Loading...
Minutes 11-26-79MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1979 AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT Vernon Thompson, Jr., Chairman George Ampol, Vice Chairman Benjamin Ridolfi Paul Slavin Carl Zimmerman Marilyn CzUfin, Alternate Lillian Artis, Alternate Bert Keehr, Deputy Bldg. Official ABSENT Robert Gordon, Secretary Serge Pizzi (Excused) (Excused) Chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P. M. and introduced the members of the Board, Assistant Building Official and Recording Secretary. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 1979 Mr. Ampol moved to accept the minutes as read, seconded by Mr. Ridolfi. Motion carried 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING Parcel ~1 - A parcel of land in Section 33, Township 45 South, Range 43 East, Palm Beach County, Florida, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of a line parallel to, and 190 feet Easterly from the East line of the West quarter of Tract 15 with a line parallel to and 75 feet Southerly from, the North line of said Tract 15, according to Plat of Sub- division of Section 33 recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 4, Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida; thence go Easterly parallel to the North line of said Tract 15 a distance of 313.96 feet; thence go Southerly, at right angles to the pre- ceding course, a distance of 260 feet; thence go Westerly, parallel to the North line of said Tract 15 a distance of 309.87 feet to a point in said line parallel to and 190 feet Easterly of the East line of the West quarter of said Tract 15; thence go North along said parallel line a d~stance of 260 feet to the point of beginning; TOGETHER WITH: fF.- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 26, 1979 A parcel of land lying and being in the County of Palm Beach and State of Florida, more particularly described as follows: Lot 18 of the Plat of' GAY-~4AR. ESTATES of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida, as per plat thereof on file in the offiCe of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, in Plat Book 24, Page 110, and a parcel of land in Section 33, Township 45 South, Range 43 East, in the City of Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, more particularly described as follows, to wit.: Beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 18, GAY-MAR ESTATES, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 24, Page 110, Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida; thence southerly along the southerly extension of the East line of said Lot 18, a distance of 155 feet, more or less, to a point in the northerly right-of-way line of Southeast 27th.Court, as shown on plat of Seacrest Estates, recorded in Plat Book 24, Page 245, Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida; thence westerly along the said northerly right-of-way line of Southeast 27th Court, a distance of 75 feet to a point in the southerly extension of the West line of said Lot 18; thence northerly along said southerly extension, a distance of 155 feet, more or less, to the southwest corner of said Lot 18, thence easterly along the South line of said Lot 18, a distance of 75 feet to the point of beginning. Request - Relief from 4 ft. fence height requirement to install a 5 ft. high fence in front setback. Location - 138 S. E. 27th Avenue Applicant - Florida Conference Association of Seventh- Day Adventists, Inc. Chairman Thompson read the application and explained the purpose of the Board and the basis for voting. He ascertained all papers were in order submitted with the application. ~Rev. Rus J. Aldridge, 1067 S. W. 28th Avenue, came before the Board. Mr. Keehr showed the survey and pointed out the proposed location of the fence. Rev. Aldridge referred to having a regu- lar school at this location and explained the fence would basic- ally be for the area where t.he children play leaving the front section, church and parking lot free. Mr. Ampol referred to the church owning the property since December, 1954, and asked if there has been an existing fence and Rev. Aldridge informed him the neighbor at one end has a fence, but they have not had their own fence. He explained -2- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 26, 1979 how a 4' high fence was easy to climb over, so they feel having it a little higher will give more protection for the children and will be an advantage to the neighbors. Mr. Zimmerman ques- tioned what grades were in the school and Rev. Aldridge informed him there are grades 1 thru 8. Mrs. Czufin stated there has also been extensive damage done to the school by motorcycle vandals coming through the area and she thinks a 5' high fence will alleviate this. Rev. Aldridge added that they have had pro-blems with cycles coming through when school is in session. Mr. Ridolfi referred to visiting the site and stated he talked to three neighbors on 27th Avenue and they are not against the fence, but would like to know what kind it is going to be. Rev. Atdridge informed him it would be the basic chain link fence. Chairman Thompson added this type of fence will not block the view. Mr. Slavin clarified that all t.hat would be enclosed would be the playground area and Rev. Aldridge agreed. Chairman Thompson added that it is permissable to use 4' high fence and the re- quest is to make it 1' higher which would only be in violation in certain areas. Mr. Keehr pointed out the areas where a 5' high fence would be allowed. Mr. Zimmerman questioned the setback of the buildings and Rev. Aldridge informed him it was about 25'. Mr. Zimmerman clari- fied that without the variance, the fence would have to be right by the building. Rev. Aldridge then introduced.Mr. Walter Zill, Head Elder. Mr. Zill pointed out the pro.posed location of the fence. He added that it will be about 8 to 10' east of the parking lot, so it will not be in close proximity to car traffic. In reference to height and visual problems, it will not be near the main flow of traffic. Chairman Thompson commented that he could not see any problem as long as a vine was not planted on the fence to obstruct vision. Mr. Zimmerman asked if they intended to have the 5' height all the way around and Rev. Aldridge replied affirmatively. Mr. Ridolfi asked if there were any plans to plant vines along the fence and Rev. Aldridge replied negatively. 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 the granting of this variance and received no response. -3- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 26, 1979 Chairman Thompson stated he can see a hardship placed on the church especially with having the parking lot right by the playground. Mr. Ampol asked if the pastor resides on the pre- mises and Rev. Atdridge replied negatively. Chairman Thompson exPlained how cars usually ride over grassed areas when near the parking lot and also this is bordered by about three streets and the children's safety must be considered. Mr. Ridolfi stated that it is the public school-policy to have a 6' high fence. He told about the neighbors' only concern being the type of fence, but they are in favor of a fence for the protection of the children. Mr. Zimmerman explained how the church was taking into consider- ation the safety and protection of the children. Mr. Slavin agreed. Mrs. Czufin made a motion that this variance be granted from a 4' high fence to ~a 5' high fence to the Florida Conference Asso- ciation of Seventh-Day Adventists, Inc., in order to protect the school children and avoid malicious damage to the church. Mr.. Ampot seconded the motion. As requested, Mrs. Kruse took a roll call vote on the motion and the motion carried 7-0 with all members voting in favor. CORRESPONDENCE Chairman Thompson read a letter from DiGiulian, Spellacy & Meyer regarding the Motorola application expressing appreciation to the Board for granting the two variances and requesting a copy of minutes be forwarded to their office. He requested the Record- ing Secretary to forward these minutes. Chairman Thompson ascertained all the members had received an invitation from the City for dinner at the Vintage on December 13. OLD BUSINESS Chairman Thompson reported that several members met with the City Attorney and Mr. George Culver's attorney to recall the action which took place four years ago. Chairman Thompson announced that two applications have been received for the next meeting on December 10. Mr. Ridolfi requested a ruling on the Kroeck case, since he was under the impression our decision was final and according to this appli- cation, it is no%. He explained how he thought any further hearing would have to be by the circuit court and questioned how it could be brought back before this Board? Chairman Thompson also questioned whether the applica~has the right to come back? Mr. Keehr informed them that the City Manager -4- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 26, 1979 discussed this with the City Attorney and there is no stipula- tion that re-application cannot be made at any time. Mr. Ampol asked if the filing fee is paid again and Mr. Keehr replied af- firmatively. Chairman Thompson asked if any new evidence had been submitted and Mr. Keehr replied negatively. Mr. Keehr added that Mrs. Kroeck feels she should be given the opportunity to speak for herself rather than having an agent speak for her. Discussion ensued regarding the action taken by the Board on this case and questions were raised about the reasons for re- application. Mr. Slavin suggested that Mr. Keehr discuss this further with Mr. Vance and Mr. Keehr replied that he would do that. A lengthy discussion followed regarding the decision being made and how it should be considered final with any further appeal being made to the circUit court. Mr. Zimmerman stated if there is dissatisfaction with a case coming back before the Board, possibly we should request that the City Council consider placing a time limitation in which a case could be resubmitted. He believes the requirement of the Planning & Zoning Board is the applicant must wait 18 months before resubmitting a rezoning application. Chairman Thompson agreed that if we have something which we feel is beneficial to the City and Board, we can make a recommendation. Mr. Zimmerman continued that this should be considered so this doesn't happen again. Mrs. Czufin clarified that the Kroecks are li~ing here with conditions on the property not meeting the requirements. Mr. Slavin referred to the Building Department ordering the screen- ing to be removed and Mr. Keehr agreed this was correct, but Mrs. Kroeck was given relief because she has re-applied to the Board. Chairman Thompson suggested the members discuss whether a time limit should be placedon re-application. He added it will have no effect on this case, but may make a difference in the ensuing year. Mr. Slavin made a motion that a recommendation be made to the City Council that a time limit be imposed on the re-application of any denial which has been made by the Board of Adjustment. Mr, Ampol seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mr. Zimmerman referred to the time limit and Mr. Slavin suggested this be dis- cussed and incorporated into the motion. Mrs. Czufin suggested possibly including the clause if a hardship is presented which was not presented with the original application and Mr. Slavin replied that a drastic change would be considered sufficient grounds and Chairman Thompson stated the question of interpreta- tion of a drastic change could create a problem. A lenthy dis- cussion then ensued regarding the actual time period and whether it should be within that period or after that period has elapsed. -5- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 26, 1979 Mr. Ampol then submitted an amendment to the motion to set' the time limit at 60 days with only one appeal being allowed. Also, the $150 fee must be paid with the re-application. Mr. Slavin accepted the amendment. Under discussion, Mr. Zimmerman pointed out that his original idea was to set a minimum time that would have to pass before an applicant could re-apply and this amendment means the re-application must be within 60 days. Discussion followed with expressions given in favor of both methods. Also comments were made regarding different time limits. Mr. Ridolfi then seconded the. amendment. Chairman Thompson clarified the amendment is if an application is turned down by this Board, the applicant will have the right to re-apply within 60 days for the granting of the variance again and after that, there will be no chances for the person to come before the Board again. Mrs. Czufin clarified that another ap- plication should be filed and Chairman Thompson agreed that another application can be filed with the City Clerk within 60 days of the official notification it was rejected. Under dis- cussion, Mr. Zimmerman stated the only reason he could see where someone Would want to re-apply and pay the fee is when the com- position of the Board would be different where there would pos- sibly be a difference of opinion and that would not present it- self within 60 days and it would not be fair to the person making the application. Discussion then followed regarding the time limit. As requested, Mrs. Kruse then took a roll call vote on the amendment as follows: Mrs. Czufin - No Mr. Zimmerman - No Mr. Ampol - Yes Mr. Ridolfi - Yes Mr. Slavin - No Miss Artis - No Mr. Thompson - No ~men~ent failed 5-2. Mrs. Czufin then submitted an amendment to the motion that if the applicant desires to refile to the Board of Adjustment, it must be done within 90 days with only one appeal allowed. Miss Artis asked if we could legally say they can only come before the Board once and Chairman Thompson replied that he thinks this could be challenged. Mr. Ampol stated he thinks the entire amendment 'is out of order as the law is when a variance is denied by the Board of Adjustment, the applicant must apply to the circuit court. Mr. Slavin informed him this is not the law. Mr. Zimmerman .stated the discussion started to correct this present situation and with the amendment, the application can be made within 90 days. After discussion, Mr. Slavin made a motion to table this until we have a discussion with the City Attorney on this matter. If we are within our province, we -6- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 26, 1979 can act on this at our next meeting. We should seek legal guidance. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion to table. Motion carried 7-0. Mr. Keehr advised that he will discuss this with the City Manager tomorrow. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Slavin made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Ridolfi. Motion carried 7-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 8:20 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Recording Secretary (Two Tapes) -7-