REVIEW COMMENTS
7.A.l
JEFFREY SMITH VARIANCE
(ZNCV 05-001)
ZONING CODE VARIANCE
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 05-068
STAFF REPORT
Meeting
Date:
Chair and Members
Planning and Development Board and City Commission
;:t
Michael RumPfft6JV
Planning and Zoning Director
Eric Lee Johnson, AICP qy
Planner 0
To:
Thru:
From:
May 24, 2005
File No: ZNCV 05-001 - Rear yard setback
Location: 2525 Southwest 14th Street
Owner: Mr. Jeffrey Smith
Project: Solid-roof screened enclosure addition to a single-family detached home on a parcel
zoned R-1-AA.
Request: Request for relief from Chapter 2, Zoning Section 5.C.2, requiring a twenty-five (25) foot
rear yard setback to allow a 10-foot variance, resulting in a 15-foot rear yard setback
within the R-1-AA Single-family Residential zoning district.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is currently zoned R-1-AA, single-family residential (see Exhibit "A" - Location
Map). It is located on the west side of Southwest 14th Street, just south of Southwest 25th Avenue. The
lot was platted on September 27, 1961 as part of the Golf View Harbour 2nd Section subdivision. Both
the lot, which is dimensioned 76.67 feet wide and 105 feet deep, and the existing house, conform to the
current R-1-AA zoning district regulations. It should be noted that the abutting lots, located directly to
the rear (west) of the subject property are zoned R-3 Multi-family Residential. Likewise, they also were
platted in 1961 as part of the Golf View Harbour 2nd Section subdivision. The entire neighborhood is
built-out with no remaining vacant lots.
On April 23, 2003, Servinex Corporation, on behalf of the applicant, submitted a permit application to
the Building Division in order to construct a solid-roof screened enclosure to the rear of the existing
house. However, on October 23, 2003, the permit application #03-1418 was denied and subsequently
red-tagged by the Building Division because the structure lacked necessary permits and was constructed
10 feet into the rear setback. The structure violates Chapter 2, Section 5.C.2 of the Land Development
Regulations. The Building Division informed the Code Compliance Division and Case No. 03-2938 was
opened. At the Code Compliance Board held on October 20, 2004, staff recommended that the
applicant comply with the setback requirements of Land Development Regulations by April 15, 2005 or
be subject to possible fines. The applicant's case is now tentatively scheduled for the May 18, 2005
Code Compliance Board meeting. Meanwhile, the applicant submitted this variance request on March 9,
2005. It is likely that Code Compliance staff will recommend tabling the case while the variance request
is reviewed.
Page 2
Smith Variance
File No. ZNCV 05-001
The required building setbacks of the R-1-AA zoning district are as follows:
. Front and Rear setback: 25 feet;
. Side setback: 7.5 feet if lot is platted prior to June 13, 1975
The existing solid-roof screened enclosure does not meet the 25-foot rear setback requirement so
therefore, a 10-foot variance is requested. It should be noted that on June 14, 1971, many of the lots
on Block 19 of Golf View Harbour Estates 2nd Section (to the north of the subject property), were given a
blanket variance to allow a rear building setback of 20 feet rather than 25 feet.
ANALYSIS
The code states that the zoning code variance cannot 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.
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.
Staff reviewed the requested variance focusing on the applicant's response to the above criteria
contained in Exhibit "D". With regards to the applicant's response to criteria ''a'' and ''b'; no
circumstances appear to be peculiar to the land on which this variance is being sought. It is noted that
the subject property abuts (to the rear) multi-family residential zoning, namely the R-3 zoning district.
But, the rear building setback of the R-3 zoning district is 40 feet and would not be a factor to consider
in this variance application. Therefore, staff does not concur with the applicant's justification that
special conditions and circumstances exist, related to lot configuration, which are not the result of
actions by the applicant. Based on this information staff has found no evidence of a hardship. In fact,
this is a self-created hardship due to the negligence of the applicant's contractor. Despite the responses
by the applicant, a variance is to be granted on the basis of a hardship, which is established by
characteristics other than those created by the landowner, or previous owner(s) as a result of various
site improvements or alterations. The emphasis of criteria "a", "b", or "c", in order to justify a hardship,
is based upon natural or unique limitations relative to other properties within the neighborhood or
similarly zoned.
Page 3
Smith Variance
File No. ZNCV 05-001
Staff does not concur with the applicant's arguments related to special privileges. Denial of this variance
request would not deprive the applicant of the rights already enjoyed by others owning standard sized
lots within this subdivision. Therefore, criteria "c"and "d"are not satisfied.
With respect to criterion "e" above, which considers if the request is the minimum necessary to make
possible the reasonable use of the property regardless of the placement on the lot, any substantial
building addition to this single-family dwelling would still encroach into the rear setback. The proposed
variance would allow improvements that permit "reasonable" use of the property, and which may
contribute to an increase in the property value. Further the current trend within the city, as evidenced
by newly constructed and redeveloped homes, tends to encourage similar improvements regardless of
lot constraints.
Regarding the intent of the zoning regulation, and impacts on adjacent properties, staff acknowledges
that if the standard building envelope (and likewise for solid-roof screened enclosures) are expanded
closer to property lines, the impacts on adjacent properties can include reduced light, air flow, and
views. However, this is not the case with this particular request, due to the size of the proposed is-foot
setback, of which, the city staff endorses through the proposed amendments to the Land Development
Regulations, namely the proposed Rear Yard Setback Reduction. The Rear Yard Setback Reduction is
analyzed and summarized as follows:
According to PZ Memorandum 05-050, "staff reviewed numerous old variance
applications to determine the extent to which the requests encroached into the required
setbacks. It was determined that the rear setback variance was most frequently
requested. This in many ways makes sense, since it is typically the largest area of the
yard in which to expand the house, an addition to the rear of the house usually better
integrates with the existing floor plan, and the addition would generally be further
. removed from street noise. Additionally, staff examined the existing land development
regulations and those from the previously adopted code to gain a better understanding
of the rules under which many of the homes where constructed. This insight into the
built environment helped form the basis for recommended changes to the land
development regulations. Again, understanding the Commission's desire to promote
home improvements and expansions without a complex process and onerous hardship
criteria, without degrading neighborhood quality, staff has proposed the following
modifications (see also Exhibit "A"):
Reduction in rear yard setback requirements from 2S feet to 20 feet in all single-family
districts; and
Creation of an Administrative Adjustment (like currently existing in the code for
non-conforming lots) to allow additional reductions in all yard setbacks. The proposed
adjustments are minimal, again like those currently in the code for non-conforming lots,
and would look something like this for a R-l-AA single-family lot, platted prior to June
13, 1975:
Front Setback - 25 feet
Rear Setback - 20 feet
Side Setback - 10 feet
With Administrative Adjustment - 20 feet.
With Administrative Adjustment - 15 feet.
With Administrative Adjustment - 8 feet.
These proposed amendments were heard by the City Commission on May 17, 2005. Previously, both
the Planning and Development Board and the Community Redevelopment Agency Board reviewed the
proposed setback amendments and recommended their approval to the City Commission.
Page 4
Smith Variance
File No. ZNCV 05-001
The proposed solid-roof screened enclosure would be setback 15 feet from the north property line and
over 30 feet from the south property line. Furthermore, it would be one (1) story tall and represent only
a little more than one-third of the lot width. Therefore, it would have no impact on light, air flow, or
views to the neighboring properties. Lastly, staff finds that granting of the variance would not be
injurious to the area or detrimental to the public welfare. On the contrary, the proposed improvement
would be consistent with the existing characteristics of the neighborhood, (i.e. lot sizes, lot frontages,
house sizes, and house styles).
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATION
Staff concludes that the approval of the requested variance would enhance the community by
supporting home improvements in the neighborhood without negative impacts upon the neighborhood
or city, due to the fact that it would be consistent with the proposed revisions to the Land Development
Regulations via the adoption of the Rear Yard Setback Reduction. Therefore, staff recommends that the
requested variance be approved, thereby granting relief from the Land Development Regulations,
Chapter 2-Zoning to allow:
. A 10-foot reduction from the twenty-five (25) foot rear yard setback required by code to allow a 15-
foot rear yard setback.
However, the approval of the variance shall be contingent upon the adoption of the proposed revision to
the Land Development Regulations currently being proposed by staff (see Exhibit "E" - Conditions of
Approval). Any conditions of approval added by the Planning and Development Board or City
Commission will be placed in Exhibit "E" - Conditions of Approval.
MR/elj
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\2525 SW 14th Street\Staff Report.doc
Exhibit 'A' - Location Ma'p
.
100
I
50
o
100
200
300
400 .N
W E
I Feet
.
TYPE OF SURVEY: RQUNDARY
~~~
~):.~
/?-":/~//77' ~./-7~---7C--:/r- \~~
~?//~) /tt/5:??c:;J J \
,/.5-
/y/-
LPc:.~c
/4'/;?...///a~ I
, I
~I
~
~-
\
~
~ ' ~
~ ~,~
~~~
\~~
\' ,
- '.
.\' \
~ ~:'~
~'~' ~
\~ ~
II l <\
.~~I.
*
~ ~
~ SJ ~~i
~ ~ ~ ~~
~~ ~~~
~ ~ (!o;./c-:
~~$~
'~
~
1 t:.?/7~ /.?l.57c:::::e:;7-
~ /?/7 2//4c)
F::::J
//- ~~
~ ~fu
~~
II ~~
\
\
'. ~~
fu
~
~
- /?-
/t::::.ocYC-;zz
r'- .-------
,
-,1
CERTIFIED TO:
JEFFREY A. SMITH AND CINDY J. SIUTH, HIS WIFE
UNIVERSAL LAND TITLE, INC.
STEWART-TITLE GUARANTY COOPI\NY
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ITS SUCCESSORS l\!ID/OR
ASSIGNS AS THEIR INTEREST MAY APPPillR
fHCAOACH",.HTB, IF AN." ARI M SHOWN H.MON.
NO IHSfflUM*"Ta OFA.COlfO'II"UCnNO
EAaflf.Nrs..-ItfGHra-o,.. WAY,'AlfOtO/t'OWN.RSHIP
HAVf BUH'URHl&H.07H1S 'IURV'n'OfI. .XC'P'
AS SHOWN.
NO UHDflWJAOfIfIID I"STAlLAnoN' Off 'III'ROV'.
alENTS HAVFBUN LOCATfOAS MitT M HIS auRVEY,
UNLESS SHOWN OR IlADE NOr.-", HfR' ON.
LEGEND
8.M. _ BENCH MARK
C. . CALCULATED
" .. CENTliAUNE
0. . CENTRAL ANOLElDEliA
CHO . CHORD
C.B. . CHOAOIEAAING
CONe. _ CONCRETE
C.B.tSl . COHCRETE"StoCK (STRUCTURE)
0.8. . DUO lOOK
_ D.. DESCRlPTlON
SUBJEcrPROPERTY SHOWN HEREON IS-LOCATED IN. FEDERAL INSURANCE
ADMINISTRATION DESIGNATED FLOOD HAZARD AREA, FLOOO ZONE
A <j AS PER THE NA TlONAL FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP,
COMMUNITY PANEL No, 120196 0005 C
DATED SEPl'EMBER 30, 1982
JOHN H. DILLINGHAM
D.H. _ DRILL HOt..E
ESM" _ EASEMENT
hi . 'IELD MEASURED
F.F. . FINISHED FLOOR
!=PL . FLORIDA POWER
fD . FOUND
O.A. . CWfl1C1AL RECORDS
PI( . PAAKER-KALON NAIL
PYMT . PAVEMENT
p.e.p. . PERMAHENTCOHTAOL PCMNT
P.R.M. . PEAMAHINT-AEPlAEHCa-MONUMENT
~
HIBIT B
I
r--
~~
~~
~
~
~'
\ ~
'~ ~
~ ~
~
~~~
\-~
~
.~ \
~ '
i~ ~
I~
~
'"2
~2...
MiiY - 5 2111 i
P . PlAT
P.8. . PlAT BOOK
P.0.8. . POINT Oil BEGINNlHQ
P.Q.C. . POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
P.C. . POINT ()fI' CURVATURE
P.A.C. . POINT CW MVIAH CURVE
P.T. . POINT OF TANGENCY
R . RADIUS tRAO")
AIW. RlQHTOfWAY
TElE . TELEPHONE
TV . TELEVISIOH
~
aaencall: Surveyu." I..
:z&33-EullMp:Covt, &lite AD
Wa..........JIeadI. FL 33409
PhoDe..561-471-5SlI8 Fall- 561-471-5668
LEGAL OfSCAIPTtON tAl fUNtISHID BY CLlINT.:
Tm 15, BLOCK 22, GOLFVIEW HARBaJR, SECTIOO 2, ACCORDING
TO 'L'HE PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BCOK 27, PAGE 46, AS RF'..a:tIDED
IN THE PUBLIC REOJRDS OF PAU1 BEACH ccmm, FT.~IDA: SAID
LAND SITUATE, LYING AND BEING IN PALM BEACH CCXlNTY,
FT..ORID,\ .
DATE FIELDED:
OC'.IDB~::R Ill, 2002
REVISION DATE(SI:
JOB ORDIER No.:
1016102
KEY MAP
BOOK: PO.:
PURCHASER:
ADOAES8:
C OIN(Jl 1lJ-J>.-
EXHIB o~;! o -
~UT-f Oz
(Jll: -n(J)
-fE~ mC
~~(Jl zr
01-""- Ol>
mI!tJ
l:-(Jl~ rrri
O-fO Ou
.l: ~ m (J)
-rtm Cl>
r-f ~~
-n:::I
Oz
IlJC
.. :::I
8'
N
N
N
I.J! -""
I - N N
~ X X X
-f N N N
-{
II
N
-""
N
-""
(Jl
0
l:-
r
IT'
~ N
N
"
--::
~
E()ll;;;:;
l:- l: r -
rl:-l:-l:
rjjiitGi
~-m0ll:
zl>ml:-
tn-rr
rr()~
~=iE.
-{OI~
:-Don
l:--f~
r-f
n~
O-rtiji-rtz
l:-~(Jl~~
i'O -fzm
~I!~-f"
tn-()E
-m(Jl l:-
(I) c!r .
mlJ~r
l:-~~O
:I. r 0
~-<~
~(J2
-tn(Jl
~Oll
t::l:-
l:-l:-O
-f -
~m~
\)l
x
N
X
UJ
o
l:-
~
fij
-m
01
m
~
"-
o
o
Z
-f
'--
8'
Z x I
ZXZ
z x Z
Z
y Z
8'
~
z
(Jl
t::
r
l:-
-f
m
tJ
l:-
r
~
Z
~
~
~
G~
~iji
m::!
z
~G\
r
r
I 2
11' OVERALL ROOF
16' ROOF 5FAN I
--\---------
y Z Z I
I 2' I
~
=
I ,
col
~
m
X
iji
-f
~
l:
o
t::
(Jl
m
-rt
l:-
(Jl
o
j;:
()-Oz
l:-.IS' < 0
-f-rt",iit
mpl~ ..
()fl~
~Nr
J~g
01'-(1)
,- -rt-
()~
-m
-0
-""0
~:I
:Ill
lie
l:tn
E(Jl
-E
z_
tJ-f
(Jll:
mO
xl:
llll
,;-I
-
~c [Q)c @C51 DlM~c; h~"~' . r II - 1
: E.DOUOY
D - I
.~
1Ol./A. II)OWII)Y. lP.lE. . S . L ; ~12",3
FLA REG. NO. 22763 S';~~......; .,~~ ~ I -- J
8037 STIRRUP CAY cr., BOYNTON BEACH, FL ..
':i'..' ~" .'
PH: 681-738-3804 FAX: 681-734-3818 .' .,
ZXI
N
"'!
()
rii
(Jl
o
~
tn
Z
E
~
r
(Jl
OJ
m
r
o
E
'--
N
--::
(I)
()
~
tn
Z
E
~
r
(Jl
I . ______
'V-
I
I
I
L-
1 2 2 4 2 2
2 x 2
2 x 2
1 x 2
6' 6'
.'.~
< \ ._It"1 ~"
-'.
EXHIBIT D
Statement of Reasons to Justify Variance Request
Smith Residence
2525 S.W. 14th Street
Boynton Beach, FL 33406
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.
Response: Due to increased costs of newer homes and smaller lot sizes, we decided to
stay with our current residence and make modifications. This is a modest expansion.
We had an existing concrete patio slab, but due to afternoon sun/heat, did not use often.
Therefore, we wanted a roofed patio for sun/rain protection, .
A screen roof is subject to only an 8 ft setback (Chapter 2, Section 11 (F)) while a panel-
roofed patio is required to have a 25 ft setback (Chapter 2, Section 5 (C)). They are the
same structure, one just provides shade and rain protection. Both have the same net loss
of green space.
The residence directly south of my property has an enclosed addition (permanent) with
very similar setback footage as my patio. I believe this was approved by the City without
a variance.
B. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions ofthe
applicant.
Response: The screen room was built without the benefit of an approved permit. The
appropriate permit application and fees were submitted prior to construction. However,
the contractor was not aware of the 25 ft setback requirement and initiated construction
prior to notice of the permit being denied. This is an after-the-fact request for a variance.
In the aftermath of the recent hurricane season, the cost to make the necessary
modifications to come into compliance has greatly increased. Currently proposed
changes to the 25 ft setback standard in the Land Development Regulations may provide
relief.
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.
Response: The setback standards in the City's Land Development Regulations are
currently under review. The City is revisiting the setback standards in an effort to better
facilitate neighborhood revitalization. This may be in response to increased
improvements being made to existing homes. At the time of submittal of this application,
the rear setback standard requirement is being proposed for change from 25 ft to 20 ft. In
addition, the Planning and Zoning Division will have the discretion to grant another 5 ft
Smith Residence Varianct:
Page 2 of2
EXHIBIT D
without a variance. This may reduce the rear setback to as little as 15 ft. These LDR
recommendations are scheduled to go before the City Commission in April. Pending the
final resolution, this variance may not confer any special privilege.
D. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter 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.
Response: . Many communities are now being built with zero lot lines, which allow
structures to be immediately adjacent to property boundary. My lot is larger than many
lots in newer developments, however the existing setback standards for my zoning
district restricts the expansion of a structure nearer to or closer to the property boundary.
E. That the variance requested represents the minimum required to serve the
applicant's needs for the addition.
Response: The 10ft setback variance requested would allow the current screen room
structure to remain without major modifications.
F. That the granting of the variance will be in harmony" with the general intent and
purpose of this chapter and that such variance will not be injurious to the area
involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
Response: The existing structure meets all the applicable building standards and does not
present any potential hazards to the adjacent property owners. This is the typical screen
room construction and materials that are used throughout south Florida. This screen
room withstood the recent hurricane season without any damage.
G. Variance to minimum lot area or lot frontage requirements, that property is not
available from adjacent properties in order to meet these requirements, or that the
acquisition of such property would cause the adjacent property or structures to
become non-conforming. Applicant shall provide an affidavit with the application
for variance stating that the above mentioned conditions exist with respect to the
acquisition of additional property.
Response: Property is located within Golfview Harbor Estates, a R-l-AA Single Family
Residential District. Purchase of adjacent lots is not feasible. Purchase of any adjacent
lots would not provide relief from setback standard.
EXHIBIT "E"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: Smith Variance
File number: ZNCV 05-001
Reference:
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS- General
Comments: None
PUBLIC WORKS- Traffic
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:
1. Staff recommends approval of the subject variance request contingent upon
the approval of the proposed code amendment (CDRV 05-007 - Special Rear
Yard Setback Reduction) to the Land Development Regulations.
Conditions of Approval
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
ADDITIONAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS
Comments:
To be determined,
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
Comments:
To be determined.
S:\P1anning\SHARED\WP\PROJEcTS\2525 SW 14th Street\cOA.doc
S:\Planning\Planning Templates\Condition of Approval 2 page -P&D ORA 2003 form.doc
,;
MINUTES OF T'dE BOARD OF ADJUSTHENT IfiEETING HELD AT CITY HALL,
BOYNTON BE~,CH, FLORIDA, FEBRUP.RY 5., 1973 r T 5; 30 P. M.
PRESENT:
Ezell Hester
Fay Wa.rd
Wcalter RUtter
Lester Cousins
Fr'ank Lucas
Ge~rge ]mpol~ Alternate
Jack Borrett, Deputy Building
Official
ABSENT:
Richard Rohan, Alternate
1'/lr. Hester called the meeting to order at 5:30 P. 1\1.
Approval of Ninutes
Hinutes - December 11" 1972
Hinutes - January 22, 1973
Mr, Rutter moved that the minutes of December 11 and January
22 be approved as written> seconded by Hr. Cousins. Notion
carried 5-0.
Mr. Hester stated that a letter of resignation has been
received from Ward Sturges.
Parcel #1 - Relief from 251 reC.r setback requirement
to 181 reel' setback
Lot 16, Block 22
GOlfview Harbour Estates, 2nd Sec.
Recorded in Plat Book 27> Pages 46 & 47
Palm Beach County Records
J:~ddress . 2535 S.W. 14th Street
Applicant: Alphonse and Norma caravetta
Nr. Caravetta explained that he \\Tould like 2. variance so that
he can have a screen roof and pa tio put on his house. He
has trouble vJith his legs and back and the screen porch would
help him rather than being in the oir conditioning all the
time.
Mr. Cousins asked how many feet there is from the rear lot
line to the bu ild ing .
Hr. Ba.rrett answered that there is 30' in the rear and Mr.
Cara'iJetta is asking for a 7' variance from the 25 j requirement.
lvII's. Caravetta stated that they have no intention of later
closing in the porch.
There were no objectors present.
-1-
GOL~VIEW HARBOUR - SECY10N 2
ADDRESS HEARD REQUEST
ON
LOT 9 2/1/71 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 14 GRANTED RAMON J. JARA
LOT 16 2/15/71 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 13 GRANTED MR & MRS EDWARD WM. CLEARY
LOT 13 5/17/71 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 13 GRANTED MR & MRS LOIUIS E. GRANDIDIER
LOTS 1-19, BLK 19 6/14/71 REDUCE REAR SETBACKS
LOTS 40-5S, BLK 19 GRANTED MILNOR CORPORATION
LOTS 12-31, BLK 13
LOT 22 8/2/71 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 10 GRANTED A. MALATKE
LOTS 2-5, 7-11, BLK 13 8/23/71 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
LOTS 7, S, 13, 16, 17, 21, GRANTED BOCA LAND DEVELOPMENTS
22, lS - BLK 14
LOTS 4-S & 13, BLK 16
LOTS 22-31, 33, 37-39,
BLK 19
LOT 17 12/20/71 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 10 GRANTED MR & MRS LEONARD W. KANONIK
LOT 13 1/31/72 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 27 GRANTED MR. & MRS. DAVID SCHWARTZKOPF
LOT 13 2/7/72 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 13 GRANTED MR. & MRS. LOUIS GRANDIDIER
LOT 3 2/14/72 REDUCE REAR & SIDE SETBACKS
BLK 16 GRANTED ROBERT BlANE
LOT 20 3/13/72 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 13 GRANTED MILNOR CORP.
LOT 6 8/14/72 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 14 GRANTED SNOW CONSTRUCTION
LOT 49 8/28/72 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 19 GRANTED ARTHUR E. TURK
LOT 15 9/11/72 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 19 GRANTED JAMES L. COUNTRYMAN
LOTS 9/11/72 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 14 GRANTED THOMAS L. DAVIS
LOT 6 9/18/72 REDUCE FRONT SETBACK
BLK 10 DENIED R.R.R.R. CORP/SHOWCASE HOMES
LOTS 9/18/72 REDUCE FRONT SETBACK
BLK 10 DENIED R.R.R.R. CORP/SHOWCASE HOMES
1
GOLF VIEW'I1ARBOUR - SECTION 2 t<ONTINUEDl
ADDRESS HEARD REQUEST
ON
LOT 10 9/25/72 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 27 GRANTED MRS HARRY KAUFFMAN
LOT 20 9/25/72 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 20 GRANTED MILNOR CORP.
LOT 4 10/17/72 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 24 GRANTED ROLAND L. & FLORENCE R. FORSLUND
LOT 24 10/30/72 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 24 GRANTED MILNOR CORP.
LOT 16 2/5/73 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 22 GRANTED ALPHONSE & NORMA CARAVETTA
LOT 42 6/11/73 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 19 GRANTED ROBERT ROGERS
LOT 18 7/16/73 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 22 DENIED JOHN J. RORKE
LOT 13 3/11/74 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 23 DENIED LAWRENCE E. & SUSAN T. GABREE
LOTS 6/10/74 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 23 GRANTED GEORGE L. MAGER
LOT 23 5/12/75 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 12 NO ACTION TED F. SARG
LOT 9 5/12/75 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 16 DENIED AARON BRODSKY
LOT 21 5/12/75 REDUCE SIDE SETBACK
BLK 23 DENIED VERNON THOMPSON, JR,
6/9/75
DENIED
LOT 14 7/14/75 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 13 TABLED EDWARD & BETTE MC EVOY
LOT 10 7/14/75 REDUCER SIDE SETBACK & LOT SQ.
BLK 24 TABLED FOOTAGE
COURTNEY C. EVERSLEY
LOT 11 7/14/75 REDUCE SIDE SETBACKS & LOT SQ.
BLK 24 TABLED FOOTAGE
WENDELL L. & DEBRA S. DUGGINS
LOT 14 9/8/75 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 13 NO VAR. NEEDED EDWARD & BETTE MC Evoy
FEE REFUNDED
Lot 10 9/8/75 REDUCE SIDE SETBACK & LOT SQ.
Blk 24 ADMINISTRATIVELY FOOTAGE
HANDLED COURTNEY C. EVERSLEY
FEE REFUNDED
2
GOL""-VIEW HARBOUR - SEC"ttON 2
ADDRESS HEARD REQUEST
ON
LOT 11 9/8/75 REDUCE SIDE SETBACKS & LOT SQ.
BLK 24 ADMINISTRATIVELY FOOTAGE
HANDLED WENDELL L. & DEBRA S. DUGGINS
FEE REFUNDED
LOT 24 8/8/75 REDUCE LOT SQUARE FOOTAGE
BLK 19 HANDLED SNOW REALTY & CONSTRUCTION
ADMINISTRATIVELY
FEE REFUNDED
LOT 23 9/8/75 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 12 GRANTED TED F. SARG
LOT 9 11/8/76 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 19 TABLED REINO JOHNSON
12/13/76
GRANTED
LOT 18 7/11/77 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 24 GRANTED CHARLES J. JACKSON
LOT 22 4/24/78 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 19 DENIED ARNOLD A. MARElTO
LOT 7 12/12/83 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 24 GRANTED ROBERT B. & DELORES ARSENAULT
LOT 15 4/11/88 REDUCE REAR SETBACK
BLK 13 GRANTED MICHAEL GRANVILLE-ABBOTT
LOT 7 2/13/01 REDUCE SCREEN ENCLOSURE TO 5'
BLK 13 GRANTED FROM PROPERTY LINE IN LIEU OF 7.5'
FRED & EVELYN GUTH
LOT 15 OS/25/05 (PDB) REDUCE REAR YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW
BLK 22 A 10' VARIANCE RESULTING IN A 15'
06/17/05 (CC) REAR YARD SETBACK WITHIN THE R-1-
AA SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT
S:\CC\WP\Indexes & distribution listsWariance Log\GOLF VIEW HARBOUR SECTION 2.doc
3
Page 1 of 1
Johnson, Eric
From: Conklin, Chris
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 8:37 AM
To: Johnson,Eric
Subject: Smith variance request
Eric
The only thing I could find is 11/09/82 82-2037 slab & rebuild screen room into enclosure (Fla room). That as far
as I could find on land file and in the computer.
Thanks,
Chris
5/612005