BOONE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

BOONE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER

801 E. WALNUT ST., COLUMBIA, MO.

Thursday, February 27, 2003

 

 

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

Tom Trabue

Gregory Bier

 

 

Absent:†††††††††††† Cindy Bowne

††††††††††††††††††††††† Vacant Seat

†††††††††††††††††††††††

 

Also present:†††† Thad Yonke, Staff†††††††††††††††††††† Bill Florea, Staff

††††††††††††††††††††††† Paula Evans, Secretary†††††††††††††

†††††††††††††††††††††††

 

Minutes of the December 5, 2002 meeting were approved no corrections.

 

†††††††††††

 

 

REQUEST

 

1.       Case Number 2003-001

Request by Eddie Nichols to allow a structure located at 12151 E Englewood Rd., Ashland, to remain within a proposed building line on previously un-platted land

 

Planner, Bill Florea gave the staff report stating that the current zoning of the property is A-1; all of the adjacent property is also zoned A-1.The tract is located 5 1/2 miles northeast of Ashland.There is a house and several accessory structures on the property.The applicant has submitted an administrative survey dividing 41.13 acres in to 3 tracts of land.A requirement of the subdivision regulations is that a roadway easement be provided during the survey process.Providing the required easement will result in several existing structures being located within the required 50-foot front setback. The original zoning for this tract is A-1, there have been no previous requests submitted on behalf of this tract.The request requires a variance from the zoning regulations section 10.A. Staff notified 12 property owners of this request.

 

Present:Tara Harmon, 11951 E. Englewood Road, Ashland.

††††††††††† David Butcher, surveyor, 8951 E. Logar Road, Columbia.

 

Ms. Harmon stated that Eddie Nichols is her great-uncle and she lives right next to him and he raised both Ms. Harmon and her brother.Mr. Nichols gave Ms. Harmon and her brother 3 acres each several years ago and the lawyer who drew up the description was not aware of the zoning regulations and that you couldnít have less than 10-acres per tract.Applicants are trying to fix that so that the applicants can have a piece of land each so they can build a house someday.Mr. Nicholsí house and barn are less than 50-feet from the road.

 

Chairperson Rootes asked which tract is to be Ms. Harmons.

 

Mr. Butcher stated that northerly tract, tract 2.

 

Chairperson Rootes asked if tract 3 is Ms. Harmonís brothers.

 

Mr. Butcher stated that would be the 10-acres to the east on the right. It left a remainder for the third tract; applicants would rather not have left 20-acres because it didnít seem like it would be a very good breakup of the property.Mr. Butcher stated that he wanted to make sure that each tract had a buildings area on it and that is why the property is broken up the way it is.

 

Open to public hearing.

 

Present speaking in favor of the request:

 

John Crane, 2430 County Road 269, Columbia.

Mr. Crane stated that he is hopefully starting to build a house behind his parents place which is located just down the road from the property in question.Mr. Crane stated that the applicants are really nice people and Ms. Harmon is in the same predicament that Mr. Crane was. Mr. Crane stated that his parents gave him some property and it wasnít quite enough for a house and had to go through the Board of Adjustment in order to build his house.Ms. Harmonís and her brothers homes would be nice additions to the community they are nice people and Mr. Crane stated that he doesnít see any reason why it shouldnít be granted.

 

No one spoke in opposition to the request.

 

Closed to public hearing.

 

Member Trabue stated that he went and looked at the property to make sure he knew what was going on.The structures are called out very clearly on the survey.It is one of those situations that these buildings have been there for many years and because of the survey and the platting process the applicants are getting caught in this setback requirement in the regulations it is very appropriate.

 

Chairperson Rootes asked if staff had any comments from any of the property owners that were notified.

 

Mr. Florea stated that staff took one phone call that was in favor of the request.

 

 

Member Trabue made and Member Bier seconded a motion to approve a request by Eddie Nichols to allow a structure located at 12151 E Englewood Rd., Ashland, to remain within a proposed building line on previously un-platted land.

†††††††††††

 

Chairperson Rootes†††††† Yes††††††††††††††††† Member Trabue††††††††††††††††††††††† Yes††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††† Member Bier††††††††††††††† Yes

 

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††

††††††††††† Motion to approve request carries unanimously.†††††††††††††† 3†† Yes††††††††††††

 

 

 

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

 

 

2.       Case Number 2003-002

 

Request by Joe Trittler to allow a building to be constructed 10í from the property line on 5 acres located at 5150 E. Raitt Rd., Hartsburg.

 

Planner, Thad Yonke gave the staff report stating that the current zoning of the property is A-2; all of the adjacent zoning is also A-2.The tract is located 3 miles south of Ashland on a private drive; the tract is currently vacant.The requested variance is that the applicant would like to build 10-feet from the front property line due to topographic conditions.This is the original zoning of the tract and was created by a survey filed in June 1995. The requested variance is from the zoning regulations section 10.A. Staff notified 7 property owners.

 

Present: Joe Trittler, 1822 Saratoga Blvd., Jefferson City.

 

Mr. Trittler stated that he is requesting a variance from the 50-foot setback requirement due to the topography of the lot.

 

Mr. Trittler presented some photographs of the property.

 

Mr. Trittler stated he had submitted a sketch with the application that shows where the cul-de-sac ends on the roadway easement.The biggest problem with the lot is the front center pin is down the hill from the ridge.The roadway easement does not follow the ridge and to get 50-feet back would push the house way down in to the woods and quite a bit lower in elevation than where it needs to be in order to put a house. The pictures submitted shows a brush pile that shows where the center pin is at.Mr. Trittler stated that he would like to build a house in the location of the brush pile.10-feet would give some latitude; Mr. Trittler stated that he could possibly go further back than that but 10-feet would give some space to push the house up if he needed to.

 

Chairperson Rootes stated that the center point is where Mr. Trittler would be required to be 50-feet back from and the applicant only wants to be 10-feet back from there.

 

Mr. Trittler stated that is correct; that is the furthest point down the hill on the front line and that is the flattest part of the lot too. The sketch that was submitted shows where the location of the driveway.

 

Chairperson Rootes stated that it was very confusing when she was there. Chairperson Rootes thought the easement was in another area.

 

Mr. Trittler stated that the easement doesnít follow the roadway.

 

Open to public hearing.

 

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

 

Closed to public hearing.

 

Member Trabue stated that the survey that was done to split the tracts was done many years ago. The road easement that is shown appears to continue on potentially to the next piece of property to the west according to what is shown. Member Trabue asked staff if that is correct.

 

Mr. Yonke stated that he believes the road easement touches the adjoining property.The survey was filed three hours prior to the cut off of the subdivision regulations in 1995.So it was rushed in to beat the subdivision regulations which is probably why the road easement doesnít really follow where the road should have been placed.There were a lot of surveys that were rushed to get in. It is highly unlikely that this would ever be taken as a public road so it would remain a private drive.

 

Member Trabue asked if it was a public access easement.

 

Mr. Yonke stated that it is not County maintained and will not be County maintained.

 

Member Bier asked the width of the road that is paved.

 

Mr. Trittler stated that it is probably 10 to 12-feet wide on a fifty feet easement.The cul-de-sac is probably close to the 50-feet in diameter and it stops at the tract before Mr. Trittlers.

 

Chairperson Rootes asked the situation with the property across the easement.Chairperson Rootes asked if that is another lot.

 

Mr. Trittler stated that is another lot it has Christmas trees on it.That property is owned by Mr. Raitt which is who Mr. Trittler bought the property from.Mr. Trittler stated that when he looked at the property Mr. Raitt had stated that he would like to move the easement and found out that is not going to be an easy thing to do; this was the best option to get a building permit and get started.

 

Member Trabue stated that he went down and looked at the property because any time we have a topographical request; Member Trabue stated that he likes to look at it and judge for himself what the situation is.Member Trabue asked if the flags that are down there now are the approximate limits of where the house is proposed. Member Trabue stated that he found the flags for the property irons but there were also four additional flags.

 

Mr. Trittler stated that the flags down in the woods is where the contractor would like to put the house.

 

Member Trabue stated that he recognizes that the home site is down off of the ridge somewhat but the entire lot is down off of the ridge.The slopes are the same for another 75 or 100-feet and that will push the house down the ridge more but it is not particularly more difficult to build a house.The access from the road is going to be a little more difficult but that is the way the lot is. Member Trabue stated that he is having a problem with this in substance.Member Trabue stated that he also recognizes that there will probably not be anything else built back there so it probably wonít impact anyone in the future.Member Trabue stated that he doesnít believe the Board has the ability to grant this request if the Board feels that there is not a topographical reason to do it; Member Trabue stated that he doesnít feel that there is a reason to do it.Member Trabue stated that he has additional photos that he took when he was down there that give a little more information about the rest of the site.

 

Mr. Trittler stated that JD Kelly excavating was the subcontractor who first looked at it and they would not give a bid due to the amount of fill and tearing up the asphalt road with all the trucks coming in.When it was setback further and more to the east they wouldnít bid on it.

 

Member Trabue stated that it was a beautiful home site and recognize that the common approach is to line the houses up along the roads with minimum setbacks possible.

 

Mr. Trittler stated that he would like to keep the home back as far as possible but knows that the further back it goes there is the rock ridge right there.When the soil test was done they hit rock about 12-inches down so there are some other issues that may make this more difficult the further back it is; it may not be practical.

 

Member Trabue asked Mr. Trittler how long he has owned the property.

 

Mr. Trittler stated that he bought it in December 2002.

 

Chairperson Rootes stated that she had mixed feelings about spaces that are not well thought out before they are divided and before the idea of putting homes in areas that do have heavy slopes and this is isolated at the end of a cul-de-sac and the fact that it is close to the property line probably will impact no one other than the owner who is proposing to build the house there and perhaps his property value in the future if someone else builds something rather close.Chairperson Rootes stated that she would hate to see the house pushed down in to the woods and compromise the site more environmentally.One of the main concerns would be precedent for several of these other lots which are also very sloped so we could end up with lots of houses close to the road.In an age of worrying about stormwater runoff, short driveways are good.

 

Member Bier stated that part of his concern was with a 10-foot driveway he couldnít even park his car there.

 

Mr. Trittler stated that the drive will be 150-feet if you go all the way up to the cul-de-sac.Mr. Trittler stated that he wants it back further but the 10-feet was to give some latitude if he had problems. At 10-feet to get up to the ridge where the road would go in the straight part of the driveway would be approximately 40-feet and it would turn another 100-feet to get up to the cul-de-sac.

 

Member Trabue asked staff what the applicants would need to do, what is the best route for the applicants to eliminate the road access easement that goes all the way from the cul-de-sac to the property line at this point if they wanted to make that part of this lot.

 

Mr. Yonke stated that unfortunately since it was laid out as a separate tract the only way to really get rid of it is to plat.Platting at the end of a survey that was laid out like this under the old regulations to beat the new regulations is problematic in and of itself.It may be possible since tracts that are five acres and larger may be served by private driveway easement so being that this is a five acre tract if the portion of that roadway was entirely platted in to this five acre tract it may be possible to actually plat it that way.Dividing it in half means that the other side would have to be platted as well; staff has not looked at that and doesnít know what problems might come in to that. Whoever owns the road tract would have to be a signer on the plat as well. Mr. Yonke stated that he is not sure how staff would deal with the fact that since it is a tract it is a tract in and of itself, it doesnít comply with the regulations.

 

Member Trabue stated that he understands that it is very problematic and wishes there was a mechanism that some of these poorly thought out situations could be cleaned up; regardless of what the reasons for them were. This will stay in the County records forever now because it will never be changed and that is unfortunate. Member Trabue stated that he is very concerned of any precedent that might be set because tract number 7 and 8 and possibly 6 are very similar lots with regard to their topography and where the tree lines are.

 

Member Bier asked if there was a dwelling on tracts 7 and 8.

 

Member Trabue stated no.

 

Mr. Trittler stated that there is more open space on those lots than what is on his.

 

Chairperson Rootes asked if it is farther back to the woods.

 

Mr. Trittler stated yes.

 

Mr. Yonke stated that staff had a suggestion.If it seems like the Board is inclined to not vote in favor of this variance or if any one of the Members is inclined to vote in favor, as the vote will fail if one votes no.It would be within the spirit of this request to grant with a condition the variance for basically 15-feet if the applicant can file a plat, platting the rest of the right of way.Mr. Raitt still owns the adjacent property and there is a good likelihood that he would be willing to work with the applicant.If it is platted all in to one 5-acre lot then the applicant would have to come back to the Board for a variance for 15-feet instead of 10-feet.If the Board is inclined to do that the Board could just grant a variance for 15 instead of 10-feet and do it subject to a plat that meets the current requirements.That way the applicant doesnít have to come back to the Board again.It seems reasonable if the Board is inclined to do that.

 

Member Trabue stated that he is missing where staff is getting the 15-feet from.

 

Mr. Florea stated that Mr. Trittler owns half of the easement adjacent to his property.That is 25-feet; if the applicant were to replat the lot adding that 25-feet to his lot then the applicant would have 35-feet between where he wants to build the house to the property line.

 

Member Trabue stated that he was going to propose that the applicant add the whole 50-foot and go all the way to the line.It is going to require the same thing and it wonít change the tract that is on the opposite side. Then the applicant will have no variance because he meets his setbacks.

 

Mr. Yonke stated that if the applicant gets a contingent variance that would still hold.It would work for either option.

 

Member Trabue stated that he is very comfortable with that because it corrects a bad situation. That depends on the Planning and Zoning Commission and their willingness to do that as well.

 

Mr. Yonke stated that it at least gives the applicant an option if the Board was inclined to not grant the variance in it strictest form as requested.

 

Member Trabue stated that he feels most comfortable with that because it helps clean something up and would be glad to testify to the Planning and Zoning Commission on behalf of that to help clean it up as well.

 

Member Bier stated that he would agree because that way the Board is not setting precedent for the other lots because they donít have that alternative.

 

Mr. Trittler asked if that would allow him to get a building permit anytime soon.

 

Member Trabue stated that he didnít think so.

 

Mr. Yonke stated that the applicant is still going to have to get a surveyor do the survey of the property and submit that as a plat.Typically as a plat the staff canít issue a building permit until it is recorded.As a potential lot of record prior to the plat with no dwelling units on it, the Director might be inclined if there was a plat submitted that could be quickly reviewed to see that it doesnít have any fatal flaws in it, the Director might be willing to issue a permit prior to the recording of the plat.Mr. Yonke stated that he can not speak to that because it is not his prerogative.

 

Member Trabue stated that he sees some potential problems even with the plat.

 

Mr. Yonke stated that staff would have to have something submitted that they could check to make sure there arenít any inherent problems.

 

Member Trabue stated that he was reluctant to approve the variance as requested.

 

Member Trabue stated that there wonít be a variance if the property is platted properly. If it is platted all the way to the north property line there wonít be a variance.So there is no approval necessary.

 

Mr. Yonke stated that is correct.

 

Member Trabue made a motion to approve a 35-foot setback in lieu of the required 50-foot setback contingent upon a plat being prepared and approved and recorded that would accomplish that.

 

Member Trabue stated that a side-bar not a part of the motion is if the applicant gets the full 50-foot as part of this then the variance becomes a moot point.

 

Mr. Trittler stated that the utilities run through that easement.

 

Member Trabue stated that he is comfortable with his motion.

 

Member Bier asked if the constraint on it.If the Board just amends this to say 35-feet the ball is back in the applicantís court to figure out if it is more worthwhile just to move 25-feet down the hill or to go through the replat process.

 

Member Trabue stated that he is okay with that.35-foot will accomplish the Boards goal.If the applicant pushes it back 25-foot then he is going to start getting in to some topographic problems.

 

Member Trabue amended motion to remove the constraint.The Board will approve a minimum of a 35-foot setback.

 

Member Trabue made and Member Bier seconded a motion to approve a variance for Joe Trittler to allow a building to be constructed 35-foot from the property line on 5 acres located at 5150 E. Raitt Rd., Hartsburg.

†††††††††††

Chairperson Rootes†††††† Yes††††††††††††††††† Member Trabue††††††††††††††††††††††† Yes††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††† Member Bier††††††††††††††† Yes

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††

††††††††††† Motion to deny request carries unanimously.†††††††††††††††††† 3†† Yes

 

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

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Chairperson Rootes stated that it was mentioned that there was a vacancy on the Board.Chairperson Rootes asked staff if there was any kind of requirement for that position.

 

Mr. Florea stated that since one of the Members reside in the City limits the new applicant would have to reside outside of the City limits.

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

None.

 

 

ADJOURN

 

Meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

 

Paula L Evans

Secretary

 

Minutes approved this 27th day of March 2003.