Laserfiche WebLink
• • <br />Page 4 of 6 <br />Zoning Board of Adjustment <br />Staff Report of 1/26/95 <br />V95-001 <br />the best long term interests of the City. As such, they should be upheld unless <br />it can be shown that an unnecessary hardship, as specifically defined by the <br />Zoning Ordinance, would result. As will be discussed in subsequent <br />paragraphs, this is not the case in regards to this request. <br />In regards to the applicant's statement that the existing buildings have <br />"covered 60% of four lots for 50 years", staff would note the following: <br />The existing buildings are nonconforming structures. As illustrated on Exhibit <br />A, they are nonconforming due to setback. Until Lots 10-13 were purchased <br />by the owner, they were also nonconforming due to setback. <br />As legally established nonconforming structures, they are protected by the <br />Ordinance and the owner has the right to perform repair and maintenance as <br />necessary to maintain the facility in good condition. However, removal of the <br />existing structures removes the right of continued nonconformity. The Zoning <br />Ordinance includes a section that speaks to this directly. Section 4-200 <br />charges "the general public, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the <br />Board [of Adjustment]...to take note that nonconformities in the use and <br />development of land are to be avoided, or eliminated where now existing <br />wherever and whenever possible..." <br />In the absence of hardship, as defined by Ordinance, allowing one <br />nonconforming structure to be removed only to be replaced by another would <br />be contrary to the specific intent of the Zoning Ordinance. It would be <br />contrary to the goals and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and, therefore, <br />contrary to the best public interest. <br />Unnecessary Hardship: <br />The next issue to consider is that of hardship. Under the terms of the Zoning <br />Ordinance, a hardship must be a result of unusual property conditions. These <br />are conditions such as narrowness, shallowness, or unusual topography. If any <br />of these conditions exists to a degree that they could prevent an otherwise <br />usable piece of land from being developed in conformance with ordinance <br />guidelines, they could constitute a hardship as defined by the ordinance. <br />The Ordinance further states that hardship must be a result of property <br />conditions and not a matter of convenience, financial consideration, or the <br />property owner's own actions. <br />This property is 125 feet deep, 209 feet wide and is comprised of a total of <br />