Good evening. You're attending a session of the city of Jacksonville Beach's board of adjustments. Can we have a uh roll call vote, please? Or a roll call. John Morland, Owen Curley here, Jeff Truer,
Jennifer Williams here. Matt Mets here. Laura Tierney, Douglas Dell here. Okay. Okay. The board of adjustments are quasi judicial in nature. All decisions of the board will be based on competent substantial evidence including testimony provided in this meeting. Any person who
is not an applicant or agent that wishes to speak will need to fill out a speaker card. Uh located at the side table by the door and turn them into the clerk. Each member of the public will be given three minutes to speak on each item. Please refrain from speaking from the
audience and applause and cheering will not be allowed. Please silence your cell phone. Okay. Uh hopefully everybody's had a chance to review the minutes for March 18th and April 15th. Is there a motion? I make a motion to approve the
minutes as outlined in the notes for March 18th and April 15th. Second. Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Okay. Can we have a uh roll call vote on that, please? or actually you just have a voice vote.
Uh all in favor of approving the two minutes say I. Okay. Opposed? All right. It's been passed. Any correspondence? Just what was provided at the days? Okay. Uh seeing that there's no old business, let's go to new business. And
would you call the first uh Before we call the first case, do you want to let everyone know that we only have four members tonight? Um just So, we only have to say it once, so we don't have to say it six times. Oh, that's right. It's good. Yeah, we have uh only four members
tonight. Uh normally we have five voting members and uh we just have four. Uh based on that, if you would like to um defer your your case uh your petition for a variance, um you
can you can do so when your when your uh variance is called. All right. Board calls case number BOA25-10002, property address 20007 South First Street. Motion to consider
31615 echo1 Charlie 1 for a front yard setback of 10 ft in lie of 20 feet minium minimum 34-615 echo1 Charlie 3 for a rear yard setback of 5t in l of 20t minimum
34-615 echo1 echo for a lot coverage of 70% in l of 45% maximum 34-615 echo1 foxtrot for 71% % lot coverage in lie of 60% maximum. All for construction of two new urban single
family dwellings located on two non-conforming lots of record located at property address 20007 South First Street. Okay. Before we uh begin uh does any board member have any exparte communication?
I've had none. I've had none. I've had none. And I've had none. Would the applicant please come forward to be sworn in and give their presentation? if you'll just hit that red button on the mic to turn it on. Thank you. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or
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. Please state your name and address. Uh, Michael Sittner. My address is 1 Independent Drive, Sweet 1200, Jacksonville, Florida
3220. Good sir. Uh this is an app this is a variance application to provide for a lot split to two historic lots of record. In other words, the lot you're seeing it's one current lot but it's composed of two
historic lots. The zoning allows currently without any variances would allow for a multi would for allow would allow for two multifamily units. So instead of doing two multif family units, uh my client would like to subdivide the property to its historic
lots and provide two detached single family lots. Um if you look at the if you want to go back to the satellite image. Thank you. If you want to go, this is I think the best picture to show the consistency of what we're asking to do compared to the surrounding development. Um, if you look at the lots
immediately to the west, uh, the equalsiz lot to the east is actually divided into three lots instead of two. Um, one being a duplex and then there's a single family. And then likewise, the two lots to our south, it's two single
family lots, but our lot is larger than those two. And then if you look directly east, it's a similar sized block, but instead of having four units or six units like what we're proposing, it's actually eight town homes. So what we're proposing is im is consistent with the
immediate block and the surrounding blocks as well. Uh the variances are really allow or asking to build more marketable units. Um the lot the historic lots are somewhat small and sight constrained and understanding today's market and what buyers are
looking for. We're looking to build a a detached single family product that meets modern consumer demands. And with that, I'll happy to stand by for questions. Thank you. Uh so I understand it right now that uh historically it was two
lots and uh then it was combined into one lot and that's the way it is right now is one lot. That's correct. And then you're proposing to split these back into two separate lots. Correct. To the historic lots. Yes, sir. Okay. And then uh I'm sorry. Is there an existing
structure there now? Yes, sir. There's an original. It's a small bungalow built in 1938. Okay. And that's going to be torn down and then you're going to put in the the next Right. Is there anything that you could put in there without splitting the
two lots that would meet the current land development code? uh to the chair that would be we could do a single family or two a multifamily development based on lot sizes. So I was looking at RM2 and under the
new land development code the maximum footage for a 3500 foot lot is 45% which is 1575 square feet and yours looks like you're asking for 1820 square feet. So,
can you explain why could you not do a property that's 1575? Uh, through the through the chair to the Commissioner Williams. We're looking to build based on consumer demand. The hardship that you're facing in developing on this lot is as two
separate plats. It does not meet the minimum um size. So, you're looking for exceptions on uh setbacks as well as coverage. Is there any other hardship that we should be looking at when we consider the the setbacks or coverage outside of just the
size of the lot itself? Uh through the chair, that's what we're asking for for relief. Nothing else. Everything else will meet code. Any further questions? No further questions. Okay. Do we have any speakers cards? We do. Set back,
sir. We have two speakers cards and we also have uh received an online submission through the planning commission. So the first speaker card is uh Janelle Wilson address
21104 South Ocean Front says uh do not wish to speak but lists oppose. Sorry. Um the second speaker's card is Michael Sitner. Okay. So, those are the speaker cards
that we have. So, the one that that did not wish to speak again um did oppose address 2014 South Ocean Front named Janelle Wilson. We also received from the planning division through uh an online submission uh the same Jal Wilson
uh listed opposed to the requested variance for the property located at 20007 South Street. Uh sir, would you like to come back up and address any of the issues that you may have perceived to be raised by the
objections? Um other than we could do by right today two multif family units and we would meet all the rules. Um we think single family would better fit the development. And if we look at the satellite if we can pull the satellite back up there's actually the neighboring
lots are also right on the line. So our our requested setbacks like if you look at the duplex immediately east on the northeast corner of the block. It's actually looks like it's encroaching onto our lot. So, the tight setbacks is actually really consistent in our actual
block. Um, and I stand behind the staff report which recommends approval and finds that we meet all the criteria. With that, I'll stand by for more questions. Thank you. Could you speak to your comment that you could do two multifamily? Is that without any uh
variance to the land development? Are the setback requirements different there? What's the interpretation of that? That that's correct. So the minimum square footage for a lot for mult for two multif family units is 5,000 square feet. Our lot is 5200 square feet. And so we could, you know,
theoretically build a a multif family a duplex essentially a a multif family unit with two units and meet the minimum lot area requirements and and that would be if you just left the lots together, not redivid them. That's that's correct. So, it's kind of
it's a kind of a funny zoning code rule where we could do two multifamily units, but we can't subdivide without having some issues on the on the setbacks, right? I don't think I saw that in staff notes in terms of what the requirements are.
Uh so to look at this I would either take some time to review the land development code myself or ask if you can speak to if staff wants to speak to the different requirements around sideyard setbacks, front yard setbacks, rear yard setbacks, lot coverage for the
multif family consideration of I have it here. What that would be? So the front yard is 20 feet, sideyard is five feet from each side. um the side yard. Well, there's in a corner, so five yard from each side and
20 feet from the rear. Okay, thank you. Okay, if there uh no further questions um and there's no further u speakers, I'll close the public hearing and bring the item back to the board for discussion. Is there a motion?
I make a motion to approve BOA25-10 025 based on the testimony and substantial sorry two sorry this is two that's the exact thing you warned me about uh based on the testimony and substantial competent evidence provided the request has met all standards for
variance outlined in section 34-572 of the land development code second okay it's been moved and seconded any discussion I don't think that's relevant what he can do otherwise you know I think what's relevant is what he's asking for today
and so my biggest issue is the 70% of the um coverage which like I said under the current land development code that would be 1575 square feet what he's asking is
greater than that it's 1820 ft so ordinary anybody could expect to build a 1575 for the new land development code. I um I keep going back to this um you
know now that we have this new land development code and we're trying to implement it. Uh the conditions still exist for conditions or circumstances that do not result from the actions or applica uh actions of the applicant. It would not be considered a self-imposed
hardship. Here we have one lot uh that uh the applicant admits they could build something on uh without any variance requests and then uh but they're going to take an action that
results in the necessity of a variance request. Uh, I understand that, you know, they could build something different there and and that is in accordance with the current land
development code um and would not require uh a variance. Uh but my mind is open. I can be persuaded otherwise if anybody has any comments
for that. I I think by the applicant's testimony there is a reasonable use for the lot under the code. Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. Can we have a roll call vote, please? Jennifer Williams. No. Matt Mets. No.
Douglas Dell. No. No. Sorry. Owen Curley. No. Sir, your request for a variance has been denied. Uh, respectfully, could we um have a motion voted on for request for denial, please? Thank you. We just did. Thank you. Can we call the next
case? The board calls case number BOA25-100021. Property owner Tuxedo Park Rental LLC. Property address 130 North 8th Avenue. Motions to consider sections
34-615 echo3 Charlie 1 for a front yard setback of 1.4 ft in lie of 20 ft minimum. 34-615 echo3 Charlie 2 for a westerly yard setback of 4.1 ft and an easterly yard setback of 4.7 feet in lie of 5
feet minimum per side. 34-615 echo3 Charlie 3 for a rear yard setback of 12.6 feet in le of 20 feet minimum 34-76.1 for zero parking spaces at a multifamily dwelling in lie of two
parking spaces per dwelling unit requirement or four parking spaces total required to rectify existing nonconformities and for renovation and conversion of a single family dwelling into a multif family dwelling. Okay, before we begin, does
anybody uh any board members have any exparte communication? I've had none. I've had none. I've had none. And I've had none. Uh the applicants, please come forward to be sworn in and give their presentation. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or 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. I do. Please each state your name and address. Leonardo Ortiz, 1401 River Place Boulevard, Jacksonville 32207. Timothy Whan, 1217 Bell Haven Lane,
Ponttodra, Florida 32081. as per it was uh addressed under BOA number 25-100021. The request is and if I may indulge the board to address the U satellite overview. The same setback is in order
to place or adhere to the property for parking spaces on what is now considered the front side of the property, but previously stipulated as of previous owners, it was the back side of the
property. And if I may explain, the current main street of that area on 8th Avenue North contains the entrance towards the back side of the property contradictory to when it was built.
The request is to have the setback in order to validate four parking spaces that have been used by the property previous owners as part of the property to properly allocate the space and
comply with the new code of uh construction for further improve the current property. This does not apply to extend the property from where it currently stands. further out side or
backwards. Any questions? I'm trying to see if I understand what what you said is that the north side of the property based off of what is being requested is actually the rear of the property despite it being what is facing
the road. Correct. Correct. And for further clarification, uh, we have provided an exhibit here to present to the board. It's an initial picture, exhibit 101, if I may. If you give it to
us, uh, it becomes part of the record. My question is is when I was reading this, it said renovation. So my understanding that you're keeping the same footprint and you're just looking to address nonexisting nonconformity so you can renovate. Yes sir. Okay.
This variance is a conjunction to a previous variance for construction. The one was approved but in order for us to proceed with the building permit we have to request a variance to prove the parking as being part of the
construction. if I may uh introduce exhibit 101 to the record. One of the variance request is for zero parking spaces in lie of the four required on the satellite image and based on your testimony it sounds like there will be parking. Can can you tell
me a little bit more about the need for that variance? Uh yes sir to the chair. Um we are addressing the parking spots and as per exhibit 101 on your hand at this time you can see that from the street view towards the house there is
four parking spaces but they are not officially allocated to that property based on the survey that the city upholds. I would like to introduce a copy of the survey even though it's part of the plan on the right side of your
screen if necessary. Sorry. Oh, I see the issue. If I may also address to the fact uh that this property it was a joint compound of properties that belong to
the same owner owner about 1998. After that uh it seems that for some financial issues those properties were split and sold at separate lots. That's why the surveys of each one of
those lots adjacent to the current property in question are not consistent to the measurements that we have in the current uh survey code. The survey of the property itself shows this specification and the changes that have
happened around this property has affected um the reasoning why there would not be parking in front of the property. But in case in this case it will be at the back of the property. And the reason why we address that in this consistent manner
is because it's written like such as the property description on the uh property description of the city. Is that why the front of the house is is uh well is that why the front and back of the house descriptions are are
switched is because of the it was owned and then I guess modified. Yes, sir. That's that is our understanding based of the records that we have. Um so the current parking is in the public ement. It is considered public incident. Yes ma'am.
Correct. Um if we may address that the public easement um as referred does not affect or constitute usage of the main street where the property is at and is also not um
affecting any of other members or neighbors. Okay. Any board members have any other questions? Thank you. You could step back, please. Do we have any speaker cards? Did you want to speak? Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
I I would just like to uh bring to your attention that the property was previously used as a duplex and then was converted back u because it was vacant for so long. So, it had been used previously. It It's consistent to the request that
we're making and it's it's also consistent to the where we're where we're proposing to use as parking is consistent with almost every other house on that block and several blocks north and south and east and west.
Thank you. Okay. Thank you. We do have one speaker card. It's Steve Roberts. address 1328th Avenue. Good evening. Thank you for having me. Steve Roberts, 1328th Avenue. Hello. Sorry. Please raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you God? I do. Please state your name and address. Steve Roberts, 132 8th Avenue, uh Jack Beach 32250.
Okay, sir. Uh I am the house just to the road, the 132 house. Okay. We I was unable to attend the last hearing in February. My wife came and and there were a couple of points that were that were presented to the board and they
left with articles articles of resolution. They were how they were going to resolve the issues that she brought up. There were basically three issues that we wanted to discuss and address here. We're very happy for for Tim to rebuild this and make it a nice
place, but we do have some concerns. I think one of them was alleviated earlier. They're staying within the same footprint. I think I heard that of the house that's there. This setback and additional setbacks or whatever are what
is existing today. That's a question. The applicant will be able to address your questions. Okay. I'm sorry. you know that this is your time too. Yeah, that's a question if if if you know that's what it is. I I can accept that.
Okay. There are two other issues that we talked about. One was a sewer line. I've been there about 13 years. There was a sewer line that serves all three houses. I guess it was put in prior to my time there when one man owned it and he tied
everything together. I'm not sure that's going to I know my neighbor who has now since moved that's behind me had sewer back up into his bathtub. He had a lot of problems and issues. We're adding people back into that line again. I'm concerned about that. I'm real concerned
about that because when he had he had sewage the city of the city of Jacksonville Beach paid for those repairs on the unit behind me. I'm in a townhouse. The two units are together. So that's a concern. Nothing that was
mentioned in February 10th. So again, an article of resolution. What has happened to resolve that or yes or no? Is that a potential problem? I don't know how we operate here, but those issues were brought up back then. The third issue I bring up is the
parking. And I apologize. I was very confused at how the parking was explained and the house was turned around and all that stuff. That's all new to me. I've never heard that. But my concern is, like I said, I've been there about 13 years. I was there when they were renting the five bedrooms to five
individual people at a time. Traffic was parking was absolutely a nightmare. Okay. There were parking on the grass. Couple of times they had so many people parked there the the fire trucks couldn't get through. That's the
shot 8th Street to the beach where it's open. That's where the ambulances and the fire trucks go through. So they came up there and took away all the parking. The only place there is any parking is on that side of Second Street. And there are 10 positions there. Short of those 10 positions,
there's nothing near that area for public parking. So they'll be parking on the grass again. There'll be parking in my driveway again. There'll be parking blocking the fire trucks from coming down the street again. That's a big concern.
Thank you, sir. That's your uh three minutes. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Do we have any other speakers cards? We do not. No more further correspondence. Would the applicants uh like to address
uh the uh topics that were raised? Uh we would like to initially address again that the setbacks um for the property are to prevail as the property stands. Uh the variance that is requested here it is to count parking
spot for uh the ement that is available not to increase the space. We would like also to address within the same note that the space we requested it is already in use and it has been in use
without um provoking any type of issues with the neighbors adjacent or the main street and uh we would like to introduce to the record further exhibits to support that. Uh, we call to the
record exhibit 102 and exhibit 103. We asked the board to review on the exhibits presented as a way or form to show existing adjacent properties that contains exactly the same amount of lot
coverage and amount of easement used for parking spots assigned to the property in discussion. We're not requesting anything that is not a precedent for we will also like to address the
third concern about the sewage issue. We have conducted a request to the PWC and the city sewage personnel, Mr. Griefing. Um they have addressed that any and all properties within the lots available for
usage and in accordance to the building code they are sustainable by the city's current sewage. We as and I speak as the agent assigned and in behalf of the client present Mr. King Wallen tux
prento. We cannot uh create a precedent and we request the board to uh address the matter where a singular family home is held responsible or in this case a multifamily um C+1 address as it is written can be
responsible for the city's responsibilities on sewage. We are more than happy to comply with all requests based on the building code and our required itemized items for the permit of building and construction as we are
required by the law. But further outside of the lot in possession of my client, it is impossible for us to concern or um basically make it a solution for the main city sewage
outside of our hands. Now my clients stand to the same commitment that was addressed in the previous variance which it was approved with a conditional that we would request for the information from the city switch personnel. the same was done. The second condition of that
variance was addressed for the parking variance which is the one at discussion today. Um we would like to address both items under it was a conditional use. Second it was the conditional use not
variance. Correct. Conditional use I thank you. Thank you. Okay. Any questions based on that? I'd like to better understand the parking because it's still not clear to me in the images provided relative to the lot lines versus what's existing. Um, how
many spaces on the rear of the property are accommodated by what's existing? Based on the space and it's measured by the survey, we have exactly 35 ft of space
um adjacent to 20 ft from the city uh line in the eastment which would accommodate four vehicles and the same theory is as presented and supported by exhibit 101 presented on the record
today. If may we please address that as measured improved. There was some vegetation before in the area. There was palm tree. There was several palm trees on the adjacent portion of that that it was in
conjunction with the lot uh to the west side to the east side of the house. Sorry. Um and the same the client uh removed through a tree company in order to facilitate that the space was none of
the vegetation was um affecting other lots and also to show that the space is available. Um this vegetation was removed with a vegetation company. It's a tree removal company. Um that's why
the picture on exhibit 101 uh reflects the space. Okay. Any uh further questions? Okay sir, you could or both of you can step back please. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Uh as there's no more speakers cards and uh no correspondence, I will
now close the public hearing and bring the item back to the board for discussion. Is there a motion? I'd like to make a motion to approve BOA25-100021 based on the testimony and substantial comp competent evidence provided the request has met all standards for variance outlined in section
34-572 of the land development code. Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Before we go to discussion, I'd like to make an amended motion. Uh, I' I'd like to amend the motion. I'd like to make a motion to
approve BOA 25-100021 based on testimony and substantial competent evidence. Uh, with the contingency that they remain in the current foot the footprint of the existing structure. Um, substantial and competent
evidence provided by the request is metal standards for advance outlined in section 34-572 of the land development code. Okay. Uh, so now we have an amendment. Is it been seconded? Second. Okay. It's been moved and second it. Any discussion on the amendment.
I mean, I think that's how I was reading it. So, I'm I agree with you on the re I think it looks like it's a renovation and they're not changing the footprint. So, I agree. I think it's a uh it's a good amendment. Okay. Uh, any further discussion on the amendment? So, we're
now going to vote on the amendment, which is that um uh the variance request will be uh constrained to the footprint. Okay. Can we have a roll call vote on the amendment, please? Jennifer Williams, yes. Matt Mets, yes. Douglas
Dell, yes. Owen Carley, yes. Okay. Uh so, the uh motion has been amended. Uh any discussion now on the amended motion? I think they're staying within the existing footprint of an existing structure. They're bringing it up to date. They're addressing some of
the concerns around uh access to the property. So, uh my my main concern was the setbacks, understanding that the rear of the property is in fact where the uh parking will be located and that that
street facing and that that large larger sort of setback in the rear is actually what's facing the community. So, it's not going to create as much of a constraint there. Um, and and the existing parking meets the four
space requirement uh as outlined by the evidence provided. It it does make uh the minimum reasonable use of the property available. Okay. Any uh further discussion? Okay. Can we have a roll call vote,
please? And now just reminding the you that it's on the amended motion. Jennifer Williams, yes. Matt Mets, yes. Douglas Dell, yes. Owen Carly, yes. Your request for variance has been approved. Can we call the next one, please?
Thank you. Thank you. Board calls case BOA25-100022. Property address 1328 North Thirdrd Street. Motions to consider sections 34-617 echo3 alpha for front yard setback of 4.6 feet in L of 10 feet minimum
34-77 for a reduction of required off- streetet parking to zero in lie of 14.33 spaces required to rectify existing nonconformities. Okay, before we begin, does any board member have any exparte communication? I've had none. I've had none. I've had
none. And I've had none. The applicant, please come forward to be sworn in. Good evening, Jason Gabriel. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, I do. I swear. Please state your address. Uh Jason Gabriel with the law
firm of Bur Foreman, 50 North uh Lore Street, Sweet 3000. Um the agent for this item. I also happen to be the son of the LLC that owns the property. And I'm here today with um the incoming uh tenants and uh operators, Mr. James
Miselle and his lovely wife Rebecca. My brother happens to be sitting back there too, just keeping an eye on me. Um appreciate your time here today. Um this is a commercial property right at this corner um at 13th Street North and uh
third I'm sorry, 13th Avenue and uh Third Street North. Um it's within a C1 zoning designated uh district um which so that it certainly allows for the types of uses that have been in there
and that are seeking to go in there. For a long time this building was operated by a successful furniture store. I think some clothing retail as well. Um it was under uh Echo Furniture and then another moniker after that. Um but when that
tenant left over a year ago now, uh the property has been sitting vacant and dark since. Um we marketed the property and now we have a a real good um operator that's coming in to utilize the property. The parcel itself is a
conforming lot uh of record from 1936. And the structure that's actually built on it is I I I suppose you would define it as a historical structure because it was built in 1946. So the structure and the property layout is from that time and nothing we're doing
here seeks to in any way expand or enlarge the footprint. It stays as is. So the new use uh that's seeking to go into this property is also a commercial one, but it's u it's called an amusement recreation type commercial use and it's
allowed by right um under the current current zoning designation. Um and and further because of the type of appointment inviteee nature of the operation that's coming in, it's
actually I would submit a lesser uh intense uh attraction of uh commercial uh people that are going to be coming there. It's not open-ended like turnstyle like people just coming and visiting a retail furniture store, clothing store. It's actually by appointment. So it'll be a a lesser
impact. The new use will be a lesser trafficked one and and thus the parking need for the new use will be less than the retail operations that were utilizing this property for decades uh before. The only reason for the request today uh for these variances, the two
that have been noted, the the parking and the one setback is because more than six months transpired from the last commercial use. So that's one. And number two, it's to and related to that is to bring the property into compliance
um with today's setback and parking requirements and to reconcile the historic circumstances of the property with today's standards. Your professional staff report was very well done. I appreciate your staff. They were very professional and courteous to work with. Um they I won't go through every
detail, but essentially there are no city records that indicate any sort of nuisances that were due to a lack of parking in the past. uh it's been used for arguably more intense commercial uses for many years. Uh not granting the variance will deprive the owner from
using the property to its full extent. Uh granting the variance will not confer any special privileges that to this owner that aren't already available to other similarly situated properties. The incoming tenant is very much improving the property without expanding it. um
installing professional modern-day equipment and it'll be a beneficial change for that subject site in that overall area. The criteria for granting the variance has been set forth with justifications in the staff report um as you'll see for the record. Um and I
would submit that that is substantial competent evidence. It's consistent with your future land use map is consistent with your zoning district. And again, all we're doing is trying to reconcile the the reality and circumstances on the property today with your current code.
Um, obviously, if there's ever any expansion in the future, we'll have to meet your your code at that time. Um, with that, we would respectfully request an approval and available for any questions. We're here with the operators. And again, thank you for your time and consideration and I'll stand
by. Okay. Any questions? I don't have any. I have a question about the parking. Um, it it may be similar to the prior case we discussed. Uh, it looks like there is parking off street, but perhaps that
parking is not listed within the survey of the lot. Can you speak a little bit to what that parking There absolutely is. And thank you for bringing that up. I actually um wanted to mention that. I didn't want to pack too much in, but yes, there are absolutely six slots that are available. and and quite frankly
before this was brought to our attention we just assumed they were part of the property but they're on city right away. Um so there is technically six slots there that have been used and will continue to be used. One of the conditions in your staff report is and we're totally agreeable with it is for
the owner um tenant to improve and maintain the city rightway six slots and we absolutely will. Um, but yeah, those those are definitely functional, very good parking spots and have really served that that little corner well over the years.
Time questions. That was my question. Any questions? No questions. Okay, sir. Step back. Do we have any uh speakers cards? We do. Uh, we have a speaker card from Robert Bunkley. Uh, go ahead and be sworn in, sir, and
give your name and address. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or 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. So, help me God. Please state your name and address. Uh, Robert Bunkley. I'm at
uh 3513th Avenue North almost across from the uh the old building there and uh I'm not aware of any parking other than city parking. Prove me wrong, but there's only city parking there. That's for the
beachgoers and people that and I was going to put a pool in. You can look this up on the record. George Knight and Heather said I could not use that as any count to my property. So, we went ahead decided, well, we bought the property. We're going to make a home there, my
wife and I. And maybe there's two, but but by the legal giving you room to back up and everything, there is no parking there. I would suggest you guys look at that. Very good. And I'd like that on the record if
you would about the parking. Also, when Ekko was there, they'd have these times where people would bring all this stuff and they back up in my yard, dump stuff and empty boxes and stuff from furniture they bought. And they finally even realized there's not enough
room there and they got another place. They were good neighbors and I hate hated that, but that's my doicile and I don't want that crap around my house. Pardon my language. And uh there's also an issue too when you pull out on the street when they all park up and down the street all the way
down to the uh the glass place that's that used to be there. They're not there anymore. It's something else now. But when people park on that corner, you can't see. And we've there's been bad accidents there. There's also a police record where I had uh talk with somebody in my front yard about dumping their
stuff out that if she did record, there will be a record of it. But no, uh, behematly, don't I don't care what it is. Maybe a church or Bible store be, you know, where you have customers
coming and going, you know, during reasonable hours or something like that. But other than that, they probably just need to tear the building down. It's a old building. That's all I have to say. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Our next speaker card is Jason Gabriel.
Oh, that's it. Okay. Uh, is there anything you'd like to uh address in the uh in the presentation? No, I'll just simply say um I think in respect to Mr. Bunkley, um I think there's a little conflation there with people that are coming there for the
actual use versus people that are using, you know, rightway parking spots for the beaches or something else. some conflation there. That's number one. Number two, um I the the alternative is it's been dark for over a year and you can pull the police reports. There's a constant we
have now good new equipment, ring cameras and whatnot that are monitoring the site. There's been defecation. It's been used the the patio's been used as a basically a meth lab. Um we we're here to clean it up with commerce there.
it'll bring the comingings and goings of people that are there in in good faith and not you know let this place go to deterioration you know so I think this is an improvement not asking for any expansion or intensity uh expansion in
fact it's a a lesser intense use than the previous commercial uses in the future should it ever be you know changed modified or you know uh improved in any way where you're going outside of the footprint it very well may need to be redone or what have you. We'll have
to come back and and and either, you know, develop it in in line with your current day modern code or be back before you for some other relief. Not anticipating that, but but anyway, we we stand by the substantial competent evidence in the report and thank you for your time available for questions. Thank
you. Okay. Uh seeing how there's no more speakers cards and no more correspondents, I will now close the public hearing and bring the item back to the board for a motion. Is there a motion? I make a motion to approve BOA25-100022. Based on the testimony and
substantial competent evidence provided, the request has met all standards for a variance outlined in section 34-572 of the land development code. Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. And is there a discussion? I think it's Admiral trying to make a a reasonable use of an existing lot. Uh I
I am concerned with the amount of PI parking that the development code does require 14 spots. Um acknowledging the existing parking does have six spots based on the testimony provided that that's still well shy of the off street
requirement. Um acknowledging the testimony that the use case being recommended in the the tenant coming in may not need 14 spaces. uh as we consider this motion, I I think it's important to recognize that this carries beyond the next tenant and the the
future tenants may in fact have a different business situation that would require more traffic and would lack the spaces. Um that said, in its existing space, it has functioned as a business uh with
traffic. It has leveraged the spaces that are available in the city easement. Uh I think it's admirable the applicant uh acknowledges that and is willing to maintain and uh provide those spaces and and keep them uh in in good standing. I
think uh there's no perceivable other use of that easement outside of the city deciding to widen the road. There's there's nothing else around that that would encroach. So, I don't have a perceived risk that
that parking would go in any other direction than the use of uh visitors to this this location. Those are the considerations I' I've kind of looked at. Uh I would consider amended motion um adding the
requirement of the maintenance of those spaces if others are inclined. I think it's a good idea if you want to go ahead and do that. I'd like to amend the prior motion to approve BOA25-100022 to include uh the condition
that the tenant maintains uh the parking in the easement uh next to the property as outlined by the recommendations of city staff based on testimony and substantial competent evidence provided the request of metal standards for a variance outlined in section 34-572 of
the land development code. Second. Okay. Uh so it's been moved and seconded uh for the amendment. Uh is there any discussion on the amendment? Okay. It's nothing that the applicant hasn't already agreed to. So we're going to vote first on the amendment. Um can we have a roll call
vote on the amendment, please? Jennifer Williams, yes. Matt Mets, yes. Douglas Dell, yes. Owen Carly, yes. Okay. So the amended uh the amended motion now is um for approval as amended. Uh any further
discussion on that? No. Okay. Can we have a roll call vote, please? Jennifer Williams, yes. Matt Max, yes. Douglas Dell, yes. Owen Curley, yes. Your request for variance has been approved uh with the noted
amendment. Can we call the next case? Board calls case BOA25-100023. Property address 520522 First Street, First South Street, excuse me. Motion to consider sections
34-6153 Charlie 1 for a front yard setback of 9.5 ft in L of 20 ft minimum. 34-6153 Charlie 3 for a rear yard setback of 2.8 ft in L of 20 ft minimum. 34-6153 Golf for an accessory structure set back from the primary structure of
zero feet in L of five feet for a swimming pool. 34-72 Foxtrot for ribbon stripways in lie of required paid drive with or without permeable materials for construction of a new three-unit family multif family structure.
Okay, before we begin, does anybody have any exparte communication? I've had none. I've had none. I've had none. And I've had none. the applicant please come forward sworn in their presentation before we begin. Um uh the denial was based off of an old survey. So um he did
come and give us a new survey that provided um parking with um with the paid parking but the the survey he showed us before had uh had the uh wheel strips and that's only reason why we um we did uh we we denied it. But he did
provide something um nice and um updated and we do support this. So there's going to be paved parking now. Yeah, there's going to be paved parking. It's not Did that add into the coverage? Yes, they um applied the coverage and everything. Nothing really changed. But that's included in this. Is it
updated here showing what the coverage is now with the vape parking? Because what I read said there wasn't vape parking here. Yeah, that's what we thought before the previous survey he submitted. However, it was a mistake and this is the survey he's um he's using and he'll explain that to me. I can help
to clarify um after I'm sworn in. All right. Please raise your right hand. Yep. Do you swear or 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. Please state your name and address. Josh Newsbound, 1355 Ocean
Boulevard, Atlantic Beach, Florida. Hello. Um, so yeah, I'll give a little bit of clarity on the um update as well, but basically I'm looking to combine two residential multi-2 properties. They're
an odd shape. It's like an L-shape and a rectangular lot that uh have always existed in that odd sort of puzzle piece like formation. Combine them into one lot. uh remove what is currently uh a big eyesore of a boarded up building
looking right out onto First Street. Replace it with a beautiful three-unit multifamily. Um I'm not looking for any additional lot coverage. So to clarify, u the code allows for 65% coverage, which is uh what we will design and
build to. The design is still sort of in its infant stages. Um, I'm asking for a change in the front and the rear setback, which reflects uh the norms on the block. The next door neighbor has a variance for the exact uh same front and
rear setback that I'm requesting. The current home in the property is very close to the rear fence. Um, but again, I'll be removing that and building a new three-unit building. Uh basically, you know, the main
challenge of the lot is that it's 62 and a half feet wide and the standard for these lot should be 75 ft wide. So it just creates a lot of complexities about how do you design a building to the full density allowed by the code. Uh but how do you fit parking? And obviously
parking is a big issue tonight. Uh the current plan is to have one of the units access their parking off of First Street and the two other units access their parking off of the alleyway. Uh so I've done sort of the best with this
configuration as is in this drawing here. Um to clarify, I provided a sketch which um was interpreted uh by the staff to be uh an indication that I was applying for uh
a variance for ribbon stripways, which are no longer allowed by the new code. Um but that actually is not on my variance request. Um so you can sort of ignore that. And I think that that was actually the only
uh aspect that was not um you know approved by the by the staff report. And one other small detail you'll see in there, I'm asking for a variance to place an accessory uh pool closer than five feet to the
dwelling. And this is something that I'll work with an engineer and the builder to make sure is um is safe to do. The rationale is just again it's a small lot. It's very hard to configure and so I would like uh for the allowance
to be able to do that as we get into the details of the design. Thank you. Uh just for my own clarification, uh the existing structures that are there, yeah, uh you're obviously not building
within their footprints. Do they have a front yard setback right now? Yes. So I can clarify. I think there I put together a huge presentation. I'm not sure if we have access to that with photos and uh
the topography and so forth. It's in our our package. Yeah. So, it it is. However, you can see it here. The only dwelling currently on the property is in the southwest corner of the
property. The address for that is 522. There had previously been another house um that was demolished at the as I understand at the front in the 520 lot. And so as it stands, these are two lots
of record. The front lot, the tiny little rectangular lot actually has a variance in place for I think a 7.4 foot front yard or something like that. Um I'm not quite asking for that. Yeah. So, um, this here. Yeah. Okay. I
think it's down one more. Yeah. That is this the one you're talking about here? Yeah. So, this is the current building. Exactly. And that's the current rear lot. Okay. So the current existing building has um two two units. Is that what you're asking?
Yeah. All right. So the existing building has does it have a variance? I don't think so. Right. No. My understanding is that it predates right the L the former LDC. Uh,
so it has uh a 3.2 foot rear yard and does does it does the structure is it 10 ft from for the front yard? Is it still um 10 feet back? The
structure 10t from the front? I'm not sure. We'd have to look at the survey here because of of the way that the properties are divided. Yeah. So when I look at your hardship, I I see that the standard is 75 ft it looks like. And your width is it says 65 62
and a half. So you said it's 62 and a half. So it's a little smaller than that. So it's like 12 and a half feet short. Yes. Um but your request is for over that amount and if you were to calculate front and back. So, I mean, you could pretty much make it up in just
what you're asking in the front, but in that then in the back you're asking for 18 feet in addition. Yeah, I'm asking for the same variance. And that's so you can build three units instead of two what you currently have. Um, it is current I'm not actually sure
what it currently is. It's a boarded up building. I'm not sure how they had it configured. Currently, a twounit dilapidated structure that's boarded up. Yeah. I think it's a a ground floor and a second floor.
Right. What I'm asking for is the same uh variance that was provided to the next door neighbor that was under a different land development code. Right. Land development code changed. Sure. We also look at each uh case on
its own. Understood. So my question is then what is it that you can build there without a variance request? Can you build on that lot? Are there two separate lots still? It is currently two separate lots. Yeah. And you're going to put them together.
Yes. And then and then build on. Right. So yeah. So what I'm looking to do is to fulfill um the density that's allowed by the code for residential multi, which would be to build three units. And when you start to try to fulfill that three
units and provide parking and not have parking in the, you know, city easements and so forth, you end up with um, you know, it's sort of like a complicated puzzle to figure out with the parking and how you have egress into each unit. Um, so that's how I landed on
the on the request. If you had planned on building two units, could you fit them without the variance request? If I were to do two units, um, I could, but I wouldn't be fulfilling uh the density allowed by the
code. So, I'd be sort of hamstrung in in developing the the lot to its full potential. Sorry, I just want to Yeah. clarify the point you just said. Uh I I think you said fulfilling the density and I think one of the criteria
that we consider is that it's the minimum possible reasonable use of the property. So not necessarily the maximum density in the code a density that is reasonable. So could you clarify your comment about fulfilling the density if
you're saying sure density of two units wouldn't be Yeah. And I don't know how your board looks at it exactly, but I look at it and I say um you know the maximum allowable um you know units per
land size is a certain amount. And so I calculate uh for this lot it's 6,250 square feet which means uh is allowable for the building of three units. And so in trying to maximize the potential of
uh the lot, I look to build three units. And in doing so, I uh see an opportunity for how to do it um that conforms with the standards of the block and the next door neighbor. It's not extending um you
know any more than the than the neighbor is or extending further into the backyard than the neighbor is. And um so I basically created a concept for how to do that. So I'm not sure exactly how the board looks at it. Uh but that's how how I would look at it.
Thank you. So, uh I'm still not I'm sorry I'm not clear on this one issue which is I I'm trying to go we have we have these um categories that we have to meet. Um certainly if E is if the variance
requested is granite will make possible a reasonable use of the parcel of land, building or structure. there. I think you've explained how that's a reasonable use and and and fitting with the code. Um my question
is that the conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the application. It would not be considered a self-imposed hardship. If if we were to literally interpret the
code and um and say there is a use on this property um you know you intend to put the two lots back together again. Is there a use
that would fit this property without a variance? I'm not sure I understand the answer to that question. Could you address that perhaps? Could Could you ask it in another way? Yeah. Just so I understand, I'm trying to figure out if this is a self-imposed hardship or not.
Yeah. You have two lots, you know, the small one and the larger one, right? Your proposal is to put them together and then we're going to grant you a variance based on this three unit development with the pools. My question is this. If you put them together, is
there anything that you could develop that didn't require a variance? Yes, but I I wouldn't be um I wouldn't be building to the potent
the density potential of the lot. Yeah. And the density potential that you refer to is the maximum allowed density. Yeah. I think it's how most people who would develop would look at a lot, which is to say, how big is a lot? I I could fit
four in there or I could fit three in there and then that I'm going to build to that. Right. Yeah. And to do it in a in a beautiful way, you know, to take something that's an eyesore and a danger right now and to make it beautiful. That's right. Yeah, that's the idea. And that unfortunately is not within our our
charge is to is to consider really what's there. Though I mean granted the pictures I think speak for themselves, right? that what you intend to do is is going to be 10 times better than what's there now. But okay,
anybody else have any questions? I just had a question on the parking. So, existing parking there versus proposed parking, can you talk a little bit about the difference? Well, yeah. I would say that what I'm doing is so uh different as far as uh currently I'm not actually sure how the
parking would be configured for the current lot, two lots as they exist. Uh the idea is to have all parking on premise to have garages um so that there's defined parking for each unit and um parking would not be on the city easement.
Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh, no other questions. Uh, thank you, sir. You can step back. Do we have any speakers cards? We do. We have two speakers cards. Uh, we have M Louise Lansancy. Hi. Please raise your right hand. Do you
swear or 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. Please state your name and address. Emma Louise Lansancy, 591st Street South, Jacksonville Beach.
Thank you. Can you uh bend that uh microphone down a little bit so that we can make sure that we're capturing your voice. Thank you. How's that? Perfect. Good evening. I'm here tonight to address the applicant's multiple requests for line
setbacks. Uh let me begin by saying that I'm delighted, actually overjoyed that 520 522 may be transformed from its present slumlike state to something surely more
visibly pleasing. However, I have concerns that the applicant is overreaching with three units on a small lot of 62.5 by 100, which requires
multiple excessive variances to build these three units. We have an old Irish saying, pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered. According to sections
34281 of the code, variances are deviations from the code. As you know, variances are granted when special circumstances ori conditions exist which would result in undue and unnecessary
hardships and would not be contrary to the public interest. applicant proposes to build three units on 6,250 square foot lot. Appan cites that
section 34 340 permits him to build 5.7 units according to his density calculations which you he was just discussing earlier. His position is, well, I could
build 5.7 units, but I'm only building three. We should all be happy. He should get a pass because he thinks he could build 5.7 according to that density
calculation. Perhaps he should get a pass. But when three units or 5.7 units, he still has multiple setback problems that interfere with the adjoining properties and the streetscape of First
Street South. First let the rear setback reduction. I will not really address this variance because my neighbor will except to say that the LDC goal should be to meet existing code
of 20 ft not a reduction to 2.8 ft. Why did the LDC establish 20 ft? So that Jack's Beach can grow from a
tenement like area to a residential community. Granting a 2.8 setback for the rear setback which is less than the existing setback of 3.1 I believe would be contrary to the public interest and
the purpose of the LDC code. side setback reduction. The code requires 10 feet for side yards. That's what I think. Maybe it's five feet. I'm not sure. Could you tell me?
If you want to conclude your thought, ma'am, your your three minutes is up. It is. Yes, ma'am. I Thank you. Do we have any other screens? We do. We have Alex Flores.
Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this matter is a truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you God? I do. Please state your name and address. Alex Flores, 1196th Avenue South,
Jackson Beach, Florida 32250. Go ahead, sir. Um, just based on uh the my calculations of the the two lots combined, uh I believe the applicant can develop a single family home or a two-unit town home without the need of a
variance. Uh I believe he's going I mean just me assuming he's going with the multi-home multif family dwelling to get the 65% lot coverage versus 35% for the town homes. Um, so I also believe that
it's it's it is self-imposed hardship claiming that it's not non-conforming, wanting to do the three multifamily development instead of a more reasonable size and appropriate development. Um, so like he's going for
the max 65% but he's completely avoiding all the setbacks. Um, I'm the house that's they're trying to do the 2.8 eight feet. So, it's currently I don't know what they listed it at 31 or 3.2. Uh, that's always been drastically
close to us. We've tried to put bamboo or whatever to avoid it. I mean, you've seen pictures. It's a not a pleasant house. We also have two kids now, a three-year-old and a one-year-old. So, we just put a little playground in the back. So, it's it's kind of weird with the windows right there. Also, the master bedroom is right there. So, the
windows can we can we can see each other. So, the previous uh tenants before that were renting upstairs, uh they they bagged their um window just knowing we were in agreement that this was pretty weird that we can see each other in our bathrooms. Um so, I just
think it's a self-imposed hardship trying to do the max of the 65% and gain minimize all the setbacks possible in every direction. And um yeah, that's all I got. Okay, thank you.
Any other speakers? We have some email correspondents. So, we have an email from John Shoemaker. Says, "Good evening. I'm writing to object to the proposed variance application for the above property address. The variance proposed in the application will present a unique burden on neighboring properties,
including but not limited to increased foot and vehicle traffic from the additional structure and noise and sound pollution. in addition to the proposed setback lines will significantly increase the structure density of the immediate area surrounding the property ruining the aesthetic appeal of the
area. Likewise, by granting this variance, the planning and development development department creates an avenue for future variance applications that far exceed local zoning ordinances such as this one. I am prepared to object to this proposed variance throughout the life of the application process. Please
do not hesitate to contact me with questions. Thank you for the opportunity to state my opinion regards John Shoemaker. We have an additional email correspondence from uh Mansour Mohala. Good afternoon. I am writing to
oppose the proposed variance for property address 520522. The changes would increase traffic noise and structural density negatively impacting neighboring properties and the overall character of the area. Approving this could also set a precedent for future variances that
exceed zoning limits. I plan to stay involved throughout the process. Please contact me if you have any questions. I am prepared to object to this proposed variance throughout the life of the application process. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions. Thank you for the opportunity to share my my perspective. Nermo
Mhalla. No additional communication. Okay. Uh would the applicant like to come forward and address any of the points that were raised uh either through the correspondence or through the public testimony? Sure. Yeah. Uh with all due respect, um the neighbors
have homes that have buildings that are basically right on the property line. My next door neighbor has a garage that she rents um that I believe is one foot off of the fence line. So, uh, with all due respect, I think that
they're enjoying, um, the use of their property in a way that they want me to not have, uh, with the approval of the board. And so, and then with regard to aesthetic concerns, we're going to make something
really beautiful with regard to foot traffic. Uh, it's a foot traffic neighborhood. It's a It's a high density uh building lot and I would like to use it for its intended purpose. Thank you.
Okay. Any further questions? Okay. Uh you can step back, sir. Uh I'll now close the public hearing and bring the mo uh matter back to the board. Is there a um motion?
I make a motion to approve BOA 25-100023 based on the testimony and substantial competent evidence provided by the request has met all standards for variance outlined in section 34-572 of the land development code. Second Kate's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
So I was looking through the code of ordinances chapter 34 section 34-201 because I recalled that I had read specifically on this issue. Um under sections A2 it states in the interpretation and application of any
provision of the LDC it shall be held to be the minimum requirements adopted for the promotion of the public health safety and general welfare. So we're not it's not our the purpose of this interpretation when we're interpreting these it's the minimum that we should be
looking at that it meets at least that and there's a hardship in meeting the minimum. So and it actually says if it's even more restrictive than the land development code then we would go with a more restrictive provisions. If it's a um
comprehensive plan is more restrictive than the land development code then we would stick with the one that's even more restrictive. So that's even more minimal. So we do have a bias in our interpretation of these code sections. Now under the new land development code, it is a recent
change. So that's what I would add for this purpose. steal your thumb. I uh in in reviewing the u the elements uh that were required to consider when granting a variance um I am stuck once again on the
self-imposed hardship. Uh here we have u an action where we have two separate lots that are that are going to be combined. That's the first action. Uh then that design requires a variance
where the admission of the applicant is that there could be something built there. Uh not this exact plan, but there could be something built there that um would not require a variance. And so here we have um under the new land
development code a um uh a self-imposed hardship and wanting to reach for the higher density um and not the minimum density. it it it
triggers the requirement for a uh variance. Um that's all I have. Uh any other discussion? Okay. Can we have a roll call vote, please?
Matt Mets, no. Jennifer Williams, no. Douglas Dell, no. Owen Carly. No. Your request for variance has been denied. Can we call the next case, please? The board calls case number BO825-100024. Property address 510 South
3rd Street. Motion to consider sections 34-6143 Charlie 2 for a northerly and southerntherly sideyard setback of 1 foot in l of 10 foot per side required. 34-6143 Charlie 3 for a year rear yard
setback of 9 feet in le of 20 feet minimum 34-72 Charlie to for reduced parking area setbacks to zero feet in lie of 5 feet required 34-745 all to wave landscaping requirements for construction of two
unit multif family dwelling okay the applicant come forward please to be oh I'm sorry do we have any expartate communication. I've had none. I've had none. I've had none. Okay. And I've had none. Applicate from SC for sworn in. Give your presentation. Do you
swear or 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. Please state your name and address. Uh Michael Sitner. My address is 1 Independent Drive, Sweet 1200, Jacksonville, Florida 3220.
Go ahead, sir. Thi this property has some interesting history. It was historically used as an office and at some point not my client a previous owner converted it to five multifamily units with or without permits. Not
necessarily sure. I think the city considers it an illegal use. Um and so my client has now purchased the property. The interior is basically gutted and my client is looking to do two two multif family units which is a conditional use under the zoning and
proposes no exterior changes. So my client's really just looking to get this property back into actual compliance with the code. Um and all of the requests are just to account for the existing conditions. Um this building was built in 1948. My client didn't construct the building and simply just
trying to make reasonable use of what's been done to it historically. Thank you. So, is it that they're going to tear down the existing building and then build back into the footprint or are they just going to convert what's there
now? Convert what's there now? Okay. Any questions? Questions? Okay. Do we have any speakers cards? We do not. Any correspondence? No. Okay. Uh, seeing no speakers cards and no correspondence, I will close the public
hearing and bring it back to the board. Is there a motion? I make a motion to approve BOA number 25-100024. Based on the testimony and substantial competent evidence provided, the request has met all standards for a variance outlined in section 34-572 of
the land development code. Is there a second? Second. Sorry. It's moved and seconded. Any discussion? Based on the testimony provided, it's an existing structure uh nearly half a century in place. They're looking to
make a reasonable use of it. Uh to that effect, I would like to make a motion to approve uh to to amend the prior motion to make the approval of these variances contingent on the existing structure such that if it's torn down, the
variances are no longer applicable. So I make a motion to amend the motion to approve BOA 25-100024 to be contingent on the existing structure. Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Any discussion on the
amendment? Sounds like a good amendment. Yeah, I think that's appropriate given its history. Uh, okay. Seeing no discussion, can we have a vote on the amendment, please? Jennifer Williams, yes. Matt Max, yes. Douglas Dell, yes. Owen Carly,
yes. Okay. Uh, any discussion on the amended uh motion now? No. Okay. Can we have a roll call vote, please? Jennifer Williams, yes. Matt Mets, yes. Douglas Dell, yes. Owen
Curley, yes. Uh, your uh request for variance has been approved as amended by the board. Okay. Can we call the last case, please? The board calls case number BOA25-100025, property address 1713 South First Street. Motion to consider
sections 34-615 echo1 Charlie1 for a front yard setback of 18 ft move 20 ft minimum 34-615 echo1 Charlie 3 for a year rear yard setback of 11.5 ft in le of 20 ft minimum for construction of new
urban single family dwelling okay uh has there been any export communication none had none I've had none and I've had none The advocate come forward to be sworn it in. Do you swear or 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. Please state your name and address. Hunter Faulner, 701, Riverside Park Place, Jacksonville, Florida 32204 on behalf of the owner and applicant. Um we are I'm here today on behalf of the
owner seeking two variances to the subject property um to construct a new single family home under uh RM2 urban single family zoning. Uh the front yard set back uh looking uh to reduce from 20 feet to 18 ft and the rear yard set back
from 20 feet to 11 12 feet. Uh the lot itself is a substandard lot of record is originally platted uh at or around 1925. Um it is substandard with the new current uh land development code for
RM2. Um there are uh thus that is the reason for the hardship for the variance. We are seeking uh uh minimal reductions for the uh the two setbacks in order to uh uh uh construct a new single family home. very much similar in
character to uh several uh properties to the south of the subject property uh which enjoy uh similar uh variances to the uh to the land development code. Um the current structure on the property,
uh it's not really visible from the overhead GIS, but um for those of you who are familiar with the property, it's a very old dilapitated structure that uh does need to come down. Probably is empty hazard. Um it does have over 70%
lot coverage as it's currently uh built, and it encroaches much further into the applicable zoning setbacks than the proposed new structure that the owner would construct. Um uh for those reasons, I will um defer
to the competent substantial evidence provided in the staff report which supports approval and finds that the request does meet the standards applicable to variances uh under the new land development code and I will stand by for any questions that the board may have. Thanks. Okay, any questions?
It looks like between the front and the rear variances that you're requesting, it looks like about 10 feet alto together, two feet in the front and a little bit more than that. 8 and a half feet in the back. Correct. That is Yes, that is correct. So, it's about 10 feet
altogether. And your lot size is 3,162, which the max or the minimum is 3500. So, you do have a hardship there. Yes. Yes. And is that you do you have anything? Have you looked into seeing if you could build within the 20T front and back? Uh there
is not a uh there there's not a viable path forward with a uh with a home plan from the owner uh that could go on the subject property. Um even more so when is considered the
uh the uh the properties to the south that have same zoning that have enjoyed the uh waiverss to the zone to the land development code for reduced uh setbacks especially in the backyard. Um if you take a look at those we find that
there's precedence there for approving this. Uh but no, to answer your initial question, there is not a a viable site plan uh that could be uh put on the property um uh that would allow for the strict enforcement of the code.
I don't see anywhere in the notes uh either in the application or from staff. Do you know the width and length of the lot? So I can it's in the survey. Give me two seconds. So, I think the length of the light is 70 feet and then the width. Pardon me as I
fumble through my packet here. Believe it or not, I'm doing the same on this side of the two. Looks like looks like the width is 45 feet if I'm correct and the length is approximately
70. Think I'm reading this right. I don't have any other questions. I don't know if anybody else. Okay. Uh, no further questions. Uh, do you step back? Uh, I assume that there's no speaker cards. I have no speakers cards. No correspondence. And no correspondence.
Okay. Uh, I'll now close the public hearing and bring the item back to the board for discussion. Is there a motion? I make a motion to approve BOA number 25-1000 025 based on the testimony and substantial competent evidence provided. The request has met all standards for a
variance outlined in section 34-572 of the land development code. Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? It is an undersized lot. Uh the applicant is making uh minimum reasonable use of that
lot. If you look at the square footage that the lot is undersized relative to the width of the lot and the depth that's being requested, it puts them uh pretty close to the minimum of the lot coverage. I don't think it's an overreach. Uh the bigger setback concern
toward the rear uh as evident by that satellite image is coming to a parking lot. So there's minimal concern that it will be a disturbance to the surrounding community. Um, agreed. Thank you. I have nothing to add. Okay. Uh, can we have a roll call
vote, please? Jennifer Williams, yes. Matt Matz, yes. Douglas Dell, yes. Owen Curley, yes. Your request for variance has been approved. Thank you very much. Okay. Next on our list is the planning department report. Um, our next scheduled meeting is on
June 17th and we only have one item. Now it's my uh favorite courtesy of the floor to visitors. Anyone? Anyone? Is there a motion to adjurnn? I make a motion to adjurnn. All in favor? I opposed.