01-22-09 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment

Browse Search

Zoning Board of Adjustment February 26,2009 #V09-00 1 Page 2 00 This variance request seeks to allow the carport to remain in place. The owner states that a carport is a finished out structure with all the trim work matching the house and should be allowed to remain at the original location. In addition, it would allow protection from the elements and provide a safe and secure place for access to vehicles. The owner also states that the carport was expensive and tearing it down causes him fmancialloss. Analvsis: Section 106-192(b)(I), in the Code of Ordinances, defines a variance as a deviation from the literal provisions of the chapter, which is granted by the Board when strict coriformity to the chapter would cause an unnecessary hardship because of the circumstances unique to the property on which the variance is granted 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 finds 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 not create a visual obstruction issue with the adjoining properties. A survey of surrounding properties shows that this non-compliance with the ordinance is not common to the neighborhood. 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 property represents a typical example of standard lots within subdivisions throughout the City.