Loading...
Minutes 07-19-75Mi~T~$ OF THE WORKSHOP MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, ~LORIDA, SATURDAY, JULY 19, 1975 AT 9:30 A. M. PRESENT Joseph T. Kelly, Chairman Mrs. Vicki Castello Mrs. Marilyn Huckle Enrico Rossi Simon Ryder Aqtin9 Warren Bushnell~ Bldg. Official Len Schmidt, Chief Bldg. Inspector ABSENT Col. Walter M. Trauger, Vice Chman. Oris Walker Chairman Kelly called the meeting to order at 9:35 A. M. and welcomed the ladies and gentlemen present to the Special Work- shop Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board of Boynton Beach. He announced this meeting was occasioned by the fact that the Board recognize~ that several errors were made in the regula- tions in the rush to finish them and present them to City Council. The A~i'n~_~Bld~,~ Official and his new Deputy spent from July 8 until yesterday compiling a sheet showing the various subdivisions affected by the actions recommended by the Board and passed by the City Council. There are eight subdivisions involved. Chairman Kelly then introduced the members of the Board;~Mrs. Kruse, Recording Secretary; Mr. Schmidt, Chief Building In- spector and Acting Deputy; ~ud Mr. Bushnell, ~ti~n~ BU!ldin~ Official of Boynton Beach. Chairman Kelly announced he would like to put it in record that one of the items of great concern to the City Council and to the Board is a development known as Seacrest Plaza. This was approved by the City Council under Ordinance 71-4 in 1971 and on June 17, the City Council expressed that they wanted to have this project go ahead. He requested the re- cord to show that on April 9, I974, at a regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board, plans for Seacrest Plaza were reviewed by the Board. He then read the paragraph pertain- ing to this from Page 6 of these minutes. He thus clarified that this project did go through the Planing & Zoning Board. He continued that as a result of the meeting last Tuesday of the City Council, a letter was sent to Leonard Smith, Atlanta, Georgia and he then read the letter sent by Mr. Kohl. He in- formed the members that he was with Mr. Kohl yesterday and he was awaiting a return call from the man in ~t~A~ta from F.H.A. to get this thing on the road as soon as possible. Chairman Kelly referred to a formal statement he read at the last regular meeting referring to the Board realizing that certain things were done and they did not have a final review MINUTES PLA~NING & ZONING BOARD PAGE ~$0 JULY 19, 1975 and they are here today to try to straighten out these matters. The people present have been invit~ed_and will be given the opportunity to give their name and state their reason for being present. ~. Bushnell referred to the list and advised that it was principally prepared by Mr. Schmidt and his associates. They went through the zoning maps and selected those subdivisions affected by the new changes. They feel it shows thevvolume of the error caus~d by the changes in setbacks, etc. It also reflects in some instances where lots were non-conforming be- forehand and consequently will remain non-conforming under the new zoning. He believes there are lots in other subdivisions; but from a standpoint, they are small and are not listed. They feel if some small changes are made, most of these pro- blems 'will fall out. Mr. Bushnell then referred to another item having to do with lots which have the rear abutting on canals. By some special variances granted in some areas, some lots are already cor- rected. It seems to him the purpose of setbacks is a free movement of air, light, etc. Since nothing can grow in the principal canal, he thinks the rear setbacks can be reduced since they are shorter. Mr. Bushnell stated with these thingsiin mind, this workshop can be minimized. These are the things they have noticed and have caused a steady stream of persons in to apply for permits which have been denied, if the Board of Adjustment was to just treat four cases in an evening at one meeting a month, they would already have six months work for them. It is best to be done here and now. Mr. Ryder agreed and stated they would also get a consistency of policy. He then referred to the canal lot situation not being a result of the zoning. ~. Bushnell agreed, but pointed out that it has existed. Mr. Ryder agreed that the remedy lies here. Mr. Rossi clarified that the problem came about because larger setbacks are now required. He also added that with making properties non-conforming, it did not allow the people to add on, etc. Mr. Bushnell agreed that primarily the side setbacks caused the problem. Mr. Rossi continued that he thought the purpose was to determine whether this was an overall wrong idea. This study was also to reflect the different areas they zoned to see how many were in violation. He thinks they should limit their discussion to whether the areas they zoned call- ing for larger setbacks whether it was wrong to do so. Whether they should change rear setbacks ~hich were a problem before zoning is not a question at this time. They ~hould discuss whether what they have done has caused a hardship to a large MINUTES PLENNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE THREE JULY 19, 1975 number of lots. He would like the staff to revisw ~thi~ study and make recommendations. The members expressed their agree- ment to this request. Mr. Bushnell informed them that they recommended that the side setbacks be restored. He believes that the side setback at 10 feet is a prime reason. If that was restored to 7½ feet, it would take care of 700 pieces of property. It would take a change from 10 feet to 6 feet to restore another 700 pieces of property, since they went from R-1 to R-1AA. Is it desir- able though to have a 6 feet setback in R-1A~? He is sure 7½ feet would be agreeable in most instances, but there would still be a problem in Laurel Hills and Glen Arbor. There are roughly 1400 lots involved in the subdivisions listed. Those lots which are not developed and are large enough could con- tinue with a reasonably larger setback than 6 feet; but those lots which are developed automatically become non-conforming. They might offer a grandfather clause for those already exist- lng and maintain a larger setback for those not developed. If the R-1AA setback is changed from 10 feet to 7½ feet and if special consideration is given to those at 6 feet, he thinks the problem would be resolved. Chairman Kelly suggested hearing from the p~op~ present, so they wouldn't have to remain longer than necessary. Mr. Richard Decker stated his name and his address as Sable Island, Ocean Ridge. He informed the Board that he has built two small homes in Boynton Beach and has two more 50 ft. du- plex lots in Bowers Park. When he ourchased these lots, he could build the hoses; but with the-new zoning, he now needs 60 feet. There is no land available on either side. Chair- man Kelly asked what the zoning wa~ before and what it was now and Mr. Decker replied that it is duplex, but before he was allowed to build a single family home on 50 ft. lots and new he needs 60 feet. He would like the Board to recommend that any lots without additional land available be al!owed to build according to the old zoning ordinance. Mr. Schmidt asked how long he had owned the lots and Mr. Decker informed him that he purchased them in ~pril, 1974. Mr. Rossi asked if Bowers Park was included on the list and ~. Bushnell replied: no. Mr. Rossi questioned how extensive this problem was in this ~rea? Chairman Kelly remarked that he thought everyone realized that everyone could net be satis- fied. Mr. BusSnell pointed out that this problem was compar- able to ~tem 2 in Laurel Hills. Although the lot is in R-2, it is restricted by R-1 width. Possibly by considering a change in the front of R-l, it would ~rrect this problem. Mr. Schmidt explained that they basically covered the City MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE FOUR JULY 19, 1975 and tried to accent the larger problem areas. They tried to pick the spots where it was the most prevalent. ~Ms. Castello stated she was under the impression the minimum lot size under the old zoning was 60 feet. i~. Bushnell clarified that the old R-1 zoning was 60 feet, but the lots in question are 50 feet. The non-conformity existed in many instances without the change in zoning. Mrs. Castello pointed out 2hat Mr. Decker was non-conforming to start with then and when he bought it, it was non-conforming. F~. Ryder referred in the past with 50 ft. lots being referred to Board of Adjustment. He added that this was something ~ceeded the change and something they will always be with, with having 50 ft. lots in the City. Mrs. Huckle referred to the most recent update of Ordinance 62-9 stating the minimum was 50 feet, even though the ordinance was changed over a year ago to 60 feet. ~his was not changed in their zoning manual. They change the laws, but didn,t put it in the books. Mr. Bushnell read Ordinance 62-9. Mr. Ryder referred to having two problems of what to do about developed areas and undeveloped areas. ~s. Huckle added that they also had people wanting to make additions to proper- ty in developed property. Mr. Rossi clarified that by requir- ing 10 feet instead of 7½ feet, they knock out many lots. However, they must also consider those which are developed continuing at 7½ feet so they can make additions, etc. They must also consider the undeveloped lots. The members discussed the remedies to cover these various situations, the exact meaning of developed properties, the situation pertaining to landlocked lots, considering platted lots only, etc. Mr. Rossi also read the Martin County regulations pertaining to this to give input. M~. Bill Elam appeared before the Board and stated his name and his address as Hypoluxo Park. He referred to the Board's suggestion of going back to platted lands, not necessarily developed, and stated he thought they would be defeating the purpose going that far back. If there are no developed struc- tures on platted land, that is the time to enforce regulations. He referred to having a few homes being built in a subdivision and being able to upgrade the area. ~Ms. Huckle asked what if someone bought several lots planning to build several houses and ~. Elam replied that he didn't think he would have much of an argument with being in the majority. He continued that with going back to platted lands, there are a lot of platted subdivisions with. some development, but not a high number of homes percentagewise. There are also some very old subdivisions which are not built on and could not be upgraded with going back to the plat. MINUTES PLA}~NING & ZONING BOARD PAGE F~'E JULY 19, 1975 Mrs..Huckle stated that there must be some implication of the law existing to have some input on what they are talking about. Chairman Kelly informed her that when they put through the new code, it states all. ordinances passed are rescinded. Mrs. Huckle continued that they had no right to go less than 60 ft. if it is an accepted legal ordinance on the books. This con- versation about grandfathering 50 ft. lots would go back to this. Mr. Ryder stated that he thought thi~ applied to deve- loped areas. He agrees with Mr. Elam that they may be defeat- ing the purpose of zoning with reverting back to what they had before. There are still two different problems. ~s. Huckle gave an exampl~ of an area with 75% developed on one block and only 10~g developed on the next and how this must be clarified to be enforced. She added that she thought when they were working on this that one of the outstanding things they were trying to anticipate were the new areas to the west and they did not want to jeopardize people with developed properties. Mr. Bushnell referred to the original writing of the Board of Adjustment code and the provisions for non-conforming lots. Chairman Kelly read this from Page 45, Section 2, Paragraphs a, b, and c. He also read from Page 422,20 under the old code, Chapter 31. Mrs. Castello pointed out that this set a time limit of three years for developing. Mrs. Huckle referred to another paragraph regarding the Board of Adjustment under the old code. ~. $chmidt advised them that they did get complaints like this in the office. With the Board trying to decrease the density and the builder trying to comply, they had to decrease the quality of the home. He explained how this had happened in Golfview Harbour previously. Mr. Bob Freeman statedhhis name and his address as S. W. 28th Avenue. He gave the Board a sketch showing how he wanted to build a patio, but couldn't now with the new law. Mr. Ryder stated his observation in Golfview Harbour was that there were many cases of encroaching on the rear setbacks. Mr. Freeman pointed out that this was not true in his case. Ryder agreed that they must consider a remedy for cases like his. Mr. Bushnell explained that there were sections in Golfview Harbour existing now where the entire block has a blanket variance. He found they were not shown on the plats this way. He suggested to the people in Golfview Harbour to get together all the .people with the same type non-conforming lots and appear before whatever body is necessary and get blanket.variances at one time. In reply to Mrs. Huckle's question regarding the non-conformity, Mr. Bushnell in- formed her that there were blanket variances basically om the rear setback. Mr. Ryder rema~ed th~tumfortun~ely that MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE S tX JULY 19, !975 25 ft. which has been established is not seen much in Golf- view Harbour amy more. Mr. Bushnell advised that there was no consistency in these blanket variances. Mrs. Huckle asked if the deed restrictions were stricter in Golfview Harbour than the City and Mr. Ryder replied they he didn't believe they had any. Mr. Elam advised her there were restrictive covenants general to the whole subdivision, but they didn't refer to setbacks. ~. Louis~ditsch stated his name and advised the Board that he has looked in the code and could not find anything about mortality. He gave an example of an area of a condominium being wiped out and something being stated to allow them to rebuild. M~s. Castello stated she thought it should then go back to the same as being undeveloped. Chairman Kelly clari- fied that Mr. Pr~ditseh felt it should be the same as originally required when the building was developed. Mr. P~eiditsah~Istated there would be a question of who would stay and who would go. Mr. Ryder referred to Leisureville being under a PUD and under reconstruction they would adhere to the original. Mr. Prei- ditsah stated he was just bringing out a point of po~bibly adding something like this to the zoning. They are still paying their taxes and insurance, but it doesn't give them a chance to rebuild. Chairman Kelly agreed it was an excellent suggestion. Mr. Rossi pointed out that condominiums were a little different from regular zoning and suggested possibly checking with the City Attorney about this matter. Mr. Dick Lambert stated his name and referred to the Glen Arbor and Laurel Hills subdivisions and the Board of Adjust- ment being smothered with 50 ft. lots. These ~ubdivisions are established neighborhoods and the changing of the require- ments has not been beneficial to them. In reference to air space, etc., it is great for undeveloped areas. He then re- ferred to Golfview Harbour and the people not being allowed to out in a porch, but being allowed to put in a concrete wall 6 f~. high around the rear yard. On these existing problem areas, he does not see in any way, shape or form, what is benefiting by ~amking these changes. He referred to aerial photos of these subdivisions and how you could see they were esta'blished neighborhoods. He concluded with asking if any of these people from any of these subdivisions had complained that their houses were too close to their nextdoor neighbor? Mr. Ryder reolied that he didn't think this was a valid ex~use. He feels the~ don't complain as they are possibly reserving the right to expand themselves in the future. Mr. Bushnell showed the aerial photos of Laurel Hills and Venetian Isles. Mr. Lambert added that it was platted in 50 ft. lots. Mrs. Huckle referred to when they were working on this and having an area like this with non-conforming lots, she thought they would be grand~athered out. She did not MINUTES PLAR~iNG & ZONING BOARD PAGE SEVEN JULY 19, 1975 realize they could not make additions to their homes. She thought as long as the addition was within the setbacks, it could be done. She has a feeling that something could be written in to grandfather anything already existing. Mr. Lambert pointed out that this was 90% of the properties and asked what had been gained with the new zoning? Chairman Kelly suggested a phrase or paragraph covering presently incorporated areas of the City. Mr. Lambert then asked if the basic problem areas were on the list and Mr. Bushnell informed him that the problem was general and was not restricted necessarily to these, but these are the biggest ones. The Building Department cannot serve the needs of the public if the zoning makes them non- conforming. They must appear before the Board of Adjustment and there is the delay and cost to be considered. It also puts a tremendous load on the Board of Adjustment and does not accomplish anything. Mr. Lambert suggested considering the percentage involved in certain subdivisions and marking them with an added letter to clarify them existing the same as before which would not mess up the new areas. Obviously it would be those being more than 50% developed. They would then just have to add a few pages to define the added letter. Mr. Rossi agreed this was ~ good point with developments being so largely developed, it wouldn,t help for the remain- ing few to be restricted to the larger setbacks. He referred ~o large areas to the ~est and those areas which are umplatted could be developed according to the new zoning. He is sure the areas where they definitely want an. upgrading could be isolated. Mr. Courtney Eversley stated his name and his address as Boca Raton. Ne informed the Board that he bought a lot in Golfview Harbour in May and when he bought this lot, he could build. However, since having plans drawn, signing a contract, etc., the zoning has been changed and he cannot build. He recommends to the Board that these having already been platted possibly be over-rided with a grandfather clause. Mr. Ryder asked the size of his lot and Mr. Eversley informed him it was 75 by 100 feet. Mr. Bushnell clarified that he could not proceed because his house would not fit the lot now. Mr. Ryder remarked that when they deal with the developed areas according to this particular problem, they should con- sider plans already filed. Mr. Eversley continued that every- one planning to build a house is concerned with the light and air. Mr. Lambert explained his suggestion further. Mr. Schmidt added that it would not make it harder for the Building Department, as it would be defined on the maps. Mrs. Castello stated she thought they should have a transitional period, such as giving these people three years to build, and MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD P_~_ G E EIGHT JULY 19, 1975 then it would be a Board of Adjustment matter. Mr. Ryder stated he was not prepared to grandfather in anything and lift the lid on developing areas. He thinks they must have. some approach as suggested previously. It is not unique to grandfather by reason of percentage developed. Mr. Schmidt suggested hearing what everyone had to say and then working out the mechanics after finding out all the problems. Mrs. Judy Gallant stated her name and her address as 126 Arthur Court. She informed the Board that she has am exist- ing house and just wants to enclose the carport. She is 6 inches short on the other side and is not allowed to do it with thennew zoning. Mr. Ryder explained that evidently her property had become non-conforming. Mrs. Gallant added that the house was 20 years old. Mr. Ryder informed her that this came within what they were trying to remedy. They are trying to correct this on an overall scale. Mrs. Vivian Bunker stated her name and her address as Boynton Ridge. She informed the Board that she has the same problem. She wants to enclose her carport also. She just wants to en- close it and not extend it. She has 6 ft. 2 in. and cannot meet the new requirement of 7½ feet. Mr. Herbert Odell stated his name and his address as 3201 Orange Street. He informed the Board that he believed his community was pretty well developed. His setbacks are fine as far as the side, but he would like to ~ut a garage in the rear and would be too close to the rear with the new setback. He now needs 25 feet. Mrs. Huckle informed him that all dis- tricts were 25 feet. Mr. Odell asked why people around him were able to do this and Mr. Ryder replied that they probably went before the Board of Adjustment. This request was non- conforming before the new zoning. ~. Andrasko stated his name and informed the Boardtthat he was a builder and developer. He has two vacant lots on N.E. 6th Avenue. He pointed out the location on the map and added that he realized with the new zoning it was changed to R-2. It was platted originally as R-1 and is now R-2 and. in the new R-2 zone, he has these two single family lots. He talked to a representative in the Building Department and noted in the regulations that a 75 ft. lot is required now. He didn't even have a chance to look over this book, but now found it and would like it clarified, if he can use the R-1 requirements on the 60 ft. lots, he doesn't have a problem then. He added that he has another lot in the northwest section and pointed it out on the map. In this particul~neighborhood with the change, it would be a larger house than the others aS it is now R-lA. Mrs. Huckle noted that it was~ill R-l, thus he didn't have a problem with any of his lots. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE NINE JULY 19, 1975 Mrs. Rosemary Story stated her name and her address as $. E. 1st Place. She informed the Board that she and her husband presently own four lots.and it looks like they cannot build on none now. One is 7,500 square feet instead of 8,000. They had 9 ft. setbacks and now it has been changed to 10 ft. setbacks. There are houses on both sides and they cannot get additional property. They just purchased property a few months ago and had it replatted from four lots to build two duplexes. They can ~no longer build on two of them because the rear setback is 25 feet. Before they purchased the pro- perty, they took the site plan and had it checked with Mr. Barrett and Mr. Schmidt. They have two of them started and when they took the plans for a building permit, they were told there would not be a problem. Now, they cannot build the other two. All four duplexes will be Placed on property they own. Two of t~em are under construction, but they did not get permits on the other two because of financial condi- tions. ~. Rossi asked if the original zoning was 20 feet in the rear and Mrs. Story replied: yes and they cannot meet the rear setbacks now. They also cannot meet ~the square footage nor side setback on the other two lots. Mr. Elam appearedbbefore the Board again and referred to platted land, but undeveloped with new homes, platted in 60 ft. lots. He asked what was upgrading aesthetically speak- ing by virtue of the faCt by making the homes 5 ft. narrower? What is upgrading with requiring 10 ft. side setbacks? It does give more open space, but there are disadvantages with having more land unkept, parking place for campers, etc. When narrowing the setbacks on 50 and 60 ft. lots, they wind up with a shack. F~s. Castello informed him that on 60 ft. lots, the side setback would be 7½ feet. Mr. Bushnell. added that if it was in a R-lA zone, they would have to get a wider lot. Mr. Elam referred to Leisureville and how nice it looked. He continued that with 10 ft. setbacks, they were not upgrading but just allowing for more unkept land. The more land between the houses, the more junk they will have. Mr. Rossi stated that by allowing 10 ft. side setbacks, they may allow disarray, but with larger lots and larger homes, it looks better. The requirements are quite specific and only apply basically to 80 and 90 ft. lots. Mrs° Huckle stated there were a few areas with 60 ft. lots. P~. Rossi remarked that there was no question with 10 ft. setbacks on 60 ft. lots, it would not be good. Mr. Bushnell referred to Lake Boynton being platted with 50 ft. lots. M~. Lambert stated in this particular area, they could not build even u~der the old zoning on the lots. This is great if it is undeveloped and if a builder bought a block, he could make larger lots. He added that the members had not discussed minimum square footage. If they have a 1,200 square ft. house, it might be narrower, but it would be longer and MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE TEN JULY 19, 1975 they would not be gaining any air space. Mr. Elam added that the lesser the side setbacks, the more massive front could be on the structure. Mr. Bushnell pointed out that the zoning regulations require minimum living area and ms, i- mum lot coverage which restricts lack of air flow. Mr. Ryder referred to side setbacks and stated it wasn't as much air flow, but proximity to the neighbor. The 7½ ft. is not too much from the standpoint of noise, etc. Mr. Elam asked if anyone had heard any complaints about neighbors being too close in areas with 6 ft. setbacks? Mr. Ryder replied that people were reluctant to go on record, as they may want to do the same thing. Mrs. Huckle added that they bought their houses knowing what was therem. She pointed out that people having committed money should not be disadvantaged with a new code. Mr. Elam stated that making the wider setback requirement did not lower the density on lots already platted, but not developed. Mr. Rossi agreed and stated it was just an aesthetic consideration. Mrs. Huckle informed him that the Board was trying to upgrade areas, but his point was well taken with trying to limit the size of homes. ¥~. Bushnell agreed that it limited architectural considerations. ~. Schmidt added that he considered Leisureville the best exam- ple of a planned community there was. He did not intend to infer they were shacks. He was quoting from the earlier development of Golfview Harbour and he wasn't here at that time, but builders were concerned that witk increasing side setbacks, they had to decrease the size of the homes and build shacks. Mr. Dick Scott stated his name and that he was an Associated With Snow Construction. He informed the Board that they own quite a few lots in Golfview Harbour, but did sell a house to a customer which they want started. It is a short lot, but there is plenty of area. They have filed flor a variance, but have a problem in that it will not be considered until after the meeting today. Mr. Ryder asked if there was land contiguous and ~. Scott replied: no, not with this lot. They have put all the requirements together for the Board of Ad- justment. They have only six weeks before starting the house. They have met the side and back setbac.ks, but do not conform with the lot area. They need 8,000 sq. feet, but have 7,644. Mr. Rossi commented that this was an interesting point. Evi- dently a number of people in Golfview Harbour have been told not to submit to the Board of Adjustment because something was coming up here with this Board. He doesn't ?mow what the solution is going to be. Mr. Schmidt informed him that the Board of Adjustment was going to hear four cases a month and there are hundreds of cases and it will probably tmke six months to get on the docket. They advise~ the people that the Planning & Zoning Board was working on this and rather than spend the $50, possibly they should await the outcome of this meeting which may correct their problem, N~. Ryder informed them that the Board of Adjustment was tabling matters pending the Planning & Zoning Board's deci- sion. MINU~S PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE ELEVEN jULY 19, I975 Mr. David Healy, Secretary of the Board of Adjustment, ap- peared before the Board. He informed the Board that the Board of Adjustment was tabling these matters because of a legal problem awaiting advice from Attorney Simon as to whether they could hear cases of non-conformity. Mrs. Huc~e stated she understood this was the type of cases which the Board heard and Mr. Healy replied that not all were, but approximately 75% were. ~. Ryder pointed out that they have been made non-conforming because of the new zoning. Mr. Healy stated he was not referring to the new zoning, but they are not hearing any cases which are non- conforming awaiting the decision from the attorney as to whether they can hear these cases. ~. Lambert referred to similar recent cases and stated possibly they were await- lng legal determination whether they could deny. He gave an example of telling someone they could not build like the neighbor,s house and it could be in the ~iddle of a two block area. M~. Healy referred to Page 39, Section 3, Paragraph D, which would answer this. Mr. Healy continued with giving an example of a case recently tabled by the Board. A gentleman had a house and has been here before any zoning map in the City of Boynton Beach, but at the present time he is 2 feet from the side line. He wants to put a garage in the front of the house and has the room, but is non-conforming with the side yard. The Board of Adjustment cannot hear this at the present time, as they cannot hear any cases non-conform- ing as they are awaiting a legal opinion from the City Attor- ney. Mr. Rossi remarked that people could submit an applica- tion then. The members and Mr. Healy then discuSsed the process of being denied by the Building Department and making application to the Board of Adjustment. Chairman Kelly adjourned the meeting at 12:09 P. M. for lunch. He called the meeting back to order at 1:55 P. M. Chairman Kelly suggested starting with the top of the list and they looked at the aerial photo of Lakeside Gardens and noted it was sparsely developed. Mrs. Castello added that · he people requested this area to be R-I~. Mrs. Huckle ques- tioned how come they put R-~AA in an area with 25 ft. lots? She pointed out that people must have three lots in order to build a house. Can they treat this one section different from a~other section? Mr. Ryder stated if they were trying to re- zone, he thought this was wrong. Why do this when it is not required? They should try to take care of some of the things which have happened because of the re-zoning. M~. Schmidt gave his observations from the morning meeting with hopes that it would help set guidelines. They are at- tempting to decrease density and dress up the City. He thinks they should recommend to the City Council that the ~INUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD P~GE TWELVE JULY 19, 1975 Board of Adjustment meets as many times as possible and takes under advisement as many cases as they can handle and in- struct the Board of Adjustment to take into consideration the hardships imposed on people who previously owned land before this new zoning, it will be giving relief to people hit by this thing. Possibly they should grandfather the old owners of lots and the old o~ers of homes between the last zoning and the new zoning, between 1962 and 1975. They should give these people consideratiOn. However, not necessarily the person owning ten lots in a row, who would not have a hardship imposed on him. They should consider whether there is a house on it which is a major problem and whether they can make additions to it. The Building Department's main problem is not just in lot sizes, but in setbacks. He does not thi~ they have to be concerned about building after a disaster. These are his feelings on the whole thing. Mr. Bushnell stated that it appeared to him what Mr. Schmidt outlined would serve every area except Laurel Hills and Glen Arbor where zoning has been so drastically changed. There might be a need for a change in zoning for these areas. ~e others could be settled by a grandfsther clause on setbacks or reverting to the old code. This would take care of the problems. They are t~lking about undeveloped and developed areas. They are talking about extra expense for people, added delays, etc. Mr. Ryder referred to the recommendation about the Board of Adjustment getting on the ball and pointed out that they have been enjoined by the City Attorney not to act. Mr. Schmidt replied that this was only temporary. ~. Rossi referred to the 10 ft. setback and stated there was a definite reason for a side setback. He asked how many zones it ~pplied to and Mrs. Huckle replied~: R-1AA and R-1AAB. ~. Rossi stated they must be sure if they were going to put in language, it wouldn't affect all areas. M~. Bushnell agreed. Mr. Rossi suggested a couple ways to do it. With people ha~ing problems wanting to make additions, possibly they could say all those lots improved with a str~cture should go under the old zoning code or apply to all platted lots. Old platted lots is a different game though. He questioned what would happen if they stated that all platted lots in R-1AA could be built on according to the old code? Mr. Lam- bert replied that they would be lowering the zoning in some areas then. Mr. Schmidt pointed out that he clarified this by stating between 1962 and 1975 zoning. ¥~. Bushnell added that a hardship was created if a buyer buys in good faith. Mr. Rossi asked how small the frontage would be if they al- lowed this and ~. Schmidt replied: 60 ft. He continued that they have had plenty of time to adjust to the old zoning from 1962 and that is ~hy he suggested this. M~s. Castello remarked that they would be undoing then. MINUTES PLANNING &ZZONiNG BOARD PAGE THIRTEEN JULY 19, 1975 Mr. Lambert referred to Golfview Harbour and stated there was no reason toupdate here. There was nothing wrong with what it was before. They have not helped by upgrading. Mr. Schmidt added that there were 100 lots open in Golfview Har- hour and for the most pa~t, they are land locked. It is not helping the neighborhood by changing the zoning. Mr. Rossi stated they cannot get into the dangerous level of selecting a s~bdivision, as they will get into a legal hassle. Mr. Lambert stated that these people would get relief if not from the Board of Adjustment, from the courts. ~. Rossi agreed that they would get relief from the Variance Board. Mrs. Huckle questioned the objection to going back to the old zoning code on things as platted and referred to Mr. Eversley's example. She continued with asking if there were any other areas where it was already platted R-IAA where they couldn't let them keep the previous zoning? Are there any other real narrow lots where it would be bad to leave them? Mr. Bushnell referred to Laurel Hills and the area just east of City Hall in the old section of the City. ~. Schmidt suggested omit- ting the word platted lots and state owned. He gave an exam- ple of a man having a lot five or ten years that should not be restricted. However, any new owner should comply with the new zoning and he knows this when he buys it. Mrs. Huckle replied that she didn't agree if there was a house on both sides. Mr. Schmidt referred to applications like this going before the Board of Adjustment. After discussion, Mrs. Huckle stated she felt they should do it on platted properties. N~. Rossi remarked that this was a pretty broad statement and ex- plained. Mrs. Castello referred to Coquina Cove and pointed out that the frontage requirements were not creating hardships. Mr. Bushnell stated that their problems could be solved by revert- ing to the old setbacks. Mr. Schmidt agreed and added that he was sure the Board of Adjustment considered the remaining houses in the area being on the same sized lots. Mr. Lambert stated that everyone must agree that this particular subdivi- sion should not have been changed. It didn't comply before, so why make it worse? Mr. Bushnell clarified that this hap- pen.ed with changing the zones of the City and at the same time changing the regulations. This is one place where he thinks the zoning was improper, not only on the lots built but also on those vacant. The City was designed this way, has lived this way and can continue to. He suggested leaving this area at the old zone. Mr. Rossi suggested going by the map and asked if they would be on sure footing if they stated R-1AA areas could revert back to the old regulations? He added that this meant inves- tigating each area in R-tAA. M~. Schmidt suggested stating reverting back to three months ago. Mr. Rossi stated they MINUTES ~A~ING & ZONING BOARD RAGE FOURTEEN JULY 19, t975 possibly may run into an area where they may have a problem where it went from R-1 to R-1AA in which they wanted to up- grade it. Mr. Ryder remarked that if they wanted to avoid so-called mistakes, they should have been confined west of Congress Avenue. He added that unfortunately ~. Barrett was not here any longer and he is sure he played an import- ant part in this and they don't have the background now. Mrs. Castello stated that in some instances reverting back to how it was in the past, they might undo what they were trying to do. Mrs. Castello continued that a predominate problem was that those people should be allowed to proceed, who are not in- creasing the non-conformity. Mrs. Huckle stated she didn't think they could stipulate a period of tima a person has allowed to build a house. Mx. Rossi read the provisions in reference to this from the Martin County code. Mr. Rossi suggested stating in all R-1AA districts with platted lots, the side setbacks cannot be less than 7½ feet. He added that this would take care of the platted lot area, but what happened to the lots with 60 ft. and not being able to meet the side Setbacks? He pointed out that they did have a mixture. ~s. Huckle stated there would be many areas they would be running over roughShod with a blanket variance. ~. Bushnell referred to Golfview Harbour and pointed out that the zoning had a program built into it for de-valmating an area simply by restrictive building. Mrs~ Huckle referred to stating everything currently developed and platted go according to the previous regulations and ques- tioned if there would be many areas in this that they would be allowing to develop in a poor manner? Would there be small lots they would allow to go back? Since they cannot zone everything ideally individually, can they get the majors ity of the problems solved by allowing all the properties developed and platted reverting to the old regulations and would the majority be better served even though there would be a few lots being developed not aesthetically like they would like? Mr. Lambert remarked that he didn't think there was a subdivision in the City under the old zoning which would be an eyesore in the previous zoning and F~rs. Castello agreed. Mr. Rossi remarked that he didn't like the phrase of reverting back to the old zoning. He asked what it would do if they changed all the R-1AA areas from 10 ft. to 7½ ft.? Mr. Lambert stated it wouldn't be good, as it would also apply to all the undeveloped areas. ~. Rossi pointed out that only one area was undeveloped. This would only open up one undeveloped area which would be less than what they wanted. They are not concerned whether it is p~atted or un- platted. Mr. Rossi questioned if just changing this setback MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE FiFT ,EEN JULY 19, 1975 would answer the question? Mr. Lambert replied that they also must consider the minimum square footage of the house. Mr. Ryder added that he believed it was the original intent in the new areas to have more room. Mr. Schmidt stated he thought the new owner must conform to the new regulations. If there is a land-locked lot and a man buys it, he is sure he can demand relMf from the Board eZdAdjustment and the Board of Adjustment must observe the neighborhood and con- sider granting the variance on the neighborhood conditions. He is not in favor of a new owner buying dozens of lots and reverting to the old code. M~s. Huckle referred to Golfview Harbour and how they would have smaller homes to meet the side setbacks. Mr. Elam agreed that this would be down-grading. Mr. Ryder pointed out that they could still build the same width house here now. Mr. Lambert stated that 400 people there now were non-conforming now though. Mr. Bushnell added that this area developed under the old zoning regulations and it is lovely. Mrs. Huckle questioned if they really needed the 10 feet on each side? .Mr. Schmidt stated that with less than 10 feet, it prevented boa2s, etc. from being parked. Mr. Rossi re- marked .that he couldn,t picture a 150 ft. lot with 7½ ft. setbacks. Mr. Rossi suggested stating in all R-1AA zones, all lots and tracts of record before such a date, the requirements will be 7.5 ft. side setbacks, 7,500 square ft. lot and 1,250 sq. ft. house. This would allow the platted areas to deve- lop. If they try to isolate Golfview Harbour, etc., they will be getting into a problem. With this difference, they are going down one grade for the existing platted areas. Mr. Ryder referred to the percentage of platted areas not developed and this was discussed. The members agreed this suggestion might be a solution to the major part of the pro- blems. During the discussion, they agreed the date to be inserted would be June 13, 1975, the effective date of the ordinance. After a further discussion, the consensus of the members was that the R-1_~A zoning district be amended to show the following minimum requirements: Minimum lot width - 70 feet ~nimum lot area - 7,500 sq. ft. Minimum area of structure - 1,250 sq. ft. ~;~nimum side setback - 7½ feet These amended minimum requirements shall apply only to those areas that fall within the R-1AA district that were plats of record prior to the effective date of the new code. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BO~ARD PAGE S LXTEEN JULY 19, 1975 Mrs. Huc~e referred to R-lA and noted an error on the list in that the new lot area is 7,500 sq. ft. and not 6,000 sq. ft. as listed. ~. Bushnell referred to Laurel Hills and stated he believed it should not be developed into two zones. Chairman Kelly informed them that i~. Barrett recommended a buffer zoning. Mr. Ryder added that with changing the zoning, it would re- quire another public hearing. Mr. Bushnell showed the Laurel Hills area on the aerial photo. M~s. Castello stated she was sure there were contiguous lots, as the area was not even 50% developed. ~. Lambert informed her that the lots were owned by individual ewners. He added that no individual ~uilder owned a two or three ~lock area. Mr. Bushnell sug- gested dropping it all to R-lA with a r~der. Mr. Rossi asked if there was any need in R-lA to lessen the requirements in reference to setbacks, lot size, etc.? Mr. Bushnell informed him there was definitely a problem on every developed lot with going from 6 to 7½ feet which renders i~ non-conforming. Mrs. Castello suggested making a statement referring to those developed. Mr. Rossi asked if this was a widespread thing in R-lA? They checked the surrounding R-lA areas to determine if a hardship was created. Mr. Rossi stated that in looking at the R-lA district overall, it did not seem worthwhile to change the district lines because of an i~olated problem area. ~. Schmidt referred to the area going from R-1 to R-1AA and increasing the lots from 60 to 75 ft. and he told a~out people holding 60 ft. to meet the requirements and having sold pieces previously. After discussion, it was agreed that the R-lA areas were not that prevalent to require a change. Mrs. Castello referred to houses being non-conforming and Mr. Bushnell suggested discussing this further at the next meet- ing after they get the legal opinion from the City Attorney. The members then discussed the minimum lot frontage being 50 or 60 feet. Chairman Kelly read Page 422 stating 50 ft. for single family residences. Mrs. Castello stated she thought 60 ft. was the minimum. Mr. Schmidt informed her that in R-2, 50 ft. lots were allowed. Chairman Eelly referred to their short agenda for their regu- lar meeting on Tuesdmy night. He announced the Board would meet at 7:00 P. M. on Tuesday, July 22, to have a workshop meeting before and following their regular meeting. Chairman Eelly adjourned the workshop meeting at 3:53 P. Mo