BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

THURSDAY APRIL 22, 2010

 

PUBLIC HEARING

7:00 P.M.

 

1.                  Mr. Wells called the public hearing to order at 7:02 P.M. with the following members present: Mr. Wells, Mr. Boruszewski and Mr. Cline. Mr. Linek and Mr. Wright were absent.  Others present were: Joe Henderson, Lynda Yartin, Karen Risher, Chris Bryant, Katrina Jones, Stuart Sumpter, Brien Neal and Danyale Neal.

 

2.         APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF September 24, 2009, Regular Meeting.  Mr. Boruszewski moved to approve; Mr. Wells seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Wells. Mr. Boruszewski and Mr. Cline voting “Yea”.  Motion passed, 3-0.

 

3.         SCHEDULED MATTERS:

 

            A.        Review and request for a motion to approve a rear yard building setback variance for a deck at 689 Isabel Court (Manchester Subdivision).  Mr. Henderson reviewed the report presented to the Board members and stated the applicant was proposing to construct a deck that would protrude ten feet into the rear yard setback.  The deck appears to have been constructed.  Mr. Henderson stated staff supported the rear yard building setback variance request for the deck that complies with minimum zoning requirements and the following condition:

 

                        1.         The rear yard setback for the deck shall be reduced from 35 feet to 25 feet.

 

            Mr. Chris Bryant, after being duly sworn, stated the deck has been done based on what neighbors have done, the building equipment was already there and various time restraints. He stated if it has to be torn down he will do so.

 

            Mr. Boruszewski moved to approve the request that the rear yard setback for the deck shall be reduced from 35-feet to 25-feet; Mr. Well seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Cline, Mr. Boruszewski and Mr. Wells voting “Yea”.  Motion passed, 3-0.

 

            B.         Review and request for a motion to approve a front yard building setback variance for a fence at 62 Knights Bridge Drive (Sheffield Subdivision).  Mr. Henderson reviewed the report presented to the Board members and stated the applicant’s house is located on a corner lot and by code has two front yards.  The owner is proposing to build a six foot high fence that encompasses the back yard and a portion of the fence encroaches into the 35 foot yard setback along the northern side of the property along Avalon Drive.  Applicant is requesting a variance for the front yard setback to be reduced from 35 feet to approximately ten feet. The variance request is over 50 percent of the required front yard setback. Staff recommends the setback be reduced from 35 feet to 17.5 feet, this is standard to what staff has supported in the past. Mr. Henderson stated staff supports the front yard building setback variance that complies with minimum zoning requirements and the following condition.

 

                        1.         That the front yard setback for the fence shall be reduced from 35-feet to 17.5-feet along Avalon Drive.

 

Mr. Stuart Sumpter, after being duly sworn, stated some of the other neighbors have fences that protrude into the setback more than they are requesting.  On the side that fronts Avalon Drive.  He is asking for ten feet off the sidewalk to encompass the two trees that are in the front yard. Mr. Boruszewski clarified that the two trees are right at the 17.5 foot mark and would be on the outside of the fence in. Mr. Sumpter added that there is an additional two feet on each side of the tree to allow for the tree bulb and mulch around it.

 

Mr. Cline moved to approve that the request for the front yard setback for the fence shall be reduced from 35 feet to 12.5 feet along Avalon Drive; Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Boruszewski, Mr. Cline and Mr. Wells voting “Yea”. Motion passed, 3-0.

 

C.        Review and request for a motion to approve a front yard building setback variance for a fence at 133 Robinette Street (The Landings Subdivision).  Mr. Henderson reviewed the report presented to the Board members and stated the applicant’s house is located on a corner and by code has two front yards.  The owner is requesting to build a four foot high fence that will encompass the back yard and a portion of the fence encroaches into the 35 foot yard setback on the northern side of the property along Urich Drive.  The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 3 feet to approximately 15 feet.  Staff supports the front yard building setback variance request that complies with minimum zoning code requirements and the following condition:

 

            1.         That the front yard setback for the fence shall be reduced from 30 feet to 15 feet.

 

Mr. Brien Neal, after being duly sworn, stated he lives at 155 Urich Drive.  He stated that he feels the fence will be an eyesore on their side of the street.  He further stated that this is a corner lot and it’s important that it look good and they are already losing money with the new builder coming in and Beazer Homes moving out.  This will put them at a significant disadvantage and he is here to object. Mr. Neal further stated they had called the homeowner’s association and the applicant has not filed the necessary paperwork with them. He does feel this is detriment to the neighborhood.  Mr. Henderson stated that the homeowner’s association is a civil matter that Planning and Zoning is not involved with.  Mr. Neal stated that the homeowner’s association has reached out to the owners.

 

Mr. Wells stated that it appears the homeowners are not here.  Mr. Neal stated they would not have a problem with the fence if it were invisible. Mr. Boruszewski clarified with Mr. Neal that it is in their restrictive covenant that homeowners apply to the association for approval before putting in a fence and the homeowner did not go through that process.  Mr. Wells stated this is kind of unusual for this board and inquired when Mr. Neal last had contact with the applicant.  Mr. Neal stated they talk to them on a regular basis and the applicant failed to mention this to them.  Mr. Cline inquired when the City last had contact with the applicant and Mr. Henderson stated that was on April 7th when the application was made.  The report was sent to the applicant via email on April 20th.  The applicant was made aware of the meeting date when he submitted the application.

 

Danyale Neal, after being duly sworn, stated her concern is that the applicant’s house is in the middle section of the subdivision.  You can see straight down through the subdivision. The neighbors that have fences have the invisible fences because they know you do not want to have a house with a fence, one without, it wouldn’t look very clean and wouldn’t look very nice.  Mr. Cline clarified with Mr. Henderson that if this were ruled on now, the applicant could reapply if they wanted to.

 

Mr. Wells moved to table this and give the applicant one more chance to come in.  Mr. Cline seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Boruszewski voting “Nay”, and Mr. Cline and Mr. Wells voting “Yea”.  Motion passed, 2-1. (TABLED)

 

4.         OTHER BUSINESS:  None

 

5.         ADJOURNMENT: There being nothing further, Mr. Wells moved to adjourn; Mr. Cline seconded the motion.  Mr. Wells, Mr. Boruszewski and Mr. Cline voted “Aye”.  Motion carried, 3-0.  The Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 7:28 P.M., April 22, 2010.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

_____________________________

Karen I. Risher, Administrative Clerk

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

________________________________________

Lance A. Schultz, Director of Planning and Zoning