Loading...
CORRESPONDENCE The City of Boynton Beach DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DMSON 100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 TEL: 561-742-6260 FAX: 561-742-6259 , ~,",,'," ,-,' -..-. ,_ "0 ' ( " :... I. , www.boynton-beach.org November 21, 2005 Dale J. Hes1ey 141 West Court West Palm Beach, FL 33411 Subject: Permit #05-3997 Cranbrook Lake Estates Block 2, Lot 74 Dear Mr. Hesley: The above-referenced issue has been reviewed, including the additional information delivered today regarding the "witness point" as defined in a survey manual, and the position of city staff remains that the rear property boundary, for purposes of measuring setbacks, must be a fixed rather than a varying point. Consistent with the first version of the survey submitted with the permit application (#05-3997), the rear property boundary is construed to be located approximately 128 deep from the front property line, as established on the recorded plat. Our interpretation is confirmed by answers to the following questions: 1) Shouldn't zoning and the master plan lot regulations be applied equally and as intended to all properties within the Cranbrook Lake Estates PUD to maintain compatibility and uniformity? (Yes); 2) Is it possible that the lake level could rise above it's current level, and even to the original level as determined at time of plat? (Yes, unless control structures are adjusted accordingly); 3) Would encroachments be acceptable or o~er1ooked that resulted from the ultimate rise in water level? (No) and 4) Although the subject building expansion represents a minimal encroachment into the rear setback, thereby potentially causing immeasureable impacts upon adjacent properties, isn't it possible that subsequent expansions of other lakefront properties, using your desired interpretation, could represent much deeper expansions and therefore more greatly impact adjacent properties? (Yes) It should also be said that had it originally been the intent to have a unique "floating" rear property boundary, from which setbacks would be measured, this would have been discussed and documented at time of approval. Minutes of some of the original meetings were reviewed, and only once where parcel sizes described including the location of the ultimate boundary being 28 additional feet from the top of the slope. There was no discussion recorded at that time that described a varying rear boundary and setback. To the knowledge of staff, an interpretation contrary to this staff position is unprecedented within the city, and contrary to standard zoning methodology. Furthermore, staff cannot accept this unorthodox theory . Page 2 November 21, 2005 without specific documentation and proof from the master plan, plat, or original HOA documents. However, if documentation exists which contrasts this position and interpretation, they should be supplied as part of the permit application for staffs reconsideration. It is unfortunate that this error was not identified earlier in the review process, which is partially due to the confusing characteristics of the plat, and lack of a revised survey and documentation of intent at time of plan revision. If it is still the desire to accommodate the proposed project, the setbacks must be formally reduced through a master plan modification, as initiated by a petition from the HOA to the city. Please contact me should you have questions on this determination or on the master plan modification process. Sincerely, 2;)2 Michael Rumpf Planning & Zoning Director MR Cc: Tim Large, Interim Building Official Harry Burgess S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\CORRESP\Corresp A thru L\Hesley - Lot 74, Blk 2 Cranbrook Lake.rtf