Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board unanimously approves variance for Fallas Drive porch
Summary
The Pensacola Zoning Board of Adjustments approved a variance to reduce a rear-yard setback so a homeowner can build a 12-by-18 covered porch at 1960 Fallas Drive.
The Pensacola Zoning Board of Adjustments on an unspecified May meeting date unanimously approved a variance reducing a rear-yard setback from 30 feet to 24 feet 9 inches at 1960 Fallas Drive to allow construction of a 12-by-18-foot covered porch.
The variance was requested by homeowner Caleb Jones, who told the board he is moving his elderly parents from Navarre and wants a covered outdoor area where they can sit "out of the sun and out of the mosquitoes." Jones said the house roof pitch makes placing the porch elsewhere impractical and that the proposed location sits on an existing 12-by-18 concrete pad; the proposal would add footings and a screened enclosure above that slab.
Under the city’s Land Development Code, the board must find that one of seven listed conditions is met before granting a variance, including that special circumstances exist for the property and that the variance is the minimum necessary to allow reasonable use. The presiding officer noted those criteria before the board heard Jones’s explanation. Jones said he had spoken with the neighbor to the south (via the neighbor’s son) and the neighbor to the east; he had not spoken with neighbors across Hyde Park. He gave his address as 2750 Indore Road and said the subject property is a few blocks away.
Board members questioned whether the proposed area could be treated as a side yard because the lot and driveway provide unusual orientation. One member noted the house might alternately be considered to have a Hyde Park or a Fallas Drive address, which affected how setbacks apply. Staff confirmed the city assigned the address as 1960 Fallas Drive and that the request came to the board after permitting review.
A board member moved to approve the variance; another member seconded. After brief comments that the requested reduction was minimal and would not be detrimental to surrounding properties, the board voted to grant the variance unanimously. The presiding officer stated, "Congratulations, Mr. Jones. Your variance is granted unanimously." The board closed its meeting thereafter.
The hearing record includes the board’s standard reminder that an applicant whose variance is denied must wait at least one year before seeking the same relief.
