|
Back to Calendar
Return
|
| |
6. 1.
|
| Board of Adjustment |
|
|
|
| SUBMISSION DATA: |
REQUESTED VARIANCE:
The Applicant is requesting a variance to the 20' rear structure minimum setback. The Applicant and the Cypress Point Home Owner's Association's adjacent parcel will require a zero lot setback in order to build a deck.
RELEVANT AUTHORITY:
Land Development Code of Escambia County, Florida (Ordinance No. 96-3 as amended), Section 3-2.7(d)(7)a
(d) Site and building requirements. The following site and building requirements apply to uses within the MDR district:
(7) Structure setbacks. For all principal structures, minimum setbacks are:
a. Front and rear. Twenty feet in the front and rear.
CRITERIA
Land Development Code of Escambia County, Florida (Ordinance No.96-3 as amended), Section 2-6.3 |
| CRITERION (1) |
Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or building and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district.
FINDINGS-OF-FACT
Based on the review of the existing subdivision plat, as approved, aerial photographs and staff's visit to the site, it is evident that the size of the rear yard for the parcel in question, is the result of the overall subdivision design, the existing structure layout and size, combined with the required setbacks for the subdivision. The parcel has the smallest rear setback, 15 feet, compared to all of the other lots within the subdivision which have a 30 foot setback. All lots within the subdivision have different shapes and orientation. All structures are different in size. The ability of other property owners to have decks results from the variability of lot and structure sizes.
|
| CRITERION (2) |
The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.
FINDINGS-OF-FACT
Based on the review of the approved plat, the structure in the lot was built to fit the existing parcel, and in accordance with the approved standards at the time of construction.
|
| CRITERION (3) |
Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this land development code to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district.
FINDINGS-OF-FACT
The Land Development Code does have allowances for all property owners to request variances to the property setbacks in any district.
|
| CRITERION (4) |
Strict application of the provisions of the land development code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the land development code and would create an unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant..
FINDINGS-OF-FACT
Strict application of the provisions of the Land Development Code would not deprive the Applicant of any rights. The platted subdivision was approved with specific standards common to the development, as shown in the approved document. Based on the approved plat, the lot as designed allows for the construction of a single-family residence. There are no undue hardships on the Applicant.
|
| CRITERION (5) |
The variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure.
FINDINGS-OF-FACT
Granting of the variance is not the minimum to make reasonable use of the land, building or structure. The reasonable use of the land was approved via the plat of the land, for a single-family residence. The approved subdivision plat does provide guidance such as specific lot size and setbacks that regulate the size and location of any proposed structure.
|
| CRITERION (6) |
The granting of the variance will be consistent with the general intent and purpose of the land development code and that such variance will not be injurious to the area or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
FINDING OF FACT:
Granting of the variance would not be consistent with the general intent and purpose of the land development code. The variance would not be detrimental to public welfare.
|
| STAFF RECOMMENDATION: |
The Applicant failed to meet the minimum requirements for Criteria 1, 4, 5 and 6, therefore staff recommends denial of the variance as requested. |
| BOA DECISION |
| The Board voted to overturn Staff Findings and grant the variance as requested. |
|
|
|