06-27-1996 Public Hearing and Regular Meeting

Browse Search

• • Page 2 of 4 Zoning Board of Adjustment Staff Report - 12/5/96 V96-002 The section also establishes the following standazds for the Board to use when considering vaziance requests: • That the granting of the vaziance will not be contrary to the public interest. • That literal enforcement of the Ordinance will result in unnecessary hazdship because of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape, topography or other extraordinary or exceptional physical situation unique to the specific piece of property in question. "Unnecessary hazdship" shall mean physical hardship relating to the property itself as distinguished from a hazdship relating to convenience, financial considerations or caprice, and the hazdship must not result from the applicant or property owner's own actions; and • That by granting the vaziance, the spirit of the Ordinance will be observed. Granting this vaziance will, in staff's opinion, not be contrary to the best public interest. The house is in substantial compliance with all applicable zoning regulations. Front and rear setbacks and lot coverage comply with applicable requirements. The only azea of encroachment is on the north side of the property and it is so minor as to be effectively invisible from the street. In zero lot line construction, Section 5-700, Table B, Footnote 6, the side setback opposite the zero lot line should be 10 feet. However, ~ the home to the north located on Lot 3 has a zero penetration, one hour rated wall, which reduces building code concerns for the standazd 10 foot fire sepazation. Granting this vaziance should have no impact on any other properties within the subdivision. It should in no way be contrary to the best public interest. Also, it seems literal enforcement of the Zoning. Ordinance would impose an unreasonable hazdship on the applicants.