BOONE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
BOONE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
801 E. WALNUT ST., COLUMBIA, MO.
Thursday, October 22, 1998
Chairperson Trabue, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Boone County Chambers having a quorum present.
Present: Tom Trabue, Chairperson
Linda Rootes, Vice Chairperson
Absent: Jerry Kaufman
Also present: Stan Shawver, Director
Noel Boyt, Secretary
Bill Florea, Staff
Thad Yonke, Staff
Chairman Trabue welcomed Larry Bossaller as the newest appointed member by the County Commission to the Board of Adjustment.
Chairperson Trabue explained the function of the Board of Adjustment. He stated that all decisions are based upon the Boone County Zoning and Subdivision Regulations, which are considered to be part of the record of the proceedings.
Member Keil made and Member Rootes seconded a motion to approve the minutes of June 25, 1998, meeting with no corrections.
Motion passed by acclimation.
Request by Susan Sickman for a second dwelling on 3.31 acres located
at 15920 Rte F, Harrisburg.
Director Shawver gave staff report stating that the property was located approximately ¼ mile north of the Harrisburg City limits at the intersection of Stidham Road and State Rte. F. The property has split zoning. A section line divides it. The land north of the section line is zoned A-2 (Agriculture) and all the land south of the section line is zoned A-R (Agriculture Residential). There is approximately 1.9 acres that is zoned A-R. There is a single-family house on the tract. The applicant acquired the property in July 1998 and wished to place a second dwelling for her mother on the property. The property was originally part of two tracts of land that were divided east to west. Copy of the survey was included in packet. In 1991 the land was surveyed and reconfigured into its current form as part of a family transfer. There has been no change in zoning since the adoption of zoning.
The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 4. (5) of the Boone County Zoning Regulations states "every building hereafter erected or structurally altered shall be located on a lot as herein defined and in no case shall there be more than one main building on a lot except as otherwise provided in this ordinance." They are asking for a second dwelling on a tract of 3.2 acres of ground. It should be pointed out that there are other options available to the applicant.
The property could be subdivided. The 1.9 acres that is zoned A-R could be subdivided as part of a plat with the minimum lot size for A-R is .5 acres. This could be split into three (3) lots. Another alternative would be to create a Planned Residential Development, which would achieve the overall density of three, unites over the entire 3.2 acres of ground and place the second unit anywhere on the property. Staff notified 12 property owners concerning this request. We did receive a letter in opposition from property owner Thurman and a copy of that letter has been given to you. The applicant did submit a copy of the medical statement and a copy has been provided as well.
Susan Sickman, 15920 Rte F, Harrisburg came forward along with a friend (Terry McBee). She stated she wanted to acquire a variance for the right to place another dwelling on the property for her mother. She is elderly and is now living in a circumstance with her brother in Harrisburg. Because of her medical problems, she needed to be close to Ms. Sickman.
Open to the public. No one spoke in favor of the request.
Dot Fenton 15670 N Rte F, Harrisburg came forward. She owned the property just south. Ms. Fenton said Ms. Sickman did have other alternatives. Ms. Fenton said they had ten (10) acres for sale. She said when Ms. Sickman initially purchased the property she had intended to place a second home on the property besides her current double wide. Because it would not meet the County Regulations, she decided not to pursue it at that time. There had been a problem with the lagoon placement. Ms. Fenton said she was opposed with the request unless the Board of Adjustment could guarantee them that all regulations would be met.
The applicant had the floor to answer the concerns. Ms. Terry McBee, realtor spoke out. She said they had researched for the lagoon for additional sewage and there should not be a problem. The driveways would be separate having one on Stidham Road and one driveway would be on Rte F. At one time they were two separate lots until it was combined into one deed.
Ms. McBee said Susan Sickman was a friend of her and she had sold her other properties for her. She always keeps a very attractive property and would like to do this for her mother so it would not be an eyesore to the community.
Closed to the public hearing.
Member Rootes asked if this variance was for temporary dwelling. Director Shawver said the request was for a permanent variance residence for a second dwelling. Member Rootes asked even if the hardship would go away, the second dwelling would remain. Director Shawver said yes.
Member Keil asked where Ronda Thurman lived in reference to the applicant. Director Shawver advised directly to the east.
Member Bossaller asked if the present wastewater system could server both dwelling units? Director Shawver said there was an existing wastewater system that he assumed served the house. The second dwelling may require its own wastewater system. The Environmental Health Department would evaluate what service would be required. It may or may not be possible to utilize the same lagoon or it may have its own system.
Terry McBee spoke up and said they had researched it with an Engineer and surveyor and it could be done with little cost. Chairman Trabue wanted to address the concerns of Member Bossaller that for this request or any other request was approved, it would have to meet all of the zoning requirements and building permits.
Dot Fenton spoke up from the audience and said her husband was a licensed installer. His classes and training stated that no two dwelling could be on the same lagoon or septic system.
Chairman Trabue asked what was the intent of the applicant. Was it to place a second dwelling because of a hardship to have the mother close because of a temporary situation? Or is the intent to place a second dwelling on the property permanently.
Mrs. Sickman said she needed it now, her mother was 72 yrs old and she may be her another 20 years or she may not. After improvement on the land with the concrete, foundation and everything she did not want to have to move it off.
Member Keil asked (as far as the application) if she was asking for a second dwelling, not because of the hardship but because you wanted a second dwelling? Mrs. Sickman said it was because of the hardship.
Chairman Trabue said the board wanted to make it clear of the circumstances. Terry McBee spoke up and wanted to help make it clear what was happening. She said Susan and her husband had previously had a larger home in the Harrisburg area. Due to the marriage failing, her mother had to sell the larger home where her mother was living. For many reasons she purchased this smaller home. Her mother is currently living with her son that has 4 children creating a stressful situation.
Chairman Trabue said that a hardship case is generally granted on a temporary basis for a two (2) year period and by the regulations it would consists of a mobile home. He understood why the applicant would want it to be a permanent home. His personal feels were that there were other options available for the piece of property within the current regulations, he would recommend they be exploded before the Board of Adjustment would take any action. He could not support the request having the other options available.
The options would be to subdivide it within the regulations or rezoning the property as a PRD also within the regulations. Each of these would require public hearings but it would create a permanent zoning, permanent platting of the property, which would then meet all the regulations. A variance is for temporary type situations.
Ms. Sickman and Ms. McBee discussed it and Ms. Sickman stated she would be agreeable to doing it on a temporary…then.
Member Keil said if mother was only ¼ of a mile or even ½ mile from Harrisburg, she did not see the hardship in checking on her even every day when someone is that close.
Ms. McBee said the mother was not in her own home now. She sold her home in Sedalia, moved in with her son. Member Keil confirmed that the mother was now living with the son (a family member) at the present. Ms. McBee said the mother was in a 1200 sq. ft. home with four (4) children being confined to one room.
Chairman Trabue had applicant restate the "new" request since the full board did not hear it. Ms. Sickman said she would be willing to go for the temporary variance for the mobile home.
Member Keil asked her if she realized that the variance could be denied at any renewal. If the variance was reviewed every year, then it could be denied at that time of renewal.
Ms. McBee stated the her mother wanted a permanent foundation for mobile home and in investing money in a permanent foundation maybe allow another family member in the trailer later if/when the mother was gone. That is why for the permanent variance.
Member Rootes asked if there was a reason why the applicant did not want to subdivide the property? Ms. McBee said they had researched it, but from a cost stand point and surveying cost that this might be an avenue to accomplish the same thing.
In the discussion, Mr. Yonke stated in the earlier discussions with Ms. McBee in the office, she was advised if there were other options within the regulations, those options needed to be exhausted before the variance request, but a variance request would be the last option to try.
Ms. McBee asked if this variance would be (approved) on a yearly review, but in the meantime have the survey done, and complete the other avenue, would that work. Director Shawver said it would just as well work to have it done up front. Ms. McBee asked if it could be done very quickly? Director Shawver said it was up to them, there was an existing survey on the property that was not very old. It would not be surveying un-surveyed land.
Member Rootes stated that because the mother does desire to have a permanent attached home and wanting to make it very attractive for her, she thought it would be better investment to go ahead to make it a permanent arrangement. If the mother was there on a temporary arrangement, and later left then the home would be required to be removed. She did not feel comfortable granting the variance.
Member Bossaller stated he sensed urgency of the mother in her present health condition. Ms. McBee said yes, there was urgency.
Member Keil asked why if the property was acquired in July 1998, why has it taken until October to make the application for Board of Adjustment? Ms. McBee stated the mother had been in ill health, in a car accident and in the hospital. The family was unsure on the mother’s health and where she would stay.
Chairman Trabue stated the property was purchased this year with a second dwelling in mind and would have to be subdivided to add an additional dwelling. He had a problem with the purchase of the property knowing there were several obstacles ahead. Other property could have been purchased to elevate that situation.
Ms. McBee stated they were told that to apply for the variance the property needed to be in the Sickman’s name. Director Shawver agreed, said Ms. McBee was advised in March of ’98 the necessary steps.
Ms. McBee stated the variance was the easiest way to accomplish the same thing at the least amount of cost. A house was purchased for the mother but washer and dryer were not on mail level. The mother fell in the house and now selling it to her son. The mother is still staying in the home with the son and his family until the mother can relocate.
Member Keil asked if this house was the same house on the tract in question. Ms. McBee said no, Susan lives on the tract in question, the mother lives in Harrisburg with the brother.
Member Keil asked if the mother could live with Susan while the survey was being done. Ms. Sickman and Ms. McBee agreed, saying. Ms. McBee added that Susan’s son is in conflict with the grandmother and has run away several times.
Chairman Trabue referred to a letter from MediQuick. He asked how recently did the physician (John Mruzik, MS MD) from MediQuick examine the mother? Ms. Sickman said he saw her mother that day, because of the short time they had to show the Board her medical condition..
Chairman Trabue asked if this doctor was her regular physician? Ms. Sickman said Dr. Dolland, from Sedalia was her attending. Chairman Trabue stated he would feel more comfortable with an evaluation from the mother’s regular doctor. It seemed that the request was put together with a lot of loose ends.
Member Bossaller made motion to table the request by Susan Sickman for a second dwelling on 3.31 acres located at 15920 Rte F, Harrisburg.
Member Rootes said she could not support this request because there were other options available and did not believe it would be a service to the applicant to table the request.
Member Rootes made and Member Keil seconded request to DENY Susan Sickman for a second dwelling on 3.31 acres located at 15920 Rte. F, Harrisburg.
Linda Rootes yes Norma Keil yes
Larry Bossaller no Tom Trabue yes
Motion to deny passed. 3 yes 1 no
* * *
Request by Gary R. Evans to allow a 100’ sign to be placed within the
required setback of property zoned C-G (General Commercial) located
at 5612 E St. Charles Rd., Columbia.
Director Shawver gave staff report stating that this site is located just east of Columbia at the NE at the Lake of the Woods interchange with I-70. The property is zoned C-G (General Commercial) all the adjacent zoning is C-G as well. There is an adjacent convenience store and gas station facility on the site.
The applicant is in the process of redeveloping the site. He is building a new convenience facility and a strip development as well. The existing structure will be removed. The applicant would like to erect a business sign that would be approximately 100 feet tall. The sign location is within the required setback. The property has been zoned C-G since the adopted in 1973.
Section 9 A. (2) provides a 45’ height restriction in the C-G zoning district. However, Section 9 B. (1) provides an exception to the height restriction that allows structures to be up to 100 feet tall, provided that they are setback from the property line an additional foot for every foot in height above the height restriction. In this case, a 100-foot tall sign would be required to be at least 65 feet from the front property line and 61 feet from the side property line. Site plan was shown to the board. Staff notified 49 property owners.
Director Shawver advised Board of Adjustment that the property was subject to a pre-annexation agreement with the city of Columbia. That is part of the provision of sewer service to the site. As part of the pre-annexation agreement, there is a condition that states that any property, and/or any improvement would comply with all city regulations. The city regulations are similar to Boone County where they also have height restriction for commercial signs (commercial development) of 45 feet. City also has a sign ordinance as well that the County does not have. If the Board grants a variance, the applicant will still have to find some relief from the City. A sign of this size would require a Conditional Use Permit from the City’s Board of Adjustment and would have to comply with the city sign ordinance. Director Shawver did not want the city restrictions to effect their (County BOA) decision but wanted the Board aware there would be other restrictions the applicant was subject to.
Tom Mendenhall, 2009 Wood Hall Dr. Columbia, one of the partners involved in the convenience store project came forward. He stated that the pre-annexation agreement was only because they had to enter into an agreement with the Regional Sewer District. There were a couple of lagoons behind the property and one next door owned by Mr. Story. They put up the money to bring a regional sewer to that area which is being constructed and should be completed by Thanksgiving (end of November). That would remove the lagoons and clean up the hole side and corner. They currently own another convenience store at Nifong and one Stadium across from the Mall. If they go with another size sign, it would place it in the middle of the building or in the middle of the gas tanks.
Open to the public: No one spoke in favor or opposition to the request.
Director Shawver stated that a letter had been received from the Fire Protection District. The letter wanted assurance that if the sign failed, it would not restrict any access on public roads. Mr. Mendenhall stated they had gone to extra precautions as far as the base for the size of the sign. He was not aware of any problems and it was even engineered above the wind resistance requirements.
Closed to public hearing.
Member Keil asked what was the objection to having a sign within the regulations. Mr. Mendenhall stated there was an electronic sign presently there now and the new sign would not be in parallel. A crane would come out and to have it all in line and the star above the up sign. If it began moving, then it would be into the gas tanks.
Chairman Trabue asked for clarification of the site plan. Mr. Mendenhall approached the Board and pointed out the different location of the proposed new sign.
Member Keil clarified that the new sign was placed, then it was a matter of seeing both signs at the same time. Member Keil asked why not place the new sign on top of the store. Mr. Mendenhall’s response was, "no". He added they wanted the signs to line up for the traffic from the road to see as they came closer.
Member Rootes asked if the Texaco Star could be placed on the electronic one here Shell sign was. Mr. Mendenhall said it was not structural made for that. Member Keil asked if it could not be made to accommodate it. Mr. Mendenhall said with enough dollars it could be done.
Chairman Trabue said he had an appreciation for them not moving the sign back 65’ into the property. That would be difficult but his initial reaction was that it was one of the entrances to the city of Columbia and signs were important. His concern was in the height of the sign rather than the type of sign at present.
Member Rootes said the property was very close to the city limits and it was under pre-annexation agreement, which she thought the city already had some controls. Mr. Mendenhall spoke up and said that until which time it was annexed into the city it would be a whole different deal. And until then they wanted to have their sign.
Member Rootes asked that if the Board granted the variance, he would have to then go to the City to get permission for the sign. Director Shawver stated that in talking with City staff that was understood. Mr. Yonke stated that the pre-annexation agreement predates the variance so it would not be considered a "grandfatherd or condition" that could be wavered. So it would require an adjustment from the city.
Member Rootes asked if the variance was granted, it just meant that the Board was clearing the county hurdle and it would still have to meet the city’s requirements. But if the variance were not granted, then there would be no reason to proceed to the city for their approval? Director Shawver stated that was correct. It was a pre-annexation agreement and not contingent to the city but are subject to all city standards.
Mr. Mendenhall spoke up and said the city sign ordinance allowed the height of signs until the year 2009. Member Rootes added "existing" signs. He continued that "this was outside in the county and it would be something of a legal thing".
Member Rootes asked if the sign in question was existing? Mr. Mendenhall said no, but there had been a sign there. Member Rootes asked Mr. Mendenhall what he meant by exiting or a certain date to meet city standards. Mr. Mendenhall answered that if the property were annexed then the height of signs of would have until 2009 or 2007 to come into city’s compliance.
Director Shawver said he was not prepared to issue a permit on this sign until the city staff would tell him to issue one. The way Director Shawver read the pre-annexation agreement the owners were subject to all city standards and regulations. Director Shawver said he would not place them in jeopardy of violating the pre-annexation agreement.
Chairman Trabue said if the variance was approved it would be with that condition. Director Shawver said absolutely.
Chairman Trabue said he had a concern in validating this and passing it off to the city. Mr. Mendenhall said this was being built in the county and wanted to work with county.
Member Bossaller said he had a concern about the variance with the surrounding properties. This was commercially zoned and the other commercial properties would be asking for the same type of variance to be approved.
Chairman Trabue said there had been several examples in the city where there are conflicts of buildings built before the sign ordinance and the height limitations were
He had gone out and made a site visit. He thought the existing sign was coming down. The sign to the west (Putnam Boat Sales sign) is a much smaller sign height wise. It is a reasonable sign. From a visibility point coming from the east there was not a visibility problem at all.
Director Shawver wanted to correct a statement he made. There was nothing the regulation prohibiting him from issuing a building permit for the sign if the variance was granted. However, with the pre-annexation agreement the city may offer protest and could be back at the Board of Adjustment until it was resolved.
Chairman Trabue said he was in favor of the height ordinance the county had in effect. In transition it is unfair to business who come in after that vs. ones that have been there for some years and did not have the restrictions. In the long term he felt it would correct itself.
Chairman Trabue asked how long had the taller sign to the south been up or was there a variance granted? Director Shawver stated it had been there for years, and when affiliation changed they just re-topped the sign.
Member Rootes asked if there was a difference for sign on the interstate vs. other properties. Director Shawver said he was not aware of any differences.
Mr. Mendenhall said they wanted a nice new look, did not want to re-top an old sign. They felt that the traffic would stop if it could be seen from the road and looked nice. They made the decision to do that and make the investment. The competion across the street did not build a bran new sign and that was there prerogative.
Member Rootes said it would be a great asset to the neighborhood to have a branch bank and other shops to the residential area. She added that she agreed with the chairman and appreciated seeing the shorter signs. That is the newer trend and since there are other advertising options available she was reluctant to support the variance.
Member Bossaller agreed with fellow Member Rootes and with county regulations and also was reluctant to support the variance.
Member Keil made and Member Bossaller second motion to DENY request by Gary R. Evans to allow a 100’ sign to be placed within the required setback of property zoned C-G (General Commercial) located at 5612 E St. Charles Rd., Columbia.
Norma Keil yes Larry Bossaller yes
Tom Trabue yes Linda Rootes yes
Motion to deny request for variance was unanimous. 4 yes
Review permit issued to Robert Forbis for a mobile home as a second
dwelling on 6.0 acres located at 16671 N. Hwy. NN, Sturgeon. (granted 4/94)
Director Shawver gave staff report stating that the property was located 2.5 miles northeast of Harrisburg on State Highway NN. The property is zoned A-2 (Agriculture) and all the surrounding property is zoned A-2. There is a single family dwelling on the property that is occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Forbis. In 1994 a request was granted for Mr. and Mrs. Forbis for a second dwelling on the property. Their daughter Rebecca Forbis Straight, was to provide them with care since Mrs. Forbis had health problems. The variance was last renewed in August 1996 for a two year renewal. A call had been received in support of the request. Staff notified seven (7) property owners. To our knowledge the situation is still the same and there is still a need for the request.
Rebecca Forbis Straight, 166751 N. Hwy NN, Sturgeon came forward. She said the situation was the same. Nothing had changed. She is a nurse and still helps with their care. Her father will be 89 in November and his health is worsening with age. Her children are older and help with lawn care. She asked that the variance be renewed.
Member Bossaller made and Member Keil motion to approve renewal of permit issued to Robert Forbis for a mobile home as a second dwelling on 6.0 acres located at 16671 N. Hwy. NN, Sturgeon. (granted 4/94) for an additional two years.
Larry Bossaller yes Norma Keil yes
Tom Trabue yes Linda Rootes yes
Motion to approve 2 yr. renewal was unanimous. 4 yes
* * *
Review permit issued to Chester & Louanna Reeder for a mobile home
as a second dwelling on .98 acre located at 1901 E. Rte M. (granted 8/94)
Director Shawver gave staff report stating that the property is located on State Highway M approximately 2 miles southwest of Ashland. The property is zoned A-2 (Agriculture) as is all the surrounding property. There had been a house and detached garage on the property. In August, 1994 the request was granted allowing Mr. Reeder’s mother to place a mobile on the property to be near her son. She had previously resided in Wilton and was flooded out in the 1993 flood and did not want to return to Wilton. The variance was last renewed in August 1996, for a two year renewal. To our knowledge the situation is still the same and there is still a need for the request. No complaints had been received.
Chester and Louanna Reeder, 1901 E. Rte M, Hartsburg came forward. Mrs. Reeder said
The situation was the same. Nothing had changed and wanted the variance to be renewed.
Member Keil made and Member Rootes seconded motion to approve renewal of permit issued to Chester & Louanna Reeder for a mobile home as a second dwelling on .98 acre located at 1901 E. Rte M. (granted 8/94) for an additional two (2) years.
Norma Keil yes Linda Rootes yes
Tom Trabue yes Larry Bossaller yes
Motion to approve 2 yr. renewal was unanimous. 4 yes
* * *
Review permit issued to Hazel & Billy Joe White for a mobile home as a
second dwelling on 10.643 acres located at 6850 Guy Nowlin Rd. (granted 8/94)
Director Shawver gave staff report stating that the property was located approximately one (1) mile northeast of Columbia. The property is zoned A-2 (Agriculture) as is all the surrounding property is zoned A-2. There had been one mobile home on the property. In August 1994, and a request was granted for Hazel and Billy Joe White to have a second dwelling on the property to be occupied by their daughter and son-in-law. The variance was last renewed in August 1996 for a two year renewal. To our knowledge the situation is still the same.
Curtis Adkinson (son-in-law), 6850 E Guy Nowlin Road came forward. He stated he just got a new job and still plans on getting a new house. They get along with the neighbors and keep the yard very nice.
Member Keil asked if Mr. Adkinson would review the circumstances for the variance granted in 1994. Mr. Adkinson said he and his wife purchased the pre-1976 mobile home from his savings. Family allowed them to live on part of the 10 acres.
Director Shawver stated the pre-1976 mobile home was from his mother who moved it to this location on the same 10 acres until the kids could get on their feet and buy some land or build a house. Because of the "estate" the property could not be subdivided or to do a family transfer. The Board looked at it as a young couple, getting started with the intent to purchase/buy land and build a house at some point in time. They knew it was a temporary basis and not desirable keep it there.
Member Rootes asked if Mr. Adkinson did purchase a home or moved away, then this second home would have to be removed. Director Shawver agreed.
Director Shawver stated no complaint had been received. Guy Nowlin Road was a private road and all the properties were very well maintained. Some of the private roads in the county have zoning violations but there is nothing like that on Guy Nowlin Road.
Chairman Trabue asked if they had a time frame on when they may be relocating from the pre-1976 mobile home. Mr. Adkinson said maybe within the next five years.
Chairman Trabue said these variances are only granted for a temporary basis and the Board does not anticipate the variance being permanent. The Board will be looking at it closer if it is again for renewal. Mr. Adkinson acknowledged and said he understood.
Member Rootes made and Member Bossaller second motion to approve renewal of permit issued to Hazel & Billy Joe White for a pre-1976 mobile home as a second dwelling on 10.643 acres located at 6850 Guy Nowlin Rd. (granted 8/94) for an additional two years.
Linda Rootes yes Larry Bossaller yes
Norma Keil yes Tom Trabue yes
Motion to approve renewal was unanimous. 4 yes
ANNUAL ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Nomination for Chairperson
Member Keil nominated and Member Rootes seconded nomination of Tom Trabue for Chairperson. Motion was approved by acclimation.
Director Shawver returned the floor to Chairperson Trabue to continue the election.
Nomination for Vice-Chairperson
Member Keil nominated and Member Bossaller seconded nomination of Linda Rootes for
Vice-Chairperson. Motion was approved by acclimation.
Having no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
M. Noel Boyt
Minutes approved 27th of May 1999.