PALM BEACH COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION

Transcription

1 PALM BEACH COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT STAFF REPORT 3/16/2006 AGENDA ITEM CODE SECTION REQUIRED PROPOSED VARIANCE BA D.1.A.5 Property Development Regulations 25 feet (front setback) feet 1.79 feet SITUS ADDRESS: 80 Loquat Tree Dr Lake Worth AGENT NAME & ADDRESS: OWNER NAME & ADDRESS: Jose Soto 350 Ocean Pkwy Boynton Beach, FL Maria Salgado 80 Loquat Tree Dr Lantana, FL PCN: ZONING DISTRICT: BCC DISTRICT: PROJECT MANAGER: RM None Oscar Gamez, Site Planner I LEGAL AD: Jose Luis Soto, agent, for Maria Salgado, owner, to allow an existing room addition to encroach into the required front setback. LOC: 80 Loquat Tree Dr., approx. 300 ft E of Seacrest Blvd. and approx ft S of Hypoluxo Rd,., within the San Castle Third Addition Subdivision, in the RM Zoning District. LAND USE: MR-5 S/T/R: PETITION #: LOT AREA: LOT DIMENSIONS: CONFORMITY OF LOT: CONFORMITY OF ELEMENT: TYPE OF ELEMENT: ELEMENT SIZE: BUILDING PERMIT #: NOTICE OF VIOLATION: CONSTRUCTION STATUS: APPLICANT REQUEST:.14 acres 60 ft x 100 ft Non-conforming Non-conforming Addition ft x 7.60 ft None C Existing To allow an existing room addition to encroach into the required front setback.

2 STAFF SUMMARY AERIAL The subject property is located approximately 300 feet from Seacrest Blvd. and approximately 1,000 feet from Hypoluxo Rd. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow an existing room addition to encroach into the required front setback. The property has Future Land Use of Medium Residential-5 units per acre (MR-5) and a zoning designation of Residential Multifamily (RM). The applicant enclosed the existing patio after hurricane damage and is now in violation of code. FRONT VIEW NW CORNER VIEW

3 SURVEY

4 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Approval with conditions, based upon the following application of the standards enumerated in Article 2, Section 2.B.3 of the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code (ULDC), which a petitioner must meet before the Board of Adjustment may authorize a variance. ANALYSIS OF ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2.B.3 VARIANCE STANDARDS 1. SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE PARCEL OF LAND, BUILDING OR STRUCTURE, THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER PARCELS OF LAND, STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT: YES. Hurricane Wilma destroyed the applicant's screened-in porch. The applicant enclosed the porch unaware that it would require building permits because the room was existing. Therefore, special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the parcel of land, building or structure, that are not applicable to other parcels of land, structures or buildings in the same zoning district. 2. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS DO NOT RESULT FROM THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT: YES. The applicant enclosed the existing porch with blocks, not knowing that despite the structure being existing, that it would still require building permits. The applicant requires a variance for the front setback because current code standards have changed since the home was built. The applicant would have needed this variance even if the modification was not in violation. Therefore, special circumstances and conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant. 3. GRANTING THE VARIANCE SHALL NOT CONFER UPON THE APPLICANT ANY SPECIAL PRIVILEGE DENIED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THIS CODE TO OTHER PARCELS OF LAND, BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT: YES. The SFDs in the area have simular setbacks due to the age of the neighborhood. The applicant only enclosed what was an existing front porch, thus the footprint of the house did not change. Therefore, granting the variance shall not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the comprehensive plan and this code to other parcels of land, buildings or structures in the same zoning district. 4. LITERAL INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHER PARCELS OF LAND IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT, AND WOULD WORK AN UNNECESSARY AND UNDUE HARDSHIP: YES. Denying this request would require the applicant to remove the front porch, which was existing as a noncomforming structure or bring the front porch to it's original appearance as a screen walled porch. Because their are other houses in the neighborhood with simular setbacks, it would be an unnecssary and undue hardship. Therefore, literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels of land in the same zoning district, and would work an unnecessary and undue hardship. 5. GRANT OF VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE THAT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE THE REASONABLE USE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND, BUILDING OR STRUCTURE: YES. The applicant only enclosed the existing front porch. The footprint of the SFD was not changed. The variance request is allow the structure to remain as it was. Therefore, grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel of land, building or structure. 6. GRANT OF THE VARIANCE WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THIS CODE: YES. The modification of the front porch will have no negative affects on the surrounding area. The visual change is that the front porch will have solid walls instead of screened walls. Therefore, grant of the variance will be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan and this code. 7. THE GRANT OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE AREA INVOLVED OR OTHERWISE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE: YES. The modification of the front porch will have no negative affects on the surrounding area. The visual change is that the front porch will have solid walls instead of screened walls. Therefore, the grant of the variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.

5 AGENCY COMMENTS No Comments ZONING COMMENTS No Comments DEVELOPMENT ORDER The development order for this particular variance shall lapse on 3/16/2007, one year from the approval date. (DATE: MONITORING: Zoning) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CONDITIONS 1. By 05/16/2006, the applicant shall provide the Building Division with a copy of the Board of Adjustment result letter and a copy of the site plan presented to the Board of Adjustment, simultaneously with the building permit application. (BUILDING: DATE: ZONING) 2. Prior to the Development Order expiration (03/16/2007), the project shall have received and passed the first building inspection. (BUILDING: DATE: ZONING)