Title
Public Hearing - File No. PVAI2025-0005
Location: 466 Driftwood Ave., located south of Bloomer Rd. and west of John R, Parcel 15-14-430-008, zoned R-3 One Family Residential
The applicant is requesting an appeal of the decision to deny a land division application for the subject property, the denial of which was partially based upon the proposed lots not meeting the minimum required width of 90 feet in the R-3 One Family Residential Zoning District per Sec. 138-5.100 Schedule of Regulations.
In addition to the appeal, the applicant is requesting a dimensional variance from Sec. 138-5.100 Schedule of Regulations, which requires a minimum lot width of 90 feet in the R-3 One Family Residential Zoning District. The proposed variance, if granted, would potentially allow for the division of the existing parcel into two separate parcels, each with a lot width of 80 feet.
Body
Resolved, in the matter of File No. PVAI2025-0005, that the request for a variance from Section 138-5.100 Schedule of Regulations which requires the parcels to have a minimum lot width of 90 feet in the R-3 One Family Residential Zoning District, Parcel Identification Number 15-28-226- 009, be DENIED because a practical difficulty does not exist on the property as demonstrated in the record of proceedings and based on the following findings:
1. Compliance with the strict letter of the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance will not prevent the owner from utilizing the existing parcel for residential purposes in a manner that complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as demonstrated by the fact that there is an existing residential structure on the parcel and therefore no practical difficulty has been demonstrated for this property.
2. Granting the variance will not do substantial justice to nearby property owners as it would confer special benefits to the applicant that are not enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity as there are other properties in close proximity, and probably at other locations throughout the City, that are similar in size to the subject parcel.
3. There are no unique circumstances of the property that have been identified by the applicant that necessitate granting the variance. The property size and configuration has not been modified from its original configuration and there are other properties proximate to the subject site and throughout the City that have similar lot widths and the City does not desire to perpetuate the number of lots within the City that do not comply with minimum lot width standards. Further, the City has established the minimum lot width standards for residential zoning districts to ensure that there is not an over-densification of the City and as a means to maintain consistent character of existing residential neighborhoods.
4. The granting of the variance would be materially detrimental to the public welfare by establishing a precedent that could be cited to support similarly unwarranted variances in the future. The granting of this variance could encourage further incursions upon the Zoning Ordinance which would result in further variances being considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals and could be construed as removing the responsibility of meeting the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance from applicants.