Title:
title
Lot 14, N Ronald Reagan Boulevard - Request for: (1) a lot size variance from one (1) acre to 0.28 acre; and (2) a lot width variance from 150 feet to 100 feet in the A-1 (Agriculture) district; BV2026-024 (Nancy Couch, 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: (1) a lot size variance from one (1) acre to 0.28 acre; and (2) a lot width variance from 150 feet to 100 feet in the A-1 (Agriculture) district; or
2. Deny the request for: (1) a lot size variance from one (1) acre to 0.28 acre; and (2) a lot width variance from 150 feet to 100 feet in the A-1 (Agriculture) district; or
3. Continue the request to a time and date certain.
Background:
• The subject parcel was made up of two (2) parcels, each parcels of record created prior to Seminole County’s subdivision regulations being adopted, under common ownership with adjacent nonconforming lots. Per Policy FLU 3.2 of the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan, they were combined. However, even with the combination of the lots, the lot size and lot width requirements for the A-1 zoning district cannot be met to grant a building permit.
• The request is for a variance to Section 30.7.3 of the Seminole County Land Development Code, which states that the minimum lot size for the A-1 zoning district is one (1) acre and the minimum width at the building line is 150 feet.
• There have not been any prior variances for the subject property.
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 parcel is a legal parcel of record created prior to the subdivision regulations being adopted; therefore, special conditions and circumstances do exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning classification. Section 30.3.3.2(b)(1)
• The parcel is a legal parcel of record created prior to the subdivision regulations being adopted; therefore, special conditions and circumstances did not result from the actions of the applicant. Section 30.3.3.2(b)(2)
• The adjacent parcel is a developed parcel of similar size; 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 placement of a new single family home would continue the established use in the area for this property; 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 subject property falls short of the minimum A-1 zoning requirements in order to develop the parcel; 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)
• The size of the subject property is consistent with the adjacent property and development pattern of this area; therefore, the grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of Chapter 30, would not be injurious to the neighborhood or 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 and 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 parcel 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.