BOONE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

BOONE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER

801 E. WALNUT ST., COLUMBIA, MO.

Thursday, December 2, 1999

 

Chairperson Trabue, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Boone County Chambers having a quorum present.

Roll call was taken:

Present: Tom Trabue, Chairperson

Linda Rootes, Vice Chairperson

Larry Bossaller

Absent: Jerry Kaufman

Normal Keil

Also present: Stan Shawver, Director

Bill Florea, Staff

Ora Ramsey, Secretary

Member Rootes made and Member Bossaller seconded a motion to approve the minutes of October 28, 1999,

meeting with no corrections. Minutes were approved by acclimation.

Chairman 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.

 

REQUEST

  1. Request by Pearl Shern for a variance from Section 7 (5) restricting accessory buildings
  2. from being placed in front of a main structure on a lot, located at 421 E Hinton Rd., Columbia.

    Bill Florea gave staff report stating that the property is zoned R-M (Moderate Density Residential). Adjacent zoning is R-M and R-S (Single Family Residential. The site is approximately 4.5 miles north of Columbia and is currently occupied by a house. The applicant is requesting permission to place a garage between the front of the house and the front property line. R-M is the original zoning for this site. There have been no previous requests submitted on behalf of this property. Staff notified 20 property owners.

    Pearl Shern, 421 E Hinton Rd, Columbia and her son, Kyle Shern, 111 W Dripping Springs Rd, Columbia addressed the Board. Kyle Shern a brief description of the layout of the property. There is a retaining wall off the west side and there is an abrupt drop-off. By sliding the building around slightly, which would place it between the front property line and the front of the building would make it much more feasible from a construction standpoint. They have already placed fill back-fill in for the site location. To have placed it the same setback as the house would have been exorbitant as far as back-fill material is concerned. Ms Shern mentioned pictures of the layout. The Board had said pictures in their possession as well as a drawing. Kyle Shern proceeded forth to the bench and pointed out and explained the layout of the property. He pointed out the retaining wall and the abrupt drop-off. In order to be able to maintain and mow the hillside the slope would have to have been brought down with a substantial amount of fill involved. Ms Shern plans to use a similar color scheme of white 2-car garage with metal and black trim. The garage will be set back from the right away line approximately 35’.

    Open to the public. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the request.

    Close to public hearing.

    Chairman Trabue was told that the basement to the house was a walkout and the grading accommodates the walkout. He stated that he understood that the required setback was 25’ from the front property line. The drawing indicates that the front setback is met.

    Kyle Shern explained that it meets all the setback requirements with the exception of being closer to the front property line than the house is.

    Bill Florea explained to the Board that an accessory building can not be placed in front of a primary structure and that is the variance the applicant is requesting.

    Member Bossaller asked how much of a variance from the front of the house is being requested?

    Kyle Shern estimated at least 15-17’. The reason the garage is angled in the position it is is because the driveway is in a light bulb shape. There are two large mature oak trees that they did not want to disturb.

    Member Rootes asked how close would the garage be to the side property line. It was confirmed that 6’ would meet the minimum requirement.

    Member Bossaller asked what type of structures where on the bordering properties and across the street.

    Kyle Shern confirmed that rental properties border his mother’s property. Duplexes and four-plexes. Ms Shern’s property is the only residential home in that vicinity. The other others are rental properties.

    Chairman Trabue stated that currently Lot #5 serves as an access road back to a larger piece of property. There is no guarantee that it will always be used as access but that is how it is used currently.

    Member Rootes asked the staff to give the theory behind the rule that accessory buildings should not be in front of the main structure.

    Stan Shawver responded to the question stating that it was purely aesthetic. It is meant for an area that is densely populated so that there will not be garages, sheds and outbuildings in front of houses in a residential area.

    Linda Rootes asked if it were an attached garage, could it extend closer to the street than the front porch of the rest of the buildings.

    Bill Florea confirmed that an attached garage could extend closer to the street. The problem here is because the garage is detached.

    Chairman Trabue shared that his initial reaction was negative. But after seeing the proposed plot plan he personally thinks it will fit okay. These decisions are difficult because the regulations are developed for protection of the adjoining pieces of property as well.

    Linda Rootes prefers to see buildings that have a little variation in the front setback, so that things are not just straight down the road. She appreciates the fact that there is a setback difference for the proposed building. She appreciates that fact that the garage is not straight on across the front from the rest of the house like a lot of houses and garages are. So from an aesthetic point she would prefer that. She also asked what type of structures were across the street.

    Chairman Trabue confirmed fourplexes and duplexes. It is really difficult to tell front yards and back yards on these properties. This property actually sits up higher than the road and their property sits down lower in the road. And the access to these is via loop that goes around.

    Chairman Trabue restated that the impact to the adjoining lot is going to be minimal. He believes there is sufficient room there and the tree cover that is there and the preservation of those will be helpful in providing a good site layout. He thinks he will support the request.

    Member Bossaller stated he did not think this request would impair the surrounding areas, which is a concern of his. Thinking of other people’s property values. He does not see that happening in this situation, so he is okay with supporting the request as well.

    Member Rootes made and Member Bossaller seconded motion to approve request by Pearl Shern for a variance from Section 7 (5) restricting Accessory buildings from being placed in front of a main structure on A lot, located at 421 E Hinton Rd, Columbia.

    Chairman Trabue opened the floor for discussion. First he clarified that the layout would be in general conformance with the layout that was given to the Board for review. That would give Ms Shern +/- a couple of feet. He asked if that was acceptable as clarification. Everyone agreed.

    Linda Rootes Yes

    Larry Bossaller Yes

    Tom Trabue Yes

    Motion to approve request was unanimous. 3 yes

    * * * * * * *

  3. Request by Fernando Cavero and Anne Roberts for a variance from the front setback
  4. of 50 feet as required in Section 11 (10) on tract 31A of Terrapin Hills, on Terrapin Ridge

    Road.

    Bill Florea gave staff report that the property is zoned A-2 (Agriculture). All adjacent property is also zoned A-2. The site is located 4 miles west of Columbia off of State Highway O. Currently the property is vacant with a proposed house and garage. The original zoning for the tract is A-2. There have been no previous requests submitted on behalf of this property. The applicant is requesting to a variance from the front setback requirement. Staff notified 15 property owners.

    Linda Phillips, Architect, John Phillips Architects Firm of 1007 College Ave, Columbia, represented the applicants. Ms Phillips has been hired to do the home. At this point and time they have not proceeded with any plans. We are looking to do the clarification on the setbacks on this lot. Jim Brush is the surveyor and engineer on this site development and the plat. He has supplied 2 drawings of this lot and of the site in general for the lot layout. Copy were given to the Board members. I also have the homeowner covenants. Tract 31A was pointed out. The terrain and the topography is very unique in so far as this is a fairly consistent grade on the constructed road within this access and utility easement to this point and then there is about an 8 foot drop. What it amounts to is these are functioning like tier lots. This is not a legal right of way. There are some variances in the pavement widths and the right away widths. Some of the other lots on the other tract have only got centerlines of the access easements defined through surveying. They have come in and basically just located a massive asphalt as determination. There is not a cul-de-sac or anything like that. But because it so unusually – there is a lot of confusion as to actual location of where a setback would occur and we were looking for some definition of that. We are not finding any other reference to setbacks and the homeowner’s covenants and documents that would supercede that. But in terms of doing design on it, which would extensively involve getting as close to the property as we can because of the topography we would like to have it defined so that in building inspection and so forth everything is condescending.

    There is a "backbone" that runs down as an extension of the line that that existing roadway takes. On either side of it and in the end of it it falls off. There’s a steep drop to the east. The bluff to the left and very broad but steep valley to the north.

    Chairman Trabue asked if there was a plat that showed any contour information on the site. Staff member Bill Florea stated that the property is unplatted. It is a survey tract development. The building site is fairly narrow and long. But to broaden the area they may need to take 2 or 3 feet down if they could not build the garage as close as possible to the edge of the access easement.

    Chairman Trabue stated the request was to try to help define where setbacks should be. Does it start at the property line or does it start where the pavement stops.

    Linda Phillips stated since this tract was by survey rather than plat we do not have any setbacks identified on any of the tracts that we have and the one other home that has any adjacency to it at all is the Needy residence that is two lots away.

    Open for public hearing.

    No one present spoke in support of the request.

    Ned Gruenhagen of 3601 Danvers Dr, Columbia is the owner of Tract 33. His concern is regarding the placement of the house that may be built there because there is no plan at this time. He feels that knowing what that plan may be might provide a better insight as to the site or condition of that structure on the property. He and his wife have owned Tract 33 for a couple of years and have walked a lot of the area. It does fall away in the back and off the side is Terrapin Creek that runs through. However, there is a fairly large flat area that extends. Mr Gruenhagen was unsure as to what exactly the need for the variance at this point is for.

    Linda Phillips explained that they need to have it by all rights defined because it is not platted, there is not a setback platted. If there was actually a road right of way the set back would be from the property line – but there is not a road right of way. And from the property line the termination of the pavement is entirely on their lot.

    Bill Florea read the definition of a front yard. A yard across the full width of the lot extending from the front line of the main building to front line of the lot, or to the designated street line in cases where the present property line extends to the center line of the abutting street. He would argue the case is where the property line extends into the street itself. Therefore you would measure the setback from the edge of the roadway.

    Ned Gruenhagen is concerned for location. He wants to know about the type of building plan they have. At least the presentation of where it is being considered. Having walked that lot, there is a fairly long area that is broad enough for a very nice house and without that information he would wonder about going forward at this time.

    Linda Phillips thinks the garage should be 30-35 feet from road. Wants 15-20 feet of flexibility where this is located because of the way the asphalt is actually configured.

    Chairman Trabue stated the regulations say setback starts at edge of road.

    Fernando Cavero and Anne Roberts of 805 N Canton, Bolivar, MO. Mr Cavero and his wife Anne Roberts are the property owners of Tract 31A. Mr Cavero came forward and pointed out his property lines and the road easement that is on their property. He stated that the actual buildable area is fairly thin and fairly short. They are hoping to have the option of bringing it forward in order to have the option as far as designing a house that would take advantage of the vistas and actually be able to be constructed on that lot. Right now all this is within the property lines but is being used as common pathway. We are not looking to limit access or change anything as far as access to the property of Tract 32A. That is really the only tract of any relevance as far as access in this area.

    Member Bossaller asked how many feet were actually being looked at. He has problems just creating general areas.

    Linda Phillips stated she the owners had not really discussed what they were looking at. She gave an example like in the City of Columbia 25 feet would be the building setback. She thought that seemed like a reasonable distance for a garage.

    Mr Cavero said they would be looking at 50 feet from the property line and part of that is easement and it would contain the roadway so it would not have any limitations as far as access to the other tract, but it would be from the front of the property line verses the front of the descriptive foot. The easement.

    Linda Phillips said that they did not have any kind of legal description or survey of the cul-de-sac. That is where they get into some vagaries on this. But if they were looking for a bonafided right of way, and they knew that the street was in the right of way even, then they could look at back of curb 9 feet, 25 feet, for a setback on a front yard.

    Mr Cavero commented on how the developer defined the cul-de-sac was according to Boone County regulations as far as turn around (the radius) for fire truck.

    Chairman Trabue commented that he has mixed emotions. This type of problem is a very self-inflected problem by the layout of the development. This road easement was laid out where the old gravel Ridge Road was. It is called Ridge Road. There are several lots that have not been built on yet that have a very similar problem. The developer chose to do this by survey rather than by a platted subdivision, which would accommodate some of those things. The roads could have very easy been moved even and accommodated these things. He shares Member Bossaller’s concern, about not having a defined amount. He has walked the area and feels like there may be room to accommodate a custom designed home which you are looking at. He also stated that if the owner began and found that they needed a 35 foot setback verses a 50 foot setback because that is what it takes to accommodate the home that is appropriate for that site. He would probably be a little more open to considering it. But is uneasy about granting a variance at this time.

    Member Rootes ask what other owners would be impacted. Basically this tract is at the end of the road.

    Chairman Trabue agreed that was a valid point but other properties out there that are along some of these roads that will be impacted by everyone that passes. Every situation is different and must be evaluated differently.

    Member Rootes stated she thinks the setback requirements are to provide a more pleasant appearing community according to whatever the thought of the day is when those setbacks are established. Also prevent people on straight street from building houses out in front that would block the view from other houses. Either of those concerns here. If someone buys a large lot like this and needs to put their house close to the road that just compromises their privacy more than it bothers the neighbors. Unless denying all these variances would cause developers to not subdivide this way in the future. What is the status, for the record of subdividing. Could a developer/property owner still do this kind of survey?

    Stan Shawver responded stated no to Member Rootes question. This is one of the reason why Boone County has regulations that do not allow it.

    Member Rootes stated that the property owners here are just caught in between lack of regulations and the new regulations?

    Mr Cavero stated that is one of his concerns as far as doing the setbacks that way. It will be an ecstatically pleasing house and hopefully it will be good as far as the community goes. Again it is not going to effect the right of way to the only lot that it really accesses. It really only effect that one other piece of property which also will have a similar problem whenever that property owner chooses to build because their little plot of land upon the ridge is also narrow and also short. So they are going to have the same problem with variance as we do if they have to set back 50 feet. And really the setback will effect nobody as well, except the Cavero/Roberts property in some odd fashion.

    Chairman Trabue states that that becomes part of his quandary. How many lots does the Board go back before we say it does start effecting enough people.

    Mr Cavero stated that they were at the end of the road.

    Chairman Trabue expressed sympathy to their problem after walking the site. He would just feel more comfortable if he knew what that number needed to be.

    Linda Phillips relayed that they would need to know how far they would need to go in the design and development of the home in order to come back here because of the cost incurred here to the client to do that. Do they need to come back in concept, preliminary, do clients have to draw up a bunch of money to do the construction documents.

    Chairman Trabue could not speak for the Board for what level they would want – but somewhere between concept and some preliminary drawings where you have the foot print of the home established would give me a lot better feeling.

    Mr Cavero asked if a variance of 25 feet could be requested?

    Chairman Trabue responded yes.

    Linda Phillips stated that it would be something very similar to what they would do if they were in the Highlands or something like that. Where it is 34 feet from the edge of the pavement. That is what you would see on a cul-de-sac street in South Columbia in the Highlands.

    Member Bossaller asked if the tract was bought on contingency sell?

    Mr Cavero responded that it was initially going to be on contingency depending on the variance. They were assured by the lawyer that there probably would not be a significant problem because of the fact that the tract is at the end of the cul-de-sac and really would have no bearing on any landowner as far as access to the property and the fact that they discussed budget with him as far as the house and the typical layout of the house and the lawyer thought the committee would be sympathetic to bringing it forward a little bit as long as it was still complementary to the subdivision. That was the question to him. The lawyer told the owners that he was very comfortable that this would be a straightforward request. So the couple bought the land without the contingency.

    Member Rootes said she would be comfortable with establishing the building line at 50 feet from the property line understanding that anyone driving around the corner is going to be cutting into your front yard and that would be approximately, maybe 25’ from the pavement.

    Chairman Trabue made the comment that we do not know how far the pavement comes into the property. It may not be in the easement.

    Linda Phillips interjected that we do not know that it is even in the easement at this point and time.

    Mr Cavero said that what the developer showed him, using his metal detector and located the spikes, the pavement line came back about 25 feet off the initial property line.

    Linda Phillips said it was marked.

    Chairman Trabue could not find the property pins. But I did not know exactly where I was either. I found the soil scientist mark.

    Mr Cavero said the cul-de-sac pavement line ended up being about 25 feet back. In essence, an easement is land that you buy that is not yours. What they were hoping to do was use that little bit of flat land that they have lost, but still provide access to the other lot.

    Member Bossaller asked how much of a problem it would be to just sketch out some preliminary. Not big detail stuff. You have to have the land before you can build any kind of house. It is first things first. Just try to get some kind of a satisfactory house and put it down on paper then he would feel a lot better tabling this thing. How much land you are going to need. Let’s get it on paper we can really see what the foot print looks like. That’s fair to everybody. I think if we set presence I’d feel a lot better with that. We have to think about general scope long term. I’m going to oppose it right now, but I’m real open in trying to accommodate too. I just need more facts and something I can see to make a decision, but right now I feel very uncomfortable with it.

    Chairman Trabue agreed and would entertain a motion to table until foot print plan was prepared.

    Member Bossaller made and Member Rootes seconded motion to table request by Fernando Cavero and Anne Roberts (H/W) for a variance from the front setback of 50 feet as required in Section 11 (10) on tract 31A of Terrapin Hills, on Terrapin Ridge Road until further notice.

    Larry Bossaller Yes

    Linda Rootes Yes

    Tom Trabue Yes

    Motion to table request was unanimous. 3 yes

    * * * * * * *

  5. Request by Duke Communication to establish nonconforming use (grandfather rights)

and obtain an occupancy permit for telecommunication tower located at 16151 N Rte

Z, Centralia.

Bill Florea gave the staff report that this property is currently zoned M-G (General Industrial) as is the adjacent property. The site is located 4.5 miles south of Centralia on State Hwy Z. Currently there is a telecommunications tower on this site which is within the Pan Handle Eastern Facility. The applicant is requesting a certificate of occupancy for nonconforming use pursuing to zoning regulations which state: Certificate of Occupancy for a Nonconforming Use. Nonconforming uses existing at the effective date of this ordinance shall apply for a Certificate of Occupancy within six months from the effective date of this ordinance. Where a Certificate of Occupancy has not been obtained the existence of such use shall be a question of fact and shall be decided by the Board of Adjustment after public notice and hearing and in accordance with the rules of the Board. Department records do not indicate that a Certificate of Occupancy was ever issued for the tower located on this site. The original zoning for this property is M-G (General Industrial). Pan Handle Eastern had facilities on this site prior to the adoption of zoning in 1973. However, there is nothing in County records to indicate when the tower was built on the Pan Handle property. The Board must establish the type and the level of activity that took place on this site at the time zoning regulations took effect. And further determine what level of activity is permitted today in accordance with the nonconforming use. Based upon the Board’s decision a Certificate of Occupancy will be issued that may permit or restrict the activities on this property. The burden of proof to establish a nonconforming use is upon the applicant. The Board must decide what weight, if any, to apply to any testimony or evidence introduced into the record by the applicant or the public. Staff notified 11 property owners.

Scott Jones, PO Box 1007, Charlotte, NC for Duke Communication Services. The tower is an existing tower which Duke Communication Services is subsidiary Duke Energy owns the tower, is responsible for the tower and leasing space as requested by potential tenants. We have a tenant who requested site and we have accommodated them. This Certificate of Occupancy is believed for the tower. They sent a package that establishes the existing tower was constructed in 1971 which was prior to the ordinance being established. Our request is that the Board allow the tower be grandfathered based on the pre-existing condition.

Open to public hearing.

None in favor of the request.

Bob Woods, Power of Attorney for Terri Starman and Lynne Turner wants to know what is taking place.

Mr Jones stated that they are allowing a wireless company to located two antennas on the existing tower. There is no modification in height to the tower. It is basically staying the same. What we have done is placed a shelter down at the bottom of the tower for them to place their radio equipment in. As far as the tower itself it has not changed in height. There was not modification to the tower itself with the exception of placing a fault protection cable on it.

Chairman Trabue further explained that when zoning took effect in 1973 any nonconforming uses there were out in the County had a 6 month period of time during which time they could come into the office and have a Certificate of Occupancy issued for that nonconforming use. In this particular case that Certificate of Occupancy was not issued to date to anyone’s knowledge. So the purpose of this hearing this evening is to determine if, in fact, at the time the zoning regulations were adopted in 1973, that this tower was in place. What level of service or services were provided on that lot according to this. And if that has been maintained to date in a similar manner. The real key is back to the date that the zoning ordinances took effect in 1973.

Mr Jones commented that he wanted to make sure that the information he supplied was sufficient to establish that the existing tower was there in 1971. Briefly, there are 3 attachments. There was a tower in existence on the property in 1951. That one was replaced with this existing 300 foot tower in 1971. The attachment basically shows the FAA and FCC notices. The tower attachment just shows what had to be filed with the FAA and FCC – proposed construction, progress, and completion. The FCC microwave license. The primary use of the tower is for the data sending for Pan Handle Eastern for their purposes. It was dated effective May 25, 1971.

Member Rootes noted that the tower has been in continuous use by Pan Handle Eastern.

Mr Jones stated occasionally they have had to reestablish a license and renew those have been. The antenna structure registration is probably the newest document. Which basically says the tower is in use and Duke is the owner now. That was dated May 3, 1999.

Closed to public hearing.

Member Bossaller commented on the tower height.

Mr Jones said that they added a few antennas but the tower structure is the same. We placed a small 6x8 shelter down at the base of the tower for the customer to accommodate himself. AmerenUE extended their power line to accommodate power, then after it runs down the Pan Handle Eastern property line.

Chairman Trabue asked the staff if there were limitation when Occupancy Permits were issued for a new tower under the current regulations on the number of antennas that can be placed on it? Or does the County typically approve the tower if that is approved? And then the number of antennas allowed on the tower is really a product of what the structural capacity of what the tower is? Do we become involved if they want to add another antenna?

Bill Florea responded with a yes on all accounts. 1) The number of antennas that would be allowed on a particular tower there obviously is a structural limitation to the number of antennas that can be accommodated. 2) If there is an existing tower and someone comes in to locate a new antenna array on that tower, as long as the radiation admissions from the new facility meet federal guidelines then we can permit that new set of antennas. That is without additional public hearing. Based on the Occupancy permit has been approved. Also building permit. They can not increase the height of the tower.

Stan Shawver stated that the height of the tower should be determined so that it becomes a matter of record.

Member Rootes asked what zoning is needed for a new tower.

Bill Florea responded that they need to be in either the agriculture district in which case they require a conditional use permit, the general commercial district which also requires a conditional use permit, or the light or heavy industrial district which are both permitted uses in those districts. Subject to height limitations. If they are over 100 feet they require conditional use regardless, because of the height of the tower. They would be a permitted use in the General Industrial district. However, this tower is 305 feet tall so if there was not tower there today and they were to come in to build a new tower they would have to apply for a conditional use permit for a tower in excess of 100 feet tall.

For record purposes Chairman Trabue confirmed some items. There was a radio tower initially placed on the site in 1951. In approximately 1971 that tower was replaced with a 305 foot tower. That 305 foot tower is what exists today. With no modifications to height. During the course of time from 1973 to present, what modifications have occurred. Either in number of antennas and that may be back and forth or site conditions as related to the tower.

Mr Jones stated that the records showed that Pan Handle Eastern did a microwave modification 1991. Ronald Rand is the area superintendent for Pan Handle Eastern. They took some larger transmitters and receivers off and put the current ones on. They are a little smaller and dome shaped. And to accommodate that there was some reinforcement of the tower at that time.

Chairman Trabue asked if there were any other modifications. Currently Duke is trying to put two additional antennas and a small 6x8 control shelter at the base of the tower. Are there any other structures at the base of the tower?

Mr Jones confirmed there is one existing unit approximately a 12x20 brick building, built approximately 1971 which accommodates Pan Handle Eastern radio equipment. Union Electric did their work providing power to it. Other than that there has not been anything else done to that sight.

Member Rootes asked the staff if the Board did not issue Certificate of Occupancy for this. Then they would have a nonconforming use that Pan Handle Eastern is using without an Occupancy permit. What would happen then? Would they be required to tear that tower down?

Bill Florea responded by saying if the Board did not grant the request tonight they would be able to apply for a conditional use permit from the Planning and Zoning Commission and the County Commission for a tower that exceed 100 feet in height. If that was granted then they would be considered conforming. If it were not granted then some sort of action to correct, in that case it would be an illegal tower, would be required.

Chairman Trabue opened the hearing back up to anyone in the audience that would have anything to offer or can confirm the items that have already been discussed or indicate any discrepancies they might have on the history of the tower. This goes a little bit out of the normal approach to business but because the Board wants to make sure that they have everything on the record. Any knowledge that anyone has of this tower during this time period, being 1973 to present. The Board does want to make sure they establish what the actual record is.

Member Rootes asked if any of the 11 property owners notified responded.

Staff has not heard from any neighboring property owners.

Chairman Trabue asked staff because this tower is in excess of 100 feet is the Board also to consider a Conditional Use Permit to allow that? Do you need that additional piece of paper?

Bill Florea responded no. It is sufficient for you to issue the Certification of Occupancy tonight.

Stan Shawver suggested that the Board could specify the tower height.

Member Rootes made and Member Bossaller seconded motion to approve the request by Duke Communication to establish nonconforming use (grandfather rights) and obtain an occupancy permit for telecommunication tower located at 16151 N Rte Z, Centralia. This Certificate of Occupancy is being approved for this nonconforming tower with the understanding that it will not exceed its current height of 305 feet.

Member Rootes stated that she appreciates the fact that people are sharing towers. She appreciates the fact that everyone is not out building their own towers.

Linda Rootes Yes

Larry Bossaller Yes

Chairman Trabue Yes

Motion to approve request was unanimous. 3 yes

 

OLD BUSINESS

Review permit issued to Lloyd and Patricia Rowland for a second dwelling on

3.0 acres located at 7702 W Hwy 124, Harrisburg (issued August 1984).

Stan Shawver gave staff report that the Rowland’s property is located in the Harrisburg area on Hwy 124 just east of Harrisburg. The property is zoned A-2. All the surround property is zoned A-2 as well. Originally there was a house on the property and in 1984 the Rowland’s approached requesting a variance to permit a mobile home for Mrs Rowland’s mother to live in. That permit was granted in 1984. Had an annual review in 1985. Subsequent to that the zoning regulations changed. It has been back on 2 year reviews. The most recent review was in 1997. Mrs Rowland’s mother still resides in the mobile home. She is 90 years old and is quite a fixture in the neighborhood. They are asking that the permit be renewed for another 2 years. We notified 14 property owners. There have been no calls or complaints at all in the past on this placement.

Lloyd and Patricia Rowland of 7702 W Hwy 124, Harrisburg, were present in support of their request.

Member Bossaller made and Member Rootes seconded motion to renew the permit issued to Lloyd and Patricia Rowland for a second dwelling on 3.0 acres located at 7702 W Hwy 124, Harrisburg (issued August 1984) for another 2 years review period.

Larry Bossaller Yes

Linda Rootes Yes

Chairman Trabue Yes

Motion to approve permit renewal was unanimous. 3 yes

********

Review permit issued to B.F. Vanderpool for a pre-1976 mobile home on 5.86

Acres, located at 9051 N Reams Rd., Centralia (issued October 1993).

No one present to represent the Vanderpools. The last time they were here we had some neighbors concerned about some cars and activities they did not care for. They did correct those zoning violations. As far as Planning knows the trailer is still there. Perhaps the trailer is moved off. We will verify that and invite them to the next meeting.

 

ADJOURN

Meeting adjourned at 8:21 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

Ora L Ramsey

Secretary

Minutes approved 23rd of March 2000.