The URL can be used to link to this page

REVIEW COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT ORDER --- OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA r~.~ I31dc ,..} J-----".. rr'~'--~ l~ ;1 UJ H n'l ,i I' I t '_-;l;t"CI PROJECT NAME: 142 NE 6th Avenue APPLICANT: Tommie L. Green AtXl - I APPLICANT'S AGENT: NONE DATE OF HEARING BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: July 8,1997 TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Request for a variance to the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Section 11,1,C.1,b, - Nonconforming Lots, to allow construction of a single-family home on a nonconforming lot having a lot area of 4,800 square feet (rather than the minimum of 5,000) in the R-2 (single and two-family zoning district.) LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 142 NE 6th Avenue DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO, THIS MA TIER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above, The City Commission having considered the relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative staff and the public finds as follows: 1, Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations, 2, The Applicant -1L HAS HAS NOT established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested, 3, The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set forth on Exhibit "B" with notation "Included", 4, The Applicant's application for relief is hereby -1L GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof. DENIED 5, This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk, 6, All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of this order, 7. Other DATED: ?7.,J/ / ~ 7 ~d/!!/~~~->~~:.L/<2/j II City Clerk \\\i'.~\ \ IIIIIINIII. ~<}'\" o'f NTO-V I'I.I/~ ~ ~ ......... ~ ~ ~ << .' ~I'El~:>;.. ~ ~ ~o/cP ~....,,~ - >- :;;: '"" ~ () - ~ I- i- i :x: ~ ::-. ::: - ,"l \ 0'- -:!. \" 192 / ~ ~.. I' ~ ~ -" ,,- ~ ~ .......... ~ ~ ~.I1. ~LOf'\Q '!<.,$' 1""'1111111" 1\\11\" J:ISHRDA T AIPlanningISHAREDlWP\PROJECTSIGREENIDEVELOPMENT ORDER.doc DEVELOP~NT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION ~MORANDUMNO. 97-403 TO: Sue Kruse City Clerk Tambri J. Heyden ~ P- FROM: DATE: July 28, 1997 SUBJECT: Draft Development Order for zoning code variance File No. ZNCV 97-001(lot size) for Tommie L. Green at 142 NE 6th Avenue. Staffhas discovered that a draft development order for the above project approved by City Commission July 8, 1997 was inadvertently missing from the Commission agenda back-up you received. Therefore, attached herewith is the draft development order. You may discard it if you have prepared one and issued the final development order. TJH:dim J :\SHRDA T A\Planning\SHARED\ WP\PROJECTS\GREEN\memo transmit D,O.,doc DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PROJECT NAME: 142 NE 6th Avenue APPLICANT: Tommie L. Green APPLICANT'S AGENT: NONE DATE OF HEARING BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: July 8,1997 TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Request for a variance to the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Section 11.1.C.1.b. _ Nonconforming Lots, to allow construction of a single-family home on a nonconforming lot having a lot area of 4,800 square feet (rather than the minimum of 5,000) in the R-2 (single and two-family zoning district.) LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 142 NE 6th Avenue DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO. THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative staff and the public finds as follows: 1. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations. 2. The Applicant .lL HAS HAS NOT established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested. 3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set forth on Exhibit "B" with notation "Included". 4. The Applicant's application for relief is hereby .lL GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof. DENIED 5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk. 6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of this order. 7. Other DATED: City Clerk J:\SHRDA TA\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\GREEN\DEVELOPMENT ORDER.doc '.I April 22, '97 Tambri: Mr. Green submitted a permit application to construct a single family house on a non-conforming lot in Sunny-Side Estates. The permit was denied as the lot size is 4800 s.f. and does not meet the min. requirement of 5000 s.f. My research shows that the plat for Sunny-Side Estates was approved by the city and subsequently all 18 houses but one (on the subject lot) were built. Since the plat was approved by the city prior to the zoning regulations adoption, does the "grandfather clause" apply? Or, shall we make him to apply for a zoning variance? And, if yes, can we wave the zoning variance fee, as the city caused the problem? Please, respond as soon as possible, as the Building Department held the application for some three, four weeks already and the applicant gets somewhat impatient. ~141\ " c: \ WI N GoWPDO CS\ WO R K\M EMOS\tambri- tom my-green-permit. doc ---- 5~>/ -1.-, - / /J / t'V.../:2.p - fJ-. '. ,6 -- '-- ~-L--- ,t ~-c~e~__-;K.; &-~ ')k~ -( . .-;/7 7) L<";r'~ U-J;.> (,.I{ Ci.:~~.'. 'fLj ~;f ( ~. C~""'~.' . .~~.. ,7~ L" -~I.:". "-<..ie' -A.e'r. ( d L "r - It'''. "--"-. . rL" .,.., ..rl, ,- ",-.(..) -,-- 5-l <"; (-- ~ /11 G ...) ,--,r~ . / fr6 ,'fi/ : ',-;", L C /14' ~ ~r;J'~-Iji.0~" ~d' tv ,..,- C71PJ/ I (~ liJ/rf"0~ 6> O. /c..' "A-:/e.:9:1>v.reo1 f ' (~! ~I ~ ~/.:9 / '~ec96?Ved _ :.0 ".:-' .~-"; \ , .' ~.~D I'~ 0) \. \.~.I... ' ~/Z' I ~ "- .. ~ ~ ~ ~ . ,<\ \\ O~ ~ ~ ,~'" ~ , 1\ ~ "' ~~ ~, ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ \~. ~~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .\,~ q", \j ~ ~ ~ '\ " \J~ ~ ,,\) I ~ ~ ~ 1-'" ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ' 0" \ h 11. FLOOD ZONE C, 120196-0004-C, SEPTEMBER 30, 1982, ,., . o -Q ~ >> t::t~ql' ~~ v~ ..:::,.~ NOTE: ELEVATIONS AND BENCH MARK SHOWN ARE NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929, ESTABLISHED FROM BEN H MARK B25. lor-- .-........ ~o 7" // 1rw -J- CCJ/~ ~ ~~~ \:i~~ \ .~ ~' , '<J lY) ~ '-DESCRIPTION ~ ~ LOT 10, B~OCK 2, SUNNY-SIDE ESTATES, according to the Plat ~ recorded ln Plat Book 26 page 16 as recorded in the Public . Records of Palm Beach County, Florida; said land situate, lying ~ and being in Palm Beach County, Florida. -.----- I (fie? ~,~ . :;;/~f 2~tE ~ 1 7~~ - 3/10-r; r-ttr? - ,~o ,~ ~ 0, 60)( 80: cpO, C?c:? ' ,?'/P'/ / .#et93'V'/'eo/ I '~Ib . t!or' :7 ~e -~ ~l LEGEND o FOUND 2" x 2" CONCRETE MONUMENT PERMANENT REFERENCE MONUMENT o FOUND P.K. NAIL AND WASHER . SET P.K. NAIL AND WASHER o SET NO.5 RE-BAR AND CAP, LS-1725 '" ~ ~ \-\ '" ~ \j \ IJtIl.ESS 1HS SlIMY DRAB lIARS 'DE SIQ4A 1lIlE AND 1HE IJlICIIW. RAISED SEAL (J' A flOlI)A UCENSED SIfi'I(R AND MAPPER IT IS ~ IIIFlIiMA 1IOlAl. PURPOSES (lU AND IS NOT VALl). nus SUIMY OF lHE PR<ftR1Y SHOWN HERE<* IS IN ACCORDANCE .lH 1HE PRCPERTY DESCRlPllC* FURNISHED BY: SCHECULE A, UNIVERSAL LAND TITLE NO SEARCH OF tHE PUBlIC REamS HAS BEEN MADE BY nus OFfICE FOR ACCURACY M OMISSIONS. PLA T OF SURVEY FOR: TOMMIE L. GREEN, SR., REPROOUCllON IN ANY FORM IS PROHIBITED DAlE OF SURVEY /z- /~ - !?JG? DATE OF PRINT UE(~ 1 1 1006 REFERENCES BOUNDARY SURVEY 97-1;;2 {:;o SCALE /" = f?c? lHOMAS A. DETORE PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR & MAPP 2966 Via del Logo LAKE WORTH, FL 33461-1743 PHONE (407) 965-0191 d'eJ PG. /-1 WORK ORDER NO. B~- /6~? DRAWING NUMBER ~CP - d'/'/g __vL_>. \- _ . rtU t--"l ~ I hJ Gt ~ I ~ e: (C:.. IJT$ 4"lN'" >.:" l;:->'(l"::!J'r:~ S4lo,) I T AtZ-i .a ,,"'I~r1 ~ x 1",,11 w ~"l .I~,j i l' J.~"II ~~+",(, I. $\..C;" 1;' ~!",I!.c L 4~!>\' 1 t'lO ... 4..4 "'I~~' :!: ~+'11l ..! 411 I, 't.! S" t l~:1,~p "'~4'\ ~ ~ I . L ,. . I,: -, I TT T I 1 . '--- -! II e- ~~tl--- ''-~I~ Iol-I T t.. H~ !~ . ,~~ ='^ ~ A;R ~ , I ~ -..9 :i . .1/11.11"""9 -, _I it f'\. '_f~.. 2 -r ~ ~ q~ e:' ..u ~ ~l ',.t U 1A(.&' 11 I I' II 1'0 -=1:1: -. IT' : ~LpJ ~. ~ ~ I~ ~ ---I- I-- ~ - I~ ~ ~. ''::~ -='-!I ./ "..w ~~ :~Ir-' ~ ll~,.j l' ~ ~l~r r:'$~"ll , p. II! ~:9 ~ L oq- 1ri~ 6tN('~ ii l~.FIto vJM.VI~ ::r&11A1J~ 11J,. l,:~~S =.t:2E.~bU,..-{P~ 10/.' , .-~~AWl ~~ ~ ~. . lfl, " . 1I~t?11 1-1 H-~. F,I2.. RlOfl': -s..c, W/AOTO ~e.r:. 1 , ~ -I ~ ,-,"II-J6, ~. ~i':.... ..... ~ tv ~. ;- , ( ~~I:IoI~."..~ "toW I ~,~~<I-~.I.-w~ ~ :J~~7~ ~ W: ~~ r J ~,. ""4A I I~;'~I 411 401 ~ ~. . . . . . . 4.' .~ +,- a U:Jl Q:\ ~OOD - _J bf'?H ~T h...( L. .a ... C> . ~ '1.~,j1 '" - -&11 -...... [>~ ,~I ",' II ..,~o I II ~~ tir;,l- 01' . ,I I (,.t;. 'I. '5.~1 ~ , I+- _, . ~, ..c 01, . II "II' ,,\1 ..1.'101\ 1'!>I;.~'tL""'OL~P "'t .. I"IC> 'I L, D n \,:~) -f L-PV1~ ~* ~~~ ~r.....1 Y.+I:S01 I_I) .' 11..0lit .. 'I."''' 14-;~ + (\ <5' , 1--;." I$; , lEa I L<-_.1 .',A1 If;) ~ I . II I . iJo;;'eo Ii, .d.'_llo,l 1_'.r::,1I ]I. .l~ &11 .....6 ..' II ..,-0 -'-GAR 1. - ..",40- ~ T .11 CQ ~lZ.M:#:-1 :r \e.4~ ,!>OAl O&.. 9 I ,\ I~-O B" ~i ^ &P6& j~~- =" -1:0 [ZJ ~~ ..,~dl i =-Q ~~ '1.-' Q 110" IGoItI <0&-. .::- i ~ \1\ =:~; . I ~\l} · '.. (, ,J1 I\~p\\ o ~ ~ ~l ........- "2.~&_~ -0 4! .,~r,Jf -.b It ~~i.\ 0,' 0 1"~ WlC '1C3 ~ IE' L""'~ . t:7W tz.r't :U:s ~ IZ'!o1ll ~Ip~h_ V' -0 ::::::it:. I , -g \'I.'~t\ ~I ~ ... ... I Iroll I II 4.' .4.+ ~~ (p~SII oJ.. 4~a'l It ,(#Ldl ! , 'I 4."4 .~ ~. "~F-'i .AlL- \'~ t OpF:.\.J I t-J c.. wi v-J!; txO~ l-'\p& 1Z-'7 . ~e:.. ~ \ ...IDlc"ATE' i e;Golk::6-7? iN \t-...\/' iJ r r A [0' UBJii'AR..L'a:4Jo'!L'r'.L' Vb" UBi" .I:Ii.LIV~~1."'..L" B~~T~~~ D~~~9~ON 100 Bast Boynton Beach Blvd. P. o. Box 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 PLANS REVIEW COMMENTS Name of Reviewer Type of Review Date', of Review 1st Review Your permit application and supporting documentation do not comply with the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances as described below (see attached sheets if applicable). Please correct documents to comply with the comments and resubmit two (2) corrected sets of plans to the Building oi vision. Direct any questions to the reviewer named above. If a conference with the reviewer is necessary, an appointment is recommended. To eKpedi te the process, changes may be made to the permit documents at the Building Division by the applicant or his agent. (Proof of authorization is required of anyone other than the design professional prior to making chari~es to signed and sealed documents). Timely approval of your pro~ect is dependent upon your prgntEt response,lo the comments. Ptf'J PI' C.~A.1T · CA /Ji" t=tC" --r~ ~ ..1 J f'fANNIIUt; ., '2..0 au. I'J a. DEfJA-R--r me.~T () F ~ (!.,,7-1 ~ F B6'j/fJ,"K.;' (::;,6A-aH, Co Ut..eJIrWV''''''c. -rNe p:::.t'J//()WIUi'JD CchlIl1SA.J 7'S : 31r- U( c.. T N E.w ...., (;. I . w /I " -2. A~' fUJO ~ FAMIly ~EJIJ j...)c. "'J:)J~T1!.,c.:r#'. ~ Ft> 1(0 "'V' J..J (Q Ct:; .wi h1 evr:s. IAJ ~ YJ;1 A-)) E ~ l< G;V f G:::.W ( IJ..) C. -r~ :e.r A- ~ ~ IT /.-J \) r ~T'"}~ ~Gf?u, ~E: f'-"\ ~ ~ -r:s · , .) ~ b~ 7t~~~~' ~-- ;~~~ - ~ _~. -. ';~,/;T.-LQ_ --IJI-t .s ~ T I -r I ~ ~ ~ II /:h:,.lA!;; ~ ~~e-r -r~ ~eev'R.G. ~~ .z:..~F "~~ ~:t::aJGi "jOmElU-r ~&Ga~ IA-"r'/D.LS C.o.B ~-rl' 0 kJ 1/. I . C. " J...j() IJ - ~ ^-J Fa fVn I MJ G. J....t1 TS ,-~. a.) ~) ~.) - I ,. "2..) T~tm~~f;~<:;s ~~o~7n~C'~ ~ 17S 1 S E-r.::I3..l!J:1; p:ee C.J l ~ € JJ ,.S '::1) I<.- ~ ~~ ~~/'L~~~~I~:~~ ,. C.o .1!l. .LAuD :r>Q)tJo'P~T t(pCf..J' A-r IOAJ t C# z.. -z:.c,~~- R~ ~~ 7WtJ-~'41) :/;).be//J ~~ n ~-r1LJ. It / ",Ir>,tuc, ,,^-, v_ F"" lU:..u T #~.~J;; AlL ~ -z..s'. 0 ., :::~. s l~ ~'.f2" - . J..b -A- = ,"-,ooo9~~~~~ . Ct.-. ~,,.,~ ~ l ~ , Applicant's "7 "'307 - , by: Comments phone * :3 - 9 Name (print): onl ~a~e.called & ller's (signature): 1 Y____ ;r 1n1t1als: 1st Date Pans & " 2nd ~ comments I" ;~*~:~h:f ~ P**~~~~~~;;:C'~~**:**'flFb~?Z*S**})~~~L. t ,', '. ~ "'~>~ . " ~qj ~... _..~..;;._.,,-~~ - 'IA--- _ ~ i '. ~ . '-":'-"'. )~':- '"" t)~ ~B' ~ ~G C .J &~ ~ ~ QJ ~ ~~ (j ,~~ e ~ 0 ~'~ ~( .C: ~ ~l~ a ~l{ Cl ~ >:. ,~ c~~ Q. tJ~ 'Q S .~~ 0 ~ , ~O~ ~cJ ~~.~ > ~ ~~ }- " '8 ~S ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ z ~~ 'l..,CI) :> l{ I ~.\)~ 0 I ~~~ U C)({ ;>.... ^' c:Q tQ : j 1- ". " , '~.J , . .. ..:. ( .. , . ./ '- . . / ~. , d) 1_, 1 to , .... It' ~ -. -\ (' 1.." .-! L':' r-.: l'i -. - l() t 'I (/ '; y. 1/) G "J C l!) -,.() Lv - - I- i" 411 <"'i '", '.J ~ ...J -7-' !:II L_ 0- -J 1\ I." (... ) ,C) \,)) ct) I,,~ . C' c- ::' L.., \-/' I '/, 00 <;/ ,...., -; r' .JJ-I~V(J__, __Li_, " '/""'1' , '~''''--1 ---........ ~ 1 ,,,- ~ '^", \ ". --.J r-..J' .'..) If 'v", ~...! ," \,/ '_L I _' '_J V _" _ _ , '-, (~ ()) <:j u~ C ' (:J ll~ aJ V) ~ ~ J) (...., ~ " v ,.... S 2.. rcr- -- , I ~ ';, OJ . ^2 Q. 0 '. \3 Os 6) ,!>!>.C!)I~ ~~.. ...., · T V--'-.~.,~ Lfl \ IL'IGl. (\J . - . og ~,) r I I L '\ g " . \>. I .~ . ",;0 ""lV)" , . -~ . 't.,f]; , ~ t'f"\ A'').~ 0<; 0 ~\/ <0 "Ch 0 a.C1 'V '0" v' l..9 6" '0 \j \9 J.. " ~6.- . .~:l S , UI (.1 . .. '/ I I I I I I I og ~ ~ ":).. 'j- ..... i , - ~6' '!Ca -, oJ " .. . 'j- ~ ......... ,,1'\ = 0 ). r- : :: r- t :;1 ......... U) " I Ia.I '..1 , , ._-~_.- --.-- -.-. :> 5<0'19 (' " '.!~ -& Z - , \. ......r. UI = - ,,1 o? ~ = : ---- " ..JJ - I ~ 1&1 ->. " I I If) ~ - r;f' ~ ~ ......... " '- ..... > . . '- ~ --.---- -------...----- -.!' LQ'?Q , , MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONFERENCE ROOM, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, MONDAY, JULY 14, 1986 AT 7:00 P. M. PRESENT Vernon Thompson, Jr., Chairman George Ampol, Vice Chairman Lillian Artis George Mearns Paul Slavin Ben Uleck Raymond Eney, Alternate Danny O'Brien, Alternate Alan Newbold, Chief Plans Inspector ABSENT Robert Gordon, Secretary (Excused) Chairma~ Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P. M., and introduced the Members of the Board, Mr. Newbold, and the Recording Secretary. Mr. Eney sat with the Board, and Mr. O'Brien was in the audience. Chairman Thompson recognized the presence in the audience of Councilwoman Dee zibelli, Councilman Robert Ferrell, and Bob Fauser, an interested citizen. MINUTES OF JUNE 9, 1986 Mr. Mearns moved to accept the minutes as received, seconded by Mr. Eney. Motion carried 7-0. ANNOUNCEMENTS None. COMMUNICATIONS None. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS Case #105 Applicant/ Owner: Goldie Fisher - 1 - ~ ..... MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA Request: Address: Legal Description: JULY 14, 1986 Relief from R-IA zoning requirement of 60 feet minimum lot frontage to be reduced to 50 foot lot frontage Relief from 7,500 square foot lot area to be reduced to 6,625 square foot lot area 731 N. E. 8th Avenue Lot 44, Block 4, LAKE ADDITION TO BOYNTON, recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 71, Palm Beach County Records Mr. Slavin read Fact #4 from the fact sheet, which stated one year is required before a subsequent application affect- ing the property can be filed. The same variance was denied on November 4, 1985. Mr. Slavin moved that Case #105 be postponed until November 10, 1986 at 7:00 P. M. Mrs. Artis seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. Case #104 Applicant/ Owner: Request: Address: Legal Description: Boynton Leisureville Community ASsoc., Inc. Relief from Appendix A-Zoning, Section Il-H-16-e (1), (4), (5) (12) (b), (c), (d) and (e) requiring a total of 188 parking spaces for a swimming pool, outdoor athletic courts, golf courses, and condominium recre- ation buildings to be reduced to 52 parking spaces currently provided. Alterations to Leisureville Clubhouse Section 10. 1807 S. W. 18th Street Parcel J. Tenth Section of Palm Beach Leisure- ville, as recorded in Official Records Book 2408, Page 1097, Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida Chairman Thompson read the six criteria the Board bases its decisions upon. They also base their decisions upon what they see when they go out on the site. Many times they find the City has placed a hardship because of upgrading the - 2 - MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, MONDAY, APRIL 14, 1986 AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT Vernon Thompson, Jr., Chairman George Ampol, Vice Chairman Robert Gordon, Secretary Lillian Artis George Mearns Paul Slavin Ben Uleck Raymond EnEW Bert Keehr, Deputy Bldg. Official ABSENT Danny 0'.1 ~der at 7:00 P. M. tr. Keehr, and the ~sence in the \. Vice Mayor Carl Chairman Tl and int"'odl.:. Recordi ng SI audience of zimmerman. MINUTES OF MA Mr. Slavin dre _v the first line, third paragraph on pc ~ad said "severe questions" should be changed to "sevwLal questions". Vice Chairman Ampol moved to approve the minutes with the correction, seconded by Secretary Gordon. Motion carried 6-0. Chairman Thompson abstained from voting as he was not present at the meeting of March 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS None. OLD BUSINBSS Cases postponed - Final Action at Meeting of March 10, 1986: 1. Case 199 Applicant: Owner: Legal Description: Sharon C. Yzaguirre Vincent Villafane Lot 8, Block S8A, LAKE BOYNTON ESTATES, PLAT 4-A, recorded in Plat Book 14, page 69, Palm Beach County Records - 1 - W' ... MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 14, 1986 Request: Relief from R-lA zoning requirement of 60 ft. lot frontage to be reduced to 50 ft. lot frontage. Relief from 7,500 sq. foot lot area to be reduced to 6,000 sq. foot lot area for construction of single family residence 840 West Ocean Avenue Address: Chairman Thompson believed everyone had heard the Board's criteria. Mr. Slavin informed him that everyone was heard and everything was discussed. The meeting was postponed because Mr. Yzaguirre stated that he could not buy any property on the other side, and the Board heard a lady make a definite statement that she will not sell any property on the one side. For the record, Chairman Thompson asked that Secretary Gordon read the application into the minutes. He asked if anyone representing the application was present. Mr. Keehr believed the owner of this property and the owner of the property in Case #100 were present but advised that Mr. Andres Yzaaguirre was not present. Mr. Villafane, Owner, told the Members Mr. Yzaguirre was out of the State. Mr. Gordon read the application and the answers to the six questions asked in paragraph 5. He also read an Affidavit signed by the owners which authorized Jose R. Uzal or Andres Yzaguirre to act as their Agent to secure a variance on the properties described in both cases. Mr. Slavin told Chairman Thompson that the Minutes of March 10, 1986 reflected everything that took place at their last meeting, and the record shows that one property owner refuses to sell any land on one side. Mr. yzaaguirre was in touch with people on the other side, and they would not sell any property. Mr. Slavin said a suggestion was made that all action be postponed until tonight in order to permit them to either buy more property or else submit affidavits or letters that nobody is willing to sell. vincent Villafane, 423 Wilder Street, West Palm Beach, and Manuel R. Sabugo, 834 Upland Road, West Palm Beach, came forward. Mr. Vincent said it was very important for them to be able to secure the variance because they are not able to purchase any other property to their left or right. The - 2 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 14, 1986 persons definitely refuse to sell them any additional property. Mr. Villafane asked the Members to approve the variance so they will be able to use the land properly. Secretary Gordon asked if Mr. Villafane had tried to purchase land since last month's meeting. Mr. Villafane answered affirmatively and added that Mr. Yzaguirre had to leave town on an emergency and was unable to be at this meeting, but he had approached the person on the other side. Nobody wants to part with their property. Mr. Villafane observed that many buildings have gone up on 50 foot lots because those lots were platted as 50 foot lots, and people are building on their existing properties. Mr. Slavin said the Board knows the people on the right do not want to sell, and he asked if Mr. Villafane got a letter or a statement in writing from the people on the left that they would not sell. Mr. Villafane answered that Mr. Yzaguirre was to secure the affidavit but he had an emergency call and went to Boston, Massachusetts. The owners had to come to the meeting. Mr. Villafane spoke to Mr. Yzaaguirre before he left. Mr. Yzaguirre did approach the people, and they refused to sell. They were at that point when Mr. Yzaaguirre had to leave, and Mr. Villafane could not speak further with him. Mr. Keehr clarified for Chairman Thompson that Mr. Villafane owns the property described in Case 499 and Mr. Sabugo owns the property described in Case #100. The lots are back to back, were platted in 1926 as 50 foot lots, and became non- conforming in 1975. Chairman Thompson asked if it was necessary that Mr. Villafane and Mr. 'Sabugo even attempt to buy property to make their property conforming. If there is vacant property, Mr. Keehr believed they should make an attempt. The property next to it is a 50 foot lot. To buy, Chairman Thompson commented they would naturally have to buy the whole thing because no one would sell a portion of it. Mr. Keehr also clarified that the lots to the east of these two lots are owned by a single person and are 50 foot platted lots, but the woman that owns them came before the Board and stated she does not want to sell. The land to the west is unplatted and is a metes and bounds large piece of property and the one Mr. Slavin asked the applicant to get something in writing for. Mr. Uleck referred to the land to the west and asked where a street would be put there. If the owner of the big parcel - 3 - ..." .." MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 14, 1986 of land does not want anyone to be in there, this owner would be against a fence or whatever it would have to be. The woman on the east has four lots. If the Board gives a variance on this lot, Mr. Uleck said the woman on the east will want to build two homes on her two lots. He asked if the Board would give her permission. Mr. Slavin informed him that the woman's property is grandfathered in, and she would not have to come before the Board. Mr. Slavin said, evidently, efforts were made to purchase additional property, and none is for sale. This is what they tried to determine at the last meeting. He thought the Board heard everything that had to be said and suggested Chairman Thompson "bring this to a head". When a person looks into the possibility of buying property on one side or the other, Chairman Thompson said this also creates a hardship. In other words, Mr. Villafane and Mr. Sabugo own lots there. If they are forced to buy property at whatever market is out there in order to conform, Chair- man Thompson felt they were facing a hardship. Mr. Slavin informed him that the records would show Mr. Villafane and Mr. Sabugo offered $2,000 over and above the market value, and they were turned down. He added that the hardship is there. It was not made by anyone individual. Nobody is compounding it. This is the way the property was platted. Mr. Villafane and Mr. Sabugo want to put up a home, and Mr. Slavin said the area is landlocked. The minutes show one party said she will not sell. The builder went to Massachu- setts on an emergency and could not get additional property. The effort was made, and Mr. Slavin questioned whether the Board could deny them the use of their property. Chairman Thompson guessed he and Mr. Slavin were saying the same thing in a different way. If the owners had to purchase additional property, he was saying a hardship would be placed on them. Mr. Mearns asked if the hardship was not created when the owners purchased the property. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of granting the variance. There was no response. Mr. Keehr clarified that they were only talking about Case 199. Bob Fauser, 125 S. E. 6th Avenue, wondered if there was any written information from Mr. Yzaguirre that he tried to buy a lot to the west of the lot in Case 199. Mr. Slavin answered that they were supposed to bring in a notarized statement, but Mr. Yzaguirre was called out of town on an emergency. - 4 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 14, 1986 Mr. Fauser pointed out that a motion was made by the Board that Mr. Yzaguirre had to have some written information or a notarized affidavit. It was a requirement made by the Board. Mr. Slavin reiterated that Mr. Yzaguirre had to leave town on an emergency. Mr. Fauser brought out the fact that he had one month to do this. Mr. Slavin did not know how busy Mr. Yzaguirre was but said the Board could only deal with what was in front of them at the moment. Mr. Slavin asked if Mr. Fauser felt it would not be fair to all parties to say one way "Yes" or one way "No" and that they should continue the postponement. Mr. Fauser replied that he could only say that was the Board's motion, and it was passed. According to what Mr. Fauser was broaching, Mr. Slavin remarked that then, nothing equitable could be decided. Mr. Fauser just wanted to remind the Board of the motion. Mr. Gordon and Mr. Slavin informed him that they had the minutes, and he (Fauser) was quoting from the minutes. Joseph R. Molina, 811 S. W. 6th Avenue, recalled that last month he stated this was a zoning matter, not a variance case. He looked in the County Law Library for information regarding such cases of hardship and found it in a city of Miami case. Mr. Slavin interrupted to say the Minutes of March 10, 1986 showed that Mr. Molina had said this was an area of density. He emphasized that the Board was only concerned with the property per se which was originally platted as a 50 foot lot and the law was changed to 60 feet. Anything beyond that had no bearing. Mr. Molina stated that he was speaking exactly in reference to the 50 feet as it relates to the 60 feet. Chairman Thompson informed Mr. Molina that the Board has the authority to grant a variance whether it is 25, 50, or 40 feet. That is the purpose of the Board, and the Board has the power to grant variances. Chairman Thompson stated that this is a hardship case. This land was platted for 50 feet many years ago and has been changed since that time. The Board is 100% right in making judgment on that property. Mr. Molina agreed but said it was adjudicated by the Board in Case #s 99 and 100 that the variance would be granted on the 50 foot lot. Mr. Slavin disagreed, emphasizing that nothing was adjudicated. Mr. Molina continued that the two - 5 - ~ .."", MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 14, 1986 lots are 50 foot lots, back to back. When they purchased the lots, the owners had prior knowledge of the fact they were 50 foot lots, and they bought them. Now they are selling to a builder who wants to build on 50 foot lots. Chairman Thompson interjected that all variances are placed on the property and not on the owner. The property can change hands every day, but the variance will be on the property. Mr. Molina understood that. If the owners bought the property and wanted to sell it the next day, Chairman Thompson said that was fine as far as the Board was concerned. It would not make any difference. If the Board wanted to do it that way, Mr. Molina said that was their business, but he had cases to prove otherwise. If he could not present them to the Board, there was nothing he could do. He was trying to prevent any possible appeal of the case anywhere else, which he warned the Board might take place. Chairman Thompson responded that was highly possible in all of the cases, but the Board has the right to grant variances on the size of a property, and there was no sense in going into a long drawn out case to say the Board does not have that right. Mr. Molina offered to present the case for the Board's review, but said if they did not want him to, he would not fight about it. Chairman Thompson wanted everyone to understand that one of the functions of the Board is to grant a variance where the City has made changes to upgrade property. The Board also cannot deny a person the use of his property. If the Members want to go farther, Chairman Thompson said they look into all of the things they see and check out the things Mr. Molina probably checked out to see whether there is a hardship and whether it was placed on the property by the City. He stated that the City placed a hardship on the property. Although it would not determine his vote one way or the other, Chairman Thompson said the City created a hardship by upgrading the property from 50 feet to 60 feet. Mr. Molina said there was good reason for it. Chairman Thompson said they are allover the City. There are many cases where the property is only 25 feet. This is ten feet less than it should be, but Chairman Thompson pointed out that this person can meet all requirements, and there is no need to deny the person his request to build on the property. Legally, the Board cannot do it. Mr. Molina argued that the case where they are allowing it for a hardship did not apply here and should not be allowed. - 6 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 14, 1986 What they were allowing the variance for should be an amend- ment to the Zoning Code. Mr. Slavin exclaimed that the Board has nothing to do with the zoning Code. Mr. Molina said the Board was taking on that jurisdiction. Chairman Thompson said the Board has laws that are made by the Building Depart- ment and Councilmen together, and they abide by them. There was more argument. Mr. Molina said the Board was really telling this man to find himself more property that is available. Mr. Slavin thought the issue should be dropped because they heard at the last meeting that no property is available. Mr. Molina informed him that property is available on both sides of the lot. Chairman Thompson said the Board just wanted to hear the case that was before it. Daniel Boyar, 712 S. W. 3rd Avenue, expressed that when he looked over the minutes of the last meeting, there seemed to be a lot of conjecture and confusion about this issue, and it seemed difficult to resolve. He felt the Board had to consider the residents in the area. A corner of the neighbor- hood was involved, and Mr. Boyar said it is not really known what the future of that particular area will be. If the variance is granted, substandard houses will be built, and they really do not know who they will be built for. They were talking about square footage reduced by about 20% (the total lot size for each of the lots). Mr. Boyar thought that was significant and could set a precedent for other lots in the area. He thought the residents of Lake Boynton Estates would like to see the neighborhood have more conti- nuity to it than to have someone rush in and build something real quick without any careful thought. There was no need to develop the land instantaneously. Mr. Boyar pointed out that the area is not organized: you do not know who owns what over there or where the roads are going to run. They will put something in there and have a shoddy little corner, and he did not think it was right. If more people were informed of what was going on, Mr. Boyar thought they would agree with him. If anyone would read the results of the last meeting, he said they would see this could not be resolved. Mr. Boyar told the Board there was no reason to build or go forth with this because it was not a careful or cautious thing to do, and he did like the idea of the City setting a precedent. Mr. Boyar told the Members that the owners adjacent to these lots do not want to sell their land for a good reason. - 7 - ., .."" MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 14, 1986 Presumably, they do not want anything built there. Maybe when they are ready to sell, the area can be built in a more thoughtful manner. For the record, Chairman Thompson asked if it was true that the land would meet all setbacks for the proposed building and would be the same for the entire neighborhood. Mr. Keehr confirmed that was true. Chairman Thompson's point was that this gentleman would meet all setbacks, and that included the house and square footage in the house. He felt there was no reason to deny any person, just based on that reason. Cases come before the Board month after month, and people say to those persons that they do not want them to build on that small a lot, but they meet all of the requirements of the City. Chairman Thompson said there possibly is not a community in the State of Florida nor any other State where all lots are the same size. There has to be a minimum, and this meets it. Even if the Members differ one way or the other, Chairman Thompson stressed that it would be unjust to the owner of the property to think in terms of denying a person the use of his property. He emphasized that the applicant would meet all of the Code. What Mr. Boyar did not like about it was the fact they would have houses squeezed in. The area is not fully planned, and they do not know where the roads will run. Mr. Boyar thought it would endanger the residents in terms of the overall value in the community. The buyers were not cautious when they bought the land, which is unfortunate, but the Board had to think of all of the people that live 'in the area and how they will be affected. The houses there are worth about $60,000 on the average: these houses will be worth considerably less, and Mr. Boyar thought other builders would come in. Chairman Thompson informed Mr. Boyar that the Board bases each case on its own merit. It was not meeting this Board's Code but the City's Building Code in terms of everything. Mr. Boyar argued that there are a lot of little lots in Lake Boynton Estates, and this would also allow that type of building to occur on the other little lots. In areas that require a front footage of 75 feet, Chairman Thompson said you have the same thing happening. Mr. Boyar guessed he came from the good side of Lake Boynton Estates where the houses are kept up well and are nice to look at. He worries about what the northwest side of Lake Boynton Estates will look like. - 8 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 14, 1986 Chairman Thompson asked if anyone else wished to speak against the granting of a variance. There was no response. There was only one communication, and Secretary Gordon read that Charles Guzzo, 132 Leisureville Blvd., was against any change in the present zoning law. Mr. Slavin could not follow a lot of things. If they would look at the minutes of March 10, 1986 and hear the discus- sions, he did not know if the house would be substandard or not, but it would meet all of the requirements. When he originally looked at the property, he saw some 50 foot lots with homes on them. For the sake of argument, Mr. Slavin said no land can be bought by these people. If developers build around them, and they have a 50 foot strip going back two blocks, he wondered what they would have, In Mr. Slavin's opinion, a developed piece of property with a home is more beneficial to the neighborhood than an empty lot that would become a garbage dump. Mr. Uleck could see granting the variance if the lot was landlocked between two buildings but when he saw vacant property adjacent to this, he could not see it. This gentleman bought the property in 1985 without even inquiring. Chairman Thompson told Mr. Uleck he was overlooking the fact that the variance is on the property and not on the owner. He did not care if 30,000 bought it after this or if the owner would sell it tomorrow. This Board had no right to say, "You're going to sell it. I can't give you a variance." They can't do that. The owner owns the land now. Chairman Thompson did not care what they would build next door because the variance would be on the property only. The owner bought property that needs a variance. Mr. Mearns questioned whether the owner created his own hard- ship. Chairman Thompson answered, "No," and added that the City created the hardship when they went from 50 feet to 60 feet. If the variance is on the property, Mrs. Artis asked if the variance would be transferred to the new owner. If a vari- ance is granted on the property, Chairman Thompson replied that it will stay on the property. He informed Mrs. Artis that the new owner would automatically get the variance. The variance would stay on the property unless there were more changes by the City government. Mr. Mearns asked if the owners brought in, and the Board received, the notarized statement that they could not get any - 9 - .., .... MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 14, 1986 additional property. Mr. Slavin understood that the man that was supposed to get the statement was out of town on an emergency. Mr. Mearns commented that could be very con- venient. Mr. Slavin did not deny that. Mr. Mearns also thought the Members should be realistic. Mr. Slavin reminded Mr. Mearns that he heard the owners state tonight that they could not get any additional property. There was some arguing. Chairman Thompson was not present at the last meeting but had he been there, he would have spoken to the City Attorney, or he would not have placed a stipulation or said a paper of any kind was needed that said a person made an attempt to buy. He has sat on the Board for over ten years and told the Members they placed a hardship on a person when they asked him to purchase property. The person could simply have said he could not afford it, and it would have taken care of all of that. Chairman Thompson told the Members they cannot place a hardship on a person by making him buy a piece of property. Vice Chairman Arnpol informed Chairman Thompson that he was the Acting Chairman at the time. Being a Notary Public, he insisted on a notarized statement from the owner of the property, but he noticed the notarized statement was not here. The one thing about the whole case that troubled Chairman Thompson more than anything else was what the owner said and what Mr. Slavin said relative to the notarized paper. Mr. Slavin said it was in the minutes. He did not know the business acumen of the clients. At no time have they been represented by legal counselor by a real estate person. The same facts that pertained to this case pertained to Case 100, and Mr. Slavin asked if both cases could be incorporated into one motion. As they started out with Case 99, Chairman Thompson thought it would be best not to combine them. Unless someone could clear it up or clear the Board of a doing that had been done, Chairman Thompson wanted a stipu- lation put on it until he could get a reply from the City Attorney as to the absence of the affidavit from the person trying to buy a piece of property, because it was in the minutes. In view of the fact that Chairman Thompson wanted the City Attorney to rule on this and wanted a stipulation, Mr. Slavin did not think the Board could make a motion one way or the other. - 10 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 14, 1986 Mr. Slavin moved to postpone the case until such time as the City Attorney ruled on it because whatever the Board might do could be wrong. The motion died for lack of a second. Chairman Thompson thought the Board's intentions were good, but after some discussion, he explained his reasoning was that the Board overstepped when, in the minutes, they asked for the paper. He truly felt it was unnecessary. That being the case, Mr. Slavin stated the Board could vote the way it felt it should, taking into consideration Chairman Thompson's statement that the Board overstepped its bounds. Mr. Mearns commented that was only Chairman Thompson's opinion. Mr. Uleck pointed out that the Board had the power to grant or not grant a variance. Vice Chairman Ampol reiterated that being a Notary Public, he had insisted on a notarized paper and it was not here. Chairman Thompson's question was not whether the paper was notarized or not. He simply said he did not feel it was necessary for the parties to inquire whether they could buy additional property or not. It has never been done before. The Board has never asked people to get signed statements that they tried to buy additional property on either side. Now that it is on record that the Board said that, to Chairman Thompson it created a problem. Mr. Uleck referred to the lady that owns the 50 foot lots and asked whether a new owner could build on them if she sold her lots. Mr. Keehr informed him that the owner would have to come back to the Board. Since it had been a period of over two months, the Chairman asked for a motion and reminded the Members that the Board usually does not table things. Mr. Slavin moved to grant the variance in Case 199 for the following reasons: 1. On page 13, the minutes of March 10, 1986 show that Mrs. Scarboro made a statement before the Board that she will not sell any of her property. 2. The Board heard the applicants state that the people on the other side of them refused to sell property. 3. Vice Chairman Ampol felt they should get a notarized statement. Mr. Slavin said perhaps Mr. Ampol was right, over zealous, or protecting the people concerned, but they were not talking about people now but were talking about the property in question, which is at 840 West Ocean Avenue. - 11 - ,., ...., MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 14, 1986 3. In view of what they heard, the hardship was placed on the property by the City when it changed its Zoning Codes. The zoning regulations are not within the Board's control and not the Board's concern. Secretary Gordon seconded the motion. A roll call vote on the motion was taken by Mrs. Ramseyer, as follows: Secretary Gordon Mr. Slavin Mrs. Artis Mr. Mearns Mr. Uleck Vice Chairman Ampol Chairman Thompson Yes Yes No No No No Aye The motion was DENIED by a vote of 3-4. Chairman Thompson informed Mr. Villafane that the request was DENIED. Case '100 Applicant: Owner: Legal Description: Sharon C. Yzaguirre Manual R. Sabugo Request: Lot 22, Block 58A, LAKE BOYNTON ESTATES, PLAT 4-A, recorded in Plat Book 14, page 69, Palm Beach County Records Relief from R-lA zoning requirement of 60 ft. lot frontage to be reduced to 50 ft. lot frontage. Relief from 7,500 sq. foot lot area to be reduced to 6,000 sq. foot lot area for construction of single family residence 841 S. W. 1st Court Address: Secretary Gordon read the application and the answers to the six questions in paragraph 5. He advised that this case had the same affidavit that Case 99 had. There was discussion among the Members as to whether the minutes of March 10, 1986 stated that a notarized statement was required for this case. Mr. Villafane and Mr. Sabugo again came forward, and Mr. Villafane asked if the Board was also going to deny the variance on this lot because by the Board denying the variance on the other lot, the land is now landlocked. He asked what the owners would do, since they did not create the hardship and the City created it for the land. - 12 - i MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 14, 1986 Mr. Villafane said he and Mr. Sabugo pay taxes and are being denied the use of their land, although other lots in there are platted as 50 foot lots. He referred to Mr. Uleck's statement that a person owning property does not need a variance but if the person sells the property, the buyer would have to approach the Board for a variance. Mr. Villafane questioned whether they would also be denied a variance due to the fact that he was denied one or if it was a prejudicial vote. Chairman Thompson answered that the Board's decisions are based on each case. Mr. Villafane stated that here was another 50x120 foot lot with the same hardship. Mr. Sabugo cannot afford to buy any other land because he does not have the money and his resources are limited. Mr. Villafane asked if Mr. Sabugo would be denied because it is also a 50 foot lot. If the lot is sold, and the buyer approaches the Board for a variance, he wondered if that would also be denied due to the fact he was denied the right to build on his 50 foot lot. Mr. Villafane told the Board another hardship was created which could border on discrimination. He thought more ques- tions had arisen that needed to be answered when it was denied. Mr. Villafane continued that more land is in there, and they are building on 50 foot lots right now. He appealed to the Board not to close their eyes and let it be forgotten that these lots have been platted by the City, and there are more lots which will have to come back before the Board for a variance. Mr. Villafane asked the Board to reconsider what they just did because his lot is not the only 50 foot lot. He questioned whether he was being discriminated against. Mr. Villafane wondered if it was due to his ignorance, and he alluded to one of the Members saying he had to bring a notarized statement. He reminded the Board that they heard a person say they would not sell their lots, reiterated that he is landlocked, and repeated prior statements. Mr. Villafane thought it was more than just a simple question of denial. Money has been spent. The question had come up about what kind of building there would be, and Mr. Villafane recalled that the Board said it would have to meet the standards of the City. A gentleman said the houses there are in the $60,000 bracket. Mr. Villafane said maybe the house they would build would be much more expensive than a $60,000 home. He commented that it was a very delicate question. - 13 - ~ ~ MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 14, 1986 As his request was denied, Mr. Villafane felt Mr. Sabugo's request would also be denied because the Board could not deny one request and grant the other request on the same identical piece of land in the same identical place. He emphasized that the Board could not deny on the basis of discrimination or prejudice and repeated that it had to be reconsidered. When he purchased the land, Mr. Uleck told Mr. Villafane he should have inquired. Mrs. Scarboro has owned her lots for many years and could build on them, but if she sells to a builder, the builder will have to do what Mr. Villafane was doing. Chairman Thompson interrupted to say Mr. Uleck's point was out of order because the variance is on the property only. The Board does not care about who owned the property before or who owns it later. Chairman Thompson did not want the Board to go on record saying they are voting on ownership. Chairman Thompson told the Members to keep that in mind. The Members have been to workshops, and Chairman Thompson exclaimed that the Board cannot deny a person the use of his property. Legally, they cannot, and he did not want to put the City or Board in that position because he pays enough taxes in Boynton Beach. Mr. Uleck referred to a person buying property without investigating. Chairman Thompson argued that he does not have to investigate it. Mr. Uleck said the property is ten feet short, and the owner is asking for a variance. Chairman Thompson reiterated that the variance is not on the owner but on the property. Vice Chairman Ampol thought Mr. Villafane made a very good appeal and said the Board would like to rule with the heart, but they have to stick with the City Code. Mr. Slavin thought the record spoke for Case #100 as it did for Case '99. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of granting the variance. There was no response. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone wished to speak against the granting of the variance. Joseph R. Molina, 811 S. W. 6th Avenue, called attention to Chairman Thompson's statement about paying taxes and said everyone was concerned about the taxes they pay. He said nothing in the area was worth $60,000 because the homes start at $69,000 and go up from there. - 14 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 14, 1986 When he said that, Chairman Thompson simply said taxes. He was sure anything built on the property or on any property in Boynton would cost $60,000 plus. Mr. Molina said a self-imposed, self-acquired hardship such as purchasing property under existing zoning and then apply- ing for a variance is not the kind of hardship on which a variance should be granted. AS used in the City Charter and as contemplated in this sense, the authorities seem uniform on the proposition that the difficulties of hardships relied on must be unique to the parcel involved in the application for the variance. They must be peculiar to that particular property and not general in character, since difficulties or hardships shared with others in the area go to the reason- ableness of the zoning generally and will not support a variance if the hardship is one which is common to the area and remedy is to seek a change of the zoning for the neighbor- hood rather than to seek a change through a variance for the individual owner. Mr. Molina said it was not true that just because there are 50 foot lots around there, they can build on them. He read that some exceptional and undue hardships for the individual landowner, unique to that parcel of property and not shared by the property owner in the area, is an essential prerequi- site for granting such a variance. If he was quoting what the Board should and should not do, Chairman Thompson told Mr. Molina he was out of order. Mr. Molina was making the statement in pure fact that there was no real hardship here. Chairman Thompson told Mr. Molina he could say that, but pointed out that he was quoting some- thing. Mr. Molina argued that it was within his right to do so and said this case would set a precedent that anyone, builder or otherwise, who wants to buy a 50 foot lot and come to the Board to build on it can do so. He thought it was wrong and should be denied. Chairman Thompson retorted that it was a matter of opinion. Bob Fauser, 125 S. E. 6th Avenue, believed Mr. Molina was quoting from an article he quoted from in November, 1985, on a similar case (when Mr. Brown was purchasing property with a 50 foot frontage). It comes from Florida's zoning and Land Use Planning. Mr. Fauser was not trying to be diffi- cult but was trying to make the point that it is Florida case law that when cases like this have been appealed to State Courts, the State Courts have ruled in these instances. If he was going to say that should set a precedent, Chairman - 15 - ..... .... MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 14, 1986 Thompson cautioned Mr. Fauser that maybe he should not say it. Mr. Fauser reminded Chairman Thompson that he read this same thing in 1985 and emphasized that it was Florida law. Mr. Fauser quoted that one circumstance that must be avoided is getting in the position of a self created hardship. Self created hardship cannot constitute the basis for a variance, and Mr. Fauser said it listed various cases. His point was that purchase for development with the knowledge that the present zoning prohibits the planned use was precisely the factual context that Courts will deem to be a self created hardship. Mr. Fauser alluded to the Brown case and then emphasized that in this case, Mr. Yzaguirre said he cannot purchase land west of this parcel that he wants to get the variance on. Mr. Fauser began to refer to a September, 1983 case when Mr. Slavin interrupted to ask what 1983 had to do with 1986. ~r. Fauser replied that it was a similar case and again wished to make the point that Mr. Brown purchased Lot 45 in Lake Addition of Boynton Estates, which was a 50 foot lot, and Mr. Brown said to the Board that night, "I can't purchase Lot 44 next door because I can't afford it." He was given the variance. In February of 1984, Mr. Brown purchased the two side lots (Lots 43 and 44) after telling the Board he could not purchase them, so Mr. Fauser emphati- cally said this is something that people have done. Chairman Thompson advised that Mr. Brown had the legal right to do that and asked, "Who knows what happened between that time?" He informed Mr. Fauser that the Board had a workshop with probably the best in the State of Florida because he teaches those who write the Codes. There was arguing. Once again Chairman Thompson said Mr. Fauser was quoting something the Board had no knowledge of and that he quoted something that could have changed from the time of the original pur- chase. Mr. Fauser made his point and was not going to argue. Daniel Boyar, 712 S. W. 3rd Avenue, Lake Boynton Estates, said the purpose of the zoning was for larger 75x100 square foot lots in order to help lower density, not increase it. Chairman Thompson did not understand Mr. Boyar's point and informed him that this Board does not deal with zoning. Other Members on the Board agreed with Chairman Thompson. Mr. Boyar said the owner picked up the property at a bargain price. Chairman Thompson did not think that should come before the Board and requested Mr. Boyar to direct his comments to the things the Board was concerned with. - 16 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 14, 1986 If the variance is achieved, Mr. Boyar thought the owner would make out all right. Building on smaller lots will reduce the value of the houses in that area, and he said the Members had to consider all of the residents there that will be stuck with the Board's decision. Mr. Boyar felt maybe all of the possibilities had not been examined. He also thought it would set a precedent for all lots to be built with those specifications. Mr. Boyar wondered if anyone inquired as to whether any of the neighbors were interested in buying that land. Chairman Thompson told Mr. Boyar a letter was sent out to all of those within 400 feet of the area, and that is all that is done. The Board does not care if anyone is inter- ested in buying the property or who buys it. Mr. Boyar wondered why they should rush into this and make a decision. He thought it would be better if they would let it ride, as maybe some careful, thoughtful solution could be arrived at, and told the Members not to make a mistake because they would have to live with it, along with the people in the area and him. Chairman Thompson asked Mr. Boyar what the frontage of his lot is. Mr. Boyar believed it was 60 feet but said he could not really tell him. He added that it is a large lot. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone else wished to speak. There was no response. There was one communication, which Secretary Gordon read. Mr. Charles Guzzo, 132 Leisureville Boulevard, wrote that he was against any changes in the present zoning law. Secretary Gordon questioned whether Case 100 required a notarized statement. Vice Chairman Ampol asked if the minutes of March 10 had mentioned a case number. Mrs. Artis replied that both case numbers were mentioned together. Mr. Slavin drew the Chairman's attention to page 9 of the minutes of March 10, 1986. Mrs. Artis asked what determines "landlocked". Chairman Thompson answered that there is no additional property to be bought. There could be property that is not for sale or available. Mr. Keehr agreed that would be the answer. As a Board, Mr. Mearns asked if they did not have an obliga- tion to see that if other property is available that it be acquired in order to make a conforming property. Chairman Thompson stated his personal answer would be "NoR. In other - 17 - ~ ~ MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 14, 1986 words, the Board votes on what is before them. If a person owns three contiguous lots, Mr. Keehr said you can make them conform by dividing them up. Chairman Thompson's argument was if a person does not own that property, how could someone suggest that he buy it because the person might not have any money. Even if the person had the money, he might not want to spend it for any more property. If he bought two lots after the zoning had been changed, Mr. Uleck said it would be compulsory for him to build one house on the two lots, and he could not ask for a variance on one 50 foot lot because he owns the other lot. Mr. Keehr agreed that he could not ask for relief because he would have no hardship. Mr. Slavin moved to grant the variance for Case 100 on the property located at 841 S. W. 1st Court for the following reasons: 1. It has been established that the property is landlocked. 2. The Board has heard statements from the owner, and he imagined if this was a Court of law and the owner was sworn in, the statement would still be that the property is land- locked. The owner cannot buy any property to the east or to the west. 3. The hardship was not self-imposed. Vice Chairman Ampol seconded the motion because he would rather see a house there than a lot of garbage on an empty lot. A roll call vote on the motion 'was taken by Mrs. Ramseyer, as follows: Mr. Slavin Mrs. Artis Mr. Mearns Mr. Uleck Vice Chairman Ampol Chairman Thompson Secretary Gordon Aye No No No Yes Aye Aye The vote was 4-3. Chairman Thompson advised that the request was DENIED by three votes. The Board took a break at 8:35 P. M. The meeting resumed at 8:42 P. M. - 18 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 14, 1986 OTHER BUSINESS organizational Meeting for 1986 Chairman Thompson thought everyone received a letter from Mayor Cassandra stating the terms of each person. Mr. Slavin moved that the present slate of officers continue for the year 1986, seconded by Mrs. Artis. Chairman Thompson thought the offices should be taken separately. Mr. Slavin moved that Vernon Thompson, Jr. be reelected to the office of Chairman. As there were no other nominations, Vice Chairman Ampol moved that the nominations be closed, seconded by Mrs. Artis. Mr. Slavin moved that Vice Chairman Ampol continue for the year 1986. There were no other nominations. Mr. Slavin nominated Secretary Gordon as Secretary for the year 1986. There were no other nominations. The Officers were reelected by acclamation. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting properly adjourned at 8:45 P. M. 3~~~7~ Recording Secretary (Two Tapes) - 19 - MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1986 AT 7:00 P. M. PRESENT Vernon Thompson, Jr., Chairman Robert Gordon, Secretary Lillian Artis George Mearns Paul Slavin Raymond Eney, Alternate Danny O'Brien, Alternate Edgar "Bud" Howell, Building Official ABSENT George Ampol, Vice Chairman (Excused) Ben Uleck (Excused) Chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:05 P. M., recognized the presence in the audience of Mayor Nick Cassandra, Vice Mayor Carl Zimmerman, and Bob Fauser, an interested citizen, and introduced the Members of the Board, Mr. Howell, and the Recording Secretary. Mr. O'Brien had not yet arrived, and Mr. Eney was requested to sit on the Board. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 As there were no corrections to the minutes, the minutes were approved as received. Chairman Thompson informed the audience that the Board did not have a meeting in October. ANNOUNCEMENTS None. OLD BUSINESS Case to be presented on 11/10/86 Case #105 Applicant/ Owner: Goldie Fisher Request: Relief from R-lA zoning requirement of 60 ft. minimum lot frontage to be reduced to 50 ft. lot frontage. Relief from 7,500 sq. ft. lot area, to be reduced to 6,625 sq. ft. lot area - 1 - ~ ..., MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 10, 1986 proposed Use: Construction of single family residence. Address: 731 N. E. 8th Avenue Legal Description: Lot 44, Block 4, LAKE ADDITION TO BOYNTON, recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 71, Palm Beach County Records Chairman Thompson pointed out to the audience that the Board does not make a majority vote. It takes five Members to approve any application, and three negative votes will disapprove it. Tonight they did not have a full Board, but six people would be voting. (Mr. O'Brien had not yet arrived. ) Chairman Thompson said this application had previously been before the Board. He said the Board bases its decisions upon six criteria and also upon what they see when they go out and look at the plot in question to find out whether the hardship that exists was caused by the city, County or State government in some way, or was self-imposed. Their decisions are also based on other things that are brought to their attention that perhaps they may have overlooked had they not had someone do some research for them. Chairman Thompson read the six criteria. Secretary Gordon read the application and the responses to the six questions in paragraph 5. Mrs. Goldie Fisher stated that she now lives at 138 N. E. 16th Avenue, a house that she sold, but the purchasers have permitted her to stay there until she can get a place built. She, of course, thought she would get the variance earlier, but the case was postponed. Jim Cassidy, Mrs. Fisher's son, said he had lived at 138 N. E. 16th Avenue but is now residing in Miami. He understood the Board to mention that some undue hardships would be considered. When Mrs. Fisher bought the lot, Mr. Cassidy said she was like some people who do not understand all of the ins and outs of what you are supposed to do and not supposed to do and even what a variance is. At the time she bought the lot, Mrs. Fisher was not aware that she would be needing something like that. Of course, she found out very abruptly that she did need a variance. - 2 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 10, 1986 In the meantime, Mrs. Fisher had gone through a great deal of expense. She had sold the existing home that she had, paid an Architect for plans, had the soil tested, got involved with a contract with piling and structural engineer- ing report, had a survey report, and paid the filing fee, which Mr. Cassidy understood should not have been paid because a variance had not been issued. Mr. Cassidy asked the Members to consider the situation Mrs. Fisher was in, along with the other things that they must consider in the city's interest. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of granting the variance. There was no response. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone wished to speak against the grant- ing of a variance. Harold Werger, 1306 N. W. 7th Street, got the notification and request for a variance and checked with the City Clerk. The City Clerk advised him that there is vacant land on either side of this property. Some years ago, Mr. Werger said the City Council passed an Ordinance that made it a minimum of 60 feet frontage before a lot could be built on. Otherwise, Laurel Hills and all of Boynton would have been flooded with houses on 50 foot lots, and that would have reduced the property values tremendously. Granted, you can put a house on a 50 foot lot with the required square footage, but Mr. Werger asked the Members to remember that if they drive through Boynton, there are two or three cars in front of every house. More cars are parked on the driveways, swales, and streets, which makes it very hazardous, and it does not look very well for the neighbor- hood. Mr. Werger said that is something that will happen on a 50 foot lot because there is not adequate room to park the necessary cars that everybody tends to own today. In view of the fact that there is vacant land on either side of Mrs. Fisher's property, Mr. Werger thought Mrs. Fisher should do just like everybody else has done when they bought. He had to buy extra land in order to build his house and meet the Ordinance. Mr. Werger did not think there should be a variance granted in view of the fact that there is vacant land on either side to be purchased. Mr. Slavin asked Mr. Werger when he built his house. Mr. Werger answered, "Two years ago," and confirmed it was in 1984. - 3 - -- .... MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 10, 1986 No one else wished to speak against the granting of the variance. Mr. Cassidy wished to speak. Chairman Thompson replied that he could, if what he had to say would be in addition to what he had said or was something different, but if the opposition wished to speak, he would grant him the same time. Mr. Cassidy understood Mr. Werger's concern about the value of the property going down, particularly if he made a major investment in the area. If Mr. Werger would look at the preliminary plans the Architect had drawn of the house, Mr. Cassidy did not think there would be any way Mr. Werger or the Board could construe it other than an improvement in the property. Mr. Cassidy said the value of the home will be in keeping with what is around there and a considerable improvement in terms of value. Mrs. Fisher is building the home to live in. It is not something she is doing to make a "quick buck". Everything is being done right as to what they are putting into the home, as well as the parking space, driving space, two car garage, and security system. Mr. Cassidy thought Mr. Werger would find it will be an improvement to the neighborhood and not something that will be an eye sore or something that will run down the neighborhood. If the Board had concerns about it, he said he would be happy to share the plans with the Board. Mr. Gordon read the following communications: 1. C. Stanley and Erna Y. Weaver, 322 S. W. 8th Avenue, by letter dated October 29th, wrote that granting the request, and others like it, would tend to continue the downgrading of the neighborhood. This area, with good planning and more practical zoning, could be a tremendous asset to the whole city. 2. By letter dated October 30, Daniel E. Magnus and Frances E. Magnus requested the Board to deny the request for variance (1) because the request is in direct violation of the established ordinances in the City: (2) by per- mitting the variance, the entire area will be subject to increased density in housing, and the overall result will be a degradation of the living environment and a decline in property values of existing homeowners: and (3) the Board will be setting a precedent. - 4 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 10, 1986 3. On a copy of the Notice of Hearing, M. J. Miler, #410 Harbour Inlet Club, wrote, "Yes, anything for improving of the area." Chairman Thompson recognized the presence of Danny O'Brien at 7:20 P. M. Chairman Thompson commented that he found after going all over the city many times since the upgrading of the city Codes, about 1/2 of the city is in violation. Mr. Howell thought 1/2 might be a little high. Chairman Thompson believed Mr. Howell would find all properties from Boynton Beach Boulevard to the north border line have 50 feet front footage or 25 feet. You run into the same problem to the west. There are few lots in the city of Boynton Beach that have frontage which meets today's Code. Mr. Howell thought the Council, in their wisdom, was trying to be f~ir. He felt they realized they had many 50 foot platted lots in the city, and that was why the ordinance was written like it was. If land was available, it gave a person a chance to comply. Mr. Howell thought it was probably the Council's wish that if land was there, the person would exhaust those efforts to try and get that property to comply with the zoning. He added that maybe it was a hardship on the Board to decide whether that person has the ability but, in all fairness, he thought it was something they had to weigh in their own minds. Chairman Thompson agreed it was to upgrade the City. Many people were able to purchase land next door to them, but then there were cases like the one before them tonight where there had been land, but no purchase had been made by either party on either side. Mr. Slavin saw the property for the second time this morning. and was talking to Mrs. George E. Nicholar, who lives at 721 N. E. 8th Avenue. Mrs. Nicholar was rather vehement in what had taken place when the property was owned by the Robert P. Brown family. It seemed that there was a strip of land where there was one lot with 100 feet that was cut in half. Part of it was sold to somebody, who immediately went ahead and sunk pilings in, and applied for a variance. Mr. Slavin did not know what happened, but he was told that the title reverted back to the Brown family. Mr. Slavin said to the east of this lot is a vacant lot, and then there are two lots on the northwest corner of N. E. 7th - 5 - ~ .." MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 10, 1986 Street and N. E. 8th Avenue, which do not affect the lot in question. Lot 43 has pilings on it, a lot of weeds, and is overgrown. Nothing is being done there. It looks like some work was done on Lot 44. It is covered with a hay like substance. Lot 45 is growing wild. Mr. Slavin did not know whether an effort was made by Mrs. Fisher to secure any land over there. For the sake of argu- ment, if Mrs. Fisher wants to buy 10 or 20 feet, he wondered what would become of Lot 45. Again, Mr. Slavin said they have a blight in the area. Mr. Slavin referred to minutes of what took place before the Board a year ago with the Brown family, where they were pass- ing title back and forth. Somebody applied for a variance. That was subsequently found out, and Ms. Beverly Bottosto applied for, and received, a variance on Lot 43 on January 9, 1984. Ms. Bottosto never closed on the lot, and it remained in the ownership of a Mr. Fleming. Mr. Slavin did not know who Mr. Fleming was. The contract for sale to Mrs. Fisher was signed by Robert Brown. Mr. Slavin remarked that again, the Board had this confusion. Mr. Slavin continued by saying Mrs. Fisher, in good faith, bought a piece of property to build a house on. He did not know whether Mr. Brown smooth talked her or not, but she bought into a hardship. The property was originally platted as 50 feet. The previous City Council, in upgrading the City, made it a 60 foot frontage. According to the survey, the property is 105 feet in depth. Mr. Slavin asked if Mr. Howell had seen the plans for the building. Mr. Howell had not. Mr. Slavin asked if the property would support a house that size. Mr. Howell answered affirmatively and added that they could meet set- backs. Mr. Slavin thought they should adjudicate this tonight, and he called attention to the past records and minutes they had to go by. He could appreciate people who bought other land and met the Code. Maybe they would say Mrs. Fisher should buy more land, but Mr. Slavin pointed out that the price may be prohibitive, and he wondered where the Board would go from there. When this first came before the Board, Chairman Thompson recalled it was "quite sticky". originally, there were three lots. Part of it was sold off. At that time, the owner owned all three. There is a City Code that says if you own - 6 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 10, 1986 exactly three lots, you can divide them up and make two lots. At that particular time, one lot (Lot 44) was sold. Mr. Slavin confirmed, from the Building Department's Fact Sheet, that on January 9, 1984, a variance was given on Lot 43. Chairman Thompson guessed they were faced with the same problem they were faced with one year ago. After discussion, Mr. Slavin said Robert P. Brown sold the property to Mrs. Fisher. It was the same "badminton game". When it came to selling the property, Mr. Brown came up as the owner. Mr. Slavin read a letter dated June 27, 1986 from Flagler Title Company, saying a Corrected Warranty Deed would be re-recorded to correct the buyer's name to read "Goldie Fisher." He made further comments. It seemed to Chairman Thompson that it was a problem the Board had to deal with again, one way or the other, and they had no other choice than to deal with it. Mrs. Artis asked who Lots 43 and 45 belong to. Mr. Eney had a sheet that indicated that Santina Sally DuBois bought Lot 43 in March of 1984, and Mr. Brown conveyed Lot 45 to his mother (Patricia Brown). In granting a variance to Mrs. Fisher, he felt it would put Mrs. DuBois and Mr. Brown's mother in the same position as Mrs. Fisher. Mr. Howell advised that would have been submitted. It appeared to Mr. Eney that the other two lot owners were just waiting on the sidelines to see if Mrs. Fisher would get a variance. If so, they would have good cause to come in because their proper- ties are isolated. There was discussion as to whether the Brown family owned the property prior to the upgrading of the zoning Code, and whether the lots would be grandfathered in. Mr. Eney noted that Mr. Brown bought Lots 43 and 44 on the 27th of February, 1984 (Paragraph 14, Building Department Fact Sheet for Meet- ing of November 4, 1985 on property owned by Robert Brown). In March of 1984, Chairman Thompson said Mr. Brown sold Lot 43 to Mrs. DuBois. Paragraph #6 of the Fact Sheet showed that Mr. Brown sold his interest in Lot 45 to patricia M. Brown on the 4th of September, 1985, just a month or so before the Board of Adjustment meeting on November 4, 1985. Chairman Thompson recalled the question came up as to why Mr. Brown gave a quit-claim deed to sell the property. Mr. Eney observed that apparently the Board of Adjustment (BOA) determined at one time to give Lot 43 the variance - 7 - ~ ., MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 10, 1986 requested. Chairman Thompson confirmed that a variance was given on January 9, 1984, but they never closed on the property and it still remained in the ownership of Mr. Fleming. Mr. Howell reminded the Board that the variance stays with the lot, no matter who owns it. Chairman Thompson guessed they kept going back to Lots 43, 44 and 45 because they were tied in together when they first came before the Board. Mr. Howell informed Mrs. Artis that someone could build on Lot 43 if they met the setbacks. Mrs. Artis ascertained that Lot 45 could come before the Board, but not Lot 43. Mr. Howell pointed out that the Board was now faced with a little bit different situation, if they had three lots before, because they now had two lots. He thought they had some legalities here. Mr. Howell recalled that the Board's Attorney had advised them at one time. Chairman Thompson was sure the Recording Secretary had a copy of the Fact Sheet for the record and said it was in reference to all that the Board had been talking about. A copy of said Fact Sheet is attached to the original copy of these minutes as Addendum A. Mr. Slavin read a letter from Bert Keehr, Deputy Building Official, sent by certified mail on March 31, 1986 to Robert Peter Brown, that said it was his (Keehr's) opinion that Lot 44, "regardless of the owner, will not ever qualify for a variance in lot size. "A copy of this letter is attached to the original copy of these minutes as Addendum B. Mr. Slavin said the Warranty Deed dated June 6, 1986 reflected the sale of property by Robert P. Brown to Goldie Fisher. He brought out the fact that Mr. Brown knew what he was doing when he sold Mrs. Fisher Lot 44. Mr. Brown got out from under. Supposedly, there is no more land for him to build on and, unfortunately, Mrs. Fisher was in the middle of the whole situation. Mrs. Artis determined that legally, Mrs. Fisher's lot was landlocked because Lot 43 already has a variance, and Lot 45 is owned by another person who is not going to sell. Mr. Howell knew of nothing in that situation that would keep an owner from selling. In other words, if whoever got a variance on Lot 43 owned all three lots, he did not know of any way legally that the City would have anything to say as - 8 - ..:o! '5 ':'.1." MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 10, 1986 to whether he sold the lots or not. Mr. Howell was sure when Mr. Keehr saw the situation, he was probably trying to get Mr. Brown to divide that into two lots, which would have been ideal and would have been the wishes of the city fathers. Motion Mr. Gordon thought looking at the case a second time was enough. In his opinion, it was much nicer to look at a new home than a vacant lot which, as they have seen throughout Boynton Beach, turns into a city dump. Therefore, he moved to grant the variance, seconded by Mrs. Artis. A roll call vote on the motion was taken by Mrs. Ramseyer, and the motion carried 6-0. Discussion Chairman Thompson explained that he voted the way he did because he felt a hardship had been placed on the property. It was too bad, in this particular case, that Mr. Brown was "two or three steps ahead of the city." In doing this, Mr. Brown placed hardships on two pieces of property that you could either build on or let stay there and collect debris from the city. Chairman Thompson expressed that it was a sad case, and he explained. If the Board had turned this down, another year would have passed, and the property would be vacant and like it is now. Chairman Thompson felt it was too nice a piece of property to just sit and not be used. He hoped the design would enhance the beauty of the neighborhood. NEXT MEETING Chairman Thompson announced the next meeting will be on Monday, December 8, 1986. ADJOURNMEN'l' There being no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Gordon moved, seconded by Mr. Slavin, to adjourn, and the meeting properly adjourned at 7:53 P. M. !i1::::~eY:~~~ Recording Secretary V' (One Tape) - 9 - MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONFERENCE ROOM, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 AT 7:00 P. M. PRESENT Vernon Thompson, Jr., Chairman Robert Gordon, Secretary Lillian Artis Paul Slavin Ben Uleck Raymond Eney, Alternate Alan Newbold, Chief Plans Inspector ABSENT George Ampol, Vice Chairman (Excused) George Mearns (Excused) Danny O'Brien Chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:05 P. M., and introduced the Members of the Board, Mr. Newbold, and the Recording Secretary. MINUTES OF JULY 14, 1986 Mr. Slavin moved to accept the minutes as received, seconded by Mr. Eney. Motion carried 5-0. Secretary Gordon abstained from voting, as he was not present at the meeting of July 14. There was no meeting in August. ANNOUNCEMENTS None. COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Thompson said these would be saved for each case they are related to. OLD BUSINESS None. - 1 - ,.., ., MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 Applicant/ Owner: Vincent J. Gallo Request: Relief from Appendix A-Zoning, Sec. 5-D-2-a requirement of 60 ft. lot frontage to be reduced to 50 ft. lot frontage and relief from 7,500 sq. ft. lot area requirement to be reduced to 6,967 square foot lot area Proposed Use: Construct a single family dwelling Address: 1015 N. W. 7th Street Legal Description: Lot 102, LAUREL HILLS, THIRD ADDITION, recorded in Plat Book 23, Page 126, Palm Beach County Records Chairman Thompson read the six criteria the Board bases its decisions upon. They also base their decisions upon what they see when they go out and look at the plot in question to find out whether the hardship that exists was caused by the City, County or State government in some way, or was self-imposed. Chairman Thompson pointed out that this Board is not a majority Board. Tonight they did not have a full Board but only had six Members voting. Chairman Thompson advised that it would take five votes to pass the request, and any three negative votes out of the six would deny the reques~ Secretary Gordon read the application and the responses to the six questions in paragraph 5. Vincent J. Gallo, Sr., 3862 Edgar Avenue, made the applica- tion on behalf of his and his wife, Betty's ability to help their son, Vincent J. Gallo, Jr., build a single family residence. He did not know of anything he could say, other than what was on the application. Mr. Gallo had left a set of plans with the Building Depart- ment and said the home is a one story, three bedroom, two bath, single family residence with about 1,440 square feet of living area, a one car garage, laundry room, and screened porch. They stole the floor plan idea from Boynton Lakes North on North Congress Avenue. Mr. Gallo emphasized that the home will in no way detract from the residences in the immediate area. Numerous homes - 2 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 have been built on 50 foot lots that he was sure had not detracted from the value of other residences, and he expressed that the style and size of the home to be built here far exceeds the minimum standards under the Code. Mr. Gallo attempted to contact the present owners of the property on either side. One gentleman has owned his lot since way back when. From talking to the Building Depart- ment, it was Mr. Gallo's understanding that the person own- ing the lot since prior to the enactment of the present Ordinance would have to be granted a variance, should he decide to build a home on that lot. The lot to the other side is another 50 foot lot that was inherited by a male gentleman, whose father is now deceased. Mr. Gallo contacted the attorney representing the estate, who was out of Fort Lauderdale, and was told they had no intentions of selling the property and that some day down the roa~, they intend to build a residence on the lot. About three years ago, Mr. Gallo said the other gentleman said he would sell the lot, but he wanted $10,000 for it. If someone could build on it, as a realtor, he would say it was an equitable price, but the lot is not buildable. If the gentleman sells to someone else, they will have to come in and ask for a variance. Mr. Gallo said it was public record. He had a copy of the contract and a closing statement in his file and informed the Board that he paid $5,000 for the lot. He attempted to purchase the lots on either side. One person was not willing to sell, and the other one wanted twice the value of the lot. He also had a letter in his file from the Lambert Agency, who gave him an opinion on the value of the property. In the opinion of the Lambert Agency, as a non-conforming lot, as it stands now, Mr. Gallo said the lot he tried to purchase is not worth any more than what he and his wife paid for this lot. Mr. Gallo made an attempt to contact these people recently, but they would not indicate a willingness to sell. He made an offer to both people and asked them, if they were not willing to sell to him, if they would be willing to join in, put all three lots together, and make two 75 foot lots. Mr. Gallo would act as the agent and endeavor to sell all three lots as two, and they would have the pleasure of enjoying a fair market value of the property. Neither of them were willing to join in and do anything about it. - 3 - ,.., ., MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 Mr. Gallo did not think he was being unreasonable in asking what they were asking (to be able to enjoy the use of the property, as was originally intended, and to build a home on the lot). Chairman Thompson asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of granting the variance. There was no response. Mr. Slavin asked Mr. Gallo what the date of the letter of denial was. Mr. Gallo replied that it was dated February 22, 1983 and was from the Estate of Albert J. Baldwin, and on December 21, 1985, he attempted to recontact the Attorney. The Attorney was no longer handling the estate and had transferred his authority to an Attorney up north. Mr. Gallo attempted to contact the Attorney up north, and the Attorney never responded to his correspondence. He showed Mr. Slavin copies of the correspondence. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone wished to speak against the granting of a variance. Harold G. Werger, 1306 N. W. 7th Street, said when the Ordinance was put into effect, he went to City Hall to view other requested variances. They were always told that if you could buy land on either side of a 50 foot lot, that was their only alternative. As to Mr. Gallo saying $10,000 for the 50 foot lot was too high, Mr. Werger said he should check around. The lot across the street from the 100 foot lot was up for sale for $28,000. When he built on 7th Street, Mr. Werger was told he had to have the equivalent of the building lot, and he bought extra land in order to get the required footage and build. In today's prices, Mr. Werger stressed that $IO,OOO for that lot is not excessive. Mr. Werger owns Lots 97, 98, and 99. If Mr. Gallo gets a variance for this lot, he said he would come in for variances on the three SO foot lots and build houses on them. If Mr. Gallo gets a variance, Mr. Werger said he should be entitled to variances. He bought three lots and split them up into 75 foot lots, which the Code calls for. Mr. Werger referred to a case where a man received a variance to build a house, but the man never built. He sold the variance to a builder, which Mr. Werger said is wrong. Mr. Werger also alluded to Mr. Bob Brown being denied a variance on a SO foot lot. Mr. Werger thought this should be denied because he lives there and wants to maintain the-property values. If he - 4 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 could buy any lots around there for $IO,OOO, he thought it would be cheap. Mr. Werger paid a lot more for his. Michael L. Munro, 1021 N. W. 7th Street, owns Lots 104 and 105. The ordinance went into effect in 1978. Mr. Gallo bought this lot in 1980. He is a realtor, has been in business for many years, and knew at the time he bought it that he could not build on a 50 foot lot. Mr. Munro recalled that Mr. Gallo came before the Board for a variance in 1982 on the same piece of property, and it was denied. He remembered that Mr. Gallo said the lot to the north of him (Lot 103) was not for sale. Mr. Munro had contacted the Attorney handling the estate, who said the lot was for sale, but Mr. Gallo offered them $8,000 for the lot, and they wanted $9,000. Mr. Gallo felt it was too much. Mr. Munro said now Mr. Gallo is asking for another variance, and he was hearing conflicting stories. Mr. Gallo is saying with one breath that he wants to build a house for his son. Two minutes later, he was saying he was willing to buy the other two pieces of property, split them and sell them. Mr. Munro questioned whether Mr. Gallo wanted to build a house for his son or if he wanted to buy the property, split it, and make a profit. Mr. Munro pointed out that Mr. Gallo knew when he bought the property that he could not build on it and would have to come before the Board for a variance. If he can buy the other lot for $IO,OOO today, that would mean he would have a total of $ls,OOO. Mr. Munro thought $15,000 for a 100xl40 foot lot was a good price. Mr. Munro asked Mr. Gallo if he had Lot 103 surveyed on April 4th, when he had his lot surveyed. Mr. Gallo replied that he filed his application with a survey that was incorrect. Betty Boroni, City Clerk, called him. Mr. Gallo called the surveyor, who corrected the survey. He took it into City Ball the next day and filed the corrected, legal survey. Mr. Gallo never requested the survey on Lot 103. Mr. Munro knew a survey was done on both lots, apparently on the same day. Mr. Munro said that apparently the lot is for sale, meaning Mr. Gallo would pay $ls,OOO for the two lots. Therefore, he could see no reason why the Board should give Mr. Gallo a variance on a 50 foot lot. If they give Mr. Gallo a variance, - 5 - ,.., ., MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 they will also have to give the gentleman that owns Lot 103 a variance. Chairman Thompson interrupted to say each case is based on its own merit, and he explained. Mr. Munro said they will end up with more SO foot lots in Laurel Hills. 7th Court is full of 50 foot lots. He contended that Mr. Gallo knew what he was buying when he bought the lot. Mrs. Gallo interjected that she bought the lot. There was more discussion. Henry H. Bivins, Jr., 1022 N. W. 7th Street, lives to the east and north of the lot in question. He reiterated what Mr. Munro said and felt it was very detrimental to the area to have 50 foot lots there. Mr. Bivins referred to N. W. 7th Court and said the houses are small because they do not have that much area to build them on. Three homes will be built OP SO foot lots. This lot is between two other SO foot lots. Mr. Bivins said they know the one will be grand- fathered in, and the other man will have a problem because he will not be able to buy any land. That was his concern. If it would be one home, Mr. Bivins stated it would be a different story. Bob Fauser, 125 S. E. 6th Avenue, was involved in the Brown case on November II, 1985. When someone is applying for a variance, he asked if it did not have to be a unique hard- ship. If this problem is shared by other people in the same area, and there are other SO foot lots, Mr. Fauser asked if it was not supposed to be addressed by a zoning change rather than a variance request. He did not think it was supposed to be a unique hardship, just to Mr. Gallo, and not to other people in the same area. He understood other people had 50 foot lots in that area. Because the City has upgraded the Zoning Code, Chairman Thompson replied it is the purpose of this Board. He told Mr. Fauser he would find there are 25, 40, and SO foot lots throughout the City. This is not unique at all. There are more SO foot lots out there, and Chairman Thompson was sure they would come before the Board. Most subdivisions in the City have lots that are not up to Code right now. Chairman Thompson advised that hardships can develop in many ways, as the Board has found out in workshops. For example, there could be a hardship in terms of dollars to buy extra property if that was what Mr. Fauser had in mind. - 6 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 Mr. Fauser responded that Mr. Gallo is not alone in the area, and he understood from case law that it had to be a unique hardship. Chairman Thompson said if they went back now, they would be spot zoning. They would run into more problems than if they just tried to work out the ones that are in there. Chairman Thompson thought this was probably one of the only methods they had to work out the ones that are there. Some pass and some do not. Some people can combine lots one way or the other. No one else wished to speak against the granting of a variance. Mr. Uleck asked Mr. Gallo if he was still in the real estate business. Mr. Gallo answered affirmatively. Mr. Uleck asked him if he was not familiar with the zoning regulations when he purchased the land. Mr. Gallo replied that he was. Mr. Uleck questioned why he went ahead and bought this 50 foot lot when he knew the zoning was changed to 60 feet. Mr. Gallo bought the lot because some people in his office were going to purchase it, got into some financial trouble, and had to back out of the transaction or lose their deposit. He could not deny that he felt it was a good buy, stepped in, assumed their contract, paid them their deposit, and proceeded to purchase the lot. Mr. Gallo presented a letter to the Board, which had been directed to Mr. Munro, and said he offered to purchase the other lot for $8,000. He also had the letter which was written back to Mr. Munro, stating that a broker had offered to buy the lot for $8,000, and they refused to sell because they wanted $10,000. Mr. Gallo had contracts to show that he attempted to buy the property on either side of him from both people, to pay the same price he and his wife paid for the lot they purchased for $5,000. Neither one of them would acknowledge Mr. Gallo's contract, and they totally ignored him. Subsequently, that letter came through. Mr. Gallo told Mr. Uleck that initially, he offered them $5,000, and they denied him. He reiterated prior statements. Mr. Gallo's reasoning behind not paying $10,000 was that it was unreasonable, unfair, unjust, and inequitable. He asked if he was supposed to buy a 50 foot lot for $9,000 and pay $4,000 more than he paid for the other 50 foot lot. Mr. Gallo pointed out that then there would still be one remaining 50 foot lot. The person can automatically get a variance because there is no way he can be denied. He will - 7 - '- ., MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 get sandwiched in between Mr. Gallo having to pay top dollar for a lot, and he can turn around and build on his 50 foot lot. Mr. Gallo emphasized that it was not right and was inequitable. Mr. Gallo advised that he made an honest attempt to buy the lot, and he showed a letter from the Lambert Agency which gave a recently dated opinion of value that still said a non- conforming lot, in their opinion, is not worth any more than $5,000. Mr. Gallo stressed that all three lots are non- conforming. He repeated his prior statements and asked, "Where is the equity?" Mr. Gallo again wrote both of these people in 198s. He tried to buy, get the people to join in with him to consoli- date the lots to make them larger than 60 foot lots, and they both denied to join in with him. Mr. Gallo did not know how much more he could have done other than going out and paying through the nose to buy a piece of property that still would have left one 50 foot lot totally and completely non-conforming that someone else could have built on. He did not think he was asking for anything unreasonable and emphatically said he has done the best he can do without being gouged. There was arguing between Mr. Gallo and Mr. Uleck. Mr. Uleck commented that in other words, Mr. Gallo was gambling. Mr. Gallo could not deny that and said Mr. Uleck was absolut~ly right. Chairman Thompson noticed Mr. Gallo bought the property in 1980 and wondered who owned it before then. Mr. Slavin informed him it was Jane Eggert. As a realtor, Mr. Gallo said he could have entered into an act of subterfuge because he could have gone to the Eggerts and said it was a non-conforming lot and if he bought it from them, he could not build on it. He could have told them he wanted to build the house and asked them to go to the City, apply for the permit, begin to build the house, and then he would buy it, but Mr. Gallo emphasized that he did not do that. He could have done it the same way one of these other owners could do right now. Chairman Thompson pointed out that the variance on any property is always on the property and not the owner. He wanted all of the Members to keep that in mind. Perhaps Mr. Gallo made a mistake in buying the property when he did, but - 8 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 the Board could not penalize him simply because he is in the real estate business. Mr. Munro recalled that Mr. Gallo said he did not want to purchase that other piece of property and have, in essence, 100 feet wide, knowing there is a 50 foot lot right beside it, which will bring the value down. He questioned what that was doing to the existing homes that are there, that are already priced. Now they will have several, or the possibility of several, SO foot lots. Mr. Munro recollected that Chairman Thompson made a comment that he was reviewing the piece of property and not the property owner. He said he should consider, when a person is buying a piece of property, what he is buying at the time. Mr. Gallo knew when he purchased it that the lot was non- conforming. Chairman Thompson did not care whether Mr. Gallo was or was not aware of it. That was not the Board's concern. Mr. Munro asked what ignorance was. Chairman Thompson answered that it was not excusable, one way or the other. The Board votes on the property only, not on individuals. He did not care what Mr. Gallo did for a living. When you buy property, Mr. Munro argued that you should know what you are buying. Chairman Thompson informed him that this City and every City has too many cases where people buy property and discover later on they need a variance. The purpose of the Board is to correct mistakes that are made by the City, County, or State. Chairman Thompson explained to Mr. Munro and again told the Board that they were not to place emphasis on the owner but on the land. The land has a problem, not the owner. Mr. Slavin had a copy of a floor plan of a one story, wood frame residence, 35' frontage x 52.67'. He asked if the 50 foot lot would support the building and meet all Codes, set- backs, etc. Mr. Slavin was talking about a Plat of Survey, not the site plan. Mr. Newbold replied that Mr. Slavin was talking about the building, and it was drawn to show that it would meet Code with the variance. Chairman Thompson clarified that the question was whether the proposed house would meet setback Codes. The answer was that it would. Mr. Slavin stated that his question was whether the 50 foot lot would support the wood frame resi- dence, meet all setbacks and all Codes. Chairman Thompson - 9 - '- .."" MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 explained that the variance was on the width of the lot and the square footage of the lot. Mr. Werger asked to speak. Because he had given Mr. Gallo a chance to speak again, Chairman Thompson agreed, if it would be in addition to what Mr. Werger had submitted. Mr. Werger told of living in Laurel Hills since 1969 and building his home when there were only six houses. He said Mr. Gallo was balking at buying a 100 foot lot for $15,000 in Laurel Hills when you cannot touch a 100 foot lot in Laurel Hills for $15,000. The Members expressed that was not their con- cern. Mr. Werger pointed out that there is available land next to Mr. Gallo, and he should buy the land to conform to the zoning like he and others did. Mr. Werger added that he paid $21,000 "down farther" for a 100 foot lot. In 1969, Mr. Slavin noted the platting was still 50 feet. Mr. Uleck advised that it was changed in 1978. If the Code was changed back in 1978 to 60 feet and land is available on both sides, he said they should not give Mr. Gallo the variance. Mr. Gallo should build on a 60 foot or bigger lot. In 1982, Mr. Eney observed that Mr. Gallo came before the Board of Adjustment. From what he read of the minutes of that meeting, Mr. Gallo had added nothing tonight to change it. At that time, the Board denied him, and nothing had happened in the intervening four years. Mr. Gallo has just reapplied by reason of the lapse of time. Chairman Thompson said there had been some changes in the thinking of the Board, when they found out what they could and could not do. At the last workshop the Board had with a professor from the University of Florida, the professor pointed out that if a person owns one plot of land, such as in a case like this, to force him to pay the price of the next door person's property would, Chairman Thompson per- sonally felt, be placing a hardship on the owner. Chairman Thompson pointed out that proof was on the table that attempts had been made to buy the property. One person said, "No." The other one said, "At this price." If that was the case throughout the City of Boynton Beach, he thought everybody would buy a lot, sit back, and wait in many cases. Chairman Thompson continued that they would be placing a hardship on the person because they would be saying to that person that he could not use his property until he paid the price. - 10 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 Chairman Thompson informed the Members that the City is in a lawsuit right now because someone was denied the same thing by this Board three months ago, and it will come up soon. He emphasized that if all attempts have been made, the Board cannot force a person to pay more for the property of the guy next door if the person does not have the money or has the money and says he would be paying too much, as Mr. Gallo said. Chairman Thompson reminded the Members that every case before them tonight was in violation of a City Code, or it would not be here. If Mr. Gallo owned three lots, they could legally force him to divide them into two lots, but he owns only one lot, and they cannot force him to buy another lot. Chairman Thompson did not care how many dollars Mr. Gallo had, and he elaborated. Mr. Eney brought out that Mr. Gallo has the option to simply sit by and increase the value of his land by simply selling to the property owners on either side. Mr. Slavin objected, saying the other property owners do not want to buy it. Mr. Slavin could appreciate the feeling and thinking of the neighbors. He looked at the property four years ago and looked at it again. There was no change in the area. Mr. Slavin thought one SO foot lot two blocks away came up that was grandfathered in. Right now, there is a piece of property that is grandfathered in. Another piece of property is a part of an estate. Unfortunately, the Board could not take into consideration what the neighbors felt because they have to go by the book. The neighborhood will have SO foot lots that will be built on, and Mr. Slavin emphasized that they cannot be stopped. He explained that they will be grandfathered, or people will make attempts to buy and be turned down. Mr. Slavin further explained. Mr. Werger interjected that the fair thing to do would be to get an outside appraisal. Chairman Thompson informed him that he was out of order. Mr. Slavin informed Mr. Werger that an outside appraisal was brought in and that Mr. Gallo showed the Board a letter saying it was appraised at $5,000. Mr. Slavin said the Board knew the property would support a small, 1,500 square foot house. Mr. Gallo is requesting a variance of 533 square feet. The Board has nothing to do with property variances. In the minutes, Mr. Slavin told the Members they would see that he brought up the same issue - 11 - .... ., MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 about Mr. Gallo being a realtor "years back". The Members had seminars and went to school since then and learned a lot. Mr. Slavin reiterated Mr. Gallo's efforts to purchase property and commented that it is a stalemate. He asked if they were going to deny Mr. Gallo the use of his property. Mr. Uleck repeated that when Mr. Gallo purchased the property, he knew that the Code was changed two years before that to 50 feet. He did not buy blindly. If Mr. Gallo had purchased the property, not knowing anything, Mr. Uleck might think differently. Many buildings that come before the Board are rejected, and Mr. Uleck felt his opinion was his opinion. His opinion was that Mr. Gallo purchased the property, knowing that it was a 50 foot lot and that the Code was 60 feet. Mr. Slavin read the third paragraph on page II from the minutes of May 10, 1982 and said that was Mr. Uleck's think- ing tonight. It was Mr. Slavin's thinking four years ago. Since then, the Members went to seminars, etc. Mr. Slavin reiterated prior statements and referred to the Court case the Board is involved in. Mr. Eney determined that what Mr. Slavin was saying was that what the Board did in 1982 was illegal, based on what the Members know now that they did not know then. Mr. Slavin would not say it was illegal. Mr. Eney responded that they denied Mr. Gallo the variance. Chairman Thompson interjected that it was denied, based on what the Members knew at that time. Someone in the audience said the Court case had not come up yet, so they did not know for sure. Mr. Uleck told the person he was out of order and said the case was up to the Judge. Because of the variance denial, Mr. Slavin said the people felt they had a right to go to Court. He also did not know what the outcome would be. Mr. Slavin brought out the fact that the overall footage was not excessive; the lot will support a 1,500 square foot house, which is not a small house. He did not see where three bedrooms and the rest of the house would be a disgrace to the'area, although he agreed other people have larger lots. There was disagreement between Mr. Slavin and Mr. Uleck about whether or not Mr. Gallo was locked in. Mr. Uleck could see two open lots, one on each side of Mr. Gallo's lot. - 12 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 According to the criteria, Mrs. Artis noted it had to be a hardship by the City. In her opinion, it was not. She thought it would have been on the person that owned the property before, in 1978, and that person could have built without a variance. Mrs. Artis felt it was an altogether different situation when a person bought into a hardship. Four years ago, Chairman Thompson said that request was denied. Here it is four years later. The Board is the City, and the Board placed a hardship on the property simply because they denied Mr. Gallo the use of the property for four years. If this variance is turned down, Chairman Thompson said the Board will be denying him years plus. In a case like this, instead of correcting a situation that exists throughout Boynton, Chairman Thompson thought they were imposing more hardships on the ones that are in this type of situation. Chairman Thompson commented that he has been on the Board for eleven years, and he elaborated about cases and the Board. He said the Members are not here to keep a problem going. Now, four years later, in this case, it seemed to him they were playing poker to "steady up the price". Chairman Thompson has seen too many cases. He referred to the case they had three or four months ago, and bet the City would lose. Normally, Mr. Slavin said the Board does not digress from the work at hand or statements they heard, but he read the third paragraph from the bottom of page IS from the May IO, 1982 minutes. The paragraph contained what Hayden Bivins, Jr., I022 N. W. 7th Street, said. Mr. Slavin was sure that the three lots have accumulated a lot of dirt, and he was sure the Members have seen what happens to vacant lots in some of the finer residential areas of Boynton Beach. Mr. Slavin asked if they wanted more empty lots or if they would rather see a house that looks presentable. He elaborated. Based on the proposed size of the house, Chairman Thompson asked Mr. Newbold if it would in any way be degrading to what is there now, in terms of value. Mr. Newbold alluded to his experience in building houses and said Mr. Gallo did submit a blueprint, but there was no way of reproducing it. Chairman Thompson inquired whether Mr. Newbold studied the print. Mr. Newbold found nothing wrong with the print. Chairman Thompson asked if Mr. Newbold would say that was a small or medium sized home. Mr. Newbold answered that the - l3 - ,.., ., MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 zone they were talking about was R-lA, and it requires a minimum living area of 1,2s0 square feet. Mr. Uleck said they could not count the garage and open vestibule. Mr. Newbold advised that the Code would require that they count the garage. They do not count the living area only. If the lot was three times as big, Mr. Newbold said Mr. Gallo could build a 1,250 square foot house there. Mr. Gordon had not seen the lot recently, as he had been away, but he did see it in 1982. From what they heard tonight and the communications shown to them, he thought things had changed lOO% from 1982 until 1986. If this was the case, Mr. Uleck asked why the City does not pass SO foot lots. He expressed that the City should have left the lots the way they were. When they changed the Code, it meant the new ones that are being rezoned. Mr. Uleck adamantly said they fight it in City Hall all of the time that they cannot change the lots designed 20 years ago as C-3, R-I, R-2, and R-IAA, and he asked why they were changing this now. This zoning was made 30 years ago. In that case, Chairman Thompson pointed out that Mr. Uleck would vote against everything that comes before this Board. Mr. Uleck disagreed. Chairman Thompson advised him that the Members sit on the Board to make corrections where they feel a hardship is placed by the City. Mr. Uleck had said if this is the Code, the City should not change it. Chairman Thompson said all three cases coming before the Board tonight would be dead, as far as Mr. Uleck was concerned. Mr. Uleck denied saying that and explained that he was saying if an applicant was boxed in, had a 50 foot lot and could not do anything with it. They have come across them before. There was argument between Mr. Uleck and Chairman Thompson. If it was boxed in where the applicant had no choice, then Mr. Uleck thought they should go ahead and give a variance because that was a hardship. He asked, "What if they had 16 open lots over there?" Chairman Thompson replied that if Mr. Uleck would read the Code book, he would see that if there were three lots, they would have to split them and make two lots. If he had 16 lots, they would break the lots down and make sure each lot was 60 feet. Mr. Uleck asked, "What if they were 16 lots, all grandfathered in at 50 feet?" He added that nobody bothered to sell to Mr. Gallo because he bought one lot in the middle. - 14 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 Chairman Thompson exclaimed that Mr. Gallo did not need but one lot. That is all he owns. Mr. Uleck was trying to say if there were 16 lots, and one lot was sold after they changed the zoning. Mr. Gallo bought the 50 foot lot, and Mr. Uleck pointed out that Mr. Gallo is "stuck" with it. The guy won't sell him the rest of them because he wants "$20,000" a lot more. Mr. Uleck commented that it was the same, identical thing they were talking about. Motion Inasmuch as he saw where the City did force a hardship and, secondly, seeing all of the communications tonight where Mr. Gallo did make an honest effort, Mr. Gordon moved that the variance be granted, seconded by Mr. Slavin. Mr. Slavin stated that he could not reiterate or say anything more than what Mr. Gordon said. At the request of Chairman Thompson, Mrs. Ramseyer read the motion and took a roll call vote. Chairman Thompson explained that an Aye vote would be in favor of the motion, and it was not a majority vote. Any three votes against the motion would deny the request. The vote was 4-2. Messrs. Eney and Uleck voted against the motion. The request was DENIED. Chairman Thompson explained that it takes five votes to pass a request, and they did no~ have a seven member Board tonight. Mr. Gallo commented that the Board carved out his path. He was sorry to see that they had one person on the Board that was very prejudiced. Mr. Gallo told the Board they could rest assured that it would help him in his case. Mr. Werger felt the decision was very fair. Mr. Gallo told Mr. Werger the lot was his, if he wanted to pay $10,000 for it. Case #107 Applicant/ Owner: B. Glassman & Sons Request: Relief from Appendix ~-Zoning, Section 11. IE, Nonconforming Structures, of the Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, to alter the existing non- conforming structure in a manner that will further increase the nonconformity Address: 1000 South Federal Highway - 15 - ~ ., MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 Legal Description: Lots 8, 9, 10, 11 (less west 35' Rd. R/W), PARKER ESTATE, recorded in Plat Book 10, page 17, Palm Beach County Records Secretary Gordon read the application. Boyd Bundy, Architect, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, showed a plan of what they would like to do with the building, and stated that Mr. Glassman was with him. Mr. Bundy expressed that it was a very complex situation. He showed a picture of the building, which is the Conrad pickel Art Gallery on Federal Highway. The Women's Club directly abuts their property. Mr. Bundy said they wish to add overhangs and a parapet around to soften the very strong, angular character of the building to give it a character much more in concert with the single family homes behind it. For the record, Chairman Thompson said by adding the roof, it overhangs in the setback lines. He did not believe it showed on the survey. Mr. Bundy believed the survey and site plan the Members had was for the existing conditions. He offered a small scale plan and said they would be adding overhangs on all three sides. Mr. Uleck noticed they were going four feet beyond the building on all three sides. Mr. Bundy showed the existing face-of the building and said he would be doing that all the way around. He would have a matching element similar to that on the back side of the building. Mr. Bundy showed the roof condition they would have to the side, where the Women's Club is, and said they were adding the little, non-inhabited cupola to camouflage the existing structure. Right now, three steel poles stick up there at a funny angle. Mr. Bundy said all of the roof elements will extend approxi- mately four feet. Mr. Uleck noticed they were going to go five feet higher and asked if that was by reason of their eave. Mr. Bundy answered affirmatively and said the dashed line represented the slope of the existing roof structure behind. In order to balance and proportion this and to get the geometry that looks good in elevation, they had to come above that line. Mr. Bundy explained that this was not his first try at getting the building to look better, because he tried several different things. This was the combination that seemed to work the best. Mr. Uleck asked if Mr. Bundy was going to also increase the elevation. Mr. Bundy showed the point he was increasing it - 16 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 to. As best they could determine, that was the point of the real structure of the roof. There is a little skirt that goes around it, and they are proposing to take that off. The solid part of the real roof is slightly higher than the allowed 25 feet at this point. Mr. Bundy was coming above it and holding that line, as he was going back to accent the building architecturally. Mr. Uleck agreed Mr. Bundy was making a nice building out of it, but if the City said he should go to 25 feet, he thought Mr. Bundy could actually go to the 25 feet. ~rchitecturally, Mr. Bundy pointed out that he would not have the pitch. Mr. Bundy advised that he was not cutting off anybody's light or impinging upon anybody else. Mr. Newbold showed how the building looks now. Chairman Thompson informed Mr. Uleck that the building is higher than 25 feet now. Mr. Newbold informed the Members that the applicant is putting an architectural amenity that is not really a whole roof, and he explained by drawing on the blackboard. Mr. Uleck pointed out that the applicant was still fixing the roof and going up to the five feet. He emphasized that the applicant was going across the whole roof. Mr. Bundy stated that he was not. Mr. Bundy said what Mr. Newbold had drawn on the blackboard was a very accurate represen- tation of what would occur there. Mr. Bundy continued that there was a flat roof, and he was building a skirt around it. He said Mr. Uleck was correct in saying he was going up and coming down again with it. Mr. Bundy reiterated that he was building a skirt around to hide the roof, even though, from the ground, it would appear to be almost a full roof. Mr. Slavin asked if there were flower pots. Mr. Bundy replied that they were built-in planters. Mr. Slavin asked where they were in relation to the City line. Mr. Bundy showed them on the plan. Mr. Slavin was trying to determine how far the present structure was from the present building line. Mr. Bundy answered that at one point it is 16 feet. At another point, it is 14.7 feet. In round numbers, the building is currently IS feet from the property line. When he puts the overhangs and everything else in, Mr. Slavin pointed out that it will be less. Mr. Bundy agreed that the overhangs would encroach into the area with the 30 foot front yard. - 17 - ,.., ., MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 Mr. Slavin determined the applicant was seeking a variance of approximately 15 feet or more. When you first look at them, Mr. Bundy said the numbers look large. He called attention to the fact that the existing structure of the Women's Club is closer to Federal Highway than they are, and their building looks pretty good. There was discussion about the Women's Club. If this building was demolished and a new building was constructed on this land, Mr. Bundy said there is a piece of land available for that under the Code that he doubted was even the size of the room they were in. Under today's Ordinances, he thought this was all that was buildable on the site. Mr. Slavin knew it was a very irregular shaped lot the way it was laid out. When they start taking those numbers into consideration and put the planters in, he wondered where people will walk. Mr. Bundy answered that there is plenty of space. The sidewalk that exists will exist. He will not be anywhere near the sidewalk, and the planters will not come close to the sidewalk but will be 8 to 10 feet away at their closest point. Mr. Bundy was sure the building was built in conformance with the existing Code at the time, and he did not know how many times the Code had been subsequently updated. At this point, all they were saying was that in order for them to improve the building aesthetically, hopefully, in concert and cooperation with the community, they need the flexibility to do something with it. Mr. Slavin asked if the building will become an office build- ing. Mr. Bundy answered affirmatively and added that was what it was previosly. Mr. Slavin thought Mr. pickel had an art gallery. Mr. Bundy said Mr. pickel had offices and a business from it. It had become a very low density office building. Mr. Slavin knew there were only nine parking spaces on the lot. Mr. Bundy did not anticipate that the number of people in the building would present a problem. On a C-l office building, Mr. Slavin asked how many parking spaces there are per square foot. Mr. Newbold replied that it varies, based on the use of the C-l structure. It is office, which is one parking space for 300 square feet. Mr. Slavin inquired what the square footage of the proposed building would be. Mr. Newbold answered that it had not changed. Mr. Slavin stated that he was asking the - 18 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 Architect. Mr. Bundy did not remember but estimated it was around 3,000 square feet, which would be about ten parking spaces. He pointed out that he may be short by one but is within reason. Mr. Uleck questioned whether anybody from the neighborhood adjacent to the building was against it. Mr. Slavin read a memo from the City Clerk, dated September 8th, which said Mr. James L. Moffitt, owner of 1006-1008 S. E. 4th street, had no objections to the request. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of granting the variance. John Howell, 900 Isle Road, directly across the street, talked to three neighbors on the street. He talked to Mr. Newbold about what was going to be done and thought they all agreed it would enhance the appearance of the present lot and would also add a modern, attractive building to downtown Boynton Beach. The use of it would be an office that would only have tenants from 8:00 A. M. until 5:00 P. M., five days a week, rather than some of the other existing uses that could be grandfathered in without any variance. Mr. Howell said he and his neighbors were in accord that it would be very beneficial to them. It would help them and make their neighborhood look better. Mr. Howell stated that his wife is active in the Boynton Beach Women's Club, and Mrs. Carl Zimmerman was present and was going to speak for the Women's Club. He said there had been a lot of conversation relative to the manner in which the Architect had gone to great detail to coordinate his efforts to keep the same theme. It even makes the downtown Boynton area more attractive. The Women's Club put a new red tile roof on their building, and there will be a lot of upgrading in that building. Mr. Howell said there will be a lot more interest in that section of town due to the fact that the Women's Club will be attracting more functions, and he explained. Mr. Howell talked to as many people as he could that had been sent notices, and no one raised any objections. After they found out what was going to be done, it was unanimous. Mr. Howell reiterated prior statements, said there were some minor things that had to be done that were cosmetic, and - 19 - ,.., ~ MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 stated that they recommend that the Board give favorable consideration to the application. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of granting the variance. There was no response. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone wished to speak against the granting of a variance. There was no response. There was only one communication, and Mr. Slavin again read the communication from Mr. Moffitt. Mr. Slavin asked if the applicant filed plans for the build- ing. Mr. Newbold answered that they filed no more than what the Members saw in the folder. When a permit is asked for, Mr. Slavin questioned whether an applicant gives the Build- ing Department the blueprint, specifications, etc., such as what the roof will be. Mr. Newbold answered affirmatively. Mr. Slavin asked whether Mr. Newbold had received that in total. Mr. Newbold replied, "Not yet." Mr. Slavin remarked that it was a beautiful picture and wondered if they would build it with the Spanish tile roof- ing, etc. The variance would be granted on the property but, by the same token, what is on the property is also the Board's concern. That was why he asked if Mr. Newbold re- ceived a complete set of prints, including specifications and details. Mr. Bundy was willing to specify, as part of the record, the materials and finishes at this point and time. In fact, he was willing to give the Building Department a black and white copy of that. In other words, Mr. Slavin questioned whether the finished structure would be as represented. Mr. Glassman answered, "Absolutely." Mr. Slavin emphasized that Mr. Bundy was doing the designing, not Mr. Glassman. Mr. Bundy advised that Mr. Glassman owns the building. Mr. Slavin said that did not mean a thing, if Mr. Bundy was designing the building. After more discussion, Mr. Bundy retorted that the two of them (Mr. Glassman and he) were here saying on the record that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, what the Members saw on the rendering was what they would get. Chairman Thompson pointed out that the Board had two things in one: the radius of the height of the roof, which was in violation (2 feet over), and the overhang to be placed 4 feet in the setbacks. He brought out the fact that the Board was - 20 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 not denying the owner the use of his property. The building was built years ago. Mr. Newbold informed the Members that it was built at a time when it met what the zoning Code was at the time. Since that time, Chairman Thompson said the City has a Height Code that the 27 feet would violate. The City also has side setbacks that place the building in violation. Those were the things the Board should consider. At present, the violation of the height is only two feet more than it should be, and Mr. Uleck observed that the applicant wants to go up five more feet. There was disagree- ment between the Members and Mr. Slavin as to whether the building was in violation at the time it was built or whether it met the Code. Mr. Uleck pointed out that it is a C-l building, and they could go up to 75 feet. There was more argument. When the building was built, Mr. Slavin said the height was correct. Mr. Uleck agreed there was no violation unless the applicant wanted to build. with reference to the setback, Mr. Uleck said the downtown area was offered ten foot setbacks from the sidewalk. This is also a business street. It is a C-l. Chairman Thompson interrupted to say Mr. Uleck was comparing it with the down- town, and this is not in the downtown redevelopment area. There was more argument between Chairman Thompson and Mr. Uleck. Mr. Uleck agreed it would be a beautiful building that would enhance the downtown. If they do what they are promising to do, he said he would go for the variance. Mr. Uleck also agreed that Mr. Slavin was right when he asked about specifi- cations. In his opinion, they were updating the neighbor- hood, and the people were all for it. There was discussion about the location. Chairman Thompson interrupted to remind them that they had to ask themselves if it was a hardship (a self-imposed hard- ship, or if it would be a hardship). He said they had to admit it was not a hardship and was not a hardship imposed by the City. It was not even a hardship to the owner because the building is being used. As Mr. Slavin has always stated, Chairman Thompson advised that what they would like to do and what they would like to see done will put the Board into a Court of law. Chairman Thompson pointed out that another Architect could come in, design it, and change the whole thing, and it still - 21 - ~ ...., MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 would be beautiful, but it would be in violation. He reiterated that it is not always the way they would like to see things done. If it is useable the way it is, like many other things that have come before the Board such as the Two Georges, Chairman Thompson said they can build on it. He asked if the Members understood the points he was trying to make. Chairman Thompson asked if the Members were going to vote for everything that comes before the Board that is in viola- tion and beautiful. He said the Members were not using good, common sense because they could not do it that way. They had to think about whether it was a hardship, and they had established the fact that a hardship had not been placed on it by the City. The City had not changed any rules that would affect the use of the building as it is right now. Chairman Thompson asked the Members to keep that in mind, and he further explained. Mr. Uleck admitted those were the facts before the Board, but it was a matter of opinion. He told Chairman Thompson that they disagreed before, on the other case. Chairman Thompson stressed that it was not a matter of opinion. Mr. Slavin interjected that the building is useable. Mr. Uleck admitted it was not a hardship and remarked that it was not a hardship on the other case either. Chairman Thompson informed him it was a hardship because it could not be used. Mr. Gordon reminded them that case was closed. In the applicant's petition to the Board, nowhere did Mr. Eney see mention made of a hardship. He questioned whether the Board was saying it was a hardship or whether the appli- cant was saying it was a hardship. Chairman Thompson advised that the Board was saying it was not a hardship, and the purpose of the Board is to grant a variance when a hard- ship is placed on the property by the City. Mrs. Artis asked if the Board could say it was not a hardship when the owner could not improve the building without a variance. Chairman Thompson answered that the building can be improved and painted as long as it does not extend beyond the points where it is now. Mr. Uleck brought out that the only thing the applicant was asking a variance for was the roof that extends four feet and then the height. The Code says "No". Chairman Thompson read that a non-conforming structure or building may be added to or altered if such alteration or addition does not, - 22 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 in itself, constitute a further violation of existing regula- tions. If you look at the nature of the variance, Mr. Newbold pointed out that the variance is to get relief from the Section Chairman Thompson just read, which is Appendix A- Zoning, Section II. IE. The building became non-conforming when the City upgraded the C-I Ordinance. He pointed out that the building could have been 75 feet. One side had no setbacks and the others were left where they are now. The applicant met the setbacks at that time. The property was non-conforming before the change. Because of this non-conforming nature, Mr. Newbold said the applicant was before the Board, and he was non-conforming because of prior actions by the City. That was what Mrs. Artis was concerned with. Mr. Newbold explained that the applicant was trying to upgrade that non-conformance. He would need a variance to upgrade it from the scope of that zoning. As pointed out, the building line itself is already at the property line. You need 30 feet, and the applicant has 15 feet. Mr. Newbold again explained what the applicant wants to do. That was Mrs. Artis' point. Chairman Thompson understood what Mr. Newbold was saying but reiterated that the building is useable and is used for a purpose right now. He pointed out that it states that the building can be used for the purpose it is built, or it can be changed to something else as long as it meets the Code. The minute they step out to extend beyond those points, Chairman Thompson said they would be violating the Code, and they would be doing it in 1986. The law was passed in 1978. Now, they have to meet that Code, and they would not be meeting that Code by going further into the violation. Mrs. Artis reminded Chairman Thompson that the building was conforming until the Code was changed. Chairman Thompson repeated that the building is useable. Mr. Uleck commented that what Chairman Thompson was saying was the applicant could paint the building, and that was all he could do. Chairman Thompson advised that they could cut back on it. Mr. Uleck replied there would be nothing left. There was more discussion. Mr. Uleck understood what the Code was. He stated that it was wrong, but then again it was right. It was right for the people living in that community and was good for the City. Just because the City passed certain Codes did not - 23 - ,.., ., MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 mean the City was right all of the time. In many cases, Mr. Uleck said the City is wrong, and he stated that he could prove it to Chairman Thompson in many places. The Members objected, and Mr. Slavin said they were not discussing that. Mr. Uleck argued that Chairman Thompson was telling him the book said "No", and you cannot go beyond it. Chairman Thompson stated that he established the fact that there was not a hardship, and that would relieve the City of any responsibility. Mr. Uleck pointed out that this was a par- ticular case. It was not an average building where it was set back and had a lot of room. They were talking about a 'V" shaped building, which was different. There was a conflict between Chairman Thompson, Mr. Uleck, and Mr. Slavin, and Mr. Uleck began to state his opinion. Mr. Newbold interrupted to suggest that perhaps Secretary Gordon should read the powers of the Board. Chairman Thompson said the Members knew they had the power to pass anything before the Board, but they also have laws. Any time the Board violates one, that person has a recourse, and that is to take the Board to a Court of law. Chairman Thompson read, "to adhere and to decide cases". He emphasized that the Board has laws that are passed down from the State of Florida to the City of Boynton Beach, and they cannot just pass when there is no hardship. The Board first establishes a fact of whether a City hardship has been placed on a person. This building has been in operation and probably still is, and the Code was enforced in 1978. Mr. Slavin thought the building was in operation, but when he saw it, it looked closed. Chairman Thompson agreed that the building was closed but a facade was placed on it since 1978, and it did not stop the use of that building. That was the fact the Members had to keep in mind. He recalled that it was only done about four years ago. Mr. Uleck asked if it was just repainted. Mr. Slavin replied that they remodeled, plastered, and everything. Mr. Slavin was glad Chairman Thompson brought the Members back to reality and pointed out that it is a useable, two story building. The deed and contract for sale represent a lot of money on the part of the purchaser, subject to regu- lations, etc. Inasmuch as the building is useable and no hardship was imposed by the City, the money spent to buy the property was a lot of money. Anyone spending that kind of money would want a return on it. - 24 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 Mr. Slavin did not know what the applicant figured putting into the property or what they figured on getting back per square foot, but that was not the Board's concern. The Board's concern was what the hardship was, if any, how it was imposed, and what they could do to alleviate it. Motion Mr. Slavin "unfortunately" moved to DENY the request for the reasons he stated a moment ago. He added that the building is useable, and he was quite sure Mr. Glassman and his Archi- tect could sit down and redo what they had to do to bring the building to as pretty a condition somewhere in the confines of its present structure. Anything else would be self- imposed. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. A roll call vote on the motion was taken by Mrs. Ramseyer, as follows: Mr. Slavin Mr. Eney Mrs. Artis Mr. Uleck Chairman Thompson Secretary Gordon Aye Nay Nay Nay Aye Aye The vote was 3-3. Chairman Thompson announced that the request was DENIED because there were three votes against the request for a variance. Case *108 Applicant: Agent: Owner: Request: Request: Legal Description: McDonald's Corporation Heyman Properties . Lessee: McDonald's The Old Colony Company Relief from Appendix A-zoning, Sec. 4-L, Buffer Walls, of the Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances requirement of a solid stucco masonry wall at least 6 feet in height where a commercial district abuts a residential district That the existing 6 foot fence with hedge be accepted in lieu of CBS wall See "Addendum A" attached By memo dated September 4, 1986, Mr. Newbold advised that it was determined that this case did not require a variance and should be deleted from the agenda. - 25 - "W .." MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 Case #109 Applicant/ Owner: Request: Rev. Nathaniel Robinson Relief from R-lA zoning requirement of 7,500 sq. ft. lot area to be reduced to 7,490 sq. ft. lot area for construction of single family residence 1505 N. E. 1st Street Address: Legal Description: Lot 11, Block 14, ROLLING GREEN, 1ST ADDITION Recorded in Plat Book 24, Page 86, Palm Beach County Records Secretary Gordon read the application. Reverend Nathaniel Robinson, 227 N. E. 11th Avenue, wanted to build a home on the property but needs 10 square feet. The builder was present. Mr. Slavin saw the property and, in his opinion, 10 square feet was not going to deter from the neighborhood or give Rev. Robinson any special privileges. He wanted to make a motion because he did not see why they had to go through a lengthy discussion. Mr. Uleck stated he was all for this one and asked if there was not a vacant lot next to this lot. Reverend Robinson answered affirmatively. Mr. Uleck remarked that he would not argue about ~en square feet. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of granting the request and asked the builder if he wanted to speak. The builder replied that it was not necessary. No one wished to speak against the request, and Secretary Gordon informed Chairman Thompson that there were no communications. Mr. Slavin asked if the plans met everything. Mr. Newbold answered affirmatively. Mr. Slavin moved to grant the request for the reason that ten square feet would not damage anything. The area is beautiful, and a house on this lot would only enhance the neighborhood. Mr. Uleck seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken by Mrs. Ramseyer, and the motion carried 6-0. - 26 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 8, 1986 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Uleck moved, seconded by Mrs. Artis to adjourn, and the meeting adjourned at 9:10 P. M. 9ct~~~o~ patricia Ramseyer Recording Secretary (Three Tapes) - 27 - . ' . . . Il .t/:.:l/86 (' ~COH.RECTED COpy - Mr. Bro\: . s f C I-I-Y f \ fi.rst name only -..:..=:' ="-=-h . o . . ~___ _ ;r'j ~""~':I ~ BOYNTON BEACH. .::::) ~,",:~L"::~:~ 'ii.LI~~ -.t:~ =;: T~~.~ . '_ ' .~!l ! I; . .~: ~: =~ --=.:~--~ -- - -. --.,,-.- r. o. BOX :"0 (~~'""- .", ~ --... ~ 120 N.E. 2ND AVENUE . ~~ - ~'-= :; BOYNTON BEACH. ..LORIOA 33~3S _ . ~--:-- .. March 31, 1986 OFFICE OF DEPUTY BUILDING OFFICIAL *Robert Mr. Peeer Brown 701 S. Seacrest Blvd. Boynton 'Beach, .Florid~ 33435 Dear Mr. Brown: " It has' com~ to the attention of the Building Department that you have' started to-improve your property on N. E. 8th Avenue, specifically, Lot 45, Lake Addition to Boynton. This department bas not yet received your application and final plans for cons~ruction; therefore, I would liKe to bring to your attention a few facts. ,'" Our records indlca~e. you are still the owner of Lot 44 which abuts the subject Lot 45 that was denied a variance just last year. With the past record of ownerships 'of Lots 43, 44 and 45 by yourself and others, it is my opinion that Lot '44, regardless of the owner, will not ever qualify for a variance in lot size and therefore will not be able ,to be a builtout lot.. . Under the circumstances, I would like to suggest you include in your ,t>lanning for Lot 45, Lot 44 with Lot 45 as a single building site and avoid leaving an unusable lot. /' , If I can be of any further assistance, please'feel free to contact me. -.: . Sincerely, / ert Keehr Deputy Building Official LK/rm Xc: Central Files .: . ~ERTIFIED MAIL iP327 944 961 *#P327 944 974- . .. . .. . ADDENDUM B ( \ ( \ 70: Board of Adjustment Members City of Boynton Beach Staff Staff Site Analysis - Board of Adjustment FRON: REFERENCE: CASE NO. & ADDRESS: 84 -731 N. E. 8th Avenue !.~EETING DATE: November 4, 1985 CURRENT ZONING RIA DESCRIPTION OF LOT: Lake Addition to, Boynton, Block 4, Lot 44 O~'i~ED BY: Robert P. Brown VARIANCE REQUIRED: Lot Si ze FACTS: 1. On April 4th, 1985, Eva Michelle Simmel filed an application for a variance with the Building Department for Lot 44, Block 4, Lake Additj to Boyn ton. The owner of Lot 4 4 ~as Mr. Robert Brown, who a Iso owned Lot 45 at that time. After a waiting period, Miss Simmel, did not prove ownership, therefo! Mr. Brown is now the applicant for this variance. 2. Mr. ,Robert Brown, the applicant for the subject lot, applied for and received a variance for abutting lot to the east -(Lot 45). On September 12th, 1983 at the meeting, Mr. Brown stated it would be a financial burden on him.to have to buy the two (2) Lots 43 and 44 (west of Lot 45) as the.owner wanted $25,000.00. Owner of these lots was Mr. Carl Flerping. 3. Mlss Beverly Bottosto applied for and received a variance on Lot 43 on January 9th, 1984. Miss Bottosto never closed on this lot, it remained in the ownership of Mr. Fleming. 4. Mr. Brown purchased Lots 43 & 44 from Mr. Fleming on the 27th of February 1984. " 5. Mr."Brown sold Lot 43 to a Mrs. Santina Debois in March of 1984. 6. Mr. Brown, by Quit Claim Deed, sold his interest in Lot 45 an the 4th of September 1985 to Particia M. Br9wn. 7. All three (3) lots are still vacant. Att.: Minutes of variance for Lots 43 & 45 Xc: City Clerk Recording Secretary City Planner City Manager Members -Board of Adjustment ADDENDUM A 1; '- ., MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 10, 1986 to whether he sold the lots or not. Mr. Howell was sure when Mr. Keehr saw the situation, he was probably trying to get Mr. Brown to divide that into two lots, which would have been ideal and would have been the wishes of the city fathers. Motion Mr. Gordon thought looking at the case a second time was enough. In his opinion, it was much nicer to look at a new home than a vacant lot which, as they have seen throughout Boynton Beach, turns into a City dump. Therefore, he moved to grant the variance, seconded by Mrs. Artis. A roll call vote on the motion was taken by Mrs. Ramseyer, and the motion carried 6-0. Discussion Chairman Thompson explained that he voted the way he did because he felt a hardship had been placed on the property. It was too bad, in this particular case, that Mr. Brown was "two or three steps ahead of the city." In doing this, Mr. Brown placed hardships on two pieces of property that you could either build on or let stay there and collect debris from the City. Chairman Thompson expressed that it was a sad case, and he explained. If the Board had turned this down, another year would have passed, and the property would be vacant and like it is now. Chairman Thompson felt it was too nice a piece of property to just sit and not be used. He hoped the design would enhance the beauty of the neighborhood. NEXT MEETING Chairman Thompson announced the next meeting will be on Monday, December 8, 1986. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Gordon moved, seconded by Mr. Slavin, to adjourn, and the meeting properly adjourned at 7:53 P. M. :i1:::-:;'y~~~JA- Recording Secretary V' (One Tape) - 9 - 7.A.1 ZONING CODE VARIANCE 142 N.E. 6TH AVENUE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM Requested City Date Final Form Must be Turned Requested City Commission Date Final Form Must be Turned Commission Meeting Dates in to City Manal!:er's Oflice Meeting Dates in to City Manal!:er's Office 0 May 6, 1997 April 25, 1997 (noon) 0 July I, 1997 June 20, 1997 (noon) 0 May 20, 1997 May 9,1997 (noon) IZI July 15, 1997 July 3, 1997 (Thursday noon) 0 June 3, 1997 May 23,1997 (noon) 0 August 5,1997 July 25, 1997 (noon) 0 June 17, 1997 June 6, 1997 (noon) 0 August 19, 1997 August 8, 1997 (noon) RECOMMENDATION: Please place the request below on the July 15, 1997 City Commission agenda under Consent Agenda (as per recently adopted ordinance No. 97-22) for ratification of the Planning and Development Board's action. The Planning and Development Board, with a 7-0 vote, approved this request. For further details pertaining to this request, see attached Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 97-331. EXPLANATION: PROJECT: 142 N.E. 6th Avenue OWNER: Tommie L. Green LOCATION: 142 N.E. 6th Avenue DESCRIPTION: Request for a variance to the City of Boynton Beach Land Development regulations, Chapter 2, Section 11.I.C.l.b - Nonconforming Lots, to allow construction of a single family home on a nonconforming lot having a lot area of 4800 square feet (rather than the minimum of 5,000) in the R-2 (single and two-family) zoning district. PROGRAM IMPACT: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/A ALTERNATIVES: N/A City Manager's Signature Development Services Department Name /l ~.Jtf!-y,{,d~ ' Planning and Zon' Meeting Date: Petition: File No: Location: Owner: Project Name: Variance Request: Note: DEVELvr'MENT SERVICES DEPARTMENOI PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM #97-331 Staff Report Planning and Development Board July 8, 1997 Case No. 235 ZNCV 97-001 (lot size) Lot 10, Block 2, Sunny Side Estates Tommy L. Green, Sr. 142 N.E. 6th Avenue Request for a variance to the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Section 11.1.C.1.b. - Nonconforming Lots, to allow construction of a single family home on a nonconforming lot having a lot area of 4800 (rather than the minimum 5,000) square feet in the R-2 (single and two- family) zoning district. This is the first zoning code variance to be reviewed by the Planning and Development Board since the transfer to the Board of the duties of the Board of Zoning Appeals. BACKGROUND The subject property is the only undeveloped lot within Block 2 of the Sunny Side Estates subdivision (see Exhibit "A" - Location Map and Exhibit "B" - Survey). The zoning designation of the subject parcel, as well as the entire subdivision, is R-2 (single and two- family dwelling district). The property owner is proposing construction of a single family residence (see Exhibit "C" - proposed site plan), on Lot 1 0 of Block 2 of Sunny Side Estates. Lot 1 0 is 4800 square feet in size. However, the minimum lot size for a single family residence in the R-2 zoning district is a minimum of 5,000 square feet. Construction of the house cannot be permitted on a substandard lot, without a variance to the minimum lot size requirement. For this reason a building permit application was denied for the house. The following is a description of the zoning districts and land uses of the properties that surround the subject request: / Page 2 Memorandum No. 97-331 Tommie L. Green, Sr. Case No. 235 Staff Report - Planning and Development Board North Yorktown condominium complex, zoned R-3. South Residences of Sunny Side Estates, zoned R-2. East Residences of Sunny Side Estates, zoned R-2. West Residences of Sunny Side Estates, zoned R-2. ANAL YSIS City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2 - Zoning, Sections 5.F and 5.E state that the minimum lot area for a single family residence within R-2 zoning district is 6,000 square feet. Another section of the city zoning code - Section 11.1, Paragraph C.1 states, however, that: "A detached single-family dwelling may be constructed on any parcel located in an R-1, R-1A, R-2 or R-3 district, provided that it meets all of the following requirements: a. The parcel contains at least one (1) whole platted lot; b. The parcel has a frontage of not less than fifty (50) feet, and a lot area of not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet; c. Property cannot be acquired from adjacent parcels so as to make the subject parcel conforming, without causing the adjacent parcels or structures thereon to become nonconforming or more nonconforming". Regarding criterion a) above, lot 10 of Block 2 of Sunny Side Estates is the lot area as was originally platted in 1959, i.e. - it has not been reconfigured or further subdivided. Regarding criterion b) above, lot 10 has a frontage of 60 feet, but the lot size is 4800 square feet (i.e. - less than 5,000 square feet). Regarding criterion c) above, additional property cannot be acquired from the adjoining properties to make the lot conforming, since all other lots within this subdivision are developed and all of them are nonconforming (4800 square feet in size). ~ Page 3 Memorandum No. 97-331 Tommie L. Green, Sr. Case No. 235 Staff Report - Planning and Development Board The code states that zoning code variances cannot be approved unless the board finds the following: a. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district. b. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. c. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. d. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the ordinance and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. e. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. f. That the grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter [ordinance] and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. g. For variances to minimum lot area or lot frontage requirements, that property is not available from adjacent properties in order to meet these requirements, or that the acquisition of such property would cause the adjacent property or structures thereon to become nonconforming. The applicant for such variances shall provide an affidavit, with the application for variance, stating that the above mentioned conditions exist with respect to the acquisition of additional property Exhibit "0" contains the applicant's response to the above criteria. Also, as a point of information, several zoning variances have been granted for nonconforming, undersized lots in the City. Unlike other development applications, the code does not require staff to make a recommendation regarding whether an applicant should be permitted to violate the city's ordinance. However, please be advised that a taking can be determined to occur when regulations preclude any use of a piece of property. xc: Central File \\CH\MAIN\SHRDATA\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\GREEN\ZON VAR STAFF REP-235.doc 3 EXHIBIT "A" If "_~_'__~'_'"~________'_~_____""___"'_'__'___'__""___._.______.__.__._.._.~___...._.__.___.~__...__.____,_.._._.._._,___.______.____.._. .__.._w....__...__________ L~CATION MAP 142 N.E. 6th AVE ~-~I~ ]+ ~~ ~ ~ '-.~,,~llJt~\ft;e~- -. ca-: 1 i r ,;- _ J"': .' .:, ~>" l' ------ ,..!!.->- r ~- -' ...i. ", ~- ~ -- . - --- -:~ '1~.' : : - ~" --,.--- :'~TjT'!T I l ----' 11,1 !- ,j _>- _ 1- ---,-' , f -i ,-!-J...l-:.nc:. "\..... j ill' ~ : t '---. \: ': = ~ :-: H.. - ----+-r-,-~c: c~;. -r -J --r - l' __,' ~ ~ ILl< >4\r ..1 ' '- '-- ~ ; , " I J. ':, 'If....,. A. .. 'U ','> . l' I . \ l' " r,..'~.__..~~ " ." i " ".. I \ :1 .\1 l ',' ,--- ~ I .- :1, t-..: }, " I _. ,"-.; , I I' I' - r ---' , ". _ I .----' ,- fun , ' '. _J I 1111 :,' Iii E... .r----' .l,!T I ' IT',:,;: 111:1 I; i l-:.' ~ ~.,~.~III; r ~ I PU ~~2:'~""U;+L+\~~ i ,- "_. , '. ",' . ,,,,,riI1,', ,m - IT .~~,~t,~~:~~,~'~ ~~'~5(' ,.', \1iWi:..~I,II\: ~I' II" I, 'I" 'r : "!\ I: r-;:M '\I Ii IIII i I I ' : l! ! I I I ,~, ~ ,.' .L..-, . LLJ 1=J ;'1111 Illi 1111, :' !I\III I ' : - i1 rill / m-~' ,,nill: i1!! II I oJ - ,1 III' ...: - f-- -. B1 ' I' '!! ,\\ 111:!\\\\lIIII\\11l1 '7 --j ).,.: / fulliI T i +Ll i~ , I, I -~ -- L ::=:::YJ I ",lilIIlilll!!!L",~- ,- ~ 'i ~ I III N.: .'~ \ .~: . "'.:~: :7,,:~: ""I! , ~ ;~ -= I -j.~ ~ lilll'liil ,11\'\11 -0- ~.l. a. <: "'-c!J ~ =H- , ._ ~ '! ~ ~I \ ~I !I_ . _. r=:1 t:: 'I. iIioI 4t ~ L ~:--=' -y I , 11l rl!:: ' ~,..".. . ....)~~_. h ,_, I, I 8 ,I' i,' ii,' 1 :'. f'-1.'=-T,-::- . ~ 1,1; r-~:-=::\ :/1 Wi ~ . \ . 'I .~--~ - ' 1 r~" I'~r In~~ '" 1,'.~1111 -=:; '. I " ~, t- 'i" Ii .'j I,:' -:= ' j ~T~;:JJ~'~' '~a;,-i 1, ,1,\'-- ~.:::i -'~ ~I== 1,1 ii:li [. :,1 ';=~'f r,..;,., ~ :.:..J ~l"; 'A ~' '- --/~] ~ J" p ~ .~ "" I. fA. ~ I I , . I ! ~ ' .!! '- I -- ,! ...- l:==l r:J.... - 'ii~1 :t:'u", H"''''r, " "" ",oil'r.. ~~eG . Fl3 I '-= .~ -=:J.'~I ~rl~.~4.Q.'.~'-' !~~;Jl7 ~. ~.Itdf-;.. ~;; - +-I~FU;"~ ,~ ~ ..,r-- :r~ ......~~<-;~~~ ~~~~~re~l~I" ,: '~f-- 1=1; E~ii~~~~'~~~.~~~~PJ,lFh'~.~~~' ~~ C~b" '-l ~I--'-- , , -~ ' --rI - J - I,'" J "':,.1" I , C ~ rT1:' II E -::-".,.., .~. -:i;. . \. _ ' - -- f--1 -. t ~.C:18 r:\--, "' T I ,II :i '..1 I ' , "I ~T",\: : . .! 1111:,' .L , ". : _ t L-_~ ~'-! ... .. '~I: I ~ ~'fNr~,.__B!A'!t ,a.~tf.!1. - d.....C" _ 7.L-vDI I "'f'- ,. . c. I Y. . ' I. I ' I:: I i ~ I c- i - _1- - ' . ...;oj H~l:...~~ I ,I:",~. . f- J I - ~,,~7,.:t i~ · =~=:" :~. ll~-CP'l.Ji'=2: ~I~_' :,c=mg. ',td ' ~'::';::7 ,.....; XI" ...., N IE. oce~ "'7\ \ I.' '~'."~; ~;I 1 ,,' . ,.. -..... ~ ' -:. 1 , , ' I' -'. t ,;~ 'r: ...., -'- t , ...... . . ... '-r- "",::_j r- . '1-:'::' 11J 'l~ :'1, ~ r""'.. \ 1m7 J; I. .1 J r "4-:---. ,_ . Ii --..!.' .. ---i I ......<&- \:.::-_~ I~ r 'I"=!u I""'lI -. II.. ~ . """"1'1 ...::~,..~. '~"1 I j '---- .. ~ - I'. ~ . , ..F" '1 -L ~ -C ., . I ~- -. . , ~ I ',: ~-- --~ ~___ ._ _ __1, -- :'-' _"_;'H",!,,'" ~ ~,.. '., J IiJ -. '_,;.;""'-": I, " l== =-', , -' - .... ...._.._~- j 1 , ':- l-= 1.-.., '\ r-') ~ I ;V' U .... L.... ~ ,- w..:,;:=--j~.~-~-~-t\*\ ~"~I~/ ~. 5:0. 1/8 MIL~Sc?'~-- ------ .--] ----+; I --,-,' \tnL, 1< - 1III lie, \'. ~~1-J~b:c~-:J a \I ~:-~r\ I!I~ '='0. 40.0..80.0. F~ET -- ~ .~-=-~~".__, ..,:' =r I~' if"),"7... ~ ~ PI..AN^,./N'r. tJE.pr;07.97 . . , ,. ,_.._ - , ~A~- ,_ r.::7 5. U t P1 I", :.~ r , I 1\ . .. . ~ - - - . IL . '~ .,}- I ~ , I ' I :L.~ ..I. , EXHIBIT "B" o EXHIBIT 11011 {O WILLIAM LEANDER OSBORN A.I.A. & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE Be 3600 W. COMMERCIAL BLVD. SUITE 208 FT. LAUDERDALE, FL 33309 PHONE 954-677-9300 FAX 954-677-9197 LAND PLANNING BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS VARIANCE APPLICATION RE: PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, LOT 10, BLK 2, SUNNY-SIDE ESTATES P.B. 26-16 A. THIS LOT IS NONCONFORMING, BEING SMALLER THAN THE MINIMUM SIZE FOR THE CURRENT ZONING. WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS PLATTED, IT COMPLIED. B. THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AREN'T A RESULT OF THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT. C. ALL OTHER LOTS IN THE AREA HAVE EXISTING HOUSES, SO THEY DO NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE. D. WITHOUT A VARIANCE, NOTHING CAN BE BUILT ON THE PROPERTY, AND WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME AREA. E. YES, THE VARIANCE IF GRANTED IS THE MINIUM VARIANCE THAT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE THE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND, BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. F. YES, THE GRANTING IF THE VARIANCE WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER AND SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE AREA INVOLVED OR OTHERWISE DETRIMENTAL 'TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE. 1/ ARCH. REG 6844 ~/~\ \ '" o \~ \ \ \\j 1 ,,' ,\ \ I. \J \Ji