Loading...
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.