BOONE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
BOONE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
801 E. WALNUT ST., COLUMBIA, MO.
Thursday, January 24, 2002
Chairperson Rootes called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Boone County Commission Chambers having a quorum present.
Chairperson Rootes explained the function of the Board of Adjustment. She 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: Linda Rootes, Chairperson
Larry Bossaller, Vice-Chairperson
Absent: Tom Trabue
Also present: Thad Yonke, Staff Bill Florea, Staff
Paula Evans, Secretary
Minutes of December 27, 2001 meeting were approved with a correction on page 6. The draft of the minutes state on page 6 in the first full sentence "This constituted on of the lots in their original preliminary plat," it should read "This constituted one of the lots in their original preliminary plat,"
Minutes of the December 27, 2001 are approved as corrected.
Request by Simon Development & Equipment Co. on behalf of Masonic Home of Missouri to reduce required parking from 119 spaces to 57 parking spaces on property located at 6100 N Masonic Dr., Columbia. (Zoning Regulations Section 14).
Planner, Bill Florea gave staff report stating that the current zoning of the property is C-GP, planned general commercial, the adjacent property is zoned A-2, agriculture. The proposed site is the proposed site is the State Office for the Masonic Home of Missouri. The original zoning for this site is A-2. It was recently rezoned to C-GP and a review plan was approved by the County Commission and a final development plan has been submitted.
The requested variance is from the zoning regulations, section 14, which specifies the number of parking spaces required for various types of buildings. Staff notified 29 property owners.
Chairperson Rootes asked staff if they had been contacted by any neighboring property owners.
Mr. Florea stated no.
Present: Tim Reed, Engineering Surveys and Services, 1113 Fay Street, Columbia.
Dave Bennett, 1113 Fay Street, Columbia
Ron Miller, Grand Secretary, Masonic Home Organization, address unknown.
Mr. Reed presented to the Members a copy of the final plan for the Masonic Lodge.
Mr. Reed stated he is representing the Masonic Home of Missouri, who will be constructing their new State office building on Masonic Drive near the north corner of Highway 63 and Prathersville Road. In addition to their offices the lower floor of this building will contain a Masonic museum and a Masonic library. There are a lot of items that are being gathered from all over the State that are intended to go in to the museum. The final C-GP plan shows 113 regular parking spaces, 6 handicap spaces and 62 spaces that are designated as future parking, for a total of 181 spaces. Applicantís request to be allowed to construct 57 spaces as are indicated in blue on the final plan presented to the Members. The reason for this request is simply that the total number of spaces will not be needed when the building opens. As stated before, the Masonic members are gathering all sorts of artifacts for the museum. The architect and builder are getting all sorts of different parameters and sizes of some of the items. It is going to take several years to develop the museum and the library.
Mr. Reed stated that during the public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission, there were concerns about the size of the parking lot at that time. Generally speaking, the parking lot has been sized in accordance with the off street parking and loading requirements. The office staff of the building will consist of approximately 20 people, the museum and library will be developed over several years.
Mr. Reed stated that by constructing the 119 spaces that are shown on the final plan, applicants would be incurring an unreasonable and unnecessary hardship. Well over half of those spaces will not be used. But they will be contributing to storm water run off and will require maintenance such as resurfacing and re-striping. This is not being sought to avoid financial expense, because applicants will build whatever parking is necessary or required. Granting this variance will not endanger the health, safety or welfare of the public. All the driveways and sidewalks will be properly designed and constructed, all of the required handicap spaces will be constructed and all of the necessary parking spaces will be constructed. Granting this variance will not hinder, thwart or circumvent the general interest of the off street parking and loading regulations, because the regulationís intent is to provide adequate parking for various types of uses. The requested 57 spaces will fulfill the needs of the State office of the Masonic Home of Missouri. If, as the museum and library are developed, it is apparent that the 57 spaces are not adequate, applicants will have the flexibility to build additional parking in accordance with the approved final C-GP plan. Applicants respectfully request that the Board grant the application to construct the 57 spaces.
Open to public hearing.
No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the request.
Closed to public hearing.
Member Bossaller asked where they came up with 119 spaces. Is that the required number?
Mr. Reed stated that during the formulation of the C-GP plan, applicants looked at the Boone County parking regulations and took the square footage of office space that was indicated. Mr. Reed stated he didnít believe that in the Boone County zoning ordinance that there is a category for museums but believes there was one for libraries. Applicants sized the parking lot as best they knew for the uses in the building.
Member Bowne asked what the square footage of the building is.
Mr. Reed stated it would not exceed 53,000 square feet. Mr. Reed believes it is 120 by 220, 2-story building.
Chairperson Rootes stated that the museum and library area would be half of that 53,000?
Mr. Reed stated he believed that was correct. They are both on the lower level.
Chairperson Rootes asked what the required parking for libraries was.
Mr. Florea stated 1 parking space per 300 square feet.
Chairperson Rootes asked what the required parking is for the office.
Mr. Florea stated that is also 1 parking space per 300 square feet.
Member Bowne stated when she figures that, it comes out as approximately 170 needed.
Mr. Reed stated that is where on the initial plan, that is before the Members, the plan shows the future parking spaces and believes the amount of parking required is 181 spaces. The site plan for construction is still being completed to be submitted to the County to receive a building permit. This plan had to run with the rezoning request.
Member Bowne stated that originally applicants had planned 113 regular spaces, 6 handicapped and 62 future spaces. Applicants are asking for 52 regular spaces and 6 additional handicapped or does that include handicapped?
Mr. Reed stated that the requested 57 spaces includes 51 regular spaces and 6 handicapped. Applicants are going to build all of the handicapped that are shown on the plan. They are all closer to the front of the rear entrance.
Member Bossaller stated that this is supposed to be a museum for the entire State?
Mr. Reed stated yes, it is the State office. Mr. Miller may be able to describe the use or function better.
Member Bossaller stated he would like to hear what that is.
Mr. Miller stated that the Masonicís is an organization that was formed in 1821 and have never had a collection of Masonic history in one place before. The Masons are proud of such men as Lewis and Clark, Harry S. Truman, Samuel Clemens, and Omar Bradley in membership.
Mr. Miller stated he had some memorabilia already in the office which are not showable because of the size of the present location. There are all kinds of memorabilia that the Masons already have contact with. Mr. Miller found out the other day that there is a lady who has a beautiful portrait of the original gentleman that was the head of the organization when it started in 1821. Those are the types of things that will come out. They are not large items but they will all have Masonic significance to it. There is a gavel in St. Louis in a lock box that Samuel Clemens had taken from Israel when he visited there and had it crafted in to a gavel. That is the type of items to be shown.
Member Bossaller stated that when you erect a type of building like this, does the applicant foresee fellow Masons coming in to Columbia to see this museum.
Mr. Miller stated this is the State office. The State office of the Masonic Home was located in St. Louis, because of accessibility of the 53,000 Masons in the State it is much better, business wise, to be in the center of the State. The grand lodge office that Mr. Miller manages moved in 1979 from St. Louis.
Member Bossaller stated that if it benefits Boone County, then he is favorable. Member Bossaller asked if the applicants are not granted the variance, will the building still be erected?
Mr. Reed stated they would still build the building and put in the required parking. Applicants are not trying to circumvent anything; it is just a matter of need. Initially, applicants feel the 57 spaces will fill the applicants needs. Applicants are not excited about building 120 or 180 parking spaces and having 30 cars out there all the time.
Member Bowne stated the 20 staff members are for the State office right now. How much does the applicantís anticipate the staffing increasing as the museum is developed? Are there delivery areas?
Mr. Miller stated he does not expect the staff to increase in size.
Mr. Reed stated there is a loading area around the back of the building.
Member Bowne stated the design area is already there but applicants just donít want to asphalt it yet. Member Bowne asked what applicants intend to do with that are.
Mr. Reed stated it would be grass. The grading will be substantially done, but the topsoil will be removed, and it would be replaced and seeded. It will all be there so it can all be built if needed.
Member Bowne stated the topsoil would be replaced and seeded.
Mr. Reed stated yes.
Chairperson Rootes stated she liked this proposal, generally where inadequate parking causes a problem is in a neighborhood where people then encroaches on someone elseís parking or crowd the public space too much. Chairperson Rootes stated she doesnít see this occurring here. If anything, people will be parking along the driveway or on the Mason property and then that would become a problem. However, applicants stated they would want to go ahead and pave additional parking. Chairperson Rootes stated she appreciated the fact that the applicants donít want to over pave and spend those resources creating stormwater run off.
Member Bossaller stated his only concern is when the Board makes exceptions and gives variances, the Board has to treat everybody as like as they can. Member Bossaller stated the Board grants variances based on the fact that nothing else can be put in these proposed parking spots.
Mr. Reed stated that is not a problem, the plan as shown will remain in effect and then if a few years down the road, it is determined that there is 60 cars a day needed, then all applicants need to do is perhaps trim off the top soil and make additional parking.
Member Bossaller asked staff that if the Board grants the variance based on the proposal, and if applicants want to put additional parking, will applicants have to get another variance to do that?
Mr. Florea stated no, If the variance were granted for 57 parking spaces, they would not have to come back to the Board to add additional parking.
Member Bossaller stated that again, nothing could be done with the proposed parking spots.
Mr. Florea stated if they put a condition on the approval.
Mr. Reed stated he didnít think they could do anything on this property that is not in accordance with the approved plan.
Member Bossaller made and Member Bowne seconded a motion to approve with the condition that the future parking areas are labeled on the plan, a request by Simon Development & Equipment Co. on behalf of Masonic Home of Missouri to reduce required parking from 119 spaces to 57 parking spaces, on property located at 6100 N Masonic Dr., Columbia.
Chairperson Rootes Yes Member Bossaller Yes Member Bowne Yes
Motion to approve request with condition carries 3 Yes 0 No
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
2. Case # 2002-002
Request by John R. Satterlee to provide an on-site wastewater system on a lot having less than 2.5 acres located at the intersection of Ponderosa Street and Meadow Lark Lane. (Subdivision Regulations Section 3.1 Appendix B).
Planner, Thad Yonke, gave the 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 grant 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 applicant, John R. Satterlee on behalf of R&L Properties & Development Inc. is in possession of a property located at the intersection of Ponderosa Street and Meadow Lark Lane. The property is an illegally created remainder and not a legally created lot. The applicant has expressed a desire to combine 2 parcels into a single legal lot by platting the property into a single legally created lot. The total lot will be approximately 1.7 acres. Platting of a lot of this size must comply with the minimum lot size for the zoning district, which in this case is a split zoning of C-G (general commercial) and R-M (residential moderate density). The proposed lot will meet the minimum lot size of each of these districts, however, it must also meet the subdivision regulations which require lots less than 2Ĺ acres in size to be provided with sewer service by a central collector wastewater system. The central collection system in the adjoining subdivision does not have capacity for this additional lot. So the applicant has requested a variance to be allowed to use an on-site wastewater system on a tract less than 2Ĺ acres.
Appendix B, Section 3.1. Central Sewage Treatment states that " Any subdivision containing any lot less than two and one-half acres in size shall have an engineered centralized sewage collection and/or treatment system."
a) The applicant will not incur unreasonable or unnecessary hardship if this variance is not granted. Any hardship must be related to the shape, topography, or other extra-ordinary or exceptional situation or condition of the property itself, not to the fact that the parcel was illegally created and transferred. A variance generally should not reward the owner of a property for previous actions by themselves or others in violation of the ordinance that presents itself now as a claim of hardship. It is effectively in part a self-created situation. Furthermore, the question does not become one of whether or not the plat can ultimately be approved under the existing regulations without a variance, but rather a matter of appropriate timing for the platting of the property and provision of proper infrastructure. The issue becomes primarily an economic issue as the applicant can pay for needed improvements to the existing collector wastewater system.
b) Granting this variance will endanger the health, safety or welfare of the public. The provision of not allowing newly platted lots to use an on-site wastewater system unless all the lots are 2Ĺ acres or larger is primarily in the regulation to safeguard public health, safety, and welfare. The regulations requiring the use of central sewage collection systems on small lots and the regulation limiting the use of on-site wastewater systems are directly related to minimizing the risks to public health, safety, and welfare associated with on-site wastewater systems. Furthermore, the surrounding area is developed in a relatively dense manner making the provision of an on-site wastewater system on a small lot in the area even less appropriate.
c) Granting this variance will thwart the general intent of the regulations. The intent of the regulations is to require central wastewater collection systems to be used both on lots of less than 2Ĺ acres and in areas where even with lots of greater than 2Ĺ acres a cost benefit analysis shows a greater benefit from use of the central wastewater collection system as opposed to on-site wastewater systems.
This request fails to satisfy parts a, b, or c, of the regulatory criteria cited in Section 1.9.2 of the Subdivision Regulations. Staff recommends that this variance be denied. The property can be platted at this time in compliance with the requirement of the regulations by the developer upgrading the current collector wastewater system, or the applicant can wait to plat the land in compliance with the regulations when other parties make improvements to the central wastewater collections system that provide additional capacity.
Staff notified 40 property owners.
Chairperson Rootes asked staff if they had been contacted by any of the neighboring property owners.
Mr. Yonke stated he did not take any calls.
Present: John Satterlee, 4805 Lake Valley Lane, Columbia.
Mr. Satterlee stated he is requesting a variance in order to combine two lots in to one lot, which would allow him to put something on that ground. Mr. Satterlee stated he is not able to connect to the collector system in that area, he would like to be able to put a self-contained system on the property.
Chairperson Rootes entered in to the record a letter, which she received from Mr. Satterlee.
Chairperson Rootes stated the letter described what Mr. Satterlee could do with the property. Chairperson Rootes asked Mr. Satterlee if he would like to state it again.
Mr. Satterlee stated the land is in two different parcels, it is a C-G and R-M is on the east property. They are both too small to do anything with. Except putting something on there that would not require a particular sewer system. Mr. Satterlee intends to put some self-storage units that would not require a wastewater system at all.
Open to public hearing.
No one spoke in favor of the request.
Present: Jim Hofmann, 3700 S. Forest Acres, Columbia.
Mr. Hofmann stated he owns property in the area. Mr. Hofmann stated he has no objection to the development, but does object to having the sewer system on site, the Boone County Regional Sewer District is out there, if applicants need a sewer, Mr. Hofmann believes it should be hooked up in to that and not have a private facility on a lot.
Chairperson Rootes asked Mr. Hofmann where his property lies in relation to the applicants.
Mr. Hofmann stated he used to own 20 duplexes, but sold some, he now owns three duplexes on Schooner Road. Mr. Hofmann stated he owns 4812, 4814, 4820 Schooner Road and owns mortgages on about 15 other properties out there.
Member Bowne asked whether Mr. Hofmann if all his properties are connected to the Central Sewer System.
Mr. Hofmann stated yes, as a matter of fact, he donated the sewer system to the Boone County Regional Sewer District.
Member Bossaller asked Mr. Hofmann just objected to the idea of having an on site sewer.
Mr. Hofmann stated that if the applicant doesnít need a sewer, it is a different story but doesnít know if he can build without having a sewage facility on a lot.
Chairperson Rootes stated they would be asking those questions.
Andy Anderson, 6281 Southwest Way, Columbia.
Mr. Anderson stated he owns property in that area off Meadow Lark Lane on the north side. Mr. Anderson stated he did call the Planning and Zoning office and he objects to this request for a couple of reasons. The County already has a system there, although it is his understanding that it is at capacity now, it would seem advantageous for the County to increase their infrastructure rather than take a step back.
Mr. Anderson stated another concern he had is he didnít hear anything that specifically says what that wastewater system would be. Which is quite a gap, so to speak, for example, this property sits primarily on the north end of a residential neighborhood, a lot of duplexes and children. Certainly the health benefit could be detrimental to children, especially if we are talking about a lagoon. The storage sheds that are out there now it looks like an old garage. Mr. Anderson stated he couldnít picture where the new proposed building is supposed to be. That would be a concern to see how it would relate to the neighborhood. It would seem also that the individual is only planning to put storage units in there, Mr. Anderson is not sure why the wastewater is needed anyway.
Member Bowne asked Mr. Anderson if his property in that area is hooked up to the central sewage system.
Mr. Anderson stated yes. He has duplexes on 4831 and 4839 Meadow Lark Lane, on the north end.
Member Bowne asked Mr. Anderson if he was aware of any property in the subdivision that is not connected to the central sewage system.
Mr. Anderson stated he couldnít imagine that there is. Mr. Anderson stated it is his understanding that this whole system actually leads in to a County owned system on the left end. Since it is a subdivision with the exception of those storage units, and a big oil warehouse, Mr. Anderson stated he hoped not.
Closed to Public Hearing.
Member Bowne asked the applicant what type of on site treatment system is the applicant considering?
Mr. Satterlee presented a copy of the letter from Marshall Engineering to the Board.
Mr. Satterlee stated he has a letter from Marshall Engineering. With the type of soil that is out there a small, 50-gallon per day type of treatment system would be best. There wouldnít be anyone living there. It would be just an office with probably a water closet and a sink. Whenever the sewer extension would be allowed to go through there, they could connect in to it and do away with the on site system. Applicants canít hook on to the sewer right now because it is at capacity. There is a way of increasing capacity but it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to do that. Mr. Satterlee stated he is not in a position to do that. Applicant will just have to wait until something else happens with the district in that area. That could be a long time.
Member Bowne asked Mr. Satterlee if he has talked to the District and have they given applicant any indication of how long that would be?
Mr. Satterlee stated 4 years.
Member Bowne asked how long Mr. Satterlee has owned the property.
Mr. Satterlee stated 2 years.
Member Bossaller asked if this is combined in to one lot, is it going to have combination zoning, C-G and R-M.
Mr. Satterlee stated he would only be able to build on the C-G property. The R-M part would stay vacant until the sewer line comes in. The R-M property is a small piece; it is only seven-tenths of an acre.
Chairperson Rootes asked if applicants would have to replat at that time.
Mr. Satterlee stated that it was his understanding that nothing could be built there until the sewer extension went through.
Member Bowne stated the question was, could anything ever be built there without replatting that.
Mr. Yonke stated that if it is single lot, they are only allowed one primary use on a single lot. So if it is platted in to a single lot and that lot has commercial use on the one end of it, they would either have to file a multi-use plat, replat effectively for a multi-use plat, or replat it in to two individual lots in order to have one primary use being the residential on one and the commercial on the other. Additionally, mini-warehouses are not actually allowed in a C-G by right, it requires a conditional use permit, which would have to be applied for and may or may not be granted.
Chairperson Rootes stated she is confused as to why Mr. Satterlee is wanting to plat this in to one lot if it is still not going to be big enough and then he is not going to build on the one part, waiting until later and replat that.
Mr. Yonke stated that currently these are two illegal remainders, no building permit can be issued for any type of use until these are legally created. One way or another, the property has to be platted in to legal lots before building permits can be issued.
Chairperson Rootes stated the C-G part, how does it fail to qualify now?
Mr. Yonke stated it was transferred as an illegal remainder separately from the other illegal remainder. They were left out of other plats, so they were never legally created as lots eligible for building permits.
Chairperson Rootes asked if they could be legally created by itself without joining together with this R-M?
Mr. Yonke stated if there were sewer capacity available, these could be platted as two individual lots because they meet the minimum acreage for an R-M district with the .7 acres, the other lot with one acre meets the minimum for commercial. The manhole, which is one lot immediately to the southwest of it connecting in to the system, could have an extension put on it and then sewer could be brought to the lots. Again, it all hinges back upon the fact that there is not enough land here for on site systems if they were platting and had a connection to the central system, then each of these lots could be platted in its current configuration in to two lots.
Member Bossaller stated there is not enough land to have an on site wastewater system that the applicant has requested and asked if that was correct.
Mr. Yonke stated that is correct, which is why the variance is needed. Separately or together it doesnít add up to two and a half acres. If you donít have two and a half acres, you canít use an on site system unless the Board of Adjustment approves the variance.
Member Bowne asked applicant if he had owned other property and this is what is left over.
Mr. Satterlee stated the R-M piece is a piece that was left over from his additional purchase of property. He built four four-plexes there but then were halted because of the sewer capacity. Mr. Satterlee stated he bought the C-G property thinking that he could put the self-storage units on it.
Mr. Satterlee stated this process is very slow and it takes a lot of money to create the lagoons.
Member Bowne stated that any variance that was granted would stay with the property, so if the applicant decided to sell the property tomorrow and someone else bought it and they decided to use it for a different commercial use that variance would stay with the property.
Mr. Yonke stated that is correct and it would already be created and it would be much harder to deny a building permit.
Mr. Satterlee stated this is an uphill battle fight. It is incredible what he has to go through to get these things done but you have to go by the rules. Mr. Satterlee stated he is sitting here with a piece of land and canít do anything with it.
Member Bowne stated that the applicant knew that when it was purchased. Mr. Satterlee was aware of that because he had already built his duplexes so knew the sewer was at capacity. Mr. Satterlee knew it would take time.
Mr. Satterlee stated he didnít think it would take 6 years.
Member Bowne stated that Mr. Satterlee stated earlier that he had only owned the property for two years.
Mr. Satterlee stated he initially bought the property in 1996, the first phase was in 1996.
Member Bowne stated that applicant bought this one-acre commercial and has only owned it for two years. Member Bowne stated that we havenít had any changes in those two years in the regulations regarding sewage.
Mr. Yonke stated nor on the platting requirements.
Chairperson Rootes asked if you had a piece of land and platted part of it and built some duplexes and then had the piece left over that wasnít included in the original plat, is that how applicant got the R-M piece?
Mr. Satterlee stated that they platted four lots.
Chairperson Rootes asked if that would be possible now.
Mr. Yonke stated no, staff checks to make sure that if any piece of land is less than 20 acres, it has to have some type of action taken upon it. When plats are reviewed now, you canít leave a remainder that is less than 20 acres, if it is over 10, you can choose to put it in the plat, or do it as an administrative survey. If it is less than 10 acres, it must be included in the plat and it must be able to meet the regulations for platting requirements.
Chairperson Rootes stated she assumed those regulations came about because people were having trouble with left over pieces.
Mr. Yonke stated yes, and left over pieces would get transferred to a third party and that party doesnít have a legal lot and you run in to the exact same situation.
Chairperson Rootes stated she still doesnít understand why applicant wants to put these two pieces of land together.
Mr. Satterlee stated this was suggested by Marshall Engineering in conjunction with staff.
Chairperson Rootes stated she doesnít know what the applicant would gain by this.
Planner, Bill Florea stated that if it isnít done, then applicant would have to plat two smaller lots and the variance requested would be more severe because instead of 1.7 acres you would have a .7 and a 1-acre tract and would need a variance on each tract.
Mr. Yonke added that there would be two on site wastewater systems being asked for instead of one. One for the .7 acre and one for the 1-acre tract.
Chairperson Rootes asked if applicant would have to ask for them both at the same time.
Mr. Florea stated yes, in order to plat them, he would.
Mr. Yonke stated that staff looks at property and donít let them leave an illegal remainder.
Chairperson Rootes stated that just because they are in common ownership, even though they didnít originate from the same piece of property.
Mr. Yonke stated the pieces did ultimately come from the original tract that got pieced out and recombined.
Mr. Yonke stated that any lot that was not created by the legal mechanisms in effect at the time, then the lots created are an illegal lots.
Chairperson Rootes asked if there is any kind of use that you can put a lot to without having some kind of wastewater?
Mr. Satterlee stated self-storage units.
Member Bossaller asked applicant if this is the land that is right beside Highway 63.
Mr. Satterlee stated yes.
Member Bowne stated it flows in to Gans Creek.
Mr. Satterlee stated he believes so.
Member Bowne stated that Gans Creek is a highly sensitive watershed.
Mr. Satterlee stated that he didnít necessarily have to have wastewater treatment. Mr. Satterlee stated he could build the storage units without an office.
Member Bowne stated that the variance granted would be tied to the property. If Mr. Satterlee doesnít do it, if the property is sold, the next owner may do it. That is where the problem lies in that the variance isnít granted to the property owner, but to the property itself. The Board wouldnít have any control over what happens to the property when it is sold.
Mr. Yonke stated to answer the original question that Chairperson Rootes asked, the owner may be able to come up with a legal use that would not necessarily require sewer for the zoning district, however, the Boone County regulations require that if you are creating a lot, that lot must have some type of sewage system available to it because 90-percent or more of the uses that are possible legally on the lot will require sewer.
Chairperson Rootes stated that the situation now is that the Sewer District simply will not allow anyone else to connect.
Mr. Yonke stated that is correct, which is probably part of the Memberís packet, if not the information is in the Staffís packet from the sewer district that indicates that they are at capacity currently and gave some options of what would be needed to upgrade it prior to it being connected in to a larger regional network, which is anticipated in the future.
Member Bossaller stated that after hearing staffís recommendation, he has a hard time going against what theyíve recommended.
Chairperson Rootes stated that besides the requirements that have to be met in order to allow a variance, Chairperson Rootes stated she is also concerned that this R-M piece being platted together with the commercial piece, then in the future there may be a request to convert the entire thing to commercial because it is all in one lot. Chairperson Rootes stated she believes the Board is on the verge of getting deeper and deeper.
Member Bossaller stated he agrees.
Chairperson Rootes stated she would not be in favor of a variance.
Member Bowne made and Member Bossaller seconded a motion to deny the request by John R. Satterlee to provide an on-site wastewater system on a lot having less than 2.5 acres located at the intersection of Ponderosa Street and Meadow Lark Lane.
Chairperson Rootes Yes Member Bossaller No
Member Bowne Yes
Motion to deny request carries. 3 Yes 0 No
Director, Stan Shawver addressed the Board Members.
Mr. Shawver went over the Board of Adjustment by-laws and procedures.
Meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Paula L Evans
Minutes approved this 28th day of February 2002.