The most notable issue of the meeting was the proposed paddle tennis facility, which promises to bring a new recreational option to North Florida. The applicant outlined plans for a modern facility with vibrant colors, suitable for both recreational and social activities, with 17 designated parking spots. The board’s discussion centered on whether the parking provisions were adequate, considering the property’s current usage and the anticipated influx of visitors to the facility.

In presenting the proposal, the applicant underscored their readiness to meet off-street parking standards and discussed targeting local businesses, apartments, hotels, and Airbnb rentals to supplement parking needs. The board examined precedents from other counties for similar facilities and debated the parking requirements extensively. Concerns were raised about the adequacy of the existing parking spaces and the standards for parking applicable to all businesses in the area.

A representative from a local business, represented by a law firm, voiced objections to the paddle tennis facility’s request, pointing out potential incompatibility with the commercial services district and inadequacies in the parking plan. The representative also brought to light the absence of specific standards for paddle tennis or pickleball in the Jacksonville Beach land development code, questioning the variance application’s adherence to the established criteria.

Residents also weighed in on the discussion, with one expressing concern about the availability of parking for individuals with disabilities. Objections from a property owner and a business representative further highlighted the perceived inadequacy of parking for the proposed facility. Responding to these objections, the applicant reiterated the zoning classification of the facility as a fitness center and offered to develop additional off-street parking spaces to mitigate potential parking overflow.

The debate culminated in a vote on a motion to deny the variance for the paddle tennis facility, which failed. Subsequently, a motion to approve the variance with the condition of developing off-street parking was also debated. The board ultimately passed the motion, allowing the facility to proceed with the condition that additional parking be created.

Aside from the paddle tennis facility, the board addressed residential property modifications. The first case involved a variance request for a two-story addition to a single-family dwelling on North 7th Avenue. The applicant, Christopher Mar, sought relief from the combined side setback, lot coverage, and rear setback requirements due to the lot’s undersized nature. Neighbors voiced concerns about privacy and the size of the proposed addition, but the board ultimately approved the variance, recognizing the hardship posed by the lot size and the reasonableness of the request.

Another residential issue concerned the replacement of an existing concrete driveway with permeable pavers at 1915 9th Street. The variance sought to reduce lot coverage from 57% to 50% for the installation of a straight driveway and a small walkway. Despite concerns about the significant concrete coverage on the property, the board approved the request, acknowledging the applicant’s intention to address the lot coverage issue with permeable pavers.