Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Variances topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Jacksonville Beach Board of Adjustments approves variances for four properties; limits two to initial structures

City of Jacksonville Beach Board of Adjustments · June 16, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Jacksonville Beach Board of Adjustments unanimously approved variances for four residential properties, including two adjacent lots at 123 South 30th Avenue where the board attached the approved variances to the initial structures built within the approved footprints. No members of the public spoke.

The City of Jacksonville Beach Board of Adjustments voted unanimously to grant variances for four properties at an evening hearing, approving reduced setbacks and increased lot coverage in cases the board described as driven by undersized or irregular lot geometries.

The board first approved BOA 26-100034, a variance for 123 South 30th Avenue (lot three) that reduces the front, side and rear setback requirements and raises maximum lot coverage for the primary structure and required driveway to 39% in lieu of 35%. Applicant Nick Stam told the board he had worked with city planning staff and lowered an earlier 49% lot-coverage request to 39% before re-submitting. "The original one was requesting 49% lot coverage. This one is down to 39% lot coverage," Stam said during his sworn presentation.

During discussion, a board member proposed and the board adopted an amendment to make approval contingent on the plans submitted and to attach the variance to the initial structure built within that footprint so that future, different construction would require separate review. City planning staff cautioned that variances traditionally attach to the parcel, which prompted extended debate; the board voted to adopt the contingency and then approved the amended motion.

The board then heard BOA 26-100035, the mirror request for the adjacent lot at 123 South 30th Avenue (lot four). Applicant Nick Stone said the second application is symmetrical to the first; staff and the board noted the same hardship (undersized lot) and the board approved the request with the same contingency attaching the variance to the initial structure.

In a separate case, BOA 26-100036, homeowner James Kelly asked for a rear-yard setback variance to recognize a pergola in the northwest corner of his backyard at 1526 North 7th Street. Kelly said a pergola or similar structure had been in that location for decades and that a recent replacement followed the earlier footprint. Board members cited the lot’s odd shape and the pre-existing placement of the home as the basis for hardship and approved the variance.

Finally, Kevin Sullivan sought a 3-foot rear-yard setback (instead of 5 feet) to build an accessory structure at 816 North 15th Avenue. Sullivan told the board the lot’s unusual width and two easements — including a rear utility easement — constrain placement; he said adjacent neighbors had been contacted and are supportive. The board agreed the parcel’s configuration met the standards for a variance and approved the request.

All four approvals were unanimous, and there were no public commenters on any of the cases. Planning staff announced the next meeting on July 7 and the board adjourned.

Votes at a glance: BOA 26-100034 (123 S. 30th Ave., lot 3) — approved (amended, variance contingent on submitted plans and attached to initial structure). BOA 26-100035 (123 S. 30th Ave., lot 4) — approved (same contingency). BOA 26-100036 (1526 N. 7th St., pergola) — approved. BOA 26-100037 (816 N. 15th Ave., accessory structure) — approved.

What happens next: Approved applicants will receive written notice from the city; the contingency attached to the two 30th Avenue variances means any future structure differing from the submitted footprint would require a separate variance application or must comply with current Land Development Code standards.