01/04/07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Peterson replied no, the areas are identical. Changing the setback would mean that the front yards are somewhat smaller and the back yards are larger; it would give people more yard backing up to the wetland. He explained Community Development staff required three of the lots to have the reduced setback to save trees by changing the location of the retaining wall and the houses. Mr. Peterson indicated he was just notified by Mr. Ben Minks, one of his builders, that there is a presold home located on Lot 16 on the cul-de-sac that is included in this variance request. Mr. Minks would like to begin building on this lot soon. Motion by Board Member Levine, seconded by Board Member Trites Rolle, to close the public hearing. Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Acting Chairperson Van Scoy, Board Members Levine, Trites Rolle, Brauer, and Hunt. Voting No: None. Absent: Chairperson Nixt and Board Member Cleveland. The public hearing was closed at 7:29 p.m. Board Business Acting Chairperson Van Scoy called the Board of Adjustment meeting back to order at 7:29 p.m. Acting Chairperson Van Scoy indicated the legal requirements for notification seem to have been met. Mr. Peterson is willing to accommodate the concern, but it would negatively impact the building of at least one lot. Board Member Hunt commented from what he can determine the legal requirements for notification have been met even though there was a typographical error, which does not really have bearing on the request. Anyone that lives within the 700 feet of Brookfield Addition knows where it is located. With the map and the legal description being correct he would not have a problem going ahead with this variance request. Board Members Levine and Trites Rolle concurred. Board Member Brauer stated he is uncomfortable with technicalities. If the notification was wrong and Mr. Peterson is willing to let the public hearing wait, he would say the public hearing should wait so everything is as it should be. He can see being confused by a notification like this and not thinking it applies to you if the description is not correct. The fact that only two people are here for this public hearing is strange to him; they have had a lot more people here about this development in the past. He is a little troubled as to whether the low turnout is a result of whether people have said the development is fine or whether it has something to do with the notice not being quite right. Civil Engineer II Linton noted in the past there could have been a groundswell against the extension of sewer and water; there had also been a lot happening with rezoning and the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Board of AdjustmentlDecember 7, 2006 Page 6 of 16 P6