Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board denies variance for completed accessory structure at 50 Florida Ave
Summary
The St. Augustine Planning & Zoning Board denied an after‑the‑fact variance request to reduce side and rear setbacks for a completed accessory building at 50 Florida Ave, citing lack of a building permit and owner-created hardship; the applicant was told he may pursue permitting or relocate the structure to meet setbacks.
The St. Augustine Planning & Zoning Board on Feb. 3 denied a variance request that would have reduced side and rear setbacks from 10 feet to 6.2 feet so a completed accessory building at 50 Florida Ave could be used as a guest house.
The applicant, Jeff Zap, told the board the structure began as a permitted storage shed and "evolved" into a small living space with electrical and a mini‑refrigerator but no stove. Zap said stamped plans were prepared and submitted after construction, and he asked only that the board allow conversion to a guest house so the property could be sold with the unit permitted.
Staff told the board the current RS‑2 zoning permits a storage shed up to 3 feet from the rear and side property lines but requires a 10‑foot setback for residential accessory structures; converting the building to a guest house or accessory dwelling unit would trigger the primary setback requirement. Board members repeatedly questioned why construction proceeded without a building permit and whether the owner-created condition met the variance hardship criteria.
"This is essentially a new build done without the full permitting process," said Charles Pappas, a board member. Pappas and others said the inability to demonstrate an unanticipated hardship undercut the application. Another board member who had visited the site said the structure could be lifted and moved to meet setbacks, and that the applicant’s decision to build prior to obtaining final permits weighed against granting relief.
After board discussion, a member moved to deny the variance on the grounds that the application did not meet the municipal variance criteria; the motion carried on roll call. The chair announced the application denied and reminded the applicant that additional permitting remains necessary for lawful occupancy should the applicant reapply or choose to move the structure.
The board also noted that neighbors received courtesy notices for the application (14 letters mailed; none returned) and that building‑official determinations about what constitutes "cooking facilities" are made separately during the permitting process.
The denials do not prohibit the owner from submitting a corrected application or relocating the structure to meet setback requirements; staff said moving the building and then pursuing permits could result in approval as a guest house subject to building‑official determinations.
