Central to the meeting was the public hearing on the Durans’ application, during which Tom Richardson, a local resident, expressed his apprehension. Despite describing the applicants as “wonderful people,” Richardson emphasized the importance of preserving the area’s openness, which he associated with the quality of life in Jacksonville Beach. His concerns primarily revolved around possible obstructions to sightlines and increased water runoff impacting city systems. “We enjoy… a real sense of openness,” he noted.

Steve Williams, representing an adjacent property owner, presented further objections, particularly criticizing the proposed 5-foot side yard setback paired with the new home’s height. Williams argued that the reduction would cast significant shadows over his property and deemed the requested 55% lot coverage as excessive. He asserted that such a high coverage had never been approved in the RS1 zoning area, describing the proposal as “way over the top.” Williams also submitted a petition signed by eight neighbors urging the board to deny the application.

Other residents contributed to the dialogue through written correspondence. One letter highlighted inconsistencies in the application, noting conflicting figures of 55% and 48% for lot coverage and questioned why the proposed reduction in the westerly side yard setback was not mirrored on the eastern side. Another former neighbor raised concerns about potential flooding and standing water issues that could arise from the increased lot coverage, emphasizing the impact on sunlight and noise levels.

In response to these concerns, a representative for the Duran family explained their intention to construct a home that aligns with the neighborhood’s character, while also accommodating modern living needs. The representative clarified discrepancies in the lot coverage figures, stating that the 55% included a portion of pervious surfaces and that a permeable driveway could potentially reduce coverage to 48%. The design’s low roof slope and positioning were highlighted as efforts to minimize the impact on neighboring properties, described as a “step down considerably” from the maximum height permitted.

Amid the intense deliberations, the board discussed the necessity of meeting the 55% lot coverage requirement, particularly focusing on the calculations involving permeable surfaces. Questions arose about the proposed structure’s alignment and whether it extended beyond the existing home’s footprint. It was confirmed that the new building would align with the current layout, based on a recent survey.

Ultimately, the board motioned to approve the variance, citing that the proposal met the Land Development Code standards due to unique circumstances associated with the parcel. However, an amendment was proposed to cap the lot coverage at 48% and adjust the side yard setback requirements. A board member acknowledged the applicants’ compliance efforts, highlighting that the proposed reduction to 48% would keep the coverage within reasonable limits. The board also noted the lot’s undersized width as a factor necessitating maximization of the structure’s length. Following these discussions, the amended motion was approved, establishing a 48% lot coverage and a 10-foot side yard setback.

In other business, the board reviewed a variance request concerning an accessory structure setback for a new wood deck addition. The deck, designed to be pervious, was constructed to align with neighboring properties. Despite a neighbor expressing general annoyance, no specific objections were raised during the public hearing. Consequently, the board approved the variance request unanimously, citing minimal community opposition and the deck’s alignment with similar structures.