Title:
title
Cloverdale Trail (Lot 7A) - Request for a minimum lot size variance from five (5) acres to one (1) acre in the A-5 (Agriculture) district; (James Greer, Applicant) District 2 - Zembower (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 a minimum lot size variance from five (5) acres to one (1) acre in the A-5 (Agriculture) district; or
2. Deny the request for a minimum lot size variance from five (5) acres to one (1) acre in the A-5 (Agriculture) district; or
3. Continue the request to a time and date certain.
Background:
• The request is to bring into compliance a one (1) acre parcel that was split off prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1991 establishing the five (5) acre rural zoning rendering this parcel nonconforming.
• The request is for a variance to Section 30.108(b) of the Land Development Code of Seminole County, which states that the minimum lot size is five (5) acres.
• There have not been prior variances for the subject property.
Staff Findings:
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 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 have been satisfied:
• Prior to the Comprehensive Plan adoption in 1991, this area was zoned A-1, which required one (1) acre parcels and many of these nonconforming parcels remain in the area; therefore, special conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are applicable to other lands, structures or building in the same zoning district. Section 30.43(b)(3)(a)
• This parcel was split off prior to the current ownership and was done prior to the creation and reassignment of the A-5 zoning district to this property; therefore, special conditions and circumstances did not result from the actions of the applicant. Section 30.43(b)(3)(b)
• At the time of the split, the property was zoned A-1, which required one (1) acre and conformed to the regulations and allowed a permit to be issued to parcel 7 in 1986; 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 district. Section 30.43(b)(3)(c)
• At the time of the split, the property was zoned A-1, which required one (1) acre to be buildable; 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. Section 30.43(b)(3)(d)
• The parcel is one (1) acre, which at the time of the split was the minimum required; therefore, the variance requested is the minimum variance that will make possible reasonable use of the land, building or structure. Section 30.43(b)(3)(e)
• In the 70’s, the property was zoned A-1 and met all requirements to be split; therefore, the grant of the variance would 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 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 30.43(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 this property 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.