Non-conforming Variance History 03.09.2011EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY THE 1987
ANNEXATION AND DISCUSSIONS OF RELATED MATTERS
1987 MAR 17 – CDB/ITEM C (PG 2-3) – APPROVED, 7-0
Variance of Rear Yard Requirements on a Pie-shaped Lot; Lawrence R. Bowers; Lot 37,
Oceanwalk Unit IV
Lawrence Bowers, 1133 Hamlet Court, Neptune Beach, and Bill Ebert, architectural advisor for
Oceanwalk, presented the plans to the board. The rear yards ranged from 15’ and 16’ at the
closest points to approximately 45’ at the farthest point. The stated that the plan had been
designed according to City of Jacksonville zoning regulations which states pie-shaped and corner
lots have no rear yard, only side yards. They stated that Jacksonville had issued permits in
Oceanwalk, prior to Jan 1, 1987, with similar setbacks on pie-shaped lots and that there were
approximately two other lots that may have the same problem. The added that they had spent
considerable time and money designing the house and felt the house could not be re-arranged
on the lot to meet the requirements and retain architectural integrity.
There being no discussion from the audience, Mr. MacDonell motioned to approve the variance
as requested, due to the considerable amount of time and money that had been spent designing
the house to Jacksonville regulations. Mr. Howie seconded the motion. A point of order came
from Mr. Delaney in that he felt the shape of the lot caused a hardship to the applicants.
After discussion, Chairman McCaulie read aloud the Findings of Fact. Each item was answered
favorably by the board members. The vote was called. The motion to approve the variance
carried unanimously. [For APPROVAL: W Gregg McCaulie; L B MacDonell; Samuel T Howie;
Ruth Gregg; Frank Delaney; Donald Tappin; John Bass]
1987 APR 21 – CDB/ITEM G (PG 4) – APPROVED, 6-0
Rear Yard Variance from 20’ to 10’; Herbert B Moller, Jr, Nineteen hundred block of Beach
Avenue
Mr. Moller, 1911 Beach Avenue, stated that his family had purchased this 50’ x 50’ lot in 1943
when there were no setback requirements in the City of Jacksonville. He stated that he planned
to build in the late 1950s but was drafted into the Korean War and was away for the next
twenty-eight years. He added that the City of Jacksonville’s minimum rear yard requirement is
10’ and that he would not need a variance if the area had not been annexed.
Chairman McCaulie read the Findings of Fact and all items were answered favorably. Mr. Howie
motioned to approve the variance. Mr. Tappin seconded the motion which carried
unanimously. [For APPROVAL: W Gregg McCaulie; Louis B MacDonell; Samuel T Howie; Frank
Delaney; Donald Tappin; John Bass]
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY THE 1987 ANNEXATION
Page 2 of 16
Revised 3/9/2011
1987 MAY 19 – CDB/ITEM B (PG 1-2) – DENIED, 7-0
Rear and Side Yard Variance; part of Government Lot 4, Fractional Section 9, Township 2S,
Range 29E, 50’ x 50’ parcel on the southwest corner of Beach Avenue and 18th Street, by Mark
J Kredell
Mr. Kredell stated that the Board should act favorably on his application because 1) the Board
had ruled favorably on a similar lot, 500’ from his property, at the previous meeting; 2)
minimum rear yards under the City of Jacksonville’s zoning regulations are 10’; 3) the property
would have been a lot of record in Atlantic Beach since it was recorded prior to July 26, 1982.
Mr. Delaney felt this was a different situation than the previous application in that Mr. Moller
had owned his lot since 1943 and could be considered grandfathered-in and Mr. Kredell had
only owned his property since 1986.
Dezmond Waters, 1835 Beach Avenue, stated that there once were covenants and restrictions
that provided for these small parcels to be used for parking. Mrs. Ann Rogers, 1163 Beach
Avenue, pointed out that that area of Beach Avenue was previously named Garage Approach
Roadway. The following residents spoke against the application: Elliot Zisser, 1937 Beach
Avenue; Don Wolfson, 1725 Beach Avenue (representing the North Duval Beaches Association);
Lisa Pelkey, 1887 Beach Avenue; Susan Smith, 1875 Beach Avenue. Several other residents
stood to show their opposition.
Mr. Kredell asked the Board to defer consideration of his application due to the negative
reaction he had received, and to allow him time to do further research and to all the Board time
to consult the City Attorney. He later added that if the Board knew exactly what could be built
on the property he would rather they take action tonight.
Mr. Delaney asked if he would rather the Board vote on the application or if he would rather
withdraw. Mr. Kredell replied that he wished to withdraw.
Chairman McCaulie stated that, unless the Board had a strong opposition, they would permit
him to withdraw. Mr. Delaney and Mrs. Gregg had strong oppositions.
Mr. MacDonell motioned to allow Mr. Kredell to defer his application until the City Attorney
could be consulted. The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Delaney motioned to deny the application. Ruth Gregg seconded the motion. Mr. Tappin
felt it was premature and unfair not to honor the applicant’s request to withdraw.
After further discussion the vote was called. The motion to deny the application for variance
carried unanimously. [For DENIAL: W Gregg McCaulie; Louis B MacDonell; Samuel T Howie;
Frank Delaney; Donald Tappin; John Bass; Ruth Gregg]
[APPLICANT RE-APPLIED FOR VARIANCE ON APRIL 18, 1989]
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY THE 1987 ANNEXATION
Page 3 of 16
Revised 3/9/2011
1987 SEP 15 – CDB/ITEM B (PG 1-2) – APPROVED, 6-0
Rear Yard Variance; Part of Lot 3, Section 9, Township 2 South, Range 29 East; Beach Avenue,
by William N Morgan and Homer H Humphries
Dylan Morgan, 1653 Coquina Place, represented the applicants in the request for variance. He
presented the Board with two site plans; one indicating the present building area, and one
indicating the proposed building area. He stated that the property is 121.84’ wide and contains
6,092 square feet of area, and that the rear setback variance was needed due to the 50’ depth
of the property. He added that the property was acquired in the fall of 1986, prior to
annexation.
Pete Dowling inquired as to whether they planned to build a duplex or a single family dwelling
on the property. Mr. Morgan replied that they were presently undecided. Mark Kredell stated
that he empathized with the applicants, that he was denied a variance on his 50’ x 50’ property.
Other members of the audience expressed concern over increased traffic and setting a
precedent.
Mr. MacDonell felt that there was considerable cause to grant the variance in that the City of
Jacksonville would have allowed a 10’ rear yard when the property was purchased. He
suggested treating the property as a corner lot; 20’ on the north and south, 15’ on Beach
Avenue, 5’ on the interior side opposite Beach Avenue. This was agreeable with the applicants,
although they asked for a little leeway in that the structure had not yet been designed. Mr.
MacDonell motioned to approve the application with the intent that the property fit the mold of
a corner lot; a 20’ yard on the north, 15’ yard on the south, 10’ yard on the west and 15’ yard on
Beach Avenue. Mr. Bass seconded the motion. The Chairman addressed the findings of fact.
The Board generally agreed that all criteria was met. The vote was called. The motion carried
unanimously. [For APPROVAL: W Gregg McCaulie; Louis B MacDonell; Ruth Gregg; John Bass;
Donald Tappin; Frank Delaney]
1987 DEC 15 – CDB/ITEM B (PG 2) – APPROVED, 5-0
Rear Yard Variance; Lot 19, Beachside Subdivision, by G Guy and Carol A Johnson
Mr. Johnson, 417 Ocean Boulevard, Atlantic Beach, stated that their house had been specifically
designed to fit on this lot in accordance with the City of Jacksonville’s specifications, 10’ rear
yard. He stated that they had spent a considerable amount in architectural and design fees. Mr.
Johnson stated that their lot is adjacent to undeveloped lots and that the Beachside developers
had no objection to the variance. He added that a similar variance had been issued to Sandy
Seminak who was in the same predicament.
The Board addressed the findings of fact. The Vice Chairman felt that the Johnsons were victims
of hardship by virtue of the change in the rear yard provision and having proceeded based on
the contracts and agreements previously given them. Ruth Gregg motioned to approve the
application. Mr. Tappin seconded the motion which carried unanimously. [For APPROVAL:
Louis B MacDonell; Samuel T Howie; Donald Tappin; Ruth Gregg; Frank Delaney]
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY THE 1987 ANNEXATION
Page 4 of 16
Revised 3/9/2011
1988 JAN 12 – CDB/ITEM C (PG 2) – APPROVED, 4-3
Rear Yard Variance by Seda Construction Company, 1869 Beachside Court, Lot 11, Block 1,
Beachside
Sandy Seminak, 2120 Corporate Square Boulevard, Jacksonville, stated that he had contracted in
August ’85 to purchase 11 lots in Beachside (City of Jacksonville). In March of ’86 he went to the
designer with the lots. In June or July of 1986 he closed on the lots. He contracted with Neal
King in September or October of 1987 to purchase this lot. He felt their case constituted a
hardship because they purchased the lots while they were under Jacksonville jurisdiction, which
would have allowed 10’ rear yards. He stated that he had the same problem in early ’87 but had
been granted a building permit by Atlantic Beach for a 10’ rear yard. [NOTE: A building permit
was obtained without a variance in this case].
Neal King stated that he was not aware of the 10’ requirement until their application for a
building permit was denied. He felt that a smaller house would upset the continuity of the
neighborhood and would decrease property values.
Chairman McCaulie stated that the builder knew about the change in setback requirements but
contracted with Mr. King without telling him about it. He didn’t see how Mr. Seminak could
claim a hardship.
Mr. Delaney felt it was grandfathered – considering when the lot was purchased and when the
design work was done. Mr. MacDonell felt that the investment of a smaller house would not be
in keeping with the land values because of the location of the property. He stated that the
builder invested his money based on the regulations that existed at the time of purchase, and
felt it was unfair not to grant the variance. Mr. MacDonell motioned to approve the application.
Mr. Delaney seconded the motion. The motion carried 4 to 3. Delaney, Gregg, Bass and
MacDonell voted YES. Tappin, Howie and McCaulie voted NO.
1988 MAR 15 – CDB/ITEM C (PG 2) – APPROVED, 4-0
Rear Yard Variance; 50’ x 50’ lot being part of Tract 4, North Atlantic Beach, Unit No 1, by John
C Landon (Annexed from Jacksonville, January 1987)
Mr. Landon stated that he was requesting relief from the 20’ rear yard requirement so that he
could construct a garage-apartment-type building on a small lot that has been in his family since
1943. He added that he owns the lot across the street and one of the two lots that back up to
this lot. Mr. Landon felt he could not build without relief from the 20’ yard requirement.
There being no one else present to discuss the item, Mr. Bass motioned to approve the
application. Ruth Gregg seconded the motion. The Board considered the findings of fact and
determined that a hardship exists in that Mr. Landon could have built on his lot with a 10’ rear
yard prior to annexation. The vote was called. The motion to approve the application carried
unanimously. [For APPROVAL: W Gregg McCaulie; Ruth Gregg; John Bass; Donald Tappin]
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY THE 1987 ANNEXATION
Page 5 of 16
Revised 3/9/2011
1989 JAN 17 – CDB/ITEM A (PG 2) – DISCUSSION
Don Wolfson provided the board with an excerpt from what appeared to be Ocean Grove Unit II
deed restrictions. He expressed concern over the issuance of setback variances to the
substandard lots of record along Beach Avenue and a lack of off street parking facilities for
private residences on Beach Avenue.
1989 MAR 21 – CDB/ITEM C (PG 3) – DEFERRED
Rear Yard Variance by Mark Kredell; Part of Gvmt Lot 4, Fract Sect 9, Twnshp 2S, Rng 29E; a
50’ x 50’ parcel on the southwest corner of 18th Street and Beach Ave
Paul Eakin, Mr. Kredell’s attorney, requested that the Board defer action on the application due
to his illness. The Board agreed to defer action and rescheduled the application for April 18,
1989.
1989 APR 18 – CDB/ITEM A (PG 1-2) – DENIED, 5-2
Rear Yard Variance by Mark Kredell; Part of Government Lot 4, Section 9, Township 2 South,
Range 29 East; a 50’ x 50’ parcel on the southwest corner of 18th Street and Beach Avenue
Paul Eakin, attorney for Mr. Kredell, presented the board with several letters from residents
supporting the variance and a map which highlighted similar variances that had been granted.
Mr. Kredell stated that he proposed construction of a two bedroom garage apartment; that one
garage space would be for the rental unit and the other spaces would be used by the oceanfront
residents. Several members of the board expressed concern for the limited parking spaces
provided for the rental unit. It was clarified that the zoning code requires a minimum of two
spaces for each residential unit.
Discussion ensued regarding the intended use of “Garage Approach Road” (Beach Avenue),
whether the vacant land to the west was intended to be used exclusively for parking for the
oceanfront homes.
Mr. Eakin questioned whether a hardship is a requirement in granting variances. Mr. Wolfson
replied by quoting Section 24-49 from the Code of Ordinances, “Powers and Duties of the
Community Development Board”. Mr. Eakin defined the hardship as a need for additional
parking facilities for the oceanfront units and that, without the variance, Mr. Kredell would be
forced to construct a ten foot wide building. He added that similar variances have been granted
in the area and that his client should not be singled-out and deprived of his rights.
Several residents spoke against the variance, including Robert and Linda Fagens, 1847 Ocean
Grove Drive; Bob and Mary Anne Frohwein, 1847 Ocean Grove Drive; Ken O’Rourke, 1843 Ocean
Grove Drive; and Dezmond Waters, 1835 Seminole Road. Residents feared impairment of
sunlight and air circulation, an increase in traffic and a change in the quality of life should the
variance be granted.
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY THE 1987 ANNEXATION
Page 6 of 16
Revised 3/9/2011
After lengthy discussion, the Chairman asked for a motion. Mr. Howie motioned to deny the
application for variance. Mr. Wolfson seconded the motion.
Mr. Wolfson then gave a lengthy history of the area, with particular reference to the original
deed restrictions. He suggested that the Board may have made an error when granting similar
variances; that the Board may have granted privileges they did not have authority to grant. He
stated that “Garage Approach” was uniquely designed for additional parking facilities and not
for living spaces.
Mr. Kredell stated that the Board had granted variances to similar lots to make them buildable
and that he should be given the same consideration. Mr. MacDonell agreed, adding that he felt
the application met the ‘findings of fact’ requirements.
After further discussion, the Chairman called for the vote. The motion to deny the application
for variance carried with a five to two vote. Members McCaulie and MacDonell voted NO.
[DECISION OF CDB OVERTURNED BY CC ON MAY 22, 1989; CC DECISION SUPPORTED BY
LEGAL OPINION. SEE ATTACHMENTS A1-A17.]
1989 SEP 19 – CDB/ITEM A (PG 2) – DISCUSSION
Mr. Wolfson expressed concern and questioned the validity of the opinion submitted by
attorney Mark Arnold regarding the townhouses at the corner of Beach Avenue and Eighteenth
Street.
Mr. Wolfson stated he mainly had two concerns he wished to address.
There was not a written record of a conversation between Mr. Richard Fellows [then City
Manager], Mrs. Rene Angers [then Community Development Coordinator], and Mr. Claude
Mullis [then City Attorney] regarding the legal opinion submitted by Claude Mullis. Mr. Wolfson
felt the issuance of the permits was an “usurp of our (Community Development Board)
responsibilities to perform according to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Atlantic Beach and
therefore, that is a violation.”
Mr. Wolfson also felt that the building permits issued to Mr. Kredell for the townhouses at
Beach Avenue and Eighteenth Street were issued in error and wanted the responsible parties
put on notice. Mr. Wolfson reviewed the various ordinances and definitions that were sited
[sic] in letters from Mr. Claude Mullis and Mr. Mark Arnold.
The Chairman called a special workshop meeting the City Attorney for October 4, 1989.
1989 OCT 17 – CDB/ITEM G (PG 3-4) – DISCUSSION
Issuance of Building Permits #999 and #1000, 1850 – 1852 Beach Avenue
Legal Opinions rendered by Mark Arnold, Steve Stratford and Claude Mullis regarding 1850 –
1852 Beach Avenue
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY THE 1987 ANNEXATION
Page 7 of 16
Revised 3/9/2011
Mr. MacDonell questioned what his personal liabilities were regarding statements or actions
made in reference to the issuance of permits #999 and #1000. Mr. Wolfson expressed concern
that no one came before the Community Development Board seeking a variance to build on the
substandard lot.
Mr. Arnold [then City Attorney] stated that the permits were issued correctly and were done so
under the advise [sic] of then City Attorney Claude Mullis. He stated that a variance was not
required because of the wording of the ordinance and suggested review of the ordinances to
prevent similar situations from occurring. He added that it was beyond the power of the
Community Development Board to take action and advised citizens who wished to pursue the
matter to file a writ of mandamus in circuit court, that it was no longer a municipal matter but a
legal one.
1990 FEB 20 – CDB/ITEM A (PG 3) – DISCUSSION
Discussion and recommendation of permitted uses of substandard lots of record
This item has been referred to counsel for clarification and will be resubmitted by Mr. Jensen
and no action was taken.
1990 MAR 21 – CDB/ITEM A (PG 1) – DISCUSSION
Discussion and recommendation on clarification of permitted uses of substandard lots of
record
City Attorney, Alan Jensen presented to the board an ordinance revising the definition and
permitted uses of substandard lots of record. The board suggested that each townhouse be
more clearly defined as a single family unit and “nonconforming lots” be changed to the
singular.
Chairman McCaulie requested that the Community Development Director review alternative
methods of determining height of structures and report back to the board.
After further discussion the board returned the ordinance to counsel for revisions.
1990 APR 24 – CDB/ITEM B (PG 2) – DISCUSSION
Recommendation on clarification of permitted uses of substandard lots of record
City Attorney, Alan Jensen presented to the board a final draft of the ordinance clarifying the
definition and permitted uses of substandard lots of record. Mr. Jensen stated that one single
family residence is allowed on a substandard lot of record provided setbacks are met. Anyone
wishing to construct a duplex or more than one townhouse must apply for a variance from the
Community Development Board.
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY THE 1987 ANNEXATION
Page 8 of 16
Revised 3/9/2011
The Community Development Director suggested that Section 24-62 of the Code of Ordinances
become more specific as to the measuring point of a structure.
After further discussion, Mr. MacDonell motioned to recommend approval as presented. Mrs.
Gregg seconded the motion which carried unanimously. [For APPROVAL: W Gregg McCaulie,
Louis MacDonell, Ruth Gregg, John Bass, Samuel T Howie, Kathy Russell, Don Wolfson]
1990 JUN 19 – CDB/ITEM D (PG 2-3) – DISCUSSION
Dezmond Waters addressed the board as to the definition of a sub-standard lot and the
ordinance, which according to Rene Angers allows garage apartments to be built on sub-
standard lots provided there is a 25’ height limit. This would not disallow lot owners seeking a
variance in order to build to a greater height, but would protect owners of neighboring
properties.
This was further explained to mean the height limit would remain 35’, except on sub-standard
lots where the height limit would be 25’. The buildings on these lots would be more restricted
than on regular lots by code. It was also mentioned by Mrs. Gregg that there would still be
questions about the ground level. Mr. Leinbach [then City Manager] called for public input.
There was extensive discussion on the definition of a townhouse and how townhouses fit into
existing zones. Currently townhouses and rowhouses can be built in RG2 if a plat is filed. Mr.
Leinbach stated that he was not aware of anything in the code that prevents a builder from
building up the lot.
The conclusion of the discussion was that each case of a sub-standard lot be considered on it’s
own merits. It was decided to report to the City Commission that the definition of a townhouse
seems to be as appropriate as the board can make it. Further, there is a valid consideration for
limiting the height of a building on a sub-standard lot to 25’ subject to a variance if they want to
build higher, but the board is concerned that it may deprive owners of sub-standard lots and put
them at a disadvantage.
The City Attorney suggested that to apply different building criteria to sub-standard lots would
leave the City open to problems. It was suggested that if the sub-standard lot was 80% as large
as a standard lot, then the height limit would be 80% of the standard height limit (35’).
Mr. McCaulie stated that it will be decided by the Commission if they want it to be a percentage,
subject to variance; 25 feet, subject to a variance; 35 feet, or whatever.
Mr. McCaulie’s position is as stated, that the City Commission or the board will decide the
building criteria, including height limits for sub-standard lots.
Mrs. Gregg, Mr. Wolfson and Mr. Bass were in favor of the proportionate (percentage) plan.
It was suggested that the new Community Development Director look into the questions of
fence height requirements and limits and also the questions regarding building height on sub-
standard lots.
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY THE 1987 ANNEXATION
Page 9 of 16
Revised 3/9/2011
1991 OCT 15 – CDB/ITEM II (PG 3-4) – DISCUSSION
Invoking “Grandfather” status of property
A general discussion followed regarding an item that had come before the Board at the last
meeting and was deferred until a special meeting could be called. In the meantime, the item
was taken before the City Commission and the request was granted by the City Commission by
invoking the grandfather status of the property.
Mr. Wolfson pointed out staff’s recommendation regarding the above application and that the
application was handled improperly as proper procedure was not followed. He also read a draft
motion he had prepared for the Board’s review.
The Chairman stated that everyone probably has in their own mind an idea of what the term
“grandfathered” means to them and there may not be a universal acceptance of the true
meaning of the term. His conception of grandfathering was if a structure or the use of a
structure is in existence and the City changes the zoning or changes the law which applies to the
use of the structure that the structure or use will continue and be grandfathered in. If at some
point in time that structure is changed or the use is changed they would have to come into
conformity with the current existing law either through zoning or use. If something is already
there and the law changes you are allowed to keep it there but it cannot be changed without
complying with what law is in force at the time.
Mr. Frohwein stated that it is the intent of the Community Development Board to attempt to
structure and shape the community and that in the future hopefully the structuring would be
uniform throughout the City.
It was suggested by several members of the Board that a meeting take place between the City
Council and the Community Development Board to clarify purposes and intents of such matters.
1992 NOV 17 – CDB/ITEM V (PG 3) – DENIED, 5-2
Variance filed by Townsend and Virginia Hawkes to construct a garage apartment on a non-
conforming lot located at 1771 Beach Avenue
Mr. and Mrs. Townsend Hawkes introduced themselves to the Board and explained that the
variance was requested to allow them to construct a garage apartment on a 50 x 50 lot on the
west side of Beach Avenue. Variances are needed for minimum lot size and rear yard setback.
After discussion, Mr. Wolfson moved to deny the variance. Mr. Frohwein seconded the motion
and the variance was denied by a vote of 5-2.
[DECISION OF CDB OVERTURNED BY CC ON FEB 08, 1993. SEE ATTACHMENTS B1-B13.]
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY THE 1987 ANNEXATION
Page 10 of 16
Revised 3/9/2011
1993 MAR 16 – CDB/ITEM II (PG 1-2) – DISCUSSION
The board discussed the matter of reducing the minimum lot requirements
Mr. Wolfson stated that this item was placed on the agenda at his request because of the 50’ x
50’ lots on Beach Avenue that the City Commission was allowing owners to build upon by
granting variances.
The board also discussed the matters of accessory structures and buildings and the definition of
these terms. No resolution was reached on either issue.
After discussion, Mr. Wolfson moved to request a workshop between the City Commission and
the Community Development Board to discuss these matters. Mrs. Walker seconded the
motion and it was passed unanimously.
1993 MAY 18 – CDB/ITEM A (PG 2-3) – DISCUSSION
The Board discussed possible dates to meet with the City Commission to discuss various matters
of conflict regarding the interpretations of auxiliary buildings or structures. It was decided that
6:00 p.m., June 14th and 28th, 1993 would be a good time to meet and it was just before the
regularly scheduled meetings of the Commission in June, 1993.
1994 OCT 18 – CDB/ITEM II (PG 2) – APPROVED, 4-0
Variance filed by Craig Sutton to construct two single-family homes on property known as the
west 75 feet of Lots 8 and 9, Ocean Grove Unit 2
Mr. Sutton introduced himself to the board and explained that he desired to sell the property
and the variance was needed to allow construction of a single-family residence on each lot.
Builder Jim Pelkey introduced himself to the board and stated he desired to purchase the
property. He presented a design for two homes reflecting the appropriate setback and height
requirements. The height requirement would be calculated in accordance to the size of the lots
and each home could be no higher than 31.5 feet.
After discussion, Mrs. Walker moved to grant the variance and Mrs. Pillmore seconded the
motion.
After further discussion, the board voted unanimously to grant the variance with the following
stipulations:
1 The variance be granted solely to the applicant for sale to Mr. Pelkey for construction of
a single family home on each lot.
2 The variance be limited to a period of one year (will lapse if not implemented)
3 That all other height and setback requirements be strictly adhered to
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY THE 1987 ANNEXATION
Page 11 of 16
Revised 3/9/2011
2003 APR 22 – ZVAR-2003-04 (ITEM 5A/NO QUORUM)
2003 MAY 20 – ZVAR-2003-04 (ITEM 4A/PG 1-2) – W/D BY APPL
Variance from Section 24-105(e)(1)&(3) to reduce required twenty (20) foot front [actually
rear] yard setback on Beach Avenue side of an oceanfront lot to thirteen (13) feet and also to
reduce the required ten (10) foot side yard setback to 4.86’ to allow a proposed two-story
addition to an existing non-conforming structure, for property within the RS-2 Zoning District
and located at 1987 Beach Avenue. [NOTE: This was an oceanfront lot, NOT substandard, but
in the area previously known as Seminole Beach and subject to the 1987 annexation.]
Mr. George Bull, Jr, introduced himself and distributed an amended site plan to the Board
members. He stated that the amendment reduced the requested front [rear] yard
encroachment and placed the addition more to the center of the property. He further stated
that they would like to upgrade the existing structure by adding a second story garage and
bedroom addition. Mr. Bull stated that the hardships are as follows: 1) The house was built in
the 1950s, and they are not able to build to the south, east or west. This was an inherited
situation not caused by the owner; and 2) Building toward the ocean would be financially
infeasible due to the cost to remove boulders placed after Hurricane Dora.
Ms. Doerr referred Board members to the copy of the aerial photograph included in the
application packet. She stated that she felt that the relocation of the Coastal Construction
Control Line created an unusual circumstance to this lot. She further stated the State would be
less favorable to building seaward, and it would be difficult to add onto this property since the
CCCL was relocated so far landward of the lot.
Ms. Doerr confirmed that the proposed addition was seaward of the CCCL. Mr. Frohwein asked
Ms. Doerr if she had knowledge if the State would respond favorably if the addition were east of
the CCCL. Ms. Doerr responded that the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) would
rather see construction to the west of that line. Mr. Frohwein advised the applicant could make
argument to the DEP that the Zoning Codes do not allow for construction to the east of the
CCCL.
Mr. Wolfson stated that the lot was very deep and the applicant was using a lot of land that was
landward of the current building. He stated that the applicant has the opportunity to build
seaward of the current structure, and he did not recognize a hardship in this instance.
Ms. Walker asked Mr. Bull if the owner had considered building upward. Mr. Bull responded
that the new Florida Building Codes state that you can improve any piece of property up to 50
percent of the original value without making the old structure conform to the new Building
Codes. He stated that if they built up, the building would have to meet the new Building Codes
and it would be financially unfeasible.
A motion was made by Mr. Wolfson and seconded by Mrs. Walker to deny the variance request.
Discussion was held with regard to whether or not a hardship existed for the applicant.
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY THE 1987 ANNEXATION
Page 12 of 16
Revised 3/9/2011
Mr. Bull withdrew the variance request.
2003 AUG 19 – ZVAR-2003-14 (ITEM 5A/PG 3-4) – W/D BY APPL
Variance from Section 24-106(e)(2) to allow a proposed addition to the rear of a single-family
residence to encroach into the required twenty (20) foot rear yard by a distance of 3-feet, 7-
inches on the south side and 5-feet, 8-inches on the north side for property within the RG-1
Zoning District and located at 1733 Ocean Grove Drive. [NOTE: This was a standard lot in
Ocean Grove, NOT a substandard lot, but in the area previously known as Seminole Beach and
subject to the 1987 annexation.]
Mr. Gregory Kelly introduced himself. He stated that they were attempting to add living space
to a less than 2,000 square foot house where they have the need for a home office, additional
space for three children, one of which was autistic and required additional living space. Mr.
Kelly explained that they were requesting an extension for over five feet on the north side of the
property and an extension of over three feet on the south side.
Mr. Wolfson requested that Mr. Kelly explain the nature of the hardship.
Mr. Kelly advised that they had the option of extending into the front yard but there was a
significant grove of trees that they would like to preserve. In addition, he stated there was a
septic drain field located in the front yard on the opposing side of the garage, which they plan to
eliminate in the near future. Mr. Kelly advised they would like to build the addition in the rear,
which would not require any trees to be removed.
Mr. Wolfson asked Mr. Kelly what his needs would be if they remodeled on the west side of the
house. Mr. Kelly responded that most likely they would build up to the 20-foot setback on the
garage side of the house and would enclose the existing garage. He stated that this would
require other modifications to the addition for an even flow in the house and a minimum of
disturbance to the property.
Discussion was held with regard to the definition of a hardship. Mr. Wolfson advised that he did
not understand the legal hardship of the request. Mr. Jenkins explained to Mr. Kelly that a
hardship was something that was peculiar to his lot that would prohibit him from enjoying the
lot the way that his neighbors enjoy their lot. Mr. Kelly summarized that their hardship was the
drain field and the preservation of trees.
Mr. Wolfson asked Mr. Kelly how close the drain field was located to the front of their home.
Mr. Kelly responded that it extended right out the front door and just to the north side of the
north side of the front door. Mr. Kelly stated that they would like to extend the full front of the
home but in order to preserve trees, it would be an extension of the garage side only.
Mr. Jenkins moved to deny the request for a variance. Mr. Burkhart seconded the motion.
Mr. Frohwein advised that he recognized an “almost” hardship with the drain field but he saw
that as a temporary condition. He further advised that there were other opportunities to add
onto the home on the southwest corner as had been discussed.
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY THE 1987 ANNEXATION
Page 13 of 16
Revised 3/9/2011
Ms. Drysdale stated that, in the past, when applicants realized that their application might be
denied, they had been allowed to withdraw their request. She suggested that the applicant
might want to consider this option.
Mr. Wolfson advised that the applicants were given the opportunity to withdraw their requests.
He advised Mr. Kelly that he had a very nice lot in a very nice neighborhood, and felt that he had
a lot of options to be creative with the addition.
Mr. Kelly informed the Board that he would like to withdraw his request, and possibly return to
the Board at a later date with an amended request. Ms. Doerr recommended continuing the
item so that the applicant would not be required to pay another application fee.
2005 MAR 15 – ZVAR-2005-02 (ITEM 5A/PG 1-2) – DENIED, 5-0
Variance to reduce the required rear yard setback on an ocean-front lot (the Beach Avenue
side) from fifteen (15) feet to five (5) feet to allow for the construction of a detached two-
story garage on property with the RS-2 Zoning District at 1515 Beach Avenue. [NOTE: This
was an oceanfront lot, NOT a substandard lot, but in the area previously known as Seminole
Beach and subject to the 1987 annexation.]
Greg Saig, 102 North Street stated that [he] would like a variance granted to construct a
detached garage. Mr. Saig also stated that he felt that if the variance was granted , his detached
garage would fit within the motif of Atlantic Beach.
Mr. Jacobson asked Mr. Saig if he would consider moving the proposed garage 30 feet eastward.
Mr. Saig replied that he did feel that a garage in that location would fit with the charm of Beach
Avenue.
Public comment.
Karen Perrin, 1502 Beach Avenue, stated that she is opposed to any variance for the property.
Ms. Perrin also stated that she felt that if the variance were granted, the detached garage would
cut out her breezes and sunrises. Ms. Perrin also stated that this would be a safety hazard, since
moving the detached garage would mean moving the driveway closer to the street; backing out
of the driveway would be very difficult.
May Jones, 126 15th Street, also spoke in opposition of the variance request. Ms. Jones
concurred with Ms. Perrin’s statements.
Public comment closed.
A motion was made by Mr. Jacobson to deny the variance request, seconded by Mr. Jenkins.
The motion to deny unanimously carried.
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY THE 1987 ANNEXATION
Page 14 of 16
Revised 3/9/2011
2007 JAN 16 – ZVAR-2007-01 (ITEM 5A/PG 1-2) – APPROVED, 4-1
Variance from Section 24-107(e)(2) to reduce the 20-foot rear yard (Beach Avenue side)
setback to 16-feet nine inches to allow for construction of a second floor addition to an
existing oceanfront single-family residence within the RS-2 Zoning District located at 2069
Beach Avenue. [NOTE: This was an oceanfront lot, NOT a substandard lot, but in the area
previously known as Seminole Beach and subject to the 1987 annexation.]
Mr. Boyer asked to abstain from voting on this issue due to the applicant is his neighbor and he
was the original architect of the home. Ms. Woods indicated that she would like Mr. Boyer to
participate in the vote if he had no financial interest in the property. Ms. Doerr stated that the
City Attorney has on numerous occasions advised Board members to hear and vote on an issue
as long as there are no financial interests or conflicts related to the property. Mr. Boyer stated
he does not have any financial interests in the property.
Michael Dunlap introduced himself as representing Mr. Lee Ferguson in the expansion of his
home. Mr. Burkhart inquired if any construction will be done on the first floor of the home and
how the second floor addition will be supported. Mr. Dunlap stated that no addition is planned
for the first floor and explained the support system planned for the second floor addition. He
further explained that the coastal construction setback is the reason why the house is located so
close to Beach Avenue. Ms. Woods asked if the neighbors have been contacted or notified
regarding the proposed construction. Mr. Dunlap believed the neighbors were aware of his
application. Mr. Boyer who lives next door noted the presence of the zoning notice sign placed
in the yard. Chairman Jacobson and Ms. Doerr clarified that the sign posting and newspaper
advertisement were the notices for a variance application. Chairman Jacobson inquired as to
the use of the proposed addition and the current square footage of the home. Mr. Dunlap
replied the area will be a media room and estimated the current square footage of the home to
be approximately 5,000 square feet. Chairman Jacobson questioned how the room is presently
utilized. Mr. Dunlap stated the current use of the room is a small media room and the owners
would like a larger one. Chairman Jacobson stated that although the applicant is asking for a
very small reduction in the setback, his concern is how common the request is for variance to
reduce the setbacks and almost all requests are denied even when hardships exist. He
suggested to Mr. Dunlap that if the room was increased in size by 8-feet instead of the proposed
10-feet, a variance would not be needed. Mr. Dunlap explained the dynamics of projection
equipment and seating for the media room requires 10-feet. He stated he had already spoken
with his clients and normally does not recommend going through the variance process. The
owners have already removed one row of seating they wanted in order to get the size down to
10-feet. Mr. Burkhart asked Ms. Doerr if the Administrative Waiver was applicable in this issue.
Ms. Doerr stated that this would allow only a 1-foot reduction in the setback. The
Administrative Waiver was 10% prior to 2001 when it was changed to 5%. Board members were
referred to Section 24-47(h) to review this information. Chairman Jacobson noted that at some
point the “pie piece” would exceed 5%. Ms. Woods inquired if the home had a circular
driveway. Mr. Dunlap stated it did not. Chairman Jacobson indicated that if the room was
expanded due to adding children’s room or for an elderly parent to move in he could support
the variance since the request was minimal into the setback but he could not support a variance
for a media room. Chairman Jacobson asked Board members for comments. Ms. Woods does
not agree with the grounds of topographical conditions for approval because everything on the
beach has topographical issues. In addition, the irregular shape of the property would only be
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY THE 1987 ANNEXATION
Page 15 of 16
Revised 3/9/2011
irregular if you viewed every lot as rectangle. However, the request for a variance to allow for
21-square feet is not encroaching on anyone. More requests are for building in the rear yard
setback, which does affect others. She stated she could go either way on this request because
the addition does not really affect anyone. Chairman Jacobson stated what is being requested is
minor, but the grounds for the request are not compelling. Mr. Boyer again requested to
abstain from the vote due to his home is located right next door to the applicant and he
designed the original house.
A motion was made by Mr. Burkhart and seconded by Ms. Woods to approve the request for a
variance based on the irregular shape of the west property line and also noting that Section 24-
47(h) is ambiguous and that the request could be also found consistent with Section 24-47(h)
since the 21-square-feet encroachment is less than 5% of the setback area. The motion passed
by a 4:1 vote with Chairman Jacobson dissenting.
2008 FEB 19 – ZVAR-2008-02 (ITEM 5B/PG 3) – APPROVED, 6-0
Variance from Section 24-151(e) to reduce the required front yard setback from 20-feet to 19-
feet, 6-inches; the rear yard setback from 10-feet to 5-feet, and a side yard setback from 10-
feet to 2-feet, 6-inches on the north side for the construction of a detached two-car garage on
a non-conforming lot of record tied to the main parcel, located at 1917 Beach Avenue. [NOTE:
This was a vacant 29.46’ wide x 50’ deep nonconforming lot of record, located in the area
previously known as Seminole Beach and subject to the 1987 annexation. HOWEVER, this
property has transferred ownership in three times since the annexation, in 1994, 2000, and
2006.]
Ms. Doerr introduced the application explaining this was an odd non-conforming lot located
west of the Beach Avenue right-of-way, and tied to an oceanfront lot. She noted that most
other lots like this, similarly tied to oceanfront lots, had been granted variances.
Mr. Lambertson opened the floor to the applicant. J W Terry Simmons, architect for the
Demuths, represented the application. Mr. Simmons stated that the proposal was the best
scenario to maintain the front yard setback, so as to be in line with the structure on the adjacent
property. He noted that many of these nonconforming lots, originally intended for garages, had
been built with single-family dwellings.
Mr. Lambertson opened the floor to public comment.
R D DeCarle, 51 Beach Avenue, stated that neighbors are supportive of the intended use.
No one else from the audience wished to address the application, so Mr. Lambertson closed the
floor to public comment and opened discussion by the Board.
Ms. Glasser noted that while she did not see a public notice posted on this property either, Mr.
De Carle had addressed her concern regarding how the neighbors felt about the proposal. Mr.
Boyer said that he had not seen a public notice either, to which Ms. Doerr replied both
properties had been posted on the same day. She noted that there had been high winds in the
interim though.
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY THE 1987 ANNEXATION
Page 16 of 16
Revised 3/9/2011
Mr. Boyer said that the lot, as it currently exists, is an eyesore. Even though the applicant is
requesting a variance reducing the north side yard from 10’ to 2’, Beachside Community’s
walkway access is directly north of the property line, and that lends a sense of openness. Mr.
Simmons added that the owners have already planted a couple of oaks and will also be
landscaping the property.
David Boyer made a motion to approve this request for variance (ZVAR-2008-02) to reduce the
required front yard setback from 20-feet to 19-feet, 6-inches; the required north side yard
setback from 10-feet to 2-feet, 6-inches; and the required rear yard setback from 10-feet to 5-
feet, for the construction of a two-car detached private garage on a nonconforming lot of record
tied to the main parcel, as shown on the site plan submitted with this application, for the
property located at 1917 Beach Avenue. Kirk Hansen seconded the motion. There was no
further discussion and the vote was unanimous.