Town Staff Notes i'
NOTE TO FILE
E] AND
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
USE ❑
APPLICANT: David and Suzanne Barnes AREA U
MEETING DATE: June 16, 1993 SIGN ❑OTHER❑
FILE NUMBER: 47-1993
a
SUMMARY OF PROJECT:
Applicant is proposing to expand an existing nonconforming use
structure (auto body repair shop) , with the addition of a thirteen
hundred and twenty ( 1, 320) square foot structure to the west side
of the existing building.
CONFORMANCE WITH AREA/USE REGULATIONS :
1 . Applicant is proposing twenty-seven (27 ) percent permeability
and is seeking three ( 3) percent relief from Section 179-18C,
which requires thirty (30 ) percent permeability in the MR-5A
zone.
REVIEW CRITERIA:
1 . DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW
PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
The practical difficulty which does not allow the required
permeability standard to be met,- is that over a number of
years, as the applicant's business required further expansion
of the existing structure, permeable surface of the parcel has
been reduced to the point of noncompliance.
2 . IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE
SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION
AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE?
It would appear that this is the minimum variance necessary to
alleviate the specific practical difficulty and although in
the future the applicant plans to demolish an existing single
family dwelling located on said parcel, which would then bring
the parcel into compliance with required permeability
standards, (see attached letter from applicant regarding this
issue) , no other option is available currently, which would
, require no variance.
page 1 of 2
AV 47-1993, Barnes
3 . WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN
THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD?
As the degree of relief requested is moderate, it would appear
that the variance would not be detrimental to other properties
in the district or neighborhood.
4 . WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND
SERVICES?
It would appear that the variance would not effect public
facilities or services .
STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS:
Applicant' s plat depicts the existing permeable surface of
their property to be located on the west and north boundaries of
the lot. Applicant has stated in a letter attached to the
application, that the existing single family dwelling will be
demolished in the future, and remaining land will be left as a
green area. At that point permeability will be greater than the
required thirty ( 30 ) percent.
AR/sed
page 2 of 2