Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/1998

Home

Z.B. September 10, 1998 - Page 5 A civic association challenged the board's decision to grant the special exception and variance. The court affirmed the board's decision, and the asso- ciation appealed. The appeals court reversed, concluding Youchak wasn't entitled to the special exception or the variance because an engineering business wasn't a "customary or accessory" use in a residential dwelling, as required by the ordinance. The appeals court also found the variance was unwarranted because Youchak failed to prove unnecessary hardship unique to his property. Youchak appealed to the state's highest court. DECISION: Affirmed. Youchak's proposed use wasn't a customary home occupation. However, the town could always amend its zoning ordinance to allow professional offices as home businesses. Youchak wasn't entitled to a special exception allowing him to run an engineering business from his building because the proposed use wasn't one that was customarily carried on in a residential dwelling. Nor could it be con- sidered an "accessory use." An accessory use had to be clearly incidental and related to the property's main use --' in this case, residential. There was no need to address whether Youchak was entitled to the variance that allowed him to hire employees, because he couldn't operate his engineer- ing business as a home occupation. The board's decision to grant the variance was based on its grant of the special exception. The court noted that owners like Youchak who sought to improve impover- ished and dilapidated areas should be commended, but such improvements could be accomplished only within the parameters of the applicable zoning ordinances. The court also said the city could amend the zoning ordinance to allow "professional offices" as home occupations. see also: Valley View Civic Association v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 462 A.2d 637 (1983). Special Exception m Can board consider aesthetics in denying permission for mini-storage facility? Citation: Metropolitan Dade Coun(~ v. Section 11 Property Corporation, Court of Appeal of Florida, 3rd Dist., No. 98-761 (1998) Section 11 Property Corporation and Waycar Commercial Properties Inc. (developers) owned a 3-acre parcel in a "limited business district" in Dade County, Fla. The developers applied, for a special exception allowing them to build a mini self-storage facility. At a county commission hearing, the developers presented a site plan, elevation drawings, and an aerial photograph. The proposed development, located in a mostly residential area, included six single-story buildings and a large two-story storage building connected to a small two-story office build- ing. Four of the seven long, rectangular buildings were longer than a football