The meeting commenced with the board addressing a variance request for a swimming pool on Ocean Drive, represented by Paul Curtis from Epic Pools. The proposal sought to adjust the westerly and northerly accessory structure setbacks to 4 feet and 4.1 feet, respectively, deviating from the required 5 feet. Curtis explained the necessity of these adjustments due to the unique positioning of the corner lot, influenced by the coastal construction line. This situation forced the existing two-story home to be set back further than usual, impacting the pool’s proposed location.

Concerns were raised by a board member about a previous variance approved in 2021, which had permitted a closer rear setback of 14.5 feet, compared to the standard 30 feet. This variance also allowed for a swimming pool to be placed as close as 1.5 feet to the main structure. The board member questioned the fate of the pool associated with that earlier variance and expressed apprehension that the current request might not align with the original variance’s intent. Curtis clarified that the current proposal did not utilize the existing 1.5-foot variance but sought to maintain a 5-foot distance from the covered patio.

Further discussions explored the possibility of rescinding or altering the existing variance, emphasizing the importance of ensuring that the new pool would not infringe upon neighboring property lines or violate land development codes. Although no public comments were made during the hearing, the board deliberated before a motion was made to approve the variance request. An amendment was added to condition the approval, mandating the pool to maintain the 5-foot distance from the primary structure. This amendment was accepted, and the motion, as amended, passed with a roll call vote.

The board then turned its attention to a second case involving a property on North 3rd Avenue. Greg Barnett, the contract purchaser, presented a proposal for a new commercial building, emphasizing its design to optimize parking in light of the city’s parking challenges. However, the plan included a one-foot landscape buffer on the western side, which fell short of the required five-foot buffer. Barnett suggested relocating this buffer into the city right-of-way, with plans to coordinate with public works to ensure compliance.

The staff report recommended approval of the variance with conditions, particularly linking it to the proposed parking designs. This linkage would require a revisit for any future alterations demanding additional parking. Barnett expressed satisfaction with these conditions and confirmed that any increase in building size or parking requirements would necessitate a return to the board for a new variance.

Detailed discussions ensued regarding the building’s layout and parking arrangements, with Barnett explaining the dimensions and configuration. The visual presentation included a diagram delineating green spaces for grass and potential landscaping, alongside a proposed easement for additional landscaping maintained by business owners. Barnett also suggested plans for additional public parking spaces on adjacent city land.

A member of the audience, Will Herbert William Mononttoya, expressed support for the project while stressing the need for beautification in Jacksonville Beach, particularly along Third Avenue North. Mononttoya criticized the current state of public parking, calling it an “embarrassment,” and expressed hope that the new project would enhance the area’s visual appeal.

In response to public concerns, the applicant assured that there would be no dirt parking and committed to high-quality landscaping and concrete parking surfaces. The applicant referenced recent renovations to their current office, which aimed to improve its appearance, aligning with the community’s aesthetic standards.

The board concluded the public hearing and returned to deliberation. A motion to approve the variance application was made and seconded, with an amendment tying the variance to the specific parking designs and the acquisition of an encroachment permit for landscaping. The board unanimously approved the amended motion, acknowledging the applicant’s efforts to address parking concerns and engage with public works on landscaping matters.