Loading...
Minutes 02-09-76MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUST~'T ~ETiNG HELD AT CITY HALL, ~ ~ · v ~ ~o- 1976 AT 7:00 P.M. MO~DA~ FEBRUA~Y 9, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORI~_, ~ Joseph Aranow, Chairman Derte B. Bailey, Vice Chairman Robert Gordon, Secretary Alvin C. Boettz George Ampot Vernon Thompson, Jr. Foy Ward Richard Kurtz, Alternate Walter Rutter, Alternate E. E. Howell, Bldg. Official Chairman Aranow called the meeting to order at 7:00 P. M. and introduced the Recording Secretary and Members.~of the Board. ~. Ward questioned whether they were going to proceed with- out the presence of the Building Official and referred to the last meeting when some of the~members refused to do so. Chairman Aranow replied that he did not thi~k his presence was necessary for the reading of the minutes, but did not think they should proceed with considering the applications without the presence of the Building Official. Mr. Howell arrived at this time and apologized for being late. MINUTES Minutes of J~u~ary ]2~ !976 ~. Bailey moved to accept the minutes of January t2, 1976, as presented, seconded by ~. Thompson. Motion carried 7-0. At this time, ~. Bailey stated he would like to abstain tonight and requested that an alternate be appointed in his place. M~. Kurtz took his place. ~ ~'.~mo PONDENCE M~. Gordon read a memo to all City Boards from ~. Frank Kohl dated January 20, 1976, informing that all meetings must be recorded with the original sets of the ~nutes for- warded to the City Clerk with tapes of same, etc. Mr. Gordon then read a memo to Mr. Aranow from M~. Kohl dated January 23, ~976, advising that he had directed their Build- ing Official or a representative to be in attendance at all meetings this year. M~. Gordon then read a memo to Mr. Aranow from Mr. Kohl dated J~ 26, 1976, advising that the City Council had created an Ad-Hoc Committee ~o establish procedure between the Building Department and Board of Adjustment and Mr. Aranow and M~. Boeltz had been appointed to this Committee. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~'~NT PAGE ~0 FEBRUARY 9, 1976 PUBLIC ~AR ING Parcel ~3 - North 25 ft. of Lot 25! and South 37.5 ft. of Lot 252, La~el Hills, Fifth Addition Recorded in Plat Book 23, Page Palm Beach County Records' Address - 1012 N. W. 8th Street Request - Relief from 75 ft. frontage require- ment to 62.5 frontage Applicant - Charles B. and Dorothy E. Clark Mr. Gordon read the above application and stated the reason requested is that prior to adoption of the new code, the lot did meet the City's requirements of 60 ft. frontage. A varianc:e is needed now in order to sell the property. He noted tna~ everything was in order. Mr. Gordon noted that a message was attached to the appli- cation from the Office of the City Clerk dated February 5, 1976, regarding this petition. He then read the letter referred to from ~. Joseph Zarcissium stating his confusion regarding this petition. The letter referred to the work developing the City requirements mud ordinances. Then, it referred to the iOts being 50 ft. and since this is two lots, he sees-no need for the requested variance. Chairman Aranow called their attention to the deeds submitted for this property. The first deed is for Lot 251 and origin- ally had approximately 50 ft. frontage. The other deed is for Lot 252, which was also approximately 50 ft. However, this is not what they are discussing in this application. in this application, they are concerned with the north 25 ft. of Lot 251 and the south 37.5 ft. of Lot 252. He requested Mr. Clark to appear before the Board and verify the correct- ness of his assumption. M~. Clark informed the Board that originally he owned four lots. The four lots were broken up to make two 62½ ft. lots and one 75 ft. lot. Mr. Carter owned a 50 ft. lot next to the 75 ft. lot, so he sold ~. Carter 12½ ft. to give him a buiidabie lot. Chairman Aranow clarified that at the present time, he owned a piece of ~-~- ~ pro.p~y with 62½ ~. frontage, which is part of two lots. Mr. Clark continued that originally, it was 75 ft., but only 60 ft. was needed, so he sold t2½ ft. to a neighbor not knowing this would come about. Now, he lives in Jupiter and is not interested in building a home in Boynton Beach. He does have people in- terested in this property, who do want to build a home. ~. Boe!tz asked when he purchased this property and Cls~k replied: 19713. Mr. Boeltz remarked that it was con- forming thenan~ Mr. Clark agreed.~ ~. Boeltz clarified that the last ordinance made them non-conforming. Mr. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE THR~ FEBRUARY 9, ~976 Clark agreed and added that it would have conformed, if he did not sell the 12½ ft. Chairman Aranow asked when he sold the ~2½ ft. and Mr. Clark replied: in the middle of 1973. ~. Boeitz informed them that he checked this and it was before the new o~dinance in June, 1975. Chairman Aranow clarified that this was not the original parcel that Mr. Clark purchased. This is a parcel created by Mr. Clark as a result of sales of the other two portions. Ha requested the members' attitude of this_creation by ~. Clark, keeping in mind as to how the hardship was created. ~. Boeltz replied that the ordinance made the hardship. Mr. Thompson referred to ~. Clark at first having four lots and ~. Clark agreed and explained again how they had been divided. ~. Howell asked the size of the lot adjacent to the north and Mr. Clark informed him they were all the same size - 62½ ft. ~. Howell asked about the rest of the street and ~. Clark informed him that every lot was the same, except the corner lots. He added that the surveyor broke the lots into 62½ ft. lots, even though 60 ft. was required. ~. Howell asked if there were buildings on both sides and ?~. Clark informed him that the north side was vacant. He added that the neighbor on the south side had expressed interest to buy the lot and put in a garden. There is a good possi- mmmvy that nothing will ever be built. M~. Rutter referred to how the lots were divided and pointed out that it gave everyone the right to have a lot and not have to sacrifice a lot for t00 ft. ~. Bailey agreed and added that it appeared somebody used pro$essionai judgement in taking 200 ft. and making lots like these. Chairman Aranow asked if anyone desired to speak in favor of this petition and received no response. He then asked if anyone desired to speak in objection and the following appeared before the Board. M~. Charles Lonsdaie stated his name and his address as 920 N. W. 8th Street. He referred to attending the Planning & Zoning Bos~d meetings and how the desire was expressed to change this area to R-1AA. Actually there are only two 62½ ft. lots built on this block. There are only these two existing. The remainder are at least 75 to 100 ft. He does not see any need for another house to be built on a 62½ ft. lot. It will not meet the requirements voted on four months ago. Atthis time, Chairman Aranow noticed the presence of Council- man Strnad in the audience and asked him to join the Bos~d. Councilman Strnad thanked him and sat with the Board. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTME~T PAGE FOUR FEBRUARY 9, 1976 M~. Gordon asked how many houses were on the blockaand M~. Lonsdale replied that there were eight, including two under construction. ~. Rutter asked the size of his lot and M~. Lonsdaie informed him it was 62½ ft. He added that he was unable to buy additional land. ~. Rutter questioned his objection and ~. Lonsdaie stated that he did not object to ~. Clark building a house for himself, but believes these~ lots were bought as an investment. Chairman Aranow clarified that they were bought before the restriction was put on and he did not anticipate the change. ~o Char!ie Hendrickson stated his name and informed the Board that he lived on the lot to the south. He explained that he was out of town when the meetings were held and the zoning was changed. He continued that he bought the lot from Mr. Clark a couple years ago. His son-in-law built his ¥ . house for him and as~.ed ~ Clark for first option on this lot when he was ready to sell. He has never talked to his son-in-law. Mr. Clark stated that he did not realize that he was still interested. Chairman Aranow stated that he did not think this was anything for the Board to be concerned w~t~.. They want to kmow if he has any objection to the Board granting a variance to accommodate this man. M~. Hendrickson continued that when he built his home, it was on a 62½ ft. lot. The people in the neighborhood at- tended the zoning meetings expressing their approval of going to 75 ft. frontage. ~. Rutter asked if his was a 62½ ft. lot and ~. Hendrickson replied: yes. ~. Hendrickson continued that he talked to M~. Clark about 3½ weeks ago about the unkept condition of this lot. ~. Clark stated that he paid a man ~60 to clean the~lot, but evidently it was never done. Mr. Kurtz clarified that both parties ob- jecting live on 82½ ft. lots. ~. Hendrickson continued and referred to homes being built across the street and how they were evidently violating the ordinance with not having wire net and a john on the job sites. Chairman Aranow stated he was sorry, but this was not within the Board's province. He suggested that possibly he may desire to talk to M~. Howell after the meeting for his advice on this. Mr. Boeltz made a motion to pass this variance, because a hardship has been inflicted upon Mr. Clark by the new zoning ordinance. Mr. Ampol seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. Parcel #2 - Lot 9, Block 9, Go!fview Harbour 1st Section Recorded in Plat Book 26, Page 178 ~lm Beach C~unty ~ecord~ ~dress - 2760 S. ~. t~tn Street MINU~S BOARD ,OF PAGE F!~YE FEBRUARY 9 ~ t 976 Request - Relief from 25 ft. side setback requirement on corner to 26.8 ft. existing. Relief from 25 ft. rear setback requirement to 20.5 ft. existing. Proposed Improvement - To close in existing porch. Applicant - M~. and ~'~s. Duncan MacDonald ~'~. Gordon read the above application and advised that the reason requested is that the ~rch to be enclosed is existing. It has a permanent roof and slab. They need additional living area for a family room. Mr. Duncan MacDonald appeared before the Board and informed them that he needed the extra room as his daughter is moving in with them. Mr. Rutter questioned whether a variance was needed since there is an existing roof and ~. Boeitz informed him that it was non-conforming. He added that he researched this and understands that the house was turned saeound and the builder made a mistake somehow. ~@. Ampo! asked when the house was built and Mr. MacDonald informed ~im it was built about ~½ years ago. Mr. Kurtz questioned if the screened in porch was built then and Mm. Boeitz informed him that it was part of the building. Mr. Howell explained that the original plan showed the house facing the other way opposite of how it is facing. He then referred to 33.~ ft. shown from the rear property line exclud- ing ~2.~ ft. for the porch and asked if he was planning to add an addition and M~. MacDonald replied: no, he just wsmts to close in this porch. Mm. Howell referred to this building being there and stated he didn't believe this should have to come before this Board. _~r Thompson agreed and added that it was evidently built this way, as it would not meet the re- quirements the other way. It is not ~. MacDonald's fault that the building was trained. The members discussed further the difference between the original plan and how the house was built. M~. Rutter questioned the need for a variance to enclose this porch if a variance was granted for the house when it was built with the p~rch. Chairman Aranow replied that he didn't see anywhere where a variance was granted to put on the roof. However, it is there now. The building is there now and this man had nothing at all to do with turning it around or putting a roof over the screened porch. He just bought it. ~. Kurtz asked if the original plan showed a perma~ent roof and Mr. Howell replied: yes. MINUTES BCL~RD OF ADJUST?~NT PAGE SIX FEBRUARY 9, 7976 Chairman Aranow asked if anyone desired to speak in behalf of this application and received no response. He then asked if anyone was opposed to this application and received no response. Mr. Kurtz made a motion to grant this variance, seconded by ~. Gordon. No discussion. Motioncarr~em~ ~' 7-0. Parcel #1 - Lot 1 and West 22.58 ft. of Lot 2 Block 4, Central Park Annex Recorded in Plat Book ~2, Page 51 Palm Beach County Records Address - 104 S. W. ~lth Avenue Request - Relief from 75 ft. frontage requirement to 72.58 ft. platted Relief from 9000 sq. ft. area require- ment to 8,346.70 sq. ft. area of property Proposed Improvement - To build a du.~±ex, .Applicant - George A. Aro ~. Gordon read the above application and stated that the reason noted was that adjoining property is not available due to existing building. He added that a message was at- tached to the application from the City Clerk's Office ad- vising that notices were sent,to the two addresses submitted, but both had been returned. ~,~s. Rothman also tried to call ~'~. Aro, but the number listed had been disconnected. She then contaeted Giddens Real Estate on February 9 and was ad- vised, they would supply the proper address. I~. Fred McMartin appeared before the Board and stated he was a representative of Giddens Real Estate. He informed the Board that the notice just had the wrong zip code and the oroper admres~ is 3~3 N. E. 39th Street, Pompano Beach, Fla. 33464. He did call the City Clerk this afternoon and gave this information to her. Chairman Aranow asked if he was authorized 2o speak foz'~ M~. Aro and ~k~. McMartin replied' yes. ~. Ward referred to the letter stating that ~. Giddens would be the representative and i~. McMartin replied that he was a member of the firm. He noted at this time that ~. Giddens had arrived. ~ Larry T. Giddens stated his name and his address as 5968 Ferniey Drive. He informed the Board that the applicant wants to build a duplex. He bought the property some years ago. .At this point, he wants to build a duplex if the vari- az:.ce is granted or he will sell it. ~. Boeltz stated that it was purchased three years ago and ?~h~. Gidd. ens agreed. ?h~. Boe!tz pointed out that it was zoned single family then and now he is asking to build a duplex. He doesn't see where MINUTES BOARD 0F ADJUST~NT PAGE SEVEN FEBRUARY 9, 1 976 there is a hardship. ~. Giddens stated that it was zoned for ~upiexes and ~. Boeltz replied, that he didn't see any duplexes in that area. He can build a single family home. Where is there a hardship? ~. Giddens stated that he wanted to build as it is presently zoned. ~. Boeitz in- formed him that he must have a hardship if a lot does not conform and Mr. Giddens replied that the lot was platted at less than 75 ft. ~. Boeltz stated that this was done for single family. ~. Howell informed the Board that he had researched this and the County will take 40 ft. from the center for the Sea- crest right-of-way, which will take another 9 ft. from this lot. Chairman Aranow clarified that the zoning change made affect- ing this property did not take anything away from the property, but just granted an additional right which is based upon the premise that it complies with all the requirements of the zoning classifications. Mr. Gtddens informed him that it would meet the setback requirements. Chairman Aranow referred to the gross footage and ~. Giddens agreed it would be short on that, 'but they could still build a nice building. Chairman Aranow pointed out that it would not meet the requirements. ~. Kurtz referred to the reason stated referring to a hard- ship in that adjacent property is not available, but he does not see this as a hardship. Mr. Giddens referred to having applied for variances previously and having been asked whether additional property was available and that is why this is stated in the application. If it were available, he would purchase it. Chairman Aranow asked about the existing build- ing and Mr. Boeitz referred to there being vacant property on the south. Mr. Ward pointed out that additional property was needed on the west and Mr. Giddens agreed that this property would not increase the frontage. ~.~. Boeitz stated that it would increase the gross area. He then referred to the street being widened and M~.. Howell informed him that this lot would be cut down to 6~.5 ft. Mr. Ampo! referred to this being a rather small du~e× and Mm. Giddens replied that it wouldn't be smaller than a house. Chairman Aranow asked if anyone desired to speak in favor of this application and received no response. He then asked if anyone desired to speak against this application and the following appeared before the Board: ~. Sam Mathis stated his name and his address as 1lO S. W. ]~th Avenue. He first submitted a petition to the Board signed by everyone in the neighborhood against this applica- tion. Chairman Aranow asked how many names were contained on this petition and Mr. Mathis replied: ~. He continued MINUTES BOARD 0F ADJUST~.~NT PAGE EIGHT FEBRUARY 9, 79?6 that with the setbacks and according to his figures~ there was no possible way to have enough room to build a duplex on this lot. There is not enough footage there to do it according to the standards of the City. He then read a letter from Palm Beach County referring to requiring 80 to 106 ft. for the widening of Seacrest Blvd. He then referred again to having figured out how it was. impossible to build a duplex on this lot. He continued that this property is in his back yard. I£ the man built a home equivalent to what they are living in~ he'would not object. He does not want a duplex. This man is interested only in renting and not in living there. He lives nextdoor and will se~him his property, so he can build a large duplex. Mr. Giddens asked for a price £or the record and ~. Mathis replied that he should come to see him. ~. Mathis concluded that other isled owners were also present to speak. Chairman Aranow in£ormed him that he ~ould have the City Clerk ms~e copies~ o£ the petition and letters submitted and he could obtain the originals from her. M~. Giddens asked how much square footage was required for a single family home and Chairman Aranow suggested that he ob- tain this information from Mr. Howell at his o~fice tomorrow. Mr. Giddens stated that he believed it was approximately 1000 sq. ft. ~h~. Mathis remarked that he would only have one family to contend with though. ~o Kurtz stated that they must be concerned whethe~ a hard- ship is involved. Chairman Aranow clarified that the zoning change didn't take anything away from the owner o~ this property. No hardship was created by the zoning change, but just gave the owner an additional benefit with being able to build a duplex. He can only do it providing he complies with the necessary frontage and £ootage. ~s. Joseph Emboden stated her name and her address as ~1~ S. W. l~th Avenue. She informed the Board that h~r main con- cern is that she has been the~e ~5 years and they all have 75 x 100 ft. lots and they do not think two families should come in on a smaller lot with the parking and congestion o~ Seacrest. Mms. Earl Engel stated her name and her address as 11t S. t~th Avenue. She informed the Board that her objection was the same. They want a single dwelling there. There will not be room for all the parking and traffic. ~. Earl Engel stated his name and his address as 1~ S. W. ~lth Avenue. He informed the Board he was opposed to a duplex for the same reasons previously given. Mr. Boe!tz referred to the question being asked regarding 75 ft. for R-2 and advised that 6000 sq. ft. was needed for single family. ?~. Ward agreed that a smaller house could MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTN~NT PAGE Ni}~ FEBRUARY 9 ~ ~ 976 be built, but a mu~_e~ would have to be larger. Mm. Rutter referred to the question being asked regarding the minimum required for a single fsmi!y home and ~. Ward replied that about 1000 sq. ft. was needed. [~Zr. Howell clarified that by the time the County has taken the road footage ofz?~ he would have 1900 sq. ft. of building area. Mm. Thompson referred to the information given and explained how he thought it would be more reasonable that a smaller single family dwelling should be placed here. It would be proper compared to a duplex. M~. Boettz moved to deny this variance becamse it does not meet the requirements, seconded by Mr. Kurtz. No discussion. Motion carried 7-0. Chairman Aranow requested ~. Gordon to give the petition submitted by ~. Mathis together with the letters from Palm Beach County dated March ZO~ 1963 and Resolution No. 64-DD dated July aO~ ~964 to the City Clerk for copies to be made for the Board's files. He advised Mr. Mathis that he could pick up the originals from the City Clerk's office. He also requested Mr. Gmd~n to return the map on the MacDonald proper- ty to ~s. Padgett. OTI~R ~iscussion of Information Submitted~y ~. Bailez_ Chairman Aranow referred to the notations submitted by ~. Bailey and inquired whether the members thought this was a ~ood idea, bad idea, etc. and how they should act in the future. M~. Bailey explained that he was requested to fill this out to the best of his ability. That is what he did. He believes it has condensed the point of issue into a sin- ~ k gle page. ~. Ward o~s_~d who made this request and ~. Bailey replied that Chairman Aranow did after the last meet- ing. Mr. Rutter questioned why this information couldn't be in- cluded on the form submitted by the City and Chairman Aranow replied that he believed Mr. Howell would have this informa- tion to give them. His thought is if they see this in ad- vance and cannot view the properties, it will be helpful. Chairman Aranow announced that on the Sunday following re- ceipt of all applications, he will leave City to check the applications and inspect the property and anyone wanting to join him is more than welcome. If he did not have the opportunity to make a visit, he would have the benefit of the consolidated report. Mr. Rutter pointed out that the in- formation supplied was not obtained from looking at the proper- ty, but from the City records. Mr. Kurtz remarked that it was a duplication of what they have. PK~. Bailey stated he realized MINu _~ES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT RAGE TEN FEBRUARY 9, 1 976 a lot of this was in the application, but he thinks this is a condensed form. He agreed there were some advantages to visiting the job site. Mr. Bailey continued with referring to the MacDonald applica- tion and how it stated that the~i~porch structure has a perman- ent roof and slab and this can only be verified by visiting the site. M~. Ward referred to the Chairman having these plans and stated that he had not seen them. Chairman Aranow replied that he should just ask for it and gave the plan to ~. Ward. ~ ~nes~ properties and how ~. Rutter referred to visiting ~' ~ exp!a_nem how sometimes the owners can get involved and he ~ ~ they could be put in an embarrasing position. The members discussed this _urthe~. Chairman Aranow continued that he thought this report would help at times to give reasons both for or against why the application should be granted or disallowed. They do not want to be a rubber stamp Board with everyone saying yes. He wants the report to give both sides. He also believes the Building Deoar~ment must give background information. They must k~ow the both sides of the picture. ~,~. Kurtz stated that he thought the proper place for the discussion was right here at the meeting. He doesn't think anyone should submit their feelings previously. He doesn't think they should receive anybody's opinion before coming to the meeting. ~. Rutter agreed that they were here to judge and not legislate. They must listen to all reasons and discus- sions and come to a decision. M~. Thompson stated he didn't think any two persons should visit the property at the same time and explained. He asked if th~s report would replace the application and Chairman Aranow replied: no~ it will not replace it but will just be additional. ~r. Boettz referred to Mr Aro's application and how it had been.heipfut to know it was previously zoned R-1. This was discussed by the members further. ~. Howell referred to M~. Clark's application and stated he was still not clear on this. In a case like this, he thinks it is important for the Board to know how many other 62½ ft. lots there are on this street and how much it is built to make this decision. M~r. ~[urtz stated that they must consider what the zoning was when it was purchased and should he be penalized for sitting and holding onto the lot? Chairman Aranow agreed and pointed out that their decision should be based on all facts ~ud law and the information they have been given. He thought these reports would be satisfactory and possibly give more information in addition to looking at the property and the papers from the City. Mr. KuDtz pointed out that there was nothing additional in this report, but the BOARD 0F ADJUST~',~NT ?AGE ELEVEN FEBRUARY 9, 1 976 information was Just condensed. Chairman Aranow agreed that possibly more information should be Riven including 2@. Howe!!~s reference as to how many 62~ ft. lots and how many 75 £to lots were~on this street, etc. ~. Clark's situation was discussed further by the members and !~. Howell. ~. Bailey referred to the information submitted in a con- densed form requiring a good amount of time. He explained how obtaining additional information could be time consum- ing. He also pointed out that mistakes could be made and misleading information given. Chairman Aranow pointed out that there was additional in£ormation to be considered in addition to the package provided by the City. Mr. Rutter stated that this information would be discussed at the meet- ing. M~. ~urtz added that the Building Official would also be present at the meetings to contribute. M~. Thompson sug- gested that if research was done, it should be noted where this information was found and they should receive this in- formation in time to check on it. He added that additional information is good if it is different from what they have. Mr. Howell informed the Board that he hoped to have a filing system set up in ~he Building Department with plans easily accessible. Plans could be signed out~ so they could be looked at in the conference room. He is working as fast as he can towards this system. Mr Ward stated that ~ . n~ thought what they have is sufficient, unless somebody wants to take on extra work. ~,~. Rutter agreed and added that a lot is brought out in their discussion. Mr. Thompson also agreed. Chairman Aranow then announced it was the consensus of the members that they will do away with this report and use the package from the City and contribute information during discussion. Other Mr. Ward asked whether the City Attorney had replied whether the Building Official was required to be present at the Board meetings and Chairman Aranow replied that they received the letter from ~. Kohl advising that Mr. Howell would be pre- sent at every meeting. Mm. Ward asked if a representative was not present, would the meeting be tabled? He added that he didn't think it was in the code or ordinance that the Building Officiaiashatl be here. The members discussed this further and ~. Gordon read the memo from Mr. Kohl again re- garding this. M~. Howell informed the Board that if he found out he would be more than 30 minutes late, he would have a representative present. There was further discussion and Chairman Aranow stated that he thought the fact they got a letter from Mr. Kohl stating ~. Howell would be here for ~I. UT~S BOARD OF ADJUS PAGE ~/~ LVE FEBRUARY 9, 1976 the balance of this year satisfies him. Fir. Ampo! read the memo again. Mr. Bailey also read the code regarding the Building Official's presence. After further discussion, Chairman Aranow stated that as far as he was concerned, he is satisfied with the letter from ~-~. Kohl. If M~. Ward wants other action, present it and we will put it to a vote.~ ~. Kurtz moved to adjourn, seconded by ~. Gordon. Motion carried 7-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 8:35 * Mr Ward stated if it could be ascertained or proven that .the law states the Building Official must be present, he would make an apology for it, (From 3/8/76 minutes.) Respectfully submitted, Suzanne Kruse Recording Secretary (Two Tapes )