HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/02/1998wmp =-mmmm
December 2, 1998
6:00 p.m.
Linda Mauro
Tom Abbott
Bob Howard
Gerald Dahl, City Attorney
Alan White, Director • Planning & Development
Sean McCartney, Planner
Ann Lazzeri, Minutes Specialist
Mr. Dahl briefly reviewed his memorandum outlining the role and authority • the Board •
Adjustment., He reminded the Board that the ten criteria for granting variances are subjective, but
decisions should ultimately be made It the basis of an established hardship to the applicant.
Tnere ine appilcant gave testimony concerning
a specific variance when it became apparent he had a need for an additional variance. He asked if it
would • necessary to reconstruct the findings of fact, etc. and to take new testimony for the additional
variance at the new hearing.
Mr. Dahl replied that since testimony was taken on an application which had not yet been applied for
• published, it would be necessary to go over all of the findings of facts, etc. again at the new hearing.
He stated that this would avoid the appearance of the staff and Board having prejudged the situation.
a�—grz-,Tii a 377
variance during a hearing but may never grant a larger variance than stated in the application, He
explained that this was due to publishing and posting requirements which give interested citizens
sufficient time
• consider the matter. If a smaller variance should be granted than was published, it
would not be detrimental to the neighborhood.
restrictions on the types of buildings to be constructed.
Mr. Dahl advised the Board that they have more options than to simply grant or deny a request in that
certain conditions may be imposed. He stated that it is permissible for the Board to ask some questio
and explore alternatives with the applicant; however, he cautioned against implying that the Board's
i would be based upon the applicant's answers to these types of questions.
based upon an applicant's physical handicap.
Mr. Dahl replied that the law is changing in that area. He stated that if a public building is involved,
the Board has an obligation to grant reasonable requests. He encouraged the Board to take physical
handicap situations into account when determining a hardship. He stated that he felt a physical
handica2, would constitute a fair hardshi:.! claim, however ust because a h
the Board has to automatically grant the variance.
Board Member ABBOTT expressed concern that when a variance is granted, it stays with the property
forever.
Mr. Dahl stated that the Board has the right to determine whether the variance runs with the land or i
does not. He suggested placing a condition that the variance would no longer apply when the applicl
loses title to the property and that this condition would be recorded on the title.
Mr. McCartney asked if the granting of a variance for a shed would apply to all future structures
the property. Mr. Dahl replied that the Board should be careful to set conditions in these types of
situations. I
Nil
Board of Adjustment Page 2
12/21/98
Mr. Dahl advised the Board members to reduce the amount of dialogue (such as "have you conside
this alternative ....... ) with an applicant because it can lead to a situation that leads the applicant to
N" lieve if he doesn't "deal his application will • denied. I
11"Lssilovu en Fe 7 tssis e aticant y sTggesung lner slurins.
i #. rt merrio o a pp F o o o
T
Mr. Dahl replied that it is okay as long as it doesn't get to the point that it appears the Board will
approve or deny the application on the basis of the suggestions.
In response to a question from Chair MAURO, Mr. Dahl replied that an applicant has thirty days to
reconsider his application.
Board Member ABBOTT asked about applying common standards for 1990 to structures built in the
1950's; for example, two bedrooms were standard when houses were built in 1950 while three
bedrooms are standard in 1990.
Mr. Dahl replied that he felt this was not a strong reason to grant a variance. It was his opinion that the
absence of a third bedroom does not constitute a hardship,
I I I JIJIIINI�Ip�lll 1111111
IIII 1p�IIII Jill 1 1111111 lli��Ilil JI 111 1 111 111 11 111 1111111 � I 1111111 I� �l�� ��Il
1 1 1 11! 1 1 1 Fill
Mr. Dahl replied that if it is in the zoning ordinance, the Board of Adjustment can hear it and could
waive or vary a condition that is part of the zoning ordinance. He stated that zoning has prohibitions
until individual cases are considered.
Mr. McCartney asked if a variance were granted for a carport and the owner later decided to convert
the carport into an enclosed garage, would the variance still apply to the garage.
Mr. Dahl replied that if the carport was enclosed it would change the visual impact and the applicall
ghould come in with a new application.
0111 Y 6da Mauro, Chair
C:\Barbara'BOA\I"$MINS\981202,wpd
FAA
Board of Adjustment Page 3
12/2/98