Laserfiche WebLink
Associate Planner Gladhill stated there are two options, one there is an approved Findings of Fact <br />so the Board could move forward with the Variance; or the Board could reopen the Findings of <br />Fact, discuss the findings and adopt new Findings of Fact and then discuss the Variance. <br />Board Member Dunaway stated the power lines might be something that is unique to other <br />properties that would create issues for the homeowner. He requested information regarding the <br />discussions of past meetings. <br />Associate Planner Gladhill updated the Board on past meeting discussions. <br />Chairperson Van Scoy requested clarification on the power line location. <br />Associate Planner Gladhill showed maps and pictures to the Board as to where the power lines <br />were located. He stated there is not an easement that requires the structure to be a certain <br />distance from the power line. <br />Motion by Board Member Brauer, seconded by Chairperson Van Scoy to re -open the Findings of <br />Fact. <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes Chairperson Van Scoy, Board Members Brauer, Dunaway, and <br />Rogers. Voting No: Board Member Levine. Absent Board Member Cleveland. <br />Further Discussion <br />Board Member Brauer questioned if the Variance is denied are the applicants able to come back <br />with an alternate plan. <br />Associate Planner Gladhill stated the applicants do have the option to appeal to the City Council. <br />In a year maybe there will be different processes in our City Code to allow for more flexibility. <br />Board Member Brauer asked if the Board could hear from the applicant since there were three <br />members absent at the last meeting. <br />Colin and Laura Hogue, 16151 Olivine Street, the applicants, stated their frustration with the <br />whole process. <br />The applicant's builder discussed the drainage and screening of the applicant's proposed <br />location. <br />Board Member Rogers stated he sympathizes with the applicants, there is plenty of screening for <br />the building, but no reasonable use without the Variance has to be proven. Going forward The <br />City can see if it can loosen up city guidelines, unfortunately the Supreme Court has set the <br />precedence. <br />Board Member Dunaway stated no one wants to say no to the property owner. He would like the <br />applicants to put it where they want as long as it is within the guidelines. <br />Board of Adjustment /September 2, 2010 <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />