TOWN OF CARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING
January 14, 2002
|
CASE: |
01-V-021 |
|
STAFF CONTACT: |
Suzanne Prince |
|
APPLICANT(S): |
Charles Piratzky |
|
OWNER(S): |
Robuck Homes, Inc. |
|
LOCATION: |
100 Selly Manor Court, Cary, NC |
|
PRESENT ZONING: |
Residential-10 (CU) |
|
REQUEST: |
The applicant is requesting a variance to encroach seven (7) feet into the 18’ corner sideyard setback |
|
BACKGROUND: |
On July 18, 2001 the 100 Selly Manor Court new construction permit was rejected for Planning and Development review because the proposed driveway was not a minimum of 10ft from the point of tangency of curb radii on the street intersection. On July 25, 2001 a new plot plan was submitted and approved with the driveway relocated and the house shifted. The house was permitted based on a 10' setback for a non-corner side. However, the plot plan and the recorded plat requires an 18' corner-side setback. The structure encroaches 7' into the required 18' corner-side setback. |
| STANDARDS OF REVIEW: |
Section 13.2.15 of The Cary Unified
Development Ordinance states that:
The Zoning Board of Adjustment may grant a variance if it concludes that strict enforcement of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships for the applicant. The Zoning Board of Adjustment, in granting a variance, shall ensure that the spirit of this Ordinance is maintained, public welfare and safety ensured, and substantial justice done. The Board may reach these conclusions if it makes the following findings: a. Strict application of the Ordinance would restrict the signage of the subject property to a greater degree than it restricts other properties; b. Granting the variance is necessary to ensure reasonable view of the site from adjoining roadways; c. Granting the variance is necessary to relieve a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship that is suffered by the applicant alone; d. Granting the variance will not confer a special privilege on the applicant that would normally be denied under this Ordinance to another applicant. e. The applicant’s situation is unique and is not one that is shared by other properties; f. Granting the variance will not deter from the original intent of the uniform sign plan or the Ordinance for uniformity and aesthetic appeal between signs on the same property.
|
|
SUGGESTED MOTION: |
MOTION TO GRANT APPLICATION WITH CONDITIONS
I HEREBY MAKE A MOTION THAT APPLICATION NO. 01-V-021 HAS SUCCESSFULLY MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CARY ZONING ORDINANCE AND IS HEREBY GRANTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. ________________________________________. 2. ________________________________________ MOTION TO DENY APPLICATION I HEREBY MAKE A MOTION THAT APPLICATION NO. 01-V-021 HAS
FAILED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CARY ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE
APPLICATION IS DENIED DUE TO THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 2. _______________________________________
|
|
SMALL VICINITY MAP: |
![]() |
| LARGE VICINITY MAP: |
|