Laserfiche WebLink
#07-3277 <br /> April 16,2007 <br /> Page 3 of 3 <br /> Hardship Analysis <br /> I�: considering applications for varimtce, t/ie Pla�:�ii�:g Con:nzissiori sltall co�2sider tlte effect of t/:e proposed <br /> varia�tce upo�: t/�e /tealtl:, safery m:d ivelfare of tlie cosr:munity, existi�:g mzd anticipated traffic co�:ditions, <br /> liglet and air, danger of fire, risk to t/te public safety, a�rd tl:e effect on values of property in tlee sirrrou�:ding <br /> aren. T1ie Planning Commission shal[ consider recomnaending approval for variances fron: t1:e literal <br /> provisions of tl:e Zoning Code ii� instances wliere tleeir strict ertforcen:ent would cause u�:due leardsltip� <br /> because of circun:sta�:ces u�:ique to t/te indivirkral property under co�ts�deratiott, asr�i sl:all recommend <br /> approva!o�tly wJte�: it is denionstraterl tl:at suc/t actio»s will be in keeping wit/: tlte spirit and inteitt of tlre <br /> Oro�to Zo�:ing Code. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> There are 12 parameters within which a variance may be granted. There axe three the <br /> Commission should consider as the application does not specifically address them. and Staff � <br /> doubts this request satisfies them: <br /> 1. Can the property be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the <br /> official controls? � <br /> 2. Is granting the variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial � <br /> property right of the applicant? <br /> 3. Is granting the variance necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty? <br /> Are.there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> This house was constructed in a conforming manner under the current zoning setback <br /> standards. The lot is conforming in area and width, and has substantial space for expansion <br /> other than the required rear yaxd. Staff finds that the location of the proposed addition is not <br /> supported by a valid hardship is not reasonable. Staff would conclude that the findings . <br /> necessary to grant a variance are not met: The property is being used in a reasonable way <br /> today. There are no inherent property rights being denied. The variance would result in a � <br /> situation uncharacteristic of the neighborhood. <br /> . ' . �-- <br />