Agenda Item 1B - Applicant's DocumentationVia facsimile and regular mail
Donna L. Bartle, City Clerk
City of Atlantic Beach
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233-5445
April 29, 2011
Re: Wolfson Appeal of Variance Denial ZVAR-2011-01
Dear Ms. Bartle:
Received
MAY I -2011
Office of City Clerk
This is to confirm that our office delivered to Susan Gorman, Records Clerk in your office
at approximately 11:50 a.m. on this date the documents that we ask to be included in the
agenda packet and submitted to the Mayor and the Commissioners for the Wolfson appeal
hearing on Monday, May 9, 2011.
I apologize for the size of the large packet, as it may well contain documents that are
duplicative of documents that your staff will supply to the Commissioners. Of course, I am not
asking you to submit duplicate documents to the Commissioners. However, because of the
Friday noon deadline, and without knowing what documents would be provided to the
Commissioners for the appeal, it was necessary for me to submit the large file in this fashion.
I certainly have no objection to your reviewing our documents in the large file and
presenting to the Commission only those documents which are not duplicative of documents
that your staff is already providing to the Commissioners. However, I do respectfully state that
we want to insure that all documents contained in our large file are submitted to the Commission
through our file or yours.
Tabs 1 through 9 contain documents that are referred to and/or address issues
presented at the Development Board meeting.
I sincerely thank you for your cooperation in this regard.
Very truly yours,
fl c-=4~---
christopher A. White
CAW/jja
cc: Donald M. and Karen R. Wolfson
{00166867-1 }
DONALD M. AND KAREN R. WOLFSON
MAY 9, 2011 ATLANTIC BEACH CITY COMMISSION MEETING
INDEX
1. Property Appraiser Details for Beach Avenue properties: RE #169542-0000,
Helen M. Lane Trust and RE #169532-0000, Edward & Barnwell Lane, 1735
Beach Avenue; RE #169540-0000, Robert & Forrest Parrish, 1731 Beach
Avenue andRE #169535-000, Rufus Pennington, 1734 Beach Avenue
2. Atlantic Beach Building Department Permit Information for 1734 Beach Avenue
3. Property Tax Information for 1987 and 1991 on 1725 Beach Avenue, Donald and
Karen Wolfson; property information on 1852 Beach Avenue, Margo Marshall
and .1892 Beach Avenue, Herbert Moller; property appraiser details on 1734
Beach Avenue, Rufus Pennington and Donald and Karen Wolfson and property
information on 1778 Beach Avenue, Charles Cromer and 1850 Beach Avenue,
Fleming McDaniel Trust.
4. Preliminary Assessment Rates for July 29, 1996 on Beach Avenue water and
sewer extensions
5. John Landon 1989 variance: January 18, 1989 correspondence from Zoning
Inspection Supervisor; Variance No. V-88-3-C dated March 15, 1988; Minutes of
March 15, 1988 Community Development Board and February 17, 1988
correspondence from Community Development Director to John Landon
6. Survey of 1734 Beach Avenue property
7. Certificate of Occupancy dated May 19,2010 of 1734 Beach Avenue property
8. John Landon 1989 variance: January 18, 1989 correspondence from Zoning
Inspection Supervisor with Jacksonville and Atlantic Beach residential general
permitted use requirements; Atlantic Beach Vital Statistics and General
Information, Jacksonville and Atlantic Beach residential general permitted use
requirements and zoning regulations
9. Neighborhood History regarding Beach Avenue Non-conforming Lot of Record
dated March 15, 2011
10. Exhibit D.1 to ZVAR-2011-01
{00 166682-1 )
Property Appraiser -Property Details
LANE HELEN M TRUSf
3775 ORTEGA BLVD
JACKSONVILLE, FL 32210-4347
LANE HELEN M TRUSfEE
Primary Site Address
0 BEACH AVE
Official Record Book/Page
13052-02445
Atlantic Beach FL 32233
0 BEACH AVE
Property Detail
RE# 169542-0000
Tax; ~!strict USD3
Pm11ertv u~ 0000 VACANT RES
# of Buildings 0
Legal Desc. 09-25-29E .11
PT GOVT LOT7 RECD 0/R 12316-1937
Sul!!!lvision 00000 SECTION LAND
The sale of this property may result In higher property taxes. For more Information go
to Save Our Homes and our Property Tax Estimator. Property values, exemptions and
other information listed as 'In Progress' are subject to change. These numbers are
part of the 2011 working tax roll and will not be certified until October. Learn how the
Propertv Appraiser's Office values prooerty.
Taxable Values and Exemptions-In Progress
Value Summary
Value Method
Building Value
Extra Feature Value
Land Value (Market}
!.l!m! Vall!!: (Agrlc.)
Just (Market) Value
Assgssed Valug [A10)
Exeml!tiuns
Taxable Value
2010 Certified
CAMA
$0.00
$0.00
$267,000.00
$0.00
$267,000.00
$267,000.00
$0.00
$267,000.00
Page 1 of2
Tile#
9409
(iJ
2011 In Proaress
CAMA
$0.00
$0.00
$267,000.00
$0.00
$267,000.00
$267,000.00
See below
See below
If there are no exemptions applicable to a taxing authority, the Taxable Value Is the same as the Assessed Value listed above In the Value summary box.
County/Municipal Taxable Value SJRWMD/FIND Taxable Value School Taxable Value
No applicable exemptions No applicable exemptions No applicable exemptions
Sa es H" lsto_ry
Book/Page Sale Date Sale Price Deed Instrument Tvne Code Oualified/Unaualifled Vacant/Improved
13052-02445 2/1/2006 $100.00 WD -Warranty Deed Unqualified Vacant
12316·Q1!W 1/21/2005 $100.00 MS -Miscellaneous Unqualified vacant
06036-01126 10/2/1965 $100.00 MS-Miscellaneous Unqualified vacant
QSS22·012Z3 7/27/1982 $100.00 WD -Warranty Deed Unqualified Vacant
QJBQ9-00784 9/27/1974 $100.00 MS-Miscellaneous Unqualified Vacant
Extra Features
No data found for this section
L ~a
LN Legal Description
1 09-2S-29E .11
2 PT GOVT LOT7 RECD 0/R 12.318-
1937
3 BEING PARCEL C
Buildings
No data found for this section
2010 Notice of Prooosed Prot ertv Taxes CTruth in Millaae Notice)
TPxioq_Distdct Assessed Value Exemptions Taxable Value Last Year Proposed Rolled-back
Gen Govt Beaches $267,000.00 $0.00 $267,000,00 $1,454.62 $1,82.3.24 $1,538.83
Public Schools: By State Law $267,000.00 $0.00 $267,000.00 $1,357.43 $1,427.38 $1,468.66
By Local Board $26 7,0 DO .00 $0.00 $267,000.00 $666.97 $666.97 $721.62
FL Inland Navigation Dlst. $267,000.00 $0.00 $26 7,000.00 $9.21 $9.21 $10,04
Atlantic Beach $267,000.00 $0.00 $267,000.00 $642.47 $878.38 $876.38
Water Mgmt Dist. SJRWMD $267,000.00 $0.00 $267,000.00 $111.02 $111.02 $125.49 -School Board Voted $267,000.00 $0.00 $267,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Urban Service Dist3 $267,000.00 $0.00 $267,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
General Gov Voted $267,000.00 $0.00 $267,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Totals $4,441.72 $4,916.20 $4,743.02
Just Value Assessed Value Exemptions Taxable Value
Last Year $267,000.00 $267,000.00 $0.00 $267,000.00
Current Year $267,000.00 $2.67,000.00 $0.00 $267,000.00
http:/ I apps.coj .net/pao _propertySearch!Basic/Detail.aspx?RE= 1695420000 12/1/2010
Property Appraiser -Property Details Page 1 of 1
LANE EDWARD W III & BARNWELL E
1735 BEACH AVE
Primary Site Address
0 BEACH AVE
Official Record Book/Page
05273-01109
Tile#
9409
ATLANTIC BEACH, FL 32233-5838 Atlantic Beach FL 32233
0 BEACH AVE
Property Detail
RE# 169532-0000
Tax District USD3
Pro~rtvuse 0000 VACANT RES
#of Bulldings 0
Legal Desc. 09-2S-29E
PT GOVf LOT 4 RECD DBK 1573-117
Surutlvislon 00000 SECTION LAND
The sale of this property may result In higher property taxes. For more information go
to Save Our Homes and our Prooertv Tax Estimator . Property values, exemptions and
other information listed as 'In Progress' are subject to change. These numbers are
part of the 2011 working tax roll and will not be certified until October. Learn how !he
Property Aporaiser's Office values propertv.
Taxable Values and Exemptions-In Progress
VI 5 a ue ummary
2010 Certified 2011 In Prooress
Value Method CAMA CAMA
Building Value $0.00 $0.00
extra Feature Value $0.00 $0.00
Land Value (Market) $279,000.00 $279,000,00
Li!!Jd ~i!l!!e (Agric.) $0.00 $0.00
Just (Market) Value $279~000.00 $279,000.00
Assesseg Value (A10} $279,000,00 $279,000.00
El!;e!l!Rtions $0.00 See below
Taxable Value $279,000.00 See below
If there are no exemptions applicable to a taxing authority, the Taxable Value is the same as the Assessed Value listed above in the Value summary box.
County/Municipal Taxable Value SJRWMD/FIND Taxable Value School Taxable Value
No applicable exemptions No applicable exemptions No applicable exemptions
Extra Features
No data found for this section
L Elf) a
LN Legal Description
1 09-2S-29E
2 PT GOVf LOT 4 RECD DBK 1573-
117
Buildings
No data found for this section
2010 Notice of Prooosed Pro~ ertv Taxes (Truth in Millaae Notice 1
Taxino Dlstrltt Assessed Value Exemptions Taxable Value Last Year Proposed Rolled-back
Gen Govt Beaches $279,000.00 $0.00 $279,000.00 $1,519.99 $1,905.1B $1,607.99
Public Schools: By State Law $279,000.00 $0.00 $279,000.00 $1,418.44 $1,491.53 $1,534.67
By Local Board $279,000.00 $0.00 $279,000.00 $696.94 $696.94 $754,05
FL Inland Navigation Dlst $279,000.00 $0.00 $279,000.00 $9.63 $9.63 $10.49
Atlantic Beach $279,000.00 $0.00 $279,000.00 $BB0.33 $917.85 $917.85
Water Mgmt Dlst. SJRWMD $279,000.00 $0.00 $279,000.00 $116.01 $116.01 $131.13
School Board Voted $279,000.00 $0.00 $279,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Urban Service Dist3 $279,000.00 $0.00 $279,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
General Gov Voted $279,000.00 $0.00 $279,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Totals $4,641.34 $5,137,14 $4,956.18
Just Value Assessed Value Exemptions Taxable Value
Last Year $279,000.00 $279,000.00 $0.00 $279,000.00
Current Year $279,000.00 $279,000.00 $0.00 $279,000,00
Property Record Card (PRC)
The Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) provides historical property record cards (PRCs) online for 1995-2005. The PAO no longer maintains a certified PRC file due
to changes in appraisal software; therefore, there are no PRCs available online from 2006 forward. You may print this page which provides the current property
record. (Sections not needed can be minimized.) To print the past-year cards below, set your browser's Page Set Up for printing to Landscape.
2005I20o4l~lzoozlmo1I~I~I199BI~I~I~
More Information
arcel Tax Record I GIS Map I Map this propertv on Gooqle Maps I Cltv Fees Record
http:/ /apps.coj .net/pao _propertySearch/Basic!Detail.aspx?RE= 1695320000 12/1/2010
Property Appraiser -Property Details Page 1 of2
PARRISH ROBERT B & FORREST M
1731 BEACH AVE
ATLANTIC BEACH, FL 32233-5838
0 BEACH AVE
Property Detail
Primary Site Address
0 BEACH AVE
Atlantic Beach FL 32233
Official Record Book/Page
08335-00178
Value Summary
Tile#
9409
RE# 169540·1000 2010 Certified 2011 In PrOllress
Ti!X District USD3
Prol!ertv Ul;e 0000 VACAtfT RES
# of Buildings 0
Legal Desc. 09·2S-29E .103
PT GOVT LOTS 4,7 RECD 0/R 8391-1452
Subdivision 00000 SECTION lAND
The sale of this property may result in higher property taxes. For more information go
to Save Our Homes and our ProoertyTax Estimator. Property values, exemptions and
other Information listed as 'In Progress' are subject to change. These numbers are
part of the 2011 working tax roll and will not be certified until October. Learn how the
Property Appraiser's Office yalues orooerty.
Taxable Values and Exemptions -In Progress
Value Method
Building Value
Extra Feature Value
Land Value (Market)
Lanl! Vj!lue {Agoc.)
Just (Market) Value
Assessed Value (A1Ql
(;xeml!tlons
Taxable Value
CAMA CAMA
$0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00
$70,200.00 $70,200.00
$0.00 $0.00
$70,200.00 $70,200.00
$70,200.00 $70,200.00
$0.00 See below
$70,200.00 See below
If there are no exemptions applicable to a taxing authority, the Taxable Value Is the same as the Assessed Value listed above in the Value Summary box.
County/Municipal Taxable Value SJRWMD/FIND Taxable Value School Taxable Value
No applicable exemptions No applicable exemptions No applicable exemptions
Sa es H" 1storv
Book/Page Sale Date Sale Price Deed Instrument Tvoe Code Quallfied/IJnllualified Vacant/Improved
08~35-00178 4/25/1996 $469,000.00 WD • Warranty Deed Unqualified Vacant
08391-01452 4/25/1996 $100.00 WD-Warranty Deed Unqualified Vacant
Extra Features
No data found for this section
Leg a
LN Legal Description
1 09-2S·29E ,103
2 PT GOVT LOTS 4,7 RECD 0/R
8391-1452
3 BEING PARCEL B
Buildings
No data found for this section
2010 Notice of Prooosed ProJ: ertv_Taxes (Truth in Mill;u~~ Notice)
Taxlna District Asses5ed Value Exemption5 Taxable Value Last Year Proposed Rolled-back
Gen Govt Beaches $70,200.00 $0.00 $70,200.00 $382.45 $479.37 $404.59
Public Schools: By State Law $70,200.00 $0.00 $70,200.00 $356.90 $375.29 $386.14
By Local Board $70,200.00 $0.00 $70,200.00 $175.36 $175.36 $189.73
FL Inland Navigation Dlst $70,200.00 $0.00 $70,200.00 $2.42 $2..42 $2.64
Atla ntlc Beach $70,200.00 $0.00 $70,200.00 $221.50 $230.94 $230.94
Water Mgmt Dlst. SJRWMD $70,200,00 $0.00 $70,200.00 $29.19 $29.19 $32.99
School Board Voted $70,200.00 $0.00 $70,200.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Urban Se!Vlce Dist3 $70,200.00 $0.00 $70,200.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
General Gov Voted $70,200.00 $0.00 $70,200.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Totals $1,167.82 $1,292.57 $1,247.03
lust Value Asses5ed Value Exemptions Taxable Value
Last Year $70,200.00 $70,200.00 $0.00 $70,200.00
Current Year $70,200.00 $70,200.00 $0.00 $70,200.00
Property Record Card (PRC)
The Property Appraiser's Office (PAD) provides historical property record cards (PRCS) online for 1995-2005. The PAO no longer maintains a certified PRC file due
to changes In appraisal software; therefore, there are no PRes available online from 2006 forward. You may print this page which provides the current property
record. (Sections not needed can be minimized.) To print the past-year cards below, set your browser's Page Set Up for printing to Landscape.
~1~1~1~1~1~1~1~1~
More Information
a reel Tax Record I ~ I Map this prooerty on Google Maps I Cjty Fees Record
http:/ /apps.coj .net!pao __propertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE= 1695401000 12/1/2010
Property Appraiser ~ Property Details
PENNINGTON CARL RUFUS III
320 NORTI-l 1ST ST
SUITE 609
JACKSONVILLE BEACH, FL 32250
1734 BEACH AVE
Property Detail
RE # 169535-0000
Ti!JS District USD3
Prol!!lm use 0 100 SINGLE FAMILY
#of Buildings 1
09-2S·29E .068
Primary Site Address
1734 BEACH AVE
Atlantic Beach FL 32233
Legal Desc. PT GOVT LOT 4 RECD 0/R 13n0-1962
S!!bdivislon 00000 SECTION LAND
111e sale of this property may result in higher property taxes. For more informaUon go
to Saye Our Homes and our Prooerty Tax Estimator. Property values, exemptions and
other Information listed as 'In Progress' are subject to change. These numbers are
part of the 2011 working tax roll and will not be certified until October. Learn how the
property Appraiser's Office values property.
Taxable Values and Exemptions-In Progress
Official Record Book/page
13770-01962
Value SummarY
2010 C'PrtlfjPII
Value Method CAMA
Building Value $108,070.00
Extra Feature Value $0.00
Land Value (Market) $284,400.00
!J!nd Va(ye (Agric.) $0.00
Just (Market) Value $392,470.00
Assessed VaiU§ (AlO) $392,470.00
Ex§ml!tlons $0.00
Taxable Value $392,470.00
Page 1 of2
2011 In Proaress
CAMA
$106,784.00
$0.00
$284,400.00
$0.00
$391,184.00
$391,184.00
See below
See below
If there are no exemptions applicable to a taxing authority, the Taxable Value Is the same as the Assessed Value listed above in the Value Summary box.
County/Municipal Taxable Value SJRWMD/FIND Taxable Value School Taxable Value
No applicable exemptions No applicable exemptions No applicable exemptions
Sales History
Book/Page Sale Date
13770-01962 1/17/2007
0683Z·!HZ3Q 1/25/1990
Extra Features
No data found for this section
Buildings
Building 1
Building 1 Site Address
1734 BEACH AVE
AUantic Beach FL 32233
sate Prioe
$500,000.00
$400,000.00
Building Type 0106 -GARAGE APT SOH
Year Built 1974
IYl!!l Gross Area Heated Area
Balcony 56 0
Finished Garage 1140 0
Unfin Open Porch 208 0
Unfin Open Porch 24 0
Base Area 1140 1140
Finished Open Porch 88 0
Finished Open Porch 96 0
Balcony 56 0
Total 2808 1140
Deed Instrument Tvne Code 1 Oualifled/Unnuallfil>ll Vacant/Improved
WD -Warranty Deed Qualified Improved
WD -Warranty Deed Unqualified Improved
Lec;al
LN Leaal DescrtJ>tion
1 09·25-29E .068
2 PT GOVT LOT 4 RECD 0/R 13nO-
1962
3 BEING PARCELS 1 & 2
Element Code Detail
Exterior Wall 6 6 Vert Sheet Siding
Exterior Wall 15 15 Concrete Block
Roofing Structure 3 3 Gable or Hlp
Roofing Cover 3 3 Asph/Comp Shingle
Interior Wall 5 5 Drywall
lnt Flooring 11 11Ceramlc Clay Tlle
lnt Flooring 14 14 carpet
Heating Fuel 4 4 Electric
Hea~ng Type 4 4 Forced-Ducted
Air Conditioning 3 3 Centrnl
Element Code
Stories 2.000
Bedrooms 3.000
Baths 1.500
Rooms I Units 1.000
Rolled-back
$2,261.96
http://apps.coj.net/pao_propertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE=1695350000 12/1/2010
Property Appraiser -Property Details Page 2 of2
·-·-·--
Public Schools: By State Law $392,470.00 $0.00 $392,470.00 $2,143.67 $2,090.14 $2,158.82
By Local Board $392,470.00 $0.00 $392,470.00 $1,053.28 $980.39 $1,060.73
FL Inland Navigation Dlst $392,470.00 $0.00 $392,470.00 $14.55 $13.54 $14.76
Atlantic Beach $392,470.00 $0.00 $392,470.00 $1,330.43 $1,291.15 $1,291.15
Water Mgmt Dist. SJRWMD $392,470.00 $0.00 $392,4 70.00 $175.32 $163.19 $1B4.46
School Board Voted $392,470.00 $0.00 $392,470.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Urban Service Dist3 $392,470.00 $0.00 $392,470.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
General Gov Voted $392,470.00 $0.00 $392,470.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Totals $7,014.40 $7,226.43 $6,971.88
Just Value Assessed Value Exemptions Taxable Value
Last Year $421,650.00 $421,650.00 $0.00 $421,650.00
Current Year $392,4 70.00 $392,470.00 $0.00 $392,470.00
Property Record Card (PRC)
The Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) provides historical property record cards (PRCs) online for 1995-2005. The PAO no longer maintains a certified PRC file due
to changes in appraisal software; therefore, there are no PRCs available online from 2006 forward. You may print this page which provides the current property
record. (Sections not needed can be minimized.) To frint the past-year cards below, set your browser's Page Set Up for printing to Landscape.
~l2oo412oo3l~l~l~l~~l~l~l~
More Information
a reel Tax Record I GIS Mao I Mao this property on Google Maps I City Fees Record
http://apps.coj .netfpao _propertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE= 1695350000 1211/2010
BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTION DIVISION
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
ATLANTIC 13EACH, FLORIDA 32.2.33
APPLICATION FOR MECHANICAL PERMIT CALL·IN NUMBER
I_ IMPORT ANT-Applicant to complete all items in sections I, II, Ill, and IV.
I. /?3'-l' b_po~ Uut~. LOCATION Sfreol Addreu:
OF l1l'fi'V /(?;~ I
lnhrsacfing Slreeh: Between Ant!
BUILDING
I
Sub-di•ision
II. fDENTIFICA TION -To be completed by all applicanh.
In c.onslderotion of permit gi .... en lor doinq
with tho ottoc~d plon1 ond lpecilit•lionl
the worl tiS described in the .!lbovc ~l.e!lcmenl we heorl!by "9'[!C to podorm !~id work in ~c.cordof\ce
whith ore o pori horool ond in ~ccord~nce wilh ll1e Cily of J~cb.onville ordint"lnces ..,nd shnde.rds
of good proclice lislod !herein.
N tmo ol M ochonlc•l lj)OtV OJ A r0 4l'tC\-> 4/C.J. Conlrocfon 0 fA C-o 3 9 7 ttJ I Conhoclor (Prinl) M"t"
N1mo of !.v rv i~;)J PJ A-mJT:b{ ' D r.:n:· f/J 1 . rroporty Ownor /
Si9ntl\lro ol Own~t l~h ~LfonA~/ Siqnoluro of
or Aulhoriud A9onl Architocl or Enginaor
/ ...
Ill. 6ENERAL INFORMATION
A. TyJH of hnlinq luol: 8.
~ IS OTHER CONSTRUCTION BEING OONE OH
ElK Irk THIS BUILDING OR SITE 1 ~ru .
D G••-0 lP D Nolurol D Conlral Ulillly
IF YES, GIVE NUMBER OF CONSTRUCTION
D Oil PERMIT
D Other -Sp<~cify .
IV. IAECHANICAl EQUJr1.4ENT TO DE INSTAllED NATURE OF WORK
(r,..,vido 'complolo li1t of comp<)l'tnh on bod ol thh form) X Resldenllal or 0 Commercial
~ Heat 0 Sp<~co D R.-:u14<1 ~ Control 0 Root 0 New Building
D Alr Condttioning: D Room D Conlrol .K Existing Building
D Dud, Sy1tom: Mottti.l Tlticlnt" X Replacement of axlsllng system
Mulmum capaelly c.l.m. 0 Now lnslallallon (No syslam previously Installed)
D Rofriqoration 0 Extension or add-on to existing system
0 Other -Speclly
D Coolin9 tower: Cap.!cily q.p.m.
0 Fire •prinUoM: Numbor ol hoed• ---··---· ·-
D Elwolor D Monlilt D Eleolator (number)
THIS stACE FoR OFFICE Uu; ONLY
D Guolino plJmM_ (number) (lt.u!vod)
D Tank (number) ll.omarlt
D lJ'G contoinon. (number!
D Unli~ prelluNt vouol
D loll•" Ponnii 1\pprovod by Oaho.
tJ Ot+.or -S,-=lfy Pormit FoL
LIST ALL EQUIPMENT
AIR CONDITIONING AND REFRIGERATION EQUlPMENT
NumberUnlt.a De.~<: rl ptlon Koo8l Number Mll11u!III.Cturer
Capacity A~~ (To'")
...... -· ......... _. __
HF.ATJ.NG • FURNACES, BOILERS, FIREPLACES
NumberUnlu DowJcrl pt!Oil )(~~~Number Capacity ~ :N:Ulu!l.etunr (BTU) /
I ~ " ,_ ~ -/
.~
. I
I
J
I
l
1
i . I .
. ~
l
~·
CITY OF 1\IJ\N'l'IC BEACH
ROOFING PERMIT APPLICATION
owner ( s ) : -4-Jff~&~: E::::;.LJ.;;....J--.~-1 --'f{J~IL.:;;..__.;_[<_e_M_If_·'-1--_.-Jk'-=-ll..!-:;L..:;;...:T_i.___ ______ _
Address:~/7~3~~--~g~eA~c~ft.~--~A~~~~~------------Pbone: __________ _
Lot # ______ , Block or Unit # _________ subdivision: __________ __
Contractor: SL 7XJI-/tfS' f?.pdht{G
Addr-ess: I 7'-1 ::L GfJc:e MJ)-f.tA-f-1)
city, state and Zip ·jryc~c;;JV((Io P!fl ?,~2-11
state License I f!... C eX> s-ocz / 'f
Describe work to be per-formed :_~fZ_e..---.:..f!.....::q:?E;.:.;..;;·· --------------
Valuation of Proposed Construction:
Materials to be used: R6oF
•
5<}}-I cl G le [
Signature of Owner; Q2± Signature of Contractor:
Liability Insurance Supplied. ____________ _
Workers Compensation Insurance Supplied. ___________ _
License Information -------
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
APPLICATION FOR PLUMBING PE~MIT .
JOB LOCJ\TION: /731 · jSe,46/J /IVtZ.fl!ve ·
--7----------------------------~-------------------------------
PLU!1BING CONTRACTOR: LacUeu.-/J?.artrAS' ?w.41 J31N'f . ·_ ·
-------------------------~-----------------------------
LICENSE. NU11BERS: __ t!_!~qq}_~-~!_f~ _________ ./!!_E~_!_E]_ __________ · ____________ _
. OW.NER: ___ f)if!_-_ __ §:_'_!!!_:_ ___ f::::!~--!!!.-----~----~-~-------------~~-------'----~
BWILDING COHTRACTOR: __ ~~~--~~~~~~~]Qp~~-----~g-~-~-~-~-------~-----~
•. • ! . ' . . " -: . . : .. .
TYPE OF BUILDING: --~-1:!!!!_!!_1_!::_ __________ ;__:_ _______ ..:_-_ ___ _:. _____ .:_ ___ ~----~-
_____ j) ____ sr NKS StlOI1'ERS
--·--__ Q ___ L.h VA TORY
•. .
__ . _____ ...:.._lvATER !"!EATERS
_____ ) ____ BATH TUSS DISHI~ASHERS
---'--[~--~URINALS ___ ._DIS?OSALS
..
. · .. · :D · · CLOSETS __ "":"" ______ . WASHING-HACHHIE
----~:_ ___ FLOOR "DRAHiS __ _:_OTHER
:· . -: ~· ,, .
___ j ____ TOTAL FIXTURE COUNT
'·
I J.C9--D
-~-~---~-----------------------~----~----------------------------~-----------
INSTALLATION OF PLUHBING Mm F'I1<Tmms. MUST BE IN ACCORDANCE .\HTH THE :tiOST
RECENT EDITION: OF THE SOUTHERH STAHDAP.D PLUIUJBING CODE •
. •• . f.··
. ,
' i ' '
····.:. ..,.;..·:.-:, t'~M:irr~ ·.ti'IY~~rtl\"1'1:~~ --~--
.. f<'~Xlm't. ~\)l~b.~r ~-.. · ~· 'i1~'···' .....
: · .. J~rm;,t·~ fy.,pwl. ~:;.u""a,¥84~
:·t"J'.J.:~til · '9.;1:' ;w.o~k..l A~i~:r~N , , :
: ·oqn•r.m.>;f.Y.·.~e-~· ~P .·,rt~n~.
,·.·.f'!')':i:Jpl:mii!P~' .li.J!N' 1 ~.ttmi.if!:. 'tl'~'lti'J,.:'i'
'J.biol!l'J..Li~t;f~ ·~ ·.· . l .· .-..,~~,, .o. •, :
.j•.s;,tn~M'a,ttiiti";N"II!I.t.u9;., ·;: · ·--~o .• ot>
· · · · ·· coet-i · t.. :· ...... tiO . .. . ' ·~.l:~::.tw.
;~,ll'i~ DO
to-me.,: .. --:::..-~ . ...
. . ·. •te',·~o" ,~
.-:~!:~~;;~~ ~~o--o~ •J · :; .
. -·~-#'~·~· S:.·'
',;• ' :' f '
'1&0. ~
• ; i»ti~ -~. . •:
~q;.;.;••~.--··--.. :._; .. ;..;.~-·~.. " .... $t], •. ~ ...
Nof:ice -ALL coNe RE1'~)1.;Q,B.MS':flNCI, F.b.\JTINGS .MVS~f' ~~·;f~~Re;c~P. ~~~c~e:~ou R_iNQ
; " ··,:··· ;< • -·:··· ,·· • • ' .'·,_.! •. ' 'f·:
1': ... atltJ.;oiN~'MAI~RIAt,,:AUS.~I~hi'AJ~~-~ID.~ei~lSfRQM ~HISWQRK Musi ~or.f3·e·PtAceo IN.P.list.r_c.sPAcE;AND M~ST-~~
l · · · C,LEARS:Ci•.VP-ANLD HAULE:D'AWft..Y:.'BY'~iTI;IEFlit:l0NrBACTOR.OFf0WNER . ·1.:,
' , ..
' , . ,·· • '.•;; ' ' • ,'. ..t-"
'"fAf:~Yf.IE.·:rq. COlVU=~~Y·.·vYIT·ttl ·T~E~MEC;H
T:H·EjP.~QPE·RTV :pWNE:R ·R~Yl N'tl.TW:IC:~'
c$! ~:ure:N t~~W·
$~1.~['/I:NG ... PRI:lV~~M:IS:l\ .• ;=~~~':
,I
I
I
'I
•I
" I
I
I
'I
t
;j
:j
I
1
l
0003188
DEPARTMeNT OF BUILDING
CITY OF ATLANTIC SEACH
-----P8H~r~ rHFOni'IATZO~ ------
~~rm1~ Humb~r: UlS~
l"e-:rmi t 1'ypE-: f"t..UI'IBl"lfO
O~ass 0~ Work: AOOXTXON
Con~t:r. Typ~• WOOP ~nAfi~
~ropow~d U8e~ ~~KaLe ~ARIL~
DV~~~1ngs: l Cp~~: 0
NOTES:
!;10.1!10
li!!lo.oo
~J~1e. :ro
L.OCA'rt"tlN l'Mf<'..,Rftj\.'TrON -··------
17~4 ~E~OH hYEHUE
ATL.AWT:CC ~t!:At;H, Y<"LOitl"PA ~z'Z::Ji'l
~---------LE~AL DI!:SCftrl"'rl'Ofl ~------~-
Lot~ ..,.lOCit.t
Towng:n:z.pc;
l::lut:u:t:tv:l~:l.Oil:
·----hPPLrCAYXON
I"EIUU"f
ttAJ.:~Jl :I:hf-IICT frEE·
;; 4:;!'~~~~~~~-,}~~tt.~ ~~I!:
·w ;,i"Jo,t!!ft, . ..-rt!:'fl!itt:
fttt.t.>On Ollet-Jt. ft.lS.
f'Vt.t>Ort PI\~ -~'l
l'f,l\'r~it "rAf>
e~~n 'rAt-
HTI'kAULit:: '!.!HARt:
It!!:-.t tt!!!lt" I:'X:T P'!!:t!:
~EC. H .tftPACT r"E.I!: .. : ,:
·OTtrER
rtrm1 0
eu~. oo
!'li<O.OO
.~n.:oo
!j!.ri :·tto·
~o.ao
!;10,00
~0.01::1
!l!O,plj
!ll-1:1.00
·~1:). ~l:i
$1l,QO .~t:·~' Sll-.O,;'Otr
NOTICE-ALL CONCRETE FORMS AND F=OOTINGS MUST BE INSPECTED BEFOAE POURING
PERMIT VOID SIX MONTHS AFTER DATE OF ISSUE
BUILDING MATERIAL, RUBBISH AND DEBRIS FROM THIS WORK MUST NOT BE PLACED IN PUBLIC SPACE, AND MUST BE
CLEARED UP AND HAULED AWAY BY EITHER CONTRACTOR OH OWNER.
"FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE MECHANlCS~ LIEN LAW CAN RESULT IN
THE PROPERTY OWNER PAYING TWfCE FOR BUILDlNG IM~oPr~E"i!·~:~J:~h~'
i •· I
ISSUED ACCORDING TO APPROVED PLANS WHICH ARE PARI OF THIS PERMIT AND SU13J~!W REYOCATI~J>R
VIOLATION OF A~PLICABLE PROVISIONS O'f LAW. ~KIWGE ', ,, i,\WI
ff!lliME. A:NT'Ci::'Lr_o•r A M~
...
'
CONTRACTOR COPY·· .
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
800 SEM1NOLE ROAD
ATLANTIC BEACH, FL 32233
INSPECfiON PHONE LINE 247~5826
Application Number . . . . .
Property Address . . . . . .
Application type description
Property Zoning . . . . . . .
Application valuation . . . .
08-00000485
1734 BEACH AVE
PLUMBING ONLY
TO BE UPDATED
Date 4/10/08
Application desc
INSTALL 13 FIXTURES
Owner
PENNINGTON
1734 BEACH AVENUE
ATLANTIC BEACH FL 32233
0
Contractor
STEEG PLUMBING CO., INC.
P.O.BOX 330536
ATLANTIC BEACH FL 32233
( 904) 249-5191
Permit . PLUMBING PERMIT
Additional desc
Permit Fee 126.00 Plan Check Fee
Issue Date Valuation
Expiration Date 10/07/08
Fee summary Charged Paid Credited Due ---------------------------------------------------------
Permit Fee Total 126.00 126.00 .oo .oo
Plan Check Total . 00 .00 .00 .00
Grand Total 126.00 126.00 .00 .00
PERMIT lS. AHROVw ONLY rN ACCORnANCE WITH ·ALL CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH ORDINANCES AND THE FLORIDA
BUILDING-CODES..
.00
0
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
800 SEMINOLE ROAD
ATLANTIC BEACH, FL 32233
INSPECTION PHONE LINE 247-5826
Application Number . . . . .
Property Address . . . . . .
Application type description
Property Zoning . . . . . . .
Application valuation ....
08-00000824
1734 BEACH AVE
PLUMBING ONLY
TO BE UPDATED
Date 6/16/08
0
-----------~----------------------------------------------------------------Application desc
INSTALL 4 FIXTURES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Owner
----------~-------------
PENNINGTON
1734 BEACH AVENUE
ATLANTIC BEACH FL 32233
Contractor
------------------------
STEEG PLUMBING
Q/A:STEEG, JAMES
1601 MAIN ST
ATLANTIC BEACH
(904) 249-5191
FL 32233
----------------------------------------------------------------------------Permit PLUMBING PERMIT
Additional desc
Permit Fee 28.00 Plan Check Fee .00 Issue Date Valuation 0 Expiration Date 12/13/08 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------Fee summary Charged Paid Credited Due ---------------------------------------------------------Permit Fee Total 28.00 28.00 .00 .00 Plan Check Total .00 .00 .00 .00 Grand Total 28.00 28.00 .00 . 00
PERMO' IS APPROVED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITII ALL CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH ORDINANCES AND THE FLORIDA
BUILDING CODES.
CITY OF ATLANTIC BE:ACH
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING l BOO Seminole Road-Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 ~Tel: 247-5626-Fax: 247-5877
PLUMBING PERMIT
PeRMIT INFOkMATION LOCAT~ONlNFORMATION
'errrilt Number: 18638 Addre-ss; 1734 BEACH AVENUE
Permit Type: PLUMBING ATLANTJC BI=ACH, FLORIDA 32233
Class of Work: NEW Township: 0 Rang&: 0 Book:
Pror:Josed Use: Lot{s}: Block: Section: 0
Square Feet: Subdlvlaion: ~ ;Est. Value: Parcel Number:
lmprov. Cost: OWNER INFORMATION .. o.,te Issued; 8/12/1999 -· Name: Ill E. W. LANE HI . . . -
Total Fees: 25.00 Address: 1734 BEACH AVENUE
Amount Paid: 25.00 ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA 32233
Date Paid: 8/12/1999
-Work Oesc: INSTAL.( SEWER
Phone: {904)398-5448
' CON · 1JORfS) ,, . ·:··· . :APRI;itgA1'10N FEES
ATLANTIC COAST BING & TJLE PERMIT 25.00
· .... ,. Jnsrmctlons ReQuired
FINAL
·,
NOTICE~ INSPECTIONS MUST BE REQUESTED AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO INSPECTION
t-
BUILDING MATERIAL, RUBBISH AND DEBRIS FROM THIS WORK MUST NOT BE PLACED IN PUBLIC
SPACE. AND MUST BE CLEARED UP AND HAULED AWAY BY EITHER CONTRACTOR OR OWNER
i.-.
"FAIL.URE TO COMPLY WiTH THE CONSTRUCTION LIEN LAW CAN RESULT IN THE PROPERTY
OWNpR PAYING 1WIC~ FOR BUILDING IMPR~VEM~_
ISSUED ACCORDING TO APPROVED PLANS WHICH ARE PART OF THIS PERMIT AND SUBJECT TO REVOCATION
FOR VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF LAW.
'
!tate: ll/12199 Bl
CHECKS
0611lllBO 3a2!0Ba
CITY OF ATIJlNTIC BEACH
APPLICATION FOR PLUMBING PERMIT
JOB LOCATION: /-?Jf ~ ~-
OWNER OF PROPERTY: j/j' j.AI!)--L · TELEPHONE NO. ~.<fl•f:Jf7
PLUMBING CONTRACTOR lfl/~.tf,tL (JoRS/-;im£a7
CONTRACTOR'S ADDRESS: 3g3 tjb ~ 12. p¥= &.£ .1 1/3~
STATE LICENSE NUMBER: Yt!£;6o.f'fo/J TELEPHONE:r£<f'i5J?/
HOW MANY OF THE FOLLOWING FIXTURES INSTALLED
SINKS SHOWERS ------
LAVATORY WATER HEATERS ------
BATH TUBS DISHWASHERS ------
URINALS DISPOSALS ------
CLOSETS WASHING MACHINE -----------\
FLOOR DRAINS SHOWER PANS -------
REPIPE OTHER ------
TOTAL FIXTURES: x $3.50 + $15.00 ------------------
MINIMUM PERMIT FEE -$25.00
SIGNATURE OF OWNER: tzftt ------:----. ~--==;::=;;~; ~-
SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR: ~ ---,~~r-~~~~~~---------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
INSTALLATION OF PLUMBING AND FIXTURES MUST BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE MOST RECENT EDITION OF THE SOUTHERN STANDARD PLUMBING CODE.
CALL A DAY AHEAD TO SCHEDULE INSPECTIONS -(904) 247-5826
SEWER CONNECTIONS MUST BE CALLED INTO PUBLIC WORKS FOR INSPECTION
PRIOR TO COVERING UP -(904) 247~5834
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
800 SEMINOLE ROAD
ATLANTIC BEACH, FL 32233
INSPECTION PHONE LINE 247-5826
Application Number . . . . .
Property Address . . . . .
Application type description
Property Zoning . . . . . . .
Application valuation . . . .
09-00000027
1734 BEACH AVE
ELECTRIC ONLY
TO BE UPDATED
Date 1/08/09
0
Application desc
new service 200 amps 240 volt
Owner
PENNINGTON
1734 BEACH AVENUE
ATLANTIC BEACH
Permit
Additional desc
Permit Fee
Issue Date
Expiration Date
Fee summary
-----------------
Permit Fee Total
Plan Check Total
Grand Total
FL 32233
ELECTRICAL
70.00
7/07/09
Charged
----------
70.00
.00
70.00
Contractor
BROOKS & LIMBAUGH ELECTRIC CO
Q/A BROOKS, CHRISTY
42 WEST 8TH ST.
ATLANTIC BEACH FL 32233
(904) 241-9051
PERMIT
Plan Check Fee
Valuation
Paid Credited Due
--------------------__ .... _______
70.00 .00 .00
.00 .00 .00
70.00 .00 .00
PERMIT IS APPROVED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH ORDJNANCES AND THE FLORIDA
BUILDING CODES. '
.00
0
-.. ·.
#OF UNITS:---
#OF UNITS:
NUMBER: __ _
NUMBER:
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
BOO SEMINOLE ROAD, ATLANTIC BEACH, FL 32133
OFFICE: (904)2H·Sil26 • FIV( N0.:(904)24T·~5
BUILDINO·DEPT@COAB.US
eLECTRICAL PeRMIT APPLICATION
DND
ris PERMIT~!;
IF DIFFERENT FROM JOB ADDRESS:
DUVAL COUNTY
will be partormed to meet
commenced within six (6)
""•"'b,rll._ is commenced.
COMP. MOTOR HP RATING:---
COMP. MOTOR HP RATING:
AMPS: __ _ HEAT KW: __ _
AMPS: HEAT KW:
HP: __ _ 'r0JA: __ _
UNDER 600V: NUMBER: __ _
OVER600V: NUMBER:
DESCRIBE IN DETAIL:
COAB FORM BLDG02: REVISED: 1110/2008
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
800 SEMINOLE ROAD
ATLANTIC BEACH, FL 32233
INSPECTION PHONE LINE 247~5826
Application Number . . . . .
Property Address . . . . .
Application type description
Property Zoning . . . . . . .
Application valuation . . . .
08-00001590
1734 BEACH ]WE
MECHANICAL ONLY
TO BE UPDATED
Date 11/20/08
0
Application desc
add gas line and propane tank
Owner
PENNINGTON
1734 BEACH AVENUE
ATLANTIC BEACH
Permit . . ..
Additional desc
Permit Fee
Issue Date
Expiration Date
Fee summary
-----------------
Permit Fee Total
Plan Check Total
Grand Total
FL 32233
Contractor
PROGASCO, CORP.
7709 ALTON AVE.
JACKSONVILLE
(904) 721-5431
MECHANICAL PERMIT
ADD GAS LINE AND PROPANE TANK
70.00 Plan Check Fee
Valuation
5/19/09
Charged Paid Credited
------------------------------
70.00 70.00 .00
.00 . 00 . 00
70.00 70.00 . 00
FL 3 2211
Due
----------
.00
. 00
.00
PERMIT IS APPROVED ONLY TN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL CITY OJi ATLANTIC BEACH ORDINANCES AND THE FLORU>A
BUILDING CODES.
.00
0
CITY OF ATLANTIC aEAGH
D~O SEMINOLE ROO,IITLAI'ITIC UEAGrl, i'L J22!i:;
OFFICE: (90·1)24H~O • FAX N0,:(904}2-Iio51l<!~
!lUIWiloiG.OEPl@COA~.US
MECHANICAL PERMIT A~PLICATION
PeRMfflt: D2-yt'J'
DUVAL COUNTY
Application Is herebY made to obtain 11 o&rmlt to do the work and Installations as i'lcfiGStcd. l certify that all wark wlll ba performed to meet the
standards or all laws regulating construction lrt lhls Jurisdv.JIIon. This p!lrmh l:moomos null and voltl If work is not comm9nced v.1thln six (B)
months, or if constnJctlon or work is suspended or abandoned lor a perioj or six (6) months a\ any lime after work Is commenced,
CDtiTM~ToRsSIClNI\TURE: --~~------------
CONI FORM I'!UlrllJi,: REVISED: 1/lV2DOO
R~~i4 NOTICE OF PROPOSED PROPERTY TAXES
.-4"/91
~;~~1 1\l (.CW"~T'f T-!\.Y]:"!r-Al.!l"!-i(~IT'H'S
='~ fl .. PIJ'< ':::"(,~"' . __ oo··NOTPAV--:
:·. JHIS lg_NOTKBJLI:·· J~{;-~;::'r\1?\fTlLf.'-~" fUJk'H!'\
lAXING'
AUTHORITY
1UNTY
BLIC SCHOOLS:
lBY. sn~.-r.~w ¥ v 1(
lSi OC.dC'IS.IY;Eltr:A.RD: Y
.l~"'~f'.
r :_.A ,. r ! r '"f '-'
\TER MANAGE-
AENT DISTRICT
)EPENDENT
lPECIAL DISTRICTS*
•TER APPROVED
)EBT PAYMENTS*
YOUR PROPERTY
TAXES
LAST YEAR
271~:t'llct;r·s
?H ~ .. ?1
f';r'; ., ' '
~A;:;.,td
;~7 e -:;q
'>.-~o 7""" t;. ~ . Cll' ,.. ~ •• '
'i" t r,~ ~ . ... ' ...::
YOUF\ TAXES THIS YEAfll A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED
IF b~~~~~E~~ ~1'{%~ET TAXES AND BUDGET WILL BE HELD:
3203.2~ ?=~t P~ TOE~ Sf~ 22 15T~ tL
CITY HALL 22Q E r•~ ~T
?510.r~ ?~10 P• THU~ CCT 1
.,. ., ~ «;
l. .. t:. ... ~
6~<:-..,74
7:!..,('1
.C~[:fm"t~
'! ?0 1 P!l;'!!Q nnpi.t_ G}t' t" J !Uf H.
7:0G ~~ THUR ~~P 1~
.~;.r-:~n"' U~\<' B S PEE t;~{~y ~T ~ta;
7:15 ~$1i-~ON':,S't;P. 2.1 .
t·16 t'H~EAH i?J'I'F 1\tLA::'IitT!t~''~a:;Q;tt
i:~~ p• TUE S~P ~ SJ~g~ ~trG
~~f 10~~ PALAT~AP FlA
~t15 Pf TfU9 SF~ ?4
.ll ~.X j3f.: .(\.~~!I
--,
YOUR TAXES THIS YEAR
. IF NO BUDGET
CHANGE IS MADE
"'Q .::~ R~~" ~~-.if ... "--
(2?3.~'<
!.'1~ JO 1', 4~
-~f2 ... s~
bO.,.~;:::
) y
The taxing authorities which levy property. tax-
es against your property will soon hold PUB-
LIC HEARINGS to adopt budgets and tax rates
for the next year.
The purpose of these PUBLIC HEARINGS is to
receive opinions from the general public and
to answer questions on the proposed tax
charige and budget PRIOR TO TAKiNG FINAL
ACTION.
Each taxing authority may AMEND OR ALTER
its proposals at the hearing.
par~7~ 169Ffs-rorr 01A
~4<(:-.. ~'tl ~-?S-2Qt uq}3
t,: £\ T t P, ~ T! C ~F. tl t J-: IH'!! T l\x 0 1 r
1 :O:l~:;?,.::;-":!'1 740Z .. 4f"*FORDETAILSONINDEPENDENTSP.ECIALDISTRICTS ~45~ .. $tl:'t lOti' 1'F(l) rJ/'f. nv, <;:'lf&q:l-1~
1 coLUMN1 1 coLUMN2 ANovoTERAPPRovEDoEi3T,coNTAcTvouRTAx coLuMN3 ~-ii"'~-?~E :or 'N.1/1 un· ~:;..,u~1 ~
r AL PROPERTY TAXES
jSEE REVERSE SIDE FOF! EXPLANATION COLLECTOR AT: fi "'l UJ -2 ;JIJft ~)5~~~~~~f11g~ ;t:fl .. r' $-fT ~ (' '?' ';' /;,
ASSESSEDVALUE J EXEMPTIONS .. I TA~ABLEVALUE [.(g~;::N F' 0!~ G!': 4::t.0-'1'1r;
OURPROPERTYVALUEASOFJANUARY1:1 3~<,,J;}i 2::;;-~'(;fl:'JI ';j':t/>11)0 1.-JfitF~fl~, f'I{)NM_ t ~
ASTYEAR'SASSESSEDVALUE: 3?'5, 7 2f' 'f1;?''5 f-'f-ll(p .lq;
You FEa THE-AssEssEoivP.~u~:oF.:fouR.P.iloPERnls INAccuRATE QA ooEs flotiiffi.EcT FAIR MARKET-vfi.LUE. coNi AcT vouf1 couNrv. PRoPeiin APPAAiseli Ar: An .. ~<.~-r r. c e r ,r. r t-J II' r L ~ r-" ~: ~
"'orr!fi! · 'H~4 tQualHous ~t:, > >o ~ ~ ~., sT., :J~ ~-~esGNit-ItJ .• Ej .FL.. · ·
11-IEeRORERD::APP.RAISEI'i'S OFFICE IS UNABLE TO RESOLVE THE MADER AS TO MARKET VALUE. ~OU MAY FILE A PETITION FOR ADJUSTMENT WITH THE PROPERlY APPRAISAL ilJsT~ENi 88:d~ti. F>Etiil~N FORMS ARE AvAiLABLE FROM THE couNlY PROPERlY APPRAISE5>No MUST BE FILED oN oR BEFORE .1)9...;.;.£ 1 -$; 7
:t;
1725 -'I!,CH AY.
LEGAL OESCRIPTI ON
9-.c.v-29E USD3
WOLFSON, DONALD-
1725 BEACH AV
ATLANTIC BEACH, ..:L 32233
ATLANTIC BEACH UNIT NO 1 PT
T LOT 7 RECD O/R BK 5349-1108 SEC
-2S-29E & N1/2 LOT 22,LOT 23,S
0.04FT LOT 24
~REN R 0/R BK 4349-1106,1108
~RCHIT QUAL
FOUNDATIONS
BASEMENT
FLOOR CONST
EXTERIOR WALS
SHAPE FACTOR
ROOF CONST
ROOF _COVER
FLOOR COVER
INTERIOR FINH
~ABINETS TRIM
HEAT AND AIR
BATHROOM TILE
ELECTRICAL
DECOR
NO OF BATHS
N"UMBER OF BDR
AREA ~. AOJ'O 50.
JESC. RATE FOOT RAT!:
AVERAGE
CONT. FOOTING
NONE
WOOD W/SUB-FL
WOOD .SHINGLE
8 CORNERS
WOOD FRAME HVY
ASPHALT SHINGLE
PINE
PANELING
AVERAGE
HEAT & A/C DUCTS
FLOOR & WAINS
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
2.5
04
N=!EA NO. OF 50.
RATE FEET
REPL l;O::il
NEW
IVIN 1.0 34.68 l.O 3044-5 105583.2
ORCH . 3 10.40 l.O 482.0 5012.8
ERCE . 2 6.93 1-0 182.0 1261-2
ILTY .4 13.87 1.0 70.0 970.9
8/02/87 . F.
*------*-------*
I I K*--*----*
I I I I UI
I I I *----*
IT I I I
*------* I I
I IP I
*------* *-------*
I *----* I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I PIL ·*----* I
*-* *--------------* 1:--1:
I I
*----*
WOLFSON, DONALD M
1725 BEACH AV
ATLANTIC BEACH, FL 32233
BLDG,
VALUE RE'tAP. \.
THIS BUILDING_ l~"'·~,-~-E-R-. -8-U.f,lt,"~o-IN""G
744b6
275267
349733
LAND 11'3 5
TOTAL 1135
INDICATED VALUE 30TI:U
PLOT CODES
IV .l L ::; j u uo u L j L I 0 0 (J
02 R14000 24 L1000
03 L13000 25 R0700
04 R17000 26 L0600
05 R18000 27 L1700
06 L16000 28 UL1002
07 R25000 29 R0700
08 R07000 30 R1000
09 R02500 31 R0700
10 L09000 32 KR4300
11 L02500 33 R3100
12 R31000 34 L0400
13 PS24001 35 R1000
14 L10000 36 R0400
15 L28000 37 L0300
16 L10000 38 R2500
17 L04000 39 R1300
18 TS13002 40 L0500
19 R14000 41 R1400
~i ~i~gggl:~ ~i~gg
22 PL16006
RELATED DATA
EX. FEAT./SPEC.BLOG VALUE
2000
EXEMPTIONS
CODE VALUE CUT OUT NO.
N"V 813
TOTAL AREAS----:TAUX"= T3Z!:jUVING=
REPCCOST
NEW
391-441~TOf--T-1--661 -Tl282BI
.AND LAND SIZE ADJ.
USE FACTORS
1A 95.00 X 210.0 1.15
1A 68-00 X 50.0 .63
UTI.LITY
~
DEPR. REPL
COST
74466
UNIT LAND
PRICE.
2500.00
50.00
ADJ'D UNIT UNIT
LAND PRICE DESC.
2875.00 WTR-FT
31.50 WTR-FT
601 25000
OWNERS INTEREST
EXCEPTION CODE
TAXING DIST. U SD 3
MARKET DATA LAND
VALUE
273125
2142
DATE I BOOK I PAGE I STAMPS I SALES VALUE IINST.I 0 81/06/03 5349 1108 520.00 l30000WDSA ~
81/06/03 5349 1106 520.00 130000WDSA ~
BLDG. PERMIT
20
DATE ISSUED
RO/Ol/04
CONSTR. COST
?.Rnr.
1 /. ') H "'-l:l l • H A V IW U L .t":::i U J:i r . JJ U J:i 8 L U 1'1
.EGAL DESCRIPTION 17 2 5 ··BEACH AV
1RCHIT QUAL
'OUNDATIONS
lASEMENT
·'LOOR CON ST
~XTERIOR WALS
lHAPE FACTOR
WOF CONST
WOF COVER
"LOOR COVER
:NTERIOR FINH
~ABINETS TRIM
IE A.T AND A I R
3ATHROOM TILE
~LECTRICAL
JECOR
W OF BATHS
fUMBER OF BDR
1.REA r. ADJ'D SO~
lESC, RATE FOOT RATE
AVERAGE
CONT. FOOTING
NONE
WOOD W/SUB-FL
WOOD SHINGLE
4 CORNERS
WOOD FRAME HVY
ASPHALT SHINGLE
COMBINATION
PANELING
AVERAGE
FLUE
FLOOR & WAINS
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
LO
02
A 'REA NO, OF SO.
RATE FEET
IVIN 1.0 31.62 l-0 360-0
1\RGE .4 12.64 l.O 360.0
O':RCE . 2 6.32 1.0 200.0
t!V 813
TOTACAREAS ! AUX-56 01 LIVING=
-E REPL. COST
~ NEVV
391. 441-:lol 1 -r··. oar·--TTI97f
I ADJ. .AND I LAND SIZE FACTORS USE
ATLANTIC BEACH, 32233
I=I:EPL. COST
NEW
11383-2
4550.4
1264.0
360
DEPR. REPL
COST
11350
UNIT LAND
PRICE
*--------*
IK I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
IG I
**--------"!e.
I
I
I
TI
I
I *---------*
EX. FEAT./SPEC.BLDG
ADJ'D UNIT
LAND PRICE
8/02/87
SLOG.
lAND
TOTAL 11350
INDICA TEO VAlUE
PLOf CODES lOT GS2DUUU
02 R18000
03 R20000
04 R18000
05 KR18002
06 R20000
07 R18000
08 R20000
09 TR19007
10 L10000
11 L20000
12 L10000
13 L01000
RELA'fED DATA
WOLFSON, DONALD M
1725 BEACH AV
ATLANTIC BEACH, FL 32233
VALUE
UNIT
DES C.
EXEMPTIONS
CODE VALUE
601 25000
OWNERS INTEREST
EXCEPTION CODE
TAXING DIST. USD3
CUT OUT NO.
LAND I
VALUE DATE STAMPS C
BLDG. PERMIT DATE ISSUED CONSTR. COST
NOTICE OF PROPOSED PROPERTY T ~.XES
DUVAL COUNTY TAXING AUTHORITIES Q215-D0142r
P. 0, BOX 5.2658
JACI<SONVI!.LE, FLORIDA
*"PERSONS RENTING OR )..EASING LIVING QUARTERS OR SLI:EPING OR HOUSE KEEPING ACCOMMODATIONS MAY EIE
SU13JECi TO THE REGISTRATION PROVISIONS OF PART 1 OF CHAPTER 21l, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND MAY BE
SUBJECT TO SlATE SALES TAX AND OTHER LOCAL TAX!;S. SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE
APPLICATION OF SALES TAX OR OTHER LOCAL TAXES TO THE RENTAL OF LIVING AOCOMODATIONS. PLEASE CALL
THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE/
WOLFSON 1 DONALD M 1725 .BEACH AV ATLANTIC BEACH, FL 32233 LEGAL DESCRIPTION
9-2S-29E USD3 N ATLANTIC BEACM UNIT NO l PT PT LOT 7 RECD 0/R BK 5349-1108 SE 9-2S-29E & Nl/2 LOT 22rLOT 23,S 20.04FT LOT 24 RENO.: 169665-0000 . USE: OlA . KAREN R OIR BK 4349-1106,110
Tho lu~ht~ oU!hbfiiJO$ ll'hlch IHy Jltupany loMe~ !UntiiM 'rom proportr ~Ill $ltD!l nulrl f'UDLIC nft't!lltiGS to odopl buduots .. d IU rMe~ lr.t t(ro 1!•~1 y~•t.
l)fS..PJI!PJ)li!t..!fl. lnlrU PU!lliL_I!t/'iJU!i!i.L)} I~ llti;ci!c UpluioiiUlOill..JluL .• OilllOlJii.JIIthiR.ni\L~ILJlnsW•• .~YP.~Iinm. Oil lh~Uijl01hlLIILLrlttth9• ntrd ~ud~cl PRIOR TO. Tll~UlG
r!IIAI ACTIOI/.
fncli ll~ltQ •ulhorl!y lfttl' AMErllJ OR ALTER II~ prnt>Miilt nl lh• l1uPtlng.
TAXING YOIIJ! PROPtiATY \'OUH T4X15 TillS YfM I A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED I IOU!! T A XfS Till~ 'lf.\fl
TA~ES If f')\llPIISfD bUDGeT If ND bUDClT AUTiiORITY lAST HM GIIA!IGt IS r,llllll TAXES AND BUDGET WILL BE HELD: CI!AhG£ IS ~U.Ilf
COU/17\' 3617,90 4886,'/l '/:30 PM TOES SEP Iv!STH FL '4716. 78 CITY HALL 220 E BAY ST
PUBLIC SCIIDO~s: 2170.18 3294.91 6:00 PM TUEJ SEPT 3 2923.56 flY SThTE lAIV
I!Y LOtill 1Uli1RII 1147.22 1316.50 1701 FL PRUDENTIAL DRf JAX 1545.70
Ll.ti.D, 20.90 27.60 5:30 PM TOES SEPT 0 28.32 121 s.w. FLAGLER AV STUART FL 11TL BEACH 1011.71 1396.43 7 ~ 15 PM MON SEPT 16 . 1318,02
Ell Ml.tllln!-187.77 CITY HALL ATLANTIC BEACH, FL
,,,cfn OISTAir.T 136. 04· 7:00 PM TOE SEJP 10 SJRWM BLD 182.00 HWY 100 1 PALATKA, FLA
IIIUEPH4UE~T 475.00 603.18 5:01 PM THUR SEPT 12 618.91 SPEth\! DISllllri'S 1350 13TH AV S. JAX BEACH
~Orffi APPHOYEU 51}.8,49 695.28 695.28 llfflT f'AYMH/fS
TOiiiL PRO~Eil'ri' TAXES 9127.44 12410.58 FOR DETAILS ON IND~PENDENT SPECIAL D!Si'RII::TS 12028.57
I COLUMN 1 COLUMNZ-AND VDiEA APPROVED DEBT, CONTACT YOUR TAX COLUMN 3
SEE EXPHIN/.11011 D£LOW COLLECTOR A7; 630-2000 Sf[ (XPLAHIIT!Uil
YOUR PROPERTY VALUE MSESSEO VAtU£ ! EXEMPTIO!IS I TAXAillE VALUE UELUW
AS OF JANUARY 1: 549,500[ 25,000 5241500
LAST YEAR'S ASSESSED VA,Llif'' -~4 05, 000 -·-· ··---"~ -'
If YOU fEE, TJif ASSI!SSE!l VMUE Of YOU!\ i'fiOi'fnTY IS JNI\CW9l>Tf OR C(J[S IIUT nm~Ci f~l!l MM1kiTT YAIUE, COIIT/1CT YOUR ttlUflTY I'ROI'EIIi' M'Pil~JSER J\1:
3RD FLOOR 231 E FORSYTH ST JACKSONVILLE, FL
tr Tllf l'iiOPEnTr AP!'IliiiSER'~ llfr!C( I:S. UIII\UU TO llfSUlYF TIR MATHB 115 TD MhiiKEr VAlUE, YOU Mf,y Fllf ~ l'£ill!UII FOR J\OJIJSTMEIIT WITII TilE VALUE
AliJUSlMHIT nn/,11[1. PfliTIU/1 fO!IMS 1\Ht AVI\ILAIILE FllOM Tltf CDUIHI PllOI'EfiH. APPRI\ISED MW MUST Uf fllfn 011 OH llHDHI Q 9-Q 2-91
EXPLJl.NATIQN
COLUMN I -''YOUR PROPERTY TAXES LAST Yt:AH''
ThiS oolumn sh~ws the taxes that ~p~li!!d last yeo~ to vour properw.
These amounts were bnsr.d on budgeu anorHed lost year Arll your
previous ns~eHr.d vnlue.
COLUMN 2 • "'fOUR TAXE.S IF PROPOSED IJUD[}ET CHANGG IS MI\DE"
This ~olurnn shuws whnl your tn)'oes wilt be !his year under the
BUDGEt ACTUALLY PROPOSED by em:h local mxing BUihorl\y.
The rroposal Is NOT I in~! and may be ~mended el the publl~
' ·1n!J:• ~hnwn obovr..
1426
COLUMN 3 ~ ''YOUR TI\!(ES IF NO BIJIJGET CHANGE IS MADE"
This column shows what your tnxes will be this year IF EACH
TAXING A,UTIIOIHTY DOES NOT INCAE..<iSE ITS PRO"EflTY
TAX LEVY. Tncse ~muunts 11re based on l~sL rear'~ budgets and
your current assessment. Tne difference hnlwBan columns 'l and 3
is llw tax cl)unge proposed by each lac~l l~xing aullwily nnd is
I~DT the result ol hi~Jimr assessments.
Nbtr.: Amo\lnts shown on this form do NOT reflect e~riv pnyrnent
discounts ynu mny hnve rf~ceived or 1!)8'{ ~e ~liglble to r uceivu.
IDISCDUntS ate o max.irnum nf 4 peru~nt ol the mnounts shown o~
t'lis form.!
><·"YOUR FINAL TAX BILL MAY CONTAIN NON-AD VALOREM ASSI';;SSMENTS WHICH MAY NOT 13E REFLECTED ON THIS
NOTICE SUCH AS ASSESSMENTS FOR ROADS, FIRE, GAMAGE, LIGHIING, DRAINAGE,WATEI1, SEWER, Oil O'fHER
GOVERNMENTAl SEHVICES AND FACILITIES WHICH MAY BE LEVIED BY YOUR COUNTY, CITY, OR AN'r' SPECIAL DISTRICT.''
I
keaal Descriution 9-'2S-29E U'SD3
ATLANTIC BEACH UNIT .NO 1 PT T LOT 7 RECD 0/R BK 5349-1108 SEC -2S-29E & N1/.2 LOT 22,LOT 23,S
0.04FT LOT 2~ AREN R 0/R BK 4349-1106,1108
I
95.00 X
•"' 70.00 X
TION
ATTACHED
:l Addr<n;;;;
I-,
FL 32233
WOLFSOtlt DONALD M 1725 B.ru-\CH AV ATLANTIC BEACH, FL
Value
32233
out l'lo
1852 Beach Avenue
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
Find on map »
Owner: MARGO J MARSHALL
Total market value: $365,992
Total assessed value for property: $365,992
Total building value: $194,638
Total land value: $169,850
Land usage: Residential Land 3-7 Units Per Acre
Lot frontage: 43 feet
Lot depth: 50 feel
Assessment for fiscal year: 2008/2009
Building usage: Townhouse Soh
Actual year built: 1990
Effective year built: 1990
Heated area: 1 ,854 square feet
Stories: 3
Bedrooms: 3
Baths: 3
Rooms I Units: 1
Base Area (actual/ effective I healed): 322 I 322 I 322 square feet
Finished Garage (actual/ effective I heated): 404/202/ 0 square feet
Finished Open Porch (actual/ effective I healed): 24/7 I 0 square feet
Patio (actual/ effective I heated): 600 /30 I 0 square feet
Finished upper story 2 (actual/ effective I heated): 24 /46 /48 square feet
Read more: http:l/www.city-data.com/duval-county/B/Beach-Avenue-21.html#ixzz11i22ms61
1892 Beach Avenue
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
Find on map >>
Owner: HERBERT B MOLLER JR
Total marl<et value: $414,310
Total assessed value for property: $182,557
Total building value: $173,037
Total land value: $237,000
Land usage: Residential Land 3-7 Units Per Acre
Lot frontage: 50 feet
Lot depth: 50 feet
Assessment for fiscal year: 2008/2009
Building usage: Single Family Residence 3 Story Soh
Actual year built: 1989
Effective year built: 1989
Heated area: 1,756 square feel
Stories: 3
Bedrooms: 3
Baths: 4
Rooms I Units: 1
Balcony (actual/ effective I heated): 60 /9/0 square feet
Base Area (actual/ effective I heated): 400 /400 /400 square feet
Patio (actual/ effective I heated): 717 I 36 I 0 square feet
Unfinished Garage (actual/ effective I heated): 60 /27 I 0 square feet
Finished upper story 2 (actual/ effective I heated): 278/528/556 square feet
Read more: htlp:l/www.city-data.com/duval-county/B/Beach-Avenue-22.html#ixzz11i2cOaAI
Property Appraiser -Property Details rage 1 or L
PENNINGTON CARL RUFUS III
320 NORTH 1ST ST
SUITE 609
JACKSONVILLE BEACH, FL 32250
1734 BEACH AVE
Property Detail
Primary Site Address
1734 BEACH AVE
Atlantic Beach FL 32233
Official Record Book/Page
13770-01962
Va ue s ummary
Tile#
9409
RE# 169535-0000 2,0~0 Certified 2.()11 Io Prrw,~~
Tax District USD3
Proug~ Use 0100 SINGLE FAMILY
# of Buildings 1
Legal Desc. 09-25-29E .068
PT GOVf LOT 4 RECD 0/R 1377(}-1962
Sy!K!Ivisloo 00000 SECTION LAND
The sale of this property may result In higher property taxes. For more information go
to save Our Homes and our Property Tax Estimator. Property values, exemptions and
other Information listed as 'In Progress' are subject tD change. These numbers are
part of the 2011 working tax roll and will not be certified until October. Leam how the
property Appraiser's Office values property,
Taxable Values and Exemptions-In Progress
Value Method
Building Value
Extra Feature Value
Land Value (Market)
Land Vall!!l (Agric.}
Just (Market) Value
Assessed Value (A10}
ExemJll;ions
Taxable Value
CAMA CAMA
$108,070.00 $106,784.00
$0.00 $0.00
$284,400.00 $284,400.00
$0.00 $0.00
$392,470.00 $391,184.00
$392,470.00 $391,184.00
$0.00 See below
$392,470.00 See below
If there are no exemptions applicable to a taxing authmity, the Taxable Value Is the same as the Assessed Value listEd above In the Value Summary box.
County/Municipal Taxable Value SJRWMD/FIND Taxable Value School Taxable Value
No applicable exemptions No applicable exemptions No applicable exemptions
Sales History
BookfPaQe Sale Date
13770·01962 1/17/2007
06832-012~0 1/2S/1990
Extra Features
No data found for this section
Buildings
Building 1
Building 1 Site Address
1734 BEACH AVE
Atlantic Beach FL 32233
Sale Prlre
$500,000.00
$400,000.00
Building Type 0106 -GARAGE APT SOH
Year Built 1974
~ Gross Area Heated Area
Balcony 56 0
Finished Garage 1140 0
Unfin Open Porch 208 0
Unfin Open Porch Z4 0
Base Area 1140 1140
Finished Open Porch 88 0
Finished Open Porch 96 0
Balcony 56 0
Total 2808 1140
Deed Instrument Tvoe Code Oualified/Unnuallfled Vacant/Improved
WD-Warranty Deed Qualified Improved
WD -Warranty Deed Unqualified Improved
Lefal
LN . Legal Description
1 09-2S-29E .068
2 PT GOVf LOT 4 RECD 0/R 1377(}-
1962
3 BEING PARCELS 1 & 2
Element Code Detail
Exterior Wall 6 6 Vert Sheet Siding
Exterior Wall 15 15 ConcretE Block
Roofing Structure 3 3 Gable or Hip
Roofing Cover 3 3 Asph/Comp Shingle
Interior Wall 5 5 Drywall
(11,
joL'' FGlt l L.P l,f _....
lnt Flooring 11 11Ceramlc Clay 1lle
Int Flooring 14 14 carpet
Heating Fuel 4 4 Electric
Heating Type 4 4 Forced·Ducted
Air Conditioning 3 3 Central
Element Code
Stories 2.000
Bedrooms 3.000
Baths 1.500
Rooms I Unl15 1.000
Rolled-back
$2,261.96
http:/ Iapps .coj .net/pao _propertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE= 1695 3 5 0000 12/1/2010
rropt:ny Appraiser-l'ropeny verm1s Pagel of2
PARRISH ROBERT 13 & fORREsr M
1731 BEACH AVE
ATLANTIC BEACH, FL 32233-5838
D fJEACH AVE
PropertY Detail
Primary Site Atldre!fS
0 BEACH AVE
Atlantic Beach FL 32233
Officiul Record Book/Page
08335-00178
Value SummarY
Iili:..5t
9409
RE II 169540· JOOO :ZOi~!!!t<.! 2D11ln PI"'O.~
~r:lr.f USD3
eml!!'l!!Y: um OUOO \IACANT RES
# of Bulhllnps lo
L,og01l OC!:e, 09·2&-29E ,103
PTGDVTL01S4,7 RECO 0/R 039Hil52
S!!lldildifP.n 00000 SECTlON LANC:
l11e sale of this ptopetly may reEult In hi!Jhcr propertY !l)XJ!S, For more lnro1mnU11ri OQ
to~ Md our 2!:W'll:f!•LiltK.f,itllll~. P1operty v~lu!:S, eJ(r.inpHons ana
otller Jnrormatlon listed as 'In Prooress' ilJe subj~r.t to chonge, ·rnese rl\lrnbero are
part of U1e ;mil l'llltkin!!la){ run und wlll not be tett1neo uo~l Octnber. ~
£oormr:v Au(!Jill~m·s om~e val~~~.
Ta>cable Values and Exemptions-ln Progri:!SS
\lnlll(l Method
Building Vnlue
Extra Feature Value
Lllnd Value (Market)
Lllfid ~ill!!!! {l!!Irl!;J
lust (Markill:) V;~lue
M1~~d Vatu~:_ [610)
!lxcmptlpnN
Taxable< Value
CI\MA C'IW•
$0.00 JJ;O.DO
$0.01} $0.UO
$70,200.00 $70,ZOO.OD
$0.00 $U.UU
$10,ZOU.DU $70/0WO.OO
$70,200.00 $70,/!00.iiD
$0.00 See below
~
$70,200.00 See below
lf there are no e>:emptlons applkable to a l:ll~lnU outhnrty, thu iaY.3ble Value Is the same as lne 1\sseSSed Value IL5tcd a\xlve In the Value Summ~r( box.
County/MUnicipal Taxable V11lue SJRWMD/FIND Taxable Value School Taxable Value
No applicable exemptions No applicable exemptions No applicable exemptions
sales Hlstorv
J1ook1Page Salfl Pat<! _I Salo Prlre _Q~ l!l,mum~llt :Ul!!l Cllde ~~~ Vacallf:/lnmrovoo
1!§;:!35;QO~Zll <l/25/1996 1 $469,noo.oo WD -Wamoty Deed Unqualified \lacant
!J§Jf!'·Ql4:i2 4./25/1996 I $loo.oo WD -Warn nt\' Deed UllQu~lifietl Vi!Cilnt
Extra Features
No ctata round far th!S sect! an
Le~al
L~ ~INIPI P!,!Scrlntion
1 09·2S-29E .103
2 PT GOVT LGTS 4,i RECO 0/R
0391-1452
13 !!CING PARCEL B
Buildings
No data found for this section
2010 Notice of Pronoseri Pror ertv Taxes (Truth in Mf!lane Noti el
J)!~lllf!E.lstr!m; ~ A~ Value __ .J~§?!_Eunptln.ns Taxablt: Vlllpe Lllst Year ProPoSfld Rolle<l-ba~k I
Gcn Covt !leaches $70,200.0[) Jj(l£11~-$70;200.00 ~332..~5 $q:79.37 ~404.59
PUbH~ Sd!ools: tly State Law f-7Dt200.00 -l-$0:00~--~ :~701 200.00 -$356.90 $37S,29 ~~6.ttt 1
ElY Local Board $70(.100.00 $0.01) $70,200.1lO f-17.5.36 $175.36 $18~.7,3
l-'-----:..::=.:::;;;..:...:.:......--~f-'-...:.._;..,... ___ +$.:.:o~.o~o-po,2oo.oo $2.42 $Vt2 $1..64 1
:-=..:.:=~.:.::::.::__ _____ ~+-'-'-=~:.;:_-~~-.J-.:.:$0~.0;;:.0 __ ~----$70,20~----~ $2210!_ ---J~E.:~~--.-~-.F~0.94_ ·-
FL Inland NHvlgat:lon Dlst. $70,200.00
Atlantic Bea Cl~ $70,200.00
·,..;.:.=~=-=:.:.:.:..::..::...:.::....---F..:.:..:.:.....;.;;._ ___ +-$.:.:0::.:.0:.:.0~-$70,200.00 $29.19 $29.19 $32.99 : Water Mgmt Pis~. SJRWMD :>70,2UO.OO
1 Scim::ll Board IJnted $70/l.llD.DD $0.00 $][},200.00 $0.00 $0.00 f·O.DO
Urban serviL-e PlstJ $70,200.0()
G~rwral Gov Votelf $70,200.0() $70;200.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Totals $1,167.82 $1,2!12..57
~~-----~--~~~~~~u~~~V~a~lu~c~~--~A~.~~ei~~~v~a~lu~,------~---l~~~eo~rt~Pit~lo~h~s--------rT~a~~~b~lc~V~a~lu~~~------"~
Lnst Y~r $70,zO:J.Oo $70,200.00 $0.00 $70,7.00.00
Current Year $70,2:0rl,OO ~70,200.00 $0.00 !1-70,200.0) ~·----~-=~~~~~~~---~~~~~~--------~~----~----~~~~--------_j
Property Record card (PRC)
lile t•roperty Apprnl!il!r'; omcf.l (PAO) Jllllvllles hlsi:Or10ll f:faperty rerord r.llrds {JlRCs} CJUIIne for 199S·2005. ·nm PAO no longer mnlntalns a certln!!d Pll.C flle 11m:
to c11~nnes tn ar.praisal sonwarc; t11~refore, there are no PRC5 avallollle ontme from 2.006 forw~ro. You ma~ print thl~ page which proVIdes the cuuent prop~rty
mwrd. (~ctlons no~ nellMd c:;m !Je minimized.) lo rrlnt the pasl:·Y!'lF taros i;ltlltiW, set your browser's f>a!)e set 1Jp fr.r prlntlog tiJ l.Hnd5r:ap~.
z~l~l~l~l~l~ol~~~~ ·
More Inform~tlon
a!QlLiiKBillill! 1 ~I ~~nli~~ l ~!!!!
http://apps.coj.net/pao _propertySearch!Basic/Detail.aspx?RE==169540 1000 1211/2010
Ympeny Appl'mser-.t'roperty uetalls Page 1 of2
WOLFSOIII DONALD M & KAREN R
1725 BEACH AVE
Primal1' Site Address
172!i BEACH AVE
AtlanLlc Beach FL 32233
Official Record Bo_pk/Paqe
05349·01106
Tile#
9409
ATLANTIC BEACH, PL 3ill3·S!l3B
1725 BI:ACfi A\!E
Property Detail
RE 11 169665•0000
~·---·--·-
Il!Zi Plstrict USD3
~...!!M 0100 SINGlE FAMILY
-#of llulldlngs 1
Ll!9al Desc. 1!HO 9-25-291:
NOfrrH ATU\f'ITI!': BE'ACH UNIT 01
Sy!?QIIIIIl!!l!l 03[!98 NORTH 1\.ll..MffiC EY"Ji min I
ihe sale of this pT(lp!:/tY may re~ult In tllDhcr prnperty lit>:~!>. For more lllfortrl~tlon !JD
to .'/;nllf Our Hau:es and our .Errul!'.m-:.lllrn!l!!lli!JL . Pmp~rlY vaturu, e:<ernpUons and
otner lnfarm~!Jon listed as~~~ Plnoress' are sub)e~:t 1;1) chonge, 'These numbers ate
rmrt of th~ 2011 worklr.g Ill~ roll anrlwlll not lle ccrtlned unUI October.!.~
progNtYCoornlser's Qfflce vai!Jili nr!llJI!ttY.
Ti!xable V;;.lues and Exenwtlons-In Progress
Value summary
Value ~letlmd
··2iHoccl'ffJ:~-rc~§L
CA'Vt CAM,\
Bulldlllll Value $324,2 ::t.oo l $322,051.00
l!)(tm feature V~.tlue $5,756.00 I $5,692.0C
l..!lnd Value (Marl<ct} $2,.222,000.0(} $2,222,0CO.OO
ba!ld Va!u~:1l!!lli£J $0.0(1 l$0.{)0
Juflt (Mar~et} Value $2,551,968.0() ,$2,549,743.00
As.s~d Value £11101 _$714,103._~~~7_l.'l;l03.00
itrun.!!lli!.rul $50,0{10,0() See below
Taxable Value $6&4,103.00 1 See below
Jf th11re are no exemr.l:loos appll::a~le to~ tJ~Ing outliOiit)', the Ta:a~bte Value is Uu! ~ame a51he llsse~ect Va!UI;l' listed obove in tlle Value surnnmry box.
County/r-lunlclpal Taxable Value SJRWMD/FIND Taxable Value School Taxable Value
~.1;~~~~-~~!l.I~'"-----··"""""''········"·'··"'''''''~'~~-~-'!:~~~QO ~-~~.0 .Y.:~!~.~ ............................... , .. , ......... "~?~(l.~.~~g9 ~e,;:~-~e .. Y.~1.~~ .................... .,.-.............. Et!!1_03.:~2
~.0.'!1~~!'-~.P.:.~!!::e.~~'! .. f/?.i).., ............ ; ... ~~~~-~!!.O.·g~ ~g~;~~-r!.!2'~(1!~~0.!1.J.~.>Q . .,, .... , .............. ~ .. E;..~?.~:.O.~ .t':!r.~~t.e.M~~liP..~~-~ .. <.!:l?.9 .. ~ ............. , ... j~~~~E~:2E
~!l.~~~ll.~.~~~-~m!.t~~L-.................... £f1L0.9 11.-.!!E ~~~;1,~~!:!'.~!l.qY.1.1!L ................. : .. 1?:~~Q?g_.~~ Taxable Value $689,1(]3.00
Taxable Value $664,103,00 Taxable V!!lue $664,103.00
Sales History
Book/Page Sale Date Sal!! f>rlre Peed Inlitrimu•nt T~l! OuallfWU.!.l!W!ll~ Vae'!n~f_lmptov~
D.ill~ 6/3/1981 $130,000,00 WD • V'lammty Deed UtiQU<!llne.d
05319·Qll01l 6/J/J981 $130,000.00 WD • W~nanty Deed Unquullft~d
Extra Fe<1tures
I LN EJm.tursJ:od!l
j1 FPPR7
Jz DXWR2
land & Legal
Land
ILN k!lde Use PesctiDtlon
"" Feature De!:et1J!tlon
Fireplace Ptcrab
Deck Wporlen
Z<!lllnq_
Jt 01'10 RES OCEAN LD H UNITS PER AC ARS-2
2 ()100 RES lD ?r 7 UNITS PEr< AC
Buildings
Building 1
!lullrllng l Sltil Address
ms o\:AC.H AVE
Atl~ ntJ' D!!ilCh FL 32233
AR£.2
Dulldirt!J T~ ~0102-SFR 2 STORY SOH
Ye<tf QUilt 1930
Lll'.!Hl Gross.Aren HeatouArea
BasttArea 1136 1l31J
Fln rStJe d upper story 1 1136 1138
Base Area 1DB -lOB
_l'lnlshr!d OJJCn Pon;t-1'1 0
flnlslled l)pEln l'orct, 114 [I
Base Area !lfl 81! I
j~ _!A?n!Jth Width
It 0 0
I 1 0 0
Front lleoth ~orv Lllnd Units Umt!Vlllue
95.CO 205,00 :ommon !15.00 $2,166,003.00
70,1;0 Sfi.OO ::Ommon 70.00 $5G,OOU,OO
Element Code Detail
Exterior Wall 14 14 Wood Shingle
Roofinu suucwre 3 3 Gnble or Hlp
RQoftng CQver 3 3 1\sph/CQUlP Shingle
Interior Wnt 5 5 Drywall
-~ In Harrhvund lnt Floorin~ 12
lnt FloCJing 1<1 14 Carpet
Heating fiJel 4 4 Electrlc
HealinG Type ~4 4 Forced-Dueled
J!.tr CnndiUonjng 3 3 Cenll'ill
Efemont
Stories
!liYJrooms
bttp;//apps.coj.netipao _pro:pertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE=J 696650000
lmpra~c~
Jmprovgc'
To\211 untts Value
1.00 $2,6~8.00
890.00 $3,044.00
LeQlll
LN Leoni DllSCtlntlPt:!
I l5-l0 9-ZS·29E
2 NORTH AllArmc Ll!:A01 UNIT 01
3 PT GOVi LOT 7 RECD QIR 53<1\1·
llOll
-1 SEC 9-2£-29E,N 1/Z LOT :U,U:JT
43,5
5 :ZO.O'lfT LOT 24
-
12/1/2010
1778 Beach Avenue
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
Find on map o->
Owner: CHARLES L CROMER
Total market value: $437,744
Total assessed value for property: $160,093
Total building value: $113,744
Total land value: $324,000
Land usage: Residential Land 3-7 Units Per Acre
Lot frontage: 100 feet
Lot depth: 50 feet
Assessment for fiscal year: 200812009
Building usage: Single Family Residence 2 Story Soh
Actual year built: 1989
Effective year built: 1989
Heated area: 1 ,092 square feet
Stories: 2
Bedrooms: 2
Baths: 1.50
Rooms I Units: 1
Base Area (actual I effective I heated): 378 J 378 I 378 square feet
Finished Garage (actual I effective I heated): 247 I 124 I 0 square feet
Finished upper story 1 (actual I effective I heated): 714 I 678 I 714 square feet
Read more: http:!/www.city-data.comlduval-countyiBIBeach-Avenue-2D.html#ixzz11i061 012
1850 Beach Avenue
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
Find on map >>
Owner: FLEMING N MCDANIEL JR TRUST
Total market value: $496,857
Total assessed value for property: $220,073
Total building value: $261,708
Total land value: $233,100
Land usage: Residential Land 3-7 Units Per Acre
Lot frontage: 74 feet
Lot depth: 50 feet
Assessment for fiscal year: 2008/2009
Building usage: Townhouse Soh
Actual year built: 1990
Effective year built: 1990
Heated area: 2,798 square feet
Stories: 3
Bedrooms: 3
Baths: 3
Rooms I Units: 1
Addition (actual/ effective I heated): 64/58 /64 square feet
Base Area (actual/ effective I heated): 322 /322/322 square feet
Finished Garage (actual/ effective I heated): 404 /202/ 0 square feet
Finished Open Porch (actual/ effective I heated): 24 /7 I 0 square feet
Finished upper story 2 (actual/ effective I heated): 24 /46 I 48 square feet
Read more: http://www. city-data.com/duval-county/8/Beach-Avenue-20. html#ixzz1li0lgAkZ
BEACH AVENUE WATER AND
SEWER EXTENSIONS
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT RATES
JULY 29,1996
ASSESSMENT BASED ON PROPERTY FRONT FOOTAGE OF STREET
WITH WATER OR SEWER EXTENSIONS
FRONT FOOTA.GE CONSTRUCTION COST PER
FRONT FOOT PROJECT PART ASSESSED**
BEACH A VENUE SEWER 4,451.52
DEWEES A VENUE AREA SEWER 1,097.16
TOTAL ASSESSED PROJECT COST
PROJECT PART NOT ASSESSED
\
BEACH A VENUE WATER
BEACH A VENUE PAVING
TOTAL UN-ASSESSED COSTS
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
COST*
$236,000 $ 53.016
$ 125,000 $113.931
$ 361,000 (40.88%)
$ 190,000
$ 332,000
$ 522,000 (59.12%)
$883,000
* COSTS SHOWN ARE CURRENT ENGINEER'S ESTIMATES. FINAL COSTS TO
BE DETERMINED AFTER CONSTRUCTION BIDS ARE RECEIVED ON AUGUST
8, 1996.
** PROPERTIES CURRENTLY PAYING CITY WATER OR SEWER CHARGES WILL
NOT BE ASSESSED.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Building and Zoning Inspection Division
J8.nuary 18, 1989
Ms. Rene' Angers
716 Ocean Boulevard
P. 0. Box 25
Atlantic Beach, Flo~ida 32233
To Whom It May Conceru:
In tesponse to your letter o£ January 13, 1989, the property described
in attached legal was zoned Residential General(RG~A) in the consoli-
dated City of Jacksonville.-
As this property was recorded prior to Septa.ber S, 1969, making it
a lot of record, a single family dwelling could have been built
on thi~ lot provided it met the set backs.
The setbacks for building on this lot ~ould be 20 1 front yard,
combined 15 1 side yard (5' on one side and 10' on the other and a l0 1
rear yard). These could be reduced to 10' front, 4 1 on either side
and 5' rear yard with a yard modification signed by all contiguous
property "wuers.
:.·,
If I can be of any £urther service, please contact me.
Sincerely,
~·fl.'ZJ~
Eugenia D. White
Zoning Inspection Supervisor
Building & Zoning lnspection Division
EDW:scc
Attachment
.tmt!bs
~~~p AREA CODE 904 I 830·1100 I 220 E. BAY SIREEI/ JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32202-3401
BEPOR£ THE COKHUHITY OtVE~OPHENT BOARD
OF THE CITY OF ATLAUTIC B£ACH, F~ORIDA
No. V-68-3-C J. C. LANDON & ASSOC,
WHEREAS, Johh c. l..andcm, the owner of thu r~a~ prop~rty
Ooard £or a zoning varianoe to construct s ainglw f~milY dwelling
WHEREAS~ the Community DeveLopment Boa~d hft6 can~idered the
I
app~ic~tion ~nd rendered an opin~on; and
WHEREAS, t~king into oonsid~retian the abov~ opinion1 the
COtllllll.\Pi ty DevG>lopment Bo~rd :f:l..ntis t.hnt the gra:nti.ng o:f tJUch
vari~nce will not be cQntra~y td the public Lot~r•st ond owing to
I
$pec~Ql conditions a liternl efiforaement of th~ pr~vi$iona of the
Zon~n~ Code will r~sult in unbece~aary and undue
t:.her'e.fore,
BE IT ORDAINED EY TH~ COHHUNitY DEVELOPHENT BOARD THAT:
Eiect).r:m 1. Variance Oranted Subject to Copd~tions. The
grant~d a zoniag var~anoe f~om the ~equi~~ment of Chapt~r 24 of
the Ordin~nce Code of the City gf Atlnntic Geaan permitting
construction o! a aingle fam~~Y d~el~ing with • 10' ~ear yard;
trann£er~b~& and shall run ~ith the title to the prop~~ty
deacrib~d in this order and subject further to the condition that
aaid var~anoe shail be comm~nc~d vith~n one year f~om the
PART Dli' 'f'RAt:iT 4, NORTH A TI..At!TIC BEACH
CSe~ Attached Exhib~t A)
I
u.wn~ No. .t
i
~
I
1
Section 3. ThiD ord"r shaLl. beoome e-.ffeatJ.Ye
upon :lt • e e~ec:rut.ion.
ATTBST~
PORM A~PRDVE:D:
PRESENT:
AND:
ANOz
ABSENT:
MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
OF THE GlTY OP ATLANTIC EEACHt FLORIDA
Naroh 15, 19S8
7:00P.M.
CITY HALL
W. G~~gg McCaulie, Chairman
Ruth Gr~gg
John Baas
Donald Tappin
C~eude L. Mullie, C~ty Attorney
Rene' Angers, Recording Secretary
Richard F~llowe, C~ty Manager
Bill Watson
Stephen H. Mabry
vaohn C. Landon
L. B. MacDonell, Vice Cha~rman
Samuel T. Ho~ie
Frank Delan~y
Chairman McCaul~~ called the meeting to ord@r at 7~00 p.m. , He
asked £or additions or corrections to the minutes of the meeting
ot February 16, 1988. There being none, Hr. Tspp1n motioned th~t
th~y be approved aa presented. Ruth Gregg seconded th~ mction
whioh carried unanimously.
• • • • •
NEW BUSlNESS
A. APPLICATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY
S~RUCTURE IN THE FRONT YARD; 410 OCEANWALK DRIVE SOUTH BY
PAUL CH~ARAVALLE
Mr. Bill Watson, 14130 Crystal Cove Road, Jaokeonv~~le, stated
that he represents Hr. Ch~ar~val~a. Mr. W~tson at~ted that the
gazebo would be a very open structure and that view xrom the ma~n
house vould not be obstructed, The slab bad been poured and the
tour corner b~ama, end possibly part of the roo£ structure had
be~n construct~d when the bu~lding inspector etopped the work.
He stated that the developer h$d approved the plans and thought
the City had also.
Ed Barberito, 2~25 Ooeanwalk Drive West, lives 50 yard~ from the
subject house. He asked the Board members to go out and look at
the house before making any decision. He stated that he ~aa
vehemently opposed to the gazebo.
Laura Hiller stated that she o~ns the lot acroaa th~ street. She
stated that she vaa oppoged to the mustard-gold, red and b~ack
color combination.
\~t>?~
Jenny R~ese, 2340 Beaah~omber Trai~, stat~d that the hous~ is not
in l~eeping with the rest c£ the neighborhood and that she is
totally opposed to it, She telt they would have to liv~ ~ith the
hou~e since it had been approved, but that the ga~ebo ia a
seperate struotur~ ~nd should not be approved.
Don Gaperwill, 375 Fourth Street, ~tated that h~ owns a lot in
Oceanwa~k near th~ Chiaravalle house and that ~f the ga~ebo is
anything like the main house, he was against it.
Chairman McCaulie advised the members of the audience that the
Board had no control over aesthetics, that it was up to the
developer to approve such thing~ as design and color
combinations.
Kr. Mullis stated that the Building Offioi~l has interpreted the
structure as an accessory building, end an accessory building
must b~ in the ~ear yard. He £elt the Bo~rd's responsib~lity waa
to determine whether the auiLding Insp~dtor waa a~bitrary,
capricious, or wrong in his int9rpretat~on of the law.
Mr. Tappin atat~d that he been out and looked at the structure.
He motioned to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the
Building Insp~ctor. Ruth Gregg seconded the motion. The motion
carried unanimously.
B. APPLICATION FOR SEPTIC TANK VARIANCE LOT ~. BLOCK 39, SECTION
HJ BY STEPHEN H. MABRY
Chairman McCaul~e opened the publ~o hearing and aaked ~or
comments on the appLication. There vas no one present to disoues
the application. Hr. Tappin motionact to recommend denial of the
applic~tion, as no hardship haa been presented. Ruth G~egg
seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
APPLICATION FOR REAR YARO VARIANCE, A 50'X 50' LOT SEING PART
OF TR~CT 4, NORTH ATLANTIC BEACH, UNIT NO. 1; BY JOHN t.
LANDON CANNEXE~ FROH JACKSONVILLE, JANUARY l9B7l
~Z Mr. Landon stated that he waa requesting reli~f from the 20' rear
:> yard requirement so that he could construct a ga.rage-apartmt:?nt-
: .. ''· type bu;i.ldittg on the amal.L lot that has been in his :family sin~e
,:;
1~43. He added that he owne the lot across the street and one of
the two lots that back up to this lot. Mr. ~andon felt he ~ould
not build without relief from the 20' yard requirement.
Ther~ being no one else present to discuss the item, Mr. Ba~s
mot~oned ta approve th~ app~ication. Ruth Gregg $eoond~d the
motion. The. Soard conaide~ed the £indings of fact and determined
that a hardship exiats in that Mr. Landon could have built on his
lot with a ~0' reer yard prior to annexation. The vote was
called. The motion to approve the app.Lication carried
unanimously.
}
~
M kj
~ ~ .)
,.
\
I.
i· ~ 1,1
I
.f I
.,
'v
'· g
~
')
...
,.f,.,·----..
~ --~
Parcel. ~r
Page 19
EXHIBIT 'W'
\.
~.
.. ........
i
d
I:
1
I :I
I
f
·-.
tl .....
. \
,• ;>
. .
l '
R~CDNS!DERATrDN OF XTEN ~B" -APPLICATION FOR SEPTIC TANK
VARIANCE LOT 6, BLOCK 39, SECTION H1 BY STEPHEN H. HABRY
Mr. Stephen Mabry arr1ved l~te and asked the Board to •eoons1der
his application £or a~ptio tank variance. Ruth Gregg motioned to
reconsider the application. Mr. Tappin seconded the motion which
carried unanimously,
Mr. Mabry stated that he has ovn~d the lot tor five years and
that he and his vife pLanned to open an 1800 sq.ft. office for
Mabry Construction Company. He stated that h~ currently has a
home oc~upation in the C1ty o£ Jacksonville Beach to operate his
company, but that he was moving to Atlantic Beach and vented to
establish a business location in a oommeroia1 district. He
stated that he had obtained two estimates, $121 000 and $16,000 to
install the sewer.
Ruth Gregg
subject to
evailab~e.
unanimously.
motioned to recommend approval of th~
him conneoting to publ~c sewer when
The motion was aeoonded by Mr. Bass
M!SCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
appl~oation
it b~ccmes
and carried
Ruth Gregg r~queated that the m~nutes b~ mere in depth when an
item is denied. She stated th~t shQ had received e ca~l from
someone w~nting to know ~who said what in 1982w and the minutes
didn't re£l~ot "who said vhat and why it was turned down~.
Mr. Mullis r~minded the Soard that they do not have to tel~
anyone why they vat~d a c~rtain •ay.
Mr. Tappin £e~t that many times there is no on~ reason that an
item ia denied. The secretary added that the recorded ~as~ett
tap~s o£ the meetings are kept on fi~e £or verbatim record.:
Chairmen McCaulie asked "hov many times is eome one going to call
and ask a que~tion versee how much extra time it's going to take
to type the minute~w. He added that the first item o£ business
at eaoh meeting is whether there are any corrections or ~dditions
to the minute$ and that the Board members should f~el £ree to
Make corrections or add~ticns at that time.
* * •
Mr. Mullis stated that aft~r extensive h~aringa the judge
announced that he is ente~ing a temporary injunction to oloee THE
BIG L on Mayport Road.
Hr. Mullis atated that h$ has been u~ing the Community
Deve1opment Board as B model to other oit~ea he represents, aB
tar as conaol~dating boe~da, commissions, and agencies into one
body. He added th~t the Board has done a tremendous job.
CITY OF
Att~t« '8e<+d -?~
~ 710 001\lAN BOULEY MD
. P.O.BOX26
ATLANTIC BEACH, FWIHDA 322~:'1
TELEPHONii (904) Z49-239!1
"•bru•<Y 17, 1988 ///~Q )
Mr. John C, Landon i. w:J
John C. Landot:~ & Assoc:i.ates
1454 U.S, 19 South ! ·· ·
Clearwater, Florida. 34624,
Doa:r Mr. Landon, . ·,
Enclosed is an application fo'l' varinnce .a.s you requested. The next
meeting of the Co!lllllunity Development.B.oard.will be held on Tuesday,
M;.trch lS, 1988. The deadline for filing the application is F:tidny,
f-ebruary 26, 1988,
~i~our supporting data should incAude documents verifying the date
~irhe po.rcel was reco:rded as a~ lot.
If you :tequire further information please let me know.
s.t~1ce:,Vr,
c'(>.:~, 2~~-~\~c
Rene r Angers
Community Development Director
~-I
,· (~.·~
I ~ .
TO
JOHN C. \.ANDON & ASSOCIATES, INC,
Ccn,ulllnQ Engtn~Wr• ami Su/'\I&Yort
1454 1,1. $. 19 Soulh • Suite • 10 " Clearwotol, Flonda 33s•e • (613) 5~1)-970\1
TELEX: ~10 10010~0 • CABLE: ~AI~OON
C,-,::(. off ft-Tf...Mu:. X?~.±··
]l(.p 0C.JC.~ ftou~
GENTLEMEN:
TRANSMITIAL
WE ARE SENDING YOU Attached 0 Undar separate cover 0 ~-------the loHowing items:
OUAmiTY DATE DeSCRIPTION
\
\
THESE ARE TRANSMilTED., ehock•d bolow: -0 F" "PP"'"' 0 F" ""'"'" ft As ""i"0$1ad
0 Forreviewandcommant 0 ----~---~-~-
. :5~ E~-~= =
~
1/2• II':CN
'€, NO 'C~
I
1
I
!
NORTHWEST CORNER
I'IORTHING;. 2185365.3
EASilNG; 374-502.5
g ..,
l;Y' ....-a en
a :r
"' 1
STONO: liAU.
sti t/2" Jf!ON
f'li'E. t.S $72.
"'1i.1• zo.r>t 10 c.c.,· · • •
,,"P,i,J;M
'::1
oETJ.Oilll ~
f\110 STORY
G,i.AAGt
32:.<4'
~
:.f!l-
~ •
'N
!JJ
----------------~---~---~-~~
,1
' I
I
I
-------------------------------~~---
MAP SH0\11NG SURVEY OF
~--~~--~~--, \1
t::".:~l~~
tou:no't',_ Fl.!!~-BOA !WRIGHT LAND SUR YORS Inc.
I ~
I \1
1\
li
i ' I
\
,,
,\
H ~·· •• 1~
I'
\
I I ',
I I
; 1./
r II
I ~~~ ' I' ! ,!
i l~
J.rfG .. !I<U~ISIR'o(•OIII>ti'UI.DC;.clto\.
~N>l>OellllS;r:c'fPII.Ioti'UI'Ut
IV-bl:tlisz;;~Do.,O.U.Cf1r.rotuuti\>UltrJ.li\.II.Jol.~ o-o,.••ou ""-u-Jh~ll Ill -....u-1 1.,. n-a••JU u ""-M
oo.o.~illtto",..,.o;fOja;.,,.g_IH:IOIIt'"Jl.li.~rl',I\OOollO..U
=~:-;:::::;::,;~•·OU:SlHMP &f:~II'UU
~~~~~""M~Js~:~~~rii ·:(~U>IJL!L.U£ rtllW>'J,i.t'O.NTJ,JUSIOI,.J..IJIJ.((I<.[([>N
lUI !1;;0: .IJ, 'llG!f. M~ ~ j.W cr !LUJJ\SIO:J:f!D1.~
!IX>..'oi.U:.: llllEtiCUOII.Il:IUI.lll!o:. I.JlUI "IW111SC{tr U'
,UIIl~. ~!UiloQ.lU.If ~~ V Uf U.C lr ll(.l.~l.o-'I'DU AI
l~.:r.UIJ.IltUIO'Ioll,'IQMJ;.Y.Il.(llh)
u;.o.. '"'' ,..nll u.r:. ~o ~ rnucn (><JI.Al IDl ru S'Utnl
•n·tlll I~ fUO\ ,.,.•1.11 11.1;.111, rei: llMrii•).U1-
~I~<~I..U~UO<! ~~)(II'!IDN'IQ" \li.l-UD;n
t:~~l("f':ij,.,''~'"-'t\i:ta:C..-t(l_.. tl!J[......:.')ol.IJ ..
llri~J:If1Uruc~•~t
t-:>.1HUrn.IYI'IJUDt.tt
fCIJ t(O.Qit$.FOin(fiX~
f,.(IOUfl!IS>QrMtfl.tQII.I"""'lOlC".,I\OOG~
"J'Io<o:lCJo~!.:l:ln..,.fl~fV.")IllD110.~'.!:"
II\ ll.. Hio 11) UHUJ..\t.-~ t{Tin!Oot!JtJolll(
TlJXIO....._..~..aun: ....... 'UI.VSII"f·P~ .. IT.Ol.l$
ronll.~h'O;lo.IJ,llrlrc;or,concrlJ'I.Nort:: """ru-
'l ·I
I,
)> ll
... II
I' )> r z ... \
n
~~
'"' ,.,
:z;
llU_~oeAI'O'>UTIL X>I7/XIU>o(l.l';DI
JIJ.'Kllll"" UJW••~•us. "'~-'J\U ur-.m
1500 ROB RTS DRIVE ,JA KSONVILLE B ACH FLORIDA
·-• · •• -..:;.~;..~.-=-:---~:.;;-:.:.:=-::.::::=~---.... -···--·-.:..--.-~:..: .. :
/
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
800 SEMINOLE ROAD
ATLANTIC BEACH FL 32233
C E R T I F I C A T E 0 F 0 C C U P A N C Y
Issue Date
Parcel Number
Property Address
Subdivision Name
Legal Description
Property Zoning
Owner ...
P E R M A N E N T
5/19/10
1734 BEACH AVE
ATLANTIC BEACH
TO BE UPDATED
PENNINGTON
FL 32233
Contractor GRIDER CONSTRUCTION INC
904 463-4606
Application number 08-00000817 000 ooo
Description of Work SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
Construction type . TYPE 5-A
Occupancy type RESIDENTIAL
Flood Zone . . . . ZONE X
Special conditions
2007 Florida Building Code with 2009 Revisions
Approved . . . . ----;vt~...J<-IawJ.-;~ :;---;--;--!:;,.,.1btl~~';::-"~-.;-::-o---c·;----:;------------Buildi~al
VOID UNLESS SIGNED BY BUILDING OFFICIAL
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Building and Zoning InspectiOn Division
J~nuary 18, 1989
Ms. Rene' Angers
716 Ocean Eo~levard
P. 0. Box 25
Atlantic Beach~ F~orida 32233
To Whom It May Concern:
In response to your letter of Janua~y 13, 1989, the property described
in attached legal was zoned Residential General(RG-A) in the consoli-
dated City of Jacksonville ..
As this property was recorded prior to September 5, 1969. making it
a lot of record, a single family dwelling could have been built
on this lot provided it wet the set backs.
The setbacks for building on this lot would be 20.1 front yard.
combined 15' side yard (5' on one side and lO' on the other and a LO'
rear yard). These could be reduced to 10' front, 4' on either side
and 5' rear yard with a yard modification signed by all contiguous
property ow-oe.rs.
If I can be of any further service, please contact me.
Sincerely,
~fl.?J~
Eugenia D. Wh;!.te
Zoning Inspection Superviaor
Building & Zoning Inspection Diviaion
EDW:scc
Attachme.nt
~
~TIP AREA CODE 904 I 630·1100 I 220 E. BAY STREET 1 JACKSONVIL.L.E, FLORIDA 32202·:?401
Jacksonville
RGA RESIDENTIAL GENERAL.
PERJ:1L"!lffiED.USES
S~ngle-£am~ly dwell~ngs
Tvo-£amily dvell~ngs
Hult~ple-£am~ly dwellings
Hous~ng £or the elderly
Family care homes
Foster care homes
Churches
AREA
6,000 square £eet £or .the £irst two family
un~ts and 4,400 square £eet £or each
addit~onal unit.
S~ngle Fam~ly 6,000 sq £t
Two Fam~ly 6,000 sq £t
Three Fam~ly 10,400 .sq £t
Four Fam~ly 14,800 sq £t
Five Fam~ly 19,200 sq £t
11aximum Lot Coverage 35i':
Max~mum Bu~lding Height 35': Multi-£a~~ly may
be unl~mited where all required yards are
~ncreased by one £oot £or each three £eet o£
bu~ld~ng he~ght.
YARD REQUIREMENTS
S~ngle Fam~ly
Front 20'
;,, Rear 10'
"·'Side 15' total; 5' m~n~mum
Two and 11ulti-£amily
Front 20'
Rear 20'
S~de .10'
Atlantic Beach
RG-2 RESIDENTIAL GENERAL
PERI1ITTED USES
Single-£amily dwellings
Two-£amily dwellings
tlultiple-£amily dwellings
Planned unit developments
Townhouses and rowhouses
Government bu~ld~ngs and £acil~ties
AREA
5,000 square £eet £or the £irst £am~ly un~t
and 2,904 square £eet £or each add~t~onal
un~t.
S~ngle Family 5,000 sq
Twp Family 5,000 sq
Three Family 10,808 sq
Four Family 13,712 sq
F~ve Fam~ly 16,616 sq
Max~ mum Lot Coverage 35i':
11aximum Bu~lding He~ght
YARD REQUIRE11ENTS
S~ngle Fam~ly
Front 20'
Rear 20'
£t
£t
£t
£"';
£t
35'
Side 15 tota.l:; 5' m~nimum ...
)">.~
Two Family
Front 20'
Rear 20'
S~de 7.5'
11ul tip,le Fam~ly
Front 20'
Rear 20'
S~de .15'
®-RGR-(OJ
CITY OF
~c eead -?t&tida
HENOIWfDUM.
71B OCEAN BOUJ:..EVAltP
P. O,llOX 25
A'I'LAN'I'lC BEACH, FLOJUDA3ll233
'I'.ELEPHONE (901) 249-230~
'£.'0: Atlantic Beach/Seminole B.eaoh Oiti~e.no
l~ROM: City of Atlantic De.ach
SUBJECT: VITAL Sl'ATISTlCS AND GENERAL INJJ'OI\MATION
Estimated Taxable Value of property propoaed
for Annexation (1985 Tax Roll)
,.
2. 957; of ~stimated revenue to City bused on
1.8892 operating millage and . 35 Debt Seryioe
levy
3. 2'.on~tng:
$ 00,357
(a) An.r pe.rmits· issued prior to January 1987 will be honored
(b) Zonin~ of the area 'llill be c:ompatible with e:dsting ?,;Oning,
i,e., Single-family/multi-family
(c:) Any permissible ac.t;Lvity allowed by the City of Jac.ltsonville
1d.ll be [1onored
4. User Charges:
Area GenerallY South'of 20th St.
5/811 x 3/Liit meter Water (Quarterly)
First 15,000 gallons -
$9.0()
All over 15 f 000 gallono -
$ .45q per tbousa1)d
Se\>ler (Quarterly)
Base Charge $37.60
Volume Charge .~9 per
thousand gallor;s of water
All Other Arens*
First 15,000 gallons
$13.50
All over 15,000 gallons
$ , 6 7 5 per thousand
Base Charge $56.40
Volu!lle ChargE:! $ ,585 per
thousand gallons of vater
* Due to bonding requirements undert.al<etf when the City purc_hased the
B!.lccaneeJ: W&ter and Se\•ler System, the p1:operty generally lying north of
20th Sn·eet (o1.· Ocean Villag£!) ~>T:lll J:emain at their present rates at
least until t:he Buc.caneer Bonds are retire.d (J:lot less than year 1990 or
more than the yaar 2000),
CITY OF
~~.t«--geac4 -?&vu:eta
HEMORANDl.l~~
TO: Atlan tfc BeaclJ/Seminole !leach Citizens
FROH: City of Atlantic Beach
SUBJEC'l'; V:TAL STATISTICS AND GENERAL mFDiu.iA'l'ION
l. ESTIMATE!) '£AXABLE VALUE of property proposed
for Annexation (l9B5 Tax Roll)
'1!6 OCtAU aom.EVARD
P.O.BOX2~
A'fLANTIC Ill'li\OH, FLOfUDA. 322B3
1'El'..BPHONE IUO•II ~~9·28115
2. CONPARtSON OF MILLAGE LEVYS propose.d for 1986/87
Se.miiJole Beach
7.486
1.000
.291
11.5317
-0-
20.30[17
City of Athot~.c Beach
School l'iillage
Jlosp:l.tal Nillage
N. Florida Water
Nanngement Dist. Millage
Jax Cit:y/County 1'ax
Atl. Beach City Tax
TOTAL MlLLz\GE
.291
9. 7068
2. 2.392
zo. n3o
A.ssuming a single family 110me value.u at $05,000, the owner would lle
fJUbj ect 1:0 the fo1l01>1:Lng tax:
Sem:inole Bench C:tt:v of Atlant:lc Beach
Ass!lssed Vulue $85>000
~ 25,000
60,000
X 20,3087
Nirms Homestead Exe11\ptior.
$8.5~000
-25 ,ooo
&0' 000
X 20.7230
$1,218.52 Tax
Differenee
3. 95% OF' ESTU1A'nD REVJ~NUE from Sem::_nole
Beach area
4. ZONING:
(a) Any permits issued prior to January 1, 1987 by the City of
Jacksonville would probably have to be honored
(b) Atlantic Beach Zoning_ of the area woul.d.--tl-&·G0mp.a.t:.:i..b.le __ \oi'Jth
existing zoning, i.e., Single-family/multi-family, etc.
5. USER CHARGES:
Area Generally South of 20th St.
5/3 11 X 3/4 11 meter v)ater (Quarterly)
First 15,000 gallons -
$9.00
All over 15,000 gallons -
$ ,1,5.;: pDr: t:housnnd
Sewer (Quarterly)
Base Charge $37.60
Volume Charge .39 per
thousand gallons of water
All Other Areas~~
First 15,000 gallons
$13.50
All over 15,000 gallons
·$ . 675 [ll!l" t.:llmwlltH.l
Base Charge $56.40
Volume Charge $ .585 per
thousand gallons of water
t: Due to bonding requirements undertaken when the City purchased the
Buccaneer Water and Sewer System, the property generally lying north of
20th Street (or Ocean Village) will remain at their present rates at
least until the Buccaneer Bonds are retired (Not less than year 1990 or
more than the year 2000).
6. SANITATION:
Absent any legal problems with franchises, etc., on January l, 1987
the City of Jacksonville contract ,.;rith Laidlo,v for twice a week
garbage pick-up will end. Atlantic Beach will furnish six day a
week garbage pick up with twice a week trash pick up (Tuesday and
Friday) at the going·quarterly rate which currently is $21.00.
7. CABLE TV:
You may continue to use the existing system and the Beaches Cable
may be available in addition.
Jacksonville
RGC RESIDENTIAL GENERAL
PERMITTED USES
Single-:family dwellings
Two-:family dwellings
Multiple-:family dwellings
Housing :for the elderly
Family care homes
Foster care homes
Churches
AREA
6,000 square :feet :for the :first two :family
unit-s and 2,100 square :feet :for each
additional unit.
Single Family 6,000 sq :ft
Two Family 6,000 sq £t
Three Family 8,100 sq £t
Four Family ~0,200 sq :ft
Five Family 12,300 sq :f.t
Maximum Lot Coverage 35/.
Maximum Building Height 35': Multi-:family may
be unlimited where all required yards are
increased by one :foot :for each three :feet o£
building height.
YARD REQUIREMENTS
Single Family
Front 20'
Rear
Side
10'
15' total; 5' minimum
Two and l1ulti-£amily
Front 20'
Rear
Side
20'
10'
Atlantic Beach
RG-3 RESIDENTIAL GENERAL
PERMITTED USES
Single-:family dwellings
Two-:family dwellings
l1ultiple-£amily dwellings
Planned unit developments
Townhouses and rowhouses
Government buildings and :facilities
AREA
5,000 square :feet :for the :first :family unit
and 2,~78 square :feet :for each additional
unit.
Single Fami~y 5,000 sq :ft
Two Family 5,000 sq :ft
Three Family 9,356 sq :ft
Four Family ~~.534 sq :ft
Five Family 13,712 sq :ft
Maximum Lot Coverage 354
Maximum Building Height 35'
YARD REQUIREMENTS
Single Family
Front 20'
Rear
Side
20'
15 total; 5' minimum
Two Family
Front 20'
Rear
Side
20'
7.5'
Multiple Family
Front 20'
Rear 20'
oide 15'
City of Jacksonville
Zonlng Regulations
RSE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE fAMILY
PERMITTED USES
Slngle-£amily dwelllngs
Foster care homes
Family care homes
Ghlld care homes (5 or less children)
Area 8,800 square £eet
Width 80'
Maxlmum Lot Coverage 30/.
Maximum Height 35'
YARD REQUIREMENTS
Front 25'
Rear 10'
Side 7.5'
City of Atlantic Beach
Zoning Regulations
RS-1 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY
PERMITTED USES
Single-£amlly dwellings
Planned unit developments
Government buildlngs and £acilities
Area 7,500 square £eet
Width 75'
Maxlmum Lot coverage 35/.
Maxlmum Height 35'
YARD REQUIREMENTS
Front 20'
Rear 20'
Slde 7:5'
NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORY REGARDING BEACH A VENUE
NON-CONFORMING LOT OF RECORD
March 15, 2011
1. May 7, 1936 70'x50' lot was recorded (see attached)
2. 1938 -home at 1725 Beach Avenue was constructed abutting to the properties
below:
a. To the south, 100'x50' lot presently owned by Helen M. Lane & family*
b. To the east, 70' right of way previously known as Garage Approach Road
and presently known as Beach Avenue
c. To the east of Beach Avenue, 95'x225' residence owned by the applicants
d. To the north, 90'x50' lot presently owned by Robert and Forrest Parrish*
e. To the west, 15' of the 30'x130' ha1flot residence owned by John
Laliberte constructed 1987-1729 Ocean Grove Drive
£ To the west, 30' of the 30'x130' halflot residence owned by Barbara
James constructed 1987-1727 Ocean Grove Drive
g. To the west, 30' ofthe 30'x130' halflotresidence owned by JoAnn
Ruggiero constructed 1992 -1725 Ocean Grove Drive
2. June 3, 1981-home and lot were for sale separately and purchased together. At
that time the home and lot were located in Seminole Beach, a city of Jacksonville
neighborhood. At time of purchase, no preconditions were presented in the
purchase/sale agreement that would preclude construction on this lot and all
properties abutting to this lot were undeveloped
3. 1981, 1734 Beach Avenue was a legally permitted single family residence with a
7' rear yard setback (see attached)
4. January, 1987-our neighborhood, Seminole Beach of the City of Jacksonville
was annexed by the City of Atlantic Beach and part of the conditions of the
annexation were that all uses that were permissible at the time of annexation in
the City of Jacksonville would be allowed in the City of Atlantic Beach.
5. March 15, 1989 -John Landon variance request and approval for relief from the
rear yard setback of 20' to 1 0' (see attachments):
Variance was requested and approved for a 50'x50' lot to reduce the rear
yard setback from 20' to 10' to build a single family dwelling. The
findings of the ABCDB regarding variance request No. V-88-3-C were
that "granting of such variance will not be contrary to the public
interest and owing to special conditions (i.e. substandard lot size) a
literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning code will result in
unnecessary and undue hardship."
Furthermore, the January 18, 19891etter from Eugenia D. White, City of
Jacksonville Zoning Inspection Supervisor, Building & Zoning Inspection
Division, to Ms. Rene' Angers, Recording Secretary of the City of
Atlantic Beach, specifically confirmed that "the property described in
attached legal was zoned Residential General (RG-A) in the
Consolidated City of .Jacksonville. As this property was recorded
prior to September 5, 1969 (note: date of Consolidation of the City of
.Jacksonville) making it a lot of record, a single family dwelling could
have been built on this lot provided it met the set backs. The setbacks
for building on this lot would be 20' front yard, combined 15' side
yard (5' on one side and 10' on the other side) and a 10' rear yard."
The findings of the ABCDB as described in the minutes of the Board's
meeting of March 15, 1989, regarding the application for rear yard
variance of John Landon's property that was annexed from Jacksonville,
January 1987, set forth that "the Board considered the findings offact
and determined that a hardship exists in that Mr. Landon could have
built on his lot with a 10' rear yard prior to annexation. The vote was
called. The motion to approve the application carried unanimously."
6. February 8, 1993-Townsend Hawkes variance request and approval for relief
from the rear yard setback of20' to 10' by AB City Commission (see
attachments):
November 17, 1992, a variance was requested and denied for a 50'x50' lot
to reduce the rear yard setback from 20' to 1 0' to build a single family 3-
story garage apartment. On February 1, 1993, the City Commission
reviewed the Appeal ofVariance Denial by Townsend Hawkes. The·
recommendation of Staff was that it was "concerned a bout the potential
for setting a precedent for allowing the construction of full sized
structures on half sized lots. There are 10 lots of the same size as Mr.
Hawkes lot remaining in that block, all of which can claim the same
privilege and similar circumstances as claimed by Mr. Hawkes."
The February 8, 1993 letter from Claude E. Bagwell, P.E. Chief Building
& Zoning Inspection Division to Hans Tanzler, Jr., Esquire, legal counsel
for Mr. Hawkes, confirmed "that the referenced property could have a
single family residence constructed under the City of .Jacksonville
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 of ten (10) feet. Presently residential
zoning districts also require a ten (10) foot rear yard setback."
At the AB City Commission meeting of February 8, 1993 the minutes
recorded that Mr. Tanz1er, former mayor of the City of Jacksonville,
"explained property owners in the area, formerly known as Seminole
Beach, were told prior to their agreeing 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 10 feet when the property was part of Jacksonville and the
structure could have been constructed."
Furthe1more and most importantly, the minutes of this meeting report that
Alan Jensen, City Attorney for Atlantic Beach, "advised that because of
the promise that was made prior to annexation, and the fact that
other property owners in that area had been granted variances based
on similar logic, a denial of this request would not be defensible in
court."
The minutes of the City Commission reflect that "Mayor Gulliford felt
the Commission should be fair and even-handed." The question was
called and the vote to approve the variance was carried legally overriding
the recommendation of the ABCDB and setting forth the precedent for
allowing the construction of structures on half sized lots.
The May 19, 1994letter from George Worley, II, Atlantic Beach
Community Development Director wrote to Mr. Mitch Trager of 1771
Beach Avenue that his "conversation with City Attorney Alan Jensen
verified that the motion to grant the variances to permit the
construction on the substandard lot, permit encroachment into the
rear yard setbach: area, and to permit the building height to exceed 17
feet, were granted in language which allows them to transfer with the
property. A purchaser will have the same rights as were granted to
Mr. Hawkes.
7. 1996 -city water and sewer lines were installed along Beach A venue between
1 ih Street and 18th Street and assessments for the cost of these lines for tap-ins on
both the east and west side of the street were charged against the property owners
(see attachment)
8. 2009-during the years subsequent to the annexation, the single family residence
at 1734 Beach A venue had been converted to an apartment. The lot size is
60'x50'. Shortly after the purchase of this structure, the present owners Mr and
Mrs Rufus Pennington_were issued a permit to demolish the standing structure
and allowed to rebuild on the existing footprint 7' from the rear yard property
line. In late 2010, construction of the present garage apartment was completed
and the present setbacks are 20' front, combined 15 feet on the sides and 7' in the
rear
9. since June, 1981 property taxes have been paid on the lot in question as a non-
conforming lot of record. Prior to 1987, we requested relief for a significant
increase of property taxes that were rising very quickly. We were informed that
the lot, while a substandard lot of record was buildable for a single family
residence. It was suggested at that time to incorporate our lot into our primary
residence and perhaps this would slow the property tax increases that were being
experienced in the Seminole/ Atlantic Beach areas.
10. 1981-2011 -have lived in our home across the street at 1725 Beach Avenue for
29+ years. There was never a provision for the sunset of our rights to build upon
this substandard lot of record. Having been instrumental in the revisions to the
zoning codes, at no time did the COAB notify us that any change to the zoning
codes would restrict our right to build a single family residence without the 1 0'
setback provision on the rear yard setback. There was never the intent to
eliminate the commitment of the COAB to the former residents of Seminole
Beach.
11. February 15, 2011-ABCDB meeting regarding ZV AR-2011-01. Request for
setbacks to line up with those of 1734 Beach A venue ... Staff recommended
approval. Vote was postponed to conduct further research.
* -letters available
EXHIBIT D.1 ZVAR-2011-01 DOCUMENT INDEX
l/EGAEWING PT GOVT /,OT 7 RECD 0/U BOOK 5349-.l.UJB, f/AVJNG DIMHNSIONS OF 70' X 50', LYING WEST
OF GARAC;E APPROACH ROADWAJ' R/W, DIRECTLJ' ACROSS FR0/1·11725 BEACH AVE
(A) 2011 FEB 02 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE (WOLFSON)
(B) 2011 FEB 03 CDB STAFF REPORT (DOERR)
(C) 2011 FEB 15 APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION (WOLFSON)
(D) 2011 FEB 15 LETIERS OF SUPPORT (LANE, PARRISH)
(E) 2011 FEB 15 LETIERS OF OPPOSITION (JAMES, LALIBERTE, WANSTALL)
(F) 2011 FEB 15 CDB MEETING MINUTES (HALL)
(G) 2011 MAR 08 CDB STAFF REPORT (HALL)
(1) EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
(2) CDBSR ATIACHMENT A-KREDELL VARIANCE HISTORY
(3) CDBSR ATIACHMENT B-HAWKES VARIANCE HISTORY
(H) 2011 MAR 09 EXCERPTS FROM SEMINOLE BEACH ANNEXATION FILES (HALL)
(1) MEMO TO AB/SB CITIZENS-VITAL STATISTICS AND GENERAL INFORMATION
(2) COJ/COAB ZONING COMPARISON (1987)
(3) ORDINANCE 90-86-112-EXTENSION OF ZONING TO SEMINOLE BEACH
(4) CC MEETING MINUTES (DEC 8, 1986)
(5) NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS
(I) 2011 MAR 15 PETITION IN OPPOSITION (OCEAN GROVE, NORTH ATLANTIC BEACH RESIDENTS)
(J) 2011 MAR 15 LETIERS IN OPPOSITION (WANSTALL)
(K) 2011 MAR 15 CDB MEETING MINUTES (HALL)
(L) 2011 APR MISC ITEMS REQUESTED
(1) COPY 1733-1734-EXISTING PRE-2008 SURVEY (WOLFSON)
(2) WATER/SEWER ASSESSMENTS (STAFF)
(3) COPY DEED BOOK 719-201 (STAFF)
(4) OVERVIEW OF TAKINGS FROM HALL (CDB)
(5) COPY FS 2007-70,001, BERT HARRIS ACT (CDB)
APPJLECATXON FOJR A VARIANCE
City of Atlantic .Bench · 800 Seminole Road ·Atlantic lleach, lfloritln 32233-!.>44:1
l~houc.; (904) 247-5800 · FAX (904) 247-5305 · http://www.coab.~ts
Dille __ ...!_\ !-/':.::'._• ~u.l_,,_,\ _____ _
4. PI'Opct·ty A.ppt•niser's Rcnl Estnte Nurnber· __ L_/'J-'-'-/""'""{1..:_.. _____________________ _
5. Clrrrcnt Zoning Classlflcntion '\_,~.""G,__ ____ 6. ComprchcnslvePJnn Fuiure Laud Us~: dcsignaiioll i:\L
9. Homeowner's A5sociation or tit·chitcctural Rovkw Committee upprovalt•oquiJ•IHl for· tbc pt'OllOscd constr·u~tlllll.
DYes 0No (If yes, this must !Jc submitted wltb nny npplicntion fot· 11 Building Permit.~
10. Statemeni of facts nud site plan related to requested Varialtce, whkb demonstt•ates compliance with S()clion 24-6·1 ol'
the Zoning, Subdh•ision and L[md De-vBlopnumt Regulat.ions 1 a COPl' of which Is attncllcd to this n(Jplicatiou.
,Statement nud site plnn must cleat'ly descJ'ibe nud depict the Variance that i& tcqnc.flted.
11. Pl'ovide !ill of tbe foHowillg infonnnUon:
. a. l)roof of ownct'EhiJl {deed ot ccrtlficll.tc by lnwyct· or abstt·act compnuy or title comJHliiJ that vcdfics
rec<ml owne!' ns a.bove). 11' tht~npplicnnt is not lhr owner, 11 lette1· M authol"izntion fron1 the owncr(s) for
applicant to rept·cscnt tltc oWJlC!' for nil purposes rclnted to thls application must be pro·vided.
/b. Survey l'!n(llegal dcscl'iption ofpt•opcrty for which Vnrinncc is :>ought.
c. Required nurubet· of copies: Four (4), except where tJriglnnl plnns. }Jbotogntphs or documents lnl'ill!L
!han l!x171nches lli'C submittetl. J>lcnSl'. PI'OVide eighf (ll} COJ>lCS of Oily SUCh dociii'IICJnts.
d. Applicuticm F~:c ($150.00)
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL INFORMATION PlWVrDEl> WITH THIS APl}LlCATJON IS
CQRR]}CT:
Signature of owner(.~) or· nuthodztHl!JCl'SOH if ownc1·1s nuthol'i7.ntion form is attach cit:
ADI>IU:.SS AND CONTACT INFORM A 'rJON RECElVE ALL CORRESPONDENCE
RlWARDlNG TI-HS Al,.PLTCATTON
Name: ·~),. __ -
Phone::
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE BY KAREN AND DONALDWOLFSON
January 24, 2011
RE: PR GOVT LOT 7 RECD 0/R 5349-1108
Lot size: 3,500sf [70'x50']
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
ofthis lot has been allowed within the past year, The comparable lot referred to, 1734 Beach Avenue, is
a marginally smaller lot(601x50'). The reduction ofthe 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 1734 Beach Avenue, we request a
variance fort he reduction of the rear yard setback from 20' to 7'.
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, R
[not to scale)
. I
.-p_ _. .. i I ·•·~: z;::y-.-:~~::-.... ~;~-::::.% '].;;-: :;;,~.;:-{,·::::.;.~-::::~-:...;:;:..'::;;:~;~~ !.
'.r-o~'9·co ~A-~'.:.;~"f..!" •• v_,.., ... rf .... '.ll-~
I
I '· ! . /_,t
!__,.·!-r
I
I
A
/
1 H. A. DURDEN
L ~NDA:~y~~~~G~!~~~~ INC
"" -SUf\VEYORS "'-.
PO!:T OF'FICI! DOX 60670~
J"Clt50NVl\...l..E DE,I\CH, FL,C.., :171..'110
·/ I :-
C<>.4f!iJ';AL C<'rJ>;;/R.uCJ70r-/ ?.::TIJ.ACt-< k.N../c
riOT ..:..oc.AT£0 /3-r'.'JN/"7 '?v?:v£-Y.'
____ 10 8/
SCALE:-----L··-'_"_-~-~-~~~(0~·-·_
THIS SURVEY NOT·VALtD UNLESS iHtS l"RINT JS EMBOSSED WITH Tt-lE SEAL OF THE A.BGVE 5\GNIID
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
BillLDING AND PLANNING
800 SEMINOLE ROAD
ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA 32233-5445
TELEPHONE: (904) 247-5826
FAX: (904) 247-5845
www.coab.us
January 19, 2011
Mr. Donald M. Wolfson
1725 Beach Avenue
At Ia ntic Beach, Florida 32233
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 UNITNO 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 lots of record, the height of buildings shall be restricted to a percentage
of the area of the subject lot as compared to the minimum lot area of the applicable zoning
district, and applied to the maximum building hejght for the same zoning district. In this
case, it would be {(3500/5000} x 35], or 24.5'.
Woljson/Nan-Conjorming Lot
19 January.2011
Page 2 of 2
Also, please note that after the initial effective date of these LDRs (January 01, 2002L no lot or
parcel in any Zoning District shall be divided to create a lot with area or width below the
requirements ofthese 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
AGENDA JITElVll S.a
COMMUNITY DEVELOPl\1ENT STAFF REPOR.'f
February 15, 2011 Public Hearing
Zoning Variance, ZVAR-2011-01
To: Community Development Board
From: Planning, Zoning and Conummity Development Depnrtmcni
City of Atlantic Beach
Date: February 3, 20.11
Subject: ZVAR-20 11-01
Location:
Applicant: Donald aocl Karen Wolfson, 1725 Beaoh Avenue.
Atlantic Beach, Fhn·ida 32233
Requested Action: Request for a Val'iance from Sec. 24-l 06(e) (2) to reduce tbe
tequired 20(twenty (20) foot ren.r yard setback to seven (7) feet to allow for the future
constnwtion of residential stnlCtllrc on a non conforming50' x 70' lot of recotd lot at
1725 Beach Avem1e, west side ofl725 Beuch Avetme.
STAFF' COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION
The applicant has requested this Variance to [Ill ow [or future development of their smaller lot on the
west side of Beach A venue. These lots have long been consideted us 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 Recot'd, ru1d the Code p1'ovicles for tbeir
development for single~family ~lse in accordrmce with current setbacks or with the Lerms of a
Vadanoe from the Community Development Board. These iots typically range in size from 50'x 50'
wide and' 70'_:: deep, and numerous have received variances C>Ver the years. SectiOJl24~M (d) (6)
setting forth the following gronnds for approval of a Variance would seem to be applicable tc this
request. Staff recommends approval nnd also recommends tlut1 th1s Variance be gmnted to run 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(twen1y (20) foot rear yard setback
to seven (7) feet.to allow for the construction ofresidential 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 ofRecord 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.
2
NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORY REGARDING BEACH AVENUE
NON-CONFORlvllNG LOT OF RECORD
February 15, 2011
1. May 7, 1936 75'x50' lot was recorded
2. 1938 -home at 1 725 Beach A venue was constructed
3. Lot.loc.:ation abuts to the :following properties:
a. To the south, 1 OO'x50' lot presently owned by Helen M. Lane and family
b. To the cast, 70' right of way previously known as Garage Approach Roacl
and vrescntly known as Beach Avenue
c. To the east of Beach Avenue, 95'x225' residence owned by the applicants
d. To the north, 90'x50' lot presently owned by Robert and Forrest Parrish
e. To the west 15' oftl1e JO'xl30' half lot residence owned by John
Laliberte constructed 1987-1729 Ocean Grove Drive
f. To the west, 30' of the 30'x 130' half lot residence owned by Barbara
James constructecl1987 ·-1727 Ocean Grove Drive
g. To the west, 30' of the 30'xl30' half lot residence owned by JoAnn
Ruggiero constructed 1992 -1725 Ocean Grove Drive
2. June 3, 1981 -home and lot was purchased. At that time the home and lot were
located in Seminole Beach, a city of Jacksonville neighborhood; .at time of
purchase, .no preconditions were presented in the purchase/sale agreement that
would preclude constructio11 on this lot
3. 1987-our neighborhood was annexed by the City ofArlantic Beach m1d part of
the conditions of the annexation were that all uses that were permissible at the
time of annexation in the City of Jacksonville wmild be aliO\:ved in the City of
Atlantic Beach.
a. Pre-:1987 -1734 Beach Avenue was a legally permitted single. family
residence/garage apartment
b. 1987-construction completed for 1729 & 1727 Ocean Grove Drive [see
3e and 3fabove]
c. 1992-construction completed for 1725 Ocean Grove Drive [see Jf
above]
4. .19% -city water and sewer lines were installed a long Beach A venue and
assessments for the cost of these lines for tap-ins on both the east and west side of
the street were charged against the property owners
5. since .June, 1.981 propert)' taxes have been paid on the lot in question as a non-
conforming lot ofrecord
(i. 1981~20.11 -have lived in our home across the street at 1725 Beach Avenue for
29+ years
7. 2009 -neiN construction was commenced nt 1734 Beacll Avenue. The lot size is
60'x50' and the former garage apt. was demolished and completely rebuilt
moving the rear of the new structure to within T of the rear property line. In late
2010, the construction was completed. The present building set backs for 1734
Beach Avenue are 20· fi·ont yard, 7' rear yard. combined 15 feel.
\7348 ~
46.-Y\AplG
\73L. ~
~enVL-e
6Y~!f0\C:..
February 15, 2011
To: Atlantic Beach Community Development Board
From: Helen M. Lane
My family and I own property immediately adjacent to the property located directly across from 1725
Beach Avenue for which a varianceis being requested to reduce the rear yard setback. I do not oppose
this request and support your approval of the variance being requested.
Sincerely,
H~~~ -~,l-l~vSJ_
Helen M. Lane
1721 Beach Avenue
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
February 15, 2011
To: Atlantic Beach Community Development Board
From: Robert and Forrest Parrish
We own property adjacent to the property located directly across from 1725 Beach Avenue for which a
variance is being requested to reduce the rear yard setback. We do not oppose this requestand support
your approval oft he variance being requested.
/8 nc ely, ...
dl {!~~ AQJJ . U} a bert and Forrest Varrish
1731Beach Avenue
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
Carol Wanstall
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Barbara James [barbaraj11 @comcast.net]
Monday, February 14, 2011 7:48PM
sdoerr@coab, us
'Wolfson, Don'; dwanstall@bellsouth.net; cwanstall@bellsouth.net
ReZoning Variance ZVAR-2011-01
Attachments: CDB Members beginning Jan. 1, 2011.docx; ATI00185.htm
From: Barbara James
'"I 727 Ocean Grove Drive
Atlantic Beach,, Fl.
l regret that I will not be ab~e to be present for the Februan}l
15 meetnng as i have clients schedu~ed.
P~ease be advised that I am ,against fhus variance.
I have ~ived at this address s'ince 1986 and 'I am the ,on-oginal
own elf'.
The buHder assured ,me that no one would ever build on the
small Hgara.ge Jot" that my property :backed up to.
I ~ove the atmosphere ,of Ftolt'oda Natural Ocean Grove and
wou~d be deep~y affected of the natura~ habitat was invaded or
destroyed.
I jonn with my Ocean Grove neughbors to stop the varfiance
thatwou~d decrease the Property value of our homes.
ThaHll~<s for your consoderatnon and please share my thoughts
and feelings with the CDB Members I have attached to my
em a H.
Thanks for your servke,
Sincerely,
2/15/2011
Page l of I
Hall, Erika
From:
•nt:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Hall:
John Laliberte Uohnl@vccnaples.com]
Monday,February 14,2011 9:57PM
Hall, Erika
Barbara James
OBJECTION TO: Wolfson-Application For Variance
I appreciate your time·today and·for agreeing to forward this email message to the City of Atlantic Beach-Community
Development Board Members for tomorrow night's meeting.
To the Board Members: My name is John Laliberte and I have owned the property at: 1729 Ocean Grove Drive, Atlantic Beach,
FL 32233-5844-for the past .17% years. I currently work and reside in Naples, FL.
I learned this morning from one of my neighbors, who resides on Ocean Grove Drive in Atlantic Beach, that Don Wolfson is
petitioning for a "setback" variance to a parcel of his property, which is located on the west side of Beach Ave, directly behind
my house and several of my neighbors. I am writing to you to express my objection to any such approval or consideration
thereof:
.., The Wolfson lot in question has a dimension of 70' Wide x 50' Deep-which is considered a non-conforming lot. It is my
understanding that this lot and other similar lots-back in the 1930's when Beach Ave was known as "Garage Approach
Alley-were originally intended for use as "garage lots".
" I believe that Mr. Wolfson has a garage on his ocean~front property on the east side of Beach Ave.
" The "setback" for this Wolfson lot is: 20' front and .20' back, with a 15' combined side setback (with a minimum of 5'
either side)-this essentially leaves him depth of 10' to erect a structure-hence, his reasoning for an application for
"setback" variance .
., To my knowledge,·every one of the homeowners whose property abuts or is contiguous to this Wolfson lot (re: west
side of Beach Ave) purchased his or her property with thefu/1 understanding of this "setback" requirement -I know that
I did in June, 1993 and my neighbor, Barbara James, was informed in 1986.
e To grant such as request for variance of this "setback" would be contrary to the original intentof the "setback" and,
consequently, the use of this parcel of land.
c. I further offer my objection to any consideration or the approval of this "setback" variance for the following reasons, but
not limited to: (1) would tremendously and adversely affect our property values and the ability to sell our homes,for
every homeowner contiguous to this Wolfson parcel; (2) the privacy and tree canopy line, which we now enjoy, would
be completely destroyed; and, (3) any natural landscaping and view Which we now enjoy would disappear-to be
replaced by some unknown person in a 2"d .story, "shaving" in the morning (albeit in a 9' x 3' bathroom) and extending
his hand through the window in a "Hello Neighbor!" morning greeting-since our houses would only be a few feet
apart! I would rather hear the baby birds chirping in their nest in my backyard live oak tree, along with the sound of the
ocean ... wouldn't you?
As Board Members, you oftentimes are faced with difficult decisions in orderto maintain the integrity of our great community
"Atlantic Beach". I respectfully submit... this is not one of those times. Please "listen" to the other long time residents-others
who have lived in their homes for many years with the same understanding that I have had with respect to the "setback"
guidelines-and consider our rights, and do what is right.
Thank you for listening.
Respectfully,
.John A. Laliberte
1729 Ocean Grove Drive
Hall, Erika
~~'Jm:
t:
Subject:
Attachments:
CDBOARD [cdboard@coab.us]
Tuesday, February 15, 2011 1:46PM
(Aian@AJensenlaw.com); (chadams25@yahoo.com); (chris@elitehomesfl.com);
(glassere@comcast.net); (lynn.drysdale@jaxlegalaid.org); (macputter@comcast.net);
(Schmirkley@bellsouth.net); hparl<es@comcast. net; sbdoerr@coab.us; Hall, Erika
FW: variance request
variance.doc
From: Donnie Wanstaii[SMTP:DWANSTALL@BELLSOUTH.NETJ
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 1:45:46 PM
To: CDBOARD; Borno, Mike; Fletcher, John L; Parsons, Paul; Woods, Carolyn;
Daugherty, Jonathan; Hanson, Jim; Bartle, Donna; alan@ajensenlaw.com
Cc: lawhould@yahoo.com
Subject: variance request
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Good afternoon: My name is Donnie Wanstall, wife Carol and we live at 1723 Ocean Grove Dr., Atlantic Beach, FL 32233. We
also are long time business owners in Atlantic Beach and currently own "Shore Things", a gift shop in the North Beach Center
located at 725 Atlantic Blvd. The reason for our .email is to let our city government !mow that we are not happy with the request for
variance by Mr. & Mrs. Don Wolfson and .how .the whole matter has been handled. As you are probably aware, there is a hearing
today at 6PM concerning this variance and I wanted everyone to know our position on this request. We have attached comments
concerning "ZVAR-2011-01" and would appreciate you reading our concerns. We will attend the public hearing and hopefully have
this request for variance denied. We can be reached during the day at our shop (249-1313) or evenings (241-7676). Thank you.
fi"nnie & CaroiWanstall.
1
When my wife and I bought our lot in 1991 1 one of the main
attractions was backing up to Beach Ave. and nothing could
be built behind us. These are small areas belonging to the
beach front owners that are not big enough to build on as
i:1.dicated in our-l;;lws as 11 non-conforrr.ing lots 11 ,
It came to our attention, as well as our neighbors, that
there would be a variance hearing concerning property
behind our residences on Ocean Grove Dr. We were not
informed and, just by accident( saw a si9n back in the
trees behind our residence that there had been a request
for changes in variance. We went to City Hall and requested
the documents on Thursday, February 10th which we received.
We thought it was interesting that Mr. Wolfson had filed
his request for variance on Jan. 24, 2011 1 abo~t 3 weeks
ago, and all of a sudden he decided to pay all of us a
visit on Sunday, february 13th, to discuss his variance
request. In my conversation with Mt. Wolfson, he informed
me that this same thing had been down the street and
obviously this has nothing to do with our situation as
stated in Sec~ion 24-64 Variances, paragraph b, sub
pm:agraph ( 4) "the non-conforming use of adjacent or
neighboring lands, structures or buildings ~hall not be
considered as j~stification for the approval of s
variance". Mr. Wolfson also stated that he was doing this
for financial reasons -in the variances Section 2~-64
Paragraph C sub paragraph (7) ~The General health, welfare
or beauty of the community variar:ces shall not be granted
solely for personal comfo~t or conver:ience, for relief from
financial circumstances or -alief from situations created
by the property owner.
I am hav~ng a hard time understanding the staff's
recommendation for approval when the only input that they
have is from Mr. Wolfson. We as residents and owners of
property adjacent to this non-conforming lot deserved to be
notified that this was ta ng place and asked for our
cororoents and suggestions concerning this. If thEJ v1ay this
has been handled is iegal 1 there needs ~o be some changes.
Ur:der th;;;~ grounds of de::Iial 1 we can make an argument :i,rt a. :
7 listed items, part~cularly in property values and the
natural environment of the community as stated "'Trees '.'dlJ.
be lost and the whole ambience of our home will be degraded
as well as our ne~gtbors. In additjon, with this variance,
the sea bnceze that we haVE1 eyed 1:.hrm1gh the years \>1ill
be blocked by a structure.
Draft Minutes of the FebruOI)' I 5, 20I I regular meeting of the Community Development Board (revision I)
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT~IDARD
Tuesday, February 1stag~1
,(~~(:"::\::-;_~::~~~-~ ..
'. -~~--
The regular meeting of the Community Developmerit:Jmoard was .,63n¥~ned at 6:03 pm on Tuesday,
February 15, 2011 in the City Hall Commission,Q}i'ahibers, located ai~8tlQSeminole Road in Atlantic
Beach. In attendance were Principal Planner Erik~;;$all and Community U~yelopment Board members
Blaine Adams, Kelly Elmore, Ellen Glasser, Kirk 'H:~ns~n, Chris_:~ambertsorr(JI?rley Parkes and Brea
Paul. ~-.:~c, .:~:·)'_-':,> ··":.: ,
\~;':• ' :;.~~::; ·_ { ·, ":i·~·c ";!:'--!,'-\
1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Chrlfr~~-~~~J.;ts~m called'c;~~~:t~eeting to order at 6:03 pm.
'";;"~~ '. --:~;_:._ .. ~;-. ·:;~:~~,:;:-_'-·
2. APPROVAL oF MINUTEs oF THE :N0WEMB1DR~~6, 201:m~ETING
MOTION: Ellen Glai~~~l~~V.~:a:.io apprJ~e~the>~f~~6~\of,.t~~itNovember 16, 2010 meeting, as
written. Kirk Hansert~Jiered a s~J~nd, and th~~hi~tiffi; carri~c!'ufianimously, 7-0.
·---~ .-;_. ~•L! .-;:··
._.::_; ,--~:.:-~;_-~
3. RECOGNITI()N OF vtsimon:$I~fi¥Qhairman 't'linbertson introduced and welcomed new Board
members. ~~t}y"!EifP.<?re. ~nd Bt¥~tfl?~ul:'· 'R~~~lsp eipi·essed gratitude for the service of former Board
member,s,OJ0's1iua Put1:erni~ ( 4 yea~~land Lynri~'fi)[_ysda1e (8 years). Board member Blaine AdamsEllen
Glasser''tll~p recognized t1'ie:;;}1ard worl\. and dedidttion of Community Development Director Sonya
Doerr. :-::.:~t~'·;. o;-A,:~ --:-.:;~~~~~
-~->~~--·:~'-·~ '·
MOTION: Kirk Ha'i1s~l}~mov.ed&o elect Chris Lambertson as Chair and Ellen Glasser as Vice-Chair
of the Community Developm~n-DBoard for calendar year 2011. 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.
Page 1 of 4
Draft Min!l/es of the Februal)' 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Communi(l' Developmellf Board (revision I)
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
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.
Chairman 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 significanc~;'9f the 1986/7 annexation of the area
previously known as Seminole Beach to the City of AtlapticJBeach (COAB) jurisdiction. Prior to
that event, the parcel was located within the City of,;TackSonville (COJ), and such substandard
parcels were allowed to be developed according t9/G,~D''&xgulations, particularly, a ten (1 0) foot
rear yard setback as opposed to the COAB regui:ii§ld twenty;(20) foot rear yard setback. Mr.
Wolfson noted that numerous owners of simjl?fponconfonnifig~ots have been granted variances
and allowed to construct residential struct~ri$:€&\rer the years. .Asia:'h~\ owner of the subject parcel
since 1981, he expressed his desire for th&'saffile allowances, and nbte~Lthat without a variance, a
structure built according to current COAB r6'g4}fttions coul<:l be no m6i1:~othan ten (1 0') feet deep.
Mr. Wolfson also provided Boardp1embers witH·ph9tO$,.·pJ(~;recently consft;~o~~d garage apartment
on the parcel addressed as 1734f~~~c}1 Avenue, aria;i~)q5lained that he wish:e'd to build a similar
structure. ':/::"·\'~!"--(:-c-· ';';;~
c.= . __ ,_--(:.C:\~-
_;'".;!~~-·' ;.::y-~->-·. ;?!~~~~,·~=-
Ms. Hall noted though the 1734 Beat~~trucfuf~\y~~ locat~d;:~(!ven (7) feet from the rear property
line, no variance h~fiJ~¥eil;'J;equired 15e9ause th~~~W,,§trudiTt~--was built in the footprint of a
previously permi~~e~}legalg~J'~~: apartm&~~·.j;;uf~' .. ~;:~f};].,. ~
Ms. Glasser noted St~J~h!ld det~)ifnined that 1h'e~1leight of any structure would be limited to twenty~
four-and~qn(JrP:alf(24 ~j~~~.ek1~!1e;'a'$k~~ what'~:Qfect a variance might have on the height, to which
Mr. V{0Jfso1b1[ep1ie\i .. none;:e~p\l~iningthatc}hy helgll.t was proportional to the total lot area.
Mr.'Tl~~bertson ope:~tlfthy p:~ilE;;qearing~nd,'l~vited comments.
\· :'·'":__·.. -s;.' ·-', . ·-.. ~:·;,-,' .·.
Donald W~ll§t~ll (1723 Od~~n Grm;6;Drive), whose property abuts the southwest comer of the
subject prope~;~poke in opp~-~ition to the requested variance and stated that he had also submitted
his opinion viaem~:~:il. He catl~Bl attention to the standards for approving and denying a variance, in
particular that "noiloo!lfonrilqg conditions of adjacent properties shall not be considered" and a
variance "shall not be{graq!ed] 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.
Page 2 of4
!Jrqf/ ,\1illillf!.\' cf tilt Febnmi:J! 15, lrlf I regulm·meetltlg {Jf llw Commum/y Development Bo!lrd (Nvfsicm f)
John Laliberte (l729 Ocean Grove Drive), whose property directly abuts tbe notthwest comer of
the suqject property submitted a letter in opposition to the requested variance to Boal'd members
via email, and Ms. Hall noted that it too had been add~d to the file.
Mt·. Wcllfson infot'lned Mr. Lambertson that he had l'vVO letter,<; in support of his application. the
first being fl·om Ms. Helen Lane (1721 Beach Avetme) and the second being frorr. Robett &
Fot·rest Part'ish ( 1731 Beach Avenue). Mr. Wolfson read each letter and copies were pl'ovided for
the file.
Mr. Lambertson asked if there Wel'e others wishing to speak f9r or against the applicatlon, and with
no further comment, he closed the public bearing and ,o,pened 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 1Jot. Mr. Wolf.o;on replied that the t-wo
ure currently tied together nnd billed as a sittg1e tax parcel~ 'bul upon the advice of the COJ
Prope1iy Appmiscr's Offtce 1 he is in the process of sepm·ating them~ Ms. Hall cont1rmed that the
Wolfson propet·ly is the only one which has the westem nonconforming lot tied to the eastern
oceanfront lot, and that there is a law stating lots separated by a righH;tf',way are to be taxed
separately.
Mr. Elmore said that tbe annexation essentially resulted in a ''taking" because the
'~nonconforming" status was applied after the ,pmperty owner had closed on that property. At the
time of purchase, the property owner had certain r;~ghts and expectations as 10 what could be done
with the prope1ty and ·d'ue tD the annexation and imposition Gf COAB regulations, those rights
were lost. Mr. Lambertson pointed out that zcming codes and land development regulations
evolve, noting that·when the ctl.trent code became effective in 2002, it was acceptable to divide a
one hundred (I 00) foot lot i11to two fifty (50) foot lots, bul that was not the case now. Mr. Parkes
noted from.some perspecti:ves, aH .zoning could .be viewed ns takings. Ms. Glasse1· acknowledged
the pmperg' owner's right .to "reasonaBle use" ofthe pi'Opcl1y, and noted that without a vadance,
an accessory structure, occupying up to sixhunclt·ed {600) square feet of lot area and built to a
maximum height of fifteen (I 5) feet could be constructed. Mr. Hansen voiced empathy for both
sides and questioned whether "reasonable use" without a variance was amenable to all parties .
.J\4HlfflefeMs. Glasser asked ;if the applicant wus seeking a variance to construct something for
personal use, Ot' if '>Wts for future disposal, to which Mr. Wolfson replied he could not rule out
future disposal, but the immediate plan was development. rle told the Board tbat the required
separation into a separate ta!< parcel would result in significantly higher taxes, and also added that
he had been required to tie the lot into the City's watet· & sewe1· lines at a considerable cost. Mr.
Wolfson emphasized the impact annexation had on such nonconforming lots, and Ms. Glasser
asked if thc1'e were specitlc examples the Board could review. Mr. Wolfson referred to other such
nonconfol'llling lots to the n01th of his.
Mr. Elmore asked if Mt. Wolfson had considet·ed moving the structme forwal'd, asking for a
reduction of the front yat·d setback, and stated that he would entertain reducing the iiunt yard to get
mol'e separation in the back. M1·. 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,
pt·eventing the Board from acting on such a revision at tonight's meeting. Mr. Purkes 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
Pagr: 3 of4
Draft Minutes of the February I 5, 201 I regular meeting of the Community Development Board (revision I)
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.
Mr. Lambertson called for a motion. Blaine Adams moved that the Board approve the applicants'
requested variance from Section 24-106(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 glmore seconded the motion, and Mr.
Lambertson called for discussion. Ms. Glasser said .sl}~Hffelt the Board required additional
information regarding the variances granted to, and the{ci~¥.&iopment of similar nonconforming lots
also subject to the annexation, and other Board mem,.bers'agt;eed. Mr. Elmore withdrew his second
and Mr. Adams amended his motion as follows. ·~~:,r :,~ ,
MOTION: Blaine Adams moved that the(~Q~fd defer conside;~ti0:n, of ZVAR-2011-01 until the
March 15, 2011, so that Staff could reseai1~ni~nd provide addition~i~lil§torical information and/or
the applicants could amend their applicatio.ii:dnAhe spirikQf comprornt~·~·yvith adjacent property
owners. Harley Parkes seconded ~he motion and~it;,p,Jl.S~~~llfl~nimously, 7~~o:;:~\
-~ -'5.:'· -. ,. ... _,.,. -· · ·-=~a:/ ,,_,-~3?-:~j\L· {.
Chairman Lambertson asked Staff~t~~,~~ql!le~t City Attdf,h~y Alan Jensen's attendance at the March
15, 2011 meeting. \_} 'ci~'-·:i , " ::: ,
7. OTHER BUSINESS l'{(il;f~~UIRINd:WCTION;~~-:~-;~·.;._ -cy\
8. ADJOURNMENT. ·~Zi~~~,:~l6!i:adjour~i~,i~gg~:e~i~~!~{:ij!~s5 pm .
. ~·~-::··' '· ··::
·". -.~: ;'~:;::{·,
~:~;~/ -~~~ ~~':::;:·-·. --~
·-:-: :_-,_~:}~};::cJ:.-. 0 •• :,_-~::,:~(:_'-'~>-·----:
Chpi~~ambertson;tg~;~rmalfb, ·. _
,.''~:-:--. ~'-;:.;." --:~ ·: .. , ;:}z,
.. ~"-' .
. . ·:. '~:. ~
. <:~·-',
Attest
Page 4 of4
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 Department
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 conforming 50' x 70' lot of record lot at 1725 Beach Avenue, west side
of1725 Beach A venue.
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 information and/or a revision to the request by the applicant. Both
Board members and the applicant requested presence of and input from legal counsel prior 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 from 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 support of its recommendation for
approval of a lesser variance, allowing for the reduction of the required t\.venty (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 annexation
of Seminole Beach into the City of Atlantic Beach.
• Excerpts from historic CDB minutes regarding variances granted for nonconforming lots
impacted by the 1987 annexation, and discussions of related matters.
• A compilation of documents related to the Mark Kredell variance appeal, regarding a part of
Government Lot4, recorded in 0/RBooks 6156-2259 and 5600-1703, and otherwise known
as 1850-1852 Beach A venue.
• 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 fmdings 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 ofthe 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 property owner.
(d) Grounds for approval of a Variance. A variance may be granted, at the discretion of the
Community Development Board, for the following reasons.
(1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property.
(2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from
nearby properties.
(3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property 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.
(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 property.
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 tetms and
provisions of this Section and that the granting of the variance will be in harmony 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 part 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 (Pro'vide findings of fact similar to the following):
(1) The special conditions and circumstances necessitating this request do not result from the
actions ofthe 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
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDIN(,' VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY THE 1987
ANNEXATION AND DISCUSSIONS OF RELATED MATTERS
1987 MAR 17-CDB/ITEM C (PG 2-3)-APPROVED, 7-0
Variance of Rear Yard Requirements on a Pie-shaped lot; lawrence R. Bowers; lot 37,
Oceanwalk Unit IV
Lawrence Bowers, 1133 Hamlet Court, Neptune Beach, and Bill Ebert, architectural advisor for
Oceanwalk, presented the plans to the board. The rear yards ranged from 15' and 16' at the
closest points to approximately 45' at the farthest point. The stated that the plan had been
designed according to City of Jacksonville zoning regulations which states pie-shaped and corner
lots have no rear yard, only side yards. They stated that Jacksonville had issued permits in
Oceanwalk, prior to Jan 1, 1987, with similar setbacks on pie-shaped lots and that there were
approximately two other lots that may have the same problem. The added that they had spent
considerable time and money designing the house and felt the house could not be re-arranged
on the lot to meet the requirements and retain architectural integrity.
There being no discussion from the audience, Mr. MacDonell motioned to approve the variance
as requested, due to the considerable amount of time and money that had been spent designing
the house to Jacksonville regulations. Mr. Howie seconded the motion. A point of order came
from Mr. Delaney in that he felt the shape of the lot caused a hardship to the applicants.
After discussion, Chairman McCaulie read aloud the Findings of Fact. Each item was answered
favorably by the board members. The vote was called. The motion to approve the variance
carried unanimously. [For APPROVAL: W Gregg McCaulie,' L B MacDonell,' Samuel T Howie,'
Ruth Gregg; Frank Delaney; Donald Tappin,' john Bass]
1987 APR 21-CDB/ITEM G (PG 4)-APPROVED, 6-0
Rear Yard Variance from 20' to 10'; Herbert B Moller, Jr, Nineteen hundred block of Beach
Avenue
Mr. Moller, 1911 Beach Avenue, stated that his family had purchased this 50' x 50' lot in 1943
when there were no setback requirements in the City of Jacksonville. He stated that he planned
to build in the late 1950s but was drafted into the Korean War and was away for the next
twenty-eight years. He added that the City of Jacksonville's minimum rear yard requirement is
10' and that he would not need a variance if the area had not been annexed.
Chairman McCaulie read the Findings of Fact and all items were answered favorably. Mr. Howie
motioned to approve the variance. Mr. Tappin seconded the motion which carried
unanimously. [For APPROVAL: W Gregg McCaulie,' Louis B MacDonell; Samuel T Howie; Frank
Delaney; Donald Tappin; john Bass]
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY TilE .1987 ANNEXATION
1987 MAY 19-CDB/ITEM B (PG 1-2)-DENIED, 7-0
Rear and Side Yard Variance; part of Government Lot 4, Fractional Section 9, Township 25,
Range 29E, 50' x 50' parcel on the southwest corner of Beach Avenue and 18 1h Street, by Mark
J Kredell
Mr. Kredell stated that the Board should act favorably on his application because 1) the Board
had ruled favorably on a similar 'lot, 500' from his property, at the previous meeting; 2)
minimum rear yards under the City of Jacksonville's zoning regulations are 10'; 3) the property
would have been a lot of record in Atlantic Beach since it was recorded prior to July 26, 1982.
Mr. Delaney felt this was a different situation than the previous application in that Mr. Moller
had owned his lot since 1943 and could be considered grandfathered-in and Mr. Kredell had
only owned his property since 1986.
Dezmond Waters, 1835 Beach Avenue, stated that there once were covenants and restrictions
that provided for these small parcels to be used for parking. Mrs. Ann Rogers, 1163 Beach
Avenue, pointed out that that area of Beach Avenue was previously named Garage Approach
Roadway. The following residents spoke against the application: Elliot Zisser, 1937 Beach
Avenue; Don Wolfson, 1725 Beach Avenue (representing the North Duval Beaches Association);
Lisa Pelkey, 1887 Beach Avenue; Susan Smith, 1875 Beach Avenue. Several other residents
stood to show their opposition.
Mr. Kredell asked the Board to defer consideration of his application due to the negative
reaction he had received, and to allow him time to do further research and to all the Board time
to consult the City Attorney. He later added that if the Board knew exactly what could be built
on the property he would rather they take action tonight.
Mr. Delaney asked if he would rather the Board vote on the application or if he would rather
withdraw. Mr. Kredell replied that he wished to withdraw.
Chairman McCaulie stated that, unless the Board had a strong opposition, they would permit
him to withdraw. Mr. Delaney and Mrs. Gregg had strong oppositions.
Mr. MacDonell motioned to allow Mr. Kredell to defer his application until the City Attorney
could be consulted. The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Delaney motioned to deny the application. Ruth Gregg seconded the motion. Mr. Tappin
felt it was premature and unfair not to honor the applicant's request to withdraw.
After further discussion the vote was called. The motion to deny the application for variance
carried unanimously. [For DENIAL: W Gregg McCaulie; Louis B MacDonell; Samuel T Howie;
Frank Delaney; Donald Tappin; john Bass; Ruth Gregg]
[APPLICANT RE-APPLIED FOR VARIANCE ON APRIL 18, 1989]
Page 2 of16
Revised 319/2011
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING WTS IMPACTED Bl'THE 1987 ANNE'XATJON
1987 SEP 15-COB/ITEM B (PG 1-2) -APPROVED, 6-0
Rear Yard Variance; Part of Lot 3, Section 9, Township 2 South, Range 29 East; Beach Avenue,
by William N Morgan and Homer H Humphries
Dylan Morgan, 1653 Coquina Place, represented the applicants in the request for variance. He
presented the Board with two site plans; one indicating the present building area, and one
indicating the proposed building area. He stated that the property is 121.84' wide and contains
6,092 square feet of area, and that the rear setback variance was needed due to the 50' depth
of the property. He added that the property was acquired in the fall of 1986, prior to
annexation.
Pete Dowling inquired as to whether they planned to build a duplex or a single family dwelling
on the property. Mr. Morgan replied that they were presently undecided. Mark Kredell stated
that he empathized with the applicants, that he was denied a variance on his 50' x 50' property.
Other members of the audience expressed concern over increased traffic and setting a
precedent.
Mr. MacDonell felt that there was considerable cause to grant the variance in that the City of
Jacksonville would have allowed a 10' rear yard when the property was purchased. He
suggested treating the property as a corner lot; 20' on the north and south, 15' on Beach
Avenue, 5' on the interior side opposite Beach Avenue. This was agreeable with the applicants,
although they asked for a little leeway in that the structure had not yet been designed. Mr.
MacDonell motioned to approve the application with the intent that the property fit the mold of
a corner lot; a 20' yard on the north, 15' yard on the south, 10' yard on the west and 15' yard on
Beach Avenue. Mr. Bass seconded the motion. The Chairman addressed the findings of fact.
The Board generally agreed that all criteria was met. The vote was called. The motion carried
unanimously. [For APPROVAL: W Gregg McCaulie; Louis B MacDonell; Ruth Gregg; john Bass;
Donald Tappin; Frank Delaney]
1987 DEC 15-CDB/ITEM B (PG 2)-APPROVED, 5-0
Rear Yard Variance; Lot 19, Beachside Subdivision, by G Guy and Carol A Johnson
Mr. Johnson, 417 Ocean Boulevard, Atlantic Beach, stated that their house had been specifically
designed to fit on this lot in accordance with the City of Jacksonville's specifications, 10' rear
yard. He stated that they had spent a considerable amount in architectural and design fees. Mr.
Johnson stated that their lot is adjacent to undeveloped lots and that the Beachside developers
had no objection to the variance. He added that a similar variance had been issued to Sandy
Seminak who was in the same predicament.
The Board addressed the findings of fact. The Vice Chairman felt that the Johnsons were victims
of hardship by virtue of the change in the rear yard provision and having proceeded based on
the contracts and agreements previously given them. Ruth Gregg motioned to approve the
application. Mr. Tappin seconded the motion which carried unanimously. [For APPROVAL:
Louis B MacDonell; Samuel T Howie; Donald Tappin; Ruth Gregg; Frank Delaney]
Page 3 of16
Revised 3'912011
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGAIWING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY THE .1987 ANNEXATION
1988 JAN 12-COB/ITEM C (PG 2) -APPROVED, 4~3
Rear Yard Variance by Seda Construction Company, 1869 Beachside Court, Lot 11, Block 1,
Beachside
Sandy Seminak, 2120 Corporate Square Boulevard, Jacksonville, stated that he had contracted in
August '85 to purchase lllots in Beachside (City of Jacksonville). In March of '86 he went to the
designer with the lots. In June or July of 1986 he closed on the lots. He contracted with Neal
l<ing in September or October of 1987 to purchase this lot. He felt their case constituted a
hardship because they purchased the lots while they were under Jacksonville jurisdiction, which
would have allowed 10' rear yards. He stated that he had the same problem in early '87 but had
been granted a building permit by Atlantic Beach for a 10' rear yard. [NOTE: A building permit
was obtained without a variance in this case].
Neal King stated that he was not aware of the 10' requirement until their application for a
building permit was denied. He felt that a smaller house would upset the continuity of the
neighborhood and would decrease property values.
Chairman McCaulie stated that the builder knew about the change in setback requirements but
contracted with Mr. l<ing without telling him about it. He didn't see how Mr. Seminak could
claim a hardship.
Mr. Delaney felt it was grandfathered-considering when the lot was purchased and when the
design work was done. Mr. MacDonell felt that the investment of a smaller house would not be
in keeping with the land values because of the location of the property. He stated that the
builder invested his money based on the regulations that existed at the time of purchase, and
felt it was unfair not to grant the variance. Mr. MacDonell motioned to approve the application.
Mr. Delaney seconded the motion. The motion carried 4 to 3. Delaney, Gregg, Bass and
MacDonell voted YES. Tappin, Howie and McCaulie voted NO.
1988 MAR 15-CDB/ITEM C (PG 2)-APPROVED,4~0
Rear Yard Variance; 50' x 50' lot being part of Tract 4, North Atlantic Beach, Unit No 1, by John
C Landon (Annexed from Jacksonville, January 1987)
Mr. Landon stated that he was requesting relief from the 20' rear yard requirement so that he
could construct a garage-apartment-type building on a small lot that has been in his family since
1943. He added that he owns the lot across the street and one of the two lots that back up to
this lot. Mr. Landon felt he could not build without relief from the 20' yard requirement.
There being no one else present to discuss the item, Mr. Bass motioned to approve the
application. Ruth Gregg seconded the motion. The Board considered the findings of fact and
determined that a hardship exists in that Mr. Landon could have built on his lot with a 10' rear
yard prior to annexation. The vote was called. The motion to approve the application carried
unanimously. [For APPROVAL: W Gregg McCaulie; Ruth Gregg; john Bass; Donald Tappin]
Page 4 of 16
Revised 319/2011
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC COB MINUTES -----------------------REGAR/JING l'ARlANCE'S GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING WTS IMPACTED BY THE 1987 ANNEXATTON
1989 JAN 17-COB/ITEM A (PG 2)-DISCUSSION
Don Wolfson provided the board with an excerpt from what appeared to be Ocean Grove Unit II
deed restrictions. He expressed concern over the issuance of setback variances to the
substandard lots of record along Beach Avenue and a lack of off street parking facilities for
private residences on Beach Avenue.
1989 MAR 21-COB/ITEM C (PG 3)-DEFERRED
Rear Yard Variance by Mark Kredell; Part of Gvmt Lot 4, Fract Sect 9, Twnshp 2S, Rng 29E; a
SO' x SO' parcel on the southwest corner of 18 1h Street and Beach Ave
Paul Eakin, Mr. Kredell's attorney, requested that the Board defer action on the application due
to his illness. The Board agreed to defer action and rescheduled the application for April 18,
1989.
1989 APR 18-CDB/ITEM A (PG 1-Z)-DENIED, 5-2
Rear Yard Variance by Mark Kredell; Part of Government Lot 4, Section 9, Township 2 South,
Range 29 East; a SO' x 50' parcel on the southwest corner of 181h Street and Beach Avenue
Paul Eakin, attorney for Mr. Kredell, presented the board with several letters from residents
supporting the variance and a map which highlighted similar variances that had been granted.
Mr. Kredell stated that he proposed construction of a two bedroom garage apartment; that one
garage space would be for the rental unit and the other spaces would be used by the oceanfront
residents. Several members of the board expressed concern for the limited parking spaces
provided for the rental unit. It was clarified that the zoning code requires a minimum of two
spaces for each residential unit.
Discussion ensued regarding the intended use of "Garage Approach Road" (Beach Avenue),
whether the vacant land to the west was intended to be used exclusively for parking for the
oceanfront homes.
Mr. Eakin questioned whether a hardship is a requirement in granting variances. Mr. Wolfson
replied by quoting Section 24-49 from the Code of Ordinances, "Powers and Duties of the
Community Development Board". Mr. Eakin defined the hardship as a need for additional
parking facilities for the oceanfront units and that, without the variance, Mr. Kredell would be
forced to construct a ten foot wide building. He added that similar variances have been granted
in the area and that his client should not be singled-out and deprived of his rights.
Several residents spoke against the variance, including Robert and Linda Fagens, 1847 Ocean
Grove Drive; Bob and Mary Anne Frohwein, 1847 Ocean Grove Drive; Ken O'Rourke, 1843 Ocean
Grove Drive; and Dezmond Waters, 1835 Seminole Road. Residents feared impairment of
sunlight and air circulation, an increase in traffic and a change in the quality of life should' the
variance be granted.
Page 5 of16
Revised 319/2011
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
R!iGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING WTS IMPACfED BJ' TJJE 1987 ANNEXATTON
After lengthy discussion, the Chairman asked for a motion. Mr. Howie motioned to deny the
application for variance. Mr. Wolfson seconded the motion.
Mr. Wolfson then gave a lengthy history of the area, with particular reference to the original
deed restrictions. He suggested that the Board may have made an error when granting similar
variances; that the Board may have granted privileges they did not have authority to grant. He
stated that "Garage Approach" was uniquely designed for additional parking facilities and not
for living spaces.
Mr. Kredell stated that the Board had granted variances to similar lots to make them buildable
and that he should be given the same consideration. Mr. MacDonell agreed, adding that he felt
the application met the 'findings of fact' requirements.
After further discussion, the Chairman called for the vote. The motion to deny the application
for variance carried with a five to two vote. Members McCaulie and MacDonell voted NO.
[DECISION OF CDB OVERTURNED BY CC ON MAY 22, 1989; CC DECISION SUPPORTED BY
LEGAL OPINION. SEE ATTACHMENTS A1·A17.]
1989 SEP 19-CDB/ITEM A (PG 2)-DISCUSSION
Mr. Wolfson expressed concern and questioned the validity of the opm10n submitted by
attorney Mark Arnold regarding the townhouses at the corner of Beach Avenue and Eighteenth
Street.
Mr. Wolfson stated he mainly had two concerns he wished to address.
There was not a written record of a conversation between Mr. Richard Fellows [then City
Manager], Mrs. Rene Angers [then Community Development Coordinator], and Mr. Claude
Mullis [then City Attorney] regarding the legal opinion submitted by Claude Mullis. Mr. Wolfson
felt the issuance of the permits was an "usurp of our (Community Development Board)
responsibilities to perform according to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Atlantic Beach and
therefore, that is a violation."
Mr. Wolfson also felt that the building permits issued to Mr. Kredell for the townhouses at
Beach Avenue and Eighteenth Street were issued in error and wanted the responsible parties
put on notice. Mr. Wolfson reviewed the various ordinances and definitions that were sited
[sic] in letters from Mr. Claude Mullis and Mr. Mark Arnold.
The Chairman called a special workshop meeting the City Attorney for October 4, 1989.
1989 OCT 17-CDB/ITEM G (PG 3-4)-DISCUSSION
Issuance of Building Permits #999 and #1000, 1850-1852 Beach Avenue
Legal Opinions rendered by Mark Arnold, Steve Stratford and Claude Mullis regarding 1850-
1852 Beach Avenue
Page 6 of16
Revised 319/2011
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES (;RANTED FOR NONCONFORMING WTS IMPACTED BY THE 19£17 ANNEXA T!ON
Mr. MacDonell questioned what his personal liabilities were regarding statements or actions
made in reference to the issuance of permits #999 and #1000. Mr. Wolfson expressed concern
that no one came before the Community Development Board seeking a variance to build on the
substandard lot.
Mr. Arnold [then City Attorney] stated that the permits were issued correctly and were done so
under the advise [sic] of then City Attorney Claude Mullis. He stated that a variance was not
required because of the wording of the ordinance and suggested review of the ordinances to
prevent similar situations from occurring. He added that it was beyond the power of the
Community Development Board to take action and advised citizens who wished to pursue the
matter to file a writ of mandamus in circuit court, that it was no longer a municipal matter but a
legal one.
1990 FEB 20-CDB/ITEM A (PG 3)-DISCUSSION
Discussion and recommendation of permitted uses of substandard lots of record
This item has been referred to counsel for clarification and will be resubmitted by Mr. Jensen
and no action was taken.
1990 MAR 21-CDB/ITEM A (PG 1)-DISCUSSION
Discussion and recommendation on clarification of permitted uses of substandard lots of
record
City Attorney, Alan Jensen presented to the board an ordinance revising the definition and
permitted uses of substandard lots of record. The board suggested that each townhouse be
more clearly defined as a single family unit and 11 nonconforming lots" be changed to the
singular.
Chairman McCaulie requested that the Community Development Director review alternative
methods of determining height of structures and report back to the board.
After further discussion the board returned the ordinance to counsel for revisions.
1990 APR 24-CDB/ITEM B (PG 2)-DISCUSSION
Recommendation on clarification of permitted uses of substandard lots of record
City Attorney, Alan Jensen presented to the board a final draft of the ordinance clarifying the
definition and permitted uses of substandard lots of record. Mr. Jensen stated that one single
family residence is allowed on a substandard lot of record provided setbacks are met. Anyone
wishing to construct a duplex or more than one townhouse must apply for a variance from the
Community Development Board.
Page 7 of16
Revised 319/2011
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
RBGAR/)JNG VARIANCli'S GRANTED FOR NONCONFOI?MING WTS IMPACTED BV THE .1987 llNNBXA TION
The Community Development Director suggested that Section 24-62 of the Code of Ordinances
become more specific as to the measuring point of a structure.
After further discussion, Mr. MacDonell motioned to recommend approval as presented. Mrs.
Gregg seconded the motion which carried unanimously. [For APPROVAL: W Gregg McCau/ie,
Louis MacDonell, Ruth Gregg, john Bass, Samuel T Howie, Kathy Russell, Don Wolfson]
1990 JUN 19-CDB/ITEM D (PG 2-3)-DISCUSSION
Dezmond Waters addressed the board as to the definition of a sub-standard lot and the
ordinance, which according to Rene Angers allows garage apartments to be built on sub-
standard lots provided there is a 25' height limit. This would not disallow lot owners seeking a
variance in order to build to a greater height, but would protect owners of neighboring
properties.
This was further explained to mean the height limit would remain 35', except on sub-standard
lots where the height limit would be 25'. The buildings on these lots would be more restricted
than on regular lots by code. It was also mentioned by Mrs. Gregg that there would still be
questions about the ground level. Mr. Leinbach [then City Manager] called for public input.
There was extensive discussion on the definition of a townhouse and how townhouses fit into
existing zones. Currently townhouses and rowhouses can be built in RG2 if a plat is filed. Mr.
Leinbach stated that he was not aware of anything in the code that prevents a builder from
building up the lot.
The conclusion of the discussion was that each case of a sub-standard lot be considered on it's
own merits. It was decided to report to the City Commission that the definition of a townhouse
seems to be as appropriate as the board can make it. Further, there is a valid consideration for
limiting the height of a building on a sub-standard lot to 25' subject to a variance if they want to
build higher, but the board is concerned that it may deprive owners of sub-standard lots and put
them at a disadvantage.
The City Attorney suggested that to apply different building criteria to sub-standard lots would
leave the City open to problems. It was suggested that if the sub-standard lot was 80% as large
as a standard lot, then the height limit would be 80% of the standard height limit (35').
Mr. McCaulie stated that it will be decided by the Commission if they want it to be a percentage,
subject to variance; 25 feet, subject to a variance; 35 feet, or whatever.
Mr. McCaulie's position is as stated, that the City Commission or the board will decide the
building criteria, including height limits for sub-standard lots.
Mrs. Gregg, Mr. Wolfson and Mr. Bass were in favor of the proportionate (percentage) plan.
It was suggested that the new Community Development Director look into the questions of
fence height requirements and limits and also the questions regarding building height on sub-
standard lots.
Page 8 of16
Revised 319/2011
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC COB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING WTS IMPACTED BY THE 1987 ANNEXATION
1991 OCT 15-CDB/ITEM II (PG 3-4) -DISCUSSION
Invoking "Grandfather" status of property
A general discussion followed regarding a'n item that had come before the Board at the last
meeting and was deferred until a special meeting could be called. In the meantime, the item
was taken before the City Commission and the request was granted by the City Commission by
invoking the grandfather status of the property.
Mr. Wolfson pointed out staff's recommendation regarding the above application and that the
application was handled improperly as proper procedure was not followed. He also read a draft
motion he had prepared for the Board's review.
The Chairman stated that everyone probably has in their own mind an idea of what the term
"grandfathered" means to them and there may not be a universal acceptance of the true
meaning of the term. His conception of grandfathering was if a structure or the use of a
structure is in existence and the City changes the zoning or changes the law which applies to the
use of the structure that the structure or use will continue and be grandfathered in. If at some
point in time that structure is changed or the use is changed they would have to come into
conformity with the current existing law either through zoning or use. If something is already
there and the law changes you are allowed to keep it there but it cannot be changed without
complying with what law is in force at the time.
Mr. Frohwein stated that it is the intent of the Community Development Board to attempt to
structure and shape the community and that in the future hopefully the structuring would be
uniform throughout the City.
It was suggested by several members of the Board that a meeting take place between the City
Council and the Community Development Board to clarify purposes and intents of such matters.
1992 NOV 17-CDB/ITEM V (PG 3)-DENIED, 5-2
Variance filed by Townsend and Virginia Hawkes to construct a garage apartment on a non-
conforming lot located at 1771 Beach Avenue
Mr. and Mrs. Townsend Hawkes introduced themselves to the Board and explained that the
variance was requested to allow them to construct a garage apartment on a 50 x 50 lot on the
west side of Beach Avenue. Variances are needed for minimum lot size and rear yard setback.
After discussion, Mr. Wolfson moved to deny the variance. Mr. Frohwein seconded the motion
and the variance was denied by a vote of 5-2..
[DECISION OF CDB OVERTURNED BY CC ON FEB 08,1993. SEE ATTACHMENTS B1-B13.]
Page 9 of 16
Revised 319/2011
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
RHGARVJNG VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING WTS JMPACTI?JJ BY THE 1987 ANNTJXA TJON
1993 MAR 16-CDB/ITEM II (PG 1~2)-DISCUSSION
The board discussed the matter of reducing the minimum lot requirements
Mr. Wolfson stated that this item was placed on the agenda at his request because of the 50' x
50' lots on Beach Avenue that the City Commission was allowing owners to build upon by
granting variances.
The board also discussed the matters of accessory structures and buildings and the definition of
these terms. No resolution was reached on either issue.
After discussion, Mr. Wolfson moved to request a workshop between the City Commission and
the Community Development Board to discuss these matters. Mrs. Walker seconded the
motion and it was passed unanimously.
1993 MAY 18-COB/ITEM A (PG 2~3)-DISCUSSION
The Board discussed possible dates to meet with the City Commission to discuss various matters
of conflict regarding the interpretations of auxiliary buildings or structures. It was decided that
6:00 p.m., June 14 1h and 28 1h, 1993 would be a good time to meet and it was just before the
regularly scheduled meetings of the Commission in June, 1993.
1994 OCT 18-CDB/ITEM II (PG 2)-APPROVED, 4-0
Variance filed by Craig Sutton to construct two single-family homes on property known as the
west 75 feet of Lots 8 and 9, Ocean Grove Unit 2
Mr. Sutton introduced himself to the board and explained that he desired to sell the property
and the variance was needed to allow construction of a single-family residence on each lot.
Builder Jim Pelkey introduced himself to the board and stated he desired to purchase the
property. He presented a design for two homes reflecting the appropriate setback and height
requirements. The height requirement would be calculated in accordance to the size of the lots
and each home could be no higher than 31.5 feet.
After discussion, Mrs. Walker moved to grant the variance and Mrs. Pillmore seconded the
motion.
After further discussion, the board voted unanimously to grant the variance with the following
stipulations:
1 The variance be granted solely to the applicant for sale to Mr. Pelkey for construction of
a single family home on each lot.
2 The variance be limited to a period of one year (will lapse if not implemented)
3 That all other height and setback requirements be strictly adhered to
Page 10 of16
Revised 319/2011
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
RE'GARDING l'ARIANCHS GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING WTS IMPACTIW BY TilE 1987 ANNEXATION
2003 APR 22-ZVARw2003-04· (ITEM 5A/NO QUORUM)
2003 MAY 20-ZVARw2003-04 (ITEM 4A/PG 1-2)-W /D BY APPL
Variance from Section 24-105(e)(1)&(3) to reduce required twenty (20} foot front [actually
rear] yard setback on Beach Avenue side of an oceanfront lot to thirteen (13) feet and also to
reduce the required ten (10) foot side yard setback to 4.86' to allow a proposed two-story
addition to an existing non-conforming structure, for property within the RS-2 Zoning District
and located at 1987 Beach Avenue. [NOTE: This was an oceanfront lot, NOT substandard, but
in the area previously known as Seminole Beach and subject to the 1987 annexation.]
Mr. George Bull, Jr, introduced himself and distributed an amended site plan to the Board
members. He stated that the amendment reduced the requested front [rear] yard
encroachment and placed the addition more to the center of the property. He further stated
that they would like to upgrade the existing structure by adding a second story garage and
bedroom addition. Mr. Bull stated that the hardships are as follows: 1) The house was built in
the 1950s, and they are not able to build to the south, east or west. This was an inherited
situation not caused by the owneri and 2) Building toward the ocean would be financially
infeasible due to the cost to remove boulders placed after Hurricane Dora.
Ms. Doerr referred Board members to the copy of the aerial photograph included in the
application packet. She stated that she felt that the relocation of the Coastal Construction
Control Line created an unusual circumstance to this lot. She further stated the State would be
less favorable to building seaward, and it would be difficult to add onto this property since the
CCCL was relocated so far landward of the lot.
Ms. Doerr confirmed that the proposed addition was seaward of the CCCL. Mr. Frohwein asked
Ms. Doerr if she had knowledge if the State would respond favorably if the addition were east of
the CCCL. Ms. Doerr responded that the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) would
rather see construction to the west of that line. Mr. Frohwein advised the applicant could make
argument to the DEP that the Zoning Codes do not allow for construction to the east of the
CCCL.
Mr. Wolfson stated that the lot was very deep and the applicant was using a lot of land that was
landward of the current building. He stated that the applicant has the opportunity to build
seaward of the current structure, and he did not recognize a hardship in this instance.
Ms. Walker asked Mr. Bull if the owner had considered building upward. Mr. Bull responded
that the new Florida Building Codes state that you can improve any piece of property up to 50
percent of the original value without making the old structure conform to the new Building
Codes. He stated that if they built up, the building would have to meet the new Building Codes
and it would be financially unfeasible.
A motion was made by Mr. Wolfson and seconded by Mrs. Walker to deny the variance request.
Discussion was held with regard to whether or not a hardship existed for the applicant.
Page 11 of16
Revised 319/2011
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONf!ORMlNG LOTS IMPACTED BY TilE 1.987 ANNEXATION
Mr. Bull withdrew the variance request.
2003 AUG 19-ZVAR-2003-14 (ITEM 5A/PG 3-4)-W /D BY APPL
Variance from Section 24-106(e)(2) to allow a proposed addition to the rear of a single-family
residence to encroach into the required twenty (20) foot rear yard by a distance of 3-feet, 7-
inches on the south side and 5-feet, 8-inches on the north side for property within the RG-1
Zoning District and located at 1733 Ocean Grove Drive. [NOTE: This was a standard lot in
Ocean Grove, NOT a substandard lot, but in the area previously known as Seminole Beach and
subject to the 1987 annexation,]
, Mr. Gregory Kelly introduced himself. He stated that they were attempting to add living space
to a less than 2,000 square foot house where they have the need for a home office, additional
space for three children, one of which was autistic and required additional living space. Mr.
Kelly explained that they were requesting an extension for over five feet on the north side of the
property and an extension of over three feet on the south side.
Mr. Wolfson requested that Mr. Kelly explain the nature of the hardship.
Mr. Kelly advised that they had the option of extending into the front yard but there was a
significant grove of trees that they would like to preserve. In addition, he stated there was a
septic drain field located in the front yard on the opposing side of the garage, which they plan to
eliminate in the near future. Mr. Kelly advised they would like to build the addition in the rear,
which would not require any trees to be removed.
Mr. Wolfson asked Mr. Kelly what his needs would be if they remodeled on the west side of the
house. Mr. Kelly responded that most likely they would build up to the 20-foot setback on the
garage side of the house and would enclose the existing garage. He stated that this would
require other modifications to the addition for an even flow in the house and a minimum of
disturbance to the property.
Discussion was held with regard to the definition of a hardship. Mr. Wolfson advised that he did
not understand the legal hardship of the request. Mr. Jenkins explained to Mr. Kelly that a
hardship was something that was peculiar to his lot that would prohibit him from enjoying the
lot the way that his neighbors enjoy their lot. Mr. Kelly summarized that their hardship was the
drain field and the preservation of trees.
Mr. Wolfson asked Mr. Kelly how close the drain field was located to the front of their home.
Mr. Kelly responded that it extended right out the front door and just to the north side of the
north side of the front door. Mr. Kelly stated that they would like to extend the full front of the
home but in order to preserve trees, it would be an extension of the garage side only.
Mr. Jenkins moved to deny the request for a variance. Mr. Burkhart seconded the motion.
Mr. Frohwein advised that he recognized an "almost" hardship with the drain field but he saw
that as a temporary condition. He further advised that there were other opportunities to add
onto the home on the southwest corner as had been discussed.
Page 12 of16
Revised 319/2011
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING WTS IMPACTED BYTJIE 1.987 ANNEXATION
Ms. Drysdale stated that, in the past, when applicants realized that their application might be
denied, they had been allowed to withdraw their request. She suggested that the applicant
might want to consider this option.
Mr. Wolfson advised that the applicants were given the opportunity to withdraw their requests.
He advised Mr. Kelly that he had a very nice lot in a very nice neighborhood, and felt that he had
a lot of options to be creative with the addition.
Mr. Kelly informed the Board that he would like to withdraw his request, and possibly return to
the Board at a later date with an amended request. Ms. Doerr recommended continuing the
item so that the applicant would not be required to pay another application fee.
2005 MAR 15-ZVAR-2005-02 (ITEM 5A/PG 1-2)-DENIED, 5-0
Variance to reduce the required rear yard setback on an ocean-front lot (the Beach Avenue
side) from fifteen (15) feet to five (5) feet to allow for the construction of a detached two-
story garage on property with the RS-2 Zoning District at 1515 Beach Avenue. [NOTE: This
was an oceanfront lot, NOT a substandard Jot, but in the area previously known as Seminole
Beach and subject to the 1987 annexation.]
Greg Saig, 102 North Street stated that [he] would like a variance granted to construct a
detached garage. Mr. Saig also stated that he felt that if the variance was granted, his detached
garage would fit within the motif of Atlantic Beach.
Mr. Jacobson asked Mr. Saig if he would consider moving the proposed garage 30 feet eastward.
Mr. Saig replied that he did feel that a garage in that location would fit with the charm of Beach
Avenue.
Public comment.
Karen Perrin, 1502 Beach Avenue, stated that she is opposed to any variance for the property.
Ms. Perrin also stated that she felt that if the variance were granted, the detached garage would
cut out her breezes and sunrises. Ms. Perrin also stated that this would be a safety hazard, since
moving the detached garage would mean moving the driveway closer to the street; backing out
of the driveway would be very difficult.
May Jones, 126 15 1h Street, also spoke in opposition of the variance request. Ms. Jones
concurred with Ms. Perrin's statements.
Public comment closed.
A motion was made by Mr. Jacobson to deny the variance request, seconded by Mr. Jenkins.
The motion to deny unanimously carried.
Page 13 of 16
Revised 319/2011
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY Tl/F: .1987 ANNEXATION
2007 JAN 16-ZVAR-2007-01 (ITEM 5A/PG 1-2)-APPROVED! 4-1
Variance from Section 24-107{e)(2) to reduce the 20-foot rear yard {Beach Avenue side)
setback to 16-feet nine inches to allow for construction of a second floor addition to an
existing oceanfront single-family residence within the RS-2 Zoning District located at 2069
Beach Avenue. [NOTE: This was an oceanfront lot, NOT a substandard lot, but in the area
previously known as Seminole Beach and subject to the 1987 annexation.]
Mr. Boyer asked to abstain from voting on this issue due to the applicant is his neighbor and he
was the original architect of the home. Ms. Woods indicated that she would like Mr. Boyer to
participate in the vote if he had no financial interest in the property. Ms. Doerr stated that the
City Attorney has on numerous occasions advised Board members to hear and vote on an issue
as long as there are no financial interests or conflicts related to the property. Mr. Boyer stated
he does not have any financial interests in the property.
Michael Dunlap introduced himself as representing Mr. Lee Ferguson in the expansion of his
home. Mr. Burkhart inquired if any construction will be done on the first floor of the home and
how the second floor addition will be supported. Mr. Dunlap stated that no addition is planned
for the first floor and explained the support system planned for the second floor addition. He
further explained that the coastal construction setback is the reason why the house is located so
close to Beach Avenue. Ms. Woods asked if the neighbors have been contacted or notified
regarding the proposed construction. Mr. Dunlap believed the neighbors were aware of his
application. Mr. Boyer who lives next door noted the presence of the zoning notice sign placed
in the yard. Chairman Jacobson and Ms. Doerr clarified that the sign posting and newspaper
advertisement were the notices for a variance application. Chairman Jacobson inquired as to
the use of the proposed addition and the current square footage of the home. Mr. Dunlap
replied the area will be a media room and estimated the current square footage of the home to
be approximately 5,000 square feet. Chairman Jacobson questioned how the room is presently
utilized. Mr. Dunlap stated the current use of the room is a small media room and the owners
would like a larger one. Chairman Jacobson stated that although the applicant is asking for a
very small reduction in the setback, his concern is how common the request is for variance to
reduce the setbacks and almost all requests are denied even when hardships exist. He
suggested to Mr. Dunlap that if the room was increased in size by 8-feet instead of the proposed
10-feet, a variance would not be needed. Mr. Dunlap explained the dynamics of projection
equipment and seating for the media room requires 10-feet. He stated he had already spoken
with his clients and normally does not recommend going through the variance process. The
owners have already removed one row of seating they wanted in order to get the size down to
10-feet. Mr. Burkhart asked Ms. Doerr if the Administrative Waiver was applicable in this issue.
Ms. Doerr stated that this would allow only a 1-foot reduction in the setback. The
Administrative Waiver was 10% prior to 2001 when it was changed to 5%. Board members were
referred to Section 24-47(h) to review this information. Chairman Jacobson noted that at some
point the "pie piece" would exceed 5%. Ms. Woods inquired if the home had a circular
driveway. Mr. Dunlap stated it did not. Chairman Jacobson indicated that if the room was
expanded due to adding children's room or for an elderly parent to move in he could support
the variance since the request was minimal into the setback but he could not support a variance
for a media room. Chairman Jacobson asked Board members for comments. Ms. Woods does
not agree with the grounds of topographical conditions for approval because everything on the
beach has topographical issues. In addition, the irregular shape of the property would only be
Page 14 of 16
Revised 319/2011
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC COB MINUTES
--------------------------llBGARDTNG l'ARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING WTS IMPACTED BY THE .1987 ANNEXA TJON
irregular if you viewed every lot as rectangle. However, the request for a variance to allow for
21-square feet is not encroaching on anyone. More requests are for building in the rear yard
setback, which does affect others. She stated she could go either way on this request because
the addition does not really affect anyone. Chairman Jacobson stated what is being requested is
minor, but the grounds for the request are not compelling. Mr. Boyer again requested to
abstain from the vote due to his home is located right next door to the applicant and he
designed the original house.
A motion was made by Mr. Burkhart and seconded by Ms. Woods to approve the request for a
variance based on the irregular shape of the west property line and also noting that Section 24-
47(h) is ambiguous and that the request could be also found consistent with Section 24-47(h)
since the 21-square-feet encroachment is less than 5% of the setback area. The motion passed
by a 4:1 vote with Chairman Jacobson dissenting.
2008 FEB 19-ZVAR-2008-02 (ITEM 5B/PG 3)-APPROVED, 6MO
Variance from Section 24-151(e) to reduce the required front yard setback from 20-feet to 19-
feet, 6-inches; the rear yard setback from 10-feet to 5-feet, and a side yard setback from 10-
feet to 2-feet, 6-inches on the north side for the construction of a detached two-car garage on
a non-conforming lot of record tied to the main parcel, located at 1917 Beach Avenue. [NOTE:
This was a vacant 29.46' wide x 50' deep nonconforming lot of record, located in the area
previously known as Seminole Beach and subject to the 1987 annexation. HOWEVER, this
property has transferred ownership in three times since the annexation, in 1994, 2000, and
2006.]
Ms. Doerr introduced the application explaining this was an odd non-conforming lot located
west of the Beach Avenue right-of-way, and tied to an oceanfront lot. She noted that most
other lots like this, similarly tied to oceanfront lots, had been granted variances.
Mr. Lambertson opened the floor to the applicant. J W Terry Simmons, architect for the
Demuths, represented the application. Mr. Simmons stated that the proposal was the best
scenario to maintain the front yard setback, so as to be in line with the structure on the adjacent
property. He noted that many of these nonconforming lots, originally intended for garages, had
been built with single-family dwellings.
Mr. Lambertson opened the floor to public comment.
R D DeCarie, 51 Beach Avenue, stated that neighbors are supportive of the intended use.
No one else from the audience wished to address the application, so Mr. Lambertson closed the
floor to public comment and opened discussion by the Board.
Ms. Glasser noted that while she did not see a public notice posted on this property either, Mr.
De Carle had addressed her concern regarding how the neighbors felt about the proposal. Mr.
Boyer said that he had not seen a public notice either, to which Ms. Doerr replied both
properties had been posted on the same day. She noted that there had been high winds in the
interim though.
Page 15 of16
Revised 3'9/2011
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC COB MINUTES
RFJ'GARDTNG VARTANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMTNG WTS TMPACTED BY Tllf: .1.987 ANNEXATTON
Mr. Boyer said that the lot, as it currently exists, is an eyesore. Even though the applicant is
requesting a variance reducing the north side yard from 10' to 2', Beachside Community's
walkway access is directly north of the property line, and that lends a sense of openness. Mr.
Simmons added that the owners have already planted a couple of oaks and will also be
landscaping the property.
David Boyer made a motion to approve this request for variance (ZVAR-2008-02) to reduce the
required front yard setback from 20-feet to 19-feet, 6-inches; the required north side yard
setback from 10-feet to 2-feet, 6-inches; and the required rear yard setback from 10-feet to 5-
feet, for the construction of a two-car detached private garage on a nonconforming lot of record
tied to the main parcel, as shown on the site plan submitted with this application, for the
property located at 1917 Beach Avenue. Kirk Hansen seconded the motion. There was no
further discussion and the vote was unanimous.
Page 16 of16
Revised 319/2011
ATTACHMENT A-KREDELL VARIANCE APPEAL
IWG'!lRD!NC PT GOVT LOT 4, RE'CD OjR BOOK 6156-2259, AKA 1850 BEACH AVENUE
REGARDENG PT GOVT LOT 4, RECD 0/R BOOI< 5600-1703, AKA .1852 BEACH AVENUE
1987 MAY?? KREDELL APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE TO COAB CDB (1\JOT FOUI\JD)
1. 1987 MAY 19 COAB CDB MEETING MINUTES
2. 1989 MAY 02 LEDER FROM KREDELL TO COAB CC, STAFF
RE: APPEAL OF CDB DENIAL OF VARIANCE
3. 1989 MAY OS LEDER FROM COAB CDC ANGERS TO COAB A DORNEY MULLIS
RE: REQUEST FOR LEGAL OPINION ON BUILDABILITY OF KREDELL LOTS
4. 1989 MAY 08 COAB CC MEETING MINUTES
S. 1989 MAY 22 COAB CC MEETING MINUTES
6, 1989 MAY 31 LEDER FROM COAB A DORNEY MULLIS TO COAB CDC ANGERS
RE: LEGAL OPINION ON BUILDABILITY OF KREDELL LOTS
7. 1989 JUN 12 COAB CC MEETING MINUTES
8. 1989 JUN ?? COAB BLDG PERMIT APPLICATION FROM KREDELL, MCDANIEL
9. 1989 JUN ?? COAB PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST
10. 1989 AUG 14 COAB CC MEETING MINUTES
11. 1989 AUG 1S STOP WORK ORDER FROM COAB BLDG DEPT TO KREDELL
12. 1989 AUG 21 COAB CC SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
13. 1989 AUG 30 LEDER FROM COAB ATTORNEY ARNOLD TO COAB CM LEINBACH
RE: LEGAL OPINION ON ISSUANCE OF KREDELL BUILDING PERMITS, STOP WORK
14. 1989 AUG 31 COAB CC SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
1S. 1989 SEP OS LEDER FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO COAB CM LEINBACH
RE: ISSUANCE OF KREDELL BUILDING PERMITS
16. 1989 SEP 11 LEDER FROM COAB A DORNEY ARNOLD TO COAB CM LEINBACH
RE: LEGAL OPINION ON ISSUANCE OF KREDELL BUILDING PERMITS
17. 1989 SEP 20 LEDER FROM COAB CDB CHAIR WOLFSON TO COAB ATTORNEY ARNOLD
RE: ARNOLD LEGAL OPINION ON ISSUANCE OF KREDELL BUILDING PERMITS
MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
. CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA
Hay 19, 1987
CITY HALL
Present: w. Gregg McCaulie, Chairman
Louis B. MacDonell, Vice Chairman
Samuel T. HoYie
Frank DelanE-y
Donald Tappin
John Bass
And: Rene' Angers, Recording Secretary
And: Mark Wynne
Mark J, Kredell
Terry .McCue
Terry Parkerson
The meeting was callE-d to order at
asked for a motion on the minutes
1987, Mr. MacDonell motioned
presented, Mr. Tappin seconded
unanimously.
~ NEW BUSINESS
7:00p.m. Chairman McCaulie
of the meeting of April 21,
to approve the minutes as
the motion, which carried
A. Application for Rear Yard Variance from 20' to 13'; Lot 7,
·Selva Marina Unit 10-B, 1820 North Sherry Drive, by Mark and
Gail Wynne
Mr. Wynne presented statements of no objection from three of his
immediate neighbors. He stated that he planned to construct a
screened enclosure over an existing wood deck in order to keep
his jacuzzi free of leaves from the many. trees in the area, He
added that his contractor had already constructed the enclosure
(prior to obtaining a building permit) and that it is being held
at their factory. He stated that moving the jacuzzi would be
very costly and impractical due to the layout of the house.
Mr. Howie motioned to approve the application. Mr. Bass seconded
the motion. Mr. MacDonell felt that this was a self-created
hardship. Mr. Delaney 1elt that the trees were a special
condition of the land. The vote was called. The motion for
approval csrried five to two. McGaulie and MacD6nell voted no.
B. Application for Rear and Side Yard Variance; Part o£
Government Lot 4, Fractional Section 9, Township 25, Range
29E 1 50' x 50' parcel. on the southwest corner o£ Beach
Avenue and 18th Street, by Mark J. Kredell
Mr. Kredell
application
similar lot,
tllinimum rear
stated that the Board should act favorably on his
because 1) the Board had ru1ed favorably on a
500' from his property, at the previous meeting~ 2)
yards under the ~ity of Jacksonville's zoning
·~
~
•'!
regulations are 10'~ 3) the property would have been a lot o£
record in Atlantic Beach since it waa recorded prior to July 26,
1982.
Mr. Delaney felt this vas a different situation than the previous
application in that Mr. Moller had owned his lot since 1943 and
could be considered grandfathered-in and Mr. Kredell had only
owned his property since 1986.
Dezmond Waters, 1835 Beach Avenue, stated that there once were
covenants and restrictions that provided £or these small parcels
to be used for parking. Mrs. Ann Rogers, 1163 Beach Avenue,
pointed out that that area of Beach Avenue was previously named
Garage Approach Roadway, The following residents spoke against
the application: Elliot Zisser, 1937 Beach Avenue; Don Wolfson,
1725 Beach Avenue <representing the North Duval Beaches
Association)~ Lisa Pelkey, 1887 Beach Avenue; Susan Smith, 1875
Beach Avenue, Several other residents stood to show their
opposition.
Mr. Kredell asked the Board to defer consideration of his
application due to the negative reaction he had received; and to
allow him time to do further research and to allow the Board time
to consult the City Attorney.· He later added that if the Board
knew exactly what could be built on the property he would rather
they take action tonight.
Mr. Delaney asked ~f he would rather the Board vote on the
application of if he would rather withdr~w. Mr. Kredell replied
that he wished to withdraw.
Chairman MoCaulie stated that, unless the Board
opposition, they would permit him to withdraw. Mr.
had strong
Delaney and
Mrs. Gregg had strong oppositions.
Mr. MacDonell motioned to allow Mr. Kredell to defer his
application until the City Attorney could be consulted. The
motion died for the lack o£ a second.
Mr. Delaney motioned to deny the application. Ruth Gregg
seconded the motion. Mr. Tappin felt it vas premature and unfair
not to honor the applicants request to withdraw.
After further discussion the vote vas called. The motion to deny
the application for variance carried unanimouely.
c. Application for Use by Exception for
Automobiles and Boats and for Temporary
Septic Tank Moratorium, Lots 1 through 4,
H, 600 Mayport Road, by Terry McCue
Retail Sales of
Relief from the
Block 34, Section
Terry McCue, 1415 Treesplit Lane, Neptune Beach, stated that the
property, 102' x 195', would be completely fenced and that the
entrance would be on Sixth Street rather than on Mayport Road.
He explained that the city informed him that, if sewer does
ex~st, ~t ~s at e depth of approximately 12' ~hich would be very
costly for the city to locate.
Mr. MacDonell motioned to recommend approval of the application
for rel~ef from the septic tank moratorium provided that he hook-
up to city sewer when it becomes ava~lable; and to recommend
approval of the application for use by exception subject to
access be~ng from Sixth Street rather than Mayport Road, that
specific attention be paid to the findings of fact at the time he
requests a permit, and that the exception be issued to Hr. McCue
personally and not the lend. Mr. Hovie seconded the motion which
carr~ed unanimously.
D. Application £or a Home Occupation for an Asbestos Consulting
Serv~ce, Lots 3 & 4, Elock 127, Section H, 510 Orchid Street,
by Terry Parkerson
Mr. Parkerson stated that only clerical work would. be performed
from the home. All samples are obtained on-site and are taken
directly to a laboratory. He added that there would be no
signage and th,t a post office box would be listed in the phone
book rather than the street address.
Chairman McCaulie asked if Mr. Parkerson had been furnished with
a copy of the home occupation regulations. Mr. Parkerson replied
in the affirmative. Chairman McCaulie motioned to recommend
approval of the application. Mr. Tappin seconded the motion
which carried unanimously.
• * • * •
There being no further bus~ness before the Board, the meeting was
adjourned at 8:30p.m.
May 2, 1989
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN;
I am filing this petition to the City Commission ·setting forth
that the denial of my variance request on April 18, 1989 was
illegal.
The decision was illegal because a literal enforcement of the
provisions of zoning and subdivision regulations will result
in unnecessary hardship,
Within the last 18 months, the city has granted at least nine
rear yard variances on lots within three blocks of my building
lot. ~10 of the variances involved rear yards on lots the
exact same size as mine, One of these lots is only 100 feet
south, the other is about 300 feet north, both are on Beach
Avenue.
I believe that if the City will not allow me to build on my lot,
I will suffer the hardship of having the value of the building
lot taken by the City without fair compensation.
The Courts have found that if a City condemns a property or
renders it valueless thru zoning the property owner must be
compensated for his loss,
Sincerely,
~v~
Hark J. Kredell
1855 Beach Avenue
Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
" '
CITY OF
~ esead -'?~tda-
~A-------------718 OCEAN DUUJ,EV MV
P.O.BOX26
ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA32233
TELEPHONE (904)249:2396
t1ar 5, 198'3
Honorable Claude L, Mullis
Attorney and Counselor at Law
4250 Lalteside Drive, Suite 114
Jacksonville, Florida 32210
Dear Hr. Nullis,
Hr. Hark Kredell has provided this oifice with certain documents
relating to p~roela of land on Beach Avenue at Eighteen~h Street,
copies of which are att_ached hereto, He has aslted meo to
determine what, if anything, the Zoning Code would allow him to
construct.
I have reviewed the documents end have made the following
determinations I
~ Parcel A, having been recorded in the office of the clerk of
the circuit:. court prior to July 26, 1982, is a substandard lot:. of
record and may be used for a single family home.
~ The combination of Parcel B, which is not a lot of record,
with Parcel A would create a parcel appro~imately 50,05' x
88,28' and could also be used for a single £emily home,
~ Minimum depth required for construction of a two-family
dwelling in the RGl dist:r:'ict is 100' (lot depth is measured from
the middle point of the front line to the middie point of the
opposite rear line of the lot/Sec.24-17 Definitions), ~he depth
of Parcels A and B combined would be appro~imately 88,28',
Therefore, a two-family dwelling could not be constructed,
Please render, at your earliest convenience, your legal opinion
ae to whether the above is corx-eot, I look forward to hearing
from you.
..
/~~&~ ~~k:re/ '~
Community ~elop~t Coordinator
oo' City ~nager
fileV
\ .,
PAGE FIVE
MINUI'ES
MAY B, 1989
G. h.:::know"ledge ag:reem:mt with Cbnnell.y and Wicker Engineers for
bid and .inspecti.an services in cxmnect:ian with the extension
of Beach Avenue North of 20th street and the paving overlay of
Sturdivant Avenue and related parking cu:ea adjacent to the Tax
Collector's Office in Atlantic Beach
H. Acknowledge receipt of an awea1 fran Mark J. Kredell
appealing a decision of the c::anmmity Developnent Board an the
denial of a variance for the developnent of a 50 1 x 50 1 lot at
Eighteenth Street and Beach Avenue and setting a public
hearing fOr May 22, 1989
I. Acknowledge agreenent between the City and Connelly and Wicker
Engineers for engineering and suz.veyi.ng fees in c::annectian
with the City's annual Paving Progl:am for plans and
specifica:tions for the paving of Jordan Stl:'eet east of Francis
Avenue
J. Acknt:Ml.edge receipt of a letter fr:t:m Frederick S. Aldridge,
1555 Selva Marina Drive regardi.I¥J his ooncern on the dangers
inherent in ~ use of jet skis in the Atlantic Ocean near
sw:imning areas
K. Ack:rlowl.edge receipt of minutes of Board of Trustees for
Atlantic Beach Pension Fund for meeting held May 5, 1989.
f.btion: Approve passage of Consent Agenda
No discussion before the vote. The xrotion carried unanirrously.
4. o:mnittee Fetx?rts=
None
5. New' Business
A. Chrmi ssion di.scussi.on an a request by Greg Shenck of the
Atlantic Village lbbile Heme Park for the lease of an acre of
ground which was :fat:Derly used as the location for the
Buccaneer waste Water Treatment Plant facility
The City M:mager reported Mr. Shenck had requested lease of the
property for use as a recreation area. Playground equiprent \'.\Juld
be installed and could be used by all neighl:orhcxxi children. The
City Manager solicited the wishes of the Cornnission.
Motion: Autlx>rize the City Manager to enter into a.g:reem:nt
with Atlantic Village M:lbile lbne on a nnnth to
m::nth basis for lease of one acre of land :foJ:nerly
the site of a Buccaneer waste Water T.rea:tm:mt Plant
facility, on c::xmdition the lessee maintains adequate
insurance for the protection of the city condition
No discussion before the vote. The rrotion carried unani.m::lus ly.
v v
NAME OF
COMMRS. M S Y N
Cook
E&iards
Jensen
TUcker
Gulliford
X
X
X
X X
X
X
Cook X
Edwal:ds X X
Jensen x
Tucker X X
Gulliford X
PAGE SEVEN
.MINUl'ES
MAY 22, 1989
I.DAN ano:L 1N .AN 1\M:XJNT NC1l' 'ID EXCEED $800,000; AND AlJ'l'fDRIZlNG
ALL N&!ESSARY OR DESrnABIE Aer!Cfi IN C!ENECI'IOO ~
M::>t:ion: Approve passage of Resolution No. 89-23
No discussion before the vote. The notion carried unanirrously.
Mayor Gulliford presented Resolution No. 99-24:
A RF.:9Jim'ICN AI1!IDRIZIN3 THE EXEXnl'I(].q OF AN ~ 'lU A
PARI'ICIPATI~ ~ Nl> AI1l'BORIZDS '!'HEREBY A REDlSl'RIBUI'IOO OF
THE .F.:lmNINGS EUID; Cil\JSiiNl'ING 'lO 'lBE ElCEOJT!rn OF A 'lmRD
~ TRIJST ~; AND AIJTII)RIZING ALL NEIESSARY OR
DESIRABIE liCriOO IN ~ '.1'HEREKITH
lrotion: Approve passage of ResOlution No. 89-24
No discussion before the vote. The notion carried unanirrously.
B. Public hearing on an aweaJ. filed by M:lrk Kredell fran a
decision of tba O:mrunity Develqmmt Board denying him a
variance for a substandaJ:d lot of LeCOLd on the sout:lJwest
comer of 18th Street and Beach Avenue
Mayor Gulliford asked the City Attomey to reJ?Ort on his research
and review of this subject. The City Attorney explained a sub-
standard lot which did not have a width of 50 feet and a depth of
100 feet, with a total area of not less than 5,000 sq. ft. could
not be built on unless relief was obtained through action of the
Ccmnunity Developnent Board. The Com:nunity Developrent Board had
denied the request for variance. In accordance with the City Code,
the catrnunity De~lo};m911t Board had final jurisdiction in this
matter and the Comnission did not have the authority to override
their decision.
Commissioner Cook said he felt the City Commission should be the
l::x:>dy for ultinate appeal on any matter and suggested this section
of the code should possibly be amended.
Commissioner Jensen said he hoped in the future people w::>uld be
advised of this provision and not have to waste tilre pursuing such
appeals.
7. Action an ordinances:
A. O:rdi.nance No. 25-89-21 -First Reading
AN Dm!mN:E »1mm)IN:; THE ORDINMO COOE OF THE CITY OF ATLl\NT.IC
BEACH, l'\Ml'NliR; aiAPrER 6, .A1X)Pl']H; A MlNlMJ'.l liJOS1:NG aDE, AND
PllJI!ID:IN:; AN EE'Fl!Cl'IVE DAm
.11ayor Gulliford presented in full, in writing, Ordinance No.
25-89-21 on first reading.
NAME OF
COMMRS.
Cbok
ffiwards
Jensen
Tucker
Gulliford
O:xlk
Edwards
Jensen
Tucker
Gulliford
v v
M s y N
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
CLIIUDE L MULLIS
Ms. Rene' Angers
l..AW OFFICES OF
CLAUDE L. MULLIS
PROFESSIONAL AsSOCIATION
4250 lAKESIDE DRIVE/ SUITE 114
JACKSONVILLE, FlORIDA 32210
(904) 388·1289
May 31, 1989
city of Atlantic Beach
Post Office Drawer 25
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
Dear Ms. Angers:
'.
You have requested my opinion on certain survey and other
documents relating to 2 parcels of land on Beach Avenue at
Eighteenth Street. You advised that Parcel A is a substandard
lot of record and plat was recorded in the office of the clerk of
the circuit court prior to July 26, 1982~ You state Parcel B is
not a lot of record that would constitute a substandard lot
created prior to July 26, 1982. Parcel A is a lot measuring
50.9 1 x 50.06 1 • Parcel B is a lot measuring 50 1 x 37.22 1 • The
combination of Parcel B with Parcel A would create a parcel
approximately 50.05 1 x 88.28 1 • The owners of these 2 lots
request you issue a building permit to construct a duplex. The
minimum depth requirement for construction of a 2 family dwelling
in RG 1 District is lOO'and must have at least s,ooo square feet
in area.
The definition of "Lot of record" includes a plat of record
filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and a parcel of land
the deed of which was recorded in the office of Clerk of Circuit
court.
Where a lot or parcel of land has an area or frontage which
does not conform with the requirements of the district in which
it is located, but was a lot of record on July 26, 1982, the lot
or parcel of land may be used for a single-family dwelling in any
residential district, provided the minimum yard requirements for
substandard lots are maintained. (Sec. 24-83 City Code) The
combination of Parcel B with Parcel A could also be used for a
single family dwelling.
l
Your question is also what may be constructed on Parcel A
and B if the same are combined into a single building site. We
have examined the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations set forth in
chapter 24 of the Atlantic Beach Code of Ordinances,
In answering this question, we have examined the purpose and
intent of Chapter 24 "Zoning and Subdivision Regulations". The
purpose is to provide for orderly· growth; to encourage the most
appropriate use of land1 to protect and conserve the value of
property; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to promote,
protect and improve health, safety, good order, appearance and to
help accomplish the goals and objectives of the comprehensive
plan.
Townhouses are a permitted use in RG 1 and require filing a
plat when constructed or when sold,
Townhouse shall mean a group of two (2) or more
single-family dweliin.gs 'separated by a space ,of not
roo r e than one ( 1) inch. The . walls or party wall
separating the dwelling units of the Townhouse shall
extend to the roof line of the dwelling units of the
dwelling and shall have no openings therein. Each
Townhouse unit shall be constructed upon separate lot
and serviced with separate utilities and other
facilities and shall otherwise be independent of one
anothor. ~oumG@ arm singlo-fgmily gwolling units.
(Emphasis supplied) ·
Parcel A, having been recorded in the pffice of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court prior to July 26, 1982, is a substandard lot of
record having less than 5 1 000 square feet in area (see page 1413
and 1418 City Code). Therefore, a single family dwelling could
be constructed on Parcel A, provided minimum yard requirements
are maintained.
We now address the question of what could be constructed on
Parcel A and B if combined into one building site. Is it also
necessary to comply with yard requirements as prescribed by the
Code of Ordinances if both Parcels were non-conforming lots on
July 26, 19821
Private property rights must be balanced with those of the
public based on City regulations of use of property through
exercise of its police power,
Regulations may be enforced which are reasonable and not
arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory or deprives the land
owner of the beneficial use of his property. The Constitution of
the United States and of Florida provide that no person shall be
deprived of their property without just compensation. The
government may be required to compensate property owners through
2
ClAUDE L. MULLIS, P. A
·,,
inverse condemnation, including cost and attorney fees if
deprived of the beneficial use of this property.
It is my opinion that a single-family dwelling may be
constructed on Parcel A and B provided minimum yard requirements
for substandard lots are maintained, The Code of Ordinances
requires the same minimum yard requirements for all lots or
parcels of land.
It is further my opinio~ if Parcel A and B are combined into
one building site, a Townhouse of two (a) single family dwellings
separated by a space of not more than one ( 1) inch could be
constructed, erovided minimum yara re~1irements are met.
(-The Code of Ordinances requires that substandard lots of
,' record not meeting the area requirements of not less than fifty
; (50) feet in width and one hundred (100) feet in depth and not
· less than five thousand (5,000) ·square feet shall not be built on
:·-·unless relief is obtained from the Community Development Board.
Therefore, in order to construct a two-family dW'elling, ~
Communit Develo ment Board must ra relief from these area
requirements. If sue re ef s granted you.would be authorized
to issue permit for two-family dwelling provided minimum yard
requirements are met.
CLM/aj
cc: Richard c. Fellows
3
CLAUDE L MULLIS, P. A
PAGE THREE
MINUTES
JUNE 12, 1989
inches. He asked the commission for direction in light of the fact
he had been issued a permit to construct the fence.
M3.yor Gulliford requested Mr. Wheatley to fully d.octlrrent the events
which had transpired. The city manager said he felt Mr. Wheatley
needed to comply with the instructions of the code enforcement
officer. A part of the fence had been cut down and was now in
ccmpliance and if Mr. Wheatley \'.Duld follow the directions of the
Code Enforcement Officer, the situation would be resolved.
Mayor Gulliford said this was a matter the Code Enforcement Board
should resolve. Mr. Wheatley said he felt his fence was built in
accordance with the design and specification for which the permit
had been issued, however, the Code Enforcerrent Officer did not
concur. Mr. Wheatley was advised he could apt:eal the decision of
the Code Enforcement Officer to the Oommunity Development Board.
{
3. . Consent Agenda:
A. City O::mnission action to acknowledge the Florida league of
Cities Annual Convention w.ill be held this year in
Jacksonville, Florida, in the Prime Osbonl Cbnvention Center
in Q:rt:ober
B. .Ack:nc:Mledge letter fran Neil Perry, Sheriff of St. Johns
COUnty, to ari..ef David 'l'ha'lpson cart1eilding the ~k of ll:tvi.d
Archer resulting in the arr:est of a hamicide suspect
c. Acknowledge receipt of an opinion fran Claude Ml1..lis relative
to the Kredell property on the southwest comer of Beach
Avenue and lBth Street
D. Grant autrority for the City Manager to execute a grant award
in the anount of $11,500 for a used oil recycling center
E. Grant authority to execute audit enga.geaent letter with Purvis
Gray and Caipany in the anoun.t of $14,000 for the fiscal year
1989 audit
F. Ackoowledge receipt of letter and oopy of Jacksonville
Ordinance increasing tre fine for unautb:lrized parking in
handicapped parking spaces to $250
G. ~ledge receipt of letter from Mayor Hazouri relative to
beach renouristlrent in Atlantic Beach
H. Ack:rx:lwledge receipt of $155,000 fran the City of Jacksonville
for use in the develq:mant of the city's regional park in
Section H and the ao:;{Uisition of a m::Xfuiar Wilding for the
Yl£A and tre city's Parks and Recreaticm Depart:Irent in Rllssell
Park
v v
NAME Of
COMMRS. M S Y N
' ..
(}1A-1Zl ('-If'-' l11c. b,._~,,;.L-
GilL Ul• L~1LillH.Lv .UuHUI
APPLICATION FDR BUILDlliG PEFMI;r
();.mer l'v1/1R K. r l(ge)u(t(< Address ·;({;;--r;: 8£4--cfi/JU 4..~ zip3,2,.?33 Phone3f/!lo7
Architectmhtt.l<...zkg@.d(c. . .:.... Address($'~b=.._:..J1m,c:. 6t, 1:1-x. Ft zip3¢2c'7' Phone:17'6/io7
Contractor~ A m \JJ(l ±e c g\ddress /2 G L! 'rflJ.}.__-1 Sf. . zipj2.~0 Phone 2./f/ 3752.
Contractor's Lt'cense Nurber Ci?,C03J'I/o 2> Expiration Datek-:Jo--~? Copy on File ~~?
Lot tf J Block or Section tf q . Subdi-vision 'hv.v5/h~ Z So4-n'-f Zoning ft0'71{ \~ 1Y
Street Ft711 STUfr Between GEft~.N ftUL and de£.1'1,,;._, 6-fZou£.. side So"'-rti-
Valuation $ (t±~ ,6o o f'ype of Construction ;1. ToWAJ lfovn £. S
Purpose of Building }0-U~ (Nl''t!"S Nulh.er· o.f Units·....<... · Fireplaces 2-
Utility Service: Water C1 r '"( · Sewer_c.....:.,-'r..,~.);__ __
If the City if providing water or sewer service, do. we need to make .. taps? · )1= S ,. , ,. . . . ; ~.,..::.,.-=,-". '---,-, ---
Di.nEns ions : Building tf )'f.. 3 o f...o.t & g X 5 D · Size Footings · I o X,.( 0
Sz. Piers ', ·sz.; Sills Greatest Span Siils -------------------Sz. Ceiling'.Joists Distance on .Centers Greatest Span
Sz. Floor Joists floor hus; Distance on Centers :7. Greates~ Span;_.._?.._J/:___,',.--__,.-
Sz. Rafters [-.,,. r t\'..$ s Distance on Centers 2..,.. Greatest Spa.t1 ~.,3 0 I
Method of Heating tle.,.f e~ ....... u Solid-Filled Ground So[.'J Roof Dbt.-,lus 5b~l~.s
Flood Zone (_ If located withm a FLOOD HAZARD carrplete page 2
./ .
SllBl'UT: Two corrplete sets of plans , includi.ng a detailed site plan~
Florida Energy Effici:ency Code Sheets ._,..·
Recent Survey _..,
Inspections Required:
1. When steel is in place and ready to pour footings.
2. When steel is in place and ready to pour columns/ljntel.
3. Mlen steel is in place and ready to pour beam.
4. When framing, nechanical, pluming, electrical, .fireplace 1 to cover up.
is completed and ready
5. Final inspection.
SETBACKS
NO INSPECTICX'l WILL BE Mtlrn IF BUILDING CARD IS N1I' POSTED ON JOB.
In case of rejection, reinspection MUST be called for after , ..
corrections are made. · ·
In consideration of permit given for doing the
work as described in the above statEment, we
hereby agree to perfonn said work in accordanqe ·
wlU\ the nttndmu plans nnc..l speciricntions,
which are a part hereof, and in accordance ·
with the building regulations of Atlantic BeaCh.
Signature (}..mer~ ~
Signature ?mtractO~ ~=
til
1-'•
ft
b rt
i'
Rear Lot L:ine
Zo'
/5 I
l'ront 1J5t Lllie
en 1-'• ~
b
rt
s' ~ (lJ
·:-·~ . :. __ .. -... ~
B Avenue 2~' '9'w
hr-rnerly G~r6l.:;e Approach _l?a:;;.dv..~~y
-------------------
i~ _J
1
I
J
l
:..
-:; .:·
. ... ~.. .
.__: :-~ .. ~; :.;'J ~;_..__ ..
. · .. · -•. -.
~ .. . ..
~ ~--. ~ ,: .. -';·. ;, .
.-~
·'· .... '
:.::-...
. -.:-=.··
-, ......
-··· ::.·.
.. . : ........... ·
-·: .. :.
~::;:~-.:-·
. ..~ -.
.. --' ... ·-::.· -·-· .;.,
-:: .· .-:...:-·:.
., ' -..... . .
-·~ 1
. ;. ~·.. . .. . . .. i .....
I 'fo.'Z9
. ...:.-----------------------·------------.:.-..----------. .,_ __ ---·
: ...
--
-._
. · .. :! :·~:-
:. ; .. -:·:_, \
.r.
.. ·
-.
I -~o-. .:~ :; -· ·-
· ..
I ..
.·
I
13. I .P~c.D-A
I.
UrJ. I_T 2..
3a' .
r
I
·r
I
~--· I
I~
_\?.ie'r¢54-A
~id.&_~':Cl!>E...-~---
K:------· .. __ · _--~ ;,~'---·":_-:_:.··~; __ . ------£-·' ._-... _________ i~r
'-f ( ~.. I 1 i , T ' I / 15 ~ I I' 7 -. .. ,: : ·, 5 I \
I
j\
~ .. .
,_.·._· .. _· ~dV c...
1
r ._ &~~~e.> -· ~-: ·. -·
j·· ~~v~ I \
...___, ____________ .L__~..__:.--__ -_.:_ __ ~·-----''--'---------·--. ------'----
-: ... --~-
' ' ...
S1.2S t
.· ·.·
5· ri= c -R~--~::.:...~--_____ _
yg .':', ) . ..:.. 0 ,_,
. .. ··-.:.. . •. -. . -.... : ..
' II.~· /
·'
PLANS REVIEW CHECK LIST
front
rear
aide-l
' Max. Height Allowed __ 3_l ____ _
§~g~~gn 6i=~~ ! tl!n~mMm 69~ ggyg~§gg
. p'
Required Heated Area ~82~---
/..-)
Number Spaces Required ___ {:::::::l:::~..,.-
e€Q~!Qn g~=§6 ! Q~QliQ~~€ ~~!bg!ng~
, .. J ( IJ
Proposed Height __ ~~~~~---
Proposed Area_~~~~~~~-
Spaces Provided __ J{~=~~~--
Is there a similar building within 500' of proposed buildi~g?YES NO
Water and sewer service is to be provided byt
~uccaneer Utilities -----/'
__ J~,-City of At~antic Beach Utilities
Private Source SEPTIC TANK WELL
Plana Reviewed by: ______________________________ Date _______________ _
Building Permit # _________ _ ISSUED DENIED
' ' .. _;I·".
2. Recognition of visitors
PAGE TWO
MINUTES
AUGUST 14, 1989
Dezmond Waters, 1835 Seminole Road, addressed the City Commission
relative to a construction permit which had been issued for a
substandard lot on the southwest corner of Beach Avenue and
Eighteenth Street, owned by Mark Kredell. He indicated in a legal
opinion received from former City Attorney Claude Mullis, and
acknowledged by the Commission on June 12, 1989, it would be
necessary for Mr. Kredell to come before the Community Development
Board and seek relief from the area requirements of the City Code.
This apparently had not been done, He asked (1)1 if it was the
intention of the Commission to allow Mr. Kredell to by-pass the
Community Development Board when receipt of the legal opinion was
acknowledged; (2) that the building permit be retracted temporarily
and set a public hearing on Mr. Kredell 1 s request to build a
townhouse on a substandard lot; (3) that the City Manager be
instructed in the future to publish building permits for the benefit
of the public,
Brenda Dockery of the Building Department, said a permit had been
issued on June 30, 1989 for the construction of two townhouses and
outlined the procedure involved,
After further discussion, the City Manager was requested to instruct
.1r. Kredell to cease work and seek the approval of the Community
Development Board for the proposed construction. Mayor Gulliford
said whether to publish· building permits was an administrative
question and referred it to the City Manager.
* * * * * * * * *
Mrs. Harry Beatty, 306 Twelfth Street, said she had spoken with
Chief Thompson relative to speeding on East Coast Drive and
suggested moving the stop sign from Eleventh to Twelfth Street.
Sandi Bell, 1175 East Coast Drive, spoke in favor of additional stop
signs.
Paul Steckla, 1570 Park Terrace West, said he felt the proliferation
of stop signs in the area was inappropriate and not good for the
community. He stressed the importance of enforcing the speed
limits, and if resources were not available for such enforcement, he
encouraged the Commission to provide the necessary resources.
Mayor Gulliford reported the city was addressing the situation and
had provided budget for expansion in the Police Department in the
upcoming fiscal year. The question of speeding and stop signs is
still under consideration by the police, and the Mayor said he felt
it was prudent to wait for a report when the police department had
completed its study.
* * * * * * * * * * *
v v
NAME OF
COMMRS. M S Y N
CITY OF
Atfa,tfU ?Jead -?~
Mr. Mark Kredell
1855 Beach Avenue
Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
Dear Mr. Kredell:
August 15, 19a9
I·
;.
;
I
7160CEAN BOULEVARD
P, 0. BOX 25
AThANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA 32233
TELEPHONE (904) 249.·2396
The matter of your building a townhouse located on 1850 and,'l852 Beach
Avenue was brought before the City Commission during their regular
meeting held on August 14, 1989. r:'·
It was agreed by all present that only a single-family residence is
permitted on a substandard lot of record.providing the minimum setbacks
are met. If you wish to pursue construction of anything other than a
single-family dwelling, you must first seek relief from the Community
Development Board prior to proceeding. ·'
Upon
work
discussing the matter with the City Manager, we are issuing a stop
order for 1850 and 1852 Beach Avenue in accordance with the above.
Should you desire to proceed with other than a single-family unit, please
be advised the next Community Development Board meeting is scheduled for
September 19, 1989 at 7 p.m·,. Please contact the undersigned if you wish
to appear before the board and be placed on their agenda.
BD/dh
cc:
Since_rely ,' · : ..
7
n ;. /.Lh' ~<.
Brenda Dockery \
Building Clerk l
.}~ . .:.:::
Mayor
City Commission Members
City Hanager
City Attorney ·
Community Development Director/
• ,I I ·.~.
' • I ,:J: • ~ •(. ' ( . : :··. i~ .:;· :::n; i
I 1 1 I ,f
,.
•.' . . . . .. . ...
..
·I
·i ..... _ . ~ L ..
• I I •
. . I .. • • :1
. i ..
'•·.
·r . . . . . . ~
• I
. . : '
. . ~· .
. . ;
I 101
..
\. . ,:
. '-(.
. .
• I ·' •
' ...
i
'
.!':
i ~
:·.'•
------------------------------------------DETACH and Bring this Portion of Card With You~ .
Location: ---:-1 8-:5_o_-1-:-8_5 2-:--B e_a:-ch_Av_e_n_ue__;_·_· ·_· _: · ----: .. _~·_(:.~~~-_!{~_~· \_.'' ,""!'l''_r;r·i_F_:._. _____ _
Atlantic Beach '' ··; · ·
.. ~
'
Date August 15, 1989 (2nd Notlce'posted August 2.2; 1989)
0
I ::;·~·t,!, f }•:.1~1: (
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH ...... " '· ' L
INSPECTOR
·'
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OF THE ATLANTIC BEACH CITY
COMMISSION HELD AT CITY HALL ON AUGUST 21, 1989 AT 7: 15 PM
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Gulliford. Present in addition
to the Mayor, were Commissioners Cook, Edwards, Jensen and Tucker. Also
present were City Manager Leinbach and City Clerk King.
Before beginning budget discussions Mayor Gulliford requested Agenda
Item No. 2 be taken out of sequence,
2. Any other business
Commissioner Cook inquired into the status of a fence on First Street
which is in violation of the city code. The City Manager responded he
felt it was in the process of being revised to meet city standards. He
said he would check into the matter and report back to Commissioner
Cook.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Gulliford reported he had been contacted by Robert Vincent
relative to the Selva Lakes sign at the intersection of Seminole Road
and Eleventh Street, Pursuant to the opinion of the City Attorney, a
permit had been issued for the installation of the sign. After
complaints from neighbors and a subsequent meeting between Mr. Vincent,
Louis MacDonell, the developer of Selva Lakes, Mayor Gulliford, and City
Manager Fellows, it was agreed Mr. MacDonell would be allowed to
maintain the sign at that location until August 1 at which time it would
have to be moved. The Mayor said Mr. MacDonell pointed out to him other
similar signs which were in violation of city ordinances and which had
been allowed to remain for several years. Mr. MacDonell has requested
permission to place the sign on city right-of-way on Plaza at the
entrance to Selva Lakes and the Mayor inquired as to the wishes of the
Commission.
Further discussion ensued relative to whether this would constitute a
violation of city ordinances and whether it was within the jurisdiction
of the Commission to authorize such placement of the sign. It was the
general consensus such directional signs for new developments should be
permissible, and a time limit of one year or until the project was sold
out, whichever came first, was suggested.
Commissioner Edwards moved to authorize Hr. MacDonell to place the sign
on the south side of Plaza near the entrance to the Selva Lakes
subdivision, for a period of one year or until the project sells out 1
whichever comes first. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Tucker
and was approved by a four to one vote ~ith Commissioner Cook voting
Nay.
* * * * * * * * *
Mayor Gulliford asked City Manager Leinbach to report on the research he
and the City Attorney had done relative to the permit for the
construction of two townhouses at Eighteenth and Beach Avenue which had
been issued to Mark Kredell, the legality of which had been questioned
at the last regular Commission meeting by Dezmond Waters.
Page Two
Minutes of Special Meeting
August 21, 1989
Mr. Leinbach said the City Attorney had advised him the townhouses as
proposed by Mr. Kredell, were allowed by our City Code and he was
waiting for written confirmation to that effect. Mr. Leinbach said the
distinction between townhouse and duplex was extremely vague as defined
by the City Code. He felt the zoning code should be reviewed in its
entirety and Commissioner Tucker suggested seeking the assistance of Mr.
Laslie of the Municipal Code, It wns the general consensus when a
written report is received from the City Attorney, Mr. Kredell should be
authorized to proceed with construction,
* * * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Leinbach reported he had been notified by the General Counsel for
the City of Jacksonville of the maintenance fee which they felt was due.
He said he was aware Atlantic Beach was opposed to paying this fee on
the basis they felt it represented double taxation. Jacksonville
intends to start legal proceedings against Atlantic Beach and the City
Manager was instructed to check with the other beach cities to see if.
they were paying this fee and seek the advice of the City Attorney.
* * * * * * * * * * *
The City Manager asked for clarification of the wishes of the Commission
regarding the consolidation of the Buccaneer and Atlantic Beach
treatment plants. It was generally agreed the city did not intend to
abandon the Buccaneer plant at this time and the City Manager was
instructed to study the matter further and include his recommendations
in the five year plan.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Ray Magley, 250 Seminole Road, and two other tennis players, Tom Hack
and Roger Steinem, 239 Seminole Road, presented a petition requesting
the addition of two tennis courts at Jack Russell Park. Mayor Gulliford
sa~d he· was in favor of user fees and asked the if the tennis players
would be willing to pay a reasonable fee for the use of the courts. The
tennis players were opposed to this because they felt it would cost more
than the revenue it would generate and it would have an adverse affect
on the amount of participation.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
1. Continuation of budget discussion for FY 1989/90
Each Commissioner had received a proposed budget and this was reviewed
systematically by account:
510 -General Government: No adjustment
511 -Legislative: Line 40 Travel, Conferences and Training was reduced
to $2,500. An additional amount of $14,200 was added to
Commission Contingency Fund (See 516)
..
• I ARNOLD ANO STRATFORD, P. A.
WALTISR G,ARNOLO
STEPHEN BYRAT,.ORD
Mr. Kim Leinbach
City Manager
City of Atlantic Beach
P. o. Box 25
ATTORNEYS AT I..AW
August 30, 1989
Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
SUITE: 1!!506
OULr LirE: TOWER
.JACKSOHVILI.E:, rLORIOA 3ZZ07
TELI:PHONI!: (110~) 3&e•SZ31
Re: Buildinq Permit to Mark J. Kredell
Dear Mr. Leinbach:
The City of Atlantic Beach recently requested from Stephen
Stratford, Esquire, a legal opinion regarding the building
permit and subsequent stop work order issued for 1650 and 1852
Beach Avenue, Atlantic Beach, Florida. Pursuant to Mr.
Stratford's review as reflected by my conversation with him of
August 28, 1989, it was his belief that the stop work order was
issued • in error due to the apparent conflicts of the language
contained in §24-17 and the definitions of • Substandard Lot of
Record and Townhouse• and S24-83 •substandard Lots of Record• 1
Code of Ordinances of the City of Atlantic Beach.
The letter of Claude Mullis-to Rene 1 Angers of May 31,
1989, was also reviewed by Mr. stratford and he was in agreement
with the majority of the letter, taking exception with the last
paragraph therein which stated that the Community Development
Board must first grant relief for the property owners in the
present case. However, during·· our conversations it was my
impression and Mr. Stratford's that the party wall of the
townhouse was located directly upon the property line separating
Parcels A and B which has subsequently been brought to my
attention that this is not the case. Furthermore, it was also
brought to my attention on Monday, August 26 1 1989, subsequent
to my conversation with Mr. Stratford, that it was represented
to the City of Atlantic Beach, when the building permit was
sought, that the townhome would be constructed so that the party
wall would be built directly upon the property line between
Parcels A and B. Given this new information, it is entirely
possible that the legal opinion rendered might have been
rendered without being apprised of all the information, in that,
I am certain that the .above referenced information regarding the
location of the townhome was not in our file when Mr. stratford
made his decision. If the individual who sought the permits
j
I
Mr. Kim Leinbach
Page TWO
August 30, 1989
from the City of Atlantic Beach knowingly misrepresented to the
individual issuing th~ permits that the party wall of the
townhouse would be located along the property line of Parcels A
and B, it would appear that the issuance of the permit was made
upon the misrepresentation of a material fact and should be
reviewed by the ind! vidual issuing the permit to determine if
that fact would have changed his decision in issuing said
permit.
If you should have any questions regarding the above
referenced matter, please do not hesitate to contact us at your
earliest possible convenience.
Since ~urs,
ff//~·~·,Ms: A~LD
MMA/cr
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OF THE ATLANTIC BEACH CITY
COMMISSION HELD THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 1989
The meeting
addition to
Tucker. Also
was called to order by Mayor Gulliford. Present, in
the Mayor, were Commissioners Cook, Edwards, Jensen and
present were City Manager Leinbach and City Clerk King.
1. Discussion and action relative to construction permit issued to
Mark Kredell to build townhouses on property at the corner of Eighteenth
Street and Beach Avenue.
After calling the meeting to order, Mayor Gulliford said the purpose of
the meeting was to try to resolve an ongoing problem relative to the
construction permit issued to Mr. Kredell. Since any action the City
Commission could take was governed by ordinances and laws, he asked the
audience to conduct themselves as ladies and gentlemen and everyone
would be given an opportunity to speak.
Robert G. Fajans, 1847 Ocean Grove.Drive, representing other family
members and neighbors, read a prepared statement outlining the facts as
he knew them and the opinions of the neighbors, and requested the permit
be revoked, Mr. Fajans' statement is attached hereto and made a part
hereof.
At the conclusion of Mr. Fajans' statement Commissioner Cook said in his
opinion the City Commission was the Legislative body of the city and he
did not feel this was a legislative matter and any action taken by the
City Commission would leave each Commissioner open to personal law
suits. He said that in the opinion of the former City Attorney, the
project proposed by Mr. Kredell was allowable; in an opinion rendered by
the Interim City Attorney, the project is allowable; the permit was
issued under the previous City Manager and the present City Manager had
also directed Mr. Kredell to proceed, He said he felt this should be
resolved by the City Manager or by the courts.
Commissioner Jensen said he felt the City Commission could direct the
City Manager under certain circumstances as had been done with the
issuance of the Stop-Work order, He said Mr. Mullis' letter stated two
single-family townhouses could be build if the setback requirements were
met. Although not included in Mr. Mullis' letter, the ordinance also
includes the provision that they must be built on separate lots and this
condition must be complied with,
Commissioner Cook repeated that in his opinion this was an
administrative or judicial decision and not the responsibility of the
City Commission. Commissioner Jensen said the Commission was a
quasi-judicial board on appeals from the Community Development Board and
he felt it was the responsibility of the Commission to make decisions on
such matters. In a subsequent letter from the office of Arnold and
Stratford it was apparent information regarding the location of the
common wall between the units was not available when their initial
opinion was rendered, and the question was raised whether the person who
issued the building permit had knowledge of the location of this wall.
Page Two
Minutes of Special Commission Meeting
August 31, 1989
Mayor Gulliford said the intent of this meeting was to determine what
action the Commission should take in the matter. He pointed out he did
not feel the Interim City Attorney had agreed with the initial opinion
and that information regarding the location of the common wall between
the units had not been made available to him when rendering that
decision and he said he felt this was the main question to be resolved.
He said it was his opinion the City Commission was authorized by the
City Charter and City Code to act as a quasi-judicial body in matters of
this sort.
In response to the Mayor, Mr, Leinbach said he found Mr. Mullis' opinion
somewhat confusing and had requested a· second opinion from Mr.
Stratford. He said the information shown on the site plan did not
delineate the separation of buildings and in subsequent conversations
with Mr. Arnold and Mr. Stratford, this would appear to be a matter of
critical concern, and he suggested a survey may be necessary, He said
he felt the established procedure was provided in the City Code wherein.
the Community Develop Board should hear and decide appeals where it is
alleged there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or
determination made by the administrative official in the enforcement of
the zoning code, In his opinion, this would appear to be the
appropriate appellant body and he felt this section would stay further
action until the appeal was adjudicated. He said he would check this
point with the City Attorney.
At this point Mark Kredell, 1855 Beach Avenue, asked that the meeting be
cancelled since he was not represented by his attorney and his partners
were not in attendance,
Since there was no business for discussion in Item 2 of the Agenda,
Commissioner Cook moved the meeting be adjourned. Since no one seconded
the motion, the meeting continued.
Commissioner Jensen said there were possibly some things which were not
known by the city when the permit was issued, and may not have been
known by Mr. Mullis or Mr. Stratford when they issued their opinions,
He said Mr. Kredell was now on notice of the City's concern and the
concerns of the other residents in that area; likewise, the city is on
notice of the concerns of Mr. Kredell. The City Manager is empowered to
take any necessary action, or not take any action so long as everyone is
on notice of what the situation is. Since Mr. Kredell is now advised of
the concern of the city, if he wished to proceed, he would be doing so
at his own risk.
When Mr. Kredell asked Commissioner Jensen to specify the concerns,
Commissioner Jensen said 11 0ne major concern that we have, and the focal
point of the whole issue is that the ordinance requires that single
family townhouses be constructed on separate lots," Mr. Kredell
responded "That's what we're doing." Commissioner Jensen continued "and
Page Three
Minutes of Special Commission Meeting
August 31, 1989
that you meet all setback requirements." Mr. Kredell responded ''That's
what we're doing."
Further discussion ensued about townhouses which had been built on one
lot and it was pointed out the city code required separate lots and Mr.
Kredell was asked whether his lots had been combined.
Mr. Kredell refused to answer and said he felt this matter should be
resolved in a court of law. He said he felt some disgruntled neighbors
were basing their complaints on personal motives. He said he would be
seeking legal action against any of the Commissioners who were trying to
violate his civil rights.
Gilchrist Stockton said he had reviewed Mr. Mullis' opinion and it was
his understanding a lot smaller than 5,000 sq. ft. could not be built
upon, and the combination of Mr. Kredell's two lots would still fall
short of the 5,000 sq. ft. requirement. In accordance with Mr. Mullis'.
opinion, relief from the 5000 sq. ft. requirement could be granted by
the Community Development Board; however, this matter had not been
brought before that board.
At this time Commissioner Cook, again, moved the meeting be adjourned.
Since no one seconded the motion, the meeting continued. Commissioner
Cook said he would not vote on this matter and Mayor Gulliford pointed
out no action requiring any action of the Commission was indicated.
Commissioner Jensen reiterated Mr. Kredell had said he was building the
units on separate lots. When asked to confirm this fact Mr. Kredell
refused to respond, stating instead he felt this was a legal problem
which should be decided by the courts, and indicated he would initiate
legal action against each of the Commissioners, with the exception of
Commissioner Cook.
Mayor Gulliford called for order and said the city was simply trying
resolve the questions raised. He said he had afforded all parties an
opportunity to speak on the issue and the matter would be pursued
through an administrative course.
Attorney Hugh Carithers, 1549 Beach Avenue, said two building permits
had been issued, one at each address. He said it would appear the
Building Department had improper or inadequate information at the time
the permit was issued. In that event he felt the administrative
official was authorized to withdraw the building permit.
There being no further business to come before the Commission, on motion
from Commissioner Jensen. seconded by Comaissioner Tueker, the meeting
was adjourned by unanimous vote.
Mr. Kim Leinbach
City Manager, Atlantic Beach
716 Ocean Boulevard
Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
Dear Mr. Leinbach:
r\C!"\1 Sf:P ::. i%9 tHL 1
September 5, 1989
As per Section 24, 1. a. of the Zoning and Subdivision
Regulations of Atlantic Beach, we the undersigned, adjacent
property owners and neighbors, allege that substantial
errors have been made in the issuance and implementation of
building permits 999 and 1000 to Mark J. Kredell for lots at
1850 and 1852 Beach Avenue.
We now request that you move with dispatch to issue a
stop work order on these permits until such time as our
allegations are heard by the Community Development Board and
there resolved. You should move with the same dispatch to
place this issue before the Community Development Board as
soon as possible.
M. C. Crawford
384-2566
Cheryl Parker
721-2740
~~?Waters luf*go
Sincerely yours,
~//!~~ Mfc;7~
739-2777
ARNOLD AND STRATFORD, P. A.
WALTER O.AI'INOLO
STEF>HtN STRAT~ORD
MARK M.AI'!NOLD
Mr. Kim Leinbach
City Manager
City of Atlantic Beach
P. o. Box 25
ATTOFtNE:YS AT LAW
September 11, 1989
Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
Re: Mark Kredell Townhouses
Dear Mr. Leinbach:
.-·
SUITE: 2!500
OULF LIFE: TOWER
.JACKSONVILLE, rLORIPA 32207
TELEI>HONE (!10~) 39e•S231
•'
In regards to your request that this office review the
issuance of building permits to Mark Kredell and the validity of
same, this review has been completed and this office is of the
op1mon that the building permit was issued correctly for the
following reasons:
According to the definitions in §24-17, Page 1419, of the
Code of Ordinances of the City of Atlantic Beach, it states:
"Townhouse shall mean a group of two ( 2) or more
single-family dwellings separated by a space of not
more than one(l) inch. The walls or party walls
separating the dwelling units of the townhouse
shall extend to the roof line of the dwelling and
shall have no openings therein. Each townhouse
unit shall be constructed upon a separate lot and
serviced with separate utilities and other
facilities and shall otherwise be independent of
one another. Townhouses are single-family dwelling
units."
A reading of this provision shows that a townhouse does not
have to be constructed upon two separate lots. However,
separate townhouse units, in other words the townhouse
building, must be constructed on different lots and, therefore,
one townhouse unit, i.e., one townhouse building, may be
constructed on one lot. However, in the present case, it is
constructed on two substandard lots of record and whether or
not it stradles the property line is therefore immaterial.
,/
Mr. Kim Leinbach
Page Two
september 11, 1989
The second interpretation coming from this definition is
that townhouses are single-family dwelling units. Therefore, ..
for the purposes of this Code, a townhouse is considered a
single-family dwelling unit,
. The next point which must be resolved is that of the
definition contained in §24-17, Page 1418, "Substandard lot of
record", regarding the last sentence that "Nonconforming lots
of record which do not meet all the above, area requirements
shall not be built on unless relief is obtained through action
of the community development board." This definition seems to
indicate that to build on a substandard lot of record which
does not meet the minimum area requirements one must. go before
the community development board to obtain approval. However,
reading this in conjunction with ~24-83, Page 1431,
"Substandard lots of record", which statesi
"Where a lot or parcel of land has an area or
frontage which does not conform wi~ the
requirements of the district in which it is
located, but was a lot of record on July 26, 1982,
the lot or parcel of land may be used for a
single-family dwelling in any residential district,
provided the minimum yard requirements for
substandard lots are maintained."
It has been detrmined that Parcels A and B are substandard lots
of record prior to July 26, 1982. Therefore, there is an
apparent conflict between §24-17 and §24-83, which said
conflict must be resolved in favor of the property owner.
Therefore, since a townhouse is considered a single-family
dwelling under the above-cited language and the minimum yard
requirements for substandard lots are being presently
maintained, there is nothing improper in the issuance of the
building permit in this instance.
One last comment which might be in order -in resolving this
situation and clarifying the same is after thorough examination
of Mr. Mullis's letter of May 31, 1989, your attention is
pointed towards the next to the last paragraph in that letter
which states, ~rt is further my opinion if Parcel A and Bare
combined into one building site, a townhouse of two (a) single
family dwellings separated by a space of not more than one ( 1)
inch cold be constructed, provided minimum yard requirements
are met." If you examine at his last paragraph you will note
that in that particular paragraph Mr. Mullis refers to a
two-family dwelling, not a single-family dwelling as in a
Mr. Kim Leinbach
Page Three
September 11, 1989
townhouse. In other words, I believe in those two paragraphs,·
Mr. Mullis was speaking of two different situations, one for a
townhouse and one for a two-family dwelling or duplex, This is
further supported by the first paragraph of Mr. Mullis's letter
where he refers to a duplex and not a townhouse. It is my
opinion Mr. Mullis was distinguishing between the construction
of a townhouse and a duplex in his last two paragraphs and the
permit requirements of each~
Therefore, in conclusion, it is . our opinion that the
issuance of the building permit under the Atlantic Bech Code
for the property located on the corner of Beach Avenu~ and lBth
street in Atlantic Beach, Florida was issued properly and
should stand.
ARK M. ARNOLD
MMA/cr
' :
J
I
DONALD M. WOLFSON
1725 Beech Av.,..,ua
Atlantic Beech, Floride 32233
Mark M. Arnold, Esquire
Attorney at Law
Arnold and Stratford, P.A.
Gulf Life Tower
Jacksonville, Florida 32207
Dear Mr. Arnold:
September 20, 1989
I was very disappointed that because of a-conflict in
your schedule, you were unable to attend Tuesday night 1 s
meeting of the Atlantic Beach Community Development
Board. As a member of this Board, I must take exception
with two opinions you have offered.
First, as a layperson, I do not agree with your opinion
that "there is a conflict between Sec. 24-17 and Sec.
24-83." I sincerely believe that the two Sections are
compatible and in fact, Sec. 24-83 refers very specifically
to Sec. 24-17. According to the definition in Sec.
24-17, Page 1418 of the Code of Ordinances of the City
of Atlantic Beach, it states:
"Substandard lot of record shall mean that the
owner of such nonconforming lot of record is permitted
to build on such lot, provided said lot has a lot
width of not less than fifty (50) feet and a depth
of not less than one hundred (100) feet, with a
total lot area of not less than five thousand (5,000)
square feet. Nonconforming lots of record which
do not meet all the above area requirements shall
not be built on unless relief is obtained through
action of the community development board."
Furthermore, in conjunction with Sec. 24-83, Pages 1431
and 1432, "Substandard lots of record" states:
"Where a lot or parcel of land has an area or frontage
which does not conform with the requirements of
the district in which it is located, but was a
lot of record on July 26, 1982, the lot or parcel
of land may be used for a single-family dwelling in
·.·.· ..
. ~ r , .. ·:.
·;.,
t •
··.:
j'
Mark M. Arnold, Esquire
September 20, 1989
Page 2
any residential district, provided the minimum
yard requirements for substandard lots are maintained.
See also Article II, Language and Definitions of
this chapter. (Ord. No. 90-82-74, Sec. 2(III,
E, 3) I 7-26-82) II
Again, as a layperson, it is apparent to me that your
opinion erroneously omitted the critical reference:
"See also Article II, Language and Deffnitions
of this chapter. (Ord. No. 90-82-74, Sec. 2(III,
E, 3), 7-26-82) II
This clearly refers the issue of "Sec. 24-83 Substandard
lots of record" to the above-referenced definition of
Section 24-17 for further clarification, and it cannot
be construed as being "an apparent conflict" as you
mistakenly determined. In £act, the two together are
very clear in their intent.
If your opinion is correct, then you have solely determined
that every substandard lot in the City of Atlantic Beach
can be built upon without the necessity of coming before
the Community Development Board "provided the minimum
yard requirements for substandard lots are maintained"
regardless of the fact that each lot is less than the
required minimum five thousand (5,000) square feet.
It is my opinion as a Board member that.this is clearly
not the intent of the law and that by issuing your erroneous
opinion, you have placed in jeopardy every substandard
lot within the city limits of the City of Atlantic Beach.
Secondly, I take exception to another conclusion of
yours. I refer you to the letter of May 31, 1989 from
the then City Attorney for Atlantic Beach, Mr. claude
L. Mullis to Ms. Rene~ Angers regarding his opinion
pertaining to Mr. Mark Kredell's inquiry about certain
parcels of land on Beach Avenue at Eighteenth Street.
In Mr. Mullis' closing paragraph, he specifically informed
Ms. Angers of the following:
"The Code of Ordinances requires that ~ubstandard
lots of record not meeting the area requirements
of not less than fifty (50) feet in width and one
hundred (100) feet in depth and not less than five
thousand (5,000) square feet shall not be built
' I ''!.
"!' !
Mark M. Arnold, Esquire
September 20, 1989
Page 3
on unless relief is obtained from the Community.
Development Board. Therefore, in order to construct
a two-family dwelling, the Community Development
Board must grant relief from the~e area require-
ments. If such relief is granted you would be authorized
to issue-permit for two-family dwelling provided
minimum yard requirements are met."
Mr. Kredell is presently constructing two townhomes which
is by Mr. Mullis' own definition, "a Townhouse of two
~ single family dwellings" and in order to "construct a
two-family dwelling," relief must be obtained from the
Community Development Board.
Since this relief was never sought from the Community
Development Board, nor was it ever given by the Community
Development Board, it is my opinion that not only did
you err, but it is painfully obvious that a number of
Ordinances of the City of Atlantic Beach may have been
violated, including, but not limited to, the usurpation
of the power and duties of the Atlantic Beach Community
Development Board as set forth in Chapter 14, Article
II, Section 14-20, (2), (3), (4), (5), (7), (9), (14)
and ( 15) .
Ms. M. c. Crawford, Ms. Cheryl Parker, Mr. Robert Fagans,
Mrs. Susan Smith, Mr. Dezmond Waters and M.r. Michael
Lanier have been denied due process by the failure of
the Community Development Coordinator, Ms. Rene~ Angers,
to follow the written directive of Mr. Claude Mullis
and, therefore, it is my opinion that certain aggrieved
citizens will suffer emotional stress and financial losses
due to the initial error of Ms. Angers and from your
subsequent opinion notwithstanding the fact that you
have placed in jeopardy the development of each substandard
lot within the City of Atlantic Beach.
Mark M. Arnold, Esquire
September 20, 1989
Page 4
I look forward to discussing the above concerns at the
earliest possible opportunity. Should you not be available,
I intend to request that the Community Development Board
retain its own independent counsel which will be available
at our convenience in order that we resolve this potentially
serious problem which has been created and aggravated
by numerous misunderstandings.
DMW:cm
~cerely yours,
'\v~a.OJ) \'"'(\. ~~'"-
Donald M. Wolfson
Community Development Board Member
City of Atlantic Beach
cc: vWi 11 iam Gulliford, Mayor, Atlantic Beach
Kim Leinbach, City Manager, Atlantic Beach
Gregg McCaulie, Chairman, Community Development Board
Johnny D. Bass, Community Development Board, Member
Kathleen Russell, Community Development Board, Member
Ruth Gregg, Community Development Board, Member
Samuel T. Howie, Community Development Board, Member
Louis MacDonell, ·Community Development Board, Member
ATTACHMENT B -HAWKES VARIANCE APPEAL
REGARDING LOT4, RHCD 0/R BOOK 3098-721 JlLSO KNOWN AS 1712 BEACH AVENUE
1. 1991 DEC 02 LETTER FROM NATL ASSOCATION OF REALTORS TO HAWKES
RE: PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, TAKINGS
2. 1991 DEC 24 LETTER FROM HAWKES TO COAB MAYOR GULLIFORD
RE: PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, TAKINGS
s 1992 AUG 01 LETTER FROM HAWKES TO COAB CP WORLEY (NOT FOUND)
RE: BUILDABILITY OF LOT [1)
3. 1992 AUG 19 LETTER FROM COAB CP WORLEY TO HAWKES
RE: BUILDABILITY OF LOT [1)
4. 1992 NOV 02 LETTER FROM HAWKES TO COAB CP WORLEY
RE: BUILDABILTY OF LOT [2)
5. 1992 NOV 03 HAWKES APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE TO COAB COB
6. 1992 NOV 17 COAB COB MEETING MINUTES MINUTES
7. 1992 DEC 02 LETTER FROM HAWKES TO COAB CM LEINBACH
RE: PRESERVATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, ANNEXATION
" 1992 DEC?? LETTER FROM COAB CM LEINBACH TO HAWKES (NOT FOUND)
RE: PRESERVATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, ANNEXATION
8. 1992 DEC OS LETTER FROM HAWKES TO COAB MAYOR GULLIFORD
RE: PRESERVATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, ANNEXATION
9. 1992 DEC 18 LETTER FROM HAWKES TO COAB CC, STAFF
RE: APPEAL OF COB DENIAL OF VARIANCE
10. 1993 FEB 01 STAFF REPORT FROM COAB CP WORLEY TO COAB CC, STAFF
11. 1993 FEB 08 LETTER FROM COJ P/Z STAFF TO ATTORNEY HANS TANZLER
RE: COJ ZONING/SETBACKS PRIOR TO ANNEXATION (1987)
12. 1993 FEB 08 COAB CC MEETING MINUTES
13. 1994 MAY 19 LETTER FROM COAB COD WORLEY TO APO TRAGER
RE: CONVEYANCE OF VARIANCE
NATIONAL ASSOClATION
OF REALTORS®
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AEALTORSG'
430 N. Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60611·4087
REALTOR® The Voice for Real Estate
Mr. Townsend Hawkes
President
Tl.l
Townsend Hawkes & Company, REALTORS®
500 North Third Street
P.O. Box 51307
Jacksonville Beach, Florida 32250
Dear Mr. Hawkes:
Office of the General Counsel
Telephone 312 329 8270
Fax 312 329 8576
TO CALL WRITER :piREcr:
312 329-8375
Decem~er 2, 1991
Laurene Janik has asked me to respond to your letter of October 26, 1991. I can
advise you that the National Association has indeed been active in supporting the efforts of
private property owners in resisting unconstitutional appropriation of their rights .by
government entities. NAR actively supported and lobbied for the Private Property Act of
1991, and has participated as amicus curiae or contributed money in a number of cases
involving such issues, including First English Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles, (twice),
Presault v. ICC, Pennell v. San Jose; and, most recently, Loveladies Harbor, Inc. v. United
States and Mulberry Hill Development Corp. v. United States. The latter two cases involve
wc::tlanus prese1vation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which at the present time
is one· of the most prominent and actively debated areas of property use regulation.
Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the New Jersey decision which you describe in
your Jetter. Although there is no doubt that a government is liable to pay compensatory
damages to a property owner for a 11 regulatory taking11 of property, the extent and nature of
regulation which constitutes a "taking11 is not well-defined. Under Federal constitutional law,
a rezoning of property to a Jess intensive use is not generally a taking unless the owner has
alreadly clearly established reasonable "investment"backed expectations" of using the
property in a particular fashion.
You wilL'Qe pleased to know, if you are not already aware, that th~ United States
Supreme Court has recently accepted for review a case based on facts much like those
briefly set forth in your letter. In Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission, the Supreme
r
1\fAl~;. • rtQislmd ~ rnonlbcrsllip marl< Yottit:h rMf be u>Od 0<\!1' b)'
ru(..at• prGit!.SIOOlls """ lfO morrbus ot !he NATIOH.I.L ASSOCWIOH OF REAl.TOf\S'
ond lliJsctl061o~l S!llct Co6o olfttOcs
December 2, 1991
Page 2
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS~'
Court of South Carolina held that property owners who were denied permission to build on
their oceanfront property by the South Carolina Beachfront Preservation law need not be
compensated because the law is intended to prevent erosion and other injury to the ocean-
dune system and beach area. The Supreme Court will review this decision and the question
of whether compensation must be paid in such a case to the property owner even though
the ordinance at issue was .adopted to serve the public purpose objective of preventing injury
to the beachfront. ·
The Lucas case will be briefed and argued early in 1992, and decided in late spring
or early fall. I am sure the general news media as well as the various NAR publications will
carry items about the decision when it is rendered.
We appreciate your interest in these important issues.
RWH/jbh
[B
111\LIOR'
TOWNSEND 0, HAWKES ,,,,,.,, BEACH REAL ESTATE • INSURANCE
500 North Third Street • P. 0. Bo~ 51307
J11cksonville Be11ch.' Florido 32250
Telephone (904) 249-90 II
Dec. 24, 1991
Strvln& lbr B,.rlm
SJojrt /llJ4
The Honorable William T. Gulliford ( &iuvr •. ~ 1."v'£t.0: .J!~)
Mayor, City of Atlantic Beach
Boo Seminole Road CR 1 c.. . 0 ... ~ 'i· :\/, ~. l: j . · ·-·~ /cY -
Atlantic Beach, FL·J22JJ
Dear Mayqr Gulliford 1
Regarding the Property Rights Preservation· Association battle
vs DNR Coastal Construction Control Line, here is a letter that
I received from the National Association of Realtors in regard
to Federal Court decisions involving Coastal Property Rights·
when Governments have taken property without compensation. In
Paragraph 2, Mr. Holmen, who is very active in this phase of the
National Realtors Association's struggle to preserve private
property rights, mentioned that he, too, did not remember the
New Jersey decision, and now it comes to me in a blinding flash
why he didn't, The New Jersey Decision actually did not involve
Private Property Rights but instead was centered around the right
of Real~ors to put signs on property for sale based on the First
Amendment regarding freedom of speech, and it was an embarrassing
trick of my memory that made me think that this decision which
said no community could prohibit Real Estate signs in the u. s.
had anything·to do with private owners . .
In the Lucas vs South Carolina Coastal Commission, this deci.sion
could be bad news for us except that we can ea_sily prove that the
Florida DNR regulation of the Atlantic Beach setback line would
not do anything to prevent erosion or injury, the only injury
being to the property owners who lose control of their property,
just by a whim of the State Government.
T!Vvh
Enc.
-.Aftm.b,r-
JIICKSONVILLE BEliCH ReALTORS IISSOCIIITION
MULTIPLE LISTING SERVICE OF JACKSONVILLE BEACHES
FLORIDA REALTORS ASSOCIATION
NATIONAL IISSOCIATION Of REALTORS
FlORIDA ASSOCIATION OF MORTGAGE BROKER~
Very t~ly yours 1
TOWNSEND HAWKES
TfJJUt p,ll Prt~id1111
JACKSONVILLE BEACHES REALTORS ASSSOCIATION
P~t Pr~n'litnt
JACKSONVILLE BEACHES INSURORS ASSSOCIATION
..
CITY OF
....
August 19, 1992
Mr. Towns•nd Hawkes
500 North Third Street
JacKsonville, FL 32250
'1
• •
'·I
",,. I I 'I
re: Pt Lot Reed ·0/R Book 3098-721.
60 x 60 lot.weet of 17~1 Beach Ave.
' Dear Mr. Hawkes,
! ':
. -~~, ·.
'•.
We ar~ in recei~t of your letter dated August 1, 1992~:
regarding the abov~ referenced lot. Research into the history
of the subject lot reveals several points which effect your
claim and which present courses of action other than a posstb1y
protracted and costly lawsuit a~tempting to prove a ."Taking-.
·''
11 Regardi.r.~g the Zoning and permitted usee of yq1,1r nonconforming
lot, you should be aware that the applicable zoning 1s RG-1.
This classification requires a minimum lot aize .. of 50 x 109,
with setback requirements of .20 feet in front and rear, and a
minimum of 5 feet, total of 15 f~et for the two aides. The
City of Atlantic Beach has provisiona in its Zoning Code .. that
allow property owners to apply for dimensional ''Variances" if a
hardship exists which preclude~ them from complying with coda
requirements.
The lots on the west side of Beq~h Avenue b~twaen 17th ·street···
and 18th Street were originally platted for the expressed
purpose of providing additional parking f9r the lots on. the
east side of Beach Avenue. This unusual procedure was done
many years prior to annexation of .the ·area by Atlantic Beoch.
Since that originnl platting, .there have been seven struc~~res
built on these lots. Of the seven, four combined ~heae lots
with larger lots to the west, two applied for and received
variances of one kind or another) and one pre-d~tes the
annexation and no records are available on it. I
,1'
Given the above~ co~ditions and history, we recommend that you
make application to the Community Development Board .. requesting
a Variance to the minimum l9t,•size and ·'Setback requirements for
the purpose of constructin~ a private garage on the lot.
Applications are 1 available from the Building and Zoning
Department at City Hall.
.,
'I '
If you desire any further information or e,arification. or
assistance with an application 'for Variance, pleaaa·co not
hesitate to contact the Building and Zoning Department at City
Hall or by t~lephone at '2-47-5826. •• ..
Sincerely, : J I
I
I!
I
I'
I I . " i .
i l . .
. ;
': .'·;···
j , ••
. , .
' · ..
I.
··:''
t"'.
' .. .. ~ ..... •. ,•r' •.
.i~~:·: f~-· .·,
I '•' ~~:~i ~ ·.~!'· ~£?~ ...... ·~ ···-··-·-... '!.
George Worley,
City Planner
cc: Mayor and Commissioners
Kim Leinbach, City Manager
Alan Jensen, City Attorney
I I
I f
I I .. .
.. , ..
( (I
. I I 'i
I • r I ,,,
I '·i
:
.. ----.. ·~
· .: ;~ ;.. ~r~:~l~~,;; · ..
.. .. .
.,:·· }i'.i
·., r ·, •
, ..
. ;':_·. ·, >..'
. ~ ..
.. :>·. : ..
. ·· ·::: ..
> ·. f• .''
_.,,·_ .
. .
. .
TOWNSS~lD D. HAWKES
Pttl!dn:l BEI1CH 1\F.AL ESTATE • INSURANCE
500 t~orth Third Strunt-P.O. Aox 51307
Jocbonvilla Beor.h. Horida 322GO
Tclephnna ('104) 249-'101 I
Nov. 2, 1992
'~tlantic Beach Community Development Board
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
Attn: Mr. George Worley, City Planner
Gentlemen 1 Re: Pt Lot Reed 0/R Dk Rear of 1771 Beach 3098-721 Ave, .
Srrvin1 lhr IJ,,.,J,,
Siurr HH
R1fecen~ly. ti a~kedt a morBtgkage brofker, one 1 R1ob1 ert Tiptthon obf Flori1 tda1 :. ...·.·:.:,:.,;.-.· .. ·":·· . orne .i.!.qUl y l'•or gage ro ers, or a sma can on e a ove o n .
the rear of my residence at 1771 Beach Ave., and after an investi-
gation at your City Hall, he discovered that the zoning had been
changed on this lot so it can be used only as a flower bed or
possibly for parking cars.
When I purchased the property early in 1970 I understood that this
lot was zoned for a garage for the front house should we decide
that we needed more garage space, which we do.
'l'he same principle that the oceanfront owners are going to sue in
Federal Court against the State of Florida for partly "taking" their
homes through defacto condemnation applies here and, of course, the
supreme Court of South Carolina in a similar suit ruled that when
the State or City rezones a property so it cannot be used for the
purpose for which it was or:iginally bought, this, indeed, is a
"taking'' arid must be paid exactly as a condemnation taking.
I fix my loss at $50,000 through the action of the City in changing
the zoning and this is the settlement I would expect from the City
for rendering my lot unbuildable. Of course, you realize that three
. new garage apartments have been constructed within the last two
years adjoining, or almost adjoining, my property on similar sized
lots,
TH/vh
··-1\frmbtr -~
..!1-.'2•'.;~·.\n~:..E ~t,A..~H P.F..ALTOPS A5SOCI,),JI:~~!:
U .1 l TtPtE liSTtt-..E. SEkYICi:. OF J!\Ct:.SO'IVILLf'. r;r A Cit; .
E~:)ji!!JA R~•.tTC'P~ ASS·J~I!,T!Oil
fiA. ·CI{<! -\~·'OCIAl\01~ Of RE.>\Ll·:W\
: ··r·~-.". ;.--r.·:~-::;~_~:·''IJ r.r l'()t-•r.A ~.· •·~·
Very_ truly yours, &L, ·~./ .,---"1&-0-~J A~ TOWNSEND.H'fl.WKE~
I
I
I
Tu•u, fottl PrniJtnl
J.•.et.>GIII'ILl E BfACHES P.U.LTO.~S ASSSOCIATIOtl
Pttil flruidrnl
.I &..r.l:r.r.~rh'1 \ t F BF . .l..CHES lt.JSU?.'J-R'\ "-.5-~~:.lCI.ATIOfl
,' ....... tl _______ ......_. _____ ~-··-------~.........._. ___ ,, ________ ._,, ___ , -·. ·-·--·----
,-._
I ~ ·'
>'fiK ·
.;.=:~ ..
~,-f!.t
,\fA;
-....
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT IN INK I APPLICATION FEE $50.00 ')
\___-'-::-=-:----
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE ·-·~
r)·""' ,.,,.,.I.\.)· ·'·'1
' .. PATE FILED I N ~\! 3, I q q 'J. )-)},...---...~l''~Dr··-:-.r,•r-·1\ 'j' \ ! ',. ·J ' •••• ' ' ' t''• ,,~.1. i \ \.'I I ! \ ( "'~;.·') ,•'· ... ·.I I.·' ,., ... ' J£
V' J.[i· L1 ; .. i 3 1992 .. : ·.' ~
TO REQUEST A VARIANCE FROM THE REGULATIONS I~DICATED HEREIN, ~~9AUSE T~E~E .
ARE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES OR UNNECESSARY HARDSHIPS IN CAR~HCliOJ!T (;l\Jt L0:'1\l1E
STRICT LETTER OF THE CODE OR ORDINANCE THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY APPLIES FOR
A VAliANCE AS FOLLOWS:
·-.; l'
, , Name and addreas of applicant requesting variance: Note; If
is other than all the owners of the property, written consent
the cmnere of the property shall be attached: · --
~ ... :J'o w N ~ eN c fb t:l A \AI k·l.S > PHONE
J. f , ...
the applicant
signed by all
· ~; ~·:·: V 1 6 G r N=t A A . HA ~A/ K E ~ Work :~J.. ..... 4_,__t}.._-_C)~C:...:.f_l __
Home: ~ 4 9-Q~ 27
r; ,· . :
is sought fro11 the provisions of the: _.. :. _. Variance
·':. cj> . ' ( ) Plumbing Code Zon!ns Code ( Building Code
' ( ) Electrical Code ( )
I Mechanical Code ( Other
::~. i'l
t ~~Location pf building or sttu~ture:
::~~· t~ ·wa.s:r:· sUe of ·~EM e H A VG i 'A £3 aut 17=(;2· Bt:ti ct.1 lttJt::.
n IJ e or w · •treat ) .· (We think 1772 would be in the ~ear of 1771 Beach Ave •
. ? ~~.~.··-Strut' '\ddreaa and legal description of property: Note: At tach copy of
. ';. daed.·&nd murvey or plot diagram indicating proposed construction.
' 1;:..,).. I' •
Lel!'B.lt 'Pt T n +. RA f'ti n /R P.l.r ~!"I OR-'7? 1
Whdt ia the applicant's interest in this varianc•?
1'o build a retirement &arage apt. where we can live our
-years-on-our-smarr-retrrement-p~ffgt~n;--w~-hai~be~-taxws--~·--
. • v~~~=
-our-ore-oceanrron~-fiome~----------------------------~--~~-~--.. ··.·--~~
IN FI~ING THIS APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE,
BECOMES A PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE COMMUNITY .
AND DOES HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HiREIU
THE BEST OF HIS/HER KNOWLEDG,E. ,-V;hi:r· ..
:JJ1:~~fi~'i_~_L____ ~~~!Y:~·· ~:::.!
Sigm{ture of applicant/applicant's Signkture of o~ner oft
authorized agent or attorney. I.t Application connot. "'.be I
ag~nt or attorney, include letter without ovn•r• ein"tavcuw•a~
from applicant to that etfect.
Applicant: Oo not fill-in beyond thi• point. Hn•••~r••··
r~spond to the following itemsa
,
1. Sp~cial conditions and circumatanc•• •xiat vhiah sr•
p~culiar to the land, structure, or building involved ...
and which are not applicable to other landa, etructurem
or buildings in the same zoning district.
2. The special conditions and circu•at•no•a do not
result from th~ actions of the applicant.
3. Granting the v~rianc& r~queated will not oonf•r on
the applicant any sp~cial privil~g~ that ia doniod by
th~ code to other lands, buildings or structur§a in th•
same zoning district.
4. Literal interpretation of the provision& o! th• cod~
vould deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoy•d
by other properties in the same ~oning diatriot and
vould work unnecessary and undue hardahip on the
applicant.
5. The variance ia the minimum varianc• that will ••k•
poeaibl~ the reasonable uee of the land, building or
structure.
6. The variance is in harmony with the gen•~al intent
and purpose of the code.
7. Th~ variance vill not constitute any change in the ~·
districts shown on the zoning map.
8. The variance vill not impair an ad~quat~ supply of
' light and air to adjacent property.
9. • 'T'he
congeotion
variance will
in public
not. materially
streets or increasQ
incrctiUJ• the
the_ publiCI
---
PRESENT
AHD
ABSENT
MINUTES OF. THE COM~UNITY.DEVELOPMENT BOARD
OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA
November 17, 1992
7:00 P. M,
CITY HALL
Gregg HcCaulie
Samuel Howie
Ruth Gregg
Don Wolfson
Robert Frohwein
Pet fillmore
Mark McGowan
1 Alan Jensen, Gity Attorney
George Worley, II, CD Director·
Pat flarris, Recordi~g Secretary
Chairman Gregg McCeuli~, called the aeeting to order and
maked for.epprovel of the minut~s ~rom the meeting of October 20,
1992. Upon motion. duly made and seconded •aid •inutes vere
approved.
OLD EIUSINESSt
I. Application f'or Varimnc~ filed by Dorothy and Stan Jones to
park a ~otor home in the front yard setback of property lo?oted
at 2051 Seminol• Road.
Stan Jones introduc~d himself to th~ board and ~xplained the
r•asona the original · Variance was requested. He requested •n
extension of that original Variance until the certificate of
occupancy vas issued £or his new heme currently und~r
construction.
After di$cussion Ms. Gr~gg ~oved tc-approve an •xt~nsion of six
Ce,) IIOntha. Mr. Howie seconded the llotion and it VIUI approved by
a·vote o:f 4-1.
II. Application for Variance :filed b)' James Barrington Darby-to
construct a carport which will encroach the side yard setback on
property locmt.~.>d at 350 Ocel!ln Boulevard.
Hr. Darby introduced himself to the board end ~tat~d the r~asons
a varianc~ vas r•quested.
After discussion, ~r. Howie ~oved to approve the variance vith
the condition that the atructure be ~cnstruct.ed vith non-
:flammabl• .materials. Hs~ Gregg seconded the action and it passed
by a vot• of 4 -3.
NEW BUSINESS:
I. Application for Variance filed by Margaret Cresson to enclose
bn existing wood deck which would.enoroache the rear yard setback
reqJ.li:r€'ments on property located at 1821 Tierra Yerd£> Drive.
Ms. Cresson introduced hersel£ to the board •nd explained that
the varienoe wms :request•d to allow ! construction o£ a screened
enclosure en an existing deck.
After diecussicn of whether a hardship existed mnd the impact en
other properties, Ks. "Gregg ~oved ~o approve the variance as
requestiPd." Hr. Hovieo seconded the •otion. The-motion .failed by
a vote o:f 2 -5.
II. Application :fer Yb:riance filed by The· Church o:f the Living
God to ·oonstruot an addition to the church .which vill encroach
the setback .r~quirements on property located at 390 Church Read.
Hr. Ja~es Rivers introduced hisself to the Board and
that the Church was requesting a ·variance to add needed
the congregation. ·
explained
rOO'Ill fo:r
A£t~r di•cu~sion, Ms. Pillaore moved to approve the variance.
Ms. Gregg meconded the motion end it vas unanimously approved.
III. Application 1or Variance filed by Clyde and
Asbury to park Ill .lflotor hcl!le in the trent .setback o:f
locatEd Mt 545 Seaspray Avenu~.
Elizcabeth
property
Mr. and Mra. Asbury introduced ·thems~lves to the Board &nd
explained that the variance was requ~sted to perait them to
continue to park a motor home in violation o:f the front yard
setback du~ to h~alth problems.
The Chairman presented a letter from a neighbor e~pre~sing
approval of the variance request. Hr. Asbury stated that another
14 approvals vere submitted with their application.
A£t~r discuasion, Ms. Pillmore llloved to .approve the variance on a
tomporary basis until such time as Mr. Asbury could no longer
operat~ the motor home. Mr. Howie seconded the motion. The
motion failed by a. vote of 3 -4.
IV. Application fer Variance filed by Gudron Morrison to retain
• screened •nclosure in violation of the rear yard setback on
property located at 403 Seaspray Avenue.
Ms. Lori Hesketh, e friend o:f the applicant, introduced herself
to the board and •~plain~ the r~asons . the variance was
requestf!td. ReasonSl included mosquit.o · in:fest.ation and raccoons.
She ~xplein~d that the •tructure had already b~en constructed.
I '\
After discussion,· Mr. Wolfson·mov&d to deny th~ variance. Mr.
MoGo~mn ~eoonded the motion •nd ~t pa~aed by a vote o£ 4 -3.
V. Application for Veri&nc& filed by Townsend and Virginia
Hawkes to construct a garage apartment on a non-conforming lot
loca~•d at 1771 Beach Avenu@,
Mr. end Mrs. Townsend .Hawkes introduc~d themselves to the Board
and explained that the variance waE request~d to allow th~m to
construct a garege apartment on a 50 x 50 lot on the west side of
Beach Avenue. Varianc~s ar~ needed for mini~um lot mi~e and rear
yard metback.
After discussion, Mr. Wolfson moved to ~eny the variance. Mr.
Frohwein seconded the motion and . the variance vas denied by a
vote o:£ S -2.
VI. Application for Plat Reviwv by William Morgan :£or property
located on the north corner of 19th Street. ·
Mr. William Morgan introduced himself to th~ Board and explained
that he desir~ to r•plet ~he property into ·Six separate lots for
\ the purpose.o:f s~lling them.
Aft~r dimcuasion, Mr. Wol~son aoved to recommend the replatting
to th~ City Commission and to encourPge the proposed use of
single family homes as well Ds one-way traf~ic on the stre•t·
fts~ Pillmore seconded the motion and it was unanimously passed.
There being no further business to come before the board on
motion aade and seconded the •eeting was adjourned.
m
UALIOQ'
TOWNSEND D. HAWKES
Pruhi,HI
Mr. Kim Linebach
City Manager
BEACH REAL ESTATE • INSURANCE
500 North Third Street -P. 0. Box 51307
Jocksonville Beoch, Florida 32250
Telephone (904) 249-90 II
Dec. 2, 1992
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
Dear Mr. Linebachs
Suvin& lhr Br•cb"
Siucr l9H
Regarding the matter that we wish to bring before the Atlantic Beach
City Commission on Monday, December 14, 1992, this pertains to our
desire to build a garage apartment to serve as our retirement home on
our 50'x50' lot immediately west of our original home at 1771 Beach Ave.
which we are forced to sell because of financial reverses, The rationale
that we use in claiming that we have a legal and moral right to build on
said lot is that when we originally purchased the lot in the latter part
of 1969, this was a part of the City of Jacksonville and the City of
Jacksonville did permit garage apartments to be built on these small
lots lying westerly of the large oceanfront houses for the purpose of
garages and servants' quarters and, of course, later_ these servants'
quarters became guest houses all up and down, not only this Seminole
Beach area, but the entire Atlantic Beach area all the way down to the
Sea Turtle. Historically, these were built either on the westerly por-
tion of the oceanfront lot or immediately across Beach Ave. and, of
course, many of them were built on 50'x50' lots,
It is my understanding that when the City of Atlantic Beach agreed to
take this North Atlantic Beach oceanfrontage and make it part of Atlantic
Beach, one of the agreements to this transfer of property was that
Atlantic Beach would honor the commitments made to the residents of
North Atlantic Beach, such as ourselves, and one of the important
commitments, to us, was that this 50'x50' lot could be used to erect
a garage apartment with living quarters, but now the City of Atlantic
Beach denies our r.ight to build such a structure.
our neighbor, Judge Nottingham, has offered to either attend the Dec, 14
meeting or to give us his affidavit attesting to the fact that he did
go to the City Hall of Jacksonville about the time of Hurricane· Dora
(1964) and was assured that he could build a garage apartment with living
quarters on his 50'x50' lot which adjoins ours immediately south of our
lot in question. Indeed, Mr. Nottingham informed me that he also would
probably be interested in building a garage apartment for himself and
disposing of his oceanfront house due to the increased taxes on the big
oceanfront houses which is over $6,000 a year in our case and about
$7SOO a year in our neiehbor's case. In brief, we older people are actually being taxed ou~ of our homes.
-Mrmbtr-
JACKSONVILLE BEACH REALlORS ASSOCIATION
MULTIPLE LISTING SoRVICE OF JACKSONVILL(; BEACHE>
FLORIDA RlALTORS ASSOCIATION
NATIONAL ASSOCIAliON OF REALTORS
FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF MORTGAGE BROKERS
TUIIil P1111 Prtsidtnt
JACKSONVILLE BEACHES REJ\LlORS ASSSOCIAliON
P-ll Prl'lidrnl
JACKSONVILLo BEACHES INSURORS ASSSOCIATtON
-2-
A number of garage apartments have been built in our area and have
been passed by the City of Atlantic Beach and these have been on
50'x50' lots except that the ploy was used that they had side yards
although the buildings themselves had yards only 50' deep such as we
have.
In conclusion, we do request the City of Atlantic Beach to live up
to its promise to the City of Jacksonville and to the older residents
who purchased homes and lots while under the jurisdiction of the
City of Jacksonville and permit us the free use of our land for the
purpose for which we originally purchased it.· To deny us the right
of private ownership is contrary to ~he Laws of the United States
and to change the zoning so that we could not use the property for
our original purpose calls for the Ci~ of Atlantic Beach to compensate
us for our monetary loss according to a recent decision by the Supreme
Court concerning south Carolina oceanfront in an exactly similar case,
Thank you for your attention to this matter and enclosed are copies
of the plans for the horne we wish to construct, and as to height, it
is substantially less than the defacto heights of neighboring garage
apartments and duplexes both to t.he north and south of the lot in
question in actual measurement from~the pavement and some of these
lots were built up 4• to 5' higher than the street level to maintain
a greater height above sea level. Also our proposed structure will
meet all the setback requirements and will not in any way hinder the
access of emergency vehicles to Beach Ave.
Incidentally, for your information, according to Mr. Bob Cook, past
member of the Atlantic Beach City Commission, and former Mayor Billy
Howell, the original name of Beach Avenue was "Garage Approach Road"
and as stated above, most Atlantic Beach garages had living quarters
above.
TH/vh
Enos.
Very truly yours,
TOWNSEND HAWKES
lJ]
QfALIOR'
TOWNSEND D. HAWKES
PriJ/tlrnl BEACH REAL ESTATE • INSURANCE
500 North Third Street -P. 0. Box 51307
J~:~cbonville Beo.ch, Florida 32250
Telephone (904) 249-9011
Dec, 5, 1992
The Honorable William T. Gulliford
Mayor, City of Atlantic Beach
8oo Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
Dear Mayor Gullifordz
Enclosed please find a copy of a letter sent to City'Manager
Snvin~ tbr Btocbn
Siucr 19)-1
Kim Linebach supporting our request for a permit to build on the
vacant 50'x50' lot in the rear of our home at 1771 Beach Ave.
which we originally bought in a separate sale for the express
purpose of building a garage apartment. Perhaps you have for-
gotten that I did some research on this for the Property Rights
Preservation Association and I discovered that on December 24,
1991, I sent you a letter from the National Association of Realtors
regarding not only coastal property rights but constitutional
rights of private ownership as in the case of the First English
Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles. The Federal Court held that a
regulatory taking of the property had taken place when the Church
could 'not build.
This decision said the "taking" had to be well defined but if the
deprived owner could establish beyond reasonable doutbs that he
had "investment backed expectation" of using the property in a
particular fashion; namely, in this case to build a garage apart-
ment, that he could prevail over the Government agency denying
this investment backed expectation.
Trust you will approve our building this garage apartment for our
retirement home on moral and legal grounds,
TWh
Encs.
-lt!rmbrr-
JACKSONVILLE BEACH REALTORS ASSOCIATION
MULTIPLE LISTING SERVICE 0" JACKSONVILLE BEACHES
fLORIDA REALTORS ASSOCIATION
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS
"LORIDA ASSOCIATION OF MORTGAGE BROKER~
Very: truly yours, ..!)__L_ ' A J '·
:Je/-W)1M-u/ jf!TbW~
TOWNSEND HAWKES
TU~ict Ptlll Prnhlou
JACKSONVILLE BEACHES REALTORS ASSSOCIATION
Pd..lt Pruir:ltnt
JACKSONVILLE BEACHES INSURORS ASSSOCIATION
fB
REAliOR'
TOWNSEND D. Hf.WKES
p,,u~ut BEACH REAL ESTATE • INSURANCE
500 North Third Street. P. 0. Box 51307
Jocksonville Be~ch, Florida 32250
Telephone (904) 249-901 I
December 18, 1992
The Honorable William T, Gulliford
Mayor of the City of Atlantic Beach
Ken Linebaoh, City Manager
City of Atlantic Beach
BOO Ssm~nola Road
Atlantic Beach, Flori~a 32233
. RE; Amendment to previous request for relief
from the deni~l by Community Development
noard of my Application for variance
Dear Mayor Gulliford,
Members of the City Commission, ano
Mr. Linebaoh, City Manager~
Snving lh• Bt.-brr
SJIIN l9H
~s I am sure you are aware, 1 had previously app!ied to the
community Development Board for a varienae to construct a garage
apartment on a "non .. conforming" lot located at 1771 Beach Avenue,
which belongs to me and my wife. That application was denied by
the Community Development Board on the evening of November 17th,
following which I wrote on December 2nd, 1992, to Mr. Linebach,
City Manager, and to Mayor Gulliford, on December 5th, requesting
that r be ~llowed to bring this matter before the City Commission
for consideration, and I'm advised that a hearing on my application
has been rescheduled and it is now set for January the 11th, st
7:00 p.m. ·
Because of my unfamiliarity with the various sections of the
City Code as well as those of the Commutd ty Development Board, I am
afraid that my request for relief might be denied on BOl\l$ form of
procedural technicality with which I am unfamiliar. Therefore in
an abundance of caution, I would simply like to request the Mayor
and Commission to oonsicle:r my letters in the broadest sense
possible es e prayer for relief. And if the Commission should
determine that the only possible way in which the Commission might
give my prayer favorable conaid~ration is to consider it es an
APPEAL from the action of the Community Development Board, then
please feel. N,t.;;,ae to do so. Again, my prayer is for the relief
s~u.e~f-li.IV-'11W-S 1~~$ to the Commission and the T£Pl!'JD Pit.bezr:eof I
MUlliPLE LISTING SERVICE OF J,i;t:KSONVILLE BEACHES JACKSONVILLE BEACHES REALTORS ASSSOCIATION
FLORIDA REALTORS ASSOCIATION
NM\ONI\L 1\SSOC\1\iiON OF REAUORS P4u PrttiJwt
FLORID~\ ASSOCIAliON OF MORTGAGE BROKER~ JACKSONVILLE BEACHES INSURORS ASSSOCIATION
am sure is unartfully drafted but then I'm not an attorney.
Thanking you for your additional consideration.
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: Appeal of Variance Denial by Townsend Hawkes
SUBMITTED BY: George Worley, City Planner {;'tJ~
DATE: February i , 1993
BACKGROUND:
Mr. Hawkes is the owner of an oceanfront home at 1771 Beach
Avenue and a 50' X 50' lot directly across Beach Avenue. Mr.
Hawkes desires to construct a freestanding building containing
two living floors above a garage level. The proposed structure
would encroach to within ten feet of the rear property line.
The proposed use of the building would be for Mr. Hawkes primary
residence.
A 50' X 50' lot is a substandard lot (Sec. 24-83) in
Atlantic Beach and requires a Variance for any construction
thereon. In addition a Variance to the rear setback requirement
is also needed and the building height limitation is reduced in
direct proportion to the reduced size of the lot (Sec. 24-82{b})
(in this instance permitting a maximum height of only 17.5 feet
as the lot is only 50% of the minimum required).
At the Community Development Board meeting the discussion
was primarily regarding the original purpose of the lots on the
west side of Beach Avenue in that block. It was pointed out
that the lots had originally been platted to provide additional
parking for the oceanfront homes and not intended for the
construction of homes. The Board also expressed great concern
for the potential adverse impact of additional traffic and
restriction of parking in that vicinity. A motion was made and
seconded to Deny the request and carried by a vote of 5 to 2.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is concerned about the potential for setting a
precedent for allowing the construction of full sized structures
on half sized lots. There are 10 lots of the same size as Mr.
Hawkes lot remaining in that block, all of which can claim the
same privilege and similar circumstances as claimed by Mr.
Hawkes.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 )
2)
3)
4)
REVIEWED
Letter of Appeal from Townsend Hawkes
Application for Variance
Minutes of Community Development Board
Sections 24-49 (1) b. 1-6, 24-49 (3), 24-82 (b),
24-83. /-;J. /} /)
BY CITY MANAGER~-.,0~~----------·-
AGENDA ITEM NO.~
DEPARTMENT OF REGULATORY
& ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Building and Zoning Inspection Division
February 8, 1993
Hans Tanzler, Jr., Esquire
200 E. Forsyth Street
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Re: Lot 4, Recorded in 0/R Book 3098-721
1772 Beach Avenue
Dear Mr. Tanzler:
This is to confirm our conversation that the referenced property
could have a single family residence constructed under the City
of Jacksonville 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 of ten (10) feet. Presently
residential zoning districts also require a ten (10) foot rear
yard setback.
Please contact me if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely, , /'a~---_,?/ .. ' /': -. "'" . t;C/ ~::; ~{,.?v ,r. I Vf:/~ ·
de E. Bag;~l, P. E., Chief
Building & Zoning Inspection Division
CEB:bb
') { <'"" Jn ?. ··•. '· '· I ' l... . \..... . ...J
l!ldDI
.·1
f;-1< .'
·1 .1
·f,-·
:~t
c·
1iif' AREA CODE 904 I 630-1100 I 220 E. BAY STREET I JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32202-3401
.~
Page 3
Minutes, February 8, ·1993
Item 7A was taken out of sequence and acted upon at
this ·time.
7A. Appeal of variance deniQ.l by community
Development Board to construct a qaraqe
apartment on a substandard lot (Townsend
Hawkes-owner)
George worley, City Planner, reported Townsend
Hawkes was the owner of an oceanfront home at 1771
Beach Avenue and a 50' x 50' lot directly across
Beach Avenue. Mr. Hawkes desired to construct a
freestanding building containing two living flo.ors
above a garage level. The proposed structure would
encroach to within ten feet of the rear property
line. The proposed use of the buildinq would-be
the primary residence for Mr. Hawkes .. Mr. Worley
stated a so~ x 50' lot was a substandard lot and
required a variance for any construction thereon.
In addition a variance to the'rear setback
requirement was also needed and the building height
limitation was reduced in direct proportion to the
reduced siz.e of the lot. ·· · ·
rt wae; explained the original request to construct
the build'ing was denied by the community
Development Board. The Board f-elt the lots had
originally.been platted to provide additional
parking for the oceanfront homes and not intended
for the construction of homes. The Board also
expressed great concern for the potential adver.se
impact of additional traffic and restriction of
parking in that vicinity.
Hans Tan4ler, a lawyer representing Hr: Hawkes,
reported Townsend and Virginia Haw-kes wished to
supplement their income with the rental property.
He explained property owners in the area, formerly
known as seminole Beach, were· told prior to their
agreeing 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 10 feet when the
property was·part of Jacksonville and the structure
could have been constructed.
Alan Jensenr City Attorney, advised that because of
the promise that was made prior to annexation, and
the fact that other property owners in that area·.
had been granted variances be~.-sed on similar logic,
a denial of this request would not be defensible in
court.
v v
NAME OF
COMMRS. M S Y N
·· Page 4
Minutes, February 8,· 1993
Motion: Grant three var~ances
necessary to construct ·building on ·
50' x 50' lot located at. l771 Beach
Avenue on the West side ofBeach
Avenue
Commissioner waters felt it was unfair to allow the
requested structure height of 27 fee.t on the
substandard lot 1 as he felt it would be detrimental
to the people living behind the propos.ed
structure. ·It was explained the proposed structure
would utilize the same plans as the 'house behind it. ..~.
commissioner Fletcher was concerned with the
height of the structure as well as the precedent
the structure would set. He added the City had a
substandard zoning code for a reason and that was
to limit the density in certain areas. Mayor
Gulliford felt the commission should ~e fair and
even-handed. He added beach communities were dense
by·nature.
Substitute Motion: Grant necessary
variances to build structure on 50' x
·so• lot located at 1771 Beach Avenue,.
on the west side of Beach Avenue,
with the condition that the height of
the buildinq be limited to 25 feet
and the rear setback 1 o 'feet
The question was called and the vote was 3-2, with
commissioners Edwards and Tucker voting nay. The . ·
motion carried.
Item 7B was taken o~t of sequence aQd acted upon at
this time.
7B. Appeal of variance deni'al by Conununity
Development board to keep a screened enclosure
(Laurie Hesketh}·
George worley reported Gudron Morrison, represented
by Lori .Heskethr constructed a screened enclosure
at the rear of her home &t 403 Seaspray Avenue in
violation of the required re.ar setback. Ms.
Morrison applied for a variahce to keep the
structure as built. The community Development··
Board discussed the fact that no permit was pulled
and that the violation could have been avoided had
the normal process been followed.
v v
NAME OF
COMMRS. M S Y N
Edwards x
Fletcher
Tucker x
Waters
Gulliford
Edwards
Fletcher
Tucker
Waters
Gulliford
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
'·h._ 1 !J, 1 ~1H \
.'·! , l. (' l1 T r n ~-f• t ·
CITY OF
~~ead-9~
i i ( l Hench :\\'elliiC
.\llrllll ic Beach, FL 32233
800 SEMINOLE ROAD
ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA 32233-5445
TELEPHONE (904) W-5800
FAX (904) 247-5805
1his letter is to confirm the tel0phone conversation
h··t~o;ec·n ~lrs. Tr·ager nnd I on ~lay 18th, regar'ding the HR-wkes lot
'n Uw ,,•pst side of Beach /\venue. ~JJ' conversation with Cit;.·
:,t•r;riJ8~-.-\IFJ.n Jensen verified that. the motjon Lo grant the
\''1 r·: 'tnr.:es t 'J permit the const.ruct.1on on the slllJstandcu·d lot,
i-'·r:nj t en~·roachment. into t.he rear yard setbn.ck area, anrl to
; 'P t • w i t t h e h tl i l d i n g he i g h t to ~~ x c e e d 1 7 f e e t , '"ere J5 rant e d i n
:•u!~•IH~·,., 1··hid1 allows them to transfer w:it.h the property. A
.·;:·,·!,:-,s•.'t' ,. i i j flllVI' t liP :-wnw r·ight.s as W£·1t'C" ;:;ranted to Hr.
Ji .'t \,1: ... '~'
Fr•r· c 1 a r· .i. f i eFt t. ion of the ~pecific variHncr.s which are h1
C· t f' (. (' t on t hf.' subject. lot I have attached a cop~· of the mim1tes
,., j• I. flit t. IIWP t j ll(\, Tf you desire any additional information
1 ·: ,.:, -:r• r•on 1 ar· I. mr:~,
~ i II'·,,, 1. (' 1 ~-1
_/tt?P-J{k/~/)/5
.:.-<•:·~r' \lor:!~,~., I I
' · , "iH!lll n j t y J; P. '· EOd o p me n t D i r e c to r
j .•• •
CITY OF
·~ '8ead -?t<"Uda
716 OCEAN BOULEVARD
P. 0. BOX26
ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA 32233
TELEPHONE (004) 2411-2396
MEMORANDUM,
TO: Atlantic Beach/Seminole B.each Citizens
FROM: City of Atlantic Beach
SUBJECT: VITAL STATISTICS AND GENERAL INFORMATION
L Estimated Taxable Value of property proposed
for Annexation (1985 Tax Roll)
,.
$37,775,400
2. 95% of estimated revenue to City based on
1.8892 operating millage.and .35 Debt Service
levy $ 80,357
3. Zoning:
(a) Any permits'issued prior to January 1987 will be honored
(b) Zoning of the area ~o1ill be compatible with existing zoning,
i.e., Single-family/multi-family
(c) Any permissible activity allowed by the City of Jacksonville
will be honored
4, User Charges:
Area Generally South'of'20th St,
5/8 11 x 3/4ir meter Water (Quarterly)
First 15,000 gallons-
$9.00
All over 15,000 gallons-
$ .45¢ per thousand
Sewer (Quarterly)
Base Charge $37.60
Volume ·charge· .~9 per
thousand gallons of.water
All Other Areas*
First 15,000 gallons
$13.50.
All over 15,000 gallons
$ .675 per thousand
Base Charge $56.40
Volume Charge $ .585 per
thousand gallons of water
* Due to bonding requirements undertakerrwhen the City purchased the
Buccaneer Water and Sewer System, the property generally lying north of
20th Street (or Ocean Village)·will remain at their present rates at
least until the Buccaneer Bonds are retired (Not less than year 1990 or
more than the year 2000),
CITY OF
~2?ead-?~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Atlantic Beach/Seminole Beach Citizens
FROM: City of Atlantic Beach
716 OCEAN BOULEVAI\D
P.O.BOX26
ATLANTIC BEACH, FWRIDA 32233
'l'ELEPHONE (004) 249-2396
SUBJECT: VITAL STATISTICS AND GENERAL INFORMATION
1. ESTIMATED TAXABLE VALUE of property proposed
for Annexation (1985 Tax Roll) $37,775,400
2. COMPARISON OF MILLAGE LEVYS proposed for 1986/87
Seminole Beach City of Atlantic Beach
7.486 School Millage 7.486
1.000 Hospital Millage 1. 000
N. Florida Water
.291 Management Dist. Millage .291
11.5317 Jax City/County Tax 9. 7068
-0-Atl. Beach City Tax 2. 2392
20.3087 TOTAL MILLAGE 20.7230
Assuming a single family home valued at $85,000, the owner would be
subject to the following tax:
Seminole Beach City
$85,000 Assessed Value
-25 1 000 Minus Homestead Exemption
60,000
X 20,3087 Millage
$1,218.52 Tax
Difference
3. 95% OF ESTIMATED REVENUE from Seminole
Beach area
of Atlantic Beach
$85,000
-25 1 000
60,000
X 20.7230
$1,243.38
+ $ 24.86
$ 80,357
4. ZONING:
(a) Any permits issued prior to January 1, 1987 by the City of
Jacksonville would probably have to be honored
(b) Atlantic Beach Zoning of the area would be compatible with
existing zoning, i.e., Single-family/multi-family, etc.
5. USER CHARGES:
Area Generally South of 20th St.
5/3 11 x 3/4" meter Hater (Quarterly)
First 15,000 gallons -
$9.00
All over 15,000 gallons -
$ , /15¢ per. thouunncl
Sewer (Quarterly)
Base Charge $37.60
Volume Charge ,39 per
thousand gallons of water
All Other Areas*
First 15,000 gallons
$13.50
All over 15,000 gallons
·.$ , 675 [lUI:' tlloUHUIHl
Base Charge $56.40
Volume Charge $ .585 per
thousand gallons of Hater
t: Due to bonding requirements undertaken when the City purchased the
Buccaneer Hater and Sewer System, the property generally lying north of
20th Street (or Ocean Village) ~vill remain at their present rates at
least until the Buccaneer Bonds are retired (Not less than year 1990 or
more than the year 2000),
6. SANITATION:
Absent any legal problems with franchises, etc., on January 1, 1987
the City of Jacksonville contract with Laidlo~v for t~vice a week
garbage pick-up will end. Atlantic Beach will furnish six day a
~oJeek garbage pick up ~vith twice a ~veek trash pick up (Tuesday and
Friday) at the going quarterly rate which currently is $21.00.
7. CABLE TV:
You may continue to use the existing system and the Beaches Cable
may be available in addition.
Ja. on ville
RGA RESIDENTIAL GENERAL
PERHITTED USES
Single-family d¥ellings
Two-family d¥ellings
tlultiple-family dwellings
Housing for the elderly
Family care homes
Foster care homes
Churches
AREA
6,000 square feet for the first two family
units and 4,400 square £eet £or each
additional unit.
Single Family 6,000 sq £t
Two Family 6,000 sq ft
Three Family 10,400 sq ft
Four Family 14,800 sq ft
Five Family 19,200 sq £t
tlaximum Lot Coverage 35/.
tlaximum Building Height 35' : Mul ti-£am.ily may
be unlimited where all required yards are
increased by one £oot for each three feet o£
building height.
YARD REQUIREtlENTS
Single Family
Front 20'
Rear
Side
10'
15' total; 5' minimum
Two and tlulti-family
Front 20'
Rear 20'
Side 10'
lantic Beach
RG-2 RESIDENTIAL GENERAL
PERMITTED USES
Single-family dwellings
Two-family dwellings
Multiple-family d¥ellings
Planned unit developments
Townhouses and rowhouses
Government buildings and facilities
AREA
5,000 square £eet £or the first family unit
and 2,904 square £eet £or each additional
unit.
Single Family 5,000 sq ft
Tw.o Family 5,000 sq £t
Three Family 10,808 sq ft
Four Family 13,712 sq ft
Five Family 16, 616 sq £t
Maximum Lot Coverage 357.
Maximum Building Height 35'
YARD REQUIREMENTS
Single Family
Front 20'
Rear 20'
Side 15 total; 5' minimum
Two Family
Front 20'
Rear 20'
Side 7.5'
Hultip.le Family
Front 20'
Rear 20'
Side 15'
Jc.. ;onville
RGG RESIDENTIAL GENERAL
PERMITTED USES
Single-£amily dwellings
Two-£amily dwellings
l1ultiple-£amily dwellings
Housing £or the elderly
Family care homes
Foster care homes
Churches
AREA
6,000 square £eet £or the £irst two £amily
units and 2,100 square £eet £or each
additional unit.
Single Family 6,000 sq £t
Two Family 6,000 sq £t
Three Family B, 100 sq £t
Four Family 10,200 sq £t
Five Family 12,300 sq £:t
Maximum Lot Coverage 35%
Maximum Building Height 35': Multi-£amily may
be unlimited where all required yards are
increased by one £oat £or each three £eet o£
building height.
YARD REQUIREMENTS
Single Family
Front 20'
Rear 10'
Side 15' total; 5' minimum
Two end l1ulti-£amily
Front 20'
Rear 20'
Side 10'
n. .ntic Beach
RG-3 RESIDENTIAL GENERAL
PERMITTED USES
Single-£emily dwellings
Two-£amily dwellings
Multiple-£amily dwellings
Planned unit developments
Townhouses and rowhouses
Government buildings and £acilities
AREA
5,000 square £eet £or the £irst £emily unit
and 2,178 square £eet £or each additional
unit.
Single Family 5,000 sq £t
Tva Family 5,000 sq £t
Three Family 9,356 sq £t
Four Family 11,534 sq £t
Five Family 13,712 sq £t
Maximum Lot Coverage 35%
Maximum Building Height 35'
YARD REQUIREMENTS
Single Family
Front 20'
Rear
Side
20'
15 total;
Two Family
Front 20'
Rear 20'
Side 7.5'
Multiple Family
Front 20'
Rear 20'
Side 15'
5' minimum
City of Jacksonville
Zon].ng Regulations
RSE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE ~AMILY
PER!1ITTED USES
S1ngle-£amily dwellings
Foster care homes
Fam1ly care homes
Ch1ld care homes (5 or less children>
Area 8,800 square £eet
W1dth 80'
Maximum Lot Coverage 30Y.
Maximum Height 35'
YARD REQUIREHENTS
Front 25'
Rear 1.0'
S1de 7.5'
Clcy of Atlantic Beach
Zoning Regulations
RS-1 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY
PERMITTED USES
Single-£amily dwell1ngs
Planned un1t developments
Government bu1ld1ngs and £acil1t1ea
Area 7,500 square £eet
Width. 75'
!1ax1mum Lot coverage 35Y.
Haximum He1ght 35'
YARD REQUIREMENTS
Front 20'
Rear 20'
S1de 7:5'
rl·
" ' '
ORDINANCE No. 90-86-112
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY
OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA, TO REZONE THE AREA KNOWN
AS SEMINOLE BEACH AND OCEANWALK FROM RGA, RGC, AND
RGE TO RSl, RS2, RG2 1 AND RG3, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP
ATI'ACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF; PROVIDING
FOR THE EXTENSION THERETO OF ALL THE REQUIRED
SETBACKS AND HEIGHT LIMITATIONS AS CURRENTLY PROVID-
ED FOR IN CHAPTER 24, THE ATLANTIC BEACH COMPREHEN-
SIVE ZONING ORDINANCE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC
BEACH, FLORIDA
Section l. The zoning atlas of the City of Atlantic Beach,
Florida, is hereby amended to extend its boundaries to include the area
known as Seminole Beach and Oceanwalk, and to provide for the rezoning
of those areas as indicated on the map attached hereto and made a part
hereof, and further providing for the extension thereto of all of the
required setbacks and height limitations as currently provided for in
Chapter 24 of the Atlantic Beach comprehensive zoning Ordinance.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect January 1, 1987.
* * * * • * * 'It * * * * *
Passed by the City Commission on First Reading November 10, 1986
Passed by the City Commission 1986
Approved as to Form and Correctness:
~y
(SEAL) ... · ...... ":
~ ........ :;. ~-:..
Adelaide ~f Tucker, City Clerk
~ ·" ~'
•'
1-.
Jccan \Ia lk
' (
(llORTll 'IO IIAIINA PARK)
v v
NAME OF
PAGE NINE
MINUTES
DECEMBER 8, 198E COMMRS. M S Y N
Action on Ordinances -continued
H. Ordinance No. 25-86-19 -Final Reading and Public Hearing
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH,
FLORIDA; AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.· 25-86-17 KNOWN AS THE "COASTAL CODE";
AMENDING CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE II, SECTION 6-20 SUBPARAGRAPH (b)(4) AND
SECTION 6-21 TO CORRECT TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS AND ADD ADDITIONAL DEFINil-
IONS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mayor Howell presented in full, in writing Ordinance No. 25-86-19 on
second and final reading. He opened the floor for a Public Hearing and
invited comments from the audience. As no one spoke for or against,
the Mayor declared the Public Hearing closed.
Motion: Passage of Ordinance No. 25-86-19 on second and final
reading.
Cook
Edwards
Gulliford
No discussion before the vote. Motion carried unanimously. Morris
* * * * * ~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * .Howell
I. Ordinance No. 90-86-112 -Final Reading and Public Hearing
~ ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH,
7LORIDA, TO REZONE THE AREA KNOWN AS SEMINOLE BEACH AND OCEANWALK FROM
RGA, RGC, AND RGE TO RSl, RS2, RG2 ,AND RG3, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ATTACH:ED
HERETO AND.MADE A PART HEREOF; PROVIDING FOR THE EA~ENSION THERETO OF
ALL THE REQUIRED SETBACKS AND HEIGHT LIMITATIONS AS CURRENTLY PROVIDED
FOR IN CHAPTER 24, THE ATLANTIC BEACH COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE;
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mayor Howell presented in full, in writing Ordinance No. 90-86-112 on
second and final reading. He opened the.floor for a Public Hearing and
invited coiUI1lents from the audience, Mr. Sam Kredelt, representing his
brother, Mark Kredell, 1851 Beach Avenue requested the zoning for his
property be changed to RG2. Legal description was Lot 40, North Atlant'c
Beach unit one. He·explained his brother had recently purchased the lar-d
which was zoned for eight units by the City of Jacksonville. The property
presently had a house and cottage and he wanted to build six ·additional
units on the property. Mr. Kredell was told he would have to apply for
a variance on his request for 10' side yards. As no one else spoke for < r
against, the Mayor declared the Public Hearing closed.
Motion:MOve to zone Lot 40,North Atlantic Beach RG2 instead of RS2 Cook
Edwards
Substitute Motion: Passage of Ordinance No. 90-86-112 ~.;ith amend-
ment that the zoning map be amended to reflect RG2 zoning
.down to the south boundary of Lot 40 on the oceanfront.
.~o discussion before the vote. Motion carried unanimously.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Cook
Edwards
Gulliford
Morris
Ho~.;ell
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
--~~-==--===~·~----~--------------~-AA~·~==~--.~~~~~-~~~~-~~~~·~~~~~~M~30~4~~+A~<~»H~·--------------------------;
WILLIAMS. MORRIS III
Publisher
JAMES L. WHYTE
Vice President and General Manager .
FREDERICK W. HARTMANN RONALD K. MARTIN wrLLIA~ E. SWEISGOOD
Executive Editor Managing Editor Edltor, Editorial Page
lm·honl'illt:. Mon~tiy, O('tober 27, 1986
Se1ninole Beacll ·a·nnexation vote
~ictated by geography and logic
It. makes good sense to allow the vot-
ers of Seminole Beach to decide wheth·
er they want to remain an enclave of
Jacksonville, ·almost surrounded by At-
lantic Beach, or whether they would
rather become part of Atlantic Beach.
Geography speaks louder than words.
A substantial part of Seminole Beach
is a long, narrow strip of. oceanfront
that is bordered on the west and south
·by Atlantic Beach. North of Seminole
Beach is Hanna Park.
· to Atlantic Beach orremain a part of
the 'city of Jacksonville:
I . .
Although in Du'val County many
years ago, long before consolidation, the
incorporation of cities within a two mile
radius of Jacksonville was prohibited
and consolidation reinforced the theme
of a central city, this does not violate
that concept in practice, although it
does coriflic~ somewhat with the theory.
, In a practical way, however, it .is in
'keeping with the elimination of govern-
Routes· ·of access to seminole Beach. mental baqicades to delivery of ser-
run through Atlantic Beach. sewer vices to· citizens in an effective and
lines, garbage service, fire and police cost-efficient manner.
protection, are. much harder for Jack-If this annexation vote does represent
sonvip.e to provide than the city of At-a departure from the consolidation the-
lantic Beac.tJ.. · ory, it is an exception that' has geogra-
Th~· special referendum to. be. voted phy and logic behind it and should be
on Nov. 4 only by the voters in Seminole .acceptable on that basiS. ·
Beach will allow the residents to decide · The residents will decide the outcome
· \vhether they want to become annexed and that is as it should be.
. I
\.
-· .. ··-· ..... .-.. -... •"-.. __.__,W• -
. I
January 7, 1987 VoL 7 no. 37
Betty Williams Perkins, who won the Nobel Peace
Prize for her work in her native Ireland, spoke in the
·'· -~e··-Deacl.. ··-"
(The Bea,ches Newspaper)
Over 22,500 delivered:
News and Advertising 249-9033
Transfer went smoothly
Atlantic Beach annexation
adds 1,000 to population
The first week of a bigger
Atlantic Beach evidently went
smoothly, according to several
senior officials of the city govern-
ment.
An annexation of the north
Beaches area into Atlantic Beach
approved by voters in the two af-
fected areas in November went
into effect Jan. 1. ·
''l.haven 'theard.
a c()mpla.int. "
took place "without a hitch."
The annexation added about a
thousand residents and approx-
imately one-half of a square mile
to Atlantic Beach.
Chief of Police David Thomp-
son said his officers began
·patrolling the area New Year's
Day and recovered a stolen car in
Seminole Beach that day. Since
then, Atlantic Beach police have
taken some runaway teens into
custody and investigated a traffic
accident .in their new area, ·
"I've instructed my officers to
get down ihere and · become
familiar with it (the new
territory)," Thompson said,. ad-
ding that he would like reedback
from the new citizens.
New street signs and no park-
ing signs are being installed,
Thompson said, and police are
patrolling the area regularly now.
The animal control orricer,
B.J. Lester, said that she is trying
to communicate with the new
residents that they are now sub-
ject i_o a more restrictive animal
control ordinance, and may no
longer have their animals out
without a .leash no longer than
eight feet. ·
. They rjsk citation, a fine, and
P.Ossibly having their pets taken
into the Jacksonville pmitid on
the noithside, she said.
NAME (PRINT)
ATLANTIC BEACH RESIDENTS
AGAINST THE GRANTING OF VARIANCE ZVAR~2011 .. Q1
REQUESTED BY DON AND KAREN WOLFSON
ADDRESS SIGNATURE
NAME (PRINT)
ATLANTIC BEACH RESIDENTS
AGAINST THE GRANTING OF VARIANCE ZVAR~2011-01
REQUESTED BY DON AND KAREN WOLFSON
ADDRESS SIGNATURE
NAME (PRINT)
ATLANTiC BEACH RESIDENTS
AGAINST THE GRANT~NG OF VAR!ANCE ZVAR .. 2011 .. 01
REQUESTED BY DON AND KAREN WOLFSON
ADDRESS
' .. :
NAME (PRINT)
ATLANTIC BEACH RESIDENTS
AGAiNST THE GRANTING OF VARIANCE ZVAR~2011d01
REQUESTED BY DON AND KAREN WOLFSON
ADDRESS SIGNATURE
···--~~-~~-~~·~-~-~--~----·----~·· ···-··~---~~~~--~~-~----~---~··· .•....•.. --· --:······· ~ :_).· -=:~ .... · = = .. . . .. -···
......... _________ .. .... ........... ..... . . .................... ..... ......... .. . ----------" ........................ .. ............... -l--. ....... .. .............. -. ............... ______ .. .
-.... l
____________ , ............................................ 1--------.... -... .. .. ................................. -........................ -. .............. .,......... ...... .......................... ..... . .. ..................................................... ..
I i I ; ... ---·-----.. ----------r---.................... ---·---.. --.. -............. .. ---......... -------------------+-..... ·-~ ... --..... -....................... ~---_____ .............. ..
! i .......... ------. ---.. . ..................... -. ---r---........... . ........ -------·--, ___________ .. ------.. ----.. ------------·------~---------... ----... ---.................... . . .... ____ ... ____ _
----·------......................... -----1--.. ..... .. .. .... ------·--...... , ... _............... .. ............ -........................... 1 .. . . -----...... .... .. ............ -..... -. .................................... -
I r ................ ------·--······--·····-·· ... --------f................ ....... .............. . ...................... -.
I'
1
I ...... _._ ..................... -------r·-----............................. .
-----~----~----·~--·-----~----·~---·---------·--.. ···-· .... -----~---------------. ···-·----·····---~--~--------------·· . ---·--------1--... . -. . .... ....... --............. _ .. ___ --... ·--__________ .. _................... . ........... ----------------· --.. .. .......... -~-I ... :-_: __ -___ =--~~--~~~-~-----:~--~---~::~----
I -·-------------------.. -------------~ . I ............ .. ........................................................ _ ................................. ·-------...... .. . ________ ,_ ...... _ .... __ ...
I
NAME (PRINT)
ATLANTIC BEACH RESIDENTS
AGA~NST THE GRANTING OF VARIANCE ZVAR~2011 ~01
REQUESTED BY DON AND KAREN WOLFSON
ADDRESS SIGNATURE
f ..
\
-------·-... I l·
ATLANTIC BEACH RESIDENTS
AGA!NST THE GRANTING OF VARIANCE ZVAR-2011 ~01
REQUESTED BY DON AND KAREN WOLFSON
I
l
J . -------~--· ··r··-·----·--------~-----------~--..... -----·-·---------
1 ---·--~·--------··-........... . . . . ·-·· --------·····-·· .. -·-·····-·····-····-----···-··· ........... . ................ ~--·-·--·+--.
--~--------------~----.... ---------------------·------.. -·~· .. . 1
--····· ·· ··· · ··· -~~r --· · ··· --~~ -= •·••• -1= . --= ~-.....
.. . -------·------l--~ ......... ~------.. -~--------...... ......... ... .. ....... ----~--·----~-------.. + .......................................... ... ... .. . .. . .. .............. ~----
, l
I i ............. --------~" ----f-·-· ............ . ................. ·-·---------------.... . . ·-_________________ .. ___ .. ·-f---.................... ... ......... -.... -~. ---·--·------.-.
! ! -~·-·-··----··---·-•• + •• ' f t · .............. -.. ---r-----.............. · · --............... · · · ................................. ~---r ---··--------·-·------.. ·---------........ ---------·-------
............ ·-----------~----1-........ ................................. . . . .................... ----~·---........ ~------.. J .. -... .. .... ...................... .. --··------· ... ! f ! f ................................................................ , ... ................................................. . ------·-----------------------.... . ...... ·+--.............................. --------.. -------------·-·.. . ..
l
.......... __________ ........................ ---~-·------......... -· ......... _______ .......... ·-----·-----------... f...... . ................................................................................. ..
[
----................................................ ·----------............................. !'" . . ... ., _________ _
+ ---------..
Chris Lambertson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
aerialphoto.jpg
CDBOARD [cdboard@coab.us]
Tuesday, March 15, 2011 1:58 PM
(Aian@AJensenlaw.com); (chadams25@yahoo.com); (chris@elitehomesfl.com);
(glassere@comcast.net); (lynn.drysdale@jaxlegalaid.org); (macputter@comcast.net);
(Schmirkley@bellsouth.net); hparkes@comcast.net; sbdoerr@coab.us; Hall, Erika
FW: aerial view of non-conforming lot applying for variance
From: Donnie l~anstall [ SMTP: DV-LI\NSTALL@BELLSOUTH. NET)
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 1:57:59 PM
'l'o: CDBOARD
Subject: aeJ:·ial viei•l of non-conforming lot applying for variance
Auto fon1arded by a Eule
Good afternoon: This is not an exact scale but gives you an aerial vievl of ·the properties.
My wife and I got this image from Google Earth. You can see all the trees and natural
environment that 1•1ill be eliminated with .the approval of this vari.ance. '!'his does not shov1
all of the overhanging limbs that will be lost as 1~eJ.l. Also please notice the adjoining
non-conforming lots on each side and Mhat could be lost as well if this variance is
approved and sets precedence. Thank you. Donnie & Carol Wanstall.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by ?. VG -\'MVI. a vg. com
Version: lO.D.l204 I Virus Database: 149813508-Release Date: Q3/15/ll
No virus fotuld in this message.
Checked by AVG -1'11'11·1. av9. corn
Version: 10.0.1204 I Virus Database: 1498/3508 -Release Date: 03/15/11
No virus found in this message.
C:hecked b/ P..VG -\·JV!\'1. avg. com
VeLSil)n; .lr:·.C.l.L'14 .' "Tirus Database: J.4-j8 35':iF:-Re~ease Da~e: ,-3-... ~.5-:LJ.
fiLE COPY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
:
Draji Minutes of the March 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR
COMMUNITY
The regular meeting of the Community pm on Tuesday, March
in Atlantic Beach. In 15, 2011 in the City Hall Commission
attendance were Principal Planner Erika Hall,
Adams, Kelly Elmore, Ellen Glasser, Kirk Hansen,
1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman
2.
3.
two corrections, as
(1) Page 1
Commissioners
attendance.
Chairman Lambertson
Ellen Glasser requested
i'S-ffrtru'r-f'l:flfl'I'HS Ellen Glasser then
Director Sonya Doerr."
l:';--:f1fffiere Ms. Glasser asked if the applicant was
use, or if it was for future disposal, to
out future disposal, but the immediate plan
the minutes of the 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 I oflO
'4
4-~
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Draji Minllfes of the March 15, 2011 regular meeting oft he Community Development Board
of a noticed meeting. Ms. Glasser added that she did have a subsequent conversation with Mr.
Wolfson.
Mr. Elmore and Mr. Hansen also disclosed that the applicant had engaged each of them
independently in conversation regarding the current application. Mr. Adams and Mr. Parkes each
disclosed they had received voicemails from the applicant, but had not spoken directly with him
outside ofthe meeting.
Ms. Hall introduced this item as having been deferred by
request for research and presentation of additional
at the previous meeting, with a
mation by Staff and a revision to
had been discussed at the same
attend the meeting. Ms. Hall
related to lots of similar
the request by the applicant to address some of
meeting. The Board had also requested that
explained that Staff had researched h ·
circumstances as the subject property, to
In particular, the current applicant is
from twenty (20) feet to seven (7) feet, to
which is a nonconforming lot of record of
Avenue. Section 24-85(b) legally
for one single-family dwelling,
district are maintained, or the
(CDB), in accordance with Section
For the Board's
about prev
substandard
(particularly in
which de-
historical information
owners of similar nonconforming
area ly known as Seminole Beach
iously known as Garage Approach Roadway) (3)
(COJ) and annexed into the City of Atlantic
lative action and a referendum vote of by
in November of 1986, and became effective
the applicant suggested that prior to the
affected property owners assurance that COJ Zoning Code
) in effect at the time, but different from those of
of supplementary documents are attached.
found no formal agreement to this effect, she did find, and had
and the Board members, copies of a memo sent out to residents at
in regards to zoning:
• Any permits issued prior to January 1987 will be honored
• Zoning of the area will be compatible with existing zoning, i.e., single-
family, multi-family.
• Any permissible activity allowed by the City of Jacksonville will be
honored.
She also had provided the Board as well as the applicant with copies of side-by-side comparisons
of the Zoning Code and LDRs in effect for both Atlantic Beach and Jacksonville at the time, and a
section of the Official Atlantic Beach Zoning Map, as amended by the City Commission on
December 8, 1986, for the newly annexed area.
Page 2 oflO
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
.Lo
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
Draft Minutes of the March 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Specifically at issue for the current applicant, due to the reduced depth of the subject property, is
the required rear yard setback, which had been a minimum of ten (1 0) feet in the COJ, but a
minimum of twenty (20) feet in the COAB. Thus, Ms. Hall established an additional criterion
focus her research, ( 4) those historic variance requests to reduce the required rear yard setback to
the 1987~COJ standard often (10) feet.
During the years of 1987 through 1994, Ms. Hall found ten (1 0) requests for variance to the
required rear yard setback on properties subject to the annexation. Of those, tlrree (3)
requests involved standard lots which were already well design I engineering phases and
utilizing the COJ setback at the time of annexation remaining seven (7) requests that
involved substandard Jots, five (5) were approved two were denied. Both denials
were eventually overturned by the City Co upon which the
Kredell appeal was granted were complex whereas those of the
·Hawkes appeal were more consistent w
variances exceeded or requested more
the COJ standards.
Ms. Hall also reiterated that the
as an exemplar of his proposal,
the existing footprint of a 1974
permitted by COJ, she had no
if a variance had
dated just prior
property
could be
had presented
setback, because it had been rebuilt in
had been built and presumably
might have been at that time, or
locate historic correspondence,
lained to one of the affected
1 0' rear, combined 15' sides)
5' execution of something called a
signature by all contiguous property owners.
had such a process.
numerous calls and inquiries requesting
vesting, takings and precedence, and their
as well as requests for specific historic information in an
exist. While she felt that a precedent was set with the
be considered which suggest that precedent may no
passage of time since the action which invoked the
i.e., 24 years since annexation and rezoning of Seminole
record of any agreement or provision guaranteeing a
setback, either at the time of annexation, or over the subsequent
fourteen (14) years up to the most recent full rewrite of the Zoning, Subdivision and Land
Development Regulations, which were adopted by Ordinance 90-01-172 on November 26, 2001
and made effective on January 1, 2002. However, she deferred to Mr. Jensen to provide legal
opinion and guidance to the Board regarding those matters.
Mr. Lambertson invited applicant Don Wolfson to address the Board. Mr. Wolfson stated that he
wanted to clarify a misinterpretation of his presentation at the February 15 111 meeting. The term
"hardship" had been used; this was not the basis of his request though. He said he was merely
requesting what had been historically communicated to the residents of former Seminole Beach as
a conveyance of the existing COJ ten (1 0) foot rear yard setback as part of the annexation
agreement. Additionally, though a petition had been circulated and signatures gathered from some
Page 3 of 10
1..,_
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
Draji Minutes qf the March 15, 2011 reg11/ar meeting of the Community Development Board
fifty (50) plus residents of the Ocean Grove area in opposition to his request, only three 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 refetTed to his past service to the City as a member of the Community Development
Board for approximately fourteen (14) years, the majority of which 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. that the compilation of official
City records provided to the Board for review did 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 acted on guiding principles and
established provisions ofthe time.
Mr. Wolfson said he was particularly tro
variance, but he was personally opposed
the fifty (50) percent reduction in the""-'·""''"'·
appeal, noting that Mr. Hawkes had
which was considered a legal record.
letter from Mr. Hawkes to then
property rights impacted by the
agreed to take
tlantic Beach,
that Atlantic Beach
of North Atlantic
City Planner George Worley stated "The proposed use of
Division:
' primary residence," in his staff report to the City
regarding Mr. Hawkes' appeal of the variance denial. He
February 8, 1993 by Hans Tanzler, Jr, attorney for Mr. Hawkes,
Chief of the City of Jacksonville Building & Zoning Inspection
This is to our conversation that the referenced property could have
been a single family residence constructed under the City of Jacksonville~
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 of ten (I 0) feet. Presently, residential zoning districts also
require ten (1 0) foot rear yard setback.
Mr. Wolfson then read from the minutes of the February 8, 1993 City Commission meeting, at
which Mr. Tanzler represented the Hawkes' variance appeal and City Attorney Alan Jensen advised
the Commission to grant the variance:
Page 4 oflO
. ~~
}';_, ~
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
• A
Draft Minutes of the March 15, 2011 regular meeting ofthe Community Development Board
Hans Tanzle1; a lawyer representing M1: Hawkes, reported that Townsend
and Virginia Hawkes wished to supplement their income with the rental
property. He explained property owners in the area, formerly known as
Seminole Beach, were told prior to their agreeing to annexation that their
right to develop property would not be more restrictive under Atlantic Beach
than it was under Jackmnville. The rear setback would have been only 10
feet when the property was part of Jacksonville and could have
been constructed.
Alan Jensen, City Attorne;~ promise that was
owners in that
denial of this
made prior to annexation, and the fact
area had been granted variances
request would not be defensible in
statement at the
fmancial, saying
that real estate
theirs were substandard and could
to promise that those lots would
ld one day be developed, Mr.
by the COAB, noting that
west sides of Beach Avenue.
owners that they go in together
to their properties. However, since he had not
an option. Still, in the spirit of compromise,
ot reduction in the required rear yard setback
ariances granted in the late 1980s and early
had been owners of the property since a number
only wanted to exercise those rights guaranteed to them at
floor to public comment, and recognized Atlantic Beach City
740 Live Oak Lane) as the first speaker. Mr. Fletcher said he was
resident rather than as an elected official. As a property owner in
the vicinity, he calls from a number of his neighbors, and like them, he was
concerned about the no matter the final 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
accommodations 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 even
Page 5 oflO
23o
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
~ J
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
Dra.fi Minutes of/he March 15, 2011 regular meeting of/he Community 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. Mr. Fletcher thanked
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 15 1h meeting. He said he felt somewhat
blindsided when Mr. Wolfson attempted to engage him in
days before the meeting, even though the application had
(33) days before, on January 11,2011. He asked that
denial of a variance as listed in Section 24-64(c),
granted if the Community Development Board,
requested variance shall have a materially
then spoke to the potential impact to each
properties, (2) congestion of streets, (4)
welfare or beauty of the community. He
then-CD B member Wo If son argued that
with that position. Further, he the Board
sort of compromise with the
said that his wife had
ion about the request just two
with the City some thirty-three
carefully consider the grounds for
"'"t,.,_.j-,""' : "No variance shall be
·prnr-.1n•"'c that the granting of the
more ofthe following." He
light and air to adjacent
) the general health,
0 on June 17, 2003,
certainly agreed
applicant to to reach some
to tonight's meeting. Mr. Wanstall
the variance if the structure were
be amenable to reducing his
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,
further erosion of a peaceful, eclectic neighborhood of the
'Gornmten~1'e'd the Board look beyond this one application, to the
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 aslled if she would write a letter in support of his application.
When she replied that 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 1 ih Street) said that he lived on the southwest corner of 1 ih and Beach, and
over the last five years he has observed continuous construction on the lots on the north side of
1 i 1\ and he was opposed to further increasing the density of the area.
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.
Page 6 oflO
2 .. _
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
Drq(i Minutes qfthe March 15, 2011 regular meeting oft he Community Development Board
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 determined
that the CDB had not taken the correct position and, in he had been wrong.
Ms. Glasser asked why Mr. Wolfson had voted to
he had a philosophical problem with development
required minimum area of a standard lot. Ms.
history of the area, with particular refere
Garage Approach was uniquely de ·
spaces", according to the CDB minutes
the term "hardship" in requesting a
granting a variance, such is no longer the case.
and grounds for denial spelled Ms. Glasser
state a hardship for this request..
' variance, to which he replied
was only fifty (50) percent ofthe
Wolfson as giving "a lengthy
.. ct,"i"tinn " and stating "that
and not for living
tion on the use of
a valid reason for
for approval
did not need to
the only difference between
other development standards
annexation, the Zoning Code
to be sure that there was no
ensen said he did not recall there
the Board that the subject property has been
(24) years, and is therefore subject to the
purchased the property prior to
rights should be preserved. However, he was sympathetic
that he was a property rights advocate as well, but the
to has changed substantially over the years, in an
individual with those of the community. And, there appears to be
the LDRs.
and Hawkes denials, both of which were eventually overturned
by the City 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 annexation, consistency of the
request with other variances that had been approved, as well as the language of the LDRs in effect
at the time, and the weak findings 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
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
~I.
Draji Minutes of the March 15, 2011 regular meeting of the 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 case~by~case
basis, and that they may be approved only upon findings 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 ofthe 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
on's earlier statement that the
11 stood on their own merits. She
then inquired as to the conditions of the
no1ih of the subject property at 1733 Beach
in the existing footprint of a 197 4 structure
of the lot. Thus, the structure was comp
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
Pennington lot, located
replied that structure was built
prior to the redevelopment
required. As a point of
Staff and during the
ing it from a
v•L'"'"''''-> consistent
iance, as verbally amended by the
the required twenty (20) foot
of a residential structure on a
across from 1725 Beach
n 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
. Elmore's earlier observation that denial ofthis
the reasonable use of his property, which was tantamount to
for denial and said while it was arguable that the granting ofthis
variance adverse impact on congestion of streets (#2), public safety (#3),
established ), the aesthetic environment (#5), and the general health, welfare
and beauty of the (#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.
Mr. 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 prope1ty warranting special conditions (#5), nor exceptional
topographic conditions of or near the property (#1), existed; neither did surrounding conditions or
circumstances impact the prope1ty 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 oflO
3 ... _
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
Drafi Minutes of the March 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
(#3). Likewise, there was no onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after
development of the property or after construction 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
of the property (#6), applied. The question came back to what was considered "reasonable use" of
the Jot.
Mr. Parkes asked Ms. Hall if she could explain
Wolfson without a variance. Ms. Hall presented
scenarios in which the Jot could be developed
guest quarters. Additionally, she
constructed according to the applicant's
constructed according to the amended
required yard setbacks (20' rear yard).
Mr. Parkes summarized that a
without a variance, and that
of the original garage Jot
defended in the past. Further, it
could be constructed
options were available to Mr.
scaled drawings showing several
ry or two-story garage, with
a single family dwelling
yard), as well as one
according to the
guest quarters, be constructed
· ng with the reputed purpose and intent
Mr. Wolfson had so vigorously
narrow single-family residence
adjusted so as to require a less
to be coherently articulated
applicant would consider reducing
that reduction of the front yard
applicant would have to withdraw this request or
· 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
fifty (50) percent reduction in the standard. He continued, saying
a request that would allow development of a substandard lot to the
. However, Ms. Glasser said she was still conflicted. The
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)(l), 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 disproportionate request made him
apprehensive. Ms. Paul responded that it was not always feasible to expect the applicant to go to
Page 9 of 10
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
Dmji Minutes of the March 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
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 had received
copies of a 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.
Mr. Lambertson cautioned the Board that what might
necessarily be appealing to another, and should the
Mr. Lambertson then noted that Mr. Wolfson had
property was to be developed for personal
Wolfson had replied though he could not
development. Mr. Lambertson asked Mr ..
currently for sale, meaning was it listed
property was currently listed but there is no
Mr. Lambertson asked if Mr.
Mr. Wolfson said no. Mr
on the floor to approve the
required twenty (20) foot rear
residential structure
to one person would not
they could not legislate taste.
the February 15 1h meeting if the
future disposal, to which Mr.
the immediate plan was for
-if the property was
responded that the
could appeal the decision of the Community
thirty (30) days of this decision.
the meeting at 7:57pm.
Attest
Page 10 of 10
W.-.lll>ltlol cr IHM"'•l ~rso~c;:;
wt:o<.......:t<t IIC ll·~l~"oT
~OIOIH"'l:' :.IO!I,ti'C!-111
r~·.,...,;, Jn.~o:,o"
I
\
\
\
\
\
I
\
I
I
-----------------
I
\
I
I
\l
\~
I" \~
\
1\
\;.
\
\
\
l
I
I
I
\
l
I
I
I
\
I
l
i' ,, ! I
~&
1-.ii
~:.~~
""' ~i'; ,,
I i
I
\ I I
' I I ~ II
!i
I I
i r 1 1
I '1'1
I iii ! II
1!11
'i'i
NOTES:
Tli!S 1S: A BOIJi'tOA.If't SI..IR'.£Y 'l'ltlH 1RE£ loeA.'IlON.
NO 01.1!1,01'01; At51RIClltN Ui'tC P(f{ PlAT.
UEA.II!Mc:!; O,t,::CO 0H A L.lliE f"RQO,I Dtf'IIRTWENT Or loiAllJAN. lt(SO~'ACCS
~ONIJ~DIT No, 7:!wllt-At7 10 WOhiiJI.IE.HT ,..._ 72w!II-A111 ~ I'm l~C
C0"'51'AL COI'lSTRUCTIOi't COHTIIOL U><( roo DUVAl COU..:l'T, F\IJRIDA, ...S
REt:CRO£D 11'1 I.!A~ BOOK "C". P,t,cts: 7.2-7:210. OF THE OJilR£NT PUBUC
JICCOROS or 'SAlD COUHTY.
cca. DOJOTE'S CQ.O,::T,l.l, CON~RUCTICN CONTROL U"':o
tROSION CONTROL LINt !S THE WUJILT fF.IIJNOART OF SURYCI'EO PF!OPO!TY.
,v;o 'liAS CAI.Cl!L.Attl: f"RD~ C~il'l"l'C5 OF S:ND D"R ~ONUI.ICHT" ... AS P£11.
~[ [AQSICH CONtROL Ui'tE FDA QUI/AI. COUi'tTY, rl.OfllCA, ...:0 ~O::O~OED llol
F"LAT BCOK 3~, I>IIC(~ ~t. ""' 1\lo!C 5SII or-!:AIO I'UBtiC ACCORDS.
IIO.IOIMA!UC. U:;(D: rO!./i'tD w,.Cil"lL &. D~~ LD 3672. 1N ::OOTli S!CC or IT
RtO !l,.'f, LOCATCC i'ltAn tA'!iT ll!CIH tr YIAY tli'l( Of BCA.OI A\IOtUE AT
RESIDfNC[. NO. 17!>~. ElEII,.'l10i'l•12.9D H.C.v.Q, (1~2'9.)
Mf.NI' H!,C~ ""'AltR UN£ ~ABUSiiCO U'SlpjC OOEt.r:lttl o.t.ruw rOll 'I'IOC ST.O..ntl~
1172;-0291 (~pj"''t.U: Dt.IICH. WHW.,;l,C7 joi,C,V,O., T!Ot 1Wit:t,..,,11'),
::U,::Cii/IL HICH 'fi'A.TI:A UNt rOilloi\JLIITI:D N:COf!OIIfC '10 CI'W"'[A 111&-3:1.001
t~· x"f:'l} :O~~el~llV!:. cooc • ._,. • (1.:) 1t. nDC II.OJoli::q -1.117 ...
SIX '!OPCCJW>iC 2JIM:'I" rru: 0 ::tOO!I-1092
POR 00oi01!S POI~T or REFUICNCE
POB DCHOltS POINT or DtClf'INIHC
THE PROPffiTY SHO""N HDIEC" Af'Pr.AAS TO L:C 1~ FlOOD Z'J~E
-,.~ (.o..At:A oUrstot: '!'.OO )LUI nooo Pl.-"1")· n..coo 'ZO>It: "\IC"
(0. H., 1~ &I 17) A5 .,..D.J.. A..<: CloH IIC ornR~Illi;D ~lol Tl'!t
"11.000 t~lSIJIWjC( R/o.T£ \1~~ COI.I1.1UI<m"~P,t,UL1. Nco. 120075
ODOl D, RE:YISCC ,t,PPII, 17.198, tOR Ti'ttCfl"''U 11.'1\..NomC
0[1CH, n.ORIM.
\1 I, ,. I~ -< I~ r I• ,. I~ z I -< \
(")
~I ,.,,
,.j
:z
lllct lOCAl'!OII t-V-'1' Ill, ::.ocr ....,.1) .rtmt ~. lOD7
R('ll!,£0 f"'Jl C()o,llol(i'll'S: Jlllo'\JAR'r 22.. 2ml7
BOATWRIGHT LAND SUR YORS inc. 1500 ROB RT DRIVE JACKSONVILLE BEACH FLORIDA
.:= . .:_.;..:._:...;_·.:.-·..::....:...::.:...========================
MAP SHOWING SURVEY OF
1HI$~R.VUWA.SI.!...O(f01! TMCI!t!oimTCF
CARL RI.IF'US ?O'ftolli'4Cl'DH,III: ClallAI.TAR llnr
S'[lf1o'II:[5:~Fl0~TYI'tA.'JIDh'A.l'lln..E
~~~A,NO:~I"A,Iol'f,
c)/
f
.. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT . .ROLL !SEVYERl .
~rcJJ .17, 1D97
Sorted 6y R.E·Number
. eEA'C'EfAVENUE WAtER;Al\fifr.sEWeR:1MPROVEMENTS
:Aer.RoV!:o·av·.crrv coM!VnssroN · · 1997
LegaJ Dos·crip'tion
Section OB·2S..29E
Lot. 4
RE 1B0p.l£l..OOOO
Lot 5
North AtlanliC·Beacli Unll1, (Ex. PL. Lot 5 0/R
4663-1i5S) O/R7064--1422 : . .
Lot 5
RE' 150049~0000 .. · .
North A!lartlic Beach Unlt 1, 0/R 4003•:1458.
LOI 6 :·
RE 169650.DOOo·
· North AtlantiC Beaotr Unit ·1
lot· 7 ··
RE 160051·0000
North Atlantic Beaco Unit 1, OIR40~1·ll95, . 7024-707 . . . .. . .
Lot a . · ·
RE 169652..0000 .
Lot 9
NortitA!IanUc.Beach Unit 1
Uri 9
RE 11'1005~000
Lot 10
North Atlantlo Beach Unit 1 . rw 1.s
RE 169GSB-OOM
North Atlantic ae:a<m Unit 1
l.Ot · te ·
·: Re. 1611659-0000
· Noith A11arrt!o ef.;sool.init·1
Lot . 19
RE Hl9001.:0000
Nortn Atlantic Sea Ph unn 1
Part c.Gq\l't;.·Lot,7 · ·
RE· <1600tis.200oo·
o/Rc53Ji~Fms: ,
Lot 22
N 1/2 t.ot 22
Lot :2a
Lot 24
S 20.04 Ft. Lot·24
. ,. .· ,
Property owner and Mailing .A;ddre5s .
~ee
16.1.9 Beach.Avel)ue.
'A!l~ntic BaaCh
Henry . jli?f 5!~9!1 Ave~~e
Allarttic Beach· .
MollleY.
·162~ Beach Avenue ·
AtJairti~Beach '
Nun.n · · · · ·
27~ Sl..Jtlhns.Avenue
Jacksonv.me: · · ·
·; :· :: .
Ashf?y;·Jr;
.Hi~7·.0cean'.F[l)n(
AUa~lic B~ocii · ·
And~~n.
1~~0cean Ftonl
, · A!Jarltic Beach
:
~ay•;· .
· irt.s&HOIIY.ric~ge Rei.
Ja·ck®iwllle · ·
:Sj.~'n. ;Jr.
· 16?L~·.~Cf! Avenue·
Atlantic B.ei\eh · .
sarah G.··
Robert H. ·.
· 'A!illiamR. ·
.Gloria$ ..
·crarence·G.
FL 32233--5!!40
Front
!"oat age
50
8.
: T.otRI ~ment:
42
FL . 32233,5640
. 50
so
FL .3220>8213
Tmal Assessment
. : & · ~tilifW\1¥, 50.64 ·
.·FL 32256-7104
49.9.
co~eman
171Ulaac!r Avenue· ·
Do!.ores.·BuOK · · · 49.9
· Atlantio BeaCh · "· ·
Woffi!on •' · · ·. . ,. -. :DolJaKI:M. .
1'12s''e&ach Avenue·. · . : ·· · ·
Atlantic seach · ·
. F.L ··32233-5838
. &.: !{1.1~R.
·· FL .32238-:5836
70
25.0,15
.5Q.a3
20.04
Tolal Assessment
Final
Assessment
$2,028.72
$324.59
$2 353.31
$1,704.12
$2,021.l.72
$:2,0213.72
$486.89
$2,5Hi.61
$1;947.57
S2.162.61
$2,054.68.
$2.024.66
$1,014.97
$2,029.113
$813.11
$,698.21
Page 3
i -:
OVERVIEW OF TAKINGS
ADAPTED FROM MATERIALS OBTAINED FROM
THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
The term "taking" comes from the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, which states " ... nor shall
private property be taken for public use without just compensation." Under the Supreme Court's
interpretation, the takings clause extends to governmental regulations as well as physical takings of
property.
Takings cases fall into three categories-physical occupations, exactions or conditions on development,
and permit denials. The level of judicial scrutiny varies, depending upon the level of intrusiveness on the
part of the government. In general, the more closely the government action resembles "confiscation"
rather than simply a restriction on use, the closer the court will look at the governmental purpose
behind the alleged taking and its corresponding impact on the property.
o Physical Occupations-This category of takings claims involves situations where the government
invades or occupies private property. The occupation may be "in fact" such as required for
installation of utility lines, or "constructive" such as the flying of airplanes over private property.
Because of the close link between physical occupations and actual expropriations through
eminent domain, the Supreme Court has established a "per se" rule, requiring just
compensation in all physical occupation cases.
• Exactions & Conditions on Development -This category of takings involves challenges to
conditions imposed by government in exchange for the issuance of a development permit. For
example, a local government may condition the issuance of a building permit for a new
residential subdivision on the construction of roads servicing that subdivision. In such cases, the
Supreme Court has said that there must be an "essential nexus between the burdens placed on
the property owners and a legitimate state interest affected by the proposed development." In
other words, there should be a reasonable correlation between the conditions placed on the
property owner and the public interest being served. In Nol/an v California Coastal Commission,
483 US 825 (1987}, the nexus between a lateral beach access condition and the Coastal
Commission's stated goals was ruled insufficient.
In addition, the Supreme Court has ruled that a governmentally-imposed dedication of land for
public use must be "roughly proportional" to the impacts on the community that will result from
the proposed development. This rule precludes the placement of onerous requirements on
property owners seeking governmental approval. In Dolan v City of Tigard, 512 US 687 (1994},
the Supreme Court found a taking since the City of Tigard had failed to establish that the
development exaction of a greenway and bicycle path would mitigate the flooding and traffic
impacts caused by a proposed store expansion in a roughly proportionate manner.
o Permit Denials-The vast majority of takings cases fall within this category. Under this scenario,
a property owner argues that a taking has occurred as a result of the denial of an application
concerning the use of his or her property. In determining whether a taking has occurred, it is
important to identify the "relevant parcel". The Supreme Court has said that reviewing courts
Page 1 of3/elh
8-Mar-11
must look at the "parcel as a Whole'' rather than the land directly affected by the regulatory
action. Thus, for example, in analyzing a tal<lngs claim, COlJrts should look at the entire
property rather than the segment or area where the governmental body has determined that
development may not occur.
The "parcel as a whole" analysis is especially significant in view of Lucas v South Corolina Coastal
council, 505 US 1003 (1992)1 which established the rule that a "total deprivation of beneficlal
use" is per :;e or categorical taking. In other words, if a regulation renders property completely
valueless (I.e. results in a complete "wipe out'1 according to Locas}, it results in a taking that
requires "'just compensation". Without the 11 parcel as a whole'1 rule; property owners could
claim that a categorical taking has resulted With respect to the portion of property directly
affected I:JY the challenged regulatory action, (See District fnrown Properties Ltd Partnership v
Dlsrrict oj Columbia, 198 F.3d 874 (DC Cir 1999)1 cert denfed, 531 US 812 (2000)~ ln which the
owner argued; unsuccessfully 1 that the denial of permission to develop the lawn of a historic
apartment building amounted to a categorical taking under Locos.)
Although decided nearly 35 years ago, Penn Centro/ Transportation Co 1.1 Cit)l of New York, 438
US 108 (1978), is the leading case governing the constitutionality of permit denlalr. under the
taking~ daL!Ses of the federal and state constitlltlons. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in
her concurring opinion to Pa/az;mlo v Rhode Island, 533 US 606, 633 (2001), "our
polestar ... remains the principles set forth in Penn Central itself and our other cases that govern
partial regulatory takings,11 Her views were echoed by the ma)orltv in Tahoe· Sierra Preservation
Counclf, fnc v Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, ,535 US 302 (2002), Whlch held that outside the
exceptional "wipe out" situation found in Lucas, takings claims must be analyzed under Penn
Centro/'s ad hoc, multi~faceted framework, and again, in Lingle v Chevron, USA, 544 US 528
(2005).
Judicial review of regulatory taking~ claims ls based upon a three-factored inquiry: the character of the
governmental action; the economic impact of that action on the property; and the claimant's distinct
lnvestment·backed expectations.
"' Character of Governmental Actions-This factor focuses on the nature of the action in dispute.
As noted above, permanent occupations are treated asperse taldngs and governmental actions
Involving exactions or conditioned approval are generally subject to a higher level of scrutinv.
Land development regulations are rarely challenged on this issue. In Penn Central/ the US
&upreme Court recognized that preserving historic structures is "an entirely permissible goal"
and the imposition of restrictions on historic property through historic preservation ordinance is
an "appropriate means of securing<~ that purpose.
.. Economic Impact-The vast majority of cases involving takings claims focus on the question of
economic impact. To succeed under this foetor, the property owner must demonstrate that the
challenged regulation will result in the denial of the economically viable use of his or her
property. The inquiry focuses. on the impact of the regulation on the property and not the
property owner.
Both federal and state courts have ruled that governmental actions that prevent landowners
from realizing the highest and best use of their property are NOT unconstitutional. A taking will
not result when the owne~" can realize a reasonable rate of return on his or her investment or
Page Z of3jelh
8-Mar-11
can continue to use the property in its current condition or upon rehabilitation. Several courts
have also ruled that a property owner must establish that he or she cannot recoup his or her
investment in the property through sale of the property "as is" or upon rehabilitation.
" Investment-Backed Expectations-Under the final Penn Central factor, the property owner must
show that the challenged regulatory action interferes with his or her "distinct investment-
backed expectations". This factor looks at the circumstances surrounding the property in
question, such as the owner's investment motives or his or her primary expectation concerning
the use of the property. To prevail, the expectation must be objectively reasonable rather than
a "mere unilateral expectation".
In Palazzolo v Rhode Island, the Supreme Court ruled that the acquisition of property
subsequent to the adoption of a law, such as a historic preservation ordinance, does not bar a
takings claim. This does not mean, however, that the existence of a preservation law or the
designation of a property as historic prior to acquiring title is not a relevant factor.
Conversely, the argument raised by property owners, that the application of preservation laws
unconstitutionally interferes with their investment-backed expectations in situations where the
property in question has been designated after the property was purchased has also been
rejected. Courts have found that an owner's expectation to be free from regulation is not
reasonable.
Many jurisdictions include provisions in their ordinances that establish an administrative process for
considering cases of undue hardship that may lead to potential takings claims. Commonly referred to
as economic hardship provisions, they enable local governments to address hardship claims on
individual cases and help prevent invalidation of commission decisions on constitutional grounds. The
standard for measuring economic hardship is typically the same as that for regulatory takings, finding
economic hardship when an owner has been denied all economically viable use of his or her property.
An applicant is often required to submit detailed information to show that retention or sale of the
property is economically infeasible.
Page 3 of3/elh
8-Mar-11
FLORIDA STATUTES 2007
70.001 Private property rights protection.-
(I) This act may be cited as the "Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act." The
Legislature recognizes that some laws, regulations, and ordinances of the state and political
entities in the state, as applied, may inordinately burden, restrict, or limit private property rights
without amounting to a taking under the State Constitution or the United States Constitution. The
Legislature determines that there is an important state interest in protecting the interests of
private property owners from such inordinate burdens. Therefore, it is the intent of the
Legislature that, as a separate and distinct cause of action from the law of takings, the Legislature
herein provides for relief, or payment of compensation, when a new law, rule, regulation, or
ordinance ofthe state or a political entity in the state, as applied, unfairly affects real property.
(2) When a specific action of a governmental entity has inordinately burdened an existing use of
real property or a vested right to a specific use of real property, the property owner of that real
property is entitled to relief, which may include compensation for the actual loss to the fair
market value ofthe real property caused by the action of government, as provided in this section.
(3) For purposes of this section:
(a) The existence of a "vested right" is to be determined by applying the principles of equitable
estoppel or substantive due process under the common law or by applying the statutory law of
this state.
(b) The term "existing use" means an actual, present use or activity on the real property,
including periods of inactivity which are normally associated with, or are incidental to, the nature
or type of use or activity or such reasonably foreseeable, nonspeculative land uses which are
suitable for the subject real property and compatible with adjacent land uses and which have
created an existing fair market value in the property greater than the fair market value of the
actual, present use or activity on the real property.
(c) The term "governmental entity" includes an agency ofthe state, a regional or a local
government created by the State Constitution or by general or special act, any county or
municipality, or any other entity that independently exercises governmental authority. The term
does not include the United States or any of its agencies, or an agency of the state, a regional or a
local government created by the State Constitution or by general or special act, any county or
municipality, or any other entity that independently exercises governmental authority, when
exercising the powers of the United States or any of its agencies through a formal delegation of
federal authority.
(d) The tetm "action of a governmental entity" means a specific action of a governmental entity
which affects real property, including action on an application or permit.
(e) The terms "inordinate burden" or "inordinately burdened" mean that an action of one or
more governmental entities has directly restricted or limited the use of real property such that the
property owner is permanently unable to attain the reasonable, investment-backed expectation
for the existing use of the real property or a vested right to a specific use of the real property with
respect to the real property as a whole, or that the property owner is left with existing or vested
uses that are unreasonable such that the property owner bears pe1manently a disproportionate
share of a burden imposed for the good of the public, which in fairness should be borne by the
public at large. The terms "inordinate burden" or "inordinately burdened" do not include
temporary impacts to real prope1ty; impacts to real property occasioned by governmental
abatement, prohibition, prevention, or remediation of a public nuisance at common law or a
noxious use of private property; or impacts to real property caused by an action of a
governmental entity taken to grant relief to a property owner under this section.
(f) The term "property owner" means the person who holds legal title to the real property at
issue. The term does not include a governmental entity.
(g) The term "real property" means land and includes any appurtenances and improvements to
the land, including any other relevant real property in which the property owner had a relevant
interest.
( 4)(a) Not less than 180 days prior to filing an action under this section against a governmental
entity, a property owner who seeks compensation under this section must present the claim in
writing to the head of the governmental entity, except that if the property is classified as
agricultural pursuant to s. 193.461, the notice period is 90 days. The property owner must
submit, along with the claim, a bona fide, valid appraisal that supports the claim and
demonstrates the loss in fair market value to the real property. If the action of government is the
culmination of a process that involves more than one governmental entity, or if a complete
resolution of all relevant issues, in the view of the property owner or in the view of a
governmental entity to whom a claim is presented, requires the active participation of more than
one governmental entity, the property owner shall present the claim as provided in this section to
each of the governmental entities.
(b) The governmental entity shall provide written notice of the claim to all parties to any
administrative action that gave rise to the claim, and to owners of real property contiguous to the
owner's property at the addresses listed on the most recent county tax rolls. Within 15 days after
the claim being presented, the governmental entity shall report the claim in writing to the
Department of Legal Affairs, and shall provide the department with the name, address, and
telephone number of the employee ofthe governmental entity from whom additional information
may be obtained about the claim during the pendency of the claim and any subsequent judicial
action.
(c) During the 90-day-notice period or the 180-day-notice period, unless extended by agreement
of the parties, the governmental entity shall make a written settlement offer to effectuate:
1. An adjustment of land development or permit standards or other provisions controlling the
development or use of land.
2. Increases or modifications in the density, intensity, or use of areas of development.
3. The transfer of developmental rights.
4. Land S\-Vaps or exchanges.
5. Mitigation, including payments in lieu of onsite mitigation.
6. Locution ot1 the lef!St sensitive po1·tion of the propet·ty.
7. Conditioning the amount of development or tlSe permitted.
8. A requirement that issues be addressed on u more con1prehensive basis than a single proposed
use or development.
9, Issuance of the development order, a variance, special exception, or other extraordinary relief.
10. Purchase of the real property, or an interest the1·ein, by an appropriate governmental entity.
ll. No changes to the action of the govcrmnental entity.
lfthe property owner accepts the settlement offer, the governmental entity may implement the
settlement offer by appropriate development agreement; by issuing a vatiance, special exception,
or other extraordinary relief; or by other appropriate method, subject to paragraph (d).
(d) I. Whenever a governmental entity enters into a settlement agreement under this section
which would have tbe effect of a modification, vm·iance, or a special exception to the application
of a rule, regulation, or ordinance as it would otherwise apply to the subject real property, tbe
1·elief granted shall pmtect the public interest served by the regulation:> at issue and be the
appropriate reliefnecessat-y to pt•event the govemmental regulatory eftort from inordihaiely
burdening the real property.
2. Whenever a governmental entity enters into a settlement agreement under this section which
would have the effect of contravening tbe application of a statute ns it would otherwise apply to
the subject real property, the governmental entity and the property ownel' shall jointly file an
nction in the circuit court wbere the real pt·opetty is located for approval of the settlement
agreement by the court to ensure that the relief granted protects the public intet·est served by the
statute al issue and is the approprinte relief necessary to prevent the govemmental regulatory
effort from inordinately burdening the real propetty.
(5)(a) During tbe 90-day~notice period m· the 180-day-notioe period, unless fl settlement offer is
accepted by the propelty owner, each ofthe governmental entities provided notice pursuant to
paragraph (4)(a) shall issue a written l'ipeness decision idehtifying the allowable uses to which
the subject property may be put The failure of the govemmentalcntity to issue a written ripeness
dccisio11 during the applicable 90-day-nolice period or 180-day-notioe period shall be deemed to
ripen the prior action of the govemmental entity, and shall operate. as a ripeness decision thnt has
been t'e;jected by the pl'opetty owner. The ripeness decision, as a matter of law, constitutes the
last prerequisite to judicial review, and the matter shall he deemed ripe or final for the purposes
of the judicial proceeding created by this section, notwithstanding the availability of other
administrative remedies.
(b) Ifthe property owner rejects the settlement offer and the ripeness decision of the
govemmental entity or entities, the propetty owner may file a claim for compensation in the
circuit court, a copy of which shall be served contemporaneously on the head of each of the
governmental entities that made a settlement offer and a ripeness decision that was rejected by
the property owner. Actions under this section shall be brought only in the county where the real
property is located.
(6)(a) The circuit court shall determine whether an existing use of the real property or a vested
right to a specific use of the real propetty existed and, if so, whether, considering the settlement
offer and ripeness decision, the governmental entity or entities have inordinately burdened the
real property. If the actions of more than one governmental entity, considering any settlement
offers and ripeness decisions, are responsible for the action that imposed the inordinate burden
. on the real property of the property owner, the court shall determine the percentage of
responsibility each such governmental entity bears with respect to the inordinate burden. A
governmental entity may take an interlocutory appeal of the court's determination that the action
of the governmental entity has resulted in an inordinate burden. An interlocutory appeal does not
automatically stay the proceedings; however, the court may stay the proceedings during the
pendency of the interlocutory appeal. If the governmental entity does not prevail in the
interlocutory appeal, the court shall award to the prevailing property owner the costs and a
reasonable attorney fee incurred by the property owner in the interlocutory appeal.
(b) Following its determination of the percentage of responsibility of each governmental entity,
and following the resolution of any interlocutory appeal, the comt shall impanel a jury to
determine the total amount of compensation to the propetty owner for the loss in value due to the
inordinate burden to the real property. The award of compensation shall be determined by
calculating the difference in the fair market value of the real property, as it existed at the time of
the governmental action at issue, as though the owner had the ability to attain the reasonable
investment-backed expectation or was not left with uses that are unreasonable, whichever the
case may be, and the fair market value of the real property, as it existed at the time ofthe
governmental action at issue, as inordinately burdened, considering the settlement offer together
with the ripeness decision, of the govemmental entity or entities. In determining the award of
compensation, consideration may not be given to business damages relative to any development,
activity, or use that the action of the governmental entity or entities, considering the settlement
offer together with the ripeness decision has restricted, limited, or prohibited. The award of
compensation shall include a reasonable award of prejudgment interest from the date the claim
was presented to the governmental entity or entities as provided in subsection (4).
(c) 1. In any action filed pursuant to this section, the property owner is entitled to recover
reasonable costs and attomey fees incurred by the property owner, from the governmental entity
or entities, according to their proportionate share as detennined by the court, from the date of the
filing ofthe circuit court action, if the propetty owner prevails in the action and the court
determines that the settlement offer, including the ripeness decision, of the govemmental entity
or entities did not constitute a bona fide offer to the property owner which reasonably would
have resolved the claim, based upon the knowledge available to the governmental entity or
entities and the property owner during the 90-day-notice period or the 180-day-notice period.
2. In any action filed pursuant to this section, the governmental entity or entities are entitled to
recover reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred by the governmental entity or entities from
the date of the filing ofthe circuit court action, if the governmental entity or entities prevail in
the action and the court determines that the property owner did not accept a bona fide settlement
offer, including the ripeness decision, which reasonably would have resolved the claim fairly to
the property owner if the settlement offer had been accepted by the property owner, based upon
the knowledge available to the governmental entity or entities and the property owner during the
90-day-notice period or the 180-day-notice period.
3. The determination of total reasonable costs and attorney fees pursuant to this paragraph shall
be made by the court and not by the jury. Any proposed settlement offer or any proposed
ripeness decision, except for the final written settlement offer or the final written ripeness
decision, and any negotiations or rejections in regard to the formulation either of the settlement
offer or the ripeness decision, are inadmissible in the subsequent proceeding established by this
section except for the purposes of the determination pursuant to this paragraph.
(d) Within 15 days after the execution of any settlement pursuant to this section, or the issuance
of any judgment pursuant to this section, the governmental entity shall provide a copy of the
settlement or judgment to the Department of Legal Affairs.
(7)(a) The circuit court may enter any orders necessary to effectuate the purposes of this section
and to make final determinations to effectuate relief available under this section.
(b) An award or payment of compensation pursuant to this section shall operate to grant to and
vest in any governmental entity by whom compensation is paid the right, title, and interest in
rights of use for which the compensation has been paid, which rights may become transferable
development rights to be held, sold, or otherwise disposed of by the governmental entity. When
there is an award of compensation, the court shall determine the form and the recipient of the
right, title, and interest, as well as the terms of their acquisition.
(8) This section does not supplant methods agreed to by the parties and lawfully available for
arbitration, mediation, or other forms of alternative dispute resolution, and governmental entities
are encouraged to utilize such methods to augment or facilitate the processes and actions
contemplated by this section.
(9) This section provides a cause of action for governmental actions that may not rise to the
level of a taking under the State Constitution or the United States Constitution. This section may
not necessarily be construed under the case law regarding takings if the governmental action
does not rise to the level of a taking. The provisions of this section are cumulative, and do not
abrogate any other remedy lawfully available, including any remedy lawfully available for
governmental actions that rise to the level of a taking. However, a governmental entity shall not
be liable for compensation for an action of a governmental entity applicable to, or for the loss in
value to, a subject real property more than once.
(1 0) This section does not apply to any actions taken by a governmental entity which relate to
the operation, maintenance, or expansion of transpmtation facilities, and this section does not
affect existing law regarding eminent domain relating to transportation.
( 11) A cause of action may not be commenced under this section if the claim is presented more
than 1 year after a law or regulation is first applied by the governmental entity to the propetty at
issue. If an owner seeks relief from the governmental action through lawfully available
administrative or judicial proceedings, the time for bringing an action under this section is tolled
until the conclusion of such proceedings.
(12) No cause of action exists under this section as to the application of any law enacted on or
before May 11, 1995, or as to the application of any rule, regulation, or ordinance adopted, or
formally noticed for adoption, on or before that date. A subsequent amendment to any such law,
rule, regulation, or ordinance gives rise to a cause of action under this section only to the extent
that the application of the amendatory language imposes an inordinate burden apart from the law,
rule, regulation, or ordinance being amended.
(13) This section does not affect the sovereign immunity of government.
History.-s. 1, ch. 95~181; s. 1, ch. 2006-255.