Good evening. You're attending a session of the city of Jacksonville Beach Board of Adjustments. The Board of Adjustment meetings 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 an agent that wishes to speak will need to fill out a speaker's card located at the side table by the door and turn them in to the clerk. Each member of the public will be given 3 minutes to speak on each item. Please refrain from speaking from the
audience and applause or cheering will not be allowed. Please silence your cell phones. Can we have a roll call, please? >> Douglas Dow. >> Here. >> Jared Nardy. >> Here. >> Owen Curley. >> Here.
>> Jeff Trular. Matt Matts. >> Here. >> Gary Hackett. >> Here. >> Victor Balune. >> Here. >> Okay. If everyone's had a chance to review the minutes from our meeting held on June 2nd, 2026.
Is there a motion to approve them? >> I make that motion. >> Second. >> Okay, it's moved and seconded. All in favor? >> I. >> Opposed? Okay, those have been adopted. Any correspondence? No no correspondence, no old business. We'll now call our first case.
>> Board calls case number BOA 26-100034 property address 123 South 30th Avenue lot three. Motions to consider sections 34-611 echo one Charlie one for front yard setback of 20 ft in lieu of 25 ft, 34-611 echo one Charlie two for a side
yard setback of 5 ft in lieu of 10 ft, 34-611 echo one Charlie three for a rear yard setback of 25 ft in lieu of 30 ft minimum, and 34 -611 echo one echo for maximum lot coverage for primary structure and required driveway at 39% and with 35%
for construction of a new single family home at that address. >> Okay, as a reminder, each member of the public will be given 3 minutes to speak when we open the public hearing. Does any board member have any ex parte communication? >> I've had none. >> I've had none. >> I've had none. >> I've had none. >> And I've had none. Will the applicant
please come forward to be sworn in and give their presentation? >> Would you mind turning the mic on? Just push the red button. On the base. >> Thank you. >> No, I'm not >> But but >> Sir, just press that button. >> Can you hear me? >> Yeah. Please raise your right hand, state your name and address.
>> Nick Stam, 317 Ponte Vedra Boulevard in Ponte Vedra 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 you God? Thank you. >> I was here about 2 months ago. It's a case that I had presented to the board.
Uh it regards the two lots that I have in uh on 30th um Avenue South in South Jax Beach. Um the board at the time denied uh the
request for the variance. Uh so, uh with that feedback, I did uh meet with uh the uh city staff, city planning staff, uh Christian and those, and I requested of
them their recommendation as to what kinds of changes I would have to make in order to have a buildable uh to be able to build two houses in that area. I took their recommendation. Um we worked together. Uh and I basically
came back now with that uh revised a for variance. Uh the original, to give you an idea of the differences, the original one was requesting 49% lot coverage. This one is down to 39% lot coverage.
Uh the side setbacks, uh rather than having 5 ft on each side, now uh again, per their recommendation, and I think it's a great one, we're leaving on each lot the 10 uh feet
with the existing neighbor, but where the two lots are adjacent, we have five on either side, uh presumably because, you know, we're we're going to be selling it to people that they know they can see what the
side um yard setback uh setback uh is. So, that's basically the revised request uh to the board, and I hope uh we uh we heard you, and we came back with a revised request, and I
uh I'm hoping that uh this time we will have a positive outcome. Thank you. >> Okay, you said but do you have any questions for the applicant? I have a couple questions for you. Um there's a layout that shows exactly what your request is footprinted to look like. Do
you have exact build specifications that fit that layout, or is this just a a theoretical it fits what you've requested, but it's just kind of a um a generalized box, not necessarily the exact footprint of the home? >> Well, that's the box that we uh and I have my builder here,
uh and he also provided input in terms of what is buildable, what we can do to, you know, basically build a decent home. And uh so, that's uh I worked with the architect, Scott, uh that was with me
last time, and I worked with um uh the builder, uh Barnett Custom Homes, uh to ensure that those two houses uh they meet, you know, that that's a decent product that we
that's sellable. >> The reason I ask and I'm going to ask a follow-up question is once we approve a variance, it is approved for the lot in perpetuity unless we add contingency otherwise. So, one thing that I'm considering in my
mind is is proposing an amendment to uh make any variance that we approve today or potentially approve today um limited to what you build immediately following this variance um such that if at some time in the
future that structure is torn down and a new build is there that purchaser would have full awareness of where LDC is at that time and and build within those constraints and not have the same variance apply to them. Um is that something that you are confident
that you would build within this footprint? And is that something you'd be comfortable with as an amendment to the request that you've made? >> Everything is ready to go in terms of the construction. >> I've been at a variance meeting before. We're just going to have to have you swear in
>> and or sorry. >> Please raise your right hand, state your name and address. >> Greg Barnett, 1280 Plantation Oaks Drive, Jacksonville 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 you God? >> I do. >> Matt, the only comment was I was here
for a variance for for something else a couple months ago. And when I was there, there was a gentleman here who had an existing variance for a pool with like a 1-ft off the pool. And the pool guy came in cuz it was the builder from 10 years ago. And he was trying to get a new variance for a new pool.
What I just want to clarify before he agrees is if we sell this and someone wants to put a pool in, they might want to come in and get a variance for a pool. Right? >> They can request additional variances and those are subject to separate
approvals. >> Yeah, but but that happened before you you petitioned abolishing the first new variance. >> And then it was like and then Nesmith had a comment that the first variance was >> Can you just I'm sorry, step closer to the mic. So >> So so when that happened, there was an existing variance and you wanted to get
rid of that variance, but Nesmith was saying that it was put the pool it was different and just confusing and I don't want to hurt this project with putting a contingency on a variance because I want to say it was like 3 months ago,
there was there was a 1-ft lot one the pool could be built 1-ft away from the house and this new structure had it 5-ft away and you were trying to get rid of the other variance and it didn't happen. So I just want to make sure if you're going to put a contingency plan on here that it just doesn't
trump, you know, like where you're trying to >> Well, I I think that part of it is a a contingency that would relate to the plans that are submitted and so my colleague's question I think is pretty accurate.
Is this a buildable plan? Is this the plan you're going to build? Because you asked for a variance of 5-ft in lieu of 10 for on the side yard. But however, you don't need it on one side. You only need it on on >> I think I think the the the it was
supposed to be written instead of a 20-ft total side yard setback, it was 15. Right? RS1 allows 10 and 10. RS2 is 5 and 10 or 7 and 1/2 and 7 and 1/2 because it can't be 1 and 14, right? So I think that was
written to be a 15-ft total side yard setback. But what we're trying to say is we want to have the property that is adjacent to the two that the outward flanking that would stay at 10 and the inner ones would be at the five and not do seven and a half and seven and a
half. >> I'm sorry. And then that goes back to the original question because on your um your plan that you submitted, it's five on one side, 10 on the other, just like you said. However, the request
was for five feet side uh side yard setback of five feet below the 10 feet. >> And it was supposed to be 20-foot setback reduced to 15 total. It's the it it's reducing only one setback. >> I I I I don't
>> Or can I make a motion to petition changing this variance from a five-yard setback to being >> See, what what you're asking for, I think, is uh jumped into your questioning. The The what you're asking for is something completely different
than than was presented. >> What's this What's the side yard setback? It's 20 It's 10 and 10. It's 20. >> ours one is 10 total. Yeah, so it does say west side yard. That's the one that's going to be closest. Five uh five in lieu of 10.
>> So, I just to clarify what I think you're asking and what my position is, and this is in no way approval or an indication I'm going to approve, but I just want to understand what your ability or or or flexibility around this would be, is if we considered this as proposed to
block it into what is proposed, such that if something in the future was to be built differently, the variance wouldn't apply to future structures. They would have to come back and get that approved separately. >> For sure. That's >> Yes. So, that's not That's not in the current request, and it's not typically in a request submitted,
>> Right. >> but that is something that we take into account sometimes and we amend just to make sure that the approval is subject to what is being >> And you had done that to my office building when you said, "I'll approve this, but approve it to base upon what you built here. And I'm fine with that, right? But what I didn't want to say is
we still might put a pool in, right? And it's not there. So, I guess I don't want to be >> Right. No, if you make if you make additions to this and the pool falls within the existing code, your variance on this is not going to change. >> if we do something else. >> But if you make additions to this and the pool doesn't fall within existing code, if your pool is 3 ft closer to the
fence, you would have to come back and ask about the pool. >> For sure. For sure. For sure. >> That's how that works. >> So, so if the contingency is then that it's contingent upon the plans submitted, that would be acceptable. >> I think at the end of the day, the the
first question from Matt was is this box what you're building? And I'll answer the question as as easy as this. This lot is a very small lot. There's really not much you could do. So, I would like to create a box and put
it in a box on top of a box. I don't want to put three boxes on top of each other. I want to put two boxes on you know, one on top of the other. I want to do a two-story house, right? Will there be a front door? There will be, right? Is it going to be flat in front of the wall? Probably not. We might have a little alcove indentation,
but at the end of the day, the front yard setback is still the setback, right? So, we might have a 5-ft little indentation where the front door is, and yes, we might have a sidewalk that connects the driveway to the box, but I still have to adhere to my 39% lot
coverage. That's all I'm saying. So, to answer your question, Matt, to build it, yes. But what are we going to make a little deviations to it? Of course we are, because we have to put a sidewalk in, we have to put a mailbox in, right? We have to put a fence in. All those things. >> Understood. I I don't think that that
restricts what I'm what I'm potentially proposing. So. >> I think we're we're fine. >> Cool. >> And and we're not saying does the outside look like your proposed plan? We're just saying does the footprint really >> The the the slab, you know, yes. I think it would, yes. >> Okay.
>> Sorry, I just wanted to thank you. Is that it? >> That does it for my client. >> Thank you. Everybody clear? Any questions? No further questions? Okay. Uh you can step back, sir. I will now open the public hearing. Do we have any speaker cards?
>> I have none. >> Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who has not filled out a speaker's card that wishes to speak? Okay. Um I will 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 26-100034 based on the substantial competent evidence presented in the staff report and all relevant testimony presented at this hearing and that the motion meets all the standards for variances outlined in section 34-572 of the Jacksonville Beach Land Development Code.
>> Okay, it's been moved. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Any discussion on that? >> I would say uh there's there's a couple of things particular to this lot that are worth noting. Um one is the lot as platted is an undersized lot and that is the
constraint in which the applicant is operating under. Two is that uh the lot previously had a single home on it. Um so I know that we've discussed uh in recent uh reviews that
the new Land Development Code reads that as subject to uh the applicant's decision to split the lot and therefore creating up the applicant's own um actions. In this case, it's it's clearly outlined in the staff notes and clearly outlined in the information
provided that at the time the lot was purchased and at the time of the initial variance, they were under the prior Land Development Code. And so at the time of purchasing the lot, that was not something that they would have been able to know or consider. If we look at the previous variance request
and what was in the prior land development code at that time, what they're requesting today is much more consistent with what they would have expected at the time of purchasing the lot. Regardless of any of that and looking at the current land development code, I think what's being requested here is a
reasonable ask for the size of the lot that's being constructed. I think that allowing the 10 ft on the side yard that is to an existing neighbor meets the expectation of neighbors and I think the 5-ft is something that they own the opposite lot. That's something that they'll have
awareness of and anybody purchasing this will have awareness of and should we amend it to be limited to the structure and essentially the variance should be wiped if ever the structure is gone, then anybody purchasing the lot would have full awareness of the land development code and able to build under
the existing constraints to the lot at that time or request an additional variance. Looking at 39% as an overall coverage for the primary structure and required driveway, if you look at that 39% in relativity to the size of the lot, that's very
conservative. They've they've definitely not had an overreach for my interpretation of what is on the land and they would still be subject to the 50-ft excuse me, 50% and overall permeability. So anything they do beyond the structure of the home, the overarching permeability of the lot
is still going to be in accordance with the code. So with all that, I think that I would like to propose an amendment to the prior motion to hold this variance to attach to the structure that is built in the footprint
as proposed by this applicant. And I'd like to propose that amendment now. >> Okay, so the amendment is to um um modify the or amend the first motion to make um
this uh this variance contingent upon the plans as submitted under uh, for the for the application. Uh, is there a second for that? >> And just just to be clear >> I'm sorry. >> and attach it to the applicant building
from this variance request. So, such that if it transitions to somebody else and somebody else is going to build, they have to come and talk to us uh, separately. So, this is this is a variance to the structure as proposed for the applicant that is proposing it here.
>> Okay. Uh, is there a second to that? >> I second. >> Okay. That motion has been, uh, made and seconded. Any discussion on that? So, uh, just so I'm clear, it's contingent upon the plans as submitted and to this applicant, right?
>> to to clarify, um, we can only we can only make contingent upon the LDC request. So, to clarify this, it's only contingent to the either whoever whoever purchases this can only either build it within the
code or within this footprint. So, meaning even if somebody else were to, um, destroy the either have to build it within the code or within this current footprint. >> So, we do contingencies on existing structures. That's essentially what I'm trying to say here is if if this is built right
now, that now is an existing structure. I want to contingent to that structure and not in perpetuity. If you're saying that the way that I phrased it doesn't achieve that, how would you phrase it differently? >> No, so what you're saying pretty much is whoever buys this or or buys the land has to
build it according to this or within the current code. Correct, right? >> And once this is built, it's attached to that build. So, if that is revised or different build comes in, they can't just keep building in that footprint, they have ask again.
Just like giving an existing structure within >> uh this variance would terminate upon the transfer of title of the land. No, that doesn't work that way. Well, that's what that That's what his his uh >> no. It has to be only can be contingent upon the um what's being asked in the
code, which are the setbacks. So, meaning anybody that buys this land, they either have to build with the regular RS-1 zoning code, or they can use a variance. >> Do you understand what I'm saying? >> I I I get that. >> If there was something built on the property, we can make it contingent to
that building, and if anything else gets built in the future, it doesn't apply to future construction? >> No. >> We do that. So, yes. >> If if we've made it contingent upon the use, especially for commercial, we've said where people have come in and asked for variances on parking, we've
come back and said, "You're going to have a variance in your parking contingent upon the use of your building being low compliant interaction." >> Yeah, but use and land development code are two kind of two different things. Using it and then building on it. >> a variance that doesn't extend in
perpetuity under conditions. I'm defining those conditions. >> Yeah, otherwise we have a uh uh We we would have a variance in perpetuity contingent upon building within that footprint.
>> What I'm trying to get you to understand is contingent upon building that footprint means either build within the RS-1 code, or you build within what is being requested. >> And what I'm trying to get you to understand is yes, for this build, but not in
perpetuity. So, if they build in this footprint, met it, and then if in 15 years that house has a fire, and they tear down, they don't just get to keep building in that footprint. >> Yes, they do, because >> we're not going to have to >> understand what I'm saying? If there was
a house built >> I understand what you're saying, but a variance applies to the parcel. It does not apply to the structure. >> We've applied it to the structure many times. >> Yeah, we we have. >> Many times. >> So, it can apply to the structure. >> Well, I don't believe that. >> So, do we want to table this and bring
it back? >> Yeah, it's it's up to the public. >> Yeah, sorry. The public hearing is done. >> This is all about the applicant. That becomes what they can do, but from my understanding, from what I know as a planner, it's attached to
it's attached to the the what's being asked, not the not the structure itself. >> Not necessarily. No, that's that's that's incorrect. >> So, I think what we're running into here, you tell me if I'm able to pass it back to the applicant, is I've articulated on record the reason that I think that
this is a unique situation based on the time of which the the property was purchased and the change in land development code. Um if based off of city planning's commentary on this meeting, we're not able to amend to attach to the structure,
that is going to weigh into my decision. And it sounds like there's a a disconnect between the training of those of us that sit on the board and the knowledge of city staff. So, is there a way for us to pass it to the applicant to ask them if they would like to bring this back to a future meeting once
we've had a chance to resolve that difference or if they want us to vote on it now as it was proposed without an amendment. I think those are the only two options that we're left with at this point. >> Yeah, you can do that. >> Okay, so then we would have to reopen the hearing.
Uh so, we would need a motion now to reopen the hearing. >> I so move. >> I second. >> Okay, all in favor of reopening the hearing. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Okay. >> Will the applicant please come forward. >> Is this the one we think that I like?
>> If you might I'm new to my city. Thank you. >> I am sorry. My maternal language is Greek, but the last 10 minutes is all Greek to me, but you know, I I I'll understand. All I All I want It's very simple for me.
I will be building there in the next We'll start building in a week or two. I just need this in order to move forward. And so, I'm I'm not quite sure I understand attachment to this
>> and I are disagreeing on whether after you're gone and that home is gone, whether that's in 5 years or 50 years, the next person gets this. The city is saying we have to grant it to where it will always exist for anybody in the future, no matter how long away that is,
and I'm saying no, we don't. And so, because we can't come to agreement on that, the city's not going to allow me to make the amendment that I asked you about, which means I can't vote on it the way that I potentially would on that amendment. >> Well, that's not exactly true. I mean, they they they'll take exception to it, but we can we can vote it.
>> But can I can I ask you just one scenario? You made a comment about transfer of title, right? So, currently an LLC owns the land, right? What you're proposing was the moment that he sells it to your wife or you or
anybody else on the board, that the variance is now abolished and now you have an existing non-conformity because we built it underneath the LLC's permission, but when Greg Barnett individual buys it,
like you proposed, that the variance goes away, but I'm buying it >> I'm confused by the by our our our board chair's comments, not my amendment. My proposal was to attach it to the structure built directly
following this. So that if he builds it and then somebody buys it, it's attached to that structure. But if that structure comes down, it doesn't continue with the lot. It is attached to the structure. >> And I think at that point I think that's a conversation for the future for both
for you too, but for the for today for the variance to answer the question, yeah, we don't care what happens in 50 years. I mean, I might be dead, right? I mean I won't care. >> will. >> [laughter] >> That's right. >> It's Yeah, so again
it by default every variance is attached to the land. So that is in perpetuity. So unless I specifically say it is not then it is. >> But why But why would you not want it to stay within perpetuity if based upon the
current zoning and the current lot size and the lot of record and based upon your >> but >> So we're both right. So he can So it all depends on you guys. If you guys want it to do that attachment, you can do that attachment, but yeah. So if we put a time limit
>> attachment, right? Cuz again, I would feel bad if the person buys the structure. >> What's that? >> The attachment is to the structure that is built within this footprint. So as soon as a structure is built in this footprint in compliance with the variance, that is what it is attached to. And anything you do to that
structure that falls outside of code will need a separate variance including if you tear that structure down and go to rebuild it, you have to get a variance all over again. >> But I'm okay with that's fine. I'm I'm okay with it. So um >> And again, just to restate what I started with
>> a foul with the code. I don't know. >> And I was just concerned about the transfer of title when it sells that this person thinks that they have a variance and you might write it that says it stops at this title transfer and then now the poor person has a 39% lot
coverage and he's only supposed to be at 35 and he's got fines coming every single day because he is now 4% over lot coverage. >> Right. It It should not be title transfer so we can we can clarify in the language but my intention is to attach it to the structure that is initially built within what is what is approved or
or non-conforming. >> I'm okay with it. >> And again to to recap for the record as this is become confusing for for a few of us I'm sure it is for anybody watching later. There specific circumstances to this request that include the consideration
of when the lot was purchased, right, what the standards were at that time, and what was a reasonable expectation at the time of purchase. And there may be future variances where people purchase lots and want to do things like
leverage multiple pieces of that lot and reduce the side yard setback relative to their own property. And that interpretation could be that is something that the owner knowingly did to the lot in and of themselves and therefore is a self-created hardship. And so that that
is something that I want to make clear as to this is a circumstance that is unique to me in the sense that it is time sensitive to the transition of the land development code and it is relative to the fact that you own the adjacent property and that foot is something
somebody will go into knowing. If somebody is building in the future, they would have all the information about the land development code publicly available to them and should adhere to it or apply for a separate variance. >> Fair enough. >> Okay, yeah. I'll now open the public
hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak on our reopened case? Okay. I'll now close the public hearing and bring the item back to the board for discussion.
So we right now have an impending uh motion to amend that has been seconded. So, just can you bring us up to what your amendment is? >> Yeah. My amendment to the motion to approve
with the setbacks as proposed is to attach the variance to the initial structure built within the footprint outlined within this request such that if any future structure is built this variance would not apply.
>> Okay. All right. Um and meant you're going to the the clarity on that is that transfer of title will not affect that, correct? >> The structure would be what's on the title and transfer, correct. >> Okay. Uh that's the amendment. Uh we
probably should second that to to get a second on that. >> I'll second. >> Okay. So, it's been moved and seconded the amendment. Now, any further discussion on that amendment? Okay. Can we have a a vote on the amendment, please?
>> Douglas Down? >> Yes. >> Matt Metz? >> Yes. >> Gary Hackett? >> Yes. >> Victor Malone? >> Yes. >> Owen Kerney? >> Yes. Okay. So, now pending before us is the amended motion to approve the
variance with the um the amendment. Any discussion on that? Okay. Can we have a roll uh a vote on that, please? >> Douglas Down? >> Yes. >> Matt Metz? >> Yes. >> Gary Hackett? >> Yes. >> Victor Malone?
>> Yes. >> Owen Kerney? >> Yes. Okay, sir. Your uh variance has been approved with that um uh contingency. Can we call the next what, please? >> For calls BOA 26-100035.
Property address 123 South 30th Avenue lot four. Set motion to consider sections 34-611 echo one Charlie one for front yard setback of 20 ft in lieu of 25 ft. 34-611 echo one Charlie two for a side yard setback of 5 ft in lieu of 10 ft. 34-611 echo one Charlie three for a
rear yard setback of 25 ft in lieu of 30 ft minimum. And 34-611 echo one echo for a maximum lot coverage for primary and required driveway 39% in lieu of 35%. >> Okay, as a reminder each member of the public will be given 3 minutes to speak
when we open the public hearing. Does any board member have any ex parte communication? >> I've had none. >> I've had none. >> I've had none. >> I've had none. >> And I've had none. Will the applicant please come forward to be sworn in and give their presentation. >> Please raise your right hand and state your name and address.
>> Nick Stone, 317 Ponte Vedra Boulevard, Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. >> Do you swear and 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. Uh I think it's the exact same case as the one we had before, only it's a you
know, symmetrical on the other side. Everything that we discussed before applies here. It's the exact same request. They are two identical lots. Uh so I I would um you know, ask the board uh to um just the discussion we had for
lot A, uh the same thing would apply to lot B, and I would ask for your approval. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, uh do we have any speakers cards? >> none. >> Uh we'll now open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who has not
filled out a speakers card that wishes to speak? Okay, uh seeing none I will now close the public hearing and bring the item back to board for discussion. Is there a motion? >> I make a motion to approve BOA number
26-100035 based on the substantial competent evidence presented in the staff report and all relevant testimony presented at this hearing and that the motion meets all the standards for a variance as outlined in section 34-572 of the Jacksonville Beach Land Development Code. >> So, what was what so you you're just
approving that you're not putting this amendment on it? >> I'm making a motion to approve it as is. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. Go ahead. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. So, moved and seconded. Uh any discussion? It's the same one. Do you want to make the uh motion to amend?
>> Yeah, I just uh for the record we'll we'll say it's it's exactly the same circumstance of it is an undersized lot is the hardship that they face. This is a a special circumstance in terms of the timing from when the property was purchased in the LDC that was applied versus the LDC that
is applied currently. The request relative to the LDC that uh is applied currently, given the fact that it is an undersized lot, still appears to be the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the lot as aligned to the staff recommendation. Um and the 39% only would apply to the
primary structure and driveway and the property would still fall within the 50% of overall permeability. Um so, the the risk of additional flooding or or water drainage is mitigated there as well. With that said, I would like to make the
motion to amend the previous motion to attach to the structure that is initially built within the footprint of this variance such that should that structure be removed or modified in the future,
uh a separate variance would need to be reapproved. >> That's the whole thing I'm trying to tell you. You Yes, you can attach it to the structure, but whoever comes next, they can build this they have to either build it like this or build it within the RS1
standards. So yes, you can attach it to them, but the next person has to either follow that same variance or the RS1 standards. >> I'm trying to attach May- maybe I I worded it poorly in the sense that I said uh related >> Okay, from my understanding
>> If the structure is removed, it would not transition to a future structure. >> That's what I'm trying to make you understand. It says the variance is tied to the parcel no matter what. It's not tied to the parcel. It's tied to the structure. That's how a variance works.
Not in all cases. In my amendment proposal, it is a tied to the structure. I'm telling you yes, you can allow to do that, but I'm telling you the next person that builds it can either build it within that variance or within No, let me talk. I'm stacked. >> I know, but >> But I'm telling you saying we're saying
the same thing. We're saying the same thing, but I'm telling you what Christian said, the senior planner said it's attached. Yes, you can attach this to to to a structure, but what that means is whoever builds it there next are allowed to build within that variance or they have to build within
RS1. So whoever buys this It can be anybody. They have to build within the variance or within RS1. That's all. >> Okay, so it's been Do you want to clarify your amendment so we can >> Yeah, restating my amendment >> All right,
I'm going to write the results, so I'll go with I'm going to write what I'm going to put on the paper. >> We approved the meeting notes, so if you don't write what we say, we'll just fail to approve the meeting notes. >> So I'm saying the same thing. >> So again, the proposal
for amending this is to attach the variance to the initial structure built within the footprint as proposed. Okay, that's the amendment. Uh has it been seconded? >> I second. >> Okay, the amendment has been moved and seconded. Is there discussion now on the
amendment? >> I just want to say I appreciate them coming back to the staff and working with them and re-submitting. So >> I I think that's really nice. Yeah, I think that was that was very nice. Yeah. Okay, uh any more discussion on the amendment?
Okay. Can we have a vote on the amended motion, please? >> Matt Matts? >> Yes. >> Douglas Dell? >> Yes. >> Gary Hawkin? >> Yes. >> Victor Malone? >> Yes. >> Owen Curley? >> Yes. >> Okay, so now we have the amended motion.
Is there any discussion on the amended motion? Okay, seeing no discussion, can we have a vote on the amended motion? >> Matt Matts? >> Yes. >> Douglas Dell? >> Yes. >> Gary Hawkin? >> Yes. >> Victor Malone? >> Yes. >> Owen Curley? >> Yes. Okay, your request for a variance
has been approved with the amendment and the contingency. Okay, can we call the next the next case, please? >> The board calls case number BOA 26-100036, property address 1526 North 7th Street.
Motion to consider section 34-611 echo 1 hotel for a rear yard structure setback of 13 in in lieu of 5 ft for an addition to an existing non-conforming structure located at property address 1526 North 7th Street.
>> Good evening. >> Good evening. Um As a reminder, each member of the public will be given three minutes to speak when we open the public hearing. Does any board member have any ex parte communication? >> I've had none. >> I've had none. >> I've had none. >> I've had none. >> Uh
the applicant, please come forward to be sworn in and give their presentation. >> Please raise right hands to your name and address. >> James Kelly, 1526 7th Street North. >> Do you swear and affirm the testimony about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
>> I do. >> Go ahead, sir. >> Yes, um, excuse me. [clears throat] We purchased this home from the builder in 1994, and he had a structure of pergola in the backyard where, um, this variance is being proposed for. And
by 2020, 2002, the structure had become very not viable anymore. So, we hired a local company at the beach to come and build a new pergola for us, and they put the pole, uh, the posts on the north end in the same place that the original
pergola was when we built it, and they built it south a little bit further. But, um, we didn't [clears throat] know that a variance was needed or anything at that time when we bought the property. It's a odd-shaped lot, and, um, we just put it back, we built a
new one in the exact same spot the old one was. So, now we found out, you know, we're going to do some work on it, and now I found out that it wasn't, uh, done correctly. So, I'm looking for a variance on that. >> Okay. Uh, does any board members have any, uh,
questions for the applicant? Is that your backyard or is that I'm trying to figure out the >> that's the northwest corner of the backyard. It runs along the FDOT easement. >> Uh-huh. Okay, and it's, uh, So, then there's a fence that runs >> Is the front yard on 7th Street North?
>> Correct. >> Uh, okay. All right, that makes sense. Sorry. Sorry. It would be on the east portion of the >> Yeah. >> That's strictly just the backyard. There's no front portion of it. >> Okay. Okay. Uh anybody else have any questions?
Okay, sir. You could step back. I will Oh, uh wait a minute before you leave. Uh did you uh talk to your neighbors? >> Um that pergola's been there almost 40 years and no neighbors have ever complained to us. We've had no contact by anybody >> Right. >> about that. >> Okay.
Um Okay. You can step back, sir. I will now open the public hearing. Do we have any speaker cards? No speaker cards. Sorry. Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who has not filled out a speaker's card that wishes to speak? Okay. Seeing none, I will now close the
public hearing and bring the item back to the board for discussion. Is there a motion? >> I make a motion to a I make a motion to approve BOA number 26-100036 based on the substantial competent evidence presented in the staff report
and all relevant testimony presented at this hearing and that this motion meets all the standards for variances outlined in section 34-572 of the Jacksonville Beach Land Development Code. >> Okay. It's removed. Is there a second? >> I second. >> Okay. It's removed and seconded. Any discussion?
>> I think the hardship here is the lot is an awkward oblong shape. The structure as it is currently constructed is tucked into the north end of the lot. The pergola was pre-existing by that against testimony, but even if it hadn't
been it just looking at the footprint of where the home exists on the lot. Um it's it's kind of the only place where there's a reasonable use of that pergola and then hearing no um feedback from the community that this would create any material uh
concerns on their behalf uh paired with the the applicant's testimony that this had been pre-existing, I think that oblong shape of the lot and the existing placement of the home on the lot creates the hardship that would make this a a reasonable use of the land.
Okay, any other discussion? Okay, can we have a a vote, please? >> Matt Mertz >> Yes. >> Douglas Stoll >> Yes. >> Gary Hackett >> Yes. >> Victor Malone >> Yes.
>> Owen Carle >> Yes. >> Okay, sir, your request for variance has been approved. Can we call the last case, please? >> Appreciate it. Do I need any type of paperwork or anything on that? >> They'll send it to you. They'll send you a letter that says it's been approved.
>> Okay, and now is that for the perpetuity of the residence there? >> Uh it is. Yeah, we There's no condition on it, so it stays there. You can If it falls down, you can fix it. >> Okay, and if they if it does say one day in the future fall down, the
person that rebuilds it would have to move it back? >> No, it's it's there. It's to the lot. It's attached to the lot forever. >> Thank you all very much. I appreciate it. >> Okay. Okay, the board calls BOA 26-100037,
property address 816 North 15th Avenue. Motion to consider sections 34-611 Echo 1 Hotel for an accessory structure setback of 3 ft in lieu of 5 ft on the eastern portion of the property for an addition to an existing non-conforming structure. Okay,
just a reminder, each member of the public will be given 3 minutes to speak. We open the public hearing. Does any board member have any ex parte communications? >> I've had none. >> I've had none. >> I've had none. >> I've had none. >> And I've had none. >> The applicant, please. Please come forward to be sworn in and give their presentation.
>> Please raise your right hand, state your name and address. >> Uh Kevin Sullivan, 816 15th Avenue North, Jacksonville Beach. >> Do you swear and 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? >> Yes.
>> Go ahead, sir. >> Uh good evening. Uh so, um I'm Kevin. Um I am here requesting a variance to allow rear yard setback of 3 ft instead of 5 ft on the eastern property line. The main reason for this request is the unique shape and width of my lot. Unlike
many of the surrounding properties, the lot's configuration creates limitations on how structures can be placed while still allowing the property to be used in a practical way. I've got a utility easement on the rear, and then I also have the normal easement on the front. Um
So, kind of unique that I have the two easements there. Uh these conditions weren't created by me, they're characteristics of the property itself. In addition, there's an existing pool deck that was installed by the previous owners, and I need to maintain the required separation from that pool deck
and the the new structure that I'd like to build. Uh the variance I'm requesting is very small. The proposed setback is actually greater than the location of the existing shed. The existing shed is only 2 and 1/2 ft from the property line. I'm asking for us to be able to build 3 ft.
Um Uh simply asking for the minimum adjustment needed to make reasonable use of the property. Uh we're not going to get a whole lot of use behind that building if we built it. Uh granting this variance won't impact neighboring properties or change the character of the neighborhood. I've spoken with the
adjacent property owners, and they're aware and supportive of the request. And actually have the uh direct property line uh uh that neighbor is here in support, uh Stacy Herring. Um I believe this is a reasonable solution to the property's unique constraints,
and I respectfully ask for your approval. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant? No. And uh the uh the pool deck, that's conforming, right? You don't need to >> No, the pool deck's uh it's remaining
the same. Uh we're just trying to get as much space between the actual pool house and the pool deck. Um I I believe uh Nibs said it needed to be about 5 ft, so um we're trying to get a little bit of that back on the back end so we still can uh
conserve some of the green space. >> Right. Right. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um you can step back, sir. Thank you. Um I will now open the public hearing. Do we have any speaker cards? >> I have none. >> Was there uh anyone in the audience who has not filled out a speaker's card that
wishes to speak? Anyone? Anyone? Okay. I will 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
26-100037 based on the substantial competent evidence presented in the staff report and all the relevant testimony presented in this hearing and that the motion meets all the standards for variances outlined in section 34-572 of the Jacksonville Beach Land Development Code. >> Second. >> Okay. So moved and seconded. Any
discussion? >> I think the applicant I think the applicant outlined uh what is also provided in in the notes and in the staff recommendations and that the parcel is unique and it's uh odd layout as well as its its uh
Yeah, it's it's odd layout in terms of the width and the way the width changes. Uh the applicant indicated and it is shown within the survey that there's also a utility easement on the rear of the property, which is also unique to the parcel, um reducing some of the impact of of
the setbacks. Um, the neighbor did an individual did not when he referenced the neighbor in the crowd there there was no testimony to confirm, but I I get the sense that the neighbor would have no issue as they did not come to testify
against it. So, I I think that the odd layout of the property, the existing shed that is there and this being an improvement to the existing gap on that easement makes this a reasonable request for the the minimum size of the property.
>> Just to add that the applicant's shed is pretty pretty modest and appreciate that he was not looking to build something massive in that spot. So. >> Right, not not getting a request for additional coverage or it's it's a placement on what is an
illegal long lot. >> Okay. Uh, anybody else have anything? Okay, can we have a vote, please? >> Douglas Stone? >> Yes. >> Matt Metz? >> Yes. >> Gary Honket? >> Yes. >> Victor Malone? >> Yes. >> Owen Curley?
>> Yes. Okay, sir, your request for variance has been approved. >> Thank you. >> Finally, the planning department report. >> Uh, next meeting is July 2nd July 7th and we have two items and um, um,
>> Is it July 2nd? >> 2nd 7th July 7th. And we haven't scheduled the uh, a meeting for our training yet, so we'll probably get that probably in in May not May August when David comes back. >> Okay, great.
Okay. And now my favorite, the courtesy of the floor to visitors. Anyone? Anyone? Seeing none, is there a motion to adjourn? >> I so move. >> I second. >> All in favor? >> Aye.
>> Aye. >> Adjourned.