Appeal on variance at 2019 Beach Avenue from Richard Reichler Richard Reichler
2025 Beach Avenue
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
January 16, 2012
City Commission ATTN: City Clerk Received
City of Atlantic Beach
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 JAN 11 2012
Dear Commissioners, Office of City Clerk
I respectfully request that the Atlantic Beach City Commission grant my appeal,in accordance
with sec. 24-49(b)of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Atlantic Beach,of
variance ZVAR-11-ool00065,granted by the Atlantic Beach Community Development Board on
December 20, 2011,providing for"...a variance from Section 24-106(e)(2),reducing the
required rear yard setback for a principle structure from twenty(2o)feet to ten(1o)feet within
the Residential Single-Family(RS-2)Zoning District on a property located at 2019 Beach
Avenue..."
There are three primary reasons for my request:
1. That both the building permit and variance for 2019 Beach Avenue were obtained
through the misrepresentation of facts to the Atlantic Beach Building Department and
Community Development Board.
2. That the grounds for approval of the variance are invalid.
3. That the unconditional variance approved provides a benefit to the applicant(at the
expense of neighboring properties, especially mine)that is grossly in excess of the relief
purportedly required by the applicant--relief that could have been provided through
approval of a lesser variance or variances per sec. 24-64(f)of the Land Development
Regulations.
I plan to present my petition to the Commission on February 13, 2012,as I will be out of town on
January 23rd. Please note that if the Community Development Board nullifies or reverses the
variance approval in accordance with sec. 24-47(c)of the Land Development Regulations,prior
to presentation of this appeal,my appeal will be withdrawn,as it will be unnecessary.
1
At the time of permit application,the applicant misrepresented,by the submission of a grossly
inaccurate"survey"as a site plan,the distance from the city right of way to the to-be-expanded
existing detached private garage as 10 ft,when in fact it was 4.7 ft,in order to meet the 10 ft
setback requirement for a detached private garage. Note that an additional measurement on the
"survey"of 14.2 ft(which is inconsistent with the rest of the"survey"measurements),when used
1
in conjunction with the other fictitious number to locate the street right of way, gives the false
impression that there is just enough room to place a garage that is 22 ft deep(minimum needed
for a concrete block structure)by 13 ft wide(reaches south-side setback line)adjacent to the
existing private garage(Please refer to the Dec. 20 variance hearing exhibits and Boatwright
2004 as-built survey of the 2019 property,held by Mike Griffin).
As told to me in person by the Atlantic Beach Building Inspector,the builder, Mr. Ray
Henderson,personally and successfully misrepresented to the City of Atlantic Beach Building
Inspector that,because of a supposedly missing survey monument(per the builder),the false 10
ft setback of the existing private garage shown on the"survey"was to be used to determine the
as-built setback measurement of the under-construction 3w-car garage(measured at 10.2 ft by
the Inspector),needed in order to obtain variance ZVAR-2011-00100065 from the Community
Development Board.
After the variance ZVAR-2o11-oo100065 was granted by the Community Development Board,
the builder, Mr. Ray Henderson,along with Mr. Gary Rogers of Atlantic Coast Surveyors,Inc.,
personally attempted to misrepresent to the City of Atlantic Beach Building Inspector and
myself that the as-built setback of the under-construction 3r'-car garage was 10.2 ft,although it
is actually closer to 4 or 5 ft,through the illegal relocation(3 ft towards the road),by Mr. Rogers,
of an existing monument,set by Tri-State Land Surveyors, Inc.that marked the southwest
corner of my 2025 Beach Ave.property, and the placement of a small survey flag (no
monument)7-8 ft closer to the road surface from an existing iron rod marking(or
approximating)the southwest corner of the 2019 Beach Ave.property. By attempting to create
a setback line consistent with the two fictitious measurements(10 ft and 14.2 ft)on the"survey",
the two had managed to expose just how absurd and grossly inaccurate the"survey"was. Yet,
both Mr. Rogers and Mr. Henderson continued to assert to me,in the presence of the Building
Inspector,that the fictitious setback line was correct(Mr. Henderson became visibly angry).
Note that Mr. Rogers provided the measurements for(and also drafted)the"survey"that was
included in the building permit application. The relocated Tri-State monument and the survey
flag disappeared three days later(see Atlantic Beach Police Department Case#12-oo421). The
following day,Atlantic Coast Surveyors refused to certify the"survey"to the City of Atlantic
Beach (per Mike Griffin),resulting in a Stop Work order placed on the project.
2
The"onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or
after construction of improvements of the property"(sec. 24-64(d) (4)of the Land Development
Regulations),used as grounds for the variance request,is not applicable in this case since every
regulation violated by the builder was enacted at least a year before the building permit was
submitted. For the building permit application,Mr. Henderson cited and utilized sec. 24-151(b)
xiv of the Regulations governing accessory structures to place an exterior stairway within 3 ft of
the south-side lot line,yet he implied that he was unaware of,and unknowingly grossly violated,
item iv(detached private garages)in the same sec. 24-151(b),necessitating the after-the-fact
variance request. Mr. Henderson also was able to cite and utilize on the building permit
2
application a more obscure section 24-48(h)of the same Land Development Regulations that
details the granting of minor dimensional variances within the authorities and responsibilities of
the Community Development Director,yet he has so far ignored the driveway regulations
contained in sec. 24-253(i&ii)of the Regulations(he would need a variance but did not apply
for one)and the City's Tree Regulations(violated).
The remaining grounds for the variance request: "...an undue hardship resulting from mutual
errors on the part of the City,due to process deficiencies,and on the part of the applicant,due to
inconsistent submittals..."are:
a)Not included in the Grounds for approval of a Variance(sec.24-64(d)of the Land
Development Regulations).
b)As a result of the invalid"onerous effect"grounds,specifically prohibited, as"Variances shall
not be granted solely...for relief from financial circumstances or relief from situations created by
the property owner"(sec. 24-64(c)).
3
The unconditional variance approved provides a benefit to the applicant(at the expense of
neighboring properties,especially mine)that is grossly in excess of the relief purportedly
required by the applicant.
By granting"principle residence"status to the combined original residence and addition,the
owners and/or successors now have the right,at any time in the future,to expand the volume of
the addition,primarily upward,as much as 35 feet above calculated average grade(CAGR,
defined in sec. 24-17 of the Land Development Regulations)and further connect the two
structures,all in full compliance with the existing Land Development Regulations(sec. 24-
85(c)(1)). Since the CAGR may be as much as 7-8 feet above the floor of the private garage that
is under construction(I say"may be"because this required information was not supplied to the
Building Department to allow for verification that the proposed height of the structure is in
compliance with height requirements),this would allow for an additional two floors and over
2,000 additional square feet of living space,blocking the southerly exposure of my lawfully
constructed private garage and western side of my principle residence to the sun. The potential
structure allowed,solely as a result of this variance,may significantly reduce the value of my
home.
If the existing building permit is revoked,the variance still provides substantial incremental
value to the homeowners,even if part of the new construction is demolished and reconstructed
to the 10 ft setback line.
This gift to the applicant is far in excess of what would have been provided by lesser variances
specific to the violations(mainly the 200 additional square ft and minimal connection to
principle structure)per sec. 24-64(f)of the Land Development Regulations.
3
Conclusion
The combination of main residence and private garage that existed prior to the recent
construction,built in 2001,more or less reflects the maximum utilization of the property at that
time,and for the most part,today. Not much has changed. The height rules for oceanfront
properties changed somewhat and a detached private garage of height greater than 15 ft,but less
than 25 ft,above CAGR can now be constructed to within 10 ft,rather than 15 ft,of the street
right of way. There is little more that can be legally accomplished.
However,despite multiple violations of the Land Development Regulations and Tree
Regulations,as well as several misrepresentations to the Building Department by the builder,
this variance still remains in force,as a substantial and valuable gift to the property owner from
the City, enabling him to create a structure,with 3-car garage,rivaling the size(and height)of
his 3,50o sqft main residence,within 15 ft of Beach Avenue.
Again,based on the information presented above,I respectfully request that the Atlantic Beach
City Commission grant my appeal,in accordance with sec. 24-49(b)of the Land Development
Regulations of the City of Atlantic Beach,of variance ZVAR-11-ool00065,granted by the
Atlantic Beach Community Development Board on December 20, 2011.
Sincerely,
a G/
Richard Reichler
4
RICHARD] REICHLER 2654
MICHELLE D McDONOUGH
2025 BEACH AVE G�/ // j
ATLANTIC BEACH FL 32233-5934 / ✓en Lc!/L— 63.4/63019
11019
/7 f�
Bank of America
Wealth Management Banking
ACH R/T 083100277
�. t r o °r - -1
1:06300004 ?I: 0030633903 2711' 2654
Harland Clarke
•
•