Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-29 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS April 29, 2004 MINUTES The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustments was called to order by Vice Chairman Thomas Stover at 6:35 p.m. for consideration of scheduled items in the Council Chambers in Building "B" of the Municipal Building. Vice Chairman Thomas Stover stated there were five members of the Zoning Board of Adjustments present. MEMBERS AND STAFF PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT Vice Chairman Thomas Stover Chairman Victor Blood Luther Dube Michael Cornell Eddie Price Wan Chen Huang, Alt. Mike Collins, Director of Planning and Development Kurt Kasson, Building Official Richard Ross, Inspection Supervisor Karla Allen, Administrative Secretary VISITORS: Ed Markey, Adams, Lynch & Loftin, P.C.; Faye Hines THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION: The Pledge of Allegiance and -- Invocation was given by Eddie Price. ITEM 1 APPROVED MINUTES for called meeting of February 26, 2004 Board Member Dube made a motion to approve minutes for called meeting February 26, 2004. Board Member Cornell seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Vice Chairman Stover, Board Members Dube, Cornell, Price and Huang Nays: None Abstention: None The motion carried (5-0-0). ITEM 2 CASE #04-03-ZBA — HOLD PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE Receive public input regarding a request for a VARIANCE. The applicant is requesting the variance in order to construct a carport. This property is located on Quail Run Estates, Block 2, Lot 23, 2905 Penny Ln. Vice Chairman opened the public hearing. Mike Collins, Director of Planning and Development, gave a brief overview of the case. The applicant is requesting a variance request and will give a brief description of the carport and the current location and identify specifically what the code requires. There is currently a carport located approximately 50 feet from the front property line and abuts the side property line. The code would require that any accessory building, Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 2 April 29, 2004 including a garage or carport, should be located behind the main structure and that it be located no closer than three feet to any other property line. Ed Markey, attorney from Adams, Lynch & Loftin, P.C, stated Michelle Hines could not be present due to an exam she was taking. Mr. Markey stated Ms. Hines purchased her home in 2001 and the home was built about 30 years ago. The principle reasons Ms. Hines wanted the carport was because she did not feel safe in her own home. Ms. Hines has been working on improving the property since she has purchased it and over the last year she has been faced with finding a man in her rear yard when she would arrive at home late in the evening hours. She has also had her vehicle vandalized. The structure is attractive, metal and it is on the building line. The unique circumstances and the unique configuration of the lot dictate where it needs to be in order for it to be effective. Being on the property line is an advantage because it gives her the privacy she desired. She did not build the carport to break the law. The intent was for security and to improve the property. Faye Hines, mother of applicant, stated when her daughter purchased the property there was a huge cotton wood tree just behind the curve of the driveway where the carport is now which was partially deteriorated. Ms. Hines passed out some pictures to the Board Members which showed what the tree looked like before it was removed. Ms. Hines stated there was a major expense in having the tree removed and Michelle has been working on trying to improve the aesthetics of the property. Ms. Hines also stated that Michelle did not keep her gate locked and had on numerous occasions had a man in her back yard when she would come home in the evening hours. Mr. Markey read a comment from Ms. Hines application, "If the carport was moved over 5 feet from the property line, there would not be room in as much as the drive is close to the house and would require that the air conditioner be moved, along with the trees that are planted along the side of the drive." Mr. Markey stated he has researched whether or not this is a self imposed hardship. Mr. Markey passed out addition information to the Board Members and explained further this material shows two zoning cases that were proven not to be self-imposed as Ms. Hines situation is not self-imposed. Mr. Markey stated the carport is where it is for a reason, not that Ms. Hines wants to skirt the ordinance but because of the topography of the lot and the layout of the house. In order to move the carport over there would be a problem with the eave of the house, the mature crepe myrtles would have to be removed. Mr. Markey stated they would like to ask the carport stay where it is. Faye Hines also stated the carport was built by someone that does this type of work and has built this structure to withstand the different types of weather and she also feels it it aesthetically appealing. Mr. Markey also read a final statement from the information if he gave the Board Members, "the most significant public interest involved in the requirement for the set back of carport and garage structures, such as this would be to protect adjoining properties from the spread of fire. Because this structure is constructed of all metal, that purpose would not be thwarted. In addition, the City does have a public interest in protecting trees and landscaping, which would be in advanced..." Mr. Markey stated there is no risk of fire and no neighbors at the meeting to complain so they ask the request be granted. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 3 April 29, 2004 Vice Chairman Stover asked for any proponents/opponents to come forward for comments. Seeing none, Vice Chairman Stover read into the record documents received regarding this case. Those who advised they were in favor of the request were Patty Ashmore, Shuhing Lyn, John Bobo, Carol and Jack Stanley. Those who were not in favor of the request were Perry Nelson. Vice Chairman Stover closed the public hearing. Board Member Cornell asked Vice Chairman Stover if it appeared the letters came from neighbors. Vice Chairman Stover read the addresses of the letters. Vice Chairman Stover asked the applicant why the carport could not have been moved back to meet the requirements. Faye Hines stated it was because of the tree stump and there would be no room to turn around. Mr. Markey stated it was intended to seal the entrance into the yard. Board Member Dube made a motion to deny case #04-03-ZBA. Board Member Price seconded the motion. Board Member Dube stated that if a permit had been taken out prior to having the carport built then the applicant would have known the requirements for building the structure. Board Member Dube stated he felt the carport could be moved back and the concrete -- drive extended over the tree stump. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Vice Chairman Stover, Board Members Dube, Price and Huang Nays: Board Member Cornell Abstention: None The motion carried (4-1-0). Vice Chairman Stover adjourned the meeting at 7:11 p.m. Vice Chairman Thomas Stover Date fc Y/G%uj` !s G 11Z/e? J iZ