02/01/2022 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

structure was that it needed to be designed to meet the required wind loads. She continues that when she started working on the site plan for the project, the placement of the carport triggered the variances. Ms. Caffey said she was unaware of how the situation started, but she was hired to assist him with this carport he thought he could build and had made herself available to help him as she can. Lastly, Ms. Caffey explained that with this being an older, corner lot the owner is at a disadvantage since it is already non -conforming as it is. Mr. Walker asked Ms. Caffey if the structure was built to her design to which she responded that she was not involved yet when he put that carport up. The owner had contacted her after receiving the stop work order. Ms. Alsobrook asked Ms. Caffey if she believes the structure that the owner built is safe, and Ms. Caffey replied that she did not believe it is as it exists currently. If the owner were able to move forward with obtaining a permit she would assist him in making it more structurally sound. Mr. Walker stated that the subject lot is an older, sub -standard lot that is not platted like several others in the City of Paris. He went on to say that there have been other lots that have come to the board for variances on things like width, depth, and size, but not plats, so he was concerned about denying the variances because the lot is not platted when there are other properties without plats that have built accessory structures. Mr. Mack then explained that this lot is only 4,500SF, which is at the cusp of the smallest sized lots that will be considered in the new ordinance. Since it is so small it is more difficult to ensure that the minimum setbacks and requirements are met to maintain proper distances between other homes and lots. Mr. Sanders asked for clarification as to whether if even one of the variances was not approved then no building permit could be issued. Mr. Mack confirmed that fact and stated again that if the Board were to approve any of the variances, it would have to provide its own findings of fact to support its decisions. Mr. Sanders asked what the property owner's options would be if all of the variances were denied. Mr. Mack deferred to the City attorney. Ms. Harris stated that what is before the board is the decision of whether or not it is appropriate to approve all eight variances and she does not believe it is material to their decision of what happens after that. Having said that, she stated that she would have to look further into the issue to know whether the structure would have to be removed. Ms. Bruce stated that she disagreed and that she believed it should be material to their decision since it could cause economic hardship to the property owner to have to remove the structure Ms. Harris reminded the Board that economic hardship was not a proper basis for a variance. Mr. Walker stated that the Board could potentially approve the variances with conditions to meet the appropriate building requirements and make the carport structurally sound and code compliant along with the City's recommendation. Mr. Haning stated that there would be no easy way for the property owner to meet all of the required conditions since the lot is small and overbuilt to begin with.