06/01/2021 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Stephanie Harris, City Attorney, presented the case, staff recommendations and findings to the Board on behalf of Andrew Mack. According to Andrew it would be more appropriate that this agriculturally zoned neighborhood be zoned and considered as a single-family zoning which would give this property a 35% coverage allotment therefore waiving the requirement for a variance. Stephanie Harris makes note of one letter submitted in opposition by James Dao, of 1020 Mockingbird Ln, but there was no explanation as to why he was opposed. Derrick and Dana Hill, property owners, are simply wanting to build an accessory building like a few of their neighbors for storage and to have a place to work on their hobby car. William Sanders, board member, confirmed that there is no intention to conduct business out of this shop building. No one else spoke in favor or opposition. Public hearing was declared closed. Motion was made by Larry Walker, seconded by Jerry Haning to approve the variance to City of Paris Zoning Ordinance, Section 9-401 of the Area Regulations to allow up to 35% lot coverage with the proposed and all future building improvements based upon the following staff recommended conditions and findings of fact. Motion carried 4:0. Staff Recommended Conditions: 1. The minimum required building setbacks to the property line for the new structure shall be verified in the field based upon the actual property line from survey pins located on the lot corners prior to commencing any building construction. 2. The lot coverage with the proposed & all future building improvements shall not exceed 35%. Staff Recommended Findings of Fact 1. The literal compliance with Sections 9-400 & 9-401 of the Zoning Ordinance would cause unnecessary hardship given the fact that this is an existing lot of record in an approved subdivision that, in its entirety, is incorrectly zoned and the request for a new accessory structure cannot be constructed without a variance. 2. The granting of the variance will not violate the spirit or the intent of the SF -2 District of the Zoning Ordinance for this property for which it should be zoned. Under the correct zoning of SF -2, a variance would not be required. 3. The Planning & Zoning Commission should conduct additional review of this subdivision development and consider initiating a rezoning action for the entire subdivision to reduce the burden on land owners in the development from having to obtain variances according to the