#20 - Chavez Property Comp Plan & Zoning Text Amendment

Home Browse Search

I respectfully disagree with this premise and, respectfully, ask that it not be furthered. If it were true then anytime an owner did not acquire land from their neighbor-at whatever price or terms might or might not be available, they would be said to have “created their own hardship”. This would obliterate any opportunity for any variances relating to lot size or setbacks in any case where a neighboring property might be for sale (or might not be) but the lot owner did not buy his neighbors land. Similarly, it is precisely not the case that the city would look to whether the neighbors could or could not sell land, or do so on any terms possible, in evaluating a simple variance request. I can furnish other examples if needed but I trust that this can be cleared up. III. The General Variance Standards are Met here and it is a typical scenario where variances should be granted. As you are aware there are three underlying inquiries: *the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner (here a single family home); *The landowners problem is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner; *The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. All of these criteria are readily met here; *A single family home is reasonable, necessary and common in this area. *Nothing I, or my predecessors did created the need for a variance—the later imposition of bluff land setbacks that interfere with placement of a house on a lot that was lawfully created. We did not change the surface of the land or the position of any bluff or steep slopes, did not erect any structures and the lot it exists in its natural state, not to mention its approved subdivided state. This is precisely the situation where variances are strongly compelled. *building of this house will obviously not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Here, the neighborhood is slated to be developed with substantial housing, roads and other infrastructure. As relates to the lake—there are numerous houses that exist or were built or were expanded on lots like that and within bluff land and other setbacks. Simply put, historical creation and development of homes and outbuildings has been allowed extensively in this area. It will not change the essential character of the neighborhood in any way to use this lot for its intended purpose-development of a single family lakeshore home. Examples of pre-existing lots were homes were built are illustrated in the map provided in the Planning Commission packet. All of those homes were built in the 70’s, 80’s and even early 90’s. Depictions of these homes are shown in Exhibit A.