Loading...
Minutes 12-08-80MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1980 AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT Vernon Thompson, Jr., Chairman Carl Zimmerman, Vice Chairman Robert Gordon, Secretary Ben Ridolfi Paul Slavin Lillian Artis, Alternate Anthony DiSarli, Alternate Bert Keehr, Deputy Bldg. Official ABSENT Theodore Blum (Excused) Marilyn Czufin (Excused) Chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P. M. He introduced the members of the Board, Deputy Building Offi- cial and Recording Secretary. He recognized the presence of Councilman Joe deLong in the audience. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 1980 Mr. Gordon moved to accept the minutes as printed, seconded by Mr. Slavin. No discussion. Motion carried 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Thompson explained the purpose of the Board and the procedure for voting. Parcel ~1 - Lot 2, Block 2, LAKE VIEW HAVEN Recorded in Plat Book 32, Page 53 and 54 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 10 ft. side setback requirement to be reduced to 3 ft. side setback for installation of swimming pool screen enclosure. Address Applicant - 3718 Diane Drive - Bruce A. Barr Mr. Gordon read the above application and the reason requested because the existing pool is located on property 11 ft. from the side property line. As such, owner cannot construct screen enclosure per code as there would only be 1 ft. of deck between the pool edge and enclosure, if constructed 10 ft. from the property line. MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 8, 1980 Mr. Bruce A. Barr came before the Board. Chairman Thompson asked if he is the original owner of the property and Mr. Barr replied affirmatively. Chairman Thompson referred to the pool being constructed with the house and Mr. Barr agreed and advised that it came with the house. Mr. Zimmerman referred to the size of the lot and Mr. Barr informed him that it is 94 feet wide and the house is L shaped. Chairman Thompson re- ferred to there being a vacant lot next to him and Mr. Barr agreed and added that he brought with him a representative of the owner of that lot. Chairman Thompson stated that according to R-1AAB, the pool is required to be 11 feet from the property line and Mr. Keehr disagreed and clarified that the pool could be 8 feet from the property line, but the screen enclosure must be according to the zoning side yard setbacks, which in this case is 10 feet. Mr. Slavin asked when the R-1AAB code was put into effect and Mr. Keehr replied in 1975. Mr. Slavin asked when the pool was built and Mr. Barr replied in 1978. Mr. Zimmerman referred to pool construction taking place right now and Mr. Barr agreed and explained that the sea wall and pool were faulty and had to be replaced. The shape of the pool has changed a little, but the positioning is no different. Mr. Zimmerman asked if it would be possible to change the size of the pool to allow for this and Mr. Barr replied negatively as it would practically have to be in the house. Chairman Thompson referred to the code going into effect in 1975 and asked if consideration was given when the pool was put in to wanting it screened and Mr. Barr replied negatively because the house was bought as a package unit with the pool. It is only due to the fact of replacing the sea wall and pool that he is now financially able to afford a screen enclosure. The house did not offer the option of a screen enclosure but only came with a wood fence. ' Chairman Thompson referred to the survey showing on the oppo- site side of the house having over 19 feet and stated that there is only 10 feet on this side and the house could have been shifted to the east when being built. Mr. Barr agreed this was correct, but advised there is only one more lot be- tween his house and the corner and he thought at the time of positioning the house it would be preferable to position as far away from the house to the north to allow more room as there would only be the one house to the south and then an easement of 60 or 70 feet. There is a beautiful view of the lake and this position gets it closer to the lake, Chairman Thompson commented that if it was shifted, there would be more room between the other house and it would not change the view and there would be more room in the patio area. -2- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 8, 1980 Mr. Slavin referred to the size of the pool and Mr. Barr in- formed him it is the standard size of 15 x 30 feet and Mrs. Kruse submitted the pool plan. Mr. Keehr informed the Board that this property was platted and subdivided within the last three to four years and came under R-1AAB. It was platted to meet those requirements. This home was constructed with the pool at the time of the initial certificate of occupancy. Then there was trouble with a sea wall problem and it had to be replaced with the pool. As far as the requirements of setbacks, they have been the same from the initial onset of this subdivision. Chairman Thompson clarified that the original position of the pool would not allow a screen enclosure and Mr Keehr agreed this was correct. ' Chairman Thompson asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor of granting this variance and Mr. Carl DuBois, repre- sentative of the owner of most of the vacant lots and of the vacant lot to the south, stated that he offers no objections to this variance. Chairman Thompson asked if he built this house and Mr. DuBois replied affirmatively. Chairman Thompson asked why the house wasn't shifted to the north when it was built and Mr. DuBois replied at the time that Mr. Barr pur- chased it, they did not offer a screen enclosure and he felt that was all he could afford at the time. When the problems occurred, he probably felt it would be a good time to have this done if he could afford it plus there were probably problems with insects. Chairman Thompson referred to nobody else being present in the audience and stated he assumes there are no objections. He ascertained no communications had ~been received. Mr. Slavin stated if there was no problem with the sea wall, pool and erosion, screening of the pool would not have been considered and Mr. Barr replied tha~ he thinks screening would have come up in the very near future if not now. He thinks the screening will add to the value of the house. It is very seldom that people get a second shot at a pool. The existing fence came with the house, but it blocks the view and they would like to convert to screening, Since a fence can be built to the property line he assumed screen could also. ' Chairman Thompson commented that it is possible a hardship could be created on the property next door at a later date. If the screen is put within 1 ft. of the property line and the next property is a corner, it means the setbacks must be closer. There may be a hardship placed on that future owner. -3- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 8, 1980 Mr. Keehr clarified that the required setbacks are 10 feet on the sides and 25 feet in the front and rear. The next property is not considered a corner lot since there is no street, but only an easement. Mr.3 feetBarrfromClarifiedthe propertythat theline.SCreen enclosure would actually be Mr. Ridolfi made a motion to grant this variance. He referred to visiting this area and told about other homes having some improvements and how it is a very nice neighborhood. He agrees there is a beautiful view from the rear of this house. He per- sonally thinks a screen enclosure will enhance the entire area and not only the pool and house. Mr. Slavin seconded the motion. No discussion. As requested, Mrs. Kruse took a roll call vote on the motion as follows: Mrs. Artis - No Mr. Zimmerman - No Mr. DiSarli - No Mr. RidOlfi - Yes Mr. Slavin - Yes Mr. Gordon - No Mr. Thompson - No Motion failed 5-2. (Variance denied.) Parcel #2 - Lots 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70 & 72, less west 25 feet street right-of-way, C. W. COPPS Recorded in Plat Book 7, Page 56 Palm Beach County Records Request Address Applicant - Relief from 27,000 sq. ft. lot area requirement to 26,322 sq. ft. lot area to construct three duplexes - 505 N. E. 2nd Street - Bertha Stroshein Mr. Gordon read the above application and the reason requested is that the property has been owned by the same person since 1950 and in 1952, the City took 25 feet for street right-of- way. He also read a letter from Mrs. Stroshein authorizing Mr. Derle B. Bailey to act as her agent for this application. Mr. Derle B. Bailey, General Contractor, 109 N. E. 2nd Avenue, came before the Board. He pointed out that these lots stretch from N. E. 1 Street east to N. E. 2nd Street. He has three proposed plans for this property and will pass out each and discuss them. He distributed a copy of Plan A and explained how eight lots would be divided into three lots with each lot having 8,770 square feet with each being short by 229-1/3 square feet. He explained that by placing two buildings facing N. E. -4- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 8, 1980 1st Street and one facing N. E. 2nd Street, it wouldn't be obvious of being short the square footage This lan require relief of the s~uare ~ ....... ~ . ~ p would ~ ~v~ ~nu ~ront ~ootage. Mr. Keehr informed him this plan would not be acceptable because we did not advertise for a variance on the frontage. Mr. Bailey stated in that case, this plan is eliminated along with Plan B and he proceeded with distributing copies of Plan C. He explained that by dividing the frontage on N. E. 1st Street with 75 feet on each end and the center lot having 50 feet and on 2nd Street having two end lots of 58 feet and the center lot having 84 feet, there will be the required lot frontage. Relief in this plan is required for the square footage. Mr. Keehr stated he has no problem with this plan and it would meet the requirements if a variance is granted on the square footage. Mr. Bailey added that these lots are exceptional with reaching from one street to another. Mr. Ridolfi clarified that these parcels have been owned by the same owner for several years and Mr. Bailey agreed. Mr. Ridolfi referred to the City taking away more than 1,300 square feet and Mr. Bailey agreed and advised that it is 25 x 200 feet which is actually 5,000 square feet. Mr. Ridolfi clarified that as long as it is the same owner and the City took away land for a road, the City created the hardship on the owner. If the City had not taken the land there would have been room. Mr. Bailey agreed. ' Mr. Slavin clarified that Plan C as presented would be adequate if a variance is granted and Mr. Keehr agreed. Mr. Slavin clarified there would be two addresses with two on 1st Street and one on 2nd Street and Mr. Keehr agreed. Mr. Zimmerman asked where the 25 feet was located that the City took and Mr. Bailey pointed out it was for 1st Street. Chairman Thompson clarified that in dividing these lots in this manner would not create any problems and Mr. Keehr agreed this was correct and added that the City has all kinds of pie shaped lots. Also, for a point of information, prior to 1975, these lots would-have been conforming as less square footage was required. Mr. Bailey added that also less frontage was required and Mr. Keehr disagreed and advised that 75 ft. front- age was always required for a duplex. Mr. Zimmerman asked if these would be held for rental proper- ties or sold to three owners and Mr. Bailey replied that he didn't know. -5- MINUTES- BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 8, 1980 Mr. Bailey then explained how two duplex units could be built with a single family house, but they would like this variance to build three duplex units. Chairman Thompson referred to nobody being present in the audience to speak and ascertained no communications had been received. Mr. Zimmerman asked if this property was built to the north and south and Chairman Thompson replied affirmatively and it is locked in. Mr. Zimmerman clarified that this variance re- quest is 2½% which is not a great percentage. Mro DiSarli moved to grant this variance based on Plan C, seconded by Mr. Gordon. Under discussion, Mr. Slavin stated that he doesn't think Plan C should enter into this motion. If a variance is granted, how they will work on it will be within the confines of the Building Department and not this Board. He thinks a motion is in order to grant a variance as requested, but leave out Plan C. Mr. Keehr agreed. Mr. DiSarli requested "Plan C" to be stricken from the motion and Mr. Gordon agreed. Mr. Zimmerman suggested it might be good to state the hardship indicated is the 25 feet which the City took and Mr. DiSarli agreed. As requested, Mrs. Kruse then took a roll call vote on the motion as follows: Mrs. Artis - Yes Mr. DiSarli - Yes Mr. Zimmerman - Aye Mr. Ridolfi - Aye Mr. Slavin - Aye Mr. Gordon - Aye Mr. Thompson - Aye Motion carried 7-0. (Variance granted.) ADJOURNMENT January 19 is scheduled for the next· meeting of the Board for organizational purposes after appointments are made by the new City Council. Mr. Zimmerman moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. DiSarli. Motion carried 7-0 and the meeting was properly ad- journed at 7:50 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Suzanne M. Kruse Recording Secretary (One Tape) -6-