Thursday, August 22, 1996

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

Roll call as follows:

Present: Keith Kirkpatrick, Chairperson

Jerry Kaufman, Vice Chairperson

Norma Keil

Tom Trabue

Linda Rootes

Also Present: Stan Shawver, Director

Don Abell, Staff

Thad Yonke, Staff

Noel Boyt, Secretary

Member Keil made and Member Rootes seconded motion to approve minutes of July 25, 1996. Motion was approved by acclamation.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick stated that all decisions are based upon the Boone County Zoning and Subdivision Regulations, and are considered to be a part of the record of the proceedings.



Request by Lois Dampier for a variance from the requirements

of Section 10 A. of the Boone County Zoning Regulations requiring

a side setback of 6 feet on property located at 6775 S. Brookhaven Ct.,


Director Shawver gave staff report saying that this property is located at lot 32 of Cedarbrook Subdivision, Plat 1, approximately 2 1/2 miles south of Columbia on State Highway K. There is a single family house on the site. The property is zoned R-M (Moderate Density Residential) as is all of the surrounding property.

The applicant is requesting a variance from the requirements of Section 10 A. of the Boone County Zoning Regulations requiring a side setback of six (6’) feet in the R-M zoning district.

The applicant applied for a building permit for a residential addition on July 1, 1996. The application indicated that the addition would be 6 feet, 6 inches from the nearest side property line. On July 8, 1996, a footing inspection was requested. The Building Inspector noted that the corner of the addition was 2 feet from a chain link fence. Mr. Dampier advised the inspector that the fence was on his side of the property, and that the addition complied with the setback requirements. The inspector advised Mr. Dampier that this would have to be verified before occupancy would be permitted. On July 19, 1996, a survey of the property showed that the addition was 2.23 inches from the side property line. On August 5, 1996, Mr. Dampier requested an electrical inspection. He was advised that we would perform no further inspections due to the setback problem. Upon his submission of the application to the BOA, we relented and allowed inspections on the building, except for the 4 feet of the structure that is too close to the property line. Staff notified 112 property owners of this request.

Thomas Dampier, 6775 Brookhaven Ct., addressed the board on behalf of the request. He said his house was a three (3) bedroom, one (1) bathroom ranch house. Currently there are two adults and three children ages 13, 11 and 7. He and his wife are expecting twins that are due October 5th, however, they could come early.

He said he had lived in the house 14 years, he knew most of the neighbors, likes the area and the two oldest children have gone to the same school. They decided to build on since there was only one (1) bathroom and they needed more bedrooms. They decided to build onto the east side originally since there was plenty of room on that side of the lot. But after investigating, there was a sewer line there which could not be moved. They did not feel there was enough room on the back of the house, so the only other option was to look at the west side. To make the addition look right and equal with the house, the structure would only be within two feet (2’) from the property line and that is why they are requesting a variance. He said the closest property owner to the line is Lee Seidel, 1690 W Boris Dr. Mr. Dampier said he had spoken with Mr. Seidel extensively and he had no objection to the setback and he had a signed statement from him stating he had no objection.

Mr. Dampier stated it was Mr. Seidel’s back lot that adjoins his side lot. Mr. Seidel’s house is 41’ from his property line. So the house would not be very close to his. Mr. Dampier stated he also spoke to several of the immediate property owners and obtained their signatures stating there was no objection.

Mr. Dampier stated that when he was going to go to the west side the utilities came out to mark their lines. When the Water Department came out he asked him why his meter was in the neighbor’s yard? He indicated that was probably an error in the property line. That was why he thought he had more property. He stated he had started the construction before the surveyor came out since it took them four (4) weeks to get there. Then he found out the fence line was the property line the whole time.

Open to the public. No one spoke in favor of the request.

Mr. Asa B. Zumalt, Jr., 9400 S. Rangeline Rd., Columbia approached the Board. He stated he spent several years in the military and went to several foreign countries. None of the countries suited him like the United States. He said the rules and regulations were set up for people to abide by. He may not agree with all of them but he agrees with most of them. They are set up for the majority of the people and as long as the majority of the people feel that is the right thing to do, then he will overlook the one’s he does not agree with agree with the one’s that make people happy. His feeling was that this variance should be denied due to the fact certain people will infringe on the rights of other people.

Mr. Dampier re-addressed the Board. He said he knew rules and regulations are set up to be for the general public but that is why this Board is set up to be able to make adjustments. He talked to most of his neighbors and they asked if they should come to the meeting and he advised them he did not believe it was necessary, he thought their signature was enough. He said he had 18 signatures of immediate property owners around him.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked staff what would be the rear setback for the applicant’s neighbor? Director Shawver advised it was 25’.

Member Tom Trabue asked staff that in the packet there was a site plan that was prepared by the building inspector, dated July 8th. There was a statement on it that stated "proposed owner’s property line", what was the basis for that? Director Shawver said that was where the owner thought the property line was and there was a discussion that he might do a property swap with his neighbor to adjust the lot line.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked Mr. Dampier why he did not stop the project when he first learned there was a question about the property line? Mr. Dampier said he was not happy with what has transpired, it was all his mistake. Someone else had brought it to his attention that the property line was wrong, and he assumed it was there. As far as the building, the main part of the construction was up before he knew what was going on. All he did was wire the part that wouldn’t.....remodel his garage and a build on at the same time to get the room he needed. He was wiring the garage to get an inspection. By the time the surveyors got there and he found out where the line was. . . the biggest expense was already in, the laying of the footings and the framework. He was under the impression that if he did not get the variance he could have a problem. He was aware of that, he added.

Mr. Dampier said that he and Mr. Seidel had looked at the property line together and had agreed that "the property line was there". Mr. Seidel told him to go ahead and build and if there was anything he needed like a signature saying it was all right, Mr. Seidel did not have a problem with it.

They had spoken about adjusting the property line on the survey to compensate for the error, but he did not want to do that if the option of a variance was possible.

Mr. Dampier stated the he would not have started if Mr. Seidel had not assured him that everything was O.K. It was just circumstances that caused him the think he was all right.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick said according to the letter from David Forward , Chief Building Inspector dated July 22, 1996, it points out that he was there on July 8th inspecting the footing and pointed out at that time there quite likely was a problem with the setback on that side of your lot. If he was only inspecting footings at that time, then most likely there was no construction except for the footings. Chairperson Kirkpatrick could not understand why Mr. Dampier continued even though his neighbor said it was all right, he had no official authority to do so. But an inspector had told you on the 8th of July you needed to get it straighten out before he went any further. Mr. Dampier stated the inspector came out and approved the footing, so they poured the cement. Then they started the framing and it went up fast. Mr. Dampier showed him where the water meter was and his line was going through his yard and he explained the way the house was sitting . . . .

Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked Mr. Dampier if "him" was referring to the inspector and the inspection of July 8th? Chairperson Kirkpatrick read the letter from Chief Building Inspector David Forward dated July 22nd, referring to the first inspection on July 8th.

"On July 8, 1996, I made an inspection on your addition. At that inspection,

I informed you that the footing was within 2 feet of your neighbors fence.

You stated that your neighbors fence was on your property and you had at

least the minimum of the required six (6) feet. You are required to show

your property lines with property pins before any more inspections.

Signed David Forward, Chief Building Inspector."

Mr. Dampier said yes he received the letter, and it stated would not receive any more inspections, it did not say to stop construction. He called the surveyors "almost every day" to see if they would get out there. It took them almost 4 weeks to get out. They came out on a Friday and it was Monday before he spoke with them and the basic walls were already up. He repeated that the letter said he would not receive any more inspections being framing and/or electrical inspections. He said he thought he had plenty of room for the addition.

Mr. Dampier said the surveyor came out first and gave him a quick look (Mr. Dampier could not stay) and said he thought it was all right. On his lot plan it shows the lot came down 100’ ft. and in itty bitty print that was blotted out, it had 12’ more feet. That was the error that he made and at that time he was so far along, he did continue on. He said, "He did not think that meant for him to stop". He knew at the time there might be a problem, he understood he did not do this right.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick said he did not want to keep beating him on this, but if a building inspector came out and would have told him he might be out of compliance, he would not have continued. It only makes sense to get things squared away before driving another nail or anything else. Mr. Dampier said he knew that, the problem was they were expecting twins Oct. 5th and they probably will be early. If he had waited until tonight to get this taken care of, there would be no way of getting the addition done. He took it into consideration that he was taking a chance. He said that two of the children were his and one child is his wife’s. The two girls have been in the same room together and it is very hard for them to get along. And with the twins coming, they just needed more room. They only had one bathroom and will have seven (7) people in the house.

Board member Linda Rootes stated that the building permit was for an addition of 9’ 6" by 23’ and the drawing that was submitted with the building permit application looks like 9’6" x 23’ but the surveyors plan indicates that it is 12’ x 26’ . Mr. Dampier said that at the time of the building permit he went in and told them this was about what he wanted and told them he was not quite sure. They said as long as it was close to that amount that it would be OK. He said to make the house look square and make it work right structurally the contractor that came over to look at it said the 12’ x 26’ would be best. That was the time that he decided to go ahead and make it a little bit bigger. Member Rootes said if the structure had been 2’ 6" narrower it would have been that much further away from the property line, and if had not extended back so far it would have been further away because of the angle? Mr. Dampier agreed.

Mr. Dampier said that when he started to do it he had measured and he had 6’ to the fence line. Then when he had the water people come out, they thought someone had made a mistake in putting the fence up and the property line was in a different spot. If he had added more room he would have been OK and that was where he made his mistake. "They" advised him that he needed to make the addition as wide as his house or it would look like an addition and not like part of the original house. That was why he went out further after he had applied for the building permit.

Member Tom Trabue said he agreed with all of the Chairman’s comments and he thought it was a real unfortunate circumstance and hoped there will be some lessons learned not just with this, but with other people. In looking at the sketches where the water meter and property pin is in the area that it appears they thought the property line was, he could see some of the room for the error. The chain link fence is a give away for where the property line is. But what he would rather do is look to a solution. The one very obvious is a transfer of property or swap with the neighbor to obtain the required 6 feet. That would be his recommendation since he was not in favor of approving a 4’ setback variance.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick said he had all kinds of concerns. He drove by the property and said you could not get a "fat fireman" through there if you needed to. It is really tight. Chairperson Kirkpatrick stated that in no way was he in favor of the variance. He would be willing to consider tabling the variance for a period of time enabling the applicant the opportunity to work something out with his neighbor to acquire the needed room to comply with the setback.

Member Tom Trabue agreed with Chairperson Kirkpatrick and he anticipated the fence would be moved to have adequate access to the back of the house. That is why there are setbacks, to have adequate access to the back sides.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked Director Shawver if 25’ was the setback at the back property line, what was the setback for an accessory building? Director Shawver said 25’ for a residence or a main structure, the zoning regulations allow an accessory structure 2’ ft. from side or rear property line provided 60’ away from the front property line and at least 10’ away from the main structure. Chairperson Kirkpatrick said it would be conceivable for the two properties to have only 4’ between this house and the accessory structure on the adjacent property. Director Shawver agreed, yes it would be possible.

Member Norma Keil said she had a problem with the request, she understood he was in a predicament, but she also found it hard to understand when he knew at the time of the footing and did not wait to verify, she had a problem with it. The only solution she saw was an exchange of property.

Member Tom Trabue asked staff if the lots were of sufficient size that it would not cause a problem. Director Shawver said yes, he did not think their would be a problem.

Member Trabue made and Member Keil seconded motion to DENY variance of the side setback for the addition located at 6775 Brookhaven Ct.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked staff if this motion carries will the applicant an opportunity to negotiate with his neighbor? Director Shawver stated certainly. He continued that if the application is denied, then the structure needs to be removed? Director Shawver said correct, generally in enforcement of zoning regulations we allow at least 30 days before enforcing the proceedings. It is the preview of this board to hold off on that for maybe 90 days. Question comes on the continuation of the construction for the structure.

Member Trabue agreed to amend motion to allow 90 days. A motion for denial rather than tabling because he does not feel the variance is approvable. It is not to place a hardship but to more it along.

Member Rootes asked about continuing construction during the 90 days. Member Trabue stated it would be at the desecration of the applicant. He said Planning and Building Inspections has already indicated they will not do inspections of the last portion (4’) of the structure.

Mike Krause, Building Inspector steeped forward and stated Mr. Dampier would only have to remove 4’ of the structure and not the entire addition. The Board agreed just the 4’ of the structure.

Member Trabue made and Member Keil seconded motion to DENY the request by Thomas Dampier for variance of the side setback for the addition located at 6775 Brookhaven Ct. allowing the applicant 90 days to negotiate with his neighbor for a possible land swap.

Voting as follows:

Tom Trabue yes Norma Keil yes

Keith Kirkpatrick yes Jerry Kaufman yes

Linda Rootes yes

Motion to DENY was unanimous. 5 yes



Request by Erich D. Albert on behalf of Randall Smith for relief from

the requirements of Section 3.1 of Appendix B of the Boone County

Subdivision Regulations requiring lots smaller than 2.5 acres to be

connected to a centralized wastewater system on property located at

6050 S Gans Creek Rd., Columbia.

Director Shawver stated that this two (2) acre tract is located on Gans Creek Road approximately 2 miles south of Columbia, property is zoned R-S (single family residential) which is the same zoning for the property north, south and east. Property on the west, across Gans Creek Road is A-2. There is an existing single wide on the property. The applicant had applied for a permit to replace the single wide with a modular home. Applicant was considering splitting the two acre tract into two, one acre parcels. Has requested relief from the Subdivision Regulations that requires lots smaller than 2.5 acres to be connected to a central wastewater collectors system. The two acre tract was created in 1972, not part of a platted subdivision and it could be platted. The staff has recommended that the application be denied. Reason being that in checking with the Health Department they had a percolation test on file and it indicated that a single waste water system could serve two residences and a properly sized septic tank and appropriate sized lateral fields be provided to serve both residences as they are built. That would qualify as a collector system under our definitions in the regulations so staff could not see any reason to promulgate the additional wastewater system on this small area. Staff notified 8 property owners of this request.

Randall Smith, 1951 Nashville Church Road approached the Board. He stated he was in the process of purchasing the property from Mr. Albert. He continued the he recently divorced and did not have the resources at this time to construct a home on the premises. He has had nice homes in southern Boone County being a resident for 19 years. His original plan when he filed for the building permit was to purchase and install a double wide mobile home that he could live in approximately five (5) years which would give him time to construct a foundation home on the premises. Evaluating the property he said the site of the existing single wide mobile home is a more desirable location for the more permanent home. He contacted P&Z and wanted to modify the building permit. This was to keep the single wide there and place the double wide on the other end of the property. P&Z advised he had to contact City/County Environmental Health and determine what type of wastewater system could be installed on the property. The property is only two (2) acres and one problem is that it is not real deep. When Environmental Health came out they noted that it was not suitable to have a lagoon without a variance. Discussion followed about the option of putting in a septic and lateral system. Sites were identified on two corners of the property NE and SE corner that would support lateral system. A certified installer had made site visits to give the cost associated with installing two septic systems. When Mr. Smith advised Environmental Health he was interested in installing two septic systems he asked them what their preference would be. He had asked if he should install one septic tank and one set of laterals or two septic tanks and one set of laterals, or what the most desirable configuration would be for the wastewater system. Environmental Health indicated that their preference would be to have two complete independent systems functioning rather than to combining them. The area between the north and south ends of the property are fairly rough with trees through the middle. The property lends itself to two independent systems.

In learning that the recommendation was for denial, he contacted P&Z and they indicated to put in one septic tank and either one set of laterals or two sets of laterals. If one tank is put in the laterals may need additional expense installing a pump to go the distance. He would prefer not to have to pump sewage. The lagoon to the single wide (existing wastewater) is adequate. Another concern was that he would have to remove some overhead power lines which will be at a substantial cost of $4,555.00 to Boone Electric since the mobile home can not go under them. Another concern was that if he did have to install one set of laterals in one area it would probably have to be in the north area where he wants to construct a permanent home and he would prefer not to do construction in that area since he has not yet designed or sighted the home. He does not want to place a wastewater system that might not lend itself properly to servicing the home in the future. Therefore, he did not want to make the project any more complicated than necessary.

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

Chairman Kirkpatrick advised that he did not think the Board ever had a request being an undersized lot for A-2, and then had it split further. Director Shawver stated the property was zoned R-S, the property to the west was A-2. Chairman Kirkpatrick said that answered that question.

Chairman Kirkpatrick asked that a Plat would be required if the property was split further? Director Shawver answered, correct.

Member Tom Trabue asked Mr. Smith if his intent was to build one (1) home on the property and not to have two (2) residences on the property as a permanent solution. He stated his intent that the double wide he is buying (4 yr. old) he did want to keep it on the property. His daughter lives with him part-time and it is a potential future place for her to live. He did want to remove the single wide hopefully within five (5) years. He wanted to be financially stable and be able to remove it.

Chairman Kirkpatrick asked Mr. Smith if he knew of the expense incurred in creating a subdivision plat? Mr. Smith said he was aware of that.

Member Linda Rootes asked Director Shawver that if he puts in one septic tank and one system would it be on one lot or the other after they are divided? Director Shawver answered yes, that was correct. The way that is delt with was to provide wastewater easements so either lot having a problem would have access to solve the problem. Member Rootes asked who actually has ownership of the system. Director Shawver said ownership would be vested in the developer. There could be an agreement drawn up so that they could split the ownership. Member Rootes asked that if he sells the two (2) lots to two (2) separate individuals, then they would have to have an agreement over maintenance of the system. Director Shawver stated that was correct. She asked if there was legal recourse built into the agreement if one owner abused the system. Director Shawver said that property owners are always able to exercise civil recovery from problems of that kind.

Chairman Kirkpatrick asked Director Shawver if he had any information regarding one lateral field or two lateral fields. Director Shawver advised that as the Board was aware many percolation systems in Boone County do not function properly. There are a number that have two lateral systems that are set up as dosing systems. Wastewater effluent is directed into one for a certain period of time then it is redirected to the other lateral field giving each system time to fill, evaporate and absorb the water. That can be done by a motor and a pump or sometimes it is done by gravity.

Chairman Kirkpatrick asked if the staff has recommends two lateral systems, or one? Director Shawver advised that his department did not inspect wastewater systems any more. When we did do them through 1991, yes we did. The state designs for small wastewater systems called in fact for dosing chambers, dosing systems. The Health Department inspects wastewater systems now. Director Shawver stated recently he had done a final inspection on a dwelling and they showed him the dosing system where there were two (2) separate lateral fields.

Chairman Kirkpatrick asked Mr. Smith if he had any documentation from the Health Department where they preferred two systems instead of one as he had stated? Mr. Smith said it was verbal. Chris Andrews had made two (2) on site inspections and indicated to him it was her preference. She indicated she had spoken to Mr. Worley and it was all right with him.

Chairman Kirkpatrick said one of the goals of the Subdivision Regulations is to reduce the number of wastewater treatment systems within the county. A number of subdivision plats have been approved since the regulations took effect and he could not recall where this had been a question (just a comment for Board he said).

Member Tom Trabue said he did not have a particular preference for single system or a centralized system as this, but he had a tremendous concern about having a single system on a one acre lot. His personal experience is that it will not work very long. It will work for five or six years but it will not work for ten and this is a very sensitive water shed in that area.

Member Linda Rootes said that if the situation was that there would be a lot of one acre lots each with an independent treatment system, then she would be in favor of a central collection, but under the circumstances with the trees and terrain in the center it makes it difficult for the lines to go back and forth she was not sure if having two separate systems was worse than having one.

Member Norma Keil asked Mr. Smith that if he had his choice which way would he want to go? Mr. Smith said his preference would be to go with two separate lateral fields. Both soil tests on the north and south ends of the property indicated the soil perked quit well.

Member Keil stated she doesn’t remember where they had gotten into wastewater before. Chairman Kirkpatrick advised that the Subdivision Regulations changed a year ago and the requirement for central collection systems for lots under two and one half acres (2.5) went into effect. The intent being to try to hold down the proliferation of small waste water treatment systems around the county for environmental reasons.

Chairman Kirkpatrick stated he had concerns like Member Trabue of a wastewater system on one acre.

Member Trabue said this was a tough one because they needed to figure in the site considerations. Member Trabue said they did not have the information in front of them to evaluate (since he was not personally familiar with the property). If it would be helpful to Mr. Smith, he would not be opposed to tabling until they had that information or the information from the Health Department or his engineer that is proposing the systems. There are a tremendous number of systems that can be installed that could go through the trees with less than standard lateral fields. He would be willing to explore it further.

Chairman Kirkpatrick stated he would not have a problem with it either.

Mr. Smith stated his problem was that he was currently renting and have to be out by the end of September, so time was of the essence to place the double wide and live in.

Member Norma Keil asked if the lagoon was on the south portion of the property. Mr. Smith said it was toward the north end and really close to the east property line. Member Keil asked where the single wide trailer was? Mr. Smith said it was on the north end and the lagoon was serving the existing mobile home. He would like to remove the lagoon when he builds his home to enhance the appearance of the property. There would be laterals placed just south of the current lagoon. He did not know how large of a home he will build.

Chairman Kirkpatrick stated there was another option. To remove the single wide, move the double wide in and live with that. Mr. Smith said that was his first plan, but it would require him to construct his permanent home toward the south end of the property which is a less desirable site in his opinion. He likes the north side because it is more visible, and higher elevation. Chairman Kirkpatrick said he could remove the single wide, put the double wide where he wanted it, get rid of the lagoon and put his own septic tank where he wanted and be done with it. Chairman Kirkpatrick said there was no requirement to subdivide the lot to begin with. Mr. Smith said financially he was not able at the present time to construct a home. He wanted to live in the double wide since it will meet his needs and handle his furniture. The existing single wide is not large enough to meet his present or future needs. He was looking at buying the double wide and placed on the property for a lengthy period of time and not be a detriment to the property or to the neighborhood.

Member Linda Rootes asked how did he intend to use the single wide? Mr. Smith said he would probably rent it since it had been rented for a number of years.

Member Rootes asked staff if the total property of two (2) acres was too small to have two separate systems on? Director Shawver stated it was too small for a new lagoon. The new lagoon has to be at least 75’ from the property lines and the property is 180’ deep. It has to be 100’ from the residence it serves and 200’ from residences on adjoining property. It would be extremely difficult to meet those setback requirements. The property was suitable for septic tanks and does have good percolation. Member Roots said because it is less than 2.5 acres according to the "Subdivision Regulations" it really should be connected to a wastewater collection system. She asked if there was any plan to have a public sewer system in the area. Director Shawver said this would be part of the Bonne Femme water shed but there is nothing projected down this far south. Gans Creek Subdivision is back to the east with the lots 2 - 2.5 acres and a number of those have had failing wastewater systems, but there is no discussion of putting in a wastewater collection system to serve them.

Member Keil said her personal feeling was that either the request needed to be tabled or denied. They had no documentation where the Health Department stood.

Chairman Kirkpatrick said there was no written statement from the Health Department, no recommendation, no cost estimates, they basically have nothing. Chairman Kirkpatrick agreed with Member Keil, and the more he thought about it, there was no requirement that the tract had to be subdivided into two tracts. That was something the applicant would like to do. He understood his reasoning and it made sense, but from the Board’s stand point it makes just as much sense that if the applicant wants to do that, and he should abide by the regulations because he is going to gain financially from it. Chairman Kirkpatrick said he might be able to vote for tabling, but there was no way he could support the application as presented.

Member Trabue told Mr. Smith he might see a trend on the Board, so he asked that if Mr. Smith’s engineer or installer would come up with a plan and the site is just not feasible for a centralized system (meaning the Regulations) then a variance would be very appropriate. But if it is just a financial consideration, that is not a reason for a variance.

Mr. Smith stated that he had been prompted by the Health Department to seek a variance since they indicated it would be better to have two separate systems. He said financially he did not know if there would be a difference between one system or two systems. He was concerned about doing something on the site that might interfere with the kind of home he wants to build in the future. He wanted to be very conservative on the north end of the property and not place a sewer system that might limit what he could do in terms of building a house there.

Chairman Kirkpatrick stated one of the reasons of the Subdivision Regulations is to get the infrastructure in place before or as subdivisions develop. The infrastructure requirements can and very often do effect the types of structures, number, density, etc., and location on any given tract of ground. If Mr. Smith wishes to divide the property into two separate tracts of ground and the wastewater requirements for those two separate tracts some how alter what would normally be his optimum site location for the future, so be it; that is why there are the regulations.

Member Jerry Kaufman stated he did not see a financial expense as a hardship.

Member Keil agreed with Member Kaufman.

Chairman Kirkpatrick stated the more he thought about it, he leaned towards denial.

Chairman Kirkpatrick asked if it was physically impossible to do as the regulations suggest, would this be a consideration for the Wastewater Board. Director Shawver stated it would still come to the Board of Adjustment because of the regulations, but it would have changed the staff’s recommendation.

Member Linda Rootes stated that the strong enforcement of the Subdivision Regulations is to encourage subdivision and development where the infrastructure is already in place. Where it is easy to attach to sewers. Even though it is zoned to be divided, it obviously is not very advantageous for it to be divided into smaller lots and she did feel it should be encouraged or special allowance for that to happen.

Member Trabue said that recognizing that there may be an opportunity that the site does not lend itself to meeting the regulations, he made a motion to table request until further information can be provided. If further information is not provided within 60 days, then they can take action on the request.


Member Trabue made and Member Keil seconded a motion to table request for variance from Randall Smith for 60 days to obtain further information from the requirements of Section 3.1 of Appendix B of the Boone County Subdivision Regulations requiring lots smaller than 2.5 acres to be connected to a centralized wastewater system on property located at 6050 S Gans Creek Rd., Columbia.

Voting as follows:

Tom Trabue yes Norma Keil yes

Linda Rootes yes Jerry Kaufman yes

Keith Kirkpatrick no

Motion to table was approved 4 yes 1 no



Request by Gary M. Kivett to place a mobile home as second dwelling

on 13 acres located at 4110 Hwy. 124, Harrisburg.

Director Shawver stated that the office had received a telephone call that the applicant may no longer desire the request for a permit for a mobile home as a second dwelling. Pending clarification of the information the Board may want to table or deny the request. Failure by an applicant to appear gives the Board the right to deny the request, deal with it, or ignore it.

Member Trabue stated it would be appropriate to take formal action to table the item. He so made motion.

Member Trabue made and Member Rootes seconded motion to table request by Gary M. Kivett to place a mobile home as second dwelling on 13 acres located at 4110 Hwy. 124, Harrisburg.

Voting as follows:

Tom Trabue yes Linda Rootes yes

Norma Keil yes Jerry Kaufman yes

Keith Kirkpatrick yes

Motion to table was unanimous 5 yes



Request by Peggy C. Gilpin for a variance from the subdivision regulations

requirement restricting tier lot stems to 250’ in length for property located

at 201 W Stanley Poe Rd., Columbia.

Director Shawver gave staff report stating that Ms. Gilpin’s property is zoned A-2 and all surrounding property is A-2. The site is approximately 3. 5 miles south of Columbia. It is at Stanley Poe Road and Constien Drive. Ms. Gilpin owns two tracts of ground, 7.04 acres that fronts directly on Stanley Poe Road and a 5.0 acre tract that is served by an existing easement known as Constien Drive. The owner wants to split the 5.0 acre tract into two tracts each containing 2.5 acres of land. Each lot would then be served by a tier stem 650’ ft. or more in length. The applicant has indicated on her survey how she wants to split the property. This sketch was provided to the Board. It should be noted that the western most 25’ ft. of the tract is part of the 50’ ft roadway easement known as Constien Drive. That roadway currently serves six (6) homes and is not maintained by the County. The applicant is requesting a variance from Appendix B, Section 1.8.1. of the Subdivision Regulations which restricts tier lots stems of not less than 20’ ft. nor more than 59’ ft in width, and shorter than 25’ ft. nor longer than 250’ ft.

Staff recommends denial of the request. Staff does not believe that unreasonable or unnecessary hardship exists that would prohibit this lot from being split into two (2) pieces. A roadway easement exists to allow construction of a county standard road. The applicant would be responsible for improving about 650’ ft. of roadway (other residents sharing this easement may be willing to contribute to its improvement). The five (5) acre tract could then be subdivided into two (2) lots, configured in such a way as to avoid creation of tier stems exceeding 250’ ft. in length.

Granting this variance will not endanger the health, safety or welfare of the public.

This property may be developed without the creation of tier stems in excess of 250’ ft in length. Staff believes that granting this variance will circumvent the purposes of the regulations, by perpetuating a privately maintained roadway that could be brought up to standards and accepted for public maintenance. Staff notified 34 property owners regarding this request.

Peggy Gilpin, 201 W. Stanley Poe Rd., Columbia addressed the Board. She said she had someone interested in purchasing 2.5 acres. The house to be built would be the same as other homes in the area. She said in speaking with Planning and Zoning over the last couple of months she said she tried to make it a county road made but Andy Lister (County Public Works) said it would take at least two (2) years. She did not know the cost involved to make it a county road even if it was at her cost. She said the ideal situation would have the drive come off Constien Road because it is in as good or better shape as West Stanley Poe Road. She said since she could not have access off Constien Road because of regulations, this is where the tier stem was necessary.

Open to the public. No one spoke in favor of the request.

Bill Martin, 9675 S. Constien Road addressed the Board. He said there was a requirement of limiting it to a 250’ ft stem and it should not be any longer than that. He said the stem would be part of 2.5 acres, 650’ long leaving a very small lot. He said there were already 6 property owners on Constien Road and it is a private drive and he would like to keep it that way.

Mike Krause, 9495 S. Constien Road addressed the Board. He said he lived slightly north and west of Ms. Gilpin’s property. Mr. Krause said he was not for or against Ms. Gilpin dividing her property. The problem he had was the stem road to it. It is his understanding that the idea of a stem access to a county road is that it not be part of the easement that is on the existing private drive. In that case, the people way in the back of Constien Drive could call it a stem on their half of the easement all the way down to Stanley Poe. He had no objection to making Constien Road a county road. It may be two years before forming a Neighborhood Improvement District before the County could get to it, but whatever it takes to improve the road and make it public is what should be done.

Mr. Krause stated that there are a couple of problems on Constien Road, one, there is no road agreement for that private road. Bill Martin takes care of the road and charges the owners, but if he happens to move there would be no road agreement. If the County takes the road over, the owners could still add rock and maintain it if they pay Bill for doing it. Second concern is that all the houses in back of Constien Road are served by individual two inch (2") water lines off of Stanley Poe Road. Ideally if the road was improved a larger water main could be added and fire plug installed in that area and improve the general safety of the area not to mention fire protection premiums would go down. If Ms. Gilpin would improve her portion of the road, he could kick in his portion because it would increase the value of his home. He said he was not excited about increased density in the area, he had already been surrounded by development. He was not in favor of Ms. Gilpin using her section of the easement for Constien Drive as her stem lot.

John Sweeney, 9541 Constien Road addressed the Board. He said the property in the area consists of five to 10 (5 to 10) acre parcels and the average home is $150,000 to $200,000 homes. There is no guarantee what type of homes would go on the new parcels. Constien Road is 13’ ft wide and the traffic is already heavy. Ms. Gilpin can sell the property as a five (5) acre piece and build on the property. That still would be three (3) times the length that the regulations currently allow. He thought it would be a gross violation of the spirit and the intent of the regulation.

Russ Benard, 9747 S Rte. N., addressed the Board. He said he was concerned mostly regarding the property value. He was not opposed to Ms. Gilpin making financial gain, however, he thought if the owners on Constien Road were concerned about their road, they would have petitioned it make it larger and county maintained.

Carolyn Constien Fresenburg, 9320 S Constien Road, addressed the Board. She lived at the end of Constien Road and appreciated the Subdivision Regulations that have come into effect. When she built, she ended up digging her own well because of the all the 2" water lines already in existence. She did not know what Ms. Gilpin wanted to do but more problems may come up regarding the road.

Ms. Gilpin stepped forward to address the concerns of the neighbors. As far as the 2.5 acres, she was advised that the stem was not to be part of the 2.5 acres it would be 2.5 acres plus. The drawing she submitted with the application was a tentative drawing. At the present, she was interested in selling one tract of 2.5 acres. She said if the Board had a better idea, she would like to hear it.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked Director Shawver that the application proposes to serve the two lots by two 650’ ft. stems, one on each side of tract A. Director Shawver said that was correct.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick said on the face of it he could see lots of problems. One main one being how would the BOA approve a variance on a public easement. He was not sure that was even legal.

Ms. Gilpin said she had talked to P & Z. Mr. Yonke stated that at that time the survey indicated the property line ran through the center of the road.

Director Shawver stated that the existing survey on the two tracts of ground, the 5 acres and the 7 acres shows the roadway easement but it does not differentiate whether it is part of the property or not. The easement was done by "Quit Claim Deed" as opposed to a Warranty Deed so it is not a clear title. The surveyor evidently made the same assumption and given that it is not a clear Warranty Deed he took it out of the center of the road. If the plat would come in like this, we would say no, that is an easement and can not be included in the property. Ms. Gilpin is correct, the stem is not included in her acreage.

Member Tom Trabue commented that he had highlighted that the stem is in the road easement. He thought the Board understood his position on stem lots, he does not like them. They are very difficult in emergency situations. The concerns the neighbors have about the road did not concern him as much as being opposed to stems this long, if they can be avoided.

Member Linda Rootes asked if the five (5) acre tract would be allowed to access on the private road? Director Shawver stated yes. Member Rootes asked if there was a provision for the stem to come off of that to the other lot? Director Shawver advised that the Subdivision Regulations says that lots less than five (5) acres have direct access to a public road. It is fine as it is now, but if it is split it will need the access to a public road.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick shared Member Trabue’s concerns regarding flag lots or tier lots, for safety stand point they can become a nightmare. Ms. Gilpin said that new owners would more than likely have their drive off of Constien Road and not go to the expense of building a road back there. They would not make a driveway onto Stanley Poe Road, they would put their road onto Constien Road and access that way. This is just a technicality to meet County Regulations. Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked if the variance were granted, there would be nothing to prevent the new owner from using the tier lot stem. Ms. Gilpin said that was true.

Member Trabue said that Constien Rd. would serve the west lot that would be divided off, but it would not serve the east lot. Ms. Gilpin agreed, she said that lot may not be sold off as a separate lot. It might be sold with the seven acres. Member Trabue stated he understood that, but being a separate parcel it had to be addressed that way.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick understood that it was going to take some time, cooperation and work from the neighborhood to turn Constien Road it into a county road, but that was his preference over creating lots of this type.

Member Trabue stated that there was a tremendous history of development before the infrastructure is in place to support it, both in Boone County and outside of Boone County. This is another case where large tract subdivisions (for lack of another word) without infrastructures to serve them from the road to the water problems.

Ms. Gilpin said that the County needs to move faster to do those things. The county is not moving fast enough to do this. That we were penalizing her (Ms. Gilpin) to wait two (2) years because the county can not get out there and improve this neighborhood road. Why should she be penalized when the county is too slow. Member Trabue said he wished he could help, but most of the development that occurs in Columbia and Boone County, the developer provides the infrastructure as they develop the property. The county does not develop the infrastructure for them. There is a lot of catching up that the county is trying to help people where they have over developed areas without the infrastructure.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick said he thought the County is moving as fast as it can move as far as the tax dollar will go in those types of improvements. However, he pointed out that Ms. Gilpin had purchased the property in 1985 and divided it then into three tracts and has had 11 years to bring forward this type of request. Ms. Gilpin said she did not know the Subdivision Regulations went into effect, nor how it would effect her situation.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick said his response would be that the County and the public would be better served to take the time to develop Constien Drive into a public road or see that particular piece of ground remain undivided until that time.

Member Keil said she could only see disadvantages of allowing this variance.

Ms. Gilpin asked what were the disadvantages. Member Keil said it is getting too dense in population and not safe.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick said when looking at the aerial photo there are many 5 and 10 acre lots accessible the same way. If this request is approved the Board has set a precedence. It comes back to Member Trabue’s point, creating by default a very large subdivision with no infrastructure in place to support it other than a private drive and a bunch of two inch (2") water lines.


Member Rootes made and Member Trabue seconded a motion to DENY the request by Peggy C. Gilpin for a variance from the subdivision regulations requirement restricting tier lot stems to 250’ in length for property located at 201 W Stanley Poe Rd., Columbia.

Voting as follows:

Linda Rootes yes Tom Trabue yes

Norma Keil yes Jerry Kaufman yes

Keith Kirkpatrick yes

Motion to DENY was unanimous. 5 yes



Review permit issued to Robert Forbis for a mobile home as a

second dwelling on 6.0 acres located at 16671 N. Hwy. NN, Sturgeon.

(granted 4/94)

Director Shawver stated that the site is located 2.5 miles northeast of Harrisburg on State Highway NN. There was an existing single family dwelling on the property occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Forbis. April 19, 1994, they requested a permit to allow a mobile home to be placed on the property as a second dwelling on a total of six (6) acres on the property. The purpose of the mobile home was for their daughter to reside in with her family to provide assistance to the applicants. The permit was granted for a period of two (2) years. Staff notified seven (7) property owners concerning this request.

Mildred Forbis, wife of Robert Forbis, 16671 N. Hwy. NN addressed the Board. She said everything is the same. Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked if the situation had changed at all. Mrs. Forbis said everything was the same other than they were older and the daughter still lives there. She said she would like to continue the request at this time.

Member Trabue noted that in reviewing the minutes of 1994 that they did have to install a lagoon. He asked if there were any problem with that. Director Shawver stated no. Member Keil asked if there had been any problems with the variance. Director Shawver stated none.

Member Keil made and Member Trabue seconded motion to approve renewal of the variance request for Robert Forbis granting a mobile home as a second dwelling for two (2) additional years.

Member Rootes commented that when she drove by the property she thought it was very attractive and saw people outside on the swing. She continued that it looked like a nice family situation.

Voting as follows:

Norma Keil yes Tom Trabue yes

Linda Rootes yes Jerry Kaufman yes

Keith Kirkpatrick yes

Renewal of variance for 2 years was unanimous. 5 yes



Review permit issued to Gary Boyce for a mobile home as a third dwelling

on 80 acres located at 17000 N. Willet Rd. (granted 8/94)

Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked if anyone for the applicant was present. No one came forward.



Review permit issued to Chester & Louanna Reeder for a mobile home

as a second dwelling on .98 acre located at 1901 E. Rte M. (granted 8/94)


Director Shawver gave staff report stating that property was zoned A-2 as all of the surrounding properties. It is located on State Hwy. M, approximately 2 miles southwest of Ashland. When the permit was granted in August, 1994 there was a house and a detached garage on the property. They requested a variance to permit a mobile home as a second dwelling to provide Mr. Reeder’s mother

a place to live near her son. The mother previously lived in the town of Wilton and had suffered flooding in 1993. The variance was granted in 1994. Staff notified 10 property owners, no complaints have been received from the neighborhood. Director Shawver wanted to commend Mrs. Reeder for contacting our office several months ago regarding date of renewal. He advised her then when her time came of review, we would notify her. He appreciated her keeping up with it themselves.

Mrs. Louanner Reeder, 1901 E. Rte M. addressed the Board. She said she still needed the variance.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked if the situation had changed at all. Mrs. Reeder said everything was basically the same. Her mother-in-law, 80 years old now has cancer.

No comments or questions from the Board.

Member Trabue made and Member Keil seconded motion to approve renewal of the variance request for granting Chester & Louanna Reeder a mobile home as a second dwelling for two (2) additional years.

Voting as follows:

Tom Trabue yes Norma Keil yes

Linda Rootes yes Jerry Kaufman yes

Keith Kirkpatrick yes

Renewal of variance for 2 years was unanimous. 5 yes



Review permit issued to Hazel & Billy Joe White for a mobile home as

a second dwelling on 10.643 acres located at 6850 Guy Nowlin Rd.

(granted 8/94)


Director Shawver gave staff report saying that the property was zoned A-2 as all of the surrounding properties. Located approximately 1 mile northeast of Columbia. When the original request was submitted, there was a mobile home on the 10.64 acres. The applicants requested a permit to put a second mobile home on the property to be occupied by daughter and son-in-law.

They asked to place it on this property where his brother lives (owned by Hazel and Billy Joe White). The Board granted it for two (2) years. Notice sent to 21 property owners. Guy Nowlin Road is a private road and not maintained by the public. No complaints have been received about the property.

Curtis Adkinson, 6850 E. Guy Nowlin Road, son-in-law to Hazel & Billy Joe White addressed the Board. He said they had been living there the last two (2) years. They had been paying rent and this helped them financially to get on their feet. Get along with neighbors and have no complaints.

Member Linda Rootes said she had visited the site and could not tell which trailer was in question. Mr. Adkinson said their trailer was beige color, all the way to the end of Guy Nowlin Road. There is a house directly on the end, double wide on one side, his trailer on opposite side just past metal barn.

Member Norma Keil stated that in 1994 the request had been submitted because of the year of the trailer being 1973? Director Shawver responded that was correct, and the fact that the unit was the second dwelling on a 10 acre tract.

Mr. Adkinson said he had painted it, put in new carpet, and a new deck. He has put the gravel on Guy Nowlin and maintains it.

Member Linda Rootes asked who was in the gray mobile home next to his? Mr. Adkinson said it was his brother-in-law who had been there about 10 years.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick stated that in reviewing the 1994 minutes, there was more interest in managing to get some control in that situation rather than dividing the lot. It was the consensus of the Board to handle it the way they did. He felt it was still true.

Member Linda Rootes said when she drove by the area several residents were outside staring at her. She thought they were active people and if there was opposition in the neighborhood they would be at this meeting.

Member Rootes made and Member Kaufman seconded a motion to renew for two (2) years a variance issued to Hazel & Billy Joe White for a mobile home as a second dwelling on 10.643 acres located at 6850 Guy Nowlin Rd.

Member Keil asked if the original variance was for Hazel & Billy Joe White and/or immediate family. Mrs. Hazel White spoke up from the audience and said she lived in town. Chairperson Kirkpatrick noted the Member Keil said and/or immediate family. Director Shawver advised that the initial motion had, "and their immediate family".

Voting as follows:

Linda Rootes yes Jerry Kaufman yes

Keith Kirkpatrick yes Tom Trabue yes

Norma Keil yes

Renewal of variance for 2 years was unanimous. 5 yes

Chairperson Kirkpatrick gave the floor to Director Shawver to conduct the yearly election.





Director Shawver opened the floor for nominations.


Member Keil nominated and Member Trabue seconded a nomination for Keith Kirkpatrick to serve as Chairperson.

Member Keil made a motion to close nomination, Member Trabue seconded. By a show of hands Keith Kirkpatrick was voted Chairperson.


Chairperson Kirkpatrick nominated and Member Kaufman seconded motion for Tom Trabue as Vice-Chairperson.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick made motion to close nomination, Member Kaufman seconded. By a show of hands Tom Trabue was voted Vice-Chairperson.



Being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,




M. Noel Boyt

Approved September 26, 1996