BOONE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

BOONE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER

801 E. WALNUT ST., COLUMBIA, MO.

Thursday, April 25, 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 read the procedural statement stating that this Board is appointed by the Boone County Commission to consider specific application of the zoning and subdivision regulations. The Board is empowered to enter rulings that may give relief to a property owner from the specific application of the Zoning and Subdivision regulations. Generally, variances can only be granted in situations where by reason of shape, topography or other extraordinary or exceptional situation or condition of a specific ordinance would result in peculiar and exceptional difficulties to or exceptional and demonstrable undue hardship upon the owner of the property as an unreasonable deprivation of use as relating to the property. A variance from the strict application of this ordinance can be granted provided the relief requested will not substantially impair the intent, purpose and integrity of the zoning regulations.

Notice of this meeting has been published in accordance with our by-laws for the proper number of days. All decisions of the Board are based on the zoning or subdivision regulations for Boone County, Missouri, and they are hereby made a part of the record of this meeting.

This Board is comprised of five members, with three members constituting a quorum. An applicant must receive at least three votes in order to receive the relief that they have requested from the Board. Any applicant appearing before this Board has the right to be heard by all five members. At times that all five members are not present, the applicant, and only the applicant, may choose to wait until such time as all five members are present to hear their request.

Roll call was taken:

Present: Linda Rootes, Chairperson

Larry Bossaller, Vice-Chairperson

Cindy Bowne

 

Absent: Tom Trabue

Kay Clementz

Also present: Thad Yonke, Staff Bill Florea, Staff

Paula Evans, Secretary

Minutes of March 28, 2002 meeting were approved with no corrections.

 

REQUEST

  1. Case Number 2002-005

Request by James and Mary Gallup to allow an addition to a structure that will encroach into the required setback of 50í in an A-2 zoning district as required by Section 10 of the zoning regulations located at 2401 Calvert Hill Rd., Columbia.

Planner, Thad Yonke gave the staff report stating that this property is located at the southwest 1/4 of Section 5, Township 49 north, Range 12 west. The current zoning is A-2 agriculture as is the adjacent zoning. This tract is located on Calvert Hill Road approximately 3 miles north of Columbia. There is a house on the property. The requested variance is Section 10 A of the zoning regulations which requires that a building be placed at least 50-feet from the front property line of a property. This original zoning for the tract is A-2, there have been no previous requests for this tract. The applicants began construction on an addition to the house without obtaining a building permit. One of the building inspectors noticed the construction because it was so close to the road. The existing house does not appear to comply with the required setback, however that structure pre-dates the County zoning regulations. Section 10 B (6) of the regulations classifies the existing structure as a nonconforming use. Section 10 B (6) allows that structure to be repaired or remodeled, but does not allow additional encroachment in to the setback. Staff notified 16 property owners.

Present: James T. Gallup, 2401 E. Calvert Hill Road, Columbia.

Chairperson Rootes asked Mr. Gallup if he understood the announcement she read earlier which stated that there are only three Members present tonight and in order for the request to be granted all three Members would have to vote in the applicants favor. If applicants do not think that the odds are in his favor then the applicants can request to wait until all five Members are present.

Mr. Gallup stated that he didnít think the staff understands what the situation is.

Chairperson Rootes asked the applicant if he wished to go ahead and rely on the three Members present to make the decision.

Mr. Gallup stated that when Mr. Rodes came through he took pictures.

Planner, Bill Florea stated that Mr. Rodes is part of the department staff.

Chairperson Rootes asked applicant if he wished to continue with the meeting tonight.

Mr. Gallup stated that Mr. Rodes reported to the authorities that applicants were building a garage. Mr. Gallup stated that is not the case. Applicants are not building a garage. The carport and the garage was originally before planning and zoning. The house and carport face the south. When the house, garage and carport was constructed, there was no planning and zoning. This is so close to the road that Mr. Gallup stated he was afraid his wife would get hurt if she kept using the carport. Mr. Gallup stated he went to the north end of the existing carport and added an 8-foot extension on to the 12-foot carport. He went to the back end, which would be 12-feet and headed out to the east so it would be safer for his wife to get on the road.


Mr. Gallup stated there is nothing wrong with what he did. It has helped, if someone would go out to the property and look at it, they would see. It is to the applicants benefit. The traffic is bad out there and the roads are crooked and people will not slow down; someone is going to get killed there if something is not done.

Mr. Gallup stated that back in 1973 the property was surveyed. Mr. Gallup stated he helped Engineering Surveys do the survey and helped with the brush. When they finished the survey irons, they were out on the south side of the road. Mr. Gallup stated he supposed it was his property where the survey stopped. There are irons on the other side of the road as well. Mr. Gallup stated he didnít know how they figured that survey on the road, but Mr. Gallup assumed that was part of his property. They drove the irons down in the gravel. Mr. Gallup stated he didnít know how they classify that.

Chairperson Rootes asked the applicant if he thought maybe the house if further from the line than that what is being said.

Mr. Gallup stated if that is the case then he thinks that would be right. Mr. Gallup stated he didnít know if the property lines stopped on the inside of the road or the outside but they did drive an iron in the road and Mr. Gallup stated he figured that was the end of the survey. Of course they couldnít put any stakes up in the road, they just buried them and they are down in the asphalt now.

Mr. Gallup stated that what he is doing is to a good advantage. When the house was built; in 1959 they started building the house. The traffic has gotten bad and people won't slow down and can't get the police out there to patrol like they should. Signs have been put up but no one pays attention to them. There have been 3 or 4 cars that have hit trees. One car turned over a couple of years ago and the boy is paralyzed in the hospital. It is just a matter of time before someone gets killed.

Chairperson Rootes stated that the alteration that the applicant did was to improve the safety not only for he and his wife using the place but also for the other drivers.

Mr. Gallup stated absolutely. People come down there fast.

Open to public hearing.

No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the request.

Closed to public hearing.

Chairperson Rootes asked staff if they have heard from any neighboring property owners.

Mr. Yonke stated no.

Mr. Gallup stated it is back probably 15-feet further from the entrance from what it is the other way.

Member Bowne asked applicant if it was just he and his wife living there.

Mr. Gallup stated yes, but they have children and grandchildren that come in.

Member Bowne stated that when she went by there, there were four vehicles parked in that small area along side the road.

Mr. Gallup stated that is correct.

Member Bowne stated that the vehicles weren't very far off the road.

Mr. Gallup stated that is right, but what can you do? Where are they going to park? The house was built there before planning and zoning. But what he did was to help everybody for parking. He went from the front part of the carport that was there; back 12-feet and that would be the south edge of that. It is an 8-foot extension to the east off of the original carport.

Staff presented pictures of the structure.

Chairperson Rootes showed Mr. Gallup the pictures and asked where they went in and out of the garage.

Mr. Gallup pointed out the location showing the angle of the road. Mr. Gallup stated that his wife was backing out of the carport, this was the carport and his wife was backing out of it. Mr. Gallup stated that where he backed it up 12-feet on the original carport, that gave more room for his wife to get out.

Chairperson Rootes stated that his wife now goes out the other direction.

Mr. Gallup stated yes.

Mr. Gallup pointed out items on the pictures showing the driveway, water meter, and a no parking sign.

Member Bossaller asked how far in to the encroachment have the applicants gone.

Mr. Gallup stated that he knows he went 12-feet. It depends on where you take it off the road.

Mr. Yonke stated that the minimum amount of right of way that this road would have would be a statutory 30-foot right of way. What that would mean is to measure from the centerline of the existing road coming 15-feet towards the direction of the house would be the right of way line. That is the front property line for measuring a setback. Even if the property is owned on the other side of the road, that setback is measured from that right of way line.

Mr. Gallup asked from the center of the street.

Mr. Yonke stated no, measured from the 15-feet off the center of the street. Any construction, even if the house existed within that, any construction further in to that is a violation; regardless of whether it comes directly towards or at an angle. Any construction within that 50-foot band is not covered under any kind of grandfathering from the non-conforming use and would require a variance in order to do it. From the pictures that the building inspector took when he was out, the edge of the road is not the right of way, the edge of the road is the edge of the road; that 15-feet extends even further beyond that to where the right of way line is. It is probably 8 to 12-feet at the corner from the actual pavement edge, or right of way edge.

Mr. Gallup stated it would be more than 12-feet, because from the front edge of the drive back to the structure is 12-feet.

Mr. Yonke stated from the corner measured perpendicular to the roadway, it would be closer. From the corner if you measure the shortest distance to the roadway, there isnít much more than 12-feet or so.

Chairperson Rootes asked when the carport was originally built.

Mr. Gallup stated it was way before planning and zoning. It was built the same time as the house.

Chairperson Rootes stated that the new plywood is to enclose the end.

Mr. Gallup stated that is an 8-foot extension on the original carport.

Chairperson Rootes asked if it was on the front or side.

Mr. Gallup pointed out the location on the pictures. Mr. Gallup stated he boxed if off on the end next to the road and pointed out where the 8-foot extension was.

Member Bowne asked if he added a new roof.

Mr. Gallup stated yes.

Member Bowne stated that when she was out there she measured about 12-feet off of the edge of the pavement to the corner of the structure. It is measured perpendicular to the road.

Mr. Gallup stated that it goes back 12-feet from there.

Member Bowne stated not from the edge of the road perpendicular to the building.

Chairperson Rootes stated that Member Bowne was talking about the old corner.

Chairperson Rootes stated that what the applicant constructed was not closer to the street.

Mr. Gallup pointed on the picture the carport and stated that he added on to that. Mr. Gallup showed the side of the wall of the carport next to the original.

Member Bowne asked if Mr. Gallup added a new roof.

Mr. Gallup stated the whole thing.

Member Bowne stated that Mr. Gallup added a new roof and a side.

Mr. Gallup stated that the building structure was already there.

Chairperson Rootes stated that applicant just put siding on the structure.

Member Bowne stated she is asking what was torn out and replaced.

Mr. Gallup pointed out the old building and stated he boxed it off and continued it. It was moved back 12-feet behind one point. Mr. Gallup pointed out the new part that was built on and stated it takes it out to the east.

Chairperson Rootes asked if his wife could back out of there now without getting in to the road.

Mr. Gallup stated yes.

Member Bowne asked staff if they had anything from the public works department that indicates the plans for that road.

Mr. Yonke stated he didnít have anything from road and bridge that indicates that they are planning to improve the road. That it why staff indicated that the minimum would be a statutory 15-foot half width right of way. Staff is assuming that is what is there. In reality, if it has a 50-foot half width right of way then applicants are in a worse situation. In the past, public works has been fairly picky on encroachment in to the setback.

Member Bowne asked applicant if they owned five acres.


Mr. Gallup stated 5.8-acres.

Member Bowne asked applicant what he does with the rest of the acreage.

Mr. Gallup stated there is a woodshed. The rest is nothing but hilltop and canít do a lot with it.

Chairperson Rootes asked staff if the variance is denied, then the applicant would have to remove the new part that was added on but not the carport that was already there.

Mr. Yonke stated that is not necessarily correct. The applicant indicated that the carport had been removed and added construction.

Chairperson Rootes stated she didnít think the applicant removed the carport.

Mr. Gallup stated he didnít remove the carport; but took out the one side.

Chairperson Rootes pointed out the carport on the photographs and stated that this was the original carport, it had not been removed.

Mr. Gallup stated that he closed up the carport and moved it back 12-feet from one point to another.

Mr. Yonke stated that if the applicants removed part of the structure, they lose the nonconforming use rights for the structure. The new portion would have to be removed; the other portion may also have to be removed. Because if you alter a structureÖ

Mr. Gallup stated he didnít alter the structure.

Mr. Yonke stated it was altered without a permit. If the applicant does not get a variance here then it can lose whatever grandfather rights it had; they may not be intact anymore.

Mr. Gallup stated he was only trying to do the right thing.

Chairperson Rootes stated that the County does have the building permit system. When you want to do something you are supposed to apply for a building permit.

Mr. Gallup stated that he knows that. Mr. Gallup stated that before the Planning and Zoning was even voted on, it was his understanding that whatever you did before planning and zoning was left alone. Mr. Gallup stated that Mr. Yonke is saying that it they will have to take it back.

Mr. Yonke stated if you alter or change anything that was from the condition that it was in when it was grandfathered, you may lose any grandfather rights that you had on that particular portion. Moreover, we treat this as if it were nonconforming, but it has never had a formal hearing for its nonconforming use rights, technically, the applicant doesnít have any grandfather rights anyway. If applicants did not certify it within 6-months of the original ordinance back in 1973 then you have to come to the Board of Adjustment to certify that you have grandfather rights if you formally want to have them. As far as alteration on that structure goes, unless that was done, the carport doesnít technically have any grandfather rights to begin with.

Mr. Gallup stated that it does as far as he is concerned. Mr. Gallup stated that he has worked hard to try to get a place to live and a place to dwell, if it isnít one thing, it is another.

Mr. Yonke stated that if the applicant had come in for the building permit initially before construction was started then it would have been taken care of. At least then applicant wouldnít have the potential of losing the carport, now it is a question of where exactly the lines were. It may have lost any potential grandfather rights that it had. Mr. Yonke stated that he doesnít know for sure at this time. But if the applicant does not get the variance the new portion will have to be removed. Where the existing carport is will be a matter for the department director to determine.

Member Bowne asked applicant to show where the no parking sign is located.

Mr. Gallup did so. Mr. Gallup stated that the carport he added is behind the wall, it is 12-feet back.

Member Bowne stated that she is really concerned. When she was out there, there were four vehicles, one in the garage, not in the old garage but in the new addition, the others were parked along the road. Member Bowne stated she considered that a hazard itself. If anyone was going around the curve and needed to get over, they have no place to get over.

Mr. Gallup stated that was not his fault; that is the road commissions fault.

Member Bowne stated that if the applicant had more area for the cars to park then they wouldnít be parked next to the road.

Mr. Gallup asked what about the people up and down the road that parks in the road?

Member Bowne stated that is a hazard too.

Mr. Gallup stated absolutely, but he is trying to get over a hazard by getting the carport back where the wife won't get run in to.

Member Bowne asked applicant if he could put a driveway along the other side of the house.

Mr. Gallup stated he had a driveway out there. Mr. Gallup stated his wife could back straight out of the carport toward the driveway.

Member Bowne stated that his wife could have also parked out there too.

Mr. Gallup stated yes, if she wanted to.

Member Bowne stated that there is no shoulder on this road, there are a lot of houses along the road. Member Bowne stated she would like to postpone this until they can hear from the County to see what the plans are for this road.

Mr. Yonke stated that the Board could table this request until the next meeting.

Member Bowne asked if the information would be available.

Mr. Yonke stated that staff could find out if there are any plans for the road, but they may not have any plans.

Mr. Gallup stated he doubted they did, it has been paved several times.

Mr. Yonke stated that staff can check on it, but the answer may be that there are no immediate plans to improve the road.

Member Bossaller stated that is really not the issue. The issue is on a larger scale if you are going to have a structure with certain provisions whether you want to do it today or next year, that is what we are talking about. The Board has to think about other people in the County. If the Board allows this for the applicants, can they allow other people to do the same in a similar situation? It is on a larger scope sometimes than on just one individual situation. Member Bossaller stated that he could not vote in favor of the applicant right now. The applicant should have checked with the planning and zoning department before construction. Member Bossaller stated that he is not in favor of postponing the hearing and will not vote for that because it is pretty clear what applicants can and can not do. It is a dangerous situation.

Mr. Gallup stated that it is going to be a dangerous situation it makes no difference what you do.

Member Bossaller stated that he didnít care. If someone else comes in with a similar situation, then the Board will have to allow them to do it also. There is a precedent that you have to be careful of. Member Bossaller stated that if it helps the County, he always tries to find a way to do it. In this situation, Member Bossaller stated he doesnít see this helping the County.

Mr. Gallup asked, what about helping him, he is a taxpayer. Mr. Gallup stated he believes he has the right to improve his situation.

Member Bossaller stated that the Board is pretty good about helping people out.

Mr. Gallup stated he couldnít see what is wrong with what he is doing. Mr. Gallup stated his intentions are good.

Chairperson Rootes stated that the original carport was open on the front and asked if it was also opened in the back.

Mr. Gallup stated no.

Chairperson Rootes asked if it would have been possible to enter the carport from the back as opposed to the front. There is a driveway over there, could the applicant have gone in the back of it, or would that have been altering the structure if the wall was removed to change the entrance to the back.

Member Bossaller stated that he was thinking along those terms as well, to look for a compromise.

Mr. Gallup stated that there is just a slope there it, it is hard to build there. Especially if you donít have the money to have a bunch of equipment come in a build it up. That would cost more money than applicant has.

Member Bowne stated that even if you enter it from the back you still have a structure within 12-feet of the road, that won't change whether you go in from the front, back or side.

Mr. Gallup stated that on the other hand when people are driving down the road, they are supposed to drive in the road and not on his property. If they are driving wild and run off there, that is their fault.

Member Bowne stated that it is still a public safety issue. Member Bowne stated she didnít think she could grant the variance for this.

Member Bossaller asked staff if they knew of any other option to help the applicants.

Mr. Yonke stated no, since the construction happened without the benefit of a permit staff doesnít know what had potential grandfather rights. At this point in time, the whole structure that has new construction on it is in jeopardy.

Mr. Gallup asked what if he tore it down, will that help matters any?

Mr. Yonke stated that he had no idea at this point. If the applicant does not get the variance and remove the structure the extent that has to be removed will have to be worked out with the department director to find out what he feels is eligible for grandfather rights and what isnít. Technically enclosing the whole thing in is an expansion of the existing, if you had a porch and put a room over that porch, just because there is a porch there doesnít mean you can add building space under the County regulations. That is an expansion in and of itself.

Member Bowne asked applicant if he did any wiring on the addition.

Mr. Gallup stated no.

Chairperson Rootes stated that she tends to take the property owners side in any question if there is a question. If it is sort of a balance, she likes to see people be able to do what they can to improve their property.

Mr. Gallup stated he would like the Members to come out and see it for themselves.

Chairperson Rootes apologized for not making it out there, she didnít think she was going to make it to the meeting this evening.

Member Bossaller asked the other Board Members if they thought it would be worthwhile to go out and look at it.

Member Bowne stated that the pictures are very representative of the situation, except when she was there, there were four vehicles parked there that are not in the photographs.

Mr. Gallup stated that the vehicles were out of the road.

Member Bowne stated yes.

Mr. Gallup asked what else can you do as long as they were out of the road.

Member Bowne stated that if she had to meet someone on that curve and had to get out of the way, there is absolutely no place for her to go.

Mr. Gallup stated to look at it this way. Mr. Gallup stated that he did not put the road through there, when it was built there was nothing like this going on. He doesnít have anything behind the house that he could build to. He does the best he can do with what heís got. It is just an 8-foot extension on to what was already there and canít see how that is wrong. If it was something that was moved closer to the road it would be different, he is moving it off of the road.

Chairperson Rootes asked if it was possible to remove a part of it so that the corner would be further from the road. It would be an improvement.

Member Bowne stated that it would be an improvement still encroaching the right of way.

Mr. Gallup asked the Board how they would feel if they built something and someone came in and wanted to tear it down and make you start all over.

Member Bowne stated she understood that and has built things and went through the process and got the permits. She has questioned some of the regulations. Member Bowne stated if she wanted it she would jump through the hoops and do it.

Mr. Gallup stated that she is a Board Member now, back then when they were doing this, Member Bowne would see it in a different light. Mr. Gallup asked when the next meeting was.

Chairperson Rootes asked Mr. Gallup if he now wanted to take the option of coming back. Chairperson Rootes stated that the applicant couldnít do that now, that had to be done at the beginning of the meeting. Chairperson Rootes stated that is why she asked applicant several times if he wanted to trust the three Members who are present or wait. Chairperson Rootes stated that the applicants couldnít go through the whole meeting and find out that the applicants arenít going to get their variance and then wait.

Mr. Gallup stated that he would like to get it settled right now. If he has to burn it down, he will burn it down.

Chairperson Rootes stated that the Board didnít want the applicant to do that without a permit.

Chairperson Rootes asked staff if the Board granted the variance, applicant would still have to get a building permit and go through inspections in order to finish.

Mr. Yonke stated that it would still have to have inspections.

Mr. Gallup stated that he has already sent the money in for this. $60.00 the first time then about $85.00.

Mr. Yonke stated that money was for this hearing, not for a building permit. Applicant will still have to obtain a building permit and get inspections on the structure as it is being constructed to make sure it meets the building code if the variance is granted. Otherwise that is a violation, even if the variance is granted to allow the structure then a building permit must be obtained and inspections must be done or else it is a violation.

Chairperson Rootes stated that the old carport structure apparently stayed there and then just had plywood put on it.

Mr. Florea stated that any portion of the structure that was modified would have to meet current building code. Where it was roofed and sheeted the portion of the existing carport that previously didnít have roofing and sheeting; the whole structure has to meet the current code.

Chairperson Rootes asked applicant if he put new rafters or just new shingles.

Mr. Gallup stated there are new rafters.

Mr. Yonke stated that is all new construction. By removing the old one the applicant lost any potential grandfather rights. That is the problem.

Mr. Gallup stated that if he was doing something that was hindering something, he could understand. Mr. Gallup stated that he couldnít see anything wrong when you tear the old part of it and add new stuff.

Chairperson Rootes stated that there is a line somewhere, you can repair a structure but you can't reconstruct it.

Chairperson Rootes stated that she would be willing to certify this as nonconforming structure because apparently it was there, it looks like it was there being used as a garage before.

Mr. Yonke stated that in order to do that there needs to be evidence and testimony that it was there prior to 1973 and that it has remained there in an unaltered state since 1973 and an application filed in order to do that.

Chairperson Rootes stated that she feels she would be favorably inclined toward that kind of application.

Member Bowne stated that this would only apply to the old part because the other part has already been altered.

Mr. Yonke stated that there is a little problem with that now too since it has already been altered. Even if you certified it now, it lost them, so it is really a moot point.

Chairperson Rootes stated that maybe even the whole garage and everything.

Mr. Yonke stated that if the carport had the roof removed, new rafters, sheeting on the side, that is an alteration and expansion of it. Even if the Board acknowledges that the carport may have originally had it the construction that the applicants did has voided whatever it would have had when it is certified.

Mr. Gallup stated that the rafters on the carport that were there are still there. He added an 8-foot extension off of the front of that original 12-feet. The rafters on the new part are new, but the rafters on the old part are the old rafters. It is just an 8-foot extension.

Mr. Yonke stated that when the applicant was asked if it was removed and a new roof was put on the carport the applicant had stated yes.

Mr. Gallup stated that he didnít say that, he said the shingles on the roof are old.

Mr. Yonke stated that applicant was asked if the rafters were replaced as well and the applicant stated yes.

Chairperson Rootes stated that the applicant stated new rafters on the new part.

Mr. Gallup stated that he tore out a wall and the rafters on the old carport stayed there. The only thing that has new rafters is the new part.

Chairperson Rootes stated that there used to be a wall down the side of the carport and it had to be opened up in order to add the addition.

Mr. Gallup stated yes.

Mr. Yonke stated getting back to the question of nonconforming use. Since there has been altered construction, it would be incumbent on the applicant who is applying for nonconforming use rights to demonstrate and prove what is old and what is new for the Board to be able to grant that. They have to provide evidence of documentation showing what is old and what is new to the Boards satisfaction.

Member Bossaller asked the applicant what he would do about parking if the variance were not granted.

Mr. Gallup stated that he would stop parking there and he put a no parking sign up. Mr. Gallup stated that there shouldnít have been a house built there in the first place, he spend about 40-years trying to get his house built and is still struggling for it.

Member Bowne made and Member Bossaller seconded a motion to deny a request by James and Mary Gallup to allow an addition to a structure that will encroach into the required setback of 50í in an A-2 zoning district as required by Section 10 of the zoning regulations; located at 2401 Calvert Hill Rd., Columbia.

Chairperson Rootes Yes Member Bossaller Yes Member Bowne Yes

Motion to deny request carries. 3 Yes 0 No

Chairperson Rootes stated to the applicant that she is truly sorry that the applicant is caught in this situation. She understands that it is a small piece of land and that the applicant was trying to do something that he thought would improve safety for everyone, but applicant had stated that he was aware of planning and zoning and was aware that he was supposed to have a building permit.

Mr. Gallup stated that he understood that if the structure was there before planning and zoning then it was grandfathered.

Mr. Yonke stated that you have never been able to add to a nonconforming use.

Mr. Gallup asked before planning and zoning.

Mr. Yonke stated that if it was a nonconforming use meaning that something existed prior to 1973, you have never been able to add on to a nonconforming use making it more nonconforming. Prior to that, there werenít any rules on anything so the applicant wasnít violating anything because there wasnít a rule on it.

Chairperson Rootes stated that now no one could build an addition like this on to anything conforming or nonconforming without getting a building permit.

Mr. Yonke stated you have to get a building permit, the applicant has had two other building permits so he is aware of the County procedures.

Mr. Gallup stated he couldnít get a permit now?

Chairperson Rootes stated that if the applicants had come in and asked for a building permit the staff would have informed the applicant that it is too close to the road and couldnít grant a permit. Then the applicant could have applied to the Board to ask for a variance; the Board may have been able to work something out.

Member Bowne stated they maybe could have found an alternative solution to building on the side of it or maybe adding on to the end of it that is further from the road or another way.

Mr. Gallup stated that would put him in the same situation the applicants were in before adding on.

Member Bowne stated that now applicants may not even have the carport. That will be up to the department to go out and decide how much of that has to be taken off, whether it is the whole addition or part of it. Member Bowne stated she suspects the applicant will lose the whole carport too and will be right back where he was. Member Bowne asked applicant if he was using the existing garage.

Mr. Gallup stated yes.

Member Bowne asked if a vehicle parked in it.

Mr. Gallup stated yes.

Member Bowne stated that applicant just didnít want his wife pulling out of it.

Mr. Gallup stated he didnít want his wife backing out in to the road, it is that simple.

Member Bowne stated that applicant may have to open up the end of the garage so his wife can pull all the way through, then she can drive back out the other end.

Mr. Gallup stated that you can't go out the other end because the property goes down hill.

Member Bowne stated that the applicant will have to look at the land and see if he can make something work.

Chairperson Rootes stated that if applicant had asked for a building permit to remove the carport and build a new carport in a safer location, she may have been able to vote for that.

Mr. Gallup stated that he didnít have a safer location, he would have to turn the whole garage around.

Chairperson Rootes stated that the Board couldnít approve what the applicant has done here.

Chairperson Rootes stated that she hoped the department staff would work with the applicant to see how much of this can be saved.

Mr. Gallup asked if he needed a permit to tear it down.

Mr. Yonke stated that there is no demolition requirement.

Chairperson Rootes stated that the applicant should have the staff come out and look at it to see whether the whole thing needed to be torn down.

Mr. Gallup stated he hoped someone would come out there and could see what is there.

Chairperson Rootes stated that the applicant would have to have an inspector come out to look and see what is the old part and what is the new part.

Mr. Yonke stated that the applicant would have to call and set that up.

Chairperson Rootes stated that they didnít want the applicant to tear something down if he didnít need to.

Mr. Gallup stated he didnít want to either, it was a lot of work to build it then a lot of work to re do it.

Chairperson Rootes informed the applicant to call the department on a weekday and make an appointment.

 

 

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

 

NEW BUSINESS

None.

 

OLD BUSINESS

None.

 

 

ADJOURN

Meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

Paula L Evans

Secretary

Minutes approved this 23rd day of May 2002.