Loading...
10 OCT 11 A G E N D A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 11, 2010 6:30 P.M. CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM 1. CALL TO ORDER: PAGES 2. APPROVAL AND/OR CORRECTION OF MINUTES: Regular Scheduled Meeting September 13, 2010 1-3 3. VARIANCE REQUEST(S): a. Building setback variances for primary and secondary structures 1214 Pinnacle Drive Petitioner: Kelly Bernsten 4-5 ADJOURNMENT MINUTES: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING DATE AND TIME: October 11, 2010 6:30 p.m. – 6:50 p.m. ATTENDANCE: Commissioners: Joe Ott, Art Brannen, Leroy Akridge, City Engineer Jay Whisker, and Chairman Chad Young were present ______________________________________________________________________ City Clerk Susan Davitt recorded those listed above in attendance and Chairman Young declared a quorum. APPROVAL AND/OR CORRECTION OF MINUTES: Commissioner Brannen moved, seconded by Commissioner Ott to approve the minutes of the regularly scheduled Board of Adjustment meeting of September 13, 2010. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE(S): Building setback variances for primary and secondary structures at 1214 Pinnacle Drive Chairman Young opened the public hearing at approximately 6:35 p.m. City Engineer Whisker noted that the petitioner will need three variances, explaining that the front yard setback variance would be for one to three feet because the garage is over the build line. He then related the need for a rear yard setback variance at the southeast corner, saying that the home is a few inches from the 5’ setback requirement. Thirdly, he noted that the accessory building is located within a 12’ easement and 6’ easement. He then answered that both easements are utility easements. Discussion ensued regarding the visual difference of the front yard setback on site from the surrounding homes. In response to a question from Chairman Young, City Engineer Whisker noted that typically accessory buildings are not allowed placement within utility easements unless the homeowner has permission from all the utilities that are allowed in the easement. Petitioner Kelly Bernsten related that the accessory building is movable. She then added that when the accessory building was built in the currently location, the City inspector was on site and had said the placement was fine. She explained that she and her husband were on site when the house was being built and spoke with the City Inspector several times. She added that there were no issues when they closed on the house after completion. She then answered City Attorney Bamburg that they used United Abstract when closing on the house in 2004, adding that the builder was Penn Construction. Commissioner Akridge clarified with Mrs. Bernsten that the accessory building was in place before the home was purchased. She explained that the accessory building was not actually built yet but the area was setup for construction and the City Inspector told them everything was good. Discussion ensued regarding what utilities might be located within the easements. Mrs. Bernsten stated that the utilities are in the corner on the backside of the property. City Engineer Whisker further clarified that it would be the east side and is primarily an easement for the electric. 1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING October 11, 2010 6:30 p.m. – 6:50 p.m. Mrs. Bernsten then demonstrated on the plat that the electric runs along the property line and is buried. City Engineer Whisker then explained that the rear adjacent property is probably 15’ higher than this property, saying that there is a flat area where there is a retaining wall approximately 4’ in height. He then noted that water and sewer is not located within the easement but it could be used at some later time for future purposes. He then answered that the real question with the accessory building is that the City has typically not allowed any placement within an easement without having all utility companies’ approval. He then advised the Board that there was not a building permit for the accessory building only for the primary structure. Mrs. Bernsten reiterated that the City Inspector was aware of all construction plans. City Engineer Whisker stated that the retaining wall was not the issue, explaining that it was more of an issue that no one applied for the building permit for the accessory building. He stated that the correct placement of the accessory building would have been reviewed when the building permit was requested. Chairman Young noted that the utility easements are the main concern, adding that the other setback variances are not an issue. In response to a question from Commissioner Ott, Mrs. Bernsten stated that if a utility company needed access to the easement the accessory building could be moved. She explained that the building is on skids. Discussion ensued regarding the legalities of granting a variance to extend to the new owners since the house is being sold. City Attorney Bamburg stated that it would not be a good precedence to allow an accessory building within an easement. He stated that if allowed to remain in the easement the utility companies would not be responsible for moving the building, adding that any such condition would have to be disclosed to the buyer. Mrs. Bernsten stated that the City Inspector had informed her that if anything were to interfere with the utility company needing access in the easement they would not be responsible in gaining access to that easement. She then answered that the buyer is aware of the variances issues being discussed tonight. City Attorney Bamburg cautioned that any approval would need to be conditional upon all utilities having access and that all parities both current and future owners are aware that the utility companies have no obligation to move the accessory building. He reiterated that it would not be a good precedent. Discussion ensued regarding options for moving the building forward on a newly poured foundation to bring it out of the easement. Mr. Bernsten then related that “technically” the accessory building is not 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING October 11, 2010 6:30 p.m. – 6:50 p.m. supposed to sell with the house. She then answered that they were not planning to take the building when moving because the buyers had wanted to keep the building. She offered that if the building needed to be moved for the utility company to have access it could be slid forward onto the grass from the concrete pad. City Engineer Whisker stated that his main objective would be giving permission to have the accessory building in an easement. Chairman Young commented that fortunately the building would not be difficult to move from the easement. Commissioner Akridge moved, seconded by Commissioner Brannen to grant the requested front and side yard setback variances for the primary structure and deny the variance request for the accessory building at 1214 Pinnacle Drive, specifying that the accessory building be moved from within the easement. MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Young closed the public hearing at approximately 6:50 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: Without objection, Chairman Young adjourned the meeting at approximately 6:50 p.m. MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully, ___________________________ _____________________________ Susan L. Davitt CHAIRMAN Chad Young CITY CLERK – TREASURER 3