Board of Adjustment upholds planning manager's decision in Shady Lane accessory-structure appeal

The Seminole County Board of Adjustment on a unanimous vote affirmed the planning manager's decision that accessory structures at a Shady Lane property cannot be treated as a principal use and that a principal structure or an approved conversion must exist before the board will consider variances for existing accessory buildings.

The board's decision follows a staff presentation that explained the history of two platted lots on Shady Lane, the removal of a mobile home that previously served as the site's principal use, and subsequent code-enforcement action. Kathy Hamill, interim planning manager, told the board she was presenting "a previous planning manager's decision" about whether variances for an existing garage could proceed while the property lacked a principal structure.

Why it matters: The ruling keeps in place the county's interpretation of the Land Development Code that accessory structures may not be legalized via a variance when they exist without an authorized primary use. Property owners who want to retain accessory buildings must first place a permitted primary dwelling on the lot (for example by conversion of the garage or placement of a manufactured home), submit the relevant building permits, and then seek variances for setbacks if still necessary.

County legal staff said the issue has already been adjudicated by the special magistrate. Deputy County Attorney Nay Suborker told the board the code-enforcement matter "has already been determined as being in violation," describing the violation as "accessories on the structures on the property without a primary structure." Suborker and staff explained that the county's land development code (cited in the hearing) states in the R M-1 zoning district that "in no event shall an accessory ... structure be established prior to the principal use to which it is accessory." The county's position is that a board of adjustment cannot grant a variance that would effectively permit an unpermitted primary use.

The applicant's attorney, Mark Jones, argued the lot split and title history create different legal context for his clients, Dennis and Juliet Dragers, and said the structures date to 1967. Jones supplied a property-appraiser record he said showed a parcel ID assigned in 2014 and described efforts to pursue a conversion or a manufactured home as a practical remedy. Neighbor Lawrence Bernstein said he supports allowing the structures to remain and that the encroachment is minimal.

Board members questioned staff and the applicant about code citations, the special magistrate record, prior building permits (including a 2022 reroof permit that the applicant said was issued), and whether conditional approval paths could be used. Staff said the county will accept and process an application for a manufactured home or a conversion; once permits and plan comments are satisfied, the applicant may return and the board could then take up any variance request conditioned on completion of the primary-use work.

Vice Chair Wright moved to uphold the planning manager's decision; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Edward Lavont. The board voted unanimously to affirm the planning manager.

Next steps: Staff and the applicant agreed the practical path is for the property owner to secure a permitted primary dwelling (conversion or manufactured home) and finish building-permit requirements; the applicant may then pursue variances for setbacks. County staff reminded the audience that appeals of the board's decision may be filed to the Board of County Commissioners within the statutory appeal window.

Ending: The board's ruling preserves the county's current interpretation of the Land Development Code and keeps the code-enforcement remedy focused on restoring a permitted primary use before variances for accessory structures are considered.