03-16-99 v MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA
March 16, 1999
7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL
PRESENT Don Wolfson
Robert Frohwein
Mary Walker
Sharette Simpkins
Dezmond Waters
AND George Worley, II, CD Director
Alan Jensen, Esquire
Pat Harris, Recording Secretary
ABSENT: Pat Fillmore
Buzzy Grunthal
Chairman Don Wolfson called the meeting to order and asked for approval of the
minutes from the meeting of February 16, 1999. On motion made and seconded the
minutes were approved.
I. Application for Variance filed by Michael L. Stevens to construct an
addition that will encroach the setback requirements at property located at 393 Third
Street.
This application is a revised submittal which was presented to the board in
November 1998. The applicant changed the size of the proposed addition to reduce its
square foot size.
The consensus of the board was that the new application was not substantially the
same as the previous application and could be reviewed.
Mr. Stevens introduced himself to the board and explained that he desired to
construct an 8.6 foot by 8 foot addition to allow relocation of a dryer vent that required
the utility room to be relocated.
Mr. Worley explained that the unit occupies the east half of a duplex building on
a corner lot. When originally constructed this building taken as a whole, complied with
the required setbacks. The proposed addition will encroach to a point 13 feet from the
rear property line where 20 feet is required.
Connie Craven introduced herself to the board and stated she lived at the same
residence and explained the dust and moisture problems created in connection with the
dryer vent.
Mr. Waters expressed concern regarding the construction of a deck above the
proposed addition and staff explained that the deck was on the original application but
no deck is included in the revised application.
After discussion, Mr. Waters moved to grant the variance with the provision that
no deck be constructed above the addition and Mr. Wolfson seconded the motion.
The applicant explained that he has constructed cabinets in the garage for storage
and did not use the garage for parking his car. He stated he did not desire to relocate
the washer and dryer to the garage.
After discussion regarding possible alternatives, the motion to approve the
variance was defeated by a vote of 2 ayes from Mrs. Simpkins and Mr. Waters and three
nays from Mr. Frohwein, Mrs. Walker and Mr. Wolfson. No further motions were
made.
II. Application for Variance filed by Cynthia L. Corey to construct a 6-foot
garden wall that will encroach the required setback at property located at 394 Eighth
Street.
Mr. Frohwein stated in a point of order that in reviewing the zoning code he could
find nothing to disallow a side yard fence on a corner lot and even though he was
opposed to the matter he found more information that would allow such a fence than
what would disallow one and it was his opinion that the applicant did not need a
variance.
Mr. Worley explained that the code defines the area as a side yard and the
requirement of a 15 foot setback In the definitions of the code setback is defined as the
distance between the lot line and the building setback line and the building setback line
is 15 feet. He stated that this definition was interpreted to include everything within the
15 feet and the board has used this interpretation at least nine years and similar issues
have come before the board at least three times in the past and were acted upon by the
Board.
Mrs. Walker stated that she also found nothing in black and white to prevent
fences being constructed on corner lots and in her view an application for variance was
not necessary.
Cindy Corey introduced herself and stated that the only section of the code she
could find was the section regarding the 20-foot right of way and therefore used that
section number on her application. She stated that she is presently in the process of
extensive remodeling of her home and desired to construct a 6-foot garden wall . She
stated there is an existing 6-foot fence on her property line and did not know a fence
permit was required when she constructed it. She stated her intention was to construct
the new fence 4 feet inside the location of the existing fence which would be removed.
At the request of the board for an opinion, Mr. Jensen stated that on a corner lot
the widest street front shall have a setback of 15 feet and the City has traditionally
interpreted this to mean that a 6-foot fence must be constructed 15 feet from the
property line. He stated that he believed this was a reasonable interpretation.
The Chairman stated that based on Mr. Jensen's opinion, the board should
proceed with consideration of the variance application.
Mrs. Corey presented pictures of other 6-foot fences in the community. She
stated that there is a continuous run of 6-foot fences on Sherry Drive. She stated that
she wanted to build the fence for security reasons as well as noise and privacy. Mr.
Waters expressed his concern about the safety of a broken concrete wall.
Tom Ennis introduced himself to the board and expressed his concern regarding
visibility at the corner. He also stated his concern that the wall would be constructed
using broken concrete.
Pete Dowling introduced himself and stated he would construct the fence if the
variance was granted and informed the board that visibility at the corner would pose no
problem as the fence would be constructed four feet from the property line. He stated
that the construction materials would be quite attractive as well as safely constructed.
John Tyler introduced himself to the board and stated his concern for the safety
hazard the wall would create. He also stated that visibility would be another major
problem especially for a 6-foot wall 2 feet thick.
The Chairman voiced his concern that the existing fence was in violation since no
permit was obtained for its construction. Staff was asked to look into this.
Further discussion occurred about the necessity of a variance in this case.
Following discussion, Mrs. Walker moved to approve the variance and Mr.
Frohwein seconded the motion.
Mr. Frohwein again expressed his concern with acting on the application since he
is undear because of his review of Section 24-157(a) and (b), Definitions of yard, side,
structure, site triangle, setback, building line, building setback, and lot, corner.
Chairman requested staff explain the sections again.
Mr. Worley stated that fences are regulated in Sections 24-157 and 24-17
Definition Lot Corner. Mr. Frohwein stated he still did not understand the need for a
variance under those sections.
After further discussion, the applicant withdrew her application and the motion
and second were withdrawn.
III. DISCUSSION: ORDINANCE REVIEW
The Chairman stated that the board would skip to Chapter 24-157 - Fences. He
suggested that as part of Chapter 24-157 that the board should specifically address
fences on corner lots. He stated that the code should be dear and fair in addressing the
issue.
Mr. Worley stated that 4 foot fences are not regulated as far as placement on a
lot but fences exceeding 4 feet in height are regulated. He stated that the board should
be specific about the 15 feet as a regulatory boundary for fences exceeding 4 feet in
height and be clear that it is intended to apply to the secondary street frontage.
Mr. Waters stated the board needed to look at regulating fencing regardless of the
height of the fence. He suggested regulating the line of sight triangle in all cases.
Mrs. Walker suggested using the statement that in the area between the front
building setback and the rear property line, no fence or wall shall exceed 6 feet in height
at any given point.
The board agreed that the wording should show that for corner lots no fence shall
be constructed in excess of 4 feet of height within the required 15 foot setback along the
longest street frontage line of a corner lot.
Mr. Worley suggested "For corner lots no fence exceeding 4 feet in height shall
be constructed within 15 feet of the side property line abutting the street." He stated
that the line of sight triangle should be addressed in another section.
The board requested that staff draft the proposed wording for corner lots for their
review.
There being no further business to come before the board on motion duly made
the meeting #1 adjourned.
SIGNED: ..0 .\(\r\ ,
ATTES �' •