Loading...
Minutes 10-26-83MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING (SPECIAL) HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1983 AT 7:30 P.M. PRESENT Simon Ryder, Chairman Garry Winter, Vice Chairman Lillian Bond Ezell Hester Ronald Linkous Caesar Mauti Robert Wandelt Walter Kies, Alternate Stormet Norem, Alternate Carmen S. Annunziato Director of Planning Chairman Ryder called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. by welcoming everyone and introducing the Members of the Board, City Planner, Alternate Members, and Recording Secretary, as well as other City Officials that were present. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11, 19'83 Mrs. Bond moved, seconded by Mr. Linkous to accept the minutes as presented. Motion carried 7~0. ANNOUNCEMENTS None. COMMUNICATIONS None. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Ryder started the public hearing by. briefly explaining that the purpose of this hearing was to determine whether or not the proposed ordinance whfch would place a moratorium on the issuance of building permits, sub-division plats, master plans, planned unit developments and rezonings in the Community Redevelop- ment Area, was consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 26, 1983 In providing some background information, Chairman Ryder explained that a study done by Urban Design Studios, was nearing completion, and before the study could commence implementation, it was necessary to determine consistency. Mr. Annunziato, giving a little more background information, stated that this study was done for the downtown area. When the City's Comprehensive Plan was adopted, the downtown area became the topic of much discussion as it was a questiOnnable area in that steps had to be taken to stop the spread of general Commercial uses, and that this area needed a redevelopment plan. Urban Design~ SHndios ultimately became responsible for this redevelopment plan. After going to a large map and showing the boundaries of the subject area, Mr. Annunziato went on' to say that he believed that the proposed ordinance was necessary to insure that the COmprehensive Plan which mandated the Downtown Redevelopment Study could be implemented, as well as furthering the redevelopment effort, bv eliminating the possibility of develOpment inConsistencieS~' - As the hearing went to the floor for discussion, there was some question raised as to.the inconvenience the moratorium was placing on individuals doing.business in this area, and the Building Official, Mr. Bud Howell, indicated that except for one particular instance he had no reason ~to believe that there had been any sig- nifiCant activity in the area. When Mr. Linkous asked at what point the City started denying applications in this area, Mr. Annunz±ato indicated that it was August 30, 1983 and pointed out that in Section 5 of the proposed ordinance there was a provisions for exceptions. There was further conversation on the point of exceptions between Mr. Mauti and Chairman Ryder, and Chairman Ryder said that because it was unrealistic to think that something unpredictable would not come up, the exceptions would probably take care of most situations, however, the applicant would be taking a chance. Also,<working with boundaries was more favorable than not having any guidelines at all. Mr, Gill Shamback, Shamback Cleaners, 4963 Palm Ridge Blvd., Delray Beach came forward with a question about his business. He indicated that he was interested in selling his business and that the building was in need of repairs to the roof. He did not feel that he would be able to try to sell the business until these repairs were taken care of. Mr. Shamback was assured by both Chairman Ryder and Mr. Annunziato that there would be no problem making these repairs and that this type of permit would be issued as a matter of routine. -2- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 26, 1983 Mr. Lazarous Salamon, 2620 N.E. 1st Ct., Boynton Beach, came forward and intially stated that in spite of various efforts on his part to correspond with the City, and efforts to submit plans, he had gone unanswered, and went on to say that a piece of property he was in the process of purchasing was in the downtown area. Because he felt that it would be mutually 'advantageous for both himself and the City, he wanted to know why he was being prohibited from building on the site immediately. What he wanted to do, he continued, was all within other restrictions., etc. that complied with the City, except that he wanted to get started immediately, and felt that it was unfair that he was being held up. Mr. Annunziato explained to him that his correspondence had not gone unanswered, however, in spite of the number of times that h~ submitted plans, etc., he was still within the boundaries of the redevelopment area, and would have to comply with the restrictions of the moratorium, along with everyone else. Both Chairman Ryder and Mr. Annunziato explained to Mr. Salamon that it was only the timing of his proposal that was not appropriate, and further that the purpose of this part~icular hearing was for the explicit purpose of voting on the proposed ordinance, and not to determine exceptions at this time. Mr. Annunziato also indicated to Mr. Salamon that once the ordinance was passed, Mr. Salamon would have a vehicle within the ordinance in which to work, however, this was not the time to deal With this subject. Mr. Norem concurred with ~this discussion by indicating to Mr. Salamon that if in £act he did want to prov±de construction on his parcel of land, that wou~d~be Within the boundaries and scope of the study being implemented by Urban Design Studios, that it was also to his advantage to wait the short amount of time necessary for the ordinance to be passed, and at that 'poin~ progress with his intentions. Chairman RYder pointed out to Mr. Salamon that it was only until November 15th, when the City Council would have the ordinance on its agenda to be passed. Mrs. Marie Chavret, 140 W. Ocean Avenue, Boynton Beach came forward to ask whether or not, at this time, there was a law. under which a permit could be requested. Mr. Annunziato indicated to her that at this time there was no law. Mrs. ChaVert~s concern seemed to lie in the area of being able to sell a piece of property in the redevelopment area, and not being abl~ to give sufficient information to the proSPective buyer. -3- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 26, 1983 Mr. Hank Thompson came forward and introduced himself as Chairman of the Community Redevelopment Agency and told Mrs. Chavet that property sales were taking place .all the time in the redevelopment area and that there were always people lo~king at itl Further, he indicated that $2,000,000 worth of property had recently been bought and the buyer did not know what was going to happen in the near futUre. As regards the moratorium, he told her that he thought that it was v±tal as it was proteCt±ng the values of the land. Since there were no other questions, Mr. Hester moved that the proposed ordinance was in fact consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and this motion was seconded by Mrs. Bond. The motion carried 7-0. Prior to adjourning, Chairman Ryder made available the information that there would be a public hearing before the' City Council on November 15, i983. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Linkous moved, and was duly seconded to adjourn. properly adjOurned at 8:30 P.M. The meeting Respectfully submitted, B bara K. Sch~e~tfage~/ Recording Secretary -4- MEMORANDUM FROM: DATE: James Vance, City Attorney Carmen S. Annunziato, City Planner 6 July 1985 M-1 District Regulations On June 15, 1983 I forwarded to you a copy of the proposed M-1 District Zoning Regultions. This proposal consists of additions to the Definition section of the Code, inclusion of general provisions related to performance standards, M-1 use regulations, an explanation of 'the status of uses upon adoption of these regulations and procedures for securing an environmental use permit. On Wednesday, June 29, 1983 the Planning and Zoning Board met in workshop session to review these proposed regulations. Among the questions asked were, will a property owner or land user be permitted to tPansfer to a new owner his property or use/business, without having to conform to current code requirements? In answering, I suggested to the Board that if uses were made non-conforming by an action of l~cal government, the use could be transferred to a new owner without prejudice. The basis for my statement is an underlying theory in zoning that uses run with the land. Strictly speaking, this limitation could reduce, somewhat, the effectiveness of these proposed regultions. Given the premise that most problems.~which result in environmental degredation in the areas zoned M-1 are related to some negative characteristic of the use and not necessarily ~he use itself, I offer for your consideration, a potential scenerio as follows: t. Party A owns a paint and body shop in the M-1 zoned area. This paint and body shop is operating under an existing occupational license. The operation of the paint and body shop is taking place in a building which was designed for dry storage, based on its construction (warehouse bays) and site design criteria (parking, landscaping, fire protection). The operation of this business allows noise and-particulate matter to escape into the air and automobiles to be parked and/or stored in areas not allocated to or designed for parking. On the assumption that the proposed regulations are adopted, please comment on the ~ollowingl a. If Party A sell's hi.s business, as is, to Party B, can Party B be made to conform to current standards for~ 1. performance, i.e., noise, dust, etc. 2. site design criteria, i.e., parking, landscaping, lot ~rea, etc., in order to secure an occupational license? Or, is Party-B exempt from conformance because the use runs wi th the land? 2. If Party A rents a bay in a warehouse designed for dry storage and he goes out of business for a period of one or more days, can the warehouse owner rent Party B the same bay that Party A occupied for the same use, and can Party B secure an occupational license without having to conform to current codes? 'The basis for qOestion 2 lies in the definition on non-conformance. .There are at least three kinds of non-conformity as follows~ 1. a non-conforming use - a use which is not permitted in the zoning district (See Section 11.1¢G), Appendix A); 2. a conforming use occupying a non-conforming structure where the structure or building does not 'conform to the appropriate District Building and Site regulations for setbacks, lot area, floor area,' etc. (See Section 11.1(E), Appendix A); and, 3. a conforming use with characteristiu~-_ of the use that do not meet current requirements for driveway location, parking spaces required, noise, solid waste, distance between like uses, fire hazard/protection, landscaping~ etc. 3. 'If Party A rents a bay in a warehouse and he goes out of business for a period of one uP more-days, can the owner of the warehouse rent the bay to a user similar to a paint and body shop, i.e., genera] auto repair, or for that matter to any use which does not meet the current requirements even if the proposed use is per.mitred in the zone, and can the City deny an occupational license? In response, please prepare your comm.ents in writing. The Board is contemplating additional workshops on these matters for late July. Your analysis/response would be appreciated in a timely manner. PLANNER /bks July 25, 1983 Mr. Carmen Annunziato, Planning Director City of Boynton Beach P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 Dear Carmen: It is my understanding that, on July 28, the Planning and Zoning Board will be considering new zoning ~ode provisions, and that the general provisions in Section 4 will affect all uses in the city, regardless of zoning classification. In considering subsection 10, which deals with electromagnetic interference, it appears that some updated language may be appropriate. The. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers has replaced the American Institute of Electrical Engineers and the Institute of Radio Engineers, and it may be more appropriate to reference any applicable standards of p~inciplesfrom IEEE, rather than the other organizations. Ail Motorola equipment meets or exceeds any applicable regulations, including Federal Communications Commission regulations, and the firm anticipates no problems in complying with this subsection. However, I would appreciate it if you would let us know what wording the City adopts on this matter, and provide us with a copy of, or specific reference to, whatever standards the City plans to use in enforcing these provisions.. I look forward to .seeing you soon. Please let me know if you have any questions on this matter. Sincerely, Mary~Lou ~=Jckey Regional Director State Relations ':jad Received Date TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMO Carmen Annunziato, City Planner William P. Doney, Esquire September 6, 1983 Your memorandum of July 6, 1983 M-1 District Regulations - Nonconforming Uses This memorandum is in response to your memo to James Vance dated July 6, 1983 in which you proposed various hypo- thetical questions concerning nonconforming uses under the proposed M-1 District regulations. I will try to respond to each question as presented: 1. This hypothetical involves an individual who owned a paint and body shop in the M-1 zone. The use was taking place in a building designed for dry storage and the operation of the business allowed noise and particulate matter to escape into the air. The questions raised were if the individual sold the business to another party, could the new owner be made to conform to l)- the performance standards or 2) site design criteria, i.e., parking~ landscaping, et cetera. My response to this question is quite simply that the new owner would retain the status as a valid nonconforming use and would not be required to comply with either the performance or site design criteria'standards. 2. The second hypothetical was Party A renting a bay in a warehouse designed for dry storage and Party A goes out of business for one or more days. The question asked is whether the owner could rent to Party B the same bay that was occupied by .Party A for the same use. and can Party B secure an occupational license without having to conform to current codes. The answer to this question is that so long as the use had not been discontinued for a period of more than six (6) consecutive months, then Party B would be able to continue with the noncomforming use without having tO conform to current codes. 3. The third hypothetical is that Party A rents a bay in a warehouse and goes out of business for a period of one or more days. The question is whether the owner can rent the bay to a user similar to a paint and body shop or for any other use which does not meet the current requirements, even if the proposed use is permitted in the zone. My response to this question is that the owner could only rent the warehouse-bay to a user who would put the bay to the same use as Party A. If a new lessee desired to change the use to another nonconforming use, then he would need to comply' JA~ES W.V~NGE, P.A. Page 2 MEMO Sept. 2, 1983 with the current code requirements, and, in fact, would there- fore not be a noncomforming use. I hope this memorandum has adequately answered the questions' set forth in your request. Please feel free to contact me if further clarification is necessary. WPD/sjw cc: Bud Howell J~Es W. ¥~GE, P.A. TOM-A-TOE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION 1933 TOM-A-TOE ROAD LANTANA, FLORIDA 33462 October 21, 1983 Planning And Zoning Board City of Boynton Beach 120 N.E. Second Avenue P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310 Gentlemen~ Re: Annexation, Rezoning and Land Use Amendment - Lake Worth Christian School I have been requested by this Association to inform you of the tremendous increase in traffic flow on High Ridge Road which the above-referenced enactment will ultimately cause. As you know, High Ridge Road is a residential road and already heavily traveled. Please keep this information in mind in this and future transactions to be brought before you. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Neil Valentine President NV/gr 1 November 3, 1983 Betty S. Boroni, City Clerk City of Boyutou Beach 120 ~ ~ ~ud Avenue Bo~_tou_ Beach, Fla. 33435 The fc!!owing statement is f~rnished orior to hearings on change in use of ~t. a~ Crest View Subdivision, scheduled for November 8, 198~ and Nove~er 15, 1983: "Aa a ~lose resident to Crestview Lot 45, I respSctfully objec~ to its cb~uEe iu use from a resideuce to a Day Care School. During .the past 5 years or more there has already been many encroach- ments ~ou the peace and quiet of this little residential cow, unity ~n~ouan zoning changes and increase iu population density. Any fU~her increase whatsoever in vehicular thru-traffic and population aeu~m~ ~n this co.vmranity is opposed. Due to its congested location, Lot 45 is also not the semi-isolated area suit~ ~ =~and ~eeded for such use asa school. '' Respectfully submitted, 117 S.E. 22nd Avenue Boyutou Beach, Florida