Historic Preservation Board approves lot‑dimension variances for 109 Avenue D

The Fort Pierce Historic Preservation Board voted unanimously on April 27 to approve lot‑dimension variances for a proposed two‑lot subdivision at 109 Avenue D (PZCOA 2026‑19).

Staff presented the application and told the board the parcel (parcel ID 2403‑705‑0107‑000‑7) originally held a historic two‑story wood‑frame house built in 1901 that received a certificate of appropriateness for demolition in August 2025. Planning staff described two alternative lot configurations the applicant proposed: Option 1 places both new houses fronting Avenue D and requires a 9‑foot depth variance (resulting lots approximately 86 feet deep and 50 feet wide); Option 2 places the homes fronting North 2nd Street and requires a 2‑foot width variance per lot (resulting lots approximately 100 feet deep and about 43.3 feet wide). Staff said both options meet the minimum lot area threshold (~4,300 square feet) but differ in driveway layout and potential engineering constraints.

"Given that the application meets the criteria for the granting [of] variances, staff is recommending that the board approve both variance options," a city planning staff member said during the hearing.

During questioning, board members pressed staff on setbacks and driveway location. Staff responded that setbacks would be met under either option but that driveway distances and corner clearances are subject to the city engineering department's review and may limit which configuration is ultimately feasible.

Applicant Mark Hutchins, who identified himself at the podium as the property owner, told the board he favors the Avenue D orientation for aesthetic reasons and said the project team prefers split driveways rather than a paired central driveway. "Our architects are more leaning towards Avenue D," Hutchins said, adding that the 2nd Street option could require a retaining wall and be costlier to build. He also said the team would pursue split driveways if engineering permits.

A board member moved to approve both variance options and the motion was seconded. The clerk called the roll and recorded votes of "Yes" from Miss Garrett, Miss Hyperwhite, Miss Stark and Chair Davis; the motion carried unanimously. Staff explained next steps will include a minor replat or lot split application and two additional certificates of appropriateness for construction plans, which will return to the board for review.

The board’s action permits the applicant to pursue engineering review and the subsequent land‑use filings required for final approval.