Laserfiche WebLink
Little Canada Planning Commission <br />29 February 1984 <br />Page Two <br />In this case, there are no unique circumstances or conditions which deprive the <br />applicant from minimum use. The current use is in fact within all standards of <br />the ordinance and may continue without interruption. Neither are there any <br />physical inequities which create a hardship on this parcel. The lack of <br />available city utilities do not qualify as such a hardship. <br />Further, the ordinance requires that no nonconforming structure or use may be <br />increased in its nonconformity. The existing house is nonconforming due to <br />its size. The ordinance would then tend to prohibit the granting of a variance <br />which would decrease the side yard setback requirement. <br />RECOMMENDATIONS <br />It is recommended that the applicant's request for variance and subdivision <br />be denied. The exhibits as presented give no compelling reason for the City <br />to waive its standards in regard to lot widths or setbacks. The primary <br />limiting factor to a conforming subdivision is the location of the structure <br />which is not sufficient reason to recommend a variance according to the <br />procedures as stated in the ordinance. <br />cc: Joe Chlebeck <br />Don Carley <br />Tom Sweeney <br />Applicant <br />k • . • • <br />