RULES
COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 2004
7:00 P.M.
1. ROLL CALL. Mrs. Riggs called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mrs. Riggs and Mr. Hackworth were present. Mr. Wright was absent. Others present were: Michael Sabatino, Lynda Yartin, Judy Gilleland, and others.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF April 5, 2004, Regular Meeting. Mr. Hackworth moved to approve; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 2-0.
3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:
A. Review and request for motion to approve draft resolution appointing a member to the Tree Commission. Mrs. Riggs moved to appoint Don Goodrich to the Tree Commission; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 2-0.
B. Review and discussion regarding variances granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Sabatino stated he had asked for this discussion as he felt the variance granted for a garage in a recent case was excessive. Mr. Sabatino stated the Code states, “Variances. Authorize upon appeal, by reasons of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape, topographic conditions or other extraordinary situation or condition of a lot, a variance from strict application of the provisions of this Code for both zoning lots and sign regulations to relieve exceptional difficulties for undue hardship, provided such relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and does not substantially impair the intent of this Code.” He stated specifically what he was talking about was the situation where a garage variance was granted so the applicant ended up with three times the garage space that is permitted. He stated he felt that did substantially impair the intent and he was asking Rules Committee if something should be put in place on what the Board of Zoning Appeals can approve. Mr. Sabatino stated in R-4, 720 square feet is allowed for a garage, and the total square footage for the applicant with what they already had and what the variance approved, came to three times the 720 square feet. Mrs. Riggs clarified the variance was granted for the garage and stated perhaps the variance fell under the “condition of lot” criteria because that is a very large lot. Mr. Sabatino stated there is nothing in the Code to make exceptions for the size of a lot in an R-4 zoning. Mrs. Riggs stated she felt the variance was most probably approved because of the extraordinary situation or condition of the lot. Mrs. Riggs stated she did not see how granting the variance substantially impaired the intent of the Code. Mr. Sabatino stated he was not trying to undo this variance, he just felt Council should be concerned when something like this happened because he felt we had a Board that was creating new policy without legislation. Mr. Hackworth stated in the example Mr. Sabatino had given, the property behind it has a big barn on it and just two properties down they have at least a 2400 square foot building. Mr. Sabatino stated perhaps in this case, the applicant should have asked for a rezoning.
Mrs. Riggs inquired if there have been complaints about the variances the Board has approved, and Mr. Sabatino stated he still felt the problem was the Board was creating policy. Mrs. Riggs stated she felt the purpose of a variance was to allow for exceptions to the Code and she would like to know if there is a pattern or a problem with the Board of Zoning Appeals that would require Council changing things. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt in this instance they went above and beyond the intent of the Code. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt a variance meant a minor change from the norm. Mrs. Riggs stated if the Board of Zoning Appeals was abusing the approval of variances, that would be something to look into. Mr. Sabatino stated what he was asking for was a clarification just how far they can go with a variance, because he felt three times what is permitted is not a variance.
Ms Gilleland stated she would like to let staff look into this and provide recommendations to this Committee because you typically do not restrict variances, however, she could see restricting size and height on accessory buildings. Mr. Sabatino stated his concern is that particular property is zoned R-4, the Code says in R-4 you are permitted 720 square feet for garage space, and with what existing garage there was and what the Board permitted, it ended up being three times the permitted amount. He stated the fact that it is a five acre parcel should not enter into it, R-4 is R-4. Mr. Sabatino continued that if another zoning was needed, then perhaps that is the course of action that should have been taken.
Ms Gilleland stated she is not aware of any cities having restrictions on their variances. She stated she would like to have the opportunity to let staff do some research on the subject perhaps some other alternatives could be suggested. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt we should have a numerical threshold that the Board of Zoning Appeals can approve and beyond that it would go to a full Council vote to see if it should be granted.
Mrs. Riggs stated she felt the purpose of the Board was to look at things on a case-by-case basis before approving a variance, and her concern was if we really had a problem with the variances granted by the Board. Mrs. Riggs stated she would like to have staff research this issue and provide this Committee with some history and background such as how many variances we deal with each year. Ms Gilleland stated she would like to gather that information so we know what we are dealing with, and if the Board members are not representing Council and the citizens of the community, then that should be looked at. Mr. Sabatino stated he was not saying that was the case, perhaps in this instance we just did not have the right zoning for that parcel of property.
Mrs. Riggs stated she would continue this on the agenda for the next Rules Committee meeting and once they know what they are dealing with then some recommendations can be made.
4. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Riggs stated she had nothing to bring forward.
5. OTHER BUSINESS: No other business was brought forward.
6. ADJOURNMENT: There being nothing further, Mr. Hackworth moved to adjourn; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion. Mrs. Riggs and Mr. Hackworth voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 2-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:35 P.M., July 7, 2004.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
________________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk