Lakewood Board of Adjustment Meeting
Variance Public Hearing May 25, 2006
Board of Adjustment Public Hearing on Thursday, May 25,2006 at 7 P.M. at the Lakewood Town Hall to hear a request for a variance from the Towns Zoning Ordinance.
Call to Order: Chair of the Board of Adjustment, Steve Geving, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. on May 25, 2006 at the Lakewood Town Hall.
Present: Board of Adjustment members Steve Geving, Len Johnson, Dick Bodine and Ann Cutts. Also present: Zoning Administrator Brennan Mears, Recorder Shannon Ostazeski, applicant Mark Pearson and general public (register attached).
The Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America was recited by all present.
Nomination for Board of Adjustment Chair:
Johnson nominates Geving. Seconded by Bodine.
Geving unanimous elected chair.
Minutes of Previous Meetings: None approved.
Zoning Administrator Brennan Mears Summary:
A request for a variance is being made by Mark Pearson of 3310 Strand Road to construct a garage on the parcel that does not have adequate acreage according to the Zoning Ordinance. The request is to construct on a 3.3-acre parcel. The Zoning Ordinance minimum acreage required for the zone is 4.8 acres. The zone is MUNS-4
It was a non-conforming lot on record. Section IV Article 3.05 says that a nonconforming lot of record may be permitted as a build ble lot, following a variance hearing, if all the criteria are met. The sixth criteria is "Nonconforming lots containing a principal structure may add a permitted accessory structure, provided the accessory structure will meet all minimum setback requirements of the Ordinance, and will not cause the maximum percentage of lot coverage to be exceeded."
A variance hearing is the proper process for this situation. There are no other issues with him building his garage.
Johnson: As long as it is an established lot. How long have you been there and when was it built?
Owner Pearson: I have been there five years and it was built in the in the 1959. Johnson: The way we have practiced in the past if it is an accessory structure pertinent to the main building you wouldn't need a variance. It is a hardship on people to pay that fee of$400. We are granting a variance for something we should not here for. If you were developing an open lot this would be a different case.
Cutts: Lenny brings up a good point. You need to follow the updated Ordinance but since it is now a non-conforming lot only because of the zoning change, I am split. We should probably contact the attorney because there will be more of these.
Mears: It is poor wording of the Ordinance.
Bodine: So long as you are not creating another non-conformity. He meets all the critera. I agree with Johnson.
Johnson: Grant a variance with the stipulation that if legal council agrees with our decision.
Geving: The variance is a check and balance system and we did need the hearing. Was there lot coverage issues 20 or 30 years ago? This is what we are addressing. He meets the setbacks and it didn't exceed the percentage of coverage.
Johnson: Only probably since "78". There are a lot of errors in here.
Mears: I have no problem if the attorney agrees with this. I would take the time to apply for a text amendment change.
Public Comment (Letter):
Rodney Nelson: If it is commercial use I am against it. Johnson: Is this a garage for your personal use? Owner Pearson: Yes.
Motion by Johnson that we grant the variance. If it turns out that it was erroneously required that he be refunded his money. Cutts Seconds it.
All in favor. Motion passes.
Comments:
None
Motion by Johnson to adjourn. Seconded by Bodine. Meeting adjourned at 7:27.