1725 Beach Avenue ZVAR-2011-01 Order CCAGEN DA 11 hM If gists
MAY 23, 20l l
13xPUFP- 1til✓ uil Y uOMMISSION
OFTHE CITY UFA I LAN I IU BEAUH, rLOK11A
1N ler,:
Donald M. and Karen Wolfson Appeal of Urder Denying Variance
v,ntered by the Community Development Board
U"EK AVY-I MIN U lir:CiSiON OF
C:UMMUNITV DEVELUFMEN 1 13UA"
Donald M. w-jd Karen Wolfson ("Wolfson") initiated a request for a variance from
the rear yard setback requirements to allow fur future �vnstruction of a single family
rv,sidence on a noncontorming lot of record of substandard size located on the west side
of the right-of-way at 1725 Bvach Avenue. The variance request was heard by the
Community Development Board (" UIM") at mcctings hold on Fv'bruaty 15, 2011, and
March 15, 2011, resulting in an Order Denying variance dated March 23, 2011. Wolfson
timely tiled an appeal to the City Commission pursuant to Sec. 24-46 of the Atlantic
Bv,ach Coae of Ordinance, which appeal was heard by the City Commission on May y;
2011.
At said appeal hearing, the City Cuuuuission hvQid presentations by city staff and
by Christopher A. White, Esquire, attorney for Wolfson, conducted a public hvaiing and
heard trum several members of the public, dThd then heard both rebuttal and clusmg
arguments trom city start and Attoincy White. Basad upon thv, foregoing, the City
Commission makes the following tindings of tact and conclusions of law:
A. wolfsows appeal is based upon liters dated April 12, 2011, and April 13,
2011, claiming; as grounds for the appeal, hardship, challenging the legality of thv, CDB's
AGnrvLA i i tM 4 8B
MAY 23. 1011
decision, that there was no competent substantial evidence to support the ut)13's duuisiun,
and that Wulfrun was nut affurdud due pruc�sn.
13. 1 he City ummrrission is limited in its review of thv. action taken by the
CDB to the record established before the board at its hearings held on rcbruary 15, 1U 11,
and March 1 .), 2011, mid to thu wnnideratiun uf th; fvllvwing questions:
(1) Whether procedural duc prucess was afforded;
(2) Whether the CDB applied the correct law; and
(3) Whether the finding uf the CDB are supported by competent
substantial evidence.
C. WHETHER PROCEDURAL DUs; PRUCESS WAS AFYUF-Dhlll: the
Wolfson request for a variance was humd by the CDB at two (2) meetings held on
February 15, 2011, and March 15, 2011, fur a combined total ut appruximatcly fuui (4)
hums. The mmutes of both meetings nth ct a substantial amount of dialogue between
W oltson and board members duruig his prCsentatiuns to the board mid after the public
hearing were .;loved and the matter was taken up by the board.
troth meetilrg before the CDB were pruperly noticed as public hearings, and
Wolfson was allowed to present any and all evidcncc, tcstilnuny, and thv. like, tv th,
CDB. Wolfson was nut limited ur restricted in any Cashion in regard to prusuntatiun of
his case to the 0013. wolfson alsu had notice of both meetings, attended both meetings,
and re,,eived a fair hearing betore the UD13.
Wulfsun cumplauis hu wan, nut alluW�d to respond to certain intormation stats
provided to the UI)13 at the March 15, 1011, hearing when staff wan, asked by a board
ineinbur to explain precisely what options were available to Wonson without a variance.
C
AGENDA ITEM # 8B
1VIA Y L3, LU 1 1
Stall then presented drawings reflecting one-story and two-story garages that could bu
built without a variance, and the set back requirements for each. This was intormation
culitainud it, Chapter 24 of the Atlantic Beach Codi of Ordinances, with which Woltson
either was or should have been tarniliar, especially in light of his refuretice it, thu mit�utes
to his past service to the City as a member of the CUB for approximately 14 years, the
majority of which time hu su, cud as the chair.
Procedural due process was allorded to woltson aid he rucuivud a fair hearitig
before the CDB.
0. wtit i tip -R Ttip- C1_jB APPLIED THE CORRECT LAW: The minutes
trom both meetings held belore the U1JB on 11ebruary 13, 2U11, arrd March 13, 2011,
reflect discussions of the criteria contained in Sec. 24-64 of the Atlantic Beach UoUe of
urdinmwus, which the uijts must cutisidur it, either approval or denial of a variance
request. Various members of the C;llB discussed specitrc sections of Sec. 14-64
rugarditig approval or denial of the vaTiQucc; at the March 15, 2011, meeting, and their
applicability to the W ollson property aid request.
These provisions in Sec. 24-64, together with other applicable sections in Chapter
2,4 of the Atlaitic ticach Lode of Orditiaicus, discussed by the CDB at the meetings, are
the correct law to be applied to W ollson in either approval or deiial of his vaarimicc;
request.
h. write 1 mK l Hh v IN ljlN US uF THE CDB ARE SUPPORIED BY
COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: The lindings of the Cl)B3 are set firth in
the u1UJt;K UhNYING VARIANCE siguwd March 23, 2011. The evidence received by
the CllB at both hearings it held is legally sulllcient to support these finditigs.
3
AGENDA I I h If uts
MAY 23, 2011
These findings are as follows:
44
1. The property is not of regular shake warranting special
conditions, neither are there exceptional topographic conditions of
or near the property, nor are there surrounding conditions or
circumstances impacting the property disparately fron, nearby
properties,"
lrle uots received copies of a survey of the property showing a 50' x 70' re,,tmgular lot;
and a history of the property and nearby properties from both Wolfson and city staff.
662. The substandard size of the lot of- record neither warrants a
valiance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property,
nor are there other exceptional cir,.;umstan%.�es preventing the
reasonable use of the property compared to other properties in the
area:"
The uuB was presented with infonnation and a power point presentation indicating that
Wollson could build a one-story 6UU sq.ft. garage within five (5) feet of the regi lot line,
or a two-story 1200 sq.ft. garage with guest quarters (6UU sq.tt per story) within ten (i u)
teet of the rear lot line, and that neither structure required a valiance. Woltson was
therefore not prevented from reasonable use of his property despite its substandard size.
643. The granting of the variance will have a materially adverse impact
on the light and au to adjacent properties, public satety, including
risk of tire, tratfic safety and general congestion of the streets, the
natural environment of the community, and established property
values-,"
Many people who spoke during the public hearing portion of the UDB meetings on
February 15, 2U11, and March lb, 2011, discussed adverse impact on their light and air
fron, the cot and the already congested area along Beach Avenue where the Wolfson lot
is located. 1 he variance would allow a higher st, acture closer to the property line. The
evidence is sufficient to substantiate this trading.
4
A(ihNDA 11 hM 4 813
MAY 23. 20l l
-4. The granting of the variance will not be in h=���ony with the
general intent and purpose of chapter 24, City of Atlantic Beach
zoning and Subdivision Kegulations."
Much discussion was heard by the CDB at its meetings regarding the use of properties,
such as the wolfson property, on the west side of Beach Avenue, and that they were
intended to be used for parking purposes associated with the oceanfront properties.
Construction by Wolfson of a single family residence on this substandard lot would not
be in keeping with the general intent of Chapter 24 of the Atlantic Beach Code of
Ordinances; which intent is set forth in Sec. 24-2, as follows:
"The p(upose of this chapter, the zoning districts and regulations set forth
herein is to provide for orderly growth; to encourage the most appropriate
use of land; to protect the natural environment; to protect and conserve the
value of property; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to promote, protect
and improve health, safety; comtort, good order, appearance, convenience,
and general welfare of the public; and to help accomplish the goals and
objectives of the comprehensive plan."
Accord..gly7 it is
uRDERED as follows:
1. The appeal tiled by ijonald M. and &aren wolfson regarding the Order
Denying Variance dated March 23, 2011; is denied.
2. the decision of the Couninwlty Development Board is upheld and the
order Denying Variance dated March 2.3, 2011, is attirmed.
DONE AND ORDERED this day of May, 2011.
Al -IES -1:
DONNA BARTLE
Lity clerk
E
LOUIS BUKNU, 7K.
Mayor, Presiding Utticer