Legislation Details

File #: 26-2925    Version: 1 Name:
Type: BOA Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 8/25/2026 In control: Board of Adjustment
On agenda: 9/2/2026 Final action:
Title: ZV(R)2026-0029 & 0030 Ghassan & May Mourad 979 SW 159 Terrace (District 4)
Attachments: 1. 26-2925 (Mourad).pdf

Title

ZV(R)2026-0029 & 0030

Ghassan & May Mourad

979 SW 159 Terrace (District 4)

 

Summary Explanation and Background

 

SUMMARY EXPLANATION AND BACKGROUND:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND:

 

                     Ghassan Mourad, owner, submitted two residential zoning variance requests to legalize an existing driveway for the property located at 979 SW 159 Terrace. The property is part of the Pembroke Shores Planned Unit Development (PUD) and follows the guidelines for single-family conventional (SF-1) lots larger than 8,800 SF. The PUD does not address front lot coverage and driveway width; therefore, the provisions of the City’s Land Development Code (LDC) apply.

                     On January 4, 2026, the City’s Code Compliance Division cited the property for work done without building permits (Case No. 260104312)

                     In January 27, 2026, the owner submitted building permit application No. RX26-00678 for the existing circular driveway at the property. Per the application progress in the permitting system, the application was reviewed, approved on March 4, 2026. As of today, no inspections have been scheduled by the builder for the project on the property.

                     As result of the deviation in the execution of the approved plan, the petitioner is presenting an “As Built” survey document for the following requests:

                     ZV(R)2026-0029: to allow 61% front lot coverage (total) instead of the allowed 40% front lot coverage (total) for an existing circular driveway in a single-family residential, typical lot.

                     ZV(R)2026-0030: to allow 53% width of lot instead of the allowed 40% width of lot for an existing circular driveway in a single-family residential, typical lot.

 

                     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 is property in Pembroke Shores HOA. See HOA Letter dated August 3, 2026.

 

VARIANCE REQUEST DETAILS:

 

ZV(R)2026-0029) is to allow 61% front lot coverage (total) instead of the allowed 40% front lot coverage (total) for an existing circular driveway in a single-family residential, typical lot.

 

ZV(R)2026-0030) is to allow 53% width of lot instead of the allowed 40% width of lot for an existing circular driveway in a single-family residential, typical lot.

 

Code References:

ZV(R)2026-0029-0030)

Table 155.620 Accessory Building and Structures

Type, Driveway, Circular, Maximum Dimensions, 40% front lot coverage

Type, Driveway, Circular, Maximum Dimensions, 40 % width of lot

 

VARIANCE DERTERMINATION:

 

                     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.