Loading...
Minutes 11-24-75~Ii'UJTES OF THE BO~D OF ADJU~T~'.~hT ~TI~G ~LD AT C_TY HALL, T~ MONDAY, ~n~~ BOYNTON BEACH, FLO~., .... ~ 2~, 1975 AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT Foy Ward, Chairman Alvin C. Boeltz, Vice Chairman Robert Gordon David W. Healy, Secretary Vernon Thompson, Jr. Derle B. Bailey Joseph Aranow Walter Rutter, Alternate Carl Zimmerman, Alternate Len Schmidt, Acting Chief Deputy Bldg. Insp. Chairman ~; Ward called the meeting to order at 7:05 P. M. and intro- duced the members of the Board, Mrs. Kruse and M~. Schmidt. MINUTES The minutes of November 10, 1975, were read. Mr. Bailey referred to Page 11, ~last paragraph, second sentence, and stated if there was no objection, he would like to change "City Council" to ~City Manager~. The members agreed. Mr. Aranow moved for the adoption of the ~nutes of November 10, 1975, as corrected. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. OLD BU~ i~ES~ Parcel #3 - South 70 ft. of Lots 35 and 36, Laurel Hills, 2nd Addn. Recorded in Plat Book 22, Page 1, Palm Beach County Records !Relief from requirement for a'corner lot of 25 ft. setback on both streets to t6 ft. 5 inch setback on 'the side street. ~elief from 7500 sq. ft. lot area requirement~ to 6900 sq. ft. area. To construct a house. ~ddress - 819 N. W. 5th .Avenue Applicant - Lin- Bar Construction Company, Inc. Parcel #4 - Lots 35 and 36, Less the North 10 ft. thereof and Less the South 70 feet thereof - Laurel Hills, 2nd Addn. Recorded in Plat Book 22, Page 1, Palm Beach County Records Relief from 7500 sq. ft. lot area requirement to 6008 sq. ft. To construct a house. Address - 608 N. W. 7th Court Applicant - Lin-Bar Construction Company, Inc. MI~J TES BOARD OF ADJUST.~v~NT PAGE T~'~ 0 NOVEmbER 24, 1975 Parcel #5 - Lot 37 and the North 10 feet of Lots 35 and 36, Laurel Hills, 2nd Addn. Recorded in Plat Book 22, Page 1, Palm Beach County Records Relief from 7½ ft. side setback requirement to 7 ft. side setback. To construct a house. Address - 612 N. W. 7th Court Applicant - Lin-Bar Construction Company, Inc. Mr. Healy made a motion to remove the Lin-Bar Construction Company applications from the table, seconded by Mr. Bailey. Motion car- rie~ 7-0. ~. Heaty read a letter from Lin-Bar Construction Company dated November 24, 1975, signed by Jeffrey Linzer, stating they hereby dissolve all procedures to the Boynton Beach Adjustment Board and withdraw their variance requests for lots 35, 36, and 37, Laurel Hills, Boynton Beach, Florida. Mr. Healy then read a memo from Mr. Warren Bushnell to ~s. Tereesa Padgett advising that Lin-Bar Construction Company had cancelled their requests for variances. They have decided to make two lots instead of three and will conform to the regulations. Mr. Thompson made a motion that the request to withdraw the appli- cations for variances from Lin-Bar Construction Company be granted. Mr. Healy seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. (~. Aranow had left the room temporarily.) NEW BUS I~,~[ESS Parcel ~1 - Lot #3, less N. 2 ft. thereof All of Lots 4 and 5 Block 1, Boynton Heights, Rev. Plat Recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 64 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 30 ft. front setback requirement to 25 ft. front setback. Relief from 30 ft. side setback require- ment to 9 ft. 7 inch side setback. To use existing building as an office. Address - 215 N. W. 3rd Street Applicant - Serge P. Pizzi Mr. Healy read the above application and informed the Board it was requested because the petitioner purchased the property in good faith in order to use the existing building as an office. MI~TES BOARD OF ADJUS ~ ~ ~ a~ THRt~E ~ ~'~ ~ 1975 NO¥ E~R 24, The best use of this property is commercial and would comply with the intent of the new zoning ordinance. He added that all the papers were in order with a copy of the survey ~ud deed attached. M~. Serge Pizzi stated his name and his address as 79 Coral Drive, Boynton Beach. He informed the Board that he went to see M~. Schmidt in !the Building Department and informed him that he would like to make a driveway on this orooerty to use it commercially. He was told it would be non-conf~rm~ng, as there is residential on one side. ~his is the last piece of commercial. M~. Schmi~dt referred him to the new zoning regulations which require 30 ft. between commercial and residential property. He was told all non-conforming uses were not codified. No provisions were made for these properties and all will be non-conforming. The new rules are pretty rigid and he can see abiding by them on vacant property, b~t believes it should be different with an existing building. Chairman Ward asked Mr. Schmidt how far to the north and south this conm~nercial zoning extended. In reply, M~. Schmidt first referred to Mr. Pizzi's statement of the uses not being codified and stated this was incorrect. The whole ordinance is written and they live by it. He doesn't know what could have been left out. M~. Pizzi replied that someone in the Building Department advised him~ of this. Non-conforming uses are not codified-and they do notknow what they are going to do with them. Mr. Schmidt explained the procedure for ordinances being recorded. He added there was no definite solution for all these things and ehch one must be heard individually. M~. Pizzi replied that it was his understanding that when the new zoning was created, they did not state whatwas going to happen to the existing houses, Mr. Schmidt agreed and informed him it was the purpose of this Board to give relief if it is feasible. Mr. Schmidt then informed the Board that this co~mnercial zoning was bordered on the north side by Second Avenue and runs halfway down 3rd Strget South. Mr. Pizzi's property is the last one. Mr. Pizzi eXplained that there was a 50 ft. lot on the corner with a two story house, then a vacant lot owned by ~. Zompa and then his prOperty. M~. Boeitz asked if he could buy some of the vacant property and M~. Schmidt replied that it wouldn't solve the problem as the vacant property'was zoned residential. Mr. Boeltz remarked that this was evidently an examp!~ of poor plan- ning. They have been trying to get rid of non-conforming lots and the new ordinance has made more. Mr. Thompson asked if there was an office existing in this~area and Mr. Pizzi informed him that Adams T.V. was across the street, but there was no existing office there that he was aware of. Mr. Gordon referred to the proposed mr_veway and asked if it ran from the street to the building or around the side and Mr. Pizzi replied that it would go on the side. Mr. Gordon stated he would have about 1~5 feet and ~. Pizzi agreed. M~. Boeltz questioned MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE FOUR NOVE~'~ER 24, 1975 the proposed use and Mr. Pizzi replied it was to be an office. Mr. Boeltz asked if there was enough parking and M~. Pizzi in- formed him that he talked to Mr. Schmidt about this and it will conform to the requirements. There is plenty of room there for parking. Mm. Boeltz stated he thought that commercial properties needed 20 ft. for ingress and egress and M~. Pizzi replied that he believed this only applied on highways. He added that none of the commercial properties in this area would have this width. ~. Aranow referred to the south side where there would be a 9~7'' setback and asked what the residential requirement was for the adjoining property and Mr. Schmidt informed him it would be 7½ ft. Mr. ~.ranow remarked that it would be about the same as the residential requirement then. Mr Bailey referred to the property ~mmemmately south being a vacant lot only 25 ft. wide, which would be non-conforming for residential. ~. Pizzi informed him that it was ~ 75 ft. lot. Mr. Bailey disagreed and explained ~ow he was under the impression that it was a 25 ft. lot. Mr. Pizzi replied that he had inquired about buying this~/ot and was informed it was a 75 ft. lot. Mr. Bailey agreed it was a 75 ft. lot, but there were two houses on it. He added there was a hedge 25 ft. away and then approximately 20 ft. south, there was a house. Mr. Pizzi disagreed and stated it was an empty 75 ft. lot. The last three lots have houses on them, but there are three lots between the houses and his property. ~. Pizzi then rsferred to the front setback and advised that the garage stuck out about 5 ft. Ma~. Bailey asked if he wanted to add onto this building and M~. Pizzi replied: no, he just wanted to use it as it exists. Chairman Ward asked if there was anyone in the audience in favor of this application and received no response. He then asked if' there was anyone present in opposition and received no response. He added that no written correspondence had been received. Mr. ~ranow made a motion that the application be granted, seconded by Mr. Gordon. Under discussion, Mr. Bailey stated he would like to abstain from voting,~ since he got the lots mixed up. Chairman Ward informed him that any time when~-~.someone is going to abstain, they should do so before discussion. ~. Pizzi stated he would take the responsibility that there was not a house on these three lots. MotiOn carried 6-0, with Mr. Bailey abstaining. Parcel #2 - Lot #4, High Point Recorded in Plat Book 23, Page 225 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 75 ft. frontage requirement to 60 ft. frontage platted. Relief from 9000 sq. ft. requirement to 8550 sq. ft. To use existing structure as a dental office. MI~U TES BOARD OF ADJU~T~T RAGE FIVE NOVEMBER 24, 1975 Adm~ess - 202 S. E. 23rd Avenue Ap~>lzcant - ~. J. Endruschat ~.~Hea!y read the above application and informed the BOard the reason requested was that this 60 ft. lot is non-conforming and a building permit cannot be granted for the conversion of the existing structure to a dental office. Dr. A. J. Endruschat stated his name and his address as 3311 Baltusrol Lane, Lake Worth. He informed the Board that he be- lieved he covered everything on the submitted application. How- ever, he woUld like to tell the circumstances about this parcel of property, This property is in the current new zoning of C-1. He has a contract to purchase this and remodel it into a pediatrics dental office. The contract stipulates approval by the Building Department.! He talked to Mr. Schmidt and was advised this was non-conforming for a corner lot and ~. Schmidt informed him of the specifics involved. This is off 1/18 of what is required. The proposed use is for a dental office. There is room for park- lng 12 cars and the requirement is 6. There is room for more parking, but he would like to preserve the existing large trees. The use conform, it just doesn't conform in frontage and the minimum square footage. The people that live there have five children and want to move to a more residential area. ~. Rutter asked if the owner was applying for a variance o~ just the proposed buyer? Dr. Endruschat replied that he under-. stood that you must be the owner of the property or have a bona- fide contraCt to purchase. He submitted a copy of the bonafide contract. M~. Boeltz pointed out that he didn't have a hardship like the owner would. Dr. Endruschat informed him that he dis-. cussed hardship with Mrs. Padgett and in good conscience he could not put down it was a hardship for him. However, there are some circumstances here with the owner having five children and they have a contract to buy a new home in a residential area. Also, there are only five pediatrics ~ ' ment~.sts in Palm Beach County and he and his associate are two of them and they would like to serve BoYnton BeaCh. Many of their customers at their Lake Worth Office come fromB0ynton Beach. They have studied this area and feel it is needed. Mr. Heaty asked if the zoning was C-1 when he purchased the property and Dr. Endruschat reolied: yes. M~. $chmidt added that it was changed from residential on June 3 with the new ordinance. Chair- man ~ard asked how far the commercial zone ,~ont~nued~ ' and Schmidt infbrmed him that it goes to the railroad track. He added that in the back of this property, it was residential. Chairman ~ard asked if he had more than the required 30 ft. in the rear ~ud Dr. Endruschat replied that it conformed to every- thing but the frontage and, square footage. Mr. Thompson ques- tioned what ~could be done with the property if it was not used for C-1 and i?~. Schmidt stated that no matter who bought the property, t~e same action must be t~en. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE S_YX NOVEi~ER 24, 1975 Mr. Georg Alotrico stated his name and his address as 230 S. E. 23rd Avenue. He informed the Board that he lives four doors from where this gentleman wants to open an office. There are only seven, homes there that have been changed to commercial and will need a variance. If this gentleman gets it, do the rest have to apply for variances? M~. Boeltz replied: yes, every non-conform- ing use must be considered individually. Mr. Alotrico asked if when it was changed from residential to C-l, didn't the Board of Adjustment consider this? 2@. Gordon informed him that this Board did not have anything to do with that. ~. Boeltz added that tlhe Board of Adjustment just deals with non-conforming. Mr. Alotrico continued that he wished this gentleman success in both the var.- lance and his business. However, if he gets it, why shouldn't he? His house is for sale. Chairman ~6ard informed him that he must still apply. He added that they didn't understand it either, as some of these existing properties were not taken into considera- tion. However, they must act on each case. The Planning & Zoning Board made al~ the zoning cna~ges. He explained the procedure. Dr. Endruschat stated that he didn't want to be a precedent setter. He would not like this to apply to all the other properties. He is trying to bring one specific service. ~. Gordon asked if he would have enough parking room without removing the big trees and Dr. Endruschat replie~ that he only pl~auned to remove one tree. ~ Schmidt added that he was preserving a lot of planting and grass area. Dr. E druscnat added that the current survey sub- mitted had been approved by the City Engineer. Chairman Ward asked if anyone in the audiencewas in favor of granting this variance and Mr. Alotrico raised his hand. He then asked if anyone was opposed and received no response. He added that no written correspondence had been received. Mr. Aranow moved that the application be granted and wished both the dentists good luck. ~. Healy seconded the motion Motion carried 7-0. · M~. Thompson stated that it seemed when the Planning & Zoning Board made changes like this, it should include an automatic variance. He hates to see people spending time and money to make these applications. This problem exists all over Boynton Beach. He suggests talking to the Planning & Zoning Board about this. Chairman Ward advised him that this Board was supposed to meet with the Planning & Zoning Board about this, but haven't as yet. However, t~ Planning & Zoning Board meetings are open and the members of tn_s Board may attend at any time Mr. Aranow stated they cou_d not make just a general statement. Mr. oe~atz B pointed out that the Board of Adjustment,s purpose was to hear these appl~.9~ations~.~~ ~!~hen this ordinanc t~ .~ ~>~2~.~.· ..... _ .... e was passed, he talked ~ ~ ~~ ~¥ - a ;~-/ ' ~:-' -. ~r. Aranow pointed out in this Particular case, they hav'e granted one application and there will possibly be six more. Ail it means i~ that the City is going to get $300; but at the same time, it ts~es time for the members of MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST!~NT PAGE SEVEN NOVE?~ER 24, 197!5 the Board, stenographer, electricity of building, etc. He suggests making a notation and keeping it in a file. if they run across more specific things, they should call these things to the attentionof the Planning & Zoning Board and explain there are thousands of them. in the future, when these changes are made, they should keep this in mind. Possibly they should confer with the Board of Adjustment when they make these chsmges. ~. Rutter asked if this would apply to people owning 50 ft. lots and M~. Aranow replied that they should pick specific things. M~. Schmidt explained how the City loses money on these applications with sending registered letters to the people within ~00 ft., two newspaper ~dvertisements, etc. He added that many towns were charging $100 for the same thing. ~. Aranow stated that this should be brought to the attention of the Planning & Zoning Board. Mr. Boeltz stated that they may have to change the State law, as non-conforming cases must come before the Board of Adjustment. I~. Aranow stated if it was going to be good for them and the people, the laws should be changed. Mr. Bailey stated he thought they were getting out of their jurisdiction, if the six home- owners are concerned about this, they should approach the Plan- ning & Zoning Board and if the City wants to save money, they have the Finance Director to take care of it. It sounds like they are trying to run the Planning & Zoning Board and Finance Director. Mr. Aranow remarked that he didn't think they should just sit back. Mr. Rutter referred to sitting on the Board and hearing m~uy variances regarding the buyer smd sellor. Some have been denied and some have been granted, but the strength was the variance must be a hardship to the owner. ~henever a variance was needed for the sale of the property, they rarely granted it. The previous applicant did not own the property. Who is getting the variance? Who owns the property? ~ho pays the taxes? Are you granting the variance to the taxpayer or the anticipated buyer? Chairman Ward agreed that they primarily considered the hardship previously, but the new local code and Chapter 163 are a little more lenient now. Mr. Healy added that Dr. Endruschat explained why the owner was not pre~ent. Chairman Ward continued that the law used to be very specific~and explained. ~. Thompson agreed with ~. Rutter stating he thouEht the owner should request the variance. The owner could come forth~with the ootentia! buyer. Mr. Rutter re- ferred to having had similar cases which they turned down. They stated many times what the ordinance and zoning required. They granted variances to the owners providing they were going to build. Mr. Boe!tz told about having discussed his property with his attor~eYth~~i and being advised that the law states you cannot ~ take ~ ~uoe of a man's property away from him. ~/g/~ Mr. Healy referred to there being a great many people in Boynton Beach being ignorant of the fact that they own non-conforming lots. They sell these lots and the buyer is unaware of it also. He thinks the buyer should be granted the privilege the same as the MINUTES BOARD 0F ~JUSTMENT PAGE EIGHT NOVE~ER 24, 1975 owner. This is a point the Board must consider. If the owner knows the lot is non-conforming and sells knowing this and does not tell the buyer, he thinks the buyer has a hardship. The members discussed their reasoning for such decisions. C OM~f~N ICA T i ONS~ M~. Heaty ascertained that each member~shad a copy of his memo sent to M~. Kohl regarding the applications from Lin-Bar Construc- tion Company. He then read a reply from ~. Kohl dated November 21 advisinglthat he talked to Mr. Bushnell and M~. Sch~midt about these applications and Lin-Bar Construction Company now has de- cided to divide the three lots into two lots. He then read Bushneli's memo dated November 20 to Mr. Kohl in reference to these applications and his discussions with Mr. Barbara and M~ Linz~r. Mrj Healy remarked that his letter to Mr. Kohl referred to Mr. 0wanS' statements at their previous meeting, but ~. Bushnell referred to having talked to Mr. Barbara ~nd M~. Linzer. Mr. Aranow Stated he thought the matter should be considered closed. Helthinks ~. BUshnell is now aware that he cannot assume how the BoaDd of Adjustment will act. This Board will make their own decisions and the Bum!d~ng Department should not ~uess what ~e are going to decide. Until we get all the detai~s~ we dsn't ~know ourselves. Chairman Ward stated that the ~a~t~r~in reference to Lmn-Bar Construc.ion Company was closed. Mr. Healy then read a memo to the Chairman from M~. Kohl advising that the annual Board dinner would be held on Friday, December 19. The City piths to mail invitations on December 5 and it is not their intent to miss any member. Chairman Ward advised the mem- bers if they did not receive an invitation by December 10 to contact the iCity Manager. ADJOURN~NT Mr. Aranow moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Healy. Motion car- ried 7-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 8:20 P. M.