|
Ms. Claudia Hasbun, Zoning Administrator,
<br />February 28, 2012 "
<br />Page,S
<br />
<br />"I
<br />,
<br />,
<br />
<br />(3) Literal interpretation ,of the provIsIOns of the tORs will depiive the
<br />Applicant of rights' cOllunonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning
<br />district and, as such, places an unnecessary and undue hardship on the Applicant;
<br />
<br />The design of the tower, which is a direct result of the Property's narrow width, ,
<br />creates, inordinate constraints on the ,space available for off-street parking and
<br />garage circul'ltion patterns. If the Applicant were not granted these variances, a
<br />workable and functional garage design would be impossible. In addition,
<br />providing an additional setback of 12'-0",<)ll the north,side of tlie'site would
<br />create an unworkable garage.
<br />
<br />(4) The hardship is not econoinic and has not been deliberately 'created to
<br />establish a use or structure, which is not otherwise consistent with the LDRs;
<br />- on "~Thehiii:dshipis not econol"ni,c biiLlphysicii! clIaractensticof tJlePropertY U:e: the-
<br />narrow width of the site). These are the minimum variancesrequired to all\lw the
<br />reasonable'use of the Property il). accotdance with the regulationdor the,MU-R
<br />District.' ' ' '
<br />
<br />. ....
<br />. . ..'. ..'
<br />. .. . . . '. ...'
<br />,(5) 'yranting of the ~~riances requestedc,Qnveys the sametreatlllent l6the".'
<br />Applicant as to the owner of other lands, buildings or 'structures in the saine
<br />zoning district; ,,' , , ' ",'
<br />
<br />Gnlltlng thes~ variances qonwys the s~ne tr~atment to the Applicant as to other,
<br />owners in the district. If the requests are app,oved it ,would allow development to ,
<br />proceed on the Property Within th.:: establish~d requirements ,of the LDRs that
<br />would lie compatible with SlJrrOWlding structures.
<br />
<br />, (6) The variance, if granted, is the, rr1inimum variance that allows for' the
<br />reasonable use of the land; lWei' ' , "
<br />
<br />Again, because of the n,arrowness of the site, and in ,order to keep, with, the intent
<br />, of thiszomng designation these vanances are the minimum needed to develop the
<br />site in a reasonable manner. Furthermore, granting this relief will have little,'if
<br />allY, impact on the sUrrounding commwlity and will preclude requests from other
<br />variances With potentially detrimental impacts.
<br />
<br />(7) , Thegrantoftlll~varia:nce~ is i~ hariuiniy with the general intent and
<br />, purpose:' of the tORs;: is nofinjurious' to the neighborhood or otherWise
<br />detrhnental to the public safety and welfare and will not substantiaJly diminish 'or
<br />impair property values in ,the vicinity, '
<br />
<br />The requested relief is in ,harmony with'th.:: general intent of the MU-R Zoning
<br />Distp.ct by permitting the contmuedredevelopment of the shoreline with ilpscale
<br />
<br />WErss SEROTA HELFMAN
<br />PASTORIZA'COLE & BONI;;KE, P.L.
<br />
|