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