Laserfiche WebLink
Motion was made by William Sanders, seconded by David Hamilton to approve the 5" variance <br />to Section 9-601 of the Area Regulations to allow the side yard to remain at 47" vs the required <br />5' setback based on the following staff recommended findings of fact. Motion carried 5-0. <br />Staff Recommended Findin is of Fact: <br />Staff recommends approval of the variance, based upon the following findings of fact: <br />1. The request for variance is harmony with the general purposes and intent of Zoning <br />Ordinance No. 1710, as amended, and will not negatively impact the protection for the <br />adjacent surrounding property. <br />2. The request is to permit the reconstruction of a residence is not applicable with regard to a <br />non -conforming use due to it being permitted by right in the SF -2 District. There was a <br />previous structure recently demolished on the property under the City's Home Program and <br />it was built up to the property line. The new setback of 4'-7" to the south side yard setback <br />will lessen the `degree of non -conformity' with regard to side yard setback which serves to <br />improve the adjacent neighboring condition of the lot. <br />3. There are special or unique conditions of restricted area and physical feature for the new slab <br />that was constructed prior to the form board survey now existing on the subject parcel of land. <br />This is not generally applicable to other parcels of land in the same zoning district. This has <br />caused an unusual and practical difficulty to be in compliance with the provisions sought here <br />to be varied due to general contractor not fully in sync with its sub -contractors schedules and <br />thereby resulting in an unintentional result of not meeting the side yard setback by 5". <br />4. The hardship sought to be avoided is the result of (a) the applicant's own actions (self- <br />imposed or self-created although unintentional), and (b) an economic or financial hardship <br />would result from being required to move the new foundation by 5". <br />5. The provisions of Zoning Ordinance No. 1710, and its amendments, that are sought to be <br />varied would deprive the applicant of the normal rights to use the property that is commonly <br />enjoyed by other properties in the same SF -2 Zoning District without approval and not being <br />required to fully comply with the side yard setback ordinance provisions. <br />5. Adjournment. <br />APPROVED THE 5�' DAY OF APRIL, 2022. <br />Chairperson <br />