Loading...
Minutes 04-14-75MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF At~IUST~N'T ~ff~EETING HELD A.T CI~ HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORID~., MONDAY, APRIL 14, 1975 AT 7:00 P. M. PRESENT Foy ~ard, Chairman Alvin C. Boeltz, Vice Chairman Robert Gordon David W. Healy, Secretary Vernon Thompson, Jr. Derle B. Bailey, Alternate John F. White, Alternate Jack Aitken, Building Dept. Chairman Ward called the meeting to order at 7:00 P. M. and introduced the Board members and alternates, Building Official and Recording Secretary. Chairman Ward then requested a m~ent of silence in respect to Mr. Block, who passed away. He then requested the minutes to extend to~s. Block and the e~tire Block family the feel- ing of sympathy in the passing of ~.~. Block, an alternate me~er of the Board. MINUTES The Minutes of Mzmrch 10, 1975 were read. M~. Nealy referred to Page 4, third paragraph, fifth line, where it states he did not care for this idea and he requested that it Be changed to that he did not approve of this idea. M~. Thompson made a motion to accept the minutes with the necessary correc- tion, seconded by Mr. Healy. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING Parcel #1 - Seacrest Hills, Lot 13, Block 4 Recorded in Plat Book 25, Page 74 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 25 ft. rear setback requirement to 19 ft. rear setback to screen in an existing concrete slab Ad,ess - 609 S. W. 28th Avenue Applicaut - James M. Harvey M~. Healy read the above application and informed the Board the reason stated was due to the setback requirements of a corner lot, there was not enough room left on the lot to in- clude a screen porch. The lot dimension is 105.2 by 85.85. Attached is a sketch, showing the improvements on the lot at the present time. The present zoning is R-1AA. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT PAGE ~0 APRIL 14, 1975 ~. James M. Harvey appeared before the Board and stated his name and his address as 609 S. W. 28th Avenue. Mr. Healy questioned the age of the home and Mr. Harvey informed him that he built it three years ago. Mr. Healy asked if the restrictions were in effect at that time and Mr. Harvey re- plied: yes. Mr. Mealy asked if he was aware of the setbacks at that time and Mr. Harvey replied: yes. Mm. Boeltz questioned if he knew he had to have a plot plan according to scale and asked what procedure he took in apply- ing before this Bos~d? Mr. Harvey informed him that he called Mms. Padgett and was told he must pick up an applica- tion. He took the application to Mrs. Padgett aud reviewed it with her and she stated it met the requirements. He also went to the Building Department. Mw. Boeltz asked if the Building Department looked at this plan and Mr. Harvey replied that he took a scaled drawing of what he planned to do and discussed it withMr. Aitken. He believes the drawing is pretty much what he wa~ted. Mr. Boeltz informed him that he should have been told before coming before this Board that he needed a plot plan drawn to scale. He doesn't see how they can rule on this with it not being according to scale. Mr. Aitken added that th~ Building Department also requires this for a building permit. M~. Boeltz added that this was also stated in the rules. Mr. Healy added that the applica- tion states a survey must be attached and none is. M~. Harvey stated that M~s. Padgett gave him an explicit answer that his application was complete and he was not notified it was not. He would have been happy to supply a scaled drawing if he was notified. Nnder these circumstances, he questioned if he could proceed? Mr. Thompson referred to the City ordinance and according to the sketch at the present time, he i~terprets he would be violating only one part and that is the roof. At present, he can screen in to 11 feet of the property line. M~. Aitken agreed that he was not in violation now. M~. Thompson continued that if it was screened in, there would be no vio- lation. The roof would ~e the violation. Mr. Aitken stated there is a 25 ft. rear setback and he.is requesting it be changed from 25 ft. to 19 ft. ~£r. Thompson stated if they considered this had been a swi~m~ing pool, he could move back within 11 ft. without a~_y violation and Mr. Aitken stated this was correct. Mr. Thompson pointed out that the roof was the only violation. Mr. Boeltz referred to section 31.16 which states the appli- cation must be accompanied with a plot plan. ~. Aitken asked if he did have a plot plan or survey of his house and added that in the past sometimes they did not require one. Mr. Harvey informed him that he did not have one with him and was not sure just~ere it was. He did have to have a MINUTES BOAMD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE THREE APRIL 14, 1975 survey when he built the home. ~Before his house plans could be approved, he did have to have a survey. Chairman Ward informed him that the Board was at a loss right now to go any further, as they did not even have the dimensions of the house. ~. Aitken asked who made copies of the sketch a~d Mr. Harvey replied that he did and ~s. Padgett made copies for the Board members. It is drawn to scale as closely as he could with a ruler. ~. Boeltz stated that he was just questioning whether it was legal for them to make a decision without it. Mr. Aitken stated he was sure the paper in ques- tion could-be produced. Chairman Ward stated that before the Board could act, they must have the paper in front of them. He suggested possibly tabling this until the survey was sup- plied and then he would not have to re-apply. Mr. Harvey apologized for his ignorance, but he wasn't told. Mr. He~al~i~ showed him the application and where this was stated. Mr. Harvey informed him that he did ask Mrs. Padgett about this and she stated it would be provided as part of the application. Mr. Boeltz stated this was not true. Mr. Harvey informed the Board that he called Mrs. Padgett o~ two occa- sions and asked her about these specific questions and she informed him with the application and filing fee, the City would provide ~his. Mr. Aitken replied that he thought he was misled in this respect. It does state that a survey must be attached. The aware of these applications u~til ~. Thompson questioned if this information could be obtained from City Hall from microfilms on record and Mr. Aitken replied: yes, but if only three years old, they may ha~e the original document on the plan. ~. Healy ~tated that if ~. Harvey has all the information, he could probably find it easier than City Hall. Chairman Ward added ~hat also if there was a mortgage, he could get a copy from the holder. Mr. Aitken stated it would be similar to what he had drawn, but must be done by a surveyor. ChairmanWard asked if anyone was present in favor of this application and received no response. He then asked if any- one was present in objection to this application and the following appeared before the Board. Mr. John Zero stated his name and his address as 2846 S. W. 6th Street. He informed the Board that his house was lo- cated at the back yard behind ~. Harvey's house. He stated he did not wish to cause Mr. Harvey any hardship and wish he could have a nice screened porch, b~t Mr. Harvey told him that he wants to take an existing 6 ft. fence and put it along the property line. This fence will shut off mir to his bedroom windows and he does not want this fence. If Mr. Harvey will stipulate he will not put a fence or hedge along the property line, he is in favor of him enjoying the screened- in porch. Chairman~ard informed him that the application did MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE FOUR APRIL 14, 1975 not state anything about a fence or hedge. This would be considered by the Building Department when a permit is ap- plied for. Mr. Zeto continued that he did not want his house shut off with a 6 ft. fence on the 9 ft. line. His wife has ~ breathing problem and cannot use air condition- ing. She needs the fresh air. Mr. Harvey told him that he is going to put up a fence and this is what he is objecting to. Y~. Boeltz suggested that he possibly discuss this ~ith Mr. Harvey. Mr. Zeto replied that he had tried. Chairman Ward stated he was glad he brought this out, but nothing was stated in the application about a fence. Ne thanked Mr. Zeto for brin~g this out and. added that hopefully Mr. Harvey understood his position. Mr. Steve Fecso stated his name and his address as 2845 S. W. 5th Street. He informed the Board that as far as the porch was concerned, it was fine and he is not against it. He does object to Mr. Harvey putting up a wall. He referred to the City ordinance and stated he thought it required certain size lots in order to have plenty of air circulation. As far as he is concerned, the porch is okay, but no fence. Chairman Ward summarized that two objections were heard from the audience, but actually were objections to Building a fence. F~. Boeltz stated he thought it had.something to do with the variance, since it would shut off air and light and they must take this into consideration. Chairman Ward stated that only ig he was in violation with the fence would he have to come before the Board for an application. If he is in compliance with the fence, he may go ahead. Mr. Thompson stated they were not ruling on the fence and must consider that a 6 ft. fence is allowable on a property line. They can do nothing about it. ~. Harvey does not need a variance for a wall. He can put in the fence without a variance. Mr. Aitken referred to the site and informed the Board that the fence was already in back. surrounding the patio. Mr. Harvey added that nobody had complained about where it was. ~. Aitken continued that quite a few shrubs higher than 6 ft. were o= the property line. Mr. Harvey informed him that some were his and some belonged to Mr. Zeto. Mr. Zeto stated that none of his were 6 ft., his were only 4 ft. high. Mr. Harvey stated there were Crotons and Palms on the property line over 6 ft. and also a tree over 35 £t. belonging to Mr. Zeto. Chairman~ard asked if the alternate members had any cemments. Mr. White stated that he did not understand how it came before the Board without the proper papers. They were spending the peoples, valuable time and did not have ~e necessary papers. It should be certain that the proper papers are submitted. Mr. Bailey stated that he had ~o comment. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT PAGE Fl~YE APR~ 14, !975 ¥~. Harvey appeared before the Board again and stated that he believed in all honesty, the case was whether he could or could not install a screened-in porch on his residence. The choice to put a roof on his screened-in porch is to in- crease the property value and for his pleasure. He would follow to the letter how to do this. He is a property owner and pays taxes and hopefully has the right to do what he wishes with his property. In this case, he followed the procedure and applied for the v~iance. The opposition is based on a fence. There is a difference of opinion between him and. his neighbors of what a fence does and does not do. He believes he has the right to privacy and the right to protect his privacy. He respects and cherishes his privacy. He feels they are quiet people and privacy is an important factor. He feels as a property owner, the least he has is the right for the fence. He installed the fence after he built the house and apparently his neighbors felt he did not like them and that is not the case. He would like the Board's judgment as to whether he is allowed to have a screened-in porch. The City allows him to have a fence. He has followed all the procedures as told and feels he should not be put in a position of why he does or does not have to have a~fence. Mr. Healy asked if he had a family and Mr~ Harvey replied: yes~ a wife and six year old son. ~. Healy questioned why he was building this porch a~d Mr. Harvey informed him for the pleasure of being outside and getting away from bugs. When he built the house, he did not put in a porch as he was considering a swimming pool. ~. Healy asked if he considered this a hardship and Mr. Harvey replied that it was not a physical hardship, but he would l~m~ke the pleasure of a screened-in porch. M~r. Aitken suggested that he and his neighbor come up with some medium about the 6 ft. fence. Chairmsm Ward stated they were not trying to decide this case one way or the other, but j~st wanted everyone to be heard. The Board is not considering the application, due to the fact they do not have a certified survey. Chairman Ward requested Mr.~ Healy to read the section from the code governing this Board. Mr. Healy read from the Beynton Beach Zoning Code, Ehapters 14 and 15 stating the duties and powers of the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Thompso~ stated that the only thing they were discussing was that the roof was in violation. Mr. Harvey has the right to put a 6 ft. fence on his property line. He al~o has the right to screen in 8 ft., but the only thing in question is the gravel roof. Chairman Ward pointed out that the plan showed a solid roof and they must go by this application. Mr. Thompson stated that a screened-in porch with a screen top and side would not violate the City ordinances. The only thing in question is the roof. They should not refer MINUTES BOARD OF ~DJ~ST~ENT PAGE SIX APRIL 14, 1975 to hardship. Chairman Wardpointed out that hardship was in the ordinance a~d they must consider whether it was a unique hardship. If someone just desires something, they must con- sider whether there is a hardship. ~. Thompson stated they were talking about a fence and hardship and must be concerned with the roof. He then..questioned the time limit andMr. Aitken informed him that the new zoning code would be 25 ft. for everything. Mr. Healy made a motion to table this application until April 28 when M~. Harvey could present the Board with the further facts of the case including a survey. Mr. Thompson seconded the metion. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Aitken added that if Mr. Harvey could not get a survey, the Building Depmrtment would make every effort to get him what was on record. Chair- ma~Ward added that the people present could attend this meeting or they would use their testimony given tonight. Mr. Zeto appeared before the Board again and referred to the high hedge and big Pine Tree. Chairman Ward informed him he would have to contact the B~lding Department, the same as obtaining a permit for a fence. Col. Walter Trauger appeared before the Board and informed them that he was Vice Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Board. He advised them that they were pushing through the new code. He referred to this application and questioned whether the new codeapplied when the construction was mtarted or when the application was initiated? Chairman Ward informed him~that in his opinion it was whatever was in effect at the time the variance was granted. He also thanked Col. Trauger for coming and apologized for not having recognized him. ADJ OUR~NT ~M. Healy made a motion to adjoin, seconded by Mr, Thompson. Motion carried 5-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 7:45 P. M,