Agenda

Back to Calendar Return

6. 1.

Board of Adjustment

Meeting Date:	09/16/2015
CASE: V-2015-09
APPLICANT:	Dr. M.H. Mikhchi, Agent for Westpointe Retirement Community
ADDRESS:	8700 Blk. Scenic Highway
PROPERTY REFERENCE NO.:	03-1S-29-1001-000-000
ZONING DISTRICT:	MDR, Medium Density Residential
FUTURE LAND USE:	MU-U, Mixed Use Urban

SUBMISSION DATA:

REQUESTED VARIANCE:

The Applicant is seeking an after-the-fact variance to the front yard fence height requirement in the Scenic Highway Overlay District. The Land Development Code (LDC) limits front yard fences in this area to a maximum height of three (3) feet and the applicant would like a fence of up to six (6) feet in height. In spite of its appearance, the unpermitted structure in question is a fence, not a retaining wall. It does not function as a retaining wall, nor has it been structurally designed as a retaining feature.

RELEVANT AUTHORITY:

Land Development Code of Escambia County, Florida (Ordinance No. 96-3 as amended), Section: 3-3.7.D(9)

(9) Fences. No fence within the overlay may be solid. No chain link fence shall be located between Scenic Highway and the principal building. Any other type of fence in this area shall not exceed three feet. Where single story structures are higher than the roadbed, there should be no wall, fence, structure or plant material located between the front building line and the roadbed that will obstruct the view from automobiles on the scenic route.

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

Scenic Highway winds along bluffs adjacent to Escambia Bay and the topographical conditions vary depending on the location. Some properties are raised above the road and some are below but most share some type of topographical relief. The property in this case does not have a peculiar hardship unique among other properties within the district.

CRITERION (2)

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

FINDINGS-OF-FACT

The fence structure on site was constructed without a permit from the County and the Applicant bears responsibility for it not meeting the requirements of the LDC.

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 the variance requested would confer on the applicant a special privilege that is denied by this land development code to other lands, buildings or structures in the same overlay 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

Staff finds that application of the provisions of the LDC would not create an unnecessary and undue hardship and would not deprive the owner of the right to build a fence within the limitaions of the overlay district.

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 not the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or 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:

Staff finds that the requested variance is not consistent with the general intent and purpose of the LDC.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends denial of the variance request as it does not meet all of the required variance criteria.

BOA DECISION

The Board adopted Staff Findings and denied the variance request.

Attachments
Working Case File #V-2015-09