Laserfiche WebLink
1. <br />`. 5(A). In this way, the accessory use category operates not like <br />a separate or different "use," but as more like a site <br />development requirement that limits the conditions under which a <br />permitted use may exist. As mire like an "area" variance, the <br />relevant statute would not bar a variance. <br />This interpretation accords with the policy underlying <br />the prohibition of use variances. To allow use variances and <br />permit proscribed uses would represent ad hoc amendments to the <br />zoning ordinance and undermine the essential purpose and <br />integrity of adopted land use controls. See D. Mandelker, Land <br />Use Law P. 168 (1982). The City has, however, determined that <br />docks constitute an appropriate use in the LR-lC district -- if <br />there is a principal structure. To allow a dock without a <br />principal structure would not undercut the integrity of LR-1C <br />district as would, for example, allowing construction of a <br />commercial or industrial building. Docks are no doubt common in <br />the district. In short, the contemplated variance would not add <br />a ne4; permitted use but only change the conditions under which a <br />:emitted " accessory use could be built. <br />The above analysis should not be interpreted to <br />recommend whether, under these facts, the City should grant a <br />variance. The memorandum only concludes that consideration of <br />such a variance is not barred by state statute. <br />5077j <br />