Loading...
Minutes 02-12-96 lqlNUTES OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING HELD IN COMMiSSiON CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12, ! 996, AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT ]ames Miriana Tambri Heyden, Planning ~: Zoning Howard Rappoport Director Ben Uleck Mike Haag, Site ~ Develop. Admin. Agnes Hollingshead, Alternate ]erzy Lewicki, Senior Planner Herman Gold, Alternate Michael Pawelczyk, Asst. City Attorney A. ACKNOWLEDC~_ElqENT O~IEJqBERS AND ~ISJTORS Chairman Miriana called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m., and introduced Michael Pawelczyk, Assistant City Attorney. B. APPRO3~ O_F~AGEN DA Mr. Rappopor~ moved to approve the agenda set forr~. Mr. Gold seconded the motion which carried unanimously. C. AP PRO3AAL O F~LINUTES Mr. Rappoport moved to approve the minutes of the January meeting. Mr. Uleck seconded the motion. Chairman Miriana clarified that at the last meeting, Ms. Heyden announced that this board was no longer quasi-judicial. Since that time, the City Attorney has determined that this is a quasi- judicial board. Chairman Miriana would like a clarification placed on the :January minutes. The vote was polled, and the motion carried unanimously. D. COM!vJUN! CATION S AN I~AI~I OU~M~ Chairman Miriana reported that regular member, Robert Taylor, has resigned from this board. At present, there are two alternates who will serve until the regular members are appointed by the City Commission. E. ONEHOUR ORI~NTA~T3IO~LPR~TIONJIY THE_C~O~ Michael Paweiczyk, Assistant City Attorney, advised that this orientation would provide an overview of the workings of the board, it should help improve the operation of the board and make it work more efficiently. MEETING MINUTES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA FEBRUARY 12, 1996 The proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature. This board acts as a judge and bases its decision on testimony presented by the applicant and staff members or reports. In these proceedings, staff does not provide a recommendation. Staff will provide an opinion. It is the board's responsibility to weigh the opinion of staff and the testimony of the applicant to arrive at a decision. During previous Board of Adjustment hearings, the application was read into the record. That procedure is no longer required. During Board of Zoning Appeals hearings, it is only necessary to introduce the application and state that the application will become part of the record. The following information is to be read into the record from the agenda: 1 ) the case number; 2) the location; 3) the owner's name; and 4) the requested variance. The qualifications for the application do not have to be read because it is up to the applicant to provide that information for the board. in response to Vice Chairman Uleck's question about reading the application for the edification of the public, Attorney Pawelczyk reiterated that it is not necessary to do that since property owners within 400' feet are notified by mail of impending action, and a public notice is published in the newspaper, if the need arises, Attorney Pawelczyk will provide his agenda back-up material for a member of the public to read. There have always been questions raised about board members visiting the property prior to the meeting. Attorney Pawelczyk advised that there are to be no discussions among board members prior to the meeting. In addition, visiting the property is not prohibited; however, it is not suggested. The reason for this determination is the possibility that a board member may form an opinion on the property which may sway the other board members. While there is no way to stop a board member from visiting the property, it is suggested that not happen. Furthermore, under no circumstances should a board member communicate with the applicant requesting the variance. Chairman Miriana feels a member cannot rely on information presented from the City, and the visual experience makes a big difference. Attorney Pawelczyk recommended that the applicant offer photos or illustrations of the property to provide that visual experience. The applicant must provide the burden of proof. An applicant for a variance must demonstrate an exceptional and unique hardship. This hardship shall not be shared by other property owners in the area. The hardship must be such that it renders it impossible to use the land for the purpose for which it is zoned. Attorney Pawelczyk explained that it makes no difference that a neighbor was given a particular variance. The only request to be considered is the property contained within the application. He further explained that there is no such thing as an economic hardship. 2 MEETING MINUTES ~ BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA FEBRUARY 12, 1996 A self-created hardship will not constitute the basis for a hardship. Mr. Rappoport asked if board members are permitted to discuss the cases among themselves. Attorney Pawelczyk responded affirmatively, but advised that those discussions must be on the record. If the board denies a variance and it goes to the City Commission, which also denies the variance, the process is to go to Palm Beach County Circuit Court. The Court bases its decision solely on the record, in order for the judge to uphold the City's decision, it must be based on sufficient competent evidence to support that decision. Sufficient competent evidence is that evidence which will provide a basis of fact. For example, if a staff report sets out evidence, and a decision is based on that staff report, that would be considered substantial competent evidence. Attorney Pawelczyk explained that when the Board of Zoning Appeals denies a variance, the applicant can go before the City Commission with the request. The Board of Zoning Appeals either provides an approval of a variance, or a recommendation for denial of the variance. if the City Commission denies the variance, the applicant can appeal to the Court. This allows the applicant three opportunities to get approval of the variance. Vice Chairman Uleck pointed out that if the City Commission approves a variance which the board has denied, then they are proving that this board has no authority. Attorney Pawelczyk explained that if the board denies a variance, then that decision becomes a recommendation to the City Commission. if the board and the City Commission deny a variance, the applicant then has an opportunity to come back through the process again one year later. The Board of Zoning Appeals is composed of five regular members and two alternates. Three members constitute a quorum. An affirmative vote of the majority of the quorum is required tO approve a variance. The board will be hearing requests for special exceptions, and the granting of variances. The special conditions and circumstances that exist are set forth in the Ordinance. In granting a special exception or a variance, the grant is not to affect the public interest. The board also has the power to condition safeguards. The board can prescribe a reasonable time limit within which the action for which the special exception is required, shall be started, completed, or both. Mr. Haag questioned whether or not an applicant can appeal conditions. Although not listed in the Ordinance, Attorney Pawelczyk did not see any reason why the applicant could not appeal a condition. In order to grant a variance, special conditions and circumstances must exist that are peculiar 3 MEETING MINUTES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA FEBRUARY 12, 1996 to the land, structure, or building in that district. In addition, that variance is not to confer on the applicant any special privilege which is denied to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same district. In granting a variance, it is to be the minimum variance which will allow use of the land, building, or structures. It must be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of granting variances, and it may not be injurious to the surrounding properties or the public interest. With regard to appeals, any person may appeal the decision within 30 days of rendition by the board. Since no specific information was contained within the Ordinance relative to how an applicant would proceed on al~peal, Attorney Pawelczyk explained that when an application for variance is denied, the applicant will be advised to make a formal request for appeal to the City Commission through the Planning Department. Attorney Pawelczyk confirmed for Chairman Miriana that he or another attorney will be present at all Board of Zoning Appeals meetings. Anyone offering testimony will be sworn in. Therefore, future agendas will have a category for "Swearing in of Witnesses" which will appear before "Old Business". Attorney Pawelczyk advised that the withdrawal of an application prior to the board's decision will result in a waiting period of six months prior to the filing of a subsequent application. What this means is that if an applicant comes to the meeting and decides to withdraw the application because they realize there are only three members present and two of them will probably not support the al~plication, they will have to wait six months to refile. However, if the board decides to deny a variance, it can be done without prejudice or with prejudice. If the variance is denied with prejudice, it is final at the board level. If it is a special situation, the board could deny the variance without prejudice. The applicant could then come back before the board without waiting a time period. Attorney Pawelczyk recommended that if the board decides to deny a variance with prejudice, the motion should contain such an explanation so that the applicant understands he/she has another opportunity to make an appeal, in addition, the board has the authority to table a decision until the next meeting if they feel more information is needed. If an applicant wishes to withdraw his/her application, that request to withdraw must be made in writing one week prior to the meeting. Attorney Pawelczyk recommended that an application to be tabled not be removed from the agenda prior to the meeting. At the meeting, a motion should be made to withdraw the application. Ms. Heyden reiterated that even if the board wants to permit the withdrawal of an application, it would have had to have gone through the Planning Department prior to the meeting. Under the reading of the Code, Attorney Pawelczyk clarified that if someone wants to withdraw an application on the day of the hearing or leSs than a week prior to the hearing, the withdrawal can be with prejudice, and the time limitation imposed in Section I would apply. 4 MEETING MINUTES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA FEBRUARY 12, 1996 F. OLD BUSINESS None CHAIRMAN MIRIANA DECLARED A BRIEF RECESS. THE MEETING RESUMED AT 7:10 P.M. Chairman Miriana introduced Tambri Heyden, Mike Haag, the members of the board, and the Recording Secretary. Attorney Pawelczyk administered the oath to all who would be testifying during the proceedings. G. NEW~_ETITIO~ PUB LLC~ EARING 1. Case No. 213 Location: Northeast corner of the intersection of High Ridge Road and Commerce Road. Property Owner: The Kilpatrick Company Requested Variance: Request relief from Section 4.L of Chapter 2 of the City's Land Development Regulations to eliminate the requirement for a 6 foot high buffer wall along 439.10 feet of the north boundary of Lots 1, 2, and 3 of the High Ridge Commerce Park PID (Planned Industrial ~ Development). Chairman Miriana announced the case. gichar~l~Ahrens, 3~750 lnv_~#2; W_~m Beach, is the agent for The Kilpatrick Company. The Kilpatrick Company is planning to build a new office, warehouse, assembly center on High Ridge Road one mile north of Gateway Boulevard. Immediately to the north is Cedar Ridge Estates. There is a 40' buffer along the north property line. The landscape buffer will be maintained. At present, there is native shrub existing and a 1 O' utility easement. The applicant is requesting that in lieu of destroying the pine hammock, they be relieved of the requirement to install a 6' high masonry wall. The applicant plans to clear the area of shrubs that are not acceptable to the City. He will then construct a 21/2' high berm with a 4 MEETING MINUTES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA FEBRUARY 12, 1996 to I slope. There will be a 2' fiat area on top of that, 3' high landscape material, and trees. The Kil patrick Company is a distribUtor of turf equipment for golf courses. If the wall is installed 2' inside the 10' easement, it would end up in the middle of the pine preserve, which would be destroyed by the footings for the wall. The applicant feels his plan is environmentally better for the neighbors. The neighbors are Cedar Ridge Estates. There will be The Kilpatrick Company buffering and the Cedar Ridge Estates' trees placed 25' on center. The proposed landscaping and berm will visually obscure the building and absorb sound better than a 6' masonry wall. Dan_Cart~. O~Box 13 L5~eka~LB~chh, is the Landscape Architect for the project. He advised that the native scrub, which runs 250', is a very dense scrub hammock with a sensitive ecosystem. The pine is sensitive to the root zones. If they are disturbed, they will die. At present, it is very difficult to see through the scrub. The hand clearing which is planned will be minimal. Exotics such as Florida Holly will be moved. If there are any Australian Pines, they will be removed. In the eastern location, there will be a system of Fakahatchee Grass with Firebush. This grass grows to 5' tall and the Firebush grows to 6' to 8' in height. Wax Myrtles and Live Oak will also be included. The landscape buffer will do a better job than a 6' masonry wall. In addition, it meets the intent of the Code. In response to Mr. Rappoport's question, Mr. Ahrens advised that on the other side of the buffer, there is a residential project known as Cedar Ridge Estates which is under construction. When Cedar Ridge Estates came in for a revision to the site plan, the units were turned around and moved further to the north. The developer of Cedar Ridge Estates has no problem with this variance request, and felt it would be a better skuation than a block wall. The Recording Secretary read a letter submitted by Joe Basile, developer of Cedar Ridge Estates, in support of the variance request. Mr. Basile feels a 6' high chain link fence with dense landscaping would be a sufficient barrier and more aesthetic than a CBS wall. (A copy of the letter is attached to the original copy of these minutes on file in the City Clerk's Office.) A chain link fence will be installed on the inside and not visible to the residents to the north. Ms. Hollingshead requested information regarding the amount of clearing required and the depth to which the supports must be sunk for construction of the chain link fence. Mr. Ahrens advised that the chain link fence will be inside the paved area so that it will not infringe on the existing habitat. The bases on the posts are 6" to 8" in diameter and are sunk 12" to 18" inches in the ground. Ms. Heyden advised that the chain link fence is not along the entire north property boundary. According to Mr. Basile's remarks, he would rather have a chain link fence with dense landscaping than a block wall. CHAIRMAKI MIRIANA ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE MEETING MINUTES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA FEBRUARY 12, 1996 PRESENT WHO WISHED TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION. Attorney Pawelczyk asked Ms. Heyden whether or not it was necessary for the board to state its conditions in the motion relative to The Kilpatrick Company providing the construction of the 6' high chain link fence at the location stated~ Ms. Heyden feels it would be a good idea to s~ate in the motion that this is one of the conditions. Mr. Haag pointed out a discrepancy in the location of the fence as depicted on the map displayed on the overhead projection as compared to the site plan. On the site plan, the fence goes from the parking terminal island straight across to the north property line. Ms. Heyden explained that this is an issue because Mr. Basile would like the chain link fence along the entire north property line. Mr. Ahrens agreed with Mr. Haag's description of the location of the fence. Ms. Hollingshead noted that the fence crosses the hammock. She questioned the variety of clearing for the chain link fence through the hammock. Mr. Ahrens advised that it will be hand clearing. Chairman Miriana stated that the PUD property to the north is in the early stages of development. He feels the development of that property could have a great effect on this variance. He assumes there will be residences built south of the road. The backs of those homes would face the south toward the PID. The Code states that a masonry wall may be replaced with a dense vegetative buffer of' 2.' in height at planting, but no exception is allowed in an industrial district. In Chairman Miriana's opinion, no exception is allowed in this case because it involves residential and industrial. Attorney Pawelczyk explained that what lvlr. Miriana was reading from was a staff notation. That language did not come from the Land Development Regulations. This staff notation points out that they could not find an exception. Ms. Hollingshead agreed that this was a staff notation because it did not appear in quotation marks. Chairman lVliriana questioned whether or not this remark was a Planning Department interpretation or a section of the Code. Attorney Pawelczyk was in possession of Standard 2, Section 4.L. He explained that no where does it say such an exception is not allowed in the Industrial Zoning District. This was a notation made by a staff member who investigated to determine whether or not there were any exceptions. That person found no exceptions, and noted it. Ms. Heyden reiterated that the attorney was correct in his explanation. This notation is not in quotation marks because it is staff's interpretation. It is not the wording from the Code book. It was noted because substituting a hedge for a wall is permitted; however, in that exception, Industrial is not mentioned. 7 MEETING MINUTES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA FEBRUARY 12, 1996 Mr. Ahrens further explained that the Code does not say no exceptions are permitted. There is no alternative stated in the Code as there is for Commercial. The applicant is requesting the variance because of the unusual circumstances that exist on the site. In Chairman Miriana's opinion, this is a question of how the members of the board would interpret this section on the buffer walls. He feels the intent of the Code is to protect residential property. Ms. Hollingshead pointed out that Mr. Ahrens explained that the use next to this space would be used largely for sod and a golf course hole. On the other side of the wall, there will be approximately 80' before the rear of the town houses. In Ms. Hollingshead's opinion, that is more than an adequate buffer. Chairman Miriana said the variance carries over to the next individual who will use the property. This property in question is zoned Industrial, and can be converted to other uses. Mr. Ahrens advised that if the 6' wall is required, the applicant will remove the hammock which contains 40' and 50' trees. There is a massive amount of trees and natural vegetation in this area which is very dense. This landscaping will absorb sound. The wall will not. in the areas where the pine is not being disturbed, the applicant is adding a 2~' high berm with 3' of material which will grow 4' to 7' tall. The end result will be a 12' to 15' barrier versus a 6' masonry wall. An unusual circumstance exists in this case. A 40' wide buffer exists and the units to the north are 80' away. Mr. Ahrens does not believe the Code does not allow an exception to the masonry wall. If that was the case, staff would have objected to the applicant's plan. This is an example of the reason variances are available. Variances allow changes that make rational and human sense. (At this point in the meeting, there was inaudible discussion between the Chairman and the Vice Chairman.) Ms. Hollingshead explained to the members that a chain link fence was proposed by the applicant; however, there is a question about the length of the fence, if the board finds the chain link fence acceptable, then the only discussion necessary is the length of the fence. Mr. Ahrens stated that the applicant would like to stop the fence at one point and use a 2' berm with plants. The letter from the developer of Cedar Ridge will support the variance with a chain link fence running the entire length of the property line. Mr. Ahrens clarified that the fence begins and goes north to the north property line, turns and goes east to the east property line, tums again and goes south to the south property line, and turns west to the building. There is only one section without the chain link fence because it was not inside of a compounded area. There are tortoises in the pine preserve and this opening in the fence will allow them to move back and forth. The distance from the edge of 8 MEETING MINUTES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA FEBRUARY 12, 1996 the road to the point at which the fence would turn is 160'. Mr. Gold asked if the applicant would be willing to extend the fence. Mr. Kilpa~rick, who was~' present in the audience, responded affirmatively. ~lotion Ms. l-lollingshead moved that we allow this variance as stated with the chain link fence running to the appropriate edge of the road to include the landscaping which has been discussed, and the plantings and landscape concerns as a condition. Chairman Miriana clarified that the chain link fence would run from the northeast corner of the property through to the northwest corner of the propers/which would be High Ridge Road. This will run within the green space as described by Mr. ^hrens. Mr. Ahrens confirmed that the applicant will put a 6' high chain link fence starting at the northwest property corner, extending ali the way to the northeast property corner, and do the vegetation as called out on the certified landscape plan which has been submitted to the City. Mr. Ahrens stated that this is 43;c~. 1 4' by measurement and 43c~. 1' per plat. Mr. Gold seconded the motion. The Recording Secretary polled the vote. The vote was 5-0 to GRANT the variance. 2. Case #214 Location: Approximately 800 feet south of the intersection of Congress Avenue and Palmland Road. Owner: Summit Associates, Ltd. Requested Variance: Request relief from Section 4.].2 of Chapter 2 of the City's Land Development Regulations to allow construction of a ! 0 foot high, pre-cast masonry buffer wall for a distance of approximately 230 linear feet along the north property line of the Isles at Hunters Run PUD. Chairman Miriana announced the case. Kieran Ki!day, representing the purchaser of the property, advised that this property is located between Hunters Run and Congress Avenue. This property was the subiect of litigation between the existing owner and the City. The purchaser entered into a stipulation with the City to amend the lawsuit to allow residential use of the site. MEETING MINUTES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA FEBRUARY 12, 1996 The area which is the subject of the request is at the northern part of the property and extends toward Congress Avenue. This section is south of WXEL. The satellite dishes on the WXEL property are significantly large and provide an industrial look to the area. They are 22' in height; however, they can adjust up to 32' in height. The applicant is requesting that their buffer wall be extended in this particular location to a 10' wall to buffer the view of the satellite dishes from the residential lots. This is the minimum variance request. A screen of trees will also be included. ]erzy Lewicki made a brief presentation and explained that the applicant feels justified to request this variance because of the satellite dishes. Ms. Hollingshead questioned why a 10' wall would be preferable to a 6' wall with a green buffer. Mr. Kilday explained that the trees will take time to grow. The applicant needs to eliminate the visual image immediately. Ms. Hollingshead asked how the addition of 4' in height would improve blocking a 30' structure at a 45o angle. Mr. Kilday advised that they took average heights of people between 5' and 6'. At those heights, a 6' wall does nothing to block the view. However, a 10' wall lifts the sight line. Moving out 35' eliminates the view of the tops of the structures. In response to Ms. Hollingshead's question, Mr. Kilday advised that a row of Mahogany trees will be planted around the entire wall area at one per 25'. in addition, there will be a hedge planted on the inside of the wall. Mr. Kilday pointed out that although 6' walls are restricted in residential areas, this is an interface. The applicant is restricted because the wall is being built on the residential side. If the commercial owner was building the wall on his side, he would be allowed a higher wall. Chairman Miriana advised that he is not aware of any variances ever being granted for a wall higher than 6' in the City. Chairman Miriana was not convinced that anything would be gained by adding the additional 4' to the wall. He feels the trees provide a greater advantage. Mr. Kilday explained that this developer "bit the bullet" by agreeing to develop a commercially-designated parcel as residential. He is very concerned. Every detrimental concern to a buyer has been taken care of. If the applicant did not feel this was important, he would not have gone through this process. Mr. Rappoport stated that if he was to purchase a home on this side of the project, he would want a buffer. Mr. Kilday advised that these homes will sell from $250,000 to over $300,000. Mr. Gold agreed that he would not buy a home for those prices if he had to look at satellite dishes. He felt it would be advantageous to approve the variance. l0 MEETING MINUTES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA FEBRUARY 12, 1996 CHAIRHAN HIRIANA ANNOUNCED TH£ PUBLIC H£ARING. TH£R£ WA~ NO ONE PRESENT WHO WISHED TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION. Ms. Hollingshead expressed concern about this application because of the fact that the granting of this variance is associated with making this project saleable. She is also concerned about the aesthetics of a 10' concrete wall. In addition, she recalled counsel stating that there are no economic hardships. Mr. Kilday used the aerial photo to show the location of the wall. The 10' section would start at the rear of the WXEL building. The wall remains at 6' on Congress Avenue and around the corner. In response to Mr. Rappoport's question, Mr. Kilday explained that there have been no objections expressed by anyone. The Hunters Run Property Owners' Association has been part of the site planning efforts. (There was considerable discussion among the members which was inaudible.) Chairman Miriana advised that the board's decisions are not supposed to set precedents. Attorney Pawelczyk explained that the board's responsibility is to look at this property and determine if The Isles of Hunters Run has a substantial hardship, if they do, then £he minimal variance proposed should be acceptable to the board. Motion Mr. Rappopor~ moved to GRANT relief from Section 4.].2 of Chapter 2 of the City's Land Development Regulations to allow construction of a 10 foot high, i~re-cast masonry buffer wall for a distance of approximately 230 linear feet along the north property line of The Isles at Hunters Run. Mr. Gold seconded the motion. The Recording Secretary polled the vote: Howard Rappoport Aye Ben Uleck No Herman Gold - Aye Agnes Hollingshead - No ]ames Hiriana - No The vote was 2-3 and the motion to grant the variance FAILED. Mr. Kilday requested clarification of his options since the contract purchaser may decide not to purchase this property. MEETING MINUTES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA FEBRUARY 12, 1996 Attorney Pawelczyk advised that under the Ordinance, any person may appeal the decision of the board to the City Commission within 30 days of the rendition of the board. He was advised to make application through Tambri Heyden. 3. Case #21S Location: Northwest corner of Summit Drive and Westlake Drive. Owner: Summit Associates, Ltd. Requested Variance: Request relief from Article !11, Section 6.C.5 of Chapter 21 of the City's Land Development Regulations to allow a size increase of 25% for a directional sign in The Isles at Hunters Run PUD from the allowable 16 square feet to 20 square feet. Chairman Miriana announced the case. KJer~an~d!_day advised that this request is for a sign at the entrance to the project at the corner of Westlake Drive and Summit Drive. The boundary of the property is located several hundred feet north of Summit Drive. Although the project has frontage on Congress Avenue, there is no access to Congress Avenue. The signage is required at the entrance to the property. The variance request involves the size of the sign. The sign wall is 6' at its maximum height. The applicant has requested 20 square feet which is within the 25 percent parameter allowed to be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Appeals. In this particular case, if the developer owned the property down to Summit, he would not have to appear before this board because it would be considered an on-premise sign and the lettering would be allowed to take up 32 square feet. An off-premise directional sign is restricted to 16 square feet. Mr. Rappoport asked if this sign is located on Hunters Run property. Mr. Kilday responded affirmatively and advised that he is in possession of a letter from the Hunters Run Property Owners' Association authorizing Mr. Kilday to represent the petition. Ms. Heyden advised that staff had nothing to add to Mr. Kilday's presentation. CHAIRMAN MIRIANA ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT WHO WISHED TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION. Mo~io~ Ms. Hollingshead moved to grant the variance requested by Mr. Kilday to allow a 25 percent 12 MEETING MINUTES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA FEBRUARY 12, 1996 size increase for the directional sign from the allowable 16 square feet to 20 square feet as discussed. Hr. Rappoport seconded the motion. The Recording Secretary polled the vote which was unanimous to GRANT the variance. · 4. Case #216 Location: Northwest corner or S.E. 1st Street and S. E. 23rd -~ Avenue (l I 1 S. E. 23rd Avenue) Owner: Robert Simone Requested Variance: Request relief from Section 6.A.3 of Chapter 2. of the City's Land Development Regulations to reduce the required rear yard setback from 20 feet to 15 feet and to reduce the required side yard setback from 30 feet to 5 feet. Chairman Miriana announced the case. D~,J~ob~_~t~l~l]_~3~Avenue, advised that a need has arisen for him to have a utility shed on his property for storage of storm shutters and a pressure cleaner necessary for maintenance of his building. The need for this shed arose during the last hurricane alert when he had a problem finding someone to transport the shutters to this location. Because of the way the lot is situated, he would have to construct the shed on a corner that would be highly visible from SE 21 Avenue and SE I st Street. The shed would be an eyesore because it would be sitting in the middle of a vacant lot. Dr. Simone would like to place the shed behind the existing office building where it would not be visible from the road. The shed is 8' x 12' and 7' high. Dr. Simone provided photos of the property. He explained that the propers/to the north is zoned Residential; however, it is a vacant lot. He maintains the two trees with 100' canopies. When the berries fall from the trees, he must remove them from the pavement. Last year, two patients fell because they slipped on the berries. Dr. Simone feels the construction of this shed on the comer would be a detriment on a street that has taken so long to develop. Hr. Gold noted that Dr. Simone intends to store chemicals in the shed. He questioned whether or not there are any environmental concerns involved. Dr. Simone responded negatively and stated that the word chemicals should not have been used since it refers to the same amount of chlorine and acid that a person would store in his/her garage. No medical chemicals will be stored in this shed. 13 MEETING MINUTES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA FEBRUARY 12, 1996 Chairman Miriana questioned why another location could not be found for this shed. He suggested that the shed be placed on the north side. Mr. Rappoport asked if Dr. $imone would be willing to landscape around the shed. Dr. $imone responded affirmatively. Ms. Heyden advised the board that when the applicant submitted his request, he wanted side and rear variances. However, he has worked with staff to include only the side setback from 30' to 5'. (Inaudible discussion was taking place between the Chairman and Vice Chairman.) ]erzy LeWicki made a brief presentation. He pointed out that across the property line to the north is R-2 Residential. The setback requirement is 30' instead of :3'. The difference between the existing building and the property line to the north is 39'. This precludes locating the shed closer to the building. Placing this shed on the comer would be detrimental because it is a high visibility corner. Dr. Simone is attempting to place the shed in a less prominent location. He moved the shed 5' to the east so that he will only require one zoning variance. (There was inaudible discussion among the members.) Ms. Hollingshead asked for further clarification as to why Dr. Simone was unable to move the shed any further. At the map, Dr. Simone explained that the entrance to the utilities for the building, his air conditioning unit, water, sewer clean out, tree roots, and sprinkler pumps preclude him from moving the shed. The trees have a 100' canopy and span the width of the property. They create a construction problem. (There was inaudible discussion between Chairman and Vice Chairman. Discussion continued during Dr. Simone's presentation and Attorney Pawelczyk advised the members to speak on the record.) Chairman Miriana stated that he understood Dr. $imone's problem, but felt 5' is too close. - ~ He recommended that the shed be moved 5' or 1 O' more. Dr. Simone explained that the shed would then be over the well. Chairman Miriana suggested Dr. Simone move it over and come down 5'. That would allow 10' from the residential property. Every two years, Dr. Simone must have a truck with a 50' boom come onto the property to trim the branches. The truck cannot travel over the wells. The canopy of the tree extends out to the street. Ms. Hollingshead confirmed with Dr. Simone that this location is the best location he and the Building Department were able to work out. 14 MEETING MINUTES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA FEBRUARY 12, 1996 Chairman Miriana stated that he would not support this peddon unless the word "chemicals" is deleted. His reason for this is that the shed will only be 5' from residential property. Ms. Hollingshead agreed with the concern over flammable chemicals; however, she pointed out that the word "chemicals' appears on "Dawn" dish detergent. She suggested that the City Attorney or Building Official enlighten the members on the regulations associated with storage of unsafe chemicals. Mr. Haag advised that guidelines exist based on the quantity of the material. He suggested that a condition be added based on the Fire Code. Ms. Hollingshead moved to allow the gentleman to place the shed in the position he proposed after discussion with the Building Department, and note that the contents of the shed be subject to the Fire Codes. Attorney Pawelczyk clarified that the modon include the following: "reduce the required side yard setback from 30' to 5'". Ms. Hollingshead agreed to add the clarification to the motion. CHAIRMAN MIRIANA OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. D~lndict_or owns the property east of SE I Avenue. He supports Dr. Simone's petition and urged the board to support the request. THERE WAS NO ONE ELSE PRESENT WHO WISHED TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION; THEREFORE, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Attorney Pawelczyk clarified that the board is not reducing the rear yard setback from 20' to 15'o Mr. Gold seconded the motion. The Recording Secretary polled the vote. The vote was 5-0 to GRANT the variance. 8. OTHEKBU~ None 9. None MEETING MINUTES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA FEBRUARY 12, 1996 ! 0. AD_IOURNHENT There being no further business to come before the board, Mr. Rappoport moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Hollingshead seconded the mo£ion. The meeting properly adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Prainito Recording Secretary (Four Tapes) S:\CC\Wp\IvllN UTES\BZA\02 ! 296.WPD 16