Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2017 11 15

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes September 20, 2017 Page 4 of 7 how the washer and dryer are in the dining room demonstrates that the space is no longer functional. Roof also mentioned that the developments they are presenting do not affect the character of the home since these developments cannot be seen from the street. Commission Questions of Applicant: None heard. Public Comment in Favor: None heard. Public Comment Against: Sonya Sabels and David Kahn, 808 La Farge Ave Sabels and Kahn expressed their concerns when they discussed this proposed development. They described a past encounter when the applicant's home was demolished and re -built from a previous builder and the negative effects it caused on their house. The main argument brought by Sabels and Kahn was since no plans were contingent upon the applicant's approval, they worried that if approval was granted, the development may encroach on their privacy or cause actual damage to the structure of the home. Both pointed out examples of this such as the foundation breaking and heavy snow fall from the applicant's roof landing on their house. Marianne Gibbs, 822 La Farge Ave Gibbs, although not present at the meeting, discussed her concerns for this variance. In the letter submitted, board member DeJong read the following: "The requested floor ratio expansion variance, specifically a second story on the existing garage, has the potential to negatively and permanently impact my home and property. Although this would not be the intent of the neighbor's expansion request this could be the outcome, benefitting one property at the expense of its neighbor. With mutual neighborly thought and consideration I'm hopeful all neighbors can accomplish their goals. There may be other possible solutions or possible expansion while preserving what is valuable to neighboring Tots. My request is that the variance not be granted without proposed and mutually agreeable expansion plans in place. I may not be opposed to a variance if assured that the added square footage would not encumber my property as outlined above. Privacy and retention of sunshine is key." Summary and request by Staff and Applicant: Roof and Schaaf reiterate that though they hear their neighbors' concerns, they were told that bringing structural plans to the hearing was not necessary and usually not created at this point of the process. They said they want to go on the record that they will not be building a party deck because they do not want to encroach on their neighbors' privacy nor do they want to be a burden on them. They concluded that if the lack of plans is an issue for everyone, they ask that the board continue the hearing to the November 15, 2017 meeting in order to develop the plans. Ritchie addressed the applicant' comment that plans were advised not to be brought to the hearing. Ritchie mentioned that some architectural plans can sometimes be included in the variance application. The applicant's life circumstances were fuller than most applicants. The applicant's did not have any architectural plans prepared when the application was submitted.