The URL can be used to link to this page

2019 Beach Avenue ZVAR -12-00100010 (Harkleroad)Community Development Board ORDER APPLICANT: Carl Harkleroad 2019 Beach Avenue Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 FILE NUMBER: ZVAR-12-00100010 DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: March 20, 2012 Pursuant to Section 24-64 of the City of Atlantic Land Development Regulations, the above referenced applicant requested (1) variance from Section 24-151(b) (1)d to allow a single detached accessory structure of approximately 872 square feet in lieu of the 600 square foot maximum; (2) variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d&e to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback for the southern portion of the accessory structure to be used as a detached garage, from five (S) feet to three and one-tenth (3.1) feet, with such portion being limited in height to fifteen (15) feet; and (3) variance from Section 24- 151(b)(1)d&e to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback for the northern portion of the accessory structure from ten (10) feet to four and seven -tenths (4.7) feet, such portion to be limited in height to twenty-five (25) feet, and used as a detached garage (ground floor) with guest quarters above on the second floor, all within the Residential Single Family (RS - 2) Zoning District on a property located at 2019 Beach Avenue. On March 20, 2412, a public hearing was held where the said request was considered by the City of Atlantic Beach Community Development Board. Having considered the application, supporting documents and comments by staff, the applicant, and the public, the Community Development Board moved to deny the current request, finding it inconsistent with the specific grounds for approval asserted by the applicant, particularly Section 24-64(d)(2) and (3), noting no exceptional circumstances or surrounding conditions that prevent the reasonable use of the subject property as compared to other properties in the area, and Section 24-64(4)(4), noting that no regulations had been enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property, but that the applicability of existing regulations to the project changed due to discovery of an erroneous survey. The motion carried unanimously by a vote of seven to zero (7-0). NOW THEREFORE, based on the said findings, the Community Development Board hereby DENIES this variance to increase the area of a detached accessory structure from six hundred (600) square feet to eight hundred seventy-two (872) square feet; to reduce the required rear yard setback for the southern portion from five (5) feet to three and one -tenths (3.1) feet; and to reduce the required rear yard setback for the northern portion from ten (10) feet to four and seven -tenths (4.7) from the rear property line at 2019 Beach Avenue. DATE_QT IS 26TH OF MARCH, 2012_ Chris Lambertson, Chairman Community Development Board The undersigned certifies that the above Order of the Community Development Board is a true and correct rendition of the Order adopted by said Board as appears in the record of the Community Development Board minutes. Nficbael Griffin, C , CFM Interim Community Development Director 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:llwww.coab.us Date 1 / / �, File No. ZVA IZ 12- 00100010 1. Applicant's Name _ 2. Applicant's Address 3. Property Location 4. Property Appraiser' 5. Current Zoning Classification / f 121 6. 7. Provision from which Variance is requested A"'1' -/s, Plan Future Land Use designation 4 u., f71Z7,4ard jzwee—lexce ro gllljoeX; -,R,/--f /, > 8. Size of Parcel 4.23 to, mv41010 r 9. Homeowner's Association or Architectural Review Committee approval required for the proposed construction.. ®Yes KNo (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, photoeraphs or documents large than 1107 inches are submitted Please provide eieht (8) conies of any such orieinal_documents. d. Application Fee ($+150.00) 1 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): Signature(s): ADDRESS AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF PERSON TO RECEIVE ALL CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THIS APPLICATION Name: �- / ` Mailing Address: �'� ®� f "' Phone: 704- FAX: T04 Version 1.12.2007 ZVA(z V2 - 00 L 000 LO Instructions to apply for a Variance Variance requests are considered and acted upon during public hearings before the Community Development Board at their regular monthly meetings, which are held the third Tuesday of each month, unless otherwise scheduled. Meetings are held at City Hall in the City Commission Chambers at 7:00 pm. The deadline for filing a Variance application, in order to be heard at the monthly meeting, is 5;00 pm on the first Monday of each month. Applications should be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department located at City Hall. In order for a Variance application to be scheduled for public hearing, the application must be complete. All required information must be provided, and the required fee must be paid. (Variance fees are not refundable in the event that the Variance request is denied.) Once the required fee and a complete application are submitted, the request will be scheduled for the next available public hearing. An advertised notice of the hearing will be published in the newspaper, and an orange zoning sign will be placed upon the property to notify neighboring residents that a Variance request will be considered. Before filing an application for a Variance, it may be useful to read and understand the following definition and requirements from the City's Land Development Regulations related to Variances. A Variance may be approved by the Community Development Board only when consistent with these provisions. Section 24-17. Definition of a Variance. 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. Sec. 24-64. Variances. A Variance may be sought in accordance with this Chapter. Applications for a Variance may be obtained from the Community Development Department. A Variance shall not reduce minimum Lot Area, minimum Lot Width or Depth; and shall not increase maximum Height of Building or Impervious Surface Area as established for the various Zoning Districts. Further, a Variance shall not modify the Permitted Uses or any Use terms of a property. (a) Application. A request for a Variance shall be submitted on an application form as provided by the City and shall contain each of the following. (1) a complete legal description of the property for which the Variance is requested. (2) a reasonable statement describing the reasons for the Variance. (3) a survey or Lot diagram indicating setbacks; existing and proposed construction, as well as other significant features existing on the Lot. -ZVA1z l2^,0! 00010 (4) the signature of the owner, or the signature of the owner's authorized agent. Written authorization by the Owner for the agent to act on the behalf of the property owner shall be provided with the application. (b) Public Hearing. Upon receipt of a complete and proper application, the Community Development Director shall within a reasonable period of time schedule the application for a public hearing before the Community Development Board following required public notice. At the public hearing, the applicant may appear in person or may be represented by an authorized agent. (c) Grounds for denial of a Variance. 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 or more of the following. (1) light and air to adjacent properties. (2) congestion of Streets. (3) public safety, including risk of fire, flood, crime or other threats to public safety. (4) established property values. (S) 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 situations created by the property owner. The following paragraph sets forth reasons for which a Variance may be aloproved. 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. (2) surrounding conditions or circu tances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. W / j ({ 1 . r((3) exceptional circumstances pleventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. SZE �) [9/(4) onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development hof the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. �� /7 l�I r -ZVAP- 12.WIGW10 (5) irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. Jf [] (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. (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. Additional comments: 4r-,4(114' Law Firm of Daniel M. Copeland is hereby authorized to act on behalf of Carl & Judy Harkleroad , the owner(5) of those lands described within the attached application, and as described in the attached deed or other such proof of ownership as may be required, in applying to the City of Atlantic Beach, Florida, for an application related to a Development Permit or other action pursuant to a: (X zoning Variance (— Use -by -Exception F- Rezoning F- Plat, Replat or Lot Division BY: 110#)A CQi4� t i-0. ga-leLaccQ" Printed Name Signature of Owner Printed Name Phone Number j— Appeal F- Fence or Pool Permit I— Sign Permit F- Other Signed and sworn before me on this day of If ,/- • '�� , by Identification verified: Alvelma—f Oath sworn: F- Yes No TIMOTHY S. FRANKLIN NOTARY PUBLIC OF FLORIDA Comm#EE002931 Nota nature %STATE Expires 6121/2014 AV expires: ZVAP 12-00100010 City of Atlantic Beach 800 Seminole Road Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 (P) 404.247.5826 (F) 904.247.5845 www.coab.us State of Florida County of Duva I -ZVAE t2- 00100010 Harkleroad — 2019 Beach Avenue Variance Application Support Materials The following materials including attendant attachments are offered in support of the variance application filed and properly before the honorable Community Development Board for the City of Atlantic, Florida (the "Board"). The Landowner has authorized the applicant, Daniel M. Copeland, P.A., to file the application, and the applicant has authorized the agent, all as according to the authorizations attached to the application. SUMMARY OF REQUEST. The landowner seeks to obtain three (3) distinct variances to allow landowner to obtain reasonable, beneficial use of certain garage/guest house structures lawfully constructed pursuant to permit and variance obtained, but where made non -conforming through the rescission of the permit and prior variance upon discovery of a survey error. The landowner seeks three variances: 1 } 24-151(b)(1 )(d), LDRs, to allow for a single, detached accessory structure of 872 sq. ft. (mol) in lieu of the 600 sq. ft. maximum; 2) 24-151(b)(1)(d & e), LDRs, reduce minimum setback for the southern portion of the accessory structure from 5' to 3.1', i.e. seeking a reduction in the minimum setback for the portion of the detached structure to be used as a detached garage, such portion limited to 15' in height; and, 3) 25-151(b)(1)(d & e), LDRs, reduce minimum setback for the northern portion of the accessory structure from 10' to 4.7', i.e. seeking a 5.3' reduction in the minimum setback for the portion to be used as both a detached garage (ground floor) and guest house (2nd floor), such portion limited to 25' in height. As a necessary part of the variance, landowner will remove the 2nd floor living space from the southern portion of the detached structure, and will remove all roof connections and connected heated cooled connections between the main residence and the detached garage/guest house. Already on file or attached to and all made a part hereof this application is documentation demonstrating ownership of the subject property by landowner together with a survey/site plan delineating the existing improvements relative to setbacks and size. STANDARDS OF VARIANCE. `,Z-VAP-1Z- 001 d The variance may be granted for the reasons set forth at section 24-64(d), LDRs, most notably: (2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. Yes. Beach Avenue was platted in 1938 as a "garage approach roadway" using limited rods and irons for this lengthy stretch, and its paving does not run evenly along its platted course.. Also notable is the fact that the roadway is angled and especially takes a sharp tum at the landowner's lot. Consequently, there are surveying and orientation issues relative to the Beach Avenue roadway known to the Citywhich impact landowner's lot to a greater degree relative to other RS -2 lots including others on the ocean on other roadways. (3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. Yes. The exceptional circumstance is the fact that a project was lawfully constructed pursuant to permit and variance and later rescinded due to survey error discovered. This is not a self- created hardship where landowner financed the construction himself and did not obtain financing through a bank, and is not necessarily remediable via lawsuit against the survey company unless collectible. (4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property of after construction of improvements upon the property. Yes. The advent and movement of the State of Florida's coastal construction and "scour' line(s) and requirements for the uniform easterly projection and orientation of structures affect oceanfront RS -2 lots differently, and push the envelope as far to the west as possible, creating limitations on the reasonable use of the this valuable oceanfront parcel. Further, there are no material adverse impacts that will result from the grant of the variances under section 24-64(c), LDRs, noting in regard to all those factors set forth that the structure's size and contours was approved at its current location, and only later rescinded when it was discovered the unplatted portion of the road was actually closer to the structure than thought. Thus, with the second floor living space removed from the southern portion, and the disconnection between the main residence and the accessory structure, the structure fits in with the established aesthetics at this location, and has a positive impact on property values, the natural environment (pushes development off the dunes and beach) and the general health, welfare and beauty of the community. Finally, the variance is not being sought for personal comfort or convenience or a situation created by the property owner, where the later -discovered surveying error was relied upon equally by the City in granting the permits and variances that allowed the development. In sum, the grant of the variances will allow for a reduced but reasonable„ beneficial use of the detached garage/guest house structures, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City's LDRs. would be pleased to respond to any requests for additional information and look forward to presenting this matter to the honorable Community Develont Board. ranklin, Esq. Daniel M. Copeland, P.A. 9310 Old Kings Road South Suite 1501 Jacksonville, Florida 32257 (904) 482-0616 (904) 482-0618 Property Appraiser - Property Details HARKLEROAD CARL E Primary Site Address 2019 BEACH AVE 2019 BEACH AVE ATLANTIC BEACH, FL 32233-5934 Atlantic Beach FL 32233 HARKLER©AD JUDITH M 2019 BEACH AVE Pmperty Detall RE # 169708-0004 - - - Tax�._l)W1c► US03 Pmpady Use 0100 SINGLE FAMILY # of Buildings 1 Legal Desc. 15.93 09 -ZS -29E $17,235.00 N ATLANTIC BEACH UNIT NO 3 PT Subdhrlslon 03100 NORTH ATLANTIC BCH UNIT 3 The sale of this property may result in higher property taxes. For more information go to Save Our Homes and our Ply Tax Fst"mator.Property Values, exemptions and other information listed as'ln Progress' are subject to change. These numbers are part of the 2012 working tax roll and will not he certified until October.1 earn how-fhe Proo M Appraiser's Office values Property. Official Record Book/ Page 15424-00194 Value Summary Page 1 of 2 ZvAr.-- 12. coo cool U Tile # 9409 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 SJRWMD/FIND Taxable Value School Taxable Value Assessed Value $1,855,754.00 Assessed Value ........ ........................-..........»...... ....»......... ...................,.. ....................... Homestead Exemption»HI( - -� -...$25,000_00 Homestead Exemption .» 25000.40 Homestead Exemption (HX) - $25,000.00 ...............................».......--- .......... Amend' I Homestead (HB) ......... S25,000.00 Amend I Homestead (HB} $25,000.00 ........ .............................. .......... -.- Taxable Value $1,830,754.00 Taxable Value $1,805,754.00 Taxable Value $1,805,754.00 Sales History gni In PMg= Value Method LAMA _2012 CAMA Total Building Value #985,000.00 $977,244.00 Extra Feature Value $17,235.00 $16,014.00 Land Value (Market) $862,500:00 $8§2,504.00 Land Val rAnrlG) $0.00 $0.00 Just (Market) Value $1,864,735.00 $1,855,757.00 A------ Value $1,864,735.00 $1,855,754.00 Cap DE/Portability Amt $0.00 / $4.00 $0.00 / $0.00 Lxeuupthm $50,004.00 See below Taxable Value $1,814,735,00 See below 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 SJRWMD/FIND Taxable Value School Taxable Value Assessed Value $1,855,754.00 Assessed Value ........ ........................-..........»...... ....»......... ...................,.. ....................... Homestead Exemption»HI( - -� -...$25,000_00 Homestead Exemption .» 25000.40 Homestead Exemption (HX) - $25,000.00 ...............................».......--- .......... Amend' I Homestead (HB) ......... S25,000.00 Amend I Homestead (HB} $25,000.00 ........ .............................. .......... -.- Taxable Value $1,830,754.00 Taxable Value $1,805,754.00 Taxable Value $1,805,754.00 Sales History Bldg. Length 0 Deed Instrument Type Code Qualified/Unauallfied Vacant/Improved Book/Page Sale Date Sale Price 15424-00194 11/9/2010 $2,150,000.00 WD - Warranty Deed Qualified Improved 12181-02326 12/10/2004 $100.00 WD - Warranty Deed Unqualified improved 12402-01886 8!13/2004 $2,604,DO0.00 WD - Warranty Deed Unqualified Improved 09696-01934 7/20/2000 $654,DO0.00 WD - Warranty Deed - -- Unqualified Improved 09637.01146 5/18/2000 $655,D00.00 WD - Warranty Deed Qualified Improved 08119-00756 6/15/1995 $255,000.06 WD - Warranty Deed Qualified Improved 03723-DD459 5/1711974 $69,500.00 WD - Warranty Deed Unqualified Improved Extra Features LN 1 2 3 4 Feature Code Feature Description FPGR7 Fireplace Gas Bldg. Length 0 Wktth 0 Tafel Units 1 Z.DD DKWR2 Deck Wooden - - - -1 8 12 96.00 DKWR2 - Deck Wooden — — 1 - _ 4 164 656.00 1 DKWR2 Deck Wooden - - -- 0 -- D 406.00 Land & Legal LN I f,aft I Use DesaWlonZoning_I Front. Depth 1 Categoryy Lind I 4144 RES OCEAN LD 3 7 UNITS PER AC AR52 150.00 ZLLDO Common 50.00 Bulldings Building 1 Building I Site Address 2019 BEACH AVE Atlantic Beach FL 32233 Building Type 0108 - SFR CLASS 2 SCk 1 Year Built 2003 Value $7,377.00 $7W.D0 $4,846,00 $2,999.00 Element L al LN Legal Description Land Value $862,500.00 1 15-93 09-25-29E 14 Wood Shingle 2 N ATLANTIC BEACH UNIT NO 3 f 3 PT l Roofing Cover 3 LOT 67 Element Code Detail Exterior Wall 14 14 Wood Shingle Roofing Structure 3 3 Gable or Hip Roofing Cover 3 3 Asph/Comp Shingle Interior Wall 5 5 Drywall Int Flooring 12 12 Hardwood http://apps.coj.net/pao_propertySearch/Basic/'Detail.aspx?RE--1697080000 2/2112012 Property Appraiser - Property Details 7' -- - - Gross Area Heated Area Base Area — 624 — - 624 -0 - Balcony 99 $13,079.52 Finished Open Porch 245 0 Finished upper story 1 1530 - 1530 Finished upper story 1' 1312 1312 Finished Open Porch 344 0 Finished Det Garage 550 0 Finished Open Porch 8 0 Finished Open Porch 90 0 Total 4802 3466 Int Flooring 15 15 Quarry}Hard Tile Heating Fuel - — 4 4 Electric Heating Type 4 4 Forced -Ducted Air Conditioning 3 3 Central Page 2 of 2 ,r—VAr212-W I0XIO Traversing Data BAS:33,12:=W33 S20 E24 N4 E9 N16 $ BA'L:73,0:=S3 E33 N3 W33 $ FOP:73,12:=N4 E33 S9 U4L4 W9 D4L4 W16 $ FUA:106,1.2:=U4L4 W9 D4L4 W16 S49 E14 N4 E10 N7 E9 N38 $ FUA:69,12:=U4L4 W9 D4L4 W16 542 F-24 N14 E9 N28 $ F0P:36,12:=N12 E33 512 U40 W9 D41-4 W16 $ FDG:109,12:=E25 S22 W25 N22 $ F0P:34,44:=N4 E2 54 W2 $ F0P:69,40:=S10 W9N10E9$. 787'7 N^fira of Qrnnncarl Drnnarty Tarac lTr,ith in Millanp Nntir'pl Taxi na Dfstrkt Assessed Value Exemptions Element Last Year code Rollled-Naek Stories�- $13,079.52 3.000 — — Bedrooms $1,814,735.00 3.000 Public Schools: By State Law Baths $25,000.00 4.600 $9,823.42 Rooms i knits $10,516.85 1.660 $1,864,735.00 Page 2 of 2 ,r—VAr212-W I0XIO Traversing Data BAS:33,12:=W33 S20 E24 N4 E9 N16 $ BA'L:73,0:=S3 E33 N3 W33 $ FOP:73,12:=N4 E33 S9 U4L4 W9 D4L4 W16 $ FUA:106,1.2:=U4L4 W9 D4L4 W16 S49 E14 N4 E10 N7 E9 N38 $ FUA:69,12:=U4L4 W9 D4L4 W16 542 F-24 N14 E9 N28 $ F0P:36,12:=N12 E33 512 U40 W9 D41-4 W16 $ FDG:109,12:=E25 S22 W25 N22 $ F0P:34,44:=N4 E2 54 W2 $ F0P:69,40:=S10 W9N10E9$. 787'7 N^fira of Qrnnncarl Drnnarty Tarac lTr,ith in Millanp Nntir'pl Taxi na Dfstrkt Assessed Value Exemptions Taxable Value Last Year Proposed Rollled-Naek $12,224.77 $13,079.52 Gen Govt Beaches $1,864,735.09 $50„000.00 $1,814,735.00 $12,239.66 Public Schools: By State Law $1,864,735.00 $25,000.00 $1,839,735.00 $9,823.42 $4,759.79 $10,516.85 By Local Board $1,864,735.00 $25,009.00 $1,839,735.00 $4,590.14 $4,135.72 $4,914.12 FL Inland Navigation Dist. $1,864,735.60 — $501000.00 $1,814,735.00 $62.53 $62.61 $64.60 Atlantic Beach $1,864,735.DD ;50,660.00 $1,814,735.00 $5,719.07 $6,640.35 $6,040.35 Water Mgmt Dist. S]RWMD $1,864,735.00 $50,006.60 $1,814,735.00 $753.65 $601.22 $818.26 Gen Gov Voted $1,864,735.00 $50,000.00 $1,814,735.00 $D.DD $0.00 $0.00 School Board Voted $1,864,735.00 $25,000.60 $1,839,735.66 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Urban Service Dista $1,864,735.00 $50,000.66 $1,814,735.00 $0.D0 $0.00 $0.09 Totals $33,173.58 $32,839.35 $35,433.70 3ust Value I Assessed Value mptions Twmble Value Last Year $1,862,527.00 $1,862,527.60 $50,000.00 $1,812,527.DD Current Year $1,864,735.00 $1,864,735.00 $50,000.00 $1,814,735.66 Property Record Card (PRC) The Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) provides historical property record cards (PRCs) online for 1595-2605. The PAO no longer maintains a certified PRC file due to changes in appraisal software; therefore, there are no PRCs available online from 2066 Forward. You may print this page which provides the current property record. (Sections not needed can be minimized.) Torint the past -year cards below, set your browser"s Page Set Up for printing to Landscape. 2005 1 20641 220 12002 12001 12000 1 M 11,9981 19971 1996 1 IM More Information arcel Tax Record I Gid I Map this property on G0o41e Maps I City Fees Record http://apps.coj.net/pao_propertySearchBasic/Detail.aspx?RE=1647080000 2/21/2012 0�" 1 �ti5i v s: o xyrarttLl L a�� x e, "■ V, � r a r; s � , c. r 0 v o .eay� yMl b{ �l s4 l �'a e w • a yII1 •. I I � k � 'dS i .aaCV� O� a�coai o� � � °► uW`� I r .. ka 3 0 V 4 O a* R 'a 1 �• Q t.aCb} CJi +. ti �Y.� S L4 '�buti�C w �J N q'► y ° �' � 4Yt 1 � Qz O: ❑row�E 9 tc°�mtaa 0�" 1 �ti5i v s: o xyrarttLl L a�� x e, "■ V, ' 'V •, .t unq� I�a.rnq �s sp. e.�ud i�ly,nd V x � r r; s � , c. r 0 v � ° r L" e' i yII1 •. I I � k � a ka 3 0 hyo, 'a 1 L`x � � 4�P1 i� � u �S • � ' L ' 'V •, .t unq� I�a.rnq �s sp. e.�ud i�ly,nd V x � r r; c. r F.rK v � ° r L" e' i NP'v�a..,,x •ld ua -ZVAIP- 12- 00 1600 /0 '14 UAC 12.- Col O O a a s � y�v k' k� ATL ANTYC OCE A ft��SQ 9Y � exx [xx Gi LL Z U Q m m W 5 z O LL,._, x ^---- ..a. U �ggggg"g �g�$`ggs �a t7i =d M114 w gaca 5:CL CL 7 xY G TSjel%3 a 01 Ci -q¢ H _ _ _ _ _ _ _. ss�ipIY$sLJ Q Z ffie„y t 7 a ' o Ln ION C 3, per, g;(y {f) vt = ix `g tiSi w exp �^ i t 7� m '0"stagy' •w° it 1 Ai ?9 fag -ZVAPCil - 0 "Nor r— S-903&19 c3c)c3kw 3 ii7 v ta La I 16.i L.lLj me a7 Leri I := - Oct -11 CID CC30 .0 *L sr S -p _Z:7 Hello, my name is Richard Reichler and I live at 2025 Beach Ave, next door to the Harkleroads. I am recommending that the Board deny all three variance requests by the applicant. I am somewhat frustrated that the City has, for the third time, allowed the Harkleroads to submit a variance application without the documentation required by the law, in that applicable side setbacks are not, and have not been, included in the lot diagrams. I also fail to see how this application is substantially different from the last variance, in that the footprint of the structure has not changed and the same setbacks are violated. Furthermore, the applicant is asking the Board to grant variances based on a proposed structure that has not been adequately described. Why did the applicant not supply a sketch or drawing of the proposed plan in the variance application? It appears that the applicant is currently in violation of the following regulations: 24-151 (b)(1)(d) "Detached private garages, carports, guest house or guest quarters, not to exceed six hundred (600) square feet of lot area". The building is 272 square feet too big. 24-151 (b)(1)(d) and 24-106 (e)(3)" Such detached structures exceeding six hundred (600) square feet of lot area shall comply with applicable setbacks as established for the principal building" (15ft total side setbacks). The south wall of the building encroaches 2ft into the south side setback. The applicant is not seeking a variance for this violation in his request, and I am not aware why a variance would not be required. 24-151 (b)(1)(d) and maybe(e). The structure encroaches into the rear setback as close as 3ft from the Beach Avenue right of way The applicant has provided the following reasons for approval of the requested variances: Surrounding conditions or circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. Since the applicant has conveniently omitted their interpretation of "reasonable use", I can only assume that they mean the use of a detached, 872 -square ft, 3 -car garage with living space above it The property is lot number 67 of 80, platted, 50 -ft oceanfront lots along the portion of beach avenue formerly known as Garage Approach Roadway as shown in attachments 4 through 6. Some of these lots are zoned multifamily, but most are zoned R-2, similar to the subject property. The properties along the road have "rods and irons" identifying the corners of their lots just like virtually every other property in town. The pavement along this stretch is uneven in some areas, but especially in front of the subject property, because the builder has destroyed all of the curbing and a portion of the pavement in building the structure so close to the road. Although the road does turn at the junction of lots 64 and 65, this means only that the property sits on a straight section of road (see attachments 8 and 9). The fact that the subject property's north and south boundaries are not perpendicular to the street is not unusual in Atlantic beach. I am not aware of, and the city does not appear to be aware of, any special surveying or orientation issues with this property different from my property or others in the area. What the applicant calls "reasonable use" would be in violation of the land development regulations for his neighbors just as it is for the applicant. If the applicant believes that the laws for R-2 zoned properties on the ocean should allow what he considers reasonable use, it should be dealt with via a fair rezoning process. I concur with City staff that my neighbor's property is no different than the surrounding properties. Note that there is nothing in the regulations or in the property's circumstances that prevents the lawful construction of an attached 3 -car garage with an incremental 872 square feet of living space above it, which is what the applicant's neighbors expected him to build. Exceptional Circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to others in the area. The fact is that the project was unlawfully constructed pursuant to the permit and variance based on multiple misrepresentations to the city, not a "survey error". The permit and variance would not have been rescinded if the construction was lawful. The permit and variance never conferred the right to violate the law. If the logic of the applicant's argument is accepted, all homeowners in Atlantic beach should be allowed to break the law, so long as they can do so before the City realizes the infraction. The applicant has provided no evidence to date that this was not a self-created hardship (I'll get into this later). Nevertheless, self-created or not, the applicant is 100% responsible and accountable for the information presented in his permit and variance applications. Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. I am not sure what the logic is here, but it sounds as if the applicant believes that the buildable area or setbacks of oceanfront properties, especially R-2 zoned oceanfront lots subject to the coastal construction control line and scour line (or erosion control line), which by the way do not directly impact the size or location of the buildable area of the property, are too restrictive. Regardless of the applicant's opinion, there are hundreds of other properties in Atlantic beach, including mine, that have the same restrictions. This is an issue better addressed via formal zoning rule changes, not through the variance process. Staff has inserted a statement into their response that "staff interprets imposition of the CCCL and other FL -DEP regulations lines and coastal permits as more of a function of the topographic conditions associated with oceanfront property, and therefore recognizes Section 24-64(d) (1) has having some validity in tempering those limitations." Section 24- 64(d)(1)is a reason for approval of a variance that states "Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property". The topographic conditions of or near the property are similar to hundreds of oceanfront homes in Atlantic beach and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of other Florida oceanfront homes. There is nothing exceptional, or rare, about the property with respect to coastal regulations and permitting, and therefore this reason for approval does not apply. I do not agree with staff comments that "staff does recognize section 24-64(d) (4) as being valid justification for one or more of the requested variances, in that the identification of a survey error after the construction of improvements was well underway, has resulted in the encroachment of previously adjudged "legal" structures into required rear yard setbacks, and has created an onerous and burdensome hardship on the property owner to bring the structures into compliance. " When I asked Erika what she was trying to say, she responded that, regardless of fault, the current regulations became onerous to the homeowner once it was determined that the regulations had been violated. Although true, it is certainly not a reason for approval of the variances. My response was, and is, that the regulations are only going to be onerous to those that violate them and are not onerous to all of the applicant's neighbors and the other residents of Atlantic Beach who don't violate the law. If her argument is taken to its logical conclusion, then no laws could ever be enforced, regardless of the circumstances of their violation. Furthermore, I want you to look closely at attachment 11. When Mr. Harkleroad submitted the building permit application, he certified with his signature "that l have read and examined this application and KNOW the same to be TRUE and CORRECT': In other words, it is nobody's fault but the applicant's if he submits an incorrect and misleading survey as part of the application. He also certified that 'All provisions of laws and ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with whether specified herein or not The granting of a permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of any other federal, state, or local law regulating construction or the performance of construction". In simple terms, the granting of a permit does not grant the right to violate the law. The variance application mentions in multiple locations that the need for the variance is not the result of a self-created hardship. Self-created or not, the hardship that the owner refers to is entirely financial as he is not restrained from the building of an 872 square foot, 3 -car garage with significant incremental living space above it An illegally -built, detached structure that meets his reasonable use test is just cheaper than the attached alternative. The applicant has back -handedly fingered the city as partially responsible for allowing the development of the building based on the survey -with -error. The city staff erred only in that they trusted Mr. Harkleroad and his permit application. obviously this was a mistake, but not one that falls under any of the grounds for approval for a variance. The applicant describes the revised structure as having no adverse material impacts and that the structure fits in with the established aesthetics at this location, and has a positive impact on property values, the natural environment and the general health, welfare and beauty of the community. Since they have yet to describe said structure, how can we believe this? Anyway, the self-created hardship issue is very important to the applicant, so 1 feel obligated to address it Mr. Harkleroad, his building contractor, Mr. Henderson, and his designer all appear to be very intelligent, successful people, but their actions, along with ACS surveyors during this project, have been exceptionally bizarre and unprofessional, to say the least. A few unanswered questions: Who would pay for a survey in attachment 1 for which nobody bothered to measure anything? No more information is needed other than the plat information and house dimensions available on the COI.net website. Who was instrumental in hiring ACS as the surveyor for the closing in the first place and why would they pick these people? Why would the seller of the house (If they were responsible for doing the hiring) have hired ACS when they could simply have had Boatwright update their last survey for a nominal fee? Why is it that the dozen or more misrepresentations and omissions on the drawing all benefit the homeowner, most specifically the 10ft even distance from the south end of the existing structure to the rear setback and the 14.2ft distance from the north side of the building to the rear property line, which combined, imply a vastly increased buildable area just large enough to fit an additional single car garage? When the owner decided to build the new structure, why did he not bother to buy a more detailed survey? The simple drawing may have been all that was needed for closing the sale, but a conscientious builder would not accept this information -challenged closing drawing as the basis for a site plan, nor would a professional architect, had the owner chosen to use one. Why, after the multiple misrepresentations on the survey were exposed, and after the drafter of the survey (with the aid of the builder) was caught intentionally misleading our City's Building Inspector about the location of the City's right-of-way, did the homeowner go back to the same individual to provide the even -more -misrepresented drawing in attachment 3 for presentation at the February 1 variance hearing instead of actually finding a reputable surveyor? Again, why do the newly added misrepresentations and omissions on this second bogus survey all benefit the homeowner, specifically the shortened angles of the road right of way and the curiously missing distance between the newly built 3rd garage and the south property line that conveniently masks a two -foot encroachment into the side setback? Has the homeowner complained at all to the state about the unprofessional and illegal actions of the surveyors? Why does the applicant imply that a lawsuit against the survey company would be uncollectible? What is the status of the lawsuit, if there is or ever will be one? Why would the builder use a drawing with virtually no useful information on it to construct a building that he expected to be within a couple of inches of the property's side and rear setbacks? Especially since the measurements that were shown on the document were completely inconsistent with the plainly visible survey monuments that he appears to have ignored. Why did the builder continue to mislead the Building Inspector about supposedly - missing survey markers instead of asking the surveyors to replace the monuments at nominal cost? Why did the builder vigorously defend the survey tech's removal and relocation of my survey monument aft into the city's right of way as detailed in attachment 7? Does he consider this standard procedure? It's illegal. What information did the builder use to draw a coastal construction control line on the original survey in attachment 2 that was used by the designer to site the new structure? If he had another survey with this information on it, why was it not used? How is it that the builder, who was able on the "site plan" in attachment 2 to cite obscure sections of the land development regulations such as the allowance for minor dimensional variances, located deep within the duties and responsibilities of the community development director, and rules for the open exterior stairs, at the very end of the accessory structure rules (both of which provide for increased building footprint), avow at the December 20th variance hearing a misunderstanding of the applicable accessory structure regulations and setback requirements that just happen to reduce the building's legal footprint? Why did the builder not submit an application for a driveway permit or an application for removal of the three trees close to the rear property line in attachment 10? Properly complying with either one of these requirements would have exposed, before or early in the construction process, the misrepresented road right of way boundary to city staff, potentially reducing or eliminating the owner's financial hardship. Why did the designer use the coastal construction control line in attachment 2, of all things, to site the new structure? For a building that was to be built right up to the side and rear setbacks, why would the designer use a line crudely drawn by the builder on the basically information -free "survey" drawing? Why did the designer even use this drawing when he knew of a much more detailed boundary survey, shown in attachment 12, available to the public in the City's archives that he had discussed in detail with Erika Hall in early 2011? Apparently, the designer simply did not use or obtain, and the homeowner did not provide, a survey with sufficient information to site an accessory structure. Why did the homeowner not use a licensed architect for the project in the first place? By not doing so, he personally assumes responsibility for these and any other mistakes. This behavior by the homeowner and his contracted help certainly paints the picture of a self-created hardship and cannot be explained by a simple "survey error". In summary, the applicant has not shown anything close to grounds for approval of a variance. His exceptional circumstances are shared with hundreds of his fellow residents. His self-created hardship is completely financial as he was never restrained from building and using a legal 3 -car garage on his property as his neighbors expected him to do. The illegally -built structure is simply his least expensive alternative -one that would add value exclusively to his property at the unfair expense of his neighbors. City staff did err, in that they trusted that the building permit information, that Mr. Harkleroad certified to be correct, was indeed correct. This is not a valid justification for allowing Mr. Harkleroad to violate the law. The structure simply needs to be brought into compliance with the land development regulations. One final note: Staff included at the end of their report the wording of two lesser variances as alternatives to those requested by the applicant. Although irrelevant at this point, since there are no reasons for approval to support them, the two alternatives are mutually exclusive, as granting both would violate section 24-151 (b)(1)(d) in that "Only one detached private garage, carport, guest house or guest quarters shall be allowed on any single residential lot." [`~ z a o r. � jo, Q a �. � � co v 0, n� UU 41 0 W sp �0. m w Q o �aLLT 8z e i R 1 1 9- 00 K i �7 h 0 Pi pma z u =$ .a z�� '01 wcsa _ z o > IM Im�N ° 76 Y 6 tLlg� 0 OT I 0 BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF ATLANTIC BFAcH goo Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 SE`p ` d Office (904) 247-5926 Fax (904) 247-5945 -& � t! Job Address: 21I>wl]#csch Avenue Permit Number: _ff,2 6a2 Legal Description Floor Area 4 Parcel # % 0=, :�� Valuation of Work S 150,000 Proposed Work heatedlcooled 1150 non- +eatedlcooled 315 Class of Work (circle one): New Addition Iteration Repair Move [Demolition pooVspa window/door Use of eltistioglpro structure(s), drele on!): ommercial Residential If an existir struci re, is a fire sprinWer system lsstalled? (Cirde one): Yes No N fA Florida Product Approval # For multiple products use p uct approvUl5brin Describe in detail the type of work to be performed: Demo existing garage roof. Add 2nd floor above existing garage. Add and 0 born�us mom above. ,5� /?7 D' Y— J f I J. Property Owner luformatroa: Name: ieroad Address: 2019 Beach Avenue City . A,13- State FL—.Zip 32233 Phone 90A-534-1108 E -Mail or Fax # (Optional) Coatractor latorr mon: % Company Name:_ Beaches Buildinst l_LC Qualifying Agent: George R. Henderson "�"1 Add+rca- 1516 Marsh Inlet Ct.+'�s---�' _State FL Zip 3225 `a"w' office Phone 626-555G----- Job Site/ LeoD, rax;gF - State CertificationlRegistration # CGC1506954 Architect Now & Phone # Roger Rrtsse11223-3701 ATLANTIC BEACHmplu-46-P",". Engineer's Name & Phone # Louts Gabriel 825-2324 SEE PERMM FDR ADDITIONALFee Simple Title Holder Name and Address REQUIREMENT'S AND CONDMONSBonding Company Name and Address Mortgage Lender Name and A�tssDATEIAfppiicatton u hereby wade no obtabw a permir to do tie work rand rnstallationr as indicated 1 cerfify that no work or insudlatioistmanee ofa permit and Aar all work will be armed to meet the standards of all taws rrgriating const w-dom in this jwGsdicri and mid �f work is nnr easnwenced within su (6 months, or rf constr�ed d work is rsded or abondoned for ape rind of six b) months at airy rime a work is commencer£ 1 zrrsderstarul than sepmntr permtu must be secured for FJtseArie W= �. S*— Wdkt Poots-prwr[,� Noilerr Hear Tanks and Air CoadW0007, esc WARNING TO COMMENCEMENT M TO YOUR PROPERTY YOUR LENDER OR l::I certify that i lam atd aatiorr and bww tht same to be mor and cortins. Allpraairiaiv ssf tt�smtei+ dos mark w111 be herrin or mat Tice rwa tg of a pa,art due: tins pwsase b Sfie sc of arty other nrgwhrtng constracdan ar the prrrf0h%= s ofca+esa'+rct(an. Signature of Owner Signature of Contractor p `' Print Name (;E1Vit Print Name ' f'- Swort}Ao and subse b f me/ S to and su bed this � Day of �f f 2 this Fay of ora Mdnr Pubik - Slee of F1omm n +n +nta Notary Public * eaarara a s+.te is '•,?e'fti.•r' Commission 6 flc 687789 +� Mt CW"n%vm ODW30 2 0 10 �l�n E -W" O2i2M13 . . �M4 ❑ mr C ci ° �tX C 4 Z L1 yy1 isI L- C. .U. cr' n_ s11 0 0 Z�Xf DIU X . V a a - 1.01 ,j Iii x v' 0 02 U0 't.. qU OIL ¢ qzo °a \L W ;,N Gr 4d 0tl Ye IL z z CJ U7 fl , ❑ 0 o� COD to 0 � cry moo Q n ra UmZ� z a. 0 ��c� z w 2. n_ s11 0 0 Z�Xf DIU X . V a a - 1.01 ,j Iii v' 0 qU OIL ¢ qzo °a \L W ;,N Gr 4d 0tl Ye IL z z CJ U7 fl UG n ra UmZ� ��c� z R Q! B Q n_ s11 0 0 X . V ,j Iii V G'v' _Ti wJ G Y �L 1V ajdj qU OIL \L W 4d 0tl f \ IL z z CJ _ z o. i-� cry moo Q N Nom.o ru - J�='a ° mtra� l�1 uj d2lff F-�Stia> q 4!yF hf � �1Sj ]t�'73 E¢iV rd C41S+ a'n000u ODtjbF [" � Qpac�a 0.L'oupL1 U�`'�CS09Q �e" M LU 6 �7�I z "J I n C3 fl w " Z o co Q 0 N Z < O _ � U 4 y z E o OIJO 5 Z - U1 " v v (j" o o a R� mumft pp LT. -.. ¢ 0 x w ti OE `1 V �rd,� 53l V a 3 H `03 o m � ? iC3 z o� oo❑� �uvg�` 0 i x �v0gF� ww ¢ y. C7 w Z O 00 � F cn � 0 LUF P ©z ru 4 Ln F we 01 5 o � d v a R� pp A % j IC2 F I�I4,YY W R g .4 C 03 C4 Q p .--i O U �° z UD 9 ^�. cc Q w _. N 0. p �rd,� 53l V a 3 H `03 o m � ? iC3 z o� oo❑� �uvg�` 0 i x �v0gF� ww ¢ y. C7 w Z O 00 � F cn � 0 LUF P ©z ru 4 Ln F we 01 V +'' . Ne'1y i 0 Wa-84 _ �o� y�K �i• r7 Q -• �i ri �� y� �I a 4 wq j{ a lnel ro I I Qyin 4� �ti I j I • �' E '{ y ` j an..wr corp I I. 3 m 1 �'.•' q..Q'y=�•C� � 4�'eiS Ori L � 1 lk ?.els ►Y 1� � QL•10.` � °� 41, i gin s I t 4 s 1 " d N d j 3w ' I �•� ��-3°� zz Li I 'ir.. 3hip G - p k � w �Yy kd M R N ' ``. .�•9 w � L..w 2c,'vr��c�' � l vs: r, s� $ \.� Fr ii t i t • 4 a C t} •E A -:'+e r .� •; ft- a L ! a �. ` ti � �t a1°, J i'•8�>L Ay.9 w a � o .g �� la t • a� � �r `• � � C � •� a��4 o49t�4'4 A>~ •� � 'i,'�4. A � a i•°la� �' li � + t � ° r ° i �� © �aa� '�kieFi � a1 x•p�y4., is °a p V C�c.9� � �. ~Nye. Ay�a aY^�j•iv � �- 'o a #Z "•'aaa �-^I ��s # ��y'�� p� `w �� ly�,+a! ��i t � 4 4 0 y Q F C 4 i I t F� ti� •wr `94mi ti vp4ylwGta ` t('a ti \� Ca. #t ale a „ a „ i C� � 1 � s � a � �.� �. � � ,. a .t � . • t 4 I w. � t t h a e `aa,�ypt y N • 4: .: p ° C} V. w a1 d Eb 01p'4 a -fill ai G U r qua l� tar 'ly Int %tis. ?a }.r�t�4vr0y 6jw a. '� F +p � za L■ �•ft�4pt C Qom. i,F 4e awti a\a� i V "� �"y i►a 4w�My -�tS�o•\°'l�� {. !t a°,�i �UF:I =pt9a�o �9 y �e9�!e c •FF�9 � :" a: ' fit. ;rptiw a�~ �� `b:, ►.`a� t ay` ;t k9 raRj ps°a Olo _ +'�, o i� s.t ayaE�•�.�•avi a� r` Z i s °i a a h��wicLay pi�pk J V411 Z • k xt { l 9 Lj .Cp •tib p it 0 t ti's ia� e a\ 43 444p +1 • u r F til * � +� • ti 14 v lk � � Z3[pa Y fav i•. . l ; • y ` w I Z '�`•'� - 4 L yCe Y Z C r Atlantic Beach Police Department Case Number 12-00421 Statement by Richard Reichler 0900 January 10, 2012 On Thursday, Jan 51h, I witnessed the builder, Ray Henderson, and a survey technician demonstrating to Mike Jones, the building inspector, that the street right of way at 2019 Beach Ave. was loft from the building addition under construction. I asked the technician why he had moved my survey monument (marking the southwest corner of my lot and the northwest corner of the 2019 lot) 3ft to the west (toward the street) and he replied to Mike and I that he was returning it to the location it was at the time he did the survey (dated 10-28-10). 1 replied that the survey marker had not moved (from the location he took it from) since it was set in July 2010. An argument began between myself, the builder, and the technician over the supposed southwest corner of the 2019 property, now marked with a small pink flag (but no monument) that was placed approximately 1-2ft from the road surface. Mike Jones said that he was told (by the builder?) that the architect had verified the setback based on DEP markers. When I told them that the corner should be located closer to an existing iron rod protruding from the ground about 7-8 ft east of the flag (away from the street) to be consistent with the subdivision plat and the two surveys of the property that I had seen, the technician explained that the flagged position was correct even though it would suggest that the asphalt road was on the private property of the homeowners just to the south of 2019. In addition, Mr. Henderson was adamant that the existing rod,. or the area near it, could not possibly be the corner of the lot. When I told Mr. Henderson that I still did not believe him, he said that he had a survey from a licensed (he may have said "reputable") surveyor and that is all he needed. I said that I would have my surveyor get with his surveyor. I sent an e-mail to Mike Jones outlining what surveys I had to confirm my arguments with the builder and surveyor tech. I called Tri-State Land Surveyors at Spm and talked to Larry Eddy, whose team had set my monument. He agreed that the movement was very unusual and that if I was willing to wait until the following week, he would send a crew out to replace the monument at no cost. Late on Thursday or Friday morning, I called the president of ACS Inc., Randy Rogers, to inform him that one of his (I assumed) survey techs had moved my survey marker. I told hire that I thought it extremely unusual that they would need to do such a thing. I further informed him that the original position (from where the tech had removed the monument) was set by Tri-State Land Surveyors in July 2010 and verified in a recent (April 2011) survey by Boatwright Land Surveyors for a DEP permit. Since the ACS survey was performed in October 2010, it was extremely unlikely that the monument had moved out of, and then back into, its original position during this time period when there was no construction occurring anywhere near the monument. Randy said that he would send a team out on Monday to compare surveys. He asked me to send him a copy of the Boatwright survey if I could and I asked him to send a copy of his original survey to Tri-State. On Friday, I e-mailed Mike Griffin and Mike Jones about my discussion with Randy Rogers. I also talked to Donn Boatwright, who confirmed that the circumstances of the movement were unusual. He said the he had performed multiple surveys of the 2019 property in the past and that the location of the SW C7D corner of the 2019 property should be close to where I thought it was. I faxed him a copy of the marked -up (by the builder for permit submission) ACS survey at his request. I also left a message for Donn to send a copy of his DEP permit survey to ACS, if he was able to. I also talked again to Larry 'Eddy at Tri-State to find out whether he received the survey from ACS. He said he had not and said that there was "a zero percent chance" that he would ever receive it. On Sunday, shortly before noon, upon returning to my house from a walk, I noticed that no survey monument had been set by Thursday's survey team near the survey flag at the SW corner of the 2019 property. I expected that this would be the case. My survey marker was still in the relocated position, unchanged from Thursday. At 2pm on Sunday, upon leaving my house, I noticed that my marker was missing, leaving a large hole. The survey flag on the neighbors property was also missing, with no hole at that location. I called the AB police to report the theft of my marker. I also e-mailed Mike Griffin and Mike Jones to inform them of the theft. Can Monday morning, I called Randy Rogers at ACS again. He confirmed to me that his brother, Gary Rogers, was the tech that Mike Jones and I conversed with on Thursday (and who told us he had moved the monument). I told him that I believed that at least one of the numbers on the survey was inconsistent with the rest of the survey. He confirmed that Gary had provided all of the measurements for the ACS survey and that Gary was the "GR" that drafted the survey. When I told Randy that my survey marker was missing, he said that a survey team, including Gary, had been sent to the site on Sunday afternoon to check the survey numbers and that he had reported hack that he could not check the survey because "all of the survey markers up and down the street were missing". I told Randy that 1 was unaware of any other missing monuments other that the one at the SW corner of my lot. I also told Randy that I considered it highly suspicious that the marker or markers were taken during or very close to the time that his brother was at the job site, especially since he was the only person that would have any reason whatsoever to remove them. I e-mailed Mike Griffin and Mike Jones to inform them of my discussion with Randy. I called Doan Boatwright to tell him what had transpired since Friday and told him that sending his survey to ACS at this point was probably unnecessary. Donn called the ACS survey that I had faxed him "a disaster". 2012 Beach Avenue - Google Maps Goosle address 2012 beach Avenue Address is approxi,; . Page 1 of 1 (Y) http.//maps.google.com/mrnaps?q=2021 +Beach+Avenue,+Atlantic+Beach,+FL&s11=30.350... 312012012 2017 Beach Avenue, Atlantic Beach, FL - Google Maps GOAddress 2017 Beach Ave SIC Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 Page 1 of 1 0 httn-llmane_€ynogle.comlmanq?n=2017+Reach+Avemie.+Atlanti c+Reach_+1~l.&O1=1015f1_.. 1/20/2012 2023 Beach Avenue, Atlanitic Beach, FL - Google Maps Address 2023 Beach Ave Ga- i� c Atlantis Beach, FL 32233 Page I of 1 Sarre trees. Go greml Download Google Maps on your phone at google.camigmm http://maps.google.corrllmaps?q=2023+Beach+Avenue,+Atlantic+Beach,+FL&sll=30.3 505... 1/412012 . ^ ^» _~v--'---- XIUW ------- _-� ^� -Jo-i � � co 0 40 PI) Owo co lu 00 IL wo lu co Vor- F- Fl, I lu 3z 0 251 � � March 13, 2012 Tim Franklin, Esq. 9310 Old Dings Road South Suite 1501 Jacksonville, FL 32257 City of Atlantic Beach 800 Seminole Road Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 Phone: (904) 247-5800 Fax: (904) 247-5845 www.coab.us fb SENT VIA EMAIL Re: March 20`b meeting of the Atlantic Beach Community Development Board Dear Mr. Franklin: Please be advised that the Harkleroad application for Zoning Variance will be considered by the Community Development Board at their meeting on Tuesday, March 20«. The meeting begins at 6:00pm and will be held in the Commission Chambers located at City Mall at 800 Seminole Road. A copy of the staff report has been included for your reference. Please email me at ehall coab.us, or call 270-1605 to confirm whether or not you will be in attendance. (You may leave a voice mail message.) Sincerely, f)0�5> Erika Hall Principal Planner encl cc: Carl Harkleroad — VIA EMAIL CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING Tuesday j March 20, 2012 J 6:00pm Commission Chambers 1800 Seminole Road 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the February 1, 2012 special meeting. 3. Recognition of Visitors. 4. Old Business. None. S. New Business. a. UBEX-12-00100007 980 Mayport Road, ,Brown dba Beaches Custom Auto Repair Request for (1) a use -by -exception to operate an automotive leasing establishment (Penske Truck Rentals), as is consistent with Section 24-111(c)(10) of the Land Development Regulations, and (2) a use -by - exception to operate a used automotive sales establishment as is consistent with Section 24-111(c)(10) of the Land Development Regulations, within the Commercial General (CG) zoning district on a property located at 980 Mayport Road. b. ZVAR-12-00100010 2019 Reach Avenue, Franklin for Harkleroad Request for (1) variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d to allow a single detached accessory structure of approximately 872 square feet in lieu of the 600 square foot maximum; (2) variance from Section 24- 151(b)(1)d & e to reduce the required minimum rearyard setback for the southern portion of the accessory structure, to be used as a detached garage, from five (5) feet to three and one-tenth (3.1) feet with such portion being limited in height to fifteen (15) feet; and, (3) variance from Section 24-15I(b)(1)d & e to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback for the northern portion of the accessory structure to be reduced from ten (10) feet to four and seven -tenths (4.7) feet such portion to be limited in height to twenty-five (25) feet and used as a detached garage (ground floor) with guest quarters above on the second floor. 6. Other Business Not Requiring Action. a. Beach Avenue Overlay Report Report to CDB on direction received from City Commission regarding development of a Beach Avenue Overlay. b. Non -Residential Uses Report Report to CDB on direction received from City Commission regarding review of non-residential uses, especially those applicable to the Mayport Corridor. 7. Adjournment. All information related to the item(s) included in this agenda is available for review at the City of Atlantic Beach Planning and Zoning Department located at 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, and may be obtained at this office or by calling (904) 247-5800. Interested parties may attend the meeting and make comments regarding agenda items, or comments may be mailed to the address above. Persons appealing decision made by the Community Development Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings, including the testimony and evidence upon which any appeal is based, is made. Notice to persons needing special accommodations and to all hearing impaired persons: In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act persons needing special accommodations to participate in this proceeding should contact the City of Atlantic Beach, 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32133, or (904) 247-5800, not less than five (5) days prior to the date of this meeting. MARCH 20, 2012 Regular Meeting AGENDA ITEM 5b T COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT March 20, 2012 Public Hearing Zoning Variance, ZVAR-12-00100010 TO: Community Development Board FROM: Erika Hall Principal Planner DATE: March 12, 2012 APPLICANT: Carl E Harkleroad 2019 Beach Avenue REQUEST: Request (1) variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d, to allow a single detached accessory structure of approximately eight hundred seventy-two (872) square feet in lieu of the 600 square -foot maximum; (2) variance from Section 24- 151(b)(1) d & e, to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback for the southern portion of the accessory structure, to be used as a detached garage, from five (5) feet to three and one-tenth (3,1) feet, with such portion of the structure being limited in height to fifteen (15) feet; and (3) variance from Section 24- 151(b)(1) d & e, to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback for the northern portion of the accessory structure to be reduced from ten (10) feet to four and seven -tenths (4.7) feet, such portion to be limited in height to twenty- five (25) feet, and used as a detached garage (ground floor) with guest quarters above on the second boor. NOTE: At the time of submittal, a new certified survey was not provided. Instead, the submittal included an 8 % x 11 copy of the 2002 Boatwright survey, with some of the recent alterations drawn in, as well as the notes "THIS SURVEY WAS MADE FOR THE BENEFIT OF RAY HENDERSON' and RECHECKED BOUNDARY: FEBRUARY 14, 2012" included. Staff advised Mr. Franklin, agent for the applicant, that a raised -seal certified copy of the survey would be required by the Board, and Mr. Franklin indicated such would be made available prior to the meeting. STAFF COMMENTS This is a new variance application, substantially differing from the previous requests by the applicant in that this is a request for variances from the land development regulations pertaining to accessory structures, whereas the previous requests were pertaining to the principal structure. As such, the applicant is offering certain concessions and alterations to the design of the project as follows:. MARCH 20, 20M12 REGULAR MEETING • The connection previously made between the principal structure and the existing detached garage will be removed and a breezeway -width separation between the principal structure and the previously -detached garage will be restored. • There will be an internal connection between the two detached accessory units, thus essentially making them a single detached accessory unit with a total footprint of eight hundred seventy-two (872) square feet, which exceeds the maximum footprint of a single detached accessory unit by two hundred seventy- two (272) square feet, and thus requiring a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d. • The second story of the newly constructed single -car garage portion will be removed, and the height will be limited to fifteen (15), while the second story addition to the existing two -car garage is requested to remain and be utilized as guest quarters. However, due to previous construction according to an erroneous survey, the structure(s) do not meet minimum rear yard setbacks as specified in Sections 24-151(b)(1) d & e, and thus variances from these provisions are necessitated. Justifications for the applicant's requests are as follows: Section 24-64(d) (2), "surrounding conditions or circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area", stating the methodology employed in the 1938 platting of the North Atlantic Beach Unit No. 3, including that portion of Beach Avenue previously known as Garage Approach Roadway, adversely impacts this particular lot. Staff is unable to discern the "sharp turn" described in the applicant's narrative, and there is no evidence that this lot is now or has previously been developed to a lesser degree than any of the other nearby properties having the same or similar characteristics. At just over 10,000 square feet in area, this lot is more than twice the size of many parcels in Atlantic Beach, including a number on the oceanfront. As built in 2003, the existing single -'Family house has a gross area of 4,802 square feet, with 3,466 square feet being heated & cooled and 550 square feet being dedicated to a one-story two -car garage. The existing house, exclusive of the recent alterations, already meets and exceeds the threshold for reasonable use, so staff does not support this as a valid reason for the granting of any of the requested variances. Section 24-64(d)(3), "exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area", stating that the exceptional circumstance arises out of the fact that the recent alterations were lawfully constructed pursuant to building permits and a variance that were later rescinded due to a survey error, and this has resulted in an undue hardship not of the property owner's making. While staff does agree that revocation of the previously issued variance did result in a financial hardship on the property owner, it is not seen as a prohibition on the reasonable use of the property as compared to others in the area, as noted above. And, Section 24-47(c) of the Land Development regulations clearly states "In exercising its powers, the Community Development Board may, in conformance with the provisions of this chapter, reverse, affirm or modify, in whole or in part, any previously rendered order, requirement, decision or determination provided such action is based upon inaccurate information." Further, Section 6-17(b)(4) of the Municipal Code of Ordinances bestows the following powers upon the Building Official regarding the revocation of building permits: a. Misrepresentation of application. The building official may revoke a permit or approval, issued under the provisions of this code, in case there has been any false statement or misrepresentation as to the material fact in the application or plans on which the permit or approval was based. MARCH 20, 2012 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM 5b Page 2 of 4 b. Violation of code provisions. The building official may revoke a permit upon determination by the building official that the construction, erection, alteration, repair, moving , demolition, installation or replacement of the building, structure, electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing systems for which the permit was issued is in violation of, or not in conformity with, the provisions of this code. Section 24-64(d) (4), "onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property", stating that the Florida Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and "scour" line(s) affect oceanfront RS -2 lots differently, pushing the buildable area as far to the west as possible and creating limitations on the reasonable use of "valuable oceanfront" parcels. Staff points out that the existing CCCL was last revised in 1992, and the existing principal structure, which is the easternmost structure on the property, was constructed in 2003. To the west of the principal structure was constructed a detached accessory similar to other properties in the area. At the time of the 2003 construction, the required rear yard setback for a single -story detached accessory was ten (10) feet from the rear property line, though in actuality, it was built four and seven - tenths (4.7) feet from the rear property line. Though staff has uncovered no variance for this five and three -tenths (5.3) foot reduction, it is assumed either some relief was granted, or the accessory was erroneously located and therefore nonconforming until revisions to the land development regulations in 2010 reduced the required rear yard setback for single -story detached accessories to five (5) feet. Note the additional three -tenths (0.3) feet is just over three (3) inches, which is within the authority of the Community Development Director to administratively grant, being five (5) percent of the standard varied. Thus, again, there has been no barrier to reasonable use of the subject property. However, staff does recognize Section 24-64(d)(4) as being valid justification for one or more of the requested variances, in that the identification of a survey error after the construction of improvements was well underway, has resulted in the encroachment of previously adjudged "legal" structures into required rear yard setbacks, and has created an onerous and burdensome hardship on the property owner to bring the structures into compliance. Additionally, staff interprets imposition of the CCCL and other FL -DEP regulations lines and coastal permits as more of a function of the topographic conditions associated with oceanfront property, and therefore recognizes Section 24-64(d)(1) has having some validity in tempering those limitations. It should be noted that the applicant is requesting that the original two -car garage be considered separately from the new one -car garage in the application of rear yard setbacks. The rationale for this is that detached accessories exceeding the maximum six hundred (600) square foot footprint are subject to required twenty (20) foot rear yard setbacks, per Section 24-151(b)(1)d. Implications of this are discussed further, below. The considerations before the Board at this time are as follows: 1. Shall a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d be granted, thereby allowing the two detached accessory structures to be connected on the ground floor, resulting in a single detached accessory unit having an eight hundred seventy-two (872) square foot footprint, thereby exceeding the six hundred (600) square foot maximum area (footprint) for a single detached accessory by two hundred seventy-two (272) square feet, or forty-five and three -tenths (45.3) percent of the standard? 2. Shall a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d be granted, reducing the applicable rear yard setback for the northern (existing) portion of the structure from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet, as is required for two- story detached accessory units, and then granting a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)e, further reducing MARCH 20, 2012 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM Sb Page 3 of 4 the required ten (10) foot rear yard setback to four and seven -tenths (4.7) feet, which is the distance from the southwest corner of the original garage constructed in 2003 to the rear property line? This would essentially be a reduction of fifteen and three -tenths (15.3) feet, or seventy-six and five -tenths (76.5) percent, from the standard applicable to detached accessories exceeding the six hundred (600) square foot maximum area. o YES ❑ N0 Shall a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d be granted, reducing the applicable rear yard setback for the southern (new) portion of the structure from twenty (20) feet to five (5) feet, as is required for one-story detached accessory units, and then further reducing the required five (5) foot rear yard setback to three and one -tenths (3.1) feet, which is the distance from the southwest corner of the new garage addition constructed pursuant to the erroneous survey to the rear property line? This would essentially be a reduction of sixteen and nine -tenths (16.4) feet, or eighty-four and five -tenths (84.5) percent, from the standard applicable to detached accessories exceeding the six hundred (600) square foot maximum area. ❑ YES ❑ N0 Alternatively, per Section 24-64(f), the Board may approve a lesser variance than that requested, if such lesser variance is found to be more appropriately in accord with the terms and provisions of this Section and with the purpose and intent of the Land Development Regulations. As such, the Board may deny request ##1 above, and require the two detached accessories be maintained as separate units. In doing so, the Board may then wish to consider options #4 and #5, below, as respective alternatives to requests #2 and #3, above. 4. Considering the original two -car garage which has a five hundred fifty (550) square -foot footprint, and a new second -story addition of guest quarters, limited to a maximum height of twenty-five (25) feet, shall a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)e be granted, reducing the required ten (10) foot rear yard setback to four and seven -tenths (4.7) feet, which is the distance from the southwest corner of the original garage constructed in 2003 to the rear property line? This would result in a reduction of five and three -tenths (5.3) feet, or fifty-three (53) percent, from the standard applicable to two-story detached accessory structures limited to twenty-five (25) feet in height and six hundred (600) square feet in area.. ❑ YES a N0 5. Considering the new one -car garage which has a three hundred twenty-two (322) square -foot footprint and is limited to a maximum height of fifteen (15) feet, shall a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d be granted, reducing the required five (5) foot rear yard setback to three and one-tenth (3.1) feet, which is the distance from the southwest corner of the new garage constructed pursuant to the erroneous survey to the rear property line? This would essentially be a reduction of one and nine -tenths (1.9) feet, or thirty-eight (38) percent, from the standard applicable to single -story detached accessory structures limited to fifteen (15) feet in height and six hundred (600) square feet in area. n YES o NO 'ATTACHMENTS: Application for Variance, ZVAR-I2-OOI000x0 MARCH 20, 2012 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM 5b Page 4 of 4 2819 Beach Avenue March 13, 2012 — View from SW w �s. G2G•5556 2019 Beach Avenue March 13, 2012 — Stairs City of Atlantic Beach s Building Department 800 Seminole Road �M Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233-5445 Phone (904) 247-5826 Fax (904) 247 -5845 E -mail: building-dept@coab.us City web -site: http:Ilwww.coab.us APPLICATION NUMBER (To be assigned by the Building Department.) 12-00100010 Date routedMar 12, 2012 : APPLICATION REVIEW AND TRACKING FORM Property Address: 2019 BEACH AVENUE Applicant: CARL E HARKLEROAD (TIM FRANKLIN, AGENT) Project: 2019 BEACH GARAGE AD DN Review fee $ 150.00 Department review required Yes No Building Planning & Zoning x Tree Administrator Public Works Public Utilities Public Safety Fire Services Dept Signature EN Other Agency Review or Permit Required Review or Receipt of Permit Verified By Date Florida dept. of Environmental Protection NIA NIA Florida Dept. of Transportation N/A NIA St. Johns River Water Management District N/A NIA Army Corps of Engineers N/A NIA Division of Hotels and Restaurants N/A NIA Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco N/A NIA Other: N/A N/A Reviewing Department (Circle one.) BUILDING PLANNING & ZONING TREE ADMIN. PUBLIC WORKS PUBLIC UTILITIES PUBLIC SAFETY I FIRE SERVICES Revised 47/27/10 APPLICATION STATUS First Review: ❑X Approved. ❑Denied. Comments: Staff Sufficiency Review. Scheduled Compliance Review & Public Hearing before the Community Development Board on 312012012. **Applicant to provide revised and re -certified, raised seal copy of Boatwright survey dated 2114/2012 and showing most recent additions prior to meeting.** Reviewed by: EHa"� fra'&P -+� Date: 311212012 Second Review: ❑Approved as revised. [-]Denied. Comments: Reviewed by. Date: Third Review: ❑Approved as revised. ❑Denied. Comments: Reviewed by: Date: Harkleroad — 2019 Beach Avenue Variance Application PRESENTATION MA TERIA L S r LEAN fi 'EL -I> 3 CT) LLJ 14P Pz to 46 CL k Qp surly'`F. -2 a 2a2 Qj k kkk %� 5 $5,. - --- R &g m_ d ACL LJ ®� * » a « ± a \ C t mw &mak $23 � � 41m c ea [t \ A .ee k62 I S-6®_ (� k 6\ A a J 3 / q q \ xl � a 2019 Beach Avenin March 13, 2012 — View from W ffi CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOt REGULAR MEETING Tuesday l March 20, 2012 1 6:00p Commission Chambers 1 800 Seminole 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the February 1, 2012 special meetir 3. Recognition of Visitors, 4. Old Business. None. S. New Business. a. UBEX-12-00100007 980 Mayport Road, Brown dba Beaches Custom Auto Repair Request for (1) a use -by -exception to operate an automotive leasing establishment (Penske Truck Rentals), as is consistent with Section 24-111(c)(10) of the Land Development Regulations, and (2) a use -by - exception to operate a used automotive sales establishment, as is consistent with Section 24-111(c)(10) of the Land Development Regulations, within the Commercial General (CG) zoning district on a property located at 980 Mayport Road. b. ZVAR-12-00100010 2019 Beach Avenue, Franklin for Harkleroad Request for (1) variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d to allow a single detached accessory structure of approximately 872 square feet in lieu of the 600 square foot maximum; (2) variance from Section 24- 151(b)(1)d & e to reduce the required minimum rearyard setback for the southern portion of the accessory structure, to be used as a detached garage, from five (5) feet to three and one-tenth (3.1) feet, with such portion being limited in height to fifteen (15) feet, and, (3) variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d & e to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback for the northern portion of the accessory structure to be reduced from ten (10) feet to four and seven -tenths (4.7) feet, such portion to be limited in height to twenty-five (25) feet, and used as a detached garage (ground floor) with guest quarters above on the second floor.. 6. Other Business Not Requiring Action. a. Beach Avenue Overlay Report Report to CDB on direction received from City Commission regarding development of a Beach Avenue Overlay. b. Non Residential Uses Report Report to CDB on direction received from City Commission regarding review of non-residential uses, especially those applicable to the Mayport Corridor. 7. Adjournment. Ali information related to the item(s) included in this agenda is available for review at the City of Atlantic Beach Planning and Zoning Department located at 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, and may be obtained at this office or by calling (904) 247-5800. interested parties may offend the meeting and make comments regarding agenda items, or comments may be mailed to the address above. Persons appealing decision made by the Community Development Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings, including the testimony and evidence upon which any appeal is based, is made. Notice to persons needing special accommodations and to all hearing impaired persons: In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act persons needing special accommodations to participate in this proceeding should contact the City of Atlantic Beach, 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233, or (904) 247-5800, not less than five (5) days prior to the date of this meeting. MARCH 20, 2012 Regular Meeting Draft Afinutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 1 2 3 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD 5 February 1, 2012 6 1. CALL TO ORDER. - 6:04pm 7 Chair Chris Lambertson verified presence of a quorum with the attendance of Jason Burgess, 8 Kelly Elmore, Kirk Hansen, Chris Lambertson, Harley Parkes, Patrick Stratton, and Brea Paul 9 and called the meeting to order at 6:04pm. Also in attendance were Principal Planner Erika Hall, 10 Building Official Michael Griffin, Building Inspector Mike ,tones, and City Attorney Alan Jensen. 11 2. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES — JANUARY 17, 2012. 12 Mr. Lambertson called for a motion to approve the minutes of the January 17, 2012 regular 13 meeting. 14 MOTION. Mr. Hansen moved to approve and adopt the minutes of the January 17, 2011 regular 15 meeting, as written. The motion was seconded by Ms. Burgess, and carried by a vote of 7-0. 16 3. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS. None 17 4. OLD BUSINESS. 18 A. ZVAR-11-00100065-A.1 19 APPLICANT: Carl Harkleroad (owner) 20 ADDRESS: 2019 Beach Avenue 21 REQUEST: Request for an amendment to a previously granted variance [ZVAR- 22 11-001000651 from Section 24-106{e)(2), further reducing the 23 required rear yard setback for a principal structure from twenty (20) 24 feet to four and orae -half (4 %x) feet [for an additional five and one - 25 half (5 V2) feet], within the Residential Single Family (RS -2) Zoning 26 District on a property located at 2019 Beach Avenue. 27 Ms. Hall reviewed the facts of the case as relevant to a previous variance granted by the 28 Board on December 20, 2011, which allowed a reduction of the required rear yard setback for 29 the principal structure from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet. Particularly, she reminded the 30 Board that the previous request was found consistent with Section 24-64(d)(4) of the Land 31 Development Regulations establishing grounds for approval of variance due to onerous effect 32 of regulations enacted after construction of improvements upon the property and an undue 33 hardship resulting from mutual errors on the part of the City, due to process deficiencies, and 34 on the part of the applicant, due to inconsistent submittals. She then explained that 35 approximately three weeks after the granting of the original variance, the Building 36 Department was informed of potentil errors in the survey upon which the approved site plan 37 and construction drawings were based. Subsequently, a new certified survey was requested 38 and a Stop Work Order was issued by the Building Department. The new survey, revised on Page 1 of 8 Draft Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 39 January 11, 2012, delineated the rear (westemmost) property line such that the northwest and 40 southwest comers of the existing garage were actually located 12.2' and 4.7', respectively, 41 from the rear property line, whereas the approved site plan indicated them to be 14.2' and 42 10.0', respectively, from the rear property line. Additionally, the southwest comer of the new 43 garage being constructed to the south of the existing garage was shown on the new certified 44 survey as being 4.5' from the rear property line, whereas the approved site plan indicated that 45 comer was 10.2' from the rear property line. 46 Ms. Hall reported this effectively reduced the required rear yard by an additional five and 47 one-half (5 '/x) feet, more or less, and in order to continue with construction, the property 48 owner had the option to apply for an amendment to the granted variance based upon the 49 revised survey, or bring allnew construction into compliance with applicable standards and 50 valid variances. She also reminded the Board that according to the provisions outlining the 51 duties and responsibilities of the Community Development Board, it "may reverse, affirm or 52 modify, in whole or in part, any previously rendered order, requirement, decision or 53 determination, provided such action is based upon new evidence or where it is determined 54 that a previous decision was made based upon inaccurate information". [Section 24-47(c)] 55 Property owner Carl Harkleroad addressed the Board and confirmed that a Stop Work Order 56 had been issued due to a discrepancy discovered between a newly certified survey and a pre - 57 purchase survey that had been used as the basis for the approved site plan and construction 58 drawings. He said that he had provided both a raised -seal copy of the newly certified survey 59 as well as a copy of the pre -purchase survey to Ms. Hall, and was requesting an amendment 60 to the granted variance, further reducing the required rear yard setback to four and one-half (4 61 /z) feet, to account for the discrepancy between the two surveys. 62 For clarification, Mr. Lambertson asked if the pre -purchase survey submitted to staff had a 63 raised -seal, to which Ms. Hall replied that it did not. Mr. Lambertson then asked Mr. 64 Harkleroad if he had the original or a raised -seal copy of the pre -purchase survey with him, to 65 which Mr. Harkleroad responded that he did not. Mr. Lambertson then asked Mr. Harkleroad 66 if, given time, he could retrieve the survey, to which Mr. Harkleroad responded that he did 67 not know where it was. City Attorney Alan Jensen then interjected that if Mr. Harkleroad 68 stated the pre -purchase survey was certified and had a raised -seal, the Board could stipulate 69 as to that fact and give a reasonable amount of time for Mr. Harkleroad to produce it. 70 Mr. Lambertson opened the hearing to public comment. Ms. Hall indicated that the Board 71 had been provided copies of two letters received via email, including one in objection to the 72 variance from Mr. Richard Reichler, and one in support of the variance from Dr. Stanley 73 Barnwell. 74 Rich Reichler (2025 Beach Avenue) introduced himself as the adjacent property owner to the 75 north of the subject property. He stated that, based upon two grossly inaccurate 76 measurements between the existing structure and Beach Avenue, and many major 77 misrepresentations since before the Harkleroads' purchase of the property, he strongly 78 recommended the Board deny tonight's request for amendment to, and revoke the previously 79 granted variance. [NOTE: Per Mr. Reichler s request, a copy of his complete statement is 80 attached to and made apart ofthese ofjticial minutes.] 81 John Meserve (2126 Beach Avenue) introduced himself as a neighbor just a few houses to the 82 north of the subject property. He noted that new construction is essential complete except for 83 trim and interior finishing, and recommended that the Hoard grant the requested variance Page 2 nt'K Draft Afinutes oaf the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of ahe Communhy Development Board 84 amendment, noting that Beach Avenue is a narrow one-way street, with many garages and 85 other accessories located near or directly abutting the right-of-way. He added that Mr. 86 Harkleroad's construction does not intrude any more into the right-of-way than neighbors to 87 both the north and south. He said that modification of the existing structure, as constructed to 88 this point, was not an option, but would require a complete tear -down and new start. Mr. 89 Meserve also responded to Mr. Reichler's concern about Mr. Harkleroad's potential to further 90 increase the scale and mass of the principal structure closer to the street, stating that Board 91 could stipulate as to limitations as to height and mass of the addition, which Mr. Harkleroad 92 could then record as deed restrictions. He concluded that the flawed survey existed since 93 before the purchase of the property, and therefore should not be considered as the fault of the 94 present owner. 95 Richard Bell (1952 Beachside Court) said that he opposes the variance and the amendment, 96 noting that there is already a scarcity of adequate parking on the site, which imposes a burden 97 on neighbors. 98 Kathleen Russell (2117 Beach Avenue) stated that she had lived in the area for nearly thirty 99 years and had several Stop Work Carders issued while constructing her home, and each time, 100 she did what was necessary to bring the work into compliance. Afterwards, she served on the 101 Community Development Board, then on the Code Enforcement Board, and these 102 appointments gave her a greater appreciation of the difficult decisions made by these boards 103 and the unique circumstances that property owners often find themselves in. However, in this 104 particular situation, she said the fault was clearly that of the surveyor, and she suggested the 105 property owner should look to the surveyor for recourse, rather than asking for additional 106 concessions not afforded to other law-abiding citizens. 107 Heath Aldridge (Durham, North Carolina) explained that she was the owner of the two vacant 108 lots directly across Beach Avenue from the Harkleroad and the Reichler residences, amongst 109 several other properties in Atlantic Beach, and she just happened to be in town and noticed 110 the sign advertising the meeting on the site. She expressed concern that Atlantic Beach no 111 longer sends out notifications to abutting property owners for variance hearings, and strongly 112 recommended that this practice be reinstated. She then noted that the previous variance was 113 granted on the finding of criterion number four, but she asserted that there was no such 114 onerous effect of regulations enacted after the development of the property or after the 115 construction of improvements upon the property, and that an inaccurate survey could not be 116 claimed as grounds, because it is the property owner(s)' responsibility to do due diligence and 117 hire reputable contractors and service providers. Referring to the 2002 Boatwright survey 118 found by staff in City archives, she noted that it did not make sense for a property owner to 119 change to a completely different surveyor, when one already had the file and merely needed 120 to be update and recertify it. She concluded by asking the Board to deny the variance 121 amendment and revoke the original variance. 122 With there being no one else from the audience wishing to speak, Mr. Lambertson closed the 123 public comment portion of the hearing and returned the item to the Board for discussion. 124 Mr. Hansen noted that the approved variance .had no restrictions. Mr. Parkes added that the 125 original or primary question had been one of a ten (10) foot rear yard setback for an accessory 126 that was subsequently attached to the principal structure. The fact that principal structures 127 and accessory structures have differing height limits was not given adequate consideration at 128 that time. As a point of clarification for the audience, Mr. Lambertson explained that the 129 original garage was in compliance. New construction consisted of addition of a second level Page 3 of 8 Draft Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 130 to that existing garage, addition of a new two-story garage and finally connection of the 131 garages to one another and the principal structure. As a result, there were many nuances to 132 consider. 133 Mr. Parkes asked staff how the Boatwright survey was obtained. Ms Hall replied that it was 134 in the City's digital archives, which may consist of historic building plans, surveys, permits 135 and such documents for individual addresses. Mr. Elmore then asked where the Atlantic 136 Coast survey came from, and Mr. Harkleroad said it was supplied to him by the seller of the 137 property. Discussion as to survey requirements at the time of property transactions ensued, 138 and Mr. Burgess added that the closer may have had a relationship with Atlantic Coast and 139 that could have been why that company was selected to do the closing survey. 140 Mr. Elmore expressed disdain for the poor quality of even the most recent certified survey, 141 noting that basic surveying data, such as corner identification, was still missing. Mr. Parkes 142 added that with all the technology of the day, he did not know of anyone who provided hand - 143 drawn surveys as a final deliverable. 144 Mr. Elmore, noted that originally the applicant had come before the Board to request a 145 variance because a connection that essentially converted accessory structures into an 146 extension of the principal structure was not shown on the site plan reviewed and approved by 147 the Planning & Zoning Department, though it was eventually found to be shown on 148 construction plans reviewed and approved by the Building Department. Neither was wrong 149 in their independent reviews and subsequent approvals, but inconsistency between the two 150 documents uncovered a flaw in the review process, and consequently there was concession 151 that the City would shoulder blame, and this Board granted a ten (10) foot rear yard variance 152 for what is now the principal structure. Now, the applicant comes before us again, with an 153 incorrect survey. 154 Mr. Parkes interjected that the Board approved the previous variance based on what was 155 thought to be an honest mistake. Had the original submittal for building permits included a 156 correct survey, this would have never been approved. 157 Mr. Elmore noted that Mr. Reichler had mentioned pins had been moved and that Building 158 Inspector Mike Jones had been present while Atlantic Coast surveyors were on the site and 159 had had conversations with various people involved. He then asked if Mr. Jones could 160 elaborate on what he witnessed. Mr. Jones introduced himself as the Building Inspector and 161 Plans Examiner for the City of Atlantic Beach. He acknowledged that he had attempted to 162 verify the setback himself, taking off from a pin he found on the north side. He said at that 163 time, his estimation was consistent with the distances shown on the site plan. But soon after, 164 questions arose over the accuracy of the survey, and on a Friday afternoon soon afterwards, 165 he encountered a three-man survey crew from Atlantic Coast on-site, who were reporting the 166 southern pin had been moved, but reset. Then, the following Monday, Atlantic Coast called 167 and reported that the pins had been moved over the weekend and said they would not certify 168 the survey. 169 Mr. Lambertson inquired into the creation of the site plan, asking if the architect had used the 170 parameters of the survey. Mr. Jones said that he had called the project designer, Roger 171 Russell, to inquire as to how the site plan was created. He said that Mr. Russell told him that 172 he pulled off the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) to get a dimension line. Mr. 173 Russell, present in the audience interjected that he was not an architect, but a designer, and 174 was not regulated. Mr. Elmore responded the CCCL, while it has a legal description, is not a Page 4 of 8 17rafd Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 1.75 line you can pin to — it is not an acceptable monument. Mr. Parkes commented that there are 176 rare circumstances when such unconventional methods are required, but in doing so, he 177 always includes a disclaimer. 178 Mr. Lambertson asked why the surveyor came out, moved the pins and then did not certify 179 the survey he had just created, to which no one had an answer. He then asked what the 180 position of Atlantic Coast Surveyors was at this time. Ray Henderson, building contractor for 181 the project, responded that Atlantic Coast eventually did present a new certified survey with 182 corrections, but since then, they have not been returning phone calls or responding to emails. 183 Ms. Hall read the note from the most recent certified survey from Atlantic Coast Surveyors, 184 "Revised 1-11-12 to show new garage addition and ties to property line" and commented that 185 staff is troubled by the fact that this note is not completely truthful and does not adequately 186 address the revisions made. For instance, as Mr. Elmore had pointed out earlier, there was 1.87 not sufficient documentation of monuments and control points, nor was there indication that 188 the location of the structures changed what could be considered a significant distance, thus 189 placing a heaving burden on this Board and staff, and having potentially catastrophic 190 implications for the property owner and construction professionals he has employed. 191 Mr. Stratton asked how a surveyor could make an error of five feet, and Mr. Lambertson 192 replied that is possible for anyone, but as a contractor, he tries to implement checks and 193 balances that protect him from such errors, such as getting a foundation survey to verify the 194 horizontal constraints of his projects before commencing with vertical construction. 195 Mr. Lambertson then directed the Board to the application, noting that the applicant had once 196 again indicated "onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of 197 the property or after construction or improvements upon the property". However he promptly 198 dismissed this as invalid grounds for approval of the amendment, and asked the Board 199 members to review the other criteria. 240 Mr. Parkes inquired as to the status of the project and asked if any work had been done since 201 the error was discovered. Mr. Griffin stated that speculation regarding the accuracy of the 202 survey occurred soon after the original variance was granted, and a Stop Work Order was 203 issued on January 9'h. 204 Mr. Elmore noted a comment made by Mr. Meserve regarding the character of Beach Avenue 205 as germane to the consideration, and reiterated that he would like to see the area addressed 206 with an overlay. He then said he was torn as to how to decide this case — to be principled and 2..07 require everything out of compliance to be removed, or to be compassionate and approve the 208 amendment because lie does not see the impact of the design as a negative to the neighbors on 209 either side. Me. Parkes said he agreed with much of Mr. Elmore's comments, but looking at 210 the Code and the Boards positions in the past, he felt it was necessary to defend those 211 positions and uphold the Code. He continued, saying that he did not think the parking issue 212 was a valid concern, and that he was sympathetic to the owner and builder whom he felt had 213 no part in this, but was drawn into this by no fault of their own when provided with an 214 incorrect survey. 215 Mr. Lambertson agreed, again stating this could happen to anyone, but the Board must be 216 vigilant and consider what would happen when the next person shows up with a faulty 217 survey. Ms. Paul countered that a faulty survey is not something that can be prevented, and 218 that we rely upon professionals to provide accurate and reliable information. Page 5 of 8 Draft Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 219 Mr. Burgess said that in looking at the criteria, he could not find one that addressed an 220 erroneous survey, and therefore could not find grounds to approve the amendment before 221 therm. Mr. Stratton concurred, stating that even if everyone on the Board wanted to grant the 222 variance amendment out of compassion, there is nothing in the guidelines allowing the Board 223 to grant it. Mr. Hansen said he complete agreed, and Mr. Parkes said that looking back, he 224 now questioned whether the Board had a valid reason to grant the original variance. 225 Mr. Stratton, who was absent from the December 2e meeting, noted the criteria had not 226 changed and asked how the previous request met the criteria. Mr. Elmore reiterated his 227 earlier comments and said that it was essentially viewed as error by both staff and applicant, 228 and that it really did not fit into one of those boxes. Mr. Lambertson said that the initial 229 variance was granted because the original site plan did not show the second -level connection 230 between what was a one-story accessory and the principal structure. He added that at this 231 point, he would not feel comfortable revoking the previously granted variance. 232 Mr. Parkes agreed that the basis of the previous variance was a series of oversights and errors 233 and that the variance was granted because the circumstances were viewed as no fault of the 234 owner. However, he said that he now viewed the project in an entirely new light, because if 235 the survey had been correct from the beginning, neither Building nor coning would have 236 approved the plans. 237 Mr. Lambertson asked Board members for their final comments and called for a motion. Mr. 2.38 Stratton said that while he felt very badly for the situation, he also felt that approval of this 239 amendment would be setting this Board and the City up for legal action, noting that the 240 residents of the Atlantic Beach have expectations that this Board will uphold the Code of the 241 City. 242 MOTION: Mr. Stratton moved that the Board deny the requested variance amendment 243 further reducing the required rear yard setback for a principal structure in the RS -2 zoning 244 district from ten (10) feet —as approved by order of a previous variance —to four and one-half 245 (4 %Z) feet, finding that the request does not meet any of the grounds for approval according to 246 Section 24-64(d), and also reverse the previous decision and revoke the variance order 247 granted to reduce the required rear yard setback for a principal structure in the RS -2 zoning 248 district from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet, finding that the request did not meet any of the 249 grounds for approval according to Section 24-64(d) either. Ms. Paul seconded the motion. 250 Mr. Lambertson said he wanted to ensure the Board was clear on the implications of this 251 motion. Saying essentially this would require the applicant to take the structure back to the 252 original state, he read from the staff report this would require "all new construction to be 253 completely removed. In this scenario, the original one-story two -car detached garage would 254 have to be restored to original horizontal and vertical dimensions, though it could still be re - 255 oriented from a southern access to a western access. Likewise, the original breezeway 256 separating the detached garage from the principal structure would have to be restored." 257 MOTION WITHDRAWN: Mr. Stratton withdrew his motion and Ms. Paul withdrew her 258 second. 259 Mr. Stratton then asked for discussion of the second scenario, which would be a denial of the 260 present amendment, but a reaffirmation of the previous variance. Mr. Hansen said that one of 261 the problems with this scenario is that the new construction consists of the addition of a 262 second story. Mr. Elmore added that any modification would change the roof lines, which Page 6 of 8 Draft mutes of the February I, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 263 would require the whole thing to be re -engineered. Mr. Lambertson said again that he felt the 264 original variance was based on substantial evidence; even though the connection at the basis 265 of the request was not shown on the site plan, it was found in the structural plans. 266 Mr. Lambertson then inquired as to the appeal process, and Mr. Jensen responded that appeals 267 would be to the City Commission. Mr. Parkes added that the Commission was essentially the 268 authors of the guidelines. Mr. Stratton said that if the Commission drafted the guidelines by 269 which this Board was to consider variances, they would certainly have expectations that any 270 variances granted could meet the established criteria. Ms. Hall explained that an appeal is a 271 quasi-judicial review, in which the Commission would only be permitted to review the 272 official record to determine three things -- whether there had been due process afforded to all 273 affected parties, whether the correct law had been applied, and whether there was substantial 274 competent evidence to support the decision. 275 Mr. Lambertson read the second option from the staff report, noting this scenario would deny 276 the current request to amend the variance, but allow the original variance to stand, meaning 277 any new construction encroaching beyond the ten (10) foot setback would have to be 278 removed. 279 Noting that this was the only rear yard variance approved during his tenure on the Board, Mr. 280 Parkes said he questioned whether he would have voted in the same manner on the original 281 variance if he had had the current information. Mr. Elmore agreed that looking forward, he 282 could not say he would have done the same either because there are long-term repercussions 283 to be considered. 284 MOTION: Mr_ Stratton moved that the Board deny the requested variance amendment 285 further reducing the required rear yard setback for a principal structure in the RS -2 zoning 286 district from ten (10) feet — as approved by order of a previous variance from Section 24- 287 106(e)(2) — to four and one-half (4 ''/2) feet, finding that this request does not meet any of the 288 grounds for approval according to Section 24-64(d), and that the Board also reverse the 289 previous decision and revoke the variance from Section 24-106(e)(2) granted to reduce the 290 required rear yard setback for a principal structure in the RS -2 zoning district from twenty 291 (20) feet to ten (10) feet, finding that in accordance with Section 24-47(c), the previous 292 decision was based upon inaccurate information, and that this action is based upon new 293 evidence which does not meet any of the grounds for approval according to Section 24-64(d) 294 either. The motion, seconded by Mr. Hansen, was carried by a vote of 5-2, with Ms. Paul and 295 Mr. Lambertson dissenting. 296 Under consensus of the Board, Mr. Lambertson expressed a desire to hold a joint workshop 297 with the Commission to discuss Beach Avenue character and possible solutions such as an 298 overlay; however, he recalled that when the Board previously requested such a workshop, 299 staff was told no. He asked if the Board could request workshop with the Commission, to 300 which Mr. Jensen replied yes and agreed that a delegate from this Board could address the 301 Commission with such a request. 302 Page 7 of 8 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 Draft Minutes of the February 1, 2012 regular meeting of the Community Development Board 5. NEW BUSINESS. A. ORDINANCE NO 90-12-214 REQUEST: Recommendation to the City Commission to amend Section 24-151, to establish a minimum required separation of six (6) feet between accessory buildings and structures and other buildings and structures; to correct four (4) incorrect references in the existing provisions; and to reorder subsection 24-151(b)(2), grouping those provisions related to use and those related to dimensions. Ms. Hall explained that the submittal before the Board arose out of the Board's desire to reincorporate a defined separation between accessories structures and other structures into the Code, and consisted of a draft ordinance and a strike -through f underline revision of the affected Section 24-151, implementing a minimum required six (6) foot separation as item 24-151(b)(2)f. Additionally she noted four incorrect references within Section 24-151 that were corrected, and reordering of subsection (b) according to application, with some being related to use and some being related to dimensions. Mr. Parkes said that he would support reducing the separation to five (5) feet, and Mr. Elmore concurred, as did other members of the Board, saying that it was a dimension consistent with other setback requirements. MOTION: Mr. Parkes moved that the Board recommend to the City Commission adoption of the ordinance before them, thereby amending Section 24-151 of the Land Development Regulations to establish a minimum required separation of five (5) feet between accessory buildings and structures and other buildings and structures, and making other corrections as noted, finding that this amendment is consistent with adopted Comprehensive Plan and the purpose and intent of the Land Development Regulations 6. OTHER BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING AC'T'ION. None. 7. ADJOURNMENT— 8:15 PM Chris Eambertson, Chairman Attest Page 8 of 8 My name is Richard Reichler and I live at 2025 Beach Ave. Mr. Harkleroad is my next door neighbor to the south. I am recommending that the board reverse the prior variance approval ZVAR-11-00100065 of December 20, and deny the current variance request, based on the fact that both were submitted using grossly misrepresented survey information. The building permit application and December variance application are both based on an extremely unusual boundary survey in that it contains no boundary measurements. No corners are identified -- no distances or bearings between corners are measured. Only plat information is shown for the boundary, and most of that is either not relevant or is misrepresented. Importantly though, two grossly inaccurate measurements are presented as the distance between the western corners of the existing single -story garage and the beach avenue right-of-way: A 10ft number that misrepresents, by over 5ft, that the to - be -enlarged existing garage will exactly meet the required setback, and a 14.2ft number that, when used with the 10ft number, misrepresents the angle of the right-of-way boundary as approximately 11 degrees to north instead of the actual 18 degrees, providing the illusion that there is just enough room to attach an additional (albeit illegal) concrete block garage next to the existing two car garage. Only after the 10ft variance was approved, on December 20th, did the fust -mentioned misrepresentations become obvious when the building inspector explained to me that because of a missing (per the builder) physical survey marker, the inspector had to rely on the previously -mentioned survey measurements in order to check that the addition was in compliance with setback requirements. The misrepresentations became even more numerous when on the following day, the same survey tech that had drafted the original survey, along with the builder, attempted to persuade the building inspector and myself that the survey's interpretation of the location of the city's right of way was correct by a.j illegally moving my capped survey monument aft towards the street, in order to make its location consistent with the two grossly inaccurate measurements on the survey and b.] loudly arguing that the location of the southwest corner of the property (where the marker was purportedly missing) could not possibly be located anywhere near the location shown on the archive survey presented by the city at the December 20 meeting and should be 7-8ft closer to (and almost in) the road surface. The survey for today's variance request includes additional inaccuracies, including all the bearings. The 4.5ft setback is not consistent with the 12.2ft and 4.7ft figures obtained from an earlier survey for the prior owner of the property. Again, no measurements appear to have been made, nor were any monuments set. In summary, the information provided to the city by the homeowner for the 'building permit, the December20 variance, and the current variance request is not just inaccurate, it includes many major misrepresentations that have occurred since before the homeowner purchased his home. The only legitimate solution to this issue, based on the new information, is for the board to reverse the 10ft variance approval and deny the current request. The property needs to be brought back into compliance with the existing land development regulations. AGENDA ITEM Sa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT March 20, 2012 Public Hearing Use -by -Exception, UHE-12-00100007 TO: Community Development Board FROM: Erika Ball Principal Planner DATE: February 8, 2012 APPLICANT: Joan Brown Beaches Custom Auto Repair 980 Mayport Road REQUEST: Request for (1) a use-hy-exception to operate an automotive leasing establishment (Penske Truck Rentals), as is consistent with Section 24- 111(c)(10) of the Land Development Regulations, and (2) a use -by -exception to operate an automotive sales establishment, as is consistent with Section 24- 111(c)(10) of the Land Development Regulations, within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District on a property located at 9801 Mayport Road STAFF COMMENT The subject property is located southwest of the intersection of southbound lanes of Mayport Road and West 10th Street and is approximately 0.47 acres, or about 20, 473 square feet in total lot area, comprised of one hundred two (102) feet of frontage along Mayport Road and two hundred (200) feet of frontage on West 101h Street. The property is presently designated as Commercial (CM) according to the Future Land Use Map of the adopted 2020 Comprehensive Plan Map Series, and it is zoned Commercial General (CG) according to the Official Zoning Map. Surrounding properties are also zoned CG, with the parcel to the north being the location of the First Baptist Church of Atlantic Beach; the parcels to the south and west being the location of Transit Plus; and the parcel to the southwest being the location of Advanced Lens Technologies. The applicant currently operates an automotive service establishment, offering minor automotive repair and detailing services on the subject property, as is permitted by Section 24-111(b)(9). However, she recently secured a Penske Truck Rental franchise and now requests to operate that business from this same location. Additionally, the applicant has stated she is in the process of obtaining a dealer's license and also requests to operate a used car dealership from this location. Both automotive sales and leasing establishments are listed as permissible uses -by -exception, according to Section 24-111(c)(10), so long as found to be consistent with the commercial intensity, and compatible with other commercial and residential uses in the vicinity. As noted in the table below, the subject property has been occupied by automotive sales and service establishments for more than thirty (30) years. Harry T. Gross commenced operation of Bud's Auto on the subject MARCH 20, 2012 Regular Meeting A AGENDA ITEM Sa — continued Page 2 of 3 property in 1979, when it was already zoned CG, and at which time used car sales were permitted by right only with the Commercial Intensive (CI) and Light Industrial & Warehousing (ILW) zoning districts. Staff has been unable to determine what preceded Bud's Auto, or how the automotive use came into existence on the property. With the adoption of Ordinance 90-85-96 though, the Cl zoning district was eliminated and auto sales and leasing were reclassified as permitted uses -by - exception within the CG zone. Then, in January 1986, Mr. Gross was granted a use -by -exception for his automotive sales business located at 980 Mayport Road, thereby establishing a record of conformance with the current zoning regulations. However, staff found no evidence, either in UBE files or in official minutes of either the Community Development Board or the City Commission that Mr. Murr ever applied for or was granted a use -by -exception For his automotive sales business that occupied the subject property subsequent to Mr. Gross' business.. BUSINESS ID & NAME CLASSIFICATION OPERATION 3081 BUD'S AUTO SALES AUTO SALES, USED 1979-2000 AUTO SERVICE/REPAIR SCHEDULED FOR CC PH 2007 -DEC -10 AUTOSTORAGE APPROVED 4805 MURR'S MOTORS AUTO SALES, USED 2000-2011 2007 -FEB -12 AUTO SERVICE REPAIR WITHDRAWN 6397 BEACHES CUSTOM AUTO REPAIR AUTO SERVICE REPAIR 2011 - The history of use -by -exceptions of this particular or similar uses within the CG zoning district is as follows; DATE APPLICATION ACTION 2012 -FEB -13 UBE-12-00100005 1800 MAYPORT ROAD (CG) RECOMMENDED BY CDB AUTO SALES, USED SCHEDULED FOR CC PH 2007 -DEC -10 UBE-2007-05 1850 MAYPORT ROAD (CG) APPROVED AUTO SALES, USED LTD 2 YRS 2007 -FEB -12 UBE-2007-01 1075 ATLANTIC BLVD (CG) WITHDRAWN AUTO SALES, USED 2005 -QCT -10 UBE-2005-08 1850 MAYPORT ROAD (CG) DENIED AUTO SALES, USED 2005 -MAY -09 UBE-2005-04 1919 MAYPORT ROAD (CG) APPROVED AUTO SALES, USED; AUTO REPAIR, HEAVY LTD 28 CARS 2005 -MAR -14 UBE-2005-01 589 W 14TH STREET (CG) APPROVED AUTO REPAIR, HEAVY; AUTO REPAIR, BODY 2005 -JAN 10 UBE-2004-02 1800 MAYPORT ROAD (CG) APPROVED AUTO SALES, USED; AUTO REPAID, HEAVY 2003-NOV-10 UBE-2003-05 1075 ATLANTIC BLVD (CG) APPROVED AUTO SALES, LEASING LTD 3 CARS 2003-JUL-14 UBE-2003-01 880 MAYPORT RD (CG) APPROVED AUTO SALES, USED; AUTO SERVICE REPAIR 2002 -QCT -28 UBE-2002-08 1198 MAYPORT RD (CG) APPROVED AUTO SERVICE REPAIR; PAINT & BODY 2002 -MAY -13 UBE-2002-03 1.198 MAYPORT RD (CG) APPROVED AUTO SERVICE REPAIR 1994 -JAN -24 UBE-1994-xx 1650 MAYPORT RD (CG) APPROVED AUTO LEASING 1986 -JAN -13 UBE-1986-xx 980 MAYPORT RD (CG) APPROVED AUTO SALES, USED MARCH 20, 2012 'Regular Meeting AGENDA ITEM 5a - continued Page 3 of 3 According to a memorandum dated April 14, 2003 from then -Community Development Director Sonya Doerr, the U -Haul truck leasing establishment located at 1650 Mayport Road was granted a use -by -exception on January 24, 1994. This is consistent with City Commission meeting minutes and information from the City Clerk's database which indicates local business tax receipts have been issued for this establishment at this address since 1994, as is shown in the next to the last entry in the table above.. Recommendation and Approval of a Use -by -Exception, per Section 24-63: • A use -by -exception may only be approved for those uses and activities which are expressly identified as a possible use -by -exception within a particular zoning district. ❑ The City Commission may, as a condition to the granting of any use -by -exception, impose such conditions, restrictions or limitations in the use of the premises, or upon the use thereof as requested in the application, as the City Commission may deem appropriate and in the best interests of the City, taking into consideration matters of health, safety and welfare of the citizens, protection of property values and other considerations material to good land use and planning principles and concepts. ❑ Any use -by -exception granted by the City Commission shall permit only the specific use or uses described in the application and may be limited or restricted by the terms and provisions of the approval. Any expansion or extension of the use of such premises, beyond the scope of the terms of the approved use -by -exception, shall be unlawful and in violation of this Chapter and shall render the use -by -exception subject to suspension or revocation by the City Commission. ❑ The City Commission may suspend or revoke a use -by -exception permit at any time the City Commission determines that the use has become a public or private nuisance because of an improper, unauthorized or other unlawful use of the property. • If an application for a use -by -exception is denied, the City Commission shall take no further action on another application for substantially the same use on the same property for three hundred sixty-five (365) days from the date of said denial. • The nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district, or the permitted use of lands, structures or buildings in other zoning districts shall not be considered as justification for the approval of a use -by -exception. ❑ Unless expressly granted by the City Commission, the use -by -exception shall be granted to the applicant only and shall not run with the title of the property. ATTACHMENTS. Maps & aerial photographs accessed from Google Maps & Bing Maps on February 8, 2012. MARCH 20, 2012 Regular Meeting e on 0 4:::t 00 0 0 0 o r4 < 0 LU ob cy) Ul 004Lm V3 10 CL Skate Rd Watic p,,clarf, ply Gi N �,� ,IS spols ;__ IS Camelia st IS au!wsgf las"me St yy Cs.IS eluo6ai3 Is nVoc"s L ui cc LLJ N —4 (D r1i CEJ LL C 0 _0 Qj Ln cuLn u 0 Clfi 7-e- rl*� 0 o 00 0 DC C:) ry- 00 r) < LU oo cn CY) D E Lu 117 E Lu UBE-12-04100007 APPLICATION FOR A USE -BY -EXCEPTION City of Atlantic Beach • 800 Seminole Road Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233-5445 r Phone: (904) 247-5826 • FAX (404) 247-5845 • http:/fwww.coab.us Date I y File No. I(M- +2 ©01=Q 7 Receipt 1. Applicant's NameV�r=ycam '"[1J1 M 2. Applicant's Address qKO �^ / O I � �A1 h R. 3. Property Location -i 0I 4. Property Appraiser's Real Estate Number 711— Block No. L Lot No. 5. Current Zoning Classification PA 6. Comprehensive Pla Future Land Use designation 7. Requested Use -by -Exception u l ue -ItI 1a S. Size of Parcel Ud N )i od 4 �2 9. Utility Provider 3 9A - At1d7!!'Tr'C �CiC f 1- 94 c #res 10. Statement of facts and special reasons for the requested Use -by -Exception, which demonstrates compliance with Section 24-63 of the City of Atlantic Beach Code of Ordinances, Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Attach as Exhibit A. (The attached guide maybe used if desired. Please address each item, as appropriate to this request.) 11. Provide all of the following information. (All information must be provided before an application is scheduled for any public hearing.) a. Site Plan showing the location of all structures, temporary and permanent, including setbacks, building height, number of stories and square footage, impervious surface area, and existing and/or proposed driveways. Identify any existing structures and uses. b. 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 roust be provided. c. Survey and legal description of property sought to be rezoned. (Attach as Exhibit B.) d. Required number of copies. (Two (2) copies of all documents that are not larger than 11 x 17 inches in size. If plans or photographs, or color attachments are submitted, please provide eight (8) copies of these.) e. Application Fee ($250.00) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IS CORRECT. Signature of owners) or authorized person if owner's authorization form is attached: Printed or typed na e[s):+" h• Signature(s): ADDRESS AN 'ONTACT INE TION OF PERSON TO RECEIVE ALL CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING T1IIS APPLICATION Nam�er:: G CA!=! �+ Mailing Address: 9 ;` + 3 Phone: 3 FAX: 6 �j— E-mail: Gb eS Ctl3roL") (P G 1 UBE-12-00100007 EXHIBIT A The review of an application for a Use -by -Exception shall consider the following items. Please address each of the following as applicable to your specific application. 1. Ingress and egress to property and proposed Structures thereon with particular reference to vehicular and p trian safety and con enience, traffic floW and con rol and access in case of fire or catastrophe 2. Parking and Loading Spaces, where required, with particular attention to the items in (1) above. 3. The potential for any adverse impacts to adjoining properties and properties generally in the area resulting from excessive noise, glare and lighting, odor, traffic and similar characteristics of the, Use -by -Exception 4. Refuse, trash collection and service areas, with particular reference to items (1) and (2) above; 5. Utilities, with reference to locatiorls, availability and compatibility; 6. If adjacent uses are different types of uses, des c 'be, type of scree in and buffering that w*11 be between your tise and the adjacent use. i'Yli�� i�' � t �{�% Qr � 4 - r•- {n 1� % - a —ri . 7 h^A, �...n I N —..rr .-. -- 1- -U wit r 7. Signs, if any, and proposed exterior lighting, with reference to glare, traffic safety, economic effects and compatibility and harmony with properties in the)strict; (See S ns and Advertising, Chapter 17.) A A Olen .. n 0 A -P, �.,-- r_ a. 1A0/.1J 8. Required Yards and other Open Space. Show building setbacks and areas of open space on site plan. L-""' 4. General compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the surroundin oning District as well As consistency with applicabo provisions of the Cornprebpnsive Plan. information y u may wish to p P!VvII oaf'. tI' e 0 494 M 0 -L)Od1,10d nq v 0/ AGENDA ITEM 5b COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT March 20, 2()12 Public Nearing Zoning Variance, ZVAR-12-0010©010 TO: Community Development Board FROM: Erika Hall Principal Planner DATE: March 12, 2012 APPLICANT: Carl E Harkleroad 2019 Beach Avenue REQUEST: Request (1) variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d, to allow a single detached accessory structure of approximately eight hundred seventy-two (872) square feet in lieu of the 600 square -foot maximum; (2) variance from Section 24- 151(b)(1) d & e, to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback for the southern portion of the accessory structure, to be used as a detached garage, from five (5) feet to three and one-tenth (3.1) feet, with such portion of the structure being limited in height to fifteen (15) feet; and (3) variance from Section 24- 151(b)(1) d & e, to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback for the northern portion of the accessory structure to be reduced from ten (10) feet to four and seven -tenths (4,7) feet, such portion to be limited in height to twenty- five (25) feet, and used as a detached garage (ground floor) with guest quarters above on the second floor. NOTE: At the time of submittal, a new certified survey was not provided. Instead, the submittal included an 8 % x 11 copy of the 2002 Boatwright survey, with some of the recent alterations drawn in, as well as the notes "THIS SURVEY WAS MADE FOR THE BENEFIT OF RAY HENDERSON" and "RECHECKED ,BOUNDARY. FEBRUARY 14, 2012" included Stuff advised Mr. Franklin, agent for the applicant, that a raised -seal certified copy of the survey would be required by the Board, and Mr. Franklin indicated such would be made available prior to the meeting. STAFF COMMENTS This is a new variance application, substantially differing from the previous requests by the applicant in that this is a request for variances from the land development regulations pertaining to accessary structures, whereas the previous requests were pertaining to the principal structure. As such, the applicant is offering certain concessions and alterations to the design of the project as follows: MARCH 20, 2012 REGULAR MEETING • The connection previously made between the principal structure and the existing detached garage will be removed and a breezeway -width separation between the principal structure and the previously -detached garage will be restored. • There will be an internal connection between the two detached accessory units, thus essentially making them a single detached accessory unit with a total footprint of eight hundred seventy-two (872) square feet, which exceeds the maximum footprint of a single detached accessory unit by two hundred seventy- two (272) square feet, and thus requiring a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d. • The second story of the newly constructed single -car garage portion will be removed, and the height will be limited to fifteen (15), while the second story addition to the existing two -car garage is requested to remain and be utilized as guest quarters. However, due to previous construction according to an erroneous survey, the structure(s) do not meet minimum rear yard setbacks as specified in Sections 24-151(b)(1) d & e, and thus variances from these provisions are necessitated. Justifications for the applicant's requests are as follows: Section 24-64(d)(2), "surrounding conditions or circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area", stating the methodology employed in the 1938 platting of the North Atlantic Beach Unit No. 3, including that portion of Beach Avenue previously known as Garage Approach Roadway, adversely impacts this particular lot. Staff is unable to discern the "sharp turn" described in the applicant's narrative, and there is no evidence that this lot is now or has previously been developed to a lesser degree than any of the other nearby properties having the same or similar characteristics. At just over 10,000 square feet in area, this lot is more than twice the size of many parcels in Atlantic Beach, including a number on the oceanfront. As built in 2003, the existing single-family house has a gross area of 4,802 square feet, with 3,466 square feet being heated & cooled and 550 square feet being dedicated to a one-story two -car garage. The existing house, exclusive of the recent alterations, already meets and exceeds the threshold for reasonable use, so staff does not support this as a valid reason for the granting of any of the requested variances. Section 24-64(d)(3), "exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area", stating that the exceptional circumstance arises out of the fact that the recent alterations were lawfully constructed pursuant to building permits and a variance that were later rescinded due to a survey error, and this has resulted in an undue hardship not of the property owner's making. While staff does agree that revocation of the previously issued variance did result in a financial hardship on the property owner, it is not seen as a prohibition on the reasonable use of the property as compared to others in the area, as noted above. And, Section 24-47(c) of the Land Development regulations clearly states "In exercising its powers, the Community Development Board may, in conformance with the provisions of this chapter, reverse, affirm or modify, in whole or in part, any previously rendered order, requirement, decision or determination provided such action is based upon inaccurate information." Further, Section 6-17(b)(4) of the Municipal Code of Ordinances bestows the following powers upon the Building Official regarding the revocation of building permits: a. Misrepresentation of application. The building official may revoke a permit or approval, issued under the provisions of this code, in case there has been any false statement or misrepresentation as to the material fact in the application or plans on which the permit or approval was based. MARCH 20, 2012 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM 5b Page 2 of 4 b. Violation of code provisions The building official may revoke a permit upon determination by the building official that the construction, erection, alteration, repair, moving , demolition, installation or replacement of the building, structure, electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing systems for which the permit was issued is in violation of, or not in conformity with, the provisions of this code. • Section 24-64(d)(4), "onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of Improvements upon the property", stating that the Florida Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and "scour" line(s) affect oceanfront RS -2 lots differently, pushing the buildable area as far to the west as possible and creating limitations on the reasonable use of "valuable oceanfront" parcels. 'Staff points out that the existing CCCL was last revised in 1992, and the existing principal structure, which is the easternmost structure on the property, was constructed in 2003. To the west of the principal structure was constructed a detached accessory similar to other properties in the area. At the time of the 2003 construction, the required rear yard setback for a single -story detached accessory was ten (10) feet from the rear property line, though in actuality, it was built four and seven - tenths (4.7) feet from the rear property line. Though staff has uncovered no variance for this five and three -tenths (5.3) foot reduction, it is assumed either some relief was granted, or the accessory was erroneously located and therefore nonconforming until revisions to the land development regulations in 2010 reduced the required rear yard setback for single -story detached accessories to five (5) feet. Note the additional three -tenths (0.3) feet is just over three (3) inches, which is within the authority of the Community Development director to administratively grant, being five (5) percent of the standard varied. Thus, again, there has been no barrier to reasonable use of the subject property. However, staff does recognize Section 24-64(d)(4) as being valid justification for one or more of the requested variances, in that the identification of a survey error after the construction of improvements was well underway, has resulted in the encroachment of previously adjudged "legal" structures into required rear yard setbacks, and has created an onerous and burdensome hardship on the property owner to bring the structures into compliance. Additionally, staff interprets imposition of the CCCL and other FL -DEP regulations lines and coastal permits as more of a function of the topographic conditions associated with oceanfront property, and therefore recognizes Section 24-64(4)(1) has having some validity in tempering those limitations. It should be noted that the applicant is requesting that the original two -car garage be considered separately from the new one -car garage in the application of rear yard setbacks. The rationale for this is that detached accessories exceeding the maximum six hundred (600) square foot footprint are subject to required twenty (20) foot rear yard setbacks, per Section 24-151(b)(1)d. Implications of this are discussed further, below. The considerations before the Board at this time are as follows: 1. Shall a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d be granted, thereby allowing the two detached accessory structures to be connected on the ground floor, resulting in a single detached accessory unit having an eight hundred seventy-two (872) square foot footprint, thereby exceeding the six hundred (600) square foot maximum area (footprint) for a single detached accessory by two hundred seventy-two (272) square feet, or forty-five and three -tenths (45.3) percent of the standard? ❑ YES ❑ NO 2. Shall a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d be granted, reducing the applicable rear yard setback for the northern (existing) portion of the structure from twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet, as is required for two- story detached accessory units, and then granting a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)e, further reducing MARCH 20, 2012 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM 5b Page 3 of 4 the required ten (10) foot rear yard setback to four and seven -tenths (4.7) feet, which is the distance from the southwest corner of the original garage constructed in 2003 to the rear property line? This would essentially be a reduction of fifteen and three -tenths (15.3) feet, or seventy-six and five -tenths (76.5) percent, from the standard applicable to detached accessories exceeding the six hundred (600) square foot maximum area. ❑ YES o NO 3. Shall a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d be granted, reducing the applicable rear yard setback for the southern (new) portion of the structure from twenty (20) feet to five (5) feet, as is required for one-story detached accessory units, and then further reducing the required five (5) foot rear yard setback to three and one -tenths (3.1) feet, which is the distance from the southwest corner of the new garage addition constructed pursuant to the erroneous survey to the rear property line? This would essentially be a reduction of sixteen and nine -tenths (16.9) feet, or eighty-four and five -tenths (84.5) percent, from the standard applicable to detached accessories exceeding the six hundred (600) square foot maximum area. rwwj*��l U61 Alternatively, per Section 24-64(o, the Board may approve a lesser variance than that requested, if such lesser variance is found to be more appropriately in accord with the terms and provisions of this Section and with the purpose and intent of the Land Development Regulations. As such, the Board may deny request #1 above, and require the two detached accessories be maintained as separate units. In doing so, the Board may then wish to consider options #4 and #5, below, as respective alternatives to requests #2 and #3, above. 4. Considering the original two -car garage which has a five hundred fifty (550) square -foot footprint, and a new second -story addition of guest quarters, limited to a maximum height of twenty-five (25) feet, shall a variance from Section 24-151 (b) (1)e be granted, reducing the required ten (10) foot rear yard setback to four and seven -tenths (4.7) feet, which is the distance from the southwest corner of the original garage constructed in 2003 to the rear property line? This would result in a reduction of five and three -tenths (5.3) feet, or fifty-three (53) percent, from the standard applicable to two-story detached accessory structures limited to twenty-five (25) feet in height and six hundred (600) square feet in area. ❑ YES ❑ NO 5. Considering the new one -car garage which has a three hundred twenty-two (322) square -foot footprint and is limited to a maximum height of fifteen (15) feet, shall a variance from Section 24-151(b)(1)d be granted, reducing the required five (5) foot rear yard setback to three and one-tenth (3.1) feet, which is the distance from the southwest corner of the new garage constructed pursuant to the erroneous survey to the rear property line? This would essentially be a reduction of one and nine -tenths (1.9) feet, or thirty-eight (38) percent, from the standard applicable to single -story detached accessory structures limited to fifteen (15) feet in height and six hundred (600) square feet in area. ❑ YES ❑ NO 'ATTACHMENTS: Application for Variance, ZVAR-12-00100010 MARCH 20, 2012 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM 5b Page 4 of 4 2019 Beach Avenue March 13, 2012 — View from STN m z.� AIL "i 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:llwww.coab.us Date All. 1. Applicant's Name f ` 2. Applicant's Addre! 3. Property Location File No. WAR 12- 00100010 r _ E, /xmx1,f1G' 1_1) 4. Property Appraiser's Real Estate Number— W&T AIs'1) 5. Current Zoning Classification r _ 6. Compreh nsive Plan Future Land Use designation i 7. Provision f om which Var'ance is requested ��' �J�l 4 1 . i% 7 � T ( J i9�Gl�G(z 'e �_ 6 1YA ,i' o 3 / � TSA!/ vrr N svUi/l ' z '-fj l l e Arm %. S. Size of Parcel4. 3 l001 l o lea � C r oer,1166 fee 410eili 9. Homeowner's Association 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 2" 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 11x17 inches are submitted Please provide eight 8) copies of any such original documents. d. Application Fee ($150.00) 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): Signature(s): ADDRESS AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF PERSON TO RECEIVE ALL CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THIS APPLICATION Name: Mailing Address: T�f �J+r!�-� / , 411,71 '! /� j Phone: fez N�ti FAX: 704 C//�G� E-mail:I��1+ �•f /r�,, erQ f�- Version l-12.2007 -z7v�rz ►-2 - oo � oou to Instructions to apply for a Variance Variance requests are considered and acted upon during public hearings before the Community Development Board at their regular monthly meetings, which are held the third Tuesday of each month, unless otherwise scheduled. Meetings are held at City Hall in the City Commission Chambers at 7:00 pm. The deadline for filing a Variance application, in order to be heard at the monthly meeting, is 5:00 pm on the Burst Monday of each month. Applications should be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department located at City Hall. In order for a Variance application to be scheduled for public hearing, the application must be complete. All required information must be provided, and the required fee must be paid. (Variance fees are not refundable in the event that the Variance request is denied.) Once the required fee and a complete application are submitted, the request will be scheduled for the next available public hearing. An advertised notice of the hearing will be published in the newspaper, and an orange zoning sign will be placed upon the property to notify neighboring residents that a Variance request will be considered. Before filing an application for a Variance, it may be useful to read and understand the following definition and requirements from the City's Land Development Regulations related to Variances. A Variance may be approved by the Community Development Board only when consistent with these provisions. Section 24-17. Definition of a Variance. 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. Sec. 24-64. Variances. A Variance may be sought in accordance with this Chapter. Applications for a Variance may be obtained from the Community Development Department. A Variance shall not reduce minimum Lot Area, minimum Lot Width or Depth; and shall not increase maximum Height of Building or Impervious Surface Area as established for the various Zoning Districts. Further, a Variance shall not modify the Permitted Uses or any Use terms of a property. (a) Application. A request for a Variance shall be submitted on an application form as provided by the City and shall contain each of the following. (1) a complete legal description of the property for which the Variance is requested. (2) a reasonable statement describing the reasons for the Variance. (3) a survey or Lot diagram indicating setbacks; existing and proposed construction, as well as other significant features existing on the Lot. -ZVAa 12—Q0! CW 10 (4) the signature of the owner, or the signature of the owner's authorized agent. Written authorization by the Owner for the agent to act on the behalf of the property owner shall be provided with the application. (b) Public Hearing. Upon receipt of a complete and proper application, the Community Development Director shall within a reasonable period of time schedule the application for a public hearing before the Community Development Board following required public notice. At the public hearing, the applicant may appear in person or may be represented by an authorized agent. (c) Grounds for denial of a Variance. 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 or more of the following. (1) light and air to adjacent properties. (2) congestion of Streets. (3) public safety, including 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 situations created by the property owner. The foRowing 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. F1 (1) exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. (2} surrounding conditions or circurrLstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. St . e/(3) exceptional circumstances Reventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area.T f— �4) onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvements upon the property. ,141 d �,/>ye��) 'ZV AP- 12.001 Ox 10 C(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. - (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. Additional comments: NAY114 zVAR, Versio f. 12,2007 7ZVA(tZ l2.00t WO C ( Harkleroad — 2019 Beach Avenue Variance Application Support Materials The following materials including attendant attachments are offered in support of the variance application filed and properly before the honorable Community Development Board for the City of Atlantic, Florida (the "Board"). The Landowner has authorized the applicant, Daniel M. Copeland, P.A., to file the application, and the applicant has authorized the agent, all as according to the authorizations attached to the application. SUMMARY OF REQUEST. The landowner seeks to obtain three (3) distinct variances to allow landowner to obtain reasonable, beneficial use of certain garage/guest house structures lawfully constructed pursuantto permit and variance obtained, but where made non -conforming through the rescission of the permit and prior variance upon discovery of a survey error. The landowner seeks three variances: 1) 24-151(b)(1)(d), LDRs, to allow for a single, detached accessory structure of 872 sq. ft. (mol) in lieu of the 600 sq. ft. maximum; 2) 24-151(b)(1)(d & e), LDRs, reduce minimum setback forthe southern portion of the accessory structure from 5' to 3.1', i.e. seeking a reduction in the minimum setback for the portion of the detached structure to be used as a detached garage, such portion limited to 15' in height; and, 3) 25-151 (b)(1 )(d & e), LDRs, reduce minimum setback for the northern portion of the accessory structure from 10' to 4.7', i.e. seeking a 5.3' reduction in the minimum setback for the portion to be used as both a detached garage (ground floor) and guest house (2"d floor), such portion limited to 25' in height. As a necessary part of the variance, landowner will remove the 2nd floor living space from the southern portion of the detached structure, and will remove all roof connections and connected heated cooled connections between the main residence and the detached garage/guest house. Already on file or attached to and all made a part hereof this application is documentation demonstrating ownership of the subject property by landowner together with a survey/site plan delineating the existing improvements relative to setbacks and size. STANDARDS OF VARIANCE. The variance may be granted for the reasons set forth at section 24-64(d), LDRs, most notably: (2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. Yes. Beach Avenue was platted in 1938 as a "garage approach roadway" using limited rods and irons for this lengthy stretch, and its paving does not run evenly along its platted course. Also notable is the fact that the roadway is angled and especially takes a sharp tum at the landowner's lot. Consequently, there are surveying and orientation issues relative to the Beach Avenue roadway known to the City which impact landowner's lot to a greater degree relative to other RS -2 lots including others on the ocean on other roadways. (3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. Yes. The exceptional circumstance is the fact that a project was lawfully constructed pursuant to Permit and variance and later rescinded due to survey error discovered. This is not a self- created hardship where landowner financed the construction himself and did not obtain financing through a bank, and is not necessarily remediable via lawsuit against the survey company unless collectible. (4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property of after construction of improvements upon the property. Yes. The advent and movement of the State of Florida's coastal construction and "scour" line(s) and requirements for the uniform easterly projection and orientation of structures affect oceanfront RS -2 lots differently, and push the envelope as far to the west as possible, creating limitations on the reasonable use of the this valuable oceanfront parcel. Further, there are no material adverse impacts that will result from the grant of the variances under section 24-64(c), LDRs, noting in regard to all those factors set forth that the structure's size and contours was approved at its current location, and only later rescinded when it was discovered the unplatted portion of the road was actually closer to the structure than thought. Thus, with the second floor living space removed from the southern portion, and the disconnection between the main residence and the accessory structure, the structure fits in with the established aesthetics at this location, and has a positive impact on property values, the natural environment (pushes development off the dunes and beach) and the general health, welfare and beauty of the community. Finally, the variance is not being sought for personal comfort or convenience or a situation created by the propertyowner, where the later -discovered surveying error was relied upon equally by the City in granting the permits and variances that allowed the development. �ZVAV. 2-CO10001 In sum, the grant of the variances will allow for a reduced but reasonable, beneficial use of the detached garage/guest house structures, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City's LDRs. would be pleased to respond to any requests for additional information and look forward to presenting this matter to the honorable Community DeveloDent Board. ranklin, Esq. Daniel M. Copeland, P.A. 9310 Old Kings Road South Suite 1501 Jacksonville, Florida 32257 (904) 482-0616 (904) 482-0618 Law Firm of Daniel M. Copeland is hereby authorized to act on behalf of Carl &Judy Harkleroad , the owner(s) of those lands described within the attached application, and as described in the attached deed or other such proof of ownership as may be required, in applying to the City of Atlantic Beach, Florida, for an application related to a Development Permit or other action pursuant to a: FX— Zoning Variance I— Use -by -Exception F— Rezoning F Plat, Replat or Lot Division BY: lildffj)j Printed Name nature of Owner Printed blame Phone Num er r— Appeal F— Fence or Pool Permit F Sign Permit F Other Signed and sworn before me on this rylhday of ISA' -/ " by Identification verified: )0t/,)G M,44,L Oath sworn: F— Yes N© TIMOTHY S. FRANKLIN NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA Commm#EE002931 Natanature Expires 6/21/2014 - 10 expires: �/!�/ ZVAe 12- 00 1000 !0 - City of Atlantic Beach 800 Seminole Road Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 (P) 904.247.5826 (F) 904.2.47.5845 www.coab.us State of Florida County of Duval Property Appraiser - Property Details HARKLEROAD CARL E Primary Site Address 2019 BEACH AVE 2019 BEACH AVE ATLANTIC BEACH, FL 32233-5934 Atlantic Beach FL 32233 HARKLEROAD JUDITH M 2019 BEACH AVE Pronerty Detail RE # 169708-0000 Tan District USD3 EMIRMILUM 0100 SINGLE FAMILY # of Buildings i Legal Desc. 15-93 09 -2S -29E N ATLANTIC BEACH UNIT NO 3 PT sumbdam 03100 NORTH ATLANTIC BCH UNIT 3 The sale of this property may result in higher property taxes. For more information go to Save Qur Homes and our p1goacy Tax Fctima nr.Property values, exemptions and other Information listed as 'In Progress' are subject to change. These numbers are part of the 2012 working tax rolt and will not be certified until October. Learn haw the Propeny Appraisers Office values property. Official Record Book/Facie 15424-00194 Value Summary Page 1 of 2 ZvA2 Q. coo ©ooP o 'rile 9409 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 SIRWMDJFIND Taxable Value School Taxable Value Assessed Value $1,855,754.00 Assessed Value $1,855,754.00 Assessed Value $1,855,754.00 ............. _................ _..... _...... ............. .... _.............. ................. .... » ....».......................... _.__.. _ ... _...._...._._ _.._.......... .... ... ...._....................... –..— Homestead .. m � . .. » ..,. ...» Homestead Exemption (HX) $25,000.00 Homestead Exemption (HX) $25,000.00 Homestead Exemption (HX) - $251000.00 Amend 1 Homestead (HB)$25,000Room VEEEEE�ffimmmff.000000� Amend 1 Homestead (HB) $25,000.00 Taxable Value $1,830,754.00 Taxable Value $1,805,754.00 Taxable Value $1,805,754.00 Salpa 14i .tinry Book/Page 201 Cadgled Sale Price Value Method CAMA CAMA Total Building Value $985,000.00 $977,244.00 Extra Feature Value $17,235.00 $16,010.00 Land Value (Market) $862,500.00 $862,500.00 Land Value (Agriricl $D.00 $0.00 lust (Market) Value $1,864,735.00 $1,855,754.00 Armed Value $1,864,735.00 $1,855,754.00 Cap DWI Portability Amt $0.001$0.00 $0.001$0.00 EXempticM $50,000.00 See below Taxable Value $1,814,735.00 See below 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 SIRWMDJFIND Taxable Value School Taxable Value Assessed Value $1,855,754.00 Assessed Value $1,855,754.00 Assessed Value $1,855,754.00 ............. _................ _..... _...... ............. .... _.............. ................. .... » ....».......................... _.__.. _ ... _...._...._._ _.._.......... .... ... ...._....................... –..— Homestead .. m � . .. » ..,. ...» Homestead Exemption (HX) $25,000.00 Homestead Exemption (HX) $25,000.00 Homestead Exemption (HX) - $251000.00 Amend 1 Homestead (HB)$25,000Room VEEEEE�ffimmmff.000000� Amend 1 Homestead (HB) $25,000.00 Taxable Value $1,830,754.00 Taxable Value $1,805,754.00 Taxable Value $1,805,754.00 Salpa 14i .tinry Book/Page Sale Date Sale Price Deed Instrument Type Code Quallfied/UnqualMed vacant/improved 15424-00194 11/9/2010 $2,150,000.00 WD - Warranty Deed Qualified Improved 17181-02325 12/10/21004 $100.00 WD - Warranty Deed Unqualified Improved 12002-01886 8/13/2004 $2,600,000.00 WD - Warranty Deed Unqualified Improved 09696-01934 7/20/2DDG $650,000.00 WD - Warranty Deed Unqualified Improved 09637 01145 5/18/2DDI. $655,000.00 WD - Warranty Deed Qualified Improved ¢Q112-QQ7�§ 6/15/1995 $255,000.00 WD - Warranty Deed Qualified Improved X23 00459 5/17/1974 $69,500.00 WD - Warranty Deed Unqualified Improved Fxtra Fp-aturac LN Feature Code Feature Description Fireplace }Gas --�.� Bldg. Length Width Total UnHs Value $7,377,00{ 1 4 FPGR7 1 0 0 2.00 2 DKWR2 Deck Wooden 1 8 12 96.0D $788.00 3 DKWR2 Deck Wooden 1 4 164 656.00 $4,846.00 4 DKWR2 Deck Wooden 1 0 0 406.00 $2,999.00 Land & Legal Land LN use Pescription 1 0140 RES OCEAN LD 3-7 UNITS PER AC Buildings Building 1 Zoning I Front Depth' Category J Land Units 1Land Value ARS2 50.00 1 211.01) i Gammon J 50 00 I $862,500.DD Building I Site Address 2019 BEACH AVE Atlantic Beach FL 32233 I Element Exterior Wali Roofing Structure Roofing Cover Interior Wall Int Flooring Code 14 3 3 5 12 J Detail 14 Wood Shingle 3 Gable or Hlp 3 Asph/Comp Shingle 5 Drywall 12 Hardwood Building Type 0108 SFR CLASS 2 SOH Year Built 2003 http://apps.coj.net/pao_propertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE= 1697080000 Le al LN Legal Description Y 1 _ 15-93 09 -2S -29E i 2 N ATLANTIC BEACH UNIT NO 3 PT 3 LOT 67 212112012 Property Appraiser - Property Details Page 2 of 2 -Z: VA'12. l 2- l (ft( Type Gross Area heated Area — -- - — - Int Flooring 15 15 Quarry/Hard Tile Base Area 624 624 Heating Fuel 4 4 Electric J Balcony 99 i} Heating Type 4 4 Forced -Ducted Finished Open Porch 245 0 Air Conditioning 3 3 Central I r'—i- ` �'"� I—'7 I Finlshed upper story 1 1530 1530 Lam' j F °J Finished upper stary 1 1312 1312 .e FUA Element Code f Finished Open Porch 344 D Finished Det Garage 550 0 Bedrooms 3,000 Finished Open Porch 8 0 Baths 4,000 ' Finished Open Porch 90 0 Rooms / Units 1.000 Total 4802 3466 Traversing Data BAS:33,12:=W33 S20 E24 N4 E9 N16 $ BAL:73,0:=S3 E33 N3 W33 $ FOP:73,12:=N9 E33 S9 1.141_4 W9 D41_4 W16 $ FUA:106,12:=U4L4 W9 D4111_4 W16 S49 E14 N4 E10 N7 E9 N38 $ FUA:69,12:=U4L.4 W9 D41_4 W16 S42 E24 N14 E9 N28 $ F0P:36,12:=N1.2 E33 S12 U41_4 W9 D41_4 W16 $ FDG:109,12:=E25 S22 W25 N22 $ FOP:34,44:=N4 E2 S4 W2 $ FOP:69,40:=S10 W9N10E9$. 2011 Notice of ProDosed Pro Lefty Taxes Truth in Milla a Notice Taxt� n� Assessed Value Exemptions Taxable Value Lag Year Proposed Rolled -back Gen Govt Beaches $1,864,735.00 $50,000.00 $1,814,735.00 $12,224.77 $12,239.66 $13,079.52 Public Schools: By State Law $1,KA,735.DD $25,000.00 $1,839,735.00 $9,823.42 $9,759.79 $10,516.85 I By Loot Board $1,864,735.DO $25,000.00 $1,839,735,00 $4,590.14 $4,135.72 $4,914.12 FL Inland Navigation Dist. $1,864,735.00 $50,0D0.00 $1,814,735.00 $62.53 $62.61 $64,60 Atlantic Beads $1,864,735.00 $50,x.00 $1,814,735.00 $5,719,07 $6,04135 $6,040.35 1 Water Mgmt Dist. 5]RWF1D $1.864,735.00 $50,000.00 $1,814,735.00 $753.65 $601.22 $818.26 Gen Gov Voted $1,864,735.00 $50,00D.00 $1,814,735,00 $0.00 $0 -DO $O,DO School Board Voted $1,864,735.00 $25,000.00 $1,839,735.00$0.00 $0,00 $0.00 Urban Service Dista $1,864,735.00 $50,0013.00 $1,814,735.00 $0,00 $0.00 $0.130 1 Totals $33,173.58 $32,839.35 $35,433.70 Just Value I Assessed Value I Exem ons T Taxable Yalue Last Year $1,862,527.130 $1,862,527.DO $50,000.00 $1,812,527.00 Current Year $1,864,735.OD $1,864,735.00 $50,000.00 $1,814,735.00 Property Record Card (PRC] The Property Appraiser's Office (PAO) provides historical property record cards (PRCs) online for 1995-2005. The PAO no longer maintains a certified PRC file due to changes in appraisal software; therefore, there are no PRCs available online from 2DO6 forward. You may print this page which provides the current property record, (Sections not needed can be minimized.) Torint the past -year cards below, set your browser's Page Set Up for printing to Landscape. 2005 1 2004 12003 12002 120011 ? 11994 11998 1 127 11996 1 M More Information arcel Tax Record I GIS Ma I Mai this property on S Oogle Maps I City Fees Record http://apps.coj.net/pao_propertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE=1697080000 2/2112012 a..r r.. a -P4! 'w�' P ��N „'gI 9isp S w Sys ; Y'+r%t•i� ' i f .]' N'+V` sky .. •+'st GIlk' d1��'�1.� ,q G��.y • G°'Olt�Ra �+° x s�tttim ca Q �g604., ♦ n � i7 '4 !�''y " '� .♦ u L � 4 �" a >s Z • ti anyy"P_y i• "yyq.@�' La�n�'' wa !'yq Z�y12w Et to CejSNq �4° tPTiPYr r a �a ' ca !°�yq @ •� �Cyl q•t 46�Q9 >ti � � v4. �� ° \ ..ryt7iiZ°g14A�a �f vis. t. :': " 4p� r *�+ k°{.qa, Ct�ube~�a`Gay�a 2; tc iii " $7': 4_1 �Cu�r t m l "l, y;b!?.r: a �n�.�.m.iq$$ha�o$ tE 4i� " ��o�`�" �,`�•�`.+� �VVAi2-12. ao I I t } q ya Z Jpl\ F ❑ s. • k y e zi �4 s E. °�� •h '44 4yq " tE aw 'fir• F � �q - Z o. 4e•�t rm4»v i °, d V M 9tq. i t.- �eb 4.ol�fi r .c�• $r� G 4 IL �VVAi2-12. ao I I t 7ZVAr2— 12— 00 100() /c r7 .1S I I tiY � I '97 t F,L2 YP K � y ;fit• L 'L �.16 f'GE' 6 £E I .-a L I V C`ti, t i/ � dLz tk 4 I l � - ICO a , 1 IR /'•. may' �. .'pe ''1�$$• a oU I \ rQ ,. r„ R LZ h > Z VAr2-12 C OIOW( 1, 3 Ys I �S�i afeJl ATiAHSIC pCEAN3 1100 2 LLJ S Z TIR-� it Y iI O MIS ��_ _ _ _ _ _ _ �T��Fi� W R 11. ! _"'_m R }[ y 3y wr i z� re� -ZVAP- t'2-- a) I 1 x2 -`52`-5" W Hall, Erika From: Heath Aldridge [mbhaldridge@hotrnail.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 12.46 PM To; Hall, Erika Subject: FW: 2019 Beach Ave Variance 'Requests Dear Ms. Hall, Thank you for ensuring this letter is received by the members of the CDB in a timely fashion and read at the March 20 Public Hearing. March 19, 2012 CBD City of Atlantic Beach 800 Seminole Road Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 Dear Members of the Community Development Board: As a property owner directly across from 2019 Beach Avenue, I respectfully wish to submit my opposition to the proposed zoning variance requests for this property. When Mr. Harkleroad purchased 2019 Beach Avenue in November 2010, he acquired a 3,500 square foot home with a two car garage constructed by a well-respected builder. If the Harkleroads determined the property with its two car garage was inadequate as configured, then it was their responsibility to conduct the necessary due diligence. In particular, if they wanted a third garage, then it was in their best interest to review the City of Atlantic Beach zoning regulations, determining whether such a structural change to the site was legally permissible. Mr. Harkleroad utilized an inaccurate survey on which to base the proposed 3 -car garage addition - an interesting development, since an updated survey by the reputable Boatwright Land Surveyors (the company that had been used by the two prior owners of 2019 Beach Avenue to provide surveys) with the accurate boundaries and setbacks would have clearly presented the zoning regulation infringements and a series of construction violations could have been avoided. Now the property owner is once again requesting variances, in other words exemptions, or exceptions, from compliance with existing zoning regulations.. regulations which the rest of us are expected to follow. Let me review the basic intent of a variance..as we know, a variance is an administrative exception to the zoning regulations. A variance request is typically justified only if special conditions exist that create a hardship, making it too difficult to comply with code requirements. Special conditions or verifiable hardship arise from a physical configuration of the lot or its structures. A variance is not designed to grant special privilege to a property owner. Also per your variance instructions a variance "shall not be granted solely for personal comfort or convenience, for relief from financial circumstances or for relief from situations created by the property owner." In other words, when a variance is granted, any other property owner with similar site conditions should be able to obtain a similar variance. Thus, any variance must be carefully considered as it can create undesired consequences, a unintended precedent, and legal ramifications. In reviewing the proposed grounds presented by the applicant for the approval of the variances for 2019 Beach Avenue, it is readily apparent none provide justification for any of the three variance requests. Referencing guidelines from the variance application instructions: 1 "surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties." In spite of the applicant's contention, the alignment of and the original platting of Beach Avenue as a "garage approach roadway" imposes no specific hardship or impact upon the site in question... nothing different from nearby properties. 2 "exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area." There is nothing to prevent the reasonable use of 2019 Beach Avenue. Mr. Harkleroad simply wanted a three car garage and has constructed an illegal building, one which fails to comply with zoning regulations. The applicant has cited "survey error". Granted, there was an error -ridden survey, one provided by the applicant..a survey followed by a host of misrepresentations, removed and relocated survey markers. And if this survey is the culprit and the applicant is an innocent victim, then one must ask: Has the applicant filed a complaint against Atlantic Coast Surveyors with the appropriate licensing body so that others can avoid this surveying company? Have they sought compensation from this surveyor for the presumed errors and omissions? Finally, one has to wonder: how the builder and the property owner could not readily see the difference between an actual 3 ft 7" building setback from the road right-of-way and a supposed 10ft building setback per the Atlantic Coast Surveyors survey? This is a measurable difference to the eye and should have raised concerns about the survey before any construction proceeded. Indeed, the "survey errors" appears to be a self-inflicted hardship. 3 "onerous effect of regulations....." Again there are no onerous regulations pertaining solely to this property. The Coastal Construction Control Line etc were all in place prior to Mr. Harkleroad's purchase of the property. Any 'onerous' effect upon the property owner has been self-imposed by his lack of due diligence. Just as it was the property owner's responsibility to provide a legitimate survey, he should have been aware of the Coastal Construction Control Line..it is not unique to his oceanfront property. As we are all aware, zoning regulations form a framework for orderly growth and land use. Likewise setbacks, height limitations, restricted uses, and other guidelines are all in place to provide reasonable standards for construction, renovations and additions. In turn, property owners and citizens of the community have a rightful expectation that these regulations are enforced with an even -hand, with no special allowances for a selected few. If a three car garage were a prerequisite for the Harkleroads at 2019 Beach Avenue, then they needed to pursue the construction within the parameters of existing zoning regulations..perhaps a construction project which could have been done legally, but at substantially greater expense than an attempt to by-pass regulations via these variance requests. If the city administrators and its elected officials determine the City of Atlantic Beach zoning regulations warrant revisions, then change the law so that all can benefit. However, I would venture these regulations have been well considered. It is then the responsibility of the CBD to review the Harkleroad application in light of the legal intent of variances, the specific variance guidelines detailed in Sec 24-64, and to deny these variance requests. Respectfully, Heath Aldridge 2 "exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area." There is nothing to prevent the reasonable use of 2019 Beach Avenue. Mr. Harkleroad simply wanted a three car garage and has constructed an illegal building, one which fails to comply with zoning regulations. The applicant has cited "survey error". Granted, there was an error -ridden survey, one provided by the applicant..a survey followed by a host of misrepresentations, removed and relocated survey markers. And if this survey is the culprit and the applicant is an innocent victim, then one must ask: Has the applicant filed a complaint against Atlantic Coast Surveyors with the appropriate licensing body so that others can avoid this surveying company? Have they sought compensation from this surveyor for the presumed errors and omissions? Finally, one has to wonder: how the builder and the property owner could not readily see the difference between an actual 3 ft 7" building setback from the road right-of-way and a supposed 10ft building setback per the Atlantic Coast Surveyors survey? This is a measurable difference to the eye and should have raised concerns about the survey before any construction proceeded. Indeed, the "survey errors" appears to be a self-inflicted hardship. 3 "onerous effect of regulations....." Again there are no onerous regulations pertaining solely to this property. The Coastal Construction Control Line etc were all in place prior to Mr. Harkleroad's purchase of the property. Any 'onerous' effect upon the property owner has been self-imposed by his lack of due diligence. Just as it was the property owner's responsibility to provide a legitimate survey, he should have been aware of the Coastal Construction Control Line..it is not unique to his oceanfront property. As we are all aware, zoning regulations form a framework for orderly growth and land use. Likewise setbacks, height limitations, restricted uses, and other guidelines are all in place to provide reasonable standards for construction, renovations and additions. In turn, property owners and citizens of the community have a rightful expectation that these regulations are enforced with an even -hand, with no special allowances for a selected few. If a three car garage were a prerequisite for the Harkleroads at 2019 Beach Avenue, then they needed to pursue the construction within the parameters of existing zoning regulations..perhaps a construction project which could have been done legally, but at substantially greater expense than an attempt to by-pass regulations via these variance requests. If the city administrators and its elected officials determine the City of Atlantic Beach zoning regulations warrant revisions, then change the law so that all can benefit. However, I would venture these regulations have been well considered. It is then the responsibility of the CBD to review the Harkleroad application in light of the legal intent of variances, the specific variance guidelines detailed in Sec 24-64, and to deny these variance requests. Respectfully, Heath Aldridge