Loading...
Minutes 06-09-86MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, MONDAY, JUNE 9, 1986 AT 7:00 P. M. PRESENT Vernon Thompson, Jr., Chairman Robert Gordon, Secretary Lillian Artis George Mearns Paul Slavin Ben Uleck Raymond Eney, Alternate ABSENT George Ampol, Vice Chairman (Excused) Danny O'Brien (Excused) Med Kopczynski, Deputy Bldg. Official Chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:03 P. M. and introduced the Members of the Board, Mr. Kopczynski, and the Recording Secretary. He recognized the presence in the audience of Vice Mayor Carl Zimmerman. MINUTES OF MAY 12, 1986 As there were no additions or corrections to the minutes, the minutes stood approved as received. ANNOUNCEMENTS None. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS Case #102 Applicant/ Agent: Nash, Schwartz & Associates, Inc. Strock Engineering Associates, Inc. Owners: Lawrence T. Drum (Co-Trustee) Philip L. Patenaude (Co-Trustee) Request: Relief from Appendix A-Zoning, Sec. ll-H-16-e-12(e), which requires 20 off street parking spaces for the condominium pool area (1200 sq. ft.), and applicant requests that 0 parking spaces be required - 1 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 9, 1986 Proposed Use: Condominium Pool Location: 2410 South Federal Highway Legal Description: See "Addendum A" attached. Chairman Thompson announced that Case #102 had been taken off of the agenda for the reason that it did not need a variance. A man representing a group of people sitting in the audience wished to address the Board for a more in-depth explanation. Mr. Kopczynski showed him a copy of his memo dated May 30, 1986, addressed to Carmen Annunziato, Planning Director, which stated it was the Building Department's interpretation of the Ordinance that no parking was required and, therefore, no variance was required. Chairman Thompson then read the memorandum into the record (See "Addendum B" attached.) ' Case #103 Applicant: Owner: Request: Daniel J. O'Brien, Agent Dominick Iandimarino Relief from Appendix A-Zoning, Sec. 6-D-3, C-4 zoning requirement of 100 ft. minimum lot depth to be reduced to 85.5 ft. lot depth Relief from Appendix A-Zoning, Sec. 6-D-3, C-4 zoning requirement of 20 feet minimum rear yard to be reduced to 0 feet Relief from Appendix A-Zoning, Sec. 4(L) zoning requirement that where a commercial or industrial district abuts a residential district, a solid, stucco masonry wall at least six (6) feet in height shall be required. Applicant is requesting they permit installa- tion of a vine covered landscaped chain link fence instead of wall Proposed Use: Used Car Sales Lot Location: Legal Description: 1201 North Federal Highway Lot 13, less the E. 10' thereof, WILMS WAY, recorded in Plat Book 23, Page 110, Palm Beach County Records - 2 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 9, 1986 Chairman Thompson pointed out that this Board is not a majority Board. It is a voting Board of seven Members, but any three votes against it will deny the request for variance. Chairman Thompson said the Board bases its judgment on what they see, research upon, and find (whether it is a hardship. placed on the property in question or a self-imposed hard- ship). All of these things are considered when they go out and view the property. Chairman Thompson also read the six criteria that the Board takes into consideration when making its judgment. Secretary Gordon read the application and the answers to the six questions asked in paragraph 5. Secretary Gordon read a letter dated June 4, 1986 from Daniel J. O'Brien, O'Brien, Suiter & O'Brien, Inc., 2601 N. Federal Highway, Delray Beach, Florida 33444, which advised that Beril Kruger & Associates would serve in his place as Agent for Dominick Iandimarino. Beril Kruger, President, Beril Kruger and Associates, Zoning Consultants - Land Planning, 2601 North Federal High- way, Delra¥ Beach, Florida 33444, requested a variance for the size of the lot (being less than 100 feet) for the reason that a portion of the lot was given away to the State for Federal Highway. He also requested a variance for the rear setback and the six foot wall. Mr. Kruger understood there was a letter from a woman across the street, to the east on Federal Highway, against the variance for the wall. When the woman built her property, she was required to build a six foot wall because her property is abutting a residence. Mr. Kruger said this property, which is located at 1201 North Federal Highway is abutting the 50 foot Florida East Coast Railway right-of-way in the rear. Beyond that, to the west, is Railroad Avenue, which is another 40 foot right-of- way. Before they get to a residential lot, it is 90 feet. Mr. Kruger said the property to the north is a U Haul It. (The old gas station rented to U Haul It trucks and trailers.) They have a chain link fence with vines running over it. The property to the south is a topless bar and parking lot, also with a chain link fence and vines running over it. South of that is a dry cleaner, which also has a chain link fence. - 3 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 9, 1986 If this owner is required to build a six foot wall, Mr. Kruger said he will be the only person on the street with a wall. Everything else is chain link fence. There is one residence to the west of Railroad Avenue, behind this property. Mr. Kruger drove down there the other day. In looking down the street and at some of the other areas, when you look at a plain, painted, six foot high concrete block wall compared to a chain link fence with a vine or a hedge, Mr. Kruger thought the hedge was a lot easier to look at. Mr. Kruger told the Board that the chain link fence with barbed wire is needed for security. This will be a car lot with used cars and trucks. They have the railroad property and a dead end street, so there is a good possibility of kids coming over the wall, going into the back of the property, tearing up the cars, and stealing parts off of themi With the chain link fence with barbed wire and a hedge, it will look good. Mr. Kruger asked the Board to relax the Ordinance requiring a six foot wall. As far as the setback and size of the lot, Mr. Kruger thought that was self-explanatory. The lot was platted in 1950~ and the right-of-way was given for U. S. 1, so a lot of this size was not caused by the owner. Being that it will be a car lot, a small building will be on the western side of the lot. The front portion is needed for display. If they move the building any closer forward, it will eliminate the owner's parking spaces and the display area. Mr. Kruger asked the Board to recognize their needs and hoped they were not causing any problems for the City. In their original application to the Building Department, where they asked about putting up a chain link fence, Mr. Slavin asked if they also included a request for barbed wire. Mr. Kopczynski answered, "No." Mr. Slavin inquired whether barbed wire is permitted in C-4 zoning. Mr. Kopczynski knew it was permitted in M-1 zoning and began checking the Ordinances. Mr. Uleck recalled the Spada case and thought it was C-3 or C-4 zoning. Mr. Uleck asked why the applicant could not put up a concrete block wall, referred to the neighbors to the south and north, and said the Code has been changed. Mr. Kruger thought there was a possibility that the Code would be changed in the future. As it stands now, the zoning for residential comes up to the rear of the property, which includes Railroad - 4 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 9, 1986 Avenue and the railroad tracks. This is the first time Mr. Kruger ever saw railroad tracks zoned Residential, and he commented that railroad tracks should be zoned Industrial. If the tracks are ever removed, it would be very difficult to build anything around there. Mr. Kruger said there was a problem building against rail- road tracks. If it was against a residence, Mr. Kruger said there would be no problem. A wall would be required. This property is 90 feet away from the closest residential lot. If it was abutting it, there would be no problem, as Mr. Kruger stated to the woman across the street. Her business was abutting a residential lot, but this business is not. The only thing they would be putting up a concrete block wall to shield would be the railroad, and Mr. Kruger did not think the railroad cared if there was a wall or not. Mr. Kruger continued that most of the properties on the west side of Railroad Avenue are vacant. All that is there is one residence. For the 90 feet plus the possible 30 foot setback from the street, it is about 120 feet away from this property. Mr. Uleck referred to the Code being changed in 1975 and felt new owners should go by the Code. If the property was abutting a residential lot, Mr. Kruger argued that there would be no question, they would build a wall. Mr. Kruger explained that the reason for a wall is so residential wall abutting the property will be screened from the commercial property. He reiterated that the only thing they would be screening would be the railroad tracks. Mr. Uleck brought out that the difference between a concrete wall and a cyclone fence is in the money, and he said the applicant was not looking for a variance but was looking for the dollar sign. Mr. Kopczynski advised that barbed wire is permitted in M-1 and Planned Industrial Developments (PIDs) only. It is not permitted in C-4. Mr. Kruger noticed that the rest of the properties have barbed wire, but it is a lot harder to climb a chain link fence with a hedge or vine on it than a wall. It is easy to scale a six foot wall. When he was in the service, they had to do it. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of granting the variance. Salvatore Iandimarino, 3110 South Federal Highway, Delray Beach, came forward. Mr. Mearns asked if this would truly - 5 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 9, 1986 be a used car lot for retail sales of used cars or if it would be a junk property. Mr. Iandimarino replied that it is not going to be like that. Mr. Mearns asked if it would be lighted. Mr. Iandimarino answered, "Absolutely". He added that he would have to have lights, and would put them up even if the Board did not request them. Mr. Uleck thought it would look 100 times better with a concrete block wall than with a cyclone fence. If they would put Ficus Benjaminae bushes against a chain link fence, Mr. Iandimarino said it would be a lot prettier. Mr. Uleck thought Ficus bushes were against the Code in many sections around the City. Mr. Iandimarino said the property has been vacant for a long time, and he is just trying to improve it and do something with it. If they cannot put the barbed wire up, he wondered how high they could go on the fence. Mr. Kopczynski answered, "Six feet." Mr. Iandimarino agreed with Mr. Uleck that a concrete wall is very expensive and said he wants to make it look as nice as possible. Mr. Uleck stated that they are trying to bring the City Code up-to-date and correct the violations made by the City's forefathers. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone else 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. Howard Burns, 11 Fairway Place, Boynton Beach, owns property on N. E. 12th Avenue, and was very much against the variance because he felt the establishment of this business under these circumstances was nothing but further degradation of the area, which needs uplifting and upgrading. Mr. Burns thoroughly agreed with Mr. Uleck that it should be a "stone wall" Not only would it protect the residents in the back, but it would improve the view from the highway towards the railroad. Mr. Burns asked if the properties that have chain link fences were grandfathered. Chairman Thompson did not know. Mr. Burns' point was that he was very much against the establishment of this business. He did not think it was an answer for the areao Shaneen Wahl, 611-4 N. E. 12th Terrace, was very much against putting in the chain link fence. As far as putting in the concrete wall, she had no problem with that because it would - 6 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 9, 1986 allow for the owner of the property to make use of the property. Community redevelopment has been a very hot issue these days, and Mrs. Wahl thought everybody was looking forward to the upgrading of property rather than downgrading. The chain link fence would not lend itself to beautification or upgrad- ing of the area. There are too many other places along Federal Highway that are eye sores. Mrs. Wahl thought another chain link fence would just be adding to them. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone else wished to speak against granting the variance. There was no response. Secretary Gordon read the following correspondence: Lloyd Powell, Executive Vice President, The Alpine Seven Company, Inc., doing business as Alpine Florist, 1112 North Federal Highway, had no objections to the variance. By letter of May 28, 1986, F. Bruce Merges, Owner of Bayflite Marine, 1406 North Federal Highway, objected to relief relating to a stucco masonry wall. Willard E. Butterworth and Gloria A. Butterworth, 744-3 N. E. 12th Terrace, wrote that with vacant gas stations, car washes, pest control, abuses of parking on the streets, dumpsters on City rights-of-way, cars and trucks parked all over with "For Sale" signs, they do not need another used car lot on the corner of N. E. 12th and Federal Highway. Mr. and Mrs. Butterworth,s letter said City officials should do everything possible to improve the area, not destroy the tax base and create further hardship on an area that is already getting the reputation of a blighted area. Chairman Thompson told the Members only one thing was in question, and that was a masonry wall versus a chain link fence. The owner was asking that he be allowed to put in a fence instead of a wall. Chairman Thompson requested the Members to try and hold everything to just that. Mr. Uleck moved to deny the variance for a cyclone fence. Chairman Thompson wished to hear from the Members before entertaining a motion. Mr. Slavin advised that a motion is always in order. If the motion was seconded, they could discuss the motion. The motion died for lack of a second. - 7 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 9, 1986 Mr. Slavin noted several speakers told them people in the area want the property upgraded, the zoning laws changed, and things of that nature. Federal Highway is a commercial street, and this Board has no jurisdiction over zoning. Mr. Slavin commented that the Board can only go by what the hard- ship is on the property. Mr. Slavin said the previous owners deeded away 10 feet of the property for U. S. 1. He recalled other cases and drew attention to the Blossom Shoppe, where part of the parking area was taken along Seacrest Boulevard. The Blossom Shoppe came to the Board for a variance to permit parking along the side. Another one was Crazy Joe's, Incorporated, where they deeded a lot of property for the right-of-way of 1-95. The Board granted him a variance. Mr. Slavin did not think the hardship of the property size was self-imposed. Asking for a chain link fence is not the worst thing in the world. As Mr. Uleck said, two wrongs do not make a right, but Mr. Slavin pointed out that the lot will stand out like a sore thumb along the highway. He visited the property, looked at it from across the street, and saw no homes west of the property. Mr. Kruger pointed out the footage, and Mr. Slavin said he would take his word for it. Mr. Slavin did not see where it was an eye sore. People across the street had to put up walls because they abutted a residential area, but this property abuts a commercial piece of property, which is the railroad. Mr. Slavin felt the petitioner was asking for something that was entirely justified. He wanted to make a motion. Chairman Thompson wanted to ask a question and also wanted to hear from all of the Members. Had not the east property been taken away from the property in question in the front, (which is U. S. 1) and in the rear, Chairman Thompson asked if the property would be required to have a masonry wall because of the depth of it. Mr. Kopczynski replied that the problem with the property is the change in zoning at the rear property line to Residen- tial. The way the Code is written, it says, "abuts a resi- dential district." In essence, Mr. Kopczynski said it is abutting a residential district. However, if the residen- tial district line had been moved on the other side of the railroad, it would be abutting a commercial right-of-way and they would not, under the Code, be required to have a wall. - 8 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 9, 1986 It was not that he did not want to give them a variance on the setback, but Mr. Uleck still said if the back wall and north and south ends had a concrete block wall, Mr. Iandimarino could display his cars in front. He repeated all of his prior statements and repeated there should be a concrete wall because that is the Code. Mr. Uleck emphati- cally told Mr. Slavin, "You are going against me!" Chairman Thompson advised that every case that comes before the Board is asking for something the City does not want to give. That is why the applicants are here. If they were asking for something that was right, they would not need to be here. Chairman Thompson told the Members to keep in mind that the properties are in violation in every case that comes before the Board. Mrs. Artis understood that the railroad track was included in the residential zone. Mr. Kopczynski confirmed that was correct. Mr. Uleck moved to deny the variance for a cyclone fence and to give a variance for the setbacks and a concrete wall. Chairman Thompson advised that only a variance for the concrete wall had been asked. Mr. Slavin read paragraph 3 of the application and said the property does not have a 100 foot depth, so the applicant must have a variance to give him the difference. Mr. Slavin and Mr. Uleck said that was why they brought up both issues before. Mr. Slavin suggested that there be two motions because there was no sense in granting the variance on the depth if they were not going to grant the variance on the wall. Mr. Kopczynski advised that three variances were requested. The third was setback requirements. Chairman Thompson read the three things involved from paragraph 3 of the application. He noted there was no second to Mr. Uleck's motion. Mr. Slavin wished to make a motion. Motion Mr. Slavin moved to grant the variance in its entirety, to the petitioner, for the following reasons: 1. He repeated the statement in.#l above and added that the City needed land to widen U. S. 1, and the FEC needed more footage to continue their right-of-way. No hardship was imposed by the petitioner. - 9 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 9, 1986 2. Mr. Slavin said this is a commercial street that is being used. The type of businesses there are not in the Board's jurisdiction, and they were there before the petitioner came in. The petitioner saw this as an opportunity to invest and earn money. The street lends itself to it. Chairman Thompson asked if there was a second to Mr. Slavin's motion. Mr. Uleck argued that he made the original motion and mentioned the setbacks. Chairman Thompson informed Mr. Uleck that Mr. Slavin's motion would also die if there was no second. Mrs. Artis seconded the motion made by Mr. Slavin. Mr. Uleck questioned whether the motion was for a concrete wall or cyclone fence. Mr. Slavin replied it was for a cyclone fence without the barbed wire. There was more argument between Mr. Uleck and Mr. Slavin. At the request of Chairman Thompson, Mrs. Ramseyer read the motion. Chairman Thompson told the Members to keep in mind that an "Aye" vote meant they were in favor of the motion to grant the request. Mrs. Ramseyer took a roll call vote on the motion, and the motion carried 6-1. Mr. Uleck voted against the motion. Chairman Thompson announced that the request was granted. Mrs. Wahl understood they voted for the chain link fence, but in the earlier discussion, it was said the fence would have a vine covering or a tree covering. She asked if that meant it would happen as well. Mr. Slavin answered affirmatively. Chairman Thompson informed Mrs. Wahl that the motions are enforced by the City Building Department and not the Board, and he elaborated. OTHER BUSINESS None. NEXT MEETING Chairman Thompson announced that the next meeting will be Monday, July 14, 1986 at 7:00 P. M. Secretary Gordon stated he will be out of town for the next two months. If anyone finds they cannot attend this meeting, Chairman Thompson asked that they call the Office of the City Clerk. Mr. Kopczynski knew of one case, and possibly two cases, that would be coming up in July. - 10- MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 9, 1986 ADJOURNMENT Secretary Gordon moved, seconded by Mr. Slavin, to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:55 P. M. (One Tape) - 11- LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR CASE 102~ Location: 2410 South Federal Highway Condominium Pool Area designated in a parcel of land lying partly in the south one-half of Section 33 and partly in the south one-half'of Section 34, Township 45 South, Range 43 East, Palm Beach County, Florida, said parcel being more particularly desCribed'as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the east-west quarter section line of said Section 33 with the east right-of- way line of U.S. Highway No. 1 (State Road No. 5) as shown in Road Plat Book 2 on Page 159, Public Records of Palm Beach County; thence easterly, along said east-west quarter section line, a distance of 334.48 feet to the point of beginning; thence continue easterly along the same course, a distance of 232.50 feet to the quarter section corner in the east line of said Section 33; thence continue easterly, along the east-west quarter sectiOn line of said SeCtioN 34, a distance of 155.90 feet to an intersection with the west right-of-way line -of the Intracoastal Waterway, as shown in Plat Book 17, on Page 13A; thence southwesterly, along said west right-of-way line, a distance of 211.63 feet to an inter- section with the easterly extension of a line 209.46 feet south of, as measured at right angles, and parallel with the Said east-west quarter section line of Section 33; thence westerly, along Said parallel line, a distance of 715.00 feet to an intersection with the said east right-of-way line of U.~S. Highway No. 1; thence northeasterly, along said east right-of-way line, a distance of 25.11 feet to an. intersection with a line 184.46 feet south of, as measured at right angles, and parallel with the said east-west quarter section line of Section 33; thence easterly, along said parallel line, a distance of 352.12 feet; thence northerly, at right ang~s to the preceding 'course, a distance of 184.46 feet to-the point of beginning containing 2.00 acres, -. more Or less. ~ ADDENDUM A Carme~ Annunziato Planning Director MEMORANDUM THRU: ~ E. E. Howell D^,, May 30, 1986 Building Official Fit, Med Kopcz2~ski Deputy Building O==' ' ~ M~lCla~ .Board of Adjustment Case #102 -- 2410 S. Federal Hwy. This office has completed an evaluation of Board of Adjustment Case #102; specifically, 2410 S. Federal Hwy. We have researched this case and have produced a series of facts in relation to proposed improvements on this property. The owners of this property wish to construct condominium apartments that would surround a pool 'shaped as an "L". Appendix A-Zoning, Sec. ll-H-16-e(I2)(a thru e) of the Code of Ordinances applies to the required-parking spaces. The owners of Ibis property, as a condition for Planning Department approval for'this proposed project, have been informed that they would have to provide parking at the pool or obtain a variance to requirement imposed by (12)(e). Please be advised that this office interprets (12)(e) to be taken with and used with (12)(a thru d). This office does not 'believe that tho'-intent of this section is to provide (e) above as enforce- able alone. A pool that is provided alone will be treated similarly to other structures as to distance requirements and spaces that must be provided. Otherwise, situations might arise whereby a pool alone is provided with parking and if a recreation building were substituted, no parking would be required. C~se #102 has 130 feet as the farthest building distance from the pool. It is the interpretation of this office that no parking is required and therefore, no variance-is required. MK:bh XC: City Clerk City Manager Med. ' Y~ pczynskz ADDENDUM B