Charlotte County BZA denies variance request to keep shed at 2361 Pinellas Drive

The Charlotte County Board of Zoning Appeals voted on Jan. 11, 2025, to deny variance VARDash25Dash007, which would have reduced the required 10-foot rear-yard setback to allow a 10-by-15-foot shed to remain about 4 feet from the rear property line at 2361 Pinellas Drive in Punta Gorda.

Elizabeth Nocek, AICP, senior planner for the county's Community Development Department, told the board staff's review found the application did not meet several of the five statutory variance criteria, including that the property did not present unique physical conditions and that the circumstances giving rise to the request were created by the current owner. Nocek summarized the property as four consolidated lots of approximately 20,000 square feet with a 2,494-square-foot residence, a 2,000-square-foot garage added recently, a 150-square-foot shed, and a screened pool; staff recommended denial and listed conditions that would be required if the board chose to approve the variance.

Applicant Michael Brown testified he moved and rotated the shed after constructing the garage and said he believed county records showed a 2009 shed installation. "I didn't know by moving a shed that I needed to get a whole another permit just to relocate a shed that had already been permitted," Brown said, describing constraints on relocating the shed (a hot tub, recently replanted fruit trees and RV parking) and saying he favored keeping the shed where it currently provides daylight and airflow for his mother-in-law's art studio.

Board members pressed staff and the applicant about alternatives. Planning staff said the applicant could reactivate or modify an expired after-the-fact permit now in review or relocate/rotate the shed to meet setbacks; staff noted surveys and site plans submitted for the variance showed the current encroachment and that a 6-foot encroachment into the required 10-foot setback is significant. Assistant County Attorney David Moscoso noted denial would not prejudice a later permit application and that code enforcement for the shed remained an open matter.

A board member moved to deny the variance "based on the Community Development Department staff report dated 06/04/2025." The motion was seconded and carried on a voice vote.

The denial does not bar the applicant from pursuing a permit modification or relocating the structure; staff advised that reinstating or amending the expired permit and resubmitting would be the administrative route to resolve the open code violation.

The board also reminded the public and applicants that variance approvals are case-by-case and do not create precedent. The board adjourned after further agenda items.