Gulfport council sends disputed Alfonso Drive setback variance back to planning for survey, record

Gulfport city leaders on Wednesday remanded an appeal of a planning commission decision that granted an 8-foot side-setback variance for a property on Alfonso Drive, directing planning staff to obtain a professional boundary survey and to clarify whether Alfonso is a roadway or a platted alley before the council will decide the appeal.

The action came after roughly two hours of testimony from the appellant—s attorney and the property owner—s agent, detailed discussion of the city—s variance standards, and repeated requests by council members for an accurate survey and a clearer administrative record.

The council—s move returns the matter to the Board of Variance and Appeals with three main instructions: a professional boundary survey showing property lines relative to Alfonso Drive; a determination whether that lateral way is legally a street or a platted alley; and more explicit findings on what building width and setback compromises would meet the ordinance while avoiding rendering the parcel unbuildable.

Attorney Gail Nicholson, representing neighbors appealing the variance, argued the planning commission erred in granting an 8-foot setback because the city—s ordinance requires a 25-foot setback from a secondary frontage and variance standards must be strictly applied. "A variance request is not to be granted lightly," Nicholson told the council, urging it to protect property owners who had relied on the long-standing 25-foot rule.

Chip Lambert, the Edwards— designated agent for the property owner, said the technical report (TEC report) and the planning commission—s findings contained factual bases for the variance. Lambert said the parcel is unusually narrow where Alfonso narrows to about 10 feet near a utility pole and that strict application of the 25-foot setback would leave no reasonable buildable area. "If the setback is enforced, it limits this property to only a 17-foot wide strip in which to place a home," Lambert said, describing the parcel as "peculiar" and arguing the TEC report supported the variance.

Greg Holmes of Urban Development confirmed the record includes a technical report addressing the six criteria in the city ordinance. City Attorney Grady Bruni told the council it had broad discretion to remand the matter to the zoning board for additional record development and guidance. "If you're going to ask for a survey, that will have to go back to the zoning board," Bruni said.

Council discussion focused on two legal and practical risks: whether strict enforcement of the setback would render the lot effectively unbuildable and whether granting a spot variance would unfairly confer a privilege not enjoyed by neighboring owners. Several council members said they would not decide the appeal without a professional survey because the exact location of the property line relative to the asphalt and right-of-way is unclear.

The motion to remand asked the zoning board to determine whether Alfonso at the site is an alley or roadway and to produce a professional boundary survey and a fuller record showing possible compromises (council members discussed 8 feet versus an interim 12-foot offset as a compromise that would meet the ordinance—s minimum buildable-width rules). The motion was seconded and approved by the council.

The council did not set a new hearing date; Bruni said the appeal must be scheduled and heard within the procedural windows that follow the zoning board process. The property owners, who filed the variance application, and neighbors will have the opportunity to develop a revised record before the council votes on the appeal again.