2011-03-15_CDBminutes Minutes of the March 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
S
4,0-
1 r ): L�
2
3
4 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
6 Tuesday, March 15, 2011
7
8
9 The regular meeting of the Community Development Board was convened at 6:02 pm on Tuesday, March
10 15, 2011 in the City Hall Commission Chambers, located at 800 Seminole Road in Atlantic Beach. In
11 attendance were Principal Planner Erika Hall, City Attorney Alan Jensen, and Board members Blaine
12 Adams, Kelly Elmore, Ellen Glasser, Kirk Hansen, Chris Lambertson, Harley Parkes and Brea Paul.
13
14 1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Chris Lambertson called the meeting to order at 6:02 pm.
15
16 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 15, 2011 MEETING Chairman Lambertson
17 called for a motion to approve the minutes of the February 15, 2011 meeting. Ellen Glasser requested
18 two corrections, as follows:
19 (1) Page 1 of 4, Item 3, last sentence: "Board member Ellen Glasser then
20 recognized the hard work and dedication of Community Development Director Sonya Doerr."
21 (2) Page 3 of 4, Paragraph 4, first sentence: "Mr. Elmore Ms. Glasser asked if the applicant was
22 seeking a variance to construct something for personal use, or if it was for future disposal, to
23 which Mr. Wolfson replied that he could not rule out future disposal, but the immediate plan
24 was development."
25
26 MOTION: Ellen Glasser moved to approve the minutes of the February 15, 2011 meeting, as noted.
27 Blaine Adams offered a second, and the motion carried unanimously, 7 -0.
28
29 3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. Chairman Lambertson noted that City Attorney Alan Jensen was
30 in attendance at the request of the Board. He then welcomed the audience, noting the presence of
31 Commissioners John Fletcher and Paul Parsons, and thanked everyone for their interest and
32 attendance.
33
34 4. OLD BUSINESS.
35
36 a. ZVAR- 2011 -01, Donald and Karen Wolfson. Request for a Variance from Section 24-
37 107(e)(2) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot rear yard setback to seven (7) feet to allow
38 for the future construction of a residential structure on a nonconforming lot of record at
39 1725 Beach Avenue.
40
41 Mr. Lambertson disclosed that he had been contacted by the applicant prior to the meeting.
42 Additionally, he said that he had been contacted by Board member Ellen Glasser who called to ask
43 if it was permissible for her to have a conversation with the applicant regarding his request outside
Page 1 of 10
Minutes of the March 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
44 of a noticed meeting. Ms. Glasser added that she did have a subsequent conversation with Mr.
45 Wolfson.
46
47 Mr. Elmore and Mr. Hansen also disclosed that the applicant had engaged each of them
48 independently in conversation regarding the current application. Mr. Adams and Mr. Parkes each
49 disclosed they had received voicemails from the applicant, but had not spoken directly with him
50 outside of the meeting.
51
52 Ms. Hall introduced this item as having been deferred by the Board at the previous meeting, with a
53 request for research and presentation of additional historic information by Staff and a revision to
54 the request by the applicant to address some of the concerns that had been discussed at the same
55 meeting. The Board had also requested that the City Attorney attend the meeting. Ms. Hall
56 explained that Staff had researched historic variance requests related to lots of similar
57 circumstances as the subject property, to determine if there had been a precedence previously set.
58 In particular, the current applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback
59 from twenty (20) feet to seven (7) feet, to allow for the future development of the subject property,
60 which is a nonconforming lot of record of substandard size, located on the west side of Beach
61 Avenue. Section 24 -85(b) states that legally established nonconforming lots of record may be used
62 for one single - family dwelling, provided the minimum yard requirements for the residential zoning
63 district are maintained, or the owner obtains a variance from the Community Development Board
64 (CDB), in accordance with Section 24 -64.
65
66 For the Board's consideration of the current application, Staff provided historical information
67 about previous applications meeting certain criteria: (1) from owners of similar nonconforming
68 substandard lots of record (2) located in the area previously known as Seminole Beach
69 (particularly in the vicinity of Beach Avenue previously known as Garage Approach Roadway) (3)
70 which was de- annexed from the City of Jacksonville (COJ) and annexed into the City of Atlantic
71 Beach (COAB), as the result of State of Florida legislative action and a referendum vote of by
72 affected residents. The annexation was approved in November of 1986, and became effective
73 January 1, 1987. At the previous CDB meeting, the applicant suggested that prior to the
74 annexation, the COAB had given such affected property owners assurance that COJ Zoning Code
75 and Land Development Regulations (LDRs) in effect at the time, but different from those of
76 Atlantic Beach, would be honored. Copies of supplementary documents are attached.
77
78 Ms. Hall noted that while she found no formal agreement to this effect, she did find, and had
79 provided to both the applicant and the Board members, copies of a memo sent out to residents at
80 the time of annexation, stating in regards to zoning:
81
82 • Any permits issued prior to January 1987 will be honored.
83 • Zoning of the area will be compatible with existing zoning, i.e., single -
84 family, multi family.
85 ! Any permissible activity allowed by the City of Jacksonville will be
86 honored
87
88 She also had provided the Board as well as the applicant with copies of side -by -side comparisons
89 of the Zoning Code and LDRs in effect for both Atlantic Beach and Jacksonville at the time, and a
90 section of the Official Atlantic Beach Zoning Map, as amended by the City Commission on
91 December 8, 1986, for the newly annexed area.
Page 2 of 10
Minutes of the March 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
92 Specifically at issue for the current applicant, due to the reduced depth of the subject property, is
93 the required rear yard setback, which had been a minimum of ten (10) feet in the COJ, but a
94 minimum of twenty '(20) feet in the COAB. Thus, Ms. Hall established an additional criterion
95 focus her research, (4) those historic variance requests to reduce the required rear yard setback to
96 the 1987 -COJ standard of ten (10) feet.
97
98 During the years of 1987 through 1994, Ms. Hall found ten (10) requests for variance to the
99 required rear yard setback on properties subject to the 1987 annexation. Of those, three (3)
100 requests involved standard lots which were already well into the design / engineering phases and
l01 utilizing the COJ setback at the time of annexation. Of the remaining seven (7) requests that
102 involved substandard lots, five (5) were approved by the CDB, and two were denied. Both denials
103 were eventually overturned by the City Commission, but the circumstances upon which the
[ 04 Kredell appeal was granted were complex and unique to that property, whereas those of the
105 Hawkes appeal were more consistent with the five (5) approved requests. However, none of the
l 06 variances exceeded or requested more than the ten (10) foot reduction necessary to comply with
107 the COJ standards.
l08
109 Ms. Hall also reiterated that the 1734 Beach Avenue lot & structure that Mr. Wolfson had presented
l 10 as an exemplar of his proposal, was built to a seven (7) foot setback, because it had been rebuilt in
l 11 the existing footprint of a 1974 structure. Because that structure had been built and presumably
l 12 permitted by COJ, she had no information on what the regulations might have been at that time, or
113 if a variance had been required or even obtained. She was able to locate historic correspondence,
114 dated just prior to annexation though, in which a COJ official explained to one of the affected
115 property owners (Moller) those COJ setback requirements (20' front, 10' rear, combined 15' sides)
116 could be reduced to 10' front, 4' on either side and 5' rear, by execution of something called a
117 "Yard Modification ", which required approval and signature by all contiguous property owners.
l 18 However, she found no evidence that the COAB ever had such a process.
119
120 Ms. Hall concluded by saying that she had received numerous calls and inquiries requesting
121 explanation of concepts such as grandfathering, vesting, takings and precedence, and their
122 applicability to this variance request, as well as requests for specific historic information in an
123 effort to determine if a valid precedent did exist. While she felt that a precedent was set with the
124 early requests (1987- 1994), two factors should be considered which suggest that precedent may no
125 longer exist. These incude: 1) the passage of time since the action which invoked the
126 "grandfathering" of those properties, i.e., 24 years since annexation and rezoning of Seminole
127 Beach, and 2) the lack of a memorialized record of any agreement or provision guaranteeing a
128 reduced ten (10) foot rear yard setback, either at the time of annexation, or over the subsequent
129 fourteen (14) years leading up to the most recent full rewrite of the Zoning, Subdivision and Land
130 Development Regulations, which were adopted by Ordinance 90 -01 -172 on November 26, 2001
131 and made effective on January 1, 2002. However, she deferred to Mr. Jensen to provide legal
132 opinion and guidance to the Board regarding those matters.
[33
[34 Mr. Lambertson invited applicant Don Wolfson to address the Board. Mr. Wolfson stated that he
135 wanted to clarify a misinterpretation of his presentation at the February 15 meeting. The term
136 "hardship" had been used; this was not the basis of his request though. He said he was merely
137 requesting what had been historically communicated to the residents of former Seminole Beach as
138 a conveyance of the existing COJ ten (10) foot rear yard setback as part of the annexation
139 agreement. Additionally, though a petition had been circulated and signatures gathered from some
Page 3 of 10
Minutes of the March 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
[40 fifty (50) plus residents of the Ocean Grove area in opposition to his request, only three of those
141 parties owned property directly abutting his, being Jo Ann Ruggiero (1725 Ocean Grove Drive),
142 Barbara James (1727 Ocean Grove Drive) and John Laliberte (1729 Ocean Grove Drive).
143
144 Mr. Wolfson referred to his past service to the City as a member of the Community Development
145 Board for approximately fourteen (14) years, the majority of which time he served as Chair, as
146 well as time spent as Chair of the North Atlantic Beach Association, a group that had worked
147 diligently to procure the annexation of Seminole Beach. He noted that the compilation of official
148 City records provided to the Board for review did reflect his personal opposition to virtually the
149 same request he was making, on numerous instances in the past. However, he explained that each
150 variance was required to stand on its own merits, and he acted on guiding principles and
151 established provisions of the time.
152
153 Mr. Wolfson said he was particularly troubled by the Board's denial of the Townsend Hawkes
[54 variance, but he was personally opposed to the principle of granting a variance that would result in
[55 the fifty (50) percent reduction in the minimum required lot size. He then summarized the Hawkes
156 appeal, noting that Mr. Hawkes had established that he was a long time owner of the property,
157 which was considered a legal lot of record. He then read a paragraph of the December 2, 1992
158 letter from Mr. Hawkes to then -City Manager Kim Leinbach, regarding the preservation of private
159 property rights impacted by the annexation:
160
161 It is my understanding that when the City of Atlantic Beach agreed to take
l 62 this North Atlantic Beach oceanfrontage and make it part of Atlantic Beach,
163 one of the agreements to this transfer of property was that Atlantic Beach
1 64 would honor the commitments made to the residents of North Atlantic
165 Beach, such as ourselves, and one of the important commitments, to us, was
166 that this 50' x 50' lot could be used to erect a garage apartment with living
1 67 quarters, but now the City of Atlantic Beach denies our right to build such a
l 68 structure.
l69
170 Mr. Wolfson continued, noting that then -City Planner George Worley stated "The proposed use of
171 the building would be for Mr. Hawkes' primary residence," in his staff report to the City
172 Commission, dated February 1, 1993 and regarding Mr. Hawkes' appeal of the variance denial. He
173 then read from a letter obtained February 8, 1993 by Hans Tanzler, Jr, attorney for Mr. Hawkes,
174 from Claude E. Bagwell, then -Chief of the City of Jacksonville Building & Zoning Inspection
175 Division:
176
177 This is to confirm our conversation that the referenced property could have
178 been a single family residence constructed under the City of Jacksonville's
179 zoning code had the property not been annexed by Atlantic Beach.
180
181 More specifically, the zoning code for the City of Jacksonville required a
l82 rear yard setback of ten (10) feet. Presently, residential zoning districts also
l 83 require ten (10) foot rear yard setback
184
185 Mr. Wolfson then read from the minutes of the February 8, 1993 City Commission meeting, at
186 which Mr. Tanzler represented the Hawkes' variance appeal and City Attorney Alan Jensen advised
187 the Commission to grant the variance:
Page 4 of 10
Minutes of the March 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
t88
189 Hans Tanzler, a lawyer representing Mr. Hawkes, reported that Townsend
l90 and Virginia Hawkes wished to supplement their income with the rental
l 91 property. He explained property owners in the area, formerly known as
192 Seminole Beach, were told prior to their agreeing to annexation that their
[ 93 right to develop property would not be more restrictive under Atlantic Beach
194 than it was under Jacksonville. The rear setback would have been only 10
[95 feet when the property was part of Jacksonville and the structure could have
196 been constructed.
197
198 Alan Jensen, City Attorney, advised that because of the promise that was
199 made prior to annexation, and the fact that other property owners in that
>00 area had been granted variances based on similar logic, a denial of this
?0 request would not be defensible in court.
?02
?03 Mr. Wolfson then responded to Donald Wanstall's (1723 Ocean Grove Drive) statement at the
?04 February 15 CDB meeting that motivation for securing the variance was strictly financial, saying
?05 this was not true. He then countered the claim by James, Ruggiero and Wanstall that real estate
?06 professionals had presented to them that vegetated lots abutting theirs were substandard and could
2,07 not be developed, saying that no real estate agent had the authority to promise that those lots would
?08 not be developed. In support of the probability that the land would one day be developed, Mr.
?09 Wolfson pointed to the 1996 installation of water and sewer lines by the COAB, noting that
10 property owners were required to pay for tap -ins on both the east and west sides of Beach Avenue.
?11
12 Finally, Mr. Wolfson said he had suggested to the adjacent property owners that they go in together
13 and purchase the lot and maintain it as a buffer to their properties. However, since he had not
14 received an offer from them, he assumed that was not an option. Still, in the spirit of compromise,
>.15 he offered to amend his request from a thirteen (13) foot reduction in the required rear yard setback
>16 to a ten (10) foot reduction, consistent with those variances granted in the late 1980s and early
!17 1990s. He closed by stating that he and his wife had been owners of the property since a number
>.18 of years prior to annexation, and they only wanted to exercise those rights guaranteed to them at
19 the time of annexation.
?20
?,21 Mr. Lambertson opened the floor to public comment, and recognized Atlantic Beach City
?22 Commissioner John Fletcher (1740 Live Oak Lane) as the first speaker. Mr. Fletcher said he was
?23 there to address the Board as a resident rather than as an elected official. As a property owner in
?24 the vicinity, he said he had received calls from a number of his neighbors, and like them, he was
>.25 concerned about the repercussions, no matter the final outcome. He cautioned the Board that there
?26 were a number of issues complicating the matter, and asked them to carefully examine the
?27 evidence in light of the specific grounds for approval and grounds for denial of a variance, as
?,28 delineated in Section 24 -64. He added that he found it ironic that Mr. Wolfson had been so
?29 adamantly opposed to the identical requests during his tenure on the CDB, but was standing before
?30 the same body making the same request today, on the same grounds which he opposed then. He
?31 reminded the Board that it was Mr. Wolfson and then -Board member Dezmond Waters who
?32 repeatedly referred to the original covenants and restrictions, which reportedly stated that the
>_33 substandard lots on the west side of Beach Avenue were to serve as supplementary parking
?34 accommodations for the oceanfront lots. However, in the absence of those covenants and
?35 restrictions, he was uncertain as to the original purpose and intent of those lots, or if that even
Page 5of10
Minutes of the March 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
236 mattered, given the extended passage of time and change in jurisdiction. Further, he said he
237 wondered if the City's intention was to honor the COJ ten (10) foot rear yard setback in perpetuity,
238 if at all, given the absence of any historic document specifically stating such. Mr. Fletcher thanked
239 the Board for their thoughtful deliberation and excused himself from the meeting.
240
241 Donald Wanstall (1723 Ocean Grove Drive) thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak again,
242 and apologized if he sounded angry at the February 15 meeting. He said he felt somewhat
2 .43 blindsided when Mr. Wolfson attempted to engage him in conversation about the request just two
244 days before the meeting, even though the application had been filed with the City some thirty -three
245 (33) days before, on January 11, 2011. He asked that the Board carefully consider the grounds for
246 denial of a variance as listed in Section 24- 64(c), and note the instructions: "No variance shall be
247 granted if the Community Development Board, in its discretion, determines that the granting of the
248 requested variance shall have a materially adverse impact upon one or more of the following." He
249 then spoke to the potential impact to each condition, but specifically (1) light and air to adjacent
250 properties, (2) congestion of streets, (4) established property values, and (7) the general health,
251 welfare or beauty of the community. He noted in the denial of ZVAR- 2003 -10 on June 17, 2003,
252 then -CDB member Wolfson argued that neighbors have a right to privacy, and he certainly agreed
253 with that position. Further, he noted the Board had directed the applicant to attempt to reach some
254 sort of compromise with the adjacent property owners prior to tonight's meeting. Mr. Wanstall
255 said that his wife had suggested she would be amenable to the variance if the structure were
256 limited in height to one - story, but Mr. Wolfson replied that he would be amenable to reducing his
257 request by a foot, possibly.
258
259 Greg Kelly (1733 Ocean Grove Drive) said that while his property is not directly adjacent to the
260 subject property, the granting of the requested variance would have a negative effect on everyone.
261
262 Jo Ann Ruggiero (1725 Ocean Grove Drive) said that she had three (3) main objections. First and
263 foremost, there would be a detrimental effect on her investment, and that of her three neighbors.
264 The destruction of trees and natural vegetative buffers would mean less natural beauty, less
265 privacy, and in turn, lower property values. Second, besides failing to meeting any of the criteria
266 for granting the variance, it seemed this request met all the criteria for denying a variance. Third,
267 granting this variance would lead to the further erosion of a peaceful, eclectic neighborhood of the
268 beach community. She recommended the Board look beyond this one application, to the
269 consequences of the precedent they would be setting.
270
271 Barbara James (1725 Ocean Grove Drive) said she was in accord with the residents who had
272 signed the petition in opposition to the Wolfsons' request. She said she had been approached by
273 Mr. Wolfson the prior Sunday and asked if she would write a letter in support of his application.
274 When she replied that she would not, she said Mr. Wolfson responded that he would report to the
275 Board that she had "no objection ". Thus, she felt it was her duty to attend and ensure the record
276 correctly reflected her opposition.
277
278 Wayne Parrish (68 17 Street) said that he lived on the southwest corner of 17 and Beach, and
279 over the last five years he has observed continuous construction on the lots on the north side of
280 17 and he was opposed to further increasing the density of the area.
281
282 Mr. Lambertson asked if there were others wishing to speak for or against the application, and with
283 no further comment, he closed the public hearing and opened the floor to Board members.
Page 6 of 10
Minutes of the March 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
284
285 Ms. Glasser thanked Ms. Hall for her diligence in providing the Board with a thorough summary
2 286 of previous actions and supporting documents. She then asked Mr. Wolfson how he reconciled his
287 past opposition to such variances with his current position. Mr. Wolfson responded that
288 circumstances were different then. At the time of the Kredell application, Beach Avenue supported
289 two -way traffic, whereas it is now one -way, and a number of the properties had not been
290 developed at that point. Additionally, the City Commission and the City Attorney had determined
291 that the CDB had not taken the correct position and, in several instances, he had been wrong.
292
293 Ms. Glasser asked why Mr. Wolfson had voted to deny the Hawkes' variance, to which he replied
294 he had a philosophical problem with development of a lot which was only fifty (50) percent of the
295 required minimum area of a standard lot. Ms. Glasser then noted Mr. Wolfson as giving "a lengthy
296 history of the area, with particular reference to the original deed restrictions" and stating "that
2 .97 Garage Approach was uniquely designed for additional parking facilities and not for living
298 spaces ", according to the CDB minutes of April 18, 1989. She requested clarification on the use of
299 the term "hardship" in requesting a variance. While this was historically a valid reason for
300 granting a variance, such is no longer the case. Now there were very specific grounds for approval
301 and grounds for denial spelled out. Ms. Glasser then confirmed that Mr. Wolfson did not need to
302 state a hardship for this request.
303
304 Mr. Parkes asked Mr. Jensen to verify that at the time of annexation, the only difference between
305 Atlantic Beach and Jacksonville was the rear yard setback, and all other development standards
306 were the same. Mr. Jensen said that was correct; however, since the annexation, the Zoning Code
307 and LDRs have changed substantially. Mr. Parkes said he wanted to be sure that there was no
308 other historical requirement that needed to be honored. Mr. Jensen said he did not recall there
309 having been any such documentation, and reminded the Board that the subject property has been
310 under the jurisdiction of the COAB for twenty -four (24) years, and is therefore subject to the
311 Atlantic Beach LDRs.
312
313 Mr. Elmore said he took the position that the Wolfsons' had purchased the property prior to
314 annexation, and therefore their property rights should be preserved. However, he was sympathetic
315 to the neighbors also. Mr. Parkes replied that he was a property rights advocate as well, but the
316 Zoning Code that is applicable to this property has changed substantially over the years, in an
317 effort to balance the rights of the individual with those of the community. And, there appears to be
318 no agreement that countermands the LDRs.
319
320 Ms. Glasser referred to the Kredell and Hawkes denials, both of which were eventually overturned
321 by the City Commission, and asked about Mr. Jensen's February 8, 1993 statement that denial of
322 the (Hawkes) variance was not defensible in court. Mr. Jensen explained a number of factors were
323 considered, including the timing of the request relative to the annexation, consistency of the
324 request with other variances that had been approved, as well as the language of the LDRs in effect
325 at the time, and the weak findings upon which the CDB based their denial. Mr. Elmore asked Mr.
326 Jensen if this Board were to deny the request before them, would Mr. Wolfson be able to
327 successfully challenge the denial. Mr. Jensen reiterated that it has been over eighteen (18) years
328 since the Hawkes appeal. In the interim, there have been several complete rewrites of the LDRs as
329 well as numerous amendments, all requiring public notices, community workshops and/or public
330 hearings at which affected parties could have requested provisions to specifically address the
331 circumstances of these lots. However, no such provisions have been incorporated into the LDRs,
Page 7 of 10
Minutes of the March 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
332 and no additional variances meeting the same circumstances have been considered in the mean
333 time. Mr. Jensen then reminded the Board that variances are to be considered on a case -by -case
334 basis, and that they may be approved only upon findings of fact that they are consistent with the
335 definition of a variance and consistent with the provisions of Section 24 -64. If this Board were to
336 follow these directions of the ordinance in effect today and carefully review the request in light of
337 the grounds for approval and grounds for denial, as currently required, then their decision would
338 be defensible.
339
340 Board members concurred, and Ms. Glasser repeated Mr. Wolfson's earlier statement that the
341 preceding variances to reduce the required rear yard setback all stood on their own merits. She
342 then inquired as to the conditions of the construction on the substandard Pennington lot, located
343 north of the subject property at 1733 Beach Avenue, and Ms. Hall replied that structure was built
344 in the existing footprint of a 1974 structure which was demolished just prior to the redevelopment
345 of the lot. Thus, the structure was completely legal and no variance was required. As a point of
346 clarification, Mr. Lambertson noted that, both through coordination with Staff and during the
347 meeting, Mr. Wolfson was amenable to a verbal amendment to his request, decreasing it from a
348 thirteen (13) foot reduction to a ten (10) foot reduction in the required rear yard setback, consistent
349 with the other variances that had been granted in the past.
350
351 MOTION: Ellen Glasser moved to approve the requested variance, as verbally amended by the
352 applicant earlier in this meeting, from Section 24- 107(e)(2) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot
353 rear yard setback to ten (10) feet to allow for the construction of a residential structure on a
354 nonconforming lot of record on the west side of the right -of -way directly across from 1725 Beach
355 Avenue. Brea Paul seconded the motion and discussion ensued.
356
357 Ms. Glasser noted it was unfortunate that Mr. Wolfson had left such a long and detailed record of
358 his opposition to the same variance he now requested, but she wished to thank him for his
359 dedicated service to the community over many years. And while she was troubled by his complete
360 reversal in position as well as the potential adverse impacts this variance might have on
361 surrounding properties, she was more struck by Mr. Elmore's earlier observation that denial of this
362 variance precluded Mr. Wolfson from the reasonable use of his property, which was tantamount to
363 a takings.
364
365 Mr. Elmore reviewed the grounds for denial and said while it was arguable that the granting of this
366 variance might have materially adverse impact on congestion of streets ( #2), public safety ( #3),
367 established property values ( #4), the aesthetic environment ( #5), and the general health, welfare
368 and beauty of the community ( #7), such a variance would have the greatest impact on light and air
369 to adjacent properties (#1) and the natural environment of the community, specifically loss of
370 protected trees and wildlife habitat ( #6). Ms. Paul agreed, but reminded the Board that the
371 applicant could potentially clear the lot without mitigation if there were no plans to develop it
372 within the next year, thus making the tree argument a moot point.
373
374 Mr. Parkes said that the degree of impact on light and air to adjacent properties was relative to the
375 scale of the structure. He then reviewed the grounds for approval. There was consensus that
376 neither irregular shape of the property warranting special conditions ( #5), nor exceptional
377 topographic conditions of or near the property (# 1), existed; neither did surrounding conditions or
378 circumstances impact the property disparately from nearby properties ( #2), nor did exceptional
379 circumstances prevent the reasonable use of the property compared to other properties in the area
Page 8of10
Minutes of the March 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
380 ( #3). Likewise, there was no onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after
381 development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property ( #4), because
382 the narrow strip of land from which the garage lots had been carved had never been platted as
383 individual lots, and no documentation had been provided to show that the subject property itself
384 had ever been developed or constructed upon. However, there was concern as to whether the
385 substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use
386 of the property ( #6), applied. The question came back to what was considered "reasonable use" of
387 the lot.
388
389 Mr. Parkes asked Ms. Hall if she could explain precisely what options were available to Mr.
390 Wolfson without a variance. Ms. Hall presented a series of scaled drawings showing several
391 scenarios in which the lot could be developed as an accessory one -story or two -story garage, with
392 guest quarters. Additionally, she illustrated the lot coverage of a single family dwelling
393 constructed according to the applicant's original variance request (7' rear yard), as well as one
394 constructed according to the amended request (10' rear yard), and one constructed according to the
395 required yard setbacks (20' rear yard).
396
397 Mr. Parkes summarized that a two -story garage accessory with guest quarters, could be constructed
398 without a variance, and that such a structure seemed in keeping with the reputed purpose and intent
399 of the original garage lot covenants and restrictions, which Mr. Wolfson had so vigorously
100 defended in the past. Further, it appeared that a simple, long and narrow single - family residence
101 could be constructed without a variance; or, scale and mass could be adjusted so as to require a less
102 intrusive variance. Mr. Elmore concurred that the structure needed to be coherently articulated
103 with the environment and adjacent properties. He asked if the applicant would consider reducing
104 the front yard rather than the rear, to which Mr. Lambertson replied that reduction of the front yard
105 was not part of this request, and to make it so, the applicant would have to withdraw this request or
106 ask that it be deferred again so that he could prepare an alternative plan and so that due notice
107 could be given. Mr. Adams contended this was precisely what the Board had asked the applicant
108 to do when the application was deferred last month. Yet there was no indication that the applicant
109 had attempted to reach a compromise with his neighbors, and nothing new, by way of an
110 alternative plan was submitted.
1.11
112 Mr. Lambertson stated that even as verbally amended by the applicant earlier this evening, the
113 variance request accounts for a fifty (50) percent reduction in the standard. He continued, saying
114 that he could not support such a request that would allow development of a substandard lot to the
115 detriment of surrounding properties. However, Ms. Glasser said she was still conflicted. The
116 Board had confirmed the subject property was a legal nonconforming lot of record, and according
117 to the LDRs, such lots may be used for a single - family dwelling. Ms. Hall added that the caveat of
118 Section 24- 85(b)(1), to which Ms. Glasser was referring was that nonconforming lots of record
119 could be used for single - family residences in any residential zoning district provided that the
120 minimum yard requirements for the particular zoning district were met, or provided that the
121 property owner obtained a variance from the CDB, in accordance with the requirements of Section
122 24 -64. Mr. Parkes reiterated that a substantial accessory building could be constructed without a
123 variance, and a single - family dwelling, compatible with the scale of the lot and surrounding
124 structures could be constructed with lesser variances than even the amended request.
125 Mr. Hansen questioned the lack of a conceptual plan in the submittal, explaining that the
126 uncertainty of what would be done with this seemingly disproportionate request made him
127 apprehensive. Ms. Paul responded that it was not always feasible to expect the applicant to go to
Page 9 of 10
Minutes of the March 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
128 the trouble or expense to have something designed before a variance was granted. Ms. Hall added
129 that variance application submittals are required to submit a survey or lot diagram showing
130 setbacks, with existing and proposed structures. She reminded the Board that they had received
131 copies of a property survey as well as a very simple sketch of the lot with standard setbacks, along
132 with the other application materials in their February packets. Additionally, she noted that Mr.
133 Wolfson had presented photos of the recently constructed garage on the Pennington property, and
134 proposed to do something similar.
135
136 Mr. Lambertson cautioned the Board that what might be appealing to one person would not
137 necessarily be appealing to another, and should the property transact, they could not legislate taste.
138 Mr. Lambertson then noted that Mr. Wolfson had been asked at the February 15 meeting if the
139 property was to be developed for personal use or if it were for future disposal, to which Mr.
140 Wolfson had replied though he could not rule out future disposal, the immediate plan was for
141 development. Mr. Lambertson asked Mr. Wolfson if this was still the case — if the property was
142 currently for sale, meaning was it listed and/or posted for sale. Mr. Wolfson responded that the
143 property was currently listed but there is no sign posted onsite.
144
145 Mr. Lambertson asked if Mr. Wolfson desired to further amend his request in any way, to which
146 Mr. Wolfson said no. Mr Lambertson then restated that there was currently a motion and a second
147 on the floor to approve the amended variance requested from Section 24- 107(e)(2) to reduce the
148 required twenty (20) foot rear yard setback to ten (10) feet to allow for the construction of a
149 residential structure on a nonconforming lot of record on the west side of the right -of -way directly
150 across from 1725 Beach Avenue. He then called for a vote, and the motion failed, 2 -5. [YES:
151 Elmore, Glasser; NO: Adams, Hansen, Lambertson, Parkes, Paul]
152
153 Mr. Lambertson advised Mr. Wolfson that he could appeal the decision of the Community
154 Development Board to the City Commission within thirty (30) days of this decision.
155
156 5. NEW BUSINESS. None.
157
158 6. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION. None.
159
160 7. ADJOURNMENT. Mr. Lambertson adjourned the meeting at 7:57 pm.
161
162
111 163
164 Chris Lambertson, Chairman
165
166
168 .,�.• /
169 Attest
Page 10 of 10