Loading...
10-30-23 Special Called Meeting Adopted MinutesMINUTES S `'S Jr3 Special Called Meeting of the City Commission Monday, October 30, 2023 - 5:30 PM Commission Chamber, City Hall 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 ATTENDANCE: Present: Curtis Ford, Mayor Bruce Bole, Commissioner - Seat 2 (District 1308) Michael Waters, Commissioner - Seat 3 (District 1307) Candace Kelly, Commissioner - Seat 4 (District 1306) Jessica Ring, Commissioner - Seat 5 (District 1312) Also Present: William B. Killingsworth, City Manager (CM) Jason Gabriel, City Attorney (CA) Donna Bartle, City Clerk (CC) Kevin Hogencamp, Deputy City Manager (DCM) Amanda Askew, Planning & Community Development Dir. (PCDD) 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Mayor Ford called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. 2. PUBLIC HEARING - APP23-0002 — APPEAL OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD (CDB) DECISION FOR ZVAR23-0016 (1110 SCHEIDEL COURT) A. City Attorney Procedural Reminders CA Gabriel explained the appeal hearing procedures as outlined in the agenda packet. B. Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications, if any Mayor Ford and each Commissioner reported having no ex parte communications. C. Swearing In of all persons who will speak All those providing testimony were sworn in by City Clerk Bartle. D. City Staff Overview, Documentation and Presentation/Testimony PCDD Askew presented a slide show (which is attached hereto and made part of this Official Record as Attachment A) and referenced slides 1-14 as she provided an overview of APP23-0002 and explained the criteria to use when making their decision. Commissioner Bole asked how a buyer would know that property is not within Code. PCDD explained that typically the seller should disclosure that they have done work Special Called Meeting of the City Commission October 30, 2023 without a permit, but that it's highly unlikely that they are doing that. It will not show up in a lien letter search. Some realtors call and ask and unless you know to ask, you don't ask. PCDD Askew answered questions from Commissioner Kelly about drainage, confirming it drains into a basin near the Aquatic area which is a problem area for drainage. Attachment A E. Applicant's Documentation and Presentation/Testimony Applicant Mitchel Skaff provided details of their request and noted that one of the main reasons they bought the house was because of the pergola and neither the seller nor the listing agent disclosed any issues with permitting. He spoke about the structure having been there for two years and not causing anyone any issues, why he should not be punished, the financial implications if he is required to tear it down, and the need to consider variances separately, case-by-case. (Connor Millsaps, wife and co -applicant, was also at the podium and made brief remarks during Mr. Skaffs testimony.) Sandra Skaff, applicant's mother, referred to the photos in Attachment A as she urged the Commission to approve the request. Commissioner Ring questioned the cost to remove the pergola and various details about its construction. Mr. Skaff referred to the photos and provided details. Commissioner Waters questioned how long they've lived there, whether they put the pavers in, and whether anything has been added since they bought the place. Mr. Skaff confirmed that they moved in in January 2022, everything was already there, and they've not touched it since. Commissioner Waters asked if he was told about impermeability, setbacks, or anything. Mr. Skaff confirmed he was not told anything. Mayor Ford questioned whether he was furnished an Owner's Title Insurance Policy during closing. Since Mr. Skaff wasn't sure, Mayor Ford suggested that he check into it to see if he has options to remedy with other parties. Mr. Skaff answered questions from Commissioner Waters about the timing of the Stop Work Order and subsequent events. F. Public Comments Robert Sax, next door neighbor to the applicant and HOA President, confirmed that the structure and pavers were there when the applicant bought the property and provided a history of storm events to explain why he believes it has no significant environmental impact from water shed. Special Called Meeting of the City Commission October 30, 2023 David Thomas, contractor and father of Latasha Smith, spoke about his experience of being denied a permit back in 2015. He noted that the subject pergola is not tied into the house; it is tied into the sheeting and explained why he believes it is not built to Code. He commented that he would like to see them be able to keep the structure, but also wants to be able to build what he was turned down for in 2015, for his daughter. PCDD Askew answered questions from the Commission and clarified that if they are approved tonight, they would still have to go through the building permit process and have it inspected by the City's inspector to meet all the building Codes. She also provided additional details about the approval criteria listed on slide 14 of Attachment A and referred to slides 6 - 8, as she explained the issues that are part of this application, which include lot coverage, rear yard setback, side yard setbacks, and onsite stormwater. Mayor Ford asked CA Gabriel to opine on the impact of precedent and how it would relate to future actions, especially in light of Mr. Thomas. CA Gabriel explained how each property has its own circumstances and variables and legally speaking, there is no precedent -setting regardless of what is decided. Each property is adjudicated on its own merits, on its own behalf. When asked by Commissioner Kelly about any recourse for Mr. Thomas, PCDD Askew explained that a variance would be required for anyone to build in the setback. G. Closing Comments/Rebuttal Mr. Skaff provided closing remarks. H. Commission Deliberation and Action Commissioner Bole commented that Code Secs. 24-108 and 24-68 are clear to him. Commissioner Kelly noted that they are not just asking for one variance. Commissioner Ring expressed empathy for the applicants and explained that the Commission has to follow the Code as it's written. She suggested that an option could be for the applicant to seek legal counsel on the previous owners. Commissioner Waters commented on the criteria necessary to approve the variance and on not finding a way to approve it. Mayor Ford asked PCDD Askew if the Commission were to deny, would they have latitude to give the applicants enough time to pursue legal action against other parties, if desired. PCDD Askew explained that they can be lenient and make accommodations as long as the applicant is working with the City. Commissioner Ring asked whether all the pavers would have to be removed, if the variance was not approved. PCDD Askew confirmed that the covered porch and all of Special Called Meeting of the City Commission October 30, 2023 3. Attest: the pavers would have to be removed and answered additional questions. She noted the code enforcement process and confirmed that you cannot ask for the same variance within 365 days. There was a brief discussion about the pergola and the need to follow the Code. MOTION: To deny the request for all three variances. Motion: Michael Waters Second. Bruce Bole Curtis Ford For Bruce Bole (Seconded By) For Michael Waters (Moved By) For Candace Kelly Against Jessica Ring For Motion passed 4 to L Mayor Ford reiterated his concern for the applicants and his suggestion to seek legal counsel against the other parties. Mayor Ford asked staff to give all due accord to provide the applicant with ample time to seek remedy, because part of this is a financial issue. He also apologized to the applicants for not being able to grant the request. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:21 p.m. ljon414 I't(At4Z& rdi 'W Donna L. Bartle, City Clerk is ord, ayor Date Approved: 311112-0 Z Special Called Meeting of the City Commission October 30, 2023 Attachment A APP23�0002 to 10-30-2023 Minutes 1110 Scheidel Court Requestfor an appeal of the Community Development Board (CD8) decision for ZVAR23- 0016 for avariance to Section 24-108(e) & (f) to reduce the minimum rear & side yard setback, increase the maximum impervious surface area, and Section 24-68 required on- site water retention to allow an existing unpermitted covered patio at 1110 Scheidel Court Attachment A Site Context and Details to 10-30-2023 Minutes ' t' 115 Located on the west 510 a ` 11 Q/ side of Scheidel L 4501 cor Co u rt. 2006 neighborhood 7� 499 was developed by Habitat for.. Humanity ° Zoned Residential, General, Multi- 0 b - Family (RG -M) Lot is 27.50 feet u wide by 74.37 feet deep. �f� I,f 0�. J / 9i CO 11 V: inOff J_ 1101 1103 1 � A so Background Attachment A to 10-30-2023 Minutes The CDB denied the request finding that the request did not meet any of the required factors in Section 24-65(c) for approval. LDR allows appeal of the final decision of CDB by any adversely affected person(s) Appeals are de novo (start from the beginning). As if, the CDB hearing had not occurred. Per 24-49(b) the applicant must indicate that the decisions of the CDB being appealed is in conflict with or in violation of Chapter 24. According to the applicant's application the grounds for appeal is the following: "Variance denial for our Pergola in regards to our hardship." Background The applicant purchased the property in Jan. 2022 with the unpermitted work existing on the lot. On Sept. 27,2022, a stop work order was posted for construction of a covered porch without a permit, construction of a fence without a permit, and for exceeding the max. 6 -foot fence height in the rear yard. Attachment A to 10-30-2023 Minutes Attachment A Proposed exisiring Workto 10-30-2023 Minutes Per aerial images, the work was completed in 2021. The unpermitted covered porch is located in the rear yard 3.8 feet from the rear property line, 5 feet from the side (south) property line, and 5.5 feet from the side (north) property line. Pavers were added in the front, side and rear yard. 2021 F f.S hrc F2006 Survey i SET 1 f ?` IRON ptin. LIB 3872 C0�►`LCRE o PA'10 UNIT 4 22,10 SET 1/21' IRON PIP[, �S 311, z 4,37 JOKY FRAME RCSIDENCE 0 r COS! S 30„ W 82 54 3 QE 4*379 .ag' FIELD ELEvAlIQN 1 , 3277-1� -� Post- construction lot coverage = 51% UNI T 5 to 10-30-2023 Minutes z W 1/2 A, 4-p 4A Ou E 20.2'r \pAY YSIUB AUT 0 ,aa � 3577 0 Lit N-ftj V; 0 rn 10 V 0 roumoI .�R ON WE, L� ZRI�pp R � WAq 0 Ln 0 + 0 1 r SET 1 f ?` IRON ptin. LIB 3872 C0�►`LCRE o PA'10 UNIT 4 22,10 SET 1/21' IRON PIP[, �S 311, z 4,37 JOKY FRAME RCSIDENCE 0 r COS! S 30„ W 82 54 3 QE 4*379 .ag' FIELD ELEvAlIQN 1 , 3277-1� -� Post- construction lot coverage = 51% UNI T 5 to 10-30-2023 Minutes z W 1/2 A, 4-p 4A Ou E 20.2'r \pAY YSIUB AUT 0 ,aa � 3577 0 Lit N-ftj V; 0 rn 10 V 0 roumoI .�R ON WE, L� ZRI�pp R � WAq October 2022 Survey 7 4.,51 V 1 376-w`---�- 740 N t482*54! Z J 0 - -8, - 0.8 FRAME d `03� r 2. --STORY No. ,,, o -.� Q .89 _ -- N RESIDENCE 01 FINISHED FLOM, PERSf o " to 10-30-2023 Minutes PA�� I :o � .� CO• � AVE i4 a * z � POSS 'w, a n �--2 � �. C 0.6 3" SV8- 8' oT1 O T -- —- cn • i .ry I l • ' 2 7 4.37�. S-- rn • _ 0 1.2' 49' (FIELD o 6UV 82 5 ,oll N l .� OCn %46 O Ln .r s (AM L Nr. rn QS Attachment A Need for Variance - Setbackg-30-2023 Minutes In the RG -M zoning district, the rear yard setback is 20 feet and side yard setbacks are 7.5 feet on each side. According to Section 24-151(b)(2)(f), structures located closer than 5 feet to the principal structure shall be considered attached and meet the setbacks of the zoning district. The applicant is requesting a variance from the rear and side yard setbacks _ _ M- 20 20 feet 7.5 feet 7.5 feet 3.8 feet 5 feet 5.5 feet Attachment A to 10-30-2023 Minutes Need for Variance — Impervious Surface Area Section 108(f)(1) states, "where lawfully existing structures and improvements on a parcel exceed this applicable percentage, redevelopment of such parcels or additions/modifications to such structures and improvements shall not exceed the pre-existing impervious surface percentage". The post - construction lot coverage was 51% impervious. Pavers and covered patios are considerd 100% impervious. The 2022 survey shows the property at 75.6% impervious surface area. The applicant is requesting a variance to all the increase in impervious surface area. �. 2022 Lot Coverage Calculations LST WoUiAGE 1:1=_AJIQN LOT AREA — L045 S.F. BULMG AWEA - 552 SF CONCRETE ME i SW tF. PA (FRC" W 77 cALJlVENT PADS w 25 &F TDfiAL UPMOUS AAU - J.M ST NSTM LST COMOWX a 7g. 'r Attachment A Need for Variance On -Site to 10-30-2023 Minutes Stormwater Retention Section 24-68(b)(2) requires on- site water retention for projects that increase the impervious surface area on the property by more than 250 square feet. The unpermitted pavers and covered porched added 495 square feet of impervious surface area, thus triggering on- site water retention. 1101 SCHEIQEIlk �TM CT } • 110 1 EL r �. CT 4; r + ' ' Y•. !y { Ji r Amy Z 1125 SCHEMEI ` 1115 SCHEIDEL CT 1 -.rte I ' I �•- � t CT R'►;,:� w:��c. Alai t • 4 e. w w*Ilk, r i IV, K r Attachment A RECAP-CDB Final Decision to 10-30-2023 Minutes Denied the variance request finding that the request did not meet the grounds for approval of a variance as established in Section 24-65(c). Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvement upon the property. Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property. Attachment A Grounds for Decision to 10-30-2023 Minutes APPROVAL: existence of DENIAL: one or more of the following May consider a denial upon finding Section 24-65 (c) that none of the requirements in 24-65 (c) exist. Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvement upon the property. Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property. AIR7 Wji D r�~ Mlldcnrneni M to 10-30-2023 Minutes ,1 .Y �z . 1"a• `� �', i>a �}1ML f ,,i,�tr v� � �, s r�. 7 + 4n ff f � �� �..� � N t 7y d�:• 7 f r l� �uw.srssst � � � �.. r �',p��`.ry��� �s,;� .�.� ..'�11 i. •. , '"*�..ti•. `: a� �! •+'� r-}� i r.Ka .y,T J .`.fir.' �.,`�`l!,�: F r. �.�,, t ....• . �, '"i � � � to �; zap s iia `�'1`• `�✓ r I it r ,.\ o •. �', ---=-=^ate= ++ I�Y�o/ Ind. 1hr WAR, 77, hit.. ► -