CORRESPONDENCE
STAFF REPORT
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
NOVEMBER 16, 1994
CASE #199
Location: 2516 N.E. 4th Court
Owner: John Madison
Request: 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
seven (7) feet. The request is to allow eight (8) feet.
Analysis: John Madison, owner and resident of the R-1-A single-
family residential zoned property, is requesting the
Board consider increasing the maximum 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 permit.
The property owner was cited May 20, 1994 for
construction without a permit and the case #94-1513 will
be heard by the code Enforcement Board on January 18,
1995, to certify the fine the Board assessed the proposed
owner. On October 26, 1994, permit #94-2208 was issued
for construction of a shed. The permit plans reflect the
structure in compl iance with the code, however, the
applicant is seeking approval to increase the maximum
overall height one (1) foot.
The above-referenced code section states that detached accessory
buildings located in residential districts may be erected to a
point at least three (3) feet from the side property line and/or at
least three (3) feet from the rear property line when the accessory
building complies with each of the following specifications:
1. Maximum overall height is seven (7) feet or less
2. Maximum floor area does not exceed one hundred (100) square
feet.
NOTE:
All accessory buildings shall be
located only in the side or rear
yard at least twelve (12) feet from
the principal building.
If the structure is not designed to comply with the two (2)
specifications, the structure shall comply with the R-I-A zoning
district building and site regulations, regarding building
setbacks. The R-1-A side setback is seven point five (7.5) feet
and the rear setback is twenty-five (25) feet.
Find attached Exhibit "All, a document prepared by the applicant,
which represents the statement of special conditions for the
variance request. The following list is provided to assist you in
evaluating the request:
1. The subject property and all abutting properties are zoned R-
I-A.
2. The structure in question is an existing 80 square foot
accessory building (storage shed).
3. City records indicate that on October 29 f 1993 a final
inspection was approved for a concrete slab (permit #93-5070)
that now is the foundation of the subject accessory building.
The permit request was for a slab only.
/
BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 94-270
November 15, 1994
To:
William V. Hukill, P. E.
Building Official
From:
Al Newbold, Deputy Building Official
Re:
Review of Board of Adjustment Case #199
In the past, the department administering the Board of Adjustment
provided a fact sheet for comments from other departments due on
Monday prior to the scheduled Board of Adjustment meeting. Since
the Planning Department has)oe~n#dministering these case.s, t~iS.
process !Las ceased. -?~~~7- {~I~~
'?
<. This case was submitted to Planning on September 18, 1994. After <
almost two months, it was forwarded to us on November 14, 1994
for comments due Wednesday, November 16, 1994. You may need to
discuss this process with them.
Since the Board of Adjustment is not a recommending Board but
rather a Quasi Judicial Board and their decisions can only be
appealed through court procedures, every effort should b~ad~ t~
see that cases are handled appropriately.___~ .- A~/
V~W~~
To aid you in your response to Case #199, I have researched the -~.
files and offer the following comments: r ~-r -~
1. Appendix A - Zoning, section 4.B.2. is, in itself, a
privileged exception granted by the code from the strict
requirements of Section B which requires accessory buildings
to conform to minimum building site regulations of the
district where it is located and to be located a minimum of
12 Ft. from the main structure.
In this case, R1A Zoning requires a side setback of 7.5 Ft.
and a rear setback of 25 Ft. unless they can comply with
Section 4.B.2. This building already exists and is not in
compliance with RIA setbacks.
2. Self-imposed hardships are no grounds for a variance. (See
Appendix A - zoning, Section 10.B.3.b.) This building was
constructed without a permit with the owner having full
knowledge of the setbacks when Permit No. 93-5070 was issued
as an owner-builder permit to install two slabs for the
purpose of boat parking. A note was placed on the permit at
that time stating that any future structures must meet
setback requirements.
BUILDING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 94-270 November 15, 1994
Re: Review of Board of Adjustment Case #199 Page 2
That permit was inspected and the final signed off on
10/29/93. Sometime between then and May 5, 1994, the
building was constructed. (See Code Enforcement printout
which indicates a May 20, 1994 citation for construction of
a utility shed and a carport shed without a permit.)
Permit No. 94-2208 for a utility shed only was issued on
10/26/94. Notes were placed on it that the maximum height
allowed to comply with appropriate codes is 7 Ft.
To date there have been no inspections.
The owner is now requesting a variance in order for the shed to ,n~)
remain at it's present location. ~I
/~~
In the past, this type of self-imposed hardship has been denied. ~. V
otherwise, one having full knowledge of the code would build the
building to circumvent the codes by having this Board approve a
variance.
Regardless of the city's position, the Board should have the
facts in order to make an inrpl]i~ent ne~;~jon.
AN:mh
Atts.
v
",!'!AD!SON.lIOA
TO:
<\'W-L~
:~~10N i;:;<<~
~~'/~ ~~..'~\\> C~'y \
~ ,...~ \~~&..
. '"' l\ \ &.. ".
B1.'ll H k'll D 1 t D' t t L ...\~'l n,\~'O~'
u 1. , 5;e opmen 1.rec or ." ~\"v ~\~\,. ~
~~ \::: <Q ~~v."J ,,~'
MicI:a7l Haag, 'Zo ng and Site Development \~ . $(}l'rHO!\'~(-,
Adml.n1.strat ~ ~.
November l4,~~94
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Review of Board of Adjustment Case #199
Enclosed please find a copy of an application for a variance to be
heard by the Board of Adjustment at the November 21, 1994 meeting
for your perusal. Please let us know if you have any comments by
5:00 PM Wednesday, November 16, 1994.
Additional data and drawings for this case
the Planning and Zoning department office.
\ MEH/cmc
cc: Al Newbold, Deputy Building Official
for your review are in
I ~(cd 'r/~t~4
(I \ I ~ 0 It' (jI)
,(tv
{Lev
Attachments
A:BLDGOFF.BOA
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Adjustment Members
FROM: Sue Kruse
City Clerk
DATE: November 21, 1994
RE: John W. Madison
Board of Adjustment Case #199
Scheduled for 11/21/94 Meeting
Attached is a letter from Nelson Heath in support of Mr. Madison's application
for a variance.
L~~
Eve Eubanks, Acting Deputy Clerk
EE/ee
Attachment
cc: M. Haag
T. Heyden
City Attorney
rn
NU\f 2 I 1994
rn
PLANNING AND D J\.. .11'..
ZON!NG DEPT. .+ V ._
~I
",.,;
11/16/94
TO: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
FROM: NELSON HEATH
2501 N.E. 25TH AV.
BOYNTON BEACH FL 33435
RE: CASE 1199 OWNER JOHN W. MADISON
I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO ALLOWING MR.MADISONS REQUEST FOR HIS STORAGE SHED
TO BE 8 FEET. THE SHED BLENDS IN WITH THE SURROUNDINGS AND IS AN IMPROVEMENT
TO THE PROPERTY, I SEE NO REASON NOT TO APPROVE JOHN W. MADISON'S REQUEST.
THANK YOU
NEIGHBOR
sa- a
A
0-0001
19/054
/fJd/?/C/ Mh'rL
.>,
.,.\
DIXON At ) ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, ~C.
1860 OLD OKEECHOBEE ROAD
SUITE 506
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33409
(407) 684-1279
August 11, 1994
Boynton Beach Building Department
100 East Boynton Beach Blvd.
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425
Re: Mr. John Madison
2516 North East 4th Court
Boynton Beach, Florida 33435
Gentlemen:
Mr. Madison has visited my office and has requested that I assist
him in obtaining a building permit for a utility shed which I
understand he has constructed on his property without a building
permit. I understand that the slab was constructed and a
building permit for that slab together with its monolithic
footing was approved.
I have analysed this building and I feel certain modifications
are necessary in order to make this building comply to the
building code which requires a structural system to resist wind
loads of 110 miles per hour.
I understand the building in accordance with the attached
sketches furnisheJ by the owner consists of 2 x 4 stud walls with
5/8 sheeting. The 2 x 4 studs are 16 inches on center I
understand. The roof is supported by 2 x 6 joists approximately
2 feet on center I understand. The roof sheeting is 5/8 plywood.
The following remarks are recommendations that I have to bring
this building up to conformance to the requirements of this wind
loading.
Item # 1. The sill I understand is attached to the concrete
with lag bolts and lead shields. This is insufficient in my view
and I therefore recommend that alternate studs be attached to the
concrete footing by the use of a Simpson MTT 22 utilizing a 3/8
wedge anchor through the 2 x 4 plate and into the concrete
footing. This wedge anchor should be a Hilti kwik bolt 2, 3/8
diameter which should be imbedded into the concrete a minimum of
3 inches. The hurricane clip should be attached to the studs
with a minimum of 3 Simpson nails Nl0.
August 11, 1994
Boynton Beach Building Department
Page 2
Item # 2. The top plate needs to be attached to" the studs
with a Simpson SP1. This should be attached to the stud with 3-
N10 nails. The plates should also receive 3-Nl0 nails.
Item # 3. The rafters are not adequate for this 10 foot
span so I believe the simplest thing to do would be to simply add
a 2 x 6 rafter to each one of these 2 x 6 rafters which occure
at 2 feet on center. These could simply be nailed into these
existing rafter with 10d nails 12 inches on center. The
rafters should be attached to the top plate with Simpson H4
hurrican clips, one on each side of these double rafters. They
should bo attached with 2 10d nails into the raftors and 2
N1Q Simpson nails into the top plate each clip.
Item # 4. The 5/8 sheeting [or the roof and the walls are
adequate for this installation. They should be nailed in
accordance with the requirement of the building code.
Item # 5. Where windows or door openings occur ln the wall
the studs should be doubled on either side.
Very truly
7 "
/..:./)/ ".(.
H. M. Dixon
yours,
<....- /I~) \.__
/1
RMD:jfb
Enclosure