Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants multiple setback variances for new lot configuration despite dissent
Summary
The Board of Adjustments approved setback variances for Greg Barnett’s proposed Lot B at 2732nd Avenue South (front yard 16 feet, side yards 7.5 feet, rear 25 feet), with one member voting against the request citing that the applicant created the condition by subdividing lots.
The Jacksonville Beach Board of Adjustments approved a set of variances for a proposed Lot B in a multi-lot division presented by applicant Greg Barnett. The requested relief included a front-yard setback of 16 feet in lieu of 25 feet, side-yard setbacks of 7.5 feet in lieu of 10 feet on both east and west sides, and a rear-yard setback of 25 feet in lieu of 30 feet.
Greg Barnett described the property acquisition and subdivision, saying, “we have bought lot 5, lot 6, and 37 and a half feet of lot 7,” and explained the requested setbacks are intended to align the new lot with neighboring house frontages. Barnett and his representative said they had spoken with nearby property owners and reported no opposition from neighbors they contacted.
Board discussion focused on whether the lot qualifies as an undersized or unusual parcel deserving variance relief. One board member said the magnitude of the requested front-yard reduction was “substantially lower than what we've seen from many other requests” and argued the applicant “knowingly bought those 3 lots and knowingly is trying to build on 1 of the 3,” calling the situation a creation of the applicant. Other board members noted the lot of record status and the existing neighborhood pattern as factors supporting relief.
A motion to approve BOA 24-10088 was made and seconded. The roll-call vote was 4–1 in favor: Matt Metz — no; John Moreland — yes; Jennifer Williams — yes; Laura Tierney — yes; Owen Curley — yes. The board secretary announced the variance request approved.
No public speakers were recorded on the item. The transcript shows the board debated the extent of exceptions requested and whether they were minor; one member strongly objected to the scale of the variances and characterized them as more than minor deviations from the land development code.
