Lakewood Board of Adjustment Public Hearing
Continued from September 11, 2007
Tuesday October 9, 2007, at 7:00 PM
Lakewood Town Hall
The purpose of the public hearing was to review the request by Wendy Robertson for a variance to build on a 5-acre parcel that does not have adequate road frontage. This was a continuation of the hearing from September 11, 2007.
Present: Chair Steve Geving, Kerry Leider, Ann Cutts, Zoning Administrator Brennan Mears, Road Foreman Don Putnam, and Recorder David Gerhart. Members of the public were in the audience (see attached register).
Geving called the meeting to order at 7:10 PM. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all.
The minutes of the September 11 meeting were approved unanimously.
Mears stated that St. Louis County requires a 100-foot diameter turnaround for a cul de sac. Putnam stated that the dimensions are 40 by 60 feet for a simple turnaround.
Wendy Robertson stated that she had talked to Pat McCarthy, Road Supervisor for St. Louis County, and that he had said there was no problem for a plow to back onto private property and that the current turnaround was adequate.
Leider asked if there was any new information for the Board to consider.
Robertson presented a copy of the Lauren Road survey of 1996 that showed the location of the end of Lauren Road.
Putnam stated that the Board had three options:
1) To grant the variance,
2) To hire a private contractor to plow the road, or
3) To take property for the turnaround by eminent domain through the courts.
Putnam also stated that there has been a pole barn on the property for 19 years. This is confirmed by Township records of a Zoning Permit Application by Wendy Robertson dated October 13, 1986 (see attached document).
Putnam also strongly recommended that the driveway entrance to the parcel not be allowed to be placed further to the west because this might eventually lead to an extension of Lauren Road.
Robertson stated that, as of July 25, 2007, her title to the property is a Torrance title and that there were no persons objecting to her title claim within the time period required for filing dissents.
Mears stated that the pole building may have been constructed in 1986 with a conditional use permit for an oversize building, and that Robertson had purchased the property in the same year from Don Mitchell. The lot had been created in 1978 when the 5 acres was split from a larger parcel, and the title was registered in November 1978. Robertson had given an easement for access to the parcel to the original owner.
Leider said he wanted the Town attorney to completely describe the easement that the Town would be getting. Geving agreed that the Town would need a legal description of the easement. Kurt Wetzel proposed an easement of 66 by 90 feet at the end of the road with the longer dimension in the east-west direction.
Leider said he wanted to be sure that there were no other options for the Town and that the easement was clearly defined and legally documented.
The history of the property was discussed. Originally owned by Diane Narum, it was sold to John and Bev Lahti in 1978 and then to Don and Loraine Mitchell in about 1985. Robertson bought the property in 1986.
Robertson and Wetzel said they were offended by the letter from the Township that seemed to ask them to relinquish unspecified property rights, whereas others living on Lauren Road who would benefit from the easement were not asked to sacrifice anything. Robertson pointed out that on April 24, 2007, she had sent a letter to the Town Board of Supervisors saying that she would not sign the easement, but would be willing to negotiate the easement for a permit to build on her 5-acre lot. She said she received no reply to her letter.
All agreed that there was no problem with the snow plow turning around under the current conditions, but Mears said that the reason the Town sent the letter to Robertson and other property owners was that the Town was advised by its attorney and St. Louis County that it should get legal easements for the turnarounds.
Putnam reiterated that the driveway entrance to the 5-acre parcel should not be moved further west, and that he wanted to see this provision incorporated into the Board’s findings.
Leider stated that there should be no linkage between a variance appeal and a road easement. He suggested that if there was no other reason to grant the variance, it should be denied.
Cutts asked for all the township documentation that could be provided that might shed light on why the pole building had been permitted in 1986. Geving asked, since the pole building had been permitted in 1986, then why is the lot not buildable now? Perhaps the lot had the required frontage for a buildable lot in 1986.
Because the lot had been created in 1978, much time was then spent tracking down the specific zoning ordinance in effect when the lot had been created. An examination of the zoning ordinance that took effect on June 1, 1973, found no references to road frontage requirements. There then seemed to be general agreement that the lot was a nonconforming lot of record.
Much discussion followed regarding the details of the easement for the turnaround. For example, Mears recommended that the easement extend 40 feet into the north driveway to Robertson’s property and that the easement include no more land than is required by current County standards.
Geving stated that the lot was a nonconforming (due to road frontage) lot of record as described in Article IV, Section 3.5, of the zoning ordinance. He agreed with Mears that the easement for the turnaround must meet current County specifications.
Leider, citing page 32 of the zoning ordinance, said he had concerns that the eight criteria specified for granting a variance were met. It was then pointed out that a primary concern for granting variances is that they serve the public interest, and that in this case, the public interest would clearly be served by granting the variance.
Mears said that any future dwelling or principal structure on the lot must meet all current zoning requirements. In addition, it was required that the private drive to the parcel be maintained on its existing footprint.
Geving summarized the findings by saying, “The Board has determined that the parcel is a nonconforming lot of record pertaining to road frontage. Easement agreements shall be filed that comply with St. Louis County specifications. Private drive access to this parcel shall continue to be founded on the existing driveway footprint.”
A motion to grant the variance was made by Leider and seconded by Cutts. The motion carried unanimously.
A motion to adjourn was made by Leider, second by Cutts. The hearing was adjourned at 9:37 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
David Gerhart