CRISP COUNTY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
February 6, 2006
The Crisp County Zoning Board of Appeals met at a scheduled called meeting on the 6th day of February, at 9:00 a.m. in the Crisp County Courthouse.
The following members were present: Emmett Walker, Mark Brubaker, Bob McCadams, Frank Lott and J.C. Clark. Also present: Connie Sangster, Secretary & Planning Director & Jimmy Mumphery, County Building Inspector.
Also present was the following visitor: Warren Swint.
1st Order of Business
Emmett Walker opened the floor for nomination for Chairman. Mark Brubaker made a motion to nominate Emmett Walker as Chairman and was seconded by Bob McCadams. The vote was carried unanimously 4-0.
Elect Vice Chairman
Chairman Emmett Walker opened the floor for nomination for Vice Chairman. Frank Lott made a motion to nominate Mark Brubaker as Vice Chairman and was seconded by J.C. Clark. The vote was carried unanimously 4-0.
Elect Non Voting Secretary
Chairman Emmett Walker opened the floor for nomination for a non-voting secretary. Bob McCadams made a motion to nominate Connie Sangster as non-voting secretary to the Crisp County Zoning Board of Appeals and was seconded by Mark Brubaker. The vote was carried unanimously 4-0.
Chairman Emmett Walker called the hearing to order. Mr. Walker read aloud the criteria in which a variance request is handled. Mr. Walker stated that the Public Hearing for Mr. Glenn for a variance to locate a structure on a parcel of property that does not abut a public street was held on Tuesday, November 15, 2005. The Board requested that Ms. Sangster draft a letter to the Board of Commissioners of Crisp County in reference to a clarification on the status of the road (letter attached and made a permanent part of these minutes). Mr. Walker read aloud the letter from the Board and also the response for the Boards letter, along with the letter dated July 22, 2005 from the County Attorney Pete Pfeiffer. At this time Mr. Walker asked if there were any more comments or questions. There were none.
Request from Warren Swint for a variance to reduce the required 15 sideyard property line to 2 for the purpose of locating a storage building located at 338 Lakeshore Way.
Chairman Emmett Walker called the hearing to order. Mr. Swint was present and spoke on his own behalf. Mr. Swint stated that he currently has a 10x10 metal storage building on the property now and if approved he would like to replace it with a prefab metal and wood building similar to the ones that Pettis Tire Company sells. Mr. Swint showed the members photographs of the existing building that he would like to replace. Mr. Swint stated the new building would look very similar to the type of material that is on his home, so the building would match it. He stated the existing building there now and has been there since 1976 with the intent of lasting about 5 years and it has lasted almost 30 years. He stated it has become an eyesore and is dilapidated. Mr. Swint stated that the reason for the setback request is the way his lot is laid out (long and narrow) and he is trying to keep some space open in case he has to get equipment to the backyard for maintenance he will have room to do that, he also stated that if he moved it over to the 15 setback it would be hitting the house and there are shrubs on the property line and that makes it less desirable to have the access on the far side. Mr. Swint stated that he had talked with his immediate neighbor, Dr. Whittle and he stated he has no problem with the setback. Ms. Sangster stated that Dr. Whittle had faxed a memo to the Planning Department with no objection to the variance. Mr. Swint stated that the building he wants to go back with his larger and he needs the relief on the setback so he can keep the passageway open to the back yard. Mr. Walker asked Mr. Swint what he planned to do with the existing building. Mr. Swint replied that he was going to take it to the landfill. Mr. Swint stated the new building would be the same width as the old one, just longer. He also stated that he is trying to make the property look better than what is there now and that the old building is just not satisfactory any longer. Mr. Walker asked if the 10x16 building that he wants to place there is portable. Mr. Swint replied yes. Mr. Swint also added that other than this location, there is no where else on his property that would be suitable for the storage building, he stated that he wanted to locate it on the property where it would be less of an eyesore if he had to locate it in the front yard or back yard. Mr. Swint also stated that he really needed the storage space to keep his lawn mower and garden tools. Mr. Lott stated that he felt like they needed to keep the permissible size (144 square foot) that is permissible for storage buildings that are located 5 off the property line, and maybe reduce the building to a 10x14. At this time, Mr. Walker asked if there were other questions. There were none.
After discussion, the chairman asked for a motion.
A motion was made by Mark Brubaker, seconded by Bob McCadams to approve the request to locate a 10x16 storage building 2 from the sideyard property line. Carried unanimously 4-0.
Request from Rite Way Homes (with the property owners authorization Georgia Griffis and Jessica Hart) for a variance to reduce the required 35 front yard setback to 28 for the purpose of constructing a new house. Property being zoned RS 1 (Single Family Residential) and being located at 292 Swift Creek Road.
Chairman Emmett Walker called the hearing to order. Ms. Griffis and Ms. Hart were present on Ms. Griffis spoke on their behalf. Ms. Griffis stated they were in the process of building a house on the property and apparently there was a misunderstanding on the depth of the lot. Ms. Sangster stated to the board, that Rite Way Homes was present and they actually should speak on behalf of the request. Marlene Wright was present and spoke on behalf of Rite Way Homes. Ms. Wright stated that they were approved to build a house on the lot, but trying to keep the existing septic tank, with the length, width and depth of the house and pulling from the center of the road, the individual that does that work for them misjudged it and instead of pulling back 35 from the row, he pulled back 27 and in the process of digging it Rite Way had a call into the inspection department for a footing inspection and at the same time, she (Marlene) had an inspection in Dooly County going at the same time and when they called in and said the footer had been approved and not giving a name she assumed it was the Crisp County job site and the concrete was delivered and poured. In the meantime, Jimmy Mumphery, the Crisp County building inspector went out for the footer inspection and it was already poured and he noted the setback was incorrect and called our office. Ms. Wright stated that it was a mistake on her part and they have been doing this for 27 years and this is the first time this has happened and they build a lot of homes in Crisp County. Ms. Wright stated they are asking for variance because it is already there and she did not think it would cause a problem with the existing man-made road. Carl Gamble, Public Works Director, was present and explained the situation with the road. Mr. Gamble stated the lot the request is for is adjacent to Rocky Point Park and essentially just past the foundation the lot flares out to the park area. Mr. Gamble stated that where the house is located there is no visible obstruction of anything coming in and out of the park area, and other than not meeting the setback requirements he does not see any hazard. Mr. Brubaker asked if he understands correctly that the reason the house is where it is, is because of the septic tank. Ms. Wright replied yes, the septic tank is in the backyard and they were trying to keep it instead of installing a new one and pulling from the center of the road, which they thought they had to the setback gave them just enough room. Ms. Wright also stated that the septic tank had been approved to use for the new house. Mr. Walker asked if there had been any response from the public on the request. Ms. Sangster replied no. Mr. Walker stated that he did not feel that this was something that was trying to be pulled over them. At this time, Mr. Walker asked if there were other comments. There were none.
After discussion, a motion was made by Mark Brubaker, seconded by J.C. Clark to approve a variance to reduce the required 35 front yard setback to 28. Property being located at 292 Swift Creek Road.
VOTE: A motion was made to approve the minutes of December 20, 2005 with amendment by J.C. Clark, seconded by Mark Brubaker. Carried unanimously, 4-0.
Gave members a copy of the request for the scheduled February 21, 2006 meeting.