My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Board of Adjustment Documents 1994
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
>
1974-1998 Board of Adjustment Agendas and Packets
>
1994 Board of Adjustment Agendas and Packets
>
Board of Adjustment Documents 1994
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/3/2024 3:45:38 PM
Creation date
4/3/2024 12:32:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITYWIDE
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
200
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
3. That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, the property cannot reasonably <br />be developed in conformity with the provisions of Title 17 of the Louisville Municipal <br />Code. Staff finds that this criterion is not met. The property can be reasonably developed <br />in conformity with the PUD as evidenced by the site plan submitted with the building <br />permit. (See exhibit 1.) <br />4. That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant. Staff finds that this <br />criterion is not met. The hardship has been totally created by the contractor. In the <br />applicant's letter of justification the assertion is made that the original survey was held to <br />be incorrect. The evidence does not support this assertion. All of the surveys submitted <br />consistently showed the setback from the building to the front property line as 16.55' to <br />16.9'. (See Exhibits 2, 3, 4, and 5.) The small discrepancy between the improvement <br />location certificate measured in July and the improvement survey measured in November <br />can be explained by the addition of the framing and siding to the structure. All of the <br />surveys have clearly shown that the nail/disc embedded in the sidewalk is offset five feet <br />from the property line. The measurement apparently added by the contractor from the <br />building to the line connecting the two nail/discs is irrelevant. The contractor aggravated <br />the situation by continuing construction after he became aware of the nonconforming <br />setback. There is also evidence that the surveys were altered prior to submission to the <br />City. <br />5. That the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or <br />district in which the property is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the <br />appropriate use or development of adjacent property. Staff finds that this criterion is not <br />met. This house has a setback that is 17.25% less than the minimum required by the <br />PUD. <br />6. That the variance, if granted, is the minimum variance that will afford relief and is the <br />least modification possible of the provisions of Title 17 of the Louisville Municipal Code <br />which are in question. Staff finds that this criterion is not met. The PUD already granted <br />relief from the underlying zoning requirements. The living areas of the house will not be <br />affected if it is modified to conform to the zoning requirements. The garage will still <br />accommodate many, although not all, vehicles. <br />STAFF RECOMMENDATION: <br />DENY the requested variance. The criteria necessary to grant a variance are not met. <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.