Minutes 06-24-74wTwT~m~S OF T~ BO~RD OF~'~T~mM'~,w~~ ~_ ',~.~- M~ETING HELD AT CITY PL~LL,
BO~Xrwm~ ~q~:~ ~ FLORIDA, ~'~OlqDA~Z ~ JU~ _~ 1974 AT 7~00 P.M.
PRsoE}~ T
~oy ~¥ard, Chairman
Walter B. Rutter, Secretary
A1 Boeltz
Simon Ryder, Alternate
~ ~ Alternate
David W. ~eal~,
ABSENT
j. Lester Cousins, Vice Ch~rman
~ T~~
~a--~ G. Lucas (ExcuSed)
De~.
B~g. ~
j. J. Aitken, ~ ~
(Excused)
Chairman ViZard called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. He
introduced the Recording Secretary, Building' Official and
Members of the Board He then welcomed M~. Healy.
The ~nutes of june ~0 were read. Mr. Rutter made a motion
to accept the minutes as read, seconded by ~. Boeltz. Motion
carried 5-0.
OLD BUSII~ESS
~. Ryder moved to remove the Marvin Premer application from
the table for review again tonight. ~. Rutter seconded the
motion. Motion carried 5-0.
M~. Rutter informed the Members and audience that at the last
meeting~ it was agreed Mr. Ryder would make a study of the
non-conforming building in reference to this application.
i~. Ryder stated that he did look into this matter. He went
through the actions of the Board of Adjustment going back
from the date of the subject application. He was supposed
to look into whether any variances had been granted from when
it was initially constructed and no changes were filed. He
got the plan from the Building Department. The plan was filed
on March 30, 1970 and according to the filed plan, the rear
setback was shown as 20 feet on the survey. The survey has a
revision dated J~me 18, 1970. Apparently it was filed in
conformance with the rear setback of 25 feet, but was actually
built at a rear setback of 20 feet. Apparently, we still
find this structure in a non-conforn~ng use.
Chairman ~ard showed the Members a sketch of the property
from the Building Department. Chairman Ward questioned that
~'~. Ryder did research the fact that no variance was gr~uuted
and Mr. Ryder replied that there were no changes on record.
MINU~£
BO~D OF ADJUSTI~.NT
RAGE
JU~ 24, 1974
~,~. Premer appeared before the Board. Mr. Rutter asked if
he was aware of anything like this when he bought the house
and ~. Premer replied: no, as when he bought the house,
he did plan to do this. Mr. Ryder asked if he had gotten
a Certificate of Occupancy from the previous owner and
t~remer informed him that the previous owner was in Germany.
_~. Rutter questioned if this Board was able to grant or
deny a variance on a non-conforming structure and ~. Ryder
stated it was his ~derstanding they must rafrain from grant-
ing a reliance on a non-conforming struct~e. Mr. Rutter
questioned if he had checked with the City Attorney and M~
Ryder replied: no. Mr. Rutter continued that he thought it
was a hardship in respect to this, but he thought they should
have some legal advice from the City Attorney as to where
they stand, since it is non-conforming. M~. ~emer inherited
this and it is not his fault. The question is whether we
even have the right to grant a variance. ~'~. Aitken added
that he lu~.ew there was no variance granted when the house was
sta_ ~ed, as he had talked to the bu_Imer. This house was
su~o~oosed to face the other street, but the builder ~oroov to
put a wa!k~¥ay out. i~. Ryder stated that the address as given
is correct. He added that he was actually basing it on the
fact that it was a non-conforming use.
Mm. Ryder suggested that Mr. Premer address a letter to the
Building Official and haz~-e them forward it to the City Attor-
ney and have him advise us accordingly. M~. Rutter added
that he p~chased this situation, not knowing it was non-
conforming. He stated that he did have a hardship, but the
Board felt they could not do anything with it until they ob-
tain legal advice. Mr. Premer asked if he could see the City
Attorney, instead of writing. Chairman Ward replied: yes,
but the City Attorney's opinion must come to this Board in
writing. ~. Aitken stated that through past experience, he
ventured to say that if a building is non-conforming through
the code, we are not allowed to permit any additions. Chair-
man Ward stated this was also his personal opinion, but he
would like to give this applicant every way to check. Rig~.t
now, we cannot der~ it or grant it.
~. Rutter made a motion to table the application for Mr.
Premer'untii the Board is legally advised with a written
ruling from the City Attorney. Mr. Boe!tz seconded the
motion. ~. Ryder suggested to Mr. lk£: met that when he
meets with the City Attorney, he should refer him to the
City Building Department. Motion carried 5-0.
MINUTES
BOARD OF
~UI,~E 24~ 1974
Parcel #~ - Relief from 25 ft. rear setback, requirement to
23 ft. rear setback - for roofed over screened
patio with 2 ft. overhang.
Lot t0, Block 7~ Seacrest Estates
Recorded in Plat Book 24~ Page 245
Palm Beach County Records
Address: 140 S. E. 28th Court
Applicant' Ray Lewis, Jr.
i~r. Rutter read the above application and informed the Mem-
bers _~i~ was requested as the additional 2 ft. would., make the
room more livable and enjoyable and the rest of the house
cooler.
~. Ray Lewis stated his name and his address as 140 S. E.
28th Court. He informed the Board that when he bought the
house, he intended to put on a~reened porch as soon as money
was available. He did not see where it would create ar~ in~
convenience to the neighbors. The house is located on a
corner lot. It would be open on three sides.
~.~. Rutter questioned why the porch cou!dn't be 8 ft. instead
of i0 ft. and Mr. Lewis replied that it would be too narrow.
He continued that it would be 24 ft. long and they would not
be able to put in furniture. ~. Rutter pointed out that the
necessary 25 ft. in front had not been met, as he only had
24 ft. 9.in~ thus being shy 3 in. ~. Lewis replied that
the porch was going on the back and Chairman Ward clarified
that he was non-conforming in front by 3 in. ~. Ryder
pointed out that his house was on the corner and he had
noticed the neighbor immediately adjacent stick~ out about
3 ft. beyond his house and he now ws~ts to come out ~0 ft.
He then asked if there were any other similar to what he
wanted and ~. Lewis replied that there was one further down.
Chairman ~ ~ ' ~
~ ascer~amnem that there was nobody present in
the audience either in favor or in objection to this appli-
cation. ~@. Rutter stated that one written objection had
been received.
~'~r. Rutter made a motion togran~-'~ the var_~ance~ - ~ seconded~ ~ by
Mr Boeitz~ ~.~ot~on carried 4-], with !~L~. Ryder voting against.
Parcel #2 - Relief from 60 ft. lot width requirement to
58.33 ft lot width p~at~d to con~truct one
family dwelling
Lot i2~ Block 12, Central Park Annex
Recorded in Plat Book 12~ Page 51
Palm Beach County Records
MINUTES
BOARD OF AD~JVJSTM~NT
FOUR
24, i974
Address: 148 S. W. i4th Avenue
Applicant: Richard P. Jones
M~~. Rutter read the above application and informed the Board
it was req~.e~tem as the p~opertj adjoining is only 50 ft.
wide with an existing house and no additional property is
available.
~. Richard P. Jones appeared before the Board. ~. Ryder
asked if he owned this lot and Mro Jones replied: yes. ~.
Ryder continued that he noticed a "For Sale" sign on it. ~.
Jones informed him that he had bought it quite a~hi!e ago and
b
they Just have not taken down t~e sign. He continued that he
wanted to build a house on it for himself. Chairman ~ard
asked how long he has owned the property and M~. Jones re-
~l~em that he put a deposit on it in December~ !973 and com-
pleted the purchase in Janu~y, 1974. He continued that he
had talked to ~. Barrett in reference to this lot to see if
~* would be fa~oraote to build on. ~. Barrett didn't see
any problems, so he purchased the lot~
Chairman Ward ascertained that nobody was present either in
favor or in objection to this ....... ~
~D~iCa~on. ~ ~~
vised that no %%~itten objections had been ~ece~ved.
M~. Ryder made a motion to approve this petm~_on~ seconded
by M~. Ruttero Motion carried 5-0.
Parcel ~3 - Relief from 25 ft. rear setback requirement to
13 ft. rear setback - to install screen porch
with roof.
Lot t3, Block 8, W'oodcrest Manor
Recorded in Plat Book 26, Page 88
Palm Beach County Records
Address: 301 So ~. ~3th Avenue
Applicant: Arthur F. Luiz
Mm. Rutter read the above application. He then read a letter
from ~. Luiz dated June 4 outlining the reasons for this re-
quest He stated that ~ ~
. when the house was designed and built
four years ago~ it was their intention to install a~reeen
porch in approximately one year in order to enjoy some out-
door living. Because of financial conditions~ they were not
able to do this before now. It was his understanding with
the contractor that this had been taken care of~ but evidently
it wasn't. He was quite upset and disappointed to find this
out now° The floor and footings were put in for this purpose.
M IN ~
BOARD OF
JL%~E~ 24~ ~ 974
Water fills up the glass door tracks. Sun fades the ce~pet
a ~ r~-~'~^~ Bugs come in. Water comes in the ho,~se The
roof and screen would take care of all these problems.
Mr. Rutter then read another letter from Mr. Luiz dated June
17 advising that due to circumstances beyond his control~ he
would be out of the City the date of this hearing. He re-
quested the letter to serve as a power of attorney appointing
his father-in-!aw~ Ralph T. Hughes~ to represent him.
w R~l~n T. Hughes stated his name ~d ~
~r. "Z~ ~ n~s address as 2373
N.~. 13th Court. Mr.· ~Hughes informed the Board ~na~ when~
they built the house~ they thought this was all arranged.
It was all planned in the beginning. Mr. Ryder stated he
understood this house was 4 years old and Mr. Hughes stated
that was correct. ~P. Ryder asked if these difficulties had
~just become apps~ent and Mr. Hughes replied: yes~ only within
the last yes~ or so. This was planned all along~ but the
money was not available. }P. Ryder remarked that this was
a sizable encroachment. According to the building code, a
po~cn constitutes a structure and mUst adhere to any setbacks.
soa~ed he understood shat the rear of the house faces the
side of the house around the corner. Mr. Hughes stated this
was correct~ but they had no objections. PP. Ryder stated
the Board is ~'~ ~ ~ ,- ~
c~nua~ly faced with these encroachments aha
they must draw the line somewhere. The Building Department
tells us a porch must adhere to the same setbacks.
Chairman ~ard advised that he would not be voting on this,
as he was involved ~'"
v~m~n it ~eW pointed out that the _~o!ans
as originally filed ~
s~_owem this porch on the hoo~eo ~.
Hughes stated that was what they were going b}~. P~. Ryder
stated he could get awnings for protection from the rain.
Chair~n ¥~ard st~.ed if that smze awnings were ~ustal~e8
sos~s would be ne~eed and a ~ance ~equlr~a.
~ Boe!tz questioned zf his un~rst~nd~no was correct that
this was on the origJna! plans and TM
_ z~r. Hughes replied~ yes.
M~, Ryder statem +
~ ~ha~ apparently the Building Department was
aware of this and didn't allow them to proceed. Ph~. H~ghes
replied: no, it was a question of money then. Chairman
~rard clarified thatz~r. TM Hughes knew why he was here and that
a variance was required. Each application before this Board
is denied by the Building Department. ~. Hea!y questioned
if this plan was approved by the Building Department at the
original time. The Me~oers checked the plan. Mr. Aitken
pointed out where it was noted ~_at a I u.~-ure porch slab was
approved. The permit was all granted at one time.
Hughes'- ~ = ~tated again that it wou_m~ ~ have been built at that
time, but the money was not available.
MINUTES
BOileD OF ADjUSTmeNT
pa GE '~ T~
JU~E 24, ~974
~- ~ . the
~. Ryder ques~_oned difference between a slab and porch
and asked if a mere slab would be an encroachment in the ream.
Chairman TM ~ ~- ~ - ~
,~rm stated that aslab would not be. ~r. ~ymez then
stated that apparently the Building Department just approved
the slab. M~. ~ ~
~.ug~.es stated the slab was approved with a
footer for a roof. Chairman ~ara pointed out that a future
porch was marked on the plar~. ~. Ryder quesn~o~.em no~ could
the Bui!d~ng._ . De~=rt,~ent~ ..... , in the face of the bui!di~ code,
~roce~ on the basis that this eventually would be a screened
porch? Chairman Ward replied that he did not kmow from back
~e
then. }~. Ryder remarked tn y had been getting a lot of re-
. ~n~m.m~n Ward ~ointed out whether it
quests for porches now. ~ ~'~ ~ _
was ~ft, or 6 in. ~ the Building Department must turn it down.
~,~. Ryder stated t~_a~ the fact that the Building De~oartment
a,~,_ovem this~ it was an intention that they could enclose ~*
~. Rutte? ststed they ~ ~ ~
~._e~m the ,~~ Department could
not grant variances. However, the letter does state a hard-
ship. He is trying to correct a very bad and costly situs~
rich. We do agree that the Building Department cannot grant
a porch just because a slab is there. He just wants more
protection for what he has now and plans no exp~sion. ~L~.
Hughes stated this was correct and he hoped to go ahead now
that money was available.
~. Ryder stated there were a number of petitions coming be-
fore this Board and peopl~ come in for changes in rather new
homes. We are making roads on the setbacks s~.d wind up with
a lot less light and air than what was intended. This should
' ''~ '~ ~' since they have not lived there
be taken into consmme~a~mon,
too long. They should be able to plan ahead when buying a
home.
Mr. Rutter asked if anyone had checked on whether the unfavor-
able conditions existed. ~. Ryder replied; no, but added
that he did have a very nice back yard. ?~. Hughes stated
if they had known the Building Department was not going to
allow this~ it would be different, but the plans were ap-
proved with it. Mr. Rutter remarked that this was a very
large setbaCk. Mr. Hughes advised him that no neighbors ob-
jected though. ~,h~,. Healy asked how close he would be to his
neighbor and Mr. Hugh~rep!ied about ]0 ft,, M~. Aitken stated
the minimum~wou!d be 7~ ft.
Chairman Ws~d ascertained that nobody was present either in
favor or_._-im objection to this ar~¢!zca~mon..~_ ~x~,~o Rutter a.~med
that ome writtem ob.jecv&on had beem rocoived.
Chairman Ward vacated the chair for tn= voting a~.m ~. Rutter
took over.
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT
PAGE SEI. nEN
JUI~ 24, 1974
Mr. Ryder made a motion to deny the petition. Mr. Rutter
announced no second was made on the motion; therefore, it
was dead.
Mr. Heaiy made a motion to approve the variance~ seconded
~ 'T~he vote was 3-1~ with }?~ ~ '
oy Mr. Boeltz. = . ~yo~er Voting
against. Motion not carrled~ not having a 4 m~mb~r vote.
~@. Boeltz made a motion to table t_~=s application for Vur-
ther study and consmdera~mon. , Healy se~ondem the motion,
Motionc~r~m~m~ ~'~ 3-~, with ~. Ryder voting against.
Chairman Ward ascertained there was no further business.
~. Rutter made a motion to adJourn~ seconded by M~. Boeitz.
Motion
ca~m 5-0 anm the meeting was properly adjourned at
7:45