2006_1023_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

under the official controls if the requested variance is DENIED. 4.2 The landowner has a� plight that is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner: The existing improvements were constructedin compliance with Code requirements, but very little space (if any) was preservedbetweenthe residential structure and the required 50-foot setback from the wetland bouradary delineated at that time. The applicant is the original homeowner and as such has been aware of the wetland and its related land use restrictions since the home was constructed. While the location of the wetland and the required setback line are not under the control of the applicant, the enforcement of the required setback from the wetland, as it was delineated at the time the home was built, is consistent with the property owner's original expectations of the developable area of the lot. The Planning Division has determined that, while the circumstances are unique to properties in this area, the landowner faces no plight if the original developable area on the property is not being. 5.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 The Planning Division reco�e�ded that the Variance Board DENY Thomas �cDani�l's request for a VARTANCE to § l O l 6-16 (Wetland Setbacks) of the City Code to allow a principal structure encroachment into the required setback from a wetland at 527 Owasso Hills Drive based on the comments and findings outlined in Section 5 of the staff report dated October 4,2006. 6.0 VARIANCE BOARD ACTION 6.1 On October 4,2006 the Variance Board held the public hearing regarding the McDa:aiel request. At the meeting no property owners spoke in support of, or opposition to, the request. 6.2 Variance Board members asked questions of staff and the applicant to further understand the nature of wetlands and the proposed variance request. The applicant provided copies of additional surveys that apparently showed differing versions of wetland boundaries. 6.3 With respect to their positions on the variance request, the Variance Board members made the following comments taken from the draft meeting minutes: Commissioner poherty spoke in support cf denying the request;apining that he took wetland setbacks very senously; and further ap�rung that he would find it l�ard to deny other neighborhood requests far a variance if this request were granted. Commissioner Boerigter noted that he took wetland setbacks seriously as well; however, h e wanted to clarify that thi s was in actuality a wetland; and opined that the addition cf a four-season porch, as presented, may not have a huge impact � the existing wetland. Commissioner Boerigter recognized Commissioner C7ntterty's concerns, and what was attempting to be accomplished with the wetland setback; and would adhere to Commissioner consensus far denial. Cl�air Bakeman spoke in support cf denying the request, expressing her strong support cf wetlands and ial{eshores. Far staffs reference, Commissioners concurred that sta�s hardship test related to the e�sting home being larger than ninety-seven percent (97%)cf the houses in the City, was not an apphcable test far granting or denying a vanance. However, Commissioners concurred that a reasonable use e�sting far the home; and protection cf the fifty-foot (so') PF 3 7 87_RCA_Appe al� 1023 06 Page 4 of 5