Loading...
Minutes 05-10-76MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT .MEETING ~LD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, MONDAY, M_~Y 10, 1976 AT 7:00 P. M. PRESENT Joseph Aranow, Chairman Derle B. Bailey, Vice Chairman Robert Gordon~ Secretary Ge orge ~ Ampol ~lvin C. Boeltz Vernon Thompson, Jr. Foy Ward Walter Rutter, Alternate E. E. HowEll, Bldg~ Official Chairman Aranow called the meeting to order at 7:05 P. M. He introduced the Building Official, members of the Board and Recording Secretary. In view of the large audience present, he suggested considering the application from Fair Lanes Boynton Beach Properties, inc. first and postponing all other business until after this matter~ The members agreed. PUBLIC HEARING Parcel #7 ~ A parcel of land in the N. W. Quarter of Sec. 29, Twpo 45 South, Range 43 East, in the City of Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, described as follows: Commen~ingoat the N. W. Corner of said Sec. 29 and run Sou~h 0 57' 29" East along the West line of Sec. 29, a distance of 322.06 feet to a point in the South right of way line of State Road S-804 as shown on Ro~d Plat Book 2, Pages 217 to 220; thence North 87~ 54' 06" East along said right of way line 588.5~ feet to the Point of Beginni~E; thence continue along last described course 200.0 feet to a point; thence South 0 ~7' 29" East~ a distance of 600.0 feet to a point, thence South 87~ 54' 06" West,~ a distance of 200 feet to a point; thence North 0° 57' 29" West~ a distance of 600 feet to the Point of Beginning° Request - Relief from 30 fto side setback on East side to ~0 ft. side setback To construct 32 Lane Modern Bowling Center Address ~ 1~90 N. W~ 2nd Avenue Applicaut-Fair Lanes Boynton Beach Properties, Inc~ Mr. Gordon read the above application and also Exhibit 2 at- tached to the application listing five reasons for making this request. ~. Gerard Wit stated his name and his address as 1112 N~h Rolling Road, Baltimore, Maryland. He informed the Board that he represented Fair Lanes Properties, Inc. and gave a little back~round about the company. He stated they purchased this MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~2~T PAGE TWO MAY tO, 1976 property in November, 1974, with the intention of building a bowling center. The contract was submitted~.~ ~973 and was contingent on the proper zoning. The zoning became a reality in November, 1974. The bowling center building will fit on this property sideways within the zoning and setback require- ments; however, they are asking to be allowed to place the building at the rear of the property across the width for their benefit, ease of customers in the parking lot, and also for the people in the condominiums. If placed length- wise, the door will face the condominium. It will also not be aesthetically pleasing. There will be a bowling center there, but it is a question of sitting the building not to be objectionable to the neighbors. Chairman Aranow explained how the Board must consider whether a hardship is involved. He also explained how they were aware that new zoning regulations sometimes created hardships passed on the basis of upgrading the City. An applicant must prove that a hardship exists. He referred to the reading of Exhibit 2 and asked if there was anything additional Mr. Wit wanted to submit. Mr. Wit informed the Board that he brought some pictures of their existing bowling centers in Florida and showed them to the members. He explained how they strived for uniformity in the building and parking design. He added that the bowling center as required by the Boynton Beach regulations would re- quire the parking to be on the side with a 100 ft. walk to the front door. ~r. Boeltz remarked that it looked like the bowl- ing center in the photograph was located on a larger piece of property and ¥~. Wit agreed it was and exolained the sizes of the various bowling centers according to ~he number of bowling alleys. Chairma~ Aranow remarked that he hope~ the C.A~Bo would have requirements tomake the building look more attrac- tive. Chairman Aranow stated he didn't see where there would be any hardship at all to put the building the other way. ~. Wit replied that it would not be an undue hardship to them, but they felt it would cause a hardship to the condominium property owners. Mr. Boeltz stated if he was granted a variance, every~ one in that district could get one. Mr. Ward clarified that the building could be built with turning it around, but appar- ently they are trying to keep the better side of the buildin~ to' the public~ ~. Wit replied that they would prefer, to have the building facing 804. He showed a plan to the members showing how it would have to be built according to the zoning requirements with the front door facing the condominium and the members studied the plan. M.Y~TES BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT P~.GE · '~ '~ -~H~E ~[~Y 10, 1976 Chairman Aranow requested Mr. Howell to acquaint him with the setback requirements of C-3 under the old law and the new law. Mr. Howell informed him the side~setback abutting residential is 30 ft. The rear setback, without an alley access and there is an alley access on the west side, would be t5 ft. Chairman Aranow questioned the easement on the property and Mr. Howell informed him there was an easement on the west side and if it encroaches, it will show on the plan. He believes FoP.L. is encr~aching on this property. ~. Wit added that he believed there were encroachments all the way around. Chairman Aranow questioned calling them encroachments and Mr. Wit stated that he understood that they were not recorded easements. Mr. Howell then read the requirements from the:zoning code. They discussed the required setbacks further. Mr. Ampol then referred to the deed being granted on November 27, ~974~ and asked if they contemplated building a 32 lane bowling center then and }~. Wit replied: yes. Mr. Thompson clarified that if the building was to face the east, all the requirements would be met and ~. Wit agreed. ~. Thompson continued that with the building turned to the north, a var- iance is needed and Mr. Wit agreed. Mr. Thompson then stated if the building was turned to the east, the condominium owners would look right into the front of the building and it would benefit the condominium owners and the bowling alley to be facing the north and N~. Wit agreed. Mr. Wit also explained how with turning the building, it~-:would take the congestion, lights, noise, etc. away from the condominiums. Mr. Bailey asked if they didn't get this variance if they were still going to build the bowling center and Mr. Wit replied: yes. Chairm~ Aranow asked if anyone else desired to speak in favor of this application and received no response. He then asked if anyone was opposed and the following appeared before the Board. M~. R. B. Vastine stated his name and his address as ~32 Leisureville Boulevard. He stated that he recognizes the problem the Board faces with this question. For the health and welfare of the people living in Leisureville and the value of the surrounding area, they heartily besSe~h the Board of Adjustment to consider retaining the 30 ft. setback. He recog- nizes what it means to the planner of this building; but he is sure when the people moved into Leisureville~ they did not ex- pect this at their back door. He hopes this Board will be in favor of retaining the setback in the zoning regulation. Mro Bill Scholz stated his name and his address as 1118 Lake Terrace. He informed the Board he was President of the Lei- sur~ille Apartment Association. They are dist~bed with this application and the property being zoned. C-3o Before speaking, MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE FOUR MAY 10, 1976 he would like to review the plan presented. ¥~o Howell showedhim the plan and explained it. Mr, SchOlz continued with advising that he talked to Mr. Wit on the telephone last week, The plan as set out iS primarily the same except for the facing of the building and the layout of the parking, His observance of this situation, i~ they show a 28 ft. entrance off Boynton Road, Mr. Wit proposed to sell him property fac- ~ 0 ing Boynton ROad at $75 per ft. He doesn't believe this ap- plication is in good faith as the sale signs are on the property at this time. Chairman Aranow replied that if~, Wit had a piece of property and he wanted to sell it, he didn't see where it hadanything to do with this application before this Board. Mr. Scholz referred to the zoning calling for 75 ft. frontage and if ~, Wit intends to sell 75 ft, frontage, he would not meet all~!~the zoning, His background has been on the other side of the fence before. He is a land developer and knows Mr. Wit's position, Nat~ally they are there to make money and he can realize that. ~, Scholz then continued with referring to Exhibit 2~read and the statement regarding it being detrimental to the building with the possibility of vandalism. If this could happen to a bowling alley, it could certainly happen to apartments adja- cent. He then referred to the statement about customers leav- ing without paying and this is a management problem, He knows this Board in taking this into consideration has the right to prescribe appropriate safeguards, He will join ~. Vastine to ask the Boardwholeheartedly to reject this application and hopes the City will upgrade this land. M~. George Thomas stated his name and his address as ]~17 Lake Terrace. He informedi:~the Board that Buildings F and ~ were directly on the line adjacent to this strip. He then'ipresented to the Board a petition signed by 501Leisureville residents, He referred to many being present tonight and explained why others could not attend, He then stated that people who have health problems would be embarrassed and injured by a nuisan:oe installation near them, To grant this variance would bring a nuisance closer by 20 ft. He looked at the print and it shews an allowance for ~62 cars and the rows will fac~ directly to Buildings E and F, Lights will be turned off and on, et'c. These disturbances will be intrusive and affect the health and slumber of the people, He referred to the applicant being con~ corned with vandalism and theft and they are also cancerned that the peeplein the bowling alley will come through the trees mud cause anxiety and fright to the people there and burglarize the empty places. He referred to M~. Wit oointing out the concern of Fair Lanes for the aesthetic appearance and if it faces 804, it will be more appealing, What would be more appealing, is that the sign. is facing 804. With it being turned around, it would be shielded by Australian Pines, He thinks~eisureville has helped Boynton Beach. He then referred MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE F~¢E MAY t0, 1976 to Page 40' of the Zoning Regulations stating a variance should be granted in harmony? of the general intent. This regulation means not to grant a variance causing disharmony or which would be detrimental to the public welfare. They do feel the vari- ance would violate that part of the regulations. He earnestly urges the Board to deny this variance. Mr. Homer Q. Kimbrell stated his name and his address as 503 S. W. 19th Street. He informed the Board that he is a member of the Florida Bar and licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. He is semi-retired and a member of the Board of Directors of the Leisureville Association and has been requested by that Board to appear tonight and speak to this Board on be- half of 4500 people in Leisureville. He has listened to M~. Wit and he has admitted there would be no hardship to himself or the people he represents, it seems there is a hardship to everyone but the applicant with reference to people having to walk 100 feet to the building. ~. Wit was c~reful to explain the possible disturbances to people in the apartments. They are disturbed that they would attemot to remove a 30 ft. set- back. He then referred to the statements made by the previ~ ous gentleman and the Board should uphold the zoning laws as they now exist for the welfare~ safety and public health of the community as it now exists. Most of the people living in this community are entering their sunset years and have purchased homes to spend their declining years. To grant a varance will not give them protection this Board is obligated to do for their welfares, he~th, safety and all elements to make up a good community. He would ~g~ this Board, on be~ half of the Leisureville Community Board of Directors and $500 people they represent~ to reject this application. Chairman Aranow asked if any people were present in opposi~ tion to this application who did not sign the petition which was presented to the Board. He referred to four representa- tives from Leisureville speaking and added that he was happy to say they concerned themselves with the point involved on what the Board can act on~ the 30 ft. setback. He then re~ quested that Mr. Gordon read the communications received. Mr. Gordon read a letter dated May 4 from Dorothy Mayhew, ~t6 Lake Terrace, stati~her opposition to the building of a bowling center at this location. He then read a letter from Florence Rhoad and Howard C. Rosacker, ~1~ Lake Terrace, stating their opposition to this application and requesting the variance be denied. Mr. Gordon. made a motion that the variance be denied, seconded by Mr. Ampol. Chairman Aranow requested that the reason be included for the motion. Mr. Gordon stated there would be a MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~ENT PAGE SIX ~Y l 0 ~ ~ 976 traffic problem in this location with regards to the noise of the cars, horns, racing around bowling alley, signs, etc. which would be too~much for these people to live with. Also, no hardship has been proven in this case. Mx. Ampol agreed. Motion carried 7~0. M~~. Thompson clarified that he voted with the majority strictly because there was no hardship, but he feels the residents will feel they probably made a mistake° Mr. Ward clarified that he voted on the same circumstances with the petition having not presented enough hardship nor the right ~.mind for this case. M~o ~it stated that he understood the two members~ voting clarifications. They are voting no because of not proving a hardship, but since the zoning does allow a bowling center, they now have to face the condominiums and they will find they have made a mistake in coming here in objection. Chair- man Aranow replied he was sure the people here and the members on the Board realized this° At this time, Chairman Aranow declared a recess to give the people from Leisureville a chance to leave. He called the meeting back to order at 8:05 Po Mo .~b.le.d App.. ~l~cation from: ApriI 1.2 ~ .1976 Parcel #~ - Lots 34 and 36, C. W. Copps Addition Recorded in Plat Book 7, Page 56 Palm,Beach!County Records Request - Relief from 75 ft. lot frontage requirement to 50 ft. platted Relief from 9000 sq. ft. lot area requirement to 6,582 sq. ft. area ~oposed Improvement - Duplex Address - 407 N. E~ 2nd St. 408 N. E. ~st St. Applicant ~ Gabriel Pica Mro Bailey moved that the Pica case be taken from the table, seconded by ~. Ampol. Motion carried 7-0. Chairman Aranow informed the Board that ~. Pica had submitted a d~ed~iand certain surveys. Mr. Gabriel Pica stated his name and his address as 262 Gulfstream Boulevard, Delray Beach. Chairman Aranow read the deed dated May~ 1973, from M~. & Hewing:to Gabriel and Beatrice Pica and Albert & Faye Pica con- veying Lots 30, 32, 34 and 36 to the four people mentioned. He asked if this was the only deed and Mr~ Pica replied: yes. Chairman Aranow referred to the last meeting when Mr. Pica formed the Board that there were two separate deeds and Mr. Pica replied that when they purchased these lots, they each paid for two lots. Chairman Aranow pointed out that accord- ing to the deed, the four lots were controlled by the four people. Mr. Pica informed, him that he agreed with his brother MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE SEVEN ~.Y 10, 1976 that they would each build one unit~ He understands he cannot build a duple× and has decided to build a single house and sub- mitted plans to the Board. He understands the lot should be 6000 sq. ft. and the lot is 6,582 sq. ft. and is 50 ft. by 131 ft. N~. Ward clarified that he did not have the required frontage and ~. Pica agreed and added that his lot was much longer. Chairman Aranow ~estioned whether they could entertain this application and ~ ~Iowell informed him that if they did entertain this for a single family residence, it must comply with the R-~ requ~ements. Chairman Aranow stated if it was at all possible to give ~. Pica relief, he feels he is entitled to it without'filing a new application. However, the require- ment for a single family house in the R-1 classification is 60 ft. frontage. ~. Boeltz asked if he had purchased the lot before the new zoning and M~. Pica replied: yes. M~. Boeltz clarified that the City caused the hardship and Mr. Pica agreed. Chairman Aranow referred to the deed presented being for Lots 30, 32, 34 and 36 and the survey presented being for Lots 32, 34, 36, and 38~ He doesn't think they have the right to ac= cept Mr. Pica~s application on behalf of all four people. It would seem to him they should have written authorization auth~ orizing him to speak on behalf of the other persons. He does not think they should entertain this application because the property on the deed is not the same property as on the survey° Mr. Pica replied that he was speaking for all four. He plained that when they bought this property, they agreed he ~nd his wife would have Lots 34 and 36 and his brother and his wife would have Lots 30 and 32. He is ready to build ~ud does not understand why he cannot build. Chairman Aranow referred to the lots on the title being 30~ 32, 34 and 36 and the ones on the survey being 32, 34, 36 an~ 38. The members discussed further whether they could entertain this application with only Mr. Gabriel Pica being present. After discussion, it was ascertained that ~k~. Albert Pica was present~ ?~. Albert Pica appeared before the Board and informed them that he agreed with whatever ~. Gabriel Pica said~ ~. Howell added that the Building Department ~e~i~an affidavit for joint ownership. ~. ~ard made a motion that the vari~ce be granted as he be~ lieves the man has qualified as far as square footage and he is p~ying taxes and should be entitled to build something. The building of a duolex was denied and he believes he should be entitled to substitute with building a single family house. Also, Mr. Howell has an affidavit on record and no stipulations will ~e~necessary. Mr. Bailey seconded the motion. Under MINUTES B0~RD OF ADJUSTmeNT PAGE EIGHT MAY 10, 1976 discussion, Mr. Bailey clarified that the variance would be granted for 60 ft. frontage only and Mr. Howell agreed. Chairman Aranow added that they were voting only on Lots 34 and 36. He then requested a roll call vote and ~s. Kruse took it as follows: Mr. Boeltz - Yes ~. Bailey ~ Yes Mr. Ward ~ Yes ~. Thompson - Yes Mr. Ampol - Yes Mr. Gordon - Yes Chairman Aranow - No, against in accordance with things stated. Motion carried Chairman Aranow requested M~s~ Kruse to give Mrs. Padgett the survay and maP for the permanent record. Parcel #2 ~ Lots ~0 and 1~, Block 1~, Central Park Annex Recorded in Plat Book ~2, Page 51, Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 25 ft. rear setback require~ ment to 20~60 ft. existing Relief from 25.ft. side setback require- ment to 24.74 ft~ existing Unit #~ - Relief from 750 sq. ft. re~ quirement to 630 sq. fto existing. Unit #2 - Relief from 750 sq. ft. quirement to 570 s~. ft. existing. Relief from Total Building Area require- ment of ~500 sq~ ft. to ~200 sq. ft° existing Seeking relief from existing non-conformity Address ~ I504-06 S. Seacrest Blvd~ Applicant - Henry D. Roberson Mm. Gordon read the above application and a letter dated May 5 from Mr. Roberson advising that he withdrew his petition before the Board of Adjustment. Parcel #I - Lot 24 and West 20 ft. of Lot 23, Venetian Isle, Recorded in Plat Book 24, Page 23~ Palm Beach County Records Request ~ Relief from 25 ft. front setback require- ment to 15.2 f~o front setback existing ~To add patio roof to rear of house. Address -24 Gondola Lane Applicant - Gary C. Hardter MINUTES BOARD OF A~UST~NT RAGE NINE MAY 10, t976 Mr. Gordon read the above application. Chairman Aranow asked when this house was built and Mr. Howell replied about 18 years ago. Chairman Aranow clarified the application was for a patio roof in the rear and had nothing to do with the front setback. ~. Gary Hardter stated his name and his address as 24 Gondola Lane. l~~. Ampol asked if he had owned the house since !958 and ~. Hardter replied that it was built then, but he has owned it since May 8, 1972. Mr. Boeltz asked if it had a varianc~ when originally built and Mr. Howell replied not to his knowledge, as it was not required then. Mr. Boeltz made a motion to grant the variance because it was built before the City had zoning laws. Mr. Amool seconded the motion. Chairman Aranow requested a roll call'vote and M~s. Kruse conducted it as follows: Mm. Boeltz - Aye ~. Bailey ~ Aye ~. Ward .- Aye .Mr. Thompson - Aye ~. Ampol ~ Aye ~. Gordon - Aye Mr. Aranow ~ Aye Motioncarried 7-0. Parcel #5 - Lot 11 Less W. 52 ft. and Lot 13, Block 16, Rolling Green, 1st Add., Recorded in Plat Book 24, Page 86, Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 25 ft. rear setback require- ment to ~6 ft. rear setback existing To construct a pool Address - 4~6 N. E. 15th Avenue Applicant - Arthur H. Nelson Mr. Gordon read the above application and advised there would ~e no change to the existing structure~ Mr. Arthnr H. Nelson stated his name and his address as 4t6 N. E. 15th Avenue. Mr. Ward asked if a survey had been pre~ sented and Chairman Aranow replied that he had a plan of the pool and showed it to the members. ~. Ampol remarked that these homes were built in the late 5O's and Mm. Nelson agreed and stated his was built in 1956. Mr. Boeltz asked if a re- cent survey was made and Mr. Nelson replied: no. Chairman Aranow referred to the requirements being that the survey is ~ot more than ten years old. Mr. Nelson replied that he was not aware of this. Chairman Aranow noted that the plan was noted as a survey sketch, but was more than ten years old. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT PAGE TEN F~Y 10, ]976 Mr. Bailey referred to the plotted area being inaccurate and pointed out that it showed N. Eo 4th Street at the top and it is N. E. 2nd Street. He discussed the location further with Mro Nelson and confirmed his opinion that the survey was wrong. ~Mo Ampol noted there was no seal on the survey and that it was drawn by Well & Faith, Soil Engineers, Coral Gables, not registered as professional engineers or architects. Mr. Nelson informed him that this was the survey given to him when he bought the house. ~-~. Ampol added that it was drawn on July 25, 1956. Mr. Boeltz stated they must have an updated survey presented. ~. Bailey added that they must know what has been added since it was built and the setbacks must be shown. Mr. Nelson asked if he had to spend a couple hundred dollars to have it surveyed and Chairman Aranow replied: yes, the law requires that a survey be presented dated within the last ten years. He suggests tabling this until the next meet- ing to give Mr. Nelson a chance to obtain a survey. ~. Ampol made a motion, to table this application in order to secure a recent survey, as it would be an imposition to have Mr. Nelson refile. Mr, Gordon seconded the motion. Motion carried ~hairman Aranow informed him the next meeting would be June ~4, which would give him an opportunity to obtain a survey and it will not be necessary to file further papers. Mr. Ward asked if they were still having~only one meeting a month and Chairman Aranow replied they would discuss this at the end of the meeting, He added that F~. Ward had brought this up at the last meeting and he would like to have it postponed ~ntil the end of this meeting. Mr. Ward replied he was think- ing of this applicant and the wait he would have, but .Aranow is the Chairman and it is up to him when they will hold meetings. Chairman Aranow stated that he believed Nelson would get to it when he could and if he has it before the meeting, it would be fine. They have discussed previously what dates they will meet and they will have two meetings a month if they need them. This is the first meeting they have had such a large agenda. He is waiting to see when they get through if it will be necessary to have two meetings. ¥~. Ward stated that he knew when he took the job on the Board that they were here to serve the public and even if there is only one case, they should meet. Mr. Nelson asked if they could grant the variance so he could go ahead with the pool and he would get a survey. Chairman Aranow then asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against this application and received no re- sponse. Mr. Gordon read a letter from J. & Myra Fox stating they have no objection. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE ELEVEN MAY 10, 1976 Parcel #4 ~ Lots 24, 25 and 26, Crestview, Recorded in Plat Book 23, Page 154, Palm Beach Co~ty Records Request - Relief from 32,000 sq, ft. lot area required for 8 apartment building to 30,800 sq. ft. ~ Existing building was built to accommodate 8 apartments Address ~ 2309 So E. 3rd Street Applicant ~ Antonio Ferazzoli Mr. Gordon read the above application and advised that the building was constructedduring the old zoning which allowed 8 apartments° Due to septic tank use~ the County would only allow 14 bedrooms. One apartment was noted as general use° The sewer was installed to allow 8 apartments, but the new zoning was established. Chairman Aranow added that various documents were connected to this application and passed them to the members° ~. Antonio Ferazzoli stated his name and requested that ~. Mike Rubin be allowed torepresent him. The Board agreed and Mr. Mike Rubin stated his name and his address as 2515 No E. let Court. Mr. Boeltz referred to the statement that under the old zoning of R-~ 30~800 sq. ft. was allowed in- staad of 32,000. Mr. Rubin replied that when Mr. Ferazzoli presented his application for an 8 unit apartment, the area was more than sufficient. M~o Boeltz stated that amulti- family dwelling required a minimum of 32,000 sq. ft. area previously° A variance should have been requested to begin with. The old andnew c~des are both 32,000 sq. ft. Mr° Ampol added that he did not see any deed presented. Mr. Rubin explained that he worked in the Building Department and remembered when Mr. Ferazzoli applied for his permit. The only thing that held up the 8th apartment was when he went to the County for a septic tank permit. He built the 8th apart- ment for general use until the sewer came in. After putting in the septic tank, the sewer came in. ~. Bailey clarified that in the beginning, all he needed was 28,000 sqo fro for 7 apartments and he built 8 apartments with 7 useable. Mr. Rubin disagreed and stated that 8 werei~iallowedby the City when it was built, but he is not sure what the previous zon~ ing was~ ¥~. Bailey note~ the existing zoning was R-3. Mr. Rubin stated that possibly an error was made~ Mr. Bailey statedlthat it seemed to him an error wa~ made in allowing 8 apartments without 32,000 sq. ft. On the drawing, it shows 7 apartments. Actually, he applied for a 7 unit apartment build- ~ i.~ ~t ~e built 8. Now he would like to get a variance ~o use ~ne 8th ap~rtmento. ~ Rubin informed him that ori- ginally they looked into the matter of allowing the use of the 8th apartment. Chairman Aranow asked if the plumbing was sufficient to use the 8th apartment and Mr. Rubin re- plied that the sewer could t~e c~re of it. Mr° Boeltz MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE ~ELVE MAY 10, 1976 asked if the permit was for 8 apartments and ~o Rubin rew plied that it was issued for 7 apartments. Mr. Bailey clari- fied that the building is existing with 8 apartments and he wants it conforming to use 8 apartments. ~. Howell asked why the 8th apartment was built and ~. Rubin replied~that at that time, Mr. Ferazzoli had sufficient area for 8 apart~ ments and the building was designed for 8 apartments. The County closed off one apartment° M~. Howell asked if the City issued a permit for 8 apartments and M~. Rubin replied: no~ for 7. He added that he believes the plan states that area will not be made into an apartment until receiving proval~ Chairman ~ranow asked if the 8th apartment was just one room and Mr. Ferazzoli informed him it was one large room with two bedrooms. It has the same square footage as the other apartments~ Chairman Aranow asked if it needed a ~t~ chen and Mr. Ferazzoli replied: yes. ~. Thompson clarified that the existing structure was there and it was just a matter of opening the 8th apartment. Mr. Howell added that the permit~i~was issued for 7 ap~urtments. M~. Bailey asked if he applied for a permit to get another apartment added on and ~. Howell replied that he understood there were 8 apartments built with one to be used for a recre- ation area. Mr. Rubi~ showed the plan and explained. Chairman Aranow asked if a deed had been presented and Gordon replied that he could not find any. Chairman Aranow stated that this must be submitted. He then asked M~. Howell if he thought they could come up with anything further to investigate this and Mr. Howell replied that he would like to research this. He is not sure of the zoning when it was built. Everything referring to this is 7 units. Mr. Bailey stated he thought the wrong variance was being applied for. He referred to the floor plan noting that this unit shall not be converted to use except as a recreational area. If asking for a variance~ it should be a request from recreational use to apartment. ~. Rubin agreed that he wanted to create an apartment in this area, but he is short 1,200 feet. ~-~. Boeltz made a motion to turn down this variance as it is not a hardship. There are 7 apartments and the area is too small for 8 apartments. The motion died for lack of a second. Chairman Aranow asked if anyone was present to speak for or against this application and received no response. ~. Gordon read a le!it~er from Mrs. Eleanor Preeditsch, Lots ~1, 12, and 13, request~that the Board approve Mro Feraz- zoli's request. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT PAGE THIRTEEN MAY tO, i976 M~. Ampol made a motion to table this until the next meeting to get more information~ Mr. Thompson seconded the motion. Chairman ~&ranow requested a roll call vote and ~rs. Y~-~use conducted it as follows: Mr. Boeltz - Aye Mr. Bailey ~ Aye Mr. Ward - Aye Mr. Thompson- Aye Mr. Gordon - Aye ~. Ampol ~ Aye M~. Aranow ~ Aye Motion carried 7-0° Chairman Aranow requested Mr. Ferazzoli to present proof of ownership at the next meeting on June ~4o Parcel #3 ~ Lots 2, 3 and 4~ Merritt S/D, Recorded in Plat Book l, Page 68, Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 25 ft. front setback re- quirement to 4 ft. front setback existing Address - 512 North Federal Highway Applicant ~ Town Tavern, Inc. ~rpose - To build addition for storage purposes Mr. Gordon read the above application and advised it was re~ quested as they need storage place to clean up the present office and chairs are now in the main room. They have been instructed by the Building Department how they wanted~it built and they will comply. ~s. Daniel Dorso stated her name and her address as 2526 Lake Osborne Drive, Lake Worth. She informed the Board she was the manager of the Town Tavern. ~. ~ard asked if a deed and survey had been presented and ~. Bailey referred to a certified plot plan with!~the appli~ cation~ ~. Ampol asked if the Building Department acknow- ledged this type of certification and Mr. Howell replied: yes and he did see an original survey of this. The members dis~ cussed the plans presented~ Mr. Howell informed them that an updated survey was required and he did see one. Chairman Aranow questioned how they knew what property they were talk~ lng about as no d~ed had been presented and ~o Ampol asked if they owned the ProDerty and ~s. Dorso replied: yes. ~. Howell-added that they own Lots ~ thru 6. He stated that he did not realize that deeds were required and ~r. Bailey read requirement.~, No. 9 listed on the application. Mr. Ampol"ascertained that this store room would be built on the northeast corner of the building and Mr. Howell agreed and added that he talked to this man. He referred to the MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE FOURTEEN ~Y 10, 1976 survey with this encroaching on Lot 2 and they will require a unity of title with this. ~hairman Aranow referred to the petition listing Lots 2, 3 and 4 ~nd Mr. HDwell informed him that they own Lots I thru 6~ ChalrmanAranow then asked where the parking would be located and ~s. Dorso informed him that they have parking to the north, behind the building and next to it~ Chairman Aranow asked if there were p~rking spaces where the building was to go and ~s~ Dorso replied yes, about 3 to 4 spaces. Ampol stated that they had more than enough room for parking~ Chairman Aranow stated that presuming they get proof of owner- ship of the property, is there anything the members would like to take up and ~k~. Ampol replied that if there was any proof of ownership, he would like to see the variance granted as they have plenty of parking area~ Mr° Ward made a motion that the application be granted pending proof of ownership being established. ~. Thompson seconded the motion° Chairman Aranow requested a roll call vote and M~s. Kruse took it as follows: Mr. Boeltz ~ Aye ~. Bailey - Aye ~. Ward ~ Aye Mr. Thompson - Aye Mr. Ampol - ~ye Mr. Gordon - Aye ~. Aranow - Ay~ Motion carried 7-0o Chairman Aranow requested Mrs. Do,so to bring proof of owner- ship to the next meeting on June 14. Chairman Aranow then asked if anyone desired to speak for or against this application° Mr, Jack Dunlap stated his name and his address as 233 S. W. 8th ~venue. Chairman Aranow asked if he lived within 400 ft. of this building and Mr. Dunlap replied that he was just in~ t~restedo He informed the Board that he helped prepare this application° The only reason they had to come for a variance is because the~highway came through° There is plenty of room in the back and side setbacks° They had to come for a vari- ance for a little $1~200 addition, which is all right, but on the other hand in preparation for it, they did not k~ow proof of ownership and a survey we~requiredo Nhere does a p~rson get this information? Chairman ~ranow informed him MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE FIFTEEN MAY 10, 1976 that ~o Vittali had signed the petition and the requirements are listed on this. Mr. Dunlap thanked him, Parcel #6 ~ East 20 ft. of Lot 13 and West 40 ft. of Lot 14, Block 10, Lake Boynton Estates, Recorded in Plat Book 13, Page 32, Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 7500 sq. ft. lot size re- quirement to 7200 st. ft, existing To construct single family residence Address ~ 607 So W, 1st Avenue Applicant -Sands Point Homes, Inc, Mr. Gordon read the above application. N~. John Ao Pagliarulio stated his name and his address as 275 S. E, 6th Avenue, He informed the Board he was the Presi- dent of Sands Point Homes, Inc. Mr. Ward asked if he bought the lot in March, 1975 and Mr. Pagliarulio replied: yes. ~M. Ward stated that at that time~ he could have built on a 60 ft. lot and Mr. Pagliarulio agreed, but the new zoning changed it to 7500 sq. ft. M~, Ward made a motion to grant 'the variance provided all building and lot restrictions are adhered to, ~. Ampol seconded the mOtion. People in the audience indicated their desire to speak. Mr. Ward withdrew his motion since they had not heard the statements from the public and ~. Ampol withdrew his second. Mr, Gordon read a letter from Mr. & ~s. Thomas Pennea stating they contested these homes being built on undersized lots. Their address was listed as 619 S. W~ 2nd Avenue. Mr. Gordon then read a letter from Mm. & Mrs. Robert Krauch, 612 S, W~ 1st Avenue~ objecting to homes being built on undersized lots, as they live on a legal size lot. M~. Rutter questioned whether these people did have 75 ft, frontage and referred to previously having people object which had smaller lots. Mr. Bailey asked what size the other lots were in the neighborhood and Mr. Pagliarulio informed him that the lots on either side were 60 ft. He added that there was a house under construction on the one lot and his father owns the other lot. He also explained that they were ori- ginally platted at 50 ft. lots~ but were replatted to 60 ft, lots and now the zoning has been changed to 75 ft. lots. Mr. Bailey asked if any of the 60 ft. lots were combined to make one lot with t20 ft. frontage and ~Wh~. Pagliarulio replied that he knew of none. ~. Bailey asked if there were any larger than 60 ft, i~ the area and ~. Pagliarulio replied that no houses were built on more than 75 ft, MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE SIXTEEN ~[~Y 1 O, 1976 Chairman Aranow referred to forms being set for three founda- tions an~ ~-~. Pagliarulio replied that they were set for the one in question and a house was under construction to the west. 1~, Howell asked if a variance had been requested for the one under construction and Mm. Pagliarulio replied that he didn't believe so. ~. William Covington stated his name and his address as 604 S. W. 1st Avenue, directly across the street from this pro- perty, He informed the Board that he completely objects. His lot is much larger than 60 ft. across. His lot is either 75 or 85 fto across with 125 ft. depth. He explained how the area would be crowded with smaller lots if they gave the okay to this request. Mm. Boeltz asked if he owned both lots and Mm. Pagliarulio replied: no. Mr. Covington added that it would leave it open for someone to build a house there. Mr. Boeltz referred to the possibility of ~-~. Pagliarulio buying part of the next lot and questioned what would happen to the remainder of the lot and ~M. Covington replied they should go according to the building code. Mr. Boeltz explained how a hardship had been put on ~M. Pagliarulio. Mm. Covington asked why the City upgraded the property and~. Boeltz replied fom bigger lots. He explained how it was effective with upgrading a large area and replatting the lots. Chairman Aranow referred to the deed showing two parcels of property owned by Sands Point Homes. Actually they are con- cerned with Parcel #2, but Parcel #1 is immediately adjacent. Actually for all practical purposes, Sands Point Homes owns 120 ft. there. .He asked if this included his father's parcel and I~z~. Pagliarulio replied: no. Chairman Aranow clarified he had two 60 ft. lots contiguous, which would make one legal 75 ft, lot if he desire~. ~. Bailey referred to a house under construction on!~this other lot and Mr. Pagliarulio agreed. The members discussed the location of these three lots fur- ther. ~. Howell informed them that the house ~der construc- tion did not need a variance as it has the proper depth. ~s. Henry Austrisysky stated her name and requested that she be represented by her father, as she lives in this neighbor- hood~but her husband is working. The Board agreed and ~. Joseph R. Carr stated his name and his address as 637 N. E. 6th Court. Mr. Carr asked how many houses they planned to build on ~st Avenue? He stated he thought the Board was at a disadvantage with not having the develoPer show the adjoin- ing lots. He would also like to kmow if this is an approved subdivision and ~. Pagliarulio informed him it was approved in ~962 for a subdivision. Mr. Cart continued with referring to opening a can of worms and this is what this looks like. On Lots ~3 and ~4~ there are footers in place and another house i~ ready for roof trussing. Lot !5 is another 60 ft. lot on the corner and another variance will be needed. He MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT PAGE SE~ENTEEN ~Y 10, 1976 is building on Lots 13 and 14. Is there any room for more houses besides the corner house? ~. Pagliarulio informed him that the lot on the corner is 60 x ~20 ft. and belongs to his father. To the farthest point west is a lot owned by another gentleman and he believes another variance will be needed. He has nothing to do with these lots. Me. Carr asked if he had tried to acquire more land and ~. Pagliarulio plied that he had not. Mr. Carr stated it was an economic hardship with not keeping with good planning. The majority of the homes in this area are on 7500 sq. ft. lots. If they continually grant variances on these lots, he sees no use for the Planning Board to set lot sizes. ~. Boeltz stated that Mr. Pagliarulio has the side and front setbacks, but is only short in area. F~. Cart asked if larger sized lots were needed for the corner and Mr. Howell informed him it was 62½ ft. in R~A if it is 120 ft. deep. ~. Carr stated the corner was only 60 x ~20 ft. Mr. Ampol replied that the corner would be another problem~ Mr. Carr agreed and added that they would have another variance to handle. Chairman Aranow stated that they were only considering this particular application. Cart stated that to preserve the neighborhood scheme and on behalf of his relatives, he objects to this variance. Mr. Howell corrected his previous statement in that the only dif- ference on corner lots is the setbacks. ~M. Ward referred to the house under construction and ques~ tioned why this parcel was non-conforming? Mr. Pagliarulio informed him that the difference was in the depth. The house which is started is on a lot with ~40 ft. depth, but the lot in question only goes back ~20 ft. Mr. Ward stated that both lots face north and questioned one lot was 20 ft. deeper and Mr. Pagliarulio agreed. ~. Bailey moved to grant this variance for the reason this was subdivided in t962 and the requirement was 6000 sq. ft. The property was purchased before June, ~975, when the zoning was changed~requiring 7500 sq. ft. M~. Thompson seconded the motion. Chairman Aranow requested a roll call vote and ~.~s. hruse took it as follows: Mr. Boeltz ~ Aye ~Ir. Bailey - Aye M~~. Ward - Aye Mr. Thompson - Aye ~. Ampol ~ Aye Mr. Gordon - ;.ye ~. Aranow - Aye Motion carried 7-O. At this time, Chairman Aranow declared a recess. the meeting back to order at 9:50 P. M. He called MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~,~NT PAGE EIGHTEEN MAY 10, 1976 Chairman Aranow asked if they had ever had a longer agenda than this and the response was negative. He referred to when they started this year and his impression was they were to meet on the second and fourth Mondays of the month, but only meet on the fourth Monday if there was work assigned to the Board. As far as he was concerned, he notified Mrs. Padgett that they would continue with meeting on the second and fourth Mondays, but would use the fourth Monday as they desired or if things were tabled, which they did in March. The question was raised by ~. Ward at the last meeting that he.was dictatorial about the manner in which he set these meetings. In the first place, the ordinance tells him he has the right to pick the date of the meetings whenever he wants. He did ask the mem- bers of the Board whether they should continue on the same basis. As far as he is concerned, as long as they have gotten through with the longest agenda, he doesn't see any reason to use the fourth Monday of the month for a meeting. He then asked the members for their feelings. Mr. Ampol replied that he was appointed to the Board in 1973 and ~. Hester was Chairman and they had to come at 5:00 P.M. in the evening every week. After about two to three months of this, he made the motion to meet the second and fourth Mondays and explained his reasons for same. ~. Ward agreed this was discussed. Mr. Ampol added that they started meet- ing at 7:00 P. M. then. Mr. Rutter stated he thought it made sense to do whatever the traffic woul~ bear. They may have four more applications by June 14. I~. Boeltz replied that the tabled cases wouldn"t take long. Mr. ~ard referred to the people having to wait a month with the cases that have been tabled. If they were set up to meet the second and fourth Mondays, he think~ they should meet the fourth Monday to hear cases. It also clears their minutes for the City Coun- cil's approval. Chairman Aranow replied that he had no ob- jection. Mr. Rutter referred to-the applications tabled and stated that it was not on account of the Board, but because the applications were not properly preDared. He thinks their time is important. In a sense, these applications did not meet the requirements~ Since they have to wait until the Board's next meeting in a month, it is because they did not do what they were supposed to do. M~. Thompson stated if it became necessary with more than one or two applications, he would be willing to meet the second time in a month. Chairman Aranow asked if he was correct that the understand- ing was to continue as they have in the past? At the next meeting, they will have three tabled cases and he has been told there are at least three applications on file now. Up to this point~ this is the longest meeting. They had seven applications tonight and possibly may have more. They have been here less than three hours to take care of everything here~ At this moment, he thinks they are inclined to meet M~U~S BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE NINETEEN ~¢¢Y lO, 1976 once a month, He has no objection to having meetings, but objects to an extra meeting because an application is impro- perly filled out. Mr. Ward referred to Mr. Pica having to wait the extra two weeks and Chairman Aranow replied that since it took Mx. Pica four years to make up his mind, to build~ he doesn't think the extra two weeks caused a hard- ship. Mr. Ward informed him that when a builder has to go through the Boards, it requires three months to get a permit. Chairman Aranow replied that Mr. Howell would change that to a month and ME. Ward stated that he just went through it and ~, Howell could not control it. t~. Bailey stated he thought it would save time if these things were checked when they come in. Everybody is prone to make an error. If the applicant would read the~applica- tion and follow it, he could have everything necessary to get it through the Board in the proper procedure. It seems like tonight an awful lot of errors were made. He thinks somebody should be given the responsibility to check these when they come in. From his experience, everytime he takes something in, Mrs. Padgett or her associates has checked it. He thinks that type of procedure would cut down on tabling. The case with the 8 apartments was different though as it requires further research. Chairman Aranow stated he thought the City Clerk has the responsibility of seeing that the papers are in order before publishing in the paper. He thin,ks as a result of the minutes, it will be brought to Mrs. Padgett's attention and he will speak to her also to find out if all papers will be in correct condition by the time they get them, which will save everybody a lot of time. M~. Howell informed them that one was tabled, which was de~ finitely not F~s. Padgett's fault, but the fault of his department° There is a standing order in his department that they are not to accept a survey over ten years old. He will find out about this and see that it does not happen again. Chairman Aranow stated that before the newspaper publication, things should be checked. The fact there is no proof of ownership should be taken care of. ~. Bailey referred to serving on the Board and the proce- dure being-they would meet every second Monday and if they received notice before the fourth Monday that they had ap- plications, they would meet then, At that fourth Monday meeting, if they had tabled anything, it was also discussed. He does not remember meeting when they did not clear it up at the following meeting. M~. Ward stated if the City Clerk was told they would only meet once a month, the no~ tices would not. be sent out for the fourth Monday. Chair- man .¢ranow told about ~¢rs. Padgett asking him today and having three applications. He asked her to hold them until the next meeting. F~. Ward added that she didn't ask for their okay with the second Monday meeting. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT PAGE ~¥ENTY M3.¥ 10, ~976 Minutes of April ~2, ~976 Chairman Aranow referred to Page 5, next to last paragraph, and reauested that it read in substance: "Chairman Aranow explained that Mr. Ward was in error. M~. Aranow had abso~ lutely nothing to do with setting up the Building Board of Adjustments & Appeals. This Board was set up by the City Council as called for in the State Statute and that ~. Ward was present with other members of the Board when M~. Howell explained its f~nctions to us and further~ Chairman Aranow referred to Page 10, ne×t to last paragraph, and requested that it read: "Mr. Aranow in substance told M~. Ward that he resented being told that he was dictatorial in setting up meeting dates. In the first place, the ordinance gave the Chairman the right to set up meeting dates. In the second place, M~. Aranow informed ~s. Padgett, when she re~ quested the dates M~. Aranow wanted, that we would continue to meet on the second and fourth Mondays as in the past but would probably only use the fourth Monday where we thought necessary as we did in the month of March, 1976." ~. Rutter stated he did not think personal feuds sat well with the people sitting in the audience and did not involve the cases. Chairman Aranow replied that he was just correct- ing the ~inutes. Mr. Ampol stated if the corrections have been made, he moves to accept the minutes as read, seconded by M~. Bailey. Motion carried 6-0 with l~. Ward passing since he did not have a copy. Communications ~. Gordon read a message from the Office of the City Clerk dated May 3, 1976, regarding the resignation of ~. Martin J. Barkin. A~ournment Mr. Ampol moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Boeltz. Motion carried ?~0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 10:15 Respectfully submitted, Suzanne ~ruse Recording Secretary (Three Tapes)