Zoning board denies variances for new house and ADU at 3109 E. Gonzales Street after neighborhood debate

The Pensacola Zoning Board of Adjustments voted 7–1 to deny a set of variances requested to build a new single‑family home and an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 3109 East Gonzales Street.

Applicant Pat Lyons sought multiple variances to accommodate a new house and ADU on a lot in an R1‑Double‑A zoning district: a front-yard setback reduction from 30 feet to 18 feet, an increase in rear‑yard coverage from 25 percent to 48.3 percent, and an increase in living‑space depth from 60 feet to 70.7 feet. (A second side‑yard variance was later shown by staff to be resolved in an amended site plan; the applicant asked the board to treat the requests as an aggregate package.)

Lyons told the board he purchased and then demolished a severely termite‑damaged house and designed a replacement “similar” to the original; he said he expected the new build to sit in the same footprint. Lyons argued the proposed arrangement — including an ADU accessed from the rear greenway — is consistent with existing neighborhood typologies and with other properties that have dwellings close to the rear alley.

Neighbors and nearby residents disputed that comparison. Dwayne Tant, who lives at 3101 East Gonzales Street, told the board many nearby properties are on wider original lots (100‑foot frontage) while Lyons’s parcel is two original lots combined with 50‑foot frontage, and that the block’s historic pattern was modest houses with workshops or garages on the greenway rather than large footprints. Tant also raised environmental and canopy‑cover concerns, saying the applicant had already removed mature trees and urging stewardship of the “Richard Jernigan Greenway.”

Supporters including Tripp Hale argued the lot geometry creates a hardship: Hale said the narrow lot and fixed 30‑foot setback limit where a functional ADU can be placed and that the applicant’s proposal preserves backyard green space ratioally while producing a usable ADU.

Board members discussed broader policy problems — including front‑yard averaging, the role of greenways versus alleys, and whether code revisions would address these design conflicts — and wrestled with whether the applicant had demonstrated a hardship under the variance criteria. One member summarized the tension by saying that the applicant’s stated reason amounted to wanting a larger project, and “want is not a need or a hardship.” Another member said the request illustrated where the city’s land‑development code produces difficult results.

After motion and second to approve the aggregate request, the board voted; the motion failed, 7–1. The transcript records the tally but does not identify the individual yes/no votes by name.