08-25-1994 Public Hearing and Regular Meeting ZBOA

Browse Search

Page 4 of 5 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report of 10/27/94 #V94-008 property that would prevent it from being developed and used in accordance with zoning requirements? The defInition continues by stating that issues of convenience, fInancial consideration, and caprice cannot be considered to constitute a hardship. This property can and has been developed in a manner consistent with zoning guidelines. There is a two car driveway providing adequate access to a two car garage. There is another existing driveway for additional parking. There is room to widen both driveways to a degree. Once inside the ditchline, the driveways can be joined. There is no hardship as defIned by the Zoning Ordinance. This request is based on convenience and, therefore, is not eligible to be considered for a variance. The third and fInal charge to be considered by the Board is the mandate to protect and preserve the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on the information in the preceding paragraphs, staff would contend that granting this variance would directly contradict both the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Conclusion In summary, staff in reviewing this request, fInds the following: · Granting this request would be contrary to the best public interest for the following reasons: The additional driveway width would not promote traffic safety. The additional culverting necessary to support the requested driveway would exceed the maximum length established by City drainage policy. Drainage policy has been developed and implemented III response to a mandate from City Council. This request does not involve a hardship as defIned by the Zoning Ordinance. Denying the variance will not prevent reasonable development and use of the property.