4-21 Agenda PacketCITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday / April 21, 2015 / 6:00 PM
Commission Chambers / 800 Seminole Road
1. Call to Order and Roll Call.
2. Approval of Minutes.
A. Draft minutes of the March 17, 2015 regular meeting of the Community Development Board.
3. Old Business.
4. New Business.
A. 15‐SAFR‐1023 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for plat approval as required by Chapter 24, Article 4 of the Code of Ordinances at RE#
171917‐0000 (aka 363 12th Street).
B. 15‐ZVAR‐1021 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, for a reduction in front yard setback from
25 feet as required by Section 24‐17 “Building Restriction Line” to 24 feet at Selva Marina Unit 1
Block Lot 21 except the southern 4 feet (aka 1320 East Coast Drive).
C. 15‐ZVAR‐1022 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, for an increase in allowable fence height
from 6 feet as required by Section 24‐157(b)(1 and 2)to up to 10 feet at North Atlantic Beach
Unit Number 2 Part of Lot 41 and 25 foot strip of land lying south thereof (aka 1875 Beach
Avenue).
5. Reports.
A. Tree Protection Code Revisions Update.
B. Reschedule of May 19, 2015 Meeting.
C. Community Development Board Member Expansion Discussion.
6. Adjournment.
All information related to the item(s) included in this agenda is available for review at the City of Atlantic
Beach Building and Zoning Department, located at 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, and
may be obtained at this office or by calling (904) 247 ‐5826. Interested parties may attend the meeting
and make comments regarding agenda items, or comments may be mailed to the address
above. Any person wishing to speak to the Community Development Board on any matter at this meeting should
submit a Comment Card located at the entrance to Commission Chambers prior to the start of the meeting.
If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the Community Development Board with respect to
any matter considered at any meeting may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,
including the testimony and evidence upon which any appeal is to be based.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 286.26 of the Florida Statutes, persons
with disabilities needing special accommodations to participate in this meeting should contact the City
not less than five (5) days prior to the date of this meeting at the address or phone number above.
Page 1 of 7
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
March 17, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL.
The meeting was called to order at 6:05 pm. Chair Paul verified that all
board members are present, with the exception of Mr. Stratton and Mrs.
Lanier. Also present was Building and Zoning Director, Jeremy Hubsch;
Zoning Technician, Derek Reeves, and representing the firm Kopelousos,
Bradley & Garrison, P.A. was Mrs. Darcy Galnor.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. Minutes of February 17, 2015
Mr. Parkes motioned to approve the minutes of the February 17th
meeting. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
3. OLD BUSINESS.
None.
4. NEW BUSINESS.
A. 15‐SAFR‐1006 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for plat approval as required by Chapter 24, Article 4 of
the Code of Ordinances at RE#177649‐0000 (aka 201 Mayport Rd)
Staff Report
Mr. Hubsch introduced the item and reminded the board that the city
approved an SPA in the spring of 2014 for Beaches Habitat at 201
Mayport Road near the intersection of Mayport Road and Atlantic
Boulevard, which would feature up to 80 multi‐family units. The
applicants, Beaches Habitat, are moving forward with the project and are
requesting plat approval for the development. Board members may be
familiar with the site as site prep work has been going on for some time.
Page 2 of 7
A site plan was shown comparing what was approved in the SPA and what
is to be platted. The only significant change is the removal of a couple of
buildings in the southwest corner of the development to accommodate a
stormwater facility. Initially they planned on utilizing the area under the
park for stormwater but issues arose that resulted in the plan change.
This change results in a net loss of residential units from 80 to 70.
This item is before the board for a recommendation of approval or denial
to the City Commission.
Mr. Elmore asked for clarification on why so much fill was added to the
site and expressed concerns about visual impacts. Staff responded that
the front doors will face Mayport Road so typical rear yard features such
as A/C units will be on the opposite side and that a 10 foot landscape
buffer will be provided along Mayport Road. This was ensured during the
SPA approval process to avoid negative impacts on Mayport Road.
Applicant Comment
Donna Rex, CEO of Beaches Habitat, responded to the concerns of Mr.
Elmore by stating that there will be walls to hide trash cans and A/C units.
The reason for the fill on property was because after the SPA was
approved, they learned that the information that they had been given
was incorrect and the site had to be reengineered. A short retaining wall
in addition to a fence and landscaping will be added along Mayport Road.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no one wishing to
speak, public comment was closed.
Board Discussion
No further discussion occurred.
Motion
Mr. Parkes motioned to recommend approval of the replat of 201
Mayport Road to the City Commission. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
5. REPORTS.
A. Tree Protection Code Revisions Discussion
Staff Report
Mr. Hubsch introduced the item and reminded the board of previous
discussions on the subject. It was explained that previously decided
recommendations by the board were presented to the City Commission
where they came to the following conclusions. The commission decided
to require a permit any time a protected tree is removed instead of the
Page 3 of 7
board’s recommendation to tie removal to construction. Mrs. Simmons
asked if the commission’s decisions were final. Mr. Hubsch responded
that this was an introduction and the code still needs to be presented
approved. Mr. Parkes expressed a concern of the cost of a permit if a
permit is required for the removal of any protected tree. Mr. Elmore
stated that he did not see the reason to require a permit for any tree
removal when the bulk of the issue is related to construction.
Mrs. Simmons asked if something could be done to address the removal
of trees that are invasive or cause harm to structures. Mr. Hubsch
responded that the code does allow for the removal of trees without
mitigation when they are causing damage or are an immediate threat. Mr.
Elmore asked if the code would clarify the invasive species list.
Mr. Hubsch continued with the commission decisions where they agreed
with the board to eliminate the interior and exterior zones while making
all trees six inches or more protected. The commission decided that it
would be best to charge market rate for Tree Fund mitigation and not do
the recommended $175 per inch.
Mr. Hubsch then began presenting the remaining items that the board
had not decided on at the previous meeting. The first possible code
change was as increase in the mitigation ratio from 1:2 to 1:1 for Live
Oaks and Coastal Oaks. The board was reminded that this was generally
agreed upon by the board at the previous meeting but needed further
detail on the exact species to be included. Mr. Parkes asked if it would be
possible to allow a bonus for doing plantings on site instead of paying into
the Tree Fund.
Mr. Hubsch then mentioned a possible plan brought up by Commissioner
Hill at a City Commission meeting where properties could be given credit
for planting trees on neighboring properties or properties within a certain
distance if they cannot plant on site. This could also include right‐of‐ways.
Mr. Elmore pointed out that Public Works may have issues with plantings
in the right‐of‐ways due to utilities and other issues. Mr. Elmore then
asked what happens if the receiving property wants to remove the tree
later. After further discussion it was decided that such a provision was too
cumbersome to administer over time.
Mr. Hubsch continued his presentation and discussed the desire of the
commission to do more to preserve native trees. Some thoughts in this
included creating a list of preferred native species for planting. Mr. Elmore
agreed that a list would be beneficial in encouraging a diversified canopy
as long as it didn’t require like for like replacement but maybe groupings.
Mr. Hubsch then addressed the outstanding topic of palm tree
replacement and replacement credit from the previous meeting. A list of
Page 4 of 7
preferred species would be created and those species would count for
mitigation credit. Additionally, there is the possibility for palms to replace
other types of trees though this would need to be limited in some way to
prevent only palms used for the mitigation of removed shade trees. He
then presented a list of palm species that have been known to grow in
the area. The list included; Cabbage Palm, Canary Island Date Palm,
European Fan Palm, Pindo Palm, Mexican Fan Palm, Windmill Palm,
California Fan Palm, Chinese Fan Palm, Queen Palm and Sylvester Date
Palm. Mr. Elmore recommended removing the Queen Palm from the list.
Mr. Parkes recommended removing the smaller palms like the European
Fan Palm, Chinese Fan Palm.
The final provision Mr. Hubsch presented would be to have requirements
on arborists and tree removal companies. This would include a list of
requirements for letters from arborists when they give an opinion on a
project and requirements from tree removal companies with penalties in
place. Mrs. Simmons asked if it could be required that a tree removal
permit be posted on the site where the public could see it.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment.
Chris Jorgensen of 92 West 3rd Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that
he is opposed to the ordinance changes because it puts unnecessary
burdens on residents.
John November of 647 Beach Ave, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 stated that he
is the representative speaking on behalf of Atlantic Beach Canopy, a
citizen group presenting their own recommendations. He stated that he
liked the specific lists for Atlantic Beach and felt that the permit costs
should be reduced if a permit is required on all tree removal as the
commission requested. He continued by recommending that special trees
of a certain size should be protected and require a permit anytime similar
to Neptune Beach. He also recommended a registry where residents
could request a tree planting and Tree Fund money could be used to plant
those trees near the properties where the money came from.
With no additional speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Board Discussion
Mr. Parkes declared that he received an email from Mr. November. The
other board members also received that email or a paper copy.
Staff Recommendation 1 (Oak Mitigation Rate)
Page 5 of 7
Mr. Hubsch stated that the board generally agreed to mitigate the
removal of oak trees at a rate of 1:1 at the prior meeting but needed to
lock down the scientific names. Mr. Elmore expressed some regret of
mitigating at 1:1 for all oaks when 1:2 or 1:3 is common. He continued to
say that he could see 1:1 for oaks over 30 inches. Mrs. Simmons asked
about other oaks to add to the list. Mr. Elmore recommended consulting
an outside expert to consult on a list of species that grow in the city. Mrs.
Simmons asked for a list of trees that in between Heritage Trees and
normal smaller trees. Mrs. Simmons asked staff to consult with outside
experts to establish a list species and sizes of trees that are grand but not
necessarily heritage trees and report back at the next meeting.
Staff Recommendation 2 (Palm Mitigation Credit)
Mr. Hubsch outlined the provision that would allow a select list of palms
to be used for credit in mitigation including the mitigation of shade trees.
Mrs. Paul stated that she would like to see palms given more credit
because they are sometimes the more logical solution. Mr. Elmore stated
that he would like to see the limit as high as 40 inches allowed to replace
shade trees. Mrs. Simmons stated that she did not like the idea of an inch
for inch replacement of palms for hardwoods. Mr. Hubsch asked if instead
of just 40 inches allowed for replacement a provision be added for a
percentage of mitigation.
Discussion turned to the list of approved palms that could be used for
mitigation credit. Mrs. Simmons expressed concern over the fact that
some species are not native and must be brought into the area. The list
was as follows with a consensus vote given for each species:
Cabbage Palm Approved
Canary Island Date Palm Approved
European Fan Palm Denied
Pindo Palm Approved
Mexican Fan Palm Approved
Windmill Palm Denied
California Fan Palm Denied
Chinese Fan Palm Denied
Queen Palm Denied
Sylvester Date Palm Approved
Page 6 of 7
Motion
Mr. Elmore motioned to approve the list of palm species, based on the
common name presented which is to be updated with the proper Latin
name, which can be used for mitigation credit. Mr. Parkes seconded the
motion. The motion carried 4‐1 with Mrs. Simmons as the loan dissenter.
Motion
Mr. Elmore motioned to allow approved palms species to be used for the
mitigation of all trees up to 40 inches or 50 percent of total mitigation,
whichever is less. Mr. Parkes seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
General Discussion
Mrs. Simmons addressed some of the issues presented by Mr. November
on behalf of the Atlantic Beach Canopy group. After some discussion the
board decided to continue the position of not addressing boundary trees
as was suggested by the city attorney at a prior meeting. The board then
discussed the permitting process and ways to improve public knowledge.
It was decided that such conversations could be held later after any code
changes take effect since they were more administrative in nature.
Mrs. Simmons then asked why fruit trees had not been addressed in the
discussion up to this point. Mr. Elmore pointed out that most fruit trees
are not of significant size and are more of an understory tree and not
those regulated by the code.
B. Sign Code Revisions Discussion
Staff Report
Mr. Hubsch introduced the item and stated that a recommendation to the
City Commission is desired. In 2002, the city revised the sign code
reducing the height of freestanding signs to 8 feet. At the same time, sign
width was expanded to 12 feet. Existing signs were given 10 years to
come into conformance with these restrictions. This allows property
owners time to recoup their investment in their signs.
Subsequent revisions have moved the date to June 1, 2015. Attempts
were made to sync up with Neptune Beach and their similar code. It is
unclear what Neptune Beach is going to do. The City of Jacksonville has a
similar code for the Mayport corridor that is set to expire in 2018.
Since the initial code change in 2002, the number of nonconforming signs
has reduced from 79 to 54. The code provisions that require a
nonconforming sign to come into compliance were presented. Most of
the change is the result of new businesses.
Page 7 of 7
Staff recommends beginning enforcement on Atlantic Boulevard and
postponing Mayport Road until 2018 to sync up with the City of
Jacksonville. This would also assist staff with enforcement because of the
smaller work load and opportunity to develop a process. Staff also
recommends a grant program to assist property owners with costs.
Additionally, it may be beneficial to create a waiver process to allow
properties with unique circumstances to keep their sign. If it is desired to
extend the date for all signs, it would be helpful if an additional provision
were added that required nonconforming signs to be removed whenever
major changes are made to the property and not just the sign itself.
Board Discussion
Mrs. Simmons asked how the large signs with multiple tenants could be
effectively redesigned. Mr. Elmore stated that shopping centers typically
have a single sign for the overall shopping center and rely on storefront
signage for the smaller tenants.
Mr. Hansen asked about the effectiveness of monument signs over pole
signs and if the requirement would hurt businesses. Mr. Elmore
responded that with today’s technology, signs are not a necessity. Mr.
Elmore then stated that he does not like see issues like these continue to
be put off and that action needs to occur in the whole city. Mr. Hansen
stated that he agrees but would like to see Mayport in line with
Jacksonville. Mr. Parkes agreed but felt both areas should be done at the
same time.
Motion
Mrs. Simmons motioned to recommend that enforcement of
nonconforming height sign regulations begin for Atlantic Boulevard on
June 1, 2015 and that the amortization period be extended for Mayport
Road to sync with the City of Jacksonville in November of 2018 to the City
Commission. Mrs. Paul seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
6. ADJOURNMENT.
Mrs. Paul motioned to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned
at 8:25 pm.
_______________________________________
Brea Paul, Chair
_______________________________________
Attest
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.A
CASE NO 15‐SAFR‐1023
Request for plat approval as required by Chapter 24, Article 4 of the Code of
Ordinances at RE# 171917‐0000 (aka 363 12th Street).
LOCATION 363 12th Street
APPLICANT VASILIOS SIMIEONIDIS
DATE APRIL 13, 2015
STAFF JEREMY HUBSCH, BUILDING AND ZONING DIRECTOR
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicant, Vasilios Simieonidis is the owner of 363 12th Street. The property is a rectangular shaped lot
that is 255 feet deep and varies from 105 to 125 feet wide in the platted Selva Marina Unit 1 neighborhood.
The applicant is requesting to subdivide the property into two buildable lots where one fronts 12th Street
and the second is located behind the first and accessed by a permanent ingress/egress easement. Refer to
the application packet attached for more detail on the site plan.
A division of land that creates two lots can be approved administratively if the conditions of Section 24‐
189(a) are met. However, this division of land does not clearly meet Section 24‐189(a)(2) which states,
“The resultant new lots, comply with the minimum lot area, width and depth, and access requirements of the
applicable zoning district, the comprehensive plan and all other applicable requirements of these land
development regulations.”
The property is located in the RS‐l (residential single‐family, large lot) zoning district. Section 24‐104(d)
requires a minimum lot size of 100 feet deep, 100 feet wide and 10,000 square feet of lot area. The
proposed property division results in two lots that meet all of these requirements.
The first area of concern within Section 24‐189(a)(2) is the access requirement. Section 24‐252(c) Access
to Paved Streets Required states in part, “Every lot, development parcel or new subdivision shall have
access to a paved street dedicated to public use, which has been accepted and maintained by the city.”
Parcel B in the proposed division has no direct access to a paved public street because it is located behind
Parcel A. It is up to the discretion of the City Commission with a recommendation by the Community
Development Board to decide if the permanent ingress/egress easement satisfies this requirement.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan also presents a few issues starting with Goal A.1, which states in
part, “The City shall manage growth and redevelopment in a manner, which results in a pattern of land uses
that: 1) encourages, creates and maintains a healthy and aesthetically pleasing built environment, 2) avoids
blighting influences, 3) preserves and enhances coastal, environmental, natural, historic and cultural
resources, 4) maintains the City’s distinct residential community character…” Objective A.1., Maintaining
Residential Character expands on Goal A.1 in stating that, “The City shall encourage future development and
redevelopment, which 1) retains the exceptionally high quality of life and the predominantly residential
character of the City of Atlantic Beach, 2) provides for the preservation and protection of the dense tree
Page 2 of 2
canopy…” The proposed property subdivision will increase the amount of impervious surface with the
development of two new homes and likely result in the removal of more trees than if the property were
maintained or redeveloped with a single new home. Additionally, the creation of what is effectively a flag
lot where the property is set behind another with only a driveway to the street is out of character with the
surrounding Old Atlantic Beach and Selva Marina neighborhoods. This would mean that the neighbors on
either side of the property would go from abutting one home to two homes.
Per Section 24‐203(c) of the Land Development Regulations, “The Community Development Board shall
make a recommendation to the City Commission to approve the application, deny the application or
approve the application subject to the specific changes based on requirements of these land development
regulations, the comprehensive plan and other conditions which may be unique to the land encompassed
by the proposed plat.”
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.B
CASE NO 15‐ZVAR‐1021
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64 for a reduction in front yard
setback from 35 feet as required by Section 24‐17 “Building Restriction Line” to 24
feet at Selva Marina Unit 1 Lot 21except the southern 4 feet (aka 1320 East Coast
Drive).
LOCATION 1320 EAST COAST DRIVE
APPLICANT MATTHEW RIDDLEBERGER AND MARIA WILKES
DATE APRIL 4, 2015
STAFF DEREK REEVES, ZONING TECHNICIAN
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicants, Matthew Riddleberger and Maria Wilkes are the owners of 1320 East Coast Drive. The
property is a 96 foot by 150 foot lot on the west side of East Coast Drive in the platted Selva Marina Unit 1
neighborhood. The applicants have demolished the house with plans submitted for a new single family
home to be constructed. The applicants are requesting to build the new home 24 feet from the East Coast
Drive property line in attempt to preserve a 20 inch Live Oak in the rear of the lot.
This portion of Selva Marina Unit 1 was platted with a 35 foot Building Restriction Line (BRL) in the front
yard along East Coast Drive. A survey of the property with the 35 foot BRL is attached. A variance is needed
for this plan according to Section 24‐17 “Building Restriction Line”, which states, “Building Restriction Line
shall mean the line(s) extending across the front, sides and/or rear of the property, as depicted on a platted lot
of record. Buildings shall be contained within building restriction lines. Building restriction lines, which may
require greater building setback than the minimum yard requirement of the applicable zoning district, and
which have been recorded upon a final subdivision plat approved and accepted by the city, shall be
enforceable by the city.”
The Live Oak is approximately 27 feet from the south (side) property line and 37 feet from the west (rear)
property line. The applicants are requesting to build 11 feet forward of the BRL. The proposed site plan
(see attached application) shows that this would place the house approximately 16 feet from the base of
the tree. Aerial photographs show the canopy of the tree to be about 40 feet in diameter. The portion of the
house near the tree is one story but has a gable roof, meaning a portion of the canopy will have to be
trimmed. The applicants have stated that they designed the house to preserve the Live Oak. However, the
proposed site plan shows the deepest portion of the house located on the side of the lot with the tree.
Additionally, the use of a gable roof instead of a hip roof will require more trimming of the canopy.
Under current codes for tree removal, the 20 inch Live Oak is only one inch above the threshold of when a
tree could be removed from the interior of the site with no mitigation required. If the tree were removed
today, the required mitigation would be 10 inches. The tree is also not large enough to be considered for
Heritage Tree designation.
Page 2 of 3
ANALYSIS
Section 24‐64(b)(1) provides that “applications for a variance shall be considered on a case‐by‐case basis, and
shall be approved only upon findings of fact that the application is consistent with the definition of a variance
and consistent with the provisions of this section.” According to Section 24‐17, Definitions, “[a] variance shall
mean relief granted from certain terms of this chapter. The relief granted shall be only to the extent as
expressly allowed by this chapter and may be either an allowable exemption from certain provision(s) or a
relaxation of the strict, literal interpretation of certain provision(s). Any relief granted shall be in accordance
with the provisions as set forth in Section 24‐64 of this chapter, and such relief may be subject to conditions as
set forth by the City of Atlantic Beach.”
Section 24‐64(d) provides six distinct grounds for the approval of a variance:
(1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property.
The applicants stated in their application that there is a 50 plus year old Live Oak located in the rear of the
buildable area of the lot that they would like to preserve.
(2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties.
(3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other
properties in the area.
The applicant has stated in their application that the current setback at 35 feet will cause them to cut
down a mature Live Oak that they attempted to design the house to be constructed around. They also
noted that a 24 foot setback would put them in line with their neighbor’s garage. Section 24‐64(g) states
that, surrounding nonconforming structures cannot be used as justification for granting a variance.
(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 consideration.
(6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of
the property.
Page 3 of 3
REQUIRED ACTION
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend approval of 15‐ZVAR‐1021, request
for a reduction in front yard setback from 35 feet as required by Section 24‐17 “Building Restriction Line” to
24 feet at Selva Marina Unit 1 Lot 21except the southern 4 feet (aka 1320 East Coast Drive.), upon finding this
request is consistent with the definition of a variance, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 24‐
64, specifically the grounds for approval delineated in Section 24‐64(d) and as described above.
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 as compared to other
properties in the area.
(4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after
construction of improvements upon the property.
(5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration.
(6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use
of the property.
Or,
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend denial of 15‐ZVAR‐1021, request for
a reduction in front yard setback from 35 feet as required by Section 24‐17 “Building Restriction Line” to 24
feet at Selva Marina Unit 1 Lot 21except the southern 4 feet (aka 1320 East Coast Drive.), upon finding that the
request is either inconsistent with the definition of a variance, or it is not in accordance with the grounds of
approval delineated in Section 24‐64(d), or it is consistent with one or more of the grounds for denial of a
variance, as delineated in Section 24‐64(c), described below.
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 (1) or more of the
following:
(1) Light and air to adjacent properties.
(2) Congestion of streets.
(3) Public safety, including traffic safety, risk of fire, flood, crime or other threats to public safety.
(4) Established property values.
(5) The aesthetic environment of the community.
(6) The natural environment of the community, including environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife
habitat, protected trees, or other significant environmental resources.
(7) The general health, welfare or beauty of the community.
Variances shall not be granted solely for personal comfort or convenience, for relief from financial
circumstances or for relief from situation created by the property owner.
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.C
CASE NO 15‐ZVAR‐1022
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64 for an increase in allowable
fence height from 6 feet as required by Section 24‐157 (b)(1 and 2) to up to 10 feet
at North Atlantic Beach Number 2 Part of Lot 41 and 25 foot strip of land lying
south thereof (aka 1875 Beach Ave).
LOCATION 1875 Beach Avenue
APPLICANT TRACY SYNAN AND ERIC NOTTMEIER
DATE APRIL 9, 2015
STAFF DEREK REEVES, ZONING TECHNICIAN
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicants, Tracy Synan and Eric Nottmeier are the owners of 1875 Beach Avenue. The property is an
oceanfront lot located on the north side of the 18th Street beach access. The applicants would like to
replace an existing nonconforming side yard fence with a new fence similar to the existing fence that is up
to 10 feet tall.
Section 24‐157(a) states in part that, “Issuance of a permit is required for any new or replacement fence or
wall, and all new or replacement fences and walls shall comply with the following provisions. Nonconforming
fences shall not be replaced nonconforming fences.” This provision prohibits staff from administratively
approving a permit for a nonconforming fence. A variance is needed for this plan according to Section 24‐
157(b)(1) which states in part, “Within required side and rear yards, the maximum height of any fence shall
be six (6) feet”.
The genesis for this variance application stems from the approval of a building permit allowing for the
construction of a new fence. The permit requested to replace an existing 6 foot wood stockade fence with a
new 6 foot wood fence that would feature a top rail for stability. The permit was initially denied due to the
proposed height of 6 feet in the front yard where the limit is 4 feet. This was resolved by the applicant with
an email clarifying that the permit was highlighted in error in that only the existing fence shown on the
survey should be highlighted and not the whole property line to the east. The permit was then approved by
staff.
During construction, the building inspector stopped by the site because he was unaware of a permit at the
address and was concerned about work without a permit. Upon speaking with workers at the site, he
learned that there was an approved fence permit, but noticed that the fence was taller than 6 feet. He then
called the Zoning Department and verified his concerns. He then issued a Stop Work Order.
The reason that the permitted replacement fence exceeded 6 feet was because it was placed on top of an
existing wall. At the time of permit approval, staff did not know that the fence would be on top of a wall.
Section 24‐157(b)(2) prohibits the use of any material to elevate a fence above existing grade and
Page 2 of 4
establishes measurement to be from grade. With the wall being used as the mounting point for the wood
fence, height would still be measured from grade and limited to 6 feet in overall height.
The applicant has stated to staff that staff should have been aware that the fence was mounted on top of a
wall if not by a site visit then through common knowledge. City staff must rely on documentation given to
them by applicants in order to determine if a proposed project is compliant with codes. The proposed
fence on the permit stated the fence was to be 6 feet tall. Staff was never told verbally or in writing that the
fence would be constructed on top of a wall and relied on the height of 6 feet as provided.
The existing wall causes the overall height of the fence to be about 8 to 9 feet tall for a portion, but the
applicants have requested up to 10 feet in height because of the topographic variation in the land. Section
24‐157(b)(4) does have a provision that allows fences on property with uneven topography to exceed 6
feet in height. However, this code provision specifically eliminates oceanfront properties. As a result, fences
on oceanfront properties must follow the topography of the lot.
While there was clearly some miscommunication on expectations at the time of permitting, the applicant
agreed to build according to city codes by signing the Building Permit Application which states, “I certify
that no work or installation has commenced prior to the issuance of a permit and that all work will be
performed to meet the standards of all laws regulating construction in this jurisdiction.”
The board heard a similar variance at the 6th Street beach access last year where there were concerns over
safety and security on the property. The circumstances were a little different because the property was on a
corner lot, there were sightline issues, less topographic variation, and it was not immediately adjacent to
the walkway. Ultimately, the board denied the variance.
A second similar variance was heard by the board on Pine Street near the elementary school where the
property owners wanted to build a 6 foot fence on the property line of a corner lot adjacent to a sidewalk
used by kids. This project was also permitted (though greater circumstances existed) and was ultimately
denied by the board and by the City Commission on appeal. The property owner had to remove the fence.
If the applicants wanted to maintain the nonconforming fence, they could have replaced broken slats over
time. This would be repairing a of a nonconforming structure which is allowed by code. The threshold for
allowable repairs under this code section would be the replacement of structural members of the fence
such as posts or horizontal boards that the vertical slats are attached to. Due to the wholesale replacement
of the fence desired by the applicants, a permit is required. It is at the time of permitting that the city has
the opportunity to see the removal of existing nonconforming structures replaced with those that meet
current code, which reflects the desired built environment of the city’s residents. The 6 foot height limit has
been part of the code since at least 1982 when the Land Development Regulations were changed to the
current format.
Page 3 of 4
ANALYSIS
Section 24‐64(b)(1) provides that “applications for a variance shall be considered on a case‐by‐case basis, and
shall be approved only upon findings of fact that the application is consistent with the definition of a variance
and consistent with the provisions of this section.” According to Section 24‐17, Definitions, “[a] variance shall
mean relief granted from certain terms of this chapter. The relief granted shall be only to the extent as
expressly allowed by this chapter and may be either an allowable exemption from certain provision(s) or a
relaxation of the strict, literal interpretation of certain provision(s). Any relief granted shall be in accordance
with the provisions as set forth in Section 24‐64 of this chapter, and such relief may be subject to conditions as
set forth by the City of Atlantic Beach.”
Section 24‐64(d) provides six distinct grounds for the approval of a variance:
(1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property.
The applicants stated in their application that the property has substantial variations in elevations as
evidenced by a retaining wall with a flat top but that varies from 15 feet high to nothing. The applicants
referenced the lower elevation beach access to the south causing the appearance of a taller fence. While
this is true, height is measured from their property and not the beach access. Additionally, the lower
elevation of the beach access should reduce the need for a higher fence because the effective height is
already in excess of 6 feet.
(2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties.
The applicants stated in their application that their property is unique in that it is adjacent a beach access
with a lot of parking that results in a lot of foot traffic along their property and raising safety and security
concerns. The applicants then reference a neighboring property and the height of their fence and a need
for consistency. Section 24‐64(g) states that, surrounding nonconforming structures cannot be used as
justification for granting a variance. It should be noted that the referenced fence was recently permitted
and installed incorrectly and staff is working with the contractor to correct the issue.
(3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other
properties in the area.
The applicants stated in their application that the design of their house allows for easy access to their
front door and children’s’ bedrooms from the beach access. This is a condition that existed when the
property was purchased and experienced by any number of corner lot properties in the city where a door
or window is in close proximity to the side property line.
(4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after
construction of improvements upon the property.
The applicants stated in their application that the code requiring fences to be 6 feet or less is onerous and
presents multiple issues for the property as stated previously. The maximum allowable fence height in the
city has been 6 feet since at least 1982. Additionally, restrictions on the alteration of nonconforming
structures have also existed as code since at least 1982.
(5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration.
(6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of
the property.
Page 4 of 4
REQUIRED ACTION
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend approval of 15‐ZVAR‐1022, request
for an increase in allowable fence height from 6 feet as required by Section 24‐157 (b)(1 and 2) to up to10 feet
at North Atlantic Beach Unit Number 2 Part of Lot 41 and 25 foot strip land lying south thereof (aka 1875
Beach Ave.), upon finding this request is consistent with the definition of a variance, and in accordance with
the provisions of Section 24‐64, specifically the grounds for approval delineated in Section 24‐64(d) and as
described above.
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 as compared to other
properties in the area.
(4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after
construction of improvements upon the property.
(5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration.
(6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use
of the property.
Or,
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend denial of 15‐ZVAR‐1022, request for
an increase in allowable fence height from 6 feet as required by Section 24‐157 (b)(1 and 2) to up to 10 feet at
North Atlantic Beach Unit Number 2 Part of Lot 41 and 25 foot strip land lying south thereof (aka 1875 Beach
Ave.), upon finding that the request is either inconsistent with the definition of a variance, or it is not in
accordance with the grounds of approval delineated in Section 24‐64(d), or it is consistent with one or more of
the grounds for denial of a variance, as delineated in Section 24‐64(c), described below.
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 (1) or more of the
following:
(1) Light and air to adjacent properties.
(2) Congestion of streets.
(3) Public safety, including traffic safety, risk of fire, flood, crime or other threats to public safety.
(4) Established property values.
(5) The aesthetic environment of the community.
(6) The natural environment of the community, including environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife
habitat, protected trees, or other significant environmental resources.
(7) The general health, welfare or beauty of the community.
Variances shall not be granted solely for personal comfort or convenience, for relief from financial
circumstances or for relief from situation created by the property owner.