Title:
title
1021 New Jersey Avenue - Request for a rear yard setback variance from thirty (30) feet to sixteen (16) feet for a detached garage in the R-1A (Single Family Dwelling) district; BV2026-038 (Donald Loomis, Applicant) District 3 - Constantine (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. Deny the request for a rear yard setback variance from thirty (30) feet to sixteen (16) feet for a detached garage in the R-1A (Single Family Dwelling) district; or
2. Approve the request for a rear yard setback variance from thirty (30) feet to sixteen (16) feet for a detached garage in the R-1A (Single Family Dwelling) district; or
3. Continue the request to a time and date certain.
Background:
• The subject property is located in the Little Washington Estates subdivision.
• The request is to construct a 1,260 square foot detached garage with recreation space encroaching fourteen (14) feet into the rear yard setback.
• Three (3) letters of support have been received from nearby property owners.
• Section 30.7.3.1(1) of the Seminole County Land Development Code requires any accessory building exceeding 200 square feet in size and/or twelve (12) feet in height, and any accessory dwelling unit, regardless of size, to meet all of the setback requirements applicable to the main residential structure located on the parcel.
• 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 have not been satisfied:
• This lot is a larger lot than the typical lot within the R-1A zoning district and does not have any special conditions or circumstances; 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 proposed structure could be placed more towards the front of the property allowing it to meet the rear yard setback without the necessity of this variance; 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 proposed structure could be placed more towards the front of the property allowing it to meet the rear yard setback; 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 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 detached garage (30’ x 42’) 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.