2015/03/31 - LAND USE - VAR - Other

Home Browse Search

VAR-15-02: Huppert February 17, 2015 garage, etc) are not a factor in deciding variances. Nearby ordinance violations, prior variances or lack of objections from neighbors do not provide a basis for granting a variance. Property limitations that prevent ordinance compliance and are common to a number of properties should be addressed by amending the ordinance. 2- No Harm to Public Interests—A variance may not be granted which results in harm to public interests. In applying this test,the Committee must consider the impacts of the proposal and the cumulative impacts of similar projects on the interests of the neighbors, the entire community and the general public. These interests may include: • Public health, safety and welfare • Water Quality • Fish and wildlife habitat • Natural scenic beauty • Minimization of property damages • Provision of efficient public facilities and utilities • Achievement of eventual compliance for nonconforming uses, structures and lot • Any other public interest issues 3- Unnecessary hardship—An applicant may not claim unnecessary hardship because of conditions which are self-imposed or created by a prior owner(for example: excavating a pond on a vacant lot and then arguing that there is no suitable location for a home). Courts have also determined that economic or financial hardship does not justify a variance. When determining whether unnecessary hardship exists,the property as a whole is considered rather than a portion of the parcel. The property owner bears the burden of proving unnecessary hardship. • For an area variance, unnecessary hardship exists when compliance would unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose (leaving the property owner without any use that is permitted for the property) or would render conformity with such restrictions unnecessarily burdensome. The Committee must consider the purpose of the zoning restriction,the zoning restriction's effect on the property, and the short-term, long-term and cumulative effects of a variance on the neighborhood, the community and on the public interests. Staff Comments: - Based on the application, it appears that the three step variance test may have been meet. Step 1,these are old substandard parcels/lots which are fairly unique. Step 2, it doesn't appear to harm the public as the density is remaining the same. Step 3,the substandard parcels/lots make it difficult to use the parcels/lots as a building site. - Newer home was built without a dwelling permit (called it a garage). The permit will need to be brought into compliance for the type of structure. - A new CSM will need to be done if this variance is approved to adjust the lot line accordingly. Page 2 of 2