Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Coastal Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board votes down coastal set‑back variance for 2903 Hill Street
Summary
A request to allow decorative pavers, a fountain and an outdoor shower east of the city’s coastal construction setback line at 2903 Hill Street failed after staff said the application did not meet multiple LDR criteria and board members raised environmental and precedent concerns.
The Planning & Zoning Board voted 0‑4 on Sept. 9 to deny a coastal construction setback line (CCSL) variance for 2903 Hill Street (case V‑14‑24). The applicant sought after‑the‑fact approval for a paver walkway, decorative fountain and an outdoor shower that are located seaward of the city’s CCSL, which the City Commission aligned with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s coastal construction control line in 2021.
Planning staff outlined the history: a deck had been permitted by the building department but did not follow CCSL routing; the CCSL relocation tightened allowable build areas in some parcels and created a variance process for property owners. Staff found the application met some criteria but not enough to recommend approval, noting the accessory structures at 2903 Hill are further seaward than neighboring accessory structures except dune walkovers and seawalls. Staff emphasized that an engineer would be needed to confirm potential impacts to dune stability.
Applicant representative Jessica Gallo said the DEP had approved certain elements, characterized the paver area as small (80 sq ft for pavers, 32 sq ft for fountain, 30 sq ft for shower) and said her firm stepped in to resolve a code enforcement case and submit the after‑the‑fact permit. Gallo argued the features are consistent with neighboring properties when viewed at a broader neighborhood scale and that the improvements were designed to avoid damaging dune functions.
Board members expressed concern about multiple LDR criteria not being met, environmental impacts to dune vegetation, and negative neighbor feedback. One board member tallied multiple criteria as unmet and said the CCSL is an important line for long‑term dune protection. The chair asked for a motion to approve and the roll‑call vote was 0 in favor, 4 opposed; the motion failed.
The application therefore remains denied at the board level; the applicant may pursue administrative remedies or revise the application and provide further engineering evidence for future consideration.
