►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustment Meeting (10/19/2021)
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
Okay,
we
have
minutes
from
the
october.
D
Thank
we're
here
tonight
to
talk
about
our
property
and
the
existing
garage
sits.
Basically,
these
setbacks
and
we're
trying
to
obviously
overcome
some
existing
non-conformities,
as
it
says,
in
the
application.
D
Also,
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
we're
trying
to
attach
the
existing
main
structure
for
a
potential
additions
in
future
positions,
yet
be
completely
considered.
We're
basically
seeing
how
this
goes
tonight.
F
F
F
A
F
Thank
you,
my
apologies
for
not
recognizing
that's
fine,
okay.
What
was
that
application
for
in
2002
was
it
for
a
new
bill?
No,
it
was
to
add
on
to
the
assistant.
G
F
Let's
try
to
stand
because
you
have
all
these
non-conformities,
but
in
2002
you're
asking
for
the
conformity
to
be
correct,
they
assumed
back
then
in
2002,
and
I
guess
they
weren't
rectified
at
that
point.
To
that
meeting.
That's
why
I
was
a
little
confused
about
that.
We
saw
non-conformities,
but
in
2002
we
were
trying
to
correct
some
non-performance
appears
and
you
were
approved
for
those
3.7,
including
20,
et
cetera,
et
cetera
and
52.
Instead
of
that,
that's
my
one
question.
D
The
driveway
is
going
to
be
responsive
to
the
size
of
the
garage
door.
It's
approximately
20
feet,
but
it's
going
to
have
to
probably
enlarge
and
that's
why
we're
using
basically
the
existing
variants
that
we
have.
Okay,.
F
H
Through
the,
if
I
can
just
address
one
thing
at
the
time
of
the
2002
variance,
the
previous
survey
showed
the
front
setback
at
3.7.
This
new
survey
shows
at
1.7.
Hence
why
we're
updating
the
front
setback?
There's
a
discrepancy.
I
don't
know
where
we're
coming
from,
but
it's
much
better
to
capture
all
that.
F
C
There's
one
card
bobby
welton,
I
believe
it
says
1032
first
street,
which
is
to
address
the
board
and,
as
opposed
to
the
above
agenda
item.
A
I
I
Thank
you,
okay.
First
of
all,
this
whole
scenario
is
wrong.
I
W-R-O-N-G,
even
if
I
wanted
stated
in
the
application,
the
setback
of
1.73
1.7
feet
in
lieu
of
20
feet,
minimum
has
already
been
violated,
and
now
we
understand
that
it's
the
previous
survey
was
incorrect,
so
it's
going
on
for
years,
nothing's
been
done
about
it.
This
is
incompetency
at
the
highest
level.
Then
the
weird
setback
of
10
feet
in
a
little
30
feet,
which
is
non-conforming.
I
These
people
should
have
been
fined
or
told
to
demolish
the
existing
structure,
because
it's
not
in
compliance
with
the
existing
rules
and
regulations.
So
that's
already
a
problem
now
if
they
want
to
put
this
garage
in
the
back
where
it
opens
onto
the
alleyway,
as
you
can
see,
it's
only
10
and
a
half
feet
between
the
building
and
the
alleyway
which
it
egregiously
affects
the
alleyway
so
that
any
use
of
the
alleyway
they
can't
even
pull
the
car
up
car's,
not
10
feet
long.
It's
normally
18
point
people
whatever
it
is.
I
It's
it's
not
it's
not
going
to
work.
Then
we
have
the
problem
with.
We
don't
know,
what's
going
to
happen
with
the
infrastructure
plan
that
is
going
to
the
hopefully,
the
next
phase
or
the
second
or
the
third
phase.
Fourth
base.
That
is
going
to
take
a
place,
as
it
did
one
first
street
through
this
street,
which
was
over
budget
and
took
a
year
50
longer
to
get
done,
then
the
second
phase,
which
was
10
up
to
13
or
14.
It
was
over
budget
and
it
took
50
percent
more
time.
J
I
I
Then
we
have
a
light
pole
on
the
north
side
of
the
street
that
is
30
feet
from
the
edge
of
the
existing
street.
There
is
no
light
pole
on
the
right
okay.
So
all
these
homes
that
have
been
building
the
50s
that
are
on
the
north
side
of
the
street
are
48
feet
from
the
street.
This
house
is
only
20
feet
from
the
street,
we're
destroying
the
beach
we're
going
to
have
no
land
left
here.
I
We've
already
90
of
the
land,
the
dirt
to
absorb
water
and
have
greenery
for
the
environment,
90
from
fourth
street
to
the
ocean,
is
already
covered
in
concrete
asphalt
or
a
building,
we're
destroying
jacksonville
beach,
we're
turning
it
into
downtown
jacksonville.
We
cannot
go
this
path,
which
we
thought
I
have
done
with
the
derivatives
here.
I
We
fought
on
11th,
12th
and
13th
street
in
order
to
reduce
the
expansion
of
concrete
in
the
streets
and
everything
we
don't
even
know
what
the
plan
is
for
tenth
through
sixth
street,
yet
we're
allowing
this
house
to
egregiously
affect
the
environment.
No
other
house
on
this
street
goes
this
close
to
the
street.
None
and
we've
got
condos
three-story,
condos
and
two-story
condos
that
are
on
first
street
that
are
back
tenth
and
their
white.
I
I
We're
trying
to
preserve
jacksonville
beach,
not
turn
it
into
concrete
city,
so
we
need
to
have
a
reconsideration,
and
secondly,
they
should
be
fine
for
the
last
12
years
or,
however
long
they've
been
there
because
the
property
is
not
conforming
and
then
we've.
Let
it
sit
there
if
it's
not
even
foreign.
I
I
Well,
I've
recorded
this
as
required
from
the
bottom
of
things,
since
any
person
desires
of
appealing
any
decision
may
meeting
may
need
a
recording
of
the
proceedings.
I
have
recorded
them
and
I
see
it
on
youtube.
I
hope,
but
I've
recorded
it,
and
if
this
is
approved,
I
am
going
to
file
a
complaint
and,
if
necessary,
I'll
file,
a
law
lawsuit
to
prevent
this
from
happening,
because
it
is
wrong,
it
is
unnecessary
and
the
neighborhood
and
the
beach
community
does
not
need.
G
G
G
C
C
I
fully
support
and
recommend
to
the
board
that
they
should
uni
unanimously
approve
the
variance
request
for
the
lot
coverage
increase
and
setback
requests
to
accommodate
the
proposed
variance
request.
The
first
is
from
daniel
fox
white
at
1026,
2nd
street
south
unit.
A
the
next
is
from
kathy
stearns,
983,
2nd
street
south
michael
murtagh
1026,
2nd
street
south
apartment
b,
clemens
1002,
2nd
street
south
morgan
county
and
april
county
1004,
2nd
street
south
bobby
riggins,
130
10th
avenue,
south
lisa
phipps,
127,
10th
avenue
south.
I
C
H
C
C
H
F
I
K
I'll,
just
repeat
myself,
I
just
point
out
that
in
2002
the
variance
was
approved
and
it
had
conditional
approval
that
it
was
limited
to
the
drawings
as
submitted.
H
To
the
plans
yeah,
I
thought
the
site
plan
was
in
here,
but
in
essence
there
was
an
addition,
which
is
the
southern
portion
of
the
main
structure
that
was
added,
so
it
would
have
been
for
that.
What
you
see
now
is
the
footprint
which
includes
the
addition
and
the
garage
and
the
driveway
and
walkways
of
the
time.
So
from
the
time
of
that
variance
to
now,
there
hasn't
been
any
changes.
Okay,
so
so.
B
F
B
B
A
H
K
H
C
G
G
C
C
C
G
Francis
winnington
jeff
truer
yes.
Currently,
yes,
someone,
yes,.
C
C
G
D
D
D
F
B
F
C
H
C
C
Legal
description,
the
southerly
62.5
feet
of
lots,
5
and
6
block
46
atlantic
park.
Current
zoning
rm1
rs3
standards
motion
to
consider
34-338
e1c2
for
a
side
yard
setback
of
three
feet
in
lieu
of
five
feet:
minimum
and
34-373-d
for
a
parking
area
set
back
up
three
feet
into
a
five
feet:
minimum
to
allow
for
the
construction
of
an
attached
carport
to
a
single
family
dwelling.
A
D
We
were
in
the
process
of
designing
a
renovation
for
this
home
and
it
went
from
an
old
duplex
to
back
to
a
single
family
home
and
then
subsequently
meeting
with
christian
and
building
official
needed
to
have
a
garage
or
car
board,
or
some
parking
structure
attached
to
the
home
which
didn't
provide
for
and
the
way
it
stood
there.
So
and
in
doing
that,
it
also
made
us,
you
know,
have
to
put
the
driveway
and
guess
into
the
into
the
front
setback
as
well.
So
that's
basically
in
a
nutshell.
F
D
F
G
C
Legal
description
lot:
5
and
the
east
half
of
lot
6
block
4
atlantic
shores,
ocean
front
section,
division
b,
current
zoning
rs1
motion
to
consider
34-336
e1c3
for
a
rear
yard;
setback
of
14.5
feet
in
lieu
of
30
feet;
minimum
34-336
e1e
for
lot
coverage
of
48
in
lieu
of
35
maximum
and
34-336
e1g
for
a
swimming
pool.
Setback
of
1.5
feet
in
lieu
of
five
feet
from
the
primary
structure
to
allow
for
construction
of
a
new
single-family
dwelling.
A
Will
you
both
be
speaking
tonight?
Okay,
if
I
can
have
you
both
raise
your
right
hand,
do
you
swear
or
find
this
testimony?
You're
about
to
give
in
this
matter
is
the
truth,
the
whole
truth
and
nothing,
but
the
truth
so
help
you,
god,
and
if
I
have
each
of
you
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Please.
L
Is
square
feet
it's
approximately
six
thousand
four
on
thirty
one
square
feet
and
then
the
width
is
actually
it's.
It's
smaller
than
the
90
foot
lot.
Also
this
so
we
are
asking
for
forbearances,
so
we
can
build
a
nice
house
on
it
and
you
know
so
that
they
can
use
their
property.
L
So
the
only
the
only
lot
boundary
that
we're
asking
to
change
is
the
actual
rear
of
the
lock
the
14-5
right.
So.
G
F
G
L
So
we
basically
have
it
inside
the
actual
right
on
the
line.
G
G
F
F
L
C
L
C
I
don't
I
just
want
to
confirm.
There's
no
proposed
drawings
in
here
that
include
where
a
pool
would
be
right
is.
B
C
A
E
E
E
E
The
variance
was
requested
will
have
a
direct
negative
impact
on
the
privacy
use
and
values
of
our
property.
Based
on
the
variance
is
requested.
There
will
be
approximately
a
20
by
38
foot,
wide
structure,
15
foot
closer
to
our
property
line,
if
approved
than
I
expected
when
we
bought
the
property
in
october
2020.,
this
wall
will
have
multiple
windows
and
a
flat
roof
which
could
be
turned
into
outdoor
living.
E
E
The
property
owner
owns
one
and
a
half
lots
which
is
sizeable
enough
to
stay
within
all
the
standard
variances
and
build
a
51
by
27
foot
home
which
could
contain
over
4
000
square
feet
under
roof
for
context.
4
000
square
feet
under
roof
is
comparable
to
many
of
the
homes
built
on
the
west
side
of
ocean
drive
and
in
some
cases
much
larger.
E
E
The
applicant
has
not
directly
reached
out
to
myself
or
any
other
neighborhoods.
I
have
spoken
to
about
this
application.
I
was
calling
the
applicant
and
for
the
representative
to
go
on
record
in
this
meeting
with
the
outcome
of
intended
use
for
the
property
in
an
effort
to
provide
clarity
to
neighbors
and
the
sport.
J
216
to
avenue
south
jax
beach,
basically
just
I
just
wanted
to
have
some
comments
here.
This
we
actually
lived
in
the
property
that
the
previous
speaker
lived
in
too.
When
we
moved
into
the
property,
there
was
a
1939
house
on
that
property
and
it's
actually
two
two
lots
combined
and
so
there's
been
always
been.
Some
hardship,
inspections
on
one
of
the
laws,
but
the
whole
parcel.
The
two
parcels
together
are
quite
substantial
at
the
time
was
single,
it
was
a
two-stroke
house
and
one
thing
we
really
liked
about.
J
J
And
so,
and
we
have
the
we
have,
the
variance
that
we
built
a
new
house
on
property.
We
maintain
the
variances
and
the
whole
concept
of
the
setbacks.
J
J
C
The
next
card
is
from
kim
spadaro
32
32nd
avenue
south.
She
does
not
wish
to
address
the
board,
but
as
opposed
to
the
agenda
item,
and
then
there
are
several
letters
that
were
submitted.
Sorry.
The
first
is
from
christopher
and
jacqueline
george.
Mr
george
was
the
first
speaker.
His
letter
essentially
covers
what
he
said
when
he
spoke.
C
The
second
letter
is
from
sean
and
stephanie
crichton
3300.
First
street
south
jacksonville
beach,
dear
members
of
the
board,
we've
been
informed
of
the
request
for
setback
and
coverage
variants
for
the
property
located
at
25,
33rd
avenue
south,
and
would
like
to
note
our
opposition
to
the
variants
being
granted.
We
believe
the
building
of
a
structure
within
14.5
feet
of
the
rear
property
line
and
at
48
percent
lock
coverage
is
contrary
to
the
interests
and
spirit
of
this
area
and
may
impede
on
property
values
and
property
rights
of
adjoining
owners.
C
C
Do
you,
members
of
the
board
we've
been
informed
of
a
pending
variance
application
for
the
nearby
property
located
at
25
33rd
avenue
south.
We
asked
the
board
to
deny
experience
as
we
believe
it
would
be
adverse
to
the
public
interest
of
the
neighborhood
and
adversely
affect
our
and
our
neighbors
property
rights,
property
values,
privacy
and
security.
Please
take
this
into
account
in
making
your
decision.
C
The
next
letter
is
from
alan
teresa
chipperfield
22
33rd
avenue
south
dear
members
of
the
board.
Please
let
this
serve
as
a
response
to
the
notice
of
application
for
variants
that
we
recently
received
for
the
property
at
25
33rd
avenue.
South
we've
lived
in
the
home
directly
across
the
street
from
the
subject
property
to
the
south
as
we
have
since
1987..
C
We
object
to
the
granting
of
this
variance,
as
it
applies
to
the
rear
and
coverage
setback
requirements.
The
building
of
this
structure
in
the
requested
location
would
be
obstructed
to
surrounding
neighbors
and
would
adversely
affect
my
property
rights,
quality
of
life,
privacy
and
property
value.
I
ask
that
you,
please
take
this
into
consideration
when
reaching
your
decision,
and
the
next
letter
is
from
bill
and
minnie
kincaid
70
33rd
avenue
south.
C
A
M
I
was
the
architect
for
the
previous
variant
for
the
previous
owner.
I
can.
That
was
asking
a
lot
of
that
property.
We
took
a
lot
of
what
was
said
during
that
meeting
from
the
board
from
neighbors
in
consideration
when
we
designed
this
home,
we
worked
to
work
within
the
setbacks,
only
asking
for
bearings
on
one
rearguard
setback
to
make
the
building
to
give
it
a
little
more
architecture
quality
if
they
stood
within
the
setbacks.
M
What,
in
effect
will
happen
is
a
three-story
rectangle
with
no
doubtful
character,
a
box,
much
like
you,
see
down
in
alana
beach
near
the
ocean,
a
lot
of
rectangles,
a
lot
of
big
walls,
not
very
attractive
architecture
and
probably
couldn't
be
argued,
which
would
be
much
more
negative
impact
to
the
community.
So
we
try
to
create
something
with
a
little
character
and
in
doing
so
and
we're
asking
from
the
variants
the
arguments
about
ocean
views.
M
L
H
Only
there's
no
there's
not
six
parking
spots
on
this
lot.
M
There's
two
garage
spaces
in
the
driveway
to
get
to
garage
over
the
and
there's
an
interesting
thing
happening
in
jacksonville,
ponte,
video,
atlantic
beach
and
there's
a
major
draw
to
live
here.
Our
clients
are
part
of
that
they're
all
coming
from
atlanta.
We
have
clients
from
seattle
from
california,
from
chicago
from
new
york
all
come
to
europe,
so
their
primary
residents
aren't
here
currently,
but
their
plan
is
to
move
here.
Much
like
my
client
for
this
house.
G
L
Three
one
one:
it's
the
first
street
south
that
they
said.
Could
you
speak
up
a
little
bit?
I'm
sorry!
I
built
thousands
three
one,
one
five
first
street
south
and
that-
and
that
is
on
the
corner
of
first
street
and
third
second,
and
I
actually
use
that
as
an
example
and
we've
got,
we
had
three
or
four
different
setbacks,
phrases
on
that
one
and
also
a
lot
of
experiences.
I
asked
a
lot
more
on
that
one
and
what
we
we
talked
with
neighbors
and
everybody
was
good.
G
L
F
B
F
G
F
L
L
F
M
No,
I
don't
necessarily
think
it's
asking
that
much
if
you
really
look
at
what
the
setbacks
would
be.
Otherwise
we
did
our
best
to
step
back
from
the
neighbors
to
the
west
to
give
them
privacy
and
think
of
our
class
privacy.
M
If
this
is
denied
and
our
clients
very
well
decide,
let's
go
three
stories:
35
feet,
perfect
rectangle
that
does
half
of
what
the
people
speaking
against
this,
probably
more
than
half
it.
Does
it
eliminates
all
their
really
big
concerns
and
it
doesn't
eliminate
but
nullifies
because
it
it
becomes
an
ugly
structure.
Potentially
they've
lost
the
ceiling
philosophy
ownership,
but
that's
all
within
they
can
do
that
within
the
setback
rights.
We're
trying
to
avoid
that
we're
trying
to
be
neighborly.
We're
trying
to
create
something
that
adds
to
the
community
just.
F
F
M
F
H
Seen
this
before
there
isn't,
they
require
the
code
of
the
five-foot
setback,
they're
asking
for
all
the
houses
we've
always
heard
about.
That
number
can
be
coming.
G
Which
I
don't
appreciate,
but
I
don't
think
anybody
can
deny
that.
Yes,.
F
B
C
I
agree,
but
I
would
also
you
know,
take
into
account
that
the
property
owner
is
not
currently
local
and
that
perhaps,
if
or
somebody
who
is
local,
you
know,
maybe
she
would
have
made
more
of
an
effort
personally
versus
that.
What
are
you
doing
with.