Loading...
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Grayarc. P.O. Box 2944 Hartford, CT 06104 CALL TOLL FREE: 1-800.243-5250 TO Peter L. Cheney, City Manager Edgar E. Howell, Building Official Carmen Annunziato, City Planner -, FROM 11/ REORDER ITEM II F269 REPLY r\1ESSAGE Fold At (.) To Fit Grayarc Window Enyelope . EW10P c- . /do Med Kopczynski Deputy Building Official SUBJECT: --tdz. #il(!.ffllJj-W 1 ;0~1>7'--- A pre-variance meeting is scheduled for Tla8 g f fY,- 9: l.y "6 I ((J Jo PRE-VARIANCE MEETING "OLO . at 10:00 A.M. in the Building Department conference room in conjunction with the Board of Adjustment meeting on 9/8/86. Please plan on attending. bh Attachments/29 PLEASE REPLY TO . SIGNED REPLY DATE: SIGNED Item' F269 @ Wheeler Group Inc. 1919 THIS COpy FOR 't:"SON ADDRESSED DETACH THIS COPY-RETAIN FOR ANSWER. SEND WHITE AND PINK COPIES WITH CARBONS INTACT. -L L ~. TO: Board of Adjustment Members City of Boynton Beach Staff FROM: REFERENCE: Staff Site Analysis - Board of Adjustment CASE NO. & ADDRESS: IIl06 lOl5 N.W. 7 Street MEETING DATE: September 8, 1986 CURRENT ZONING: R-1A DESCRIPTION OF LOT: LAUREL HILLS 3rd ADDN., Lot l02 OWNED BY: Vincent J. Gallo FACTS: 1. This property is presently zoned R-lA and was formerly zoned R-l. 2. R-lA site regulations require a lot area of 7,500 sq. ft. and a minimum lot frontage of 60 feet. 3. This site does not comply with fact #2 and would not meet the 60 feet as required under the former R-l zoning regulation (Ordinance 62-9). Therefore, it must comply with Appendix A-Zoning, Section ll.l C (Nonconforming Lots). 4. This site was purchased by Mr. Gallo in 1980 and must comply with Appendix A-Zoning, Section ll.l C-4. 5. This lot was platted February 21, 1951 (50' x 139.35'). 6. A copy of the 5/10/82 minutes of the Board of Adjustment is attached. The minutes show that this variance was requested and denied at that time. 7. Thissi-te needs a variance of the following: l. .~~10_~ frontage . .2. -533 sq. ft. lot area xc: City Clerk Recording Secretary City Planner City Manager Members - Board of Adjustment << t ~ ,~~..~~ .. MINU:rES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - ~ ye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye T to' grant the variance MAY 10, 1982 Parcel 12 Lot 102, LAUREL HILLS, THIRD ADDITION Recorded in Plat Book 23, Page 126, Pa~ Beach County Records Relief from 60' lot frontage requirement to 50' lot frontage and also Relief from 7,500 square feet lot area requirement to 6,967 square feet lot area Request ,Address t()15:IDT.~w:r-.7EH;.'~n:tji!_~J? Applican t - .tl.rnc'&iiZJ~lGaIro.!l7 Secretary Gordon read ~hat the property is presently zoned R-1A and'was formerly zoned R~l. He further read the following from the application: "Denici1 was nade upon existing zoning requirements fran which relief is required: R-lA zoning requires a mi.ni.murn lot frontage of 60' and a mi.ni.murn lot area of 7,500 square feet." ~'Nature of ~ption or variance required: SUbject lot has 50 t frontage and 6,967 square feet lot area. Therefore, a variance of 10 t lot frontage and 533 . square fcx:rt of lot area is required." , ' . "Statement of special cOnditions, hardships or reasons justifying variance: \. Subject lot is part of an approved subdivision that through the years has becane non-confonning by zoning changes. CMner cannot purchase additional property to confonn to today t s zoning requirements." Chairman Zimmerman called Mr. Vincent J. Gallo, 3452 New Boynton Road, Boynton Beach, to the microphone. As stated, Mr. Gallo said the lot was non-conforming because of its current zoning requirements. He informed the Board that it is sandwiched in between two vacant lots. Mr. Gallo said they, made an attempt to contact the owner on either side. One person is ,in New York, and the other is in Hollywood, and neither one was willing to sell their property, Mr. Gallo told the Board. He further said that each one was not willing to buy one-half of this lot to increase the standards of their lots, so Mr. Gallo said he had no alternatives but to come before the Board and ask for a variance. - 10 - . ( MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ( MAY 10, 1~82 Mr. DiSarli spoke to Michael Munro, who happens to live right next door to the empty lot, and Mr. Munro claims there is an empty lot there and it is available. Mr. DiSarli believed that Mr. Munro was in thea~dience. Mr. Gallo said if they had a plot plan, the lot faces 7th. On the west side of the street, facing east, there is a vacant lot to the left and a vacant lot to the right. He repeated that neither one of those people are willing to sell and asked, "Where is another lot that can be purchased that would add . to the size of this lot?" He explained the lots and stated that there were no lots to purchase. ' Mr. Slavin stated that he visited the property and drew a little map" for his own edification." He called the property in question "A", another lot to the north of it "B", and another piece of property that is developed "C". Mr. Slavin said Mr. Munro was the owner and lives onpropefty "C". Mr. Slavin continued by saying Mr. Monro told him the plot was offered to him not to long ago fora price of about $9,000.00. If'it was offered to Mr. Munro not too long ago, then Mr. Slavin thought the property may still be for sale. Therefore, Mr. Slavin thought they may be able to purchase more groun~. It seemed odd to Mr. Slavin that Mr. Gallo was in the real estate business in Boynton Beach and should be familiar with zoning regulations, etc., but being in business in" Boynton Beach and having access to all of t~e zoning regulations, Mr. Slavin would hav~ thought Mr. Gallo would have looked twice before purchasing a fifty foot lot. Chairman Zimmerman noted that Mr. Gallo bought the lot in 1980. Mr. Gallo said that was correct and there are a number of homes built on fifty foot lots in there. Mr. Gallo assured the Members of the Board that a fifty foot lot for $9,000.00 is excessively high and, in his opinion, it would be impractical to add a $9,000.00 value to a fifty foot lot. Chairman Zimmerman said he would-have to purchase a whole lot because in no ~y could the lot be split. Mr. Gallo said it would be a fifty foot lot. If somebody on the other side wanted to , buy 25 foot, something could be considered, but to buy the whole' fifty would be impractical,. Mr. Gallo continued. Mr. Slavin asked Mr. Gallo if he talked to Mr. Munro about the possibility of jointly buying the lot to the north. Mr. Gallo did not know Mr. MUnro. Mr. Keehr; Deputy Building Official, thought what people may not _ realize is to the north of this lot that they are speaking of are two vacant lots. South, there is one vacant lot, so the lot they were speaking of is two lots away from Mr. Gallo's, not next door to it. Mr. Keehr said there are just three vacant lots. Mr. Cassandra said they would be Lots 103 and 101, and Mr. Gallo's lot was 102. Chairman Zimmerman thought. the question of whether there was land for Mr. Gallo to purchase was a vital part of the situation. To go out and buy a fifty foot lot for $9,000.00 when a fifty foot lot was purchased for $5,000.00 seemed totally impractical to Mr. Gallo. - 11 - .. MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 10, 1982 in with the fifty foot variance since the original owner died, and it is now in the estate. Mr. Keehr replied that. it was' sort of a lega~ problem, although. there was a similar cas~ where a widow took over some nonconforming lot, and he believed at that time she was granted the same rights as her husband would have, even though it was not a joint ownership. Mr. Keehr was not really sure. He did not believe it could be passed on by the property owner to his son. Mr. Keehr repeated that it was a legal question, but it would be his guess that the property owner would not have been able to pass it on to his son. Mr.. Munro suggested that Mr. Gallo may want to go back to the son and explain the situation that he will not be able to build on the lot either. . Therefore, holding onto the property will not benefit the son, especially if this variance is turned down. Mr. Munro pointed out that if the variance is granted, they ~ould have three fifty foot. houses on that property. If Mr. Gallo goes back to the son and explains the situation that the son cannot be grand fathered in, Mr. Munro thought at that point the son would realize that he has no option but go go ahead and sell it, but to sell it at-a reasonable price. Mr. Munro stated that they do have houses that are on fifty foot lots on 7th Court, and there is one at the southend,of 7th Street. He said they were not that nice looking, and it looks like a barn. All you see is the side of a house. Chairman Zimmerman commented that over the years, the people in Laurel Hills have been very much against the building on fifty foot.lots, and they have appeared before the City many times. ~ Chairman Zimmerman asked Mr. Munro, since he lives in the area, if he thought $9,000.00 was a reasonable price. Mr. Munro did not know what the going price is for lots. He pointed out that the gentleman claimed that Mr. Gallo offered ,him $8,000.00. Mr. Munro did not know wpat the other lots are going for and informed the Board that there are several vacant lots in the Laurel Hills area. \ Mr. Cassandra asked Mr. MUnro if they were faced with a situation with these three lots being owned by three separate people that if they stay, they will be undeveloped land. Mr. Munro said that was right. Mr. Cassandra asked Mr. Munro what the residents of Laurel Hills were looking for. Personally, Mr. l~unro would rather have a 'vacant lot there than three fifty foot houses. Marvin Klepps, 1119 N. W. 8th Court, President of the Laurel Hills Homeowners Association, wished to say something about the , nonconforming lot ordinance.' A few years ago, Mr. Klepps said there was much time and effort spent by their committee to get the ordinance ,written to protect , the neighborhoods of the City in an effort to upgrade the neighbor- hoods or at best to maintain their community living. Mr. Klepps advised that the ordinance allows only the owners of nonconforming lot properties who were owners prior to the ordinance date (which was March, 1978) to build a residence on the property, and only 4} - 14 -, .. ( MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ( MAY 10, 1982 then if it met the present zoning code and conformed with the neighborhood buildings, Mr. Klepps .continued by'saying tba~ the citizens of this area pur- chased their properties because they liked that area, and the zoning there applied. Mr. Klepps adamantly said it was grossly unfair to these people to allow the construction of anything less than what the present zoning requires because it degrades property values in the community. Mr. Klepps said they welcome the owners of properties who are owners prior to the ordinance amendment date to use their properties to mature and enhance the community, whether it be in a residence which they, themselves, wish to live in that would be attractive and meet all the. zoning requirements. In this case, it. did not seem to Mr. Klepps' to be any hardship. It appeared that ,there are two properties, one on each side of the one in question that could be available. Mr.Klepps asked that the variance be denied. Hayden Bivins, Jr., 1022 N. W. 7th Street, Boynton Beach, who also owns a home at 1026 N. W. 7th Street, thought the real case here is, as Mr. Klepps said, that it is not a hardship case. Mr. Gallo, being in the realty business knew when he bought the lot that he could not build on it, and Mr. Bivins had no desire to see Mr. Gallo use the lot and degrade his properties. As far as Mr. Bivins could tell, there was no hardship. He was sure that next to Mr. Gallo, on ho~h sides there would be some way they could work out a method of buying a piece of it so that they could build on it. Mr. Bivins, personally, and he was sure he spoke for everyone in Laurel Hills, did not wish to see three homes built on fifty foot lots in a row. He stated that anyone that had been down N. W. 7th Court were well aware of what that looks like. / Mr. Bivins said the residents were very proud of their development in Laurel Hills and strive,to keep it clean, to keep their houses up, and they feel it is a c~edit to Boynton Beach and would not like to see it degraded in any method. Mr. Bivins sincerely felt that three fifty foot lots with ~ouses on them would not help their neighborhood or the City of Boynton Beach in the least bit. Mr. Bivins requested that the Board deny the variance. Mr. Cassandra asked Mr. Keehr if Lot 101 was grandfathered in(~t!s .the lot south of Lot 102).. Mr. Keehr replied that was right. Mr. . Cassandra questioned whether Lot 103 was a piece of land that had been,left to a son, and it was not grandfathered. in. Mr. Keehr pegan to answer, but Mr. Cassandra interrupted to say as far as it would be legal. Mr. Keehr said that was right. If Lot 101 desires to build, Mr. Cassandra stated that he could on a fifty foot lot, which would make it that much harder not to grant a variance to the other two pieces of property, He wanted to make that point clear, as people were talking about not wanting any fifty foot homes. He called attention to the fact that the - 15 - . MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 10, 1982 person who' owns Lot 101 could build a fifty foot home. Mr. Bivins was well aware of than and said he knew it was grand fathered in and the owner could bu~ld on it. Mr. Bivins had no objection to that., as there was nothing they could do legally about it. Mr. Bivins felt they should cross that bridge when they come to it, not now. Mr. Cassandra just wanted to make sure Mr. Bivins was aware of that fact. Mr. Allan Jurney, 1016 N. W. 7th Street, Boynton Beach, has known Mr. Vincent Gallo for years and told Members of the Board that Mr_ Ga~1o is a fine man, but he lives across the street from what is going to happen. From a human standpoint and,common sense, Mr'. Jurney said they do not want this in their neighborhood. He said everything else goes out the window, and his property value would go down. Mr. Jurney emphasized that he did not like it. There was nothing Mr. Jurney could do about the grandfather clause, but he had to let everyone know that he totally disagrees with what Mr. Gallo wants to have. done. Mr. 'George Arnpol, Alternate Member, stated that he keeps hearing about the grandfather clause but he noticed that the property owners only purchased their properties two ye~rs ago (May 1, 1980), so~he asked where'the grandfather clause came in. Mr. Arnpol was sure- Mr. Gallo, who was here at the time, knew that the lot was nonconforming. . Chairman Zimmerman explain~d that they were not saying Mr. Gallo was grandfathered in. They were talking about a lot to the south that was purchased earlier. Mr. Ampol wanted the Board to recognize the fact that Mr. Gallo only purchased the lot two years ago and at the time he knew it was nonconforming. Chairman Zimmerman sai~.that was why Mr. Gallo was asking for a variance because he would have to if he wants to build. '\ Mrs. Salvatore Altadonna, 1016 N. W. 7th Court, Boynton Beach, informed the Board that he lives directly behind the home Mr. Gallo is going to build. He said it would be a real eyesore for him to go out his back door and see that house in his back yard. If Mr. Gallo had a sixty foot property; Mr. Altadonna said he would have no objections but a fifty foot, Mr. Altadonna could see no . reason why Mr. Gallo should have a variance. Mr. William Kalkan, 1012 N. W. 7th Street, Boynton Beach, came -forward and said the house that Mr. Gallo wants to build is directly in front of their property across the street. She told the Board the City zoned the place for sixty foot lots when they went in there. Mrs. Kalkan asked Members of the Board if they were changing - 16 . ( MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 10, 1982 them again, back to fifty. Mrs. Kalkan thought if Mr. Gallo knew it was going to be si~ty, he should not have bought a fifty foot lot. Mrs. Kalkan said they had nothing to say about the Industrial Park and did not know what was going to happen there, as all they have ,is the street. Now, Mrs. Kalkan exclaimed, "We're going to get a '50' lot in front of us ,and maybe the other two, somebody else sell, get another variance, so we're going to wind up with three fifty foot houses or fifty foot lots." Mrs. Kalkan did not think it ~as fai~ for the people who have been there (they have been there for seven years). Mrs. Kalkan ref~rred to the other two neighbors said they bought because they liked the area. Mrs.,Kalkan did not think Mr. Gallo' should get a variance. Mrs. Kalkan did not know what Mr. Gallo would do with.1he, lot and 'commented, "Maybe he'll keep it, and maybe he'll sell-it for more money, and somebody else will get a variance." Kathleen D'Urgolo, 1022 N. W. 7th Court, Boynton Beach, told Members of the Board everybody else had already said everything she felt.' Mrs. D'Urgolo also thought the variance should be denied. She stated that the residents kept their homes very neat and very clean. 'When she has to have things done to her home, Mrs. D'Urgolo said she had to come to the City and had to do it the way the City wanted it done or else she could not do it. . She couldn't put a shed in a certain spot because the City did not want it. Mrs. D'Urgolo went along with it to keep the area the way the City wanted it kept. She thought by putting this home 'where Mr. Gallo wants to put it would not be ,right. Mrs. John A. Denholm, Jr., 1010 N. W. 7th Court, Boynton Beach, had already wtitten a letter. [which Secretary Gordon read previously). She asked if the three lots were all sixty foot ,l. lots that were next to Mr~ Gallo's. Members of the Board answered that they were all fifty foot lots. Mrs. Denholm thought the woman on one side, who is dead now, sold part of her property. Mrs. Denholm was under the impression they were sixty foot lots until the Members of the Board told her they were fifty foot lots'. Mr. Gallo could appreciate everybody's feelings. 'He said every-- , one talked like they would build something slummish, but he did not feel that they would. As far as being directly behind Mr. Altadonna, Mr. Gallo said it was not, it was directly behind Mrs. Denholm. ,As Mrs. Denholm said, Mr. Gallo cleared the lot off and trimmed her Australian hedge that abutted his property. If Mr. Gallo was not mistaken, the people who owned the lot before they bought it were grand fathered in. Mr. Gallo's mistake was in 'not having them come in to get the variance, which they could have - 17 . ( ( ." MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY l~, 1982 done at that time. The problem remains that there is a lot a~jacent to this one, Mr. Gallo informed the Board, and it is a fifty foot lot "and is grandfathered in. Mr. Gallo continued by ~aying that Mr. Keehr says it is a question of whether it has "to be aqked of the attorney, but there is a good possibility that the one that was just transferred from the estate of the father to the son could pass on to the grandfathering clause. Mr. Gallo told the Members of the Board that he was in the middle of the two. Mr. Gallo referred to Mr. Munro saying the gentleman said that he (~. Gallo) attempted to buy. Mr. Gallo stated that he did not attempt to buy~ Mr. Gallo informed the Board that his letter to William F. Hunter, Jr., Attorney in Hollywood, regarding the Bollinger Estate, said he owned Lot 102, and ~x. Handel owns Lot 102~ Mr. Gallo continued by saying he told them if they would be interested he would be glad to sell those two gentlemen half of his lot, if each of them would agree to purchase it. Mr. Gallo did not agree and did offer any price for that lot~ He first asked if 'it was available for sale and was told that it was not. That-was October 7 of last year. Mr. "Gallo researched the fact that both lots, at the time they made the acquisition, were owned by people who were grandfathered under a fifty foot permissive use of the property and, as a consequence, he did not ask the previous owners to come in and:go through the time and expense of the variance~ He figured he could do that just as well when the time carne. Mr. Gallo concluded, "Here I am. II-m looking for the relief." THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Listening to the pros and cons, and feeling for both people, Mr. Cassandra was~lso concerned that maybe the Board could open up a pandora1s box by granting. one. He was not saying he was or was not in favor of the variance. Mr. Cassandra was concerned that\.if the Board grants one", they would automatically have to grant all three if, legally, it is not grandfathered in. Mr. Cassandra was also concerned that the Board would create a hardship by granting a variance, and thought the Board should consider that portion of the possibilities. Chairman Zimmerman agreed that it was a very important point. ' Vice Chairman Thompson brought up the fact that Mr. Gallo sits on one side of the person that is grandfathered in and on the other side, they could have the original owner ask for a variance at any time. Even if it is turned down though, Vice Chairman . Thompson did not feel it would close the door to Mr. Gallo because if the other two owners build, it would without a doubt place Mr. Gallo in a hardship position. Vice Chairman Thompson pointed out that it would not wipe out Mr. Gallo's chances of building on the property-if it is denied. - 18 - . ( MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 10, 1982 Mr. Slavin determined~that the Members know that the property was owned for two ,years. ~ix months ago, almost seven, Mr. Mike Munro received a letter from William F. Hu~t~r, Attorney, saying that the property was for sale. Mr. Slav~n quoted from the letter, "~<1e have been approached by a broker who wants to buy the lot or to list it. He owns the lot to the south of our lot, so he says." Mr. Slavin said the Board Members did not know if it was true or not, but the essence is that the lot is available. If it is a question of-price, Mr. Slavin thought perhaps it could be adjusted. If the lot was not available, it was another story again. Mr. Slavin stressed that this was a matter of record that the lot is available. When Mr. Slavin' visited the property, Mr. Munro made a statement to him that he would be willing to buy the lot in conjunction with Mr. Gallo. Mr. Slavin thought that evidently property is avail- ab Je because Mr.n Gallo requested the variance as "Owner cannot purchas,e additional property to conform to today' s zoning requirements. II (Mr. Slavin quoted from the application.) 'Mr. Slavin said here is evidence that says he can. Chairman Zimmerman observed that the two statements do not conform and leave a puzzle in the minds of the Board Members. , , Mr." Cassandra moved to deny the request basecl upon the fact that the hardship was not created by the City. Mr. Cassandra added that the property was bought at the time that the applicant was aware of the requirements of the property. Mr. DiSarli seconded the motion. Mrs. Ramseyer took a roll call vote on the motion as follows: Mr. Blum Vice Chairman Thompson Chairman Zimmerman /. Secretary Gordon Mr. Slavin Mr. Cassandra Mr. DiSarli ~ Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye \. The motion to deny the variance carried 7-0. Chairman Zimmerman announced that the application for variance was denied. ~~rcel #3 Lot 11, together with the and the West 71.0 feet of . Recorded in Plat, Book 21, records East 29.0 feet of 47, H ESTATES Palm Beach County variance Gordon read from the application - 19 - ,_-----t 1- '! jTO:' ---- BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH DATE i.liih~ The undersigned owner (s) hereby respectfully petition the Board of Adjustmer. to grant to Petitioner (s) a special exception or variance to the existing Zoning Code of said City pertaining to the property hereinafter described, and in support thereof s ta~e (s )-: 1. Prope7ty involved is described as follows: Lot(s) 102 Block SiD LAUREL HI llS 3RD Plat Book 2-; , Page 126 , or otherwise described as 'follows: /0/5 Property Address~.W. 7TH_STREET VACPNT LOT 2. Property is presently zoned: RIA Formerly zoned: Rl 3. Denial was made upon existing zoning requirements fro~ which relief is required: Appendix A-Zoning, Sec. 5-D-2-a requires: 1) A minimum lot a!ea_~f '1,500 sq. ft. & 2) A minimum lot frontage of 60 ft. 4. Nature of exception or variance required: WISH TO BUILD A SINGLE FAllY RESIDENCE Q\J lHE ABOVE lOT PND NEED VARIANCE TO COfv1PlY WITI-I CURRENT CODE. ' I)_Lot area.i$,6,96Z.sq!,ft;;!.. so a variance of 533 sq. ft. is requested. ,2.) -Lo-t..-has 3. fron.tage --of S{Lft. GO a 10' ".rariancc is rcqucD tcd. 5. Statement,of special conditio~s, hardships or reasons justifying the requested exception or variancei (Please respond to t~e six (6) questions as outlined on the attached (a-f) 6. Certified spot survey (not more than six (6) months old) is required, witt all setbacks and'dimensions. , ... 7. Propose-d'-lnlprove~ent (attach site development sketch): PLE~SE SEE SURVEY AND PLANS ATTAQ;ED. 8. Certified list of names and post office addresses of property owners and legal description of their property within 400 feet of subject property, as recorded in the County Courthouse. Such list shall be accompanied by an affidavit stating that'to the best.of the applicant's knowledge said list is complete ~nd accurate. " 9. Proof of ownership of property ,by Petitioner (s) such as deed or purchase contract agreement. If agent submitting petition, copy of document designating him as such,must acc~mpany petition. . - 10. Application fee-is in the amount of $275.00, payable to the City of Boynto: Beach, accompanies this Petition. 11. Case t 106 Meeti'ng Date September 8. 1986 12. Name of Applicant: Address of Applicant: Date: ;:h9jJ6 Date: j~f4p VINCENT J. GALLO 3862 EDGAR AVE., BOYNTON BEAOi, FLA , . Permit Denied: SPACE BELOW THIS LINE FOR BOARD USE ONLY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Approved Denied Aye Nay Stipulations: r.'Jeeting Date: Signed: Ci ty Representat ive-OOARD OF ADJUS'TI\lFNI' APPLICATI~ FOR VARIANCE: LOT 102 LAUREL HILLS 3RD ADDITI~ VINCENT J. & BETTY W. GALLO . 5. THE ABOVE LOT \'/AS PUP.01ASED BX. US IN 1980 \ofI TH THE INTENT THAT WE HOULD HELP OUR SON~ VINCENT J. GALLO~ JR. IN BUILDING A RESIDENCE FOR HI~~ELF AND FUTURE FAMILY. THE LOT IS BElWEEN lWO OTHER 50 FT. LOTS. ONE OF ll-IESE LOTS IS O\"/NED BY A PERSQ\I WHO HAS OWNED ll-IE LOT SINCE "PRIORTI TO ll-IE ENACTMENT OF mE PRESENT OPDINftJ\lCE AND IT IS tt\Y lJ'lDERSTANDING THAT HE CAN BUILD HIll-IOUT GETTING A VARIANCE. lHE OTHER LOT WAS DEEDED TO ll-IE S~ OF lHE FOP.MER O~JNER '.oJHO IS NO\.r DECEASED. BOTH OF THE OWNERS HAVE BEEN CONTACTED WITH REGARD TO POSSIBLE SALE OF THEIR LOT TO l'-'.AKE OURS C~FORH. ONE SAID HE WOULD SELL~ BUT THE PRICE '''AS lWICE THAT PAID FOR OUR LOT AND \"E FEEL ll-IIS IN lJ'lJUST AND lJ'lREASONABLE TO ASK OF US~ ESPECIALLY WHEN lHE ONE OWNER CAN OBTAIN AN AUTOf\1.A.TIC VARIANCE. 6(A) lHE SUBDIVISIQ\I '''AS PLATED MflNY YEARS AGO INTO 50 FT LOTS WHICH NO~" 00 NOT CONFOP}1 TO CURRENT CODE SIZE. (B) lHE VARIANCE ASKED FOR WAS NOT OF OUP. MAKING AS WE \-IERE NOT ll-IE ORIGINAL CMNER AND HAD NO CONTROL OVER ll-IE PLATING OF ll-IE LOTS. . (C) THEPE ARE MflNY LOTS t-lIll-IIN lHE SUBDIVISION PJlNGING IS SIZE FRot1 50 FT UP AND mEPE ARE HO!v4,ES ON THEM EVI DENCING THE FACT THAT Oll-lERS HAVE BUI L T ON 50 FT LOTS WHlOi HAVE NOT BEffi INJURIOUS TO ll-IE flP.EA OR DETP.IMENTAL TO ll-IE PUBLIC WELFARE. (D) ll-IE LITEPAL INTERPPETATION OF mE PROVISIONS OF ll-IIS CHAPTER WOULD MAKE IT IMPOSSIBU FOR US TO BUILD A HOM:: ON OUR LOT~ll-IUS DENYING US THE RIGHT TO USE OUR lAND AS IN- TENDED. (E) ll-IE VARIANCE WE ARE ASKING FOR PEQUIRES MINIMJM RELIEF FPOM CODE REQUIREf\1ENTS IN THA- WE ARE ASKING FOR A WAIVER OF mE 60 FT FRONTAGE REQUIPEt-ENT .AND THE 7~OO SF LOT SIZE REQUIREr-'ENT. ALL omER REQUIPE1'IENTS WILL BE MET ~ OR EXCEEDED. (F) mE GRANTING OF ll-IE VARIANCE WILL PERt-lIT us TO BUILD A HOrvE mAT WOULD BE IN HAPJ'IONY WITH mE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF ll-IIS Q-1APTER AND WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE AREA INVOLVED OR OT BRWISE DETRIMENTAL TO ll-IE PUBLIC \'l'ELFARE. ll-IE HOME WE WISH TO BUILD f!EXCEEDS" mE MINIMJM STANDARD OF ll-IE CODE. /' \. Co161 ;;; W ~I ~\N. (~.,"&7L <S'.9o as.. . 0<, " 'SO. 0' . f! o - F~D.l.e . -.. ~ .1 2 , -'l \f)" (i) ~ r{) , 35.0 J ,st-OR '/ 'WOOD f"R i\ME Pr;~;d c.,J t!. E /'" \ ,', -, \ '_ I ;:::/ >-. I~~r ~'('ONC. Vllllk , 6...~.<! t:s . IS oJ' 50.0' FltJO,IJ!.. LOCATION MAP. N.T.S. _ ~tJD, tJtI."_?Q' ;::;4 () U\ N ?; z DESCRIPTION FURNISHED BY Client NO SEARCH OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS MADE FOR ERRORS OR OMISSIONS OF SAID DESCRIPTION. EASEMENTS OF RECORD NOT SHOWN UNLESS FURNISHED. SURVEY NOT VALID UNLESS SEALED WITH AN EMBOSSED SURVEYORS SEAL. ~ 11- ~ SE:.Tl.e.c. ~ l1'\ rO " () 6 - i J .. I ~! \D! . J ~; I i .. , (); ~i ~;, I' I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PlAT SHOWN HEREON IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION :OF'- A SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE CAPTION THEREOF. MADE UNDER MY DIRECTION. AND IS ACCuRAte TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. AND THAT THERE ARE NO APP~RENT ENCROACH~NTS,- UNLESS NOTED. SURVEY MEETS MINIMUM ST(2NDA, -DS.2~E"': FO. RTtt IN RULE ,21HH-6. EXCEPT AS NOTED. /'\ . \ J- f\ , t"~- ,I ~)~ (.It A () / FLORIQA CERTIFICATE No:2:~t,() JO~ tJQ, Y( () /08l~ DATE 4/7 /3{o SCAI. E: I I~ 2_0 I Plat of Survey for: Vincent J. Gallo, Jr. "Description Lot 102, LAUREL HILL, THIRD ADDITION, according to the Plat thereof as recorded in PLat Book 23, Page 126, Publrc Records of Palm '8e~ch County, FI9. .. : /-. , . ~ - ! ..R.c.. iBil JTl-i.~ INC. LAND SURVEYORS 3285 B Lake Worth Rd. LAKE WORTH, FLORIDA 33460 PHONE (305) 585-1695 np,~} nv: 2.;') (d138 J~ n',"f"': ,.rn TO: Board of Adjustment Members City of Boynton Beach Staff Staff Site Analysis - Board of Adjustment FROM: REFERENCE: CASE NO. & ADDRESS: f/l07 1000 S. Federal Hwy. MEETING DATE: September 8, 1986 CURRENT ZONING: C-l OWNED BY: PARKER ESTATES, Lots 8,9,lO,ll less W.35' thereof of all lots B. Glassman & Sons DESCRIPTION OF LOT: FACTS: l. This property was formerly zoned C-l and is presently zoned C-l. 6 ~. Due to the site regulation of our present C-l zone, this building is nonconforming (Appendix A-Zoning, Section 6A-3). 3. Appendix A-Zoning, Section 11.lE states that nonconforming structures or buildings can not be altered in a fashion so as to increase the extent to which the structure or building is in violation of applicable regulations. 4. The C-l zoning regulation existing before the passing of our present zoning regulations would allow: 1. 75' in height 2. 25' front yard 3. No side yard setbacks required 4. _10' rear yard 5. The above requirements were met (see survey) but not the present Fequirements wh~ch are: , .... --r. . 25 ,'.J"in:: h~ight 2. 30' front yard 3. 30' side yard when abutting a residential district 4. 30' rear yard when abutting a residential district 6. To install 4' overhangs and increase the building height to 30' would violate fact #3 above. 7. This property was platted in June 1924. .. XC: City Clerk , Recording Secretary City Planner City Manager Members - Board of Adjustment .,....~\..., "1.' . . . c '~.. " 'fo: BOA~D OF ADJUSTMENT, CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH DATE 8/4/86 The undersigned owner (s) hereby respectfully petition the Board of Adjustme to grant to Petitioner (s) a special exception or variance to the existing Zoning Code of said City pertaining to the property hereinafter described, and in support thereof state (s):- 1. Property involved is described as follows: Lot(s) ~ ~ I'D, f ( L~ , ~~~ Block -=-- SiD t(~~-r!a..~ I . -W~r ""=3~ '1Y~oF ALL- ~ Plat Book 10 , Page ~7 , or otherwise described. as follows: Property ;ddress ~OO S. Federal Hwy. 2. Property is presently zoned: ~- J Formerly zoned: e-/ . 3. Denial was made upon existing zoning requirements from which relief is required: Append:Lx_~-Zo,~~ng, Section 11. IE (Nonconforming Structures). ._---~-_. - ..- --- -- .:.......:-~-~ 4. Nature of exception 'or v~riance required: Owner wishes to alter in a , , fashion so as, to increase the extent to which the structure is in lations b adding setbacl /- lines an 1ncrease ~ e'roo e1g t a ove t e t. maX1mum. ~.S. Statement of ~pecial conditions, hardships or reasons juitifying the requeste~ exception or variance: ~~' ~~ (Please respond to t~e six (6) questions as outlined on the attached (a-f. 6~ Certified spot survey (not more than six (6) months old) is required, wit] all setbacks and'dimensions. 7. Proposed improvem~nt (attach site development sketch): ,:7~e. ~~~. .9. Certified list of names and post office addresses of property owners and legal description of their property within 400 feet of subject property, as recorded in the Cbunty Courthouse. Such list shall be accompanied by an affidavit stat~ng that to the best of the applicant's knowledge said list is complete and accurate. ~\ Proof of ownership of property by Petitioner (s) such as deed or purchase contract agreement. If agent sub1nittingpetition, copy of document designating him as such. must acc~mpany petition. 8 / 7 ~' /0. Application fee is in the amount of $275.00, Beach, accompanies this Pet~tion. payable to the City of Boynto 11. Case t 107 Meeting Date 9/8/86 s;,N~ Newbold 12. Name of Applicant: B. Gl.../JSSJ'f,:;../';; Address of Applicant: ~~ '~.YU~~ Date: 8/4/86 8/4/86 Date: Permit Denied: , SPACE BELOW THIS LINE FOR BOARD USE ONLY ~ 30ARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Approved o. Denied Aye Nay Stipulations: ~-:eeting Date: Signed: Ci ty I\t~prcs('n L. t i vc-ID\IID OF ADJUSDlENT · ATTACHMENTS Item 3. Setbacks front sa' from Federal Highway lot line front SO' from S.E. 6 th Street interior side 20' ~ Vertical hieght limited to 25' Parking lot landscape requirements Item 4. New roof overhangs to extend 4' beyond existing footpt'int of build~ing into setback at'eas on all tht'ee sides. New parapets and roof extent ions to be 30' above lobby floor slab (5' above maximuM to allow new parapets to hide the old roof. All proposed extensions are nonhabitable and decorative in nature. See proposed elevation submitted with application. Item 5. A. The site is a unique shape Ctriangular>,quite small (10790 sq. ft.> ~and was'developed prior to the current zoning regulations effective date~ The building currently enchroches on all setbacks and is higher 'that the maximum hieght allowedin this d is t r i ct . Almost all other parcels of similar zoning are rectangular and are larger than this one. B. The applicant recently acquired the property in its current nonconforming condition. ,c. The granting of this variance will not allow any expansion of ocupied area of this building. All of the extentions are for architectural and aestetic purposes. Since there will be no increase in the habitable area of the building no economic benefit or special privilge will be derived by the applicant. D. A literal iryterpt'etation of the zoning ordinance (as related to us by the starf> allows us to do nothing more than paint this building. This site has a buildable area of only 657 sq. ft. under the provisions of the current chapter which would make the lot virtually unbuildable. We do ~ot have the option of acquiring adjacent land since this 3 sided parcel is bounded by streets on 2 sides and a major historic landmark on the third. We are denied the right to improve the property beyond painting the building. " '. E. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to improve the aestetic and energy usage qualities of this structure. 1 F. Granting this variance will allow us to face lift this building which is located in a sensitive and prominent location in the community. The building is surrounded by streets on 2 sides with adaquite space for fire access, safety, open space, ~ light and ventillation. Extention of overhangs and a parrapet will not adversely affect any other structure in the surrounding neighborhood. The improvements made possible by this variance will allow this building to take on more of the character of the historic building to the south and at the same time become a more compatible part of the residential neighbrhood to the east. In short the community can only benefit from this variance and the proposed improvements. / ~ ~ 2 r4 10 I~ IY zt I. " 17 ! ~ \ .. .. . s ~T~_....... ",,-,",CE. , -i LOCAT/O/V ,H'#P ,lV.r.. ~ ~ ~ ~ "- ~ ~ '! ~ ~ ~ ~ cQ '6 \, ~ ... <) ~ I 1 i j " . ~ ~ ~ .. \... ~~ ~~ ~~ " ~ ~ ... ~ " ~"i , Ilj ~ ... "i 0 " " .;. ~ ~ :z: ~!c'I ~~ ~~ ... , , ,;,: ,~ 1Ii~; ',.t1 , : ~:~ ~ :'.~ --i-!o< t --,. ,: ~.~ . '::~l " " ~ ~ ~ 88Z2' ~ ~ , ' 7~ 80'_"'~_"', '~.I."""""" 50. R/H CERTIFICATE This is to certify that a survey was made this day of I Ie pro?ercy as described and shown hereon and that the survey and skerch are accurate and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief~ This survey meets the minimum technical standards set forth by the Florida Board of Land Surveyors in Cha?ter 21-HH-6. Florida Administrative Code. 41"hCA 11l,.,k: ,4/.., l!kwc.+t:;.. II W/8A.E/.~U."'" WI~~[NGHA~ , LIVELY. INC. By ~.~ ..~~J Registered t:I~d Sur . or No ~ ~aGI State of Florida . INDICA rES IRON PIPE 1"""',- oa8C_lr'TIOM DAft ;-4 ?S'/S&-$. .. !lOTE: DRAINAGE EASEMENr INDICATED IN CHICACO TITLE INSURANCE CO~[TMENr 110 1128 10 000035. DATED MAY 20. 1986 AT 8:00 A.M. AS ITEM 6 SCHEDULE B IS SHOWN ON SURVEY. CERTIFIED TO CHICACO TITLE INSURANCE co. lIOILllL"'IOI<S_ARf__~" . _AIOllIlilU III flA'-l WIlI11t _lIAr. NOTE': ANGLES ARE FIELD DETER.'1INED. SURVEY OF , Lots 8.9.10 and 11. less the West 35 feet thereof of all Lots. of PARKER ESTATE. according to the plat thereof. as recorded in rlat Book 10. Page 37 Puhlic Records of Palm Beach County. Florida. fOR: BERNARD GLASSMAN , SONS SCAU! r.ro' WINNINGHAM & LIVELY. IHe. SURVEYING $ EHGINURING 10t0 Nor. 45111 STKlIT FORT LAUDEIlDALI. FLORIDA Dl\Tf ""-30.8. PHONI 77:t-2640 3S0~ TO: Board of Adjustment Members FROM: City of Boynton Beach Staff Staff Site Analysis - Board of Adjustment REFERENCE: CASE NO. & ADDRESS: f/l08 1810 S. Federal Hwy. MEETING DATE: September 8, 1986 CURRENT ZONING: C-3 DESCRIPTION OF LOT: See attached (WIffiI) BY: The Old Colony Company Heyman Properties (Agent) McDonald's (Lessee) FACTS: 1. This site is not platted. It is presently zoned C-3 and was formerly zoned C-l. 2. This site abuts a residential district and is required to have a buffer wall if undergoing a major modification to the existing development (See Appendix A-Zoning, Sec. 4L). 3. This site has an existing solid, 6' wood fence and a hedge approximately 3.5' along the rear property line. 4. Appendix A-Zoning, Section 4L requires a solid 6' stucco masonry wall painted on both sides, located 2' from the adjoining property line. xc: City Clerk Record\ng Secretary City Planner -Ci ty Mar\"ager-' , Members - Board of Adjustment .. ~ .- -'.~~ (DE..-\DLINE l{)f\ Slh'\IIlT\L: 5 weeks before -'lee! ing) C' t',- \.. TO~ 'BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH DATE 8/11/86 The- undersigned owner (s) hereby respectfully petition the Board of Adjust to grant to Petitioner (5) a special exception or variance to the existing Zoning Code of said City pertaining to the property hereinafter described, and in support thereof state (s): ' 1. Pr~perty in~olved is described as follows: Lot(s) 'See attached leqal descriPtion SID , Block Plat Book , Page , or otherwise, described as follows: Property Address /g//) ~. .ho#w)' . 2. PropertY,is presently zoned: C3 Formerly zoned: C-l 3. Denial was made upon existing zoning requirements from which relief is required: Appendix A-Zoning, Sec. 4-L requires a solid, stucco masonry at'least walll 6' in height where a '~~mmercial .d-if;tri~t_ abu.ts a residential district. 4~ Nature of ~xception or variance required: That the existing 6' high woe fence with hedge be accepted in lieu of CBS wall (7'1 \~ Statement of special condi~ions, hardships or reasons justifying the \I~ requested exception or variance: ;,:..; -Z\ !_/~i (Please respond to t~e six (6) questions as outlined on the attached Ca. ,Certified spot survey (not more than six (6) months old) is required, w; all setbacks anCt~d-.imensions. Also, a location map. ,7; '. .'~ Proposed improvement (attach site development sketch): B~ v,/ Certified list of names and post office addresse$ of property owners ant legal description of their property within 400 feet of subject property, as re~orded in the County Courthouse. Such list shall be accompanied by an affidavit stating that to the best of the applicant's knowledge said list is comple~ and accurate. ' '\ Proof of ownership of property by Petitioner (s) such as deed or purchas con!-ract agreement. . - If agent suhnitfing peti tion. notarized copy of letter' design: , him as such must accompany petition. ' ~'. / Vl~, Application fee is Beach, accompanies 11. Name & address of in the amount of $275.00, this Petition. payable to the City of Boyn owner: Heyman Properties (Agent} for The Old Colony Company (Owner) McDonald's Corporation (Lessee) 12. Name of applicant:' Applicant's ddress: . ~J rOt Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308 Date: &/~ J> Signature of applicans: Date: BIll 86 Permit Denied: 13-. Case I 108 Meeting Date: 9/8/86 SPACE BELOW THIS LINE FOR BOARD USE ONLY -. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Approved Denied Aye'-- Nay Stipulations: :-~eeting Date: Signed: (': : " .. . : ': ".~~'-_I (,:.. ,-.T' i:.,~. .'_~,"[' " " BXHIBIT A The North 1/2 of the South 6.50.8 ft. more or 1..., of the W.at 183.00 ft. (as lCI8aaured at right angle to the East right-of-way Lin. of U.S. Highway No.1) of that part of the NB 1/4, of the NB 1/4 of Sec~ 33 - 4S - 43 lying East of U.S. Highway No.1, les. the South 30.00 ft. thereof for right-of-vay aaaement aa recorded inDeed Book 774 at page 545 in the Public Recorda of Pala Beach County, Florida, mora particularly ducribe4 .. fo11ova J COJllM.11ce at the interaection of the east' right-of-way 11.ne of u.s. Jaghvay and the South line of the NE 1/4 of the NB 1/4, of aaid Sec. 33 thence run N. So 21' 21" E.. aloua the east right-af-way line of U.S. Highway No.1. for 356~l9 ft. to the point of beginning of the tract of land hereon d..cribed; continua If. 500 21' 27" B. for 295.98 ft. to . point; thence run But 183.80 ft. to . point; thence run. S SO 21' 27" W for 292.98 ft. to a point, thence W..t. for 183.80 ft. to the point of bepn"'ina. BeiDa 1D the City of Boynton Beach, Plorida. /" , . '..!t . : a. We fall under the grandfather. Our store was existing before the City changed their ordinance. If we have to build a 6' CBS wall to meet new setback of 2' away from the property line, all the changes that we have to do to the existing site are not warranted. ~ b. We built this store in 1974 in accordance with all city codes. The special circumstance is due to the City of Boynton Beach changing their code requirements. c. If we were develop~ng. this site now, rather than when we did in 1974, we would not be asking for this variance for we would have designed the new site to meet all requirements. We are presently grandfatered. d. If we did not do any improvements to the site, we would not have to put up a fence at all. We are spending.a lot of money to improve' the exterior and interior of the store, which in turn will enhance the neighborhood. The extra money required to remove the existing wood fence, ,3' hedge, c~rb and asphalt plus redesigning the parking lot would be very high and we feel that the existing wood fence and hedge should be an acceptable alternative. e. By ke,eping the existing fence and hedge we will be able to use the existing parking without losing any parking spaces. f 0__ Your code requires a structure to separate residential from commercial. We have provided a 6' wood fence and 3' hedge which serves the same purpose and is more appealing. /' '\ ... . ~ ........ " ~ ~ .. .. ~ / ~ . It it lr 'f Ii u I>#'.'AN ~.'6_':" _. "-,- .::!. - . r _ --- ( 'r. -- to ~t~ Hn~p'1 ili!l! : i~ttm tg , ~'~tlQ f .~lI~I& 'm.t~~i U~~D III ll~ ~ht~t~lr "l ~ "h ."l::\.l:.1 ~ I ~l' ~II il tit. hi~~h=" '. l~llf', t!tl! t~n~ to: 1 "Ii ~ ~ ~~~~t"", t~m~" 1~1 i lU ~ir~Hi! m~~I~t.. t H~H lH ~~fti~t, ... 1. l\ ~ ~h~~ l .rt.t~..~~~ " ,I:' U'il ~H~~ 'f '~~fiJf tit ~ l~~t " 'It W;~!. '~.' t,ttl t~J 1.~ t,;t;:.... I' \.!lM~ t" , ~t t\i\t,:;;~.... \', t lit * jrf 2 \\ t~l3Ht t. ~ rm "" 1 h J!bl!~ I t~ \t l f:tt~~~ "--. -.:tl"tJ tttl~t if lUI !~~f.t_ :: t tn ~ l;~! }~k.... '~u. /;t!! f~~-ll i , ft~n. \l l hI ' ' 1\'( Itt~t ., ~~ ,\ ~ l; ! If- ~! " t ~~ t t . ~ !O -.1 I ~, u &i ;" & -. Mr 'f- ,.,........... ."., ... ., TO: Board of Adjustment Members City of Boynton Beach Staff Staff Site Analysis - Board of Adjustment FROM: REFERENCE: CASE NO. & ADDRESS: fll09 l505 N.E. 1 Street MEETING DATE: September 8, 1986 R-1A 1st ADDN. TO ROLLING GREEN, Blk. 14, Lot II CURRENT ZONING: DESCRIPTION OF LOT: OWNED BY: Rev. Nathaniel Robinson FACTS: 1. This property is presently zoned R-lA and was formerly zoned R-l. 2. This lot was platted 70' x 107' on l2/l8/53. 3. The present R-1A site regulation requires a minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet. 4. The R-l zone prior to present Ordinance 75-19 required a minimum of 5,000 sq. ft. (Ordinance 62-9). 5. The present R-l would require a minimum lot area of 6,000 sq. ft. and the R-lA prior to present ordinance required 6,000 sq. ft. 6. This site was changed from R-l to R-1A and requires 7,500 sq. ft. which is 10 sq. ft. more than the 7,490 sq. ft. shown on the plat of Rolling Green, 1st Addn. "<. ~.. ': "".,:..- -. xc: City Clerk Recording Secretary City Planner City Manager Members - Board of Adjustment . , [~ /6. / ,/ /9. \, / /10. / 11. 12. c, \ ":; ~TO: " . (DEADLl1\TE H)R SUB\UTrAL: 5 weeks before Meet ing) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH DATE g- &,- ~~ , The undersigned owner (s) hereby respectfully petition the Board of Adjust to grant to Petitioner (s) a special exception or variance to ~he existins Zoning Code of said City pertaining to the property hereinafter described, and in support thereof state (s): 1. Property involved is described as follows: Lot(s) 11 Plat Book _ 2!L, Page 86 Block 14 SID 'lst AddlJ.. tl - - - Rolling 'Grel , or otherwise described as follows:', , ~ Property Address Street 15'05 2. '" Formerly zoned: N.E.l I -" }f/ Property is presently zoned: (<-lit 3. Denial was made upon existing zoning requirements from which relief is required: Appendix A-~oning,' Sec. 5-D-2-a. 'requires a minimum lot a:v.ea of l~500 SJl., f~~, - - - --: -~~~ - ~- - ~j-:.:~ .....- . .-....... --;;::-.--:..- -..- 4. Nature of exception or "ariance required: .Lotarea is 7,490 sg. ft..__~ a variance of 10' sq. ft. is r~qu~~i~d. --~._" "~{" .t.... ~..t~ Statement of-special conditIons, hardships or reasons justifying the requested exception or variance: 7. (Please respond to tl?e six (6) questions as outlined on the at:tached (a- Certified spot survey (not more than six (6) months old) is required, wi, all setbacks and# dimensions. Also, a location map. / Proposed irnprovern~nt (attach site development sketch): . S;~l it: F~;L~__lccs ('DiCvJC.e- Certified list of names and post office addresses of property owners and legal description of their property within 400 feet of subject property, as reporded in th~ County Courthouse. Such list shall be accompanied by an affidavit stat1ng that to the best of the applicant's knowledge said list is complete and accurate. Proof of ownership of property b~ Petitioner (s) such as deed or purchase c~n tract. agreement. - - If agent sul:mi tt lilgpeti ti on. notarized copy of letter des ignat . hIm as such 'must accoopany peti tion. _, ' " Application fee is in the amount of $275.00, Beach, accompanies this Petition. Name & address of o~er: "';4+1114-1\.1 ifL Pce;'1\1SoN .;2..;1/ v,E. II ft, A1Jc, ~vlc Name of applicant:. 'S 1T->>1E APRlicant' s address: 2.~ "-l.c, Ilt' A-ue=.. Date: S-b- crt, Signature of applicant: Date: 8711/86 Permit Denied: payable to the City of Boyntc Building 13. Cas'e # 109 Meeting Date: 9/8/86 SPACE BELOW THIS LINE FOR BOARD USE ONLY BOARD OF ADJUS TMENT ACTION: Approved .. Denied Nay Aye :;tipulations: :~.:::ting Date: ------ --- Signed: ( .; ! ',. ______ -':--1 --------~--- ---- ,-.~~.:-J. . .-',' - ,.-\ '-',-:'':__~~",~__L::...:___,-...~._._.___.__._ j , a-there is ~existing structure on property.Zoning calls for 7500 square feet. Lot contains 7490 square feet. b-No special conditions will result from applicants actions ~ c- Granting the variance will confer on the applicant any special privilege. d- The literal interpretation of the chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other propertie~ in the same zoning district and create an unnecessary and undue ,hardship on the applicant e- The variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the structure. f- Granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the chapter, will not be injurious' ,to the area involved and not be detrimental to the public welfare. ~ Mr. Nathaniel Robinson 227 N.E. 11th ave. Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 /' \. ""tt 4. ... .... .. . .... ... : AF I a90~ >'z ~ ,.oC..:~ / r ~N'~a/ 5'EI4>E,y~#/' ~,wK rEA/C~ c#,O'Pcj,4C#E5 to' ~O~ ~ . I . ~'S' IfE-' /~y II/LJ .. " ('ffr'f/#'-L/A/K r/E'vt"E ~r 7d~" A#'('~(}R- ~ :>< ~r= ,P~.?~ ~ ,~ ,~ , ~~ .~ " '.~ I~ / /''' --- / / , ./ ~/ "" , I' I 55.0' /? / /' J ,,""" ,./ / .I ,,- / ", , L' "/-/.... _ (-- t _ / \ I , ~ ~~Fb~ _o":..1I=''::'_::;>T9R:Y :- Re::::,lDt=J.....L~ - o , . --0) lY) ~l 7t1#/ , . 3? <Dl Cc::w.. Po~ t---4 '-, - o a) I 11.~ . c. C .. ~I ~10~ - ~ , It\ t\I -S;) ~- p_ /t15~ '. ,l. " ~ ); .. -1#-- (4(L; /srgTREET /- ~ /~.S'~J//A/6 ##/e":' ,/t:nn rE /7//5 ~t/#OA,qy 5~.RJ{E"j/ #E'E8 TAoI'& ~$/h'V"H /~#YAt?Jllb [.b. 6/?JA/LJ~~L7:5 t?~ Oh91prc-,.q ~/h"#-~ r:A.e. , 5VRvc:YeJr-... Ldr /// '8~~C'K /~ PRS.l( A"Oo//?'d/V /IJ ~~LL/A/~ G"Re""5~ Bc)yA/'/?)A/ C!EAe~ ~A~A4 L35A~# C?CJt://f/r~ ~':::>R/O,4. t!ER77r:-/~CJ T~: /W4rh"AA//5L.. ,.t?d8AV5CJ# DATEPA/?~/.9dg SCALE /", c: -Z~" PLAT BOOK No. ~4 PAGE No./3'~ O'BRIEN, SUITER & O'BRIEN, INC. R~~/ /Ii/,.,c~p' #H/J( ENGINEERS - LAND SURVEYORS DELRAY BEACH FLORIDA BOYNTON BEACH I HER!;BY CERTIFY that the plat shown hereon is a trUe and correct representation of a survey made under my direction, and that said survey is accurate to the best ot my knowledge and beli;t. llnd. unless otherwise shown, there are no visible encroachments.. ~ F1ELD f'.OOK./3/0/ P/\GE NO. 00 7il " ft\ -..: .l :.Pr ~#'Er? ~ .P~.-vE L/Vc5 , 1.5 , / / "' /J c.- / , . ' ~ ~. ~ I l.t; .:S'~ /Rt?A/ - ,,- Rc::'o " ~ '\ .~~l ) [](Q)~W This drawing not valid without an embossed seat red land Surveyor ertificate No.\~\-\" ___c_,." U",'= ,/,7,;1' / ,~..L ~"-.: :./ --- \, ~ rf~'F ::2~~!!{r r ~_ . = )-~.~i Z~j ~~..:~~~ ~f;fo ;:j~ - y, .'. :~:-,:-r- -'..- ~ .,. . :.~ \- '(I~: _.-....;:->;:r .::--;..~. "{-t" ":;:) . ~~ ~~ ":'''~~. -~"'>: - -;', ". ". i / 1 j -' . - I ""_-~ 1/ ~~ '" - --',- "': _.co n::'/ · ,:,; ,rig;-} :;-1 r=kJl~J' "I-T--~ .' ,-'-, ~ l' _ '" ~ L~ ("') 1 L I ~' t- L ~ ;'1'- ~T'.M3 ~.: I ~ - .1~lL <rJ4 ~ == J~ 'I J\sl ~,l.- r- - - ~ ~ -----.: " L I I 'f;- ---.:. " I~' r'~ ------: tdd- ~ r I ~T ~ I ~ '" L.... I .j ~ 1:- ------:. 1S 0- ",J ~ ,I ~ 1" I . "t---- ~: t::a '/ "/" J,~F;r:..;:O 3oJ- l '';" -;' ; ...~ ~i _ ~ I 1:;1;,"'/.<; '.F .~. ,...., ; ,-OJ ...' ., I f-. .1iJ' L ~ 'I ~ l ..-,' ,~', ~ o. I I ~ /,,,,:" -LfJ/'~j~~~~J/'~'~F.~m-3;-': I.!!'~ \.) ~II Z i_ r 1~ -~/II) ~o ,cOl # ".. ,o..} f ..~,-'r'::- I I ~ r .. "I, _ I I,] kf''i! L O!l ':,.. ~ -, I I ~,=l~ R 1 S . '" L,U" ~ ii I '" .-c/'c--J, ,,:-/,' -h..-- '/~r;. ;:'PT-~T~ 1'1 _ - - Ufl ~' I SL41 ~ __ , I E!1 <:to), ,~, "'r--..:. 3N ~ ~ I (".1 I '-;/~k j' ~:c!\t,.p'\ (" I @ I ~ :,/ffl II ~ e. ':r;3".~ .....&.f:a<:. ~_",'Y:: 7'-l.N;'I_g~ - (5 I ~/ttJ _ .~ ~..," . IG\'/ ~ - ,~ - ,I tJ . .". ) p.L:> t' .. ,..... I,~?, ~f:.oj f.. : I -t- -;t :-I ~ !:! ." . "": J ." ~-= JS' =....o.L.....:. r ... =1 .. ~ . ~ -'I . II~ ~ ~""-~ . ';: .:' gj;;-:'''' ,.' T:;;:- 3 N' - ~f@' 1. ~ : <t L.:!! , .r' -0 ~ :::.-. ~~J' ''i' ,~" , """7'-r- ~ ,,~ ~ 'I I;-Jt -1 . "".' .,' -. .,,' >:~-::.' '- ~"'~ I~: .li..,,'" " "'fA '/.";.; {~'~.:~ _:~' ,~~~ ~ r ,,: ~t t- 1~ 3- ,1,z ~.~ , . .' ",' .... . " . " ~.< Ii"''i>' ---..-., ~. ' .;..' ",:,,~.;,;,- '1' .< ~ !BJ l<~<':: :.. ~~;'!i~" .. ) S 1 r~ r ~ ;fj].l.!,' ~ = ~/_ ~ifT" _ - '~; : '~.;;} .. .~... '. >: 1 ; .,. 1'-/ --=~J{ :;: '-:- "'~ ~~ ":z ~.' ,~... ~ /:- ' - 'It: ~ d~~;~~'t~ . :.~ ,\ ~-'~ ~.~~ ~ I ;t ~ ~f~ '~") '{. ..~ . " ......, .1 "'~f:' - (j - JJJ' t=<i ~ " _~~~G' _ ~ ." " ........ ~ - ~ _~. _ ~'., '. ''-0 '\. ~ · ~ .-",' .1. .. ..... I' ""'" ~~,-' ~ . 'T _ '. .f . '" '!' .,' .., n.k . ~ L It.i - oJ.. I,....... ~~",,'~ ,4" I :s~ I~"';\' e4 ~~~ ~' j'"'' 11:'" ~ i". ~~ ~ I~ I'h '-1;"..J~.'~ ~ " , .,.. "~l" . tt:... .""vy.-u'';: . "- ..r8 ~ - :>. . II" _,' . o. J... ::; e ,(. . ,u, <\I z, ~ -t-l _ _..- . .,.... e ~ . ..~ ~.... .. ''', - .:/.. , --:-,;" . '~.L:> :",' ,. ~,. '~.r'I'"'' '," , -' M;; .~" ~ ~; H 1 : oS/ rn li'~L 'f."'" ,." .." . ~o ".. -~ ,0' 1>J!l ~.: ''''0'''''''')' - or' "~f. I ~ ,~! . ,.,' .' "'L ,.' I' L U' .. oJ ..~ ...~. -'to -.' 'G on' 1 N'o ~ - - ~ ,<'$': ~ ' ~ . ,." '~. e" .... . '1; ~,~. 4-J' ,"'" H III I-... " - 61S-'. l ..- .. _.. '" " 1s'~' _;,.... ....~ . m- L >- ..- ."' '.;' ~ , . .. '<, _ ",'"," .dt.~.. .'~ ~ ' :-:-". I - ~.1:'" . ;:., "J -0 G ... ~ ..,~.~J" ....", MN ~"M · . - "'" - ~ i ]_... c::. ',. . ,ft,' - ."~ .~, ~ h;-J f--~ C) L =::i~ . ' ~ ,'.. ". i:-1 "u' ~ cr lQ:::....~ CD. ~. . . K .",~: ~.~7 .. . ." '. Ik -~ NO:: .~ . '" , -'" ,." ",.. .... _, . '.'~' > 3W "U'~ .... ~, .'~ '$- . .11_ .ot' '" , W N' ~ N . '. '" ,,- ~ " P" Z- . ~:, "$. :. ;~.J'~'^~z ~ .;Ji:~J~ < .;..;..~ E-- ='9~E~? :' _~ ! ';. -r.. '0 !II:: ..... I 0 z !.j .. T.... ,...... '--- C) ~. _~.. 4.... ",.! , 'I ~ ~ .. ~ .... J --....... -;J ~ ~ . '. .' _ ~ ' ~u i ..". 'l>"~ . .... ~' . .. is Co' _ .. ...."J , ;>;-i - Q:) -=...:::J ~ ~~I> C ...." T ~ ----" n ,,~ ' -.... . f~:.'" ~ '\",' 'n.: - - !t: p,< - .8'-=-1, 1.~'1 ~ ~ ~ ~ , ,'> \. '_~' . J'VI' ~I' "1 _ ~.. .. _.j N .. ~ - ~ f!==1::::1 .."P', , ~ ., ". .;, Zf~ ~ I!=E , "'~ 1= ~ f~ ---c. . ...,--...