Thursday, June 26, 1997


Chairperson Kirkpatrick, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Boone County Chambers having a quorum present.

Present: Keith Kirkpatrick, Chairperson

Linda Rootes

Norma Keil

Absent: Tom Trabue, Vice Chairperson

Jerry Kaufman

Also present: Stan Shawver, Director Thad Yonke, Staff

Bill Florea, Staff Noel Boyt, Secretary

Member Rootes made and Member Keil seconded a motion to approve the minutes of April 24, 1997,

meeting with no corrections.

Motion passed by acclimation.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick explained the function of the Board of Adjustment. He stated that all decisions are based upon the Boone County Zoning and Subdivision Regulations which are considered to be part of the record of the proceedings.


Request by Bryan Crump for Janet Denhoed to allow a pre-1976 mobile home

on 5.12 acres located at 890 W Club House Road, Hartsburg.

Bryan Crump, 900 West Club House Road addressed the Board. He explained that after moving a 1967 trailer onto the established lot he found out he needed a building permit. In completing the paperwork for permit he was advised he need to go through the hearing to see if it was "fit to be in Boone County". That was why he was here.

Director Shawver gave report stating that the property is located on Club House Road, 5.5 miles north of Hartsburg. Property is zoned A-2, (Agriculture) and all the surrounding land is zoned A-2 (Agriculture). The 5.12 acre tract was created in June 1993, the A-2 zoning was the original and there has been no change since zoning was adopted. There has been a mobile home on the site since December, 1994. The applicants mother had purchased a pre-1996 mobile home and she would like to place it on the property (pictures were submitted). Director Shawver stated he understood it was not the typical mobile home, it was a kit construction. It had been on another site that was being closed down. Eight (8) property owners had been notified.

Member Rootes stated the problem with the pre-1976 mobile homes was due to the wiring and size of windows? Director Shawver said that mobile homes constructed prior to 1976 were constructed without any oversight to the building code. Anything since then has to comply with the National Manufacturing Housing Act of 1976. It is inspected in the factory and considered safer than older mobile homes. Nothing is to say that an older mobile home is not safe, but there is no historical inspection record to certify that wiring is safe. This unit may have all copper wiring throughout it, all plumbing fixtures may be tight, and the window sizes maybe large enough to escape out of.

Mr. Crump said they had had four other trailers on the lot and never had so much trouble. Before the hearing he had asked Planning and Building Inspections if they would send down an inspector before he spent time and money on this. He stated he was advised that before anything could be inspected he needed a permit and that is where he was, asking for a variance.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick said there was no County regulation regarding moving in a pre-1976 mobile home.

Open to the public hearing. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the request.

Mr. Crump spoke of his discussion with a member of the Planning and Building Inspection staff who he told him of electrical inspections and to bring pictures to the hearing. He was under the impression that P&Z would inspect the interior but he would hire an electrician to check the wiring. Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked Director Shawver about the electrical inspection his department performs -- would it be the connections? Director Shawver said that was correct, the electrical connection between the panel box and the electric meter. That was the only authority they had. Member Rootes stated that the status (condition) of the electrical wiring was still in question? Mr. Crump said the main wiring going into the trailer was aluminum and he figured he would have to change it.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick reviewed the photographs and said it appeared to be a nice mobile home. Again it would be up to the applicant to address the wiring.

Member Keil made and Member Rootes seconded motion to approve the request for a permit for a pre-1976 mobile home considered as a hardship.

Norma Keil yes Linda Rootes yes

Keith Kirkpatrick yes

Motion to approve variance was unanimous. 3 yes


Request by Lindell Algiere for a variance from the subdivision regulations

requirements restricting tier lot stems to 250’ in length (Appendix B, Section 1.8.1)

for property located at 10321 E I-70 Drive NE, Columbia.

Director Shawver gave staff report stating that the 10 acre tract is comprised of two (2) tracts. One is approximately 1.25 acre subdivision (Cooks Subdivision) and the remainder is platted land. The applicant submitted a request to the County Commission to vacate Cook’s Subdivision so that he could replat it into the three lots he is proposing. The property is zoned R-M (Moderate Density Residential) as is all of the surrounding zoning. That is the original zoning and there has been no change. There is a house on the property and an old house on the Cook’s Subdivision (lower right of the aerial photo - SE corner) There have been no previous request submitted on the property. The request is to allow two (2) stem lots longer than 250’ ft long. Staff notified 17 property owners. Applicant has indicated he would develop a total of three (3) lots. Staff recommends approval of the request.

Lindell Algiere, addressed the Board. He said he had a ten acre lot that was a long rectangular lot. He had lived in the home the last four years. He had wanted to purchase property around him but was unable. He had a couple of ladies who wanted the property. One wants 5 acres in back and another wants 2.5 acres.

Member Rootes asked if there were any other roads or streets planned in the area? Director Shawver stated no. The aerial photograph showed most of the tracts along I-70 Drive NE are similar width as Mr. Algiere. County did not have any plans for roads.

Open to the public. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the request.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked Mr. Algiere if he owned any other land. He replied no. Chairperson Kirkpatrick confirmed that the house would be on one lot and the other two lots were behind it. He replied yes.

Member Rootes asked if the terrain was gentle, flat? Mr. Algiere said it was very gently rolling. So the length of drive would not create a problem with emergency vehicles? Mr. Algiere said no, there was a road there that was already existing.

Member Rootes made and Member Keil seconded motion to approve request ;By Lindell Algiere to allow two tier lots with stems exceeding 250’ ft. in length.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick suggested that the request be restricted to no more than three lots and no more than one single family dwelling per lot. Director Shawver advised that if they wanted to restrict the number of single family dwellings they needed the motion to show concern for the safety of additional dwellings.

Member Rootes amended her motion and Member Keil seconded motion to approve request by Lindell Algiere to allow two tier lots with stems exceeding 250’ ft in length which will provide safe and adequate public road access to the platted lots, and so should be granted, provided that the variance is restricted to allow access to only one single family dwelling per lot.

Linda Rootes yes Norma Keil yes

Keith Kirkpatrick yes

Motion to approve with restrictions was unanimous. 3 yes


Request by Michael McClung, Jan McCrary and Jon Gerlach for a variance

from the subdivision regulations requirement to provide sidewalks

(Appendix B, Section 1.11) on lots 89, 90, 91 of Valley Creek Subdivision, plat 8.

Director Shawver gave staff report stating that the property was located just east of the Columbia City Limits. Property is zoned R-M (Moderate Density Residential) as is all of the surrounding property. The lots are presently vacant. Duplexes are singles family attached housing units are to be constructed on the lots. R-M is the original zoning since 1973, the adjoining area to the south was developed as Lakewood Estates Planned Development in the early 1970’s. The request is to grant a variance from the provision to provide sidewalks on the three lots. Lakewood Estates Subdivision is intermingled with the three lots. There is no requirement for sidewalks in the developed lots. The plat of Valley Creek Subdivision was only recently approved that required sidewalks. Staff notified 235 property owners. Requested variance of Appendix B, Section 1.11 Sidewalks-requires sidewalks to be constructed.

Patrick McClung, President of Phoenix Custom Homes, Inc., 5315 E Trikalla Drive, Columbia addressed the Board. He had been hired by the property owners to construct dwellings on the three lots. The owners asked him to represent them for the variance (exception to sidewalk requirement) for two reasons. To save two very large trees that are close to the street where the sidewalks would interfere with them; and having Lakewood Estates on both sides of property, the sidewalks would not have sidewalks to join them to.

Mr. McClung gave a hand out "Request for variance from regulations requirement to provide sidewalks" to the Board. He spoke of the root system and that the root system would be effected. On lot 91 the tree is 14’ ft from curb and rises 3 ft above the curb to the base of the tree. Lot 90 the tree is 7’ from the curb, sidewalk placement would be down the center of the tree and two feet below. The gas and water lines are on the north side of the street but the water line was on the south side of the trees. It has caused some damage to the trees.

The second reason is that Lakewood Estates was at a higher level and when the street was cut through, the dirt covering the root system and dirt from the lots was removed, now having a 5 to 12 slope. Mr. McClung showed an overall layout of Lakewood Estates and Valley Creek where the sidewalks would be placed. He said they were not trying to save money in not putting in the sidewalks, in fact with the application, notice, postage and presentation and redesigning the standard duplex to have the garages on the two sides and around the tree, they have spent more money than to place the sidewalks.

Member Keil stated that with sidewalks on the other sided of the street, she did not see any problems.

Open to the public. In favor of the request.

Julie Shea, said she and her husband had two duplexes in the area and they were in favor of saving the trees.

Opposition to the request.

Jerry Carrington, stated that his son had property in Lakewood Estates. He had questions of what was easements and what was right-of-way. They have a 50’ street and where was the tree. Mr. McClung showed him on the map that the tree was 9’ feet from the street. His comment was that when the subdivision was started in ‘75-’74 it was a different kind of a subdivision. It was not a condominium, they own down to the core of the earth (the dirt below the unit) so it was a residential home owners type and the outside of the building is common ground. The streets that are there belong to the subdivisions and not accepted by the county. Director Shawver agreed, the streets were still private.

Mr. Carrington said he would like to see all sidewalks in place in front of duplexes. There would be children on either side and would be an accepted county street. He had worked with the Highway Dept. and they did Tandy Avenue, and College Ave. where they had trees like this and the sidewalks were made to move but they were still kept as a sidewalk. It may have been 2’ but the idea was to keep the pedestrian off the streets. He asked if the sidewalks could bend around the tree closer to the curb? Director Shawver said it was to the Public Works Dept. design standards being the same standards as the City of Columbia. Mr. Carrington said maybe the trees need to be looked at and maybe tear them down. There were a lot of trees in the area so it was not like these were the only trees around.

Mr. McClung came forward again and said they had redesigned the duplex, and plan to replat as single family attached units. He has spoken to the city for a low impact sidewalk and his concern was cutting into the root system and providing an ADA acceptable slope to go up and over the berms and provide a low impact sidewalk but asphalt or pavers would not meet ADA requirements.

Closed to public hearing.

Member Rootes said she was personally in favor of pedestrian walkable neighborhood, but she was also in favor of street not just on the back of the property but out on the street. She said the Tree Plan Task Force for the city looks at the option of sidewalks on only one side in order to provide more space for street trees. With this street being new and not to be rebuilt and the other private streets there is little chance that the other lots on this street would be required to have sidewalks. Mr. McClung agreed. Since there was a side walk on the other side of the street she was in favor of supporting the request.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick said he was in favor of tree preservation especially as large as these, the county does not have a tree preservation ordinance therefor he agreed with staff, he had a hard time supporting the application. However there was a sidewalk on the opposite side of the street which in his opinion could serve the neighborhood. It made no sense to him to build a sidewalk to go nowhere other than across three (3) lots. Member Keil said she basically agreed.

Member Keil made and Member Rootes seconded motion to approve request by Michael McClung, Jan McCrary and Jon Gerlach for a variance from the subdivision regulations requirement to provide sidewalks

(Appendix B, Section 1.11) on lots 89, 90, 91 of Valley Creek Subdivision, plat 8.

Norma Keil yes Linda Rootes yes

Keith Kirkpatrick yes

Motion to approve variance was unanimous. 3 yes



Review permit issued to Alma Clarkson for a mobile home as a

second dwelling located at 1560 S Rustic Rd. (granted 1/94).

Director Shawver gave staff report stating that Mr. Clarkson’s property was located east of the City of Columbia, on Rustic Road with 15.12 acres which is zoned R-S (Single Family Residential) as is all of the surrounding land. R-S is the original zoning for the area and there have been no requests for any change to the zoning. The request was first submitted in 1994. At that time Richard and Alma Clarkson were elderly and resided in the house. They requested a permit for a mobile home as a second welling to be placed on the property and occupied by their son Robert and his family. Permit was granted for a period of one year and has been reviewed several times. At the last hearing in 1996, the Board learned that Richard Clarkson had passed away but Alma Clarkson was still residing on the premise and Robert was still in the mobile home with his family. Since that time Alma moved out of the house and is a resident of Boone Retirement Center. The son is living in the mobile home and his wife and children are in the house. Staff notified 11 property owners.

Robert Clarkson, 1560 Rustic Road came forward.

Mr. Clarkson said the situation had changed. His father was deceased and his mother was in a nursing home and the original hardship no longer applied. He said his wife was at the house with the two grand-kids and he and his son were at the trailer.

Member Rootes asked if any one was living on the property with health problems that need someone to look after them. Mr. Clarkson said, "me"; he lost a limb, is on kidney dialysis and is back and forth all the time.

Open to the public.

Stuart Spradling spoke from the audience. He said he lived directly north of the property. He was in favor of the original request. The situation is constantly evolving and now that the conditions have changed he did not see the necessity for the trailer to remain on the property.

Mr. Clarkson said he did need it. He was not able to tare it down or get rid of it.

Member Keil said to Mr. Clarkson that when the variance was granted it was understood that when the hardship was over, that the mobile home would have to be removed. Mr. Clarkson said there was no such thing. He said he may have to rent the house and take the rent to the nursing home. Member Keil said, but neither one of his parents lived there any more that was why the hardship was granted.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick said the variance was granted the first time because of the hardship of the parents and their need for care, agreed? Mr. Clarkson agreed with that. Chairman Kirkpatrick said the question is that is it necessary to have two dwellings since the hardship ceased to exist. Then the Board has to decide if the mobile home should be allowed to remain.

Mr. Clarkson said his father-in-law just died and he did not know if his wife would be bringing back her mother so he did not want to be too hasty. Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked if he knew for certain when he might know?

Member Rootes said that at the last review there was a discussion that the property could be divided. Director Shawver said that was correct. She said then the property would have two tracts and they could have one residence on each tract. Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked if there had been any action? Director Shawver said that there had been several discussions with Mr. Clarkson, most recent one being last winter. Whether he took further action; our office had not seen anything. Only stipulation was that both tracts would have to be larger than 2 acres to accommodate on-site wastewater requirements, and the tract that contains the mobile home must have at least 5 acres or more. That had been an option since the original request was made. In 1995 the subdivision regulations changed, so now it would have to be platted as a subdivision rather than just surveyed.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked Mr. Clarkson if he had thought any more about splitting up the property? He said he had 13 acres. He said he would speak to Director Shawver to see how to do it. Director Shawver said if he would have it surveyed into two lots, the trailer could be on one lot and the house ion another lot; then he would not have to come back to the board again.

Member Rootes asked if the renewal was denied, how long would Mr. Clarkson have to remedy the situation? Director Shawver said he usually left it to the discretion of the Board to instruct him on the time. Chairperson Kirkpatrick was thinking 60 - 90 days to see if his mother-in-law would be returning and or to get the property in motion to plat. Member Keil said it would give good weather to make it workable.

Member Keil made and Member Rootes seconded motion to DENY request to renew permit issued to Alma Clarkson for a mobile home as a second dwelling located at 1560 S Rustic Rd. (granted 1/94) allowing 90 days to remove the mobile home or to come into compliance.

Norma Keil yes Linda Rootes yes

Keith Kirkpatrick yes

Motion to DENY renewal was unanimous. 3 yes



Mr. Clarkson stated that he might need a place for his mother in law to live. Director Shawver explained to him that if he applied for another variance for the mother-in-law, it would be a temporary permit again. It would be reviewed annually, and once mother-in-law was no longer there, the trailer would have to be removed. The best and most permanent solution is to split the property into two or more tracts so the trailer could stay there.


Review permit issued to Carol Kiel for a mobile home as a second

dwelling located at 2321 E Hwy. 163 (granted 9/77).

Director Shawver gave staff report that the property was located in the Pierpont area. It is approximately 2.5 miles south of Columbia. There was a single family dwelling on the site and a mobile home. The property is zoned A-2 (Agriculture) and the adjacent land is zoned A-2. The previous owner obtained a permit in 1977 to allow a mobile home for rental purposes as an income supplement. When he died, the property was sold with the mobile home on the lot being represented as a nonconforming use. Subsequent owners have been permitted to retain the unit. Ms. Kiel received permission for her mother to occupy the unit with the requirement for an annual review. The unit was being used for storage at the last two reviews. Last review was June 1996. We notified 37 property owners.

Carol Kiel, 2321 E. Hwy. 163, Columbia addressed the Board. Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked the status of the situation. She said it is the same as last year. Her mother was still living with her and they are using the trailer for storage.

Open to public hearing. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the request.

Member Rootes said that last year she needed the facility for storage because her mother moved there with her and had extra furniture. Ms. Kiel said she even had a garage sale and still needed storage. She said she needs to keep everything close for her mother. Member Rootes remembered the pictures from the previous year.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick said this had a long history. With the structure not being occupied, essentially it is being used as a storage unit. Ms. Kiel said the pipes are all busted and she even had the water meter pulled off. Member Rootes asked if it would still need the variance for a second dwelling. Director Shawver said as long as it was not repaired and inhabited, that would be correct.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked what steps would it take or is it possible to remove this from consideration as a second dwelling permanently? Director Shawver said the board could make a motion to grant continued use of the second structure on the lot for non-residential purposes (storage). If in the future, it would be occupied as a residence, it would have to come back before the board for consideration.

Member Keil asked what if the property was sold? Director Shawver said it is always suggested that variances be recorded. It could be a requirement that the Certificate of Decision be recorded at the applicants expense. Then in a title search it would be found. Director Shawver said the original request was for a second dwelling, that is how it was placed on the property. Until two (2) years ago it had remained a dwelling.

Member Rootes made and Member Keil second motion to DENY the renewal request by Carol Kiel for a mobile home as a second dwelling located at 2321 E Hwy. 163 (granted 9/77), but to allow the pre-1976 mobile home to be used for storage for an indefinite period of time granted; however, any future use as a residence will require a new application to the Board of Adjustment, and further that the Certificate of Decision is to be recorded at the applicant’s expense in the office of Boone County recorder of Deeds.

Linda Rootes yes Norma Keil yes

Keith Kirkpatrick yes

Motion to DENY renewal with unanimous. 3 yes



Director Shawver introduced Bill Florea to the Board. Mr. Florea was the new addition to Planning and Building Inspections staff. He has nine (9) years of planning experience.



Being no further business, meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,


M. Noel Boyt



Minutes approved 24th, July, 1997.