Agenda2011_0315
AGENDA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
Tuesday, March 15th, 2011 at 6:00 p.m.
Commission Chambers, 800 Seminole Road
1. Call to order and pledge of allegiance.
2. Approval of minutes of the February 15th meeting.
3. Recognition of Visitors.
4. Old Business.
a. ZVAR-2011-01, Donald and Karen Wolfson.– Request for a Variance from Sec. 24-
107(e) (2) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot rear yard setback to seven (7) feet to
allow for the future construction of residential structure on a non conforming lot of record lot
at 1725 Beach Avenue.
5. New Business.
6. Other business not requiring action.
7. Adjournment.
All information related to the item included in this agenda is available for review at the City of
Atlantic Beach Planning and Zoning Department located at 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach,
Florida and may be obtained at this office or by calling (904) 247-5826. Interested parties may
attend the meeting indicated in this notice and state your opinions, or comments regarding the
agenda items may be mailed to the address contained in this agenda. If a person decides to appeal
any decision made by the Community Development Board with respect to any matter considered at
this meeting, he or she will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose, may need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and
evidence upon which any appeal is based. Notice to persons needing special accommodations and
to all hearing impaired persons: In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons
needing special accommodation to participate in this proceeding should contact the City of Atlantic
Beach (904) 247-5800, 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 not later than 5 days
prior to the date of this meeting.
Draft Minutes of the February 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 1 of 4
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The regular meeting of the Community Development Board was convened at 6:03 pm on Tuesday,
February 15, 2011 in the City Hall Commission Chambers, located at 800 Seminole Road in Atlantic
Beach. In attendance were Principal Planner Erika Hall and Community Development Board members
Blaine Adams, Kelly Elmore, Ellen Glasser, Kirk Hansen, Chris Lambertson, Harley Parkes and Brea
Paul.
1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Chris Lambertson called the meeting to order at 6:03 pm.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 16, 2010 MEETING.
MOTION: Ellen Glasser moved to approve the minutes of the November 16, 2010 meeting, as
written. Kirk Hansen offered a second, and the motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. Chairman Lambertson introduced and welcomed new Board
members Kelly Elmore and Brea Paul. He also expressed gratitude for the service of former Board
members Joshua Putterman (4 years) and Lynn Drysdale (8 years). Board member Blaine Adams then
recognized the hard work and dedication of Community Development Director Sonya Doerr.
4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS.
MOTION: Kirk Hansen moved to elect Chris Lambertson as Chair and Ellen Glasser as Vice-Chair
of the Community Development Board for calendar year 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.
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
Draft Minutes of the February 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 2 of 4
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 significance of the 1986/7 annexation of the area
previously known as Seminole Beach to the City of Atlantic Beach (COAB) jurisdiction. Prior to
that event, the parcel was located within the City of Jacksonville (COJ), and such substandard
parcels were allowed to be developed according to COJ regulations, particularly, a ten (10) foot
rear yard setback as opposed to the COAB required twenty (20) foot rear yard setback. Mr.
Wolfson noted that numerous owners of similar nonconforming lots have been granted variances
and allowed to construct residential structures over the years. As the owner of the subject parcel
since 1981, he expressed his desire for the same allowances, and noted that without a variance, a
structure built according to current COAB regulations could be no more than ten (10’) feet deep.
Mr. Wolfson also provided Board members with photos of a recently constructed garage apartment
on the parcel addressed as 1734 Beach Avenue, and explained that he wished to build a similar
structure.
Ms. Hall noted though the 1734 Beach structure was located seven (7) feet from the rear property
line, no variance had been required because the new structure was built in the footprint of a
previously permitted, legal garage apartment.
Ms. Glasser noted Staff had determined that the height of any structure would be limited to twenty-
four-and-one-half (24 ½) feet. She asked what effect a variance might have on the height, to which
Mr. Wolfson replied none, explaining that the height was proportional to the total lot area.
Mr. Lambertson opened the public hearing and invited comments.
Donald Wanstall (1723 Ocean Grove Drive), whose property abuts the southwest corner of the
subject property spoke in opposition to the requested variance and stated that he had also submitted
his opinion via email. He called attention to the standards for approving and denying a variance, in
particular that “nonconforming conditions of adjacent properties shall not be considered” and a
variance “shall not be [granted] for personal comfort, welfare”.
Jo Ann Ruggiero (1725 Ocean Grove Drive), whose property directly abuts the western side of the
subject property, also spoke in opposition to the requested variance and stated she had been told
the lots were substandard and therefore were undevelopable, and thus construction would never
occur on them.
Barbara James (1727 Ocean Grove Drive), whose property directly abuts the western side of the
subject property submitted a letter in opposition to the requested variance to Ms. Ruggiero, who
read the letter to Board members and submitted a copy for the file.
John Laliberte (1729 Ocean Grove Drive), whose property directly abuts the northwest corner of
the subject property submitted a letter in opposition to the requested variance to Board members
via email, and Ms. Hall noted that it too had been added to the file.
Draft Minutes of the February 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 3 of 4
Mr. Wolfson informed Mr. Lambertson that he had two letters in support of his application, the
first being from Ms. Helen Lane (1721 Beach Avenue) and the second being from Robert &
Forrest Parrish (1731 Beach Avenue). Mr. Wolfson read each letter and copies were provided for
the file.
Mr. Lambertson asked if there were others wishing to speak for or against the application, and with
no further comment, he closed the public hearing and opened the floor to Board members. Ms.
Glasser asked, with respect to property taxes, if the substandard lot subject to this request was
billed separately, or together with the Wolfsons’ oceanfront lot. Mr. Wolfson replied that the two
are currently tied together and billed as a single tax parcel, but upon the advice of the COJ
Property Appraiser’s Office, he is in the process of separating them. Ms. Hall confirmed that the
Wolfson property is the only one which has the western nonconforming lot tied to the eastern
oceanfront lot, and that there is a law stating lots separated by a right-of-way are to be taxed
separately.
Mr. Elmore said that the annexation essentially resulted in a “taking” because the
“nonconforming” status was applied after the property owner had closed on that property. At the
time of purchase, the property owner had certain rights and expectations as to what could be done
with the property and due to the annexation and imposition of COAB regulations, those rights
were lost. Mr. Lambertson pointed out that zoning codes and land development regulations
evolve, noting that when the current code became effective in 2002, it was acceptable to divide a
one hundred (100) foot lot into two fifty (50) foot lots, but that was not the case now. Mr. Parkes
noted from some perspectives, all zoning could be viewed as takings. Ms. Glasser acknowledged
the property owner’s right to “reasonable use” of the property, and noted that without a variance,
an accessory structure, occupying up to six hundred (600) square feet of lot area and built to a
maximum height of fifteen (15) feet could be constructed. Mr. Hansen voiced empathy for both
sides and questioned whether “reasonable use” without a variance was amenable to all parties.
Mr. Elmore asked if the applicant was seeking a variance to construct something for personal use,
or if was for future disposal, to which Mr. Wolfson replied he could not rule out future disposal,
but the immediate plan was development. He told the Board that the required separation into a
separate tax parcel would result in significantly higher taxes, and also added that he had been
required to tie the lot into the City’s water & sewer lines at a considerable cost. Mr. Wolfson
emphasized the impact annexation had on such nonconforming lots, and Ms. Glasser asked if there
were specific examples the Board could review. Mr. Wolfson referred to other such
nonconforming lots to the north of his.
Mr. Elmore asked if Mr. Wolfson had considered moving the structure forward, asking for a
reduction of the front yard setback, and stated that he would entertain reducing the front yard to get
more separation in the back. Mr. Lambertson reminded the Board that they could approve a lesser
variance, but a shift or change in location of the requested variance would require due notice,
preventing the Board from acting on such a revision at tonight’s meetin g. Mr. Parkes added that he
would be in favor of such a revised application, noting that a garage typically requires a minimum
depth of twenty-three (23) feet. However, Mr. Adams expressed concerns for safety with a
diminished front yard, and Mr. Lambertson agreed. Mr. Elmore pointed out that there is typically
four (4) to seven (7) feet of unpaved right of way between pavement and private lots in this
vicinity, and Mr. Parkes noted that the subject lot is seventy (70) feet wide, providing sufficient
space for surface parking next to a structure, rather than directly in front of it.
Draft Minutes of the February 15, 2011 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Page 4 of 4
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 Elmore seconded the motion, and Mr.
Lambertson called for discussion. Ms. Glasser said she felt the Board required additional
information regarding the variances granted to, and the development of similar nonconforming lots
also subject to the annexation, and other Board members agreed. Mr. Elmore withdrew his second
and Mr. Adams amended his motion as follows.
MOTION: Blaine Adams moved that the Board defer consideration of ZVAR-2011-01 until the
March 15, 2011, so that Staff could research and provide additional historical information and/or
the applicants could amend their application in the spirit of compromise with adjacent property
owners. Harley Parkes seconded the motion and it passed unanimously, 7-0.
Chairman Lambertson asked Staff to request City Attorney Alan Jensen’s attendance at the March
15, 2011 meeting.
7. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION.
8. ADJOURNMENT. Mr. Lambertson adjourned the meeting at 7:55 pm.
_______________________________________
Chris Lambertson, Chairman
_______________________________________
Attest
AGENDA ITEM 4.a
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT
March 15, 2011 Public Hearing
Zoning Variance, ZVAR-2011-01
To: Community Development Board
From: Planning, Zoning and Community Development Department
City of Atlantic Beach
Date: March 15, 2011
Subject: ZVAR-2011-01
Applicant: Donald and Karen Wolfson,
1725 Beach Avenue.
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 Avenue.
STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION
This item was deferred by the CDB at the February 15, 2011, along with a request from Board
members for additional historic 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. Staff has done exhaustive research, and presents the following in support
of its recommendation for approval, as originally presented in the previous staff report.
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 Lot 4, recorded in O/R Books 6156-2259 and 5600-1703, and otherwise known
as 1850-1852 Beach Avenue.
A compilation of documents related to the Townsend Hawkes variance appeal, regarding a
part of Government Lot 4, recorded in O/R Book 3098-721, and otherwise known as 1772
Beach Avenue.
2
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 recommends approval and also recommends that this variance be granted 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. 24-107(e) (2) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot rear yard setback to
seven (7) feet to allow for the construction of a residential structure on a non conforming lot of
record lot at 1725 Beach Avenue (west side) to run with the title to the property upon finding
(Provide findings of fact similar to the following):
(1) The special conditions and circumstances necessitating this request do not result from the
actions of the applicant.
(2) The substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the
reasonable use of the property.
(3) The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this
Chapter, and the variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental
to the public welfare.
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY THE 1987
ANNEXATION AND DISCUSSIONS OF RELATED MATTERS
1987 MARCH 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 APRIL 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 THE 1987 ANNEXATION
Page 2 of 10
3/2/2011
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 2S,
Range 29E, 50’ x 50’ parcel on the southwest corner of Beach Avenue and 18 th 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]
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY THE 1987 ANNEXATION
Page 3 of 10
3/2/2011
1987 SEPTEMBER 15 – CDB/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 DECEMBER 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]
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY THE 1987 ANNEXATION
Page 4 of 10
3/2/2011
1988 JANUARY 12 – CDB/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 11 lots 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
King 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. King 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 MARCH 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]
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY THE 1987 ANNEXATION
Page 5 of 10
3/2/2011
1989 JANUARY 17 – CDB/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 MARCH 21 – CDB/ITEM C (PG 3) – DEFERRED
Rear Yard Variance by Mark Kredell; Part of Gvmt Lot 4, Fract Sect 9, Twnshp 2S, Rng 29E; a
50’ x 50’ parcel on the southwest corner of 18th 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 APRIL 18 – CDB/ITEM A (PG 1-2) – DENIED, 5-2
Rear Yard Variance by Mark Kredell; Part of Government Lot 4, Section 9, Township 2 South,
Range 29 East; a 50’ x 50’ parcel on the southwest corner of 18th 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.
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY THE 1987 ANNEXATION
Page 6 of 10
3/2/2011
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 SEPTEMBER 19 – CDB/ITEM A (PG 2) – DISCUSSION
Mr. Wolfson expressed concern and questioned the validity of the opinion 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 OCTOBER 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
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY THE 1987 ANNEXATION
Page 7 of 10
3/2/2011
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 FEBRUARY 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 MARCH 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 “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 APRIL 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.
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY THE 1987 ANNEXATION
Page 8 of 10
3/2/2011
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 McCaulie,
Louis MacDonell, Ruth Gregg, John Bass, Samuel T Howie, Kathy Russell, Don Wolfson]
1990 JUNE 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.
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY THE 1987 ANNEXATION
Page 9 of 10
3/2/2011
1991 OCTOBER 15 – CDB/ITEM II (PG 3-4) – DISCUSSION
Invoking “Grandfather” status of property
A general discussion followed regarding an 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 NOVEMBER 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.]
EXCERPTS FROM HISTORIC CDB MINUTES
REGARDING VARIANCES GRANTED FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS IMPACTED BY THE 1987 ANNEXATION
Page 10 of 10
3/2/2011
1993 MARCH 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 – CDB/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 14th and 28th, 1993 would be a good time to meet and it was just before the
regularly scheduled meetings of the Commission in June, 1993.
1994 OCTOBER 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
ATTACHMENT A – KREDELL VARIANCE APPEAL
REGARDING PT GOVT LOT 4, RECD O/R BOOK 6156 -2259, AKA 1850 BEACH AVENUE
REGARDING PT GOVT LOT 4, RECD O/R BOOK 5600 -1703, AKA 1852 BEACH AVENUE
1987 MAY ?? KREDELL APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE TO COAB CDB (NOT FOUND)
1. 1987 MAY 19 COAB CDB MEETING MINUTES
2. 1989 MAY 02 LETTER FROM KREDELL TO COAB CC, STAFF
RE: APPEAL OF CDB DENIAL OF VARIANCE
3. 1989 MAY 05 LETTER FROM COAB CDC ANGERS TO COAB ATTORNEY MULLIS
RE: REQUEST FOR LEGAL OPINION ON BUILDABILITY OF KREDELL LOTS
4. 1989 MAY 08 COAB CC MEETING MINUTES
5. 1989 MAY 22 COAB CC MEETING MINUTES
6. 1989 MAY 31 LETTER FROM COAB ATTORNEY 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 15 STOP WORK ORDER FROM COAB BLDG DEPT TO KREDELL
12. 1989 AUG 21 COAB CC SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
13. 1989 AUG 30 LETTER 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
15. 1989 SEP 05 LETTER FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO COAB CM LEINBACH
RE: ISSUANCE OF KREDELL BUILDING PERMITS
16. 1989 SEP 11 LETTER FROM COAB ATTORNEY ARNOLD TO COAB CM LEINBACH
RE: LEGAL OPINION ON ISSUANCE OF KREDELL BUILDING PERMITS
17. 1989 SEP 20 LETTER FROM COAB CDB CHAIR WOLFSON TO COAB ATTORNEY ARNOLD
RE: ARNOLD LEGAL OPINION ON ISSUANCE OF KREDELL BUILDING PERMITS
yMINUTESOFTHECOMMUNITYbEVELOPMEHTBOARDCITYOFATLANTICBEACHFLORIDAMay191987CITYHALLPresentWGreggMcCaulieChairmanLouisHMacDonellYiceChairmanSamuelTHowieFrankDelaneyDonaldTappinJohnBaesAndReneAngersRecordingSecretaryAndMarkWynneMarkJKredellTerryMcCueTerryParkereonThemeetingwascalledtoorderat700pmChairmanMcCaulieaskedforamotionontheminutesofthemeetingofApril211987MrMacDonellmotionedtoapprovetheminutesaspresentedMrTappinsecondedthemotionwhichcarriedunanimouslyrsswtNEWBUSINESSAApplicationforRearYardVariancefrom20to13Lot7SelvaMarineUnit10B1820NorthSherryDrivebyMarkandGailWynneMrWynnepresentedstatementsofnoobjectionfromthreeofhieimmediateneighborsHestatedthatheplannedtoconstructascreenedenclosureoveranexistingwooddeckinordertokeephieJacuzzifreeofleavesfromthemanytreesintheareaHeaddedthathiecontractorhadalreadyconstructedtheenclosurepriortoobtainingabuildingpermitandthatitisbeingheldattheirfactoryHestatedthatmovingtheJacuzziwouldbeverycostlyendimpracticalduetothelayoutofthehouseMrHowiemotionedtoapprovetheapplicationMrBaassecondedthemotionMrMacDonellfeltthatthiswasaselfcreatedhardshipMrDelaneyfeltthatthetreeswereaspecialconditionofthelandThevotewascalledThemotionforapprovalcarriedfivetotwoMcCaulieandMacDonellvotednoBApplicationfarRearandSideYardVariancePartofGovernmentLot4FractionalSection9Township2SRange29E50x50pareelonthesouthwestcornerofBeachAvenueand18thStreetbyMarkJKredellMrKredellstatedthattheBoardshouldactfavorablyonhieapplicationbecause1theBoardhadruledfavorablyonasimilarlot500fromhispropertyatthepreviousmeeting2iMinimumrearyardsundertheCityofJacksonvilleszoning
regulationsare103thepropertywouldhavebeenalotofrecordinAtlanticBeachsinceitwasrecordedpriortoJuly261982MrDelaneyfeltthiswasadifferentsituationthanthepreviousapplicationinthatMrHollerhadownedhielotsince1943andcouldbeconsideredgrandfatheredinandMrKredellhadonlyownedhispropertysince1986DezmondWaters1835eachAvenuestatedthatthereoncewerecovenantsendrestrictionsthatprovidedforthesesmallparcelstobeusedforparkingMrsAnnRogers1163BeachAvenuepointedoutthatthatareaofBeachAvenuewaspreviouslynamedGarageApproachRoadwayThefollowingresidentsspokeagainsttheapplicationElliotZisser1937BeachAvenueDonWolfson1725BeachAvenuerepresentingtheNorthDuvalBeachesAssociationLisaPelkey1887BeachAvenueSusanSmith1875BeachAvenueSeveralotherresidentsstoodtoshowtheiroppositionMrKredellaskedtheBoardtodeferconsiderationofhisapplicationduetothenegativereactionhehadreceivedandtoallowhimtimetodofurtherresearchandtoallowtheBoardtimetoconsulttheCityAttorneyHelateraddedthatiftheBoardknewexactlywhatcouldbebuiltonthepropertyhewouldrathertheytakeactiontonightMrDelaneyaskedifhewouldrathertheBoardvoteontheapplicationofifhewouldratherwithdrawMrKredellrepliedthathewishedtowithdrawChairmanMcCauliestatedthatunlesstheBoardhadstrongoppositiontheywouldpermithimtowithdrewMrDelaneyandMrsGregghadstrongoppositionsMrMacDonellmotionedtoallowMrKredelltodeferhieapplicationuntiltheCityAttorneycouldbeconsultedThemotiondiedforthelackofasecondMrDelaneymotionedtodenytheapplicationRuthGreggsecondedthemotionMrTappinfeltitwasprematureandunfairnottohonortheapplicantsrequesttowithdrawAfterfurtherdiscussionthevotewascalledThemotiontodenytheapplicationforvariancecarriedunanimouslyCApplicationforUsebyExceptionforRetailSalesofAutomobilesandBoatsendforTemporaryRelieffromtheSepticTankMoratoriumLots1through4Block34SectionH600MayportRoadbyTerryMcCueITerryMcCue1415TreesplitLaneNeptuneBeachstatedthattheproperty102x195wouldbecompletelyfencedandthattheentrancewouldbeonSixthStreetratherthanonMayportRoadHeexplainedthatthecityinformedhimthatifsewerdoes
rexistitisatsdepthofapproximately12whichcouldbeveryccetlyforthecitytolocateMrMacDonellmotionedtorecommendapprovaloftheapplicationforrelieffromtheseptictankmoratoriumprovidedthathehookuptocitysewerwhenitbecomesavailableandtorecommendapprovaloftheapplicationforusebyexceptionsubjecttoaccessbeingfromSixthStreetratherthanMayportRoadthatspecificattentionbepaidtothefindingsoffactatthetimeherequestsapermitandthattheexceptionbeissuedtorirMcCuepersonallyandnotthelandMrHowiesecondedthemotionwhichcarriedunanimouslyDApplicationforaHomeOccupationforanAsbestosConsultingServiceLots34Block127SectionH510OrchidStreetbyTerryParkersonMrParkersonstatedthatonlyclericalworkwouldbeperformedfromthehomeAllsamplesareobtainedonsiteandaretakendirectlytoalaboratoryHeaddedthattherewouldbenosignageandthatapostofficeboxwouldbelistedinthephonebookratherthanthestreetaddressChairmanMcCaulieaskedifMrParkersonhadbeenfurnishedwithacopyofthehomeoccupationregulationsMrParkersonrepliedintheaffirmativeChairmanMcCauliemotionedtorecommendapprovaloftheapplicationMrTappinsecondedthemotionwhichcarriedunanimouslywrwTherebeingnofurtherbusinessbeforetheBoardthemeetingwasadjournedat8s30pmWMcCauieChairman
ATTACHMENT B – HAWKES VARIANCE APPEAL
REGARDING LOT 4, RECD O/R BOOK 3098 -721 ALSO KNOWN AS 1772 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
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 CDB
6. 1992 NOV 17 COAB CDB 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 05 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 CDB 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 CDD WORLEY TO APO TRAGER
RE: CONVEYANCE OF VARIANCE
MINUTESOFTHECOMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTBOARDOFTHECITYOFATLANTICBEACHFLORIDANovember1719927s00PMCITYHALLPRESENTsGreggMcCaulieSamuelHorieRuthGreggDonMolisonRobertFrohreinPatPillaoreMarkMaGoranANDsAlanJensenCityAttorneyGeorgeMorleyIICDDirectorPatHarrisRecordingSecretaryABSENTChairmanGreggMcCauliecalledthemeetingtoorderendaskedforapprovaloftheminutesfromthemeetingofOctober201992UponmotiondulymadeandsecondedsaidminutesrareapprovedOLDBUSINESSIApplicationforVariancefiledbyDorothyendStanJonestoperkamotorhomeinthefrontyardsetbackofpropertylocatedt2051SeminoleRoadStanJonesintroducedhimselftoLheboardandexplainedthereasonstheoriginalVariancewasrequestedHerequestedanextensionofthatoriginalVarianceunt11thecertificateofoccupancyrasissuedforhienerhotBecurrentlyunderconstructionAfterdiscussionMsGreggLovedtoapproveanextensionofsixt6monthsMrHoriesecondedthenotionanditrasapprovedbyevoteof4LIIApplicationforYariancefiledbyJames8erringtonDarbytoconstructacarportrhlchrillencroachthesideyardsetbackonpropertylocatedt350OceanBoulevardMrDarbyintroducedhimselftotheboardandstatedthereasonsavrianaerasrequestedAfterdiscussionMrHoriecovedtoapprovethevariancewiththeconditionthatthestructurebeconstructedrithnonflaamableaaterialsMsGreggsecondedthemotionanditpassedbyavoteof43
NEWHllSINESSIApplicationforVariancefiledbylargaretCressontoencloseanexistingrooddeckrhichrouldencroachetherearyardsetbackrequirementsonpropertylocatedat1821TierraVerdeDr1veNeCressonintroducedherselftotheboardandexplainedthatthevariancexasrequestedtoallorconstructionofascreenedenclosureonanexistingdeckAlterdiscussionofrhetherahardshipexistedendtheimpactonotherpropertiesMsGreggmovedtoapprovethevarlanceasrequestedMrNoriesecondedthemotionThemotionfailedbyavoteof25IIApplicationforVariancefiledbyTheChurchoftheLlwingGodtoconstructanadditiontothechurchrhichr111encroachthesetbackrequirementsonpropertylocatedt390ChurchRcadMrJamesRiversintroducedhimselftotheHoardendexplainedthattheChurchrasrequestingovariancetoaddneededroomforthecongregationAfterdiscussionMsPillsoremovedtoapprovethevarianceKsGreggsecondedthemotionanditrasunanimouslyapprovedIIIApplicationforVariancefiledbyClydeendElizabethAsburytoparkamotorhomeinthefrontsetbackofpropertylocatedat545SeasprayAvenueKrandMraAsburyintroducedthemselvestotheBoardandexplainedthatthewariancerasrequestedtoperwitthemtocontinuetoparkamotorhomeinviolationofthefrontyardsetbackduetohealthproblemsTheChairmanpresentedaletterfromaneighborexpressingapprovalofthevariancerequestKrAsburystatedthatanother14approvalsraresubmittedriththeirapplicationAfterdiscussionMsPillmoremovedtoapprovethevarianceonatemporarybasisuntilsuchtiweasMrAsburycouldnolongeroperatethemotorhomeMrRoriesecondedthemotionThemotionfailedbyavoteof34IVApplicationforVariancetiledby6udronMorrisontoretainascreenedenclosureinviolationoftherearyardsetbackonpropertylocatedt403SeasprayAvenuesLoriHeskethafriendoftheapplicantintroducedherselftotheboardandexplainedthereasonsthevariancerasrequestedReasonsincludedmosquitoinfestationandraccoonsSheexplalnedthatthestructurehadalreadybeenconstructed
aAfterdiscussionMrWolfsonmovedtodenythevarianceMrMcGoransecondedthemotionandiipassedbyavoteof43VApplicationforVariancefiledbyTornaendandVirginiaHarkestoconstructsgarageapartmentonanonconforminglotlocatedat171BeachAvenueMrandMrsTornsendHarkesintroducedthemselvestotheBoardandexplainedthatthevariancerocrequestedtoalloythemtoconstructagarageapartmentona50xSOlotontherestsideofBeachAvenueVariancesareneededforminimumlotsizeendrearyardsetbackAfterdiscussionMrWolfsonmovedtodenythevarianceMrFrohreinsecondedthemotionandthevariancerasdeniedbyavoteof52VIApplicationforPlatRevierbyWilliamMorganforpropertylocatedonthenorthcornerof19thStreetMrWilliamMorganintroducedhimselftctheBoardandexplainedthathedesiredtorapistthepropertyintosixseparatelotsforthepurposeofsellingthemAfterdiscussionMrWolfsonmovedtorecommendthereplottingtotheCityCommissionandtoencouragetheproposeduseofsinglefamilyhomesascellasoneraytrafficonthestreetMsPillmoresecondedthemotionnditrasunanimouslypassedTherebeingnofurtherbusinesstocomebeforetheboardonmotionmadeandsecondedthemeetingrasad3ournedSIGHEIIavATTE57
Page3MinutesFebruary81993Item7Awastakenoutofsequenceandacteduponatthistime7AAppealofvariancedenialbyCommunityDevelopmentBoardtoconstructagarageapartmentonasubstandardlotTownsendHawkesownerGeorgeWorleyCityPlannerreportedTownsendHawkeswastheownerofanoceanfronthomeat1771BeachAvenueanda50x50lotdirectlyacrossBeachAvenueMrHawkesdesiredtoconstructafreestandingbuildingcontainingtwolivingfloorsaboveagaragelevelTheproposedstructurewouldencroachtowithintenfeetoftherearpropertylineTheproposeduseofthebuildingwouldbetheprimaryresidenceforMrHawkesMrWorleystateda50x50lotwasasubstandardlotandrequiredavarianceforanyconstructionthereonInadditionavariancetotherearsetbackrequirementwasalsoneededandthebuildingheightlimitationwasreducedindirectproportiontothereducedsizeofthelotitwasexplainedtheoriginalrequesttoconstructthebuildingwasdeniedbytheCommunityDevelopmentBoardTheBoardfeltthelotshadoriginallybeenplattedtoprovideadditionalparkingfortheoceanfronthomesandnotintendedfortheconstructionofhomesTheBoardalsoexpressedgreatconcernforthepotentialadverseimpactofadditionaltrafficandrestrictionofparkinginthatvicinityHansTanzleralawyerrepresentingMrHawkesreportedTownsendandVirginiaHawkeswishedtosupplementtheirincomewiththerentalpropertyHeexplainedpropertyownersintheareaformerlyknownasSeminoleBeachweretoldpriortotheiragreeingtoannexationthattheirrighttodeveloppropertywouldnotbemorerestrictiveunderAtlanticBeachthanitwasunderJacksonvilleTherearsetbackwouldhavebeenonly10feetwhenthepropertywaspartofJacksonvilleandthestructurecouldhavebeenconstructedAlanJensenCityAttorneyadvisedthatbecauseofthepromisethatwasmadepriortoannexationandthefactthatotherpropertyownersinthatareahadbeengrantedvariancesbasedonsimilarlogicadenialofthisrequestwouldnotbedefensibleincourtNAMEOFCOMMRSMSVYVN
Page4MinutesFebruary81993MotionGrantthreevariancesnecessarytoconstructbuildingon50x50lotlocatedat1771BeachAvenueontheWestsideofBeachAvenueCommissionerwatersfeltitwasunfairtoallowtherequestedstructureheightof27feetonthesubstandardlotashefeltitwouldbedetrimentaltothepeoplelivingbehindtheproposedstructureitwasexplainedtheproposedstructurewouldutilizethesameplansasthehousebehinditCommissionerFletcherwasconcernedwiththeheightofthestructureaswellastheprecedentthestructurewouldsetHeaddedtheCityhadasubstandardzoningcodeforareasonandthatwastolimitthedensityincertainareasMayorGullifordfelttheCommissionshouldbefairandevenhandedHeaddedbeachcommunitiesweredensebynatureSubstituteMotionGrantnecessaryvariancestobuildstructureon50x50lotlocatedat1771BeachAvenueontheWestsideofBeachAvenuewiththeconditionthattheheightofthebuildingbeBaitedto25feetandtherearsetback10feetThequestionwascalledandthevotewas32withCommissionersEdwardsandTuckervotingnayThemotioncarriedItem78wastakenoutofsequenceandacteduponatthistime7BAppealofvariancedenialbyCommunityDevelopmentboardtokeepascreenedenclosureLaurieHeskethGeorgeWorleyreportedGudronMorrisonrepresentedbyLoriHeskethconstructedascreenedenclosureattherearofherhomeat4035easprayAvenueinviolationoftherequiredrearsetbackMsMorrisonappliedforavariancetokeepthestructureasbuiltTheCommunityDevelopmentBoarddiscussedthefactthatnopermitwaspulledandthattheviolationcouldhavebeenavoidedhadthenormalprocessbeenfollowedNAMEOFCOMMRSMSVYVNEdwardsxFletcherTuckerxWatersGullifordEdwardsxFletcherxxTuckerxWatersxxGullifordx