11-21-17 Agenda Packet (2)
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday / November 21, 2017 / 6:00 PM
Commission Chambers / 800 Seminole Road
1. Call to Order and Roll Call.
2. Approval of Minutes.
A. Minutes of the October 17, 2017 regular meeting of the Community Development Board.
3. Old Business.
A. ZVAR17‐0007 PUBLIC HEARING (Zachary Crabtree)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to decrease the side yard setback from 10
feet as required by Section III of the Selva Marina Unit 12‐C PUD to 5 feet and decrease the rear
yard setback from 20 feet as required by Section III of the Selva Marina Unit 12‐C PUD to 7 feet, 10
inches to allow a screen enclosure at Selva Marina Unit 12‐C Lot 4 (aka 1865 Live Oak Lane).
4. New Business.
A. ZVAR17‐0008 PUBLIC HEARING (Sarah “Sally” L. Young)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to increase the allowable fence height from
4 feet as required by Section III(D)(4) of the Selva Marina Unit 10‐B PUD to 6 feet at Selva Marina
Unit 10‐B Lot 7 (aka 1820 North Sherry Drive).
B. ZVAR17‐0010 PUBLIC HEARING (Lori Gaglione)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to increase the permitted height of fencing
allowed in front yards from four feet as required by Section 24‐157(b)(1) to a height of six feet at
Lot 1, Block 3, Selva Marina Unit 2 (aka 1505 Selva Marina Drive).
C. ZVAR17‐0009 PUBLIC HEARING (Thomas James Belich Jr.)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, for relief from the Section 24‐88(b)
requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of substantially the same
architectural style, colors, and materials and for relief from the Section 24‐88(c) requirement for
adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed at substantially the same time or in a
continuous sequence to allow the addition of a porch in the rear at Section “H” the west 30 feet of
Lot 3 and the east 10 feet of Lot 4 Block 65 (aka 73 W 10th Street).
5. Reports.
A. Administrative Variances Approved (None)
6. Adjournment.
All information related to the item(s) included in this agenda is available for review online at www.coab.us and at the City of Atlantic
Beach Community Development Department, located at 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233. 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. Please note that all meetings are live streamed and videotaped. The video is
available at www.coab.us.
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 three (3) days prior to the date of this meeting
at the address or phone number above.
Page 1 of 8
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
October 17, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:00pm. All members were present.
Also present were Planner Derek Reeves, Planner Brian Broedell, Board
Secretary Grace Mackey and Mr. John Wallace representing the firm Lewis,
Longman and Walker.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of the July 18th, 2017 Regular Meeting of the Community
Development Board
Ms. Lanier motioned to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Elmore
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
3. OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business.
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. ZVAR17‐0004 PUBLIC HEARING (Nathan Howell)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to decrease
the minimum parking dimensions of nine feet by eighteen feet as
required by Section 24-161(g)(1) to nine feet by thirteen feet in
order to install a fence in the front yard at Ocean Grove Unit One on
the North 54.15 feet of Lot 2, Block 6 (aka 46 Coral Street).
Staff Report
Planner Broedell explained that this variance is a request to reduce the
minimum parking dimensions requirement. The property has an attached
townhome and it is the front unit. The zoning is residential general multi‐
Page 2 of 8
family and future land use designation is residential low density. The
proposed plan is to install a 4 foot fence in the front yard. Because the use
is residential, 2 parking spaces are required and each one needs to be 9
feet wide by 18 feet deep. This request would result in an area for both
parking spaces 19 feet wide by 13 feet deep.
Due to the reduction in the depth of the parking, any cars parked there
would stick out into the right of way. 10 feet of concrete driveway exists
between the property line and edge of street pavement. No side walk
currently exists in this area. Another consideration is that in the code it
states that "except smaller dimensions may be provided for single family
residential lots", it's far more than the 5% administrative variance that
Planner Reeves could approve.
Mr. Stratton requested further explanation of these facts while addressing
them on the overhead screen. There was discussion of the length of
vehicles, green space, etc.
Applicant Comment
Nathan Howell introduced himself as the owner of 46 Coral Street. He
explained that if the fence were to be built he could park 3 cars and they
would go into the right of way but not into the street. He has 2 dogs and
said that this would help with the dogs and any children in the future.
Chair Paul asked if he would be leaving the concrete that is already there
once the fence is installed and the owner said yes.
Public Comment
Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no speakers, public
comment was closed by Chair Paul.
Board Discussion
Ms. Lanier inquired whether the city has plans for sidewalks in this area.
Planner Reeves said there were no plans for sidewalks for this street at this
time. Ms. Lanier asked if there is another way to get to the grassy area
without going onto the wood deck. There was discussion as to whether
there were any other fence design options. After several suggestions
Planner Reeves explained that all of these suggestions would still be in
need of a variance for one of the parking spaces.
The board continued discussing changing the pass through thereby only
affecting one of the parking spots and the common occurrence of parking
in the right of way in Atlantic Beach.
Ms. Lanier asked what was concluded in regards to changing the pass
through. It was clarified that the fence could now run along the deck and
jut out to create a pass through of 42 inch by 42 inch.
Page 3 of 8
Motion
Ms. Lanier made a motion that the board approve ZVAR17‐0004 with
stipulation that from east to west the fence tracks the wooden deck with
the exception of a 42 inch by 42 inch access between the wooden deck and
the grassy area to the east. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The motion
carried unanimously.
B. ZVAR17‐0005 PUBLIC HEARING (Kayla Sim)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, for relief from
the Section 24-88(b) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling
units to be constructed of substantially the same architectural style,
colors, and materials and for relief from the Section 24-88(c)
requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be
constructed at substantially the same time or in a continuous
sequence to allow the addition of an open porch in the rear at
Aquatic Gardens, Lot 17-D (aka 720 Aquatic Drive).
Staff Report
Planner Broedell explained that Agenda Item 4.B is a 2 part variance,
request for relief from Section 24‐88(b) and 24‐88(c) which are part of the
townhome construction and design requirements. 720 Aquatic is the
southernmost unit of a 4 unit townhome building in Aquatic Gardens. The
property is zoned RGM (residential general multi‐family) and the future
land use is residential high density.
The proposed plan is to construct an open porch in the rear of the
townhome. A picture from the applicant shows where posts already exist
so they would be putting a composite aluminum roof over those posts.
There are existing concrete pavers and some are placed over an existing
concrete slab. The proposed porch would only extend over the concrete
slab with the pavers on it.
One part of the need for a variance would be because the proposed
aluminum roof would result in a different architectural style as well as
different materials from the adjoining townhomes for this unit. Also, the
construction of this porch is considered an addition and an expansion of
the existing building footprint which according to Section 24‐88(c)
adjoining townhome dwelling units are required to be constructed in a
continuance sequence unless the existing structure is being renovated
within the same building footprint.
It was noted that this porch, if installed, would meet the setback
requirements for the RGM zoning district.
Page 4 of 8
Mr. Elmore asked if they were adding any other impervious surface and if
so, was it under the 50%. Planner Reeves explained that he hasn’t checked
the impervious surface but because they are covering existing concrete it
wouldn't need to be checked.
Ms. Simmons asked what impact the porch roof would have on the
neighbor immediately to the north. Planner Broedell showed on the
screen how it wouldn't affect any of the neighbors.
Applicant Comment
Kayla Sim introduced herself as the owner of 720 Aquatic Drive. Ronnie
Runyen introduced himself as the general contractor who is assisting the
homeowner with the plan for this variance. Chair Paul asked whether there
was a roof when the homeowner bought the home and the homeowner
acknowledged that there was and it had a leak so it was taken down.
Mr. Stratton asked if a variance is needed to replace an existing roof.
Planner Reeves explained that it was a nonconforming structure in the past
and because they removed it, then you can't go back with it without
approval. The City Attorney acknowledged that this was correct.
The use of different roofing materials was brought up again. Mr. Runyen
explained that the fascia part of the aluminum roof would be the same
color as the fascia on the building itself and the roof slope will not be steep
so there will not be much visibility of the top of the roof. He went on to
say that it is in the back yard and there is a fence. Mr. Reichler questioned
why they were using aluminum instead of shingles. The contractor
explained that it was for durability and cost. There was further discussion
in regards to the materials and the roof pitch.
Public Comment
Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no speakers, public
comment was closed by Chair Paul.
Board Discussion
The board discussed the fact that when the homeowner bought the
property it had a roof on the porch and replacing that roof seems very
reasonable.
Motion
Mr. Stratton made a motion that the board approve ZVAR17‐0005 for the
reason stated in paragraph #4: onerous effect of regulations enacted after
plotting. Ms. Lanier seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
Page 5 of 8
C. ZVAR17‐0007 PUBLIC HEARING (Zachary Crabtree)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to decrease
the side yard setback from 10 feet as required by Section III of the
Selva Marina Unit 12-C PUD to 5 feet and decrease the rear yard
setback from 20 feet as required by Section III of the Selva Marina
Unit 12-C PUD to 7 feet, 10 inches to allow a screen enclosure at
Selva Marina Unit 12-C Lot 4 (aka 1865 Live Oak Lane).
Staff Report
Planner Reeves explained that this variance is a request for a screen
enclosure at 1865 Live Oak Lane in the Selva Marina neighborhood. This is
a planned unit development (PUD) zoning district, Selva Marina Unit 12‐C
with a residential future land use. Planner Reeves pointed out the
neighborhood on the overhead showing the neighborhood and property.
The proposed plan is to construct a screen enclosure over a previously
permitted pool and outdoor kitchen that will be 7 feet 10 inches from the
rear property line and 5 feet from the side property line. The rendering of
the proposed enclosure was shown on the overhead.
Section 3(d) of the PUD text states that "no dwelling, fence, walls,
detached out buildings, enclosed swimming pool or similar structure shall
be located, placed, altered or permitted on any lot in said subdivision
outside the dwelling zone except as in hereafter provided". Planner
Reeves explained while referencing the overhead diagram what was the
dwelling zone (buildable area on lot defined by setbacks), those setbacks
being 20 feet in the front and rear and the sides being 10 feet on both
sides. Enclosed swimming pools (screen enclosures) do not have
additional regulations permitting them to be outside of that dwelling
zone. The variance request is to allow the screen enclosure to be outside
of that dwelling zone.
Planner Reeves explained that there are 11 or 12 PUD's that make up the
blue area that he referenced on the overhead. All of them are pretty much
in the same situation as far as being approved in the late 70's and platted
early 80's. This was around the same time that the city did a massive code
update in 1982 where, in order to keep these as PUD's, George Bull the
developer provided the covenants and restrictions as the governing text
for each of these PUD's. It is specifically stated in the covenants that the
city is to enforce these regulations within the area but that has not always
been recognized by the city. Typically cities do not enforce covenants and
restrictions, those are private restrictions that the HOA or individual
owners are responsible for enforcing, not the cities. Because the city
wasn't always enforcing them it has resulted in a lot of mismatch of
construction in places where they would have applied the cities standard
zoning whether an addition, screen enclosure, etc. In the city zoning code
is Section 24‐151(b)(1)(l) and that allows screen enclosures to be 5 feet
Page 6 of 8
from side property lines. So if applied in this instance they are within those
requirements and would have been approved administratively. But
because we have to enforce these PUD regulations, that is why we are
here today, to allow it to be outside the dwelling zone as defined earlier.
Planner Reeves gave further clarification regarding PUD's as the board had
several questions. There was discussion of the screen enclosures height
and whether it is attached or detached. The screen enclosure height can
be a maximum of 15' because it is listed as an accessory structure.
Applicant Comment
Charles Brown introduced himself as an attorney representing the
applicant. He explained his involvement with this topic and the fact that
most of these covenants and restrictions from the 70's and 80's have
been expired by operation of law. There's a statute called the Marketable
Record Title Act, Chapter 712 Florida Statutes. It's not invoked very often.
It was created back in the 60's and it was used for a portion of 10‐15 years
to eliminate old restrictions. The way it works is when you look at a deed
or snapshot in time, you go back in time 30 years and see if there are any
covenants and restrictions or restrictions as to use (voluntary, not
governmental) by a developer or builder. If there are no restrictions
recorded at that time, you're free and clear of it. If you don't have the
association still operating and if you don't make certain notices under
that statute, those covenants automatically expire and are null and void
as a matter of law by the statute. If you don't catch them (the association)
within a 30 year time, they have to be revived by 51% of all the affected
owners or they're still not impacted. Many of these old covenants are
contrary to current zoning code. We would not be here other than the
road block of these old, ancient covenants. He said the applicant is being
impacted by covenants that are expired.
Chair Paul asked at what point Mr. Brown believes the covenants expired.
He noted that they were notarized on March 28, 1980 and would have
expired after 30 years.
There was lengthy discussion in regards to this new information. The
Board asked Staff whether the city was aware of this and what the city
attorney thought. Planner Reeves did point out that a PUD is public
record whereas covenants and restrictions are private. The city attorney
wasn't able to comment whether it applied to a PUD.
Kerry Varkonda introduced himself as the owner of 1865 Live Oak Lane.
Mr. Varkonda explained that he had met with the city and asked what did
he need to do to get this done and he was told he would need a variance.
So he decided to split the 2 things (the pool and the screen enclosure)
because he wanted to do something with his back yard and if he can't get
Page 7 of 8
the screen enclosure, he'll live with it. That is why he went ahead with
the pool.
When Mr. Varkonda discovered the problem with the PUD he went and
met with Mr. George Bull, Jr. to talk about it. Mr. Bull said there was a
group of 3 members that used to meet to resolve these situations but this
organization was dissolved in 2011. The LLC that was in place to enforce
this is no longer in existence. He offered to and did write a letter to
Planner Reeves explaining all of this.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment. With no speakers, public
comment was closed by Chair Paul.
Board Discussion
The city attorney did explain that there has been discussion of getting rid
of all these PUD's and adopting one comprehensive overlay but that is in
the early stages of development. The Board clarified that if they give the
variance it stands alone and it's not setting precedence.
The Board discussed whether or not the property would be considered to
be in an "exceptional circumstance" because of the adoption of the PUD
as described in this section. Chair Paul brought up the point that she
would have a hard time enforcing something (the PUD) that hasn't been
enforced to date.
Mr. Stratton asked Planner Reeves if this structure that is being proposed
were to be proposed for 8th Street or 9th Street, would it require a
variance. Planner Reeves said no.
Motion
Mr. Elmore made a motion to defer ZVAR17‐0007 with a request for
additional information and clarification on these PUDs in general and the
potential impact of the Marketable Record Title Act. Mr. Recihler
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
D. UBEX17‐0003 PUBLIC HEARING (Eric Luman)
Request for a use-by-exception as permitted by Section 24-
111(c)(3), to allow on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages
in accordance with Chapter 3 of the code at 1237 Mayport Road.
Chair Paul announced that the application had been withdrawn.
Planner Reeves explained that a use‐by‐exception was no longer
needed for the proposed use after the City Commission passed the
ordinance creating the Mayport Business Overlay District.
Page 8 of 8
5. REPORTS
A. Administrative Variances Approved
No Administrative Variances have been approved since the last Community
Development Board Meeting.
B. Automotive Service Station Moratorium Update
Planner Reeves explained that there was some information in the agenda
packet for the board to look at in regards to how to fix the issue of gas
stations, service stations, automotive repair, etc. All the subjects that fall
under the moratorium that was passed a little over a year ago and recently
extended so we can address this. Moving forward, this will be an
ordinance with revised text to the Land Development Regulations and Staff
will come before you with a recommendation with a public hearing and
then move forward to Commission for their public hearings and votes.
The first step we're looking at taking is a public outreach component
including some type of public hearing in early to mid‐November. The
meeting will help us gather some public input to help direct us in our
language before we bring it to the Board. Planner Reeves asked if the
Board would be open to a meeting with the commission. The Board agreed
to meet with the City Commissioners with the condition that there is an
agenda and some direction.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Paul moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:17 p.m. Mr. Elmore
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
_______________________________________
Brea Paul, Chair
_______________________________________
Attest
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 3.A
CASE NO. ZVAR17-0007
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to decrease the side yard
setback from 10 feet as required by Section III of the Selva Marina Unit 12-C
PUD to 5 feet and decrease the rear yard setback from 20 feet as required by
Section III of the Selva Marina Unit 12-C PUD to 7 feet, 10 inches to allow a
screen enclosure at Selva Marina Unit 12-C Lot 4 (aka 1865 Live Oak Lane).
LOCATION 1865 Live Oak Lane
APPLICANT Zachary Crabtree
DATE November 14, 2017
STAFF Derek W. Reeves, Planner
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicant is Zachary Crabtree who is representing the owners of 1865 Live Oak Lane. The property
is zoned PUD in the Selva Marina neighborhood and has an existing single family home. The owners are
building a new outdoor kitchen and pool in the back yard of the property and would like to have that area
covered by screen enclosure that would be 5 feet from the side property lines and 7 feet 10 inches from
the rear property line. A variance is required for the screen enclosure because it does not meet the required
setbacks of the PUD.
This property is part of the Selva Marina Unit 12-C PUD and
plat. The plat includes the southern portion of Hickory Lane,
Dale Lane and the northern portion of Live Oak Lane. The PUD
was approved in 1978 by the Commission and the plat was
approved in 1980 by the Commission. The Covenants and
Restrictions for the PUD, which are usually not enforced by a
municipality, were provided to the City as the PUD’s governing
text. The Covenants do define the City’s enforcement powers in
the PUD. A copy is attached to the end of this report.
Section III(D) of the Covenants states, “No dwelling, fence,
wall, detached outbuilding, enclosed swimming pool or similar
structure shall be located, placed, altered or permitted on any
lot in said subdivision outside of the dwelling zone, except as
hereinafter provided.” The dwelling zone is defined by setbacks
of 20 feet in the front and rear and 10 feet in each side yard.
Outbuildings, fences and pools are granted exceptions with
defined setbacks of 5 feet from side and rear yards in addition
to other requirements, but screen enclosures or enclosed
Page 2 of 4
swimming pools are not. This would mean that they are required to meet the setbacks of the dwelling
zone. The proposed setbacks of a 5 foot side yard and 7 foot 10 inch rear do not meet the setbacks of the
dwelling zone.
When reading the Covenants, there are several references to a Special Advisory Planning Board that is
required to grant approvals in the PUD. However, this board no longer exists and the applicant has
provided a letter from a former member stating the board became inactive in 2011. The Covenants then
defer responsibilities to the City. Just as if a proposed project did not meet the City’s zoning code, it would
have to get a variance, when a proposed project doesn’t meet the requirements of the PUD, it must get a
variance.
Historically, it appears that the City has not always recognized and enforced these Covenants, which has
resulted in a hodgepodge of development in this PUD, and others with similar circumstances. This means
that the City’s normal zoning code was applied. If the City’s normal zoning code was applied to this screen
enclosure, it would be approved administratively as the side and rear yard setbacks are 5 feet for such a
structure. Ultimately, staff would like to explore corrective measures for these PUDs that would address
the nonexistent boards and to make zoning requirements consistent.
November 14, 2017 Update
At the October 17, 2017 meeting of the Community Development Board, a couple of questions were asked of
staff to report back on at the next meeting. The first question was to see the ordinance that created the PUD.
Staff has learned that this PUD, and all of those approved from 1972 when PUDs first were allowed until 1982
when the code was rewritten, was not approved with an ordinance. Most PUDs from this era were zoned to
an appropriate zoning district when the code was rewritten in 1982. A select few PUDs from this era were
allowed to remain as PUDs because of the platting and texts (Covenants and Restrictions) provided. The
attached minutes from the City Commission’s March 24, 1980 show the approval of the plat and Covenants
and Restrictions. It is because of this approval and the recognition of the area as a PUD on the Official Zoning
Map that the City enforces the Covenants and Restrictions. Additionally, and as mentioned earlier, the
Covenants and Restrictions also call out the City’s responsibilities to enforce the regulations.
Another question arose after the applicant’s representative brought the Marketable Record Title Act and its
impact on this property and variance request into the discussion. Several board members asked the City
Attorney and staff for clarity on potential impacts of the act. The City Attorney and staff have reviewed the
act and believe that it has no impact on municipal zoning and only on the privately enforceable Covenants
and Restrictions. It is believed based on the comments of the applicant’s representative, Mr. Brown that he
only meant to say that the neighborhood allowed the Covenants and Restrictions to lapse under the act,
which speaks to the neighborhood’s lack of desire to continue the rules contained within.
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.
(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.
The applicant stated in their application that they are trying to rebuild the outdoor space in the form
of a wood deck that they had before with a new screen enclosure around a patio and pool.
(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 approve ZVAR17-0007, request to
decrease the side yard setback from 10 feet as required by Section III of the Selva Marina Unit 12-C PUD
to 5 feet and decrease the rear yard setback from 20 feet as required by Section III of the Selva Marina
Unit 12-C PUD to 7 feet, 10 inches to allow a screen enclosure at Selva Marina Unit 12-C Lot 4 (aka 1865
Live Oak Lane), 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 below.
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 deny ZVAR17-0007, request to decrease
the side yard setback from 10 feet as required by Section III of the Selva Marina Unit 12-C PUD to 5 feet
and decrease the rear yard setback from 20 feet as required by Section III of the Selva Marina Unit 12-C
PUD to 7 feet, 10 inches to allow a screen enclosure at Selva Marina Unit 12-C Lot 4 (aka 1865 Live Oak
Lane), or it is not 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.
~~kt9~,fl!sL
AITORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW R.R.CRABTREE CHARLES W. BROWN, JR. ZACHARY C. CRABTREE RACHEL R. TAUBE A. M. CRABTREE, JR. (1924-1995) 8777 SAN JOSE BOULEVARD BUIWING A, SUITE 200 JACKSONVIllE, FLORIDA 32217 TELEPHONE (904) 732-9701 TELECOPIER (904) 732-9702
September 25,2017
The City of Atlantic Beach
Planning and Zoning
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
RE: Variance Application
Property -1865 Live Oak Lane, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
Dear Sir or Madaam:
Enclosed please find four (4) copies ofMr. and Mrs. Varkonda's ("Owners") variance
application along with a check in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars and Noll 00
($250.00) for the application fee. Also enclosed within the application itself is the Agent
Authorization Form allowing our office to act on behalf of the Owners. If there is anything else
you may need, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned .
Sincerely Yours,
~rabtre:=
SEP 2 5 2017
SEP 25 2017 APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE City of Atlantic Beach . 800 Seminole Road . Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233-5445
Phone: (904) 247-5800 . FAX (904) 247-5845 . http://www.coab.us
File No. ~ Date ----+'1+--/ ~--+sf--L.., It «.\1--0 OJ1' --'---
1. Applicant's Name -+"'''4-=:......:;~---lo...::.!........lro£~I.L...-'!...!.!<~~~~-=-_~U!LI!L:!!._=...!...-...JU:oaJ(-W~=.,-=t..::!:::::JI~~~
2. Appli~nrsAddre~~~~~__~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5. Current Zoning Classification PtA D
7.
3. Property Location
4. Property Appra iser's Real Estate Nu mber _--'----'--=-"-"__"""--_---"'---''-'-''''''_____________
6. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use designation
Provision from which Variance is requested....:...frJ~:......J:1f...lJ~L~~--..!1~II!....!~~~~~~~~~~=-.£lj~-~~4
S~~.s.
8. Size of Parcel 1 0 X 10 C>
9. Homeowner's A~ociation or Architectural Review Committee approval required for the proposed construction.
DYes ~No (If yes, this must be submitted with any application for a Building Permit.)
10. Statement of facts and site plan related to requested Variance, which demonstrates compliance with Section 24-64 of
the Zoning, Subdivision and Land Development Regulations, a copy of which is attached to this application.
Statement and site plan must clearly describe and depict the Variance that is requested.
11. Provide all of the following information:
a. Proof of ownership (deed or certificate by lawyer or abstract company or title company that verifies
record owner as above). If the applicant is not the owner, a letter of authorization from the owner(s) for
applicant to represent the owner for all purposes related to this application must be provided.
b. Survey and legal description of property for which Variance is sought.
c. Required number of copies: Four (4), except where original plans. photographs or documents larger
than 11 xl'? inches are submitted. Please provide eight (8) copies of any such documents.
d. Application Fee ($250.00)
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IS
CORRECT:
Signature of owner(s) or authorized person if owner's authorization form is attached:
Printed or typed name(s): _~:.t..J.L....!!~~A ~y c.. C -==-=...:....!.....:=£~=z,...... ~¥--~~_=..:..,r ~~+;~~~..:...._______
Signature(s): ~
ADDRESS ~NTACT INFORMATION OF PERSON TO RECEIVE ALL CORRESPONDENCE
REGARDING THIS APPLICAnON
Name: -Zc:...C, bo.v ,/ G C.vJ...Jvee. /UJ....hcee L ac ~) G~O(A.I')1 e.A. .
Mailing Address: 8777 ~m Tt# dlvdy 6(J.~. 4. 5fe.. '2.00, ~.,,; ft, Jl?/7
Phone: 10Y-7j2-'70 ( FAX: 1o¥-7]'l,-12()"'L E-mail ~~~C¥~~e£;YM1 .t:~.
The following paragraph sets forth reasons for which a Variance may be approved. Please check the circumstances that apply to your request and briefly describe in the space provided. (d) Grounds for approval of a Variance. A Variance may be granted, at the discretion of the Community Development Board , for the following reasons . o (I) exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. ______________ o (2) surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties.
o (3) exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in
thearea. ______________________ __________________
~ (4) onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after
construction of improvements upon the property . S« ~.£4G.-... jf
"f) f11 6 ,.......-Z5
o (5) irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration . ______________________
o (6) substandard size of a Lot of Record warranting a Variance in order to provide for the reasonable Use of the
property. ___________________________________________________________
(e) Approval of a Variance. To approve an application for a Variance , the Community Development Board shall find
that the request is in accordance with the preceding terms and provisions of this Section and that the granting of the
Variance will be in harmony with the Purpose and Intent of this Chapter.
(t) Approval of Lesser Variances. The Community Development Board shall have the authority to approve a lesser
Variance than requested if a lesser Variance shall be more appropriately in accord with the terms and provisions of
this Section and with the Purpose and Intent of this Chapter .
(g) Nearby Nonconformity . Nonconforming characteristics of nearby Lands, Structures or Buildings shall not be
grounds for approval of a Variance.
(h) Waiting period for re-submittal. If an application for a Variance is denied by the Community Development Board,
no further action on another application for substantially the same request on the same property shall be accepted for
365 days from the date of denial.
(i) Time period to implement Variance. Unless otherwise stipulated by the Community Development Board , the work
to be performed pursuant to a Variance shall begin within six (6) months from the date of approval of the Variance.
The Community Development Director, upon finding of good cause, may authorize a one time extension not to
exceed an additional six (6) months, beyond which time the Variance shall become null and void.
U) A Variance , which involves the Development of Land, shall be transferable and shall run with the title to the
Property unless otherwise stipulated by the Community Development Board.
or lessen aesthetics of the community.
..r,n",rt ..,,,
Statement of Reasoning for Variance
an introduction, our office has pleasure of representing the of both Mr.
Kevin Varkonda and Mrs. W. Varkonda ("Varkonda"), owners of Property
located at 1865 Live Oak Atlantic Florida ("Property"). The Varkonda's
purchased Property in June of201 After at the Property for five (5)
they that back wooden deck to house was rotten and need of
replacement. to being connected to their house, was a building
structure and could not exceed setback requirements Selva Marina. replace the wooden
deck, a contractor would need to bring the building structure up to current building codes
provided Atlantic Beach. As building structure to brought to code,
Varkonda's to the old wooden to include a paver outdoor kitchen,
pool, and screened enclosure. They hired a local contractor to renderings of their intended
upgrade. drawings are enclosed herein with this application. After the drawings were
created, it became known that Selva Marina has 10 foot requirements rather than
5 foot setbacks allowed by the are not on the
Marina Plat book 37, (attached hereto). upgrades that do
not require a are the outdoor kitchen, the pool, and patio. However, to attach
to
screerled enclosure to the horne, it would need to be within the 10 foot under Selva
If it were not attached to the horne, it would meet requirements 5
there is no way to create this structure without it to the Also
variance application is a copy original survey and building structure
house (wood deck) as as the new survey drawn with the dimensions of
upgraded structure, which would be enclosed by a screen.
Allowing for variance would cause the entire structure to be brought to building
code for two reasons: 1) it would allow the pool to meet the fencing under the
and 2) it would allow the rail to guests, invitees, and the like
staying on paver The variance should be for the following reasons.
The variance will not increase Impervious Surface of Property as it will be
constructed on top of a portion building structure (wood deck) that is already deemed
impervious part of the property. Furthermore, the screened enclosure will not increase or
U,"""L'-''''';''" the minimum Lot Area or or width the Property nor will it affect light
air of the adjacent properties. It will not patterns this area nor will it affect
the surrounding property fact, it should
enhance Property as well as the n
Therefore, due to the onerous effects of the regulations enacted since the wooden deck connected to the home is now needed to be reconstructed, improved, and brought up to the current buildings code, it is necessary that the Varkonda's obtain a variance to allow for the entire new building structure deck, pool, outdoor kitchen, and screened enclosure to encroach into the setback requirements under Selva Marina PUD. While the screened enclosure was not present prior to this new improvement, it is necessary to carry out the same intent of the prior building structure. The pool and outdoor kitchen are already permitted structures and do not need the variance, but when creating the fencing surrounding the pool and the necessary guard rails to protect the patrons on the deck per Atlantic Beach's building codes, the screened enclosure allows for the entire proposals attached to fully comply with any and all requirements of Atlantic Beach and Selva Marina. Thank you for your time in this matter and if you need
anything further, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely Yours,
: hary c. Crabtree, Esq. ~
Property Appraiser -Property Details Page 1 of2 VARKONDA KERRY G 1865 LIVE OAK LN ATLANTIC BEACH, FL 32233 Primary Site Address 1865 LIVE OAK LN Atlantic Beach FL 32233 Official Reqnd Book/Page 15983-01763 Tile # 9409 VARKONDA SUZANNE W 1865 LIVE OAK IN Detail description see section below
The sale of this property may result in higher property taxes. For more information go
to Save Our Homes and our Property Tax Estimator. 'In Progress' property values,
exemptions and other supporting information on this page are part of the working tax
roll and are subject to change. Certified values listed in the Value Summary are those
certified in October, but may include any official changes made after certification
6126/2017
Learn how the Property Appraiser's Office values property.
Taxable Values and Exemptions -In Progress
If there are no exemptions applicable to a taxing authority, the Taxable Value is the same as the Assessed Value listed above in the Value
Summary box.
County/Municipal Taxable Value
(ls.s.~.S~d.'y~.I.u.~...............................................~~.3..I.~~?~:g9.
Homestead
Homestead Banding 196.031(1)(b) (HB)
SJRWMD/FIND Taxable Value School Taxable Value
Taxable Value $381,370.00 Taxable Value $381,370.00
~~~~~.d.Ya..I.u.~.............................................J~~.1.!.3.!9.:g.o.
Homestead Banding 196.031(1)(b) (HB)
Assessed Value
Taxable Value $406,370.00
!442Q-Ql!;l14 3/7/2008
10/16/1998
4/22/1987
9/15/1980
4/4/1980
WD -Warranty Deed
$158,000.00 WD -Warranty Deed
$17,500.00 WD -Warranty Deed
$100,000.00 WD -Warranty Deed
Unqualified
Unqualified
lengthFeature Description Bldg.
Fireplace Prefab 0
00Deck WoodenDKWR22
912Deck WoodenDKWR23
12 9COvered Patio4 CVPR2
land &. legal
Land
Land land
APUO
land
IN CmtI Use Description ValueUnits !In
0100 RES lD 3-7 UNITS PER $180,000.001.00 Lot AC
Buildings
Building 1
Building 1 Site Address
Code Detail
1865 LIVE OAK IN Unit
Element
8 8 Horizontal LapExterior WallAtlantic Beach Fl 32233
3 3 Gable or Hip Roof Struct
http://apps.coj .netiP A 0 _PropertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE= 172020 141 0
Total Units
1.00
800.00
108.00
108.00
Value
$552.00
$3,432.00
$<163.00
$389.00
37-29 09-2S-29E
SELVA MARINA UNIT 12-C2 REPLAT
3 LOT'!
Property Appraiser Property Details 2 2 0102 5FR 2 STORY 1981 ROOfing Cover 3 3 Asph/Comp 51'111g Interior Wall 5 5 Drywall Int Flooring 12 12 Hardwood Int Flooring 15 15 Quar/Hrd Tile Heating Fuel 'I " Electric Heating Type 'I 4 Forced-Ducted Air Cond 3 3 central Element Code Stories 2.000 Finished 1162 Bedrooms 3.000 '120Garage Baths 2.500 Base Area 426 Rooms I Units 1.000 Finished upper '10story 1
Finished Open '10Porch
Deck 125
finished upper 57story 1
Finished Open 25 0 8Porch
Unlin Open 60 0 12Porch
Finished Open 60 a 18Porch
Finished upper 2425 25story 1
finished Open 2S a 8Porch
Total 3759 2872 3135
Property Record Card (PRC)
The PRe accessed below reflects property details and values at the time of Tax Roll Certification in October of the year listed.
2016
• To obtain a historic Property Record Card (PRe) from the Property Appraiser's Office, submit your request here:
More Information
~I Parcel Tax Record I ~I Map this prooerty on Google Maps I City Fees Record
_PropertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE= 172020 141 0 6/2612017http://apps.coj
Doc # 2012134773, OR BK 15983 1763o at 01:01 ,Number: 2, Recorded PM, JIM FULLER CLERK CIRCUIT COURT DUVAL COUNTY RECORDING DEED DOC ST .00 File Number: PVTU360
Warranty Deed
This Warranty Deed made this 22nd day of June, 2012, between AJan T. Ennis and Denise Ennis, alkla Denise
Alfirevic, busband and wife whose post office address is 191 12th Street, Atlantic Beach. FL 32233. grantor, and Kerry
G. Varkonda and Suzanne W. Varkonda, busband and wife whose post office address is 1865 Live Oak Lane, Atlantic
Beacb, FL 32233, grantee:
(Whenever used herein the lerms "grantor" and '·.,....,"'Ie".. include al! the parties 10 this instrument and the heirs, legal representalives, and
assigns of individuals, and the successors and of corporations, lrusts and trustees)
Witnesseth, that said gran lor, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN AND NOli 00 DOLLARS ($ 10.00) and other
good and valuable considerations to said grantor in hand paid by said grantee, the receipt whereof is acknowledged,
has granted, bargained, and sold to the said grantee, and grantee's heirs and forever, the following described land,
situate, lying and being in Duval County, Florida, to-wit:
Lot 4, Selva Marina Unit No. 12-C Replat, according to tbe map or plat thereof, as recorded In Plat Book 37,
Page(s) 29, of tbe Public Reeords of Duval County. Florida.
Parcel Identification Number: 1720201410
Together with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in appertaining.
To Have and to Hold, the same in fee simple forever.
SUBJECT TO covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements of record and taxes for the current year.
And the grantor hereby covenants with said grantee that the grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee that the
grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that the grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said
land and will defend the same the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever; and that said land is free of all
encumbrances, except as specified herein.
Warrant}' fHed • Page I
OR BK 15983 PAGE 1764 In Witness Wbereof. grantor has hereunto set grantor's hand and sea) the and year first above written. sealed anlt 4elivered in our presence: Ruth K. McDonald
Witness 2 Printed Name
State of Plo t:d.dA
County of Sf JOhns
The instrument was acknowledged before me this JJrtd day of .~U f1 , ,
Alan T. and Denise Ennis, busband and wife, who are personal~irnown to me or c51) have pr(~duloed
A VALlDa-DW\l-F.WStftS~~fication.
FMh K. McDonald
COMMISSION #EE19837!i
EXPIRES: MAt 27,2016
www.MRor;NofARY.com
Printed Name: K. McDonald
My Commission J..,/I"JU ... ".
WlfFran/y Dwi Page 1
~ ... -' 1-_.................... 0
""",,_00_001:100"'''''''' ~~~~3~§~gi:~~~ ~ ~ OOOONON-G-O~OOO"-~oaeo~o.-eoo-. ~ : ~ g~~*:;~~:~:::~:::a:~~:~:::~i ... ~ -N ........ ~...... a>O_N ... ,. ... ~...... a>O_N..,,. .......... CIo __________ NNNNNN~NN
2 ..LOi ..LJ'o~
.i5ova ~z 3!)NVCJ ',..1.1..11050 Z
-.-
"
~ ." '~ ". -"I: ~ ~[j] ~ ~
'" i> = ~ -
."'"6 _
" L~'
.L"y~ ,"Z ~DNrn:J •nu>os z.:
dln"N;.o.L •Of .J.CT'7 -,-/lOP 30 .J.t1Vd
.iN»Hd07./I~ 31:trI.JJ"I;t O~Ol::fd
:.: ...... ___ >--I-"'~~";::': o ........... eo I-~ ~i~~~ ~ ;I!~l; ~ . 1-....1<:0 I-..... _ ""::::0'" 01-_-0 o-co .... ., ... 0> -ceo .... XCI a> ... x ........ "" ..... -a.. ... o .... ... ..:0 .... 0 ...... . )-0 ...... .., >""I"'''' ,.. co ::~~~~ ~ ~ K ~ / ! ~!i!i i, ~i;~~~~ ;;;;~~~: ~;;;; ............ 01-.1-"':z::"'''''' z~ --.~o~ ... ....II-CO ~i!i -~ ::; :l ~ z u -0 .; ~~ L 0 ;:~,:"~;;!cl-:;oa: ... ~~~ i~~~g_~~;~~~~~~ ;::g§~;~;§§E~; :;-~~..... : :~~:;E:~~~~:~~~ ::::0 co u ~ ::!~~~~~8~~ ~ t.Ji~.:$¥iW ... ;~=: ._;;;:I-:=~:;;~:O =:; E8;:;:;:;::8$88~ I~~i~i;~i~~!i~; ~;=::'~::::L:-~-_ ~ ~ r:iR~f<iR~(:\:Q~~~~E~~S~;~~~35~ :=~~::~5:2:~~~:~ co u ~~~~~lf;;;~~ o ~ ~ 4 ~:~;~~a~~:=::~:; I:: :i~~IIi~:i!== oQK~;:::g~~~~~~:~: ~ 888888888ex: _:::::~~:~:~"::::~~::i~: : ~ ~ss~s~5i;d:Q\.,) 0 I-e~~;::~:~;=-~~~~ ~ ~ d ~ §§~~~gi~;~~~~~§ 2 0 >l-f-Z
2 J
:l a
<t U ~~ z .J
ii g
4 :)
2:0
4 -~Q
) I.J w U
\Il <l
l1J _u ~~
QQ K 0 ~ o ~
_uo
~IO
~~o z \J ~o
2 f=
~~
o _~~2 rZ~
><1
~oCi .J K~_ ~t
~ ~ ~
0
III
WLLC(a
<l >I 3/1JtfO '\.d. /\t1t13Ht;; HJ...tJON
L _____~--~_'\
II A'} / Ia 7~,j;,... ..., v /
..s,:0>-/.......... -7
r ~ I ZZ.---~ -~!.\
~'.Lo..., I "I .Lo...,
~ 1Pl=~~~:;;g~~ ~ :!~wllilli~s~~ ~
...J a. LU a: u,
N-
d z
r-
Z
::l
«
z
a:
<X
~
property is not to any valid assocIatIon
and restrictions, and the property is not subject to association dues which are obligated to
us as the property owners.
By:__--.£----'I
Affidavit :seo'temtoer __, 2017 zonlmg section
Homeowners Association Affidavit following
No.: 172020-1410
Property Address: 1865 Live Oak Lane, Atlantic Beach, Florida
To whom it may concern:
I, Kerry G. Varkonda and Suzanne W. Varkonda, hereby certify that that the above
By:
State of
County of Duval
The foregoing of September,
by W. Varkonda, husband and wife, who produced a driver's
license as identification and took an oath.
COLLEEN A. KEELING
Commission 1# FF 074450
Expires December 7, 2011I!on4ed _ Trar Fain __~!OI9
Seotem!oer --s:----' 2017 Ownership Affidavit Department, zoning section RE: Ownership Affidavit for following site location:
1 Live Oak Lane, Atlantic Beach, 32233
Parcel No.: 172020-1410
whom it may concern:
I, Kerry Varkonda and W. Varkonda, that we are the Owners
of the property described above in connection with filing application(s) for a variance to allow
for a to be within Selva rear yard setback
requirements submitted to the Atlantic Beach .Planning and ., DeP ..""emnt./1.<uartm
~.
of Florida
County of Duval
"-~~
foregoing instrument was acknowledged me this _~_
O. Varkonda and Suzanne W. Varkonda, husband and wife, who produced a
day of ......'"''''''''
HU"",.... <VU and an oath.
COLLEEN A. KEELING
Commission # FF 074450
December 7. 2017
AUTHORIZATION FORM
To: City of Atlantic Beach, and any agents and representatives Re: Property Owner -Kerry G. Varkonda and Suzanne W. Varkonda RE No.: 172020-1410 Property Address: 1865 Live Oak Lane, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
We, the undersigned, hereby authorize any agents or representative of The City of
Atlantic Beach, to furnish all documents and information relating to the above mentioned
property and inquires made thereofto the following attorney and any members of his office and
staff:
Zachary C. Crabtree, Esquire
Crabtree Law Group, P.A.
8777 San Jose Blvd., Bldg. A, Ste. 200
Jacksonville, Florida 32217
We further authorize The City of Atlantic Beach to allow Mr. Crabtree and any members
of his office and staff to act on my behalf as it relates to the property, including but not limited to
the filing of an application for a variance .
The authorization for release of this information includes telephonic communication.
A photostatic copy of this authorization shall be considered as effective and valid as the
original.
This authorization shall be effective for a period of twelve (12) months from the date
below.
#: 3, July
Attn: Mr.
Covenants and Restrictions, etc. -Selva Marina Unit No.
l{e-l{eCOra Vol 5109 -102
Dear Mr. h.'t:>",uoc
was of
Development Corporation, March of 1980. The document various
covenants and 1''''''M'"Y,~"rw'c aSS~OCl.at€:a with No.
is to notify you
at time. The
r.",'n::lnta and Restrictions document also became inactive at that time.
I
George Bull, Jr.
----------------------~...--.~-.....~...~.......
S 00"24 '53" [
TWO STOR Y
FRAME
POSlED K186 ~;
"-:
MAP SHOWING BOUNDARY SURVEY OF LOT 4, SELVA MARINA UNIT No. 12-C REPLAT, AS RECORDED IN PLA T BOOK 3 7.
PACE 29 , OF TII[ CURRCNT puauc RECORDS OF DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA
CERTIfiED TO
KERRY VARK ONOA & SU ZANNE VARKONDA
TRUS 1Ll N MORTGAG£
PONTE veDRA TITLE , LLC
CH ICAGO n TLE INSURAN CE COMPANY
LE GEN D
t"'!tc: .. POIIit r 01 .'IIltS
."...,..IIJII(
f'ICC .. IICIIIfOlCCMJlllDWCl
"""'"""'" .. <J:II.;C!I'flt
E9 TITLE, L.L.\...I---+---------l
LIVE OA K LANE {(lO'~'or_y, N 00"24'53" w
N 00'19'55" W
0' w a:
::> ~VI ... «
"' w a:' ~ ~'-"
8 "N g ~
-(1)
LOT .3
~
~. en;" 0 o · · co ~ !" ", (1)
110 CO
"' VI
90.00'
89.97'
L(lT
90.06'
90 00'
( PLAT )
(MEASURED)
0' w a: ::> VI ~ « I-w "':
~ri
irJ
~8 en
LOI 5
w
;-.. . w
0 '" . 0 Ill · '" ,n en cr.
CO ""
Z Z
.1
(MEASURED)
(PLAT)
TWO STORY
FRAME
POSTED
MAP SHOWING BOUNDARY SURVEY OF
LOT 4, SELVA MARINA UNIT No. 12-C REPLAT, AS RECORDED II~ PLAT BOOI( 37,
PAGE 29, OF THE CURRENT PUBLIC RECORDS OF DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA.
CERTIFIED TO:
I<ERRY VARI<ONDA & SUZANNE VARI<ONDA
mUSILINE MORTGAGE
PONTE VEDRA TITLE, LLC
CHICAGO TillE INSURMICE COMPANY
LIVE OAI< LANE
(GO' r.:rm or IYA~)
N OO'2'~'53" \'I 90.00' (PLAT)
N 00"19'55" W
89.97' (MEASURED) pc
-
DO.CO· (PLAT)::!I 110.71' (IJrASUnW)---::J~!lIII!!I!I!iiili!;----::~r_----~------~_:----~~,~=-~--~-o
~~O.~,'~--~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~--~··~··~·..~--~=-=T·~·-=--==~r-==-=~~~.==~~~.~;=~.~~---
S 00"19'41" E 90,06' (MEASURED) 0.)'
S 00'24'53" [ 90.00' (PLAT)
:r.C1l0~1 o. 10"M I$1I11" 2 :iO'JlIf. r?AlICE 20 I:'\~T
LEGEND:
... ~1 1/2-ntQ...n
~u."p,o PSlIIG140
• roolln In' nOli PIP(
1:0 IO[1I1lf'r..AnOlI
V:ILE~ OIH[R\llSE 1101(0)
04-.4-COIiCR[1C 1I0J'UIJr.m
.. A!:~ ca:oanO."IElt
" rtllCC
d -
PC _
1'1 ...
POCill or CurtV.\1\JAC
POUT or TN'C!I.C"1
rOle ... PCltU or nLv[R5(
C~'1VM\Jnc
rcc -r(;lUl or CC\1l'OU','Q
CU~VA'\);;LG A com:lI(1F.
R[VlSIONSRay Tlionipson
SURVEYING, Inc. OO\lE OESCRIPnON
IGuinn '''~ DISTANCE (or Youl
·Hi13 FIo,ipo 1'lIaloway, :',1111" 210
J,'cl ";oll~illc . r-IOIid" :lnO'f
(Phune) !lO'\-oI,IO·5125
PONTE V;~TITLE, L.L.C.I---+-----:----1
''----~
(r-ax) 90~-1·\0·5173
JOB II 21118 DA TE OF FIELD SURVEY:
ES: "O"" "'OZ" r:AnuIGS ME UASCO 0.'4 lH( _.rJ~ m:,\Jur,G or __ .L'-. ... ~ _._-
.Olle nl: 1l0011111ru.Y DOIJIIONlY ullr Oi' ~O,"'CI I'All(;{L. r ClIIIPIIIC I'LOT1lIlC ONLY lIIE CAI'110NED u\NOS LIE I',mlll' FLOOD ZO:-;E
___~___ AS SIlOI',~1 Oil TIlE IIA1101lo\L FlOOD IIISURANCE IJIIP,
'.TEO: APil1L 17, 109D, CClmUlmy /;UI,\OE/!: 120075 PANEL JlIlOLll '
115 SUi'I\,('( n[HEC1S ALL [ASEUEIHS & RIGHT OF I'IAY AS pm uCConOED
.AT olt/OIl 1I1l£ CO"'JI1IJDlT I, SUPPUED. UNLESS 01HERI',1SE STATtO, 110
11IEn lllLE 'J1:RI,IC"l1Q11 liAS eEEU PERFORUED IlY 111£ UlIOER5ICNED,
115 SUiWt:Y IS IIOT VAUO 1',lTIlC\Jl IIJI {,UTlIWlICATEO ELEcmellle SlGIIA1UR£
'ID .\UllIENTlCA1EO ELECIROIIiC SEAl.
6-20-2012
LAND SURVEYS o CONSTRUC~ON SURVEYS
SCALE: 1" = 20'
1
n.~'
1/1865
2~.I'7-7"'.--.;;,,:,,:,'-------' ---Zl.~'---
I.OT 4
0
w a:: =>
Ul .......
<l;t
w'"~1t
"'-J' '-' nO O>~
·0
0)0
0)
LOT 5
w
Z Z
MAP SHOWING BOUNDARY SURVE Y OF '.IH ". ');nVA MAI1itJ " 1)t.Jl r u n 1?r: Il·,.n .. ~r. A ~ f1r...r.flRn .':n "J Pf./iT nOtlK .rl. IJA(.:!. ',.!!' . (.If n-l l :::urmJ'li r pl1 "ll r~ 11'f'O)RO:; {)I.' ('~J V~L cr...JN 1"t. ~ l~!f1fr'A . (;£l1 nrJ(O TO:
W ·
' z ", ·
~.~.
. ..J It
:,c ~
~~
. J;'.
I;';! ;!
:J
0' w
~l
~~
~;.,.
"?.,.
a) .
~ ~
~. ~
!,o ..,
1"\ ." 8 8 ,, :.:t:
'"
Or;f"I ~ 1. AUji{£' \oil£; tl An{)l;~~AN r: \4()Q1'QA <:(JRp~,qI~ ' TTt'ilU I[Y.;' mu: I ~WRMICI. rUllO, 11K. rATlrJ!:;t'JIlJ, SONC' Mi ll lA.lSltA W, P.. A, 1. 1.) 1 Jr,
~~~.~~~
J.d! Form MAP.Survey -"W1nTOTAl' appralsal software by a Ia mode, lrrc ,-l-8O().ALAMODE
--. ~ • VI" IL.. "~ UI',., '1 ' '-', t...l-. v CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY _~:Ik~~ -,&..tJ..~ ., S ~~~ ~td~<tf'M.h ~J~.c.o ~~~. LIVE OAK LAN E (e lf RJGH T or WAY) SQ, FT. % ~J 00'24'53" W 90.00' (PLAT) N 00·19'55" W 89.97' (MEASURED) LOT SIZE 9083 I ~ EXlSTING BUILDINGS 2258 25% fT.L..:I: EXlSTINGIPA~ . 10%• IMPERVIOUS 927
........
0 21 . ~' 11.2' PROPOSED
W , === 1070 12% a::: b IMPERVIOUS
:::::) ~ ~'~~---:l s? .,'
~V>1-« .... TOTAL ~.~. ~-1?O' 4 2 55 47%
~ ......, l/' ~;;-
~ -20-')' ~Io l STRUCTURE OUTDOOR
oj KITCHEN
m STORY
AME Ale TYPE NEW
LOT :3 :~'-o" ... "f:.D #186 5 umT CONSTRUCTION
~ I ~ r. A/C,.; PAD
I MATERIAL TREMRON
I ~Outdoor Kitchen
STONEGATE
~ 11 5' AREA 42SQ, FT.
I I.Q;';..
in
,.
STRUCTURE SCREEN
(/) renEncl
;"
26.1' 21.11'ENCLOSURE
?LOT <I ROOF SLOPED
:~'-o' Pool Equipment__I( JT
) MATERIAL ALUMINUM
Ir(
'N
1
00
'(. ~~.. b... _ / 90,06' (MEASURED)
., COLOR BRONZE
00' ',:;< 90.00' (PLAT)
[--. AREA 1070 SQ. FT,
SCClIOt t g, TO'IlNS fUP 2 SOOlli. RANCE 29 ( .AST
I*** SETBACKS ARE MEASURED TO WALLS *** I
LEGEND :
0 -Sll 1/2" II(BAII PC -P()jNT C»' (UlVAT\J (STANPEO PSU1814tt
• - r.QJHD lff lION PPC PT -POIP" C»' TAHCVII;Y
NO 1000lFlCAnON PRe -lION T C»' Al\/£JlS£( OIl4[JNlt;[ NOTID) CUlNAT\lII(
• -••,... CDNCJI{ l[ IdHT PCC -POIN T (Y/ ~
Io/C • AIR C<JOTIONEII G CUf!VAT
-)(-FlNeI • COtICM:1L
I-I -f-Ray Th ompso n EVISIOI
f-f-SURVEYING. Inc . DAlE Ut.:,I,;KWIIUN
I>-f-
IGoing the DISTA N C E for YO I~ PONTE~~TITLE, L.L.c.r-
f"'6 13 PhITp~ HIO'I y , S uite 2 10
' ~~..,. I'loridII 32207
1.1111 \ (Phone) ~5 1 25 I
I I' (Fax ) 904 -448-5 178 I
JOB II 21118 L DA TE OF FIELD SURVEY : 6-2.0-2012 I SCALE: ,. = 20'
CER TIFICATE ;r::: rNOTES: DEI! MY I/!:5PONSIIlU CHAAc( II; BEARINGS AAE BOON THI: ~BEARIHC or __ l'Lfl9.'35.'Or:.. f , ___ I tt~1N C(RTIF Y 'IIiA T rut ., ...."
ALONG THE NM TH EJII..Y 9OUIIOARY UN[ (F !iU8.£CT PAllen. All) liED'S THE IlIUW STANO Sl T fMIH 8'1 11€ FLORIOIo
--ROAlro CY PRons.<;IOtI \o£YOIIS. -'HI! IIA fIt. CHN'TER 61CY7 -0 , FL()IIII).I.
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.A
CASE NO. ZVAR17-0008
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the allowable
fence height from 4 feet as required by Section III(D)(4) of the Selva Marina
Unit 10-B PUD to 6 feet at Selva Marina Unit 10-B Lot 7 (aka 1820 North
Sherry Drive).
LOCATION 1820 North Sherry Drive
APPLICANT Sarah (Sally) L. Young
DATE November 13, 2017
STAFF Derek W. Reeves, Planner
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicant is Sally Young, the owner of 1820 North Sherry Drive. The property is zoned PUD in the
Selva Marina neighborhood and has an existing single family home. The owners would like to replace an
existing six foot fence with a new six foot with a couple of changes to the location. The site plan below
shows the existing fence (the black lines with two little dashes) and the new fence (yellow highlight) .A
variance is required for the new fence because it does not meet the requirements of the PUD.
This property is part of the Selva Marina
Unit 10-B PUD and plat. The plat
generally includes the first few lots north
of Saturiba Drive on North Sherry Drive
and Selva Marina Drive. The PUD was
approved in 1978 by the Commission. A
copy of the City Commission meeting
minutes for the approval are attached. The
Covenants and Restrictions for the PUD,
which are usually not enforced by a
municipality, were provided to the City as
the PUD’s governing text. The Covenants
do define the City’s enforcement powers in
the PUD. A copy is attached to the end of
this report.
Section III(D)(4) of the Covenants states in
part, “Fences or walls may be located
outside of the dwelling zone provided: (a)
The shall not exceed four *4) feet in
Page 2 of 4
height.” The dwelling zone is defined by setbacks of 20 feet in the front and rear and 10 feet in each side
yard.
When reading the Covenants, there are several references to a Special Advisory Planning Board that is
required to grant approvals in the PUD. However, like a similar recent variance request in Selva Marina
Unit 12-C, it appears that this board no longer exists. The Covenants then defer responsibilities to the City.
Just as if a proposed project did not meet the City’s zoning code, it would have to get a variance, when a
proposed project doesn’t meet the requirements of the PUD, it must get a variance.
Historically, it appears that the City has not always recognized and enforced these Covenants, which has
resulted in a hodgepodge of development in this PUD, and others with similar circumstances. The
applicant has provided multiple pictures from the area of other properties with six foot fences as evidence.
This means that the City’s normal zoning code was applied. If the City’s normal zoning code was applied
to this fence, it would be approved administratively as six foot fences are allowed in side and rear yards.
Ultimately, staff would like to explore corrective measures for these PUDs that would address the
nonexistent boards and to make zoning requirements consistent.
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 applicant stated in their application that the lot of neighbor to the north is higher than theirs and
that they have a deck near the property line that a six foot fence would provide more privacy from.
(2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby
properties.
The applicant stated in their application that the neighbor behind them has a swimming pool and a
six foot fence would do a better job of keeping their kids from getting that pool.
(3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other
properties in the area.
The applicant stated in their application that every other property in the neighborhood has a six foot
fence.
(4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after
construction of improvements upon the property.
The applicant stated in their application that they are planning a future addition and pool with screen
enclosure and believe that a six foot fence will provide better security and privacy.
(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 approve ZVAR17-0008, request to
increase the allowable fence height from 4 feet as required by Section III(D)(4) of the Selva Marina Unit
10-B PUD to 6 feet at Selva Marina Unit 10-B Lot 7 (aka 1820 North Sherry 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 below.
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 deny ZVAR17-0008, request to increase
the allowable fence height from 4 feet as required by Section III(D)(4) of the Selva Marina Unit 10-B
PUD to 6 feet at Selva Marina Unit 10-B Lot 7 (aka 1820 North Sherry Drive), or it is not 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.B
CASE NO ZVAR17-0010
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the permitted
height of fencing allowed in front yards from four feet as required by Section
24-157(b)(1) to a height of six feet at Lot 1, Block 3, Selva Marina Unit 2 (aka
1505 Selva Marina Drive).
LOCATION 1505 Selva Marina Drive
APPLICANT Lori Gaglione
DATE November 13, 2017
STAFF Brian Broedell, Planner
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicant is Lori Gaglione, the owner of the single family home at 1505 Selva Marina Drive. The property is
located in the Residential Single-Family, Large Lot (RS-L) zoning district and its Future Land Use designation is
Residential Low Density (RL). The lot adjoins both Selva Marina Drive and Seminole Road, making this a corner
lot. For corner lots, Section 24-17 defines the front of the lot as the exterior lot line of the narrowest side of the lot
adjoining the street. As the narrowest side of the lot adjoining a street, the southern property line that adjoins
Seminole Road is considered the front of this lot.
A variance is needed to install a 6 foot tall fence along the
(front) property line adjoining Seminole Road. Section 24-
157(b) limits maximum fence heights to 4 feet within
required front yards, meaning a 6 foot fence is required to
be setback a minimum of 20 feet from the front property
line. The proposed fence would be over 30 feet from
Seminole Road
and placed behind
an existing hedge
located on city
property (see
picture).
A variance is not
needed for the
proposed new
porch. While it is
mentioned in the
variance
application, no
variance is
necessary.
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.
(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.
The applicant states in their application that the proposed fence would not obscure the view of traffic
in any way due to the unique configuration of the intersection between Seminole Road and Selva
Marina Drive and the irregular shape of the property.
(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 approve ZVAR17-0010, request to
increase the permitted height of fencing allowed in front yards from four feet as required by Section 24-
157(b)(1) to a height of six feet at Lot 1, Block 3, Selva Marina Unit 2 (aka 1505 Selva Marina 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 below.
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 deny ZVAR17-0010, request to increase
the permitted height of fencing allowed in front yards from four feet as required by Section 24-157(b)(1)
to a height of six feet at Lot 1, Block 3, Selva Marina Unit 2 (aka 1505 Selva Marina Drive), upon finding
this request is not consistent with the definition of a variance, 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 ZVAR17-0009
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, for relief from the Section
24-88(b) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed
of substantially the same architectural style, colors, and materials and for relief
from the Section 24-88(c) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units
to be constructed at substantially the same time or in a continuous sequence to
allow the addition of a porch in the rear at Section “H” the west 30 feet of Lot
3 and the east 10 feet of Lot 4 Block 65 (aka 73 W 10th Street).
LOCATION 73 West 10th Street
APPLICANT Thomas James Belich Jr.
DATE November 13, 2017
STAFF Brian Broedell, Planner
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicant is Thomas Belich Jr., the owner of the townhouse located at 73 West 10th Street. The townhouse was
built in 1998 and shares a common wall at the back of the unit with the adjacent townhouse to the east. The lot is
48 feet wide by 102 feet deep and is located in the Residential General Two-Family (RG) zoning district. The
property’s Future Land Use designation is Residential Medium Density (RM).
A two-part variance is needed to construct an open porch in the
rear of the townhome. First, Section 24-88 (b) requires that
“adjoining townhouse units shall be constructed of substantially
the same architectural style, colors, and materials.” The
installation of a composite roof and support posts to create a porch
in the rear of this townhome would result in an architectural style,
colors, and materials different than those of the other attached
units. Second, Section 24-88(c) requires that “adjoining
townhouse units shall be constructed at substantially the same
time or in a continuous sequence unless an existing structure is
being renovated within the same building footprint.” The
construction of the open porch would be independent of the other
attached units and considered expanding the building footprint by
City Code. The effective date of the ordinance that established the
Code Sections that this variance is seeking relief from was January
1, 2002.
The proposed attached open porch would extend 12 feet from the
rear wall and would be 12 feet wide. The proposed location of the
porch complies with setback regulations for the RG zoning
district.
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.
(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 stated in their application that the porch would provide needed shade in the backyard
of the home. The applicant also stated that it is in their opinion that it is unreasonable not to be
allowed to construct an open porch that is similar to other porches built on similar homes 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.
Page 3 of 3
REQUIRED ACTION
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve ZVAR17-0009, request for
relief from the Section 24-88(b) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of
substantially the same architectural style, colors, and materials and for relief from the Section 24-88(c)
requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed at substantially the same time or in
a continuous sequence in order to allow the addition of an open porch in the rear of the existing townhouse
at Section “H” the west 30 feet of Lot 3 and the east 10 feet of Lot 4 Block 65 (aka 73 W 10th Street),
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 below.
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 deny ZVAR17-0009, request for relief
from the Section 24-88(b) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of
substantially the same architectural style, colors, and materials and for relief from the Section 24-88(c)
requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed at substantially the same time or in
a continuous sequence in order to allow the addition of an open porch in the rear of the existing townhouse
at Section “H” the west 30 feet of Lot 3 and the east 10 feet of Lot 4 Block 65 (aka 73 W 10th Street),
upon finding this request is not consistent with the definition of a variance, 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.