Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustment Minutes 11.07.1988BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT LAUREL, MONTANA 59044 November 7, 1988 The Board of Adjustments meeting of November 7, 1988, was called to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Andy Muri, Chairman Robert Western Claude Cory Bruce Teeters Don Cahill Others present: Darin and Jodi Southworth, 1018 12th Avenue, Jim Flisrand, City Engineer Cheryll Lund, Secretary Laurel FILE # 88-08- SOUTHWORTB An application for a variance to place a fence within public right- of-way has been made by Darin and Jodi Southworth, 1018 12th Avenue. Fees paid and 2 ads have been placed in the Laurel Outlook. No protests have been received. The fence in question has already been placed in the public right-of-way. This is actually a request to keep the fence in place. JodiSouthworth states that they made approximately 4 phone calls to the City regarding the placement of the fence. She said they were told that they didn't need a permit to even build the fence as it was considered an "improvement" on their back fence. They did make 2 appointments for Jim to come show them where they could place the fence, but Jim didn't make the appointments. Jodi states that after Jim missed the second appointment they decided to put the fence up where they thought it should go. They based their fence placement on the fences placed in the neighbor- hood. Their fence is placed approximately 18" from the sidewalk. Darin states that it is possible that the fence will be removed once their children get older and a hedge will be put in its place. They have 6 children, some of whom are foster children. Four of their children are under the age of 4. The fence was put up with their safety in mind. Andy Muri asks why the Southworth's couldn't wait a few more days before putting up the fence. Jodi states that the safety of the children was a factor. Darin states that even if they had of known where the fence should of gone they wouldn't of placed it there, but gone with a variance to place it where it is at now. He feels that placing the fence at the legal setback would break the yard up too much and it would create a problem when he mows the lawn. Jim Flisrand is asked to speak on his behalf on the allegations made. Jim states, yes, the Southworth's did call inquiring as to the placement of their fence. It was a busy time of the year and he did indeed miss the appointments. He did try to return a phone call, and no one was home. He also tried to find them at home to no avail. He feels that there were some errors made on the permit process, due to the newness of the secretary and with himself being busy with other projects. But, he feels that the main issue is that the fence was built without a permit and directly in violation of the code. His job is to enforce the code and to pursue violator's of the code. The. fence is within public right-of-way. left for future sewer, water, power lines for whatever reason. Public right-of'way is that need to be laid Andy Muri wonders if the Southworth's received any plat's of their property when they purchased it, stating the easement's. Darin stated he didn't think they received any type of description on their property when they purchased it. A question is raised about the violations on fences within the Southworth's neighborhood. There are many fences on the public right-of-way on the block. If the Southworth's are required to remove their fence, then should the other violator's be required to do the same? Jim states that violations can only be addressed up to 6 months after construction, unless there is a public safety factor involved. He does not have time to police the street's of Laurel to find violations. Violations are everywhere. After much discussion on this matter it is the general consensus of the Board that the Ordinance should be reviewed on placement of fences. The Board members will approach the Council on this at a later date. There is some confussion on the Board's part as to why they have been asked to act as a Hearings Board on public right-of-way requests. They feel that these cases should go right to the City Council, as it involves City property. Also, the Board is qu~stkntng why there is a fee of $ 75.00 involved, when the City Council is giving the permission to the property owner. The fee for a variance is $ 75.00. The money is used to pay for 2 ads placed in the Laurel Outlook, plus the mailing fees. There is approximately 4-5 hours spent by the Board of Adjustments secretary in preparing the ad for the paper, the letters sent, etc. ~oard of Adjustments, November 7, 1988 Page 2 There are an average of 50 letters sent out, per'application, to the property owner's within 300 feet of the property in question. Motion by Claude Cory to recommend approval to the City Council based on the fact that the Southworth's are Foster Parents and need to provide a safe yard; and because of the confusion lent them by the Building Department to obtain the necessary permits. A roll call vote was taken. Claude Cory, Bruce Teeters and Robert Western voted "Yes". Don Cahill and Andy Muri voted "No". Motion carried 3--2. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cheryll Lund, Secretary BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT LAUREL. MONTANA 69044 WHEREAS, an application for variance was filed with this Board by Darin and Jodi Southworth , on the llth day of October 1988, being designated to be file No. 88-08 ; 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 7th day of November , 1988; and, W~EREAS, after full consideration of the same by the Board at the said meeting, it was moved by Claude Cory ~R~.m~_end approval to the seconded by , ~~; and the said motion was passed/~ by a vote of 3 in favor and 2 opposed (State law requiring that the concurrence of at least 4 Board members is required to grant any variance). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that VARIANCE APPLICATION NO. 88-08 IS HEREBY: X recommended to the City Council for approval. DENIED Dated this 7th day of November , 1988. P.O. BOX 10 PHONE: 628-8791 City of Laurel LAUREL, MONTANA 59044 November 7, 1988 ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT Members of the Board of Adjustments City of Laurel Gentlemen: ' ?. The City Council has decided to consider all requests to : locate a fence within public right-of-way on a case by case basis Although such requests do not involve variances, the Council has decided to use the Board of Adjustment as a hearings body, for the purpose of making a recommendation only. The Council will make %he final decision at its next meeting, after receiving the Board of Adjustments' recommendation. Because the Board will make a recommendation only on the Southworth request, the motion to recommend approval or to recommend disapproval does not have to pass by 4 votes. It can pass by a simple majority (3-2, 3-1 or 2-1). In making its decision, the Board should consider any differences between this application and the recent application by the Assembly of god Church, which the City Council did approve. The Council required the Church to sign a written agreement acknowledging that the risk of having to remove the fence remains with the Church. Because the Southworth's request is for purely private, residential use, the Board should be aware that if this request is ultimately approved, every other homeowner could make the same request in the future. Therefore, I recommend that the Board find some special reason or circumstance justifying approval before it recommends the same. If no such special reason or circumstance can be found, then the Board should recommend denial. Otherwise, there would be no grounds for distiguishing this request from future requests. Sincerely, JMB/cl Joseph M. Bradley, City Attorney City of Lsure! is an EEO Employer November 7, 1988 Members of the Board of Adjustment City of Laurel Gentlemen: There are three issues involved here: 1) building a fence without a permit; 2) building in public right-of-way without City Council approval; 3) coming in after the fact and requesting approval. My recommendation is that they not be given approval for their actions after the fact. Keep in mind this is not a Board of Adjustments action. It is only the Board of Adjustments acting as a Hearings Board for the City Council. I have no problem with fences being constructed in the public right-of-way, however this is not the issue here. Sincerely, Cai Cumins, Cumins Associates CC/cl