The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Carlton Road and Astor Drive and is 0.16 acre in size. The property was originally platted as a part of the Jasmin Terrace subdivision in 1956. In 2002, a 1,199 square foot single-family dwelling with a 445 square foot attached garage (total 1,644 square feet) was constructed. The surrounding properties to the north, south, east, and west each consist of single-family dwellings.
It is noted that as a part of the subdivision plat for Jasmin Terrace, a five-foot utility easement was reserved along the rear of the lot. While this easement is reflected on the survey provided by the applicant, the proposal would appear to ignore its existence as the proposed garage addition would be built atop this easement.
For all single-family dwellings located in the MF-10 District, the R-3 District regulations shall apply. Accordingly, pursuant to LDC Section 7.03.03, a 25-foot side yard setback along Astor Drive, and 10-foot rear yard (south) setback are required. The applicant is proposing to locate the garage eight inches from the side yard property line, and zero feet from the rear yard property line and therefore is requesting a variance of 24 feet – four inches from the side yard setback and 10 feet from the rear yard setback.
Pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.03, in order to authorize any variance from the terms of an ordinance, positive findings must be made with regard to each of the following criteria:
1. That special conditions or circumstances that 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 district.
The written responses provided by the applicant to this criterion are that the “lot is on [a] corner,” and that “flooding zone area needs to be built to protect property and assets.” While these are generally accurate statements, these are by no means something which is peculiar to the land as hundreds of other parcels in the city are also corner lots or are located in flood prone areas.
2. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.
The written response provided by the applicant to this criterion was “city code” – likely meaning that the city code is the reason for the special circumstances on the property; however, while “city code” does establish the setbacks applicable to the property from which the variance is being requested, it does so for every parcel in the city.
Additionally, the applicant also responded that the “property is in a low flood zone, water levels rise 4.5 feet during hurricane. Due to corner lot there is no other location to build.” Again, while these are generally accurate statements, the extent of the variances being requested are still very much due to the proposal being made by the applicant.
3. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district.
The written responses provided by the applicant to this criterion are that “multiple properties [have been] built to [the] edge of [the] property, multiple garages, multiple driveways,” and that “there are houses that have these same conditions and construction.” The applicant has not provided any evidence to support these statements, and an analysis of the surrounding properties has not revealed any circumstance where a garage has been built with an eight-inch setback from the front of the property, or a zero-foot setback from the rear of the property, or that a parcel has been approved with a 7% increase above the maximum impervious surface ratio.
4. That literal interpretation of the provisions of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the ordinance would work unnecessary and undue hardships on the applicant.
The written responses provided by the applicant to this criterion are that this “has been done before,” and that “yes, I would be subject to more hurricane damages and other homes have similar request or properties.” Staff would again note that the applicant has not provided any evidence to support these statements, and that there would not appear to be any circumstance where a garage has been built with an eight-inch setback from the front of the property, or a zero-foot setback from the rear of the property.
5. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure.
The written responses provided by the applicant to this criterion are that “for the space needed this would be the most accommodating,” and that “due to the available size and shape this would be the most reasonable request.” While the applicant may believe that the development proposal will provide them with the “space needed,” staff does not believe that the resulting development, if approved, would be reasonable, but rather would be excessive for the subject property, the surrounding area, and the city as a whole. Furthermore, the resulting development would exceed the established impervious surface ratio (ISR) of 60% for residential development in the city with a figure of roughly 67.7% and the applicant does not appear to have met any reasonable justification to exceed this established maximum.
6. That the grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the ordinance and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
The written responses provided by the applicant to this criterion are that their “neighbors agree on construction design,” that the proposal “improves” the neighborhood, and that “all agree would raise property values”. The applicant has not provided any evidence to support these statements, and it is the opinion of staff that a variance reducing an established 25- foot front setback to an essentially irrelevant eight inches would be severely detrimental to the subject property, as well as the neighborhood, and the city as a whole. Furthermore, such a severe reduction for a garage will likely result in an unsafe situation for vehicles taking ingress and egress to and from the subject property and the general
Pursuant to LDC Section 7.22.01, Easements, unless otherwise provided for in this land development code, no structure can be constructed or erected on or within a recorded easement, exclusive of portable items which can easily be removed such as, but not limited to, playground equipment and lawn furniture. The subject property has an existing five-foot wide utility easement at the southern end of the property, which was established via plat in 1956. No evidence has been provided that would indicate this easement has having been abandoned or vacated, and it is reflected on the current survey provided by the applicant as a part of this variance application. It is noted, however, that the applicant proposes to construct the addition associated with this variance application within this existing easement in conflict with the above referenced provision of the LDC, which cannot occur. Consequently, it is not possible to grant the requested variance to reduce the rear setback from ten feet to zero feet.
Pursuant to LDC Section 8.02.03(1), on platted lots or tracts of land less than one acre in area where a valid certificate of occupancy is in effect, it shall be unlawful for any person to remove or cause to be removed, any tree with a trunk diameter of four inches or more, said diameter being measured at DBR, without first having obtained a permit to do so as provided herein. While the applicant has certainly not removed any existing trees in violation of the above referenced section, it should be noted that if the requested variances are approved, a tree removal permit for the two existing trees along the west side of the property and Astor Drive will be required. As a part of this permit, the applicant will be required to either relocate the trees being removed or replace the trees consistent with the requirements of LDC Section 8.02.08.
The Development Review Committee reviewed this matter at their regular meeting on November 14, 2024 and recommended denial of the applicant's request. The Land Development Review Board then reviewed this matter at their regular meeting on December 19, 2024 and also recommended denial of the applicant's request.