Loading...
Adjustment Hearing Case Files_4611 S. Ocean Blvd._20240131_Application No. 23-2790File Attachments for Item: E.Application No. 23-2790 / Frank and Laura Troiano Consideration of Application No. 23-2790 by Frank and Laura Troiano for a variance from Section 30-103(D) and Section 30-64 of the Town Code of Ordinances to create a lot with a minimum lot width of 68.06 feet in lieu of the required 80 foot minimum lot width for a single-family dwelling in the Residential Multiple Family Low Density (RML) Zoning District for the property located at 4611 South Ocean Boulevard (west side of State Road A1A). Page 17 Board of Adjustment and Appeals STAFF REPORT MEETING OF: January 31, 2024 TO: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS (BOAA) FROM: INGRID ALLEN, TOWN PLANNER SUBJECT: APPLICATION BY FRANK AND LAURA TROIANO FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 30-103(D) AND SECTION 30-64 OF THE TOWN CODE OF ORDINANCES TO CREATE A LOT WITH A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 68.06 FEET IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 80 FOOT MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR A SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING IN THE RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY LOW DENSITY (RML) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4611 SOUTH OCEAN BOULEVARD (WEST SIDE OF STATE ROAD A1A) APP23-2790 Applicant (Property Owner):Frank P. and Laura Troiano 4611 South Ocean Boulevard Highland Beach, Fl. 33487 Applicant’s Agent:Not applicable. Property Characteristics: Comprehensive Plan Land Use:Multi Family Low Density (west of State Road (SR) A1A). Single Family (east of SR A1A). Zoning District: RML Residential Multiple Family Low Density (west of SR A1A). RS Residential Single Family (east of SR A1A) Property Location:4611 South Ocean Boulevard I. GENERAL INFORMATION: HIGHLAND BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT 3614 S. Ocean Boulevard Highland Beach, FL 33487 Ph: (561) 278-4540 Page 18 Parcel PCN#: 24-43-47-09-00-001-0040 Adjacent Properties: Proposed parcel west of SR A1A PARCEL ZONING DISTRICT FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION North Residential Multiple Family Low Density (RML) Multi Family Low Density South Residential Multiple Family Low Density (RML) Multi Family Low Density East Residential Single Family (RS) Single Family West Residential Multiple Family Low Density (RML) Multi Family Low Density Adjacent Properties: Proposed parcel east of SR A1A PARCEL ZONING DISTRICT FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION North Residential Multiple Family Low Density (RML) Multi Family Low Density South Residential Single Family (RS) Single Family East NA NA West Residential Multiple Family Low Density (RML) Multi Family Low Density Background: According to the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser, the existing single-family home located on the portion east of SR A1A was built in 1959. The portion of the property west of SR A1A is currently vacant. At the May 16, 2023 Town Commission meeting, the Commission considered a request by Laura Troiano to approve the division of a parcel of property located at 4611 South Ocean Boulevard into two separate lots. Town Commission direction was to have staff attempt to develop language that would address this type of situation. At the July 18, 2023 Town Commission meeting, a memo prepared by the Town Attorney was provided to the Commission (see attached). The Commission agreed that this matter should go before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for a recommendation via the submittal of a variance application by the property owner. Request and Analysis: The Applicant is requesting a variance from Sections 30-103(d) and 30-64 of the Town Code of Ordinances to create a lot on the west side of SR A1A with a minimum lot width of 68.06 feet (as provided on the Applicant’s survey) in lieu of the required 80 feet minimum lot width for a single- family dwelling in the Residential Multiple Family Low Density (RML) zoning district (see Table 1). Section 30-103(d) of the Town Code of Ordinances states that a division of any parcel shall not be made which creates a lot which does not conform to the requirements of Chapter 30 (Zoning Code). As noted above, at the July 18, 2023 Town Commission meeting, consensus from the Page 19 Commission was that the matter go before the BOAA (for a recommendation) via a variance application. According to the Applicant’s survey of the proposed lot on the west side of SR A1A, it contains 8,187 square feet. Given the maximum density for the RML zoning district is six (6) dwelling units per acre, the maximum number of dwelling units permitted on this lot would be one (1) dwelling unit (8,187/43,560 X 6 = 1.13 units) TABLE 1 Minimum lot width RML Zoning District (feet) Single-family dwelling 80 Two-family dwelling 80 Multifamily dwelling 100 Source: Section 30-64 of the Town Code of Ordinances As a basis for consideration of an application for variance approval, the BOAA must determine an application is consistent with the criteria below as provided in Section 30-40(e) of the Town Code. The Applicant provided responses to these variance criteria as part of their variance application (see attached). (1) Special conditions. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district. (2) Hardship. The special conditions and circumstances truly represent a hardship and are not created by any actions of the applicant. (3) Literal interpretation. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this chapter and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. (4) Special privileges. The grant of a variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied to any other owner of land, buildings, or structures located in the same zoning district. (5) Minimum variance. The variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the use of the land, building, or structure. (6) Purpose and intent. The grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter. (7) Financial hardship. Financial hardship is not to be considered as sufficient evidence of a hardship in granting a variance. (8) Public welfare. The grant of the variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. There are currently two (2) other properties within the Town that are bifurcated by SR A1A in the same manner as the Applicant’s property (see Table 2). An additional property located at 3833 South Ocean Blvd is also bifurcated by SR A1A (RML on the west side of SR A1A and RS on the east side); however, the portion west of SR A1A is located approximately 150 feet south of the portion east of SR A1A. All of these bifurcated properties are in compliance with the minimum lot width requirement for the corresponding zoning district. Page 20 TABLE 2 Property Zoning District 3901 South Ocean Blvd. RML (west side of SR A1A) RS (east side of SR A1A) 2425 South Ocean Blvd. RS (west side of SR A1A) RE (east side of SR A1A) Pursuant to Section 30-40(g) of the Town Code, the vote of at least four (4) members of the BOAA or a majority of the Town Commission is necessary to grant a variance from the requirements of Chapter 30 (Zoning Code). According to Section 30-40(h) of the Town Code, a variance when implemented in accordance with the approval granted by the BOAA or the Town Commission shall run with the land in perpetuity unless a lesser time is approved by the BOAA or the Town Commission. A variance that is not implemented shall expire eighteen months following approval. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (561) 637-2012 or iallen@highlandbeach.us Attachments: Variance Application Aerials Surveys July 18, 2023 Town Attorney memorandum. Applicant’s submitted materials Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 46 1 1 S o u t h O c e a n B o u l e v a r d Pa l m B e a c h C o u n t y No n e Ja n u a r y 1 8 , 2 0 2 4 00 . 0 1 5 0 . 0 3 0. 0 0 7 5 m i 0 0 . 0 2 5 0 . 0 5 0. 0 1 2 5 k m 1: 1 , 1 2 8 Cr e a t e d b y : P a l m B e a c h C o u n t y μ       Pa g e 2 7 39 0 1 S o u t h O c e a n B l v d Pa l m B e a c h C o u n t y No n e J a n u a r y 1 6 , 2 0 2 4 0 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 6 0. 0 1 5 m i 00 . 0 5 5 0 . 1 1 0. 0 2 7 5 k m 1: 2 , 2 5 7 Cr e a t e d b y : P a l m B e a c h C o u n t y μ lo t w i d t h a p p r o x . 1 0 0 f e e t 39 0 1 RS RM L Pa g e 2 8 24 2 5 S o u t h O c e a n B l v d . Pa l m B e a c h C o u n t y No n e J a n u a r y 1 6 , 2 0 2 4 0 0 . 0 1 5 0 . 0 3 0. 0 0 7 5 m i 0 0 . 0 2 5 0 . 0 5 0. 0 1 2 5 k m 1: 1 , 1 2 8 Cr e a t e d b y : P a l m B e a c h C o u n t y μ lo t w i d t h a p p r o x . 1 0 0 f e e t 24 2 5 RS RE Pa g e 2 9 38 3 3 S o u t h O c e a n B l v d . Pa l m B e a c h C o u n t y No n e J a n u a r y 1 6 , 2 0 2 4 0 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 6 0. 0 1 5 m i 00 . 0 5 5 0 . 1 1 0. 0 2 7 5 k m 1: 2 , 2 5 7 Cr e a t e d b y : P a l m B e a c h C o u n t y μ lo t w i d t h a p p r o x . 1 0 0 f e e t . 38 3 3 RS RM L Pa g e 3 0 Ro b e r t L Tho m p s o n Dig i t a l l y s i g n e d b y R o b e r t L Tho m p s o n Da t e : 2 0 2 3 . 1 2 . 0 4 1 1 : 1 2 : 3 8 - 0 5 ' 0 0 ' Page 31 Ro b e r t L Tho m p s o n Di g i t a l l y s i g n e d b y R o b e r t L Tho m p s o n Da t e : 2 0 2 3 . 1 2 . 0 4 1 1 : 1 8 : 4 8 - 0 5 ' 0 0 ' Page 32 TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH AGENDA MEMORANDUM MEETING TYPE:Town Commission Meeting MEETING DATE July 18, 2023 SUBMITTED BY:Leonard G. Rubin, Town Attorney SUBJECT:Request for Lot Split (Troiano Property –4611 South Ocean Boulevard) SUMMARY: Background: At its May 16, 2023 meeting, the Town Commission considered a request by Laura Troiano to approve the division of a parcel of property located at 4611 South Ocean Boulevard (“Troiano Parcel” or “Parcel”) into two separate lots. As discussed at the meeting, the Troiano Parcel is bifurcated by A1A. The portion east of A1A is improved with a single -family residence and has a zoning designation of Residential Single -Family, and the portion west of A1A is vacant and has a zoning designation of Residential Multiple-Family Low Density. Splitting the Troiano Parcel into two separate lots would violate Section 30 -103(d) of the Town Code, which expressly provides that “a division of any parcel shall not be made which creates a lot which does not conform to the requirements of this chapter.” If the portion west of A1A became a separate lot, it would be only sixty-eight (68) feet wide. Section 30-64 of the Town Code (Table 30-2) requires a minimum lot width of eighty (80) feet. Discussion and Recommendation: The Town Commission directed Staff to attempt to develop language that would address this type of situation. While there are two other parcels in the Town bisected by A1A, the Troiano Parcel is the only parcel where the division of the parcel into two separate lots would be prohibited due to the creation of a non-conforming lot. Consequently, after consultation with Town Staff, this office does not recommend amending the Town Code to address a single parcel of the property within the Town. At the Commission meeting, Laura Troiano represented that her family wished to construct a single-family home on the portion of the parcel located west of A1A. Given the nature of the request, this office recommends that the Troiano family be encouraged to apply for a variance from Sections 30-103(d) and Section 30-64 of the Town Code. The unique conditions applicable to the Troiano Parcel appear to justify the grant of a variance. Because the variance application will need to address both the non-conformity and lot width provisions, the variance 136 Page 33 request should go before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for a recommendation and the Town Commission for final consideration. Utilizing the variance process would allow the Commission to impose reasonable conditions on the grant of the variance. Such conditions could include limiting the new parcel to the construction of a single-family residence, approving the actual footprint of the proposed residence, and imposing a time -frame in which the residence must be constructed. Should you have any questions relative to the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Letter from Mrs. Troiano dated May 10, 2023 Aerial Maps RECOMMENDATION: Commission discussion. 137 Page 34 November 14, 2023 Board of Adjustment and Appeals Town of Highland Beach Town Hall Dear Board Members, My husband Dr. Frank Troiano and I are requesting that the parcel, addressed 4611 S Ocean Blvd., to the west of A1A be recognized by the Town of Highland Beach as a separate lot, than the lot, addressed 4611 S Ocean Blvd., to the east of A1A. We would like to build a family home on the west side parcel in the future. Due to the construction of A-1-A and the adoption of the Highland Beach Comprehensive Plan the lots became separate and distinct lots. Both lots have always been given different land use and zoning classifications in the Highland Beach Comprehensive Plan. RMI - multi family land use on the west side and single family land use on the east side. Palm Beach County recognizes the lots as being separate on our/their county record card, specifically, lot size designation, tax billing and zoning. The zoning for the lot is complimentary and in keeping with the zoning of all the other lots around it (north, south and west). There has been some question regarding non-conformity which calls for conforming lots to be 80’ wide. Our lots are 68.06’ wide which is considered non- conforming; however, this non-conformity is benign and does not have a negative impact on the health and safety of the public. Our lots are less than 12 feet shy of the 80’ conformity. Another reason to further our case, was pointed out by Mr. Labadie and that is our lots are the only lots in Highland Beach that are of this particular type and therefore they are unique and the situation is unique. No case law has been discovered that would negatively apply to our circumstance. Conclusion: The two separate lots are physically divided by A-1-A. Both lots have separate zoning classifications. The county record card recognizes the lots as being separate as defined by lot size, tax billing and zoning classification. All of the other lots around our west side lot are zoned the same as ours. There is no negative impact on the health and safety of the public by recognizing the lots as distinct and separate. By recognizing that the lots are separate our family would potentially be able to build a beautiful home on the west side lot. Thank you for this opportunity to meet with you. Respectfully, Laura and Frank Troiano Page 35 11 / 1 4 / 2 3 , 1 0 : 1 4 A M PA P A M a p s ht t p s : / / m a p s . c o . p a l m - b e a c h . fl.u s / c w g i s / p a p a . h t m l ? q v a l u e = 2 4 4 3 4 7 0 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 # 1/ 1       Ow n e r s Pr o p e r t y D e t a i l Sa l e s I n f o r m a t i o n Sa l e s D a t e P r i c e 1 Ap p r a i s a l s Se a r c h b y O w n e r , A d d r e s s o r P a r c e l Pa g e 3 6 Page 37 Pa g e 3 8 Pa g e 3 9 ZONING PRACTICE NOVEMBER 2009 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION ISSUE NUMBER 11 PRACTICE NONCONFORMITIES 11 Page 40 ZONINGPRACTICE 11.09 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 2 Distinguishing Between Detrimental and Benign Nonconformities With the adoption of new standards for use and development, many existing uses, struc- tures, site design features, and lots may no longer meet the current standards. The concept of nonconformities arises from adopting new codes for areas that already have some development, which is the case for almost every jurisdiction in the country. When land is used for activities that are no longer permissible under the zoning regulations, the local government typically allows the preex- isting use to continue if it was permissible when it was first established. Likewise, when development is in place and the provisions of the zoning regulations render the lot or one or more site design features out of compliance with current standards, the local government typically “grandfathers” the development if it was in compliance when first established. Grandfathering is another word used to de- scribe nonconformities, which means the local government is granting legal status to the use or development, but with limitations. By V. Gail Easley, FAICP, and David A. Theriaque Local governments routinely adopt new or revised zoning regulations to establish minimum standards for the use of land and standards for development on the land. ties and those that existed would naturally go away over time. Because of the nonconformi- ties’ protected status as grandfathered uses, however, they continued to prosper due to the prohibition on other such uses in that zoning district. In essence, such nonconforming uses were provided with monopolies. Additionally, zoning was perceived as a prospective matter that would not apply to uses which were already in existence. Moreover, in light of the uncertainty regarding whether the courts would uphold zoning regulations, any attempt to apply the new zoning regulations to existing uses and development was perceived as increasing the likelihood that a court would inval- idate such regulations. Allowing nonconformities to continue also reduced the amount of public opposition to the concept of zoning regulations. These concerns hold true today. From a public policy perspective, local governments are rightfully concerned about the public outcry that would occur if grandfathered status was not ap- plied to existing uses and development. Imagine An existing use or development that was not in compliance when a local government enacts new regulations is not eligible for grand- fathered status. Indeed, each claim of grandfa- thered status must meet this threshold ques- tion: Was the use or development in compliance with the existing regulations? If not, such use or development is not entitled to any protection from the new regulations. Rather, it is subject to code enforcement proceedings to bring it into compliance with the newly adopted regulations. This issue of Zoning Practice addresses legal nonconformities of use and development standards, but does not address signs. There are many issues pertaining to signs, including First Amendment rights, which are too complex to include in this article. Code enforcement of unlawful uses is also a topic for another issue. WHY DO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS GRANDFATHER USES AND STRUCTURES? When zoning was in its infancy, planners ex- pected that there would be few nonconformi- A nonconforming lot does not comply with current dimensional standards such as minimum area, width, depth, or frontage. Da v i d M o r l e y Page 41 ASK THE AUTHOR JOIN US ONLINE! %FSYXXLI%YXLSVW V. Gail Easley, FAICP, is an adjunct lecturer in the urban and regional planning program at the University of Florida. In her work as a local government and consulting planner, she has provided services to local, regional, and state governments for 30 years, including growth manage- ment, comprehensive planning, and the creation of award-winning land development regulations in unified codes and individual ordinances. She frequently provides training in seminars, conferences, and publica- tions, and is the author of previous Zoning Practice articles. David Theriaque is an attorney representing private-sector and governmen- tal clients regarding land-use planning and growth management law at the state and federal levels. He has been an adjunct professor at Florida State University Department of Urban and Regional Planning and is a frequent lecturer at various conferences on planning and growth management is- sues. He is a charter life member of the Florida Wildlife Federation and was selected by 1000 Friends of Florida as a “Special Friend of Florida.” the uproar that would occur if all existing noncon- forming uses were required to cease immediately upon the adoption of new zoning regulations. Similarly, even though the concept of zon- ing is well established in the court system, the courts protect existing uses and development from immediate compliance with the adoption of new zoning regulations through various legal doctrines such as takings law, vested rights, and concepts of equity and justice. Despite these good reasons to allow non- conformities to continue, nonconformities of- ten undermine what a community is seeking to achieve when it establishes specific allowable uses and development standards for a zoning district. Therefore, it is important to determine the best way to eliminate, reduce, or continue nonconforming situations. UNDERSTANDING THE JARGON In order to be clear about the concepts, a few terms pertaining to nonconformities are ex- plained here: Nonconforming use. Use means the activity carried out on the land. When a use is nonconforming, it means that the existing use is not authorized for the zoning district in which it is located. However, even when the use is nonconforming, the structure housing the use is not necessarily nonconforming. In fact, there may be no structures involved at all. For example, a field in an agricultural zone might be used for parking although parking is not an authorized principle use. ZONINGPRACTICE 11.09 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 3 A review of the Planning Advisory Service Report 521/522, A Planners Dictionary, reveals that many local governments include struc- tures, lots, and site design features within the definition of nonconforming use. However, we make a clear distinction between use and site design or development standards when t accessory structures, such as dumpsters, pools, pool enclosures, sheds, recreational facilities, or greenhouses. When new design standards are adopted to govern the location, height, dimensions, number, or other design requirements, existing development may no longer conform to one Go online from November 30 to December 11 to participate in our “Ask the Author” forum, an interactive feature of Zoning Practice. V. Gail Easley, FAICP, and David Theriaque will be available to answer questions about this article. Go to the APA website at www.plan- ning.org and follow the links to the Ask the Author section. From there, just submit your questions about the article using the e-mail link. The author will reply, and Zoning Practice will post the answers cumulatively on the website for the benefit of all subscribers. This feature will be available for selected issues of Zoning Practice at an- nounced times. After each online discussion is closed, the answers will be saved in an online archive available through the APA Zoning Practice web pages. A nonconforming structure fails to comply with current dimensional standards such as setbacks, lot coverage, or height. applying the term nonconformity. We believe it is important to distinguish between the activity (use) and the design standards that apply to buildings, structures, site features, and lots. Nonconforming development standards. Site development standards pertain to: t lots, meaning the area or dimensions; t structures, primarily the principal building(s) on a site; t required design features, such as parking lots, loading areas, or stormwater facilities; and or several standards. Local governments often define a series of terms, such as nonconform- ing lots, nonconforming parking, nonconform- ing dimensional requirements, and so forth. The key factor is that all such nonconformities pertain to development or design standards, as distinguished from use. Detrimental nonconformities. Many people believe that nonconformities are inherently detrimental or cause harm in some way. How- ever, based on our experiences and discussions with practitioners over the last several years, it seems clear that nonconformities may or may not be detrimental. Consequently, we believe that nonconformities should be separated into two categories—“detrimental” and “benign.” D a v i d M o r l e y Page 42 ZONINGPRACTICE 11.09 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 4 Detrimental nonconformities are those that have a negative impact on the health and safety of the public. Examples include uses in- volving hazardous materials, such as gasoline stations in single-family neighborhoods; uses that produce significant noise, such as body shops or paint shops; uses that have been deemed incompatible, such as adult entertain- ment establishments near schools; or uses that have large trip generation characteristics, such as drive-through restaurants. Detrimental nonconformities clearly have the potential for harm and should be subject to limitations leading to their eventual removal or not a single concept to be routinely cited as the basis of regulation. Rather, health and safety are the basis of protection from injury, illness, danger, and other harm. Public wel- fare is concerned with nuisance, economic interests, convenience, and community character. While benign nonconformities may have some negative impact, the local govern- ment has determined that the negative impact is small and does not threaten the public health and safety. For example, the amount of deviation from a dimensional requirement may be so small as to be unnoticeable, such as an encroachment of only a few inches into compliance with all remaining development standards. Such exceptions are not consistent with the idea that the nonconformity should be eliminated eventually. t Prohibiting or limiting a change of use except when the new use is considered con- forming or less nonconforming, often based on development standards to support the use. In this latter situation, a good example is parking. When the use requires the same or fewer park- ing spaces, the impact from the change of use is not increased. t Requiring the combination of adjacent non- conforming lots. When a lot has less area than Detrimental nonconformities threaten the public welfare. Nearby residents no longer have the quiet enjoyment of their homes due to noise, lights, odor, or increased traffic. modification into compliance with current stan- dards. This concept forms the basis for most regulation of nonconformities. Benign nonconformities. When develop- ment fails to meet current design standards but the nonconformity is not harmful, there is little or no need to limit the development from expansion, redevelopment, or other activities. Local governments often struggle with this issue because, in most cases, all nonconfor- mities are treated alike. The authors recom- mend that local governments establish a second category of nonconformities—benign nonconformities—with different standards that do not necessarily lead to eventual re- moval of the nonconforming situation. A non- conformity is considered benign when it does not have a negative impact on the health and safety of the public but may have a negative impact on the public welfare. Examples may include a lack of landscaping, too few parking spaces, or minimal deviations from dimen- sional standards. The separation of nonconformities into detrimental and benign is based on the idea that “public health, safety, and welfare” is a required setback. A benign nonconformity can also arise from inconvenience, such as too few parking spaces. The local government should categorize a nonconformity as benign when there is no need to eliminate it to pro- tect the public from harm. CURRENT APPROACHES TO REGULATING NONCONFORMITIES Most regulation of nonconformities is based on the eventual elimination of the situation. This approach leads to regulations such as the following: t Prohibiting or limiting the expansion of a building when the building itself is noncon- forming or when the building, even though meeting the development standards, houses a nonconforming use. The idea is that, while routine maintenance is permissible, such a limitation will prevent continued investment into a situation that should not exist. However, many local governments allow a building’s expansion if it does not increase the degree of nonconformity. An example is a building with a nonconforming front setback where an expan- sion is proposed to the rear of the building in required for development, and the same owner has two or more contiguous lots, a typical regulation requires the lots to be combined to create one conforming lot. On the other hand, many regulations allow the development of a lot that is nonconforming as to area, provided that all other standards for development are met. This latter situation is a good example of the concept of a benign nonconformity. t Providing that a discontinued nonconform- ing use cannot resume. Local governments set a time limit on the ability of an owner to resume a nonconforming use. Typical regula- tions allow six months or one year of cessation; at the end of this time only a conforming use is permissible. During the latest economic downturn, however, many nonconforming uses went out of business. To avoid empty proper- ties and encourage another similar—even if nonconforming—business to move in, some local governments have looked for ways to extend that time limit. One way is to consider the use “continuing” if the property is actively offered for sale or rent. t Providing that a nonconforming building that is vacant for a specified period of time is Ph o t o s b y J o h n S v o b o d a Page 43 ZONINGPRACTICE 11.09 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 5 not reoccupied until the nonconformity is elimi- nated and the entire site is brought into compli- ance with the standards. Again, typical regula- tions allow six months or one year of vacancy before requiring that the building or other development features are brought up to current standards. Similar to the cessation of use situ- ation, many local governments are extending the time limit if properties are actively offered for sale or rent. t Requiring that buildings and other de- velopment features that are destroyed are reconstructed only in compliance with current standards. Most local governments allow re- construction to the current conditions if there is a determination that the loss of the building is not due to an act of nature and that the loss is less than 50 percent of the value of the building. Therefore, a partially destroyed building can be rebuilt in its same nonconforming situation. t Amortizing the nonconformity. In some in- stances, a local government establishes a time frame within which the nonconformity must cease. The basis for doing so is to allow the property owner an opportunity to recover his Some nonconforming uses create detrimental impacts to their neighborhoods due to noise, traffic, electronic interference, lights, and odors. These impacts can be compounded by structural nonconformities such as inadequate parking, setbacks, buffers, and landscaping. economic investment before being required to cease the nonconformity. This approach has been used for many different types of uses, such as gas stations in residentially zoned areas, adult entertainment facilities, junk yards, concrete plants, commercial uses, and billboards. The length of the amortization pe- riod is based frequently upon the economic life of the nonconformity. REGULATING BENIGN NONCONFORMITIES The distinguishing characteristic of the benign nonconformity is that the type and degree of nonconformity are not considered harmful or use of flexible design standards and overlay districts. A neighborhood or other identifiable geographic unit may contain uses that would be nonconforming in a traditional zoning dis- trict, which seeks uniform uses. However, when nonconforming uses are desirable, the govern- ment should consider a mixed use district. This avoids the creation of nonconforming uses and may also achieve a vibrant, diverse neighbor- hood that benefits the community. Planning practices include many ex- amples of flexible design standards, such as context-sensitive standards, performance stan- dards, or compatibility standards. Such stan- and expand, the nonconforming situation. Flexible standards may not be a good fit in this situation. However, the creation of the “old neighborhood overlay,” with standards that recognize the existing situation, keeps a stable neighborhood in conformance and allows prop- erty improvements with no special procedures or requirements other than compliance with the overlay standards. Some practitioners have argued that flex- ibility is the necessary ingredient in regulating nonconformities. However, we believe that a local government does not need to examine nonconformity on a case-by-case basis. Instead, unsafe by the local government, with the result that elimination or reduction of the noncon- formity is not the goal. Further, as planning practice moves away from the rigid separation of uses for the sake of strict uniformity within a district, we recognize that variation is not only acceptable but also is often desirable. Com- patible development does not demand same- ness. Rather, the public seeks and planners provide mixed use options in modern zoning codes. Increasingly, we see the need to focus on impact, character, compatibility, and urban form—which means that a nonconformity may not be unwelcome in a neighborhood. A local government may wish to avoid the creation of nonconformities through greater attention to creating mixed use districts or the dards are intended to reflect urban form rather than prescriptive and uniform dimensions. This contemporary approach avoids nonconforming uses and provides diversity and variation in design rather than the sameness planners and the public seek to avoid. Another approach that we often use is to create an overlay for a specific neighborhood. A typical example is an older subdivision, established when lots and yards were smaller. The current residential zoning district requires a larger lot area, greater lot width, and larger setbacks; all the older houses and lots become nonconforming. Under typical nonconforming standards, additions to the houses are not allowed because the purpose of the noncon- forming provisions is to eliminate, not continue A local government may wish to avoid the creation of nonconformities through greater attention to creating mixed use districts or the use of flexible design standards and overlay districts. Ph o t o s b y K r i s M o r l e y Page 44 ZONINGPRACTICE 11.09 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 6 it can decide up front which situations are det- rimental and which, even if not sought out, are at least benign in their impact on the neighbor- hood. Again, the distinction is that detrimental nonconformities are harmful to the public health and safety while benign nonconformities have a potential negative impact on the public welfare. Examples of benign nonconformities include: t De minimis (i.e., negligible) deviations from a dimensional requirement, such as encroach- ing a few inches into a required setback, with no resulting negative impact on neighborhood character. t A lot that fails to meet a dimensional or area requirement, but the deviation is small enough that the shortfall does not affect the neighbor- hood character. t A change in the list of permissible or con- ditional uses, or eliminating an existing use that is not, in fact, objectionable. It may seem that the change in listed uses is an indication that those not listed are now objectionable. However, unless every existing lot with its existing use is examined during revision to the list of permissible uses, it is often the case that uses become nonconforming not as a matter of policy, but as a matter of oversight. Often, a use considered objectionable at adoption is no longer considered objectionable in later years as times, customs, and lifestyles change. t Nonconformities arising from a government action, such as the loss of a required front yard for road widening. While the district regula- tions may require the yard, most properties along the road have the same situation, so the encroachment does not negatively impact that portion of the neighborhood. t De minimus deviations from a standard, such as required parking spaces, which do not create a negative impact on the surrounding area. A local government must decide for itself the degree of deviation from a standard that is de minimis. It must also decide how to define the character of a neighborhood and how much change to a lot, its use, or development would have a negative impact. All such determina- tions are based on impact to public welfare and not public safety or health, where a stricter standard applies. Such a determination is not unusual for a local government, as the consideration of impact on neighborhood character and deviation from required standards is routine in variance requests and consideration of con- ditional uses. In fact, we believe that benign nonconformities are similar to variances in that the end result authorizes a deviation from the standards in a manner consistent with the public interest. DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN DETRIMENTAL AND BENIGN NONCONFORMITIES IN THE REGULATIONS Many local governments adopt regulations for nonconformities and include exceptions to those regulations, as described earlier. This approach does not establish clear bases for the exceptions, which are often added on a piece- meal basis to address a particular situation. We recommend the creation of two categories of nonconformities at the outset. Such distinctions make it clear when the nonconformity must be eliminated to protect the public health and safety and can provide a basis for amortizing the nonconformity. The second category, benign nonconformities, still requires specific consider- ation, but is not intended for elimination. Regulations that are adopted after a delib- erative process can clearly describe those situ- ations which are both nonconforming and detri- mental. In such cases, it should be the policy and goal of the local government to eliminate such nonconformities. A detrimental nonconformity is presumed to be harmful to the abutting proper- ties, the surrounding neighborhood, or the com- munity as a whole. If this is the case, regulations should clearly lead to elimination of the noncon- formity for the protection of the public. Therefore, appropriate regulations for detrimental nonconformities would do the following: t Prohibit any expansion of the principal build- ing, accessory buildings, or site features. Con- tinued investment in the property is contrary to the intent to eliminate the nonconformity. This massage parlor in a low-density residential neighborhood is a detrimental nonconforming use. The traffic, lights, and noise generated by this use can have a harmful effect on the surrounding neighborhood. Benign nonconformities are often unnoticed because the nonconformity is so similar to surrounding uses. Thus, there is no harm to the public in the continuation of the nonconforming situation. Jo h n S v o b o d a Kr i s M o r l e y Page 45 VOL. 26, NO. 11 Zoning Practice is a monthly publication of the American Planning Association. Subscriptions are available for $85 (U.S.) and $110 (foreign). W. Paul Farmer, FAICP, Executive Director; William R. Klein, AICP, Director of Research Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548–0135) is produced at APA. Jim Schwab, AICP, and David Morley, AICP, Editors; Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Design and Production. Copyright ©2009 by American Planning Association, 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603. The American Planning Association also has offices at 1776 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036; www.planning.org. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the American Planning Association. Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber and 10% postconsumer waste. ZONINGPRACTICE 11.09 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION | page 7 Cover photo collage designed by Lisa Barton; photos (clockwise): gas sign, © iStockphoto.com/Paul Hart; house, © iStockphoto.com/jtc215; liquor store, John Svoboda; auto repair shop, Kris Morley. t Prohibit any addition of site features, unless such features actually reduce the nonconformity. An example of this would be adding parking when part of the nonconformity is that there are too few parking spaces. Another example is the addition of landscaping, either to the parking lot or the entire site, when part of the nonconformity is failure to have required landscaping. t Prohibit any extension of the use to other parts of buildings or the site that were not occu- pied by the nonconforming use at the time the regulations changed. t Prohibit a change of use to any use that is not permissible in the zoning district. t Establish the shortest feasible time for va- cancy before new occupancy requires compli- ance with the current standards. t Establish the strictest feasible limit on re- construction after a disaster to ensure that the reconstruction conforms to current standards. t Establish the strictest feasible limit on re- construction following voluntary demolition to ensure that the reconstruction conforms to cur- rent standards. This procedure ensures an opportunity for public participation and allows for the ad- dition of conditions to approval. For example, a property that is nonconforming due to a de minimis setback deviation and lack of adequate landscaping is eligible for expan- sion. However, the board can require that the landscaping be brought to current standards as a condition of approval of the building ex- pansion. The setback nonconformity continues unchanged. The public welfare is improved and the property owner can make economic use of the property. Thus, appropriate regulations for benign nonconformities would do the following: t Allow expansions of the principal building, accessory buildings, or site features, provided that the expansions are conforming to current standards. t Allow the addition of site features that con- form to current standards. t Allow extension of the use to other parts of buildings or the site. Increasingly, we see the need to focus on impact, character, compatibility, and urban form—which means that a nonconformity may not be unwelcome in a neighborhood. Georgia, also has an overlay district to avoid creation of nonconformities, although it is not labeled a nonconforming overlay, as is the case in San Leandro. Lompoc, California, clas- sifies nonconformities into groups A and B to distinguish detrimental from nondetrimental situations. CONCLUSIONS This article makes the case for two categories of nonconformities—detrimental and benign— with separate regulations for each category. While the initial basis for nonconformities continues to exist, many local governments are seeking ways to retain and even encour- age the continuance of nonconformities that are not harmful or unsafe. The distinction between nonconformities that are detrimental and destined for elimination and noncon- formities that are benign and even desirable renders the regulations more meaningful for property owners and easier to administer by the local government. In contrast, the local government may determine that a benign nonconformity is not harmful to the abutting properties or surround- ing neighborhood, but is contrary to the public welfare in some way. Just as a variance is a pro- cess to authorize a deviation from development standards, recognition of a benign nonconfor- mity authorizes a deviation from development standards and does not require elimination of the nonconformity. We further recommend that changes to benign nonconformities should not be permis- sible by right, but rather must be authorized by a board of adjustment, similar to the process for authorizing a variance. The justification for granting a variance is different than the justifi- cation for changes to benign nonconformities. Therefore, a change to property categorized as a benign nonconformity should not be authorized as a variance. However, we recommend that the process for the two situations, variances and modifications to benign nonconformities, could be similar. t Allow a change of use to a permissible or conditional use in the zoning district. t Allow vacancy of the property for any period of time, provided that the property is properly maintained to ensure safety. t Allow reconstruction to restore existing con- ditions following a disaster. The idea of categorizing nonconformi- ties as detrimental and benign is a new way of labeling nonconformities, but it is not an altogether new idea. For example, Cape Canaveral, Florida, allows some noncon- formities to be modified through a special permit. In establishing this provision, the city recognizes that some nonconformities do not have a detrimental impact on the com- munity. San Leandro, California, has a list of exceptions to nonconformity provisions along with an overlay district for nonconform- ing situations. Identifying exceptions to the nonconformity provisions is a typical method of addressing benign, or nondetrimental, nonconforming situations. Lowndes County, Page 46 DOES YOUR COMMUNITY DISTINGUISH BETWEEN DETRIMENTAL AND BENIGN NONCONFORMITIES? ZO N I N G PR A C T I C E AM E R I C A N P L A N N I N G A S S O C I A T I O N 12 2 S . M i c h i g a n A v e . Su i t e 1 6 0 0 Ch i c a g o , I L 6 0 6 0 3 17 7 6 M a s s a c h u s e t t s A v e . , N . W . Wa s h i n g t o n , D . C . 2 0 0 3 6 11 Page 47 Pa g e 4 8 Pa g e 4 9 37 2 0 40 1 8 35 1 0 48 0 0 45 1 0 48 0 0 39 2 1 48 0 1 35 1 0 2455 28 0 9 28 0 9 2435 2445 2355 2359 2363 2365 2367 2375 2395 2425 2475 2525 4612 2545 3621 4121 4117 2444 4101 4105 4521 1 4115 4023 4201 4111 4019 5 4015 11 4011 4621 4005 3907 4001 3921 2474 3905 31 0 0 3901 4205 3511 3817 2 11 2 5 2332 3813 7 3715 3719 29 0 8 3809 36 2 0 4611 8 3723 10 9 2633 11 1 9 3801 3805 2635 3615 1006 10 0 8 36 1 2 4301 42 2 9 3 2342 2425 2348 2434 4 36 2 0 42 0 1 2352 4217 2454 2358 44 0 0 41 0 4 44 0 0 1018 43 0 0 43 0 6 4713 2362 10 1 4 43 1 6 10 9 6 44 0 8 1019 43 1 2 44 1 1 11 1 2 10 7 0 101 5 44 1 0 4221 43 2 6 10 1 2 29 2 0 47 5 0 44 1 6 3519 3515 43 2 0 3521 42 0 6 11 2 4 42 0 3 31 0 1 43 0 8 27 0 0 44 0 3 42 1 7 43 2 6 44 2 6 44 0 0 43 2 5 11 0 8 42 1 1 43 0 7 42 0 4 10 1 1 44 0 9 42 2 6 10 1 0 43 2 1 44 3 0 101 6 42 1 0 42 3 0 42 1 6 43 0 2 42 2 0 43 0 4 43 0 8 28 0 9 10 8 8 2540 42 0 5 11 1 6 11 1 8 42 0 7 43 2 3 43 1 5 43 0 7 42 1 5 42 2 5 43 1 9 42 2 1 3567 3569 1005 1004 42 0 2 3571 42 2 9 43 0 1 43 1 3 44 2 5 44 2 0 43 2 5 42 2 0 43 1 7 10 1 8 10 2 0 10 2 2 42 1 2 42 0 8 43 2 0 11 1 4 42 1 6 43 1 4 3573 2564 6 31 1 4 4715 10 9 2 1003 10 9 1 3575 102010 0 9 10 8 4 10 8 7 42 0 0 11 2 0 41 1 2 41 0 8 41 1 8 42 2 1 1002 42 0 1 10 8 3 1001 1017 40 4 4 4026 4611 11 2 1 4028 47 2 0 36 3 6 28 0 9 36 2 0 4214 4216 4318 4320 40 4 2 40 1 2 40 0 8 40 3 0 40 1 0 40 1 4 40 3 2 40 4 0 40 3 6 40 3 8 2640 36 3 8 2624 36 5 4 47 2 6 47 2 4 47 2 2 4515 11 3 8 36 2 2 11 0 0 36 2 4 36 2 6 36 2 8 36 3 4 36 5 2 36 4 0 36 4 2 36 4 4 36 4 6 26 4 1 36 4 8 10 1 8 4519 26 3 9 11 0 1 11 0 5 3701 26 2 9 30 0 4 11 2 3 26 2 7 30 1 2 30 0 8 1 0 4 3 10 2 0 10 2 2 1021 1008 1 0 5 7 1 0 4 1 1025 10 3 0 11 1 2 11 2 6 1 1 2 2 10 2 6 1116 11 0 1 4517 1 0 5 3 1023 10 2 8 1 1 2 4 1114 1 0 4 5 11 0 6 11 0 0 10 4 2 1 0 4 7 10 1 0 11 0 3 1000 1 0 5 1 10 1 4 10 1 2 10 1 6 10021004 4420 11 1 5 4418 45064504 11 1 3 1 0 4 9 1006 11 1 3 , 1 1 1 5 11 0 9 , 1 1 1 1 111 7 111 9 4500 4502 11 2 3 3419 11 3 7 3421 1 0 2 7 11 1 8 11 2 0 10 2 4 1 1 2 9 11 2 7 11 3 5 1 1 3 3 11 3 1 11 2 5 1 0 3 3 1 0 3 1 1 0 3 9 1 0 3 7 1 0 3 5 1 0 2 9 11 3 6 11 3 4 10 3 8 11 0 6 11 0 4 10 3 6 10 3 2 11 3 2 11 0 8 11 3 0 10 4 0 11 1 0 11 0 2 11 2 8 10 3 4 10 0 5 11 0 9 11 0 7 11 1 1 11 2 3 10 1 7 10 2 3 1 0 5 5 40 0 6 2366 25 7 5 27 0 1 27 1 1 27 2 7 29 0 1 29 0 9 29 1 7 29 2 1 30 0 9 30 1 5 31 1 5 32 0 1 32 1 1 34 0 7 33 2 1 34 0 1 3425 3505 33 0 1 3525 3711 42 1 1 , 4 2 1 5 4307 44 0 1 45 1 1 , 4 5 0 5 4513 46 0 5 11 1 0 11 0 9 11 1 5 10 2 4 10 2 8 11 0 5 11 0 1 10 1 9 10 1 5 10 2 3 10 1 9 10 1 0 10 1 5 10 0 0 10 0 4 10 0 8 10 1 0 10 1 2 10 1 4 10 1 6 10 0 3 10 0 5 10 0 7 10 0 9 10 1 1 10 1 3 44 0 4 44 1 0 44 0 8 44 0 4 43 2 4 43 1 6 43 1 0 42 2 2 42 1 8 42 1 0 42 0 6 42 0 0 11 0 4 11 0 2 11 0 3 11 0 5 11 0 7 40 3 4 40 1 6 40 0 4 40 0 2 39 0 4 39 1 2 36 5 0 36 3 2 36 3 0 3594 34 5 0 3212 - A 34 0 0 32 1 0 39 0 8 3908 37 0 0 37 4 0 36 1 4 36 1 6 36 1 8 35 9 8 36 0 0 36 0 2 3604 3606 3596 34 2 0 33 1 0 3300 32 2 4 - B 32 1 5 32 2 1 2912 2914 2916 25 6 5 32 0 0 2388 GS D GS D GS D GS D GS D RE RM H RM H RM L RM L RM L RM L RM L RM M RM M RM M RS RS RS RS RS 601 772 87 FORSYTH STREET GR A N D C T . 4024 4022 4020 S O C E A N B L V D S OCEAN ALY BELLIDODR HI G H L A ND B E A C H DR INTRACOASTAL DR TR A N Q U I L I T Y D R BOCACOVELN G RANDCT S O C E A N B L V D RUSSELL DR S OCEAN BLVD BEL AIR DR N O C E A N B L V D S OCEAN BLVD LE G E N D - H I G H L A N D B E A C H Z O N I N G C O D E GS D G o v e r n m e n t S e r v i c e s D i s t r i c t RE R e s i d e n t i a l S i n g l e F a m i l y E s t a t e s L o t s RM H R e s i d e n t i a l M u l t i p l e F a m i l y H i g h D e n s i t y RM L R e s i d e n t i a l M u l t i p l e F a m i l y L o w D e n s i t y RM M R e s i d e n t i a l M u l t i p l e F a m i l y M e d i u m D e n s i t y RS R e s i d e n t i a l S i n g l e F a m i l y TO W N O F H I G H L A N D B E A C H OF F I C I A L Z O N I N G M A P AT L A N T I C O C E A N IN T R A C O A S T A L WA T E R W A Y BO C A R A T O N DE L R A Y B E A C H TO W N C O M M I S S I O N -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BE R N A R D F E A T H E R M A N , M a y o r -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WI L L I A M W E I T Z , P h D , V i c e M a y o r -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LO U I S P . S T E R N , C o m m . -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CA R L F E L D M A N , C o m m . -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RH O D A Z E L N I K E R , C o m m . PL A N N I N G B O A R D -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CA R O L S T E R N , C h a i r -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IL Y N E M E N D E L S O N , V i c e C h a i r -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RO N A L D C L A R K -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ST E P H E N G O L D I N G -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - HA R V E Y M A R T -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CH A R L E S S H A N E -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WI L L I A M S V E N S T R U P AT T E S T A T I O N -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - VA L E R I E O A K E S , T o w n C l e r k AD O P T E D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OR D I N A N C E N O - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TH I S I S T O C E R T I F Y T H A T T H I S I S T H E O F F I C I A L Z O N I N G MA P O F T H E T O W N O F H I G H L A N D B E A C H A S A D O P T E D B Y OR D I N A N C E N O . 5 9 4 , A N D I S A N A M E N D M E N T O F T H E OF F I C I A L Z O N I N G M A P R E F F E R E D I N S E C T I O N O N E O F OR D I N A N C E N O . 5 0 3 O F T H E T O W N O F H I G H L A N D B E A C H , FL O R I D A . SC A L Eμ 0 5 0 0 1 , 0 0 0 1 , 5 0 0 2 , 0 0 0 2 , 5 0 0 3 , 0 0 0 Fe e t 1 i n c h = 5 0 0 f e e t Pr i n t D a t e : J u l y 1 7 , 2 0 1 5 10 0 1 /4523 3833 Pa g e 5 0 Page 51 9$ & $ 1 7  3 $ 5 & ( /    6 2& ( $ 1 %/ 9  Ch a r l e s P u t m a n & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . >Ă Ŷ Ě  W ů Ă Ŷ Ŷ ŝ Ŷ Ő  ^ Ğ ƌ ǀ ŝ Đ Ğ Ɛ W>  E E / E '  Ͳ  K E / E '  Ͳ W  Z D / d d / E ' 12 5 7 +    62& ( $ 1 %/ 9  Pa g e 5 2 Sold To: Town of Highland Beach - CU00398185 3614 So. Ocean Blvd. Highland Beach,FL 33487 Bill To: Town of Highland Beach - CU00398185 3614 So. Ocean Blvd. Highland Beach,FL 33487 Published Daily Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida Boca Raton, Palm Beach County, Florida Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida State Of Florida County Of Orange Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Rose Williams, who on oath says that he or she is a duly authorized representative of the SUN- SENTINEL, a DAILY newspaper published in BROWARD/PALM BEACH/MIAMI-DADE County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a Legal Notice in: The matter of 11720-Notice of Public Meeting , Was published in said newspaper by print in the issues of, and by publication on the newspaper’s website, if authorized on Jan 21, 2024 SSC_Notice of Public Meeting Affiant further says that the newspaper complies with all legal requirements for publication in Chapter 50, Florida Statutes. Signature of Affiant Sworn to and subscribed before me this: January 22, 2024. Signature of Notary Public Name of Notary, Typed, Printed, or Stamped Personally Known (X) or Produced Identification ( ) Affidavit Delivery Method: E-Mail Affidavit Email Address: lgaskins@highlandbeach.us 7564777 SUN-SENTINEL Page 53 Order # - 7564777 SUN-SENTINEL Page 54 SUN-SENTINEL Page 55 Page 56 TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION NO. APP23-2790 500 Ft Public Notification Boundary January 15, 2024 Dear Property Owner: This is to notify you that the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS of the Town of Highland Beach will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 9:30 AM and the Town Commission will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, February 20, 2024at 1:30 PM in the Community Room of the Town Library located at 3618 South Ocean Boulevard, Highland Beach, Florida to consider the following application: APPLICATION NO. 23-2790 BY FRANK AND LAURA TROIANO FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 30-103(D) AND SECTION 30-64 OF THE TOWN CODE OF ORDINANCES TO CREATE A LOT WITH A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 68.06 FEET IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 80 FOOT MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING IN THE RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY LOW DENSITY (RML) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4611 SOUTH OCEAN BOULEVARD (WEST SIDE OF STATE ROAD A1A). The application is available for inspection in the Town Clerk’s Office at Town Hall, Monday through Friday during normal business hours of 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.and will be on the Town’s website at https://highlandbeach-fl.municodemeetings.com/no later than Friday, January 26, 2024. Any person that decides to appeal any decision made by the Town Commission with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, such person will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made, which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. The Town of Highland Beach does not provide such a record. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons who need special accommodation to attend or participate in this meeting should contact the Town Clerk’s Office at (561)278-4548 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. If you are hearing or speech impaired, please contact the Florida Relay Service at 1-800-955-8770 or 1-800-955-8771. For additional information, please contact the Town Planner at (561) 278-4540. TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH, BUILDING DEPARTMENT Page 57