LEGAL APPROVAL
'Ifie City of
'Boynton 'Beacn
100 'E. 'Boynton 'Beadi 'Bou1evartf
P.O. 'BOi(310
'Boynton 'Beadi, 7foritfa. 33425-0310
City!JfaII: (407) 375-6000
7JU: (407) 375-6090
November 22, 1994
Mr. John W. Madison
2516 NE 4th CT
Boynton Beach, FL 33435
Re: Board of Adjustment Case *199
2516 NE 4th CT
Boynton Beach, FL 33435
Dear Mr. Madison:
Your request for a variance regarding the above referenced case was
denied by the Board of Adjustment at their November 21, 1994
meeting.
If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.
TJH/pab
Sincerely,
<C~;PF ~
d !=,N<-
i J. Heyden
i PIa ing and Zoning Director
xc: Development Dept
Case File
Central File
A: DENIED. BOA
5Imerkas gateway to tlU guifstream
MINUTES u~ THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETI~~
HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA,
ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1994, AT 7:00 P.M.
PRESENT
Vernon Thompson, Chainman
James Miriana, Vice Chainman
Raychel Houston, Secretary
Barkley Garnsey
Nello Ti neri
Ben Uleck
Irving Sechter, Alternate (Voting)
Arthur Berman, Alternate (Non-Voting)
Mike Haag, Zoning and Site
Development Administrator
Leonard Rubin, Assistant City
AttOill ~ @ ~2: ::94 ~ rn
!
\ PLANNING AND
\ ZONING DEPT.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF MEMBERS AND VISITORS
Chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. He introduced the
members of the Board, and announced that Mr. Berman would participate in the
Board discussion on the subject case, but he would not be a voting member this
evening. He also introduced Assistant City Attorney Rubin, Mike Haag, and the
Recording Secretary.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion
Mr. Tineri moved to approve the minutes as received. Mr. Uleck seconded the
motion, which carried unanimously.
COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None
OLD BUSINESS
Chainman Thompson apprised all members of the elections which took place at the
last Board meeting.
NEW PETITIONS:
Ca.se '199
Property Owner:
Request:
2516 NE 4th Court
John W. Madison
The request is to vary Section 4.B.2. of Appendix
A - Zoning, regarding the overall height of an
accessory building. The Code requires a maximum
overall height of 7 feet. The request is to allow
8 feet.
Secretary Houston read the application. In analyzing this case, it was learned
that Mr. Madison is requesting that the Board consider increasing the maximum
- 1 -
.....
MINUTES - BOARD O~JUSTMENT MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH. FLORIDA
'ftttJII1
NOVEMBER 21. 1994
allowed height of his eighty (80) square foot storage shed (accessory building)
from seven (7) feet to eight (8) feet. The existing shed is located near the
northeast corner of the corner lot and was built without the benefit of a per-
mit. The property owner was cited on May 20, 1994, for construction without a
permit, and Case #94-1513 will be heard by the Code Enforcement Board on
January 18, 1995, to certify the fine the Board assessed. On October 26, 1994,
Permit #94-2208 was issued for construction of a shed. The permit plans reflect
the structure in compliance with the Code; however, the applicant is seeking
approval to increase the maximum overall height one (1) foot.
It was noted that the back-up agenda material contained "Exhibit All, which was
the applicantls response to the statement of special conditions for the variance
request.
Secretary Houston read a letter of support from Nelson Heath dated November 16,
1994.
Chairman Thompson requested clarification from Attorney Rubin on whether or not
a decision from this Board would create a conflict with the Code Enforcement
Board. Attorney Rubin responded negatively.
The Recording Secretary administered the oath to all who would be testifying
during these proceedings.
John Madison. 2516 NE 4th Court. owner of the property. introduced Donald
Nettles who would speak on his behalf.
Donald Nettles said Mr. Madison secured a permit for the slab on which the shed
was built. He constructed the shed without a penmit. When he attempted to
secure the necessary permit, he learned that the shed was built in excess of
seven (7) feet. The reasons for the request are that he spent a good deal of
money and time building the shed, it is aesthetically pleasing because it
matches the house, and it requires low maintenance. Mr. Nettles pointed out
that the sheds which can be purchased at stores like Scottyls wind up standing
714" or 716" once they are erected. Not only do they exceed the Code, but after
a few years, they rust out and begin to look badly.
Mr. Nettles circulated photos of the shed which was constructed by Mr. Madison.
He pointed out that Mr. Madison spent money on engineering to make certain that
the shed would withstand hurricane winds up to 110 mph. He requested the
Board's consideration in granting the variance request.
Vice Chainman Uleck questioned why Mr. Madison exceeded the seven (7) foot
height limitation from the start. Mr. Madison said he was unaware of the limi-
tation. He stated that he was of the belief that the penmit he secured for the
slab was also for the building. He learned of all the requirements once he was
cited.
Vice Chainman Uleck pointed out that Mr. Madison could have built this shed with
a flat roof, rather than a pitched roof. Mr. Nettles said the height was
- 2 -
MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTM~"f ~EETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
NOVEMBER 21, 1994
increased in consideration of the appearance of the 618" door and to make it
accessible for Mr. Madison who has a tall stature.
In response to Secretary Houston's question, Mr. Madison said he is no longer
accruing fines under the Code Enforcement process since he resubmitted his
plans.
Mr. Tineri pointed out to Mr. Madison that the permit clearly states, "For Slab
Only". Mr. Madison said he was unaware of this.
Vice Chairman Miriana felt Mr. Madison should have been aware of the fact that a
permit was required. Mr. Nettles said Mr. Madison has gotten a penmit for every
other thing he has done on this property. He just did not think he needed a
permit for the building in addition to the slab.
Chairman Thompson asked Mr. Haag to explain how the fees are charged with regard
to permits. Mr. Haag explained that the price of a permit for a slab only as
opposed to a slab and building may be very close because it is based on value.
A penmit for the slab would be $35. If the value of the slab and the building
is under $3,000, the price would be $35. The work described on the penmit
application is what determines the cost of the penmit.
Ron O'Donnell ~ member of the Bul1ding Board of Adjustment and Appea1s~ was ad-
ministered the oath. He stated that there are laws, and this Board should
follow those laws.
Chainman Thompson explained to Mr. O'Donnell that the Board members are aware of
their responsibilities, and they judge each case on its own merit. All criteria
is reviewed before a decision is made.
Mr. O'Donnell said that if this applicant is granted at eight (8) feet, he will
go to nine (9) feet.
Mr. Haag referred back to a question which was raised with regard to a conflict
between the Board of Adjustment and the Code Enforcement Board. The Code
Enforcement process will establish the fine Mr. Madison must pay. The outcome
of this meeting will not change anything which has already transpired in that
process. The Code Enforcement Board is not waiting for this Board to approve or
deny the request. In January, they will certify the fine.
THERE WAS NO ONE ELSE PRESENT WHO WISHED TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION.
Chairman Thompson reminded the members that the only thing in question is the
height of the building.
Vice Chainman Miriana said he was disturbed by this application because he feels
this shed is too close to the easement and property line on the street side.
Mr. Haag advised that the slab was penmitted in that location which means that
this would have been acceptable if it was less than 100 square feet and not more
than seven (7) feet in height. There was no problem with the setback along the
road or from the east.
- 3 -
MINUTES - BOARD~USTMENT MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
~J
NOVEMBER 21, 1994
Mr. Haag referred to the survey on Page 6 of the back-up material which was done
after the slab and prefinished frame shed were in place. This is shown just
outside of the easement. According to Code, as long as this is not in the ease-
ment, it can be permitted if all other setback requirements are met.
Vice Chairman Miriana further thought it was necessary for Mr. Madison to have a
twenty-five (25) foot clearance on the street side. Mr. Haag explained that
this is a corner lot. On this corner, he needs a side setback which is one-half
of the front setback. His front setback is twenty-five (25) feet since the
front is towards NE 4th Court. The side is NE 25th Avenue. That side setback
requirement would be twelve and one-half (12.5) feet. Mr. Haag prepared a
sketch for viewing by the Board members to assis~ them in understanding the
scenario he described.
Secretary Houston asked the applicant if it is possible to replace the pitched
roof with a flat roof without destroying the building. Mr. Nettles responded
negatively.
Mr. Haag clarified that he does not know whether or not that shed depicted in
the photo shown to Mr. U1eck is in compliance with the Code. Mr. Nettles said
Mr. Madison has a penmit for the shed which was depicted.
In response to a question from Vice Chairman Miriana, Mr. Haag explained that
the applicant has a penmit for the shed. The drawings indicated that the shed
would be seven (7) feet tall. However, Mr. Madison built the shed at eight (8)
feet without a permit. This Board must detenmine whether or not he must reduce
the height of the shed or relocate it on the site in order to keep it at eight
(8) feet.
Motion
Vice Chairman Miriana moved to deny the request to grant a variance for an eight
(8) foot high shed.
Mr. Garnsey recalled that a previous City Attorney recommended that all motions
should be made in the affinmative, and then the Board could vote it up or down.
Since this is a quasi-judicial process, City Attorney Rubin explained that if
the Board denies this request, an order must be prepared setting forth the
reasons for the denial. He recommended either a motion to grant, or a motion to
deny.
Secretary Houston seconded the motion to deny the request.
Attorney Rubin reminded the members that prior to voting on the motion, findings
to support the denial must be stated.
Vice Chairman Miriana explained that his reason for denying this variance is
that the applicant created the hardship, and the shed is not conducive to the
neighborhood.
- 4 -
MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
NOVEMBER 21, 1994
Secretary Houston referred to the special conditions, hardships or reasons for
justifying the variance as set forth by the Building Department. Her reasons
for denying this variance relate to:
1. Item C requires that "...the granting of 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".
2. Item E requires, "...that the variance granted is the minimum variance
that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or
structure". Secretary Houston feels the applicant can continue to
use the land if the variance is not granted. Also, since other
people have been denied a similar request, this applicant would be
receiving a special privilege.
Mr. Garnsey said he will not support the motion because Mr. Madison has already
had enough hardship. He will have to pay a fine. He has paid a $400 applica-
tion fee to appear before this Board and he feels it is an undue and unnecessary
hardship for him to remove the building or shorten it. It is an attractive
building as is obvious from the photos which were circulated and the testimony
of neighbors. He does not feel the applicant tried to circumvent the permitting
process to get away with substandard construction. The Board Secretary feels
this request should be denied because it would grant special privileges. Mr.
Garnsey does not feel the granting of the variance would grant special privi-
leges since anyone can pay $400 and appear before the Board to see if their cir-
cumstances warrant an increase in the height of a similar structure. Mr.
Garnsey feels this is the minimum variance which will make possible the reason-
able use of the building or structure.
Chainman Thompson advised the applicant that this is not a majority vote. Any
three (3) negative votes will deny the request.
The Recording Secretary polled the vote. The motion to DENY the variance
carried 5-2. (Messrs. Garnsey and Sechter cast the dissenting votes.)
OTHER BUSINESS
Vice Chainman Miriana questioned how well the Code Enforcement Division follows
up on decisions made by the Board of Adjustment.
In response to a question from Chainman Thompson, Mr. Haag advised that in this
particular case, since a penmit was issued for this shed, Mr. Madison will not
be able to get an inspection on the shed until the height is changed to the
seven (7) foot standard. If he lets the penmit lapse (a period of six months),
a field inspector would then check the site (deadbeat check). At that point, it
could be cited again. Once cited, he would have to go back before the Code
Enforcement Board.
Mr. Uleck questioned the amount of time a violator has to correct a violation.
It was explained that the Code Enforcement Officer works with the violator to
gain compliance. If compliance cannot be achieved in that manner, then the case
is referred to the Code Enforcement Board.
- 5 -
MINUTES - BOARD~JUSTMENT MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
"tw ..J
NOVEMBER 21, 1994
Attorney Rubin explained that the amount of time allowed for compliance varies
immensely depending on whether or not the Officer can work with the violator.
Once it goes before the Board, the circumstances of the case are weighed and a
decision is made. The Code Enforcement Board exists to ensure compliance, not
to generate revenue.
COMMENTS BY MEMBERS
Since there was a question earlier this evening about how to word a motion,
Chairman Thompson asked Attorney Rubin if there was anything new the Board
should be aware of in this regard.
Attorney Rubin responded negatively but explained that since this is a quasi-
judicial board, whenever the use of the land is denied to a property owner, the
Board must set forth specific reasons for the denial. The applicant now has the
opportunity to appeal this decision to the Circuit Court if that is his choice.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Uleck moved to
adjourn the meeting. Mr. Berman seconded the motion. The meeting properly
adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
~ m.(J~
Unet M. Prainito
Recording Secretary
(One Tape)
- 6 -