05/06/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

meet this setback as the ISTS is located in the rear yard behind the existing residential dwelling. 7. That the Applicant has submitted a site plan, consisting of,seven (7) sheets prepared by Randall M. Buflie Architect, Inc., dated Mazch 25, 2010 depicting the Applicant's preferred location (the "Site Plan"). Sheet SD2.1 of the Site Plan is herein attached as Exhibit A. 8. That the Applicant has submitted a letter outlining the request dated Mazch 25, 2010, and hereby incorporated as reference. 9. That the Applicant has stated that the Variance is needed in order to construct due to the fact that the topography of the site drops about six (6) feet from east to west and in order to construct the Structure to provide access to the main level, the Structure must be constructed in the proposed location. 10. That the minimum front, side, and rear yard setback for properties within the R-1 Rural Developing District are forty. (40) feet, ten (10) feet, and forty (40) feet respectively. 11. That it appears the Structure will be greater than forty (40) feet from the front and rear property lines, meeting all other setbacks other than the side yard setback often (10) feet. 12. That the total square footage of accessory buildings on the Subject Property would be 1,888 square feet (existing 875 squaze foot detached accessory structure, existing 197 detached accessory structure, and 816 square foot proposed attached accessory structure). 13. That properties between one (1) acre and 1.49 acres in size are eligible for a total of 2,200 square feet of accessory building space. 14. That according to Sheet SD1.2 of the Site Plan, an existing underground gas line is loceted under the proposed location of the Structure. 15. That the existing topography "of approximately six (6) feet from east to-west prevents the Structure to be constructed as to access from the main level of the existing dwelling unit and in conjunction with natural drainage patterns of the Subject Property does/does not create a hazdship. 16. That the Subject Property can cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance. 17. That the plight is/is not due to circumstances unique to the Subject Property and is/is not created by the Applicant. 18. That the Variance wilUwillnot alter locality's essential character 19. That economic circumstances alone do/do not oreate the undue hardship. 20. That, if granted, the Variance wilUwill not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacentproperiy. RESOLUTION #10-OS-_ Page 2 of 4 14