08-31-89 v CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
SPECIAL CALLED COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 31, 1989, 7:15 PM
Call to order
1 . Discussion and action relative to construction permit issued to
Mark Kredell to build townhouses on property at the corner of
Eighteenth Street and Beach Avenue
2. Any other business
Adjournment
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OF THE ATLANTIC BEACH CITY
COMMISSION HELD THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 1989
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Gulliford. Present, in
addition to the Mayor, were Commissioners Cook, Edwards, Jensen and
Tucker. Also present were City Manager Leinbach and City Clerk King.
1. Discussion and action relative to construction permit issued to
Mark Kredell to build townhouses on property at the corner of Eighteenth
Street and Beach Avenue.
After calling the meeting to order, Mayor Gulliford said the purpose of
the meeting was to try to resolve an ongoing problem relative to the
construction permit issued to Mr. Kredell. Since any action the City
Commission could take was governed by ordinances and laws, he asked the
audience to conduct themselves as ladies and gentlemen and everyone
would be given an opportunity to speak.
Robert G. Fajans, 1847 Ocean Grove Drive, representing other family
members and neighbors, read a prepared statement outlining the facts as
he knew them and the opinions of the neighbors, and requested the permit
be revoked. Mr. Fajans' statement is attached hereto and made a part
hereof.
At the conclusion of Mr. Fajans' statement Commissioner Cook said in his
opinion the City Commission was the Legislative body of the city and he
did not feel this was a legislative matter and any action taken by the
City Commission would leave each Commissioner open to personal law
suits. He said that in the opinion of the former City Attorney, the
project proposed by Mr. Kredell was allowable; in an opinion rendered by
the Interim City Attorney, the project is allowable; the permit was
issued under the previous City Manager and the present City Manager had
also directed Mr. Kredell to proceed. He said he felt this should be
resolved by the City Manager or by the courts.
Commissioner Jensen said he felt the City Commission could direct the
City Manager under certain circumstances as had been done with the
issuance of the Stop-Work order. He said Mr. Mullis' letter stated two
single-family townhouses could be build if the setback requirements were
met. Although not included in Mr. Mullis' letter, the ordinance also
includes the provision that they must be built on separate lots and this
condition must be complied with.
Commissioner Cook repeated that in his opinion this was an
administrative or judicial decision and not the responsibility of the
City Commission. Commissioner Jensen said the Commission was a
quasi-judicial board on appeals from the Community Development Board and
he felt it was the responsibility of the Commission to make decisions on
such matters. In a subsequent letter from the office of Arnold and
Stratford it was apparent information regarding the location of the
common wall between the units was not available when their initial
opinion was rendered, and the question was raised whether the person who
issued the building permit had knowledge of the location of this wall.
Page Two
Minutes of Special Commission Meeting
August 31, 1989
Mayor Gulliford said the intent of this meeting was to determine what
action the Commission should take in the matter. He pointed out he did
not feel the Interim City Attorney had agreed with the initial opinion
and that information regarding the location of the common wall between
the units had not been made available to him when rendering that
decision and he said he felt this was the main question to be resolved.
He said it was his opinion the City Commission was authorized by the
City Charter and City Code to act as a quasi-judicial body in matters of
this sort.
In response to the Mayor, Mr. Leinbach said he found Mr. Mullis' opinion
somewhat confusing and had requested a second opinion from Mr.
Stratford. He said the information shown on the site plan did not
delineate the separation of buildings and in subsequent conversations
with Mr. Arnold and Mr. Stratford, this would appear to be a matter of
critical concern, and he suggested a survey may be necessary. He said
he felt the established procedure was provided in the City Code wherein
the Community Develop Board should hear and decide appeals where it is
alleged there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or
determination made by the administrative official in the enforcement of
the zoning code. In his opinion, this would appear to be the
appropriate appellant body and he felt this section would stay further
action until the appeal was adjudicated. He said he would check this
point with the City Attorney.
At this point Mark Kredell, 1855 Beach Avenue, asked that the meeting be
cancelled since he was not represented by his attorney and his partners
were not in attendance.
Since there was no business for discussion in Item 2 of the Agenda,
Commissioner Cook moved the meeting be adjourned. Since no one seconded
the motion, the meeting continued.
Commissioner Jensen said there were possibly some things which were not
known by the city when the permit was issued, and may not have been
known by Mr. Mullis or Mr. Stratford when they issued their opinions.
He said Mr. Kredell was now on notice of the City's concern and the
concerns of the other residents in that area; likewise, the city is on
notice of the concerns of Mr. Kredell. The City Manager is empowered to
take any necessary action, or not take any action so long as everyone is
on notice of what the situation is. Since Mr. Kredell is now advised of
the concern of the city, if he wished to proceed, he would be doing so
at his own risk.
When Mr. Kredell asked Commissioner Jensen to specify the concerns,
Commissioner Jensen said "One major concern that we have, and the focal
point of the whole issue is that the ordinance requires that single
family townhouses be constructed on separate lots." Mr. Kredell
responded "That's what we're doing." Commissioner Jensen continued "and
Page Three
Minutes of Special Commission Meeting
August 31, 1989
that you meet all setback requirements." Mr. Kredell responded "That's
what we're doing."
Further discussion ensued about townhouses which had been built on one
lot and it was pointed out the city code required separate lots and Mr.
Kredell was asked whether his lots had been combined.
Mr. Kredell refused to answer and said he felt this matter should be
resolved in a court of law. He said he felt some disgruntled neighbors
were basing their complaints on personal motives. He said he would be
seeking legal action against any of the Commissioners who were trying to
violate his civil rights.
Gilchrist Stockton said he had reviewed Mr. Mullis' opinion and it was
his understanding a lot smaller than 5,000 sq. ft. could not be built
upon, and the combination of Mr. Kredell's two lots would still fall
short of the 5,000 sq. ft. requirement. In accordance with Mr. Mullis'
opinion, relief from the 5000 sq. ft. requirement could be granted by
the Community Development Board; however, this matter had not been
brought before that board.
At this time Commissioner Cook, again, moved the meeting be adjourned.
Since no one seconded the motion, the meeting continued. Commissioner
Cook said he would not vote on this matter and Mayor Gulliford pointed
out no action requiring any action of the Commission was indicated.
Commissioner Jensen reiterated Mr. Kredell had said he was building the
units on separate lots. When asked to confirm this fact Mr. Kredell
refused to respond, stating instead he felt this was a legal problem
which should be decided by the courts, and indicated he would initiate
legal action against each of the Commissioners, with the exception of
Commissioner Cook.
Mayor Gulliford called for order and said the city was simply trying
resolve the questions raised. He said he had afforded all parties an
opportunity to speak on the issue and the matter would be pursued
through an administrative course.
Attorney Hugh Carithers, 1549 Beach Avenue, said two building permits
had been issued, one at each address. He said it would appear the
Building Department had improper or inadequate information at the time
the permit was issued. In that event he felt the administrative
official was authorized to withdraw the building permit.
There being no further business to come before the Commission, on motion
from Commissioner Jensen, seconded by Commissioner Tucker, the meeting
was adjourned by unanimous vote.
Page Four
Minutes of Special Commission Meeting
August 31, 1989
Wiliam i. Gulli or. , Mayo , ` es' . Officer
ATTEST:
Mau een King, City Clerk
7 1;1
p :5 PRESENTATION
ATLANTIC BEACH CITY COUNCIL
ROBERT G. FAJANS
AUGUST 28, 1989
INTRODUCTION
My name is Robert G. Fajans. My wife , Lynda L. Fajans , and I own
the property at 1847 Ocean Grove Drive, Atlantic Beach. My Wife
- her mother, Mrs. Rubye C. Lawhead - her brother, Frank C.
Lawhead - also residents of 1847 Ocean Grove Drive along with our
immediate neighbors Mary Catherine Crawford of 1849 Ocean Grove
Drive and Denise and Kenneth O'Rourke of 1843 Ocean Grove Drive ,
the O'Rourke 's immediate neighbor to the south, Cheryl Parker of
1841 Ocean Grove Drive have asked that I speak on their behalf on
the subject of a building permit issued to Mark J. Kredell and
Marilyn McDaniel to build two townhomes on the property located
on the Southwest corner of 18th Street and Beach Avenue.
The Crawford, Fajans , O'Rourke and Parker properties all abut the
property cited in the building permit. It is our collective
opinion, that the issueance of this building permit is not in
accordance with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations of
Atlantic Beach.
The Property cited in the building permit is composed of two
substandard lots which have been referred to in the past as
Parcel A - owned by Mark J. and Holly B. Kredell and Parcel B -
owned by Fleming N. , Jr. and Marilyn I. McDaniel. Tie future of
these substandard lots , particularly Parcel A owned by Mr. and
Mrs. Kredell , has been very controversial in the past several
months , as I 'm sure most , if not all , of you know.
With all due respect to the members of City Council , the City
Attorney, the City Manager and the Building Permits Department ,
it is my opinion and the opinion of those for witom I speak
tonight that the decision to issue the building permit in the
first place and the decision to revoke the stop work order were
based upon incomplete facts and perhaps misinformation.
My purpose tonight is to discuss with the City Council the facts ,
as we think we know them, and the issues surrounding these
parcels of land and the building permit. With your permission,
we ' ll present to you our opinion as to the correct intQ,rpretation
of the situation and we ' ll then request that the City Council
revoke the building permit or at least re-instate the Stop Work
order until a new legal opinion considering tonight ' s discussion
can be rendered by the City Attorney and a review of the
situation can be made by the Community Development Board as is
required by Section 24-17 of the Zoning and Subdivision
Regulations of Atlantic Beach.
In order to help the City Council follow our position, we have
made copies of this presentation with attachments and we would
like to give each of you a copy at this time.
FACTS AS WE KNOW THEM
In the next several minutes we 'd like to present to you the facts
as we know them today.
FIRST: A building permit was issued to Mark J. Kredell of 1855
Beach Avenue, Atlantic Beach and Marilyn I. McDaniel
(Address not specified) to construct two "Townhomes" on
lot / 4, Section #9 , subdivision township 2 south. This
property is located on the Southwest corner of 18th
Street and Beach Avenue in Atlantic Beach. A copy of
the "Application for Building Permit" and the survey
are attached to the handout. The property shown in the
survey is an irregular shaped lot approximately 50 feet
by 88 feet. A lot of this size is a substandard lot
per the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. As of this
morning we have not been able to locate in the Court
House a deed for the parcel of land shown in the
survey.
SECOND: We believe that the property shown in the survey is
composed of two individually owned substandard lots
that I previously referred to as Parcels A and B owned
by Mr. and Mrs. Kredell and Mr. and Mrs. McDaniel ,
respectively. Please refer to Page 2 of tile survey.
We have also attached copies of the deeds ihade at the
Court House this morning and have attached them for
your review. We could not find any record that these
lots have been legally combined. The dates of record
for these deeds are July 8 , 1986 for Parcel A and
December 29 , 1982 for Parcel B, which would not make
them lots of record as of July 26 , 1982.
THIRD: We wish to emphasize that Parcel A is a substandard
lot and Parcel B is a substandard lot and the
combination of Parcels A and B would also be a
substandard lot.
FOURTH: That paragraph 24-17 (page 1418) of the Zoning and
Subdivision Regulations entitled "Substandard Lot of
Record" states that a nonconforming lot of record which
is smaller than 50 feet wide and 100 feet deep shall
not be built on unless relief is obtained through
action of the Community Development Board. To our
knowledge the Community Development Board has not
granted such relief for this building permit.
FIFTH: That Section 24-83 (Page 1431) of the Zoning and
Subdivision Regulations states a non-conforming
substandard lot of record on July 26 , 1982 may be used
for a single family dwelling provided the minimum yard
requirements are maintained. If Parcels A and B have
been combined into one substandard lot then why was a
building permit issued for two single family dwellings?
If they are separate parcels then neither townhouse
meets the off-set requirements. I ask that you look at
a copy of the site plan. In fact , Unit #1 straddles
the lot line between Parcels A and B.
SIXTH: Section 24- 17 (Page 1419) states that townhouses
( Plural) are single family dwelling units ( Plural).
Therefore, one would reasonably deduct that a townhouse
( Singular) would be a single family dwelling unit
( Singular). Thus the building permit issued allows two
single family dwelling units to be built on one
substandard lot , if in fact , there is one parcel not
two.
SEVENTH: In Mr. Claude L. Mullis ' letter of May 31 , 1989 , to Ms.
Rene Angers , he states that the purpose and intent of
Chapter 24 Zoning and Subdivision Regulations is to
provide for orderly growth; to encourage the most
appropriate use of land; to protect and conserve the
value of property; to prevent the overcrowding of land;
to promote , protect and improve the health, safety,
good order, appearance and to help accomplish the goals
and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 'We , the
neighbors , feel that the construction of a tall , thin
building 5 feet off our back property line will , in
fact , de-value our property because our properties will
be less attractive re-sales , that the construction of
this building will add to the over crowding of an
already crowded area and markedly detract from the
appearance of the neighborhood.
Those are the facts as we see them. Now I 'd like to discuss the
"issues" surrounding this issuance of this building permit. We
think the issues can be defined as follows:
ISSUES
FIRST: Can a building permit be issued to both Mark J. Kredell
and Marilyn I. McDaniel if two of the four owners of
the parcels did not sign the building permit?
SECOND: Is Parcel A a substandard lot and is it a lot of
record prior to 7/26/82?
THIRD: Is Parcel B a substandard lot and is it a log of
record prior to 7/26/82?
FOURTH: Have Parcels A and B been legally combined by the
Kredells and the McDaniels?
FIFTH: If Parcels A and B have been legally combined, is the
new Parcel A a substandard lot and what is its date of
record?
SIXTH: If Parcels A and B are legally combined and it is
determined that the combined Parcels have a date of
record prior to 7/26/82 does the owner have to obtain
relief from the Community Development Board as required
by Section 24-17 of the Zoning and Subdivision
Regulations and can more than one single family
dwelling be built on a substandard lot per Section
24-83 of the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations?
SEVENTH: If Parcels A and B have not been legally combined then
there are a series of issues:
A. Can. Parcel A be built on and what street does it
front?
B. If the North Townhouse is on Parcel A does it not
meet the legal offsets?
C. Can Parcel B be built on and, if so, doesn' t it
front on Beach Ave. ?
D. If Parcel B can be built on and it faces Beach
Ave. then does the South Townhouse meet the legal
off-set reguirements?
E. Does the South Townhouse straddle the property
line between Parcels A and B?
F. Can either Parcel A or B be built on without
obtaining relief from the Community Development
Board as required by Section 24- 17 of the Zoning
and Subdivision Regulations and Claude Mullis '
letter of May 31, 1989?
NEIGHBORS' OPINION
We , the neighbors , have the following opinions with regard to the
issuance of a building permit to Mr. Kredell and Mrs. McDaniel.
FIRST: That a building permit has been improperly issued to
Mark J. Kredell and Marilyn McDaniel for two reasons -
Marilyn McDaniel did not sign the application and part
of a townhouse will be constructed on properties owned
partially by Holly B. Kredell and Fleming N. McDaniel,
Jr. who are not party to the building permit.
SECOND: That Parcels A and B are substandard lots of record
subsequent to 7/26/82 and that Parcels A and B have
not been legally combined and, therefore, a building
permit has been improperly issued.
THIRD: That , if in fact , Parcels A and B have been legally
combined then this combined parcel is a substandard lot
of record subsequent to 7/26/82 and can not be built on
and/or the owners have not obtained relief from the
Community Development Board as required by Section
24-17 of the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations and,
therefore, a building permit has been improperly
issued.
FOURTH: That two single-family dwellings can not be built on a
substandard lot and, therefore , a building permit has
been improperly issued.
FIFTH: That the construction of the proposed townhouses
violate the spirit of Chapter 24 of the Regulations in
that they will de-value our property , over crowd the
neighborhood and markedly detract from the appearance
of the neighborhood.
OUR REQUEST
As I mentioned at the beginning of my presentation, I and those
form whom I speak tonight request that the City Council revoke
the Building Permit or at least re-instate the "Stop Work" Order
until the City Attorney can make a new review of the situation
based upon tonight ' s discussion and until the proposal0to build
on these properties is reviewed by the Community Development
Board as required by Section 24- 17 of the Zoning and Subdivision
Regulations of Atlantic Beach.