Loading...
Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 05/17/2017MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT May 17, 2017 PRESENT: Warren Gardner, Chairman Steve Lane Tyson Traw Thomas Yoder Dave Waddell Jerry Cedrone Mark McBurnett James McKechnie, Asst. City Attorney Karen Gagne, Planning Administrator Matt Prouty, Planner II ABSENT: David Lane Dee Reyes Cari Beesinger Guidry I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Warren Gardner called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. 11. ROLL CALL III. MINUTES 0 Members 0 0 0 Altemale #1 0 0 Alternate #4 0 Ex -Officio 0 Legal Dept, 0 City Staff 0 0 0 Alternate #3 0 Alternate #2 Mr. Jerry Cedrone made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 17th, 2016 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting. Mr. Dave Waddell seconded. The minutes were approved with a unanimous vote in favor. IV. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Case V 17-01 Request for a variance wheelchair ramp in the required front setback area in a Single Family 2 Residential (SF -2) zoning district at 3014 Lebanon Road. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE 2 May 17, 2016 Mr. Matt Prouty introduced the qualifying criteria for case V 17-01. He stated staff agreed with the applicant, Mr. Charles Peters, that a reasonable accommodation & modification is appropriate for this request. The house was constructed in 1949, and has remained as such since then. The existing conditions of grade change, shared driveway and travel distance from ramp to potential parking locations at the site create special conditions and unique circumstances which are peculiar to the house. Mr. Prouty stated, because the house was built in 1949 and had been maintained in its original form until now, the special conditions of the lot did not result from any action by the applicant. He stated Mr. Peters was renovating the home for a potential tenant that required an ADA compliant ramp. Mr. Prouty stated staff agreed that the most logical location, minimizing distance of travel from ramp to parking, was the proposed location. A variance in reduction of setback would allow this proposed ramp to fit into setback requirements. Mr. Prouty stated staff agreed with the applicant's assessment that the current ordinance denied the applicant the opportunity to construct a ramp to utilize the front door as able bodied persons have the ability to do, hence denying a non-ambulatory person from moving in and out of the house utilizing the front door. He stated the current zoning ordinance, per Sec 4220 Projections and structures allowed in setback areas, did not list the construction of ramps in the setbacks as an allowed structure. ADA wheelchair ramps are backed by the federal government. Mr. Prouty stated there were several other ramps in the neighborhood, thus illustrating that granting the variance would not be conferring any special privileges upon the applicant. He stated Mr. Peters wanted to construct an ADA ramp that was compliant with safety and ADA standards, but current setback requirements would lead to the construction of an unsafe ramp that would be non-compliant with current ADA standards and City Code or Ordinances. Mr. Prouty stated that allowing a reduction of the front setback in order to construct a proper and safe ramp was providing a reasonable accommodation. Mr. Prouty stated staff felt the qualifying criteria had been met met and recommended review of the evaluation criteria. Chairperson Gardener asked if there was any discussion on the qualifying criteria from the members, and there was none. Mr. Jerry Cedrone made the motion to accept the qualifying criteria of Case V 17-01. Mr. David Waddell seconded. The motion was taken to a vote and passed unanimously. Mr. Prouty presented the evaluation criteria for the case. He stated staff believed the granting of the variance would not be contrary to the public interest and that approval of the variance would allow the applicant to provide accessible rental space. He stated the applicant's hardship was not a financial hardship and granting the variance would not permit an activity upon the land which is not allowed by the terms of the zoning ordinance and would not be injurious to the neighborhood or detrimental to the public welfare. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE 3 May 17, 2016 Mr. Prouty stated staff notified 20 surrounding property owners and received 0 responses in favor, 3 in opposition, and 0 with no opinion/undecided. There were no responses received from outside the notification area. He pointed out that one of the property owners who responded in opposition stated they were only opposed if the property were being used for commercial purposes. Mr. Prouty stated due to the design of the house, the location of the shared driveway on the side of the house established in 1949, and the ability to utilize a second driveway that provides the shortest distance of travel from front door to vehicle, staff recommended approval of the applicant's request of a variance to allow the construction of an ADA compliant ramp in the front setback at 3014 Lebanon. Mr. Charles Peters explained that the front porch was in bad shape and in need of replacement, making this an ideal time to install an ADA compliant ramp. He stated that he had built several ramps in the past and was very familiar with the criteria that needed to be met. Mr. Thomas Yoder asked if this was going to be a rental property and if a tenant had already been selected. Mr. Peters stated the property would be a rental, but the tenant had not yet been accepted. He stated he did anticipate having a renter who would require the ramp, and that there were several improvements being made to the home to make it more accessible. He stated there was a need for handicap accessible properties for disabled people on the lower end of the economic spectrum, and they were trying to provide that. Mr. Tyson Traw asked Mr. Peters if he had considered wrapping the ramp around the house and having it terminate in the driveway. Mr. Peters stated he had considered this option, but that it was not feasible because this would cut into the necessary space for the driveway and he would be unable to achieve the necessary slope for the ramp from the west side of the house. Chairperson Gardner asked if there was anyone else from the audience who wished to speak, and there were none. Chairperson Gardener opened the motion for discussion among the Board. There was no discussion. Mr. Jerry Cedrone made the motion to approve the evaluation criteria for Case V 17-01. Mr. Tyson Traw seconded the motion. The motion on the evaluation criteria was taken to a vote and passed unanimously. VI. NEW BUSINESS Chairperson Gardener requested new business. City staff had none. VII. ADJOURN The Board adjourned at 3:05 p.m. Chairperson Date