The central item of the meeting was case number B84D1036, which sought a variance to expand outdoor seating by 3,200 square feet and reduce parking spaces by six. The applicant emphasized that the property, part of a shopping center, had a lease agreement for 38 neighboring parking spaces.

During the hearing, the applicant’s attorney argued that the property’s peculiar circumstances had existed for decades, noting that the parking issues weren’t new. The attorney stated, “This property has been parked on for as long as I lived at the beach, which is coming up on 45 years,” stressing that the variance wouldn’t alter the lease’s status. However, board members and public commentators expressed concerns about the long-standing parking challenges and the potential precedent the variance could set.

Michael, an attorney representing neighboring tenants, objected to the variance, citing historical non-compliance with parking regulations by the applicant. He provided documentation of past denied variances to support his claims. The board members scrutinized the staff report, attempting to clarify the variance’s specifics and address potential miscommunications regarding the outdoor seating and parking spaces.

The public hearing allowed various stakeholders to voice their concerns. Joseph Pickles highlighted previous approvals for outdoor seating, which had become moot after World of Beer ceased operations. He pointed out the lack of ADA-compliant parking spaces and the proposed increase in lot coverage, which violated the Land Development Code. Expert engineer Brett Newerk underscored the discrepancy in parking ratios.

Randall Whitfield and Gabe Bowman criticized the applicant for creating their own hardship by not addressing existing parking deficiencies. Whitfield pointed out that the FDOT lease only allowed use of 13,000 square feet, insufficient for the proposed parking needs. Bowman questioned why the applicant could use FDOT right-of-way spaces when his company was denied similar accommodations. Ben Perry, also from H&H Enterprises, emphasized the temporary nature of the FDOT lease and its limitations, raising concerns about historical lease violations.

Michael Trainer argued that the building’s design and space utilization were deliberate choices by the owner, disqualifying them from variance consideration. He stressed that the lease’s terms restricted public access to the spaces, negatively impacting public parking.

City Attorney David Meg advised the Board on procedural aspects, suggesting they allow cross-examination of testimonies, though it wasn’t mandatory. The Board decided to adhere to their established procedures, which didn’t permit cross-examination but maintained public comment limits.

In rebuttal, the applicant’s representative clarified misconceptions, asserting that the variance was solely for utilizing adjacent leased parking spaces, not altering lot coverage. They argued that objections were driven by competitive motives, not genuine zoning concerns. The representative stated, “If you look at… the image, there’s 24 spaces on site; that’s enough for the current rights on the lot coverage,” emphasizing the staff report’s support for the application.

The discussion also addressed the lease’s implications and potential cancellation, affecting parking space use. The applicant maintained that the variance wouldn’t negatively impact parking availability and urged the Board to rely on staff findings.

Board members deliberated on the variance’s merits, considering public comments and procedural standards. Some members supported the variance with conditions tied to the lease agreement, while others expressed skepticism about the need for additional outdoor space given existing parking challenges. Ultimately, the motion to approve the variance, amended to include lease agreement conditions, was rejected.