Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the After The Fact Accessory Structure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues after‑the‑fact shed case on Eldridge Avenue to allow owner to gather evidence and consider relocation
Summary
An after‑the‑fact variance (BOA25-0010) for a 192-square-foot shed at 3859 Eldridge Avenue was continued July 24 after staff recommended denial; the owner said the structure pre‑dated his purchase and the board gave him time to gather surveys, photos and potentially move the structure.
The Clay County Board of Adjustment continued BOA25-0010 on July 24, an after‑the‑fact variance request by Michael Meyer for an accessory structure placed within a side yard in an RB zoning district at 3859 Eldridge Avenue, Orange Park.
Jenny Bridal, Zoning Chief, said the application is an after‑the‑fact request resulting from a code-enforcement complaint. Bridal described the property as an RB zoning district lot of approximately 7,448 square feet with a two‑story home; parcel appraisal data in the packet showed a larger total square footage than the owner stated. Bridal said the applicant’s graphics indicate the shed is roughly 192 square feet and that, with the shed in place, the lot coverage exceeds the 30% maximum by about 90 square feet. Staff found the request inconsistent with the Land Development Code and recommended denial.
Applicant Michael Meyer said he bought the parcel in about 2017 and that the neighborhood’s subdivision history and shared-driveway family-compound layout contributed to irregular lot configurations. Meyer said the shed had been on the property when he purchased it, that he had removed it briefly to accommodate a sale and later returned it with permission from the adjacent owner, and that he believed earlier heirs‑exemption development contributed to the current layout. Meyer told the board he can move the shed and provided a plan showing relocation to 7.5 feet off the line; he said the neighbors had permitted the shed’s placement in prior interactions.
Board members and staff reviewed appraisal photographs and a survey from the code-enforcement file; aerial images reviewed in the meeting suggested the shed may not appear in some historical imagery. Members expressed sympathy for Meyer’s situation but noted code criteria and that the structure put the parcel over the 30% coverage limit. A motion to continue the case passed; the board instructed Meyer to work with staff to assemble additional evidence (surveys, sale listing photos), consider relocating the structure to meet setback requirements, and, if necessary, apply for a variance limited to the additional coverage. The continuance gives Meyer time to provide documentation and possibly revise the application.
