Jacksonville Beach board denies variances to split 2007 S. First St. into two single‑family lots

The Jacksonville Beach Board of Adjustments on May 20 denied a request to subdivide 2007 South First Street back to two historic lots and to grant multiple variances for front, rear and lot‑coverage requirements.

The applicant’s agent, Michael Sitner, told the board the owner wants to subdivide an existing 5,200‑square‑foot parcel to its two historic lots and build two detached single‑family homes. “This is a variance application to provide for a lot split to 2 historic lots of record,” Sitner said, and he argued the proposed detached single‑family product would be “consistent with the immediate block and the surrounding blocks.”

The petition asked for a reduced front‑yard setback of 10 feet in lieu of 20 feet, reduced rear‑yard setbacks of 5 feet in lieu of 20 feet, and lot‑coverage variances (applicant cited requests for 70–71% where code limits range from 45%–60% depending on the code line cited). Sitner also told the board the existing parcel could be developed by right as a two‑unit multifamily building without variances but that the owner preferred two detached single‑family homes.

An online submission and a paper card recorded opposition from Janelle Wilson; one additional card was filed but that speaker did not appear. Sitner told the board staff recommended approval and that the requested setbacks were consistent with tight setbacks already present on the block: “the tight setbacks is actually really consistent in our actual block,” he said.

During discussion commissioners focused on whether the condition requiring variances was created by the applicant’s decision to split the lot. One board member said the central question is not what the applicant could build otherwise but whether the requested relief meets the variance standards under the new land development code. Several board members noted the lot could be used without variances — for example, as a duplex/multifamily development — and expressed concern the applicant’s proposed subdivision produced a self‑imposed hardship. The motion to approve the variances failed on a roll‑call vote: Jennifer Williams, Matt Metz, Douglas Listell and Owen Curley all voted no, and the request was denied.

The denial means the applicant may either revise the proposal, withdraw, or pursue other lawful options available under the city’s land development code.

The board moved on to other cases on the agenda after announcing the denial.