Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fernandina Beach Board of Adjustments approves small frontage variance to allow two R‑1 lots on Amelia Road, 4–1
Summary
At its September meeting the Fernandina Beach Board of Adjustments approved variance case 20240004, allowing a minor reduction in required frontage so a 1.34‑acre parcel on Amelia Road can be divided into two R‑1 lots; the board attached conditions on setbacks/pervious surface compliance and required the parcel remain two lots unless a future variance is granted.
The Fernandina Beach Board of Adjustments voted 4–1 to approve variance case 20240004 on a parcel off Amelia Road, allowing creation of two single‑family R‑1 lots from a 1.34‑acre property with a slight shortfall in frontage.
Kelly Gibson of city staff, presenting the application, said staff had received all required materials and recommended approval after finding the six statutory variance criteria were met. ‘‘The requested variance is to deviate from the minimum required 75 feet of frontage … at 74.72 feet, which is roughly … approximately 3.36 inches,’’ Gibson told the board while describing the applicant’s plan to split the property into two lots for single‑family homes.
Applicant Tina Smith, who identified herself as the property owner, said the division would ‘‘just split it right down the bridal, and a house will go on’’ and that splitting into two lots would help preserve large oak trees on the parcel. Nearby residents told the board they favored limiting the division to two lots but sought assurances about tree protection and future subdivision.
Neighbor Sharon Pettijohn Hill, who lives directly behind the proposed parcel, said she had ‘‘no objections to 2 lots’’ but asked whether future owners could subdivide again and whether neighborhood trees would be preserved. City staff and counsel explained that further lengthwise subdivision would require additional frontage and likely a separate variance before the board; staff also clarified the recorded survey did not show the 25‑foot easement noted on the property appraiser’s website and that the easement would be resolved in the subdivision process.
Board members discussed conditions intended to address neighborhood concerns. Member Tagneco moved to approve the variance with two conditions: that all required setbacks and pervious‑surface requirements be met in the development process, and that the variance be contingent on Parcel 00003004480030‑0020 remaining divided into two R‑1 lots as described in the application. The motion was seconded and passed 4–1. One member voted against the motion.
City legal counsel reminded the board that variance law is narrowly construed—that hardship relief cannot be solely financial or self‑created—and recommended including cited ordinances and findings in the record to defend any future legal challenge. The chair will sign findings of fact; the city attorney noted a 30‑day window for filing an appeal to circuit court after the findings are signed.
The board closed the hearing and moved into routine board business. No appeal had been filed during the meeting; the action becomes subject to the 30‑day appeal period once the chair signs the written findings of fact.
