BOONE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
BOONE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
801 E. WALNUT ST., COLUMBIA, MO.
Thursday, February 22, 2001
Chairperson Tom Trabue called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Boone County Commission 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
Absent: Larry Bossaller
Also present: Thad Yonke, Staff Bill Florea, Staff
Paula Evans, Secretary
Minutes of November 30, 2000 meeting were approved with no corrections.
Planner, Bill Florea gave staff report stating that this property is located two miles north of Hallsville off of Highway 124 in the Bentwood Subdivision. The property is zoned A-2 as is the adjacent property. There is currently a modular home and detached garage on this property. A-2 zoning is the original zoning for this tract. The requested variance is to permit, in case of practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship, for a period of two years, the location of a mobile home on a lot. Staff notified 17 property owners of this request.
Present: Jack Gofourth, 13050 N. Route B, Hallsville, MO 65255
Mr. Gofourth states there were a couple of items he wished to address. One being, he would like to subdivide lot 12, in which applicant is the current owner containing 9.75 acres and there is a house currently on the property. There are six other places around this area with less than five acres. Applicant does not understand why he can not subdivide that property and make two separate lots.
Applicant states that he is selling the house he presently lives in and would like to put his property to use.
Open to public hearing.
In favor of the request...
Present: Oliver Sheffield, 16100 N. Bentwood , Centralia, MO 65240
Mr. Sheffield states that he owns the property known, as he believes, lot 25. Mr. Sheffield stated that he agrees with what applicant has stated and has no objections to it. There is a mobile home on Mr. Sheffield’s property it fronts on 124 and Bentwood.
Mr. Gofourth stated that he believes Mr. Sheffield actually owns lot 23. Mr. Gofourth approached Mr. Trabue and showed a map of the area.
It was decided that Mr. Sheffield owns lot 24.
Mr. Sheffield again stated that he had no objection to the request.
Mr. Gofourth asked Members the possibility of subdividing this property.
Chairperson Trabue stated the desire to finish the public part of the hearing before discussing that possibility.
No one else spoke in favor of the request.
No one spoke in opposition of the request.
Mr. Gofourth stated that he bought the property and there are mobile homes in the area. It should not be a problem as long he stays in the square footage, which applicant states he fully intends to do.
Applicant stated that he knows there are other property owners that have multi mobile homes on their property.
Closed to Public Hearing.
Chairperson Trabue clarified that the request before the Board this evening was to place a second dwelling on the property under the provisions of a hardship. Before that is addressed, Chairperson Trabue would like to discuss the possibility of subdividing. Mr. Trabue believes that is a possible avenue and is probably the most appropriate avenue, if this is not a hardship situation.
Mr. Gofourth stated it is not a hardship situation at this time. Of course no one knows what the future will bring.
Chairperson Trabue asked who was living in the modular home currently on the property.
Mr. Gofourth stated his stepdaughter and her husband were living there.
Mr. Trabue affirmed that applicant would like to place a second dwelling on the property for applicants personal home.
Applicant stated that was correct.
Chairperson Trabue asked staff the requirements of subdividing, Mr. Trabue stated that the subdivision regulations do provide for that and could request from the Planning and Zoning Commission to vacate that lot and replat as two lots and asked staff if that was correct. Chairperson stated that everyone was present and asked that the possibilities and options be discussed.
Planner, Bill Florea stated that the configuration of that property is going to make it difficult to subdivide and Mr. Florea doesn’t think they will be able to meet the standards. The only way to split, both resulting lots would have to have public road frontage, that would require a longitudinal split with a north half and a south half. Those resulting pieces probably wouldn’t meet the 3 to 1 length to width ratio. It’s not likely that they could get a subdivision approved. It would however be possible to split the property by a family transfer.
Chairperson Trabue asked applicant if he had a map of the property.
Applicant stated that he did and brought the map to the Members and pointed out the property lines and where he wanted to put the proposed second dwelling. Applicant stated that there was a road back to the property and that the first home is sitting past the wood line, which is approximately 300-400 feet to the other house from Bentwood Lane. It is somewhere around 200-300 feet to the short side of it. Applicant stated that he was not sure of the directions. There is a front part to the lot, which was an old roadway that used to run through there. The road has been taken out and is only a ravine now. There is quite a bit of property on the front part of that from Bentwood down probably about half way of that before you get to the other dwelling.
Mr. Florea looked at the map as well and stated that if this property was split, both of the resulting tracts must have frontage on a publicly maintained road. A public road by definition is a publicly maintained road. These roads are now maintained by the County.
Applicant asked what if he donated that easement to the County.
Mr. Florea stated that it would have to be improved to a public road standard. Which means applicant would have to build a public road back to the property. If applicant is willing to do that, it is an option.
Mr. Gofourth asked what the standards were.
Mr. Trabue stated that these are gravel roads and believes that it would be a 24-foot wide minimum gravel road with ditches on each side and a cul-de-sac. But it would have to be worked out with the Public Works Department.
Member Rootes asked how that is different from the access that lot 11 has.
Chairperson Trabue stated that was accepted back in 1987 as a flag lot. It is not a desirable situation, but at the time they weighed this out, there were several being accepted this way.
Chairperson Trabue states the Board has explored in general the re-platting possibility and the problems that are associated with that, a family transfer was mentioned and asked staff if that would apply in a platted subdivision.
Bill Florea stated it would as long as the transfer is between qualified family members. Mr. Florea explained to applicant that he could transfer a portion of the property by deed, fill out a family transfer form, present it to the Planning and Building Inspection office and staff can approve that. That allows applicant to avoid the subdivision regulations. Then you can use an easement to access that back lot.
Chairperson Trabue stated that as applicant described what he is trying to accomplish, from Mr. Trabue’s perspective, it did not really meet the hardship requirement that is typically applied to these requests. That is why he wanted to go ahead and explore the options that are available to the applicant. Mr. Trabue stated that this is the way he is leaning is that another option would be the best approach. Chairperson Trabue states that he would find it difficult to support approving this on a hardship condition because he doesn’t believe it meets the standard that the Board typically applies to that. He believes applicant is actually looking for a different approach, if applicant can find a different way to get it done.
Mr. Gofourth stated that he would prefer going with a family transfer. This way it frees up the property he wants to live on.
Chairperson Trabue asked staff for a recommendation on whether to table the request or go ahead and take action or allow to withdraw the request. What will give the best result to the applicant that meets the regulations.
Mr. Gofourth stated that he had until March 5, 2001 to get out of the house he is currently living in so any thing that can get him moved the fastest.
Mr. Trabue asked staff if applicant came in to their office and does a family transfer, will that happen.
Bill Florea stated that he believed the applicant could.
Chairperson Trabue stated that if applicant did that, he could go ahead and move forward.
Mr. Florea stated that the timing was up to the applicant.
Member Rootes asked Chairman Trabue if the Board voted to table this request, and for some reason that applicant had to come back to continue the request, it would not require an additional fee, correct?
Chairperson Trabue stated that was correct. That is why, if there was any question, Mr. Trabue would prefer to table the request just so applicant wouldn’t have to go through the whole process again. But if there is not a question of the family transfer working, he believes Mr. Gofourth is leaning that direction, Board will give the question back to him for the decision.
Applicant stated that is what he prefers to do instead of the hardship.
Mr. Florea stated in answer to the previous question of the family transfer, until staff sees and reviews the documentation that applicant produces for the family transfer, staff can not say whether it will be approved or not. What applicant will need; is a deed and a legal description, preferably a survey, that is not absolutely required, but at least a legal description.
Mr. Gofourth stated that he would still have to have the property surveyed and asked staff if that was correct.
Mr. Florea stated that he was not saying that he did not have to have it surveyed but under State law it is required to be surveyed because he doesn’t think it is legal to simply write a legal description for a property that is less than 40 acres. It does legally, by state law, require a survey. Applicant may be able to find a surveyor that will write a legal description anyway. If so, that could be put on a deed and then applicant would need to pickup a family transfer form from the Planning and Building Inspection Office. Fill that out completely and bring both back in to the office so staff can approve the family transfer form. At that point, if the deed and the family transfer form are approved, staff can sign it and walk the applicant to the Recorder’s Office and have it recorded. The property division is done simply by transferring a portion to another party, being a family member.
Chairman Trabue stated that staff has answered his question and believes the Board knows where they would like to go with this.
Applicant stated that before a motion is made he wants to know if there is a problem with the property being mortgaged as it stands right now.
Mr. Trabue states that there will probably need to be a deed of release on that and applicant will have to talk to the mortgage holder, but typically a deed of release would be required and the mortgage company may have some requirements there. What they will probably want to do is maintain a mortgage against both individual pieces of property for their protection, but applicant would have to speak with the mortgage company.
Member Rootes stated that since Mr. Gofourth has already paid his fee for this request, and it has been advertised, Member Rootes moves to table this request until applicant finds out if the other situation works for him. And if not, this request can be considered later by the Board without having to pay again. If the family transfer works, this request can be withdrawn.
Mr. Gofourth states, if he understands this right, he will have to show a deed of ownership, get the property surveyed, and the financing.
Chairperson Trabue recommended that applicant speak with the staff on any other questions he may have regarding the family transfer, as there is still a motion on the floor.
Member Rootes made and Member Clementz seconded a motion to table the request by Jack and Gladys Gofourth for a permit to allow a mobile home as a second dwelling on 9.75 acres, located at 16760 N. Bentwood Lane., Centralia.
Chairperson Trabue Yes Member Bowne Yes
Member Rootes Yes Member Clementz Yes
Motion to table the request carries. 4 Yes 0 No
Planner, Thad Yonke gave the staff report stating that the current zoning of the property is A-2 as is the adjacent zoning. The property is located approximately 3 miles east of Harrisburg, just north of Highway 124. There is an existing house on the property. The mobile home approved for this request is the second dwelling on 9.48 acres. The applicants are requesting renewal of a permit to keep placement of their grandparent’s 1996 mobile home on their property.
This permit was first granted in September 1996 and was last reviewed in 1999. The requested variance is to renew the permit as needed.
Staff notified 22 property owners.
Present: Bryan and Melissa Pemberton, 14871 N. Oak Grove School Rd, Harrisburg
Mrs. Pemberton stated that Mr. Pemberton’s grandfather has passed away but grandmother is still living there and still needs assistance.
Chairperson Trabue asked staff if they’ve received any complaints regarding this request.
Planner, Bill Florea stated office has received no calls.
Member Bowne made and Member Clementz seconded a motion to renew the permit issued to Bryan and Melissa Pemberton for a mobile home as a second dwelling on 9.48 acres for an additional two years.
Member Bowne Yes Member Rootes Yes
Chairperson Trabue Yes Member Clementz Yes
Motion to approve the request for a two-year renewal carries. 4 Yes 0 No.
Planner, Bill Florea stated staff had received a phone call from Mr. Brown that the mobile home has been removed. Applicants do not wish to continue the application, therefore we only need a motion to discontinue the permit.
Member Bowne made and Member Clementz seconded a motion to discontinue the permit for Larry Brown.
Member Bowne inquired about the second mobile home that is trashed on the backside of the property.
Mr. Yonke stated that was probably the same mobile home.
Member Bowne stated that was not a 1997 mobile home sitting there.
Mr. Florea stated that if there was a trashed mobile home on the property it is probably a zoning violation.
Member Bowne stated that she assumed it was the correct property. Member Bowne went by the street number and did not see a 1997 mobile home anywhere in there. She stated that she assumed that there has been a change of mobile homes. But there is an old one on the backside of the property.
Chairperson Trabue Yes Member Rootes Yes
Member Bowne Yes Member Clementz Yes
Motion to discontinue permit carries. 4 Yes 0 No
3. Review permit issued to Charles Wilson for a mobile home as a second dwelling located at 6205 N Wagon Trail Rd. (first granted 4/86).
Planner, Thad Yonke stated that staff has received no calls either way. But with no one present to represent this review it is hard to say if the permit is still needed.
Board decided to put this review on a later agenda.
Member Bowne asked staff to include a map to locate the locations of these properties.
Chairperson Trabue stated it would be helpful on a lot of these requests, just to have a copy of the plat map.
Member Bowne stated not just the plat map, but a drawing of where it is, because on the previous request, she couldn’t tell whether that mobile home was on the property or just very close to the property.
Chairperson Trabue stated the plat map would help him.
Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Paula L Evans
Minutes approved ______ of __________, 2001.