Loading...
Minutes 10-06-75MINUTES OF THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD ~ETING HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1975 AT 7:30 P. M. PRESENT Joseph T. Kelly, Chairman Walter M. Trauger, Vice Chman. ~Ms. Vicki Castello Mrs. Marilyn Huc~kle Enrico Rossi Simon Ryder ABSENT Warren Bushnell, Acting Bldg. Official James Smoot, Planning Consultant Oris Walker Chairman Kelly called the meeting to order at 7:32 P. M. and welcomed everyone present to the Special Meeting of the Plan- ning & Zoning Board. Chairman Kelly announced they would defer the first two items on the agenda, R~ading and Approving of Minutes and Old Business, until the Board's next regular meeting on OctoBer 14. He in- formed the audience that this meeting would be devoted strictly to the three items on the agenda listed under the Public Hear- ing, as follows: 1. Easement Abandonment Mr. Louis Gonzalez Four Seasons Manor Rest Home 1704 N. E. 4th Street East 6 ft., Lots 1, 2 & 3, Boyntonbbrough 2. Revisions, corrections and additions, Official Zoning Regulations 3. Revisions to Of£icial Zoning Map, Laurel Hills, etc. - R-1AA to R-lA He added that he would like to put into the record thetfact that he has the public notice of this meeting as publi~.hed in the Boynton Beach News Journal on September 18 and 25, 1975' Consideration of application of abandonment of an easement, more particularly described as: The East 6~feet of Lots 1, 2 and 3, BoyntonbOrough, Recorded in Plat Book 25, Page 174, Palm Beach County Records Requested by - Louis Gonzalez The members discussed the location and Chairman Kelly ascer- tained that the members had copies from the Eity Departments and utility companies expressing no opposition to the grant- ing of this easement. MIk~JTES PLA~ING & ZONING PAGE ~0 OCTOBER 6, 1975 Mr. Louis Gonzalez appeared before the Board ~d informed the members that he pla~med to build a resident home for' elderly people and it would be built similar to a motel. The function will be to give them a good home, nice place to live and good meals at the lowest possible price. Chairman Kelly clarified that the application presented tonight was just to abandon the easement. Col. Trauger questioned the size of the build- ing and Mr. Gonzalez informed him that it would be 29,000 sq. feet and would run over the existing easement and is on two acres of land. It will be a "U" shaped building and will be very well landscaped and decorated. Chairman Kelly asked how many people could be accommodated and Mr. Gonzalez replied: 64 people. Chairman Kelly stated he just wanted the Board members familiarized with the project and if this is aban- doned, the project will proceed. Mr. Ryder stated he thought it would be helpful to have a picture of the entire site and they could then see there was no need for the easement. Chairman Kelly stated that since it was an easement of record, it must be abandoned. Mr. Ryder pointed out that a picture of the entire site would show how the abandonment would go right through it and how he could not build without the abandonment. Mr. Gonzalez informed the Board that these three lots were part of the two acres. Mr. Ryder stated the application did not make it apparent thattthey were talking about a larger site. Mr. Rossi referred to Lot 1 and how two 6 ft. easements were shown, one along the east and one along the south. He asked if the abandonment was for both the south and east and ~. Gonzalez replied that he was only requesting that the easement running from north to south be removed. ~. Rossi questioned if the intent for which he desired to use this land made it necessary to abandon the easement for the full length and Mr. Gonzalez replied that it was necessary to abaz~n~ the entire easement across the front because of the building. ~. Smoot asked if there was the possibility of a 12 ft. ease- ment being here, with there being a remaining 6 ft. easement? Mr. Gonzalez replied: no, not on that side. Mr. Rossi asked what was abutting Lots 1,2 and 3 to the east and Mr. Bushnell informed him that it was unplatted land. Mr. Rossi stated that with the east line of Lots I, 2 and 3 being the limits of the plat, there was the possibility that a remaining 6 ft. easement could be on the land to the east. Mr. Smoot agreed and added unless they looked at the other lots and deeds, they wouldn,t know if there was an additional easement. ~. Gonzalez stated he was positive there was not an easement and had the entire lot surveyed by a licensed engineer and the only easement showing was the one on the front three lots. ~. Rossi asked if a survey had been submitted with the appli- cation and M~. Bushnell informed him that he did not receive MINUTES PL~NNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE THREE OCTOBER 6, 1975 a survey, only a copy of the portion of the plat. Mr. Gon- zalez informed the Board that he had a copy of the survey in his car and sent a ~riend to get it. While waiting for the man to return, Chairman Kelly apologized for not having introduced the members of the Board and did so at this time. He also introduced Mr. James Smoot, professional planner hired by the City to help this Board; Mr. Warren Bushnell, Acting Building Official; and Mrs. Kruse, Recording Secretary. Mr. Rossi stated it was still not clear to him from the way it was described what N~. Gonzalez was requesting. He re- ferred to correspondence from Mr. Tom Clark, City Engineer, referring to the east 6 ft. of Lots 1,2, and 3. He pointed out that the east 6 ft. would be going all the way down to the south property line of Lot 1 and this leaves a 6 x 6 ft. little square in this area unanswered. The me~bers discovered that their individual drawings had differen~ shaded areas. Mr. Rossi continued that Mr. Clark possibly was not aware of the fact of this running to the south limit of Lot 1. ~. Gonzalez informed the Board that he did not have a copy of the survey, but had left all the copies with the Hotel & Restaurant Commission. Mr. Ryder stated he would be in favor of approval contingent on subsequent presentation of the structure tobe built. He added there was a possibility F~. Gonzalez wouldn't go through with this. ~o Smoot informed him that abandoning an easement did not matter whether the person built, but whether the City needed the easement. Mr. Ryder stated that apparently there was a reason why the easement was not required, but if they don,t ~uild, what would be the harm of leaving it? Mr. Smoot stated he believed the City Departments had looked at this and he couldn't see why it should be tied to whether the individual can build or cannot build. If the easement is not needed, get rid of it. At this time, Chairman Kelly read the letters from the utility companies. Mr. Ryder stated that he felt there should still be the condition that building will follow granting of the easement. Mr. Gonzalez informed him that he could net get a buildingppermit as long as the easement is there. He is in- vesting money to build this building. Mr. Rossi agreed that it would be rather pointless to abandon the easement, unless he wanted to use it. The umtility companies have replied that they have no need of it. In platting, easements are put in, b~t not always needed. He doesn't think seeing a building site plan should be contingent on this. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE FOUR OCTOBER 6, 1975 Mrs. Huckle referred again to whether this included the 6 ft. southerly easement, Mr. Smoot clarified that the intent was not to abandon that easement to the south. The easement to be abandoned is that which proceeds north from that 6 ft. What they are considering is less that 6 ft.. Mr. Gonzalez mgreed that the line was supposed to go just to the 6 ft. Col. Trauger made a motion to recommend to the City Council the abandonment of the East 6 ft. of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Boynton- borough, Recorded in Plat Book 25, Page !74, Palm Beach County Records, as requested by Mr. Louis Gonzalez, withtthe exception of the southerly 6 ft. on the south boundary of Lot 1. Mrs. Huckle seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-1, with Ne. Ryder voting against stating he felt the evidence presented did. not indicate the need. Chairman Kelly announced in order to make this~rictly legal and in view of the fact that this is a public hearing, he had overlooked asking for comments from the audience. He then asked if anyone was present in favor of granting this abandonment and received no response. He asked if anyone present opposed and reced~ed no response. In hearing no reply, he stated the vote stands at 5-1 to recommend to City Council the granting of this easement. Chairman Kelly announced they would proceed with Item 2, Revi- sions, Corrections and Additions to the Official Zoning Regu- lations. He explained the reasons for these revisions, cor- rections and additions and then read the public notice cover- ing Pages 7 thru 47. Mr. Smoot referred to Paragraph (3) listed under Page 47, Section lt-L. He asked if the landscape code had criteria regarding where landscaping must occur. He suggested possi- bly stating the landscaping must be between the~Lpavement and the first pump island or adjacent to public right-of~ays and pointed out reasons for this suggestion. He stated that they were referring to landscaping and should control it. Mr. Bushnell informed the Board that the C.A.B. demanded 10% of the lot area to be landscaping. The inconsistency of the C.A.B. requirements a~d this ordinance was discussed. Mrs. Huckle made a motion to amend Paragraph (3) of Page 47, Section 11-L to read: nat least ten percent (10%) of the gross plot area shall cOnsist of landscaping equipped with adequate sprinkler systems, of which at least five percent (5%) shall be adjacent to the public right-of-way. All land- scaping shall be maintained in a healthy growing condition.~, Col. Trauger seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. MINUTES PLA~ING & ZONING B0~/RD PAGE FIVE OCTOBER 6, 1975 Col. Trauger made a motion to recommend to City Council the adoption of all changes listed to correct and/~r revise por- tions of Ordinance No. 75-19 passed by the City Council on June 3, 1975, Page 7 thru Page 47 as published in the public notice on September 18 and 25, 1975, in the Boynton Beach News Journal for public hearing on October 6, 1975, as amended by the previous motion. Mr. Ryder seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Chairman Kelly read the public notice regarding consideration of revisions to the Official Zoning Map to change the zoning to R-lA from R-1AA in the following areas: Laurel Hills, 4th Add'n, Lots 208 thru 220 incl. Recorded in Plat Book 23, Page 142, Palm Beach County Records Laurel Hills, 5th Add'n, Lots 221 thru 283, incl. Lots 287 thru 340, incl. Lots 343 thru 352, Incl. Recorded in Plat Book23, Page 183, Palm Beach County Records Glen Arbor - The Entire Subdivision Recorded in Plat Book 25, Page 121 Palm Beach County Records Glen Arbor, Add'n 1 - The Entire Subdivision Recorded in Plat Book 25, Page 182 Palm Beach County Records Glen Arbor, Add'n 2 - The Entire Subdivision Recorded in Plat Book 26, Page 103 Palm Beach County Records Gordon Park S/D - The Entire Subdivision Recorded in Plat Book 26, Page 122 Palm Beach County Records Lots 13, 14, 15, 16 & t9, Ac. Sec. 20/29, Twp. 45 S., Range 43 East Recorded in Plat Book 7, Page 20 Palm Beach County Records Chairman Kelly informed the audience that the Board was trying to re-establish the side boundary lines and the size of the lots before this Ordinance 75-19 was established. Mr. Bushnell continued that in the issuance of permits, they found under the new zoning, the above areas had gone from R-1 to R-1AA. He explained how this zoning affected the lots in these areas and how jumping two classifications had also made existing lots non-conforming. He explained that by returning to the R-lA MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE SiX OCTOBER 6, 1975 classification, they would be able to issue building permits for additions, etc. It would also give the contractor and individual owner of vacant lots the right to use the land at the same width he intended when he purchased the land.. He also explained how it would give relief to owners from appear- ing before the Board of Adjustment for variances. Mr. Tom Coffey stated his name and his address as 326 Glen Hrbor Terrace. He informed the Board that he presently has a home on a 60 ft. lot and a carport with a 7½ ft. side set- back. He asked if he would be allowed to enclose the carport and Mr. Bushnell informed ~him that they could not issue a permit on a non-conformity. Mr. Coffey continued that he had previously talked to ~. Bushnell and appreciated all the help he gave him. He has talked to people in the neighborhood and has petitions to present to the City. The people signing the pelitions would like to keep the areas zoned R-1AA. He did advise these people that their homes may be non-conforming and they could not make additions, etc. He did not try to mis- lead any of the people. The majority of people he talked to, 98%, were glad the Planning & Zoning Board had gone to a higher zoning. Everyone was pleased about this. He just recently bought a house around the corner and felt the value would be increased. Mr. Smoot stated he didn't think the people realized the diffi- culties they would have with non,conforming structures. He explained that at present there was no procedure in the zoning code for solution through the Board of Adjustment. He stated that this was brought to the attention of the Planning & Zoning Board and they considered how many lots were non-conforming and to what extent the subdivisions were occupied. He ex- plained how they arrived at solving these proble~. He also pointed eut that the percentage of built-on lots was consid- ered. He also outlined how the Board of Adjustment could be restricted in what they could do. He added that if there was a high amount of applications for variances from a certain area, the Board of ~djustment would come back to this Board and request a change. Mr. Coffey continued that many of the people present tonight have larger homes, but the adjoining lots are vacant. Builders are putting in ~roxed copied houses and down~ding the area. The houses are all identical and are not an asset to the com- munity. They do not want a'doWngraded affect in their area. ~. Bushnell read the requirements for the R-lA zone from the code. He pointed out that the house arem requirement was not small and w~s comparable to what wa~ in the area. MINUTES ~AENING & ZONING BO~_RD PAGE SEVEN OCTOBER 6, 1975 Mr. Raymond ~.Titmsm stated his name and his address as 1115 N. W. 8th Street. He referred to the 1,500 sq. ft. versus 12250 sq. ft. and questioned if this was minimum or maximum and Mr. Bushnell informed him that it was minimum. He added that the width of the lot had nothing to do with the house, but the lot must be 75 ft. There are no 75 ft. lots in the area. Mr. ).Titman continued that the lots were platted at 50 ft. and half of 150 ft. is 75 ft. ~. Bushnell informed him that since 1962, the owners and builders have re-assigned the lots to 60 ft. to meet the zoning. Now they are to the Point of having houses on 60 ft. lots and vacant 60 ft. lots. ~&r. )~tman stated he appreciated the worry about the vacant lots, but they should worry about the people living there. Mr. Bushnell outlined the differences between the R-1 and B-1AA zones. ~M. Titman asked if the Board was aware of the homes being built in the area? They are on 60 ft. lots and ~e exact copies right doWn the line. There should be some- thing possible to protect this area from being over-run with xeroxed copied houses and the only way to do it would be to make it R-1AA. Mr. Bushnell informed him that the owner of eFery vacant lot could come before the Board of Adjustment and still build ~eroxed houses. Mr. Titman stated that two builders were now and didn't care about the people living there. M~. Bushnell stated that they could not change this, as it is not a function of the Planning & ~oning Board to dictate aesthetics nor a function of the Building Department. M~. ~'Titman reolied that he thought the difference between 75 ft. and 60~ft. would do that. Mr. Bushnell questioned whether it was economically feasi- ble to build larger homes in an area of smaller homes? He believes the die is cast. Mr. ~Titman state~ they were try- ing to protect what they have. Perhaps zoning is wrong and possibly it should be a 75 ft. lot with a 1,250 sq. ft. house. Mr. Smoot replied that unfortunately they were not starting with a new area and the lots were all platted. Mr. -Titman informed him that the builders started jamming in the houses just in the last year. Mr. Bushnell advised him that they were being built according to 60 ft. lots and to the previous zoning. M~. Coffey appeared before the Board again and asked how much confusion there would be to replat the ~ots? The majority of the vacant lots seem to be under one real estate or one builder. He is opposed to a person having five lots and building five homes. He is not opposed to the man with only one lot. Do ~ou have any idea of how m~y of these lots are under common ownership? ~. Bushnell replied that he did not know, but this could be ascertained from the City Clerk's office. Mr. Coffey continued that the people did not want a housing pro- ject adjacent to their homes. Mr. Smoot explained how a man MINUTES PLANNING & ~OE~ING BOARD PAGE EIGHT OCTOBER 6, 1975 owning several lots could get around this. He also explained how he planned to include in a new draft how contiguous sub- standard lots could not be used for two homes. Chairman Kelly added that some information was left out of the regula- tions, but would be taken care of. Mr. Coffey continued that he had several different petitions to present. He approached 192 people in the three areas. He read the petition requesting that R-lA& be retained. He added that some people had just noted their opposition on the notices sent to them by the City. Mr. Bushnell asked if the names appearing on the pelition were those directly affected by the changes in the zoning or those within the 400 ft. area? Mx. Coffey replied that they were not all the people affected, but the neighborhood in general will be affected. He was glad it was changed to the higher zoning. He was glad this area was considered. The people he has talked to agree. ¥~s. Huc~le read the requirements for the R-1 and R-lA zones and questioned if this didn't satisfy the need of the neighbors? She pointed out that this one increment was quite an improve- ment and they were not trying to go back to R-I. She added that the neighborhood was 5~ developed and a member of the audience disagreed. She then read the charts regarding the lots developed in the areas and added that Glen Arbor was almost fully developed. Mr. Coffey agreed. Mrs. Huckle then asked where the tract houses were located and ~. Coffey re- plied they were not in his area, but he still thinks the values of their homes will be affected by it. Mrs. Huckle pointed out that changing it to R-lA was giving a raise and Mr. Coffey replied they were still taking back the R-1~% after granting it for a couple months. Mrs. Huckle stated that they must consider that almost 100% of the lots are built on and it would still be an improvement to the neighborhood. !~. Coffey replied that his street was an exception to the whole area. His street has lots with 56 ft., 60 ft., etc. and the homes are too close together. He thinks it would be better housing on 75 ft. lots and does not think this change would be too much. He thin~ the person with one 60 ft. lot should be given a variance. The people petitioned do not want one block of small houses built on common ownership lots. He also thinks one individual with a 60 ft. lot could get appro- val from the neighbors. However, from what he has seen, the lots are not individual lots. They seem to be adjoining lots which are vacant. It is not a question of one person owning one lot. It is a question of a block-long area. He is not speaking for himself, but for the neighbors he has talked to. Col. Trauger questioned the exact area and ~. COffey informed him that the vacant lots were in Laurel Hills on N. ~. 7th and 8th Streets. Mr. Rossi referred to the list of these streets and pointed out that no more than 'two lots were listed for one owner. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PA~ OCTOBER 6, 1975 Mr. Eiah~r~ stated his name and his address as 815 N. W. 6th Avenue, Laurel Hills. He informed the Board that there is a builder in three or four different areas, who has built on five to eight lots. He is building small homes close together. These homes run together and are crowded together snd have not sold. They have been setting there for over a year. His home is on a 60 ft. lot and when he walks~hu$ his door, he is on the property next door. He has 6 ft. on one side and 5 ft. is an easement. He can't do anything with his property. Mr. Bushnell asked if the easement existed when he purchased the lot and Mr.E~mborst replied: yes, but he believes it was the neglect of the Building Departmen2 to allow this to hap- pen. Nobody can add to their home there. There are no 60 ft. lots, only 50 ft. lots. Mr. Bushnell informed thim that the ownership was in 60 ft. increments or they could not build on it. 60 ft. was required under the old zoning. Mr. Eichorstcontinued that if they have 50 ft. lots, they must acquire an additional lot, so why not go to 100 ft.? In talking about owners of vacant lots, they cannot get their streets paved because the owners of the vacant lots will not allow it. ~[rs. Huckle replied that this was out of the Board's jurisdiction. M~.E~ch~s~ continued that they live there and must get the dust. Mr. Rossi pointed out that the new R-lA zone required 7½ ft. side setbacks. This is an ac- ceptable setback on many larger lots in the Count~a~d other cities. This 1½ ft. over the present 6 ft. would~ake a con- siderable difference. ~.Eie~ continued that if a con- 'tractor bought six 50 ft. lots, he thought it would be much better to have four homes on 75 ft. lots. He is sure every- one present tonight agrees because of this builder building in this manner. The homes were built 1½ yeses ago on 50 ft. lots and are just setting, not being sold. M~s. Huckle pointed out that if he wanted to make an improvement on his house and they went ahead with the R-I~_~ zoning, he would not be able to do it. Mr. Eichors~explained how he had thought about putting in a swimming pool, but just does not have the room on a 60 ft. lot. Mr. Smoot pointed out that he bought his home with the existing lot size and setbacks. He con- tinued with agreeing with Mr. Rossi that 7½ ft. was a suffi- cient side setback and explained how it was hard to tell when driving through a subdivision. Mr. Bushnell added that even though there were 50 ft. ~ots, there could be mmny owners. Mr.E~ahorst stated that the builder would not buy unless he could get 5 or 6 lots. With 75 ft. lots, it would be much better and less crowded. Mrs. Huckle asked if it was pre- ferable to him and the others to have the neighborhood zoned R-t~ and not be conforming on their own p~operties? Mr. Eiahorst replied that he could not build anyway. Mrs. Huckle stated that there might be the possibility that he may want to make a change and he ~so must consider the problem of selling a non-conforming house. In the total picture of neighborhood, they must look at the broader aspect. He must MINU~.S PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE TEN OCTOBF~ 6, 1975 consider what it may do to existing people and their wanting to expand. They have had appeals from people with homes and not being able to do anything. She explained further and stated that this was the only reason the Board was re-hashing this. Mr.~s~ continued that they were worried about this builder, because not only do the homes look alike but the quality is poor and he is renting them and not selling them. Mr. Rossi remarked that it would seem the only time to be con- cerned would be with six 50 ft. lots adjoining. If there are 300 ft. strips or longer, this can be done, but otherwise they are tal~king about something that does not exist. F~. Bushnell stated that there has been much reference made to contractors. The Building Department has only received one request for a change in zoning and it was not from this builder. There has been no pressure applied by this builder or any other. Mr. Harold Werger stated his name and his address as 719 N. W. 7th Court, Laurel Hills. He referred to the petition stating that about 90% of all the home owners were against the lowering of the zoning. All these people live in the area. They all are against the proposed zoning, as they are interested in improving their neighborhood. He would like the Board to go on record to upgrade the zoning in the re- mainder of Laurel Hills to R-1AA. They want to upgrade their. property values. If the Zoning Board did this previously, they would have another Chapel Hill in their area. All the other community zoning boards upgrade zoning. He is sure this Board is for upgrading the zoning like they want to do. They all want the Board to abide by this overwhelming major- ity and consider upgrading the remainder of Laurel Hills to make it a better place in which to live. Most of the lots left are double lots. There are a few tracts. He owns quite a bit of land, but will not sell to a builder. His house is 3,000 sq. ft. He has. talked to all these people and took the petition around. The people want to make it a better place. He does not thir~ most of the homes are non-conforming. Mrs. Huckle read the R-1AA requirements and questioned if the existing homes would be non-conforming and P~.-Werger replied that he thought they would be conforming, as there are long lots in Laurel Hills. N~s. Castello questioned if they con- formed to the frontage and Mr. Warger replied that the whole area was 50 ft. lots, but this was an error to begin with to the present day standards. There have been some variances granted to build on 50 ft. lots. There have been mistakes in this too and people 'who have gotten variances have sold the variances to a builder. He would like to see this corrected. Right now, some of the homes are on 75 and 100 ft. lots. Most of the p~ople buying a 50 ft. lot bought at least one-half additional lot. ~s. Huckle referred to the survey and asked if most were being used as 100 ft. lots and Mr. We~ger replied that there were quite a few vacant double lots. Some built-on ones are 75 ft. It was a general thing to MI~UJTES PLA~M'N~Q~G & ZONING BOARD PAGE ELEVEN OCTOBER 6, 1 975 buy 1½ lots. Mrs. Huckle questioned if he meant there were not any 60 ft. lots, as shown oh the statistics and M~. Werger replied: no, they were either 50 ft. or more. Mr. Smoot clarified that Mr. ~Werger was referring to the owner- ship pattern and the Board was considering the platted pat- tern. He also referred to Mr..'Werger's mention of variances being sold and informed him that it was a matter of law that the variance runs with the land and the City could do nothing. Mr. Werger informed him that he attended this Board of Adjust- ment meeting and the applicant stated he was going to build a house on the lot for his daughter smd he turned around and sold it to a builder. Mr. Smoot replied that it did not matter and his only recourse was litigation. M~.~e~ger re- plied that sometimes all the facts were not presented to the Board of Adjustment and it was costly to go to court' Mr. Smoot informed him that they were aware of this and a draft will be included to cover the Board of Adjustment in the regu- lations. They discussed the regulation of the Boardoof Ad- justment further. Mr. Rossi referred back totthe breakdown stating there were 338 lots in Laurel Hills and asked if these were platted 50 ft. lots? Mr. Smoot stated that they must consider whether they have 50 ft. plus additional footage. The people in the audience are referring to the ownership in this area. He explained the difference and suggested that they possibly consult the assessor's plats available and the aerial photo- graphs. Mr. Rossi remarked that much to his surprise it looked like there were a lot of people desiring to keep it R-1AA. It seems to him that apparently the people present constitute quite a number of owners. Mrs. Huckle added that she didn't think it was surprisingl$ow that they knew the existing homes were on lots 75 ft. or larger, but their in- formation did not show this. Mr. Smoot added that the un- usual thing was that this Board did not originate the pro- blem. He was hired as a consultant because of the problem of non-conforming lots and the people demanding a change and evidently that is not true. It has now been brought to their attention that about 9~ are against it. Chairman Kelly asked for a show of hands in favor of changing the zoning from R-lA& to R-lA and only one woman raisedhher hand. In reply to Chairman Kelly, the remaining people pre- sent raised their hands in favor of retaining R-1A~. Ne also referred to the petitions supporting this. Mr. asked if the Board would consider the question of changing the zoning of the other part of Laurel Hills and Mr. Smoot informed him this was not part of this public hear- ing. He explained that the Board proposed what they believed to be an answer to what was reported to be a problem. If MINUTES PLA~NING & ZONING BOARD PAGE ~YELVE OCTOBER 6, 1975 they find the ownership patterns show 75 ft. or larger lots, obviously a non-conforming problem does not exist. However, if the research indicates this is not true, then the issue would still be~*open. Mr. Werger stated that the ownership pattern was by fax the majority shown, on the petition. 8~ of the signatures are in the disputed area. He asked if he could get signatures from the other half of Laurel Hills to upgrade the zoning,would it be possible? Mr. Bushnell re- plied that the Board considerssthe public ~eeds and Mrs. Huckle added that she thought they could take it under con- sideration, but after this action. Mr. Ryder referred to the problem of non-conforming lots and questioned if the people understood. ~s. Huckle stated that the people informed them that this~as not true. Chairman Kelly asked if they wanted to pursue the ownership records. Mr. Smoot reolied that he thought they should consult the records and ~hotos in order to be able to talk intelligently with the people of this area. Mrs. Dougherty stated her name and her address as 506 N. W. 8th Court. She informed the Board that she signed the peti- tion, but misunderstood it. She has a 60 ft. lot and if the zoning remains R-IAA, she would not be able to add onto the house. Chairman Kelly replied that this was the picture the Board received of the majority of this area, but have now been told otherwise. Mr. Rossi asked the people to raise their hands whose homes would be non-conforming in R-1AA and the majority raised their hands° Mrs. Huckle referred to Mr.-Werger's statement that they would not be non-conforming. Mr. Coffey appeared before the Board again. He informed the Board that in Glen Arbor and Gordon Park, it was probably 9~ developed. He did not realize these areas could be petitioned separately. They only did this to protect the people in the other s~eas. He owns a house which he cannot add to. He was doing this to protect the people in the area with 75 ft. lots. He doesn't think the people in Glen Arbor and Gordon Park would mind their lots being R-lA. He thought the whole thing had to be petitioned. Chairman -~ Kelly asked how many people present from LaurelHills owned lots which~would be non-conforming if left in R-1AA and the majority raised their hands. Mr. Smoot read Paragraph 2 regarding amendments to the code regs~ding non-conformities. He explained how they would notbe able tommake any structural alterations inside or outside and gave examples. He pointed out that a non-conforming building was a very serious item. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE THIRTEEN OCTOBER 6, 1975 Mrs. D~O.~.~ stated her name and her address as !010 N. W. 7th Court. She informed the Board that she moved to 7th Ct. two years ago because they did not want to stay in Leisure- ville with homes on top of each other. They moved there and there were no other homes, no lights and no roads. They have fought for roads, but they still have not been black topped. They passed out a oetition to the owners on 7th Ct. and all the people owning l~ts did not live in the City and did not answer the petition and they did not get a road. The lot next door to her was supposedly owned by peole want- ing to build a home to retire in, but instead the lots were sold to a builder and homes are being built by this builder all around. He took down the trees. Her lot goes out to sand and they have two strips of cement. This neighborhood is being spoiled for the people. They moved there because they liked a little space. Mr. Smoot replied that if fur- ther study indicates this is true, he does not think he could possibly recommend this as a solution to the problem. They must have the opportunity to investigate this aspect. Chairman Kelly questioned whether they could adjourn or recess a Public hearing and Mr. Smoot advised him that it could be recessed and e×plained. Chairman Kelly continued that it seemed to him that they have heard from these people and they have an indication of how they feel. Evidently from working from their information, they have been in error. It appears they desire it to be R-1AA and they are knowledgable that it would be in a non-conforming position. It seems to hLm that they should recess this meeting to a date when this resea=ch could be accomplished. He asked if this could be accomplished by October 14 and ~. Smoot replies that he would do it tomor- row. Mr. L. T. Brownlee stated his name and his address as 901 N. W. 8th Avenue. He stated he disagreed with the gentleman stating he could not tell the difference between the 6 and 7½ ft. side setback. He realizes the Board is in quite a position here, but he is wondering instead of talking about going to one or the other, why not re-write the zoning laws? He explained how this would benefit the people living in this area. ChairmauKelly asked for clarification and Mr. Smoot explained that he presumed he meant they should create another single family zoning for the people living in one group of lots to give them what they now own. ¥~. Brownlee agreed and added that they all make mistakes, but why con- tinue them? He continued that in considering this, most people want R-1AA, but are worried about the non-confor~mity. He lives on a 60 ft. lot, but doesn't want to do anything with it. He asked if smything was going to happen to him and Mr. Bushnell replied: no. Mrs. Huckle added that it may be a problem if he wanted to sell it. MI~YJTES PLA~NNING & ZONING BO~RD P~GE FOURTEEN OCTOBER 6, 1975 Mr. A. B. Jensen stated his name and his address as 703 N. W. 7th Court. He referred to Mr. Brownlee's statement and ques- tioned why they split Laurel Hills and put the other two sec- tions with it? Why can't Glen Arbor be separate? Chairman Kelly informed him that by checking into the ownership ~pat- tern and recessing this meeting, they should be able to come to a decision. Mr. Jensen added that this was really just affecting the people in Laurel Hills sad not the people in Glen ArbOr. ~. Coffey appeared before the Board again and stated he was in complete agreement with Mr. Je~sen. Glen Arbor and Gordon Park do not conform. It would be completely permissable for these two areas to remain R-lA, but the other areas which are mostly ~developed would like R-1AA. It could be divided. Chairman Kelly informed him that Mr. Smoot would have the ownership pattern prepared for next Tuesday and possibly it will agree with this suggestion. Mr. Eichc~st appeared before the Board again and informed them that. he was non-conforming with the side setback whether in R-lA or R-1AA zone. Mrs. Castello questioned his frontage and he informed her that it was 60 ft. Chairman Kelly in- formed him that the ownership question was what they wanted to resolve. To m~d~e a visit and check every lot would take months. The people present seem te agree that it is a sensi- ble approach to make a research. We will re-convene this meeting on October 14. ~ member of the audience asked for clarification of checking the ownership and Mr. Smoot informed him that he would use the County Assessor's sheet which indicatesownership and Rot lots and he explained. Chairman Kelly consulted the Board members whether to contin- ue the public hearing on October 14 at 7:30 or 8:00 P. M. After discussion..he announced that this public hearing would be continued at 8:00 P. M. on October 14. Col. Trauger made a motion to recess this public hearing un- til 8:00 P. M. on Tuesday, October 14, for the resolvement of the ownership pattern regarding the lots in Laurel Hills, Glen Arbor and Gordon Park as listed in the legalnnotice pub- lished in the Boynton Beach News Journal on September 18 smd ~8 1975. Mrs. Huckle seconded the motion. Motion carried M~. Smoot then explained how he intended to take the assessor's sheets and ownership sheets and make an analysis, Mr. Rossi added that he thought it would be important to get a graphical picture also and suggested having copies of the plats. Mr. Smoot agreed and replied that he would get these. Col. Trauger MI~JTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE FiFTEEN OCTOBER 6, 1975 added that he thought it would assist the Board to also have the aerial photos. He referred to the peoples' statements of blocks being acquired by builders. Mr. Smoot agreed and added that he also asked ~. Bushnell to have the official tax roles s.o they could check the petitioners. The members discussed the information given them that people had been denied permits to make additions being non-conform- ing now. They further discussed how there was no way to keep a builder from building houses all the same. They also dis- cussed low cost housing and cases in various cities. Col. Trauger made a motion to adjourn, seconded by ~Ms. Castello. Motion carried 6-0 and the meeting was properly .~0 P. M. adjourned at 10-~ AGENDA Regular Planning and Zoning Meeting. Time: 7:30 P.M~ Date: Monday, Octobe~6,1975 Place:CouncilChambers, Ci%yHall 1. Acknowledgement of members and visitors 2. Reading and approving of minutes. B. Announcements: 4. Old Business: 5. New Business: 1. me PUBLIC HEARING Easement Abandonment: ~1~. Fou~ Seasons Manor Rest Home -.1704 N.. E. ~4th Street East 6'; Lots 1, 2 ~ 3, BOYNTONBOROUGH. REvisions, corrections 'and additions: Official Zoning Regulations. Revisions to Official Zoning Map, LAUREL HILLS, ere; - R-1AA To R-IA. BOYNTON' BEACH, FLORIDA )~':'~ PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD OCTOBER t975~ .~. 5 0'*' 27 . ~49,~09' 2, 3 5 -9.09 ':~ .58 ,'18 5 -- _ .--.~" '? ~' -:'~:-14/43 692'5 '"::: ' 4 '7.27 . 65.45 '-~ 4 '- . ,- . : ::,.: : /-,:_ .;:' ~.~,.?.,:: . -.. 70.0 '1 ;. '1.81 - 67..26 '~ '-~ ' :': 1 72.0 z.8 69.07 . --- 23/45': 75.0 '8 .... 1-4.54~ .' 83,61 ' '8 --- 38/45 82.0 I ~,,1;81 .:85.42 --_ .1 38/47 88.0 1 ~-1,81 - 87.23 1 --- 40147 9o.-o 1 '- 081 89;o4 - I .. ---. :..:, 741/4 16V,g_.~-, "" (~1_~.'"'::."~. :1',81':~ '"' 99,93 ._:-1 :..:.'..__.; ..-.: * This study eXcludes those lots loCated in ~he"'4th 'Addition that ~are": part o~ the City park ~* iThe Board should, note'! that" 'there: ':are eight ~:(8):'.. I0~ pairs owned by.abSentee owners. ~ An absentee 'owner is definedas '~ anyone who does not live in Boynton Beach.' Further, should'A'proposed '~ amendment~tol the Zoning Code be-adopted, these pairs be considered as single building sites. However, should a person(s) own only one"lot or parcel that~is substandard for the'-ZOne in area or lot dimensions and does not own the lot or parcel adjacent to it, that lot or parcel is also a legal upon.which a permit could be issued. . - ; '-'.. { , * . . ,;. . .: - .. BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA P~,ANN~ AND ZO~N~ ~OA~D OWNERSHIP ~TUDY ~'~ MUREE-H.I-LSS 5:th' :ADD'ITrON,: 50.0 '?. 54;0 55,0 ' .55.5 58.0 60.0 62.0 62,5 66.7 72.8 75.0 76.0 79 .'0 '80.0 82.5 _90.0 97.6 100.0 116.0 140.0 ' 14 1 ':2 1 - i ' ' 7 1 5 1 2 15 1 2 2 2 . 23 2 1 i. 16 2.32 1.16 .-':.-1.16 .8.13 i. 16 20.91 ,.. 22.07 30.20 31 o 36 -5.81 1.16 2.32 37.17 38.'33 40.65 3 1.7.44 58.09 i o 16 59.25 1'o 16 ' 60.o 41 2.32 62.73 2.32 65.05 11 .~. S/IS 2-- :~-:":!,. ~. --3/i6' --- _ : 4/16/..'- _. ___ -. 5/16 15/16 18118 19/i8 2.32 67.37 1.16 68.53 26.74 95.27 10 5' 2 22/18 33/24 34/24 '36/24 38/24 40/24 · i50...0 ..... --.-..,:. i ....... i...i6 ........ 99.91 TOTALS . 1 i 41125 12 ii 55/39 2.32 97.59 2 --- 58/39_. · 1.16 98.75 --_ i 58140 i ......... ---. .... · .'86 ...... 99.91 ...: .:--~ ......... :. 5-1(59:%):.._ 35(:40%): ............