Loading...
Minutes 03-08-82MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, MONDAY, MARCH 8, 1982 AT 7:00 P. M. PRESENT Vernon Thompson, Jr., Chairman Carl Zimmerman, Vice Chairman Robert Gordon, Secretary Theodore Blum Anthony DiSarli Ben Ridolfi Paul Slavin Nick Cassandra, Alternate ABSENT Lillian Artis, Alternate (Excused) Bert Keehr, Deputy Building Official Chairman Thompson called-the meet~ing to Order at 7:00 P, M. He introduced the members of the Board, Deputy BUild±ng Official, and Recording Secretary. He recognized the presence of .newly reelected Councilman Joe deLong, who is always with the Board at their meetings. PURPOSE OF B'OARD Chairman Thompson pointed out that the purpose of the Board is to grant variances wherever .there has~been a hardship that has been established by the Board which has been placed on. someone by the City of Boynton Beach or, in some cases, the County or State. If so, Chairman Thompso~ said the Board will gra~t a variance. When there is not'a majority vote, the Board must have at least four in favor of granting a variance. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 1982 Paul Slavin moved that the minutes be adopted as presented, seconded by Mr. DiSarli. Motion carried 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING Parcel #1 - A part of Lots 4 and 5 of Sam Brown Jr. Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 1 on page 81 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, said part being more particularly described as follows: Commence at the Northwest· corner of said Lot 4 of Sam Brown Jr. Subdivision; thence Easterly, along the North line of said Lot 4, a distance of 231.79 feet to an intersection with a line 137~0 feet East of, as measured along the said North line of Lot 4, and parallel with the Easterly right of way line of State Road No. 5 (U. S. No. 1) as shown in Road Plat Book 3 on page 13 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, said intersection being the Point of Beginning; thence con- tinue Easterly along the said North line of Lot 4, a MINU~ES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT M_ARCH 8, 1982 Request - distance of 63.57 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 1 of Las Palmas Park, as recorded in Plat Book 25 on page 242 of the public records of Palm Beach County, Florida; thence Southerly, along the West.line of said Lot 1 of Las Palmas Park, a distance of 114.62 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence Southwesterly and Westerl.y along the North right of way line of Vista Hermosa, as shown on the said Plat of Las Palmas Park, to an intersection with t~he previously 'described line, being 137 feet East of and parallel with the Easterly right of way line of State Road No. 5 (U, S. No. 1); thence Northerly, along said parallel line, a distance of 153.65 feet to the Point of Beginning. Relief from 100' Lot Frontage Requirement to 94.88' Lot Frontage Address - 615 Las Palmas Applicant - Alvaro Real%y, Inc.; John Alv~e, Agent Robert Gordon, Secretary, read the application, which said the property is presently zoned C-3 and was formerly zoned C-1. Denial was made upon existing zoning requirements from which relief is required: Section 6, C~i L - Multifamily residential dwellings are authorized as a special use in said district, subj'ect to the build- ing and site regulations set forth in Sectio~ 5 (G) (2) (a) of Appendix A of the Zoning Code. Mr. Gordon read, "The '!Nature of exception or variance required: Section 5 (G) (2) (a) of Appendix A of this code requires a minimum lot frontage of 100 feet. Subject property has 94.88 foot frontage, therefore, requiring a variance of 5.12 feet." Mr. Gordon read the reason justifying the requested exception or variance, as follows: "This property does not meet the required minimum lot area for all other C-3 uses; therefore, owner is requesting a permit to construct two (2) units under the residential use permitted under special' use. However, a variance on required lot frontage is necessary before a permit can be issued." John Al%~roe, Real Estate Broker, Alvaro Realty, Inc., 3181 South Military Trail, Lake Worth, representing both the Sellers (Mr. and Mrs. Thomas A. Erwin) and the Buyers (Mr. Glen~LaRue~and M~ Bernard H~ Hanson, Jr.) ~ appeared before the Board. Chairman Thompson asked Bert Keehr, Deputy Building Official, if the only request was on the 5.12 feet and if everything else had been met. Mr. Keehr replied that was correct. He stated the applicant would meet all of the requirements that are required for R-3. Chairman Thompson asked also if it would~meet all other requirements under the present C,3 zoning. Mr. Keehr gave a short history of the property by saying it was formerly zoned C-1. At that time, it was a conforming lot and could' have been built on. In June, 1975, it was rezoned to C-3. From - 2 - MINUTES - BOA~RD OF A~JUSTMENT F~.~RCH 8,. 19~2 that day hence, Mr. Keehr informed the Board, it has been a non- conforming lot inasmuch as it is too small'-for~a C-3, and it does not have the required frontage fOr a multi-family. Therefore, Mr. Keehr said the applicant was coming before the Board for a variance for that reason. Mr. Zimmerman, Vice Chairman, noted that Mr. Aide mentioned that he also represented Mr. Bernard Hanson, Jr. and Mr. Glen LaRue, as Buyers. Mr. Zimmerman asked if there was a sales contract. Mr. Alvaro repl±ed that he represented them as joint buyers and there was a sales contract. Vice Chairman Zimmerman informed Mr. Alvaro that Members~of the ~Board had no letter or affidavit indicating that Mr. Al~aroe also represents Mr. Hanson and Mr. LaRue. That was why he asked the question. Mr. ~k~.~e~ advised that he brought it to Tereesa Padgett, City Clerk's attention when he made the application. Vice Chairman Zimmerman said the Board was considering the application on the basis of the seller as the applicant. Mr. Alvar~e~unders~oodthat, Mr. Slavin called attention to a deed which showed the Seller as Mrs, Marilyn Bach and the Buyers as Thomas A.~Erwin and-Ramona Smith Erwin. Mr. Slavin presumed Mr. and Mrs. Er~in to be the owners. Mr. Alvaroe said they were the present owners, ~and they would be selling. Mr. Slavin. asked who they would be selling to. Mr. Alvaroe replied, "To Mr. Bernie Hanson and Mr. Glen LaRue." Again, Mr. Alvaroe advised that this.was another thing he made apparent to Mrs. Padgett, City Clerk, when he made the application. Mr. Alvaroe told the Board that Mrs. Padget% required an indication of owner- ship and that was when he produced the existing~deed. Mr. 'Slavin asked ~if there was a sales contract. Mr. Atu~oe said there was, and it ~should be before the Members of the Board. He stated that was also provided for Mrs. Padgett, City Clerk. Mr. Keehr told the Board they would find that they had a notarized authorization from the owners. Mr. Slavin advised it was an agency contract. Mr. Slavin did not want to appear to be nitpicking on the issue, but all he saw was an agency contract empowering Mr. ~Alv~oe to act as agent, by Mr. and Mrs. Erwin. Mr, Alv~oe had the original sales contract and asked Mr. Slavin if he wished to examine it. Mr. Keehr explained that Mr. Atvaroe-was representing the present.owners of the property~ as an agent. The owners., along with the~pQtential buyers, are asking for the variance, Mr. Keehr clarified. Mr. Slavin underst6od, that, .but he imagined that the Board should have had all of the details because they hear names mentioned ~that in no way appear on the record they are working.with. Mr. Keehr ascertained that the Board did not receive a copy of the sales contract. Mr. Al_varoe agreed that apparently they did not. He said he provided everything that was required from Tereesa Padgett, City Clerk, when she asked him for copies. Mr. A.lw~oro said he offered her copies of whatever she required. - 3 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 8, 1982 Chairman Thompson asked'the Members to keep in mind that the owners are asking for the variance in this case, ~nd they did have a Certified copy before them saying that the Owners made the request, not the potential buyers, which is really ~1~ the Board needs. Mr. Al~aro~ said that was basically what. Mfrs. Padgett told him. He reiterated that he offered her whatever she required as far as the application was concerned, Mr. SlaVin had no questions. He said Mr. Keeh~explained every- thing, and he thought everything was very concise and understandable. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of grant- ing the variance. Mr. A31Varoe asked Chairman Thompson if he could reserve the right to. comment later on. Chairman Thompson replied, "Yes." Chairman Thompson again asked if anyone.wished to speak in favor of granting the variance. He asked if anyone wished to speak against granting the variance. Colleen Rolfes Beckner, 625 Las Palmas, Boynton Beach, was directly against the variance and the duplex. She said it was a'residential area. It was not apartments and was not for transients. Mrs. Beckner did not want cars running in and out of ~hat particular point. Mrs. Beckner advised it was a blind spot on the road, to begin with. She Said there were small children in the neighborhood. Mrs. Beckner particularly could no't see a duplex right next door to her, She emphatically said, "I do object~~" Chairman Thompson asked if anyone else wished to speak against granting the variance. Mr. Herb Shubitz, 637 Las Palmas, Boynton Beach, was aqainst the issuing of a variance because when he bought on the bl~ck, he assumed he was living on a residential biock. He did not approve of rental apartments, as they would have absolute strangers living on their block. Mr. Shubitz preferred to have people who own the property living where they buy. He asked if the piece of property was residential and not conforming,-why was it changed to'non=resi- dential. Mr. Bert Keehr, Deputy Building ~fficial, informed Mr. Shubitz that it was zoned initially C-i. Back before 1975, C-1 allowed for a commercial building to be built on the lot without a variance. In 1975, the zoning was changed to C-3, which is also commercial,~ In Commercial 3 (C-3), Mr~ Keehr said there is a special use,~which is multi-family dwellings. Mr. Keehr advised that ±t'comes under multi-family because the City's description of a multi-family dwelling unit is two units or m0re. Consequently, Mr. Keehr said the reques~t for a variance asks for the R-3 requirements, which is what it must fall un,er. Mr. Keehr informed the Board that it required 40! foot front set- back, forty foot rear s~tback-~, and a.20 foot setback on all sides. If the applicant receives a variance of-~the frontage which is required for R~3, Mr. Keehr advised thaE he would be able to build two units. - 4 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 8, 1982 Mr, Shubitz asked if there was a site Plan on how the building would be constructed. He'warned' that if there would be more than one family there and the site plan did not provide for adequate p~klngz, it would be very dangerous because of a blind curb coming into the street, ~.~ '±f people were parking on the street and not in a driveway. Mr, Keehr said~the applicant must abide by all of the requirements for R-3, which would require two parking spaces for each unit, off the ~street, according to'the City's standards. Mr. Keehr said he could not do what Mr. Shubitz was worried about. Mr. Keehr advised that the plan does work. Chairman Thompson again told the Members that the only thing in violation at this time was the 5.12 foot frontage. Mr. Shubitz said his objection was that he would prefer it to be a residential rather than a rental area. Marilyn Bach Cain, 632 Las Palmas Drive, Boynton Beach, the original owner of the property, was against a duplex. She told Members of the Board. that she lives in the neighborhood; there are expensive homes; and~everyone has worked ha~d to keep the neighborhood the way it is. Mrs. Cain .said she sold %he property as residential and has a contract stating that. She said she would never have sold the property if she had known it would go into a duplex. Mrs. Cain informed the Board that~the Erwins told her they were geing to'build a home in a yea~. She sold the property as residential and was against a dupt.ex in the neighborhood. Mrs. Cain said there was enough traffic right now'. Mr. Slavin asked if the property east of the vacant lot was a one family home or ~a duplex. 'Mrs. Cain replied it was one family, and they were all single family dwellings' She said there were no duplexes on the block at all. John Barici, 631 Las-Palmas, lives in the second house from the lot in question. Originally, Mrs. Barici was neither for or against the granting of the variance until he heard more about what was actually going to go up on the building site. To the present time, Mr. Barici did not see any plans. He did not know and did not think it was mentioned as to how many units are.going~up, how many bedrooms, or how.many people .will be living there. Chairman Thompson did not have a plan showing~how many bedrooms there were, Mr. Keehr thought the word "duplex" was the. wrong word, He explained that it was a two unit dwelling,~which would consequently be the same description as a duplex, but it called for multi-family as a speCial use in C-3. Mr. Keehr advised that it would.be a two story unit, which must abide by the City's R-3 'requirements, which require 750 square feet per unit. Mr. Barici said Mr. Keehr was speaking of four separate units with two or three apartments per unit. Mr. Keehr answered, "No", He advised that he was saying you could have two living units on the site, and they would consist of two floors in each unit (a downstairs and an upstairs). Because of the fact the appli- - 5 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 8, 1982 cant must abide by the rigid setbacks of 40 foot and 40 foot, Mr. Keehr said he must build two stories with the units. Mr. Barici understood, and asked if it would be a series of bedrooms. Mr. Keehr thought they would probably be two - two bedroom units. He assumed they would not be large enough to have three bedrooms. Mr. Keehr informed Mr. Barici that nothing said the apPlicant -could not have three bedrooms; it was just that they would be so small. Mr. Barici again asked if there were any plans that he could see at this time. Mr. Keehr said they were not required for the ~ariance. Mr. Barici went on record as opposing the request for a variance. Bonnie Burnworth, 643 Las Palmas, Boynton Beach, ~was definitely against any duplexes or any four units to be built in that area. A1 Beckner, 625 Las Palmas, informed the Board that he has a six foot wall between his property and that property. If a duplex is bUilt in there, Mr. Beckner said he would not have any privacy at all in his pool and backya~d. He asked if another six feet .was go- ing to be added to the top of it. Chairman Th~~re~lied~NO~,~ Mr. Beckner emphatically told the Board Members that he bought there because he thought he would have privacy, and now he would not have any. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone else wished to speak against the granting of the variance. Robert Gordon, Secretary, read the following communication~ "February22, 1982 Tereesa Padgett, City Clerk In respect to the above captioned, and the notice sent to the under- signed; all improvements on Las Palmas have cc~plied with the set-- back requirement; why should one lot be exempt? In addition, if the lot in question istoo small for a single family dwelling why is it large enouqh for Multi-family dwelling? If the Multi-family dwelling is to b~ .built two story, the residents will look into all the hc~es now existing; seine such as ~ne having been built in 1957. Having lived at 625 Las Palmas since 1969, I consider as do many non-residents of the street that Las Pa/mas is one of the more beautiful areas of the city, why ruin it? I do object to the change of the set-back requirement. AND, to a two story (if its being considered) cc~plex next do~r to me, /s/ Colleen Rolfes Beckner 625 Las Palmas Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 - 6 - MINUTES--~'BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 8, 1982 Secretary Gordon then read the following letters which are attached to these minutes and made a part hereof: Letter addressed to Mr. Bert Keehr, Deputy Building Official, Office of Building Peri, its, dated March 3, 1982, f~cm Bonita Rae Burnworth, Herbert Shubitz, and Lillian Shuvirz. Letter frc~ Marilyn Bach Cain, dated March 4, 1982, addressed to Tereesa Padgett, City Clerk. Letter dated March 4, 1982 to Mrs. Tereesa Padgett, City Clerk, frc~ Mr. and Mrs. Arntz, 620 Las Palmas. Chairman Thompson reminded Members of the Board that he had told Mr. Alva~ehe would allow him time 'to comment. He told Mr. Alvaroe if he allows him to speak, he will have to allow the opposition equal time to speak. Mr. John Alvaro~, Agent, noted there'was a lot of'opposition, and he thanked everyone for their comments. Mr. ~varoe felt the ladies and gentlemen of Las Pa~mas had somewhat exaggerated the consequences of the duplex. He also felt that they probably had not looked into the equity of the purchaser and the type of building the purchaser was going to build. Mr. Alvaro asked Mr. Keehr what the zoning-.was on the end of Las Palmas, on the Intracoastal, at this point, Mr. Keehr answered that it was residential, and it had been Platted into ten single family lots. Mr. Alv~e said he would continue on and try to resolve it-. He noted that both Mr. and Mrs. Beckner commented and also sent in a letter, which showed good civic pride and pride in their neighbor- hood, which Mr. A~aroe appreciated. Mr. AI~ar~e stated that he also has a pride in selling properties, whereby the purchasers are going to do something realistic. He told Mrs. Beckner her comment was that She would have considerable transients. Mr. ~varoe said tha~' was very unlikely. The reason for that was that the purchasers are going to build a town house type two' story, which is the only thing that really can be built on the property equitably. Mr. Air, roe said the property is a very~expensive property, and it was almost impossible to build a single family dwelling on the property with the amount of expense it takes to purchase just the land. Mr. Alvarc~ informed ~everyone %hat one of the purchasers, Mr. Hanson, who is single, would be living on one side with his mother. The other side would, of course, be rented. Mr. Alvat~e advised that the building that is going to be built cannot be a "Mickey Mouse" build- ing. It has to be a very expensive one. Therefore, the rental rate has to be very, very high. Mr. ~aro~ told the neighbors they would not find the transient type of person renting a home or apart- ment that was not an equitable or more prestiguous type of person like they were. Mr. Atvaroe referred to Mr. Herb Shubitz' statement that it was - 7 - MINUTES - BOARD OF~ADJUSTMENT MARCH 8, 1982 zoned only for single family. Of course, as Mr. Keehr pointed out, it is not zoned'for single family, it is zoned C-3, Mr.. Alvaroe continued; and C-3 does, ~in fact, permit multi-~family dwellings. Mr. Alvaroe said Mrs. C~i,n both appeared and wrote a letter, and her reason was that she sold the property for a single family dwell- ing. Mr. Alvarc~ said Mr. and Mrs. Erwin did, in fact, assert that they would build strictly'a single family dwelling, He was not try- ing to provoke one thing or another, but Mr. A~ra~oe'~s understanding with Mr. and Mrs. Erwin is that the real estate agent provided that she would guarantee that~if a variance was had~ they could build a multi-family dWelling, Mr. Alvaroe did not ~know if Mrs. Cain knew that her agent said that. Mrs. Cain spoke up and s~id that was not how it was done. Chairman Thompson asked Mr. Alvaroe to keep his comments in line, He told Mr. ~l~aro~ he was going into agency now, and his co~ents should be kept in line to shed light on why a variance should be granted. Mr. All--roe made reference .tO a comment by Mr. Barici as to what type of building was going to be ~onstructed. -He'though~'he had elaborated on that sufficiently enough to tell everyone the bUilding would be a very nice structure built there. It 'is not going to be junk, as the people obviously suspect might be, whereby people will come and go at their Whim. Mr. Alva~e also asserted that one of the owners will live in the building and will have a hard hand on anyone that comes and goes, as far as the tenant is concerned. Mr. Al~aroe pointed out that Mrs. Burnworth had no reason, just that she did not want it there. He said Mr. Beckner, the adjoining property owner, objected because his privacy w.ould be intimidated and they would be building a two story building. Mr. Alvaroe said that was entirely possible, but if Mr. Beckner has a six foot wall, he could not see how Mr. Beckner~s.privacy could be intimidated because the'bedrooms will be upstairs, and the living would be downstairs. Therefore, the amount of time in the bed- rooms would be in the evening. Mrs, BeCkner co~ented that was when they entertain. Chairman Thompson reminded Mr. AIyaro~ that the reason he was granted time was to better inform the Members of-the Board what the building was and why it should be built. Mr. Alva~oe concluded by-saying ~t is a piece of property on Las Patmas. Mr. and Mrs. Erwin own the propertyl He asked, "What can it be used for~that would be equitable for the property. It is presently zoned C-3. Would it be fair 'to sell it to Texaco and have them make a parking lot out.'of it. I am sure you would not want that next to your~ome." Mrs. Cain remarked, "They have no interest in it." Mr. Alu~oe ask.ed if possibly additional parking is needed for Gulfstream Marina. Mr. Al~aroe felt the petitioners were being fair in their request and asked the Board of Adjustment to approve the petition for a two family unit. - 8 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 8, 1982 Chairman Thompson said equal time would be granted to someone from the opposition. John Barici reappeared before the Board. Based upon Mr.. Alvaro~s statement that it may be turned into a parking lot by the Marina or the gas Station or whatever, Mr. Barici asked if it would be permissible to turn it into a parking lot. Chairman Thompson said the Board could not answer the question. They were there to pass only on.the present zoning and whether a hardship has been established, Mr. Bert Keehr, Deputy Building Official, advised that it was very possible %hat the lot could be utilized as a parking lot ~nder the present zoning. Mr. Barici thought it would be a very expensive parking lot. Mr. Nick Cassandra~ Alternate Member, informed the~audience that he could not vote, as he is an Alternate Me~ber. He referred to the map and asked if that was the only lot that was C-l, and the rest were all R-1. Mr, Keehr adwised that the lot was C-3. Mr. Cassandra pointed out that it was the .only lot, and~ the rest are R-1AA from that lot on. 'M~o Keehr said that was right. Mr. Cassandra asked if they 'could~-buitd a one family .home under R-1AA on that lot. Mr. Keehr answered that the zoning regulations did not address a single family home on a piece of C-3 commercial use. In fact, Mr, Keehr advised, in C~i and C-2, it prohibits it-. Vice Chairman Zimmerman thought maybe Mr. Cassandra was thinking that- this particular lot could be rezoned on request by the owners. Under the same token, Mr. ~Keehr said it could be rezonedl to a lesser commercial, and if it is rezoned to a lesser commercial (either C-2 or C-l) it would no longer'be nonm'c0nforming. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on which side of the fence you are on, Mr. Slavin reminded the Board Members that they have to go by the book. He said the book tells them that the property is'zoned as C-3, which is a commer6ial .zone. Mr. Slavin remarked, "This is not of our doing. The unfortunate part of it is, the street is a beautiful Street." Mr. Slavin to~d the Board they were now faced with something that was entirely different than what was diScussed then.' -Under 'C-3, and according to-the interpretation of what happene~d previously, Mr. Slavin pointed out that from the Building Department they have the wherewithal to put up the structure. Mr. Sl~avin said when you go down the street~ the first thing you see when you come in is the vacant lot, which is far from being clean. Mr. Slav±n observed that ~he'-lo% is not maintained and is not clean. He saw palm branches and other debris on it. He asked if the pegple wanted to live with that, or regardless of the expense, somebody may buy the property for an entirely commercial purpose. - 9 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT M~RCH 8, 1982 As he said a moment ago, Mr. Slavin told the Board Members they were concerned with C-3. ~hat ia what the book says, and that is what they have to go by. Mr. Slavin was in sympathy With the. owners and could appreciate everything that was being said but, he asked, how do you circumvent the book. Mr. Blum concurred wholeheartedly with everybody in the audience that is objecting to the building going up, He was also around the neighborhood and liked it very much. Mr. Blum Commented ~that the neighborhood was very neat, and the homes were beautiful. He thought it would be a disappo£ntment to all of them. To satisfy most of the people, Mr. Blum stated he would vote that they should not' allow the building to be built. Chairman Thompson advised Members of the Board they should keep in mind ~everal things~ One was that the property was once zoned C-1. Moving from a C-1 to a-C-3 is an improvement, since it borders a residential area, Chairman Thompson pointed out. He informed the Board of what could be built in a C-3 zone, such as a funeral home, a nursing home, any typ~ of profesSional building or offices. He said they would be moving to a residential, in a sense, so C~3 was an improvement. When .Chairman Thompson looked at the area, he had several thoughts in mind. The first was, who would build a home next to a serwice station. Chairman Thomps.on'observed~there were beautiful ~homes on the street but that~no one ever built next to the service station, He-'assumed it was because of the~ser¥ice station. Chairman Thompson commented that it was zoned, whether there was a service station or not. Chairman Th6mpson took the position that perhaps it was a bu£fer between the two. Chairman Thompson further stated that it is.a living area and was probably the best you could get.out of an~ area that is next to a service station. Th? zone~ .Chairman Thompson pointed out, up 'to 1975 was C-1. The zone, since that time, was a C-3. Chairman Thompson called attention to the fact that it has never been a resi- dential or an "R"~of .any kind, Chairman Thompson understood why the peOple were saying, "Gee, ~'don't want a duplex," and he did not blame them. At the same time, Chairman Thompson asked if the Board Members could deny a person tk~ use of his property if: he is zoned properly. He said they could say they do not like it, but, by law, a person has the right to build what he is zoned for. Chair- man Thompson said the applicant was asking for a variance but, by law, that was all he was asking for. He was not asking for anything else. He said thsre were a lot of things they should take into consideration. Vice Chairman Zimmerman commented that if he were living.in that area, he would have some feelings against buildin~ a.duplex too or a multi-family unit~ ~or one like this granted a variance for a multi-family building because it will not be limited to two stories. Vice Chairman .Zimmerman pointed out that the people could say they are going to build two stories, but they would be permitted to build three or foUr stories in that zoning, He asked if that was r±ght. - 10 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 8, 1982 Mr. Keehr told Mr. Zimmerman %hat was correct. ~ Chairman~Thompson advised that what stops it is the amount of property involved. He said the building would look rather odd that high with such a small base. Mr. Keehr informed Mr. Zimmerman that there could only be two un,ts because there is only 10,000 square feet of land area. It takes 4,000 per unit. Mr. Keehr said what Mr. Z immermanPwas~saying was that you could build a living room on one floor, a~bedroom on the next floor, and a bedroom on the next-floor, and a bedroom on the next floor. Mr. Zimmerm~an asked if the requirement let it go to 45 feet. Mr. Keehr said that was correct. Mr. Zimmerman~thought it would be wise if the Members, as a body considering the request, could tie in the plans to be considered $o that it would only be a t~o .story building, and put a tock'-or time limitation on~ the. variance so that the construction could get started and it would be built as a two story~ That way it would not lie idle, so some other buyer could come in and build something altogether differen.t. Vice Chair- man Zimmerman adwised the Board that they could[put a time limitation on it so that construction could get started under these plans, or they could turn it down. Maybe, Mr. Zimmerma'n commented, the owners will go in for a lower commercial zoning which might not be as desirable as this. Mr. Ridolfi had a warm-feeling for the people t~ere~and also for the person who owns t~e property and wants to put~it'to ~se.. He said M~mbers of the Board must decide which side of the fence they are going to go on. Mr. Slavin noted that Chairman Thompson mention~d something before, that it went from C-1 to C-3. He asked if it s~ould be reverted to a C-1 and a nursing home or funeral parlor be bui~ Zimmerman replied ~h~t there would be no room f( footage. 'Mr. Slavin pointed out that they did could be put in there, so they were up a tree n~ unfortunate part of it~ was., as Mr. Slavin said had the book to go by. He noted the hardship w~ hardship was not the making of the purchaser. hardship reverts to 1975 when the property was pointed out that the original sale to the Erwin~ Mr, Slavin was quite sure that the attorneys-fo~ (now Marilyn Bach Cain) at the time knew or sho~ all of this. The fact that Mrs. Bach (now Cain) stipulation that they build a one family home ms up in Court. Mr. Slavin did not know. ~t. Vice Chairman ~r that and no square ~ot know what else matter what, The ~fore, the Board ~s there, and the Ir~. $1avin said the ~ezoned. He was in 19'79, and Mrs. Mar±lyn Bach id have investigated said there was a y or may not hold Chairman Thompson said they ~were informed that before 1975, no variance was required, That was what Mr. Slavin was saying. Chair- man Thompson further informed .the Board that they were also ~aware that a hardship on a piece.of property can be passedon to different owners in the future, especially when the particular property is landlocked. Mr. Slavin noted that there was no additional property on either side, so it was more or less grandfathered. - 11 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 8, 1982 Mr. Zimmerman moved to grant the variance and put a time limitation of sixty days to the beginning of construction. Hopefully, Mr. Zimmerman added, a two story structure will be built. Mr. Slavin stated that in all fairness to all parties, 'he wished to ask a question. He asked Mr. Keehr if a blue print or site plan had been submitted that should the motion be passed, they would have sufficient time to go to work on it. Mr. Keehr~advised that no plan had been submitted to his department. He felt sixty ~ays would be creating a hardship. Vice Chairman Zimmerman said they could make it longer. Chairman Thompson advised that the Board had the right to place a time limit on it, which the Board has don~. How- ever, Chairman Thompson continued, in the past, what the Board has tried to do is to give the person a chance to secure-necessary papers such as a lo.an or whatever is needed. For the information of the audience, Chairman Thompson said the Board had gone as high as two years. Chairman Thompson advised that Mr. Zimmerman made a motion. Vice Chairman Zimmerman requested that the sixty days be changed to ninety days. Mr. $1avin seconded the motion, Mr. Keehr wished the time to be clarified for his department's sake. He was not clear as to when the clock would start running. Chairman ThOmpson asked if the issuance of a permit' would mean you would have only ninety days. Mr. Keehr added from the time of issuance to start construction, but he thought Mr. Zimmerman was speaking of a_s~a~ting time or actually getting construction under way, Vice Chairman Zimmerman said he could change that, acCording to what would be more reasonable. Mr. Keehr explained that the Building Department automatically requires a contractor to start construction within ninety days after the issuance of a building permit. Otherwise, the permit becomes null and void. Vice.Chairman Zi~erman clarified his motion by saying the drawing of apermit should be ninety days from now and construction should begin-atlthe end ~f that ninety days. Mr. Keehr asked Vice Chairman Zimmerman if he was going to require the applicant to submit and pull a permit within ninety days. Vice Chairman Zimmerman felt that would be sufficient time to do it. Mr. Keehr agreed. Mr. Zi~merman said that would be subject to the second motion. Mr. Slavin seconded the motion and wanted it on the table. Chairman Thompson asked Vice Chairman Zimmerman if he was saying ninety days to pull a permit, which would mean ninety more days for it to get into construction, which the City gives. Chairman Thompson told~the Board they had a~motion and a second on it. He wanted to know what Mr. Keshr's question~was. Mr. Keehr advised his question was to clarify Vice Cha±rman~Zimmerman's motion. Vice Chairman Zimmerman believed Mr. A~e mentioned that they do have plans and are ready. With that ~n mind, and the Building Official's OK on it, he believed he would stick to his original motion. Chairma'n Thompson repeated the motion that the permit must be pulled within ninety days. He again repeated the motion that a permit must be pulled within ninety days of this date (March 8, 1982), Chairman Thompson said the request is to grant, and the - 12 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 8, 1982 permit must be pulled within ninety days. Mr. Zimmerman added, "or the variance is void after that date." Mr. Slavin agreed to the additiOn to the motion. As requested~ Mrs. Ramseyer took a roll call vote on the motion as follows: Mr. DiSarli Mr. Blum Mr. Z immerman Chairman Thompson Mr. Gordon Mr. Slavin Mr. Ridotfi For Against Aye Against Against Aye Against The vote was 4-3 against the motion. There was applause. Chairman Thompson announced that'the motion was denied. He explained that the motion was to grant the request and that a per- mit must be pulled within ninety (.90) days, but that was only for that motion. Chairman Thompson repeated that Vice Chairman Zimmerman's motion was to grant the request~with the stipulation that a permit must be pulled within ninet~ (~90) days. A man .from'the floor asked if they were going to a lower time than that. The man asked if anyone was prepared'to change their vote. Chairman Thompson adwised that the Board did not deny the request yet, Chairman Thompson advised that the Board did not grant a variance, nor did they deny a request for a varian.ce. They simply turned down the ninety (90) day :request. Chairman Thompson announced that the floor was still open for a motion to grant or deny the request for a variance. Mr. Ridolfi.made a motion to deny the vlariance for the-reason that the area is very residential, and well kept. Personally, Mr. Ridolf± felt it was a great asset to thie City of Boynton Beach and to the travelers who happen to see it. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. Vice Chairman Zimmerman asked Mr. Keeh~if he had any idea what the Board's legal standing on this would be, to refuse it if they have no other use for the land. He asked if the Board could vote on the motion favorably under the assumption that they will go for the zoning change or go to Court. Mr. Keehr advised that Vice Chairman Zimmerman was correct in ~he assumption that they could go for a zoning .change. He said the gates were still open to the applicant. Chairman Thompson pointed out that, at the same time, the Board was denying the use of the present zoning and the owner the use of his propert~ which is against the laws ~f the State of Florida. Chairman ThompSon s~ressed that the Board had no right to deny any- one a request for the use of their property by law, providing that - 13 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ~RCH 8, 1982 that person is within the law, which he is. Chairman Thompson reiterated that it was zoned C-3. He said the Board may turn down the request because they may not want to grant the applicant 5.12 feet, but they cannot suggest any change of zoning, Vice Chairman Zimmerman remarked that the Board can suggest it, but they cannot act on it. Also, Chairman Thompson told the Board they must keep in mind that they grant a~variance where there is a hardship first, or they deny the variance if there is no hard- ship, In this case, Chairman Thompson advised, the City of Boynton Beach has placed a hardship on the owner when 'they changed the law in 1975 on that property. The man from the floor said, "He was not the own.er in 1975." Chairman Thompson told the man it did not make any difference. Chairman Thompson said the Board had a motion deny the request for a variance. Mrs. Ramseyer began a roll call vote on the mot Mr. DiSarli Mr. Blum Mr. Blum did not understand the motion. The R~ explained that "deny" meant Members were for ti Thompson said that was correct. Mrs. Ramseyer Mr. Blum's vote. He said, "The opposite." Mr~ he wished to grant the request. Mr. DiSarli a~ just say "No." Mr. Slavin thouq.ht the voting % He asked that the motion be repeated. Chairman Thompson advised that the motion, whi¢ was to deny the request for a variance, which the owner's request to use the property as it Mrs. Ramseyer took a roll.call vote on the moti Mr. DiSarli - y Mr. Blum Mr. Blum still did not understand the motion an clarified. Chairman Thompson explained that if ~he motion, which was to turn down the owner, t .nd a second to .on as follows: ~gainst Icording Secretary Le motion. Chairman again asked for Ramseyer asked if .vised Mr. Blum to 'as very confusing. h has~been seconded, eans to turn dOwn s presently zoned. on as follows: es wished it to be he was in favor of hen he would be in favor of the motion. Mr. Blum.said he was in f~vor of the motion. Chairman Thompson said if Mr. Blum was against the motion to deny the owner, then Mr. Blum would-probably say "Against" or ~'No.'" Chairman Thompson noted that Mr. Blum said "Against", which meant he was against all of the motions. At the request of Chairman Thompson, Mrs. Ramseyer, Recording Secretary, read the motion, as follows: "The motion .is to deny the request for a variance." Mrs. Ramseyer again took a roll call vote on the motion, as follows: Mr. DiSarli - Yes Mr. Blum - No - 14 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 'MARCH 8, 1982 Mr, Zi~merman - Yes' Chairman Thompson - -Against Mr. Gordon - For Mr~ Slavin - Against Mr. Ridolfi - For The motion to deny the request for variance carried 4-3. denied). (Variance CORRESPONDENCE Secretary Gordon read a memorandum from the Boynton Beach Fire Department, addressed to all City Departments~, pertaining to a farewell luncheon for Allan'Nyquist on February 24th. Secretary Gordon commented that it was ~eceived a little bit late. He further read that it was Fire Marshall Nyquist's wishes .that nothing' be done. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the meeting, Vice Chairman Zimmerman moved, seconded by Mr. Blum, to adjourn. The meeting was properly adjourned at 8:15 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Patricia Ramseyer ~ Recording Secretary ~ - 15- Ms. Bonita Rae Burnwor~h 643'Las Palmas Boyn£on Beach, Florida MaEch 3, 1982 City of Boynton Beach Office of Building Permits Attn..- ~r. Keher Dear Sirs: In response to your recent notificstion concerning the construction of a multiR!e dwell~nE 6n the north side of Las Palmas Street, Bounton Beach, Florida, I as a property owner at 643 Las Palmas wish to exoress my objections and those of my neighbor~, ~r. & Mrs. He~oertr' Shubitz for the following reasons: (!) Las Palmas is zoned strict!y residential (single family homes), That is the reason we purchased on Las ~P~!mas, 'We wish to keep it residential. 2) We feel t~'at any zoning change would cause ~eYa~uat~o~ of our y~roperties. (3) Multifamily housing on ~s Palmas would result in a re~tal situation which is distinctly not in accord with the zoning standards now in effect. Sincerely, Bonita ~ae Burnworth Bonita Rae Burnworth CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH TEREESA PADGETT CITY CLERK MARCH, 4,1982 AGAINST PROPOSAL TO BUILD A MULT'! - F~ILY DWELLING, LOCATION 615 LAS PALMAS DEAR MS. PADGETT :~ I A~¥I A HOME OWNER RESIDING AT , 632 LAS PALmyrAS PK. BOYNTON BEACH-FLA. AND I WISH~ TO LODGE A STRONG OBJECTION CONCERNING THE PROPOSED BUILDING OF A RENTAL UNITS ON THE PROPERTY '~ACROSS THE STREET FRO~ MY HOME, I THE FO~ER· OWNER OF SAID PROPERTY AND I SOLD THE PROPE~T~ OV~ TWO ~S BE USED AS A RESi~ENCE, WHICH TO MY UNDERSTANDING 'MEANT A SINGLE F~ILY RESIDENCE TO_ BE OCCUPIED B:Y THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY. ZT IS MY ~DERSTANDING: AT THIS POINT THAT A TWO STORY DWELLING CONSISTING OF - TWO, TWO BEDROOM uNITS TO BE UTILIZED AS ~NT~ PROPERTIES ~S PROPOSED FOR THIS PROPERTY , PENDING' APpROv~ OF A VARi~NCE CONCERNING THE LOT FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT. LAS P~MAS NOW CONoI~T~ EXCLUSIVLY OF ONE STORY ~ F~ILY RESIDENCES. I PEEL THAT ANY THING O~HER"TH~ SINGLE F~ILY RESIDENCES WO~D DETRACT F.~OM THE BEAUTY OF THIS BLOC[~. AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ~ ~-~ ...... ~, ~ND WOULD SET A PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER VACANT LAN~ I~ OUR B~:aUT~w'~ ~ =~ - ~ OF BO~TON BEACH. ~=~ PEOPLE OF TH~ AREA HAVE WORXE~ H~R~ ~ EARNE~ ~=~ ENJO~ENT AND APPRECIATION OF PROPERTY VALUES THAT ONE ~'~AY~ FIND !N A SI~{~ F~ILY_~ COMM~'~iTY AND I FEEL THAT THIS WOULD BE T~HRmAT~,[~= ~ ~ BY RENTAL UNITS 0~ O~ STREET. -IF i HAD PRIOR KNOWLEDGE 0F THE PROPERTY USEAGE THAT IS PROPOSED AT THIS TI~IE I NEVER WOULD w~-~- ~ SOLD THE PROPERTY IN CONSIDERATION ~ ~ ~ ~ v - ~ IF SOM~O~ ~ono~ TO BUILD R~NT~D OF ~Y N~IGHBORo TO S~ UP MY THOuGHT~, b~iTS FOR THE Pb~qPOSE OF PROFIT AND NOT A~o~,~vu~ LET~ ~EM~ DO SO iN AREA THAT IS nu~ BY OUR LOCAL GOVERN~ENT FOR THAT Pb~QPOSE. MARILYN BACH CAiN February 22,' 1982 City of Boynton Beach Office-'of City Clerk .P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 Attn: Tereesa Padgett, City Clerk In re: Alvaro Realty, Inc., Lot Frontage Dear Ms. Padgett,. In respect to the above captioned, and the notice sent to the undersigned; all improvements on Las Palmas ~have complied with the set-back requirement~why should one lot be exempt? In addition, if the lot in questio~ is too small for a single family dwelling why is it large enough for Multi-family dwelling? i"f the Multi-family dwelling is to be built '~wo story, the residents will look into all the homes now existing~ some such as mine having been built in 1957. Having lived at 625 Las Palmas since 1969 I consider as do many non-residents of the street that Las Pa!mas is one of the more beautiful areas of the city¥ why ruin it? I do object to the change of the set-back requirement. AND~ to a two story (if its being considered) complex next door to me.. Colleen Rolf~s B~kh~ 625 Las Palmas Boynton Beach, Florida 33435