Loading...
Minutes 04-23-73MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD AT CITY HALL BOYNTON BEACH~ FLORIDA, MONDAY, APRIL 25, 19Y5, AT 5:50 P.M. PRESENT Eze-~ Hester Foy Ward Walter Rutter Lester Cousins Frank Lucas George Ampol, Alternate Gil Ecker% Alternate ~chard Rohan, Alternate Jack Barrett, Building Official Mr. Hester called the meeting to order at 5:50 P.M. Minutes - March 19~ 1975 Mr. Ward made a motion that the March 19, 1975 minutes be approved as presented. Seconded by Mr. Cousins. MotiOn carried 5-0. Parcel ~1 - Relief from 60 ft. frontage requirement to 55 ft. front platted To build single family dwelling Lot 56, Boynton Heights, Add~n No. 1 Recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 7 Palm Beach County Records Address: 411 S.W. 1st Ave. Applicant: Donald Lankin Mr. Hester informed the Board that Mm. Lankin wishes to build a one family dwelling on a 55 ft. platted lot width by 129 ft. deep~ There are buildings on both sides of this lot. He then asked Mr. Lankin to step forward, state his name and address~ and present his hardship. Mr. Lankin told the Board the reason for the variance is to build a home for his family. Mr. Rutter asked Mr. Lankin when he purchased this property, whether he knew it was a 55 ft. lot at that time and whether his attorney or he had investigated the fact that there was a 60 ft. lot width requirement in that area. Mr. Lankin stated that he purchased this lot about 2 years ago, as advertised in the paper as a lot that could be built on and bought it pmesuming this would be the case. Mr. Ward asked if this was the only house he was building. He replied that it was. Mr. Ward asked if he had built others in Boynton. Mr. Lankin stated he built a home previously but lost it due to illness in the family and is now trying to build a new one. Mr. Hester asked if all other setbacks would conform and was told that they would and also that there was no other vacant property Minutes Board of Adjustment Meeting April 23, 1973 on either side available. Mr.. Hester asked for any objectors to come forward. Mrs. Beulah A. Toelaer of 215 SW 3rd Street came forward and stated that she owns the property across the street and wanted to know what Mr. Lankin was going to do with all the trailers~camp bodies, excessive trucks etc. that are now there, even though that has nothing to do with the variance. She stated she had nothing against Mr. LaD_kin otherwise. She asked if her neighborhood had any security etc. against this sort of thing. Mr. Barrett stated there was an ordinance against excessive trailer, junk, parking etc. Recreational vehicles are permitted on the property but are not allowed to be used on the property. Relief from excessive usage can be obtained by either calling the building department to check this out, or to call the Po!ice Dept. who are on call 24 hours a day. Mrs. Herbert Kelley, 434 S.W. 1st Ave. stated that she was opposed to the rezoning, to which Mr. Hester replied that this was not a rezoning but a variance for relief from lot width, He stated there was no other land available to add to this particular lot to make it conform to the present requirements. Mrs. Kelley stated she was opposed to the variance. Mr. Kelly, 434 SW 1st Ave. came forward and said he had no objection to a house being built, in fact he was told it would be an improvement, but wanted an explanation of the law in this one particular case. He pointed out that Mr. Lankin was the owner of property adjacent to the lot in question. He also asked the Board ~f other letters were received, objectio~ to this variance. Mr. Hester stated he had not received any letters, but after checking his mail box, 4 letters objecting to the variance were produced and read. Mr. Hes.ter asked Mr. Lankin if he was the owner of the property next to this lot, to which he answered yes, his present home. Mr. Lankin stated a survey showed there was only 6 feet between his home and the lot in question~ which would make it 12 feet between the present house and the proposed home, the required side setback requirements in that area. Further discussion followed. Mr. Rutter stated ~e couldn't see how the letters of objection added any weight as to why this man should not have the right to have the variance. Mr. Rutter made a motion that variance be granted, seconded by Mr. Ward Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Lucas moved meeting be adjourned, seconded by Mr. Rutter. Motion carried 5-0.