Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Alley Vacation Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies alleyway vacation variance, finds applicant did not show required hardship
Summary
The St. Pete Beach Board of Adjustment voted to deny Case 26043, an application to vacate a 15-foot alleyway abutting two properties, concluding the applicant failed to meet the hardship criteria (3 and 7); staff cited alternatives such as right-of-way permits and maintenance agreements.
The St. Pete Beach Board of Adjustment denied variance Case 26043 after concluding the applicant had not demonstrated the legal hardship required to vacate a public alleyway.
Brandon Barry, staff planner, presented the request from property owners abutting a 15-foot-wide alley platted in 1913. The owners sought an unnecessary and undue hardship variance from Land Development Code section 20.19 to allow vacation of the west–east alleyway that separates two lots. Barry told the board the alleyway is approximately 15 feet wide and about 100 feet deep and that the city has no active utilities under its jurisdiction in that alley (though utilities from other entities cross the space). Staff found several hardship criteria met or partially met but said criteria 3 (literal interpretation of the code would deprive rights commonly enjoyed by other properties) and 7 (minimum variance) were not supported by the submitted narrative.
Kyle Bass, agent for Colum Properties LLC and CC Bull LLC, argued the existing right-of-way permitting process and potential maintenance agreements do not resolve the owners' practical problems. "To require that every single time something needs to be done ... apply for this permit which has over 26 conditions" would, he said, impose an ongoing hardship on routine maintenance, and he described vacating the alleyway as the minimum change necessary.
Board members pushed back, noting that similar maintenance and renovation work has been completed under the permit regime and that right-of-way utilization permits are typically a single-page form for routine activities while more substantial work uses larger permit applications. Public commenter Marilyn Remar, who said she has owned property at 103 20th since 1968, told the board the alley should never be relinquished because neighbors rely on it for access, and that the city should not "give away" public land.
After deliberation the board moved to deny Case 26043, specifically finding the applicant had not supported criteria 3 and 7 required to establish an unnecessary and undue hardship. The motion to deny carried with Members Small, Schmidt, Core and Chair Chase voting yes. The denial means the request will not be forwarded to the City Commission for a legislative vacation of the alley; staff had earlier noted that a successful vacation would also require utility consent and additional legislative actions by the commission.
