CC Min 1993-07-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

explained by the fact that the Property is located in a mixed density neighborhood, with single family, multifamily, school, and church uses within a one block radius of the Property. Its physical structures and use are clearly consistent with the other uses and density in the immediate area. It appears, in fact, that the County Assessors Office and the Building Division have both, at various times in the past, treated the studio as a separate third unit. See letter dated October 18, 1991 from the Building Division and "Assessor Screen" attached to this Application. Adequate street parking is available in the immediate vicinity, and street parking is a common practice in the neighborhood. Granting the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the surrounding properties in the neighborhood because there exist numerous other lots in the immediate area improved by three or more units. Nor would it be detrimental to the health, safely, and public welfare of the surrounding residents. Logically, the experience of many years clearly demonstrates that granting the variance requested would have no impact at all on the surrounding neighborhood. The Fongs will suffer unfairly if variance is not granted. They did not make any unpermitted improvements. They purchased the Property based on representations that three units existed. The price paid for the Property and the mortgage to which they obligated themselves were based on there being three units. If the variance is not granted, their inability to rent the third unit could cause the Fongs to be unable to repay the larger mortgage without the revenues available from the Property to do so. It may also be fairly said that, with low cost housing in short supply, taking the Studio off the rental market will incrementally add to the hardship suffered already by those unable to find suitable housing at a reasonable price. Finally, it would be unfair not to allow the Fongs to use the property in the manner which much of the surrounding property is used. To deny the variance would be to apply the current Zoning Ordinance arbitrarily to the Fongs. Obviously, the property fits its surroundings and its improvements fit the property; the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance cannot be said to be frustrated in any way by the granting of the variance requested. I .- T