07-19-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. es do not have wetlands, or at least nowhere near as much on their property. c. Th The applicant had no control over the shape of the lots or the wetlands being present. tay away from the wetland area. But any additional expansion would require moving d. Th that i same district. for reduced building and parking setbacks, there are very rare cases in which there are e. Th Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. mum amount that would allow them to have the size building needed and add 23 additional parking spaces. f. Th prop present to justify a seven (7) foot building setback and zero (0) arking lot setback. Due to the size of this property, it may be hard to justify these g. Th or su stion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the rse effects. It will need to be determined whether or not the rerouted storm water drainage would be adequate and not create drainage problems for the area. Recommendation: The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, in that most properti at the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. When the current building was constructed in 1982, it was placed on the lot in order to s closer to the wetlands. And now due to bringing rail on to the property, it makes more sense to stay as far south on the property with the tracks as possible. at granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege s denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege denied to others in the same district. Although there have been many variance requests such extraordinary circumstances that it would justify eliminating the front setback all together. Due to the amount of wetlands on the property and that this is an industrial area, there could be justification to this request. at the variances requested are the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. The applicants state that the thirty-three (33) foot variance for the building setback and the forty (40) foot variance for the parking lot is the mini e variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other erty in the same zone. The variance may be detrimental to the purpose of this Title unless it is determined that enough of a hardship is p severely reduced setbacks. e proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property bstantially increase the conge neighborhood. The proposed building and parking lot expansion should not result in any of the above- cited adve