Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New Port Richey council denies variance request for 5326 Carlton Road garage
Summary
The City Council unanimously denied an appeal to permit a 28-by-70 four-car garage at 5326 Carlton Road, finding the request did not meet the variance criteria and raising concerns about an existing easement, impervious-surface limits and neighborhood precedent.
The New Port Richey City Council voted unanimously to deny an appeal seeking three variances for a proposed 28-by-70 four-car garage addition at 5326 Carlton Road.
The applicant, Victor Santiago So to, told the council he had submitted photographs and letters — including one from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs — and said Duke Energy had vacated an easement that he argued made the project feasible. "They've said that they've already vacated," So to said of Duke Energy, and he asked the council to consider his personal and accessibility needs as a disabled veteran.
Staff and board members countered that the request failed to meet the city's six required variance criteria. Planning staff noted the proposed building would sit on a five-foot platted easement, would increase the impervious surface ratio to about 67% (above the 60% cap) and would likely require removal of large public-right-of-way trees. Mr. Hall, presenting for staff, said the LDRB and the DRC had reviewed the matter and recommended denial because the application "did not meet any of those [variance] criteria."
Councilman Butler moved to deny the appeal; the motion was seconded and the council voted in favor. In explaining his motion, Butler said the hearing was quasi-judicial and that evidence must be rooted in code criteria: "During the quasi judicial proceeding, we can't consider your service record ... unless there's a basis rooted in the actual code," he said.
City Attorney Driscoll and other council members emphasized the need for specific, documented hardship tied to code standards. One council member noted that photos alone did not provide the required demonstration that other properties had obtained comparable approvals.
Outcome and next steps: The council voted to deny the appeal. Staff advised the applicant that alternatives could include pursuing vacatur of the easement with the easement holder or returning with a smaller project that better fits code standards.
The denial preserves current setbacks and the city’s impervious-surface limits until and unless the applicant pursues those alternative paths.
