Loading...
04 AUG 09 A G E N D A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 9, 2004 - 5:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. APPROVAL AND/OR CORRECTION OF MINUTES: Regular Scheduled Meeting July 12, 2004 1-7 3. VARIANCE REQUEST(S): a. Accessory Building Height Variance #6 Foxboro Cove Petitioner: Mark Perry 8 b. Front Yard Setback Variance #14 Shady Lane Petitioner: Chris & Caroline Pitman Representative: Bond Engineering 9-16 c. Side Yard Setback Variances 617 J.P. Wright Loop Road Petitioner: Mr. Gary Dean Representative: Bond Engineering 17-23 d. Front Yard Setback Variance 2121 Northeastern Ave. Petitioner: Mr. Johnathan Hale 24-26 ADJOURNMENT MINUTES: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING DATE AND TIME: August 9, 2004 5:30 p.m. – 6:40 p.m. ATTENDANCE: Commissioners: Commissioners Martha Boyd, Kevin McCleary, Mark Perry and William Montgomery, Chairman Stroud, City Engineer Whisker and City Attorney Robert Bamburg _________________________________________________________________ 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 July 12, 2004. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE(S): Accessory Building Height Variance #6 Foxboro Cove Chairman Stroud announced the item of business and Commissioner Mark Perry recused himself as Board of Adjustment Commissioner to address the item as petitioner. Chairman Stroud opened the public hearing at approximately 5:33 p.m. Petitioner Mark Perry of #6 Foxboro Cove stated that he has constructed a 22’ X 12’, 1 ½ story storage building. He related that during the course of construction he had to change builders and the project concluded with the height of the accessory building exceeding the height of the main residence by 8”. In response to a question posed by Chairman Stroud, Mr. Perry explained that the original contractor had broken his leg, and was advised by his doctor to either quit work or have the leg amputated. He noted that the second contractor was hired three weeks later and assumed the job in progress. He stated that the walls were cut down to 5’ and the roof was completed at an 8-12 pitch to match the residence. He stated that lowering the roof would create a financial strain, adding that he would if the variance is not granted. Mr. J.C. George of #9 Foxboro Cove stated that he did not have any objection to the building or the height. Mr. Bill Corroum stated that as a resident of #7 Foxboro Cove since 1978, he has never been aware of any consternation in the neighborhood until now. He added in his opinion, if the building were lowered 8” there would still be hard feelings from those who oppose the building. He stated that he hopes the variance can be approved so the neighborhood can move beyond the incident. Mr. Gary Green of #5 Foxboro Cove reiterated Mr. Corroum’s sentiments, stating that he also feels the variance should be approved. Mr. Tyler Tucker stated that he lives next door to Mr. Perry. He related that living across the street is vastly different from living next door to the building. He presented photographs and then agreed that the biggest problem is the manner in which the building was constructed. He stated that the larger issue is why a Board member would “tell his neighbors one thing and then do something else.” He stated that the permit process is 1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING continued: August 9, 2004 nothing more than a fee collection process because the City does not monitor construction. He stated that the permit applicant was not in any way required to adhere to the construction plans presented to the City. He continued that while Mr. Perry claims a hardship, no one has heard from the contractor why Code could not be observed. He added that it is a poor reflection on the contractor if he does not stay within the Code. He stated that the contractor should explain those reasons, adding that the Board is relying on Mr. Perry’s word, when Mr. Perry’s word has not been reliable. He presented the Board with a summation of his objections. He stated that the Board’s authority is clearly spelled out in the ordinance. He noted the Board’s authority is hear appeal from the City Inspector, adding another area of jurisdiction is hardship on the part of the contractor. He went on to say that nothing has been presented to prove a hardship. He then related that nothing has been shown to suggest that a City official made a decision that was wrong, clarifying that nothing has been shown that the appeal is because of a disagreement with an Inspector. He stated that he feels the Board has given the issue disproportionate weight in order to approve the variance. He related that he felt the Board rushed the last decision at the previous meeting, adding that he is not criticizing the Board, saying that he believes they are doing the best they can. He stated that if what was submitted in the permit application and what was said by the applicant had been followed there would be no consternation. He then stated that he has tried to be a good neighbor, adding that until now he has had good neighbors. He related that his main concern is any additional structures or buildings that were added after he purchased his property and after reading the bill of assurance and understanding the protection against adverse possession and illegal use of City law, he would probably not be living where he is. He added that he moved to Jacksonville feeling good about all those things and now feels he has lost approximately $30,000 or $40,000 on his improvements. He continued that there is probably no way to sell the house without the feature. He reiterated that he has not seen any proof of hardship. He then asked that if there are questions remaining or if the Board is not certain, that they vote to continue and gather more information. He secondly requested that the public be informed of any right of appeal. He concluded saying that he strenuously objects to the variance, adding that his objection is not personal but feels that the law has not been followed. He added that he does not feel that the Board has jurisdiction because it is not enumerated in the ordinance. Mrs. Pat Vanderhoof of #14 Foxboro Cove stated that she feels the building has devalued her property, adding that it is an eyesore from her back yard. She related that she wonders what the Board considers to be too tall, questioning if Mr. Perry’s contractor is insured against the building being constructed out of Code. She noted that the contractor could be financially responsible for the costs to lower the height of the building. She stated that 8” is significant from her view, adding that she favors compliance with the City Codes. Mr. John Vanderhoof of #14 Foxboro Cove pointed out that he had completed considerable work to improve his back yard, adding that visitors always comment on the enormity of Mr. Perry’s building. He stated that the building was constructed out of Code and the laws and guidelines should be followed. He stated that he is opposed to the 8” variance, adding that a compromise 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING continued: August 9, 2004 should have been sought prior to Mr. Perry having the building constructed. Mr. Tucker questioned, since the building is for human use and habitation, would it be subject to all City Codes including the Fire Code. He continued that the building has an air-condition. Chairman Stroud stated that the matter before the Board is the height variance. Chairman Stroud closed the public hearing at approximately 5:55 p.m. It was restated that the accessory building is 8” higher than the roof of the residence. Chairman Stroud asked Mr. Perry to comment on the inference that the building construction has changed from the original plan. Mr. Perry stated that the building originally proposed to be 16’ X 32’ but was scaled down to 12’ X 22’. He then stated that originally he had requested a 3’ height variance to construct the upper level with full size walls, adding that he was going to decline the installation of windows for the 3’ variance. He noted that those plans were not approved so he decided to install windows for the light, adding that the windows are also on the front of the building facing his residence. He stated that closing the windows with blinds or in some other manner would be his first priority. Discussion ensued regarding Mr. Perry’s decision to install windows in the second story. In response to a question posed by Chairman Stroud, Mrs. Vanderhoof answered that it was not her understanding that windows would be on three sides of the building, adding that Mr. Perry had originally stated that there would not be windows on the rear of the building. She explained that when Mr. Perry had originally visited with her about constructing the building her and her husband had expressed concerns for their privacy and Mr. Perry had said that he would not put windows facing their property. In response to a question posed by Chairman Stroud, Mr. Tucker answered that the original drawing had two windows facing Mr. Perry’s house, adding that he believed he made it clear to Mr. Perry that he had just finished investing time and money to construct a sunroom with a whirlpool. He then answered that he was aware there would be windows. Discussion ensued and Chairman Stroud reminded the Board that they have the authority to impose conditions on any variance brought before the Board. He then noted that his determination is that the adjacent property owners are the greatest ones affected by the building. He went on to say that he believes the greatest problem is the windows. He asked that the Board consider some type of compromise regarding the rear windows and the window facing Mr. Tucker’s property. Chairman Stroud read State Statute 14-56-416, granting the Board of Adjustment the authority to stipulate conditions upon granting a variance. 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING continued: August 9, 2004 Chairman Stroud closed the public hearing at approximately 6:07 p.m. Commissioner Montgomery moved, seconded by Commissioner McCleary to approve an 8” accessory building height variance at #6 Foxboro Cove stipulating that the windows to the rear and side of the building be removed as if they were never constructed. MOTION CARRIED. b. Front Yard Setback Variance at #14 Shady Lane Chairman Stroud opened the public hearing at approximately 6:08 p.m. Mr. Tommy Bond stated that he is representative for Mr. Chris Pitman. He referred to the photographs that had been submitted, saying that the builder has experienced hard luck with the structure. He noted that the copper plumbing was stolen from the building and then the plumber who reinstalled the plumbing accidentally burned the house down. He related that it has been reconstructed apparently 8’ over the front build line. He demonstrated in photographs the site line in reference to adjacent homes. He stated that the violation was not intentional. In response to a question posed by Chairman Stroud regarding the driveway reconstruction from a front load to side load drive, Mr. Bond agreed that the plot plan did show a front load driveway. Mr. Chris Pitman explained that originally the garage loaded from the front, adding that after the house burned plans were changed to a side load garage because a shop was constructed in the back yard. He stated that it seemed simpler because the driveway would go around for easier access to the shop. He related that when he applied for the building permit for the shop he had told an employee in the Engineering Department that the garage would be side loaded. He stated that he did not feel the side load garage would be a big deal since the shop in the rear yard would need a driveway. In response to a question posed by Chairman Stroud, Mr. Pitman answered that the employee in the Engineering Department had led him to believe changing the way the garage loads would not be a concern. In response to a question posed by Chairman Stroud, Mr. Pitman answered that he is the owner of the house and that it would be his personal house. City Engineer Whisker related that when Mr. Pitman applied for his building permit for the rear accessory building he had told Vicki in Engineering that he had flipped the house plans, adding that the original building permit actually shows the garage on the left side facing the street instead of the right side. He stated that he was not aware of any conversation regarding the driveway. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McCleary, Mr. Pitman answered that this is the first home he has built in Jacksonville and the only time he has experienced such a mishap. He spoke of his misfortune regarding the house being burned and then added that originally when the house was laid out in February there was snow on the ground and it was difficult to find the pin. He stated that the does not feel that the house 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING continued: August 9, 2004 looks bad, adding that there are other houses on the street that are the same 41’ in distance from the curb. He went on to say that the pin is actually quite a way back from the curb. th Chairman Stroud noted that Mr. Pitman was notified July 8 that the house was 8’ over the front building line, adding that the photographs submitted th to the Planning Commission were taken on the 19, he then asked Mr. Pitman if he had performed any work on the house between those dates. Mr. Pitman stated that most of the work performed during that time was on the rear of the house. Chairman Stroud pointed out the difference in earlier photographs taken th prior to July 19. Mr. Pitman acknowledge that there was work performed on the front of the th house after being informed on July 8 that the house was in violation, adding that when he was notified he was also told that he could continue work at his own risk. He explained that the materials were already on site, adding that the house was brought into the dry not wanting the materials to be ruined. He then answered that he has not performed any further building th on the front of the house since July 19. In response to a question posed by Chairman Stroud, Mr. Pitman stated that there is approximately 20’ from the side load garage to the side property line. He stated that he had contacted the lady that draws his plans and was told by her that 20’ is the minimum. He stated that it would be fine and that a regular car could make it into the garage. He then asked the Commission to remember that there is a creek on the left side of the property, which hinders how far you can push the house to the left. Mr. Bill McBride, adjacent property owner, stated that Mr. Pitman had used his fence as the boundary line, which is not on the boundary line. He stated that cars backing out of the garage are going to be on his property every time they to back out. He stated that he did not feel that the side load garage would work. Mr. Robbie Robertson of #10 Shady Lane reiterated Mr. McBride’s opposition to a side load garage. Mrs. Caroline Pitman stated that there was no intention to harm anyone by changing the garage from a front load to a side load, adding that the main reason for the change was to accommodate a driveway to the rear yard shop. She stated that even if the garage were to load from the front of the property, the driveway would still go next to the house and back to the shop. She then reiterated weather problems when the house was laid out, adding that the next door neighbor had never voiced any hardship personally to them. She explained that when the neighbor’s fence was damaged as the house was being laid out, the neighbor was paid $150.00 for damages. She related that the house has been a series of misfortune and she is eager to achieve a compromise. 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING continued: August 9, 2004 In response to a question from Chairman Stroud, Mrs. Pitman answered that she has been in real estate for ten years and that the house is their personal house. Mr. Bond proposed a compromise of changing the garage to a front load garage but allow Mr. Pitman to construct a driveway adjacent to the residence going to the shop in the rear year and grant the 8’ variance for the front build line. City Engineer Whisker related the increasing history of front yard build line setback variances beginning with 1’ and now growing to 8’, adding that the situation has gotten out of hand. He noted the discovery of another house in construction that is approximately 6 to 8 feet over the front build line. He stated that he feels that it is time to stop allowing front yard variances without a true hardship. Chairman Stroud closed the public hearing at approximately 6:20 p.m. Chairman Stroud reviewed the guidelines for approving a setback variance, noting that there is nothing unique to the property that would create the situation through no fault of the owner. He stated that there is no effect on the property because of the zoning standard that would deny the owner reasonable use of the property, adding that he believes the situation is a self-imposed burden. He noted that the consequence to neighboring property is the difficulty when backing out of the side garage onto the adjacent property. He stated that he agrees with City Engineer Whisker that the problem has increased, adding that as a Board they were instructed by Mr. Magee that the Board is to grant only small variances. Commissioner Montgomery moved, seconded by Commissioner McCleary to deny the front yard setback variance at #14 Shady Lane. MOTION CARRIED. c. Side Yard Setback Variances 617 J.P. Wright Loop Road Chairman Stroud opened the public hearing at approximately 6:22 p.m. Mr. Tommy Bond related that the lot is erroneously shown in the FEMA Flood Map as being in the flood plain, adding that the lot was filled before the flood study was performed. He stated that a correction has been requested and FEMA has granted a correction to the Flood Plain Map. He noted that the only problem with the correction is that it still shows a small triangle in the flood plain. He explained that the owner/developer would like to place the building enough to the west to avoid any portion of the building being in the flood plain. He related that in order to do that it would require a side yard setback variance. He stated that the adjacent property is Marty’s Muffler Shop. He explained that there is a 6’ chain link fence on the property line and Marty’s Muffler Shop is offset to the west side of the lot, adding that there is approximately 20 to 30 foot from the property line to that building. He noted that the building was constructed before the flood plain study which now prevents any further construction on that lot until the flood way is changed. He pointed out that if the variance is granted the two buildings would be more than 15’ from each other. 6 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING continued: August 9, 2004 City Engineer Whisker noted that the original build line on Northgate drive was a 50’ build line, which cut the lot almost in half vertically. He noted that even if the building is placed to the west it would cross the building line on the Northgate side, clarifying that the request should be for an 8’ variance on the east and west sides. He noted that if approved it would take the building out of the flood plain, which is beneficial to the City. He then explained the location of the proposed building on the lot if the variance is granted. Chairman Stroud closed the public hearing at approximately 6:32 p.m. Commissioner Montgomery moved, seconded by Commissioner Perry to approve the side yard setback variances as requested at 617 J.P. Wright Loop Road. MOTION CARRIED. d. Front Yard Setback Variance 2121 Northeastern Avenue Chairman Stroud opened the public hearing at approximately 6:35 p.m. Mr. Johnathan Hale of 2121 Northeastern Avenue explained that the front façade of his home is flat without a cover for the front door. He stated that he is proposing to establish a 4’ porch area with two columns at the front door. He then answered Chairman Stroud, that the garage is not the primary entrance, explaining that the garage is mostly for household storage rather than vehicle use. Discussion ensued regarding the front walk to the front door rather than the driveway. Mr. Hale explained that the primary concern is an overhang for the front door regarding weather conditions. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McCleary, Mr. Hale related that the contractor submitted an estimate of $1,000.00 for the project. City Engineer Whisker stated that any roof construction would require a building permit, which is the reason for the variance request. Chairman Stroud closed the public hearing at approximately 6:39 p.m. In response to a question from Commissioner Perry, Mr. Hale answered that the overhang would have a concrete slab connecting to the front sidewalk. Commissioner Perry moved, seconded by Commissioner Montgomery to approve a 4’ front yard building setback variance for a front door overhang at 2121 Northeastern Avenue. MOTION CARRIED. 7 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING continued: August 9, 2004 ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Boyd moved, seconded by Commissioner Montgomery to adjourn the meeting at approximately 6:40 p.m. MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully, ___________________________ _____________________________ Susan L. Davitt CHAIRMAN Mark Stroud CITY CLERK - TREASURER 8