Reso 2024-3770 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

adopted or approved by resolution or ordinance by the City Commission." § 171-10, City Code. The structure is located adjacent to the water's edge and is not elevated or otherwise compliant with current Florida Building Code standards. Issuing a COA for demolition would allow construction of a new structure in a more flood -resilient method, making the Property more compatible with "surrounding properties." This is an application for demolition related to structural deficiencies and elevation that prevent rehabilitation and, as such, the Secretary of Interior's Standard for Rehabilitation and Guidelines are not applicable and Owner is not aware of any Other guidelines/policies/plans adopted or approved by resolution or ordinance by the City Commission. However, Secretary of Interior's Standard for Rehabilitation and Guidelines on Flood Adaption for Rehabilitating Structures recognizes that "in making land -use and planning decisions for a community or neighborhood, there may be situations when it is necessary to identify sacrificial historic sites or structures" and that "demolition could be chosen to remove buildings most at risk ... to allow for new structures designed to withstand water damage in future flood events." See Guidelines on Flood Adaption for Rehabilitating Structures p. 126. This is not the first time that the Board has issued a certificate of appropriateness for demolition in these circumstances. The "Pergola," which existed on a separate, abutting parcel owned by the Applicant has already fallen victim to hurricane damage. In 2007, following damage from Hurricane Wilma, the Pergola was deemed structurally unsound and uninsurable. The Board determined that the relevant standard to issue a COA for demolition was "upon an evaluation of the compatibility of the physical alteration or improvement with surrounding properties" and, applying that standard, issued the COA for demolition (HPB Resolution 2007-05), and the Pergola was subsequently demolished. In addition to this precedent, it is well established that changed circumstances and hardships, such as those affecting Owner, warrant the relief that Owner seeks.' While 3 See, e.g., Lorenz a City of Florissant, 747 S.W.2d 222 (Mo. 1988) (holding that a variance to a local historic district zoning restriction may be granted based on parcel specific hardships); State by Powderly a Erickson, 301 N.W.2d 324 (Minn. 1981) (holding that to permanently deny an owner the beneficial use of his property by requiring him to make a substantial investment in repairs and renovations over his objection would constitute a taking for which the owner would have a right of compensation); Lafayette Park Baptist Church a Scott, 553 S.W.2d 856 (Mo. App. 1977) (holding that a landowner could not be obligated under the police power of the state, absent condemnation, to expend his money for the benefit of the public or alternatively to forgo any use of his land for the foreseeable future as a result of the determination of a board of adjustment under an historical district ordinance that it was physically possible to save a structure, although at an expense unwarranted by any possible use of the structure after rehabilitation); Joachim Page 16 of 98 27