CCMIN071889 - Laserfiche WebLink

157 he received a call from the City saying the decision had been appealed. He requested that, since the breezeway was apparently granted to whoever built the house, and no disclosures were made during the purchase, he be given the privilege of keeping his house intact and its property value as it was when he purchased it. He indicated that he has not received any complaints from the neighbors and that he had removed the lattice work that the Commission Chairman had objected to as being in disrepair. There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Brandes stated that it was his understanding that in this particular type of situation, the law is very explicit: specific findings have to be made in order to allow this variance. He felt those findings could not be made in this case. Mr. Butler indicated the importance of correcting the misconception mentioned by Mr. Lawson that the City has either approved or allowed the construction of the breezeway. He pointed out that structures like this exist not because the City approved them but because many property owners build them without any building permits. The City is not aware of them and has no manpower to go out looking for them. However, when these are brought to the City's attention, these have to be dealt with. Mr. Mercer stated that the first finding could be made that Mr. Lawson has this piece of property as it was purchased and could try to get his money back, which makes it different from everyone else in his neighborhood. The second finding is that he is going to do nothing more than use what is already there, and this will not be detrimental to public health and safety. Moreover, no neighbors have complained. It was moved by Mr. Brandes and seconded by Mr. Butler that the finding of the Board of Adjustment be overturned and that the appeal be granted. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Brandes and Butler NOES: Councilmembers Mohr, Tarver, and Mayor Mercer ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion failed, therefore upholding the decision of the Board of Adjustment. Resolution No. 89-316 approves the variance. Mr. Lawson inquired if there were more processes to come after this. Mayor Mercer explained that a subsequent motion will follow which would ask him to come down and take out the appropriate permits so that his house would be according to code. This would -10-