No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.w. Request to Set a Public Hearing to Appeal the Decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals to Approve a 2.5 for fence height variance to allow Construction of a 6'fence in front yard of 14292 Crofton Court for Stephen and Roxanne Sipe:AI0I13V 113mfloa AID Woo uOUOJD Z6ZtI IV Paleool ATzadozd 110111 uo aouPJ U zoJ aotreuen ItlBiatl , S Z L zoj Isonbaz s,adiS atll anozdde of sleaddV SuiuoZ jo pzeog atlj jo uoismop atjl moinaz of tOOZ 1 9 �zunu f zoj fuutatl oilgnd L las of uoiloW Nol l av QMQAI21b1 ROMH •luoddte atll jo SuLmoq ioj ss000zd oul puu Irodde Pip jo ldiooaz3o pogilou uoog sutl lueoilddu au,I, - t ooZ `9 ,Czenuer ag pinom goitlm `Suilaatu Iiounoo ,�I!D o1gpum Ixou aul zoj palnpatlos ag Iiim ItaddV auZ «'Ilounoo XI!D atlj of uoispop aul luodde XuTu uoispop aul Xg Paloogu Xpodoid atlt jo ,OS£ uitllim Suipisaz zo Xpodojd 2uiumo uoszad K uu zo pounoo XI!D otll jo zaquiatu u `zolvilsmiumv SuiuoZ auT `lueoilddu Pill `sluouilsnfpV pur sleoddV jo pmog Pill jo uoTloe atjl o s�Cep ut3Izonn 0I uiulit4l„ `salels aomutpzp SuiuoZ oqL •Iznoo uoijoiD Z6Zt I It' P.MX IuozJ aul ui oouPJ 9 zpo uoilonilsuoo Ittuzad of aoueutn lu�iau s Z r 1=2 of uoispop sluatulsnfpV pue sleaddV jo pzrog aul poluaddu s�etl XPI zaguzatuliounoD :AS Q3AOHaav XauzollV wag oujoW `IraddV jo zolloq :S LNHNH3VZZV V 1 *ON V(lNla9V zoloaziQ luauzdolanaQ XJIMuzuzoD `Isinbpuiq uzrx :Ag Qauvaa Id •od1S ouvxoj pule uaudolS zoj IznoD uoljoiD Z6Zt 3o P .M luozJ atll ui aouaj ,9 VJo uoilorulsuoo nnolle oI ootreiren I11210u 33uP3 IooJ s•Z V anozddV luosuoo of uo -ppV of sleaddV SuiuoZ jo pzuog otli jo uoisiooQ :NollagS VQNgOV aul poddV of OuueaH oilgncl L' IPS oT Isanbog :lVgjLl VQAIggV £OOZ 191 zaguraoaQ :oju(j FupooW IiounoD ,(I!D uolz3V HOJ AUVWIVfIS :Inlsrl3aXa INfloWlsO 3o ALIT December 16, 2003 Attn: Planning Department According to the zoning ordinance 14.2F. a member of the City Council may appeal the decision of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. This is to notify you that I am appealing the decision of the Board relating to the Sipe variance for a height variance to construct a 6' fence. Sin erely, Ma ley City Council Member Received 12/12/03 via email Jamie, The Planning Commission recently approved a variance application for a fence in the front yard of a corner lot. You have asked whether such a variance can expose the City to civil liability or create a precedent for future variance requests I understand that the fence will not obstruct the sight triangle protected by City Code. Although it may impair visibility of crossing traffic somewhat, it would have no greater effect than trees or shrubs planted in the same location. Although the City would not want to create an unreasonably unsafe condition for public policy reasons, I do not believe that granting, such a variance would expose the City to any significant risk of civil liability. Granting a variance does not create a legally binding precedent for future variance applications. The Council can legally decline to grant a variance under similar circumstances in the future. However, granting a variance can, as a practical matter, have effects that are similar to precedent in some ways. If the Council grants one or more variances and later denies a variance in similar circumstances, the denial may be challenged as arbitrary and capricious. The granting of variances in previous cases under the same circumstances could be presented as evidence that denial was arbitrary and capricious. Such evidence could cast doubt on the validity or importance of reasons stated for denial in the findings or could be used as evidence that denial violated equal protection guarantees of state and federal constitutions or was based on impermissible, discriminatory reasons Therefore, granting variances could increase the difficulty of defending the denial of similar variances in the future. Other effects of granting such a variance are that it becomes politically more difficult for present and future councils to deny later variance applications and more likely that the public will become more distrustful of government if an application is denied. Applicants are often quick to discover and point out situations where the A, City has granted variances in the past and it is difficult for them to understand why they should not be given the same consideration as people who were granted variances earlier. In general, then, although granting a variance does not create a legally binding precedent for similar applications in the future, it can become difficult to change course once a City Council has granted one or more similar variances. Charlie