Board of Adjustment approves variances to allow vertical expansion but limits Hixson Quadraplex to four units

The Fort Pierce Board of Adjustment voted 3‑0 on Aug. 20 to grant three variances that allow the owner of the Hixson Quadraplex at 1144 South Ocean Drive to add two floors above an existing two‑story, four‑unit building while keeping the unit count at four.

City staff told the board the request (project PZVAR2025‑0004) seeks deviations from several city code sections—cited in the hearing as sections 125.195, 125.157 and related rebuilding/density provisions—so the legally nonconforming structure can be elevated and made flood‑compliant. Staff recommended approval, saying the plan would convert the ground floor to code‑compliant garage space with flood vents and breakaway walls and would not increase residential density.

“The variances would allow the vertical expansion of the existing legally nonconforming four‑unit residential structure,” the staff presentation said, describing the project as a response to updated floodplain regulations and a way to preserve existing land use without adding units.

Roger Templeman of CADCON Design, representing owner Douglas Hixson, told the board the project will add two penthouse floors (one unit on the third floor and one on the fourth) while leaving the existing two second‑floor units in place. “We’re not doing 8 units,” Templeman said, noting the lot is about 0.26 acres and arguing the proposal preserves the existing four units while bringing the building into compliance with modern flood standards. He described using breakaway‑wall systems and a corner column superstructure to elevate habitable space without full demolition.

Board members questioned how the project interacts with a Hutchinson Island overlay adopted in the 1990s that set an 8‑units‑per‑acre density limit. Staff explained that because the overlay reduced allowed density, some older buildings now exceed current density ratios even if they do not add units; rebuilding the same footprint today would therefore require variances. Staff also confirmed the proposed structure would be at or under the 45‑foot height limit cited in the presentation.

Several neighbors spoke during public comment. A nearby resident asked whether approval would allow adjacent properties to automatically seek the same relief; staff said approvals are evaluated case‑by‑case. Joanne Alberali, who identified herself and said she lives across the street, said she supported making the building safer: “that’s such a great idea to to make change the building to a safer and… not really, rule any kind of view,” she said, adding she saw the safety improvements as positive for the street.

During deliberations a board member moved to approve the three variances and then amended the motion to explicitly cap occupancy of the property at a maximum of four units under the approval. The amended motion was seconded and passed on a 3‑0 roll call (Mister Drummond: yes; Miss Mitchell: yes; Chair Galinis: yes). The board’s attorney reminded members that, as a quasi‑judicial body, decisions must be based on competent substantial evidence and that applicants may appeal to the commission if they seek broader relief.

The decision authorizes the applicant to pursue permits consistent with the approved variances and the board’s condition limiting the site to four units. Any final building permits, engineering approvals and required inspections remain subject to staff review and applicable code requirements.