1875 Beach Avenue 15-ZVAR-1022 Application PacketDate cg / ) / Is
1. Applicant's Name
2. Applicant's Addres
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
IS... =VAA
File No.
3. Property Location 5 C, M z
4. Property Appraiser's Real Estate Number 1 t9 q (SQ ) pp o iJ
5. Current Zoning Classification 6. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use designation
7. Provision from which Variance is requested S C, G �l S� L Ll�- J�UL Kx.1C, ,y* .
8. Size of Parcel A n„ r -c x , -75
9. Homeowner's Association or Architectural Review Committee approval required for the proposed construction.
❑Yes �-?JNo (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 A-W01Cwtd
11. Provide all of the following information: A 4w-�, e6 .
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 11x17 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): � rGi i
Signature(s): /
ADDRESS AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF PERSON TO RECEIVE ALL CORRESPONDENCE
REGARDING THIS APPLICATION
Name:
Mailing Address: 91'S (�-to, 1r1 �(�, l<}��� �} L tach lL 2-L33
Phone:y d `L'� 3 - ? �{� FAX: E-mail: -� S- q c,\ Q5 e,(N e . c o rv`,
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.
] (1) exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property.
(Z) surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the pro rty disparately from nearby properties.
JR (3) exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in
the area. A }} U C. �, e d
® (4) onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting r after develo ment of the property or after
. h
construction of improvements upon the property. it a C -(
❑ (5) irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. (-.\ h'
❑ (6) substandard size of a Lot of Record warranting a Variance in order to provide for the reasonable Use of the
property. n /A -
(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.
(f) 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
(j) 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.
Eric Nottmeier, M.D.
Tracy Synan, J.D.
1875 Beach Ave.
Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
904.233-1346
tsynan@me.com
February 1, 2015
Community Development Board
City of Atlantic Beach
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
RE: Application for Variance
1875 Beach Ave.; Fence Height
Dear Sir or Madam::
Y
Enclosed please find Application for Variance. Please place on next meeting
agenda.
02
Application Fee has been waived, courtesy of Planning and Building Director
Jeremy Hubsch.
Application is being submitted without prejudice to rights related to estoppel and
justifiable reliance on City representations and permit for building of subject fence.
Thank you in advance.
Sincerely,
Tracy Synan & Eric Nottmeier
Enclosure
Doc # 2006007791, OR BK 12995 Page 1386, Number Pages: 2, Filed & Recorded
01/07/2006 at 10:20 AM, JIM FULLER CLERK CIRCUIT COURT DUVAL COUNTY RECORDING
$18.50 DEED DOC ST $11900.00
Prepared by: n
Ponte Vedra Title, LLC
Ponte Vedra Title, LLC
115 Professional Drive, Suite 101
Ponte Vedra, Florida 32082
Record md-Re>wwto-
Eric Nottmeier and Tracy Synan
309 N. Sea Lake Lane
Ponte Vedra, FL 32082
File Number: NOTTMEIER
Warranty Deed
Made this December 30, 2005 A.D. By Don W. Smith and Kay Smith husband and wife, whose address is: 14848 Plumosa Drive,
Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250, hereinafter called the grantor, to Eric Nottmeier and Tracy Synan husband and wife, whose post office
address is: 309 N. Sea Lake Lane, Ponte Vedra, FL 32082, hereinafter called the grantee:
(Whenever used herein the term "grantor" and "grantee" include all the parties to this instrument and the heirs, legal representatives and assigns of
individuals, and the successors and assigns of corporations)
Witnesseth, that the grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars, ($10.00) and other valuable considerations,
receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, hereby grants, bargains, sells, aliens, remises, releases, conveys and confirms unto the grantee,
all that certain land situate in Duval County, Florida, viz:
Lot 41, together with that portion of the Northerly 25 feet of 18th Street, lying Southerly of and adjacent thereto, North
Atlantic Beach Unit NO. 2, according to plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 15, page 57 of the current public records of
Duval County, Florida.
Parcel ID Number: 169681 0000
Together with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. t �)
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.
The Grantor hereby covenants with said Grantee that, except as otherwise set forth herein, the Grantor is lawfully
seized of said land in fee simple; 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 against the lawful claims of all persons
whomsoever; and that said land is free of all encumbrance except as specified herein.
DEED Individual Warranty Deed - Legal on Face
Closers' Choice
OR BK 12995 PAGE 1387
Prepared by:
Ponte Vedra Title, LLC
Polite Vedra Title, LLC
115 Professional Drive, Suite 101
Ponte Vedra, Florida 32082
Record and Return to:
Eric Nottmeier and Tracy Synan
309 N. Sea Lake Lane
Ponte Vedra, FL 32082
File Number: NOTTMEIER
In Witness Whereof, the said grantor has signed and sealed these presents the day and year first above written.
Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence:
Witness Printed Name Ruth K. MCDOnal
dm�u K:-. L 1 [;�
Witness Printed Name 11
State of Florida
County of St Johns
N � (Seal)
Don W. Smith
Address: 14848 fPlumosa Drive, Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
(Seal)
Kay Smi
Address:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisLl'J-ry lily of December, 005, by Don W. Smith and Kay Smith husband and
wife, who is/are personally known to me or who has produced'( r �. /_ as identificati
1419tary Public
NOMYPUBLIC.STAn OF
FLORIDA P 'ntName: RIJih K 11ArfMlielCl
WKOMM's"OD Ruth k. n naId My Commission Expires:ki
�tres; kAY 11, 2008 Bonded Tltry Atit�gp handing Co:, Inc
DEED Individual Warranty Deed - Legal on Face
Closers' Choice
0
N
W
J
Q
U
U1
iNf
w 1.Li
W
z
cy
J
O 1
U I
O 1 1338iS 4451 30 ,SZ H1C10S 3H1 —
V)
(N0211 01 N0211) ,6 -v -L8 t
w
SS30Z9.96 L M ,0(
0V H0V39 OL ,�
CL
NO L'0 X1vM OOOhn —
30\33 00tvn Md
I 0v
133U5 tn8t 30 1333 SZ H121ON 3HL
f 0 ^a W : G LLb 3OVd 'SSL 3PUIl0A S021O338 lb'10L4
c
A33(
tri a00A
--------------
w ¢ til ti C
A330
LnL j l,f; 01 (loomI A33(
a00h
O I v f�
C/)
j0
O
= lm
z , D,4
Q I m _ LoLij�
r dV0 ON '3dld
U INOZ31 Z/L ONno-i
O
_U
I
z
Q �
J
Q
W z
J J (n Ln J
�< L,0
Li
z = CO
O
NO
WQ��d U
`
O
W
O(nl j( -)O
wof LL- 0- O
�O a
V)wNtfjw
LLJ
N U~ W~
V J
pmO�LL-
Z-DZ�O
�t�
V
F- W > J
�ZF--cnW
jz
~
Of _ 0
O
Q �§C
UW
W W CD
W W Z
J
Q
U F -F-
LLJ
ZLLCUJ
n
J� OLLJ
H^ OQ
Q
Q�nazcn
M
-Q
�QoLjO
OCl- Li0W
z
ry
Ln
F-wU
:gy
F -O m
000(nD
J m U Q d
W
z
cy
J
O 1
U I
O 1 1338iS 4451 30 ,SZ H1C10S 3H1 —
V)
(N0211 01 N0211) ,6 -v -L8 t
w
SS30Z9.96 L M ,0(
0V H0V39 OL ,�
CL
NO L'0 X1vM OOOhn —
30\33 00tvn Md
I 0v
133U5 tn8t 30 1333 SZ H121ON 3HL
f 0 ^a W : G LLb 3OVd 'SSL 3PUIl0A S021O338 lb'10L4
c
A33(
tri a00A
--------------
w ¢ til ti C
A330
LnL j l,f; 01 (loomI A33(
a00h
O I v f�
C/)
j0
O
= lm
z , D,4
Q I m _ LoLij�
r dV0 ON '3dld
U INOZ31 Z/L ONno-i
O
_U
I
z
Q �
J
Q
o rn
z NN o �I
J i- M to N
Q M
H Q J m Lo Lf-
-r - O
O QF- of
WQ O 6 w �I
F -Z= Z z m
w0of N w
Z M W -
m00_ CL zm LLI
W
-966Z 'ON 30NVNIONO A8 03SO10 a- Fn
AVM -10 1HDIN .09 � z � m p t=
�11S u�-8L o �� -Cz
Zw y ci 0
W >-Q J Q
���< _}. O
M „09,9-b.68 S �
s,9 -b.68 S �,� �Wz� _ `—'� U
ZL9£ 87 '3dfd�� W W V) Z d-
llbM A2lNOSV3Y N l NF1 > F- O �-d.z
Q N
Z D
N 313MON00 o N�30 S81VIS U) Z Z Ln
5 Q
O 400 DO N U W .. U N 0
a n £ £Z �� �� S2UV1S ; N = R F_- Q 0 Q 1.L
Z-03 6. 31383NO3 o t6 F- W a _ 0
�� N Z F a O
L,
z o� �/ nn Q 0- W
U 30V�dJ Q
° 3VVf/ZJJ 0 >_
-- —�- -------------s — — — — — — - of Q
o a) ^2 D uj
m
W o Q (f) w
tri Q 0
° 5L81 # 30N3GIS32J °- Z a a- J
31NVZJJ GNd g� ,p Z LL w y 0
0- z Z
),8NOSVVV ),dOlS l AVM3NM0 00 >- Q
3138ONO3 > J v
o� Q l'' Q Q
0
�3 Q
a � _ f- C.7
.0.
( `^
V
z Of
O OVd 6 LLI
V OL
V9Z v.ri, 331NV1d 2M3 O Z � N :2IIVM A2INOSVYi D b31VM Z /� � w
-O W u W
0VJNII B°ZiON
829'96 L 3 9,9 .68 N OI<no. 0
(NOW Ol N081) ,90-961 3 .09.9V.68 N o o
pZ,_`" cn J XQ0 o ,,,o. tto
F=--OQ I ¢ 0ofmf/YFW- -j -j 0W� r
W W F- QQ W W F --IL} OQ W
F-
LUZU' m J Ocnw�O p0�WZW ¢F� a
>W<�} U=amN f WNQf--> r0 ZOQ
103 UD=mi0> o z`-`��� wo :2:2 F,)Jm
,Z�a)� L) PmZQ� f =g *��o=Q WNZ
of C) -� �tJQm ��ZWD al-> i Q N
00-i= 6�iW tYLLI -i ZO¢W OZ0 WO - F_Wa Q CO
5w<x. x (/)-M��� (IWQZW�� OQWO il I
Q(n0_ Cana �Ld Lo
U `r) 0) W ov�m�rnw �tz QD m } o
C 0 z00� o Z WW -m (n
(nZZMInW-F'iQ-F-OW:Z ILO OUO 0Z IZ zm
�Qrm�mm loomoww Ir of ~a ¢�W Y 3
�=Wd. NW oa ¢OZOQ�2 CL mofWJZO >pz V
F-m� ° �Z�UWwaa� WQOZOzit ix F-Ww W_ Q w
O Q ocn¢ w z 11oQ 44�?�44� 03=-L3 m ...1
zacMam(ri�sm� F V 0 4.
Application for a Variance
10. Statement of facts and site plan.
Summary: We would like to replace our fence on the south/side yard of our home
with essentially the same fence. At issue, we request a fence of the same height.
Due to the existence of intermittent retaining walls and uneven topography along
that border, the height of the fence reaches up to almost 10 feet at spots, mostly 8
foot including retaining wall (or 6 foot exclusive of wall).
Not at issue but of relevance: The fence would be of the same material (wood) and
same style (stockade). The pickets would be slightly wider to match the new style
of next door and nearby neighbors, as well as have a cap like nearby neighbors, to
increase durability and aesthetic consistency in neighborhood. The fence would
extend no further to the east than the prior fence nor further than neighbors' fence
and structure.
Statement of reasons:
Our home at 1875 Beach Avenue sits oceanfront and immediately to the north of the
18th Street public beach access. That access has the most parking and is, thus,
popular for out -of -community visitors. It is also the busiest access point north of
the town center.
The access path itself is via stairs up to a raised walkway running west to east, and it
runs between our home and the condos immediately to the south. The condos, like
our home, sit on higher ground. Stated another way, there is a gully or valley
between the properties on either side of a raised walkway. So when a fence is
measured from the ground or retaining wall, it comes up short ... in at least one spot
shorter than the public access walkway rail.
In addition, the western part of our fence on the masonry wall is a couple steps from
our front door and flat garage roof, which accesses our children's bedrooms. This
unusual combination of topography, surrounding conditions, and after -enacted
fence height limit results in a disparate impact and has an onerous effect on our
property. In particular, changing to a lower fence unacceptably increases the
security risk to our elementary -age daughters.
Our fence tends to lean and pickets break as kids along the public access
walkway reach up and grab them. We have been replacing pickets and adding
braces as needed, but it would be better to repair/replace it in such a way
with thicker pickets and a cap so it would be sturdier and less amenable to
pulling off pickets and hanging on it. It would solve the recurring problem,
look a lot nicer, be more durable, and be more useful. Replacement with a
shorter fence, which at 6 foot would be shorter in some places than the
walkway rail, would be detrimental to the purpose of having a less vandal -
prone fence, and more importantly, endanger the security of our family.
No grounds for denial of a variance under Section 24-64(c) exist To the
contrary, variance denial will adversely impact the community's aesthetic
environment and beauty. Specifically, if the present 6 -foot requirement is enforced,
the back, unkempt side of landscaping (twig -only of mature bushes) will become
visible, and the height of the fences on either side of the public beach access walk-
way will become uneven and unsightly.
The Statement of Reasons is more fully explained below.
Part of
requested to be up to ten
and e3
_*V (X, foci raI%
e as measured from the ground up
tall as needed to match step-down
I public access walkway rail height
'Y
tall on the existing
qpc,,�ji.'N
Part of fence requested to
continue to be
pp oximately two -foot masonry wall
C9
r 6-j
-t-z> Y- C C1 .
A. Our property slopes west to east with uneven topography and walls. The
retaining and masonry walls vary from over 15 feet at the western edge (which has
a 6 foot fence on top which is not at issue here or requested to be replaced) to 2 foot
along the house and back (oceanfront) patio, to nothing, to about 4 foot retaining
wall on the easternmost end. This uneven topography requires a fence of varying
height. As only part of the fence is to be replaced, a fence of similar height to pre-
existing would be most functional and aesthetically pleasing.
B_ The city public access immediately to the south of our property drops
down, like a gully or valley, then the next southern property rises again. This
means, first, our fence height is measured from the low gully, so it comes up short as
to the raised public access walkway. And second, since the next southern property
is elevated again, its fence and our fence would be the same height with the variance.
2. Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the propeIU disparately
from nearby properties
A. Placement on this particular public access is unique.
The 18th Street public access has the most parking, making it the largest
draw for out -of -community beachgoers. It is the busiest public access. This
results in increased vandalism as well as safety and security concerns_ The constant
traffic on the walkway, and the ability to drive away quickly, also differentiate this
access from other access points.
The 18th Street walkway next to the fence is raised on pylons, so at points
a conforming fence of 6 -foot would be even with or below the rail of the walkway,
rendering the fence's security function null.
B. The view of the property/fence from the walkway has unusual aspects: The
property to south of the 18th Street public access has the same height fence as we
request It is aesthetically beneficial to community users to continue to have fences
on either side be even. In addition, if our fence were lower, the backside of our
landscaping would show, which is the dead, twiggy side of our mature bushes and
the stub of an abandoned palm. That view would not be pleasing to walkway users.
The fence we have proposed is stockade style so actually looks nice, not like the
backside of a fence.
C. The setback and placement of our property differs from and is impacted by
others. Our home sits on the westernmost part of the lot, whereas next-door
properties sit further to the east Our fence extends to the east only to the point
at which the adjacent southern property sits. Stated another way, the
surrounding properties' eastern placement impacts us in that they are permitted
3
two -stories in height whereas we would be permitted only four foot on a retaining
wall or six foot total.
3. Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as
compared to other properties in the area
In most cases, a 6 -foot fence provides a measure of privacy and security. At
our house, that is not so: Our front door and access to our flat garage roof face
the public walkway within a few steps. Our children's' bedroom windows are
accessible from that flat roof. A lower fence means easier access to enter their
rooms surreptitiously. Other homes with lower or no fences do not have
features that give such easy access to the home and, especially, its bedrooms.
(That is, most roofs exceed 6 -7 -ft tall.)
Further east, the fence would actually be, at some points, a bit lower than the public
access walkway rail, which provides easy access as well as easy points for the
increased vandalism and trash associated with this public access.
4. Onerous effect of regulations enacted afterlap�or after development of
the p. ropeM or after construction of improvements on the proper
This fence is a perfect example of why this provision was enacted. This non-
conforming use needs to be continued for safety, security, privacy, and the large
expense of increased measures to replace it that would otherwise be required
(landscaping, security systems, etc.) and the negative effect the new fence height
would have on the walkway access (uneven fencing on either side, ugly view of back
side of landscaping, lower height making it more susceptible to vandalism and
subsequent deterioration).
Additional comments:
1. Continuing non -objectionable height. Our fence was present when we
bought this home almost ten years ago, and it had been in existence many years
prior. There have been no complaints of which we are aware about the fence height
We are aware of no objection to continuing the height
2. Our fence was already non -conforming but needed repair. We could have
repaired picket -by -picket as needed, and re -braced, but our requested
solution --to replace the fence with a new fence of the same height-- delivers a
prettier, more durable fence, of benefit to both ourselves and the community.
3. Reliance on City representations and permit After speaking with several
City employees about our fence, we were told we could replace it with a fence of the
same height We applied for and received a permit to build a fence of the same
height We relied upon those City representations, and after we tore down and
began rebuilding our fence, the City issued a stop work order. In fairness, we
should not be penalized for relying on the City s representations. We should be
able to, essentially, put our fence back.
S
Reeves, Derek
From: Tracy Synan [tsynan@icloud.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 9:14 AM
To: Reeves, Derek
Subject: Re: Variance Hearing
Thank you.
From Tracy's phone.
On Feb 18, 2015, at 8:12 AM, Reeves, Derek <dreeves@coab.us> wrote:
Tracy,
I checked with Jeremy. He is fine with moving your variance to April.
Derek W. Reeves
Zoning Technician
City of Atlantic Beach
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
(904) 270-1605
dreeves(a'-)coab.us
From: Tracy Synan [mailtoasynanCcbicloud.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 10:46 AM
To: Reeves, Derek
Subject: Re: Variance Hearing
Yes, you are right that I misunderstood in thinking that if I filed by the first Monday deadline it would be
heard at the next meeting. We are out of town on March 17. Could we please hear it with the Jeremy
extension to April 21?
From Tracy's phone.
On Feb 17, 2015, at 10:03 AM, Reeves, Derek <dreeves@coab.us> wrote:
Mrs. Synan,
I understand that there may be some confusion about when your variance application
will be heard in front of the Community Development Board.
Due to public noticing requirements, our deadline for variance applications is a few
weeks before the next Community Development Board meeting. Your application and
even the discussion about one occurred after the deadline for the February 17th
meeting. Your application will be on the March 17th meeting.
Mr. Hubsch will continue to allow the fence to remain as is while your variance is
pending the March meeting.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask
Derek W. Reeves
Zoning Technician
City of Atlantic Beach
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
(904) 270-1605
dreeves(a)-coab.us
Reeves, Derek
From: Tracy Synan [tsynan@icloud.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 1:59 AM
To: jhubsxch@coab.us
Cc: Eric Nottmeier; Reeves, Derek; Jones, Mike; Graham, Shirley; Walker, Jennifer
Subject: Re: 1875 Beach Ave. fence
Ponderings:
What authority is there to stop work being performed in full compliance with an approved
permit?
Can anyone decide the permit was issued in error and stop the work? And who reviews those
peoples' decision(s)? No one has to do anything to revoke the permit, except say it's no
good anymore? And is there any time frame on the city's ability to decide to change its
mind? If work that is being done in conformance with a permit can be stopped, then what is
the purpose of the oddly -named "permit"?
Tracy Synan
From Tracy's phone.
> On Jan 27, 2015, at 7:34 PM, Tracy Synan <tsynan(@icloud.com> wrote:
> This message cannot be displayed because of the way it is formatted. Ask the sender to send
it again using a different format or email program. multipart/related
Reeves, Derek
From: Tracy Synan [tsynan@icloud.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 7:35 PM
To: jhubsxch@coab.us
Cc: Eric Nottmeier; Reeves, Derek; Jones, Mike; Graham, Shirley; Walker, Jennifer
Subject: 1875 Beach Ave. fence
Dear Jeremy,
Thank you for taking the time to talk with me today.
I know it was a busy and stressful day and quick meeting, so I just wanted to review and put this to "paper":
An Atlantic Beach City employee talked to my husband about our fence, which tends to lean and pickets break
as kids along the public access jump up and grab 'em. We have been replacing pickets and adding braces as
needed, but we thought it would be a good idea to repair/replace it in such a way with thicker pickets and a cap
so it would be sturdier and less amenable to folks pulling off pickets and hanging on it. It would solve the
recurring problem, look a lot nicer, be more durable, and be more useful.
I requested a permit to replace the existing fence with the same stockade style, in the same place, same height or
shorter in parts, but thicker with the cap. I included a survey. The highlighted survey includes the "masonry
wall" on which the fence sits. As many city officials have seen the fence and spoken to us about it (including
walking it with my husband), and it is on a popular public access, I had no way to know that one of the city
officials did not know part of the fence was on that wall. I truthfully, honestly, swear that I did not know it
made any difference whatsoever that part of the fence was on the wall.
In fact, before the permit was approved, I talked with Derek about height requirements. I did not (and still do
not actually) understand what he was talking about having to do with a 4 -foot requirement somewhere. So we
spoke, and I explained that I wanted to replace the fence only with same height or less, and he said that was
fine. I confirmed it by e-mail. He approved my request to replace the fence --in the same place, with the same
height.
I know how strict the City can be, and I wholeheartedly tried to conform with its requirements.
I hope you will consider that the City should not be able to tell me that I can do it, then change its position,
when I relied upon that approval to spend a lot of money on it. If I had purposely withheld information or
something had changed, then that would be different. But I disclosed everything, and the facts have not
changed. If the City made a mistake, the City should stand by it (or at least pay to put it back the way it was
before they made the mistake).
I understand your point that non -conforming cannot be replaced with nonconforming. However, the fence I
want to build is actually better than the conforming requirements, and not allowing it runs contrary to the
purpose of that law or regulation. When I got home, I could see:
(a) A shorter fence along a public access will only promote more grabbing of pickets and jumping from the
walkway and pulling so as to make the fence an attractive nuisance and even more susceptible to vandalism,
thus crummier than before.
(b) The current non -conforming use is in line with adjacent properties, such that conforming use would not
increase visitors' panoramic views of the Ocean.
(c) A shorter fence diminishes the privacy and safety of our family, with two young girls. You can see our big
windows, and you can see that the public access rail next to the fence would provide a great little step right up
on a shorter fence, so those teens that have been smoking pot on the beach, or the sex offender down the street
(google it), has much easier access. The height of our fence is essential to our privacy and safety. Also, I'm
already tired of picking up cigarette butts and beer cans from the entry point and over the rail where the fence
ends. Come by and see where beer bottles have been thrown off the walkway; there'd be a lot more trash if I
wasn't cleaning it up. Significantly, our front door to our home opens on the south side of the house a few feet
from the fence, facing the public access.
(d & e) Note, it would have been permissible to replace the fence in a slower fashion, by calling it "repairs" and
doing it piecemeal. I could easily have done this --as you know, I was replacing the fence panels every night for
security reasons. So having this fence nonconforming is not actually a problem at all; it's the way it was done
that the City has a problem with, however, it was only done that way because the City said it could be. Note
also, it would have been permissible to repair the fence piecemail in this fashion and never replace it at all. So
again, the fence being non -conforming is not really a problem at all.
(f) No one complained about the fence height, and since it's been like that for decades, it's highly unlikely
anyone will complain. And if they do complain, it is easily distinguishable as a repair, as well as being in a
unique location, and exempted by the Grandfather clause had the City not made a (hopefully) rare City error.
To sum it up, making us have a shorter, more vulnerable fence helps no one. It hurts our family. I tried to do
the right thing in the right way --make a stronger prettier fence, actually shorter in some places --with full
disclosure-- survey, open access, telephone call, e -mail --without circumventing the rules (no "repair" claim),
and I am now paying lots more money. I'm very frustrated and hoping you will make this right.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Tracy Syrian
Reeves, Derek
From: Tracy Synan [tsynan@icloud.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 6:07 PM
To: Reeves, Derek
Subject: Re: 1875 Beach Avenue Fence Permit
Thank you for taking time with me today.
When I got home, I did see that you were correct in that there is some fencing remaining along the bottom, so my dog
won't get out while we try to resolve things. Thank you for letting me know about that; it makes me feel better.
Sincerely,
Tracy Synan
From Tracy's phone.
On Jan 27, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Reeves, Derek <dreeves(@coab.us> wrote:
Tracy,
Mike called me about this and I went out and took a look at it. Unfortunately this is one of those
occasions where we are not able to go out and look at every permit that comes in before approval and
there was some confusion. The city's code limits fence height to 6 feet measured from grade. The
permit application only referenced replacing a 6 foot wood fence with a new 6 foot wood fence. I did
not know that the existing fence was built on top of a wall. Your existing fence could not be built under
today's code and we cannot allow a new fence to be built taller than 6 feet.
The new fence will have to be lowered to a height of no more than 6 feet including the height of the
wall. The portions of the wall that are a retaining wall are treated a little different. The maximum height
of a retaining wall is 4 feet. So any fencing added above the retaining wall can be no taller than 4 feet
combined. You can locate the fence next to the retaining wall and have that portion be 6 feet tall as long
as it is not attached to the retaining wall.
I'm sorry for the confusion and we will work with you to correct everything. At this point, we need to get
the plans revised and approved.
Let me know how you would like to proceed.
Derek W. Reeves
Zoning Technician
City of Atlantic Beach
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
(904) 270-1605
dreevesta'�coab.us
From: Tracy Synan [mailto:tsynan@icloud com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 12:12 PM
To: Reeves, Derek
Subject: Re: 1875 Beach Avenue Fence Permit
Apparently he says it has to do with the fact there are a few panels of fence that are on the wall beside
my house; I never heard anything about this before so I don't know what he's talking about.
From Tracy's phone.
On Jan 20, 2015, at 11:36 AM, Tracy Synan <tsynan@me.com> wrote:
Thank you for returning my call and glad we could work it out. Per our conversation :
The fence to be installed will be no taller nor extend any further than the existing fence.
I mistakenly highlighted too far on the survey. I understand this will resolve the issue,
and thank you again!
From Tracy's phone.
On Jan 20, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Reeves, Derek <dreeves@coab.us> wrote:
Please find the comments related to your fence permit application at
1875 Beach Avenue.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.
Derek W. Reeves
Zoning Technician
City of Atlantic Beach
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
(904) 270-1605
dreeves(a)coab.us
<1875 Beach Ave Zoning Review Comments.pdf>
Reeves, Derek
From: Tracy Synan [tsynan@icloud.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 1:40 PM
To: Reeves, Derek
Subject: Re: 1875 Beach Avenue Fence Permit
I mean put back the old fence on the retaining wall... Stick to the same plan on the part that is not on the wall? I can
meet you out there if you'd like. I appreciate your quick response. Hopefully you can understand how extremely
frustrated I am that I'm just trying to replace a broken fence with the same fence and it's been so much trouble. I'm
sorry I'm sure you are frustrated too.
From Tracy's phone.
On Jan 27, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Reeves, Derek <dreeves@coab.us> wrote:
Tracy,
Mike called me about this and I went out and took a look at it. Unfortunately this is one of those
occasions where we are not able to go out and look at every permit that comes in before approval and
there was some confusion. The city's code limits fence height to 6 feet measured from grade. The
permit application only referenced replacing a 6 foot wood fence with a new 6 foot wood fence. I did
not know that the existing fence was built on top of a wall. Your existing fence could not be built under
today's code and we cannot allow a new fence to be built taller than 6 feet.
The new fence will have to be lowered to a height of no more than 6 feet including the height of the
wall. The portions of the wall that are a retaining wall are treated a little different. The maximum height
of a retaining wall is 4 feet. So any fencing added above the retaining wall can be no taller than 4 feet
combined. You can locate the fence next to the retaining wall and have that portion be 6 feet tall as long
as it is not attached to the retaining wall.
I'm sorry for the confusion and we will work with you to correct everything. At this point, we need to get
the plans revised and approved.
Let me know how you would like to proceed.
Derek W. Reeves
Zoning Technician
City of Atlantic Beach
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
(904) 270-1605
dreeves(ci)-coab.us
From: Tracy Synan [mailto:tsynan@icloud com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 12:12 PM
To: Reeves, Derek
Subject: Re: 1875 Beach Avenue Fence Permit
Apparently he says it has to do with the fact there are a few panels of fence that are on the wall beside
my house; I never heard anything about this before so I don't know what he's talking about.
From Tracy's phone.
On Jan 20, 2015, at 11:36 AM, Tracy Synan <tsynan me.com> wrote:
Thank you for returning my call and glad we could work it out. Per our conversation :
The fence to be installed will be no taller nor extend any further than the existing fence.
I mistakenly highlighted too far on the survey. I understand this will resolve the issue,
and thank you again!
From Tracy's phone.
On Jan 20, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Reeves, Derek <dreeves coab.us> wrote:
Please find the comments related to your fence permit application at
1875 Beach Avenue.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.
Derek W. Reeves
Zoning Technician
City of Atlantic Beach
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
(904) 270-1605
dreeves(a)-coab.us
<1875 Beach Ave Zoning Review Comments.pdf>
Reeves, Derek
From: Tracy Synan [tsynan@icloud.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 1:39 PM
To: Reeves, Derek
Subject: Re: 1875 Beach Avenue Fence Permit
Can I just put back the old fence? I still have it.
From Tracy's phone.
On Jan 27, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Reeves, Derek <dreeves(@coab.us> wrote:
Tracy,
Mike called me about this and I went out and took a look at it. Unfortunately this is one of those
occasions where we are not able to go out and look at every permit that comes in before approval and
there was some confusion. The city's code limits fence height to 6 feet measured from grade. The
permit application only referenced replacing a 6 foot wood fence with a new 6 foot wood fence. I did
not know that the existing fence was built on top of a wall. Your existing fence could not be built under
today's code and we cannot allow a new fence to be built taller than 6 feet.
The new fence will have to be lowered to a height of no more than 6 feet including the height of the
wall. The portions of the wall that are a retaining wall are treated a little different. The maximum height
of a retaining wall is 4 feet. So any fencing added above the retaining wall can be no taller than 4 feet
combined. You can locate the fence next to the retaining wall and have that portion be 6 feet tall as long
as it is not attached to the retaining wall.
I'm sorry for the confusion and we will work with you to correct everything. At this point, we need to get
the plans revised and approved.
Let me know how you would like to proceed.
Derek W. Reeves
Zoning Technician
City of Atlantic Beach
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
(904) 270-1605
dreeves(a-coab.us
From: Tracy Synan [mailto:tsynan@icloud com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 12:12 PM
To: Reeves, Derek
Subject: Re: 1875 Beach Avenue Fence Permit
Apparently he says it has to do with the fact there are a few panels of fence that are on the wall beside
my house; I never heard anything about this before so I don't know what he's talking about.
From Tracy's phone.
On Jan 20, 2015, at 11:36 AM, Tracy Synan <tsynan me.com> wrote:
Thank you for returning my call and glad we could work it out. Per our conversation :
The fence to be installed will be no taller nor extend any further than the existing fence.
I mistakenly highlighted too far on the survey. I understand this will resolve the issue,
and thank you again!
From Tracy's phone.
On Jan 20, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Reeves, Derek <dreeves@coab.us> wrote:
Please find the comments related to your fence permit application at
1875 Beach Avenue.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.
Derek W. Reeves
Zoning Technician
City of Atlantic Beach
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
(904) 270-1605
dreeves(aD-coab. us
<1875 Beach Ave Zoning Review Comments.pdf>
Reeves, Derek
From: Tracy Synan [tsynan@icloud.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 12:11 PM
To: Reeves, Derek
Subject: Re: 1875 Beach Avenue Fence Permit
I just got a stop work order from Mike Jones! I do not understand... I thought we worked out that the fence was to be
no higher than the existing fence. Do you have time to talk to me today?
From Tracy's phone.
On Jan 20, 2015, at 11:36 AM, Tracy Synan <tsynan@me.com> wrote:
Thank you for returning my call and glad we could work it out. Per our conversation :
The fence to be installed will be no taller nor extend any further than the existing fence. I mistakenly
highlighted too far on the survey. I understand this will resolve the issue, and thank you again!
From Tracy's phone.
On Jan 20, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Reeves, Derek <dreeves@coab.us> wrote:
Please find the comments related to your fence permit application at 1875 Beach
Avenue.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.
Derek W. Reeves
Zoning Technician
City of Atlantic Beach
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
(904) 270-1605
dreeves(a-)-coab.us
<1875 Beach Ave Zoning Review Comments.pdf>
Reeves, Derek
From: Tracy Synan [tsynan@me.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:50 AM
To: Reeves, Derek
Subject: Re: 1875 Beach Avenue Fence Permit
I am not sure I understand. I am replacing the fence in the back yard that is already there with the same or similar fence,
definitely not higher, maybe shorter in places. This talks about fence height...? Can I call you --when would be good?, or
could you call me at your convenience?
From Tracy's phone.
On Jan 20, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Reeves, Derek <dreeves@coab.us> wrote:
Please find the comments related to your fence permit application at 1875 Beach Avenue.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.
Derek W. Reeves
Zoning Technician
City of Atlantic Beach
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
(904) 270-1605
dreeves(a)-coab.us
<1875 Beach Ave Zoning Review Comments.pdf>