Laserfiche WebLink
City Plan Commission <br /> ' October 2,2008 <br /> Page 4 <br /> Mr. Smith asked whether the Zoning Board of Appeals discussed this �ase. <br /> Mr. Crowe stated no, that this type of case would not be for the Zaning Board of Appeals to <br /> discuss. Mr. Crowe stated that an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would go to the City <br /> Plan Commission and City CounciL <br /> Mr. Crowe stated that any interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance made by an administrative <br /> official can be appealable and that the City Council can determine whether or not the <br /> interpretation was an error. ! <br /> Mr. Crowe stated that another reason for the 100 foot setback from adjacent residential lots ' <br /> and/or parcels was because the property could be sold in future years and subdivided and the new , <br /> owners would not be required to pave their driveways. j <br /> Mr. Malenshek stated that he is asking for the right to appeal. Mr. Ma�lenshek stated that there is <br /> no requirement as far as what you can do in your front yard and that e has a really hard time in <br /> paving a certain amount of property for aesthetic reasons. Mr. Malen hek asked for the right to <br /> go before the Zoning Board of Appeals to present the specifics of the property and also the fact <br /> that the neighbors are comfortable with the driveway. <br /> Mr. Smith asked whether the petitioner could apply for a variance. <br /> Mr. Crowe stated no, that the section in the Zoning Ordinance for the Zoning Board of Appeals <br /> lays out what is allowable for variances. Mr. Crowe stated that alterative pavement is not one of <br /> the powers and duties of the Zoning Board of Appeals. <br /> Mr. Crowe stated that a chapter could be added to the section of the Zoning Board of Appeals <br /> powers and duties giving them the power to grant variances for alternative pavement for <br /> residential driveways. <br /> Mr. Clevenger stated that as we move toward the green movement, the argument of catching oil <br /> and foreign elements kind of becomes a moot point. Mr. Clevenger st�ted that if it is an issue of <br /> aesthetics, move forward with that. <br /> Mr. Smith stated that there is no deviation from the ruling. Mr. Smith stated that the amendment <br /> needs to be revised to allow a petitioner to go to the Zoning Board of ppeals so it would not be <br /> just one person making the decision. ' <br /> Mr. Dunn asked whether there was any flexibility with the ruling. Mr. Dunn asked whether the <br /> ruling could run with the property owner and if the property was sold, the ruling would no longer <br /> apply. <br /> Mr. Crowe stated that variances stay with the property, not the owner. <br /> Mr. Anderson asked whether a special use permit would apply. <br />