BOONE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
Boone County Government Center
801 E. Walnut St., Columbia, MO
October 26, 1995
Chairman Schneider called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Chambers of the Boone County Government Center having a quorum present. Roll call was taken as follows:
Present: Tom Schneider, Chairman
Absent: Jerry Kaufman
Also Present: Stan Shawver, Director
Don Abell, Staff
Thad Yonke, Staff
Noel Boyt, Secretary
Minutes of the September 28, 1995, were reviewed. Board Member Keil made and Board Member Trabue seconded motion to approve the minutes. Motion was approved by acclamation.
Chairman Schneider made a procedural statement explaining Board procedures and the right of the applicant to be heard by the full board.
Request byHarold Lieurance for a variance from the rear yard building setback
for property located a 6600 S. Hill Creek Rd., Columbia.
Stan Shawver, Director gave staff report stating the property was on lot no. 12 of Cornell’s Friendly Acres located on State Hwy. K and Hill Creek Road. It was platted prior to the adoption of County Zoning Regulations. He noted that it has an interesting zoning allocations along the area. To the north of lot 12 it was zoned R-S and this lot and the lots to the west and south were zoned A-2. In 1974 the original developer had requested A-R zoning and the land to the east but this lot was left out. Mr. Lieurance owns two adjacent lots and wants to build a house. The rear setback for A-2 zoning is 50’ ft. The topography of this lot is such that he would like to place his house closed to the rear lot line but then the 50’ ft would not be met. Director Shawver stated Mr. Lieurance had some pictures to show what the topography was and to show the drainage through the property. He is requesting a variance from the rear setback of 50’ ft.
Mr. Harold Lieurance and his wife Pat (Eunice) approached the Board. He stated they were present to offer any information. Chairman Schneider stated it sounded from the staff report the problem was because of the topography. Mr. Lieurance agreed. He continued that the problem (showing pictures) was because of a deep ditch that goes through the center of the lot. The ditch is 12’ ft deep and he stated that was why they wanted to place the house on the back of the lot.
Chairman Schneider stated Mr. Lieurance had submitted a petition signed in favor of the application by a number of individuals. Chairman Schneider asked Mr. Lieurance who was his neighbor that would be affected by the rear setback? Mr. Lieurance stated that on the east side it would be the Cornell’s, on the south side it would be Mr. and Mrs. Bill Prather, north side was his property and on the west side it would be the Barnhouse’s. Chairman Schneider noted that the owners mentioned had all signed the petition.
Member Kirkpatrick asked which direction did the rear property set and what was on the property? Mr. Lieurance stated it was East and nothing was on the vacant lot, and the next tract was also vacant.
Member Trabue asked Mr. Lieurance if he knew what the house to the south had for their setback from the back property line? He stated it appeared from the plat map that the set back on the lot was the same. Mr. Lieurance stated it was close to what he was asking for.
Mr. Lieurance stated the lot they were asking the variance on had been owned by him for 20 some years. He had neighbors that had lived there longer than that. The lots had been in a platted subdivision since 1968 then in 1974 the zoning was changed beginning on this particular lot. The lot is a half acre size (A-R) lot. He could not understand why it was changed to A-2 zoning requiring 2.5 acres. Mr. Lieurance stated he was never notified of the zoning change, that is why he had gone ahead with the plans to build the house. Then when he tried to take out a building permit he was advised of the zoning.
Open to the public. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the request.
Board Member Trabue stated that he felt this was the purpose the Board of Adjustment was put into place, to deal with these types of issues that have slipped through the cracks. Looking at it, he stated that this should be R-S and fall within those guide lines. Chairman Schneider agreed.
Board Member Trabue made and Board Member Kirkpatrick seconded motion to approve a 25’ ft rear setback variance for 6600 S. Hill Creed Rd.
Voting was as follows:
Tom Trabue yes Keith Kirkpatrick yes
Tom Schneider yes Norma Keil yes
Motion to approve variance was unanimous. 4 yes
Request byMichael K. and Vickie Gilbane for a variance from the rear yard
setback for property located at 7667 N. Wade School Rd., Columbia, MO.
Director Shawver stated that the Gilbane’s property was a similar situation. Gilbane’s own two lots located approximately 3.5 miles north of the City limits of Columbia on the west side of Wade School Road near its intersection with Trobridge Road. It is in an area that is zoned R-S and all the surrounding land was zoned R-S. Their two lots were described by deed in the 60’s. The lot sizes comply with the zoning in R-S, some other lots in the area are lager, about an acre to an acre and half. The Gilbane’s own two lots, one lot has frontage on Wade School Road and the other lot could be said to be landlocked since it lays behind them. The owners want to treat it as one building site but it is a defined lot line between them and it has to be treated as two lots and it needs to meet its own set backs. The frontage is actually towards Wade School Road, the alignment of the house would make the rear the 25’ ft setback. The owner wants to build 13’ ft from the common line, which would be the rear lot line. The regulations do not provide for any provision on this situation short of going before the Board of Adjustment.
Chairman Schneider asked if this property had been surveyed as two lots. Director Shawver stated it had actually been done by deed description in the 60’s. Chairman Schneider asked if this was approved did it make the undeveloped lot a unbuildable lot? Director Shawver stated no it would not. He continued that the problem was that the lot did not have an easement back to it, it would become landlocked.
Open to public hearing.
Mr. Michael Gilbane, 7807 Chesley Drive, Columbia approached the Board. Chairman Schneider asked the applicant why he wanted to locate the building where he did? Mr. Gilbane stated the lots were 125’ ft by 125’ ft. He wanted to build one house setting it back further off of Wade School Road and use the second lot that is land locked as the back yard. The house would be 13’ from the back line on the first lot with the other 125’ ft to the back property line.
Chairman Schneider asked if this essentially would center the house on the two lots. Mr. Gilbane agreed that he would be willing to give up the right to build a single family "dwelling" on the second, or back lot.
Member Trabue asked Director Shawver if there was a house on lot no. 1 of County Downs subdivision at present. Director Shawver advised no,
those lots were vacant. The land was just recently platted, the aerial from the Assessors Offices makes it appear that their lot actually touches Trobridge Rd. but in surveying the land for lot no. 1, (Country Downs) it was determined it did not front the road based on the legal description.
Board Member Kirkpatrick stated this does not make the second lot nonbuildable. Board Member Trabue stated that Mr. Gilbane had indicted that he would like give up his right to do that, but Board Member Trabue did not know if BOA could do that. His concern was for the future owner of that lot.
Chairman Schneider stated it could affect the marketability. Member Kirkpatrick added that some kind of easement would have to be granted to be able to get into the lot.
Member Keil asked what if the other lot is sold off, then this second lot could do the same thing? Member Kirkpatrick stated then that request could be denied.
Member Trabue stated this was an odd situation, it is unfortunate that this was platted separately. Mr. Gilbane stated when they purchased the property, he thought he was buying one lot. After they purchased the land they discovered that the land hand originally been described by two separate deeds.
Chairman Schneider stated that if they had to, could it be platted/surveyed into one lot. Member Trabue stated he hated to see someone jump through a lot of hoops for that but he felt more comfortable with that idea. Member Keil and Member Kirkpatrick agreed.
Member Trabue stated he would like to take care of the request in a way that would solve not only the applicant (Gilbane’s) wants but would keep the BOA from creating a future awkward situation with the second lot.
Member Kirkpatrick confirmed that these were not platted. Director Shawver stated they were created by Warranty Deeds. Member Kirkpatrick stated there was nothing to prevent the lots from being combined. Director Shawver stated no, other than expense and time.
Director Shawver stated that under the "Subdivision Regulation" the property would have to be platted and then could have to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission in December.
Chairman Schneider made motion and Member Kirkpatrick seconded motion to approve request by Michael K. and Vickie Gilbane to build a structure across a lot line on with the following condition:
- that the applicants and the applicant’s assigns and heirs not seek a setback variance
on the western most lot.
Chairman Schneider stated that would be in the abstract and should not cause any legal problems. Director Shawver suggested that no permit for a residence be allowed so it would not preclude him from building a detached garage or other structures. Director Shawver stated Certificate of Decisions are recorded and are picked up by the title companies.
Chairman Schneider stated the biggest concern was for a future purchaser.
Member Trabue asked if they could erect another building on the property, just not a residence? Director Schneider stated that the motion was with the condition that the applicant not request a variance in respect to the setback requirements on the western most lot so it should not effect putting up a detached garage somewhere on the property.
Board Member Keil stated she had a problem with it. She continued that all that has to be done was the house moved toward the road.
Mr. Gilbane stated with his children, they wanted to stay as far from the road as possible. Chairman Schneider said the hardship was that the applicant wanted to center the house but because of an imaginary line he could not do that.
Member Trabue stated his biggest concern was that if someone was to purchase the second lot at some point, and did not ask for a variance, just came in for a building permit and met the setback requirements (side being 6’ ft) there would be two houses 18’ ft. apart in an area that is not conducive to that.
Director Shawver stated that in the R-S district there are many cases where houses have side setbacks between houses and there was only 12’ ft. (minimum of 6’ ft. each side) between houses.
Director Shawver stated he did receive a call from a property owner on the east side of Wade School Road and a little to the north, the caller indicated he did not see a problem with the request.
Board Member Kirkpatrick asked why it would have to go through the platting process. Director Shawver stated because it was creating a lot.
Board Member Trabue stated it was unfortunate, and agreed with what Mr. Gilbane was trying to do. He continued the duty of Board of Adjustment is to protect any future property owner as well.
Board Member Kirkpatrick ask Mr. Gilbane if when he purchased the property did he believe he was buying it as one lot? Mr. Gilbane stated yes. Kirkpatrick ask Mr. Gilbane if he would address this problem with the seller? Mr. Gilbane stated he might if he thought it wouldn’t be a long drawn out process, but if he got the variance he thought it would achieve what he originally wanted to do with the property. He continued that there was nothing to the back of the lot that he had intentions of doing, that was why he was willing to give up his rights in the future to build on the property since it was land locked. Mr. Gilbane stated the house he wants to build will be in the $100,000 range.
Member Kirkpatrick asked if legally a variance could be placed with restrictions that there never be a residence on the second lot? Chairman Schneider stated it could be tested but he thought the conditional zoning concept were ungrounded nationally, and that it was fairly unlikely to be tested.
Member Kirkpatrick stated he liked that even better. Chairman Schneider asked applicant if that motion would be acceptable to him? Mr. Gilbane stated yes.
Chairman Schneider withdrew motion, Member Kirkpatrick withdrew his second to the motion.
Member Kirkpatrick made and Member Trabue seconded motion to approve request for the variance based on the condition that neither the applicant, nor their successors in title, heirs or assigns apply for a building permit to construct a residence on Parcel 1 as described by the warranty deed recorded in Book 1127, Page 168 of Boone County Records.
Voting was as follows:
Keith Kirkpatrick yes Tom Trabue yes
Tom Schneider yes Norma Keil yes
Motion to approve request with conditions passed unanimously 4 yes
Request byC. Russell and Connie L. Martin to place a pre-1976
mobile home on 15.22 acres located at 10751 N. Flynt Lane, Hallsville.
Director Shawver gave staff report stating the property was located approximately 3 miles south of Hallsville west of Flynt Lane, approximately 1/2 mile west and 1/2 mile south of the Intersection of Highway OO and Rte. Z. He stated the property was currently vacant. The property was split in zoning with A-R and A-2. Owner wants to place a 1966 single wide Mobile Home on the property pending the construction of house which they hope to have built within two years. Staff notified 18 property owners.
Director Shawver stated a letter in opposition was received from Don and Jane Buis.
Chairman Schneider asked Mr. Martin what was the condition of the mobile home? Mr. Martin stated it was used and he was remodeling it himself. He would rewire it and insulate. In rewiring the trailer, he took out the aluminum wiring. Chairman Schneider asked if there were photos? Mr. Martin did have one to submit and gave it to the Board.
Chairman Schneider asked where the mobile home was in relation to the road. Mr. Martin stated it was approximately 1300’ ft. off the road behind the trees and could not be seen from the road. Member Kirkpatrick asked if the mobile home was set? Mr. Martin said the mobile home was on the property but it had not been set up in case the permit was not granted. Chairman Schneider asked Mr. Martin where he was in relation to Don and Jane Buis’ property. Mr. Martin did not know. Director Shawver stated that by the 1980 aerial photograph in the packet, the Buis property was to the south at the bottom of the picture (south of the pond). Chairman Schneider asked what approximately was the distance of their location and this mobile home. Director Shawver advised approximately 600’ ft. to 700’ ft.
Member Kirkpatrick asked if Mr. Martin was in the process of remodeling the mobile home? Mr. Martin advised he was.
Chairman Schneider asked if the renovation of the mobile home needed do be done by building code? Director Shawver stated if he was doing any repairs on site, it needed to have a building permit. He added there probably were quite a few mobile homes that have been remodeled without a building permit. It was not like a house where lumber would be delivered on the site or a new driveway being installed.
Member Keil verified the reason it was before the Board was because of it being a pre-1976 mobile home. Chairman Schneider advised the owner of the concern to eliminate obsolete mobile homes. Member Kirkpatrick added safety considerations.
Chairman Schneider stated the protest letter from Mr. and Mrs. Buis clearly focused on the idea there would be "a" mobile home rather than a "pre-1976" mobile home which was not the issue before the Board.
Member Kirkpatrick asked Mr. Martin when he would begin construction on the house. Mr. Martin advised next spring since trying to place the trailer, remodeling, and moving in this fall. Member Keil asked that when the home was constructed would the mobile home be removed? Mr. Martin stated yes.
No one spoke in favor or opposition to the request.
Chairman Schneider stated he was inclined to favor this if some term limit was made. Member Kirkpatrick stated if this was an open ended time period, he would not support it, however given the stated intention and willingness to accept terms he was inclined to view it in a different light. He wanted assurance it would not stay forever. Mr. Martin understood that and acknowledged. He stated that when he bought the mobile home it enabled him to get away from payments for awhile.
Member Keil stated she did not have a problem with the request as long as there was a time limit.
Chairman Schneider made and Member Kirkpatrick second motion to approve request for a pre-1976 mobile home to be placed on 15.22 acres for a period of two years.
Voting was as follows:
Tom Schneider yes Keith Kirkpatrick yes
Tom Trabue yes Norma Keil yes
Motion to approve was approved unanimously. 4 yes
Request byDuane and Wendy Broeker for a variance from the front
setback for property located at 19640 S. Route A, Hartsburg.
Director Shawver stated that the property was located on Rte. A, zoned A-2 and all the adjacent property was zoned A-2. Location was approximately 2.5 miles northeast of city limits of Hartsburg on the southeast side of Route A. He reminded the Board that Rte A was a very winding road and essentially ran on a ridge. There was a mobile home on the property the applicants live in. They began construction of another outbuilding (garage) and when they applied for a building permit it was discovered the building was just 10’ ft. off the right-of-way (requires 50’ ft frontage). The topography is such that the mobile home and existing outbuilding are on the only flat places. Director Shawver stated he had been by the location many times in the last couple years going to Hartsburg. He added there were several properties along Rte A that would not comply with the setbacks for the area. The mobile home that was there had been on the lot for many years and did not meet the set back of 50’ ft. Notice was sent to 10 property owners.
Mr. Broeker, owner/applicant at 19640 South Rte. A, Hartsburg addressed the Board. Mr. Broeker stated he had called the Planning and Building Inspections Office in the Spring asking if he needed a building permit. He thought there must have been a mix-up since the office advised him that with his acreage he did not need a permit for the structure. Then one day in October a building inspector stopped by and left a note asking if he had gotten a building permit? Mr. Broeker said he wanted to place the building further off from the road himself, but there was no flat place. To place the structure 50’ from the front property line it would have an eight foot 8’ ft. drop. His said his driveway was already steep.
Open to the public.
Timothy Groves, 19650 S. State Road A., lived next door to Mr. Broeker addressed the Board. Mr. Groves stated he did not have a problem with the location of the structure. He continued that it was a nicely constructed building and not obnoxious in any way. Mr. Groves stated that another neighbor Mr. Junior Davis, had come by who lived two (2) houses down and he had no problem with it. Mr. Groves stated he had not heard of any opposition.
Mr. Broeker stated he had called the Highway Department for their right-of-way and stayed about 10’ ft off the edge of that. He had no idea there was any other setback. He knew that there was a setback in town because a house could not be built right on the sidewalk.
Member Kirkpatrick asked how far along was the construction? Mr. Broeker stated it was framed up and ready for metal. Member Kirkpatrick asked if it had a concrete floor? Mr. Broeker stated no, it would be gravel. He may put concrete in at a later date. Eleven (11) poles were set 42" deep into concrete. He stated the structure was pretty much done other than putting some garage doors on.
Member Kirkpatrick asked what was the width of the right-of-way. Director Shawver stated it was a 60’ ft. right-of-way being fairly narrow. Member Trabue stated the edge of the right-of-way was the edge of the ridge point. Director Shawver agreed. Member Kirkpatrick asked if it was possible for the road ever to be widened? Director Shawver stated no, another concern to be aware of was that the structure did not block any sight distance. He continued the road was very curvy but it would not effect it. If the Highway Department was to widen it, more than likely it would be widened within the existing right-of-way. The road could be resurfaced, but he did not know if they had the money to widen the road.
Member Kirkpatrick stated that if the Highway Department did want to widen it the building may become a problem and have to be relocated.
Member Trabue stated this did fall under the variance for topographic reasons, it was consistent for what is up and down the road, and he would move for approval.
Member Trabue made and Member Keil seconded a motion to approve a structure to be built 10’ ft from the front property line instead of 50’ ft, that the structure will not interfere with line of sight or driving conditions on State Highway A.
Voting was as follows:
Tom Trabue yes Norma Keil yes
Tom Schneider yes Keith Kirkpatrick yes
Motion to approve variance of 10’ ft. passed unanimously. 4 yes
Request byIris Rumbaugh to place a pre-1976 mobile home on 6.00 acres
located at 9401 E. Davis Rd., Hallsville.
Chad and Kimberly Lebsock approached the Board. Mr. Lebsock stated that he was to purchase the property through a second person from Iris Rumbaugh who was the property owner. Chairman Schneider affirmed that it was a 1973 mobile home. Mr. Lebsock agreed. Chairman Schneider asked if there were photographs of the dwelling and Mr. Lebsock presented some for the record.
Chairman Schneider asked Director Shawver if there were any calls on the request? Director Shawver stated no calls had been received. Director Shawver advised the Board may remember the area, since it was across the road and a little to the east of where the Kennedy request was in January, February and March. which was a request for the second dwelling on 10 acres of ground. This is on the other side of the road where it is zoned A-2, lots were done about 1985, split up into 5 acre lots. A 1990 mobile home had been on this lot that is being removed.
Chairman Schneider stated that this was a better condition mobile home than the last one before the Board.
Member Kirkpatrick asked the applicant if they were comfortable with the ownership of the land? Mr. Lebsock stated, yes.
Member Kirkpatrick asked what year was the mobile home? Mr. Lebsock stated it was a 1973. Mr. Lebsock stated the only thing he had to do to it was put on a tongue to pull it in, since it did have cooper wiring. Member Kirkpatrick asked if he had checked the wiring in the mobile home. Mr. Lebsock stated he had, the mobile home is presently located in the Woodstock Mobile Home Park. He stated that was the main reason he thought he wanted it to move it. He had owned it for about 2 years and was tired of throwing his money away on rent.
Member Kirkpatrick stated this was more attractive than the last one they had looked at. It showed a pride of ownership.
Member Kirkpatrick stated he saw no problem with the request. Member Kirkpatrick asked Mr. Lebsock if he had intentions to build on the lot? Mr. Lebsock stated yes, the loan was written for the acres and the mobile home into one payment. Then if in six years to trade in the mobile home, it was suggested to then build a house. Mr. Lebsock stated he did a lot of construction on the side and it was his plan to build a home on the property.
Member Kirkpatrick stated the bottom line was that if this was a 1976 or newer mobile home he would not be before the Board of Adjustment. Member Keil stated she did not think it was right to penalize people just because they bought an older mobile home, as long as the home was safe, and not an eyesore.
Member Kirkpatrick made and Member Keil seconded motion to approve request by Iris Rumbaugh to place a pre-1976 mobile home at 9401 E. Davis Road, Centralia.
Voting was as follows:
Keith Kirkpatrick yes Norma Keil yes
Tom Trabue yes Tom Schneider yes
Motion passed unanimously 4 yes
FEMA - Discuss delegation of administrative responsibility for granting
variances for agricultural structures located within the flood plain.
Director Shawver explained that several years ago an issue came up that FEMA review Missouri’s Enabling Legislation for regulating flood plains and determined that under state law that since agriculture actives were exempt they expressed that agriculture structures were exempt from local zoning regulations thereby flood plain ordinances could not be made to apply. Legislation was proposed in order to make it possible for Missouri to continue to participate in the National Flood insurance program. Legislation was approved to make it possible for local jurisdictions to regulate agriculture structures including levees in the flood plain. Because these are all prime agriculture areas, there was need for certain agriculture structures. When that change was made our neighborhood assistant representative at FEMA regional office told us that they did not expect us to stop construction of pole barns in the flood plain or other structures that are necessary for agricultural support activities. Just go ahead and give them an agriculture exemption and document it.
For the last three years Boone County did just that. Recently we had a neighborhood or community assistance visit from FEMA representative. The new representative asked what were all the exemptions down in the flood plain? Everything was documented but he stated everything had to have a variance on them. Director Shawver told him it was an administrative variance and did not have to go to the Board Of Adjustment. He was advised the Board of Adjustment did have to give him the authority to do so. Director Shawver placed the item on the agenda to discuss it and he felt it was an administrative thing, to make sure we get a flood plain development permit on the structures, explain to the property owner the potential for damage, the structures must be designed so that can be open so the water can rush in and do as little damage as possible.
Then the first of this week, Director Shawver was contacted and was told that the regulations do not give the Board the authority to grant him the authority to grant variance, so he was to change the regulations before the Board could grant the authorization. Since the item was on the agenda, Director wanted to advise the status.
The Flood plain regulations are part of the Zoning Regulations, so there will have to be seven (7) townships hearings before any changes can be made. It may be the spring before any changes are made.
Member Trabue asked if that meant the variance would have to be given by Board Of Adjustment? Director Shawver stated that fortunately with the flood of 1993 and 1995 people have a rationalization that maybe it is not a good idea to place the structures down in the low areas. He intended to operate as he had, granting rational variances.
APPLICATION FORM OF THE PRE-1976 MOBILE HOME
Chairman Schneider stated he was uncomfortable with the present application and certificate of decision granted for the Pre-1976 mobile home. He stated that with the application the safety of the trailers was not guaranteed. He stated there was no evidence on the record and someone might say that the Board was charged to make sure they were safe. Then when the board declares it safe by granting the variance from the evidence before them there is no evidence that the mobile home is safe.
He continued that they may consider having the policy or rational removed from what ever it needs to be removed from or to add some sort of criteria such as requiring the applicant to have some sort of inspector (or something of that sort). He did not know if those things were readily available, but Board of Adjustment should not be stating that these things are safe and acting on them without having some idea that they are safe. If the mobile home is being rewired without a building permit, county has no way of determining what is being done inside one of the trailers nor if they are qualified to rewire it.
Director Shawver suggested that a better way to look at it would not be to declare the individual unit as safe for the occupant, but the surrounding property owners will be safe. The trailer will be placed such that if they do catch on fire, the only one to be hurt would be the ones placing the home and not the surrounding neighbors or neighbor’s property.
Member Kirkpatrick stated he did not quite see the role the same as Chairman Schneider. His way of thinking when asking the owner about the safety concern was making them aware there are questions.
Chairman Schneider stated he felt that was implied that by their approval and actions. Chairman Schneider continued that if minutes were done verbatim there would be some references to our charge to determine that these meet a certain level of safety and maybe what should be done by the Board is to adopt a policy authorizing the use of a particular form of approval with it stated that the Board is in no way passing on the safety of the unit in so far as the fire hazard and code compliance.
Member Keil stated she hated to see another form of inspection come about. People have to be responsible for their own actions. Member Trabue stated two ends of the spectrum were seen tonight. His concern on the ‘66 model home was that he was putting a lot into it and Board of Adjustment would be seeing the home back in two years sold to someone else and they need a variance to place it on another piece of property and then we (the Board) begin recycling them again and again. Member Trabue stated it could be back because no one will put this amount of money into it. Member Kirkpatrick stated that is why he did not want an open ended variance.
Member Keil asked how did the Board Of Adjustment come about getting in the Pre-1976 mobile home request, they did not have them before. Hardships use to be the requests. Member Kirkpatrick stated that these requests used to be part of the Planning and Zoning Commission. An insurance agent was concerned about the safety. Director Shawver added that the P&Z Commission habitually approved them all unless there was major neighborhood opposition. Then they questioned why they (P & Z) were looking at them, the trailers were there because of their age and because of the age it made them a "hardship". Then they should be at the Board Of Adjustment because they have the power to grant a "hardship" variance for mobile homes.
Chairman Schneider asked to redraft the form to state that prior to 1976 mobile homes were not certified by whomever and therefore no certification as to the safety features. Then state that approval of this permit in no way implies that any inspections have been done by the county or that the Board has approved or taken a position on the safety of the mobile home, etc..
Director Shawver asked if it would be suitable to have a separate application form for the Pre-1976 mobile home. The applicant would then sign and it would state on the application," I/we the undersigned understand that there is no implied warranty" and the Certificate would also state that fact..
Chairman Schneider stated that the statement definitely needs to be on the Certificate because the seller of the mobile home may not show the application to a potential buyer, but likely would show them the certificate of decision.
Member Trabue discussed the reason why the Pre-1976 mobile homes were moved from the Planning and Zoning Commission to the Board of Adjustment is because Board of Adjustment has the ability to grant hardships. If that was their focus, then he did not feel that was focused on tonight. They were not granted tonight because of "hardships".
Director Shawver stated the interpretation was that the regulations say that the Board has the authority to grant a permit for a mobile home for a period of two years, in cases of hardship. The Planning and Zoning Commission felt that the fact that someone owned a pre-1976 mobile home was a hardship in and of itself. They have invested money, economics itself should not be a hardship or considered in granting a variance, but that in itself is a hardship.
Director Schneider stated that the particular formulation of an ordnance the county adopted really is not a hardship jurisdiction ordinance, it refers:
Page 59 "c. Where by reason of shape or topography or other extraordinary or exceptional situation or conditions of a specific ordinance would result in peculiar and exceptional difficulties to or exceptional and demonstrable undue hardship upon the owner of the property..."
Chairman Schneider stated they had an unusual ordinance and basically seemed to say it is because of a hardship or because something looks strange.
Member Kirkpatrick stated that maybe the mobile homes were getting older and older. Less and less of the Pre-’76 mobile home variances were before the Board of Adjustment.
Chairman Schneider stated it would be appropriate to have on the application to require exterior photos from all directions. Director Shawver stated the applicants had been advised to bring photos.
Member Keil stated people could go out and buy an newer home than a pre-1976 where the wiring could be just as bad as what it is in the Pre-1976. Board Members agreed. Chairman Schneider stated they were being viewed from a Zoning perspective as opposed to a code perspective.
Director Shawver stated that if we (Planning and Building Inspections) learn that through the process they will remodel/repair the trailer, then we can require them to get a building permit and any changes they make have to comply with the building codes. He continued that a form would be drafted to address these problems.
No further business meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Noel Boyt, Secretary
On this 22nd day of November, 1995.