Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 5 of 8 <br />Board of Adjustment <br />Staff Report of 3-24-94 <br />#A93-004 <br /> <br />Issue number 3 states: ''The ordinance is preempted by Federal Law." Again, while staff <br />and the City's legal counsel dispute this assertation, it is not an issue to be resolved by the <br />Board of Adjustment. The Board must base its decision on whether or not the zoning <br />regulation in question is reasonable. <br /> <br />Issue number 4 states: ''The ordinance is preempted by State Law." Staff and the City's <br />legal counsel also dispute this statement. But again, the Board must base its decision on <br />whether or not the zoning regulation in question is reasonable. <br /> <br />As already noted, the Board is given a limited number of specific charges on which to base <br />its decision when considering an appeal. <br /> <br />· Is there a reasonable difference of interpretation as to the specific intent of <br />the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map? <br /> <br />The answer to this question is no. There is no reasonable difference of interpretation. <br />Section 4-200 of the Zoning Ordinance states: ''The general public, the Planning <br />Commission and the Board [of Adjustment] are directed to take note that non-conformities <br />in the use and development of land and buildings are to be avoided, or eliminated where <br />now existing, wherever and whenever possible.... It shall be the responsibility of the <br />Planning Commission and the Board to assist the City Council in achieving this goal." <br /> <br />The intent of the Zoning Ordinance is clear in regards to this matter. Non-conforming <br />structures are ultimately to be removed from the City. <br /> <br />· Is the interpretation of the enforcement officer a reasonable presumption and <br />is the Zoning Ordinance unreasonable? <br /> <br />The decision of the Building Official was reasonable in that it was clearly based on Zoning <br />Ordinance requirements. Additionally, the ordinance itself is reasonable in that it <br />establishes several provisions to protect the rights and interests of property owners. This <br />is evidenced by provisions for allowing for repair and maintenance of non-conforming <br />structures, even those that have been damaged or allowed to deteriorate. It is only when <br />a non-conforming structure is effectively destroyed that right of continued non-conformity <br />ceases. <br /> <br />Furthermore, upholding the Building Official's decision will not prevent the applicant from <br />establishing another home on her property. It will only prohibit placement of another <br />