1 / 18

BCC PUBLIC HEARING ON BZA #SE-06-03-014, March 2, 2006 APPLICANT/APPELLANT: Dean Tasman

BCC PUBLIC HEARING ON BZA #SE-06-03-014, March 2, 2006 APPLICANT/APPELLANT: Dean Tasman. April 14, 2009. SPECIAL EXCEPTION STANDARDS UNDER FLORIDA LAW.

maris-garcia
Télécharger la présentation

BCC PUBLIC HEARING ON BZA #SE-06-03-014, March 2, 2006 APPLICANT/APPELLANT: Dean Tasman

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. BCC PUBLIC HEARINGONBZA #SE-06-03-014, March 2, 2006APPLICANT/APPELLANT: Dean Tasman April 14, 2009

  2. SPECIAL EXCEPTION STANDARDS UNDER FLORIDA LAW • The applicant for the special exception request has the initial burden of demonstrating that his/her request is consistent with the comprehensive policy plan and meets the criteria for granting the special exception; and (2) If the applicant carries that initial burden, the burden shifts to those opposing the special exception to show by competent substantial evidence that the request is not consistent with the comprehensive policy plan and does not meet those criteria.

  3. INTRODUCTION • Case initially heard by BZA/BCC in March/April 2006 • BZA/BCC approved request for Special Exception for ADU with prohibition restricting rental of ADU • Applicant brought action in Circuit Court • March 2008, Court invalidated condition prohibiting rental of ADU, and quashed BCC decision and remanded

  4. BACKGROUND CASE: SE-06-03-014 APPLICANT: Dean Tasman REQUEST: Special Exception in R-1 zone to convert 921 sq. ft. of existing residence into an Accessory Dwelling Unit for applicant’s father and Variance to construct wall 8 ft. in height in lieu of 4 ft. within front yard TRACT SIZE: ½ acre LOCATION: West side of Dean Rd., between McCulloch Rd. and University Blvd. DISTRICT: #5

  5. ZONING MAP

  6. AERIAL Subject Property 2006

  7. SITE PLAN Proposed accessory dwelling unit

  8. SITE PLAN WALL

  9. FLOOR PLAN Accessory dwelling unit

  10. SITE PHOTOGRAPH SUBJECT SITE APPLICANT’SRESIDENCE

  11. SITE PHOTOGRAPH PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE PROPOSED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT

  12. SITE PHOTOGRAPH PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE PROPOSED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT

  13. APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL • Applicant resides in 2-story, 7,900 sq. ft home • Proposes an ADU for his father • Proposed ADU for his father = 921 sq. ft. (2 bedroom / 2 bath) • Separate entrance for proposed ADU • Proposed height of wall along Dean Road = 8 ft. w/ 9 ft. columns

  14. STAFF ANALYSIS (Facts as they were) • 7/25/95: BCC adopted Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance • Request complied with size and use requirements • ADU ordinance allowed rental after 3 years or upon death of ADU relative • Past requests: The rental provision generated neighborhood opposition • Concern: Potential for duplexes in single-family zoned areas • Screening walls for subdivisions require max. 6 ft. wall • Due to Court challenge, no Certificate of Occupancy issued for applicant’s ADU, no permits issued for wall

  15. STAFF ANALYSIS (Facts as they are) • 5/18/08: BCC adopted amendment to ADU Ordinance, enabling BCC to prohibit rental • ADU ordinance allows accessory dwelling unit to be rented out after 3 years or upon death of ADU relative • However, applicant’s father passed away in February 2008 (no basis for approval of this ADU request)

  16. NEW MATERIAL FACT

  17. Staff Recommendation and BCC Action Requested • Two-tiered Recommendation • 1st Recommendation • Deny Special Exception request. The relative identified in application (father) passed away in February 2008. Therefore ADU cannot be initially occupied by relative, as required by County Code. • Approve requested variance for wall consistent with BZA recommendation (7’ tall with 8’ columns) • Should Applicant challenge the 1st decision in Court and that decision is overturned, the 2nd decision would take affect. • deny request for ADU for the following reasons: • The use is not similar and compatible with the surrounding area and the pattern of surrounding development (38-78 (2)) • The use will be a detrimental intrusion into a surrounding area (38-78 (3)) • Approve requested variance for wall consistent with BZA recommendation (7’ tall with 8’ columns)

  18. BCC PUBLIC HEARINGONBZA #SE-06-03-014, March 2, 2006APPLICANT/APPELLANT: Dean Tasman April 14, 2009

More Related