Seminole County Board of Adjustment approves 10 setback variances; one item continued

The Seminole County Board of Adjustment on its March meeting unanimously approved 10 variance requests covering properties across unincorporated Seminole County and continued one matter at the applicant's request.

The board handled routine land‑use appeals and setback variance petitions from homeowners and contractors. Most requests sought reduced front, side or rear yard setbacks for replacement fences or existing and after‑the‑fact screen enclosures; others involved accessory structures (a garage/barn and a second‑story addition). Staff presentations noted whether the structures were existing, permitted in earlier eras, or required variances because of changes to the county’s land development code.

Why it matters: approvals change what property owners may lawfully build or keep on their lots and create recorded variances that run with the land. Several applicants said the work replaced older, dilapidated structures or restored preexisting features; staff flagged that replacement of structures destroyed or significantly damaged may still require a variance if they no longer meet current setbacks.

Most items drew little or no opposition. Speakers included applicants, contractors or nearby neighbors offering support and, in several cases, homeowners’ association letters. When board members raised questions they focused on technical points: whether an enclosure had a solid (composite) roof or was an open screen, whether accessory plumbing could trigger future conversion to living space, and whether the proposed work matched the footprint of prior structures.

Votes at a glance

- 315 North Orange Avenue — Front yard setback variance from 50 feet to 0 feet to permit 6‑ft ornamental fencing and driveway gates on the front property line. Applicant: John Pate. Support: 1 letter and neighborhood speakers. Motion to approve by Mr. Beatley; second by the vice chair. Outcome: approved.

- 1675 Astor Farms Place — Rear yard setback variance from 25 feet to 6 feet for an existing 220‑sq. ft. screen enclosure. Applicant/contractor: James Armstrong. Staff noted multiple letters of support (staff packet showed 4; record included a staff correction that the packet may contain a typo). Motion to approve; outcome: approved.

- Case continued — One item was continued at the applicant’s request and will return at the next monthly meeting (item number 3 on the agenda).

- 5329 Bristlecone/Bristol Cone Way — Rear setback variance from 20 feet to 7.5 feet for an existing 360‑sq. ft. screened pergola addition; applicant reported HOA approval. Motion to approve; outcome: approved.

- 1101 Delk Road — North side yard setback variance from 50 feet to 10 feet for a proposed 1,500‑sq. ft. barn/garage (30×50). Staff said a statement of intent (agricultural use) and agricultural‑use stamping of plans will be required; staff also noted that if the structure were later converted to an accessory dwelling unit it would need to comply with ADU rules. Motion to approve; outcome: approved.

- 428 Eagle Circle (Sterling Park Unit 2) — West side setback reduced from 7.5 feet to 5 feet and rear from 10 feet to 7.5 feet for a 200‑sq. ft. shed; applicants provided HOA approval and two neighbor letters. Motion to approve; outcome: approved.

- 104 Oona Lane — Front yard setback from 25 feet to 1 foot for a 540‑sq. ft. garage addition to provide additional family storage/parking. Applicant: Joshua Banks. Motion to approve; outcome: approved.

- 210 Cherrywood — Rear yard setback variance from 30 feet to 25.5 feet and north side setback from 10 feet to 6 feet for an approximately 606‑sq. ft. second‑story addition to an older, legal nonconforming structure. Applicant said the addition will bring portions of the structure into compliance; board noted similar conversions have occurred in the neighborhood. Motion to approve; outcome: approved.

- 1301 Tappy Torrey Circle (Turnberry subdivision, Heathrow) — Rear setback variance from 10 feet to 8 feet for a 144‑sq. ft. attached summer kitchen; applicant (Nick Perfitto) said most of the backyard remains open and that only the fixed covering for the summer‑kitchen unit requires the variance. Motion to approve; outcome: approved.

- 3301 Celery Avenue — Front yard setback variance from 50 feet to 28 feet to replace a pool screen enclosure that was destroyed by Hurricane Milton; staff reported the property had an older enclosure and records are limited for structures of that vintage. Contractor Robert Klopper said the proposed enclosure will match the prior structure. Motion to approve; outcome: approved.

- 2458 Southern Sunderland Road (English Estates) — East side setback variance from 10 feet to 7.5 feet and rear yard variance from 30 feet to 10 feet for a screen enclosure replacing an existing, deteriorated enclosure; applicant Carrie Moreau said the work will replace the existing footprint. Motion to approve; outcome: approved.

Board process and common themes

Staff presenters consistently identified whether an enclosure or structure was preexisting and whether county records contained a permit. For several items staff and board members emphasized the county’s distinction between open screen enclosures (often permitted at reduced setbacks in past decades) and solid/composite roofs (which typically must meet principal structure setbacks because of their potential to be converted to habitable space). Kathy Hamill of Development Services explained that the county now allows restrooms in certain accessory structures under the county’s ADU rules but remains cautious about features that could facilitate conversion to living space.

Several applicants said the variance requests would restore or replace older fences and enclosures or complete work already constructed; board members urged clarity in the record about whether a structure is an after‑the‑fact installation or a replacement of a preexisting permitted feature. Where petitions relied on HOA approval or neighbor support, staff noted letters were included in the packet and appeared in the public record.

Next steps and appeals

The board chair reminded speakers that county policy allows a 15‑day appeal period to the Board of County Commissioners for anyone who disagrees with a board decision; staff offered help with the appeal process after the meeting. Because variances are recorded against the property, approvals will run with the land and could affect future permitting decisions.

Ending note: The board concluded the meeting with an ethics presentation from the county attorney’s office on Sunshine Law, public records, ex‑parte communications and conflicts of interest; members were advised to disclose outside communications related to agenda items and to use caution when introducing outside materials not part of the formal record.