Title
ZV(R)2024-0021
Niuvis Gutierrez Arroyo, 720 SW 68 Terrace (District 1)
Summary Explanation and Background
SUMMARY EXPLANATION AND BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND:
Niuvis Gutierrez Arroyo, owner, has submitted a residential zoning variance request to legalize an existing circular driveway on the property located at 720 SW 68 Terrace in the Pines Village Neighborhood, which is zoned residential single-family (R-1C).
On August 29, 2023, the City’s Code Compliance Division cited the property for work performed without permits (Code Case 230803493).
On October 26, 2023, the owner submitted Building Permit Application No. RX23-10352 to build a circular driveway on the property; however, the plans for the permit could not be approved as the existing circular driveway exceeds the limitations of the City’s Land Development Code (LDC), therefore, the applicant is requesting the following:
• ZV(R)2024-0021: to allow 60% front lot coverage (total) instead of the allowed 35% front lot coverage (total) for an existing circular driveway in typical single-family residential lot.
After reviewing the applicant’s initial request and, per the updated property survey (9/13/2023), it was revealed an existing patio, deck and shed encroaching into the required five-foot (5’) rear and side setbacks (See survey attached).
Per staff review, of the city’s archives, there are no permit records for the work detected via Code Violation; however, per Broward County Property Appraiser’s Imagery, the footprint of the existing circular driveway has been present at the property in similar form since at least 1998; also, see survey utilized for fence permit No. 22801475, issued in 2008.
Per the plan, the petitioner is presenting the following changes to existing conditions:
• Removing an existing non-permitted shed located on the northwest corner of the property.
• Cutting back, reducing the existing patio and deck along and parallel to north, south and west property lines to provide the LDC’s required five-foot setbacks.
The applicant is aware that Board consideration of a residential variance request does not preclude the property owner from obtaining all necessary development related approvals or permits.
There are no homeowner’s association (HOA) in the neighborhood where the property is located.
VARIANCE REQUEST DETAILS:
ZV(R)2024-0021) is to allow 60% front lot coverage (total) instead of the allowed 35% front lot coverage (total) for an existing driveway in typical single-family residential lot.
Code Reference:
Table 155.620 Accessory Building and Structures
Type, Driveway, Circular, Maximum Dimensions, 35% front lot coverage
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.