Loading...
04 JUN 14 A G E N D A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 14, 2004 - 6:15 P.M. CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. APPROVAL AND/OR CORRECTION OF MINUTES: Regular Scheduled Meeting May 10, 2004 1-4 3. VARIANCE REQUEST(S): a. Front Yard Setback Variance 1500 Bedford Street Petitioner: John Burton 5-6 b. Front Yard Setback Variance 1011 Redmond Road Petitioner: S & J Construction 7-8 c. Accessory Building Height Variance #6 Foxboro Cove Petitioner: Mark Perry 9 ADJOURNMENT MINUTES: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING DATE AND TIME: June 14, 2004 6:15 p.m. – 7:05 p.m. ATTENDANCE: Commissioners: Commissioners Martha Boyd, Mark Perry, Kevin McCleary and William Montgomery, Chairman Stroud and City Engineer Whisker _________________________________________________________________ City Clerk Susan Davitt recorded those listed above in attendance and Chairman Stroud declared a quorum. APPROVAL AND/OR CORRECTION OF MINUTES: Commissioner Montgomery moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyd to approve the minutes of the Regularly Scheduled Board of Adjustment meeting of May 10, 2004. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE(S): Front Yard Setback Variance at 1500 Bedford Street Chairman Stroud opened the public hearing at approximately 6:16 p.m. Contractor John Burton stated that he is seeking a front yard setback variance, explaining that the garage portion of the house is 3’ over the front build line. Commissioner Perry raised the question of a previous setback variance sought by Mr. Burton, asking him to explain the circumstances of another same-type variance request. Mr. Burton explained that the footing for both homes were dug at the same time, further explaining that he was unaware of the need for a variance at the second home until the survey was performed when the house sold. Discussion ensued regarding the circumstances of the variance request for the previous home and Mr. Burton explained that the previous home was construction exactly on the side build line but a 2’ protrusion of a bay window was the reason for the variance request. He stated that there is no excuse for the mistake in measuring for the footing. In response to a question from Commissioner Boyd, Mr. Burton answered that he did not have any other houses under construction in the City of Jacksonville. He then went on to say that he normally builds in Cabot, adding that he would like to offer the Board his assurance that he would never let this type of mistake occur again if he builds again in Jacksonville. He stated that he would personally take responsibility for making “double sure” that the measurements are correct before beginning construction. Commissioner Perry raised discussion regarding the Board of Adjustment’s ability to impose future fines. City Attorney Bamburg stated that the City Council would have to take the matter under advisement and adopt an ordinance prior to the Board being able to levy fines. Commissioner Boyd pointed out that the construction of the house is completely finished. 1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING June 14, 2004 continued: Mr. Burton once again offered his assurances to the Board that he would not return to the Board with any such variance request. Chairman Stroud closed the public hearing at approximately 6:22 p.m. Commissioner Montgomery moved, seconded by Commissioner Perry to approve a 3’ front yard setback variance request at Lot 51, 1500 Bedford Street, Crooked Creek Subdivision, admonishing Mr. Burton not to return before the Board with a setback building line variance request. MOTION CARRIED. c. Accessory Building Height Variance at #6 Foxboro Cove Chairman Stroud opened the public hearing at approximately 6:25 p.m. Commissioner Perry recused himself as a member of the Board of Adjustment, and presented himself to the Board as representative of the item of business regarding an accessory building height variance at #6 Foxboro Cove. He stated that the accessory building is approximately 12’ X 22’, adding that the building is within the square footage requirements as directed by the Jacksonville Municipal Code. He explained that during the time he had previously applied for a height variance, construction work had stopped on the accessory building pending the decision of the Board. He then explained that his first contractor had a medical hardship and he was forced to change contractors at that stage of the project. He stated that when he attempted to final building inspections with the City it was discovered that the building was constructed 8” taller than the Code allows. Mr. Tyler Tucker of #8 Foxboro Cove stated that he was present at the previous public hearing regarding Mr. Perry’s height variance request of November 11, 2003. He presented a letter to the Board, explaining his reasons for moving to Jacksonville and particularly to the Foxwood Subdivision. He listed his confidence that he and his property would be protected by the laws and public services of the City as part of his reasons for choosing Jacksonville as his place of residence. Chairman Stroud requested in the interest of time, that Mr. Tucker please limit his discussion to matters of relevance regarding the variance request and issues at hand. Mr. Tucker stated that he had raised questions at the previous public hearing meeting that he did not feel had been properly addressed or answered. He cited that City Engineer Whisker was not able to instruct him as to the criteria for such a variance request based on classification issues of the governing ordinance, i.e. if the request was a special exception or if there is “practical difficulties or an unnecessary hardship to prevent carrying out the strict letter of the title”. He then related that the building as construction is approximately 13’ X 34’ not 12’ X 22’. He stated that the building includes an attached stairway that leads to an exterior door on the side of the building. He added that the stairway, door and a side window were not included as part of the original drawings presented to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Tucker then presented the Board with photographs taken of the property 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING June 14, 2004 continued: in respect to the surrounding residents and then questioned City Engineer Whisker regarding the approximate square footage of the building. City Engineer Whisker stated that he did not measure the square footage of the building because the square footage was not the issue. Mr. Tucker then raised questions regarding the change in contractors and how that could have affected the final height of the building. He requested the names of both contractors and the medical hardship that Mr. Perry had mentioned earlier. He noted that Mr. Perry had named himself as the contractor on the City building permit application. City Engineer Whisker stated that it is permissible for a property owner to act as his own contractor on his personal property. Mr. Perry related that the original contractor was StringCo. Construction, explaining that the contractor was involved in a motorcycle accident and was not able to finish the project. He then added that, as of current, the company has gone out of business. He explained that during this time the project had been stopped pending a decision from the Board of Adjustment public hearing, but added that one month later he was forced to hire a new contractor for the job. Mr. Tucker stated that he does not feel that Mr. Perry has established a reason for a medical hardship. He then questioned how City Engineer Whisker arrived at the decision that the accessory building was 8” over the maximum height limit and questioned the exact height of the structure. City Engineer Whisker explained the criteria for the Code requirement for maximum height for accessory buildings, saying that the height of the accessory building has to be 25’ or less depending on the height of the primary residence or in the case of a single-story home no higher than the roof line of the primary residence. He explained that he shot the elevation of the roofline with a tripod to determine the 8” difference. Mr. Tucker then voiced his concerns that the Board of Adjustment was ignoring the Subdivision bill of assurance. He noted that the area was part of the Foxwood Subdivision PH V, adding that the bill of assurance is on file with the Pulaski County Courthouse. Chairman Stroud informed Mr. Tucker that the City of Jacksonville is not the proper authority to enforce the bill of assurance; he then reiterated his request to Mr. Tucker that he limit his discussion to the relevant issues. Mr. Tucker expressed frustration at what he stated is an inability to get answers. Chairman Stroud reiterated that the Boards focus is the variance request being presented. He asked that Mr. Tucker return to point 3 of his letter for the Board to address. Mr. Tucker questioned who second builder of the project was, adding that 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING June 14, 2004 continued: if the project started in September of 2003 and Mr. Perry is still seeking a variance in June of 2004 he had ample time to comply with City Code. He stated that he also feels that the builder should have been present to answer questions. Mr. Perry stated that the second contractor was Parker Construction. Discussion ensued regarding reasons the building could not be constructed within Code and Mr. Tucker was informed that the building permit issued by the City is valid for one-year following issue. Mr. Tucker again raised issues regarding the bill of assurance for PH V of the Foxwood Subdivision and Chairman Stroud reiterated that the Board of Adjustment is not the authority to deal with issues of enforcement regarding any bills of assurance. Mr. Tucker then questioned if the loss of value to his property would be considered relevant. Mrs. Pat Vanderhoof of #14 Foxboro Cove stated that their backyard is adjacent in part to Mr. Perry’s backyard. She related that she personally feels that the structure is invasive to their property, asking the Commissioners to view the photographs showing the back of the structure and the two windows located on the upper level as it looks over into their backyard. She related that Mr. Perry had previously stated that he would not face windows into their backyard. She stated that given the height of the structure a privacy fence is of no value. She related that her primary objection to the structure, at this point, is the two rear windows that face into their backyard. Chairman Stroud pointed out that even if the roof had less of a slope it probably would not affect the placement of the windows. Mrs. Vanderhoof then expressed concern for the workmanship of the structure, saying that there is a dip in the roofline and further expressing concern for the overall appearance and height. Mr. John Vanderhoof of #14 Foxboro Cove explained that he and his wife take pride in keeping their yard looking nice and feels that the building code regulations are setup to be equally fair to the surrounding neighbors. He stated that since the building is completed the only remaining option is a compromise. He stated that he understands that the windows are not the issue but added that the height variance has been a controversial issue and that otherwise he is in disagreement with the height of the building. Chairman Stroud closed the public hearing at approximately 6:48 p.m. Mr. Bill Corroum of #7 Foxboro Cove asked if he could offer one comment. Without objection, Chairman Stroud reopened the public hearing at approximately 6:49 p.m. Mr. Bill Corroum related that Mr. Perry had spoken with him regarding the 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING June 14, 2004 continued: construction of the accessory building, saying that he did not realize that the construction of the building had caused such hard feelings in the neighborhood. He spoke about the spirit of neighborliness in Foxwood, adding that in perspective he hoped the rift could be repaired and offered that apologies may be in order. It was then mentioned that another accessory building at the residence of Mr. Williams is higher than the one Mr. Perry had constructed. Chairman Stroud closed the public hearing at approximately 6:53 p.m. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Montgomery, City Engineer Whisker explained that he shot the elevation of the building in comparison to the main residence to calculate the 8” difference in height. Commissioner Montgomery moved to deny the 8” height variance for the accessory building located at #6 Foxboro Cove. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Commissioner Boyd moved, seconded by Commissioner McCleary to grant an 8” height variance for the accessory building located at #6 Foxboro Cove. Commissioner Montgomery voted NAY. MOTION CARRIED. b. Front Yard Setback Variance at 1011 Redmond Road Petitioner was not present to represent the item of business. Commissioner Boyd moved, seconded by Commissioner McCleary to table the item of business for the July Regularly Scheduled Board of Adjustment meeting. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Boyd moved, seconded by Commissioner McCleary to adjourn the meeting at approximately 7:05 p.m. MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully, ___________________________ _____________________________ Susan L. Davitt CHAIRMAN Mark Stroud CITY CLERK - TREASURER 5