St. Johns County board narrowly approves controversial barn conversion after adding cleanup conditions
The St. Johns County Planning and Zoning Agency voted 5-2 on October 2, 2025, to approve a setback variance (special exception to property line rules) for a property at 109 W Fox Street in Hastings, but only after hours of contentious debate and the addition of strict cleanup requirements.
The Request
The Lowe family, who own the property through a trust, sought permission to place a residential living unit within two feet of the rear property line instead of the required 10 feet. The property contains a decades-old metal barn structure that the owners wanted to partially convert into living quarters—a concept known in building codes as a “barndominium.”
Attorney James Whitehouse explained that the building has stood in its current location for approximately 40 years, predating modern zoning regulations. The property was subdivided after the barn was built, creating the setback issue.
The owners, who live out of town in Atlantic Beach and Crescent City, have owned the property since 2011. They wanted to convert a small portion of the barn—initially proposed as a 180-square-foot area with existing sink and toilet facilities—into residential space to comply with county rules requiring a residence on properties with storage structures.
Neighborhood Concerns
Neighbor Chris Stanton, whose family has owned the adjacent property for three generations, strongly opposed the request. He presented photographs showing a dramatic change in the property’s appearance over the past 18 months, with numerous vehicles now stored openly on the site.
“I respectfully ask that you put yourself in our position, the neighbors,” Stanton told the board. “If you woke up one day and that is what is right next to your property, would you really want that?”
Stanton questioned whether the change would devalue surrounding properties, all of which are single-family homes without open storage. He also disputed claims that the barn had been there for over 50 years, noting county records show it was built in 1986.
The property currently contains 13 registered vehicles, two boats on trailers, a large yellow shipping container, and the metal barn structure—all visible from nearby Hastings Main Street, which has undergone recent revitalization efforts.
The Complicated Code Issues
The case revealed confusing intersections between different regulatory codes. Under county zoning rules, properties in RG-2 residential zoning cannot have storage structures without a primary residence. However, the barn predates these regulations as a nonconforming structure (a building that was legal when built but doesn’t meet current standards).
When the owners tried to comply by adding residential use, they discovered the building’s proximity to the property line created a problem. Any intensification of use—including converting part of the structure to living space—requires meeting current setback standards.
Building Department representative John Adams explained that converting any portion of the old barn would require extensive work: a structural engineer would need to certify the entire building could withstand 130-mile-per-hour winds, and the residential portion would need to meet all current Florida Building Code requirements.
Board members questioned the practicality of this approach. “It seems like starting over on that site with new construction will likely be the end solution,” said board member Mr. Olson. “It does not seem practical to depend on this 50-year-old-plus metal storage building.”
The Hardship Question
Much of the debate centered on whether the property demonstrated sufficient “hardship” to justify the variance. Under the county code, variances require proof that special conditions make literal enforcement of rules unnecessarily burdensome.
Whitehouse argued the hardship stemmed from the property’s unusual subdivision history. The original platted lots were subdivided after the barn was built, creating the setback violation through no fault of the current owners.
However, board member Dr. Hilsenbeck questioned this reasoning. “I don’t see the hardship here,” he said, noting the property was a standard rectangle shape without unusual topographical features. He pointed out that the owners could potentially build a small separate residence elsewhere on the property without needing a variance.
The Compromise
After an initial motion for approval failed 3-4, board members worked with the applicant to add conditions that would address neighborhood concerns while allowing the project to proceed.
Board member Mrs. Spiegel, who spoke with neighbors during her site visit, emphasized community appearance concerns, particularly given the property’s visibility from the revitalized Hastings Main Street area.
The final approved motion included three significant additional requirements beyond the standard conditions:
- The shipping container must be moved to the rear of the property, adjacent to the barn, after clearing that area
- A six-foot fence must be installed along all property boundaries where such fencing is allowed by code
- The property must be “cleaned up, organized, and straightened up” within 90 days
“I just want it looking nice for the neighbors,” said board member Mr. Green. “I don’t blame them for being upset. I would be too if I lived next door to this place.”
Outstanding Questions
Several technical issues remained unclear even after the vote. Staff noted that open storage of vehicles is not actually allowed in RG-2 residential zoning, though all vehicles on the property carry current registration.
Board members also noted that Dr. Hilsenbeck observed numerous cars stored on the adjacent lot owned by the same family, raising questions about the overall use and intent for both properties.
The approval is advisory to the Board of County Commissioners, who will make the final decision. The owners have one year from the variance approval to obtain both zoning clearance and a building permit, or the variance expires.
Whitehouse assured the board that his clients intend to clean up the property regardless of the conditions. “He intends to clean it up; his intent is not to have outdoor storage but to have a property that does not have the look of what it is, even if it complies with the code,” he told board members.
