6/22/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2. Action of Applicant. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant or illegal acts of previous property owners; 3. Special Privilege. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the regulation to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district, 4. Unnecessary Hardship. That literal interpretation of the provisions of the regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the regulations and would constitute an unnecessary and undue hardship upon the applicant; 5. Minimum Variance Necessary. That the variance granted is the minimum necessary in order to make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure; 6. Purpose and Intent Compliance. That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of these zoning regulations and the Indian River County comprehensive plan; 7. Detriment to Public Welfare. That such variance will not be injurious to the surrounding area or otherwise be detrimental to the public welfare; and 8. Reasonable Use. That the property cannot be put to a reasonable use which fully complies with the requirements of this ordinance. It is the position of the Board of Adjustments and staff that four of the eight criteria are not satisfied by the request. 1. Special Condition: No special conditions peculiar to the subject site exist that warrant granting a variance from the maximum building coverage requirements. Many properties in the county have nonconformities and are governed by the county's nonconformities chapter. Also, many retail businesses in the county use covered sidewalk areas along building fronts for display (e.g. supermarkets and home improvement stores). Such fairly common circumstances do not warrant variances to allow expansion of enclosed building area (building coverage) beyond zoning code maximums, nor do such circumstances warrant conversion of covered sidewalk area to enclosed building area within a building setback. 2. Special Privilege: Because the Home & Patio situation is not unique, granting the variance request would grant a special privilege denied to others. Other redevelopment projects on nonconforming sites have not been allowed to create or increase building coverage nonconformities (e.g. former Babcock Building Supply). Also, as previously cited, the Board Of Adjustments has denied other requests to enclose roofed -over patio areas within setbacks. For many years this prohibition has been applied to many owners of nonconforming sites. 3. Purpose and Intent Compliance: Granting the variance request would be contrary to the purpose and intent of the county land development regulations. The intent of the county's nonconformities regulations is to allow lawful continued use of nonconformities and to prohibit creation of new nonconformities and increases in the degree of nonconformities. Variance regulation 902.09(4)(a) states: "No variance shall be granted which relates in any way to a nonconforming use, except as allowed in the nonconformities section". Therefore, because the request does not adhere to the nonconformities regulations, the variance request cannot be approved. JUNE 22, 1999 55 BOOK�� ' � dJ FADE I