Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.83.33i ,~ Bill Lukes moved that the. following be adopted BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJtJSTD4~NT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO . g 3 - 3 3 John Crosby, Lot 12, Block 1, Gateway of Snowmass WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is vested with the power to grant or deny such variances by virtue of Title II, Section 16-1.3, Pitkin County Code (Land Use Code) and Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, 30-28-•118(2) (C); and, 47HEREAS, based on the evidence presented, the Board o.f Adjustment makes the following findings: 1. Proper notice procedures, including the notification of all adjorninq property owners, has been shown by the applicant. ?.. The required hardship or practical difficulty.has been established. 3. Granting such ,relief will not cause substantial detriment to the public welfare and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zoning Resolutions and the zoning maps. i•IOI•~, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a 25.8' sideyard variance and a 20' rearyard variance Additional conditions or restrictions: 6.7ARIVING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Dottie Fox seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows:. Dottie Fox - yes Kandi Shaffran - yes Bill Lukes - yes George Bryan - yes Joe Zanin - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED : November 14 , 19 8 3 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Attest : ~-- r , , 3- Secrete ~ ~ .. t, .~ ...~ • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DATE ~ ~ '` `1 APPLICANT ~._.LSl ~ ~~ ~~ ^ y~u`~~ OWNER ,/ ~7 19~ CASE# / ADDRESS ~~ X33 -3.~ ~~~ \~ '~ ~ v LOCATION OF PROPERTY ~U~~~~~'`~ ~f/r' ~'/~~-~.,~.~/ ~ ~~ /~ ~/"~`"~~' ~~ ~ ' Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part this Case No. The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. Applicant's description of proposed variance showing justification: i ~` ~~ ~ / ~ `~~~~~`~ CSC Applicant .~ign~tur -c- - -- Provisions of the zoning resolution requirin ui ding I spe for to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not granting a buiding permit: - z4~~ 'Q_-~ ~3 Building Inspector ( ~/ Date Permit rejected: ~,,,~~,,~,,,~ Board decision L/ Application filed Date Mailed Secretary Board of Adjustment ~,,.,.,>.y,~ NOTICE OF .PUBLIC HEARIN- BEFO~THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD O~DJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public Hearing will be held in the County Commissioners Room, Pitkin County Court House, Aspen., Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the County Zoning Resolution. ,,. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views protests or objections. If you cannot a ear at such meeting, then you are urged to state your vies by petterpersonally particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustmer will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and other affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ARE. AS FOLLOWS: Date and time of meeting; November l4, 1983 Name and Address of Applicant for Variance: John C/Barbara Crosby, Box 2025, Aspen Location of Property or Description: Lot 12, Block 1, Gateway of Snowmass at 5:15 o'clock ~_ Variance Requested: a 25.8' sideyard setback variance and a 20' rearyard setback variance for construction of residence Duration of Variance: Condition: Permanent: XXX ;Temporary THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Bill Mason, Chairman ~.,.,, ~,.~3 .. ., ~~-~ ~,~. ~i s LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY tfWNERS LOT 1 . ERNEST H. HEYDT, JR. 1028 E HOPKINS /N0. 19/. ASPEN, CO 81611 LOT 6 EVELYN H4CBRIDE P. o .Box 9843 ASPEN, CO 81612 LOT 7 DON VOL.TNER P. o. Box 10366 ASPEN, CO 81612 LOT 11 ELAINE SAXON 520 ESTER LAKE4r00D, CO 80226 /Ccw~-~-c V ~~ r ~~ O ~G. ~ . ~- ~ z3 _,~ ~ /~ ~ / S 5, ~. (f _ ~ I _ _ BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT COLORADO STATE OFFICE ROOM 700, COLORADO STATE BANK BLDG. 1600 BROADjti~AY DENVER, COLORADO 80202 i - , _... " '~ , ,;, ,. t>,',; ,~ :(~-- .,,- =~~ ~. f'~ `~•._~~ 8 7.6 ~! r ~- m ~ ~ i ~i rri , -' m ~c.c~. ~ a ~ '~ - ~,.~,~ l.~ .~ !1~ .e`~ • ~ ~ ~ !~ l.- ) ~- i ~a I`` " ~~- z' M rn ~, ~_- =--- i 3 ~ ' r •- tvt.c:~~~.ca_t-c'~ ~o~un::~ re(rxzr F =`~_:~ i ~•1 .~/' stl i~ I' I 2~ \ • _ 0~ \ \~~' `~, _ l i ~\ ivoze s ~l~nere is an easecuent or right-of'-way 7.~ feet in width along and on each side of all lot lines for utility purposes. Le~al~ Descriptim i~ot 12, Block 1, Gateway of ~~nowma .~.~ Iti~esa `.~ubdivi- sion, 'T'hird riling, Pitkin County, Colorado. ,~~~~~ w. r .:~ „~ ~ i~,r Via' ~3~ . L,-~{:.. 12 . ~ ~ t~:.. f , ~rcx..~'.e~rJa~..r o~ ~tca W v~tus y .3`1~"~5 ~, u.hr;P _ . ~ 3 . Yr'1..'~ i.vc.~~~-~..o: x,~,.+~ v , C.~o l o~ra.~c,> B~~ L/NES /N ~"P~E SYDNEY L/NC/C4AIE (L.S /~9i6///J BOX 121 CAFt80NQALE. COLO. 303.963-3852 • LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LOT 1 ERNEST H. HEYDT, JR. 1028 E HOPKINS /NO. 19/ ASPEN,CO 81611 LoT 6 EVELYN P'1CBRIDE P, o . aox 9843 ASPEN,CO 81612 LOT 7 DON VOLTN~R P, o, aox 10366 ASPEN, CO 81612 LOT 11 ELAINE SAXON 520 ESTER LAKEWOOD,CO 80226 BUR1?E1U OI~' LAND i`L4NACF,AIENT ~ COLORADO STATE OPFICI; ° ROGP1 7U0, COLORADO STATE BANK BLDG. 7 600 BROADI~~',~'~~` I DI~NVER, COLORf\DO 80202 ~~ ~ J~~o. ~~-~ ' ~3 ..? ..5~ ' ~ ~~ `~ ~'s ~,s • ~ . PUBLIC NO'L'LCL fiOTICi~, OZ' PUBLIC I'1T;AlI.P1G 13Ih"ORJ•~ TILL 1~I'1'KIN CU'UNTY I30AT'.v OI' AllJUS:1'hi1~:N'I' TO TO nr~L PTtOPEIt'I'Y OClN1.RS AFPIsCTEI) BY TIiL Rlc1U>JSTLD GGNING OR -US)J VARI~~~CE DESCRIBED BL• LOl't :, ` Pursuant to Pitkiii County Zon•in~ Resolution of .June 5, 1955, ~s amende 1 , a Put~T is Hearin; will be held in the County Commissioners Room, Pitkin County Court IIouse, Asper. Cvl~iado, (or at such other place as the m^eting may then be ad,~ourred) to consider an application filed with the said Board of 1!djustmcnt requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the County Zonins Resolution. All person ~ a.ffectec3 by the prcposed variance ~~re invited to appear znd state their views, protests, or objections. If you cannot appear 1~ersonally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of adjustment «~ill give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners ana others n.ffected in deci.diiYg ~c~hether to ,grant or dany the request fog variance. DATE AND TI',`5: OF r'1.r.ETIh'G: November" 14 ,..1983. at .5:15 0„' clock P .111. John C/Barbara M. Cr.osby,~Lot..12,,131ock 1, Gateway of Snowmass requesting 25.8' sideyard setback variance. and a 20' rearyard setback for construction of residence. ^ • • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT November 14, 1983 Special Meeting John Crosby, Lot 12, Block 1, Gateway of now coming before the Board to request a variance and a 20' rearyard variance for residence. This is a continuation of the October 25, 1983 and the site inspection 100 Leaves Snowmass 83-33 25.8' sideyard setback construction of a new meeting held on of October 28, 1983. Present were: Bill Mason, Chairman Dottie Fox Bill Lukes Joe Zanirn Kandi Shaffran George Bryan Evan Gull Bill Mason called the meeting to order. It was determined that there were no objections from the adjacent property owners regarding the new numbers. Bill Lukes questioned if the numbers listed on the minutes from the site inspection. Shaffran reminded the Board that Mrs. Saxon was not as concerned on the closeness of the side if it were pushed further to the rear. Lukes moved to grante a 25.8' sideyard variance and a 20' rearyard variance due to topographical hardships. Fox second the motion. Vote was called for, all were in favor. Next on this meetings agenda was for a directional sign for the Community Center to be placed by the Mill Street Bridge. Marie MacTavish was there to represent the Community Center. She explained to the Board that there was presently two signs, one on the hill as you approach the Center and the other is directly in front of the Center. She wanted to take the sign that is immediately in front of the building and relocate it across from the Mill Street Bridge as you veer left. They would add an arrow underneath the sign to direct people where to go. Shaffran questioned if notices would need to be sent. MacTavish stated that Patsy Newbury of the ,building . department had told her that they wouldn't be needed. Mason stated that normally notices had to be given. Gull wanted to know if this was a variance or a review. Lukes felt that it would require a variance. Gull felt that it would only require the Board's approval. Lukes felt it would require a variance because it is, not in conformance with the sign code because it is a sign identifying a use. Shaffran questioned about the lighting. MacTavish stated that she had discussed the subject with the Co. Engineering and they would work with the Board. Mason felt that a street light should be at that area. Fox felt that lighting was very important. Shaffran agreed. Lukes wanted to know how moving the sign would improve its effectiveness. MacTavish stated that people had trouble finding the Center once the bridge is crossed. Fox didn't like the idea of placing the sign on the hill. Mason felt it would be more logical to place the sign at the intersection. Fox felt that it could be incorporated with a street light. Lukes questioned if there was a lighting plan for that entire area. Mason stated that there was some little lights that don't do.~the job. • • OR.Y ~ r NOECK EL B. B. 9 L. CJ. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Page 2 Mason agreed that Lures pointed out directional sign. and put the sign sign should be at County should be MacTavish stated department. November 14, 1983 Board of Adjustment some sort of directional sign is necessary. that it should be 6" x 30" which is an allowed Fox suggested that a light is necessary there under the light. And Mason restated that the the junction. Lukes suggested that the receptive to putting up directive signs. that she had requested help from that Lukes moved to grant permit approval for a directional sign for the Community Center for 6" x 30", non-illuminated, directional sign on the County right-of-way just below the Lone Pine Condos. MacTavish wanted to know if it would be acceptable to use another type of street lighting to illuminate the sign. Mason stated that would be ok, but no lighting of sign is allowed. MacTavish questioned about lighting a sign that is on the Center's property. nukes thought that the Board only reviewed signs on County property. Mason said that they reviewed all signs. Bill Drueding, from the Building Dept. stated that a sign on private property could be illuminated as the owner wants. Fox stated that she has always been under the impression that the Board reviewed all signs in the County, not just right-of-way. Fox stated that a clarification is necessary. Bryan wanted to know if a code book was made available to the Board members for information: Lukes stated that the Board of Adjustment duties and applicable information was sent to the new members. Mason directed the Building Dept. to send those requirements. Bryan felt that it would be a nice benefit for the members to have a complete code book. Mason stated that he would ask the Commissioners about that. Mason called for a vote regarding the Community Center Sign. All were in favor. Fox briefed~Mason on the issue that came up regarding the sign code and review of signs in the valley and requested that he contact Tom Smith, Co.Attorney, to get a clarification. Fox suggested that the members write up their feelings on the proper procedure and bring it in on the next meeting and then work on a code amendment. Fox also suggested that clarification be made as to what signs the Board has jurisdiction .ov.er. Mason agreed to contact the County Attorney. Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully, submitted, ~~~,. ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ c ~. v-------~ ~'~udrey Richman ~~ Bill Mason, Chairman • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~Oa. '.c C. s. HUECN EL B. 8. fl L. CU. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS October 28, 1983 Special Meeting A site inspection was held at the Crosby's property which is located at Lot 12, Block 1, Gateway of Snowmass. The Board was trying to determine if a hardship existed making it necessary to grant a 25.8' sideyard setback and what type of impact it would create for Elaine Saxon, an adjacent property owner. Present were: Dottie Fox, Chairperson Paul Krausch Bill Lukes Kandi Shaffran Bob Throm Peter Dobrovolny The Board members were shown around the property by the owner and the prospective contractor. The house was staked out on the lot. Saxon pointed out the side of the house which would impact lzer the most. Throm thought the property had plenty of building area without a variance. Most members felt that there would be no rationale for granting the variance. The contractor, Wayne Rudd, pointed out to the members that it was the only buildable area possible for the type of style house they were trying to build. He stated that the roof line from grade would be 12'. Lukes. wondered what right the Board had dictating the type of house owners were allowed to build, but felt that a house could be built within the setbacks. The Board members viewed the house from Saxon's deck. They suggested pushing the house further toward the rear which would drop the house line. Saxon felt that would satisfy her objection. The owners did not have a problem with the move either. Throm suggested that something be drawn on paper before the Board vote on it. Lukes motioned to grant.the.variance with a 25.8' on the sideyard and a 20' rearyarcl setback variance after renotification of neighbors and notice was placed in paper. It was suggested that the Crosby's have the proper specifications placed on a survey so the Board could act with something tangible to put in the file. This was agreed upon and a special meeting was arranged for November 14 at the usual time in the Commissioners Room. This would allow time for the proper publications. Lukes then motioned th~.t such a meeting be called for. Shaffran second the motion. All were in favor. The item was then tabled until such time. r , . • • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ,ar ~.rc ce [~ n. e. n ~. co. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT October 2~i, 1983 Regular Meeting :Members Present: Dottie Fox, Acting Chairman Paul Krausch Bill Lukes Joe Zanin Alternates: Bob Throm Kandi Shaffran Peter Dobrovolny George Bryan 100 Leaves Dottie rr^ox called the regular meeting of the Pitkin County Board of Adjustment to order. She questioned the members if there were any corrections or additions to be made to last months minutes. Joe anin moved to approve the minutes. Bill Lukes second the motion. All in favor. ~7ohn C./Barbara M. Crosby, Lot 12, Block 1, Gateway of Snowmass 83-33 requesting a 25.80 sideyard setback variance for construction of residence. Also they are requesting an 8.5' rearyard variance. Elaine Saxon was there was an adjacent property owner to find out wizere the Crosby's wanted to build and how close it would be to her house. Since the Crosby's were not present, Fox asked that Saxon give her opinion to be considered at the time that the Crosby's :~~ere available. Saxon stated that she wanted to determine the distance of the structure from her residence. After reviewing the available plot plan, she would prefer that the Crosby's did not build so close to her. Dobrovolny stated that he was a residence of the subdivision and the president of -the homeowners association at one time and he could not find a hardship, except that they wanted the best possible area for view. Saxon explained, using the plat map, where her residence was in connection with the Crosby's property. Fox questioned if there was other available building areas on the lot. Dobrovolny pointed out where the ridge ran on the property. i~'r. Crosby entered the meeting to represent self. He explained ~_izat they had placed the one-story structure on the lot in the best area available. He stated that they were trying to keep the house low. Saxon stated that the placing of the structure would put it ~-cr_y close to her house. Throm questioned if there were elevations or the oroposed house. Crosby stated that he did not. The Saxon house was existing. Krausch questioned why the house had to be set so close to the north. Crosby stated that it would be f_or the view. Throm suggested that the Board explain to Crosby the hardships that the Board had to work with. Fox did so. Crosby stated that he was not aware of the setback requirements when the lot was purchased. ,, ,. • • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Page 2 Board of Adjustment October 2$, 1983 Throm again asked for an elevation map of the property. Crosby described the lot as best he could. Fox informed Crosby that if there was a buildable area within the required setbacks, then a variance couldn't be granted because there isn't a hardship. Crosby stated that this particular design couldn't be built anywhere else. Newbury stated that the 50' setback requirement was after the downzoning. Before there was a 30' setback requirement. Crosby bought the property after the downzoning. Krausch questioned if there was a hill on the property that prevented construction. Throm stated that he couldn't suggest a variance without seeing a topography map. Fox suggested a site inspection. after discussion, the Board moved the structure back so that the rearyard setback was not necessary. Saxon was satisfied with that :ositioning. Crosby stated that if they had to start redesigning t_o f.it the property, they would probably build another house. Throm requested that Crosby sketch in where the structure would ho built in relation to the hillside. Lukes didn't feel that the downzoning impacted the potential building area so substantially that the lot is unbuildable. Dobrovolny agreed with Lukes. Bryan felt that the hardship was the fact that an owner had to sacrifice 2/3 of their lot due to the County zoning. Ollie Field, the realitor for the property, stated to the Board that, yes, another house could be designed for the property, but the Crosby's are working people without the financial means to design a very expensive house. Fox stated that the Board could not take in financial considerations. Throm suggested that Mrs. Saxon and Mr. Crosby go into the hallway and try to work out a compromise. Fox agreed. Jim & Nancy Holland, 0028 Riverbend Road, Basalt, 83-34 requesting a 64' frontyard setback variance and a 17' sideyard setback variance for addition of garage. Phil McKenzie was there to represent the owners. Fox explained to the Board members that this area is zoned AF-1 which required 100' frontyard setback end 30' sideyard and rearyard setbacks. Area subdivided prior to zoning. There is a 200' required setback from Highway 82 however, this does not encroach into that area. McKenzie gave the ;~oard a letter of signatures from the adjacent property owners ~~}ZOwing their approval. McKenzie stated that the owner had ~_: smal_1 house and needed additional room for storage and a place or hi_s vehicle. He assured the Board that the garage would stay a garage. Plewbury stated•that the size of•the lot should be zoned R-30, but is in AF-l. Also the shape of the lot created a hardship. The house was built prior to ,zoning. Joe Zanin motioned to grant the request due to downzoning and the share of the lot. Bill Lukes second the motion. A vote was taken and all were in favor. • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~aM. ~ .. im «KE~ n. n. n ~. co. Page 3 Board of Adjustment October 2~, 1983 Carrie Ross c/o Garfield & Hecht, 83-32 50.244 acres in West Buttermilk, requesting exemption from the Growth Management Process for construction of residence. Kate Hendricks was there to represent the Ross's. Hendricks stated that the Ross's have not applied for review under the C~P•1P because their position is that they are not required to do so, feeling that they have statutory exemption as decided by the Colorado Springs Court in the Pennobscot, Inc. v. The Board of ::ounty Commissioners which was decided in March, 1982, She explained that that decision held that there is no authority to reuul.ate a subdivision, a division of tract of land that is greater ~-_han 35 acres, non of which is for use by multiple owners. Hendricks stated that there was a preliminary issue as to whether the request should come before the Board. That issue arises because the code ;:rovides that no provision of this section (Sec. 16-1.5) shall -tram the Board of Adjustments any authority whatsoever with respect to subdivision regulations or any provisions under general regulations of_ Article 5, except some exceptions, which weren't revelant at this meeting. Hendricks stated that the Board may decide that they wish to not decide on this issue. She explained that the reason she ~.aas before them was due to a similar case in court now, Morris v. Board of County Commissioners, and the County Attorney has made a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to come before the Board of Adjustment first. Fox requested legal advice from Tom Smith, County Attorney. Smith stated that Hendricks was correct and the County Attorney was, taking the position that Morris should have taken his case to the Board of Adjustment prior to filing his appeal. Smith stated that the Board did have jurisdiction in this matter to make a decision. He explained that what they could approve or deny was limited. Smith stated that the Board could not declare the legislation unconstitutional, and that was one issue. Also the Board had no jurisdiction to ignore land use code. The basis of the ]=Board's jurisdiction is to interpret and apply the land use code '_o the facts of this particular case. Smith stated that the argument i_s that there is an exemption and the Board must look at the land use code, including the amendments (Resolution 83-19) and determine if that provision creates an exemption for the applicant in this case or not. Krausch felt that the case as presented in writing before the ~3oard with a given set of circumstances that the County Attorney is saying that the Board can't apply. Smith stated that if the. Board feel an interpretation of the land use code is necessary in this case, the Board is free to make the interpretation. Throm questioned what the Co. Commissioners were doing about this specific problem. Smith stated that the Co. Commissioners adopted Resolution 83-19 which dealt with Parcels of 35+ acres. Sunny Vann, from the Planning Dept., explained that philosophically the County has taken the position that Pennobscot decision is a very narrow decision under Senate Bill #35, which states that the County does not have the ability to regulate the subdivision of land in excess of 35 acres. The Co. Commissioners, he added, have taken the position, on the advice of the attornies that that does not prohibit the application of other land use regulatory mechanisms that exists (1041 Review, Permit Review or Growth Management). • • ORM •~ C. E N(~ECK EL 9. B. Pr 1. CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Page 4 Board of Adjustment October 2~, 1983 Throm questioned if a parcel of 35+ acres subdivided prior to Senate Bill #35 can be developed without review. Vann stated that each case was reviewed individually, but the major issue was if the parcel was subdivided prior to Growth Management, approximately ].977. Throm questioned if it was possible to acquire a building permit if the land was subdivided after the Growth Management Plan and is 35+ acres. Vann answered that it was. Throm then questioned ;why the Ross's were coming before the Board. Vann answered that when application was made for building permit they were turned down uecause they do not have a development application under the new regulatory changes and have chose to ask the Board of Adjustment to be waived from that competetive process as a hardship. Throm questioned if this was a means of getting off this level and onto the court level. Hendricks answered that that would be the result. Vann suggested that the applicant was asking the Board to decide the applicability of the County's recent amendment, or the purpose of such amendment and the Co. Attorney was stating that was outside the jurisdiction of the Board. Smith stated that if the applicants were questioning if the resolution was constitutional, then the Board would not have jurisdiction because the Board cannot declare their own regulations and statutes unconsitutional, but the way the question is framed the Board can decide if Patsy Newbury from the Building Dept. was wrong in denying the applicant a permit. Fox questioned if there was a difference of opinion regarding the matter at a court level. Smith stated that the County's position regarding the Pennobscot case was although it prevents the County from regulating as a subdivision, division of parcels of land into 35 acre, but that does not include the applicability of other land use regulations. Sunny Vann gave a history of the Board of County commissioners train of thought when deciding how to regulate parcels of 35+ acres. Fox stated that she would not be comfortable in saying that she didn't believe in the County's land use code. Throm questioned Vann as to why "1041" was created. Smith explained that it was the position of the County that "1041" was the sole basis for the particular interpretation now under discussion. He stated that "1041" now provides the only authority for the implementation of Growth Management. Vann gave a brief explanation of what"1041" was for the Board's information. Lulces questioned Vann how Resolution 83-19 could be used to prevent growth when single family residences were low density growth already. Vann stated that the issue was that the County has chosen to regulate the rate of development on a competitive basis. Vann stated that there were certain exemption's on certain lets. Lukes stated that his confusion lays with the fact of can the Board unreasonably prevent Ilse of land. Vann explained that prevention of use was not the case, but that the owner must follow the process. Krausch felt that if an owner has had legislature passed on hi s,Tand that creates a situation :where it may or may not be buildable, he questioned how that would be considered different from downzoning. Smith answered that in the case of downzoning, the only place the applicant can turn is the Board of Adjustment. In the case of the legislature, the applicant can submit to the GMP process and he may be approved. Krausch questioned • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS )VM ,~ C.: HO ECK EL B. B. N L. CJ. Page 5 `rendricks how decision for to turn down .fact that the an area that Board of Adjustment 100 Leaves October 2$, 1983 she felt that the Board would arrive at a favorable the owner. She stated that she expected the Board the request. Hendricks based her argument on the hardship was the County was trying to regulate they should. not. Smith restated that the issue before the Board was if Patsy ~lewbury properly applied the regulations in this case. Fox felt that based upon the guidelines that Newbury has followed in all the other cases, she was right in her decision to turn down the hermit application. Hendricks wanted to clarify to the Board that .she was presenting two questions to the Board; one, she correctly rejected the permit and the other, the Board chooses not to decide regarding the requirement of the GMP process. Smith felt that the Board could not decide against the GMP process because it ~,aould be working against its own entity. He also encouraged the Board to make a decision of some kind. Krausch felt the oath that Smith was indicating was very narrow. Smith stated that the Board could make whatever decision they wanted, he was just advising them. Lukes compared the Growth Management process with the Building Permit process, feeling they were very comparable. 'I'hrom questioned if Newbury based her decision on Resolution 83-19. Vann stated that she didn. Throm then questioned Hendricks what l;er position was regarding the resolution and why she felt the owners did not have to comply. She stated that they did not have ah argument ~~.~ith the interpretation that was made of Resolution 83-19. Fox questioned the Board if they felt comfortable with the information that leas been given them. She then entertained a motion. Lukes moved that based on the actions of the Co. Commissioners in response to the Pennobscot case that the Bldg. Dept. was correct in interpreting that the applicant should be required to go through the Growth :`•lanagement plan and he moved to deny the appeal of that decision. Kandi Shaffran second the motion. Krausch felt that the motion was inappropriate. He agreed that Newbury acted properly within the rules that she has to work with, but he felt that any action on the part of the Board is inappropriate. He felt that there was nothing that requires or demands action of the Board within the rE sF,or.s_~ l-: ~ l:~ t ; e.; o; ~:1~~E• Board. Lukes felt that the Board should make a decision. He felt that the applicant was correctly appealing to the Board based on a decision made by the Building Dept. Krausch did not think that the Board's decision was quite as simply as that. Fox called for a vote. Three voted for and two voted against. Motion did not pass. Fox questioned Krausch if he wanted to make a motion. lIe did not want to take action in any form. He did not feel that the Board had a role as has been defined to him during the meeting. Shaffran stated that the Board did have the right to act on a decision ~~f the Building Dept. Lukes felt that the applicant has brought -,~~ appeal of the decision to the Board and something should be done. :rausch felt that the guideline as laid out by the Co. Attorney. ;smith stated that the decision on one issue was whether Newbury was :correct or not in rejecting the permit. The second issue was whether Lo declare invalid the Resolution 83-19. And he agreed with Krausch ti~at the Board shouldn't have to decide that issue. Krausch stated that he wotald support a motion if it had language in it to identify to a reader of the minutes in the future that the Board had come to grips only with the subject of iJewbury's decision and nothing more Boas intended and applied. Shaffran motioned in regard to the decision • Page 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment 100 Leaves October 2.~b, 19 8 3 of the Building Inspector regarding the building permit based on her interpretation of the Reso. 83-19 as determined by the Co. Commissioners, she accurately denied the building permit. Shaffran then withdrew her motion after discussion. Fox then motioned that Newbury was correct in her interpretation of Resolution 83-19 and based upon on she was correct in denying the building permit. Zanin second the motion. A vote was called for and four were for and ICrausch was against. The Board then reviewed the Crosby's case again, after they met in the hall to try to work out a compromise with their neighbor. r~'ewbury stated that Elaine Saxon would have no objection if they would move back from their 50' rearyard setback and she was going to look at the stakes that was placed on the property and if making chat move would help her problem she would have no objections. `.~i:~~-om questioned if they could make a motion subject to a letter arriving at the Building Dept. no later than the following Monday :~o the owner could know where he stands. He made this into a motion -orm. Krausch second the motion. Lukes stated that he would not ~~ote for a motion that puts an adjacent property owner, even though he sympathies, to decide what the owner could build. Shaffran agreed. Fox suggested that the Board table the issue. Shaffran si~zggested a site inspection. Throm made a motion to grant the variance for a 25.8' sideyard setback variance due to topography and subject to a letter from Elaine Saxon stating that she was content with the placement of the house in a letter to be given to the Building Dept. in 7 c~.ays. Krausch second the motion. A vote was called for and four were for and one (Lukes) against. Snowmass Cottages, John Ham 9461 Highway 8.2, Snowmass 83-32 requesting a renewal of sign permit. John Ham and Jim Moran were there to make the request. Moran asked Dottie Fox to excuse herself from the meeting because she was one of the complaining neighbors. Fox questioned the Co.Attorney if she needed to excuse herself. She did not feel that there was a conflict of interest but was a resident that lived 1/4 mile down the road. Smith stated that he was not familiour with the case but felt a conflict of interest is present when there is personal gain or personal bias. He stated that this did not include philosophical <-~~titudes towards general issues, but a bias-against a particular _~ase. Fox then stated that she did not have a bais against Mr. :~~m's sign, but against signs in general. Moran questioned Fox if :;~e was the complaining witness to the County in a sign code violation a-.,tion that was brought against :~Ir. Ham. She stated that was when +,.i~e trailer was on the property with the sign she strongly objected to that. Moran then questioned Fox if she was one of the proponents of an amendment to the sign code that reduces the illumination permited now under the current sign code., Fox answered that it was the wish of t17e Board to draw up a code amendment to have better guidelines. Moran questioned if part of the motivation was what she determined was the excessive illumination of Mr. Ham's sign. Fox answered that it was not, but that she did not want to see another sign happen like that. • 1R+'. ~, ~. ~ECKEI tl. n, H 'i. CO. Page 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Board of Adjustment October 2~, 1983 'loran was then ready to present the renewal issue before the Board. ire stated that the need for the sign continues to exist and that the owner has complied with any and all conditions that was attached with the original permit,, that the sign has not been enlarged or otherwise exceeded the authority previously given by the Board. Tie felt that the criteria of the sign code had been met and that there were no other issues. Throm questioned if the sign was built as specified when the owner originally came before the Board. Moran answered that it was. Throm stated that he did not remember the sign being placed on the berm when the original presentation was made. He remembered it being shown as on the grade. He requested a discussion regarding the berm that is presently there. Moran stated that the elevation of the sign is controlled by the code. Moran stated that in the original drawing there was no berm. Ham stated that it was never brought up. Throm questioned if a berm was built to put the sign on. :Tam stated that it was. There was only one drawing of the sign oiz file in the Building Dept., which was brought before the Board at this meeting. Throm felt that Ham had not built the sign as presented i~efore the Board and was on file at the Building Dept. Moran stated +~lZat issue was not brought up at the original application because the 1~:eight, of the sign is controlled by the current land use code. '~hrom questioned why the sign was built on the berm. Ham stated that he needed to get the sign over the fence. Fox felt that the :~oard failed in putting conditions on the variance. 1<rausch questioned about the issue made at the time about the highway safety and how the signs would help. He questioned if Ham or Moran was aware about the plans to add a turning lane, which was now there. Krausch also stated that he felt that the lights were much brighter than he expected and that he was disappointed with the outcome. Ham stated that the sign was made to conform with the national standard. ile stated that he measured the light of the sign after hearing complaints about the brightness and found that his sign was not the brightest. Moran stated that Mason came to the site and looked at the sign during the night and felt that Mason had no problems with it. He invited other members to visit the site. Moran stated that he was surprised that there were no restrictions on the Building Dept. Fox questioned Mr. Ham if it was possible to lower the density of the light. Ham stated that there was only one bulb that fit that sign. Shaffran suggested that a different color background would dim the light. Ham stated that had`been discussed: He felt that there were ~s many people that like the sign that don't like the sign. Krausch questioned if Ham felt that the effectiveness would be lessened if the light was dimmed. Ham felt that during the twilight hours the effectiveness would be hurt if dimmed. He also stated that the lights were turned off at 10:00 p.m. and generally when the lodge is filled. Bryan stated that there were market sleeves were available that could be placed over the bulb to dim the light. Ham questioned wizat market because he had checked and been unable to find any. Fox requested Ham to try to dim the lights. Fox also suggested that the yearly renewal process be continued. Krausch agreed. Moran pointed out to the Board that the code requires that each sign must be approved by the Board. Smith agreed with Moran's reading of the code. • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ORN i ~~i~(~K EL R. U. h L. G0. 1_'ac~e 8 Board of Adjustment October 2~', 1983 Moran felt that the Board should regulate all the signs and not just Mr. Ham's, and if the Airport Business Center does not have to continue to come before the Board for renewal, why does Mr. Ham. Fox felt that perhaps another amendment was necessary to clarify this point in the sign code. She went on to state that I~1r. Ham seems to have done everything that was required of him at the original application but was opposed to a permanent renewal. Fox questioned Newbury why a permanent renewal was allowed for the Airport Business Center. She didn't really remember specifics but felt it was just requested that way. Also, she pointed out that the Holiday Inn sign was placed prior to current zoning. ~~ox motioned that Mr. Ham be granted a renewal for his signs, but only on a yearly basis. Krausch second the motion. Shaffran ~~?uestioned if it was fair to make Ham come back when no one else in the county does. Fox hoped to correct that situation before the next year comes around. Throm wanted to amend the motion }~y adding that if the applicant were to provide the screening discussed between now and January 15, 1984, and if the Board i_s content, then the Board approve a permanent renewal. Fox requested that her motion stand with a promise that the Board will. do something about the ambiguity of the present sign code. Newbury pointed out that there are many signs in the valley placed before the present zoning that they could do nothing about. A vote was called for. All in favor. ;M aine Saxon was back before the Board after making a site inspection. She was objecting to the closeness of the structure to her present residence. Zanin suggested a site inspection and Fox agreed. Shaffran pointed out that Saxon needed to put her objection in writing and also pointed out that she was directed to vote but Throm made the motion and she felt that was out of order. She felt that the motion should be null and void. Fox agreed that to many people had voted and Throm should not have made a motion because he shouldn't have been voting. Lukes questioned if any variance granted would be acceptable with Saxon. She was not sure and felt there was room to build on the lot. Krausch questioned Lukes whether there was grounds to grant. Lukes `clt there wasn't. Fox suggested that the issue be tabled and a site visit be made. It was decided that Friday, October 25, 183, at noon. Meeting was then adjourned until that time. Scanned 8/7/07 File Finders Box #10 LARGE PLAT(5) AVAILABLE TO VIEW AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AVAILABLE TO BUY AT CLERK & RECORDER