Loading...
Minutes 09-14-87MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD AT ROYAL PALM CLUBHOUSE BOYNTON BEACH, FL MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1987 AT 7:00 P. M. PRESENT Vernon Thompson, Jr. Chairman Daniel E. Boyar Raymond Eney Janice Lewis, Alternate (Voting) Thomas C. Newton Henrietta Solomon Ben Uleck Alfred Newbold Building Department ABSENT George Mearns, Secretary (Excused) Lillian Artis, Vice Chairwoman (Excused) A. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF MEMBERS AND VISITORS Chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. and recognized the presence in the audience of former Mayor Carl Zimmerman. Chairman Thompson pointed out that this Board does not require a majority to approve an application. Tonight, two Members had excused absences. He introduced the Members of the Board and the Recording Secretary. Chairman Thompson read the six criteria the Board uses for approving or disapproving an application. B. READING AND APPROVING OF MINUTES Ms. Solomon moved to accept the minutes as presented, seconded by Mr. Boyar. Motion carried 7-0. C. ANNOUNCEMENTS None. D. COMMUNICATIONS None. E. OLD BUSINESS None. - 1 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FL September 14, 1987 F. NEW BUSINESS: 1. CASE #120 Applicant/ Owner: Request: Proposed Use: Address: Owner: Legal Description: Thomas T. McMurrain, Vice President Walboyn Development Corporation Relief from zoning requirement of solid masonry wall to be replaced with installation of hedge. Separation betwen shopping center and residential complex. 1701 North Congress Avenue Walboyn Development Corporation A portion of CONGRESS LAKES - PLAT NO. 1 (P.U.D.), and portions of the North half of the Northeast quarter of Section 19, Township 45 South, Range 43 East, and in the South half of the Southeast quarter of Section 18, Township 45 South, Range 43 East, Palm Beach County, Florida. Acting Secretary Solomon read the application and the responses to the six questions in paragraph 5. Ms. Solomon proceeded to read one of four letters received from individuals who are in favor of approving the use of hedges as a natural landscaping barrier. Ms. Solomon read one of the following letters concerning the Catalina Center: "Dear Sirs: Please accept the enclosed package requesting a variance on the above referenced project. The Catalina Center site presents a unique problem in that the westerly property line directly abuts an existing lake (Refers to questions a + b'). This line also acts as a zoning line dividing the C-3 shopping center parcel from an existing p.U.D. Appendix A, Section 4 General Provisions, Item L to the Boynton Beach Zoning Code states: For new construction or major modification to existing developments, where a commercial and/or industrial - 2 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FL September 14, 1987 district abuts a residential district, a solid, stucco masonry wall painted on both sides at least six (6) feet in height shall be located within the required side and/or rear yards except with respect to corner lots, said buffer walls shall not abridge any easement rights or be constructed over any existing utilities in any easement area and shall be setback two (2) feet from adjoining property lines. With respect to the C-1 (Office and Commercial Professional District), the solid masonry wall may be replaced with a dense vegetative buffer of at least two (2) feet in height at the time of planting. Said vegetative buffer to be maintained by the project developer... Cons=ruction of a wall in this instance would be most difficult. Soil conditions in such close proximity to water are notoriously unstable (in this situation the footing would come within two (2) feet of the waters edge in some places.) Fluctuations in the water table and lake level would serve to continuously undermine the wall footing resulting in uneven settlement and severe cracking in the wall itself (Refers to question d). It is apparent that the intent of the Ordinance is to provide a visual screen from property owners directlz abutting the commercial site. In this instance existance of a lake averaging nearly 300 in width provides a substantial natural barrier that is both aesthetically pleasing and functional). Residential units would never physically abut this property. In addition, we propose to provide dense landscaping in the place of the wall which would further add to the visual separation while functioning as an erosion control for the water's edge (see enclosed letter from Soil's Engineer). Since the Code allows for this type of buffer in certain commercial districts, namely C-l, the landscaping we pro- pose is more dense than that required and the lake physi- cally separates the two sites, we feel that a variance should be granted (Refers to question e). The property onwer affected by this variance has reviewed our plans and has stated that he would prefer to see the landscape buffer (Refers to question f). ' Sincerely, Thomas T. McMurrain Vice President- (Walboyn Development Corporation) - 3 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FL September 14, 1987 Thomas T. McMurrain, who resides at 8132 Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL, stated he was Vice President of Walboyn Development Corporation. Mr. McMurrain advised the variance should be granted because the waters edge and wall are very close in proximity. In addition, he stated both of the engineers had brought this fact to his attention and when looking into the issue of having to obtain a variance, it was suggested to contact the landholder behind the subject property, C & R, who is proposing to construct a residential community in the back. After reviewing the plans, it was their opinion that they would prefer to have the buffer of the lake and the landscaping versus the wall. Mr. McMurrain believed in many cases when looking at walls for an appearance buffer and considering water conditions and irri- gation syStems, it is evident that the problem of water stains exists. As a developer, Mr. McMurrain stated he would prefer to use the landscaped buffer instead of a masonry wall. He informed the Board members that there woul more landscaping done than normally planned in com- . Mr. McMurrain advised that his company were the owners of the Holiday Inn on Glades Road and 1-95 and Holiday Inn on Atlantic Avenue and A1A in Beach. He stated that the City and i!ts resi- dents wou e proud of what he was planning in regard to versus the masonry wall. Mr. Boyar inquired if Mr. McMurrain had a picture of the proposed landscaping and hedges~ Mr. McMurrain responded that he had a site plan but it did not show the elevation. A copy of the site plan was presented to the Board members for their review. The Board discussed the height of the hedges, the location of the lake, and the types of trees and plants to be used. Mr. McMurrain stated the hedges would be located a distance of five feet from the lake. In response to Mrs. Solomon's inquiry, Mr. McMurrain responded that his company would be responsible for main- taining the hedges. He also noted that the hedges would be a cocopalms, which are native hedges and are healthy green vibrant bushes. Mr. Uleck stated that many of the City's shopping centers and office buildings have six foot masonry walls and noted that this requirement is mandated by the City's Code. He mentioned that previous developers who were permitted to use landscaping buffers never kept up the maintenance of the landscaping. Mr. Uleck believed the wall should be constructed. Mr. McMurrain noted plans included installing a sprinkler system. - 4 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FL September 14, 1987 Chairman Thompson pointed out that the reason the City instituted the requirement of constructing a wall was for security and as a protection for the residents behind the wall from the commercial area. He stated that a landscaped buffer or lake does not offer the same protection as a masonry wall. He agreed that where hedges were previously granted to developers, their upkeep had been badly main- tained. He acknowledged that it costs more to construct a concrete wall than to plant hedges. In regard to the ero- sion issue, Chairman Thompson did not agree*that it was not sufficient justification for changing from a concrete wall to hedges. In response to Mr. Boyar's inquiry, Mr. Newbold explained when their is a residential area abutting a commercial/industrial area, the purpose of that particular requirement in the Ordinance is to cut down on sound, noise, sight from headlights, and other adverse conditions which occur in a commercial zone and to afford a means of protec- tion against such annoyances. Mr. Eney questioned the development of the C-1 office and professional building. Mr. McMurrain stated that office space is being planned for behind the retail area. Mr. McMurrain agreed with the statement regarding the expense of constructing a masonry wall. However, he pointed out that if one compares what is being planned for the landscaping, such as ~oyal Palm,trees, they would agree it'sa lush-looking shopping center. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of granting the variance. There was no response. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone wished to speak against granting the variance. There was no response. Chairman Thompson stated that the City Code requires that a six foot Wall be constructed in a C-1 zoning. He advised that the developer is asking to plant hedges instead of a wall. *Insert a peric Delete "that" and begin "it" with a capital See minutes of 11-09-87 *change to "Coco Plums'~ See minutes of 11-09-87 Mr. Boyar qUestioned the interpretation of the map and the location of the lake. Mr. Newbold explained that on the site plan it indicated the location of the plants to be four to five feet from the waters edge. The Board's discussion continued with a further review of the site plan. Mr. Boyar commented that he is in favor of the idea of a vegetation barrier as long as it is a well-planned barrier. - 5 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FL September 14, 1987 However, he believed to use plants that are not going to tolerate a moist environment which exists, it is difficult to make a decision. Chairman Thompson stated that the type of hedges planned should not be the utmost concern. He believed the issue concerned hedges versus a wall. Chairman Thompson pointed out there is a residential zone located in this area. He stated that a masonry wall is required by the City Code, and he could not agree that the construction of a masonry wall could impose a hardship, such as drainage, on the residents located behind it. Mr. Uleck agreed he could not see any hardship being incurred with the construction of the wall, and believed the requirements of the City Code should be followed. Mr. Uleck made a motion to deny the request for planting of hedges and that a solid masonry wall be constructed per Code where needed by the developer, seconded by Ms. Lewis. A roll call vote on the motion was taken by Mrs. Brown, as requested by Chairman Thompson: Mr. Uleck - Aye Chairman Thompson - Aye Mrs. Solomon - Aye Ms. Lewis - Aye Mr. Newton - Aye Mr. Boyar - Aye Mr. Eney - Aye Motion carried 7-0. request was denied. Chairman Thompson announced that the 2. CASE #121 Applicant/ Owner: Daniel Joran Request: Relief from Zoning Requirement of 60 ft. lot frontage to be reduced to 42 ft. lot frontage and relief from Zoning Requirement of 6,000 sq. ft. lot area to be reduced to 3,780 sq. ft. lot area. Proposed Use: Construct a single family dwelling - 6 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FL September 14, 1987 Location: 336 N. E. 12 Avenue Lot 2, Block 9 HAPPY HOME HEIGHTS ReCorded in Plat Book 11, Page 30 Palm Beach County Records Acting Secretary Solomon read the application and the responses to the six questions in paragraph 5. Daniel Jordan, who resides at 232 N. E. 12th Avenue, Boynton Beach, FL, stated the variance should be granted because he is planning to build a single family home for his 77 year old mOther. Mr. Uleck determined that Mr. Jordan's property was the only vacant lot on N. E. 12th Avenue. In response to Chairman Thompson's inquiry, Mr. Newbold stated that the site plan and proposed building meet.~ all the requirements of Code. Mrs. Solomon questioned if the proposed building when constructed could create a safety factor due to the proxi- mity to the adjacent houses. Mr. Newbold explained that it is narrow enough to accommodate the 7½ foot setback required by Code. He further stated that the request did not concern a setback variance but concerned the lot being narrow and having less square footage. Mr. Uleck commented that all the lots located on the street are either 42 feet or 45 feet. He could not see any reason for denying the variance. Chairman Thompson asked three times if anyone wished to speak in favor of granting the variance There was no response. · Chairman Thompson asked three times if anyone wished to speak against granting the variance. Chairman Thompson noted there was no correspondence received in regards to this case. Ms. Lewis could not see how this request would have a nega- tive impact on the community since other lots on the street are the same size. She noted it could impose a hardship if the land which was purchased could not be used. Mr. Uleck made a motion that request #1 for a variance of 18 feet on the lot frontage and that request #2 for a variance - 7 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FL September 14, 1987 on the lot area of 2,220 square feet be granted, seconded by Mrs. Solomon. A roll call vote on the motion was taken by Mrs. Brown, as requested by Chairman Thompson: Mr. Uleck - Aye Chairman Thompson _ Aye Mrs. Solomon - Aye Ms. Lewis - Aye Mr. Newton - Aye Mr. Boyar - Aye Mr. Eney - Aye The motion carried 7-0. Chairman Thompson announced that the variance request was granted. 3- CASE %122 Applicant: Owner: Request: PropOsed Use: Location: Legal Description: Gene C. Stimmler Judith McQuade Relief from Zoning Requirement of 75 ft. lot frontage to be reduced to 65 ft. lot frontage to construct a single family dwelling. Construct a single family dwelling. 861 N. W. 8th Avenue Lot 43 GLEN ARBOR ADDN. %2 Recorded in Plat Book 26, Page 103, Palm Beach County Records Acting Secretary Solomon read the application and the responses to the six questions in paragraph 5. Gene Stimmler, who resides at 7142 High Ridge Road, Lantana, FL, stated this request concerns a 65 foot lot which has houses on both sides of it. He noted that the houses in the area are nice hOmes, and commented that all the other lots on N. W. 8th Avenue are 65 feet frontage or less. - 8 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FL September 14, 1987 In response to Ms. Lewis' inquiry, Mr. Stimmler explained that the house is located on one lot and the swimming pool is located on the other lot in the back. Mr. Uleck commented that the original owner purchased the two lots - #42 and #43, and at that time the owner used the two lots for a pool and a home. According to the City Code, Mr. Uleck advised the lots should be 75 feet. He confirmed that the applicant is asking for a variance of ten feet on Lot #43. Mr. Newbold pointed out the two lots were developed as one parcel and is presently owned by one owner. He noted that the contract which Mr. Stimmler has with the owner includes the purchase of both pieces, but Mr. Stimmler,s only con- dition in the contract is "I'll buy subject to." Therefore, the owner is not requesting anything. Mr. Uleck noted the Code was changed in 1975 and now requires a 75 foot frontage. Mr. Newbold stated the City Attorney stressed the point that the Code allows the interior property line between two parts of land to be eliminated. He stated it is now a conforming building. However, if the two lots are then separated, in this case Lot #42 will be non-conforming. Mr. Uleck clarified the owner had gotten permission to install a pool and garage on the adjoining lot, and the two lots were treated as one parcel. Ms. Lewis confirmed that the applicant dOes not have a hardship situation in this case since he does not own the property at this time. Chairman Thompson stated this property was treated as one parcel with 130 feet wide frontage. To cut off 65 feet to sell one piece of property will make the one parcel with the house on it non conforming. If a variance is granted on one parcel, a hardship is being placed on the other. It is illegal to grant a variance that would create a hardship on something else. Mr, Newbold explained since Mr. Stimmler has a contract to purchase the property, it qUalifies him as an applicant, but he has to prove to the Board that he has a problem. Judith McQuade, who resides at 859 N. W. 8th Avenue, Boynton Beach, FL, stated when she purchased the property in 1967, MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FL September 14, 1987 the garage and the house were there. She obtained per- mission to build a pool on the other piece of p~roperty far enough back so she could build another house on the property in the future. Mrs. McQuade explained that was the reason why the house and the pool were separated. However, by the time she was ready to do this, her husband became ill and is now deceased. She reiterated that the property was purchased as two pieces even though she bought it as a package deal. She added that she was informed by the City that it was two lots and that she coUld build a pool in back of one house but at that time they :wanted almost a $1000 to move the electrical wiring. She had the architect build a pool far enough back so that when she wanted to put a house on it, she could do it. She concluded that was why it was split up the way it was. Ms. Lewis asked Mr. Newbold if permission to put a pool on that lot woul.d have been given if it was not considered one large parcel of land. Mr. Newbold stated that according to his previous testimony a pool, a garage, carport, or anything of that nature are accessories to a main structure. He advised the Board members that he had given a new address to this parcel ifor the purpose of this variance. However listedprior tOasthiSone meeting,l.ot, Lot #42. these two parcels had always been In response to Chairman Thompson,s inquiry, Mr. Newbold con- firmed the reason the separation of the pool and house was permitted was because it was treated as one piece of pro- perty. Don Bigham, Real Estate Broker, 310 North Dixie Highway, Lantana, FL, stated that basically he could understand the points presented by the Board members but to him it was not a question of where the pool is or whether there is a pool. He believed it concerned the question as to whether two lots could be separated and built on. He added all the lots in the area are 65 foot in dimension. Mr. Bigham believed the hardship with Mrs. McQuade is that she has a problem with the building which is presently located on the lot. He stated that the applicant would improve the property for the City and there would be two beautiful homes on those lots compared to what is presently there which is a disaster. Mr. Bigham concluded that Mrs. McQuade has a hardship in that she cannot do anything with what she does have there at this point because of her own situation. Mr. Boyar questioned if the Board granted the requested variance would the house on Lot #42 be too close to the pro- - 10 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FL September 14, 1987 perty line. He stated there was a wooden fence around a concrete structure which is located close to the property line, and noted that certain setbacks are required. Mr. Bigham replied that there were no problems since when the house sits on the property the setbacks would be met. He does not know of any reason that would change the other parcel as far as setback requirements since there is plenty of square footage and a good location. Mr. Bigham explained each of the properties have a problem - a pool that is unattended and unsafe, and a house that is an eyesore in the neighborhood. He felt these lots should be treated separately now because there is a major problem. Chairman Thompson responded that if we went around and allowed everyone to break up property for economic reasons, the City would not be what it is today. The City of Boynton Beach has grown in the last twenty years from a cow town to a city with an excellent Code behind it. Mr. Boyar confirmed that Lot #43 was the only vacant lot on the street, and the applicant was proposing a lot which is the same size or larger than the other lots in the area. Chairman Thompson advised this is not a vacant lot, and it was purchased as one parcel. Mrs. McQuade stated she purchased the lots as two parcels, and years ago the City informed her that she could build on the two lots. When building the pool, the City advised her she could build the pool far back so she could build a house on it. She stated that is the reason the pool was built further back than the house on the other lot. Chairman Thompson asked three times if anyone wished to speak in favor of granting the variance There was no response. · Chairman Thompson asked three times if anyone wished to speak against granting the variance. There was no response. Chairman Thompson confirmed with the Recording Secretary that there was no correspondence received in the files. Mr. Boyar stated the owner, Mrs. McQuade, has indicated that at the time she purchased the two lots, the City gave her permission that she would be able to build another residence on Lot #43 in the future. He questioned if there was docu- mentation or special clauses ~n any of the leases to substantiate this statement. - 11 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FL September 14, 1987 Chairman Thompson stated the only guide available is the City Ordinance. However, going back to 1952-53 records, the City could not have given permission to build a swimming pool or one car garage on a separate piece of property without a main structure on the lot. Lots #42 and #43 were treated as one piece of property. Mr. Newbold did not believe there was a problem existing as far as enhancing the subject property because the house could be extended. However, it is understandable that the owner is now having problems because she is an absentee landlord and the property is being run down. A buyer could improve the building and make it more attractive. He noted that the property is R-1AA zoning. Mr. Boyar pointed out that if the variance is not granted there would be a block consisting of all 60 foot wide fron- tage except for the subject property which would be twice the size. If the variance is granted, he stated that all the lots would conform to the same size. Mr. Newbold stated that the Code changed in 1975, and if the owner built a pool at that time she would have been told by the new building official that she would be creating a problem if she subdivided it later. He emphasized that a self-imposed problem cannot be rectified by the Zoning Board. In response to Mr. Boyar's statement, Chairman Thompson stated that the subject area is zoned R-1AA, which calls for 75 foot frontage, and that a certain house must meet the Code. Mr. Newbold explained if there were three vacant lots located side by side in that zoning today, this Ordinance would deny them the right to be heard and would require them to separate those lots and make them larger. It now must comply with the requirements stipulated in the 1975 Code. Mr. Eney commented that only one lot, Lot #43, was being addressed. He believed the issue was not a hardship on the owner but the desire of the purchaser for future investment. Mrs. Solomon made a motion to deny the request for a variance of Lot #43, Glen Arbor Addition #2, owned by Judith McQuade, seconded by Ms. Lewis. Mr. Uleck - Aye Chairman Thompson - Aye Mrs. Solomon _ Aye Ms. Lewis - Aye - 12 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FL September 14, 1987 Mr. Newton Mr. Boyar - Aye Mr. Eney - Aye - Aye The Motion carried 7-0. Chairman Thompson announced that the variance request was denied. G. PENDING REQUESTS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS None. H. OTHER BUSINESS None. I. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting adjourned at 9:10 P.M. ' Carol Ann Brown Recording Secretary (Three Tapes) - 13 -