Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Board of Adjustment <br />Meeting Minutes <br />OCTOBER 16, 2006 <br />Page 4 of 8 <br /> <br />Cordell requested time to read the exhibits. <br /> <br />Loeblich granted time to the Board to review the additional documents from the applicant. <br /> <br />Public Hearing Closed / Board Discussion: <br />Loeblich closed the public hearing and addressed the Board members stating that the Board has a <br />case with some very unusual circumstances: <br />1) The applicant is a current member of the Board of Adjustment. <br />2) Staff presented findings that none of the six criterion had been met, thus recommending <br />denial. <br />3) The Board needs to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest, let alone a substantive <br />conflict of interest. <br /> <br />Loeblich continued with a detailed response to each of the six criteria. A copy of the detailed <br />comments by Loeblich has been added to the permanent case file for this variance request. <br />Following is a brief summary of each. <br />1) Unique physical circumstances - Applicant's knowledge of this grade difference, either at <br />the time he purchased his home, or at any time since, though it may bear on the board's <br />finding in consideration of other criteria, is irrelevant to a determination as to whether the <br />topographical feature in question is "unique" or "exceptional" and satisfies the plain <br />meaning of the first criterion. Nothing in the text of this first criterion suggests that its <br />purpose is to guide the board in determining whether the applicant came to the nuisance <br />or the other way around. <br />2) Unusual circumstance or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood - One of <br />the principal purpose of the second criterion is to ensure that variances are granted only <br />in situations that are distinct from those of neighbors, so that the variance will remain just <br />that, a variance, and will not create a precedent that will entitle similarly situated property <br />owners to obtain similar variances. As applicant points out, because the topographical <br />slump does not exist throughout the properties along McCaslin, there is no danger of <br />creating a precedent that would enable residents on McCaslin to create a canyon-like <br />corridor. <br />3) Property cannot reasonably be developed - applicant has a burden to come forth with <br />evidence that the alternative proposed by staff does not provide the applicant with a <br />reasonable alternative to the applicant's proposed development. A showing of the <br />comparative costs and benefits of the alternative proposed by staff, relative to the <br />variance requested by the applicant, will greatly assist the Board in making its <br />determination as to whether or not the third criterion has been met. <br />4) Hardship not created by applicant - The homeowner did not create the hardship unless <br />the homeowner took affirmative action, or by unreasonable inaction, allowed the <br />hardship to come into being. Here, the hardship existed before the property was <br />purchased. <br />5) The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood - the other criteria <br />guard against other property owners obtaining similar variances that are unwarranted. <br />That the applicant must satisfy the first and second criteria, in particular, ensures that <br />within the vicinity, there is no group of similarly situated properties, and therefore, there <br />is no precedential effect to be on guard against. Finally, it is within the institutional <br />competence of the Board to remain cognizant of the second order effects that follow from <br />