Title
ZV(R)2024-0080 & 0081
Sergio de las Salas,16586 NW 8 Street (District 3)
Summary Explanation and Background
SUMMARY EXPLANATION AND BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND:
Sergio De las Salas, owner, submitted two residential zoning variance requests to legalize existing construction for the property located at 16586 NW 8 Street in the Spring Valley neighborhood, which is zoned residential single-family (R-1Z).
In May 2023, the owner submitted a building permit application (No. RX23-05832) to build a patio at the property; however, during plan review, it was detected an existing 32.50’ x 16.30’ roofed patio, attached to the rear wall of the home closer than the required fifteen-foot (15’) rear setback. Due to the findings, the permit application cannot be approved as the existing work exceeds the limitations of the City’s Land Development Code (LDC).
As result of the performed work, the applicant is requesting:
• ZV(R)2024-0080: to allow seven-foot and a half (7.5’) rear setback instead of the required fifteen-foot (15’) rear setback for an existing 32.50’ x 16.30’ roofed structure, attached in a single-family residence, zero-lot type.
• ZV(R)2024-0081: to allow 51% Maximum Lot Coverage (all buildings) instead of the required 45% Maximum Lot Coverage (all buildings) in a single-family residence, zero-lot type.
Per staff review of the city’s archives, no permits can be found for the existing patio and the 32.50’ x 16.30’ roofed structure, attached. Nonetheless, according to Broward County Property Appraiser Imagery, it appears the patio and roofed structure have existed at location since December 2016 and December 2019 respectively.
The owner would like to retain the existing non-permitted items at the existing location. The applicant is presenting an “As Built” survey indicating the following modifications:
• Removal of paving at grade along and parallel to eastern and western property lines to provide five-foot (5.0”) side 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.
The subject property is in the Spring Valley neighborhood. The applicant has provided a copy of the Homeowners Association (HOA) Letter dated May 22, 2024.
VARIANCE REQUEST DETAILS:
ZV(R)2024-0080) is to allow seven-foot and a half (7.5’) rear setback instead of the required fifteen-foot (15’) rear setback for an existing 32.50’ x 16.30’ roofed structure, attached in a single-family residence, zero-lot type.
ZV(R)2024-0081) is to allow 51% Maximum Lot Coverage (all buildings) instead of the required 45% Maximum Lot Coverage (all buildings) in a single-family residence, zero-lot type.
Code References:
ZV(R)2024-0080-0081)
Table 155.422: Residential Single-Family Zero Lot Line (R-1Z)
Standard, Residential, Maximum Lot Coverage, 45%
Standard, Residential, Maximum Lot Coverage, 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.