Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies variance for attached porch/fence at 95 10th Street townhome
Summary
The board denied a variance sought for an attached porch/fence at an oceanfront townhome on 10th Street after staff said the unpermitted covered porch is attached to the primary structure and therefore must meet primary‑structure setbacks; neighbors raised concerns about drainage and fence height.
The Community Development Board voted to deny a variance request for an enclosed porch and connected fence at a townhome on 10th Street, concluding the feature is attached to the primary structure and must meet primary‑structure setback rules.
Amanda (planner, speaker 4) described ZBAR20‑0068: inspectors discovered a covered porch/roof attached to the primary structure that encroaches on rear‑yard setbacks (4‑inch and 6‑inch in the submitted survey) and was not shown on the fence permit plans. Staff said the porch was unpermitted and that once staff inspected the site it was clear the covered area was part of the principal structure, which triggers the larger rear yard setback rather than the fence standard.
Applicant Bill Taylor (speaker 10) told the board the roof and porch ‘‘have always been there’’ according to his family’s recollection and said he sought to repair and improve the appearance; he thanked city staff for assistance but acknowledged some permitting confusion. Neighbor Davis Fleming (speaker 11) urged denial, telling the board the roof drains onto his property and that the fence is taller than six feet from his side, which he said worsens aesthetic and water‑intrusion issues.
Board members debated whether the feature should be treated as a fence (which can be six feet in the rear) or as an attached accessory structure that must meet the primary‑structure setback; staff and several members concluded the construction is attached to the roof and therefore not a fence. A motion to deny the variance was made and approved by the board.
The denial means the property owner must either bring the structure into compliance with setback rules (which would likely require removing or altering the enclosed portion) or pursue a revised application and permits consistent with code and any ongoing code‑enforcement actions.
