02/04/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Van Scoy, Board Members, Cleveland, Hunt, Brauer, Dunaway, and Rogers. Voting No: None. Absent: Board Member Levine. Board Business Motion by Board Member Brauer, seconded by Board Member Hunt to adopt resolution #10 -02- 036 adopting findings of fact #0862 favorable to the applicant amending findings number 28 to say "for well service truck" rather than "well drilling truck" and remove findings of fact numbers 30 and 31, seconded by Board Member Hunt. Further Discussion Chairperson Van Scoy stated if the trees are not considered a hardship, a couple of trees could be removed and the structure could be moved closer to the side property line, and there is a spot in the northwest corner of the lot the structure could go. The trees are not a hardship and he thinks the Board should not look at them as a hardship or they are opening themselves up for trouble down the road. If the trees are not a hardship, the question becomes is there another place on the lot the structure could be placed without requiring a variance. Board Member Cleveland noted that both locations for the structure are accessed off of the driveway and questioned if that is a requirement. Associate Planner Gladhill stated that having access from the driveway is not a requirement and there are numerous detached accessory structures throughout the city that do not have a driveway access to them, such as garden sheds, and smaller structures. He gave reasons the city chose the sight they did. Board Member Brauer proposed that the sentence "The Applicant has stated that the alternative location would create a ten (10) foot setback to the easterly lot line and would not leave enough space for a well drilling truck to access the rear yard" be removed from findings of fact #28 and that findings of fact numbers 30 and 31 be combined. Chairperson Van Scoy acknowledged the need for access to the well. The point he is trying to understand is if there is an alternative for the shed. We need to' meet the criteria for a variance. If there is a reason other than the trees he would be willing to consider it. Board Member Cleveland stated one of the criteria that could be met is diminished property value. If the structure is closer to the property line and visible to the neighboring house, would that diminish the property value for either of the properties? Associate Planner Gladhill stated he does not have enough information this evening to answer that, he would need to contact the assessor. Adding a structure would also improve the property value. Board of Adjustment/February 4, 2010 Page 3 of 6