Loading...
Minutes 03-23-76MINUTES OF T~ REGULAR ~ETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA TUESDAY, ~DTRCH 23, 1976 AT 7:30 P. M. PRESENT Joseph T. Kelly, Chairman Fred Kostner, Vice Chairman Richard Lambert Enrico Rossi Simon Ryder Oris Walker Garry Winter Robert B. Reed, City Attorney ABSENT Bldg. Dept. Representative Chairman Kelly called the meeting to order at 7:40 P. M. He announced there was a full Board present tonight, but it was not necessary to introduce each member with having no audience present. Chairman Kelly then referred to telephoning the members today advising that the one item on the agenda had been removed by Mr. Bushnell, Deputy Bldg. Official. He ex- plained that apparently their engineering plans were not complete. As of the moment, no set date has been set for it to appear again, but it will probably be the first meet- ing in April. For the record, he advised that ~. G. VanDerVeer had appeared before the Board before the open- ing of the meeting to inquir~e about this item and he told him it had been cancelled. Evidently Mr. VanDerVeer has some interest in this project and he suggested that he con- tact ~. Bushnell between now and the next meeting. M~nutes of March 9, 1976 ?~. Kostner referred to Page 5, last paragraph, and stated that it should be: "Vice Chairman Kostner requested a roll call vote". Mr. Lambert referred to Page 5 and the motion made to recom- mend this preliminary site plan and questioned if the Board could recommend a site plan not inside the City limits? Chairman Kelly replied that it has been munexed and Mr. Lambert disagreed and informed him that it has passed first reading, but has not been annexed. He continued that he believed the code states the Planning & Zoning Board shall review subdivision site plans within the City boundaries. They have approved a site plan not within the City boundar- ies. Mr. Ryder pointed out 2hat they were moving in the direction of annexation and Chairman Kelly agreed. M~. Lambert stated he was just questioning whether this was a valid motion. Mm. Kostner pointed out that he specifically MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BO~MD PAGE TWO MARCH 23, 1 976 stated they were preliminary site plansshown to the Board passed on the basis that this property was going to be annexed into the City. He doesn't find anything wrong with this. He questioned the purpose of being shown the site plan and this was discussed further. F~. Rossi then suggested that they act on the minutes and Mr. Lambert agreed in that even if it was invalid, the minutes still stand. Mr. Ryder referred to indicating whether the Building Offi- cial was present or absent. He believes the ordinance states they should have the Building Official present. It should be stated if he is absent. Chairman Kelly informed him that Mx. Howell had to go to Okeechobee this evening. M~. Ryder re- plied that a representative could have been here and further referred to how the presentations should be made by him, Chairman Kelly referred to Mr. Howell informi~gthe Board that there were many things not required to. go before this Board. They will be getting less things than in the past. Mr. Howell has stated that he is available upon request. He referred to the last meeting when he called him and he came. Mx. Rossi agreed with Mr. Ryder and suggested that the future minutes show that any members of City Departments, City Offi- cials, etc. are present. Chairman Kelly requested i~s. Kruse to do this. At this time, 7:50 P. M., Chairman Kelly welcomed the arrival of Mr. Reed, City Attorney. Mr. Lambert made a motion to adopt the minutes as corrected, seconded by Mr. Ryder. Motion carried 5-0, with M~. Rossi and Mr. Walker abstaining since they were not present at this meeting. For ,Mr. Reed's benefit, Chairman Kelly referred to Page 5 of the minutes and explained the question ~M. Lambert had brought their attention to. He asked if this ordinance was passed on second reading and Mr. Reed informed them that the ordinance annexing that property was passed on first reading. It is presently underg~i~gpublication right now. It will become effective ten days after the second reading, which he would assume would be on April 6. Chairman Kelly referred to M~. Lambert's technical question as to whether they were correct in recomm~.r~iug the site plan on something not annexed and Mr. Reed replied that technically any action on those lines would be premature. ~. Kostner referred to the site plan being presented to the Board mud it being requested that some suggestions be made to Council. M~. Reed informed him that from a practical standpoint, there really was no pro- blem as long as they thoroughly reviewed the preliminary site and were satisfied with the content or made it subject to certain terms. Chair;manKelly informed him it was subject to egress and ingress and added that it would come before the Board again for a final review. He added that there were MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE THREE M~RCH 23, t 976 also several recommendations for the south strip along Con- gress and he has now been advised by a couple Council members that they would not go for residential along that part of Congress. He thinks the representative has been advised of this and believes the Board should consider it further. Annexation Discussion Mr. Rossi recapped the Board's action regarding the Cogen annexation. He explained that they recommended annexing certain parcels of land into the City with undefined areas to be zoned R-1AA and C-3. He then asked what the Council's motion had been regarding this annexation. Chairman Kelly informed him that the Council passed the ordinance on first reading. Mr. Reed added that the motion the Council adopted directed preparation of the ordinance annexing the property and there was an indication of intent on the part of the Council that the property be zoned on an undefined basis of R-1AA and C-3. The ordinance he prepared and the Council passed on first reading contains no specification whatsoever regarding the zoning classifications of the property. This doesn't mean in the future that ordinances should not speci- fy zoning. Since he has been the City .Attorney, this is the first annexation that has come before the Council and based on the discussion he heard, it wasn't specified to include any statement of zoning in the ordinance annexing the proper- ty. He is sure they must adopt a pretty clear procedure. Mr. Ryder referred to the Council asking for information and Chairman. Kelly informed them that the Board approved it on the basis of specific plans being submitted. At that time, he thinks the Council was aware it was indefinite. M~o Reed informed the Board that at the last Council meet- ing, he was directed to prepare a resolution establishing or modifying the existing annexation procedure in the City. Today he received the 1975 report from the Area Planning Board of Palm Beach County. He thinks every member should have a copy of this. Based on his review of the State Statutes, this report, and the present procedure, he is hopeful they can get a procedure to follow. Clearly there is no requirement that the ordinance annexing the property must contain specific indications as to what portions of the property are to be zoned such. He wonders whether they are getting the cart before the horse with this Board approving and Council approving annexation of which zoning has not been reviewed. Why wasn't this all done before the recommendation came before Council? Why waste all this time? He thinks it should be done before it gets to Council. Chairman Kelly agreed and added that the Board has been fighting for a definite clear plan. There has been a controversy on this. Mr. Kostner added that they had also asked M~. Simon about this, but never did get an answer. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE FOUR MARCH 23, 1 976 Mm. Rossi clarified that this land was being annexed and is coming into the City without zoning. Mr. Reed agreed and added there was the limitation proposed by the annexa- tion standard stating no less or more density than zoned by the County. This property would be coming into the City in an unzoned classification. This concerns him and he thinks the procedure the Planning & Zoning Board and the City Coun- cil should follow should be given a stern look, so everybody knows what steps are to be followed and when. P~. Rossi referred to having discussed previously the State Statute regarding density and asked if this was binding and Mr. Reed replied: definitely, Mr. Rossi asked if there was any requirement other than density and Mr. Reed replied not by State Statute in so far as the zoning classification. Mr. Rossi referred to commercial use being stated and pointed out there may be differences of opinion on this by the City and County. Mm. Reed informed him they were not bound with the particular use of the property to be annexed, but are bound by the density factor. Chairman Kelly referred to the owner's representative stating they would stay within this. ~. Kostner questioned if he understood the State Statute states the ~density cannot be less or more and in reply, ~. Reed read State Statute 171.062, Paragraph 2. He then ex- plained that the way it was written, they are prohibited from increasing or decreasing the density, but can increase it if the County Con~ission approves it. However, they cannot decrease it according to the way it is written. Mr. Kostner asked if these ordinances could be obtained and added that he thought every member should have this. Mr. Reed informed him that copies of the Florida Statutes were available. Mr. Kostner asked if the booklet was available and Mr. Reed informed him it was prepared by the Area Plan- ning Board, 1975 Report on Municipal Annexation. He added that forms for application, flow chart, etc. were included. He also explained how they had different procedures for vol- untary and involuntary annexations. Chairman ~elly stated he would ask the City Manager to procure seven of these for the members. Mm. Ryder showed ~. Reed the procedure prepared by .Mr. Smoot and added that he thought it was prepared from this. Mr. Reed informed them if they were not successful in getting this pamphlet, hopefully in the near future he will have .a resolution and procedure prepared for annexation. Mm. Lambert referred to talking about raising or lowering the density per the County zoning and questioned where this fitted into their own development plan adopted by the City? He thinks they will find that particular property is desig- nated PUD. ~. Kostner asked if the members could have a copy of this report and Chairman Kelly advised that he would obtain copies of this Technical Report - General Development Plan for the City of Boynton Beach, Florida, from the Build- ing Department. Mr. Lambert referred to the front page in MI~T~ES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE FIVE MARCH 23, 1 976 the introduction stating the zoning code is based on the General Development Plan and this area states PUD. Mr. Rossi informed him that he asked about this previously and the remark was made by members of the Board that the Council does not want any more PUD's. Chairman Kelly read the min- utes from the City Council meeting of November 21, 1972, when this technical report was adopted. Mr. Lambert asked'what they were entering into when a developer comes in and deviates from this plan and Mr. Reed replied that he just received this book this afternoon and he does not know whether there is any obligation on the part of the City to follow this General Development Plan at all. ~. Kostner informed him it was a recommendation. Mr. Reed continued that they could assume this is a recommended General Development Plan, which may be very good but he does not know and certainly will look into it and will try to determine whether the City in annexing and zoning property is permitted to deviate from the General Development Plan contained in this report. Chairman Kelly referred to a book he obtained when studying at Palm Beach Junior College referring to zoning throughout the nation. He added that he would bring this book to Mr. Reed's office tomorrow and it may possibly give some guide- lines. Mr. Reed. continued that he has assumed this technical report is a pattern for the development of the City of Boynton Beach and legally the City is not obligated to follow it. At the same time, however, the City paid substantial su~ of money to have this report prepared. It makes sense to him to have a report to ~mow what was recommended as a general develop- ment plan for the City. it appears the value of this report is substantially lost if the members of the Board do not have copies of it and know the provisions of the report con- cerning property. In view of the fact the plan was prepared by experts, there should be a good reason for deviating from it. Chairman Kelly agreed that everyone on the Board should have a copy of this report. ~. Ryder referred to the com- prehensive rezoning done in 1975 which did not follow this plan and added that he understood it was disregarded. Mr. Kostner informed him that he thought the Council was not ex- tremely happy with the report. Many questions were raised in which~:they did not agree. Of course, a thorough study was made for the complete City as a whole. The Gouncil, at that time, was more concerned with the immediate problems. He ~mows experts worked on it, but sometimes they are not completely apprised of the immediate problems of any given municipality. Their view is taken over a large area. He thinks some chmuges may be desirable based on the needs of this City. As a whole overall, it should be ~ wonderful guide. ~. Reed agreed and added that it just seemed logi- cal if they were going to depart from the Master General Development Plan, they should have a good logical reason. MINUTES PL~NNiNG & ZONING BOARD PAGE SIX MARCH 23, 1976 ~. Ryder pointed out that there was no,continuity. He thinks it points out the need for a planner for this City on a permanent basis as an employee. The Bo~d members change from year to year. They must have somebody else who is a department employee of the City. The City is grow- ing and he thinks it is time they have someone who would stay with this thing. Mr. Reed asked if the Board requested this of the Council and Mr. Walker told about having several plan- ners. Chairman Kelly added that last summer, the Board was floundering and the Board members agreed and a motion was made to ask the City Manager for a professional planner. Mr. Smoot was then hired on a part time basis until Decem- ber. He was a qualified planner on a consultant basis and appeared when requested. His help was rather dubious. The current Council members have indicated their intention to get somebody who would be a paid employee. Mr. Rossi re- ferred to the Board possibly having some input in the selec- tion of the planner and Chairma~ Kelly replied that he didn't think it was their business. He explained how they were not qualified. ~. Rossi stated that he just suggested this because they have h~d problems with the zoning and his re- sponse to some of these questions would be a way to find out about the man. Mr. Kostner agreed with this and explained how Mr. Smoot appeared to him te be of no help to the Board. He added that he would not be qualified to judge the gentle- man. ~. Lambert referred to the City Attorney being present and suggested proceeding with their discussion. Mrs, .... theci~Y not being able to increase nor decrease the of the Cogen land. The County had it planned for 3½ units per acre and Cogen plans 3 units per acre. Now it is being stated that the City cannot do this and c~unot improve it. ~. Reed agreed this was correct. Mr. Rossi referred to this being discussed previously and there being a land use plan in the County providing for a certain use of that land. The density of that land is not P~own until the Board of County Commissioners act~ on it. Chairman Helly advise8 that he has had the assurance from the owner,s representative that they will meet those terms. ~. Rossi questioned what would happen if the law was chal- lenged? It seems to him the Board of County Commissioners must accept their recommendation or establish density. ~. Reed replied that he was correct in that no specific density had been set for this particular piece. There is a particu- lar use in the County Land Use Plan that in effect adopts or staol~shes a density range. ~s long as the density as es- tablished by the City, once the property has been annexed, is within that range they are not in violation of the Statute. Chairman Kelly agreed that a range was established. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING B0~RD P~.GE SEVEN ~_RCH 23, 1 976 Mr. Rossi asked how they could go about overcoming the re- quirements and if a resolution from the Board of County Com- missioners wasnecessary? M~. Reed replied that he thought they would have to get from the County a specific indication of what the County Land Use Plan was for this property at the time of annexation. Mr. Lambert asked if the Co' Development Plan and Mr. Re~ Mx. Lambert referred to the acre in that area and he th: chance to review the Area ~ In trying to establish, mod: procedure for this City he' sent procedure, etc. and ho answers with the Cogen anne: ferred to previously discus~ tion~ necessary forms, etc. filled out for the Cogen an: the County indicating the d assume this would be handle same as a change in the zon annexation and zoning, they ings. M~. Lambert agreed tl Mr. Rossi stated he thought for the action taken at the Winter replied that they ~ jU. intentions for the land. M discussions on this should sion. He questioned the si by the Board at the last me that the preliminary site He asked when it would be r Kelly advised him that Mr. present it to the City C°un Mr. Lambert stated that the and their duty is to recomm to the Building Department. going to the City Council a ~nty used the City's General ~d replied that he had no idea. range being 2 to 5 units per inks the County took their Gen- :onsideration when preparing this ~rmed him that he had not had a .anning Board's Municipal Report. [fy or clarify the annexation ~ill review this report, the pre- ~efully will come up with prompt cation upon them. ~. Ryder re- ~ing proper procedures for annexa- and Mr. Howell did have forms ~exation and also a letter from ~nsity the County set. He would as a rezoning request, just the lng. If they were to combine the would have to set up public hear- ~is would make more sense. a public hearing was in order last meeting of the Board. ~t wanted to k~ow the proposed Rossi stated their previous been done in workshop sos- of the action taken and M~. Lambert replied was approved by this Board. to Council and Chairman ~owell said he was not going to ~il because it is not ready. Board passed on what they saw ~nd it to the City Council not Chairman Kelly replied that ~nutes from this Board's meet- the map would be changed before ~d Chairman Kelly replied: yes. Mr. Lambert asked what they had approved and Chairman Kelly replied: what was presented4 Mr. Lambert referred to plans coming back several times. He then pointed out that this particular site plan did not have lot sizes or anything, but in the definition in the code book this is called for. Chairman Kelly informed him that the original plan showed cul-de-sacs, but the latest plan did not. He further explained that the plans for the MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE EIGHT MARCH 23, 1 976 Lake Worth Mariner Village came before the Board three times before they made a preliminary recommendation, t~. Rossi re- marked that they were mixing preliminary plats with site plans. If he has certain designated areas to be C-3 and cer- tain designated areas for R-1AA, it is not a PUD. He is not compelled to use that site plan because as long as he meets the requirements of R-1AA, he can do whatever he wants with the site plan. Mr. Kostner disagreed in that he must come in and finalize the complete plan showing specified areas of R-1AA and C-3. M~. Lambert stated the motion was to recom- mend to the City Council this preliminary site plan. Chair- man Kelly replied that he understands why this has been ques- tioned and the City Attorney has given them some advice. He thinks they should sit until the final plan is presented and then they will see whether it is worthy of final recommenda- tion to the City Council. Mr. Kostner added that this pro- posed site plan encompasses what this Bo~d feels would be desirable to have. This is based on that desirability and subject to the conditions which must be met. The representa- tive stated he would go along with whatever we wanted. This is a preliminary process and not finalized. Mr. Lambert stated the prelLminary site plan recommended to the City Council was subject to only two things, which was there being one egress and ingress road shown and at least two should be shown. Subject to this, it was recommended to the City Council. _Mr. Kostner replied that it was an indi- cation to the City Council that the Board agrees with what has been presented up to now providing a final plan is sub- mitted. This does not go to Council, but they have an idea of the Board's feelings. Chairman Kelly added that they require another plan if it is not acceptable. ~. Lambert continued that he looked in the code book and it specified what a definition of a preliminary site plan is and it should show the lot sizes, utility easements, etc. This is defined. How can they review a site plan and make a recommendation without this information? Chairman Kelly informed him this would be included in the next plan presented. Mr. Rossi clarified it was a conceptual plan and had nothing to do with a preliminary plat. Mr. Lambert pointed out that the code did not call for a conceptual plan. Chairman Kelly added that they could request preliminary plans to be pre- sented several times until it is finalized. Mr. Lambert replied that they have given the okay. Mr. Rossi further explained a conceptual plan meaning the laying out of streets, etc. done in a workshop session where there is no formal action upon the part of the Board. However, he has technically gotten approval of the plan and can go full blast. Chairman Kelly and Mr. Kostner disagreed. Mr. Lambert still insisted that they passed it. Chairman Kelly remarked that he hoped they would not have this trouble after the City Attorney submits the new procedure. Mr. Kostner explained that this had been their procedure for years and Mr. La~bert replied that they were not going by the book. ~hTNUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE NI~ M~CH 23, 1976 Discussion of Non-Conformi~.Section ~. Reed stated he received a memo from the Chairman direct- ing his attention to the minutes of February 24 meeting and Section 11 concerning non-conforming uses, lots, buildings, and structures. He read the minutes and to some limited ex- tent attempted to prepare some comments regarding proposed Section 11. However, there were numerable instances where he did not understand what they were talking about in read- ing the minutes. He is not positive he understands what this proposed Section 11 is. He assumes this is a proposed addition to the existing Section 11 of the Zoning Regulations. Chairman Kelly explained how he had had several meetings with ~. Simon, ~. Bushnell and Mr. Smoot and they prepared this preliminary group of papers. At the beginning of the year, he and M~. Howell amended it further. Mr. Reed asked if it was a proposed addition or a total revision of the existing Section 11 of the Zoning Regulations? ~. Lambert said he was under the understanding they did not have ~my regulations defining non-conforming uses. Mr. Reed read Section ~1 en- titled Supplemental Regulations. Chairman Eelly showed him the Zoning Book. ~. Reed asked just where this typed sheet would fit into the blue book? He referred to Pages 42 thru 48 and asked if this proposed Section 11.1 on non-conforming uses was to be made Paragraph M of Section 11 of 75-197 Mr. Ryder replied that he thought it was M~. Smoot's intent to add it at the end. Chairman Kelly replied that they never got that far deciding where it would be included. He sug- gested it could be put in as a separate section in order to get the thing to a ooint of workability and for use by the Building Dep~tment. He also suggested that possibly M~. Reed call the former City Attorney to get his ideas as to where it belongs. He thinks Mr. Simon may be the best source of mnformat~on. The Board had nothing to do with it, except the Chairman was a member of the so-called committee of four. Mr. Reed replied that he understood. Other Discussion ~. Reed then asked whether the annexation or non-conforming was the No. 1 problem and Chairman Kelly replied: non-conform- ing. Mr. Rossi informed him that there was also the Board of Ad- justment section to be considered. Chairman Kelly added that M~. Simon, Mr. Barrett and Mrs. Padgett worked on this sec- tion and when it was re-typed, it was left out. ~. Rossi also informed him that they had no rezoning appli- cation procedure. Chairman Melly referred to having a draft dated December 23 from M~. Smoot. ~. Rossi agreed they had gotten input from the consultant, but it was not adopted by this Board. Chairman Kelly added that the City Clerk's MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE TEN M~RCH 23, 1976 office does have a set of papers for an applicant and has been operating with this. Hr. RosSi informed him that when they adopted the new regulations, they did away with this. ?~. Rossi continued that there was also the annexation pro- Cedure. Mr. Reed referred to being relatively new with this and re- quested someone to provide him with a packet of information that is identical to the input the members have received on these four areas which will help him a great deal in working with the Board to try to come up with ordinances to add these to the Zoning Code. If they are working with information he does not~have~ there will be a gap. He needs all the informa- tion. Chairman Kelly offered to get this for him. Mr. Reed continued that he needed the inlformation for each of these four areas. He is in pretty good shape regarding annexation. Chairman Kelly replied that he would get the specifics for him. Mr. Reed continued that he realized these four areas were a major concern, but requested a priority so his.office could take these one at a time and expend their efforts in one direction. ~. Ryder suggested consulting Mr. Howell for his recommendation as he has a backlog. He explained how the zoning last year caused problems for the Building De- partment. Mr. Howell has stated he has a backlog with non- conformingthings and he thinks this is the top priority. Mr. Reed informed him that he has already been directed by the City Council to prepare a resolution for annexation and that is No. 1 and hopefully they can get that passed quickly. No. 2 will be non-conforming. He then asked if there was any preference on the two remaining and Chairman Kelly re- plied: no, as they a~e currently operating with an applica- tion for rezoning. Chairman Kelly asked if the members had a copy~of the re- zoning application and Mr. Lambert replied: no. ~; Lambert continued that there were existing procedures in the current regulations, Statutes, etc., but they did not have copies. He also referred to the ordinances giving specific procedures and the men~ers did not have a copy of the chapter, which they ~re being governed by. Mr. Reed suggested that they could borrow his Book of Ordinances to compare to the Blue Book on 75-19. Wherever there is a change, a copy could be made of the page in the code of ordinances. Then, everyone's book could be brought up-to-date. Every time a change comes in, they will get into the practice of having the City Clerk run a copy for each ~embero Each member will have a current pamphlet of the zoning code and regulations. He added that he did not have a copy of the zoning book. Chairman Kelly replied that this is the most constructive recommendation they have had. H~. Lambert volunteered to meet with Mr. Reed to compare his Blue Book with the Statute Book. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD M&RCH .23, 1976 Chairman Kelly added that he would join them and invited the remaining members to meet at the Building Depagtment to get this preliminary worked out. Mr. Rossi referred to the flow chart outlined in the proce- dure and the fact that plans were to be reviewed by the Build- ing Department. He stated that they should be reviewed by a planner. M~. Lambert agreed 100%. Mr. Reed re~rked that without a City planner, obviously this Board is the City planner. Mr. Reed then noted that it looked like Mr. Kostner had a pretty well updated book and requested if he went through these four areas and ran copies of things pertaining to them, he would be in good shape. Also, the rezoning proce- dure M~. Rossi had may help. Also, the rezoning procedure ~. Ryder had may help. He does not have any of this. He then consulted Mr. Kostner's book further. M~. Reed then referred back to the high priority for non- conforming uses. He has read over the minutes of February 24 meeting and has tried to compare what was said about the proposed section for non-conforming uses. He really did not get the full ~ist of what each member was trying to say. He suggested quickly discussing each sub-section. He referred to Page 4. Mr. Lambert informed him there was quite a bit of discussion on this particmlar section. He thinks they will discourage about 50% of the development of Boynton Beach. Mr. Rossi explained that this pertained to the survival of certain uses. Chairman Kelly advised that after seeing what was happening after the ordinance was 'passed, he tried to have non-conforming properties grandfathered. Mr. Reed ques- tioned if they wanted to delete the clause: ~'~iscourage their survival'[? Mr. Lambert referred to Section 11.1 just re~eat- ing itself. The whole basis of this particular section scares him. He referred to a $70,000 home and telling the man he could live in the house, but discourage his survival. M~. Reed clarified it was saying the purpose mud inten2 of the zoning regulations is to discourage the survival of the non-conforming use of the property. Mr. Lambert pointed out that this could also apply to non-conforming structures. He added that maybe the first part about uses is valid, but he does not like the wording of what it implies. ~. Ryder agreed this was important as it is called purpose and intent. He agrees this clause should be taken out, but the rest is important. Mr. Rossi disagreed and stated this was the crux of the paragraph. Mr. Ryder replied that he didn't see it that wa~.The crux is to permit to have the right to exp~ud and enlarge, which they did not have. Chairman Kelly agreed they should take out these three words. M~. Ryder continued that the Building Department was not confronted with those three words, but people wanting to mmke changes to non-con- forming properties. Mr. Reed stated that he would have to MINUTES PLA~NING & ZONING BOARD PAGE T~ELVE MARCH 23, 1976 think about this more as he doesn't Y_uow that there is one particular part in the whole paragraph which is the backbone of the purpose mad intent of this particular section in the zoning regulations. M~. Kostner stated if they permitted the enlargement or expansion of non-conforming structures, it would counteract the very purpose. ~. Reed then read Boca Raton's definition for comparison. Mr. Ryder gave an example of the new zoning requiring a 7½ ft. side setback and a house has a 6 ft. side setback, but they want to enlarge in the rear where there is plenty of room. Mr. Lambert asked if this was practical in subdivisions 75% built? Mr. Ryder informed him that the people objected to downgrading when they tried to ch~ge it back. M~. Kostner referred to the Boca Raton ordinance stating the building could not be enlarged and only changes could be made on the inside. Based on what they have, a non-conforming use could be enlarged or expanded, but Boca Raton does not allow the exterior of a building to be enlarged. M~. Rossi referred to Paragraph 11.4.1 stating it may be enlarged subject to meeting all building site regulations, etc. This means the building may not be enlarged in any way which increases its non-conformity. M~. Winter agreed and gave an example of a new addition having to f~l~ow guidelines. Mr. Lambert referred to the intent of the Board being pri- marily interested in upgrading new construction, but he ques- tions what happens in a subdivision where there is a vacant lot surrounded by houses and a person is denied a building permit and denied the use everyone else has? Can they deny the use the same as the surrounding area? Mr. Reed replied: definitely if he were to ask for a building permit after the effective date of the zoning ordinance. However, he thin.ks if the owner of the property was the owner before the passage of the new zoning ordinance that he may well be able to show a hardship and obtain a variance to use the property for what has now become a non-conforming use but was formerly conform- ing. He believes any new owner after the effective date of the zoning change would be strictly prohibited the use of the property. Chairman Kelly referred to Sections 11.3, 11.3.1, and 11.3.2 and asked if this is just wtat he said and ~. Ryder stated that these refer to the lot. M~. Lambert stated that there was something wrong here as the agreement of deed has nothing to do with a specific plat. ~. Reed replied'that he really was not prepared to answer questions. He has not had the opportunity to read most of this. He has read the minutes and Section tl. After reading the minutes, he was left try- ing to determine why and what changes they wanted to m~ke and decided to come for an explanation. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE THL~TEEN ~!&RCH 23, 1 976 Mr. Kostner asked if he was familiar with the problems now and Mr. Reed suggested going through this quickly section by section and if anyone has anything to say, he will make a note of it. He will try to come up with a proposed amend- ment to include this in the zoning ordinance. They have al- ready talked about 11.1 and the only reference was to the phrase "discourage their survival", which he will examine. He is just asking for a brief review now. He is not sure he has understood everything said about each paragraph. He added that if they wanted to call a special meeting, he would try to attend. M~. Winter referred to going through this with Mr. Howell and noting specific examples. Mr. Ryder agreed. ~. Rossi suggested in order to assist the City Attorney, they did go over this in detail and the minutes show their~comments. For his information, a great portion of this came from the County zoning. Mr. Rossi continued that they also got into the question where it addresses itself to value, it was questioned if it was a fair w~y to base it on the most recent appraisal of the Palm Beach County Tax Appraiser. This is in Section 11.4.2 and 11.6.2. Mr. Reed ~ked if they could get a copy of the County ordinance and Chairman Eelly informed him that he had requested the City Manager to do so and would check on it. Mr. Rossi clarified it was called the Land Develop- ment Manual, Volume 1, in which is found the Palm Beach County zoning code and the subdivision and platting regula- tions. Mr. Rossi continued that they discussed whether to use the Palm Beach County Tax Appaiser to determine 50% of the building da~ged. Mr. Lambert agreed that they dis- cussed this at length and Mr. Howell had explained how they could take a particular structure and look at a chart and get a figure for the replacement value. He further ex- plained how the value could be questioned and gave the example of a $12,000 duplex and a fire doing $3,000 day, age. If there was $6,000 damage, he could not continue to use it as a duplex and it is 40 years old and beautiful. He does not think the 5~g as far as the County Tax Appraiser is valid. M~. Kostner stated that the assessment should be the market value. M~. Lambert then explained further how the Building Deoartment used a chart from the Southern Standard Building CSde to determine value and suggested that M~. Reed check with M~. Howell about this. M~. Walker asked if they were going to have a workshop meet- ing to discuss this further and Chairman Kelly asked if the members were in favor of this? M~. Ryder replied that he thought they had gone over it enough. ~. Reed can check this with the County Code and their comments are in the min- utes from the previous meeting. He doesn't see the need for a workshop meeting. He thi~d~s they have conveyed the intent of this thing which they feel is important and necessary. MinUTES PLANNING & ZONING BO.~D PAGE FOURTEEN ~RCH 23 , 1 976 Mr. Kostner stated if M~. Reed was satisfied that things were clear enough in his mind and he can work on it, he doesn't think there would be a need for a workshop meeting. Mr. Reed stated if he was able to get the County Land Use Booklet and the other information talked about, he will go over the non-conforming use section. He will compare it to the County, Boca Raton and also include the comments indi- cated from the Board members and trusts the meeting of Feb- ruary 24 was the only meeting when the non-conforming uses were discussed. He will try to prepare an ordinm~ce on this basis mud if he has any questions, he will come back to the Board for clarification bef~ore putting it in final form. He does have their final feeling tonight. Basically his inten- tion of coming here tonight was in reference to it being men- tioned in the minutes questioning what the City Attorney was doing about this. He came tonight to give the Board a shot at him. Despite a full backlog of work, he is interested in the Planning & Zoning Board. Chairman Kelly informed him that he was very pleasantly surprised to hear from the City Manager this afternoon that he would be present tonight. Mr. Reed continued that he appreciated the Board having him tonight and 2hey can get the material requested, he will try to consolidate it and will put it in draft form for their comments on it. He has talked to ~. Howell about this too mad unfortunately with the adoption of the new zoning code, it has resulted in some pretty harsh and unfair applications in some instances and they should try to correct this as soon as they can but not at the expense of the whole zoning code. Ad j 0urnme nt M~. Ryder made a motion to adjourn, seconded by ~. Kostner. Motion carried 7-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 9:57 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Suzanne· ~!~ ruse Recording Secretary (Two Tapes) ~G~NDA Regular Planning and Zoning Meeting Time: 7:30 p.M. Date: March 23, 1976 Place: Council Chambers City. Hall ............... ~ .......... 1. Acknc~tedgement of members and visitors. 2. Reading and approving of minutes. 3. Announcements: 4. Comunications: 5. 01d business: 1. Lake Worth Mariner Village Subdivision - Final Wilm Way (Willard Road) Rep., Paul Conte Florida Coastal, Inc. Sears, Roebuck & Co. Rezoning Request of 100 Acres at S. Congress Rep., Chas. E. Fronrath Land Unlimited, Realty 6. New business: