CORRESPONDENCE
't
I -.--"----- ~.- _______u
I
--- -- --.- -----..----
.-.....
" \,
.PERMIT NO.
gf-3/62-
'--,'
NOT
APPROVED
CORRECTIONS MUST BE
MADE AS NOTED BELOW
AD~~ I ..r::-I
LOT
sueDIV'SION
~ BLDG. 0 ELEC. 0 MECH. 0 "LBG. 0
'(J.3. & '" / 1/NJJ 'ai, ij, c. 1////.. ,.{ /"' .. !U'" I,' (t.
/1 J.'. I / ( . . .
!.I}--1./j; I ~1./.)fL,?t/Y'J"~//:.:!e/.::'/I..:/{/I;I>: /..}),. /.Li" - /-~i;;(.i.-
r ' i i 1/..... ". .
I. ':v b.l'1-<V1 ?dkJ-/uI 1/ " ;"l-U (f. /. /~, -, / ..>,.v:..i .~.
,Jjp ~)~Ld; :'A..'~D .... fi.:/1".t. ~./."/~.
.. , . J (.....j - '../ I ./1 ~ &1
.. .A l..HU.../'I ': .t'.u..-1..... . ./{.;. c \.'"
ZJju.tJ, (/
o STOP WORK!
~ VIOLATION! CORRECT AS NOTED
b REINSPECTION FEE OF $25.00 MUST BE PAID
IN PERSON AT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CALL 738-7483 FOR REINSPECTION 8:()(}..4:30
, ~rrY O~~YNTON B~C~, FLORIDA
<: // /l(.. ;- )I:IL- I ,..-'
INSPECTOR
'I
I
I
White.. File Copy I CaNry . InlpK'to,'s Copy I Pink. Office Copy I White T~ .. Job Copy
I
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
;.
.~'-
:..:,.....---
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO:
FROM:
See Below
DATE: September 22, 1992
RE: Board of Adjustment
Case '171 - Mrotek
Sue Kruse
City Clerk
Attached, please find a copy of a letter and attachments received on September
22, 1992 from Martin J. McGee objecting to the above-referenced application.
fl ~<Z~
ue ruse
c: T. Cordie
B. Garnsey
J. Miriana'
H. Solomon
v. Thompson
N. T1 neri
B. Uleck
I. Sechter
P. Slavin
M. Haag
C. Cutro
City Attorney
Martin G. McGee
RECEIVED
SEP 'L I. 1992
jmp
a;r;; r;( 13~~
JI (/ I
~t~~)_. ~
L:tJ ->>..-12..0 '<
" -. a. ~ ~~v
(/f-e Ii &uA-</2_ F /<-~ ~'h- /d-~<- (/
~~ ~ ~ ~ ,,,,cAe "'<'~ftL-
f-t.- /"-J:.jez';, 4U!--E..-.-- 21, ) f f 2-. ~ 444, (:-,{.J (9 -f~{!/'-
:1 ,d, tt.t<LL-Jd' /ij/' ;; '/;:, ~. - . / D~.c.~ N'?':4';U-<~ "'
& .~. ~ ,
tul.-. dl-#-J j f4 ~ -t7't/ /c)r"f /~~ -::-k
/~r~-M<-f C'ff?-..,uv<c~ lJu/l-d- 4// /7',1'~
:JIufJe }'~~~ ~t- Ve.//~ J .;4uk~~ P
ttL. (Iot<-a~J2, <1 ~t-.t.7;-_( :pi.- C87vU:/LA-d~ t!~ d..-
r-u?~~uA.. /~~ c~# /'11/ P..N.<Ukk /~ 1Y.f/j1 $
;/1'-( ezz~__~<,ee- /u.'4'c~ Z:ke ~~ TL Md1;
clt~~J- ~c0;,! r~ 1?''7~ ..~.J2 ;f7?~~#L c
ftrdt 1.u jMU,,-_ dZec~EP7 "7 /ir4f ~- ~,zc
~~ .3 7Pt-J. ~ .b.et2~ ~-u \? ~~ tf--<- 7~~
c,./<-ac~.R-1:~. .J- #~ zi) ~- .7?1-~ a~~.
/t7'- V-J.-C .;1 -'JhL- u- 'li. Mp ( WU#1. /.<oJ~~
/~<r ~-u4. Hi- "Tkfl4.7 ~~ ~~;ZZ ~
ct~~~ (7) u- .L._ '. / -;I:~ - ~ ~ 7'- a
. . v /C1?,f.# tI ~~) /~ /" - LR) 'L
@O$J c;( ~'4~ M ~} C4- cP~I-t.~, J'-
t!'Tf-d.J? 1..4.. ~ ../ce. ~;"'..R L~__ #<.y k<L /__'Ji'",...J
~&- U4-~ / /~
(~ r-. , ~~ ff=~.
/.1 /.' 1 /> /l }l1 /i~ to., A' V ~
,.,1'0 c.1-f~ aP-e. ..s-~ 4~ h'-'U-~ rVJfi~ ~~JjOJ--
/ff2-
~ b{.~ Ae~',V4<-.j u.~ M z;: 71
z:.,'/NL 'i ~ ~ T,",-,,- Mde /l€~ z:~.
-/?'.e~.~ r'-"<
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBV GIVEN that the followinq application has been made to
the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT of the CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, for a
hearing as indicated, under and pursuant to the provisions of the Zoning
Code of said City:
Case *171
OWner:
Michael & Ramona Mrotek
Request: The .applicant is appealing and requesting a hearing on
the Building bfficial's administrative decision of how to determine
the height of a fence or wall for the subject property.
Location:
2624 Lake Drive North
Legal
Description:
LAKESIDE GARDENS SID, Lots 40, 41, 42
& 43 as recorded in Official Record
Book 8, Page 57, Palm Beach County
Records
A PUBLIC HEARING will be held relative to the above application by the
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT at the Commission Chambers, Boynton Beach, Florida,
on Tuesday, September 29, 1992, at 7:00 P.M.
Notice of the requested hearing is sent to property owners within 400
feet of the applicant's property to give them a chance to voice their
opinion on the Subject. Comments may be heard in person at the meeting
or filed in writing prior to hearing date. If further information is
desired, call 738-7408, City Clerk's Office.
All interested parties are notified to appear at said hearing in person
or by attorney and be heard. Any person who decides to appeal any
decision of the Board of Adjustment with respect to any matter considered
at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such
purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is to be based.
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
SUZANNE M. KRUSE
CITY CLERK
PUBLISH: BOYNTON BEACH NEWS
Sept. 10 and 17, 1992
fote~ e ~
Raymond Rea, Esq.
City Attorney
120 E. Bo)'nton Beach Blvd.
Boynton Beach, Flodda 33435
Re:
Fence at Lot Line Adloining 640 Dimick Road
Dear ;>.1r. Rea:
During my annual visit to Boynton Beach in late February and early :.~a,ch,
the matter of the concrete wall which ,,'as being built by ~~r. M. Mrotech aJong the lot line
of his property ard the adjoining home at 640 Dimick Road, was brought to my attention.
1 unde:-stand that the k>roperty owner and builder were aware of the six foot mcxim'~m
height restriction for sueh fences or walls provided by the Boynton Beach City Cocco 1
obsc:rved that the day after a neighbor brought to the attention of the builder end Ohrler
that the initial concrete framing for the wall seemed to exceed the height restriction, the
work crew worked all day the next day, a Saturday, March 4, 1989, to complete the
building of the wall to its height of ten feet as measured from the base of the wall on the
west side.
1 understand that the owner and his attorney are claiming that it is proper to
measure the height of the wall from the east side where they have previously built up the
property. While this position is not unheard of, it should be rejected out of hand. The
purpose of the height restrictions is to protect adjoining land owners from a cutoff oi
sunlight and ventilations and to further protect sight lines and avoid a change in the
character and appearance of the community. To allow all of the purposes of the heigh'
restriction to be ignored and easily circumvented would obviously go against the bes
interests of the City and its homeowners.
As you ,are .aware, when Mr. Mr. !.1rotech purchased his property in 1988, i
had b;en elevated WIth f!ll about three feet and was tapered to the adjoining properties
Mr. \irotech chose to bUlld four foot concrete walls just within his property lines on th
s~uth and \~est and he then filled in the interior lot to the top of said wall. At this ti m
hIS contentIOn that an additional six foot wall would be permitted bv the Cit" Code c~ nno
be 5"!j::)or'ed b' l' H' .) .) c
COd;-:' ,l.. J 06~C. 1.5 cppr~ach would allow homeow.ners to easily circumvent th
;~. ._ .:.r.~\ISIOn b~ SImply Jncre~sJng the elevation at the sight of the proposed w211. I~
;;:::.:~(;.ld"gl-, to,~"lOle h10W dramatIC the effect of this wall is on the ne;2'l-lborir:-:r l--.'~e "::
j"l..,~~" oJV d,e e'iC osed r _ ~ h '"I ' 'I:> "-'" ..
\'..;'1 ,..l__ n- _ .:call 't'. P,lotOe:.fcp. Clearly the wall has destro\"ed all si\!h~ ji-e:S <or
.. l... Gi..C Ll ..y .es rIct ventj1~'jon fr h . - 'r.>" 00' ~',
?:-ior to mid-cay. This is 'e>:;~"tl . th om.~ e e:ast. Sunllght will be crc:rr.atic~lly b:0<:~:C:
lr:~(::Jc.::d to preverit To alJ hY e 51 uatJOn that the relevant Code p,0','jC:0n " .
...._:_..... ." I. . ow S'..iC: a ......all.....ould be to . d ~.' ,-' , 'H
..L:.:.... ;-(:s,r;ctlon c.~d \'..c;.;'d e-'r',,::--" " f permIt a !"cm'HlC excc?t:on:o:~
. ..~_..&d 1.5 utu:-e ellfcrC:CiTd:nt.
.~
1'-
.J
-. .........
/
'-
..
,
Board of Adjustment Boynton Beach, Florida ---- Case No. 141
HearinF on Monday, December 11, 1989, concerning request for variance by
owners of property at 2624 Lake Drive North, from zonin~ requirements limiting
height of walls to six feet.
Because of timing of hearing date and distance to Illinois, I may not attend
the Hearing, therefore, I am submitting this letter and attachments for your
consideration.
AR owner of a house at 640 Dimick Rd., just eight feet West of the wall (which
measures approximately ten feet high from the natural land elevation where
the property lines join) I objected to city authorities. The basis for the object-
ion is stated in attached excerpts from a memo addressed to City Attorney
Raymond Rea. Also Attached are photos showing the wall and my house, and the
wall with surrounding ground elevation. It should be observed that the wall
is higher than the top of the bedroom windows, blockinF out lake breezes, Aun
light and Eastern view. Obviously these kinds of results are what zoning
restrictions are intended to prevent.
On March 3, 1989, a Friday afternoon, I watched large piles of concrete blocks
spread along the West and South edges of the four foot high wall. I asked
Mr. Mrotek what was happening. He informed me he was building the wall up
another six feet. I told him this was a violation of the code and that if he
did I would protest to the city. I told him I was informing him of my intentions
in advance against taking an action which might resul~ in him having to tear
down the wall. On the following day, a Saturday, when city offices were
closed, a large crew of men were on the job and worked all day to build up
the wall another six feet. The Following Monday I complained to city author-
ities.
I have no animosity towards owners Mr. am Mrs. Mrotek, I was pleased whery
they commenced to build on the corner lot, in fact. from at least Jan.l,1989
to at least April, 1989. I permitted their hook up to my house electric and
7J~ /4~
pap:e 2
water supply to use for power tools by carpenters ~nd concrete workers. This
continued ev~n after buildin~ the wall six feet hi~her than the permitted
four feet. Although a city official informed me that even permitting the
four foot wall was a mistake since it could interfere with natural waterflow,
down grad e from Federal Highway to the IntracoRtal. I decided against
objecting to the permit in deference to city cooperation. However the
.permit at four feet should not permit the builder to insert almost four feet
of fill on his side of the wall, then claim that elevation as the point from
which RU more feet in height could be added.
My objection to deviation from the build ing code in this instance is in
protection of the value of my property. My initial intention in buyin~ the
house was for possible personal use of it when full-time residence in Florida
became posRible. The preeent hei~t of the wall makes it questionable.
A tenant who moved out of the house July 31, 1989, adViRed me that the wall
~
reduced the value of the house. My nei~bors to the West informed me they
felt my house declined in value because of the wall.
I thank you for your attention and your consideration of my objections.
After De(~e1Tiber 28, 1989. I will be in Boynton Bea.ch and available to
furnish any additional information if needed.
) /.1 ' g. hr/1'J {"
/ /)d' t:. ~. /1< L: I / - -
I .~ ~ -L~ .. ./ ~
"''- / .
Martin J. MdGee
410 Ashland 5G
River Forest, II. 60305
.'
'"
..
..__.._..,~~~-
r ".:
--{
,I.
-----:..-~
~...~~
~.~~
r
~ ';."
~~
~~~:i
ttj
~
~ ,-.
,,'.~~
.'t.
,
, I
~
:rJ!
S~
~~
&;~
.... g' .
.....
-
'J-. .P. ',J'~'" ~'.,_
~{rrr
( . ~ '1'7-'1
, .., 1
~-= ; ;.{j
. .L:~~),~~
~~ ~...~:\ f N
:~~. j:;~",,$:J
~--=--=.-:~~~
I; 11/ 0i.-rl:
N L:>;', I
Dill:
}. ~;Iil!
! en :>;'ji
,. __~_;~j\'~L
iI ~"",," 1':"''' 11.' ""
f---
"'l
.
-~
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
I
,
,
l
~
I
(
,
~