PZ 01/11/2023 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Minutes January11, 2023 Page 7 Mr. Burnett stated that he is a professional planner and he has been processing variance applications for 25 years, He said older properties and changes in zoning regulations tend to make properties non -conforming. He said pie shape lots are very common in Florida. He said he was inclined to deny the variance. Mr. Burnett said the applicant had options that would eliminate the need for the variance. Mr. Lucas felt that a 7.5 -foot setback would eliminate any future problems. Ms. Saporito said she did not see a hardship and there is an alternative option that would eliminate the need for the variance. Mr. Bakalla was concerned with setting a precedent. Mr. Bowman said there have been several variances that have been approved in the city. He felt that the landowner was being punished for trying to modernize their home. Mr. Hale said when setback requirements are changed on zoning districts one size does not fit all. He said there was a reason in 1957 when the house was built that there was only a 5 -foot setback. He said some parcels do not fit with the new requirements. Mr. Hale said that Mr. Phillips would not be requesting a variance if the setback requirements did not change. He said we are asking him to conform to the new zoning requirements. Mr. Hale said if it does not comply with the setbacks, it becomes existing non -conforming. He said if the variance was approved it would be within the intent of the zoning district when the house was built because it is not encroaching in the 5 -foot setback. A discussion ensued regarding the variance criteria and other factors that relate to a variance request. Mr. Phillips reviewed the variance criteria and felt that he met the variance criteria. Mr. Phillips said he did not have a hardship but wants to build his property to the best use as opposed to a reasonable use. A discussion ensued regarding the previous variance granted for the property. Mr. Hale asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. No one came forward. A discussion ensued regarding the variance criteria required to approve a variance. Mr. Hale asked for a motion to address BA 22-01. Mr. Burnett made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny case number BA 22-01 based on the application not meeting all eleven (11) variance criteria specifically not meeting criteria number 3 and 5, based upon the staff report and the testimony and evidence presented, the request does not meet the applicable provisions of the Unified Land Development Regulations as per the written findings contained in the staff report and Attachment A - C. Mr. Lucas seconded the motion.