01-31-94 v MINUTES OF THE JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING OF ATLANTIC BEACH CITY
COMMISSION AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD HELD IN CITY HALL, AT
7:15 PM ON MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 1994.
The following commissioners, board members and staff were present:
Lyman T. Fletcher Mayor
Steven Rosenbloom Commissioner
Suzanne Shaughnessy Commissioner
J. Dezmond Waters, III Commissioner
Robert G. Weiss, Jr. Commissioner
Don Wolfson Chairman, Community Dev. Board
Robert Frohwein Board Member
Ruth Gregg Board Member
Mark McGowan Board Member
Pat Pillmore Board Member
Sharette Simpkins Board Member
Mary Walker Board Member
Alan C. Jensen City Attorney
Kim D. Leinbach City Manager
Maureen King City Clerk
Don Ford Building Official
George Worley Community Development Director
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Fletcher.
1. Discussion of appeals process for appeals of actions of the
Community Development Board
Discussion ensued regarding the appeals process as it appears in
Chapters 14 and 24 of the city code and Don Wolfson pointed out
that the Community Development Board used only Chapter 24, Zoning,
when considering requests for variances and that Chapter 14 had not
been provided to the board. He requested that Chapter 14 be
provided to the Community Development Board if it is be used in
conjunction with Chapter 24 when considering variance requests.
Further discussion ensued regarding the appeals process and it was
pointed out there appeared to be a conflict between Chapters 14 and
24 . While Chapter 24 indicated an appeal of a decision of the
Community Development Board could be made only if the board had
acted illegally, Chapter 14 appeared to allow appeals to be made
for any reason, and it was agreed this conflict needed to be
resolved.
Commissioner Weiss felt a verbatim transcript of the proceedings of
the Community Development Board should be provided to the City
Commission if an appeal is being made. Commissioner Shaughnessy
indicated that attendees at a recent seminar were advised that
appeals should only be considered on the basis of the verbatim
record, otherwise the commission would, in fact, be re-hearing the
case. She felt that appeals should be considered only in cases
where a verbatim record was provided. In discussions regarding the
Page Two
Minutes - January 31, 1994
Joint meeting of City Commission and Community Development Board
cost of providing a verbatim record, it was agreed the applicant
would be responsible for providing the verbatim transcript and
there would be no cost to the city. It was felt information
regarding the need for a verbatim transcript should be included on
the application form or applicants should be made aware of this
requirement during the application process.
The question then arose as to whether appeals of decisions of the
Community Development Board should be heard by the City Commission
or whether the only avenue of appeal should be the Circuit Court
and different opinions were expressed in this regard. The City
Manager suggested that it may be desirable to require a four-fifths
vote of the City Commission to overturn a decision of the Community
Development Board. He also suggested the city could, if it so
desired, contract with the State Department of Administration and
appoint an appeals officer to hear appeals regarding variances or
other zoning matters. Following further discussion regarding the
expense involved in a court case for both the applicant and the
city, and whether the City Commission wished to retain the right to
review the decisions of the Community Development Board, it
appeared to be consensus that the City Commission should retain the
right to hear appeals, and that final appeals could still be made
through the Circuit Court. It was felt a stricter criteria should
be required for hearing appeals and that information which was not
available to the Community Development Board should not be
considered by the City Commission during the appeal .
George Worley was directed to work with the City Attorney to draft
an ordinance setting out the appeals procedure following which a
further joint meeting could be held to finalize the ordinance.
Discussion ensued regarding whether a majority vote of the entire
Community Development Board or a majority vote of the quorum
present should be required to grant a variance and whether a
majority vote of the entire City Commission or a majority vote of
the quorum present should be required to hear an appeal and/or
override a vote of the Community Development Board. Commissioner
Rosenbloom expressed opposition to requiring a four-fifths vote of
the City Commission to hear an appeal since he felt this could
circumvent the right to due process and the City Manager felt a
four-fifths vote should only be required for the City Commission to
overturn a decision of the Community Development Board. It was
agreed that if an affirmative vote is cast to hear an appeal , the
appeal should then be scheduled to be heard at the next meeting of
the City Commission. This would give the commissioners time to
review the materials relative to the case. The matter of the vote
which would be required to overturn a decision of the Community
Development Board will be discussed further when the draft
ordinance is presented.
Page Three
Minutes - January 31, 1994
Joint Meeting of City Commission and Community Development Board
2. Discussion of the concept of "unnecessary hardship" relative
to variance requests
Discussion ensued regarding whether the term "hardship" as used in
Chapter 24 of the city code referred to the land or to the
individual applying for the variance. Commissioner Waters
requested that the City Attorney provide a definition of "hardship"
in the legal sense. Mr. Jensen responded that the Community
Development Board was not dealing with a legal hardship but had to
determine whether a hardship existed based on Section 24-49 , 1-6,
of the City Code. It was noted the conditions listed in Section
24-49 were listed on the variance application and it was agreed the
board members would indicate their responses to these conditions in
the future.
Following further discussion, it was agreed the Community
Development Board should recommend any changes they felt would be
helpful in the decision making process.
3. Discussion regarding Accessory Uses and Structures
The City Manager indicated he felt the majority of the problems
experienced by the City Commission relative to hardships involved
the definitions of accessory structures and accessory uses.
George Worley indicated he felt the problem existed because
accessory structures and accessory uses were addressed in one
definition. He provided a draft ordinance which proposed to amend
the existing definition and create separate definitions for
accessory building and accessory use which he felt would help to
clarify the matter.
Following further discussion Mayor Fletcher reported that the
Zoning Review Committee was nearing completion of the revision of
the zoning code and he suggested that action on definitions be
deferred until the committee presents its recommendations.
4 . Communication between the City Commission and Community
Development Board
Don Wolfson requested that board members be notified when any
decision of the Community Development Board is being appealed to
the City Commission. He indicated at least one board member would
attend the commission meeting to answer questions regarding how the
board had reached a decision. It was also agreed to provide the
board members with the same information that is being provided to
commissioners relative to the appeal .
Page Four
Minutes - January 31, 1994
Joint Meeting of City Commission and Community Development Board
Commissioner Shaughnessy noted that the minutes of the Community
Development Board recorded only the actions taken by the board and
details of discussions prior to a vote were not included. It was
agreed in the future to include more detail in the board minutes
and also to provide the board members with minutes of meetings
where their decisions were appealed to the City Commission.
In further discussion, Mary Walker inquired whether a time limit by
which construction should be commenced or completed should be
attached to a variance. It was agreed a time limit should be
established and this is to be looked into further.
There being no further discussion, the Mayor declared the meeting
adjourned at 10: 20 PM.
Maure n King
City Clerk