Title:
title
1450 Lake Mills Road - Request for a front yard setback variance from one hundred (100) feet to twenty-one (21) feet for an accessory dwelling unit in the A-5 (Agriculture) district; BV2024-021 (Paul & Christa Macheske, Applicants) District 1 - Dallari (Hilary Padin, Project Manager)
end
Department/Division:
division
Development Services - Planning and Development
body
Authorized By:
Kathy Hammel
Contact/Phone Number:
Hilary Padin - (407) 665-7331
Motion/Recommendation:
1. Deny the request for a front yard setback variance from one hundred (100) feet to twenty-one (21) feet for an accessory dwelling unit in the A-5 (Agriculture) district; or
2. Approve the request for a front yard setback variance from one hundred (100) feet to twenty-one (21) feet for an accessory dwelling unit in the A-5 (Agriculture) district; or
3. Continue the request to a time and date certain.
Background:
• The applicant is converting an existing dwelling built in 1911 into an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). However, the ADU does not meet the required front yard setback of one hundred (100) feet, resulting in the necessity of this variance.
• The applicant will be removing the existing porches to meet the 1,100 square foot allowable ADU size with an Administrative Adjustment.
• The request is for a variance to Section 30.110(b) of the Land Development Code of Seminole County, which states that that accessory structure shall not project beyond the established building line unless set back a minimum of one hundred (100) feet from the front property line.
• 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 has 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 accessory dwelling unit 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.