Laserfiche WebLink
and over half of the lots with this zonin4 (197) are SMALLER <br />THAN 6/10ths OF AN ACRE. It is clear frum looking at thosQ <br />numbers that a.l.though the .lesignati,n of do one acre minimum Iot <br />size might be justified as : L'P!IlLable standard, the imposition <br />of this zoning category ,.n over half of the lots presently so <br />zoned, does not conform to .ong established use, and the <br />applica;ion of the present ordinance does not support a "spirit <br />or intent" of one acre parcels. <br />An analysis of er-licant's immediate neighborhood shows a <br />smiliar pattern. 75f if the lakeshore lots on Highwood Road <br />(exclusive of applicants property) are less than 26/100ths of a-i <br />of Clone equals 1 acre and only 8% (1 out of 12) is as lar�je <br />as 6/10ths of an acre. An analysis of alt properties located on <br />Highwood Road yields an even greater disparity. Of the 24 <br />properties in this category, none is equal or greater than one <br />acre; one is equal to or greater than 8/10ths of an acre; one is <br />between 6/10ths and 8/10ths of an acre and the remaining 22 are <br />less than 6/10ths of an acrc. <br />2. THE STAFF POINTS OUT THAT THE GRANTING OF THE REQUESTED <br />VARIANCE FOR LOT AREA A%D LOT WIDTH WOULD LEAD TO REQUESTS FOR <br />ADDITIONAL VARIANCES FOR AVERAGE LAKESHORF SETBACK AND ALSO F'JR <br />HARDCOVER REQUIREMENTS. <br />The proposed dwelling wou)d in fact lead to a request for <br />average lakeshore setback. Tr reviewing this request, however, <br />it should be noted that the proposed location is consistent with, <br />and on line with, virtually all other residences un Highwood <br />Road, with the exception of the adjacent property owned by Mr. <br />George t.pplebaum located at 4109 Highwood Road. The property at <br />that address is a non -conforming structure which predates the <br />existing building ordinance. The dwelling built on that lot has <br />an extreme setback from the lake, and in fact does not meet the <br />road setback requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Applebaum has <br />reviewed and discussed the proposed construction with Mr. <br />Nenrich, a:;d has made a written statement to the City seating no <br />objection to the plans, and indeed acknowledges that it is the <br />location of his dwelling which is the cause of the problem. <br />With regard to the assertica that hardzover variances would <br />be requested, this is pure speculation on the part of the staff. <br />The proposed plans are within the restrictions and the 75 to 250 <br />foot section of the lot. In the 0 to 75 foot segment there are <br />existing improvements which are non -conforming structures. <br />Applit-ant has indicated to staff, and is willing to stipulate <br />that iL- the present variance requests are approved, he will <br />re.anascape the property in the 0 to 75 foot area, removing all <br />unnecessary hard cover and terracing tte property to prevent any <br />surface water from running off and polluting the lake. <br />1. THE STAFF INDICATED THAT' IN ITS OPINION GRANTING THIS <br />VARIA"ICE WILL "ULTIMATELY HAVE A NEGATIVE: IMPACT ON THE CHARACTFR <br />OF THE 0E IGHBORHOOD AND THE CHARACTF;R OF THE QUALITY OF THE WATFR <br />