BOAA Meeting Minutes – 03/08/2017

 

Event Details

  • Date:

Back to Meeting Agenda

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
MINUTES FOR March 8, 2017

IN ATTENDANCE

BOARD MEMBERS Staff
Michael Schacht, Vice-Chairman Devin Brown, Director
Dan Muth Shanna Pearce, Executive Assistant
Michael Bragiel

Board of Adjustment and Appeals Meeting

Item #1    Call to order.

Vice-Chairman Michael Schacht called the meeting to order at 11:39 a.m.

Item #2    Roll Call/Determination of a Quorum.

Vice-Chairman Michael Schacht stated there was a quorum present.

Item #3    Call to the Public (Forms must be turned in at this time).

Public communication forms collected and turned in.

Item #4    Approval of the minutes from the December 21, 2016 meeting.

No discussion.

Vice-Chairman Michael Schacht opened for a motion.
Dan Muth moved to approve the December 21, 2016 meeting minutes.
Michael Bragiel seconded the motion.
Voting is unanimous.

Item #5    Approval of the minutes from the February 15, 2017 meeting.

No discussion.

Vice-Chairman Michael Schacht opened for a motion.
Dan Muth moved to approve the February 15, 2017 meeting minutes.
Vice-Chairman Michael Schacht seconded the motion.
Voting is 2 ayes to 0 nays. 1 abstention, Michael Bragiel he was not present at the February 15, 2017 meeting.

Item #6     Elect a new Chairman and Vice-Chairman for 2017.

Vice-Chairman Michael Schacht thanked prior chairman Dick Bruneau for his service and opened for nominations.

Vice-Chairman Michael Schacht nominated Dan Muth for the 2017 Chairman.

Vice-Chairman Michael Schacht opened for other nominations. No other nominations.

Vice-Chairman Michael Schacht opened for a motion.
Vice-Chairman Michael Schacht moved to approve Dan Muth for the 2017 Chairman.
Michael Bragiel seconded the motion.
Voting is unanimous.

Vice-Chairman Michael Schacht opened for nominations.

Michael Bragiel nominated Michael Schacht as the 2017 Vice-Chairman.

Vice-Chairman Michael Schacht opened for other nominations. No other nominations.

Vice-Chairman Michael Schacht opened for a motion.
Michael Bragiel moved to approve Michael Schacht for the 2017 Vice-Chairman.
Dan Muth seconded the motion.
Voting is unanimous.

Chairman Dan Muth conducted the remainder of the meeting.

Item #7     Setting the time and place for monthly meetings for 2017.

Devin Brown recommended cancelling the meeting scheduled for March 15, 2017 as the board was meeting today.

Chairman Dan Muth opened for a motion.
Michael Bragiel moved to approve the time and place for the 2017 monthly meetings with cancelling the March 15, 2017 meeting.
Vice-Chairman Michael Schacht seconded the motion.
Voting is unanimous.

Item #8     Discussion, Consideration, and Action on a variance application allowing David Heskett to place a 2000 manufactured home on a 12.65 acre parcel in Lake View Ranch, Unit 1, Lot 50. Property is located near Concho Valley. A.P.N. 201-57-050A. This is a variance from Article 7. Section 730. A.1. Manufactured Homes, limiting the age of a manufactured home to 15 years old.

Odessa Mavrides, representative for the applicant, explained the history and reason for the variance, the condition of the manufactured home and commented about the other manufactured homes in the area.
Discussion of the notification to neighbors. Mr. Schacht questioned the absence of the applicant. Mrs. Mavrides explained.

Mr. Schacht questioned the residency of the applicant. Mrs. Mavrides explained his reasons for buying the home and moving to the area upon his retirement.

Mrs. Mavrides provided photos of the other manufactured homes in the area and explained their condition and added that the applicant’s manufactured home would improve the area, she explained the condition and improvements that had been made. Discussion regarding the neighbors.

Mr. Bragiel questioned if there were any other stick built homes in the area. Mrs. Mavrides stated no.

Discussion regarding the condition of the home and siding. Mr. Brown stated the manufactured home looked better in person and noted the skirting had some dents.

Mr. Schacht questioned if the septic and well were already in place. Mr. Brown explained there would be an application process through the building department and that the septic would be addressed by the health department and added that any steps or porches would have to be brought up to code.

Discussion regarding the building permit process, skirting’s condition and requirements for skirting. Mr. Brown stated there was some denting on the south side and recommended approval of the variance with a condition to replace the damaged skirting.

Mr. Brown stated there were two competing interests – this is probably the best looking manufactured home the board has looked at the last six (6) months, but that he received several emails opposing it. He felt that based on how these cases have been handled in the last six (6) months, he recommended approval with the condition to replace the damaged skirting if the board was looking to keep up aesthetics and property values.

Mr. Schacht explained his thoughts and feelings with the recent activism going on in Concho. He felt that the letters reflected the feeling in Concho and stated it was important for the county to recognize the discontent and the vision of the community member’s and the positive direction they want to go in.

Mr. Brown agreed and expressed his feelings and recommended again to approve the variance with the condition addressing the skirting.

Mr. Schacht questioned if, as part of the vote, to support the activism going on and to help to improve the community that the board requested of staff to respond to the emails explaining what the board’s decision had been in the past and that their vision and viewpoints were going to be considered going forward.

Mr. Muth explained the history of the 15 year statute and the bases for the letters. He also explained that the maintenance of property was outside the privy of the board and noted there was nothing in this application that warranted to past applications and added he did not feel that the letters were applicable to this variance.

Mr. Bragiel noted that most of the letters just say to follow the rules. Most of the issues are from not having an updated plan and questioned at what point does the board change and approve based on the ordinance, adding that his challenge with the variance was that there was no support. He stated that he would be in favor but felt that the home needed to be painted or resided and have acceptable skirting.

Mr. Brown explained the Standards for a variance. 1. If a strict interpretation will work an unnecessary hardship and 2. If in granting the variance the general intent of the ordinance will be preserved.

Mr. Muth questioned Mrs. Mavrides on behalf of the applicant and asked if she felt they would have a problem with a condition that within three (3) months after placement of the home it had to be painted or resided. Mrs. Mavrides did not feel the applicant he would have a problem.

Mr. Schacht stated it was not the aesthetics that concerned him, it was the packet of letters from opposed community members and that the applicant was not present; this is an important issue with the community.

Mrs. Mavrides understood and expressed her feelings with new people wanting to move in to the community, getting the home moved and that the emails received were from people whom are not in the area where the home was going. Mr. Schacht agreed and stated the letters supported an activism in the community and added that part of the board’s responsibility was to be responsive to the communities in the county.

Delos Bond addressed the board and expressed his feelings with the letters not being near the area and that there was no response or complaints from the neighboring properties. Mr. Schacht and Mr. Bond discussed one letter being 6 ½ miles outside the community.

Mr. Schacht and Mr. Bond discussed the condition of the neighboring properties, enforcement, and ordinances.

Mr. Brown explained the history of non-enforcement within the county and the Property Maintenance Code adopted in 2015 and added the decision should be based on the Standards for a variance and that the letters were in response to the bigger issue of what direction to take the county.

Mr. Bond stated that they were following the City’s 20 year rule then they found out the county had a 15 year rule. He objected that the county has had no enforcement in the past and didn’t feel that this trailer was going to impact the rest of the county.

Mr. Bragiel stated his dilemma was that neither of the items noted in the Standards for a variance had been met.

Mr. Schacht requested clarification if the hardship was to the owner or to the land. Mr. Brown stated to the land.

Mr. Bond questioned how this applied to the applicant. Mr. Brown stated he couldn’t think of a hardship due to the land?

Mr. Bond questioned why you would apply for a variance because of a hardship on the land and what the purpose of a variance was. Mr. Brown replied the applicant didn’t apply for the variance because of a hardship; he wanted this trailer and it was cheaper than getting a new one.

Mr. Bond asked that if the land held no hardship then where was the hardship? Mr. Brown agreed it would be difficult to come up with a hardship.

Mr. Bragiel asked how Mr. Brown came up with the approval based on the guidelines. Mr. Brown replied to be consistent with their past decisions and principles of fairness. Mr. Schacht agreed.

Mr. Bragiel asked how they could correct how things had been done in the past. Mr. Schacht explained by being flexible and consistent now with their decision and then following through in the future; gradually or through legislation.

Mr. Bond and board members discussed setting standards and guidelines to remain consistent, the differences in the variances, and the boards past decisions.

Chairman Dan Muth opened for a motion.
Chairman Dan Muth moved to approve the variance with conditions;

1.    The home is painted or sided within the period of three (3) months within granting of the variance.
2.    Any attachments – decks, porches, and awnings to be painted or treated with the same period of three (3) months.
3.    These conditions to be reviewed by the director of community development.

Vice-Chairman Michael Schacht seconded the motion and requested again a recommendation from staff. Mr. Brown replied that, as he has learned more about the duties of the board, it appears they need to clarify how to approach variances, but to be consistent with what has been done in the past he recommended approval. Mr. Brown added that he was seeking more direction from the P&Z commission members to clarify the ordinance for the future. At this time he recommended approval with conditions as set forth in the chairman’s motion.

Mr. Bragiel questioned if they were assuming that the home, septic, painting, skirting and building permits would be completed within three (3) months. Mr. Muth agreed stating that the timeline may need to be adjusted and amended his motion to stipulate within three (3) months of placement.

Mr. Schacht seconded the amended motion and asked if it would be better for a three (3) month period from the placement or a six (6) months from the approval. Mr. Muth felt three (3) months from placement was fair, giving the applicant ninety (90) days from placement to complete.

Mr. Bragiel questioned that the exterior things would fall under the building permit. Mr. Brown agreed and added anything not attached to the home would have to be up to code.

Mrs. Pearce explained the appeal timeline. Mr. Muth clarified the amendment would reflect three (3) months from placement, ninety (90) days from placement.

Mrs. Pearce advised a certificate of occupancy would not be issued until the septic was complete.

Mr. Schacht seconded the amended motion.

1.    The home is painted or sided within the period of three (3) months of the placement.
2.    That any attachments – decks, porches, awnings to be painted or treated with the same period of three (3) months of the placement.
3.    These conditions to be reviewed by the director of community development.

No further discussion.

Chairman called for the question.
Voting was unanimous.

Item #9     Report from Staff to the Board, including pending, recent, and future agenda items.

Mr. Brown advised the board there were no pending agenda items and he was asking the P&Z commission to revise the statute to clarify how decisions were made.

Mr. Muth suggested that to avoid any future problems to declare a moratorium until some of these issues get resolved. Board members agreed.

Mr. Schacht questioned how staff or county would address the activism in Concho.

Mr. Brown explained that he had heard from some of the Concho residents and was aware of the community concerns, he had set up a Facebook account for Community Development to get ideas and/or concerns and that he had attended some community meetings with Supervisor Doyel Shamley to see what the majority wanted.

Mr. Muth noted that other counties had certain areas designated for different types of homes; perhaps something to investigate for future development.

Mr. Bragiel didn’t feel the 15 year rule served as a sensible way to evaluate the variances and noted that some newer ones were trashy and some older ones are well maintained, suitable in any area, he added that any trailer that met the minimum requirements by state law could be put in any area of the county. He questioned the moratorium and clarified it was just for variances’.

Mr. Brown agreed and warned they had gone beyond the agenda item, if they wanted to talk after the meeting of they could email him their ideas. He also noted there would be training on the role of the Board.

Mr. Muth suggested a work session before or after the next meeting to work through some of the issues and concerns. Mr. Brown agreed.

Item #10  Adjourn

Chairman Dan Muth opened for a motion.
Vice-Chairman Michael Schacht moved to adjourn.
Michael Bragiel seconded the motion.
Voting is unanimous.
Adjourn 12: 55 p.m.