Owner has failed to demonstrate a verifiable hardship
In the application for the Administrative Exception (on file), Mr. Hagan claimed three potential hardships: misinformation about the property zoning prior to purchase, steepness of the lot and the completion of well and septic installation, as limiting the available building envelope. None of these is substantiated by the Jefferson County Planning inspector report, dated January 12, 2007 (on file), or is otherwise, a valid hardship.
First, Mr. Hagan, a builder, purchased the lot on June 28, 2006. While it appears from the Multiple Listing Service listing that the zoning was listed in error as R-1, it is the responsibility of the buyer to verify, which should be a matter of routine for a professional builder. Mr. Hagan?’s own error in interpreting the zoning is no justification for an exception.
In addition, this argument is disingenuous because Mr. Hagan submitted a site plan with a PE stamp, dated 9/21/2006, that showed the original dwelling location with a front setback of 41.4 feet, at which time, Mr. Hagan had already installed the septic system. Therefore, three months before he applied for this exception it was blatantly obvious that the front setback was not an issue based on his own site plan, regardless of the zoning of the lot.
Second, with regard to the steepness of the lot, the Planning Inspector, Mr. Gary Pittman, filed a site inspection report (on file), dated January 12, 2007, with photographs that states, ?“This is a moderately sloping lot to the east and south without any major rock outcroppings or significantly sloping contours limiting the SFD.?” Therefore, by the Inspector?’s direct observation, steepness of the lot is not a hardship.
Third, with respect to the installation of the well and septic system being hardships, we note that these are merely the result of poor site planning and construction. Mr. Hagan bought the lot, which included the permit for both well and septic system, but without any improvements. Mr. Hagan installed the septic system before the current site plan was drawn on 9/21/2006, and installed the well before the exception application was submitted. Any limitations to the dwelling location due to the well and septic system were known prior to purchase as stated in those permits. However, the actual location of these improvements was not shown on the site plan, which we presume would render the application incomplete, especially since they are cited as hardships.
The County?’s files provide no evidence that these improvements would hinder the dwelling location. Any ?“hardship?” here has been caused by Mr. Hagan, himself. And, because the septic system was installed before the site plan was stamped by the engineer on 9/21, yet did not show the location of that improvement, the site plan was inaccurate when it was stamped, raising further suspicion as to whether the engineer had adequate knowledge of the development.
Further, the site plan, dated 9/21/2006, submitted with the exception application, shows two dwelling locations. The original location shows a front setback of 41.4 feet for a structure of dimensions 26 feet by 48 feet, and meeting all side and rear setback requirements. The second location, penciled in over the original, shows a larger 28 foot by 48 foot dwelling is shifted significantly toward the road (north) and east, reducing the front setback to a mere 22.5 feet. The side and rear setbacks are not identified for this second dwelling location. The obvious question here is why is not the original location satisfactory. Mr. Hagan?’s application does not refer to the original dwelling location or why it is not feasible.
continued, Part 4
In the application for the Administrative Exception (on file), Mr. Hagan claimed three potential hardships: misinformation about the property zoning prior to purchase, steepness of the lot and the completion of well and septic installation, as limiting the available building envelope. None of these is substantiated by the Jefferson County Planning inspector report, dated January 12, 2007 (on file), or is otherwise, a valid hardship.
First, Mr. Hagan, a builder, purchased the lot on June 28, 2006. While it appears from the Multiple Listing Service listing that the zoning was listed in error as R-1, it is the responsibility of the buyer to verify, which should be a matter of routine for a professional builder. Mr. Hagan?’s own error in interpreting the zoning is no justification for an exception.
In addition, this argument is disingenuous because Mr. Hagan submitted a site plan with a PE stamp, dated 9/21/2006, that showed the original dwelling location with a front setback of 41.4 feet, at which time, Mr. Hagan had already installed the septic system. Therefore, three months before he applied for this exception it was blatantly obvious that the front setback was not an issue based on his own site plan, regardless of the zoning of the lot.
Second, with regard to the steepness of the lot, the Planning Inspector, Mr. Gary Pittman, filed a site inspection report (on file), dated January 12, 2007, with photographs that states, ?“This is a moderately sloping lot to the east and south without any major rock outcroppings or significantly sloping contours limiting the SFD.?” Therefore, by the Inspector?’s direct observation, steepness of the lot is not a hardship.
Third, with respect to the installation of the well and septic system being hardships, we note that these are merely the result of poor site planning and construction. Mr. Hagan bought the lot, which included the permit for both well and septic system, but without any improvements. Mr. Hagan installed the septic system before the current site plan was drawn on 9/21/2006, and installed the well before the exception application was submitted. Any limitations to the dwelling location due to the well and septic system were known prior to purchase as stated in those permits. However, the actual location of these improvements was not shown on the site plan, which we presume would render the application incomplete, especially since they are cited as hardships.
The County?’s files provide no evidence that these improvements would hinder the dwelling location. Any ?“hardship?” here has been caused by Mr. Hagan, himself. And, because the septic system was installed before the site plan was stamped by the engineer on 9/21, yet did not show the location of that improvement, the site plan was inaccurate when it was stamped, raising further suspicion as to whether the engineer had adequate knowledge of the development.
Further, the site plan, dated 9/21/2006, submitted with the exception application, shows two dwelling locations. The original location shows a front setback of 41.4 feet for a structure of dimensions 26 feet by 48 feet, and meeting all side and rear setback requirements. The second location, penciled in over the original, shows a larger 28 foot by 48 foot dwelling is shifted significantly toward the road (north) and east, reducing the front setback to a mere 22.5 feet. The side and rear setbacks are not identified for this second dwelling location. The obvious question here is why is not the original location satisfactory. Mr. Hagan?’s application does not refer to the original dwelling location or why it is not feasible.
continued, Part 4
