Agenda

Back to Calendar Return

6. B.

Board of Adjustment

Meeting Date:	10/18/2017
CASE: V-2017-07
APPLICANT:	Austin S. Horst, Owner
ADDRESS:	1929 Winners Circle
PROPERTY REFERENCE NO.:	27-1N-31-0350-004-002
ZONING DISTRICT:	MDR, Medium Density Residential district
FUTURE LAND USE:	MU-S, Mixed-Use Suburban

SUBMISSION DATA:

REQUESTED VARIANCE:

The applicant is requesting a variance of 42 inches, (3.5 feet), to the accessory structure setback minimum 5 feet requirement in the Land Development Code.

RELEVANT AUTHORITY:

Land Development Code of Escambia County, Florida (Ordinance No. 96-3 as amended), Section: 2-6.3

CRITERIA

Land Development Code of Escambia County, Florida (Ordinance No. 96-3 as amended), Section 6.05.05.F.5

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 staff's analysis of an aerial photograph, the subject parcel is not shaped as the majority of other parcels within the subdivision, as a result of pre-existing easements and topography. Review of available topographical map for the area reflects a four feet elevation difference between the parcel's frontage at Winner's Circle and the back of the parcel where the fence is located. The applicant did state that his intent was to prevent any type of injuries due to the backyard grade.

CRITERION (2)

The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.

FINDINGS-OF-FACT

The shape of the parcel and the inclination angle of the yard do not result from actions of the applicant.

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 LDC does provide allowances for requesting of a variance to all property owners in Escambia County, regardless of zoning district. Granting of the variance would not confer on the applicant any special privileges.

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

The approved subdivision plat provides for the construction of a single-family residence. Strict application of the provisions of the LDC would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties. Based on the application, the owner built the deck to address safety concerns within his property.

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

The variance granted is not the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. The lot was designed and approved for a single-family residence. The applicant stated that his yard use is diminished by the existing topography, resulting in a safety concern around the pool.

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:

The granting of the variance would not be consistent with the general intent and purpose of the LDC. Based on documentation provided by the applicant there is a ten foot drainage easement on the back of his property; although this appears to be a natural drainage easement based on general topography to aid on the overall subdivision natural flow of storm water, staff is unable to determine if the existing deck would have any detrimental impact in the subject parcel or surrounding parcels, as it relates to the overall storm water drainage process.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

The applicant did not properly address criteria 4, 5 and 6, therefore, staff recommends that the BOA does not grant the variance as requested.

BOA DECISION

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FINDINGS:

The Board adopted Staff's Findings and denied the Variance request.

Attachments
V-2017-07