Title:
title
2075 Dixie Avenue- Request for a side yard (north) setback variance from seven and one-half (7½) feet to zero (0) feet for an existing single family dwelling in the R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) district; BV2024-094 (Abner Jackson Jr, 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 a side yard (north) setback variance from seven and one-half (7½) feet to zero (0) feet for an existing single family dwelling in the R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) district; or
2. Deny the request for a side yard (north) setback variance from seven and one-half (7½) feet to zero (0) feet for an existing 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 located in the Dixie Terrace subdivision, which was platted in 1952 prior to the adoption of the Seminole County Land Development code.
• The request is to bring an existing 960 square foot residence into compliance with the R-1 zoning district setbacks.
• The request is for a variance to Section 30.7.3.1 of the Seminole County Land Development Code, which states that the side yard setback for the R-1 zoning district is seven and on-half (7½) feet.
• There have not been any prior variances for the subject property.
• The Midway subdivision is designated as a Community Development Target Area by the Board of County Commissioners. These target areas are designated to encourage redevelopment, preservation, revitalization.
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 has been satisfied:
The subject property is located in a subdivision platted prior to the creation of zoning districts; therefore, special conditions and circumstances do not 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 subject property’s lot size was established at the time of platting prior to the creation of the zoning regulations; therefore, special conditions and circumstances resulted from the actions of the applicant. Section 30.3.3.2(b)(2)
The reasonable use of the property as a single family dwelling is a right asserted to all properties within the zoning district; therefore, the granting of the variance requested would 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 entitlement to a single family dwelling on a legal lot of record is given to all lots of record within the same zoning classification; therefore, the literal interpretation of the provisions of Chapter 30 would not 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 size of the lot would not otherwise accommodate a single family dwelling; therefore, the variance requested is not the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. Section 30.3.3.2(b)(5)
The general intent of Chapter 30 is to protect the public interest and preserve the natural characteristics of residential and non-residential areas. The existing single family dwelling in this subdivision on this size lot preserves the character of the area and promotes the public interest; 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 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, 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 existing single family residence 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.