Laserfiche WebLink
Board of Adjustment <br />Meeting Minutes <br />July 15, 2009 <br />Page 6 of 12 <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 />K. Smith continued to discuss the petition. <br />Loeblich stated, in his opinion, he did not believe the petition had that much effect on his <br />decision. <br />Public Hearing Closed / Board Discussion: <br />Stuart closed the public hearing at 7:55 P.M. and requested board discussion. <br />Stuart reviewed the criteria and reminded the board that they have the responsibility of <br />a technical review using the six criteria as the guide for discussion. He continued with <br />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 and #6 – both of these are difficult to justify either way. <br /> <br /> <br />Malmquist stated that he objected to the second floor deck. <br />Jasiak agreed saying the second floor deck was his biggest issue. <br />Loeblich stated he did not find fault for either request and believed they should both be <br />passed. He stated the removal of either deck would result in a cost by both the <br />applicant and neighborhood (property values). <br />Stuart stated he had issues with this request complying with criteria numbers 3 and 6 as <br />well. <br />Jasiak stated he was more forgiving of the lower deck, but believed the upper deck is a <br />visual nuisance and disturbs the neighbors’ privacy. Jasiak stated he did not feel <br />criteria number 3 was an issue, but was stuck on criteria number 6. <br />Loeblich stated cost was still his biggest concern and the Board should give <br />compassion even though it was an after the fact request. <br />Malmquist stated he did not agree. <br />Jasiak stated he did not want “after the fact” type of requests to become the norm. <br />Jasiak does not want to see other applicant’s build first then bring their request in for <br />forgiveness. <br />Stuart stated he was trying 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 />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 />Y:\CENTRAL RECORDS\PLANNING\BOA\BOA.07.15.09.doc <br /> <br />