Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2014 08 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 the criteria, as established under Section 17.48.110.B.1 -6, have been satisfied, insofar as applicable: The applicant has provided a written analysis of the variance criteria, which has been included in the BOA packet materials. 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 unique physical circumstance in this case is that the lot is 3,615 square feet smaller than the minimum allowed lot size in the RE zone district. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 2. That the unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood or district in which the property is located. Section 17.48.110 of the LMC states a variance may only be granted if all criteria, "insofar as applicable," are met. In this case, where all of the lots in the subdivision are smaller than the minimum lot size, the unusual circumstance by definition exists throughout the neighborhood. Staff has determined this criterion is not appropriate. Staff finds this criterion is not 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. The current zoning would only allow a 269 square foot expansion of the building's footprint. This includes decks above 30 inches in height and covered porches, as well as additions. The applicant has requested to expand their home to gain more storage space. The proposed addition would add 380 square feet of space. Staff finds this is a reasonable request; however, the provisions of Title 17 prevent the modest expansion. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 4. That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant. When the house was built in 1983, it encompassed nearly all of the maximum permitted lot coverage. The applicant did not create this unnecessary hardship. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 5. That the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property. The variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood, but instead allow for the modest expansion of an existing garage. This expansion will not affect the development 3