Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Board of Adjustment <br />Meeting Minutes <br />July 15, 2009 <br />Page 6 of 12 <br /> <br />Richard Hogue - 880 West Chestnut Circle <br />Hogue stated he had signed the petition and did speak with K. Smith after signing the <br />petition. Hogue said he would still have signed because he believes a building permit is <br />required for all building. <br /> <br />K. Smith continued to discuss the petition. <br /> <br />Loeblich stated, in his opinion, he did not believe the petition had that much effect on his <br />decision. <br /> <br />Public Hearina Closed / Board Discussion: A <br />Stuart closed the public hearing at 7:55 P.M. and requeste~rd discussion. <br /> <br />Stuart reviewed the criteria and reminded the board tha ~~ve the responsibility of <br />a technical review using the six criteria as the guide fo ussj'" He continued with <br />his review of the criteria: .. <br />. #1 and #2 - could have arguments~f9~oth sides, <br />. #4 - the hardship was not creat~.l the applicant <br />. #5 - the character is not alteredibecause of the deck. <br />. #3 and #6 - both of these are d\~o ju ,,t~ ither way. <br /> <br />Malmquist stated that he objected to the second fI ' . <br /> <br />Jasiak agreed saying the second f~ was his I~ issue. <br /> <br />Loeblich stated he did not find fault f '~, 9,~st" anO~!Leved they should both be <br />passed. He stated the removal of eith"Elpeck .'q;rk~sult r"cost by both the <br />applicant and neighborhoQI;!](groperty v<!!O~s <br /> <br />Stuart stated he ha '~l>it is reque~i' mplying with criteria numbers 3 and 6 as <br /> <br /> <br />~:~Ii~k stated he w,ore f~.,f~~g~~e \"deck, but believed the upper deck is a <br />visual nUisance and IviaJe'nelgh~~lgQ.vacy.. Jaslak stated he did not feel <br />crrterra ~~ an'IS$.!)e, but was slucl<'on crrterra number 6. <br /> <br />Loe~rated cos.~ ~~iggest concern and the Board should give <br />COITli:}q!l~lon even thollgrn1t was~fter the fact request. <br /> <br />Malm~stated he did'agree'lV <br /> <br />Jasiak st~~e did not ~1 "after the fact" type of requests to become the norm. <br />Jasiak does 'Jifd"'t ant to .' ~other applicant's build first then bring their request in for <br />forgiveness. <br /> <br />Stuart stated he wa ing to justify how to view this. The variance is for a built <br />element, which is unlike most requests the Board reviews. The Board usually reviews <br />concept plans and has the ability to modify the design if they see the need. In this case, <br />the element is built and harder to redesign. <br /> <br />Loeblich also stated he was having issues on how to decipher the request since the <br />request has already been built. Loeblich asked staff for their opinion. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />G:\Board of Adjustment\BOA 2010\05.19.201 O\Complete Packet\02.BOA.07.15.09.doc <br />