Charlotte County BZA approves three variances allowing existing garage, pools and homes to remain despite setback encroachments

The Charlotte County Board of Zoning Appeals approved three variances March 5 that allow existing structures to remain despite encroaching on rear‑yard setbacks, ending a contested morning of staff presentations, applicant testimony and public comment.

Elizabeth Nocek, AICP, senior planner with the county’s Community Development Department, told the board that the first case, VAR‑25‑001 at 305 Casale G Street in Punta Gorda, seeks to reduce a required 30‑foot rear yard setback by 12.9 feet so a completed detached garage can remain with a 17.1‑foot rear setback. Nocek said staff’s finding was that the application did not meet all five variance criteria because the contractor built the garage outside the approved site plan and the condition was created by the applicant; staff nevertheless supplied recommended conditions in case the board approved the variance.

The garage’s contractor, James Pollock, told the board, “I made an honest mistake. I was focused more on the front setback,” and said inspections had otherwise passed. Neighbors voiced concern: Sandra Gonzales said the structure is an “eyesore” visible from her pool and alleged occasional grinding and welding inside the building. Mark Lasalle, another adjacent property owner, asked why the mistake was not discovered earlier in inspections and urged accountability for contractors who do not follow approved plans. Property owner Peter Inclitt said he does not perform noisy work in the garage and asked the board to consider the aesthetic intent.

After discussion a board member moved to approve VAR‑25‑001 “based on the Community Development Department staff report dated 03/05/2025” and the evidence presented; the motion carried. If approved, staff recommended limiting the variance to the existing garage and making it expire if the structure is removed or replaced.

In the second case, VAR‑25‑002 at 10162 Owlhead Circle in Port Charlotte, Nocek said erosion and an unexpectedly landward seawall installation left the finished swimming pool and enclosure located 10.6 feet from the outside face of the seawall — 4.6 feet inside the required 15‑foot setback. Staff found unique conditions related to loss of uplands and the seawall placement, and concluded that demolition would be the likely alternative if the variance were denied. Jim Benson of Benham Construction said his team followed the approved plans and that the seawall’s placement changed site conditions after permitting. The board approved VAR‑25‑002 with the staff’s recommended conditions, including that the variance apply only to the existing pool, deck and residence and expire if those structures are removed or replaced (with exceptions for disaster‑related destruction).

VAR‑25‑003, for 18398 Van Noy Circle in Port Charlotte, asked to allow a 14.2‑foot pool setback (0.8 feet into the required 15‑foot setback) and a 15.9‑foot rear setback for the single‑family residence (4.1 feet into the required 20‑foot setback). Nocek again cited seawall placement and erosion as contributing factors and recommended approval with conditions similar to the prior case. Applicant John Landry and his wife described the property’s improvements; the board voted to approve the variances with staff conditions.

Votes at a glance • VAR‑25‑001 (305 Casale G St., Punta Gorda) — reduce 30‑ft rear setback by 12.9 ft to 17.1 ft for existing detached garage; motion approved; conditions: variance limited to existing garage and expires if removed/replaced. • VAR‑25‑002 (10162 Owlhead Cir., Port Charlotte) — reduce 15‑ft pool setback by 4.6 ft to 10.4 ft (pool/deck/cage) and consider 0.2 ft for the residence based on measurement method; motion approved with staff conditions tying variance to existing structures and expiration on removal/replacement (exceptions for disaster). • VAR‑25‑003 (18398 Van Noy Cir., Port Charlotte) — reduce 15‑ft pool setback by 0.8 ft to 14.2 ft and 20‑ft rear setback by 4.1 ft to 15.9 ft for residence; motion approved with staff conditions.

What happened and why it matters County staff told the board that the Port Charlotte cases largely stem from seawall placement and loss of uplands, meaning property lines and buildable areas changed after permitting. In the Punta Gorda case staff said the contractor built the garage away from the approved site plan and concluded the applicant created the condition. Board approval in all three cases relied on a mix of staff findings about unique circumstances (erosion or seawall misplacement), evidence that demolition or reconstruction would be impractical or damaging, and the board’s discretion to attach conditions that limit future expansion or allow the variance only for current structures.

Board process and next steps Each variance approval was accompanied by standard conditions recommended by staff: apply only to the existing structure(s), expire if the structure is removed or replaced (unless replaced due to a natural disaster or involuntary destruction), and require future development to comply with then‑applicable codes unless a new variance is sought. The board also noted that judicial appeals of decisions must be filed in circuit court within 30 days of the written decision. The board ended the session and noted five petitions are scheduled for its April meeting.