Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2016 06 15

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes March 16, 2016 Page 2 of 6 Robinson says because this is a continuance, we do not need to review the procedures for the meeting. Meseck discloses that I am the Chairman and apologize for missing last month's meeting. I did not have any ex parte contact, have no conflict of interest, and did no discreet site visit. I am aware of the property because I run by it often. I did take a long look at the materials online and listened to the audio of last month's meeting. I am aware of everything that took place and what was discussed. Robinson summarizes. This is a request for variances from lot coverage and rear setback to expand the rear deck, make modifications to cantilevers, and cover the front porch. At the February meeting, the lot coverage request was approved to allow for the cantilever modifications, front porch cover, and lot coverage issues related to the rear porch. The rear setback issue was not resolved and continued to March meeting. There were questions about the criteria and how they are interpreted. Criterion #2 about the condition persists throughout the neighborhood was questioned. In the packet, there is an email dated March 9, 2016 from Sam Light, Louisville City Attorney, along with an attached letter he wrote on May 26, 2011 discussing how the criteria are addressed. There is additional information about Centennial Valley 3 subdivision and the size of the lots. At this point, the BOA can ask questions of Staff or the applicant, or continue discussion, then make a motion and vote. Questions from Board to Staff Meseck says we can direct our questions to Staff and then give the applicant an opportunity to speak if they choice. Campbell says he is puzzled by the letters from Sam Light, City Attorney. Who requested them because I don't remember the BOA discussing this request? Stuart says the recent letter from Sam Light is a response to a request from Robinson regarding the six criteria interpretation. The second letter is the response to an email from Robinson's predecessor, Gavin McMillan, regarding the six criteria interpretation. Campbell asks if the response was requested by Staff. Robinson says I wrote an email to the City Attorney after the last BOA meeting. I was under the impression that you wanted more clarification from the City Attorney. I asked him for additional information and he responded with an email and also attached a previous letter from 2011. Campbell asks if the City Attorney was satisfying a requirement per your request, or was he representing the Board? Is he representing the City or the Board? Robinson says the City Attorney represents the City of Louisville. Campbell asks who is the attorney representing the BOA? Robinson says Sam Light is the attorney for the BOA. Campbell asks if this is a conflict. Robinson says the BOA is an entity of the City of Louisville. Sam Light is employed by City Council. He does not work for Staff; he works for City Council. Staff works for Malcolm Fleming, the City Manager, who works for City Council. Sam Light represents the interests of the City. Campbell says we often have different ideas. I was not clear if he represents the City, Staff, or the BOA. It seems like there is a difference. Robinson says he represents the City. He protects the interests of the entire City. He does not work for Staff. He responds to how the City sees the six criteria interpreted. DeJong says basically you have an attorney providing legal analysis of questions of law. What we had earlier were questions regarding interpretation of law. Mr. Light or one of his associates went through and provided the analysis of how the City of Louisville would interpret the law laid by the code.