Agenda

Back to Calendar Return

6. A.

Board of Adjustment

Meeting Date:	11/15/2017
CASE: V-2017-08
APPLICANT:	O. David Chunn, Jr. and Lori Chunn, Owners
ADDRESS:	1333 La Paz St.
PROPERTY REFERENCE NO.:	08-2S-31-4000-000-038
ZONING DISTRICT:	MDR, Medium Density Residential district
FUTURE LAND USE:	MU-S, Mixed-Use Suburban

SUBMISSION DATA:

REQUESTED VARIANCE:

The Applicants are requesting a variance to reduce the side yard setback for a dock from 10' to 5'.

RELEVANT AUTHORITY:

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

For any dock, boathouse structure, pier, or any part of extensions thereof, the minimum setback line from the side property lines and riparian lines shall be ten percent of the width of the lot where the side property lines intersect the mean high water line (MHWL) (see exception in “f”, below). However, the minimum setback shall not be less than five feet and a maximum of twenty five feet on each side. This setback requirement is not intended to define an upland property owner's riparian and/or littoral rights.

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

This existing dock was built in the footprint of a dock that was destroyed in Hurricane Ivan. While the previous owner rebuilt the dock prior to the Applicant's purchase of the property in 2015, the rebuild did not meet the current setback and was done without permitting from the County. The length of time from the destruction to the rebuild exceeded the 365 day window to replace a non-conforming structure following an act-of-God.

CRITERION (2)

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

FINDINGS-OF-FACT

The Applicant's bought the property without knowledge that the dock had been rebuilt without permitting. They did not create the non-conforming status that requires a variance to allow permitting.

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

Granting this request would allow the dock in a historical footprint in the same manner as other properties in the area.

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 code in this instance would create an undue and unearned practical hardship for the Applicants.

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 requested variance is the minimum necessary to allow permitting of this existing 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:

A variance allowing this dock to remain within the historical footprint should not be detrimental to the public welfare.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

STAFF RECOMMENDS:

Staff finds that this variance request does meet all of the required criteria for granting of a variance.

BOA DECISION

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FINDINGS:

The Board adopted Staff's findings and approved the variance as requested.

Attachments
V-2017-08