BOA 05/26/2011 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment May 26, 2011 Page 4 Ms. Gauvin asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak in favor of the request. Ms. Tompkins stated she previously spoke in favor of the variance request, Ms. Gauvin asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak in opposition to the request. No one came forward. Mr. Guzman stated that the City has distributed the following documents to the Board: 1, A list of the previous approved variances for the Brittany Garden subdivision from 1998 - 2000 which was part of the June 24, 2010 Board of Adjustment meeting. 2. June 24, 2010 Board of Adjustment minutes 3. August 26, 2010 Board of Adjustment minutes 4. October 28, 2010 Board of Adjustment minutes that were provided in the meeting packet He said the previous variances dealt with encroachments into the setback for placing an impervious roof over a patio or screen enclosure. Mr. Guzman summarized the following variance requests; 1. BA 10-02, 2689 Queen Mary Place -Approved 2. BA 10-05, 2680 Queen Mary Place -Approved 3, BA 10-07, 477 Misty Oaks Run -Denied A general discussion ensued regarding the criteria required to approve a variance request. Ms. Erin Tompkins questioned the reasoning for approving the variance request for 2689 Queen Mary Place. Ms. Gauvin asked the Board if they wanted to reopen the audience participation portion of the meeting. Mr. Guzman made a motion to reopen the meeting up for audience participation. Mr. McMullen seconded the motion. No vote taken on the motion. In response to the Board's question regarding the City assisting applicants with possible options to meet the criteria for granting a variance, Mr. Raasch stated that the burden is on the applicant to meet the six criteria necessary for granting a variance. He said that it is helpful for the applicant to show they have tried every possible option to come into compliance with the Code without having to go through the variance process. A discussion ensued regarding the criteria necessary to approve a variance. Ms. Dixon distributed a copy of the variance criteria handout that was used at the Board of Adjustment Workshop held in September 2010 to the Board members (a copy is attached and made a part of the minutes). Ms. Bittle came forward and stated she wasn't aware that she had to provide rebuttal to the variance criteria. She said a retractable awning could not be used in that area and that creates a special condition. Ms. Bittle felt that relocating the screen door would require a lot of work and could require cutting down some trees in that area. She said