Title:
title
Board of Adjustment Appeal - Appeal of the Board of Adjustment decision to deny the request for: (1) a rear yard setback variance from thirty (30) feet to three (3) feet; and (2) a side yard (north) setback variance from seven and one-half (7½) feet to four and one-half (4½) feet for a workshop in the R-1A (Single Family Dwelling) district; and more particularly known as 1220 George Street; (Crystal Morse, Appellant) District2 - Zembower (Angi Gates, Planner)
end
Division:
division
Development Services
body
Authorized By:
Jose Gomez, Chief Administrator of Development Services
Contact/Phone Number:
Angi Gates/407-665-7465
Background:
Summary
On October 28, 2024, the Board of Adjustment denied a variance for: (1) a rear yard setback variance from thirty (30) feet to three (3) feet; and (2) a side yard (north) setback variance from seven and one-half (7½) feet to four and one-half (4½) feet for an existing workshop in the R-1A (Single Family Dwelling) district; with conditions as set forth in the Denial Development Order attached hereto as (Exhibit A).
The existing workshop is 486.22 square feet (30.2’ x 16.1’) and encroaches twenty-seven (27) feet into the required rear yard setback and three (3) feet into the required side yard (north) setback.
A building code violation (24-232) was issued for this structure, resulting in the necessity of these variances.
On November 12, 2024, Crystal Morse, Appellant, filed a Notice of Appeal of the Board of Adjustment Decision (Exhibit B).
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:
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, injurious to the neighborhood, and otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; Section 30.3.3.2(b)(6).
BOA Decision
The Board of Adjustment found that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence or testimony to show that the criteria under Section 30.3.3.2(b) of the Seminole County Land Development Code for granting a variance were met. As noted by the Board members in the minutes, the variance criteria justification statement, submitted by the applicant (Exhibit E), did not address the variance request. When Chairman Jim Hattaway asked the applicant’s attorney on the record if there was anything that the applicant would like to add to amend the justification statement responses (Exhibit E), Ms. Glavin stated that the applicant would not like to amend her answers. Thus, the Board determined that there was no evidence on the record to support approval of the variance.
Requested Action:
Based on the information, findings, and conclusions included and referenced in the Agenda Memorandum prepared in association with the original action taken by the Board of Adjustment at its meeting on October 28, 2024 (attached hereto as Exhibit D), and the testimony presented at the aforementioned meeting (the minutes of which are attached hereto as Exhibit C), staff requests the Board of County Commissioners uphold the decision of the Board of Adjustment to deny the request for: (1) a rear yard setback variance from thirty (30) feet to three (3) feet; and (2) a side yard (north) setback variance from seven and one-half (7½) feet to four and one-half (4½) feet for a workshop in the R-1A (Single Family Dwelling) district.