CRISP COUNTY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
October 20, 2009
The Crisp County Zoning Board of Appeals met at a regular meeting on the 15th day of September 2009 at 9:00 a.m. in the Crisp County Courthouse.
The following members were present: Emmett Walker, J.C. Clark, Jerry Carney, Mark Brubaker and Wendy Peavy. Also present, Connie Sangster, Secretary & Planning Director & Jimmy Mumphery, County Building Inspector.
Also present were the following visitors: Stephen Belflower and John Basnar.
VOTE: Motion was made by Mark Brubaker with a second by Wendy Peavy to approve the Minutes of the September 15, 2009. Carried unanimously.
Request from Stephen Belflower for 1) variance to locate an accessory structure 24x24 (576 sq. ft.) open carport with an attached 12x24 (288 sq. ft.) enclosed storage area in the front yard setback between the principle building and the street. 2) Variance to reduce the west side property line from the required 15' to 10' for the placement of the carport/storage structure. Subject property zoned RS2 (Single Family Residential) and located at 121 Wolf Thick Landing Road. Chairman Emmett Walker called the hearing to order. Mr. Walker read aloud the criteria and procedures that the board considers when making decisions. At this time, Mr. Walker read aloud the variance requests. Mr. Belflower was present and spoke on his own behalf. Mr. Belflower told the board that he wanted to place the building to the right hand side (facing the house) and start at the end of the house facing the street and push it as far as he can toward the right so that he would have room to come into the gate and turn in the drive and it is going to be an attached double garage with a storage room to the right of it. Mr. Walker asked where the septic tank is located. Mr. Belflower replied it was on the left hand front corner on the other side of the house - directly opposite of this. Mr. Walker asked if the structure is going to be attached to the house. Mr. Belflower replied no, it would be approximately 10-15' away from the house at the closest point. Mr. Walker asked how far would is it from the fence to the house. Mr. Belflower replied around 35-40'. Mr. Brubaker asked if you were coming into the gate would the automobile entrance be perpendicular to the house. Mr. Belflower replied yes and would match the house identically from the roof to the vinyl and would be on a concrete slab. Mr. Carney stated that his question would be how it fits in with the view of the overall neighborhood. At this time, Mr. Walker asked if there were anyone for or against this request. Ms. Sangster replied that the adjacent property owner, Mr. John Basnar had some concerns and is also present. Mr. Basnar stated that he owns the 450 acres next to this property. He stated that he has no objection to him placing the carport on the property but does have an objection to the requested sideyard setback variance. Mr. Basnar stated that the standards were set by the county to protect adjacent property owners and he feels that 15' is minimal and should be maintained Mr. Basnar also stated that he and Mr. Belflower have already had an issue with the placement of his boathouse. Mr. Basnar also stated that if this economy turns around he intends to develop his property, which is water front property. Mr. Walker asked Mr. Mumphery if the proposed building could maintain the required front setback. Mr. Mumphery replied that that would be checked prior to Mr. Belflower begins construction but it is suppose to be 35' and that Mr. Belflower is not requesting a variance on that. Mr. Clark asked if the 12x24 structure is along with the carport, attached on the front or what, or is it two buildings. Ms. Sangster stated that it is one building, under the same roof, the 24x24 is an open carport and the 12x24 is enclosed. Mr. Walker asked Mr. Belflower what the distance would be between the house and the carport. Mr. Belflower stated 8-10' - enough to get a lawn mower through. Mr. Walker asked why did he not want to attach the structure to the existing house. Mr. Belflower stated that if he attached it to the house he would not be able to get his car turned in there at all because of the odd shape of the lot. Mr. Carney asked Mr. Belflower if he turned the structure slightly would he still not be able to maintain the required setbacks. Mr. Belflower stated that he could go out and take some dimensions and check it out. Mr. Mumphery stated that by doing that he might get into the front yard setbacks. Mr. Belflower asked if he was saying to ask for a front easement. Ms. Sangster stated that could not be done at this meeting it would require another public hearing for an additional variance. Mr. Carney stated that he was trying to get rid of the sideyard variance because he doesn't particularly like that idea. Mr. Walker stated that he felt the same way. Ms. Sangster asked Mr. Belflower if he would consider changing the size of the building to maybe a 24x34 instead of 24x36. Mr. Clark stated that he was in favor of that, if it would work. Mr. Walker asked Ms. Sangster if she had received anything from anyone against the building. She replied no. At this time, Mr. Walker asked if there were any further questions. There were none. Mr. Walker stated that this concluded the public hearing portion of the meeting and now they would go into discussion and vote.
MEETING - 1st Variance
After discussion, the chairman asked for a motion on the 1st variance.
VOTE: A motion was made by Jerry Carney seconded by J.C. Clark to approve the variance request to allow an accessory structure in the front yard setback. Carried unanimously 4-1.
MEETING - 2ND Variance
After discussion, the chairman asked for a motion on the 2nd variance.
VOTE: A motion was made by Mark Brubaker, seconded by J.C. Clark to deny the variance request to reduce the required 15' sideyard variance to 10'. Carried unanimously 4-1.