Laserfiche WebLink
«M-N4S <br />S«p«raibcr M, 2W4 <br />In conclusion, staff finds that the property should be held to the requirements laid out in <br />Sections 78-1434 and 78-143S. Alternative locations meeting setbacks exist on the <br />property and the property could support more than one large building, although there may <br />be some justification for a single, large building as noted above. <br />2. <br />Issues for Coosklcnition <br />1 . If the alternate septic site location and proposed building location can be swapped so <br />that the required setbacks could be met. should the location variances be granted? <br />Does the power line easement, wetland and septic locations on the property provide <br />a hardship in order to approve the location or area variances? To what extent? <br />Does the intent of the maximum individual square footage limitation make sense? i.c. <br />Should we be concerned about the visual appearance of a 2,160 s.f. building on a lot <br />which is somewhat secluded? <br />4. Does the remoteness of the lot factor into a variance approval for a building in excess <br />of 1,200 s.f.? <br />5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />3. <br />Staff Rccommcndatioa <br />Staff would recommend the following: <br />1.The applicant should rule out whether the alteroate septic site location and <br />propos^ building location can be swapped. If so, the setback variances <br />should be denied. If not. a variance to allow an accessory structure to be <br />located in front of the house should be granted based on the power casement, <br />wetland, and septic constraints. <br />If a setback variance is granted staff would recommend denial of the building <br />area variance and the applicant should also be held to the 1,200 s.f. limitation. <br />If the Planning Commission wishes to grant a building area variance based on <br />the remote nature of the lot, staff recommends that the building meet all <br />setback requirements. <br />J