[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:15]
WE ARE CALLING TO ORDER THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT MEETING FOR SEPTEMBER 22, 2022.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
WE WILL DO THE MINUTES FIRST. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
>> SECOND. >> THOSE IN FAVOR. >> AYE.
MOTION IS CARRIED FOR AND NOTHING. WE HAVE TO HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD BEFORE WE GET INTO THE ACTUAL MEETING.S ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WANTS TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING? NOT SEEING ANYONE WE'LL MOVE
ON. >> OKAY. WE HAVE ONE ITEM ON THE AGENDA
[1. Public hearing to Consider Application BOA 22-16. Variance to Exceed Maximum Lot Size in AR Zoning District]
TONIGHT AND IT IS BOA 22 Ã16. WE WILL HEAR FROM THE STAFF FIRST.>> BOA 2216 IS AN APPLICATION BY CALEB CROCKER. THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS LOCATED AT 4348 LOGAN AVENUE. IT IS ZONED AGRICULTURE AND RESIDENTIAL.
IT IS IN THE FUTURE YOU CT 10 FUTURE LAND USE.THE REQUEST IS TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE LOT SIZE FROM 21,780 FT.B2 TO A MAXIMUM 64,787 FT.B2. >> HERE IS A PICTURE OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL. AS YOU CAN SEE IT HAS FRONTAGES ONTO ROADS.
LOGAN AND HANSEN. >> JUST A LITTLE BACKGROUND. SECTION 313 E- FIVE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE RESTRICTS PARCELS IN THE ZONING DISTRICT WHICH ARE WITHIN THE UC 10 PFUTURE LAND USE TO A MAXIMUM LOCK SIZE OF 21,700 FT.B2. THE SUBJECT PARCEL AS IT STANDS TODAY IS 2.91 ACRES. IT DOES CONTAIN MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
THE RESULTING TWO PARCELS WILL BE LARGER THAN THE LOT SIZE AND THE ZONING DISTRICT.
THE PLACES THAT MAXIMUM LOT SIZE. PRIOR TO THAT THE ZONING DISTRICT IS REQUIRING A MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE OF 1 ACRE. IT'S A FUNCTION OF THE CHANGE IN THE CODE.TAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM SIZE FOR THE PARCEL STUFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH THE IN CROWD INCREASE LOT SIZE AS TED.
THERE ARE SIX CRITERIA AS YOU ARE AWARE FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE.
STAFF WILL ADDRESS EACH OF THOSE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THE PARCEL WAS CONSISTENT WITH
[00:05:04]
THE DISTRICT ZONING PRIOR TO THAT. THERE ARE NUMEROUS ONES THAT ARE OVER THAT WITH 21,780 FT.B2. THESE HAVE BEEN THERE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS PERTAIN WITH THE SUBJECT PARCEL BEING OVER THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIZE IS NOT ANYTHING OR RESULT OF ANYTHING OR ACTION BY THE APPLICANT. THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL ALLOW FOR THE PARCEL TO BE SPLIT INTO TWO PARCELS THAT ARE LARGER THAN THE 21,780 GRAND FEET REQUIRED.AS I INDICATED THERE ARE MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS ON THE PARCEL.
ANOTHER SECTION OF THE CODE REQUIRES ONLY ONE DWELLING UNIT PER PARCEL.
A SPLIT WOULD HELP BRING INTO COMPLIANCE THAT ISSUE WITH THE PRESENT PARCEL.
THE LITERAL ANTICIPATION OF THE NOT DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. HOWEVER THE PARCELS IN AND AROUND THIS PARCEL, THE MAJORITY OF THEM DO EXCEED THE MINIMUMS OR MAXIMUM SIZE ALLOWED IN THE CODE. AGAIN, THE BENEFICIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT NECESSARILY DEPENDENT ON ALLOWING A LARGER PARCEL THAN THE MAXIMUM SIZE. TO BRING IT IN COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS THAT THE SUBDIVISION OF THE PARCEL TO MEET THAT MAXIMUM SIZE THAT IS ALLOWED TODAY. AS I INDICATED EARLIER THE MAJORITY OF THE PARCELS IN THE DEVELOPMENT DO EXCEED THE 21,780 FT.B2. THE PARCEL IS NOT NECESSARILY IN HARMONY WITH THE ORDINANCE HOWEVER IT IS BELIEVED THAT IT WOULD NOT BE INTEREST TO THE AREA OTHERWISE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE. HERE IS A PROPOSED SURVEY SHOWING HOW THEY INTEND TO SPLIT THE PARCEL. THE RESULTING PARCELS WOULD MEET THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS OF THE AIR ZONING DISTRICT INCLUDING DEPTH AND WIDTH. AS WELL AS THE ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF PSTAFF AT THIS POINT? >> I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW WHAT
YOU SEE TENNIS. >> IT'S URBAN CORE 10. IS PRIMARILY ONE OF OUR HIGHER
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LAND USES. >> SO THIS IS FOR FUTURE?
>> YES. >> IT'S UC 10 TODAY. >> IT JUST HAPPENS THAT THAT REQUIREMENT FOR THIS SIZE, THE MAXIMUM SIZE FOR THE AIR ZONING DISTRICT ONLY APPLIES TO THE
ZONING DISTRICT THAT IS ALSO IN UC 10 LAND USE. >> ONE OF THE REASONS WE ARE
EVERY LOOKING AT THIS WHOLE THING. >> THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE EVER HEARD OF A MAXIMUM LOT SIZE. WHAT IS THE REASONING?
>> MY SPECULATION IS BECAUSE IT WAS A UC 10 FUTURE LAND USE HIGHER DENSITY THEY WANTED TO TRY TO FORCE THE HIGHER DENSITIES RATHER THAN HER LARGER LOTS WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE THE DENSITY. THAT'S JUST SPECULATION BECAUSE I WASN'T HERE WHEN IT WAS
[00:10:04]
ADOPTED BUT THAT'S MY GUESS. >> THAT WAS 29 YEARS AGO. >> I ASSUME WE HAVE EVERYTHING. IF YOU LIKE TO COME UP PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
>> MY NAME IS ANGELA CROWDER AND THIS IS MY HUSBAND CALEB. WHERE THE OWNER OF THIS PARCEL.
>> THESE WORDAGE TELL THE TRUTH AND THE WHOLE TREE QUESTIONNAIRE.
>> YES. >> NOW, WHAT YOU HAVE FIRST? >> CONVINCE US THAT WE WANT TO
DO THIS FOR YOU. >> ABOUT A YEAR AND HALF AGO HE INHERITED THE PROPERTY FROM HIS GRANDFATHER. THAT WAS IN 2018 WHEN HIS GRANDMOTHER PASSED AWAY.
ABOUT A YEAR AND-A-HALF AGO AFTER INHERITING THE PROPERTY FROM HIS GRANDFATHER IN 2018 THERE IS TO OLDER MOBILE HOMES ON THE PROPERTY NOW AND WE WERE LIVING IN THE OLDEST ONE.
WE DECIDED TO RENOVATE OR FIXUP THE 1958 SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. IT WAS MOVED FROM THE NAVAL BASE BACK INTO THE 70S. THERE WAS NO RUNNING WATER, POWER OR ELECTRICS.
ONCE WE BROUGHT TO A CLOSE WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO OTHER MOBILE HOMES ON IT WE CANNOT PROPERLY AND SURE. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE ABOUT HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS WORTH OF INVESTMENTS THAT WE CANNOT GET PROPER HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE ON.
WE ARE REQUESTING TO SPLIT THE LOTS IN 1.42 ACRES WHICH IS WHERE THE SINGLE-FAMILY IS.
EVENTUALLY WE FULLY INTEND TO GET THAT TOWARDS THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING.
CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A DISABLED VETERAN RENTING THE OLDEST MOBILE HOME ON THE PROPERTY FOR DRACUT FREIGHT AND WE DON'T WANT TO PUT HIM OUT TO MAKE A COMPLETE SINGLE-FAMILY.
WE'D RATHER DO THE TWO LARGER LOTS. IT'S CURRENTLY THROUGH OUR AREA OF WHICH ARE OH SO WITH A LARGER LOT SIZE IT WAS WELL WITHIN 75 FEET AWAY FROM THE SEPTIC VERSUS THE HALF ACRE LOT THAT WILL NOT ONLY REQUIRE OUR FRONT YARD AND SINGLE FAMILY HOME WHICH IS .030 ITSELF. JUST PUT THAT ON A HALF ACRE LOT MAXIMUM IT WOULD PRETTY MUCH CUT THROUGH THE BACK SIDE OF OUR HOUSE. IT WOULD ALLOW US TO HAVE THE TWO SEPARATE TAX BILLS VERSUS SIX IF WE HAD TO DO AN ACRE AND HALF.
I'M SORRY A HALF ACRE MAXIMUM. >> WHAT IS YOUR PLAN FOR THE OTHER LOT WHERE THE TRAILERS
ARE NOW? ARE YOU HANGING ONTO? >> YES WE HAVE NO INTENTIONS ON SELLING EITHER ONE OF THE LOTS WHETHER THIS RESULTS IN ITS HAVING TO SPLIT THEM IN HALF-ACRE LOTS OR JUST TO LARGER LOTS WITH NO INTENTION OF SELLING.
HE INHERITED IT FROM HIS GRANDFATHER AND WE FULLY INTEND TO KEEP IT IN THE FAMILY AND
KEEP IT BEEN PASSED DOWN. >> OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?
>> I HAVE A QUESTION BACK TO MIKE. I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY YOU'RE GOING TO STAY IN HOUSE THAT YOU FIXED UP. ONCE THE OTHER GENTLEMAN MIGHT MOVE OUT OR WHATEVER YOU MIGHT KNOCK THE TRAILERS DOWN AND BUILD A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE TO
SELL OR WHATEVER. >> CORRECT. WHEN THEY CAME TO GET A PERMIT
TO BUILD THAT HOUSE WITH THE BE BACK BECAUSE OF THAT?E TO COME - >> IF YOU GRANT A VARIANCE THE SIZE THAT YOU'RE GRANTING WOULD BE THE LARGEST LOT SO THAT IT FALLS IN AND WOULD BE OKAY.
>> THE BILLING DEPARTMENT TO BE OKAY WITH TWO TRAILS ON THE OTHER LINE ONCE BROUGHT TO
LIGHT. >> YES.>> NO PROBLEMS WHERE THEY MEET THE TRAILER GO AWAY.
>> BE PREPARED FOR THAT. WE CAN JUST SAY YES, SIR NO TO THE SIZE REQUIREMENT.
>> WE HAVE NO INTENTIONS ON IF WE GET RID OF THE MOBILE HOMES IT WILL BE ONE SINGLE-FAMILY
HOME. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD?
[00:15:01]
>> HAVE A SEAT AND WE WILL DISCUSS IT A LITTLE BIT. >> I'M SORRY ALSO HAVE SOME
LETTERS FROM NEIGHBORS ON IF I CAN BRING THEM UP TO YOU GUYS. >> AT THIS POINT I WILL SAY WE
MAY NOT NEED THOSE. THERE'S NOBODY HERE ARGUING. >> I THINK IF WE WERE GOING
THE OTHER DIRECTION WE MIGHT HAVE PEOPLE HERE ARGUING. >> ANY DISCUSSION BETWEEN US?
>> THE IDEA IS THEY ARE ACTUALLY BRINGING CLOSE INTO COMPLIANCE BUT CLOSER.
I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> I WILL SECOND THAT.
>> THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ? >> YOU HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING
FIRST. >> THERE'S NO IN HERE BUT ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WANT TO
SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST US? >> THE ONLY DISCUSSION I HAD IS ABOUT THE PROPERTY ADDRESS.
>> THE UNITS IS 434B. >> YOU ARE ABOUT TO WIN. >> WE WILL TAKE THIS TO A
VOTE. >> THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED?
>> THE MOTION PACK CARRIES. YOU'RE GOOD TO GO. NOW WE HAVE TO OPEN A PUBLIC
NT. SEEING NO WHEN HERE. >> STAFF HAS ONE THING TO PUT IN YOUR MIND TO THINK ABOUT. NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER WE DON'T HAVE ANY APPLICATIONS FOR NEXT MONTH SO YOU HAVE NEXT MONTH OFF IN OCTOBER. WE DO HAVE AN APPLICATION THAT WILL PROBABLY BE AN TO GO TO NOVEMBER. .
JUST A THOUGHT TO COME BY NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER AND RESCHEDULE.
I DON'T KNOW WHEN IT MIGHT BE GOOD. I JUST WANTED YOU TO THINK
ABOUT THAT. >> IF WE DID IN DECEMBER WOULD IT BE THAT CLOSE?
THE THUMB IS CHRISTMAS TO. >> IF WE RESCHEDULE WE PROBABLY WOULD SPLIT THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER. >> THE THIRD WAS NOT
THANKSGIVING. >> AND CHRISTMAS WOULD BE THE 22ND.
>> WOULD PROBABLY STAY AND DO THAT. >> KELLY WILL CONFIRM IF WE
JUST WANTED TO DISCUSS IT. >> THAT MAKE SENSE FOR PROBABLY EVERYBODY.
>> KELLY WILL CONFIRM AND MAY REACH OUT TO YOU.. YOU DEFINITELY HAVE NEXT MONTH
H OFF. >> SUITE. >> IS NOT LIKE I CAN TAKE
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.