Sarasota Board of Adjustment approves variances allowing elevation of house at 506 Jackson over neighbors’ objections

The Sarasota City Board of Adjustment voted 3‑2 on March 2026 to approve five variances requested by the owner of 506 Jackson that will allow the existing nonconforming house to be elevated and modified rather than demolished and rebuilt.

The variances — described by staff and counsel as requests related to daylight‑plane encroachments and setback encroachments, not a request for bonus height — were advanced by the applicant on the grounds that storm damage and the federal/state “50% rule” leave the owner unable to renovate the house at grade. Dan Bailey, counsel for the applicants, said the property suffered two floods in 2024 and that, after subtracting the value of an open permit, the owners lacked sufficient renovation room under the 50% test to repair in place. “We simply do not have the funds under the 50% limits to replace the roof, let alone repair electrical and plumbing,” Bailey said.

Neighbors and affected persons urged denial. Cynthia Matus, an adjacent property owner who identified herself for the record, said the house’s earlier additions already limit daylight and airflow in her backyard and alleged the applicant’s plans expand existing violations. “There’d be no daylight there would be no airflow,” Matus said, arguing the application would compound nonconforming conditions and damage neighboring property rights.

Board discussion focused on whether the five separate variance criteria in the zoning code had been met — including whether the hardship arose from land conditions versus prior design choices — and on technical details such as building‑coverage calculations and FEMA elevation requirements. A staff speaker read the Board’s standards and specific code sections into the record at the start of the hearing and reminded members that decisions must be based on competent, substantial evidence in the record.

Applicant witnesses described the proposal as a resiliency measure that would raise the first finished floor to roughly 16.66 feet above sea level to protect living space from projected storm surge. Counsel and the owner presented permit accounting figures during the hearing; the applicant said the city’s permit total and transmittals left approximately $218,000 under the 50% allowance after deducting an earlier permit value (applicant cited a $493,000 permit figure; staff later referenced $514,425 in the city record). The applicant also estimated that demolition and full rebuild could cost millions more than elevating and renovating the existing structure.

After public comment and board questioning, a motion to approve the variances passed 3‑2 (Miss Dennis — yes; Miss Hanlon — no; Mister Rooke — yes; Miss Nisbett — no; Mister Cherry — yes). The board did not adopt additional conditions on the variances during the vote. Staff and counsel noted that any subsequent appeals could require a complete transcript of the hearing and that the decision could be appealed through the city’s process.

The board then returned to other agenda business, and staff reminded members about Sunshine Law rules and caution regarding off‑record side conversations. The hearing packet and submitted exhibits remain part of the official record; the board’s decision is subject to the standard appeal procedures.