Board of Zoning Appeals

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES APRIL 8, 2010 The Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, April 8, 2010, at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 45 E. Broad Street, Cookeville, Tennessee. MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Bonner, Tracy Cody, Kay Detwiler, and Sid Gilbreath. MEMBER ABSENT: Jane Flatt. STAFF PRESENT: James Mills, Jayne Barns, and Ken Young. OTHERS PRESENT: Matt Allen, Tony Deason, James Seay & Virginia Brown, Clyde Ramsey, Jim & Evon Hicks, Davis Watts, and Dan Sherfy. CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 2010. Tracy Cody made the motion to approve the minutes of February 11, 2010. Kay Detwiler seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. APPROVED. CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW APPEALING THE BUILDING OFFICIALS DECISION THAT THE PROPOSED USE (OFFICE) IS NOT OF THE SAME CLASSIFICATION AS THE CURRENT NON-CONFORMING USE LOCATED AT 1445 E. 10TH STREET (COMMUNICATION SALES & SERVICE). REQUEST SUBMITTED BY MATT ALLEN. James Mills stated that Mr. Matt Allen has submitted a request for an administrative review of the Building Official’s decision that a proposed change in use of a nonconforming use located at 1445 East 10th Street is not of the same classification as the existing nonconforming use. The property located at 1445 East 10th Street is zoned as RS-10, Single-family Residential. It is currently used as a communication sales and service establishment, which is not a permitted use in the RS-10 district. The current use is considered as a legal nonconforming use. A legal nonconforming use is a use that legally existed prior to the adoption or amendment of a zoning regulation to which the use does not conform. Such uses are allowed to remain in perpetuity; however, changes in the use are restricted. Nonconformities are addressed in Section 201.8 of the Cookeville Zoning Code. While existing nonconforming uses are considered “grandfathered”, there are two alternatives for changing the use. First the use can be changed to a conforming use, a use permitted in the particular zone. Under RS-10 zoning the potential conforming uses are very limited, consisting of single family residential, public recreational facility, or church. The second possibility is a change to another nonconforming use of the same classification. Section 201.8C (3) of the Zoning Code provides that the establishment of another nonconforming use of the same classification shall be subject to the written approval of the BZA and subject to the conditions as the BZA may require to protect the area. Mr. Allen is proposing to change the existing use of the property to an office for his construction business. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 2 APRIL 8, 2010 The Building Official has made a determination that a construction business is not of the same use classification as a communication business. Mr. Allen has appealed this decision on the basis that the use classification would remain the same. The use classification proposed by Mr. Allen is general office. The Planning Department concurred with the finding of the Building Official. If it is determined that the change is to another use of the same classification, then several conditions should be established to protect the surrounding residential area. Consideration of the following conditions is recommended: • Limitation on hours of operation (dawn to dusk or specific hours such as 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) • Prohibition of outside storage of any equipment or materials • Limitation on signage (prohibit freestanding sign or limited to monument sign made of brick or stone) (wall signage limited to no more than that occupied by existing use) • Provision of vegetative screening on side and rear property lines • Restriction on use (limited to general office use only; medical office, retail sales, etc. prohibited) Matt Allen stated he has been in the construction business for less than 10 years and that the building will be mainly for office space. He has 5 employees. One of his employees is a bookkeeper that comes in once or twice a week, 2 of his employees are superintendents that are usually out of town, but when they are in town they will also have offices in the building. Mr. Allen added that normally, he goes and meets his clients, but occasionally, he might have 3-5 customers a week come by to see him and they may want to see some samples. His business is 90 percent shingle work and he will have 4” pallets with shingles on display indoors for clients to chose from. The displays will only be on the inside. Mr. Allen added that he will not have any outdoor storage. The building will be bricked and he will also construct an 8’ wooden fence with brick columns with low wattage lights for security. The sign will be a precut steel sign with soft lighting before it. The drainage in the area will be corrected by diverting the water to the ditch line on the west side of the property. Tony Deason, Cavalry Baptist Church, stated that he was familiar with the water drainage in the area and would welcome any corrections that would benefit the Church’s property. Jim Hicks, 1276 E. 10th Street, asked what would happen to the building if Mr. Allen’s business moved from this location. James Mills stated that the Board could stipulate that any changes would have to come back to the Board for review. Under the nonconforming use, the property owner has the right to expand his business on any existing property, but cannot purchase additional property for expansion. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 3 APRIL 8, 2010 Dan Sherfy, 1090 Wilson Avenue, agreed that something should be done with the building, but was also concern about the future use of the building. Virginia Brown, 1496 Barnes Drive, was in favor of improvements to the building and restrictions as suggested by staff. Davis Watts, 1531 Barnes Drive, was also concerned about the future use of the building. The Board agreed that the current building was an eye sore and they liked the idea of improving the building to make it look more residential, but they were also concerned about making a quick decision about the restrictions to put on this property if it was approved. Tracy Cody made the motion to postpone any action until Thursday, April 22, 2010 to give the Board more time to refine the restrictions that could be placed on the property if approved. Kay Detwiler seconded the motion. Votes: Paul Bonner - nay, Tracy Cody - aye, Kay Detwiler – aye , and Sid Gilbreath –aye. Motion carried. POSTPONED UNTIL APRIL 22, 2010. Tracy Cody and Kay Detwiler will review the restrictions for the Board to see if any additional restrictions needed to be added to staff’s recommendation in order to get maximum protection for the community. CONSIDER FOR ACTION AMENDMENT TO THE BYLAWS PERTAINING TO TIME OF MEETINGS. REQUEST SUBMITTED BY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. Kay Detwiler made the motion to table this item until our next regular scheduled meeting since this meeting was so lengthy. Tracy Cody seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. TABLED. ADJOURNMENT: 6:50 P.M. SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL SUBMITTED FOR RECORDING _____________________________ _____________________________________ JAYNE BARNS CPS SID GILBREATH, ACTING CHAIRMAN PLANNING ASSISTANT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 4 APRIL 8, 2010