AGENDA DOCUMENTS
Requested City Commission
Meeting: Dates
o November 21, 2000
o December 5. 2000
D December 19.2000
r8J January 2. 200 I
NATURE OF
AGENDA ITEM
1
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM
Date Final Fonn Must be Turned
in to Citv Clerk's Office
Requested City Commission
Meeting: Dates
Date Final Fonn Must be Turned
in to City Clerk's Office
November 9, 2000 (5:00 p.m.) 0 January 16,2001
November 22, 2000 (5:00 p.m.) 0 February 6. 2001
December 6, 2000 (5,00 p.m.) 0 February 20, 2001
December 20. 2000 (5:00 p.m.) 0 March 6, 200 I
January 3, 2001 (5:00 p.rn.)
January 17,2001 (5:00 p.rn.)
February 7. 2001 (5:00 p.rn.)
February 21, 200t (5:00 p.m.)
o Administrative
ISI Consent Agenda
o Public Hearing
o Bids
o Announcement
o Development Plans
o New Business
o Legal
o Unfinished Business
o Presentation
RECOMMENDATION: Please place this request on the January 2, 2001 City Commission Agenda under Consent-
Ratification of Planning and Development Board action. The Planning and Development Board recommended with a 3-2
vote, that the request be approved, subject to the inability of the owner of the subject property to acquire and assemble the
the minimum 10 feet of frontage from the adjacent property in order to make the subject lot conforming. The failed attempt
must be documented in writing, notarized and include reason for failure. Failure cannot be attributed to asking price if equal
to or below reasonable (e.g. fair market) value. For further details pertaining to the request, see attached Department of
Development Memorandum No. PZ 00-359.
EXPLANATION:
PROJECT NAME:
AGENT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
Gayhart Variance - Lot 37, Block 3, (Lake Addition to Boynton)
N/A
Susan Gayhart
711 N. E. 9" Avenue
Request relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11.1.C.1 to allow construction of a single family
home on a non-conforming lot in R-I-A zoning district
PROGRAM IMPACT: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
-/'u cJ ~
Planning and Zoning . ector
City Manager's Signature
7L (,.j ~= h~ Q.6.,.O=H
Development Depa nt Director
City Attorney / Finance / Human Resources
\\CH\MAIN\SHRDATAIPlanning\SHAREDlWP\AGENDAS\CITYCOMM'Agenda Request form ].2-01 - Lot 37 Block 3 Lake Add.to Boynton.dot
S,IBULLETlN\FORMSIAGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM.DOC
DEVEL--'MEN'- 'JRDER OF THE CITY COMMISSr I OF THE
cln OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
PROJECT NAME: Gayhart Variance (Lot 37, Block 3)
APPLICANT'S AGENT: Susan Gayhart
APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 106 Lisa Lane, Lake Worth, FI 33463
DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: January 02,2001
TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Zoning Code Variance - Single-family on non-conforming lot
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 711 NE 9th Avenue City of Boynton Beach, FI
DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO.
X THIS MATTER came before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida
appearing on the Consent Agenda on the date above. The City Commission hereby adopts the
findings and recommendation of the Planning and Development Board, which Board found as follows:
OR
THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton
Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the
relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative
staff and the public finds as follows:
1. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with
the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations.
2. The Applicant
---L HAS
HAS NOT
established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested.
3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or
suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set
forth on Exhibit "C" with notation "Included".
4. The Applicant's application for relief is hereby
---L GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof.
DENIED
5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk.
6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms
and conditions of this order.
7. Other
DATED:
City Clerk
S.\Planning\SHAREDlWP\PROJECTSllOI37 Block 3 (Lake addition to Boynlon)\Dev Order CC.doc
EXHIBIT "D"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: Susan Gayhart Variance (Lot 37, Block #3)
File number: ZNCV 00-019 (single-family on non-conforming lot)
d
Reference: Zonin!! Co e Variance Annlication dated November 16 2000.
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS
Comments: None
UTILITIES
Comments: None
FIRE
Comments: None
POLICE
Comments: None
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments: None
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: None ,
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: None
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENT ALIST
Comments: None
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments: 1) The applicant must exhaust in good faith the possibility of X
purchasing extra land from an adjacent parcel to bring the subject lot to
conformity. This purchase attempt could be verified by a signed/notarized
statement from the subject property owner documenting that a sales transaction
could not occur and the specified reasons for failure.
ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS
I) The applicant must exhaust in good faith the possibility of purchasing the X
minimum needed land from an adjacent parcel to bring the subject lot to
conformity . This purchase attempt could be verified by a signed/notarized
statement from the subject property owner documenting that a sales transaction
could not occur and the specified reasons for failure. Failure cannot be attributed
to askin!! price if equal to or below reasonable (e.!!. fair market) value.
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
Page 2
Auto Zone
File No.: NWSP 98-007
II DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
2. To be determined.
MWR:arw
S:\PLANNJNG\SHARED\WPIPRQJECTS\LOT 37 BLOCK 3 {LAKE ADDITION TO BOYNTON)\COND. OF APPR PB.DDOC
"
IJEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 00-359
VARIANCE REVIEW STAFF REPORT
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND CITY COMMISSION
December 18, 2000
Meeting
Date:
December 26,2000
File No:
ZNCV 00-019 - Single-family building on a non-conforming lot
711 NE 9th Avenue, Lot 37 Block 3 of Lake Addition to Boynton
Location:
Owner:
Susan Gayhart
Project:
Gayhart Variance (a.k.a. Lot 37, block 3)
Variance
Request:
Request relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations,
Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11 Supplemental Regulations, 1.C.1, to allow
construction of a single-family home on a non-conforming lot in R-1-A zoning
district.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is part of a development known as Lake Addition to Boynton that was
platted in 1925 and partially zoned R-1-A, single-family residential. The typical lot was 50 feet
wide by 122 feet long. Lots along the Intracoastal Waterway were platted 50 feet wide with a
depth varying between 200 feet to 300 feet. The subject neighborhood is zoned R-1-A and
generally bounded on the north by NE 10th Avenue, on the south by NE 7'h Avenue, on the east
by the Intracoastal waterway, and on the west by a platted alley located about 100 feet east of
U.S. Federal Highway (see Exhibit "A" - Location Map).
There currently exists 77 parcels within the subject area zoned R-1-A, 38 of them still vacant,
including 21 substandard lots which are those lacking the minimum width of 60 feet. Of the
developed parcels, seven (7) were built on the original 50-foot wide lots, and three (3) of them
had received variances against the minimum lot area requirement; staff was unable to
determine the basis for allowing construction of the other four (4) lots since they were built
between 1950 and 1962 (see Exhibit "B" - Subject Area). It is worth noting that two (2) other
similar variances have also been approved for the subject area but the homes were never built.
The five (5) variances mentioned herein were granted between 1980 and 1986.
ANALYSIS
The code states that the zoning code variance can not be approved unless the board finds the
following:
a. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure,
or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in
the same zoning district.
b. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
Page 2
Lot 37 Block 3 Variance Staff Report
Memorandum No. PZ 00-359
c. That granting 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.
d. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of
the ordinance and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant.
e. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable
use of the land, building, or structure.
f. That the grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of
this chapter [ordinance] and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or
otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
The applicant's response to the above criteria is contained in the Exhibit "C".
In June of 1975 the City a adopted new zoning code causing a large number of parcels to
become legally non-conforming. In February of 1978 the City adopted a revised ordinance (Ord.
78-5) to establish the procedures and regulations for use of the non-conforming lots. As
documented in the corresponding City Commission minutes, the consensus was that..." the
person who owned a non-conforming lot could use it; but if sold, the new owner would have to
apply to the Board of Adjustment. The law is clear that a person cannot be stopped from using
a 50 foot lot, but a variance would have to be obtained to use it." It was based on this
conclusion that the City approved similar variances between 1980 and 1986.
Ordinance 78-5, Section 1 reads as follows: "In the event title to any non-conforming lot or lots
is conveyed to an individual owner or' owners subsequent to the effective date of this
amendment, the exceptional provisions of this section shall not be applicable to said lot or lots,
and prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of improvements on any said lot or
lots, the owner shall be required to purchase, or acquire, additional adjacent property to meet
lot requirements established by ordinance; or in the alternative, to obtain a variance or special
exception from the municipal Board of Adjustment for the use of subject property." Accordingly,
current regulations for non-conforming lots require the following:
a. The parcel contains at least one (1) whole platted lot;
b. The parcel has a frontage of not less than fifty (50) feet, and a lot area of not less than five
thousand (5,000) square feet;
c. Property cannot be acquired from adjacent parcels so as to make the subject parcel
conforming, without causing the adjacent parcels or structures thereon to become non-
conforming or more non-conforming.
In addition to these criteria, there exists the requirement that ownership of the subject parcel
shall be determined by the property tax rolls of the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser's
Office as of the effective date of the ordinance. According to Palm Beach County Tax
Appraiser records, the applicant, Mrs. Gayhart, purchased the lot in April of 2000 from a
company known as Fairway Isles, Ltd.; the company purchased the subject lot and several
others in the area in December of 1999. Purchasing dates are in clear conflict with the non-
Page 3
Lot 37 Block 3 Variance Staff Report
Memorandum No. PZ 00-359
conforming regulations. The subject regulations were adopted in 1978 (Ordinance 78-5), and
subsequent amendments adopted in 1981 (Ord. 81-30), in 1983 (Ord. 83-38), and in 1988 (Ord.
88-17).
Staff concurs with the applicant's responses to items "A" and "D" from the above-mentioned
criteria (A through F), in stating that the property cannot be enlarged by annexation since the lot
is surrounded by developed parcels. However, staff has been contacted by the owner of the
adjacent property to the west of the subject lot, Mrs. Dina L. Castellano, who expresses her
willingness to sell ten (10) feet from her one-hundred (100) foot wide lot which would bring the
subject lot into conformance with code regulations. This transfer of property could only occur if
the source property remained in compliance with setback regulations.
With respect to item "c", staff concurs with the applicant's response since other similar
variances have been previously approved, therefore earning her the right to receive equal
treatment. However, staff researched the applicant's reference to the building permit issued on
March of 2000, and it was determined that the permit was issued when the lot and several
others were still all owned by Fairway Isle, Inc.; the owner (of the company) acknowledged in
writing that the permit was issued based on the particular provision of the non-conforming
regulations that reads: "No more than one (1) parcel or lot, or combination of lots under the
same ownership, that is non-conforming but which meets the requirements under b. above may
be developed for a single-family house". Furthermore, the applicant also acknowledged that any
other adjacent non-conforming lot owned by them will therefore be at risk of being denied a
building permit.
With respect to the applicant's response to item B, staff recognizes that the company was
obliged to make the purchaser of the subject lot, Mrs. Gayhart, aware of the non-conforming
status of the parcel and the related consequences. Therefore, staff cannot concur with the
applicant's response to item B. '
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis contained herein, staff offers the following conclusions:
1 -There is the assumption that when the development was platted in 1925 the typical fifty (50)
foot wide lot complied with then existing zoning regulations for single-family districts. It
appears that the City started requiring the minimum sixty (60) foot frontage in 1962, and due
to the creation of non-conformities, potentially creating hardships for property owners,
conditions culminated in the adoption of, in 1978, the current criteria for non-conforming lots;
2 -The City recognized the legal fact that the law cannot remove all reasonable use of a fifty
(50) foot wide lot, and therefore the only recourse is via the variance application. Based on
that premise, the City granted five (5) similar requests in the 1980's;
3 -There are two conflicting positions regarding the development of this parcel: 1) the
opponents of this variance argue that neighborhood property values would be negatively
affected, and the neighborhood quality of life will deteriorate. In contrast, supporters of the
variance claim that a smaller house is preferable over an empty lot which can also be a
detriment to the area if debris and vegetation are not controlled;
4 -Staff recognizes that by approving this variance request a precedent will be set that could
support the approval of subsequent requests by new owners of other substandard lots
Page 4
Lot 37 Block 3 Variance Staff Report
Memorandum No. PZ 00-359
purchased from the same developer. However, staff believes that the number of non-
conforming lots that would qualify for variance relief would not be of a magnitude that would
negatively impact area property values; and
5 -Pursuant to requirement "c" for non-conforming lots, applicant should exhaust the possibility
of acquiring part of an adjacent parcel in order -to attain conforming status.
Based on the analysis and findings contain herein, staff recommends that this variance request
to allow construction of a single-family house on a non-conforming lot zoned R-1-A be approved
conditionally. The condition of the approval would be for the applicant to exhaust in good faith
the possibility of purchasing extra land from an adjacent parcel to bring the subject lot to
conformity. This purchase attempt could be verified by a signed/notarized statement from the
subject property owner documenting that a sales transaction could not occur and the specified
reasons for failure. This condition and any other condition recommended by the Board will be
included in Exhibit "D" - Conditions of Approval.
MR/dim
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Lot 37 Block 3 (Lake addition 10 Boynton)\STAFF REPORT variance.doc
Requested City Commission
Meetinll Dates
D November 21, 2000
o December 5. 2000
D December 19.2000
[8J January 2, 2001
NATURE OF
AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM
Date Final Form Must be Turned
in to City Clerk's Office
Requested City Commission
Meetinll Dates
Date Final Form Must be Turned
in to City Clerk's Office
November 9, 2000 (5:00 p.m.) 0 January t6, 2001
November 22,2000 (5:00 p.m.) 0 February b, 2001
December 6, 2000 (5:00 p.m.) 0 February 20, 2001
December 20,2000 (5:00 p.m.) D March 6, 2001
January 3, 2001 (5:00 p.m.)
January 17,2001 (5:00 p.m.)
February 7, 2001 (5:00 p.m.)
February 21, 2001 (5:00 p.m.)
o Administrative
IZI Consent Agenda
o Public Hearing
o Bids
o Announcement
o Development Plans
o New Business
o Legal
o Unfmished Business
o Presentation
RECOMMENDATION: Please place this request on the January 2, 2001 City Commission Agenda under Consent-
Ratification of Planning and Development Board action. The Planning and Development Board recommended with a 3-2
vote, that the request be approved, subject to the inability of the owner of the subject property to acquire and assemble the
the minimum 10 feet of frontage from the adjacent property in order to make the subject lot conforming. The failed attempt
must be documented in writing, notarized and include reason for failure. Failure cannot be attributed to asking price if equal
to or below reasonable (e.g. fair market) value. For further details pertaining to the request, see attached Department of
Development Memorandum No. PZ 00-359. "
EXPLANATION:
PROJECT NAME:
AGENT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
DESCRlPTION:
Gayhart Variance - Lot 37, Block 3, (Lake Addition to Boynton)
N/A
Susan Gayhart
711 N. E. 9'h Avenue
Request relieffrom Chapter 2, Zoning, Section I I. l.c. I to allow construction of a single family
home on a non-conforming lot in R-I-A zoning district
PROGRAM IMPACT: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
-/'u c:J ~
Planning and Zoning . ector
City Manager's Signature
/'L- l'rJ ~~ A,. 4J Gr=~~
Development Depa nt Director
City Attorney I Finance I Human Resources
\\CH\MAlN\SHRDATAIPlanningISHAREDIWPIAGENDAS\CITYCOMM'AgendJ. Req~esl Fonn 1-2.01 - Lot 31 Block 3 Lake Add to Boynton dot
S:IBULLETINIFORMSIAGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM.DOC
DEVELO, lENT 01 ER OF THE CITY COMMISSION . THE
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
PROJECT NAME: Gayhart Variance (Lot 37, Block 3)
APPLICANT'S AGENT: Susan Gayhart
APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 106 Lisa Lane, Lake Worth, FI 33463
DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: January 02,2001
TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Zoning Code Variance - Single-family on non-conforming lot
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 711 NE 9th Avenue City of Boynton Beach, FI
DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO.
X THIS MATTER came before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida
appearing on the Consent Agenda on the date above. The City Commission hereby adopts the
findings and recommendation of the Planning and Development Board, which Board found as follows:
OR
THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton
Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the
relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative
staff and the public finds as follows:
1, Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with
the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations.
2. The Applicant
-L HAS
HAS NOT
established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested.
3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or
suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set
forth on Exhibit "C" with notation "Included".
4. The Applicant's application for relief is hereby
-L GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof,
DENIED
5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk.
6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms
and conditions of this order.
7. Other
DATED:
City Clerk
S.IPlannmgISHAREOIWPIPROJECTS\Lot 37 Block 3 (lake addition to Boynton)\Dev Order CC.doc
EXHIBIT "D"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: Susan Gayhart Variance (Lot 37, Block #3)
File number: ZNCV 00-019 (single-family on non-conforming lot)
D .
Re erence: Zomna Code Variance Annlication dated November 16. 2000.
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS
Comments: None
UTILITIES
Comments: None
FIRE
Comments: None
POLICE
Comments: None
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments: None
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: None "
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: None
FORESTERlENVIRONMENT ALIST
Comments: None
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments: I) The applicant must exhaust in good faith the possibility of X
purchasing extra land from an adjacent parcel to bring the subject lot to
conformity, This purchase attempt could be verified by a signed/notarized
statement from the subject property owner documenting that a sales transaction
could not occur and the soecified reasons for failure.
ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS
I) The applicant must exhaust in good faith the possibility of purchasing the X
minimum needed land from an adjacent parcel to bring the subject lot to
conformity. This purchase attempt could be verified by a signed/notarized
statement from the subject property owner documenting that a sales transaction
could not occur and the specified reasons for failure. Failure cannot be attributed
to askine: orice if equal to or below reasonable (e.e:. fair market) value.
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
Page 2
Auto Zone
File No,: NWSP 98-007
DEPARTMENTS
2. To be determined.
MWR:arw
S:IPLANNING\$HAREO\WP\PROJECTSILOT 37 BLOCK 3 (LAKE ADDITION TO BOYNTON)\COND. OF APPR P&D.DOC
"
I INCLUDE I REJECT I
I I I
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 00-359
VARIANCE REVIEW STAFF REPORT
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND CITY COMMISSION
December 18, 2000
Meeting
Date:
December 26, 2000
File No:
ZNCV 00-019 - Single-family building on a non-conforming lot
711 NE 91h Avenue, Lot 37 Block 3 of Lake Addition to Boynton
Location:
Owner:
Susan Gayhart
Project:
Gayhart Variance (a.k.a. Lot 37, block 3)
Variance
Request:
Request relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations,
Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11 Supplemental Regulations, 1.C.1, to allow
construction of a single-family home on a non-conforming lot in R-1-A zoning
district.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is part of a development known as Lake Addition to Boynton that was
platted in 1925 and partially zoned R-1-A, single-family residential. The typical lot was 50 feet
wide by 122 feet long, Lots along the Intracoastal Waterway were platted 50 feet wide with a
depth varying between 200 feet to 300 feet. The subject neighborhood is zoned R-1-A and
generally bounded on the north by NE 10lh Avenue, on the south by NE 7th Avenue, on the east
by the Intracoastal waterway, and on the west by a platted alley located about 100 feet east of
U,S. Federal Highway (see Exhibit "A" - Location Map).
There currently exists 77 parcels within the subject area zoned R-1-A, 38 of them still vacant,
including 21 substandard lots which are those lacking the minimum width of 60 feet. Of the
developed parcels, seven (7) were built on the original 50-foot wide lots, and three (3) of them
had received variances against the minimum lot area requirement; staff was unable to
determine the basis for allowing construction of the other four (4) lots since they were built
between 1950 and 1962 (see Exhibit "B" - Subject Area). It is worth noting that two (2) other
similar variances have also been approved for the subject area but the homes were never built.
The five (5) variances mentioned herein were granted between 1980 and 1986.
ANALYSIS
The code states that the zoning code variance can not be approved unless the board finds the
following:
a. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure,
or building involved and which are not applicab/e to other lands, structures or buildings in
the same zoning district.
b. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
Page 2
Lot 37 Block 3 Variance Staff Report
Memorandum No. PZ 00-359
c, That granting 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.
d. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties 'in the same zoning district under the terms of
the ordinance and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant.
e. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable
use of the land, building, or structure.
f. That the grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of
this chapter {ordinance] and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or
otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
The applicant's response to the above criteria is contained in the Exhibit "C".
In June of 1975 the City a adopted new zoning code causing a large number of parcels to
become legally non-conforming. In February of 1978 the City adopted a revised ordinance (Ord.
78-5) to establish the procedures and regulations for use of the non-conforming lots. As
documented in the corresponding City Commission minutes, the consensus was that..." the
person who owned a non-conforming lot could use it; but if sold, the new owner would have to
apply to the Board of Adjustment. The law is clear that a person cannot be stopped from using
a 50 foot lot, but a variance would have to be obtained to use it." It was based on this
conclusion that the City approved similar variances between 1980 and 1986.
Ordinance 78-5, Section 1 reads as follow,S,: "In the event title to any non-conforming lot or lots
is conveyed to an individual owner or owners subsequent to the effective date of this
amendment, the exceptional provisions of this section shall not be applicable to said lot or lots,
and prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of improvements on any said lot or
lots, the owner shall be required to purchase, or acquire, additional adjacent property to meet
lot requirements established by ordinance; or in the alternative, to obtain a variance or special
exception from the municipal Board of Adjustment for the use of subject property." Accordingly,
current regulations for non-conforming lots require the following:
a, The parcel contains at least one (1) whole platted lot;
b. The parcel has a frontage of not less than fifty (50) feet, and a lot area of not less than five
thousand (5,000) square feet;
c. Property cannot be acquired from adjacent parcels so as to make the subject parcel
conforming, without causing the adjacent parcels or structures thereon to become non-
conforming or more non-conforming.
In addition to these criteria, there exists the requirement that ownership of the subject parcel
shall be determined by the property tax rolls of the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser's
Office as of the effective date of the ordinance. According to Palm Beach County Tax
Appraiser records, the applicant, Mrs. Gayhart, purchased the lot in April of 2000 from a
company known as Fairway Isles, Ltd.; the company purchased the subject lot and several
others in the area in December of 1999. Purchasing dates are in clear conflict with the non-
Page 3
lot 37 Block 3 Variance Staff Report
Memorandum No. PZ 00-359
conforming regulations, The subject regulations were adopted in 1978 (Ordinance 78-5), and
subsequent amendments adopted in 1981 (Ord. 81-30), in 1983 (Ord. 83-38), and in 1988 (Ord.
88-17).
Staff concurs with the applicant's responses to items "A" and "D" from the above-mentioned
criteria (A through F), in stating that the property cannot be enlarged by annexation since the lot
is surrounded by developed parcels. However, staff has been contacted by the owner of the
adjacent property to the west of the subject lot, Mrs. Dina L. Castellano, who expresses her
willingness to sell ten (10) feet from her one-hundred (100) foot wide lot which would bring the
subject lot into conformance with code regulations. This transfer of property could only occur if
the source property remained in compliance with setback regulations.
With respect to item "c", staff concurs with the applicant's response since other similar
variances have been previously approved, therefore earning her the right to receive equal
treatment. However, staff researched the applicant's reference to the building permit issued on
March of 2000, and it was determined that the permit was issued when the lot and several
others were still all owned by Fairway Isle, Inc.; the owner (of the company) acknowledged in
writing that the permit was issued based on the particular provision of the non-conforming
regulations that reads: "No more than one (1) parcel or lot, or combination of lots under the
same ownership, that is non-conforming but which meets the requirements under b, above may
be developed for a single-family house". Furthermore, the applicant also acknowledged that any
other adjacent non-conforming lot owned by them will therefore be at risk of being denied a
building permit.
With respect to the applicant's response to item B, staff recognizes that the company was
obliged to make the purchaser of the subject lot, Mrs. Gayhart, aware of the non-conforming
status of the parcel and the related consequences. Therefore, staff cannot concur with the
applicant's response to item B. "
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDA TION
Based on the analysis contained herein, staff offers the following conclusions:
1 -There is the assumption that when the development was platted in 1925 the typical fifty (50)
foot wide lot complied with then existing zoning regulations for single-family districts. It
appears that the City started requiring the minimum sixty (60) foot frontage in 1962, and due
to the creation of non-conformities, potentially creating hardships for property owners,
conditions culminated in the adoption of, in 1978, the current criteria for non-conforming lots;
2 -The City recognized the legal fact that the law cannot remove all reasonable use of a fifty
(50) foot wide lot, and therefore the only recourse is via the variance application. Based on
that premise, the City granted five (5) similar requests in the 1980's;
3 -There are two conflicting positions regarding the development of this parcel: 1) the
opponents of this variance argue that neighborhood property values would be negatively
affected, and the neighborhood quality of life will deteriorate. In contrast, supporters of the
variance claim that a smaller house is preferable over an empty lot which can also be a
detriment to the area if debris and vegetation are not controlled;
4 -Staff recognizes that by approving this variance request a precedent will be set that could
support the approval of subsequent requests by new owners of other substandard lots
Page 4
Lot 37 Block 3 Variance Staff Report
Memorandum No. PZ 00-359
purchased from the same developer. However, staff believes that the number of non-
conforming lots that would qualify for variance relief would not be of a magnitude that would
negatively impact area property values; and
5 -Pursuant to requirement "c" for non-conforming lots, applicant should exhaust the possibility
of acquiring part of an adjacent parcel in order to attain conforming status.
Based on the analysis and findings contain herein, staff recommends that this variance request
to allow construction of a single-family house on a non-conforming lot zoned R-1-A be approved
conditionally. The condition of the approval would be for the applicant to exhaust in good faith
the possibility of purchasing extra land from an adjacent parcel to bring the subject lot to
conformity. This purchase attempt could be verified by a signedlnotarized statement from the
subject property owner documenting that a sales transaction could not occur and the specified
reasons for failure. This condition and any other condition recommended by the Board will be
included in Exhibit "D" - Conditions of Approval.
MR/dim
S:IPlanning\SHAREDIWP\PROJECTSILot37 Block 3 (Lake addition 10 Boynlon)\STAFF REPORT variance.doc
"
AGENDA ITEM V. D. 1.
Lot 37 Block 3 (Lake Addition to Boynton Beach)
FRONT FOOTAGE FOR HOMES ON NE 9th AVENUE
BETWEEN FEDERAL HIGHWAY AND NE 7TH STREET
South Side of Street North Side of Street
616 NE 9th Ave 65'* 615 NE 9th Ave 78'
620 NE 9th Ave 90'* 621 NE 9th Ave 75'
630 NE 9th Ave 100'* 629 NE 9th Ave 75'
638 NE 9th Ave 90'* 641 NE 9th Ave 175'
Vacant Lot 60'* 647 NE 9th Ave 75'
704 NE 9th Ave 110'* 707 NE 9th Ave 100'*
710 NE 9th Ave 90'* 711 NE 9th Ave 50'*
714 NE 9th Ave 75'* 715 NE 9th Ave 50'*
722 NE 9th Ave 75'* 719 NE 9th Ave 62'*
728 NE 9th Ave 90'* 723 NE 9th Ave 68'*
734 NE 9th Ave 60'* Vacant Lots 120'*
*
Legal Descriptions and Front Footages Were Verified by Homestead Receipt,
Property Tax Statement, Survey, or City Records
The italicized addresses 711, 715, 719, and 723 NE 9th Avenue were all
acquired at the same time for development. They include lots 37, 38, 39, 40,
and the West 30' oflot 41 as indicated on the attached plat. Since individual
lots measure 50 feet by 122.54 feet, this represents a total of 230 front feet.
Residence 723 has a front footage of 68' (the West 30' of Lot 41 and the
East 38' of Lot 40) as verified by their survey. That leaves 162 feet.
Residence 719 was developed on a 62 foot lot to create the minimum
acceptable lot size of 7,500 square feet (122.54 X 62 = 7,597.48 sq. ft.).
That leaves 100 front feet out of which the developer chose to create two
non-conforming lots.
Address 711 NE 9th Ave., Lot 37, is the subject of this evening's agenda
item. Since this lot was the first of these lots to be de-mucked, it is obvious
what the developer's strategy was from the very beginning. From day one
they fully intended to do exactly what they did - - build two homes on the
smallest lots possible and then build the third as a developer's exception on a
50 ft. lot, not requiring any public notice or variance. That left the fmal 50
ft. lot, the first one they de-mucked, for which they are now requesting a
vanance.
It is unfortunate that the developer and the City's Building Department did
not work together, in the spirit of downtown redevelopment, to build homes
on these lots that were, at the very least, consistent with our neighborhood.
This developer could easily have divided these 230 front feet into three lots
that would have been much more consistent with an average lot size of
around 75' for this street, as indicated on the attached plat. Instead the
builder chose to develop these lots by building smaller houses on smaller
lots so as to create the two non-conforming lots. Apparently there is
more development profit to be made by creating non-conforming lots so
you can build more houses on them.
I sincerely hope that our City Commission will recognize this greed-based
strategy for what it is. Please allow this lot to remain unbuildable. Dina
L. Castellano, the owner of adjacent property 715 NE 9th Ave. has indicated
that she would welcome the opportunity to purchase this lot so that her own
home will no longer be the one non-conforming lot on our street.
Alternately, it might also be a nice location for one of Dan DeCarlo's
neighborhood gardens.
Rather than overlooking the concerns of our neighborhood and rewarding
the greed of this developer, I would ask that you seek whatever remedies, or
penalties are spelled out in our City Ordinances for developers that
intentionally create non-conforming properties in order to line their own
pockets. There are still groups of undeveloped lots to the North and South
of our street. I believe that Susan Gayhart and Fairway Isles, Ltd. have an
ownership interest in some of these lots as well. I would also ask that you
review our City Ordinances so that greedy developers will not be able to
adversely impact these areas, or other neighborhoods the way that Susan
Gayhart and Fairway Isles, Ltd. have impacted ours.
Thank you for your consideration.
:rmo'd
..
..
.."-,,z,
~
l
,
~
I
-.,..,"
.
It
"
,.,
..
..,
....
.,
'"
..,
III .
.., .~
"
l')
'"
..,
'"
'l
l')
.
'"
'" ~
'"
.,
'"
"
'"
"'O..LN :>'d"" ,-1)'1-1.1031'1):
o~
JI.'. ~.,...'
:
s..~,. s.',., 01
.
.
. ~u;; Ip/,,-;;g.l
~ I"
r'-;/ ;;;"/~;'i7
.
N ~
.1 '"
..'
,
.
",-
-
<-<
~..)
."
N
,
.,
..
,
~
"
,
"
,
.,
. '" .
. .,< , .
,,"'~C"
~ . \n
<'I.i. '""-
..~ ~ ~ ....,
, ,
~
'"
..
'"
"--{~II-l
..
.
, I .
"
I ..
fI"'L...
" ..
. '"
~
'".:c..
~ ....'
'" ::::.
:'t:'
~ 1:
~ (t-
'ir. ~
"".so ""'L-.
III
"
I-
, T
....
- ,Q)
~ q,
'"
f.-
QJ '" to ,
\4 "
"-
~ "
. , ,
,~ , "~I ,
S"",.,
...! - ~ ~
~
Of
Of
'I-
Ii)
"'
..
'"
,_''J''''""f:'::;r.N''~"_
, Of'
"
,
't
<ll
o
't
\l'o
..
'"
"
"
III
'"
"-
'"
'" en
'" ~
10
..,' en
II .,
.. , Z
fl ., <
'" ~
l'l
"
"
.;;
.
l'l
~ 1_,'
~..
. . " .
. . " ~
~
~ . ,,"'cr'
. ..... .
.. ~
, , " ~
Q. Ct,
m . IIG:.:...
'" III
.. .. "
'"
-
~
6q~__
tr.."s
::;[IXIQ
.~ ..,
~.: I
rr-.." ~i:/,AI,
. .:'\
~ I..: iJ
"
.
:
.
.
.1
'J
"l
rw
~
I;
't
."
"
III
. I)
&e;
,J :-
\: -
::)tJ
o
'10
'Vl;
lll"'-
.J
..
"
, "' ...l
'~ ,
.,
'. ..
~i
.. ,
-. ---
"l
"
..
,
>-
,
III
,
..
,
. . :)
" N
L E~"
.. ,
or N
. ,
0 .. ~
. .. "
, ,
L.,.C. "
.....:.
~. 4.....
.. .. ...
..
.. .'
~ i
~
Q. .~
"'.. i. "', 0
.'..~ ';', ..an
\,-~
_ _ _~._~__ ---1____
--0\- -
<
Q
52
o
~
[L,
0- -
HZ
'f'''O
fF". 11 '.I'~
~ ,.~
~ to
rCO .
... 1 .':
.. '. 010
~ .,j;"" ,.J:.,.,l,
-,,' ',' . ':,-,
/1 . .,
:::--J ......,
,
~
~
g
G::==~r
~
~
[QJ
[QJ
~
oW
02
w~
...lw
Ocn
o
~0
~.
w0
:r:z
f-tW
.""~
;---:-~"i.-t;'
._~ --,~ LC~;"26'
.. '. ..J'-.__
'''1
..........""
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 00-345
TO: Sue Kruse
City Clerk
FROM: Michael W. Rumpf
Director of Planning and Zoning
DATE: November 28,2000
SUBJECT: Lot 37 Block 3 (Lake addition to Boynton)
Zoning Code Variance 00-019
Accompanying this memorandum you will find an application and supporting documentation for
the above-referenced case, Checks in the amount of $446.40 to cover the review and processing
of this application have been forwarded to the Finance Department.
The legal advertisement for this request will be forwarded to your office after review by the City
Attorney. The requested variance is scheduled for the December 26, 2000 Planning and
Development Board meeting. Please advertise in the newspaper and notice to property owners
accordingly.
1. ISHRDATA\Planning\SHAREDIWP\PROJECTSlLot 37 Block 3 (Lake addition to Boynton)\Legal notice for Lot 37 Block 3.doc
NOTICE -.. PUBLIC H.EARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the following application has been made to the
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD of the CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH,
FLORIDA, for a hearing as indicated, under and pursuant to the provisions of the zoning code of
said City:
Owner:
Susan Gayhart
Request:
Relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Section II.I.C.I to allow
construction of a single family home on a non-conforming lot in R-
I-A zoning district.
Location:
711 North East 9th Avenue
Legal:
Lake Addition to Boynton Florida Lot 37, Block 3, Plat Book 11,
Page 71, Palm Beach County Florida.
A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
WILL BE HELD RELATIVE TO THE ABOVE APPLICATION AT THE LIBRARY
PROGRAM ROOM, BOYNTON BEACH LIBRARY, 208 S. SEACREST BLVD.,
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 26, 2000, AT 7:00 P.M.
All interested parties are notified to appear at said hearings in person or by attorney and be heard
or file any written comments prior to the hearing date. Any person who decides to appeal any
decision of the Planning and Development Board with respect to any matter considered at these
meetings will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a
verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal is to be based.
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
(561) 742-6260
PUBLISH:
THE POST
December 11, 2000
REQUEf- ~OR PUBLI~HING
LGAL NOTICES ANu/OR LEGAl lVERTISEMENTS
A completed copy of this routing slip must accompany any request to have a Legal Notice or
Legal Advertisement published and must be submitted to the Office of the City Attorney two (2)
working days prior to the first publishing date requested below.
ORIGINATOR: Planning and Zoning
PREPARED BY: Michael Rumpf DATE PREPARED: November 28,2000
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NOTICE OR AD: Zoning Code Variance for Lot 37
Block 3 to construct a single familv home on a non-conforming lot in a R-l-A district.
Planning and Development Board meeting to be held on December 26,2000, at 7:00 p.m,
at the Library Program Room, Boynton Beach Library, 208 S. Seacrest Blvd., Boynton
Beach Florida.
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS: (Size of Headline, Type Size, Section
Placement, Black Boarder, etc.) STANDARD LEGAL AD
SEND COPIES OF AD TO: All propertv owners (postmarked December 1 L 2000) within 400
foot radius ofthe subiect propertv, applicant and Director of Planning and Zoning.
NEWSPAPER(S) TO PUBLISH: The Post
PUBLISHED: December 11, 2000
LAST DAY TO FAX TO THE PAPER BY 3:00 P.M.: December 6, 2000
APPROVED BY:
(1)
(Originator)
(Date)
(2)
(City Attorney)
(Date)
RECEIVED BY CITY CLERK:
COMPLETED: