16 MAY 1995

7:30 P.M.



The meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M. by Chairman Ralph Nadaud.


Members Present: Wilton Blake, Councilwoman Marge Boice, Council-

woman Kathy McNear, James Young and Chairman

Ralph Nadaud.

Members Absent: Roosevelt Joe and Linda Stanton. Mrs. Stanton phoned

this afternoon; she has the flu.


Mrs. Boice said on Page 9 under Item D the first paragraph does not indicate

who made that statement, and it was myself. Mr. Blake moved to adopt and

Mrs. Boice seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and

the Minutes were adopted with five affirmative votes.


A. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - 11 April 1995

B. Zoning Bulletin Volume 43 No. 4A - April 15, 1995

C. Zoning Bulletin Volume 43 No. 5 - May 1995

D. City Map

E. Report on Council Activities - Marge Boice

Mrs. Boice reported nothing pertains to this board, but in case we

do have any tennis players, an ordinance was adopted at the last

meeting to redo the tennis courts at the Recreation Center. They

have been topped off once since the center was opened. They

will be redone and there will be some relocation of lights.

F. Report on Planning - Wilton Blake

Mr. Blake stated at the May 9th meeting, there were three concept

discussions. First, the proposed Tuffy Auto Service on Northland

Boulevard next to the Friends Service Station. Some other things

need to be worked out regarding right of way and so forth. We also

had a concept discussion and approval for Micro I on Northland

Boulevard. They want to put an expansion on the back. Finally

we had a concept discussion and approval of the concept of the

Pictoria Island development between Showcase Cinemas and Avon.

We also discussed and sent a recommendation for legislation to

Council regarding temporary signage.



A. James Stander, 537 Grandin Avenue requests variance to allow the

construction of a 410í expansion to existing garage. Said variance is

requested from Section 153.025(F) "A garage shall be not less than 240 square feet and not more than 600 square feet."


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 May 1995

Page Two


Mr. Stander said I would like to put a garage on the back of my garage so I can put two cars in there. I cannot get the car in the other side of my two car garage. The garage would be 20 foot onto the back of the one and I would need the full width of the original garage, 24 feet.

Mr. Nadaud said and that is what is drawn on this sketch? Would that be a four-car garage? Mrs. Stander answered you cannot get a car on the other side because the way it is built when you come back out, it would hit the house. It would be a three-car addition. Mr. Stander added on this side of the garage, you will have a spot for a car, but the back end of the other, you will never be able to get a car in there.

Mr. Nadaud said I wanted to make it clear to the members that you could have four cars in there, but there is no access to it. Due to the tight turning situation, you could not put four cars in there. Mr. Stander added that is the workbench in there now. Otherwise this part will be nothing but to make it look nice.

Mrs. Boice asked how many square feet are we over here? Mr. Nadaud answered we are talking about 400 square feet approximately? Mr. Stander answered I have no idea of the square footage. Right now I have two drawings. I wanted to get a variance on the back of the garage, but if it costs entirely too much money, then I may not even have it done. Mrs. McNear said the addition is 410 square feet, right? Mr. Gordon King stated he will double the size of the present garage. Mrs. Boice asked the size of the present garage, and Mr. King answered approximately 410 square feet. Mrs. Boice commented so we are talking 820 square feet, which is 220 square feet over the maximum. Mr. King responded yes, the maximum is 600 square feet.

Mrs. Boice asked the depth of your yard from the back of the existing garage to the property line, and Mr. Stander answered 33 feet. Mr. Nadaud commented there appears to be more than ample space for this addition. Mrs. Boice agreed, adding it is a sizable lot from front to back. Mr. Young commented I looked at the property and saw Mr. Stander, and he has talked to his neighbors. If there is a setback problem, it will not be by much. The biggest concern I would have would be doubling the space and setting some kind of precedent, but based on what I saw from the other side, they are correct. On the left side as you would try to pull the car in, the problem is you might be able to pull it in and you probably could pull it out, but you would have to be real real careful puling it out because of the closeness of the house. So he does have a problem there and right now he is using that part of the garage as a workshop which allows only one car in. I guess there are two ways to look at this, either the whole structure, or actually all he really needs is the straight back section which if we cut that back section in half would keep him within the bounds of the square footage. The problem then is it makes the building look not symmetrical and probably isnít going to be as nice looking.

Mrs. Boice said you are using the present garage to park only one vehicle and the rest is a workshop area? Mrs. Stander answered right.

Mr. King reported Mr. Stander has an alternative he told me about. Due to the cost, he may want to add a carport in front of the garage and not do the rear expansion, but either way, he still would need a variance since it would be attached to the garage and be considered an expansion of the square footage.



Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 May 1995

Page Three


Mrs. Boice commented my understanding is at the present time you donít have an idea of what the cost of this would be, that if it is too expensive you probably are not going to pursue it? Mr. Stander responded we had one estimate, and we donít want to pay that much.

Mrs. Boice continued I would be hesitant to grant a variance on an uncertainty. I would prefer that it be a definite before we would grant a variance. I hate to throw a variance out there; maybe youíll use it and maybe you wonít. A variance goes with the land; should you vacate the property and the variance is out there, somebody could come in with an entirely different approach of constructing something back there that would not be as palatable as this might be. So the uncertainty does bother me.

Mr. Young commented I think I agree with what Marge is saying; that is something we have to consider. The idea of the carport is an alternative, especially from a price standpoint, and I think it solves his problem as far as somewhat garaging the second vehicle without getting into the problem of doubling the space. I would lean more in that direction myself than the addition. I would have to agree that you have to make a decision and be ready to go forward with it because we canít float a variance out there. If it is something you are going to do, we should vote on that. If not, maybe you want to table this or come back after you make a decision as to which way you want to go.

Mr. Stander responded you want to wait until I have definite plans. The purpose of coming here is instead of taking up all the contractorís time and then find out that I canít do it. Mr. Young said I understand that, but I am a contractor myself and I go through this every day. Thatís the cost of doing business as a contractor. I think quite honestly we canít just throw it out there. All we are asking is that it is something that you are going to go forward on, not s something that may or may not happen. You are putting us in a position where we are trying to make a decision based on a maybe, and we want to make it on a definite.

Mr. Stander stated that means I should keep calling contractors in until I get the price I want, right? And take up all these peopleís time.

Mr. Nadaud commented I think what the members would like you to do is come up with a definite plan on what you want to do. If the expansion of the garage is what you definitely want to do, Iím sure the board would consider this. I do not have a problem with it myself.

Mr. Stander responded the plans you have in front of you are for the garage. I have plans here for a carport (he passed them out). Mrs. Boice commented you now have two plans before us, the carport and the garage. Mr. Stander commented the idea was for the garage to go up in the back, but if it is going to cost $16,000 or $18,000 or $20,000, I am not going to do it.

Mrs. Boice responded thatís what we need to know. We need you to come in when you have decided whether you are going to go carport or garage. We really canít grant a variance when we are not sure what you are doing, because a variance goes with the property. If we grant this variance to build the garage extension, and you decide to sell the property and somebody comes in and could build a steepled doghouse for all we know. The variance would pass on with your deed.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 May 1995

Page Four


Mr. Stander responded I am trying to avoid calling in all these people and taking up their time. Mrs. Boice responded contractors are more than glad to put in their bids. We have people who come in here constantly with a solid bid, the contractor comes with them and they know full well that it depends on whether we grant a variance or not whether they will get the business. Contractors are very accustomed to that. Make your decision on whether you want a garage or a carport and then come into the board and we can deal with it. We need a definite.

Mr. Stander said what happens if I decide to go the garage route, that it meets my price and I come in and say Iím going with the garage, and you guys turn around and say no, you canít do it?

Mrs. Boice responded thereís always a possibility of that, but looking at the plans you have, I personally am not seeing that much problem with it. My problem is in my duty to the City of Springdale, I canít grant a variance on an unknown. Mr. Stander commented hereís another way to look at it. I have three neighbors behind me and all have signed. They look at it all the time; the neighbors on both sides look at it all the time. Itís fine with them.

Mrs. Boice responded I understand that, but we are bound by the laws of the zoning code, and we have to look at it very carefully so we do not set precedents. If youíll come in with a definite plan so we know which direction we want to do, we can act on this. Variances run with the property; once a variance is granted, it is there.

Mrs. Boice said I would move to table this item. Mr. Blake seconded the motion and by voice vote, all present voted aye, and the matter was tabled with five affirmative votes.

Mrs. Boice stated before we move on to the next item, I am going to withdraw; in fact, I will leave the podium. I have been neighbors of Mr. and Mrs. Daggett for 36 years. They are very close personal friends; I think it would be more accurate to say they are family. If they asked me to give them my soul I would, and in all fairness to Springdale, I do not think I should participate in this discussion.

B. Don Daggett, 228 Harter Avenue (Springdale Terrace) requests variance

to allow the construction of a patio enclosure to the rear of his residence.

Said variance is requested from Section 153.025(D)(4)(c) "Rear yards

must be at least 35í deep."

Mr. Daggett approached the board. Mr. Nadaud reported I saw this yesterday evening and I think Mr. Young saw it. He already has an existing slab which is attached to the house . What you want to do is make that an enclosure, to make it a year round living quarters.

Mr. Young commented I stopped by, and what they are trying to put on is a typical Florida room that Champion makes. Itís going to be very nice; their back yard and house - everything is immaculate. Mr. Daggett reported weíre just a little short; I believe it was supposed to be something like 35 feet. Mr. Young added 35 feet, and they are within like inches. Mr. Daggett said it was 34í 4". Mr. Young added I donít see any problem with it at all, and based on that and unless there is other discussion, I will move that we grant the variance. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Young, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Nadaud. Mrs. Boice abstained, and the variance was granted with four affirmative votes.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 May 1995

Page Five

VI. NEW BUSINESS - continued

C. Timothy Howard, 11832 Mangrove Court (Springdale Terrace) requests

variance to construct an 8í x 8í utility building 1 foot from his side lot

line. Said variance is requested from Section 153.024(C) "but must

not be less than 5 feet from any rear or side lot line."

Mr. Howard stated the utility building is actually 8í x 8í. In the middle of April, I had already built this shed, and once I found out I was supposed to have a permit, I applied for it. Mrs. Boice commented that has happened; many people are not aware of that. It is a peculiarly shaped lot; I personally have no particular problem with the placement on it.

Mr. Young reported I looked at it; it is way back in the back of his yard and it is not blocking anything. The neighbor to one side does not seem to have a problem with it and behind is some type of city property. I do not see anything wrong with what he has done there, and I think this is a simple one for us to take care of. I move that we grant the variance for the 8í x 8í utility building. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Young, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Blake, Mrs. Boice and Mr. Nadaud. Variance was granted with five affirmative votes.

D. Kenneth E. Asher requests variance to construct a fence on his property

at 364 Vista Glen (Glenview Subdivision). Said variance is requested

from Section 153.038(B) "Landscape features and yard structures are

permitted in side yards if they are set back from the side street line not

less than the required set-back of the adjacent main building of the butt


Mr. Asher passed around a drawing of the proposed fence and showed pictures of his yard. I have an unusual yard in that I have a street that is around 3/4 of my yard. We have a two-year-old son, so we thought it would be advantageous to put a fence up since the street is behind us. We believe if we stay consistent with Zaringís fence that the aesthetic value would not be compromised.

Mrs. McNear asked if they have a homeownersí association, or do you have rules within the subdivision regarding fences? Mr. Asher answered yes, the rules are very specific; they say no fences at all if you have a lot adjacent to the golf course, which we do not. We have permission from Zaring; they are running the homeownerís association because we donít have enough sold lots. The fences cannot be over four feet high, they have to be 50% coverage or less, they have to be wood and they canít be picket.

Mr. Young commented it kind of limits what you are doing. The fence he is putting up is exactly what they have out on Sharon Road. If you look at his lot, it is odd shaped. Mr. Asher added we are the very first lot on the corner so that fence actually blends into our yard, so if we were to continue that on, it would maintain the consistency of it.

Mr. Blake asked if there were any other questions. There were none, and he continued hearing no other questions, I think the board has satisfactorily looked at this, and I would like to move that this variance be granted. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Blake, Mr. Young, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. McNear and Mr. Nadaud. Variance was granted with five affirmative votes.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 May 1995

Page Six

VI. NEW BUSINESS - continued

E. Richard E. Dooley, R.E.D. Construction requests variance from rear

yard setback requirement (35 feet) for proposed 2326 square foot

building addition at Micro 1, 155 Northland Boulevard. Said variance

is requested from Section 153.165(G) (Referred by Planning Commission)

Mrs. Boice commented seeing there is no one here, I would move to table this and Mr. Blake seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the matter was tabled to June 20th.


Mrs. McNear at one of the previous meetings, we had a group of citizens from Smiley Avenue who came in regarding splitting a piece of property and building a house on it. That was denied. I got a call from one of the neighbors the other night, and they said they are building a house on that lot now. I wanted to know if you had any information on this. I know the property was sold. The houses are five feet away on each side.

Mr. King reported the original variance request that came in here was on setback and common ownership of adjoining lots. Evidently by their sale of the one lot to the builder, that broke that bond of common ownership between the house and the vacant lot beside it.

Mrs. McNear responded my understanding of it was that there were laws made up for this already to avoid having somebody sell the property cheaply to a builder to get around this law.

Mr. King answered thatís what I read in your December 20 1994 meeting minutes. I donít really know what that was. He had the deed. We had a call today from Mr. Harrison of Wood & Lamping and they were going to review it. He didnít know there were any problems, but he was going to look at it again, probably because we had a lady call in. They had been away for some time and came home and found a foundation there. I told her I was there to inspect it; I had an approved permit to do what they are doing. I donít know about the zoning; I was not at the meeting, and I think that part was solved.

Mr. Young responded it was only solved from the standpoint that awe denied it. Mr. King answered there is no variance needed now, because there was not a common ownership of adjoining lots and what he was going to build did not need a variance for the setback requirement. Mr. Young said if you looked at the foundation, can you tell that? Does it meet the requirements for that size parcel of land? Mr. King responded it wouldnít have it there had been common ownership, but evidently it did now. I had a valid permit approved by the building official. I brought this up to Mr. McErlane the other day when this lady talked to me about it, saying they didnít have a variance to build it. At that point, I had not had the opportunity to review your minutes to know that they had been in for a variance because of common ownership of the adjoining lot and some kind of setback requirement.

Mrs. McNear asked if the five foot setback on the sides is valid within the code. Mr. King responded yes. On a fifty foot lot, it is a 40 foot house. In your minutes, they mentioned eight feet for whatever reason.


Board of Zoning Appeals

16 May 1995

Page Seven


Mr. Nadaud commented if I recall, we suggested the request be dropped because they werenít legal at that time to build a house on that lot, since they owned the house and the lot next door, and the lot was too small, if I recall correctly. Mr. King responded I didnít read anything in there about the lot being too small. Mr. Nadaud said I might be getting that confused with something else. I would like the opportunity to go back and review our minutes.

Mr. Young asked Mr. King if he had talked to Mr. McErlane about it and Mr. King indicated he had, adding he was looking for a legal opinion from them. Mr. Harrison called back and felt I should advise the chairman that there may be people here because of that. I think Mr. McErlane had a call from Mr. Danbury on this same subject. They didnít know how it got to go ahead without a variance, but apparently the circumstances changed and they didnít need a variance. Mr. Young commented so it comes down to the fact that you can beat the system.

Mr. Nadaud said wasnít there some mention of the fact that you just canít transfer property? Mr. Young commented that canít be; if you have a piece of property, you should be able to sell it for whatever reason you want to sell it for. Mrs. McNear stated I think it said something about having to be fair market value, it couldnít be to the builder to accomplish the building of this house. Mr. Young said that should be public record then. There should be an amount on it; thatís what Kathy is saying, that he canít sell it for like $1 knowing that heís going to build it. Mr. King commented in the code it says something like fair consideration. Mrs. McNear stated fair consideration should be the fair market value if youíre talking about selling a piece of property. So we have the attorneys looking into this now to see if this is a valid sale? Mr. King answered he had reviewed it and said he was looking at it again, but he didnít know there was any problem, but he wanted to look at it again and wanted to know if the property had been offered to a neighbor or something. Mrs. McNear commented this same neighbor also told me that this same gentleman was going to all the other neighbors who have a double lot and asking them to sell so he can put these houses on these lots as well. So this will come up again. At some point someone will nibble on this, but so far the two or three people that he has asked have said no, get off my property; we donít want to deal with you. So, itís going to come up, and I would like to get a firm answer as to what happened, is there anything we can do about this, and go from there. I donít think we should let it drop or wait until we have the situation crop up again. It is a very well established neighborhood; if we are having something that doesnít go, doesnít fit in with the rest of the neighborhood,.. Mrs. Boice added Iíd like that zeroed in right away; do they just have footers in at this point? Mr. King said the foundation. Mrs. Boice continued are you talking to Ken Schneider? Mr. King answered Mr. Harrison is the one who called. He and Bill had some conversation today, and he called back this evening to say there may be people here and if there were to tell them that he was looking at it again. Mrs. Boice commented heíd better be looking real close because this looks like it could balloon into a major problem. So if you would portray that to them, we would appreciate it.

Mrs. Boice asked if we have a definite clarification that Roosevelt Joe has moved out of the city? He is a Council appointee, and Council needs to fill this seat if he has. Mr. Nadaud responded at this. is time I canít confirm that; all I have to go on is what I heard tonight from Gordon, but I will give him a call and let you know.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 May 1995

Page Eight

VII. DISCUSSION - continued

Mrs. Boice commented Iím not sure what Iím going to do about the June meeting, but I have had an invitation from my husbandís class reunion. They are honoring the veterans who served in World War II and their deceased members, and I am invited. There is a possibility that I will go but I will let you know what my decision is.

Mrs. Boice moved for adjournment and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 8:23 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,



_____________________,1995 _______________________

Ralph Nadaud, Chairman



______________________,1995 ________________________

James Young, Acting Secretary