Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pensacola zoning board denies setback variances at 1800 E. Blount Street
Summary
The Zoning Board of Adjustments denied a homeowner's request for multiple setback variances at 1800 East Blount Street, concluding the application lacked evidence of an allowable hardship.
The Zoning Board of Adjustments in Pensacola voted to deny a request for three variances for a renovation and second‑story addition at 1800 East Blount Street.
The applicant, identified in the agenda as Jessica Lee, had requested variances to reduce a 30‑foot front yard setback to 21 feet, 9 inches; a 30‑foot rear yard setback to 1.9 feet; and a 15‑foot corner side setback to 10 feet, 1 inch to allow an addition to the main house and a two‑story addition above an existing garage.
Board members said the application did not meet the standards in the city’s land development code requiring proof of a qualifying hardship that is not self‑created. A motion to approve the variances failed for lack of support.
Greg (planning staff) explained the zoning analysis for the board and noted that because the proposed breezeway connecting the garage to the house would be enclosed, the garage is treated as part of the principal structure and subject to primary structure setbacks. Contractor Chris McCammon, speaking for the applicant, told the board the family wanted to expand because “she's getting married and having more children in the house, so they need more bedrooms.”
Board members discussed whether the encroachment was self‑created and whether the application demonstrated one of the seven statutory criteria the code requires to grant a variance. Several members said that while they sympathized with the applicant’s needs, the request was “a big ask with no evidence of hardship.” The board also noted potential separate issues with height and nonconforming status that would require additional review if construction proceeded in some form.
Because the board did not find the required hardship, the motion failed and the record shows the variances were not granted. The chair clarified that the denial means the applicant must either revise the proposal to meet setbacks, seek other approvals, or wait at least one year before reapplying for the same relief under the terms the board set out.
The board’s decision does not affect separate building‑permit or code‑enforcement reviews; staff reminded the applicant that any future work would still require building‑department approvals and compliance with inspection requirements.
