Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05161996 ZBA Minutes• ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES FROM MAY 16, 1996 The Zoning Board of Adjustment came to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Vice Chairman Sue Porretto, Frank Billings, Melinda Snell, Ty Hutchins and Michael Neal. Absent were Chairman Sterling Minor, Amy Chaisson Selig, and Lee Huber. Present from the City were Chief Building Official Dennis Holm and Building Secretary Susan Thorn. The first item on the agenda was the hearing of the residents. No one was present. Notices were read and participants were sworn in. Frank Billings made a motion to approve the notices as posted, with Michael Neal seconding the motion. Voting for: Billings, Neal, Hutchins, Snell and Porretto Voting against: None • The motion carried. The second item on the agenda was Public Hearing of Docket No. 96-03, concerning property located 2901 Sunset, Lot 8, East 6' of 7, West 2' of Lot 9, Block 9, Monticello. This is a request for variance to allow an addition to a structure which currently is in violation of the required side setback. Property owner Steven Segal gave the following as the reason for the request. In 1976 and 1986 additions were added to the present structure and a three foot side setback was required. A recent survey made in February of 1996 revealed an error had been made when the additions were done. Instead of a three (3) foot side setback a 2.7 foot side setback on the west and a 2.9 foot side setback on the east had been made. Because of this error the structure then became an "illegal structure" and not a PNC structure. Phyllis Segal explained she and her husband had consulted with an architect to change the pitch of the existing roof because the flat portion of the roof was leaking. During their meeting with the architect they inquired about the possibility of adding a second floor to that same area. • Frank Billings asked what would their alternative be if the variance were not granted? Mrs. Segal said they would not add the second story, however, at the times both additions were made to her house, all the required ordinances and codes • were followed. She also stated she would be very upset, as she and her husband have always complied with the city ordinances and did so when the additions were made to her house. Mr. Segal stated a survey was not required when the 1976 and 1986 additions were constructed. Sue Porretto also asked if the Segals had considered what they would do if the variance was not granted. The Segals stated they had not considered other alternatives, because after the permit was denied the next step was for them to ask for the variance. Mrs. Segal stated she had been told if the variance were not granted and they tried to sell their house, this could possibly cloud their title and they could possibly be unable to sell their house. Frank Billings stated one of the problems he had with this variance is the Segals have covered every possible inch of the property. Mr. Billings explained when someone has built up the maximum allowed setback and if an error is made suddenly the structure is in violation. The Segals stated they complied with all of the requirements in effect when the additions were built. If the variance was denied, they would have to repair the flat roof, knowing it could start leaking again. The proposed roof pitch change was also to cover a room on the back of the house to provide better insulation and be able • to better relocate duct work. David Cuerod explained he was the architect for the project and it was his understanding the Segals needed the variance to make the structure legal. Mrs. Segal asked if the variance were granted to make the structure legal, would one of the alternatives be to have the second story setback 5'? Melinda Snell stated that could be a possibility. No correspondence was received in favor. Dennis Holm, Chief Building Official gave the City's point of view. This is a request for a. 3 foot variance on the west side of the structure and a.1 variance on the east side of the structure in the required side setback areas for the property located at 2901 Sunset. He explained the structure at 2901 Sunset Blvd. was permitted for construction on May 9,1938. At the time of permitting the required side setback was 3.0 feet. The structure was surveyed on February 27, 1996 for the express purpose of getting a remodeling permit. After submission to the Building Division for permit review it was noted the side setbacks (east 2.9 and west 2.7) were both improper. The permit application was therefore turned down. The property owners, Mr.and • Mrs. Segal are requesting the above noted variances to bring the structure into 2 • compliance with the side setback requirements of the zoning ordinance. The approving of this variance request will provide this structure with compliance to the zoning ordinance and allow for the issuance of permits for this main structure. Mr. Holm explained banks and lending agencies contact him and inquire about structures that are not to current code and for this reason he has copies of ordinances dating back to 1937. He researches the date each structure was permitted to see if it is either a prior nonconformity or an illegal building. When this structure was constructed there was a 3' side setback required and the 1996 survey showed this building in its present location was not in compliance. Mr. Holm explained he told the Segals the only way to rectify the violation would be to get a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment to allow this structure prior nonconformity and this would be the only way this fiype of addition could be made to the building without the proper side setbacks. One letter was received in opposition from Selby Clark, resident of 2907 Sunset. Frank Billings made a motion to close the evidentiary portion of the meeting. Ty Hutchins seconded the motion. Voting for: Billings, Neal, Hutchins, Snell and Porretto • Voting Against: None Ty Hutchins stated he felt the variance should be granted and the addition allowed to be constructed. Melinda Snell stated she felt this property was overbuilt with no garage space and very little green space. Ty Hutchins said he felt the Board should not take those items into consideration when granting this variance. He did however, understand the concern if you keep allowing exceptions you push it to the limit but he also understood with these small lots, people are going to want to take advantage of every inch of their property. Frank Billings stated there are two questions: (1) Do you allow them the prior noncomformity status, and (2) allow them to put another second story addition on top of it? One thing this Board could do would be to put a condition on the variance, that any addition must comply with the present ordinance. Ty Hutchins explained if this structure was three feet off of the property line this would not be an issue and they would be allowed to add a second story with no questions. ~ • Michael Neal stated he had a problem with continuing a violation of this sort. Ty Hutchins explained the Zoning Board of Adjustment would be hearing more and more of these cases because there were many more of these in the City. Frank Billings made a motion to grant the variance with the following conditions: 1) Variance only applies to the existing house in its existing location. 2) Variance does not apply to any new construction or remodeling, which must conform to the Zoning Ordinance in effect when the work is done. This motion was seconded by Michael Neal Voting for: Porretto, Billings, Neal and Snell Voting against: Hutchins Frank Billings made a motion to approve the minutes from January 18, 1996. This motion was seconded by Melinda Snell. • Voting for: Porretto, Billings, Neal, Hutchins and Snell Voting against: None. Frank Billings made a motion to adjourn the meeting with Ty Hutchins seconding the motion. Voting for: Porretto, Billings, Neal, Hutchins and Snell Voting against: None. ~ 4 ~ . . . ~ The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. . ~ CHAIRMAN ATTEST: SECRETARY L~ ~