Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies Veil family variance for large RV garage at 203 Canal Boulevard
Summary
The St. Johns County Planning & Zoning Agency unanimously denied a variance request from the Veil family to allow a detached RV/storage garage at 203 Canal Boulevard, citing code standards and neighborhood impacts after extensive testimony and legal argument.
The St. Johns County Planning and Zoning Agency on Jan. 15 denied a variance sought by the Veil family to keep a detached RV-storage garage at 203 Canal Boulevard.
Bruce Humphrey, representing the applicant, told the board the structure was built in reliance on county-issued permits and clearance sheets and described landscaping and architectural changes — bamboo screening, staggered magnolias, awnings and windows — intended to reduce the building’s visual impact. "Absent being able to screen it off, we feel like these items enhance the aesthetic appeal of the property and make it a little more tolerable to the neighborhood," Humphrey said.
Opponents — led by attorney Matt Jackson, who spoke for multiple neighbors — urged denial and argued the applicant created its own hardship by building the structure without required variances. Jackson cited Florida cases and told the board, "You don't get an automatic variance because you relied upon the building department," adding that demolition is the usual remedy when a structure violates code.
County staff and the county attorney walked the board through the land‑development code and prior clearance-sheet comments, including a notice referencing LDC 2.02.04.B.4 on accessory-structure eave heights and screening. Counsel Jacob Smith explained the code's accessory‑use standards and advised the board on how eave-height and screening rules apply in an OR (open-rural) district.
Board members also heard from residents and community groups, including the Palm Valley Community Association, which submitted letters and urged denial on the grounds of neighborhood character and uniform enforcement.
After debate over whether the hardship was created by the owner and whether the county’s earlier permit review was a valid basis for relief, board member Matovina moved to deny the variance based on the staff report’s findings of fact. The motion was seconded and the board voted to deny the request unanimously.
What happens next: denial of the variance means the property owner may need to pursue other remedies or modify the structure to comply with local code; the applicant retains administrative and judicial options available under Florida law.
Speakers quoted (first reference): Bruce Humphrey, applicant representative (SEG 398); Matt Jackson, attorney for neighbors (SEG 1386); Jacob Smith, county counsel (SEG 254).
