Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2016 09 21

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes August 17, 2016 Page 7 of 10 Ewy says those property owners can come in for variances. Will we limit this lot to being only a 15' x 43' home? That is the setback issue. That is an unreasonably narrow and restrictive building envelope. It yields a 645 SF footprint. Meseck says I am concerned that the BOA's ability to approve variances could be questioned if this variance is not considered to meet the criteria. This is a rigid stance to take. Malmquist says I could list multiple cases we have approved in the past that were much less relief. Ewy says if we take this rigid a stance as a Board that nothing is approvable because nothing is unique, then we are useless as a Board. Campbell says the Board's purpose isn't to grant variances. The Board's purpose is to rule on the criteria. Ewy says, thus far from your history on the Board, you have granted a single variance and it was for the little porch. You are taking such a hard and rigid stance. It is almost polar opposite of someone freely granting variances at all times. As I've stated in the past, we have to go through vettings. Before these applicants can even come before our Board, the City Staff has to review the application to assure that they feel the criteria are being met. Our job is to weigh whether we feel it has been met as well. I understand you saying that this criterion has not been met, but it sounds like you will apply that on any variance that we possibly see. Malmquist says that is not acceptable and I am embarrassed to have these people walk back to their house past all the mansions that have been approved up and down Old Town Louisville when all they are asking for is a little bit of relief from 722 SF for a family of three that will be a family of four. Meseck asks a procedural issue. We made a conscious effort to bring up that we have only four members here tonight and it would require a unanimous vote. To Campbell he says, in the Board's best interest and certainly in the applicant's best interest, it would have been better to have "tipped your hat" a little stronger in terms of which way you were leaning so they had more opportunity to make a proper decision. It would have been a courtesy to the applicant. Robinson says there has been a motion and a vote. The motion did not pass. In the past, we continue it to the next meeting for Resolution of Denial. An alternative may be for a motion to reopen the hearing for reconsideration with the applicant's consent and then continue it to a later date. Campbell says hasn't the Board already made a decision? Robinson says there has been a vote and the motion didn't pass. There hasn't been a final decision yet because there has been no approved motion. The issue hasn't been finally decided. Meseck says we have had attendance issues. I'd like to give this an opportunity to be heard. Robinson says the next BOA meeting is September 21. We can continue for reconsideration. The existing application can go forward. The applicant can modify the request and bring back a modified request at a future hearing. The applicant can pull the application altogether and resubmit. Meseck asks Doty if he is comfortable with the Board continuing this until the September 21 meeting. Doty says yes. Ewy makes a motion to continue Case #16 -022 -VA, 940 Caledonia Street, to the next scheduled hearing on September 21, 2016, Malmquist seconds. Voice vote taken. Ewy, Meseck, and Malmquist vote yes. Campbell votes no. Motion passes 3-1. Meseck apologizes to Doty and thanks him for his time. ➢ 749 Wildrose Way — Variance Request — A request for an after -the -fact variance from Section 17.16.030 of the Louisville Municipal Code (LMC) for relief from rear accessory setback requirements. Case #16 -027 -VA — Continue to September 21, 2016 Applicant & Owner: Greg Godec, 749 Wildrose Way