BOONE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
BOONE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
801 E. WALNUT ST., COLUMBIA, MO.
Thursday, October 26, 2000
Chairperson Tom Trabue called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Boone County Chambers having a quorum present.
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.
Roll call was taken:
Present: Tom Trabue, Chairperson
Linda Rootes, Vice Chairperson
Also present: Stan Shawver, Director Bill Florea, Staff
Thad Yonke, Staff Ora Ramsey, Secretary
Minutes of August 24, 2000 meeting were approved as corrected by acclimation.
Bill Florea gave the staff report that the current zoning of the property is R-S (Single Family Residential) as is all of the adjacent zoning. The property is located on Lake of the Woods Road, just east of the Columbia municipal limits. There is a single family dwelling on the property. The applicant is in the process of re-platting the lot. Current regulations classify Lake of the Woods Road as an arterial, which requires a 100’ right-of-way (total). The original plat provided a right-of-way of 30’. The house on the property was built in accordance with the right-of way and setback requirements at the time that the lot was platted.
This section of Waters Edge Estates was platted in 1980. There has been no change from the original zoning. Section 2.2 of Appendix B of the Subdivision Regulations requires 100’ of right-of-way.
Staff notified 40 property owners.
Tom Schneider, Attorney, 11 N 7th St, Columbia. Jim Brush, Surveyor, 506 Nichols Street, Columbia. Mr Schneider and Mr Brush represent the Ousleys, who were present. As indicated by the Staff, at the time the house was built, the right-of-way requirements were less on streets such as Lake of the Woods Road. The point being, at the time it was built the location was correct and proper and the reason this request is before the Commission is because the Ousleys are building a detached garage. It turns out that the garage is actually on the next lot, which the Ousleys own, but it is technically a different lot so it has to be re-platted. They are going the re-plat process. The platting process then triggers a new right-of-way exaction under the new standards, which is a 50-foot half right-of-way. The Ousleys did not realize that when they started breaking ground that there were procedural issues that needed to be addressed and when it came to light the construction stopped and they are here before you requesting a variance.
We think it should be granted because 1) it involves a very small area of land. On the first area that was passed around shows an area in green, that is the area of the variance; and 2) there are large rock out cropping in the area of the variance and that is shown in three of the photographs. There would be difficulty in the County using any of the area in question for right-of-way purposes. One of the photos also shows that the land across the road on the east is undeveloped and if additional right-of-way is needed the road could veer over for a short distance at that location. The Staff report indicates that as to the second and third elements of the variance requirements there are no issues. The Staff suggests that there might be an issue as to the first element. However, Mr Schneider, does not believe there is. He thinks there is a clear hardship to the Ousleys in several respects if the variance is not granted. Their house was be overlooking the right-of-way. They also have already invested $10,000-$12,000 in the project already, including excavation, the fill, the pouring of the concrete which they did without knowing that there was an issue. If the variance isn’t granted they would probably spend even more to actually remove those improvements, which would be at a very substantial cost, which they believe would qualify plainly as a hardship.
Open to public hearing.
None spoke in favor of the request.
None spoke in opposition of the request.
Closed to public hearing.
Chairman Trabue commented that this is a case that the Board is beginning to see more of with the changes that have been seen in the subdivision regulations. Over the years the right-of-way requirements in many areas on County roads are starting to check up with us. Chairman Trabue stated that he would prefer to have the additional right-of-way granted, recognizing that the setbacks would not meet current regulations, but that we would note for record purposes that that’s how this occurred and transpired. We definitely do not want someone to have to move his or her house. That would not be a responsible thing, but he also recognized in this particular area of the rock out cropping that any construction or widening of the road in the area would impact that. The back slopes in that area would be near vertical rather than a ditch section or a laid back section, which typically would not require as much right-of-way if Boone County was acquiring the exact right-of-way for road purposes.
Member Bowne stated that according to her calculations the existing easement should be 33’. Staff stated that she was right. It was indeed 33’ and not 30’.
Most easements do not require something that is there, but it under the understanding that if the road had to expand and they needed to use the easement that could be destroyed at that point. Will Public Works require that the new foundation be removed if the variance is not granted?
Chairman Trabue explained that the applicant would need to replat the property and that the right-of-way does not effect the garage that they are building, it is more the re-plat.
Member Bowne referred to a statement that Mr Schneider had made regarding the amount of money the applicants had already spent for the preparation and foundation of the project. She wanted to know if the applicants would literally have to pull out and dig up the work that had already been done.
Mr Schneider stated it would be unsightly to just leave the foundation there. He said it would also collect water and rodents.
Chairman Trabue commented that he saw the issue as the area in green. He questioned whether the green area should be right-of-way, which the regulations require – or – whether it can not be right-of-way, and whether an exception to the required right-of-way width for this short area.
Member Bossaller asked Staff, if the variance is granted, if it would cause any big effect or hardship on the other surrounding properties. Staff stated that it was probably safe to say that other property owners would not even know that a variance was granted.
Staff did not receive notice of any objections from the neighbors, but did receive a letter from Hagan Development Company, Dan Hagan on behalf of his property ownership and the Homeowner’s Association expressing their support of the request. No comments were received from Public Works.
Chairman Trabue said that his gut feeling on the matter is that it should be right-of-way, but he also offered that if an improved street was built in that area, it would likely be a 38 foot wide street, something similar to what was constructed on St Charles Road in that area, and half of that would be 19 foot. That would leave an additional 14-foot within the existing right-of-way for sidewalks and back slopes. The slopes up to the yards. With the rock out cropping situation in this particular area, not granting the right-of-way would probably have very little or no impact on Public Works ability to build a road improvement on this street.
Member Rootes asked Chairman Trabue that if Public Works does determine, in the future, that they were going to build a wider street; is it correct to say that they would either need to approach the Ousleys to acquire easement, or look to the property across the street for additional easement. He told her she was corrected. He also said that they could consider a retaining wall if they needed to get a little further at that point, depending on how wide they needed to be. The road is very straight now and probably would not be moved over just to accommodate a right-of-way situation. However, it could be. It is not impossible.
Member Bossaller made and Member Bowne seconded motion to approve the variance requested by
George H Ousley, Jr for a variance from Section 2.2, Appendix B of the Subdivision Regulations, requiring 100’ of right-of-way adjacent to an arterial street, located at 2043 N Lake of the Woods Rd, Columbia.
Motion to approve the request carried. 5 Yes 0 No
Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
Ora L Ramsey
Minutes approved ______ of __________, 2000.