Board of Adjustment Minutes 2009 03 18

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes MARCH 18, 2009 Page 9 of 11 Stuart stated he felt criterion 1, 2, 4 and 5 had been met for the same reasons Chancellor provided. Criteria #3 is a question for him because it is reasonable to have a deck and it could be reasonable to encroach into the setback, especially if the applicant had come forward before the deck had been built and the board could have looked at other design options. Criteria #6 is similar to #3, perhaps it is not the minimum variance, especially if the variance request had been prior to the building of the deck. Chancellor, Stuart and Jasiak continued the discussion of the upper deck and the minimum relief that could be considered for that deck. Jasiak stated it is unfortunate the situation involves a personal matter with the neighbor. He stated his agreement with Chancellor on how the criteria have and have not been met. Loeblich acknowledged the unfortunate situation with the neighbor however it can not be a factor for the board’s consideration of the variance request. He continued by stating that criteria #3 and #6 are the two that have not been met for the following reasons: #3 – The property had been reasonably developed without the addition of  the deck and the cost factor can not be considered. #6 – The design of the deck is not the minimum variance to afford relief.  Also, relief is not from a troublesome neighbor. Weise asked if the board should consider a continuation. Chancellor stated a continuation could be considered if the applicant would have additional information for the board to consider and if they wanted to propose a re- design. However, based on the comment from the applicant the request is for the deck as it is built. Stuart stated he would prefer more discussion tonight and then a decision. Malmquist also stated his understanding of not being able to consider the personal issues between the neighbors. He also identified Criteria #3 and #6 as not being met. Stuart discussed the possibility that if the applicant had come forward prior to building that the board might have justified Criteria #3 (reasonable development) because they would have had the opportunity to discuss options. However, since the deck is built there are no options to be considered. Stuart asked what the next step is for the applicant. McCartney stated the applicant has 30-days to present a new application which would request less of a variance. Otherwise the applicant would appeal to the District Court. The appeal would be based on the process and could not include new information. Chancellor varied if the deck is 30” or less off the ground it could extend into the setback. Chancellor requested if the board had further discussion. Hearing none he requested a motion. Motion and Vote: