11-17-10 Special Called Meeting and Public Hearing of the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment

Browse Search

Zoning Board of Adjustment December 8, 2010 #V 10-002 Page 2 of3 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 deck 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 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 on the curve within subdivisions throughout the City. Conclusion: Variance Request #VIO-002, which seeks a variance for 6" over the height limit, by allowing an existing, non-permitted, deck with guardrail to remain in place, is contrary to the provisions 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. While recognizing the circumstances associated with the property and all over the neighborhood, the Board could consider: · Allowing the existing structure to remain in place (variance granted) with the stipulation that a City permit is obtained at double the normal fee as allowed by the building code for a non-permitted work. · Allowing the owner to lower the deck to comply with the requirement of the ordinance (variance denied).