[CALL TO ORDER]
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
[00:01:01]
>> WE'LL CLOSE THAT PORTION OF THE MEETING AND MOVE ONTO -- OH, WE HAVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM LAST MONTH.
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. >> AYE.
[1. Public Hearing to Consider Application BOA 22-13. Variance to Required Minimum Rear Setback in AR Zoning District.]
SO NOW WE'LL MOVE ONTO APPLICATION BOA 22-13.>> BOA 22-13 IS AN APPLICATION FOR LINDA HARPER.
THE PARCEL IS LOCATED ANOTHER 1730 LAZY BONE HEIGHTS.
THE FUTURE LAND USE IS RURAL FRENCH AND THE REQUEST IS A SET BOOK FROM THE REQUIRED 2350E9 DOWN TO 29'8".
THERE'S AN OVERLIGHT -- I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S SHOWING IT UP THERE. THERE'S ON AERIAL OF THE PARCEL.
THE THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE BUZZ BUILT IN 1959 AND THE DECK WAS BUILT IN 1988.
THE APPLICANT WANT TOS ADD A DECK AND IT'S SUBJECT TO THE SET BACK REQUIREMENTS AND THE ZONING DISTRICT.
IN 1988, THE A RUCHINGS ZONING DISTRICT STATED IT WAS NOT PART [INDISCERNIBLE] WELL BEFORE THA [INDISCERNIBLE] WELL BEFORE THAT 1973 DATE. BECAUSE OF THAT, THE DECK THAT WAS ADDED ON IN 1988 DID NOT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE REAR SET BACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AR ZONING DISTRICT.
STAFF DOES FIND THAT THE REQUESTED REDUCTION IN THE REAR SETBACK IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, HOWEVER, STAFF BELIEVES THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN PLACE AND THAT THE GRANTING OF THE REQUEST VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THEREFORE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED REDUCTION TO 29'8".
STAFF WILL GO OVER THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE AS IT RELATES TO THIS PROJECT. AS I INDICATED EARLIER, THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND THE ASSOCIATES DECK WERE CONSTRUCTED AT A TIME WHEN THERE WERE NO SET BACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PARCEL. THE DESIRED DECK COVERING WILL NOT INCREASE ANY EXISTING INCURSION INTO THE EXISTING SET
[00:05:04]
BACK. THE DEVELOPMENT ENCROACHING INTO THE REAR SET BACK AS IT EXISTS TODAY IS A RESULT OF THE CHANGE IN THE ZONING CODE AND IN THE ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND NOT ON EXT ACTION BY THE APPLIC THE GRANTING WILL CONFER ON THE APPLICANT DENIED TO OTHER LAND OWNERS IN THE AR ZONING DISTRICT IN THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO MEET THE 35-FOOT REAR SET BACK.THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION WOULD NOT DENY THE RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHERS IN THE AR ZONING DISTRICT.
THE BENEFICIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT DEPENDANT OF THE ABILITY TO REDUCE THE REAR SETBACK, HOWEVER, AS I PAINTED OUT EARLIER, THE GRANTING OF THE AGREEANCE AND ADDING THE COVERS TO THE EXISTING DECK WOULD NOT INCREASE THE ENCROACHMENT THAT ALREADY EXISTS AND THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE I THINK ROWS TO THE AREA OR DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE. STAFF BELIEVES GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF
STAFF AT THIS POINT IN >> I JUST HAVE ONE THAT I NOTED EARLIER TODAY LOOKING AT THIS ONLINE.
WE SAY THAT THERE'S A 35-FEET SETBACK FROM THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY BUT UNDER NUMBER THREE WITH SO 30-FEET.
>> THAT WAS A TYPO ON STAFF'S PART.
>> SO IS IT 30 OR 35 JUST SO I KNOW.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> NO.
>> NO QUESTIONS. IS THERE SOMEONE HERE REPRESENTING THIS -- OKAY, COME UP TO THE PODIUM PLEASE SWORN IN. DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE OH TRUTH SO HELP YOU GOD?
>> YES. >> STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
>> KEITH CHAPMAN. 322 SOUTHEAST HOW 100 KEYSTONE
HEIGHTS 32656. >> DUVE FOR US TODAY?
WHAT >> JUST WHAT THE GENTLEMAN EXPLAINED. WE'RE PROPASING TO PUT IN AN ALUMINUMOSING TO PUT IN AN ALUMINUM FRAME COVER OTHER THEIR EXISTING DECK AND APPARENTLY WHEN WE GOT TO DOING THE RESEARCH ON THE PROPERTY AND DEVELOPING SITE PLAN WE DIDN'T REALIZE WE HAD ENOUGH SETBACK TO THE BLOCK WALL.
THEY'RE ELDERLY, THEY SAID THEY WOULD REALLY LIKE TO HAVE THE COVER. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ENCLOSED AND IT WOULD HELP KEEPING THE LEAVES OFF.
THEY HAVE FAMILY COME AND HELP WITH STUFF AND IT GIVES THEM A LITTLE EXTRA SPACE ON THAT SIDE OF THE HOME TO ENJOY THE
EVENINGS AND STUFF SO THAT'S IT. >> OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> THERE'S AN EXISTING DECK, CORRECT?
>> UH-HUH. >> HOW HIGH IS THE EXISTING
DECK? >> APPROXIMATELY FIVE FEET AND IT VARIES A LITTLE BIT. IT'S A LITTLE LESS ON ONE END AND HIGHER ON THE OTHER. THERE'S A WALKWAY AND IT MIGHT GO FROM FIVE FOOT DOWN TO ZOO ROW.
>> WOULD A FIVE FOOT STRUCTURE BE REQUIRED TO MEET SETBACKS?
>> YES. >> IF IT WAS ALMOST FLAT IT
WOULD NOT? >> IF THERE WERE NO WALLS, RIGHT. ANYTHING LESS THAN WHAT OUR CODE SAYS TODAY. ANYTHING ABOVE THREE FEET OR HIGHER IS REQUIRED TO MEET SET BACKS.
>> SO BECAUSE OF THE CLINGS, NOT OWNER, THEY HAVE A STRUCTURE THAT IS ALREADY NONCONFORMING IN THAT IT IS ABOVE THREE FEET.
SO THIS DOES NOT INCREASE THE NONCON FORMS.
>> OKAY, ANYTHING ELSE? >> OKAY.
SO JUST A MOTION TO APPROVE? >> YEAH.
[00:10:06]
>> THANK YOU. WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS FOR A SEOND HERE. ANY SCOTIAN?
>> NO. >> ANYONE WANT TODISCUSSION?
>> NO. >> ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOMENT?
>> YOU HAVE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> LET ME OPEN THIS PORTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYONE OUT THERE WANT TO SPEAK BEFORE OR AGAINST THIS? SEEING NO QUEENLY UP, ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> MOTION TO APPROVE >> SECOND.
>> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE.
>> OPPOSED? >> MOTION HAS PASSED, SIR.
>> YOUR TIME. THE NEXT IS TO OPEN ANOTHER PUBLIC COMMENT POOR YOUED FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO COME UPERIOE WHO WANTS TO COME UP AND TALK ABOUT ANYTHING.
SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THIS BOARD MEETING.
>> DO WE HAVE TO MOVE TO ADJOURN?
>> THERE'S NOTHING FOR JULY. >> RIGHT.
OKAY. >> NO MEETING FOR JULY? I THOUGHT THERE WERE LIKE THREE COMING UP.
>> WE HAD ONE WITHDRAW AND ONE --
>> OKAY. I DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS
ANYTHING. >> NO.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.