Legislation Details

File #: 26-2926    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)2026-0031 Michaela Mussoline & Benny Gonzalez 19467 NW 24 Place (District 3)
Attachments: 1. 26-2926 (Mussoline - Gonzalez).pdf

Title

ZV(R)2026-0031

Michaela Mussoline & Benny Gonzalez

19467 NW 24 Place (District 3)

 

Summary Explanation and Background

 

SUMMARY EXPLANATION AND BACKGROUND:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND:

 

                     Benny Gonzalez-Otero, owner, submitted a residential zoning variance request to legalize an existing walkway for the property located at 19467 NW 24 Place. The property is part of the Keystone Lake Planned Unit Development (PUD) and follows the guidelines for single-family, zero-lot line (SF-2). The PUD does not address accessory structures; therefore, the provisions of the City’s Land Development Code (LDC) are applicable.

                     On March 24, 2026, the owner submitted building permit application No. RX26-02607 to construct a patio and walkway at the property. The permit application was reviewed and approved on May 15, 2026 (see approved permit layout). During the inspection phase, on June 6, engineering failed as the work on the property did not match the approved plan, setback requirement.

                     As result of the existing work on the property, the petitioner is presenting an “As Built” survey document for the following request:

                     ZV(R)2026-0031: to allow 3’ - 3” reducing to 1’ - 9” setback along a segment of the (non-zero-lot) side property line instead of the required 5’ side setback for existing 38” wide walkway in a single-family residential, zero-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 property in Keystone Lake Neighborhood, the owner provided HOA Letter, dated June 18, 2026.

VARIANCE REQUEST DETAILS:

ZV(R)2026-0031) is to allow 3’ - 3” reducing to 1’ - 9” setback along a segment of the (non-zero-lot) side property line instead of the required 5’ side setback for existing 38” wide walkway in a single-family residential, zero-lot.

 

Code Reference:

Table 155.620 Accessory Building and Structures

Type, Walkway (Single Family Lots), Maximum Dimensions, 3 feet in width

Additional Regulations, If over 3 feet in width a 5 foot side setback is required

 

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.