The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRE Young Subdivision Survey Map (4)Rocky, Thank you. I really appreciate your interest. I certainly understand a busy schedule and how involved you are. I’m complimented that you’ve taken the time to respond. I’m simply confused over this submittal and seeking clarifications. I must emphasize one thing that I’m really baffled about and just don’t understand is this interpretation for a narrow review of the Legal Description with the omission of important recorded documents pertaining thereto. I look forward to the City’s comments. Thanks greatly for your assistance. With kindest regards, Charlie Charles Hartley 399 Holman Road Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 321-783-8367 mobile 321-795-2775 chartley@cfl.rr.com From: Rocky Randels [mailto:R.Randels@cityofcapecanaveral.org] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 10:38 PM To: chartley@cfl.rr.com Subject: RE: Young Subdivision Survey Map Charles; Thank you for keeping me in the Loop. Sometimes we as City Council are the last to know of these events and that is when they are on our Agenda, for a vote. I have not received the information yet on Mr. Young’s request for his renewed interest for this Lot Split, unless it was in a recent weekly City Report, as I have been in Washington, D.C. working on a Grant from Dept. of Transportation for improvements for A-1-A . I will inquire Monday. Thanks Again for the heads-up. Rocky From: Charles Hartley [mailto:chartley@cfl.rr.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 4:39 PM To: Kim Kopp; David Dickey Cc: Patrice Huffman; Angela Apperson; David Greene; Rocky Randels; johnpekarpe@gmail.com <mailto:johnpekarpe@gmail.com> ; John Cunningham; info@campbellsurveying.com <mailto:info@campbellsurveying.com> Subject: RE: Young Subdivision Survey Map Kimberly, I look forward to your response. Thank you for giving this further consideration and review. Best regards, Charlie Charles Hartley 399 Holman Road Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 321-783-8367 mobile 321-795-2775 chartleycrm@cfl.rr.com <mailto:chartleycrm@cfl.rr.com> From: Kim Kopp [mailto:kkopp@orlandolaw.net] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 12:52 PM To: chartley@cfl.rr.com <mailto:chartley@cfl.rr.com> ; 'David Dickey' Cc: 'Patrice Huffman'; 'Angela Apperson'; 'David Greene'; 'Rocky Randels'; johnpekarpe@gmail.com <mailto:johnpekarpe@gmail.com> ; 'John Cunningham'; info@campbellsurveying.com <mailto:info@campbellsurveying.com> Subject: RE: Young Subdivision Survey Map Good afternoon Mr. Hartley, We will review your questions and circle back with you early next week. Thank you, Kimberly Romano Kopp, Esq., LEED AP Brown, Garganese, Weiss & D’Agresta Senior Attorney 111 N. Orange Ave., Suite 2000 P.O. Box 2873 Orlando, Florida 32802-2873 Phone (407) 425-9566 Fax (407) 425-9596 Kissimmee (321) 402-0144 Cocoa (866) 425-9566 Website: www.orlandolaw.net <http://www.orlandolaw.net/> Email: kkopp@orlandolaw.net <mailto:kkopp@orlandolaw.net> Any incoming e-mail reply to this communication will be electronically filtered for "spam" and/or "viruses." That filtering process may result in such reply being quarantined (i.e., potentially not received at our site at all) and/or delayed in reaching us. For that reason, we may not receive your reply and/or we may not receive it in a timely manner. Accordingly, you should consider sending communications to us which are particularly important or time-sensitive by means other than e-mail. Confidentiality Note: This e-mail, and any attachment to it, contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity named on the e-mail. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that reading it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately return it to the sender and delete it from your system. Thank you. From: Charles Hartley [mailto:chartley@cfl.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 4:50 PM To: 'David Dickey' Cc: 'Patrice Huffman'; 'Angela Apperson'; 'David Greene'; 'Rocky Randels'; johnpekarpe@gmail.com <mailto:johnpekarpe@gmail.com> ; 'John Cunningham'; Kim Kopp; info@campbellsurveying.com <mailto:info@campbellsurveying.com> Subject: RE: Young Subdivision Survey Map Dave, I just noted, please correct Question Four to change “Marino’s easement” to Marino’s access driveway. Thank you for your assistance and response. Best regards, Charlie Charles Hartley 399 Holman Road Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 321-783-8367 mobile 321-795-2775 chartleycrm@cfl.rr.com <mailto:chartleycrm@cfl.rr.com> From: David Dickey [mailto:D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 3:38 PM To: chartley@cfl.rr.com <mailto:chartley@cfl.rr.com> Cc: Patrice Huffman; Angela Apperson; David Greene; Rocky Randels; johnpekarpe@gmail.com <mailto:johnpekarpe@gmail.com> ; John Cunningham; Kim Kopp; info@campbellsurveying.com <mailto:info@campbellsurveying.com> Subject: RE: Young Subdivision Survey Map Charles - thanks for the comments/questions related to the Young’s application for a lot split on Holman Road. I will be discussing your email with the City Attorney’s office. Dave From: Charles Hartley [mailto:chartley@cfl.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 2:53 PM To: David Dickey Cc: Patrice Huffman; Angela Apperson; David Greene; Rocky Randels; johnpekarpe@gmail.com <mailto:johnpekarpe@gmail.com> ; John Cunningham; Kim Kopp; info@campbellsurveying.com <mailto:info@campbellsurveying.com> Subject: RE: Young Subdivision Survey Map David, Thank you for meeting with me and providing a copy of the plat survey and review comments of the City Engineer John Pekar, PE and John Cunningham, Assistant Fire Chief. I also thank you offering an opportunity to seek a better understanding of this proposed development. As you know my property joins Holman Road and the Marino’s access driveway. My preliminary questions pertain to code interpretation arising from a review of the Young’s Subdivision Plat survey and documents pertaining to that plat survey. Based on the City’s file, this plat survey and the “Opinion of Title” appears to be the only development documents provided for City Staff, Fire Safety and City Engineer review? 1. My first question – does the proposed lot split achieve code compliance for a legal cross access easement? According to the plat survey that was provided to the City, there’s a “ingress and egress, utilities and access” easement on the lot to be subdivided which is 20 X 150 ft and runs parallel to and borders the south property line of the Marino’s property. The plat survey shows the 20 foot easement overlapping the 10 foot setback line. The easement is shown to be within the property included within the new lot No. 1 and not a part of the existing parcel that forms Lot No. 2, which contains the residence of the principal property owner. Importantly, the west property line of Lot No. 1 crosses the entire width of the parcel. This not only creates a landlocked situation for Lot No. 2, but Lot No. 2 becomes dependent on Lot No. 1 to grant an ingress and egress easement for access road and utilities. This is not a platted easement as per Surveyor’s Note No. 1, and it is not show otherwise or it’s intended use clearly stated in the Plat Notes or Plat Report. Please see Sec. 98-41 Information required, (a) (5) (D) which read as follows: (5) Show, at a minimum, the following existing conditions on the plat: (D) Easements, including location, width and purpose. The ingress and egress easement shown on Lot No. 1 described above is a proposed easement and it does not presently exist. No legal description is provided for it. An ingress and egress easement cannot be created by a preliminary plat survey drawing. Logically the ingress and egress and utility easement would flow from the primary property owner to a new lot owner and not vice versa. Therefore the one who owns the land and who is creating the new lot is the party who would grant easement rights to another party by deed. It is an established tenant of Florida law that an owner cannot grant an easement to themselves. A property owner cannot assign or deed a cross access easement to themselves as a matter of law. If a cross access easement doesn’t exist on Lot No. 1 nor be legally created and recorded, can legal access be achieved and importantly, does a legal cross access easement exist? 2. Second question - Again pertaining to a review of the submitted plat survey and legal description, the legal description in neither the plat survey nor the “Opinion of Title” included page two (2), “See Reverse Side,” of the original recorded Jahn-Butler Deed, or the “Restrictive Covenant” that provided the language regarding legal access and entitlements to the existing easement. Please note: The legal description provided reflects a corrected scribner’s error for Bk 6929, Pg 121. Page 2 is found on Bk 1629, pg 122. The scribner’s error correction did not reform page two of the original deed legal description. The Restrictive Covenant was recorded after this correction was made. This is a compliance issue of Sec. 98-41 (g), Information Required and Sec. 98-66 (c) (2), Lot Splits. Can proper review be accomplished without a complete legal description including all legal agreements for property rights and in particular, entitlements pertaining to easements? This could have an impact on code interpretation and review considerations for the development. I understand that the City Attorney has given an opinion that the recorded “Restictive Covenant” between the Marino’s and Young’s that clarified the benefits and burdens of the Jahn – Butler and now Marino - Young easement is a private agreement and as such, the City does not have to consider it at all. However, this does not relieve a Professional Surveyor from preparing a survey map for real property improvements to show the complete legal description on the plat survey map along with any Notes or Reports. Any descrepancies and inconsistences between the real property description and the survey map must be shown, i. e., right-of-ways, easements and other real property concerns. The plat map survey, submittal and layout must conform to the requirements of FAC 5J-17.052. The recorded Restrictive Covenant runs with the land and specifically refers to the Young’s “proposed lot” and to the language found on Pg 2 of the Jahn – Butler Deed. It specifically states on Pg 3, par. 1 that “the easement [is] for the benefit of both the existing and proposed lot, subject to the following covenants and restrictions, which the parties agree will run wih both parcels of the above described land and bind both parties, their respective heirs, executors, administators and assigns.” I further also understand the City narrowed the scope of City’s review of the interpretation “to whether said access exists.” The issue is not just “access” for purposes of ingress and egress only. The issue is for a “perpetual cross access easement,”see Sec. 98-66 (f) (4). The City’s definition of “access easement” means an easement “dedicated and used for utilities and utility vehicles.” Please note that the requirements for an easement arise from Sec. 98-41 (b) (5) (D), “Easements, including location, width and purpose.” The issue is therefore, whether the “location, width and purpose” will permit the necessary services for utilities, vehicles, fire and emergency vehicle access in compliance with building codes, ordinances and standards. It is broader and deeper in scope and meaning for the purposes of plat survey review than just access for purposes of ingress and egress to the property. We do not know how or to what extent the language found on Pg 2 of the Jahn – Butler Deed and the “Restrictive Covenant” that clarifies the scope and use of existing easement would have on the review and approval process for this new lot. Again, this, is a compliance issue. I urge the City to reconsider the application of a complete recorded Legal Description to the plat review process. 3. Third question - The plat survey included “Easement Dedication” for public use, fire and emergency access and the installaton and maintenance of utilities, but did not specify which or what easement; however, it stated, “no other easements are dedicated or granted,” please see Sec. 98-41 (b) (5) (D). The plat needs to clarify what “easement” or “easements” are to be dedicated? 4. Fourth question – Again, the City’s definition of “access easement” means an easement “dedicated and used for utilities and utility vehicles.” If the answer to No. 3 above it that the dedication applies only to the utility easement within the site plan itself and does not include dedication of utilities within the Marino’s easement, where is the utility easement(s) which provide utilities to the new lot No. 1 per Sec. 98-41 (b) (5) (D). Thank you for your assistance and response to the these initial plat map review questions. With kindest regards, Charles Hartley 399 Holman Road Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 321 783-8367 chartley@cfl.rr.com <mailto:chartley@cfl.rr.com> Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written communication created or received by the City of Cape Canaveral officials and employees will be made available to the public and/or media upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida Law, email addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic email to this entity. Instead, contact our office by phone or in writing 돻꺓㿳翽迾輚▻ᓿᖟኯͯតᡯ᥿㦏／꼛뼜켝�＠༢ἣᇿ㥟㚿㝿㢏㮟㰟㴯뼿伾弿潀罁轂鉃꽌츑児呐똰烠䝨凯ﻔ紲䬜䲟妯娟嬯尿ｏ彝潞罟轠齡꽢뽣콤斛租升䇂畱ǳ냽⵲낯쁆䂵净酫웿솳됒놐섐묱뚒﹠땢Ơ籑뚁숩꼲窟ﾠ⏅꾯ꅫ邭县⦶⭏묢枒❯㋱⠰㍌暹俈汰ꨡ吱邭䓗璀生ㄢ䰨꠴䙹淀ぃ녵吲枀傾㈨瀩硠甏瘯樻嵐悴⹒쏱될占↱Ｌ罼όⱺヴＳｦ⦻䚁꾱ⳁ⃖慊�큆䝂䒰咀䒠懏恰獿綯縟䴯罱䒠ꭐ挠뷻ꭐ䎱ꆫ⾊辁ⱺ뀣엧朥筵뒢炐￠ိ닆묭ꂮ 쉷銳揊믿꺒웳뎲塖蓼蕯䥿﾿꽍뽎콏�徙ｒཔὕ䏿䑟䕯䙿䞏䢟骯踏｟罨꽦澛羜辝龞꾟뾠ꇿꋏꏟꓯ꛿꜏ꠟ눯츔띐⚐숑敢쌺灢﾿녫뚑ꇃ邷炍舰턬滻焒扂ྫＧ଩뼋觰暱놉歂㘠⧕㤐恰限ㅠ⃂囟篠꺱쒡畠酪優쓩ㆡ쐶烲䋅⎽샿셿슏쎟뾪矕鍂鑐ﾐ톼ᾗ⾘ྲ얆↿衻浿蝅勺붣읿跔矲뛳蝠懸Ŧ鉢첡Ｉ邹ⁱﱘ澪微澯羰뇿늏뎟뒯떿뛏럟룯ྺΆ翞这羫辬忨􏷿�ｯ翤迥鿦껧ソ䇗䇗늿⿹沐Ⱪ钐옠猑蜠蝑Ï兪㠹㐭+⣤籧䥁텮Ă着㭂ꁿ쁪衩⼀ﴤ㙖 �ၼ⥣ᑼ航ﱓ镁ﵐⵃ뺁殑泑⻆ﲃ鉳鑀瞐ㅲ惆瀦旾ၮ⿓쉱≻䅬俍忎蘟⯅ⷁ垦缠镰쐤｢␂胶쀬邇ð咔ꉫꃰ雩挰牠恰뮔�雹玆﬿Ɽ෰铠醐｠ꆍ脭脯㌪ⁱ텱홿뻡ҐﻰⲴ沔櫳獱聿圱瀰ଢ銴焲⼠氀隠ﾟ꿲뿳쿴�￷࿹Ὼ᳿ᝏ⚏ᠯᦿ᫏￟＜༞἟⼠㼡伢弣⓳╯䥿옠罱㇑橐宑厑㊒牃渰䇰ᄷｲၲ悑悕뀶鈑耵矿㨤蠧✇诿谿赏㹯缯辏䩺灿숼킕筍耮쀶䉯줯쫏Ꮭ妲웿١䟜䠟锯酡㍢漱绰ɦ鋀̔爀䴐ಐ拥滿熰ᔠ洡ل߯⻿蛿銈］絃稶衙 Ꮵﾲ遳⁭䅫鍉瞖듻邾䅿酠ᅰ஁ጶ횣猁挠棦摰댺潤ぱ슼䐑长ᒁ왦Аѡ੡﶐䢀埿羀炲흢屁蠇ﰀᕐ痡ꅬ빐暠㆔䅷腯ｓ덮㋄ꂾ㇑넱䉬끬珿㘥㎀쐐衢漀ಁᄗ￑ꆾᢕ뀃腗㊒ꘄ�凿蛿ׅሿ爲掞㝂ᕠ０悖Ȅꄓ퀳ダ兏퀱翭炠ꈁ流熡戣Ｑၻ쀂፝倴큁↔ᭅ掟׌㦚죤民浈㑵ꉥ幮槀能郘쁞ಕⶣ炃�礠๳Ａؐꌓ7䂒깣ᅝₔ䀻ǿ붱欲曢枿棏蛟揅㑬쁞ぬ浢င倱᏿㏁慀Ҁ瑑巓턑锃྅㏿⒕煏䅆⁃㗈ⵊ⁋〮뀫輖⟿⮏Ɀⶏ⺟⾯タ㇏￟Ｓ༵ἶ⼷㼸缦㾄⣿⦟⪯薿蚟螯鞿褏￟ﾋྍᾎ⾏㾐侑귺㷷푙햯犲烆䍭ዒ龿嫠Ꮂ闁샀䴐掁脊೿뾁㤰股䧖䪟䮯쎿辫Ἷ⭀∂睯퍀촑鼭ｂང鑳畧拑웿앗頱텠句呿喏嚟퉄ﷱ䦀ᅬ馩潺罻鯟킟㥵淁뛳㏳凇ₛ﷿ﶀ㫠렣꼯䂯툫堒骧흛嵀䜕仂甼鮤ി뻠仉伥ꍢꢑ斔ｸ녰獢섓辱皓၌熘駵₸ꍾ흪肱௖ૐﾐ聗舏烗쑁ブᄕ廽矀プせ鑫鈍㈋Ͽ૱벐뷯뿿윏졿ꢏ�灭䏊冞郼깬쵽﬿䧎斷ꍡ䆐ձΔ缀ﾂᖩ뿖쿗杻患텎ך㋓��컟殇ﾡ텐ꥲ䆑㭓㵸ꒀ愒뽤瀏苀뇧镚途祧ﾡ係徳䭄⾓㾔⾘㾙侚鯿鱟鵯鹿龏ꂟ ꆯꊿￏ�鿬꿭侕徖澗࿯/鿸꿹뿺鰸汦础ഓ倌氹锺摲䗐獐ￅꃐ扏눺�龬ൌꃓ皾ꁍ遗斷쀌큰扲１燨㉫⼓心泄惒ぅ磙猢嵡扐掠ű쫿䒟礮忢氀ἰﷲ䍜瑪᳢᧟䀟ᬫ⇴䱄艣汰쭀俒打ｱ臑᳣ￔ࿖�䊩恪눨毿뱡秀⃄挗抂⒰⊏ｏ벰䄗ぅザ䁿羮졏ᯚ矶츿⺆濟鼥䭄䁷遛㵓満㧐㠀㘭‶昨朗⤴쑹３༕ᅟ仿歀⨤㺰⼏⏯㕟ￏ缹輺ا恷䂩願�䏿䐏ꘛ벁炁꧐琤ꛠﾑ艣뀍慁呎틟ੱᲀ䚿⛏傎耊ㅷ峿层싁脂挟⢁⫿⬏뼟✬棅兢腓썡䘼섴铐戨ᄽ㴵䐑帩佐ཋ᭄睅尶㌏㒿流兰畬MᅭႲ⅍ㅫ틿ᭁ淀쭣➁㛔㝿垏羵㽐佑蘭ቸ悪･䋒䐛鿆｜ཞ⽣傩齕囿垯悿慯摿敯칿氜﾿轨갦눱䍔냉䈤ӷᆀ彠爰倖䄤౎䃒俿튶䅀팰ꦠ吳ೱꞠ麰佣ᮗ೦타涑买힀䂩烚咨呢泀퍢ꃐ�툡Ꙁౡ苀톒ဤғ뺀偤︯￯민⻢扁뀑ༀ꧂ꙑ斀성吒꧿䡂쯒옢❖苊呠⸡ﴀꩥᘲ灒營磯삿５郙輧鐨⒀꫿쯅ㆢૐ蕠蚿蟏ﳜﾏ鿽輁鼂꼃뼄켅�ࣿ૿ଏటയ฿顏駏￟辖龗케㾛侜徝꾬羟ꃿꆏꊟꎯ꒿ꗏꛟ꟯滺�ခ†殢ꀠ耖ｨ䆼拆ț⅔僧〗퇅剔�柁′낀䇆䄐�䩕桡絺��륂뛠뒰䐀捍삿ꭏ蜿泫浿溏功雑�䏱뗐濇㽺갦͔憵嫿䄀⠰ሡ䴘䆅Ჲ荣ﶂ杙빷莰赠迿넏鄯뼥₽酁呔化폞镰﹁㉶锱鉁呗⁐ᙲ潱ﺠ㵴ꡠꦿ귏꺿꿏냟￯ﾱླᾴ⾵㾶侷徸澹뫿��쒟엯곿􏷿／῞濭㿠信忢濣翤迥䆺᭧炰�ﾢ⁰䄮뀮㦂ጠ怽倏ぶ뻿ၱ᫷毱ተ䥠ᬀ泀ｅ凗聎쑯뉁䗽䀛牔怒蓻䵀䱑퀬ㄲ냃倒Z烾獁횔㔖첕ΐ퓿߿？⿴㿵俶忷濸翹迺쿨ࣿए௿ఏട弯㼎伏弐漑焒큌僱⁧⌠─烐ᙨ₿ ㎤闿᫏ᮟ⢯⤟⨯⬿ⱏ｟漭缮輯鼰꼱뼲켳�檿编諰哰쪰䅡ⶂ猽賿拚䶄㙑젿广奏쎣뾰͍煣켻꿌ﱇ꒒b￑뉍콿튀㖒剔逕ↅ糿呀Ġ許ﳓ뵡芁鎓ｱ饾ゃM怷끚쿿贠歰䷰茐鈐붱弔︥밻Ѣ闀ﲀ跱∁台ﳐⱤ꼅뼆켵░�滿믛Ǡ汐夣葦䓁ȁﾑ爿퇃높ㅇ経뽀콁賿퇁絢ﾱ娐宯妳㫀Ｗ⁽恌뎔쉉ㆽ佑滿퇛嵦嘏췿銼悱广缟⽟꽣轡볍剔톔ﵢ祔䰿䶟亯ᢿ᳏ᶿￏ�＠༢ἣ⼤㼥伦珿溟㚯㞏窟瀿焏爟缯㽳佴彵潶罷轸齹Ｔ켧ώ⽾龊꾋뾌쾍�迿郯鋿錏鐟锯阿靏ﵟ㓎빆芰䩀㤠颇 솿彟泂䟼ᓿ꾜늝攷㈌飯䔘`䌠滠ㅈ㐁龠擿势䕛引柿梿컏䑃羀聅扅壑澨龥孒躬︼衵틛洐呉킘䤥�｢ᓐ͈惿Ö倓ᱧꋯ翀냱膊‸侊澩귍䧾钿膫聋䄀ၜꀒ쁙㏾쀕ǖ鏎拖镔ǯ"쾣ő氰揿懖潫泿꽿픏둵톆ｨ䥀훰뽄