TOWN OF CARY
STATE OF
ZONING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING
July 14, 2003
|
CASE: |
03-V-004 |
|
STAFF
CONTACT: |
Beth
Lewis |
|
APPLICANT(S): |
Thomas
and Sherry Lehman |
|
OWNER(S): |
Thomas
and Sherry Lehman |
|
LOCATION: |
|
|
PRESENT
ZONING: |
Residential
12 (R12) |
|
SETBACK: |
Front
20 |
|
|
REQUEST: |
The
applicants are requesting a variance of 4 to the required 10 side
yard setback to construct a garage at a single-family residence.
The request is to permit encroachment into the required 10 side
yard setback by a maximum of 4 for the left front corner of the garage.
Approximately the first 5 of the depth of the garage would
encroach the setback, beginning with a 4 encroachment and decreasing to
zero, as the lot widens as the depth increases toward the rear of the lot. |
VARIANCE
WORKSHEET
The
variance process is intended to provide limited relief from the UDO in those
cases where strict application of a particular requirement will create a
practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship prohibiting the use of land in a
manner otherwise allowed under the UDO.
A variance is not designed to remove inconveniences or financial burdens,
but to provide relief where the requirements of the UDO render the land
difficult or impossible to use because of some unique physical attribute of the
property itself or some other factor unique to the property for which the
variance is requested. (Sec. 6.1.1)
The
Board may not grant variance that would
·
permit
establishment of a use which is not otherwise allowed, or
·
change
the zoning district classification, or
·
vary
any written conditions attached by Council to a special use, subdivision plat,
site plan or conditional use district or master plan for a
PUD, or
·
vary
any standard where Council alone acts (sexually oriented business and
Thoroughfare Corridor Buffer)
The
Standard for issuing a variance, as set forth in Sec. 6.1.5. (a)
The Board may grant a variance, which is in harmony with the general purpose and
intent of the zoning ordinance. (b)
When practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships would result from carrying
out the strict letter of the zoning ordinance , the Board may vary or modify the
regulation or provisions of the ordinance, so that the spirit of the ordinance
shall be observed, public safety and welfare secured, and substantial justice
done.
The
applicant is requesting a variance of 4 to the required 10 side yard
setback to construct a garage addition. The
proposed garage will be 20 wide, a one and one-half car garage.
The residence currently has no garage.
Undisputed
facts:
2.
The property
has the following dimensions: The property is a pentagon, with approximately
44.4 along Melanie Lane, 161.6 along the south (side) property line, and
129.9 along the north (side) property line, and 130 and 124.7 along the
two lines that make up the rear property line.
The property is just over one-half acre in area.
3.
The property
is developed with a single-family residence.
4.
The property
is zoned R12, which is Residential 12, and requires a 20 front yard setback,
a 25 rear yard setback, and 10 side yard setbacks.
5.
The applicant
is unable to obtain a building permit for the proposed garage, as it would
encroach the required 10 side yard setback by 4.
If
you are inclined to grant the
If you are inclined to deny the
variance request, follow this route:
variance request, follow this route:
|
6.
There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that
exist on the property. There
are two easements along the northern side of the property, totaling 20
and precluding development along that side of the property.
There is a creek and 20' drainage easement behind the residence,
effectively dividing the property in half and limiting the use of the
property on the far side of the creek.
Finally, on the far side of the creek, there is a 30 sewer
easement traversing the width of the property, limiting any development in
that area, if the creek could be broached. |
6.
There are no practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that
exist on the property. The
property has been developed with a single-family residence. |
|
7.
The conditions are not the result of the applicants own doing.
The easements were instituted before the structure was built. |
7.
The conditions are the result of the applicants own doing.
The applicant purchased the residence aware of the easements and
the lack of a garage. |
|
8.
The applicant is not able to obtain a building permit.
The garage as planned, a 20 wide structure, is a one and
one-half car garage. A
structure of that size is planned because there are exterior stairs in
that area, and the stairs would be enclosed in the garage.
A narrower garage would be difficult to use for even one car, as
the stairs would encroach into the parking area.
The 4 variance requested is just about the width of the stairs.
The encroachment into the setback would not be for the entire depth
of the garage, but for the first 5.
The proposed garage could be set 5 further back on the lot, but
this might require moving the exterior stairs. |
8.
The applicant is able to obtain a building permit.
A garage for one car, rather than the proposed one and one-half
cars, would fit on the site with no variance required.
Alternatively, the garage could be set back 5 further on the lot
to eliminate the need for a variance. |
|
9.
There is insufficient space on the property to construct the
proposed structure. There is
insufficient space on this site to construct the garage without
encroaching setbacks or easements and to enclose the exterior stairs. |
9.
There is sufficient space on the property to construct a one-car
garage without encroaching any easements or setbacks. |
|
10.
There is no other practical use of the property, because _____. |
10.
There is other practical use of the property.
The property is currently developed as a single-family residence. |
|
11.
The construction will not have a negative effect on adjoining
property, as the residence abutting the Lehmans property on this side
is over 30 from the common property line.
Even if the neighbors planned to build a garage the same size as
this planned garage, the structures would still be at least 19 apart at
the closest. |
11.
The construction will have a negative effect on adjoining property.
The proposed structure will only be 6 from the adjoining
property line at its closest. |
|
12.
Construction of the garage will not impair emergency access, create
a fire hazard, or otherwise be contrary to public health.
The 20 wide easements on the other side of the residence provide
ample access to the rear for any emergency use. |
12.
Construction of the garage will impair emergency access, create a
fire hazard, or otherwise be contrary to public health, as evidenced
because ______________. |
|
13.
Requiring certain conditions to be met will alleviate the problems
with granting the variance. The
conditions are ___________. |
13.
Requiring certain conditions to be met will not alleviate the
problems with granting the variance. |
FACTS:
We hereby finds facts 1 through 5
and ________.[insert facts found]
CONCLUSION:
1.
Based on the
application, testimony and evidence, the general purposes of the UDO, and the
above findings, the Board concludes that the variance requested
would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance,
and that there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships
that result from carrying out the strict letter of the Cary UDO.
2.
The applicant
is hereby granted a variance to construct a one and one-half car (20 foot wide)
garage at
3.
This variance
is conditioned upon:
the garage being constructed such that the encroachment is minimized by __________________
CONCLUSION:
1.
Based on the
application, testimony and evidence, the general purposes of the UDO, and the
above findings, the Board concludes that the variance requested would not be in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of the UDO, and that there are no
practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that result from carrying out
the strict letter of the Cary UDO, and the application is DENIED.
Proposed
variance work sheet 1.
