Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustment Minutes 02.09.1999 MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT February 9, 1999 7:00 p.m. Old Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Andy Muri, Chairman Bruce Teeters Marvin Carter Bob Western Johnny Goodman OTHERS PRESENT: Cal Cumin, City Planner Joe Leckie, City Attorney Cheryll Lund, Secretary Bob & Becky Hagen Donna & Robert Footit Tom Kress File %99-01. Bob & Becky Haqen 1514 Portal Drive. Fee paid. Two ads were placed in Laurel Outlook and all neighbors within 300 feet of properUy corners were notified by mail. Cal Cumin stated that the applicant is requesting a variance for a setback within our zoning at 1514 Portal Drive. It appears that the roof line of the newly built garage is right on the property line and it should be a minimum of 5 feet from the property line. Cal stated that Montana Meadows subdivision is not in the city limits but is within our zoning district. The City does not require building permits outside it's corporate limits but there are zoning requirements regarding setbacks and lot coverage. Montana Meadows does have restrictive covenants but those are not applicable to the Board of Adjustments decision process. The City Zoning ordinances override other restrictive covenants. The Montana Meadows covenants state that if at any time the subdivision is annexed into the city or the subdivision is made a part of a zoning district then the covenants become null and void. Joe Leckie spoke and clarified what Cal stated. Any action that the Board of Adjustment makes will not effect the private subdivision restrictive covenants. Those private restrictions can still be enforced as a private matter in court. PROPONENTS: Bob Hagen spoke regarding the variance. He states that Mr. Footit cannot protest the location of his building because he not only gave Mr. Hagen verbal permission for the location of the building but he actually helped him plot the location and dig the hole for 1 the garage. Mr. Hagen has 8 signed letters from neighbors that can verify they saw Mr. Footit helping him on many occasions. Mr. Hagen states that the construction started on the garage on June 15, 1998 and was completed on August 26, 1998. Mr. Hagen states that Mr. Footit waited until after the garage was completed to tell him that the garage was incorrectly placed too close to Mr. Footit's property line. Mr. Hagen passed out pictures that were taken on December 5, 1998 showing the area in question and also dirt piles that he states Mr. Footit placed there. On October 2, 1998 Mr. Hagen sent Mr. Footit a letter to try to work out an arrangement to rectify the situation to his satisfaction. On October 26, 1998 Mr. Hagen received a letter from Mr. Footit regarding his right to sue. On November 10, 1998 Mr. Hagen sent Mr. Footit four offers to amend the situation. The first offer was to purchase a written variance. The second offer was to buy 5 feet of his property. The third was to buy 10 feet of his property and the fourth offer was to purchase the lot at above the fair market value. Mr. Footit responded on November 17, 1998 stating that he would sell both of his lots to Mr. Hagen for $77,500. (Note: only 1 of Mr. Footit's lots is effected by the encroachment of Mr. Hagen's garage but he owns 2 lots side by side) Mr. Footit then sent back a letter stating that Mr. Hagen had violated covenants and he would be taking him to court. Mr. Hagen states that only 10 feet of his garage corner is within the required setback of 5 feet. He also stated that the property stakes in the pictures were not there when the hole was dug for the garage. He also states that he was set-up by Mr. Footit. He also states that there are numerous violations of setbacks within the Montana Meadow Subdivision and the City of Laurel. Andy Muri asked Mr. Hagen when he was first informed he was in violation of city zoning ordinances?~ Mr. Hagen states that Mr. Footit informed him that he was encroaching on his property about 2 weeks after the garage was finished. Andy Muri asked when he was told he was in violation of the city zoning ordinances and not covenant restrictions? He stated that he contacted Mr. Cumin's approximately September 29, 1998 after it was brought to his attention by Mr. Footit. It was explained that because Montana Meadows subdivision is out of the city limits they are not required to purchase building permits, but there are restrictions for setbacks and lot coverage. 2 Mr. Hagen stated that Mr. & Mrs. Footit were out at the building site at least 2 times per week while the garage was being built and wonders why he didn't say anything at that time and not after the garage was 100% complete. He again states that he was set-up by Mr. Footit. OPPOBrgNTS: Mr. Footit spoke in regards to this variance request. Mr. Footit stated that Mr. Hagen had asked him to help him level off the location for the garage and showed him a location where he planned to place the garage. At that time setbacks were discussed and Mr. Hagen said that he thought the city required 5 or 6 feet. Mr. Footit stated that since the lots were large he didn't think one foot would make a difference. This took place sometime in July or August. At that time Mr. Footit told him that the covenants for the subdivision required 10 feet from property lines. The next time Mr. Footit went up to the site the hole was dug but because of the size of the hole he could not determine where it was sitting in relation to the property lines. Mr. Footit stated that the high stakes that Mr. Hagen stated hadn't been up very long have actually been up for approximately 4 years. Mr. Footit stated that the stakes had been up there and Mr. Hagen was aware of the requirements and he just chose not to. As far as overhang he states that it is either over the property line or close to it. Mr. Footit showed pictures. Mr. Footit states that the drawing Mr. Hagen submitted with his application is incorrect in it's distances. Mr. Hagen has over an acre of property and in Mr. Footit's opinion there is no reason he needed to crowd the property line like he did. As far as Mr. Hagen offering money to buy the land, Mr. Footit doesn't want to sell the property. He feels that Mr. Hagen did not offer him enough for the property even if he did want to sell. Mr. Footit states that he is requesting that the variance be denied. He feels that Mr. Hagen should of asked for a variance prior to building the garage and he feels that he was taken advantage of when he was asked to borrow his equipment. Bruce Teeters asked about the setback requirement between the house and the garage? Tom Kress spoke and stated that he is neutral about the variance. He feels they will work it out. He questions when zoning laws were in effect in Montana Meadows and states that he is more than 1 mile away from the city limits and would like to have an explanation of it. He would also like to know whether or not the City of Billings 3 can come in and overlap Laurel's zoning jurisdiction. Cal explains that 3rd class cities have the option of going out 1 mile for zoning regulations. The property in question is less than one mile out from the city limits (village subdivision) as the crow flies. Joe Leckie states that the legislature have stated that cities the size of Laurel can set their zoning outside the city limits for 1 mile. The City of Billings would not be able to come into that area because the City of Laurel has exclusive zoning jurisdiction. The zoning has been in effect over 15 years. Mr. Hagen states that Mr. Footit has wrongly called him a liar because if he is a liar then there are 8 other neighbors that are liars regarding watching Mr. Footit help him with the placement of the garage. He also commented on the price Mr. Footit was asking for his lots. Mr. Footit disputes that the garage was done completely before Mr. Hagan was notified about the violation. The garage floor had not been poured when he made the complaint to Cal Cumin in September. In his estimation it was completed in December. Mr. Hagen states that he has receipts for the concrete and that the entire job was done in August. Cal reads LMC 17.64.150 (A-G) Variances - Not granted when. Joe explains 17.64.150 (A-G). He states that it is a conjunctive type of connector so more than one of the seven conditions must exist in order to grant the variance. If you find that it does not then the variance should be denied. He explained each of the 7 conditions in depth. Cal recommends that this be denied based on the criteria of the ordinance and the violation of many of the arguments sound like presentations to a court case.. Also there is no hardship or special condition. Joe Leckie states that a lot of what was heard here tonight is not relevant to the board's consideration. The zoning restrictions say 5 feet. The applicant has to show why the placement of his garage should come under those 7 conditions in 17.64.150. The Board is only to consider the zoning issue and setbacks. Bob Western asked Mr. Hagen if he was given those conditions and which one he felt was applicable to him. Mr. Hagen states that B. was applicable to him (Unless the grant relations to a condition or situation special and peculiar to the applicant). He felt that Mr. Footit gave him verbal permission to place the garage where it was built and also helped him dig the hole. Cal points out that Mr. Hagen is here tonight because he told him to apply for a variance. Mr. Hagen states that he went to Mr. Cumin first regarding the garage. He also points out that the LMC states that Cal has no authority to take any action and is thus violating his own ordinance. Andy Muri points out that Cal only recommends, the board is the one that acts. Cal states he wrote a him before noticeable that Mr. Footit came to him with the complaint and then letter to Mr. Hagen. He isn't sure if Mr. Hagen came to Mr. Footit. But, he points out that the violation was and the letter was then written. Mr. Footit states that there are several issues regarding the placement of the garage. He has a large house and garage planned for the lot and with the encroachment existing he has to plan around it now. Also the water runoff from the garage could create problems if it wasn't handled correctly. Mr. Hagen states that this is the first time he heard that Mr. Footit had plans to build a home on that property. Andy Muri asks Mr. Footit why he didn't notify Mr. Hagen of the encroachment until the garage was finished? Mr. Footit states that he was not up at the property 2-3 times per week as Mr. Hagen has stated. He is employed. He trusted Mr. Hagen to place the garage where he had it staked out in the beginning. Motion by Marvin Carter to grant the variance. for a lack of a second. Motion died Motion by Andy Muri to deny the variance, second by Bob Western. Motion carried with a unanimous vote of 5--0. Motion to deny carried. Respectfully submitted, Chery-il Lund, Secretary 5 CITY OF LAUREL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT LAUREL, MONTANA 59044 WHEREAS, an application for variance was filed with this Board by BOB & BECKY P~AGEN, on the 13th day of JANIIARY, 1999, being designated to be file No. 99-01. WHEREAS, after due and legal notice of the application was given pursuant to law, and a hearing on the same was held before the Board at its meeting on the 9th day of February, 1999; and WHEREAS, after full Consideration of the same by the Board at the said meeting variance No. 99-01 herein was granted~enie~with a motion made by ~ ~ , second by /~)~_~.~ Vote was "Yes" ~ , "No" (State law requiring the concurrence of at least 4 board members is required to grant any variance); IT IS ORDERED, that Variance application No. 99-01 is hereby: Granted, as stated above. .~ Denied Dated this 9th day of February, 1999. C~irman