Loading...
Exh 8CAGENDA ITEM #8C JiJNE 11, 2001 CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH CITY COMMISSION MEETING STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM: An appeal by Craig Sutton of a ruling by the Community Development Boazd for relief from the front yard setback to store a boat at 1746 Beach Ave.. SUBMITTED BY: Don Ford DATE: 6-OS-O1 BACKGROUND: At the may 15,2001 meeting of the Community Development Board the board heard a variance request by Craig Sutton of 1746 Beach Ave. to be allowed to store a boat in the front yard of his house. Mr. Sutton was represented by Paul M. Eakin Esq. who explained that the boat has been stored in the same location for the past eleven. years. The code enforcement officer cited Mr. Sutton for storing the boat forward of the front yard setback line by approximately 12 feet. The board discussed various possible methods of storing the boat on the property and determined there was no grounds for a hazdship and no variance could be granted. The vote to-deny was unanimous. Based on Section 24-49(3) the appeal to the Commission must set forth that such decision is illegal, in whole or in part, specifying the grounds of the legality. BUDGET: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Uphold the decision of the boazd based on no illegality by the boazd has been proven. ATTACHMENTS: Minutes from the Community Development Board meeting of May 15, 2001 REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: AGENDA ITEM #8C NNE 11, 2001 EAKIN SNEED & CATALAN ATTORNEYS AT LA W 599 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD, SUITE 4 Mdy 2 4 , 2 0 01 ATLANTIC BEACH. FL 7??37 Maureen King, Clerk Ci*_y of Atlantic Beach 800 Seminole Road .Atlantic Beach, FL 32233-5445 RE: Crain Sutton-Application for Variance Ap~3ea1 to Citv Commission Dear Maureen: PAUL M. EAKIN, P.A. JEFFREY 1. SNEED' CYNTHIA L. CATALAN D. RANDALL BRILEY TERESA H. ELLIS "BOARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL LA W YER TELEPHONE: 904-247-65fi5 TELECO PY:904-247.6535 On May 15, 2001, the Community Development Board denied Craig Sutton's Application for Variance, which would have allowed him to park. his boat trailer in violation of the front yard building setback. The vote was 5-0 against allowing the variance. Mr. Sutton wishes to appeal the Board's decision to the.. City Commission. I was advised by both Don Ford and Alex Sherrer to write this letter as my notice of appeal. I was further advised to send it to you, since I presume you are responsible for setting matters before the City Commission that are on appeal from the Community Development Hoard. Let me assure you that we are in no great haste to have the appeal heard at this time. I am sure the Commission has more important things to tend to throughout this summer sensor. than the appeal of my client's request for a.variance. Therefore, a hearing sometime in September or October would be greatly appreciated. With Yiest regards, I remain, y yours, i~C'~,I~7~~ Paul M. Eakin MpY 2 5 2p01 PME r1 CC: Cra1.g Sutton Y: ~-r' B AGENDA ITEM #8C NNE 11, 2001 Minutes of Community Development Board May 15, 2001 Page 7 DRAFT d. Application for Variance from Section 24-163(2) filed by Craig Sutton to allow boat to be stored in front yard setback area at 1746 Beach Avenue. Mr. Paul Eakin introduced himself and stated that he was representing this application on behalf of Mr. Craig Sutton. Mr. Eakin stated for the record that Mr.. Sutton was in attendance. Mr. Eakin distributed 13 photographs of the property to the Board. Mr. Eakin advised that on April 6, Code Enforcement Officer Alex Sherrer cited Mr. Sutton for violation of Chapter 24, Section 24-163(2) that states you can park your boat trailer behind the front yard building line. Mr. Eakin stated that Mr. Sutton has been parking his boat for the past 11 years in the same position on the same property as it appeazs in the photographs. He further stated that the front yard building line is 20 feetin from the lot line or the legal boundary line. Mr. Eakin advised that the special conditions and circumstances that exist that are peculiar to this land, structure or building involved, which are not applicable to other land, structures or buildings in the same district, in that this situation occurs on Beach Avenue and where it occurs on Beach Avenue. He advised that the boat in question is situated on the south property line and there is a chain Link fence along the neighbor's property that prevents Mr. Sutton from moving the boat further back. Mr. Eakin stated that when this boat is backed completely against the fence, it exceeds the setback requirements by approximately 12 feet. He further stated that the property to the south of the building is 8 feet 6 inches wide and the property to the north side of the building is 7 feet wide; therefore, neither side will accommodate the boat which is 10 feet wide. Mr. Eakin stated that Code Enforcement Officer Alex Sherrer advised him that there are through lots in this district and if this boat and house were located on one of the through lots, Mr. Sutton would be allowed to park his boat next to the street at the back of the lot. He further stated that the way the ordinance reads, there is no rear yard setback that applies to the parking of boats. Mr. Eakin stated that the photographs also demonstrate that due to the natural vegetation on the south boundary line of the property and that the street is one way, you do not see the boat until you are almost past it, Mr. Eakin noted for the record that he is not aware that anyone in this neighborhood has shown up tonight in opposition to granting this variance request. Mr. Eakin summarized that the lot is odd shaped, it is located on Beach Avenue, it is a one-way street, it has natural vegetation and there is no other place to park the boat. Mr. Eakin advised that trying to enforce the literal interpretation of 24-163(2) would deprive Mr. Sutton of the same or similar rights of property owners in the same zoning district that do not live on Beach Avenue, that do not have an indentation in their side yard or that own a through lot. Mr. Eakin stated that Mr. Sutton could legally park his boat in the front yard if he fumed it north/south instead of hiding it behind the natural vegetation line easUwest. He further stated that as a neighbor, Mr. Sutton has done a wonderful job of not taking advantage of the way the Ordinance reads by parking the boat north/south. Mr. Eakin said that this situation has existed for 11 yeazs at this address and would request that the Board give special consideration to this request. Mr. Sutton stated that the uniqueness of this situation is the visual barrier, the one-way street, and the hardship in the way the properties have been designated or divided. Ms. Pilhnore stated that she would like people to be able to park boats in their front yards. AGENDA ITEM #8C .TUNE 11, 2001 Minutes of Community Development Board May 15, 2001 Page 8 DRAFT Mr. Sutton stated that he respects the area and has been a long time resident. He said that he thinks there are a lot of situations where boats are parked in yards and are very unsightly. He further stated that he does not want to be in that category and has acted in that manner for the last 11 years. Mr. Frohwein moved to deny the request for variance. Mrs. Walker seconded the motion. Mr. Grunewald suggested swinging the tongue of the trailer to the north and parking the boat at an angle. Mr. Eakin responded that it would still have an aesthetic impact. Mr. Eakin stated that the difference between this lot and the Section H case that came before the Board recently is that through lots exist in this neighborhood but not in Section H. He further stated that if Mr. Sutton had not sold the lot behind him; he could legally park the boat on Ocean Grove. Mr. Wolfson responded that it was Mr. Sutton's decision to replat the lot and sell the portion on Ocean Grove that made it a through lot. He further stated that it is a replatted lot and, therefore, does not constitute a through lot. Mr. Frohwein stated that he does not see uniqueness in this situation. He said that it is an irregular lot size but its narrowest dimension is wider than the common lot size of 50 feet in Atlantic Beach and the front of the lot is even wider. He further stated that he thinks the motion upholds the intent of the Code and does not deprive the applicant reasonable use of his property. Mr. Wolfson advised that the Board is in the process of revising Chapter 24. He stated that he finds it difficult to grant a permanent change. for the sake of a vehicle or a boat. He further stated that there is no basis for granting a permanent change to this property at this time since the Commission is reviewing and considering a change to the Code. A vote was taken and the motion denying the variance request passed lry unanimous approval.