A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Board grants ADU variance for McKay Creek Drive property to accommodate aging family members

April 02, 2026 | Pinellas County, Florida


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Board grants ADU variance for McKay Creek Drive property to accommodate aging family members
The Pinellas County Board of Adjustment and Appeals on April 1 approved a variance to permit a larger detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 3820 McKay Creek Drive after applicants argued the additional space was needed to safely house elderly family members.

Staff had recommended denial, saying the county’s 750‑square‑foot limit for ADUs in coastal storm and flood hazard areas exists to limit flood‑exposure risks. Applicant Kelsey Brummet told the board, “We’re requesting a variance to allow an increase in the accessory dwelling unit from 750 to 1,000 square feet in order to create a safe and functional living space for elderly family members.” She described accessibility needs — wheelchair clearances, five‑foot turning radii, wider doorways and accessible bathrooms — that she said cannot be met in the 750‑square‑foot footprint.

The applicants and their engineer emphasized site constraints: the parcel spans two flood zones (a small AE portion along the southern edge and a larger Zone X area where the house and proposed ADU sit), steep slope, water frontage, and two large protected grand oak trees whose critical‑root zones reduce the buildable area. The applicants said subdividing the lots would likely force tree removal and more intensive development.

Board members questioned whether a lot split would allow a standard home and discussed minimum flood elevations and finished‑floor heights. One member moved to approve the variance, referencing the combined physical constraints and accessibility needs; another member suggested and the board accepted amended language tying the finding to the oak trees as an unnecessary hardship under the variance criteria. The motion — including conditions for permits, fees, compliance with county ADU standards and preservation measures for the grand oaks — carried.

The board did not record a roll‑call tally in the minutes; the clerk announced the motion carried and the variance was granted.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee