BOONE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

BOONE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER

801 E. WALNUT ST., COLUMBIA, MO.

Thursday, June 28, 2001

 

Chairperson Trabue called the meeting to order at 7:13 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, Chairman

Linda Rootes, Vice-Chairperson

Larry Bossaller

Absent: Kay Clementz

Cindy Bowne

Also present: Thad Yonke, Staff Bill Florea, Staff

Paula Evans, Secretary

Minutes of May 24, 2001 meeting were approved with no corrections.

REQUEST

 

 

  1. Request by Wayne Hilgedick to construct an agricultural building in the designated floodway located at 1500 E Hartsburg Bottom Rd., Hartsburg. (Art. 4 A 6 Ė zoning)
  2. Planner, Thad Yonke gave staff report stating that this property is zoned A-1, the adjacent zoning is A-1. This property is located one-mile southwest of Hartsburg. There is a residence and other ag structures on this site. The requested variance is to permit construction of a 3600 sq. ft. structure on the site, which is located within the designated floodway.

    The original zoning for this tract is A-1. There have been no other requests submitted on behalf of this site. The requested variance from the zoning regulations, Floodplain Management Ordinance, Article 4, A.6. Staff notified 11 property owners of this request. Staff prepared exhibit A to help the board and requests that it be entered in to the record.

    Present: Terry Hilgedick, 1500 E. Hartsburg Bottom Road, Hartsburg, MO.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated that the summary that staff gave is accurate. The building would be roughly a 3600 square feet building. It would be for agriculture use and hopefully be built this fall. Applicants will be raising the site to construct the building with earth and fill. Applicant will get very near the base flood elevation and not quite sure whether it will go all the way or not. There are some things that come in to play, aesthetics and some other things.

    Open to public hearing.

    No one spoke in favor of the request.

    No one spoke in opposition of the request.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated he had the required engineering data for a no rise certificate. It basically states that the building will not impair the flow of the river, since it is a wide area and it will not raise the level of the river. Where they will build the building, there is a wide-open agricultural area where farming goes on all around it. The use of the building will be for seed storage and farm equipment storage. Applicants are full time farmers in the river bottoms. The rationale for locating it at that site is that this is the applicantís base of operations.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated that he has gone and tried to locate property that does not lie in the floodplain, the only property he could locate was approximately 3 miles away, it was not accessible by a big truck or farm equipment and it was $140,000 to purchase the property.

    Closed to public hearing.

    Chairman Trabue stated that this was a different type of variance than the Board typically hears. In that F.E.M.A. dictates the types of things the Board has to discuss and find out about before the Board is able to grant the variance or not.

    Chairman Trabue asked the applicant to tell the Board about the structure being planned. Chairman Trabue stated that applicant indicated his intent to get the structure near the base flood elevation. If it doesnít reach the base elevation, Chairman Trabue asked how the structure will be designed to meet FEMA requirements. Chairman Trabue stated that if applicants could get the building up to the base flood elevation, it would resolve a lot of the flood proofing and those types of issues.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated that they have received four bids. One for a steel building, three for a pole type building. It will have a concrete floor in it. If it is not to base flood elevation, it will need to have inlets for water to come in to the building, and an exit from the building. That is all provided for in the plan of the building according to requirements. The pole type building, the poles will be set in concrete in a concrete wall on the north and west side, those would be the sides, given a severe flood event, and there would be some current against that. The site where they are building, with the height of the building, the only flood that would have touched the building is the flood of 1993. Prior to that, or prior to now, no other flood in the past 150 years would have been in the building. No sewer or water, there will be electrical inside for interior lighting. Anything below base flood elevation will be treated lumber or steel or concrete.

    Chairman Trabue asked applicant who they have been working with for the no-rise certificate and the engineering and plans.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated Joe Gibbs did the no-rise certificate.

    (Herein all italics represent readings from Exhibit A.)

    Chairman Trabue stated that one of the regulations that will occur, before the County could issue a building permit is that the plan does need to be provided. Chairman Trabue stated that in Article 5, Section F, subsection 11, of Exhibit A: Conditions for approving variances for agricultural structures. Chairman Trabue stated this would apply if it is wet flood-proofed. Wet-flood-proofing construction techniques must be reviewed and approved by the community and a registered professional engineer or architect prior to the issuance of any floodplain development permit for construction.

    Chairman Trabue stated to the applicant that applicantís indicated there would only be electrical, no plumbing, the electrical would be fed by over-head service. Any electrical panels would be above flood-elevation.

    Chairman Trabue asked applicant how far below the base-flood elevation is the current site.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated it was about 6-feet below base flood. Applicants plan to build the building up about 4Ĺ feet.

    Chairman Trabue stated it was so outlet switches and such would be above that level.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated that was correct.

    Chairman Trabue asked if applicants were proposing to build close to the road.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated it would be about 150-200 feet south of Hartsburg Bottom Road. Applicant stated his fatherís house is there and there are other farm structures there, machine sheds, grain bins, etc.

    Chairman Trabue asked the types of materials to be stored in the building. Applicant indicated that it would be primarily for seed storage and farm equipment. Chairman Trabue pointed out that there could be no flammables or explosives, so fuel tanks would be out of the question at the location.

    Chairman Trabue stated to the applicant that the Board would need a copy of the no-rise certificate. That should satisfy the requirements of Article 4, Section E, since that has been done.

    A copy of the no-rise certificate was entered in to the record.

    Chairman Trabue stated that Article 5, Section D is specific variance criteria and should be gone over specifically.

    1.The danger to life and property due to flood damage;

    Chairman Trabue stated that it was quite obvious that if the building is in the floodway, there is a property damage issue. The structure is not to be inhabited.

    2. The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others;

    Chairman Trabue stated that this applies more to any outside storage that might be associated with this. Chairman Trabue asked applicant if he was anticipating any outside storage other than typical agricultural type uses.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated no.

    Chairman Trabue asked applicant what types of equipment would be stored.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated that when it was vacant or there was room in there, there would probably be tractors in there. Basically farm machinery.

    Chairman Trabue asked if it would be equipment that could be readily moved in a flood event.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated that was correct.

    Chairman Trabue stated that FEMA is very concerned about any debris that could be carried down and cause damage to other structures.

    3. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner;

    Chairman Trabue stated that has been addressed by applicant as to if the structure is being put anywhere below the base flood, applicant is aware of the requirements for inlets for water to flow freely through the structure and are addressing that with applicantís engineer.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated that was correct.

    4. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community;

    Chairman Trabue stated that the agricultural aspects of these operations are very important. Applicants have already addressed the ability, or inability, to find property to find property that is above the base flood elevation that would provide reasonable access to the farm.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated that is correct, he has tried to find property. Due to topography of the neighboring area, it is very hilly and very rough. There are not many straight roads, or roads that will accommodate applicants equipment.

    Member Rootes asked applicant regarding the storage of seed. Is this seed that applicant will be planting themselves that would be stored there in anticipation of planting.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated it would be some of their own seed, some would also be for sale to other farmers within maybe a 20-mile radius. The seed would be located there for a period of time.

    Member Rootes asked applicant if they raised seed crops.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated that he would become a representative of Pioneer Seed Company. It would be their seed located there, some of which applicant would plant themselves, and some of which they would not plant.

    Member Rootes asked applicant if they raised crops for seed.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated no.

    Chairman Trabue stated in order for the variance to be approved, one of the requirements is that there is no permanent retail, wholesale, or manufacturing use included in the structure. Chairman Trabue stated we are starting to get in to that gray territory if applicant is, in essence, planning to wholesale seed out of the structure.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated in Article 4, Section A it states that structures used solely for agricultural purposes in connection with the production, harvesting, storage, drying or raising of agricultural commodities is permissible. That is part of the use.

    Chairman Trabue stated to look on to item 5 of that same paragraph in which it states there is no permanent retail, wholesale, or manufacturing use included in the structure.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated it is an agricultural use of that structure.

    Chairman Trabue agreed.

    Member Rootes asked applicant whether the seed would be for sale year-round or only seasonally.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated only seasonally, maybe a couple of months.

    Member Rootes stated it does not sound very permanent.

    Chairman Trabue agreed.

     

    5. The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable;

    Chairman Trabue stated item 5 was not applicable.

    6. The availability of alternative locations, not subject to flood damage, for the proposed use;

    Chairman Trabue stated item 6 has been addressed as part of the testimony

    7. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development;

    Chairman Trabue stated it was his opinion that it was compatible with the use of the area.

    8. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain management program for that area;

    Chairman Trabue stated it was consistent with this as well.

    9. The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles;

    Chairman Trabue stated item 9, safety of access was as well as can be expected along Hartsburg Bottom Road.

    10. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the flood waters, if applicable, expected at the site; and,

    Chairman Trabue stated item 10 was addressed in part with the no-rise certificate.

    11. The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions, including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems; streets; and bridges.

    Chairman Trabue stated, regarding item 11, that he didnít believe this application had any impact on those services, since these services will not be provided to the site.

    Article 5 Section E subsections 1-6 Ė

    3. Variances shall not be issued within any designated floodway if any significant increase in flood discharge would result.

    Chairman Trabue stated that the Board has identified by the no-rise certificate that there is no significant increase in the flood discharge as a result of this action.

    5. Variances shall only be issued upon (a) a showing of good and sufficient cause, (b) a determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, and (c) a determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances.

    Chairman Trabue stated he believes item (a) a showing of good cause... agricultural purposes show a good cause for the variance.

    Regarding item (b), Member Rootes asked applicant to explain how the operation would be effected if the variance were not granted.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated that he would have to search for a different location. The real estate prices in southern Boone County are steep. Not only that, it would eliminate the convenience of having it at the home-site. There are terrible problems with vandalism and stealing in remote locations. When you have $50,000 tractors and $100,000 combines, it would place a hardship not being able to build on the home-site.

    Member Rootes asked applicant where they stored their seed now.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated they stored a small quantity in a barn, most of it they donít store, they pick it up in Jefferson City or Columbia as they plant. Applicants do not have a significant availability of seed storage at this time. The barns are full of other things.

    Member Rootes asked applicant if they had to make a lot of extra trips.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated that was correct.

    Member Rootes asked applicant how the price was when they make several trips instead of ordering it all at once.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated there was always the case of not having it where you want the seed when you need it. Price wise, there is not a lot of difference, just the aggravation of having to go get it everyday to continue to plant in a timely fashion. That takes man-hours and the expense of going to get it. It would be handier to have it all on site, which is what the variance will provide.

    Chairman Trabue asked applicant how the seed was packaged.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated usually in 50 and 60 lb. bags.

    Member Bossaller asked if the building was flooded with that seed inside, is there any way the seed can be carried off.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated the seed would be removed before that would ever happen.

    Member Bossaller stated there was to be no permanent retail or wholesale, how is the Board going to get past that. Member Bossaller stated that the idea was permanent and asked applicant if it was going to be sold seasonally.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated it would be seasonal when it is stored there. Maybe a 60-day storage time, the seed will be brought in probably in March and be delivered in April and May.

    Member Rootes asked applicant during the flood of 1993, how fast did the water come up, and how much advance notice did applicant have.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated they moved almost everything before the flood, they had several days to get moved out. In times of potential floods in the spring, they reduce the inventory of the grain and see that there are no cattle on the farm, applicants take steps going in to the year.

    Member Rootes asked how long applicants have been farming that same area.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated for 50-60 years, if anyone knows how to get out of the way of a flood, they do. They have learned a lot of things over the years of how to build a building to withstand a flood. The building will be built substantially stronger than anything built on the hills. It will be set in concrete; it will have a concrete floor and will be built to take a beating. The building will be built to withstand the 1993 flood.

    Member Bossaller asked about the storing of equipment in the location and if there were any problems currently in the area with stealing and vandalism.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated it does happen, applicants have had tools stolen. Sentinnel Buildings had a tractor stolen not very long ago, it was on a lot that was unguarded. This site is where his father lives, the building will be within 100-feet from the house. There is a lot of security in that. The neighbors have a lot of problems with vandalism, tractor windows have been broken out, batteries stolen, all kinds of things going on. It is very remote and people can get away with things.

    SECTION F. CONDITIONS FOR APPROVING VARIANCES FOR AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURES

    Article 5 Section F subsections 1-11

    1. All agricultural structures considered for a variance from the floodplain management regulations of this ordinance shall demonstrate that the varied structure is located in wide, expansive floodplain areas and no other alternate location outside of the special flood hazard area exists for the agricultural structure. Residential structures, such as farm houses, cannot be considered agricultural structures.

    Chairman Trabue stated the Board has already discussed item 1.

    2. Use of the varied structures must be limited to agricultural purposes in zone A only as identified on the community's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).

    Chairman Trabue stated that has been discussed and identified.

    3. For any new or substantially damaged agricultural structures, the exterior and interior building components and elements (i.e., foundation, wall framing, exterior and interior finishes, flooring, etc.) below the base flood elevation, must be built with flood-resistant materials in accordance with Article 4, Section A (4)(b) of this ordinance.

    Chairman Trabue stated item 3 has been discussed.

    4. The agricultural structures must be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structures in accordance with Article 4, Section A (4)(a) of this ordinance. All of the building's structural components must be capable of resisting specific flood-related forces including hydrostatic, buoyancy, and hydrodynamic and debris impact forces.

    Chairman Trabue stated item 4 will come in to play when applicant gets the building permit. The Staff will be looking at these items specifically to make sure they adhere to the regulation. Based on the building applicant described to the Board, Chairman Trabue believes that applicant is on the right track.

    5. Any mechanical, electrical, or other utility equipment must be located above the base flood elevation or floodproofed so that they are contained within a watertight, floodproofed enclosure that is capable of resisting damage during flood conditions in accordance with Article 4, Section A (4)(d) of this ordinance.

    Chairman Trabue stated item 5 has been addressed.

    6. The agricultural structures must meet all National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) opening requirements. The NFIP requires that enclosure or foundation walls, subject to the 100-year flood, contain openings that will permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters in accordance with Article 4, Section B (1)(c) of this ordinance.

    Chairman Trabue stated item 6 has been discussed as well as some of the details the Staff would look for at the time of construction.

    Mr. Hilgedick stated he had discussed it somewhat with Director, Stan Shawver.

    7. The agricultural structures must comply with the floodplain management floodway encroachment provisions of Article 4, Section E(2) of this ordinance. No variances may be issued for agricultural structures within any designated floodway, if any increase in flood levels would result during the 100-year flood.

    Chairman Trabue stated the no-rise certificate addresses item 7.

    8. Major equipment, machinery, or other contents must be protected from any flood damage.

    9. No disaster relief assistance under any program administered by any Federal agency shall be paid for any repair or restoration costs of the agricultural structures.

    (Items 8 & 9 were not re-addressed by Board)

    10. A community shall notify the applicant in writing over the signature of a community official that (1) The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below base flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25.00 for $100.00 of insurance coverage and (2) such construction below the base flood level increases risks to life and property. Such notification shall be maintained with the record of all variance actions as required by this ordinance.

    Chairman Trabue stated that item 10 will be a specific notification as part of the building permit.

    11. Wet-floodproofing construction techniques must be reviewed and approved by the community and a registered professional engineer or architect prior to the issuance of any floodplain development permit for construction.

    Chairman Trabue stated item 11 will be addressed with the Planning and Building Inspections Department.

    Chairman Trabue stated the Board has gone through Exhibit A as required by FEMA. Chairman Trabue asked Staff if anything else was needed.

    Planner, Thad Yonke, stated a copy of the no-rise certificate was needed for the record.

    Member Rootes stated applicants are willing to make their private investment understanding that one of the points is that no disaster relief assistance under any program administered by the Federal Agency shall be paid for any repair or restoration costs of the structure. Applicants are taking this risk completely on their own and with that experience and they feel that it is a good business move and it doesnít seem harmful to the community with the precautions they are taking with their building and equipment. Member Rootes stated she feels the issues have been addressed.

    Member Bossaller stated the issues have been addressed. But wanted to justify the reason the Board could allow this variance, which is why some of those questions were asked. Based on the questions asked and the perception Mr. Bossaller stated he has of the situation, Mr. Bossaller believes it is allowable, not 100-percent, but enough over the edge.

    Chairman Trabue asked Member Bossaller if he was referring to the retail or wholesale.

    Member Bossaller stated yes, the retail and the issue of causing undo hardship. However, the applicant answered the question of hardship satisfactorily. If the variance is not granted, there will be undo hardship.

    Chairman Trabue stated he agreed, the agricultural structures are an important part of Boone County in this area. Having storage for equipment and materials is important in making the operation successful. Chairman Trabue stated he was especially taken as opposed to the structure being out in the middle of a large are, that it is so close to the house. It is almost an outbuilding to the house. Chairman Trabue stated that made him more comfortable about the whole situation, although it may not be pertinent to Exhibit A, but important none the less and would entertain a motion.

     

    Member Bossaller made and Member Rootes seconded a motion to approve, subject to requirements by FEMA, construction of an agricultural building in the designated floodplain located at 1500 E Hartsburg Bottom Rd., Hartsburg.

    Chairman Trabue Y Member Bossaller Y Member Rootes Y

    Motion to approve request carries 3 Yes 0 No

     

     

    ********************

  3. Request by Larry and Cecilia Benton for a variance from the requirement to provide two entrances into Shalimar Gardens Subdivision. (App. B 1.8.2 Ė subdivision)

Planner, Bill Florea gave staff report stating that section 1.9.2 of the Subdivision Regulations requires that the Director make a recommendation on requests for variance from the provisions of the regulations.

"The Board may grant a variance only if it finds after public hearing and upon competent and substantial evidence that the applicant meets the criteria for granting of a variance required by these regulations. No variance from any requirement contained within Appendix A or B of these regulations shall be granted unless the Board finds: (a) the applicant will incur unreasonable and unnecessary hardship if a variance is not granted and the variance is not sought primarily to avoid financial expense in complying with the requirements of these regulations (b) grant of a variance will not endanger the health, safety or welfare of the public, and (c) grant of a variance will not hinder, thwart or circumvent the general intent or any specific purpose of these regulations. All applications for variances shall be filed with the Director and after review thereof the Director shall make a recommendation to the Board to grant or deny the application and state the reasons for his recommendation."

The applicants, Larry and Cecilia Benton are the developers of Shalimar Gardens subdivision. Shalimar gardens Subdivision is located just north of Columbia and is accessed from State Highway 763 (Rangeline). Shalimar Gardens has been developed in four phases, including eight commercially zoned lots and 98 residential lots. The first plat was approved in 1975. The subdivision regulations require that a preliminary plat be submitted for a development of this site. However, the "life" of a preliminary plat is 5 years. The preliminary plat for Shalimar Gardens has been resubmitted and approved several times.

The applicants at this time desire to plat 10 additional lots. The existing preliminary plat has expired and must be re-submitted. Appendix B, 1.8.2 requires that at least two entrances to publicly maintained roads be provided to a development having more that 100 lots. This was not a subdivision requirement at the time the previous plats were submitted.

The main entrance to Shalimar Gardens is via Shalimar Drive, which connects to State Highway 763. There is another entrance to the subdivision, bit it is not a publicly maintained road (Almond Lane to Nance Drive to Highway 763).

The applicants contend that this entire area is in the process of developing. The lane situated along the northern boundary of Shalimar Gardens is being prepared for development. There is at least one street already platted in Shalimar Gardens which will provide another connection to a public road.

  1. The applicant will incur unnecessary hardship if this variance is not granted, as they will not be able to develop any additional lots until a second road access can be provided.
  2. Granting this variance will not endanger the health, safety, or welfare of the public. Residents can enter or leave the subdivision by either Shalimar Drive or Nance Drive.
  3. Granting this variance will not thwart or circumvent the general intent of the regulations.

Staff recommends that this variance be granted with the following conditions:

Present: Ron Shy, 5600 S. Highway KK, Columbia

Larry Benton, 2900 Chinaberry Dr, Columbia

Mr. Shy stated he would start with the subdivision plat, it started in 1975. Mr. Shy stated that Planner, Bill Florea spoke of a lot of information that Mr. Shy, himself was going to give in his presentation as well. Applicants have been in on several occasions to renew this plat over the years, it hasnít really changed with the exception of a few less lots that originally platted, due to the desire to have larger lots because of the size of homes that were being placed in the subdivision. There is one platted street to the north that adjoins additional property. Nance Drive was constructed early on; it has never functioned as a second access because of the reason that was mentioned in the Staff report. Nance Drive is not a publicly maintained street. Even though back in the 1980ís, applicants petitioned the County to improve the street. All of the preliminary plats that have been approved have all had the situation where applicants have had connections in to the future alignment of Providence Road. That has been a situation where no one has really known what the situation was with Providence Road, when the expansion was going to occur, or how it was going to effect the subdivision.

Mr. Shy stated he does believe now that there is more information available than there ever has been, but still, we donít know what the vertical or horizontal alignment was going to be. The lots that applicants are asking to be platted are the very last ones that can be platted in this tract without knowing, securely, where Providence Road is going to be. That is really one of the basis for the variance request. Applicants do not feel that it is in their purview to make the alignment studies that need to be made because it effects so many adjoining property owners. Nance Drive is a private road, the people on that road probably arenít in favor of improving it, but it is a passable road for a second access The additional thing is Shalimar Drive where it connects to 763, is extremely wide at that location. If there were an accident there at the entrance, there would be sufficient room to pass, because it is acceptably wide in that location.

Mr. Shy stated that applicants would like to have a second access, but the public maintained process hasnít come to pass.

Mr. Benton stated to summarize, even though Nance Drive is not officially an exit for the subdivision, it is at least an emergency exit to the subdivision. The preliminary plat will eventually show four additional entrances and exits in to the subdivision in addition to the two now, this will give a total of six entries and exits for the subdivision once the entire subdivision is platted and that will be with less than two-hundred lots. The plans are there, when the development is done, there will be additional entrances. The issue with Providence, if that were settled now, applicants would probably want to go forward with more development than they are doing now. Since that is not an issue, applicants know they canít do anything more until that is decided. The ten lots rounds out what applicants already have, if those ten lots were not done, it will be a funny looking subdivision, because one of them is in a cul-de-sac, five of the lots are a cul-de-sac at the end of an existing street. The other one extends the street down to the end of where the lake area is. It rounds out what applicants already have there. If applicants ended up never developing the rest of it, it wouldnít be a bad looking subdivision, where it would be now if they stopped.

Mr. Benton stated he also wanted to mention that of the 98 lots, 4 of those are on Nance Drive. Applicants are not counting Nance Drive as a public road, essentially there are 94 lots in the subdivision and are asking for 10 more lots, which puts them at 104, which is only 4 over the requirement for the second entrance.

Open to public hearing.

No one spoke in favor of the request.

No one spoke in opposition of the request.

Closed to public hearing.

Chairman Trabue asked to see a copy of the preliminary plat to see where the additional ten lots were located.

Mr. Shy presented a copy of the preliminary plat to the Board and showed the layout of the subdivision.

Mr. Benton stated that the potential lots are well out of the way of where Providence road would go.

Chairman Trabue stated that no one at this time knew where Providence Road would go for sure. It is not an issue here. It is plan-lined and applicants are respecting that plan-line at this point for purposes of planning.

Chairman Trabue stated he had a question with regard to Nance Drive itself. It is not publicly maintained but it is a 40-foot road easement, which is recorded, it is available to the public as a roadway, but it is not publicly maintained.

Member Bossaller asked who maintains Nance Drive.

Mr. Benton stated there are fourteen houses on that street, the residents of that street maintain the road.

Chairman Trabue stated the history was touched on a little bit that in the 1980ís, there was an effort to bring Nance Drive up to County standards and have it accepted for maintenance by the County Public Works Department. Chairman Trabue stated he recalled some of those efforts in the late 1980ís.

Mr. Benton stated they recorded the 50-foot right-of-way and all of the residents on the north side were willing to give the right-of-way, but there were a couple of homeowners on the south side who refused to give a right-of-way.

Chairman Trabue stated that was his recollection as well.

Member Bossaller stated his concern was the increase of additional traffic and possible complications on Nance Drive with lots and homes being sold.

Mr. Shy stated that he wasnít sure if anyone would use Nance Drive. There are a lot of roads in Columbia that have single access with more than 100 lots. Mr. Shy stated he was looking at Nance Drive specifically for the second access in emergency. Mr. Shy stated he didnít believe there would be anyone using Nance Drive unless there is a problem.

Member Rootes stated it would not be a short cut for anyone.

Mr. Shy stated that was correct.

Chairman Trabue stated people would have to go out of their way to get to it, a lot of turns before you get to Nance Drive.

Member Rootes asked Staff if there were any circumstance that would force Nance Drive to become a publicly maintained road or would that always be left to the discretion of the people who maintain it now.

Planner, Bill Florea, stated it is impossible to say for sure, but canít see a circumstance where the public would demand that the road be made a public road.

Chairman Trabue stated the County does have provision for neighborhood improvement districts so that if they chose to have the road improved, there would be a way to finance to make it palatable as opposed to having to come up with all the cash up front. There are methods through the County that the State has provided through legislation to allow that if the homeowners would like to. Some point in the future, there will probably have to be some other participation in order to get that accomplished, right-of-way is going to be the biggest issue above dollars.

Chairman Trabue stated that the basis for the subdivision regulation requiring more than one access in excess of 100 lots is primarily related to emergency access in the case of an accident and it closes off the primary access. Nance Drive would provide an adequate emergency access, it is not a stellar road by any stretch, but is a very passable road and is maintained to a level that it could be used by emergency vehicles. The letter of the subdivision regulations is that it should be a publicly maintained road. It is a public right-of-way, and is being maintained to a level that would permit it to be used by emergency access.

Chairman Trabue stated he was inclined to be in favor of the request with the condition that the staff has recommended, however, that this be the last development that occur before the alternative accesses. There are several ways to get those accesses, either to the north, west or south, or improvement of Nance Drive

Member Rootes stated she was confident that when Providence road is decided on, that the applicant will want to develop the rest of the property and will provide the other access.

Chairman Trabue stated another item he did note is that Mr. Shy stated the entrance off of 763 for the primary roadway is a much larger width, in which Chairman Trabue stated he would classify as a commercial entrance, which does provide some additional capacity.

Member Rootes made and Member Bossaller seconded a motion to approve, with staff conditions, a variance from the requirement to provide two entrances into Shalimar Gardens Subdivision, with the stipulation that this will be the last development until an alternative access is provided.

Chairman Trabue Y Member Bossaller Y Member Rootes Y

Motion to approve request carries 3 Yes 0 No

 

OLD BUSINESS

NONE.

NEW BUSINESS

NONE.

 

ADJOURN

Meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

Paula L Evans

Secretary

Minutes approved ______ of __________, 2001.