Item 10A
Hanson, Jim
From: AJensenLaw@aol.com
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 6:17 PM
To: Hanson, Jim
Cc: Doerr, Sonya
Subject: Chap.24 changes to administrative approval of 2 lot subdivisions
AGENDA ITEM #U)A
JUNE 12, 2006
Jim:
You have asked for my opinion regarding the above subject and other possible factors to consider in an
ordinance which would codify any such changes to the administrative approval of 2 lot subdivisions. The matter
was last presented to the city commission in Agenda Item 8B at the commission meeting held on May 22,2006.
A draft of the proposed changes to Sec.24-189 was included in 86, and I have serious concems regarding
~" some of those changes, as follows:
(a)(1) The last sentence requiring location of all "private protected trees" seems inappropriate and
unnecessary for the Community Development Board's consideration. Any applicant for a building permit will have
to present the required information and survey to the Tree Board as a prerequisite to obtaining a building permit,
and I believe we should leave all such matters to the Tree Board.
(a)(2) This again brings matters for the Tree Board into play for the Community Development Board, which
should not be done. This also appears to add requirements to a lot resulting from a subdivision that are not
requirements to a standard lot. This section should be limited to the minimum yard requirements, which I assume
means that the proposed new lots can be built on with all setback requirements being met.
.. (a)(3) I don't know where the 24 months came from, but unless there is some justification for this period of
time, it could be considered an arbitrary amount of time, and we should avoid anything that might be considered
arbitrary.
(a)(4) Omit the last 4 words from this section "...as may be amended." This is unnecessary and may well
~, lead to other questions that are unnecessary.
(a)(5) This section concerns me greatly. This would allow much discretion with the Community
Development Board, and our goal should be to set guidelines which, if met by an applicant, would result in
approval of the requested subdivision. I would suggest this section be eliminated.
~..
(b) Appeals: if there is already a provision for appeals to the city commission in Chap.24, perhaps that
could be referenced here. However, if the intent is for the city commission to establish guidelines for the 2 lot
~, subdivisions and then aet the Community Development Board make the decision if the guidelines have been meet,
I don't think ar, append to the city commission v•ould be appropriate. Just as the Community Development r3oard
is the final word on granting or denying variances in the city, they can certainly be the final word on 2 lot
subdivisions, especially if the commission sets forth clear and unequivocal guidelines in their legislation.
I also understand that other possible factors have been discussed or brought up to consider adding to the
changes to administrative approval of 2 lot subdivisions, such as lot size, neighborhood input, trees, and the like.
The lot size question is simple: if the proposed lots meet the size requirements of the zoning classification, the
'~" subdivision cannot be denied on a lot size basis. Regarding trees, I have addressed that above, and I don't
believe the Community Development Board should be concerned with the trees, nor should the city commission
add conditions to subdivided lots that are not applicable to standard lots (ie., lots NOT resulting from subdivision).
The imput of neighbors is always important, but cannot really be considered by the Community Development
Board unless the neighbors are presenting competent, substantial evidence which is pertinent to the factors to be
considered by the Board. Pure opposition of neighbors because they don't like the proposed subdivision or
something like that should not be considered by the Board in making its decision. I would strongly suggest not
including anything in the proposed changes regarding neighborhood input, which could very well lead to
subjective determinations by the Board, which we have to avoid. All decisions by the Board on 2 lot subdivisions
~ should be based on objective factors established by the city commission in amendments to the ordinance.
I cannot think of anything further to address on this matter, and hopefully the above information is helpful to
you. If you have any questions at all regarding the above, please let me know and I'll be happy to discuss them
6/f /2ggf
AGENDA ITEM #l0A
JUNE 12, 2006
with you. Alan
935 North Third Street
P.O. Box 50457
Jacksonville Beach, FL 32240-0457
(904) 246-2500
(904) 246-9960 FAX
AJensenLaw@aol.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information and all attachments contained in this electronic communication are
legally privileged and confidential, subject to the attorney-client privilege and intended only for the use of the
intended recipients. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
review, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return a-mail and please permanently remove any
copies of this message from your system and do not retain any copies, whether in electronic or physical form or
otherwise. Thank you.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or
entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the
named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this a-mail.
~i~nnn~
,.
AGENDA ITEM #l0A
JUNE 12, 2006
.~c~r~vt~.~ tTr:~~ st,
{)R1)I~~;1,:tiC3=: NCi;'~313E32 t)0-f16-1rI2
AV (}l2I)IN~~N(:"I<; OF "I'I:II t;I"I~Y t)F ATLANTIC I31:,ACI-I,
~"" COL"NT'`<' OF I)I,~V'AI., S'I'A"I'E OI? FLURII)A, A~~IEi~'DING
ARTICLE IV, SLaBDIVISIUN R.EGULATIUNS, I)I~'I4IUN 1, OF
CHAPTER 2-I, THE ZONIVG, StiI3DIVISIUN A.ND RANI)
DE~jELOT'i~IF.i`1T RE(:liL:~TIUi'~'S AS INITIALLY' A:I)OPTEI) I3Y
ORDINANCE NL1~II3EI2 90-OI-1.73, SPECIFICALLY ..<~1`kIEVI)ING
4FC7'ION 24-1$'~, PI2OVIDINC FOR IZICOI2ll.~'I'ION Ai~D
,,~. PROVIDING :~\ EFFECTIVE DATE.
~~'II:EI2EAS, the appri~priatc and la•~~ful division of Land is a vt<il step in tl2e
progress of the community's development, it is the intent of the City to establish reasonable
and equitable standards and procedurc;s IUr the division of land that will ezlcaurat~7e stable
communities and healthy living environmc;nts, and which preserve the natural beauty of the
City of Atlantic, Beach.
1VOW "I"HERI:FOI2E, I3F. IT EN.•~CT:ED B~~" THE CITY' Cl)1VIMISSION ON
BEI:IALF OF 'I`HE PEUPLE OF 'TI-IE CITY OF A'I'L:~NTIC I3EAC;II, FI...C)121.i):~:
SECT:[UN 1. 14~1unicipal Code, Chapter 24, the Zosling, Subdivision and Land
~Developzr~~ent Re~g~ula ions, 1-lrticle 3V, Division 1, Se~etiort 24-1E9, ~is hereby ~unended azid
""" upon enactment shat} read as follows.
Sec. 24-389. Excn~ptions from the recluiremcat for approval and recording of a Final
"' Subdivision Plat or Iteplat.
(a) Building Pernuts may be issued following di~~isions of Land ~~thout the need far
,~„ approval of a Final Subdivision Plat. or a Replat only in accordance ~~^th each of
fallowing provisions (1) through. (8).
(1) Approval at a public hearing. by tho Community laevelopnzent E:3aard of a Certified
~"' Suzv~zy dep}sting,the .proposed netiv lots and upon finding that each of the following
requi.•en~zents and conditions are d~:monstrated. The Certified Survey shall alscz
depict the location of all Private Protected 1-roes; as defined by Chapter 3a of this
'""' Code of Qrdinances.
(2) 'l~he Certified Survey shall demonstrate that each proposed. ne~v lot contains
~, suf:ficient area to mee;z all rtYiniziiurri 'L'ard I2equirertzents and that removal of no
Private Protected Trees, as defined by Chapter 23-16, shall be reciuirc;d solely for
the purpose of creating sufficient buildable area on the ne~v lots. The Survey shall
~ also identify the general intended building footprint loca~tio~n in relation to existing
Private Protected Trees.
(3) The divisitx~ results in no zl~ore thazl two (~) contiguous Lots ar E'arcels; and no
"' division of anyy portion of the lands subj!4c:t to such a rerluest under this Section shall
h;.iv"y been divided during the prccedin~~ twenty-four (~4} ri~onths.
Pz~cc ! of"'
Ordijiance Nu?iil>er 9u-U6-] )2
r.
AGENDA ITEM #IOA
JUNE 12, 2006
~~~La,u~r~ a a s,irn c~i~s
Il~.u~`}I 22, 20Q~~
(4) The resultant new Lots, comply with the Minimum Lot Area, Width and Depth, and
access requirements of the applicable Zoning District, the Comprehensive Plan and
all other applicable requirements of these Land Development Regulations, as may
be amended.
(5) The resultant new lots are generally consistent in size, width, depth and shape with
surrounding development and established platting patterns.
(6) The division and the resultant new Lots shall not create any Nonconforming
Structures or any other Nonconforming characteristic.
(7) Such Certified Survey shall be submitted to and approved the Community
Development Board prior to recording of a deed for transfer of ownership of Lands,
and shall be recorded as an addendum to the deed(s). It shall be the responsibility
of the property owner(s) to provide evidence of the approved Certified Survey
along with any application for Building Permits.
(8) Notice of such requests to divide- lots under the terms of this Section shall be
provided as set forth in Section 24-52 (c) of this Chapter.
(b) Appeals. An Applicant may appeal a decision of the Community Development Board
made pursuant to this Section to the City Commission. Such appeal shall be filed in
„~ writing with the City Clerk within thirty (30) days after renditior_ of the final order of
the Community Development Board, and shall be heard at public hearing before the
City Conunission.
(c) Townhouses and residential Dwellings held in Fee-Simple Ownership. Townhouses
and Two-family Dwellings, when divided in ownership, shall not constitute a division
~, of Lands requiring approval of a Final Subdivision Plat or a Replat, provided that such
Dwellings are otherwise in compliance with these Land Development Regulations and
the Comprehensive Plan.
SEC'T'ION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its final passage
and adoption and shall be recorded in a book kept and maintained by the Clerk of the City
,~, of Atlantic Beach, Duval County, Florida, in accordance with Section 125.68, Florida
Statutes.
Passed upon first reading and public hearing by the City Commission of the City of
Atlantic Beach this day of 2006. Passed upon final reading and public
hearing this day of , 2006.
DONALD M. WOLFSON
Mayor/Presiding Officer
Approved as to form and correctness: ATTEST
DONNA BUSSEY
City Clerk
ALAN C. JENSEN, ESQUIRE
City Attorney .{
i 4 -
Page 2 of 2