COM 0547.001 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Klaus D. Conventz dba Baumeister Consulting Page 4 March 12, 2003 encroachment problems to occur. It appears that that all dwelling improvements were constructed under valid building permits and other construction permits issued by the County. It appears that building inspections of the premises by the agencies during construction of the dwelling improvements did not disclose any building encroachment issues or building setback irregularities at that time. ALTERNATIVES Alternatives available to the applicant or property owner(s) to address and correct the existing building encroachments include the following actions: 1. Remove the building encroachments or redesigning or relocating the respective dwelling improvements to fit within the correct building envelope prescribed by the Zoning Code. 2. Consolidation with portions of the adjoining property(s) and resubdivision of the resultant lot to modify property lines and adjustment of minimum yards. INTENT AND PURPOSE The intent and purpose of requiring building setbacks within a subdivision are to assure that adequate air circulation and exposure to light are available between permitted structure(s)/uses and boundary/property lines. Due to the unusual topography of Lot 108 and relationship to adjoining lots, the existing dwelling encroachments within the respective minimum yards of Lot 108 are not physically noticeable or visually obtrusive from adjacent property(s) or the rights-of--way. It appears that specific building encroachments do not depreciate or detract from the character of the surrounding neighborhood, public uses, and the existing and surrounding land patterns. Therefore, it is felt that these building encroachments within the yards identified on the variance application's site plan map will not detract from the character of the immediate neighborhood or the subdivision. The subject variance application was acknowledged by letter daCed December 31, 2002 and additional time to consider agency comments and neighborhood concerns was deemed necessary. The applicant agreed to extend the date on which the Planning Director shall render a decision on the subject variance to no later than March 15, 2003.