Laserfiche WebLink
Board of Adjustment <br />Meeting Minutes <br />MARCH 18, 2009 <br />Page 8 of 11 <br />None heard. <br />Public Present in Opposition of Application: <br />None heard. <br />Staff and Applicant Rebuttal: <br />None heard. <br />Staff and Applicant Closing Comments: <br />K. Smith stated this has been a very difficult time and she was extremely nervous. She <br />asked them to remember they have the smallest lot and a larger than average front <br />setback that has created the smallest back yard. <br />Stuart stated the deck looks well built. Does the applicant feel they have other choices <br />or options? <br />K. Smith replied that a 5-foot roof cover would provide no privacy and no coverage from <br />the elements. <br />B. Smith stated they had discussed with staff the options of a retraceable awning but it <br />would also be considered part of the principal structure and could not encroach into the <br />setback. <br />McMillan reminded the board that the variance application is only for the rear yard <br />setback for the covered deck. If the board is considering re-design options then they <br />should not attempt to do it this evening. <br />McCartney stated that any redesign element would require a continuation and would <br />probably trigger an entire new public notice. It is Staff’s responsibility to review every <br />case against the technical codes and the building codes. This is a Citywide requirement <br />and the same standards are applied to all building permits. <br />Public Hearing Closed / Board Discussion: <br />Chancellor closed the public hearing at 8:00 P.M. and requested board discussion. <br />Chancellor reviewed the criteria and reminded the board that they have the <br />responsibility of a technical review using the six criteria as the guide for discussion. He <br />continued with his review of the criteria: <br />#1 and #2 – could have arguments for both sides, <br /> <br /> <br />#4 – the hardship was not created by the applicant <br /> <br /> <br />#5 – the character is not altered because of the deck. <br /> <br /> <br />#3 – property was reasonably developed without the addition of the deck. <br /> <br /> <br />The cost of the deck can not be considered. <br />#6 – the minimum variance has not been requested. There are other <br /> <br /> <br />options, one of which would be no deck. <br />Weise expressed concern with the amount of time (approximately 13 years) since the <br />deck was built before the issue was brought to Staffs attention. <br />Chancellor stated that the six criteria do not address a time frame. <br />Jasiak asked if there was “grandfather” clause or statue of limitation. <br />Jones stated there are no statues of limitation in the City Codes. <br /> <br /> <br />