Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board rejects variance to split 1326 North Peninsula Avenue; neighbors cite docks and neighborhood character
Summary
The Planning & Zoning Board denied a variance request (V‑21‑24) to subdivide 1326 North Peninsula Ave. into two sublots narrower than the R‑1 standard. Staff found criteria 1, 2 and 5 met but recommended against approval on criteria 3 and 4; the motion to approve failed 1–5.
The Planning & Zoning Board on Nov. 4 voted against a variance that would have allowed a minor subdivision of 1326 North Peninsula Avenue into two lots under the R‑1 district minimum width. The motion to approve the variance failed on a 1–5 roll call.
Planning staff summarized the request: the existing parcel is about 0.41 acres and currently measures roughly 107.7 feet across; the applicant proposed two new lots of about 53.85 feet width each. Staff said the application met criteria 1, 2 and 5 in the city’s land development regulations but expressed concerns about criteria 3 (whether the hardship was created by the owner) and 4 (whether granting the variance would cause substantial detriment to public welfare or impair the intent of the LDR).
Attorney Michael Lyons, representing the applicant, said the parcel’s configuration reflects older plats and that many neighboring properties either were platted at 50 feet or could be subdivided under existing rights. "Literally, the next door neighbor can do exactly what this variance is seeking," Lyons said, urging parity with nearby properties.
Neighbors and nearby property owners pushed back. Robert Bailey told the board that the waterfront dimensions and docking needs make two narrow lots infeasible: "If you're going to divide it in 2, it's 45 foot lots... You're not gonna have space to have any type of a useful dock," Bailey said, warning the change would compromise deep‑water access and value for waterfront lots. Another commenter cautioned the board against treating older, small plats as apples‑to‑apples comparisons with the proposed subdivision.
Board members debated whether approval would undermine the intent of the R‑1 district to preserve larger beachside parcels. Several members said they were not convinced the applicant met criteria 3 and 4 and expressed concern that granting this variance could create an entitlement that neighboring lots do not have. The roll call on the motion to approve V‑21‑24 was 1 in favor, 5 opposed; the motion failed.
Staff noted recommended conditions that would have been required if approval were considered (setbacks, building coverage, demolition of existing structures before recording the minor subdivision and limits on docks); because the motion failed, the variance was not granted. Applicants may revise the application, provide additional evidence, or seek other remedies under the city’s procedures.
