Title
ZV(R)2023-0114 - 0119
Alcibiades A Angulo, 16347 NW 19 Street, (District 3)
Summary Explanation and Background
SUMMARY EXPLANATION AND BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND:
Alcibiades Angulo, owner, has submitted six residential zoning variance requests to legalize an existing driveway, an existing shed, and an existing roofed structure (attached) for the single-family residence located at 16347 NW 19 Street in Parkside at Spring Valley neighborhood which is zoned Residential Single-Family Zero Lot Line (R-1Z).
On January 4, 2023, the City’s Code Compliance Division cited the property owner (Case No. 230100037) for work performed without building permits.
In February 16, 2023, the owner submitted a building permit application (No. RX23-02291) to build a driveway at the property; however, the building permit cannot be approved as the existing driveway exceeds the limitations of the City’s Land Development Code (LDC).
The applicant originally requested:
• ZV(R)2023-0114 is to allow 49% front lot coverage (total) instead of the required 40% front lot coverage (total) for an existing driveway on a zero-lot line property.
• ZV(R)2023-0115 is to allow 53% width of lot instead of the allowed 40% width of lot for an existing driveway on a zero-lot line property.
After reviewing the applicant’s initial request and, per the property’s survey, it was detected an existing storage shed encroaching into the required side and rear setbacks. The survey also revealed an existing 35’ x 10’ roofed structure, attached to the rear of the house’s rear wall, closer than the required 15’ rear setback. (See survey attached)
Per staff review of city’s archives, on May 10, 1999, the city issued building permit (No. 20003876) to construct a ten foot long by six-foot tall “privacy wall” extension along the west side of the property in the rear (See copy of approved permit); yet no building permits can be found for the existing 35’ x 10’ roofed structure, attached to the rear of the house’s rear wall. Nevertheless, according to the Broward County Property Appraiser Imagery, it appears the roofed structure, storage shed, and driveway have existed in the property since 2013, 2015 and 2020 respectively.
The owner would like to retain the existing non-permitted items at the existing location. The applicant amended the original request to include the following additional variances:
• ZV(R)2023-0116 is to allow zero-foot (0’) side setback instead of the required five feet (5’) side setback for an existing storage shed.
• ZV(R)2023-0117 is to allow zero feet (0’) rear setback instead of the required five feet (5’) rear setback for an existing storage shed.
• ZV(R)2023-0118 is to allow 4.8 feet rear setback along a segment of the rear property line (north) instead of the required 15 feet (15’) rear setback for an existing 35’ x 10’ roofed structure, attached to the rear of the house’s rear wall in a residential single-family zero lot.
• ZV(R)2023-0119 is to allow a Maximum Lot Coverage of 47% (all buildings) instead of the allowed 45% Maximum Lot Coverage (all buildings) for and existing 35’ x 10’ roofed structure, attached to the rear of the house’s rear wall in a residential single-family zero lot.
The applicant is aware that Board consideration of residential variance request does not preclude the property owner from obtaining all necessary development related approvals or permits.
The subject property is in the Parkside Spring Valley neighborhood. The applicant has provided a copy of the Homeowner Association (HOA) approval for the driveway, dated August 28, 2023.
VARIANCE REQUEST DETAILS:
ZV(R)2023-0114 is to allow a 49% total front lot coverage instead of the required 40% total front lot coverage for an existing driveway on a zero-lot line property.
ZV(R)2023-0115 is to allow a 53% width of lot instead of the allowed 40% width of lot for an existing driveway on a zero-lot line property.
ZV(R)2023-0116 is to allow a 0’ rear setback (northern) for an existing shed.
ZV(R)2023-0117 is to allow a 0’ rear setback (eastern) for an existing shed.
ZV(R)2023-0118 is to allow a 4.8’ rear setback for an existing 35’ x 10’ “Roofed Structure (attached)”
ZV(R)2023-0119 is to allow a 47% maximum lot coverage for all buildings and structures instead of the required 45% maximum lot coverage.
Code References:
Table 155.620 Accessory Building and Structures
ZV(R)2023-0114)
Type, Driveway, Zero-Lot Line, Maximum Dimensions, 40% front lot coverage
ZV(R)2023-0115)
Type, Driveway, Zero-Lot Line, Maximum Dimensions, 40 % width of lot
ZV(R)2023-0116; ZV(R)2023-0117)
Type, Shed, Setback, Rear, 5 feet
Table 155.422: Residential Single-Family Zero Lot Line (R-1Z)
ZV(R)2023-0118)
Standard, Residential, Maximum Lot Coverage, 45%
ZV(R)2023-0119)
Standard, Residential, Rear Setback, 15 feet
VARIANCE DETERMINATION:
The Board of Adjustment shall not grant any single-family residential variances, permits, or make any decision, finding, and determination unless it first determines that:
Its decision and action taken is in harmony with the general purposes of the zoning ordinances of the city and is not contrary to the public interest, health, or welfare, taking into account the character and use of adjoining buildings and those in the vicinity, the number of persons residing or working in the buildings, and traffic conditions in the vicinity.
In the granting of single-family residential variances, the Board shall follow Section 155.301(O) Variance:
1. Purpose: To allow for the provision of relief from certain development standards of this LDC for one or more of the following reasons:
a) There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land or building for which the variance is sought, which circumstances are peculiar to the land or building and do not apply generally to land or buildings in the neighborhood, and that the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinances would result in an unnecessary hardship and deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or building; or
b) Any alleged hardship is not self-created by any person having an interest in the property nor is the result of a mere disregard for or in ignorance of the provisions of the zoning ordinances of the city; or
c) Granting the variance is not incompatible with public policy, will not adversely affect any adjacent property owners, and that the circumstances which cause the special conditions are peculiar to the subject property.