Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2016 03 16

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes February 17, 2016 Page 9 of 12 Robinson says yes. The applicant can request a continuance to a future meeting when we either have a larger group so the requirements change, or we can get additional information for Board Member Campbell so perhaps he would be comfortable with the variance. Ewy asks if the vote proceeds and it is denied, does the applicant have any recourse at that time? Robinson says any challenges to a decision by the BOA go to District Court, so it would be a District Court case. These are not reviewed by City Council. The applicant can come back and reapply with a modified application or a new application, or they can challenge this decision in Court. Stuart says that during this discussion period, we size each other up and see how everything is going. So Board Member Campbell, if you think you will not vote for this, I am moving that we continue this until the next meeting. Is that acceptable to the applicant? If this fails, you have to file again. McAvinew says the PUD was approved for this subdivision in 1978. Back at that time in the 1970s, there were a lot of mistakes made. The City of Louisville, as far as development goes, was builder - developer run. Things changed in the 1980s. Having just gone through the revocable license process with this mistake that was made by the City on my property, I don't think this owner should be penalized for that. Ewy says I have concern if we as a Board do deny tonight, we have a precedence this resident can clearly look at over the last 3 to 4 years with extremely similar cases. I respect that Board Member Campbell does not approve, but I would like to give this property owner an option to have something besides District Court recourse. Stuart asks Board Member Campbell if he still would not vote positively. Campbell says I lived here in the 1980s and 1990s and I attended a lot of hearings that dealt with PUDs. I never heard anybody say that they were making a mistake in the zoning they were doing. After some changes in City government, there seemed to be a change in philosophy toward zoning to be more liberal. I am not sure I agree with your arguments. Ewy says if this house in its current capacity was sited on a 12,000 sf, we would not have this conversation. The PUDs have a mistake and City Council has acknowledged this. It is not a liberal interpretation. It is a fact of this PUD. Stuart says it is clear that the 12,000 sf minimum lot size in incorrect to apply to a lot that is only 6,000 sf. It is already in violation. It's not liberal or conservative; it's simply wrong. Campbell says I would be happy to review where the City Council has said that these are mistakes, if you have a copy of that document. Ewy says we can probably pull the Study Sessions we attended and had a joint session with City Council for two running years. Stuart says to the applicant, I would like to not deny your application. I think if we had more people here, you might find a more positive response. Thorne asks when is the next BOA meeting? Robinson says on Wednesday, March 16, 2016. There would be no additional filing fees. Ewy says we should not deny with all the case history. We can certainly reach out to the City Attorney and get his opinion if that might help. Campbell says if the City Council has stated that past Councils have made a mistake and past Planning Boards have made a mistake, I would be happy to review that. Ewy says the actual adoption of the administrative variance is most likely in the Staff memo. The only reason we are here is that the administrative variance stopped at 30 %, and this lot size, being so small, is driving that. Dani Larson says Phil Larson (contacted by text /phone) wants to know that the primary sticking point is?