Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Hardship topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board questions applicant on hardship, topography and alternatives for Edgewood fence request
Summary
During the Aug. 6 hearing, board members pressed the applicant on whether corner-lot configuration and topography met the zoning code's hardship criteria and whether alternatives such as landscaping or a smaller variance could address privacy needs.
Board members spent a substantial part of the Aug. 6 hearing examining whether the applicant met the zoning code’s hardship requirements for a setback variance at 300 Edgewood Boulevard.
When the chair asked the applicant to "state your code based hardship for the record," David Lorum replied that the primary hardship is the property’s corner-lot status with two technical front yards, explaining the project aims to identify which side is the front and which is the side for setback purposes. A board member followed up by asking whether the topography alone would prevent building the fence at the required setback; the applicant said topography would make a stepped fence necessary and that, practically, the corner-lot classification was the principal hardship.
Board members explored numerical alternatives: the applicant described an approximate 8-foot encroachment (noting 9 feet as a reference point) and a 6-foot fence height; one board member asked whether the applicant had considered a smaller, conditional reduction rather than the full 8-foot request. The applicant said builder-city coordination was ongoing and that some middle-ground solutions might be achievable, but the record showed the applicant did not convince the board that the hardship criterion was met. The board ultimately moved to deny the variance.
