The City of Safety Harbor Board of Appeals approved a variance on Wednesday allowing a homeowner at 49 Valencia Circle to place an accessory shed 5 feet from the primary structure, down from the 10-foot separation required by the city code.

Senior planner Cecilia Chin presented the application, saying the property is in the R-3 conditional mixed residential district and that part of the backyard lies within a preservation layer around a creek. Chin told the board the applicant had obtained a permit but moved the shed during construction because the backyard is steep and wet; the only flat, buildable area outside the preservation layer brought the shed closer to the house. “Staff recommends approval of the variance,” Chin said.

The nut graf: The decision matters because it interprets the Safety Harbor Comprehensive Zoning and Land Development Code’s setback provision for accessory structures and allows an exception on the basis of unique site conditions. The variance clears the way for the property owner to pass inspection for the existing structure and avoid re-siting or additional grading on a creek‑adjacent lot.

At the hearing, applicant Rebecca Andrews described on‑site conditions and what she and contractors have done to address drainage and erosion. “We thought we were in compliance when they brought the shed out,” Andrews said, and described installing rock drainage and CPVC behind the shed. She also said the household has storage needs: “I mean, this summer alone, we brought 400 bags of mulch and 250 bags of rocks…we have a 1‑car garage and we own 3 cars.”

Chin reviewed the variance criteria from the Safety Harbor Comprehensive Zoning and Land Development Code — including uniqueness of physical conditions, that strict application would deprive reasonable use of the property, and that the requested relief must be the minimum necessary. Chin said staff determined the application met the criteria and recommended approval.

During board discussion, members questioned the basis for the 10‑foot separation requirement for accessory structures and suggested the city should review that portion of the code for sheds and similar temporary structures. One board member said the topography made the request reasonable and supported approving the variance; another said the city should reexamine whether a 10‑foot rule is necessary for nonpermanent structures given other setback standards.

A board member moved to approve the variance application; another board member seconded. The presiding officer called for the vote; members present voted in favor and the motion carried. The board did not record any conditions on the approval in the hearing.

The board also approved the meeting minutes from June 11, 2025, during the same session. The hearing concluded with a brief administrative clarification: members noted a mismatch in the variance number shown on materials (references to “2025‑49” and “2025‑344” were exchanged) and agreed to confirm the correct file number in follow‑up correspondence. The meeting adjourned at 6:42 p.m.