Loading...
Minutes 03-08-76MINUTES OF ~HE BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT MEETING HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, MONDAY, MARCH 8~ 1976 AT 7:00 P. M. PRESENT Joseph Aranow, Chairman Derle B. Bailey, Vice Chairman Robert Gordon, Secretary George Ampol Alvin C. Boeltz Vernon Thompson, Jr. Foy Ward Richard Kurtz, Alternate E. E. Howell, Bldg. Official ABSENT Walter Rutter, Alternate Chairman Aranow called the meeting to order at 7:00 P. M. and introduced the Building Official and members of the Board. Minutes of February 9~ 1.976 Mr. Ward referred to Page 12, next to last paragraph, re- garding the discussion of the Building Official being present and he thought he stated: "If they at any time could ascertain or prove that the law states the Building Official must be present, he would make an apology for it." He stated that this was an omission and should be added. Y~~. Thompson made a motion to accept the minutes as corrected, seconded by M~. Gordon. Motion carried 7-0. ~b!ic Heari~ Parcel #2 - Lot 8, Block 21, Bowers Park Recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 57 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 7.5 ft. side setback requirement to existing 5.69 ft. setback on East side and existing 6.13 ft. setback on West side Proposed Improvement - Florida Room Address - 130 S. W. 8th Avenue Applicant - Thomas E. Smith Mr. Gordon read the above application and advised the reason requested was the present setback is according to the previous code prior to June 1975. The variance asked for is for a new addition which will be more than the setback required under the new code. Chairman Aranow asked if t~. or Mrs. Smith was present.and received no response. Mr. Ward referred to the letter at- tached to the application stating that Mr. Fick or Mm. White MI'~q)' TE S BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE TWO ~RCH 8, 1 976 of J. White aluminum Products would represent ~. Smith. Chairman Aranow ascertained that neither of these gentlemen were present and suggested they set this application aside and proceed with the next one. Parcel #4 - Lot 1, Block 7, Lake Boynton Estates Plat #1 Recorded in Plat Book 13, Page 32 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 7500 sq. ft. requirement to 6000 sq. ft. platted to construct residence. Address - 702 West Ocean Avenue Applicant - R. Richard Leonhardt Mu. Gordon read the above application and advised the reason requested was he was unable to use the lot unless a variance is granted. ~. R. Richard Leonhardt stated his name and his address as 911 Pine Street, Lake Worth. Mr. Ward referred to a variance being granted in 1974 and asked ~hy it wasn't acted on and ~. Leonhardt replied because of money and explained how he had become disabled and unable to work. Mr. Ward asked if the variance had been granted for him to sell the lot or build on it and M~. Leonhardt replied that he didn't know and explained that at that time it was handled by a realtor who represented him as he was in the hospital. Chairman Aranow referred to the minutes of August 26, 1974, when a variance was granted to M~. Stalione and pointed out that Mr. Leonhardt became the owner about a month after this. Mr. Bailey pointed out that apparently it was granted only for the frontage and Mr. Boeltz added that it wasuunder the old zoning also and since the ordinance was changed, he must apply for another variance. M~. Thompson asked if all the requirements and setbacks would be met with the proposed building and Chairman Aranow replied that according to the plans, there is a notation marked on the outside that an additional variance for 300 ft. is re- quired. Mr. Howell informed the Board that it was denied because of area. This is a R-lA zone and requires 7500 sq. ft. and he actually has 6000 sq. ft. He added that a 25 ft. front setback, was required and being a corner lot, the set- back from the opposite street must be 12½ ft. According to the plan, it looks like the house will face 7th Street. ~. Leonhardt informed them that all the information was given on the plan. Mr. Howell checked the plan and stated the house shown on the plan could not be built as 25 ft. front and rear setbacks are required in the R-lA zone. Mr. Bailey referred to the lot frontage being determined by the shortest in front. Mm. Howell explained how H.t was not clear in the zoning ordinance. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE THREE i~i~RCH 8, 1 976 Chairman Aranow referred to the plan again and pointed out that sufficient setbacks were shown with 25 ft. in the front and 45 ft. in the rear. ~fr. Howell checked the plan again. Chairman Aranow stated that if they decided tb grant the variance, they could provide that the house must be built in this particular fashion. However, they must still con- sider whether the overall area is sufficient and whether the 300 ft. notation on the plan applies. M~. Bailey asked if Mr. Leonhardt had been told he could build this house if he was granted the variance on the square footage of the lot and ~.~. Leonhardt replied that he believed the inspector stated that. Mr. Ward pointed out that apparently the house was designed to set longwise on the lot and the front of the house would be on 7th St. The design of the house on the lot was discussed at length and whether the frontage was determined by the front door location, shortest street lot line, mail address, etc. Fir. Thompson asked which direction the other houses faced on this street and Mr. Leonhardt informed him there were no other buildings. He added that a nursery adjoined his lot to the rear. He also understands that the remaining lots are 60 x 120 ft. Chairman Aranow stated he believed Mr. Stallone sold this lot because he had other lots alto- gether and this one lot was alone, all ].eft by an estate. The members discussed the location and Chairman Aranow clari- fied that this lot was on the south side of Ocesm Avenue and a nursery was to the south and rear. He asked if the nursery faced on 7th Street or one block south of Ocean Avenue and M~. Lennhardt informed him that the driveway to the nursery is on 1st Avenue, which is not improved. The location was discussed further. Chairman Aranow studied the plan further and pointed out that the way the house was set on the lot, there was a 25 ft. front setback and 45 ft. rear setback with the house facing Ocean Avenue. Mr. Ward pointed out that it would be facing 7~h Street, as that is where the front door is located. ~. Bailey read the requirements for corner lots from the zoning code. He added that the only way it could be clari- fied would be to have a plat of that area. ~. Ward suggested that all lots should be shown on a map, the same as have been forwarded with other applications. ~. Howell referred to this being located on the southwest corner of Ocean and 7th and stated there was a house on thisccorner and something was not clear on the survey. Mr. Kurtz advised that he could not find this. A member of the audience explained that he was referring to the wrong location. Mm. Ward pointed out that an area map would be helpful. MII~TES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE FOUR MARCH 8, 1976 The members further discussed where the actual front of the house would! be located and agreed that the zoning code was not clear. Chairman Aranow stated he didn't think they should clarify the way the book reads, but they must decide whether this man is entitled to a variance. The Building Department will decide whether this house can be built. He explained how they could make a condition stating which direction the house shall be. I~. Ward suggested that they should get a legal interpretation of the zoning code in,der not to set a prece- dent. Chairman Aranow agreed any information they could get was important, but asked if they should hold this up? M~. Ward replied: no, but in the event this went through it should not set a precedent and they must find out before acting on more. Chairman Aranow asked if the Board members were in agreement and they were. ~. Ampol asked Mr. Leonhardt if he acquired this property in September, 1974, and M~. Leonhardt replied: yes. Chairman Aranow asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak ~ither for or against this application and received no response. He added that no communications had been received. ~. Ward made a motion to grant the variance, seconded by Mr. Gordon. Motion carried 7-0. At this time, Chairman Aranow welcomed Councilman Strnad in the audience and stated the Board would be honored if he would joint them and Councilman Strnad came up front with the Board. Chairman Aranow then asked Mr. Howell if they could be pre- sented with a full map showing the present zoning situation? He would like each member of the Board have a map showing the present zoning situation. Mr. Howell replied this would be no problem. Mr. Ward pointed out that the maps came in dif- ferent sizes and Chairman Aranow asked the size of the largest available and ~?~. Howell informed him it was about 3 x 4 ft., which he believed would be suitable for their purpose. ~@. Ward asked if it was necessary for each member to have one or if they should just have one for display and Chairman Aranow replied that one could be displayed on the blackboard and each member also have one. He believes with each member having a map it would be helpful when going to areas in re- gards to applications. ~. Howell asked if he wanted nine maps or just one for display and Chairman Aranow replied that he had no objection to getting nine. ~. Thomas E. Srmith A~p!~cation (Continued) Chairman Aranow ascertained that M~r. White was present now and asked him to appear before the Board. M~r. White informed MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE Fi~E ~RCH 8, 1976 the Board'that the zoning in June made this house non-con- forming. The thing they want to do will not encroach, but the house existing is non-conforming. Chairman Aranow clar- ified that this actually is on the rear which is fully con- structed and it is within the side walls of the building and the rear of the construction will still not interfere with the setback. ~. White agreed this was correct. Chairman Aranow added that he wanted to correct the property bedause it was made non-conforming. M~. White explained that the house itself pre-existing ismnon-confor~ng, not what they want to do. The house is on a 50 ft. lot and became non- conforming because of the zoning laws in June. M~. Ward asked if there was an existing slab there and ~. White re- plied: yes. Chairman Aranow asked if anyone desired to speak for or against this application and received no response. He added that they had received no written communications. ~. Ampol made a motion that the variance be granted, seconded by M~. Boe!tz. Motion carried 7-0. Parcel #3 - Lot 40, Block 2, Rolling Green Ridge Recorded in Plat Book 24, Page I24 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 7.5 ft. side setback requirement to 7.2 ft. side setback existing to construct new room and carport. Address - 3230 East Atlantic Drive Applicant - R. C. Hartung c/o Walter Anderson ~. Gordon read the above application and advised the reason requested was because the existing structure was built under the code which was changed as of June 1975. ~. Hartung and ~. Anderson appeared before the Board and Mr. Anderson informed them that he would like ~. Hartung to represent him. Mr. Har~ung explained that he wanted to build on the north side of the house and will stay within the side setbacks per the plan presented. The existing house i~ non- conforming and not the addition. The house itself is 3/I0's of a foot too close. Chairman Aranow asked if anyone desired to speak for or against this application and received no response. He then read a letter dated March 4, 1976, from Clara B. Leodman, 3321 East Atlantic Drive, stated she is opposed to the building as stated. Mr. Ampol questioned her objection and Chairman Aranow informed him that it just stated she was opposed, does not ss~ why, when or how. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE SIX M~RCH 8, 1976 ~. Thompson made a motion to grant the variance, seconded by ~. Gordon. Under discussion, M~. Ward stated he thought it should be stipulated that the new part meets the new set- back code and Chairman Aran~ow replied it would be on the record. Motion carried 7-0. Parcel #1 - 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 ~. Gordon read the above application and advised the reason requested was because at present, the setback is 25 ft. and the street is 9~ built at 10 ft. and he would like to line up with the existing buildings. This is the last lot on the block. It would spoil the looks of his property, plus the surrounding property and steel buildings come in certain sizes. Mr. No!an E. Williams appeared before the Board. I~. Boeltz referred to Mr. Williams having this property changed from C-3 to C-4 and Mr. Williams explained that the C-3 zoning was wrong for warehouses andooffices. Mr. Boeltz stated that now he didn't want to meet the setbacks in C-4 after requesting this zoning and M~. Williams explained that it was C-4 when he built here before, but the zoning was just changed. Everything there is not conforming to C-3. Mr. Boeitz referred to a school and apartment being across the street and being set back 25 ft. ~. Williams replied that he didn't know if.it was necessary when they were built. ~. Boeltz questioned how he could get a special privilege? M~. Ward pointed out that the only difference in C-3 and C-4 was outside storage and M~. Boeltz informed him that C-3 has a 20 ft. front setback and C-4 has a 25 ft. front set- back according to the zoning code. Mr. Williams informed them that everything else has been built at 10 ft. Chairman Aranow clarified that first Mr. Williams wanted the zoning changed because he had a reason and he got what he asked for. Now, he wmats to change it again becamae he is not satisfied with the requirements of C-4. ~. Williams replied that he was just asking to have it left like it was before June. Chairman Aranmw suggested that he should have taken this into consideration before making his request. Mr. Williams informed them that he has built in other cities and has never seen before that after 9~$ of a block is built that MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT I~&GE SEVEN ~.RCH 8, 1976 they don,t conform to it. with a 20 ft. setback. He will be penalized in the back Mx. Ward clarified that if he meets the present setback, he would be back 15 ft. from anything there and Mm. Williams agreed and added that he built the buildings on the north and south and they are set back 10 ft. Mr. Bailey asked for the background on his re-zoning request and M~. Williams informed him that he requested it in order to conform with the rest of the block. Mr. Bailey asked if it was zoned differently in June and ~. Williams informed him that before June, it was C-4. Mr. Bailey clarified that it has been changed to C-4 and the rest of the property was changed to C-3o Mr. Boe!tz stated that in the old zoning, they did not have a C-4 classification and ~. Williams in- formed him that it was comparable to C-4 before. Mr. Bailey clarified that under the ~oning before June, he was able to build what he is requesting now and M~. Williams agreed. Mr. Boeitz asked if in C-3 he was allowed 10 ft., as he has property in C-3 and must stay back 25 ft. He questioned if they had spot zoning and if there were different requirements f~' C-37 ~. Howell explained that if the rest of the street is set like the man says at 10 ft. setback and they grant a variance, it is not spot zoning. ~. Bo~22z referred to across the street being set back more than 10 ft. and Mr. Kurtz pointed out that Mr. Williams would conform with his side of the street. ~. Boettz asked if the other buildings had been built before 1962 and ~. Williams replied that they had been built within the past three years. .Mr. Boeltz stated that he owns C-3 property and 25 ft. was required in 1962. Mr. Williams informed him that this property was not zoned C-3, but commercial. The lots across the street were industrial. Chairman Aranow asked what the property was zoned prior to June 1975 and M~. Howell replied that he would have to check it. Chairman Aranow continued that as far as he is concerned, he wants to know what this property was zoned in 1962 and prior to June 1975 before making any decision. ~. Ward in- formed him that he built the nursery across the street and he is sure that when ~. Williams built his buildings, he met the setback requirements. M~. Boeltz stated that he didn't ~ ' ~ ~hmn~ it was C-3 then. Chairman Aranow referred to Mr. Williams saying that prio~ to 1975, he was in C-4 and when he was told there was no C-4, he said it was C-3 and having been told there was no 10 ft. setback in C-3, he said it was commercial. He thinks they must have definite knowledge of the sitm~tion in 1962 and t975 and what it is at present and also questions why ~. Williams had it changed to C-4. M~. Williams replied that he did not say C-3 and Chairman Aranow replied that in 1975 MINUTES BOARD 0F ADJUST~]NT PAGE EIGHT M~RCH 8, 1976 it was C-3 and M~. Williams did not like it and wanted C-~. Now, he doesn't like C-6. Mr. Williams replied that he likes it, but doesn't like the setbacks. Chairman Aranow questioned the requirements before and ~r. Williams informed, him it was commercial and he thought it ran commercial~ industrial and numbered residential zones. Chairman Aranow stated he would like to table this matter to their next meeting in two weeks. ~. Williams replied that he didn't understand why they must have information of what it was zoned before. He would have had this if he had known it was needed. Chairman Aranow referred to his state- ments in regards to changing it to C-6. ~. Williams stated he was under the impression that when it was built over 9~, a variance would not have been necessary as this has been the case in other cities. Chairman Aranow informed him that every application stands on its own two feet. As far as he is concerned, he does not have sufficient information present tonight upon which to give a valid ruling. He requests that they adjourn this until two weeks from tonight. Mr. Bailey asked if he had to apply for any variance when he built the other buildings on this street under the commercial zone and ~. Williams replied: yes, because he needed a var- iance in. the back since there was no alley. The requirement is 20 ft. in the rear when there is no alley and there is a railroad in the back here. ~-~.. Bailey asked if at the time he built these, he conformed to the front setbacks and M=~. Williams replied: yes. Mr. Bailey asked if ~0 ft. was con- forming at the time before ~975 when it was rezoned and I~. Williams replied: definitely. He continued with explaining that everything is like that except on one corner which is facing the other way and the man built right to the line. The one next door is being used for an office and warehouse and is set back ~0 ft. Mm. Bailey asked if he had only one lot and M~. Williams informed him it was two 50 ft. plus the south 20 feet. ~. Bailey clarified that once he built, there would be no other empty lots and Mr. Williams agreed. Mff'. Boeltz made a motion to table this application until the next meeting on March 22. M~. Ampol seconded the motion and added the reason to table was to investigate this further and make sure they are on solid ground. They want to look into it further and will have a definite answer in two weeks. Motion carried 5-Z with t~. Ward and Mr. Bailey voting against. M~. Howell stated he would try to get a past zoning book and past zoning map for the Board's use, so when something like this ©mes up it may save time. Chairman Aranow agreed it would'be helpful. Mr. Williams asked if he could furnish any information for the next meeting and ~. Bailey replied as much as possible. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT PAGE NIk~ M~CH 8, 1976 He then asked if somebody was going to research this for the Board o~ if ?~. Williams was supposed to furnish this and Chairman Aranow replied that he was expecting them all to research it. Correspondence Chairman Aranow referred to a letter dated November 12, 197~ sent by the Board to each individual City Council member regarding building permits issued without the Board taking action on variance applications. He has no record o£ having received a reply and the other members agreed. Under these circumstances, he thinks that sufficient time has gone by and i£ any action was going~ be taken, they should have been notified or iff action was taken, they should have been noti- £ied. Not having heard, he thinks it is questionable whether they should leave it drop or pursue it. He requested the mem- bers' views. I¢~. Ampoi replied that he can't understand why this letter was not answered and why it was not foilowedpup. Mr. Gordon said he thought they did question this just before the £irst of the year and ~. Ward agreed. ~. Howell clarified that these lots were built on without having variances granted and ~. Boeltz agreed. He explained how a special meeting was called and the Building Official advised he would grant the permits. Chairman Aranow added that ~. Dekker was stopped during construction, but had the red tag removed and was issued a c/o. ~. Howell asked if this was handled by the Building Department and ~. Boeltz replied: yes, hut they did not get the authority from this Board and he does not know £rom where they did get the author- ity. Mr. Howell informed them as far as he was concerned this Board makes the rules and they are the only ones with the authority. Mr. ~urtz asked if all the applications had been denied by the Board and M~. Boeltz explained that Mr. Dekker's had been denied, but the others had been tabled. M~. Kurtz asked if the permits were granted after the Board's action and Mr. Ward replied: yes, before they could be acted on. Chairman Aranow then read the minutes of March 25, t97~, re- garding M~. Dekker's application. ~. Ward clarified that these minutes were used to mean that the Board granted a variance to build a single family home and Chairman Aranow added that there was no application at any time for a single family home and none since then. He thinks they should follow-up this situation and Mr. Ampol agreed. M~. Ampol still questions why the previous City Council did not act on the Board's letter. M~. Kurtz asked if M~. Dekker had MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT PAGE TEN MARCH 8, 1976 to come before the Board to build a single family residence and ?~. Ward replied that at that particular time he did not, but thezzoning changed and a 60 ft. lot was required when he built and he would have to apply. Mr. Ampol questioned if it would be in order to make a motion in regards to this letter asking why the previous City Council did not act upon this letter? Up until this time, they have not received a reply. Probably the new City Council will act. Those buildings were put up without variances. Chairman Aranow stated he believed somebody in connection with these six applications stated that the Board of Adjustment had either granted a variance or the Board of Adjustment had im- plied or made a statement to the effect they could probably build. Mr. Boeltz explained how they lacked a quorum being during the summer and had to call a special meeting, etc. Before the special meeting was held, ~. Bushnell called him and requested these records and said he was going to issue the permits. Somebody told him the City has a special privi- lege to do this, but he doesn't agree. He checked and noted they were all issued and tried to follow it up, but no answer was given. ~r. Ward and M~. Hea!y also checked into it, but could get no answer. ~. Ampol insisted they should not drop this and must follow it through. Chairman Aranow then read an exce~pttaken from the tape prior to a City Council meeting when the red tag on M~. De~er's construction was discussed. He stated that the Board defi- nitely denied Mr. Dekker's application. However, after deny- ing it and five other applications were granted permits. They know the minutes were used telling Mr. Dekker he could build. They certainly denied his application for what he wanted to build. The red tag was on at the time of this conversation, but somebody gave instructions to remove it by the close of the meeting and the property was completed. They felt they had the right to be quoted correctly. They have the right to have everybody understand they denied the application which was made. If nobody had brought the Board of Adjustment into the picture and they were not misquoted, it would have been the end of the story. Now, there are situations with permits granted without applications and he feels the records should be cleared. He feels waiting from November, 1975 until now is long enough. M~. Ward referred to the personalities mentioned by the Coun- cil members and explained how Mr. Healy had called him about ~r. Dek2ker's building. ~. Ampol stated he believes there was outsid~einterfer~e and they should find out who the culprit was. Chairman Aranow stated he thinks they should get an answer to this letter. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTM~NT PAGE ELE~EN M~RCH 8, 1 976 If thasCity Council is going to do something, let them do it, but they should let this Board know. He suggested that he and the secretary prepare a letter which will be read at the next meeting and if it meets with the members' approval, they will send it. The members agreed. He continued that they should pursue it all the way. He doesn't see how it should be any different. He doesn't see where applications are denied, a red tag put on, a red tag taken off, permits are issued, c/o's are issued, etc. The City Council must find out about this. They want ar~ answer to this letter. Adjournment ~. Ampoi made a motion to adjourn, seconded by ~. Boeltz. Motion carried 7-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 8 45 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Suzanne Kruse Recording Secretary (Two Tapes)