Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRE Ordinance change lot split East Central and Ridgewood (96) ________________________________ Warning-This email originated outside the City of Cape Canaveral mail system. Please review the sender's address. Report any suspicious mail by using the Phishalert button in Outlook. If that is not possible forward the suspicious mail to phishalert@cityofcapecanaveral.org ________________________________ City leadership still, a month later, has not provided anything that answers my questions about how David Dickey and Todd Morley recommended approval of the Dichristopher lot split. I have not seen any measurements against the code, not been provided with any of the “in depth review” details nothing at all that shows any attention was paid to the requirements of our ordinance. I did get an estimate of over a thousand dollars to meet my public record request for information. From: Patrick Campbell <patrickcampbell@cfl.rr.com> Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2022 8:13 PM To: 'gentilquore11@gmail.com' <gentilquore11@gmail.com>; 'dr.michaelmiller@outlook.com' <dr.michaelmiller@outlook.com>; 'flyyaker@earthlink.net' <flyyaker@earthlink.net>; 'john@islandcremations.com' <john@islandcremations.com>; 'susiekoz@comcast.net' <susiekoz@comcast.net>; 'm.kellum@cityofcapecanaveral.org' <m.kellum@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; 'w.morrison@cityofcapecanaveral.org' <w.morrison@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; 't.morley@cityofcapecanaveral.org' <t.morley@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; 'a.raymond@cityofcapecanaveral.org' <a.raymond@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; 'd.willis@cityofcapecanaveral.org' <d.willis@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; 'd.dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org' <d.dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org>; 'council.davis@cityofcapecanaveral.org' <council.davis@cityofcapecanaveral.org> Subject: RE: Ordinance change, lot split East Central and Ridgewood. I want to be sure everyone involved has as much information about this subject as possible. I hope you question and validate everything I present. First, early 2021, there was an attempt to change the ordinance based on Mr. Dichristopher’s need and just let whatever BCPA says exists. There was no need to change the ordinance and City Council did not take action on the recommendation to do so. My submittal to the City Council is Section A. Then on August 3rd 2022 a recommendation by Mr. Dickey to approve a lot split for Mr. Dichristopher was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board. A summary of my comments is Section B. I spoke at the meeting and made it clear and said twice, once at Mr. Russell’s request, the split literally does not fit the ordinance requirements. On August 17, 2022, I asked to be provided the math and measurement method associated with Mr. Dickey’s recommendation to approve the split. I wanted to see how a conclusion that the requested split met the size requirements defined by our ordinances. This information should have been available as part of the recommendation to allow the split. “From: Patrick CFL [mailto:patrickcampbell@cfl.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 7:38 AM To: David Dickey <D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org <mailto:D.Dickey@cityofcapecanaveral.org> >; Wes Morrison <w.morrison@cityofcapecanaveral.org <mailto:w.morrison@cityofcapecanaveral.org> > Subject: Dichristopher lot split Good morning. Please provide the document showing the math and measurement method associated with the determination that the lots resulting from the split meet the size and square footing requirements of our ordinances” During a meeting on September 6th 2022 among myself, Todd Morley and David Dickey, Mr. Dickey confirmed that in early 2021 the lot split process was discussed with Mr. Dichristopher. Prior to the meeting I again asked for: “So I can be equally prepared for our meeting, please provide the result of the in-depth review and the specific areas of the code that has been deemed inadequate and what the inadequate points are. Also provide the comments/concerns from the attorney and consultant. I will expect to see the city evaluation of the split application against the code requirements.” Today, I still do not have anything from the City that shows a review of the lot split application was compared to the ordinance requirements. The City is now claiming the words in the ordinance are unclear. The words are not unclear, the words don’t fit the City’s narrative. If the words are unclear what was that not considered or discussed in January, 2021 or in 2010, or 2017 when lot splits were discussed. I have made sure all of my communications can be obtained by a public record request to the city. I am asking Council for an independent review of the Dichristopher request beginning at the first contact with Mr. Dichristopher or his agent(s) Section A. On January 27th, 2021 Mr. Dickey presented rationale for changes to Ordinance No. 11- 2021; amending Chapter 98, Subdivisions, Division 5. — Lot splits. The same rationale was presented to the City Council on February 16, 2021. Mr. Dickey misrepresented the need for this ordinance change in order to gain the support of the Advisory Board and Council. The Board and Council did ask appropriate questions, but the answers provided were structured such that the Board and Council would believe the need for the change was driven by a feeling of “providing relief to the innocents,” Mr. Dickey and the city attorney’s characterization of the aggrieved parties. The city attorney added to the drama of the situation saying “property owner, the former property owner that authorized and did the unauthorized lots, but still owns one lot and the innocent third party owns another that's one factual scenario.” However, the information provided by Mr. Dickey in replying to my request for the properties the change affects does not include that “factual scenario.” Among the plethora of disingenuous statements made by city leadership, another stand out is the city attorney’s flawed scare tactic reasoning that the city would “literally have to go back through 60 years of city records and the title of the property to see whether or not something is has been hasn't been done according to the city code.” In addition to the obvious intent, coercing a favorable response by preying upon the audience’s fears, the attorney introduces the probability that there are more properties that have not been reviewed at the “60 years” of history level and may also be unauthorized. The city attorney did ask a very important question – “how do we issue a development permit when we don't even recognize the division of land that occurred?” I would like to know what database or authoritative source does the city use to determine a parcel is good or bad, authorized or unauthorized, split or not? I would also like to know parcel number, dates and requestor for every recorded lot split in Cape Canaveral. The citizens of Cape Canaveral, the City Council and Advisory Boards deserve accurate, complete and unbiased staff work. In this case that has not been provided. There is no need for this ordinance change. Part of the presentations and discussions explored how to fix the problem. There is no problem that the current ordinance doesn’t cover. The fix is for the aggrieved parties to simply go back to county and combine the lots to match what the city has using essentially the same process used to split the lots. Then, if desired, the aggrieved can come to the City to apply for a lot split through the proper process. Mr. Dickey’s emotional manipulation of the Council and Board, his experience of “personally of having to tell a person persons that the lot that they have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars (three hundred thousand to the Council) on they cannot build on it it's a not a not a pleasant thing to do” is intended only to influence the Board and Council toward approval without relevant, compelling and factual data. Nothing is prohibiting the owners from building on property they own except compliance with the ordinances established by the citizens. The aggrieved parties can build on properties they own by bringing their property into compliance with the City’s requirements. What they can’t do is by-pass the ordinances established by the citizens of Cape Canaveral. The City should not facilitate the by-pass action by unnecessarily changing the ordinance at the expense of citizen visibility and input. These are not “innocents” who “through no fault of their own” are in this position. Of the three owners of the properties in question, two are real estate agents and one is a citizen with an extensive relationship with the City regarding property. All have superior knowledge of City requirements. As presented to the Board and Council, the Brevard county approach to a lot split is “they just go ahead and record whatever survey that's presented that's put down on their on their counter in front of them.” It is just as easy to go back to the County and configure the lot to match the city record. (Again, I don’t know what the city record is) Once combined, the aggrieved parties can request a lot split properly through the City processes. The aggrieved can also just request a lot split right now, using the city’s existing process. The City lot split process includes proper notification to the surrounding owners - “Special notice for residential lot splits. Any proposed lot split of a residentially zoned property shall require special notice be provided to adjacent property owners at least 14 days prior to the planning and zoning board and city council hearings on the proposed residential lot split. Said notices shall be provided by regular mail to adjacent property owners within 500 feet of the property subject to the lot split application, and shall include the address and legal description of the subject property, and the date, time and location of the planning and zoning board and city council hearings. Notice of the planning and zoning board and city council hearings may be consolidated into one notice. Notices provided under this subsection are hereby deemed to be courtesy notices only and the failure to provide or receive said notices shall not be a basis of appealing any decision made under this section. Applicants shall be solely responsible for the cost of the notices required by this subsection.” Mr. Dickey also told the Council in response to my concerns “having two homes on a parcel that's not what this is dealing with.” This is exactly about intentionally taking a parcel intended for a single family home on a large lot, dividing it and building two homes. Mr. Dickey’s diversionary word play and semantics is offensive and insulting. Mr. Dickey further misdirected the Council by saying “and for all intents and purposes if they would come in the door today for approval of that lot split the city probably would approve it without a doubt because it complies with the minimum standards of the city.” At least one clearly does not. This seems to communicate to the Council that the decision doesn’t matter because it would be done anyway. From a citizen perspective this attitude indicates a predisposition that citizen inclusion mandated in our ordinances is not important or even a consideration, a theme that permeates the citizen visible activities of city leadership. Another comment was “not a widespread” problem. As provided to me by Mr. Dickey and shown in the included map, it may not be widespread when viewed as in the City whole, but for residents on Central and Surf it is substantial. It is the proper notice and ability for the surrounding owners and citizens of Cape Canaveral to review and weigh in on a lot split that the City is attempting to avoid. The splitting of these properties and subsequent variance requests and construction would change the texture of the neighborhood and the notice and hearings mandated by the existing ordinance give members of the community the opportunity to understand and comment on what is being requested. The proposed change to the ordinance is not necessary and should NOT be considered. There is no urgency, only a desire by Mr. Dickey to by-pass the City ordinance for a select trio of owners. Section B. Good evening. I am Pat Campbell. I am a 40 year resident of Cape Canaveral and live at 307 Surf Drive. I am here tonight to voice my objections and compel you maintain the texture of our neighborhood and deny the splitting of the Dichristopher lot at the northwest corner of Central and Ridgewood. You have seen this issue before, but in disguise. During the Planning and Zoning Meeting Jan 27, 2021 Mr. Dickey presented this board with an Agenda Item - Comprehensive Plan Amendments the Consideration and Recommendation of Ordinance No. XX-2021; an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, amending Chapter 98, Subdivisions, Division 5. – lot splits . Mr. Dickey’s requested ordinance change essentially would have provided amnesty to anyone that had recorded a lot split with the county and thus avoid the process required by the city. Fortunately, the City Council did not approve a change to the ordinance because it was not needed. Through a painful series of back and forth questions and answers among myself, Mr. Dickey and the city the attorney, the reason, the starting point for the ordinance change request at that time was the Dichristopher property split and the pending additional splits were properties at the end of Surf Drive and East Central Among the disingenuous and misleading statements presented by Mr. Dickey during the January meeting the most egregious included: • His reference to innocent parties that though no fault of their own have property they have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on but can’t build on • His declaration to make it very clear, we're not talking about developers coming in and doing this, this is really for folks who are coming in they thought they had one thing they don't and for no cause of their own they've found themselves in a bad spot • And characterizing the magnitude of the problem as, less than 20 so it's not a widespread issue The innocent Mr. Dickey is hoping to help get out of a bad spot, Mr. Dichristopher is a real estate professional that has accomplished around 300 property transactions in Brevard county and is a named party in around 30 registered Florida corporations, many of which are real estate, development and investment related. Mr. Dichristopher is far from an innocent that though no fault of his own has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a property he can’t use. The facts are, Mr. Dichristopher is a subject matter expert and nothing prevents him from building a single family home on an unsplit lot in harmony with the neighborhood. While Mr. Dickey would like to characterize the magnitude of the problem as not widespread, the properties Mr. Dickey provided as issues - all the far east end of East Central and Surf, represent 30 percent of the Surf Drive and East Central neighborhood. Mr. Dickey has indicated that this issue is complicated because it “involves other government agencies.” Mr. Dickey is referring to the Brevard County Property Appraiser’s office and the Brevard County Clerk of the Court. If there is a concern about the City not having the authority to approve lot splits then this request and the City’s lot split process has no merit and the only topic for the board is can Mr. Dichristopher build on his county split lots. If there is a question about lot splits, City authority or County authority it is a matter for the courts, not the Planning and Zoning Board. If there is not a question about authority and the City IS the authority, the issue is not complicated by the involvement of other government agencies. And to wrap up I will end with additional concerns about the Agenda Pack information. Mr. Dichristopher’s lawyer is presenting to the Planning and Zoning board a variance request in the form of “In tandem with your consolidation of this application my client would also like the anticipated City approval to include clarification that the 25 foot building set back along the “radius” of parcel 2 (as shown on the survey) would only apply to either the Central frontage OR the Ridgewood Avenue frontage, but not both.” This not only emphasizes my position that the lot split and building two homes does not fit the character of our neighborhood, it literally does not fit, but this is not how a variance request should be made. And last, the property information sheet describes the two properties and includes the words “less the West 25 feet. I don’t understand how those words apply and I don’t understand why the package includes Restrictions, Party Wall Agreement that does not seem to have any bearing or relevance to this application. <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free.www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_sou rce=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 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. unty and combine the lots to match what the city has using essentially the same process used to split the lots. Then, if desired, the aggrieved can come to the City to apply for a lot split through the proper process. Mr. Dickey’s emotional manipulation of the Council and Board, his experience of “personally of having to tell a person persons that the lot that they have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars (three hundred thousand to the Council) on they cannot build on it it's a not a not a pleasant thing to do” is intended only to influence the Board and Council toward approval without relevant, compelling and factual data. Nothing is prohibiting the owners from building on property they own except compliance with the ordinances established by the citizens. The aggrieved parties can build on properties they own by bringing their property into compliance with the City’s requirements. What they can’t do is by-pass the ordinances established by the citizens of Cape Canaveral. The City should not facilitate the by-pass action by unnecessarily changing the ordinance at the expense of citizen visibility and input. These are not “innocents” who “through no fault of their own” are in this position. Of the three owners of the properties in question, two are real estate agents and one is a citizen with an extensive relationship with the City regarding property. All have superior knowledge of City requirements. As presented to the Board and Council, the Brevard county approach to a lot split is “they just go ahead and record whatever survey that's presented that's put down on their on their counter in front of them.” It is just as easy to go back to the County and configure the lot to match the city record. (Again, I don’t know what the city record is) Once combined, the aggrieved parties can request a lot split properly through the City processes. The aggrieved can also just request a lot split right now, using the city’s existing process. The City lot split process includes proper notification to the surrounding owners - “Special notice for residential lot splits. Any proposed lot split of a residentially zoned property shall require special notice be provided to adjacent property owners at least 14 days prior to the planning and zoning board and city council hearings on the proposed residential lot split. Said notices shall be provided by regular mail to adjacent property owners within 500 feet of the property subject to the lot split application, and shall include the address and legal description of the subject property, and the date, time and location of the planning and zoning board and city council hearings. Notice of the planning and zoning board and city council hearings may be consolidated into one notice. Notices provided under this subsection are hereby deemed to be courtesy notices only and the failure to provide or receive said notices shall not be a basis of appealing any decision made under this section. Applicants shall be solely responsible for the cost of the notices required by this subsection.” Mr. Dickey also told the Council in response to my concerns “having two homes on a parcel that's not what this is dealing with.” This is exactly about intentionally taking a parcel intended for a single family home on a large lot, dividing it and building two homes. Mr. Dickey’s diversionary word play and semantics is offensive and insulting. Mr. Dickey further misdirected the Council by saying “and for all intents and purposes if they would come in the door today for approval of that lot split the city probably would approve it without a doubt because it complies with the minimum standards of the city.” At least one clearly does not. This seems to communicate to the Council that the decision doesn’t matter because it would be done anyway. From a citizen perspective this attitude indicates a predisposition that citizen inclusion mandated in our ordinances is not important or even a consideration, a theme that permeates the citizen visible activities of city leadership. Another comment was “not a widespread” problem. As provided to me by Mr. Dickey and shown in the included map, it may not be widespread when viewed as in the City whole, but for residents on Central and Surf it is substantial. It is the proper notice and ability for the surrounding owners and citizens of Cape Canaveral to review and weigh in on a lot split that the City is attempting to avoid. The splitting of these properties and subsequent variance requests and construction would change the texture of the neighborhood and the notice and hearings mandated by the existing ordinance give members of the community the opportunity to understand and comment on what is being requested. The proposed change to the ordinance is not necessary and should NOT be considered. There is no urgency, only a desire by Mr. Dickey to by-pass the City ordinance for a select trio of owners. Section B. Good evening. I am Pat Campbell. I am a 40 year resident of Cape Canaveral and live at 307 Surf Drive. I am here tonight to voice my objections and compel you maintain the texture of our neighborhood and deny the splitting of the Dichristopher lot at the northwest corner of Central and Ridgewood. You have seen this issue before, but in disguise. During the Planning and Zoning Meeting Jan 27, 2021 Mr. Dickey presented this board with an Agenda Item - Comprehensive Plan Amendments the Consideration and Recommendation of Ordinance No. XX-2021; an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, amending Chapter 98, Subdivisions, Division 5. – lot splits . Mr. Dickey’s requested ordinance change essentially would have provided amnesty to anyone that had recorded a lot split with the county and thus avoid the process required by the city. Fortunately, the City Council did not approve a change to the ordinance because it was not needed. Through a painful series of back and forth questions and answers among myself, Mr. Dickey and the city the attorney, the reason, the starting point for the ordinance change request at that time was the Dichristopher property split and the pending additional splits were properties at the end of Surf Drive and East Central Among the disingenuous and misleading statements presented by Mr. Dickey during the January meeting the most egregious included: • His reference to innocent parties that though no fault of their own have property they have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on but can’t build on • His declaration to make it very clear, we're not talking about developers coming in and doing this, this is really for folks who are coming in they thought they had one thing they don't and for no cause of their own they've found themselves in a bad spot • And characterizing the magnitude of the problem as, less than 20 so it's not a widespread issue The innocent Mr. Dickey is hoping to help get out of a bad spot, Mr. Dichristopher is a real estate professional that has accomplished around 300 property transactions in Brevard county and is a named party in around 30 registered Florida corporations, many of which are real estate, development and investment related. Mr. Dichristopher is far from an innocent that though no fault of his own has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a property he can’t use. The facts are, Mr. Dichristopher is a subject matter expert and nothing prevents him from building a single family home on an unsplit lot in harmony with the neighborhood. While Mr. Dickey would like to characterize the magnitude of the problem as not widespread, the properties Mr. Dickey provided as issues - all the far east end of East Central and Surf, represent 30 percent of the Surf Drive and East Central neighborhood. Mr. Dickey has indicated that this issue is complicated because it “involves other government agencies.” Mr. Dickey is referring to the Brevard County Property Appraiser’s office and the Brevard County Clerk of the Court. If there is a concern about the City not having the authority to approve lot splits then this request and the City’s lot split process has no merit and the only topic for the board is can Mr. Dichristopher build on his county split lots. If there is a question about lot splits, City authority or County authority it is a matter for the courts, not the Planning and Zoning Board. If there is not a question about authority and the City IS the authority, the issue is not complicated by the involvement of other government agencies. And to wrap up I will end with additional concerns about the Agenda Pack information. Mr. Dichristopher’s lawyer is presenting to the Planning and Zoning board a variance request in the form of “In tandem with your consolidation of this application my client would also like the anticipated City approval to include clarification that the 25 foot building set back along the “radius” of parcel 2 (as shown on the survey) would only apply to either the Central frontage OR the Ridgewood Avenue frontage, but not both.” This not only emphasizes my position that the lot split and building two homes does not fit the character of our neighborhood, it literally does not fit, but this is not how a variance request should be made. And last, the property information sheet describes the two properties and includes the words “less the West 25 feet. I don’t understand how those words apply and I don’t understand why the package includes Restrictions, Party Wall Agreement that does not seem to have any bearing or relevance to this application. <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free.www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_sou rce=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 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.