Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2009 09 16

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes July 15, 2009 Page 6 of 12 Richard Hogue — 880 West Chestnut Circle Hogue stated he had signed the petition and did speak with K. Smith after signing the petition. Hogue said he would still have signed because he believes a building permit is required for all building. K. Smith continued to discuss the petition. Loeblich stated, in his opinion, he did not believe the petition had that much effect on his decision. Public Hearing Closed / Board Discussion: Stuart closed the public hearing at 7:55 P.M. and requested board discussion. Stuart reviewed the criteria and reminded the board that they have the responsibility of a technical review using the six criteria as the guide for discussion. He continued with his review of the criteria: • #1 and #2 — could have arguments for both sides, • #4 — the hardship was not created by the applicant • #5 — the character is not altered because of the deck. • #3 and #6 — both of these are difficult to justify either way. Malmquist stated that he objected to the second floor deck. Jasiak agreed saying the second flet dok was his biggest issue. Loeblich stated he did not find fault fai passed. He stated the removal of eith applicant and neighborhood (property valor Stuart stated he had issues with this requ well. est and believed they should both be sult in a cost by both the omplying with criteria numbers 3 and 6 as Jasiak stated he was more forgiving of the lower deck, but believed the upper deck is a visual nuisance and disturbs the neighbors' privacy. Jasiak stated he did not feel criteria number 3 was an issue, but was stuck on criteria number 6. Loeblich stated cost has still his biggest concern and the Board should give compassion even though it was an after the fact request. Malmqu�t Mated he did nt,agree. Jasiak stated he did not writ "after the fact" type of requests to become the norm. Jasiak does not giant to 'other applicant's build first then bring their request in for forgiveness. Stuart stated he wasfing to justify how to view this. The variance is for a built element, which is unlike most requests the Board reviews. The Board usually reviews concept plans and has the ability to modify the design if they see the need. In this case, the element is built and harder to redesign. Loeblich also stated he was having issues on how to decipher the request since the request has already been built. Loeblich asked staff for their opinion. G:\MINUTES\Bd. Adj\2009\BOA.07.15.09.doc