Zoning Resolution 23-Z-199 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

There are special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land and building involved. In this particular case the property is located on the cul -du -sac for 38th Court. In addition, 38h Court is a residential street where there generally exists only ten feet (10') of total landscaping between paved areas and/or driveways. The ten feet (10') of landscaping between driveways is not a sufficient length on which a car can be parked without impinging upon the driveway of an adjacent house. Thus, there is really no space for overflow parking which does not impede traffic on the adjacent roadway. After the Owner purchased his property he began to have several visitors to his property; the Owner has significant family which live in the South Florida community and frequently family members spend the entire weekend with the Owner and his family. When family members and other visitors wished to park a vehicle on the existing driveway there was not sufficient room. In fact, before the driveway was expanded the Petitioner's driveway was significantly shorter than the driveways which are constructed and existing on adjacent and nearby properties. The shorter and abbreviated driveway on the Owner's property caused visitor's vehicles to either partially block driveways of the neighboring properties or the vehicles had to park on the street. Parking vehicles on the street then impacted traffic circulation on 38h Court and caused unsafe traffic conditions to exist. It is for this reason that the driveway was expanded. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the petitioner. While the requested variance is the result of the Petitioner expanding his driveway without a permit, the underlying property conditions of the narrow landscaping between houses, the width of 38' Court and the lack of depth of the existing paved areas are not the result of the actions of the Petitioner. Instead the Petitioner was merely reacting to the underlying special conditions and circumstances which existed. Literal interpretation of the provisions of these LDRs deprives the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this chapter and works unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. The literal interpretation of the provision of the LDR which deprives the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties and would work an unnecessary hardship on the Owner/Applicant. As previously mentioned, many of the other properties in the Owner's neighborhood are legally non- conforming with regard to the amount of landscape and green area. The adjacent properties have significantly less landscape and green area than what is currently allowed by Code. In addition, the Owner would experience an undue hardship because visitors could not come to the property because there would be nowhere for them to park without causing a traffic hazard or partially blocking the driveways of adjacent homes. The alleged hardship is not economic and has not been deliberately created to establish a use or structure, which is not otherwise consistent with the LDRs. The variance relates to the amount of landscape and green area. The use which is occurring on the property, that of a single-family home, is permitted by Code and has not been deliberately created to establish a use or structure which is not otherwise consistent with the LDRs. Each single-family home is allowed to have a driveway. The variance only relates to the size of the driveway being requested. 107