Loading...
Draft miniutes ./Draft%20miniutes_files/filelist.xml 4 Print ./Draft%20miniutes_files/header.htm 4.  Old Business   a.  ZVAR-2003-09, Dorothy Papazian.  Amended request for a Variance from Section 24-105 (e) (1) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot front yard to fifteen (15) feet to allow for the construction of a new residence, for property within the RS-2 Zoning District and located at 587 Beach Avenue.  (This item is continued from the May and June meetings.) Mr. Bill Gulliford introduced himself and stated he would like to say a few words on behalf of Mrs. Papazian.  Mr. Gulliford referenced two recently constructed homes on the south end of Beach Avenue, which were granted variances.  He stated he did not know the specifics of these cases but believes if he were still on the board he would have voted with the majority because he felt those requests were consistent with the neighborhood.  Mr. Gulliford stated that if Mrs. Papazian’s request were granted, her encroachment would be less than most of the other homes along that stretch of Beach Avenue.  Mr. Gulliford discussed the subjective interpretation of hardship.  In addition, he stated that Mrs. Papazian’s neighbors had no objection to what she proposed.    Mrs. Dorothy Papazian introduced herself and advised that she felt very uncomfortable in her home because of a lack of privacy.  She also informed the board that three months after her husband’s death she was diagnosed with cancer.  Mr. Gulliford distributed a letter from her surgeon, which advised of reconstructive surgery and the need for a pool for therapeutic reasons.  Mrs. Papazian stated that they scaled down the original plan so the proposed home was smaller but it did not provide enough room around the patio.  In addition, she informed the board that she had 10,000 square feet and the board was asking her to give up 6,000 square feet in addition to the easements, which did not seem right to her.  She stated that she had been paying taxes on this property for 20 years and it did not seem right that she was not allowed to build something that would make her happier.    Ms. Stacy Moseley introduced herself and stated she lives directly across the street from Mrs. Papazian.  She said that the new plan was fine with her and felt that it was in keeping with the spirit of Beach Avenue.   Mr. Frohwein clarified the property lines as follows:  The westerly lot would have 100 foot frontage on Beach Avenue on its western side, 100 feet on the easterly side which is the common line between the two newly formed lots, 100.03 feet on the northerly line, 101.14 feet on the southerly line, making the front of the property on Beach Avenue.  He stated that the newly proposed structure would be conforming on the southerly line by maintaining a five-foot setback, conforming on the northerly line by maintaining a 15-foot setback, and non-conforming on the front property line by 5 feet.   Ms. Doerr reminded the Board that the only variance now requested was a reduction in the required 20-foot front yard to 15-feet on the Beach Avenue side.  She stated that the proposed structure and the pool would be conforming in all respects except for the Beach Avenue 20-foot setback, for which a five-foot reduction to 15-feet is now requested.   Mr. Frohwein stated that it appeared as though the structure and pool could be shifted eastward five feet and it would conform to every setback thereby requiring no variance.    Ms. Doerr responded that the property line reconfiguring Mrs. Papazian’s two lots was not shown on the revised site plan.  She stated that her understanding in talking with Mrs. Papazian, the designer and the builder that the distance of the proposed residence from the new rear property line, which is the east property line, would be 20 feet and the only variance requested was a reduction to 15 feet from the Beach Avenue setback.   The board determined that the proposed structure was 3,185 square feet.    Discussion was held with regard to the existing structure on the property of the proposed home.  Mrs. Walker asked if a variance had been granted for this structure.  Mr. Frohwein responded that he was the contractor for this project, and a variance was granted.    Mr. Frohwein advised that this was a newly designed dwelling being built on a virtually vacant lot with tremendous opportunity to abide by the setbacks.  He stated that he clearly recognized that Beach Avenue had been developed uniquely, much of which was developed prior to the zoning code’s existence.  He further stated the fact that the code is now in existence.  Mr. Frohwein explained that there was an opportunity to enlarge the lot by five feet, maintain all of the sides, and conform to the setbacks with the lot to the east also conforming.  He further explained that he saw opportunities for a creative designer to allow the five feet to occur elsewhere on the lot.  He said that given the above, he was finding it difficult to vote in favor of the variance.   Mr. Wolfson stated that he saw a 100 x 100 lot, a 10,000 square foot lot, which was very large by Atlantic Beach standards.  He said that he thought Mrs. Papazian could have a significant home on the lot without a variance.  He further stated that he felt the pool was a non-issue because the applicant would have not problem constructing a pool posing no obstacle or hindrance to her swimming routine for therapy.  Lastly, he concurred that this was an opportunity to set the home back or to construct a home that complied with the setbacks.  Mr. Wolfson asked Ms. Doerr if she could identify a hardship.  Mrs. Doerr responded in the negative.  Mr. Wolfson offered design alternatives to bring the home into compliance.  Mr. Wolfson advised that he did not recognize a legal hardship.    Mr. Frohwein stated that he did see the carriage house as being unique.  He said it was non-conforming but he did not see it as overriding or dictating the location of the residence.  He further said that he knew previously there was an issue of attaching the carriage house via a roof structure to the house.  Mr. Frohwein said that if that attachment occurred on the easterly side, perhaps that would be reasonable.   Mr. Jacobson stated that there was some appeal to the argument that everything else on Beach Avenue was built closer to Beach Avenue, so why shouldn’t this property be built closer.  He reminded the board that Ms. Moseley came before the board recently requesting permission to move her home closer to Beach Avenue.  However, he stated that she was in a different situation in that she was dealing with after-the-fact zoning that was adversely affecting her after her house had been built and she wanted some reasonable relief from the situation that had been imposed on her.  Mr. Jacobson stated that Mrs. Papazian was not in that situation and there was nothing in the zoning regulations that stated that setbacks were not going to apply to new structures on Beach Avenue just because there were so many grandfathered structures.  Mr. Jacobson referenced the applicant at last month’s meeting who had an undersized lot who wanted to add a small structure.  He stated that they wanted to add on a much smaller structure than was being built in Mrs. Papazian’s scenario.  He said that he voted in favor of the request but the board did not.  He further said he did not know how they could look last month’s applicant in the eye, if the board told them that they could not have the addition they wanted to make to their small house on their more or less tiny lot, but Mrs. Papazian on a much larger lot could build a much larger residence and receive a variance.  Finally, he stated that he did not see anything except the most personal claim of hardship, and he did not see a hardship as hardships have been construed in the operation of this board.    Mr. Wolfson stated that they had worked very carefully with the applicant as they had worked with other applicants.  He stated that this was a lot of such magnitude and was open to such creativity, the lot was not unique, and he did not see a legal hardship.     Mr. Wolfson moved to deny the variance request.  Mrs. Walker seconded the motion.    Mr. Wolfson stated that there did not seem to be any opposition to the motion to deny the variance request.  He encouraged the applicant to go back to her architect to attempt to use the size of the lot in a way that it would be in compliance with the setbacks of the City of Atlantic Beach.    The Chair called the vote, and the motion passed by unanimous vote.