04-23-09 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment

Browse Search

Board of Adjustment 5/28/09 - #A 09-001 Page 2 of3 Analvsis: In describing the action of appeal, the Code of Ordinances states: In exercising the powers set forth in Section 106-88, the Board of Adjustment may, in conformity with the provisions of this chapter, reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision, or determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have all the powers of the enforcement officer from whom the appeal is taken. The Board must find the following in order to grant an appeal: a) That there is a reasonable difference of interpretation as to the specific intent of the zoning regulations or zoning map, provided the interpretation of the enforcement officer is a reasonable presumption and the zoning ordinance is unreasonable. Current regulations are written in a clear manner which allows the enforcement officer to understand the intent of City Council as it relates to an accessory building. These regulations have been in effect since the January 26, 1987 adoption of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 106) and the special regulations for Large Lot (LL) district since October 24,2005, have not been proven to be "unreasonable". b) That the resulting interpretation will not grant a special privilege to one property inconsistent with other properties or uses similarly situated Current regulations are written in a clear manner that enables individuals to understand City Council's intent. This enables Staff to provide the information to others and be consistent in the enforcement of this regulation. This consistency in the enforcement of the regulation ensures no "special privilege" to anyone property. Granting this request may not give the appearance of granting a special privilege to the property owner. c) The decision of the Board must be in the best interest of the community and consistent with the spirit and interest of the City's Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Staff believes it would conflict with the intent of the regulation and would be inconsistent with the spirit of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The applicant's statement would not be verified without the current survey of the property, as it is stated that "the structure is indeed located at more than five feet from the fence line." The general intent and purpose behind the Zoning Ordinance is to promote public health, safety, and welfare. The enforcement officer's decision in this case would be in the best interest of the community and would be consistent with the spirit and interest of the City's Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City.