03/09/76 Miller to DeLong/Present EvidenceCity of Kalispell
BOARD OF A.DJUSEIENTS
P. 0. Box 518
Kalispell, Montana 59901
March 9, 1976
Mr. Joe DeLong, Chairman
BOARD OF COTINISSIONERS
Flathead County
County Court House
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Dear Joe:
Last evening, March 8, 1976, the regular monthly meeting of
the Board of Adjustments considered again the County's request
for a variance.
At that meeting a motion was passed that the County is to
have one further opportunity to present evidence, The attached
sheet sets forth the particulars that should be proved.
We would suggest that you be ready to submit such proof
sometime after March19, 1976 when our Board expects to again
have a quorum in town. At the present time, two members of
our Board are out of town, and we cannot hold a legal meeting
without a quorum.
Yours very truly,
••��--J. AUSTIN MILLER
Chairman
JAM/s
Enclosure
cc: Harvey Knebel, Secretary
Board of Adjustments
»/cc: Mayor Norma Happ
City of Kalispell
Zoning Ordinance, Section 15, Jurisdiction and Powers, says under paragraph
B-3, "To authorize, upon appeal in specific cases, such variance from the terms
of the ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, where, owing to
special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinancev�ill
result in unnecessary hardship, and so that the spirit of the ordinance shall be
observed and substantial justice done,"
In the application to be filed for a change in use variance, paragraph 10
requires the following compliance:
A. That the strict applications of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with
its general purpose and intent,
B. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property involved, or to the intended use or development of the property,
that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone or neighborhood.
C. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or
neighborhood in which the property is located.
D, For use variance requests indicate why the property in question CANNOT
yield a reasonable return if used ONLY for a purpose allowed in that zone.
It would appear that the County has not proved its case in any of these
regards, The testimony at the public hearing and the exhibits submitted proved
that the County owns the building and that it has a plan to use it for various
offices, However, on the other side, we have numerous persons actively opposing
this change.
It would appear that our Board has only two choices at this time:
1. Deny the variance, or
the County one further opportunity to present evidence of the
Lowing :
Approved plans for traffic flow worked out with the City to
minimize the impact of traffic on the area.
Proof from outside sources that the property in the area
will not be devalued by a change in the use of this facility.
Proof that a hardship exists in their not being able to use
the area under the present zoning regulations.