3-19-13 CDB Agenda Packet
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday | March 19, 2013 | 6:00 pm
Commission Chambers | 800 Seminole Road
Call To Order And Roll Call.
Approval Of Minutes.
CDBminutes_2013_Feb19
Draft minutes of the February 19, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development
Board.
2013_FEB19.PDF
Old Business.
New Business.
ZVAR -13 -00100045
Request for variance from Section 24 -151(b)(1)d, reducing the required rear yard setback
for a detached one -story garage exceeding six hundred (600) square feet in area, from
twenty (20) feet to five (5) feet.
CDBSR_ZVAR -13 -00100045.PDF, EXHIBIT1_PLAT -ABSDA(5 -69)_1913 -
06 -05.PDF, EXHIBIT2_SURVEY.PDF, EXHIBIT3_COMPLIANCE -DETACHED.PDF,
EXHIBIT4_COMPLIANCE -ATTACHED.PDF, APPLICATION_2013 -02 -21.PDF
Reports.
Adjournment.
All information related to the item(s) included in this agenda is available for review at
the City of Atlantic Beach Planning and Zoning Department, located at 800 Seminole
Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida? 32233, and may be obtained at this office or by calling
(904) 247 -5800.? Interested parties may attend the meeting and make comments
regarding agenda items, or comments may be mailed to the address above.? Persons
appealing decision made by the Community Development Board with respect to any
matter considered at this meeting may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
proceedings, including the testimony and evidence upon which any appeal is based, is
made.
Notice to persons needing special accommodations and to all hearing impaired persons:? In
accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons needing special accommodations to
participate in this proceeding should contact the City of Atlantic Beach, 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic
Beach, Florida 32233, or (904) 247-5800, not less than five (5) days prior to the date of this meeting.
1.
2.
A.
Documents:
3.
4.
A.
Documents:
5.
6.
Draft Minutes of the February 19, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 1 of 7
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
February 19, 2012
1. CALL TO ORDER. – 6:00pm
Acting Chair Kirk Hansen verified the presence of a quorum with the attendance of Jason
Burgess, Kelly Elmore, Kirk Hansen, Brea Paul and Patrick Stratton. The meeting was
called to order at 6:00pm. Also present were NS Mayport Liaison and ex-officio board
member Matt Schellhorn, Principal Planner Erika Hall, Building and Zoning Director
Michael Griffin, and City Attorney Alan Jensen. City Commissioner Maria Mark was a
member of the audience. Ms. Hall reported that member Sylvia Simmons was absent
due to a vacation scheduled prior to her appointment to the board, and that member
Harley Parkes was absent due to illness.
A. 2013 ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Mr. Hansen nominated Brea Paul as Chair, and Mr. Burgess seconded the nomination.
Mr. Elmore nominated Kirk Hansen, and with there being no second and no
additional nominations, Mr. Hansen called for a vote. The Board voted unanimously,
5-0, to elect Ms. Paul as Chair of the Community Development Board for calendar
year 2013.
B. 2013 SCHEDULE
Ms. Hall provided board members with a copy of the 2013 schedule of meetings,
application submittal and public hearing notice deadlines. There was no discussion.
2. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES – SEPTEMBER 18, 2012.
Ms. Paul called for a motion to approve the minutes of the September 18, 2012 regular
meeting. Mr. Hansen moved that minutes be approved as written. Mr. Stratton
seconded the motion and it carried by a vote of 5-0.
3. OLD BUSINESS. None.
4. NEW BUSINESS.
A. ZVAR -13-00100043, 698 BEACH AVENUE (Emly Purcell, owner)
(a) Request for a variance from provisions of Section 24-157(b)(1), reducing the
required front setback (east, adjacent to Beach Avenue) from 20.00’ to
13.80’, to replace an existing chain link fence with a 6’-high shadowbox
privacy fence.
Draft Minutes of the February 19, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 2 of 7
(b) Request for a variance from provisions of Section 24-157(c)(1), reducing the
required street side setback (north, adjacent to 7th Street from 10.00’ to
0.00’, to construct a new 6’-high shadowbox privacy fence.
Staff
Report
Ms. Hall presented a brief history of the property and an overview of
current redevelopment activities, as also detailed in her staff report. She
stated that the applicant has requested to construct a six (6) foot high
shadowbox privacy fence around the entire property, and she explained
that, due to the suggested location of two segments of the proposed
fence, the applicant requires variance from two provisions of Section 24-
157.
Segment “A” is proposed to be located within the required front yard,
approximately 13.80’ from the property line. This segment is subject to
Section 24-157(b)(1), which states “within required front yards, the
maximum height of any fence shall be four (4) feet”. Therefore a
variance of 6.2’ is necessary to install the 6’-high fence in the proposed
location.
Ms. Hall noted that the proposed location of Segment “A” was the
previous location of a 4’-high chain link fence. That chain link fence, now
removed, was considered to be in compliance with both the height and
location requirements with Section 24-157 because the Beach Avenue
yard was previously considered the street side yard. However, current
renovations included re-orientation and re-addressing of the existing
non-conforming house which was constructed in 1926, such that it now
fronts onto Beach Avenue.
Segment “B” is proposed to be located directly on the northern property
line, adjacent to 7th Street. This segment is subject to Section 24-
157(c)(1), which states “for corner lots located on rights-of-way that are
fifty (50) feet or less in width, no fence, wall or landscaping exceeding
four (4) feet in height shall be allowed within ten (10) feet of any lot line
which abuts a street”. Therefore a variance of 10’ is necessary to install
the 6’-high fence in the proposed location.
Ms. Hall noted the presence of a substantial topographic depression in
the rear yard of the subject property as the primary rationale for this
variance request, explaining if the fence were constructed in accordance
with Section 24-157(c)(1), it would have an effective height of 5’ or less,
thus compromising the property owners’ privacy in their pool and
outdoor living area. She added that the sidewalk located within the
southern shoulder of the 7th Street right-of-way is a high-use path to the
public beach access at the eastern terminus of the street, just a block
away.
Applicant
Comment
Todd Bosco, Bosco Building Contractors, spoke on behalf of property
owner Emly Purcell. He stated that privacy in the rear yard was the most
Draft Minutes of the February 19, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 3 of 7
pressing concern, and that the depression would serve as on-site
retention.
Public
Comment
Murray Benz (675 Beach Avenue) said she lived directly across Beach
Avenue from the subject property and greatly appreciated the
improvements being made. She added that she understood the property
owners’ concern over privacy due to the inordinate amount of foot traffic
along the 7th Street path during season.
Board
Discussion
[The Board addressed part (b) of the variance request out of order].
Mr. Hansen expressed concern that approval of this variance would set a
precedent, to which Mr. Elmore responded that the nature of the subject
property – the shape and topography of the parcel, the age and non-
conformity of the structure, the proximity to the street – resulted in a
unique set of circumstances unlikely to be matched by future applicants.
Because the variances are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, he did not
feel this was precedent-setting.
Mr. Stratton said he believed the property satisfied the conditions for a
variance, as it met the first condition under grounds for approval
(exceptional topographic conditions). Mr. Hansen agreed.
Mr. Elmore noted that the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and 7th Street
is a high traffic area, he would encourage landscaping outside the fence
to soften the starkness of the proposed 6’-high privacy fence. Mr.
Stratton agreed he would like to see plantings to soften impact of the
fence, but Ms. Paul reminded that if the fence were located directly on
the property line, any landscaping would occur within the public right-of-
way. She cautioned that such landscaping could easily interfere with
passage along the sidewalk in the adjacent right-of-way.
Board members discussed possible approval of a lesser variance - nine (9)
feet instead of the requested ten (10) feet – noting offset could be used
to accommodate landscaping. Mr. Elmore asked if that would be
amenable to the property owner. Ms. Purcell approached the podium
and explained to the Board that she had spent over two million dollars
improving the property, and it should be evident that the fence would be
nicely done.
Mr. Burgess asked Ms. Purcell if a reduced variance of nine (9) feet would
be amenable, to which she replied she would prefer ten (10) feet, but it
was entirely the Board’s decision.
Mr. Stratton then inquired as to the steepness of the slope and how close
it was to the property line. Ms. Hall responded that the depression was
at least one (1) foot and possibly more, and that there was a rapid drop-
off to the south of the property line. Mr. Bosco reiterated the existing
topographic depression was to be utilized to meet storm water
Draft Minutes of the February 19, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 4 of 7
detention/retention facility requirements, and therefore could not be
filled.
Motion Mr. Hansen moved that the Community Development Board approve
ZVAR -13-00100043(b), request for a variance from Section 24-157(c)(1),
reducing the required street side setback (north, adjacent to 7th Street)
from 10.00’ to 0.00’, to construct a new 6’-high shadowbox privacy fence,
finding that the subject property, which is a corner lot surrounded by
streets on three sides, is impacted by a topographic variation that lessens
the property owners’ ability to screen and maintain privacy in
accordance with Section 24-157 within the rear and side yards adjacent
to 7th Street. Mr. Stratton seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously, 5-0.
Board
Discussion
[The Board next addressed part (a) of the variance request.]
Mr. Elmore stated that in contrast to the unique circumstances that
supported approval of a variance for Segment “B”, he saw nothing that
differentiated this front yard from others in the vicinity. While the
existing house has special conditions due to age and proximity to the
street, those same conditions are evident all along Beach Avenue. He
then asked if there was some special need to construct a 6’-high fence in
that location.
Mr. Bosco responded that the main concern was to address the privacy of
the rear yard, where the pool and outdoor living area are located.
However, at this time, no real plans had been developed for this interior
side yard.
Motion Mr. Burgess moved that the Community Development Board deny ZVAR-
13-00100043(a), request for a variance from Section 24-157(b)(1),
reducing the required front setback (east, adjacent to Beach Avenue)
from 20.00’ to 13.80’, to replace an existing chain link fence with a 6’-
high shadowbox privacy fence, finding that the subject property did not
meet any of the specific grounds for approval of a variance as provided in
Section 24-64(d). Mr. Hansen seconded the motion and it carried
unanimously, 5-0.
B. REV-2013-01
Review of Chapter 17 provisions regarding flags
Staff
Report
Mr. Griffin presented the City Commission’s request that the Community
Development Board review Chapter 17 provisions and make a
recommendation as to the regulation of flags. He explained it has been
staff’s interpretation that only US flags are permitted in accordance with
Chapter 17 regulations. He then summarized provisions regarding flags
from several neighboring and nearby jurisdictions, including the City of
Neptune Beach, City of Jacksonville Beach, City of Jacksonville and St
Draft Minutes of the February 19, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 5 of 7
Johns County.
Board
Discussion
Mr. Stratton asked what was driving the request, to which Mr. Griffin
responded that there had been a code enforcement action against a
commercial establishment for flying a non-US flag. Mr. Stratton replied
that he felt anyone should be able to fly a national flag.
Mr. Elmore agreed, so long as the flag was flown on private property in
residential areas; however, in non-residential areas, such a flag could be
perceived as advertising.
Mr. Stratton repeated and asked for confirmation, that according to
current interpretation, the commercial establishment owner would have
been allowed to fly an American flag and would not have been cited, but
because he flew a non-American national flag, he was cited for
advertising. Mr. Stratton then asked what if the intention of the flag was
merely patriotism to country of origin.
Mr. Burgess stated that he was strongly in favor of anyone being able to
fly a national flag other than a US flag, and Mr. Stratton concurred. Mr.
Hansen noted that national flags are often integral to the recognition of
an establishment or product.
Mr. Burgess stated he thought business owners should be allowed to
have at least one additional flag – in addition to a US flag. Ms. Paul
agreed, but said she would like a maximum size defined. Further
discussion regarding the appropriate number and size of flags to be
permitted ensued.
Motion Mr. Elmore moved that the Community Development Board recommend
to the City Commission revision of Chapter 17 provisions regarding flags,
to permit one (1) flag in addition to the already permitted US flag, with a
maximum size of twenty-four (24) square feet. Mr. Burgess seconded the
motion and it carried unanimously, 5-0.
[The Board took a two-minute break from 7:12pm to 7:14pm, at the
request of Mr. Stratton.]
C. REV-2013-02
Review of use-by-exception for used car lots in Commercial General zoning districts,
particularly within the Mayport Corridor
Staff
Report
Mr. Griffin reminded the Board that last spring the City Commission had
placed a moratorium on used car lots in the Commercial General (CG)
zoning district in order to give staff time to evaluate the permitted uses,
uses-by-exception and application review procedures, in order to make
recommendations as to improvements. That moratorium is due to expire
on March 12, 2013.
Draft Minutes of the February 19, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 6 of 7
Mr. Griffin reported that staff has been working to improve
administrative procedures to ensure better compliance with zoning
regulations as well as specific conditions placed upon granted uses-by-
exception. He explained that all such uses shall be monitored to ensure
continued compliance with all requirements related to ingress/egress,
off-street parking, refuse service areas, screening and buffering, as well
as adverse impacts to and compatibility with adjacent properties.
Additionally, those properties located within the areas delineated as the
commercial corridor must also comply with the commercial corridor
development standards.
Mr. Griffin asked the Board to make a recommendation to the City
Commission as to whether or not they felt these measures would
sufficiently address the issue of used car lots and other automotive-
related uses within the Commercial General zone along Mayport Road.
Board
Discussion
Mr. Elmore stated that he believes the use-by-exception process provides
a means to ensure compliance with existing zoning and land
development regulations, and allows additional conditions to be placed
on the approval, as needed. He emphasized that he believes the Board
should recommend complete compliance within 90-120 days of final
approval by the City Commission.
Mr. Griffin responded that failure to comply within the specified time
would not result in code enforcement action, but a return to the City
Commission, which could then act to amend or revoke an approved use-
by-exception.
Motion Mr. Hansen moved that the Community Development Board recommend
to the City Commission no revisions be made to the current list of
permitted uses or uses-by-exception at this time, but that staff be
allowed to implement improved administrative procedures which utilize
more thorough site plan review and compliance monitoring. Mr. Elmore
seconded the motion and it carried unanimously, 5-0.
D. REV-2013-03
Review of proposed revisions to City Code Chapter 8 Floodplain Management
Ordinance as required by the State of Florida for adoption as part of the 2010 Florida
Building Code.
Staff
Report
Mr. Griffin explained that floodplain management regulations consistent
with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) are considered either
technical or administrative. The technical provisions were incorporated
into the 2010 Florida Building Code (FBC) which was adopted on March
15, 2012, while the administrative provisions must be adopted by local
governments and incorporated into municipal codes. The Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established June 3, 2013 as
the date by which Atlantic Beach must adopt said administrative
provisions. That is also the date on which the new flood maps will be
Draft Minutes of the February 19, 2013 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 7 of 7
adopted.
Mr. Griffin said the proposed ordinance is a boilerplate which has been
reviewed and approved by the State of Florida Division of Emergency
Management. Further, he has reviewed the draft and modified it for
consistency with the Atlantic Beach municipal code. He asked the Board
to review the draft and make a recommendation to the City Commission
to adopt.
Board
Discussion
Mr. Elmore asked if the ordinance in any way limited local government’s
authority. Mr. Griffin replied that it did not. He explained that floodplain
management is a federal program in terms of oversight; however, states
have the authority to designate administrative duties.
Motion Mr. Elmore moved that the Community Development Board recommend
adoption of the proposed revisions to City Code Chapter 8 Floodplain
Management Ordinance as required by the State of Florida, finding that
the provisions are consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the
2020 Comprehensive Plan, as adopted; the purpose and intent of
Chapter 24, Land Development Regulations, of the Atlantic Beach
Municipal Code, as adopted; and the 2010 Florida Building Code, as
adopted. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and it carried unanimously,
5-0.
5. REPORTS . None.
6. ADJOURNMENT – 7:25 PM
_______________________________________
Brea Paul, Chair
_______________________________________
Attest
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.A.
CASE NO ZVAR-13-00100045
Request for variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d, reducing the required rear yard
setback for a detached one-story garage exceeding six hundred (600) square feet in
area, from twenty (20) feet to five (5) feet.
LOCATION 356 10TH STREET
APPLICANT PER OLOF & MARITA EZELIUS
DATE MARCH 19, 2013
STAFF ERIKA HALL, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
STAFF COMMENTS
Background
The subject parcel is Lot 25, Block 12 as platted in 1913 as part of the Atlantic Beach Subdivision “A”. (See
Exhibit 1). The parcel maintains original configuration and dimensions, being fifty (5) feet frontage by one
hundred thirty (130) feet depth, for a total area of six thousand five hundred (6,500) square feet. The parcel is
currently zoned Residential Single-Family (RS-2) and has a Future Land Use designation of Residential Low
Density (RL).
FIGURE 1. 356 10th Street location map. Google Earth,
accessed March 4, 2013.
FIGURE 2. 356 10th Street, street view. Google Earth,
accessed March 4, 2013.
Page 2 of 4
The parcel is currently occupied by a two-story, single-family structure constructed in 1975, having a total area
of approximately one thousand five hundred forty-four (1,544) square feet and an on-ground footprint of eight
hundred sixty-four (864) square feet. In addition to the existing single-family structure, a driveway along the
western property line, a sidewalk leading to the back yard, a rear patio, and a pad for an existing storage shed in
the rear yard contribute to the total impervious surface, which is calculated to be approximately one thousand
eight hundred sixteen (1,816) square feet, or about twenty-eight (28) percent of the total lot area. (See Exhibit
2).
As noted in the applicants’ narrative, there is neither a carport nor a garage on the property, and the structure
has a flat-roof design, and thus there is no attic storage space. To accommodate vehicles and remedy lack of
storage space, the applicants are proposing to construct a single-story detached garage measuring thirty-five
(35) feet wide by twenty-five (25) feet deep, for a total area of eight hundred seventy-five (875) square feet in
area. Inclusion of such a garage and reconfiguration of existing driveway, sidewalk and patio spaces would
increase the total impervious surface area to approximately three thousand one hundred ninety-four (3,194)
square feet, would still be slightly below the maximum allowable impervious surface, at just over forty-nine (49)
percent.
TABLE 1. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA COMPARISON
ELEMENT EXISTING PROPOSED
House 882 882
Driveway 532 1,379
Sidewalk 44 29
Patio 190 --
Shed 168 --
Garage/Shower -- 904
TOTAL (SQUARE FEET) 1,816 3,194
TOTAL (PERCENT) 27.98 49.14
Current provisions of the Atlantic Beach Municipal Code regulating accessory structures, particularly single-story
detached garages, are as follows:
• Detached private garages, carports, guest house or guest quarters, not to exceed six hundred (600) square
feet of lot area and fifteen (15) feet in height. Only one (1) detached private garage, carport, guest house or
guest quarters shall be allowed on any single residential lot, and shall be a minimum distance of five (5) feet
from rear and side lot lines. Such detached structures exceeding six hundred (600) square feet of lot area
shall comply with applicable setbacks as established for the principal building. [Section 24-151(b)(1)d]
At eight hundred seventy-five (875) square feet in area, the proposed structure exceeds the maximum allowable
area of a single-story detached garage, and therefore is required to meet the applicable RS-2 rear yard setback
of twenty (20) feet, per Section 24-106(e)(2) and the applicable RS-2 side yard setback of combined fifteen (15)
feet and five (5) feet minimum on either side. However, two large oaks in the rear yard prevent placement of
the accessory structure in compliance with the required twenty (20) foot rear yard setback, while maintaining
the desired footprint. Therefore, the applicant is seeking a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d, reducing the
required rear setback from twenty (20) feet to five (5) feet.
Analysis
Section 24-64(b)(1) provides that “[a]pplications 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
Page 3 of 4
and consistent with the provisions of this section.” Section 24-64(d) provides six distinct grounds for the
approval of a variance:
(1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. There are no exceptional topographic
variations affecting the subject property; therefore this provision is not applicable.
(2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties.
There are no surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the subject property differently or to a
greater extent than nearby properties; therefore this provision is not applicable.
(3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties
in the area. By contemporary standards, it is a reasonable expectation for residential properties to have
either an attached or detached garage for the storage of vehicles and other personal/household goods.
Both attached garages of any size and detached garages with a footprint greater than six hundred (600)
square feet must comply with the required rear and side yard setbacks applicable to the principal structure
within the given zoning district. The applicants have stated that the two aforementioned large oaks located
in the rear yard – and which the applicants would like to preserve – prohibit construction of either an
attached or detached garage with the desired footprint. (See Exhibits 3, 4). At this point, two questions
must be addressed: Do the trees constitute exceptional circumstances, and if so, do these particular trees
prohibit reasonable use of the property.
Regarding the first question, staff refers Board members to the minutes from the August 21, 2007
Community Development Board regular meeting. Similar to the current request, item 5.B. was a request to
construct a nine hundred (900) square foot detached garage. In paragraph four, on page eight of ten, then
Board member Carolyn Woods asked the applicant “would it be possible to attach the garage to the house.
[The applicant] replied that it would not be possible without taking down trees.” In paragraph eight, on the
same page, “Ms. Woods questioned whether trees qualified as exceptional circumstances, to which [then
Community Development Director] Ms. Doerr replied that the Board has generally decided not.” This
particular application for variance was withdrawn by the applicant.
However, this Board may wish to consider and find that trees do qualify as exceptional circumstances.
According to provisions of Chapter 23, Protection of Trees and Native Vegetation, “[p]riority shall be given to
the protection and preservation of existing resources.” [Section 23-1(a)] Further, the stated intent of that
Chapter is “[t]o promote and sustain community values by providing for an aesthetically pleasing
environment where a healthy tree canopy is maintained and regenerated” [Section 23-1(b)(2)]; “[t]o protect
natural systems and avoid impairment of their natural functions including the provision of shade and cooling
on lots and development parcels, sidewalks, streets and other public places” [Section 23-1(b)(3)]; and, “[t]o
encourage protection of healthy trees” [Section 23-1(b)(5)].
Similarly, grounds for denial of a variance include adverse impact upon “[e]stablished property values”
[Section 24-64(c)(4)]; “[t]he aesthetic environment of the community” [Section 24-64(c)(5)]; and “[t]he
natural environment of the community, including environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife habitat,
protected trees, or other significant environmental resources” [Section 24-64(c)(6)]. Thus, it would seem
reasonable to assume that purposeful avoidance of such adverse impacts might be grounds for approval of a
variance.
Regarding the second question, however, it is doubtful that these particular trees prohibit reasonable use of
the property. Reasonable use is the minimum necessary accommodation. In terms of detached garages, it
is established within the Atlantic Beach Municipal Code that a six hundred (600) square-foot, one-story
garage is reasonable when located at least five (5) feet from the rear property line. Additionally, a two-story
detached garage, also with a six hundred (600) square-foot footprint, is deemed reasonable when located at
least ten (10) feet from the rear property line.
Page 4 of 4
(4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after
construction of improvements upon the property. As noted in the applicants’ narrative, staff did find that at
the time of construction of the existing house in 1975, the original zoning ordinance of 1959 was still in
effect. The subject property was zoned as “RA”, and the following provision regarding accessory buildings
was applicable:
o “Accessory buildings or structures, the use of which is incident to the main building, including
private garages, tool rooms, etc., shall be permitted in the rear yard area, shall not be more than
one story in height and shall not cover more than 12 percent of the lot area. Only one such building
shall be permitted on each building site and no part of any accessory building shall be nearer than
five feet to any side or rear lot line.” [Section III-1, General Provisions, page 7; Ordinance No. 90-59-
3]
Application of this provision which was in effect at the time of construction of the existing house would
permit a one-story detached garage up to seven hundred eighty (780) square feet in area, to be located at
least five (5) feet from the rear and side property lines.
It should be noted that there have been numerous revisions to the Zoning Code and Land Development
Regulations over the last 38 years. Each revision requires multiple public hearings with opportunities for
citizens to support or object to changes, including at least one public hearing before this Local Planning
Agency, and then at least two readings and public hearings before the City Commission before adoption into
the Municipal Code of Ordinances.
(5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. The subject property is of regular
rectangular shape; therefore this provision is not applicable.
(6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the
property. The subject property is not of substandard size, but is platted lot of record, with size consistent
with others on the same plat; therefore this provision is not applicable.
ATTACHMENTS
EXHIBIT 1 – Atlantic Beach Subdivision “A” Plat
EXHIBIT 2 – 1989 Survey, Existing Conditions, Impervious Surface Areas & Proposed Location
EXHIBIT 3 – Detached Garage in Compliance, 20-FT Rear Yard Setback
EXHIBIT 4 – Attached Garage in Compliance, 20-FT Rear Yard Setback