06-26-08 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment

Browse Search

Zoning Board of Adjustment July 24, 2008 #V08-004 Page 2 of3 Section 106-1 defines carport as "...a roofed structure, freestanding or attached to another structure designed to provide covered parking for vehicles, with no enclosing walls, and must be located directly over a driveway." Except as otherwise prohibited, the board is empowered to authorize a variance from a requirement when the board fmds that all of the following conditions have been met. .:. That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the best public interest. .:. That literal enforcement of the chapter will result in unnecessary hardship because of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape, topography or other extraordinary or exceptional physical situation unique to the specific piece of property in question. "Unnecessary hardship" shall mean physical hardship relating to the property itself as distinguished from a hardship relating to convenience, financial considerations or caprice, and the hardship must not result from the applicant or property owner's own actions; and .:. That by granting the variance, the spirit of the chapter will be observed. In determining if granting the applicant's request would be contrary to the public interest, Staff recognizes that the development of the carport may create a visual obstruction issue with the adjoining properties. A survey of surrounding properties shows that this non-compliance with the ordinance is typical to the neighborhood. The carport was built without the City permit and stands in violation of the City ordinance. In viewing the specific grounds for granting a variance, Staff points out that the condition, as it exists, was the ".. . result of the applicant or property owner's own actions..." contrary to the provisions of Section 106-192. We also find no grounds to justify "... unnecessary hardship because of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape topography, or other extraordinary or exceptional physical situation unique to the property in question." This lot represents a typical example of property within subdivisions throughout the City. Based on the facts noted in this report, the applicant's request would appear to be contrary with the spirit of the ordinance, by allowing carport within 5'setback from the side property line. Conclusion: Variance Request #V08-004, which seeks a variance for 3' side setback of a standard 6,250 S. F. lot by allowing an existing, non-permitted, carport of 325 S.F. to remain in place, is contrary to the provisions established by Section 106-771 (4) of the Code of Ordinances. In addition, the parameters for the requested variance do not appear to meet the provisions established by Section 106-192 (variances).