WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=UIGSYXAiD60

NOTE
MEETING SECTIONS:

Part 1 (Video ID: UIGSYXAiD60):
- 00:00:04: Meeting Call to Order, Roll Call, and Minutes
- 00:01:22: New Business: 1812 Ocean Drive Variance Request
- 00:02:14: Applicant Presentation: 1812 Ocean Drive Details
- 00:06:15: Clarifying Questions for Applicant Regarding Variances
- 00:07:40: Board Discussion and Vote: 1812 Ocean Drive
- 00:12:21: Planning Department Report: Staffing and Training Update
- 00:13:59: Variance Training Discussion: Perpetuity, Structure, Nexus
- 00:17:25: Upcoming Meetings, Adjournment and Closing Remarks


Part: 1

1
00:00:04.560 --> 00:00:20.160
Good evening. You're attending a session of the city of Jacksonville Beach's board of adjustments. The board of adjustments meetings are quasi judicial in nature. All decisions of the board will be based on confident substantial evidence, including testimony provided

2
00:00:20.160 --> 00:00:35.680
in this meeting. Any person who is not an applicant or an agent that wishes to speak will need to fill out a speaker card located on the side table by the door and turn them into the clerk. Each member of the public will be given three minutes to speak. Please refrain from

3
00:00:35.680 --> 00:00:50.000
speaking from the audience and applause or cheering will not be allowed. Please silence your cell phones. Uh can we have a roll call, please? >> Douglas Dell >> here. >> Owen Curley >> here. >> Jeff Trullard >> here. >> Matt Matts

4
00:00:50.000 --> 00:01:07.439
>> here. Karen Dardy, Gary Hockett. >> Yeah. >> Victor Malone >> here. >> Okay. Next on our agenda is the approval of minutes. Hopefully everybody's had a chance to review the minutes on April 21st, 2026. Is there a motion? >> I make a motion to approve the minutes

5
00:01:07.439 --> 00:01:22.880
for April 21st, 2026. >> I second. >> Okay, it's been moved and seconded. All in favor? I >> I opposed. Okay, the minutes have been um adopted. Do we have any correspondence? No correspondence.

6
00:01:22.880 --> 00:01:40.000
>> Uh, we have no old business. So, let's go ahead and call our new business. >> Board calls case number BOA 26-100026. Property address 1812 Ocean Drive. Motion to consider section 34-615 Echo1 Charlie. 1 for a front yard setback of

7
00:01:40.000 --> 00:01:56.880
18 ft. Move 20 ft minimum. 34-615 Echo1 Charlie 3 for a rear yard setback of 12 ft. Move 20 ft minimum. 615 echo1 echo for a minimum lot coverage for primary structure and required driveway of 48% and low 45%.

8
00:01:56.880 --> 00:02:14.319
>> Okay. As a reminder, each member of the public will be given three minutes to speak when we open the public hearing. Does any board member have any exparte communication? >> I've had none. >> I've had none. I've had none. >> I've had none. >> And I have had none. Would the applicant please come forward and be sworn in and

9
00:02:14.319 --> 00:02:30.400
give their presentation? >> Please raise your right hand. Make state your name and address. >> Oh, can you turn your mic on? Sorry. >> Let's try again. Oh, Cindy Trimmer, one Independent Drive, Sweet 1200, Jacksonville. On behalf of the applicant,

10
00:02:30.400 --> 00:03:43.360
>> do you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, help you God. >> I do. Thank you. >> May I approach? Please. >> Uh, if you have stuff to give to us, you have to give to the clerk first. Perfect. So, this matter was before you

11
00:03:43.360 --> 00:04:00.239
all a couple months ago seeking relief for certain setback in lot coverage for an infill lot at 1812 Ocean. The board had some concerns with the request as it was originally proposed. So, we went back to the drawing board literally and worked with staff and now have an

12
00:04:00.239 --> 00:04:16.320
updated request in front of you. I wanted to start by giving some context because I do think this is one of those situations where a picture is worth a thousand words. Recognizing that these are small lots of record that do not meet current code if you were to go and

13
00:04:16.320 --> 00:04:32.240
put a plat over these properties today. So, we're already starting with a constrained condition. We're also in an area where if you look at the pattern of development over the last 101 15 years you see that they have started to build these larger structures that have come in. So the first page shows the view

14
00:04:32.240 --> 00:04:48.800
looking south and then you can see on the bottom picture the current condition and then the next one I think looking north really does tell the story about what is being constructed on this block over the last decade.

15
00:04:48.800 --> 00:05:06.080
And then we've included for you an updated site plan. So with this updated site plan, we have decreased the intensity of the request for the setback as well as the lot coverage. The original request um for the rear setback was to reduce it to 10 feet. We have

16
00:05:06.080 --> 00:05:23.520
increased that rear set back to 12 feet. The original request was for lot coverage exceeding 50%. We are now reduced and asking for 48% for the lot coverage. So all of the asks are less intense. That was what in front of you previously. And then I've also included

17
00:05:23.520 --> 00:05:39.919
imagery for the proposed construction that you can match that up with what you saw is on the ground today on the neighboring properties to see that what they're proposing really is consistent with what is built all around it on this block. And then also an aerial so that you can kind of see the lot coverage and

18
00:05:39.919 --> 00:05:56.560
setbacks for all of the abuing structures that are on the same block. And then just for belt and suspenders, we did make the effort to make the rounds with the neighbors and knock on doors and see if folks had concerns and of the ones that we were able to connect with. We brought you guys a written kind

19
00:05:56.560 --> 00:06:13.160
of just petition showing the folks understand what's being proposed and by and large didn't have concerns with it. I do have the owner and their agent that did a lot of the leg work. If you have any direct questions, we hope that this one is more palatable and we're here for questions.

20
00:06:15.520 --> 00:06:31.280
Okay. So, when we reviewed this last time, we you had uh a front yard set back of 18 ft instead of 20 ft and that's remained the same. Correct. >> The front yard was originally asked to

21
00:06:31.280 --> 00:06:46.639
reduce to 18 and that one does remain the same. Yes. >> Okay. And then a rear yard set back. Now, originally it was uh 10 and now it's uh 12 feet. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And L and then your lot coverage

22
00:06:46.639 --> 00:07:14.160
instead of 50.46 you're 48. >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. Great. Okay. I think I understand that. All right. Does anybody have any questions for me? Okay. Uh, do you want the owners to

23
00:07:14.160 --> 00:07:40.160
testify? >> They're just available for questions. >> Okay. Uh, does the board have any questions? >> Okay, you can step back. >> Thank you. Uh, do we have any speakers cards? Is there anyone in the audience who's not

24
00:07:40.160 --> 00:07:57.120
uh yet filled out a speaker card that wishes to speak? Okay. Uh, sorry. I will now open the public hearing. Any speaker cards? No. Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?

25
00:07:57.120 --> 00:08:13.199
No. Okay. I'll now close the speaker uh the public hearing and bring the item back to the board. I make a motion to approve BOA number 26-100026 based on the substantial confident evidence presented in the staff report and all relevant testimony presented at

26
00:08:13.199 --> 00:08:28.319
this hearing and that the motion meets all the standards for our variances outlined in section 34-572 of the Jacksonville Beach Land Development Code. >> Second. >> Okay, it's been moved and second. Any discussion? I >> think it's an undersized lot as outlined

27
00:08:28.319 --> 00:08:44.560
uh within the the packet delivered to us. uh it appears to be unders sized in both width and length which uh indicates the necessity of uh the request being asked. If you look at the average lot coverage uh or the acceptable lot

28
00:08:44.560 --> 00:09:00.959
coverage of 45% by code, the 48% they're requesting relative to the size of the lot uh is beneath that. So it really does justify uh in my view um a reasonable use of the lot to to achieve

29
00:09:00.959 --> 00:09:16.480
It's a standard um design and I think the designer came back after our comments and made reasonable build to adjustments. That's the usage of lot. >> Okay, I'm going to be the fly in the ointment. I still see issues with this.

30
00:09:16.480 --> 00:09:35.600
We have an undersized lot granted but and we've had a change in the land development code. So, the land development code still contains the provision that it can't be self-imposed. And here it is. We have a small lot that

31
00:09:35.600 --> 00:09:50.399
contains a building that could be rebuilt in that footprint or could be rebuilt smaller. And instead, we have really not much in the way of a change from when we last met

32
00:09:50.399 --> 00:10:06.720
and and discussed this. We have the same front yard set back which which is fine. We have uh just a two feet difference in the rear setback. And then we have 2.46%

33
00:10:06.720 --> 00:10:23.040
change in lot coverage. Um I think the city accepted that as a as a as a as a reasonable enough change to allow for for resubmission. But I I still go back to

34
00:10:23.040 --> 00:10:38.240
with the new land development code. If you purchase an undersized lot, then you're stuck developing an undersized lot. And that's exactly what we have here. I I

35
00:10:38.240 --> 00:10:54.160
recognize that there are significant homes that have been built around this property. um all under a ver under different land development codes, most of it under the previous land development code.

36
00:10:54.160 --> 00:11:10.560
But this land development code does recognize that if you purchase an undersized lot, you're developing an undersized lot. And that's exactly what I think we have here. >> Only comment that is the existing home is probably larger on surface and by

37
00:11:10.560 --> 00:11:26.800
building new home, you'll be required to bring the drainage to the curb properly drain as well. maintain this lot higher rock coverage >> and based on the documentation provided in the packet it looks like the existing structure reaches farther toward the

38
00:11:26.800 --> 00:11:43.600
rear fence. So this actually creates a a more substantial barrier for the neighboring properties to have the 12T setback. >> All good points. All good points design also cars in the garage as well

39
00:11:43.600 --> 00:12:02.959
>> and gets them off the street. foot wide. This one's four cars. >> Okay. Any other discussion? >> No. Okay. Can we have a roll call vote, please? >> Douglas St. >> Yes. >> Jeff Trillard? >> Yes.

40
00:12:02.959 --> 00:12:20.279
>> Matt Matz? >> Yes. >> Gary or Gary Hockett? >> Yes. >> Owen Curley? >> No. >> Okay. Your request for variance has been approved. Okay, moving on. Uh, we have the planning department report.

41
00:12:21.519 --> 00:12:40.399
>> Hi guys, how you been? Um, I was hoping to uh be here in May so we could do some training. Unfortunately, uh, that hasn't worked out well. Um, I don't know if you guys have heard that, uh, Heather resigned, so we are a little, uh, short staffed at

42
00:12:40.399 --> 00:12:55.519
the moment. And um I'm working with the city attorney. He is going to be on vacation before uh literally like half of June. So uh probably looking at July, but um I'm hoping to have uh some like a memo out to you guys uh soon. Just kind

43
00:12:55.519 --> 00:13:11.519
of trying to act as a quick refresher and cover some more in-depth like legal stuff that we've kind of alluded to to give you some like if you really want to dig into it, you can go read some case law and stuff like that. So, uh I'm also waiting on the attorney to review that, but hopefully I'll have that to you guys

44
00:13:11.519 --> 00:13:27.279
soon. And, uh we'll get training scheduled as soon as we can. Um also, uh we are um I updated the um bylaws for the planning commission. I'm going to bring similar changes to you guys. It's

45
00:13:27.279 --> 00:13:43.279
minor stuff, but it addresses some things that the clerk's office found that are kind of in conflict. And so it's really just simple technical stuff, but um we just haven't had a chance to get to that either. So I don't want you to feel neglected. We are gonna come get you guys set up, but uh just wanted to

46
00:13:43.279 --> 00:13:59.199
say hey and let you know that that's where we're at. And uh if you guys have any questions, I'm pretty much it's me and Devs right now. So I would say email me because I don't know where in the stack of voicemails you'll end up, but um yeah. So we're we're doing what we

47
00:13:59.199 --> 00:14:15.600
can but things are good and if you who need anything let me know otherwise I think you're >> we go to train again can we discuss and I I my train passes the question of incaruities on variances that are put on buildings to throw clarity on that because it always confused me a little

48
00:14:15.600 --> 00:14:31.199
bit being when I was a newer member whether we approve this building as if the building's demolished does it stay with the land or does it stay with the building that's what that's some clarity I think what we struggle with when I was trying to learn >> I mean ultim ely a variance is in perpetuity unless you specifically

49
00:14:31.199 --> 00:14:47.040
attach it to >> attach it to the existence. >> That's what I'm saying. We just need to make sure we're doing that. I think we brought a couple weeks ago where you wanted to clarify that was to the building not to the the property. >> I would say there needs to be some degree of you know logical nexus between

50
00:14:47.040 --> 00:15:03.279
why that specific building. So, I mean, if as an example, you approved a house tonight. If that exact house were torn down and the exact same house were rebuilt, um that variance if it was attached to that specific building, they might need to come back to you to do what you've already approved them to do. Whereas, if

51
00:15:03.279 --> 00:15:19.519
it's like an existing structure and you're providing some leniency based on the fact that it has those historic non-conformities, then you're tying it to a historic building that you know the the problems attached to that structure. So, I'm not those aren't absolutes. I'm just kind of making the point that like that's

52
00:15:19.519 --> 00:15:35.440
usually how you kind of connect those things. There has to be some, >> you know, rational tie to why you're saying that because if the lot's not going to change and the house footprint wouldn't change with a rebuild, then maybe there isn't a reason to say it's this side setbacks, front setbacks where

53
00:15:35.440 --> 00:15:49.680
they >> because those would be in perpetuity basically. So if you say that a house could be here in this shape. >> Yeah. But if we have a building that is non-conforming because of prior land development codes and if a building was torn down, should they be make an effort to go back to true setbacks?

54
00:15:49.680 --> 00:16:06.639
>> I would say case by case potentially. Yeah, >> especially when we're trying to clean up the non-conformities. We're trying to get them to build the h, you know, work on their house and they're coming back and clean up non-conformities. I always thought that just stay with that, for example, an historical building that was just built on old land codes. Should they reset themselves? That's what I

55
00:16:06.639 --> 00:16:22.480
always >> Yeah. I mean, it's difficult to give a complete generalization, but >> there's always been kind >> those type of examples. Yeah. I mean, it makes a lot of sense if you've got something that's, you know, built in the 50s and maybe doesn't meet any of the requirements. You know, someone might need some relief in the future if they

56
00:16:22.480 --> 00:16:38.240
come back and rebuild that, but it may not be exactly what's there. So, >> okay. >> Yeah, I think there's an opportunity for we'll definitely go through that kind of stuff. And I'm gonna try and bring some examples, too, if I can, so you guys can kind of visualize some of that stuff as well. So, >> we did uh I think we did some training

57
00:16:38.240 --> 00:16:55.040
at when the land development code was uh first adopted and I definitely found that to be helpful. So, >> the goal was to do it once a year and we did that training in April and it's just gotten slowly pushed back. >> Yeah. >> Now, we're going to be in July, but yeah, the goal is to do this every year.

58
00:16:55.040 --> 00:17:10.240
So, we're kind of like we're uh reviewing the the code every year. So, we've got a bill going before council in June that's a um basically, you know, when we missed definitions or got our wires crossed with how we worded things. It's really not, we're not changing anything. We're just fixing mistakes we

59
00:17:10.240 --> 00:17:25.199
found. Um but yeah, we're going to look at that every year and see if there's, you know, things that come up. So, try not to wait 30 years to do all this stuff again. It's the goal. But >> that was all I had. Unless has anything for you guys, I think we're we're good.

60
00:17:25.199 --> 00:17:42.640
Um, next meeting is May 19th and we have two regular items on the um schedule. >> May 19th May I probably will not be here travel week. I'm sorry. >> Okay. Uh, any more from the planning department?

61
00:17:42.640 --> 00:17:58.000
>> Now it's my favorite courtesy of the floor to visitors. Anyone? Anyone? No. Okay. Is there a motion to adjurnn? I so move second. >> So moved and seconded. All in favor? >> I

62
00:17:58.000 --> 00:18:01.000
>> Okay.