Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City of Centerville <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />March 14,2007 <br /> <br />answer for approving the variance for Lot 6. He indicated there is no clear line stating <br />the variance must be approved or denied. <br /> <br />City Attorney Glaser stated the facts concern the road, the proposed home, and the <br />wetlands. He stated that Lot 6 was a legal sized lot; however, unique circumstances exist <br />with overlapping setbacks and floodplain issues. It is not feasible to construct a home <br />farther back on the parcel and the Hanzals have proposed to construct the home in a <br />specified area that requires a variance. Attorney Glaser stated that Council must <br />determine whether a hardship exists for Lot 6 due to the unique circumstances. <br /> <br />City Attorney Glaser stated that the contentious issues are whether the variance is an <br />undue hardship or was it created by the Hanzals. Attorney Glaser stated that the Hanzals <br />purchased the property exactly the way it is today. Attorney Glaser also stated that <br />previous law stated that if property is purchased with issues, it is a self-created hardship <br />He stated this law has been since overturned by the Supreme Court. <br /> <br />City Attorney Glaser stated that the proposed plat contained five additional lots, and even <br />though the Hanzals bought into the problem, the only way to build on Lot 6 would be to <br />remove the existing home and this creates a hardship. <br /> <br />City Attorney Glaser reported traffic was also a stated concern. He indicated the <br />Planning and Zoning Commission felt this could be overcome by proper placement of the <br />proposed home. He stated the vote was 5/2 with two members feeling this was a self- <br />created hardship. <br /> <br />City Attorney Glaser reported the conclusion by Planning and Zoning was that a hardship <br />existed that required a variance. He stated the Planning and Zoning Commission <br />recommended that conditions be placed on the variance to include: the size of the <br />proposed home be 3,000' or larger for the purpose of maintaining the value of the <br />adjoining properties, the control to be left with the Hanzals, and the building permit be <br />issued to only the Hanzals. <br /> <br />City Attorney Glaser stated the questions before Council are adopting the factual <br />findings, make amendments and if adopted to move to adopt or deny the variance, to <br />approve the rezoning, associated comprehensive plan amendment, and approving the <br />nn~limim'rv nlM <br />r- -----~------.1 r---. <br /> <br />Mayor Capra stated the variance expires in one year. She explained the applicant would <br />be required to satisfy all building codes within the City. She commented she attended <br />the March hearing as did Attorney Glaser. Council Member Broussard attended the first <br />public hearing. She commented the Commission completed due diligence and all parties <br />were given an opportunity to be heard. <br /> <br />Council Member Broussard stated many of the same issues were brought up at both <br />meetings. She stated the Commission listened to comments of residents, discussed and <br />debated the variance in great detail. <br /> <br />Page 6 of 13 <br /> <br />J <br />