2003-10-21 (meeting minutes) vAGENDA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
Tuesday, October 21, 2003 at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Commission Chambers, 800 Seminole Road
1. Call to order and pledge of allegiance.
2. Approval of Minutes of the meeting of September 16, 2003.
3. Recognition of Visitors.
4. Old Business.
a. ZVAR-2003-16, Edward and Paige Beach. Amended request for a Variance from
Section 24-105 (e) (2) to reduce the required twenty (20) foot rear yard to ten (10) feet to
allow for the construction of a glass enclosure, for property within the RS-2 Zoning
District and located at 407 Seaspray Avenue.
5. New Business.
a. UBE-2003-05, Roy S. Jones. Request for aUse-by-Exception to allow for the sale of
new and used automobiles and boats and also automobile leasing for property within the
Commercial General (CG) Zoning District and located at 1075 Atlantic Boulevard.
. ,.
b. ZVAR-2003-17, Steve Abrass. Request for a Variance from Section 24-104 (e) (3) to
reduce the required seven and one-half (7.5) foot side yard to five-feet, six and one-half
inches to allow for a garage bay and second-story addition to the front of the existing
residence, for property within the RS-I Zoning District and located at 2317 Barefoot
- Trace.
6. Other Business
a. Discussion and recommendation regarding proposed revisions to Chapter 24.
7. Adjournment.
All information related to these applications and full legal descriptions for the subject properties are
available for review at the City of Atlantic Beach Planning and Zoning Department located at 800
Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the
Community Development Board with respect to any matter considered at the meeting, he or she will need
a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based.
Notice to persons needing special accommodations and to all hearing impaired persons: In accordance
with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons needing special accommodation to participate in this
proceeding should contact the City of Atlantic Beach (904) 247-5800, 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic
Beach, Florida 32233 not later than 5 days prior to the date of this meeting.
MINUTES OF
REGULAR MEETING OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
October 21, 2003
A regular meeting of the Community Development Board was held on Tuesday, October 21, 2003,
in the City Hall Commission Chambers. Present were Craig Burkhart, Lynn Drysdale, Robert
Frohwein, Steve Jenkins, Mary Walker, Community Development Director Sonya Doerr and
Recording Secretary Susan Dunham.
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
The meeting was called to order 7:00 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of the Meetings of September 16, 2003
A motion was made by Mr. Jenkins, seconded by Mr. Burkhart, and unanimously carried to
approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 16, 2003.
3. Recognition of Visitors
None.
4. Old Business
a. ZVAR-2003-16, Edward and Pare Beach. Request for a Variance from Section 24-105
(c) (2) to redact the required twenty (20) foot rear yard to eight (8) feet to allow for the
construction of a glass enclosure, for property within the RS-2 Zoning District and located at
407 Seaspray Avenue.
Mr. Edward Beach introduced himself. He advised that he changed his original request as follows:
1) Reduced the size of the original enclosure from 12 feet by 25 feet to 10 feet by 16 feet.
2) Changed the design to removable windows, screened all the way around. He stated that the
addition would not be heated and cooled.
3) Changed the design from slab to crawl space to allow absorption of water into the soil.
In response to a question from Mr. Frohwein, Mr. Beach stated that the proposed roof structure
would be flat with a hard top but the enclosure would be screened.
Mr. Beach clarified that the new proposed addition began at the northwest corner of the house, ran
16 feet along the house and projected out 10 feet.
Mr. Beach also clarified that the structure would be on decking so that rainwater could go through
and under it. Ms. Doerr advised that this would be considered as pervious area, as long as no
pavers, plastic or solid surface was added under the deck, which would prohibit drainage.
A motion was made by Mr. Jenkins and seconded by Mr. Burkhart to deny the variance
request.
Ms. Walker stated that this house backed up to Howell Park and, therefore, she would have no
problem approving this request. She stated that she felt Mr. Beach was trying to use his property
and had, in good faith, reduced the size of the structure as much as he could.
Minutes of October 21, 2003 Regular Meeting of Community Development Board
Page 2
Mr. Beach advised that the closest trail in Howell Park was 72 feet from the rear of his property
line.
Ms. Walker explained that when she made this comment last month, Mr. Jenkins replied that this
was not something the board could approve. She stated that special conditions and circumstances
exist that are peculiar to the land or condition involved because this property does not back up to
other property that has been or would be developed. Mr. Jenkins replied that for the Board to grant
this variance, they would essentially be supporting setback relief for anyone just because they
backed up to any park in Atlantic Beach, and he would have trouble with the larger aspect of that.
Mr. Frohwein advised that he saw Mr. Beach's situation as unique in that Mr. Beach stated that this
area was infested with bugs due to the location.
Mr. Jenkins reiterated that he would not want to consider this for all future applications. He also
asked the Board if they would give Howell Park special consideration from any other built-on
property.
Mr. Jacobson stated that he felt that when the Board applied the Zoning Ordinance, they had to
look at the purpose for restricting landowners' use in the first place. He stated that the purpose of
the legislation as applied would not be served if the request were denied. He further stated that he
did not think this would set a precedent because Howell Park was unique in that it was danker and
denser and was closer to being marshy. Mr. Jacobson said that if you add to that the soil situation
that the applicant had to deal with, he ought to have some consideration especially since he was
trying to work with the board.
The vote was called and Mr. Mr. Burkhart, Mr. Frohwein and Mr. Jenkins voted in favor of
the motion, Ms. Drysdale, Mr. Jacobson and Ms. Walker voted against the motion. The
motion to deny the variance failed to carry.
A second motion was made by Mr. Jacobson and seconded by Ms. Walker to approve the
variance request. The vote was called and Ms. Drysdale, Mr. Jacobson and Ms. Walker voted
in favor of the motion, Mr. Burkhart, Mr. Frohwein and Mr. Jenkins voted against the
motion. The motion to approve the variance failed, and the variance was denied.
5. New Business
a.___UBE-2003-05, Roy S. Jones. Request for aUse-bv-Exception to allow for the sale of new
and_used automobiles and boats and also automobile leasing for property within the
Commercial General (CG) Zoning District and located at 1075 Atlantic Boulevard.
Mr. Roy Jones introduced himself. Mr. Jones explained that he purchases luxury cars such as
Porsches, Mercedes and BMWs, has them serviced and detailed and then sells them to the public.
He advised that approximately 90 percent of the cars were sold prior to reaching the lot, and he
anticipated selling approximately 10 to 15 cars per month. Mr. Jones stated that he would like to
park three or four cars out front to display for the public the types of cars that he would sell. He
informed the board that he would use the area in the rear to store additional cars. Mr. Jones assured
the board that he would not hang balloons, etc., like a typical car lot but planned to improve the
image of the property. He stated that he would paint the building nice "beachy" colors, and would
place palm trees in planters in the front.
Minutes of October 21, 2003 Regular Meeting of Community Development Board
Page 3
Ms. Walker asked Mr. Jones why the application included a request for automobile leasing. Mr.
Jones explained that this would be for long term leasing and that he would be the agent for the
leasing company.
Ms. Drysdale asked Mr. Jones about his reference to detail and repair work. Mr. Jones responded
that he would send the automobiles to other locations for detailing and mechanical work. He stated
that this location would be for storage only.
Mr. Jacobson asked Mr. Jones why his application referred to boats. Mr. Jones stated that this was
the wording in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Burkhart clarified, and Mr. Jones concurred, that he
would not mind if the boazd removed the reference to boats in the fmal motion.
In response to a question from Mr. Burkhart, the applicant advised that the landlord would remove
the junk located in the back of the property.
Mr. Frohwein asked the applicant about signage. Mr. Jones replied that he would like to use the
sign that was currently at this location.
Mr. Frohwein referenced Ms: Doerr's comment in her staff report: "Staff cannot find that the
requested use is consistent with the development pattern along Atlantic Boulevard..." Mr.
Frohwein asked Ms. Doerr if after hearing the applicant, she still agreed with this comment. Ms.
Doerr advised that there were no new or used car dealers along Atlantic Boulevazd, it was a long,
narrow site, and there was no public access from the rear of the site. She stated that her primary
concern was setting a precedent for a use that has not previously existed in this area.
A motion was made by Mr. Burkhart, and seconded by Mr. Jenkins, to recommend approval
to the City Commission of the Use-by-Exception.
A motion to amend was made by Mr. Jacobson, and seconded by Mr. Jenkins, to recommend
approval to the City Commission of the Use-by-Exception with the following conditions:
• no more than three (3) cars displayed outside of the enclosed building at~any time;
• no automotive repair on the property;
• no boats, or vehicles other than automobiles, displayed or maintained on the property;
• any automobile leasing shall be long-term leasing only and not short-term car rentals; and
• this Use-by-Exception is non-transferable and granted to this applicant only.
Ms. Doerr advised that the applicant would need to provide the required number of pazking spaces
at the front of the site.
Ms. Walker asked the applicant about customer parking. Mr. Jones replied that there were at least
fifty parking spots located in the rear of the lot. Ms. Walker stated that she would prefer to see
customer pazking located someplace other than the front of the lot.
Mr. Frohwein asked Ms. Doerr if it would be reasonable to require that the applicant provide three
additional parking spaces in front since stored vehicles would occupy three parking spaces. Ms.
Doerr advised that she would confirm that this issue was not overlooked.
The vote was called and the motion passed by unanimous approval.
Minutes of October 21, 2003 Regular Meeting of Community Development Board
Page 4
h. ZVAR-2003-17, Steve Abrass. Request for a Variance from Section 24-104 (e) (3) to
reduce the required seven and one-half (7.5) foot side yard to five-feet, six and one-half inches
to allow for a ~ara~e bay and second-story addition to the front of the existing residence, for
property within the RS-1 Zoning District and located at 2317 Barefoot Trace.
Mr. Steve Abrass introduced himself, and explained that the Variance they were requesting was not
along the entire side of the house, but just a sliver. This house was not built squared on the
property. Mr. Abrass shows the Board a picture depicting that the driveway comes just to the right
of two oak trees, which is probably why they built the house they did. We are asking for a variance
that is about 13 feet in length that varies from zero to a maximum width of two feet. Picture b
gives you a better picture of the front of the house. Richard Tombaugh lives to the right, and he
does not have any objection to this request. The final picture is a line of shrubbery in the front,
and the proposed addition to the house will not require any of this to be removed and this makes a
buffer.
Mr. Jacobson asked for clarification of the living space. Mr. Abrass advised that the living space
would be above the extended garage with slightly less than normal wall height on the ends with a
peak in the' middle. He stated that this would create a bedroom space for the children.
Mr. Jenkins asked staff if this was an irregular lot. Ms. Doerr responded that it was slightly
irregular in that it was not a perfect rectangle.
Mr. Burkhart stated that mathematically, it was a miniscule intrusion. Ms. Doerr responded that the
front area encroached 2.0 feet into the yard along a small sliver and that she said that she thought
the request was consistent with the provision intended to grant minor variance requests, but since it
technically exceeded the 5% administrative waiver, she felt it was appropriate to bring the request
to the Board. She further stated that it was clear from the site plan that this was a very small
encroachment into the side yard.
Mr. Frohwein asked the applicant if he had considered taking the proposed single bay of the garage
and bumping it forward 2.1 feet thence not requiring a variance. Mr. Abrass responded that it
would work great on the first floor but it created a problematic situation on the second floor. He
stated that it would create a jog inside a room, which would be strange and it would not look
symmetrical from the front.
A motion was made by Mr. Burkhart and seconded by Ms. Drysdale to approve the variance
as requested. Mr. Jacobson advised that he would vote in favor of the motion due to the
slightness of the request. Mr. Jenkins advised that he was in favor of supporting the motion
because it was consistent with the Community Development Director's authority in Section
24-47(h). The vote was called and the motion passed by unanimous approval.
6. Other Business.
a. Discussion and recommendation regarding proposed revisions to Chapter 24.
Mr. Frohwein stated that he would like to have discussions and get this matter off our plate this
evening, in order to get it to City Commission to start their procedure. Sonya had sent the final
proposed changes for review several weeks before this meeting. Mr. Frohwein stated that he has
read the under-struck sections and found only one area that could involve some more discussion.
On page 59, having to do with setback requirements within the CG district that we discussed last
month.
Minutes of October 21, 2003 Regular Meeting of Community Development Board
Page 5
Ms. Walker stated that it would be wonderful to move forward. Mr. Jacobson, Mr. Burkhart and
Ms. Drysdale stated that they were comfortable with moving forward this evening.
Mr. Jenkins agreed, but stated he wished to discuss four items: 1) page 32, supports the changes
overall, and agrees with the term "hazdship" being omitted, but paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10. I don't
think they should be in there. The Community Development Board Director has the ability to
waive minor requests, but the last four provisions seem to make variances to open-ended. Number
"the lack of conflict" duplicates number 4; number 8 "the unlikely potential...." Not sure about
what that means or what is the intent, "and number 9... "any other factor....." This is a mistake. If
we were going to have that language in the Code, we might as well not have any criteria. It is very
open-ended.
Mr. Jacobson - I like having number 10. No question, it is somewhat vague, but there may be
some circumstances where it would give an element of flexibility, which is not likely to cause
mischief and could be of benefit to property owners.
Mr. Burkhart - I agree with Steve about number 10, that it is too wide open. I agree with all four of
Steve's suggestions and comments. The changes we have proposed for to Variances are very
extensive and aze more than adequate to accomplish what we set out to do.
There is consensus among Board to remove number 10. Jacobson: you can take out 7, 8 and 9. Mr.
Frohwein: I agree with Steve on number 10.
Mr. Frohwein: are there any changes you made yourself since the last meeting that we would not
know about. Sonya: Yes, the one on page 59 that I e-mailed to everyone, which we need to
discuss.
Ms. Walker: I was wondering, on page 30 in the Use-by-Exception section, should we include
something about the commercial corridors and that the new requirements needs to be considered as
part .of aUse-by-Exception application. Should it make a reference that this is another factor that
should weigh as heavily as ingress and egress. Sonya: aUse-by-Exception can be sought in most
all-zoning districts, but yes, we could specifically include this as one of the considerations as part
of any Use-by-Exception in the Commercial Corridors. I believe this is a significant issue. From a
policy standpoint, the City Commission has identified the redevelopment of the Mayport Road
corridor as a priority. Including this as a factor to be considered as part of any Use-by-Exception
would be consistent with the intent of the new Commercial Comdor regulations. The Boazd
recommends adding "consistency with the intent of 24-171(a) Commercial Corridor Development
Standards" to Section 24-63.
Mr. Frohwein: page 15, mini-warehouses, the language stating, "no business shall be conducted in
mini-warehouses".... Sonya states that this currently applied, but is not cleazly stated in the
regulations.
Sonya: on page 4, the defmition of Live Entertainment; that language has been amended to exclude
adult entertainment establishments.
Mr. Frohwein: page 23, 24-46(d) the Waiver section... We had some discussion about this earlier.
Does it make sense for the City to have authority to grant waivers on case-by-case basis? Sonya
states that you have to refer back to the definition of Waiver. This procedure cannot be used like a
zoning variance, but is intended to be used only where you have no other administrative remedy
Minutes of October 21, 2003 Regular Meeting of Community Development Board
Page 6
aside from amending an ordinance. There may be individual instances where aone-time waiver to
some requirement is needed.
Mr. Jacobson: pages 24-51, vested rights - I don't know what that is. Sonya advised that these
sections were included in the code two years ago to address project that might get caught in the
change of regulations that went into effect at that time and after they already had permits.
Mr. Frohwein: page 40, k flood protection "freeboard?" Requested that this be clarified with the
building official. Page 56; don't recall adding single-family residence to Conservation as aUse-by-
Exception. Sonya: I think we need to provide this since within the Conservation districts since
there are existing privately owned parcels that people have owned for many years, and they may
have a right to build homes on those properties. A single family home would need one full acre,
and review and approval as aUse-by-Exception would be required.
Mr. Frohwein: maximum impervious surface, "shall not apply to infill.....) Sonya: This is meant
to address commercial sites that have already been developed and may already exceed the 70%
impervious limit. This requires that they would still have to provide landscaping and any required
buffers and drainage.
Page 59: this is something... reducing front yard, I am not ready to move forward on this. This
subject needs more work. Sonya: I drafted this language in response to our discussions about how
get the parking located behind new buildings. We may want to look at a broader strategy to deal
with those issues. If we want to implement some of the design principles that we talked about the
last year as part of the Mayport Road Corridor Study... to make these areas more pedestrian,
friendly and to get parking lots away from the street.... Mrs. Walker: I recommend keeping the
original language for now, but then looking at amendment in next few months. Mr. Frohwein: Yes,
I agree. Sonya: We can come back and address this in coming months. Mr. Burkhart: but this is
good if our goal is to get the cars behind the building. Sonya: This would still require landscaping
and buffers even if parts of the building were at a zero feet front setback. Ms. Walker: I would
like to pull this out for now, and work on it some more. Mr. Frohwein: I agree. Consensus is to
leave at 20 feet for the time being.
Mr. Frohwein: Section 24-129(b), -mixed use planned unit development shall not have a
minimum size requirement. Does that mean I could buy two lots and make it a PUD? Sonya:
probably not, because it could not meet the other PUD requirements. State law and our
Comprehensive Plan require and encourage that we provide for a mix of uses. We do not have
anything in regulations that provide for approval of mixed-use projects. As the city is almost
completely developed, we may in the future have requests for approval of projects that have more
than one use, but that are less than ten acres. Without having the controls of a planned
development, we have little way to control how these sites would develop.
Mr. Jacobson: Section 24-114; the 25-foot limit on height in the Central Business District. I think
we are going to be in danger of being called arbitrary and capricious. If our justification is that this
area abuts residential uses in purely residential areas, we allow 35 feet in height in residential areas.
Sonya: I have had that same concern, that this is our downtown, the most densely developed part
of the City, yet we have a stricter height limit here than in residential neighborhoods. I do have
some concerns about this, but on the other hand, there is an established development pattern in the
Town Center area, and it is predominantly single and two-story. This is a unique area of the City,
and it should be a goal to maintain the character of this area.
Minutes of October 21, 2003 Regular Meeting of Community Development Board
Page 7
A motion was made by Mr. Jenkins, seconded by Mr. Burkhart, and unanimously carried to
the recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Chapter 24 as contained in the
draft dated October 2, 2003, finding that the revisions are consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and also requesting that the proposed to revision of the CG regulations (changes
intended to encourage parking at the rear of new commercial buildings), Section 24-111(e)(1),
be the subject of further discussion and a possible amendment at a later date.
7. Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
SIGNED
VARIANCE LvORhSHEET
`MEETING DATE : ~ ~ ~'2 ~ '~ O ~ AGENDA ITEM : ' t ~~
~C•es No
1) Special conditions and circumstances
exist which are peculiar to the land,
structure or building involved and
which are. not applicable to other lands, /
structures or buildings in the same ~ • /
district; y
2) The speci,ai conditions and circumstances
do not result from the actions of the /
owner or applicant; (/
3) A literal interpretation of the provisions of
this chapter would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties
in the same zoning district and would worm
unnecessary- and und~.ie hardship on the
.applicant;
~) Will granting this variance confer any
special privile.~e that is denied by this
chapter to other lands, buildings or
structures ''.
~) Will the variance requested be the minimum
necessary to make possible the reasonable /
use of the land, building or structure ?~ V
6) Will the requested variance be in harmony /
with the general intent of the Zoning Code '? -/
7) Will the requested variance be injurious to
the area or detrimental to the public _ /
welfare ? ~ ,V
:K:k*:k%k-k-k-K~~:K~:K:k**:k:k>k:k:K;k~k:k:k*~c:K~:K*~:k=k:k=k:k~c:k:k~k-K*=k:k=K~k:k~:K=k~=k:K~ :k*:k:K:k~k~~
Notes and Comments:
hE~lBERS S I GN ~TUR~E
VARIANc~~ WORKSHEET
FLEETING DATE : D~~'. 2 1, ,Zl~D3 AGENDA ITE~1: ~~~
`c'es No
I) Special conditions and circumstances
exist which are peculiar to the land,
structure or building involved and
which are. not applicable to other lands,
structures or buildings in the same
district;
2) The special conditions and circumstances
do not result from the actions of the
owner or applicant; ~/
3}~ A literal interpretation of the provisions of
this chapter would deprive the applicant of
ri,;hts commonly enjoyed by other properties
. in the same zoning district and s~ouid wor);
unnecessary and undue hardship on the
applicant;
~) Wili';ranting this variance confer any
special privilege that is .denied by this
chapter to other lands, buildings or
structures
~) Will .the variance requested be
necessary to mare possible the
use of the land, building or s
6) Will the requested variance be
with the general intent of the
7) Will the requested variance be
the area or detrimental to the
welfare'
the minimum
reasonable
tr~ucture ?
in harmony ~ ~ /
Zoning Code ? 1/
injurious to
public
:k=k*~:k:k~c:k*~zc~e~:{c~e*:k ~k:k:k:k:k~:k:k%k~:k:k:k*:k:k:k:k~c:k*:k~K~k:k:lee:k:k7c:k*:k=k~:k~%k~:k*:k:k~:k:k~c
Notes and~Comments:
~i ~%
FIEFlBERS SIGNATURE
VARIANt~E WpR(;SHE,ET
MEETING DATE: ID ~~ ~ :~GEND:~ ITE~1: ~ ~ -
~•es No
1) Special conditions and circumstances
exist which are peculiar to the land,
structure or building involved and
which are. not applicable to other lands, /
structures or buildings in the same ' /
district; VVV
2) The special conditions 'and circumstances
do not result from the actions of the
owner or applicant;
3) A literal interpretation of the provisions of
this chapter would deprive the applicant oi"
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties
in the same zoning district and would worn
unnecessary- and und~.te hardship on the
applicant;
~) Will granting this variance confer any
special privilege that is denied by this
chapter to other lands, buildings or
structures
~) Will the variance requested be the minimum
necessary to make possible the reasonable
ttse of the land, building or strttct~.tre ?
6) will the requested variance be in harmcny ~ ~ //
with the general intent of the Zoning Code '?
7) Will the requested variance be injurious to
the area or detrimental to the public
welfare ?
~K:k*~*=k*-k~k:kxe~e=k:k**:k _k:k:k~:k~:k:k~~c:k:k:K:k~k=K:k:k:k~*:k:k:k:K:k=k:k=k~K=k :K:k~*:k**=k:k*:k~:K:k:k~
Notes and Comments:
~2E~lBERS SIGN~TUR
a
VARIANCE WORKSHEET
~y ~~
MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITE~1:
~C'es No
I) Special conditions and circumstances
exist which are peculiar to the land,
structure or building involved and
which are. not applicable to other lands,
structures or buildings in the same
district;
~) The special conditions and circumstances
do not result from the actions of the
owner or applicant;
3) A literal .interpretation of the provisions of
this chapter would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by- other properties
in the same zoning district and would worn
unnecessary- and ttndtte hardship on the
applicant;
~•) Wi1l~granting this variance confer any
special privilege that is denied by this
chapter to other lands, buildings or
structures
~) Will the variance requested be
necessary to make possible the
use of the land, building or s
6) Will the requested variance be
with the general intent of the
7} Will the requested variance be
the area or detrimental to the
welfare
the minimum
reasonable
tritcture ?
in harmon~~
Zoning Code ?
injurious to
public
:k-k*:k~;k=k=K=k:k:k*:k:k**:k~:k:k:k=k:k~:k*~c:k~~*:k~~-k=k:k*:k=k:k:K=k~:k:K~K:k:k :K=k~~k*:k:k.k~:K:K:K~k:k*
Notes and Comments:
~lEirIBERS .SIGNATURE:
c
VaRIAN~.'c WORKSHEET
MEETING DATE: ~~ Zl D.3 ~GEND~, ITE~1:
~C•es No
1) Special conditions and circumstances
exist which are peculiar to the land,
structure or building involved and
which are. not applicable to other lands,
structures or buildings in the same ,/
district; ~ /~
2) The special conditions and circumstances.
do not result from the actions of the ~/
owner or applicant; /~
3) A literal interpretation of the provisions of
this chapter would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed bti- other properties
in the same zoning district and would work
'unnecessary and und~.te hardship on the •
applicant;
4) Will';ranting this variance confer any
special privilege that is denied by this
chapter to other lands, buildings or
structures ?
~) Will the variance requested be the minimum
necessary to make possible the reasonable
use of the land, building or str~uct~.~re ?
6) Will the requested variance be in harmori~~ ~ ~/
with the general intent of the Zoning• Code ? ~(
7 ) Wi11 the requested variance be in.j~irio~is to
the area or detrimental to the public
welfare
~k-k*:k*=k~c=k=k:k:k*:k:k*~c:k _k:k:k:k~K*:k:k**~:k-k*~k=k=k:k:k=k*:k:k:k:K:k=k:k:k:k:k*:k:K~~k*~k~:k:k:k:k:k~k:k*
Notes and Comments:
~SELIBERS SIGNATURE: /
VARIAN(;E WOR1iSHEET
r1EETING DATE : AGENDA ITE~1: ~
Fes No
1) Special conditions and circumstances •
exist which are peculiar to the land,
structure or building involved and -
which are. not applicable to other lands,
structures or buildings in the same
district;
2} The special conditions and circumstances
do not result from the actions of the
owner or applicant;
3) A literal interpretation of the provisions of
this chapter would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties
in the same zoning district and would worm
unnecessary and und~.ie hardship on the
applicant;
4) Will';ranting this variance confer any
special privilege that is denied by this ~•
chapter to other lands, btiildin~s or
structures '.'
~) Will the variance regtteszed be the minimum
necessary to make possible the reasonable
use of the land, building or structure ?
6) Will the requested variance be in harmont
with the general intent of the Zoning Code ?
r) -Will the requested variance be injurious to -
the area or detrimental to the public
welfare ?
~~*=k*:k*~:k:k~*~***:k:k:k:k:k:k~k:k:k**:k*:k~~c~*:K~k-k*:k:K~=K:k:k:k:K~:k*:K:k~:k~**:K*=k:k:k:k:k*
Notes and Comments:
HErlBERS SIGNATURE: