Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/29/1978 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 29, 1978 MEMBERS PRESENT: John Hughey, Henry Hawley, Wes Harper, Ann Jones, Dorothy DuBois, Council Liaison Larry Ringer (not voting) STAFF PRESENT: Building Official Bill Koehler, City Attorney Neeley Lewis VISITORS PRESENT: Floyd Maksche, Luther G. Jones, Robert Alexander, Helen Bowman, Bob Boyce, Henry Miller, Tyler Moore, Lloyd Smith, Larry D. Hill, R. Hambrick John Hughey was selected chairman by acclaimation. Agenda Item No. 1 -- Approval of the minutes of the meeting of June 20, 197$: The minutes were declared approved as written. Agenda Item No. 2 -- Consideration of a request for variance from Floyd Maksche at 315 University Drive: Koehler said that the application had been mailed in time, but delayed at the Post Office. He explained that the request was to expand a building which was a non-conforming use with respect to parking regulations and front setback. Maksche pointed out that the expansion would be to a rear area not useable for parking, would observe rear setback, and would be even with one adjacent building. Hughey moved that the variance be granted because of the unique circumstance of similar situations throughout the neighborhood and because the proposed construction would effect no change in the neighborhood. The motion was seconded by Hawley and unanimously approved. Agenda Item No. 3 -- Consideration_of a request for variance from Henr Lee Johnson at 415-Thompson Street: Koehler discussed the application and concurred in the statements made in it. He said that the only public interest involved would be the open space required in front yards. Hughey moved that the variance be granted because of the other similar buildings along the street and because no substantial public interest would be lost. The motion was seconded by Hawley and unanimously approved. Agenda Item No. 4 -- Consideration of a request for variance from Arnesta Wi~~ins at 1102 Carolina Street: Koehler discussed the application and agreed with the statements made in it. He said the case was parallel to the previous item and in a nearby neighborhood. Minutes~Page 2 Hughey moved that the variance be granted because of the other similar buildings in the neighborhood and because no substantial public interest would be lost. The motion was seconded by Jones and unanimously approved. Agenda Item No. 5 -- Consideration of a request for variance from Larry D. Hill at 1$06 Sabine Court: Koehler presented the application and pointed out that this was an oddly shaped lot on a cul-de-sac. He said that most structures in the neigh- borhood conformed, but that a front setback variance had been granted for an adjoining lot. Hill discussed dimensions of his proposed structure, the uses of the land adjacent to his property, the proposed distance to the street, and constraints of easements which would not allow him to purchase and utilize additional land. Hughey moved that the variance be granted because of the location of the cul-de-sac and the unusual configuration of the lot. The motion was seconded by DuBois. Hughey and Harper expressed reservations about decreasing open space where setbacks had been observed, and expressed an interest of other nearby owners in maintaining such space. They questioned optimum use of available space and the relative detriment of a two car carport as opposed to the three car structure proposed. DuBois and Jones questioned the amount of encroachment which could not be precisely stated from the information given. Hughey moved that the request be tabled until such time as the applicant could find the distance by which his structure would encroach upon the front setback line. The motion was seconded by Hawley and unanimously approved. Agenda Item No. 6 -- Consideration of an appeal from Dr. Alexander on 107 and 201 Dominik Drive: Koehler presented all of the correspondence in the case and said that upon investigation of a complaint from the appelant he had: 1. deferred a decision on the adequacy of the screening fence. 2. determined that there was no violation of environmental regulations with respect to noise and odors within the meaning of the ordinance for the reasons stated in his memorandum of August g, 197$. 3. commenced action on the complaint about lighting. He said that the appellant held that the screen fence was inadequate and therefore in violation, and that conditions of odors were in fact a violation as alleged in the original complaint. Dr. Alexander said that his principal concern was smoke and odar. He said that he relied upon the ordinance description of a Single Family Residential District "protected from incompatible uses". He said that "ambient" should be construed according to the dictionary definition, and that environmental Minutes~Page 3 regulations are more specific than district regulations and should be interpreted strictly in a case where the regulations conflict. He said that adjacent land use districts should be a valid consideration in inter- pretation of district regulations. He disagreed with the assumption that effect on neighboring properties had been considered in the original rezoning action in 1967 and cited the record of publication of notice and minutes of the hearings. Helen Bowman said that she had bought property relying on zoning and for that reason had not checked on the circumstances of adjoining properties. She said that the Police Department would take no action on odors and that the odors precluded her use of the back yard and were a problem in her house at night. Lloyd Smith of TAMU food services said that he was familiar with "Simplex" centrifugal grease extractors. He said that a Bureau of Standards study showed that one brand of extractors combined with an electrostatic precipi- tator achieved 95 percent solids removal. He said that such systems are in use in eastern and midwestern states and estimated precipitator energy usage at X250 per year for 10 feet of ventilator hood. He said that one manu- facturer claims that charcoal filters added to the above components achieve 100 percent solids and odors removed. He estimated the cost of the total system at ~l/~,g00 plus plumbing and adjustments. Henry Miller recited the changes in his operations and equipment that he had made to accomodate the desires of his neighbors. He pointed out that the Municipal Court had found him not guilty of a noise nuisance complaint and had found that the noise level was not unreasonable. He asserted that his venting and extraction systems were quite adequate by community standards, and that Health Department inspections confirm this. He felt that further expenditures for equipment that had been discussed would not be reasonable and that the efficiency figures cited for the systems were over-optimistic. He said that burn-cleaning of the broiler grill is done nightly at about 11 p. m. and does produce smoke for about ten minutes. In response to a question from Harper, Miller offered the opinion that smoke and odors were not normal to a residential neighborhood, but was no more than from other commercial operations. He acknowledged that there was a problem, but that the problem stemmed from the zoning of the land upon which he too had relied in locating his business. He noted that he had heard no complaints from other residents who were more directly in line of prevailing winds. Helen Bo~.m~.an said. that odors from garbage at Pepe Taco were a problem also. R. Hambrick, a supervisor at Pepe's said that Health Unit sanitarians had found no problem with the dumpsters and that drainage from the City's packer trucks could be the cause of any odors. Hughey remarked that the question was whether or not the Building Official's interpretations upon which he had based his findings, were correct. He said Minutes~Page l~~ that all parties agreed as to the conditions, but the businesses are legitimate operations, the error being in how the land is zoned. He pointed out that the time to have acted was when the property was re-zoned. Mrs. Bowman said that the ordinance should be enforced according to its literal meaning. Hawley said that no food operation in the City conforms to the literal meaning. Koehler mentioned the requirement for uniformity in application of district regulations and reiterated that literal meaning has been interpreted to reflect what is reasonable for permitted uses. Tyler Moore pointed out that if his client were required to eliminate all odors, he should expect that all of his competitors would be required to do the same. Jones and DuBois stated that they would not be prepared to decide without exam- ining the conditions on the site. Hughey said that smoke and odors were mentioned separately in the ordinance, and the existence of smoke was not qualified in the ordinance. Hughey moved that the appeal be upheld with regard to smoke, it being held that any smoke emission is a violation of the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Harper and failed for lack of required affirmative notes as follows: AYE: Hughey, Harper NAY: Hawley tirith Jones and DuBois abstaining Hughey moved that the appeal be upheld with regard to odors, it being held that odors as described are noxious and therefore a violation of the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Harper and failed by the following note: AYE: None NAY: Hughey, Harper, Hawley with Jones and DuBois abstaining Koehler explained the problem of the two to three inch gap at the bottom of the screen fence. Miller said that he would fill the gap. Alexander agreed that this would solve the problem with the fence. Alexander stated that he had no further complaint about the noise as it exists now. The Board directed that the Building Official re-examine the lighting of the rear of Danvers and inform the owner of his findings. Miller could then appeal any disagreement that he might have with the findings. Agenda Item No. 7 -- Other Business: There was no other business. Agenda Item No. g -- Adlourn: There being no other business, the meeting was declared adjourned.