My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005.04.14 BOZA Minutes
Hugo
>
Community Development
>
Board of Zoning
>
BOZA Minutes
>
2005 BOZA Minutes
>
2005.04.14 BOZA Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2016 3:42:58 PM
Creation date
1/12/2016 2:28:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commissions
Meeting Date
4/14/2005
Document Type
Minutes
Commission Name
Board of Zoning
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />HUGO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS <br />APRIL 14, 2005 <br />Chairperson Schumann called the meeting to order at 6:33 <br />PRESENT: Brunotte, Schumann <br />ABSENT: Puleo <br />ALSO PRESENT: Bryan Bear, Community Development Director (CDD) <br />Michele Lindau, Community Development Assistant <br />Minutes March 24 2005 <br />Brunotte made motion, Schumann seconded, to recommend approval of the minutes of March 24, <br />2005 as submitted. <br />All Ayes. Motion carried. <br />Variance for Bob and Dawn Dittle for Porch <br />The Board considered the application of Bob and Dawn Dittle, 14471 Glenbrook Avenue North, <br />for a variance to construct a three season porch six feet, three inches from the side property line, <br />where ten feet is required by ordinance. The applicant was requesting to remove the existing <br />deck and construct an 11 X 25 foot porch. The deck is located approximately six feet from the <br />side yard property line and was constructed prior to the ordinance change in 1999 where the side <br />yard setback was increased from five feet to ten feet. <br />Dawn Dittle, the applicant, explained that she did not consider her lot typical; the lot was narrow <br />in the front and wider in the rear so the rear portion would meet the setback. She said if she <br />located the porch elsewhere, she would be unable to us the sliding glass door. When they <br />purchased the house, they intended to eventually construct a porch in that location, which would <br />have met the set backs at that time. They were unaware that the setbacks could change. <br />Schumann said that though it was not necessarily a hardship, the deck was already there. He <br />pointed out that no neighbors were in attendance. <br />Brunotte said that future neighbors may not like the porch there. <br />Schumann said he felt an enclosed porch would seem less intrusive than an open deck. If the <br />porch was built elsewhere on the home, the deck would still be out of compliance with the <br />current ordinance. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.