Titusville board denies homeowner—s request to build larger garage at 1525 Bunker Hill Court

The City of Titusville Board of Adjustment & Appeals voted unanimously to deny a homeowner—s request for two setback variances that would have allowed a 30-by-20-foot detached garage at 1525 Bunker Hill Court.

Planning staff told the board the request sought an exception to Land Development Regulations, Chapter 28, to permit a 10-foot side corner setback where 20 feet is required and a 0-foot interior side setback where 5 feet is required. "Staff are recommending denial of the variance to allow a detached accessory structure to be constructed with a side corner yard setback of 10 feet instead of the required minimum of 20," staff said during the presentation.

Owner and applicant Barry Hallman testified he and his wife collect classic cars and rely on an on-site enclosed garage to protect vehicles used for community outreach. "We have a love for antique cars," Hallman said, describing club events and visits to retirement homes that, he said, benefit from the vehicles' preservation. He said he circulated neighborhood notices and that a neighbor in the duplex signed a statement of no objection.

Board members weighed the applicant—s community work and neighborhood support against the legal standard for granting variances. One member said the board was "very sympathetic" but could not find the special conditions required under the board—s powers: that the hardship not result from the applicant—s actions and that the variance be the minimum necessary. Staff had noted the lot conforms to R-2 zoning dimensions and that no unique physical conditions were apparent.

After discussion, a board member moved to deny both variance requests "in their entirety." The motion was seconded, and a roll-call vote recorded "Yes" from Chairman Taylor, Vice Chairwoman Van Deven, Member Beckles, Member Green and Member Willis, carrying the motion.

Because the vote was a denial, the applicant will need to either revise the proposal to respect the required setbacks (staff noted shrinkage to a 25-by-20 garage would be required if the north interior setback were enforced) or pursue other remedies outside this approval. The board did not set any conditions or direct staff to return with modifications.

The meeting record shows no immediate appeal or follow-up date was scheduled.