The above referenced property is located on the northeast corner of Louisiana Avenue and Jefferson Street and the applicant of the request is the property owner, Mr. Mark Wicks.
The properties to the north, west and east sides of the subject property are zoned R-3 Residential District. To the south, across Louisiana, there are homes with larger lots which back up to the Pithlachascotee River.
The primary structure on the property is a single-family dwelling which is 1,773 sq. ft. in size and was constructed in 2009. The structure is 25.8 feet from the front (south) property line, 55 feet from the rear (north) property line, 10.7 feet from the side (west) setback and 5.6 feet from the side (east) setback. At the rear of the property is a 124 sq. ft. shed and an above ground pool. The shed is located 28.2 feet from the rear (north) property line.
The purpose of the application is so that the property owner can relocate the existing shed and above ground pool. More specifically, the applicant is requesting a 7-foot variance to reduce the rear (north) setback, along Georgia Avenue from 25 feet to 18 feet.
The applicant, Mr. Wicks, is requesting this variance to address a requirement in Chapter 7, Section 7.0303 (1) of the Land Development Code that states that the minimum setback of the front building line shall be twenty-five (25) feet and Chapter 19, Section 19.00.08 that states that the secondary front yard is defined as the yard to which the house is not oriented and for lots with double frontage, the same standard for a front setback shall apply.
The Development Review Committee (DRC) and the Land Development Review Board (LDRB) differed on their opinion of the variance request and therefore in accordance with the appeal procedures of the Land Development Code the City Council shall conduct a quasi-judicial hearing to determine whether or not the variance should be approved.
As a reminder, the criteria for a variance are as follows:
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;
2. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of 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;
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;
5. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure;
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.
Incidentally, the DRC upon review of the request and appropriate variance criteria, did not feel that a hardship had been demonstrated by the applicant. However, the LDRB determined that the front setback based on double frontage was a hardship.