Laserfiche WebLink
FILEM3-2950 <br />Novwn()«f7,2003 <br />Pag*6 of6 <br />9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in <br />which said land is located.” <br />The applicants ’ property is 2.047 acres within a 2 ’Ocre zone. The neighborhood <br />consists of similar lots. In the opinion ofstaff this criterion is not met. <br />10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment <br />of a substantial property right of the applicant.” <br />The ability to have the 2380 s.f sport court is not a property right of the applicant. In <br />the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. <br />11. "The granting of the proposed variance wil! not in any way impair health, safety, <br />effort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning <br />The granting of this variance is contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance in that <br />while sport courts do not have a maximum size restriction, sport courts 1000 s.f. or <br />greater are required to meet a 30 ’ side setback This requirement was established to <br />protect adjacent properties from the negative impacts of such facilities. In the <br />opinion of staff this criterion is not met. <br />12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the <br />applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.” <br />The variance if granted will serve as a convenience to the applicants, it is not <br />necessary to alleviate a hardship or difficulty. In the opinion of staff this criterion is <br />not met. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Perhaps some additional soil testing could be performed in order to determine <br />whether or not an alternative secondary septic location could be located, which <br />might allow for a conforming location. <br />2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Plaiuung Staff recommends denial of the affer-the-fact variance request based on a <br />finding that if there are too many restrictions caused by other site features and amenities, <br />then these factors are not hardships but are reasons that the site cannot suppon an <br />additional amenity.