Thursday, March 22, 2001


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

Chairperson Trabue 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.

Roll call was taken:

Present: Tom Trabue, Chairman

Linda Rootes, Vice-Chairperson

Cindy Bowne

Larry Bossaller

Absent: Kay Clementz

Also present: Stan Shawver, Director Thad Yonke, Staff

Paula Evans, Secretary

Minutes of February 15, 2001 meeting were approved with no corrections.



- Request by George Godas for a variance to be allowed to file a minor plat to create a lot of less than 5 acres without direct road frontage on a public road and to serve said lot by a private access easement. The property is located at Clark Lane and Lakewood Drive.

Planner, Thad Yonke, gave the staff report stating that the size of the property is 10.83 acres, the current zoning is R-M (Residential Moderate Density). The adjacent zoning is R-M and C-GP (Planned Commercial).

The location for the variance is below the dam on a portion of the 10.83-acre parent property located on the northwest corner of Clark Lane & Lakewood Drive. The portion of the site of the requested variance is currently vacant. The applicant is requesting the variance to plat a lot of less than 5 acres with no direct road frontage in order to create a site for a single family dwelling. This lot is part of a larger development for the entire 10.83 acres.

A portion of the 10.83-acre parent parcel was rezoned from R-M to C-GP in 1996 with conditions and limitations.

Staff has an additional recommendation as an addendum to the staff report.

Section 1.9.2 of the Subdivision Regulations requires that the Director make a recommendation on requests for variance from the provisions of the regulations.

"The Board may grant a variance only if it finds after public hearing and upon competent and substantial evidence that the applicant meets the criteria for grant of a variance required by these regulations. No variance from any requirement contained within Appendix A or B of these regulations shall be granted unless the Board finds: (a) the applicant will incur unreasonable and unnecessary hardship if a variance is not granted and the variance is not sought primarily to avoid financial expense in complying with the requirements of these regulations; (b) grant of a variance will not endanger the health, safety or welfare of the public; and (c) grant of a variance will not hinder, thwart or circumvent the general intent or any specific purpose of these regulations. All applications for variances shall be filed with the Director and after review thereof the Director shall make a recommendation to the Board to grant or deny the application and state the reasons for his recommendation."

The applicant, Godas Development is in the process of subdividing the total 10.83-acre property that fronts along Clark Lane & Lakewood Drive as part of an inter-related proposal to develop the property. A rezoning and review plan for a 1.14-acre portion of the property at the immediate corner of Clark Lane and Lakewood Drive is tabled at the Planning & Zoning Commission until some of these other issues are resolved. A 2.65 acre portion of the property is zoned C-GP with a limitation of the permitted uses of a C-N district. The remainder of the property is proposed to be platted into 2 lots. One lot is a 5.45-acre lot containing the lake that is to be combined with Tract 26 Lakewood Estates and transferred to the adjoining Neighborhood association as common area. The other lot is a 1.75 acre lot that is the subject of this variance request.

The Lakewood Estates development was created a number of years ago and the fact that the lake was never created as common area has been a source of tension in the neighborhood for a number of years. The current situation and variance request arises from a number of factors. Firstly, the dam that creates the lake and the lake itself effectively cut off the 1.75-acre portion of the property from the current road frontage. Secondly, the design of the review and final plan for the frontage along Clark Lane that is in effect currently did not take into account any provision for this rear portion of the property. These plans were done by the same developer as the current proposal. Thirdly, the portion of the property under consideration here was cut off from having the road frontage that it should have by the subdividing of the property to the east into Valley Creek Subdivision Plat 7. The preliminary plat showed a cul-de-sac that would have put a public road within approximately 100 feet of the property in question. Valley Creek Plat 7 was also created by the same developer as is requesting the variance. Fourthly, the current zoning of the portion of the property in question is R-M which would allow for a high density apartment building to be placed upon the site and the applicant can probably find a way to do so despite the negative impacts of such a structure at this location on the existing neighborhood.

While a variance of this type would generally clearly violate the intent of the subdivision regulations, and be strongly opposed by staff, as applied in this specific instance the problems solved by granting of the variance with conditions placed upon it probably mitigate the impact on the intent of the regulations.

Basically the issues can be summarized as follows: It can be argued that there are unique topographic reasons to grant the variance. Granting the variance would enable a long- standing problem for the entire neighborhood to be solved. Granting the variance with conditions will lessen the impact on the neighborhood by the potential development of this portion of the property under existing allowed uses for the zoning. On the other hand arguments can be made for not granting the variance. The 10.83-acre property can be developed without developing this particular portion of the property. The situation requiring the variance is self-created as the same developer platted the surrounding ground in a manner that cut off access from where it should have been. Arguments can be made on both sides.

  1. The applicant will not incur unreasonable or unnecessary hardship if this variance is not granted. The proposed development is still in the design phase, and can be designed to comply with the regulations. However, some of the permitted uses under such a redesign could easily result in a greater detrimental impact to the area.
  2. Granting this variance will not endanger the health, safety or welfare of the public.
  3. Granting this variance will not thwart or circumvent the general intent of the regulations. While a variance of this type would generally clearly violate the intent of the subdivision regulations, and be strongly opposed by staff; as applied in this specific instance the problems solved by granting of the variance with conditions placed upon it probably mitigate the impact on the intent of the regulations. It is important to recognize that this is only the case if the variance is conditioned with a limitation that the variance only allows a single 1.75 acre lot to be created that will not have direct access to a public road, that the use of said lot is limited to 1 single family residence, and that documentation of actual access must be provided on the plat.

This request fails to satisfy part (a) of the regulatory criteria cited in Section 1.9.2 of the Subdivision Regulations. It does meet parts (b) and (c)

While generally Staff opposes variances that are self-created and that have potential to subvert the intent of the regulations, Staff feels in this specific case as applied the overall benefits gained by granting the variance subject to 3 conditions is worthy of consideration by the board.

Staff recommends that this variance be granted subject to the 3 following conditions:

  1. The variance is limited to a single 1.75-acre lot.
  2. The lot created will be limited to 1 single-family residence.
  3. That the actual access to the lot must be secured and indicated on the plat prior to plat recording.

Present: Jim Brush, 506 Nichols Street, Columbia

Mr. Brush stated he didn’t necessarily disagree with the staff’s analysis of the situation. There are several points that he and Staff do agree upon. However, he would have phrased it differently. A lot of the problem was created by the initial developer Ken Flood, when he platted out the lots on the north side of the lake. As staff stated, the lake itself and the usable property, was not included in the plat at that point in time. Mr. Flood disappeared from the active development world and Mr. Godas purchased the property. Mr. Brush stated he was not going to go in to whether or not this was self-imposed. The Homeowners Association and Mr. Godas have worked very hard to reach an understanding and agreements on things to be accomplished in this area. What is before the Board tonight is the result of that. The Homeowners Association will get the lake, the tennis court, and all the properties upstream from that. Mr. Godas, as Mr. Brush understands, would get a single-family lot to help defray part of the cost for what is being accomplished.

Mr. Brush continued regarding the recommendations, the variance is limited to a single, 1.75-acre lot. This is shown on the plat as a limitation of being a single-family residence, it is also on the plan that applicants will soon submit. Regarding the access, Mr. Brush stated that he believes this is being finished and applicants have no problem with putting that on the plat. Basically, what applicants would like is for the Board to go ahead and approve lot 1, as stated on the plat, and believes that the Homeowners Association will silently applaud that action.

Open to public hearing.

In favor of the request:

Present: Glenna Kilfoil, Columbia Condo Management, 310 Tiger Lane, Suite 4

Ms. Kilfoil stated she is the manager for Lakewood Estates Home Association. Mr. Brush was correct, the Homeowners Association has negotiated and worked out the situation. The Homeowners Association has no objection to the request, as long as it is done with the staff recommendations. Eighty-six homeowners bought that lake.

In opposition:

Karian & James Cook Jr., 5419 Clark Lane, Columbia, 65202

Mrs. Cook stated that they originally purchased their property 21 years ago.

Chairman Trabue asked Mrs. Cook to come and point out on the plat map, where their property was located. Mrs. Cook did so.

Mrs. Cook stated that she and her husband are not opposed to the Lake Association, they built there 21 years ago, the Lake Association has always been good about taking care of the lake area and stocking it and keeping it beautiful. Mr. Godas’ poor planning of Valley View, in which he was trying to make the most of what he could of the property, went in and bulldozed all the beautiful trees. Mrs. Cook stated that they even got on the Cook’s property and bulldozed all the nice, big oak trees that have been there for hundreds of years. Applicants went in there and bulldozed and Mr. Godas had told Mrs. Cook that they were going to put a church back there. Mrs. Cook couldn’t see how they could get a church in that little section of land, which happens to be down in the valley where the lake dam is. Everything drains there, in the last year Mr. Godas has put thousands of tons, 4600 truckloads, of dirt there. Mrs. Cook stated she used to be able to look out the window and see the Kwik Store. Now she has to go to the second floor of her home to even see the top of the sign because there is so much dirt there. Mrs. Cook states it has caused a lot of erosion problems. It is draining on to their land, and they have never had problems with this before until now. Now it drains down behind the Cook’s house, which is where applicants want to build the single family dwelling, it is down in the valley where the drainage of the over flow is. It is courses of river. The Cook’s have lived there for 21 years and Mr. Godas has not been a good steward of the properties that he has owned. Mr. Godas has done things and uses the excuse that he is from another country and doesn’t know any different.

Mrs. Cook stated she doesn’t see how they can put a single lane driveway in order to be able to build a single family dwelling there, much less the church Mr. Godas had wanted to put back there. Mrs. Cook doesn’t see how applicant could put a single family home with a drive back there without building a bridge to it. Mrs. Cook stated that it didn’t make sense and doesn’t think it is fair. Mr. Godas had plans of giving the lake back to the Lake Association and Mrs. Cook doesn’t think it should be a contention. The Lake Association deserves to have the lake back because they have been good stewards of the lake in taking care of it. The Homeowners Association has always been strong and the people have been wonderful.

Mrs. Cook stated she didn’t want to hurt the Homeowners Association’s phase for this lake, but she is against Mr. Godas trying to use every little bit of land and would rather he had left it as a green space. Kids used to go down where the trees were and now Mr. Godas has ripped it up and raped the land and caused major erosion problems. She hasn’t seen any erosion control maps that shows that you are supposed to have an engineered erosion control plan. Mrs. Cook stated that they are having problems with erosion control and have yelled at him about what he is doing there, because it is effecting the Cook’s property that has never been in the flood.

Mrs. Cook stated again that it is poor planning and can’t imagine Mr. Godas getting that much for 1.75 acres to build for a lot. Mrs. Cook stated that she believed it was very wrong. If it makes a difference that the Lake Association gets to have the lake she could deal with it, but still believes it is wrong.

Mrs. Cook stated that she is very passionate about how Mr. Godas has ruined the land. Just because he didn’t think when he originally planned the Valley View section, and now with what Mr. Godas has done with the land next to the Cook’s which is supposed to be zoned commercial.

Mr. Brush stated that Brush and Associates have not been associated with Mr. Godas throughout the entire aspects of developing the project. Brush and Associates is only in on this particular portion, when they originally looked at this tract, the zoning was multi-family. Things can be done to potentially turn it in to a multi-family type situation and utilize it to a maximum density.

Mr. Brush continued that the Homeowners Association has worked with Mr. Godas. They have reached an agreement on the transaction of the land, there is one lot, Mr. Brush thinks, that was basically created to defray part of the cost in accomplishing all the things in the agreement. As far as the landfill operation, Mr. Brush states he has no idea who is working on that or supervising that part of it. In applicant’s evaluation, applicants put some utility and drainage easements on the plat so that drainage ways can be made that would enable to better shield the Cook property, at least it would give them an alternative. Whoever does go ahead and develop Lakeview Mall, in a manner to get rid of their stormwater, applicants did give an option.

Mr. Brush stated that to him, it is the appropriate thing to do, it will get the area cleaned up once and for all.

Mrs. Cook stated that the variances that would have to be met, is to incur unreasonable and unnecessary hardship. Mrs. Cook doesn’t believe that it would be a hardship for Mr. Godas. Another, in granting the variance, will not endanger the health, safety, or welfare of the public. Mrs. Cook states that with their being below the major pond dam of the big lake, part of the Cook’s property to the edge of the lake is approximately sixty-six feet to the water's edge.

Mr. Cook stated that all the water that comes down runs between the pond and the corner of the Cook property. Applicants have raised up the land and put well over 600 dump truck loads of dirt in there to raise the elevation. Where there used to be a swale that ran in to the lake is now flat and all that water only has one place to go.

Mr. Cook stated that it would create major problems for anyone who wants to build a house in there. Mr. Godas may be able to do something about it, but Mr. Cook stated that they have had flood problems since applicants put all the dirt in there, the Cook’s have complained, but there are no storm water management policies in Boone County right now. Mr. Cook stated that Mr. Yonke told him, that the Cook’s would be the first people to testify when Boone County brings up storm water policy in the County.

Mrs. Cook addressed the statement about cleaning up the area. The area got messed up when applicants took the bulldozer and plowed out the huge oak trees and just left it in a big huge mess. That is why, if there is any mess, it is only because of the development.

Mrs. Cook continued that she thought it was sad that Mr. Godas was basically giving a bribe, the lake, when he originally said a year ago that he would go ahead and turn it over to the homeowners because Mr. Godas couldn’t do anything with it anyway.

Mr. Brush stated that anytime there are changes in the area, it will look different, and will not try to debate pro’s and con’s, of the activities that others have done in the area. Mr. Brush stated that he felt certain that Mr. Godas did not stand out there and tell the bulldozer operator where to bulldoze. Mr. Godas was busy with other things. The tract does have a very nice building area on it, which will not be impacted by drainage; it is basically in the southern area of what was designated as lot 1. The lot is such, that it will be a unique type of area, and should be for people that enjoy trees and seclusion, because that is basically what you get with 1.75 acres. Your neighbors are going to be to the south, and they have lots, which are going to be a little bit smaller than that, but are very well wooded and Mr. Brush believes that they would compliment each other.

Closed to Public Hearing.

Chairman Trabue stated to Mr. Brush that he mentioned that Brush and Associates have not been involved with the project or the property and Mr. Godas and the development for very long, and asked Mr. Brush which parts Brush and Associates have been involved with.

Mr. Brush stated that they worked with the initial planning years ago.

Chairman Trabue asked if it was April 1996.

Mr. Brush stated yes, that was when it was redone again, Brush and Associates had done one earlier and then came back and did it again.

Chairman Trabue asked if they had worked on these two lots.

Mr. Brush stated that they had done planning on paper, but have not been on the ground.

Chairman Trabue asked Mr. Brush if he had worked with Valley Creek.

Mr. Brush stated no.

Chairman Trabue, pointing to the plat map, asked Mr. Brush to point out the proposed access, drainage, and spillway.

Member Bowne asked if Pine Hurst Lane was a city street or a private drive.

Mr. Brush stated it was a public street.

Chairman Trabue asked staff if it was a City or County street.

Planner, Thad Yonke, stated that it was originally created as a County road, but does not know if it was shifted over to City.

Mr. Brush stated that basically if the lots were both greater than five acres, it would conform to the subdivision regulations.

Mr. Yonke stated that if every lot that was being created in the entire development was over five acres, it would conform to the subdivision regulations.

Chairman Trabue stated that they obviously could not do that with only 10 acres.

Member Bossaller stated that what he interpreted from the staff recommendations, is that this is a trade off.

Mr. Yonke stated that if the Board granted the variance, then basically, yes it would be a trade off.

Member Bossaller stated that something will go on that lot.

Mr. Yonke stated that it may be possible for applicants to do that, that is not the best reason for granting a variance, on its own, it would not be a good enough reason to grant a variance. But it is a factor that should be considered in the overall picture, simply because there are a lot of issues on this property, which is the only reason staff brought it to the Boards attention.

Member Bossaller stated that he had a problem with the development of hardships and property and feels very strongly about the issue. Mr. Bossaller stated that he was perplexed and sees a lot of issues with this variance.

Member Bowne asked staff if there was an alternative use, where would the access be.

Mr. Yonke stated that it would depend upon the design of the property, theoretically, the existing review plan and final plan for the front part of the property could be scrapped, the lake could be drained, and the entire 10 acres could be accessed then, by reconfiguration. That is the problem, that potential is there, again, that is not the strongest reason to grant a variance.

Member Bowne asked what parts have not been sold yet, and if Mr. Godas owns the corner lot where the excavation has been done.

Mr. Yonke stated Mr. Godas owns the entire 10.83 acres, part of the problem is when they were doing the planning for that small portion that is now being shown as the two commercial lots. None of this has been divided off; none of it was planned. In the process of planning it, they didn’t think about how to divide the property legally in to separate pieces in order to sell it. Which is partly why we are at this problem today. Plans got approved for sub portions of this property without thinking about what to do with the rest of the property; it has backed them in to the corner that they are in now. It is one 10.38 acre piece, if nothing goes on back there, it could stay one 10.38 acre piece with a mall developed in the front of it.

Member Bowne asked Mr. Brush what the total height of the dam was and if the building lot is directly behind the dam.

Mr. Brush stated it was not directly behind the dam, it is off to one side.

Mr. Yonke stated that it was on the lower side, the drainage easement that would carry the water, would go across the lot that is being created for the house, other than not being in the easement anywhere that would conform on that lot, a house could be placed. There is not a specific location indicated where the house would be located. Theoretically, Member Bowne is correct, it is below the dam and the spillway and the drainage easement goes through that lot.

Member Bowne asked if the height of the dam was unknown. The surface area is 2.5 acres.

Mrs. Cook stated that it was pretty high.

Mr. Brush stated that he was on the ground and would estimate the dam height to be approximately 18-20 feet. If he stands down below in the ditch where the drainpipe comes out, it is probably about 18-20 feet.

Mrs. Cook stated that all they know, with the way the property goes back and where it is, it definitely goes all down hill especially now, with all the build up it drains from the front of the Cook’s yard. It comes from the front of Mr. Godas property, across the Cook’s yard and down below the Baker’s house, next to the Cook’s, and down below Mr. Robb’s house, down in to the section where the Valley View lots are. It all goes down hill there is a big creek there where the Cook’s used to hunt for mushrooms before all the trees were taken out.

Chairman Trabue asked Mrs. Cook if the back of the their property, the north edge of the property line, is the ground higher than the level of the dam or lower.

Mr. Cook stated that it was about even. Their property slopes to the west, so at the northeast, it may be right at the top of the dam, or maybe a little higher. At the northwest corner it is definitely lower.

Member Bowne asked Mr. Cook if that was the point where it is sixty-six feet from the spillway.

Mr. Cook stated that the northeast corner is sixty-six feet from the edge of the water, not the spillway.

Member Bowne asked if that is where the spillway lies.

Mr. Cook stated the spillway was on the other side.

Mr. Brush pointed out on the map, the location of the spillway and drainage for the Members.

Member Bowne stated that there has been natural drainage that was changed and how old the shaping of the drainage was.

Chairman Trabue stated that it was done within the last 6 to 8 months.

Member Bossaller stated that he went past the site to look at the property and stated that he could see what happened to the Cook’s property and is trying to figure out if the request is inter-related.

Chairman Trabue stated that this is a request to plat a 1.75-acre lot, with no public road frontage. That is the basic issue, but there are mitigating factors about how this piece could be developed with its current multi-family zoning and the other related issues. It has become very clear in the conversation, that poor planning in the development of this piece of property has led applicants to this point. In that there is 1.75 acres that no one can get to and don’t have a good use for it, so they are now to this point.

Chairman Trabue asked Mrs. Kilfoil if all of the properties in the Lakewood Home Association are owned by one person or by multiple people.

Mrs. Kilfoil stated that there were multiple homeowners. There are eighty-six units and eighty-five different owners.

Chairman Trabue asked if the negotiations were done by all the homeowners.

Mrs. Kilfoil stated that the Board of Directors did the negotiations, they then sent a letter out the all the homeowners with a ballot asking the homeowners how they wanted to proceed. Sixty-seven percent of the homeowners approved this request.

Chairman Trabue stated that many of those units are duplexes and that there are eighty-five different owners of eighty-six units.

Mrs. Kilfoil stated that each unit has individual owners. They are owner occupied, as in condos.

Member Bowne stated that ordinances that are in this neighborhood association, as far as what can be there and what can not, Member Bowne stated that she felt that there was a threat held over her head. If the Board does not allow the single family, some one is going to go in there and build an apartment house. Member Bowne stated she felt that was a threat.

Mrs. Cook stated that the applicants couldn’t do this.

Member Bowne stated that is why she asked about the ordinances.

Planner, Thad Yonke, stated under the zoning, if they scrap the project as currently laid out, they can probably figure out a way to get that portion of the property accessed from some other point. Granted, that is partially a reason not to grant a variance, but it can have a higher impact on the neighborhood in general.

Member Bowne asked if that activity was in opposition to any ordinance in that neighborhood.

Mrs. Kilfoil stated that they were under multi-family zoning, which was zoned after the complex was built.

Member Bowne asked if an ordinance was not part of the zoning.

Mrs. Kilfoil stated it was not.

Chairman Trabue asked if Member Bowne was asking about subdivision covenants. The covenants would go with that piece of property.

Mrs. Kilfoil stated that they have no authority to enforce covenants on that piece of property.

Member Bossaller stated that this means that presently, the zoning is proper for a multi-family dwelling.

Planner, Thad Yonke stated that if they can make the technical aspects work, they can put a multi-family unit, as in an apartment unit.

Member Bossaller added only if they could get access to it.

Mr. Yonke stated that was correct.

Chairman Trabue stated that at the current time, there is a final plan approved for this lot, which is basically the only access back there, that final plan would have to be revised.

Member Bossaller asked if that would mean a variance.

Mr. Yonke stated not necessarily. That would go to the Planning and Zoning Commission, it would be run through the technical criteria, and Staff would see if what they propose can work. If it couldn’t work, then potentially, they would be back before the Board of Adjustment asking for a different variance. Staff’s first step would be to tell applicants what they need to do to make it meet regulations.

Member Bossaller asked Mr. Yonke if he meant regulations regarding the size of the unit and so on.

Mr. Yonke stated yes, in addition to the slope of the road, cutting the dam back, future plans for the dam and so fourth.

Member Bowne asked Staff if the proposal for the agreement with the applicants if the lake and tennis courts were a gift, or is the owners association expected to buy it out.

Mr. Yonke stated that Staff was not involved with that.

Mrs. Kilfoil stated that the agreement is that the Homeowners Association would purchase them for $10.00, so basically, it is a gift.

Member Bossaller asked Mrs. Kilfoil if that agreement was so that the Homeowners Association would not oppose this request.

Mrs. Kilfoil stated that the Homeowners Association has been asked to support what the applicants are doing on the corner, which is not a part of this discussion.

Chairman Trabue stated he felt it was appropriate to note the access. The parcel that is on the left and not a part of the final plans, does have public road access.

Member Bowne pointed out that there are many other uses the Board could allow besides an apartment complex; it could go to childcare, church, a recreational facility, or a hospital. It could go to anything.

Chairman Trabue stated that the first thing that has to happen before it could go to anything, is it has to be platted. It will have to go through the platting process at some point to go to any of those types of uses, unless they do a planned development as part of the rest of it. There is only six or so acres left and it would be hard to split it.

Mr. Yonke stated that staff, as a department, is for the R-M, because that is typically what people will think of in a multi-family or a moderate density, but Member Bowne is correct, a church or any other type of high impact use could go in there as well.

Chairman Trabue stated he is frustrated by this stating he read the staff report carefully, and agrees with Staff that the variance should not be granted, but the mitigating circumstances say that it probably should. Chairman Trabue also agrees with Mrs. Cook that Mr. Godas has not been a very good steward of the property on the front part, and being involved with the construction industry, therefore, understanding filling areas and does not have a problem with that part of developing commercial tracts. But does not believe that applicant has dealt with the erosion control in a very positive manner.

Chairman Trabue continued that while he has some real problems with this request, he agrees with the staff that it is probably the best way to protect this area and somewhat feels that the Lakewood Association is somewhat being held hostage, in that they would like to keep the lake. Chairman Trabue does not believe Mr. Godas would drain the lake, but it is well within his rights to do so. It is a tough situation, but in the final count down, he will be in favor of the request, although he has a problem with the approach.

Member Bossaller asked Chairman Trabue if the applicants could donate the lake and the lot to the Homeowners Association.

Chairman Trabue stated that he was sure the applicants could.

Member Bossaller stated that he felt torn, when he stated donate, that is what he meant, because he has seen developers do that before, because it is what was best for the County and likes people with that kind of attitude. Member Bossaller stated that he believes this is a make-shift deal and he’s going to take a chance, if applicants decide to put something else back there, there is going to be a lot of hurdles to get it done. There is a serious probability that it would be very difficult to get something in there.

Member Bowne stated that looking at A, B, and C under how a variance can be granted. A, is financial hardship, obviously, there is no financial hardship. B, says endanger the public or health; with a height of a dam that no one is sure of, we are guessing that it may be 18-20 feet, at 25 feet, you have to have a permit. So since no one knows the absolute height, Member Bowne states that she will go on the side of caution. On C, it says, purposely circumvent the regulations, and Staff admitted that this is circumventing the regulations.

Member Bowne stated that applicants could not meet any of the conditions in her mind, and there is no way she would support it.

Member Rootes stated that she believes it would benefit the homeowners and the area in general for the homeowners to have the assurance that there is no threat of the lake being drained in the future. It would be great if the homeowners could also own the other property that is being considered for lot 1. If the Board grants the variance, and the area is divided, the property owners could go ahead and purchase that extra lot if they were interested in keeping that. This way they could acquire the majority for $10.00 and the other may not have a very high market value since it is difficult to develop and doesn’t have good access.

Member Rootes continued that she agrees with staff in spite of all the problems that are going on. It is an unpleasant situation and prefers to see the homeowners get the lake and have that part resolved than to have it left in limbo for many years.

Chairman Trabue asked if a motion is offered to approve the request, the conditions that the staff outlined are very appropriate, but would like to make sure that the access easement also includes provisions for maintenance because that access is serving several properties as opposed to just one. That will meet the source of contention, Chairman Trabue believes the Board should just deal with that at this point.

Member Bowne stated that she believed what Member Rootes stated is true, if it the homeowners could buy it. And still sees that option as being available if the variance is not granted, they still have the option of going to the applicant and offering to buy it. Whether the variance is granted or not, either the homeowners could come up with the money or they couldn’t, if the variance is granted, there is no guarantee that the homeowners would be the ones who came up with the money.

Chairman Trabue stated that until it is platted, it can’t be bought or sold, it is not a legal lot.

Member Bowne asked if they couldn’t split off the lake, or the lake and the lot.

Chairman Trabue stated that they couldn’t split off. Anything less than five acres can not be split off without a plat in this zoning district.

Member Bowne asked if it couldn’t be split off from the lake.

Planner, Thad Yonke asked Member Bowne if the question she was asking was could that be incorporated in to the lot with the lake.

Member Bowne stated that she was asking how many acres would that be, the lake and the lot together.

Mr. Yonke stated it was over five, but all the lots in the subdivision have to be over five acres. The fact that the corner lot and the other lot are part of the same parent tract does effect that. However, the general purpose of the question if lot 1 and 2 could be combined in to a single lot and if they were connected to the Lakewood Estates lot, as is proposed here, it would be one lot with road frontage.

Member Bowne stated that they could then come back and ask for a variance on that.

Mr. Yonke stated that no variance would be required.

Chairman Trabue stated that they are already part of the planned developments.

Mr. Yonke stated that they are not platted, none of them are platted. The entire ten acres has no plats on it.

Member Bowne stated that is what she thought, the other lot would be the one asking for the variance instead of this lot.

Mr. Yonke stated no, no variance would be required.

Member Rootes asked that if this was all one lot, the access would not get you over to the building site and asked if a driveway could be built from that road access over to the lot.

Chairman Trabue stated that it would require changing the configuration of the lake.

Planner, Thad Yonke stated that since there is a portion of the property that has a planned development on it, the remainder of the property is not currently under a planned designation. In order to change from the plan that they currently have submitted and approved, in order to get access back there; they are going to have to amend that plan. Staff currently has a proposed rezoning to make the back portion planned, they could go for that portion as well and then have a mixture of uses and not have to plat the property at all. It could be one ten-acre piece with five or six different uses. That would have to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and then the County Commission, and is subject to conditions. There is a lot of potential for that.

Chairman Trabue stated that it would have to be platted to sell off a portion or change ownership.

Mr. Yonke stated that any individual portion of it would have to be platted. It could have multiple uses under one ownership as part of a plan.

Chairman Trabue stated that it has a lot of options, it gets in to all of the County ordinances.


Member Rootes made and Chairman Trabue seconded a motion to approve, with three staff conditions and condition to maintain easement, the request by George Godas for a variance to be allowed to file a minor plat to create a lot of less than 5 acres without direct road frontage on a public road and to serve said lot by a private access easement. The property is located at Clark Lane and Lakewood Drive.

Discussion on the motion:

Member Bossaller stated that what was said about re-platting, Member Bossaller stated that to him, it sounds like a trade off, if you grant this, you know what is going to be in there. If it is not granted, it could be all different kinds of commercial type things and asked staff if this was correct.

Director, Stan Shawver, stated that some of the statements that were being made gave the impression that if this variance was not approved, nothing could happen with this property. All staff wanted to do, is to make sure that the Board and the audience understood that there are other uses for the property. None of this configuration and not without going back to the Planning and Zoning Commission to change the previous configuration that has previously been approved. There are a lot of hoops to jump through. Mr. Shawver feels that the impression that was given, that if this doesn’t happen, then nothing is going to happen there. This is not the case, and Staff wants to make that clear. There is access on Clark Lane, those two lots with all the fill on them, they are showing proposed lots 1 and 2 on Clark Lane, are a part of this piece of property. Even though those have approved review plans on them, there is no restriction against the developer, or any developer, coming in and re-submitting a new review plan, going through the whole process that would include uses for the other pieces of the ground, providing access off Clark Lane. Staff is not trying to say that it is a trade off, or that if the Board doesn’t approved this request, this is what will happen. There have been a lot of headaches in trying to develop this piece of property.

Member Bossaller stated that if the variance is granted, it is a done deal.

Director, Stan Shawver, stated no, even then it has to be developed according to these restrictions, applicant can decide he doesn’t want to do this and could still come back and revise his review plan on the other lot and do something else. If it's split off this way, the lake goes to the Homeowners Association. You still have a 1.7-acre lot that he, or someone else, can build one house on. It doesn’t mean it has to be developed that way.

Chairman Trabue stated one of the things that hasn’t been discussed in the motion is to ensure that the agreement with Lakewood Estates is going to be honored, with regard to the lake. Chairman Trabue stated that he believes it will be honored and doesn’t know if the Board can get involved with that part of it or not.

Director, Stan Shawver, stated that he didn’t believe that restriction could be placed.

Mrs. Kilfoil stated that the Homeowners Association’s attorney has worked it out with the applicant.

Being a motion on the floor, Chairman Trabue asked for a vote.

Chairman Trabue Yes Member Bowne No

Member Rootes Yes Member Bossaller No

Motion to approve the request denied. 2 Yes 2 No



Review permit issued to Charles Wilson for a mobile home as a second dwelling located at 6205 N Wagon Trail Rd. (first granted 4/86).

Planner, Thad Yonke, gave the staff report stating that this property is currently zoned R-M (Moderate Density Residential). The adjacent zoning is also R-M. This property is located approximately one mile north of Columbia on Wagon Trail Road. There is an existing house on the property. The requested variance is to review and renew the permit issued for a mobile home as a second dwelling for a family member on 1.22 acres.

This permit was first granted in April 1986, Mr. Wilson’s mother required a place to live, the permit has been reviewed every two years. The last review was in 1999. The requested variance is to review as scheduled. Staff notified 18 property owners.

Present: Charles Wilson, 6205 N. Wagon Trail Road, Columbia.

Mr. Wilson apologized for missing last month’s meeting. Mr. Wilson stated his mother’s health is failing more as time goes on and added that he would be very fortunate to come before the Board in another two years for a review. Mr. Wilson stated that his mother has fallen three times in the last year. The mobile home on his property is convenient for him and his mother and would like to renew the permit.

Chairman Trabue asked staff if there had been any complaints regarding this permit.

Planner, Thad Yonke stated no.

Open to public hearing.

No one spoke in favor of the request.

No one spoke in opposition of the request.

Closed to public hearing.

Member Bowne asked applicant how old the mobile home is.

Mr. Wilson stated he had no idea.

Member Bowne asked if it was the same mobile home originally placed on the property.

Mr. Wilson stated yes, they have done work on the inside.

Member Bossaller made and Member Bowne seconded a motion to approve the permit issued to Charles Wilson for a mobile home as a second dwelling located at 6205 N Wagon Trail Rd. acres for an additional two years.

Member Bowne Yes Member Rootes Yes

Chairman Trabue Yes Member Bossaller Yes

Motion to approve the request for a two-year renewal carries. 4 Yes 0 No.


Director, Stan Shawver stated that he believes Staff has done an excellent job in representing the department. Mr. Shawver stated he also wanted to compliment the Board Members, Mr. Shawver was impressed with the deliberation and consideration of the issues. The quality of questions and thoughts the Members invest in the issues before them.

Mr. Shawver stated that he had been doing this a long time and have had Board Members that sit and absorb, you hope that they are absorbing, but you can’t really tell. Every one of the Members have asked good questions and good comments and is very impressed and very pleased on behalf of the County. Mr. Shawver stated that the Members are doing an excellent job.





Meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,



Paula L Evans


Minutes approved ______ of __________, 2001.