View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

MINUTES OF A MEETING

OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

CITY OF DEERFIELD BEACH, FLORIDA

 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2001

 

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

 

A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment of the City of Deerfield Beach, a municipal corporation of Florida, was called to order on the above date at 7:00 p.m. by Jack McCloskey, Vice Chairman.  Roll call showed:

 

Present:          Gail Battle

                        Clare Biffis

                        Jack McCloskey

                        Sheila Pascar

 

Also Present:  Gerald Ferguson, Director of Planning and Growth Management

                        Marcia Stevens, Senior Planner

                        Charles Seaman, Assistant City Attorney

                        Prestige Reporting Service

 

Absent:            Helen Summers, Chairwoman

Nicholas Mazzoni, Alternate

 

SEATING OF ALTERNATES

 

No alternates were seated for the meeting.

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS BOARD MEETINGS

 

Vice Chairman McCloskey  requested either approval or corrections to the minutes of the Board of Adjustment meeting of August 23, 2001.

 

Motion was made by Ms. Biffis, seconded by Ms. Battle, to approve the minutes of the August 23, 2001 meeting.  The motion CARRIED unanimously.

 

Vice Chairman McCloskey advised the applicants the Board is composed of five members, four of whom are present.  Applications must be approved by at least four members; therefore, the absence of one may present a hardship for the applicant.  Vice Chairman McCloskey continued the recommendation of the Board goes forward with the applicant to the City Commission.  He advised any of tonight’s three applicants have the option to table their item to the next meeting if they would like until all five members are present.  None of the members requested tabling their item.

 

SWEARING IN APPLICANTS AND PUBLIC

 

Mr. Seaman swore in all those who would be testifying at the public hearing.

 

 

PUBLIC HEARING

CASE NO. 1775

 

A public hearing was held on Case 1775, EARL EVERETT, seeking a VARIANCE from the provisions of Section 98-61 of the Deerfield Beach Land Development Code in order to allow an addition to an existing single-family house which will be set back 15 feet from the front property line rather than 25 feet as required by Code.  The property  is described as Lot 9, Block 3 of CORAL MANOR THIRD ADDITION, located at 328 S.E. 7th Avenue.

 

Ms. Stevens read the appeal for the application and reported 48 letters to property owners were mailed, 3 letters were returned undeliverable and no letters of approval or objection were received.  Ms. Stevens explained the house sits diagonal on the property and does not have traditional front and rear setbacks.  The existing home already encroaches into the 25 foot setback.

 

Vice Chairman McCloskey asked if the setback requirements were different when the house was constructed.

 

Mr. Ferguson replied the setbacks were different when the house was constructed in 1961.

 

Earl Everett, 328 S.E. 7th Avenue, explained he has lived in the home for twenty-four years.  He and his wife are looking to add another bedroom and bathroom to move his mother down from Philadelphia.  They are looking to line up the addition with their existing home and feel this is the best place on the house to place an addition.

 

Vice Chairman McCloskey asked what the shaded area on the overhead represents.

 

Mr. Everett responded it is a screened porch leading to the pool.

 

Ms. Pascar asked if the room would be built back to the shrubs.

 

Peggy Everett, 328 S.E. 7th Avenue, replied there is a 10 foot shrub between them and the next property.  There will still be a 7 ½  foot easement on the side.

 

Vice Chairman McCloskey requested a motion to close the public hearing.

 

Ms. Battle made a motion, seconded by Ms. Biffis, to close the public hearing.  The motion CARRIED unanimously.

 

Ms. Biffis made a motion, seconded by Ms. Battle, to approve Case No. 1775 as presented.

 

 

 

 

 

Roll call showed:

 

YEAS                                       NAYS

Ms. Battle

Ms. Biffis

Ms. Pascar

Mr. McCloskey

 

Mr. Ferguson advised the applicant they cannot move forward until the City Commission has approved the application.  The City Commission meeting will not be a public hearing.  The Commission simply reviews the file and votes on it.  It is not necessary to be present unless the applicant would like to hear the outcome.

 

PUBLIC HEARING

CASE NO. 1778

 

A public hearing was held on Case 1778, STEFAN BOLOWICH, seeking a VARIANCE from the provisions of Section 98-61 of the Deerfield Beach Land Development Code in order to allow an addition to an existing single-family dwelling which will be set back 6 feet from the side property line rather than 7.5 feet as required by Code.  The property is described as a portion of the NE ¼ of the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 31, Township 47 South, Range 43 East, more particularly described in the file, located at 899 N.E. 4th Street.

 

Ms. Stevens read the appeal for the application and reported 31 letters to property owners were mailed, 1 letter was returned undeliverable and no letters of approval or objection were received.  Ms. Stevens explained the house has a 26-foot side yard.  This is where the parking area was located.  Directly to the east is the Roadhouse Grill; there is a significant wall separating the home from the restaurant.  It is the applicant’s intent to add a 20-foot two-car garage.  This will only allow for a 6-foot setback.

 

Vice Chairman McCloskey stated it appears the wall belonging to Roadhouse Grill looks to be 1 foot 3 inches into the applicant’s yard.

 

Ms. Stevens replied visually it appears to be, but legally it is not.

 

Stefan Bolowich, 899 N.E. 4th Street, explained he has lived in the home for 1 ½ years and would like to add a garage, a children’s room, a master bedroom and master bathroom to the home.  Mr. Bolowich stated there is a line of stumps beside the Roadhouse Grill’s wall.  These stumps will be removed.

 

Vice Chairman McCloskey asked if the applicant has spoken to the Roadhouse Grill.

 

Mr. Bolowich replied he has and they do not seem to have any problem with the plans.

 

Ms. Pascar asked how far the addition will sit from the wall.

 

Mr. Bolowich responded the addition will be 7 feet 3 inches from the wall.  This is actually 6 feet from the property line.  The wall extends 15 feet beyond the front of the house to the street.

 

Sean Cronin, 869 N.E. 4th Street, stated he is pleased with what his neighbor is planning to do to the home.

 

Vice Chairman McCloskey requested a motion to close public hearing.

 

Ms. Biffis made a motion, seconded by Ms. Battle, to close the public hearing.  The motion CARRIED unanimously.

 

Ms. Pascar commented the addition will improve the house.

 

Ms. Biffis stated there is a strong case for a hardship.

 

Vice Chairman McCloskey stated the area on the applicant’s side of the Roadhouse Grill wall will most likely not be used by the Roadhouse Grill.

 

Ms. Pascar made a motion, seconded by Ms. Biffis, to approve Case No. 1778 as presented.

 

Roll call showed:

 

YEAS                                       NAYS

Ms. Battle

Ms. Biffis

Ms. Pascar

Mr. McCloskey

 

PUBLIC HEARING

CASE NO. 1779

 

A public hearing was held on Case 1779, VINCENT AND TINA TOZZI, seeking a VARIANCE from the provisions of Section 98-47(f) of the Deerfield Beach Land Development Code in order to allow an addition to an existing dwelling which will cause said dwelling structure to be located 21 feet from the adjacent structure rather than 25 feet as required by Code.  The property is described as Lot 2-A, Block 10 of THE VILLAGES OF HILLSBORO SECTION 2, located at 582 N.W. 39th Avenue.

 

Ms. Stevens read the appeal for the application and reported 56 letters to property owners were mailed, 7 letters were returned undeliverable and no letters of approval or objection were received.  Ms. Stevens explained this will be a screened room addition.  The property is located in Starlight Cove and is zoned RM-10, multi-family, but was subdivided and developed in a single-family fashion.  The structures were attached with trellises to certain units to create a multi-family type environment; however, each dwelling operates as a single-family home.  According to the RM-10 Code requirements, each structure must be 25 feet from another.  This situation has resulted in 30 feet 6 inches between structures.  Basically, the person who moved in first got to use the remaining 5 feet.  In terms of accessory structures, what happens on the adjacent properties affects other owners.

 

Mr. Ferguson elaborated that the property is zoned multi-family, but was developed and sold as single-family homes.  This means no building can be greater than 250 feet in length and each must be 25 feet apart.  Four or five units were clustered during development and were connected by garden wall or fence.  Each unit is 10 feet apart. 

 

This applicant’s request will encroach into the rear setback, resulting in a 21-foot separation instead of 25 feet.

 

Ms. Stevens explained this situation makes the addition of accessory structures very difficult.

 

Mr. Ferguson clarified the applicant is planning a screened room with a solid roof.

 

Tina Tozzi, 582 N.W. 39th Avenue, explained the house was purchased 3 ½ years ago, and it is one of the smallest homes in the development.  It was unknown to her and her husband that there would be a problem adding a screened porch.  The roof will match the tile roof of the rest of the home.  Ms. Tozzi advised she has spoken to the neighbor to the rear, and they have no problem with the plans.  She has also spoken with the homeowners association, and they have no objection to the plan.  The porch will be 6 feet from the utility easement and 21 feet from the adjacent property to the rear.

 

Vice Chairman McCloskey asked how far the porch will be from the ficus hedge.

 

Ms. Tozzi replied 6 feet.

 

Vice Chairman McCloskey asked the height of the ficus hedge.

 

Ms. Tozzi replied 5 ½ to 6 feet.

 

Ms. Biffis asked if you can see the property to the rear.

 

Ms. Tozzi replied you can see the roof.  They will be matching the tile roof of the existing house to the porch.

 

Ms. Pascar commented the utility easements no longer exist.

 

Mr. Ferguson commented they still exist on the survey.  It is his understanding only the lake maintenance easements have been vacated.

 

Vice Chairman McCloskey requested a motion to close public hearing.

 

Ms. Biffis made a motion, seconded by Ms. Battle, to close the public hearing.  The motion CARRIED unanimously.

 

Ms. Pascar commented she used to live in the development and does not have a problem with the application as the applicant does have one of the smallest homes.

 

Ms. Battle made a motion, seconded by Ms. Biffis, to approve Case No. 1779 as presented.

 

Roll call showed:

 

YEAS                                       NAYS

Ms. Battle

Ms. Biffis

Ms. Pascar

Mr. McCloskey

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

There being no further business, motion was made by Ms. Biffis to adjourn.  The motion CARRIED unanimously.  The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m.

 

 

 

 

                                                                        __________________________________

                                                                        Jack McCloskey, Vice Chairman

                                                                        Board of Adjustment