10-20-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M0J-29SI October 20. 20t3 r«te2#rj Exhibit D: Site Plan Exhibit E: Minutes from May 17. 1999 PC Granting Original Appro\-al Exhibit F: Letters from Adjacent Property 0\%Tier Exhibit G: Photographs E.xhibit H; Plat Map Exhibit I: Property Ow-ners List Backgrovod The previous owners ofthis lot received a \ariance which allowed the bam to exist on the lot absent the principal building. The developer of the subdivision acted on behalf of the owners in the variance request in an effort to lemporarilv allow the building while the property was being marketed. The variance allowed the building to be oversized and conditioned that the building be moved to the rear of the lot where it would be conforming once a principal structure was constructed. The building was ne\cr moxed to this location and therefore the variance became null and void. The lot was ne\cr developed and the current applicant, who is a new owner and who resides on the adjacent property to the immediate west, is now requesting that the \ ariance be renewed so he can move the building as noted on the site plan and resolution #4297. Analysis Th«e are several issues Ural reUte lo the oriinal approval and vvhelher a renewal should be approved. The issues are os follows: 1. The original v-^ance was granted lo the previous owners. Variances run w ith the property not the applicant However, the approval was based entirelv on the fact that a pnncipal structure would be constructed on the lot in the near future. The resoluUon even re-defined what lot lines were considered side. rear, and front lo clear up any confusion for when a prmcipal building would be constructed. 2. Staffbelieves the current owner has no intention of selling the lot for development in the near future. The applicant has expressed his desire to keep the lot se^te from his and no plans ha .e been expressed that the lot is intended to be sold. 3. ;^e bam. if moved to the IwaUon indicated on the site plan, would be conforming if the appliCMt coi^ined the lot which contains his residence with the lot which contains the bam. The applicant has stated he does not want to combine the two lots. Conclusion Option 1: Because the ordinal variance approval was based on a dwelling being constructed and that is not the applicant’s current intention, if the applicant wishes to keep the bam. require that the lots be combined and the b^ be