Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2016 06 15

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes March 16, 2016 Page 5 of 6 Campbell says I am still not convinced that this property has a unique hardship. It is not the smallest lot in the subdivision. I don't think it is unique. I would not support this because it doesn't meet criterion #1. Meseck says in my brief research of it, it appears that the only other property similar to it is the property directly north. After that, the homes were set further into the neighborhood. I feel we are splitting hairs in saying one or two properties make something unique. I would err on the side that two homes in the entire subdivision like this make it a pretty unique condition. Some of the letters stated that it is not just this subdivision. Is it unique within Louisville? In most cases, people are able to build a reasonably-sized deck off their existing property. Reopen public hearing: Larson says I'd like to answer your question, Mr. Campbell, on ► ip. If I were to follow the letter of the law as far as setbacks, the existing deck would be `'" ,e legally built outside the patio door. That, to me, would be a hardship. Campbell says I walked around the property. There is no .rec there Meseck says I assume it has been removed. Larson says to fully answer the question, I received a signed letter from th:�, ing director of building and planning saying that all matters have been approved, and your • has been approved. Therefore, I took down the remnants of the deck, thinking that I needed to add some sheathing behind it versus the foam that was there. It was a fairly inferior deck. I was under a full understanding that this was approved until I had a conversation with Scott on Monday. He said the letter was actually in error. I am trying to do whatever is correct in Louisville. I want to build a nice place. Robinson says I talked to Mr. Larson on Monday. There was a miscommunication. I stand by what was in the letter, but I understand how he could have been confused. The letter said the lot coverage variance was approved for the deck, the cantilevers, and the porch. It did not mention the rear setback. I should have been clearer when I sent out that letter in that it was just for the lot coverage issue. We still needed to go back for the setback. Campbell asks Mr. Larson if the letter clearly stated that everything was approved. Larson says it said "deck"; all items approved. I did not bring the letter with me. I am not trying to embarrass Staff. I understood it was approved so I took it down and recycled the materials. Stuart says you did not need a demo permit to remove the deck. Robinson says the language of the letter was that the lot coverage variance for the cantilevers, front porch, and rear deck had been approved. It did not mention any setback issues. understand why there was confusion and apologize for not being clearer in my email. The variance approval letter I sent accurately represented what was approved at the February meeting. Public Hearing Closed/Board Discussion: Stuart made a motion to accept 175 Lois Drive—Variance Request—A request for a variance from Section 17.12.040 of the Louisville Municipal Code (LMC) for relief from rear setback and maximum lot coverage requirements to allow additions to the front porch, rear deck, and second story, Ewy seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: James Stuart Yes Leslie Ewy Yes Gunnar Malmquist Absent Andrew Meseck Yes Thomas DeJong Yes Lowell Campbell No Motion passed: 4 to 5