Board of Adjustment Documents 1996

Home Browse Search

A. Correct. The established setback line. Public Present In Opposition or In Favor of Application: In Favor: There were none. In Opposition: Lowell Campbell, 586 Cleveland Ave. Stated he felt that the applicant should have looked into the zoning before purchasing the property. He told the Board that he felt the hardship was not the lot, but the interior design. Applicants Rebuttal: The applicant stated that she thought Mr. Campbell had a point. Part of the problem is the design and that, yes, it is very possible for current and previous owners to have made very bad decisions. Her responsibility is that she did not see it before purchasing the house. Board Discussion/Comments: Chairman Shiker: Because of the legality of what we have to call the front and sides yards, this applicant is being forced to ask for a variance. The way the house is currently built, the west side is really their side yard and not their rear yard. But according to the City definition it's their rear yard. The house is built with the front yard on Spruce. In my mind, that makes the west side the side yard. Building into that area would not then require a variance. I want to consider it the side yard and I'm in favor of granting the variance. Member Metsker: I agree, I think with the 20 foot setback that we are asking for on the north side of the house to the back part of the property, it makes it look like the house is more reasonably set on the property instead of having to turn it 90 degrees. I also believe that when we put in the overlay, we had an issue come up earlier this year, the overlay was meant to grant relief at the same time, kind of protect the Old Town flavor. Member Menezes: I tend to agree with that discussion about treating the back as the side. Contingent upon the condition that the Planning Staff has proposed which is treating the side yard to the north as a back yard essentially by putting in a greater restriction than currently exists. There's nothing to