Loading...
Minutes 04-16-73MZ~TES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETZNG HELD AT CITY H~LL~ BOYNTON BEACH~ FLORIDA~ MONDA¥~ APRZL 16~ 1973, AT 5:30 P.M. PRESENT Ez~ Hester Foy Ward Walter Rutter Lester Cousins Frank Lucas George Ampol~ Alternate Gil Ecker% Alternate Richard Rohan, Alternate Jack Barter% Building Official Mr. Hester called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. Minutes, April Mr. Hester called attention to Paragraph No. 1~ and stated that the motion which raads '~A motion was made by Mr. Hester and seconded by Mr. Lucas~, should read "Motion made by Mr. Rutter and seconded by Mr. Lucas'~, as he, the Chairman does not make motions. Re: paragraph No. 2, Petitions 2 and 3. Mr. Hester noted that ~ could not vote on the last one for the reason that he lives in that area. Therefore the vote should rea~ as follows: Petition No. 2~ Vote 4-0~ Mr. Hester abstaining. Petition No. 3, Vote 5-0. Motion for corrections made by Mr. Ward, seconded by Mr. Lucas Carried 5-0. Parcel ~!: Relief from 25~ rear se~ack requirement to 7~ rear setback Part of Lots 156 and 157 and Ail of Lot 158, Block C Boynton Hills Recorded in Plat Book 4~ Page 51 Palm Beach County Records Address - 509 N.W. 1st Street Applicant - Johnny Lee Roberts Mr. Hester explained to the Board that this was an irregular shaped lot and applicant was asking relief from 25~ rear setback to a 7~ setback. Applicant came forward and gave his name and address. He stated his hardship was relief on what was thought was the rear line and because of the irregular shaped lo% asked relief from 25~ setback to 7~ setback. Discussion. Mr. Barrett explained that there was a house in the back of this lot and because of the irregular shape of lot and location, he asked that this be brought before~ the Board to determine setbacks as far as rear and side lines are concerned. It was his thinking that the back could be considered as the side setback in this case. - 1 - MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING APRIL 16~ 19Y3 Mr. Ward asked for defining the setbacks~ side from rear and after much discussion~ it was determined that the m~ea~nould be considered as a side setback. Mr. Hester asked for any objectors to come forward. There were none. Mr. Cousins moved variance be granted~ seconded by Mr. Rutter Carried 5-0. -- Parcel ~2. Relief from 25' front setback requirement to 13~ front setback Commencing at the intersection of the North line of theSE% of Sec. 33~ Twp. 45 S.~ R. 43 East, with the West R/W line of US ~l~'thence run South along The said West R/W line of US ~!~ 387.35~ to the Point of beginning~ thence run South along said West R/W line of U.S. ~1 a distance of 100.00~ thence West along a line parallel with said North line of the of Sec. 33 a distance of 333.00 feet~ thence North along a line parallel to the West line of SE% of said section 33~ 100.50~ to a point which is 387.56 South of the North line of the SE% of Section thence East along a line parallel to the said North line of the SE% of Sec. 33, 342.83~ to the point of beginning. Address: 2505 South Federal Highway Applicant: Liberato J. Zito Mr. Hester explained to the Board~ the nature of the variance. Mr. Zito of 100 Mohigan Circle, Boca Raton, came forward and stated his hardship was of a nonconforming use~ and that he wished to remodel his building. The front setback is now only 13~ due to the fact that 14? was t~ from his property for widening of U.S.~ 1. Mr. Ward asked if variance was granted~ the building line would not be altered in any way. Mr. Zito said this was correc% it would remain atl3?. He further stated that his manager told him business was affected because the place was so undesirable looking. A letter from Shane&s Motor Lodge was received stating they had no objection to the variance. Mr. Strnad, Lorraine Motel, said he would be in favor of granting the variance for appearance sake. Mr. John Rupp~ 2521 South Federal Hway stated he was in favor of the improvement. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING APRIL 16~ 1973 The President of the 2450 Corporation (Hampshire Gardens) was neither in favor or against the variance. He wanted clarification and wanted to know~ if variance was granted, would he be able to come back at a later date for an addition etc.~ to the building; or is it just a matter of a new front~ to make it look better. If it be only the !atter~ they would be in favor, If it means this is the beginning for a further building~ it should be made known at this time. They would be against the Variance. He was assured it was for remodeling and c~essing up only. Mr. Barrett stated this building Would still remain nonconforming and and alterations, additions etc., would have to be brought to the build- ing department for approval before any building permit could be issued. Fumbler discussion. Motion made by Mr. Ward seconded by Mr. Lucas granted. Motion carried 5-0. variance be Meeting adjourned. -3-