HomeMy WebLinkAboutcocc_council_Res. No.2022-15_20221019.v3
Subject: Resolution No. 2022-15; providing for the division of vacant land owned by Mike and Collette DiChristopher, husband and wife, and located at the eastern terminus of East Central
Boulevard at Ridgewood Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida (Existing Parcel IDs 24-37-14-51-9-21.01 and 24-37-14-51-9-21.02) into two (2) lots of record for development purposes; providing
for the repeal of prior inconsistent resolutions, severability, and an effective date.
Department: Community and Economic Development
Summary: The applicant is requesting formal approval of a Lot Split to lawfully create two parcels located at the eastern terminus of East Central Boulevard, where it connects with
Ridgewood Avenue (Parcels #24-37-14-51-9-21.01 and 24-37-14-51-9-21.02) (see Attachment 1). The property is .39 acres and is zoned R-1. Parcel 1 (northern parcel) would be .21 acres,
while Parcel 2 (southern parcel) would be .18 acres.
In April of 1979, with the adoption of Ordinance No. 3-79, the City rezoned the subject parcel as well as approximately forty (40) other parcels in the immediate area from R-2 to R-1.
According to the minutes of the April 3, 1979 Meeting (Attachment 2), the Council discussed the need for more R-1 zoning in the City, and further stated the area south of Harbor Heights
would be compatible with R-1 zoning.
The current owner (Mike DiChristopher) purchased the property in July of 2018 via General Warranty Deed, which listed the two parcels (21.01 and 21.02). When Mr. DiChristopher approached
the City regarding the development on the parcels, Staff determined that the parcels had not been subdivided consistent with City subdivision requirements. The City subdivision code
has always required the division of land into 2 or more lots be platted.
Unfortunately, lots 19-21 were apparently subdivide by Charles Pindziak in 1984 without approval, as the City has been unable to locate a record of required approvals (Attachment XX
- attached deeds). With respect to the original Lot 21, at issue in the is application, note the western 25 feet is now part of lot 20.01 and 20 (i.e. no longer part of Lot 21 as it
exists today). This is important because even if Mr. DiChristopher rejoined the two lots under his control, the original Lot 21 could not be reestablished.
The original Plat of this area, Cape Canaveral Beach Gardens, Unit No. 2, shows the original configuration of the parent tract (Attachment 3). Sec. 98-66 of City Code requires that when
a parent tract is divided into exactly two parcels, an owner must submit an application for a lot split. According to City records, this did not occur. Staff surmised that a previous
owner had created the two parcels that are the subject of this request.
This situation underscores the unfortunate fact that a property owner is able to record a deed with the Brevard Clerk of Courts subdividing their lots without the knowledge or approval
of the City. The tax collector and property appraiser control the conveyance of real property and the issuance of tax parcel identification numbers, while cities and counties control
the subdivision of land within their respective jurisdictions for development permit purposes. Furthermore, despite requests, the clerk of the court, tax collector and property appraiser
do not verify whether a subdivision of land (except for a plat) has been approved by a host city (or county) before the deed is recorded and the parcels are redefined for their respective
purposes.
This poses a significant challenge for cities and counties from a development permit perspective because cities and counties are not able to manage all aspects of the division of land
within their jurisdiction. Cities and counties cannot prohibit a property owner from recording a deed or prohibit the Clerk of Court from recording the deed. As is the case currently
before the Council, the City has to deal with the aftermath of the unauthorized subdivision of land when they first learn about it, after-the-fact at the time a property owner later
approaches to the city or county seeking a development permit. In some cases, the property owner seeking the permit is an innocent third party that, like the city or county, had no
idea that the previous property owner subdivided the land without the proper approval of the city or county and that there is a now a problem with issuing a development permit.
Also important to note is that since 1984 the chain of title, as shown on the BCPAO website, reveals that portions of Lot 21 have been conveyed several times before the current owner
purchased the property (see Attachment XX – property card from BCPAO website).
Furthermore, City Staff is not aware of any development permits being issued for Lots 19-21.
As indicated above, the City has always required the division of land into two or more parcels to be platted. This requirement is more restrictive than the Florida Statutes which only
requires a plat when the division of land involves the creation of three or more parcels. In 2010, the City adopted an exception to the City’s platting ordinance consistent with Florida
Statutes to permit “lot splits,” which are generally a division of land into no more than two parcels. Lot splits are adopted by the City Council by resolution rather than a plat.
Notwithstanding, some property owners in Cape Canaveral, prior to 2010, apparently subdivided their land by recording deeds with the Clerk of the Court without notifying the City and
following the City’s subdivision requirements as Staff has not been able to find any records indicating these divisions of land were authorized by the City.
For this reason, Staff is processing this request as an “after-the-fact” lot split application to review the recorded parcels against City subdivision and zonings requirements, and to
formally recognize the parcels for City development permit purposes. Per Sec. 98-66(c) of Code, Resolution No. 2022-15 has been prepared for Council consideration (Attachment 4).
The Code establishes the following criteria (Sec. 98-66(b)(4)) that must be considered as part of the review:
The proposed lot split shall in every respect meet the criteria established elsewhere in this chapter and the city code for the category of zoning and other relevant codes and applicable
law under which the property is zoned. The proposed lot split would result in a corner lot inconsistent with Sec. 98-107(b)(3) of Code that requires a corner lot, for residential use,
have a width at least 15 percent larger than the width of interior lots along both adjacent streets. The lot immediately to the west (24-37-14-51-9-20) has a lot width of 100 feet.
In order to comply with this provision, the proposed lot would require a width of 115 feet. It has a width of 76.01 feet and is therefore not consistent with this Code section.
The application is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. The application is consistent with the applicable sections of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
The application does not create any lots, tracts of land or developments that do not conform to the City Code. See response to criteria 1 above.
The application provides for proper ingress and egress to all affected properties through a public or approved private street or perpetual cross access easements. Each of the proposed
lots have proper access from either Ridgewood Avenue or W. Central Avenue.
The application is compatible and in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood including with respect to the size of existing surrounding lots and development trends in the neighborhood
which have been previously approved by the city council. The surrounding area is characterized by single and multi-family residential development. The size of the proposed lots are
consistent with existing lots in the immediate area. Zoning surrounding the subject parcel is: R-1 to the north, south and west; and R-3 to the east.
The application does not create burdensome congestion on the streets and highways. The proposed lot split will not have an adverse impact on the local road network.
The application promotes the orderly layout and use of land. The proposed lot split will facilitate uses consistent with the surrounding area.
The application provides for adequate light and air. The proposed lot split will not have an adverse impact on the provision of adequate light and air to neighboring properties.
The application does not create overcrowding of land. The proposed lot split is consistent with applicable density standards as contained in City Code.
The application does not pose any significant harm to the adequate and economical provision of water, sewer, and other public services. Development associated with the proposed lot split
will be required to apply for and receive approval through the City concurrency process.
At its August 3, 2022 Meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of Resolution No. 2022-15 (Attachment 5). Note that the Board did not have benefit of Staff’s finding
that the request is inconsistent with Sec. 98-66 of Code as this determination was made subsequent to the Board meeting.
In a letter dated September 30, 2022, Mr. Kevin Markey, Counsel for the property owner, has provided additional testimony regarding the proposed lots compatibility with surrounding properties
(Attachment 6).
Submitting Department Director: David Dickey Date: