Board of Adjustment Minutes 2009 03 18

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes MARCH 18, 2009 Page 4 of 11 4. That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant.  PUD 1986  Home built 1988  Rules have always been in place  Any identifiable hardship has been created by the applicant after the purchase of the home  Criterion not met 5. That the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property.  No variances granted for similar rear setback encroachments in Cherrywood  Will alter the essential character of the neighborhood  Criterion not met 6. That the variance, if granted, is the minimum variance that will afford relief and is the least modification possible of the provisions of Title 17 of the Louisville Municipal Code that is in question.  8 feet into rear setback  Could have been located to require less relief  Criterion not met McMillan reported the Staff findings do not meet any of the 6 criteria for approval and is recommending denial of the requested variance. Questions of Staff by the Board and Applicant: Chancellor discussed with McMillan the justification for Criteria #4 not being met. McMillan stated when a home is purchased the “Buyer Beware” process should be followed by the purchaser. The setbacks and regulations for the Cherrywood Subdivision were in place when the applicant purchased the home. Horst summarized a similar case that was reviewed by the City Attorney during the recent training conducted for the Board Members. Weise questioned the use of the word “Staff” throughout the staff presentation as well as the staff report. McMillan confirmed that with three planner positions: Director, Principal Planner and Planner II the case had been reviewed by all staff with the same conclusion of recommending denial of the variance request. Malmquist asked if the deck is less than 30” off the ground and is uncovered then can a portion of that deck extend into the setback. McMillan stated he was correct. He clarified that no structure could be in an easement. K. Smith questioned the information that the deck is part of the Principal Structure and requested a Code reference.