Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/2002

Home

100 px~ ~t ~ Au_o~usr 25, 2002 ~'ar~ance - Permit N-anted for garage Owner t~o~gM s~ ~er rec~ pe~s~n for ~rger s~c~re ~SSO~ (07/~02) -- Lu 1~9,, ~e Br~ were issued a pe~t to con- s~cr a 21-by-2~-r~or g~e. Cons~c~on w~ stopped, ~d, in t999, ~e' pe~r w~ rdssue~ ~M. Br~um ~c~ed she ob~ed approv~ for a l~ger sumcmre. offici~ ~om ~e Depm~enr of Codes Ad~is~fion (DCA) tested Br~um ~ked ~our a l~ger s~c~ bat no apprOv~ was ~ted. ~&~. B~m tested she ~ou~r she received pe~ssion ~o cons~cr a =4-oy-o~-~oor *~a~ and cons~cfion s~ed. Someone ~ew a doned ~e suggesr~g a l~ger gmge on .~e 1999 pe~r, but ~e pe~r contained no addition~ d~ensions o~er ~ ~e od~n~ 21.-by-23 feet.. On p~o occ~io~, ~e s~c~e w~ respected. However, these inspections focused on etec~c~ ~d ptum~g compH~c.e. There was no ~dication when · e foo~t s~e of ~e project w~ exp~ded. ~ Nov. t999, ~e Branu~ ~c=ived a notice of violation ~o~ng ~em the~ g~m~e was not ~ compH~c=. ~e exp~ded g~age was 85 percent bu~ · at the d'me of ~e notice. The B~ were advised the s~cmre was not o~y too i~ge bur ~so violated ~e setback req~ements. The Br~ applied to ~e ~d of zo~ng adjus~ent for a non-use vah- ~ce. Nei~bo~ expressed conce~s ~at ~e s2e of ~e structure would de-. cre~e prope~ v~ues ~d cause some water ~noff problems. ~er a n~ber of he~gs, ~e application w~ de,ed, and the Br~Ums appealed to ~e con~ commn~g ~e~ wo~d be "prac~cal dh~cul~es" caused by sMcr comp~ce. They Jso noted ~e s~c~e w~ inspected ~ice by co~ e~orcement o~cem wi~ no complmts about ~e size of the build,g, ~e court revemed ~e bond's &cision, ~d ~e bo~d appealed. DEC'ION: ~e ~d's d~ion w~ ~e Br~u~ were de,ed ~e v~ces. ~e con~o~g smm[e did not provide a precise deletion of "pracfic~' d~iCut~es," bur ar ~e ve~ le~k ~e Br~u~ would be requked to show ~e' prope~ co~d nor be used for a pe~ned use wi~our comJng ~to co~ct with c:ram of ae ord~ce's ms~c~o~. ~e Branu~ fa~ed to do sO even ~ou~ ~ey offered ~e msmony of ~ee expe~. They f~ed to demo~e m ~e bo~d ~at ~e land could not yield reasonable mmm absent ~e ~g of ~e vm~ce. Furor, the Bran~ did not show ~ek h~dshp w~ due to ~y amque ckcu~r~ces not co--on to · e aei~bofnooi )dso, ~e bo~d w~ ncr req~ed to relieve ~he Br~ums of compH~ce with ~e setback ~d o~er requme'menm of ~e ord~ce s~pty because they did nor 2nders~d ~em. F~aHy, ~e ~specrors wer~ on the propose not ro me~ure the s~acmre out re une~ ,:ompli~ca of'ptumb~g ~d electrical work. Cir~n.. Stare e~'~iz's¢~N v. ~ea~d ,2r'Zonfng Adjus~enr of r,Se ~Ya~sas Ciq2, C<2~;~ o~A~ce~r ~f ~kZi.~'soun', ~/7 Dish, 3/0. CD 607! 7 (20t)2).. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I