Loading...
Minutes 03-10-80MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, MONDAY, MARCH 10, 1980 AT 7:00 P. M. PRESENT Vernon Thompson, Jr., Chairman Carl Zimmerman~ Vice Chairman Robert Gordon, Secretary Theodore Blum Marilyn Czufin Ben Ridolfi PaUl Slavin Lillian Artis, Alternate Anthony DiSarli, Alternate E. E. Howell, Bldg. Official Bert Keehr, Deputy Bldg. Official James Wolf, Board Attorney Chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P. M~ and introduced the members of the Board, Building Official, Deputy Building Official and Recording Secretary. He explained to the audience the purpose of the Board and voting procedure. Mr. Keehr introduced Mr. James Wolf. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 1980 Mr. Gordon stated after having read the minutes, he finds no errors or omissions and moves to accept the minutes as written. Mr. Ridolfi seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0 with Mr. Slavin and Mrs. Czufin abstaining. PUBLIC HEARING Parcel ~1 - Lot 32, Block 4, Lake Addition to Boynton, Florida Recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 71 Palm Beach County Records Request Address Relief from 60 ft. lot frontage requirement to 50 ft. lot frontage Relief from 7,500 sq. ft. lot area requirement to 6,600 sq. ft. lot area to sell lot for residential building site. 639 N. E. 8th Avenue Applicant - Marie B. Raesly Mr. Gordon read the above application and the reason the variance was requested noting that no additional land is available to make this lot conforming and the owner cannot afford to keep this lot and wishes to sell this property as a building site. Chairman Thompson requested the applicant or representative to please come forward. MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 10, 1980 Mrs. Marie B. Raesly, 210 Horizons East, informed the Board she has had this lot since 1972. She tried twice to build, but was not able to obtain funds. At her age, it is difficult to obtain a loan. This year, she de~ided to put the lot up for sale. Up until that time, she had no offers whatsoever for this lot. Realizing she had to get rid of it~ she gave it to a real estate agent. Mr. Blum referred to visiting the property and explained that upon measuring the lot, he found it to be approximately 3'~ short of the 50' width. He also spoke to the neighbor, Mr. Dembeck, and was told he offered to buy the lot, but was turned down. Mrs. Raesly replied that she has received no offer, verbally or written. Approximately two years ago when she was there mowing the lawn, Mr. Dembeck said this lot was worth about $1,800 and she did not consider that an offer. Mr. Blum continued that all the other buildings are wider and longer. According to the measurements of this lot, he does not think a home could be built without hindering the other homes. Mrs. Raesly informed him the other lots are 50 ft. and she does not think a few inches should detract from her lot. The deed reads 50 ft. Mrs. Czufin asked if the zoning and requirements were the same when this lot was purchased in 1972 and Mr. Keehr replied that the current zoning requirements went into effect in June 1975, but he is not sure what the requirements were prior to then. He clarified that prior to March 10, 1978, this lady would not be required to have a variance no matter what the requirements were. The question now is selling the lot. Mr. Slavin clarified that she has placed this lot for sale with a real estate agent, but has had no offers and Mrs. Raesly clarified that she has had offers through the real estate, but did not receive any offers prior to that. Mr. Slavin clarified that she has bonafide offers for the property and Mrs. Raesly replied affirmatively and added she brought them with her to show the Board. Mr. Slavin asked if this is the only lot on the block and Mrs. Raesly replied that she is not sure. Mr. Keehr clarified that there is no adjoining property. He added that the survey shows it to be a couple inches shy of 50 ft., but he doesn't think that constitutes any problem. Chairman Thompson clarified that at the time of purchase in 1972, Mrs. Raesly could have built on the lot and at this time, she can build if she wishes to. As it stands though, this lot is landlocked. Mrs. Czufin added that this property can be sold without getting a variance and Chairman Thompson agreed, if a buyer will make the purchase under the existing conditions, -2- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 10, 1980 Mr. Slavin stated it would be a stamp of approval with giving a variance and Mrs. Czufin stated that Mrs. Raesly is protecting the buyer. Mr. Zimmerman asked if Mrs. Raesly had listed this lot as a non- conforming lot with the realtor and Mrs. Raesly replied that the realtor contacted her and must ha~had some record of the lot. It was not mentioned whether it was conforming or non-conforming. She r.eceived a letter from the real estate agent and they had all the information. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor of granting this variance. Mrs. Theresa Annetta, 653 N. E. 8th Avenue, advised that several neighbors she has spoken to think this is a good idea instead of having an empty lot and a home should be built on it. She agrees a home should be built on it. About four to five houses down, a variance was granted to build a house on a 50 ft. lot and there were no objections and the house looks better than the weeds. Mr. Blum stated as long as she was talking about beauti- fying the area and building a house, didn't she think the neigh- boring parties should buy it and beautify it rather than having a house built in between with one on top of the other? Mrs. Annetta informed him that all the houses are built on 50 ft. lots there. Mrs. Czufin referred to Mr. Blum's question being out of order and Chairman Thompson clarified that the type of house, construction and design is not a concern of this Board. Mr. Slavin asked if a variance is granted, does it automatically mean the Building Department will grant a permit to the future buyer or will they have to seek a variance again and Mr. Keehr replied the buyer will not have to come before the Board again. If the Board gives this lady the right to sell this property as a buildable lot, then nobody will have to come back before this Board. Chairman Thompson ascertained there were no further speakers in favor of the granting of this variance and asked those wanting to speak against the granting Of this variance to come forward. Mr. John Boes, 643 N. E. 8th Avenue, stated he thinks the other residents in the neighborhood have some rights. He has a peti- tion signed by those opposed to the variance, which he submitted to the Board. When he bought his property, he wouldn't have bought it knowing a hOuse would be built there. He was under the impression the lot was too narrow to build on. Had he known a house would be built on it, he would not have paid top dollar for his house. He does not understand the hardship as he would be willing to buy the property. He doesn't want to see it deve- loped. If Mrs. Raesly can sell her property without a variance, that should be worth some consideration. If a house is built, it will depreciate the property surrounding this lot. -3- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT M_ARCH 10, 1980 Mrs. Czufin asked where he lives in connection to this property and Mr. Boes informed her that he lives next to it on the east side. Mr. Zimmerman questioned how many signatures were on the petition and Mr. Boes replied that there are approximately 14. Mrs. Czufin asked if he had any desire to buy this property and Mr. Boes replied that he would much prefer to buy it rather than see it developed. Mrs. Czufin asked if he had made an offer and Mr. Boes replied that he has not had the opportunity to talk to the owner. He has talked to neighbors about the availability and was told the owner would not sell. Mrs. Czufin asked if he felt the 10 ft. difference was that much: and Mr. Boes replied affirmatively. Chairman Thompson referred to the possibility of both parties being able to reach a satisfactory agreement and Mr. Boes agreed this was possible. Chairman Thompson referred to both parties reaching an agreement with neither partyl having the advantage over the other and Mr. Keehr stated the Board may be out of order in this respect. He suggested that the Assistant City Attorney comment. Mr. Wolf asked when Mr. Boes purchased his property and Mr. Boes replied in February 1979. Mr. Wolf stated this is an unusual circumstance and not the normal variance request. There is no additional property avail- able to be purchased. The City passed an ordinance saying this property could not be built on and now the City is basically saying there is no reasonable use. This may be putting the City of Boynton Beach in a condition where they may have to end up buying the property. Whether the neighbor wants to buy the property would have to take effect outside of this Board. The City's position is that a hardship was created through the City and there is no way this woman could take care of it and there is no effective use of the property. Mr. Boes clarified that when the property was purchased, it could be built on and did the hardship occur on March 10, 1978, after the zoning laws changed? Mr. Keehr informed him that at that time, the City said the property could not be sold to someone else and the buyer could not build without going before the Board of Adjustment. The owner can obtain a building permit for it. Mr. Boes stated that to build on this lot would lower the quality of life in the neighborhood. If people are stacked next to each other, it will not maintain itself. -4- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH t0, 1980 Mr. John Dembeck, 633 N. E. 8th Avenue, advised that he lives next to this property to the west. He agrees a house should be built on a 50 ft. lot, but not on a lot under 50 ft. Other neighbors wanted to buy the lot. A florist wants to grow flowers on it. The lot is 3" under 50 ft. and will an additional vari- ance be needed? Mrs. Czufin questioned where the 3" under 50 ft. comes from as it says 50 ft. on the application and Mr. Keehr pointed out that the survey shows 49.88 ft, and added this is not unusual in a platted subdivision. Mr. Dembeck told about an agent putting a sign on the lot and a surveyor taking mea- surements. He asked if there is supposed to be 15 ft. between houses and Mr. Keehr replied affirmatively. Mr. Dembeck clari- fied that a house couldn't be built more than 34'9" wide. Mr. Keehr informed him that a scale is used on non-conforming lots with a percentage used. Mr. Dembeck clarified that with taking 15 ft. between each side, it will be an oblong house and Mr. Howell advised that only 7½ ft. is needed on each side. Mr. DembeCk stated rather than seeing a house built there, let the lady say what she wants and the neighbors will buy it. He would rather see flowers on the lot. He talked to her a couple weeks ago and she said she would rather not say anything and he understood her nephew was getting the lot. Mr. George Nicholar, 711 N. E. 8th Avenue, referred to his house being on ¼ acre and advised that most of the homes are on large lots. He is tired hearing about hardships. Ten years ago when he came to Florida, it was a nice area. However, they are put- ting up little places all over the area. This house could only be 35 feet wide and he has lived in large army barracks. Several people have talked about buying it. He would hate to see a little long narrow house go up on this lovely street and devalue the rest of the homes. Mr. Zimmerman referred to his comment that this lady does not have a hardship and asked if he meant to imply that it was not a hardship because she did not build on it? Mr. Nicholar clarified that several people want to buy it, but she probably wants to sell to a developer for a larger profit. He does not think we should continue making profits off the land in Florida. A man from the audience advised that he takes care of this lot and doesn't throw junk on it like the fellow next door does. Mrs. Raesly stated she just wanted to correct something which her neighbor said about not having the opportunity to offer her a price for the lot and advised that she has had a sale sign on the lot for quite awhile. Also, she bought the lot from the same people who sold the adjoining house. She also noticed the survey stakes on the west side go into the neighbor's flowers shrubs and trees. ' -5- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 10, 1980 Mr. Boes asked if there was any consideration of a hardship for someone who bought the property thinking it was not going to be developed? He would not have bought his house knowing that lot could be developed. Mrs. Czufin clarified that when he bought his property, he thought there would be no house on that lot and Mr. Boes agreed and added that he checked with neighbors and the realtor and unders~od this lot would not be developed because it was too narrow. Mrs. Czufin asked Mr. Boes how wide his property is and Mr. Boes replied that it is 75 ft. Mrs. Czufin asked Mr. Dembeck how wide his property is and he replied 50 ft. which is the average lot. Mr. Keehr clarified that this subdivision was platted in 50 ft. lots. Mr. Boes stated that his lot is 75 ft. and the lots vary from 70 to 90 feet. Mr. Keehr clarified that when this subdivi- sion was accepted by the City, they were all 50 ft. lots, but in the meantime they have been increased. Chairman Thompson stated he knows the position Mr. Boes is speak- ing from; however, he mentioned checking with the neighbors when purchasing the property and this is the mistake many people have made. The records at City Hall should be checked. Chairman Thompson asked if any communications had been received and Mr. Gordon read a notation on the no~ice of public hearing from Mrs. Bertha Stroshein, 653 N. E. 7th Avenue, requesting the Board to vote No. Chairman Thompson opened discussion to the Board members. Mr. Zimmerman referred to this lot presently being in good shape and being mowed nicely and stated he thinks if we have any inten- tion of granting a variance~ we ought to protect the people from damage a new buyer may do instead of building on it. It could be left a weed patch. Possibly we should consider a time limita- tion where the variance would expire if no construction takes place to encourage the buyer to build or not buy it. Mr. DiSarli stated that he visited the property and it is nice and kept well. He thinks the two adjoining houses should have the right to complain, it shouldn't be sold to someone to build a smaller house, and they should have the opportunity to buy it instead of a house being built on it. Mrs. Czufin clarified that whether the neighborswant to buy it has nothing to do with this Board. Mr. Zimmerman clarified that his suggestion was to grant the variance to be valid for a year, which would give the new buyer only that much time to build. This is within our authority. Mrs. Czufin agreed and added we should know what is going to be put there and when and Chairman Thompson informed her that we cannot see what it will be. -6- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 10, 1980 Mrs. Artis clarified that as it is now, Mrs. Raesly can build. A variance would mean she can sell to another person to build. The complai~ from the neighbors is that the neighbors have more frontage. Mrs. Czufin clarified that the nextdoor neighbor has only 50 ft. Mrs. Artis continued that the hardship is that Mrs. Raesly is at an age when she cannot obtain a mortgage and Mrs. Czufin added that she thinks the hardship is.Mrs. Raesly pur- chased this lot when this zoning was not in effect. Now, she doesn't want to build. Of course, people who have invested in property don't want to see an~hing built detrimental to the area. Also, the woman bought the property planning to build, but has had to change her mind. It seems a shame when somebody has in- vested in a lot and has paid taxes and kept it up that she is unable to sell it. Several people in disagreement have the same sized lot. Why should this woman be penalized because she did not build? Chairman Thompson clarified that she is not being denied the right to build on her property, but if a variance is turned down, we are denying her the right to sell. Mr. Wolf clari- fied that she can build on it, but cannot sell it. However, she can sell it to anyone willing to buy it knowing .they could not build a house on it without a variance. Mrs. Czufin added that it would be a sale with restrictions. Mr. Wolf referred to having reasonable use and stated in reason- able use, people have the right to sell their property. By not grating a variance, the City may be effectively denying her the right to sell her property. This would be putting some restraints on her ability to sell the property and that is close to denying the use of the property. Under law, the government cannot usually restrict a party from selling her property. When this plat was recorded, the City and County allowed the plat to be recorded with 50 ft. lots. The woman had one 50 ft. lot which was legal. Now the City says she cannot sell it without getting a variance from this Board. The City has created basically a hardship. It would be a different story if she ~had two lots, but we are talking only about one lot. This is not the normal variance. By denying this, it is possibly denying the next owner of that property all reasonable use.of the property. The only thing which can be done is to build a house on it unless the neighbors buy it. Mr. Zimmerman asked if he thought granting one year's time for a variance for construction to be started would be a resonable use for this lady and Mr. Wolf replied affirmatively and added if someone did not take advantage of the variance within that time, it would be a different situation. However, the particular facts of why they did not take advantage of the variance within the one year would have to be considered. -7- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 10, 1980 Mr. Boes asked if the 14 people who signed the petition didn't have some rights and Chairman Thompson replied affirmatively, but we should not deny one person her rights since she owns the property. The hardships of each are different. Mr. Zimmerman moved that we grant this variance with a time limit of one year from this date and that the variance expires to whomever the lot is sold to if they don't start construction within that one year. Mrs. Czufin seconded the motion. Mr. Slavin offered an amendment and referred to Mrs. Raesly mentioning that she has received offers for the property and stated he is quite sure she can sell the lot and doesn't think one year's time is needed and thinks the time should be six months. Mr. Zimmerman replied that he is willing to change his motion to a six months time limit and Mrs. Czufin agreed. Mr. Keehr sug- gested there be a statement about permitting. He would rather it read that a permit be pulled within that time rather than start construction. Mr. Zimmerman accepted that change and Mrs. Czufin agreed. As requested, Mrs. Kruse clarified the motion would be to grant this variance with a time limit of six months from this date and the variance expires to whomever the lot is sold %0 if they don't pull a building permit within that six months period. Mrs. Kruse took a roll call vote and the motion carried 7-0 with all members voting in favor. Chairman Thompson asked if Mrs. Raesly understood the restric- tions on this variance and Mrs. Raesly replied negatively. Chairman Thompson informed her the Board has granted permission to sell this property, but there is a six months period attached to it. Mrs. Raesly questioned when this six months period was and Chairman Thompson replied that it is from this date. Mrs. Raesly clarified that the six month period starts March 10, 1980. Mr. Keehr further clarified that within the next six months, she must sell this property and have the buyer pull a permit in order for this variance to be upheld. Mrs. Raesly asked if con- struction must be started right away when getting a building permit and Mr. Keehr replied negatively, but there is a 90 day period allowed before starting. Mrs. Raesly asked if she would receive notification of this deci- sion and Mr. Howell informed her the Building Department will send her a letter confirming this. Chairman Thompson added that she will also receive a copy of the minutes after they are ap- proved. -8- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ~RCH 10~ 1980 Mr. Dembeck asked if Mrs. Raesly could say what she wants and they will pay it and Mr. Zimmerman informed him that Mrs. Raesty can sell to anybody now. Mr. Dembeck referred to it being a building site now and Mr. Slavin replied that he could buy it and not build on it. Mr. Zimmerman stated he thinks this is quite reasonable since Mrs. Raesly has owned the property for eight years and we are giving her six months more to sell it and giving the neighbors consideration. Mr. Boes questioned the result if Mrs. Raesly does not respond to the offer given by the neighbors and Mr. Gordon informed him that is not the Board's business. Mr. Boes asked if this deci- sion can be appealed and Mr. Zimmerman replied affirmatively~ through the courts. At this time, Chairman Thompson declared a short recess and then reconvened the meeting at 8:10 P. M. APPLICANT $2 - Jansen Properties of Florida, Inc. Parcel #1 - Lot 116, Block C, Boynton Hills Recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 51 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 7,500 sq. ft. lot area requirement to 6,000 sq. ft. lot area to construct single family house Address - 226 N. W. 7th Avenue Parcel $2 - Lot 117, Block C, Boynton Hills Recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 51 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 7,500 sq. ft. lot area requirement to 5~150 sq. ft. lot area Relief from 60 ft. lot frontage requirement to 56.29 ft. lot frontage to construct single family house Address - 222 N. W. 7th Avenue Parcel $3 - Lot 118, Block C, Boynton Hills Recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 51 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 7,500 sq. ft. lot area requirement to 5,900 sq. ft. lot area Relief from 60 ft. lot frontage requirement to 53.84 ft. lot frontage to construct single family house Address - 218 N. W. 7th Avenue -9- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 10, 1980 Parcel #4 - Lot 119, Block C, Boynton Hills Recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 51 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 7,500 sq. ft. lot area requirement to 6,666 sq. ft. lot area Relief from 60 ft. lot frontage requirement to 52.03 ft. lot frontage to construct single family house Address - 214 N. W. 7th Avenue Parcel #5 - Lots 181, 182, 183 & 184, Block C, Boynton Hills Recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 51 Palm Beach County Records Request - Relief from 7,500 sq. ft. lot area requirement to 5,202 sq. ft. lot area Relief from 60 ft. lot frontage requirement to 50 ft. lot frontage to construct four single family houses, one on each lot Address - 711, 715, 719 & 723 N. W. 2nd Street Mr. Gordon read the above application and the reason for the variances requested that the applicant has been approved by HUD to construct eight single family detached dwellings of 1,300 sq. ft. on each lot and without the variances, the total project of 93 units will be jeopardized. Mr. Gene Moore, attorney representing the applicant, referred to the applicant having been working on this project for a num- ber of months and explained that they took over this project from various developers planning to bring decent housing to this area. He also explained the overall project has been ap- proved by HUD under the Section 8 Program. These will be rental units. They will be locked in on a rental basis for a minimum of 30 years. The overall project is 93 units. This particular application deals with eight individual lots. The variances would allow the owner to utilize the property for single, family dwellings. It is a unique subdivision with lots shaped in curves, etc. With the financing situation what it is, any deviation from the plan as approved by HUD would require going back and starting the project over. They have worked with the City Council and Housing Authority and everybody has pulled together to get this project off the ground. This developer can make this project a reality. He requests the cooperation of the Board to bring this project into real~y. He then introduced Mr. Jeff Osslander, representing the deve- loper, to show the plans. -10- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 10, 1980 Mr. Jeff Osslan~er explained the plan for the project consist- ing of four scattered sites. The variance request covers four out lots to the west and four out lots along N. W. 2nd Street. All the units will be 1,300 squ~e feet and will meet the setback requirements. These are proposed to be built for renters. The Palm Beach County Housing Authority will be under a management contract and will be responsible for them. They have built other housing in Palm Beach County in cooperation with the Palm Beach County Housing Authority and it was their recommendation to take over this project. He then read a letter from HUD ad- vising all processing has been completed and they can start con- struction. This variance is needed to apply for a building permit and start construction. Mr. Zimmerman referred to N. W. 7th Court and N. W. 2nd Street not being paved in this area and asked if they were going to construct these streets and Mr. Osslander replied affirmatively and explained they will be completed as needed to service each and every lot. They will meet City requirements and dedicate to the City. Chairman Thompson questioned how these eight single family houses would jeopardize the entire project and Mr. Osslander replied that three houses will be lost if this variance is denied. He explained that private financing has been obtained and it is im- portant to keep the scope and plan of this project intact. They are dealing on a direct basis with Flagship Bank and a private owner to acquire these parcels. They acquired them when build- ing was allowed and only found out later that variances would be required. They were only allowed 30 days to submit the proposal and had to prepare it quickly. These mistakes do happen when under time constraints and in competition. They went in with 93 units on what they believed were buildable Sites. They were given the parcels by the Palm Beach County Housing Authority which they arranged for and had to move quickly when subsidy funds were ~ailable. The federal government will assist the tenants in the rental payments. This will fill an important gap in the overall redevelopment plan for this area. This is the only new housing program for this area. Mr. Slavin referred to it being private financing and Mr. Osslander agreed. Mr. Slavin questioned HUD's part and Mr. Osslander informed him that HUD subsidizes the rent. Mrs. Czufin referred to the 30 year rental and Mr. Osslander ex- plained that the term of the contract says 30 years and when filing a covenant, they must operate as a rental project for 30 years and the Palm Beach County Housing Authority will re- tain the option to purchase after ten years if they choose to sell to them. -11- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 10, 1980 Mr. Zimmerman stated several years ago when the Housing Authority was first being organized and came before the City Council, he got the general impression that all this housing would abide by the City codes. He asked if Mr. Osslander was aware of this and Mr. Osslander replied that generally when they go into these pro- posals with the government, they try to check out the require- ments with the local municipality. Essentially what happened is that they were not aware of in the preliminary agreements with the owners that there was a change in zoning and the lots were non-conforming. They were platted and they checked the zoning codes and felt there would be no problem. It was an oversight, but they were given 30 days in a competitive atmosphere to apply. They don't want to lose any units. Chairman Thompson referred to a total of 93 units being arrived at and stated evidently something was checked. He knows the problem of time might have been a factor. Mr. Osslander re- plied they did check. Since there were eight platted lots, they planned to build eight homes. Only eight single family lots were part of the packet. They designated eight single family units for those lots to accommodate the existing zoning. Mr. Moore added there were at least two or three other developers attempting to bring this project into being. They did basically all the FHA approval work based on the existing ordinances .at that time. Basically when these gentlemen tOok over, they at- tempted to revive that which existed and there was a time ele- ment. Obviously there were some changes in the zoning codes between the time of inception and the taking over. In an at- tempt to accelerate to get FHA approval, they pushed through with what was before FHA with a nominal check into the code. It was simply a matter of revising prior approval with FHA. Chairman Thompson referred to the previous plans being for 67 units and Mr. Osslander informed him that another site was added. Mr. Moore added these units were part of an overall project. There was no problem on the multi-family areas. These eight lots have been included as part of the proposed plan under this program. Mrs. Artis asked if the builder plans to leave a percentage for beautification and Mr. Osslander replied affirmatively. Mrs. Artis referred to the code allowing 40% lot coverage and Mr. Osslander informed her these would be 25% lot coverage. Mr. Keehr clarified they are not going to exceed the maximum lot coverage. Mrs. Artis commented that since these will be located on a main thoroughfare, she is concerned about the beau- tification. -12- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 10, 1980 Mr. Wolf asked when these lots were purchased and Mr. Osslander replied they are under contract. Mr, Wolf questioned who the present owner is and Mr. Moore informed him that Flagship Bank is who got them from Leonard Smith on foreclosure. Mr. Wolf asked when they acquired them and Mr. Moore replied about two years ago. Mr. Wolf referred to combining Lots 116, 117, 118 and 119 to get three complying lots and Mr. Osslander informed him that three units would be lost if the requirements are met. Mr. Moore added the whole FHA project would have to be started over. Mr. Wolf stated he was trying to understand the exact hardship and normally an economic disadvantage is not considered a hard- ship. Mr. Moore stated it is not as much their hardship as it is for the people living in the area. Mr. Osslander added there is a relocation hardship. This is the only housing which has been planned and approved to qualify for relocation housing for the people living on 10th Avenue. The planners have used this in the master plan as 93 homes approved under the Section 8 Program. If three homes are lost, it means some people cannot be relocated because of the City's inability. The City is par- ticularly short of rental housing right now.. Mr. Wolf asked if this project has been approved by any City Boards and Mr. Osslander replied that it has been approved by the Palm Beach County Housing Authority, Boynton Beach Housing Authority, and the planners have reviewed it and approved it. They have been working with the City for six months, This was included in the planning statement as 93 units. He knows the City Council is aware of it, but they have not been asked to take any action. Mr. Wolf clarified that if these three units are lost, some people to be relocated would not be, but what else does it do to the project and Mr. Osslander replied they are under a pro- blem with financing difficulties with the percentage rising. If they don't get this going, it will go by the way like the last two efforts. Mrs. Artis asked if a delay on their part would cause a hardship on the people who have to relocate and Mr. Osslander replied that the program of acquisition has been started in a number of areas. He explained the Housing Authority's program of renovation of existing buildings with the result being to decrease density. Units must be provided in the City to absorb these people. They are trying to get this project underway for that purpose. -13- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 10, 1980 Mr. Slavin asked if the City Planning Commission of Boynton Beach knows of this project and Mr. Howell informed him the City Planner and Technical Review Board know there are 93 units in the process of being approved, but they have not seen any prints. Mr. Osslander advised that he has been coordinat- ing this with Mr. Annunziato for six months. Mr. Annunziato has had the site plan for that period of time, ever since it was initially proposed to HUD. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor of the granting of this variance and received no response. He then asked if anyone wanted to speak against the granting of these variances and the following came before the Board. Mr. Ezell Hester, 416 N. W. 7th Avenue,stated he agrees there is a need for housing, but the housing should be built accord- ing to the codes. When this property was taken over, the lots were platted at 50 ft.; but when the purchase was made, the code said the lots had to be 60 ft. He doesn't think we should go against the codes although the property is platted in 50 ft. lots. He purchased 75 ft. for his house. In looking at houses on 50 ft. lots, it is apparent how congested it is. He suggests that three houses be put on each parcel. He does not see how this would jeopardize the project as these two parcels are not contiguous to the main rental units. He opposes this because he thinks they should be on at least 60 ft. lots. Even the lot area is lacking. There is a need for housing and the people understand that, but they should not be congested any more than it is. Mr. Leroy Deale, 304 N. W. 8th Avenue, referred to these lots being adjacent to his property and advised that he could have built on a 50 ft. lot, but built on larger. He thinks it will be too congested to build on 50 ft. lots. The owners in that area have lots more than 50 ft. and the houses are large. This is the only decent neighborhood they have. He then submitted a petition from the property owners in the area objecting to this. Mr. Zimmerman stated the one group of houses along N. W. 2nd Street presents a greater problem than the other four lots as there isn't~enough square footage for three lots conforming to the code. It would have to be reduced to two to meet the code requirements. Mr. Deale stated he thinks they should stay within the code and objec~ to the both groups of ~ur. Mrs. Blanche H. Girtman, 912 N. W. 3rd Street, stated she has listened all evening and was very much impressed the way the Board handled the previous situation. She listened to those neighbors who didn't want a house built on a 50 ft. lot. -14- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 10, iR80 Mrs. Girtman continued that everyone is aware the northwest section of Boynton Beach has been called every mentionable thing. This project will breed another Cherry Hill. Since 1975, she has been working with Community Development to im~ prove that area. Now someone wants to relieve the housing sit~ uation by bringing into one of the nicer areas some reduced sized houses. She doesn't care if HUD comes down and oversees it themselves, it will be an unwelcome area with that sized housing and all those people. The homes in that area are priced at $30,000 up and a development should not be put here. The City did not approve it because it is below code. The City would not allow it in Chapel Hill or Golfview Harbour, They are tired of being a dumping ground in that area and being labelled with different various labels. She is against this because it will devalue her property. This is within 400 feet of her property and will degrade it. She knows it is not an exclusive area, but it is where she wants to live, She wants the area developed. There are nice homes there, This developer wants to build rental houses there and renters don't take care of their homes like home owners do. She is against this request. To take away the required land and build these houses, it will look like rat houses. She is tired of the northwest section being a dumping ground. Mr. Ridolfi referred to visiting the area and stated he was honestly amazed at some of the beautiful homes which are there, He talked to some of the people coming out of the church across the street when he was there. What Mrs. Girtman has stated about the area is the truth. Mr. Howell advised that this zoning would permit a 1,250 sq, ft. house and Mrs. Girtman replied the lot size is being reduced to 50 ft. Mr. Howell advised the homes will be 1,300 sq. ft. and Mrs. Girtman clarified that she wants decent sized lots. Mrs. Czufin asked if she mainly objected to renters occupying these homes and Mrs° Girtman replied that she is against that too. Mr. Keehr added that it is zoned R-lA which is single family residential and Mrs. Girtman replied there shouldn't be renters, She asked what rights the homeowners have and Mrs. Czufin stated that it is wonderful that the people came tonight. Mrs. Girtman stated this is America and they will speak. She is against a developer coming in and devaluing her property, She built her house in 1966 and has done a lot of work. The other neighbors have also been there for many years. Mrs. Czufin clarified that she does recognize the need for more housing and Mrs. Girtman replied affirmatively, but stated that five or six houses won't relieve that much. She has been work- ing for decent housing for a long time. She is not speaking against the overall project. -15- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTF~NT MARCH 10, 1980 Chairman Thompson asked if any communications had been received and Mr. Gordon read a letter from Mrs. Florence Mills McCray stating her opposition to the granting of these variances. She resides on lots 179 and 180 and this plan calls for two dwellings to be erected on the same sized property as hers next door. She requests the variance to be denied for Lots 181, 182, 183 and 184. She does not intend to impede progress, but the value of the homes in the neighborhood must be considered. Mr. Hester asked if he understood that the owner could build on lots platted at 50 ft. and Mr. Howell replied that 1,250 sq. ft. houses are built on 50 ft. lots all over the City. An owner who has owned a 50 ft. lot can build on it. Mr. Hester asked if Flagship Bank owned these before Mr. Smith obtained them and Mr. Moore informed him that Flagship Bank foreclosed on Mr. Smith. He clarified the request was only for a reduc- tion in frontage and some instances the square footage isn't met. The houses will be 1,300 sq. ft. and will comply with all setbacks. There will be no jamming in. Mrs. Artis stated according to the zoning regulations, the mini- mum frontage is 60 ft., but now it is being stated a house can be built on a 50 ft. lot and Mr. Moore replied that the confu- sion arises with the combination of lots. He pointed out one application requests relief from 60 ft. to 56.29 ft., one from 60 ft. to 53.84 ft., and one from 60 ft. to 52.03 ft. Mr. Deale stated that he had a chance to buy this property about eight to nine years ago, but when he inquired about this property he was told the small corner lots couldn't be built on. Mr. Slavin clarified that the platting originally was 50 ft. lots which was accepted by the City. In subsequent years, the requirement was raised to 60 ft. People have bought two lots and built one home on them. This is a question of four lots which are platted 50 ft. lots and the present buyers are buying something and running into a problem which is not their doing. There are hardships to the people living there, the builder, and the overall master plan. Demolition is now taking place and housing must be provided for those people. Chairman Thompson referred to the letter from the attorney and clarified that a self-created hardship is not one created by the City. The City. code does not deny this person the use of the property, but says instead of four units, they must build three. There is no landlocked position. The hardship is we are denying some future person a decent place to live. Mr. Zimmerman stated up until now on lots similar to these where there have been several grouped together where the lots can be combined, we have not been granting variances in other -16- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ~RCH 10, 1980 parts of the City. This conforms to that general pattern. The only lots we have been giving variances on are those which are landlocked where there can't be any combining. He doesn't see any reason to change this policy. Mr. Gordon asked how much red tape would be involved to change this plan to 91 instead of 93 and Mr. Osslander replied that they estimated they would have to change to 90 units and would lose three units. He would not be interested in the project then. They were invited into Boynton Beach to develop this property. He is looking to some extent to the City to help them. It is a difficult project under difficult circumstances. This was not their idea, but was developed by other people and handed to them to put together. It is not the kind of project that you go back to the drawing board on. Mr. Slavin referred to the City Planner having knowledge of this project and Mr. Moore clarified that the City Planner has been working with this developer and indicated the last thing to make this go is within the province of this Board. They have worked on this project for years. He has sat and listened for years to people tell about the plight of the people in this · area and now they say they don't want renters in their back yards and that is hard to take. Mrs. Czufin stated she thinks this is a situation which is of great importance to the City and should not be treated lightly. It should be given great consideration by the people. She does not feel qualified to make a decision on this. She would like to give her seat to Mrs. Artis, who might have more information on this and Mr. Wolf informed her that under Florida law, a member of a board must vote on every issue unless they have a conflict of interest. He doesn't think it would be the proper procedure for her to relinquish her seat. Chairman Thompson added that once the process has been started, a member must vote. Mrs. Czufin commented that however she votes, she hopes she votes the right way. She thinks there has been a lot of work and time put into this and she is thinking of what is best for Boynton Beach. Mr. Zimmerman referred to there being other problems here and stated we are not assured this project will go through because of the high interest rates, etc., even though a variance is granted. Chairman Thompson added that the City Planner has not officially studied this and the Building Official was not aware of it. On projects of this calliber, it is hard to give the go ahead when City people are not aware of it. -17- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 10, 1980 Mr. Wolf stated he would like to try to limit some of the issues for the Board. In granting a variance, he thinks they should not be looking at what is a benefit necessarily and the main concern is not the whole City. As far as assuring this project, they could condition a variance to one particular builder; make it a condition this is the person the variance is being given to. He has some strong concerns which should be considered. In grant- ing a variance, an economic disadvantage of a party is not a reason to grant a variance. There might be more here, but the Board must make the decision. If it is just an economic disad- vantage, they must look upon if they do it for one, they must do it for everybody. The law of Florida is that an economic disad- vantage is not a sufficient reason and is not a hardship. They also must consider whether it is a self-created hardship. He heard words that they did not look at the law at one point, but ignorance of the law is not an excuse but maybe there is more involved. Maybe these people were led on by City departments. The Board must make an ultimate decision. They must look at the issues and generally not the project as a whole. It will almost be setting a precedent in a way and they will be hard pressed when someone else comes in. They must decide whether there is a real hardship and the Board must make this decision. Mr. A. Gainer, 807 N. W. 3rd Street, stated he is concerned about rental houses being built here. He travels the county and has seen the rundown rental housing projects. Right now, the people in this area ~ve quite a bit of money tied up in their homes and they don't want to look outside and see houses like in other projects in the county. He has seen projects owned by the government and housing authorities. He owns five or dx lots in this area. He would not sell them to anyone who would just build anything. He would appreciate if the project is kept on Seacrest Blvd. Mrs. Girtman requested clarification from the attorney and asked what the limitations are on this with each citizen who received a notification ~ming down to protest? How far can the people go? If it is not good for her to voice her objections, why did the City take the time to send all the people in the area a letter and Mr. Hester replied this is done as required by law. Chairman Thompson informed her that no decision has been made and the Board listens to both sides. Mr. Hester added that just because she voices her opinion, it doesn't mean the Board has to agree with her opinion. The Board must look out for the interests of the City. Because he voiced his opinion, it doesn't mean the Board has to accept it. ~He is glad we have this right to speak. This Board makes their own decision. -18- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUST~ENT MARCH 10, 1980 Mr. Osslander stated that they could build 90 units and meet every requirement and all the opposition which has been voiced would go to no avail, but they don't want to do that. It is within the Board's authority to grant this relief to do this project the right way as opposed to the wrong way. He doesn~'t want to do the project the wrong way and will not build 90 units. This whole area has been the attention of Community Development for years. This specific area that they have been asked to develop has been dedicated for new construction with government assistance. The whole area is undergoing a tremendous redevelop- ment on the part of the City, County and State. There has been an opportunity for resident participation over the years. This may not be the forum to hash it out. These people have legiti- mate concerns and if he was in their spot, he would be saying the same thing. It is unfortunate these issues are being aired here. There should have been input from the residents over the past few years. These are the people who are supposed to be benefiting. He is reacting to an invitation to come in and provide housing. Ordinarily if he was going to make a lot of money, he would do 90 units and there would not be that much difference, but this is not worth it. They were willing to see it through, but not to redo it again. Mr. Zimmerman referred to the builder's statement that he could build 90 units on the land now without difficulty,but it is the paperwork involved and asked if there was any possibility of securing additional land for three more units and Mr. Osslander replied they would have to start all over again. Mr. Zimmerman referred to having 93 units then and Mr. Osslander replied the sites would be different and would require re-inspection. HUD would have to come from Jacksonville and make inspections, etc. He felt this project would help the City. There are some parti- cular hardships from the City's point of view with the reloca- tion of people being in jeopardy. Whether this is an official hardship, he cannot say, but it is a problem and if the City wants housing, this is what needs to be done. Mrs. Czufin referred to tabling this to have the possibility of talking to Mr. Annunziato and Chairman Thompson replied that we have received the information and a decision can be made now. Mr. Slavin asked if the adjoining property was occupied next to the lots on N. W. 2nd Street and Chairman Thompson informed him the property to the north is vacant and the letter received was from the adjoining property owner. Chairman Thompson asked if any clarification was needed and Mr. Zimmerman asked just what the hardship is? Chairman Thompson informed him there is no hardship in this particular case based on the rules we operate under. Mrs. Artis questioned if this was a self-imposed hardship caused by the builder and -19- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 10, 1980 Mr. Moore stated there is a hardship as the zoning laws were changed while they were working on this project for three years and to change it now requires going through red tape with FHA and HUD. To cite one precedenm, the 45 ft. heig~ limit was strictly adhered to in the City, but when Motorola came 65 ft. was allowed. ' Mrs. Czufin clarified tha~ everything was approved and HUD has agreed and there is financial backing, but if it is changed, they will not proceed with this project. Mrs. Czufin moved that this request for variance to allow a minimum lot size in R-lA of 5,000 sq. ft. from 7,500 sq. ft. be approved. Mr. Slavin seconded the motion. As requested, Mrs. Kruse took a vote on the motion as follows: Mrs. Czufin - Pass Mr. Blum - Yes Mr. Zimmerman - No Mr. Ridolfi - No Mr. Slavin - Yes Mr. Gordon - No Mr. Thompson - No Motion failed with four votes against. Chairman Thompson an- nounced this request for variance has been denied by the Board. COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Thompson referred to receiving an important memo from Mr. Cheney and advised the City Council has approved 17¢ per mile allowance for gas, but there is a procedure to be followed to obtain it. Mr. Gordon read the memo. Chairman Thompson questioned where the starting point is for the mileage and Mr. Howell informed him that the Chairman must make this decision. DISCUSSION WITH ATTORNEY Mr. Wolf advised that he was asked to come tonight to talk to the Board about variances and special exceptions. The things this Board is supposed to be concerned with are very limited. They are not sitting as a zoning board to consider what develop- ment is best for the City. They are concerned somewhat what the applicant is going to do. The major question is whether there ms a hardship and is it a self-created hardship. That is what a variance is all about. The Board must make that determination. A variance and special exception are two very different things. A variance is release from the strict interpretation of the zoning code, A special exception is something allowed by the zoning code if the Board makes special conditions. A variance definitely requires a hardship which cannot be self-created. -20- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 10, 1980 Mr. Wolf continued that people cannot claim ignorance of the law and an economic disadvantage is not a hardship. A use variance is not allowed by the Boynton Beach City Code. That is something for the Planning & Zoning Board. There are cer- tain circumstances, even if a self'created hardship, someone can come in and ask for a variance, but that is only where someone is deprived of the use of their property by the zoning regula- tions. Mr. Howell referred to buying a lot that was non-conforming in frontage and square footage with houses built on each side and clarified that he would probably be entitled to a variance be- cause the City cannot say he cannot use it. Mr. Wolf agreed and stated the first case tonight was very close to this. He explained that at the~me the law went into effect, the woman only owned one lot, but if she had owned three lots and sold two, then it would have been a self-created hardship. Mr. Howell clarified that if he bought a lot with owners on each side, then he would be entitled to a variance and Mr. Wolf re- plied that normally, you cannot buy into a hardship, but in this one situation where there is no reasonable use of the pro- perty, a variance will probably have to be granted. The City is not allowed to deprive somebody the reasonable use of his pro- perty. If we do, the City will have to pay for the property. Chairman Thompson referred to the first case and stated the woman had paid taxes for years, but now could not build on it or sell it and Mr. Howell clarified that she could build on it. Mr. Wolf agreed and explained that if we made it so she could not build, then we would have to relax the zoning regulations, give a variance, or the City would have to buy the lot. However, if someone owns three lots and sells two after the ordinance is passed, then he created his own hardship. Any buyer cannot buy into a hardship because the hardship was not created by the City. Mrs. Czufin asked if this was always cut and dried and Mr. Wolf replied that nothing is and he is just giving general rules to follow. An econ~aic disadvantage is not a hardship and he ex- plained. Mrs. Artis referred to the one applicant owning the one lot and saying it was hard for her to get a mortgage at her age and asked if this was considered a economic hardship and Mr. Wolf replied this was somewhat of an economic hardship but it was tied to something else. Mrs. Artis asked whose fault it was that the lot was 2" short and Mr. Wolf replied that it was shown by the original surveyor. Mr. Wolf continued that going into special exceptions, there is no need to show a hardship with a special exception. As an example if it states an apartment can be built if there is no affect on minor thoroughfares in the area, once this is proven, -21- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 10, 1980 you are entitled to that special exception to have the apartment in that area. When somebody proves all the conditions, this Board is supposed to give special exceptions. There is one line in the Boynton Beach Code which has been accepted gener- ally with regard to not adversely affecting the public interest. The law is if the people can comply with the conditions set out in the code, they are entitled to a special exception. You cannot say what they are going to do is not good for Boynton Beach. If they prove all the conditions, then they are entitled to a special exception. As an example, he would like to cite three cases. If it says you can have a commercial lot and use a residential lot for parking if the two are right next to each other contiguously, then that condition must be met. A special exception cannot be requested if there is one lot in between. However, in comparison there was a case in Naples where one condition was how is the traffic going to affect the major streets in the area and the Board found there were not sufficient utilities and would be an adverse affect on the minor streets in the area. The court said that was no good and they had to grant a special exception becauss the only condition was to not adversely affect the major thoroughfares. Mr. Zimmerman referred to the Board not having any special exceptions, but the Planning & Zoning Board being involved in these and Mr. Wolf informed him they are supposed to come before this Board. If a case comes up, his office will be willing to work with Mr. Howell and Mr. Keehr to advise the Board. Mr. Wolf continued with the third case example saying you could deny a special exception if you found something was against the public interestr but you must state the specific reasons against the public interest and it must be related to the zoning code. He will try to make a memo available covering this. The Board is limited in what they can consider in deciding a variance and exceptions. He stressed that every condition must be met to obtain a special exception. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Slavin made a motion to adjourns seconded by Mr. Zimmerman. Motion carried 7-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 10:15 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Suzanne M. Kruse Recording Secretary (Three Tapes) -22-