09-24-2003 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

b. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance. c. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. d. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the ordinance to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. e. A genuine hardship exists in complying with the literal terms of the ordinance. According to the applicant, the proposed recreational building was originally conceived as an addition to his home (see Exhibit D) that included a master bedroom suite and spa. Due to a recent decrease in the size of his family, the applicant has deemed the master bedroom component of the addition no longer necessary and has decided to move forward only with the spa portion of the plan in its originally proposed location. Because the spa is not attached to the principal dwelling, it is considered an accessory building and is therefore subject to applicable accessory building requirements of the zoning ordinance. In review of the variance evaluation criteria established by the ordinance, it is not believed that the applicant has demonstrated genuine hardship to justify either accessory storage space in excess of 1,500 square feet upon the property or a recreational accessory building greater than 160 square feet in size. In order to meet the variance standards, the applicant would have to show that the proposed building is necessary to make reasonable use of the property, and that there is no way to conform to the regulations. In this case, the applicant can not appear to make these showings. Clearly, a spa building is not a minimum component of reasonable single family occupancy. Nonetheless, even it were, the applicant could clearly comply with the regulations by reducing the size of the building to the maximum size allowed, or by attaching the structure to the home consistent with the original plan. Of particular concern in regard to the recreational building is its excessive size (three times larger than the maximum allowed) and its dimensions (24' x 20') which lend it to potential re -use (at least from a size standpoint) as a detached garage. Also to be noted is that the recreational building appears to be designed for year round use which further contradicts the requirernents of the ordinance (which state that such structure must be designed for temporary and seasonal occupancy). 3