Laserfiche WebLink
Memo to Board of Adjustments/V 98-11 <br /> October 27, 1998 <br /> Page 3 <br /> • misinformation given as it is undocumented. Financial hardship in this <br /> case does not constitute a hardship. <br /> 2. The hardship is not caused by special conditions and circumstances which <br /> are peculiar to the property and the structure involved and which are not <br /> characteristic of, or applicable to, other lands or structure in the same <br /> area. Other properties in the area have the same setbacks and similar <br /> house plans. The applicants can build a deck or a patio, just not to their <br /> designs. <br /> 3. The literal application of the provisions of this ordinance would not <br /> deprive the petitioner of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same <br /> district under the terms of this ordinance. Other property owners have to <br /> adhere to the new setbacks and make adjustments to plans to <br /> accommodate them. The setbacks were public information when they <br /> purchased their home. <br /> 4. The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the <br /> petitioner's own action or inaction. Again, the setbacks were public <br /> information at the time the petitioners bought their home. They are still <br /> able to utilize the sliding door with a deck or patio. <br /> • 5. The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety <br /> or welfare of the residents of the City or the neighborhood where the <br /> property is located and will in keeping with spirit and intent of the <br /> ordinance. The neighbors support the variance however, it may become a <br /> precedent for variances of a similar nature in the area. <br /> Recommendation <br /> Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments deny this request for a <br /> variance from the side yard setback requirements based on four of the five <br /> criteria for granting a variance. <br /> \\elkriver\sys\shrdoc\planning\stevewen\pcmmo\v98-11.doc <br />