County Variance 282 – 1905 Sunrise – Side Setback – A variance from Section 27-310(j) requiring a minimum side setback of 3 feet for a detached accessory structure to allow a 0 side setback for an existing 1,008 square foot detached garage in a Residential 15,000 (R-150) zone on Lot 22 of Sunrise Subdivision, 1^st Filing, a 22,216 square foot parcel of land. Tax ID: C05159. Presented by Nicole Cromwell, Zoning Coordinator
 

The Planning Division recommends denial and adoption of the findings of the 7 criteria for Variance 282.

OWNER: Sandra and James Ross
AGENT: None
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 22, Sunrise Subdivision, 1st Filing
ADDRESS: 1905 Sunrise Avenue
CURRENT ZONING: R-150
EXISTING LAND USE: Single family home with 2 detached shops
PROPOSED USE: Same
SIZE OF PARCEL: 22,216 square feet

None.

Subject Property: None

Surrounding Property: There are 6 zoning variances of record in this area of Lockwood between Old Hardin Road and Highway 87 East. Two of the applications were denied, both for the same lot in Eagle Rock Subdivision. The denied variances were found to not have physical hardship with the land and the owner began the construction without checking with the Planning Division. The 4 remaining variances of record were for side yard setbacks for either detached or attached garages. These variances were to reduce the required side setback from 10 feet or 8 feet to less than 5 feet. No variances have been requested to reduce the side setback for a new detached garage to 0 feet.

NORTH:	Zoning: R-150 and Community Commercial Land Use: Lockwood Irrigation Canal; Single family residence; Lockwood Mini-storage
SOUTH:	Zoning: R-150 Land Use: Single family dwellings
EAST:	Zoning: R-150 Land Use: Single family dwellings
WEST:	Zoning: R-150 Land Use: Single family dwellings

The applicant is requesting a variance from the required side setback for a new detached garage from a minimum of 3 feet from the side property to a minimum of 0 feet. The property owner demolished an old shed on the property line and re-constructed a new detached garage of 1,008 square feet in the same location. The property owner was notified of the requirement to obtain a Zoning Compliance Permit (ZCP) for the new structure, and that a variance may be required since the building appeared to sit on the side property line.

The property owner to the east, Bob Ryder, has submitted documentation to the Planning Division indicating the building is in fact over the common property line approximately 1.5 inches on the northeast corner of the building. The building was constructed with the eave on the property line - or over the property line and all the roof drainage on the east side of the roof ends up on the neighbor's yard. The shed that was demolished was much smaller; approximately 252 square feet. This older shed had a gabled roof running east to west so all the roof drainage was on the subject property.

The applicant has stated the need for the variance was due to an error; not being aware of the un-acceptable 0 lot line setback. The applicant stated the new building is to accommodate storage of trailers, a Bobcat and a lawn mower. The applicant stated there will be no commercial use of the new garage and it would be exceedingly difficult to move the building. The building is a standard "pole barn" type construction with 2 overhead doors. The applicant submitted receipts for purchase of some building materials in July 2015, when construction was started on the new garage. The variance application was the result of a complaint to County Code Enforcement in late February of this year, after the building was complete.

The Planning staff found 6 variances of record in this area of Lockwood for setbacks. None of these variances were requested for 0 side setback. Four of the 6 applications were conditionally approved to reduce side or front setbacks down to as low as 4.5 feet. Two variances were for garage additions to homes on Memory Lane. There are no recent variances since 1996 in this area. A windshield survey of the area did not note any recent construction at or along property lines in violation of the zoning requirements. There are several older sheds and accessory buildings constructed on or near property lines in the general area. In fact, the adjacent property has a small shed within 1 foot of the property line. It appears the shed has been there for many years and may pre-date the zoning on this property.

The Planning staff is recommending denial based on the proposed findings of the 7 criteria. The first 3 criteria; hardship with the land, denial of a right commonly enjoyed by others, and not conferring a special privilege on this owner, are the primary review criteria and findings the Board of Adjustment must make before considering an approval of a requested variance. The first criteria, a hardship with the land peculiar to this property, is not met. The property is large and although an irregular triangle shape, there is abundant area on this north end of the property for the owner to have met the required 3-foot minimum side setback. The 2nd criteria, whether denial of the variance would deprive this owner of a right commonly enjoyed by others, is also not met in this cases. The variances of record do not support a 0-foot side setback and although some detached buildings have been constructed on property lines in this area in the past, there is no evidence of newer construction of 1,000+ square foot buildings on property lines. There are many smaller detached sheds in the area that were placed on or near the property line. The previous shed at this location on the subject property was about 252 square feet. The new detached garage is 1,008 square feet. The 3rd criteria, whether granting the variance would confer a special privilege on this owner, also does not support the variance. Granting a 100% variance to this owner, after the fact of the construction, would be conferring a special privilege that would be denied to others in the same district. Also, there is a property line in dispute in this matter. The owner of 1919 Sunrise to the east has provided a survey showing the northeast corner of the new building is over the property line. The Board of Adjustment cannot grant a variance to one owner to occupy land not possessed by the applicant.
 

Staff recommends denial and adoption of the findings of the 7 criteria for Variance 282.