo plans to ~,~s. Kruse to give to Mrs. Padgett. He then 'asked if anyone desired to speak for or against this application and the following people ap- peared in favor: }~s, J. G. Dresser · 208~ S. W. ~3th Avenue }~s. Lavett a508 N. Lake Drive Mrs. June Corbett 10~64 - 4and Way South Mr. & }~s. Harold Whitlock 306 S. Circle Drive Mr. & Mrs. Martin Haven ~807 S. W. 5th Avenue Mm. & M~s. George Kelley ~00 S. Federal Highway ~. & ~s, Robert Strand ~26 S. W. 10th Street NS. John Hawken ~2 S. E. 8th Ave. Mr. & ~s. Lou Farre!l 1803 S. W. 5th Avenue Mr. Thurman Pritchard 3440 Ocean Parkway ~s. Helen Neibel S. W. 28th Ave. ~s. Shaker 180I Ocean Drive Mr. John Lockin 112 S. E. 8th Ave. Rev. & ~s. James Roy 200 E. Ocean Ave. Harvey Oyer, Jr. 717 N. E. iOth ~2¢e. ~zI~gT~S BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT SEPTEMBER 27, 1976 PAGE SEVEN Rev. James Smith 30~ S. ~i¥. 2nd St. M~. Weber 1St Ocean Court ~-~. Ward made a motion to grant the variance, seconded by ~. Gordon. No discussion. ~s. Kruse took a roll call ~ote on the motion as follows: ~. Boeltz - Aye l~Lr. Bailey - Aye ~. Ward - Aye ~'~. Thompson - Aye ~. Ampo! - Aye ~. Gordon - Aye Chairman Aranow - Aye Motion carried 7-0. Chairman Aranow then declared a five minute recess. He cam±e~ the meeting back to order at 8 l0 -o M OLD BUSINESS (Continued) St. Cuthbert's Episcopal Church 2~4 N. E. lOth Avenue Mr. Thompson stepped down as a voting member and ~r. Carsf~,etta took his place. Mm. Gordon read this application heard on November 4, 1974. Cnamrma~ Aranow advised that a question had been raised about the parking and he read the minutes from this meeting when Mr. Healy made a statement with reference to the park- ing, but pointed out that the actual motion was to approve the application. He stated that as fsm as he is concerned, when this~r~~,~ ~. before t~_e~ Board of Adjustment on Novem- ber 4, t974, the variance was granted without any conditions of any kind and a side remark by ~. Healy did not impose any conditions. This is what he ascertains from reading the minutes. ~. Rutter questioned why it was before the Board of Adjust- ment now and. Chairman Aranow informed him there had been a question raised regarding the parking and probably because of this statement. However, as far as he is concerned, it is not part of the motion. ~@. Howell added that he just wanted clarification. There was some discussion. M~. Ampo! moved to abide by the decision made in 1974 by the previous Board of Adjustment that a variance has been granted. Mr. ~a.rd seconded the motion. W ~ ~:m~. Kruse took a roll call o~e as ~i!o~. M II~J TE S BOARD OF o~ ~vo~ 27, 197~ o~ ~ EIGHT ~. Boe!tz - Aye ~. Bailey - Aye M~r. Ward - Aye ~. Thompson - Aye ~h~. Ampol - Aye Mr. Gordon - Aye Chairman Aranow - Aye Motion carried 7-0. Chairman Aranow clarified that in case there was any ques- tion., they have ts&~en into consideration what was discussed on the question of parking and the variance was granted with- out any terms whatsoever. Mr. Howell referred to the dimen- sions given of the structure on the application and asked if he could abide by that and ~. Thompson replied tna~ nothing had changed. Chairman .Aranow then gave the plan to Kruse to return to M~s. Padgett. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Aranow referred to a letter dated September 21 from the City Attorney to M2~. ho.~l, City Manager, and ascertained that every member had received a copy. He then stated he would like to discuss it. He asked if he was correct that according to this letter, the rule of the josephson Case still remains the law insofar as the City of Boynton Beach and the Board of Adjustment and Mr. Smodish agreed this was their opinion. ~. Bailey agreed that this letter answered his question and added that he believed the n~nutes were mis- construed and his motion was to have a ruling. Chairman Aranow asked if there were any questions regarding use variances and Mr. Thompson referred to the disturbing question in ~. Nutter~s case being that he applied, to the Planning & Zoning Board the following night after the Board of Adjustment meeting. The Planning & Zoning Board then made this change as requested in a certain zone. He under- stands that the legal opinion is that they have the right to do this. This was discussed further. Chairman Aranow then referred to the procedure of submitting the plans to the Planning & Zoning Board and to the City Council for approval and questioned how someone got the authority to go back to the Planning & Zoning Board? The actual procedure was discussed further. Chairman Aranow referred to how this change actually down- graded the City by permitting manufacturing in the C-4 zone. ~. Howell explained how the City was fairly limited in the M-~ zones and had an over-abundance of C-4 zones and the City Planner and Planning & Zoning Board were trying to change some uses to get a proper looking City. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST?~2~:~T PAGE N I!~,~E !~,~. Boeitz referred to how Mm. Nutter went from Board to Board and !~. Howell explained that he was trying to exhaust all the BOards and he believes his application was made to the Planning & Zoning Board before coming to the Board of Adjustment. ~. Boeitz disagreed and referred to ~. Nutter mentioni~that he had been turned down by the Planning & Zoning Board and was referred to the Board of Adjustment and then went backt~o the Planning & Zoning Board. With reference to granting use variances, ~. Howell referred to the Board of Adjustment being able to do this and read Page 40, Paragraph C. Chairman Aranow disagreed and stated that every exception was taken out upon which the Board could pass. Mr. Howell added that these would not come before the B~d any more based on the City Attorney's recent ruling. Mr. Smodish clarified that he was called on the day this Board met regarding their acting on a use variance and his statement was that the Board could act based on what the zoning ordinance book stated. However~ since a question was raised, ~e has researched it and it is a matter of interpre- tation. ~. Howell added that the book must be changed. Chairman Aranow questioned again where the authority came fo~ an applicant to go back before the Planning & Zoning Board. He referred to buildings being built different than plans and gave Village Royale on the Green and some other houses as examples. There was further discussion and ~. Howell advised that they must prove the builder willfully violated the laws. He also explained the present plan check system and how they ~ ~ ~ ~ hoped to e~m!na~e probiems such as these. ~. Ward then referred to the five cases taken away from the Board over a year ago ~ud permits were issued ~' ~ strat~ely. ~. Howell replied that he had researched these ~nd these five people should not ha~e come before this Board, as the Planning & Zoning Board changed the zoning regulations. He explained how they could not deny a man the right to build on his property as long as the original zoning allowed it and the p~es~nt setbacks were met M~. Ward referred to the Dekker application and how the Bosmd had turned down his application for a duplex, but he built a single family house after the zoning was changed. ~. Howell replied that he was not familiar with this and clar- ified further how the law applied. Chairman Aranow resuested~ l~. Smoazsn" ~ ' to send him a photo- static copy- of the case cited in his letter. Chairman Aranow cia~iEled that it had been ruled that the Board of Adjustment does not have the r~oht to change use. MINUTES BOARD 0F ADJUST}~NT SEPTE~ER 27, 1 976 PAGE TEN Mr. Ward asked if they were operating fui!y under State Statute Cha~oter 16~? They discussed how they were operating under the-City Ordinance and the State Statute. }~. Ward referred to the Statute stating that this Board will act with the Planning & Zoning Board on special exceptions and Mr. Smodish 'replied that this was not in the code. There was further discussion regarding the operation per the code and Statute. Chairman Aranow then referred to proposed Ordinances 76-66 and 76 ag and ~uestioned how they a}elied to the Board o£ ~usvm~ SmOdish rep~mem that the~e was not any reference to the Board o£ Adjustment, but that these per- rained only to the Planning & Zoning B .... d and City Council regarding exceptions. Mr. Howell a~re~o ~ they did not have · ~ ~ amm explained anything to do wmtn '~ ~soard of Adjustment how the City Planner was trying to get some control of con- ditiona! uses in the C-6 zone. Chairman Aranow questioned whether these ordinances were trying to modify the Josephson Case and ?P. Howell explained how they were concerned with certain C-6 areas and trying to obtain some control. Chair- ~an Aranow replied that possibly the Board of Adjustment is not needed and Mr. Howell disagreed. Chairmma Aranow then suggested changing the zoning law and referred, again to how he felt it was being downgraded. They discussed further the vaz~ious zones and permitted uses. Chairman Aranow then announced that he ha~ been considering handing in his resignation as Chairman of the two ad-hoc committees. He referred to the Planning & Zoning Board not getting together with the Board of Adjustment and the Council~s Ad-Hoc Committee not having any power. M~. Ampo! questioned the problem and Chairman Aranow explained how they had been promised certain rights and powers. He further explained hom~ they were not getting the cooperation they had been promised. Mr. Smodish then advised that PP. Reed had asked him to in- form the Board that he was in the process of ~evising the Board o£ Adjustment section and he would like input from the Board whether they want or onouid have the power to a~ant use variances per the Clark Case. Chairman Aranow :i:~equested that he give a copy of this case to i~Ps. Padgett and request that a copy be giv~to each member of the Board and }~h~. Howell ~oe~-~ with a cover letter from him and taey will revmew it. ~ournment }~P. Ampol moved to adjourn, seconded by l~h~. Boeltz. I'~Lr. Boe!tz also thanked the attorney for being present. Motion carried 7-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 9:25 P.M. Su~ann~ ~,~Iuse, ~eco_ mmng Secretary (Three Tapes)