Laserfiche WebLink
Little Canada Planning Commission <br />June 9, 1987 <br />Page Two <br />quirements are met. <br />Variance <br />The applicant is requesting a variance from the required side yard setback of <br />10 feet. The applicant is proposing to locate the garage five (5) feet from the side <br />yard line. Due to the fact the applicant did not turn in a site survey showing the pro- <br />posed location of the garage and the existing house our office is assuming the location <br />given by the applicant is correct. Without a survey we cannot accurately determine <br />the correct dimensions for the lot, existing home, proposed location of the garage <br />and lot lines. <br />Outlined below are the criteria used when reviewing a variance request. <br />A variance from the terms of this Ordinance shall not be granted unless it can be <br />demonstrated that: <br />a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, <br />structure, or building involved. <br />(1) Special conditions may include exceptional topographic or water conditions <br />or, in the case of an existing lot or parcel of record, narrowness, shallow- <br />ness, insufficient area or shape of the property. <br />(2) Special conditions and circumstances may not be primarily economic in nature. <br />b. Literal interpretation of the provisions of the Ordinance would deprive the <br />applicant of right commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under <br />the terms of this Ordinance. <br />c. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the <br />applicant. <br />d. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special <br />privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings <br />in the same district. <br />e. A genuine hardship exists in complying with the literal terms of this Ordinance. <br />Based on the above criteria for a variance review, our office did not find any unique <br />conditions or circumstances that are peculiar to the property in question. Therefore, <br />our office feels the applicant's variance request is an unreasonable request. <br />Furthermore, the lot is larger than other lots that contain garages in the area so there <br />appears to be sufficient area on the lot to locate this garage so that the required <br />setback area requirement is met. <br />In the past, the Planning Commission has denied requests such as this one for basically <br />the same reasons. <br />Page 39 <br />