07-16-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Setback Variance Report 2229 County Road H2 July 16, 2003 Page 2 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 the property owner is seeking a building permit to expand the first level of the home by about 300 square feet and construct an upper level expansion of about 1,100 square feet. The lot is not irregularly shaped and at 23,520 square feet is more than double the size of a standard lot. Other than the deep front setback, there is nothing extraordinary about this property. 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, because the home (and all others on the block) is set back where it is, expansion and reinvestment is perhaps more difficult. 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 not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in that every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and livability of their home. Many improvements benefit the neighborhood in a broad sense in that the reinvestment often triggers similar reinvestment in adjacent properties and at the minimum motivates property owners to take a greater sense of pride in property ownership. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The property owner asserts in her letter dated June 19, 2003 that the six foot expansion into the front setback is the minimum variance to alleviate the hardship. Anything less than six feet would be impractical and would not add enough space to the living room to justify the expense. Anything more than a six foot expansion, while perhaps desired, would be in excess of the minimum space needed by Ms. Bosard.