Planning board approves variance for two-story accessory building at 3 Seahorse Lane, with conditions

The City of Vero Beach Planning and Zoning Board on April 2 approved a variance allowing a two‑story accessory building to remain within the 15‑foot side‑yard setback at 3 Seahorse Lane, but attached three conditions: remove the north‑facing second‑floor window, alter the second‑story balcony to block views northward, and make the variance expire upon demolition of the structure. The motion passed 4–1.

Staff told the board the city originally issued a permit in May 2025 for the structure without north‑facing windows, and that a subsequent building revision added windows that the planning department says were not approved. Planning staff explained that under the land‑development code accessory single‑story buildings may encroach as close as 5 feet, while two‑story accessory structures must meet the primary 15‑foot setback and that variance requests must meet criteria in sections 66.02 and 66.03. Staff noted no obvious conflicts with the general criteria but recommended the three conditions if the variance were granted.

Andrew Bakhti, representing owners Scott and Karen Davis, told the board the property’s irregular, T‑shaped lot and prior approvals created a circumstance in which the owners reasonably relied on city approvals. Bakhti said the owners had spent nearly $300,000 on the work and asked the board not to require additional permanent balcony modifications.

An affected neighbor, Harry Zucker of 1 Seahorse Lane, told the board he and his family learned of the second‑floor construction only after work began and called the built addition “not acceptable” and a violation of the subdivision’s character. Zucker said the new windows overlooked his master bedroom and backyard and said the change diminished privacy and property values.

Board members and counsel discussed options that would preserve ventilation while reducing sight lines into adjacent yards. Participants described screening options such as louvers, shutters, or a partial wall; staff said screening should be engineered to meet wind and hurricane requirements. The applicant acknowledged a stop‑work order was in effect and said they were willing to remove the windows; staff confirmed the stop order currently prevents removal but that the applicant had agreed in principle.

A board member moved to approve the variance V2600001 with staff conditions (remove north‑facing windows; alter the balcony to block the northward view; variance expires on demolition). The motion was seconded and the board voted 4–1, with Miss Santa Marina voting no and members Irvin, Webster, Fortunato and Kennedy voting yes.

Next steps: the board’s approval carries the three conditions and will be implemented through the variance development order; the stop‑work order and any building‑permit revisions remain in effect until the conditions are satisfied.