Laserfiche WebLink
12. The granting of such variance will not merely ser\e as a convenience to the applicant, but is <br />necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. <br />The lot area variance is consistent with approvals granted hy the City in the past. The <br />proposed redevelopment of the property is being done on a property with a conforming <br />septic system and has demonstrated a suitable alternate septic site for the size of house <br />proposed. <br />The question is whether the keeping of all accessory buildings is a hardship since the <br />buildings as on the property mostly could not be built where they are today, and of the <br />current size under existing standards. <br />The buildings on th • site are considered legal non-conforming becau.se they were <br />comtructed prior to the adoption of the current zoning ordinance. The use of the pr. perty <br />and barn for animals is a legal non-conforming u.se. The property would not he allowed for <br />animals because the lot does not have suitable acreage for cattle. Properties are required to <br />have a minimum acreage of 3 acres (one acre for the house and septic, and two acres of <br />available pasture land for each animal unit, one additional acre is required for each <br />additional animal). This property is less than two acres in lot area once the wetland area is <br />deducted <br />The properly owners request continued u.se of the property for as U us currently used. Any <br />variance approval for the acccs.sory buildings to remain would not approve variances for <br />their respective location. 7 he buildings would remain leeal non-conforminie and would be <br />required to be removed once they have reached the end of their useful life. The use of the <br />property for atu.nals would also remain provided the number of animals does not increase <br />and/or does not cease. <br />Issues for Discussion <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />Arc there hardships to justify variances to permit the proposed house in the location as <br />requested, and to permit the accessory buildings to remain? <br />The property will continue to be used for the keeping of animals. If the accessoiy buildings <br />are iiot allowed to remain it would effect the ability to allow continued use for animals. <br />If tlic accessory buildings arc allowed to remain on the property shall the buildings only be <br />allowed to remain as legal non-conforming structures? The buildings thei. would be allowed <br />to remain until they are no longer useful. <br />StuiT Kecuinmendation <br />Stall reconmendo approval of the variance for lot area to permit construction of a new residence on <br />the propeity. The property has been used for single-family residential use since approximately 1 900. <br />I he property also has a recently installed (1998) septic system and has demonstrated a future septic <br />Mie for the size of house that is proposed on the property. <br />Staff is comfortable with the proposed location of the house it respect to its’ impact on adiaceni <br />properties Ihe preferred alternative would be to build a new house conforming in location. <br />Allowing the house to be located as proposed in the plan would not change the character of the <br />property or locality. A mature wooded area is located b etween the house and County Road 6. <br />5