Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUntitled (3)Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes December 7, 2009 Page 3 Discussion was held regarding a six foot high wooden privacy fence that ran along the rear property line of the building that had been installed by the original developer. Mr. Brown advised that he would research the code and get back to the board on whether or not that fence complied with the city code. Mr. Brown gave staffs analysis and variance evaluation criteria, as per city code Section 110-37. He advised that special conditions and circumstances existed which were peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved which were not applicable to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district. He advised that the pool was 15 ft. from the property line, and without a variance it was not possible to construct an enclosure that would allow a person to walk around the pool. There was nothing peculiar about the pool and deck that would preclude the applicants from meeting the rear setback. A side yard setback of 25 ft. for a 6 ft. high fence was onerous. He explained that a corner lot could not have a privacy fence that any other lot could have without giving up 25 ft. of the side yard. He advised that a permit was pulled for a shed in 1986, but staff was unable to determine if the permit was pulled for the existing shed. Regardless, the shed was not placed in the location shown on the permit or in the location that the current city code allowed. He advised that there were no conditions peculiar to the property that would support the need for a rear setback variance, given the size and shape of the yard and the location of the pool; and there was no other place to locate the pool accessories to meet city code requirements. Mr. Brown gave his literal interpretation of Section 110-37. He advised that the applicant would be deprived of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district, under the terms of the applicable chapter and would work unnecessary and be an undue hardship on the applicants. He advised that the property owners would be deprived of having a screen enclosure over a pool that allowed reasonable use of the pool; they would be deprived of having a privacy fence that others in the same zoning district enjoy; there was no other location for accessories to meet the city code; however, the owners would not be deprived of the right to have an accessory structure (shed) that others would have. Mr. Brown advised that the special conditions and circumstances did not result from the actions of the applicants. He advised that the only circumstance requiring a variance that was of the applicants doing was the rear setback for the screen enclosure. All other circumstances existed when the applicants purchased the property. Mr. Brown advised that the approval of the variance requested would not confer on the applicants any special privileges that were denied by the city code to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. He explained that it _ 1 _ .:1 _ _ i _ 1_ _ _ 1 _ was not a privilege w nave a screen enclosure, and all the other circumstances existed when the applicants purchased the property.