Planning board denies Aspinwall setback request for Broward Street accessory unit

The St. Johns County Planning and Zoning Agency on a 5–1 vote denied a request to reduce the required second-front-yard setback from 25 feet to 10 feet for an accessory family unit proposed at 6665 Broward Street.

Bruce Liddy, construction field manager for Sparrow Construction, told the board the narrow, 50-foot-wide lot and an existing retainer wall left "no room" to build the accessory family unit (AFU) without setback relief. "We built their house, the Aspinwall's House, with a CO on 02/18/2025," Liddy said, describing a retainer wall and a previously issued clearance sheet and permit for site work.

Neighbors and nearby property owners sharply contested that justification. Douglas Henderson, whose property abuts the site, said the request "is a full 60% reduction in the required setback" and warned the additional impervious surface would increase flood risk for adjoining yards during storm events. Other residents raised visual-sight-line and privacy concerns about the height of the retaining wall plus a proposed fence.

Staff and technical reviewers told the board the application raised an issue that had not been apparent earlier because the lot is a "through lot" (with streets on two sides), and under the county's land development code "all portions adjacent to the street shall be considered as a front yard for regulatory purposes." Jacob Smith of Growth Management said administrative clearance sheets previously submitted by the applicant had shown a 10-foot rear setback on paper, but that did not alter the land development code's through-lot front-yard rule. "No one changed any rules," Smith said. "What I assume happened is... an administrative oversight."

Board members pressed for a clear hardship showing. Several commissioners questioned whether the property owner had "acquired" the hardship by purchasing a constrained lot and what unique condition justified the variance. Miss Spiegel, who asked technical questions about height and parking, ultimately proposed approval on the staff findings but that motion failed for lack of a second. Mr. Matovina then moved to deny the variance, saying the record supported a finding of self-imposed hardship; the motion carried 5–1.

The applicant argued after the vote that multiple clearance sheets and an issued certificate of occupancy had led him to believe a 10-foot rear setback applied to properties on Broward Street, and he said he had built the retainer wall and progressed in good faith on that basis. County staff and the board disagreed that the administrative paperwork altered the code-required setback for through lots.

The denial means the applicant must either redesign to meet the 25-foot second-front-yard standard or file a new, fully re-noticed application demonstrating good cause and any changed circumstances before the board would rehear the request.

The board did not vote to reconsider the denial during this meeting.