Loading...
Minutes 03-22-76MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT M~ETiNG HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, MONDAY, ~L~RCH 22, 1976 AT 7:00 P. M. PP~SENT Joseph Aranow, Chairman Derle B. Bailey, Vice Chairman Robert Gordon, Secretary George Ampol Alvin C. Boeltz Vernon Thompson, Jr. F oy' W~d Walter Rutter, Alternate E. E. Howell, Bldg. Official Chairman Aranow called the meeting to order at 7:00 Po M. and introduced the members of the Board and the Building Official. Minutes 0f March 8~ 1976 Mr. Gordon made a motion to accept the minutes as presented, seconded by ~. Thompson. Motion carried 7-0. Communications Mr. Gordon read a letter dated March 15, t976, addressed to Mayor Joe DeLong from Mr. Richard Kurtz, Alternate Member of the Board of Adjustment, requesting that his resignation from the Board of Adjustment take effect immediately. Chairman Aranow ascertained there was no action for the Board to take and requested that the letter be placed on file. Public Hearing Parcel #1 - Lot 1, Robinson Addition Recorded in Plat Book No. 23, Page 144 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 20 ft. front setback to existing 10 ft. setback or from 20 ft. rear setback to existing 9.3 ft. rear setback and from 15 ft. side setback to existing 10 ft. corner side setback Address - 23!9 S. Federal Highway Applicant - David C. & Elsie B. Baker Proposed Improvement - Remodel and upgrade present building Mr. Gordon read the above application and informed the Board the reason requested was to make required changes to qualify for a City occupational license and to upgrade the existing building. They are unable to operate the business, which is their livelihood. !~. Boeltz asked to be excused as he lives in this area and Mr. Rutter took his place on the Board. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST?~NT PAGE TWO MARCH 22 , 1976 Mr. ~ ~Hrs. David Baker appeared before the Board. Chairman Aranow ascertained that the members had reviewed the plans presented. He then asked if he was correct in that there will be practically no alterations to the outside, but mainly to the inside and Mr. Baker replied that was correct. Chair- man Aranow asked if he knew when this building was erected and Mr. Baker replied that he had no record, but i~ was pro- bably over 15 years ago. Chairmmn Aranow asked what the re- quirements were when it was erected and ~m. Howell informed him that at the time it was erected, it was a 10 ft. setback. He added that the application is in error as right now, it is 50 inches from the property line on the one side by U. S. 1.. The State took 1~.8 feet from the property when widening U. S. 1. Mr. Thompson asked if U. S. 1 had taken part of the property and Mr..Howell replied: yes, 17.8 feet was talesmen off; it was originally set back approximately 21 feet. Mr. Ampol asked if he acquired the property on April 4, 1975 and !~. Baker replied: yes. Mm. Howell referred to a minor exterior alteration and Mr. B~er explained that they planned to square the corner off to improve the appearance, but are not enlarging it. They are eliminating a door and glassing it in to follow the con- tour. Mr. Thompson asked if he had ample parking and M~. Baker re- plied: yes, on the south side. Mr. Ward asked how many park- ing spaces were required and ~*~. Howell informed him that he believed it was one space for every 150 sq. feet. M~. Ampol pointed out that there was plenty of paved area. Chairman Aranow referred to communications received and ~. Gordon read the following letter dated March 12, 1976, from Mrs. Elanor M. Preiditsch: ~'I suggest ~. & Mrs. Baker be given relief from the above so that they may remodel and upgrade~the present build- ing. This is a step in the right direction.'~ ~. Rutter asked if Mrs. Preiditsch was one of the land owners in the notified area and Mr. Baker replied that he had no idea and did not know her~ Chairman Aranow ascertained that her name was on the list and advised that she owns Lots 10-13. Chairman Aranow then asked if any people were for or against this application and received no response. ~. Ampol made a motion to grant this variance, seconded by Mr. Gordon. No discussion. Motion carried 7-0. Mr. Rutter asked if the door was included in this variance and Chairman Aranow replied: yes. Mr. Thompson stated that it was not on the drawing. For clarification, ~. Ampol made an amendment to his motion to include the change of the PAGE THREE ~%RCH 22, 1976 door, seconded by M~. Gordon. Amendment to motion carried 7-0. Mr. Howell referred to there being two doors in ques- tion and asked if everything was okay and Chairman Aranow replied: yes. Chairman Aranow then requested I~s. Kruse to give the plans to ~s. Padgett. Chairman Aranow then acknowledged the presence of a very distinguished guest in the audience, Vice Mayor Joseph Zack. He welcomed Mr. Zack to join them at the dais and ~. Zack thanked him, but remained in the audience. Parcel #2 - Lots 32, 33 and S. 20 ft. of Lot 34 Central Park Recorded in Plat Book 12, Page 12 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 25 ft. front setback requirement to 10 ft. front setback Proposed Improvement - Office and Warehouse Address - 1123 S. E. 2nd Street Applicant - Nolan E. Williams Mr. Gordon read the above application and advised the reason requested is that the street is 9~ built and he would like to line up with the present buildings. This is the last vacant lot on the block. To set back 25 feet would looks of his property plus the surrounding properties and steel buildings come in certain sizes. Chairman Aranow referred to reviewing this application two weeks ago and tabling it to obtain more information. He asked if anyone had additional information to give since the last meeting. Mr. Howell informed him that he did research this zoning and this property before it was rezoned, it was C-2 from 1962 to the present zoning with a 10 ft. front setback. Mr. Boeltz stated that this was rezoned to C-4 which has a 25 ft. setback and this was the only piece of property rezoned to build a warehouse. Warehouses were t~en out of the use, He cannot have a use nobody else can have. He thinks it is ille~gal~ to make a decision. He considers this spot zoning and that is illegal. Mr. Ward clarified that just this one particul~ lot was zoned C-4 and Mr. Boeltz replied that the whole area should have been rezoned. Chairm~u Aranow stated that as far as he was concerned, the fact they know it is C-4 is fine and if it happens to be the only one, it is not their particular problem. They have an application for a v~i~nce and should consider that this pro- perty when it was rezoned in 1975 was C-3 and ~. Williams made s~ application to the Planning & Zoning Board to have it MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT PAGE FOUR M~RCH 22, ! 976 changed from C-3 to C-4. He stressed that one of the basic rules is that the functions of the Board of Adjustment are not to become legislative. They are not in the position to change the zoning laws in any fashion. They are here to grant variances where there are hardships. He explained how changes in zoning were made to upgrade and create a nicer City. When this is done, there are hardships created for certain people. They can grant variances, but only for unique hardships and not for hardships self-induced. Chairman Aranow then asked ~. Williams if he actually owned this property and Mr. Williar~ replied: yes, that he took title to it after the rezoning. Chairman Aranow stated that he bought it on the condition that he was going to make an application to the Planning & Zoning Board to change it from C-3 to C-4 and _Mr. Williams replied this was correct, he wanted it back to what he built there before. Chairman Aranow clarified that they were talking about him becoming the owner of this property after June, 1975, and also talk- ing about the ~act that he made a conditional ~o~ract i~ Nov- ember,after he ~ade an application to the Plauuning & Zoning Board,for the purchase of this property with the condition that if this change in zoning was not granted he could get out of the contract. ~. Willia~ replied that he thin~ the owner had to sign this. Chairman Aranow referred to the application and the nan~e of the applicant being Nolan Williams and the name of the owner being Paul L. & Janet Folsom. He then referred to a receipt for $i,400 signed by ~. Williamsas purchaser and Mr. & Mrs. Folsom as the sellers. The terms and conditions of sale as called for is I~ upon signing of the contract and the purchaser shall go to the City for rezoning and if refused, he has the option to com- plete the deal or have his deposit refunded. He then read the review of this application from the minutes of the Plan- ning & Zoning Board meeting of December 23, 1975. Chairman Aranow continued that before the change in zoning, it was C-2. Prior to 1975, under C-2, a person was permitted to build a warehouse and this is what ~. Williams wanted to do when applying to the Planning & Zoning Board. After June, 1975, it was zoned C-3. He completed the purchase after the Plan- ning & Zoning Board rezoned it to C-4 as he requested. Mr. Williams agreed. Chairman Aranow stated that the facts were that he knew wh~tit was before the change in zoning and after the change in zoning. He made an application for rezoning to get relief to C-4o M~. Williams informed the Board that the adjoining residents were concerned about this and he submitted a~petition signed by them asking'!~to have the setback 10 ft. instead of 25 ft. Chairman Aranow asked if he k~ew how many bloc~ of property were in this C-3 classification and ~. Willia~ns replied: no, but it was hard to find any C-4 classification. He does need a place for his warehouse and office. Chairman MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT PAGE FIVE Ma&~RCH 22, 1976 Aranow stated that he didn't know if they have the authority to pass on this. He pointed out that this particular piece of property is in an area from S. E'. 8th Avenue south to the City limits. In all this area, there is only one lot classi- fied C-4 and he thinks they are limited how far they can act. ~. Williams stated that he has zoning for C-4 and can set back a building 25 feet. Mr. Ward replied that this would be spot zoning. Chairman Aranow stated that as far as the Board was concerned, if this appl_cat~on for a variance is not granted, he must go back to the Building Department and they must decide whether the plans comply. Their problem is to decide whether this application should be granted ar not. Mr. Ward ashed if he had said this Board could not act be- cause it was spot zoning and Chairman Aranow replied that whatever decision they come to, they must be guided by what the law says. The question of spot zoning belongs to the Planning & Zoning Board. Mr. Ward stated that if this is spot zoning, they have nothing to do with it. Chairman Aranow agreed and pointed out that they must consider ac- cording to law whether there is a hardship in this cs~e hased on the facts. M~. Ward replied that they must make a ruling. Mr. Williams informed the Board that when the rezoning was granted, he thought he had the setbacks because he had ap- plied for what was existing. The zoning setbacks had also been changed, but he was not aware of it. Chairman Aranow replied,~that he preferred to stick to the hardship applica- tion. 'here is the fact that he was granted the C-4 privi- lege to build, which he asked for. He asked for C-4 and should comply with the requirements of C-4. If there is something wrong in the zoning situation, that is a problem of the Planning & Zoning Board. If there is something wrong with the plans, that is a problem of the Building Department. In his opinion in asking for a variance, he is asking to go through the back door and change zoning to the contrary to what it is. M~. Williams replied that he is just asking for a variance as he will cause a hardship to everyone else if he has to set back 25 feet. Chairman Aranow informed him that they were only interested in his hardship. If they grant him an exception, nobody else will have it in this classification. M~. Wi!lia~ informed him that he was try- ing to conform to what is there and Chairman Aranow replied that had nothing to do with it. Mr. Joseph Kelly, Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Board, appeared before the Board. He informed the Board that the record will show that M~. Williams said he thought C-4 would give him a 10 f~ setback, but this is not so. The Planning & Zoning Board passed the C-4 zoning on a 3-2 vote. This is the only lot on the block. They did make a mistake in that MINUTES BO~QD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE S IX M~CH 22, 1 976 ~r. Williams did not present a plan showing the proposed building would only be set back 10 feet. If they had ~known that he was not aware of the 25 ft. setback, there would have been a different decision. Had they knownM~. Williams was of the impression he could go in with C-4 with a 10 ft. setback, he doesn't think they would have granted C-4. M~. Willimms informed him that the same plans were given to the Planning & Zoning Board. At this time, the members studied and discussed the plan presented. M~. Boeltz stated that it is spot zoning to have granted C-4. This Board cannot now give a special privilege denied every- one e ise. Chairman Aranow read the case of Josephson vs. Audrey in the State of Florida regarding the granting of a variance. He pointed out that in this case, the hardship was s~lf-imposed. ~. Ward disagreed with this example stating that it referred to use. ~. Boeltz insisted that he was asking for a special privilege. ~. ~ard disagreed. Chairman Aranow stated that when ~. Williams bought this property, he knew he had to have a variance in use for this property. ~. Ward stated that use did not enter this as if he meets the setbacks, he can build the building. Chairman Aranow replied that at the time he bought the property, it was C-3 and warehouses could not be built. ~. Ward remarked that the area is surrounded by ware- houses. Chairman Aranow informed him that there were other businesses there and also a number of vacant lots. M~. Ward stated that Mr. Williams was not asking for a use variance. Chairman Aranow replied that it must be proven that there is a hardship. ~. Ward stated that he was jumping from use to hardship and the case he referred to strictly considered use. Chairman Aranow stated that his opinion was that this appli- cation should be denied. Mr. Boeltz made a motion to deny the variance, seconded by ~h~. Gordon. Under discussion, ~. Bailey stated he didn't have any idea whether they were proceeding proper~y as they should hear the pros and cons and then ma~ke a motion and have their discussion. Chairman Aranow Teplied there was no reason why they cannot have a discussion'~ after the motion is made and it can be discussed both ways. Chairman Aranow then asked if anyone present desired to speak for or against this application. Mr. James W. Thompson stated his name and his address as 741N. E. Enfield, Boca Raton, and informed the Board that he has a business at 1105 and 1107 S. E. 2nd Street and also one at 203 loth Street. He stated that he could not see how it was possible for the Board to deny this variance when every other building on the street has a 10 ft. setback. It will be the same business as the others on the street. MI~?ES BOARD OF ~@JUST~NT PAGE SE~EN ~v~RCH 22, 1 976 He cannot see how they can deny this man from building. The building on the corner is right to the corner and you cannot see to pullout. This man will set way back and will not be able to see. Chairman Aranow replied that there was a different law in existence prior to June 1975. M~. Thompson continued that they didn't want oeople to do business in Boynton Beach and they didn't understand anything. Mr. Roger Barr stated his name and his address as 1241S. W. 27th Avenue and informed the Board that he has G. S. Ceramics, !nc. at 1107 S. E. 2nd Street, the business next door to ~. Williams. On that side of the block, every building is set back 10 ft. and to set this one building back 25 ft., it would ~ok ridiculous, tf this man must set back 25 ft., he will have trash and parking in front and it will be bad for his business. Everything is set back l0 ft. on that street except on the corner where it goes right to the corner. To have parking in front will look ridiculous. He has the front of his building landscaped and iti~looks nice, but will be downgraded if this one next door sets back 25 ft. Regardless of the law~ this is a Board to make variances and this is a special condition and it will hurt the block!to set this one building back. Chairman Aranow informed him that this Board did not m~.e the laws and could not alter the laws by grant- ing a variance. M~. Bart replied that this was absurd. Mr. Howell clarified that whether the variance was granted or not, if Mr. Williams comes into the Building Department for a permit for a warehouse, he will have to issue it. Thompson agreed they would not be denying the right to build, as he can build a warehouse. Mr. Boeltz stated again that they could not give a special privilege. All the rest are C-3. It should be rezoned back to what it was. The Board is not allowed to give a special variance. ~hr. Williams replied that he did not know zoning was involved. Mr. Boeltz informed him that he~ould have appeared before the Council when the zoning was changed. M_r. Willia~me stated that he could not see where it would be doing anyone any harm. M~. Boeltz replied that their hands were tied. They could not grant a variance on a special privi- lege because all the rest a~e zoned C-3. Mr. Ward informed him that if this is a special privilege, the Planning & Zoning. Board created it. The special privilege is not be- fore this Board. ~. Boeltz stated that under the ordinance, they could not give a~ special privilege. ~. Ampol agreed that they must abide by the City ordinance. ~. Thompson clarified that this property was purchased on January I5, 1976 when the new zoning was in effect. ~. Williams was under the impression if he could not get the zoning changed, he could get his deposit back. He went before the Planning & Zoning Board to change it from C-3 to MINUTES BOARD OF ~DJUST~NT PAGE EIGHT ~'~RCH 22, 1 976 C-4 to b~ild a warehouse. The zoning has been changed and now he wants a special~ variance. This is jumping too many fences for him. Chairman Aranow stated that he didn't want to get into a discussion of what happened at the Planning & Zoning Board meeting. They must get back to the basics. In all this area of C-3, this is the only lot that is C-4. Ms. Boeltz read the definition for ~'special Condition" from Section B in the zoning ordin~uceo Mr. Boeltz and Mr. Ward discussed f~ther the differen~between use and special privi- lege. Mr, Kelly appeared before the Board again and stated that ~m. Willia~ should have been aware of the fact that C-4 required a 25 ft. setback. He did not do his homework if he thought it was t0 ft. The C-4 was granted to build a warehouse to meet the requirements of C-4. Chairman Aranow referred to Mr. Williams ~owing what the law was before June 1975, k~owing what it was after June 1975, knowing what it was when he made the application, and he cannot presume he did not ~naow there was a 25 ft. setback. M~. Williams replied that this was changed also in 1975~and he did not know the setbacks. Mr. Rutter questioned the real hardship and ~. Williams informed him it would be appearancewise in the neighborhood and would cut down the square footage of his building. Chairman Aranow informed him that he bought it with that con- dition existing and Mr. Williams replied that he wasn't aware of the setbacks. Chairman Aranow replied~that he is a builder and should have been a3~are of the setbacks. Williams stated that he could not be aware of them all. ~. Ward informed them that a reason must be given with the motion to grant or deny and Mm. Boeltz replied that he had given several during their discussions and mainly because he wanted a special privilege nobody else is allowed to have. Ms. Bailey referred to the code stating they could not deny one the same rights as the others in the same zoning district. However, this is zoned C-4 and the rest is zoned C-3 and he could see where there would be a strong possibility of grant- ing a special exception in this case. If he doesn't get the variance, he can still build~[~he building. If that whole area was zoned C-4, he would have something to go on. However, this is just one area in the middle and he feels there is a stronger point to deny it because of the law rather than lik- ing a more common sense ruling. The law ties their hands against his better common sense. Chairman Aranow then took a vote on the motion. ried 6-~, with ~. Ward voting against. Motion car' MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~.~T PAGE NI~UE ~RCH 22, 1 976 Other Chairman Aranow referred to the last meeting when they dis- cussed sending a follow-up letter to the City Council to their letter of November 12, 1975. As requested, he got together with the Secretary and they composed the following letter: "Annexed hereto is a copy?~of our letter dated November I2, t975, addressed to the City Council. We have received no reply to this letter in the last four months. We also have heard nothing as to ~ny action taken by the City Council or intended to be taken by them. May we have the courtesy of a prompt reply." He asked for the members' opinion of this. ~. Ampol replied that he didn't think this letter was strong enough. The previous City Council, somehow or another, tried to bury this under the rug. He demands a complete and thorough investigation to find out who over-ruled the decision of the Board of Adjustment and gr~ated building permits without var- iances being grauted. Mr. Ward informed him that the one application was not even heard. M~. Ampol continued that he wanted to know why a building permit was granted to M~. Dekker. He referred to the City Manager saying the job was red ticketed and it is his underst~uding when it is red ticketed, construc- tion is stopped. ~en with this happening, the building was completed and the c/o granted. Still to this day, that previ- ous City Council has not had the courtesy to answer the letter from this Board of last year. Chairman Aranow clarified that they wrote the following letter to the City Council on November 12, t975: "The application from Richard Dekker for a duplex apart- ment on one lot was denied on March 25, 1974. Thereafter, somebody issued a permit to build one single family home on each of two lots on two streets. Our minutes were used in connection with this. We request the City Council to investigate all abuses in connection with the misuse of the minutes, the erroneous or improper issuance of building permits, and the persons should be called to task who have issued the permits. This request for mnvest_gat~on applies equally as well in the m~.tter of D. S. Duggins Courtney C. Eversley Robert C. Scott Snow Realty & Construction Young & Walley Construction MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE TEN ~RCH 22, 1976 Your prompt a~tention will be appreciated." Chairman Aranow informed them that this letter would be tached to this second letter. ~. Gordon stated that at the present time they are dealing with the new City Council and may as well forget the old City Council. They have now requested a prompt reply and if they don't get a prompt reply, they can send a stronger letter. ~. Rutter referred to the composing of the previous letter and referred to his statement at that time that if this pro- cedure continued, there would be no need for the Board of Ad- justment as their authority was taken away with the City Manager interpreting their mir~mtes to issue a building per- mit. Mr. Thompson stated he thought the letter was adequate and covers what he would like it to say. They are dealing with a new group, but must be assured it will not happen again. Chairman Aranow referred to the public audience being given the opportunity to speak at every Council meeting, if they agree this letter should, be sent and dellvered~ there is a possibility this matter will be placed on the agenda for the first City Council meeting in April. If it is not on the agenda, he doesn't see a~y reason why the Chairman c~mnot appear and discuss the situation. He doesn't see why they have to beat around the bush. He has a lot more confidence in the present City Council and feels they will get a reply. He then referred to Mr. Williams' situation and stated he didn't blame him for getting upset. This is a situation that again is not the way it should be. At least, they have given their denial and it will be on record. If they allow these things to go en and be uncorrected, they will have another situation like Village Royale on the Green and he told about this. The City has blessed this project of non- conforming buildings with their approval and he thin~ it places the City in a bad position and doesn't want the Board of Adjustment to be placed in a bad position because of the miminterpretation of their minntes. ~. Thompson referred again to dealing with a new group and they must get their assurance that it will not happen again. Chairman Aranow replied that he thought it was imperative to get more than that. He haa the greatest confidence in ~. Howell. He feels if ~. Howell says he needs more help, he thinks it is up to the Board to make sure the job is done right and they should ask the City. If they need new ordi- nances, they should see the ordinances are passed. M~. Thompson replied that this would be legislative. Chairman Aranow disagreed in that they would not be making laws. Mi~J TES BOARD OF AD~UST~,~T PAGE ELEVEN t~D&RCH 22, 1 976 ~. Thompson disagreed in that they could not do this with the Board. Chairman Aranow replied that it must be stopped in using the minutes and being misinterpreted. ~. Ampol stated that he has the mtmost of faith in the pre- sent City CounCil and he doubts the decisions made by this Board will be overruled. He wants to find out if anyone on the previous City Council authorized the building permits to be issued. Chairman Aranow referred to the minutes clearly stating that the application was denied for a duplex, but it was taken that the authority was given for a single home but an application was never made for that. He does not care who is at fault, but wants to find out who it was so it will not happen again. This'letter will leave no doubt with the at- tached copy. M~. Ward added that Mr. Dekker was given the okay to build on two lots, both in violation. M~r. Boeltz referred to there being seven permits in question. This gives the City a black eye and looks bad. it looks like there is money under the table. He thinks the whole mess should be brought up. The whole seven were passed illegally. The memoers agreed the new letter was satisfactory with the previous letter attached. M~. Ampol made a motion that the latest letter with the at- tached letter of November 12, 1975, be sent. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. Under discussion, ~. Ward suggested that possibly if it did not appear on the agen~for the April 6 City Council meeting that the Chairman or a member should appear before the Council. M~. Ampol agreed this should be added to the motion and added that he would be in attendance at that meeting. Motion carried 7-0. A__d~ o. urm~ent ' ~ seconded by M~ Amool. Mr. Boeltz made a mOtion to ad0o~rn, . ~ Motion carried 7-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 8:40 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Suzanne Kruse Recording Secretary (Two Tapes)