Title:
title
5201 Lake Howell Road - Request for a front yard setback variance from twenty-five (25) feet to zero (0) feet for a fence in the R-1A (Single Family Dwelling) district; BV2025-053 (Richard Adam Stawara, Applicant) District 4 - Lockhart (Mary Robinson, Project Manager)
end
Department/Division:
division
Development Services - Planning and Development
body
Authorized By:
Kathy Hammel
Contact/Phone Number:
Mary Robinson/407-665-7339
Motion/Recommendation:
1. Deny the request for a front yard setback variance from twenty-five (25) feet to zero (0) feet for a fence in the R-1A (Single Dwelling) district; or
2. Approve the request for a front yard setback variance from twenty-five (25) feet to zero (0) feet for a 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 in the Tanglewood Section 3 Replat subdivision and is within the R-1A Zoning District.
• The property is a corner lot and, as such, considered to have two (2) front yards for setback purposes. The front of the house faces Lake Howell Rd. The Ivy Lane lot frontage side is where the variance is being sought.
• The proposed six (6’) foot privacy fence encroaches into a five (5) foot utility easement at the northwest corner of the property. If approved, the building permit application must contain an estoppel letter to meet the criteria for placement of the fence.
• The proposed privacy fence is one (1) foot from the sidewalk and thirty-three (33) feet (per the boundary survey) from the edge of pavement. As shown on the boundary survey, the existing fence is within the right of way of Ivy Lane. If this variance is approved the proposed fence must be on the subject property. The property owner has acknowledged the encroachment in his justification statement.
• Traffic Engineering has no objection to the placement of the fence as it relates to sight visibility.
• A letter of support has been received from the neighbor at 1843 Ivy Ln. which is abutting the rear lot line of the subject property.
• A building permit application (25-3826) was submitted and is pending approval if this variance is approved.
• The request is for a variance to Section 30.14.19(f)(2) of the Seminole County Land Development Code, which states that on corner lots in residentially zoned properties, the secondary front yard or side street setback may be reduced to five (5) feet provided the visual clearance requirements can be met and with approval by the Seminole County Traffic Engineering Division. The applicant is requesting a zero (0) foot setback.
• There have not been any prior variances for the subject property.
Staff Findings:
The applicant has not satisfied all six (6) criteria under Section 30.3.3.2(b) of the Seminole County Land Development Code for granting a variance as listed below:
1. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning classification; and
2. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; and
3. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by Chapter 30 to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning classification; and
4. That the literal interpretation of the provisions of Chapter 30 would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning classification and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant; and
5. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure; and
6. That the grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of Chapter 30, will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
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 will not be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of Chapter 30, would be injurious to the neighborhood, and otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Section 30.3.3.2(b)(6)
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 30.3.3.2(b) 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 six (6’) foot 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.