Council approves 10-foot setback variance for proposed multifamily project behind Home Depot

Punta Gorda’s City Council on Oct. 22 approved a variance reducing the rear-yard setback from 25 feet to 15 feet for a proposed multifamily project at 3930 San Rocco Drive, a parcel located behind the Home Depot loading area.

The request (application V-03-2025) sought a 10-foot reduction to permit an eight-unit multifamily development on property zoned GM-15. Rachel Berry, the city’s zoning official, told the council staff could not recommend approval under the literal language of section 16.1(b) of the Punta Gorda land development regulations, but that the applicant had pursued the matter with city staff for more than two years and that the Board of Zoning Appeals recommended approval 6–1.

Applicant Carlos H. Reyes and his engineering team described a long process of meetings with city staff dating to December 2023, presenting multiple plan iterations and asserting they had been told by city staff during pre-application meetings that the reduced setback would be acceptable. “We are here to ask you to please let us move the 10 feet because otherwise, we have to abandon the project,” Reyes said, adding that he had $363,000 invested in the project and that further delay would be economically damaging.

Neighbors and representatives appeared in favor at the public hearing. Bob Seifert, representing the Board of Zoning Appeals, said the applicants relied on city guidance and called the proposal compatible with surrounding uses; Joe Como, who lives across the street, said the site backs onto a loading area and would be compatible with the neighborhood. Bernstor Isles Association President Bill Page urged denial, citing deed-restriction enforcement still under appeal and concerns about notification.

Council discussion noted that the site backs onto commercial property and a loading area, limiting any visual impact. After council members questioned staff and participants, a council member moved to approve application V-03-2025; the motion was seconded and passed on an oral vote. No roll-call vote was recorded in the public minutes provided.

Council members and staff recognized the project’s lengthy permitting history and said the approval was granted on a case-by-case basis, consistent with the advisory board’s recommendation. The applicant was directed to continue coordination with building and engineering staff for final construction approvals.