ON
Chairman Sam Dozier III opened the meeting at
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Sam Dozier, David Prewitt, Frank Stark, Jennifer Steen, and Tim Turney
CONSULTANTS PRESENT:
Paul W. Noel, Jr., Building & Zoning Inspector and
MINUTES: Tim Turney
moved, as seconded by David Prewitt, to accept the
NEW BUSINESS:
PUBLIC HEARING: DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE: Michael Warren-234 06-010-2008 W.
Higgins
504.2
& 707.6 - Applicant is seeking a 25 ft. frontage setback variance from the
required 25 ft. setback for a frontage lot to allow a 6’ privacy fence at the
edge of the right-of-way.
Sam Dozier announced the applicant’s request and requested
Paul Noel elaborate further.
Paul Noel stated that the property is a double frontage lot and it is a front and back lot. The applicant wants the fence to contain pets and for landscaping. They want to replace the existing fence so the fence is more appropriate to contain pets. Mr. Noel stated the request does not affect the sight line across the street.
When asked if the applicant wanted to present his case, the applicant replied negatively and stated Paul’s explanation would be sufficient. Tim Turney asked if the fence has already been up for which the applicant confirmed it had.
Chairman Dosier asked if anybody in the audience would like an opportunity to speak and Libby Warfield came forward to present her case. Ms. Warfield presented multiple photos as evidence and indicated she lives at the dead end of the street. Ms. Warfield also provided aerial photos of the street to provide a better idea of the layout of the street.
Ms. Warfield stated that there is no consideration for drainage. She stated she believes the fence should be set back or shortened to the required 42”. She provided a photo of a location for which the Board previously approved a variance. At this time, she provided details of each of the photos she presented as evidence.
Ms. Warfield noted that when vehicles pull in to the street they use the applicant’s driveway to turn around. She noted the area is very crowded and congested. She also stated the law for the speed limit on the road is 15 mph even though there are speed limit signs up on the street stating a 10 mph speed limit. Ms. Warfield provided photos of her view from the applicant’s driveway while traveling in her small car and in her van. She stated that the fence blocks the driver’s view.
Tim Turney and Ms. Warfield were discussing a specific photo and at that time Mr. Turney stated he believes the sight problem is the brush surrounding the fence and not the fence itself.
Frank Stark asked Ms. Warfield if her concern was that the fence is unsightly or that it is a safety concern? Ms. Warfield stated both were a concern for her. Ms. Warfield stated that if someone gets lost on the block, they use the applicant’s driveway to turn around and if they back out of the driveway it is not safe.
Mr. Warfield asked to speak. He stated there should have been a permit to start the fence and that the applicant is in violation since the fence was put up prior to getting a permit. Mr. Warfield stated that a lot of times, things are done without a permit and when somebody complains about it all they do is go to the P & Z office and get a variance and nothing is ever done. He also stated the driveway was done without a permit and Midway’s Mayor approved a permit but back dated it. Mr. Warfield stated that he is just angry because a permit was not applied for and should have been and the builder should have known. Mr. Warfield stated he was not sure if the owner was given a permit for the garage. Mr. Noel stated that a final inspection was done and a Certificate Of Occupancy was issued.
Tim Turney pointed to a photo and asked about Ms. Warfield’s fence. She noted that she did not need a variance for the fence because it was 42”. Tim Turney asked Ms. Warfield if she was worried about the distance back or the height of the fence? Ms. Warfield stated she is worried about the height of the fence and the fact that you can’t see through it.
Ms. Steen stated that Ms. Warfield is worried about people backing in the driveway and not being able to see when they pull back out.
Mr. Warren, the owner of the property, requested to speak at this time. He confirmed he did not have a permit when it was first put up. He noted that he put the fence on the existing line. He also stated they put a gap in the fence so that any person such as a fireman or policeman who may need to look through can do it easily. In addition, there is a sign to that entrance of the street stating no outlet and the speed limit is 10 mph. Given that, the fence was angled to the existing fence line for sight line reasons. He stated he believed that was plenty of spacing assuming people adhere to the speed limit. He stated he assumed that if you get a permit for a garage you can automatically build a driveway and he did not know a permit was needed for the driveway. He apologized for this mistake. He noted he has not seen a problem with drainage and they have had record rain falls and there were no problems to his property or any of the existing fields.
Ms. Warfield stated she was speaking on behalf of her dad who has two building lots across from the location. She noted that if the Board members were to approve the requested variance the Board could not turn down any other property.
Tim Turner wanted to know if the fence ends on the owner’s property line since a photo showed a wired fence next to the 6’ stockade fence. Ms. Warfield confirmed it belonged to Nathan Craig, another homeowner. She stated that if the Board was to approve this variance then they would have to approve a 6 foot stockade fence for the Craigs if one was requested.
Ms. Warfield’s father spoke at this time. He stated he was a builder for many years and he always followed the laws. He further stated that the Board needs to follow the laws in this case. He himself drove in to the driveway and says that the front of his car was out before he could even see down the road. He stated he just wants the laws followed.
Builder, Doug Watson requested to speak. He noted he has been building since he was 16 or 17 yrs old and it is difficult to keep up with all the laws since the laws change all the time and he did not know a permit was needed. He stated a fence, just like the owner’s for this variance request was put up just down the road.
Frank Stark asked if there were other fences put up just like the one that is being requested. Mr. Watson confirmed there was. Ms. Steen asked if the fence he mentioned is out as far as the applicants and does the fence come close to the road? She also asked if it was the same height. Mr. Watson stated the fence is a little further back then the applicant’s fence but the height is the same.
Mr. Turney wanted to know if there was a permit issued for the house adjacent to the applicant’s house. Paul indicated that it happened several years ago. Mr. Warfield stated on that particular case, the owner gave P & Z the wrong address for the Warfields so he never got notice of it. He stated they even asked for a 21’ variance and he has measured it and it is a foot closer then what was requested.
Ms. Steen asked the owner what his thought was when he was putting up the 6’ stockade fence as opposed to the 42” fence. The owner stated he has a dog that is a good climber and that is why he chose that height. He also stated there is a tree in the lot that is very expensive and he wanted to be sure to keep that tree so they put the fence around that. Frank Stark pointed to a wired fence in one of the photos that is on the applicant’s property and asked how high the fence was. The owner stated it was 4 feet. Mr. Stark wanted to know if that was sufficient for the dog then why would there be a need for the 6 foot fence? The owner stated there is a dog fence not shown on photos that separates his dog from the neighbor’s dog. He also stated on the other side of the property there is a 6’ stockade fence that separates his property from the McDaniel’s property and the fence is owned by the McDaniels.
Ms. Steen asked the owner -if you moved the stockade fence 10 feet back would it come right in contact with the tree? The owner said the tree would still be on the inside of the fence but the tree would be right next to the fence. Ms. Steen asked if the fence panels are 6 feet. The builder said they are 8 x 6 feet tall. The owner stated that the house on the end of the road has a fence that is 50+ inches taller then his own fence.
David Prewitt asked if the fence that is along the back yard has two sections? The builder said it was two panels. Mr. Prewitt then asked, if one of the panels were removed could that help the sight line? The owner said they considered all that when they were deciding to put up the fence and if you adhere to the 10 mph speed limit you have plenty of time to react. He stated that if you pull the car right to the street and you look both ways you can almost see to the Warfield’s gate. The owner also stated they angled the fence so that if someone with a full size truck, like a fire truck can get in the driveway and in to the backyard if needed. They angled the fence for two reasons, access and sight line.
Mr. Prewitt wanted to know if there was a chance we can head over to the house and chalk a line to bring the double gated back away from Cross Street to see if that would help the sight.
Frank Stark asked Mr. Noel that if the applicants were to come to him and ask for a fence permit what would your response be? Paul stated he would tell them they would need a variance.
Ms. Warfield’s father spoke and he said it looks like to him like the Board has two choices –to either set the fence back to the garage or cut it down to 42”.
Chairman Dosier asked the audience if anybody else would like an option to speak for which nobody responded.
Jennifer motioned to
continue this case for next month’s meeting and go back and rethink some
options. Mr. Prewitt seconded the motion.
Motion carried 4-1 in favor.
PUBLIC HEARING: DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE: Ronald Waugh –
Paul explained that this is a
river property and that if you build in the rear yard you are in
the
flood pain and could be putting your structure in a precarious situation. This garage would be going in the side
yard. Without a variance they couldn’t
have the garage because it would be in more violation if the garage was up
front. Paul advised the photos provided
in the member’s packet should be discarded and he provided all with correct
photos. Due to the river and its
restrictions, also it is unadvisable by the State Division of Water and it would
be very risky to go further back than the house already is. This garage would be directly to the side of
the house. On the photos provided, Paul
pointed to a big tree and explained that the property line is just beyond
that. Paul indicated there have been no responses
for or against this variance request.
Applicant
was represented by builder, Doug Watson who chose not to speak.
Chairman
Dosier asked if anybody in the audience would like
the opportunity to speak for which noone
responded.
Jennifer Steen moved, as
seconded by Tim Turney to grant a variance to allow
an accessory structure in other than the rear yard (side yard). The structure is a 20’W x 40’D garage. 5-0 in favor.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT:
06-102-2008 Church -
Paul
explained that this building is two houses from the church parking lot on Green
between Locust and Amsden on the same side of the
street. The church bought this
property. The food pantry is in search
of a facility to operate out of. The
church would like to allow it in this property.
It will be opened minimally, 2 hours 3 days a week. The church will make the building handicap
accessible. All the utilities will be
inspected. The only thing that will be
run in this building is the Food Pantry.
Paul advised he only received one call on this case and it was from
Jenny Rice on
Frank
Stark asked where the parking would be for this facility. Paul stated the church’s lot which is two lots. The Church’s representative spoke and stated
there were 28 parking spots available.
Jennifer Steen asked if the
Church was going to be putting up a sign that says Parking for
Food Pantry.
Paul indicated that there is parking on the street that is legal. Chairman
Dosier
asked if the church owns
The Church’s representative did
ask the board if this conditional use applies to the
property does it in any way detract from their
current zoning. Paul stated if that
building
changes character, for example if the
building was demolished, the use goes with it.
Another example would be if the building is sold, the use terminates
with the sale.
Frank Stark moved, as seconded
by Tim Turney to grant a Conditional Use Permit to utilize
the building for Hope Ministries Food Pantry that distributes food to the
needy in
Frank Stark moved to
adjourn the meeting, as seconded by Tim Turney. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at
____________________________________
Sam Dozier III, Chairman