Loading...
Minutes 04-12-82MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1982 AT 7:00 P. M. PRESENT Vernon Thompson, Jr. Carl Zimmerman Robert Gordon Theodore Blum Nick Cassandra Anthony DiSarli Paul Slavin. George Ampol, Alternate Lillian Artis, Alternate Bert Keehr, Deputy Building Official Chairman Thompson. called the meeting to order at 7:00 P, M. He introduced all of members of the Board, Deputy~Building Official, and Recording Secretary, Chairman Thompson also recognized the presence of Vice Mayor James Warnke and Councilman Joe deLong. He acknowledged that Councilman deLong is always with the Board at their meetings. Organizational Meeting Chairman Thompson told the Board they were to'select a Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Secretary, He opened the floo~ for nominations to Chairman. Mr. Slavin moved that the present officers continue to serve. Since the floor was open, Chairman Thompson nominated Carl Zimmerman as Chairman. Mr. Slavin felt his nomination was out of order inasmuch as he nominated the present officers, He apologized and withdrew his nomination. Mr. Cassandra seconded Chairman Thompson's motion. Mr. Slavin moved that Vernon Thompson, Jr. remain in the office of Chairman. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion. Mr. Slavin moved that the nominations be closed, seconded by Mr. Gordon. Mrs. Ramseyer took a roll call vote on the motion that Carl Zimmerman be nominated as Chairman, as follows: Mr. DiSarti Yes Mr. Blum Yes Mr. Zimmerman No Chairman Thompson Yes Mr. Gordon No Mr. Slavin No Mr. Cassandra Yes The motion carried 4-3. Chairman Thompson announced that Carl Zimmerman was the 1982 Chairman for the Board of Adjustment. Chairman Thompson said the floor was open for nominations for Vice Chairman for the year 1982. Mr, Zimmerman nominated Vernon Thompson. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gordon. MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 12, 1982 Mr. Slavin nominated Nick Cassandra as Vice Chairman. Chairman Thompson determined that it was not necessary to have a second to the motion. Mr. Slavin moved that the nominations be closed, seconded by Mr. Gordon. Chairman Thompson announced that there were two names nominated for Vice Chairman and they would be taken in the order given, Mrs° Ramseyer took a roll call vote on the motion for Vernon Thompson, Jr. as Vice Chairman: Mr. Blum Aye Mr. Zimmerman Aye Mr. Thompson Aye Mr. Gordon Aye Mr. Slavin No Mr. Cassandra Mrs. Ramseyer was told there was no need to continue the vote, even though she did not get Mr. Cassand~a~s vote or M~. DiSarli"s vote, as there was a majority vote. Vernon Thompson, Jr. was elected as Vice ~Chairman for 1982. Mr. Slavin moved, seconded by Mr. Blum, that Robert Gordon continue as Secretary. Mr. Zimmerman moved that the nominations be closed. Mr. Robert Gordon was reelected as Secretary for the Board for 1982. Carl Zimmerman took ove~ as Chairman of' the Board and Vernon Thompson, Jr. became the Vice Chairman of the Board, Chairman Zimmerman thanked the Board for electing him and said he would try to do his best. · MINUTES OF M~RCH 8, 1982 Mr. Slavin moved, seconded by Vice Chairman' Thompson, to accept the minutes as presented. MOtion carried 770. PUBLIC HEARING Parcel ~1 - Lots 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, Block 4 LAKE BOYNTON ESTATES, PL~T #1 Recorded in P, B. 13, Page 32, Palm Beach County Records Request: Relief from required 7,500 sq. ft. lot area to 7,200 sq. ft, lot area on 5 lots ~Owner proposes to redefine 6 lots~ Address: 705 West Ocean Avenue Applicants Thomas J. Reale, Sr./Robert J. Hunt, Agent Robert Gordon, Secretary, read the application, which said the property is presently zoned R-1-A and was formerly zoned R-1-A. - 2 - MINUTES ~ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT~' APRIL 12, 1982 He read that denial was made upon existing zoning requirements from which relief is required. The minimum lot area for R-1-A zoning is 7,500 square feet. The owner has six lots, each 50 feet x 120 feet with 6,000 square feet. Mr. Gordon, Secretary further read the nature of exception or variance required, as fOllows: Owner proposes to resurvey property into five lots, each 60 feet x I20 feet with 7,200 square feet. This requires an area, variance permitting, 7,200 square foot lots, which is' 300 square feet less than the 7,500 square feet called for, Mr. Gordon read the applicant,s name and address as follows: Thomas J. Reale, Sr.., 8.711 N. W. 21st Street, Sunrise, Florida 33322. Chairman Zimmerman called the applicant forward. Robert J. Hunt, Esq-& appeared and said he thought that most of the information ~s in the application, He said he represented Mr. Thomas Reale, Sr. ~, Hunt's off~ce address is 5455'North Federal Highway, Boca Raton. Mr. Hunt is an attorney with the firm of Bond, Schoeneck & King, When Mr. Reale, Sr. purchased the property in the 50s, Attorney Hunt informed the Board it was vacant property. It was surveyed and platted into six lots described in the application. The zoning ordinance of t972 did not affect the property. The property was of legal use, Mr. Hunt continued, In 1978, Mr. Hunt believed, by amendment to the zoning ordinanCe, there was a change so that the definition of a legal non-conforming use was changed, and it picked up the language that if the lots were three lots, they were contiguous with certain additional requirements that were made applicable. These requirements were to increase the width from fifty to sixty feet and the density of the lot size from 6,000 to 7,500. Attorney Hunt informed the Board that Mr, Reale was considering improving the property and, in order for him to comply now with the zoning ordinance, he would have to redivide the property into four lots. No matter which way he divides it, four lots would be 9,000 square feet, and the request is that he be permitted to re- divide or resurvey or redefine the lots into five lots, each 60 feet wide, which would meet the ordinance requirements, Attorney Hunt further said, He said there was not enough depth on the property. They are about 7-1/2 feet short, and this ~umounts to exactly 300 square feet. Attorney Hunt said they were asking for a variance from 7,500 square feet to 7,200 square feet, so that instead of forcing the property to be rediVided from six lots to four lots, for a loss of one-third of its original purpose, so they can use it for five lots. Attorney Hunt advised that each lot would be 60x120, or 7,200 square feet. He personally looked at the area and thought Members of the Board were familiar with it. Attorney Hunt-thought it was in conformity with the existing uses on all sides of the property. - 3 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTFIENT APRIL 12, 1982 Chairman Zi.mm~erman asked if anyone else in the audience wished to speak in favor of the variance, Mr. Gordon, Secretary, read the following letter addressed to Tereesa Padgett, City Clerk, dated March 2, 1982, as follows: "Please consider this as a stat~ent in favor of the above relief requested by Mr. Reale. /s/ Dr. William J, Hegstrcm 225 N, E. 22nd Street Delray BeaCh, Florida 33444 Chairman ZiIm~erman asked if anyone in the audience wished against-the variance, There was no response. THE PUBLIC HEARING! WAS cLOSED. to speak Chairman Zimmer~an asked the Members of the Board if they had any questions. Mr. Slavin wondered if Dr. Hegstrom owned property in the area, as he noted he had a Delray Beach address. Attorney Hunt could not help, as-he did not know who Dr. Hegstrom is or whether he owned, ProperLy in Boynton Beach. Bert Keehr, Deputy Building Official, advised that Dr. W~'lli~m Hegstrom lives in Delray Beach and owns Lots 14 and 15, Block 3. Vice Chairman ThQmpson asked'Mr. Keehr what the front footage was under the presen%~R-1-A Mr. Keehr replied that it was sixty feet, Vice Chairman ThOmpson asked if that requires 7500 square feet. Mr..Keehr answered that~ was'right. He said 60 foot frontage and 75 square foot 1Qt area.for'R~l~A were required. In other words, looking at the m~p, Vice Chairman Thompson noted that it showed that if the lots were turned into five lots, then the a licant would comply wIth the frontage of sixty feet. He pointed out that the only thing he would be missing would be that it would be square footage, Mr. Keehr informed him it would be just the 300 square feet, Attorney Hunt advised Vice Chairman Thompson that if they had an extra five feet 6f depth, it would do it, Mr. Slavin asked tert Keehr, Depu depth was where ~e problem was. Slavin did not th~nk there was an than sixty , Keehr said, division was ovided into lift Vice Chairman ~pson asked if t fifty feet before 1975. Mr. Keeh 1978, the property was conforming it prior to that date, They were have built on them prior to that ty Building Official, if the Mr~ Keehr replied, "Yes." Mr. ything there that was larger '~No." He said the original sub- y lots. he property conformed With the r answered that prior to March of insomuch as the gentlemen owned non-conforming lots but he could ~ime. Chairman Zi~merman stated that they were not automatically grand- fathered in. Mr. Keehr advised that was correct. Chairman Zimmerman recalled that not very long ago, there was a change by - 4 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 12, 1982 the City Council in the'Zoning Code requiring that anyone having more than three lots had to conform~to the Code as now stated. That was why the applicant was before the Board asking for a variance, Chairman Zimmerman told the Board. Mr. Keehr remarked "Exactly," Chairman Zirm~erman continued by saying the additional 300 square feet could be obtained not only by wishing that the depth were~great~r in the lots but it could also be obtained by having more frontage, as the applicant explained before. Chairman Zimmerman told the Board they had to decide whether they wished to grant the variance, granting the 300 extra square feet as a variance, or request him to have it redrawn into four lots instead of five so he would have additional frontage to get the additional square footage. Vice Chairman Thompson Could see where the City has placed a hard- ship on the owner simply because first, there were six that would have conformed. At five it would have up until 1978, and since the City changed its laws, Vice Chairman Thompson felt it would certainly place a hardship on the a~pplicant to change it to four lots when he owned six conforming pieces of property. Vice Chairman Thompson repeated that in this~case, he felt the City had placed a hardship on him, He called attention to the fact that if it should be changed to four lots, they should notice that the four lots in terms of size would be greater than anYthing in the surrounding neighborhOod, Vice Chairman Thompson reiterated that he felt ~the hardship exist's. To the west of these f!~e or six lots, on the s~e side of the street, Chairman Zi~merman observed two houses aHe built, He noted they had rather large lots. Chairman Z±mmerman asked Bert Keehr., Deputy Building Official, if he was acquainted with those, Keehr said he was not, Attorney Hunt could not swear or certify to the Board that those are sixty foot wide lots but a visual inspection showed that they appeared to be either fifty or sixty feet. He represented to the Board that the depth ~s 120 foot. Chairman Zimmerman agreed tba~ the depth was the same, and that was sure. He informed the BOard that the one is a corner lot and rather large. Again, without looking at the deeds and without going over the C. O. with acquisition for those holes, Attorney Hunt said they appear to be several year old holes. He stated that he would think five to ten years old. Chairman Zi~Lmerman agreed, Mr. ~Ampol noticed that the property was purchased April 10, 1957 by Mr. Thomas Reale. He asked if he would not come under the grandfather's clause. Attorney Hunt replied that they wished they did, but the City Council changed the definition of the grandfather clause to exclude from the grandfathering the rule-of three or more contiguous lots. He thought, as of 1978, before the ~mendment, they definitely came within the grandfather clause and they were a legal non-conforming use, Attorney Hu~t thought it was the change to three contiguous lots~ Perhaps w~th 20/~0 hind sight., they could have deeded out a couple of lots but they did not~ he commented, - 5 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 12, 1982 To pick up on what Chairman Zimmerman said, Mr. Cassandra felt it might not pertain to the applicant's request. Mr. Cassandra thought the two homes Chairman Zimmerman .was talking aboutwere built on two lots, on the west side of this property, so they were plotted at 50x 120. Because another individual has bought that land (both pieces~ and built a house on two parts does not take away from the appl~icant,s request, Mr. Cassandra continued, and he said it should not be considered in this par'ticular application. Mr. Cassandra still had to agree that the City did put a hardship on the applicant, and he felt that four lots also is demanding a financial difficulty on the applicant. Chairman Zimmerman further informed the Board tha~ east of these lots, there is also a group of buildings belonging to one residence, still on the north side of Ocean Hvenue. He was q~ite sure that was a combination of lots. Chairman Zimmerman stated that the most recent addit±on was a garage complex there (two or three garages), which was a combination of lots. He asked Mr. Keehr if he knew how large that particular one is, Mr. Keehr did not know. He said he would have to surmise that there has been a unity of title, per- haps~ of two or three of these lots ~to gain the size Chairman Zimmerman was speaking of. Mr. Keehr advised that is very common and is done throughout ~the City, However, Mr. Keehr further advised, it is for the convenience of the person who owns the lots, as it allows hi~ unity of title and"to built past his lot. Mr. Sla¥in po±nted out that the property has been owned for 25 years, He said he may be suspicious, but 25 years seemed like a long time to Mr, $1~vin for a piece of property on a prime street in Boynton Beach to remain undeveloped. Mr. Slavin did not know what Mr. Reale had in mind, should he get a variance. He asked if Mr, Reale had in mind right now to set.1 the property with a variance to some builder or developer.~ If that is the case, Mr. Slavin did not think granting Mr. Reale the variance would be ethical on the.part of the Board, That was the one thing Mr. Slavin could not clear up in his mind, the 25 year gap~ Why, when the realty market is at a low, is Mr, Reale coming in for a ~ariance, Mr. Slavin asked. He admitted that he may be entirely wrong, but that was. the feeling he had at the moment. ~ Vice Chairman Thompson asked if it would make any difference Whether it was the property owner, future property.owner, or whoever, He felt they would still have the same right to ask for a variance, Vice Chairman Thompson said if the Board saw fit, they had the right to pass on it. He agreed it was poss±ble that the applicant might want t~ sell the property, but Vice Cha~rman~Thompson did not th~nk it made any difference, Attorney Hunt thought he might be able to shed some light on the inquiries raised by Mr. $1avin. He informed the Board that Mr. Reale is an elderly gentleman, who bought the property, and lived in upstate New York. His intention is to move to Surprise, as ke lives there mo'st of the year, Attorney Hunt advised. He said Mr. Reale's intention is, with his two sons who were present at the meeting, - 6 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 12, 1982 not to sell off any of the lots; and that Mr. Rea!e, through his sons, plans to build there. F~r? Slavin asked if the Board could assume that architects have been called in, ~ttorney Hunt advised that the plans were paid for and were presented, When they went in for a building permit was when they first realized, before Attorney Hunt's firm was retained, that they were in violation and needed a variance. Attorney Hunt reiterated that there are present plans but there may be some change~ depending on what the Board does, Attorney Hunt told the Board that BeHt Keehr, Deputy Building Official, knew-the elderly gentleman and his sons were in several months ago, requesting a building permit, and that is when they found out they had this problem, Chairman ZiImmerman made the Board aware that in this particular area (B0ynton Lakes-.Estates), there is other new'building presently going on, In a way, Chairman Zimmerman was surprised not to see any obj,ections to this because in the same neighborhood there were great complaints about the granting or'variances and allowing under~ sized lots to be used and non-conforming lots to be used with build- ing rather recently. Chairman Zimmerman personally felt that the purpose of the last City Council's action with regard to having three lots being required to conform was spec~ficallY for a situation Of this kind:, He felt that if the Board grants a ~ariance, they will be overriding the intent of the City Council in their last action in trying to protect citizens in a rather high classed or middle classed neighborhood from getting too many variances. Chairman Zi~erman informed ~he Board that all of the plats in this particular part of the City were platted back in the 20's, where undersized lots are very common, and it was common at that time, Chairman Zimmerman warned that if the Board starts a rash of .g,i'ving ~ariances, there may be a great demand for variances of this kind, Chairman Zi~erman stated that was his opinion. He further~said ' that he had not conferred With Council or anyone concerning this but he thought the peopl~e in the neighborhood would be very much against the Board granting the variance. Chairman Zimmerman told the Board they had several ways they could go, He told the audience that the Board does not'outright grant a variance. Chairman Zimmerman said there were quite a number of lots involved. He told the Board they should also want to protect the City in having this resold a number of times, which-may not occur in this situation by limiting the number of days in which the variance would apply, Chairman Zimmerman said it had been done very often in the past, so the Board might consider that in forming a motion to dispose of the matter, Mr. Cassandra, at the risk of repeating himself, thought if the neighborhood was against the variance, they should have come tonight and voiced their disagreement. He did not see anybody here, He acknowledged that he has not been here as long as some of the people who might have been here prior, but Mr. Cassandra ~id visit the area. He sa£d it was quite undeveloped. Mr. Cassandra felt again that putting a limit on the variance might be a good idea. - 7 - MINUTES ~ BOA~.RD.0? ADJUSTMENT APRIL 12, 1982 By the same token, Mr, C~ssandra advised %hat the City Council had the~whole city in mind but sometimes, mr. Cassandra continued, those wise~decisions of the City fathers might hurt a group of people that blanket a type of ordinance. He Pointed out that each applicant that approaches'the Board of Adjustment must be evaluated on his own merit and On his own hardship at that particular time, M.r. Cassandra advised that the Board of Adjustment is here to see if that .hardship does occur or is pertinent to this particular applicant. He said~if the~e were no more comments, he was about ready to make a motion, Vice Chairman Thompson saw the property with an immediate require- ment of frontage, which, to him, was one of the most important parts, That.means it is not smaller than any other piece of property, other than frontagewise. However, as they all knew, Vice Chairman Thompson pointed out that there was no problem in the rear because it abuts other property. If the property is turned into four lots instead of the asking five, it would be 1,140 feet over the required amount on each of the four, which means the applicant will be giving up something like 4,200 feet~ Vice Chairman Thompson continued, which would be almost one-half of another piece of property. Vice Chairman Thompson felt it was a lot to ask to give up. He further felt that the hardship was created by the City and, as was previously stated, Vice Chairman Thompson was sure that the City fathers could not go over every single piece of property before they pass judgment~ He said there were too many p~eces of property in the City~ Vice Chairman Thompson was sure that this one that fell on so many of the other ones that a decision was made on might need some consider- ation. Mrs, Artis asked if variances were granted at other times with the stipulation that the variance could not be transferred'if the property was sold. She aSked how' it'~would be for this caSe. Chairman Zimmerman thought it was the Board's privilege if they wanted to do it, M~s. ~rtis thought it seemed to be the real question. She also felt the City had caused a hardship but she felt if the applicant wanted to take the 1978 ~mendment, that was one way to do it. Chairman Zimmerman told the Board they could consider Mrs. Artis' remarks, but (as an A~ternate) she cannot make the motion. Chairman Zimmerman advised that Mr. Reate could .still build four homes if the variance is not granted. The use of the property has not been taken away, ~e added that fou~ nice homes maybe as good~' financially to him as five small ones. Chairman Zimmerman said a variance of an additional few feet might just enhance the value of a nice larger home enough to make it more saleable. He told Members of the Board they would have to use their own opinions. Mr, DiSarli moved to grant the variance. Chairman Zimmerman asked if there were any stipulations on the motion. Mr. DiSarli did not have any. He felt the applicant was going from six to fi~e, and he felt that the City has created a hardship. Mr. DiSarli stated - 8 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 12, 1982 he would not want to have any stipulations on the motion, as he felt the applicant was conforming now as well as he can from six lots to five lots. He asked why they should bring the applicant down to four lots and said the next thing the Board would want to do would be. to bring the applicant down to three. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cassandra. Mrs. Ramseyer, Recording Secretary, took a roll call vote on the motion as follows: Mr. Blum Vice Chairman Thompson Chairman Zimmerman Mr. Gordon, Secretary Mr. Slavin Mr. Cassandra Mr. DiSarli Aye Aye No Aye Aye Aye Aye The motion carried 6-1 to grant the variance, with Chairman Zimmerman voting against the motion. Parcel #2 Lot 14, Block 13, GOLFVI-EW HARBOR, 2nd Section Recorded in Plat Book 27, pages 46 and 47, Palm Beach County Records Request: Relief from required 8' rear setback to 0' rear setback to construct screen enclosure over existing pool Address: 1301 S, W. 27th Avenue Applicant: Robert R, Allard Mr, Gordon, Secretary, read the application, which said the property was formerly zoned R1AA and is presently zoned R1AA. He read the nature of exception or variance required,, which was, "No screen enclosure shall be constructed closer than 8 feet from the rear property line. Owner is requesting a permit to construct a screen'enclosure over existing pool right on the rear property line; therefore, a variance of 8 feet is required. Mr. Gordon read the statement of special conditions, hardships or reasons justifying the requested exception or varian~e~ as follows: "For health and safety reasons. To eliminate snakes, turtles, frogs, etc, 'from entering applican%!s pool. The serious health hazard .of mosquitos could be prevented, and the enclosure would ensure added safety to innocent trespassers, Depth of lot does not permit a pool screen enclosure that is enjoyed-by others in the same zoning," Robert R. A!lard, owner of the property, thought the Board had most of the details-. There was one thing he felt the Board may want to be aware of, Mr. Allard said there was also an additional approximately 15 feet of land'from his lot to the canal itself, or where the canal actually is, so it would not be built right on the canal. - 9 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 12, 1982 Chairman Zimmerman asked if it was a Lake Worth Drainage District Canal. Mr. Keehr answered that it was not. Chaimman .Zir~merman queStioned whether the extra land Mr, Allard~was speaking of was an easement. Bert Keehr, Deputy Building Official, said'it would definitely be an easement, It is a part of a canal, which is partly owned by the homeowners association. Mr. Cassandra could not find in the Code tha~ there was any enclosure requirement to the pool from the canal. Mr. Cassandra knew that if a pool is built on the property, that you have to have it enclosed by a Cyclone fence or some fence to keep ~children from falling in the pool. He did not find anything about'a canal. Mr. Keehr replied, "No. This has been the policy of the Building Department not to require a fence along an actual canal, where we 'feel the only way a person could get on that property is to go out in a boat and go down the canal, and then get out and get on the people's property." Mr. Keehr said the Building Department did not feel that this is necessary for a homeowner to protect that part of the lot. ~ Mr. Cassandra informed the Board that he visited the home and could not see the neighbors because of the shrubbery. He hsked whether any other pools' screens .arel built all 'the way to the line, as he could not see. Mr. Allard answered Mr. Cassandra's _question by~.telling him that in that exact area, he could not say that there are any, but just a short way down the canal, they are right on the water line. For the Board's edification, Mr. Cassandra advised that the pool, itself, required a variance when it was built, and it also is only two feet away from the line. Mr. Keehrinvestigated' that today (April 12) and agreed that was correct; it was granted~a variance~ Mr. Cassandra told Mr, Allard that when he bought that property, he bought that property with that ~ariance but the problem was the eight foot. Mr. Allard advised that i~t had already been done before he bought the properby. Chairman Zimmerman ascertained that the pool was. built when Mr. Allard bought the property, Mr, ~llard asserted that it was. Vice Chairman Thompson assured the Board that it was true, as he was a member of the Board at the time they granted a ~ariance for the pool. That was why Vice Chairman Thompson had said he recognized something. Mr. Allard said that was correct. It was about 1971. Chairman Zimmerman commented that the Board finds that happens quite often. One variance causes problems tha~ calls for another variance at a later date. Chairman Zimmerman asked if anyone else in the audience was in favor of granting the variance. There was no response. He asked Secretary Gordon if there were any communications, Mr. Go~don replied there were no communications for or against the variance, Chairman Zimmerman asked if anyone in the audience was against the variance, There was no response. He announced that Board Members had a chance to-further discuss the matter before he took a motion. - 10 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 12, 1982 Mr. DiSarli noted on the print itself coming out, and asked Mr. Keehr if it was in his jurisdiction to come out that way. He asked Mr. Keehr if that would be permissible. Mr. Keehr replied, "Yes. It would be." Mr. DiSarli felt it would enhance the pool area plus the fact that it is a health hazard, to a certain extent. From what he could see, the neighbors were for it. He said the Board had gone to neighbors on either side and they were all for it. Mr. DiSarli fUrther thought it was a li.ttle protection for outsiders. He did see some s~ali children in the area. As he felt this was not harming anyone, Mr. DiSarll personally thought it should be granted. Before receiving a motion, Chairman Zimmerman said they would have further discussion, and asked if any other Board Members had any questions. Secretary Gordon asked how many feet were between where the appli- cant wanted the enclosure and the canal. Mr. Keehr replied, [Approximately 15 feet," Mr. Cassandra informed the Board that it ms on a slope. Chairman Zimmerman advised that all 15 of those feet is land that belongs to the homeowners' association. Mr. Cassandra recalled, that it was all sodded as a slope. Chairman Zimmerman told the Alternate Members to come to the microphone if they had any remarks. They had none. Vice Chairman Thompson questionedwhether a screened enclosure is not granted in this case, would a fence be in violation. Mr. Keehr answered that the pool is not ±n violation right now. He said Mr. Allard has adequate fencing right now. Mr, Cassandra informed %he Board that the north side of the pool was all concrete also. He .said there was no added construction other than putting the frame up on an already concrete base, 'Mr. Cassandra remarked, "A foot and 1/2, I would say, but no more than two feet." Mr. Atlard asked him if he meant that little walkway. Mr. Cassandra replied, "That little walkway ~by the side of the pool." Mr. Allard advised it was about 2-1/2 and possibly three feet. There was a comment that it was less and someone · said he did not think it was three feet. Chairman Z±mmerman observed that the drawing indicates concrete slabs on both the east and west ends of that. Mr. Gordon moved that the variance be granted because of conditions of safety and health hazards. Mr. Blum seconded the motion. Mrs. Ramseyer, Recording Secretary, took a roll call vote on the motion as follows: - 11 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 12, 1982 Vice Chairman Thompson - Aye (He commented that after looking at the pool, he agreed with what Secre- tary Bob Gordon was saying about safety. He said everyone likes-to give parties around their pool, They can have one too many and~without screening,- they could die in water,) Chairman Zimmerman - Aye Secretary Gordon - Aye Mr. Slavin - Aye Mr. Cassandra - Aye Mr. DiSarli - Aye Mr. Blum - Aye The motion carried 7-0.' Chairman Zimmerman announced that the variance was granted by a vote of 7-0. Parcel #3 The South 51,15' of Lot 1, CRESTVIEW Recorded in Plat Book 23, Page 154, Palm Beach County Records Request: Address: Applicant: Relief from required 15' side setback to 10' side setback 2311 South Federal Highway Trudy L, Bartak Secretary Gordon read the application, which indicated that the property is presently zoned C-3 and was formerly zoned C~i. He read that denial was made upon existing zoning requirements'from which relief is required as C~3 zoning requires 15 foot side set- back on one side. Secretary Gordon further read the nature of exception or variance required: "Owner is requesting the 15' set~ back be reduced to 10~, therefore requiring a variance of 5'." He also read the statement of special conditions, hardships or reasons justifying the requested exception or ~ariancE~ "Owner has had a canopy installed on the south side of the home, which encroached into setback. Owne'r feels it should be peIm~tted, as there was a similar canopy removed from the same location some time ago." Trudy Bartak came before the Board and ~nformed the Bcard that she had Tropical Awning install the canopy~ Unfortunately, Mrs. Bartak continued, Tropical Awning installed the canopy without a permit. She further informed the Board that Mr. Keeh~ was quite familiar w±~h it. Mrs. Bartak w~s told by the--City she had so many days to take it down. She repeated that the awning company did not secure a permit. Mrs. Bartak told the Board she likes her awning, thinks it adds to the building, and would like to keep it. Mr. Blum went to Mrs. Bartak's property on Saturday (April 10, 1982) - 12 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 12, 1982 and it was impossible to see it, as Mrs. Bartak had everything locked up. He said there was no way of getting into there, and he was told that the place had been locked up for quite some time. Mrs. Bartak told Mr. Blum that she has been living there for a month, but she does keep her gate locked, Mr. Blum said he tried to get in there Saturday and there was nobody there. Mrs. Bartak asked him if he saw a car parked there, Mr. DiSarli answered that there was no car at the time they were there. Mrs. Bartak said she was out part of the day on Saturday, but she does live there. Mr. Cassandra advised that there was a blue car was parked there when he visited the property, at 2:00 or 3:00 in the afternoon. Mr. Blum~and Mr. DiSarli were there much earlier than that. As it was impossible to get in, Mr, Blum said there was no way.he could determine what Mrs. Bartak had in there. Mrs. Bartak asked Mr. Blum if he saw the awning, Mr. Blum replied that they saw the awning from "this distance or maybe a-little further than the door there", and there was nothing they could do about it. That was as far as they could go, Mrs. Bartak told Mr. Blum and Mr. DiSarli that if she knew they were coming, she would have unlocked the gate, Chairman Zimmerman believed it was satisfactory if they saw the awning, so he did not think they had to discuss it any further. Mr. Slavin noted that all the Board .had was a tax receip~ He remarked that usually, the Board has a copy of the deed. Mrs.~ Bartak advised that her copy was in the bank across the street. Mr. Slavin said that was OK. He asked her how long she owned the property. Mr. Bartak replied that for a long time, she owned it jointly with her ex-husband but she personally had owned it for two years. Mr. Slavin asked, "When was the original purchase date? That's the thing we want to know." Mrs. Bartak believed it was 1975 or 1976. Chairman Zimmerman asked Mrs. Bartak if she obtained a variance for another purpose on the lot. Mrs. Bartak replied that there was a variance of ten feet so she could build a slack house there. It was explained that a "slat~ house" is the same as a utility hou s e. *correction per 5/10/82 Mr. DiSarli was at the property and, like Mr. Blum told the. Board, they saw it from where the Board was sitting to the doors of the Council Chambers. He said they could not see what type of fabric it was, if it was fabric. He asked Mrs. Bartak what it was. Mrs. Bartak answered that it was plastic, that meets the standards. Mr. DiSarli asked Mr. Keehr if there were ~any requirements for that. Mr. Keehr replied, "No. There are not..~" Mr. Slavin asked Mr. Keehr to clear one thing for him, He asked if he wanted to put up an awning on his property and he con~acted AAA Awning Company and tell them he wants an awning, and they come, look i% over, give him an estimate, and he is satisfied; and the material meets standards and codes, and the awning is put up. Then the City comes along and says: "You have no right to put it up." Mr. Slavin's questions-were: "Is the awning~'company at fault? Is the owner at fault?" Mr. Slavin remembered that the City ~h'ad a case with a fencing of properties involved. He asked, - 13 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 12, 1982 "What goes on from here?" Mr. Keehr said the situation today is that both the owner and the contractor that installed this halve been cited 'for violations - the installer for not getting a permit and not being licensed in the City to operate and the owner for the fact that she has encroached the setback and she is the owner of the property. In fact, Mr. Keehr told the Board, "this particular case is befOre the Codes Enforcement Board at this time." Mrs. Bartak told the Board that she opened the telephone book and it says, "in business since 1956." Mrs. Bartak knew some people (probably the Baznett Bank on A1A - friends of hers used to o~rn this) and they had the awning put up by Tropical Awning. Mrs. Bartak said it was a lovely awning, so she called the man, as he was recommended to her. She said she just had her roof re- roofed by Modern Roofing. They pulled a building permit. She thought she could not expect this for a company who advertises, "since 1956", and she had seen them work, but they did not pull a permit, Mrs. Bartak said that was why she was here. Chairman Zimmerma~ asked Mrs. Bartak if she knew that the City requires the Permit. Mrs. Bartak knew and stated perhaps it was her fault, but she assumed a reputable company would go along with the City's rules. She remarked that the building has been around for awhile, and she was not the only one who is i.n this boat. Mrs, Bartak told the Board there are two more people in the City that are in the same boat. Mr. Slavin noted that the matter was now before the Codes Enforce- ment Board and asked if they had arrived at any conclusion. Mr. Keehr replied that the particular case had been tabled until this particular meeting has been held. Mr. Slavin could appreciate the tabling of these matters but said that sometimes in the minutes of the Codes Enforcement Board, it would cast some light on the situation. He meant you have facts, Of course, here, Mr. Slavin said the Board. ~ust had one side (Mrs, Bartak's side). Then, Mr. Slavin continued of course, the awning company does not enter into the issue. By the same token, Mr. Slavin felt there must be more to this than Mrs. Bartak had told the Board. He said maybe there were Other ~circUmstanCes that they should be made aware of or may have been brouqh~ out before the Codes Enforcement~oard. - Chairman Zimmerman advised that the question before the Board of Adjustment was whether the awning will have a hardship. Since this was no~ a permanent structure, Vice Chairman Thompson said it could be taken down within two minutes, maybe. Mrs. Bartak said it would take a little longer. Vice Chairman Thompson asked how the City was relating to this in terms of something that is not a Permanent~structure. Mr. Keehr replied that the City considers any structure of this nature that has columns that go down to the ground as a structure. If tha~ particular thing was hung from the wall and could be folded back against the wall, there would be no - 14 - MINUTES ~' BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 12,. 1982 problem at all, and it would be permitted. It is because of the fact it has the two legs going down. At that point where the legs hit the ground, it becomes a structure. Mr. Slavin exclaimed, "But it's a canopy, not an awning!" Mr. Keehr replied, "That ms correct." Mr. Keehr explained that the legs make it a canopy, Mr. Cassandra asked when the zoning changed from C~I to C-3, He asked what year. Mr. Keehr answered it was probably in 1975. He began to check on it. Mr. Cassandra asked Mrs. Bartak how long she and her former husband 1.ired-there. Mrs. Bartak informed him that she and her former husband never lived there, She just moved there recently but they bought the property in either 1975 or 1976. She really did not know. Mrs. Bartak told the Members of the Board she really thought the whole building was non-conforming, and she thought it looked better with an awning, as it covered up a whole lot of ugly building, Chairman Zimmerman advised it was irrelevant whether she had lived there, as long as she h~ad owner- ship was more important. Mr. Cassandra advised that if it was C~i, then the side setback was ten feet. Mr, Keehr advised that in 1975 it was conforming. Mr. Cassandra stated that in 1975, it was conforming, and then as still owner of this property, when the City went from C-1 to C-3, that made it a 15 foot setback requirement. Mr. Cassandra did not condone the business putting it up without a permit but he felt that was another issue. He thought the question was, "Did the City again create the hardship to the applicant, zoning from C-1 to C-37" Mr. Cassandra,s next question was, "Are those posts the ones that are still there or were new posts added into the concrete?" Mrs. Bartak replied that she took the whole thing down. She said they had tenants there who had children swinging from the thing, and the awning was torn. Mrs. Bartak thought it was safer to have the whole thing taken down. Mr. Cassandra commented that he could not get in through the ga~e either because of the chain lock, and the blue car was there, but · he saw a "Beware of the Dog" sign too, Mrs. Bartak informed him that "her poor little beagle" lost its teeth years ago. Mr. Cassandra did look and told the Board that the canopy did enhance the property, and it was not a fly by night canopy. ~gain, Mr. Cassandra reiterated that the City did put a hardship by'changing the zoning from C-1 to C-3, Of course, he pointed out, it would have been nice if the posts were still there and it was not done from scratch~ Mr. Cassandra just wanted to,bring-that p~intup. Vice Chairman Thompson viewed the property from U. S. 1. He asked if the canopy was west of the building or right behind the fuzcniture · From the street, Vice Chairman Thompson said it looked like part of it could be behind the . Mr. Cassandra interrupted to say he believed that all of.the canopy is hidden by a building, going down from 23rd. From U. S. 1, if you do not blink your eye, Mr. Cassandra said you are by that driveway real quick· Chairman Zimmerman stated that it was on the south side of the building. Mr. Blum did not think you co'uld see the canopy from the street. Vice Chairman Thompson brought it up because it is hidden from 23rd, and you had to go around to U. S. 1 to even get a look at it, - 15 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 12, 1982 Chairman Zimmerman asked the Alternate Members if they had any remarks. He told them to come up to the microphone if they had any. Mr. Slavin observed that the original survey was made 11/22/77; then he saw a survey updated 3/18/82. Mrs. Bartak remarked that was-another $75.00. Vice Chairman Thompson asked Mrs. Bartak when she replaced that with the present awning if she took the old one down t,hen. Mrs. Bartak replied that she took it down formerly because.~there were tenants with children, and the children were swinging on it, and the canopy was torn. She said it was more simple to get it down at that time. She had no plans to live on the property, and it has been sitting vacant for a year. Mrs. Bartak said she was finally getting ready to landscape it and fix up an eyesore generally. She really felt the canopy added something to it. Mrs. Bartak said it was up to the Board whether they'let her have it or not. Councilman deLong was in the audience and came up to the microphone, after receiving permission from Chairman Zi.mmerman. Councilman deLong informed the Board that he reads the minutes of the meetings and felt-as though he, Vice Mayor Warnke, and other people who ran for public office in the last election were under a cloud. He said, "This woman distinctively said, and I believe she should identify the man who was running for public office who promised her a ~ariance." Councilman deLong wanted to know who it was and stated that it was no~ him. He said he never saw the woman before tonight, and he knew it was not Jim Warnke. Councilman deLong loOked at Mrs. Bartak and demand~, "Who was it? I want the air cleared." Mrs. Bartak replied, beg your pardon,"- -It seems to be rather a matter of public discussion Chairman Zimmerman told Mrs. Bartak. ' Mrs. Bartak wanted clarification too, because she did not know either of the gentlemen, (She was looking at Councilman Joe deLong and Vice Mayor Warnke.) Councilman deLong asked Patrlcia Ramseyer, Recording Secretary, if she recalled that the woman (Mrs. Bartak) made a statement at that meeting, ~Codes Enforcement Board), that B~r~Idgrant a varianc~ because somebody running'for office had promised her a variance~ Mrs. Bartak replied, "No. No," Mrs, Ramseyer asked Councilman deLong whether Mrs. Bartak made the state- ment or if Pat Murphy (Tropical Awning Company,) made the statement, Chairman Zimmerman suggested that the minutes of ~that portion of the Codes Enforcement Board Meeting be read, Mrs, Ramseyer asserted that she did not know whether Mrs. Bartak made the statement or whether Mr. Pat Murphy had made th~ statement. Councilman deLong repeated that he had never seen the woman before and he would be very much surprised if the Board was ever influenced by anybody running for office or anybody that is in office. Chairman Zimmerman's opinion was that the Members oS the Board would definitely not be influenced. Mr.s. Bartak expressed that it was a surprise to-her too. - 16 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 12, 1982 Councilm~n deLong referred to page 17 of the Minutes of the Codes Enforcement Board Meeting held in City Hall on Wednesday, March 17, 1982, and read as follows: "Murphy: (Mr. Pat Murphy was the Agent for Tropical Awning Cc~pany, Contractor) "MLlrphy: (continued) She con%acted me first, and I said, "Yes." I was greatly surprised by it. I really was surprised by it. I had no idea that the property ~uld be in violation, Whether or not you grant it, that"s a different thing, but ±t was certainly not in violation. Mrs, Bartak said that she wanted to ask for a variance, and she had a friend who was running for a political office at the time, ~nd that she though~ that she COuld probably get a variance," · . "and then again Said that she was applying for a variance." "Murphy: · "and the last conversation I had with her was, 'Wel~, I 'm going to get a variance. '" "Murphy: · . "and she said, 'No, wait, and I will see if I can get a variance." Councilman deLong called attention to the fact that Mrs. Bartak involved people running for political office. He wanted the record to reflect that he, Councilman Joe deLong, and Vice Mayor James R. Warnke did not and never saw this woman (Mrs. Trudy Bartak) before and never made promises to her as far as any concern, He asked that the minutes reflect this, as he just reqUested. Mrs. Bartak asked who wrote the letter. Someone replied Council- man deLong, Mrs. Bartak admantly said that she did not know a Councilman deLong, Chairman Zir~merman introduced her to Councilman deLong. Mrs. Bartak again asked who wrote the letter. Chairman Zimmerman informed M_rs, Bartak that she appea~ed before the Codes Enforcement Board at the'ir meeting on March 17, 1982, and these were the official minutes of that meeting. Mrs. Bartak told the Board that she had said she was going to apply for a variance. She said she did not even know anybody on the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Blum informed Mrs. Bartak that the minutes also show that she said she had a friend who was running for political office at the time and that she was sure she could get a variance. Mrs. Bartak exclaimed, "Oh!' I know who they are talking about. Derle Bailey but . " Ms. Btum, asked, "Well, who was it?" Councilman deLong asked that the minutes show that, and that. would clear it up. Chairman Zimmerman commented that Would answer the question. Mrs. Bartak further told the Board that she called Mr. Derle Bailey, and he told her how to proceed because he was the one who built her sla~ house. She pleaded with the Board by saying, "Believe me, I don't know this gentleman!" (as she pointed to Councilman deLong). Councilman deLong respectfully requested that the minutes also - 17 - *correctior~ p~.r 5/10 mln. MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 12, 1982 reflect that he (councilman deLong) would go on record as saying that the statement th~s woman ('Mbs. Trudy Bartak) made eaused-h~m robe happy that we did not elect.Derl~ Bailey-. Mrs. Bartak remarked that she did not know that much ~bout BoYnt0n Beach. Chairman Zimmerman felt that was enough discussion on the subject and thoUght.what Councilman deLo~g was trying to do was to show that it was none of the Members presenltly on the City Council that were elected, etc.. that were involved with this. Mrs. Bartak wished to say something else abou~ "this man, Pat Murphy," the'.one she claimed got her into this mess..to begin with by putting up the awning without a permit. Chairman Zimmerman asked if Pat Murphy was the awning contractor. Mrs, Bartak said ,Yes." She told the Board that Pat Murphy al'so said he had a hard time getting her to pay, Mr.y? Bartak assezted that she paid "this man" on time, so she wanted to rectify his statement. Mr. Cassandra noted that the record has reflected Councilman deLong's concern and Vice Mayor,s concern, and the applicant has cleared the air, and-he felt right now it was irrelevant to the Board's consideration of theapplmcatmon,l ' He asked Mr. Keehr if the property, at the time the 9pplicant owned it.. was zoned C-1. Mr. Keehr replied, "If the applicant owned,±t prior to June, 1975, it was C-1. He asked Mrs. Bartak if she owned the property prior to 1975. Mrs. Bartak answered that She did not really know. Mr. Sla¥i~ remarked %hat was a question he had asked, "When did ~a~r~m~la~r~hthe ~rope~ty? Mr, Keehr asked Mrs. . e ormgina~ly bought the property.~ Mrs Bartak said it was somewhere aroUnd that time, but she really could not put a date on it unless she goes back in the records, Mr. Keehr advised the Board that the 10 foot setbacks. He said it zoning. Mr. Cassandra,.s concern created by the City on the applica when it was C-l, Mr, Cassandr~ fel the City. if she did not own the r, Cassandra was right regarding was 10 foot side setbacks in C-1 as whether the hardship was ut. If she owned the property t then a hardship was created by property and brought it when it was already C-3, there was no hard~hip created by the City. He felt it was as simple as all tha~,, Chairman Zimmerman ~told Mrs. Bartak that it would help if she c6uld tell the Bo~ard when-she became the owner of the property, ~s it might affect the decision of some of the Members of t~e Board. Mrs. Bartak wanted to tell the Board that she owned the property in 1975, but she was not sure that she did. Chairman Zimmerman said the Board would have to leave it at that unless the Board wished to table the matter. He asked if there were any more questions. The Chair was open for a motion. Mrs. Bartak asked the Members of the Board if they did not think the property looked better with an awning~ Chairman Zinunerman - 18 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 12,. 1982 advised that the looks did not have too much to do with it. Mrs. Bartak was trying to "take a dog-and fix it up," Chairman Zimmerman apologized for being ~emiss at the beginning of the meeting because usually they indicate what the purpose of the Board is. He Stated that the purpose of the Board is to grant a variance to any zoning Code mat~e~ that an applicant might want and applies for through the channels if there is a hardship present. Then the ~ariance is granted. Mrs. Bartak felt she.had a hard~hip, as far as $1,425-.~00, She asked, if it WOuld count anything that there was an aw~±ng there at one time. ' Chairman Zimmerma~ did not think that ±t Would, in the eyes of the Building Department. He .Said it might in the eyes of some of the Board Members. Mr. Cassandra reluctantly moved (only because he did not have the facts given him as far as a hard~hip) to deny the ~equest based upon the applicant showing no hardship created by the City., County, or State. Mr, Blum seconded the motion Mrs. Ramseyer, Recording-Secretary, took a roll call vote on the motion to deny the 'variance. Chairman Zimmerman Secretary Gordon Mr. Slavin Mr. Cassandra Mr. DiSarli Mr. Blum Vice Chairman Thompson Aye Aye ~tye Aye Aye Aye No (because the awnings once existed, and you are replacing what you originally had) The motion to DENY the variance carried 6-1 with Vice Chairman Thompson votin~--~ainst the motion, Correspondence Secretary Gordon received something in the mail on Thursda _ ~ ~t_4o0~P._M. He did not thank that was enough t~ ~ a~ ~luun~ 50 all ~ . ~ .... ~ ~o _ .~ o~ the places, Chairman Z~mmerma'n eXplained that a new counc~± was coming on in April,' and t~Y had to have a *correction Council meeting to verify who the new Boar~ .would be Un ' that time, the~e was no wa~ the Cit-- ~__L ~ ' , . . t~l ~ 3 ~r~ Knew wno to- send the ~r.~ material to. Chairman Zimmerman said.it probably would not happenm~n' for another year. He thought it was the first year, Mrs, Gordon thought it should have been put off until the 4th Monday. Chair~ man Zimmerman suggested that they probably were not coordinating as well as they could have and ithat they probably will postpone any requests for variances a little later after the first Council Meeting of the new Council so that Board Members do have time to receive material and go on site. - 19 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 12, 1982 Chairman zimmerman reminded Mr. Gordon that this was the first year that the Council changed guard in April. As far as he was concerned, the Board could forgive everybody for the little in- convenience. Other Mr. Cassandra did not know if it was proper and asked Vice Chairman Thompson about his negative vote, He noted that Vice Chairman Thompson said there was a canopy up there before. Mr. Cassandra's concern was whether it was before Mrs. Bartak owned the property, He said it might have been illegal then and Wondered if Vice Chair- man Thompson had facts stating that the canopy was proper at the time it was put on. Vice Chairman Thompson told Mr, Cassandra that Mrs. Bartak stated she owned the property roughly since 1975, She said the canopy was taken down roughly, a year ago. If it was taken down a year ago and placed back up now, Vice Chairman Thompson thought perhaps the law was changed in that time, which means that is why she did not ask for a variance. He compared ~t with a piece of property with a field burnt out, V±ce Chairman Thompson advised that if h±s property,was burned down, would they tell him he could not replace it or put back what he lost. Mr. Cassandra thought it was a good question and asked if you could put it back. Mr. Keehr advised that the law states that if something is destroyed beyond a certain percentage point that it must conform to the new regulations for that Code. In this case, Mr. Keehr informed the Board that the canopy was totally removed and would have to meet the requirements of today, Chairman Zimmerman stated that, however, Vice Chairman Thompson had the right to form his own opinion. Vice Chairman Thompson thought the Members would probably find themselves with lawsuits filed against the City. He thought it was a ~tricky thing, Mr~ Slavin called attention to the fact that the Board is supposed to evaluate, and they have a guide book, which is what they are supposed to follow. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Cassandra moved, seconded by Mr, Thompson, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried 7-0, and the meeting properly adjourned at 8:30 P.. M. e~~~pectfully su~bInitted, icia Ramseyer Recording Secretary (Two Tapes) - 20 -