Loading...
AGENDA DOCUMENTS CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM Requested City Commission Date Final Form Must be Tumed Requested City Commission Date Final Form Must be Tumcd Meeting Dates in to City CJ.ill;iQffjg Meeting Dates in to City Clerk's Office D August 21, 2007 August 6,2007 (Noon.) 0 October 16, 2007 October 1, 2007 (Noon D September 4, 2007 August 20,2007 (Noon) 0 November 7, 2007 October 15, 2007 (Noon) [g1 Scptember 18, 2007 Scptember 3,2007 (Noon) D November 20, 2007 November 5, 2007 (Noon) D October 2, 2007 Scptember 17, 2007 (Noon) D December 4, 2007 November 19, 2007 (Noon) 0 AlillOuncements/Presentatiol1S D City Manager's Report NATURE OF 0 Administrative D New Business AGENDA ITEM D Consent Agenda D Legal D Code Compliance & Legal Settlements D Unfinished Business [g1 Public Hearing D RECOMMENDATION: Please place this request on the September 18, 2007 City Commission Agenda 1.U1der Public Hearing. The Planning and Development Board on August 28,2007, recommended that the request be approved. For further details pertaining to this request, see attached Department Memorandum No. 07-051. EXPLANATION: PROJECT: AGENT: OWNERS: LOCA nON: DESCRIPTION: 444 SW 7th Court (Di Nizo - fence height) (ZNCV 07-004) Philip and Dorothy Di Nizo Philip and Dorothy Di Nizo 444 SW tb Court Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 4.1.1, limiting maximum fence height to four (4) feet along both road frontages on a comer lot when the fence is located in front of the building line, to allow a 2-foot variance, and a six (6) foot high fence on property zoned R-I-A Single-family residential. PROGRAM IMPACT: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/ A ALTERNATIVES: N/A Development Dep City Manager's Signature Assistant to City Manager ~ ,"~"Io' City Attomoy / Fill,n" S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\444 SW 7th Court\Fcnce 07-004\Agenda Item Request 444 SW 7th Ct DiNizo.fence hgt ZNCV 07-004 9-18-07.doc S:\BULLETIN\FORMS\AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FOR..M.DOC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 07-051 STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: Chair and Members Planning and Dev~o~w~t Board and City Commission Michael W. RumpiW Planning and Zoning Director Kathleen Zeitler t:0 Planner THRU: DATE: August 21, 2007 444 SW ih Ct (Di Nizo Variance) / ZNCV 07-004 Fence Height PROJECT NAME/NO: REQUESTS: Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 4.J.1, limiting a fence to a maximum height of four (4) feet along both road frontages on a corner lot when the fence is located in front of the building line, to allow a 2-foot variance, and a six (6) foot high fence on the west side of the property. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Property Owner: Philip and Dorothy Di Nizo Applicant! Agent: Philip and Dorothy Di Nizo Location: 444 SW 7th Court Existing Land Use/Zoning: Low Density Residential (LDR)/ R-1A Proposed Land Use/Zoning: No changes are proposed Proposed Use: Fence for single-family residence Acreage: 0.21 Acre (9,172 square feet) Adjacent Uses: North: SW 7th Court right-of-way, and farther north, a single-family residence zoned R-1-A; South: A single-family residence zoned R-1-A; East: A single-family residence zoned R-1-A; and SW 4th Street right-of-wi;:ly, and farther west Interstate 95 right-of-way. West: Staff Report Memorandum No PZ-07-051 Page 2 BACKGROUND The subject property is generally located south of Boynton Beach Boulevard, adjacent to and east of 1-95 (see Location Map - Exhibit "A"). The address of the subject property is 444 SW 7th Court (Lot 17 of Fern Ridge Subdivision), and consists of a corner lot located at the southeast corner of SW 7th Court and SW 4th Street. The subject property is zoned R-1A, Single-family Residential. The lot is currently developed with a single- family residence that generally conforms with the R-1A zoning district requirements. Since the subject property is a corner lot, for setback purposes, each property line adjacent to a street is considered to be lot frontage. Lot Frontage is defined in the Land Development Regulations as "the property line adjacent to a public or private street; it is also the front property line". Typically, a corner lot has a front setback and a side corner setback from property lines adjacent to each street. Due to the orientation of the residence, the north property line (along SW 7th Court) is the front, and the west property line (along SW 4th Street) is the side corner. In addition, the east property line is the side interior, and the south property line is the rear. Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 4.J. of the Land Development Regulations states the following: "fences in residential zones that are in front setbacks, from the building line forward to the property line, are limited to a maximum height of four (4) feet. On corner lots, both road frontages are subject to the four (4) foot height limitation". The subject property is a corner lot with an existing six (6) foot wood privacy fence which extends from the front corners of the residence to each side property line, and extends south along the side and rear property lines to provide privacy by screening the backyard pool area. The portions of the fence which are not in compliance with the above height limitation are those located west of the residence within the side corner yard along SW 4th Street (see Exhibit "B" - Site Plan). A letter from Code Compliance to the Di Nizo's dated October 16, 2006 outlines and summarizes the issue of non-compliance (see Exhibit "C" - Letter and Backup Information). Records indicate that the Di Nizo's purchased the house on July 25, 2005 and the 6 foot fence was existing at that time. In April, 2006 a violation notice was issued to the Di Nizo's for the fence, which was installed without permits and inspections. A building permit application, including the required easement consents, was submitted in July, 2006. The following review comments were forwarded to the fence contractor: "Per city ordinance #05-034 any fence in front of the building line may not exceed 4 feet in height. On corner lots both road frontages are subject to this limitation. Please reduce in height along SW 4th to comply, or relocate the fence back to the building line" (a minimum of 12.5 feet from west property line). An affidavit of compliance was issued based on a 1987 fence permit for the applicant's address, however, after aerial photographs indicated a complete absence of a fence on January 15, 2005 and the existence of a fence on July 1, 2005, the affidavit of compliance was withdrawn as "issued in error". On October 3, 2006 another notice of violation was issued for the fence on the subject property. ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed the requested variances focusing on the applicant's response to the following criteria a - g below (see Exhibit "D" - Applicant's Justification). 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. Staff Report Memorandum No PZ-07-051 Page 3 Special conditions exist which are peculiar to the location of the subject property. The subject property is a corner lot, and is therefore subject to a front setback as well as an increased side (corner) setback due to the lot's exposure. The area of the subject property where the variance is needed is located adjacent to SW 4th Street which is parallel to Interstate 95 and it's associated sound wall to the west. Since there will never be any residential structures to the west of this property, the fact that the fence is six (6) feet does not affect any adjacent neighbors. Also, there is a 15.5-foot grassed swale between the fence and the paved street that provides what would appear as a typical fence setback within the neighborhood. In addition, the existing pool was constructed by previous owners and located in the southwest corner of the lot rather than directly to the rear of the residence, requiring the privacy fence to extend west of the residence into the side corner setback. b. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant Special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the aplicant. When the applicant purchased the property the fence and pool were already constructed. 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. The granting of the requested variance will not confer any special privilege upon the applicant. Several6-foot high fences on other corner lots in the area were researched to confirm permits were granted without the need for a variance. It is likely that such approvals occurred prior to the June, 2005 revisions to the Land Development Regulations, when fences on corner lots were not restricted to the current limit of four (4) feet when located within the side corner setback. 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. The subject fence is intended to provide screening for privacy around the rear yard and pool area, and to simutaneously satisfy the pool security screening requirement which is a minimum of four (4) feet pursuant to the Florida Building Code. Although the fence could be reduced by two (2) feet to meet this safety requirement, that would deprive the applicant the same privacy and screening benefit enjoyed by others. Prior to June of 2005, fences constructed on corner lots within the side corner setback could be six (6) feet in height without the need for a variance. e. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. The applicant's proposal is to provide the minimum safety and desired privacy barrier that will make possible the reasonable use of the backyard pool area. Due to the location of the existing pool, the fence around the pool is required to be located within the 12.5 foot side corner building setback, and therefore limited to four (4) feet in height. Although the proposed six (6) foot fence height is not the minimum, this request would not appear to constitute a special privilege or be incompatible with the adjacent properties. The existing 15.5 feet of grassed area between the fence and the street proVide a greenbelt, and the location of the fence does not affect any adjacent residential properties. 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 Staff Report Memorandum No PZ-07-051 Page 4 to the public welfare. Granting the variance would still meet the intent of the ordinance, and would not be injurious or detrimental to the public welfare. The Code states: "On corner lots, both road frontages are subject to the four (4) foot height limitation, in accordance with Chapter 2, Section 4.E. Visual Obstructions". Section 4.E. states that "no fence, sign, planting, hedge, shrubbery, wall or ther visual obstruction shall be created or maintained with a height greater than two feet six inches above the street level, within 25 feet of the intersection of two (2) streets, in any zone, except that open chain-link fence type fences may be a maximum of four (4) feet and kept visually clear". The site plan of the subject property indicates the safe sight corner. The fence is not located in the safe sight corner and therefore would not be a visual obstruction to motorists. g. Variances 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 nonconforming. 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. Criterion "g" does not apply as the variance request is for fence height, not lot area or frontage requirements. RECOMMEN DATION Based on the analysis contained herein, staff recommends approval of the requested fence height variance. Staff concurs with the applicant that special conditions and circumstances exist that are not the result of actions by the applicant, and staff finds that a "hardship" exists. This request will not be injurious or detrimental to the area. The applicants' intent to combine a pool safety fence and a privacy fence is reasonable. Staff therefore recommends that the request for a 2-foot variance to allow a six (6) foot high fence be approved. No conditions of approval are recommended; however, any conditions of approval added by the Planning & Development Board or the City Commission will be placed in Exhibit "E" - Conditions of Approval. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJEcrs\444 SW 7th G\Staff Report Di Nizo ZNCV 07-o04.doc Exhibd "A" - Site LocatiChrat' Map 444 SW 7th Ct o 62.5 125 ~- 250 375 500 I Feet N w.' 5 Certified To : Philip T. Di Nizo Jr. and Dorothy M. Di Nizo, husband and wife; Stella Suarez-Rita, F \ttorneys' Title Insurance Fund, Inc. Property Address : 444 SW 7th Court, Boynton Beach, FL ' Flood Zone: C (FIRM 120196 0003C 9-30-82) Description: Lot 17, FERN RIDGE, according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 26, Page 115, of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. Permit No. '/ . iJocr REVIEWED BY ~ Structural Electrical Plumbing Mechanical , p,~z ~ ~@~lf[]={J , SCALE 1"=30' or t:~; ~~ir ~:. il e Police l)ther ! "UCt's:;e<J by: ~ S.W. ..1TH CT 22' PAVED 50'R/W .... (/) :I: ~ 8 ~ ~I 0: l~ ~ 3: ~ a:: <( 0.. If) If) 65.0 ONE STORY RESIDENCE #44 65.0' . ..., . 4- "~', CONC'RETE .... ~ 8.0" 'POOL DE;CK." :'.:.:'.. " . .. . ,." . . . ...."....~ . 21.0' :. 13: ........ I~ 6 ft. Wood Fence I MAP N.T.S. 1-/1J~6 ~'~t)"~ .~ 'P.) '. b ~ I o t~ T~ T 6 'WOOD T FENCE TYP. LOT 18 ------------- ANCHOR 89.S2'OO"W 110.00 ----------Lor-16------WOOD POLE ~ ------~~;.--- w :::> LOT 1 5 N ~ p Safe Sight Comer ~ Area not in Compliance with FenceHeight SllRYr.Y NOTES' \) THIS SURVEY IS NOT TO BE USED roR CONSTRUCTION OR DESIGN PURPOSES. 2) lnncls shown hereon wer" not o.bsko.ded by this oFFIr:e for eoseMents, rlght-of-wo.ys. or other'lnstrul'lents of rl!r:ord. 3) No underground l...proveMrnts locnted unless shown. 4) All beorlngs nnd cllsto.ncl's shown hereon ore plo.t o.nd "ensured unless otherwise noted. 5) Unless It beors the slgnllture o.nd the orlglnol rolsed sea.l Dr D rlorlcln licenses surveyor nncl Mqpper, this Mnp/report Is For InForl'lotlonol purposes only nnd Is not vDllcl. 6) ThIs firMS 'Certlflr:o. te 0' A1Jthorlzo tlon' nunber Is 'LB 6838'. LEGEND r.F'. = rUllSHEn rt.onR EXHIBIT "c" The City of Boynton Beach 1 00 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 Phone: (561) 742-6100 Fax: (561) 742-6185 G. Matthew Immler, Chief of Police Scott Blasie, Code Comp liance Administrator Phone: (561) 742-6120 Fax: (561) 742-6838 October 16, 2006 Philip T. & DorothyM. Di Nizo 655 Riviera Drive Boynton Beach, FL 334356152 RE: Affidavit of Compliance Issued in Error for Case 06-851 - 444 SW 7tb Court Dear Mr. & Mrs. Di Nizo: As per request via the City Manager's office I've reviewed the issues regarding the violations associated with Code Compliance cases 06-851 and 06-2472. The following information provides a chronological picture with regard to the fence that is central to this issue: · July 19, 2005 - Ordinance #05-034 changed existing requirements for comer lots lowering the height for fences from 6 feet to 4 feet. · April 4, 2006 - Violation Notice issued for a fence installed without permit/inspections as per Red Tag from the Development Department. · July 13, 2006 - Bulldog Fence application for permit filed (application #06-5191) · September 14,2006 - Mfidavit of Compliance Issued based on conversation with Karen Main relative to permit #87-344 (Fence) · October 3, 2006 - Bulldog Fence requested permit #06-5191 be voided. · October 3,2006 - Notice of Violation issued by Officer Webb as per Red Tag from Development dated 9/26/06 to include the fence as well as a newly installed shed, both of which require permits/inspections. Summary: The Code Compliance Division issued the Mfidavit of Compliance to you in error based on information obtained from you along with proof of an existing fence associated with permit #87- 344. Subsequent review of two sets of aerial photographs clearly indicates the complete absence of a fence on January 15, 2005 and a new fence on July 1, 2005. It's my understanding you purchased the house on July 25, 2005 and therefore you are now responsible for the permitting of this fence. I apologize for this oversight on our behalf however, the fact remains that we have a fence and a shed that need to be legally permitted and inspected to ensure compliance with our Codes. America's Gateway to the Gulfstream " Page 2 As we discussed on October 13th, I did my best to research this matter to the extent you may have been able to keep the 6 foot height on the S.W. 4th Street side, but as you'll note above the Code was amended prior the installation of the fence. My office will work with you in terms of providing you the time necessary for you to work through the permitting of the fence and the shed and will assist you in any way possible to help you complete this process. If you should have any questions at all, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Scott Blasie Code Compliance Administrator C: Carisse LeJeune, Assistant to the City Manager Quintus Greene, Director of Development Bill Bucklew, Building Official Karen Main, Plans Analyst Diane Springer, Administrative Assistant - Code Compliance Courtney Cain, Code Compliance Officer Willie Webb, Senior Code Compliance Department File EXHIBIT "D" Applicant's Justification for Variance Request (Response to Criteria A-G) 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. The fence was already on the property when we purchased the house. B. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The fence was already on the property when we purchased the house. 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. There are several corner properties in the immediate area with the same 6 foot fences plus corner properties with hedges from 6 to 10 feet as shown on the pictures enclosed. 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. Yes, other properties have 6 foot fences or hedges higher than 6 feet on corner lots. E That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. Sitting in our back yard without looking at a 12 foot yellow cement wall as shown in picture labeled #1. Reasonable use for privacy. Hardship, I am sure it would be almost impossible to sell our house, should we decide to do so in the future, without the privacy of the fence. 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. The fence is not an obstruction on either side as it is approximately 30 feet from the road on the north side and approximately 15 feet back from the road on the west side. G. Variances 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 nonconforming. 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. This criterion does not apply as the variance request is for fence height, not lot area or frontage requirements. EXHIBIT "E" Conditions of Approval Project name: 444 SW 7th Ct / Di Nizo Fence Variance File number: ZNCV 07-004 Reference: DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS- General 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/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: None X PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: None X Conditions of Approval P 2 f2 age 0 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT ADDITIONAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS Comments: None X ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS Comments: To be determined. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\444 SW 7th Ct (Di Nizo)\COA.doc S:\Planning\Planning Templates\Condition of Approval 2 page -P&D ORA 2003 form.doc