Good evening. You are attending a meeting of the board of adjustments. These meetings are quasi judicial in nature. All decisions made by the board will be final. If you are going to speak tonight and you're not an applicant or agent, please fill out a speaker's card by the front door and turn it into the
clerk. No applauding or uh comments outside of the open comment uh will be allowed. Please silence your cell phones. May I please have a roll call? >> Douglas Stella
>> here. >> Owen Curley. Jeff Shelar >> here. >> Matt Meds here. >> Karen Dy here. >> Gary Hopkins here. Victor Malone.
>> Thank you. Did we already administer the oaths of office outlined in the agenda? >> Mr. Malone is not here. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I don't see any old business. Uh do we
have any correspondence? No. All right. Uh that would take us on to new business. We can move the first case. First case North BA26-100012 applicant Emily Costa Authority property
address 161 North 6th Avenue current zoning RS1 motion consider 34611 E1C2 for an easterly s side yard setback of 8.1 ft in L of 10 ft. 34611E1C2
for Wesley side yard set back of 7.7 ft in L of 10 ft. 34611E1C1 for front yard setback of 21 ft in L of 25 ft minimum to address existing non-conformities and allow for a a
second story addition new front addition and front entry porch to an existing onestory single family home. Do any board members have any exparte communication? >> I've had none. >> No,
>> I've had none. >> I've had none. >> And I've had none. Would the applicant or agent please step forward to present the case? >> Sorry. Please raise your right hand, state your name and address. >> Oh, can you turn your mic on? I'm sorry.
Thank you. My name is John Rramer. My address is 813 Harbor Preserve Court, Pontia, Florida 32081. >> 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. >> Thank you. >> So uh with this vision, I just wanted to point out that we are staying within the envelope of the existing home. The side setbacks are already set by the house.
Uh the front, the original setback was 20. So we were going to try to come out with a little portico to uh to to create a little porch. Um the new setbacks, I don't know when they went into effect. I'm not sure about
that, but it increased it to 25. So um all in all, all the houses in that area are built to the old standard. most of them have the setbacks that we're re requesting now. Um,
so that's my case. I don't know what else to to say. I just want to answer any questions if you have them. >> So the question I had was the porch is not going any farther than what existing right now. >> The porch will be coming out about three
feet further than it is now. >> Would that change the setbacks? able to change the new setbacks. Yes. >> So did original setback. That's the only change who have a setback. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions for the applicant?
>> All right. You can step back. >> Thank you. >> Uh the public is given three minutes to speak. Do we have any speakers cards on this? card we had was from the applicant. So, we have no other speaker cards for case number. >> Does anyone in the audience wish to
speak? If so, you can come forward and then fill out a speaker card afterward. If not, I'll close the public comment on this item. >> Closing the public comment. Uh, bring it back to the board. Do we have a motion? Make a motion to approve BOA2611012.
Based on the testimony and evidence provided, the request has met the standards for variance outlined in section 34-286 of land development code. >> Do we have a second? >> A second. >> We have a motion and a second. Uh we'll
open to the board for discussion. reviewing it looks reasonable to me as far as the same setbacks except the porch. >> Any other comments? >> No. All right. Uh we'll take to a vote.
May I have a roll call vote on the motion? >> Douglas St. >> Yes. >> Jeff Trul. >> Yes. >> Karen Dy, >> yes. >> Gary Hockett, >> yes. >> Matt Mets, >> yes. Your motion is approved and call the next case.
>> Case ROA26-100013. Applicant Nick Stam, agent Scott Ray. Property address 123 South 30th Avenue. Current zoning RS1. Motion consider sections 34611 E1C1 for front yard
setback of 16 ft l of 25 ft. 34-611 E1C2 for sideyard setback of 7.6 6 feet L of 10 ft and 34611E 1E for maximum lock coverage for primary structure and require driveway of 49% L
of 35% for construction for a new single family home located property address 123 South 30. >> Does anyone on the board have any exparte communication? >> I've done >> I've had none.
>> I've had none. and I've had none. Will the applicant for agent please step forward to be sworn in and present your case? >> Please raise your right hand, state your name and address. >> My name is Nick Stam and I live at 317
Pondidra Boulevard in Pondidra Beach, Florida. >> 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 >> I do. Go ahead. >> The case is um a house that uh was
sitting on two lots. Uh the address is 123th Avenue South. Uh, I purchased that house about a month ago and uh, I raised the house and I plan on going back to the
two lots of record and build two uh, single family homes there. And um, the reason for the request is that each one of those lots, they're identical uh, in
size. They're 58 feet wide. by 87 ft deep on 30th Avenue and that's about 5,000 square feet uh each one of the lots and um they are substandard uh lots
for construction and that's the reason why I'm here to request the variance uh because of uh the lots being substandard. Do we have any questions from the board? >> Um, I had a question too. What is the minimum depth the driveway has to be?
>> The minimum depth of a driveway? Yeah. >> Um, >> according to our LDC, the driveway, um, 9 by 17 is a standard. >> I'm sorry, how many? >> 9 by 17. >> 17. >> Yeah. >> This is only showing a 16T driveway.
>> I thought we were. >> Yeah. probably because of the substandard line he's not able to make a big enough job across the variance application there. >> Questions questions. Okay, thank you. Uh, we'll open up to
the public comment. >> Thank you. >> Do we have any speakers cards on this item? >> Oh, I'm sorry. This is 13 13. Yes, we have a card from Mr. Brad Williams. Said he'd like to address the board. Please be sworn in and then uh you'll
have three minutes. >> Please raise your right hand, state your name and address. >> Harry B. Williams, 128 29th Avenue South. 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, thank you, God. >> I do.
>> Go ahead. >> All right. Thank you. Um I'd like to start out by stating that um the gentleman's comment that the lots are substandard for two family homes is correct. It was plotted for one single family home and that's why it's
substandard for two. Um my concern is with the obstruction of views, the obstruction of green space or the lessening of green space added congestion to our already small streets and I believe that it will have a
negative impact on our property values. I own two homes in the neighborhood and I have serious concerns over what this will do for my property values of both homes. My understanding is that anyone
applying for a variance has to state that they it will create undue hardship if they're not granted the variance. And my understanding is the request for additional density for economic purposes
is not a valid reason for a variance. That's my understanding. I'm not a lawyer. Um that is my understanding. I think it sets a harmful precedent spot zoning like this and I'm concerned that every one of my neighbors is going to
want to do the same thing and that we're going to end up with homes right next to each other. My wife and I moved from California here to avoid having homes built on top of each other with basically no yards. I grew up in this neighborhood. I grew up on 26th Avenue
South in the ocean. We chose our location to raise our children in this neighborhood because of the charm, because of that sort of larger lot feel and and kind of old Florida charm and it
would be disappointing to allow this to set a dangerous precedent. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I have no other cards to my knowledge in front of me. >> No other cards. Do we have anybody else in the audience that wants to speak on this item? You can fill out a card and
hand it to the clerk afterward. >> Oh, come on up. >> You'll be sworn in and then we'll figure out which card that was. Sorry. >> Please raise your right hand. State your name and address. >> John Spinx, 132 30th Avenue South.
>> And Whitney Spinx, 132 30th Avenue South. 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 help you God. >> I do. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Go ahead.
>> Good evening. Uh thank you guys for all being here. Uh we are here to speak uh to BOA uh 26100013 and also 14. Um we are the property owners across the street from uh the
subject property. Uh Mr. Stam, as he mentioned, the applicant uh he recently purchased this double lot uh last month on February 10th. At that time, he knew uh that it was uh two lots that were
platted and therefore uh he can build two homes there. uh a term that he used uh to to quote would be substandard and Mr. Williams brought that up. I'll have to disagree. I I think that the term
substandard is an irrelevant term. I'm a custom home builder myself. We built m multiple homes in Jacksonville Beach, Atlantic Beach, Pon Beer Beach, Neptune Beach, and Ameilia Island. And we've never uh I've been building homes for over 10 years. We've never requested a single variance. um that's not
necessarily something that we uh make a habit of and that is one of our concerns um with this applicant and with this subject property uh as Mr. William Williams uh mentioned for the board to set a precedent in approving a variance
request for a successful investor uh especially one who's not a member of the Jacksonville Beach community would be a terrible precedence to set. Spot zoning is a great term and the reason that the uh land development code exists is to uh
set the precedents, set the rules, set the setbacks and set the coverages uh to avoid situations uh exactly like like this. Um this is a flip property that the applicant will be building two homes
maybe one uh doubtful and he will be selling those homes. Uh he's asked for variances for side setbacks, front setbacks, rear setbacks, and maximum coverages. The front setback is also kind of a double whammy because of course if you decrease the front
setback, you need less driveway. Therefore, you get to put more coverage toward the footprint of the house and less required toward what would be a shorter driveway. If you were to uh approve the variance for the front setback, this would be the closest home
to the street on the entire block. Um it is possible to build a home on a 58 by 87 lot. Uh it would be a small home. Uh the applicant actually beat out multiple other biders when purchasing this property. Um some of which
undoubtedly were probably investors, some may be homeowners. Uh but he is willing to develop the property as is. uh shown by his eagerness to purchase it. >> We would just ask that you please consider what's best for Jacksonville Beach and the neighbors and the
residents who actually live here rather than an investor's profit. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else like to speak on this? >> Sorry, excuse me. Would anybody else like to speak on this item? If the applicant would like to come up
and address any of those comments, you're welcome to do so at this time. Nope. >> All right. Uh, do we have a motion? >> Make a motion to move the case along. I make a motion to approve BOA26100013. Based on testimony and evidence
provided, the request has met all the standards for variance outlined in section 34286 of the land development code. We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> It's been moved and seconded. uh opening up to discussion. I'll I'll kick us off
just by uh addressing some of the public comment. There are certain items that we're able to consider on the board and others that we're not we're not able to consider uh the impact of property values. We're not able to consider the impact of use. We're not able to consider someone as an investor versus
uh an applicant that's going to reside in the home. So there are some aspects of your comments I just want to make clear that we're not able to take into account for for our discussion and our decision this this evening. So with that clarity I'll I'll I'll bring it to the board for any further discussion on the item
>> just for my discussion review in the case. I will not be supporting my motion going forward. Any other comments? >> I'm not going to support it. Um so what we what we want to do is really outline what criteria we do
consider and articulate sort of our interpretation of that. So in in that regard I'll highlight uh the first area of criteria is the conditions or circumstances that exist which prevent compliance with the site design development standards are unique to the parcel of land. Uh this would be unique
to the parcel of land. It is specific to the lot coverage as it was laid out by the county. uh the conditions or circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant and would not be considered a self-imposed hardship. This is one where the existing structure uh
that that that's been removed was platted as one resident uh residence on on the two lots and the applicant has decided to divide those lots thereby uh creating the hardship. So uh I do not believe that condition has been met. uh
there would be no special privileges afforded to the applicant by granting a variance that is not applicable to other parcels of land, building or structures with similar conditions or circumstances. Um without getting into the the over uh detailed analysis of what this
would be, um it is not clear to me that what is being requested is the minimum necessary to make use of this lot. a 16 foot front yard setback uh is much greater of an encroachment than we would typically see from this uh being a new
build. It's it's not been stated that in any way this would be the minimum necessary to make a viable use even in a substandard lot. So I'm not uh convinced that C has been met either. Strict interpretation and enforcement of the code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parts
of land and would provide an unnecessary and undue hardship. Uh I I do not see that as as the case. Um the variance requested if granted will make possible a reasonable use of the parcel and building or structure. uh while it would make possible a use a
reasonable use I think has been uh articulated in the prior commentary that there was a home already on the the two plats and I don't think it's been demonstrated that uh there cannot be other reasonable use made even with the division into two 5,000 foot lots within
the Jacksonville Beach community there are a lot of lots that are around 5,000 square feet uh that don't have this level of uh variance requested to to make them livable. The variance request, if granted, will not result in the creation of a public nuisance. I don't
see in this uh case where a definitive case has been made around a public nuisance where it would impede traffic in a way that disrupts use that that could or could not be the case, but no evidence has been provided to that effect. So, with that context, I would say that it fails to meet uh condition B
and that it does result from actions from the applicant. Um, and that would be my my view to the board. >> Um, I don't believe it's um a result of the applicant because he's turning it back into the original lots. He's literally using a lot of what was on record. So, he's not creating the
problem. He's returning the lot to what it was originally plotted as. So, it's technically not a created problem. >> I respect your interpretation. The applicant's testimony did state that they tore down the house that was there with the decision to do something else.
That to me is a decision of conscious effort. >> Any other comments on uh the application so far? >> No. With that, I'll uh take the motion to a vote. >> Jeff Trullard,
>> no. >> Karen Dardy, >> no. Douglas St. >> No. >> Gary Hawket, >> no. >> Matt Mets, >> no. Your motion has or excuse me, your variance request has been denied.
>> Can we call the next case, please? >> Next case is BOA26100014. Applicant Nick Strandum. Property address 123 South 30th Avenue. Current zoning RS1. Motion consider 34611E1C1
for front yard setback of 20 ft, L of 25 feet, 34611EC2 for sideyard setback of 5T, L of 10 feet, 34611E1C3 for rear yard setback of 20 ft, L of 30 ft minimum, and 34611E
for maximum lot coverage for primary structure and required driveway 49% L of 35 for construction of a new single family home located property address 123 South 30th. Has anyone on the board had any exparte communication?
>> I've had none. >> None. >> I've had none. >> I have none. >> And I've had none. The applicant like to come be sworn in to present your case? >> Please raise your right hand. State your name and address. >> Name's Scott Ray. address is 345 South
Rosco, Pon Boulevard, 32082. >> 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 guide? >> I do. >> So, this is the adjacent lot. So we just have this discussion and um in light of
what just happened uh you know under the impression that since the original deed had two lots separate like that that we were able to go ahead and uh make this decision to you know move forward trying to uh create opportunity for someone to
have two houses and and you know basically provide additional living space in the beach here. And in light of what everybody that has been previously before me had said about you know the density and this and that uh it is
important too that you provide additional places for people to live and provide you more density in sense of you know providing somewhere for other people to have an opportunity to live in the neighborhood. And since it was a deed lot in that original
scenario, um we were under the impression that that was a possibility that that would be a good use for the owner to uh to pursue with. So in light of that, the lot once back to its original um layout is
uh what creates a hardship is that it's not conforming to the RS1 zoning. And so in order to make it, you know, buildable for us to proceed with two houses, um, we were trying to, you know, create a
marketable, uh, scenario for the house. So, you would like to reconsider the lot as far as the setbacks that we're requesting um, to be able to make it, you know, a purposeful and usable lot for the the owner.
Any questions for the applicant? >> All questions. >> Okay. Uh, in the spirit of making sure that we've we've seen this all the way through efficiently, I'd like to ask if you would uh please describe
how the proposed site plan would be the minimum reasonable use of the 5,000 square feet. So this this lot we did uh we're trying to create some variety between the two so that we're not creating a box in the neighborhood trying to create a different type of house. So this this lot actually has a
20 foot front yard proposed setback versus the 16 foot which would address the parking situation as well. And uh we would be building a twotory market rate house about 3200 square foot. So it would basically fit right into the
neighborhood. It's not going to be a three-story house. So be a two-story house. We're trying to maintain some variety between the two structures. The character blends in, but again, you know, it provides opportunity for families to move in, enjoy the beach versus just leaving it as an existing
house that was in poor quality condition. And so we're hoping that you can reconsider and try to, you know, consider that as a as a benefit to the neighborhood versus an effective. Yeah.
Um perhaps you could could expound a little bit on uh the necessity for 3200 square foot. So what's being built right now typically incess of that. So we're trying to do a market rate family house that would have enough bedrooms and
baths to support a family of you know two to three children typical family and also have a guest uh type uh bedroom. know we weren't looking for anything like most of the near houses are more excessive 4,000 square feet that are the larger lots. So we're looking for a very
you know I would consider an average size family house in like a larger you know one single house. Is there any uh reduction that could be considered to say bring the sideyard
setbacks in from the five foot to meet the standard of 10 foot or bring the rear yard set back closer to the 30 foot to give relief to the rear neighbor or is this the absolute uh minimum that would be viable for a build on this lot? So we had looked at that scenario and
and basically we could uh pull definitely pull in the sideyard setbacks without really affecting our goal of square footage. When we pull in the back set back it it starts um to become difficult to develop especially with the
standard rule which is 30 feet and then you so so it just becomes so shallow with the lot. So when we go back to the hardship of the substandard lot, it's not just the width, it's the depth of the lot. So the lot is basically 58 by
87. So it's um it makes it very difficult to create two twotory house then we're forced to go to three stories and as you probably aware most people prefer not to build a three-story house that's blocking the views and and creating you know stigma for the
neighborhood versus the so I think in sense of scale and trying to create the house that blends in versus one that um stands out we're trying to keep it two stories and you know close to 3,000 square feet. We could do that with the
side merch reduced, maintain the front and ideally maintain the back as well for the proposal. >> Would you be amanable to the board potentially uh proposing an alternate variance request that adjust the sideyards accordingly or would that not
not be something you'd be interested in here? >> I believe so. Um, can you vouch? Yeah, you'll have to Does he have to get sworn in again since he was on the last case or >> no? Oh, yes. Step four.
>> The whole idea here is to maintain the character at the beach. I've lived in Jax Beach and I am very familiar with the vibe and
the eclectic and the quality of life in that area and u trying to avoid threestory houses uh it doesn't have a lot of appeal or usage for families and and I
think that area is very much attractive to young families. amilies with children. And that's the reason why what we are trying to do is to create two twotory houses with enough space for a
family, young family. Uh 2,242500 square ft for a family of two or three. You know, most people actually are looking to upgrade and move to a larger space for their families. So 3,00 to 33
3,400 square f feet is what most families with two to three children are looking to buy these days. So that's one consideration for looking at the variance to be able to build twostory versus threetory
homes. And the other one is, and the reason why we're looking for different setbacks in one lot versus the other, is to not build two boxes so that you can have architecturally different houses. Even though they're
next to each other, they look very different. uh again elevation and what have you in order to maintain the character of that very special uh neighborhood which is South Jack Beach. That's the reason why we are requesting
another variance at this point and thank you for your consideration. >> Um appreciate the additional comment. didn't capture the the takeaway which is would would you be interested in us applying any sort of an adjustment to the requested variance on our side?
>> Yes, I believe so. Especially the signard setbacks. Yes. >> Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? >> I have no questions. >> No. All right. Thank you. >> Thank Do we have any speakers cards on this item? Um >> I'm sorry. This is your first time. Would you like to speak again? I saw you
pull through there. Okay. Since you've already been sworn in, we'll just start the clock when you can get going. >> Sure. >> Okay. So, um, just quickly, is there with regards to the variance request, they mentioned building two
twostory homes. Jack Beach obviously allows allows threetory homes. So, how do we know that once you're going to approve or modify the variance that we don't end up with three threetory boxes right next to each other? That's a huge
concern of mine. Um, it sounds nice. I hope they build two very architecturally beautiful houses that are different, but the variance doesn't as far as I know. That's this is just regarding setbacks and lot coverage. So, I just have a lot
of things running through my head. Do you want to add to that? >> Um, since this is a single applicant for a prior single home now split onto two previously platted lots, I got a little bit confused. Matt, I do understand uh
some of the things that the board can take into consideration and some that they cannot uh an investor going to sell these uh properties. It's very obvious the only reason for this variance request which is egregious times two uh
is to maximize profits. This is how I make my money. I build spec homes. So I understand intimately this entire process. I also understand um that the two homes proposed to be built here
would create a parking issue uh as 30th Avenue South, especially between 1 and 2nd, becomes a hot spot for parking uh between uh on on weekends and and and during peak season. Uh so a shorter driveway allowing less room for whoever
buys the property from Mr. Stan and his associates. uh they will have less room to park on the lot, forcing them to create a uh further parking problem on 30th Avenue South. Uh at times it's actually a problem for us pulling out of our driveway across the street. The land
development code was designed for the benefit of the community. When it comes to various requests, the profit of an investor owner should never supersede what's best for the surrounding neighbors and the community as a whole. We have multiple concerns regarding flood water drainage. Have there been any design submittals other than the cut
of the the screenshot of a partial uh rudimentary site plan submitted to the board? Have there been any landscape submitts? Have there been any architectural drainage or civil engineering submittals? There is currently already a lack of adequate off-site parking. Uh the land
development code for Jacksonville Beach was recently revised uh to work with residents and developers uh creating a more realistic uh baseline. uh not requiring as many variances for lock coverages with the 35 and 15 for the building and the uh
>> impervious >> driveway impervious. >> We've lived in the community for 16 years. We just spent our life savings on the house across the street and we hope that you consider the community and its residence in your decision. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
Do we have any other speakers that would like to speak to this item? No. All right. With that, we will close the rebuttal or >> I'm sorry. You want to give the rebuttal or >> Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. We'll close the public comment if the applicant or agent would like to come
forward and address any of that. just it helps >> if it helps at all since they are adjacent lots we consider any kind of adjustments to the other lot as well that's necessary. We've already ruled on
that, so we're not able to excuse back, but thank you. >> All right. With that, uh, do we have a motion? >> Make a motion to approve BOA 26100014. Based on testimony and evidence provided, the request has met all the
standards for variance as outlined in section 34286 of land development code. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. The applicant did come say that it's susceptible but it's not our position to
make a decision on our bearings what size that should be reduced or increased and there's other sizes of houses available that would fit on their lot optimal size it's not the purpose of
okay um doing some fast math. Sorry, that's why I'm looking at the computer here. Uh just in in terms of scale of what was proposed, the 2256 is the theoretical uh footprint of the home itself, which uh equates to the lot
coverage that was being requested as part of the variance. um reducing one side of that by 10 feet to get to the 10 foot um sorry to get to that 10 foot uh sideyard setback on either side uh would take
that down by about 10%. So instead of needing 49% coverage that would roughly equate to 39% coverage. So that's just closing the loop on why I'm distracted at the moment. Um for comment going through each item uh I think uh there are conditions or circumstances that
exist which prevent the compliance of a site design and development standards or which are unique to the parcel of land. It is a plotted uh parcel of land that is substandard in size. So there is a unique circumstance. The conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. uh and be
considered self-imposed. The applicant did not sculpt the the use of the land. So the question becomes is there a use of the land and is this the minimum variance of that land. So I think in the comment I don't recall exactly how it was articulated but there
was a statement to the effect of it was their understanding that you could use uh the two plots. That is uh correct to my knowledge. We're not uh here to rule on whether you can do anything with the lot. We're here to rule on whether the variances requested
are the minimum appropriate use of the lot as it was platted. Um so you you have every right to uh develop the the two lots separately as platted, but that does not inherently mean you can uh treat them as if they were a 10,000
square foot or 9,000 square foot lot. So the question becomes is are they usable at that that size? Um there would be no special privileges afforded with the applicant by granting a variance not applicable to other parcels of land, building or structures with similar conditions or circumstances. Strict interpretation and enforcement of
the code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels of land and would provide an unnecessary and undue hardship. The variance requested if granted will make possible a reasonable use of a parcel of a land, building or structure and the variance request if granted will not result in the create creation of a public
nuisance. Um so the question uh that that I'm sort of stuck here on is whether this is the minimum uh necessary to make use of the the parcel under the request. It does not appear that it is
based on uh you know the applicant testimony that while not ideal there is a a world in which uh having 10 foot setbacks could still create a home uh that is a livable space and functional use of the property. Um
the kind of comment that was brought up by the public uh of note is this is a open box theoretical view of things. It's not a plan of exactly what they'll build. So, it's not a variance that we could tie back to. This is the the plan that is is
clearly articulated and that'll be executed under this variance. It kind of attaches to the lot to allow any building uh within these specs. Um, if I look at the zone, it's a 9,000 square foot uh standard minimum size. This is
just over 5,000 square feet. materially substandard at the build requirements of 50%. Uh that would be well beneath the 35% typically used by a standard lot. And if it's reduced further, it would get closer to being uh
within that 40% range, which on what is uh just over half the size of a standard lot uh starts to look more like variances we have approved in the past. The 20 foot front yard setback uh is uh slightly small for for this zoning
district, but uh not out of the the realm of reasonability. 20 foot year uh rear yard setback. Again, you know, we've seen many yards in that 20 foot setting. um to me making the reasonable use of this substandard lot uh without
seeing the actual proposed plan. This does appear to me to be something that if we had uh a plan for an exact home, we would approve kind of regardless of what that home looked like. This does start to look like the minimum viable use of a 5,000 foot lot without an
overreach of impermanmeable space or an overreach of encroachment on neighbors. Um so that that would be my interpretation of the request uh should we amend the uh the proposal to have 10 foot setbacks. So with that I'll uh
reopen to the board for any additional comment or if anybody would like to make uh any other motions. I think the comment is that they are met meeting the parking requirements. That's as far as we go in that conversation. This does have four parking spots, I
believe, which is good. >> Nothing else. >> All right. Uh we'll vote on the motion uh as it exists, which is the variance request as it was proposed. >> Karen Dy, >> no.
>> Douglas, >> no. >> Jeff Trou, >> no. >> Gary Hawett, >> no. Matt Mets. >> No, your request for evidence has been denied. >> Next case, BOA 26100015.
Applicant Jeffrey and Grace Maxwell. Property address 504 South Second Street. Current zoning C1. Motion considered 34614 E3C1 for front yard setback of 3.7 L of
20 ft minimum. 34614 E3C2 for interior corner sideyards of 3.9 feet a l of 10 feet minimum 34614 E3C2 for a corner yard set back of 4.5 and L of 10 ft minimum 34614
E3C3 for rear yard setback of 5T L of 20 ft minimum for the following the RM standards to address the existing non-conformities to allow expansion of structure accommodate a second dwelling to an existing onetory historic single family home located at property address
504 South Second Street. >> Has any members of the board had any exparte communication? >> I've had none. >> I've had none. >> I have no >> and I have had none. The applicant would like to be sworn in and provide your case. >> Please raise your right hand. State your
name and address. >> Grace Maxwell, 504 Second Street South, Jackson Beach. >> Jeff Maxwell, 504 Second Street South, Jack. Do you swear firm 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. >> Uh, we live at 504 Second Street South, that single family historic home, and we are looking to renovate and improve it, keep the historical facade, and add a little bit of an addition. Uh, so the
variance is really just addressing the current setbacks as they exist. So, not much Yeah, I don't think with our plans, we're planning on expanding any of the setbacks that we already have. It's just cementing what we already have with
what's existing. >> So, it's in a commercial zoning. It's a single family historic and we have to change it to multif family. So, we've got next week the conditional use that's happening concurrently to have multif family. >> So, I'm sorry, am I hearing you correct thing? You're adding addition to add the
secondary residential. >> A second residential. second residential. >> Okay. >> Correct. >> Make sure I hear that everybody read. >> Okay. >> And I had a question. >> I don't read any parking C1 parking requirements for this.
>> Um since it's becoming uh dwelling like a they're doing a multif family, it's different from the C1 standards. I think it's uh we do it with RM1 or RM2 standards. I believe we put on there. Uh yeah. So it goes by the RM1 standards
since um they're developing a livable dwelling in the C1 district. >> So I'm sorry, what what what is the parking requirements then for >> just regular since it's a single family home? As long as I have two >> multif family has parking as a single family home. >> No. Oh, so it's multi family. It's
supposed to How many units are you going to have in >> just two? >> Yeah. And we'll have four on the property. >> Four parking four units and I'm seeing >> No, two units and we'll have four parking spaces on the property. >> Okay. floor parking >> that should be adequate for a multi family and RM1. >> Just around question operation, how do
you have two residential units when the parking is stacked like that? How >> there's two on each side of the four cars on the driveway itself and then there's one >> that the driveway is that wide. Four cars across scale. >> Yeah. 9 by 18. 9 by 18.
>> The driveway is only 16 ft deep. Correct. And the driveway is 20 Sorry, I can't see. 28 ft wide. >> Looks like 25 >> 25 >> 25 that. Okay. >> So, go back to my question. Four units would require only four parking spots. >> Two units.
>> So, you said two. You say four. You say four parking spots, but two units. Okay. Make sure I'm hearing this right. Okay. So, that would be that would be a parking requirement other than this foot short. That'd be in this sidewalk. >> Yeah, that's correct. >> Plus, they have the garage too to add for extra parking.
>> What' you say about extra parking? >> Oh, the garage. >> 25 ft. That's four spots. 25 ft. >> That's like three spots. You need to No, >> because 9 by 17 is usually two spots. That's the standard. And they're a little bigger than 90 by 17.
Okay. 25 ft wide is three. So you need parking spots both two in the driveway and two in the garage to be >> is the garage the dark gray checkered space just >> that's driveway. >> Sorry that's what >> that's additional. So you have existing
driveway and then up to the right is additional driveway. >> Correct. >> Oh this one maybe that's some clarity. >> Yeah that's super I can explain. So, there's driveway off to the right side of it. >> And I've heard garage a couple of Is there a garage? >> I can. Yeah, there a garage on site. >> Is there a garage there?
>> There's a garage in the new plan. >> In the plan? Yes, there's garage. >> Where was the garage in the new plan? Is that the top? >> Top right. >> Yeah, >> top right. >> So, does that garage have Oh, so that's a garage door kind of to the right of the garage where you would enter from the driveway. >> Correct.
>> Okay. >> Very helpful. Um, can you help me? I was looking at this quite a bit on Sunday trying to understand the separation between the units um just because there's doors through all of this where it all connects. I don't know if that's
a fire thing or >> how do we view that? It was built in the 1930s, so there's a lot of funkiness going on there. But yeah, it's down the middle. And then I don't >> really where the blue is is the existing structure, >> right?
>> We had a a existing bedroom suite that we actually tore down already because we're ant because we're anticipating the new construction going onto the roadways and something that we didn't want to damage all that once we d demo. So we've already demoed that portion. Can I approach you?
>> Uh, anything you show me physical has to go to the clerk and stay with us, but if we can reference what's on the screen. >> Can I walk over there and point? >> Absolutely. >> Do we even have a laser pointer, guys? >> He's got one. >> Yes. >> The foundation
existing back there. We wanted to get involved with higher >> all the new construction going on, new sidewalks and all that. So, we've done that already. Uh we've gone in and we've uh we fixed all the foundations underneath the existing house. Uh we
thought we were going to keep this as a single family residential and just built these two bedrooms onto it. Um but then we were told we kind of have to go through this multifamily zoning in order to do so. That's kind of changed our plans. >> So the requirement >> That's what I'm trying to >> the requirement is driving you to add
the secondary residential. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Kind of strange, but >> what I'm trying to understand is if it's a multifamily. >> Okay. >> I I think they're just confused because um we're using RM1 standards to address the thing. So it's not technically
multif family, but they're using RM1 standards since it's in a C1 um zoning district, but it's initially um single family. it was single family. Their application is to apply multifamily standards under conditional reuse.
>> Um since it's C1, they have to use RM1 standards because C1 doesn't have a uh single family um standard for building. So when single family already exists in C1, we go off RM1 standards. So it's not
it's not multif family, it's just residential multif family. one zoning, but they are initially just asking for single family um setbacks. >> R1 has single family and multif family standards. >> Mhm. It's urban that they're going.
>> So with with it being C1, you just skip single family altogether and automatically get multi family. >> It's urban single family and um ARM one. >> That's what we put on there. >> So it's not multif family, it's urban civil. >> No. Yeah, urban single family. >> See if I can find that. That was not
clear. >> Sorry, bear with us. Just want to make sure I'm looking at the right criteria. >> I don't see that anywhere in the C1 notes within the code.
and I'm not intimately familiar with this. So bear with us as we navigate. >> So just to clarify then uh with this addition, will this be functioning as a single family home or will there be multiple tenants uh in this space?
>> We don't know yet. >> I mean our intent is to live on one side and just rent out the other side. But I also have children that are, you know, having kids. I don't know if we're going to rent out today. I mean, I don't know what we're gonna do yet. >> Like a mother-in-law. >> But I do know we got to fix the structure because it's been exposed for
about a year. >> Okay. I just want to make sure I'm I'm going back through that. >> That's why they're also going to the um PC board to get a conditional use. So, because um they're in C1, in order to have a single family in C1, you need a conditional use one and you have to
follow RM1 standards. But like this is this is a rare occurrence. There's not many single family homes in C1. This is one of them historic um um buildings. If you look at um 34
617 uh and then go down to conditional uses. Um those are one of the um permitted uses in C1. townhouse dwelling, homebased business, miscellaneous repair.
It says townhouse dwelling per RM1 dimensional standards and multif family dwell dwellings, multif family RM1, and that for properties located east of Third Street, the minimum lot size and density for multif family dwelling shall be determined in accordance with paragraph
E3A. So it's townhouse dwelling and multif family dwelling. So there is no single family reference there. So that that's why they would be applying for a multifamily conditional use and this would be a
multif family. >> Yeah. >> If approved conditional. >> Yeah. Um the only reason why they're getting the variance is because the current non-conformities and they're adding um an accessory dong unit, right? >> Adding on a >> Yeah, they're adding an accessory unit
in the back to make it um multif family, but it exists right now. It's a single family, but it will become multifamily once the conditional use is approved. And the conditional uses for the addition they're adding >> pink area >> just better.
>> Okay. So, help me again as I see this as a multif family. Um, it's got what would be essentially a front door entrance where that covered wood deck is on the left of the screen. If you divide with a horizontal line across the middle, you've got a family home at the top, a family home at the bottom, right?
>> On the far right side or the back side of the home is an existing driveway plus additional driveway to have ample parking to support the multif family requirements with a garage on the back for storage and coverage. Um, if I look at the top half, uh, that's got its own
kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, living space. If I look at the bottom half, that's got its own kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, living space. >> Correct. >> Okay. It's just difficult looking at the plans to to confirm that. So, that's helpful for me. Sorry, I got to continue to ask you.
>> Um, this is part of our uh, one of the things we added on to the LDC. um single families within commercial areas. Um if you're a single family, you're able to have an accessory dwelling unit on certain parts of um east I think of Third Street. So I think there'll be
like the second people to actually do this actually add accessory dwelling unit to their home. So it's like their priority level I guess. >> But this won't be an accessory dwelling unit. This is part of the primary structure, right? So this is that's why it's primary structure. >> It'll be connected primary structure but it will be considered as an accessory
dwelling unit though. This is gonna be connected to it, right? >> Okay. >> It's connected. >> Pretty much a connected ADU. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, so is it multif family or is
it not multif family? You're confused. They're saying we're good. So then it's >> Yeah, it's multi. >> It's multi family. Okay. >> Yeah. That's why they're also getting the conditional use. >> All right. Any other questions from the board? >> I got I understand now. >> Sorry for being confusing. >> Thank you. and dark was garage or
something like that. Okay. >> All right. Um, thank you very much. Do we have any speakers cards on this item? >> No cards for this case. >> No speakers cards. Uh, do we have anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on this item? All right. Uh, with that, we'll close
the public comment and bring it to the board for a motion. >> Make a motion to approve case BOA 26100015. Based on testimony evidence provided the request has met all the standards for variance outlined in section 34286 of land development code.
>> We have a motion >> and second any comment from from >> after clarity I make reason us of it. All right. I would say uh the request for variance is for existing setbacks of a structure that they're not impeding or
tearing down uh with adequate uh alternative use within the C1 district. They are entitled to have a multif family dwelling and uh the variances being requested are to address the existing structure otherwise uh the proposed fully fits the multifamily use
within this district. So, I think it's a reasonable use of an existing structure to maintain uh what's in the neighborhood and and make best use of the lot as it exists today. Any other comments? We'll take the motion to a vote.
>> Karen Dy, >> yes. >> Douglas Dell, >> yes. >> Jeff Troubler, >> yes. >> Gary Hawk, >> yes. >> Matt Mats, >> yes. The motion has been approved. Next case, BOA26100016.
Applicant Russell Cox. Property address 803 North Avenue. I'm sorry, 803 South 9th Avenue. Current zoning RS3. Motion consider 346131C3 for rear setback of 10 ft L of 20 feet.
34613 E1E for maximum lot coverage for primary structures and require drive by 39% blue of 35% to construct two new count homes located property address 803 9th Avenue. The applicants please step forward. Has anybody on the board have
any exparte communication? >> I've not. >> No, I have not. >> I've had any part communication? >> No. and I've had none. But please be sworn in by the clerk. >> Please raise your right hand. State your name and address.
>> Russell Cox, 803 9th Avenue South Jacksonville Beach. >> 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 guide. >> Yes. >> Go ahead.
So, um I live at uh 803 9th Avenue South and the um I'm looking to improve the property to have another rental and um being able to
afford to keep the property. Um, right now we I have the uh south part of two lots, uh, lot 11 and lot 12. Um,
they're originally zoned like your typical 50 by 125. Um sometime in the past somebody had it reszoned um with a few parcels around
here uh to for whatever their needs were. I believe the the neighbor to my west is the same owner as the neighbor to my north. And I believe they owned this whole corner in the past and they wanted to keep the two
houses that they had built and sold off this lot. Um that's the one that whoever built this uh current structure had to get some variance so that they could build so close to the rear yard because they're on
the southern half of two lots. Um and the house is in very bad condition right now. it uh the way that it's built that it uh sheds water onto the northern property because it's so
close. Um I'm friends with both of the neighbors from living there for a few years. And I came up with like the best design that I could uh to build these two town homes and them uh be okay with it and like it and they
do like this look that I've came up with. Um, we would be changing the address which to uh 8th Avenue instead of or sorry, 8th Street instead of 9th Avenue. And
the town homes that we're trying to build on them are very narrow. Um, allowing our northern setback to be 19.8 eight feet instead of the five foot that's required. But if I were to build
all the way to the north again, I already know that the shedding of water is already a problem. Um the way that the the topo is on the property, uh being a corner lot, all the water should go out to 9inth AB South and 8th Street
South. Uh we would accommodate that with the new construction and uh it the parking would fit the new standards of being 18t wide um and over
17 feet long. Being able to accommodate that driveway, it kind of made us have to just shift the use of lot coverage. So, we are
requesting to have a little bit more of a building footprint than the 35, but we're not using the rest of the 15% for backyard, sideyard, any type of other structure.
Um, and then building this way is only using it's about 20% less of the width of the property if I were to in instead of building with the correct setbacks which forces like a three foot
a threetory house and that is kind of not fitting the neighborhood very well. Uh the neighbors prefer this layout and um I the original hardship was caused
from the the split of the two lots in the past and it's very hard to build on a lot like this. Um if I were to rebuild um a single family house and it's just in a really bad condition the way that it is right now.
So, um, everything would have to be remodeled. Um, I don't know if there's any other questions, but that's, you know, I I show a a house that a set of town homes
that we would be building on on C. Um, we build these a lot. They're conforming and they look really nice. They have a lot of curb appeal. um we take into effect the neighbors all the time. And
the uh D here that I have you guys a picture of is kind of what everybody squeezes on these properties. Um you can see the tire strips and don't get maintained. That's why the new code allowing more lot
coverage to have a correct size full driveway is nice. Um, and then you can just see how the neighboring houses are singlestory and this is a three-story dwelling. Just kind of casting shadows over the neighbors. And um, again,
getting the full width makes it to where water wants to shed to the north and the neighbor is already dealing with that. So, me building what I proposed leaves plenty of space. Um, it's actually
offsetting on the lot because to the south is a is a huge easement. It's probably like 25 ft. So, this kind of gives the property to the north a little more yard instead of just the
property to the south getting like almost like a half acre more and the other one being very minimal. So, we're not overbuilding on the property. We're kind of underbuilding, but it's enough to fit what we need. Um, and
just asking to get this variance approved. Any questions for the >> No, I have no questions. Just >> I'm trying to see um are are you splitting it exactly? No, but I'm keeping the minimum going over
the minimum for the smaller lot. And it's odd, right? But it it really puts my it lets us keep the the two 18 foot wide driveways.
The lot to the south would still be over the minimum. >> I'd like to also mention he's also going to change um the orientation. So, it's not going to be on Ninth Street anymore. the house are going to be orientated on eighth um street instead of um the
ninth. >> So instead of being um this way, he's going to change and put it on the street right there to get the correct. >> The core of my question is around the lot sizes. So if the zone is 6,000 square feet, minimum 3,000 per Yes. lot trying to understand
>> the split makes makes the south lot over 3,000 square feet and the north lot just grossly over. >> So they're both 3,000 >> they're both over the minimum. So could you describe for me
I if they both are conforming in size at 3,000 feet the hardship to that that justifies the need for >> the corner lot. >> Yeah, it's the corner lot. >> Can can you just articulate fully what that just so we've got it on record what
the corner lot restrictions are that that that result in that? So the corner lot requires 20% sideyard setback um in lie of whatever the zoning asks for. So some of you have
15 foot and one side no less than five or 20 foot with no with one side no less than seven. Um in this circumstance we have to abide by the corner and that's 20%. And that creates an a
hardship as well. Um but we were able to with the design that I proposed um work with still take still being 20% um on the corner and not obstructing the
triangle view and the corners for vision. So, >> so are are both uh both lots at this point or both both structures considered corner lots such that both the south and north sides require that 20%?
>> It is, but it's it's since it's connected only the southern side gets affected, >> right? So, so the the northern side could be the five foot setback. >> It could be, but that's where I'm already shedding. It's built like that now. And instead of five feet, I'm going
to do 19.8 8 ft to really like give the neighbor space and there's space around the back, there's space around each side and it and it makes the north lot not be right on the minimum and slammed on the
side. So, it gives them the bigger property because technically the easement is still your property. You know, it's another 2,000 square foot to that southern person. So instead of slamming the other guy right on the five
feet and then really giving the southern person a huge lot, this kind of makes them both have equally goodized yards. Um, and it's just it it it just works out better for looking good in the neighborhood, not encroaching on the
neighbors, and for water shedding, still fitting all the cars on the property, not messing with the view triangle. It's just and not over building, you know. Okay. So, I'm gonna articulate back um what I'm hearing from you, which is
>> because it is a corner lot, the south sideyard does not have to have a 5 foot minimum. It has to have a 12oot minimum to be that 20%. And so, you've met that 12 foot by getting to 12 and a half. Your northern sideyard could by code be
five foot, but for the symmetrical nature of the town homes as they're being built, uh that wouldn't really make sense because you'd end up with one side that's elongated or one side that's truncated. And so for balance, you've created additional spacing to accommodate your north side neighborhood
while maintaining 10 feet at the rear yard to try to make sure that you're not encroaching too much on your westerly sideyard neighborhood. And so your request for a variance on the rear yard setback is to accommodate the spacing that you put on your sideyard setback
because it is a corner lot. That's correct. >> And your request for a variance on coverage uh is for what you articulated as the requirements of parking uh took you over coverage for the primary structure and the parking uh driveways.
And that that's that's why you're asking for the relief there. But that in aggregate you will remain below the 50% requirement for permeability. It'll just be that your your primary structure is taking on the brunt of that 50%. >> That's correct.
>> That's helpful. Thank you for for helping me to >> Well, thank you for making it clear. >> Any other questions from the board? No. >> What is the square footage of each townhouse? >> Uh roughly 1760.
They're uh four bedroomedroom, two and a half bathrooms. They're minimum size. Like the one of the bedrooms in the rear is 11 by 9 and a half and that's commonly used for an office. But um you know there is there's room for a goodiz
family and uh young professionals and covers all the parking. So >> which of the neighbors have you spoken with? All all I live with, like I said, of all of them in the whole perimeter, but the so the neighbor that would deal
with the rear yard set back the most, the one to my west, he the he pre prefers the house being skinnier so that he still has a view of of Ninth Street from like his window.
And and if I um and then the neighbor to the north, they have a big RV that they park like right on the property line. And he's like, "Well, if you're 10 foot, nobody's going to go and pull one of these things on the side." Like I have my boat there now
that is on his property line, but he's cool. I've lived there for years and it's behind him at the front of my house, so it's conforming. But um when you make it smaller and skinnier, it gives him a better view. And he just was like, "Man, nobody can park anything
like that, man." But yeah, so basically, uh they're they're a family, you know, my rear neighbor and my left side and the neighbor to the west, they uh they live in two different houses, but they're the same family. It's a the grandparents and
the daughter with his son son and husband. And I kind of showed them like a few ways that I could uh do the lot if I got this variant opposed to like what I would build if I
like with the conforming right now with the setbacks. And they were both in favor of this one and all it made me do was pay the $500 and come do this meeting. So I was in favor for that for them. >> Okay. Any other questions?
>> No. All right. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Do we have any speakers cards? No speaker cards I have. Do we have anyone in the audience that would like to speak on the side item? >> No. All right, we'll take it for a motion. Like to make a motion to to
approve BO826100016 based on testimony and information given to >> second. Have a motion and a second. Uh discussion. >> Reasonable. I mean, look at the 15 foot wide townhouse is very reasonable.
do best. >> Yeah. >> And balancing neighbor input is great to hear. >> Anything else? >> All right, we'll take it to the vote. >> Douglas Dell, >> yes. >> Jeff Triller, >> yes.
>> Karen Dardy, >> yes. >> Gary Hawket, >> yes. >> Matt Max, >> yes. Your motion is your request has been approved. >> Next case, BO826100017. Applicant Jaclyn George. Property
address 39 South 30 33rd Avenue. Current zoning RS1. Bush consider 34611E1C3 for rear setback of 20 ft L of 30 feet minimum. 34613E1H for an accessory structure set back for
the main structure of 6 in L 5T minimum for new perwood and to address existing non-conformities. Uh, does anybody on the board have any exparte communication? >> I've had none. >> I've had none. >> And I've had none. Please step forward
and be sworn in. >> Please raise your right hand. State your name and address. >> Christopher George, 3933rd Avenue South. >> 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, I help you God. >> I do.
Go ahead. Um, so, uh, as it states, we're looking to build a pergola off the back, uh, porch of the where we're building an outdoor, um, kitchen on the patio. Um, this would be for covered dining, uh, with a perfect area for
shade, uh, and comfort of, uh, eating and dining with family. Um, the, uh, setback mentions the rear setback. This is a corner lot. Uh so there's two um front yard setbacks uh from the
west and the south uh which kind of pushes it back in the uh on the lot. So there's a 10 foot setback currently. Um I don't know if you would consider that the rear or the side depending on how you're which front end you're looking
at. Um and then to the uh east there is 30 plus feet there um on the lot. So we consider that the rear or the rear depth, but kind of depends on what you're looking at there. So really the variance we're asking for is to build
the pergola 6 in from our primary structure so it does not encroach on the neighbors u property line so it meets the five um foot set. Just to clarify, the accessory structure of six inches is the pergola will be six
inches off the home. Not correct. >> And I assume you bought this house as is with the nonformity. >> Uh no. Uh well, yes, with the nonconformities. Uh we did do a renovation a couple years ago as well. >> You didn't change footprints at all. Um, we added an addition where if you
see I can explain this easily. Um, if you go back to that picture real quick, there's a third car garage and the patio coverage that you're looking at is now covered. That patio is there, but it
wasn't covered before. Um, but the >> change your setbacks though. >> It didn't change the setbacks. No. Thank you. Question. And I take you spoken to your neighbors. >> What's you have spoken with your neighbors? >> Um I I have Oh, well a couple of them came and asked. I didn't speak with all
of them. Um but I kind of mentioned that the real setback was really from our primary residents. We're trying to not encroach on anybody else's setbacks. Looking at the images, I'm trying to see which side of the home. Okay, so it is it is right against the
fence on the side, but there's the open kitchen space on the survey. Is there are are there any pre-existing variances for the home? Um, I don't believe so. I I have not
applied for one. I think the like the is the west side on the survey says 24.7 feet. So, it's a little shy of the 25 frontage on that side, but there's two two frontages. But, I think that was all
original. I don't know if the variance was ever similar for that. >> Um after doing research there wasn't any um um varances on there. Everything was built as is. So it was before the LDC.
So there probably are non-conformities on the >> Okay, good. >> That's why fell into non-conformities. >> Yeah. I'm looking at the sideyard in the image and it looks like the sideyard is less than the 10 foot listed by the
minimum yards, but I don't see a variance request for the so I'm just trying to see are there existing nonconformities that aren't being addressed here or right like the side that the pergola is on the image shows that there's is that
full 10 feet I don't know it says five feet but then it only goes like halfway to the pergola so I don't know if there's another five feet from there that gets to the house >> oh yeah there should at 10 there should be 10 foot to the brought rail line from the side of the structure to the the home.
>> Okay. And then looking at the the survey for the rear yard where we're requesting 20 feet it's it's not clear that the measurement is that the existing rear is only 20 feet off the >> Yeah, I I I don't think I requested I
think there was Yeah, request that. Once we um went back and measured everything um it was an existing nonconformity. We just added on there just to address what's already non-conforming. >> Okay. Yeah. I'm just looking at the survey and it does show 30 feet, but the 30t doesn't measure to the rear of the
home. So, I was just looking for a measurement that showed the rear of the home. So, you're saying that the city has verified that it is a 20 foot measurement to the existing rear of the home and that's that's the non-conformity that's being addressed. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Thank you. That's helpful.
>> Any other questions for the applicant? None. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Do we have any speakers cards on this? The >> only speaker card we had was the applicant. >> Okay. Anybody in the audience like to speak on this item? >> All right. Bring it to the board for a motion. >> I can make a motion to approve case.
Sorry. 26100017 based on testimony evidence provided in the request has met the standards for variances outlined in 34286 of land development code. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion on the item?
>> Reasonable. Reasonable. It's a hard one. It's not a hard structure. >> Okay. Uh we'll take it to a vote. >> Jeff Trouer, >> yes. >> Kindy, >> yes. >> Doug Lelle, >> yes. >> Gary Hockett, >> yes.
>> Matt MS, >> yes. Your variance request has been approved. go back. Uh that was the last CL case. Uh any the planning department? >> Um next meeting will be April 7th and
there are two items on the um agenda. >> April >> 7th, right? Seventh right now. >> I don't know why seventh. >> April 7th. All right. >> Courtesy to the floor. If anybody would like to anyone anyone No. All right. Do
I have a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor?