CALL TO ORDER:
Vice Chairman Robertson opened the public hearing at
Vice Chairman Robertson welcomed the public to the
hearing and laid out some of the ground rules.
1. “It is important that you present any fact or
views that you have as evidence in this hearing so that the findings can be
made as a basis of facts for the decision of this Appeals Board. In order to
grant a variance five specific written findings of facts must all
be met according to the state statutes and the City Zoning Regulations.
2. This board is authorized by state statute to
make a decision appealable only to District Court and not to the Governing
3. After the Zoning Administrator provides us with
some background information we will call upon the applicant and then we will
hear from other interested parties. After all have been heard, each party
will have an opportunity for final comments. The Board will close the
hearing to further public comments and then will consider their decision
during which time they may direct questions to the applicant, the public, the
staff or our consultant.
4. In presenting your comments, you should be aware
that the Board can require that the site be platted or replatted if necessary
or dedications be made in lieu of platting and that screening in the form of
fencing and/or landscape may be required. Furthermore, the Board may impose
such conditions on the premise benefited by the variance as may be necessary
to comply with the standards set out in Section 10-107D which would reduce or
minimize any potentially injurious effect of such variance upon other
property in the neighborhood and to carry out the general purpose and intent
of these regulations, including methods for guaranteeing performance such as
are provided for in Section 10-108D. Failure to comply with any of the
conditions attached to the zoning permit for a variance shall constitute a
violation of the regulations.
5. You should also be fully aware that if the
applicant chooses to describe various features of their development plans,
the City can only enforce those provisions which are covered in zoning and
other City codes. For example, if the applicant proposes to build a brick
building with shake shingles and later decides to build a concrete block building
with asphalt shingles, it’s not something that the City can enforce.
6. Anyone wishing to speak must be recognized by
the Chairperson and give their name and address.
So at this time we would like to proceed with the
hearing and I would like to ask if there are any Board members who would want
to disqualify themselves from hearing, discussing or voting on this case
because of their spouse owning property in the area of notification, or
conflict of interest, or a particular bias in this matter.”
DISCUALIFICATION DECLARED AND QUORUM DETERMINED:
No one disqualified himself or herself.
Notice of this hearing was published in the Andover
Journal on February 22, 2001. The notice was mailed to the applicant and the
real estate property owners of record in the area of notification on February
20, 2001 unless there
is evidence to the contrary from anyone present, I
will declare that proper notification has been given. No one made any
EX PARTE COMMUNICATION:
Have any of the Board members received any ex parte
verbal or written communication prior to this hearing that you would like to
share with other members at this time? As you know, it is not important to
disclose the names of the parties, but to share important information. No
one had any comments.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT;
Les Mangus, the Zoning Administrator gave a brief
background on the case.
Bob Kaplan, the representative of the applicant,
Darrin Lyon, stated that he has asked for a 5’ reduction in the rear yard
building setback, however he applied for the wrong thing and actually wants a
10’ reduction. Mr. Kaplan stated that he knows the Board can only act on the
5’ reduction that was requested, as that was what was applied for. Mr.
Kaplan explained that Mr. Lyon’s lot is 180’ deep, with the corridor
management front yard and rear setbacks, the workable space for Mr. Lyon is
reduced to 75’. Mr. Kaplan stated that Mr. Lyon originally wanted a 100’
building on his property but that is not possible. Mr. Lyon is asking for
the reduction in the rear yard building setback in order to have an 80’
building. Mr. Kaplan also asked if the Board would give him an informal
answer to whether they would look favorably upon a request for an additional
5’ rear yard setback reduction. If the Board would look favorably upon this
he will reapply for the additional reduction. Mr. Kaplan stated he has been
working with KDOT, specifically Chris Huffman regarding the highway access.
KDOT has permitted the use of the highway access for 36 months. Then Mr.
Lyon will have to change the entrance into his shop.
There were no public comments.
were no written communications.
public hearing was closed at 7:44 p.m. There will be no further public
comments unless the Board wishes to ask questions to clarify information.
DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD:
Quentin Coon asked what size building Mr. Lyon was
going to build. Mr. Lyon stated he wanted a 100’ building originally but now
wants an 85’ building, which would allow for 6 bays. There was general
discussion regarding the condition of the property to the north of Mr. Lyon.
Mr. Mangus stated that the title search did not show any easements on the
property. Vice-Chairman Robertson asked where Mr. Lyon would exit the
building. Mr. Lyon stated that currently they use U.S. Hwy 54. After 36
months he stated they will exit out the west side of the building and drive
to McCandless then to the highway. Quentin Coon asked Mr. Mangus how KDOT
addressed compensation for the increased setback to property owners. Mr.
Mangus stated that is a regulatory setback and the compensation for this will
come when the property is actually acquired for improvements.
The Board of Zoning Appeals then
went through the checklist as follows:
Board of Zoning Appeal Action March
A. Variances from the provisions of the
zoning regulations shall be granted by the Board only in accordance with the
standards in Section 10-107(d), and only in the following instances and NO
others: (A through G).
1. To vary the applicable lot area, lot
width, and lot depth requirements, subject to the following limitations:
minimum lot width and lot depth requirements shall not be reduced more than
minimum lot area for a single or two-family dwelling shall not be reduced
more than 20%.
c. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit
requirements for multiple-family dwellings shall not be reduced more than
Dimension of lot 164’ X 301’ Variance
requested: Reduction of required 20’ rear yard to 15’.
B. To vary the applicable bulk regulations,
including maximum height, lot coverage and minimum yard requirements:
1. The bulk regulations for this
20’ rear yard.
would change bulk regulations as follows:
15’ rear yard.
C. To vary the applicable off-street parking
and off-street loading requirements. (Must establish time schedule for
compliance…See Article 5
D. To vary the sign provisions
of Section 7-102 regarding general standards and Section 7-104 regarding nonresidential
E. To vary certain provisions
of the FP Flood Plain District as provided for in Section 4-114(L):
F. The Board shall not grant a
variance unless it shall, True/ False/
in each case, make specific written findings of Yes
fact directly based upon the particular evidence
presented to it which support all the conclusions
as required by K.S.A. 12-715 as listed below:
the variance requested arises from XX
such condition which is unique to the property in
question and which is not ordinarily found in the
same zoning district, and is not created
by an action
or actions of the property owner or the applicant.
2. That granting of the variance will not
the rights of adjacent property owners or
3. That strict
application of the provisions of XX
regulations from which a variance is
constitute unnecessary hardship
property owner represented in the
4. That the variance
desired will not adversely XX
public health, safety, morals, order,
convenience, prosperity or general welfare; and
5. That granting the
variance desired will not XX
be opposed to
the general spirit and intent of
determining whether the evidence supports the True/ False/
required by Section 1-107(D)(1), the Yes No
shall consider the extent to which the
evidence demonstrates that:
1. The particular physical surroundings,
topographical condition of the specific
involved would result in a practical
or unnecessary hardship upon or
the owner, lessee, or occupant, as
from a mere inconvenience,
the provision of these regulations were
request for a variance is not based XX
upon a desire of the owner,
occupant or applicant to make more
out of the property.
granting of the variance will not be XX
materially detrimental or injurious to
other property or improvements in the
neighborhood in which the subject
property is located, and
proposed variance will not impair an XX
supply of light or air to adjacent
substantially increase the
in the public streets, increase
danger of fire, endanger the public
or substantially diminish or impair
values within the neighborhood.
imposed by the Board of Zoning Appeals
per Zoning Regulations Section 10-5G:
made by Lynn Heath, seconded by Ron Roberts as follows: Having considered the
evidence of the hearing and determined that the findings of fact in the variance
report have been found to exist that support the five conditions set out in
Section 10-107D.1. of the Zoning Regulations and K.S.A. 12-759(e) of the
State Statutes which are necessary for granting of a variance, I Lynn Heath move that the Chairperson be authorized to sign a Resolution granting the variance,
subject to the following conditions:
was no discussion. Motion passed 5-0.