Loading...
Minutes 01-12-76MI~TES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUST~NT ~ETING HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, MONDAY, JANUARY t2, 1976 AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT Foy Ward, Chairman Alvin C. Boeltz, Vice Chairman George Ampol Joseph Aranow Derle B. Bailey Robert Gordon Vernon Thompson, Jr. Walter Rutter, Alternate Richard Kurtz, Alternate Edgar E. Howell, Bldg. Official Len Schmidt, Chief Bldg. Inspector Chairman Ward called the meeting to order at 7:25 P. M. He introduced M£~s. Kruse, Recording Secretary~ ~. Schmidt, Re- presentative of Building Departments and the members of the Board. He apologized to the audience for the delay in call- ing the meeting to order and explained it was the opinion of the members of the Board that a Building Official should be present and M~. Schmidt has now arrived. Election of Officers for 1976 Mr. ~ard declared the nominations open for Chairman of the Board. ~. Gordon nominated Mr. Joseph Aranow, seconded by ~. Boeltz. Motion carried unanimously. ~. Ward declared the nominations open for Vice Chairman of the Board. ~. Ward nominated ~. Derle Bailey for Vice Chairman, seconded by R~. Gordon. Motion carried unanimously, M~~. Ward declared the nomAnations open for Secretary of the Board. ~. Thompson nominated M~. Robert Gordon for Secre- tary, seconded by Mr. Boeltz. Motion carried unanimously. Minutes Mr. Ward made a motion that,.the minutes of the previous meet- lng be approved as submitted, seconded by ~. Boeltz. No discussion. Motion carried unanimously. Communications Mr. Gordon read a letter from M~. Howell to the Board of Ad- justment regarding the Wallace Property at ~02 West Ocean Avenue and the inspectors discovering this was being used as a duplex and not a single family residence as listed in the files. ~. Ward suggested discussing this at the end of the meeting and proceeding with the regular order of business, since the applicants have been waiting awhile. He also re- quested that Parcel #2 be considered first, since the appli- cant is from out of town. The members agreed. MINUTES BQARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE ~VO JANUARY 12, ~ 976 ~blic Hearin~ Parcel #2 - Lots 18, 19, 20 & N. 30 ft. of Lot 21, Block ~ Lake Addition, recorded in Plat Book ~1, Page 71, Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 25 ft. front setback requirement to ~9 ft. front setback existing. Address - 725 North Federal Highway Applicant - Alphonse Lembo Mr. Gordon read the above application a~d also the reasons requested stating that the existing pipe columns supporting the canopy roof are ~9 ft. from the property line and a 6 ft. variance is required. The planned!~improvements will conform to the existing requirements. The front yard has existed for ~8 years, but was taken with the widening of U. S. ~. This condition is not a result of the applicant. The request will not grant special exceptions to the owner. He is requesting the minimum possible to make the building acceptable to the City. Also, prior to the new zoning code, a ~0 ft. front yard was legal. At this time~ both M~. Ward and M~. Bailey requested the al- ternates to take their Places on the Board. They explained that they were both bidders on this job and would abstain from voting. M~. George C. Davis stated his name and his address as 3~2 South Federal Highway and he informed the Board that he was the architect for this project. He added that he wrote the statement just read by the Secretary. He pointed out that most of the buildings in that area are on the sidewalk or just a few feet off. He can't believe what Mr. Lembo plans to do will interrupt the neighborhood. Mr. Boeltz asked when this property was purchased and M~. Davis replied: three years ago. ~. Thompson referred to the diagram and it only referr- ing to the side and rear for development. ~. Davis agreed and ~ ~ ~nfor~ed him on the South would be an office and on the West would be a warehouse. ~. Gordon asked if he planned to build out as far as the two poles and ~. Davis replied: no, the new addition will be in line with the building. ~. Ward showed the plan to the members and explained it. He pointed out that he was approximately ~5 ft. further back than the buildings on each side and ~. Davis added that the main building was 44 ft. back. M~o Ward continued that he was only asking for a variance, since he is in violation in the front. Chairman Aranow clarified that he was asking for a variance in the front because the City took the land away. ~ne construction has nothing to do with the variance requested. The variance is because the City took aw~ ~7 ft. and deprived him of his property. He can see no hardship created by this man. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTi~I~TT PAGE THREE JANUARY ! 2, ! 976 Mm. Thompson agreed, but pointed out that they should not overlook the fact that the 19 ft. is violating the 25 ft. front setback. Chairman Aranow stated again that they must be sure the hardship was not self-imposed. ~. Thompson conti~3~ed w~uh stating this was not saying how he was going to vote, but they do have the right to turn this down. The building itself is in vio!ation~ but not the building being planned. M~. Howell informed the Board that the reason this was before this Board is the way the ordinance is written now~ they can- not'issue a permit because it is a non-conforming property. Chairman Aranow asked if anybody desired to speak for or against this application and received no response. He asked if any communications had been received and Mr. Ward informed him that he checked the Board of Adjustment box at 4:30 ?. M. and there were no communications for either application. Mm. Rutter made a motion to grant the variance, seconded by Mr. Ampol. Under discussion, Mm. Thompson stated he would be in favor if there was a stipulation that no construction will be on the 25 ft. front setback. Once they vote on this, the person could go all the way to ~9 ft. This will give them a leeway and relieve the City. After a lengthy discus- sion regarding this, Mr. Rutter and M~. Ampol agreed to in- clude the amendment that there shall be no new construction on the front ~9 ft. of the property'without a further appli- cation to this Board. Motion carried 7-0. Parcel #1 - Lots 247 and 248, Laure! Hills, ~h Addition Recorded in Plat Book 23~ Page ~' Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 7½ ft. Si~e setback requirement to 5'9" side setback to enclose screen porch. Address - 9t0 N. W. 8th Street Applicant - John A. Starkoski M~. Gordon read the above application and informed the Board the reason 'requested was to have a screened porch in alignment with the existing home. i~. John Starkos~ appeared before the Board. Mr. Rutter re- ferred to his request to enclose a screen porch and M~. Starkoski agreed this was correct and added that previously his septic tank was here, but now they are on sewage. ~. Rutter asked if there was a slab there and ~. Starkoski re- plied: no. Chairman Aranow referred to the diagram and ques- tioned if the only part he was going to work on was where it stated form boards, thus straightening out the building to a rectangle. Mr. Starkoski agreed this was correct, i~. Boeltz MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT PAGE FOUR JA~JARY ~ 2 ~ 1 976 ~asked how long he had owned this ~uilding and Mr. Starkosk~ replied: ~18 years. ~. Rutter asked if he was going to roof it and ~. Starkoski replied: yes. Mm. Rutter added that with roofing it, there would be the possibility of this be- coming a permanent room. Chairman Aranow asked if anybody desired to speak for or against this application and received no response. Mr. Ampol made a motion to accept this variance, seconded by ~k~. Boeltz. Under discussion, M~. Bailey asked if the over- hang was going to be the same as the existing house and Mr. Starkoski replied: yes. ~. Thompson asked what kind of roof and ~. Starkosk~ replied it would be pitch and gravel. Motion carried 7-0. Communications (Continued) Chairman Aranow again read the letter sent to the Board of Adjustment from ~. Howell. He then asked why this was brought before this Board? ~. Howell replied that some- body has to make a mec~smon on this. He referred to the Roberson case being similar and being in court now. He continued that ~o Kohl would rather the Building Depart- ment did not take the authority to do this. He wants a Board to either approve or deny it. The additional sewer fees should be charged as it is a duplex. Mr. Rutter asked what would happen if the Board turned this down and t~. Howell replied that the lady would have to take out the kitchen. He explained that he has researched this and this building does conform to the code in every ws&~ with the exception that it is passed by this Board° This lady inherited this house. He told about electrical and plumb- ing conditions which should be corrected, but a permit must be issued for this work. There was a permit issued in 1955 for this house, but since then a kitchen was added. Chairm~u Aranow referred to applications coming before the Board for decisions according to the code, either City or State Statutes. He doesn't know whether the Building De- partment has the authority to bring this before the Board of Adjustment. He doesn't want to stick the Board's neck out on entertaining an aoplication not coming in the proper way. Here is somebody coming in to get relief. He doesn't see how they can entertain an application by the Building Department unless some authority is shown to them. Mr. Rutter agreed that it should go through the regular proce- dure. ~. ~di~.. stated he didn't think the Building Department was seeking any relief in this instance. It is his belief it MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE Fl~E JANUARY 12 ~ 1 976 should be in the form of an application. It is his opinion that the Building Department should deny this woman the right to use this as a duplex and she should apply for a variance on this basis. Chairman Aranow agreed and added that he did not think this should be an exception. Mr. Ward clarified that he said the Building Department should deny it. tf it is in violation, they should deny it. If the lady wants it, she should make the proper application. ~ Thompson stated that as he gathers, there is no violation as far as the Board of Adjustment, but the violation is to the Building Department. Chairman Aranow clarified that the Building Department found something wrong. They found the Condition existing there today is not the way it should~ be according to the last permit issued 20 years ago. Now, they come to us asking how to correct this situation. He believes in cooperating with the Building Department, especially with both Mr. Howell and himself being new on the job. On the same token, how do they entertain something without an appli~ cation? Mro Howell explained that he had to,come to this Board, as they do not have a Board of Appeals. This is in the process of being set up. Due to the situation and the way things are in the Building Department, Mr~ Kohl suggested bringing this to this Board as this is the only Board of Adjustment the City has~ Chairman Aranow referred to the new Board of Ap- peals being set up and questioned if it would take some of the authority away from this Board? ~, Howell replied that he didn,t think so. It is his maderstanding that this Board is more concerned with zoning variances. He explained that the new Board was being set up according to State Law and would mainly be concerned with builders and enforcing the law. M~. Rutter referred back to the case mentioned in the letter and asked if this affected the tax structure and ~. Howell replied: absolutely. Mro Kurtz stated that if the building is in violation, it is not up to the Building Department to come to this Board for relief. The Building Department should notify the owner and the owner should come before this Board to conform to-the law. M~. B ~ oel~z asked if this area was zoned for a duple× and ~. Howell informed him it was properly zoned and set back. ~. Howell continued that they would have another case to consider. He told about a builder with three buildings having roofs against the code. This also must come through somebody, as he doesn't have the authority.~_r.~ Rut~er~ ques- tioned if they had to learn all the buiDding codes? Mi~¥~ TES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE SIX JANUARY ~ 2, ~ 976 Chairman Aranow referred to ~. Wardfs suggestion to place a v_ola~zon on this and suggest an ap~l~catmon be made to the Board of Adjustment. He asked what else they could do? M~. Howell replied that he agreed with this. He continued that ordinarily this man would go before a Building Board of Ap- peals, who would either turn it down or allow it. ~. ~ard mnfOrmed them that the w~y ~nms Board is presently set up, it is also a Board of Appeals. When a Building Board of Appeals is set up, it appears a section in their~s should be deleted. M~. Howell explained that the Building Board of Appeals would consist of one architect, one engineer or o nepal contractor and three men from the xme~d as required by State law. The members discussed further the duties of ~h~ two Boards. t,~, Kurtz then continued with clarifying the two cases in question. The two do not have any relationship to each other. The first one discussed violates zoning, since a permit was issued for a single family residence and it is no longer that. The other one does not Conform to the build- ing code in regards to the roof; possibly this does not be- long before this Board as it is composed now. Chairman Aranow stated he believed the way to handle this particular matte~ was to tell the person, he is in violation and must apply to the Board of ldjustment. Chairman Aranow suggested comparing further the two Boards, since ~.~. Howell was present. As he told the City Council today~ he thinks l~. Howell is competent, knows his job and will see that a competent job is done. From his own inter- pretation, he feels the same as I~. Ward that this new Board of Appeals will not take anything away from this Board. Mu~. Rutter asked if this Board turned down an applicant, could they go to the Board of Appeals? M~~. Howell replied that under State law, they have to have a Board of Appeals in reference to code violations. He still must clarify just what comes before each Board. He then told about his perience as a builder and how applications for variances were handled by different cities. Mm. Rutter asked if these cases would be sub, ct to any fines and M~. Howell reo!ied that they must willingly violate the code. The one with the roof is in vio!ation~ as no permit was issued. Normally, they would charge a double fee because he did it without a permit. However, the first one is owned by an elderly lady and these things should be corrected and she should be charged for a permit. He doesn't know where they can get the authority to do this. ~. Kohl suggested going through this Board. He imagines this Board would have the authority. Chairman Aranow replied there was no question that this Board has the authority, but he believes it should be brought before this Board in the form of an application. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~,~NT PAGE SEVEN J~J~UARY 12, 1 976 ~. Thompson told about a single family dwelling hooking to the sewage illegally and how when it was purchased by a new person, they were charged for a permit. Chairman Are~ow questioned by whose authority this was done. Chairman Aranow then referred to the copy of the code apply- ing to the Board of Adjustment. He referred to a paragraph not applying to the Board of Adjustment stating in case any building or structure is erected, maintained~ etc., in viola- tion~ the City can go into court and make sure it is stopped. This is the authority given to the Bu£1dln~ Department to make sure ordinances are enforced. Under the circumstances, he thought the information they could gather with M~. Howell here would be beneficial to them. They must act on how they are going to answer this letter. The code must be enforced in every manner. M~. Bailey referred to Mr. Howel!'s letter and clarified that he wanted permission to change the billing and charge them for the extra sewer connection. Mr. Howell agreed and also to bring the property to the code for safety, *~k~. Bailey asked if they had applied for a permit and ?~. Howell in- formed him that the lady was waiting for them to tell her what to do. Mr. Bailey referred to inspectors being able to cite violations and require they be corrected according to the code. Mr. Howell informed him this was a thin line and sometimes the grandfather clause takes care of it. He explained further and pointed out where c/o's have been is- sued~ he really didn't know what to say or what the Building Department could do aoou~ it ~r. Bailey asked if they hooked up to the sewer without a sewer permit ~ad ?~. Howell informed him that they hooked up as a single family residence, but once this is cls~ified, they will be charged as a duplex. Mm~. Bailey stated in his opinion, he couldn't see where they can make any decision at all. Today, it is a single family~ but when they take a permit for the sewer, it will be a duplex. ~. Howell ex- plained that he wanted it brought up to code and he must be given authority by a Board. He told about the case in court now, which is similar and does not comply. ~. Bailey asked if he thought the lady was going to argue about this and Mr. Howell replied: no. Mr. Bailey remarked that if she was going to argue, it would be different. He thinks once she applies for a permit, she automatically becomes a duplex. ~. Howell referred to the other case with the roofs in vio- lation and also explained how an extra sink was installed and an extra apartment could easily be added. He also told how they have written a letter to him advising that they know of this situation and will check on it. Mr. Rutter remarked that he thought this would be up to the Board of Ap~ealso MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST[~TT PAGE EIGHT JANUARY 12, 1976 ~. Bailey made a motion that it is the opinion of this Board that once a permit is taken out for a sewer, that it is treated as any other ~roject. Chairman Aranow asked what would happen if no ap~!ication was made and Mr. Bailey re- plied that he didn't think it had anything to do with it. Chairman Aranow clarified that he was saying to throw this back in the hands of the Building Department. I~. Bailey said that evidently they want an opinion. His motion is in the opinion of the Board of Adjustment, that this case should be treated the same as any other - should be treated as a duplex. Chairman Aranow ascertained there was no second to this motion. M~. Thompson made a motion to have this Board treat this appli~ cant the same as any other with having the person appear be- fore the Board in t_.~ proper procedure. M~. Gordon seconded the motion. Under discussion, ~. Bailey stated he didn't see why an application would be necessary. Chairman Aranow replied that he didn't see how anybody could appear before this Board without an application. Mr. Bailey asked what they would appear for and Chairman Aranow replied that they wouldn't !~mow until they get the application. Mr. Bailey pointed out that the owner didn't want this~ but the Bui!dir~ Department does. Chairman Aranow clarified that he thought the Building Department wants %o know whether they want to ~.te_ta=n this or not and ~ney will entertain this when they get an application, the same as anybody else does. Motion carried 7~0. Chairman Aranow ~ ~. ~ a~ded that Howell requested a copy of these minutes to cover this and Mr. Ward informed him that the Board's Secretary should handle this and explained. Other Mr. Bailey referred to discussing previously whether it would be necessary for the Building Official or his representative to be present at the Board's meetings° Chairman Aranow read Section lC, Subdivision 2 of the code pertaining to this. He questioned whether his attendance should be a requirement. He added that he has stated in the past that in the absence of a Building Official, he will not vote on any matter be- cause he feels he is not cualified. He wants to know if it is compulsory for a representative to be here. Mr. Howell replied that the way it reads, he would say no~ because it states may. Chairman Aranow referred to it stating ~may answer questions and give evidence". He certainly may not answer questions and give evidence if he is not here. ~. Howell stated that he wants to work with the Board. if they want him or a representative to come, he will be sure they have one~ Chairman Aranow stated that they are respectfully requesting this. ~. Ward asked if it was definitely required, because they almost did not have a meeting tonight on account MI~J~S BOARD OF ADJUSTi~NT N~NE PAGE ~ JANUARY 12, 1 976 of this. Chairman Aranow agreed that they should get a full and complete answer. As long as ?~. Howell has stated that he or a representative will be at the meetings, he would sug- gest that the Secretary write a letter to the City Manager and ask him to get an interpretation of the meaning of this whether the Building Department must have a representative here or not. If, in the interpretation of the City Manager or City Attorney~ they say there is no compulsion to have ~, Building Departme~t representative here~ they should ask the City Manager to have the City Attorney prepare a law that he must be present at every meeting. Mr. Thompson asked whether they had the right to request his presen~e~!and Chairman Aranow replied that they have requested it and Mr. Howell has agreed. This should be cleared up though. He added that ~. Howell has a tremendous job in interpreting a code which is replete with statements of this type. Mr. Ampol referred to having served on the Board previously and they requested the City Attorney to be present at certain meetings before they took any action. Chairman Aranow replied that he didn't think they had the authority to request this. Mr. Ward agreed that they must go through administrative chapels. Mr. ~ard asked if ~. Howell did not come, would they have a meeting? Chairman Aranow referred to Mr. Howell stating that either he or a representative would be here. ~. Ward re- marked that they should know whether to meet if a representa- tive is not here. Chairman Aranow stated that they must have the interpretation from the City Attorney or the City Manager of the law. In the meantime, they will operate on Mr. Howel!'s good will. Mr. Kurtz stated he thought if this Board was going to request anybody~ it should be done by vo~e. That sentence should be changed making it mandatory. They want the Building Official and any other official whenever it is deemed necessary. Chair- man Aranow explained how they possibly could be denied from calling once.he City .Attorney to be present. The members dis- cussed it further and agreed the Building Department repre- sentative's presence was mandatory. Mr. Rutter asked again if they would have a meeting if the representative did not come and this was discussed at length. It was brought out how they needed information from a Build- ing Department representative, needed to protect themselves, etc. Chairman Aranow suggested they could make a motion to this effect~ but he would prefer to go to the City Manager~ City Council or City Attorney and have this answered in writing. He told about his previous experience with the City. MI~J~S BOARD OF ADJUSTIv~NT PAGE TEN ~ ~ ~v ~ 976 JA~IU~. ~ 2, ~. Boeltz requested M_~. Howe!l's opinion and M~. Howell re- plied if the Board thinks he should be here, he will be here because they are making decisions pertaining to code,~build- ing, etc. He also apologized for being late for tonight's meeting, but thought it was at 7:30 ?. M. Chairman Aranow added that he thought M~. Howell should be the one to decide whether he or a representative should be here. He referred to matters tonight having had enough information. He thinks he should be able to decide whom he wants to send to these meetings. He doesn't think the Board should encroach upon his right to do this. His time is fully taken care of. He has enough to do in ~4 hours~ without ~ ~ ~' ~o~y~ng about the meetings at night. He believes he should send a sepresenta- rive. The members discussed this further and still stressed that he or a representative should be present. Mr. Howell informed the Board that he was sure he could be present at the Board's meetings and if he cannot attend~ he will be sure they have a qualified man. ~. Ampo! moved to adjourn~ seconded by Mr. Thompson. Motion carried 7~0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 9:00 P. M~