VN-238 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t- `'` ~ EXTRACT OF MINUTES NEW 6RIGHTON PLANNING .COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING. OCTOBER 16,1984 LAWSON, VN-23g Staff explained hat the request -'was"ri or a zero setback. The 7:45 P.M. - new :deck was constructed in the..same location as a 8:00 P.M. previously existing .deck. The~staff~recommendation is to . deny-the variance request<because neither he lot nor the placement of the house on the lot is unique. Commissiones Baker asked why the applicant's variance request was not subject to Section 4-580(b), setback`' exemptions, which only `requires a 2 foot setback. Staff respondedthat the interpretation was, as long as she -had been at the City, that a deck was subject to the building setback requirements and it was under the, basis the building official had issued building permits. .John Lawson explained their variance request .and presented pictures of the previous deck, Commissioner Solberg asked if .the deck was in the same location as the previous deck. Mr. Lawson responded it was. It had-not been their intention to violate the City Code but to replace an older -deck which was fd1ling apart with a new .deck. Commissioner Solberg asked if any of .their neighbors had: an,objection'to the deck. Mr. Lawson presented a petition signed by their neighbors indicating they had no objection to the deck. Chairman Williams asked fi_ it had beensigned by immediate neighbors. Mr. Lawson stated it was. He further stated there were trees in the backyard which would prevent building a deck more to the rear of the property. Commissioner.Sande asked what the condition of the old deck was when:it was removed. Mrs. Lawson stated the old deck had deteriorated to the point where her husband could put his foot through:it. Motion by Leverkuhn, seconded by Sande, to accept a petition of .10 neighbors•.immediately adjacent to the Lawson's property in favor of the applicant's variance request. Commissioner Solberg stated she was a neighbor of the applicant and she was also ignorant of the fact a building permit was needed for the deck. She stated that the deck was not a - threat to the health or safety of the public, that the new deck .was actually more safe than the old one and she would recommend ,that the variance be granted. It could be-found that the City was actually in -error in letting ~the~-on-ginal'deckstand.