Laserfiche WebLink
Planning and Zoning Commission <br />March 19, 1992 <br /> ,, <br /> <br />.Page 8 <br /> <br />Mr. Hartgen said he would like to make a comment or two <br />on findings of fact. His concern is lack of information <br />on the part of the applicant's recent purchase. He built <br />a driveway and later decided that he could cover the <br />vehicle. It seems that the board is going quite far out <br />on a limb here if the board were to approve this. They <br />have no assurance that it would pass and engineer's <br />inspection. All the board has is a photo. He does not <br />see how the board can let it go much further. It is <br />unfortunate that we have a situation like this. <br /> <br />Mr. Newton said he would like to add, just for <br />clarification, what the board is being asked to look at <br />is the variance on the height and the setback. In terms <br />of passing any judgment as to whether or not it will meet <br />State Building Code, we are not being asked to review <br />that, that will be dealt with separately. This issue <br />deals separately and distinctly with the setback. <br /> <br />Chairperson Randall asked if anyone would like to address <br />the standards, setback and heights. <br /> <br />Mr. Amos said the first one is the one that gives him the <br />most difficulty, because it says the alleged hardships or <br />practical difficulties are unique and singular as regards <br />to the property of the person requesting the variance and <br />are not those suffered in common with other property <br />similarly located. Based on the relatively small lot <br />size and the septic concerns that have been shown, it <br />seems like there may be a large number of other neighbors <br />in the vicinity which would have the same problem if they <br />elected to build a garage for their RV. <br /> <br />Mr. Hurlocker stated in his mind he thinks the board <br />approached it several times with the septic area. That <br />in his mind creates a uniqueness. He thinks the board <br />has gone through length getting testimony from both Mr. <br />Davis and ~Mr. Trammell. The letters from the Health <br />Department stating that the line is in and it is fragile <br />and in good judgment, Mr. Trammell chose to put the <br />building and his parking where it would not disturb his <br />line. Mr. Hurlocker said in his mind he thinks Mr. <br />Trammell meets the criteria. <br /> <br />Chairperson Randall said she would concur on that. On <br />number 1 she did have the environmental health statement <br />down as evidence to support that. Number 2 is the one <br />she had more difficulty with, and that statement is- The <br />alleged hardships and practical difficulties, which will <br />result from failure to grant the variance, extend to the <br /> <br /> <br />