DCPZP-2009-00409 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t 4. Section 10.23(4) DCCO: "A building or structure is considered to be demolished and nonexistent if during the course of restoration, enlargement or other improvement, more than 50% of the pre- existing structure is removed or must be replaced to maintain structural integrity..." 5. The property immediately north of Duppler's parcel is shown as a "ditch or canal" on official county maps, but is not a navigable stream. Duppler is unable to add any part of the canal, or of the residential use parcel to the west, to the land he currently owns. 6. The property is also in the Shoreland district associated with the Sugar River, but the existing and proposed building meets all minimum 75 feet setbacks from the Ordinary High Water Mark. 7. Duppler stated there would be no possible use of the property without the variance. His project would eliminate blight in Paoli, preserve a historic structure, support the local community and arts, and increase the tax base, which has the support of the Town and neighbors. In response to a Board member's question, he stated that chemical contamination of the site was not a result of its use as a service station, and would be dealt with. Conclusions: 1) Unnecessary Hardship: The legally created lot would be unusable for its permitted purposes without the variance. It would be unnecessarily burdensome to prevent the continued use of the historic building. 2) Unique Limitations of the Property: The existing lot was platted in 1856, predating zoning regulations and the existence of the county highway. 3) No Harm to Public Interests: The improvements are in the public interest and have the support of the community. The applicant is reducing the footprint of the building and the encroachment into the right-of-way, resulting in minimal relief requested. Motion carried: 4 —0.