August 19, 2009
Chairperson Lassley read the statement regarding the Open Meetings Act.
1. Chairperson Lassley called the hearing to order at 5:00 p.m. Other members present were: Boyer,
Boerner, Buehler and Steele.
2. Next, was the approval of the minutes from the November 18th, 2008 meeting.
Member Buehler made the motion to approve the minutes of the November 18th, 2008 meeting Member Boyer seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 5 - "yes" (Boyer, Boerner, Buehler, Lassley and Steele) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
3. Next, was the public hearing on the variance request ( VAI-2009-01 ) from Joe Hynek in regards to the minimum side yard setback distance (6’) for an accessory building on a property located in the R2-Medium Density Residential zoning district as stated in Article 5, Section 5.07.5a of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Fairbury, Nebraska – 2005 Edition
The request is to allow for the placement of a garage to within 1’ of the side lot line on the property legally described as: Lot 12, Block 15, Highland Addition, City of Fairbury, Jefferson County, Nebraska [ 1120 F Street ].
Chairperson Lassley opened the hearing.
Mr. Hynek was present and addressed the Board in regards to his request for variance. He states that the request was to replace a garage that was located there before. He notes that space on his lot is limited because of a sewer line that crosses in-front of the garage and the retaining wall to the south that was part of a common drive. He does not feel that the variance would have any impact on neighbor’s properties. He explains that the old garage was deteriorating and he was in the hospital when the new one came up for sale so others did a lot of the work for him. He believes that the character of the area will be improved because it will allow them to store their vehicles and yard equipment. He also notes that all the drainage from his property goes southeast. Member Lassley notes that the existing garage is the one that Hynek is requesting the variance for and that this is all being done after the fact. Member Buehler questioned why Mr. Hynek did not get the proper permits before he built the garage. Mr. Hynek states that he cannot explain why he just did not get the permits. Member Buehler asked if it was agreeable with all the neighbors and Hynek responded that he does not know he did not ask. Member Buehler notes that the garage has been built for a year and ½ and wonders why Hynek is getting the permits and variance now. Bedlan stated that her office received a complaint that Hynek did not get the proper permits and after investigation she discovered that Hynek’s building was nonconforming and needed all the permits and a variance to become a legally conforming structure. At which point this process began. Hynek came in and paid for all the required permits, he was denied a building permit based on location of the structure and he requested a variance. He paid his fee to be seen by the Board of Adjustments and now the Board of Adjustments needs to vote on whether or not they will allow for the building permit. If they vote yes he will be allowed a permit if they vote no he will have to move/remove the building. Member Buehler questioned if there is any objection to the type of building. Bedlan stated that there is not any objection to the type of building just the location in relations to the lot lines (8” – 1’ from the side lot line and 1’ from the back lot line). Hynek notes that the new building is further away from the side lot line then the old building was. Member Lassley questioned if Hynek poured a new pad and he stated that he did. Member Boyer questioned what was discussed before in regards to this property. Member Lassley stated that they addressed the drainage problem from the north previously with Davis’s variance. Member Lassley asked if they had any other comments from the public. Kelly Davis was present and spoke on behalf of the Davis’s. He stated that their main concern was that they were required to pay for all the permits and follow the proper procedure including getting a variance and when they had to come before the Board of Adjustments Hynek spoke against them. While Hynek himself did not have any permits and did not follow the procedures and even thought the garage has already been built it has not been approved by the Board of Adjustments. He noted that the Davises are the individuals who filed the complaint and they would like for Hynek to pay the same permit fees and follow the same procedure everyone else is required to. He also noted that they are also concerned that the garage does not have a door on it. Member Lassley stated that the door is not something regulated in zoning and is not an issue at this meeting. Hynek replied that his only issue with the Davis’s garage was with the retaining wall and drainage. Member Buehler asked if there are drainage problems on the lot now and Hynek responded that – if an engineer provided that drainage designed then he forgot to go to school – and yes that they are still having water problems. Member Lassley stated that he does not believe any of that drainage issue has to do with the garage. Hynek stated again that the only reason he was concerned about the variance was due to drainage issues and not the location of the garage. Member Lassley gave his opinions in regards to the variance requirements answering 1A – no, 1B – no, except sewer line and that is not an acceptable reason to grant a variance in his opinion. Member Buehler stated that he disagrees with Lassley on 1B. Member Lassley continues; 2A – yes, 2B – yes, 2C – no and 2D. Member Boerner asked if Hynek has paid his fees and it is noted that he has. Member Boerner agrees that Hynek needs to follow the same procedures that everyone else does. It is clarified again that Hynek has paid in full and it is now a question of whether or not the building will be allowed to remain or if it needs to be moved or removed to meet compliance. Member Buehler questioned if they can grant the variance and fine Hynek for not getting the proper permits prior to building. Member Lassley agreed. Bedlan was not sure if they can place a set fine on an individual. She noted that by refusing the variance they would be imposing a $100 fine per day and forcing the removal or moving of the building. She stated that she would check with the City Attorney on that. Member Boerner recommended the Board of Adjustment issue a “warning” and wanted it noted somewhere that he has received his one warning and will be held accountable next time. Member Lassley questioned if they are willing to allow the variance. Member Boyer asked if they would have allowed the variance if he would have followed the correct procedure. Member Boerner does not believe they should require Hynek to tear down the building. Member Lassley stated that he could move the garage over the basketball court and avoid the sewer line. Member Boerner stated that he would like to place emphasis on making sure that this does not happen again with anyone in the city. Member Buehler questioned if the notice in the paper and/or light and water bill has had any effect on build. Bedlan stated that she believes it has. She noted that last year at this time she had approximately 7 variance request between September and November. Since then they put a notice in the paper and light and water bill informing people to get permits prior to building or they may be subject to a fine. She believes proof of the effectiveness of the effort to inform the public is seen in the many calls she has been receiving from the public in regards to building permits and the fact that these are the first two variances they have had this year and one is technically from 2008. Member Buehler made the motion that the Board approve the variance application request ( VAI-2009-01 ) from Joe Hynek to allow for a variance from side and rear yard setbacks for an accessory building in the Medium Density Residential Zoning district. Member Boyer seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 4 – “yes” (Boyer, Boerner, Steele and Buehler) / 1 “no” (Lassley). The motion passed.
Chairperson Lassley closed the hearing.
2. Next, was the public hearing on the variance request ( VAI-2009-02 ) from Roger Schoenrock in regards to the maximum square foot requirement (1,080 sq. ft.) for an accessory building located in an R1-Low Density Residential zoning district as stated in Article 5, Section 5.06 Special Provision 2 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Fairbury, Nebraska – 2005 Edition.
The request is to allow for an accessory building exceeding 1,080 square feet on the property legally described as: Fraction of Lot 7, Sec. 14-2-2 Hansens Addition, City of Fairbury, Jefferson County, Nebraska [ 1600 East 6th Street ].
Chairperson Lassley opened the hearing.
Mr. Schoenrock was present and addressed the Board in regards to his request for variance. Schoenrock stated that the property in question is located on 569 Road and joins that back of his property at 1600 E 6th Street. It is his shop and he has grain bins and other farm equipment located there. He began putting the building up 15 years ago and did not have a permit at the time but does not know if he needed one then. He notes that it is outside of the city limits by about 10’. His neighbors do not have any objections to him finishing the structure. Other than his immediate neighbors all other property in the area is agriculture and he notes that he has been using it in that manner since he has owned it. He stated that it is an open lean too building which has two bays up now and he has 4 more bays to add to the south. His opinion is that it should not be zoned residential as he does not believe that it would be likely for the area to ever be developed. He notes that he owns 5 acres all joined in that area. Member Buehler questions who maintains zoning outside of the city limits. Bedlan states that the 1 mile zone around the city is considered the peripheral and is maintained by the city zoning. Member Buehler stated that he believes Schoenrocks plans for the area are beneficial to the area. Member Lassley stated that they have had other concerns with the minimum size limits for accessory buildings in the city limits and feels they are even more of an issue outside of the city limits and he feels that that problem needs to be addressed in the zoning regulations. Member Boerner made the motion that the Board approve the variance application request ( VAI-2009-02 ) from Roger Schoenrock to allow for a variance from the maximum sq. ft. requirement of 1,080 sq. ft. for an accessory building in the Low Density Residential Zoning district. Member Steele seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 5 – “yes” (Boyer, Boerner, Steele and Buehler, Lassley) / 0 “no”. The motion passed.
Chairperson Lassley closed the hearing.
4. Next, was the item of comments for non-agenda items from the public. There were no public comments
on non-agenda item.
6. With no other business on the agenda, Member Boerner made the motion to adjourn. Member Buehler seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 5 - "yes" (Steele, Boerner, Lassley, Buehler, Boyer) / 0 - "no". The motion passed. Chairperson Lassley declared the meeting adjourned.
Laura K. Bedlan
Board of Adjustment Secretary