04-28-11 Zoning Board of Adjustment

Browse Search

Zoning Board of Adjustment April 28, 2011 #11-93000002 Page 2of3 Except as otherwise prohibited, the board is empowered to authorize a variance from a requirement when the board finds that all of the following conditions have been met. Conclusion: ❖ That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the best public interest. ❖ That literal enforcement of the chapter will result in unnecessary hardship because of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape, topography or other extraordinary or exceptional physical situation unique to the specific piece of property in question. "Unnecessary hardship" shall mean physical hardship relating to the property itself as distinguished from a hardship relating to convenience, financial considerations or caprice, and the hardship must not result from the applicant or property owner's own actions; and ❖ That by granting the variance, the spirit of the chapter will be observed. In determining if granting the applicant's request would be contrary to the public interest, staff recognizes that additional impervious coverage at the property may create a problem with adjoining properties due to flooding issues in the neighborhood. A survey of surrounding properties shows that this non-compliance with the ordinance is not typical to the neighborhood. In addition, the pool with cool deck and concrete work were done without City permits and stands in violation of the City ordinance. In viewing the specific grounds for granting a variance, Staff points out that the condition, as it exists, was the "...result of the applicant or property owner's own actions..." contrary to the provisions of Section 106-192. We also find no grounds to justify "...unnecessary hardship because of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape topography, or other extraordinary or exceptional physical situation unique to the property in question." This lot represents a typical example of property within subdivisions throughout the City and very typical of the spirit of the Ordinance. The ZBOA's final consideration is whether granting this request observes the spirit of the ordinance. Based on the facts noted in this report, the applicant's request would be contrary with the spirit of the ordinance in that all properties, by allowing additional coverage, would set improper precedent and would not promote the health, safety and welfare of the general public. Variance Request which seeks to allow for greater than 55% impervious coverage of a standard 6,900 S. F. lot by allowing an existing, non -permitted work with additional concrete coverage of 95 S.F. to remain in place is contrary to the provisions established by the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 106), Section 106-333, Table B. Furthermore, the parameters for the requested variance do not, in our opinion, appear to meet the provisions established by Section 106-192 (Variance).