REVIEW COMMENTS
Meeting
Date:
File No:
Location:
Owner:
Project:
Variance
Request:
D~VELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTME:NT
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM #00-285
Staff Report
Planning and Development Board
and
City Commission
October 10, 2000
ZNCV 00-015 - Front yard setback from property line
ZNCV 00-016 - Rear yard setback from property line
811 Ocean Inlet Drive
Gary C. and Pamela J. Case
Building a front entryway and a rear covered porch as additions to an existing
single-family building.
Request for two (2) variances from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development
Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5, C.2.a.:
1) to allow a five (5) foot reduction from the twenty-five (25) foot front yard
setback required within the R-1-AA single family zoning district to allow a 20
foot front setback; and
2) to allow a nine (9) foot reduction from the minimum twenty-five (25) foot rear
yard setback required within the R-1-AA single family zoning district to allow a
16 foot rear setback.
BACKGROUND
The subject property and surrounding neighborhood is currently zoned R-1-AA, single family
residential. According to the applicant the lot was developed in 1955, and it is conforming with
the current R-1-AA zoning district requirements. The subject property is surrounded by
developed lots with the exception of two of them currently under construction featuring large
and upscale homes with enhanced entryways.
The property is located at the north side of Ocean Inlet Drive with a depth of 98 feet as opposed
to those properties located at the south side of Ocean Inlet Drive with a depth of 112 feet.
Some of the parcels on the north side, including the subject property, have rear yards with open
views to the Intracoastal Waterway. Staff surveyed the area and it was observed that all
properties along the north side of Ocean Inlet Drive comply with the minimum front setback
requirement of 25 feet, as estimated by the straight alignment of the front building lines. (see
Exhibit "A" -location map). Both variances are requested in conjunction with a plan to expand
the existing single-family home with a second story. This planned expansion is consistent with
new construction and redevelopment projects seen observed in the subject neighborhood.
ANALYSIS
The code states that the zoning code variance can not be approved unless the board finds the
following:
Page 2
Gary & Pam Case
File No. ZNCV 00-015
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.
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/he 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.
(Exhibit "C" contains the applicant's response to the above criteria.)
The subject parcel totals 7,350 square feet, which is less than the minimum 7,500 square feet
required for a lot platted before 1975 (the lot was platted in 1952). However, the lot is
considered a legal non-conforming parcel according to the Land Development Regulations
Chapter 2, Section 11.1 (c). This section of the code allows the development of a lot within the
R-1-AA zoning district as long as the parcel contains one whole platted lot, the lot cannot be
combined to increase the size to a conforming size, and the lot is not less than 6,750 square
feet.
Given that the subject property has been improved with a single-family home, and occupied
since 1955, and since most other lots along the north side of Ocean Inlet Drive have similar
dimensions to the subject lot, criteria items "a", "d" and "e" are not met. Furthermore, since the
property is currently improved, and that the necessity of the variance has been caused by the
proposed home expansion, condition "b" above is also not satisfied.
CONCLUSIONSIRECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the subject requests for front and rear variances be denied, due to the
lack of traditional hardship, and due to the circumstance being created by simple home
improvements on a standard platted lot. No conditions of approval are recommended; however,
any conditions of approval added by the Planning and Development Board or City Commission
will be placed in Exhibit "D".
Staff should indicate that past variance requests have been reviewed by the city using more
than the traditional criteria, or interpretations of this criteria placing greater emphasis on
economic potential and characteristics of surrounding properties. For this reason, and to
indicate the consequence of denial, staff offers the following information for consideration:
Page 3
Gary & Pam Case
File No. ZNCV 00-015
1. The redevelopment potential of this neighborhood, as evident by newly constructed and
redeveloped homes in the area, tends to encourage similar improvements regardless of lot
constraints;
2. The proposed variances would allow minimal improvements that yet allow the value of the
improvements to more closely match the value of the land as well as the value of other
improvements in the neighborhood;
3. The proposed variances would allow physical improvements that are needed to accomplish
certain architectural design goals related to the second-story addition, without negatively
impacting adjacent or nearby properties (the front variance would facilitate expansion of the
home a minimal distance toward the adjacent street, while the rear setback variance would
allow the home to simpiy encroach toward the Intracoastal Waterway;
4. An adjacent property owner supports the subject request, and no objection from adjacent
property owners has been received by staff); and
5. If the variances are not granted, the second-story addition would be feasible but with a
simpler or recessed entrance, and without a covered rear porch. Shade could be created
using portable structures (e.g. umbrellas) or vegetation (e.g. trees).
MR/dim
J:ISHRDATAIPlanningISHAREDlWPIPROJECTSICase Variance\ZNCV Front SetbacklSTAFF REP-front yard setbackv.doc
..;
<0
"'
~/""
~ r
I,. 12
r ~ ~
2c.A',fH
bo
P
'^"
;, -;0 -^
~
/ ,
" IJ/
~.
~
~
,-0 ~ 91
cf.\'-1;.J., ,''1
A p~~.
67
,,75 AC
..;:':IC) ..<1...
'~~rH
'>s
,
"
0' ~
c:.
LOCA T\ON MAP
GARY & pAM CASE PROPERTY
EXH\BIT "An
,:-~~ rL"
. "
,- h
"..7'
"~-./~ , '~:'.., -: '-y
---:. ' ,Ii [:'01'" ,] I " I ,"
'I 1, ,ri. 1- . '~ '\': c:.' ~','
-;-_:;>\ '~~I::'" I 2. I :=' ~, , ~
~" ~.' I ~:,' '( ';, c I '.. ~i ;."
[7 ,c ~ I r .. ~ -~ I<G ~
.' ~'.. < I ~ ",1", C2.'aJ C ~ f' ~. _3:; ~ .
. . _ ,I'"'" n T" 'co' - .I )
u~,,," ~" "",~l. \. 'I. '1,\' ' I "-"- . ',...
" . ...' ' : i) I 'j _ I I _ _ ,v \ : \,Ij- :::"~ '. \ ' \ ' i 1 ' I' 1 I" , , I
O~'~'~O~~"';C': ~,~II \ Iii! \1:\1-; \' L~,~'.'!' "','~ii;;!'I:!;;U~iJ:~ :'.
...' . ;/__" .. :-r.' I. ,. ".,.. ,.. .-' '
, ..: _~'" '.' _ . i' ,-- ' ;L'_
~~'"!1/]' - .'" _ J6111~t:' n' ,II , I i;O i
.. I 'ii!' - U I II"" i \ \ \
! ~"' i,' 'I. ~':II ,,, ~o, ,I \" 4' 1"-' - 'II i i I ~
_ "I -' ,.; -:!' ;",1: ,- ,) 'i ~I I,-\J
~/' /': =--=" ~ ,'/'.' ",''''" 'I ! I, C
'.., .
,.
,
-'1
I" I ~ 2 .
,t, -
I 'I
.... " ~I
. ,
, i
~ '~!lJ \ ;~.
r~ '(c1
... ..; ~.;
6 :
I I
. : . \
~ .
~ J ~~! /
~
itJl:"E T
~'"
;:..".( EAN
r
'\..J) :;J
~';'i '
/
,,1 '"
:'
,
,{i
1~
"
J \ ;' J '
'/ ' ,
L~ :; /
:/ J-{'I
,N
""I
1'1.
~k;"," \ I
(,0. ;..... .1 1.; 1 /
~R '-- -I' ,''/ i '; \ >
!' __ 5 -CF:E
l,..:" (. iJ\ I
~/", "I 9 ..; \ ,,'; ~; t
,
"
,-
.1
"
.1
- :/
~l" J~A
IJ
, c ,
i ~ \ ' 'I
_ . / : - i 4'
OF<
_'_ r': j.
,
''',
,1 \' ,
. ,c
/
,
(:'
) -'
)) \ "0
I
, .' I, :...1.
(~C),_i~
BOYNTON
[DNAL
.....
~ l'
-"d
J~
~, -%1
,~fA' .i
, Ii
... / ol<:L
-' - \
- -
',~
-.j.. -l'
I" c' .'1
.;:..,I-c.
-,... .'"
,:>
.'
4- :
,; \ ~;'
f:.j6
,
1(:.
. .
,I?>'_
Lee
::'f:>
~.f
'---\;
\0
\
^',
c
J
i
,_ ..v/;::\~
2"
j,,, .r: '
14- _ ';"1,' ,1-\......
~'" f .::, _ J ~
1::,\ ~.(.:::::. .. \~--
atE: <,'j"
.J' I"\'i..) \7'
-li ' ,"':- ----,\~ .~
\:.~ . t _-
.1
i
...:........
"L,.,~
v--..>;r.
....1-,.1-" ...
t' JJ
...7 ::::~:
V /
. ,
~ J .~
/ ,- ~,
_::.:. ./
'^'
I
I
;,\ ,il
- '\ .
A-:
1\
1<
{Of!:.>
~ ~ ':.!.l- .,""12
" :
... ..,,' '
-.1 -rll~ ;~-'\ !~r:tL.';~\' -
, .'
1 ,~ ..;
I: -J
~ .;) :.
,~ ;_<:C
13 ,
II
-.",
","'-
,- . I' ... :.... '":-
~. "'J .~.
----)
.. -: ",<' . ,-
, \' - \ - '
_ : " C' ~
_ -.' ' <;,.
,..,," I :,.::'';:b1
//..._ - \. "-I
\\\1~~'~
t{ 1.-._,-,1
..;.,;;.-.:.
"\ J S
\ \
\
\
:::;::::-
, .--
-
::'?- ,--. ..- :: j..~
300
~ '
, ./::......l. .; - , ,~/ .
.......----
,_.,---~---------~---_.~
~.
, ,",,'I
~~ ::~""
'" B d ^,'
~~ ~\
L-
,...
'"
~
'"
~""
,...
~
0:;
1
c;
<D
c
~!;;)
:0: ~ ~
=~~
, "
F. ", ~.
f'~r
,f ;, ::=
-,
~
.'
gt\UcJ
- -
~\Ul-
}~
..", ~
C"
,"-,r-
"J
lb<\
r) .~
OCJ
,0
'JO
\\t11..\:''-''1
."..,
"
c',
~
,
~~
o
"
,?
1
"/",,g-p"/Y I
,\ (
~
v '$ ~
! t"- ~
"-'
; w
)
~
.
w
,
'2
^'
o
-Q
~
,Lb
~ 9 \lO'v,q\). J<.l'~\d t\......,d
\,Jd ~_.,.r~'~ (j'r;\:;\
C~\.l~I"<"J A\""" j :I,re",I.,
/.J"\';' '''0
\)';';
-'
;:.,
s
\
~I
"
I
"'
"
~
or
s
.1;..-;.1.
Lb
\
" \
_Y, ,rJJ
\ )'^
, ' ~Ci
( ::,..(1
----.--;:' -'-
lIP' p~;-
. I'
";
6:.-
.""-
I h"\
cO
o
. 0
,f.. N
Q
O~
, ~
~O
'.') ~.->,
o
o
::!JI/(J ;~1/~t;t
1
\"U[J'J I\\Jl'IA\ ;;>"1"\
~, -,
ict
,':',0.2 -;:r
~ -- ....l.L-\\
~.-S u -::)
\l.- '\) -c s. 1"'-,
-:;. ~,- t:-
'Uu.... ? 0..,-1
':= ^~ \ti '"
,::--::;:; ('......
CCI\ e. '
..... ~ - G-c'
~ 7" ~:J<
~~= ~
,'J (() cD
2.
?
eDI.
1,
Ii
\~
\
; \
J
'u
G
,0
"'
'"
"
w
~
;:,
$. ~
~
1)
~
e;
C)
"
'J
-
,
a
r-
4
"
6
.,)
.
sL
~
,.:
I
! Qf'l h'~4'H', r1
/
-
5!.
\,
.;"rvc.J~_
~
..,~."
'"
Co
I-
-
c!l
. -
....) , :r:
"' j i
-r " ><
~, "
f'" I' UJ
.\
('
c, ""I. ~
.'
~ [. , '. ;
,
, ~ , ,
r ,; , :,
>0 \
. c ,. 1
Q c t\
;. 1 ;
:; 0 .
G I\:> \ l \
.
" , \ ,
-s < I
, j 1 , ,
" I ,
c , :
-, 0 ,
, , ~ ,
c 1
~ ~ ,
0 ; .
"-' j \
o' '0 ~ ;
'J .
'" , \ l
,
" , ,
,
'"
;1;:6
~<\\ ~.
"
J _
<'~.,j
-\
~H
<::1. \J
,
fsf
".);';1-1
?"-"~
'::;:.,,'1 ;..'
.l'I': ,;;
6 ~ ~ ;<'
.... $;," (<"\
- ~~;-~ ~
r, ~ -'\0 v
;::. 'Io...r'> e~'t
.c: J:.~~ ~:i
',,'1" r/
t ~;,r;.-'\ \
_ "; ,,/ /f
~<.VJ ~
'2';;; c. ~
W~1/'~~~
~ ~p v t.
,,{ :
./ .\'2
w\'';:
f
n
J
"
c
,
<;
r
,
,
o
~ ~
~l~s
~ :> " r
1} ~ ~
~:d~.J.
~u..lS
~
.:-.
,
.~
~
,\'
,,' , C
\LJ t , ~
~ >-
c-' -' ,
c- ~. ";
0 :; " ~ f:.:,
4 ~ -;, ti', ,.) u
S' c- "
< -r
,. ;; <0 e', uJ 3
>- 0 ,', D ~
t.: ':. -!
uJ -
h. ,;.,
" - "
~ 'L' ,L \JJ
h.
h. ,j
\
\
I
:!-\
~ ~ \
>>. ~ ~ t\
"",Ie \' ," ,'. I
'.~ \~\_./
~-~
~
'"
~
\ i>
c,
" ~
o
'..,.,
> ~
:.J
~
-
. -- -----~"----
----~-
EXHIBIT "C"
811 Ocean Inlet Drive
Boynton Beach, FI 33435
August 22, 2000
Planning & Zoning Board
Variance for Gary & Pam Case
A. The lots on the north side of Ocean Inlet Drive are 98' in depth compared to
the south side of Ocean Inlet Drive, where the lots are 112' deep. The
resulting difference of 14' can dramatically reduce the size of house, which
can be built on the lots on the north side. The north side lots also have the
best views of the intracoastal and no houses to the rear. The developer
should have made the best lots the deepest.
B. The small lot size is originally platted. The house was built in 1955 by others.
The standards of waterfront homes have changed substantially in recent
years and we feel that a 4000 sq. ft. living area is standard for a house on a
deep water residential lot.
C. We do not feel that the variance will create a special privilege to us due to the
fact that the home located two (2) houses to the east of ours is built 10' into
the setback (or 15' from the seawall). Regarding the front of the house,
other two story homes in our area have large entryways.
D. As homeowners living in a unique waterfront community (21 years) not being
able to improve and enjoy our property and view to its fullest extent, (as other
homeowners in our area do) would definitely create a hardship as we get
older.
E. The front variance is the minimum that would enable us to build an entryway
in proportion to the size of the house. The rear variance is also the minimum
that would allow us to have a covered porch sufficient enough to provide
enough shade to get out of the sun. Both of us have skin cancer and it is
vitally important that we stay in the shade as much as possible.
F. Due to the fact that our area is being re-developed, (small --older single story
homes being replaced with larger two story up-scale homes of 3500 to 4500
sq. ft.) we feel that the front property variance would enable the entryway to
be in proportion with the size house and also "fits in" with existing new homes
in our area. The rear property variance enables us to enjoy our beautiful
waterfront view and outdoors (while being out of the brutal south Florida sun)
as other area homeowners do. The variance requested is considerate of the
views of the adjacent properties as well.
EXHIBIT "D"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: Gary c. & Pam J. Case
File number: ZNCV-015 (front yard setback)
R II Z Cd V A r d dA
t 28 2000
e erence: omnl!IO e anance \DDllcatlOn ate UQUS
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/ENVIRONMENTALIST
Comments: None
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments: None
ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS
1. To be determined
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
2. To be determined.
S.\PLANNING\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\CASE ZONING CODE VARIANCE\COND_ OF APPR P&D FRONT SETBACKDOC
DEVELOPI\ IT uRDER OF THE CITY COMMI ,Ie OF THE
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
PROJECT NAME:
GARY C. & PAM J. CASE
APPLICANT'S AGENT: Gary C. & Pam J. Case
APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 811 OCEAN INLET DRIVE
DATE OF CITY COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING: OCTOBER 17, 2000
TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Front yard setback from property line
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 811 OCEAN INLET DRIVE
DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "C" ATTACHED HERETO.
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
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 "0" with notation "Included".
4. The Applicant's application for relief is hereby
_ 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:
J:\SHROATAIPLANNINGISHARED\WP\PROJECTS\CASE VARIANCE\ZNCV FRONT SETBACK\OEVELQPMENT ORDER- FRONT SETBACK.DOC
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING
MEMORANDUM
NO. 00-147
FROM:
Lusia Galav, Senior Planner \l /
John A. Guidry, Interim Director of Engineering D)(
H. David Kelley, Jr., PE/PSM, Civil/Utility Engineer,~
TO:
THRU:
DATE:
October 5, 2000
RE:
Variance Requests - TRC 10/03/2000 Agenda
The Engineering Department recommends the following considerations on the below listed
requests:
1. Gary C. & Pamela J. Case, 811 Ocean Inlet Drive - Variance - no recommendation.
2. Arlene Henry, 144 S. E. 31't Avenue - Variance - recommend approval subject to appropriate,
satisfactory building inspection.
3. Dondi Realty, 2211 S. E. 3rd Street - Variance - recommend approval.
JAG:HDK:aw
J:\SHRDATA\Engineering\Memo TRC 10-3-00 response.doc