CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
October 24, 2000, 1:00 p.m.
Francis
F. Campbell City Council Room
Plaza
Level of City Hall
Tulsa
Civic Center
MEMBERS
PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT OTHERS
PRESENT
|
Dunham,
Vice Chair |
|
Beach |
Prather,
Legal |
|
Cooper |
|
Butler |
|
|
White,
Chair |
|
Stump |
|
|
Perkins |
|
|
|
|
Turnbo |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of the City Clerk on Friday, October 20, 2000, at 10:45 a.m., as well as in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices.
After declaring a quorum present, Chair, White called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Mr.
Beach informed the Board that the applicant for Case No. 18873 requested a
Continuance. Brad Beasley, stated
he was a partner of the applicant, and that they had requested a Continuance
because they did not think they would be able to have adequate back up to
present the case. Mr. Beasley asked
to withdraw the request for Continuance, as he was able to find another
knowledgeable back-up person.
MINUTES:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted to APPROVE the Minutes of September
12, 2000 (No.803).
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to allow Use Unit 5 in an RM-2 zoned district (furniture maintenance facility
for TU). SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS Use Unit 5, located 2807 E. 10th St.
Presentation:
Brad
Beasley, 100 W. 5th St., Ste.800, stated that he came to present
for Nik Jones, his partner in the law firm of Boeshe, McDermott,
and Eskridge. He submitted a
campus map and photographs (Exhibit A-1, A-2) to the Board. He pointed out the location on the
campus where the workshops in question are located. He described the use of these workshops
in these converted apartments now university housing units for light
maintenance, storage of supplies.
He added that these shops have been used, as any apartment complex would
do for storage and repair of items that cannot be done within the
apartments. He introduced Charlie
Head, the Mechanical Systems Supervisor for Housing and Dining Services at the
university. This accessory repair
facility has been in use for about 18 years in this location. Mr. Beasley stated that an inspection by
the Fire Marshall prompted this application. The university was not aware that they
might be in violation of zoning standards.
This shop and the others like it are used solely to serve as accessory
facilities to the proximate university housing apartments in that vicinity. Mr. Beasley addressed the staff comments
regarding noise and dust stating that they were not aware of any complaint filed
internally or formally on those issues.
A graduate student lives next-door to one of the workshops and would have
come today, but his schedule did not permit. He was prepared to come before the Board
to let it be known he has no complaints of those issues. Mr. Beasley also advised the Board that
occasionally they use an electrical hand saw once per week on average to cut a
piece of wood. It is not a woodshop
or major maintenance facility, but it is more efficient for the university to
service the needs of the apartments.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked
about hours of operation.
Charlie Head, 2821 E. 8th St., Ste. 111, stated that
the hours of operation for the shop are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday. Mr. Dunham asked if he does
work for anyone but the university.
Mr. Head replied that he does not.
Protestants:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Cooper "absent") to APPROVE
a Special Exception
to allow Use Unit 5 in an RM-2 zoned district (furniture maintenance facility
for TU), finding that this is an accessory use to the university and it would be
restricted to university use only, on the following described
property:
Lot 19, Block 25, College
Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit a mobile home in an RS-3 district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 9; and a Special Exception of one-year time limit to permanent. SECTION 404.E.1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS, located 4445 E. Evanston Pl. N.
Presentation:
Velda
Robinson, 420 Overlook Dr., Sapulpa, stated that she bought the property on
June 5, 2000 and the next day they began cleaning it up. She described removing the vegetation
and trash. She stated her
willingness to put a house roof on it, skirt it and brick the outside.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked
if it was a new mobile home. Ms.
Robinson replied that it was not, but that it had been well maintained. Ms. Turnbo asked if the applicant had
any photographs, to which she replied that she did not. Ms. Turnbo asked if it is a manufactured
home or mobile home. Ms. Robinson
responded that it is a mobile home.
Protestants:
Harry
Highsel,
21233 S. Keatonville Rd., Claremore, OK., stated that he knows Ms.
Robinson. He added that he owns six
properties in the neighborhood of the subject property. He noted that Neighborhood
Inspections has been helping the neighborhood by enforcing the Code. He stated that it is a small
neighborhood and there are no mobile homes. He stated his concern was that a mobile
would cause a decrease in property values.
He agreed that she does keep up her property.
Barbara
Fenton,
2858 E. 44th St. N., described to the Board that the neighborhood has
been really run down, with clothes hung on fences, parked cars up and down the
streets, in the yards, trailers with junk in them, and junk cars
abandoned.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Ms. Robinson
stated that there is another mobile home in the area in a cul de sac.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked
where the other mobile is located.
Mr. White commented that it is one that was approved by the Board, but it
was a manufactured home that was heavily buffered by trees.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White,
Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no
"absences") to DENY a Special
Exception
to permit a mobile home in an RS-3 district; and a Special
Exception of one- year time limit to permanent, on the following
described property:
Lot 44, Block 10, Lakeview
Heights Amended Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Chairman White stated he
would abstain from Case No. 18882.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the
required 464 parking spaces to permit 426 parking spaces for an existing
apartment complex, Section 1208.D Off-Street Parking. SECTION 1208. USE UNIT 8. MULTIFAMILY DWELLING AND SIMILAR USES
Use Unit 8; and a Variance of land area per dwelling units, Section 403.A Bulk
and Area Requirements, to permit the existing 288 units on one lot of record as
depicted on the survey. SECTION
205. NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS ON A
LOT and SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 4343 S. 109th E.
Ave.
Presentation:
Bob Buss,
502 W. 6th St., stated that Don Haslam, the applicant, is an
associate in his firm of Riggs and Abney.
They represent the owner of the subject property. He stated that the lenders perceived a
problem in the title. The structure
and parking have not changed in this 20-year-old structure, and no new units are
being added.
Protestants:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Cooper,
the Board voted 4-0-1 (Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; White
"abstained"; no "absences") to APPROVE
a Variance
of the required 464 parking spaces to permit 426 parking spaces for an existing
apartment complex; and a Variance of land area per dwelling units,
Section 403.A Bulk and Area Requirements, to permit the existing 288 units on
one lot of record as depicted on the survey, finding this is an existing
condition and the application is to fix the deficiencies to the title, on the
following described property:
Pt of
Lot 1, Block 1, Towne Centre II, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma,
more particularly described as follows, to wit: Commencing at the NW/c of Lot 1,
Block 1, Towne Centre II, said point also being the POB; thence S 89Ί5704 E a
distance of 350.00; thence N 00Ί0829 E a distance of 450.00; thence
S 89Ί5704 E a distance of 534.15; thence S 00Ί0829 W a distance of 481.78;
thence N 89Ί5704 W a distance of 308.40; thence S 00Ί0829 W a distance of
107.25; thence N 89Ί5704 W a distance of 179.07; thence S 30Ί0256 W a
distance of 220.00; thence N 89Ί5704 W a distance of 241.12 to a point;
thence N 22Ί3400 W a distance of 0.00; thence along a curve to the right
having a radius of 591.73 through a central angle of 22Ί4229 and for an arc
length of 234.52; thence N
00Ί0829 E a distance of 101.06 to the POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to permit a childrens nursery in a residential district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS Use Unit 5, located 7463 E. 98th
St.
Presentation:
Jim
Daugherty, 916 W. Norman, Broken Arrow, stated that Happy Hands is a day
center for deaf children up to age six.
He gave a brief history of previous locations. He introduced Bill Ward, a previous
neighbor in a Broken Arrow residential neighborhood.
Bill Ward,
3167 E. 49th St. Apt. 207, Tulsa, stated that for about 2 ½ years he
was a neighbor of Happy Hands, across the street from their facility. He was concerned about traffic
congestion, noise levels, and other things before Happy Hands moved in. He stated that his fears were
unjustified. He described the
facility as a good neighbor, with well-kept landscaping, quiet at night, never a
traffic problem, appeared residential rather than commercial.
Mr. Daugherty
showed a map of the area (Exhibit C-3) locating where the subject property is in
relation to the homes/apartments, detention center, and the park. He also showed photographs (Exhibit C-2)
to make his presentation. He stated
it was an ideal retreat for deaf children, isolated from other homes. The facility would be maintained as
residential with daytime hours of operation, no heavy traffic. He informed the Board that only one tree
would be felled to construct the parking lot.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked
about any signage for the facility. Mr. Daugherty replied they would like to
put up a 20 square foot monument sign at the entry as a marker rather than
advertising. Mr. Dunham asked
about outdoor activities. He
replied there would be a play area to the north and east of the house.
Protestants:
Diksit
Kidaqia, 7425
E. 98th St., stated he lives next door to the subject property on the
west. He commended the City of
Tulsa and INCOG for their part in the planning and development of the area of
this property. He appreciated
the transition
from commercial properties to residential that has maintained the beauty and
rural atmosphere of the large residential lots. He presented a petition signed by some
of the neighbors (Exhibit C-4) objecting to Happy Hands facility. They object to the use of the
narrow private road of 98th Street from Memorial, because there is no
maintenance agreement, and it is a dead end. He informed the Board of their active
neighborhood watch, and they do not feel they can adequately protect their
neighborhood with unknown vehicles coming to the school.
Don
Clifton,
7421 E. 98th, stated concern regarding possible expansion of the
school, and the impact on the road maintenance and traffic.
Gary
Duffield,
7404 E. 98th St., stated he just recently moved into their home. He stated concern about what business
might move in if the school moves out.
He indicated concern that there is no traffic light at 98th
and Memorial. He maintained the
subject property for a number of years, and he was concerned about flooding that
a paved parking area could worsen.
Jeannie
Murphy,
7701 E. 98th Pl., stated the trees are a good buffer from the
turnpike.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr. Daugherty
stated he understands the protests of the neighborhood, and their desire to
protect their investment. He
commended the neighborhood watch.
He reassured them that they would not clear cut trees, because they want
to maintain the beauty of the property, and the residential appearance of the
neighborhood.
Board
discussion ensued.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper
"aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE a
Special Exception to permit a childrens nursery in a residential
district, with conditions: maximum of 45 children, 6 years and younger, deaf or
siblings of deaf children or children of deaf parents; per plan with parking on
east; outdoor activities north and east of the house; hours of operation Monday
through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and sign 4 x 5 maximum, and relief
needed for the outbuilding will require the case be continued to the next
hearing on November 14, 2000, for the following described
property:
The E 385 NE/4 NW/4 SE/4,
Section 23, T-18-N, R-13-E of the IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of required street frontage from 30 to 0. SECTION 206. STREET FRONTAGE REQUIRED Use Unit 6, located 11814 S. Sheridan Rd.
Presentation:
Roy
Johnsen, 201 W. 5th, Ste. 501, stated he was representing Mr. and
Mrs. Antry, the owners of the subject property. The attorney who did the title
examination check determined that the subject property was the lot of record,
prior to the operative dates. If
the tract is 2.5 acres or greater and of record prior to 1992, then it did not
require a lot split approval of the TMAPC.
They plan to build a 6,000 square foot home. They were denied a building permit for a
single-family dwelling because the lot did not have access to a public
street. Mr. Johnsen provided
photographs and a map (Exhibit D-2).
He could not find any record of variances for access to Sheridan for four
other homes on connecting tracts.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked
if all five tracts were made at the same time, and if easements were not filed
at the same time. Mr. Johnsen
replied that they already have access to the south, but they would like to avoid
cutting down trees. Mr. Johnsen
pointed out an area on the north of the property where they would like to
connect to the surfaced area of road, which requires an easement. Mr. Stump asked if the lot was created
in the early 1990s. Mr. Johnsen
replied, no the late 70s, but if it was created before 1992 and it was over 2 ½
acres, it would not require a lot split.
Mr. Stump added that the provision prohibiting building a residence on
the property was in effect at the time this lot was created. Mr. Johnsen responded that was correct
since 1978. Mr. Stump surmised that
they knew when the lot was created that it was not for residential purposes, and
they would be violating the Code if they did try to use it for residential
purposes. Mr. Johnsen agreed with
his statement but disagreed that the process works that way. Mr. Stump asked how it was going to be
served by fire protection and water.
Mr. Johnsen stated that there is a physical road in place. Mr. Stump asked if there was a fire
hydrant. Mr. Johnsen replied that
he did not know. Mr. Stump asked if
it has a public water supply. Mr.
Johnsen replied that he was sure it would or if not, that the applicant would
meet whatever requirements are imposed.
The applicant informed Mr. Johnsen that she has access to public water
supply. Mr. Stump stated that one
of the reasons for these regulations is because a fire on a house that size
probably could not be put out with the water that a fire truck carries, and it
is probably too far from a fire hydrant. Mr. Stump added that the level of
fire protection would be far lower than the rest of the city and that can affect
the citys total fire protection ratings.
Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Johnsen how he would define the hardship. Mr. Johnsen responded that in this
situation the Zoning Code is not intended to deny all use of the property.
Ms. Turnbo
left the hearing.
Protestants:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE a Variance of required street frontage from 30 to 0, finding there is an existing street with access to the lot, if access is established to this lot anywhere other than the south property line that an easement of record will be required granting easement to the existing roadway, and there are four other lots adjacent in the general area, per plan, for the following described property:
A part of the NE/4 of the SE/4 of Section 34, T-18-N, R-13-E, of the IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, described as follows: Beg. at the SE/c of the E/2 of the SW/4 of the NE/4 of the SE/4, Section 34; thence N 0°00419 W, 356.62; thence S 69°2412 E, 392.28; thence S 2°0117 E, 85.05; thence S 17°3132 E, 79.70; thence S 38°2201 E, 70.89; thence S 89°4358 W, 437.77; to the POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of
average lot width from 200 to 165; to permit splitting a five-acre tract. SECTION 303. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICT Use Unit 6, located 17501 E. 11th
St.
Presentation:
Burt Kelso,
Jr., 17270 E. 11th St., stated that they have been at this
address for a little over 18 years.
He planned to build two dwellings on the subject property and found that
it does not have 200 frontage.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White stated
that they received a letter of support for this
application.
Protestants:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE Variance of average lot width from 200 to 165; to permit splitting a five-acre tract, per plan, finding that it would not cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair the
purposes, spirit, and intent of the Code, or the Comprehensive Plan, for the following described property:
The W/2 SE/4 SE/4 SE/4 of Section 2, T-19-N, R-14-E, of the IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, less and except a strip of land 30 wide, more or less, off the south side thereof, less and except the W 15 of the above described property.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to construct a 100 monopole wireless telephone transmission tower within 110 of residentially zoned property. SECTION 1204.C. USE UNIT 4. PUBLIC PROTECTION AND UTILITY FACILITIES, Use Conditions Use Unit 4, located 5032 S. Sheridan Rd.
Presentation:
Kevin
Coutant, 320 S. Boston, Ste. 500, stated the relief requested for a 100
monopole located within the 110% distance of an R zoned district. He submitted a packet of exhibits
(Exhibit F-1) to the Board. He
pointed out the proposed location of the cell tower on the north side of the
shopping center. The property is
zoned CS, with RM-2 to the north, west is a single-family residential
subdivision zoned RS-3, and east is the restaurant. He stated the distances from the
centerline of the pole 75 to the north property and 85 to the apartment
building, north and west it is 108 to the RS-3 to the brick column with a total
of about 200 to the closest residence.
There is another existing monopole tower south of 51st Street
about Ό mile, owned by Sprint. He
stated they contacted Sprint, but there is not sufficient ground location to
collocate on that tower. The
surrounding topography is flat, with no tree coverage. The design of this tower is galvanized
steel, with slim line panel antennas, no platform on top. The building is 12 x 20 at the base,
with chain link fence for security.
A screening fence can be added if required. The panel antennas are 60 x 12 x
7. He stated the need for the new
tower is that the existing cell site at 41st and Sheridan is at peak
capacity. The proposed site is on
the perimeter of a fully developed retail center. He pointed out that it would be out of
the way of any future redevelopment of the center or any widening of arterial
streets.
Protestants:
Tim and Kim
Phelps,
owners of Phelps Fine Jewelry, stated they are opposed to the tower site behind
their business. Mr. Phelps
complained that it is an eyesore, and that the existing tower caused a problem
with a credit card machine they were using and had to be replaced by another
unit.
James
Vanderlin,
4922 S. Maplewood, stated that this is an inappropriate site, adjacent to and in
clear view of private residences.
He added they are unsightly and belong in industrial areas and
compromises the beauty of the area.
He pointed out that a special exception should be granted only for
extraordinary reasons.
David Bounds,
3033
Carroway, Suite 122, Carrolton, Texas, stated he represented Taco Bueno
Restaurants. He stated that his
concerns are the potential communications problems with the drive-through and
the music system could be negatively affected.
George
Howell,
6116 E. 49th Street, stated his concern that a special exception
would be made to the Zoning Code for this purpose.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr. Coutant
stated that for the most part these are concerns they have heard before with
regard to the towers. He responded
to the complaints of the aesthetics, that they designed this one to make it as
short as possible, and slim line antennas.
He stated that he has not heard complaints such as the ones regarding the
credit card machine and communications devices. The FCC licenses the towers. The law is clear in that where
communications devices are allowed to use unlicensed radio frequencies, they are
also subject to the impact of licensed frequency. He pointed out that cellular use is a
very low wattage use, and there are many of these towers everywhere in town and
across the country next to many other businesses. He checked with his client and the
international office and they were in agreement that this is a novel concern
that they have not heard before.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked
Mr. Stump if a tower could be located anywhere within this thirteen acre CS
shopping center as long as it kept the 110% distance would be permissible by
right. Mr. Stump replied that was
correct. Mr. White asked Mr.
Coutant if other sites were considered on this property. Mr. Coutant replied that it could have
been placed elsewhere but they tried to avoid a redevelopment problem for the
future. Mr. Stump asked the
applicant if the tower could not just as easily to put the tower on the east
side of the building. Mr. Coutant
replied it would work just as well.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (White,
Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo "absent") to
APPROVE Special Exception to construct a 100
monopole wireless telephone transmission tower within 110 of residentially
zoned property, per plan, with the conditions that the tower be located to the
east end of the leased site, and finding that the following requirements be met:
height of the tower is 100; proximity to residential structures is 75 due
south of an RM-2 zoning district and 85 to the nearest apartment building, 108
from the RS-3 zoning district and 200 from the closest residential structure,
and the nearest monopole tower is about Ό mile away, and is not suitable for
collocation due to lack of space; land uses of adjacent properties north RM-2,
east OC and CS, south CS, and west CS and RS-3; surrounding topography is
flat and outside of the 100 year flood plain; no tree coverage or foliage;
design is 100 monopole with close mounted panel antennas, with a 12 x 20 x 8
tall building at base of tower, of tan rock aggregate, and an 8 chain link
fence, screening fence would be provided if required; three panel antennas of
60 x 12 x 7 planned with space for two additional sets for collocation;
ingress and egress will be across driving lanes and parking areas of existing
shopping center; the nearest existing cell tower site is at peak capacity for
service; and the proposed location would allow for redevelopment of the property
and widening of arterial streets in the future, on the following described
property:
Lot 1, Block 1, Sheridan Plaza Center, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to permit U-Haul trailer rental and auto sales and minor vehicle repair in a CS
district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS Use Unit 17; a Variance to permit open-air storage or display of
merchandise offered for sale within 300 of adjacent R district. SECTION 1217.C.2. USE UNIT 17. AUTOMOTIVE AND ALLIED ACTIVITIES, Use
Conditions; a Variance of all-weather surface for parking area. SECTION 1217.C.1. USE UNIT 17. AUTOMOTIVE AND ALLIED ACTIVITIES, Use
Conditions; and a Special Exception to waive the screening requirement on south
property line. SECTION 212. SCREENING WALL OR FENCE, located 9130 E.
11th St.
Presentation:
David
Spry, 6811 E. 65th Pl., stated his requests for relief. He mentioned the citation for zoning
violation of September 12th, and stated that he went to INCOG to find
out how to comply. He added that he
could not find a use unit for a wrecker service.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Beach
commented that he talked with Ms. Parnell in the Neighborhood Inspections office
and found that the applicant has been advised that he must not establish a
wrecker service on this property, and yet it is established. He was advised that the CS zoning would
not allow Use Unit 23. Mr. Dunham
explained to the applicant, that if the Board approved the application today, he
would still be in violation, and he would probably never be allowed to run a
wrecker service on this property.
Mr. Spry acknowledged this information and asked to go ahead with the
other requests.
Mr. Spry
continued with his presentation, stating that they have auto sales, and repair,
a fence was constructed around the property, and U-Haul
rentals.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked the applicant if he was asking for the right to store inoperable vehicles on this property. Mr. Spry replied that he was not. Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Spry for the hardship. Mr. Spry could not state a hardship other than economical.
Protestants:
Carolyn
Harder,
1238 S. 138th E. Ave., stated she was representing the East Tulsa
Mingo Valley Association. She
stated that they are in opposition to the Use Unit 17 in a CS location. She added that in their opinion the lot
looks too small for a used car lot but if it had an all-weather surface it would
be appropriate for a U-Haul lot.
Ms.
Harder pointed out that the back of the lot looks like a salvage yard with
outside storage of inoperable vehicles, part of the fencing has fallen over on a
car, and there was an overgrowth of vegetation.
Al
Nichols,
8525 E. 16th Street, stated he and others with him represented the
Mingo Valley Homeowners Association.
He challenged the Board that in allowing more time to the applicant to
present his case that protestants should also be allowed more time to
speak.
Mr. White
informed him that if the Board feels they need it, they would call on anyone to
provide more information on an application. Mr. Prather responded that this is a
quasi-judicial proceeding and, as in court, the plaintiff will present his or
her case, the defense will then present defense, and then the plaintiff always
gets a chance for rebuttal, the defendant would not get a chance to answer
again.
Mr.
Nichols accepted the explanation but asked that the record show that he
requested equal treatment and was denied. Mr. Nichols went on to say that
the lot looks like a junkyard. He
stated he was not recommending approval but suggested restrictions they would
like to see imposed if it were approved.
The homeowners recommend a restriction of the number of vehicles for
sale, no outside storage of auto parts or disabled autos, or maintenance.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr. Spry stated
he was required to have a screening fence on the south side and a wooden fence
was put up on the inside of the property line.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Cooper, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye";
no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo "absent") to DENY Case No.
18887, finding there is no hardship, and finding that it would not be in harmony
with the spirit and intent of the Code, and would be injurious to the
neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.