Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variances And Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues variance request for Yacht & Tennis Club storage sheds after neighbors raise location and maintenance concerns
Summary
The board continued variance case 24104 for two 10x16 storage structures at the St. Pete Beach Yacht & Tennis Club after neighbors raised concerns about location, long‑term maintenance, and visibility; the board asked the parties to meet and return with a plan.
The St. Pete Beach Board of Adjustment continued variance case 24104 after residents and board members raised concerns about the sheds’ location, historic maintenance issues and visual impacts on adjacent properties.
Senior planner Kristen Komen summarized the request: the Yacht & Tennis Club and related condominium associations seek a variance to replace two storage structures on a parcel of Blind Pass Road (parcel 253115092340000001) with two 10-by-16-foot, 10‑foot‑high structures; the land development code permits a single structure of up to 80 square feet and a maximum height of 8 feet (section 6.13 B 5 A–B). Komen noted staff had found some hardship criteria addressed but requested additional testimony on necessity, screening, lighting and landscaping.
Applicant Dan Nelson, vice president of the Yacht & Tennis Club board, said the two “hobby” and maintenance sheds have been used for decades to store hand tools, power tools, drill presses, compressors and items used for boat and court maintenance; he said similar sheds had existed for at least 25 years and that the structures were damaged by recent storms. Nelson said the proposed replacement sheds would be better constructed with plywood floors, stud walls and anchoring compared with older aluminum sheds.
More than a dozen nearby residents and condominium association representatives spoke in public comment, objecting to the sheds’ placement immediately adjacent to their properties and describing years of perceived neglect in the buffer area between the properties. Speakers asked whether alternative locations on the 12–13 acre Yacht & Tennis Club property had been considered, questioned historic permitting for the older structures, and said visible debris had accumulated in the past between fences. Several residents urged moving storage to other parts of the club’s property or installing an opaque fence and landscaping to screen the view.
Board members emphasized location and long‑term maintenance as the central issues. Member Rocha and others said they were open to relief for the club’s functional needs but wanted binding, enforceable conditions—such as a minimum solid fence height, landscaping and operational rules (hours of use, key checkout procedures and regular cleanup)—to address neighbor concerns. Member Small suggested a single shared fence rather than two adjacent fences to prevent trash accumulation between them.
After the public discussion the board voted to continue case 24104 to the board’s February meeting and asked the applicant and affected neighbor associations to meet and bring a more detailed plan that could include alternative locations, a fence and landscaping scheme, and explicit maintenance protocols. The motion to continue carried unanimously.
Key points: the variance request concerns number, size (proposed 160 sq ft per structure) and height (proposed 10 feet) of storage structures; staff asked for additional testimony; board continued the item to allow negotiation and to seek enforceable mitigation measures.
