CITY OF MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
|
|
- Pauline Blair
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 CITY OF MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Regular Meeting, August 24, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. City Hall, 111 West Vine Street, Council Chambers, 1 st Floor 1. Call to order A G E N D A 2. Consideration of minutes for the special meeting on July 13, 2011 and for the regular meeting on July 27, New Business Variance Requests a. Application Z by Mr. Chuck Smith of The Plantation Room, for Mr. and Mrs. Earl and Linda Yake, is requesting a 5- foot variance of the minimum required 25-foot rear setback for principal structures in a Residential Single-Family (RS-12) zone for property located at 3029 Silver Springs Court. b. Application Z by Mr. Stephen A. Steele of Huddleston- Steele Engineering, Inc., for Southeastern Building Corporation and Barfield Investment Partners, is making the following requests for properties in a Residential Single-Family (RS-12) zone along both the north and south sides of Audubon Lane, which is west of Barfield Road. The subject properties are further identified as Lots 1-9 and Lots in the River Oaks West Subdivision. A 10-foot variance of the minimum required 35-foot front setback for principal structures; A 5-foot variance of the minimum required 10-foot side setback for principal structures; and A 5-foot variance of the minimum required 25-foot rear setback for principal structures. c. Application Z by Mr. and Mrs. Greg and Toni Yasger, are requesting a 2.8-foot variance of the minimum required 5-foot side setback for an existing accessory structure in a Residential Single-Family (RS-15) zone for property located at 2142 Ravenwood Drive. Regarding the same property, the applicants are also requesting a 0.4-foot variance of the minimum required foot side setback for the existing principal structure.
2 d. Application Z by Mr. Steve James of James and Associates Residential Designers, LLC, for Mr. and Mrs. Robert and Elizabeth Bray, is requesting a 0.4-percent variance to the maximum allowed 25-percent lot coverage for property located at 521 East Main Street in a Residential Single-Family (RS-10) zone. Regarding the same property, the applicant is also requesting a 19- percent variance to the requirement that accessory structures or uses in residential districts shall not occupy more than 25-percent of the required rear yard. e. Application Z by Mr. Steve James of James and Associates Residential Designers, LLC, for Mr. Greg Waldron, is making the following requests for property located at 148 Cherry Lane in a Residential Single-Family (RS-10) zone: A 6.7-foot variance of the minimum required 10-foot side setback for a detached accessory structure that is less than 5- feet from the principal structure; A 22.5-foot variance of the minimum required 25-foot rear setback for a detached accessory structure that is less than 5- feet from the principal structure; A 4.3-percent variance to the requirement that accessory structures or uses in residential districts shall not occupy more than 25-percent of the required rear yard; A 0.8-percent variance to the maximum allowed 25-percent lot coverage; and A 2.4-foot variance of the minimum required 35-foot front setback for principal structures. Special Use Permit Amendment Request f. Application Z by Ms. Reanna Sarieh, for Bambini Village Montessori Pre-School and the Church of the Holy Cross, is requesting an amendment to a special use permit originally approved on August 27, 2008 allowing childcare (a Montessori preschool) as a permitted accessory use to the existing institutional group assembly use (a church) located at 1140 Cason Lane. The subject property is located in a Residential Single-Family (RS-10, RS-12, and RS-15) zone. The applicant wishes to amend the special use permit in order to modify several aspects of the childcare operation.
3 g. Application S by Mr. Ron Gilbert of Lee Neon Signs, Inc., for Valvoline Instant Oil Change, is requesting a variance from Section 25¼-24 (A)(22) of the City of Murfreesboro Sign Ordinance which prohibits a sign placed in or over a public utility or drainage easement on property located at 1730 South Rutherford Boulevard. h. Application S by Mr. Buddy Follis of Signmasters Co., for The Agnihotri Group, is requesting a variance from Section 25¼-24 (A)(22) of the City of Murfreesboro Sign Ordinance which prohibits a sign placed in or over a public utility or drainage easement on property located at 1624 New Salem Highway. 4. Staff Reports and Other Business 5. Adjourn
4 MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF COMMENTS AUGUST 24, 2011 Application: Address: Applicant: Zoning: Request: Z Silver Springs Court Mr. Chuck Smith of The Plantation Room, for Mr. and Mrs. Earl and Linda Yake Residential Single-Family (RS-12) A 5-foot variance of the minimum required 25-foot rear setback for principal structures The subject property, 3029 Silver Springs Court, is located within the Belle Rive Subdivision, which is south of New Salem Highway and west of Saint Andrews Drive. There is a single-family home on the subject property. The applicants have plans to construct a sunroom addition to the rear of the existing single-family residence. The
5 proposed sunroom will encroach into the rear setback by 5-feet; therefore, the applicants are seeking a rear setback variance. Included with the agenda materials is a letter from the applicants and their contractor, as well as a plot plan depicting the addition. Photographs of the existing conditions and the surrounding neighborhood have been included by Staff for the Board s reference. Board members will note that on the letter from the applicants, an 8-foot variance was requested. This would not only have encroached into the rear setback, but it would also have encroached into the 20-foot utility easement that is located at the rear of the property. Staff counseled the applicants that the BZA did not have the authority to grant variances to easements and that the request could be for no more than a 5-foot encroachment, so as to stay clear of the 20-foot utility easement. In order to do so, the applicants submitted a revised plot plan showing a sunroom addition that did not encroach into the 20-foot utility easement. The subject property abuts single-family residential uses on all sides. In between the subject lot and the subdivision to the west, however, is a driveway that leads back from New Salem Highway to a large residential lot. The proposed addition will be to the rear of the house partially over the existing concrete patio. Based on the survey, the existing concrete patio encroaches into the utility easement by several feet. The owner needs to be aware that the concrete patio does extend into this utility easement and that if utility work needs to be done in the easement, the City will not be responsible for damage to the patio nor will it be responsible for replacing or repairing it. The applicants state that the primary reason for the request is the shape of the lot and its lack of depth. There is very little room for an addition on the rear. There is a 25-foot rear setback in the RS-12 zone and the existing house is approximately 30-feet off of the rear property line, leaving only about 5-feet for expansion to the rear. The proposed sunroom addition is x 24.6 ( square-feet) and is proposed to be situated so that it stops right at the 20-utility easement. The applicants have also indicated that one of them is in poor health and that a sunroom will allow him easy access to an area where he can enjoy the outdoors. If the Board approves this application, staff recommends the following conditions: 1) A surveyor will be required to help lay out the footing of the building and a surveyor s certification must be provided that the building addition is no closer than 20-feet from the rear property line. 2) Per the City s Legal Department, the owners must acknowledge that the existing concrete patio extends into the 20-foot utility easement and that if utility work needs to be done in the easement, the City will not be responsible for damage to the patio, nor will it be responsible for replacing or repairing it. Mr. Smith, the applicants contractor, will be in attendance at the meeting to answer any questions that the Board may have.
6 MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF COMMENTS AUGUST 24, 2011 Application: Location: Applicant: Zoning: Requests: Z Along both the north and south sides of Audubon Lane, which is west of Barfield Road (Lots 1-9 and Lots in the River Oaks West Subdivision) Mr. Stephen A. Steele of Huddleston-Steele Engineering, Inc., for Southeastern Building Corporation and Barfield Investment Partners Residential Single-Family (RS-12) A 10-foot variance of the minimum required 35- foot front setback for principal structures; A 5-foot variance of the minimum required 10-foot side setback for principal structures; and A 5-foot variance of the minimum required 25-foot rear setback for principal structures.
7 The subject properties are located along both the north and south sides of Audubon Lane in the River Oaks West Subdivision, which is just west of Barfield Road. The request consists of twenty-five (25) existing single-family residential lots (Lots 1-9 and Lots 58-73). The subject lots are currently zoned as a Planned Residential Development (PRD). The River Oaks West PRD is adjacent to several other PRDs (Rivers Edge and River Downs Annex) that were being developed by one developer, Clair Vanderschaaf. During the course of the last several years, these developments have changed hands and are no longer being developed by Mr. Vanderschaaf. In fact, there are multiple property owners/developers now, whereas before there was only one. Earlier this year, the Planning Staff met with the current owners and their legal representation to discuss rezoning the properties from the various PRD zones to RS-10 and RS-12. Because ownership is now fragmented and no longer under one vision, it made sense to rezone the various subdivisions to traditional bulk zoning classifications. In addition, the common area amenities proposed in the original PRD will no longer be required under the traditional bulk zoning. The rezoning has passed second reading at the City Council level and is awaiting third and final reading. After third and final reading, there is a 15-day period before the rezoning will become effective. An exhibit of the rezoning request has been included for the Board s reference.
8 The original PRD zone for River Oaks West requires a 25-foot front setback, 5-foot side setbacks, and a 20-foot rear setback. The proposed RS-12 zone requires a 35-foot front setback, 10-foot side setbacks, and a 25-foot rear setback. The applicant wishes to use the same setbacks for the twenty-five (25) recorded River Oaks West lots that were in place with the original PRD zoning. In order to do so, he has requested a 10-foot front setback variance, a 5-foot side setback variance, and a 5-foot rear setback variance. This would apply only to the twenty-five (25) platted residential lots in River Oaks West Section 1, Phase 1. It would not apply to any future sections of this subdivision. Included with the agenda materials is a letter from the applicant detailing the variance request as well as several exhibits, including the recorded plat and a sample plot plan with the proposed reduced setbacks. Photographs depicting the subject lots and surrounding area have also been included by staff for the Board s review. Most of the lots are approximately 12,000 square-feet. Average dimensions are roughly 105-feet wide by 115-feet deep (although some of the lots are larger and deeper). The lots for Section 1, Phase 1 have all been platted and the infrastructure is substantially complete. The applicant makes the case that the lot sizes and dimensions were designed with the original PRD setbacks in mind. The front, side, and rear setbacks will all be increased with a rezoning to RS-12. The applicant further states that the subject lots are not as deep as a typical RS-12 lot and that being able to push the house closer to the street will allow for a more substantial backyard. The sample plot plan that the applicant has submitted shows a side-entry garage, and the applicant is committing to only using sideentry garages (including plaza or courtyard style) and rear-entry garages for the principal structures on the subject lots. One of the reasons that he is requesting the side setback variances is to facilitate the construction of side-entry garages. The Board should note that there is an existing mature tree row along the north side of the subject lots abutting the existing Summer Place Subdivision to the north. The recorded River Oaks West plat shows a 10-foot Tree and Landscape Conservation Easement along this northern property line. The applicant has indicated that this easement will remain in place. If the Board approves this variance request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1) The rezoning to RS-12 must pass third and final reading by the City Council and must go into effect. 2) Front-entry garages will not be allowed for the principal structures. Mr. Steele will be in attendance at the meeting to answer any questions that the Board may have. Each of the three (3) variance requests will need to be taken in separate motions.
9 MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF COMMENTS AUGUST 24, 2011 Application: Address: Applicants: Zoning: Requests: Z Ravenwood Drive Mr. and Mrs. Greg and Toni Yasger Residential Single-Family (RS-15) A 2.8-foot variance of the minimum required 5-foot side setback for an existing accessory structure. The applicants are also requesting a 0.4-foot variance of the minimum required 12.5-foot side setback for the existing principal structure. The subject property is located along the east side of Ravenwood Drive east of Sulphur Springs Road and south of Irongate Boulevard. It is zoned Residential Single-Family
10 (RS-15). The subject property, 2142 Ravenwood Drive, is developed with a singlefamily residence and is located within the Ravenwood single-family residential subdivision. A detached accessory structure to house pool equipment was erected sometime around The survey submitted shows this detached accessory structure is only 2.2-feet from the north side property line, which is a violation of the minimum required 5-foot side setback for detached accessory structures in residential zones. The building in question was erected prior to the applicants purchase of the property in June This violation was brought to the attention of the Planning Department, and Mr. Robert Lewis, Staff Planner, notified the applicants of the violation. After receiving the notice and reviewing their options, the applicants decided to apply for a setback variance in lieu of relocating the accessory building to a compliant location on the property. Included with the agenda materials is a letter from the applicants addressing Section 10 of the Zoning Ordinance as well as a survey of the property depicting the storage building in question. Staff has also included photographs of the property as well as a copy of the violation letter that was sent to the applicant. It should be noted that in the applicants letter, they referenced a 4-foot side setback variance request. This letter was composed before the survey of their property was completed. Staff has discussed with them that since the existing building is 2.2-feet off of the side property line, they only need a 2.8-foot variance in order for it to remain in the same location. They have verbally indicated to staff that they have no desire to move it any closer to the side property line and that the 2.8-foot variance request is sufficient. As an aside, the Board will note that the violation notice is also signed by the Director of the Building and Codes Department, as the accessory structure is also in violation of a codes requirement that the structure must maintain 5-feet of separation from the property line. While a building permit is not required for a structure this small, it still must comply with applicable codes. In order for this structure to remain in its current location, the applicant must also be granted relief from the 5-foot Building and Codes setback by the Construction Board of Adjustment and Appeals. The applicants have been in contact with the Building and Codes Staff and intends on filing the aforementioned application. The applicants provide justification for the variance in their letter. They state that the current location of the building is the most logical location for it, since its purpose is to house the pool equipment, such as the filtration system. According to the applicants, the pipes go from the building under the concrete decking to the pool and that to relocate the building and equipment would be a significant undertaking. In addition, they indicate that this violation was already in existence when they bought the property in If the request is approved, the accessory structure will be allowed to remain in its present location. If the request is denied, however, then the structure must either be removed from the property or relocated to a location on the property that is compliant with all setbacks. On a side note, the survey submitted with the application indicates that the principal structure is only 12.1-feet off of the north side property line. The side setback requirement for principal structures in the RS-15 zoning district is 12.5-feet. This requirement was the same in 1985 when the house was built. This means that the
11 existing house encroaches into the side setback by 0.4-feet and is technically in violation. Despite the fact that the encroachment of the principal structure into the side setback is minimal, staff also advertised for this variance as well as somewhat of a housekeeping matter. If this variance is approved, it could help to avoid potential problems in the future when the property is sold or refinanced. If the Board approves the setback variance regarding the accessory structure, staff recommends the following condition: 1) The applicant must obtain approval from the Construction Board of Adjustment and Appeals and comply with all applicable building codes. Mr. and Mrs. Yasger will be in attendance to answer any questions that the Board may have. Each of the two (2) variances requests will need to be taken in separate motions.
12 Application: Address: Applicant: Zoning: MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF COMMENTS AUGUST 24, 2011 Z East Main Street Mr. Steve James of James and Associates Residential Designers, LLC, for Mr. and Mrs. Robert and Elizabeth Bray Residential Single-Family (RS-10) and Historic District (H-1) Requests: A 0.4-percent variance to the maximum allowed 25- percent lot coverage. The applicant is also requesting a 19-percent variance to the requirement that accessory structures or uses in residential districts shall not occupy more than 25-percent of the required rear yard.
13 The subject property is located along the north side of East Main Street west of North University Street and east of North Highland Avenue. The subject property is zoned RS- 10 (Residential Single-Family) and H-1 (Historic Zoning Overlay District). The homeowner would like to tear down the existing detached carport and construct a new two-story detached garage in its place. There is a 25% maximum lot coverage requirement in the RS-10 zoning district, meaning that the footprint of all buildings combined cannot exceed more than 25% of the total area of the lot. The applicant has requested a variance to this provision. In addition, the applicant has also requested a variance to the requirement that no more than 25% of the required rear yard can be occupied by accessory structures or uses. Included with the agenda materials is a letter from the applicant addressing Section 10 of the Zoning Ordinance, as well as a site plan depicting the subject property and a rendering of the proposed garage. Staff has also included photographs of the subject property for the Board s reference. The total area of the subject lot is 16,115 square-feet, according to the applicant. The maximum lot coverage in the RS-10 zone is 25%, and according to the applicant the existing structures occupy 23.6% of the lot. The existing structures include the existing house, the existing carport, an existing greenhouse, and an existing chicken coop. The existing garage, which is proposed to be demolished, is 708 square-feet. The homeowner
14 would like to replace the existing carport with a garage with a footprint of 1,000 squarefeet. Combining the square-footage of the proposed garage with the square-footage of the existing house and porch equals 25.4% lot coverage, exceeding the maximum lot coverage allowed by 0.4%. This is an increase of 1.8% over the existing lot coverage. The existing carport does not meet the 5-foot required side setback, according to the applicant. The proposed garage, as shown on the survey, however, will be constructed to be compliant with the minimum 5-foot side setback. The Zoning Ordinance states that accessory structures cannot occupy more than 25% of the required rear yard (also known as the required rear setback). In this case, since the property is zoned RS-10, there is a minimum required 25-foot rear setback. With the lot being 72-feet wide, the total area of the required rear yard is 1,800 square-feet. On this property, accessory structures can take up no more than 450 square-feet (which is equal to 25% of the required rear yard). According to the applicant, the square-footage of all of the existing accessory structures (including a portion of the existing carport) in the required rear yard is approximately 648 square-feet (or 36%). Replacing the existing carport with the proposed garage increases this number to 792 square-feet (or 44%), requiring a 19% variance. The applicant s primary justification for this variance is the narrowness of the lot, which only leaves a small amount of square-footage that can be devoted to accessory structures in the required rear yard. As has been mentioned previously, there is a roofed chicken coop in the required rear yard. The survey shows it to be directly adjacent to the rear property line, not meeting the 5-foot required rear setback for detached accessory structures. Staff was unable to view it in person prior to the publication of the agenda and staff comments, but photographs of it were provided to staff by the applicant. This accessory structure appears fairly new in the photographs and staff cannot find record of a building permit ever being issued for it. In addition to the apparent setback violation, this structure also appears to violate the 5-foot setback off of the rear property line required by the Building and Codes Department. The applicant needs to provide staff some additional information regarding the chicken coop prior to the BZA meeting, especially since it is contributing to the need for both of the proposed variances. The applicant will need to provide information on when the chicken coop was constructed. Also, if staff is mistaken and a building permit was actually obtained from the Building and Codes Department, please provide a copy of the building permit. In addition, the City s codes limit the number of fowl one can keep on a residential lot. The property owner will need to contact Matthew Blomeley on the Planning Staff to discuss the chicken coop and to schedule an inspection with the Planning and Codes Departments to inspect the structure prior the BZA meeting and to verify that the number of fowl being kept on the lot does not exceed the maximum number. Staff expects to have additional comments on this matter at the BZA meeting and may recommend deferral of the variance requests if the issues related to the chicken coop are not resolved.
15 If the Board approves this request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1) The project will be subject to the review and approval of the Murfreesboro Historic Zoning Commission. 2) A surveyor will be required to help lay out the footing of the building and a surveyor s certification must be provided that the building meets all setback requirements and is compliant with the actions of the Board with respect to lot coverage and coverage of the required rear yard. Mr. James will be in attendance at the meeting to answer any questions that the Board may have. Each of the two (2) variances will need to be taken in separate motions.
16 MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF COMMENTS AUGUST 24, 2011 Application: Address: Applicant: Zoning: Requests: Z Cherry Lane Mr. Steve James of James and Associates Residential Designers, LLC, for Mr. Greg Waldron Residential Single-Family (RS-10) and Historic District (H-1) A 6.7-foot variance of the minimum required 10- foot side setback for a detached accessory structure that is less than 5-feet from the principal structure; A 22.5-foot variance of the minimum required 25- foot rear setback for a detached accessory structure that is less than 5-feet from the principal structure; A 4.3-percent variance to the requirement that accessory structures or uses in residential districts shall not occupy more than 25-percent of the required rear yard; A 0.8-percent variance to the maximum allowed 25-percent lot coverage; and A 2.4-foot variance of the minimum required 35- foot front setback for principal structures.
17 The subject property is located along the east side of Cherry Lane north of East Main Street and south of East Lytle Street. The subject property is zoned RS-10 (Residential Single-Family) and H-1 (Historic Zoning Overlay District). There is an existing accessory structure, and the property owners would like to build a new detached accessory structure in its place. At this point, they are uncertain whether or not they will be able to use the existing accessory structure in the construction or whether they will have to demolish it completely and start from scratch. In order to follow through with the proposed plans with regards to the detached accessory structure, a number of variances are needed (as well as a front setback variance related to covering the front stoop of the principal structure). Included with the agenda materials is a letter from the applicant addressing Section 10 of the Zoning Ordinance, as well as a site plan depicting the proposed accessory structure and a rendering of the existing house and the proposed accessory structure. Photographs of the subject property have also been included by Staff for the Board s reference. The total area of the subject lot is 7,350 square-feet and 75-feet (wide) by 98-feet (deep), according to a survey provided by the applicant. The lot does not meet the minimum 10,000 square-foot minimum lot size in the RS-10 zone. The existing carport does not meet minimum side and rear setback requirements. According to the applicant, it is 2.5-
18 feet from the rear property line and 3.3-feet off of the south side property line. The applicant seeks to locate the proposed accessory structure at the same distances off of the south side and rear property lines. The first floor of the proposed accessory structure will be used for hobby purposes and storage, and the second floor will be used for storage. In addition, a covered patio is proposed on the north side of the accessory structure. Side Setback Variance for Accessory Structure The accessory structure is proposed to be located only 4-feet from the principal structure. The Zoning Ordinance dictates that detached accessory structures that are located less than 5-feet from the principal structures shall be treated as attached structures for setback purposes, whether physically attached or not. With regards to the proposed accessory structure, this means that it is required to meet the minimum 10-foot side setback requirement, instead of the 5-foot side setback requirement, which is what would be required if it was at least 5-feet from the principal structure. As mentioned previously, the existing structure is located 3.3-feet off of the south side property line, and the applicants propose to construct the new building at the same distance to the south side property line. Thus, a 6.7-foot side setback variance is required in order to be able to do this. Rear Setback Variance for Accessory Structure As mentioned previously, the accessory structure is proposed to be located only 4-feet from the principal structure. The Zoning Ordinance dictates that detached accessory structures that are located less than 5-feet from the principal structures shall be treated as attached structures for setback purposes, whether physically attached or not. With regards to the proposed accessory structure, this means that it is required to meet the minimum 25-foot rear setback requirement, instead of the 5-foot rear setback requirement, which is what would be required if it was at least 5-feet from the principal structure. As mentioned previously, the existing structure is located 2.5-feet off of the rear property line, and the applicants propose to construct the new building at the same distance to the rear property line. Thus, a 22.5-foot rear setback variance is required in order to be able to do this. Variance to Maximum 25% Allowed Rear Yard Coverage The Zoning Ordinance states that accessory structures cannot occupy more than 25% of the required rear yard (also known as the required rear setback). In this case, since the property is zoned RS-10, there is a minimum required 25-foot rear setback. With the lot being 75-feet wide, the total lot area of the required rear yard is 1,875 square-feet. On this property, accessory structures can take up no more than square-feet. According to the applicant, the portion of the proposed structure in the required rear yard is 550 square-feet, which is 29.3% of the required rear yard, requiring a variance of 4.3%.
19 Variance to Maximum 25% Allowed Lot Coverage The Zoning Ordinance sets the maximum allowed lot coverage in the RS-10 zone as 25%. The lot size is 7,350 square-feet, and accessory structures can take up no more than 1,837.5 square-feet. The footprint of the existing house combined with the proposed accessory structure is 1, (or 25.8%), requiring a 0.8% variance. The Board should note that these figures vary slightly from the figures provided by the applicant, as Staff noticed a discrepancy in the applicant s calculations. Front Setback Variance for Principal Structure There is an existing uncovered front stoop/porch at the front of the principal structure. The applicants propose a cover for it, as depicted in the rendering. The Zoning Ordinance allows porches to encroach into a setback as long as the porch does not extend more than forty-two (42) inches from an exterior wall. The proposed covered stoop/porch extends 45.6-inches from the front wall of the house, meaning that it is not exempt from the 35-foot front setback. It is proposed to encroach 2.4-feet into the front setback. The applicant provides his justification for the variances in his letter. The existing house was built in As mentioned previously, the lot is almost 3,000 square-feet less than the minimum lot size in the RS-10 zone in which it is located -- yet it still is required to meet the current zoning requirements for the RS-10 zone. The existing accessory structure already encroaches into side and rear setbacks, and he does not propose to build the proposed structure any closer to the side and rear property lines. The proposed garage, however, will be required to meet the requirements of the Historic Zoning District and must receive approval from the Historic Zoning Commission. In addition, the proposed accessory structure is also required to maintain 5-feet of separation from the property lines. In order for this structure to be constructed in the proposed location, the applicant must also be granted relief from the 5-foot Building and Codes setback by the Construction Board of Adjustment and Appeals. The applicant has been in contact with the Building and Codes Staff and intends on filing the aforementioned application. Staff has been made aware that there are utilities along the rear property line. Staff has also been made aware that there is an underground vault near the rear property line. The applicant needs to provide confirmation of whether or not there is some type of utility easement along the rear property line. In addition, the applicant needs to research whether or not the proposed construction conflicts with any existing utility lines or vaults near the rear property line. After researching this further, the applicant will need to contact the Planning Staff in advance of the meeting to discuss.
20 If the Board approves the requests, staff recommends that they all be subject to the following conditions: 1) The project will be subject to the review and approval of the Murfreesboro Historic Zoning Commission. 2) A surveyor will be required to help lay out the footing of the building and a surveyor s certification must be provided that all construction is compliant with the actions of the Board (with regards to both setbacks and lot coverage). If the Board approves the requests regarding the side and rear setbacks for the accessory structure, staff recommends the following condition: 1) The applicant must obtain approval from the Construction Board of Adjustment and Appeals and comply with all applicable building codes. Mr. James will be in attendance at the meeting to answer any questions that the Board may have. Each of the five (5) variances will need to be taken in separate motions.
21 MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF COMMENTS AUGUST 24, 2011 Application: Address: Applicant: Zoning: Request: Z Cason Lane Ms. Reanna Sarieh, for Bambini Village Montessori Pre-School and the Church of the Holy Cross Residential Single-Family (RS-10, RS-12, and RS-15) An amendment to a special use permit originally approved on August 27, 2008 allowing childcare (a Montessori pre-school) as a permitted accessory use to the existing institutional group assembly use (a church) located at 1140 Cason Lane. The applicant wishes to amend the special use permit in order to modify several aspects of the childcare operation.
22 The subject property is located at 1140 Cason Lane, along the west side of Cason Lane north of Windemere Drive and south of Wellington Place. The subject property is zoned RS-10, RS-12, and RS-15 and is developed as the Holy Cross Episcopal Church, although the majority of the site is still undeveloped. The church was originally approved for a special use permit in order to establish a church use on this property on October 8, There are two structures on the subject property, an older single-family home, which houses the church offices and parish hall, and the actual church sanctuary building itself. The subject property borders single-family residential subdivisions on all sides. When this special use permit was originally approved, the applicant at the time stated in his application that there would be no childcare facilities associated with the church. In August 2008, the BZA approved an amendment to the original special use permit allowing childcare (a Montessori pre-school) as a permitted accessory use to the church. This amendment called for the pre-school to be operated out of the sanctuary building. It also specified that there would be two (2) sessions per weekday with a maximum of twelve (12) children per session. In addition, the applicant in 2008 offered two (2) options for an outdoor fenced play area. The first was a 45 x31 area directly to the rear of the church office/parish hall building. The second was a 37.5 x56 area further to the
23 west across the driveway. The Board approved the application and okayed the either of the two options, at the discretion of the church. Although there is an existing children s play area, in the vicinity of the second area, it was never fenced. Attached is a letter from the applicant, who is the pre-school director, describing the proposed changes for the pre-school and addressing the standards for special use permits. Photographs of the site, taken by staff, have also been included for the Board s reference. The changes that the applicant proposes to the original special use permit are as follows. First, the Montessori pre-school, which is currently conducted out of the church building, is proposed to move to the church office/parish hall building. (In turn, the church offices would move to the back of the church building.) Second, the applicant is requesting that the maximum number of children attending the pre-school be increased from twelve (12) per three-hour session to thirty (30) overall. The age of the children attending, which is 3-6, will not change from what was stated in the 2008 application. The applicant is also looking to clarify for the record the hours of operation, which will be from 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM. In her write-up, the applicant indicated that traffic will flow from Cason Lane to Windemere during pick-up and drop-off times. After discussing this with the applicant, however, both staff and the applicant agreed that it makes more sense to have traffic circulate from Windemere to Cason instead. She is also looking to amend the plan for the outdoor fenced play area. She has two (2) new options, which differ from the previously approved options. In both options, she is proposing vinyl-coated chain-link fencing. The 2008 application stated that the side of the fence adjacent to the residential lots to the south would be a privacy fence. The current application does not make this provision. Staff has included photographs of the existing vegetation for the Board s review. The Board may wish to discuss the existing screening and whether or not it is adequate. The applicant would like for the Board to approve both options, as she is not certain which option the church and pre-school will ultimately choose. Option #1 (not in order of preference) would be located in in front of the current church office/parish hall building. The site plan attached shows its approximate proposed location. The City Traffic Engineer has recommended that the fenced-in area set back a minimum of 30-feet behind the curb of Cason Lane. In addition, he wished to make the applicant aware that extra safety precautions may be needed along the front of this play area, if Option #1 is the desired option. Also, there is a 20-foot public utility and drainage easement along the frontage of the subject property. If the fence is to encroach into this easement, then the applicant will need to obtain permission from the easement holders for the fence to encroach into the easement. Option #2 would be located to the rear of the church office/parish hall building across the existing driveway -- essentially the same area depicted as the second option from At 87 x87, however, it is proposed to be larger than what was approved at that time. If Option #2 is approved and ends up being the desired option by the applicant, then a pedestrian way from the rear of the building to the play area, including a painted crosswalk across the driveway, should be constructed. As a point of clarification, no additional outdoor lighting is proposed for either play area, as they will only be used during the daytime. As a result, staff has not required that a photometric lighting plan be submitted.
24 If the Board approves this request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1) The Planning Commission (or the Planning Staff, at the discretion of the Planning Director) must grant site plan approval for the proposed development. 2) If Option #1 is proposed to be implemented for the outdoor fenced play area, it must be located a minimum of 30-feet from the curb of Cason Lane. In addition, if the fence is proposed to be located in the 20-foot public utility and drainage easement, then permission from the easement holders must be obtained. 3) If Option #2 is proposed to be implemented for the outdoor fenced play area, then a pedestrian way from the rear of the building to the play area, including a painted crosswalk across the driveway, must be constructed. These improvements must be shown on the site plan. Ms. Sarieh will be in attendance at the meeting to answer any questions that the Board may have.
25 MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF COMMENTS AUGUST 24, 2011 Application: Address: Applicant: Zoning: Request: S South Rutherford Boulevard Mr. Ron Gilbert of Lee Neon Signs, Inc., for Valvoline Instant Oil Change Commercial Highway (CH) A variance from Section 25 ¼-24 (A)(22) of the City of Murfreesboro Sign Ordinance which prohibits a sign placed in or over a public utility or drainage easement The Applicant, Ron Gilbert representing Valvoline Instant Oil Change is requesting a variance from Section 25 ¼-24 (A)(22) of the City of Murfreesboro Sign Ordinance which prohibits a foundation or signs placed in or over a public utility or drainage
26 easement without consent of the easement holder and Board of Zoning Appeals approval. The sign location proposed at 1730 S. Rutherford Blvd is within a (CH) Zone. The applicant is requesting permission to erect one (1) internally illuminated ground sign with 90 sq. ft. and an overall height of 16. The sign will be located within a 25 Water and Sewer Easement. The Agreement for a Sign in a City of Murfreesboro Easement has been signed by the Murfreesboro Water and Sewer Department and the Director of Building and Codes. The applicant will comply with all other setbacks and regulations. Mr. Gilbert will be in attendance at the meeting to answer any questions that the Board may have.
27 MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF COMMENTS AUGUST 24, 2011 Application: Address: Applicant: Zoning: Request: S New Salem Highway Mr. Buddy Follis of Signmasters Co., for The Agnihotri Group Light-Industrial (L-I) A variance from Section 25 ¼-24 (A)(22) of the City of Murfreesboro Sign Ordinance which prohibits a sign placed in or over a public utility or drainage easement The applicant, Pradeep Agnihotri representing the Agnihotri Group is requesting a variance from Section 25 ¼-24 (A)(22) of the City of Murfreesboro Sign Ordinance which prohibits a foundation or signs placed in or over a public utility or drainage
28 easement without consent of the easement holder and Board of Zoning Appeals approval. The sign location proposed at 1624 New Salem Hwy is within a Light Industrial (LI) zone. The applicant is requesting permission to erect one (1) internally illuminated ground sign with 120 sq. ft. display area and an overall height of 25. The sign will be located within a 20 Public Utility Easement. The Agreement for a Sign in a City of Murfreesboro Easement has been signed by the Murfreesboro Water and Sewer Department, the Director of Building and Codes and Murfreesboro Electric Department (MED). Additionally, MED is requiring a 12ft vertical and 12ft horizontal clearance from its overhead electric facilities as a condition of approval. An agreement for a sign in an easement letter has also been submitted from Atmos energy, and a letter from Bell South has also been received. The applicant will comply with all other setbacks and regulations. If the Board approves this application, staff recommends the following conditions: 1) Per MED s approval, a 12-ft vertical and 12-ft horizontal clearance from its overhead electric facilities is required. Mr. Follis and Mr. Agnihotri will be in attendance at the meeting to answer any questions that the Board may have.
CITY OF MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Regular Meeting, September 26, 2012, at 1:00 p.m. City Hall, 111 West Vine Street, Council Chambers, 1 st Floor 1. Call to order A G E N D A 2. Consideration
More informationCITY OF MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Regular Meeting, July 27, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. City Hall, 111 West Vine Street, Council Chambers, 1 st Floor 1. Call to order A G E N D A 2. Consideration of
More informationCITY OF MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Regular Meeting, November 21, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. City Hall, 111 West Vine Street, Council Chambers, 1 st Floor 1. Call to order A G E N D A 2. Consideration
More informationCITY OF MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Regular Meeting, January 28, 2009, at 1:00 p.m. City Hall, 111 West Vine Street, Council Chambers, 1 st Floor 1. Call to order 2. Old Business 3. New Business
More informationARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA
ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA Board of Zoning Appeals Agenda Item V-11394-18-UP-1: Meeting of October 17, 2018 DATE: October 12, 2018 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: LOT AREA: GLUP DESIGNATION: Sarah Sunday
More informationARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA
ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA Board of Zoning Appeals Agenda Item V-11338-17-UP-1: Meeting of March 21, 2018 DATE: March 16, 2018 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: LOT AREA: GLUP DESIGNATION: Hajra Zahid & Zahid
More informationRe: Case # ZP Preplanning Application for 8 townhomes at 1526 Ingalls Street in Lakewood, CO.
Planning Department Civic Center North 480 South Allison Parkway Lakewood, Colorado 80226-3127 303.987.7505 303.987.7057 TTY/TDD Lakewood.org/Planning February 27, 2017 Nathan Taylor 601 S Jason Street
More informationCITY OF MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Regular Meeting, October 26, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. City Hall, 111 West Vine Street, Council Chambers, 1 st Floor 1. Call to order A G E N D A 2. Consideration
More informationMINUTES MANHATTAN BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS City Commission Room, City Hall 1101 Poyntz Avenue Wednesday, July 9, :00 PM
MINUTES MANHATTAN BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS City Commission Room, City Hall 1101 Poyntz Avenue Wednesday, July 9, 2014 7:00 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Harry Hardy, Chairperson; Connie Hamilton, Vice Chairperson;
More informationCITY OF WINTER PARK Board of Adjustments. Regular Meeting June 19, 2018 City Hall, Commission Chambers
CITY OF WINTER PARK Board of Adjustments Regular Meeting City Hall, Commission Chambers 5:00 p.m. MINUTES PRESENT Phil Kean (Acting Chair), Aimee Hitchner, Patrice Wenz, Zachary Seybold, Tom Sacha, Charles
More informationCity of Lynden Title 19 ZONING
City of Lynden Title 19 ZONING Chapters Page Number 19.03 Comprehensive Plan 2 19.05 General Provisions 3 19.09 Maps and District Boundaries 4 19.11 Districts Established 5 19.13 Agricultural Zone 6 19.15
More informationCase #2016-BZA Sheila Hines May 4, 2016
Case #2016-BZA-00011 Sheila Hines PREPARED BY: Chris Langaster DESCRIPTION: A variance to a 1 foot side yard adjacent to a street (Paladin Dr.) instead of 17 feet as required for an existing 6 foot tall
More informationCITY AND BOROUGH OF SITKA PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VARIANCES
CITY AND BOROUGH OF SITKA PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VARIANCES VARIANCES WHAT? A variance is a waiver of development standards as outlined by municipal code. Variances may be sought
More informationTOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS January 11, 2018 Staff Report to the Planning Commission
ITEM #3.2 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: FROM: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS FOR A NEW 2,831 SQUARE FOOT, TWO
More informationARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA
ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA Board of Zoning Appeals Agenda Item V-11354-18-VA-2: Meeting of April 16, 2018 DATE: April 13, 2018 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: LOT AREA: GLUP DESIGNATION: Roger Ramia of Rush
More informationChapter Residential Mixed Density Zone
Chapter 19.16 Residential Mixed Density Zone 19.16.010 Purpose and Intent 19.16.020 Permitted Uses 19.16.030 Accessory Permitted Uses 19.16.040 Secondary Permitted Uses 19.16.050 Conditional Uses 19.16.060
More informationStaff Report PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. Salt Lake City Planning Commission. From: Lauren Parisi, Associate Planner; Date: December 14, 2016
Staff Report PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Lauren Parisi, Associate Planner; 801-535-7932 Date: December 14, 2016 Re: 1611 South 1600 East PLANNED
More informationSECTION 822 "R-1-A" AND "R-1-AH" - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
SECTION 822 "R-1-A" AND "R-1-AH" - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS The "R-1-A" and "R-1-AH" Districts are intended to provide for the development of single family residential homes at urban standards
More informationAlso present were Bill Mann, Senior Planner and Senior Secretary Amber Lehman.
held Monday, August 26, 2013, at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 11 North 3 rd Street, Jacksonville Beach, Florida Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Greg Sutton. Roll Call Greg
More informationZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES, NEW JERSEY. CHECKLIST Section 40-22
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES, NEW JERSEY CHECKLIST Section 40-22 1. Application Form - Original and 13 copies with all items completed. 2. Fee required by Land Use Ordinances, section
More informationChapter 12 RMH MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT/ZONE
Chapter 12 RMH MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT/ZONE 10-12-1: DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE: 10-12-2: PERMITTED BUILDINGS AND USES: 10-12-3: BUILDINGS AND USES PERMITTED CONDITIONALLY: 10-12-4: STRUCTURAL
More informationEric Feldt, Planner II, CFM Community Development Department
DATE: August 28, 2014 TO: FROM: Board of Adjustment Eric Feldt, Planner II, CFM Community Development Department FILE NO.s: VAR2014 0017 & VAR2014 0018 PROPOSAL: A Variance to reduce two side yard setbacks
More informationUSE PERMIT AND VARIANCE APPLICATION
USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE APPLICATION Case No. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPLICATION FOR USE PERMITS AND VARIANCES ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA D E P A R T M E N T O F C O M M U N I T Y P L A N N I N G, H O
More informationAccessory Dwelling Unit Permit
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 411 Main Street (530) 87-6800 P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 527 Application No. APPLICATION FOR Accessory Dwelling Unit Permit Applicant Information Applicant Street Address Daytime
More informationARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA
ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA Board of Zoning Appeals Agenda Item V-11185-16-UP-1: Meeting of October 12, 2016 DATE: October 7, 2016 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: LOT AREA: GLUP DESIGNATION: Elizabeth Taylor
More informationMAPLE GROVE PLANNING COMMISSION May 26, 2015
MAPLE GROVE PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the Maple Grove Planning Commission was held at 7:00 p.m. on at the Maple Grove City Hall, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Chair Colson called the
More informationFENCE PERMIT APPLICATION
FENCE PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: PERMIT FEE: $60.00 Submit (2) sets of drawings and data required to assure compliance with the provisions of the zoning code. Drawings must include a site plan dawn to scale
More informationZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Heidi Shuff, Chair Daphne Bear, Vice Chair Bob Long Ralph Shields Cody Snowdon Butch Stockover Karen Szelei-Jackson Council Liaison: Bob Overbeck Staff Liaison: Noah Beals
More informationZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES AUGUST 28, Chairman Garrity described the proceedings of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2012 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Rick Garrity at 7:34 p.m. Board Members Gregory Constantino, Barbara Fried, Mary Loch and Dale Siligmueller were
More informationCHAPTER 8. REVISION HISTORY
CHAPTER 8. REVISION HISTORY CHAPTER 8. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Ordinance # Plan Commission Town Council Approval Date Adoption Date Description 2002-14 09-24-02 11-14-02 Adoption of Chapter 8. 2010-20 09-27-10
More informationProposed Overland Park Kansas Ordinance RE-1 Residential Estates Community
18.171 RE-1 Residential Estate Community 18.171.010 Statement of intent. The zoning of property as RE-1, (Residential Estates Community, 1 dwelling unit per Gross acre density), is intended to provide
More information(a) Commercial uses on Laurel Avenue, abutting the TRO District to the
32X Zoning Code 150.36 TRANSITIONAL RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT. (A) Intent and purpose. (1) It is the intent of the Transitional Residential Overlay District (hereinafter referred to as the "TRO District")
More informationTo: Stillwater Town Board Reference: Horst Variance Request Stillwater Township, Minnesota Copies To: Town Board Kathy Schmoekel, Town Clerk
MEMORANDUM To: Stillwater Town Board Reference: Horst Variance Request Copies To: Town Board Kathy Schmoekel, Town Clerk From: Soren Mattick, Attorney Daniel and Karla Horst, Applicants Ann Pung-Terwedo,
More informationCITY OF MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Regular Meeting, October 24, 2012, at 1:00 p.m. City Hall, 111 West Vine Street, Council Chambers, 1 st Floor 1. Call to order A G E N D A 2. Consideration
More informationVICINITY MAP. Board of Adjustment File No.: VAR & VAR January 9, 2014 Page 2 of 11 ATTACHMENTS
Board of Adjustment File No.: VAR2013 0024 & VAR2013 0025 January 9, 2014 Page 2 of 11 VICINITY MAP ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Applicant s Letter Attachment B Site Plan Attachment C Elevation Drawings Board
More informationCITY OF WINTER PARK Board of Adjustments. Regular Meeting October 17, 2017 City Hall, Commission Chambers
CITY OF WINTER PARK Board of Adjustments Regular Meeting City Hall, Commission Chambers 5:00 p.m. MINUTES PRESENT Lucy Morse Chair, Aimee Hitchner, Michael Clary, Robert Trompke, Zachary Seybold, Director
More informationEXTRA-TERRITORIAL ZONING AUTHORITY
EXTRA-TERRITORIAL ZONING AUTHORITY DOÑA ANA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Doña Ana County Government Complex 845 North Motel Boulevard Las Cruces, New Mexico 88007 Office: (575) 647-7237 MEETING
More informationWALNUT CREEK DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT. AGENDA: July 6, 2016 ITEM 4b.
WALNUT CREEK DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Attachment 3 AGENDA: July 6, 2016 ITEM 4b. ORIGINATED BY: COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING PROJECT NAME APPLICATION TYPE APPLICATION
More informationCITY OF MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF MURFREESBORO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Regular Meeting, January 29, 2014, at 1:00 p.m. City Hall, 111 West Vine Street, Council Chambers, 1 st Floor 1. Call to order A G E N D A 2. Consideration
More informationCITY OF GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO
CITY OF GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO ORDINANCE NO. 4778 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 21 OF THE GRAND JUNCTION MUNICIPAL CODE) REGARDING ADMINISTRATION AND
More informationDEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TYPES: APPROPRIATE ZONES AND DENSITIES 2-1
2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TYPES: APPROPRIATE ZONES AND DENSITIES 2-1 This Chapter presents the development standards for residential projects. Section 2.1 discusses
More informationEXHIBIT D. Planned Unit Development Written Description April 13, 2016 Rouen Cove Phase II PUD
1 EXHIBIT D Planned Unit Development Written Description April 13, 2016 Rouen Cove Phase II PUD Development # 8986.001 Developer: Curtis L. Hart Hart Resources LLC 8051 Tara Lane Jacksonville, Florida
More informationCITY PLAN COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CITY PLAN COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Request for a Change of Zoning and Preliminary Development Plan FROM: Mara Perry, Director of Planning & Development MEETING DATE: November 6, 2017 PETITION:
More informationPLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1800 Continental Place Mount Vernon, WA Inspections Office Fax 360.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1800 Continental Place Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Inspections 360.416.1330 Office 360.416-1320 Fax 360.416-1340 Date Received: Administrative Setback Reduction Checklist Pursuant
More informationCHAPTER 2 RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER LAWS.
CHAPTER 2 General Provisions 12-2-1 Minimum Requirements 12-2-2 Relationship with Other Laws 12-2-3 Effect on Existing Agreements 12-2-4 Scope of Regulations 12-2-5 Building Permit 12-2-6 Nonconforming
More informationARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA
ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA County Board Agenda Item Meeting of February 12, 2005 DATE: February 8, 2005 SUBJECT: Request to Advertise public hearings on the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment to Section
More informationDIVISION 2 - CONSTRUCTION PLAN AND MISCELLANEOUS REQUIREMENTS
DIVISION 2 - CONSTRUCTION PLAN AND MISCELLANEOUS REQUIREMENTS 2.1 Required Plan Sheets 2.2 Drawing Requirements 2.3 Graphic Standards 2.4 Easements 2.5 Utility Locations 2.6 Private Facility Locations
More informationO-I (Office-Institutional) and AG-1(Agricultural)
PROPERTY INFORMATION ADDRESS 3503 and 3505 Bethany Bend DISTRICT, LAND LOTS 2/1 973 and 974 OVERLAY DISTRICT State Route 9 PETITION NUMBERS EXISTING ZONING O-I (Office-Institutional) and AG-1(Agricultural)
More informationAccessory Coach House
Updated July 2018 Accessory Coach House Development Permit Guidelines 1 Accessory Coach House Development Permit Guidelines Zoning Bylaw, 1995 DIVISION VII C. Contents Part I General Reglations 1 Introduction
More informationUPPER MOUNT BETHEL TOWNSHIP NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
UPPER MOUNT BETHEL TOWNSHIP NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JOINDER DEED / LOT CONSOLIDATION TOWNSHIP REVIEW PROCESS When accepting proposed Joinder Deeds / Lot Consolidations, review the Joinder Deed
More informationMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FORT DODGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 3, 2017
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FORT DODGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 3, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Hoesel, JP Mansfield, Jeanne Gibson, Jen Crimmins, Troy Anderson
More informationCITY OF MERCED SMALL LOT SINGLE-FAMILY HOME DESIGN GUIDELINES
CITY OF MERCED SMALL LOT SINGLE-FAMILY HOME DESIGN GUIDELINES Development Services Department Planning and Permitting Adopted August 15, 2005 SMALL LOT SINGLE FAMILY HOME GUIDELINES A. Purpose and Applicability.
More information9. Public (Federal, State, or local
WILLISTOWN TOWNSHIP 688 SUGARTOWN ROAD, MALVERN, PA 19355 (610.647.5300) Classification: Date Received: Building Permit No #: Classification Number: Property Owners Signature: I. LOCATION OF BUILDING Tax
More informationMeeting Minutes New Prague Planning Commission Wednesday, June 27, 2018
Meeting Minutes New Prague Planning Commission Wednesday, 1. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Member Bob Gilman with the following members present: Amy Jirik, Matt
More informationthe conditions contained in their respective Orders until January 1, 2025, at the discretion of the Director of Planning, Property and Development.
Part 4: Use Regulations Temporary Uses and Structures Purpose the conditions contained in their respective Orders until January 1, 2025, at the discretion of the Director of Planning, Property and Development.
More informationARTICLE SCHEDULE OF REGULATIONS
ARTICLE 21.00 SCHEDULE OF REGULATIONS FOOTNOTES TO ARTICLE 21.00 SCHEDULE OF REGULATIONS a. If one or both public sanitary sewers and/or public water supply are not available minimum lot size shall be
More informationPLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT & SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT Date: November 17, 2016
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT & SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT Date: November 17, 2016 DEVELOPMENT NAME SUBDIVISION NAME LOCATION Autonation Ford of Mobile Autonation Ford of Mobile Subdivision 901, 909, and 925
More informationZONING AMENDMENT, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT & SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT Date: September 15, 2011
ZONING AMENDMENT, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT & SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT Date: September 15, 2011 NAME SUBDIVISION NAME LOCATION Stratford, L.L.C. Grelot Office Park Subdivision North side of Grelot Road,
More informationSECTION 5: ACCESSORY USES
SECTION 5: ACCESSORY USES A. In Any District Subject to the restrictions of the Zoning Resolution, a use, equipment or item customarily incidental to an existing permitted use on a lot shall also be permitted
More informationCascade Charter Township, Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 14, 2015 Page 1
ZONING MINUTES Cascade Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, July 14, 2015 7:00 P.M. Cascade Library Wisner Center 2870 Jackson Avenue SE ARTICLE 1. ARTICLE 2. ARTICLE 3. Chairman Casey called
More informationTown of Siler City - Unified Development Ordinance ARTICLE XII - Density and Dimensional Regulations
ARTICLE XII - Density and Dimensional Regulations 167 Minimum Lot Size Subject to the provisions of 173 (Cluster Subdivisions) and all lots in the following zones shall have at least the amount of square
More informationMINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The New Hanover County Zoning Board of Adjustment held a regular and duly advertised meeting at 5:30 P.M. at the New Hanover County Government Center Complex, 230 Government
More informationPLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT PREMIER AUTO SERVICES, INC. VARIANCES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: February 14, 2019 Item #: PZ2019-402 STAFF REPORT PREMIER AUTO SERVICES, INC. VARIANCES Project Name: Premier Auto Services, Inc. Applicant:
More informationPocono Springs Civic Association Architectural Rules and Regulations. Adopted by Board of Directors Date: January 20, 2007
Pocono Springs Civic Association Architectural Rules and Regulations Adopted by Board of Directors Date: January 20, 2007 1) Purpose of Architectural Rules and Regulations Is to preserve an informal, natural,
More informationCommittee of Adjustment Meeting Number 6
A meeting of the was held on Monday, June 22, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. at 1211 John Counter Boulevard. Members Present Stephen Foster (Chair) Christine Cannon (Vice-Chair) Kailin Che Blaine Fudge Craig Leroux
More informationGreg Mikolash, Development Review Supervisor ( ;
Staff Report DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS To: From: Salt Lake City Appeals Hearing Officer Greg Mikolash, Development Review Supervisor (801-535-6181; gregory.mikolash@slcgov.com) Date: October
More informationA favorable recommendation to the City Council is requested.
To: Sycamore Plan Commission From: Brian Gregory, City Manager Date: November 9, 2017 Re: November 13, 2017 Plan Commission Meeting The Plan Commission has one action item and three workshop items. I.
More informationSTATE OF NORTH CAROLINA * * DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS * OF CAROLINA SANDS, SECTIONS 1 and 2 COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER *
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA * AMENDED * DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS * OF CAROLINA SANDS, SECTIONS 1 and 2 COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER * KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT WHEREAS by written instrument dated September
More informationCITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS Planning Department 6237 Fountain Square Drive Citrus Heights, CA (916)
CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS Planning Department 6237 Fountain Square Drive Citrus Heights, CA 95621 (916) 725-2448 DATE: May 17, 2005 TO: Mike Evans Mike Williams 3111 Sunset Blvd. Suite One Baker-Williams
More informationMINUTES of the Vernal City PLANNING COMMISSION Vernal City Council Chambers 447 East Main Street August 13, 2009
MINUTES of the Vernal City PLANNING COMMISSION Vernal City Council Chambers 447 East Main Street Members Present: Freida Parker, Shirley Wilkins, Gordon Seitz, Eric Olsen, Sonja Norton, Troy Allred Alternates
More information"ARTICLE - VINE STREET TRANSITIONAL (VST) DISTRICT
ORDINANCE NO. 1899 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 129-551,129-552,129-553 AND 129-416 OF THE CITY CODE ALL INVOLVING THE ADDITION OF THE VINE STREET TRANSITIONAL DISTRICT ZONING CLASSIFICATION TO THE ZONING
More informationARTICLE 143. PD 143.
ARTICLE 143. PD 143. SEC. 51P-143.101. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. PD 143 was established by Ordinance No. 17685, passed by the Dallas City Council on February 2, 1983. Ordinance No. 17685 amended Ordinance No.
More informationPLANNING COMMISSION REPORT Regular Agenda -Public Hearing Item
PDP-13-00518 Item No. 3B- 1 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT Regular Agenda -Public Hearing Item PC Staff Report 2/24/14 ITEM NO. 3B PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR HERE @ KANSAS; 1101 INDIANA ST (SLD) PDP-13-00518:
More informationARTICLE 6.07 FENCES Division 1. Generally
FENCE REGULATIONS ARTICLE 6.07 FENCES Division 1. Generally Sec. 6.07.001 Definitions For the purpose of this article, the following terms, phrases and words shall have meanings respectively ascribed to
More informationZoning Permit Application Information Sheet
Zoning Permit Application Information Sheet As per the Neptune Township Land Development Ordinance Section 1102 a zoning permit shall be issued prior to the commencement or change of use of a property,
More informationTown of Hamburg. Planning Board Work Session. January 7, Minutes
Town of Hamburg Planning Board Work Session January 7, 2009 Minutes The Town of Hamburg Planning Board met for a Work Session on Wednesday, January 7, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. in Room 7B of Hamburg Town Hall,
More informationSECTION 827 "R-2" AND "R-2-A" - LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
SECTION 827 "R-2" AND "R-2-A" - LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS The "R-2" and "R-2-A" Districts are intended to provide for the development of low density multiple family residential
More informationBOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 25, 2017
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 25, 2017 The hearing was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Jones PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Board Members Matthew
More informationZONING COMPATIBILITY & WORKSHEET
ZONING COMPATIBILITY & WORKSHEET *** This worksheet shall be completed by the architect whom submitted signed and sealed plans for review.*** This document assists building permit applicants in determining
More informationBOROUGH OF MOUNT ARLINGTON ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION PROCEDURE 419 Howard Blvd., Mt. Arlington, NJ (973) ext. 14
BOROUGH OF MOUNT ARLINGTON ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION PROCEDURE 419 Howard Blvd., Mt. Arlington, NJ 07856 (973) 398-6832 ext. 14 These rules shall be applicable to every development project that results
More informationPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKET
City of Litchfield PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKET Monday, December 11 th, 2017 City of Litchfield Planning Commission AGENDA Monday, December 11, 2017 5:30 P.M. Held in the Council Chambers of City
More informationARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA
ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA Board of Zoning Appeals Agenda Item V-11250-17-UP-2: Meeting of April 19, 2017 DATE: April 14, 2017 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: LOT AREA: GLUP DESIGNATION: Robert and Tania
More informationCity Council 1-15-08- Exhibit A Mansionization Code Amendments Recommended by Planning Commission 11-14-07 INCREASE OPEN SPACE AND SETBACKS Section 10.12.030 and A.12.030 Property Development Regulations:
More informationMINUTES OF THE ROCK ISLAND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. May 11, ( ) Gary Snyder (x) Robert Wild (x) Faye Jalloh
MINUTES OF THE ROCK ISLAND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. May 11, 2011 ATTENDANCE: (x) Present ( ) Absent (x) Kevin Day (x) Karen Williams (x) Dave McAdam (x) Larry Tschappat ( ) Gary
More informationCITY OF WEST PALM BEACH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Meeting Date: November 2, 2017 Zoning Board of Appeals Case No. 3356 Dr. Alice Moore Apartments Variances Location Aerial I. REQUEST Site is outlined in
More informationTHE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
PAGE 37 THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FUTURE LAND USE The Silver Terrace Redevelopment Area is currently designated as Redevelopment Area #4 on the City of Delray Beach Future Land Use Map (FLUM). This designation
More information377 Poetry Drive, Woodbridge HUMPHRIES PLANNING GROUP INC. Condition of Approval Building Standards B020/14 A074/14 B020/14 B020/14
File: B020/14 A074/14 Item # 6-7 Ward #3 Applicant: MOSAIK PINEWEST INC Address: Agent: 377 Poetry Drive, Woodbridge HUMPHRIES PLANNING GROUP INC. Adjournment Status: Notes: Comments/Conditions: Commenting
More informationMINUTES MANCHESTER-BY-THE-SEA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. Meeting April 27, Michael Sullivan (Chairman), Andrew Crocker, Gary Gilbert, and
MINUTES MANCHESTER-BY-THE-SEA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Meeting April 27, 2016 Members Present: James O Neill. Michael Sullivan (Chairman), Andrew Crocker, Gary Gilbert, and Members Not Present: James Diedrich.
More informationLOT AREA AND FRONTAGE
LOT AREA AND FRONTAGE Lot Area & Frontage for the R2.1 Zone Lot Area & Frontage for the R2.4 Zone Minimum Lot Minimum Lot Zone Area Width R2.1 700 sq m 18 m R2.4 600 sq m 16 m Lot Area means the total
More informationBONNER COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BONNER COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1500 HIGHWAY 2, SUITE 208, SANDPOINT, ID 83864 (208) 265-1458 (208) 265-1463 (FAX) planning@bonnercountyid.gov (email) www.bonnercounty.us (web page) INFORMATION SHEET
More informationCommittee of Adjustment Agenda
Committee of Adjustment Agenda Hearing Date: July 6, 2017 Time: 7:00 p.m. Location: 225 East Beaver Creek Road, 1 st Floor (Council Chambers) Staff reports obtained online do not include hard copy information
More informationPALM BEACH COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION ZONING COMMISSION VARIANCE STAFF REPORT 07/05/2012
PALM BEACH COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION ZONING COMMISSION VARIANCE STAFF REPORT 07/05/2012 APPLICATION NO. CODE SECTION REQUIRED PROPOSED VARIANCE ZV-2012-00690 3.D.1.A
More informationRURAL SETTLEMENT ZONE - RULES
Chapter 38 RURAL SETTLEMENT ZONE - RULES INTRODUCTION This Chapter contains rules managing land uses in the. The boundaries of this zone are shown on the planning maps. There is limited opportunity for
More informationAll items include discussion and possible action to approve, modify, deny, or continue unless marked otherwise.
Storey County Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Thursday, October 6, 2016 6:00 p.m. Storey County Courthouse, District Courtroom 26 South B Street, Virginia City, Nevada Larry Prater Chairman Virgil Bucchianeri
More informationNOTE TO ALL VARIANCE APPLICANTS:
NOTE TO ALL VARIANCE APPLICANTS: Please make sure that the plans that you include with your variance request floor plans and elevations are the same as the plans that you will be submitting for your building
More informationIN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS CASE NUMBER S SNYDER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THIRD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DATE HEARD: JULY 2, 2014
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS CASE NUMBER 2014-0039-S SNYDER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THIRD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DATE HEARD: JULY 2, 2014 ORDERED BY: DOUGLAS CLARK HOLLMANN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
More informationCity of Fraser Residential Zoning District
City of Fraser Residential Zoning District The one-family districts are established to provide principally for one-family dwellings at varying densities. The specific interest of these districts is to
More informationCity of Dade City, Florida Land Development Regulations ARTICLE 5: DENSITY, INTENSITY & DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
City of Dade City, Florida Land Development Regulations ARTICLE 5: DENSITY, INTENSITY & DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS ADOPTED AUGUST 12, 2014 ARTICLE 5: DENSITY, INTENSITY & DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS SECTION 5.1 DIMENSIONAL
More informationDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT THE PARK AT 5 TH
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT ARB Meeting Date: July 3, 2018 Item #: _PZ2018-293_ THE PARK AT 5 TH Request: Site Address: Project Name: Parcel Number: Applicant: Proposed Development: Current Zoning:
More informationMARKHAM. City of. Comprehensive Zoning By-law Project. Task 4b. Review and Assessment of Minor Variances
Appendix E City of MARKHAM ra ft Comprehensive Zoning By-law Project Task 4b. Review and Assessment of Minor Variances D January 22, 2014 Markham Zoning By-law Consultant Team Gladki Planning Associates,
More information