Loading...
Minutes 11-18-74~ ~T r~. .~_~,:, BOARD O~ ADJUST~NT ~m:~TILG ~E~ AT CITY H~L, BOYNTONB.~A(,H~ ~ , FLORIDA ~ MONDA~, NOVE]~R ~ 8 ~ 197~ AT 7:00 P. ~.~'g. PRESENT Foy Ward, Chairman J. Lester Cousins, Vice Chairman Walter B. Rutter, Secretary A1 Boeltz Simon Ryder, Alternate David W. Healy, Alternate Derle Bailey, Alternate Warren Bushnell, Deputy Bldg. Official ABSENT Frank G. Lucas Chairman Ward called the meeting to order at 7:00 P. M. He introduced Mrs. Eruse, Recording Secretary; Warren Bushnell, Deputy Building Official; and the members of the Board. The Minutes of November 4, 1974 were read. ~. Heaiy ques- tioned if they should, mention that Councilman Harmening attended this meeting and Chairman Ward agreed that this should be included. Mr. Cousins moved for approval of the minutes with the above addition, seconded by l~r. Ryder. Motion carried 5-0. ~. Rutter read the following resignation oath submitted by Prof. Sidney Schwartz and notarized by Tsreesa Padgett: '~Before me, an officer authorized to administer oaths, personally appeared Si~ey Schwartz to me well known, who, being sworn, says that if he held an elective or appointive office, whether state, county or municipal, the term of which or any part thereof runs conc~rent to the term of office for which he seeks to qualify, he has submitted his resignation from such office pursuant to the provisions of Section 99.012, Florida Statutes." Mr. Cousins moved to accept the resignation of Sidney Schwartz, seconded by Mr. Ryder. Motion carried 5-0. Parcel #1 - Relief from 25' rear setback requirement to 8' rear setback to install roof and screen enclosure over patio Lots 23 and 24 less N 78', Block tl Bowers Park Recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 57 Palm Beach Co~muty Records MINUTES BOARD ~ ~&DJUST~NT P~GE ~!0 NOVE~m~R 1 8, 1 974 Address: Applicant: t43 S. E. 6th Ave. Julia T. Roberts ~. Rutter read the above application and informed the Board it was requested in order to keep the sun and rain from coming in the sliding glass door. The patio slab was placed by the previous owner. The present owner is allergic to mosquitoes. Her 84 year old mother lives with her and she needs the air. Mrs. Julia T. Roberts stated her name and her address as 143 S. E. 6th Avenue. ~. Rutter asked if she was aware of the fact that the existing building is non-conforming now and ?~s. Roberts replied: no. He explained that according to her sketch, the rear setback is now 12' and it should be 25' and he believes the Board cannot grant a variance on a non-conforming structure. ~s. Roberts asked if it could just be screened and ~. Rutter reolied: no, no addition is allowed to a non-conforming structure. M~. Ryder asked how long she has lived, here and ~s. Roberts informed him that she had purchased the property in March and did not realize this legal business was involved as she was told when she purchased it that she could enclose it. Mr. Ryder asked if she intended to cover the entire concrete slab with a roof and M~s. Roberts replied: yes. He pointed out that she would have to have footings as this was not pre- pared for an enclosure. The type of structure planned was discussed and Chairman 'Ward stated that the Building Depart- ment would have to ascertain if it came up to the requirements. He pointed out that they must be concerned with whether to grant the variance. M~. Bailey noted that the plan showed that concrete footers were to be added. Chairman Ward stated that approval of this plan must be made by the B~lding Department. Mr. Bushnell stated that it might be difficult to put a footing underneath it and suggested another loca- tion on this same lot might be more applicable. Chairman Ward pointed out that they must first consider that the building is non-conforming at the present time. As far as the footings, it would revert back to the Building Department. Mr. Boeltz questioned if this was non-conforming when it was built and M~s. Roberts replied that she did not know. ~. Rutter asked if ~s. Roberts understood and she replied: no. ~. Bushnell explained that the building code states there must be a certain number of feet from the rear and side lines. In this zoning, it states 25' from the rear line and her building is 12' from the rear line and under the code it is a violation to extend this non-conforming building. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT PAGE THREE NOVE~,.~ER 18, 1974 i~. J. White, the contractor, appeared before the Board. He informed them that he believed the code was different when the house was originally built in 1960. Mrs. Roberts we~ unaware of this legality when she bought this house. He added that they could not build the porch in any other location as suggested by Mr. Bushnell. The house was con- forming when itl was built and it is a split lot. Mr. Bailey asked if the Building Department would issue a permit for this plan and Mr. White replied: yes and added that it was also approved by the county. Mr. Healy asked if there was a plot plan of the entire block and ~. Cousins gave him one. Mr. White added that all the lots are 50'. Mr. Healy stated he wanted to know the original size of the lot and Mr. Bushnell informed him that originally it was 157' by 50'. Mr. Healy questioned if this was a resub and Mr. Bushnell replied that he believed it was and showed the plan. White explained further and the members discussed it. Mr. Rutter remarked that it was a shame the original house was laid out in the position of wasting so much of the property. Chairman Ward stated that they were trying to act, but it,~would be granting a non-conforming variance on a non-conforming structure. ~. White asked if the grand- father clause would apply? He added that he didn't believe any neighbors objected and that Mrs. Roberts wants to im- prove the property. He informed the Board that Mrs. Roberts was from Connecticut and was unaware of the procedures here. Chairmsn Ward stated that they had not received smy letters either in favor or opposition to this application. Mr. Bailey said he thought people that come intothe area are disillusioned when'they buy something like this, especially when they purchase a house with a slab and believe it can be enclosed. When you see concrete, ybu look at it as a permanent structure. Mr. Ryder remarked that you could pave your entire rear yard in concrete. He pointed out that there had been occasions when a slab with. footings for a future porch had been shown on a plan,. He didn't believe anyone should believe they can build on a slab. M~. Bailey stated there was the possibility thiat this slab may already have the footings. ~. Ryder referred to previo~ly when they had an action where the plan called for a future porch and they have no indication of this in this particular case. M~. Healy asked if any objections had been received and Chairman Ward informed him that none were present and the Board had not received any' in writing either. Mr. Rutter questioned if they could grant a variance witlh the being non-conforming and ~. BUshnell replied that he thought they must consider the human side, but are bound by law. Mr. Rutter questioned if they could adjust to such MINUTES BOARD ©F ADJUSTMENT PAGE FOUR NM EMBER 18, t 974 a situation being the Board of Adjustment? ~o Ryder replied that he believed the ordinance stated it should not worsen the condition. ~. Cousins added that he believed a building being 8' from the property line would worsen it. ~. Ryder read Section 14 of Ordinance 62-9 referring to non-conforming use now existing stating it can be changed to another non- conforming use of equal or improved character. He added that he felt this would worsen the condition. Mr. Healy stated that they have a non-conforming use here of three houses on two lOts. The zoning has been changed withallowing the ~extra house to be built, making it like a duplex or R-2 zoning. It was a violation of the zoning law too. Mr. Ryder replied that he didn't believe they could get into this. The previous owner may have received damages for this. Mr. Bailey pointed out that there was also the possibility when this house was built, it fronted on 1st Street and met zoning. M~. Ryder stated the address was listed on 6th Ave. and Mr. Bailey answered that the address could have been changed. Chairman Ward asked how far from this property commercial zoning was located and Mr. White informed him that it was commercial directly east of it across the street and on both sides of the street one block from there. M~o Bailey stated that the 1962 zoning made it residential or commer- cial. Mr. Healy stated that this particular property was zoned R-lo Mr. White pointed out that across the street was commercial though. Mr. Rutter stated he would abstain from voting on a motion, since he was confused whether they could vote on this. Chairman Ward appointed Mr. Healy to take his place. Mr. Healy moved to approve the application, seconded by Mr. Cousins. U~der discussion, Mr. Healy stated he thought these people were led into something that was done several years ago s_nd he believes these people shouldn,t have to suffer for it. The mistake was made when the house was built. ~. Boeltz questioned how they would know this~ Mr. Healy replied that it was not resubbed. The vote on the motion was 2-3. Chairman Ward stated the vote had to be 4-1 for action. Mr. Rutter stated that although he abstained, he feels this could happen aud evidently has happened where an innocent person has bought a house and it was not fair and just. With the slab there, it would appear they had the right to build. Evidently before it was subdivided, this was planned. He thinks'it should be considered as a hardship. Mr. ~der MIIYg~]S BO~D O,F ADJUSTt~NT PAGE FI~E NOVEmbER 18, 1974 stated it was very possible that when the original owners gave up this lot, they received some compensation. The Bos~d does not know what has happened in the past. A s~vey should have been made. Mr. Rutter remarked that when it was first purchased, they possibly didn,t plan to build, a porch. Mr. Boeltz added that the slab could have been there to just sit on. Mr. Rutter referred 'to previously when: they had been con- fronted with the builder putting in a slab and stating it could be done, but he didn't believe it was the case here. M~r. Ryder remarked that he was assuming a lot. ~ir. Cousins remarked that a building should not be 8' from the rear line. Chairm~Ward stated they should also consider that the street is going to be all commercial in no time and also one block from here is all commercial. The only reason for mentioning this is to point out that this woman is doing something in a commercial zone. Mr. Ryder stated that right now, it is zoned R-1. Chairman Ward stated that they must reach a de- cision and a 4-1 vote is necessary. He then requested each member to give his comments. ~. Boeltz stated he ws~ thinking this could be an unique situation with the w~ the building was set there and later divided. ~. Bailey stated that this lot conforms to a R-1 platting, tf this house was sitting on Lot 24 and 23 at the time it was ~ubdivided, it could be divided into the three lots. This couid have been done after ~962. ~@. Boeltz re- marked thatthis would make it a hardship then. He pointed out that it would not 'block any air, there would be no fire hazard, no objections have been received, etc. Considering this, he was in favor of the application then. Mr. Healy questioned the side y~rd measurement and ~Ir. White informed him that it was 12' to 15' at least, more than the ~nimum required. Chairman Ward questioned if there were any objections from the neighbors and added that the Board had received none. Mr. White informed him that he had talked to the neighbors adjacent and they have no objection what- soever. ~s. Roberts has improved this home irm~ensely and has spent $8,000 in the past few months. Mr. Healy read again the reasons stipulated in this request and. asked ~s. Roberts if she had anything to add. ~s. Roberts stated that she h~ been renting a home while m~ing improvements to this home. She has replaced the rotted wood in the kitchen and replaced a door where it leaks. She has allergies to certain bites and must sit on a ~reened porch. ~. Boeltz made a motion to approve the application, seconded by Mr. Healy. The vote on the motion was 3-2. ~. Rutter stated he believed they should have a discussion. Mr. Ryder remarked he 'believed they had gone as far as they could. MINU~S BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT PAGE SIX NOVE~ER 18, t 974 Chairman Ward stated that according to the City Attorney, they must have a 4 vote to carry a motion. We can either table this or discuss it further. ~. Ryder suggested tabling it until the next regular meeting. ~. Bailey referred to ~.Rutter mentioning they should find out the reasons for why each member approves or disapproves and he felt this is a good suggestion and possibly they can decide it tonight. ~. Boeltz stated i~ it was a solid block structure, he wo~d be against it. However, since it is only a screened patio for sitting outside and a unique situation with the cutting of the lots, he didn't believe they should be against'~t. There will be sufficient air flow, no danger of fire, no objections have Been received, etc. He stated he was i~ favor of granting it. Mr. Bailey asked what size the permanent roof would be and Mr. White informed him it would be a 12' projection. Mr. Bailey pointed out that under the present City ordinance, this was non-conforming, but they could install an 8' pro- jected fold down type roof and two 15' roofs side by side under the existing City ordinance. If Mrs. Roberts is aller- gic and needs the screening, they can ge't the permit for this fold down type roof. We are only talking about 4' for a per- manent roof. The permanent type structure is a much better looking structure tha~ the fold down type. With the possi- bility of putting something in there that would look that bad, he would vote for the permanent type structure. Chairman Ward stated that since this was located in this particular neighborhood with commercial right across the street and within two blocks on both sides, he believed this would improve the neighborhood. Mr. Cousins stated he was opposed to ever building anything 8' from the property line. M~o Rutter stated the Board of Adjustment was named Board of Adjustment for a very definite reason and that is to adjust and basically we adjust hardships and consider the people involved. Here is a situation where an individual purchases a home and is not aware of the setbacks, etc. and because of the subdividing of the subdivisions now has a hardship. Her house is outstanding competed to the others in the area. This will cover a need for the convenience of her and her mother. He thinks it should be given some consideration as a hardship. MI~TTES BOARD OF ADJUST~NT PAGE SE~N 3.0VEMBER 18, ~ 974 Mm. Ryder stated his feeling was that the purpose of the Board of Adjustment was to maintain zoning and not down- grade it. He stated he has taken the stand before with people wanting to build a porch and cut down on the rear setback. He does not think they are doing justice to other people in the vicinity. If people want a porch, they should buy a house with one. Mr. Healy stated he believed he had stated his reasons, but would like to ask Mrs. Roberts another question. He ques- t_onea whether she had lived at this Droperty yet and Roberts replied: no~ but she has been busy getting things done in this house. ~. Healy then asked if she intended to rent this property and she replied: no, it would be for her personal use and will be her permanent home. Hie stated he thought the ordinance tells them to use common sense. If the structure is going to be improved and he believes it is de- finitely going to be an improvement over what it is now and would be ~ improvement over a fold down type awning. For these reasons~ he votes approval for this variance. M~. Rutter made a motion to aoorove the variance, econdem by ~. Boeltz. ~. Kruse then conducted a roll call vote as follows: M~. Boeltz - Aye I~. Ryder - No M~. Rutter - Aye ~. Cousins- No Mr. Ward -~e The vote on the motion was 3-2. Mr. Cousins moved to table this application ~util the next regular meeting, seconded by ~. Ryder. Motion carried 4-1. Chairman Ward announced this would be considered at the next regular meeting on the second Monday in December. Mr. Rutter stated that the same members would be present at the next meeting and they would Just go through .this same nmng again. Mr. Ryder questioned what he proposed to do and ~. Rutter replied that this would be hanging with no answer. ~. Ryder asked what they were going to do and Mr. Rutter questioned what tabling accomplished? Chairman Ward replied that it would give them another three or four weeks to further consider it. ~. Cousins made a motion to adjourn, seconded by ~. Rutter. Motion carried 5-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 8:05 P. Mi.