04-22-2004 Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of the La Porte Zoning Board of Adjustment

Browse Search

,. ':" . . . . Zoning Board of Adjustment May 27, 2004 . #V04-004 Page 2 of3 Conclusion: excepti~nal 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; ~d .:. That by grantirig tQe variance, the spirit of the chapter will be observed. In detenninirig 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. Staff reviewed the site plans of the surrounding properties . . cited by the applicants as being "...this same floor plan 'on the smaller lots down our street and in our neighborhood..." in regards to obtaining city building permits. We found that, based on the floor plans and size oflots, these residences range from 38.1 % to . 39.9% coverage. The issue of the 40% coverage is. being discussed with the Planning and Zoning Commission to rec~ive guidance and input. A survey of surrounding cities is being . conducted to see how they handle issues of "roof coverage" and "impervious cover" in . . .... regards to open space and drainage. Inltial responses place coverage betWeen 50% ~d 55% with some .cities including all paved surfac~s in the equation. Staff will formalize the findings and report to P&Z and ZBOA. The ZBO.A.'s final consideration is whether granting of this request, observes the spirit of the ordinance. Variance Request #V04-004 which seeks a variance for greater than 40% coverage of a standard 8,288 S. F. .lot by allowing an existing, non-permitted, roofed patio of 387 S.F. to remain in place is contrary to the provisioils established by Ordinance 106, Section 333. Furthermore, the parameters for the requested variance do not, in our opinion, appear t~ meet the provisions establi.shed by S~ction 106-192, Variances. While recogr$ing the cjr(:wnstances associated with the property, the Boafd could consider: . Allowing the eXisting structure, put in at the owner's expense, to remain in place (variance granted). .. . Should the Board deny the variance and given that the house itself is within 1 S.F. of the allowable coverage of 40%, the entire cover of the patio would have. to be removed to be in compliance.