11-20-2002 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing

Browse Search

Board of Adjustment 10/24/02 - #A 02-003 Page 2 of 3 which can reasonably be ameliorated taking into account certain factors such as lot configuration, location of the nonconformities, and cost. The City's Zoning and Development ordinances offer a remedy to the property in question. The property owner would need to formally subdivide the property into two separate parcels. Parcel 1 would contain the existing facilities including the nonconformities. Only then would Sec. 106-262(b) Continuance of nonconforming structures apply. Parcel 2 would be the area that the new facilities would be constructed in accordance with today's ordinance standards. This scenario was discussed with the property owner and applicant; however, they chose not to pursue this option. The property owner and applicant also took their case to John Joerns, Assistant City Manager for his review. After careful consideration of the submitted site plan and the applicability of Sec. 106-262, Mr. Joerns upheld stars decision that new buildings and facilities on this site would be an enlargement to an existing nonconforming structure and that Sec. 106-262(g) would apply in this case. Analysis: 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. No reasonable difference exists regarding the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance intent. The construction of new buildings and related facilities clearly is an enlargement of the site that should proceed under Sec. 106-262(g). Remedies exist for the property owner therefore the zoning ordinance cannot be construed as unreasonable. b) That the resulting interpretation will not grant a special privilege to one property inconsistent with other properties or uses similarly situated The zoning ordinance objective is to eliminate and/or ameliorate nonconformities. Typically, eliminating nonconformities is addressed when property owners decide to develop their properties or expand their facilities. Other properties within the City and along 16a' Street have successfully built or expanded their facilities under the guidelines of Sec. 106-262(g). Granting this request would indeed grant a special privilege to this property owner. c) T ate 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 laws and the comprehensive plan of the city.