Board of Adjustment Documents 1991

Home Browse Search

fencing configurations found in the neighborhood. And, Exhibit 3 indicates the neighbors who have written support for the applicant's proposal, and I'll call this group of photographs collectively Exhibit 4, and it's photographs of fences in this neighborhood and throughout Louisville. And, again, Chris will give you more detail on that. Sears: Also, for the record, let it be shown that this whole application packet has been entered into the record as well as all memorandums from the City staff. Eisenstein: We are giving you lots of evidence for you to base your decision. In 1983, the house was built facing onto Catalpa. The front door is there. At the consequence of it's true front yard, the way the door faces, the way the company comes to the house when they come to visit you, what you consier your font yard, faces Catalpa Court. In your packet, you've got a letter from (?) that will be part of the record. That indicates they didn't know they were creating a problem. They didn't know that the (?) in the front yard were affecting it. They just built the house, you know, probably in the way that they thought it sited best on the property. The City, in going through the subdivision and PUD process, approved the lot in this shape and this configuration to issue the building permit on the house to be built, sided the way it is. As a practical mater, although I'm sure it's your experience, and it is my experience, we have to deal in practicalities all the time. But, the house does seem to be sited in the most sensible, reasonable fashion to make good use of the lot. Unfortunately, we have this code provision. Look at the potential results of the code strictly applied to this kind of case. If you called Cleveland Avenue the front yard and, therefore, Catalpa Court the side yard, the land owner could build a six foot fence for approximately 110 feet along Catalpa Court. This would be a fence that encloses the front of the house, the true front yard. The purpose of a front yard setback is to allow the house to be open so that you don't have a barrier on the front yard on the street. Chris and Marla don't want to run fence along Catalpa Court. That is not in consideration. They merely wish to build a fence that is in keeping with the neighborhood, a fence like so many of their neighbors have. The applicant is entitled to relief from the strict application of the code and its' unfair, disastrous results in this instance. Mr. Chairmann, I already went through the criteria and requirements that you have defined and let me just quickly highlight what I think are the vital portions of those. And then, I think I can demonstrate to you how we can establish that we have met those requirements. You have the authority to grant variances and to grant a variance if you find that the requirements that apply to the property are satisfied. Well, I think we have met the requirements to the unique physical circumstances peculiar to this property. The second is that the unusual circumstances don't exist throughout the neighborhood. Third, the property cannot reasonably be developed in conformity to the provisions of the Title. Fourth, an unnecessary hardship is not being created by the applicant. Five, the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or substantially impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property. Sixth, the minimum variance will afford relief with the least modification possible. Let's talk about unique physical circumstances at this point. In the staff report, they identify 3 out of 106 lots that possibly have the same circumstances where the house faces onto a code-defined side yard and the side of the house faces the 7