04-13-93
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
AGENDA
7:30 P. M., APRIL 13, 1993
Call to order
;Pledge to the Flag
Roll Call
', 1. Approval of the minutes of the meeting of March 2, 1993.
2. Recognition of Visitors and Guests
~3. Old Business:
~a. Case No. 0022 -Charles Watson -update on condemnation
' concerning property located at 210 Mayport Road and adjacent
property. Code Enforcement Inspector will give a report.
I~b. Case No. 0049 -Chris Moale -update on action taken by
Board January 5, 1993 concerning complaint filed by Chantell
Hook of 150 12th Street, indicating Chris Moale contracted
with her to remodel her home. Code Enforcement Inspector
will give a report.
~'I4. New Business:
a. Case No. 0056 - William Blackard, Jr. -owner of property
',located at 1595 Beach Avenue, in violation of Section 6-26,
E;:cavation of Sand Dune - "Construction, including excavation,
may occur to the extent that the natural storm buffering and
protection capability of the dune is not diminished."
b. Case No. 0057 - Mark Kredell -complaint filed regarding
property located at 361 Third Street, in violation of Standard
Mechanical Code Section 308.9.3, "Minimum size of the exhaust
duct shall be 4 inches ID." (3" Duct installed by Mark Kredell
at 381 Third Street)
5. Board Members Comments
6. Adjournment
1
1
MINUTES OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
~! MEETING HELD AT ATLANTIC BEACH CITY HALL
ON APRIL 13, 1993
t'ALL TO ORDER
Present: George Bull, Jr., Chairman
Barbara Bonner
Heywood Dowling, Jr.
Edward Martin
Kathleen Russell
Suzanne Shaughnessy
John Venn
And: Suzanne Green, Prosecuting Attorney
Alan C. Jensen, Legal Counsel to Board
Don Ford, Code Enforcement Officer
Karl Grunewald, Code Enforcement Officer
Maureen King, City Clerk
~. Annrova~ of the minutes of the meeting of March 2. 1993.
A motion was made, and seconded, to approve the minutes of
March 2, 1993.
Mr. Martin referred to Case No. 0052, Terry Kirton, and would
like the minutes to reflect Terry Kirton should be referred to
as "Ms." instead of " Mr." The question was called and the
vote resulted in all ayes. The motion carried.
g Recognition ^f vi~irors and Guests:
There were no visitors or guests.
,~, Old Business
Case No. 0022 - Charles Watson - update on condemnation
concerning property located at 210 Mayport Road and adjacent
property. code Enforcement Inspector will give a report.
Don Ford reported he recently inspected the property. He
passed out pictures which were taken July 22, 1991 when the
property was first cited, and he passed out current pictures.
He recommended the file be closed, and he reported Mr. Watson
was in compliance.
A motion was made, seconded, and passed to close the file on
Case No. 0022 - Charles Watson.
The secretary was asked to send Mr. Watson a letter of thanks
for his cooperation.
her to remodel her home. Code Enforcement Inspector will give
a report.
~~ Karl Grunewald reported Chris Moale had been notified three
times concerning the fine against him. Mr. Grunewald reported
Mr. Moale moved. Mr. Grunewald recommended the city place a
lien against Mr. Moale's property, and the Board concurred.
4. New Business:
a. Case No. 0056 - William Blackard, Jr. - owner of property
located at 1595 Beach Avenue, in violation of Section 6-26,
Excavation of Sand Dune - "Construction, including excavation,
may occur to the extent that the natural storm buffering and
protection capability of the dune is not diminished."
George Bull read the case hearing procedure for Case No. 0056
and asked witnesses to stand and be sworn in.
Suzanne Green reported the City was given an easement by Mr.
Blackard to construct a dune walkover. She reported excavation
work was done on the dune which surrounds the dune walkover,
and because of the excavation work the walkover was undermined.
she presented a report from Nadeem G. Zebouni, P. E. (copy of
report attached herewith) indicating due to the change in dune
profile caused by the excavation, the original design to build
the walkover would have to be changed.
r~ Don Ford, Code Enforcement Inspector, displayed pictures of the
excavated dune. He indicated Mr. Blackard had excavated a
large amount of the dune. He indicated one picture was taken
two years ago as the City was constructing the dune walkover,
and the next four pictures were taken July 21, 1992 and
indicated extensive excavation by Mr. Blackard. He indicated
because of the excavation possible erosion problems might
occur, and the dune capability to protect against storm had
been diminished.
Suzanne Green asked Mr. Ford if the dune contained vegetation,
to which Mr. Ford replied the dune contained trees, and much
vegetation.
Suzanne Green asked how much of the dune had been diminished,
to which Mr. Ford replied approximately 70$ to 80$ of the dune
had been diminished.
Mr. Blackard asked to see the pictures Mr. Ford had displayed,
and the pictures were given to Mr. Blackard to examine.
Mr. Blackard objected to the presentation of the report by
Nadeem G. Zebouni, P. E. He objected because Mr. Zebouni was
not at the meeting, and because he (Mr. Blackard) had not seen
^ the report.
l -2-
Suzanne Green proceeded to read Mr. Zebouni's report. George
Bull asked why Mr. Zebouni was not present, to which Ms. Green
~', replied Mr. Zebouni was not able to attend the meeting.
Mr. Blackard asked that the record reflect he was just handed
the report from Nadeem G. Zebouni dated April 12, 1993 at 7:46
p. m., April 13, 1993. He indicated he thought Mr. Zebouni was
not an expert and he objected to the report being admitted.
Suzanne Green indicated the Code Enforcement Board had not been
advised of any witnesses Mr. Blackard intended to present, to
which Mr. Blackard replied there had not been a request for a
list.
(John Venn, Code Enforcement Board member, entered the meeting
at 8:97 p. m.)
Mr. Blackard asked that the matter be dismissed. He stated a
prima faces case had not been made, to which George Bull
indicated the Board intended to hear the case.
Mr. Blackard felt he had not received notifications correctly,
and a discussion ensued pertaining to the various letters that
had been sent to him by the City. Whereas Mr. Blackard felt he
had not been notified correctly, the Code Enforcement Officer
(-, felt Mr. Blackard had been notified correctly.
i
George Bull stated the Board was not bound by strict rules of
evidence, and he indicated his desire to proceed with the
case. He indicated the Board would take into consideration
everything that had been presented.
Mr. Blackard presents his case:
Mr. Blackard stated he had not been cited for working without a
permit. He explained the work which was permitted was stopped
July 21, 1992. He added he had been held up in construction
with regard to renovation of his home for nine months. He felt
the building permit he had obtained to renovate his home had
nothing to do with excavating the dune, and he wanted the two
items separated. He indicated his desire to complete
renovations on his home.
Mr. Blackard introduced as his witness Mr. Erik J. O1sen,P.E.
He indicated Mr. Olson was experienced in civil, coastal, and
oceanographic engineering. He presented a resume of Mr. Olson
and he asked that this be Exhibit #1 (attached herewith).
Mr. Olson felt Mr. Blackard was not in violation of Section
6-26.
Mr. Bull asked on whose property the dune walkover would be
built, to which it was determined it was Mr. Blackard's
-3-
property and he granted an easement to the City in 1986. Mr.
Blackard Indicated the agreement was to have a walkway or a
~', path, not steps.
Mr. Martin stated he attended the meeting to determine if harm
was done to a dune by removing material from the dune. He
indicated he did not want to discuss walkways.
George Bull indicated the building permit was stopped because
the dune was removed. He added he wanted to talk about the
destruction of the dune, only.
Suzanne Green explained the excavation that was done to the
dune jeopardized the stability of the dune.
Mr. Olson asked what Mr. Zebouni's report indicated, to which
it was explained Mr. Zebouni's report indicated the dune
crossover had to be built differently because the dune was
undermined.
Mr. Olson felt Mr. Blackard did not violate Section 6-26. He
referred to the Coastal Construction Line and explained in
detail that in his opinion the dune excavation would not cause
harm during a 100 year storm. He explained the dune excavation
would not jeopardize people that live across the street during
a 100 year storm.
~ Suzanne Green asked Mr. Olson if he was familiar with the
property prior to the excavation, to which Mr. Olson replied he
was not familiar with the property prior to the excavation.
Suzanne Green explained complete vegetation included 8 to 10
Palm Trees that had been excavated.
Mr. Blackard explained he had been given permission by the City
Attorney of the City of Atlantic Beach to take the trees down.
Suzanne Green asked what cubic volume was involved in the
excavation, to which Mr. Olson replied all the houses are on
the dune ridge and the dune ridge was not jeopardized. Suzanne
Green replied she felt the ocean would come through the dune
now, because of the excavation that was done. She felt the
dune would continue to erode.
Mr. Olson agreed some stabilization needed to be done. Suzanne
Green felt a determination should be made that the dune was not
stable at the present time, since it had been excavated, to
which Mr. Olson concurred.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Olson if the capability of the dune had
been dimished to which Mr. Olson replied the protection
(~~ capability of the dune had not been diminished.
-4-
Mr. Olson added the material that was
area and some of it was used to fill
Mr. Dowling asked Mr. Olson if it was
he admits the dune was diminished (2)
deal. Mr. Olson replied the dune was
manner that it violated Section 6-26.
excavated was kept in the
in lower spots in the area.
his testimony that (1)
but it is not a big
not diminished in such a
Kathleen Russell asked if a retaining wall had been put up
would there leave been as much structural damage, to which Mr.
Olson replied he did not think the dune had changed - he added
wind destruction had been inconsequential.
Mr. Blackard indicated a little dirt had fallen down. He added
it was his intent to make the dune look nice, and to fill it
in, but he was told to stop work so the dune had been exposed.
Afr. Blackard proceeded to show photographs of other properties
nearby.
Suzanne Green objected to photographs of other property.
The Board indicated they did not want to see photographs of
other property.
Mr. Dowling asked what would it take to stabilize the dune, to
which Mr. Olson replied it would require putting a veneer of
sand over the dune and planting some type of vegetation. Mr.
Dowling asked what would be the most effective vegetation to
which Mr. Olson replied he did not know.
It was determined no permit was obtained for the excavation
from DNR or the City.
Suzanne Shaughnessy asked Mr. Blackard why he excavated the
dune, to which Mr. Blackard replied he excavated the dune
because the vegetation was full of rodents, snakes, etc., and
it was impossible to keep clean, and to make his yard usable
and attractive.
Suzanne Shaughnessy asked if the dune was taken down to the
level of the backyard, to which Mr. Blackard replied the dune
was taken down to the level of the backyard.
Mr. Venn asked Mr. Blackard if he thought he did not need a
permit to remove the vegetation and dirt, to which Mr. Blackard
replied he thought he did not violate section 6-26 and
therefore he did not need to do anything. He added he did not
know why he had been stopped for nine months on the renovation
of his home.
Barbara Bonner asked Don Ford if there was a permit needed from
the City to remove dunes, to which Mr. Ford replied the matter
(~ was a field judgement call. If the city felt that too much
-5-
dirt was being taken the city would ask the property owner to
come to the city hall.
~~
Mr. Blackard indicated he had photographs showing what had been
permitted in the neighborhood, and would like them placed in
record. Suzanne Green objected. The Board indicated their
desire not to see the photographs. George Bull decided to
allow the photographs.
Suzanne Green gave an interpretation of Section 6-26: she
explained Florida Statues gave municipalities power and
authority to fine, replace, or stabilize dunes. She explained
Florida statues and City Ordinances allowed the Board to
enforce this authority.
Mr. Blackard stated it was his intent to stabilize the dune and
he would be happy to stabilize it.
Mr. Blackard felt the city had failed to carry its legal burden
that he violated Section 6-26.
George Bull asked Don Ford if the reason Mr. Blackard's
building permit was stopped was because of the dune activity,
to which Mr. Ford replied in the affirmative.
In oY.her words, Mr. Bull added, if the Board found in favor of
the City the stop order would remain in force; if the Board
found in favor of Mr. Blackard, the city would release the stop
order on construction. Mr. Ford agreed.
It was determined by Mr. Ford the dune could be stabilized
without completing Lhe house.
A motion was made by Mr. Martin to stabilize the ground
forthwith.
George Bull asked bon Ford the following question: if Mr.
Blackard agreed to stabilize the dune, would the Building
Department be satisfied, to which Mr. Ford replied in the
affirmative.
Mr. Bull asked if Mr. Blackard stabilized the dune would his
building permit be reinstated as soon as possible, to which Mr.
£o rd agreed. In other words, Mr. Bull stated, the city would
be willing to set aside the violation against Mr. Blackard (if
it was determined there was a violation) if Mr. Blackard would
vegetate and stabilize the dune, and the building permit will
be reissued.
It was determined if Mr. Blackard agreed to stabilize the dune
in a timely manner, the building permit would be released, and
Mr. Blackard could continue to build. Mr. Blackard added he
would like the dune stabilized to the satisfaction of Mr.
Olson, to which the Board did not agree. Don Ford felt the
-6-
Building Department should review the work, not an outside
person.
Mr. Blackard then stated that he would stabilize the dune, but
he did not think he had violated the code. He agreed to
stabilize, but he stated he did not want to be tied up in
administration.
A discussion ensued concerning whether or not Mr. Blackard
violated section 6-26. It was felt the City indicated they
would accept one or two solutions, and it was felt the Board
should move to make it possible for Mr. Blackard to stabilize
the ground. A discussion ensued concerning whether Mr. Ford
should approve the stabilization. Mr. Bull felt Mr. Ford
should approve the stabilization only if Mr. Blackard was
proved to be in violation.
Mr. Bull explained the Board had the power to rule only on what
tt~e city presented as its case at the meeting.
It was determined a problem had ensued relative to who would
approve the stabilization.
P1r. Bull stated he had been involved in permitting
approximately 25 cases for DNR. He felt he was capable of
determining what stabilization was, and he offered to take it
upon himself to make a judgement on what needed to be
r, stabilized and how it was to be stabilized, as an independent
agent. Mr. Ford indicated this would be acceptable to him.
Mr. Bull restated the agreement: Mr. Blackard agreed to
stabilize the dune in a timely manner and Mr. Bull will discuss
with Mr. Blackard and Mr. Ford what constituted a timely manner
in a separate meeting. The building permit will be reissued
immediately after the three parties discuss the timely approach
and all parties are in agreement.
Mr. Dowling felt Mr. Blackard was 1n violation. But he
indicated many violations occurred in the city of the same
nature through permitted activities, and therefore he did not
feel a fine should be set against Mr. Blackard. He felt,
however, the Board's vote should indicate Section 6-26 had
been violated by Mr. Blackard.
Mr. Venn felt it was not necessary to cite a violation in the
solution of the matter.
A motion was made by Mr. Dowling, and seconded by Barbara
Donner, that lfr. Blackard be found in violation of Section
6-26 and that the Board impose action as described by Mr. Bull
as referenced above.
~'
-7-
It was determined the motion would not stop Mr. Blackard from
getting a permit, and that Mr. Bull's proposal would be in
t effect.
The question was called and the vote resulted in 5-2, with
George Bull and Edward Martin voting nay. The motion carried.
5. F.oard Ttember Comments:
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at
9:30 p. m.
George Bull, Jr., Chairman
('~ -e-
DUNE WALKOVER STRUCTURE
ON S 2XTEENTH STREET
ATLANT=UC BEACH, FLOR=DA
APR=L 12, 1993
FOR:
C 2 TY OF ATLANT = C BEACH
n 8 0 0 S EM t NOLE ROAD
~.,
ATLANTS C BEACH , FLOR =DA
BY:
NADEEM G. ZEBOUN=, P.E.
200 EXECUT2VE WAY, SU=TE 216
PONTE VEDRA BEACH , FLORSDA 3 2 0 8 2
~ TEL. 285-9890 ~
(1
NADEEM ZEBOUNI, P.E.
Tel: (904)285-9890
Fax: (904)285-1002
REPORT NO. O1
PROJECT: DUNE WALKOVER
FIELD OBSERVATION REPORT
DATE: 4/07/93 (10:00 A.M.)
REPORT DATE: 4/12/93 (9:00 A.M.)
CONTRACTOR: NEWMAN CONSTRUCTION WEATHER: SUNNY
CLIENT: CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH YOUR REFERENCE: 16TH STREET
OBSERVED BY: NADEEM ZEBOUNI, P.E. OUR REFERENCE: 366
REASON FOR OBSERVATION: STRUCTURAL CONDITION SURVEY.
PERSONS INVOLVED: DON FORD AND NADEEM ZEBOUNI
ITEMS EXCHANGED: FROM FORD TO ZEBOUNI ( CONSTRUCTION
DOCUMENTS, CITY MAP, AND A SURVEY. )
GENERAL INFORMATION:
The dune walkover extends along an obstructed easement from the
- corner of 16th Street and Beach Avenue to the beach ( See general
location map in Exhibit "A" ). The construction documents for the dune
walkover structure and the retaining wall were prepared by Connelly &
Wicker, Inc., Consulting Engineers. The set consisted of three
drawings and dated February of 1989. The elevation of the existing
structures does not match those noted on the drawings. Construction
started in•April of 1989•but~ was not completed because an Order of
Temporary Injunction was issued on June 1, 1989. Photographs of the
partially completed structure were taken by others ( See Exhibit "B" )
prior to demolition of the west end of the dune walkover.
OBSERVATIONS:
Photographs were taken during our inspection and are included in
Exhibit "C" of this report. Photo "1" shows the west end location of
the dune walkover. A wooden fence, approximately 6' high, has been
constructed since the photos in Exhibit "B" were taken. Also, note
that less palm trees exist between the obstructed easement and the
single family residence south of the easement. It is my understanding
that the dune was partially cleared and excavated (.See photos "2",
"3", "4", "5" and "6" ). Three piles still remain in place at the west
end of the obstructed easement ( See photo "7" ). The east end of the
dune walkover is still intact ( See photo "8" ) including the retaining
wall which runs into the excavated dune at its west end ( See photo "9"
`_ ). Spread footing excavations were observed south of the existing
retaining wall ( See photo "10" ).
200 EXECUTIVE WAY, SUITE 216 • PONTE VEDRA BEACH, FLORIDA 32082
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION:
Section "A - A" on sheet "3" of the
Exhibit "D" ) requires a minimum of 3'-0"
fora retaining wall between 3' to 6'
remaining retaining wall westward .of the
be capable of withstanding the earth pry
plus the pedestrian live load traffic.
wall will be approximately 10 feet.
construction documents ( See
pile penetration below grade
high. Construction of the
existing retaining wall' must
;saute of the excavated dune
The height of the retaining
Due to the limited width of the easement and the remaining trees,
deadmen can not be placed to resist the superimposed lateral loads.
Hence, the required depth .of pile embedment•wi~ll be at least the length
of pile above the lower grade elevation. The pile spacing must also be
reduced to approximately 3' on centers which is half the spacing
specified in the construction documents ( See Exhibit "D" ). The final
design of the proposed retaining wall is beyond the scope of this
report. Also, a new DNR permit might have to be obtained to complete
the work.
• In conclusion, based on the information in this report and my past
experience, it is my opinion that the remaining retaining wall and dune
walkover can be designed and constructed to meet current building code
criteria. However, due to the change in dune profile caused 'by the
excavation; twice as many and at least twice as long piles have to be
used in comparison to the original design. Also, the 3' to 6', 3 x 6 T
~-- & G, treated lumber specified will have to retain approximately 10 feet
of sand instead of 3' to 6'. The existing three piles may be used to
reconstruct the demolished stairs and landings. The retaining wall
will confine the sands and atop the ongoing erosion of the excavated
dune.
•Than you for selecting Zebouni Engineering to assist you during
this phas~ of your project. If you have any questions or if I can be
of and. fu they assistance, please let me know.
-~- -~• .
Zebouni, P.E.
• ~ I
EXH=B=T '•A"
t '
:..
PP. 6T- 3--~_
N I ~
~0
~ a O
'M
/ ~ i
~ W ~
~O 6 ~ q
~D.
~u
0
t
Y
' ~ ~ Qz
N ~
n
s
i m
•J
O 1
N I ~
d ~~
Z
~o :j Q
~i '~
s a
.J
p
•6
V ~~
Q ~G
i p
~ ~ O
n ,
I
~.~ I
a; h 2; ~ ~ i
1 ~
~ ~ P. B. 20 I t
I P. 20 ~
m I
a
,a97 I01887 I
. ~~~~~~ I
P B. 1 S i
I F 10 : ;
;~
'I ~ I
I ~
i
:'
I~ ~
~ I'
~^ I
~O
=IP.B. 15 ~
~ ~
F.~ ~~
P 57
V I i
Q I f
Wil
PB. 15 F B2
r
a:
N
C
m
a
i ~ ~ ~~j4
~ ¢ o
~ O 74 • ~,._ ..~
~^ ~ ,.
j r ~ ~~ VE
a H ~0^0~~~ (~ PB• 15 I
I~ I//~~ I p 10 ~
PAaK 018J~
LO UBIi ~LN. / 007j1
a
0 1'~
1 ti~ 2 „,
Od2K111 G. (o / ~ /~' I ~. M
' OA L
\~a ~ oJ1
P B. IS P. 93
LoT 3
0/889
/9 TH. ST.
Z
Q
W
U
H
H
'L
a
H
d
DUNE WALKOVER
(,
EXH=B=T "B'•
l
n
n
n
EXH=BST •'C"
l
t
(1
(1
..1 ..
~~
n
,.I~~ a.. ` L ~ J A rJ.
ti.
~ 1r
~_ 1• ~ t.
•.,iR v. ,r • . .'1 .. S
.~,~:} ~}~.n~y ~ ~;,plc ~t ~: n •'~~ ~i
•rf ~ r/ff4 • ~~'
~~~f ~~
..4..
..3.•
~~5..
~'
n
.. 6 ..
sr $ rr
rr7rr
rr9rr
(~
(,
•.10..
n
EXH=B2T "D"
l
~ECr/ON Q-A
,vrs
~,c 1~ ~ ~ , ~~ #~ i
Erik J. Olsen, P.E.
B.S.C.E., M.E.
Civil, Coastal and
Oceanographic Engineering
Mr. Oisen received his academic training from the University of Florida. As the Principal
Engineer for Olsen Associates, Inc., Mr. Olsen performs engineering, permitting, and
research functions related to hydraulics, coastal processes, environmental impact
assessment, water and energy resources, and coastal management.
Mr. Olsen's general experience includes the design and implementation of numerous
coastal protective structures, beach erosion control investigations, tidal Intel stability
analyses, flood insurance studies, hydrographic studies, marina design, navigation
projects, and impact assessmen! of coastal development. He has provided consulting
services related to unique Floating Nuclear Power Plant sitings, as well as preliminary
design criteria for an ocean airport in the Virgin Island. He is particularly active in the
evaluation and solution of large scale beach erosion problems, beach restoration, the
assessment of effects of inlets on beaches, and the permitting of multi-faceted coastal
projects.
Mr. Olsen has acted as special consultant to both Erosion and Inlet Districts, counties,
i municipalities, States and governmental agencies. He routinely acts as an expert witness
on coastal engineering topics for both the private and public sector. Similarly, Mr. Oisen
frequently makes educational presentations regarding Coastal Construction Regulations
and other related matters to the Florida Bar, the State Chamber of Commerce Env(ron-
mental Seminar, Engineering and Architect Professional Societies, etc.
Mr. Olsen has directed numerous General Design Memorandums, Detailed Project Report
and special studies for various Districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He has
likewise participated in the tormulat(on of three favorable Section 1-11 studies involving
federal navigation project mitigation of adjacent shoreline damage.
Mr. Olsen has authored papers concerning the Implementation of coastal construction
regulation, beach nourishment design, and the effects of inlet stabilization on littoral
processes. He is a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Florida
Engineering Society, the National Society of Professional Engineers, and is a registered
professional engineer in the State of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina.
Mr. Olsen presently acts as a Director to both the American and the Florida Shore and
Beach Preservation Association. Mr. Olsen has acted as a contributing professional to
both the State of Florida Comprehensive Beach Management and Inlet Task Forces.
r, Olsen
associates, inc.
4438 Herschel Street
Jacksornille, FL 32210
(904) 387-6114
(Fax) 384.7368
Coastal Engineering