Planning board approves setback variance at 743 Redwood Avenue after survey dispute

The Panama City Planning Board voted 3-0 to approve a variance for a recently constructed home at 743 Redwood Avenue, allowing the structure to remain slightly beyond the newly established rear setback line. The board approved the variance after hearing from the applicant, James Cameron of JC Homes and Development, and reviewing a written explanation from the surveyor.

Staff had recommended denial, citing the setback regulations established by section 104-36.3. The variance request sought relief from those setback requirements for the property identified by parcel/personnel ID 1594051010. Board members Carroll, Rich and Vice Chair Barker voted in favor of the motion to approve.

The applicant, James Cameron, told the board he has worked in construction for more than 20 years and said the situation resulted from a surveying error. Cameron presented a letter from Zanny White of Z's Land Surveying and Mapping that explained “duplicate monumentation within the subdivision limits” and conflicting property corner markers. The letter, as read into the record, said selecting one set of monuments would place the residence beyond the setback but within the property boundary, while reliance on the alternate set would place adjacent improvements over the subject property line. The surveyor wrote that subsequent field information led him to reset the western property line, which removed one encroachment but caused the new structure to exceed the new setback line.

Cameron described the house as a three-bedroom, two-bath home marketed as an affordable option with finishes such as quartz countertops, luxury vinyl plank flooring and stainless appliances, and said the property is under contract with a prospective buyer. He told the board the error has caused stress for all parties and asked for leniency.

The board did not record any public opposition during the hearing. The motion to approve carried on a roll call vote of Carroll — yes; Rich — yes; Barker — yes.

No appeal period or later administrative steps were stated during the hearing.