A regular meeting of the City of Washington Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 in the Training Room at Fire Station No. 1 by Chairman Mike Brownfield.

Present and answering Roll Call were Board members Mike Brownfield, Doug Weston, Louis Milot, Dick Rich and Lori Weston. Board Members Mark Lee and Steve Scott were absent.

Also present was Building & Zoning Supervisor Becky Holmes, City Clerk/ZBA Secretary Carol Moss and petitioners Richard Gillespie and Clay and Christy Campbell.

Ms. Weston moved and Mr. Rich seconded to approve the minutes of the September 27, 2006 ZBA meeting, as presented. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

Case No. 5/23/07 - V-1 - side yard and rear yard variance request and distance between structures variance request of Richard J. Gillespie, 704 E. Holland for the construction of a garage - Ms. Weston moved and Mr. Rich seconded to approve the case as stated.

Richard Gillespie was present and told the Board that the old garage was one stall , deteriorated and was torn down. He wants to construct a 24' x 24' detached garage two feet from the side property line and two feet from the rear property line and about three feet from his neighbors garage. He is requesting the variances because to comply with the zoning requirements he would have to put the garage in the middle of his back yard.

B&Z Supervisor Holmes reported that the property is zoned R-1 with a frontage of 50' and a depth of 120'. The proposed garage will be further from the principal structure and farther from the west neighbor's garage than the original garage was. The petitioner might not be able to receive reasonable return without a garage or with the placement of a garage, and there are unique circumstances because of the narrow lot. The lot is 15 feet narrower than the required lot width of 65'. The character of the neighborhood will not be altered because the new structure will be farther from the neighboring garage than the original, and there are many structures in the neighborhood that are close to lot lines. Staff recommended approval of the side yard, rear yard and distance between structure variances.

Mr. Milot asked if the old garage was grandfathered in and B&Z Supervisor Holmes replied that is correct.

Findings of Fact - Application for variance was made by the owner of the property at 704 E. Holland; property is zoned R-1; proper fees were paid; a variance is being requested in order to construct a 24' x 24' garage; a public hearing was held on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 after proper notice was given and published as required by city ordinance and state statutes; at the public hearing all person were given the opportunity to be heard; there were no objections to the granting of the variance; a letter from the next door neighbors, Mike and Cindy Byrd, 301 S. Cedar Street was entered into the record stating that Mr. and Mrs. Byrd have no objections to the granting of the variance and no objection to the distance between the new garage and their existing garage; the property in question could not yield reasonable return because the old garage which was badly deteriorated was removed and the property needs at least a double stall garage; the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstance because the lot is 15' narrower than currently allowed by code; the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because there are many structures in the neighborhood that are close to the lot lines.

On roll call the motion to approve the case as presented, the vote was: 
Ayes: 5 D. Weston, Milot, Rich, L. Weston, Brownfield 
Nays: 0 
Motion declared carried. 

Case No. 052307-V-2 - request of Clayton and Christine Campbell, 114 S. High, for a side yard variance for the construction of an addition to an existing structure. Ms. Weston moved and Mr. Rich seconded to approve Case No. 052307-V-2 as stated.

Christine Campbell outlined what they are proposing to do saying they want to add an addition to the rear of their home and that they have sufficient rear yard, but the addition will be two foot off the side property line.

B&Z Supervisor Holmes reported that the proposed addition to the rear of the house will require removal of the deck. The existing house including overhang is one foot four inches from the property line. The addition will be offset from the original structure by six inches with the resulting building line being one foot ten inches from the property line. Code requires a five foot side yard setback from the overhang. The property is zoned R-1 with frontage of fifty feet and a depth of 220'. The lot is 15' narrower than required lot width of 65'. The original structure was constructed prior to setback requirements and has only 1' 4" to the property line, measured from the overhang. It appears that the petitioner would be able to realize reasonable return without the addition to the principal structure. The lot is narrow and deep which are unique circumstances and the character of the neighborhood would not be altered as the addition would encroach less into the side yard setback than the original structure. Staff recommended denial because reasonable return could be realized.

Ms. Weston asked what they will be adding on and Mr. Campbell replied a single story addition. Chairman Brownfield asked why the 6" offset and Mr. Campbell replied that on the driveway side they would not have to remove the siding. Ms Weston asked if they use the garage off the alley and Mrs. Campbell replied that is correct. Mr. Milot said they are asking for a 3'2" variance which leaves 1' 10" from the overhang. He questioned how close they are to the neighboring house.

Clifford Smith, son of the occupant of the house next door, said that considering the entire neighborhood, these are the only two houses that are this close together.

Chairman Brownfield asked why this size? Why not smaller? Why not shorten 3' on the side?

Mrs. Campbell replied the addition will look better if it is the size requested. Mr. Campbell said he wants to be able to align the pitch of the roofs. Mrs. Campbell noted that half of the addition will be laundry room and a master bedroom and bathroom and the remainder will be a great room. She went on to say that the addition will be nicely done and pointed out that they have done a lot of upgrading to the home. Chairman Brownfield still questioned the 6" offset saying he would much rather see the addition set back an additional 3'. Ms. Weston pointed out that the major concern about the structure being so close to the neighbor is fire. Mr. Milot asked why not go up instead and Mrs. Campbell replied it would be a waste of space because they would not use the upper story. Mrs. Campbell asked why the Board is having such a time with this and Chairman Brownfield replied if the Campbell's had asked for a one foot variance it would have been more palatable. If they were to turn the addition and go back farther it would be better. If the addition is shrunk in size the Campbell's would not need a variance because they have sufficient room in the rear yard.

Findings of Fact - application was made by the owners of the real estate located at 114 S High Street; proper fees were paid; property is zoned R-1; variance request was made in order to construct an addition to the primary structure; a public hearing was held on Wednesday, May 23, 2007; proper notice was published as required; at the public hearing all persons were given the opportunity to be heard: there was objection to the granting of the public hearing; the property in question can yield reasonable return without the addition; plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances because of the closeness of the subject property and the house next door and the narrow lot; character of the neighborhood would not be altered because the addition would be less of an encroachment into the side yard than the original structure.

On roll call on the motion to approve the variance request the vote was: 
Ayes: 0 
Nays: 5 Milot, D. Weston, Rich, L. Weston, Brownfield 
Motion DID NOT CARRY - DENIED.

Mrs. Campbell asked why the Board chose to deny the variance request and Chairman Brownfield replied if the request would have been for a one foot variance on the side it would have been more palatable. He suggested shrinking the size of the addition and then there would not be a need for a variance. He also pointed out that fire hazard is the big reason for denying the request with the close proximity of this dwelling with the neighboring house. That and the reasonable return matter. The owners can realize reasonable return without the addition, if they choose to sell the property. Ms. Weston stated that her major concern is fire and the close proximity of the two dwellings. Others voice similar concern.

There was no additional business to come before the Zoning Board of Appeals and at 6:53 p.m. Mr Rich moved and Ms. Weston seconded to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

**************************************************