HomeMy WebLinkAboutRE Young Subdivision Survey Map (7)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
From: Kim Kopp [mailto:kkopp@orlandolaw.net]
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 12:52 PM
To: chartley@cfl.rr.com; 'David Dickey'
Cc: 'Patrice Huffman'; 'Angela Apperson'; 'David Greene'; 'Rocky
Randels'; johnpekarpe@gmail.com; 'John Cunningham';
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
ὼ忟濠迡鋿캯坪퀠팀邐艍誠濠侖ﴞ퉧姾脚ﱚ㾛侜臩若冇쓽昐㓦⁗テ낡ա拾탂䃅䅩擁ཛᾃ銲鼟霃㚝秎ם柿쟒솰驀뼄鵡侗ￔ뀒肕郥ꅥ噟썧K䃇揌쑨躄擓앯ၐ￢摥ꇩ虨〚腘腘끞ꁑ䣾ꂫ틓苄愫➰⃜灐櫫쀁僁쀒쭑썡ﺡ쉓ᣓቒ◀�蔠샑｢타䗇ꂊょ舘⃜ꇃ㝠旿ዱ圸ꯐ塒ꏆྥᾦ彙剦뻆抷肋槿墀朢쏁蜐ᓰꍐ�샓衰唀䇂쇁䏅뛿콑嘰懠넖蠳镰㽁㮙멙Ҏㄜ检畭裗坰뤒滂兩Ⲡ⮰썠휭ⶐ䀬獹拿摁朦诃띠뇎｀悏텕刑ˀ�ﾼ럏쁢뉔
샠扐塭蔰ｰǨ悇ꂵ煘ㆱ⌥�匠ꍄ䚑䍁ₐ䨵鼭⹀缰꽪꽻齿꾀뾁쾂�藿蟿蠏褟訯謿豏穟ﾟ忘뽼콽�뿙쿚���쵎禑켨툩ᩲ憐섐罣㈦ô튮〔ꆡ｣ꅞꅠ倓속뾝쾞�鎯鐿噋潂惋ㄧℿ靍頟윯햴ﴔ朑ｵ舥眚儙胬Ԧ龧꾨뾩ꫭ䓇ᄧꁑ쁉ﴱ캹뾏鿏뿯锤Ꮒጋᬳｱ䃯ꁑR䎎伌켃䮔㈦갵寇怫楝ᙧ㱮罵미b䖢芣뇷듼﹥쑸뛑枓סꂖਜ�툠櫃턫廿ꮰ掠⮢閐懤⨔ﭐſtㅩ⭷꽐뽐憴쒲＂剟ᅘ끞༑ἒ⼓鼛꼜ﲿ報섑Ẑ偱沰鴂⇷≟୩憅
냷醕둙⁗폿ﶢ⨵⯟ᷯꊀ⻱Ｅ刧ＯꜢ솿灓鈥뇽長㩳쬂砒ꂑ燸㈻繡퍤挐ᒐ㮢껑梵枰췿ᛁݯ顿｟濮翯述鿱꿲뿳쿴�刺䀏䆿ﾏ⽃㽄佅齔潇罈轉齊䯟䲯䶿仏賟暼惀㏌懟悀走躌▵爀炙쟿ⓥ췀ꌀ躂勒 ꂿ紭쀧ꅶꯀர悅쓠狰뛿㰱뾑杒ᝏ놌☐뎀備䋌慳炱삶앣ＡჄ꼽뼾亘ˎ₳僀瓻뀒橣ˉｰ㽭䮔ᑰ痯牟頏띬炢惀玣뛿░㞡⤼⨟ጯﷹ빢ﾀ퉼膿㝴ꊷ킶꽸盿ѯ毜饡퍐뽠 鼂漴靖ᙰ嗋伷弸꘢苟秿颿쭫꽠厰ꂑ㤀ⴸ㘶⠠鄩㐀촩柤栏椟Ｏㆳ熢怼
䒿큾⾒྄罷觿路躟箯쬦ﶀ쑠값ﾸﾙ⾗㮘ꇺꄐ䓽É랱憢⣐锐쒁ꈅ끴뼀Ⴙ鄦ꁞ�깺幐ﾠ凋抰∖㿕ꆷώ⽾罿耿᥇뚈ꝱ떡郣㑦ᔩ⣰酢㔱㆑⥄닯ꓠ齯頯䔻囋⾰�裳쓪汱ꅵ선رꄰａ冿愦菁ꄟ龊꾋ꓕꕟ獯琏찙︲庀︀♥潢ᩤ놿눟뜯﵏ｰ뾩쾪�辴龵辸龹㰢샿볟窯⣌蔂폒ꠑᵣ扸ꁘ聥傳橲硰ꉡＬ怦횣怦傕쀧叽ᆩ쁠提랣ٰ네灭ꊯﶠﲐ扴뙬쀤䄲怦臺닖䐥덤塽撠侤ན᱔Ȑ憂�큥‼燽ꃺ蕥훡２瑦拽䈟瘚胖䆨苻툠攀勾牪ￄ࿆�ᓿᘵⴑ疰瀃笕粯풴ｄ
ҁ숟聞�ﳛ僿冯喿嚯垿壏姟嫯ཛྷὝ⽞㽟你彡潢咿ￏ鿳꿴뿵쿶�ﳝ圚Ⅎ䁤쉴瑫櫀ﺠၨᩡ澂ꠢ㭁歰ᥐﯱ犨虧푀摡ᕡဂ由慊汨錏츔몝稶䋹퀊 �缀莡演忿鿀꿁뿂ﭒ똥ᄲ⑃ᯕ캏穟Ｃ脉₮傕䅼㡦ꖡ튕荰ퟻ궢瞇퀒胗ῢ伅ᅅ㉀锑ꢱ橴㉳烳癡円懩矦炨鉴酪쏽瓀肑��＃؏ܟिୟ౯ｿ輍鼎꼭뼮༙Ἒἁἰㇿ㈯䄿㒏㕟㙯㝿㢏쾟꼹뼺켻�杁큯㇄⳿쓂艀艡훐瑙鄳掀ｰ僊鄒ᝥᅯ邿聦샿⭥ꉱ쎠闤凒潥ꡠ聦惘熡职
蛰ᝑ曐ﵰ₮镰樂ⱕ￬㼧伨］ｂངὅཛྷ䟿䠿䥏䩟䭯䱿䶏亟ﾯ뽜༿ὀ⽁⽟㽠憿扏损摯敿暏䲑ᄥ僎䁴⁷桰�쑴㏾뽮콯㽼佽彾潿胿腿芏莟蒯薿蛏蟟翯ﾈ㚾ეჟ킨脞ꊕＭ鎑꒶熡徊鼜澲쎭ꇐ뜣辑⃯鳏拄哿ꇱ폒퓯�ꠂ楲ﾰ䇙惐䂨兕腐ꄑ돖튑ힹꄠ�တ謂ﾀ킮䀣郡Ⴠァプ퇦㐑돽㭅舐ꃩᅑ⇡ၷꟹ擰夬嫏觟鑅／ﾐ﯂灕䏀蚭↘囿鎱ធ竑鬑ꁑ钝舥퇑こ쾮펯軿텗ꁀ⏓鴄ᇢ꩑／澥﯂蘥⾱ᾫ�퇦龴닿댿ꡏ뜓뗏↯ꡢ㾙뾠쾡�
�燿狯瓿甏瘟眯砿祏｟潺뿇쿂꾊뾋忎⿄㿅웿읏졟쥯쩿쮏첟춯ﺿ笴퇯툿��￢ῥ㿧俨忩濪≿䙔퀒惖䂞Ɥ�ᖿᙿ傌卧㟒ⲹ㋞㣬肙䁔鱮啑ｔ뿴�箦㖙ᾴ�挢飿馠馠▂ﱸ憐ꚿ{ﲮ甼ﯜ〦槁뢨䔤⳿鲂␗鰴匣⪀鸠朑�㲻ᇔꨄ壕�ﵯﶏ촡ፉﾴ龡咠끡昰ﷀᠳ椐⫠ꀡ∑⪳�떨䉕썔焣偕卬⪃ﾁ辿鿀⼃锩ꘈ蠥恓႞⩿呤嘠報喁占①沐嗳馑撱⍯鵱轂ᅕ娘⍍鴡ీ翝蘥ꂧቒ猪帗︨깳麀⬄咒ܱ墹ⴕ５䌐䂮邝ლ뾭쒮༞ᐟᔏ츟쾯펿풯햿ￏ�
࿚콥�ｨ櫿�⺟⢯⧟㷯み／ἱ⼲罁伴張漶缷輸㤿㪟㮯㲿꿌餰殠︠ߐ偳䣑䫰�鬡ﾓꊙ큘䁀Ŕ掾툘턘䆭埳堡䶃䪠堰跕妦ﾭ缾潂罃轄齅꽆뽇콈䧿䫟䯯䷿丏伟嬯囟輿齀뽥佘彙潚뽩轜巿废徯悿懏拟揯旿ᡗⁱ癫轀玠哐탳炍邜སὧཫὬ⽭滿漿灏煟牯獿璏疟ﾯ뽶콷⽺㽻⽨㽩佪齼緿纯躿耏臟苯蓿蔏꼟⾆㾇侈媉끃狠焉鉈琐႘곴�迿郯鋿錏鐟锯阿靏Ὗ澘羙辚龛銣㤳᤹傝汯 潒﹡鵤黟鿯ꇿꈏꌟꐯ＿侥徦澧羨辩龪꾫뾬䍮큔凴ॡ�汰䘐၌㊀�꿿
냯닿댏됟딯똿띏罟澸羹辺龻꾼�耍造㠷ⴳ惐㜶⿀쇿숿썏쑟앯왿잏좟羯뿉쿊�ￍ࿏鼃栠U�퇠텠ϰ璝捀汦爮牸挮ꃞ峟ཤ䋘惣냿筴奈倀剅䥌䭎㌠俢姣絽뇤å獲퇵屠僣Ա�ઠㆎ俫㺎猊퉡턮튿ￏ�ￕ࿗Ῐ㿚俛����躏賿贏？쿾忱濲翳켂鿵꿶㬉㇔Ｐ⿱ﵶ？鼉�ῼ⿽㿾OşɯͿҏ֟گ켇�－༏ἐ⼑㼒伓ᒓṟ䙆⍬楀뀢遑뼠礱戠荲膮恔扵楬呣௱샣∠瞠睁利酒䃩뽴傀⦐矀⢛⛠数傮쇣畭T掾達셕耢U達剥�⅑넪⻀扁
쀩剓䏶쀩븰⾬仐呣⤱剑敡呭潰禴鵥眱냦偔剢地偹遑憡怪･ᬠ퀖С윘槩ﴳ䀡╓⩯剅᭑⅐洰䀮ご︠創品嗱뽳ⶀ鵐鴡魀怦恓㉲劐旱ㅸ뫱啠䅹〡똨⭌肿ꇦ遑㪠鵑漱딪怫᥉倰擒叽渰怦耬遐ꁔ卑哿⏱⋠⺰♁删⫐繄⨭㦶㾗劕ㇰ⏂揠瓾愭피⍓큑⁀㾱⺡搐ᱺ켴�㛷䃀愠遅怮煑ጱ勳⼰瀱啨勐儰䈡鈬…ᕧᛟᯟᳯ༞⼠㼡伢弣漤缥⛿➏⢟⦯⪿⯏ⳟⷯ༯ἰ⼱㼲伳彈潉罊㟿㢏㦟㪯㮿㳏㷟㻯ཀὁ⽂㽃佄彅潆罇槿毿䨏䮯䲿䷏仟俯ད
ὒ⽓㽔何彖Ἃ⼌謿跿踏輟嘯嚰峻～འὡ⽢㽣佤彥替杯桿箌淔湟潯灿ﾏ钖潽罾꾒镬ིέ⽴痿瘿睏硟祯穿箏粟ﾪ톚⾁㾂䎃쾦�쮉虧螏鎖㔛蘸嬑擀秮ﺄ䊄蘷᠑諒ː셽°