Agenda Item 1A - City's DocumentationDONALD AND KAREN WOLFSON,
Petitioners,
v.
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH,
Respondent.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA.
CASE NO: 16-2011-CA-349-AXXX
DIVISION: CV-G
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
AGENDA ITEM #lA
MARCH 23, 2015
Upon consideration of the entire record herein, including the Petition, the Respondent's
Response, and the Petitioners' Reply, the Court finds:
Procedural due process was not afforded to the applicants during the May 9, 2011, hearing
before the City Commission in which the City was hearing the Petitioners' appeal of the denial of
their requested variance by the Community Development Board. The City Commission, acting in
its appellate capacity, violated due process requirements when it took new statements and considered
new evidence which was not a part of the record from the Community Development Board. The
Petitioners did not agree to the admission of this new evidence, but in fact objected to the City
proceeding in this fashion. (T of City Commission A-267-268.)
Further, the City's findings were not based on competent substantial evidence. The only
competent substantial evidence heard by the Community Development Board at its February 15,
2011, hearing consisted of two recommendations from its own staff, both of which found that the
requested variance was consistent with allowances previously granted to other undeveloped
substandard lots of record in the vicinity, and that the variance would not be injurious to the area
involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
Additionally, the essential requirements oflaw were not observed when the Board considered
a Power Point presentation which was previously prepared but undisclosed to the Petitioners, after
all discussion had been closed by the Chair.
Further, generalized conclusory statements of neighbors objecting to the variance and
speculating about decreases in property value do not constitute, even in their cumulative effect, a
legal basis to deny a variance.
,_. . ..
Wherefore, it is, upon consideration, hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the
Petition for Writ of Certiorari should be and the same is hereby granted. The denial by the
Community Development Board of the variance requested by the Petitioners, and affirmance of that
decision by the City Commission are hereby quashed, and this cause is remanded to the Respondent
City of Atlantic Beach for the entry of an order approving the subject variance in compliance with
the recommendations of the Atlantic Beach City Staff.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers atJ acksonville, Duval County, Florida this __ day
ORDER ENTERED
ofNovember, 2012.
Copies furnished to:
Christopher A. White, Esq.
4230 Pablo Professional Court, Suite 200
Jacksonville, FL 32224
Sheryl G. Hopkins, Esq.
2707 East Jefferson Street
Orlando, FL 32803
NOV 2 0 2012
lsi LAWRENCE P. HADDOCK
CIRCUIT .JUDGE
Karen and Donald M. Wolfson
1725 Beach Avenue
Atlantic Beach, Fl32233
904~394-8190
donaldwolfson@cs.com
VIA HAND DELIVERY -SUPPLEMENT TO NOTICE OF APPEAL LEITER OF APRIL 12, 201~
Aprl113, 2011
Ms. Sonya Doerr, Community Development Director
Community Development Department
Cl~y gf Atlf)ntic Beach
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
RE: ZVAR-2011-01
Dear Ms. Doerr:
AGENDA ITEM# 8A
MAY9, 2011
Besides our request for the appeal ofthe decision ofthe Community Development Board dated Aprill2,
2011, please be advised that in addition to the concerns raised previously, specific grounds for the basis
for our appeal to the City Commission Monday, May gth should Include, but not be limited to the fact
that there Is not competent substantial evidence to support the decision rendered by the Community
Development Board.
I was not afforded due process In presenting our case as I was not allowed to present evidence to rebut
the position the Board took as a resul~ of its discussions. The Chairman closed the floor for rebuttal and
the Board's action to deny our variance VJ<!S In conflict with Section 24-82{j)(1) and (2).
Furthermore, the decision of the Board conflicts wlth all reasons for grounds for approval of a variance
as set forth in 24-64(d),(l-6):
(1) exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property.
(2) surroundi_ng conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby
properties.
(3) exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to
other properties In the area.
(4} onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or
after construction of Improvements upon the property. Initial Effective Date: January 01, 2002 +
Last amended: March 08, 2010 by Ordinance 90-1D-212 26
AGENDA ITEM# SA
MAY9, 2011
Ms. Sonya Doerr
April13, 2011
Page two
(5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration.
(6) substandard size of a lot of Record warranting a Variance in order to provide for the
reasonable Use of the property.
Specifically, the Board found that our request did not comply with Section 24-64 of the Zoning and
Subdivision Regulations, which findings are set forth below and followed with our responses as duly
noted and set forth in bold type: ·
(1) The property is not of irregular shape warranting special conditions ...
NOTE: Our· property: IS Irregular In shape warranting special conditions since the
depth of the lot Is 50',
(2) The substandard size oft he lot of record neither warrants a variance in order to provide for
the reasonable use of the property nor are there other exceptional circtJmstances
preventing the reasonable use of the property compared to other properties in the area ...
NOTE: Mi11lmum front and rear yard setbacks are 20' each leaving a footprint depth of
10' and with the mlnlmum side yard setback requirements being a combined 151
•
Building a structure with a 10' depth Is not functional. Also, these setbacks would
allow for a single family structure to have a maximum footprint of 550sf which is in
conflict with the minimum floor area requirements, as stated above, for single family
residential dwelling units as set forth in 24~820)(1)(2), single family residential
dwelling units being permissible on this lot In the City of Jacksonville prior to
annexation of Seminole Beach by Atlantic Beach. Without granting the reduction of
the rear yard setback from 20' to 10', a 50' deep lot Is an exceptional circumstance
preventing the reasonable use of the property compared to other 50' deep lots ln the
area granted historical variances that provided relief allowlng for reasonable use of
the property;
(3) The granting ofthe variance will have a materially adverse impact on the light and alr to
adjacent properties, public safety, including risk of fire, traffic safety and general congestion
of streets, the natural environment of the community and estabHshed property values ...
NOTE:
The 10' variance requested Is not one of height and therefore, there Is n.g adverse
impact on the light and air to adjacent properties vis a vis 24~82(c) which is carefully
addressed in the Code to which we Intend to adhere. The height percentage reduction
for non-conforming lots of record was established to address this concern and thus
the Board Ignored this requirement falling to recognize that the parameters of 24·
B2(c} are appllcabte·to this request;
AGENDA ITEM # SA
:tv1AY9, 2011
Ms. Sonya Doerr
Aprll13, 2011
Page three
There are no public safety issues, specifically risk of fire as there will be at the very
least30' between the rear wall planes of each adjacent structure and historically, this
margin between structures has been determined to be safe and approved time and
again In workshops attended by the COAB fire chief over a 14 year period;
Traffic safety and general congestion of streets ·the permitting of residences between
171h and 18111 Streets along ~e west side of Beach Avenue has never been denied for
this reason and in fact has been approved specifically addressing this concern;
Adverse Impact on the natural environment of the community-since the annexation
of Seminole Beach in 1987 and through 2010, 12 residential structures have been
permitted and built nullifying this argument ofthe Board;
A~,Y,,~~~Jm.R~,g;.Q.n esta.blished property values -In 1991, our property value soared
2;400% Immediately after the construction of 1778 Beach Avenue in 1989 and the
property values along the west side of Beach Avenue have risen constantly with the
construction of each single family residential unit again nullifying the argument by the
Board to deny our varian~ based upqn a materially adverse Impact on established
property values. :. · · ·
(4) The granting of the variance will not be In harmony with the general intent and purpose of
Chapter 24, City of Atlantic Beach Zoning and Subdivision Regulations ...
NOTE: Our answers address the concerns of the Board as set forth In the Order
Denying Variance dated March 23, 2011. We believe that there Is no substantiation
relative to the variance not being In harmony with the general Intent and purpose of
Chapter 24 that was offered by the Board that validated the denial of our variance
request.
We sincerely appreciate you accepting this Supplemental Notice in addition to the letter of appeal that
was hand delivered to your office Tuesday morning. We hope that this request and the payment that
was submitted Tuesday is compliant with all of the provisions as set forth in 24-49(b).
Should you require anything else, please let us know at your earliest convenience.
I hereby verify that the above statements are true and correct.
Sincerely,
O~~Q M.uJ~
Donald M. Wolfson
Ms. Sonya Doerr
Aprlll3, 2011
Page four
CC:
Erika Hall, Principal Planner, City of Atlantic Beach
Louis M. Barno, Mayor
John l. Fletcher, City Commissioner
Paul B. Parsons, City Commissioner
Jonathan Daugherty, City Commissioner,
Carolyn R. Woods, City Commissioner
Alan Jensen, City Attorney, City of Atlantic Beach
Christopher A. White, Esq., Attorney-at-law
AGENDA ITEM# 8A
MAY9,20ll
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Ap'ril12, 2011
1{1;\ren and Donald M. Wolfson
1725 Beach Avenu~
Atlantic Seach, FL 32233
904-394-8190
donaldwolfsoli@cs.com
Ms. Sonya Doerr, Communjty Development Director
Community Development Department
City of Atlantic Beach
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
RE: ZVAR-2011-01
Dear Ms. Doerr:
AGENDA ITEM# 8A
MAY9, 2011
Per the email dated Aprill, 2011 from Ms. Erika Hall, please accept this· tetter as our appeal of the
decision of the Community Development Boanl issl,le.d Tuesday evening) March 15 1h. itw~s our
Intention to come before the City Comrnis~iol') on April251\ however, we had a scheduling conflict.
Therefore, we request that our appeal be placed on theagenda for the next City Commission meeting
on Monday, May 91
".
Enclosed you will find our amended letter dated April 2"d to you which I hope you find to be self-
explanatory. Also, enclosed please find the Planning & Zoning Appeal fee of $S0.00 as Hstecj in Section
24-69 {a)(l) and referred to in Ms. Hall's email of Arril ;L'\
We hope that this request and payment is compliant with aJI ofthe provisions as set forth in 24-49[b).
Should you require anything else, please let us know at yqur earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
c;:)~~ .. CO !\.-\ . \.AJ cJ:~
Donal.d M. Wolfson \ ..
Ends.
Ms. Sonya Doerr
April i2; 2011
Page two
Cc:
Erika Hall, Principal Planner, City of Atlantic Beach
Louis M. Borno, Mayor
John L Fletcher, City Commissioner
Paul B. Parsons, City Commissioner
Jonathan Daugherty, City Commissioner,
Carolyn R. Woods, City Commissioner
Alan Jensen, City Attorney, City of ,ll.tlantic B!'!ach
Howard L. Dale, Esq., Attorhey~at-Law
AGENDA ITEM II SA
MAY9, 2011
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL-Amended
April2, 2011
Karen ancl Donald M. Wolfson
1725 Beach Avenue
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
904-394·8190
donaldwo!fson@~.com
Ms. Soriya Doerr, Community Development. Director
Community Development Department
City of Atlantic Beach
BOO Semlriole.Road
Atlilntlc Beach1 FL 32233
RE: ZVAR·2011-01
Dear Ms. Doerr:
AGENDA ITEM# 8A
MAY9, 2011
l!,lesday eVe[ling, March 151h, the 5-2 vote against the motion to approve our variance req).lest den led
the V<Hiance necessarv for us to build a single family structure on our property b!O!yond the permissible
minimum set-backs. Presently, we are permitted to build a single family residence within the 10' x .55'
footprin~ (i.e. 550 square feet) as depicted on the power point slide that wa:. presented to mem.bers of
the ABCD.B.
Section 24:-820)(1) and (2) specifically requires the following minimum floor area for single family
residentiai9We!ljng units;
1. One {1) story: Qne thoiJsa.nd (1,000) ~quare feet of enclosed living area.
2·, rwo (2) $tqry: Six hundre~ fifty (659) square feet of enclosed cove rag~ 6'n the ground floorMd
not less than a total of one thousand (11 000) square feet ofenclosed living area.
Without a variance/ building a single family structure, within the permissible 550 square feet focitprlrit
does notaltow <;bmpliance IJII!th either one ()fthes~ requirements. Furthermore, a standard garage
measures 20' deep by 10' wide p,er C<!r thus tnakfng it impossible to include a garage capa bJe· of housing
a broad range of vehicles including but nQt limi~ec! to:? MINI Cooper (12.13' iongr, aHoMa Clvii:
(14.78' long); a Chevrole.t Sl!blJrb9n (18.67' toDg)1 etc. Without a variance, we cannot unde(ahy
Circumstances include a g~rage within a permissible structure having a 101 depth.
The action of the ABCDB has placed a hardship upon us. Wit~out the variance requested, or without a
variance reducing the rear yard and/or th~ front yard setbacks, we cannot build a single farnily structure
on this nonconforming lot of record. Any time the government, in this case the ABCDB, over-regulates a
piece of property so that it no longer has any practical use, such action as the one taken by the ABCDB,
in my opinion, constitutes a "taking" through the denial of our variance request or at least grounds for
relief under the Bert Harris Act. The action taken by the ABCDB eliminating the practical use of our
~-\\-wt{D3l0
Ms. Sonya Doerr-Amended
April2, 2011
Page two
AGENDA ITEM # SA
MAY 9, 2011
property constitutes a tal<! rig of the niost se·rious kind-the denial of the basic property rights' of tax
paying citizens.
We respectfully invoke our right to appeal t~e legality of this decision before the City Cpmmission and if
necessary before a court of law. At your earliest convenience, piease provide me with the necessary
documents to apply for a hearing 'before the May 91h City Commiss.ion meeting. l request the detailed
minutes of the iast two meetings of the ABCDB before which our variance re.ques~ was discussed as well
as the complete list of names of those persons speaking before the Board on this matter.
Enclo$ed please find our check #5009 In the amoi.mt of $50.00 for the Planning & Zoning Appeal fee.
Sincerely,
Donald M. Wolfson
Encl.
CC;
Erika Hall, Prlncipal Planner, City of Atlantic Beach
Alan Jensen, City Attorney, City of Atlantic Beach
Chris Lamt)ertson, Community Development Boa·rct, Chairman
Christopher "Blaine" Adams, Community Development Board
l<elly Elmore, Community Development soard
Ellen Glasser, Community Development Board
Brea Paul, Community Development Board
Harleston Parkes, Community Deveiopment Board
Kirk Hansen, Community Development Board
Howard L Dale, Esq., Attorney-at-Law
AGENDA ITEM # SA
MAY9,20ll
fit£ COPY
APPLICANT:
City of Atlantic Beach· 800 Seminole Road • Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233-5<14
Phone: (904) 247-5800 ·FAX (904) 247:5345 • www.coab.us
ORDER
of the Community Development Board
for the Cjty of Atlantic Be~ch; Flol'id~
Donald and Katen Wolfson
1725 Beach Avenue
Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
FILE NUMBER: zv AR--2011-01
DATE OF HEARING: March 15,2011
ORDERDENflNGV~CE
Pursuant to Section 24-49 and Section 24-64 of the City of Atlantic Beach Zoning and Subdiv~sion
Regulations, the above referenced applicant requested a variance from Section 24-107 (e) (2), such
application seeking to allow a reduction in a required i'ear yard to allow for the future construction of
a residential sttucture on a non-conforming 70' wide x 50' deep lot of record located on the west
side of the right-of-way at 1725 J3each Avenue,
On March 15, 2011, said request was considered at public hearing by the Goummq.ity· Develppment
Board for the City of Atlmitic Beach. Having considet'ed the application and supporting documents
and statements made by the Applicant, the Cotiununity Development Board fot1nd that the request
did not compiy ·with Sectiqn 24-49 and Section 24-64 the City of Atlantic Beach Zoning and
Subdivisi011 Regulations, firtding as follows:
l. The property is uot of irregular shape wanantlng special conditions, neither are there
exceptional topographic conditions of OJ' near the propetty, nor are there smTounding
conditions or circumstances hhpacting the property disparately from neai·by
prope11ies;
2. The substandard size of the jot of record neither warrants a variance in order to
provide for the reasonable use of the prope11y, nor are there other exceptional
Page2 of2
ZVAR-2011-ql Order
Mitrclll7, 2011
AGENDA ITEM# SA
MAY9, 2011
circumsta~1ces. pl'eventing the. reasonab.le use of the property compared to other
properties in the area;
3. The. granting of the var[ance. will have a materially adverse impact on the light and air
to adjacent properties, public sarety, including risk of fire, traffic safety and general
cong~stion Qf streets, the natural environment of the conuuu11.ity, and established
propet·ty values;
4. The gl'ai1ting of the variance will not be in harmony with the general intent and
purpose of Chaptei· 24, City ofAtlm1tic Beach Zoniug and Subdivision Regl!lations.
NOW THEREFORE, based on the said findings, the Community Development Board hereby
DENIES the request to allow a red\lclion h1 a requir~d rear yard to allow for the future constmctioi1
of a residential stmcture on a non-confo11ning 70' wide x 50' deep lot of ~ecord located on the west
side of the right-Of-way at 1725 Beach Avenue.
DATEDTI·IIS ?.!;. DAYOF fVUrch 2011.
Chris ambe1ison, Chairman
Conununity Development Board
The undersigned cm1ifies that the above Order of the Coinmunity Developmerit BoMd is a true and
com::ct rendition of the Order adopted by said Board as the same appears in the record of the
Community Development Boru:d minutes;
Cormilliliit
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
AGENDA lTEM # BA
MAY9,20ll
Drajl Minutes of the March 15, 2011 regular meeting of/he Community Development Board
.. d:~~~
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETJNQJ'OF THE ~~~~j}~;~tf
COMMU.NITY DEVELOPM , "'BOARD
Tuesday March 15•-,r '' •.,1g:;~,
' . ·~~,~~~7 ·~~i~~~\r,,,,~
The regular meeting of the Community was convened.',-. )02 pm on Tuesday, March
at 800 Seminole.i{§''M:,.in Atlantic Beach. In 15, 2011 in the City Hall Commission Ll1!lmt>ers
attendru1ee were Principal Planner Erika Hall,
Adams, Kelly Elmore, Ellen Glasser, Kirk Hansen,
ensen, arid~JlQf:!rd members Blaine
Parl~~~i~~fid Brea Paul.
'~;~i~i~?~P
1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman to order at 6:02 pm.
2.
3.
Commissioners
.attendance.
Chairman Lambertson
Ellen Glasser requested
:r~~,~~ifle'-fl,jaruJOO Ellen Glasser then
.......... ""'·1t" 1evem·omem Director Sonya Doerr."
~lffiere Ms. Glasser asked if the applicant was
"''"·>vuo"'' use, or if it was for fut,ure disposal, to
out future disposal, but the immediate plan
the minutes ofthe February 15, 2011 meeting, as noted.
carried unanimously, 7-0.
Chairman Lambertson noted that City Attorney Alan Jensen was
Board. He then welcomed the audience, noting the presence of
Paul Parsons, and thanked everyone for their interest and
4. OLD BUSINESS.
a. ZVAR-2011-01, Donald and Karen Wolfson. Request for a Variance from Section 24-
107(e)(2) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot rear yard setback to seven (7) feet to allow
for the future construction of a residential structure on a nonconforming lot of record at
1725 Beach Avenue.
Mr. Lambertson disclosed that he had been contacted by the applicant prior to the meeting.
Additionally, he said that he had been contacted by Board member Ellen Glasser who called to ask
if it was permissible for her to have a conversation with the applicant regarding his request outside
Page 1 of 10
Draft Minutes of/Ire March 15, 201 I regular meeting oft he Commrmity Development Board
AGENDA ITEM# SA
l\1AY 9, 201 I
44 of a noticed meeting. Ms. Glasser added that she did have a subsequent conversation with Mr.
45 Wolfson.
46
47 Jvlr. Elmore and Mr. Hansen also disclosed that the applicant had engaged each of them
48 independently in conversation regarding the CU11ent application. Mr. Adams and Mr. Parkes each
49 disclosed they had received voicemails fl:om 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,
53 request fur research and presentation of additional hi~tgf
54 the r~quest by the applicant to address some ofth1tJEg~~
55 meetmg. The Board had also requested that ··GJty At
56 explained that Staff had researched
57 circumstances as the subject property, to
58 In particular, the current applicant is
59 from twenty (20) feet to seven (7) feet, to
60 which is a nonconforming lot of record of
61 Avenue. Section 24-85(b) legally
62 for one single-family dwelling,
63 district are maintained, or the
64 (CDB), in accor~ance with Section
65
66 historical information
67 of similar nonconforming
68 area known as Seminole Beach
69 known as Garage Approach Roadway) (3)
70 (COJ) and annexed into the City of Atlantic
71 action and a referendum vote of by
72 in November of 1986, and became effective
73 the applicant suggested that prior to the
74 affected property owners assurance that COJ Zoning Code
75 · in effect at the time, but different from those of
76 of supplementary documents are attached.
77
78 found no fonnal agreement to this effect, she did find, and had
79 and the Board members, copies of a memo sent out to residents at
80 in regards to zoning:
81
82 • Any permits issued prior to Janumy 1987 will be honored.
83 • Zoning of the area will be compatible with existing zoning, 1: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.
Page2 oflO
Draft Minutes ojrhe March 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
AGENDA ITEM# &A
MAY9, 2011
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 often (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 .· . · Of those, three (3)
100 requests involved standard lots which were design I engineering phases and
101 utilizing the COJ setback at the time of annexat remaining seven (7) requests that
102 involved substandard lots, five (5) were approved two were denied. Both denials
103 were eventually overturned by the City upon which the
104 Kredell appeal was granted were complex whereas those of the
105 Hawkes appeal were more consistent However, none of the
106 variances exceeded or requested more to comply with
l 07 the COJ standards.
108
109 Ms. Hall also reiterated that
110 as an exemplar of his proposal,
111 the existing footprint of a 1974
112 permitted by COJ, she had no
113 if a variance had
114 dated just prior
115 property
116 could be
117 "Yard Modi
118 she
119
120 numerous caDs and inquiries requesting
121 vesting, takings and precedence, and their
122 as well as requests for specific historic information in an
123 exist. While she felt that a precedent was set with the
124 be considered which suggest that precedent may no
125 1) passage of time since the action wh1ch invoked the
126 erties, i.e., 24 years since annexation and rezoning of Seminole
127 emorialized record of any agreement or provision guaranteeing a
128 '·ard setback, either at the time of annexation, or over the subsequent
129
130
131
132
133
134 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 1h 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 oflO
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
l5p
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
1'72
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
Draft Minutes of the March 15, 20llregulm• meeting of the Community Development Board
AGENDA ITEM If 8A
MAY 9, 2011
fifty (50) plus residents of.the Ocean Grove area in opposition to his request, only ti¥'ee of those
parties owned property directly abutting his, being Jo Ann Ruggiero (1725 Ocean Grove Drive),
Barbara James (1727 Ocean Grove Drive) and John Laliberte (1729 Ocean Grove Drive).
Mr. Wolfson referred to his past service to the City as a member of the Community Development
Board for approximately fuutteen (14) years, the majority ofwhich time he served as Chair, as
well as time spent as Chair of the North Atlantic Beach Association, a group that had worked
diligently to procure the annexation of Seminole Beach. H~ ·. ed that the compilation of official
City records provided to the Board for review did refle rsonal opposition to virtually the
same request he was making, on numerous instances · . However, he explained that each
variance was required to stand on its own cted on guiding principles and
established provisions of the time.
Mr. Wolfson said he was particularly tro1,1,\i
variance, but he was personally opposed tSt"'
h agreed to take
a :Atlantic Beach,
s that Atlantic Beach
s of North Atlantic
· nportant commitments, to us, was
t a garage apartment with living
·.denies our ri'ght to build such a
igJp.en-City Planner George Worley stated "The proposed use of , ... ---~ Mr. ~*es' primary residence," in his staff repott to the City
, 1993 ana regarding Mr:. Hawkes' appeal ofthe variance denial. He
February 8, 1993 by Hans Tanzler, Jr, attorney for MJ·. Hawkes,
of the City of Jacksonville Building & Zoning Inspection
This is to our convel'sation that the l'eferenced property could have
been a single family residence constructed under the City of Jacksonville :s-
zoning code had the property not been annexed by Atlantic Beach
More specifically, the zoning code for the City of Jacksonville required a
rear yard setback often (JO)feet. Presently, residential zoning districts also
requb-e ten (1 0) foot rear yard setback.
Mr. Wolfson then read :fi·om the minutes of the February 8, 1993 City Commission meeting, at
which Mr. Tmtzler represented the Hawkes' variance appeal and City Attorney Alan Jensen advised
the Commission to grant the variance:
Page4 oflO
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216·
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
Draft Minules of/he Marcil 15, 2011 regular meeling ojlile Conummfty DE!I•e/opmenJ Board
Hans Tanzle1; a lawyer representing A1i: Hmvkes, reported that Townsend
and Virginia Hawkes wished to supplement their income with the rental
pi'Operty. He explained prope1·ty owners in ihe area, fonne~·ly latown as
Seminole Beach, were told prior to their agreel'ng to annexation that their
right to develop property would not be more restrictive under Atlantic Beach
than it was under Jacksonville. The rear setback would have been only I 0
feet when the property was part of Jacksonvflle and t (:]'':: tructure could have .• -,;
been constructed. · . ·
Alan Jensen, City Attorney, advised that bff · i,~~ pi'Oml'se that was
made prior to annexation, and the fact ~h t.. . er p'i'.(/p~r,ty owners in that
area had been granted variances basctdl/JJ~ similar loglbj:f-denial of this j_<? .~.>;.·-:;: ·'. ~··..-·~·
request would not be defensible in 7:~fiJ.~J~Y"' '\~
AGENDA ITEM # SA
MAY 9, 2011
\~![;~(~j;.~ .. ~~~
Mr. Wolfson then respo~ded to Do~ald. W:"'"'' l's ~1723 ~e?n Gr<;>v \~~) state~ent at ~he
February 15th CDB meetmg that motivation fo mg tli'¢;~~armnce was q¥t~fmanctal, saymg
this was not true. He then COlf -the claim uggiero and Waristj!.Jl that real estate
professionals had presented to { ~ vegetated lo g theirs were substandard and could
not be developed, saying that nor . "' ent had t .. rity to promise that those lots would
not be developed. In support oft •· that the ·"""t,~ould one day be developed, Mr.
Wolfson pointed to 1996 instal ~d se~~&1,twes by the COAB, noting that
property owners ited to pay ~. easf':~a west sides of Beach Avenue.
rty owners that they go in together
floor to public comment, ru:td recognized Atlantic Beach City
Conunission 1740 Live Oak Lane) as the first speaker. Mr. Fletcher said he was
there to address'· . resident rather than as an elected official. As a property owner in
the vicinity, he sa1 ceived calls from a number of his neighbors, and like them, he was
concerned about the .. ussions, no matter the fmal outcome. He cautioned the Board that there
were a number of issues complicating the matter, and asked them to carefully examine the
evidence in light of the specific grounds for approval and grounds for denial of a variance, as
delineated in Section 24-64. He added that he found it ironic that Mr. Wolfson had been so
adamantly opposed to the identical requests during his tenure on the CDB, but was standing before
the same body making the same request today, on the same grounds which he opposed then. He
reminded the Board that it was Mr. Wolfson and then-Board member Dezmond Waters who
repeatedly referred to the original covenants and restrictions, which reportedly stated that the
substandard lots on the west side of Beach Avenue ·were to serve as supplementary parking
acconunodations for the oceanfront lots. However, in the absence of those covenants and
restrictions, he was uncertain as to the original purpose and intent of those lots, or if that eve~
Page 5 oflO
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
AGENDA ITEM # 8A
MAY9,20ll
Draft ;\finutes ojrhe March 15, 2011 regular meeting oft he Commrmity Development Board
mattered, given the extended passage of time and change in jurisdiction. Further, he said he
wondered if the City's intention was to honor the COJ ten (1 0) foot rear yard setback in perpetuity,
if at all, given the absence of any historic document specifically stating such. l'vf:r. Fletcher 1hanked
the Board for their thoughtful deliberation and excused himself from the meeting.
Donald Wanstall (1723 Ocean Grove Drive) thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak again,
and apologized if he sounded angry ·at the February 15th meeting. He said he felt somewhat
blindsided when Mr. Wolfson attempted to engage him in come sation about the request just two
days before the meeting, even though the application had · led with the City some thirty·three
(33) days before, on January 11, 2011. He asked that t carefully consider the grounds for
denial of a variance as listed in Section 24~64(c), an· · structions: "No variance shall be
granted ifthe Community Development Board, it · ermines that the grantin·g of the
requested variance shall have a materially adv · ,. pact upon · more of the following," He
then spoke to the potential impact to each{ · ·on, but specifica: -llight and air to adjacent
properties, (2) congestion of streets, (4) B~·"'·"• ed property values~-, -~40..(7) the general health,
welfare or beauty of the conununity. He n?te the deni~~~f ZV~-20Q~$J? on Jun~ 17, 2~03,
then-CDB member Wolfson argued that ne1gh e fit to pnvacy, art~,!.h9 certamly agreed
with that position. Further, he the Board h "· ~' he applicant to atf~W,pt to reach some·
sort of compromise with the r to tonight's meeting. Mr. Wanstall
said that his wife had amen ,to the variance if the structure were
limited in height to one-story, but tha , · ould be amenable to reducing his
request by a foot, !J~~~,
~~g~~
~•:n>'""'",rt"<' is not directly adjacent to the
a negative effect on everyone.
she had three (3) main objections. First and
investment, and that of her three neighbors.
would mean less natural beauty, less
values. besides failing to meeting any of the criteria
request met all the criteria for denying a variance. Third,
erosion of a peaceful, eclectic neighborhood of the
'u."''-'ll'""'"' the Board look beyond this one application, to the
would be setting.
Drive) said she was in accord with the residents who had
to the Wolfsons' request. She said she had been approached by
Mr. Wolfson the and asked if she would write a letter in support of his app Iication.
When she replied th~t she would not, she said Mr. Wolfson responded that he would report to the
Board that she had "no objection". Thus, she felt it was her duty to attend and ensure the record
correctly reflected her opposition.
Wayne Parrish (68 17th Street) said that he lived on the ·.southwest comer of 17th and Beach, and
over the ·last five years he has observed continuous construction on the lots on the north side of
17th, and he was opposed to further increasing the density of the area.
Mr. Lambertson asked ifthere were others wishing to speak for or against the application, and with
no further comment, he closed the public hearing and opened the floor to Board members.
Page 6 of 10
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
'321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
AGENDA ITEM# SA
MAY 9, 2011
Draft lt1inutes ofthe J\larch 15, 2011 regular meelingofthe Community Developinent Bom·d
Ms. Glasser thanked Ms. Hall for her diligence in providing the Board with a thorough summary
of previous actions and supporting documents. She then asked Mr. Wolfson how he reconciled his
past opposition to such variances with his current position. Mr. Wolfson responded that
circumstances were different then. At the time of the Kredell application, Beach Avenue supported
two-way traffic, whereas it is now one-way, and a number of the properties had not been
developed at that point. Additionally, the City Commission and the City Attorney had detennined
that the CDB had not taken the correct position and, in sever '•· c~tances, he had been wrong.
~,If' 7
Ms. Glasser asked why Mr. Wolfson had voted to den ·' es' variance, to which he replied
he h~d a p~il?sophical problem with development ~~tv, ... was only fifty (5~) ?ercent of the
reqmred mmnnum area of a standard lot. Ms. Gla serltlien ~~~Mr· Wolfson as g1vmg "a lengthy
history of the area, with particular reference. '·' e original d'l('!t-:xstrictions" and stating "that
Garage Approach was uniquely designed. · dditional ~arkin ' · ~~ities and not for living
spaces", according to the CDB minutes of'. , 1989. She requeste.9.f~9l~ification on the use of
the term "hardship" in requesting a varian "-·'·,,,.While th!~~.,,was histotlq~HX a valid reason for
granting a variance, such is no longer the case:"~:\1' e~~@l'~t'e very specine:{ , 1:1nds for approval
and grounds for denial spelled 2,:· Ms. Glasser tb:, / ·. '"med that Mr. WoH\"'p did not need to
state a hardship for this request.\:<.,
-~
e,tinle of ation, the only difference between
tback, . ,.£~1l other development standards
sinc&qjie annexation, the Zoning Code
. tyanted to be sure that there was no
nored. %>'Jensen said he did not recall there
ed the Board that the subject property has been
,our (24) years, and is therefore subject to the
-~w~
.. ~.r, Ms. Glasser referre ·\:.. edell and Hawkes denials, both of which were eventually overturned
by the City Commi __ and asked about Mr. Jensen's February 8, 1993 statement that denial of
the (Hawkes) variance was not defensible in court. Mr. Jensen explained a number of factors were
considered, including the timing of the request relative to the aiUlexation, consistency of the
request with other variances that had been approved, as well as the language ofthe LDRs in effect
at the time, and the weak fmdings upon which the CDB based their denial. Mr. Elmore asked Mr.
Jensen if this Board were to deny the request before them, would Mr. Wolfson be able to
successfully challenge the denial. Mr. Jensen reiterated that it has been over eighteen (18) years
since the Hawkes appeal. In the interim, there have been several complete rewrites ofthe LDRs as
well as numerous amendments, all requiring public notices, community workshops and/or public
hearings at which affected parties could have requested provisions to specifically address the
circumstances of these lots. However, no such provisions have been incorporated into the LDRs,
Page 7 oflO
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
AGENDA ITEM# 8A
MAY 9,2011
Draft Minutes ofthe March 15, 2011 regular meeting oftlte Community Development Board
and no additional variances meeting the same circumstances have been considered in the mean
time. Mr. Jensen then reminded the Board that variances are to be considered on a casewby-case
basis, and that they may be approved only upon fmdings of fact that they are consistent with the
definition of a variance and consistent with the provisions of Section 24-64. If this Board were to
follow these directions of the ordinance in effect today and carefully review the request in light of
the grounds for approval and grounds for denial, as currently required, then their decision would
be defensible.
Board members concurred, and Ms. Glasser repeated
preceding variances to reduce the required rear yard
's earlier statement that the
all stood on their own merits. She
then inquired as to the conditions of the
north of the subject property at 1733 Beach Av,emte2';ialid
'"~'"'""'""" Peimington lot, located
replied that structure was built
prior to the redevelopment
required. As a point of
in the existing footprint of a 1974 structure
of the lot. Thus, the structure was
clarification, Mr. Lambertson noted
meeting, Mr. Wolfson was amenable to a
thirteen (13) foot reduction to a ten (10) foot
with the other variances that granted in
MOTION: Ellen Glasser
,,.....,,,,,,,jf<th Staff and during the
"'""''""''""·UI'> it from a
ar,g;J,~~macK, consistent
as verbally a'mended by the
'Y'-'.li'<uu'"" the required twenty (20) foot
---,~'"""'~ -~ a residential structure on a
""'~w;;r;,.,,..tly across from 1725 Beach
fson had left such a long ·and detailed record of
but she wished to thank him for his
And while she was troubled by his complete
impacts this variance might have on
Elmo~e's earlier observation that denial of this
the reasonable use ofhis property, which was tantamount to
for denial and said while it was arguable that the granting of this
adverse impact on congestion of streets (#2), public safety (#3),
the aesthetic environment (#5), and the general health, welfare
(#7), such a variance would have the greatest impact on light and air
to adjacent and the natural environment of the community, specifically loss of
protected trees and wildlife habitat (#6). Ms. Paul agreed, but reminded the Board that the
applicant could potentially clear the lot without mitigation if there were no plans to develop it
within the next year, thus making the tree argument a moot point.
Mi'· Parkes said that the degree of impact on light and air to adjacent properties was relative to the
scale of the structure. He then reviewed the grounds for approval. There was consensus that
neither irregular shape of the property warranting special conditions (#5), nor exceptional
topographic conditions of or near the property (#1), existed; neither did surrounding conditions or
circumstances impact the property disparately from nearby properties (#2), nor did exceptional
circumstances prevent the reasonable use of the property compared to other properties in the area
Page 8 of 10
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
AGENDA ITEM# RA
MAY9,2011
Draft Minutes of the March 15, 2011 reg~tlm·meeling of the Community Development Board
(#3). Likewise, there was no onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after
development ofthe property or after co·nstruction of improvements upon the property (#4), because
the narrow strip of land from which the garage lots had been carved had never been platted as
individual lots, and no documentation had. been provided to show that. the subject property itself
had ever been developed or constructed upon. However, there was concern as to whether the
substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use
ofthe property (#6), applied. The question came back to what was considered "reasonable use" of
the lot.
Mr. Parkes asked Ms. Hall if she could explain
Wolfson without a variance. Ms. Hall pre:ser1tect,.~f.~.~i
options were available to Mr.
drawings showing several
or two-story garage, with scenarios in which the lot could be developed
guest quruters. Additionally, she
constructed according to the applicant's
constructed according to the amended
required yru·d setbacks (20' rear yiu·d).
Mr. Parkes summarized that a
without a variance, and that
of the original garage lot
defended in the past. Further, it Mii'>f>"<~,.,.fl.'t
could be constructed wu·~>mlr
a single family dwelling
yard), as well as one
:"n+•·""t"'rl according to the
.·guest quarters, · · · · be constructed
with the reputed purpose and intent
Mr. Wolfson had so vigorously
nan·ow single-family residence
adjusted so as to require a less
to be coherently articulated
licant would consider reducing
that reduction of the front yard
applicant would have to withdraw this request or
(<f\ttltil\1'i'i'''"'"~'" an alternative plan and so that due notice
what the Board had asked the applicant
Yet there was no indication that the applicant
neighbors, and nothing new, by way of an
as amended by the applicant earlier this evening, the
variance fifty (50) percent reduction in the standard. He continued, saying
that he request that would allow development of a substandard lot to the
detriment of However, Ms. Glasser said she was still conflicted. The
Board had property was a legal nonconforming lot of record, and according
to the LDRs, such be used for a single~ family dwelling. Ms. Hall added that the caveat of
Section 24-85(b)(1), to which Ms. Glasser was referring was that nonconforming lots of record
could be used for single-family residences in any residential zoning district provided that the
minimum yard requirements for the particular zoning district were met, or provided that the
property owner obtained a variance from the CDB, in accordance with the requirements of Section
24-64. Mr. Parkes reiterated that a substantial accessory building could be constructed without a
variance, and a single-family dwelling, compatible with the scale of the lot and surrounding
structures could be constructed with lesser variances than even the amended request.
Mr. Hansen questioned the lack of a conceptual plan in the submittal, explaining that the
uncertainty of what would be done with this seemingly dispropmtionate request made him
apprehensive. :Ms. Paul responded that it was not always feasible to expect the applicant to go to
Page9 oflO
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
AGENDA ITEM# 8A
MAY 9, 2011
Dl'ajl Minutes of the Mardll5, 2011 regular meeting ojtTze Comm11nity Development Boord
5.
6.
7.
the trouble or expense to have something designed before a variance was granted. Ms. Hall added
that variance application submittals are required to submit a survey or lot diagram showing
setbacks, with existing and proposed structures. She reminded the Board that they bad received
copies o'fa property survey as well as a very simple sketch of the lot with standard setbacks, along
with the other application materials in their February packets. Additionally, she noted that Mr.
Wolfson had presented photos of the recently constructed garage on the Pennington property, and
proposed to do something similar.
.A;:,.,
~·f.;":;.{J::'I:~\
Mr. Lambertson cautioned the Board that what might /~~i""'' ealing to one person would not
necessarily be appealing to another, and should the pro · act, they could not legislate taste.
~ ~ Mr. Lambertson then noted that Mr. Wolfson had P,~¥ ···"· the February 15 1 meeting if the
property was to be developed for personal use t~iP'it 0r fhture disposal, to which Mr.
Wolfson had replied though he could not r .. iilture disff' the immediate plan was for
development. Mr. Lambe1tson asked Mr .. · ~.;9. n if this was stil '· ,,~·~f£~Se -if the property was
currently for sale, meaning was it listed k .· posted for sale. Mr.''Wo'lfson responded that the
property was currently listed but there is no _ ,osted onsitY,. · '":~_;\~~~1:';·:-
Mr. Lambertson asked if Mr.
:Mr. Wolfson said no.· Mr
on the floor to approve the
required twenty (20) foot rear
residential structure
across from 1
Attest
'<!~lfJi£;;~ d£~f~~ ·<·~d)};;,,
desired to·11&~ A/:''''6nd his request ffit'~!ty way, to which
restated t ere was currently a motion and a second
requestedt&.Qm Section 24~107(e)(2) to reduce the
(1 0) "'if¢t£t10 allow for the construction of a
theW"~~ ide of the right-of-way directly
Jthe motion failed, 2-5. [YES:
could appeal the decision of the Community
thhty (30) days of this decision.
the meeting at 7:57pm.
Page 10 ofiO
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Applicant:
AGENDA ITEM 4.a
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT
March 15, 2011 Public Hearing
Zoning Variance, ZVAR-2011-01
Community Development Board
Planning, Zoning and Community Development Depattment
City of Atlantic Beach
March 15, 2011 (revised Mar 8, 2011)
ZVAR-2011-01
Donald and Karen Wolfson,
1725 Beach A venue.
Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
Requested Action: Request for a Variance from Sec. 24-107(e) (2) to reduce the required
20(twenty (20) foot rear yard setback to seven (7) feet to allow for the future construction of
residential structure on a non conf01ming 50' x 70' lot of record lot at 1725 Beach Avenue, westside
of1725 Beach Avenue.
STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION
This item was deferred by the CDB at the February 15, 2011, along with a request from Board
members for additional historic inf01mation and/or a revision to the request by the applicant. Both
Board members and the applicant requested presence of and input from legal counsel priot·to further
consideration of this item. To reiterate, the applicant has requested this variance to allow for future
development of the subject property, located on the west side of Beach Avenue. Like numerous
other lots in the vicinity, this is considered a non-conforming lot of record of substandard size. Lots
of less than 5000 square feet in size are considered to be substandard in size, although they may be
legal Lots of Record, and the Code provides for their development for single-family use in
accordance with current setbacks or with the terms of a variance :fi:om the Community Development
Board. Such lots are typically 50' wide x 50' deep, and a number have received variances over the
years. Section 24-64 (d) (6) setting forth the following grounds for approval of a variance would
seem to be applicable to this request.
Staff has done exhaustive research, and presents the following in suppmi of its recommendation for
approval of a lesser variance, allowing for the reduction of the required twenty (20) foot rear yard
setback to ten (1 0) feet, which is consistent with the allowances previously granted to other
undeveloped substandard lots of record in the vicinity and adversely affected by the 1987 mmexation
of Seminole Beach into the City of Atlantic Beach.
11 Excerpts from historic CDB minutes regarding variances granted for nonconforming lots
impacted by the 1987 annexation, and discussions of related matters.
11 A compilation of documents related to the Mark Kredell variance appeal, regarding a pmi of
Government Lot 4, recorded in 0/R Books 6156-2259 and 5600-1703, and otherwise known
as 1850-1852 Beach A venue.
11 A compilation of documents related to the Townsend Hawkes variance appeal, regarding a
pmi of Government Lot 4, recorded in 0/R Book 3098-721, and otherwise known as 1772
Beach A venue.
The Board should carefully consider and provide findings of fact consistent with the provisions of
Section 24-64, Variances, in support of their action.
(c) Grounds for denial of a Variance. No variance shall be granted if the Community
Development Board, in its discretion, determines that the granting of the requested variance
shall have a materially adverse impact upon one or more of the following.
(1) Light and air to adjacent properties.
(2) Congestion of streets.
(3) Public safety, including traffic safety, risk of fire, flood, crime or other threats to
public safety.
( 4) Established property values.
(5) The aesthetic environment of the community.
(6) The natural environment of the community, including environmentally sensitive
areas, wildlife habitat, protected trees, or other significant environmental resources.
(7) The general health, welfare or beauty of the community.
Variances shall not be granted solely for personal comfort or convenience, for relief from
financial circumstances or for relief from situations created by the prope1ty owner.
(d) Grounds for approval of a Variance. A variance may be granted, at the discretion ofthe
Community Development Board, for the following reasons.
(1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the propetiy.
(2) SmTounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from
nearby properties.
(3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the prope1ty compared to
other prope1iies in the area.
( 4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the
property or after construction of improvements upon the prope1ty.
(5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special conditions.
( 6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the
reasonable use of the prope1ty.
2
(e) Approval of a Variance. To approve an application for a variance, the Community
Development Board shall find that the request is in accordance with the preceding tenns and
provisions of this Section and that the granting of the variance will be in hannony with the
purpose and intent of this Chapter. In granting a variance, the Community Development
Board may prescribe conditions in conformance with and to maintain consistency with the
City Code. Violations of such conditions, when made a patt of the terms under which the
variance is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this Chapter, and shall be subject to
established Code Enforcement procedures.
(f) Approval of a Lesser Variance. The Community Development Board shall have the
authority to approve a lesser variance than requested if the lesser variance shall be more
appropriately in accord with the terms and provisions of this Section and with the purpose
and intent of this Chapter.
SUGGESTED ACTION TO APPROVE
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve a lesser variance than
that requested from Sec. 24-107(e) (2) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot rear yard
setback to ten (10) feet to allow for the construction of a residential structure on a non
conforming lot of record lot at 1725 Beach Avenue (west side) to run with the title to the
property upon finding (Provide findings of fact similar to the following):
(1) The special conditions and circumstances necessitating this request do not result from the
actions of the applicant.
(2) The substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the
reasonable use of the property.
(3) The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this
Chapter, and the variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental
to the public welfare.
3
AGENDA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
Tuesday, March 15th, 2011 at 6:00p.m.
Commission Chambers, 800 Seminole Road
1. Call to order and pledge of allegiance.
2. Approval of minutes of the February 15th meeting.
3. Recognition ofVisitors.
4. Old Business.
a. ZVAR-2011-01, Donald and Karen Wolfson.-Request for a Variance from Sec. 24-
107 (e) (2) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot rear yard setback to seven (7) feet to
allow for the future construction of residential structure on a non conforming lot of record lot
at 1725 Beach A venue.
5. New Business.
6. Other business not requiring action.
7. Adjournment.
All information related to the item included in this agenda is available for review at the City of
Atlantic Beach Planning and Zoning Department located at 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach,
Florida and may be obtained at this office or by calling (904) 247-5826. Interested parties may
attend the meeting indicated in this notice and state your opinions, or comments regarding the
agenda items may be mailed to the address contained in this agenda. If a person decides to appeal
any decision made by the Community Development Board with respect to any matter considered at
this meeting, he or she will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose, may need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and
evidence upon which any appeal is based. Notice to persons needing special accommodations and
to all hearing impaired persons: In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons
needing special accommodation to participate in this proceeding should contact the City of Atlantic
Beach (904) 247-5800, 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 not later than 5 days
prior to the date of this meeting.
Afinutes oftlte February 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The regular meeting of the Community Development Board was convened at 6:03 pm on Tuesday,
February 15, 2011 in the City Hall Commission Chambers, located at 800 Seminole Road in Atlantic
Beach. In attendance were Principal Planner Erika Hall and Community Development Board members
Blaine Adams, Kelly Elmore, Ellen Glasser, Kirk Hansen, Chris Lambertson, Harley Parkes and Brea
Paul.
1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Chris Lambertson called the meeting to order at 6:03 pm.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 16,2010 MEETING
MOTION: Ellen Glasser moved to approve the minutes of the November 16, 2010 meeting, as
written. Kirk Hansen offered a second, and the motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. Chairman Lambertson introduced and welcomed new Board
members Kelly Elmore and Brea Paul. He also expressed gratitude for the service of former Board
members Joshua Putterman (4 years) and Lynn Drysdale (8 years). Board member Ellen Glasser then
recognized the hard work and dedication of Community Development Director Sonya Doerr.
4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS.
MOTION: Kirk Hansen moved to elect Chris Lambertson as Chair and Ellen Glasser as Vice-Chair
of the Community Development Board for calendar year 20 11. Harley Parkes second the motion and
it passed unanimously, 7-0.
5. OLD BUSINESS. None.
6. NEW BUSINESS.
a. ZVAR-2011-01. Request from Donald and Karen Wolfson for a Variance from Section 24-
106(e)(2) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot rear yard setback to seven (7) to allow for
the construction of a residential structure on a non-conforming lot of record at 1725 Beach
Avenue.
Ms. Hall introduced this item and explained that the subject parcel was a legal nonconforming lot
of record with fifty (50) feet of depth and seventy (70) feet of frontage on the western side of what
Page I of 4
"""""""""""" __________________________ _
Minutes of the February 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
was once called Garage Approach Roadway, now known as the northern extent of Beach Avenue.
Though never officially platted, this area was historically sold off to the oceanfront property
owners for for the construction of garages and/or guest quarters or surface parking.
Chainnan Lambertson invited applicant Donald Wolfson to address the Board regarding his
request. Mr. Wolfson provided Board members with a historical timeline of development on and
around the subject property, and explained the significance of the 198617 annexation of the area
previously known as Seminole Beach to the City of Atlantic Beach (COAB) jurisdiction. Prior to
that event, the parcel was located within the City of Jacksonville (COJ), and such substandard
parcels were allowed to be developed according to COJ regulations, particularly, a ten ( l 0) foot
rear yard setback as opposed to the COAB required twenty (20) foot rear yard setback. Mr.
Wolfson noted that numerous owners of similar nonconforming lots have been granted variances
and allowed to construct residential structures over the years. As the owner of the subject parcel
since 1981, he expressed his desire for the same allowances, and noted that without a variance, a
structure built according to current COAB regulations could be no more than ten ( 1 0') feet deep.
Mr. Wolfson also provided Board members with photos of a recently constructed garage apartment
on the parcel addressed as 1734 Beach Avenue, and explained that he wished to build a similar
structure.
Ms. Hall noted though the 1734 Beach structure was located seven (7) feet from the rear property
line, no variance had been required because the new structure was built in the footprint of a
previously permitted, legal garage apartment.
Ms. Glasser noted Staff had determined that the height of any structure would be limited to twenty-
four-and-one-half (24 Yz) feet. She asked what effect a variance might have on the height, to which
Mr. Wolfson replied none, explaining that the height was proportional to the total lot area.
Mr. Lambertson opened the public hearing and invited comments.
Donald Wanstall (1723 Ocean Grove Drive), whose property abuts the southwest comer of the
subject property spoke in opposition to the requested variance and stated that he had also submitted
his opinion via email. He called attention to the standards for approving and denying a variance, in
particular that "nonconfonning conditions of adjacent properties shall not be considered" and a
variance "shall not be [granted] for personal comfort, welfare".
JoAnn Ruggiero (1725 Ocean Grove Drive), whose property directly abuts the western side of the
subject property, also spoke in opposition to the requested variance and stated she had been told
the lots were substandard and therefore were undevelopable, and thus construction would never
occur on them.
Barbara James (1727 Ocean Grove Drive), whose property directly abuts the western side of the
subject property submitted a letter in opposition to the requested variance to Ms. Ruggiero, who
read the letter to Board members and submitted a copy for the file.
John Laliberte (1729 Ocean Grove Drive), whose property directly abuts the northwest comer of
the subject property submitted a letter in opposition to the requested variance to Board members
via email, and Ms. Hall noted that it too had been added to the file.
Page 2 of4
Mlnwes of tire February 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Mr. Wolfson informed Mr. Lambertson that he had two letters in support of his application, the
first being from Ms. Helen Lane (1721 Beach Avenue) and the second being [rom Robert &
Forrest Parrish (1731 Beach Avenue). Mr. Wolfson read each letter and copies were provided for
the file.
Mr. Lambertson asked if there were others wishing to speak for or against the application, and with
no further comment, he closed the public hearing and opened the floor to Board members. Ms.
Glasser asked, with respect to property taxes, if the substandard lot subject to this request was
billed separately, or together with the Wolfsons' oceanfront lot. Mr. Wolfson replied that the two
are currently tied together and billed as a single tax parcel, but upon the advice of the COJ
Property Appraiser's Office, he is in the process of separating them. Ms. Hall confirmed that the
Wolfson property is the only one which has the western nonconforming lot tied to the eastern
oceanfront lot, and that there is a law stating lots separated by a right-of-way are to be taxed
separately.
Mr. Elmore said that the annexation essentially resulted in a "taking'' because the
"nonconforming" status was applied after the property owner had closed on that property. At the
time of purchase, the property owner had certain rights and expectations as to what could be done
with the property and due to the annexation and imposition of COAB regulations, those rights
were lost. Mr. Lambertson pointed out that zoning codes and land development regulations
evolve, noting that when the current code beca.me effective in 2002, it was acceptable to divide a
one hundred (100) foot lot into two fifty (50) foot lots, but that was not the case now. Mr. Parkes
noted from some perspectives, all zoning could be viewed as takings. Ms. Glasser acknowledged
the prope11y owner's right to "reasonable use" of the property, and noted that without a variance,
an accessory structure, occupying up to six hundred (600) square feet of lot area and built to a
maximum height of fifteen (15) feet could be constructed. Mr. Hansen voiced empathy for both
sides and questioned whether "reasonable use" without a variance was amenable to all parties.
Ms. Glasser asked if the applicant was seeking a variance to construct something for personal use,
or if was for future disposal, to which Mr. Wolfson replied he could not rule out future disposal,
but the immediate plan was development. He told the Board that the required separation into a
separate tax parcel would result in significantly higher taxes, and also added that he had been
required to tie the lot into the City's water & sewer lines at a considerable cost. Mr. Wolfson
emphasized the impact annexation had on such nonconforming lots, and Ms. Glasser asked if there
were specific examples the Board could review. Mr. Wolfson referred to other such
nonconforming lots to the north of his.
Mr. Elmore asked if Mr. Wolfson had considered moving the structure forward, asking for a
reduction of the front yard setback, and stated that he would entertain reducing the front yard to get
more separation in the back. Mr. Lambertson reminded the Board that they could approve a lesser
variance, but a shift or change in location of the requested variance would require due notice,
preventing the Board from acting on such a revision at tonight's meeting. Mr. Parkes added that he
would be in favor of such a revised application, noting that a garage typically requires a minimum
depth of twenty-three (23) feet. However, Mr. Adams expressed concerns for safety with a
diminished front yard, and Mr. Lambertson agreed. Mr. Elmore pointed out that there is typically
four (4) to seven (7) feet of unpaved right of way between pavement and private lots in this
vicinity, and Mr. Parkes noted that the subject lot is seventy (70) feet wide, providing sufficient
space for surface parking next to a structure, rather than directly in front of it.
Page 3 of 4
Afinutes oft he February 15, 20 II regular meeting oft he Community Development Board
Mr. Lambertson called for a motion. Blaine Adams moved that the Board approve the applicants'
requested variance from Section 24-1 06( e )(2), reducing the required twenty (20) foot rear yard
setback to seven (7) feet, finding that the subject property met the grounds for approval of a
variance according to Section 24-64(d)(4) and (6). Kelly Elmore seconded the motion, and Mr.
Lambertson called for discussion. Ms. Glasser said she felt the Board required additional
information regarding the variances granted to, and the development of similar nonconforming lots
also subject to the annexation, and other Board members agreed. Mr. Elmore withdrew his second
and Mr. Adams amended his motion as follows.
MOTION: Blaine Adams moved that the Board defer consideration of ZVAR-2011-01 until the
March 15, 2011, so that Staff could research and provide additional historical infonnation and/or
the applicants could amend their application in the spirit of compromise with adjacent property
owners. Harley Parkes seconded the motion and.it passed unanimously, 7-0.
Chairman Lambertson asked Staffto request City Attorney Alan Jensen's attendance at the March
15, 2011 meeting. ·
7. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION.
8. ADJ~NMENT. Mr. Lambertson adjourned the meeting at 7:55 pm. u~
Chris Lambertson, Chairman
Attest
Page 4 of 4
AGENDA ITEM 5.a
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT
February 15, 2011 Public Hearing
Zoning Variance, ZVAR-2011-01
To: Community Development Board
From: Planning, Zoning and Community Development Department
City of Atlantic Beach
Date: February 3, 2011
Subject: ZVAR-2011-01
Location:
Applicant: Donald and Karen Wolfson, 1725 Beach Avenue.
Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
Requested Action: Request for a Variance from Sec. 24-106(e) (2) to reduce the
required 20(twenty (20) foot rear yard setback to seven (7) feet to allow for the future
construction of residential structure on a non conforming50' x 70' Lot of record lot at
1725 Beach A venue, west side of1 725 Beach A venue.
STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION
The applicant has requested this Variance to allo'vv for future development of their smaller lot on the
west side of Beach A venue. These lots have long been considered as Non-Conforming Lots of
Record of substandard size. Lots of less than 5000 square feet in size are considered to be
substandard in size, although they may be legal Lots of Record, and the Code provides for their
development for single-family use in accordance with current setbacks or with the terms of a
Variance from the Community Development Board. These lots typically range in size from 50'x 50'
wide and' 70'..:!:. deep, and numerous have received variances over the years. Section24-64 (d) (6)
setting forth the follovving grounds for approval of a Variance would seem to be applicable to this
request. Staffreconunencls approval and also recommends that this Variance be granted to nm with
the title to the property.
SUGGESTED ACTION TO APPROVE
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve this request for a
Variance from Sec. 24-106(e) (2) to reduce the required 20(twenty (20) foot rear ya1·d setback
to seven (7) feet to allow for the construction of residential structure on a non conforming lot of
record lot at 1725 Beach Avenue (west side) to run with the title to the property upon finding:
Provide findings offact similar to the following.)
(1) The special conditions and circumstances necessitating this request do not result from the
actions of the Applicant.
(2) substandard size of a Lot of Record warranting a Variance in order to provide for the
reasonable Use of the property.
(3) The granting of the Variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of
this Chapter, and the Variance will not be injurious to the area involved or othe1wise
detrimental to the public welfare.
2
l
r-·---·---·------------·---------------------------,
Date \ h.'-\f I\
APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
City of Atlantic Bench · 800 Seminole Road ·Atlantic Deneb, Florida 32233-5445
Phone: (904) 247-5800 · FAX (904) 247-5805 · http://www.coab.us
File No.2' V/{R--Z 0 1/-,. 0 f
2. Applicant'sAddress \IJ._.;-(:),c_~:.~~"':\-\ l~\\iF-;:.'\TL{\t-1!1( n~l=\(.\-t
3. ProperLy Location Cj,;~\-';.CY\.:-i '"""(R..c\;·:, r<.~AC\\ ~i-v.e.. ,-..c['> H i"-1(:::>;::\ .. \ Ci~0\1 '> 1~\'(i'.,t:~~::,
4. Property Appraiser's Real Estate Number ---'-N.......J.._,_f-"~--------------------~-
5. Cunent Zoning Classification '\'-''{.""(;""";:; _____ 6. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Usc designation {\ l-
7. Provision from which Val'iunce is requested ·~·~,::,·,.T\=>-.n\\0\::.1) ·:,1 z.£,_oF A 1-.cT c~"' (?.i:':cpRi:--:,
r::sc:u..:;;:-.'"T\\._~C:-1.:.~ vAQ.\\"'.0-.c:f of.:. ;'2t:O:l~r<:.. '-J(·\R..\'1
8. gr~~~y~~~~l'_e_~ '----""'§::..::0:.... ... _' -'x.:.::..'_ . ..J..J-"'o'-'_ ... _;_•;._~.::_·'~ __ c._'f·_· __ n~c r:Y1.c, r~:'f:l'"\
9. Homeowner's As.$ociation 01· Architeetnral Review Committee approval required for the proposed construction.
OY es [iaNo (If yes, this must be submitted with any application fo1· a Building Permit.)
10. Statement of facts and site plan related to requested Vat·iance, which demonstrates compliance with Section 24-64 of
the Zoning, Subdivision and Land Development Regulations, a copy of which is attached to this application.
Statement and site phm must cleal'lv describe and depict the Variance that is requested.
11. Provide all of the following information:
•. a. Proof of ownership (deed o1· ce~·tificatc by Iawye1' or abstract company o1· title company that verities
record owne1· as above). If the applicant is not the owner, a Jetter of authorizntion from the owner(s) fo1·
npplicant to represent the owner for all purposes related to this application must be provided.
/b. Sm·vey and legal description of property for which Variance is sought.
c. Required number of copies: Four (4), except whe1·e original plans. plwtogmpbs o1· documents hn·ger
than llx17 inches are submitted. Please provide eight (8) conics of anv such documents.
<1. Application Fee (S150.00)
I HEREBY CERTlli'Y THAT ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IS
CORRECT:
Signatme of owner(s) or nuthorized person if owner's authorization form is attached:
' ' r Signntnre(s): < \.··· · ,.~~:.\. c~ j
\
ADDRESS AND CONTACT INFORMATION! OF PEHSON TO RECEIVE ALL CORRESPONDENCE
REGARDING THIS APPLICATION
Name: _fy_ ;'·.J P\ Lv~' 't<J'-'·"-F
l Mailing Ad(h'ess: \ ·4-:?.. ':; .. (~, C.:_r0 •C \ j
Phone: .''iU)-(~ ,., 1 .. G ~;_;C:.':;;,.~_FAX: 'i't~;cj
----··-·---·-------------( te,.Q!) ·~---
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE BY KAREN AND DONALD WOLFSON
January 24, 2011
RE: PR GOVT LOT 7 RECD 0/R 5349-1108
Lot size: 3,500sf [70'x50'J
Setback requirements: front & rear yard setbacks 20' each
side yard 15' combined with a minimum of 5' on either side
Setbacks allow a structure 10' deep (east to west), 55' long (south to north) and 24.5' in height. A
structure 10' deep is functionally impractical and does not allow for reasonable use of this property as is
afforded to neighboring properties within close proximity of this lot. We respectfully request a variance
be granted allowing us to utilize our property in a comparable manner that our neighbor two lots north
of this lot has been allowed within the past year. The comparable lot referred to, 1734 Beach Avenue, is
a marginally smaller lot (60'x50'). The reduction of the rear yard setback for this lot allowed a structure
to be constructed that is both functionally practical and an asset to the neighborhood and community
In order to construct a similar sized and permitted structure as 173413each Avenue, we request a
variance for the reduction of the rear yard setback from 20' to 7'.
Donald M. Wolfson
SO' deep
70' long south to north
20' rear yard setback
20' front yard setback
SO'x70' lot directly west of
1725 Beach Avenue, Atlantic Beach, FL
[not to scale]
.! f
I , f...-;-r·-r
!
/~
1
1-fr It A. DURDEN ,/ I\ & ASSOC'JATES INC L_ LAND D. HYDROGR,,)HIC
• --SUf\VE:'!'ORS '-.._
POST OFYICE' DOX fl0~70 ~
JACK!I.OHVH.,l,.l:i: DI!:ACH, Fl.A. :n:,~o
r
C~.4'.7P"-c~.··-""!?T..:<uc;r;.-o,-.1 "7-"T/.J-"CK .<.n./c
.-'<?T .c..e>C.t>TLi'O /?V /.U/<7 !Jv.,.::v::!-Y.'
SIGNED ___ jyfA.:Z::_;"i;_ _____ 1 o ./JL
SCALE:. J •• "".?.£.' ·-··--~-~----
THIS SURVEY NOT VALID UNLESS 1'H15 PRINT IS EMBOSSED WI1'H THE SEAL OF THE ABOVE SIGNI'P
AGENDA ITEM# SA
MAY 9, 2011
C:B:TY OF A'fLAN1':B:C BEACH
800 SEMINOLE ROAD
ATLANTIC BEACH, j!'L 32233
INSPECTION PHONE LINE 247-5826
ApplicatiotJ. ~umber . . . . .
Property Address . . . . .. .
Application type description
Property Zoning . . . . . .. .
Applic<;ltion valuation . , . .
11-00100040
1726 BEACH AVE
APPEALS
Date 4/12/ll
RE$ ~EN 2F DISTRICT
0
-----~~-----~-~-----~------------~~-----~-----~----~--------~-----·---------Application desc
ZVAR-2011-01/REAR SB/APPEAL TO CC
----------~-~-------~----------------------------------------~--------------
owner
Permit . . . .
Additional desc
Permit Fee
I!?E!Ue Date
Expiration Date
APPEALS
50.00
4/12/11.
Contractor
01%JER
Plan Check Fee
Valuation
.oo
0
----~-----~-------------------~---------------------------------~-------
Special Notes and Comments
APPROVED TO PROCESS CH;ECK ONLY
Fee summary Charged
--~------------------... -----
Permit FeE! Total
Plan Cheqk Total
Grand Total
City of A~Ianti~ Beach
fn CUSTOMER RECElPT m:
Opet•: DSHlTH Ty.pe: OC D1·awel'l I
Date: 4/12111 Ol R~cQipt no: lt3722
Dcsct'iption Quantity.. Anount
WI! 100040 .
BUILDING PERtnTS
1.00
Tendel' detail
CK CHECK
Total tendmd
To~al paynent
5009
50.00
.00
50.00
Paid Credited Due
--.... ------.--____ ... _____ _, _____ ..;. ... ..:.....o
50.00 .oo . 00 .do .00 .OQ
50.00 .00 . 00
l'ERWT lS APPROVED ONLY IN ACCORD.\1\'CE WITH ALL CIT\' OF ATLANTIC BEACH ORDIN,\NCES AND THE FLORIDA.
Dt!li.!HNG CODES.
January 19, 2011
Mr. Donald M. Wolfson
1725 Beach Avenue
Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
BUILDING AND PLANNlNG
800 SEMINOLE ROAD
ATLANT[C BEACH, FLORIDA 32233-5445
TELEPHONE: (904) 247-5826
FAX: (904) 247-5845
www.coab.us
RE: NON-CONFORMING LOT OF RECORD (PT GOVT LOT 7 RECD 0/R 5389-1108)
Dear Mr. Wolfson,
This letter serves as confirmation that the property known as PT GOVT LOT 7 RECD 0/R 5349-
1108, having dimensions of approximately 70' x 50' and lying west of Garage Approach
Roadway as shown according to PLAT BOOK 15, PAGE 10, NORTH ATLANTIC BEACH UNIT NO 01,
and recorded in the Public Records of Duval County on January 4, 1934, is a legally established
non-conforming lot of record. The property is zoned Residential General (RG) and is designated
Residential, Low Density by the adopted Comprehensive Plan for the City of Atlantic Beach.
As such, Section 24-85(b)(1) of the Atlantic Beach Land Development Regulations (LDR)
provides that the subject property may be developed with a single-family residence and typical
accessory structures, provided the minimum yard requirements for the RG Zoning District are
maintained, or provided that the owner of the lot obtains a variance from the Community
Development Board in accordance with the requirements of Section 24-64 of the same LDRs.
Sections 24-108(e)-(f) provide the minimum yard requirements and building restrictions for the
RG Zoning District as follows:
MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK 20'
MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK 20'
MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK 15' COMBINED, WITH 5' MINIMUM ON EITHER SIDE
MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA 50% OF TOTAL LOT AREA
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 24.5' *
On non·conforming Jots of record, the height of buildings shall be restricted to a percentage
of the area of the subject lot as compared to the minimum Jot area of the applicable zoning
district, and applied to the maximum building height for the same zoning district. In tf1is
case, it would be [{3500/5000} x 35}, or 24.5'.
Woljson/Non-Conforming Lot
19 January 2011
Page 2 of2
Also, please note that after the initial effective date of these LDRs (January 01, 2002), no lot or
parcel in any Zoning District shall be divided to create a lot with area or width below the
requirements of these LDRs and the Comprehensive Plan [Section 24~85(b)(4)].
All other applicable land development regulations, building codes and permitting requirements,
which are in effect at the time building permits are sought, shall apply to the development of
this property. Please feel free to contact me at {904) 270-1605 or ehall@coab.us, with any
further questions.
Sincerely,
Erika Hall
Principal Planner