Loading...
Minutes 07-14-80MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, MONDAY, JULY 14~ 1980 AT 7:00 P. M. PRESENT Vernon Hhompson, Jr., Chairman Carl Zimmerman, Vice Chairman Theodore Blum Marilyn Czufin Ben R±dolfi Paul Slavin Lillian Artis, Alternate Bert Keehr, Deputy Bldg. Official ABSENT Robert Gordon, Secretary (Excusedi Anthony DiSarli, Alternate (Excused) Chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P. M. He introduced the members of the Board, Assistant Building Official and Recording Secretary. He recognized the presence in the audience of Councilman Joe deLong. Chairman Thompson referred to the long agenda and suggested proceeding with the pu~blic hearing. He announced the appli- cations will be taken in the order in which they were re- ceived by the City of Boynton Beach and explained the purpose of the Board. PUBLIC HEARING Parcel #1 - Lots 7 & 8, 15 thru 18, less 1-95 right-of-way, Block 74, Beverly Hills Addition No. 3 Recorded in Plat Book 13, Page 64 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from requirement to screen from view the open storage yard Address - 555 West Ocean Avenue Applicant - William Hartman Bull Dog Fence Company Mr. Slavin read the above application and noted the reason for this request is that the location and elevation of the property in relationship to surrounding property makes it practically impossible to screen from view. He noted that all the neces- sary documents were submitted with the application. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone was present in the audience representing Bull Dog Fence Company and Mr. William Hartman, 555 West Ocean Avenue, came before the Board. He advised there apparently was a problem last year when the building was built according to the plans and a certificate of occupancy MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUStmENT JULY 14, 1980 was issued. Three or four months later, he received a letter a~ising they were in violation of the code since the fence should be a screening type. He was not aware of this require- ment when the building was built. He went before the Codes Enforcement Board and apparently an error was made in allowing the chain link fence to go there. He was requested to replace the chain link fence with wood or screen with aluminum strips. Had they known this in the beginning, they would have done it then. The cost is higher now and they have invested $900 in the existing fence. It would cost $1,800 to replace it. It cannot be screened from the 1-95 ramp because they are too low in the gully. They abut 1-95 on one side and the railroad on the other. They have never received any complaints about the building and keep it neat. Originally it was not their fault for installing this type of fence as they followed the plans approved. Mrs. Czufin referred to there being a wooden fence bordering 1-95 and Mr. Hartman informed her that they just have a chain link fence along 1-95. Chairman Thompson asked if this was a requirement at the time the c/o was issued and Mro Keehr replied affirmatively. Chairman Thompson clarified that it was just an oversight and Mr. Keehr agreed and added that he was not the inspector on the job, but the way he understands it~ it may have been an oversight on the final inspection. However, this does not release anybody from the zoning codes of the City. Mrs. Czufin referred to there being a landscaping company and other companies in this vicinity and stated they do not have fences. Mr. Keehr informed her this particular ordinance did not take effect until 1975 and many businesses in that area did not come under this and exist non-conforming. Mr. Keehr stated he would like to mention that he feels the Building Department can make a statement regarding particular hardships of trying to comply with this ordinance. Insomuch as this property is located at the bottom of a hill, he per- sonally feels it would be practically impossible to adhere to the ordinance. The intent of the ordinance is not to re- quire the man to cover the entire acreage and screen it from view. Mr. Blum referred to visiting the property and stated he found it to be very clean. A fence is around the entire property. There is nothing on the outside which would be detrimental. He did notice down a little further, there is a steel works exposed in the street. Chairman Thompson in- formed him that this Board only judges what is at hand and does not make comparisons of sights nearby. The ordinance took effect in 1975 and many of the businesses were estab- lished before 1975 and are not under this code. -2- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 14, 1980 Mr. Slavin summarized that in light of what Mr. Hartman has told us and the attitude of the Building Department, it sounds almost impossible to screen in this property. Mr. Zimmerman questioned how long they have been in the fence contracting business and Mr. Hartman replied that it will be five years in September. Mr. Zimmerman asked how long they have been located in this City and Mr. Hartman replied for a little over a year. Mr. Zimmerman referred to him being ac- quainted with the fencing codes in various cities and Mr. Hartman agreed, but added that he never heard of this law until he received the letter from the City. He is familiar with the codes regarding fencing of pools, etc., but was never aware of this screening law. Mr. Zimmerman stated that it is important to know the codes and Mr. Hartman agreed, but ex- plained that he is told about the requirements when applying for a permit. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor of granting this variance and received no response. He asked if anyone wanted to speak against granting this variance and the following came before the Board, Mr. Jori L. Shudlick stated that he owns property adjacent to this. The City has rules and regulations and he feels they should be carried through in this particular case. His pro- perty is vacant and he believes this will deprive him of equities if this fence is not put up. It is a matter of $1,800, which is not an overwhelming amount. He thinks Mr. Hartman should follow the regulations of the Board. If the Building Department did make a mistake, this is the time to correct it. Mrs. Czufin asked if he was planning to build commercial or residential on his property and Mr. Shudlick replied that it was zoned commercial, but has been rezoned to R-3. If it had remained commercial, he would not ha~e too much of a complaint. He thinks the properties should be separated by a fence according to the code. Mrs. Czufin clarified that there is a fence, but he wants it screened and Mr. Shudlick replied that he wants it enclosed. Mr. Slavin referred to the property being zoned M-1 and ques- tioned the property next door being zoned R-3 and Mr. Keehr replied this is correct, but clarified that Mr. Shudlick's property is located west across the railroad tracks. Mr. Slavin questioned the approximate footage between the pro- perties and Mr. Keehr replied .that it isn't shown on the sur- vey, but he believes it is about a 100 ft. right-of-way. Mr. Slavin then read a letter received from Bertha I. Hartley requesting the Bull Dog Fence Company to be required to screen from view the open storage yard. -3- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 14, 1980 Chairman Thompson pointed out tha~ there is R-3 property within 400 feet, but in between there are the railroad tracks. How- ever, there are businesses on both sides, especially to the south. The newest business there is the Bull Dog Fence Company which was built in 1975 and they face the problem that it must be enclosed. However as Mr. Keehr pointed out, this place cannot be completely enclosed because of 1-95 and being located in a gully. The gentleman who has property straight across is on the same elevation and looks directly into this place of business. Mrs. Artis questioned the reference to a park in Mrs. Hartley's letter and Chairman Thompson informed her there is a park to the southwest which was dedicated to the City. Mrs. Czufin asked Mrs. Hartley if she could see this business from her home and Mrs. Hartley replied that she is not far from it on the other side of the tracks. She suggested that possibly shrubbery be planted along the fence. Mr. Hartman asked if Mr. Shudlick's property was located next to the American Legion Post and Mr. Shudlick replied affirma- tively. Mr. Hartman asked when he purchased it and Chairman Thompson stated this questioning is out of line. Mr. Hartman clarified that he believes this property was purchased after the fence company was established. He thinks Mr. Shudlick's statements are irrelevant, which is an .important point. In reference to the park, it is two blocks away and not within 400 feet. Also, Mrs. Hartley cannot see the company from her house. Mrs. Hartley clarified that she has to drive down the street every day and sees it then. Chairman Thompson asked if Mr. Shudlick had any reply and Mr. Shudlick advised that he has owned his property for three or four years. The people in that area have been trying to up- grade the area. New equipment has been installed in the park. It is within a two block area of this property. There are a few property owners who can see the Bull Dog Fence Company from their homes. It is a matter of following regulations. Certainly there is nothing which can be done to people who have been there previously. He thinks this is a detriment to the area and the ordinance should be adhered to. A mistake can be corrected if it has been made. Mr. Blum asked if he lives in this area and Mr. Shudlick replied negatively, but owns a vacant lot. However, if he is going to build there and there is an open yard of this type next to him visible for the residents, he will not invest as much money. Mr. Hartman re- ferred to the railroad tracks and the American Legion. -4- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT JULY 14, 1980 Mr. Mike Baird, 655 West Ocean Avenue, referred to this busi- ness not having caused any problem, but stated he would like to offer a solution. If Bull Dog Fence Company would install a screened fence just on the west side of the property, it. would improve the neighborhood. This would save 75% of the cost because it would not be needed on the north, south or east sides. He does not think it would be out of line to leave it open with a chain link fence in those three direc- tions. He would recommend this as a compromise. Chairman Thompson informed him that the Board does not compromise. The Board must determine if there is a hardship. Mr. Zimmerman commented that what seems to bother him on these various complaints is that it.is zoned residential across the railroad tracks. A new home has been completed in that area and there are vacant properties. By permittinq this, it will detract from the standard of living conditions. Mrs. Czufin commented that she thinks in this particular area, there has been a misunderstanding. This company put up a chain link fence, which was not inexpensive and it was ap- proved by the City. From what she saw in this area, this was certainly a most presentable business. She understands the commen~s from the people as she has five children and wants a City park for them. However, she does not think this company should be condemned and have to spend additional money because the City let this go through. This is the only establishment in this area which is presentable. 1-95 is in this area, but the people still should be able to enjoy the park and live there. She thinks to enforce this requirement will be an injustice to this company. There is always something to con- tend with no matter where you live - a super market, sewer plant, etc. She does not think it is fair to jeopardize this company. Mrs. Artis stated she is in complete agreement with Mrs. Czufin. This seems like it was imposed by the City and not self-imposed. Mr. Zimmerman referred to there being another side to this picture and stated right now, this particular company might be on their good behavior because it has been in the spot light before the Building Department and Codes Enforcement Board. What is going to happsn in a week or year from now if this variance is granted? What are the possibilities? Mrs. Czufin added that the fence looks very nice and no other business in this area has a fence. Chairman Thompson stated that we must keep in mind the purpose of this Board. Our personal opinion should be left out about how it looks, etc. We must follow the purpose of this Board and the laws of the State. We must make a judgment whether it is a self-imPosed hardship or one created by other bodies. -5- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT July 14, 1980 Mrs. Czufin stated that she thinks this was created by the City since they approved it. Chairman Thompson clarified that if a mistake has been made, we have the right to see it is corrected. Mrs. Czufin asked if the City would pay for it and Chairman Thompson replied negatively. Mr. Slavin questioned when the c/o was issued to Bull Dog Fence Company and Mr. Keehr replied that it was about April 1979. Mr. Slavin asked when the inspection was made when it was found to be in violation and Mr. Keehr replied that it was a couple months later. He added this was due to the effect of the fence being piled outside in quantity. He understands when the original inspection was made, there was some open storage. Mrs. Czufin referred to three cases coming before the Board since January in which the City has erred with giving appro- val and applications have to be made to this Board. She thinks it must be admitted that the City was wrong. Mr. Keehr clarified that the attempt of this code is not to put a hardship on anyone. Even if a solid wood fence is put all around this property~ it would ~1 be visible to a lot of people. Whether a variance is granted is a decision for the Board to make. Mrs. Czufin made a motion to grant this variance and allow open storage on this property without screening. Mrs. Artis seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mrs. Czufin stated she believes this was a hardship on Bull Dog Fence Company because they were approved by the Building Department. Chairman Thompson explained that five votes are needed in favor to grant a variance. As requested, Mrs. Kruse then took a roll call vote on the motion as follows: Mrs. Artis - Aye Mrs. Czufin - Aye Mr. Zimmerman - No Mr. Ridolfi - Aye Mr. Slavin - Aye Mr. Blum - Aye Mr. Thompson - No Motion carried 5-2. (Variance granted.) Chairman Thompson added that he voted against this because it is a self-imposed hardship regardless how it looks. He would have agreed to the suggestion submitted by Mr. Baird. -6- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT Parcel #2 - Lot 5, Block 11 Lake Boynton Estates, Plat No. 1 Recorded in Plat Book 13, Page 32 Palm Beach County Records Request Address Applicant JULY 14, 1980 - Relief from 7~ ft. frontage requirement to 60 ft. frontage to construct duplex residence - 216 S. W. 6th Street - Gregory L. Buckley and William J. Grummer Mr. Slavin read the above application and noted the reason re- quested is that the property is not suitable for a single family dwelling and is a buffer between single family and industrial. Mr. Gregory L. Buckley, 205 S. W. 10th Avenue, stated he is asking for relief from 75 ft. frontage to 60 ft. frontage to construct a duplex on this property. They will meet the re- quirements as far as setbacks and the tot contains the required square footage, but a variance is needed on the frontage. It is a buffer zone between residential sSngle family dwellings and industrial. It is zoned R-3 for mUlti-family dwellings. Mr. Slavin referred to him not owning ~he property yet and Mr. Buckley agreed and stated he has signed a"contract for purchase. Mr. Slavin clarified that if the variance is not granted, the contract is null and void and Mr. Buckley agreed. He added that a variance was granted two years ago on August 14, 1978, to the present owner. He signed the contract on this property under the assumption tha~ a variance would be granted. Mr. Slavin asked if the previous variance was granted for a certain time period and ~r. Keehr informed him it was stipulated that it must be built within one year and it was not. Mr. Zimmerman asked if there were any duplexes in this area or any planned and Mr. Buckley replied negatively and added that in the immediate area, there are no buildings and di- rectly to the north is the Austin Feed Store, across the tracks is the American Legion and vacant property, and then two houses but they do not meet the setbacks. There are single family homes to the west across 6th Street. Mr. Zimmerman asked if he owned any other property in this area and Mr. Buckley replied negatively and there is none for sale. Mr. Ridolfi questioned the size of the home planned and Mr. Buckley replied that he has plans for a 2,100 sq. ft. duplex which will meet the setbacks and square footage requirements. -7- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 14, 1980 Mr. Blum asked if he was building this for himself or to sell and Mr. Buckley replied that he plans to live in it. Mr. Blum referred to it being right on the railroad tracks and Mr. Buckley replied there is no other place to build unless an outrageous amount of money is spent. Chairman Thompson referred to being familiar with this having been a member of the Board when it was approved previously and stated he remembers a lot of people objecting to it because of the homes in the area. He thinks the Board took the position at that time that who would build anything along there on the railroad tracks. Mr. Slavin added that the property is zoned R-3. Mr. Buckley agreed that this is his point that it is a buffer and should be multi-family. The lot is a hardship being only 60 feet wide. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor of granting this variance and the following came before the Board. Mr. James Maiorana, 603 West Ocean Avenue, referred to a half dozen cars being on this lot now with a v~ and stated he did not see how a duplex would be more detrimental than that. Mr. Jon Shudlick stated he is favor of this because this pro- perty does back to the railroad and the only feasible use is a duplex. It would help the surrounding properties and the properties in the whole area. There is only trash on that property now. This will be an improvement for the area. He thinks this application deserves consideration. Mrs. Marion Green, 215 S. W. 6th Street, stated she lives directly across the street. Originally she was against this; however, she did not understand R-3 zoning as it was explained. She asked if there was no way with this zoning to put a single family dwelling on this property and Chairman Thompson replied that a single house is allowed. Mrs. Green asked what R-3 means and Chairman Thompson replied that it is multiple and single family. Mrs. Green clarified that there is a choice between the two at this point and Chairman Thompson replied affirmatively. Mrs. Green continued that she understands this is a buffer zone and it would be difficult to build a single family house, but 60 ft. is very narrow frontage. They have 75 ft. frontage for a single family dwelling which is adequate and to put a duplex on this lot would be a tight squeeze. If one duplex is allowed, multi-family will probably be built on the other lots down the street. She thinks it would be short-sighted to allow 60 ft. frontage and have it possibly continue down the street. She does think 60 ft. frontage is much too small for a duplex. -8- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 14, 1980 Chairman Thompson commented that in his personal opinion, it would be better to have a duplex on a 60 ft. lot than a single family home because there is less style in a duplex. Mrs. Green stated it would be crowded with two families living there. Mr. Slavin questioned how the lots are platted in this area and Mr. Keehr replied that according to the zoning map, it appears there are quite a few 60 ft. lots in a row. Mr. Blum referred to Mrs. Green coming forward to speak in favor of this variance and stated when he talked to her. last Saturday~ she was against this. He would like to know her position. Mrs. Green stated she was under the impression this was only zoned for multi-family dwellings and nothing else could be built there. If this was the only thing al- lowed, then she would be for it. However, now she is informed there is a choice and if the 60 ft. frontage is acceptable as far as the zoning is concerned and this gentleman wants to build a duplex that he intends to live in, then she voices no objection to it. Mr. Slavin clarified that she is not content to have the junk yard remain and Mrs. Green replied negatively, but she doesn't believe this issue is in front of the Board for dis- cussion right now. Mr. Slavin clarified that someone spoke about that and cited that for a reason for granting the var- iance and Mrs. Green agreed, but stated that is a separate issue. Mr. Slavin asked if all the lots were platted at 60 ft. and Mr. Keehr replied that he cannot give a firm answer. Mr. Slavin asked when this lot was made non-conforming and Mr. Keehr informed him it was zoned R-3 and still is zoned R-3. Mr. Slavin clarified that the basis for the hardship was needing the additional 15 feet and Mr. Keehr clarified that there is no real hardship insomuch as this property can be utilized with one single family home. The hardship as he understands is that to invest in a single family home in 'an area where it may not be sold because of the location. The location is the hardship and the fact that additional land cannot be purchased on either side. Mr. Buckley reminded the Board that he does have the total square footage and will meet the setbacks, but is just ask- ing for relief for the front footage. The property is 150 feet deep. Mr. Shudlick commented that he could not see how the Board could not grant a variance in this particular case when they have granted a variance for the Bull Dog Fence Company. Chairman Thompson informed him that the Board has not made a decision. --9-- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 14, 1980 Chairman Thompson requested those wanting to speak against the granting of this variance to please come forward. Mr. Allan Pollack, 645 West Ocean Avenue, referred to forming a homeowners association in this area and stated they are definitely against rezoning for a duplex on a 60 ft. lot. He just built a new home with 1~980 sq. feet and was not allowed to build on a lot with 60 ft. frontage and had to buy additional land. This is planned to be a duplex with 2,200 sq. feet which will be two 1,100 sq. ft. homes. A duplex having only 1,100 sq. feet will have cheap rent with a lot of kids and noise. He is against rezoning a 60 ft. lot for a duplex. Chairman Thompson informed him that 1,100 sq. feet is more than what the City requires for a unit as 750 sq. feet is the requirement. The request is not for rezoning the property, but to change the frontage from 75 feet to 60 feet. Mr. Pollack reiterated that he was not alloWed to build on a 60 ft. lot and there are not any duplexes in this area. They do not want rental properties in this area. He does not think it is a hardship if it is going to be used as a rental~ Mrs. Czufin asked when he had to acquire additional property to build and Mr. Pollack replied that he built his home in 1979. Mrs. Czufin clarified that he preferred to have a single family home built on this lot and Mr. Pollack replied affirmatively. Mr. Mike Baird, 655 West Ocean Avenue, stated his house also includes one whole lot plus a portion of another. Instead of a variance being granted to build a duplex on a 60 ft. lot, he recommends that additional land be bought. This area does not need additional traffic as the streets are narrow and crowded. There are no duplexes in the area and the people do not particularly want them. They prefer single family homes. He realizes it is zoned for multi-family, but he is against having a duplex built on a smaller lot. Chairman Thompson read a letter from Bertha I. Hartley object- ing to the granting of this variance. Mr. Slavin read a letter from Mr. & Mrs. D. L. Javins in objection to this request. Chairman Thompson ascertained that nobody else wanted to speak in favor or against this request. He then opened the discussion to the Board members. Mr. Ridolfi asked if this buffer zone is included on the Lake Boynton Estates plat and Mr. Zimmerman replied that it is part of the Lake Boynton Estates plat. -10- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 14, 1980 Chairman Thompson clarified that at the present time, Mr. Buckley does not own the property and Mr. Buckley agreed, but advised that he has signed a contract to purchase it. Chairman Thompson continued that when this was before the Board two years ago, the Board voted in favor of it with a one year stipulation and evidently Mr. Derle Bailey had the contract to build. Mrs. Czufin referred to the lots to the south all being 60 ft. lots and questioned what will happen to them? The resi- dents in the area are starting an association to impDve the area. Can the owners of the other lots make the same request to build on 60 ft, lots? Is a duplex that bad in this area and is it good to have a buffer? Chairman Thompson explained that many lots platted many years ago are non-conforming and each case must be based on its own merits. Mrs. Artis asked if a property is bought with the person knowing it does not meet the regulations, isn't that a self- imposed hardship and Chairman Thompson replied affirmatively. Mrs. Czufin clarified that Mr. Buckley was aware of this and Chairman Thompson replied affirmatively as this is covered in the contract to purchase. Mr. Slavin asked if he had tried to purchase any property adjoining this lot and Mr. Buckley replied that he purchased the lot from Mr. Moisan through Mr. Bailey under the assump- tion that no land was available on either side. The log to the north and south are 60 ft., but after that they are 75 ft. lots. Mr. Slavin questioned if the adjoining property is for sale and Mr. Buckley replied that he doesn't know, but 120 feet would be too much. Mr. Zimmerman summarized that this was platted back in the 1920's and the code was different but a little foresight was used in making these deep lots, so whoever built would not be right on top of the railroad. If there is one living unit on the lot, there would be a large back yard. However, if a duplex is squeezed onto the lot, the rear unit will be on the railroad. The built-in protection would be defeated to some extent if this is allowed. Mrs. Hartley clarified that the railroad wasn't there when the development was started; it came afterwards. Chairman Thompson stated he would like to point out some things to take into consideration. It is properly zoned. The only thing in question is the frontage. It would meet all setbacks. We must consider whether it is a hardship. The hardship he sees is who would build a home on this with the back yard on the railroad. Mrs. Artis added that there is also the question who would rent the back end of it with being on the railroad? -11- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT JULY 14, 1980 Mrs. Czufin stated she does not understand the statement of this property not being suitable for a single family dwelling and asked why it is suitable for a duplex and Mr. Buckley re- plied that this area is a buffer zone and that is why it is not suitable for a single home. The area along the tracks is considered a buffer zone between residential and industrial~. The lot is a hardship because it is in a buffer zone. He could build a single family home, but then an eight unit apartment building could be built on the three lots next to it. He is asking for relief from 75 ft. to 60 ft. frontage. There should be a buffer zone between industrial and residen- tial and a duplex is a buffer. Mr. Neal Franklin, 120 N. W. 6th Street, stated he has a 75 ft. lot and had to cut down the size of his house to fit the lot. He does not think a house should be built on a 60 ft. lot. He lives on the railroad tracks. If this man is going to live there, why wouldn't someone else live there? He built a $60,000 house and is living in it. He knows it is not the best area, but someone will live along the railroad tracks. Mr. Slavin made a motion to deny this variance. He added that his reasons are at the time these people signed the con- tract to purchase this property, they were told exactly what the situation was. They have a deposit which is refundable and there is no financial hardship. The f~ct a variance was granted in the past and not fulfilled has ~o bearing on this matter. Mrs. Czufin seconded the motion and agreed with the last gentleman's statements. A house can be built any place. The requirement is 75 feet. These people ~ant to upgrade their area and she thinks they should be given the chance. As requested, Mrs. Kruse took a roll call vote on the motion as follows: Mrs. Artis - Aye Mrs. Czufin - Aye Mr. Zimmerman - Aye Mr. Ridolfi - Aye Mr. Slavin - Aye Mr. Blum - Aye Mr. Thompson - Aye Motion carried 7-0. (Variance denied.) At this time, Chairman Thompson declared a recess and then reconvened the meeting at 8:45 P.M. -12- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 14, 1980 Parcel ~3 - A parcel of land lying partly in the south one-half of Section 33 and partly in the south one-half of Section 34, Township 45 South, Range 43 East, Palm Beach County, Florida, containing 2.00 acres, more or less, per description advertised,i Request - Relief from 100 ft. frontage require- ment to 25.11 ft. frontage to construct multi-family residenCes Address - 2406 South Federal Highway Applicant - Daniel J. O'Brien, Agent James T. Nighswonger Vacation Ventures, Inc. Mr. Slavin read the above application and the authorization submitted by the owner appointing Mr. O'Brien as the agent. He reviewed the documents submitted and noted that all were in order. Mr. Danny O'Brien came before the Board representing Vacation Club, Inc. He advised they are requesting a variance from the requirement in the City code of 100 ft. frontage on multiple zoned property. This property was created in 1968 prior to the existing codes. In 1975, Gentleman Jim's bought the high- way frontage leaving the rear Intracoastal parcel with 25 ft. frontage on U. S. 1. They have contacted the adjoining pro- perty owners, Gentleman Jim's and Hampshire Gardens regarding access. Hampshire Gardens has a northern access road which parallels this 25 ft. strip. He submitted a letter from Hampshire Gardens rejecting this request. They also tried to contact Gentleman Jim's to get relief through their parking lot, but received no response. If access was given from Gentleman Jim's, they would lose about 1/3 of their parking lot. They have exhausted all possibilities to obtain access with no success. Mr. Blum referred to visiting this site and stated the only access to this property is along South Federal Highway which is 25 ft. wide. He understands 20 units are planned which would require approximately 30 parking spaces. This would create quite a bit of traffic into this 25 ft. road. In the event of an emergency with people trying to get out of this area, he understands a 6' retaining wall is planned along Gentleman Jim's property, so the only way to get out would be along the 25 ft. roadway. In the event of an emergency with cars wanting to get outs there is no way into Federal Highway without meeting a tremendous amount of traffic at any time of the da-y. The only way to get out is to go north. In the event of an emergency vehicle coming in, he would like to know how it would get in and the people would get out at the same time? -13- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 14, 1980 Mr. O'Brien stated according to the criteria from the Engineer- ing Department, City roads are required to be 24' The turning radius onto Federal Highway would probably cause a problem. He thinks there is about 20 ft. for turning into the property and the minimum requirement would probably be 25 ft. A fire vehicle could make the turn. He will not say it is an ideal condition from a traffic or engineering standpoint. However, he is not in front of the Board to negate an ideal condition, but to ask a waiver on 25 ft. versus 100 ft. They have donee.every- thug-possible to get another access. They have asked Hampshire Gardens, who only have a 20 ft. access into their property. The same considerations should have been given to Hampshire Gardens, WhiCh has a lot more use. They also requested access from Gentleman Jim's. He can understand the refusal from both. The normal ingress and egress for driveways to any project would be approximately 20 to 25 feet wide at the street side. The maximum driveway width in Palm Beach County is 35 feet and the minimum is 20 feet. The City codes run parallel to that. The 25 ft. width is sufficient for any traffic for two way flow. It is not ideal because of its location though, but that is not why it is before the Board. Mrs. Czufin referred to multi-family residences being planned and asked if Vacation Ventures meant people would be living there year-round and Mr. O'Brien replied these will be built as condominium units. There will be 20 units with 800 to 880 square feet per unit. There will be a wall erected as required. Mrs. Czufin asked if the people would be living there year-round or just buying for two week periods and Mr. O'Brien replied that he did not know. Chairman Thompson stated that he thinks they buy the unit for a period of time with three or four people using the same apartments. Mr. Keehr clarified that this concept is being done at present, but he does not know if that is planned for this project. Mr. O'Brien clarified that it is a condominium type develop- ment and whether ~t is time sharing, he does not know. Mrs. Czufin stated that it does make a difference in talking about the roadway as she does not think there would be as much traffic with people living there year-round. Mr. O'Brien added that these are two bedroom units, but are not sized for families with children. They will not be motel type units. Mr. Blum stated that Vacation Ventures is a piece of property which someone can rent for two months, then someone else rents it for two months, etc. That is a Vacation Venture even though it is condominium design. This is the new concept of living today throughout the country. Mr. O'Brien stated he could not speak to this issue. The owners have corpora- tion names of Vacation Ventures, Vacation Resorts and Vacation Club. This is a condominium project for 20 units. He does not know if it will be a vacation resort. Any condo- minium project can be turned into a time sharing project at any time. He does not think it is relevant to the issue in front of the Board. -14- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTmeNT JULY 14, 1980 Mr. Blum stated if people are going to keep coming in and out, there will be more traffic than from a regular condominium. In this type of concept, it can be rented out for twelve months per year instead of the usual condominiums with most of the people being away in the summer. Mr. O'Brien referred to Village Royale on the Green being probably the largest condominium in Boynton Beach and ex- plained how they only had access by 22 ft. roads. Also, an application was approved recently by this Board for a similar project with a smaller access. Further discussion followed regarding the access into Village Royale on the Green between Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Blum. Mr. Zimmerman asked if they had contacted Tropical Acres regarding access to this property and Mr. ~O'Brien replied negatively, but added that the eastern side of Tropical Acres from their property line north is under contract to be purchased. They cannot go south of Tropical Acres as there is no room. They contacted the two immediate people. They thought there would be an amicable solution with Hampshire Gardens, but they do not want additional traffic on their service road. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor of granting this variance. Mr. Lawrence Drum~ 3131 N. E. 42nd Street.~ Fort Lauderdale, stated he was the co-owner of the property before it was sold to Mr. Nighswonger. He purchased ~t about seven years ago in this smme configuration. Before purchasing the pro- perty, he had an architectural firm design a conceptual plan and they showed an attractive entrance which met the require- ments. Over the past seven years, he has verified with the City that 22 units could be built. This problem was only brought to their attention when Mr. Nighswonger applied for a permit. This proposed development is far superior in ap- pearance than the surrounding neighborhood and is lower den- sity. The entranceway is contiguous to the driveway serving the large condominium to the south. In regards to an emer- gency situation, he believes in an emergency the entire Gentleman Jim's parking lot would be available for exit from the property with more than adequate space. On the north side, there is a 40 ft. easement which would prevent any access from that side. On the south side, that condominium project is not in favor although they have a narrower drive- way servicing more people. If the variance is not granted, this would be a piece of property entirely landlocked. It could not be used for any purpose. It could not even be dedi- cated to the City for a park, since nobody could get in there to use it. He thinks it is a hardship to deny the variance. -15- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 14, 1980 Mr. Drum continued that he thinks it would also be a hardship to the community if this is denied because the proposed dev~ ~opment is a thing of beauty. He thinks it would be quite a dilemma to the City how to tax the property if you cannot get there and use it. He thinks this is a reasonable request. There are mUltiple examples of this type of entrance through- out the City. Mr. Blum referred to the reference to exit through Gentleman Jim's parking lot and asked how this could be accomplished with the wall there and Mr. Drum replied that he is not ac- quainted with exactly what is being proposed, but a space could be required to be left open for emergency. Mr. Blum questioned this plan further. Mr. Drum clarified that if no variance is granted, the land is entirely landlocked and cannot be used for any purpose. Chairman Thompson clarified that at present, the property is not land locked since the property to the north is not developed. Mr. Drum questioned how they could get across the 40 ft. easement which cannot be purchased? Mr. O'Brien clarified that the property by virtue of ownership is not landlocked as they do have 25 ft. frontage on U. S. 1. If this cannot be used as legal access to the property, then it is landlocked due to the ownership of surrounding properties. Mr. Zimmerman questioned how many single homes could be built on this property without a variance and Mr. O'Brien replied that only one could be built since there is not frontage on a dedicated street. Mr. Zimmerman referred to subdividing the property and dedicating streets and Mr. O'Brien replied this could not be done because there is only 25 ft. onto U. S. 1. Mr. O'Brien referred to this being similar with Cove Point in the north end on U.. $. 1 and stated that was a 40 unit development which was approved by the Board approximately two months ago. This is not an ideal situation~ but it is a parcel of land which was created prior to the adoption of the present code. It was subdivided in 1968 and Gentleman Jim's took title in 1972 and Mr. Drum took title in 1974. It has been in the same configuration and was a valid lot at that time. The only portion of the code it does not meet is the 100 ft. front footage requirement. 20 units could be built on this property with all the setback and parking re- quirements met. They have made an attempt to secure other means of ingress and egress. If they could get 50 ft., a street could be dedicated into the project. They have ex- hausted all remedies and that is why they are before this Board. -16- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 14, 1980 Councilman deLong stated for the information of the owner, each year the County Commission sits as a Board of Equalization to take care of cases such as this to hear claims of land- locked lands and give reduction in taxes. Chairman Thompson asked if ~where 23rd Avenue reaches U. S. 1, the property is owned by Tropical Acres and Mr. O'Brien informed him that the line between Tropical Acres and Gentle- man Jim's is the quarter section line and the approximate center line of 23rd Avenue, but 23rd Avenue deadends at U. S. 1. If extended, it would go between Gentleman Jim's and Tropical Acres. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone would like to speak against the granting of this variance and the following came before the Board. Mr. Ed Tottser, 2450 South Federal Highway, stated this notice of public hearing was presented at an inopportune time since most of the residents are away as is normal during the summer. Neverless, this variance ms so important, so vital, and so serious, they do have a small delegation from Hampshire Gardens to fight this. He requested the people present from Hampshire Gardens to stand up. He then presented a petition to the secretary signed by the residents in opposition to this. Mr. Tottser continued that since an ordinance is like a muni- cipal regulation, they cannot conceive how the Board of Adjust- ment can even consider a variance of this magnitude with giving relief from 100 feet to 25.11 feet. He referred to the other requests being for a smaller amount. They believe this request to be a mockery of the laws and ask the Board to deny this request. Mr. Tottser referred to the entrances to Gentleman Jim's and Hampshire Gardens being at the intersection of 23rd Avenue and Federal Highway and stated if this wariance is granted, the developer intends still another entrance between these two entrances. This is a very busy and congested intersec- tion where there have been many accidents. It is also the main route for emergency vehicles going to Bethesda Hospital. The proposed entrance will have a traffic impact on this con- gestion. He invites the consideration of the Traffic Safety Committee. He requests this to be denied. To allow this 25 ft. frontage, it means all traffic to these proposed 20 units would be funneled through a tight opening closely paralleling their property and close to 35 bedrooms along that road. According to the drawings proposed, the road will be 32 feet from their property. The use will aggravate the noise problem and pollution. -17- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 14, 1980 Mr. Tottser continued with stating there is not a definite indication as to the type of operation planned. However, from all indications and the names of Vacation Ventures, Vacation Resorts and Vacation Club, it is suspected this will be a time sharing project. This means instead of 20 units being occupied, there could possibly be 520 occupied units per year. If this is the case, all of the previous objections are greatly understated. Mr. Fred Wulff, 2420 South Federal Highway, stated that his bedroom borders on the north road of Hampshire Gardens as does 75 other bedrooms. They object to the granting of this vari- ance. Progress should be permitted provided it does not create a condition that will be a detriment to the people residing there. Hampshire Gardens was incorporated in 1964 and there are 236 families living there. At least 50% of the residents do need and require more bed rest than others and most of these people sleep in the 75 bedrooms on the north road. This request to build a 20 unit structure to house 20 families appears to be a fallacious statement. This corpora- tion is an attempt to build 20 units to be sold to people who may purchase the unit for two weeks or two months per year. Instead of 20, there may be 520 or 1,040 running in and out. The parking requirement has been met, but there are no plans for a pool or clubhouse. It has been his experience that any- one who lives in a vacation area extends an invitation to friends and relatives to come on down and where will the overflow of vehicles park with only allowing 1% per unit? Also, with having no recreational facilities, it will com- pound their problems as the people will probably be using their pool. He requests the Board to deny this variance since it will increase the traffic and noise pollution on the north side of their community,where none exists now, and affect the delicate health of their residents. It will destroy the tran- quility of their development. It is also expected that the construction truck traffic and building equipment will create more problems. The weight of these vehicles will damage their roadway and buildings. This will increase the traffic conges- tion. How will the people get out if there is an emergency? Considering all these points, he asks that this request be denied. Mr. Joe Oths, 2430 South Federal Highway, stated he agrees with all the previous objections. He represents Building 2430 and they feel the variance for changing zones and spot zoning is very unfair. This is unfair to the people of the City. It is unfair to the Zoning Board to give one person the privilege to violate regulations. In giving permission to one to change the laws, it must be given to others. In the course of time, this could escalate and they could find a disco club next door. -18- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 14, 1980 Mr. Oths then read a letter from Dr. & Mrs. Benjamin Strumpf objecting to this variance. Mr. Fred Carpenter, 2460 South Federal Highway, stated when the ordinance was adopted, it was for the good of the great- est number. The standard of 100 ft. frontage was necessary for the protection of others. It is a rather blatant atti- tude to ask for a 75 ft. reduction in the prime requirement of such an ordinance. When the owner purchased the property~ he knew of the code requirements and at that time, he should have conformed accordingly. The seriousness of the traffic situa- tion and safety should be recognized. The testimony of the applicant was very indefinite regarding the use of the pro- perty. In the quotation of the applicant's road width re- quirements, it went from 20 to 28 feet which is a consider- able leeway. Also, t.he majority of the people here are in- terested because they are voters and reside here. He is interested in the development of Boynton Beach for the best interest of everybody. They request this application to be denied. Mr. Mark Willman, 2240 South Federal Highway, stated one point which hasn't been brought up is during the winter season when that traffic light at 23rd Avenue turns red, the traffic backs up past his apartment at the south end. If an emergency vehicle had to get into that 25 ft. driveway~ there is no possible way to get in when all the people are here during the season. Even the Hampshire Gardens people have a hard time getting out of their driveway. Mr. Danny O'Brien announced for the benefit of everybody present, there is a pool planned in this project. The special condition that brings this before this Board is seeking a variance for the condition of 25 ft. frontage which exists and was created prior to the adoption of the present code. The circumstances creating this frontage were done in 1968. It was not done by Mr. Drum, who re- cently transferred the property to Vacation Ventures, Inc. By not granting the variance, it will deprive the applicant the rights commonly enjoyed by others with multiple zoned property. The variance is the minimum which could be re- quested under the code.. The granting of this variance will not cause anything detrimental to the health and welfare of the public, but he can see the point of Hampshire Gardens not wanting an extra lane of traffic going north of their homes. The minimum setback is 20 ft. and their homes will be setback 32 feet. The vacant ground will be developed into 20 homes which will not be detrimental to the public. -19- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 14, 1980 Mr. Drum referred to being the previous owner and stated he will become the owner instantly if this variance is not granted because Mr. Nighswonger will not pay for the land because he cannot use it without a variance. They are not asking to shorten the size of the road, but just want a driveway larger than the one adjacent with less traffic. If Mr. Nighswonger goes into time sharing, that would be up to the City and it would still represent fewer cars than the adjacent driveway. There will be only 20 units and there could never be more than 20 families. The vacancy rate is 25% in time sharing, so there would be 15 families maximum using the driveway. This is a request for relief from a severe hardship. The land cannot be used without the vari- ance. Mrs. Czufin questioned why he did not build on the property and Mr. Drum replied that the zoning allows 22 units and 20 are proposed. When he bought it in 1974, he could not obtain financing. They are not asking for anything more than that which exists up and down the highway. A resident of Hampshire Gardens stated the two speakers in favor are the purchaser and seller, which is not reflected upon the true merits of this case. The hardship situation is not new, but existed for sometime. Mr. Ridolfi asked if the 20 units are within the density allowed and Mr. Keehr informed him that this property is zoned R-3 which allows 10.8 units per acre and the density of 20 is legally allowed. Mr. Zimmerman referred to this formerly being zoned C-1 and asked when it was changed to R-3 and Mr. Keehr replied in 1975 and it is correct it was formerly zoned C-l, but C-1 did permit multi-family use. Mr. Blum made a motion to deny this request, seconded by Mr. Slavin. No discussion. As requested, Mrs. Kruse took a roll call vote on the motion as follows: Mrs. Artis - Aye Mrs. Czufin - Aye Mr. Zimmerman - Aye Mr. Ridolfi - No Mr. Slavin - Aye Mr. Blum - Aye Mr. Thompson - Aye Motion carried 6-1. (Variance denied.) -20- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Parcel #4 - Lot 1, Block 6, Bowers Park Recorded in Plat Book tl, Page 57 Palm Beach County Records Request Address JULY 14, 1980 - Relief from 7~500 sq. feet lot area requirement to 5,915 sq. feet and relief from 60 ft. lot frontage to 57.66 feet and relief from minimum required living area of 1,250 square feet to 1,120 squ~re feet to construct single family residence - 236 S. E. 3rd Avenue Applicant - Lance S. Uhley Mr. Slavin read the above application and noted all the neces- sary documents were attached to the request. He noted the reason requested was when the owner purchased the lot, the recorded plat showed the lot to be conforming under R-2 zon- ing using R-1 requirements. However, when the survey was made, it showed the lot to be much smaller. Mr. Lance S. Uhley, 510 S. W. Atlantic Drive, Lantana, came before the Board. Mrs. Czufin clarified that he owns this lot and wants to build on it and Mr. Uhley replied affirma- tively and added that he plans to build a two bedroom, two bath house. This lot is immediately next to the railroad tracks. It was platted back in the early 1920's. The plat shows the frontage as 64 feet. He had it surveyed before making application for a building permit and that is when he became aware of this problem. Mrs. Artis clarified that he did not have it surveyed prior to purchasing the lot and Mr. Uhley replied negatively as he was always under the impression that plats are accurate. He explained how it was that he found out then that it was a keystone lot which means everyone has a 60 ft. lot until they get to the end of the street. In this case, he wound up with less than 60 feet. Chairman Thompson clarified that at the time of purchase~ the papers showed there was enough property and Mr. Uhley agreed this was correct. Mr. Keehr added that he checked with the recorded plat and it shows this property to be 64 feet on the plat and one assumes this to be correct. Also, at the time of purchase~ it was zoned R-2 and was only re- zoned recently. Mr. Zimmerman questioned if he would have some recourse from the seller and Mr. Uhley replied negatively and explained that he was the real estate agent and with taking it off the plat, he deemed it to be a legal record. The man who sold him the lot possibly never had it surveyed because he never built on it. -21- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 14, 1980 Chairman Thompson clarified that this property was a certain size according to the plat; but according to the survey, it is slightly smaller, which happened previously on another case. Mr. Slavin asked if all the setbacks would be met with building a smaller house and Mr. Keehr replied affirmatively. Chairman Thompson stated if a plat is marked wrong according to the records, which does not excuse having a survey, will the person be held liable for the outcome? Mr. Keehr replied that he was not certain of the answer, but tkis appears to be a surveyor's error. - Mrs. Artis asked if this case is different in that the buyer and seller are the same person and Mr. Uhley replied that the hardship is he bought the lot through a set of figures which are not correct. If the variances are not granted, the lot cannot be built upon. He is not asking for setback relief, but for a smaller house because the lot is smaller. Mrs. Artis asked if he Ks acting as an agent for another person and Mr. Uhley replied affirmatively and added that he will recommend having a survey before purchasing from now on. Previously, he thought a survey was only needed when applying~ for a building permit. Mrs. Artis asked if it is a require- ment t'o have a survey done when purchasing property and Mr. Keehr replied that he doesn't believe that is a law. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor of this application and received no response. He asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to this vari- ance and the following came before the Board. Mr. Riley Cooney, 232 $. E. 3rd Avenue, advised that he owns a duplex approximately two lots from this. He has no qualms about relieving the square footage and frontage of the lot, but objectS to the total living area of the house being smaller. That would be defeating the p~rpose of the whole thing. He lives in one-half of a duplex and has within 25 square feet of this total proposed hDuse. He is all for a house being built, but cannot Go along with the total square footage. ~ Mr. Slavin clarified that he wants a house built on this lot, but questioned how a larger house could be built if no additional land is available? Mr. Cooney suggested that a two story unit be built to get the square footage require- ments and Mr. Uhley advised this would be economically unfeasi- ble. -22- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 14, 1980 Mr. Slavin clarified that the variances are requested because of the shape of the lot. Mr. Cooney again referred to one request being to reduce the size of the house and Mr. Slavin replied the requirement is 1,250 square feet and the house planned is 1,120 square feet which is about a 10 x 13" room. Mr. Cooney requested that the square footage of the living area be considered. ~ Mr. Don Hamilton, 234 S. E. 3rd Avenue, stated that he has a 50 ft. lot and his house is 1~400 square feet. This proposed house could be made larger. He doesn't agree with a smaller house and doesn't want his property de-valued. Chairman Thompson asked how large a house could be built on this lot according to the configuration and Mr. Keehr replied that he believes a house could be built maintaining the setbacks about 24' wide by 50' and could be 1,200 square feet. He asked why Mr. Uhley requested to build a smaller house and Mr. Uhley agreed that the maximum size could possibly be 1,400 square feet. He added that the zoning was only changed to R-lA during the past six weeks and previously 1,000 square feet was required. Mrs. Doris Hamilton, 234 S. E. 3rd Avenue, stated she is for a .house being built on this lot as she would like to have the lot cleared off. However, she would prefer that a larger house would be built. If a small house is built, it will devaluate the other homes. She requests the house to meet the square footage requirements. Mr. RidOlfi clarified that the neighbors are in favor of a house being built, but don't want a small one. Chairman Thompson read the note received from Mr. & Mrs. R. J. Koteles in favor of giving relief to the lot area and frontage, but objecting to reducing the building area. Mr. Zimmerman referred to three variances being requested and asked if we can grant two of them and. deny the other? From his experience on the Board, this has never been done before. Mr. Slavin replied that he did not think one could be denied. Chairman Thompson added that stipulations have been placed in the past on part of a variance. Mr. Keehr stated he did not see any problem approving two variances which deal with the lot itself. Mr. Slavin referred to the footage of the house and Mr. Ridolfi replied it would have to meet the minimum of 1,250 square feet. Mr. Keehr added that they didn't have to deal with it at all and if a variance is granted only for the frontage and square footage, the house size will have to meet the requirements. -23- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 14, 1980 Mr. Uhley stated this is one of the hardships as the building area was only changed in the past few weeks~ a 1,000 square ft. house was allowed in January. There are only two single family houses on the entire street. There are duplexes and two story apartment buildings in this area. He is asking for 130 square feet from the current zoning, which is 120 square feet more than what the zoning was when he bought the property. Mr. Ridolfi made a motion to grant these variances. The reason being when the applicant bought the property, he did so in good faith and was planning a building acceptable to City codes. The codes were changed and a hardship was imposed by the City. Mr. Blum seconded the motion. No discussion. As requested, Mrs. Kruse took a roll call vote on the motion as follows: Mrs. Artis - Aye Mrs. Czufin - No Mr. Zimmerman - No Mr. Ridolfi - Yes Mr, Slavin - Aye Mr. Blum - Yes Mr. Thompson - Aye Motion carried 5-2. (Variances granted.) MINUTES OF MAY 12~1980 Mr. Zimmerman moved to approve the minutes as recorded, seconded by Mr. Blum. No discussion. Motion carried 7-0. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Zimmerman moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Blum. Motion carried 7-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Suzanne M. Kruse Recording Secretary (Four Tapes) -24-