ARC grants wall‑separation variance and approves porch project at 5912 North Branch Avenue amid debate over lost oak tree

The Architectural Review Commission voted March 2 to grant a variance reducing the required wall‑to‑wall separation from five feet to 2 feet 8 inches and approved a certificate of appropriateness for work at 5912 North Branch Avenue in the Seminole Heights Historic District.

Applicant Allen Dobbs and owner Bruce Swain said the request followed removal of a large live oak that the city arborist and other experts found to have hollow sections and structural compromise after Hurricane Milton. Owner Bruce Swain told the board the tree “was between 75 and 80 years old and much in decline” and that its removal left the rear deck unusable during afternoon heat, prompting the request to add a covered porch.

The commission debated whether the applicants met the six hardship criteria required for a variance. Commissioner Carol Post and others raised concerns that the need for a covered porch could be a consequence of the owners’ choice to build a new roof and therefore might fail hardship criterion #2, which bars relief that results from the applicant’s own actions. Other commissioners said the existing accessory structure and site constraints made alternatives impractical and that the loss of the tree created a reasonable practical difficulty. After discussion, a motion to grant the wall separation variance was made and recorded as approved.

Legal staff informed the board that the applicant withdrew a separate request for an eave‑to‑eave variance for the proposed porch coverage; staff and the applicant discussed plan adjustments that would maintain a three‑foot eave‑to‑eave clearance or otherwise address the separation at permitting. The applicant subsequently presented quick sketches showing a revised porch roof that steps to maintain a three‑foot eave separation in plan while preserving much of the intended covered area.

The board then considered the certificate of appropriateness for the porch work and adopted it with conditions. Staff required, and the owners agreed to, a statement confirming modifications to meet required eave separations between the existing detached shed and the accessory structure; additional conditions covered handrail and stair details and other materials. Work described by the applicant included a shallow‑slope metal shed roof to match existing metal roofing, wrapped timber columns and beam details, a revised deck footprint (slightly reduced in some places), and revised railing details.

The record shows a split among commissioners over the policy question of granting variances within historic districts; some urged strict adherence to design standards while others emphasized practical constraints created by the site and the removed tree. The applicant agreed to work with staff on final details and to comply with the conditions set by the ARC before permits proceed.