Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setbacks Nonconforming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CDB denies variance to expand nonconforming structure at 329th Street
Summary
The Atlantic Beach Community Development Board denied a trio of variances for a proposed garage, covered steps and second-story over a pool house at 329th Street, finding the application did not meet the legal grounds for hardship under section 24‑65(c).
The Atlantic Beach Community Development Board voted to deny ZVAR25‑0020, an applicant request to expand a nonconforming structure at 329th Street, after staff and members said the application failed to show the legal grounds for a variance.
Amanda, a city staff member presenting the item, said the project would link a proposed garage to an existing pool house and add a second story, which converts the pool house into part of the primary structure and triggers a 20‑foot rear setback. Amanda summarized the three variance requests: permission to expand a legal nonconforming structure; reduction of the rear-yard setback from 20 feet to 4.7 feet for a second story over the existing pool house footprint; and reduction of side-yard setbacks from the code minimums (combined 15 feet with at least 5 feet each side) down to 3 feet on one side and a combined 10.5 feet.
Applicant Debbie Roberts said the work largely follows existing footprints and argued the second story is reasonable "to go with the grandfathered setback." Architect Roger Russell corrected a staff figure, saying the new garage would be about 5.17 feet from the westerly property line and meets the standard setback, but clarified the requested variance applies to the vertical continuation over the pool house.
Neighbors, including Alan S., told the board the lot size and existing buildable area mean the application did not show exceptional circumstances warranting a variance. Alan noted the lot survey shows 75 by 130 dimensions and urged denial on the grounds that leveraging a nonconforming building is not a legitimate hardship. Board members Richard and Jeff questioned which of the statutory grounds in section 24‑65(c) applied.
Board member Jeff moved to deny ZVAR25‑0020 on the basis that none of the statutory grounds apply; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote. The board recorded the motion as carried and the variances were denied.
The applicant may pursue an appeal to the city commission or revise plans to meet current setbacks.
