Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Variances topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Variance request for 507 3rd Street denied after residents object

St. Johns County Planning and Zoning Agency Board · June 4, 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 Agency split on a requested setback variance to treat Lot 8 as a corner lot; intense public opposition and a tie vote resulted in denial under agency rules.

The Planning & Zoning Agency effectively denied a requested variance to reduce the 25‑foot front setback to 15 feet at 507 3rd Street after extensive public comment and a tie vote.

Attorney/presenter Zach Miller explained the variance request: Lot 8 was platted as a corner lot before Bay Street was closed in 1971; the closure converted the parcel’s frontage and, Miller said, created a hardship that makes a 25‑foot front setback impractical for a buildable, marketable single‑family dwelling. Miller proposed treating the lot as if it still had the corner‑lot orientation to allow a 15‑foot setback and to preserve buildable area across the three lots of record.

Neighbors and multiple residents strongly opposed the variance. Speakers raised concerns that granting setbacks to produce multiple dwellings would lead to lot chopping, tree loss, increased traffic, and pressure toward short‑term rentals. Kevin Parkhill and Maureen O’Connor urged the board to respect existing deed restrictions and to consider environmental constraints near the Intracoastal; Joan McCutchen said a buyer under contract intended to combine the lots and build a single home without a variance.

Board members debated whether the applicant had created the hardship by purchasing the lots, or whether the historical closure of Bay Street constituted a government‑created hardship. After discussion, a motion was made to approve the variance but the board vote resulted in a tie; the chair noted a tie is a denial under board procedures. The variance thus failed.