Title:
title
7413 Barnacle Court- Request for a side street (west) setback variance from twenty-five (25) feet to two (2) feet for a privacy fence in the R-1A (Single Family Dwelling) district; BV2023-122 (Amanda Ban, Applicant) District 1 - Dallari (Angi Gates, Project Manager)
end
Department/Division:
division
Development Services - Planning and Development
body
Authorized By:
Kathy Hammel
Contact/Phone Number:
Angi Gates 407-665-7465
Motion/Recommendation:
1. Deny the request for a side street (west) setback variance from twenty-five (25) feet to two (2) feet for a privacy fence in the R-1A (Single Family Dwelling) district; or
2. Approve the request for a side street (west) setback variance from twenty-five (25) feet to two (2) feet for a privacy fence in the R-1A (Single Family Dwelling) district; or
3. Continue the request to a time and date certain.
Background:
• The subject property is located in the Woodcrest Unit 5 subdivision.
• The subject property is a corner lot and is considered to have two (2) front yards for setback purposes. The front of the house faces Barnacle Court and the N. Woodcrest Drive side is where the variance is being sought.
• The proposed privacy fence will be two (2) feet from the sidewalk and nineteen (19) feet from the edge of pavement.
• Traffic Engineering has no objection to the placement of the fence as it relates to sight visibility.
• Eight (eight) signatures were received in support of the fence by surrounding neighbors.
• The request is for a variance to Section 30.206 of the Land Development Code of Seminole County, which states:
(a) On properties assigned the R-1A zoning classification, the following minimum yards shall be observed:
• The request is for a variance to Section 30.1349 of the Land Development Code of Seminole County, which states: (2) Side. Seven and one-half (7½) feet inside, twenty-five feet (25') street side; provided, however, that the twenty-five (25) feet street side minimum yard shall be reduced to fifteen (15) feet for corner lots to be located on intersections without geometric restrictions or other sight limitations. Where there are corner sight obstructions or restrictions due to the horizontal or vertical controls, each case must be individually reviewed and approved by the Traffic Engineer to ensure a safe design in accordance with the AASHTO requirements.
• On property assigned a residential zoning classification, a closed fence or wall in excess of three (3) feet in height shall maintain the same district front yard setback requirement as the main or principal dwelling structure except where backing up to a limited access highway or where regulations require such fences. In the case of corner lots, the lot shall be considered to have a front yard or yards on any side or sides abutting a road right-of-way.
There have not been prior variances for the subject property.
Staff Findings:
The applicant has not satisfied all six (6) criteria under Section 30.43(b)(3) of the Seminole County Land Development Code for granting a variance as listed below:
a. That special conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or building in the same zoning district; and
b. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; and
c. That the granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant special privileges that are denied by Chapter 30 to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district; and
d. That the literal interpretation of the provisions of Chapter 30 will deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning classification; and
e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance that will make possible reasonable use of the land, building or structure; and
f. That the grant of the variance would be in harmony with the general intent of Chapter 30.
Staff finds that the following variance criteria have not been satisfied:
The general intent of the Land Development Code is to maintain consistent setbacks; therefore, the grant of the variance would not be in harmony with the general intent of Chapter 30. Section 30.43(b)(3)(f)
Staff Conclusion:
Based upon the foregoing findings, the requested variance is not in the public interest and failure to grant the variance would not result in an unnecessary and undue hardship.
Staff Recommendation:
Based on the stated findings, staff recommends denial of the request, but if the Board of Adjustment determines that the applicant has satisfied all six (6) criteria under Section 30.43(b)(3) of the Seminole County Land Development Code for granting a variance, staff recommends the following conditions of approval:
1. Any variance granted will apply only to the fence as depicted on the attached site plan; and
2. Any additional condition(s) deemed appropriate by the Board of Adjustment, based on information presented at the public hearing.