HomeMy WebLinkAboutcocc_resolution_no_2022-32_20221220RESOLUTION NO. 2022-32
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CAPE CANAVERAL,
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT
ORDER DENYING AN APPLICATION FILED BY MICHAEL AND
COLLETTE DICHRISTOPHER, HUSBAND AND WIFE, FOR A
PROPOSED LOT SPLIT OF A PORTION OF LOT 21, BLOCK 9,
CAPE CANAVERAL BEACH GARDENS UNIT NO. 2, ACCORDING
TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT
BOOK 17, PAGE(S) 81 AND 82, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, Michael and Collette DiChristopher, husband and wife ("Applicant"),
submitted a lot split application pursuant to Section 98-66, City Code seeking a waiver from the
platting requirements of Chapter 98 — Subdivisions to recognize two tax parcels as separate and
independent developable lots for purposes of later seeking a development permit from the City
to develop the parcels under the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the subject Property is located on the NW corner of E. Central Boulevard and
Ridgewood Avenue within the City of Cape Canaveral, and is identified by the Brevard County
Tax Collector as Tax Parcel ID Number 24-37-14-51-9-21.01 and ID Number 24-37-14-51-9-
21.02, and Applicant's General Warranty Deed, which is recorded at Brevard County Official
Record Book 8203, Page 1999, describes the Property as:
Parcel 1:
The North 76.00 feet Tess the West 25.00 feet of Lot 21, Block 9, Cape Canaveral Beach
Gardens Unit No. 2, according in the map or plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 17, Page(s) 81
and 82, of the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida.
Parcel 2:
Lot 21, less the North 76.00 feet less the West 25.00 feet thereof, Block 9, Cape Canaveral
Beach Gardens Unit No. 2, according in the map or plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 17,
Page(s) 81 and 82, of the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida.
Parcels ID Number 24-37-14-51-9-21.01 and Parcel ID Number 24-37-14-51-9-21.02
("Property").
WHEREAS, having heard the arguments, evidence and testimony presented, and having
reviewed the record and being otherwise fully advised, the City Council hereby issues a
development order denying the application and setting forth Findings of Fact, Conclusions of
Law, and Order as set forth attached Development Order.
City of Cape Canaveral
Resolution 2022-32
Page 1 of 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CAPE CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are deemed true and correct and are
incorporated herein by this reference as part of this Resolution.
Section 2. Development Order. The City Council hereby adopts the Development Order
attached hereto and fully incorporated herein by this reference, and the Mayor, City Clerk and
City Attorney are hereby authorized to execute the same on behalf of the City Council.
Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution and attached Development Order shall become
effective immediately upon adoption by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, this 20th day of
December, 2022.
Wes Morrison, Mayor
For Against
Kim Davis Second
Mickie Kellum Mofion
Wes Morrison �(
Angela Raymond X
Don Willis i(
Mia Goforth, CMC
City Clerk
Approved as to legal form and sufficiency for
the City . Cape Canaveral only:
Anthony A. Garganese, City Attorney
City of Cape Canaveral
Resolution 2022-32
Page 2 of 2
Resolution No. 2022-32
Attachment
CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL
DEVELOPMENT ORDER
IN AND BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
In re: Michael and Collette DiChristopher
Date: December 20, 2022
Application: Proposed Lot Split Application (Sec. 98-66, City Code)
/
On October 18, 2022 and December 20, 2022, a lot split application was duly noticed and
heard before the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral ("City Council") pursuant to Section
98-66, City of Cape Canaveral Code. Having heard the arguments, evidence and testimony
presented, and having reviewed the record and being otherwise fully advised, the City Council
hereby issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order as set forth herein.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Based upon the evidence and testimony presented at the hearings, the City Council finds:
1. Michael and Collette DiChristopher, husband and wife ("Applicant"), submitted a
lot split application pursuant to Section 98-66, City Code seeking a waiver from the platting
requirements of Chapter 98 — Subdivisions to recognize two tax parcels as separate and
independent developable lots for purposes of later seeking a development permit from the City
to develop the parcels under the City Code.
2. The Subject Property was purchased by Applicant on July 2, 2018, and is located
on the NW corner of E. Central Boulevard and Ridgewood Avenue within the City of Cape
Canaveral. As more fully elaborated upon in this Development Order, the Brevard County Tax
Collector identifies the Property as Tax Parcel ID Number 24-37-14-51-9-21.01 and ID Number
24-37-14-51-9-21.02, and Owner's General Warranty Deed, which is recorded at Brevard County
Official Record Book 8203, Page 1999, describes the Property as:
Parcel 1:
The North 76.00 feet less the West 25.00 feet of Lot 21, Block 9, Cape Canaveral Beach
Gardens Unit No. 2, according in the map or plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 17, Page(s) 81
and 82, of the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida.
City of Cape Canaveral
DiChristopher Lot Split Application Development Order
Page 1 of 9
Resolution No. 2022-32
Attachment
Parcel 2:
Lot 21, less the North 76.00 feet less the West 25.00 feet thereof, Block 9, Cape Canaveral
Beach Gardens Unit No. 2, according in the map or plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 17,
Page(s) 81 and 82, of the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida.
Parcels ID Number 24-37-14-51-9-21.01 and Parcel ID Number 24-37-14-51-9-21.02
("Property").
3. The Property is vacant, undeveloped land and consists of 0.39 total acres of which
0.21 acres is Parcel 1 and 0.18 acres is Parcel 2 as described above.
4. The Property is zoned R-1 Low Density Residential District and is intended for
single-family unattached residential development. s. 110-271, Cape Canaveral City Code ("City
Code"). A maximum of one single family home is allowed per lot or parcel in this zoning
classification. s. 110-272, City Code.
5. The Property essentially consists of all of Lot 21, Block 9, Cape Canaveral Beach
Gardens Unit No. 2, according in the map or plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 17, Page(s) 81
and 82, of the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida ("Beach Gardens Unit 2 Plat"), with the
exception of the westernmost 25.00 feet thereof
6. Chapter 177, Part 1 Platting, Florida Statutes establishes consistent minimum
platting requirements and affords local governing bodies additional powers to regulate and
control the platting of lands by local ordinance, laws, or regulations. s. 177.011, Fla. Stat. Upon
recording a plat in the official records of the applicable county, the plat shall serve to establish
the identity of all lands shown on and being a part of such plat, and lands may thenceforth be
conveyed by reference to such plat. s. 177.021, Fla. Stat.
7. The minimum platting requirements under Chapter 177, Part 1 generally defines
the term "subdivision" to mean the division of land into three or more lots, parcels, tracts, tiers,
blocks, sites, units, or any other division of land. See Sec. 177.031(18), Fla. Stat.
8. Since its founding in 1962, the City of Cape Canaveral has regulated the subdivision
of land in accordance with the additional powers granted under Chapter 177, Florida Statutes, and
has required platting for the development and subdivision of land within the jurisdictional limits
of the City of Cape Canaveral, and for purposes thereof, the City Code has defined "subdivision"
to mean the division of a parcel of land into two or more lots or parcels. See Ordinance No. 12-
62 (establishing the City's first Subdivision Regulations); See also, Ordinance No. 7-84 (adopting
comprehensive amendments to the City's Subdivision regulations); Chapter 98 — Subdivisions of
City of Cape Canaveral
DiChristopher Lot Split Application Development Order
Page 2 of 9
Resolution No. 2022-32
Attachment
the City Code (2022).
9. However, in the year 2010, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 03-2010
updating and modifying the City's Subdivision regulations set forth in Chapter 98 of the City Code
to include the creation of a lot split procedure that would allow the City Council to approve, by
resolution, a property owner's request to divide one tract of land or lot into an additional tract of
land or lot under certain limited conditions and applicable criteria. See s. 98-66, City Code.
10. When applicable, a lot split resolution approved by City Council constitutes a
waiver from the platting requirements of Chapter 98 for divisions of land. s. 98-66, City Code.
Therefore, absent a waiver, a division of land requires platting.
11. Relevant in this case, the Beach Gardens Unit 2 Plat was originally platted by
Shuford Mills, Inc. and approved by the City Council on October 3, 1962. The Beach Gardens
Unit "2 Plat was executed by the City's first Mayor, Raymond Jamieson.
12. Since the time in 1962 when the Beach Gardens Unit 2 Plat was approved by the
City Council, the City has no record on file evidencing that the City approved the replatting,
splitting, or other lawful division of Lot 21, Block 9 under the City of Cape Canaveral Subdivision
Regulations. Further, no evidence was presented at the hearing by Applicant or any other person
indicating that such approval was ever given by the City.
13. Nevertheless, based on City staff's review of documents viewable in the online
databases maintained by the Brevard County Property Appraiser and Brevard County Clerk of the
Court, the originally platted Lot 21, Block 9 along with the adjoining originally platted Lot 20 and
Lot 19, Block 9 of Beach Gardens Unit 2 Plat, were reconfigured and divided in 1984 without
obtaining the requisite City approval as required by the City's Subdivision Regulations, when
Charles W. Pindziak recorded deeds creating seven (7) different tax parcels with the Brevard
County Clerk of the Court. Therefore, this action constituted an unlawful subdivision of land
because at the time the City Code required a division of a parcel of land or lot into two or more
lots or parcels to be platted or replatted. See Paragraph 8, supra.
14. Relevant to the originally platted Lots 20 and 21, Block 91 the aforementioned
databases reflect the following conveyances, by deed, in 1984 by Charles Pindziak which resulted
in the West 25.00 feet of Lot 21, Block 9 being severed from Lot 21, Block 9 and being added to
a portion of the adjoining originally platted Lot 20, Block 9:
a. January 25, 1984, Charles Pindziak, a single man, conveys to himself the North
1 Lots 19 and 20 were likewise reconfigured and divided by Pindziak in January of 1984 by deeds ORB
2486, Page 1189 (Tax Parcel No. 24-37-14-51-19); ORB 2486, Page 1191 (Tax Parcel No. 24-37-14-51-
19.02); and ORB 2483, Page 2516 (Tax Parcel No. 24-37-14-51-19.01).
City of Cape Canaveral
DiChristopher Lot Split Application Development Order
Page 3 of 9
Resolution No. 2022-32
Attachment
76.00 feet less the West 25.00 feet of Lot 21, Block 9, as shown on the plat of Cape Canaveral
Beach Gardens Unit No. 2 as recorded in Plat Book 17, at Page 81 of the Public Records of Brevard
County, Florida. See ORB 2483, Page 2517 (This conveyance became Tax Parcel ID Number 24-37-
14-51-9-21.01 which is now owned by the Applicant.)
b. January 25, 1984, Charles Pindziak, a single man, conveys to himself, Lot 21 less the
North 76.00 feet less the West 25.00 feet of Lot 21, Block 9, as shown on the plat of Cape
Canaveral Beach Gardens Unit No. 2 as recorded in Plat Book 17, at Page 81 of the Public Records
of Brevard County, Florida. See ORB 2483, Page 2518 (This conveyance became Tax Parcel ID
Number 24-37-14-51-9-21.02 which is now owned by the Applicant.)
c. January 30, 1984, Charles Pindziak, a single man, makes two conveyances to
himself, by deed: the East 75.00 feet less the North 76.00 feet of Lot 20 and the West 25.00 less
the North 76.00 feet of Lot 21, See ORB 2486, Page 1190 (This conveyance became Tax Parcel
ID. Number 24-37-14-51-9-20); and the North 76.00 feet of the East 75.00 feet of Lot 20 and the
North 76.00 feet of the West 25.00 feet of Lot 21. See ORB 2486, Page 1192 (This conveyance
became Tax Parcel ID. Number 24-37-14-51-9-20.01).
15. In essence, the conveyances described in Paragraph 14 divided the originally
platted Lots 20 and 21 into multiple tax parcels, and two of those tax parcels (Tax Parcel ID Number
24-37-14-51-9-21.01 and Tax Parcel ID Number 24-37-14-51-9-21.02) are currently owned by the
Applicant. Charles Pindziak still has an ownership interest in the other affected tax parcels.
Therefore, the two tax parcels owned by Applicant reflect only a portion of the originally platted
Lot 21, Block 9 (hereinafter referred to as the "Remainder of Lot 21").
16. The Applicant was not involved in the conveyances described in Paragraph 14 and
did not create the Remainder of Lot 21, Block 9 (Tax Parcel ID Number 24-37-14-51-9-21.01 and
Tax Parcel ID Number 24-37-14-51-9-21.02). Nevertheless, the aforementioned databases also
reflect a chain of title for the Remainder of Lot 21 eventually leading to the Applicant's ownership
of the Remainder of Lot 21, Block 9 as follows:
a. Tax Parcel ID Number 24-37-14-51-9-21.01 (Northern portion)
1. April 1, 1997 Charles Pindziak conveyed his interest to Charles and Helen
Pindziak, husband and wife. See ORB 3662, Page 2464.
2. April 28, 2003 the Pindziaks conveyed their interest to Minuteman Realty
Trust. See ORB 4902, Page 261.
3. September 22, 2014 Minuteman Realty Trust conveyed its interest to Robert
and Joan Meckel, husband and wife. See ORB 7227, Page 2696.
City of Cape Canaveral
DiChristopher Lot Split Application Development Order
Page 4 of 9
Resolution No. 2022-32
Attachment
4. July 2, 2018 the Meckels conveyed their interest to Applicant. See ORB
8203, Page 1999.
b. Tax Parcel ID Number 24-37-14-51-9-21.02 (Southern portion)
1. April 1, 1997 Charles Pindziak conveyed his interest to Charles and Helen
Pindziak, husband and wife. See ORB 3662, Page 2464.
2. April 28, 2003 the Pindziaks conveyed their interest to JDM Enterprises and
Holdings, LLC. See ORB 4902, Page 223.
3. September 12, 2006 JDM Enterprises and Holdings, LLC conveyed their
interest to Robert and Joan Meckel. See ORB 5751, Page 4113.
4. July 2, 2018 the Meckels conveyed their interest to Applicant. See ORB
8203, Page 1999.
17. The originally platted Lots 19, 20 and 21, Block 9 of Beach Gardens Unit 2 are all
currently vacant and undeveloped. The City has no record of ever issuing a building permit for
any of these Tots.
18. Applicant has approached the City regarding the development of one detached
single family home on each of the two parcels identified as Tax Parcel ID Number 24-37-14-51-9-
21.01 and Tax Parcel ID Number 24-37-14-51-9-21.02. Since the time that Applicant approached
the City, City Staff determined that the parcels had not been subdivided in accordance with the
City's Subdivision regulations, and therefore, a development permit could not be issued.
19. Applicant subsequently submitted the Lot Split application at issue in this hearing,
therein seeking a waiver from the platting requirements of Chapter 98 — Subdivisions to recognize
the two tax parcels as separate and independent developable lots for purposes of later seeking a
development permit from the City to develop one detached single family home on each of the
tax parcels. In other words, the Applicant seeks the adoption of a City Council resolution
authorizing the Remainder of Lot 21 to be split into two lots for development purposes.
20. Section 98-66 of the City Code of the City's Subdivision regulations governs lot
split requests. The term "lot split" shall mean a division of a tract of land or lot that will result in
the creation of exactly one additional lot or tract of land provided the lot or tract of land to be
split is a previously platted lot or legal description of record. s. 98-66(a), City Code. The review
criteria applicable to lot split applications is set forth in section 98-66(b)(4) and provides:
(4) Review criteria. Before any lot split is recommended for approval by the planning
and zoning board or approved by the city council, the applicant must demonstrate, and
City of Cape Canaveral
DiChristopher Lot Split Application Development Order
Page 5of9
Resolution No. 2022-32
Attachment
the planning and zoning board or city council must find, that the proposed lot split meets
the following criteria:
a. 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.
b. The application is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan.
c. The application does not create any lots, tracts of land or developments that do not
conform to the City Code.
d. The application provides for proper ingress and egress to all affected properties through
a public or approved private street or perpetual cross access easements.
e. 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.
f. The application does not create burdensome congestion on the streets and highways.
g. The application promotes the orderly layout and use of land.
h. The application provides for adequate light and air.
i. The application does not create overcrowding of land.
j. The application does not pose any significant harm to the adequate and economical
provision of water, sewer, and other public services.
21. In addition, the review criteria set forth in Section 98-66(b)(2)(4)a. requires "the
proposed lot split shall in every respect meet the criteria established elsewhere in this chapter
and the city code...." (bold emphasis added). The phrase "in this chapter" refers to the
requirements of Chapter 98 — Subdivisions. Thus, because Lot 21, Block 9 is a corner lot, section
98-107(b)(3) of the City Code is applicable to the proposed lot split. That section provides that
corner lots for residential use shall have a width at least 15 percent larger than the width of interior
Tots along both adjacent streets in order to permit appropriate building setback from and
orientation to both streets.
22. Based on review of an area aerial from the Brevard County Property Appraiser's
data base and Blocks 8 and 9 of the Beach Gardens Unit 2 Plat, the existing single family homes
along both sides of E. Central Boulevard (Blocks 8 and 9 of Beach Gardens Unit 2 Plat) are oriented
towards E. Central Boulevard. Notwithstanding, in an attempt to satisfy the general minimum lot
requirements for R-1 zoned property, the City Council Agenda Item prepared by City staff states
that the Applicant is proposing to orient the two proposed lots (and single family homes) towards
Ridgewood Avenue. Although this orientation may arguably assist the Applicant with making the
proposed two Tots compliant with the R-1 zoning requirements of minimum lot width of 75 feet
and minimum lot depth of 100 feet depending on how the measurements are made to account
for the corner radius, this orientation creates several other code compliance problems for the
Applicant which cannot be overcome.
23. The City Council received testimony by City staff and consulting engineer (Mike
City of Cape Canaveral
DiChristopher Lot Split Application Development Order
Page 6 of 9
Resolution No. 2022-32
Attachment
Allen of Allen Engineering) that the originally platted Lot 21, Block 9 complies with Section 98-
107(b)(3). On the other hand, however, City staff and Mr. Allen testified that the proposed lot
split (more specifically the southern proposed lot) does not comply with section 98-107(b)(3)
because the proposed lot width of 76.01 feet is not at least 15 percent larger than the existing
100 foot width of the interior lot located along E. Central Boulevard. Therefore, the proposed lot
split violates the review criteria set forth in Section 98-66(b)(2)(4)a. because it violates section 98-
107(b)(3).
24. Moreover, the City Council notes that said interior lot being used for comparison
is a tax parcel (ID. Number 24-37-14-51-9-20) that was created by Pindziak when he unlawfully
subdivided Lots 19, 20, and 21, Block 9 in 1984. See Paragraph 14, supra. It is not the single
unit subdivision Lot 20 which was identified and described in the Beach Gardens Unit 2 Plat. The
width of Lot 20 when it was originally platted and approved by the City Council in 1962 is actually
wider at 125 feet. See Beach Gardens Unit 2 Plat. As such on this basis alone, the City Council
finds that the Applicant, by proposing the lot split of the Remainder of Lot 21 and orienting the
two proposed lots towards Ridgewood Avenue rather than towards E. Central Boulevard, is now
seeking to compound the wrongs committed by Pindziak in 1984.
25. The existing single family homes along both sides of E. Central Boulevard (Blocks
8 and 9 of Beach Gardens Unit 2 Plat) are oriented towards E. Central Boulevard. Notwithstanding,
in an attempt to satisfy the general minimum lot requirements for R-1 zoned property, the Council
Agenda Item states that the Applicant is proposing to orient the two proposed lots differently
towards Ridgewood Avenue.
26. On the issue of lot orientation, the City Council also received testimony and written
objections, dated 10/18/2022, by Cape Canaveral resident Patrick Campbell who resides in the
general area ("Campbell"). Campbell opposes the lot split application and argues in the written
objections that the proposed lot split does not comply with Section 98-107(d) related to the
avoidance of double frontage and reverse frontage Tots and the lot split review criteria set forth
in Section 98-66(b)(2)(4)g. requiring lot split applications to "promote the orderly layout and use
of land."
27. Section 98-107(d) of the City Code provides that double frontage and reverse
frontage lots should be avoided, unless essential to provide separation of residential development
from traffic arteries or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation. A
planting screen easement of at least ten feet and across which there shall be no right of access
shall be provided along the line of lots abutting such a traffic artery or other disadvantageous use.
28. Based on a review of the lot width and depth of the originally platted Lot 21, Lot
21 is oriented towards E. Central Boulevard like the other Tots in Block 9 of Beach Gardens Unit 2
Plat even though it is a corner lot. If the Remainder of Lot 21 is oriented towards Ridgewood
Avenue as requested by the Applicant, the two lots proposed on the Remainder of Lot 21 would
City of Cape Canaveral
DiChristopher Lot Split Application Development Order
Page 7 of 9
Resolution No. 2022-32
Attachment
then be oriented differently than the other Tots of in Block 9 of Beach Gardens Unit 2 Plat.
Further, said lots would be oriented differently than the lots and existing single family homes
located on the other side of E. Central Boulevard in Block 8 of Beach Gardens Unit 2 Plat which
are also oriented towards E. Central Boulevard. Additionally, section 110-1 defines the term "Lot,
reversed frontage" to mean a "lot on which the frontage is at right angles or approximately right
angles (interior angle less than 135 degrees) to the general pattern in the area. A reversed
frontage lot may also be a corner lot, an interior lot or a through lot." As suggested by
Campbell, orienting the proposed two lots on the Remainder of Lot 21 with frontage towards
Ridgewood Avenue will result in the proposed two lots being a reverse or double frontage lot
which, while not prohibited, "should be avoided" under Section 98-107(d) of the City Code. No
evidence has been presented evidencing such orientation is "essential to provide separation of
residential development from traffic arteries or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography
and orientation." As such, the proposed lot split is contrary to the general land use pattern in
the area and promotes the establishment of a reverse frontage lot which should be avoided.
Therefore, the proposed lot split does not promote the orderly layout and use of land as required
by the review criteria set forth in Section 98-66(b)(2)(4)g.
29. The City of Cape Canaveral Comprehensive Plan, Policy LU-1.3.1, provides that the
City shall enforce its various ordinances which regulate land use categories including the City's
Subdivision Regulations. Section 98-66(b)(4)b. of the lot split review criteria requires a lot split
to be consistent with the City's comprehensive plan. See also, s. 163.3194, Florida Statutes
(development orders issued by governmental agencies must be consistent with the
comprehensive plan). For the foregoing reasons, the proposed lot split does not comply with
the City's Subdivision Regulations set forth in Chapter 98 of the City Code. Therefore, the
proposed lot split is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and does not comply with
the lot split review criteria.
30. As for compliance with the minimum lot dimensional requirements set forth in the
R-1 zoning district, Council recognizes that there is conflicting evidence as to the proper method
of measuring the width or depth of a lot that has a corner radius, and whether or not the proposed
two lots precisely satisfy the R-1 requirements. Regardless, lot split applications must also
comply with "all" of the applicable requirements of Chapter 98 of the City Code including
satisfying the lot split review criteria set forth in in Section 98-66(b)(4). For all of the reasons
expressed in this Order, the Applicant's proposed lot split does not comply with the City Code.
31. Additionally, the Applicant essentially requests that the City condone the unlawful
subdivision of land effected by Pindziak by approving the two tax parcels created by Pindziak as
two developable lots in accordance with the lot split procedures under Chapter 98 of the City
Code. Under the circumstances, the City Council will not approve the application and exacerbate
the problem caused by Pindziak. With that said, the record reflects that the Applicant did not
participate in the unlawful subdivision of land and that no person, including Campbell or City Staff
presented testimony or evidence objecting to the Applicant constructing one detached single
City of Cape Canaveral
DiChristopher Lot Split Application Development Order
Page8of9
Resolution No. 2022-32
Attachment
family home on the Remainder of Lot 21 as intended by the Beach Gardens Unit 2 Plat.
BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Applicant's application for a lot split is hereby denied.
2. However, so as not to deprive Owner of all property rights to develop the
Remainder of Lot 21, the City recognizes the Remainder of Lot 21, or Lot 21 as originally platted,
as one developable lot for development permit purposes as intended by the City Council in 1962
when the Beach Gardens Unit 2, Block 9 Plat was approved, and in accordance with the current R-
1 zoning district and other applicable codes.
DONE AND ORDERED at Cape Canaveral, Florida, this 20th day of December, 2022.
Wes Morrison, Mayor
Mia .Gofortha_CityClerk
City of Cape Canaveral
DiChristopher Lot Split Application Development Order
Page 9 of 9