Loading...
CORRESPONDENCE ---.-_.,- ,.._.-....._------,~--" ._-" _._-._._-....'-~---"- MEMOB~NDUM January 4, 1990 TO: Betty Boroni, City Clerk Raymond Rea, City Attorney FROM: RE: Special Meeting of the Board of Adjustment for the Month of January irtl .'~ ',-, --", -,'. ;.,"i~\ -: :~ '. .;.'.",.":,....- ".',,~ ." 't.iI: .-',"".'''' '.>~:. .' ,-i)..,' ~ , .. " "i\Please be advised that I have been informed by Leonard Hanser, attorney for Mr. Mrotek, that his client refuses to attend the meeting scheduled for Monday, January 22, 1990 and that this matter will be addressed through the Courts, hence, meetLnq far 1/22/90 should be cancelled. ~~Q RR/ras Raymond Rea " City Attorney cc: AI Newbold, Building Code Permit Administrator the '",,- ~ a (I IY! MEMORANDUM January 2, 1990 TO: Betty Boroni City Clerk FROM: Al Newbold Building Code Permit Administrator RE: SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY Please schedule a meeting of the Board of January 22, 1990 in one of the conference chambers are not available on that date. the City Attorney to attend'. Adjustment for Monday, rooms if the commission This date will allow '1 ~j The meeting is to determine what is "grade". Attached is a copy of Raymond Rea's memo of December 18th for your information. You may wish to speak with him regarding the wording to use in the Notice of Administrative Appeal since we have no application for the appeal, nor any letter from the applicant of his request to know the measurement of his wall above "finish grade". Please see Appendix A, Section 10.C and D. ? ( r ~ ~ ~1lV Al N ol~ AN: bh Attachment XC: Raymond Rea SPECMTG.DOC , ~ . ::;j ::1 J ':1 " , , .._____ -::-'~/;;!"'/'DI~~~~?7~ '~/':"?~'~:;_Z_I;:',;~'I~:':':~m~~~_:~:~::=-~.:.:;TI::::~ ~.?: :;;(f0~i,:;~:' ____ _ .:.:....-..,';',1'4..:. _..._-~~_.~._-._- '(I)IlCIQY,,, ;' "",," ,.t./""":'~~,'/,';' MEMORANDUM December 18, 1989 TO: Al Newbold, Building Code Permit Administrator THRU: Sharon Randolph, Interim City Manager FROM: Raymond Rea, City Attorney RE: Board of Adjustment Case No. 141 I am in receipt of your Memo dated December 13, 1989, wherein you indicated that the Board of Adjustment did not take action on this case as an appeal from decision of administrative official but as a case under the variance provisions. It is the opinion of this office that the Board of Adjustment is required to make an evaluation under the appeal from decision of administrative official provisions of this Code. Therefore, this matter shall be rescheduled for a Board of Adjustment hearing specifically with that issue in mind; the determination of measurement of the wall above "grade". The matter will be rescheduled without a fee to the applicant. Because of the Board's action related to this issue, I will make sure that if the Board of Adjustment hearing is scheduled in a timely fashion and on a date which is suitable for my schedule I will attend said meeting to inform them of their obligations in this matter. By copy of this Memorandum to Leonard Hanser which will include the provisions of judicial review of decisions of the Board of Adjustment Appendix A, Section 10. G. he is also informed of his rights to appeal the denial of the variance, the date of the appeal, and the 30 day time limit will be extended pending resolution of the Board of Adjustment's determination of the decision of the administrative official. Hopefully this can occur sometime in January. ~~~-~~~~ Raymond A. Rea City Attorney ~ RR/ras cc: Don Jaeger, Building Official Board of Adjustment File Central Files Leonard Hanser, Esq. MEMORANDUM December 13, 1989 TO': Raymond Rea City Attorney "...... THRU: c"(} ----' Sharon Randolph ~ Interim City Manager , :. ~ GAp, ,'~ "h_?o '.~~Z.~'I FROM: Al Newbold Building Code Permit Administrator ...."..-.- RE: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE *141 2624 LAKE DRIVE NORTH OWNER: MICHAEL & RAMONA MROTEK REQUEST: FOR HEIGHT OF PROPERTY WEST WALL VARIANCE OF 2 I ABOVE WHAT WAS APPROVED The Board of Adjustment, at their regular meeting on December 11, 1989 and after much discussion, took action on the case as a Variance, not an Appeal from Decision of Administrative Official. A motion was made and seconded to grant the two (2) feet additional height of the wall above what was approved on the plans. It was stated by both the originator of the motion and the person who seconded it that all walls should have been only six (6) feet above finish grade as per City code and that the owner had no right to construct anything other than what was on his plans without getting it approved first. However, the motion had four (4) "ayes" and three (3) "nays", so the request was denied due to the three (3) "nay" votes per Appendix A, Section 10.A.5 Based on the Board's decision, the owner may push for the pending court case to be heard or file for Judicial Review of the Board's decision per Appendix A, Section 10.G. If neither of the above is done, please advise this department on the best method to have him bring his wall into compliance with the approved plans. Al~~ AN: bh xc: Don Jaeger Board of Adjustment file Central files MROTEK. DOC Sec. 10 BOYNTON BEACH CODE from by filing with the officer from whom the appeal is taken ano with the board of adjustment a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. The appeal shall be in the form prescribed by the rules of the board. The administrative official from whom the appeal is taken shall, upon notification of the filing of the plans, papers, or other materials constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken. Due public notice shall be given in accordance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. E. STAY OF WORK AND PROCEEDING ON APPEALS. An appeal to the board of adjustment stays all work on the premises and all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from, unless the official from whom the appeal was taken shall certify to the board of adjustment that by reason of facts stated in the certificate, a stay would cause imminent peril of life or property. In such case, proceedings or work shall not be stayed except by a restraining order which may be granted by the board of adjust. ment or by a cou..""t of record on application, on notice to the officer from whom the appeal is taken and on due cause shown. F. HEARIN'G OF APPEALS. The board of adjustment shall fix a reasonable time for the hearing of the appeal, give public notice thereof, as weil as due notice to the parties in interest, and decide the same \vithin a reasonable time. Upon the hearing, any party may appear in person, by agent or by attorney. Applicants shall be required to file a proper form (supplied by the city clerk) and a current certified survey accompanied by a fee as adopted by resolution of the city commission. For procedural purposes, an application for a special exception shall be handled by the board of adjustment as fer appeals. G. JUDICL4.L REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF BOARD OF AD- JUSTMENT. Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any decision of the board of adjustment, or any officer, de- partment, board, commission, or bureau of the governing body, may apply to the circuit court in the judicial circuit where the board of adjustment is located for judicial relief within thirty (30) days after rendition of the decision by the board of adjustment. Review in the circuit court shall be either by trial de novo, which shall be governed by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, or by petition for writ of certiorari, which shall be governed by the Supp. No, 35 1942.6 ( . I ( ." ( APPENDIX A~ZONING S~C. 11 \ Florida Appellate Rules. The election of remedies shall lie with the appellant. H. WITHDRAWAL OR DENIAL OF APPLICATION: (1) Upon the denial of an application for relief hereunder, in whole or in part, a period of one (1) year must run prior to the filing of a subsequent application affecting the same property or any portion thereof. (2) Upon the withdrawal of an application, in whole or in part, a period of six (6) months must ~'un prior to the filing of a subsequent application affecting thl.. same property or any portio:J. thereof, unless, however, the decision of the coard is without prejudice; and provided that the period of limi- tation snaIl be increased to a two-year waiting period in the event such an application, in whole or in part, has been twice or more denied or withdrawn. (3) An appiication may be withdrawn without prejudice by the applicant as a matter of right; provided the request for withdrawal is in writing and executed in a manner and on a form prescribed by the board and filed with the board at least one (1) week prior to any hearing scheduled concern- ing the application; otherwise, all such requests for with- dra....val shall be with prejudice. No application may be withdrawn after final action has been taken. When an application is withdrawn without prejudice, the time limi- tations for re-application provided herein shall not apply. (Ord. No. 76-40, ~ 1, 10-5-76; Ord. No. 77-19, ~ 1, 7-19-77; Ord. No. 78-31, ~ 1,8-15-78; Ord. No. 83~17, 9 1,5-17-83; Ord. No. 84-45, ~ 1, 11-20-84; Ord. No. 85-22, ~ 1, 4-2-85; Ord. No. 86-4, ~ 11,3-18-86; Ord. No. 88-17, ~ 17,5-3-88) i. Section 11. Supplemental regulations. A. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS. The site plan shall be drawn to a scale of not less than two hundred (200) feet to the inch. Three (3) copies of the site plan shall be submitted <. Supp. No. :l!) 1942.7 MEMORANDUM TO: See Below DATE: December 5. 1989 FROM: Betty S. Baroni City Clerk RE: Mrotek Applicatic t meeting of Attached please find a copy of a letter and attachments received on December 4 from Martin J. McGee objecting to the above referenced application. B15{~- - BSB/smk Attachments cc: L. Artis R. Eney S. DeLong T. Newton H. Solomon V. Thompson B. Uleck J. Miriana A. Newbold .~ ~ .. n. /;~;)._- .~ . . " ~', '-, ,~, ~' /'" '. ~; I..~ '. Board of AdjuRtment Boynton Beach, Florida ---- CaRe No. 141 -. /"~_'J' Hearin~ on Monday, December 11, 1989, concerning request for variance nv --. -","r ,,>Jl9q owners of pronerty at 2624 Lake Drive North, from zonin~ requirements limitin~ height of walls to six feet. Because of timing of hearing date and distance to IllinoiR, 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 ~ound elevation, It should be observed that the wall is higher than the ton of the bedroom windows, b1ockin~ out lake breezes, sun 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 ~x. 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 result in him having to tear down the wall. On the following day, a Saturday, when city offices were closed, a lar~e 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- HieR. I have no animosity towards owners Mr. and Mrs. ~rotek, I was pleased when 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 7Jld:;Z;;: M~ ~ naP"P 2 water sutmlv to use for nOWf'r tools bv cart)f'!ntpr~ RT'1d concrAtp workpr~ ,"1--i8 continued Avpn after build ing the wall six feet hip-her than the per!'"'i tted four ff'et. AlthOUgh a city official informed me that AVAn ner~itting the four foot wall was a mistake ~ince it could interfere with natural waterflow, down grade from Federal Highway to the Intracostal. I decided against objecting to the permit in deference to city cooperation. HOWf'VAr 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 six more feet in height could be added. My objection to deviation from the building code in this instance is in protection of the value of my property. My initial intention in buying the house was for possible personal use of it when full-time residence in Florida became possible. The present hAight of the wall makes it questionable. A tenant who moved out of the house July 31, 1989, advised me that the wall reduced the value of the house. My neighbors to the West informed me thev felt my house declined in value because of the wall. I thank you for your attention and your consideration of my objections. After December 28, 1989. I will be in Boynton Beach and available to furnish any additional information if needed. //11 /1' ~'~ ~ );;1 (! , (t Uz.. .~~ ~ { , /' Hartin J. MctGee , C? 0-e- 410 Ashland 5G River Forest, II. 60305 Raymond Rea, Esq. City Attorney 120 E. Boynton Beach Blvd. Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 RECFh7,c-n "-,'1~,u \ ~ C1TYDO~~')~~,~ 1989 >~J Re: Fence at Lot Line Adjoining 640 Dimick Road Dear !\1r. Rea: During my annual visit to Boynton Beach in late February and early ~~arch, the matter of the concrete wall which was being built by !\1r. M. Mrotech along the lot line of his property and the adjoining home at 640 Dimick Road, was brought to my attent ion. I understand that the property owner and builder were aware of the six foot maximum height restriction for such fences or walls provided by the Boynton Beach City Code. I observed that the day after a neighbor brought to the attention of. the builder and owner 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. I 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 of 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 height restriction to be ignored and easily circumvented would obviously go against the best interests of the City and its homeowners. As you are aware, when Mr. Mr. Mrotech purch~~ed his property in ] 988, it had been elevated with fill about three feet and w~s tapered to the adjoining properties. Mr. Mrotech chose to build four foot concrete walls just within his property lines on the south and west and he then filled in the interior lot to the top of said wall. At this ti me his contention that an additional six foot wall would be permit ted by the City Code cannot be supported by logic. His approach would allow homeowners to easily circumvent the Code provision by simply increasing the elevation at the sight of the proposed \','~II. Its intere:sUng to note how dramatic the effect of this .....all is on the neightJorin;; ~:c;lr:e r~s indic2ted by the enclosed photograph. Clearly the wall has destroyed all siEht jir,e:s end will c:,amatically restrict ventilation from the east. Sunllght will be c",:rr.atic;:,lly b106:e:d prior to mid-day. This is exactly the situation that the relevant Code provis:0n ....::s intended to prevent. To allow such a wall .....ould be to permit a dramatic e>:ce~tion to t~,~ !-.e:it'ht restriction and would c:nc2.:-,r;er its future enforceinr:nt. /- -.~ , -- -- 1 I t ~} , .::::-- &.. ~ ---- ----; -- -- ,4 P/fC7'"u o~ -r-f/J;= lY'r-9LL /}-LCNG 51})'=- ;y Y ffc.>{JS E -4/ & ~ 0 D/ ~ Ie k:' R..D. ;at.' YIV /c-"/-...,( /3~4-c.1f Ab~/j)A. / /HE ~~ ,t( 8Loc~ 1.. ~ r' E L.. S;:-/PI;:O J(/Sr- /fBDvE /ff.t: SrH' /p c', JJ t.V't15 r?f E CA P /l"T L/ rvc-J '/ ('36- ;=c.,;Pc:r~~Eocy /lJ;/ /7> (!:)#, /., \ \ >----- -,', I / "').,. /~/./')rt"1.~. ""~ <<~'~.." J,rye G-EE -" I\Ct,"'~''-' --"','.. , :,~~,' .. . .' '::0 DEe ,~ - 1989:> :==- >,' em'f"" '. ,-I ,'''. ~"'~';'IOj~BEACH ,-....~, \ /' em CLERK ......f" /').. '(' (('i", ' / t'''t~______ ~-. -~ 1 -..::..'~ -- -- ij ,~/;:) . ~{.... I v,--)&A~ ('~~ (~~t.4 C:?h~ [lL4!e~/ ~7-~(i~.&,j ,ak~v 4tA<(. ~~.' ,,//. / /? _/' d? "0'U;'~ ;ll-c ,~..J ~?~fl~~i /'?!t.-e ' '5 //' A'? ~ ., k-- /y-'/ A ---7.,.-/ " ? '7 ' ~': /' /7) c~ /' "'t"i!--' }t D:C-4,/17 'ic C___f.-J<- - / -t)'p~~.pxlu II /fJ?cj J ,. .:p~ 6;~ -~ /7 ?/~T- /';z;;- '/J...€_ ~~ '-II It:~~:" tf..c ~~ ' ) d.ftL~ -;a /fL4~ ~(' z;; ~ y'-- . ~ () 17' c~({.lduc.e ~ ~.:?~ '-.J( ~ I ' - ;iJo/~ /e ~m~ t:o<-tA ;<2e~-'L~~ .f[,-&:jic~~-C;- ~ ~ /;,.~ 4> ~ ~ ;:! ,/ ~~t-t.C-e' (;3p~ "7~~. ?[);ar~~ /t.~,4- ~ -v~, __ '. <, ~?~ 4~ ~(.~e?: ~r -if p~~ ~., ,~~4L tt4- ~L ;40// Od~ ~~ /4/M~- ;tr ~/ --;1~' ~ t:h4- ~ u~ /~ecc~A ~fl-b~~?~ ~ UU . I ,,- ,r Itl-Ftv-. J/&:?J rt.- /~ 7lt-~~~ ~e/ ~, ~a~ 4s6-<~ ") . ~ -:.t? '!'-d~~ / ;f'y.7 /' ~ _'~ ), (.1 /1h.. ~ n;/~/& / .. -- ~O /~~~ /ft'uC-/l Lt-~ p<r- ~/~#~ -z;;- j1ft-4~_ r ti~ t!t:q - - . ... ., \ ',: r c', ._ -- I ". , . \\n:\) :-~. . \ I ~ Q(\ .'?..- __, y,,-"\go:J ' -4 l!6-rTjlj~1~)}~c;" ." ~,,~:v\\ '-,,: C l--ry L: I... t?~;k ' .-...:::." ------ " '- . \ -- ~ ~ J, ~~~ ~ =- 1'\\ ,." It>~~ ~ ::=J ..... Y\~ me ~~::t ~ c::a ~ =- w?o~~ '"::a Cl')m ()O\:<~ ~\ ---tn "'", '\ ,~, tj 11\ =- ~ ." .... ........."s1 ~ I"G;\ " ~ ~ ~ to 1 () ~ ~ ~ ~ ........ "- "" 'i i " ~"'< '< 'i ~ ~ "'i ~ ~ '< ~ " ,fI-t ~\ ~ CO ~ ~ t> ?i" l\1 ~ ~ '< () <: () ~ d ~ "- -00 r 2: ~ ~ ~ " ~ b 1\ ~ ~ -- -: '~ - &.::-~ --'-- ---~--"_._.