Ordinance 95 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

., -.. . e e e -2- 8. Arti cle , Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance reads as follows: as amended, "Where a district boundary line divides a lot in a single ownership, the Board may permit a use permitted in the less restricted district to ex- tend into the more restricted portion of the lot for a distance of not more than 50 feet or, in case of a lot running through to the next street, one half of the distance from the street front of the lot to the next street." 9. "Single Ownership" is further defined by Article as follows: "Possession wherein the owner does not own adjoining vacant property." 10. of the twenty-five (25) lots having frontage on the 1,000 Block of , twenty-two (22) are occupied by residential structures. 11. Said residential usage comprises approximately 75% of the total frontage along both sides of the Block of said street. 12. The depth of the block between and measured from north to south at the point of the applicant's property is approximatley 388 feet. 13. The Commercial zone has a depth of 250 feet as measured from north to south. 14. The Local Business A zone has a depth of approx. 31 feet as measured from north to south. ~5. The' lot in question has a depth of 107 feet as measured from , north to south. 16. The said three zones are contiguous. 17. The property in both the Local Business A and Com- mercial zones is being used for one principal activity. 18. The applicant I s' request is for an extension of the use of said property into the Residential B-1 zone for a distance of 50 feet. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjust- ment that Application , requesting an exception under Article , as amended, of the Zoning Ordinance to pwemir the extension of the use of the premises at for auto sales to the rear portion thereof for a distance of not more than 50 feet beyond the north district boundary line of the Business A District dividing said premises, the affected area being the rear portion of premises known as and the rights of ingress and egress to the rear portion thereof from be denied on the following grounds: 1. The property at constitutes vacant property, adjoining an~ distinct from the remaining co~tiguous parcels owned by the applicant. Therefore, the app11cant does not pos- sess a lot in single ownership as defined in Article . Thus, the applicant is' not entitled to the relief sought because Article , Paragraph as amended, requires that the applicant pos~ess a ",lot in single ownership." 2. furthermore, the Applicant would not be entitled to re- lief even if a "lot in single ownership" did exist, since the applicant's property would then constitute a "~ot ru~ning through to the next street" under the language of Art1cle ~ ' Para. . . '.. . - - .--. .. . . - ... , _ t' ~f.,_~.f_';', ".