01-22-2004 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment

Browse Search

v, Z • • Zoning Board of Adjustment April 22, 2004 #VO4-002 Page 2 of 3 Conclusion: 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 property may create a problem with adjoining properties. A survey of surrounding properties shows that this non-compliance with the ordinance is not typical to the neighborhood. The patio was built without city permit and stands in violation of city ordinance. 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 lot represents a typical example of property within subdivisions throughout the City and very typical of the spirit of Ordinance 106. The ZBOA's final consideration is whether granting of this request, observes the spirit of the ordinance. Based on the facts noted in this report, the applicant's request would be contrary with the spirit of the ordinance in that all properties, by allowing only a 40% coverage, would present an open appearance and promote the health, safety and welfare of the general public. Variance Request #VO4-002 which seeks a variance for greater than 40% coverage of a standard 6,600 S. F. lot by allowing an existing, non -permitted, roofed patio of 294 S.F. to remain in place is contrary to the provisions established by Ordinance 106, Section 333. Furthermore, the parameters for the requested variance do not, in our opinion, appear to meet the provisions established by Section 106-192. Variances. While recognizing the circumstances associated with the property, the Board could consider: • Allowing the existing structure, put in at the owner's expense, 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 reduce the covered portion of the patio by 185 S. F. (variance denied), leaving a covered structure of 109 S. F. after obtaining a city permit at double the normal fee for a non -permitted work and the resulting structure, again, must meet Code.