AGENDA DOCUMENTS
MEMORANDUM
4 May 1987
TO:
Chairman and Members
Planning and Zoning Board
FROM:
Carmen S. Annunziato
Planning Director
RE:
Walter Dutch - Land Use Amendment
and Rezoning Request
SUMMARY: Walter Dutch, property owner, is requesting that a .08
acre parcel be rezoned from R-lA (Single-Family Residential) to
C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial) and that the Future Land Use Plan
designation for this parcel be amended from "Low Density
Residential" to "Local Retail Commercial". The subject parcel
occupies 50 feet of frontage on the west side of N.W. 7th Court.
currently, the property is vacant. The proposed use of this
property, if rezoned, would be to combine it with the vacant C-2
zoned parcel to the south (under the same property ownership) in
order to develop it for Neighborhood Commercial land uses.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING (see attached location map): To
the southwest of the subject parcel are two former residential
structures on a .37 acre parcel which have been converted for use
as a dental clinic. This property is zoned C-2, Neighborhood
Commercial. Abutting the subject parcel to the west and
northwest is a vacant .46 acre parcel zoned C-1,
Office/Professional, which is under the same property ownership
as the dental clinic. A site plan has been submitted to the City
proposing to construct a 6,885 square foot office building on
this parcel. Abutting the subject parcel to the north is a
single-family home zoned R-1A which is in good condition.
Abutting the subject parcel to the east is a 50 foot wide
right-of-way for N.W. 7th Court. To the east, across N.W. 7th
Court, is a single-family home zoned R-1A which is in fair
condition. The single-family homes which front on N.W. 7th Court,
further to the north, range in condition from fair to good. At
the northeast corner of West Boynton Beach Boulevard and N.W. 7th
Court is a .21 acre parcel zoned C-2, which is owned by Walter
Dutch. Abutting this parcel to the east is a Wendy's drive-thru
restaurant zoned C-2. Abutting the subject parcel to the south
is a .21 acre parcel zoned C-2 which is under the same property
ownership (Dutch). Abutting this parcel to the south is the
right-of-way for Boynton Beach Boulevard. Further to the south,
1
---~~'_._---~_.__..__..,----.~_.- '--- _.'.-.. - - ----_._------------~~-
across Boynton Beach Boulevard, is the Gateway Shopping Center
zoned C-2.
PRESENT ZONING: Under the present R-1A zoning, the property
would be undevelopable without a variance from the Board of
Adjustment. Approval of a variance from the Board of Adjustment
would allow for the construction of a small, single-family home.
Otherwise, the R-1A zoning requires a minimum 7,500 square foot
lot with a 60 foot frontage.
REZONING: Rezoning to C-2, Neighborhood Commercial, would permit
a commercial building up to two stories, which could include
business or medical offices, a bank, restaurant, drugstore or
hardware store, or any other use permitted under the C-2 zoning
regulations that could be accomodated by both parcels combined
(i.e., under the same property ownership). Assuming frontage on
West Boynton Beach Boulevard, given the 100 foot depth
requirement of the C-2 zoning regulations, the rear and east side
setbacks on the subject parcel would be 30 feet abutting the
residential-zoned properties, with the remainder of the east side
setback being 20 feet within the C-2 zoning district. A six-foot
high concrete block wall would be required along the rear
property line, and that portion of the east property line where
the subject parcel abuts residential zoning. The side yard
setback on the interior (west) side would be 15 feet for both
parcels where they abut the C-1 and C-2 zoning district
boundaries. The front yard setback from West Boynton Beach
Boulevard would be 30 feet. Approval of this rezoning request
would allow for the development of any use permitted under the
C-2 zoning district regulations. A maximum of about 3,100 square
feet of office or retail floor space could be built on the parcel
under the City's current development regulations. An analysis of
the issues surrounding this rezoning request is provided in the
section entitled "Issues/Discussion".
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - FUTURE LAND USE MAP: The property in
question is currently shown on the Future Land Use Element as
"Low Density Residential", so an amendment to the Future Land Use
Element to "Local Retail Commercial," as requested by the
applicant, would be necessary.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - TEXT: The following Comprehensive Plan
policies are relevant to this rezoning request:
"Provide a suitable living environment in all neighborhoods." (p.
6)
"Preserve the present stock of sound dwellings and
neighborhoods." (p. 6)
"Provide a range of land use types to accomodate a full range of
services and activities." (p. 7)
2
"Eliminate existing and potential land use conflicts." (p. 7)
"Encourage the development of complimentary land uses." (p. 7)
"Encourage the development of commercial land uses where
accessibility is greatest and where impacts to residential uses
are minimized." (p. 7)
"Encourage the development of clustered neighborhood and
community commercial centers at arterial and collector
intersections." (p. 39)
The subject parcel abuts an area to the west which is designated
in the Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report as an
area of potential land use conflict (Area 36). This area
includes the parcels at the intersection of Old Boynton Road and
West Boynton Beach Boulevard, west of the Deierl Park
subdivision. Since the subject parcel abuts this area of land
use conflict, it can be construed that the policies pertaining to
Area 36 are also applicable to the property in question. The
relevant section, as provided below, appears on P-131 of the
report:
Area 36
Residential Parcels in Vicinity of Old Boynton Road and New
Boynton Road, between Interstate 95 and Congress Avenue.
As stated on page 37 of the current Comprehensive Plan, due
to the increased traffic which will be drawn to the Boynton
Beach Mall, there will be pressure to rezone these parcels
from residential to commercial. Other than minor
adjustments to the existing zoning district boundaries,
commercial zoning should not be allowed to extend westward
along Old Boynton Road and Boynton Beach Boulevard (see the
paragraph below, however). Extending commercial zoning
along these thoroughfares would cause serious traffic
congestion and degrade the residential environment in the
adjacent neighborhoods. In particular, commercial zoning
should not be allowed on the residential lots and small
parcels which lie along Old Boynton Road to the northwest of
the FPL substation.
The implications of the Area 36 policies with respect to the
property in question will be discussed in the following section
entitled "Issues/Discussion".
ISSUES/DISCUSSION:
1. Whether development of this property for commercial uses will
have an adverse impact on surrounding residential properties.
Since the subject parcel abuts single-family zoning to the
north and east, the potential exists for an exacerbation of
3
existing land-use conflicts that currently exist in the
immediate vicinity. More specifically, the single-family
parcel which lies to the east, across N.W. 7th Court (Lot 2),
is currently bordered on the south and east by the C-2 zoning
district. The Wendy's drive-thru restaurant abuts this
parcel to the east and is representative of an existing land
use conflict. Rezoning the subject parcel to C-2 would
result in a situation whereby Lot 2 would be enveloped on
nearly three sides by commercial zoning (see attached
location map and survey).
With respect to the single-family parcel which abuts the
subject parcel to the north, this parcel is currently
bordered on the west by a C-1 zoned parcel. Although
currently vacant, a site plan has been submitted to the City
which proposes to construct a one-story professional office
building on this C-1 zoned parcel. In addition to the
commercial "envelope" that would be created on the east side
of N. W. 7th Court that would impact Lot. 2, rezoning the
subject parcel would create a similar envelope that would
impact the single-family parcel immediately to the north,
placing commercial zoning along two of its four property
boundaries (south and west sides). The effect on the overall
zoning district boundary between the commercial zoning and
the single-family residential zoning would be to create a 50
foot extension of the C-2 zoning district into the R-1A zoned
pocket which lies to the north (see attached zoning map).
Currently, the subject parcel serves as a buffer between the
R-1A zoned parcel which lies to the north and the existing
C-2 zoned parcel to the south. Approval of the rezoning
request would decrease the minimum separation between the
existing single-family home and a future building on the C-2
zoned parcel to the south, from a minimum of 92.1 feet under
the existing zoning to a minimum of 42.1 feet under the
proposed zoning.
Although the City's zoning regulations would require the
construction of a six-foot concrete block wall along the
boundary between the residential and commercial zoning
districts in connection with the development of the C-2 zoned
parcel, activities taking place at the rear of a future
commercial building including noise from trucks, loading and
unloading activities, unloading of dumpsters, odors from
dumpsters, glare from parking lot lighting, trash and litter
accumulation, and the unpleasant aesthetics would be
incompatible with neighboring residential uses. As
previously noted, many of these adverse impacts and land-use
conflicts already exist to a certain degree as a result of
the existing zoning pattern. Approval of the applicant's
request, however, would further exacerbate this situation.
2. Whether the property in question is physically and
economically developable for a single-family home.
4
As previously noted, this property could be developed for a
small, single-family home if the Board of Adjustment was to
approve a variance, upon submission of an application from
the property owner. No conclusion has been reached regarding
the economic feasibility of developing this parcel for a
single-family home, but it is unlikely due to the small
parcel size, the proximity to neighboring developed and
undeveloped commercial-zoned parcels, as well as the
proximity to West Boynton Beach Boulevard.
3. Whether the existing C-2 zoned parcel under the same
property ownership, is sufficient in size to permit the
development of Neighborhood Commercial land uses.
The .21 acre C-2 zoned parcel, under the same property
ownership meets or exceeds the requirements of the C-2 zoning
district regulations and would permit the development of a
small commercial building, with a maximum size of
approximately 2,000 square feet. Furthermore, it should also
be noted that the .21 acre parcel at the northeast corner of
West Boynton Beach Boulevard and N.W. 7th Court, which is
also owned by Walter Dutch, can be utilized for a parking lot
to serve a future building at the northwest corner of West
Boynton Beach Boulevard and N.W. 7th Court.
4. Whether Commercial zoning of this property would be
consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies for the location
of and access to commercial uses.
Commercial zoning of the subject parcel would be both
consistent and inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan policies
for the location of and access to commercial uses. The
Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of clustered
neighborhood and community commercial centers at arterial and
collector intersections. The proposed rezoning would be
consistent with this policy as it would represent a 50 foot
northerly extension of the existing C-2 zoned district at the
northeast corner of West Boynton Beach Boulevard and Old
Boynton Road. West Boynton Beach Boulevard is classified as
an arterial and Old Boynton Road is classified as a collector
according to the 1980 Functional Classification in the
Traffic and Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Commercial zoning of the property would also be consistent,
in part, with the policy of encouraging "development of
commercial land uses where accessibility is greatest and
where impacts to residential uses are minimized". The
proposed rezoning would be consistent with the accessibility
provision as access to the subject parcel and the larger
parcel to the south would be available by way of N.W. 7th
Court; unless the applicant was to seek a variance for a
driveway onto West Boynton Beach Boulevard. The Parking Lot
Regulations prohibit driveways within 180 feet of the
intersecting rights-of-way lines on arterial roads. The
entire frontage for the existing C-2 zoned parcel falls
5
within 180 feet of the intersecting rights-of-way lines of
West Boynton Beach Boulevard and N.W. 7th Court. Rezoning
the subject parcel, however, would not be consistent with
that portion of the policy "encouraging development of
commercial land uses where impacts to residential uses are
minimized" and would result in further deterioration of the
residential enclave immediately to the north.
As previously outlined under the section entitled
"Comprehensive Plan - Text," the subject parcel abuts an area
designated in the Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal
Report as an area of potential land use conflict (Area 36).
Since the subject parcel abuts this area, certain provisions
contained within the language for Area 36 can be construed to
be applicable to this rezoning request, including the
provision that "minor adjustments to the existing zoning
district boundaries" may be warranted, and the provision that
notes that the expansion of commercial zoning in the vicinity
of West Boynton Beach Boulevard and Old Boynton Road will
"degrade the residential environment in the adjacent
neighborhood." The obvious intent of this language is to
allow for minor adjustments in zoning district boundaries,
only where such adjustments will not degrade the residential
environment in the adjacent neighborhood. It can be
anticipated that this rezoning request, if approved, will
result in further degradation to the adjacent neighborhood.
Approval of the rezoning request may also lead to further
"piecemeal" rezonings, specifically the parcels which lie to
the east and north (Lot 2 and north 45 feet of Lot 11),
which will lead to even further degradation of the
environment in the adjacent neighborhood.
5. Whether commercial zoning of this parcel would set a
precedent for further "piecemeal" rezonings of neighboring
residential properties.
As noted in the previous section, commercial rezoning of the
subject parcel is likely to lead to further "piecemeal"
rezonings in the Deierl Park subdivision, particularly the
parcel which abuts the property to the north (the north 45
feet of Lot 11) and the parcel which lies to the east
across N. W. 7th Court (Lot 2). These two platted
residential lots in Deierl Park (Lots 2 and 11) currently
constitute a "pocket" of residential zoning within the C-2
zoning district (see attached zoning and plat maps). The
effect of the proposed rezoning, if approved, would result in
a protrusion of the C-2 zoning into this R-1A zoned pocket,
and would set a precedent for future C-2 rezoning of the
remainder of this pocket, which includes the north 45 feet of
Lot 11 and all of Lot 2 in the Deierl Park subdivision. The
net effect would be to square off the C-2/R-1A zoning
district boundaries along the northern property boundaries of
Lots 2 and 11, as originally platted. This scenario of
parcel-by-parcel acquisition would exacerbate the problem for
6
an extended period of time. In order to avoid piecemeal
rezoning, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Commission
should consider a land use amendment and rezoning in this
area only if it includes all parcels which are similarly
threatened by commercial encroachment. This would again
include all of Lots 2 and 11 in the Deierl Park subdivision
as originally platted.
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS: Rezoning of the subject parcel
would be inconsistent, in part, with respect to Comprehensive
Plan policies for the location of commercial land uses. The
proposed rezoning would likely cause a significant change in the
character of the neighborhood, and would have an adverse impact
on abutting residential uses. Rezoning this property would also
set a precedent for further "piecemeal" rezonings which would
exacerbate the existing land use conflict problem for an extended
period of time. In addition, the proposed rezoning would also be
inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan policies for Potential Land
Use Conflict Area 36, as allowing for a minor adjustment of the
existing zoning district boundary, in this particular instance,
would degrade the residential environment in the adjacent
neighborhood. The underlying issue in this rezoning request is
whether the existing boundary between the C-2 zoning district and
the R-1A zoning district in the Deierl Park subdivision should
remain as is, or should be shifted to the north to include all of
Lots 2 and 11, as originally platted, in order to square off the
zoning district boundaries. It is the recommendation of the
Planning Department that this rezoning and land use amendment
request be denied, and that the current zoning district
boundaries remain intact, owing to the likelihood of further
degradation in the adjacent residential neighborhood. If it is
the desire of the Planning and Zoning Board and City Commission
to approve this request, however, it is recommended that this
rezoning only be considered as a part of the rezoning of both
Lots 2 and 11 in Deierl Park which form the existing R-1A zoned
pocket. The rezoning of these two lots to C-2 and the amendment
of the Future Land Use Plan to "Local Retail Commercial" would
probably have to be initiated by the City, however, since more
than one property owner would be involved. It should also be
noted that if this alternative is recommended for approval, the
effect will be to divide a parcel occupied by a home which is
under single ownership, placing the north 45 feet of Lot 11 in
the C-2 zoning district and the south 25 feet of Lot 10 in the
R-1A zoning district.
c~~ /{ ~
CARMEN S. ~NZIATO
/bks
cc: City Manager
Technical Review Board
Central File
Walter Dutch
7
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
FROM:
James Cherof
city Attorney
'~ZJ/
Tambri J. Heyden /" F
Acting Planning an zoning Director
TO:
DATE: March 18, 1994
SUBJECT: Walter Dutch property on N.W. 7th Court - City
Commission action regarding zoning boundary
On June 16, 1992, the City Commission (see attached minutes) took
action regarding a zoning line boundary dispute regarding two
lots owned by Walter Dutch on N.W. 7th Court (see also attached
approval letter and staff report). Briefly, this is a situation
where the zoning line no longer follows the! current lot boundary
because the property owner reconfigured the lots.
In 1987, an application to rezone the same lot Mr. Dutch was
requesting in 1992 to "shift" the zoning Ii.ne, was denied by the
City Commission. Section 3.A.5.g of Appendix A - Zoning was the
code section used to allow the 1992 "shift". Before the
resurrection of Mr. Dutch's case, I had requested, approximately
three months ago, your opinion regarding what procedure staff
should follow relative to this section; you indicated a rezoning.
please advise regarding the following: . (t.l fi-' ~~ ,;t ,-1~ P:_-O:',(,;' i>',e. ,'" -:, ,./
, C.t "J ) (f ~ ";:', '''., .
1. Is the procedure described in the above-refereftced section a
rezoning? If not, please provide direction for staff to
follow in the. future ,includ,ing zoninq map changes. .,.' I' /. , ~L'!'. J,
t? ,\ ..,.'''" -r(: ' ~ j,,; f ,it . ~'~, '
2.
In light of the 1992 Commission action taken relative to
this matter, should the zoning map be changed or did the
action grant approval for an "exception" to the allowable
use of the subj ect lot area, but not for a, zoning change.?
,'!':'-Y"'" -: ^, ,\ I.,.., yl:' ,_LA.'L -I, .ic.'7"(' ~ (, ,,(, y (. (lA.~:tL ....t. I,,~ ' ., '- ,H..,
ShoUld s-t'af"f~~ciu'rre"';'i-ecofd~t"io~ I of. a'd~ed r'estriction which
reflects the condition of the 1992 action? ?) t!,j,-1: '<.' / ( .' .
3.
4. What impact, if any, does misinformation within staff's
recommendation to Commission, regarding how much of the the
property is zoned residential and correspondingly how much
should be used for purposes other than residential, have on
I .{ , .
the ,1992. Commission action? c;;._/ J,A '.' f/( ((.r 1/' ,L~'(f"'L'-;.>,.,
1'" f t" r.,.- _~ ",..;.' .~... ....1..1 "/._', ",(......-~, l Qo<,l :;.1.....,.11..1 r:.:~ ,~~ ~,
A meeting has been requested by the applicant for March 22, 1994,
therefore it would be appreciated if you could respond at your
earliest convenience.
..). ~ "
A:WDutchzon
L ~ 11,.-: tz-)uf c-t. 9;o~ ~
(,AJ~ ()c.f: 19 ~ ~rk-i~
~ fk. ~~ w~ o.."~te."()~
~""'~ nvlf w,~~-t p.<:'~1.~
~ ~ i + w~ """ N... CoO rr:I..c.J..-
D cd.. ~~~&tl. J.lc. r-
~ w~\\ 1A,J)(.. ~ ~ ~(f"
Jo~
tjh
Attachments
xc: J. Scott Miller
Michael Haag
Jose Alfaro
\\
\
I
\
~'c/
~
WALTER DUTCH
ZONING BOUNDARY DETERMINATION
PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM #92-117
FROM:
Chairman and Members
Planning and Development Board
~~
Christopher Cutro
Planning & Zoning Director
TO:
DATE:
June 3, 1992
RE:
Zoning Boundary Determination
Walter Dutch, the owner of property located at the corner of
N.W. 7th Court and Boynton Beach Boulevard has requested a zoning
boundary determination on his property.
Mr. Dutch owns all of Lot 12 and the south 50 feet of Lot 11 in
the Driel Park subdivision. Prior to his purchase of the
property the owner changed the lot layout and sold off properties
by legal descriptions. Mr. Dutch's property is zoned on the
south 125 feet in the C-2 zoning district and the northern
portion of the lot is zoned RIA.
It was Mr. Dutch's contention that his entire property should be
zoned C-2. Staff has researched this and this is not the case.
However, based on the original lot layout, we have discovered
that a portion of the original Lot 11 is now zoned C-2 and this
would allow the City to follow Appendix A Section 3.5.g. which
states:
If a division of a lot of record makes impractical the
reasonable use of land, the extension of either portion may
be permitted as an exception beyond a district line to a
determined extent or into the remaining portion of a lot
upon approval by the Planning and Development Board and the
City Commission.
Mr. Dutch owns 50 feet of property that is zoned RiA. with an
area of approximately 3,500 square feet requirement, this is less
than half the size of an R1A zoning district. In addition,
requiring the development of the 50 feet of Lot 11 as residential
greatly reduces the ability of Lot 12 to be developed as a
commercial property. Finally, Mr. Dutch does not have the
ability to add land to his property so that the C-2 can be
expanded.
Since the lot record (50 feet of the old 11 and 20 feet of Lot
12) has been split by the zoning, we would recommend that the
north fifty feet be allowed to be used in the C-2 zoning
category. Due to the fact that this portion of the property is
across the street from a single family house, we would also
recommend that the exception be conditioned so that the use of
the north 50 feet be limited to drainage, landscaping, and
parking.
CC/jm
Att.
A:DUTCHREZ.JM
,.,:1
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 92-126
June 11, 1992
TO: J. Scott Miller, City Manager
~
FROM: Christopher cutro, Planning and Zoning Director
RE: Walter Dutch Zoning Boundary Determination
This is a request by Walter Dutch for an exception to allow the
use of a portion of a lot that is split by a zoning boundary for
a C-2 zoning use. This is allowed by Appendix A, Section 3.5.g.
The subject property is located at the northwest corner of
Boynton Beach Boulevard and N.W. 7th Court. The southern portion
of the lot is zoned C-2, while the north 50 feet is zoned R-I-A
and Mr. Dutch wishes to use the entire parcel as if it were zoned
C-2.
It should be noted that a land use plan amendment and rezoning of
this same property to the C-2 zoning district was reviewed and
rejected by the City Commission in 1987.
Staff reviewed the request and while we do not agree that a
mistake was made in drawing the zoning lines, we do recognize
that development of the R-I-A portion of the property would be
difficult. Staff included a condition that the use of the north
50 feet be limited to drainage, landscaping and parking. Staff
modified this condition at the Planning and Development Board
meeting to the north 30 feet and added the condition that the
commercial structure be residential in character.
The Planning and Development Board at it's meeting of/June
1992, reviewed this request and forwarded it to the 1ty
Commiss1on with a recommendation for approval.
This item is scheduled for Ci-ty Commission reV1ew and
)
considerat1on on June 16, 1992:
CC:ald
C:W-DUTCH.ALD
7Dl
WALTER DUTCH
ZONING BOUNDARY DETERMINATION
PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM #92-117
FROM:
Chairman and Members
Planning and Development Board
~ v.---
Christopher cutro
Planning & Zoning Director
TO:
DATE:
June 3, 1992
RE:
Zoning Boundary Determination
Walter Dutch, the owner of property located at the corner of
N.W. 7th Court and Boynton Beach Boulevard has requested a zoning
boundary determination on his property.
Mr. Dutch owns all of Lot 12 and the south 50 feet of Lot 11 in
the Driel Park subdivision. Prior to his purchase of the
property the owner changed the lot layout and sold off properties
by legal descriptions. Mr. Dutch's property is zoned on the
south 125 feet in the C-2 zoning district and the northern
portion of the lot is zoned R1A.
It was Mr. Dutch's contention that his entire property should be
zoned C-2. Staff has researched this and this is not the case.
However, based on the original lot layout, we have discovered
that a portion of the original Lot 11 is now zoned C-2 and this
would allow the City to follow Appendix A Section 3.5.g. which
states:
If a division of a lot of record makes impractical the
reasonable use of land, the extension of either portion may
be permitted as an exception beyond a district line to a
determined extent or into the remaining portion of a lot
upon approval by the Planning and Development Board and the
City Commission.
Mr. Dutch owns 50 feet of property that is zoned R1A. With an
area of approximately 3,500 square feet requirement, this is less
than half the size of an R1A zoning district. In addition,
requiring the development of the 50 feet of Lot 11 as residential
greatly reduces the ability of Lot 12 to be developed as a
commercial property. Finally, Mr. Dutch does not have the
ability to add land to his property so that the C-2 can be
expanded.
Since the lot record (50 feet of the old 11 and 20 feet of Lot
12) has been split by the zoning, we would recommend that the
north fifty feet be allowed to be used in the C-2 zoning
category. Due to the fact that this portion of the property is
across the street from a single family house, we would also
recommend that the exception be conditioned so that the use of
the north 50 feet be limited to drainage, landscaping, and
parking.
CC/jm
Att.
A:DUTCHREZ.JM
Walter ()utch
240 SOUTHLAND
PALM BEACH. FLORIDA 334BO
January 14, 1991
Chris Cutro, City Planner
City of Boynton Beach
100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd.
Boynton Beqch, Fl. 33435
Re: Deierl Park, a subdivision of the City of Boynton Beach
Subject - Split Zoning: Lot 12 and S 50 feet of Lot 11 - a contiguous
parcel in one ownership.
Lot 12 is zoned C2
S 50' Lot 11 is zoned RIA
Lot 12 is approximately 9900 sq. ft.
S 50' Lot 11 is approximately 3750 sq. ft.
Raymond Dumond platted Deierl Park into 12 lots. He then started
building and selling lots. He sold the East six (6) lots, 1 thru 6.
The West six (6) lots, 6 thru 12, he re-subdivided and sold by legal
description - parts of one lot and parts of another thus reducing the
lot sizes. Result was 8 smaller lots.
It is my belief that the zoning cartographer failed to recognize the
re-subdivision - relying on the recorded plat, which is incorrect.
Thus the South 50' of Lot 11 was split by zoning from the parent
tract, Lot 12.
I would appreciate if this apparent error would be corrected admini-
strativly and the S. 50' of lot 11 be zoned C 2.
Lot 12 and S 50' Lot 11 zoned C 2 is a much more viable lot for
development.
Presently S 50' Lot 11 does not meet RIA zoning requirements and is
unusable.
Ene. Marked Plat
Respectfully submitted,
)1/'~~.C ..
Walter Dutch ~:()
1C 1~~1 ):.-1'
C..\..\
~r~ J.Jr
'\ r.,
.}I\\\ ;0. - _. \)\:..1(1-
~\~\\~~
V~\
..
GLASS ROCK FARMS
GLENYILLE. NORTH CAROLINA 28736
~A w
~ om
'< [Il)-
~ ~n
~ .... ';t
~ ~ JI1
Q .. ~
~ ~
l'J ~
1'1 'i
b 0
~ ~
~ 'I
.'h ~
,b (A
r~ - .b-
.... b
~ -<
"'-
fA b
i ,
M ""
~~
~~
'i D
~ eo
~~
): 0
, t; ~
~ ~ g~
~ i'J C)-
V 1), ~~
~ 0 P-:3 (Il
f1l ~ .-< 0
('\ ~O""ll
-1 ~ -
'- ~. tc
o VI f'11. ,
~ r--:::a'
- \..,' 1111
...J M p
1 .... CD ~
:t "l1 too(
~ronO
i .,. [ll~'
. ~~
"J\ '-..... ~ "I
~\ _:1:
.J7
. . -'.; :'r<\ . .
It:
'!
'::-
~
t:
".
,I
;..,
,<I
,
lP'
tI10
~
(1'1
~
(n
,
I
,
Ul
lit
N
7.3.37
,
I
I E-t iV
I~ p::: I~ f11i
~ .f' ."
'tA '. ::>
" ;' 0 " lA'
.', U ,i;t I
I' I}
) ::I: il- I
'> E-t ~
r--
I 1-
I .
-' \, ~
. ! ,-
N. N :z; ~
(n. 01 ~ i
. I \/) N N
...., '.
I~
-..l1 Ql - I f'
\J)
I &l) l '
I ,
, I
~~,,I:",,. . I
I ~<'!;".8,^, . 2~_I:._T.~E T- 8AC:~
:t I ~'-~
.--- --,
,. I
3: ~
~
~ So
~
:t4
I
I
I
I
,
)
, . \ ~81
-
01
&---1
BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD
co'b
14' ·
I ~ '= -'177 ~
I '. , \ -p. 4- 7 0,,, ('\
, :~,.~ - 4.., -26.53 AItC<t'20'40 .
I. _ ...L c:. _."'-" __
" - __ - - - - . - ., i 9 ~ 2-' - - . - - - - - - - -
'> _ _ _ - _ /98.87
LAKE AV~
>'-' 7~.tOfo
... - -- .
~--_.
-----.---..
By....ut!l.................DATE/'i!/.!/Z-b SUFUEc:t.._.1L7/L I T v
CHKD. By................ DATE.
...
ORIGINAL LOT PATTERN
"""..-----
1.
f\
"
o
\
\ -
\
.\~
t\
~
"S'
.,
j- ;,':.. r;,'
..'
, '- \-; ~'
, " \fI'
\ ~ \
\' ,'J. \!.
b ~. p 'j>
0 t
" , ). 0
~ \ to
tn , E-i \'"
),- -' r- \
NI i, ,-
- ~
~ (n. U) . ~
. I 1.0 ~ ~ 1\>
11\ -l, . I.
\ -.,l z - I-
t) , Ij) f'
r: \ \D \
}. tJ' , \ .~fT." !'-~~~
,
~ tn .~~ .l::r.
"l ' .
Z 0 I
~I ,
\;
~~ g~
tj?'3 ~~
~~ ~tI\
f1\ 'z ro4 0
(\ ~O-q.
'1 ~ ';C-
o v. rn. \
~ ~';O \
~ \.... rn l
'-\ t tJl ~
I "'l1 "'"
':h i'lJ nO
-4 r t11~.
. ?J~
'11 ........., ~... J
:..' _:I:
,7
\
.,.
,<I
It
'!
I~
~
~~ '
I
\
\
~
U\
N
tj)
\S1
-
-
..so
UI
--.t
BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD
L-AKE. AV~
__...... 7~.fD(Q
" ""
.." .'" <-
, ,'" ,'6'.' ARC",O,4<> '
l_ ..is> _Co,._.. _-
, '~ ,,' ,," ,,' ",",,,", ;,",' " " ,,- . " =~>"
'" ,," __ _ 198,87
...
BY ,,,,(JII.f.,,,,,,,,,.,,,,~A TE t?1!/z. 9tJS~Ec:t ,,,JjT I /. I T v
eHKD. B"l................DATS-
~ODIFIED LoT PATTERN
-- -
\
,
\
)
, . \'JB
...... - - -- .
.--------..---,..., .
-----------~-
a
()
\
tV
,~
~
-z
(j)
'tr>
~
+
r--:1
. ~
o. .. t _.' \
~. \
. '- ,.I . f ~
- .\ - \.
;.--" .
~ '.'
. L OJ;' .
~
0,
--
,,-..1
.- .-4
. .... "". -~
. . --
1..~
~'.~
.~
. .
- ,
.~
.'
-,.... 1"". ....1
'V ~ ...J~I'.
.....
-
,
f
., PI
-
,
.~.. ~
,~~ '~II
--......---------