Loading...
MInutes 09-10-73OF THE BOARD OF=.~.~a~.TT~m~'~m~;~m~ .~ ~,~ETiNG HELD AT CITY_~.,~;~'~ ~ ~m'~*~~'~ 1 0 1 973 AT 5:00 P. ~'~ BEACH, FLORIDA ~ ?~ONDAY ~ .............. ~ , PRESENT: Eze!l Hester Frank G. Lucas Walter B. Rutter George Ampol Gil M. Eckert Mike Rubin ABSENT: Foy Ward J. Lester Cousins Richard Rohan Chairman Hester called the meeting to order at 5:00 P.M. Chairman Hester introduced the ~'~ memoirs of the Board. The Minutes of August 27 were read. to accept the minutes as written. mOtion. ~ mon carried 5-0. b~. Rutter made a motion ?.~. Lucas seconded the Parcel ~1 - (a) Relief from 25' rear setback require- ment to 18.1' and ~6 ~' .~ rear setback Lot 23, Block. 32, Rolling Green Ridge First Addition Recorded in Plat Book 24~ Page 226 Palm Beach County Records Address: 1701N.Eo 2nd Lane Relief from 2~~ rear setback ~equire- ment to 19.9' and 21.5' rear setback Lot 25, Block 32, Rolling Green Ridge First .Addition Recorded in Plat Book 2~ Page 226 Palm Beach County Records Address: 1700 N.Eo 2nd Court Applicant - Cannon Homes~ Inc. c/o O'Brien~ Suiter & O'Brien~ Inc. Chairman Hester read the above application and that a vari- ance was applied £or since the house would not fit in the area due to the size of the lot and the fact that it fronts on two streets. He stated a letter had been received stat- ing that Suiter & O'Brien would be their representative. I~ Danny O'Brien s~a~ed his name and his address as North Federal Highway. He informed the Board that the lots were platted in ~956 and with building se~bac~ requirements MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNTi~m~'h~,TING' ~ PAGE ~0 ~ · ~m~ ~ 1973 of 25' front and rear yards. There is no way to put a decent sized home on this property~ The lot is less than 70'. Both lots are on corners and in e£fect~ the same. Both face side streets. The house proposed just wouldn,t fit. There were no questions from the Board~ There was no one present in favor or in objection, to the petition. P~. Rutter made a motion to grant the variances on both sites. P~. Ampol seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Parce! #2 ~ Relief from 25' side setback requirement to 15' side setback Lot 6~ Block ~ Chapel Hill Recorded in Plat Book 2~ Page ~1 Palm Beach County Records Address: 707 Chapel Hill Blvd. Applicant: Harold J. Lynch~ Jro~ M.D. Chairman Hester read the above application and stated a vari- ance was requested for a bedroom addition. Dr. Harold J. Lynch~ Jr.~ stated his name and his address as 707 Chapel Hill Blvd. He told the Board that he requested this Yariance from the current code to make additional provi- sion for bedroom space, t have five children and I am running out of space. The existing garage 1. s currently 1~ feet from the line and this addition would be equal. This was completed before 1962 and other residences were completed before then too~ as they also don't have a 25' setback. Mr~ Lucas asked when he moved in and Dr. Lynch replied in 1971. Mr~ Lucas asked when the house was built and Dr. Lynch replied in 1961. Mr.~ Lucas acknowledged this was ~oe~ore? the ordinance went into effect. He asked the sex and ages of Dr. Lynch's child- ren. Dr. Lynch said that he has three girls and two boys, aged 9 thru 1~. Chairman Hester asked if anyone was present in favor of this request and received no reply. Chairman Hester asked '~ m~ anyone was present in opposition to this request and the following lA - ~ a~roacnem the Board- Mi. Paul Startzman sta~ed his name and his address as 30~5 Pine Tree Lane. He informed the Board that he lives in the _Mission Hill Subdivision and is approximately 250 feet from this residence. We are breaking with something of long standing. %~e are running into deed restrictions, it is a settled point of law that if it comes 'to ordinance or deed restrictions~ the most restrictive must ~urevail. iv.~ oppo- sition is based entirely~om the firm belief in maintaining ~AGE ~i~!REE SEPTE~ER 10, 1973 the character of a community. The deed restrictions were enacted in 1954, I, therefore~ wish to urge you to not per- mit this~ as ! am certain we will run into further difficul- ties on this matter with deed restrictions. Chairman Hester read the deed restriction. ~'~. Rutter questioned the exist- ing variance. M~. Startzman replied that he did not know how the 15~ escaped when it was built, Mr, Rutter asked if his main objection was the deed restriction and not the set- back? Mr. Startzman replied: No, to the house being so close and to the deed restriction, Mg Objection is that you would grant a variance for t0'. In any event, I am strongly opposed. ~. Rutter asked what should the doctor do? M~. Startzman replied that he should forget it if he can't stay within the deed restriction. The character of the neighbor- hood is set. For somebody's convenience~ it would wind up looking like a hodgepodge, I think it should have been con- veyed to the petitioner when it was submitted, I don't know if the doctor is aware of the deed restrictions. I~L~. Rutter asked if the deed restrictions had ever been amended? i,~. Startzman replied that he did not know. ~. F, A. Young stated his name and his address as 3020 Greenwood Lane. He stated that this would 'possibly set a precedent. Across the street from me is a vacant lot and they will follow the granting of this variance and also ask for a ieeway. Chairman Hester assured him that no prece- dent would be set, Mr. Young stated that what was done for one, would have to be done for another. Chairman Hester replied that this was already existing and not a new home and a hardship had been claimed. Dr. Lynch reapproached the members and stated that the ob- jections were well taken, i don~t have the right to go on any other property, but down that street are structures coming closer to the street. My property being on the cor- ner does have some bearing on down that street. On the corner, 'we have to tnmn~ of twO streets, i still think we can make it a very presentable addition and would not set a precedent. Mr. Lucas stated that he was considering the hardship. Chairman Hester stated that no written objections had been received. Mr, Lucas said he looked at the property and in his opinion if it is evened off to the garage and the face of the addition matches the side of the house, there would not be any devaluation in the property in appearance, if the petitioner keeps it in conformity with the rest of the house, it would not be an unbearable sight. Plus it is a hardship with teenaged children and the necessity of another bedroom. MINUTES BOARD OF ~DoUSTi~N~ ~ETING PAGE FOUR ~-~-~.~,~ 1 O, 1 973 F~. Jack Barrett informed the Board that the City Council advised that the-Building Department could not enforce deed restrictions. Possibly you could table this and check with the attorney. The city has a setback of 25' We cannot enforce deed restrictions, but could infor~ that deed restrictions were in effect. Chairman Hester asked if the deed restrictions were automatically renewable? Mr. Startzman replied: yes and that they run for 25 years and then are automatically renewed every ]0 years. He read Article 3 where it referred to architectural control. Mr. Rutter asked who Dr. Lynch would appeal to? ~. Startz- man replied that he did not know and that he was just a spokesman for the neighborhood. This matter must be cleared by law. The courts will advise on the deed restrictions. Chairman Hester stated that he still thought people should be able to do what they wanted to with their property. I know there are deed restrictions, but they might hurt some people and not others. I think this man has a hardship. To me, this deed restriction was made in ~954 and if this committee is no longer in effect, I don't think it should be enforced. ~. Lucas questioned whether the committee referred to in the deed restriction was still in existence? M~. Startzman replied that it states he must get approval from the board and the most restrictive prevails. If action is not taken before this is completed, then it acts like a~_oval from the committee. Dr. Lynch could get hurt with- out knowing it if he is not aware of this deed restriction. This deed restriction under law must be enforced before completion. Mr. Rutter stated that we are not attorneys and it is difficult for us to clarify this document. Chair- man Hester stated that people were sent copies of this appli- cation and if they were really concerned about their deed restrictions in this subdivision, some others would have appeared. Undoubtedly to me~ I don't think they have an objection. Possibly we should get legal advice. M~. Rutter made a motion to table this request and take it under advisement with the attorney and see whether we can grant a variance. Mr. Lucas seconded the motion. Chairman Hester asked Mr. Barrett to possibly set up an appointment with the attorney on September ]1 between 2:45 and 5:00. Motion carried 5-0. ~. Startzman asked if those affected by this would receive notices of the action taken by the Board? Chairman Hester replied: No, but that this petition would be discussed at the next meeting and any people ~ =n favor or opposed to could appear then. MZNUTES~ PAGE F BOARD OF ADJUST~m~NT ~ETING SEPTE~ER 10, 1973 Parcel ~3 - Relief from 25' rear setback requirement to 20' rear setback Lot 9, Block ?, Golf View Harbour, 1st Sect. Recorded in Plat Book 26, Page 178 Palm Beach County Records Address: 1027 S.W. 27th Avenue Applicant: Thomas J. Hennick Chairman Hester read the above application and that a variance was applied for to add a roof over the patio. Mm. Thomas J. Hennick stated his name and his address as t027 $.W. 2?th .Avenue. He informed the Board that he just wanted to put a roof over the patio. Mr. Lucas asked if a canal was in the rear and ]~h~, Hennick replied: yes. There was no one present in favor or in o~position to the application. Mr. Lucas made a motion to grant the variance ~based on the fact that it backs on a canal. Mr. Rutter seconded the motion. Motion carried ~-0. Parcel ~.~ - To add storage space on the east side o£ the present building, which is non-conform- ing. New construction will conform to existing setbacks Located in Acreage Section Address: ~010 South Federal Highway ~pplicant: Sun Wah Restaurant Chairman Hester read the above application. ~'~. Jim Dyer stated his name and his address as ~937 South Lake Drive, De!ray Dunes. He stated the building was built prior to any setbacks. The addition is on the rear of the u~mmmng. The owners own the entire building, parking lot, etc. It is strictly to increase the size £or refrigeration and will also include a small addition to the dining area. Mm. Rutter questioned what was 'behind the new addition. I~. Dyer replied that there is the parking lot and they own ~0~ to the middle of the street and 200 to 300' behind that including right-of-way in the intercoastal. We will tear down a 20 × 20 building and re~,oiace it building. ...~ t~m~h a much better There was no one present in favor or in opeosition to the application. ~'~ PAGE SiX SEPTEi,~ER 10 ~ 1 973 ~-~. Rutter made a motion to grant this variance and it was seconded by Mr. Lucas. Motion carried ~-0. Parcel #5- (a) Relief from 25' rear setback require- ment to 20' rear setback The North 80' of Lot 2%~ less the East t0' thereof~ together ~mtn the North 80' of Lot 25 Block 59 Lake Boynton Estates Plat No. 1 Recorded in Plat Book 1~ Page ~2 Palm Beach County Records Address: 118 N.W. ?th Street (b) Relief from 2)' rear setback require- ment to 20' rear setback The South 80' of Lot 26, together with the South 80' of Lot 27~ less the East ~0' thereof~ Block 5, Lake Boynton Estates Plat No. Recorded in ~] · -_at Book 13~ Page 32 Palm Beach County Records Address: t0~ N.W. ?th Street Applicant: John P. Niebe! Chairman Hester read the a~ove application° Mr. John P. Niebel stated his name and that he is a general contractor and his address as 5~? Industrial Avenue. He in- formed the Board that he requested the variances since the houses went through F.H.A. and now he can't change the size of the house, as he would have to close off a bafhroom. Mm. Rutter questioned if he had the deed and Mr. Niebel presented the Board with the deed. ~. Rutter asked if it was just because of the bathroom or because o£ add=~on~.l houses he wanted to put in later? M~. Niebei replied: no and it will not affect other lots~ The members referred to a previous meeting and Mr Rubin advised them mt was the same lots that were approved and gray, ted, but they had the wrong numbers previously. The plot plan that came before us showed the actual lot, which we approved. We asked P~. Niebel to come before us again in view of this number error. Mr. Niebe! agreed that he had come back before the Board so there would be no misunderstanding between the Board~ the Buildins Deuart- a~m. ~so Padgett ~. i~ubmn admed that '~- · ?~. Niebei had taken six lots and made them into five lots. Two lots he is building on now are conforming. He is asking for allowance to put 20 feet in the back y~md on two corner lots. The trouble before was that the legal description was not correct. ~. Eckert asked if it would make any difference if the bathroom was taken off? ivk~. Niebe! replied that the bath- room would go in, but would be covered by the garage. It would destroy the front appearance of the house, ~. Rutter stated that this would not grant an automatic variance on the rest of the property~ six lots in tota!~ and Mr. N'iebe! replied that only two lots ~ required a variance. The members acknowledged ownership and checked the deeds. There was no one present in favor of the ap~plication. ~e following appeared before the Board in op-position. Mrs~ Bertha Hartley stated her name and her address as 206 N.~. 6th Street. She asked how many homes were to be built, ~. 9ubin showed her ~. Nie~bel's pom..~em out that five homes were to be built on six lots. Mr. ~rio Carmedel!a stated his name and his address as 636 S.'~. Ocean Avenue. He stated he was present at the last meeting and Mr. Niebe! only asked for one variance smd said it would not set a precedent~ but how he is asking for two more. ~. Rutter pointed out that he had sacrificed one lot. Mr. Carmede!ia continued that he was concerned about the size of the houses. Chairman Kester informed him that minimum size was set by zoning. ~. Rubin added that the planned houses exceeded the minimum size. Mr. Carmede!!a stated that the one being built right now looks small and we are worried he is going to squeeze a bunch of houses in this area. Mr. Rutter advised him that he would have to conform with zoning and that the building department would check. Mm~ Lucas stated that the valuation was stated at the last meetmng as being ap~roximately ~30~000. Mr. Niebel informed him that the F.K.A.'-had appraised the houses at that figure. Mm Ampol made a ~ot~on to grant the variance for Parcel ?~5 (a) due to the fact the applicant ~r~=~+ in the deed and wil~ comply w'it~ all requirements ~. Eck. ert seconded ~ · t_e motion. Mr. Rutter made a motion to grant the variance for Parcel ~5(b) and it was seconded by ~. Lucas. Chairman Hester requested the Building Department to make sure v=a~ the variances are fully executed~ so they stay ~=thm~_ what we have granted. Motions carried ~-0. ICm. Carmedetla questioned if five homes were being built on six lots. Chairman Hester replied: Yes~ he is now within the ordinance. We only granted a variance on the rea~ sevbac.~. PP~ Ampol made a motion to adjourm the meeting and it was seconded by Mr. Lucaso Motion caPried 5-0. Meeting ad- journed 6:15~~ ~