Council denies after-the-fact accessory-dwelling unit request after neighbor complaints

5969415 · September 11, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
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

Pinellas Park council denied a conditional-use request for an after-the-fact accessory dwelling unit (ADU) built from a shed; the council found the structure did not meet the 10-foot side-yard setback required by code.

Pinellas Park — The City Council denied a request for conditional-use approval of an after-the-fact accessory dwelling unit on a single-family lot after neighbors raised concerns about code violations, drainage impacts and short-term rentals.

Michael Caraglio, associate planner, told the council the application (ADU2025-00005) concerns a detached structure that was converted from a legally permitted shed into an ADU and sits 6.4 feet from the southern property line while the code requires a 10-foot side setback for structures used as dwelling units. Caraglio said the building permit for the ADU is in review and that the conversion was discovered during a community compliance case. "The applicant converted an existing legally permitted shed into a detached accessory dwelling unit," Caraglio summarized to the council.

Neighbors described ongoing construction activity, drainage problems and short-term rental use. Leonard Lawson, a next-door neighbor, said construction had created flooding on his property, that a roof overhang allows runoff onto his yard and that he has had to buy a sump pump. "That building is not being used as a shed. It is being used as an Airbnb," Lawson told the council, adding that cars park on the narrow street and that the property changes have produced a persistent neighborhood nuisance.

The property owner and applicant, Rachel Sosam, addressed the council and said the structure was placed where it rests and expressed willingness to comply with requirements; staff noted the owner has building permits in review including a permit to remove a separate illegal addition on the north side of the primary residence. Staff also said separate code-enforcement proceedings are active involving the property.

Council deliberation focused on the setback deviation, the after-the-fact nature of the conversion and the potential precedent created by approving similar requests. Several council members expressed concern that approval would invite additional after-the-fact conversions. Councilman Butler moved to deny the ADU application; the council voted unanimously to deny the requested relief.

Outcome: The council denied ADU2025-00005 for failure to meet the 10-foot side-yard setback and because the conversion was performed without prior approval; building permits remain in review and separate code-enforcement actions are pending. The council's denial was recorded by roll call; Butler, Sebeil and Vice Mayor Cadell voted in favor of denial, yielding a unanimous denial vote.