Loading...
MInutes 07-10-74MI~3TES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF TEE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, WEDNESDAY, J~Y 10, 1974 AT 7~'00 P. M. PRESENT Foy Ward, Chairman Walter B. Rutter, Secretary A1 Boeltz Simon Ryder, Alternate David W. Healy, Alternate Jack Aitken, Building Dept. ABSENT J. Lester Cousins, Vice Chairman Frank G. Lmcas Chairman Ward called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. He introduced the recording secretary, building official and members of the Board. Ne announced the special meeting was called tonight, since they did not have a quorum present on the regular meeting night last Momday. The ~n~utes of Jmne 24 were read. Mr. Ryder referred to 01d Business and stated a correction should be made in reference to the Premer application, in that it should state 27 feet and not 20 feet. Nr. Rutter made a motion to accept the minutes with the correction noted, seconded by Mr. Healy. Motion carried 5-0. Chairman Ward announced they would now reconsider the follow- ing application, which was tabled previously. Relief from 25 ft. rear setback requirement to 20 ft. rear setback to enclose existing covered patio and add a bedroom. Lot 1, Block 4, Sky Ranch Estates Recorded in Plat Book 26, Page 97 Palm Beach County Records Address: 3105 S. E. 1st Place Applicant: Marvim and Sandra Premer Chairman Ward advised that it was the opinion of the City Clerk that this could be acted on even though it is non- conforming. Mr. Ryder stated that he and Mr. Rmtter did mot expect this matter to be considered at this meeting. He stated that at the meeting when they considered this application, they took action to refer Mr. Premer BaCk te the City Attorney to get an opinion to find emt whether the Board has the power even to act on it at all. Ne the~ re- ferred to Ordinance 62-9, Section 14, Non-Conforming Use and ~NU~ BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT PAGE ~0 JULT 10, 1974 read Paragraph 4 where it stated non-conforming buildings cannot be extended nor enlarged. Ne stated according to this, the Board is not able to take any action on this. Chairman Nard advised that the Beard req~uested Mr. Premer to go to the City Attorney through the City ~ager. The City Manager advised me that it is mot proper for a ¢itize~ to approach the City Attorney on these matters. Therefore, the B~lding Department and the City Clerk contacted the City At%orney and were advised it could be acted o~ provided we acted on the existing non-conforming part too. Mr. Ryder questienedu~der what authority the Board could do this and Chairma~ Ward replied that he did not qmestion the City Attor- ney in reference to this. He stated that Mrs. Padgett and Mr° Barrett gave him the information that the City Attormey's opinio~ was that this Board could act on it. Mr. Ryder re- ferred again to the ordinance. Chairmam Ward remarked that they had situations like this before and had granted the variamce. Mr~ Ryder them asked if they had received any objections to this applicatiom a~d Mr. Rutter informed ~ that they did receive o~. Chairman Ward pointed out that the plan~ed enclos~e ~Ould not extend a~y further. Mr. Ryder remarked that it woul~ certainly enlarge the facility. Chair~a~ Ward clarified that it would not go any closer to the property lime. Mr. Ryder quoted the ordinance again stating non-conforming buildings or structures camnot be enlarged. Mr. tioned if the attorney had~amended this ordinance. Mr. Aitkem clarified that it was a mom-conforming house at the moment and they mmst act on the first non-conformance and then act on the application for the enclosure. The Board must act on two things. Mr. Healy added that if Mr. Premer wanted to take it further to court, he must bring it first to this Board for a preliminary hearing. Mr. Ryder pointed out that at a previous meeting, he was re- quested to look into this matter, which he did. The original plan that was filed and approved differed from the building that was constructed. The survey called for 27 feet and the buildimg was built at 20 feet, so this structure is non- conforming, Chairman Ward pointed out that Mr. Premer was not the original owner. Mr. Eealy questioned if Mr. Premer was asking only to enclose the present porch, but the structure at the present time is non-conforming ~ecause of having only 20 ft. in the rear. Mr. Premer stated this was correct. MINUTES BOA~ OF ADJUST~NT PAGE THREE ~Y 1 O, 1974 Chairman Ward stated they would have to act on the non-con- forming situation first. Mr. Rutter stated that acting on a non-conforming building now would say they were approving it since the bailding is there. Mr. Ryder stated he understood they have two matters, one to decide whether it~is non-con- forming and then act on the application. Mr. Aitken pointed oat that they k~ew it Was nonLconforming. This is a techni- cality to clear up Before acting on the application. You cannot move the house and must accept it as a non-conforming structure. Chairman. Ward added that Mr. Simon said this non- conforming situation had to be tied in with the variance. Mr. Rutter stated they would be approving the non-conforming Building that was already there. Mr. Nealy added they co~d approve the variance, kmowing that it is a non-conforming stractare and Chairma~ Ward stated this was correct. Mr. Ryder questioned granting the variance, k~owing it is ~on- conforming an~ Chairma~ Ward replied: yes, bat to include they were aware of the non-conforming sitmation in granting or denying the varia~ceo Mr. Nealy made a motion to approve the variance with the understandi~ that the Board already knows of the non-con- forming structmre existing on this property. Mr. Rutter seconded the motio~. 'Motion carried 4-I, with Mr. Ryder voting against. ChairmamWard stated he received a letter fromMr. Luiz re- questing an extension om the tabling of his applioation to the next regular meeting, which will Be July 22. Mr. Ryder stated he still did not k~ow how they took action on Mr. Laiz's application at the last~meeting. How do we de~y an application a~d then follow by tabling it? Mr. Nealy stated the motion to de, was 3-1 and Mr. ~der stated that the motion to de~ did not~ get a second. Mr. ~tter clarified that the motion was withdrawn and then tabled. C~irman Ward stated that.the motion to approve it was withdrawn. Mr. Ryder stated the motion to de~ was not seconded, the motion to approve went down 3-1 and then the motio~ to table it was made. He theaght it was turned down and then fomnd out it was tabled. Chairman W~d advised that the 3 vote situation was dimcussed with M~. Eimo~ a~d he felt the applicant shomld be entitled to a five member Board. We have requested additional alter- ~ates, so we would have a full board. Mr. Nealy stated he believed the same procedare should be used to de~ as to grant. Mr. Ryder stated he didn't b~ the opinion of the City Attorney, as very often the City Council only has fo~r members a~d they don't table a~ item on that accoant. Ne stated he would~,t go by that. Chairman Ward replied that MI~TES BOARD OF AD~ST~NT PAGE FOUR J~Y 10, 1974 he did net ask for this opinion from Mr. Simon and if Mr. Ryder didn,ti~ believe it, he could check himself.~ Mr. Ryder referred to the last City Council meeting when there were only four members and stated what they did wms legal~amd binding. Mr. Nealy stated that the Beard of AdJmstment should have a full membership. Mr. Ryder replied that if they had a quormm, prem~mably everything is legal. Ne stated he still did not .b~ it and that they should not hold a session unless there were five members. The matter sheuld~,t ~ brought uD at all and Mr. Aitkem pointed out that was the reason they tabled i~.i.~ Chairmam Ward stated again that'it was the City Attorney,s opimion that they should have a five member board. Mr. Rutter added they should be able te depend on the City Attormey,s advice. ~. Ryder stated they would have had the correct number of DooDle if Mr. Ward had not excused himself because of involvememt and that is where they got fouled up. Chairmam Ward advised that several times they had meetings with Mr. Moore to get an opinion for the summ~y eutlime, but never did getone. ~t m~ be advisable te sit down with the City Co,oil to discuss our actions in reference to 50 ft. lots, etc. Mr. Rutter stated he agreed and in reference to the 1962 ordinance regarding 50 ft. lots, it is a tough situ- ation to deny some applications with the hardships involved. However, we are not just a "yes~' Board as some think. Mr. Ryder agreed that they had gene along well with the problems of the 50 ft. lots. Mr. Ryder then referred to variances being requested for rear encroachments and enclosures. There are many new areas where people have requested variances a~d they could have foreseen this when p~chasing. Mr. Rutter stated that he usually took a look at the property involved and if he felt it would net ~e a disorderly looking struct~e, etc. and there were ne ob. jections, he usually agreed to go along with the variance. Nowever, if the rear of the house would leek ugly with porches sticking cut, he did not agree with granting the variamce. He stated he judged to the best of his ability a~d tried to use cemmem sense. The applicants apparently we~ldm,t apply if they didn't feel there was a need. The records will show we have denied ma~. Mr. Ryder stated he was s~e they womld agree that whem people bmy a house, they should Be aware that they cannot build on 10~ of the lot. ~heY should be aware~ that there are restrictions. Chairman Ward referred to Leismreville stating the homes were very mice, but so close. As far as circulation of ~r, they are very close. Mr. Rutter referred to how mmsightly houses were with a pass-throughwindow and glass sliding doors with nothing en the outside. Mr. Ryder remarked that many were BO. ARD OF ~D~ST~NT PAGE FIVE J~LY 10, 1974 like that and they didn't want porches or Florida rooms. There is nothing unusual about it. Mr. Rutter replied they were unsightly ia comparison to ones with porches, etc. ~. Healy stated they should try to get a summary as to what they could do if they were again~uck with four members. Mr. Ryder stated he thought it would be advisable not to even consider the matter. Y~. Healy stated he would move to ask the Chairman to get this information from the City Attorney or any Co~cil member or anyone with authority to give it to us to agree upon it as a committee. Get this in writing from the City Co, oil and particularly in the case where we are in a quorum, but are hindered with a four member vote. Chair- man Ward advised him that they have tried and tried to get this. We have sent written requests and reguested meetings with the City Attorney and he only came once to a meeting. Mr. Rutter stated he resented anyone saying this Board was just an approval board. We actually do consider all cases. He thought they applied themselves to the best of their a~ility. Ne tried to judge with. the best commo~ sense. Mr. Ryder stated that what they need are more specific guidelines and to what extent the Board can operate. Mr. Nealy stated he was concerned and was definitely convinced that Mr. Ryder wo~ld vote against anyone applying with a non-conforming structmre. If it is non-conforming, do we really have to review it and do we have the right to pass anything if it is non-conforming? Also~, what should we do ia the case of having only four members? Mr. Ryder stated apparently they were advised that even if it is non-conforming, we can act, eve~ though the ordinance states otherwise. Chairman Ward stated he wo~d do his best to get an opinion from the City Attorney in reference to both items. Mr. Nealy made a motion to have the Chairma~ contact the City Attorney in reference to guidelines on non-conforming use and also members to constitute a quorum. Mr. Rutter seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Ryder made a motion to adjourn, seconde~ by Mr. Boeltz. Motion carried 5-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 7:40 P. M. Re - BO~D OF i~D~STMENT 7/8/74 - No Quorum Special Meeting called for 7/10/74