Loading...
01 SEP 10 A G E N D A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 - 6:30 P.M. CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM 1. CALL TO ORDER: PAGES 2. APPROVAL AND/OR CORRECTION OF MINUTES: Regularly Scheduled Meeting August 13 2001 1-4 VARIANCE REQUEST: a. Vehicle Storage Variance 603 Stevenson Street Petitioner: Alvin L. Winstead 5-7 b. Front Yard Setback Variance 1409 Gregory Street Petitioner: Joseph B. Shetrone 8-10 ADJOURNMENT MINUTES: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING DATE AND TIME: September 10, 2001/ 6:35 p.m. 7:10 p.m. ATTENDANCE: Chairman Mark Perry Commissioners: Bobby Lester, Martha Boyd, and William Montgomery City Representative, City Engineer Whisker ________________________________________________________________________ City Clerk Susan Davitt recorded those listed above in attendance and Chairman Perry declared a quorum. APPROVAL AND/OR CORRECTION OF MINUTES: Commissioner Boyd moved, seconded by Commissioner Montgomery to approve the minutes of the regular Board of Adjustment meeting of August 13, 2001 as presented. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE(S) REQUESTED: a. VEHICLE STORAGE VARIANCE/603 Stevenson Street DEVIATION IN AGENDA: b. FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE/1409 Gregory Street Chairman Perry opened the public hearing at approximately 6:36 p.m. Mr. Joseph B. Shetrone referred to photographs provided and further presented information regarding the dimension of the home. He pointed out that the home featured a carport adjacent to the front of the home when he purchased it in 1986. He explained existing difficulty with his neighbors next door, which began in the summer of 1985 when they moved in. He stated that three juvenile children of the residence have created noise in the street as late as 11:45 p.m. He went on to relate an occasion when the children were playing basketball not only in their driveway and front yard but also into his driveway and front yard. He stated that his vehicle was hit several times with the basketball while parked under the carport, and that the house was hit as well. He related that he asked them to “stay off his property” and keep the basketball from hitting the house and vehicle. He related that when the circumstances continued, he spoke to the father who responded by saying that if one of his children were to break a car window he would pay for it. He continued that he then explained to the father that he did not feel that would be good enough, saying that he did not want the house or vehicle hit with the basketball. He further explained to the father that the house was hit in the area of the den where he reads, breaking his concentration. He stated that the father did not respond, but turned and walked into his house. He related that after that conversation the basketball did not hit his car or house for a while. He went on to say that the parents divorced and the father left the residence, adding that the children then resumed the previous behavior. He related that he has observed as many as three of the children in his back yard, adding that he did not feel this is right. He stated the children should have asked for permission to retrieve the ball from the back yard. He stated that he continued to ask them to stay off the property, but they continued to come onto the property playing basketball and running by the front window under the carport. He related BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING September 10, 2001 the noise factor associated with their behavior and stated that they continued to enter the back yard. He said that two-years after the activity began he made a Police report, and began getting harassing hang-up phone calls frequently, adding that when the Police talked to them the phone calls stopped. He pointed out that many times he made complaints without filing a formal Police report. He presented reports documenting times when he talked to the Police regarding criminal trespassing and harassment charges made during 1997 and 1998 and a complaint on December 22, 1998 regarding verbal harassment that he received from a juvenile who lived next door. He stated that he also complained about finger writing on the back window of his car parked in the carport. He went on to say that he also made complaints because the children had spit on the window of his house, relating that he turned the outside lights on to deter them from jumping the fence. He stated that he would like to review the actual reports. Chairman Perry clarified with Mr. Shetrone that the request comes in response to the action from the neighbor children. Mr. Shetrone stated that these are the reasons he built the garage. In response to a question from Commissioner Montgomery, Mr. Shetrone related that the same children are still in the neighborhood. He then stated that he does not see the children on the property anymore, but did not actually see them when they were writing on the back of his car window or spitting on the windows and turning the hood ornament on the car. He stated that he has not doubt that it was the children next door and their friends, he added that it was a conspiracy of a large number of people. In reviewing the Police reports he stated that the reports are made basically against his next-door neighbors, he pointed out a report regarding trespassing in June of 1997. He then pointed out a letter from the prosecuting attorney to the older boy who lived next door, adding that currently he is not living next-door, but visits frequently. He stated that the report addressing the boy retrieving the ball from his property and looking through the windows of his house. He reviewed that the next report is dated June 1997 when he made a complaint regarding harassment and trespassing. Chairman Perry stated that it is evident that there is a problem, but added that it would seem to be a civil matter. In response to a question from Commissioner Montgomery, Mr. Shetrone related that the complaints are based on activity in 1997 through 1999. He related that he quit calling the Police in 1999, in hopes that if he quit calling the Police, they would quit doing things. He stated that since that time they began playing Frisbee under the streetlight, which is directly in front of his house as late as mid-night, 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. He stated that this activity occurred almost every other weekend with as many as six boys playing and making noise. He stated that he let one of the other neighbors call the Police because he decided he was fed up with calling the Police. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING September 10, 2001 Chairman Perry asked Mr. Shetrone if enclosing the carport would eliminate noise from the street. Mr. Shetrone stated that it would not because they play directly in front of his home, but added that the garage does protect the car. He stated that the 1995 car looks brand new and is the reason he spent $2,500 to construct the garage. Chairman Perry referred to the letter from the City Engineer dated July 30, 2001 and asked how much of the construction was completed at that time. Mr. Shetrone stated that the framing had been completed and the contractor was painting the structure. In response to a question from Chairman Perry regarding the need for a building permit, Mr. Shetrone related that he was not aware he needed a building permit, saying that he had asked his contractor to take care of all legal matters and obtain all required permits. Mr. Mike Arbock stated that he called the permit place in April and was told that he did not need one. He related that a friend had done a similar job when he turned the carport into a bedroom and was also told he did not need a permit, because he had stayed inside the carport. He pointed out that the garage is inside the carport by 1 foot on all sides. Mr. Shetrone offered photographs showing that the construction was within the limits of the previous carport, which also shows that the carport is attached to the house. It was noted that the construction has been completed and features the original roof that was on the pre-existing carport. Mr. Shetrone then related that one of the juveniles from next-door tried to break into his house and a Police report was filed. He produced a copy of the letter to the Juvenile Authorities to demonstrate that he did pursue the matter. Chairman Perry stated that while a garage is a nice asset, it will not deter someone from breaking into a home. Mr. Shetrone stated that to keep anyone from breaking into the house he had iron bars installed, adding that the pre-existing window in the new garage has bars as well. He stated that the purpose for the enclosed carport is only to protect the vehicle. City Engineer Whisker stated that when the construction was discovered his office addressed a stop construction notice to Mr. Shetrone, asking him to seek a variance from the Board of Adjustment. Discussion ensued and it was noted that the carport is 27’ pass the building line. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING September 10, 2001 City Engineer Whisker related that the house is located approximately at the building setback line with the carport constructed directly in front of the home. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Lester, Mr. Arbock related that he was told that he did not need a building permit because there was an existing structure located there attached to the house. He stated that the enclosed area is inside the roofline of the existing structure. He was not sure who had given him that information in April but related that a friend of his on the Air Force Base had constructed a bedroom from a two-car carport and the City had inspected the project and told his friend during the time of construction that he did not need a permit because he was inside the building line. In response to a question from Commissioner Lester, City Attorney Bamburg related that construction inside the parameters of a roofline would still require a building permit. He stated that who ever Mr. Arbock had spoken with was incorrect in telling him that he did not need a building permit. He then related that the furthering of the situation involves a carport that is already in violation of the setback ordinance. He clarified that the carport should have received a variance when it was added to the front of the home. He proposed that the carport must have been added without a building permit or variance. He stated that the question before the Board is to decide if the petitioner is entitled to variance and if the City Engineer can, after the fact, issue a building permit for the record. He added that if the Board does choose to grant a variance it should specifically state the allowable distance from the street. Mr. Arbock related that the garage is 27’6” from the curb. Discussion ensued and it was noted that the carport was pre-existing when the owner purchased the home 1986. It was then noted that the standard setback is 35 feet. City Engineer Whisker related that measuring 50’ from the centerline would require a variance total of 11.5 feet. City Attorney Bamburg clarified that there are no issues regarding side setbacks. Commissioner Lester related that he had viewed the new construction and did not feel that aesthetically it looked good in the neighborhood, further mentioning the flat roof. He stated that if the request had come before the Board for a variance prior to construction, he would not have voted in favor of a setback variance of that amount. He sympathized with the problems Mr. Shetrone has experienced regarding his neighbors, and added that he cannot understand why the Police were not able to control the situation. Mr. Shetrone responded that his neighbors do not respect the Police. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING September 10, 2001 In response to a question from Commissioner Lester, Mr. Shetrone related that the matter had not gone before the courts or been prosecuted. He stated that several letters from the Prosecuting Attorney were sent to his next-door neighbor. Commissioner Lester offered that prosecution may have helped stop the harassment, asking why the matter was never prosecuted. Mr. Shetrone stated that prosecution is up to the prosecuting attorney and that the Police in Jacksonville are very different from where he used to live in Los Angeles. Commissioner Montgomery questioned if the neighbors are still harassing him. Mr. Shetrone stated that the amount of harassment is not as much of an issue as it used to be. He related that four teenage boys use to just stare at him when he drove into his driveway and also when he would leave the house. He stated that they do not do that anymore, adding that the only thing they do now is play Frisbee in front of the house, but stated that they are the same people who have caused all these problems in the past. Chairman Perry offered that hopefully time has taken its toll and they have grown up some. Commissioner Montgomery clarified with Mr. Shetrone that the only reason he enclosed the carport was to protect the car he had purchased. Mr. Shetrone agreed, saying that is the only reason and adding that he would not have had it built only for that reason but also given the amount of harassment over the past six-years from a large number of people who live and visit next-door. He said that harassment is the reason including scratches on his other car. In response to a question from Chairman Perry, City Attorney Bamburg stated that if the variance were denied, the new construction would have to be removed. He then related that the Board would need to designate a time period for removal, adding that if it were not removed within that time frame a citation would be issued. Alderman Howard stated that an open carport in front of a house looks a lot better in a neighborhood it lines up with the setback. He stated that the enclosed carport has a boxed-off effect that interferes with the setback of the entire area. He sympathized with Mr. Shetrone’s situation, but stated that when he was a Board of Adjustment Commissioner they had a similar request that was denied a building permit and they built it anyway. He stated that even though the petitioner had invested a large sum in the construction, it had to be taken down. He concluded that he did not feel the enclosure has a pleasing effect to the neighborhood. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING September 10, 2001 Alderman Stroud voiced concern for setting a precedent. He related that he had constructed an addition to his home and was stopped by the City to seek a 6” variance from the Board of Adjustment. He stated that before he was granted the variance he had gotten permission from all his neighbors on the street and that the 6” variance did not obstruct the view up and down the street, so the variance was granted. Commissioner Lester moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyd to deny the request for a setback variance. MOTION CARRIED. Complexity for removal of the construction was discussed and the Consensus was to allow Mr. Shetrone 45-days to restore the structure to its original state before enclosing the carport. Discussed followed and it was accepted that the pre-existing carport is to be considered grandfathered. City Engineer Whisker will work with Mr. Shetrone regarding restoration to the original status involving certain structural framing issues. Discussion ensued regarding mis-information that may have been given about building permit requirements for the different types of construction. City Engineer Whisker clarified that most remodels do require a building permit. RESUME AGENDA: a. VEHICLE STORAGE VARIANCE/603 Stevenson Street City Attorney Bamburg related that it is his understanding that when Mr. Winstead appeared before the Board of Adjustment the previous month he had been cited in 1995 for vehicle storage. City Engineer Whisker pointed out that this was a different but similar issue. City Attorney Bamburg related that variances have been granted in the past because of health related problems for a petitioner. He clarified that the Board of Adjustment previously operated on the theory that if the vehicle could not be seen from the street then they were not creating a violation of the ordinance. He then pointed out that the City is attempting to remove those vehicles from public view and public access to 1) eliminate aesthetic issues and 2) to eliminate safety issues regarding children playing around an abandoned car. He stated that with recent ordinance changes the City is requiring an enclosure in some form or fashion, which at this point is interpreted to be a garage. He went on to say that it is his understanding that even though Mr. Winstead has the vehicles in the back yard there is no structure over them, adding that it is also his understanding that the neighbors have complained because of weed growth. He stated that in granting a variance, the Board can follow the previous example and provide very detailed instructions as to what is required. He stated that the Board can set up a time frame for restoration completion, check points in the time frame to monitor BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING September 10, 2001 progress, require a particular structure be put into play or require him to comply with the terms of the ordinance and place the vehicles in an enclosure. He related that City Council creates the ordinances and gives the Board the authority to enforce it with some flexibility. He cited the same example as when a Police officer may not always issue a ticket for speeding. He stated that the Board does have the discretion, in this circumstance, to create an acceptable term of how the petitioner needs to complete the restoration as opposed to granting a variance outright. He stated that with those circumstances in mind his suggestion would be to set parameters including anything from time, progress, structure surrounding it, tarps or the condition of yard to ensure that there are no undesirable circumstances stemming from neglect. It was the consensus of the Board to rescheduled for the next called meeting of the Board of Adjustment. Alderman Stroud mentioned a previous request to build a garage for the storage of an antique vehicle after it is restored, adding that he agrees with the time frame idea. He stated that the City wants fairness and consistency. He reminded the Board that their decision will create a precedence and to bear in mind that the City is trying to clean up Jacksonville. Discussion ensued and it was noted that if a vehicle shows active signs of restoration they are not tagged. Other discussion followed regarding acceptable levels for active restoration. In response to a question from Commissioner Lester, City Engineer Whisker related that a vehicle being restored can remain in the front yard if it shows signs of progress. Discussion ensued regarding the difficulty of availability of parts regarding rare automobiles. Commissioner Lester noted that Mr. Winstead had submitted letters from adjoining neighbors who did not mind the vehicles being stored in the back yard. Commissioner Montgomery moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyd to table the public hearing until the next called Board of Adjustment meeting and send Mr. Winstead notice of hearing. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Perry adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:10 p.m. MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully, _________________________ _____________________________ Susan L. Davitt Mark Perry CITY CLERK - TREASURER CHAIRMAN