Loading...
Minutes 10-14-75MINUTES OF TBiE REGULAR M~ETiNG OF :I~ PL~NING & ZONING BOARD ~LD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON Bw~CH, FLORIDA, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1975 AT 7:30 P. M. PP~SENT Joseph T. Kelly, Chairman Halter M. Trauger, Vice Chman. Mrs. Vicki Castello Enrico Rossi Simon Ryder Oris Walker (Arrived 7:37 P. M.) Warren Bushnell, Acting Bldg. Official James Smoot, Planning Consultant ABSENT Mrs. Marilyn Huckle (Excused) NOTE - NO TAPE RECORDING WAS MADE OF THIS MEETING. C~2~L TO ORDER Chairman Kelly called the meeting to order at 7:31P. M. and welcomed the ladies and gentlemen present to the first regu- lar meeting in October of the Planning & Zoning Board. ACKNO~LEDGEMENT OF ~KERS ~ND VISITORS Chairman Kelly introduced the members of the Board; Mr. Smoot, Professional Planner engaged to assist the Board; and Mr. Bushnell, Acting Building Official. He acknowledged approxi- mately 13 people present in the audience and announced they did not have any outstanding visitors to introduce, so would proceed with the agenda. MINUTES Minutes o_f~ptembe~..9, 197~ Chairman Kelly stated that these minutes were tabled because at the subsequent meeting, they did not have ~ quorum present. He ascertained they still did not have a quorum present; therefore, these minutes would have to remain on the table. Minutes of Septem~er23__z~1975 Col. Trauger made a motion to accept the Minutes of Tuesday, September 23, 1975, as presented. Mrs. Castello seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Minutes of_October 6~ 197__5 Mr. Rossi referred to Page 9, about mid-way down the page, where he compared the 7½ to 6 ft. side sethmCk. He stated this 1½ ft. over the present 6 ft. would "not" make a con- siderable difference. .~ ~i~J TES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE T~O OCTOBER 14, 1975 Mrs. Castello referred to Page 10 and questioned if it was proper to sell a variance to build on a 50 ft. lot to a builder and ~. Ryder explained that the variance went with the land. Col. Trauger moved to accept the Ninutes of October 6, 1975, as amended by Mr. Rossi. ~. Ryder seconded the motionl Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Nalker arrived at this time at 7:37 P. Mo OLD BUSiNESS Chairman Kelly referred to having set the reconvening of the special meeting at 8:00 P. M. and asked the pleasure of the Board, in proce~d~g with the agenda. After discussion, it was agreed to move to item No. 2. Bernard's Res_ · ~ ~_-taurant Fz~let~er pro er~_~?30 ~N,_F_e~d_e_.r_al Hw~ Mr. Bushnell referred to the previous meeting when the Board requested a survey be presented together witha legal descrip- tion of the lease and drawings outlining the limits of the property under the lease. He informed the members that these were available now. Chairman Kelly identified the property ~or the benefit of the audience. ~. Rossi added that it was a site plan review showing certain intended additions to be made to this build- ing and he explained the additional information requested by the Board. M~. Bushnell informed the members that everything was in order and explained the survey showing the property and limits. He pointed out where the lease line had been ex- tended and additional parking provided for the employees. He also pointed out where they did away with the cut. He added that the parking had been increased from the required 93 spaces to 104 spaces. The members reviewed and discussed the plan. Col. Trauger moved to recommend to the City Council the appro- val of the initial site plan for Bernard's Restaurant, Fletcher Property, 1730 North Federal Highway. Mr. Walker seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Ab~_a~._~0_~m_~nt ~f Alley S~hel. ton .,P~..0Perty Chairman Kelly stated that at long last, he thought every- thing was in order for this application. ~. Bushnell agreed MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE THREE OCTOBER 14, 1975 and stated that the one missing document up until today was a legal description of the existing alley and a legal descri? tion of the proposed easement, both of which are on hand now. Chairman Kelly read the legal description of the subject right-of-way. ~. Rossi asked if the City Engineer reviewed it and Mr. Bushnell replied that the City Engineer prepared it. ~M. Ryder referred to having the matter of abandonments of City owned property in the future and the possibility of financial considerations. He feels this should be brought to the attention of the City Council. This was discussed and Mr. Smoot gave examples of how they could barter with people if 2here was a reason to barter. Mr. Ryder remarked that normally they don't convey City property to a private individual. Mr. Smoot pointed out that in the bulk of cases, it is not City owned property; they have the right to use it, but do net own the underlying land. Col. Trauger questioned who inherited the mineral rights in this abandoned easement and Chairman Kelly informed him that this would be a legal question and they should not consider this at this time. Mr. Walker moved to recommend to the City Council that the request for the abandonment of the Shelton alley and taking of the easement as recorded b~ granted. Col. Trauger seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Reconvene to the ~pe3~al Meeti. . n~ of Tuesd~ay~, October Chairman Kelly noted that there were now present approxi- mately 35 people in the audience. He continued that those who were present at the previous meeting were aware there was some statistical work to be done and ~. Smoot has done this. He then asked M~Smoot to explain. ~M. Smoot stated that last Thursday, he went to the City Clerk's office and requested certain data from her regard- ing Laurel Hills~ 4th and 5th Additions. He got a copy of the plats for the two additions and they pulled all the Droperty owners, files in the two additions. The study looked at several bits of data. Essentially he ~Tote down the lots that were owned and in many cases, people owned one lot and adjacent property. He was concerned where the owner resided, whether in Boynton Beach or elsewhere and noted this. He also looked at the parcel frontage which the person owned. He was also interested in the lot depth, but only as a point of information. He also was interested whether there was a building and when it was built. He also wrote down the valu- ation of the land improvements. He read the study regarding Laurel Hills, 4th Addition, Lots 145-220, as attached and ex- plained. MI~V3TES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE FOUR OCTOBER 14, 1975 Pk. Smoot continued that the pe~ople present previously indi- cated in their estimation that they would probably find es- tates there. He did not find that, but found surprising statistics. There are 55 parcels in Laurel Hills, 4th Addi- tion. The most lots owned are in 50 ft. frontage. He read the various frontage measurements of lots. The numbersof 50 ft. lots was interesting to him for two reasons. He first referred to how many of these lots were owned by single owners and explained how even though being substandard, they consti- tuted a legal bUilding site. He then explained how an amend- ment was being considered making an owner with two adjoining substandard lots requiring them to mak~ one b. uilding site. He continued that of the 27 lots with a 50 ft. frontage, 3 are improved and 24 do not have a house. Of the 24, there are 8 or 4 pai~s of 2 owned by an individual, which would be one building site. He then referred to a builder being men- tioned at the previous meeting and according to his records, this builder has built 9 houses and owns I vacant lot. He does not see where this particular builder is building half the subdivision. The number of possibilities to combine 50 ft. to meet R-1AA he believes to be only valid in the 4 pairs mentioned. Mr. Smoot then referred to Laurel Hills, 5th Addition, Lots 221-352 and explained the Ownership Study attached. There are 86 parcels. Of the parcels, 30 of them are less then 75 ft. in frontage or 40%. Some people live on 100 ft. lots or two 50 ft. lots. The highest category was 23 parcels with 100 ft. lots. 45% of the vacant lots are substandard. In this category, he does not find any pairing. One person owns one lot. There is a very high number of people owning the 50 ft. lots which do not live in Boynton Beach. Most live out of the City and most live in the Northeast or Great Lakes area of the country. He asked how ma~y of the people in the audience came from this area and several raised their hands. He then asked how many owned their lot prior to com- ing here and then contracted with a builder to 'build and one person responded. Mr. Smoot remarked that he assumed the remaining bought their house on. the lot. He continued that as far as the lot patterns were concerned, the 5t~h addition has deeper and wider lots. He added that he found that the developer switched lots around on the corners and e~.plained. ~. Smoot stated that as far as he was concerned, he would give his recommendations after hearing from the Board mem- bers and oeople in the audience. He thinks the non-conform- zng .problems wml~ not be as severe as they anticipated and possibly the degree of the problem might be modified to a certain exten~. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE FIVE OCTOBER 14, 1 975 Mr. Ryder asked if everything was platted in Laurel Hills and~ Mr. Smoot replied that he just checked the 4th and 5th Addition plats. Mr. Bushnell added that those parcels which were unplatted will have to be platted within the zoning regulations. Mr. Walker asked if the substandard lots would also have to comply with the code and ~. Smoot replied: yes, with two exceptions: the lot frontage ~ud area dimension. He gave an example of people buying a lot several years ago and now having adjacent lots built upon and how the change in the law affected him. Mr. Walker referred to the 3 lots listed with 55 and 54 ft. frontages and clar~f~e~ ' ~ that a house could be placed on these lots with the standard R-1AA side yards if he requested a variance from the Board of Adjustment. Col. Trauger pointed out that the study more or less substan- tiated what the people stated at the last meeting in support of R-~AA zoning. Mr. Smoot agreed, particularly in the 5th Addition and explained with reference to the 23 - 100 ft. frontage lots, etc. ~s. Williams appeared before the Board and stated she was resident of Leisureville and owns property in Laurel Hills. She is one of the original owners and has been paying ta~es for 25 years and now cannot put two houses on these two lots. She has lots with 140 ft. frontage in the 5th Addition. She asked if she could se~lthese as two 70 ft. ~ots? How can people who just bought propertyiin the past two years put houses on 50 ft. lots? ~. Smoot clarified that she owned Lots 301, 302 and the north 40 ft. of Lot 300. He informed her that there is a paragraph in the original draft of the zoning code now in effect that states if you own two lots with continuous frontage and both are substandard, you can- not sell them separately. However, it was not put in the new code and was deleted through an error. It is a proposal which he has r~ade to be included in an amendment to the new code. Between now and then, she could sell these as two 70 ft. lots. Also, the City Council may elect not to pass this amendment. Mrs. Williams continued that after paying taxes for 25 years, the City now decides it is illegal. Chairman Kelly suggested that she wait and appear before the City Council. Mrs. ~illiams asked how come people were putting houses on 50 ft. lots? They got variauces to build. Smoot informed her that the procedure the City has followed in the past is if you have a lot which is substandard, you had to ac~quire additional property to bring it up to stan- dard or go before the Board of Adjustment. He e~plained how his proposed amendment had to go before this Bo~d and the City Council. M~. Bushnell pointed out that it was a ques- tion of the zoning selected. If R-lA zoning was recommended, she would be able to split her lots. MINUTES PLA~ING & ZON!3~G BOARD PAGE SIX OCTOBER 14, 1975 Mr. Harold Werger stated his name and his address as 719 N. W. 7th Court. He informed the Board that he was speak- ing for all the people who signed the petitions and they are about 80 to 9~ of the property owners in Laurel Hills, Laurel Hills was in 50 ft. lots and most of the people bought l½ or 2 lots. Only the builders who have bought a string of lots want the zoning changed. The home owners want the zoning to remain and want all of Laurel Hills zoned R-1AA. He re- ferred, to the last meeting when the Board stressed that the houses built to the R-lA specifications would be non-conform- lng. They disagree and he told about this condition being brought to court in Cleveland, Ohio. This is the first City to have non-confforming houses. If this Board is persistent in labeling their houses as non-conforming, they will band together to get their taxes lowered as it makes the value less. Mr. Smoot replied that he was not going to argue whether the tax appraiser appraised the homes at 100% or not. He referred to his study and stated he did not seek toffind out whether or not any particular building or any particular lot in either the 4th or 5th Addition was non-conforming. In order to do so, he would have to check all the building permits or go out in the field and measure. He gave an example of how they could make additions to their homes if they were non-conform- ing being on lots less than 75 ft. He added that in residen- tial areas, the non-conformimg lots and houses are lightly controlled, but what is heavily controlled is non-conforming use. Mr. Werger continued that he has worked in many cities and this is the first City to label, houses non-conforming. PM. Smoot informed him that most of the surrounding cities and Palm Beach County do have this in their zoning code. He added that it was something which you stu~ole upon rather than being aware of as a daily occur~ance. Practically every City in the U. S. has a non-conforming section. Mr. Werger questioned if a house built on a 60 ft. lot with 6 ft. side setbacks, 35 ft. front setback and 60 ft. rear setback, could put an addition on the front or back? Mr. 2moot replied: yes, the way the code is drafted now.and he explained. Mr. Werger then referred to enclosing a carport with only a 6 ft. side setback and ~. Smoot and ~. Bushnell discussed whether this would require an application to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Werger stated they should let the home owner live within the confines of the law and Chairman Kelly agreed, as long as it did not increase the non-conformity. Mr. Werger then suggested that the Board should tone down the non-conformity and call it a double zoning section. Chairman MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE SEVEN OCTOBER 14, 1975 Kelly replied that the Board was looking at this thing logic- ally. They are not attempting to hurt anyone. As long as the non-conformity is not increased, they will be all right. Mr. Bushnell added that there were two things coming out of the present study. One points out there are vacant lots which do not conform, but shall be considered substandard lots and can be built on. The second thing coming out is the question of non-conformity and how to treat it. ~. Werger continued that he bought in this section about four years ago and most of the houses were built by builders who bought the lots from the original owners. These lots were sold by mail to people in the North for $400 a lot. This is why the 50 ft. lots are mcattered around. Most of the builders bought lots and split them to 60 ft. lots. Most of the building has been done by builders within the past three years. He still thinks they should hold it to the 75 ft. frontage. When he came, the 1962 zoning was in effect for 60 ft. and you could not buy 10 ft., but bought a half lot. That bears out why there are 75 and 100 ft. lots. Mr. Rossi clarified that the reason they were discussing Laurel Hills, Gordon Park and Glen Arbor was to decide whether to m~e it R-lA from R-1AA. The Board thought they were doing the proper thing, but at the last meeting, it turned out that people wanted R-1AA to stay. As a result, this study was made. One of the fears the people had was that builders were going to develop a string of lots, but this study shows there are no string of lots. ~. Smoot agreed and pointed out that there were no more than two lots owned by one person. Mr. Werger stated that the builders could still buy a ~tring of vacant lots. ~. Smoot pointed out there were two owning two lots each and he thought it was quite possible these people were considering these as 100 ft. building sites. Mr. Rossi referred to the last meeting when only one person was against changing it from R-lA to R-1AA. He questioned if there was anyone in the audience now who would like to see it remain R-tA instead of R-1AA? Chairman Kelly asked for a show of hands from the people wanting Laurel Hills to remain in the R-1~A classification and the majority raised their hands. Mr. Werger stated that it wasn, t a question of who the lot owners were now. In the last three years, builders h~e contacted the original lot owners and have bought three, four or five lots a~ud that is what they are going to continue to do. He asked how many permits had been issued to individ- uals as compared to builders? Mr. Smoot agreed with this, and added that three builders were involved, but he didn't MINUTES i~LANNY,~NG & ZONING BOARD PAGE EIGHT OCTOBER 14, 1 975 think it was as high as M~. WeEger claims it is. Mr. ~erger replied that probably 60 to 7~ of alltthe houses In the last three years have been built by builders. They will continue to do this. One builder had 28 lots. Mr. Smoot informed him that Manor Development had 8 parcels at 75 ft. and built these homes in 1973, which exceeded the code at that time. The R-lA zone required 60 ft. frontage and this builder built on 75 ft. lots. M~. Werger replied that they wanted to build the most houses on the smallest lots they could. Chairman Kelly stated he thought M~. Smoot had given the record of what they have done and ~. Werger agreed~ but stated these builders will continue this way. ~. Smoot referred to ~s. Williams speaking before the Board and being very concerned with this proposal. He pointed out that if a developer attempted to acquire lots in a row, they would be combined into one building st~e and would be covered by his proposed amendment. Mr. Werger stated that Mrs. Williams should be entitled to build on her lot. However, he referred to original owners selling lots and variances. Chairman Kelly informed him that a variance went with thelland. Mr. Werger disagree~ with this. He stated he wanted the Board tokkeep the zoning at R-~AA to everyone buying from now on, but th~fshould not jeopardize the original lot owners. Mr. Bushnell informed him that they now had a system where you could not appear before the Board of Adjustment for a variance unless you apply for a building permit and are denied. Mr. Werger replied that it could still be sold. Mr. Smoot informed him that in the proposed amendment, it would be included that a variance would last for a particular period of tim~ and he explained how a time limit would be placed on it. Mr. Werger stated they objected to a man getting a variance and selling it. ~M. Rossi referred to their discussions centering on Laurel Hills and questioned if it applied to Glen Arbor and Gordon Park? Chairman Kelly referred to their discussion with Co,fey at the previous meeting and how he did not realize these areas could be petitioned separately and he thought the people in this area would agree to being R-lA. ~s. Dougherty stated her name and her address as 506 N'. W. Sth Court. She submitted a petition to the Board from the Gordon Park Subdivision which states they are in favor of R-lA. M~. Tom Coffey stated his name and his address as 326 Glen Arbor Terrace. He asked what the lots listed at the bottom of the notice would be considered for? Mr. Bushnell in- formed him that these were tracts not platted in building lots. These will possibly consist of eight lots if platted. M~iTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE Ni}IE OCTOBER 14, 1975 When the time comes about, they must be platted according to the zoning. ~. Coffey informed him that these were not a part of any subdivision. Mr. Bushnell agreed that they were to the north and west of him. Mr. C. F. Stuart stated his name and his address as 825 N. W. 6th kvenue. He informed the Board that he lives in Laurel Hills, 5th Addition, and could sit on his front porch and count eleven houses which have been built within the past two years. When he bought, he bought the type of lot he thought was the type to be in that neighborhood. However, developers are building on smaller lots now. Chairman Kelly asked the size of his lot and ~. Stuart replied it was 83 x 124 ft. His house was not allowed on a 60 ft. lot and he had to add a half lot. These contractors have been building on smaller lots. Chairman Kelly informed him that they must conform to the code. Mr. Stuart asked what the size of the narrowest lot was and Mr. Smoot informed him that the require- ment was 75 ft. now. If a person does not have additional property, he must appear bef6re the Board of Adjustment. Mm. Stuart stated that contractors were buying lots and sub- dividing 'to their own convenience. Mr. Ray Zompa stated his name and his address as 410 S. W. 4th Avenue. He informed the Board that he owns the two acres in Sections 20/29. He is in favor of R-lA. ~. Bushnell clarified that this was the area referred to by ~. Coffey across from Glen Arbor. M~. Zompa continued that this was always zoned for 1,O00 square feet and it would not be feasi- ble to build in R-1A~ on 50 ft. lots. Mr. Rossi questioned if there was a problem since they have grouped together Laurel Hills, Glen Arbor and Gordon Park? He referred to Glen Arbor and Gordon Park being 90%,o developed and the opinions being expressed and the petition sub~tted in favor of R-IA. He questioned if there was a problem to define this demarkation line? Mr. Bushnell informed him than Glen Arbor, Gordon Park and l~k~. Zompa's lots would be a "L" shape from Laurel Hills. Chairman Kelly questioned if it would be spot zoning and Mr. Bushnell replied that it would not be as it is contiguous. The members discussed with the audience the location of these subdivisions. Mr. Bushnell pointed out that these areas combined would be con- tiguous to the present R-IA area of Laurel Hills. Chairman Kelly referred totthe people requesting all of Laurel Hills being made R-1AA.~and the people in the audience agreed. The members consulted the map. ~t~. Ryder as~_ed if all the people in Laurel Hills were notified of this considered zoning change and Chairman Kelly read the $otice as published. MII~U3TES PLAI~TiNG & ZONING BOARD PAGE TEN OCTOBER 14, 197 5 Mr. Rossi referred to the survey indicating it would be proper to allow R-I~ to remain for La~el Hills, 4th and 5th Additions and Mr. Smoot agreed. M~. Rossi continued that since they have gotten response and a petition from the people in Glen Arbor, Gordon Park and the un,letted lots that they would like R-IA, he believes a motion is in order. Col. Trauger agreed and stated he concurred with the study indicating R-1AA zoning for Laurel Hills and R-IA for the other areas. Chairman Kelly informed him that the petition was for Gordon Park only. Mrs. Castello asked what the ~len Arbor residents desired and the response from the audience wasR- TM,~. Mr. Rossi suggested ~l~i~the~plat book and ~. Bushnell stated he would get it from ~is oxfice. Chairman Kelly declared a recess at 9~15 P. M. meeting back to order at 9:30 P. M. He called the ~. Smoot referred to spot zoning being a legal concept in his opinion. It has been declared illegal primarily because it grants .privileges to a small piece of property. It has to be radically different. The question is how big a spot and how small a spot. When it relates to single family, he thinks the question of spot zoning sort of falls apar~ he believes they should use convenient zoning. Regardless of the people here or not here, they should consider the people of Boynton Beach. it is all single family and has the same essential general requirements. ~ey must get aw~y from thinking of spot zoning. They must think whether there is a public benefit to the City and people who live and own property there. ~@. Walker stated he consulted the plat book and would go along with the request of Gordon Park to recommend R-lA, but thinks the others should remain R-1AA. Mr. Ryder stated he thought the people here tonight were aware of the ~act that originally when they recommended R-1AA, they felt it would be beneficial. It was only after endorsing it ~ud recommending it to the City Council that they were given to understand there were problems, particu- larly with non-conformities. The R-1AA side setback is 7½ ft., R-lA is 7½ ft. and R-1 is 7½ ft. This apparently seems to be the prime consideration. However, they now get the indication from the people in Laurel Hills that they want to hold onto the R-1AA in spite of being non-conforming. However, ~.. Smoot pointed out that they still have work to do in the future in treating non-conforming issues. They also have th~qmestion of Mrs. Williams with the 140 ft. parcel an~ because of R-1A~ requires a 75 ft. front. He feels they would have to, go along with the majority because it agrees with the original concept they had. MINU~S PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE ELEVEN OCTOBFcR 14, 1975 Mrs. Castello stated she felt the sentiments expressed here show that the two sections of Laurel Hills, as well as the two sections of Glen Arbor, want the zoning to remain as R-l~a. She understands Gordon Park is almost completely developed and believes it should go back to R-lA. She stated she would like to consult the plat bo~k first regard- ing the unplatted area to see approximately what area it was adjacent to. ~M. Coffey informed her that he believed the unplatted area joined Glen Arbor and runs back towards Laurel Hills. After consulting the plat book, ~s. Castello stated that this area in question~ is surrounded by Glen Arbor and therefore, she would like this particular area to remain R-1AA. She added that Gordon Park is mostly developed and as requested by the petition should be R-IA. Mr. Smoot agreed with the com=~ents made by the Board members. Gordon Park is platted and people are living there. Apparently by virtue of submission of the petition, they believe if R-12A remains, they would have difficulties with non-conformities. On the unsubdivided tracts, nobody lives there~and it has not been improved; therefore, there has been no hardship except more lots could be given to the owner under R-1Ao R-1AA would not crea~ a hardship though. Col. Trauger then made the following motion: Laurel Hills, 4th Addition, Lots 208 thru 220 incl. Recorded in Plat Book 23, Page 142, Palm Beach County Records Remain at R-I~~A. Laurel Hills, 5th Addition, Lots 221 thru 283 incl. Lots 287 thru 340 incl. Lots 343 thru 352 incl. Recorded in Plat Book 23, Page 183, Palm Beach County Records Remain at R-lk~. Glen _arbor - The Entire Subdivision Recorded in Plat Book 25, Page 121 Palm Beach County Records Remain at R-1A~.. Glen Arbor, Addition 1 - The Entire Subdivision Recorded in Plat Book 25, Page 182 Palm Beach County Records Remain at R-lkA. Glen Arbor, Addition 2 - The Entire Subdivision Recorded in Plat Book 26, Page 103 Palm Beach County Records Remain at ~-IAA. MINU'~ES ?LANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE TWELVE OCTOBER 14, 1 975 Gordon Park S/D - The Entire Subdivision Recorded in Plat Book 26, Page 122 Palm Beach County Records Change to R-lA. Lots 13, 14, 15, 16 & 19, Ac. Sec. 20/29, Twp. 45 S., Range 43 East Recorded in Plat Book 7, Page 20 Palm Beach County Records Remain at R-1AA. ~s. Castello seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mr. Walker stated he felt they only had to re-define the borders of Gordon Park because all the other areas are presently zoned R-1AA. The motion could be to change Gordon Park from the present zone to R-lA. Col. Trauger explained the reason for the motion being stated as such was because of it being advertised in this sequence and he wanted the motion to follow this sequence. Mr. Walker disagreed since they are only changing the one zone. Chair- man Kelly stated he thought it was covered by the motion. Motion carried 5-1, with Mr. Walker voting against. Mx. Smoot suggested to the people living in Gordon Park that they attend the City Council meeting to view their opinion again. M~s. Dougherty requested that a copy of her petition be given to the City Council and M~. Bushnell replied that he would take care of this. Mr. Joe Barbera stated his name and his address as Lake Worth. He informed the Board that he is a contractor and owns property in Boynton Beach. He has no objection to the R-1AA zoning, but feels the code is misinterpreted regarding the minimum s~uare footage of ill-lng area which states 1,500 square feet. He asked if this included the garage, porch, etc.? ~. Bushnell read the present zoning regulations and explained. M~. Smoot stated he believed the code should state minimum floor sm~ea. Mr. Barbera continued that it was unfair for people o~ming lots to move into a home with 1,500 square ft. living area and with a garage and porch, it would make the home 1,800 to 1,900 square feet. ~. Smoot explained how the garage and porch gave credit to the l~ing area. Mr. Barbera informed them that he has built 18 houses in Laurel Hills and feels only 1~ meet this requirement. He thinks relief should be given totthe minimum square footage of living area. He thinks the coverage of the lot should be 1,500 square feet and not the home. in order tobbuild a home under this code, even on a 75 ft. lot, he is objecting to the 1,500 square feet of living area. Col. Trauger pointed out that the residents were opposed to smaller homes. Mr. Barbera stated that people con~ng here in the last ten years have wanted small homes and they are satisfied, but what happens to the people still coming and wanting a small house? MINUTES PLA!~ING & ZONING BOARD T-TT~ ~_ PAGE Tx .... T~EN OCTOBER 14, 1975 Col. Trauger replied that they should move to an area which allows this house size. Mr. Barbera asked what about the people who have owned property for years waiting to retire and he gave an example of people wanting smaller homes after having lived in large homes in the North. Mr. Smoot clari- fied that Mr. Barbera felt people from the North should be able to buy houses 1,200 square feet and he think~ there should be vacant lots in these areas. He informed him that there is plenty of property in all the zones and he cannot buy his argument as far as need. Mr. Barbera replied that he felt a complete study of the area was not done satisfac- torily. If it was done satisfactorily, the study would have shown the size of the homes. ~,~. Smoot disagreed with his reference to the study and the need and informed him that the study was done in eight days, five working days. !~. Barbera replied, that this was not enough time. Mr. Smoot referred to the petition submitted asking for R-1AA to re- main and pointed out that they also agreed to the floor areas. The study did not pertain to f~oor areas and as a further example he told about the subdivision where he lives. Chairman Kelly stated he thought the majority ex- pressed their opinions to stay at R-1AA and if people come down and disagree, they should move to a~other area. N~;! BUSINESS Rezo~ng Lets 44 and 45, Westchester Heights N. W. Corner South Seacrest and $. w. 23rd Ave~nu~ Col. Trauger questioned how they could re-zone with the mora- torium being in effect and Chairman Kelly replied that the City Clerk explained to him that during the lull between the expiration of the moratorium and the re-enactma~t of the mora- torium, some applications came in. .Mr. Rossi questioned if it was proper for this Board and also the City Council to act with the moratorium be~ on? Mr. Smoot explained his experience with the County and how they had to process appli- cations received when the moratorium was not in effect. Mr. Rossi suggested getting an opinion from the City Attorney about this procedure. Chairman Kelly further explained that the first moratorium ended September 13 and the second was enacted on September 16. ~. Smoot pointed out that i~ it lapsed, it did not exist. Mr. Bushnell agreed and added that there are lapses between all periods of zoning. The members discussed the location and Chairman Kelly added that the southeast, southwest and northeast corners are C-1 and the application is for the northwest corner. ~/~. Donald Besecker stated his name and his address as 139 S. W. 24th Avenue. He presented a petitiOn to the Board con- taining 28 names of property owners in Westchester Heights MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE FOURTEEN OCTOBER 14, 1975 against this zoning change. He referred to spot zoning being mentioned previously and pointed out that this would definitely be spot zoning with changing just two parcels. There are plenty of C-1 locations right in this area. There are all houses surrounding this property. Also, commercial will cause more traffic than there is now. He thinks if the Board looks at the map, they will see the ground to the north and west is all R-2 and goes all the way to High Point. The members checked the map. M~. Smoot referred to the traffic along S. W. 23rd Avenue and stated it is great now because it affords the only com- munication from Congress mAVenue to the hospital and to the shopping areas. When 15th Avenue is opened, it will take traffic away from 23rd. Mr. James Sarno stated his name and his address as 2409 S. W. tst Street. He informed the Board that he lives within 100 yards of this property and it is zoned R-1AA. C-I is on the previous three corners. He served as Chair- man of this Planning & Zoning Board for three years and they would not change the west side of Seacrest south of 23rd to multi-family because of the traffic. After 3:00 P. M., you cannot get by any o~ these four corners. The master plan has changed the three corners without notifica- tion, which was just recently done. In years past, they would not go for C-1 zone in that immediate area. The re- cord stands from previous Boards. There is a house in the ~-IAA zone facing this corner. He referred to Mr. Smoot's previous statement that the Board is working for the better- ment of the people of Boynton Beach and they should not for- get that. To chsmge this last existing corner to C-I to conform towwhat has already been done would be wrong and two wrongs do not make a right. Chairman Kelly informed him that the City Council did have a public hearing when they changed the other corners. Mr. Smoot explained how the widening of Seacrest was planned by the County. He also talked about single family homes being located on Sea- crest in Delray Beach. M~. Raymond Zompa stated his name and that he was the agent for ~. & ~s. Schraut, the owners of this property. Ori- ginally the property was zoned R-3. The property is adja- cent to High Point. All the homes they are talking about are better than 400 ft. away from this property. All the lots on Seacrest were zoned C-1 for medicalaand professional use because of the hospital. It is R-2 now and he was against R-3, which it was previously, the same as the people in High Point. He feels if he spoke at the night of the City Council meeting, he thinks the people in High Point would be in favor as they were in agreement with him and not in favor of R-3. On the night of the original hearing, MINUTES ~dNNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE FIFTEEN OCTOB~ 14, 1975 nobody was present from Westchester Heights and they could have opposed the three corners when they were previously zoned. He thin~ his client is being taken advantage of in relation to the other corners being zoned C-~. ~-~. Besecker appeared before the Board again and stated that he thought this lot was 75 ft. He referred to ~. Smoot men- tioning that Seacrest was going to be widened and he believes that 23rd is also going to be widened. Chairman Kelly agreed and referred to the four lane bridge just being put in on 23rd. M~. Smoot then explained the County thoroughfare plan. He added that he believes the State anticipated 23rd would be four laues in the future and that is why a four lane bridge was put in. Col. Trauger asked if the petition was signed by the adjacent property owners and Chairman Kelly read the petition. Mr. Rossi added that he thought the regu- lations called for the people located within 400 feet to be notified. Mro Besecker informed them that everyone within 400 feet had signed the petition. ~. Rossi asked if some- body reviewed this list of names to see whether in fact they were within the ~00 ft. of the property and Mr. Zompa informed them that he submitted the list. ~. Smoot asked if it was necessary for the City Clerk to verify these names and ~. Rossi replied that he believed it should be done in the future. ~r. Sarno added that this was required. He clarified that the residents in Westchester Heights within the radius have signed the petition with all the other resi- dents of Westchester Heights, as they are concerned about Westchester Heights. He added that any re×payer could ap- pear before the Bo~rd in reference to an application. Mr. Smoot informed them that the Board must consider if there is a need for C-1 zoning in this City and more speci- fically in this location. The applicant states there is. He drives this road frequently and there are msny vacant C-I lots along this road. M~. Zompa informed him that his client owned ten lots. When they were zoned C-1, the people had time to complain. He referred to Mr. Smoot asking if there was a need and pointed out that all the doctors were located in Delray Beach. He has people ready to construct a medical building on the eight lots south of this. The previous owner was going to build two nice apartment houses and these same people objected, so the City is still not getting any taxes from this. They need doctors in this area. Mr. Smoot re- plied'that whether the taxes were increased or decreased was not an issue in zoning to another zone. They must con- sider whether there is a need and if a medical building is needed. Until they eliminate the C-1 properties at this location, there is not a necessity. Chairman Kelly agreed that the taxes did not make any difference and they must consider whether there is a need. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE SiXTEEN OCTOBER 14, 1975 ~. Rossi stated based on the discussion previously and the recommendation of the Consultant Planner, he recommends to the City Council that the application for re-zoning of the- following property be denied~ Westchester Heights, Lots 44 and 45 Recorded in Plat Book 24, Page 210 Palm Beach County Records Address - Lot #44, 103 S. W. 23rd Avenue Lot #45, 2393 S. Seacrest Blvd. Mr. Ryder seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-1 with Col. Trauger abstaining. He explained his reason for abstaining was that ~. Zompa was the first man he met when he came to Boynton Beach. Mr. Zompa was supposed to show him an apart- ment, but when he saw his dog he refused to do so and stomped off with a barrage of indecent language. If he had his name at that time, he would have reported him to the Board of Realtors and has been looking for him for the past eight years. Therefore, he believes he would be voting with downright hate if he did so. Tufo Restaurant and Amusement Center 8th Avenue and U. S. Hw~l Mr. Bushnell explained that Mr. Tufo proposes to expand his building, which is now a drive-in restaurant, with an addition of a sit-down restaurant and an amusement center indoors. The parking regulations must be set by this Board as these classifications are not covered in the regulations. Mr. Smoot clarified that the zoning districts provided for these uses, but the parking section did not cover them. Somehow, the drive-in restaurant and amusement center was left out. Eol. Trauger asked what kind of amusements were planned? P~. Joseph Tufo stated his n~ne and his address as 1320 S. W. 26th .Avenue. He replied that he plauned to have pinball game machines. He continued that he was here to see what recommendations were required for parking for these two stores which he would like to build. Mrs. Castello questioned the seating capacity of the indoor restaurant and ~. Tufo replied approximately 20. M~s. Castello asked how msny machines were to be installed and Mr. Tufo replied that he didn't know. At this time, the members reviewed the plans. ~. Smoot pointed out that 15 parking spaces were shown and added that he also owned the lot on the corner. Mr. Smoot referred to a previous conversation with k~. Bushnell and I~. Tufo and at that time, they estimated approximately 34 par~ng spaces were needed and he explained how they reached this figure. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE S~ENTEEN OCTOBER 14, 1975 He also pointed out that approximately 6 of the 15 spaces shown were not acceptable, as some must back out on Route 1 and in the back, the spaces are not large enough. There are only 9 left and the balance must be accommodated somewhere else. He added that Mr. Tufo owns property next door where he wants to put a miniature golf course and they have not computed the parking requirements for this. Mr. Tufo informed the Board that he has had this drive-in restaurant for three years and has never had one accident in these present parking spaces and there are room for 20 cars now. ~. Smoot agreed this might be true, but he is talking about a totally different situation there. Ne new plans must comply with C.A.B., T.R.B., etc. requirements. ~. Tufo requested that they give him the amount of parluing spaces and he would discuss it with the City Council. Col. Trauger pointed out if 34 spaces were required, there was just not room and they could not recommend approval if it did not comply. Chairman Kelly clarified that they were just to recommend how' many parking spaces were required. ~. Bushnell added that Mr. Tufo was not asking the Board to recommend anything to the City Council, but ws~ just ask- ing guidance in the preparation of the drawings so he could conrply and he would then come back with the drawings before this Board for a recommendation. Col. Trauger moved to accept Mr. Smoot's recommendation of 34 spaces being the requirement for this site. !~. Walker seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mrs. Castello re- quested Mr. Smoot to put on record how he arrived with the 34 spaces. ~[r. Bushnell informed them that 21 spaces were required for the restaurant based on the floor area accord- ing to the Southern Stands~d Building Code Occupancy Level, 2 for the drive-in and 11 for the 20 pinball machines. He continued that there was 1,080 square feet of pinball area and that is divided by 15 square feet per person which is 72, divide that by 3 and you get 24 spaces. Then, consider the restaurant and ~ for the drive-in. ~. Tufo informed him that he included the store rooms in this square footage. Mm. Smoot replied that they would still arrive at between 30 to 40, no matter how it was split. He added that he believed there was a lot of activity on this site and he explained. The members discussed further whether these uses were covered under any category. Motion carried 6-0. Charles Clarke's B. P. Service Station N. E. 2nd Avenue and N. E. 2nd Street ((N. W. Cornerl Mr. Bushnell informed the Board that it involved a garage and filling station and the owner proposes to enclose the smaller part between the two 'buildings. It will not change the use. He explained the location and showed the plans. The members studied and reviewed the plans. MiI~JTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE E iGHTE~N OCTOBER 14, 1975 Col. Trauger moved that this Board recommend to the City Council the approval of the Charles Clarke B. P. SerVice Station located at N. E. 2nd Avenue and No E. 2nd Street. ~s. Castello seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Lake View Haven Subdivision Platting (Preliminary Review) The members discussed the location. ~. Bushnell showed the plans. He pointed out the location of the private canal. He informed the Board that the City Engineer recommended that if it was passed, there should be a 15 ft. drainage easement provided at the rear of the property. A representative from Arthur V. Strock & Associates appeared before the Board and exolained the olans. He added that if an owner decided to fil~ it in, the~ must obtain a permit from the City. ~. Rossi asked if there was a provision for maintenance of this canal and M~. Bushnell replied that it was not necessary since it is privately owned. Chairman Kelly read the notation on the plan regarding maintenance of the canal. Mr. Bushnell suggested adding to this the 15 ft. requirement. ~. Rossi asked if there were any calculations of the required section of the canal to handle flowing water? There must be a minimum section which carries the flow. This was discussed by the members and the representatives. Mrs. Castello questioned if the lot requirements had. been met and ~. Smoot explained that the property line went to the middle of the water. ~. Rossi then questioned provi- sions for the maintenance of the canal in the abutting sub- division. This was discussed and Mr. Smoot suggested making the easement a bit larger than what ~. Clark smggested. Mr. Rossi pointed out that they didn't have the answer concerning this canal relative to the platted areas on the other side. Mr. Rossi added that this proposed 15 ft. drainage easement could also just mean a pipe. He added that they must con- struct a canal which wouldn't turn into a ditch and will be maintained with sufficient depth and width of water. Chair- man Kelly pointed out that the canal was existing. ~. Rossi continued that according to the way it was proposed, the people could fill in the canal, but he wants to make sure a decent size is left. This was discussed further and the representative agreed, but added that they didn't want an 80 ft. wide canal. Mr. Rossi moved that the action this Board should take in review of the preliminary plat of Lake View Haven Subdivi- sion should be as follows: MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BO~D PAGE NiNET~EN OCTOBER 14, 1975 They recommend the owner submits to the Board a defined canal section showing water elevations, finish lot pad elevations, slopes and submit a width of canal easement on which, the proposed canal shall be constructed, in addition, the engineer should take into consideration the drainage from the abutting plat and submit cal- culations substantiating the defined section. Mr. Ryder seconded the motion. Under discussion, the repre- sentative remarked that he felt this was an overlapse with what their engineer was doing now. ~. Rossi replied that his recommendations were guidance for them subject to this being approved. Motion carried 6-0. ADJ OUP2~MENT M~. Ryder moved to adjourn, seconded by Col. Trauger. Motion carried 6-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at t1~41P. M. AGENDA Regular Planning and Zoning Meeting. Time: ?:S0 P.M. Date: October 14, 1975 Place: Council Chambere 1. Acknowledgement of members and visitors 2. Reading and approving of minutes. S. Announcements: 4. Old Business: 1. 2. 3. PUBLIC HEARING Reconvene to the special meeting of Tuesday October 6, lg75 Bernard's Restaurant, Fletcher property, 1730 North Federal Hwy. Abandonment of Alley, Shelton property. 5. New Business: 4. Rezoning Lots 44 and 45, Westchester'Heights N. W. Corner South Seacrest and S. W. ,23rd Avenue 5. Tufo Restaurant and Amusement Certer 8th Avenue and U. S. Hwy. 1. 6. Charles Clarke's B. P. Service Station N. E. 2nd Avenue and N. E. 2nd Street (N. W. Corner) 7. Lake View Haven Subdivision Platting (Preliminary Review) ~