LEGAL APPROVAL
The City of Boynton Beach
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISON
100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310
TEL: 561-742-6260
FAX: 561-742-6259
March 8, 2007
www.boynton-beach.org
Steven and Anna Lloyd Jenkins
306 SW 5th Avenue
Boynton Beach, FL 33435
Re:
For:
File No.:
Location:
Zoning Code Variance Request
Solid Roof Screen Enclosure
ZNCV 07-001
306 SW 5th Avenue
Dear Mr. & Ms. Jenkins:
Enclosed is the City of Boynton Beach Development Order for application item ZNCV 07-001 which
represents approval for a solid roof screen enclosure at thirteen feet (13') from the rear property line in
lieu of twenty feet (20') required by code for a single family building in the R-1-A zoning district. This
request is for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning,
Section 5.D.2.a . The City Commission approved this variance on February 13, 2007.
Please include a copy of this letter and Development Order when you submit your application
for permitting at the Building Department.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact this office at
(561) 742-6260.
Sincerely,
/l L'''''--''
/~ I .'
'4.' .
Michael W. Rumpf
Director of Planning & Zoning
MWR:jdc
Attachment: Development Order
Conditions of Approval
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\306 SW 5th Avenue Variance Jenkins\Approval Letter.doc
DEVELOP~icNT ~DER OF THE CITY COM~IO )F THE
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
PROJECT NAME:
306 SW 5th Avenue Jenkins Variance
Development
P&Z
Building
Engineering
Dcc. license
Deputy City Clerk
APPLICANT'S AGENT: Steven and Anna Lloyd Jenkins
APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 306 SW 5th Avenue, Boynton Beach, FL 33435
DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: February 13, 2007
TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Request to allow zoning code variance approval for a solid-roofed
screen enclosure at thirteen (13) feet from the rear property line in lieu of the twenty (20) feet
required by code for a single-family building in the R-1-A zoning district.
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 306 SW 5th Avenue, Boynton Beach
DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO.
X 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 "C" with notation "Included".
4.
The Applicaj1t'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:
~-Ic&'-o7
City Clerk
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\306 SW 5th Avenue Jenkins\ZNCV 07-001\DO.doc
.......
EXHIBIT "E"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: 306 SW 5th Avenue, Jenkins
File number: ZNCV 07-001
Reference:
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS- Solid Waste
Comments: None X
PUBLIC WORKS - Forestry & Grounds
Comments: None X
PUBLIC WORKS- Traffic
Comments: None X
UTILITIES
Comments: None X
FIRE
Comments: None X
POLICE
Comments: None X
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments: None X
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: None X
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: None X
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENT ALIST
Comments: None X
"
Conditions of Approval
306 SW 5th Ave/ZNCV 07-001
P 2
age
I DEPARTMENTS , INCLUDE I REJECT I
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments: None X
ADDITIONAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS
Comments:
1. None X
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
Comments:
1. To be determined. ~ ~f.:)
CJ I
th
S.\Plannmg\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\306 SW 5 Avenue Vanance Jenkins\ZNCV 07-00l\COA.doc
....
Exhibit "A" - 306 SW 5th Avenue
Location Map
SW 3RD AVE
I; .,
,; :
l- I-
en
en 0 ',;".
~ Z ". .~
N " I' ';>
M ~
~
SW 4TH AVE
Site
sw 5TH AVE
SW 5TH AVE ~
~
I- & SW 5TH LN
en
0 R 11 A L Single ~arriilyl Residential
a:
M
SW6THAVE ~
SW 6TH AVE
~ .'
SW7THAVE '"
z
0 " ;
~
\ SW 7TH AVE
/ SW 7TH CT
1 ,
.
170
I
85
o
170
340
510
680 +N
I Feet W E
5
'"
~
~
~
~
c
~~
~
~I
~
~
~
~""'jt /
.r "
'1 I
...
Q:> ')
~"'''
~t":z
"'"2 -
'--
""'
dB ,
~1 I J
-r->
a~
2t;
!~
ill
:)
~ ~
~I ~
~t ~
,
/"'
..J~ -r-'?
-YJ
~"l
.,
0:2
1~
'"
':SCALE: /'1: 20'
.s
~
.::t .!
'CloQ
g,1
" II
OS .
.5 -'
1l.a.
~~
~ ~ ~
.. '" ....
~ 1 ~
~~ 9
~ '" ~
:;;aa
1=!~
~~~
~ S E
z: ~ 11
.- 0 ~
110
~.o:
o ~
:.l "
.. ll:\
.!.s
e-I!::
os~
oS -Ii
.r 8
~ ~
8
"
~
S,vJ. Zcl
~~1R~E-r
\,)
~
.....
\)
.!!ij
~ ~U.
., .. ! 8.,..,
U,g~'6".~
.iil!-8. gEoSI
"If"S&OM.
C!la;a:OdUwul!
~- ::0
C ~ I ~
.!! i t"8.~ri 'l; ~
~.I C;~ji~l~
lI!:t!~I!I:!U:::l!MR
'S.8.i:M., "'11;:)t.ic
.N.O:D..II....J:ia.:~
~'lsl:::l!..:a:....u .!
.. cg!!
.IE ~ .. C
>-Ct-l c:;!
1 ~ :c;, ;a .., ~ IIJE g ..
'* ! :2 ~ .. 'U. ~
lI:hi C i'~lti. i
'a~.g> .,]" . ; . ~ !
., · ; ~ II -a.:z: l!:! ~ iii ~
~~~<l@:2~::lU~ " ~m~~~I..,
u "';....'"
= ,b,bcl,
~ ~ - :g12~N~~I:::l:
=_ilc R wi :~_",' 2..,15
- c i!!." '" '" 'i' ,
lU~~gi.!!; ~cilit'" __
. S E ~ i II!. ::0 r;g ~,.
....!1l!Si:::~06 ::l ~ii
g"i:'l;.liS ""-iiij "'" <:
0:g.!!_..,'Q E",,,, > _ :Sill
.'liOfll-ioi"'o.... -"""
i ll:. ~ lS.,i; :! i 'Ii -: t u!': ~ S.. !II ..
.10 010 'S.. "rn" w ~l!
....ud"-. ClL"'?': .. _0.. ...~u.u.
'''''... '.~"~ = C i~=1Il
~t~~n:~.~5w ~ f~~~~lL
C ...
OU?l!
., .. ~
~_o
.!~~
C"'to:
!:~N
,g i ~
:.~ ~
..u"
~ c c
:J-.2
0€'U
"'0"
'"- Ul
..-
"'''0
C._
::0._
:~!
'O"e
S~ .
13"
1Il]8
III ~!~
t j ~j I
~. I Hi!
~io
_",Ii
!h&
! ~ii ~f
..iiil", ;::0
.810 HI is;.
'E ~ ii ~ i i i! ~
8:! 8 i Lq ii ! 1!
!.!!- C'l;'l;" ~"i
Iliiilf~Jj
.nn....."a.:.N
1Ii00qa;qlZ!"~~1Ii
a::IliOQ""l!!ooa::-1
ot.ia:~~,,-
J
e
~
i!I~
4l:I
~l-
~:,
J
I- ~~
~ -.rl
'*
i
~
- \IJ
t:"z
~J
~~ ~ 2...4-4
al.1i.
8Q
~lO
~-~
II "'l!ill;J
'25,,,",,,'
~'.I'
'"
~.~. .
'"
,;. ..v'. Icl
~ trt
j ~ J;
~\lJ
IlL
~ '.,
\-+11 >~ J
j '<l- ~\U
.',< . ':;>,:,.:.:~ ;:;'(.:. ~ ,
' .. ... ~~" II P>
. . ;::' .~}:) .l,~,;j ;:,.,~',~::_: .
~2.1'
:a 1."1<>' (1
G
"-
....... I ~" ~
1"- 42.4-4 ~~
"2""
~:J:. ~~
~'-' )-1-1
..... .. =!.'<;-
-< ~~I M~
llV ..J. _-'
':1.... ~t;) ~i
~~ ::> - N
~
. M ~
-<io-<fj
!~~i;
~ ~ . .. is
!< 1:>0:3
~;j!f
Ill.!! i
5
g '",
It. ..i.'ll
~ ~ \'!~
-~t .,~
~II\ ~ l-
.... ..
~ L -i'"
') ~ I-lL
~... ~;
o :!~
/
,51'0
..
8
f\
~
,co
1l
;='ii
'2j:
:lc.e
;g = ~
".i .,
~~~
z.
co
.
EXHIBIT liB"
~
\l
,(\
~N
~Uo\
~.i
\l r .
= -\r
Ii ~ ..
C - .,
~ ~ ~
g i e-
ll: ~ ~
y
~
-:r
\J.I~
:)J
':2u..
IU _
^ ~:z
~ ''i
OJ. i=l d~i
~. J\ci.I.
-<
~~
t V'i~
~ ~~
.~ ~~
~
~
{
r:i
~
~. ~ ~
::x in v
1'0 N
j~
EXHIBIT ';t
Reply to Question A:
My neighbors to the East, South and West do not have a patio. My neighbor to the
North is across the street and I don't know if they have a patio. Our house was built
in the early nineteen seventies. At that time a permit was required to pour a
concrete foundation patio and granted; according to Boynton Beach records. Also,
the city of Boynton Beach was unable to Cmd the permit that was pulled for the
patio screen enclosure. I was told by the city of Boynton Beach that records after
fifteen years are not available.
Reply to Question B:
When Hurricane Francis came thru our area in 2004 large mango tree branches
crushed my patio. I contracted a licensed contractor to remove my destroyed patio
and rebuild a new one. I instructed the contractor to rebuild it to the same
dimensions as the old patio. I then insisted that they pull permits from the city of
Boynton Beach before they started .this project. I was assured by this contractor that
they would have the permit prior to starting the work. I'd like to note here that I
rented this property in 2000 and purchased it in 2002. The patio with the screened
enclosure was up in the year 2000. I did nothing to change it prior to Hurricane
Francis. The patio was an eyesore. It was old and had a pan roof. Had I known
that this patio did not have an original permit pulled for it when it was built, I never
would have bought the house. Had I not insisted that the repair work be done
under the proper code of Boynton Beach, I would not be having this problem now. I
am not the kind of person that does not do things by the book but in this case going
by the book has been a nightmare for my entire family.
Reply to Question C:
I don't think that the granting of my request of variance to the' building code of
Boynton Beach will give me any more privileges then any other homeowner in
Boynton Beach. This patio was here before any of the current residents in the
neighborhood moved into the area. My patio is in my backyard and cannot be seen
from the street or by my neighbors to the East, West or South.
Reply to Question D:
The issue here is that this patio was built before I rented this house in 2000. It was
built under the existing code of Boynton Beach at the time of construction; which
was in the mid to late 1970's. This was verified by the permit riled with Boynton
Beach. Due to the fact that Boynton Beach does not have records past 15 yean we
do not know for sure exactly when the patio was covered. But we do know it was
before the year 2000.
As I stated before due to Hurricane Francis destroying this existing patio I
contracted with J. White, a licensed contractor, to remove the damaged material
and rebuild a new one. Once again I want to reiterate that I insisted that J. White
obtain all the necessary permits prior to commencement; I wanted this done by the
book. I instructed my contractor that I wanted the new patio built to the same
dimensions as the old one. I was not made aware of the fact until one year later that
the permit had been denied.
I do not think that the granting of this exemption will in any way impede the
purpose of the building codes of Boynton Beach. As I said before the patio cannot
be seen from the street, it is in the backyard of my home and is completely fenced in
by a privacy fence. Since the year 2000 I have not received one complaint from my
neighbon on the old patio. This new patio, although built to the same dimensions as
the old one, is not an eyesore. It, in fact, improves the neighborhood.
I could have had the work done by an unlicensed handyman. The work could have
been completed and probably no one would have been the wiser. It is only because I
am the type of individual that follows the rules, regulations and laws that we are in
this situation today. If I had made changes to the size, shape and looks of the patio I
would expect to adhere to the code book to the letter; but I didn't change the size,
shape or looks. I kept it exactly the same.
Please don't instill undo hardship on me and my family by following the letter of the
law on this situation. My wife and I purchased this property because we loved
everything about it. We purchased in Boynton Beach because we believed it was a
great area to live and raise our children. One of the biggest reasons we fell in love
with this home was because of the patio; as we spend more of our time in the patio
than any other place else in the house excluding the bedrooms. So I ask you to
please, just once and only once, grant us this variance in the code book. To follow
the true spirit of the law instead of the letter of the law.
Response to Question E:
As I stated previously, I am pleading with the City of Boynton Beach to grant me
this variance so that I can keep my patio as is now stands.
Response to Question F:
Should the City of Boynton Beach respond to my request for variance in the true
spirit of the law it will in now way effect the safety, appearance or integrity of my
covered patio. The old patio was an eyesore to the neighborhood. It was old and
dilapidated. This new patio, built on the same ground and in the same dimensions,
has proven its safety and structural durability by withstanding the last hurricane of
2005. As I stated before because this patio is in the back of my house it is not visible
from any direction it will not have any effect on the value of the surrounding homes
in my neighborhood. However, if a perspective buyer of a neighboring home were
to come into my back yard this new patio would certainly have a positive effect on
home values.
r
Response to Question G:
My request for this variance has no effect on the requirements governing the lot
frontage. This variance request asks for allowing my patio roof line to extend just
five feet out, as the old patio did. This five foot extension in no way has any effect
on easement access. The property lot directly adjacent to this five foot roof line
extension is not for sale. This property is not for sale and consists of a one story
home. During the 6 years that I have lived here the fIVe foot extension has never
caused a hardship on anyone attempting access to the easement. It also has never
caused a problem for my neighbor who lives adjacent to it.
AFFIDA VIT
The above mentioned conditions exist with respect to the acquisition of additional
property.
,.......... JOHN R VIOLA
.-$..<it.,.t~. .
i.(Ji." ;*1 uv COMMISSION # 00 358755
"f.<i'~'~~' EXPIRES: ,J~ll!lary 29, 2009
"'~.Cff.:~~,,, Bonded 1hru NOUIry Public Underwriters
tL-Nu~ +-~ b-e. ~
f\ (C \ \ P-,A \ \-~ I
~--~
d O~~ '\C.~ ~.. OL ~
306 S. W. 5th Avenue
Boynton Beach, Fl. 33434-5552
~s: 30G S.W. 5th AV~n~e
,;e: Res~entia1
Zone: Rl~
Microfilm:
S $ 250.
EXHIBIT ~[
Legal: Mango TIeicrhts
Blk.
Lt. 44
5
9
2/
6
Issue Pem1it Final C.O.
Date No. O::mt.ractor Architect CMner Valuation. Fee Date No. Pu:J:pose
28/76 16621 ~t.A.P. Builder 1st Fen. ::1/;270. 40.8f1 12/28/71 9R711 Complete existin~ st.rue
Save & Ln CSinqle Family)
119/77 77-0937 WalUn Roofing Kellar 1200. 6.00 7/27/n reroof (24)
12/77 77-1590 Owner Keller 100. 8. 12/1/77 Il.lIb
12/74 11106 International ] v. Void Fam. Res.
/12/81 81-1336 Gutters Un11m ted Hotaling 120. 8. 6/22/8 gutter & downspout
. ' ~ , .
9/
ELEX::TRICAL
Issue Pennit ~'J.11a.1. .,.
Date No. Contractor Owner Valuation Fee Date Purpose
"
Issue Penn:it Final
Date No. O:>ntractor Owner Valuation Fee Date Purpose
PIllMBJN:;
"I'
-
Issue Penni t Final ,
Date No. Contractor OWner Valuation Fee Date Purpose
16052 Finch & Sons 1st Fed. s. 5/19/76 ReweT ronn. Fix 10
- -- -,.
.LJ.L"--VUJ...\JJ...
.?
~J.'J:.I U.lf .l:SUII-l:!.'ON BEACH
Global Location Ir~iry - Building Permit ~p~ ications
1/25/05,
08 : 43 :' 15
'Property address
peN . . . . . . .
. . . . .
306 SW 5TH AVE
08-43-45-28-39-000-0440
. . . . .
Type options, press Enter.
2=Application inq 3=Structure inq 4=Per.mit inq 5=Inspection inq
Opt Appl Nbr
04 00005807
97 00004511
96 00000254
94 00001741
86 00005759
Type
SE
BL
RR
RR
DW
Stat Date
PC 12/28/04
FI 9/17/97
AP 1/18/96
RJ 4/28/94
CL 6/13/86
Tenant Nbr/Name
REPLACE SCREEN ENCL
NEW GARAGE DOOR
20 SQUARES SHINGLES
SHINGLE TO SHINGLE
F3=Exit
F12=Cancel
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development
Boynton Beach, Florida
January 23, 2007
Melissa Hudson, 1275 Gateway Boulevard was present on behalf of the project.
Chair Wische read the request for the one-year site plan time extension and indicated
the extension was subject to all the original conditions and staff comments. Ms. Hudson
was in agreement with those conditions.
Chair Wische opened the floor to public hearing. No one coming forward, Chair Wische
closed the public hearing.
Gabriel Weubben, Planner, reviewed the request as contained in the staff report and
recommended approval contingent upon satisfaction of all the comments indicated in
Exhibit C, Conditions of Approval.
Motion
Mr. Cwynar moved to approve the site plan time extension for site plan approval granted
on September 20, 2005, from September 20, 2006 to September 20, 2007. Ms.
Jaskiewicz seconded the motion that unanimously passed.
7. New Business
A. 306 SW 5th Avenue
ZoninG Code Variance
1.
Project:
Agent:
Owners:
Location:
Description:
306 SW 5th Avenue/Jenkins (ZNCV 07-001)
Steve and Anna Jenkins
Steve and Anna Jenkins
306 SW 5th Avenue
Relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5.D.2.a. of
the Land Development Regulations, requiring a
minimum rear setback of 20 feet, to allow a 7-foot
variance, resulting in a 13-foot rear setback for a
solid-roof screen enclosure on property zoned R-1-
A.
Chair Wische read the request for relief for setbacks to accommodate a solid screen
enclosure.
Kathleen Zeitler, Planner reviewed the item and provided the project location. She
indicated a screen enclosure with a solid roof must comply with the setback
requirements for the zoning district and indicated the structure presently encroached
seven feet into the rear yard setback.
Staff reviewed the request against the criteria that needed to be met before the board
could grant a variance and announced there was no hardship. She cautioned granting
the request would set a precedent and could be construed to condone construction of
improvements without proper permits and inspections, and asking for forgiveness after
4
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development
Boynton Beach, Florida
January 23, 2007
the fact. Ms. Zeitler advised the hardship appeared to be self-imposed and the request
could be avoided by replacing the solid roof on the screen enclosure with a screen roof.
Staff recommended denial of the request.
Steve and Anna Jenkins, 306 SW 5th Avenue, were present. Mr. Jenkins admitted,
as it was brought to the attention of the board, that as the homeowner he should have
been familiar with the laws and regulations of the City. He advised he purchased the
home in 2002 with the screen enclosure and roof already there. Hurricane Francis
knocked the structure down. He contracted with J. White to have the enclosure put
back up. J. White advised Mr. Jenkins he had a permit and had applied for the permit.
The patio was replaced and a year later Mr. Jenkins was advised he was in violation of
the Code.
The home was constructed in 1973 with the enclosure pre-existing and all he did was
replace a damaged existing structure. He had no knowledge of the Codes and did
everything the City asked him to do. He applied for the variance. He advised the Code
Compliance Officer informed him he did not need to attend the Code Compliance Board
meeting and directed him to the City Engineer's office to ask for a permit. He has been
dealing with this for two years. He announced his neighbors do not even know they
have a patio enclosure. The matter arose because he had the contractor go down
legally to obtain a permit and the contractor never advised him the permit was denied.
Anna Jenkins testified they heard nothing from the contractor advising he could not
obtain a permit but could apply for a variance. Ms. Jenkins indicated the contractor was
fined and Mr. Blasie, Code Compliance Administrator requested she bring in her
contract, the cancelled checks and anything else she had to assist them with the issue.
She researched the issue and in 1977, a permit for the patio slab was issued. There
was never a permit pulled for the enclosure and Ms. Jenkins further emphasized the
contractor failed to apprise them there was never a permit for the enclosure to begin
with. The patio was the reason why they purchased the home and where they spent
their time.
Chair Wische opened the floor to public hearing. No one coming forward, Chair Wische
closed the public hearing.
Ms. Jaskiewicz announced she visited the home and tried to view the structure but there
was a privacy fence. She drove behind the home and the structure was not visible. She
noted the home was not the only home with a hard roof on the enclosure in that area.
She expressed if they applied for a variance before the structure was put up, she could
see no reason why it could not be granted and she did not feel granting the request
would be setting a precedent. The board would be dealing later with a Planned Unit
Development modification that had far less square feet and homeowners could build
closer to the setbacks than this request.
Ms. Jaskiewicz commented replacing the screen with the hard roof does not serve the
same purpose as a screened roof. She disagreed with staff and thought an allowance
5
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development
Boynton Beach, Florida
January 23, 2007
should be made and the variance granted. She emphasized the permits, fees and
inspections were put in place and thought investigating why Mr. White did not get the
permits would be appropriate. Ms. Jaskiewicz contended Mr. White should be
responsible for it.
Ms. Zeitler pointed out the City was aware the contractor failed to inform the
homeowner they had not obtained the permits. She pointed out, however, when
homeowners hire contractors, they are responsible for ensuring the proper permits and
inspections occur. She reported the permit issued in 1977 for the patio slab was for an
open patio, and was not structurally engineered to support a solid roof.
Mr. Cwynar took exception that comments about the patio were included in the report
that were not factual. He indicated comments not confirmed as fact should not be
contained in the report or put on the record
Mr. Casaine thought the rules in place should be respected and individuals should be
responsible. In this instance there was a roof on the patio prior to the storm damaging
it. He was familiar with the area and noted there were other such structures. He
thought if the homeowner was replacing something in existence prior to the purchase,
an exception should be made. Mr. Casaine recognized something went wrong in the
process, and there was not an inspection when they purchased the property. He felt
granting an exception in this instance would be fair.
Mr. Saberson complimented staff for applying the criterion in the Code against the
project. The structure was an illegal structure and never permitted. He indicated if a
permit was not obtained to rebuild it, the structure was still illegal. He agreed it was the
owner's responsibility to ensure permits and inspections for the structure took place, but
further indicated he had mixed emotions about the request. He agreed with comments
Ms. Jaskiewicz made earlier about the Planned Unit Development (PUD) modification
requests. He pointed out PUD requests provided blanket exceptions. When someone
applied for a variance on a single-family lot outside of a PUD, the standard variance
criteria is applied. He thought there were two different criteria and in this instance he
could support this request.
Ms. Grecvic commented the survey from 1982 showed the covered patio. Ms. Zeitler
advised they had records for all permits issued under the address, which were contained
in Exhibit D. A permit application for a new screen enclosure was applied for in 1997.
Fifteen years is how far back they can search on the microfilm. Ms. Grecvic inquired
what occurred in 1982 that warranted the survey. The staff records did not indicate any
permit activity for that year. Ms. Zeitler acknowledged the screen enclosure shown on
the survey did not have a permit and that there were multiple owners at the address.
Ms. Grecvic did not believe the applicants should be penalized.
Chair Wische asked staff if they were aware J. White applied for the permit, which was
not granted. Ms. Zeitler confirmed they were aware and that they spoke with Ms.
Jenkins about alternative options. The record reflected J. White was contacted twice to
6
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development
Boynton Beach, Florida
January 23, 2007
advise the permit was on hold until revisions could be made to the setbacks. The permit
was in the system for several months before it expired and at that time it needed to be
renewed and a letter generated advising the applicant of such.
Mr. Blehar commented this situation occurs frequently and prospective homeowners are
not made aware of such issues when the homes are listed. Ms. Grecvic, a realtor, took
exception to the comment. Mr. Blehar felt problems with property were never disclosed
to the buyer.
Attorney Tolces advised while realtors and builders have certain obligations to disclose,
the prospective homebuyer also had a concurrent obligation to conduct due diligence to
discover whether permits existed for the structure they were purchasing.
Motion
Mr. Cwynar moved to approve the request for relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Section
5.D.2.a. of the Land Development Regulations, requiring a minimum rear setback of 20
feet, to allow a 7-foot variance, resulting in a 13-foot rear setback for a solid-roof screen
enclosure on property zoned R-1-A. Mr. Casaine seconded the motion.
Attorney Tolces recommended including in the motion they make a specific finding as
provided in Chapter 1.5, Article 1, Section 4.1D.1A-G, that the application for the
variance meets those requirements.
~
Mr. Cwynar amended his motion to incorporate the recommended language into his
motion. Mr. Casaine amended his second. The motion passed 6-1 (Mr. B/ehar
dissenting).
B. The Learning Place II (SPTE 07-001)
Site Plan Time Extension
1.
Project:
Agent:
Owners:
Location:
Description:
The Learning Place II (SPTE 07-001)
Scott and Catherine Freeland
Scott and Catherine Freeland
8518 Lawrence Road; east side of Lawrence Road,
immediately south of Citrus Cove Elementary
School and the LWDD L-21 Canal.
Request for a one (1) year site plan time extension
for site plan and Conditional Use (COUS 04-006)
approval granted on October 18, 2005, from
October 18, 2006 to October 18, 2007.
Attorney Tolces administered the oath to individuals intending to testify who were not
previously sworn in.
7