Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2013 11 20

Home Browse Search

REVIEW CRITERIA: The BOA has authority to hear and decide, grant or deny this application for a variance from Section 17.12.040 of the LMC by the powers granted the BOA in Section 17.48.110 of the LMC. The BOA may grant a variance only if it makes findings that all of thecriteria, as established under Section 17.48.110.B.1-6, have been satisfied, insofar as applicable: Following is a staff review and analysis of the variance criteria. 1. That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions such as irregularity, narrowness or shallowness of lot, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the affected property. The lot in this case is narrow anddeep but the other lots within the PUD facing Roosevelt sharesimilar physical circumstances. The unique circumstance in this case isnot physical, butratherthe fact that the Department of Planning and Building Safety continued to inspect and approve different phases of the construction at 169 RooseveltAve. without first obtaining a letter from a professional surveyor demonstrating the foundation was located in conformance with the setback requirements.This was done even though the notice given by the City stated the letter is required in conjunction with the foundation inspection. By approving the foundation portion of the inspection process, and continuing to issue further inspection approvals, the applicant could have reasonably believed the location of the foundation was approved. Staff finds this criterion to not be applicable. 2. That the unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood or district in which the property is located. To the best of staff’s knowledge, there are notunique physical circumstancesor conditions existingthroughout the neighborhood in which the property is located. However, staff finds this does not disqualify the property from eligibility for a variance in this case because, as discussed above, this is a hardship variance request arising from other circumstances. Staff finds this criterion to not be applicable. 3. That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, the property cannot reasonably be developed in conformity with the provisions of Title 17 of the Louisville Municipal Code. In orderto be developed in conformity with the provisions of Title 17 of the LMC, the front of the existinghome would need to be removed and rebuilt.The 1.5 foot encroachment of the buildings foundation into the required setback, would need to be deconstructedand rebuilt 1.5 feet to the west.The oversight discussed above created a unique circumstance which preventsthe property from being reasonably developed in conformity with the provisions of Tile 17 of the Louisville Municipal Code.Staff finds this criterion has been met. 4. That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant. The applicant failed to obtain the proper documentation indicating the foundation of the home had been poured in the correct location. Had the proposed location of the foundation been verified priorto concrete being poured, the encroachment into the setback 4