Loading...
Minutes 05-08-75M1-NUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD AT Ci~ HALL, BOY~ON BEACH, FLORIDA, THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1975 AT 7:30 P. M. PR~ESENT David Roberts, Msyor Joe DeLong, Vice N~yor Edward F, Harmening Mrs. Emily M. Jackson Normsn F. Str~ad Frank Kohl, City Na~ager Mrs. Tereesa Padgett, City Clerk Ernest Simon, City Attorney Mayor Roberts welcomed the ladies a~d gentlemen present and called the meetiag to order at 7:34 P.-M. He a~aoanced this was a special meeting to read the Official Zoning Regulations of the City of Boyaton Beach. He added that they wo~_ld pause from time to time and people ia the audience may question as they go. Mr. Harmeni~g asked that one item be added to the agenda at the next regular meeting, so they may reconsider their in- structions to 'the City Manager and hold off on the little triangular piece at S. W. 6th and 25th Ave. They asked the ~ity ~%nager to do some work there, but he would like the City Council to consider instructing the City Manager to hold off until they have had a chance to reso~sider. He feels he may have made a mistake in voting and would l~e a chance to reconsider. Mr. Strnad stated he didn't think it w~s~nscessary, Because Mr. Harmening has sent a memo to the City Manager asking that all work be stopped on this. Mr. Harmening replied that this was true and he ~id sead a memo ~o the City Manager asking that this item be put oR the agenda at the next regular meeting and hold off a~y attica u~til the City Council could reconsider it. He added that he felt this p~ts the Ci%yManagsr i~ a~ awkward positio~ and r~ther than place him in a difficult spot, he would like him to hold off. ~M. DeLong stated he was i~ agr?ement with Mr. Earmening, but the tactics Mr. Harmening ~s ~$~ng are ns% com~mci~ to good government.~Mr' DeLong· then read the memo whi~wa~ written' to the City ~a~nag~ro Ee co~ti~ue~ that Mr. Rarme~mg' was ~ery much ia error with ,thimki~g he could go i~ an& give in- structisms to %he He thim~ appreache:d this merit with City is to her should structioms. he thought the added t~at he o~ action taken ; he is: in agree- if this Council it ~ould stating He not MINUI~S CITY_ COUNCIL MEETING P&GE T~O MAY 8, 1975 unreasonable for a member who voted in favo~ to ask for re- consideration. Mrs. Jackson questioned if there was anything wrong or illegal and Mr. Simon replied: no, it was proper to request this. Mrs. Jaekso~ pointed out that if there was a request to recansider and the work did go ahead, how could t~ey reconsider something after the fact? Mr. Simon stated he di~ not see what was written, hut ~uderstood that ~. ~rmening asked for a reconsideration and so advised the City Manager and asked him not to take action mutil the City Council has had a chance to reconsider. Mr. DeLong stated that the City Manager had gotten the message, but was put in an emBarrassiag position. He stated again that he had ~o objections whatsoever. He thinks he ~a as liberal a~d son- siderate as any other Coumcil member. He thd~s they should have th_s degree ef flexi,illth. He just doesn't believe a Council member should instruct the ~ity Manager to do some- thing after they have takt~ actio~ a~d doest,% thi~k it is conducive for good City gOVernment. Mmyor Roberts stated that the request has been made by Mr. Harmening for the City Ce~mcil 2o reee~sider and have the City Man.a~.er take no action u~til it is discussed at the next meeting, 'I~e Couueil men, ers all agreed. Mayor Roberts announced they would now procee~ with reading the regulations. He stated they would'start with ~r. Simon and all take a crack at it. Mrs. Jackso~ requested that after reading each section, they be given a short period of time to make comments. Mr. Simon began reading Ordinance 75-t9, Official Zoning Regulations of the City of Boynton Beach. A discrepancy was noted in the first paragraph on. Page 1 where some booklets stated three years and others stated one year. N~. Barrett advise~ them that bhe latest copies had a white label on the front. It was ascertained that everyone had a copy of the latest printing and ~. Simon oroceeded with reading Pages I thru 9. ~ ~Ms. Jackson referred to Page 4 and the definition for Car- port. She stated she has seen carports standing off by themselves, which are not attached. Mr. Barrett informed her that these would be considered accessory buildings. ~s. Jackson referred to the definition of Contiguous on Page 4 and stated she read that navigable water kept some- thing from being contiguous. ¥~. Simon stated he didn,t ~ow and would check it. Mr. Kohl continued with reading Pages 10 t~hru 15. MI~rUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING PAGE THP~E MAY 8, t975 Mrs. Jackson referred to Page 12, e. Boundaries and Zoning, and stated that moning did not come at the time of applica- tion. Mr. Barrett reDlied that under normal circumstances, when a person applied-for annexation, it wasbbased upon the fact they were allowed to do certain things. Mrs. Jackson .started that zoning ~on~d-not be determined. Fa. Barrett inzormed her that t~e annexation procedure was set up other than in the zoning regulations. Mrs. Jackson pointed out that the words: "determined at the time of application~ may be confusinE. Nr. Simon clarified that it sounded like Mr. the application and M~s. Jackson was talking abo~t determi~atien by the City. Mrs. words be a~ed it sheul~ be clarified te some Nmy~ ~ agreed that they should not leave say doubt in the mind~. N~. Barrett asked for sng~estions. Mr.. Simon s.ug~es~e~ if the d~terminatiom was_go~ t9 be.made by ~he City, they shoula~-~triks t~e wor~ '~apPlieation for" ~d sta~e: ~s~all h~determine~ at the timm ef annexation-. Mrs. Pa~getl referred to Page 14, Double Frontage Lots, and stated it was also referred to on Page ?,Lot Frontage, and pointed out that this left aquestion. Mr. Barrett informed her it was defined furtherI very thoreugh, ly. Mrs. Padgett questioned whether the reference to Eec~i~n $~-G was correct on Page 7? Mr. Barrett~no%ed this was a typographical error a~_d shoul~ be. $'Do .He i~d~ed that it di~ ~ed a further ~×- PlanationandlwGuld h~ f~ corrected f~r the second reading. Nr~. Kelly informed the ~ouneil. they did not have a quorum p~.esen~, hut reit if ~i~liminated it, it would avoid all ~fu~o~ M~.._Barr~tt~'~a~eed and stated the~ should omit ~ee ~ec~on %-e~on ~g~ y and they weul~d define it further. Pm. Strnad referred to Page ~3, e. Public Street.Frontage, and pointed out the misspelled word "eng~esW, whl¢h should ~e ~ingress~. Mr. Harmening continued with reading Pages 16 thru 19. Mr. DeLong referred to Page 19, first paragraph h., and pointed out a typographical error where "black' should be ~hlock~. Mayor Roberts referred to Page ~9, 2. Building and Site Regulations, and questioned the reference to Section 20-B. Nm. Barrett informed him this was a typographical error and he must find which section it applies to. Mr. Harmen~no continued with reading Pages 20 and 21. MIAM3TES CITY COUNCIL MEETING PAGE FOUR l~y 8, 1975 ~,~s. Jackson continued with reading Page 21 and 22. Mr. Harme~ing referred to Page 22, c. All other Permitted USes, and he questioned the reference to minim~$1iving area as governed By applicable regulatory agency. Mr. Barrett informed him that this referred to the Hotel and Restaurant Cemmissiom, Board of Health, Hospital Commis- sion, etc. Mr. Harmening pointed out that if they accepted it as written, it seemed comceivable at some future time, some government agemcy might prescribe a lower limit which they may net appreciate. Mr. Barrett informed him that these were governed by State board and the State takes pre- cedence en this regulation. Mr. ~arme~i~g stated he was referring to apartm~mt or Boardimg houses a~dMr. Barrett imformed him this was covered. Mr. Harmeni~g withdrew his question and stated he was satisfied. Mr. DeLong referred to Page 21, ~., and the reference to being approve~ by Pl~mg and Zomiag Bo~rd and 0ity Council smd he state~ it should Be when re¢ommen~e~ By the Ple~ing & ~oning Board and approved by the City Council. Mr. S~mon agreed, but pointed out by stating it this way, they elimina- tisd private clubs from being approved if it was mot recom- mended by the Planning & Zoning Board. Mr. DeLong stated that the ruling factor would be the City Council. The City Council can approve or reject any recommendation of the Plan- ning & Zoning Board. Mr, Simon contiuued that if the condi- tion for permitted use required the recommendation of the Ptanning & Zoning Board, it is required before it cas be a ~r~itted use. N~. DeLong questiomed if it wasn,t a fact na~ every issue goes before the Pla~ning & Zoning Board and they either recommend or don't recommend a~d the approval ests w~th the C~ty Co~c~l. ~. Simon a~reed this w~ ~a~. it worked. M~... H~Tmening sta~e~ it ~n't s~a-~e ~s pa~.~graph. Mr. Simo~clarified that it mus~t first go oe~ore ~ne Planning & Zoning Bos~ ~er they make their recommendation to City either approva~or define between rec( formed them that it was the Planning & Zoning Board and ~. DeLong remarked Kelly stated this was t~ey had made this Coum¢il can the in- berecommended by the City Co,oil. have uniformity. Mr. or and Simon eta%ed t~ey should be careful sO it doesn,t them in. This states ~pprove it, unless the arming & Zoning Board recommends it~ N~.~BeL~Esa~d he seen many occasi~wke~e a T~ey~ are ~t~il~ a recom~?nd~E ~o~ :Thi~ iS the eye%em of caec~s ann enhances. Mr-~Harmea~agree~ a~d suggested the MINUTES CZTY CO~rNCZL ~ETING PAGE Fl~W~ MAY 8, 1975 changing of the langusge, so they would not be stuck in the future and not Be able to approve if the Plammuimg & Zoning Board did not recommend. ~z~. DeLong mdded that ~ c~es have gene to co~t whe~ ao~ci!s a~d co~ssio~ were ~ffere~ce with the ~i~g & Zo~ Bo~. T~e co~t ~ever woul~ hol~ up that the councils were not right in reco~e~atio~. ~e ~mnn~ & Zo~g Bo~d reco~e~s ~d the City Co~cil mopreves. ~. ~me~g ~eed, b~t added they ~d~'t w~t t~ create a cloud where someone m~ s~ they were ~rong ~t~e f~t~e. ~s. Jac~o~ s~ges~e~ add~g ~if- before ~pr~e~. ~. ~rme~ suggeste~ stating "when con- si~ered b~~ the ~ & Ze~ Bo~dw . ~. Ket~ referred te Page 19, E. 1 ~b), stating it e~ll ~e referred to the ~ag & Zo~ Bo~d for reco~e~tion to the City Co,oil. He po~te~ omt t~t t~ ceve~ed ~e whole si~uatio~ ~d would give the Oity Ce~eil f~l aDprev~. ~. DeLo~ state~ they ~i~!n~_~ ~ ~e~_~he,i~ ~¢~rs~n~g ~l the w~ t~o~h. ,~ ~ ~oB~z-~s s~&~e~ ~ey sh~ ~ ~e s~e statement from P~e 19, E. i (~), ~d the 6o~o~t members ~reed. ~. H~mening referred to P~e ~, sece~ ~a~aph, ~d stated the word ~ea~ ~o~ ~e plur~, ~s. Jac~en referred te Page 21, c., ~d qmestioned if and S. W. ~5th Avenue w~ still a des~te8 thoroughf~e? ~. Kelly infor~d her th~ w~ correct ~d they had eli~n- ated S. 23rd Ave. Mrs. Jackson continued with reading Pages 23 and 24. Mr. Kelly referred to Page 24 and questioned if this was regu- lated by a~y gover~ment agency and F~. Barrett replied: no. Mayor Roberts continued with reading the remaining of Page 24 thru 28. M~rs. Jack, on referred to Page 27, 3. B~lding and Site Regu- lations, and stated she felt the 4~ maximum lot coverage was too restrictive and also the front, side and ~ear yards could be cut down. She referred to established businesses going right to the sidewalk and how it was too restrictive to make new businesses go back so far. Mr. Barrett informed her with the 40%.~ coverage, this is the maximum which can be covered with the require~ p~rking and landscaping. Nfs. Jackson questioned the 30 ft. front yard requirement and referred to smaller lots which have been zoned business for 30 years. ~They also require 30 ft. in the back. F~r. Barrett informed nor the 30 ft. wms reeuired in the rear only when they abut- ted residential areas~ ~s. Jackson informed him that this was true of most of the lots on Route 1. Mr. DeLong ques- tioned if they were referring to existing places? Mrs. MINU~ES CiT~ COUNCIL ~ETING PAGE M~.Y 8, 1975 Jackson replied: no, it would only apply to them if they wa~t to sell and could not do it. There are vacant lots without anything and possibly they have been w~iti~g to build when the moratorium was lifted. Mr. Barrett informed her that with parking, it requires one space for every 300 feet of floor space. He explained how parking was determined. Mrs. Jackson added that there were lots on 2nd Avenue that were business. bertw~s q~u_e~tl~ned w~h?th?.r.a.v~ari~an~ce could be gr~nted e~. ~-~. ~arre~ repl~e~ ~a~ ne ~e±ieved the lot cover- age was regulated with the requirements for landscaping and parF~ng. ~Mrs. Jackson suggested doing away with the minimmm rear and side lot~ Mr. Barrett informed her that only 20 ft. was required on one side and this was for access to the rear of the building. ~rs. Jacksom suggested taking the front operated. Ee referred to a piece of property he owns on U. 1 a~d has no parking in the front, but has room in the side a~d rear. He al~o doesn,t fael a~yene sh~u~l~ have to park in the front, as it is ~sigh~lYo Mr. Barret~ informed him that this did not state the parking must ~e im the fro~t. This is. for vision up and ~ow~ the highways where these businesses w~ll be loca~ted am~ the ~ing & Zoming B0~rd agreed on 30 feet. ~. D~Long ~tated he felt eyesore is ~*~ *~ ~e of the~ oroperty wit~mt appe~ing ~e~ore the Board Adjustment. ~. Str~ad ad'ed t~at there Were cert~ ~e~r- ,~s a~ong ~. S. t, south ~f Oce~ Av~en~e ~d they have been ~nere ~or m~y ye~s ~8 t~ey ~od~ Co~o~ to these stan- d,ds. If they ~e sold, the b~er ~st g~o Before the Beard of Adjustment ~d eve~ possibly to co~t, This would ~e people ~ble to se~ thei~ ~pr~perty. ~s is $omethi~ w~igh~h~s been in ~his tow~ for ~y yea~s. ~, ~rrett s~a~e~ ne was t~l~ng abou~ ~perty i~ ~se an~ they c~uld sell the proper~y and it o~ld be used f~r the continued ~se. ~. Strnad informed him t~t most of the b~ld~gs were old ~uld~,t be i~ro~ed. ~. ~rrett r~plied that the ob- ~*~v~ oz zoning ~s ~o up, to the G~ty. ~. Stud agreed but not at the expense of ~ople hmv~g ~d~ pre~rty for m~ny yeses. ~. DeLgng st~ed heb~elieve~ ~here should be ~ E~ve oeop&e re~onao~e ~e of their l~. M~s. Bowers appeared before the Council and read a petition of o ~ect~ons to the C-3 setbacks. She stated the setbacks in the front and rear were too much. They also object to the coverage limit for building. She gavea copy of the petition to each Co~nc±l member. ~s. Jackson referre~ to it stating 25 ft. wa~ too mmch in the front of the lot and that i~ the present zoning. ~rs. Bowers informed her that MINUTES CITY COUNCIL M_EETING PAGE SE~yEN M~Y 8, 1975 the new one was 30 ft. and the old was 25 ft,, but the old of 25 ft. was too much. She added that they wanted parking in the back of the building and not in front. Yes. Jackson suggested 15 ft. M~r. A1Boeltz appeared before the City Council and informed them that he owns property on U. S. 1 and has had it for 18 years, At first, it was zoned with no setbacks; then in 1962, 20 ft. was taken off the back and front; and now they want 30 ft. i~ the front and 20 ft. in the back and side. He continued that according to Florida State Statute, they may net confiscate a man's property a~d that is what they are doing. Mr. DeLong replied that mainly his frontage was affected. ~. Boeltz replied that it also affected the side. He continued that the main use of his property was with no setbacks. The 1962 code almost cut himdown to nothing ~d now he has no uses with the new code. M~. DeLong questioned if it would be possible in the instan- ces of these small lots to let them retain their old setback lines? He pointed out this was definitely destroying the use of this man's property. He questioned if they could i~corporate into the zoniug ordinance some relief to this? sM~.s. Jackson referred to ~t~ Federal Highway, where sale mgns were and questioned'th~size of these lots along the F.E.C. between U. S. ~, somth of the Carriage House and north of the old Federal Grocery? Mr. Barrett replied there were a number of parcels not conforming, but these were a minim~nm. Ne added that it was open tothe Bo~d of Adjust- ment. He referred to Mar. Boe~tm's statement of 20 ft. each side and pointed out this was not true and only 20 ft. for one side was required, so eqUipment could get to the back. It would be a hardship not created by the party. A Sari- ance could be granted in these pa~ticular instances. Jackson remarked that when U. S. 1 was widened, it took off the front of some buildings. M~. Barrett stated that the majorppart of the City complies. -Mr. Harmening stated that another thing which was restrictive was the minimum lot s~ea of 20,000 sq, ft., which is more restrictive than the setbacks. In many cases, it will mean people must acquire more property in order to build. If the Planning & Zoning Board feels this section is the best for the largest number of property intkhe City, he c~m see where their feelings may be right, but he also can see many hard- ships and the Board of Adjustment wilt be doing a land office business. Mr. DeLong added that if they were turned down, it wouldn,t b? right. He questione~ why they should su~et them to the wmll of the Boa~d of Adjustment, if they could reconcile it. Mayor Roberts ~uestioned if there were quite a few of these parcels? Mr. Barrett informed him that the MI~JTEE CI~ COUNCIL ~ETING ?AGE ,E,~eS~ ~L%Y 8, 1975 properties M~s. Jackson referred to are zoned C-4. Mr. DeLong stated that Mr. Boeltz would more or less be grand- fathered. Yes. Jackson stated this was true, until he wanted~ to sell. She questioned if it would be possible to put in m separate section for these smaller oieces of pro- petty? ~. Barrett replied that he didn,t s~e how they could. T~sy could adjust this, but it would not be good to set up exceptions for elder p~eces of property. Mrs. Jackson questioned if the Pl~_~g & ~oning Board would ac- cept 15 ft.? She added she didn,t want to hurt people own- ing property. ~. Barrett replied that if they came to a consensus of opinion, he believed the Planming ~ Zoning Beard would go along. M~r. Strnad stated there was ~a manda- tory 10 ft. setback from the C.A.B. Ee co~ti~ed t~at the rear setback was not too bad, but the side setback should no~ be 20 ft. on o~e side where the rear yard is ~t accessible. Mr. Fred Kost~er appeared before the City Council and stated he would li~e to ask a questio~ about the map~ ~. DeLong informed him that the map would be discusse~ on Tuesday. ~s. Jackson stated she woul~ like to recommend they change the mi~mum front yard to 15 ft. Ne. ~eLong asked what it was presently and Mr. Btrnad informed him it was 25 ft. Mr. DeLong stated she wanted to reduce what is proposed and what it is presently. Mrs. Jackson clarified that she recommended changing it from 30 ft. to ~5 ft. It still leaves plenty of room for landscaping. Mr. DeLong referred to Hank Thompson,s building and suggested they should not ~ox themselves in an8 should strike a~ even balance. Mrs. Jackson made a motio~ to change the minimum front yard from 30 ft. to 20 fto Mr. Harmening seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Mrs. Jackson asked for clarification of the side yard require- merits a ad Mr. Barrett informed her that it states 20 ft. for o~e side. Mr. Harmening added that with parking in the rear, they ~eed room to get back. Mr. Barrett added that City equipment, garbage trucks, fire equipment, etc. must be able to get to the rear of the building. Mr. Strnad suggested adding where neeessary to obtain access to the rear of the prooerty. ~rs. Jack, on added that some places have alleys. ~r. Barrett agreed they could state where access is not svail- able ~o the rear of the property. Mr. Strnad stated they must stay 5 ft. ~ ~ o~_ the sides. ~. Barrett stated they may be in conflict by stating 20 ft. or 15 ft. one side which means they can build up to the other side. Mr. DeLong suggested e~im3_~- a$ing the confliction and getting in s~ep with the C.A.B. M~. Strnad stated that the C.A.B. requires 5 ft. on each side and the rear. Me. Barrett referred to commercial and indus- trial areas and stated he didn't think they could be this See s/2o/Ts MINUTES CITY COUNCIL ~ETl~G PAGE ~NI~E ~¥ 8, 1975 restrictive for side yard plantings. They might have two side lines allowing a .man to build to the side llne and pro- vide access on one side. However, with only 5 or l0 ft. between buildings, it is hard to maintaJ~ M~s~ Jackson asked if they could require 15 ft. o~e side? Mr. Barrett stated it would conflict with the C.A.B. Mr. DeLong stated they could amend the C.A.B. requirements and this would supersede it. Mro Barrett informed them they could not get equipm~ntt~ough a 10 ft. width and he believes they should have plantings to enhance the property. Mayor Ro~erts re- marked they might have to split the ~ifference. Mr. Barrett stated in allowing ~uildings to build side by side, they should have 20 ft. on one side. ~s. Jackson stateu~ if somebody had a 15 ft. side yard on the north and 5 ft. en the south side, they could not make the neighbor do the same. Mr. Harmening suggested they could add a statement whe~e~ the ex~st~ng' ' ~mn~ldzng' ' was bnzlt~ to the property line, th?.new building shall have 15.ft. om that side. ~4r. Bar- re~ replied that he Ridn,t ~h~nk this was legal. Jackson re~k~d that she Was still not happy With 20 Mr. Barrett informer her that the Planmi~g &, Homing Board has hassle~ iris o,vsr and felt they came ~p ~ith the most compatiBIe. Ee deem~,t th~nk there .is a~y Objection to changing the mimimum £romtage or lot area, He also doesn,t ~think asking for 30 fbo on ~he street ~id~ om a corner lot _z~s~to? ~m~u~.h~ e~i~the.r, .M~., Es~meni~g cla~.ified they were actu- ~z~y ?a±~g. Too~~ ~zmum side yard, interior lots. ~ayor ~o~er~s ~u~s~zo~ed if 15 ft, woulR hel? amy ~a~d ~r. Barrett replied that 15 f~. would get equipme, n~ through, but they must remember ~here would he 5 ft~ pia~g~g.~ However, to trim a h~edge 5 ft. ~wi~e~is~almos~t.i.m~e.s~kle. He suggested 3 ft. o~ plantings ~ ~ ~. oz ~ve~a~ ~rs. Jackson suggested changing the minimum side yard.~'i~terior lots, to ~5 ft.~ where~,nec~essaz~._~ M~yor Roberts clarified they would se reo. ucing zE I~em 20 ~t. and ad~ where necessary. Barrett added it should be where ~ecessary for access to the rear of the prooertyo ~. DeLong stated he? wo.uld like to see N~. Strnad abat~in~rom Voting, b~ca~e h~ o~lzeves it is a conflict of interest with him hav~ ~ piece of property in- volved. Mrs. Jackson stated he was r~pre~enting the neigh- hor~ood and not ~zsb' own particular piece of property. Mr. Simon state~d that he thought when a Ge~cil member was di- rectly involved wi.th the changing of ~eni~g and that Council m?mb?r owns property affecte~ by the ~hange, a great caution sure he wou~dn t b~ ~estr~cted zi' he ~n,~ ~ed to be. was necessary? tt i~ not sufficient, they m~st lay Out MINUTES CI~ COUNCIL ~T!NG PAGE TEN ~¥ 8, 1975 the guidelines. M~. DeLong stated that mos~ of the thought was there and possibly they could instruct the City Attorney to change the wordage. Mrs. Jackson pointed out that this would be changing the first reading. M~. Simo~ remarked that this was like a super workshop meeting. ¥~r. Str~ad stated that no matter where the access point was located, there would be egress aud ingress problems. ~. Barrett suggested that no side yard be required. Mrs. Jackson pointed sut with stating it this way, they would have building mpom building.. M~. B~arrett added they wo~ald be in conflict with the C.A.B. Mr. Strnad agreed, stating they want 5 ft. on each side. M~. Earme~i~g stated this would set the prece- dence. Mr. Barrett pointed out that with having only 5 ft. between buildings, they could not re~ally plant in that room. Buildings in town have wanted to bUild 6 i~ches within un each other, ~ut he told them to clo~e them mp. Mr. ~imo~ C read the.present zoning ode. He pommted out that th~s set up certain ~uidelines. The public~ must uu~erstaud th~s when reading it. When a man buys a piece of la~d, this states what he can do with it. This states where rear access is not available from a public street or alley. This means with an alley intthe ~ack, a bUilding c~be put against a building. ~s. Jackso~ stated ske would like to see it ~5 ft. instead of 10 ft. as stated in ~he ol~ ers~inance. ~s. Jackso~ made a motion as follows: Minimum side y~rd ~inte~ior Sots) - ~one!are re~uire~, except where rear access s no~ available from a ~bl~b street.or alley, a side yard of not less than 10 ft. shall be P~ovmded ~n one side. Harmening seconded t he motmom, i M~. DeLong request~m a rol! call vote and Mrs. Padgett conducted it as follows. Vice Mayor DeLo~g - Aye Mr. Strnad - Abstain Mrs. Jackson - Aye Mr. Harmeming - Aye Mayor Roberts - Aye Vote is 4-0, with one abstention. At this time, in order to avoid a possible conflict of inter- est, Mr. Strnad moved to withdraw his vote on the first change in regard to the minimum front yard. Mrs. Jackson seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. M~. Simon referred to Page 26, first paragraph, third line, and suggested strfklng the words~ "are prove~ to be desirable and". The Council members agreed and Mrs. Jackso~ made a motion to atrike these words, seconded by M~r. Harme~ing. Motion carried 5-0. MINU~F~S PAGE ELA~YEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 8, 1975 Mrs. Padgett referred to Page 27, Section 6-p, and pointed out the reference to a~ ordinance no. and stated they usually refer to code a~d she would have to get this section. Mr. Earmeming moved to correct this paragraph in accordance with the section of the code. Mrs. Jackson seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Barrett referred to Page 27, ~o. 3, and the mkuimum lot area requirement of 20,000 feet which was also debatable. He informed them that the min~mumlot frontage could be changed ts 75 feet, but didn't think they could get down to 60~feet for b~r. Boeltz. Nrs. Jackson moved to m~ke the minimum lot frontage 75 feet and the minimum l~t area t5,000 feet. Mr. Earmeni~g seconded the motion. Under discussion, ¥~. Strmad questioned the advantage ~nd ~r. Barrett informed him that it would bring a lot in compliance. Mr. Barrett added that this wouldn,t be gra~ting too much. Motion car- ried 5-0. Mr. DeLong referred to Page 28: No. 7, and suggested insert- ing the same wording as previously. Mrs. Padgett backtracked to the early zoning classifications in the single family areas and referred to the paragraph stating:'~(b) a~y use not specifically herein above enumer- ated shall be referred to the Planning and Zoning Board for recommendation to the City Council? She stated this made it sound like it was left wide open. Mr. Barrett stated he thought it could be omitted all the way through single family, as they state exactly what can be done. He thinks this was something which got i~tthere and was not necessary. M~. Kelly stated that he agreed. ~s. Jackson moved to strike this phrase from all residential zones. 5~. Earmening seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. ~r. DeLong questioned whether any exceptions were being made for M~s. Bowers and P~. Boeltz? Mrs. Jackson replied that she didn't see how they could just pick any specific property. Fm. Barrett stated he felt isolated cases like these should go before the Board ~Adjustment and they consider these as hardships. M~rs. Jackson referred to when the zoning map was passed in 1962 and there were whole sections applying to 60 ft. lots and there were many ~0 ft. lots. This did ~ cause a hardship and. the Boar~ of Adjustment has considered them. She doesn,t think they should change anything in the zoning code for two pieces of property. Mr. DeLong replied he just thought they. could make an exception, i~. Boeltz questioned what happened if the Board of Adjustment did not pass it and ~fr. Barrett replied that they booed to operate this way. ~ Mayor Roberts declared a recess at 10:15 P. M. He called the meeting back to order a~ 10:25 P. M. MINUTES CITY CO%rNCIL ~TING .MAY 8, ~975 Mr. Strnad continued with reading Pages 28 and 29. Mrs. Jackson referred to Page 29, Section 6 it Shoula refer to the section in the code. vised that it was Section 31-12. (r), and stated Mr. Simon ad- Mr. Strnad read Page 30 and pointed out a typographical rot on No. 5 and that "way~ should be "may~'. Mr. Strnad continued with reading Pages 31 thru 36. ~. DeLong read Page 3?. er- Frs. Jackson referred to Page 37, Section 6, and questioned if it should state revert back to original zoning instead of becoming null and void? Mr. Barrett informed her that this applied to requesting a zoning change and it would remain the same as the application when made. M~s. Padgett referred to Page 37, No. 5 (g),and the require- ment to submit a site plan and she asked to whom this would be presented? Mr. Barrett informed her it would be presented to the Planning & Zoning Board and then followed through to the City Council. M~. Simon referred to Page 37, No. 6, and stated they should change the word approval to recommendation and it should read: "The recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board and the approval of the City Couacil shall, etc.~' F~s. Padgett referred to Page 36, No. 3, and the reference to recorded in the latest official tax rolls in the County Court House. She questioned if this was what they wanted to state? They can get the roll, but not the latest owner. There is a discrepancy as it could be up to ~2 months on the rolls. Mr. Barrett informed her that they wanted the developer to go to the County to get~t~e latest owner. ~s. Pad~ett reolied that ~ey shouldn, t us~ollsthen. Mrs. JacP~on c~arifie~ t~at - ~ney meant the lafest official ownership. Mrs. Jackson moved to take out "official tax rolls- and state: ~official property owners as recorded in the official tax records~ on No. 3, fourth line. Mr. ~Harmening seconded the motion. Motion car- ried 5-0. ~. DeLong read Page 38. Mrs. Jackson referred to paragraph 4 and stated she would like to state before any new application may be refiled. Barrett stated in order to clarify they should state an appli- cation for the same land may be refiled. M~r. Kelly questioned whether they should state land or parcel and Mrs. Jackson re- plied that it ms.de no difference. Mrs. Jack, on made a motion ~or pMragraph 4 to state: ~?ust elapse before the application or ~ne same parcel of lan~ may be refiled." Mr. Harme~g seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-O. See 5/20/75 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL ~ETING PAGE _TNi~TEEN MaY 8, 1975 Mr. DeLong referred to Page 38, No. 3, smd stated it should be changed to: "recommendation of the Planning & Ze~ Board and approval of the City Cou~cil,~o Mr. Simon referred to Page 33 and the sentence above No. 3 Stating: ~Any use not specifically~enumerat~d herein above shall be referred to the Planning and Zoning Boardeand City Council.~ Ee stated this language was pretty broad suggest- ing that anything could be considered. Mrs. Jackson s~g- gested dropping the sentence since the Uses prohibited were I~sted. Mr. Simo~ stated he was concerned with it, because it was language which, ha~ ~kem i~volwed i~a lawsuit right new. Mr. Barrett state~ he believed thsy could have over- l~oked some things and wan~e~ to giVe tbs applicant the right to a~p~y, He agreed ~hattthe lamg~age should he C~ed. Ee ~ugEeste~ s~at-'~ reviewed b' t ~ ~ ~ ~ he Plann~ug and Z~ing Board and approveS bythe City Co,oil. F~. Simon stated in %he present code, it was i~te~ded to cover things pr~senttike this_a~dc.~, heEfterread from ~ ~se~t c~e, paragraph under general commercial planning &U c°nditi~al uses are there is a p~agraph should considerthe loPed, ~urther you cannot allow it opens a whole new there was a simple stated he a~reed with the the old ordinances ings~ etc., it became a in the City. eliminate conditional the Planning & ZoninE get away from public h have been into the City~ but were through with~puBlic Barrett suggested out that it was left uses, it states any not s~ecificaliy enumerated & Z~uing Board, etc. of conditional use, the hearing. After this, gu~d l~nes. After all th~s~ review o~ the application inwwhiek it is to be deve- area, etc. This states the new wording is so simple~ Mrs. Jackson asked if in here? Mr. Barrett ~ ho~eve~, after reading ~ses~with~,t the public hear- ~ime to get something Bo~d~s desire was to th?m with review by City Co~e~il. They want to a~d conditional use. There ~h~h might have come ~l they had to go reWemding this~ Mr. Simon pointed the Pt~ing & Zoning Board to give rec~ the CiZy Council to pass. He added that this could · ~ rezonimg. M~a~or Roberts suggested getting i~ed !n~hSr~. ~Irs. Jackson sa/d the wor~iug in the z°~i~g codecSm~d almost be taken ~rbati~ w~n, lea~ing ou~ ¢o~onal use~ ~. Simon added ~re snou±~ De somethinE t0~iSe a guideline. ~s. Jackson ~ae~ that.it a~so must ~ &~ble %8 the neighborhood. · ~=o. oarret~ stated he wo~l~ g$~ogether with b~. Simon to MINUTES CiTY COUNCIL MEETING clarify this. Mr. Simon suggested they could authorize the additional language ~nd they would work it out tomorrow or the next day. Mrs. Jackson made a motion to use the langu- age as contained to make it similar to that already in the old zoning code. Mr. Harmening seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0° Mrs. Padgett referred to Page 30, Central Business District, a~d stated she did not notice any height limitation. She added that it was set forth in all districts, but not here. N~r. Strnad informed her that the ordinance was 45 ft. Mr. Barrett suggested waiting to see what was presented first. M~rs. Jackson suggested leaving it at 45 ft. Mrs. Jackson made a motion to have the C.B.D. have a height limitation of 45 feet or feur stories. Mr, DeLong seconded the motion. Under di~cussion, M~r. DeLo~g stated he thought this originally starte~ with the fermer City Planner ~J~d the Chamber of Com- merce Development Board with plans to have Kwik Chek being a hostel or yacktel with a tower to identify Boynton Beach. Motio~ carried 5-0. M~. Simon read Page 39. He and requested he strike out or answer questions and". stated he spoke to M~r. Barrett the words: "act as advisors~ ask ~s. Jackson referred to Page 39, No. 1, and questioned if they must stick to the State law? She gave an example of three members being absent and ha~ing only two alternates, there would not be enough members to vote. Mr. Simon re- plied that the State law requires a majority of a quorum, so it is a lot easier to meet. Mr. Strnad pointed out there was no quorum mentioned in the Board of Adjustment and that the State law just states the Board of Adjustment must con- sist of five members. ~. Boeltz read 163-220, Creation and Composition, stating not less th~m five members nor more thau ten members. ~myor ~oberts added that it stated the govern- ing body may not appoint more than two alternate members. M~. Boeltz continued reading. Mayor Roberts questioned why they couldn,t have three o~ four alternate members? Mrs. Jackson asked if they had. to live up to the State law and be limited by it? Mr. S&mon informed them that the member- ship could be anywhere from five to ten. RL~yor Roberts sug- gested having seve~ members on the Board. ~. Strnad asked if a quorum was mentioned at all? Mayor Roberts stated this thing would ~ot fU~ction at all unless there were four mem- bers allowed to sit as a Board and four votes are required. He stated he was cencerned with this number, t~. Simon in- formed him that they mus~ be careful who is appointed to thi~ Boar~ and ma~e sure they are year-round residents. Mrs. Jack, on remarked that someone could get sick. She referred to the State law stating all the majority of the members of MINUTES CITY COUNCIL ~TING PAGE MAY 8, 1975 the Board. Mayor Roberts remarked that this di&u't make any sense at all. ~r. Simon informed them that it presently read that a meeting could be held with fo~ members. Mr. Strnad stated he didn,t feel the applicant had a fair chance with only four members. Plr. DeLomg questioned where the fo~Lr votes came in and referred to the majority being mentioned another place. Mr. Simon informed him that the present code states four and the State states majority, He pointed out that they were ma~ing it more restrictive. ~s. Jackson questioned if they were limited to the State st. atnte? Mr. Simon remarked that this would make it more m~ent. ~. Strnad stated he was concerned with having a workable board. Mr. DeLong pointed out that the State statmtes were in con- fliet. N~. Boeltz ~howed them the code. ~yer Roberts clar- ified that asking the present board to consist of five members decision, but the State law states three c. lsio~. Mr. DeLong referred to the City and with two absent, they could They dom't have alter- nates. There five members must be sitting o~ the and he doesn't believe the tP~t the present law did mot ~t the proposal required it. does mo ~tate this, only a majority. Mr. ~tz S the way it stood, they may have five to ten memberS. ,It doesn,t s~y t~ey can hold a ~eti.ng with fomr tho.ugh. Nr. Simon stated they must make a ecismon of what'the Sta.te S~t~te provides or something more restrictive. Yn~. Earm~Aing~ ~u~. Mrs. Jackson stated they thought it should be mere r~strictive. .Mayor Roberts added th..~t they also mus~ ~e sure~ the apolicant ~ets a fair ch~mc~. ~th havmng a full vete. ~e law specmf~¢~lly spells it out i~ the new ordin . ~ar e · n · ~_~ ~·~ ~ .. Mr ~ m Aig added~, that if the pet~ion- _ .~ ,-~-- _ e~r~w~th only four memoers present, '0 a~e~arin~ or - ~ ' - , , ~ chit court. ~r. ~e present br~inance. DeLong stated to everyth~ pertaining to zoning including etc. He believes it is wrong for the to act on these matters. ~r. Foy ~ard, of Adjustment, appeared before the 'ormed tham~ that he has been on the Board only one ~arking decision has been made andi~ a fence issAe coming up, but they have DeLomg stated that fence was not within Mr. ~ar~ questioned why they got it then, if . their ~ju~isdiction? M~yor Roberts sugges~ ~ive reg~ members and five ~ternate members,' 2, and referring to Chapter 163 instead 3; ~r. Barrett pointed out that it was )ut in 112 too. ~r. Simon clarified that this ha~ the conduct of public MINUTES PAGE CITY COUNCIL ~-'~ETING MAY 8, 1975 officials. Par~agraph 112 refers to conflict of interest. ~yor Roberts said it states no action will be taken unless five members are present and voting. He added they mmst live with this until they could change it. N.r. Barrett ad- vised him that they could change it. Mayor Roberts stated he would go along with the concurrent vote of four members. Mr. Boeltz stated this didn,t give the applicant a f~ad~ chance. Mr. Harmeni~g stated he felt the Board of Adjust- ment gave applieation~ a thorough review~ M~yor Roberts added they must also follow rules and regulations, Ee stated they should aDell out what they cam e~ cermet do.. It shomld state that five members must be present to vote. Mr. Strnad questioned why it was written like this and ~s. Jackson informed himtthis ~as the original Board of Adjust- men~ law. Mr. Eimon agreed that the ol~ one stated ~our concurring votes were needed~ .~e added the desirable thing would be te h~ve five at ~ll t~mes. Ma~or RO~erts suggested ~g~ ing~l~g,~i~th ~him ~tic~tar Sectio~, bet ~uestioned why ~ey~ coui~n ~. ~ave more than two alter~ate members. They e mei~g respective with only two al~er~ates. Mr. DeLgng s~ggested inse~ting a ~aragraoh or provisig~ that a cert~- fled s~rv. ey mus.t be inClUded, ~itk the aPDl~ation. .B~.re.tt ~nfermed h~.thmt the applicat~sm has been changed and this request is ~nelu~ed~ ~ ~w apDeared before the City. Council and refewred to their discussion of five members w~th two alternate~ and he snggested Dossibly m seven~me~er board may be better, Mayc~ R~B~ts~suggested changing ~he requirement~ of five to seven in ~e ~ir~t.~ine. ~Mr~!~ime~s~ated with seve~, the majority ~er~s pomn~e~ out that it, stated no.action would be taken unless five members were ~snt an~ ~. Simon replied this could be deleted. Mr. ad,ed this would still only re- quire a vote of four. very simple to cha~ge bors. He added that t~76. He suggeste~ ame sad striking the M~. Simon stated if five sit, it comld gested leaving it as ~ir. Simon stated p~esent was to members are present, his case. Nith seven be nine members. ,ong remarked this would be stating seven regular mem- 't take effect until January, seven instead of five five men having to sit. requirement of hmvi~g ~ Strnad sug- the five to seven. ~ with seven members. the requirement of five to be a fai~ break. If onl~ four m~st convince all four of , there would though. Mayor R~berts pointed out five must be present. N~s, Jackson asked ~i~. ~ ! ' ~ .......... r '~ . .~d~er his :comments on this and ~. .,~'~ ~ep±~ec ~Aa~ i~ woSAd ~ mnch ~iter with seven members and twoalter~ates. ~m~t~~at~ th~ ~o~d a~e the problem then~ but no acrOSS,enid ~e t~en ~ess five members MINUTES CITY COUNCIL M~ET~G PAGE ~EV~N. TEEN ~Y 8, 9~5 are on the Board. Mr. Simon added that they should require a majority vote. M~myor Roberts added they should make the five~andatoryo Mr. A~aa~ stated to give the applicant a fair chance, the majority of four votes of the seven members would be required, but it should not be required to get four votes with only a five member board at a~other time. Simon stated that the vote to carry must be four. .~ir. stated that it should be the majority. Mrs. JacP~on made a motion to change the requirements to ~even regula~ members with two alternates for the Board of Adjustment. ¥~.. DeLo~g seconde~ the motion. Motion car- ried 5-0. M~. Simo~ added that paragraph 1. should be changed to make the staggered terms apply, ~-~. Barrett referred to Page 42, F., a~d stated the one sen- tence should be corrected to read: ~App~icsmts shall be re- quired to file a proper form (supplied from the City Clerk), a cu~rent certified survey, and accomDa~ied by a fee of fifty dollars Mr. Simon continued with reading Pages 39 and 40. ~s. Jackson referred to Page 40, c., and asked if something didn't go through, if it went Back to the original thin~ and and F~. Barrett replied that this was what was stated. ~. Simon continued with reading Page 40, M~r. Ward asked for clarification of (d) and Mr. Barrett in- formed him that it didn't belong there, but got intthere by mistake. N~. DeLong made a motion to remove Section d, seconded by N~. Harmening. Motion carried 5-0. Simon continued with reading Pages 40 and 41. M~. DeLong referred to Page 4I, ~, and referred to having raised the membership to sevenand questioned if this should he increased to five? Mayor Roberts reolied that he didn,t understand the connection, but that it ~ould~ke it more restrictive. Mrs. Jackson made a motion to cha~ge the four to five on Section C, seconded by ~. DeLong. Mr. Simon suggested going to Page 39 and also making this change in Paragraph 5, so they were consistent. They must have the same n~ber of votes in both cases. Min. 5/20/75 M~. Ward referred to C. and stated they must clarify the fence and parkinE situation. Mayor Roberts stated he didn't believe there was anything in hereabout fence and parking. Mr. Barrett informed him that a man was appealing his decision because he was turned down for insufficient parking space. Mr. DeLong MINUTES ~ITY COUNCIL ~ETiNG H ~ P~GE EIG TE~ M~Y 8, 1975 stated he felt the Board of Adjustment should only be con- cea. ned with building setback lines. F~r. Ward replied that he was only speaWi~g as a mem~r of the Board and they do get applications that have been turned down by the B~ilding Department. ~. DeLong stated he would like to check with the City Attorney and applications for variances should only be in the form of setback lines and no~-comformity. He sug- gested possibly striking tb.J~ paragraph~ Mr~ Simo~ informed tham if they ~reated a Board of Adjustment~ it was to give relief to e~ individual. The relief er course of remedy m~st net be denied to tke i~ividual.~ M~or DeLo~g stated that the Building De~artmsn~t has reasons for turning down ~uilding permits and some people go ru~ni~g to the Board of w~hdjustment for a variance. He questione~ who was to j~dge ether the Board of Adjustment made an error or mot? Mr. Eimo~ informed him that the Board of Ad~justment literally applies the ordinance. Mr. DeLong state~ that ~. Ws~d was ~er the impressio~ if bhe ~l~img Department did turn down an applicant for n~t meeting reqmirements, he could then apply to the BOar~ Gf A~justment. Mr: Simo~ informed ,him that ~-~. Barrett ¢o~3~ ne~ give a pe~t be?ause of cer- tain things. Mr..B~arrett ad,ed that if an applicant does .not meet the requ~r~'ments~ ha~ can appeal the ~ecisiono This is the way the law ~PellS it 'out: ~. Ha~meningl remarked that maybe one or t~o iWo~l$ t~r~ it, but he doubted they would ~recei~ve relief. Mrl DeLa~ s.t~ted if these.people r.a~. to the ~o~a of Adjustment~ ~h~Y.~o~l~ be sup?rse~ng ~he C~ty Goumcil and City 0f~iei~.I ~. Hammening~i~eed, but he bd~dn't_see ~ way ~t. Mr,. DeLong gave ~ ~xamp~le of orb- ems ~oca ~a~on had. He~s~d that if ~ City~ Attorney fel. t as though it wO~idn',~i~e. ~ b~each of State statutes to eliminate it, he ~ould rembve this. ~. ~.a~.~ stated he did n~ot c~a~.e whether it ~as i~i~ not, but he ~u~t wanted it czarixied. ~. SimOn st~&~ that in all c~u~:es, the Board of Adjustment must e~lwa~s~.'~be~ selected ~itk~ intelligent men to determine genu',~ae ha~d~£t~s, ~ey must have faith some- where. The~ can tak~ out :~an~ thing they want to. Mr. Ward stated he thought th~ .sum~ outline brought it out very clear. ~. Si~on cI~ar~ie~ that the B~.r~ of Adjustment is like going to M~. Bamrett ~nd asking t~ do something and he replies his hands a~s tie~!a~d he k~ows it is a real hard- .sh~ip, but he Can't Change %~ law. ~ir. DeLOng questioned a m.an~ came and w~ted ~:p~rmit~ for a fenc~ and ~. Barret stated the reasons ~hy he could not have a fence and would this be a hardship amd Mr..S~.~on replied: no. ~. DeLong ~.uestioned if ~e co,id ~.o ~o the Board of Adjustmen{ and .~.~m.on questioned wh~ k'~u,~ ~'.of hardship it was. ~. DeLong continued that everything ~hat was turned down by a oublic official for someb0~ ~ an application would be-brought before the Board of ~dj~s~nt. Mr. S~mo~ disagreed and referred to the fee ~e~d ~ith the application. Mr. MINU~S CITY COUNCIL I~TING PAGE £N~N ~Y 8, 1975 Harmening stated he thought they were borrowing a certain amount of trouble, Mr. DeLong stated the parking require- ments were spelled out and the Board of Adjustment should be restricted to setback lines. Mr. Simon informed him that th~ Board of Adjustment deals with genuine hardships a~d not self- created ones. This is a unique hardship which the property owner suffers and has no control over. He gave an example of a mam~ owning a 50 ft. lot. Mr. DeLeng stated he read the minutes of the Board of Adjustment meetings aud was a little surprised at some of the rulings. Mr. Simon stated he applied at auother city today for a 8~ inch variance a~ another ma~ asked for 3½ feet, This other ma~'s was gra~ted a~ his was ~e~ied, apparently ~ecause o~e man o~jected to his a~ there were mo objections to the o~her man,s. This ia a~ e~ample c~ the wrong men en the board. Common semse is needed° Mr. Harmening stated that as he saw it, a~yone could appeal to the Board of Adjustment for almost anything~ M~yor Roberts s~ated that they didn't have to grant it. He a~de~ that one of his gripes was that variances were grante~ b~ca~se there w~re no objections. Mr. D~Long continued with reading Pages 42 thru 47. ~s. Jackso~ referred te Page 47, C., and moved to state: Churches, temples, or other places of worship, Mr. Harmening seconded ~he motion. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. DeLong continned with reading Pages 48 thru 51. Mr. Strnad referred to Pag~ 49, L. F~mrine Facilities, and stated that ~2 months after passing of this code was wrong. Mr. Barrett informed him they would have to give people liv- ing on boats a chance to find other accommodations. He has doubts they can enforce it. He thinks they are a little ahead of time, but would like to notify all in this area. Marinas will have to install on-shore facilities. Mr. Strnad questioned what the.difference would be if it was enforced in 6 or ~2 months? Mr. Barrett replied that he thought t2 months was fair. There is not enough personnel in this area to change all these bo~in that period of time. Mrs. Padgett referred to page 50 and questioned i£ 3B was correct and M~. Barrett advised her it should be Section 13. N~. Strnad referred to Page 48, I. (3) and noted a typo- graphical error where ~o£" should be '~or'~. Mr. Simon referred to Page 43, H (1), a~d it should state: ~'in violation of this ordinance shall be punishable as pro- vided in Section 16, etc.? MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING PAGE ~ +~ MAY 8, i975 ~Ir. Simon referred to Page 48, Section 11 (v) and pointed out the word "separately" as being misspelled. Mr. Simon referred to Page 48, Section 11 (w), and suggested it be worded the same as the previous paragraphs. F~. Simon referred to Page 50, first paragraph, ninth line, and stated a comma should be inserted after the second word: '~agreements,". Mr. Simon referred to Page 51, last paragraph, and stated the comma should be omitted after jurisdiction. Mrs. Jackson moved to adopt 0rdimance 75-19 with the correc- tions they have made and any minor typographical errors on the first reading as recommended by the acting City Planner and Planning and Zoning Board. ~. DeLong seconded the motion. ~s. Padgett conducted a roll call vote as fol!o~s: Vice Ymyor DeLong - Aye Councilma~ Strnad - Aye Councilwoman Jackson - Aye Councilma~Hmrmening -&ye Mayor Roberts - Aye Motion carried 5-0. M~. DeLong made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Harmening. Motion carried 5-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 1:00 A. M. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ATTEST: ~ City Clerk ~ Mayor Vice/Mayor Court cil/M/~n~er