Title:
title
(Lot 76) Emmett Avenue - Request for: (1) a south front yard setback variance from fifty (50) feet to twenty-five (25) feet; and (2) an east side street setback variance from fifty (50) feet to nineteen (19) feet; and (3) a west side yard setback variance from ten (10) feet to seven and one-half (7½) feet for a Single Family Dwelling in the A-1 (Agriculture) district; BV2025-103 (David Gardner, Applicant) District 5 - Herr (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. Approve the request for: (1) a south front yard setback variance from fifty (50) feet to twenty-five (25) feet; and (2) an east side street setback variance from fifty (50) feet to nineteen (19) feet; and (3) a west side yard setback variance from ten (10) feet to seven and one-half (7½) feet for a Single Family Dwelling in the A-1 (Agriculture) district; or
2. Deny the request for: (1) a south front yard setback variance from fifty (50) feet to twenty-five (25) feet; and (2) an east side street setback variance from fifty (50) feet to nineteen (19) feet; and (3) a west side yard setback variance from ten (10) feet to seven and one-half (7½) feet for a Single Family Dwelling in the A-1 (Agriculture) district; or
3. Continue the request to a time and date certain.
Background:
• The subject property is in The Town of Sylvan Lake subdivision and is a legal lot of record.
• The Town of Sylvan Lake plat was recorded in 1914, prior to the Seminole County Land Development Code being adopted. At that time, all the lots were 7,500 square feet (50’ x 150’).
• The adoption of the County wide zoning in 1960 subsequently rendered the lot non-conforming with respect to the minimum A-1 zoning dimensional and setback requirements, thereby creating a hardship.
• The proposed single family dwelling will be approximately 1,800 square feet and will encroach twenty-five (25) feet into the required south front yard setback, thirty-one (31) feet into the required east side street setback and two and one-half (2½) feet into the required west side yard setback.
• The requested setbacks are similar to the R-1B zoning district setbacks. Staff believes that variances allowing setbacks like those in the R-1B zoning district would be the minimum variances to make reasonable use of the land.
• The request is for a variance to Section 30.7.3.1 of the Seminole County Land Development Code, which states that the front yard and side street setback for this zoning district is fifty (50) feet, and the side yard setback is ten (10)feet.
• On June 25, 2007 the Board of Adjustment approved the following variances for a single family dwelling on this this lot:
(1) a lot size variance from 43,560 square feet to 7,500 square feet; and
(2) a width at building line variance from 150 feet to fifty (50) feet; and
(3) a front yard setback variance from fifty (50) feet to twenty-five (25) feet; and
(4) a side street setback variance from fifty (50) feet to ten (10) feet
• On September 11, 2007, the Board of County Commissioners overturned the Board of Adjustment’s decision to approve the four (4) variances.
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:
• The adoption of the County wide zoning in 1960 created the lot non-conforming; therefore, special conditions and circumstances do 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. Section 30.3.3.2(b)(1)
• The applicant did not create the lot; therefore, special conditions and circumstances did not result from the actions of the applicant. Section 30.3.3.2(b)(2)
• 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; 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 adoption of the County wide zoning in 1960 subsequently rendered the lot non-conforming with respect to the minimum A-1 zoning dimensional and setback requirements, thereby creating a hardship; 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 not work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. Section 30.3.3.2(b)(4)
• The applicant would not retain reasonable use of the land, building or structure without the granting of a variance; 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)
• Without the approval of the setback variances the applicant would not be able to build a home on the lot; therefore, the grant of the variance would be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of Chapter 30, and would not 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 variances are 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 requests. 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 single family dwelling 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.