crispcounty.com
   info@crispcounty.com  
spacer.gif - 810 Bytes
spacer.gif - 810 Bytes
spacer.gif - 810 Bytes
spacer.gif - 810 Bytes
spacer.gif - 810 Bytes
spacer.gif - 810 Bytes
spacer.gif - 810 Bytes
spacer.gif - 810 Bytes
spacer.gif - 810 Bytes
spacer.gif - 810 Bytes
spacer.gif - 810 Bytes
spacer.gif - 810 Bytes
spacer.gif - 810 Bytes
spacer.gif - 810 Bytes
spacer.gif - 810 Bytes


spacer.gif - 810 Bytes
Meetings

MINUTES
CRISP COUNTY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 15, 2012

The Crisp County Zoning Board of Appeals met at a regular meeting on the 15th day of May at 9:00 am. in the Crisp County Government Center.
The following members were present: Emmett Walker, J.C. Clark, Jerry Carney, Lucky Taylor and Wendy Peavy. Also present, Connie Sangster, Secretary & Planning Director & Jimmy Mumphery, County Building Inspector.
Also present were the following visitors: Andy Murdock, Laverne Miller, Lee Fontaine, Lynn McKinney, Mitzi Lott, Robert Johnson, Willie Mayo and Johnny B. Shorter.

MINUTES

VOTE: Motion was made by J. C. Clark with a second by Jerry Carney to approve the minutes of the April 17, 2012. Carried unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING

Request from Andy Murdock (with the property owners authorization) for the following variances: 1) Variance to locate a 30x50 accessory structure on a parcel of property prior to or in lieu of a principal use on the property and; 2) Variance to reduce the required lot width of 100' to 52.73' at the required setback line of 35'. Property zoned RS2 (Single Family Residential) and is located South of 617 Cork Ferry 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 request. Mr. Murdock was present and spoke on his own behalf. Mr. Murdock stated that if approved he would like to place a pre-fab structure on the property that would be used for a storage/shop type building and inside the building he would have shelves, workbench, lights, fan, drill press, table saw, small welder, these type of hobby workshop type of tools to do woodworking or whatever hobby type activity and to also use it to park a lawnmower in there. Mr. Murdock stated that he would also like to have a 2" residential well on the property to provide hose water or to water a small garden. Mr. Murdock stated that the property had limited road frontage and all wooded in the area and there would be minimal visual impact from the road. He also stated that the 2 landowners that would have the most impact - he has discussed with them and they have told him they had no problem with the request. He stated that in keeping with the intent purposes of the structure he has provided some amp draws of things that he would have in the building. He stated that he understands there is a concern of the Board limiting the amps so they won't turn it into a living structure. He stated he understood those concerns and he would be open to any cooperation - if you want to periodically inspect it to make sure he is doing exactly what he is saying he's doing and not doing what the Board doesn't want him to do would be ok with him. Mr. Walker asked who actually owns the property. Mr. Murdock stated Jerry and Laverne Miller, he also stated that Ms. Miller is here. Mr. Murdock stated that he has a written agreement with the Millers' to purchase the property if he can get the variance to use the property for his intended purpose. Mr. Walker asked what kind of floor would the building have? Mr. Murdock stated concrete. Mr. Clark asked if the building would look like the picture that Mr. Murdock showed the board members with the open bays? Mr. Murdock replied that was a roll-up door and the picture he gave the members was representing what he was asking for. He stated that the building would not be insulated and not paneled. Mr. Carney asked if they had received anything from adjacent property owners about this request. Ms. Sangster replied no. Mr. Taylor asked Mr. Murdock was he going to put in a septic tank, and what size electrical service was he asking for. Mr. Murdock replied no to the septic tank and he was asking for a 100 amp service. Mr. Carney asked Mr. Mumphery if that made sense to him referring to the draws indicated. Mr. Mumphery replied yes. Mr. Walker asked if there were anything from any other land owners'. Ms. Sangster replied no. Mr. Carney stated that he had spoken with Mr. Murdock earlier and he told him about the situations that they have run into where this Board had authorized storage buildings and then they were turned into pond houses with bedrooms and if that was the intent of this building they needed to go ahead and get the building permit and do it the way it should be done. He stated as far as the storage area is concerned, if he is doing a metal building, with no septic tank, a 100 amp service for his well, then that really falls into the context of a storage building and the Board has to go on the word of people and they can't sit here and say they don't believe someone and there are tools in place to be able to find out if someone is not doing what they said they would be doing. Mr. Walker asked if there were other 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

After discussion, the chairman asked for a motion.
VOTE: A motion was made by Jerry Carney seconded by Lucky Taylor to approve the variance requests to: 1) allow an accessory structue (30x50) with a 100 amp electrical service to be placed on the property prior to or in lieu of a principle use on the property; and 2) to reduce the required lot width of 100' to 52.73' at the required setback line of 35'. Carried unanimously 4-0.

PUBLIC HEARING

Request from Lee and Melanie Fontaine for a variance to reduce the required 15' side yard setback to 2' on the west side property line for the purpose of adding a 14x12 (168 sq. ft.) open deck with roof to an existing structure. Property is zoned RS2 (Single Family Residential) and is located at 243 N. Cedar Creek Road.

Chairman, Emmett Walker called the hearing to order. Mr. Fontaine was present and spoke on his own behalf. Mr. Fontaine told the board that there are 3 in his family and they currently live in Jacksonville, FL and they want to move here permanently. He stated the current structure is actually 3 pieces, the original part is about a 4 - 600 sq. ft. concrete block structure built in 1960 and later a second part was added in the 70's that put the structure 2' from the property line on the western side and then later after the flood ('94) a frame structure was added on the end like a story and a half or maybe 2 stories. He stated the problem they were having was that the structure is not centrally heated and cooled and they had an expert come out and his opinion was that they would have to raise the roof 3-4' in order to get the A/C return in. Mr. Fontaine stated that they did consider just knocking the structure down and starting over but he thinks it would make more sense to try and fix it. He stated that in the back of the house there is a kind of a home-made roof over the porch which is not screened in and they would like to join those two pieces and have the raised roof come over top of both pieces of the porch. He stated the issue is putting a pier or something up to join the roof to, in order to have both pieces of the porch underneath the same structure. He stated the contractor he talked to believes they can join the 3 pieces of the building together to look like one structure instead of three and as the roof would get higher the newest piece could be added to the existing two pieces. Mr. Walker asked if he comes off the back of the house with a 14x12, what is going to happen to that porch. Mr. Fontaine stated that there is a back door at the kitchen and as you open the back door, the existing roof on the porch is lower than it should be, so the view to the lake is blocked by the bottom of that roof, so what they would like to do is move that roof line up and as long as they are going to that expense, it would make sense to bring that whole area under roof instead of just the porch part. Mr. Walker asked Mr. Fontaine how much open land did he have on the east side of the lot. Mr. Fontaine replied that the majority of the lot is on that side. Mr. Walker stated that when he went out and looked at the property he saw that the house was only about 2' from the line but he also noted that about 12-15' behind it there is a utility house that is on that same line and it appears to him that by raising the roof you will be blocking the view on the west side. Mr. Fontaine stated that the storage shed did not have to stay there and that is where it was originally. Mr. Walker stated that he was talking about raising the roof on the house and it seems to him by going down that line you are blocking everything on that side and why can't it be moved to the other side. Mr. Fontaine said that in order to raise the roof in order to get the heating and air in the house he would have to raise it where the roof is currently and then he would still have an odd back porch, which he will have to deal with one way or the other. He stated that they did not want additional porch but he wanted to make the structure look like it is all the same house instead of pieces of house and that the shed is not important and he can totally remove it. Mr. Walker stated that his concern was the 2' from the line and keep building and building that close. Mr. Carney asked how far the house was from the line? Mr. Fontaine replied 2' and all he is doing is continuing it 12' down the line and he can move the storage shed, he also stated that he does not intend to move anything further down the line and he is not increasing square footage to the house under heat and air. Mr. Mumphery explained to the board that Mr. Fontaine has a 3/12 pitch roof on his existing structure and the only choice he has is to get a different roof pitch and he is bringing the porch out simply for the reason not to enclose it but to support the new trusses that will be put on. Mr. Walker asked Mr. Fontaine if there was going to be a wall between the existing porch and the new deck. Mr. Fontaine stated that he had no plan to do that. Mr. Walker asked if there were anymore comments. There were none. Mr. Walker stated that this concluded the public hearing portion of this meeting and they would go into discussion and vote.

MEETING

After discussion, the chairman asked for a motion.
VOTE: A motion was made by Wendy Peavy J.C. Clark to approve the variance request to reduce the required 15' side yard setback to 2' on the west side property line for the purpose of adding a 14x12 open deck with roof to existing structure. Carried unanimously 4-0.

PUBLIC HEARING

Request from Willie Mayo, Doris Johnson, Annette Stribling and Michelle Feacher (with the property owner's authorization for variances to: 1) locate 4 (residential) structures on a parcel of property that does not have public street frontage; 2) reduce the required 150' lot width to 130' on each lot. Property is located North of 235 Lilliston Road, Arabi, Georgia and is zoned RR (Rural Residential).

Mr. Walker called the hearing to order. Mr. Willie Mayo spoke on behalf of the family. Mr. Mayo stated that (4) of the family members are wanting to move back home from New York and they are wanting to place 4 residential structures on the property. He stated they have been working with the surveyor and Mr. McKinney and hopefully they are to the point where they can get the variance. He stated that the land has not been divided up but will be if this variance is approved. He stated the property will be divided among the families which will be 3 parcels which is approximately 17 acres per family. Mr. Lynn McKinney asked the board why the road can't be put back where is was originally with 1/2 of it on him and the other 1/2 on them and that would solve the whole problem. He stated that it was not that big of an issue and basically that is where the road was before I-75 was put in and when they took the dirt out they moved the road down. Mr. Carney stated that when that was completed it left a sliver of land between the 2 roads and that is what this variance is all about. Mr. Carney stated that the county folks didn't want to put in a new road. Mr. McKinney stated that it was not that big of a road and all they would have to do is scrape it right through there. Mr. Carney stated that maybe they could draft a letter to the Commission and have them take a look at it and they would have to approve it. Mr. McKinney stated that he did not want to give any land up and he did not care what these people wanted to do on their land. Mr. Carney stated that the way the variance is, we will use the old road as their property frontage, then that will uncomplicate Mr. McKinney's situation, then your land is completely out of it and the other part of it is do we want to cut from 150' to 130', which he doesn't see an issue with that. Mr. Carney stated that the road issue becomes more important than dividing off the land. Mr. Carney stated that he could see what Lynn is saying by they came in there and moved the road and sucked up his property. Mr. Carney mentioned that maybe this Board should outline the issue to the County Commissioners for their information, to see if they wanted to address the issue. Ms. Sangster stated that she had spoken with Carl Gamble and he stated that the county would not move the road. Mr. Carney stated that he would like to see something on record in their files, so if they do any improvements with this road then they will see there is an issue. Mr. Carney stated that at this time, the way it sits, Mr. McKinney's property is unaffected. Mr. Mayo stated that had been working on this project for about 7-8 years to get to this point. They had to have the whole thing surveyed because there is no record of a survey of the property. At this time, Mr. Walker asked if there were anymore comments. There were none. Mr. Walker stated that this concluded the public hearing portion of this meeting and they would go into discussion.

MEETING

After discussion, the chairman asked for a motion.
VOTE: A motion was made by J.C. Clark, seconded by Jerry Carney to approve the following variance requests: 1) locate 4 (residential) structures on a parcel of property that does not have public street frontage; and 2) reduce the required 150' lot width to 130' on each lot. Carried unanimously 4-0.

NEW BUSINESS

None.

OLD BUSINESS

None.

spacer.gif - 810 Bytes
  © Crisp County Board of Commissioners