08-15-1985 Public Hearing - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Chairman Wilson and tubers of the Commission City of LaPorte Page 18 ' City'Council of the City of La Porte, and the proposed ordinance. Removal of this section from the Ordinance would not remove the requirement,, since this ordinance section correlates Zoning ordinance. requirements to existing building code requirements, so that builders will. have every opportunity to know that the requirement exists, and so our zoning regulations are clear and consistent with our building code regulations. ANALYSIS;:. Leave :.this section of the ordinance as is. 35) Section. 11-60.6(,2) (c) (2): Citizen comments indicate that the definition of "unneccessary hardships", as defined,. be changed to include economic hardship as well as physical hardship. State law and court cases clearly and. repetitively specify that "unneccesary hardship" shall mean physicial hardship relating to the property itself as distinguished from hardship relating to convenience, financial considerations or caprice and that the hardship must not result from the applicant or property owner's own actions. The City of La Porte would adopt an ordinance that is not consistent with State Law and court decisions if this definition was changed to include mere economic hardship. ANALYSIS: This section of the ordinance should remain as is. 36) Section 11-612: Citizen comment recommends that an applicant who is denied a variance, special exception or appeal would not be able to reapply for anew variance, special exception, or appeal from a determina- tion of the. zoning administrator from the board of adjustment for a period of six months after the original denial. This would change the proposed zoning requirement that would deny reapplication for a period of_ one year from the date of the original denial. Current Orc1i,nance 780 provides that there should be no reapplication for a; period of one year from the date of original denial. This provision has not caused difficulty and has not been a problem in tte past. Shorting the period from one year to six months might make this ordinance section a problem due to increased work load on the board of adjustment and city staff. ANALYSIS: Leave this section of the ordinance as is. 37) R-3 Zone: Citizen input indicates that the high density residential zone in the proposed Ordinance is not necessary, particularly since there might be cases in which these districts would be adjoining traditional low density single family detached residential zones,