Title:
title
Parcel 104, Washington Street - Request for: (1) a lot size variance from 8,400 square feet to 5,000 square feet; and (2) a width at building line variance from seventy (70) feet to fifty (50) feet for a single family dwelling in the R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) district; BV2026-032 (Brian Singh, Applicant) District 5 - Herr (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. Approve the request for: (1) a lot size variance from 8,400 square feet to 5,000 square feet; and (2) a width at building line variance from seventy (70) feet to fifty (50) feet for a single family dwelling in the R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) district; or
2. Deny the request for: (1) a lot size variance from 8,400 square feet to 5,000 square feet; and (2) a width at building line variance from seventy (70) feet to fifty (50) feet for a single family dwelling in the R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) district; or
3. Continue the request to a time and date certain.
Background:
• The subject property is a legal parcel of record created prior to Seminole County’s subdivision regulations being adopted. However, the parcel does not meet the minimum lot size and lot width for the zoning district and requires variances to construct a single-family home on the site.
• The request is for a variance to Section 30.7.3 of the Seminole County Land Development Code, which states that the minimum lot size requirement is 8,400 square feet and the minimum width at building line requirement is 70 feet.
• There have not been any prior variances for the subject property.
• The subject property is located within the Midway Target Area
Staff Findings:
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 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 have been satisfied:
• This parcel is a legal parcel of record established prior to the subdivision regulations; therefore, special conditions and circumstances do exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning classification. Section 30.3.3.2(b)(1)
• This parcel was created prior to the subdivision regulations and prior to the ownership of the applicant; therefore, special conditions and circumstances did not result from the actions of the applicant. Section 30.3.3.2(b)(2)
• The property existed prior to the creation of the subdivision regulations and retains entitlements to be built upon; therefore, the granting of the variance requested would not confer on the applicant special privileges that are denied by Chapter 30 to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning classification. Section 30.3.3.2(b)(3)
• The placement of a new single family home would continue the established use in the area for this property; therefore, 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. Section 30.3.3.2(b)(4)
• The established lot size and width cannot be expanded as the adjacent lots are not under common ownership; therefore, the variance requested is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. Section 30.3.3.2(b)(5)
• The size of the subject property is consistent with adjacent properties and development pattern of this area; therefore, the grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of Chapter 30, would not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Section 30.3.3.2(b)(6)
Staff Conclusion:
Based upon the foregoing findings, the requested variance is in the public interest and failure to grant the variance would result in an unnecessary and undue hardship.
Staff Recommendation:
Based on the stated findings, staff recommends approval of the request, and 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 parcel 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.