1617 RUCKER AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

i b. Conclusion• Alternative 1: There are unusual circumstances applying to the proposed use of the property because of the number ' of vehicles and boat owned by the applicant and the need to protect them from vandalism and theft. � Alternative 2: There are no unusual circumstances , applyinq to the property or the intended use since thel applicant could provide adequate covered storage for his , vehicles and boat and still comply with the ten percent l�t coverage requirement. �,�erion No. 2• I That such variance is necessary for the preservation and en- joyment of a substantial property right of the appellant pos ! �essed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity or ; zone. I i a. Findina: There are many other properties in the north ! end that exceed the 1G percent coveraqe for accessory ; buildinqs. These would be nonconforming since they , were in existence prior to the current code. The Bonrd � granted a variance for accessory lot coverage to Vince � Mardesich in this same block on Rucker and that vari- I ance has been appealed by an adjacent property owner. i That variance was to allow accessory buildinqs totalinq I 1111 square feet which was a 54$ fncrease over what the � code allows. The applicant is requestinq a 7$ increase I over whet the code allows. � i ' b. Conclusion• ,I i Alternative 1: Grantinq this variance would allow the � Applicant a property right enjoyed by others in this vi- I cinity and zone since th� Board did qrant a variance forl lot coverage of accessory buildings in this same block � and because there are nonconforming buildings that exceed ; the accessory building coveraqe. � Alternative 2: Granting this variance i.s not necessary � to allow the Applicant a property riqht enjoyed by others � in thE vicinity and zone since the other properties in � the area that exceed the ten percent accessory buildingl coverage were in existence prior to the current codel being adopted and so are nonconforminq and have the right ; to continue; however, the code has been changed and any new construction ir. subject to current code requirements. ', Criterion No. 3• That the authorization of such variance will not be materially , detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the , vicinity or zone in which the property is located. a. Findina: The proposed garage would be in the rear yard � area with access from the alley. All other code re- quirements will be met and there are no views that will be blocked by the garage. In this block, most of the rear yards abutting the all.ey are either fenced to a height of six feet or have accessory buildings con- structed on the rear property line so you cannot even see into most of the yards off the alley in this block. The Board rece�:tly granted a variance for accessory building coverage in the same block and that variance has been appealed to Superior Court by an adjacent property owner.