extensive investigation, has compelled the Appellant to move the footprint of the proposed house away from the dune and into the required front yard.

Upon review of the variance request, Development Services staff concluded that the location in proximity to the dune and nonconforming size of the lot, created a special and unique condition that was not directly attributable to the Appellant. Staff acknowledges that given the Property is between the beach amenity properties of Laramar Condominium directly to the North, and Ocean Club Condominium directly to the South, the Appellant has no ability to acquire the additional land required to meet the lot width requirement. Furthermore, the Property has existed in its current configuration for the last several decades, and before it became under ownership of the Appellant. Since the Property is located along the oceanfront, the proposed structure has been designed to minimize encroachment onto the existing beach dune, while remaining enveloped by the natural vegetation so as to buffer views of the building from North Ocean Boulevard. As a result, the Appellant has had to move the building towards the west portion of the Property, and into the required front yard setback. Additionally, the Appellant provided a full justification in response to the variance review criteria that led Staff to believe that the request was reasonable and allowed for the best and highest use of the property.

Per Code Section 28-130, the ZBOA shall have the power to grant variances provided that it specifically finds that:

(a) Special and unique conditions exist which are peculiar to the petitioner's case and which are not generally applicable to the property located in the zoning district.

(b) The special and unique conditions are not directly attributable to the actions of the petitioner.

(c) The literal interpretation of this chapter, as applied to the petitioner, would deprive the petitioner of rights commonly enjoyed by the owners of other property in the zoning district.

(d) The variance granted is the minimum variance necessary for the petitioner to make reasonable use of the property.

(e) Granting the variance is not detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property or improvements in the zoning district or neighborhood involved.

(f) Granting the variance is not contrary to the objectives of the comprehensive plan of the city.

The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the variance request at their regular public hearing on July 23, 2015 and advised there were no plans, intentions, rezoning, or environmental concerns in the area under their consideration.

The ZBOA reviewed the requested variance at their regular August 23, 2015 meeting. The petition received three (3) 'Yes' votes and two (2) 'No' votes, as one of the Board members recused himself. In order to grant a variance, a total of four (4) positive votes was required, and as such the motion failed. The two (2) Board members who voted against approving the

2

1 (b) The special and unique conditions are not directly attributable to the actions

2 of the petitioner.

3 (c) The literal interpretation of this chapter, as applied to the petitioner, would

4 deprive the petitioner of rights commonly enjoyed by the owners of other property in the zoning

5 district.

6 (d) The variance granted is the minimum variance necessary for the petitioner to

7 make reasonable use of the property.

8 (e) Granting the variance is not detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to

9 property or improvements in the zoning district or neighborhood involved.

10 (f) Granting the variance is not contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive

11 Plan of the City.

12 Section 3. Determination: That it hereby

13 D Affirms the decision of the ZBOA denying the variance, thereby not

14 permitting the reduced lot width of 88.5 feet and the reduced yard setback of

15 14.7 feet.

16 D Affirms the decision of the ZBOA with modifications as follows:

17 1. ______________________________________ __

18 2. ______________________________________ __

19 D Reverses the decision of the ZBOA, thereby granting the Appeal and

20 permitting the reduced lot width of 88.5 feet and the reduced front yard

21 setback of 14.7 feet [with or without conditions].

22 D Remands the decision to the ZBOA for further consideration.

23 Section 4. If any section, subsection, clause or provision of this resolution is held

24 invalid, the remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity.

25 Section 5. All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith shall be and

26 hereby are repealed.

3

1 Section 6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.·

2 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Boca Raton this __

3 dayof _____ 2015.

4

5

6

7 CITY OF BOCA RATON, FLORIDA

8 9 ATTEST:

10 11 12 Susan Haynie, Mayor 13 14 Susan S. Saxton, City Clerk 15 16 17 18

COUNCIL VOTE YES NO ABSTAINED

MAYOR SUSAN HAYNIE DEPUTY MAYOR ROBERTS. WEINROTH COUNCIL MEMBER MICHAEL MULLAUGH COUNCIL MEMBER JEREMY RODGERS COUNCIL MEMBER SCOTT SINGER

4

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, BOCA RATON, FLORIDA PLANNING REPORT

ZBOA Agenda Date: August 13, 2015

CASE NO.: 8Aw15-03 15-87500003

Recommendation: Approval

Introduction

Request for variances from Section 28-583(1) and 28-586(1){A) of the City's Code of Ordinances to allow a single-family dwelling on a 88.5 foot wide lot in lieu of the minimum lot width of a 100 feet and allow a front yard setback of 14.7 feet in lieu of the minimum requirement of 25 feet for a residentially zoned property located at 2500 N Ocean Boulevard.

J. Michael Marshall, Esq., Gray Robinson, P.A., representative for Natural Lands, LLC, owner ("Petitioner"), requests approval of variances for the minimum lot width for a residentially zoned property and the minimum front yard setback for a property located at 2500 North Ocean Boulevard ("Property"). Specifically, the Petitioner is proposing to construct a four-story single family home, with a building footprint of 3,146 square feet. These variances are being sought concurrently with a variance to construct improvements on the Property seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (SC-12-06/12-30000008).

The extent of the variance requests is more particularly described in the following table:

- ,Y·O"'-•

CODE CODE.

SECTI"ON REQlU~EMENT RE QUEST:. -~·.--:- ·~--·--· ~::.~ ... ---··"·.: ... --~-----... ........ ~--- ~--....--..--

28-583(1) Minimum Lot 100 feet in width

Size "~

28-586( 1 )(A) Front Yard 25 feet Setback

Background and Discussion

Property History

88 .5 feet

= .....__,._

14 .7 feet

; ·.

VARIANC.E.

11.5 feet

10.3 feet

The Property is ~ combination of two (2) portions of two (2) lo~s that were platted as a part of the Redlhammer subdivision·, recorded September 30, 1944. The Property was assembled to its current configuration and unified under one (1) deed in 1963. The state of the Property is undeveloped and has never been Improved upon. This Property is one of six R-3-F zoned properties located east of North Ocean Boulevard, and of the

Mizner Del Mar- East: Lot Width and Setb<Jok Varionaa BA-15·03115-87500003 Page 2of5

six, only two are privately and individually owned, one being the subject Property, and the other an existing residential duplex.

Zoning and Land Use

The Property is a 0.32 acre site that is zoned Multi-Family (R-3-F) with a future land use designation of Residential Medium (RM). The proposed use is consistent with the future land use designation and zoning district.

Analysis of the Request and Applicable Variance Criteria

The Property is located on the east side of North Ocean Boulevard, and is situated between the beach access properties of Laramar Condominium to the North, and Sea Ranch Club Condominium to the South. The Property is configured from portions of two (2) parcels and is approximately 14,126 square feet (0.32 acres).

The Petitioner proposes to develop the site with a four-story, 10,432 square foot, single-family home with a 3,146 square foot footprint. The structure has been designed to minimize encroachment onto the existing beach dune, and remain enveloped by the dense, natural vegetation so as to buffer views of the building from North Ocean Boulevard.

For the project's plan to proceed, the proposal requires two (2) Zoning Code variances, both of which are addressed in this report. Additional staff concerns regarding building code and land development code compliance items, as they pertain to the project, were not included in this review but have been communicated to the Petitioner. Finally, it should be noted that the development of the Property is subject to the approval of a separate Special Case variance to the City Council to build seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line.

As a result of the Petitioner requesting two (2) variances, the provided justification and summary, for both requests are included below.

(1) Special and unique conditions exist which are peculiar to the Petitioners' case and which are not generally applicable to the property located in the zoning district.

The Petitioner purports that the Property is remarkably unique and special in its situation given 1hat only 3% (1 ,340 linear feet) of the City's oceanfront property is zoned R-3-F, and of that, half (670 linear feet) has been acquired for public park purposes, and an additional quarter (380 linear feet) is used for condominium beach access. Out of the remaining oceanfront property (380 linear feet), the Petitioner's Property is one of two parcels to be used for a low density single family residential dwelling, and is currently the only vacant property that is less than 100 feet in width. While there are other properties in this zoning district which are less than 100 feet in width, m~ny are associated with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that provided flexibility from the minimum width Code requirement. Additionally, the Petitioner refers to the nearby parcel at 2330 North Ocean Boulevard which is only 75 feet wide and was previously improved with a two-family dwelling. The Petitioner adds that the same two"family dwelling also enjoys a one foot, front yard setback, as part of a 1966 order of the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit for Palm Beach County, which allowed the property owner to make viable use of the land. Furthermore, the Property's location on an existing beach dune has influenced the Petitioner's decision to move the structure westward on the Property to limit disturbance of the dune.

2

Mizner Del Mar- E:a.st: Lot Width and Setback Varlenoe BA·15-()3/15-87500003 Page 3 of8

(2) The special and unique conditions are not directly attributable to the actions of the Petitioner.

According to the Petitioner, the special and unique conditions described previously are not directly attributable to the Petitioner because the portions of lots which comprise the Property were originally platted in 1944 and reconfigured to their current state in 1963, well before the Petitioner took ownership of the Property. Furthermore, the Petitioner purports that when many of these lots were platted on the Redlhammer Subdivision, they were subsequently subdivided by metes and bounos conveyances Into smaller parcels, and then reassembled to plots of varying widths. At this time, the Property is the remainder of such assemblies, and there is no opportunity to acquire contiguous land as the adjacent parcels to the north and south serve as amenities to condominium developments for beach access. Therefore, the Petitioner can in no way widen the Property at all for development.

The Petitioner notes that the State of Florida acquired 17 feet of real land along the Property's road frontage for the purpose of widening the right-of-way to 100 feet. Since the right~of-way expansion, the Petitioner's proposed structure will now be 14.7 feet from the front property line, instead of 31 feet as would previously been possible. The Petitioner also mentions that it was this taking of land which served as the basis for a 1966 judicial order allowing 2330 North Ocean Boulevard to provide no front yard setback for development of its two~family dwelling. It should also be noted that while the size of the lot permits the structure to be able to meet the setback requirements, the fact that Property Is comprised of an existing natural dune therefore hinders the amount of buildable area. The Petitioner's intent is to minimize impact on the existing dune, and for that reason, place the structure on the westward side of the Property creating the need for a variance to the front yard setback.

(3) The literal interpretation of this chapter, as applied to the Petitioner, would deprive the Petitioner of rights commonly enjoyed by the owners of other properly in the zoning district.

The Petitioner seeks to enjoy similar rights as those rights enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the zoning district; in turn, to be able to make reasonable use of the land as guaranteed under State and Federal law. Again, the Petitioner references the two-family dwelling at 2330 North Ocean Boulevard, which was permitted to build on a lot less than 100 feet in width, In the request to make similar use of the Subject Property for a single-family structure. Furthermore, the Property is only 0.22% of all land in the City that is designated R-3-F zoning. In comparison, the other 99.78% of the R-3-F zoned properties are not constrained by the same lot size conditions which apply to the Property.

(4) The variances granted are the minimum variances necessary for the Petitioner to make reasonable use of the property.

The Petitioner purports that the variance being sought for the width of the Property, is the same the Property has hacl for more than half a century. The proposed single-family residential structure is fully compliant with all bulk regulations in the R-3-F district, with the exception of the front yard requirement. Additionally, such use provides the Petitioner with a reasonable improvement to the Property. The Petitioner further purports that the strL1cture is designed so as to minimize impact on the frontal dune. Given the unique location of the Property, the Petitioner is seeking the least Impacting

3

Mizner Del Mar- East: Lot Width and Setback Variance BA-15-03115-87500003 Page 4of5

residential use and the minimum requested variances to make reasonable use of the Property.

(5) Granting the variances is not detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to properly or improvements in the zoning district or neighbothood involved.

The Petitioner submits that granting the requested variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare, or Injurious to property or improvements in the zoning district. There is approximately 25 feet of space in the rlght-of~way between North Ocean Boulevard and the Property, with the additional setback of 14.7 feet to the proposed structure. Therefore, with approximately 40 feet of separation between the home and the roadway, coupled with the dense existing vegetation surrounding the Property, the building will not create any detrimental impacts to neighboring properties.

(6) Granting the variances is not contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan of the City.

There are no conflicts with objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan in the Petitioner's request for variances. The Petitioner's proposed singleNfamily structure is a land use that is expressly permitted in the R-3-F zoning district and RM {Residential Medium) Future Land Use designation. Furthermore, the Petitioner has made the effort to position the building in a westerly position on the Property to comply with the provisions of the Coastal Management ("CM") Element addressing construction seaward of the CCCL. The Petitioner ls simply attempting to make viable use of the Property and thus requests the minimum variances necessary to do so.

Recommendation

As stated previously, the undeveloped oceanfront Property is exceptionally unique given its existing condition of being east of North Ocean Boulevard, and on a previously platted lot. The proposed structure has been designed and situated on the Property so as to minimize impact on the natural frontal dune, as well as the surrounding properties, while also giving the Petitioner the ability to improve the land in a reasonable manner.

In consideration of the Property's location and land development regulations of the City, staff affirms that the Petitioner hats proposed a site plan that represents the optimal site design for the proposed building and has truly justified the necessity for the variances. Based on the justification provided and staff's analysis of the requested variances, the Development Services Department recommends APPROVAL of the requested variances, reducing the minimum front yard setback and minimum lot width required for a Multi~Family (R-3-F) zoned property located at 2500 N Ocean Boulevard, subject to the approval of the Coastal Construction Control line variance (Case No. SC-12·06/12-30000008).

Sec. 28-130. Powers.

(1) The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall have only the powers set forth in this Section.

(2) The Board shall have the power, subject to review by the City Council pursuant to Section 28-131 (8), to grant variances from the requirements of this Chapter, provided that it specifically finds that:

4

Mizner Del Mar- East: Lot Width and &tback Variance BA-16-03115-87500003 P*5of5

(a) Special and unique conditions exist which are peculiar to the Petitioners' case and which are not generally applicable to the property located in the zoning district.

(b) The special and unique conditions are not directly attributable to the actions of the Petitioners.

(c) The literal interpretation of this Chapter, as applied to the Petitioners, would deprive the Petitioners of rights commonly enjoyed by the owners of other property in the zoning district.

(d) The variances granted are the minimum variances necessary for the Petitioners to make reasonable use of the property.

(e) Granting the variances Is not detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property or Improvements in the zoning district or neighborhood involved.

Document originated by: John Harbilas, Zoning Officer

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

RESOLUTION BA-15-03

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOCA RATON

CONSIDERING VARIANCES FROM SECTIONS 28-583(1)

AND 28-586(1)(A) OF THE CITY'S CODE OF

ORDINANCES TO ALLOW A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING

ON A 88.5 FOOT WIDE LOT IN LIEU OF THE MINIMUM

LOT WIDTH OF A 1 00 FEET AND ALLOW A FRONT YARD

SETBACK OF 14.7 FEET IN LIEU OF THE MINIMUM

REQUIREMENT OF 25 FEET FOR A RESIDENTIALLY

ZONED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2500 N OCEAN

BOULEVARD; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;

PROVIDING FOR REPEALER; PROVIDING AN

EFFECTIVE DATE (BA 15-03/15-87500003)

16 WHEREAS, Sections 28-130 and 28-131, Code of Ordinances, provides that the Zoning

17 Board of Adjustment ("the Board") is charged with conducting public hearings to grant variances

18 from the requirements of Chapter 28, Code of Ordinances; and

1 WHEREAS, an application for variances has been filed by J. Michael Marshall, Esq. of

2 Gray Robinson, P.A, representative for Natural Lands, LLC ("Petitioner"}, owner of real property

3 located at 2500 North Ocean Boulevard, requesting variances from Code Section 28~583(1)

4 and 28-586( 1 )(A) of the City's Code of Ordinances as set forth in Table 1; and

5 TABLE 1 -c·-'------~---~--W-"""'----~·-~"0~.,. ·················-··~~-·-········-~---~"-~ t•·--------·------·------··-···-~· ... --·-~'

CODE REQUIREMENT REQUEST VARI ANCE

CODE SECTION

28-583(1)- Minimum Lot Size 1 00 feet in width 88.5 feet 11.5 feet

- --~

28-586 (1)(A)- Front Yard 25 feet 14.7 feet 10.3 Setback

feet ,_________ ____ - .. w~•~····--

6

7 WHEREAS, the Development Services Department has reviewed the variance requests

8 and has submitted its recommendation; and

9 WHEREAS, a proper Notice of Public Hearing was sent to property owners of record

10 within 500 feet of the subject property and was published on July 29, 2015; and

11 WHEREAS, four affirmative votes are required to adopt the variance requests and only 3

12 members voted in favor of the Motion to Adopt the variances.

13 NOW, THEREFORE after due consideration of all testimony and exhibits and review of

14 the criteria for granting a variance as set forth in Article Ill, Chapter 28, Code of Ordinances,

15 governing the Zoning Board of Adjustment, the Board FINDS that the petitioner failed to show

16 that:

17 (a) special and unique conditions exist, which are peculiar to the Petitioner's case

18 and which are not generally applicable to the property located in the zoning district; and

19 (b) the special and unique conditions are not directly attributable to the actions of the

20 Petitioners; and

2

(c) the literal interpretation of this chapter, as applied to the Petitioners, would

2 deprive the Petitioners of rights commonly enjoyed by the owners of other property in the zoning

3 district; and

4 (d) the variances requested are the minimum variances necessary for the Petitioners

5 to make reasonable use of the property; and

6 (e) granting the variances requested is not detrimental to the public welfare, or

7 injurious to the property or improvements in the zoning district or neighborhood involved; and

8 (f) granting the variances is not contrary to the objectives of the Comprehensive

9 Plan of the City; now therefore

10 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF

11 BOCA RATON:

12 Section 1. Upon the foregoing finding, variances from Code Sections 28~583(1) and 28-

13 586(1)(A) as set forth below are hereby DENIED.

14 Section 2. If any section, subsection, clause or provision of this resolution is held

15 invalid, the remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity.

16 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Boca Raton

17 this 13th day of August, 2015.

18 08/27/2015

19 Spencer Siegel, Chairman Date 20 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 21 22

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VOTE

YES NO ABSTAINED

CHAIRMAN SPENCER SIEGEL X VICE CHAIR ALFRED GLADSTONE X MEMBER JOHN M. CAPELLER. JR X MEMBER HENDRIK DeMELLO X MEMBER JOHN PURLAND _X MEMBER JONATHAN WHITNEY X

23

- ~-~--------- - ·---------

FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS

~E Or BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION,AUTHORiiY, OR COMMITIEE

N\.. ~&:.~~

MY POSITION IS: 0 ELECTIVE

WHO MUST FILE FORM 88

This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.314:3, Ftorida Statutes.

Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before co.m~eting and fiting the form.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which would inure to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also MUST ABSTAIN from knowingly voting on a measure which would inure to the special gain or (oss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent, subsidiary, or sibling organization of a principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies (CRAs) under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity.

For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-In-law. mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-In-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).

* ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:

PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest In the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and

WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.

APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting In the situations described above, you are not prohibited by Section 112.3143 from otherwise participating in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction.

IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATIEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN:

• You must complete and file this form (before making any attemptto Influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on page 2)

CE FORM 86- EFF. 11/2013 PAGE 1 Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)((), F.A.C • . _,

April 27, 2015

requirements of this chapter specifically find as follows:

" In considering a variance request, the ZBOA must

(a) Special and unique conditions exist which are peculiar to the petitioner's case and which are not generally applicable to the property located in the zoning district. (b) The special and unique conditions are not directly attributable to the actions of the petitioner. {c) The literal interpretation of this chapter, as applied to the petitioner, would deprive the petitioner of rights commonly enjoyed by the owners of other property in the zoning district. (d) The variance granted is the minimum variance necessary for the petitioner to make reasonable use of the property. (e) Granting the variance is not detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property or improvements in the zoning district or neighborhood involved. (f) Granting the variance is not contrary to the objectives of the comprehensive plan of the city.

As forth in more detail below, the Petitioner's application and justification satisfy the foregoing requirements, and as a result, the variance request should be granted.

II. JUSTIFICATION FOR REQUESTED VARIANCE

(a) Special and unique conditions exist which are peculiar to the petitioner's case and which are not generally applicable to the property located In the zoning district.

There are a number of "special" and "unique" conditions which are peculiar to the Subject Property but not to other properties in the same zoning district. As set forth below, these conditions are not only special and unique, but they are truly remarkable.

As a threshold matter, the Subject Property is different than nearly every property located in the R-3-F zoning district in that it is situated between the east right-of-way of Highway A-1-A and the Atlantic Ocean. This presents a unique situation because any development along the oceanfront is compelled {as It should be) to locate as far west as possible within the property to avoid impacts with the frontal dune system. This situation applies to only six (6) parcels that are located along the oceanfront and also within the R-3-F district, and these six (6) parcels comprise a very, very small percentage of the City's entire oceanfront. In fact, 97% of the five (5) miles {26,400 lineal feet) of oceanfront property in the City is either zoned R-5-A and developed with mid and high-rise condominiums, or otherwise has been acquired for public park purposes. The six (6) oceanfront properties that are designated in the R-3-F district constitute only 1,340 linear feet. Moreover, nearly one-half of the R-3-F oceanfront (670 feet) has been acquired for additional public park purposes and of the remaining 670 feet of R-3-F

Page 2 ofS

April27, .2015

oceanfront, half of that (380 feet) is owned by and used for beach access for mid and high rise condominiums located west of A-1-A. Then, of the remaining 380 feet, the 74-foot wide R-3-F parcel located at 2330 North Ocean Boulevard Is currently improved with a residential duplex that enjoys a front yard setback of only 1-foot, a development right which stems from a 1966 order of the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. As such, the 86-foot wide Subject Property is one (1) of only two (2) parcels {306 feet In total) along the entire five {5) mile stretch of oceanfront in the City that are both privately owned and vacant/ and the Petitioner simply seeks through the instant variance request to enjoy the same rights as the only other similarly situated oceanfront property in the City that has been improved to date (i.e., the parcel at 2330 North Ocean Boulevard).

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner respectfully submits that the circumstances of the Subject Property are special and unique, and are not a matter of general application. The required findings in the City Code speak to the "zoning district" and none of the parcels of land designated R"3-F in the City of Boca Raton other than the 380 feet of private oceanfront property are subject to the extant conditions that affect the use of Subject Property.

(b) The special and unique conditions are not directly attributable to the actions of the petitioner.

The Petitioner is not responsible for the special and unique conditions described above. The Petitioner is not responsible for the parcelization of land along the City's oceanfront (the Subject Property was platted in 1944). Furthermore, the Petitioner is not responsible for the taking of real property that was effectuated many decades ago by the State of Florida that eliminated 17 feet of land from the property's road frontage (for purposes of widening the right~of-way from 66 feet to 100 feet). But for the taking of such land, the Petitioner's proposed residential structure would be situated more than 31 feet (rather than 14.7 feet) from the front property line, which is a distance that would satisfy the City's current minimum front yard requirement of 25 feet. Indeed, the taking of property along the City's oceanfront to widen the A-1-A right-of-way served as the basis for 1966 judicial order allowing a structure on the parcel at 2330 North Ocean Boulevard to provide no front yard setback.

2 Petitioner acknowledges that three (3) of the parcels zoned R-3-F in this area are privately owned and not

currently Improved with habitable structures. However, these are the parcels that serve as an amenity area for the condominium development located on the west side of AlA, a circumstance that is materially different than the circumstances of Subject Property. The Petitioner has no opportunity to use the Subject Property as an amenity for a large condo project, and therefore, the Subject Property remains distinguishable from other properties in the zon lng district.

Page3of5

',

ApriiZ7, 2015

(c) The literal interpretation of this chapter, as applied to the petitioner, would deprive the petitioner of rights commonly enjoyed by the owners of other property in the .toning district.

As demonstrated above, the Subject Property simply seeks a variance to enjoy similar rights as those rights enjoyed by the only other similarly situated property in the same zoning district. Moreover, the Subject Property constitutes a miniscule 0.22% of all land in the City of Boca Raton that is designated R-3-F. None of other 99.78% of land in the R-3-F district is constrained by the conditions that apply to the Subject Property. It would be difficult to imagine a more discriminate circumstance than a regulatory imposition that imposes limitations on only 0.22% of any similarly zoned property.

(d} The variance granted is the minimum variance necessary for the petitioner to make reasonable use of the property.

The Petitioner proppses a single-family residential unit which is fully compliant with all applicable bulk regulations in the R-3-F District except for the front yard requirement.3 A single-family residential unit is the minimum, sensible use under the R-3-F District4 which provides the property owner with an economically beneficial use, and the Petitioner has located the proposed structure away from the frontal dune, which in turn creates the necessity for the requested variance. However, it should be noted that the Petitioner has not sought the same setback which is currently enjoyed by the parcel at 2330 North Ocean Boulevard. By proposing a front yard setback of 14.7 feet, the Petitioner will avoid negative impacts on the frontal dune system while also providing 59% of the required front yard. As a matter of fact,

l The Petitioner also seeks a variance to construct seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line ("CCCL"), located along the centerline of Highway A+A. The Petitioner does not consider the CCCL line to be a bulk regulation.

4 Section 28·582. • Permitted uses.

No building or structure or part thereof shall be erected, altered or used or premises used in whole or in part in the R-3-F districts for other than 1 of the following specified uses;

(a) Uses permitted in single-family, duplex, townhouse and multiple dwell!ngs, and uses accessory to multiple dwellings, including laundry machines and vending machines fully enclosed within the main building, recreation facilities, such as cabana units, sauna units, recreation buildings, swimming pools, tennis courts, golf courses, putting greens, shuffleboard courts and garages providing they are for the sole use of the occupants and their guests.

(b} Public, private and parochial nursery, kindergarten, elementary and high schools. (c) Uses accessory to any of the above uses shall not be allowed within the yard requirements. (d) Helistops, as herein defined, subjeet to the provisions of section 28-1451 et seq. (e) Community residential homes subject to the provisions of section 28-1304 (f) Child care and adult care centers subject to the provisions of section 28·1416 (g) Places of worship.

Page 4of 5