04-02-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Setback Report 7741 Long Lake Road April 2, 2003 Page 3 a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The property is zoned R-1 and is currently being improved with a new, two -story single -family dwelling. The lot is not irregularly shaped and at 22,000 square feet, is more than double the size of a standard lot. The sole cause of the variance request, as it is well documented herein, is due to a City oversight. The Community Development Department failed to “flag” the setback encroachment and issued the permit in error. The developer began construction in accordance with the City’s approval and it was not until March 4, 2003, that he became aware of any problems. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. While the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, to apply the provisions after- the -fact would certainly deprive the applicant a right he was granted by virtue of an approved building permit. It should be noted however that mistakes and oversights do occur and that when discovered, builders are required to correct the mistakes, even if the mistakes are not their own. The question, then, is, which is preferable —preserving the intent of a uniform building setback and requiring the applicant to tear down walls, redraft plans and pour new footings, all at considerable cost, or to grant a variance because of the City’s error. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The special conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant. d. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Granting the variance would confer upon the property owner a special privilege that would be denied other property owners. However, one could consider the investment already made by the applicant a mitigating factor. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. Leaving the structure “as is” certainly could be considered the minimum variance which would alleviate the ha rdship. The cost of removing one foot of the garage, in this case, would essentially be the same as removing 11 feet.