HomeMy WebLinkAboutcocc_council_Res. No.2022-15_20221019.v5
Subject: Resolution No. 2022-15; providing for the division of vacant land owned by Mike and Collette Applicant, 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 (Mike DiChristopher) 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 Application, 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.
A general understanding of the history of the subject parcel and surrounding parcels will be helpful in making a determination. Accordingly, a general timeline is presented:
1962. The original Plat of this area, Cape Canaveral Beach Gardens, Unit No. 2, shows the original lot configuration (Attachment 2).
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 3), the Council discussed the need for more R-1 zoning in the City, and indicated the area south of Harbor Heights would be compatible
with R-1 zoning.
1984. Lots 19-21 were apparently subdivided by Charles Pindziak into seven parcels (Attachment 4) without seeking City approval. 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 the Brevard County
Property Appraiser Office (BCPAO) 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, 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 and that there is a now a problem with issuing a development permit.
Chain of title, as relates to the Applicant’s property:
1984. Charles Pindziak, a single man, reconfigured lots 19, 20 and 21 of the original plat (Attachment 5) in the following manner:
The western 25 feet of the originally platted Lot 21 was removed and deeded to parcels to the west of the subject property which remain owned by Pindziak. This is important because even
if the Applicant were to rejoin the two lots under his control, the original Lot 21 could not be reestablished as shown in the original plat.
The remaining portion of Lot 21 (Subject Property) was divided into the two parcels currently depicted on the BCPAO, a north half and a south half.
1997. Charles Pindziak transferred his interest in the northern portion of the subject property to Charles and Helen Pindziak.
1997. Charles Pindziak transferred his interest in the southern portion of the subject property to Charles and Helen Pindziak.
2003. Charles and Helen Pindziak transferred their interest in the northern portion of the subject property to Minuteman Realty Trust.
2003. Charles and Helen Pindziak transferred their interest in the southern portion of the subject property to JDM Enterprises and Holdings, LLC.
2007. JDM transferred their interest in the southern portion of the subject property to Robert and Joan Meckel.
2014. Minuteman Realty Trust transferred their interest in the northern portion of the subject property to Robert and Joan Meckel.
2018. Robert and Joan Meckel transferred their interest in both the northern and southern portions of the subject property to the Applicant. When the Applicant approached the City regarding
the development of the parcels, Staff determined that the parcels had not been subdivided consistent with City subdivision requirements and therefore, a development permit could not
be issued. Note that the City has not issued development permits for lots 19 through 21.
Where we are today:
Staff is processing this request as an “after-the-fact” lot split application to review the recorded parcels against City subdivision and zonings requirements. Per Sec. 98-66(c) of Code,
Resolution No. 2022-15 has been prepared for Council consideration (Attachment 6).
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 application is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. The application is not consistent with Future Land Use Policy LU-1.3.1 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan because it would
not meet the City’s subdivision regulations set forth in Chapter 98 of City Code.
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 would have proper access from either Ridgewood Avenue or E. 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, irrespective of the exception noted in criteria 1, above. 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.
Staff has identified three options that the Council may consider regarding this application:
Deny the application because it does not meet all of the review criteria of City Code Sec. 98-66(b)(4), above.
Deny the application but offer an alternative which meets all of the review criteria of City Code Sec. 98-66(b)(4), above, by combining the north and south parcels into one parcel. This
approval would recognize the removal of the western 25 ft. from the original Lot 21 and allow the development of one Single Family Residence. The resulting parcel would be approximately
125’ x 152’, and would comply with all applicable dimensional standards;
Approve the application. This approval would recognize the removal of the western 25 ft. from the original Lot 21 and allow the development of two Single Family Residences. However this
approval would not meet all of the review criteria of City Code Sec. 98-66(b)(4), above. As a condition of approval, a variance would be required because of the reduced size of the
proposed southern (corner) lot. Sec. 98-107(b)(3), requires a corner lot have a width of at least 15 percent larger than the width of interior lots along both adjacent streets. As currently
proposed, the north parcel would meet all applicable dimensional standards; however, the south parcel (corner), as proposed, would have a width of only 76.01 ft. and therefore would
not meet the 15% requirement.
At its August 3, 2022 Meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of Resolution No. 2022-15 (Attachment 7). This approval was based on a review of the general R-1 lot
dimensional requirements and minimum setback requirements, which indicated compliance. However, since that time, Staff became aware of Sec. 98-107(b)(3), which requires a corner lot
have a width of at least 15 percent larger than the width of interior lots along both adjacent streets. The Board, at the time, did not have benefit of this information.
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 8).
Submitting Department Director: David Dickey Date: