Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board approves after‑the‑fact variance for shed at 81 Coquina Avenue, limits permission to dock storage

Saint Augustine Planning & Zoning Board · January 6, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Planning & Zoning Board approved an after‑the‑fact variance for a shed at 81 Coquina Ave., allowing a 0.2‑foot encroachment but tying approval to the shed’s current accessory use and dock relationship; the vote was 6–1.

The Planning & Zoning Board on Jan. 6 approved a variance that allows a storage shed at 81 Coquina Avenue to sit roughly 2.8 feet from the side property line, about 0.2 feet less than the three‑foot setback required for accessory structures.

Jamie Pantling, the applicant, told the board she measured the placement from existing property monuments and that a survey later showed the shed’s wall is about 2.8 feet from the north property line. “I’m 2.8 feet off the north property line instead of 3 feet, and I’m asking for that variance for 0.2 feet,” Pantling said.

Staff described the shed as an after‑the‑fact placement that originally appeared on a dock permit and was moved onto land; the board heard that the original dock approval did not specify a final shed location. Several board members expressed concern that the encroachment resulted from inconsistent surveys and that any variance would “run with the land.” “This seems like a really silly conversation, but I’m also concerned about the integrity of the code,” one committee member said.

To address those concerns the board’s motion approved the variance only for the existing storage shed, limited to the accessory use connected to the dock, and explicitly excluded use for any future habitable structure. The motion passed 6–1; Ashley Barnes cast the only recorded no vote.

Board members emphasized that the approval was narrowly tailored and that future owners seeking to change the accessory use would need to return to the board. The applicant thanked the board after the vote.

The board’s decision was procedural and confined to the variance criteria; it did not change any other permit conditions or authorize new residential construction on the parcel.