Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Board of Adjustment <br />Meeting Minutes <br />November 15, 2006 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br /> <br />Chancellor reminded the Board that they must find that all six criteria have been met <br />before they can approve the requested variances. <br /> <br />The rest of the discussion between the Board and Staff centered round criteria #1 and <br />#2 and the Boards justification for the two criterions being met. <br /> <br />Applicant Presentation: <br />Bundy gave a brief review of the request and requested the members ask questions for <br />him to answer. <br /> <br />Questions of Applicant bv Board and Staff: <br />Malmquist asked if the proposed siding would match the existing. <br /> <br />Bundy stated that it would match. <br /> <br />Loeblich discussed the different between maintenance and modification to a structure <br />and how the modifications to the structure could be considered maintenance of the <br />structure. <br /> <br />Public Present in Favor of Application: None heard. <br /> <br />Public Present in Opposition of Application: None heard. <br /> <br />Applicant ClosinG Comments: No additional comments. <br /> <br />Staff ClosinG Comments: No additional comments. <br /> <br />Public HearinG Closed / Board Discussion: <br />Weise requested that the Board members limit the discussion to criteria #1 and #2 <br />because the others have been met. <br /> <br />All Board members agreed with the suggestion. <br /> <br />Kelly stated that the footprint placement of the foundation does create a unique <br />circumstance. The dimensions of the lot do not create the uniqueness but the location of <br />the placement of the structure on the lot does. <br /> <br />Chancellor stated that criteria #1 related to the individual lot while criteria #2 relates to <br />the neighborhood. He stated that he believes that all the criteria have been met when <br />you consider the individual lot for #1 and the neighborhood for #2. <br /> <br />Loeblich agreed with Chancellor on the relationship of the lot and neighborhood to the <br />criteria. <br /> <br />Cordell stated that he agrees with the others regarding the relationship of the lot and <br />neighborhood to the two criteria. <br /> <br />Motion and Vote: <br />Chancellor moved and Malmquist seconded a motion to approve the variance request. <br /> <br />Kelly requested a friendly amendment stating that the motion should reference the two <br />variances that are requested. <br />