Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multifamily Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies variances for 520/522 First Street South after neighbors raise density and setback concerns
Summary
A proposal to combine two lots at 520/522 First Street South and build a three‑unit multifamily structure was denied after neighbors and board members questioned whether the request represented a self‑imposed hardship and would harm the block’s character.
The Jacksonville Beach Board of Adjustments on May 20 denied a variance application for 520/522 First Street South asking for reduced front and rear setbacks, an accessory‑structure setback exception for a pool and driveway configuration exceptions to enable a new three‑unit multifamily building.
Applicant Josh Nussbaum said the two irregularly shaped lots together total roughly 6,250 square feet and that the code would allow three units by density if variances were granted. He described efforts to configure parking and unit access: one unit would use First Street access and two units would use the alley. He also requested permission to place a pool closer than 5 feet to the dwelling given lot constraints.
Neighbors and public commenters opposed the request. M. Louise Lansy and Alex Flores argued the lot is too small for three units, that multiple variances would harm the streetscape and that the applicant was pursuing maximum density rather than a minimum reasonable use. Flores said a two‑unit or single‑family solution was feasible without variances and characterized the plan as a self‑imposed hardship. Several emailed correspondences, filed with the record, echoed concerns about increased traffic, noise and precedent for future variances.
Board members focused on the variance criteria in the new land development code, particularly whether the hardship resulted from the applicant’s actions. One member said the property could support a lawful use without the requested relief and described the request as an applicant‑created hardship. After discussion the motion to approve failed on roll call and the variance request was denied.
The applicant may revise the plan or pursue alternate configurations that meet existing code requirements.
