Exh 8Cs .~
BACKGROUND:
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
STAFF REPQRT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBMITTED BY:
DATE:
8C
May s, 2aoo
Appeal of denial of request for Variance to fence height by Joseph Quest
George Worley, II
May 1, 2000
~~
Mr. Quest contracted with a fence company to replace a delapidate fence around his property at
56 Church Road.. The existing fence was four feet high. Mr. Quest's property lies between
Church Road and Dudley Street, giving him two front yards for building and fence setback
purposes under the provisions of Section 24-84(b). The installed replacement fence was six feet
high. This violated the City's fence regulations. Upon notification by the Code Enforcement
Officer, Mr. Quest applied to the Community Development Board for a Variance to permit the six
foot fence to remain within his Dudley Street front yard setback.
The Community Development Boazd heard Mr. Quests application on March 21, 2000. In
addition to Mr. Quests application, the Board received a staffreport from the Community
Development Director recommending denial of the request on the grounds that Section 24-157
clearly prohibits fences more than four feet in height with in the front building setback and that the
security of Mr. Quests property can be maintained by installation of the six foot fence at the
setback line. Following a presentation by Mr. Quest and discussion between the Board members,
a motion was made to grant the Variance. That motion failed on a three to two vote and no
further motions were made, thus denying the request.
Mr. Quest was advised by the Board, and later by Staff that an appeal based upon the legality of
the meeting procedure or the legality of the Boazd's action could be made to the City Commission
under the provisions of Section 24-49(3). A copy of this Section was provided to Mr. Quest.
BUDGET: none.
1
~ ` .
8C
May 8, 2000
RECOlvIl~].ENDATION: .
It has been determined through past appeals of actions such as this that the City Commission must
determine first that the appeal conforms to the requirements of Section 24-49(3). If the appeal
meets these conditions the City Commission may hear the appeal and take action to confirm the
Community Development Boards actions or to overturn the Boazds actions. If the appeal does
not meet the provisions of 24-49(3) the City Commission cannot hear the appeal and the
applican#s recourse is through the courts. .
Staffhas reviewed Mr. Quest's appeal and fails to find any allegation of ~1legal procedure by the
Board in its deliberations or in its actions. The appeal appeazs to be a re-statement of Mr. Quest's
initial application. Based upon the provisions of Section 24-49(3) and considering past actions of
this nature, it is Staffs recommendation that, because this appeal fails to conform to the criteria
and intent of Section 24-49(3), in that no assertion of legality is contained in the appeal, that the
City Commission reject this appeal. Mr. Quest may, of course, pursue relief through the courts,
as is his right.
ATTACfEVIENTS:
1) Application for Variance by Mr. Quest
2) Staffreport to the Community Development Boazd
3) Minutes of the Community Development Boazd Meeting of March 21, 2000
4) Section 24-49 of the Code of Ordinances
S) Section 24-84 of the Code of Ordinances
6) Letter of appeal by Mr. Quest dated Apri123, 2000
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
~~
i
SC
tliiay 8, 2000
MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
- OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA
March 2'1, 2000 -
T:00 P.M.
CITY HALL
PRESENT
AND
ABSENT
Robert Frohwein
- Pat Piilmore
Sharette Simpkins
Craig Burkhart
Sam Jacobson
George Worley, Il, CD Director
Pat Harris, Recording Secretary
DOn Wolfson
Mary Walker
Vice Chairman Robert Frohwein called the meeting to order and asked for approval
of the minutes from the mee#ing of February 16, 2000. After correcting a minor scriveners
error the minutes were approved as corrected.
-NEW BUSINESS:
1. Application for Variance filed by Texas Environmental, Inc, to aitow a six-foot
fence in the front yard setback at property located at 300 Mealy Drive.
Staff reported to the board that the applicant had requested the application be deferred
until the next meeting.
[l. Application for Use-by-Exception filed by Willie Davis to hold bible study and
fellowship at property located at 40 Simmons Street
. Mr. Davis not being present, the application was deferred to later in the meeting.
- 111. Application for Variance filed by Ronald and Diana Moore to build atwo-car
garage attached to an existing nonconforming structure located at 525 Beach
Avenue.
;~ Mr. Moore introduced himself and stated that he has owned the property since 1986. He
.-- stated that he desired to construct a garage onto the nonconforming structure that will
complywith ai! required building setbacks. He added thatthe nonconformity ofthe existing
structure encroaches the City nigh#-of-way six inches as well as the rear and side yard
setback requirements.
8C
May 8, 2000
_ Mr. !Morley stated that t he board must address two issues. The encroachment into Beach
.~~,renue~and the.existing building setbacks. He stated that the most important issue is the
'. encroajh!~ent into the City ~i(~ht-oT wav.
4ftar discussion, !+!!r. Burkhart moved to deny the variance based on staff's
c~c~r ;~„endation and Mrs. Pillmore seconded the motion. Mr. Burkhartthereafterwi#hdrew
his motion.
After further discussion, Mr. Jacobson stated that the building in question has been #here
for many years, the d~ncroachment is rninirral, uccun-ed before any r~gulaticns and the
proposed construction addition was in compliance with the ordinance. He moved to grant
the variance provided construction commence within atwelve-month period from the
gran#ing of the variance. Mrs. t'iilmore seconded the motion and the variance was granted
unanimously.
1V. Application for Variance filed by Joseph T, QLest to allow a six-foot fence in the
fton# yard setback ?t property located at 56 Church Straet. .
. Joe west introduced himself to the board and explai; ed to the board that the six foot
fence was requested due to criminal activity in the area as well as being used as a drop
off site of trash and equipment. He added That the propertry used to be a cut through for
drug traffickers and expressed concern for the safety and welt being of his family. He
stated that the six foot fence has already beers installed and apologized for not obtaining
the proper permit. He asked that he be allowed to keep the six foot fence and volunteered
to remove the barbed wire above the fence.
Mr. Frohwein infiormed the board for clarification purposes that Section 24-84(b) states that
double frontage lots such as the applicant has requires that a front yard be provided on
each street except where the required front yard lots between Beach Avenue and the
Atlantic Ocean. He added that Section 24-957 requires that no. owner, occupant or other
person shat! erect, keep and maintain a fence or structure between the front property line
and the front building setback line exceeding four feet in height at any given point.
Mrs. Pillmore expressed her concern with enforcement of existing nonconforming fences
in the neighborhood
After discussion, Mrs. Pillmore moved to grant the varia.^,ce and Mr. Jacobson seconded
the motion. ~ -
After further discussion, the board denied the motion by a vote of #wo ayes from Mrs.
Pillmore and Mr. Jacobson and three nay vo#es from Mrs. Simpkins, Mr. Burkhart and Mr.
- " Frohwein.
The application of Willie Davis was deferred unfit the next meeting and the board
$C
~.y s, Zoao
requested staff notify the applicant .
The Chairman stated that another special meeting will be held on April 4, 2000 at
6:30 p.m. to discuss the amendments to the Zoning Code.
z
There being no further business ~to come before the. board on motion made the meeting
was ad~oumed.
Si~NED
ATTEST
~,
8C
May 8, 2000
§ 24-47 ATLANTIC BEACH CODE
(9) To post signs on property undergoing zoning proceedings and promptly remove these
signs after the zoning process is completed; • .
(10) To mail notices of zoning requests to be considered at the regularly scheduled meet-
ings of the community development board to respective members at least seven (7)
days prior to the meeting date to allow members ample time to review the requests;
(11} To hire such persons as necessary to assist in the fulfillment of the requirements of
the office and delegate to these employees the duties and responsibilities assigned to
the administrative official as may be necessary to carry out properly, the functions of
the office.
(Ord. No. 90-82-74, § 2(III, B, 2), 7-26-82; Ord. No. 90-87-117, § 1,.3-9-87)
Sec. 24-48. Planning agency.
The community development board, as established by the city commission, shall serve as
the planning agency and shall have the following duties and responsibilities:
(1) To review those matters referred to the planning agency and hold regularly sched-
uled meetings for the purpose of reviewing such documents;
(2) To review site plans.for all proposed subdivision development redevelopment, includ-
ing planned unit developments, in the city;
(3) To transmit to the proper governmental bodies, agencies or departments the written
recommendation of the planning agency, where the recommendations are called for
by this-chapter;
(4) To provide for internal procedures, with the assistance of the administrative official,
required to carry out the intent of this article. Such procedures shall include dead-
lines for filing applications prior to regularly scheduled meetings to allow time far
adequate review and the preparation of a written report and recommendation of each
application.
(Ord. No. 90-82-74, § 2(III, B, 3), 7-26-82; Oxd. No. 90-5?-117, § 1, 3-9-87)
Sec. 24-49. Community development board.
The community development board shall be appointed by the city commis~ion_ The
organization and procedures under which this board operates, its arrangement of meetings,
adoption of rules and its method of handling appeals, variances or other related matters shall
be in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 14 of this Ordinance Code.
(1) Power and duties The community development board may:
a. Hear and decide appeals wheze it is alleged there is an error in any order,
requirement, decision or determination made by the administrative official in
the enforcement of this chapter;
b. Authorize, upon appeal in spec cases,•and upon findings of fact, such minor
variances from the terms of this chapter as will not be contrary to the public
interest where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provi-
Supp. No. 5
1,~
- SC
May 8, 2000
ZONING AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS $ 2449
sions of this chapter will result in unnecessary hardship. In order to authorize
- any variance from the terms of this chapter, the community development board
must find that: -
1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which aze peculiar to the Land,
structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other Iands,
structures or buildings in the sa~ae district;
2. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of
.the applicant; .
3, Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this chapter to other leads, buildings or strue-
t~res in the same zoning district;
4. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the
applicant of rights commonly~-enjoyed by other properties is the same zoning
district under the terms of this chapter and would work unnecessary and
undue hardship on the applicant;
5. The variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the
reasonable use of the Land, building or structure;
6. The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and
purpose of this chapter and the variance will not be injurious to the area
' ~ involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
c. In granting any variance, the community development board may prescribe
' appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with this division and any
ordinance enacted under its authority. Violation of the conditions sad safeguards,
when made a part of the terms under which the variance is granted, shall be
deemed a violation of this chapter.
d. Under no circumstances, except as permitted above, shall the community devel-
opment board grant a variance to permit a use not generally permitted or
permitted by exception in the zoning district involved or any use expressly or by
- implication prohibited by the ter ms of this chapter in the zoning district. No
nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same
zoning district and no permitted use of Iands, structures or buildings in other
zoning districts shall be considered grounds for the authorization of a variance.
. e. In exercising its powers; the community development board may, upon appeal
and in conformity with the provisions of this division, reverse or affirm, wholly
or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision or determination being
appealed, and to that end shall have the powers to direct the issuance of the
necessary permit.
(2) Appeals of administrative actions Appeals to the community development board may
be taken by any person aggrieved or by any officer, board or department of the city
~..,, affected by any decision of the administrative official under this article. Such appeal
shall be taken within thirty (30) days after rendition of the order, requirement,
decision or determination appealed from by ~ filing with the officer from whom the
appeal is takes and with the community development board a notice of appeal
Sapp. Na 5
1423
8C
May 8, 2040
§ 24-49 ATLANTIC BEACIi CODE
specifying the grounds thereof. The appeal shall be in the farm prescribed by the
rules of the board. The administrative official shall, upon notif cation of the filing of
the appeal, transmit to the community development board, all the documents, plans,
papers or other materials constituting the record upon which the action appealed
from was taken.
a. Stay of work. An appeal to the community development board stays all work on
the premises and all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from,
unless the administrative official shall certify to the community development
board that, by reason of facts stated in the certificate, a stay would cause
imminent peril to life or property. In such case, proceedings or work' sha1Z not be
stayed except by a restraining order, which may be granted by the communty
development board after application to the officer from whom the appeal is taken
and on due cause shown.
b. Hearings of appeals The community development board shall fix a reasonable
time for the hearing of the appeal, give public notice thereof, as well as due
notice to the parties in interest, and decide the same within a reasonable time.
Upon the hearing, any party may appear in person, by agent or by attorney.
_ (3) Appeals of decisions of the community development board Any person or persons,
jointly or severally, aggrieved by any decision of the community development board
or any taxpayer, or any afficer, department, board or bureau of the city commission,
may present to the city commission a petition, duly verified, setting forth that such
decision is illegal, in whole or in part, specifying the grounds of the illegality. The
petition shall be presented to the commission within thirty (30) days after the filing
of the decision in the office of the board.
(4) In exercising the powers granted by this section, the community develapment board,
by the conciu-riag vote of the majority of members, may reverse or affirm, wholly or
partly, or modify the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from,
and may make such order, requirement, decision or determination as should be ,
made, and to that end shall have alI the power of the offzcial from whom the appeal is
taken. Rulings and decisions of the community development board shall become
effective ten (10) days after the date of such ruling or decision.
(Ord. No. 90-82-?4, § 2(III, B, 4), 7-26-82; Ord. No. 90-87-117, § 1, 3-9-87)
Secs. 24~-24-60 R~eaexved.
DIVISION 3. APPLICATION PROCEDURES
Sec. 24$I. Amendment, repeal.
(a) The city commission may from time to time amend, supgiement, change or repeal the
` zoning regulations, restrictions or district boundaries as set out in this chapter.
(b) Proposed changes and amendments may be suggested by the city commission, the
plaaning agency, a property owner for his owa land or by petition of the owners of fifty-one
Supp. Ka 5
1424
ZONING AND SUBDIVISION REGULA.TiONS
Sec. 24-84. Yards; obstructions; double frontage lots.
8C
May 8, 2000
§ 24-85
(a) Obstructions. Every part of a required yard shall be open from its lowest point to the
sky, unobstructed, except for the ordinary projection of sills, belt courses, cornises, buttresses,
ornamzntal features, chimneys, flues and eaves. No such projection shall project more than
forty (40) percent of the width of the required. yard over which they project.
(b) Double frontage lots. On double frontage lots, the required front yard shall be provided
on each street, :except the required front yard on through lots between Beach Avenue and the
Atlantic Ocean shall be the yard which faces the Atlantic Ocean, and the front yard on double
frontage lots between beach Avenue and Ocean Boulevard shall be the yard which faces
Ocean Boulevard.
(Ord. No. 90-82-?4, § 2(IJI, E, 4), 7-26-82; Ord. No. 90-86-102, § 2, 7-14-86; Ord: No. 90-86-105, §
2, ?-24-86)
Sec. 24-85. Nonconforming uses or buildings.
(a) Continuation of nonconforming uses or buildings. Where on July 26, 1982, lawful uses
of land exist which would not l;e permitted by the regulations imposed by this article, the uses
may be continued so long as thay remain otherwise lawful, provided:
(1) No such nonconforming uses shall be enlarged, increased, nor extended to occupy a
greater area of land than was occupied on July 26, 1982, or upon amendment of this
article.
(2) No such nanconforming uses shall he moved in whole or is part to any portion of the
lot or parcel other than that occupied by such uses on July 26, 1982, or upon
amendment of this article.
(3} If any such nonconforming uses of land are discontinued or abandoned voluntarily for
that use for a period of at least six (6) months, any subsequent use of the land shall
conform to the regulations specified by this article for the district in which the land is
located. If fifty (50) percent of the structure for the nonconforming use is destroyed,
the structure shall not be reconstructed for any nonconforming use.
a. Unsafe buildings or structures. Any structure or building or portion thereof
declared unsafe may be restored to a safe condition. Permits are required;
b. Alterations. A nonconforming building may be maintained, and repairs and
alterations shall be made, except that no structural alterations shall be made
except those required by law, including eminent domain proceedings. Rey ~=:irs,
such as plumbing or changing of partitions or other alterations, a:•e pern•::.ted.
Permits are required.
Supp. No. Ii
1432.1
8C
May 8, 2000
,"`"'
Date : Apn~ 23, 2000
To :City of Atlantic Beach, Vice Mayor and Councd
From :Joseph Quest, 56 Church Road
. Subject: Development Board
On March 21, 2000 I was denied permission by the Development Board to leave the 6' fence in place -
that was installed to improve and secure my rear yard at 56 Church Road. I am appealing the Boards
decision because I feel that I presented legitimate reasons and that my request may have not been
taken seriously.
To my surprise, one committee member suggested that if I was concerned about crime, I shouldn't
have purchased property in Atlantic Beach where crime is known to be present. Because of this
statement, I wonder if he may have been less than objective regazding my request. If the above
mentioned council member honestly has the best interest of our city in mind, I would hope he would
applaud my efforts to make my part of Aflantic Beach clean and secure. Instead I was made to feel .
that my efforts were in vain.
I lave a difficult time understanding the Council's opinion, QQesting that I should accept things the
way they are. I feel my property has a Iot of potential, however, before the fence was installed, drugs,
ce11 phones, shoes and a woman's purse was found in my rear yard Would it be the opinion of the
counc~ that the purse owner, Ms Sheriff, should have realized her fate and not left her home the day
. slie was abducted and her purse was stolen. I'm asking the Council to consider that i am asking for
the right to not only improve but also to protect what belongs to me.
Aver the past few months, I have shown the city that my efforts to improve my property are sincere.
When I purchased 56 Church Road, it was literally a junltyazd. It took several months to discazd all
the garbage and "stuff' from the rear yard. In addition, hundreds of dollars have been spent
renovating the small vacant house that used to be a common place for drug dealers and prostitution. I
consider my efforts to be an asset to Atlantic Beach and hopefully I will someday be recognized as a
"trend setter".
Please consider my appeal based on the following:
1. Adjacent to the property is a homeowner with a 5' fence surrounding his entire house and
yard.
2. I conducted a survey among my neighbors, everyone I spoke to was happy to sign a petition in
my behalf. Some of my neighbors made positive comments about the improvements that
have been made to .the property since I purchased it.
3. My property was previous owned by a city worker who allowed most of the rear yard to be
used as a city garbage drop off site. Naturalhy, this was not acceptable to me since my goal is
to better the property. After I had. the new fence to be instalhed, I was able to encourage the
garbage pile to be placed closer to the street and I have completely eliminated the drug dealers
and thieves from using my property their store front.. ec ~ comm~.too
City 1ldana8m'
~ City Attorney
,'Press
SC
May 8, 2000
4. The old fence was removed because it was made up of many different types of fence, and
because of the poor condition. Even. when I Locked the old gate it was common for the
neighbors and I to see people jumping over it cutting through to the other street.
5.Many of the' neighboring 4' fence's `are bent and mangled, ,even pulled apart. My neighbors
. say the drug dealeis use their properties. as cut through from one street to another while
. running from law enforcement officers. .
6. ~ On either side of my property at 56 Chwrch Road are wooded, vacant lots. On the east side
of my properly, a neighbor has a 5' fence another has a 6' fence with and with wire. I'm sure
these property owners had the best interest of Atlantic Beach in mind when they installed their
fence as a means of property improvement and security.
In closing please consider my reasons carefully and the efforts others and I aze maidng to clean up an
azea. This area does have a less than desirable reputation but with efforts such as mine, the area can
be improved.
Respectfully,
Joe Quest