Bay County commissioners uphold planning board denial of front-setback variance for Panama City Beach property

The Bay County Board of County Commissioners on Jan. 7 sustained the planning commission—s denial of a variance request that would have allowed a 20-by-20 engineered pole barn to be placed within a 20-foot front setback at 202 Fan Carle Drive in unincorporated Panama City Beach.

Wayne Porter of the Planning and Zoning staff summarized the appeal of PLVAR2024-0271, saying the planning commission had unanimously denied the variance and that the county—s land development code allows variances only where a property—s physical characteristics create an "unnecessary and undue hardship." Porter said the applicant did not provide evidence that the hardship was unique to the property.

Appellant Gregory LaPlante told the commission he had purchased a 20-by-20, "145 mile per hour" engineered pole barn to use as a carport and had placed it in his driveway before applying for permits. LaPlante described his corner lot as ‘‘odd shaped——with utilities and trees on the east side——and said age and repeated skin-cancer surgeries make shade "a desperate" need. He said he visited planning staff and the planning board before appealing to the commission, and added, "I built my home 30 years ago" to explain his familiarity with the lot.

Planning staff and multiple commissioners questioned whether the applicant had exhausted alternatives, including placing the structure on a side yard or creating a secondary driveway. Porter and commissioners noted the county code permits accessory or attached structures in locations that could meet setback requirements and observed that the applicant had not provided the planning-board meeting record in the materials before the commission (video of that meeting is available on the county website, Porter said).

A neighbor had submitted an objection by email prior to the planning commission meeting, staff said.

After discussion about the availability of alternative placements and whether the applicant met the code—s hardship standard, Commissioner Carroll moved to sustain the planning commission—s decision; a second was made and the motion passed unanimously on roll-call vote: Commissioner Raffield, Commissioner Carroll, Commissioner Crosby, Commissioner Peace and Chairman Moore all voted yes.

The commission—s action sustains the denial, meaning LaPlante must pursue options that meet existing setback and accessory-structure rules or withdraw the installed structure and seek permits consistent with the land development code.