Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Variance Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies variance for large backyard structure after neighborhood objection
Summary
The Board of Adjustment denied a variance request for a backyard structure at 1735 Carlton Street after neighbors objected to a structure built without proper permits; the decision followed extended public testimony and discussion of precedent and enforcement.
The Seminole County Board of Adjustment rejected a requested variance for a structure at 1735 Carlton Street after a contested hearing that included multiple neighbors speaking for and against the applicant.
The request sought relief from an east side-yard setback (the existing structure was reported to encroach 8 feet into the required setback) after a code-enforcement violation (case number 25-76) was issued for the unpermitted building. The applicant, James Reason, acknowledged he had built the structure without a permit and apologized to the board: “I put this up with some bad advice … I totally apologize.”
Several neighbors spoke in support of the structure, telling the board the property had been improved and similar outbuildings exist throughout the neighborhood. Supporters included David Patton and Lauren Patton, who said comparable structures were common and improved property appearance, and Fred Higgins Jr. and Dave Keaton, who said the structure matched the house and was an improvement.
Neighbors immediately adjacent to the applicant opposed the variance. Andrea Denkins, who lives next door, described the completed structure as an “eyesore” and said it sits about 2 feet from the shared property line. Denkins said the building was erected without the owner obtaining permits or notifying neighbors of the encroachment; she asked whether removal would be required if the board denied the variance and warned of negative effects on property resale value.
The county attorney told the board that, in some Florida cases, courts have required removal of structures built contrary to land-development codes, signaling that denial could leave demolition or other enforcement as possible outcomes.
Board members debated the vote at length, balancing forgiveness for the applicant against the duty to enforce the code and avoid creating a precedent where unpermitted construction is rewarded. A motion to approve the variance was made and seconded but failed on the vote.
The board chair explained next steps to the applicant: staff can assist with appeals and the applicant may appeal the decision to the Board of County Commissioners.
