Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board denies request to shrink street‑side setback on subdivided oceanfront lot
Summary
The Planning & Zoning Board voted to deny a developer’s request to reduce a street‑side setback from 12 feet to 9 feet for a recently subdivided oceanfront lot, citing insufficient demonstrated hardship and concerns about precedent and impacts to nearby sight lines.
The City of St. Augustine Beach Planning & Zoning Board on Nov. 18 denied a request to reduce a street‑side setback from 12 feet to 9 feet for a subdivided oceanfront parcel, saying the application did not demonstrate the kind of hardship that justifies a variance.
Architect Michael Stauffer, representing the property owners, told the board the lot’s irregular shape and historic platting left the property “substandard” in width and that a 30‑foot building envelope is necessary to produce usable interior spaces suitable for the oceanfront market. Stauffer said the applicant revised the plan to make a portion of the west side 47 feet place‑certain to preserve turnaround space and requested that second and third floors be allowed to cantilever to achieve the desired width.
Neighbors and several board members challenged the hardship claim and warned of precedent. Brian Del Ray, a nearby resident, told the board the reduced setback “will literally affect” neighbors’ second‑story sight lines and could reduce property values. Scott Petro, a neighboring property owner and attorney, said he had no objection to the design and argued modest encroachments can produce better‑designed homes. Several written objections from residents were submitted to the board in advance.
Board members questioned whether the lot’s constraints were self‑created and whether available length and lot coverage options could produce an appropriately sized house without a variance. The board discussed alley versus street definitions, historical lot platting, and whether a partial vacating of the alley would be an option; staff advised an alley vacation that blocks public access to the ocean would be unlikely under the comprehensive plan.
After extended discussion and public comment, a motion to deny the requested variance passed. The board’s formal action denies the application as requested; the decision can be appealed to the city commission or the applicant may revise the design and reapply.
The board’s vote came at the conclusion of the evening’s continued hearing; no changes to local code were made as part of this action.
