Appeal decision on tennis court setback variance in Pinecrest

DATE: April 5, 2022 TO: Yocelyn Galiano, ICMA, LEED-GA Village Manager FROM: Stephen R. Olmsted, AICP Planning Director RE: Francisco Mehech – Lot 2, Block 1 Sofia Alexis Estates; Folio # 20-5001-055- 0020 (Prospective 9101 SW 64 Court) Appeal of Zoning Board Decision to Deny Tennis Court Setback Variance _________________________________________________________________________________ PETITION REQUEST Francisco Mehech (Owner and Applicant) is appealing the decision of the Pinecrest Zoning Board to deny the applicant’s request for a variance from the side yard setback requirements of Division 4.2 (c) 5. g. of the Village’s Land Development Regulations to allow a tennis court to be constructed 10 feet and 10 inches from the north and south side property lines instead of 20 feet as otherwise required. The Owner does not intend to seek a conditional use permit for tennis court lighting at the present time. Mr. Mehech originally submitted this variance request for the Zoning Board’s consideration on June 23, 2021. The Zoning Board continued Mr. Mehech’s application to give the applicant and Board an opportunity to monitor a proposed amendment to the Land Development Regulations under consideration at the time that would have allowed for reduced tennis court setbacks to 15 feet by right or 10 feet as a conditionally permitted use. After careful consideration of the matter at an advertised public hearing and at a subsequent workshop meeting, the Village Council made the decision not to approve a reduction in the Village’s tennis court setback requirements. Following final consideration of the applicant’s request for a variance at an advertised public hearing on January 26, 2022, the Zoning Board denied the request. Pursuant to Division 3.9 of the Village’s Land Development Regulations, the Village Council is required to conduct a de novo hearing and consider why the decision of the Zoning Board should or should not be sustained and/or modified. A copy of the staff report considered by the Zoning Board on January 26, 2022 is attached. Page 2 of 6 A description and analysis of the applicants’ request is provided as follows: Setback Required/Proposed Variance Requested Side: 20 feet/10 feet and 10 inches 9 feet and 2 inches A copy of the submitted appeal including a description of the applicant’s request and a copy of the staff report and information provided to the Zoning Board in their January 22 agenda packet are attached. A video recording submitted by the applicant has been provided to the Village Clerk and can be viewed by the Village Council at the scheduled public hearing. SITE LOCATION The subject property is located at prospective 9101 SW 64 Court (address to be assigned), Pinecrest, FL 33156, within the EU-1, Residential Estate zoning district; Legal Description - Lot 2, Block 1 Sofia Alexis Estates; Folio # 20-5001-055-0020. OWNERS Mr. Francisco Mehech (owner) PROPERTY HISTORY Mr. Mehech, owner of the property, subdivided this property and the adjoining property to the south into two (2) lots in 2014. He constructed a residence on Lot 1 (9111 SW 64 Court) immediately south of the subject property including a tennis court in the rear yard. The tennis court was constructed in compliance with the Village’s tennis court setback requirements. SUBJECT PROPERTY Page 3 of 6 The subject property, Lot 2 of Sofia Alexis Estates Subdivision, is currently undeveloped. Mr. Mehech has submitted an application and plans for construction of a residence on the subject property. Once developed, it is expected that an address of “9101 SW 64 Court” will be assigned. Mr. Mehech applied for a tennis court setback variance for the subject property in 2014 and it was denied by the Zoning Board at that time. His recent application for a variance was denied by the Zoning Board on January 26, 2022 and he is now appealing the decision to the Village Council. PUBLIC COMMENT The Building and Planning Department has received 10 letters including 8 in support of the petition and 2 opposed. One of the individuals expressing support is a former neighbor and former owner of the property located immediately north of the subject property at 9045 SW 64 Court. That individual no longer owns the property and the current owner has provided a letter in opposition. A copy of all correspondence received to date is included in the agenda packet. PINECREST LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS The subject property is zoned EU-1, Residential Estate. The required side yard setback for a tennis court in the rear yard is 20 feet from each side lot line. Criteria Criteria for approval of a requested variance are provided in Division 3.5 of the Land Development Regulations. A copy of Division 3.5 is attached for the Village Council’s consideration. Criteria include the following: 1. Variance consistent with authorized powers. That the variance is in fact a variance set forth in the land development code and within the province of the board or Village Council, as applicable, based upon the opinion of the Village Attorney. The Village Council has the authority to consider the request. Pursuant to Division 3.9 (d) of the Village’s Land Development Regulations, an appeal from any decision of the Zoning Board may be taken to the Village Council by any person who is aggrieved by such decision. 2. Existence of special conditions or circumstances. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved Page 4 of 6 and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district. The applicant refers to the need to orient the tennis court in a north-south direction to avoid glare from the sun. There do not appear to be special conditions or circumstances that are peculiar to this property, other than the fact that the platted lot is not wide enough to accommodate the proposed tennis court with a north- south orientation. 3. Conditions not created by the applicant. That special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The conditions and circumstances do result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant originally owned both lots within the Sofia Alexis Estates Subdivision. The parent tract was subdivided by the applicant to create the two existing lots. However, in subdividing the parent tract to create two lots as permitted and approved, the south lot was large enough to accommodate a tennis court with a north-south orientation, whereas the northern lot (subject property) would require a variance to accommodate a tennis court with a north-south orientation. The subject property is currently undeveloped and the applicant has submitted plans for permits to construct a new home on the property. 4. Special privileges not conferred. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the Land Development Code to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. Granting of the variance will confer a privilege on the applicant that is not necessarily afforded other properties. The applicant has included a list of tennis court variances approved by the Village of Pinecrest since incorporation and has also included a list of properties that have tennis courts located closer to the property line than the Village’s Land Development Regulations allow. Each variance application should otherwise be considered separately on its own merits and denied or approved depending on its consistency with required criteria. 5. Hardship conditions exist. That literal interpretation of the provisions of the Land Development Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the Land Development Code and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. Page 5 of 6 Literal interpretation of the Land Development Regulations would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other residential properties or work unnecessary and undue hardship upon the owner. 6. Only the minimum variance granted. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. Approval of the requested variance is not necessary for continued reasonable use of the property. Reasonable use of the land is and will continue to be available to the applicant if the variance is denied. 7. Not injurious to the public welfare or intent of the land development code. That the grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Development Master Plan and the Land Development Code and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. It is not apparent that a variance to permit the proposed tennis court would be injurious to the public welfare or intent of the Land Development Regulations, if adequately buffered and screened, although the owners of the property located to the north of the subject property object to the requested variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Building and Planning Department recommends that the Village Council deny the requested variance since it does not satisfy all of the required criteria specified within the Land Development Regulations for approval. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL In the event the Village Council considers granting the requested variance, the Village Council may prescribe appropriate conditions to mitigate the proposed variance and to ensure safeguards in conformity with the Comprehensive Development Master Plan and the Land Development Regulations or any other duly enacted ordinance. Violation of such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the variance is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the Land Development Regulations and shall nullify the variance. If the requested variance is approved, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Page 6 of 6 1. A building permit for construction of the tennis court shall be obtained from the Village of Pinecrest. 2. Installation of a black or green vinyl coated chain link fence, 10 feet in height, on the north and south sides of the tennis court. 3. Installation and maintenance of an opaque landscape buffer sufficient to buffer the tennis activities from the neighboring properties to the north, south, and east of the subject property. Required landscaping on the north and south sides of the tennis court shall at a minimum include an opaque buffer consisting of a continuous row of trees and a continuous hedge that are a minimum of 10 feet high at the time of planting. 4. Violation of the conditions of approval and safeguards, made a part of the terms under which this variance is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the Land Development Regulations and shall nullify the variance.