Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2015 04 15

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes March 18, 2015 Page 3 of 4 Fuller asked why the property could not have a walk-out basement. Robinson stated it was a condition listed in the plat. Applicant Presentation and questions from the Board to the applicant: David Kindrachuck, homeowner, presented. He stated they are wishing to have additional useable space in the backyard and believe others in the neighborhood have more lot coverage than they do. He presented a map showing other properties which have greater lot coverage. He also presented photos showing his property as it related to other properties and accentuating how the property is unusable. The purpose of the larger deck is to allow for more usable space in the backyard. Fuller asked if there was a wooden fence running along the top of the retaining wall. Kindrachuck stated they do not have a wooden fence on top of the retaining wall. Kindrachuck believes their plan complies with all the criteria and still conforms to the health, safety and welfare of Title 17 of the Louisville Municipal Code. He thanked staff for leading him through the process. Stuart thanked him for his research. Fuller asked if he knew why they weren’t allowed to have a walk-out basement. Kindrachuck stated he did not know. Borrmann stated he lives nearby and agrees with his assessment of the area. Public Present in Opposition of Application: None heard. Public Present in Favor of Application: None heard. Public Hearing Closed / Board Discussion: Stuart stated it appears the applicant has a smaller lot than most of the surrounding lots. He also stated since no neighbors have commented, he believes criteria number 3, the only negating criteria, has been met. He stated he finds the application is reasonable. Malmquist believes the application is a minimal request and that RE is very restrictive, especially since the property is so unusable. He agrees with Stuart number 3 has been met. Ewy stated when you buy a house that has not been modified and it is already over the allowances, it creates a hardship for any future redevelopment. She added the slope of the yard, evidenced by the huge retaining wall, makes the backyard unusable. She believes the application and the deck request are pretty moderate. Fuller asked the applicant if he was allowed to remove the retaining wall. Kindrachuck stated he was unsure. Robinson stated he believes the retaining wall is needed for the storm drain outlot. Borrmann believes the proximity to the open space means the deck will have minimal effect on the surrounding owners.