Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesZBA MINUTES May 2, 2000 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Consideration of a rear setback at 102 Church Street. Applicant is William O'Brian for Connie Wortham. Staff Planner Jimmerson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Jimmerson told the Board that the variance is to allow accessory buildings to be within the required setbacks. Currently existing on the site is a walk-in cooler and a portable metal building. If they were not to be moved they would be considered legally nonconforming. The applicant is proposing to do three things: 1. Move the walk-in cooler to the east, inline with its present location, not encroaching into the setback any farther than currently. 2. Enclose the area where the walk-in cooler is presently located, to provide for additional food preparation area 3. Move the portable building to allow for the new location of the cooler. If the Board decides to grant this variance, staff would recommend that the Board limit the variance to the three buildings listed in this request and require that they be located according to the site plan submitted in conjunction with this request. The applicant offers a special condition that there is insufficient space in the building for the type of food preparation needed. Another special condition that may be considered is that the existing building predates the current and several previous zoning ordinances and site planning requirements. The applicant states that there really is no other room on the lot itself to do any enlargements or additions. Additionally, because of the existing layout of the site and the building, the amount of unusable space is even further reduced. Mr. Searcy asked what is the setback now with the existing building. Ms. Jimmerson replied that is about 6 inches. Mr. Bond asked for clarification in the staff report as it states "on this particular block, this type of access area will not occur unless the entire area is redeveloped". Ms. Jimmerson replied that there are exiting buildings there that do not meet the 15 foot rear setback. If this variance were approved this would make the other existing structures come into compliance. Mr. Bond asked what is to the rear of the building now. Ms. Jimmerson replied that it is vacant property. Mr. Bond asked who owned the property. Ms. Jimmerson replied that she did not know that but it may be on the survey. The survey showed Jack Boyett as the owner. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing. William O'Brian & Costa Dallis, the applicant & tenant, stepped forward and were sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. O'Brian told the Board that they are wanting to expand the kitchen area of the restaurant due to its small area. The walk in cooler would be moved down to allow more food preparation. In order to move the cooler the portable building would have to be moved. Mr. Dallis told the board that it is desirable to have direct access to the walk-in cooler and it not be free standing on the property because of the fresh fish. Mr. Dallis stated that the Health Department would like it as well that they did not have to go out side to access the cooler With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition, Chairman Alexander closed the pubic hearing. Mr. Murphy made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: existing development predates the zoning ordinances; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: significant removal of existing development and also the failure to meet health ordinances; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: no change in the site plan. Mr. Searcy seconded the motion. Mr. Bond made an amendment to add under special conditions "and in order to assure space for rear access per the ordinance intent the entire area would require redevelopment " Mr. Searcy seconded the amendment. The Board voted (5-0) to approve the variance.