6.1. SR 05-21-2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2. The hardship is caused I;y >pecial conditions and circumstances. which are /Jeeuliar to the /Jro/Jer{y and the structure involved and which are not characteristic of. or applicable to. other lands or structure in the same area. The lot is a relatively flat, currently farmed parcel rectangular is shape. There is no uniqueness to the land warranting a variance from the lot size. 3. The >pecial conditions and "rrumstantes are not a conse,?uence of the ./Jetitioner's own action or inaction. It does not appear that the applicant created the original 4.69 acre parcel; it does not appear that the applicant purchased the property with the intent to subdivide. 4. The literal application ~f the /Jromsions ~f this ordinance would deprive the /Jetitioner ohights e,!l~yed ~v other /Jropemes in the same district under the terms ~f this ordinance. The property owner is afforded rights enjoyed by other R-1a properties, namely the use of the land for single family residential use. There is no loss of rights by not allowing subdivision of property not meeting minimum lot size requirements. 5. The variance will not be i,!iurious to or adverse!y ,,-{fixt the health. s,,-fety or we!fare ~f the residents of the city or the neighborhood where the _/Jro../Jer{y is located and will be in keeping with >pint and intent ~f the ordinance. A variance would allow subdivision of lots not meeting minimum standards established by the zoning ordinance, and with the exception of the on site water and sanitation requirements, its negative impacts may be negligible, especially from a visual standpoint. The applicant contends that the character of the neighborhood has been established with the creation of one acre lots or smaller south and west of the subject property. These lots do range in size from 20,000 to 48,600 square feet, with the average 29,000 square feet. These lots were platted in 1974, as part of the township, before initiatives to protect the river and soils, and maintain a maximum density were developed. Summary It appears that the standards for variance have not been satisfied. While the applicant could pursue the minimum variance, (one lot at 2.5 acres and the second lot at 2.19 acres) and this may increase on site septic and water options, the property is not unique and no hardship has been offered indicating support for a variance. Board of Adjustments decision The Board of Adjustment reviewed the request, and felt that the request was not supported by hardship or uniqueness and felt that was a request out of convenience versus need. Full draft minutes are enclosed for the Council's information. Respectfully Submitted Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Planning Manager Action Motion by_ Second by _ Vote Follow Up