##VIDEO ID:99BUMGE2w5U## okay good evening you are attending a session of the board of adjustments for Jacksonville Beach the board of adjustment meetings are Quasi judicial in nature all decisions of the board will be based on confident 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 on the side table by the door and turn them into the clerk each member of the public be given three minutes to speak on each item please refrain from speaking from the audience and Applause Shing will not be allowed please silence your C okay can we have a roll call please John Mor here Owen curlyy here Jeff TR Jennifer Williams here Matt Mets here Laura T here okay there are no uh minutes to approve uh do we have any correspondence no correspondence no correspond okay uh no old business so can we call our first new business please call case number bo4 I thought I got sorry case number bo8 24-100 z85 applicant Robin and Johnny cotton property address 823rd Avenue North motion to consider section 34- 337 e1e for 52% loot coverage in L of 35% maximum 34- 337 E1 C2 for Combined side yard setback of 14.9 ft and L of 15 ft minimum 34- 337 e1d for no garage or carport in Li of a required garage for carport 34-33 377 for no required parking spaces in L of two spaces required for construction of an addition to primary and to rectify existing non-conform okay as a reminder each member of the public will be given three minutes to speak we open the public hearing does any board member have any expart communication I've had none none none none and I've had none the applicant please come forward to be sworn in and give their presentation please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you out I do please St your name and address my name is Jill cner and I live at p8 Laura L Street NEP Beach Florida 32266 basically our clients the cotton are living here in Jacksonville Beach and have enjoyed their home here they have been out of compliance since they changed the lot average from 6,000 to 7500 Square ft just with all existing structures this is a older couple that are retired they uh the wife's uh father who just turned 100 years old is out in Texas they're trying to create a space for him so he'll have a place in their home so we're looking for this variance to uh 52.2% I think think is going to be the loot coverage once the 11 by8 room is constructed and that's our request we understood this to be a hardship since it already was nonconforming okay is uh any member of the board have questions just want to make sure I'm understanding uh based off of the you sh just the part that's highlighted in red would be the addition all of the brick papers that are here everything that's correct and you notice that the addition is even within the existing footprint of the building so it's not that we're even pushing outside of that footprint and encroaching that much more was there any consideration of removing any of those favers to get closer to the uh lock coverage that's outlined in the LDC or replacing favers with something that might be permeable to help with the drainage in the area do you know what I can't respond to that that hasn't been a point of conversation however I can tell you that determining the location of the room had to do with ADA compliance and needs of Mobility for the 100y old dad that she's caring for so thank you absolutely do You Know spoken to the neighbors actually we did a renovation uh on their rear facing neighbors and so they actually went a little higher and did a little different and that was their inspiration to uh there could be hope in getting a room for their dad I me have the neighbors come in have they spoken to the neighbors about yes they have and actually what they were originally going to do what we had started investigating was doing an addition there is an accessory building it's a CMU block garage going ahead and adding a second story to that and then converting that into another space for their visitors to come into town but then there was a turn in care for the elderly father so that knocked that out and everybody was on board they're great members of the community I appreciate that my question is did the applicant speak to to the neighbors and if so what were their reactions to this mari's request they very excited for them okay thank you absolutely question I I had a quick question just a clarification I saw in there that it it was already at 49% um is that correct and but that had not been previously approved by the board it was conforming when it was constructed the age of construction I think it was built in the 50s okay so ordinance has changed that I think there's two things one is that our code actually prohibits us from using physical status health concerns and so on as a legitimate reason for an exception um but this does seem to me to be reasonable it's substained lot and a standard lot we would be at only 45% lot coverage as opposed to 52% lot coverage uh but I think currently uh it's 35% correct that's that's the maximum L yeah okay okay any other questions okay ma'am you can set back thank you very much and I will now open the public hearing do we have any speakers cards is there any member of the audience who not F out a speaker card that wishes to speak seeing none I will now close the public hearing and bring the item back in the board for discussion is there a motion I move to approve boa 24-1 000085 based on the standards for aarian as found in section 34286 of development codes second okay so we move to Second any discussion it seems like minimal variance that required I mean considering what it's already at currently at 49% yeah I think what what stands out to me is the amount of pavers between the two existing structures and on the back uh of the garage structure it's it's definitely an undersized lot it looks has a very conservative driveway limited P to to walk path but as we look at what this would look like even if it was a conforming lot it would still far exceed the 35% and I'm not clear on whether or not due diligence was was done in considering what alternative measures could be taken to restrict this to the the minimum necessary to achieve their their use a fully appreciating this situation that they're in and seconding we repeating uh what what the board has already stated that we're we're not um in a position to consider individual criteria as much as the lot itself is the only the only thing we allow to consider at the board definitely appreciate the situation the is facing okay any other comments okay uh can we go ahead and have aoll John yes Jennifer Williams yes Matt M no Lauren tny yes ow Carly yes your request for variance has been approved thank you very much for your time consideration we call the next yes call boa 24-1 z86 applicant Adam wolf property address 10138 avue North motion to consider section sections 34- 337 e1e for 42% lot coverage and L A 35% maximum for construction of swimming pool with decking in conjunction with a single family home okay uh just a reminder each member of the public will be given 3 minutes to speak when we open the public hearing does any board member have any expart communication I've had none none I've none I've had none and I have had none the applicant has come forward can you please be scor in and present your testimony please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth the whole truth and nothing with the truth to help you go I do please state your name and address Adam wall 1013 8th Avenue North Jack Beach sir yes I'm um looking to have a variance um recently new to Jack Beach from Atlantic Beach purchased the house uh this summer um we were at 40% looking to move that to 42% we have very um weird lot you know I know that's not uh you know shop talk for it's a a very different lot we were told by the um Fire Marshall that we had to have more driveway because of the size of our lot and where we were um fixated and so we're looking to move that from 40% 42% okay does anybody have any questions for the out my question is more curiosity yes sir I'm not sure I property and was initially I went to 1013 Avenue North M and was not a number I think 11 to 15 so Street no we're having we're having the same issue with a lot of folks it's a brand new property took they took I think it was 20 1021 8th Avenue in the Builder it was a l-shape with a alley and we had he took it and subdivided it built um two homes on it and we had one of them and that's our was a brand new address is uh 1013 okay yes sir can we scroll up on the presentation to the satellite image and maybe can I was strugling to loc as well can you help us yeah see where the see where the alley is the z00 between 15 17 that's our new driveway and where 1021 is that is 1013 oh yeah so we took we we took the entire alley and then we have that um that lot there so you have no Road Frontage you're kind of tucked in the middle of we have Road Frontage on 8th Avenue and 9th Avenue so have if I had the clicker see nth Avenue KAC is that's our entrance basically what was that easement has your your driveway and that's the only Road front you correct yes so the so the house is here and then here's the eth Avenue the mailbox here the add the driveway there then we have a driveway to night that as well and this lot here one whole lot yeah had 21 that's what and the Builder subdivided it to where 21 stayed and this is brand new yeah just crazy but oh but the Privacy you must have privacy yeah that's the tradeoff I'll take that over uh the delivery is messing up so does anybody have any questions to the out any other questions haveone is your driveway run both directions the driveway to North and a driveway to eth or is it only to how did that e and north eth and eth and nth yeah so we had so originally the plan was to run it from 8 to the house and then I was pull out a builder when we were building it that the the Fire Marshall said we to run it all the way to ninth for safety and if we didn't have to run it all the way to ninth we would have been within the variance you that extra driveway up to 9th is what consumed your lot coverage correct we probably have one of the largest longest driveways in Jack have you spoken to your neighbors um yes and what was their reaction no problems at all they were very happy when we came in there um because we we put bra fencing up for everybody surrounding our property so okay sir if there's no other questions you can step back okay thank you I will now open the uh public hearing do we have any speaker cards okay is there anyone in the audience who has not yet pulled out a speaker card that wishes to speak seeing none I will now close the public hearing and bring the item back to board for discussion is there a motion I make a motion to approve boa 24-100 z86 based on the testimony and evidence provided the request has met all the standards for Varian as that winded 34286 Land Development okay so mov in second it a discussion it's an undersized LW it's clearly oddly shaped as well as the stated uh constraints around fire code which is what has pushed them over uh the coverage limit outlined in the code I think it's also worth stating that if it was a regular lot even with this ask the relative coverage be 39 and and some change so still not an overreach part of this is is requesting a pool which as we know water goes into a pool like if drainage is an issue if anything is sort of as a water capture that's not really a consideration for the Land Development code uh but I think the the awkward shape of the lot and the special circumstance for for meeting fire Cod is clear um unique circumstance to make this a minimum viable use of property we'll state it anyone else okay see no further discussion do we have a roll call vote please Jennifer Williams yes Matt NS yes John morand yes Laura tierne yes Owen curlyy yes your request for VAR is appr thank you very much okay uh so next on our uh our uh docket is uh 87 and 88 we have a memo that those are being withdrawn 87 is with 88 okay um do we have to vote on it being 87 being all right I call case number bo8 24-100 0088 applicant Greg Barnett property address 27 32nd Avenue South proposed Lot B motion to consider sections 34- 336 E1 C1 for a front yard setback of 16 ft and L of 25 ft minimum 34- 336 E1 C2 for a side yard setbacks of 7 and 1/2 ft and L of 10 ft minimum for both east and west side yard 34 dish E1 C3 for rear yard setback of 25 ft and L of 30 ft minimum we're going to postpone the decision on the area Okay uh just a reminder each member of the public will be given three minutes to speak when we open the hearing does any board member have any expart communication none none none none and I've had none uh the applicant is come forward uh please be sworn in to give your presentation please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth the whole truth and the truth so be go do please your name and address GRE Barnett 1280 Plantation Oaks Drive Jackson Beach okay sir go ahead so we are we have bought lot five lot 6 and 372 ft of lot s and we're postponing the first side of it so a is everything thank you um so we have a two sub or call it two sub Lot B is a substandard lot and um we are working to reduce the side yard setback from 20 down to 15 reduce the front to 16 because on the other lot that is the second Frontage because the lot is 81 ft 20% of that gives you 16 and we were trying to line up the back lot with the front lot house so that's the front yard setb back um and we were kind of trying to fit everything there um the loot coverage we're going to I guess we're postponing because it was written that right so that's right so yeah so we're only asking for the front yard rear yard and side yard sideb 30s okay does any M have any questions were you aware of the Land Development code when you purched as in the rewrite as in the existing code that you're asking for exceptions to yes have you talked to any of the neighbors uh yeah actually uh the lady to there's only two current houses on thank you uh 3115 um I'm actually friends with the fiance um and they have no opposition Chuck horn is the fiance he's also a local Builder he has pulled the lay development variance request and he has talked to his fiance and basically said that you know we're not asking for an exorbitant amount um there's a lady across the street we've spoken to them um I have not spoken to anyone on the ocean and uh any adverse reaction to your uh to what you proposed no no and primarily there's not many if you go back to the the the geomap right on 31st there's three lots and on 32nd there's two lots so we're just you know we're just put three lots in right yeah okay any other questions okay sir step back uh I will now open the public hearing do we have any speaker stes okay is there anyone in the audience who wishes do as not fill out speaker card that wishes to speak seeing none I will now close the public hearing and bring the item back to the board for discussion or for bring the item back to the board for discussion is there a motion I make a motion to approve boa 24-100 z88 based on testimony and evidence provided the request has met all the standards for variance as outlined in section 34286 of the Land Development code second case moved in second it any discussion I I Feel Like These are pretty substantial exceptions on each section of the law particularly 16t from the front uh is is substantially lower than what we've seen from many other requests it does look like uh from the from the map's View at least it may not be um exceptional on this block given the neighboring property is facing a different direction to a different street um and that would be their side yard so it may fall in company relatively well but from front yard setback it's pretty low relative to what we've seen even in exceptions um I find it hard to to think of this lot as an undersized lot um given its existing coverage and the knowledge of the impact of dividing the lot I recognize the applicant does not do that division those are prepiloted but going into this knowing an entire lot dividing it and then claiming you don't have enough space to me is a creation of the applicant um and then these are this isn't a lot that based on what's being requested here is minor exceptions minor alterations these are significant um misses from what the Land Development code requires from setback so at large technically he's not really causing it because it's already a lot of record these are actually like three and a half Lots right five six seven you discussed at length with the i acknowled that in my statement that the city does the plots yeah but he knowingly bought those three lots and knowingly is trying to build on one of the three I'm just stating that into the record that that is not a situation where somebody that owned the lot divided it in three and sold it in three separate parts I think that's a a different circumstance but I acknowledge that he did not create the Lots Dimensions but what is being requested here are exceptional uh minimums relative to what we've approved in other variances is what what I'm stating particularly the front yard set back of 16 my understanding that when it comes to subdividing lots that you just go down to the tax collector and subdivide the lot there the city jackon has no control yeah I mean I'm saying technically these already exist as what they are somebody just decided to build on them so he's allowed to like put them back to their original fit so that's what I'm trying to get that he's putting it back to the what it was originally at so that's technically not really causing a problem and what I'm getting at is he's allowed to build in it within the LDC and the LDC says he can't do this and so we're here to talk about exception and whether there's cause for exception but I'm just stating into the record that he knew knew what he was doing when he did this and if we bring an exception rent one but it to me the distance being requested is above and beyond what we've seen in other exceptions and I just want that like I'm saying since it's a lot of record and he's putting it back to the original it causes a hardship because now it's uniz lot since it's back to this original form right okay uh any other discussion on this okay uh no further discussion can we have a roll call vote Matt Mets no John Morin yes Jennifer Williams yes La your name yes oh and Carly yes your request for variance has been approved okay so uh now we're at I call case number boa 24-10 089 applicant Sal air homes Inc property address 419 Avenue North Lot 10 motion to consider section 34-33 A e1f for 33% lot coverage in L of 35% for construction of a single family dwelling okay uh as a reminder each member of the public will be given three minutes to speak when we open the public hearing uh does any board member have any exp communication I've had none none I've had none I've had none and I've had none with the applic forward to be sworn in and give their presentation we have any yeah don't are you guys the owners no we're the neighbors we wanted to see what was going on disappointed what should we do we do you have a picture of it can you put the picture they don't have a picture what it's going to be that's just but it's going to be single family yeah two single two single they tied together is is also you can access all of this documentation on the city website in the agenda minutes you can get a copy of the PDF where you'll be able to see the full staff notes as well as these images okay and so if it does get deferred and you want to get up to speed you can thank you it'll show you it has a plat of the existing building and then it'll have a plat showing what they intend to to put on it so you can you can take a look thank you and American Classic Homes is the owner at this point um do you guys know what the pink ribbons around trees mean and the green ribbons around trees pink means um tree removal perent Green I don't know but the pink means tree REM cuz I'm one does this okay I think green stays green stays probably yeah yeah I think so but pink for sure is a removal is a removal okay okay so do we have a motion to postpone this when do you want us to postp February February 4th both of them oh that's right make a motion to postpone boa 24-1 z89 and boa 24-19 to our next meeting on February 4th 2025 second okay so move and second can we have a roll call vote John R yes will yes Matt yes laury yes ow Curley yes okay uh those have been postponed and that's okay um planning department report um the first reading of the LC report will be on February 3rd Monday February 3rd um and the drafts online right now so if you want to go read online read it we'll also have a um Workshop January 13th so you guys want before then come to the workshop we'll discuss everything that we're going to discuss on February and then our next meeting is on February 4th to discuss um uh 88 and then um the two at and so uh the 20 seconds off yeah what is the purpose of the workshop just informative yeah informative just every look at it before meeting and then the the two meetings in February the City Council meetings for approval the third and the 17th or 18th one of those 18 18th yeah third and 18th it'll be reviewed with city council at that time for comment okay uh my favorite part the courtesy of the floor visitors being n is there a motion to adjourn so move second okay so mooved in second all in favor oos okay that's not bad