CC Min 1996-10-28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

- Bradford Whitaker Zoning Administrator Page 4 16. Appellant contends that the Zoning Administrator's denial of Appellant's application for variances is not supported by the findings, that the findings are without supporting evidence and that the requirement for an EIR for the construction of a single-family residence, ". . . has no basis in law or fact" (Appeal letter dated March 21, 1996). 17. Appellant further contends that the Property is geologically stable, and that such geological hazards as may exist in the area affect lots located along the southerly and easterly extension of Laurel Way, beyond the Property. 18. At the hearing on the appeal, Appellant proposed to revise the Project by increasing the front yard (setback) to conform to the 25-foot setback required by the Zoning Ordinance (Zon. Ord. § 4.9a). 19. Further, at the hearing, Appellant proposed to enter into an agreement with five other owners of lots fronting on Laurel Way to fund the construction of a 29-foot wide extension from that portion currently improved to City standards to the southerly boundary of Appellant's Property. Said proposal included, by implication, approval by the City of development of the aforesaid five additional parcels of property. No agreement in writing encompassing the foregoing proposal was presented by Appellant or other interested parties, and no details were described as to the terms and conditions thereof. 20. Every variance to the Zoning Ordinance shall be granted or conditionally granted only when the applicant (Appellant) establishes: "(a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of [the Zon. Ord.] would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. (b) That the adjustment authorized by the Variance, if granted, shall not constitute a grant of a special privi1ege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located. (c) That the granting of the Variance will not be contrary to the intent of [the Zon. Ord.]." (Zon. Ord. § 43.4). 21. The size, shape, topography, location and surroundings of the Property are not unlike that pertaining to other properties in the vicinity and under the identical RH Zone classification. The average slope of the Property is within