Good evening. You're attending a session of the Jacksonville Beach Board of Adjustments. 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 agent that wishes to speak will need to fill out a speaker card located at the side table by the door and turn them into the clerk. Each member of the public will be given three minutes to speak on each item. Please
refrain from speaking from the audience. Applause or cheering will not be allowed. Please silence your cell phones. >> Can we have a roll call, please? >> Douglas D >> here. >> Owen Curley >> here. >> Jeff Trar >> here. >> Matt Matts >> here. Karen Dardy, Gary Hockett
>> here, >> Victor Malone >> here. >> Okay. U everybody's had a chance to review the uh minutes from May 19th. Uh if you have, uh could I have a motion to adopt them, please? >> I make a motion to adopt the board
adjustment meeting minutes held May 19th, 2026. >> Second. >> Okay. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor? >> I oppose. >> Okay. Uh the meeting minutes have been uh accepted. Uh we don't have any
correspondence. Is that correct? >> No correspondence. >> No, I guess not. No old business, just new business. Can we call the first case, please? >> Board calls case number BOA 26-100031.
Property address 610 South 6th Avenue. Motion to consider sections 34-611 echo1 Charlie1 for accessory structure setback of zero feet in low of 5T 34-611 echo1 echo for maximum lot coverage for primary structure and required driveway
at 47% in move of 35% to allow for an unpermanented wood deck at an existing single family home. >> Okay. As a reminder, each member of the public will be given three minutes to speak when we open the public hearing. Does any board member have any expporte communication? I've had none.
>> I've had none. I've had none. >> I've had none. >> I've had none. >> Okay. And I've had none. Would the applicant please come forward to be sworn in and give their presentation? >> Could you just turn the mic on by pushing the red button? Thank you. Please raise your right hand, state your
name and address. >> Uh Dakota Briggs, uh 610 6 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 hope you go. >> I do. Thank you. Um, I'm here to uh first It says
accessory structure on here. It's a It's a deck. Yes, it is unpermitted. I didn't realize that we needed a permit for a deck um around the pool. Um it does go to the rear property line. It's about half a foot off. From what I could read
in the regulations, a deck or a walkway needs to be two foot off um the property line on either side. request that uh you allow it to stay the way it is. Um again, it is currently built without a permit. Um we will pull a permit. We
have pictures of everything if you guys need it. Um [snorts] that being said, also uh we are overus. We do have a variance on this lot for 41.6%. Um we when we were doing the during the
construction we misunderstood uh downtown or uh permitting allowing us to do the driveway as a full driveway instead of ribbons as it was uh permitted because the uh codes had changed while or after we had began the
permit process. Um so we again misunderstood um and pour the driveway fully which put us over our our variance. Um [snorts] we request to see if we can get that adjusted so that we can continue.
>> Okay. Does uh any board member have any questions for the applicant? Did you have an opportunity to review the materials provided in advance of the meeting and and staff's recommendation and notes around uh recommending the denial based on the request not meeting
the minimum reasonable use of the property and the work not being permanent? Do you have any statements that you'd like to make in response to that recommendation? >> Um, no sir. I did not review any uh documents on it that you guys may have suggested.
Okay. It was um it was published to the public. It's what's what's made available in in the public record uh in advance of the meeting. But in short, the staff says that the requested variance doesn't meet the minimum variance necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property and the lot is currently configured with the
variances previously granted is capable of accommodating the necessary structure uh within the ex the new land development code. So, the staff had had recommended it done and I was just uh interested to hear if you had any any other statements beyond your initial
representation you wanted to make to address that. >> Oh, sorry. >> I do have a question. There's a there's a statement in the staff notes that says the nonconforming lot condition is self-imposed. as it resulted from the applicant's decision to subdivide the
previously combined parcels and sub subsequently construct improvements on the site. Were you the owner that did that? >> Uh these are both lots of record. We didn't uh divide the lot itself. It's a lot six and lot seven. >> I'm going to ask that same question a
little bit differently. Did you purchase the lot when it was a single >> residence tear down and then elect to use the two uh county identified lots to build separate structures? >> Uh we bought it as one re number. Yes, sir. Uh there was no structure to tear
down. It's vacant lot. >> Okay. The house is built. The pool deck you're saying is built? >> Yes, sir. Um again, this was this was on me actually. I didn't realize that I needed a deck permit. uh to put around the pool because of to keep us in our
pvious that we would have been, you just did a foot around the pool for coping. Um so yes sir, we did build the deck. It was impervious or it was pvious. So we I assumed that it would not be um a problem. I didn't realize the code said
that you had to be two foot off for a walkway of the property line. >> How was the house structure? >> Excuse me. How when did you build the house? >> Uh we just finished it. Um probably >> just finished the house. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay.
>> At that point, I'm sure you're aware of the lot coverage at that point, correct? >> Yes, sir. >> And again, we went over because of the driveway being a full instead of ribbons on our initial permit for the house, it was ribbons and we were within it. Um,
again, it was uh misunderstood or I misunderstood the the the downtown when they said that we support uh solid because of the new code being not allowing ribbons in check speech anymore
because the code changed during our building. [snorts] So the permit was closed on the house and then you started the pool or is this all continual project? I was just trying to understand that >> No, we uh I would say about halfway into the build we uh applied for a pool
permit >> for the pool. >> Yes, sir. It was separate. So pool was built without the final approval from >> the pool was permitted. As part of the pool permit, you had to get a survey showing an asbuilt. During the asbuilt
survey review by the city, they realized there was a deck that wasn't permitted. >> Thank you for >> that wasn't that's in the staff notes worded a little bit differently. That that's my understanding on the timeline. Was it was the deck in the original plan? Did you submit it for the pool?
>> No, sir. It was just the coping around it. Again, we we called um somebody from the city and they said that because it was pvious that it wouldn't be an issue. Again, not recalling the city to make sure I needed a permit is definitely on me. Um and then we we just built it on
hearsay. We we should have got it in writing. >> From the coping to the to the property line, how many feet is it? >> Uh five foot. >> Just five foot. Yes, sir. Any other questions?
>> Okay, sir. You can step back, please. >> Okay, I will now open the public hearing. Do we have any speakers cards? >> We have none. >> Okay. Uh, is there anyone in the audience who's not filled out a speaker card? Okay. Now, 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 26-100031 based on the substantial competent evidence presented in the staff report 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. >> Second. >> Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? I think we've got a couple of things going on here. One, the lot as uh acquired by the applicant uh was not
undersized. So, the the statement of uh the hardship being an undersized lot at 5,000 square feet versus the 6,000 outlined in the code is uh self-imposed. Second, we have a previous application and variance to make minimum reasonable
use of the lot uh that was approved and then a reach beyond that. Um, so this is this reads as a ask uh forgiveness not permission situation. And then lastly, I'll highlight uh staff's recommendation that uh it's the the
interpretation from staff that there's a reasonable use that can be made uh from this property with some adjustments to how uh the coverage has been achieved to stay within the the previous variance of lot coverage. So for all those reasons, I I don't think this meets the five
criteria that we need to judge by. >> I I would just add that with the adoption of the new land development code, um it's no longer a situation where um someone can subdivide their lot and then claim that the lot is undersized.
The the code specifically addresses that and it it does not allow for that argument to escape. um that it's it's the applicant's uh hand that that caused the the hardship.
Um I would just point that out. Sorry, anybody else? Just the fundamental pushing of the deck right property lines overall the challenge pushing that much herby service right to a property line with the deck especially. Yeah. Agree.
>> Okay. Can we have a roll call vote please? Douglas Stell, >> no. >> Jeff Trullard, >> sorry. No vote is denied. No. >> Matt Mets, >> no. >> Gary Hocket, >> no. >> Owen Curley,
>> no. >> Okay. Uh, your request for variance has been denied. Can we call the next case, which is the next lot? >> The board calls case number BOE 26-100032. Property address 592 South 6th Avenue.
Motion to consider section 34-611 echo1 Charlie 1 for accessory structure setback of zero feet move five 34-611 echo1 echo for maximum lot coverage for primary structure and required driveway of 47% move 35% to allow for unpermitted
wood deck at an existing family home. >> Okay. Each as a reminder each member of the public will be given three minutes to speak when we open the public hearing. Does any board member have any exparte communication? I've >> heard none. >> Had none. I've had none. >> I've had none. >> I've had none. >> And I've had none. Would the applicant
please come forward to be sworn in and give their presentation. >> Please raise your right hand, state your name and address. >> Dakota Briggs, 5926 Avenue South. >> Do you swear in front that the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So be >> I do. >> Thank you.
>> Uh on this one, I actually have an old uh variance permit uh VA 06-100059. I have 52% law coverage in low 35. So, I shouldn't actually need a a variance on
this one. Uh, this was found out through uh after I applied for the variance. >> In that case, do you want to defer to a future hearing so that you can confirm that with the city because based on our record? >> No. Yes. Lot six was approved for that variance. Uh, but he still needs a
variance for that. >> Yes, sir. So, he's probably he's um able to keep the driveway on this one, but the other one um he has but he has to still address the decking issue in the back >> which is pretty much the same as the other one. It's just
>> too close to the property line back deck. And to current confirm, is it five foot off the property line for a deck or is it two foot? >> Five foot for the decking, but the walkway like you're saying is two foot. If it's a walkway, like a little path,
that's two foot. But the decking itself has to be 5t from the line. But you're allowed to be close to the primary structure. But the property lines have to be 5t away. >> But the deck is the walkway around the pool. Is that not considered a walkway?
>> Yes, but the back side of the decking is not the walkway though. the individual walkway. If it was an individual walkway, then it would be two feet. But that's presented as a whole deck around the pool. >> Okay. >> Okay. Any anything else you want to say
in the report? >> I I don't believe that that's a I mean, it's a walkway around your pool. I I don't understand how I I'm I'm fully aware that I if this is approved as a walkway that I'll cut the make sure it's two foot off the property line, but it
is a walkway around the swimming pool. I mean, it's a deck handle walkway, but it's still to walk around the pool. Um that's all >> Does anybody have any questions for the applicant? >> Okay, sir. You can step back. Thank you. >> Uh, I will now open the public hearing.
Do we have any speakers cards? >> I have not. >> Is there anyone in the audience who has not filled out a speaker card? >> No. >> 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
26-100032 based on the substantial competent evidence presented in the staff report and all relevant testimony presented at the 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? >> So just my understanding this this block was approved for 50% the other one wasn't. But that's so that our question now is just the deck, >> right? Then you would have to go through
review to make sure that the point. So the question interpretation is a deck or a walkway to mean >> it's the same thing as the other one too. Then we have to interpret all the we have to look at the same way we looked at the other one because exact same thing. >> What's a walkway though? >> A walkway would be Yeah. Be concrete
would be a path. That's how we would describe a walkway. Yeah. A path path. This is like a decking around the pool. It's a little bit more than coping. >> Okay. >> All right. Anybody have any questions or discussion based on that? Just if if
paying how he vote it goes back through the lockers and they'll reapply whatever. So trying to let the applicant here a little bit. So he describes not the issue. He's got work on the back solution. >> My understanding is that the the last variant that was Yeah. that variant
stays. Yeah. So, it was approved. Yeah, it's approved. >> So, do we want to amend this such that we're only addressing the setback since there's no request for 47% instead of 35%.
>> That's feel free get across, you know, so he has one of them post come back and reapply >> unnecessarily. or would he have to reapply for that if it's not required if he's approved already? Is
this a new question of amending? >> Well, if we rule on the new variance, then we run the risk of changing his approved variance. So, what we probably should do is amend
it to remove the lock cover >> locks from the current motion. Does that make sense what we're saying? >> So you're basically saying you're making a vote based upon the decking and not
the um clock coverage pretty much, >> right? Yes. So we have to remove the uh So the So right now the motion is to approve the variance. The variance is for lot coverage and decking. We're going to remove the lock coverage issue. So I just need a motion to amend
just we don't know whether that with decking. >> It's mainly the the driveway that's that's making him over does not really count >> current. Yeah, it's just the it's just the um the setbacks from the deck.
>> Just >> I make a motion to amend the previous motion to remove the request for 47% in L of 35% and only vote to approve uh the accessory structure setback of zero feet
in L of 5t. Second. >> Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Any discussion on that amended motion? Okay. Can we have a vote on the amended motion? We're amending the motion now. So, uh, we're removing the lot coverage
and just addressing the issue of, uh, the setbacks. >> Jeff Trul. >> So, I guess moves it to the >> Yeah. >> Matt Matt. >> Yes. >> Douglas Dell. >> Yes. >> Gary Hockett.
>> Yes. >> Owen Curley. Yes. Okay. So, now we have the amended motion which simply addresses the setbacks. Uh any discussion on that?
>> I think it it meets uh the same issue from staff recommendation that this is imposed by the applicant and there are ways to address it within the existing code. So, I don't think it meets the five criteria that we judge by. >> Anyone else?
Okay. Can we have a roll call vote on the amended motion now, please? >> Jeff Trillard, >> no. >> Matt Matz, >> no. >> Douglas Dell, >> no. >> Gary Hawket, >> no. >> Owen Curley, >> no. Your request for variance has been
denied. >> Okay. Uh, next up is our planning department report. >> Um, next meeting will be June 16th and we have four cases. Okay. Uh, now courtesy of the Florida
visitors. No one. Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> I moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Opposed?