Staff Decision (172) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(a) There are unnecessary, unreasonable hardships or practical difficulties which can be relieved only by modifying the literal requirements of the ordinance; and (b) There are unusual circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings, or uses in the same zone; however, nonconforming land uses or structures in the vicinity or violations of land use regulations or standards on the subject property shall not in themselves constitute such circumstances or conditions; and (c) The degree of variance from the standard is the minimum necessary to permit development of the property for the proposed use; and (d) The variance will not have a significant adverse affect on property or improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property; and (e) The variance will not have a significant adverse affect upon the health or safety of persons working or residing in the vicinity; and (f) The variance will maintain the intent and purpose of the provision being varied. 9. Three existing dwellings, without frontage on Ballyntyne Road, currently access onto Ballyntyne Creek Lane and two additional undeveloped lots were approved access onto the private easement in V06-7. The proposed partitioning will create one new dwelling site with frontage on a public road and result in one parcel with an existing dwelling that currently uses the private easement for access to be counted as a parcel without frontage on a public road. There are also three other parcels with frontage on a public road and existing dwellings that also use Ballyntyne Creek Lane. This would increase the number of dwelling counted as using Ballyntyne Creek Lane from five to six. Therefore, the variance is for one additional dwelling. This appears to be the last parcel that could be created that would be likely to use Ballyntyne Creek Lane for access. 10. Marion County records indicate that the property was partitioned in 2006 and at that time a variance was requested to allow one additional residence to be served by Ballyntyne Creek Lane. The existing easement is the only access available to the parcel that would not have frontage on a public road and is currently in use for the existing dwelling. Prohibition of development on the property would constitute an unreasonable hardship, especially when an alternative of allowing additional usage of the easement exists and the existing easement runs through the proposed undeveloped parcel. It appears that there are no other lands available to create an easement to serve the site. Further, the degree of variance that the applicants are requesting is the minimum necessary to serve an additional dwelling off the easement. The roadway is improved and this minimizes the impact of additional traffic serving the dwellings. Also, the standards required by Public Works would further minimize the . impact of additional traffic and help maintain safe driving conditions Any adverse affects on surrounding properties or improvements have likely already been realized because the easement has continued to function over a long period of time. Most of the development accessing the roadway has already occurred along the easement. Two lots approved by the previous partition application have not yet been developed, but the new lot proposed in this application is located at the beginning of Ballyntyne Creek Lane and traffic resulting from development of this lot would affect only a small portion of the easement. There is no evidence that the amount of traffic generated by the additional dwelling will have a significant adverse affect upon the health or safety of persons working or residing in the vicinity. The intent and purpose of limiting the number of dwellings served off a private easement to four dwellings is to reduce congestion on roads that cannot support the traffic, ensure safe and ready access to roadways and parcels, and reduce the conflicts among roadway users over maintenance of the roadway. Public Works conditions for approval of the 2006 partitioning required additional paving, widening, and other improvements as well as a Road Maintenance Agreement to be completed prior to recording the partition plat, which was done. Based on the evidence provided by the applicant, and staff’s review of the proposal, the additional dwelling will not appreciably increase the amount of traffic using the easement and health and safety will not be significantly affected by the additional dwelling. The proposal meets the variance criteria in #8 above. 11. There are no specific approval criteria for partitions in the AR zone. MCC 17.128.070 requires a minimum lot size of two acres and the new parcels are consistent with this standard. In addition, the resulting undeveloped parcel is of sufficient size and shape to meet the development standards in the AR zone.