Board of Adjustment Documents 1996

Home Browse Search

prevent this home owner or future home owner from adding on to the front because they are 40 feet setback and there's only a 20 foot requirement under the R-L code. So what we've heard in the discussion that that would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, we would have no way of controlling that. Member Dinsmore: I feel that there is more of a design problem here than addition problem. I think inside is where the design has to be created for a dining area. I don't think adding an addition is going to do this. Member Campbell: I don't see that something coming off of the front that doesn't require a variance would necessarily, extremely imbalance it, and it is something that could be done without a variance. And I'm going to agree too that I look at it as more of an interior design rather than a hardship of the lot or anything like that in terms of what's been done. There are other alternatives. Board Comments: Jack Shiker: I really think that this applicant is being forced into treating what the City calls a rear yard instead of their side yard when the house is set up on the side yard. If it was treated as a side yard, they wouldn't have to ask for a variance. Bev Campbell: The City has set up the zoning as the shortest side is the front yard. That is the guide that we have and I do agree that it looks like it's the side yard. Don Brown: I would agree that the odd setting of the house is the irregularity that allows it to qualify within the criteria and I would vote for the variance. Jack Shiker: The hardship is, in my mind, that the City has determined that what is effectively the side yard is their back yard and is forcing them into a 25-foot setback, when really because it's the side yard the way the house is situated on those four lots all they would have to have is a 7-foot setback. Whether the hardship is inside or outside really doesn't matter. The hardship is determination of what is really a side and rear yard.