Loading...
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